Waterton area subdivision

[Muttley]

Deb:
I have been thinking about this all day. With all the animal rights people out there collecting billions for their cause why couln't you look at getting donations to save a certain area.
I don't believe in saving it though unless it is a place that is home to nature. What I mean is it needs to be more than just a pretty sight. It needs to benefit nature and our history.
There must be some way to organize a group that could except donations towards preserving land. I don't mean some that are out there doing it in the name of wildlife that don't even live on that land, but doing for the joy of keeping nature.
There is lot's more places developers could promote and you could work with them to. They stay out of one area and you let them develop without hassle in another.

[cowman]

Deb: Why is it so wrong for the Waterton subdivision to go ahead? How much native habitat is it really destroying? How many animals and plant species? Would it be better to build houses in the river valleys? People have to live somewhere, right?
You seem to be opposed to the people buying the subdivisions. Why? Maybe they are only following their dream. I would suspect most of these people weren't born rich but through their own efforts have accumulated the funds to buy their little part of the rural lifestyle. Would you deny them this right?
I do understand where you are coming from but we have to have some common sense here too. I'd be more concerned about the Bow valley than about some bald prairie down near Waterton.

[Deb]

You are right. The Nature Conservancy buys up good habitat and it would be worth it to have a fundraising drive to help them buy out some of the ranchers on the east slopes of the Rockies who want to sell anyway. The foothills and east Rocky Mountain slopes is so necessary for wildlife that depend on ranches as migratory routes so they can get from one area to another during calving/breeding time, seasonal food searching, etc. Bears and wolves need huge areas to roam and little Waterton Park ( only 525 sq km) is not big enough so these animals have to cross ranches to get back into the mountains to earn their livings. Waterton has probably one of the richest habitats in Alberta because it has so many different ecosystems. The ranches next to it are equally rich and that's why they should be reserved for ranching. Ranchers know that if they keep their grazing land in good condition with lots of biodiversity in plant-life, then the grazing will be good for their cattle as well. Proper grazing is compatable with wildlife preservation.

[Deb]

Cowman, there is a subdivision of a ranch further back to the east of the park several miles, that is just being developed now and nobody is objecting to that as far as I know. The ranchers opposing Garner's subdivision beside the park gates are not objecting to the one further east because there isn't as much habitat there and it is closer to the hamlet of Mountain View. They have no objections to houses being built near the existing hamlets in the area.

But to build 23 mansions at the gates of the national park, in prime habitat, beside the Waterton River, is likely to spoil not only the view, but migratory routes for wildlife (yes, lots of wildlife -- I was there 5 days ago and saw a herd of 600 elk), and 23 houses would amount to a small village covering the same square footage of the town of Waterton! That specific area is right at a narrow half-mile strip where herds of elk, for example, move back up and down and along the Waterton river.

In Colorado and Montana the east slopes of the Rockies are filled with mansions now and the only reminder of wildlife is the names of the sub-divisions and paved roads all over former wildlife habitat (things like Wolf Road, Deer Run, Pine View Estates, etc. few of those animals and plants are there anymore! My cousin says you can see some of the wildlife lying flat as a board on the edge of roads.) The people moved there because it was beautiful once and now it looks like any other city subdivision. Ranchers here shudder at the thought of Longview or Lundbreck or Pncher Creek or Waterton areas ending up like that.

The people who buy these estates by Waterton may move there permanently but it may only be their holiday retreat. They won't be moving into a "rural community" but merely buying real estate like any other commodity (called commercialization of place). They have no roots there, they will have the city attitude of individualism, not close-knit community support. It's also heavy-duty Mormon country which adds a whole different dimension which I better not go into here!

The other factor is that as I mentioned, the Waterton River flows past this sub-division and the water in the river has already been totally, if not over allocated and there has been no water license issued to this developer yet. They may not be allowed to drill wells because of the affect on the water table and the neighbour's use of it. This still needs more study.

Man 'o' Man Team Canada scored AGAIN! Yahoooo!!

Where was I? That's enough I guess.

Holy cow Team Canada won!!!!!!! Celebration time!

[cowman]

Deb: You obviously know more about the situation than I do. I guess in the end it will be up to the duly elected municipal government to make the decision and people will just have to abide by that.
I would think having 600 elk tramping over your grass would not be a good thing??? Maybe the ranchers are the rich people trying to preserve a good thing?
I'm a little shocked that you would make a judgement about 23 families and lump them all together as having unpure motives. Have you met these people?