CPR has done it again!

[brian]

Keith D: I am interested in your work on resolving agricultural / community conflicts. Please contact me at gardner@telusplanet.net so we can discuss this. Rob

[edbaker]

We live between Olds and Three Hills and there is a great deal of concern in the Three Hills area about this same issue. From what I read in the Three Hills paper two main concerns are first the soil is contaminated along some of the abandoned lines and by giving it away the CPR is absolved of responsibility for clean up. The other concern is the liability issue for landowners surrounding the trails. If someone wanders off a trail and injures themselves it seems that the landowner may be liable. Based on the newspaper story there is going to be a public hearing on the matter.

[brian]

The CPR line through Acme, Linden, Torrington & Wimborne has be there since 1929. How have the landowners been able to work their land with the rails and trains running? If they had cattle, didn't they have fences to keep their cattle segregated from the trains? With the TrailNet system, I'm sure the landowner would still have fences. The trail users in the main are not interested in wandering off the trail (Railway ROW) unless there is something of special interest. The landowner would know of this special interest and should contact the TrailNet organization to work out a plan that would be a win win for all. Perhaps the special interest could be an additional revenue business for the landowner & family & community. The trial users are people who have had in their past a connection to the rural community and would like to for recreation, have a place where they can experience for a day or two something of their heritage. The TraiNet system offers them that. If you are a landowner, have children and possibly grandchildren that no longer live @ hame but somewhre that a rural outing is not easy to achieve, but if the TrailNet system was near your home, they would possibly opt to come home & use the TrailNet system rather than going to Banff, Waterton or some other area where trails are a popular part of the park. Those parks are becoming so heavly used, they are becoming a problem for people to enjoy their use due to overcrowding and restrictions as to their use. Each community, towns, landowners, community groups, businesses and citizens have their own say into how their section of the trail is to be used. If you wish to restrict the use to hiking and Mountain bikes only, you have the control to make it so. I encourage all persons who live in the community, own land, operate abusiness, or are a current user to all come togetherto form a workable plan that will benefit everyone. We have lost too much of our environment to use by they wild animals, forests for the birds and just natural areas for people to enjoy, that we must look at this as a sanctuary that is worth the effort to hold onto. Lets look at all sides of this before we loose something that we will never be able to replace & our childrens childrens will never be able to enjoy.

[brian]

In past experience with snowmobilers in rallies and such, they absolutely do NOT stay on posted trails, and very seldom even ask permission before staking trails and traversing private land. The anonimity they enjoy from being stangers in a sparsely populated area seems to breed a contemptuous disregard for anybody but themselves. As far as public recreation areas being in short supply, the fact is that about 70% of all land in Alberta is publicly owned, with free access to almost all of it. Regarding fences, trains, etc. CPR abandoned our line 70 years ago, and has done no maintenance nor have they made any attempt to clean it up since then. There have been several cases in the courts lately where farmers have been successfuly sued by "recreationists" for personal injury both with AND without permission granted for access. I just spoke with Faye Engler, secretary of Cosway adjacent landowners , about a meeting of all concerned parties to be held in Three hills Community centre at 7:30 pm june 21. I would encourage all farmers to attend whether you are directly affected or not, as this could set a very dangerous precedent! If anyone would like further information, Faye can be reached at 780 459 5141, or I can be contacted at 780 879 3760 or e-mail Faye <englerh@connect.ab.ca> Paul pvaj@telusplanet.net I am looking forward to meeting many of you there, and thankyou for your interest!

[brian]

Very good point Paul! I hope land owners from all over the province will take the time to attend the meeting in Three Hills on June 21. People do not realize that even though there may not be a trail planned for their area at this time, TrailNet has stated that they will be targeting public land holdings, abandoned rail lines, irrigation canals, utility easements, oil and gas pipelines, communication networks, and power transmission lines. Alberta TrailNet hope to have a provincial trail network of approximately 4500 km. at an estimated cost of $25 to $45 million. With plans like that any one could be affected and it is best to have some information on what is occuring in other parts of the province before it happens to you. Three Hills Community Hall 7:30 pm Monday June 21, 1999 Find out where your tax dollars are beening spent.

