News on the flathead valley

[Lucky77_]

Anybody know what they are doing in the flathead? watched the news and they said they were going to protect it, what does that mean??

[Lucky77_]

In the thrown speech they said that they will partner with montana to preserve the flathead river basin by banning mining oil and gas development, I hope the next step is not to stiff the tax payers of bc by making it a National park . maybe a conservancy but .......

[Kody94]

Eliminating mining and o/g from the Flathead in BC can only be for the purpose of protecting the existing uses (hunting, fishing, trapping, outfitting, forestry, etc) from a park. It takes away the only real reason the proponents of the park have to justify one.

[benbeckoutfitters]

what a joke eh fellers! they were saying something bout a park but really who knows i guess eh? Teck coal had found a coal deposit in there, but ive also herd they wont let that happen! thank god. way to beautiful of a valley for that crap. coal dust....grosss

[bozzdrywall]

There is a hole lot of gold in them hills could be the next big gold rush. Unless i get there first and find it all LOLOLOL.

[Chuck]

The way they put it - sounds like a good idea imo. But maybe we should wait and see just what comes out of it in time.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

On the news they said the Throne Speech was a little ambigous and left open the possiblity for a National Park.
Let's hope not.

SSS

[Manglinmike]

I hunted the flathead for a long time and I must say that I would rather see it as anational park than a coal mine.

[huntingfamily]

That may be true manglinmike, but I see both of those options as poor for outdoors men & women.

Cheers,
hf

[gibblewabble]

How many more National parks do we need in BC, it should be left as is.

[sako_300]

Quote from the Throne Speech:

"A new partnership with Montana will sustain the environmental values in the Flathead River Basin in a manner consistent with current forestry, recreation, guide outfitting and trapping uses.

It will identify permissible land uses and establish new collaborative approaches to trans‑boundary issues.

Mining, oil and gas development and coalbed gas extraction will not be permitted in British Columbia's Flathead Valley."

Doesn't sound like a park to me...

[J_T]

Quote from the Throne Speech:

"A new partnership with Montana will sustain the environmental values in the Flathead River Basin in a manner consistent with current forestry, recreation, guide outfitting and trapping uses.

It will identify permissible land uses and establish new collaborative approaches to trans‑boundary issues.

Mining, oil and gas development and coalbed gas extraction will not be permitted in British Columbia's Flathead Valley."

Doesn't sound like a park to me... I would ask, whether one thinks the environmental lobbyists are prepared to accept that as a solution. I think not. This will be just one more step in the right direction for them.

[Kody94]

I would ask, whether one thinks the environmental lobbyists are prepared to accept that as a solution. I think not. This will be just one more step in the right direction for them.

The ENGOs won't be satisfied with it and will 100% still lobby for a park. The likelihood of them convincing enough people that a park is necessary to protect the values in the Flathead just went down about 1000% though.

[brenden]

The big money wants the Flathead boys. Coal bed methane would equal ecological disaster for a great place. I also believe a national park would cause a small scale disaster as well. It has to be a game preserve that allows no large scale industrial exploitation but still allows access by rec users/hunters and fisherman. There are many options which still allow hunting and fishing. Good to hear they are protecting it but the last thing we need is another sterilized pseudo wilderness like Banff or the like. It will be a political $hitstorm before it becomes finalized.

Casey Brennan of WildSight: I hope you lurk here..... you know the NP is the wrong choice..... swallow your pride and admit you're wrong... there are better options!

Brenden Anderson

[Devilbear]

I am an environmentalist of long standing and I am NOT prepared to accept this as posted here. The Flathead must be saved from petro-mineral exploration and exploitation, however, GUIDE-OUTFITTING must be eliminated as well. There is not enough game in the Kootenays for all of the BC citizens who wish to hunt there and foreign hunting simply is not acceptable under these circumstances.

Environmentally sound logging is fine and can also enhance some game habitat, however, we need several such large "primitive" regions of BC protected for consumptive traditional recreational uses, such as hunting.

I am adamantly opposed to National Parks, have been for decades and I do not want one in the Flathead and do not care what some Yankee in Montana wants.

[J_T]

The big money wants the Flathead boys. Coal bed methane would equal ecological disaster for a great place. I also believe a national park would cause a small scale disaster as well. It has to be a game preserve that allows no large scale industrial exploitation but still allows access by rec users/hunters and fisherman. There are many options which still allow hunting and fishing. Good to hear they are protecting it but the last thing we need is another sterilized pseudo wilderness like Banff or the like. It will be a political $hitstorm before it becomes finalized.

Casey Brennan of WildSight: I hope you lurk here..... you know the NP is the wrong choice..... swallow your pride and admit you're wrong... there are better options!

Brenden Anderson Just curious, if we keep the land available to recreational enthusiasts, who will maintain the roadways and bridges?

