Outdoor Pursuits

Canada’s Liberal government is pushing forward with its “30-by-30” initiative, which, as most know, is a plan to conserve 30% of the country’s land and water by 2030 to combat biodiversity loss and protect ecosystems, so they say. I see it as another example of growing federal control over land-use and resource development.

And for hunters, anglers and trappers, the concern is not simply about conservation; it is whether 30-by-30 will gradually reduce access to public land and restrict traditional outdoor activities. Those concerns are both legitimate and well founded.

Canada’s 30-by-30 target stems from the United Nations biodiversity framework established in 2022. Ottawa argues that expanding protected areas is necessary because species decline and habitat fragmentation are accelerating globally. However, many question whether 30-by-30 reflects the realities of western Canada. The Alberta government argues that Alberta already manages vast areas of Crown land under strict environmental rules and that the federal government is applying a “one-size-fits-all” model that ignores provincial jurisdiction and rural economies.

The federal government and environmental organizations advocate for larger protected areas with a reduced industrial and human footprint, and we all know where that leads for hunting, fishing and trapping; 30-by-30 will eventually mean less access to the land.

Officially, the federal government has not proposed banning hunting, fishing or trapping. These are recognized wildlife management tools and licence revenues help fund conservation programs across the country. But history shows that conservation initiatives often lead to more restrictions, including road closures, motorized vehicle bans, access restrictions, camping limits, firearm discharge regulations and reductions in industrial roads that hunters, anglers and trappers rely on for access. For many Albertans this is the real issue; access to Crown land is a very real requirement for hunting, fishing and trapping in the province. Oilfield and forestry roads and cutlines often provide the only practical routes into remote areas. If more land is reclassified under 30-by-30 conservation rules, those access routes could disappear.

Trappers may be particularly vulnerable to these changes. Trapping operations often depend on winter access, trail systems and remote transportation routes. Increased restrictions on motorized travel and more protected areas could make many traplines harder or impossible to operate. And fishing could also be affected through more protection measures, catch restrictions, boating limitations or seasonal closures in many watersheds.

The province has argued that it already exceeds the 30-by-30 target if all publicly managed land is counted under its own definition of conservation. Of course, environmental organizations strongly dispute the province, arguing that land open to forestry, mining and energy development should not qualify as protected, and maybe they are correct in that assumption.

But what about the many thousands of acres of land in southern Alberta held under agricultural disposition? These lands are untouched and well protected. Just go hunting in Alberta’s far south and you’ll get the feeling of loneliness in a hurry. Southern Alberta’s grazing regions have a very low human footprint compared to many popular regions. If you stand on lands south of Medicine Hat or around the Milk River country, you can travel for miles without seeing any development. It seems absurd for those landscapes to be excluded from 30-by-30 when heavily-used national parks count automatically.

But again, environmental groups argue that biodiversity loss requires stricter protections and less disturbance, regardless of the land type. I would argue that active land management, like that in southern Alberta, which includes hunting and cattle grazing, creates healthy wildlife populations and biodiversity and should be counted.

The disagreements between environmental organizations and land users over which lands should count as already protected shows why the 30-by-30 debate has become so polarized. To environmental advocates, stronger protections are necessary because existing management strategies have not stopped biodiversity decline. But to Alberta’s outdoorsmen and women, Ottawa’s approach appears distant from reality and against those of us who actually use the land.

Despite heated discussion surrounding the issue, it is unlikely Ottawa will ever ban hunting, fishing or trapping. Provincial governments still control most Crown land and natural resource management, and Alberta has shown little willingness to hand those powers over to Ottawa, and rightly so; if you want something screwed up, hand it to Ottawa.

In the end, the most likely outcome is a gradual increase in land-use regulations, more complex access rules and ongoing political battles over who controls our Crown lands. For Alberta’s hunting, fishing and trapping communities, the concern is not simply conservation itself; it is whether we will find ourselves pushed aside in the name of environmental protection.

For the previous Outdoor Pursuits article, click here.