[brian]

I have been following this conversation for a little while. I am curious to know how the meeting in Three Hills went yesterday? If anyone who attended can update me - I would appreciate it. <b> Jory Lamb

[brian]

There were about 250 people at the meeting Representatives from Provincial, Municipal and Town Gov'ts were there. Most points that were made had merit but some points or examples were not in context. For instance one speaker spoke of fires started by a person driving around with a flare gun starting fires. Another instance was a fire started by a Transalta power transformer. Both instnces were unrelated to fires that were caused by users of any trail system. This type of mininformation doesn't help resolve differences it only adds to make arguments against the TrailNet system sound paranoid. The main concern was that the TrailNet organization has not contactd the adjacent landowners. This is a valid point. As such it has caused much of the negative position to the TrailNet to expand as the information that the landowners is mostly rumor and very little fact. CPR has not helped with the situation as they feel that they don't have any further responsibilities. They do under the environment protection act to clean up and restore lands that are contaminated and cannot be used for any use. In the meeting it was expressed that everyone concerned shuold write to their government representatives about their position and suggestions. With much of the people being present being of senior age, they didn't represent the overall population that would be directly affected. More input is required to get the full picture of the position of the landowners, commuinities and users (about 90% of the users will be from the local communities).

[brian]

I, too was in attendance at the three hills meeting, and though I was disappointed with the representation from our area, I was heartened by the local interest in this issue. As the trailnet seems to want to keep adjacent landowmers in the dark as much as possible, I wasn't too surprised to find other farmers on our line completely unaware of this project as recently as this past weekend. As many farmers in our area are very busy with spraying, cattle, etc. most were unable to attend [a 2 hour drive didn't help, either.] In Brian's reference to fires being irrelevant, that's not the case as he was referring to instances of eco-terrorism by such people as trail users. Another lady had just returned from England where she had discussed concerns of adjacent farmers there who described instances of dead and injured livestock from trail users and their dogs, as well as acts of vandalism and theft. Another lady from the Calgary area reported similar instances on her farm. Many town and county councillors were there and voiced concerns of these trails being downloaded to them when the original sponsera tire of maintaining the trails, as they are already overburdened financially. Our concerns of fencing isues and liability were very smoothly sidestepped by Mr. Gardner and Gunson, as they had the attitude that all these problems would "work themselves out" A couple of things I have noticed however, is Brian's low profile at the meeting, as he certainly never stood up to tout all the "benifits" of the trail at the meeting, as well the conspicuous absence of his e-mail address on this forum. If you would like any more details on the meeting, or anything else pertaining, please e-mail or call me 780 879 3760 and I would be very happy to answer any questions. And to Brian or Rob, I would like sometime to meet personally, and see if we can't honestly work together to address these concerns in a less hostile environment.

[edbaker]

Paul,
Re: Your concern a couple of years ago about Trailnet and abandoned rail lines

Sorry to hear that you folks next to abandoned rail lines seem to be getting new tenants ("tenants", my foot - "owners") next door with little consultation.

As for the fellow who said to get rid of aggressive animals, if some teacher had given him trouble when he was in school and his Mom came to raise hell, should action have been taken to have gotten rid of her, as well?

Granted, the comparison that I mention is not an absolute parallel!

Maybe should have hired a herder to watch over the kid.

Maybe hire him as consultant to select out aggressive animals from a herd - and bear liability if his judgement was wrong - then show him the difference between a placid cow last week and one protecting her offspring, this week.

Some folks would be well advised to learn of other points of view with regard to a situation before they shoot off their mouths!

Hope you've been able to have some of your real concerns taken into serious consideration.

It does seem that people who had their enjoyment of their property greatly interfered with because of the original line following straight paths should have a right to reconstitute their land when the original public need no longer applies I think of the guy with the line running through his farmyard.

Also, it's a serious concern that the adjacent landowner has recently been made fully responsible for fencing along the right of way. What happened to dual responsibility?

Congratulations to you for successfully keeping your cool in the midst of this situation. Rather a tall order.

Though I live in southwestern Ont., my brother, a recently minted senior with a son who has no interest in farming is winding down a farm operation near Regina - and some of his (bare) land is near an abandoned rail line. Ed Baker