| Author |
Topic |
 Big pack hiker who sleeps with bears in tent and falls on slippery logs
Langley, BC
Canada
7647 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 12:47 PM
|
I've been in contact with Sharon Glynn, a volunteer for this initiative.
The website is http://www.savebcparks.com
The main focus is for people to:
1. Sign the online petition (BC residents)
2. Write a letter to the government and their MLA
3. Spread the word further. |
|
|
Best grilled cheese maker ever
Whitehorse, YUKON
Canada
2142 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 1:04 PM
|
Petition signed, letter sent!
Thanks LS! |
|
|
 Fungi Filmin', Wine Drinkin', 'Shroom Eatin', Early Risin', Deer Whisperin', Curry Cookin', Macro Maniac
Chilliwack + Osoyoos
3618 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 1:25 PM
|
Their factsheet is bogus... and full of "not-truths"...
C'Jack...
----------------------------------------
...hang on, I'm coming... |
|
|
|
map hatin', coffee perc totin', garbage collectin', backpacking, action hero wannabe, who loves to hide out in Garibaldi park and will have his scouts sing if you keep him awake at night
2462 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 1:32 PM
|
Can you be more specific C'Jack? Which of these facts are bogus or "not-truths"?
I know you're in favour of more development in the parks, but on reading the fact sheet, I'm not sure I agree that these are bogus statements. They seem more like the reasons the "con" side has to no development in the parks.
I would be interested in hearing from the "pro" side, why they think more development in the parks is a good idea, and specifically from C'Jack which points in the fact sheet he thinks are bogus.
----------------------------------------
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't. |
Edited by - Marc on 10/17/2006 1:32 PM |
|
|
|
Fungi Filmin', Wine Drinkin', 'Shroom Eatin', Early Risin', Deer Whisperin', Curry Cookin', Macro Maniac
Chilliwack + Osoyoos
3618 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 2:08 PM
|
I'd love to Marc, except I'm in the middle of something (important business stuff) right now, so I'll have to do it later... sorry...
It's not the point if I'm in favour or not... it's all about truth's and lies... and reading all the words... that's all I've ever told people to do all my life... (that's why I started my "idiots" list, and why I'm on it)... 'cos people don't do it... that's why lawyers are in business... just yesterday, Rogers Telecom lost a $multimillion case to Aliant in Quebec, because of the placement of a single comma in a 14 page contract...
Picky, I know...
Quickly... all the government has done so far, is ask for "expressions of interest"... I know this is fact, 'cos I go to BCBid every day as part of my business...
Gotta get back to my Business Plan...
Later... |
|
|
|
Coffee swillin', wine lovin', Owl fearin' Andie McDowell stunt double, who sports retro gear
Vancouver, BC
5464 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 2:13 PM
|
| Signed. |
|
|
|
Fleece thong wearin, Buntzen Lurkin, mystic poet mountain man and international spokesman of the friends of the white squirrel society
Port Moody, B.C.
Canada
5895 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 2:30 PM
|
Petition signed, letter sent!
----------------------------------------
Vancouver Hiking
|
|
|
 | LeeL
Advanced Member
|
Extreme ski tourin, mountain bikin addict who hikes at least once a year
2506 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 2:33 PM
|
| I will be volunteering time to help this travesty from happening. Thanks for posting this Mr Longshadow. |
Edited by - LeeL on 10/17/2006 3:07 PM |
|
|
|
Outward Bound author of the Seinfeld Thread, who builds his own snowshoes
Troy, MT
USA
3121 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 3:17 PM
|
signed
I too would like to hear the non truths in the fact sheet.
----------------------------------------
Bryan
|
|
|
North Vancouver, BC
Canada
433 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 3:49 PM
|
That's too bad they didn't point to the source of that information and just quoted the bad things with no mention of the good, out of some unknown source... All they mention is that they got that stuff off of the BC Bid website.
I read those bids and they don't mention the specifics that are mentioned on the site Jim posted.
I was able to get to the Fixed Roof Accomodation RFPs from the bids...but couldn't find the specifics.
The closest I could find was the Fixed Roof Policy which tells of the type of construction with examples (appendix 1).
It doesn't look so bad from that... I think these kinds of online petitions would be better served by pointing to the real information rather than just writing opinions and convincing people to support them... |
|
|
|
opinionated-stove huggin'-fleece wearin'-arse burnin' hill virgin
Here
Canada
4641 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 4:19 PM
|
I refuse to jump on the bandwagon and support this initiative without more concrete facts. Even if the plans for these lodges are fait a compli, I am not convinced that this is bad thing.
