Waterton area subdivision

[Deb]

The Garner subdivision of ranchland into 23 lots by the Waterton Lakes National Park will probably go ahead.

The lots will probably cover about the same area as the Waterton town site. The ranchers in the area concerned about protecting agricultural land and wide open spaces next to the national park are very disappointed.

They are worried that the east slopes of the Rockies here in Alberta will become wall to wall mansions owned by urbanites.

Do you think that private property rights should always supercede the rights of society as a whole? Should a person be able to do whatever they want with their land? What do you think?

We used to have regional planning, right? What happened?

[cowman]

I think most people are all for preserving farm and ranch land as long as they don't own it! Now it's just dandy to try to stop your neighbor from selling out to developers....but what about when that developer comes knocking on your door with his checkbook in his hand? And if land is worth$10,000/acre or whatever why would you even consider raising cattle on it?
If you can't sell this land for developement, then somebody better come up with some heavy duty compensation. Other wise you have a situation like the B.C. land bank, where prime industrial/residential land sits and the owners go broke! And the sad thing is we know this land will be developed...probably after some sleazy politician gets it for a pittance! The same thing will happen on the eastern slopes...you can't stop progress!

[cakadu]

Progress in who's mind and by who's definition? Sometimes there is more value in the land and preserving it than can be paid for by someone's chequebook, no matter how big the cheque. We seem to be getting on this never ending treadmill of taking land out of production, developing it, debating whether we should be growing organically or conventionally, saving the burrowing owl and the list goes on and on.

We are slowly loosing the land base that we have to grow food on. We are being forced to use marginal lands for production while good land is being used to put houses on. As we keep encroaching on the marginal lands, our wildlife has fewer and fewer places to go. It seems to me that we had better get our collective act together and soon, or it will be a mess that we cannot sort out.

Instead of debating whether organic, natural or conventional practices are best, what harm would there be in looking at what works in a given area.

Just because something is grown organically in another region, doesn't mean that it is the best practice in that region. It does come down to location, location, location.

[Deb]

Progress can be a big, big mistake and very, very destructive for a lot of people. Going forth with stupid plans through shear ignorance is not progress. I would like to know what to do besides throwing up our hands and saying there's nothing to stop it.

Let's try really hard to introduce land trusts and conservation easements, maybe public buyback of land, lobbying millionaires to "have a heart, save our land" advertizing; ANYTHING to save the open spaces we need for wildlife and ranching. I just KNOW that we can stop bad progress (lets call it retrogression).

Public education, real immediate widespread public education would work. So many men say, oh the consumer doesn't care and they'll go where everything is cheapest. I might be a foolish optimist but I think humans still have the potential to open their minds to new paradigms, especially when given the facts and consequences in plain language.

[cowman]

I like your idealism but in reality this is Alberta! Land of the entrepreneur! Maybe land of the greedy! Definitely land of the almighty dollar!
From what I understand this Waterton land isn't really very good land or very productive. Not like a lot of the land around our major cities. I would think it would be better to put houses on this marginal land rather than the good land. But do cities stop growing because the land around them is #1? You know the answer. And when money comes up against nature you know who will win!
Now consider the land owner...probably lived like a dog most of his life...certainly never got the kind of return he's about to! Are we all going to compensate him so some people can enjoy the view for free? I am sure if you wanted to buy him out for the same amount he would be glad to sell to you! And then you could let the little wolves and owls play. But don't expect that land owner to pay for what you consider valuable.

[cowman]

Well put, cowman. There are too many people telling us what is valuable and that it is our responsibility to maintain it for them.

[rookie]

I have to agree with Cowman aswell. It couldn't be said any better.

[Deb]

I don't expect the landowner to pay for what is valuable to all of society, I expect all of society to pay for what they feel is valuable, hence tax breaks with easements, etc. If I had enough money I would have bought that land. Instead I bought another piece of land to save from subdivision.

The owner of that land at the Waterton Park gates was thrown out of the corrupt Saskatchewan Grant divine government for lying to his party. The land is not valuable right now because he overgrazed it, allowed a gravel pit with no permit, and got away with all kinds of questionable and unethical things in that county. The story does not make one feel sorry for the man, believe me. He picked that property 18 years ago as good real estate potential.

[cakadu]

Your sentiments are probably on the money Cowman, but a sad commentary on the state of affairs and one's priorities.

Who is going to give the definition for "marginal"? How was the land marginal? One of the things we have to stop doing is trying to get the land to do something it can't or won't do. Not knowing the piece of land in question, I have to wonder if it could have been looked after in a manner that was more conducive to what it could produce. We have to start working with the land and not against it.

