This article was published in the Calgary Area Outdoor Council newsletter "Outdoor Update," August, 2006

As a member of the Bragg Creek Environmental Coalition, I would like toadd more fuel to the fire (so to speak) of this very interesting debate. Having been acquainted with Alf Skrastins for many years, I have to say that I know of few people who embody the spirit of adventure and dedication to the outdoors as he does. It is in the light of this respect that I and many others hold for him that I wish to reply to his article Logging . . . Not In My Back Yard! in the July 2006 Outdoor Update.

Alf is quite correct in stating that K-Country was designed as a multi-use recreation area. Whether resource extraction activities belong in a recreation area is one matter, but the key debate needs to happen around whether the multi-use concept is still relevant. The non-protected area of K-Country, which amounts to 42% of the whole, is subject Fish Creek Provincial 7 to the multiple demands of oil and gas exploration and drilling, logging, agriculture, motorized and non-motorized recreation, all of which impact the land and water to some degree. When these demands were modest, the activities were likely supportable. However, the historically high prices of oil, gas and lumber, along with the enormous recreational and growing water requirements of a burgeoning city of Calgary, all combine to place heretofore unseen pressure on this small area. It is this critical mass of use, not logging alone, that is the motivating force behind the effort to influence Alberta politicians to examine their land use policies. Stopping the logging is a crucial first step to allowing this dialogue to occur without undermining the good faith of those who wish to see the area protected.

Alf raised the spectre of the advance of the mountain pine bark beetle into the foothills lodgepole pine ecosystem. He is correct when he says that much of the lodgepole forest in B.C. has been affected by this infestation, but the scientific jury is still out whether clear-cut logging helps the situation. Logging has not to date stopped the eastward spread of the beetle, and Mary Reid at the University of Calgary has recently undertaken research examining the hypothesis that this form of logging actually spreads the problem faster by allowing beetles to disperse further. It is also important to realize that, based on the B.C. experience, mountain pine beetles arriving here from B.C. are unlikely to find the forests of northeast K-Country particularly welcoming. They thrive in large lodgepole pines, and are likely to suffer reduced reproduction in our relatively small trees. Indeed, extending models developed by scientists in the Canadian Forest Service to our region suggests that if these beetles ever reached epidemic proportions in northeast K-Country, they are unlikely to kill more than a third of the trees in the old growth lodgepole pine forests.

As Alf implies, managing tree stand age diversity is a more natural way of limiting the impact of beetles. The question you need to ask is whether this form of management is more likely under the current land manager (Sustainable Resource Development - SRD) or under the one responsible for Parks and Protected Areas (Alberta Community Development - ACD).
Alf also raised a concern about the Wildland Park designation, saying that it “would be one of the quickest ways to reduce recreational opportunities.” As one of the progenitors of the Wildland Park proposal, I did a great deal of research on the topic. Direct from the ACD website: “Wildland Provincial Parks preserve and protect natural heritage and provide opportunities for backcountry recreation” and “Some wildland parks provide significant opportunities for eco-tourism and adventure activities such as backpacking, backcountry camping, wildlife viewing, mountain climbing and trail riding.” Although cross-country skiing on track-set trails is not an intended activity, Archie Landals of ACD confirmed to me that there is nothing in either the Provincial Parks Act or Regulations that specifically prohibits it. The Park management plan, which involves many user stakeholders, makes the final determination of permitted activities.

Finally, I must confess my feelings about the term NIMBY. The implication is that nobody from Bragg Creek can have anything useful to say in opposition to any consumptive land use practice in this area. It allows people to label and summarily dismiss any one or group that stands up for their beliefs, based solely on where they live rather than on the merits of their arguments. Should we also discount the concerns of everybody in Calgary who relies on these forest lands for recreation and water? Who defines the limits of the size of the backyard? I will happily plead guilty to the term as long as you are willing to recognize that there is merit to my perspective.

This whole issue is only partly about logging. Spray Lake Sawmills has done a reasonable job (Quirk Creek and Cataract Creek notwithstanding) of doing what SRD has asked them to do – remove a certain number of board feet from the forest. Cutting trees, however, seems to be a galvanic point for many people. It is my belief that the root issue is the conflict created by the current huge demands on this area – something that is unhealthy from both environmental and user group perspectives. The appetites are big and the pie is small – something has to give. If you believe that the economic benefits of industry are the priority, then support that. If you believe that recreation and watershed protection are the priority, then support some form of protected status for the rest of K-Country. But at the minimum, scream like heck to your politicians to re-define land use in this province. The land can’t sustain supplying all things to all people all the time. That model simply doesn’t work any longer. Rapid growth forces rapid change – do what you can to influence the direction of that change. It is my hope that, through dialogue, the rest of K-Country will ultimately be designated as a priority recreation and watershed protection area. If you share this vision, demand that the decision-makers start talking.