Alberta trappers want to put aleghold on people abusing trapline licensesto build upscale cabins as private getawaysand to bring in non-trappers on off-highwayvehicles to wilderness areas they wouldn’totherwise have legitimate access to.

At the same time, though, they haveasked the province to allow trapping experi-ence programs for cash-starved trappers sothey can take visitors onto their lines in a

form of eco-tourism that some conservationists worry couldopen the door to more abuse.

“It’s certainly not our intention under the trapping conceptto have a bunch of people use it as a recreational activity,” saysAlberta Trappers Association education co-ordinator FredNeumann.

Nevertheless, he notes, “under the guise of trapping,they’ve been able to get in there to build these cabins, and theyare far more elaborate than they need to be . . . we don’t like tosee those big lodges out there.”

The problem is more pronounced in the foothills and inareas where recreational opportunities are most desirable. Theanswer, Neumann says, is stricter enforcement of provincialtrapping policies that limit the size of a primary cabin on atrapline to 24 feet x 24 feet. The policies allow other outpostcabins of up to16 feet x 12 feet on lines.

Bruce Treichel, a spokesman with the fish and wildlifedivision of Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, whichadministers trapping in the province, says the department con-tinues to work with the association “to review situations wherethe guidelines are not being followed.”

He adds: “What people are supposed to be doing is trap-ping, not quading, skidooing and hunting or whatever out atthose cabins.”

Alberta Wilderness Association director Vivian Pharis,whose father once maintained lines in the proud tradition ofCanadian trapping, points to growing evidence of fairly luxuri-ous cabins, particularly in the Bighorn wilderness area, in cen-tral-west Alberta. “It looks like people have set up cabins for theexclusive use of a smart set of people who have cottoned ontothis idea of using Crown land not usually available to the pub-lic for cabin building,” says Pharis.

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002 Page 1

The Alberta Wilderness Association Journal December 2002 • Vol. 10, No. 6

http://AlbertaWilderness.ca awa@shaw.ca

ild ands dvocateW L A

A trapper’s cabin in the Bighorn, Summer 2002

INSIDE

TRAPPERS EAGER TO SNARETRAPLINE ABUSERS

By Andy Marshall

Andy Marshall

V. P

hari

s

Fiddling While Alberta BurnsBy Don Meredith ............................................................4Alberta Wilderness Watch ......................................5Bighorn Plans Released by SRD ..................................5No Park, or Elk, is an Island ..........................................7Kananaskis: Evan-Thomas ............................................9Better Forestry Practices in Alberta................................9Forest Stewardship Council..........................................10Old Growth Strategy ....................................................10Whaleback ....................................................................11Pekisko Landowners and Vermillion Resources ..........12A NIMBY and Proud of It ..............................................13Castle Ski Resort..........................................................14Local Citizens Defend Kakwa and Win ........................15McClelland Fen ............................................................17Recreation Corridors Review........................................18Frank L. Beebe ............................................................19Association News..................................................22Thomas Power Shoots Down Economic Myths ..........20Annual Lecture and Awards..........................................21Wilderness Celebration ................................................22Volunteers ....................................................................24Message from the President ........................................25Leaving a Wilderness Legacy ......................................26Open House Program ..................................................27

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002Page 2

A hiker provided a first-hand description of a cabin hecame across in the Willmore area with green metal-clad exteri-or, window louvres, built-in-sink, curtains, throw rugs, and,most telling of all, a guest book for comments.

Steven Haupt, who runs a line on 109 square miles west ofRocky Mountain House, says his broth-er has stayed at a trapper-built lodgewest of Ram Falls with power and run-ning water. “It was quite a bit beyondwhat a trapper’s cabin is supposed tobe.”

The $50,000 estimated value of atrapper’s cabin that burned down northof Nordegg offers a further sign of theelaborateness of some cabins.

Brian Bildson, with a 350-square-mile line running from Grande Cacheto the British Columbia border innorthwest Alberta, believes the concernover fancy cabins “sounds like a local-ized problem in the south. What youconsider luxurious, I might look at asbeing very functional because I live outthere in the wintertime.”

Another measure the trappers’association hopes will limit abuses isthe introduction of licensing for so-called junior partners, whom licenceholders can hire to help them with theirlines. Currently junior partners do notrequire a trapping licence, and there isno limit to the number of junior part-ners a trapper may bring onto a line.

“We have a resolution from theassociation for this so we would know exactly the number ofpeople involved. It would be documented,” says Neumann.Treichel confirms that the department is studying the possibili-ty of re-instating junior licences.

Despite unconfirmed reports of up to 50 junior partners ona line, Neumann and other trappers say they have never heardof more than 15, and the vast majority of trappers with multiplepartners have no more than three.

“The number is based on the management of the trapline,”says Neumann. “We don’t want 15 people using it as a recre-ation area.”

But Pharis worries the no-upper-restriction policy stillresults in people driving off-highway-vehicles to areas that areotherwise off-limits to these machines. “I don’t want to go afterlegitimate trappers,” she says. “I just don’t want to see abuseshappen.”

Regarding the off-highway-vehicle concerns, Treichelpoints out that trapping and vehicle use is prohibited in fullyprotected areas such as the White Goat Wilderness Area. In pro-tected areas, where trapping is permitted, the use of vehicles isrestricted by permit to specified periods (i.e., the trapping sea-son) or for specified purposes (i.e., routine maintenance of trap-per cabins located inside the park or protected area), heexplains.

Pharis is also wary of the association proposal to the gov-ernment for trapping experience programs to visitors. “It cer-tainly sounds like it could be exploited.”

An account in the most recent Alberta Trapper magazinesays contact was made with a tour operator, representing 190travel agencies, to determine the potential demand for the trap-ping experience. “Their interest was very keen and (they)believe, once organized as an allowable activity, a strong

response from clients will occur,”according to the report.Neumann’s response is that the asso-ciation would be surprised if morethan 100 trappers pursued the idea.“It needs to be structured,” he says.“I imagine it would be limited toabout two people per trapper,” headds, noting the notion of upper lim-its has not been discussed with theprovince. “Trappers want to main-tain a focus on catching animals forfur, not for other purposes . . . forrecreation.”Treichel says, “The department sup-ports this concept in principle, but afinal decision has not been made.”On the question of upper limits, headds, “That’s something that has tobe worked out.”Meanwhile, Pharis wonders whetherminimum trapping activities shouldbe spelled out to determine legiti-mate trappers. Bildson, who hastrapped since he was 17, agrees“there should be some evidence theline is being worked on.”Despite a long and rich historystretching back in Aboriginal culture

and, more recently, to the early settlement of the Europeans inCanada, trapping faces challenging times today.

Trappers in Alberta either hold registered licences for furmanagement areas, varying in size from 36 square miles to 720square miles and mostly on Crown land, or they work as resi-dent trappers on private land. Alberta has about 1,600 regis-tered trappers and almost 700 resident trappers. (The statisticsdo not include all Metis or Aboriginal trappers.)

The total value of furs produced in 2001-2002 was $2.2million, an average of well less than $1,000 per licence and con-firming a declining trend during the 1990s. But some trappersstill longingly recall better times, going back to as recently as1979-1980 when fur production hit a whopping $15.6 million.

The fur industry goes in cycles, explains Neumann, andstill hopes for a comeback. The introduction in the past 10 yearsof international standards for more humane trapping deviceshas sought to counteract the heartless image of trapping acrossthe world and the growing disinclination of consumers to buy orwear fur products.

Trappers have also tried to promote their image as conser-vationists whose interests are very much tied to helping main-tain healthy populations of the animals they catch. “We areanother set of eyes out in the bush,” says Neumann. Althoughfigures are kept on all animals trapped, some trappers worry;however, the province has very little data on overall animalpopulations.

The season for trapping animals lasts for varying periods

Inside the green and purple trapper’s cabinV.

Pha

ris

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002 Page 3

beginning in the fall to late spring, depending on when the furis at its best. Beaver and coyotes have traditionally been thebiggest money-makers.

A blow to Alberta trappers was the closure of theEdmonton Fur Auction almost a decade ago. Today furs are soldthrough three Canadian auction houses, the largest being theNorth American Fur Auctions in Toronto. The largest marketsfor furs are in the U.S., Europe — particularly Mediterraneancountries — China and Korea, says Neumann.

Another sore point for trappers is the constant disruptionfrom the logging and energy industries. Although the trappers’association is working hard to establish a fair compensationprogram for affected trappers, anger prevails.

The oil and gas industry fragments the habitat, saysBildson. Then the logging companies move in and harvest. “Wedon’t just lose our lines for a year, but we may lose them for therest of our career,” warns Bildson who became so frustratedwith “the onslaught of industry” in a licensed area he had in theKakwa area, he gave up his licence there altogether.

“The industry has minimalized the rights of the trapper,” hesays.

Haupt, meanwhile, with his Bighorn licence, is “tired ofgoing out every winter having to move my traps because of log-gers. They wiped everything out, in every direction.”

Once the industry moves in with seismic lines and loggingroads, a mass of all-terrain-vehicle (ATV) users is not farbehind.

Despite the frustrations, most trappers still treasure the pos-itive experiences.

“The ability to be outdoors and see Mother Nature at itsbest . . . it’s eye-opening and humbling,” says DebbieSchroderus from Leslieville, near Rocky Mountain House, andthe holder of a resident trapping licence. “Mother Nature can begentle and then, in the next breath, deadly.”

Describing herself as a former city slicker fromSaskatchewan who married a trapper, Schroderus now ispleased to be able to take her 22-year-old daughter out on theline.

But, echoing the abuses of access to wilderness areas citedearlier, she adds: “There’s a lot of people sneaking in there whohave no business being there.”

Number of Pelts

13319,513641121,3211,5358471,6741,6674,5496008,021226392539,0591,50524619

Species

BadgerBeaverBlack BearBobcatCoyoteFisherFox - Silver

- Cross- Red

LynxMartenMinkMuskratOtterRaccoonSkunkSquirrelWeasel (Ermine)WolfWolverine

Mean price per Pelt

30.8324.94136.45239.0339.8445.0028.8542.4839.73126.7656.419.072.73155.1618.776.992.155.31113.51255.85

Total

Total $ Value

4,100.30486,654.208,732.82,629.30849,428.6069,075.00230.801,996.5066,508.00211,308.90256,563.6011,442.0021,897.3035,066.10732.00174.7083,976.807,991.5027,923.404,861.102,151,292.90

Number of Registered Trappers 1,591

Number of Resident Trappers 662

Number of Matis and Indian Licences

(Settlements and Reserves only) 78

Total Licensed Trappers 2,331

Sour

ce: F

ish

and

Wild

life

Div

isio

nALBERTA 2001-2002 FUR PRODUCTION

A trapper’s cabin in the Bighorn painted green and purple, Summer 2002

V. P

hari

s

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002Page 4

We live in peculiar times. Despite the fact we are in a so-called“information age” and have access to more knowledge than anyother generation in history, many of us refuse to acknowledge, letalone investigate, information that is freely available to help usmake crucial decisions. Indeed, there appears to be a movementafoot to discredit the value of science and scientists whose job it isto provide us with reliable information on which to base decisions.

A good example is our own provincial government refusing toaccept the reality of global warming, despite the overwhelmingevidence of its occurrence. Just look around you at all the massivechanges to our climate and weather that have occurred over the lastfew years and try to convince yourself otherwise. The unprece-dented number of destructive forest fires and storms, and record-breaking droughts are just some of the local phenomena weobserve, let alone what’s going on around the world. The scientif-ic evidence that our ever increasing use of fossil fuels is at leastplaying a significant role in these changes is very persuasive.

Yet, our government chooses to “cherry pick” its information,only believing those who hold to its own archaic ideology aboutthe relationship of the economy to the environment. They chooseto ignore the significant evidence presented by mainstream scien-tists, who have actually studied the phenomenon and had theirresults and conclusions reviewed by their peers from around theworld.

But I digress. The decisions of the Alberta government withregard to world climate change will have the effect of a small dropin a very large bucket. Most governments around the globe realizethe importance of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and areseeking to ratify it. By not striving for an agreement with our fed-eral government on how the accord might be accomplished,Alberta will once again be marginalized as part of the problem andnot the solution, and many opportunities for economic diversifica-tion will be lost.

What’s more important is that this reaction to the informationon climate change is but one example of this government’s dislikeand distrust of science, especially science that doesn’t fit its viewof the world. Another example is the Minister of SustainableResource Development ignoring scientific studies regarding theuse of barbless hooks and the collapsed state of the walleye fisheryin Calling Lake. His decisions to ban barbed hooks by 2004 andallow the harvesting of walleye from a collapsed population werepolitical and based on no science whatsoever. Indeed, ample scien-tific studies in both cases clearly indicated that opposite decisionsshould have been made. In the case of the Calling Lake walleye,the political interference may set a precedent that threatens the veryexistence of many fisheries across the province.

Ultimately, all policy decisions are political, and in a democ-racy it is indeed the right of an elected Minister and his governmentto make them. But shouldn’t they do so with the best informationavailable? Our government doesn’t think so. It appears to believedecisions should only be made with whatever information supportswhat they believe will get them elected, however suspect that infor-mation might be. That’s unfortunate because it indicates a real lackof political leadership in this province.

Not since Lougheed have we seen any real leadership thatincludes an actual vision of where this province should be going inthe real world. Our current premier’s biggest claim to fame is the

balancing of the budget and the reduction of the debt. Those werelaudable goals, especially when Klein first took office, and he andhis government have accomplished a lot in meeting them. Butaren’t they the bare minimum any government should accomplish?