I am more concerned about the cumulative effects of allowing marginal lands to be eroded. Sure, one 23 acre subdivision here, another there doesn't sound like much, but add them all up and what starts to happen? Who is going to keep the tally on what lands get away from us? At what point will we say enough is enough?

I'm not against anyone making a buck, but sometimes there is more to life than money (at least I would like to hope so.) I don't think for a moment that the landowner has to bear the burden of preserving what we say we consider valuable. It is a social question for sure. Don't get me wrong - I'm not going to chain myself to any trees any time soon, but I get more and more concerned about what we are doing in the big picture.

Society as a whole says it values the wilderness. What price tag are we going to put on that?

[cowman]

Well Linda, it is a slippery slope we are on but that's just how it is. I'm old enough to remember how pretty the hills were northwest of Calgary...now it's all housing.
You are probably right about how we define "marginal". I personally consider land that will grow hardly anything but rocks to be marginal! Now I don't have all the facts on this land but I suspect it was not in sugar beets! But then that is only my opinion and others might have a completely different way of defining"marginal".
You say society as a whole values wilderness...then they should have no problem paying for it...or else they really don't value it at all! And the straight fact is society will not pay for wilderness. It's just like the burrowing owl thing...is there full compensation? No! So who gets stuck with the bill? You guessed it, the landowner!

[cowman]

I think it's pretty obvious not many people value wilderness. The ones who say they value it the most want to buy some and live there but don't want other people to be able to do the same. I guess if you wanted to really twist the logic, the people who don't move onto an acreage value farmland the most. Mostly though, I object to society's notion the owners of private lands are responsible to the rest of society to do their bidding. I think it stems partially from the idea that if you own a couple million dollars of land you can set some aside for others to enjoy. They don't realize that the land is a means of making a living and taking control away is like saying employees should work ten per cent of the week for nothing but be responsible for making sure that time is well spent. Since Canadians aren't worried about the agricultural economy I'm afraid I don't have much concern for their quality of life either.

[cowman]

And Deb: what did I say about some politicans getting the land for a pittance??? I'm not against you here...in an ideal world I agree with you 100%. I hate to see this sort of thing happen, but we have to face reality and realize this IS going to happen. Having said all that I still recognize your point of view and have a lot of respect for it...I too, wish that the world was made like that!

[Deb]

Exasperation. This is what I feel when I hear someone say, "This is the way it is" or "This is the reality".

Are these comments always to be followed by, "and there's nothing we can do about it"?

If we never attempted to change what was unjust or unfair, we'd be back in the Middle Ages living like serfs (which we're headed for again it seems to me). We must at least make an attempt to stop the loss of farm, ranchland, wilderness, community, justice, equality, caring and sharing.

Dreams come true. Thoughts and wishes(some people term them as prayers) come true too. You know how it is with children? If you tell a kid he's a loser from day one, that's exactly what he will end up being. If you tell him every day how wonderful, kind and loved he is, he'll end up that way.

If we envision the only animals left on the planet being the ones we eat, and the few rich dominating the vast majority of poor in the world, then that will happen.

If we envision every child a wanted child, every adult an appreciated adult, and make kindness the everyday thing instead of greed, then perhaps that dream of equality, harmony and peace will come true.

If we renew a respectful relationship with the earth and remember that everything we have, we owe to the earth and its resources and NOT to human ingenuity or technology, then perhaps nature won't be so hard on us when she decides to send out the antibiotics to get rid of this current viral plague called humankind.

There are plenty of people worldwide who know that things like globalization, for example, is a hoax and a destructive, unjust form of corporate control over the world's people and resources. That is why there are the thousands of protesters that march at every WTO, FTAA, etc. summit meeting. People the world over can feel the unbalance in their bones and know that they have to stop this nonsense right now.

Optimism and humour are the grease and glue of life. Light tomorrow with today! Lets make idealism realism. Don't say "We can't".

[Muttley]

Being from outside the area I can only imagine the beauty of the landscape. I am sure that if I had strong ties to the area I would be fighting tooth and nail to keep it as natural as possible. There are getting to be fewer and fewer places in this nation that are the same as they were many years ago.
Reality wise my land is worth nothing compared to this and I would love to have land in my area sold to developers for a large sum like the amounts I hear. The economic spin off would be beneficial for countless people and families.

[Deb]

Muttley, maybe the answer to this conundrum is in what you said. Something about the word "worth" is tickling my brain at the present moment. Something about adopting land or something like how the Nature Conservancy buys land from a rancher and leases it back. The NC can't afford the big prices, but maybe supplementary money could come from an "adopt a ranch" campaign or something. Come on everyone, put on your thinking caps.

Thank you Muttley. I know what the present reality is and it sucks. So lets change it to where both sides win. I'm gonna sleep on this little riddle.