Alberta 'Optimizing' Parks

[AndyL]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yeah, I had it in my mind that they lost the contract at some point. I know they kept the website up. Maybe I was just wrong, or maybe that one guy I talked to just got fired and I misunderstood?

I wasn't aware of that discussion, must be in the other thread. Wouldn't surprise me if it was killed under NDP,
I know one of their workcampers waiting to hear back. Pretty sure I saw their usual site for the last decade+ on FB so, I'd lean to I don't think anything changed. Unless the province hired them on in the same role? But I'm pretty sure the government would insist on paying them a lot more than they are accustomed to.

[Thaco]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A bunch of the parks are already privately managed and run. All down 940 into the crowsnest is one operator I can think of. No you can't book it on the Alberta government website. So that doesn't change.

Why they'd not setup a lease on say chain lakes for the season - I could pull that operation together by may 1st... That's a big one to close. That's stupid.

Why does it cost us 5million to run these though? Should be revenue positive.

I don't think the Ontario government sets any tracks for skiing in their province - the Nordic center is one thing but the users groups do it elsewhere...

its not the chain lakes you think, it's a park with the same name way up north by slave lake.

[AndyL]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

its not the chain lakes you think, it's a park with the same name way up north by slave lake.

ok, I couldn't see shutting down the one on #22. Would be like shutting down the one in Lake Louise... Wasn't aware of a second of the same name.

Doesn't change things - there's rural groups that would/could pickup the maintenance - how much of BCs inventory of campgrounds are maintained by local reserves and small local operators...

[ExtraSlow]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I wasn't aware of that discussion, must be in the other thread. Wouldn't surprise me if it was killed under NDP,
I know one of their workcampers waiting to hear back. Pretty sure I saw their usual site for the last decade+ on FB so, I'd lean to I don't think anything changed. Unless the province hired them on in the same role? But I'm pretty sure the government would insist on paying them a lot more than they are accustomed to.

Website has been up continuously. Although, once you have a site up, just keeping it static isn't particularly expensive.

[Brent.ff]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

ok, I couldn't see shutting down the one on #22. Would be like shutting down the one in Lake Louise... Wasn't aware of a second of the same name.

Doesn't change things - there's rural groups that would/could pickup the maintenance - how much of BCs inventory of campgrounds are maintained by local reserves and small local operators...

What rural groups? Half of these are at least an hour, if not two, from any minor or major centre.. They definitely won't pick up the maintenance on the PRAs that have zero revenue associated with them. Garbage cans do serve a purpose on the landscape..

[AndyL]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What rural groups? Half of these are at least an hour, if not two, from any minor or major centre.. They definitely won't pick up the maintenance on the PRAs that have zero revenue associated with them. Garbage cans do serve a purpose on the landscape..

Half of BCs back country sites are run that way - if your contract includes maintenance of the nearby PRA as part of the campground lease - then you do it.

Lots of rural areas still have people seeking work/income. It's not as big of a challenge as you make it out to be.

[Brent.ff]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Half of BCs back country sites are run that way - if your contract includes maintenance of the nearby PRA as part of the campground lease - then you do it.

Lots of rural areas still have people seeking work/income. It's not as big of a challenge as you make it out to be.

So then farm it out that way, but dont sell public land to private interests..I'm pretty sure ive seen non-AEP trucks cleaning up the PRAs along the highwood river, so it's already going that way. Giving opportunity for 'third-partys' to purchase public lands is a stupid idea.

[ExtraSlow]

I can agree that actually selling the land is bad.

[AndyL]

Depends...

If it was sold with landtitles restrictions, it's always to be open to Albertans, with oversight on development by Alberta parks (think less ominous but much like Parks Canada oversight in Banff) it's possible it could be a good thing for Alberta...

Private operator - invests in marketing, more tourism, invests in yurts, hookups and other accomodations that the government likely wouldn't otherwise. Reasonable road maintenance would be required to attract the users. Could choose to invest in track setting for more winter use, stables to attract the equine crowd - whatever they choose - private industry does pretty good at finding those niches don't you think?

Toss a rider in for land sales to go back to Alberta parks under pre-agreed terms etc...

[Brent.ff]

So why sell, and not just lease under a parks disposition, as in what Banff does..

I think the main issue is the UCP seeing Parks as a revenue generator. It's not one, and has never been one. The point of parks is to protect the areas, and getting albertans out to enjoy them. The money that is created tangentially through people's use far outweighs any of their budgets. How much money is spent at MEC each year for people headed out cross country skiing at PLPP each year?

[AndyL]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So why sell, and not just lease under a parks disposition, as in what Banff does..

I think the main issue is the UCP seeing Parks as a revenue generator. It's not one, and has never been one. The point of parks is to protect the areas, and getting albertans out to enjoy them. The money that is created tangentially through people's use far outweighs any of their budgets. How much money is spent at MEC each year for people headed out cross country skiing at PLPP each year?

With the political instability - would one want to lease from the government? Not like they've repeatedly changed the rules in all areas repeatedly...

There's ways forward - I don't see it as the end of the world. Depending on how it's managed it could be awesome. But then that requires faith in the government handling things reasonably.

[blitz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can agree that actually selling the land is bad.

Selling land to fund an annual operating budget seems like a very short sighted view.

[Thaco]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Selling land to fund an annual operating budget seems like a very short sighted view.

everything our governments do is shortsighted, 4 year terms, that's all they look forward to, the next election.

[mr2mike]

Selling land??

In before land is discovered to be on heritage burial sites.

[dirtsniffer]

Nixon states that no parks are being sold.

https://twitter.com/JasonNixonAB/sta...97205399224320

[davidI]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nixon states that no parks are being sold.

https://twitter.com/JasonNixonAB/sta...97205399224320

More: https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...hajLdDuzmZjNdI

I love watching how triggered people get before even doing basic research to learn the facts.

[Brent.ff]

Well, no. He states that Albertans will have access to crown land. The Park partnership page specifically says that they could be turned over to a third party (therefore, no longer crown land). They only become crown land if no one wants them. He is backing off by saying 'oh it will be a lease'. Why hasnt the page been updated to that? Cant be that hard..

Then again, he also says he trusts albertans to be responsible.... Anyone who has seen Indian Graves or McLean Creek on may long knows otherwise. Hell the PCs knew otherwise:
https://www.pressreader.com/canada/c...82428459758851

- - - Updated - - -

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

More: https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...hajLdDuzmZjNdI

.

Posting a link to Corbella and 'facts' in the same paragraph is laughable at best. You'll note that the only news person Nixon has talked to is Corbella, for good reason.. Also, calling Nixon an avid outdoorsmen is laughable. Avid poacher, maybe

[davidI]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Well, no. He states that Albertans will have access to crown land. The Park partnership page specifically says that they could be turned over to a third party (therefore, no longer crown land). They only become crown land if no one wants them. He is backing off by saying 'oh it will be a lease'. Why hasnt the page been updated to that? Cant be that hard..

Lease ≠ Sale.

Where was the announcement the Province was selling freehold surface land rights?

[Thaco]

Just because it isnt "sold", doesnt mean it wont be developed.

[AndyL]

Better development in campgrounds might not be a bad thing... Adding hookups, making the site's reasonable to accomodate modern RVs... Reasonable responsible development under oversight isn't a bad thing... Definitely would aid in improving tourism - as we've got a reputation for being hard to book trips ahead of time for these RV tour types.