All Klein and his government can say about a “vision” is thata balanced budget and reduced debt will keep taxes low, enticeindustry to the province and provide jobs for a growing population.Agreed, but what kind of Alberta does that population want foritself and its children and grandchildren? Is it one with clean air,water and food, and ample opportunity to escape our ever increas-ing urban sprawl and enjoy some wild places with wild plants andanimals? Apparently not! This government seems willing to sacri-fice those long-term values for its more expedient short-term goals.

Don’t believe me? Look at what has happened to the Fish andWildlife Division over the years since Klein took office as Premier.Under Lougheed and Getty, the division played a key role in ensur-ing that new development was done with reference to fish andwildlife conservation so that the long term values of Alberta’s her-itage would be conserved while the economy was developed. Witheach new budget under Klein, the division’s funding was system-atically reduced, which included the reduction of staff in the fieldto do the necessary work. As well, the government privatized thetrust fund set aside to conserve fish and wildlife, and reduced itsimpact by requiring the fund’s administration be paid out of fish-ing and hunting licence fees.

In other words, the Klein government effectively emasculatedthe work of the division and its supporters, getting it out of the wayof a fast rising economy. Now, the Fish and Wildlife Division is amere shell of what it once was. Ministers can easily ignore what lit-tle work is being done, and dismiss the overworked and too-few-and-far-between experts in the field. Now, Albertans must leanmore and more on the federal government through its Fisheries andEndangered Species acts to do what the provincial governmentfails to do to protect our Alberta heritage. Now that’s irony.

I guess we really can’t blame Ralph Klein for this leadershipvacuum. He was elected by us to do just what he’s doing. But whatI can’t understand is how Klein and his gang see how history willtreat their administration. Will he be known as the premier thatoversaw the development of his province while protecting thehealth of the population and its environment and natural heritage?

Hardly. If he steps down tomorrow, he will be just another“also ran” in the history books — hardly a footnote, except tochronicle the opportunities lost. Anyone can balance a budget andreduce debt in a booming economy. There’s no rocket sciencethere.

A real leader would have taken the opportunity provided todevelop the province with regard to its future — a future thatincludes clean air, water and food, and ample wild spaces in whichpeople can re-create themselves and come to understand that lifedoesn’t just revolve around balanced budgets. Life revolves aroundour necessary relationships with the natural world. If we ignore thescience that explains those relationships and how they might bepreserved, we risk the long-term prosperity this province is socapable of providing.

(This article was republished with permission of the author. It wasfirst published in the July/August 2002 Alberta Outdoorsmen.)

FIDDLING WHILE ALBERTA BURNSby Don H. Meredith

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002 Page 5

The Alberta government hasreleased its plans for the Bighorn. The areais now officially called the “BighornBackcountry” (Map 1) and extends beyondthe Bighorn Wildland (Map 2) to the edgesof the Forest Management Agreements (thegovernment has to stop there because theforestry companies are responsible for man-aging the area under their FMAs).

Essentially, the government has created a series of ForestLand Use Zones (FLUZ) that cover the entire area. A FLUZ isa flexible legislative tool that can be used to regulate access. Inthe past, FLUZs have been applied to allow regulated access formotorized recreation (as in the Castle) or to prohibit motorizedrecreation (as in the four pre-existing FLUZs in the Bighorn).

Previously, the area was covered by the Eastern SlopesPolicy, and fell into Prime Protection, Critical Wildlife andMultiple Use Zones. According to the policy, motorized recre-ation is prohibited in the Prime Protection Zone and allowed inCritical Wildlife and Multiple Use. There were also four FLUZsthat prohibited motorized recreation. Effectively, the combina-tion of these rules gave the area known as the Bighorn Wildlandprotection from ATVs and snowmobiles, and protected most ofthe Wildland from industrial development (Map 3).

Under the current plans, there are now six FLUZs, which inmany cases override both the Eastern Slopes Policy and the pre-vious FLUZ legislation (Map 1). Starting at the southern end ofthe Bighorn, the new Dormer Sheep FLUZ falls within PrimeProtection Zone, and thus there should be no access for motor-ized recreation. However, the new regulations have creatednumerous all-season designated trails for ATVs and snowmo-biles.

The Panther Corners FLUZ also falls within PrimeProtection Zone and a pre-existing FLUZ. There have been nochanges to the regulations in this popular equestrian destination.Motorized recreation is prohibited.

The Upper Clearwater/Ram FLUZ covers the previousUpper Clearwater FLUZ north to Abraham Lake. This area alsofalls under Prime Protection Zone. The new FLUZ has createda series of trails for motorized recreation, along with three ran-dom sledding areas, where there are no trail restrictions. Thesetrails not only contravene the Eastern Slopes Policy, but also theprevious FLUZ legislation, which did not designate trails in thisarea.

The Scalp Creek trail crosses important elk and sheep win-tering range, two of the random sledding areas are on theboundary of Banff National Park, and the other is in criticalyear-round habitat for bighorn sheep. These designations willlikely have a negative effect on the wildlife populations in thearea. In addition, the Scalp Creek trail was not presented as anoption to the public and was not discussed by the advisorygroup.

The Job/Cline FLUZ subsumes the previous Job LakeFLUZ and covers the area north of Abraham Lake. Again, there

are designated trails and random sledding areas inside what wasformerly protected as Prime Protection Zone, and cross areas ofhabitat critical to mountain goat, a species under continualstress from habitat reduction.

The Blackstone-Wapiabi FLUZ remains as it was and pro-hibits motorized recreation. Industrial development, however, isallowed in this FLUZ, and subsurface leases have already beensold. There is little in the plan regarding operating restrictionsfor industry in this area. The AWA will continue to work towarda solution that will prevent any surface disturbance in this area.

The Kiska-Wilson FLUZ extends along the eastern edge ofthe area and falls within the Multiple Use Zone of the EasternSlopes Policy. Motorized recreation is allowed in the MultipleUse Zone. The AWA supports the creation of designated trails inthis area.

With all these complicated trail designations and seasonalrestrictions, it is hard to imagine how the “rules” will beenforced. The plan indicates that signage, education and fieldenforcement will be part of the plan, but provides little detailregarding how this will be accomplished.

The government is insisting that the new plan is consistentwith the Eastern Slopes Policy and Integrated Resource Plans.In our opinion and interpretation of these documents, this is nottrue. The intent of the Prime Protection Zone is clearly being

ALBERTA WILDERNESS WATCHBIGHORN PLANS RELEASED BY SRD

By Tamaini Snaith, AWA Conservation Biologist

Map 1: The Forest Land Use Zones of the Bighorn Backcountry,Alberta Sustainable Resource Development

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002Page 6

violated and superseded by these new plans, and the values ofwatershed, wildlife and aesthetic resources that the Policy wascreated to protect are being put at risk. The government is also insisting that this plan is “balanced” andis based on seven months of public consultation. This is falseand deliberately misleading. It is not balanced. The original pol-icy was supposed to be balanced. The Prime Protection Zonewas the conservation “piece of pie,” and all users and stake-holders got their own pieces. The nature of conservation is thatour piece of pie will last forever. But now that the other piecesare gone, they think it would be balanced to go ahead and takesome of ours.

As for seven months of public consultation, there was anadvisory group that had five or six meetings over a period ofseven months. The meetings were a sham and loaded with gov-

ernment bureaucrats and industry representatives. Discussionwas neither open nor transparent. There was one day of publicconsultation and a very confusing and biased survey that yield-ed un-interpretable results.

Where do we go from here? We continue to demand effec-tive protection for the area. We write to our MLAs and RalphKlein and ask for the immediate designation of the BighornWildland as promised in 1986. Yes, there are now trails forquads in the area, but we want the Wildland designation any-way. We want a complete management plan that includesaccountability for monitoring recreational use and closing trailsif they are damaging wilderness values. We want the BighornWildland intact, forever.

(For maps of the new plan see www.bighorn.gov.ab.ca)

Correction:In the last issue of the Wild Lands Advocate on page 2 in thearticle on public consultation it was stated that “...with thegovernment expected to reverse its Eastern Slopes protectionpolicies and allow drilling by Murphy Oil in the criticalwildlife habitat zone of Blackstone-Wapiabi...” In fact, underthe Eastern Slopes Policy, oil and gas drilling is allowed inCritical Wildlife Areas. However, AWA is opposed to anyindustrial activity in this area due to the high ecological valuesof this unfragmented valley, and because the area falls withinthe Bighorn Wildland Recreation Area that was promised leg-islation in 1986 by the Alberta government.

Map 3: BighornWildland IRP Zoning and Forest Land Use Zones

AWA

© Frank Beebe

Map 2: Bighorn Wildland topographic map

AWA

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002 Page 7

The hastily scribbled notes in myfield notebook on May 20 said, “the elkseem to be getting a little more restless, Ihope they’ll migrate soon.” Little did Ianticipate just how rapidly things wouldchange for me in the next few weeks as Iscrambled to follow them from their tradi-tional winter range at the Ya Ha TindaRanch just outside Banff National Park(BNP) through the front and main rangesdeep into the park.

I had been studying elk on their winter range at the Ya HaTinda ranch as part of my PhD research on elk at the Universityof Alberta. After seven years of studying wolves, my interest inwolves had drawn me down the food chain to elk. After all,wolves have it easy — all they have to do is find elk, while elkhave to find their own food AND avoid wolves. My desire tofind out what made elk tick had led me to Ya Ha Tinda, and inthe past winter, I had radiocollared 40 adult female elk.

During the previous winter, they had revealed their love ofrare rough fescue grasslands, straying little from the 20 km2 ofgrasslands on the Ranch. After studying wolves, the fact thatthey moved so little during winter and that these grasslandscould sustain 1,200 elk astounded me! In few other places inAlberta can such herds still be seen, and the Ya Ha Tinda is oneof the most pristine rough fescue grasslands left in Alberta.

May had been a long, drawn-out, and miserable extensionof an already harsh winter for these elk. By the third late season

dump of over a foot of snow, the elk herds resembled the walk-ing dead, shuffling listlessly through the dismal surroundings,cratering half-heartedly at the snow to get at what meager grassremained. I noticed a few of the elk looking westwards towardBanff with longing in their eyes, perhaps dreaming of sweet tallalpine grasses, but in the wintry May, I had no idea of whatwould happen, and how quickly.

Dr. Luigi Mortantini’s research in the late seventies at theYa Ha Tinda had revealed that elk migrated as far west as LakeLouise. However, few people in Banff seemed aware of elkmigrating from the Ranch. After seeing Cervus elaphus lawnor-namenti in Banff, it seemed far-fetched to imagine such elkmigration. Furthermore, few ever saw elk in the Lake Louisebackcountry, and this left some park biologists betting that themigrations were a thing of the past.

Indeed, it was this concern that had prompted my research.

After years of navel gazing at the problems eating away at BNPfrom the inside, the Ecological Integrity Panel report had shak-en things, urging park managers to look outwards for problemsand solutions. Furthermore, provincial biologists documenteddeclines in elk since the mid-1990s at the Ranch. As one of theprovince’s most important elk hunting areas, which provides astrong economic, and largely sustainable, backbone to theregion’s economy, provincial biologists were concerned.

Taking this perspective, it is easy to see why Ya Ha Tindais critically important to both BNP and to the province. Withreduced elk populations in the Bow Valley, migratory elk fromthe Ya Ha Tinda may now constitute approximately 70 per centof the elk in BNP. Elk provide the prey base for a wide anddiverse array of rare carnivores, including wolves and grizzlybears, in BNP, and for the human hunters who love elk in thefall. Research by colleague Dr. Carolyn Callaghan revealed thatthe Ya Ha Tinda area held the key to maintaining viable popu-lations of wolves in the Central Rockies Ecosystem. However,since the 1930s, when the Ya Ha Tinda was excised from BNP,park managers had waved goodbye to the elk every fall as theymigrated back to the provincial lands, hoping they’d comeback.

By the late 1990s park managers realized that less and lesselk seemed to be returning to the Park each year, and provincialbiologists noted increased grazing pressure on the ranch byfewer elk because it seemed more and more elk were notmigrating into BNP each year. However, I was starting to doubtthe elk would ever leave. In six months, not one elk had even

crossed the park boundary, content to stay on the ranch all win-ter. So it was with a sense of hope that I detected those firstwistful looks by elk towards the Park in May. After the first fewwarm days, the doors opened like a flood. Suddenly, the pre-dictable elk were moving all over the place! On May 27, a herdof 400 elk bee-lined 12 km overnight to the Park boundary andhad come half way back, apparently disillusioned by all thesnow. However, by May 29 we observed 100 elk roll into thepasture of the first warden cabin 12 km inside the park just afterdinnertime, with several collared elk in tow! Migration wasofficially happening!

Getting up early the next morning, I was puzzled; ourtelemetry receiver drew a blank — no signals from elk any-where. Spending the day hiking in search of the elk revealed nosignals, only tracks westward bound. Frantic that I was missingsomething big, I would spend the next three weeks in a frenzy

NO PARK, OR ELK, IS AN ISLANDBy Mark Hebblewhite

Elk on winter range at Ya Ha Tinda Ranch

C. W

hite

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002Page 8

trying to keep up with these elk on foot, onhorseback, and by plane.

What I found on those first few flightswas elk frustration!! Frustration becausethey would not stand still! One day here, thenext day 20 km away, and many elk seemedjust as likely to be back at the Ranch thenext day as further west, apparently disap-pointed by the deep blanket of snow await-ing them. Searches east of the deep snowcontinued to draw a blank. Following ahunch, I turned the plane west near the endof a telemetry flight in late June.

