CPR has done it again!

[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