[eastkoot]

It has to be a game preserve

Careful what you wish for, game preserve??? NO HUNTING !!



GUIDE-OUTFITTING must be eliminated as well. There is not enough game in the Kootenays for all of the BC citizens who wish to hunt there and foreign hunting simply is not acceptable under these circumstances.



If there's not enough game for B.C. citizens, should we allow hunting there the way things are now??? Think what you type man..

[Devilbear]

Kootenay hunting must be very carefully managed and reserved for the exclusive use of BC citizens. The populations and habitat of the various "game" species cannot and have not supported GOSs for many animals and some may well need to be further restricted in harvest levels, thus, NO foreign hunting, period.

[slashhunter]

i walked into a similar situation hunting a few years ago, 2 guys had 14 deer (bucks and does) thrown over the back of a gravel pit. i put in a report never heard anything back

[brenden]

1)Who keeps the roads open??????? Who does it now???? Responsible logging is NOT large scale industrial "exploitation".

2)Eastkoots...Game Preserve doesn't always mean no hunting. Although I guess I can see how you would assume that.

3)The impact of the Guide Outfitting Business in the Flathead Valley is negligible to game populations.

Good book to read: Parks and Protected Areas. Rollings-Deardon.

Also posts from here on out should include how many times you have actually been to the flathead valley and how many meetings you have been to regarding it's fate. I'm about 50/12.

Brenden

[Devilbear]

That should be done by a re-vitalized "engineering" section of a reformed BCFS. The guy responsible for this when I first went to the Flathead was Buster Barnes, who grew up at Corbin and was stationed in Nelson Forest District HQ, this was in 1965. I was a friend of his son in high school and worked with his brother Alf at Fernie in '65 and '67.

I lived at the entry to the Flathead for three months in '67, alone in the bush manning Natal L/O. I supervised a large silviculture project at Sage Creek some years later for several weeks and was last down to Butt's in 2006.

The GOs have no value to the Kootenays as a whole and should be gone asap. What you might consider ...negligible... may well not be acceptable to other Kootenay and BC hunters. Are YOU involved in the GO business?

Why do you think that BC citizens who may not have been to the Flathead should not post concerning it's disposition, as your final statement implies? How about I say that if YOUR family has not lived in the Kootenays for over 100 years, mine is at 117 years now and 140 in BC, then YOU should include THAT in YOUR posts?

ALL repeat ALL BC citizens have equal rights here and have every right to express their opinions on this issue as they see fit (and the mods allow).

I have not attended any meetings as I now live in Vancouver, however, I would ask, have you been active in BC conservation for almost 50 years, as I have? This whole line of thought is simply the kind of potential "nimbyism", that I think will continue to harm our efforts to preserve hunting and our environment.

I am not trying to offend you here, but, we need ALL BC folks on side and cannot alienate anyone if we are going to save hunting from the "antis".

[Kody94]

1)Who keeps the roads open??????? Who does it now???? Responsible logging is NOT large scale industrial "exploitation".

Also posts from here on out should include how many times you have actually been to the flathead valley and how many meetings you have been to regarding it's fate. I'm about 50/12.



I think J_T was thinking more big picture than site specifically. Forestry keeps the roads in the Flathead open. But who pays for highways and bridges and other major infrastructure?

EDIT: thought about your comment on responsible logging more and think I figured out your meaning (comparing logging to mines/o&g/cbm).

Since you request a tally on each posters activity wrt the Flathead, for me you can multiply your first number by at least 20, and your second number by at least 5 (depending on what qualifies as a meeting about the future of the Flathead, you could probably make that 10). :)

Cheers
4Ster

[J_T]

I think J_T was thinking more big picture than site specifically. Forestry keeps the roads in the Flathead open. But who pays for highways and bridges and other major infrastructure?

On your comment in blue above....is that how you feel about timber harvesting in the East Kootenay? I am going to assume so, since you are from the area and probably wouldn't have made that comment for no reason. So, if that is the case, have you looked into what actually goes into the planning and implementation, or is it just an opinion based on what you see? Have you looked into what logging in the Flathead area specifically will be subject to? You might find it interesting.

Since you request a tally on each posters activity wrt the Flathead, for me you can multiply your first number by about 20, and your second number by at least 5 (depending on what qualifies as a meeting about the future of the Flathead, you could probably make that 10). :)

Cheers
4Ster

Thanks SSSTER. Brendan, I appreciate your passion. Just to qualify my statement, if we don't have industries, we need an economic model that will continue to support everything from health and education to infrastructure. It's easy to support an initiative to stop mining, Oil, gas development and exploration, but are we sure we understand what we are giving up?

If we remove industry from an area and we 'expect' to have continued recreational opportunities, who maintains the road network? I understand you support responsible logging and I'm sure we agree, Tembec with their certification requirements is one of the best. But they have to make money too.