As I rounded the still snow-clad slopesof Mt. Hector above the Icefields Parkway, I heard that telltalebeeping from the receiver — Elk 102! If I hadn’t been buckledin for safety, I would have jumped for joy! After two weeks Ihad found them, and within the hour I had located nine collaredelk and seen 100 uncollared elk high in alpine basins, bowls,and avalanche paths pushing the snowline, following that richflush of new spring growth.

For the next three months these elk would establish homeranges behind the Lake Louise ski hill, on the Lake O’Hara fireroad in British Columbia, at Hector Lake, and even at BowSummit, an average 65 km straight-line distance from theRanch. Speaking with locals in Lake Louise, some were incred-ulous: “There’s no elk up there!” “Really! All the way from theRanch?” some had asked. Fieldwork showed that this was norecent phenomenon. On July 15, I prepared for what I imaginedwould be a heinous bushwhack to reach some vegetation plotsnear the elk on the west end of Hector Lake.

Instead, I was astounded to find elk game trails, highwaysin fact, running the whole way to lush avalanche paths — thetrails were so worn that you could almost ride a horse downthem. These elk were following the same traditional paths theyhad followed during Luigi’s research two decades earlier, andfrom even earlier times. Somehow they had quietly escapedattention by the thousands of tourists and park staff alike on thenearby busy Icefields Parkway.

By the end of September, I was wondering when the elkwould return to the ranch. Would some of them stay for the win-ter in the Bow Valley? How long would it take them to return?Luckily, I had deployed a few GPS collars on elk. Storing thelocations on board, the collar collects GPS locations itself, andthen I retrieve the collar when the elk returns to the ranch. Elk193 had been the only one of three GPS collars that had migrat-ed to the Bow Valley; one GPS elk stayed at the Ranch all sum-mer, and another elk, migrating west, got jumped by a grizzlyjust inside BNP and was killed. Incidentally, this would be oneof two collared elk killed by grizzlies this summer, highlightingthe diversity of mortality causes for elk besides the usual sus-pect, wolves.

These grizzly kills also showed the importance of elkmigration to take elk-sized meat packages west to the grizzlies.When Elk 193 showed up at the Ranch after heavy snowfalls inOctober, I was anxious to find out how long she took to getthere. From ground telemetry I knew she was still on her sum-mer range on Oct 1. Had it taken her two weeks to migrateback?

After downloading the data from the collar, I was astound-ed! She had taken less than two days to cover the straight-line

distance of 65 km back to the Ranch, cov-ering the bulk of it, 35 km straight-line,between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. onOctober 12. When they decide to move,they really set their minds to it.

Now that all the elk have returned tothe Ranch for the winter, I’ve settled backto a more sedentary life myself, pouringover data and asking myself, what does allthis mean? Clearly, these elk are not Parkelk, or provincial elk — to call them one orthe other draws the same artificial distinc-tions we do when we draw lines on a mapand call one side a park. Therefore, elk

management should be cooperative and harmonized across parkboundaries.

Furthermore, human activities as far away as the IcefieldsParkway affect hunters’ experiences at the Ya Ha Tinda in thefall — the connections between them flow through the paths ofthe migrating elk, and thus, hunters and tourists packed in busesalike are linked together. Similarly, for natural predators such aswolves and grizzlies, conservation of elk is critical for theirlong-term viability. The paths of the elk had shown me thatthese connections between Park and province were vital to con-serve and understand.

What might threaten these connections is one of the under-lying questions driving my research. If more and more elkforego migration, this could have dire consequences for thesetraditional flows of elk-energy westwards into the Park.Moreover, more elk staying on the Ranch during the summermight lead to overgrazing and a decrease in the overall carryingcapacity of the Ranch during winters. Paradoxically, by remain-ing at the Ranch, the overall numbers of elk at the Ranch maydecrease. Thus, it is in the interest of both hunters and elkenthusiasts at the Ranch, and those 70 km away in BNP, tomaintain this migratory behaviour.

Recent land use changes in Alberta’s foothills and moun-tain regions are not news to anyone. Increased forestry, oil andgas exploration, and recreation all have the potential to affectthe migratory elk at Ya Ha Tinda and, through these migratoryconnections, all of BNP. Recent fires complicate the picture,with extensive prescribed burning in the Park in the last decaderecently complemented by the large Dogrib fire that burnedfrom just south of the Ranch across the Ranch road for approx-imately15,000 ha in October 2001.

How will these burns and subsequent salvage loggingaffect elk? Will they improve elk habitat? Change the distribu-tion of elk? Finally, the Bighorn access management plan hasactually reduced motorized vehicle access around Ya Ha Tindasubstantially in the summer, yet allowed new snowmobilingaround the ranch. How will snow compaction by snowmobilesand disturbance affect elk and wolves? As I enter the secondyear of research at the Ya Ha Tinda, I will be focusing myresearch on such questions, with the aim of providing manage-ment agencies with the information they require to maintainthese incredible migratory populations of elk, and to help insurethat no elk is an island!Acknowledgements: The Ya Ha Tinda Elk and Wolf project is a cooperativeresearch project funded by Parks Canada, AB-Sustainable ResourceDevelopment, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Foothills Model Forest, theUniversity of Alberta, the Canon-National Parks Science Scholars Program,and Patagonia, Inc.

Seasonal home range and movement of GPScollered Elk 193 in and near Banff National

Park, March 2002 to November 2002

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002 Page 9

Alberta Community Development has released the draft man-agement plan for the Evan-Thomas Provincial Recreation Area inKananaskis Country. What is being proposed goes against whatAlbertans have been telling the government for years: NO to moredevelopment in Kananaskis.

In 1997, Alberta Environmental Protection contracted areview process to find out what people wanted for Kananaskis.The survey found that “the preference is for activities to be com-patible with the wilderness experience and the “escape to soli-tude”. Albertans … want to promote the wilderness aspect over allothers. This should take priority over recreation development.Albertans do not favour a blanket elimination of recreation devel-opment, but do not want any more large-scale facilities such asnew four season resorts, downhill ski areas, housing development,or golf courses.”

In May 1999, Premier Klein announced in a news releasethat, “Albertans want to escape to a Kananaskis country thatretains its natural environment and wilderness character, and thinkthat Kananaskis County is approaching the limits for many kindsof development. We’ve clearly listened to that message. New pro-posals for major facilities will simply not be considered; they willbe directed to communities or public land outside KananaskisCountry.”

The draft management plan suggests that some expansion ofexisting tourist facilities in the area, including the KananaskisVillage area and the Nakiska Ski Resort, would be allowed. Theski resort could be expanded to add new runs and lifts, summeractivities, and accommodation units at the base of the hill.

The plan states that “large scale” development proposals willnot be considers and that development would only be allowed ifenvironmental impacts are demonstrated to be acceptable.However, there is no indication of what types of impacts areacceptable or of how impacts will be assessed. For example, the

impacts of summer useof the ski hills will likelyresult in a negativeimpact on wildlifebecause the runs havebecome important sum-mer range for grizzlies.

The draft reportwas prepared by theprovincial managementteam with input from anadvisory committeemade up of businessinterests, recreational

users, conservation groups and government departments. Manythought the committee was stacked in favour of business interests.However, as we have seen with the Bighorn Advisory Committee,recommendations by such committees may never even be consid-ered.

Please add your voice to the discussion of the future ofKananaskis. Write to Premier Klein and tell him that you do notwant any more development in Kananaskis. Comments on thedraft management plan for the Evan-Thomas will be accepteduntil February 14, 2003. The plan is available for comment athttp://www.cd.gov.ab.ca/enjoying_alberta/parks/featured/kananaskis/management.asp .

Market pressures are becoming anever more important and necessary tool fordriving the forest industry toward better prac-tices. As Andy Marshall highlighted in ourarticle on public consultation in our last issueof the Wild Lands Advocate, the governmenthas little regard for conservationist input.Further, research shows that even the govern-ment has shied away from its leadership role in

Integrated Resource Management. What are conservation groupsleft to do? Educate consumers and get them to think about theirpower as consumers.

“If the marketplace says ‘we demand certifiable forest prod-ucts,’ we will have to deliver or go out of business,” says BobDemulder of the Alberta Forest Products Association. To createsuch a demand, the AWA will focus energy on a marketplace strat-egy that encourages consumers to pressure the forest industry toabandon unsound operating practices — a strategy that has proveneffective in other cases.

Home Depot, Lowe’s, and IKEA, among others, have madecommitments to stop buying wood from endangered forests. Andmost recently, after being the target of a two-year campaign by eco-groups, the office-supply chain Staples Inc. said it intends to phaseout paper made from endangered forests and increase recycled con-tent in the papers it sells to 30 per cent, a move that environmen-talists say will affect logging in Canada’s northern forests. Theeco-groups “heightened our awareness” of environmental issues,said Staples vice-chairman Joseph Vassalluzzo in announcing thatStaples intends to reduce its demand for virgin fibre.

“This is going to be increasingly the way of the future. Whileenvironmental protections are daily being dismantled inWashington, D.C., environmentalists have found a new way to pro-tect forests,” said Todd Paglia, a U.S. ForestEthics representative. Ithink we need to say the same for the situation in Alberta.

The Alberta Wilderness Association encourages readers tovote with your wallets for better forestry practices in Alberta. Nexttime you’re picking up some wood for a deck, or paper for theoffice, ask if there is recycled content in the product or if it is ForestStewardship Council (FSC) certified (see Helene Walsh’s update inthis issue). Only after sufficient market pressure will business real-ize there is a market for FSC certified and recycled products. Andtheir profits will probably increase too!

KANANASKIS NEEDS YOUR HELP:NEW DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED FOR EVAN THOMAS

By Tamaini Snaith and Shirley Bray

VOTE WITH YOUR WALLETSFOR BETTER FORESTRYPRACTICES IN ALBERTA

By Phil Clement, AWA Conservation Biologist

Regional Location of Evan-Thomas ProvincialRecreation Area (ASRD, Res. Info. Unit,

Calgary, April 2002)

Lumber yard in Calgary

C. O

lson

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002Page 10

Setting Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Boreal Standardsis well underway. The FSC Alberta regional group submittedtheir input to FSC Canada in September, as did many othergroups and individuals. Canadian environmental groups also pro-vided a combined input document on our vision for the BorealStandards. All inputs can be viewed on the FSC Canada website.

Based on all these inputs, draft one of the Canadian BorealStandards will be released in mid-December. Again, anyone iswelcome to provide input to this document for a 60-day period.

The regional Alberta Steering Committee has also acceptedthe challenge of proposing how to satisfactorily resolve the issueof overlapping tenure with the petroleum industry. With FSC, itis the forest that is certified, not the forest company, and in manycases the impacts of the petroleum industry on the forest is sig-nificant. Therefore, resolving this will be a difficult but necessarytask.

Active on the FSC Alberta Steering Committee are a balanceof environmental, social, economic, and aboriginal groups,specifically Little Red River Cree Nation, Metis Nations, MetisSettlements, Alberta Pacific Forest Industries (Al-Pac), CanadianForest Products (Canfor), Trappers and Ecotourism, AlbertaFederation of Labour, Mennonite Central Committee, Federationof Alberta Naturalists, Albertans for a Wild Chinchaga, andAlberta Wilderness Association. As might be expected, we oftendo not all agree on the details of what the boreal standard shouldbe. When that happens, we record the differences and submit allpoints of view.

A recent announcement by Mitsubishi regarding FSC is veryencouraging: Mitsubishi Corporation (MC) Chairman MinoruMakihara has announced MC’s policy of endorsing third partycertification for all of its forest product operations. Supportingthe FSC’s principles, Makihara stated that it would seek FSC cer-tification of such MC operations wherever practical.

“This is more than a simple statement of principle,”Makihara said. “We are proceeding to seek FSC certification ofthe operations of Alberta Pacific Forest Industries, Inc.”

Alberta environmental groups hope to work with Al-Pac toenable their FSC certification, and we appreciate their commit-ment.

The following letter was sent to Mr. Wayne Thorp, President,Alberta Forest Products Association on September 16, 2002. TheAWA also put out a news release.

Dear Mr. Thorp:RE: Old Growth Strategy

The Alberta Forest Products Association (AFPA) wrote a let-ter to the National Geographic about a June 2002 article thatpresented a slamming indictment of Alberta’s management of itsboreal forests. The AFPA complained that the NationalGeographic article failed to give readers a balanced reflection ofthe Alberta forest industry’s commitment to the province’s borealforests.

In their letter to National Geographic the AFPA stated thatthere was “an old growth retention strategy in place.”Conservation groups asked the AFPA to explain what that reten-tion strategy is. In July the AFPA indicated it would respond inwriting to Albertans for a Wild Chinchaga. Now it seems that youare refusing.

We sincerely ask the AFPA to either put up or shut up on thismatter. You can’t complain about unfair coverage, citing a docu-ment that you refuse to release. We strongly feel that you are tak-ing an ethically bankrupt approach and that the story in thewoods is no better.

The only old-growth policy known to us is stated in theAlberta government’s Operating Ground Rules. That policy spec-ifies that old-growth be logged first. The provincial operatingground rules do allow for ten per cent of all management units tobe retained in mature or overmature forest; however, this may beachieved using “unmerchantable stands, watercourse protectionbuffers, and other areas not scheduled for harvest.” The datashows that this is not enough to meet the needs of all wildlife,especially species like caribou need larger intact areas of old-growth forest if they are to survive, not just the narrow buffers onlakes and streams, or older unmerchantable stands that the forestindustry cannot log anyway.