----------------------------------------
"Got a gear idea? Drop me a line, hb@clubtread.com"  |
|
|
| Dru
Mountain Grammar Police
|
Sardonic sandbagging scoundrel, Cascade Climbers lobotomized spraymeister, space blanket flyer, new millennium vulgarian betaboy and friend to all squids
Climbing, a mountain
Canada
∞ Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 4:23 PM
|
Whether the amount of development proposed is a 1,000 person lodge with helipad and gigawatt sound system, or a simple case of greenhorn and his hot dog cart, you can still write to your MLAs with opinions on development in general, pro or con, if you have opinions. Maybe That's better than simply signing a petition cause a lot of petitions do not get read or responded to but every individual letter sent to the government does.
----------------------------------------
Freedom is free of the need to be free. Free your mind and your ass will follow. Open up your funky mind and you can fly. The kingdom of heaven is within. |
|
|
|
Fungi Filmin', Wine Drinkin', 'Shroom Eatin', Early Risin', Deer Whisperin', Curry Cookin', Macro Maniac
Chilliwack + Osoyoos
3618 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 4:47 PM
|
cdanes... I agree with you wholeheartedly... I'll dig out the exact link if you like (later)... I can email you privately on that...
Marc... I'm not "in favour" of "more development" in BC Parks, per se... I am in favour of getting more people out there in order to use them... and lowering our tax base... and favouring the tourism industry... and opening up our backcountry to nature lovers, photographers, equestrians, hikers and backpackers from around the World... there are many people (even on CT) that support some form of "fixed roof" accommodation in our parks, maybe for the same reasons... "Welcome to BC, but if you wanna visit our parks, you have to carry your own stuff in, sleep on the ground, don't light fires, and remove all your own garbage, so that the bears don't give you a hard time"... Duh... Our parks are truly beautiful, and why we shouldn't welcome visitors regardless of how or where they wanna spend their nights, is something I don't understand... the final say on "fixed roof" accommodation doesn't rest with me... and even if 10 million people write letters of opposition... it's the Government that will win... remember the Hwy 1 tunnel or overland route at Horseshoe Bay incident??? (one of the most recent)...
This is a business decision... that's all the Gov is asking... "Is anybody interested?"... nothing is determined yet... nothing has been built yet...
Jim... I'm truly amazed at the aggression that is taking place on various topics herein... My whole "idiot list" thing started as a complete joke... I even asked a fellow CT'er for a "tongue-in-cheek" emoticon to add to my signature... However... I will stop with that... and sorry if it offends people... please accept my apologies...
People must realize though, that there are always (at least) 2 sides to every issue... and I (for one) refuse to have someone elses thoughts rammed down my throat... regardless of what the topic or my opinion is... that's not the issue... it's the "ramming" that's the issue... and 99% of the time, it's not based on the truth...
If anyone's still interested, I'll elaborate on my statements later, but I really have to get back to my Business Plan (I have a deadline to meet)... it's all to do with "Cleaning up the Air, Water and Soil Environments in the Fraser Valley"... something that involves a Fortune 500 company, the Cities of Abbotsford and Chilliwack as well as the FVRD... something very near and dear to my heart...
C'Jack...
----------------------------------------
...hang on, I'm coming... |
|
|
|
Fungi Filmin', Wine Drinkin', 'Shroom Eatin', Early Risin', Deer Whisperin', Curry Cookin', Macro Maniac
Chilliwack + Osoyoos
3618 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 4:49 PM
|
| Thanks Hiker Boy and Dru... |
|
|
| LeeL
Advanced Member
|
Extreme ski tourin, mountain bikin addict who hikes at least once a year
2506 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 5:09 PM
|
Some further information reproduced from another thread
I browsed "fixed roof" on the bcbid website.
The site is heavy on javascript and I'm not sure for how long the data is archived here is the information retrieved without formatting
-----------------------------------------------------------
Opportunities
Document No
Organization Name
Published Date
Closing Date
1
SATP-189
Ministry of Environment
2006/09/18
2006/11/02 14:00
Amend: 4
Fixed Roof Accomodation & Services at Mt Robson Provincial Park
2
SATP-190
Ministry of Environment
2006/09/08
2006/11/02 14:00
Amend: 3
Fixed Roof Accomodation & Services Elk Lakes Provincial Park
3
SATP-191
Ministry of Environment
2006/09/08
2006/11/02 14:00
Amend: 6
Fixed Roof Accomodation & Services, Cape Scott Provincial Park
4
SATP-192
Ministry of Environment
2006/09/08
2006/11/02 14:00
Amend: 6
Fixed Roof Accomodation & Services, Fintry Provincial Park
5
SATP-194
Ministry of Environment
2006/09/08
2006/11/02 14:00
Amend: 5
Fixed Roof Accomodation & Services, Wells Gray Provincial Park
6
SATP-199
Ministry of Environment
2006/09/05
2006/11/27 14:00
Amend: 1
Fixed Roof Accommodation Facility and Services, Myra Bellevue
7
SATP-200
Ministry of Environment
2006/09/10
2006/11/27 14:00
Amend: 2
Fixed Roof Accommodation Facility and Services, Nancy Greene
8
SATP-201
Ministry of Environment
2006/09/25
2006/11/27 14:00
Amend: 2
Fixed Roof Accommodation Facility and Services, Silver Star
9
SATP-202
Ministry of Environment
2006/09/05
2006/11/27 14:00
Amend: 1
Fixed Roof Accommodation Facility and Services, Maxhamish Lake
10
SATP-203
Ministry of Environment
2006/09/05
2006/11/27 14:00
Amend: 1
Fixed Roof Accommodation Facility and Services, Golden Ears
11
SATP-204
Ministry of Environment
2006/09/27
2006/11/27 14:00
Amend: 2
Fixed Roof Accommodation Facility and Services, Foch-Giltoyees
quote:
Originally posted by cdanes
That's too bad they didn't point to the source of that information and just quoted the bad things with no mention of the good, out of some unknown source... All they mention is that they got that stuff off of the BC Bid website.