I made a statement on here almost 2 years ago, that for the most part, mining understands that it likely will never have the opportunity to develop a resource in the Flathead. My concern, is how we negotiate that shift in our economic thinking. Should the Americans, with their shared concerns provide some level of compensation to Canadian interests?

As to your question of knowledge of the Flathead. I'm not sure how many trips I've made into there. The first was in the 70's hunting. Through the 90's I worked in the area as a Government Inspector. I have ridden horse in the country on extended rides and I continue to hunt and recreate in the area. I currently sit on a land use policy committee that reports directly to cabinet. Hope that qualifies a statement.

[Devilbear]

I vote we put SSSSter in charge of the whole Flathead and he will preserve the hunting and yet have some good logging. Meanwhile, cunning old geezers like me will be shooting all the game there as he is too busy with meetings! :)

[rocksteady]

Also posts from here on out should include how many times you have actually been to the flathead valley and how many meetings you have been to regarding it's fate.

Brenden


I am not really sure if this should matter....

For example: I have never been to the Tatenshini, so does that mean I should not be able to support it as an undeveloped area?? as compared to a large scale industrial operation (oil/gas/gold/diamonds???) that could impact the area in a potentially negative way....

Just cause you have never been there or have never attended a metting does not mean you don't care:mrgreen:

[J_T]

I vote we put SSSSter in charge of the whole Flathead and he will preserve the hunting and yet have some good logging. Meanwhile, cunning old geezers like me will be shooting all the game there as he is too busy with meetings! :) Hey, good plan. I have confidence in him. We could even work toward turning the Flathead into a bow only zone.....

[6616]

Hey, good plan. I have confidence in him. We could even work toward turning the Flathead into a bow only zone.....

Hahahaha, that comment should wake up the snoozers.

[brenden]

Good discussion guys. You certainly don't have to have been to the flathead a number of times to be involved, the concept of intrinsic value is well understood. It does however seperate those who understand the values at stake from those who utilize second hand information to form opinions. Your opinion is still valid, it just holds less value. I'm not sure who mentioned highway maintenance but there are certainly no highways there. The bridges are of course managed by Tembec. Devilbear: I understand the angst towards outfitters however, no one species in the flathead valley is in any danger of overhunting from guiding. Not one. Good to here there are others who care.


Brenden

[Devilbear]

The fact is that the GOs have, in recent years, vastly increased the harvest of Moose there while we residents have had to try to get an LEH draw. Very simply put, MY right to kill a Moose in the Flathead is FAR beyond the privilege of allowing some GO, probably not even born in BC to help some FOREIGN "hunter" kill one.

You avoided my question and now I will be a little more blunt; are YOU involved in the GO business there?

What are YOUR specific qualifications to give opinions on population trends, levels or the limiting factors that affect these in the Flathead and/or Kootenays in general?

Where did you graduate and are you an RPBio., an RPF or a technician with a diploma? How many years of field experience do you have?

Were you born in the region, as I was, brought up there, as I was, have the level of "hands-on" experience in resource work/management that many of us here who question your opinions do have and why does YOUR opinion hold more value than that of others?

If, there are animals on LEH in the Flathead, RMGoats for example, might that not indicate a population level that should not be "hunted" by GOs, when there are not enough animals for a GOS for we residents?

[VI Blackdog]

MY right to kill a Moose in the Flathead is FAR beyond the privilege of allowing some GO, probably not even born in BC to help some FOREIGN "hunter" kill one.


Were you born in the region, as I was, brought up there, as I was, have the level of "hands-on" experience in resource work/management that many of us here who question your opinions do have and why does YOUR opinion hold more value than that of others?


Mr Bear, it looks like you are claiming a version of 'aboriginal rights".:wink:

[FLHTCUI]

There is no need to worry about the Flathead Valley as Gordon Campbell and his BC Liberals told you they will not allow it to be destroyed.
Yah right, just like they said they would not introduce an HSTax....
Rob

[brenden]

OK DevilBear. First off (as stated) unless you are a status indian you have no "rights" to hunt, but you may enjoy the privelege. No, I don't guide in the Flathead. You don't need letters like RPF, RPbio to understand population dynamics. If that were true then you may be suggesting that 98% of the outdoorsmen out there should have no opinion on wildlife management. (FWIW, Resource Mngmt Diploma, F & W tech Specialization, Env. Enforcement Degree) I am not an RP anything and I don't think we need to have a resume contest, but I'm not exactly shooting from the hip here partner. Born and raised here. Work in the bush every day. Again, I understand how touchy the outfitter situation is, however, blanket statements like "let's get rid of the outfitters" are just foolish. The outfitters are not a threat to the populations in the Flathead. They may be getting more than their share, but they are not overhunting the area. You are free to have the last word. I'm done.


Brenden