A recent Alberta Forest Watch survey of the ForestManagement Plans of the Alberta forest industry (2001) foundthat no FMA holders in Alberta have old-growth targets of tenper cent for the species they harvest, and that most companieshave no defined targets for merchantable old-growth.

Of all the age classes of forest, old-growth has the highestoverall diversity of species, with representation of many rarespecies such as bay-breasted, Cape May, and black-throatedgreen warblers; winter wren; brown creeper; woodland caribou;and northern flying squirrel. If the biodiversity of our province isto be maintained, substantial areas of old-growth must be main-tained.

Conservation groups challenge the AFPA and the Albertagovernment to explain in writing to the National Geographic andthe Alberta public what exactly the old-growth retention strategyis in Alberta.Yours truly,Cliff Wallis, AWA President For CPAWS, FAN, AWC, AWA

(Ed. Note: Mr. Gord Lehn of Spray Lake Sawmills is nowpresident of the Forest Products Association.)

Forest Stewardship CouncilSetting up Boreal Standards

By Helene Walsh

Forest Products AssociationTold to Put Up or Shut Upon Old Growth Strategy

© Frank Beebe

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002 Page 11

Over the course of this year the Whaleback area has beenthe subject of three articles in the Wild Lands Advocate thathave documented the looming threat of oil and gas activity tothe newly designated Bob Creek Wildland and Black CreekHeritage Rangeland that provide nominal protection for thisoutstanding montane wildland, located north of the OldmanRiver just two hours south of Calgary.

The two-bit joint venture company, Polaris Resources Ltd.,that is attempting to insinuate the oil and gas industry into thisnationally significant landscape has finally proceeded with itsapplication to the Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) to drill aCritical Sour Gas Well across the fence from the formally des-ignated protected area. To proceed with that application, thecompany has also had to make an application for a CompulsoryPooling and Special Well Spacing Order that would eitherexempt them from the requirement that they hold a full sectionof subsurface mineral rights, or would have the EUB order theholder of the adjacent half section to share in the exploration ofthese subsurface mineral rights.

Those rights, as Crown mineral leases, are currently heldby the Nature Conservancy of Canada, to whom they weredonated by Amoco Canada in order to facilitate the creation ofthe Wildland protected area. According to the terms of thatdonation, those leases will be returned to the Crown in 2004, atwhich time they will not be re-offered for sale, according toPremier Klein at the time the announcement was made onMay 11, 1999.

Now seems the right time to remind the major players inthis imbroglio, and especially the regulators at the EUB, of thecommitments that were made for the protection of this land-scape. And it is the “landscape” that is particularly referred toby all parties, not just particular half-sections of land.

Here is a selection from the press releases at the time:

“This government has fulfilled its promise to protect theexceptional landscape of Alberta’s Whaleback region. The BobCreek Wildland Park and Black Creek Heritage Rangeland pro-tect the largest undisturbed montane landscape in Alberta’sRocky Mountain Region.” — Premier Ralph Klein

“We fully appreciate the national significance of this area.We are extremely proud to have played a role in ensuring that aliving legacy, the Whaleback Area, will forever benefit futuregenerations. Creating this environmental legacy is the rightthing to do. Our partnership with the Nature Conservancyensures that oil and gas activity will never occur in theWhaleback protected area.” — Joseph H. Bryant, President ofAmoco Canada Petroleum (now merged with BP)

“This visionary gift by Amoco Canada is key for protectingthe Whaleback area in Alberta. The donation of mineral inter-ests by Amoco Canada coupled with the designation of theWhaleback area by the Province of Alberta is a major landmarkfor conservation. All Canadians should be proud of this conser-vation achievement.” — John Lounds, Executive Director ofthe Nature Conservancy of Canada

Please support Friends of the Whaleback, the AlbertaWilderness Association and Canadian Parks and WildernessSociety in their opposition to these current applications to theEUB by Polaris Resources that have the potential for makingthese lofty statements just so many empty words. Please voiceyour continuing objections to the EUB, c/o Paul Forbes at theApplications Division: <Paul.Forbes@gov.ab.ca> orfax 403-297-7336

The Whaleback

THE WHALEBACK PROTECTED AREA: SERIOUSCOMMITMENTS OR JUST SO MANY EMPTY WORDS?

By James Tweedie

N. D

ougl

as

© Frank Beebe

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002Page 12

The decision by VermilionResources to withdraw its gas well drillingapplication on virtually unspoiled rangelandsouth of Calgary is like finding brief shelterby a small tree from the icy blasts of winterfor a group of landowners trying to protecttheir prized native grasslands.

The respite will likely be temporary.Some of the landowners expect Vermilion orother major companies to reapply in the

future. A host of other development pressures are forming achilling front over the area in question called the FoothillsParkland Natural Region, running from the Highwood south tothe Oldman River.

“It feels like we won a battle, but we still have a war to

fight. It doesn’t feel like a victory,” says Cameron Gardner, afourth generation rancher living about 20 minutes southwest ofLongview and a member of the Pekisko LandownersAssociation, which has been leading the campaign against theVermilion application. Longview is about 75 kilometres southof Calgary.

“It’s nice we don’t have to worry about this particular well.But I fully expect Vermilion to be back,” he adds.

In his capacity as a councillor for the Municipal District ofRanchland, south of the proposed Vermilion gas well site,Gardner is keenly aware of other interests anxious to buildhomes on the dramatic, rolling plains he compares for their eco-logical value to Australia’s coral reef or the South Americanrainforest. “It looks like a tidal wave to us,” he says. “Everyonewants to live there, it’s so beautiful.”

Vermilion’s original application to the Alberta Energy andUtilities Board (EUB) was to drill a sweet gas well next to a site

abandoned more than 20 years ago. It is nine km south ofLongview, three km north of the Bar U Historic Ranch andabout 4.5 km west of Highway 22.

With disturbance to the native grasslands still visible fromthe original well, the Pekisko group was worried about theimpact on what has been described as one of the most extensiveuninterrupted regions of natural grassland in North America.

A 119-page analysis, compiled by four scientists specializ-ing in this kind of terrain, had been filed with the EUB as evi-dence for hearings that had earlier been rescheduled for 2003. AVermilion spokesperson says a company re-organization and apossible review of priorities prompted the application with-drawal.

For Ken Stiles, a leading member of the Pekisko landown-ers’ group representing about 50 families in the region, the

biggest issue is the linear dis-turbance that follows thebuilding of road allowancesand pipelines for oil and gasdevelopment. Formerly a sen-ior official with CourageEnergy and Bow ValleyEnergy, Stiles is the head ofWinter Range Inc., owningabout 400 acres near the siteand holder of a surfacegraz-ing lease of almost 3,000acres where the initial drillingwas supposed to occur.

Road and pipeline ease-ment building bring “invader”plant species that can overrunthe native fescue dominantthere for so long. “Once theybreak it up, no one can restoreit,” he says. Along the old4.5-kilometre road allowanceinto the original well, there isa 100-metre swath where thefescue has been taken over byinvaders such as crestedwheat, Russian wild rye,smoothed brome and otherspecies. The disturbance isalso easy to see at the wellsite, measuring 15,000 squaremetres.

Once drilling occurs, otherwell sites, road allowancesand pipelines are inevitable,says Stiles. “The point I makeis there’s been very little lin-ear disturbance until now.”

Porcupine Hills

LITTLE RESPITE SEEN IN STRUGGLE TO DEFENDPRIZED RANGELAND

By Andy Marshall

J. F

oley

© Frank Beebe

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002 Page 13

At a recent hearing on natural gasdrilling in my county, a rancher stoodbefore our planning commission andsaid, “I support President Bush’s policiesto make America energy independent,and I don’t want to be a NIMBY, but…”He then went on to outline the cata-strophic impacts gas drilling could haveon Delta County’s outfitting and big-game hunting economies.

His dilemma is a real one. Whetherit’s gas drilling in western Colorado, or nuclear waste storage inYucca Mountain, Nev., or a South Carolina governor threaten-ing to lie down on the train tracks to stop nuclear waste fromentering his state, Not-In-My-Backyardism is everywhere. Yetno one wants to be a NIMBY.

The people who say that they don’t want to bear the burdenof our nation’s energy development or radioactive-waste dis-posal are called unpatriotic or hypocritical. In my county, thepointed attack against NIMBYism goes, “How do you heat yourhome?” and we are forced to admit that we do indeed warm ourhomes, light our stoves, and heat our water, often with naturalgas.

But is this the end of the debate? After all, NIMBYs oftensay no because they have legitimate concerns. Should they sitmeek and silent while their livelihoods, property values, water,and communities are destroyed by the gas drilling industry?Should we say to them, “Too bad, you live in the wrong spot.Suck it up, sacrifice for the nation and suffer”?

NIMBY tells us something important. The cowboy stand-ing up in a public meeting to enumerate economic and wildlifeimpacts to his county is telling us that every time we turn on agas stove and experience the warm glow of cheap, readily avail-able fuel, we are taking pleasure while he or someone like himsuffers the real cost.

NIMBY is the warning sign that tells us our system is bro-ken. It tells us that some energy companies choose to ignoretheir impacts, either because they believe the impacts are tooexpensive to remedy, or because impacts are “externalities,”unconnected to profits. NIMBY tells us that our governmentbureaucrats haven’t been paying attention to the public welfare.

A friend of mine has a son growing up in the Bronx. One intwo children in his neighbourhood have respiratory problems.Not coincidentally, a solid-waste incinerator sits nearby. Theneighbourhood couldn’t muster the political clout to force theincinerator elsewhere. If there’d been a few more NIMBYs inthis part of New York, my friend’s son would be breathing a loteasier today. Instead, he sits and breathes medicine through amask. He’s five years old.

NIMBY tells us about morality. NIMBY tells us that someof our industries and wastes not only shouldn’t be in my backyard, it’s possible they shouldn’t be in anyone’s back yard. Ifgas companies and nuclear industries and trash incineratorscan’t or won’t care for the damage they inflict on their neigh-

bours, then we as a nation need 1) to pay more so that thesecompanies can afford to be responsible neighbours, or 2) changethe way we consume so that our actions don’t make other peo-ple suffer.

Knowing how the gas industry behaves in Colorado, I feeldifferently about turning on my gas stove. I use it consciouslyand sparingly, knowing that someone far away may have suf-fered when this gas was extracted.

As for the NIMBYs in my own county, I’m joining them.We’re going to fight the gas drillers until they agree to respectour water, our wildlife and our communities, and we’re going tofight the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission until it startsbehaving like a responsible regulatory agency. We’re going tofight until our county is safe from an industry that has run amok.Until things improve, I’m a NIMBY, and I won’t apologize. If Idon’t protect my back yard, who will?

(Paolo Bacigalupi writes from Sunshine Mesa near Paonia,Colorado. This article was reprinted with permission fromWriters on the Range (www.hcn.org/wotr), a syndicated columnof High Country News (www.hcn.org), Sept. 2, 2002.)

A NIMBY AND PROUD OF ITBy Paolo Bacigalupi

Paolo Bacigalupi

© Frank Beebe

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002Page 14

The Castle-Crown Wilderness Coalition hasinitiated proceedings for a Judicial Review ofthe decision by the Minister of theEnvironment not to require an EnvironmentalImpact Assessment (EIA) for the CastleMountain Inc. (CMR) ski resort developmentthat is now occurring in the Westcastle Valley,in the southwest corner of the province.

The Alberta Environment Protectionand Enhancement Act sets out provisions forthe requirement for an EIA: to support thegoals of environmental protection and sus-tainable development; to integrate environ-mental protection and economic decisions atthe earliest stages of planning an activity; topredict environmental, social, economic andcultural consequences of the proposed activ-ity and to assess plans to mitigate anyadverse impacts; and to provide for theinvolvement of the public, proponents, thegovernment, and government agencies in thereview of proposed activities.

It was to fulfill those provisions that thegovernment ordered an EIA for the ski resortexpansions proposed by Vacation AlbertaCorporation in 1990. The findings of thatEIA and the subsequent public hearing heldby the Natural Resources ConservationBoard (NRCB) in 1992 left no doubt in any-one’s mind about the environmental and ecological significanceof the Westcastle Valley.

On the basis of the evidence, the Board exacted stringentconditions upon any development in the area and, in order to pro-tect the environmental values that were already recognized asbeing at risk, proposed that the Waterton-Castle WildlandRecreation Area be designated “whether or not” the VacationAlberta project went ahead.

“The Board is aware that the project may not proceed for anumber of reasons beyond its control. The Board would recom-mend that in any event the area the Board has described as theproposed WCWRA should be protected and land uses should beestablished for it as described by the Board, whether or not theproject proceeds. Regional management on an ecosystem basis isnecessary.” (pp. 12-13)

In making that judgment they were acting consistently withprevious Alberta government agency reports that had identifiedthe significance of the area and designated the South and WestCastle valleys with a notation for a potential provincial park.

Since that conditional approval was overturned in 1995 as aresult of a barrage of lobbying to the government orchestrated byShell Canada and local forestry interests, the Westcastle Valleyhas seen massive residential and infrastructure developmentsproceeding on a piecemeal basis with no mitigation plans inplace, nor even any clearly articulated planning regulations inplace. Only in 2001 did the present developer, CMR, finally pro-

vide the Municipality of Pincher Creek, now the responsibleplanning agency, with their Area Structure Plan for the resort.

This Plan is similar in most respects to the development pro-posed by Vacation Alberta Corp. in 1990. What is significantlydifferent, apart from the absence of any proposed golf courses,which the previous NRCB Report had already ruled as beinginappropriate for the location (since common sense had failed totell the company that), is that CMR is proposing to continue

developing its residential townsite, from the88 housing units that it has already managedto construct in the valley to 225 units — a sce-nario at total odds with the earlier decision bythe NRCB to restrict all private housing devel-opment and only allow hotel accommodation.

The NRCB clearly recognized thedevastating effects that year-round private res-idences would have for the area and particu-larly for wildlife.

Some quotes from the DecisionReport illustrate this concern:

“The Board noted that it was theexisting intensity of land use and associatedenvironmental impacts and cumulative effectsthat was a cause for concern” … “The gener-al prognosis by some participants was that ifthe existing intensity of land use continuedimportant ecological features could be lost.”(pp. 10-16)

“The Board believes that the existingland use zones would not achieve a sufficient level of land usecontrol that would appropriately mitigate the potentially signifi-cant adverse environmental impacts of the resort on the publiclands surrounding it.” (pp. 10-17)

That the NRCB was correct in this assessment was borne outin 2000 when the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board releasedtheir Screwdriver Creek Decision Report (AEUB 2000-17) inMarch 2000, in relation to an application by Shell Canada andCanadian 88 to drill for gas at the eastern edge of the CastleWilderness: “both the public and the industry participants tookthe common view that the biological thresholds for at least somekey species identified as important in the Integrated ResourcesPlan (IRP) may now have been exceeded.”Further, the Board endorsed the need for either an updated IRP(current document is dated 1985) or “alternatively, work needs tobe initiated in a timely fashion to create strategies to addresscumulative effects of human activities, including energy develop-ment, in the Castle Crown region.”

The previous EIA prepared for Vacation Alberta identifiedthe serious impacts on most local wildlife species that would fol-low from expanded development in the valley. In summary, thatevaluation posited that “ the scope and magnitude of the impactstend to be local and regional; the duration of impacts are expect-ed to be long-term or permanent and the direction of the impactsare overwhelmingly negative.”

With particular reference to the regional grizzly bear popu-

Castle Mountain Ski Resort

JUDICIAL REVIEW DEMANDEDFOR CASTLE SKI RESORT

By James Tweedie

L. B

rode

rsen

lation, the EIA noted that “the cumulative effects of habitat lossand direct mortality will likely cause a significant and permanentdecline in the size and distribution of the regional grizzly bearpopulation” and that “no significant mitigation of impacts is pos-sible.”

As Peter Lamb, Superintendent of Waterton Lakes NationalPark, pointed out to the Council of the Municipal District ofPincher Creek, that regional population includes animals that alsorange in Waterton Lakes National Park as well as into BritishColumbia and the United States. He recognized that theMunicipal Council, who were tasked with reviewing and approv-ing CMR’s Area Structure Plan, had no management jurisdictionfor mitigating the effects of the development, but his letter cau-tions Council to heed the NRCB Report:

“Your decision will have a direct impact on our interests andthose of other jurisdictions in the region. We believe the conclu-sions of the NRCB report in 1993 to be the most current and rel-evant impact assessment pertaining to the Area Structure Plan.We encourage the Council to ensure that the decision reflects thelarger regional issues, given that the impacts will be permanentand irreversible.”

Given this backdrop of concern by the provincial regulatorsand Parks Canada, the decision by the Director of the Regulatory

Assurance Division and the Minister of the Environment not toorder an EIA seems patently flawed and unreasonable. Either thegovernment should endorse the conditions set out as a result ofthe previous EIA and NRCB decision in 1992 or it should requirethe present developers to provide an updated EIA.

Once again I’ve learned a valuablelife lesson from the wilderness. This time ithad nothing to do with bush survival skillsbut rather the power of the ordinary citizen.Recently I and some other like minded folksput that power to work.

The Kakwa region has providedrecreational opportunities for Peace Countryresidents for many generations. A diversegroup, including campers, hikers, fisherman,

equestrians, ATV users, and hunters, has enjoyed this jewel overthe years. It is not easily accessible, with 100+ kilometers ofrough road between the Kakwa and the nearest city, GrandePrairie. This is part of its charm and fits within the vision mostlocal residents have for the area. In fact, in a recent survey con-ducted by Parks, local citizens overwhelmingly expressed theview that the Kakwa should remain as is with no improvedcampsites or facilities, the thought being “if it’s not broke, whyfix it.”

However, the Kakwa is not standing in isolation from therest of the province, and there is a crisis that demands attention.The industrial onslaught is in high gear and is steadilyencroaching on this precious east slopes habitat. We are onlyseeing the beginning of this process, and there is still time tomake positive impact. Local citizens were galvanized intoaction two years ago when an application was made for a com-mercial operation consisting of rental cabins. The site chosen atLick Creek has always been heavily used by locals, and thethought of having to pay a private operator for access offendedmany.

A public meeting was called and hundreds of folks turnedout. Once again a large majority of citizens spoke out againstthe idea. The local government agencies, including Forestry,

Parks, and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, advisedagainst the development partly in light of environmental con-cerns over mountain caribou and bull trout habitat and inresponse to the public wishes. It seemed that our message gotthrough, as the developer’s application was denied. While thiscrisis appeared to be solved, many folks called for the formationof a citizens group that would monitor all future developmentplans for the Kakwa. Greater Kakwa was formed that day, andwe developed a strategy to keep abreast of issues affecting theKakwa region.

Late in the summer of 2001 Greater Kakwa received infor-mation that the applicants for the cabins had chosen to appealthe decision, as is their right. We immediately sprang into actionand contacted the appeal board, offering our research on the sitechosen by the developer. By this time we had researched andidentified traditional campgrounds, future industrial sites, andlimiting factors due to the topography in the area.

We were informed that our concerns were well known andthat there was no need for the submission of further informa-tion. This was not acceptable to us, so we forwarded on theinformation anyways and contacted our MLA for a meeting. Wealso expressed our concerns to the appropriate governmentdepartments and ministers. All parties assured us that theprocess would be transparent and fair and we would be keptabreast of developments. We then received a letter from Mr. M.L. Anderson, head of land use management for SustainableResource Development, thanking us for our information andmaps.

Months went by and there was no communication from anygovernment sources. In December of 2001 we again contactedthe appeal board requesting an update. Once again we heardfrom Mr. Anderson, who wrote: “I have delayed responding todetermine if there was anything further, but no, the matter has

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002 Page 15

Castle Mountain Ski Resort

LOCAL CITIZENS DEFEND THE KAKWA AND WINBy Brian Bildson

L. B

rode

rsen

Brian Bildson

not been concluded.” As the months passed by, no further infor-mation was forthcoming. The cynics in our group jokingly com-mented that the government was probably just waiting for thefuror to die down before approving the development.

Before you know it, it’sSeptember 2002 andthoughts of bugling elk arerunning through my head. Iwas preparing to leave formy annual elk hunt when Ireceived an urgent emailfrom a Greater Kakwamember asking if I had seenthe notice posted by theM.D. of Greenview. Thenotice was for the issuanceof a development permit forthe construction of the cab-ins. Obviously the develop-er had been successful in hisappeal, and we had not beeninformed. I immediatelycontacted the M.D. ofGreenview and registeredan appeal of the development permit on behalf of GreaterKakwa.

When I returned from hunting, I had a notification form theM.D. informing me that a public hearing was being held on thematter on October 8th. When I reviewed the accompanyingdocuments, I was surprised to discover that the governmentappeal board had actually rendered a decision in favour of thecabin developer in November of 2001. My first thought was, somuch for being kept in the information loop as promised, butmy next emotion was outrage. What type of arrogance or stu-pidity would cause a civil servant to lie to us in writing andclaim “the matter has not been concluded” a full month after adecision had been made. And to add insult to injury, they stillhadn’t informed us of the decision by September of 2002!

Realizing that the upcoming public hearing was a priority,we first focused on our presentation to the M.D. of Greenviewrather than the abuse of process. We took it upon ourselves topublicize the upcoming public hearing, as the mandatory notifi-cation requirement for the M.D was easy to miss. On the nightof the public hearing it was evident our advertising program hadbeen effective. When the doors opened, the chairs began to fill,and it was soon evident it would be a standing room only pres-entation with over 300 citizens present.

As Greater Kakwa had filed the appealed, we opened thehearing by presenting our position. Our concerns were theremoval of one of the few large natural camping spots frompublic use and more importantly the lack of integrated planningthat had gone into this development. We were able to demon-strate to the M.D. that we had been working with the public, thegovernment, and industry in an effort to facilitate some inte-grated land use down in this region. We explained the danger ofdealing with this or any other application in isolation from thebig picture. This leads to a piecemeal development approvalapproach that can end up with disastrous consequences.

While we would like to believe our research and presenta-tion carried the day, the truth is that the emotional outpouringthat followed our presentation from members of the public is

what probably swayed the M.D. panel. It was heartwarming tohear local citizens explaining what an influence this region hadon their lives. We had everyone from youngsters to senior citi-zens relating tales of times in the wilderness and how important

it was to them to preservethis area for future genera-tions. Members of ourlocal aboriginal communi-ty were also present andtold of their long history inthe region and the contin-ued importance of theKakwa to them. This wenton for over two hours.

The M.D. ran agood hearing and allowedall interested parties tospeak. Once again, almostall of the speakers calledfor the preservation of theKakwa and asked that thedevelopment approval bedenied. I left the meetingfeeling we had been

afforded a fair opportunity to speak but unsure as to the out-come. I was pleasantly surprised to receive a phone call twodays later from the M.D.’s development officer informing methat our appeal had been upheld and the development permitwould not be issued. Their rationale for denying the applicationwas that it was not in the public’s best interest. It was refresh-ing to be treated fairly by one level of government, but we werestill fuming over our treatment by another.

After the euphoria of success comes the work. This is justone small fire put out in the middle of a raging firestorm. Ournearly impossible goal is to preserve some part of this habitatfrom the ongoing industrial onslaught. We face the same prob-lems all citizen groups do. How do you keep volunteersenthused about contributing to the betterment of society whentheir own government treats them with such disdain?

Further, why should citizen groups have to do the work ofgovernment? I don’t have the answer to these questions butthere is still hope. History has shown that citizens will only putup with so much abuse before demanding change. Are we closeto that point yet? All I know is that I and many others whowouldn’t fit the typical profile of an environmentalist passedthat point long ago. We can’t allow this dysfunctional govern-ment to win by apathy.Greater Kakwa isdemanding answers as towhere this process wentwrong, and we will notback down until wearrive at the truth. Staytuned —this could geteven more interesting.

(Brian Bildson is atrapper and a real estateagent in Grande Prairie.He is a member of theGreater Kakwa group,www.greaterkakwa.com.)

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002Page 16

Kakwa

B. B

ildso

n

© Frank Beebe

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002 Page 17

It was no surprise thatthe Alberta Energy and UtilitiesBoard decided that the destruc-tion of at least half ofMcClelland Fen to accommo-date the TrueNorth Oil SandsProject would be “in the publicinterest.” The Board had 15 con-ditions and recommendations toreduce environmental and social

impacts, largely having to do with containment ofwaste products. The Board did reject TrueNorth’srequest to pump salty water into a usable fresh-water aquifer. An operating permit and variousapprovals are still required from AlbertaEnvironment and the Department of Fisheries andOceans, but it is highly unlikely that these will be denied.

Everyone seemed to agree that mining half of the fenwould have significantly negative consequences on theunmined portion of the fen and the lake. The disagreement wasover what could and would be accomplished with a mitigationplan. AWA, Dr. Diana Horton, and other interveners did notthink mitigation would be meaningful. No matter what mitiga-tion measures are put in place, at least half the fen will bedestroyed permanently by oil sands mining. What wouldreplace the fen is anyone’s guess, but it won’t be another fen.Furthermore, there will have to be some significant alterationsin the wetland to prevent contamination of the rest of the area.

However, the Board believes that TrueNorth’sSustainability Plan, which will convene a committee to deter-mine the feasibility of mitigation, has promise. It is less sureabout TrueNorth’s ability to pay for reclamation and is demand-ing insurance. Alberta Environment is requiring TrueNorth todemonstrate its Plan before any disturbance is allowed in thewetland complex. But given the Alberta government’s disdainfor science and the preservation of ecological values, this experiment on McClelland Lake Wetland Complex(MLWC) is unlikely to have a satisfactory outcome.

Is this the future that we want for MLWC? We believeMLWC is a priceless natural heritage that belongs to allAlbertans and to all Canadians and would like to see it protect-ed. Its destruction for a relatively small amount of bitumen isnot defensible.

The main hope is that the project will be too expensive forTrueNorth to proceed. Already capital spending has been cut by75 per cent in the fourth quarter. TrueNorth, owned by theAmerican company Koch Industries Inc., owns 78 per cent ofthe project and is looking for a third partner to reduce its finan-cial risk to 25 to 50 per cent in the oil sands venture. UTSEnergy Corp. of Calgary owns the other 22 per cent.

For more information on MLWC and the AEUB decision,see our Fort Hills page under Issues. Write to Ralph Klein andtell him what you think about losing one of our most wonderfulplaces. Go to our Actionkit under Resources for Governmentcontact information. We also feature a series of aerial photosdonated by Dr. Diana Horton.

Shirley Bray

McClelland Fen

D. H

orto

n

EUB SACRIFICES MCCLELLAND FENIN THE “PUBLIC INTEREST”

By Shirley Bray, WLA Editor

Recreation Corridors LegislativeReview UpdateBy Phil Clement, AWA Conservation Biologist

Alberta Community Development is conducting a legislativereview concerning recreation corridors in Alberta. The intent ofthe review is to address the needs, issues, and concerns related tothe 15,000 km of existing trails and future recreation corridors inAlberta, and to ensure that there are clear and consistent regula-tions across the province.

The Recreation Corridors Legislative Review public consul-tation concluded with a provincial forum, held on Tuesday,October 15, 2002 in Nisku. Over 70 representatives of provincialstakeholder organizations — from adjacent landowners to agri-cultural interests and forestry companies, trail operators to motor-ized and non-motorized trail users — took part in the forum.Discussions focused on liability; safety and policing; operation,maintenance and accountability; privacy and access; and envi-ronmental stewardship.

The purpose of the forum was to 1) provide participants withan overview of the Recreation Corridors Legislative Review and2) to focus on those areas that are still of concern or interest toseek participants’ advice and clarification on solutions. After awelcome and some background on the review was given, thelarge group was subdivided into small groups.

During the small group discussion, questions were askedwhich raised serious concerns over the legitimacy of the processand credibility of the forum:does the Ministry of CommunityDevelopment even have the authority to undertake this legislativereview? Why isn’t the land manager (Ministry of SustainableResource Development) of the green zone present today? Howmany trails are in Alberta…is 15,000 kms (amount given inworkbook) correct?

Further, it seemed that the participants (including me) didnot have adequate knowledge about the issue at hand. This wasindicated by the questions asked: have motorized and non-motor-ized forums of recreation been distinguished? Have they distin-guished between differing land use issues in the green zone andthe white zone? A map would have helped considerably.

The MLA Committee is now sorting through all the inputthey received through the consultation and will present recom-mendations in a report to the Minister of CommunityDevelopment early next year. As one participant mentioned, “thequality of consultation depends on the quality ofquestions…these were bad questions.”

Update on the Cheviot MineBy Phil Clement, AWA Conservation Biologist

Cardinal River Coals is keeping us updated on the progressof their application for a new private haulroad. Their newsletterexplains that they submitted an application for an amendment tothe Cheviot Mine permit and the environmental approval for theLuscar mine to seek regulatory approval to construct a 10 km pri-vate haulroad to link the two mine sites. Instead of building a pro-cessing plant at the Cheviot Mine site, the haulroad would beused to haul raw coal from the Cheviot to the Luscar mine sitewhere it would be processed and shipped.

The Alberta government is currently reviewing the applica-tion, which will be followed by a public notification process, to

be completed early in the new year. The company is solicitingfeedback on the project and more information can be obtained bycontacting Fred Munn, Project Manager, (780) 692-5184,fred_munn@luscar.com. AWA has already written to the compa-ny to express our concerns and restate our objection to theCheviot Mine.

On October 22, 2002, nine local, provincial, and nationalorganizations wrote federal Environment Minister DavidAnderson, asking that he require an environmental impact assess-ment and hold public hearings on the new proposal for develop-ment of the Cheviot Mine. The organizations were the JasperEnvironmental Protection Association, the Alberta WildernessAssociation, Environmental Resource Centre of Alberta,Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development, Toxics WatchSociety, Sierra Club-Prairie Chapter, Canadian Parks andWilderness Society, Canadian Nature Federation, andMining Watch Canada.

The organizations also sent a formal “statement of concern”to Alberta Environment Minister Lorne Taylor and to the AlbertaEnergy & Utilities Board(AEUB) asking that the currentapplications for development ofCheviot and a larger mine permitbe turned down. They likewiseasked that an environmentalimpact assessment be requiredand public hearings held beforeproceeding with a decision on theapplications.

New Case of CWD Found in AlbertaWhite-Tailed DeerBy Shirley Bray, WLA Editor

The first case of Chronic Wasting Disease in farmed white-tailed deer in Canada was found on a game farm north ofEdmonton. This is the second confirmed case of CWD on gamefarms in Alberta. Following this discovery in early November, atwo-week moratorium was placed on the movement of farmeddeer in the province. Game farmers have few opportunities tomarket their products, given low prices for meat, the defeat of thepenned hunting initiative, and the fact that the U.S. andSaskatchewan have refused imports until herds test CWD-freefor at least three years. Problems facing game farmers today werepredicted 15 years ago when the legalization of game farming inAlberta was being considered. AWA recently joined with otherconcerned groups in supporting compensation for game farmerson the condition that the industry be completely dismantled.

A group of game farmers in Alberta and Saskatchewan isgoing ahead with a class action lawsuit against the federal gov-ernment. AWA is not involved with this claim. The Alberta ElkAssociation, which is supposed to be supporting game farmers, isvery much against the lawsuit. Their October newsletter statesthat “producers who have been approached about this initiativeshould know they may be placing themselves at risk… Thosewho are part of that claim are therefore personally liable for thosestatements.” Lawyers for the game farmers making the claimdemanded and will receive an apology and retraction of thesefalse statements in the next issue of the Alberta Elk Associationnewsletter.

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002Page 18

© Frank Beebe

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002 Page 19

Francis Lyman Beebe was born on May 25, 1914 at Lacombe,Alberta, the second youngest of seven children. At the time, his fatherwas off fighting the “Great War” and did not return until Frank was aboutthree years old. After returning from the war, Frank’s father was entitledto a farm provided by the Canadian government under the SoldierSettlement Act. He sold the farm and machinery at auction in the springof 1923 when Frank was nine years old.

From Lacombe, Frank and his family moved to Penticton. While onthe train traveling to the Okanagan, herecalled reading two stories about pere-grines, both of which sparked his interest inraptors. Peregrines occupied nearly all of thehigh cliffs along the Okanagan Valley at thistime.

In the fall of 1923, the family moved toEdmonton, much to Frank’s disappointment.He loved the flora and fauna of theOkanagon Valley, his first real introductionto the wonders of nature. As the familyarrived in Edmonton, winter was setting in.Frank found the town dark and dingy.

In the spring of 1924, Frank’s fatherwas granted a homestead in the McLeodValley, west of Edmonton, where Frankspent his “growing-up years.” The greatboreal forest surrounds the Valley. Frankspent countless hours exploring this fascinating world and it set the stagefor the rest of his life. It was here that Frank’s artistic ability first becameapparent. Much of his free time was spent hunting small animals. Heused these “study skins” to learn how to draw the animals in his world.To this day he uses mental images from a lifetime of study rather thanphotographs when he draws or paints.

Frank left home and school before finishing his final year of highschool, never to return to formal education. Instead, he used his inquisi-tive nature to further his knowledge about the natural world. He hoppedon a freight train and headed west towards British Columbia with $5.00in his pocket and the clothes on his back. Many unemployed men wereheading west, and Frank felt safe in their makeshift camps. When hearrived at Spence’s Bridge, the “Bulls” kicked everyone off of the trainand Frank had to walk 30 miles south to the next train to Vancouver.

He made it to the ferry crossing to Vancouver Island with exactlyenough money left for the fare. When he arrived at Nanaimo, he foundsunny warm days and fascinating wildlife. His first job was for theMcDonald family in the Cowichan Lake area, doing odd jobs on theirranch. This allowed him to be exposed to the natural wonder and splen-dor of the region.

When he tired of working for the McDonalds, he moved on to therelief camps. He worked on the road to Port Renfrew for 20 cents perday. His afternoons were free to work on his painting. He collected manyof the native life forms and sketched them in painstaking detail for hisreference collection.

Frank’s artistic talent landed him a job with the Young Men’sForestry Training Plan, painting pictures of the major forest trees of theprovince. He also illustrated insects for the Dominion Insect Laboratory.In his free time, he sold his bird paintings through the local art galleries.Perhaps one of his more important early art assignments was a commis-sion by G. Clifford Carl, the manager of the Cowichan Fish Hatchery, topaint pictures of the native fishes.

Frank’s contacts at the Insect Laboratory put him in touch with G.Allen Mail, who was in charge of the Insect and Range Laboratory inKamloops. Mail offered Frank a job working on the B.C. sector of the

bubonic plague surveys taking place along the entire West Coast ofNorth America during World War II. There was good reason to fear thatthe Japanese would attempt to introduce the disease somewhere intoWestern North America via the use of jet-stream balloons.

Frank was part of a mobile team that moved throughout the region,surveying fleas found on squirrels and marmots in the interior, and ratsalong the coast waterfront. He stayed on this project during the waryears, producing illustrations of insects and fleas for the laboratory as

well as collecting specimens. During the first year of this project he met

Vera Hynes, an attractive young lady whomhe married on September 10, 1939. Theyspent 60 wonderful years together and hadfour children. Sadly, Vera lost her battle withcancer in January 2000.

While working on the plague project,Frank collected and prepared specimens ofbird skins and small mammals for theProvincial Museum and sent them to its newdirector, G. Clifford Carl. At the end of thewar, Carl offered Frank a job at the Museumas an illustrator. Frank loved the work butfound the salary insufficient to provide forhis new family. After two years at theMuseum, he decided to find a better payingjob.

He ended up as the Stanley Park Zoo zookeeper, a position he heldfor seven years. During this time he continued to paint, and even startedto write professionally. While at the zoo Frank had the opportunity tojoin a Provincial Museum sponsored expeditions to Triangle Island andLangara Island, where he encountered Peales peregrines. This wouldlater become the source of his first falconry birds.

In 1953, Frank rejoined the Museum, this time as chief illustratorand diorama background artist. He stayed on until his retirement at theage of 60 in 1974. During his tenure at the Museum, Frank illustratednumerous Museum booklets covering the flora and fauna of the region.Some of his dioramas still remain at the Museum today. For his finalproject, the director permitted him to write and illustrate TheFalconiformes of British Columbia (1974). This scholarly treatise on thePeales peregrine and other regional raptors was the definitive work at thetime, and is still often referred to today by raptor biologists.

After he retired, Frank and Vera moved back to Vancouver Islandjust a little north of Victoria, where Frank still lives today.

When he retired, Frank put all of his efforts into painting, carving,writing and falconry. He sold his art in commercial galleries across west-ern Canada. He expanded his work briefly into stone carving. His carv-ings were in high demand and made him a handsome profit, but the dustfrom the carving gave him a severe case of pneumonia in 1976, fromwhich he almost died. After his recovery he vowed to never carve anoth-er stone again. He found a new way to express his love of carving inwoodcarving and soft sculptures; he has become the master of creatinglifelike effigies of raptors out of foam and latex.

The last few years, Frank has been honing his soft sculpture skillson the creation of falconry lures. He is currently working on a castingtechnique with a new lightweight and durable foam rubber. His ideas andinnovations inspired many of the design styles and techniques you see inthe lures sold by Northwoods today.

(This article is an abridged version and has been reprinted with permis-sion from the 2001 edition of the North American Falconers AssociationJournal.)

FRANK L. BEEBE: THE MAN BEHIND THE LEGENDBy Bob Herrick

Frank Beebe

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002Page 20

Montana economist and environmental advocate Dr. Tom Powerrode into town recently on a familiar hobby-horse, directing his fire atthe big guns of all-out resource extraction, including the mighty energyindustry, and offering solid comfort to those bucking the prevailingforces to save our natural wild lands.

The author of Post-Cowboy Economics: Pay and Prosperity in theNew American West (Island Press, 2001) and other books, articles, andpapers on the subject, the affable University of Montana economicsprofessor wrestled down some enduring myths about the significance ofresource extraction industries to local economies with a clear messageabout the benefits of preserving our surroundings.

“Real local economies have little to do with the natural resourceswe extract,” Power told about 60 enthusiastic listeners in the AlbertaWilderness Association building on Nov. 1. “In a devel-oped, sophisticated economy, environmental qualitymakes up a significant part of the real economic base.”

The 63-year-old former rock climber, who stilllikes to ski three times a week during the winter andwho once faced a threat from the Montana loggingindustry of having some of his books burned in public,was the guest speaker at the second annual AlbertaWilderness and Wildlife Trust lecture series, organizedto challenge and inform Albertans about defending nat-ural areas. The trust is an endowment fund establishedby AWA with The Calgary Foundation to support itslong-term survival. The fund was initiated in 1986 as amemorial tribute to the former Orval Pall, killed in anairplane crash while studying bighorn sheep.

With his impish demeanour and displaying frequent irony andself-deprecating wit, Power successfully bridged the gulch between thedry potential of his academic specialty and the more passionate pull ofenvironmental preservation.

Using figures gathered from across the United States and acrossthe world, he dispelled what he called the cowboy economic “myths”regarding resource extraction that dominate conventional thinking inhis home state of Montana, as well as in Alberta and elsewhere, and that“corrupt policy discussions, especially as they relate to the environ-ment.”

With statistics gathered through his more than three-decades-longacademic career — he’s been on the faculty of the University ofMontana, Missoula, economics department since 1968 and chair since1978 — he put the boots to the notion that limiting resource extractionwould impoverish the overall economy. In fact, Power showed clearlythat, in the U.S. and globally, specialization in natural resource indus-tries — from mining to logging, oil and gas to agriculture — has leftlocal economies worse off than those much less dependent on theseindustries. The disadvantages range from lower earnings and per capi-ta income to higher unemployment rates.

The benefits of natural resource development are often signifi-cantly misrepresented, he said, a statement that resonated well with hisAlberta audience. Furthermore, the costs are significantly understatedand proper environmental regulation is crucial to minimize the damagedone.

But those who advocate better environmental laws are brandedeco-terrorists, wreaking havoc on people’s livelihoods. The doomsdayscenarios from the naysayers on the decline of extraction industries

have not been borne out, Power explained. In Montana and other partsof the American Mountain West, for every natural resources job lost, 40other jobs were gained, particularly in the service sector, including thehigh-paid service industries like medical and computer services.

“There is life after natural resources addiction,” he said.As a result, these regions enjoyed a net in-migration, helping them

lead the U.S. in economic growth. However, studies also showedMontana being the state with the lowest average income, a situationPower said would have occurred whatever the choice of jobs.

If the highest paid states were giving up population, as the studiessuggested, why were the lowest paid, like Montana, experiencing suchpopulation growth? Lower costs in housing and other basic serviceswere one reason, Power explained.

Another crucial point lies in the value of social andnatural amenities. “Some people, at least, are willing tosacrifice income to escape from congestion, crime, andpollution associated with large urban areas,” he said.“Some weird people are interested in open space, outdoorrecreation, opportunities for scenic beauty . . . and arewilling to sacrifice something in the pursuit of that.

“This helps us understand the economic power ofenvironmental quality,” added Power, who is a primeexample of someone who feels well compensated for alower income by the unique characteristics of where helives.

With an undergraduate degree in physics fromLehigh University, and a masters and a doctorate from

Princeton, Power had a choice of many better known universities inwhich to hang his academic hat. He made a conscious decision to set-tle in Montana, despite the relatively low pay, and has absolutely noregrets about it, he said in an interview.

“We’re incredibly more healthy because we’re feeding our kids onthe scenery,” said the father of an adult son and daughter.

In response to questions, Power drew parallels for the applicationof his economic theories in Alberta. Firstly, he noted, the impact of theenergy industry here is grossly exaggerated. Directly, it provides justfive per cent of the jobs in the province, he said.

Furthermore, the intense efforts to take out the oil and gas, no mat-ter where they’re found, will not last forever. Because supplies of con-ventional oil and gas are temporary, “it’s important for Albertans to saythere have to be limits on what they’re willing to sacrifice to get theenergy out of the ground . . . the damage to natural systems can be near-permanent.”

He sees the push for oil-sands development as a particularly per-nicious form of cowboy economics that even the U.S. has abandoned.“Do Albertans really want to take their wealth and invest it in econom-ically irrational projects that wouldn’t fly on their own (without gov-ernment subsidies)?” Government incentives to the pulp and paperindustry to harvest the province’s northern boreal forest offer anotherexample of false economics.

The perception we still have of plenty of unspoiled wilderness inAlberta beguiles politicians and others to keep pushing industrial devel-opment no matter what the environmental cost. “What’s coloured greenon the map is not necessarily protected,” he warned. “If you don’t act,you will lose it. Look at the more developed states and provinces. Youcan see where you’ll end up, and then it’s going to be too late.”

Montana Prof Shoots Down Economic“Myths” about Resource Extraction

By Andy Marshall

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002 Page 21

Peter Sherrington, host“These awards will ensure that [your]achievements will continue to inspire andencourage those to whom the challenge ofwilderness preservation has been passed.”

Mike MichalskyI am honored to accept this award on myfather’s behalf. I am sure he would have beenproud. It is nice to know that he inspired oth-ers with his love of the wilderness. A concernfor the seemingly unstoppable destruction ofour wildlands by the relentless hunger of theresource extraction industries gave my father motivation forhis actions. He was highly critical of the government’s mis-management of our public lands and natural resources. Hewas ever alert to the schemes hatched by those who woulddestroy precious habitat in an effort to make a fast dollar. Hespent countless hours drafting letters and organizing andattending meetings in opposition to those schemes. And hestressed the need to teach others to view our untouched wild-lands as a priceless heritage, not as a resource for our superconsumption. My family and I truly appreciate your (AWA)recognition of my father’s efforts to save our wild spaces.

Steve DixonThe picture of me on the plaque was taken byMike Dougherty, High River. On one of ourbackpacking trips up on the upper Highwoodmountains several years ago we found our-

selves surrounded by swarms of hum-mingbirds. A beautiful experience aswere so many of our trips. As a youngman I convinced Mike to accompanyme on some of my trips. He soon gotthe habit. We later used horses. Mikeand I are still getting in some trips. Itmakes life worth living.

Floyd StromstedtFloyd gave credit to Bill Michalsky forgetting him interested and involved inwilderness conservation and AWA.Before he left he told us a story abouta hunting trip he took with Bill. Bill’sdaughter Sue accompanied them; shewas 5 or 6 years old at the time. Onthat trip after Bill shot a deer, Sue

looked up at her father and asked, “Did it have to die?” Herfather replied stoically, “Without death, there is no life.”Confronted with this timeless truth, all Sue could say was,“Oh.”

ALBERTA WILDERNESS AND WILDLIFE TRUST:ANNUAL LECTURE AND AWARDS

This year’s Annual Lecture andAwards was an incredible success. Theevening featured a thought-provokingtalk by Dr. Thomas Power, chair andprofessor of the Dept. of Economics atthe University of Montana. He pre-sented ideas from his latest book PostCowboy Economics: Pay andProsperity in the New American West.He started by suggesting that theorganizers were either very coura-geous or very foolish to have an eco-

nomics talk in the evening after everyone had filled them-selves with wine and hors d’ouevres. However, his wit andhumour kept everyone on their toes. The annual lecture isan opportunity to present the ideas of researchers in a fieldrelated to conservation of wilderness. The lecture is meantto challenge us as well as to inform.

The lecture was preceded by this year’s Alberta

Wilderness Defenders Awards. These awards are dedicat-ed to individuals who have inspired us with their love ofAlberta’s wild lands, wild rivers and wildlife, and theirefforts and achievements for conservation. The threerecipients were all founding members of the AlbertaWilderness Association, from Bill Michalsky, the firstinterim president, Floyd Stromstedt, the first president,and Steve Dixon, who christened AWA with its name.Floyd and Steve were present to receive their awards andMike Michalsky accepted the award on his late father’sbehalf. During the past year, biographies on each recipienthave been published in Wild Lands Advocate. Each recipi-ent shared their thoughts and memories after they unveiledtheir plaques.

The Hillhurst Room of AWA’s Calgary office, wherewe hold this event, has a wall that will feature plaques ofall award winners, with their pictures and a short biogra-phical paragraph. An electronic version of this wall is onour website under Events.

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002Page 22

ASSOCIATION NEWSAWA WILDERNESS CELEBRATION:

MUCH MORE THAN JUST A FUNDRAISERBy John Geary

Every October business people, artists, community leaders,donors, and many others from across the province join AlbertaWilderness Association members, staff, and volunteers atAWA’s Annual Wilderness Celebration. Although they comefrom many different backgrounds, they all share one thing: alove of and belief in the inherent value of wilderness.

While the event serves as a fundraiser, the celebration’ssocial aspect is just as important. The people-nature connectionis very important, but so, too, is the people-people connection.

“I think one of the things the AWA does very well is forgethat personal connection with people,” says Christyann Olson,the Association’s executive director. “Whether at these eventsor just on a day-to-day basis with members and supporters, we

try to personalize who we are and what we’re doing.”That human connection is a key reason why the event

becomes bigger and better each year.Marilyn Unger had been to the dinner as a guest twice

before, but this year decided to volunteer for the first time.“It always seemed to be such a prestigious event that ran

like clockwork, so we assumed everyone involved in running itwereprofessionals,” she says. “I was really surprised anddelighted when I was asked if I would consider helping.

It was very rewarding.”While she does not help organize the event these days, for-

mer volunteer Rhonda Gallelli likes to stay involvedin other ways.

“I’ve gotten to know a lot of people at the AWA through theyears, and it’s nice to see them at the event,” she says. “I’ll con-tinue to go every year.”

“Because we’re able have a good mix of new volunteers

with volunteers who have been with us for a goodlength of time, we can maintain that level of success with newideas to increase interest in the event. One of the really difficultthings with these kinds of events is to maintain interest.

Deanne Ivany echoes that sentiment. A long-time volunteerorganizer who now attends as a guest, she says it’s for a greatcause and it’s a great way to catch up with old friends.

“The group of us that gets together are old volunteer organ-izers who’ve kept in touch throughout the years. If we don’t seeone another at any other time, there’s always the dinner.”

“We have awonderful, steadygroup of people —volunteers, donors,people who attendthe event — whosupport it and lookforward to it everyyear.”

Kathryn Manryhas been involved forfive years. Originallythe event’s artworkattracted her atten-tion, but she became a regular volunteer because of the fun shehas at the event.

“It’s a real feel-good evening,” she says. “So many thingsto do with wilderness and environmental concerns can be suchdowners, it’s nice to have an event that’s more of a celebration.”

Joann Wyvill, who has participated for four years, agrees.“It’s a nice evening with pleasant company, and it’s all for sucha good cause,” she says.

Patrick Cox participated in his first dinner this pastOctober. He says it exceeded his expectations.

“Not having been to one, I was not sure what to expect. Itwas quite a gala night.”

He says he looks forward to attending the event again.

Plentiful good food and fine wine entice guests

J.G

eary

KC the Bear always shows up- impressive as ever!

S. S

wet

tenh

am

Choosing items to bid on was a challenging choice

J.G

eary

David Galvin encouragesbidding in the live auction

J.G

eary

Judy Aldous- our fabulous emcee

J.G

eary

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002 Page 23

Candid CommentsOverheard at the CelebrationWith such a diverse group attending the dinner,

reasons for attending — aside from love ofwilderness — can vary widely. Listening to thecomments people make during the event can be

very interesting and entertaining… like the following comments, in quotations,

overheard at the event:

“The roast beef was great!”(For some, the plate’s the thing …)

“How could you let my husband buy that?”(Will this become another object relegated

to the garage?)

“I’ve never been on a dance floor in my life!”(In the dance of life, not all of us are destined

to be ballerinas … some of us have to becontent to be wallflowers.)

“I sure hope I win the day with Ian Tyson … “(If wishes were horses … Ian would have apretty big herd, and he’d be pretty busy …)

“What incredible displays!”(K.C. the Bear continues to impress!)

“This is the best ever!”(High praise indeed, especially when you con-sider volunteers had only half the usual time

in which to set up for the event.)

pring 200

Celebration

S 3Wil

dern

ess

Partygoers were swinging to the music of the Dino Martinislate into the night

J.G

eary

You are invited to a springcelebration of Wild Alberta

Join us for an evening of fine drink,good food and exciting entertainment

Swing to great music

Compete in excitingauctions and unique raffles

Presentation by Ben Gadd,Jasper author and naturalist

March 8, 2003

Auction viewing6:30Entertainmentbegins 7:00

Royal Glenora Club,Edmonton

Tickets $75.00

455 - 12 St. NW, Calgary, AB T2N 1Y9Phone: (403) 283-2025Fax: (403) 270-2743Email: awa.ava@shaw.cawww.AlbertaWilderness.ca

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002Page 24

Each year the Alberta WildernessAssociation is honoured by the dedicationand immeasurable support of many volun-teers from every corner of the province.During the month of December, we taketime to reflect on the many elements of ourwork that simply could not occur withoutthe assistance of our volunteers. Everyaspect of our day-to-day activities as an

association depends in some way on volunteers. From our dedi-cated Board of Directors, to our critics and defenders, to ourcommunity liaisons and our colleagues who share their expertiseand skills day-to-day, we are dependent on you and we thankyou!

“You make a living bywhat you do, and you make alife by what you give” is whatvolunteerism means to me. Thestaff of AWA give to the visionand values of this associationand recognize what volunteersgive us. During this past yearvolunteers have contributedmore than 10,000 hours that wehave counted and countlessothers that we have not kept

track of. What a wonderful legacy!When asked why they volunteer, the

responses are as varied as the individualswho make the commitment to share theirtime with AWA. The role of the volunteer inAWA is increasingly important as we growand strengthen our ability to “Defend WildAlberta” — we cannot succeed withoutvolunteers.

We have had a full year with manynew and exciting opportunities. We areespecially encouraged by the environmentalcitizenship and sincere interest of manyAlbertans in issues related to defendingWild Alberta. There are many examples ofsuccess for AWA this past year that weattribute to the support

of volunteers. The completion of our WildAlberta map was a significant accomplish-ment, and late in November, the map wonthird place in a cartography competition heldat Calgary’s City Hall in conjunction withGIS days. The map would not have been pos-sible without volunteers!

VOLUNTEERS — MAKING A LIFE BY WHAT THEY GIVEChristyann Olson, Executive Director

Profile: Rob RonconiHello. I’m happy to be joining the

Alberta Wilderness Association in Calgarywhere I will be working part-time withAWA to help develop a plan for monitoringrecreation and human use in Alberta’s

beautiful Bighorn Wildland Recreation Area. It’s great to beback in Alberta after a two-year absence since I graduated fromthe University of Alberta with a degree in environmental sci-ences. Between then and now I’ve been back and forth fromOntario (my home) to New Brunswick.

New Brunswick has been my home away from home forthe past seven years where I return every summer to GrandManan Island. On Grand Manan I’ve worked my way up theranks from research assistant to senior staff with the GrandManan Whale and Seabird Research Station. We study harbourporpoises and help local fishermen to release porpoises thatbecome trapped in fishing gear.

My recent passion, however, has been the seabirds. For thepast three years I have been working on independent seabirdresearch on Grand Manan and I plan to pursue graduate stud-ies relating to seabird research next year. Until I can return tothe sea I’m happy to be back in Alberta and working with AWAon this project. If anybody has any info or input on OHV orsnowmobile use in our wildlands I would love to hear fromyou. Write rronconi@yahoo.com.

Profile: Ann MarieBarnhill

Hello! My name is Ann MarieBarnhill and I am happy to be the eventmanager for the 12th annual Climb forWilderness (Saturday, April 19, 2003 —

mark your calendar now!). So far I have been busy puttingtogether a big plan, requesting sponsorship, structuring mediaplans, and working on promotional materials.

My background is quite varied. I have been lucky to beinvolved in many exciting nature projects including theSunalta Wildflower Garden, Sunalta SchoolyardNaturalization Project, and Breaking Ground Conference2002. I also have worked as the National Program Manager atAT&T Canada and in many roles over 13 years in theInformation Services department at the Canadian PacificRailway (which explains the computer science degree).

I love working at AWA…the people are great and the issuesare important. I look forward to seeing you all at the CalgaryTower!

Alysha deBruyn

Rod, Dan, Vivian

Mel, Deanne

Joanne Wyville

Heather Sloan

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002 Page 25

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENTThe spiritual home for many Albertans lies in their wild lands, waters, and species. In my 25 years of association with

the AWA, I have never seen so much uncertainty about the future of Alberta’s wilderness, despite the fact that we are enjoy-ing great public support. The AWA is where it always has been, on the front lines, working tirelessly for wilderness andwildlife protection.

Despite the gloomy mood, there have been significant victories for wilderness and wildlife. We have madeheadway by:

• raising the alarm about the impending invasion of off-highway vehicles into the Prime Protection Zone at the Bighornand the

implications this has for all of the Eastern Slopes

• protecting the South Saskatchewan River Canyon by successfully defeating the proposed Meridian Dam and inchingcloser to

the establishment of the Suffield National Wildlife Area

• helping to set the bar by which forest companies will be certified and continuing to build alliances in the marketplace toprotect Alberta’s wild foothills and boreal forests like the Little Smoky, Lakeland, and Liege

• being at the forefront of an initiative to protect and restore large blocks of native grassland and associated wildlife in SEAlberta

• educating Albertans on wild land issues through the Wild Lands Advocate, outreach programs, and field tours

• mapping our areas of concern

• refining a definition of wilderness for government planning processes

• maintaining Alberta’s premier resource centre for wild land issues

The AWA is a special group of people who have an amazing history. I can think of no other conservation organizationthat has done more to protect wildlands and wildlife in Alberta. In addition to our traditional work along the Eastern Slopesin the Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative, we defend wild grasslands and parklands of southern Alberta as well as the borealforest and foothills through central and northern portions of the province. We have a talented and dedicated staff and hun-dreds of volunteers who work on everything from our conservation programs to keeping an eye on our finances and stag-ing events. This work is as tough as it gets, and it takes a long time to see results. The support we receive from our indi-vidual members and from environmentally-conscious businesses is a big boost morally and financially.

The AWA has a constantly growing support base, and we have increased the level of media attention to wilderness andwildlife issues. Our association with wildcanada.net in environmental citizenship is just one of many ways we are fresh-ening our approach to wildland protection.

There is indeed much to celebrate. We have been instrumental in protecting wildlands in every corner of Alberta. Ourpresence means that future generations will continue to enjoy the many benefits from wildlife and wilderness. But it is notenough to rest on our laurels and enjoy what we have protected. We must continue to both confront and work side by sidewith industry, ranchers, and government to secure more protection. The AWA is your voicefor the wilderness. We will continue to pursue many creative ways of defending Alberta’swildlands so that we may be worthy of your continued support.

Cliff WallisPresident

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002Page 26

Alberta has some of the most pristine wilderness andalluring natural areas in the world. The preservation of ourwilderness cannot be taken for granted; we must take anactive role. For some of us, it means day-to-day vigilanceand an unending quest for greater education and awarenessby the public and decision makers; for others it is a com-mitment of time or a gift of money to support the leader-ship of others. The Alberta Wilderness Association is ded-icated to protecting wilderness for our future and leaving awilderness legacy.

Planning for a wilderness legacy depends on individualslike you and me who care about our environment and ourwilderness. It seems to me that as time passes, we all rec-ognize and develop a greater understanding of the need forwilderness. I invite all those interested in leaving a wilder-ness legacy to be part of the Alberta WildernessAssociation Planned Giving Program, and be a part ofmaking the dream of wilderness for tomorrow come true.

Our Planned Giving Program includes Gifts inMemoriam, Bequests, Gifts of Property, Life Insurance,and the Alberta Wilderness and Wildlife Trust endowmentfund.

Gifts in Memoriam — Through the years a number offamilies have requested that in lieu of flowers, donationsbe made to Alberta Wilderness Association. All donorsreceive charitable tax receipts and are recognized for theirgifts. The family is notified of the friends who have sup-ported their request for gifts in memoriam to AWA. A giftin remembrance and celebration of a life that has touchedour own is a meaningful tribute. AWA has developedmemorial plaques that list those who have been remem-bered in this way. The plaques hang on the wall of theHillhurst Room in the provincial offices in Calgary.

Bequests — A carefully drafted will gives each of us thepower to make choices that truly represent our own life cir-cumstances and values. A bequest to the AlbertaWilderness Association by naming the Association as abeneficiary of your will can be a very meaningful gift foryou and your family. Some feel this is the easiest way toleave a lasting impact and build a wilderness legacy.

Gifts of Property — The donation of property, includingart or collectibles, may be considered for a charitable in-kind tax receipt, in accordance with Canada Customs andRevenue Agency rules.

Gifts of Life Insurance — A gift of a life insurance poli-cy is a means to make a significant contribution from a rel-atively small investment.

Alberta Wilderness and Wildlife Trust Endowment —The Alberta Wilderness and Wildlife Trust is an endow-ment fund established by the Alberta WildernessAssociation with the Calgary Foundation to support thelong-term sustainability of AWA. The fund was initiated in1986 as a memorial tribute to Orval Pall. Throughout theyears, benefits and contributions to the fund by family andfriends have allowed the fund to grow. Other families seek-ing to remember their own loved ones found solace andstrength in devoting resources to the endowment fundestablished to support the protection of wilderness inAlberta. In 2000 on the 15th anniversary of the fund, AWAestablished the Alberta Wilderness and Wildlife Trust aspart of AWA’s planned giving program. The AlbertaWilderness and Wildlife Trust supports wilderness pro-grams and research that contribute to the protection, under-standing, and appreciation of wilderness, wild rivers, andwildlife.

The continued success of AWA programs and servicesdepends on the generous gifts and contributions of manyindividual citizens, corporations, and others. We would bepleased to discuss the programs and endowment fundoptions that we have available. Please call me at the AWAoffice (403) 283-2025 or visit our website atAlbertaWilderness.ca.

LEAVING A WILDERNESS LEGACYChristyann Olson, Executive Director

© Frank Beebe

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002 Page 27

CALGARYLocation: The Hillhurst Room,

AWA, 455 12th St NWTime: 7:00 – 9:00 p.m.Cost: $5.00 per personContact: 403-283-2025 for reservations

Tuesday January 14, 2003When do you let the animals out? A fun look at wildlifewatching in the Rockieswith Michael Kerr

Michael Kerr is a naturalist, international conference speakerand the former communications manager for Banff NationalPark. His wildlife stories and insights were recently featuredon a nine-part CBC radio series. He is the author of TheCanadian Rockies Guide to Wildlife Watching and When DoYou Let the Animals Out? A Field Guide to Rocky MountainHumour. Over the years he has had the honour of imitating apika on the Discovery Channel, an elk on CBC radio and amoose on CNN.

Tuesday, January 28, 2003Alberta’s Wilderness Past and Present: An Evening withAWA Founder Steve DixonSteve Dixon has been described as one of the spark plugs in theearly formation of the Alberta Wilderness Association in the1960s. His concerns about human overpopulation and the lossof wildlife and natural areas prompted an enthusiastic and vocif-erous advocacy for preserving wilderness values. An avidhunter, he applied his conservationist principles to his farmingoperation east of High River. Steve will be looking back at thechanges that have taken place in wilderness protection inAlberta since the 1960s.

Tuesday, February 4, 2003Bear Stories: Three Generations of Bow Valley GrizzliesWith Colleen CampbellColleen Campbell has been tracking grizzly bears for 10 years.She has worked as a field researcher for the Eastern SlopesGrizzly Bear Project and the Central Rockies Wolf Project. Atalented wildlife artist and educator, Colleen has a life passionto teach people about bears so that through increased knowl-edge, bears will be protected into the future.

Tuesday, March 25, 2003NatureScaping — Creating and Caring for WildlifeHabitat at HomeWith Myrna PearmanMyrna Pearman has worked as a biologist at the Ellis Bird Farmnear Lacombe since 1987. She is currently working to establishthe Bird Farm as a demonstration backyard wildlife habitat site,using many of the principles laid out in her NatureScape book.Myrna received the 1991 Loran L. Goulden Memorial Awardfrom the Federation of Alberta Naturalists and a NatureEducator of the year award from the Roger Tory PetersonInstitute of Natural History in 1992.

Tuesday, April 29, 2003Bumblebees in AlbertaWith Dr. Robin OwenRobin Owen is a dedicated and enthusiastic biologist, a full-time member of the Department of Chemical, Biological &Environmental sciences at Mount Royal College in Calgary, anda professor of biological sciences at the University of Calgary.He has had a long-term interest in bumblebees and their biolo-gy and ecology, and has also “dabbled” with leafcutter bees andsweat bees.

Alberta Wilderness Action CommitteeBy Tamaini Snaith

AWA is pleased to announce our new initiative, theALBERTA WILDERNESS ACTION COMMITTEE. This com-mittee is designed to provide meaningful opportunities forenthusiastic volunteers throughout the province. We have anumber of projects waiting for your input and assistance.

One of the exciting opportunities for Committee memberswill be to take part in ALBERTA WILDERNESS WATCH. Weintroduced you to ALBERTA WILDERNESS WATCH in theJune 2002 issue of the Advocate. We’re just starting to get ourstewardship and monitoring programs off the ground. We havehired Rob Ronconi to help us develop our initial plan for mon-itoring wilderness.

The objective is to monitor the status of wilderness inAlberta, document negative effects of human use, and findpractical and creative solutions to protect wilderness fromdegradation through inappropriate use.

Please contact me if you are interested in joining theALBERTA WILDERNESS ACTION COMMITTEE.

OPEN HOUSE TALKS PROGRAM — FALL 2002

Editorial Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the various authors inthis publication are not necessarily those of the editors or the AWA. Theeditors reserve the right to edit, reject or withdraw articles submitted.

Editorial Board:Shirley Bray, Ph.DPeter Sherrington, Ph.DAndy MarshallJoyce HildebrandGraphic Designer:Crystal CochranePrinter:MRC Document Services

Web Host: qbiz.ca

Please direct questionsand comments to:Shirley BrayPhone: 270-2736Fax: 270-2743awa.wrc@shaw.cawww.AlbertaWilderness.ca

Corrections for the June 2002 issue:page 3: Canadian Mountain Holidays head

office is in Banff, not Canmore.

For all the

latest news,

check our

website:

www.AlbertaWilderness.ca

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 6 • December 2002Page 28

The Alberta Wilderness AssociationBox 6398, Station D

Calgary, Alberta T2P 2E1

Canadian Publications Mail Product Sales AgreementNo. 485535 • ISSN# 1192 6287

"Our quality of life, our health, and a healthy economy are totally dependent on Earth's biological diversity. We cannot replicate natural ecosystems. Protected areas are internationally recognized as the most efficient way to maintain biological diversity"

- RichardThomasThe Alberta Wilderness Association (AWA) is dedicated to protecting wildlands,wildlife and wild waters throughout Alberta. Your valued contribution will assist with allareas of the AWA's work. We offer the following categories for your donation. TheProvincial Office of the AWA hosts wall plaques recognizing donors in the "Associate" orgreater category. Please give generously to the conservation work of the AWA.

Alberta Wilderness and Wildlife Trust - an endowment fund established with TheCalgary Foundation to support the long-term sustainability of the Alberta WildernessAssociation. For further details, please contact our Calgary office (403) 283-2025.

Membership - Lifetime AWA Membership $25 Single $30 Family

Cheque Visa M/C Amount $ Card #: Expiry Date:Name:Address:City/Prov. Postal Code:Phone (home): Phone (work):E-mail: Signature

I wish to join the Monthly Donor Programme!I would like to donate $_________monthly. Here is my credit card number OR my voidedcheque for bank withdrawal. I understand that monthly donations are processed on the 1st ofthe month (minimum of $5 per month).

Alberta WildernessResource Centre

Patron - greater than $1000Benefactor $1000Partner $500Friend $100

Alberta WildernessAssociation

Wilderness Circle $2500 - $5000Philanthropist $1000Sustainer $500Associate $250Supporter $100Sponsor $50Other ________________________

S U P P O R T A L B E R T A W I L D E R N E S S

The AWA respects the privacy of members. Lists are not sold or traded in any manner. The AWA is a federally registered charity and functions through member and donor support. Tax-deductible donationsmay be made to the Association at: Box 6398 Station D, Calgary, AB T2P 2E1. Telephone (403) 283-2025 Fax (403) 270-2743 E-mail a.w.a@shaw.ca Website http://www.AlbertaWilderness.ca

Wild Lands Advocate –The Leading EdgeWild Lands Advocate has producedoriginal leading edge stories that havebeen picked up by other media. Forexample, our story on the NorthernPlains Conservation Network byAndy Marshall in the August 2002issue led to a story in the CalgaryHerald (although their reportermissed the point of the Network byfeaturing it as an ecotourism project).Our story on public consultation byAndy Marshall in the October 2002issue led to a request for a similarstory by Andy in Business Edge (Nov21-27, 2002). One of the things westrive to do is bring you stories thatcan be found nowhere else and repre-sent the voices of Albertans. The edi-torial board would like to thank all ourcontributors who have made the WildLands Advocate such a success thispast year.

© Frank Beebe