I read those bids and they don't mention the specifics that are mentioned on the site Jim posted.
I was able to get to the Fixed Roof Accomodation RFPs from the bids...but couldn't find the specifics.
The closest I could find was the Fixed Roof Policy which tells of the type of construction with examples (appendix 1).
It doesn't look so bad from that... I think these kinds of online petitions would be better served by pointing to the real information rather than just writing opinions and convincing people to support them...
|
Edited by - LeeL on 10/17/2006 5:11 PM |
|
|
| LeeL
Advanced Member
|
Extreme ski tourin, mountain bikin addict who hikes at least once a year
2506 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 5:34 PM
|
This is what savetheparks says about Mt Robson at:
http://www.savebcparks.com/parks.html
PROPOSED RESORT/LODGE: Robson Pass Area, about 2 km past the northeast end of the Berg Lake Trail to the Alberta border. Access to the proposed location would be helicopter, foot or horseback along the 22-kilometre Berg Lake Trail.
This is the information about the Robson Pass plan from the BCbid website.
I went to the BC Bid site and searched under document number SATP-189 checking the open bid box. Searching under "fixed roof" or "Mt Robson" will return null results
Accessing SATP-189 gets you to a summary page. Clicking the "Supplier Attachments" link in the top right hand corner gets you to the attachments which are the meat of the RFPs.
Cannot link to that page as its a static browser window.
Word doc RFP contains standard terms pointing to various government policies.
Appendix B process agreement lays out process for considering submitted proposals.
Appendix C is the first document specific to Mt Robson provincial park and is the preliminary assessment. It sets out the context of the fixed roof proposal - ie for an "ecolodge" at Berg Lake. "30 people in hostel - style accomodations".
Summer access would be hiking; winter access would be helicopter
Further data talks about impact on surrounding area; ways to mitigate impacts etc.
Further appendices are amendments to the RFP, questions and answers etc.
|
Edited by - LeeL on 10/17/2006 5:36 PM |
|
|
| LeeL
Advanced Member
|
Extreme ski tourin, mountain bikin addict who hikes at least once a year
2506 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 5:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by cdanes
That's too bad they didn't point to the source of that information and just quoted the bad things with no mention of the good, out of some unknown source... All they mention is that they got that stuff off of the BC Bid website.
I read those bids and they don't mention the specifics that are mentioned on the site Jim posted.
I think part of the difficulty for quoting the source for the information from savetheparks is the difficulty of providing online links to BCBid documents. It's not a google search type engine.
My next post will be to look at the Cape Scott proposal.
|
|
|
| LeeL
Advanced Member
|
Extreme ski tourin, mountain bikin addict who hikes at least once a year
2506 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 5:46 PM
|
From Savetheparks.com
PROPOSED RESORT/LODGE:. 5 cabins, each with ten beds at these locations: Donaldson Farm, Laura Creek, Shuttleworth Bight, Skinner Creek, Shushartie Bay. Old growth trees would have to removed for the construction. The government documents suggest a $100 fee for people to hike the northeast trail and that road access would have to be provided to the first cabin. In a preliminary assessment in February 2005, numerous adverse impacts were listed and the plan was not recommended.
From BCBid using the same tortuous search engine and searching for "SATP-192"
Appendix C is where specifics are mentioned. They go into detail about the hut system spaced approximately a day apart. One of the huts would have road access.
EDITORIAL NOTE _ so much for one aspect of Cape Scott being challenging . At least the appendix didn't mention paving the trail. |
|
|
45 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 7:35 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chilliwack Jack
Marc... I'm not "in favour" of "more development" in BC Parks, per se... I am in favour of getting more people out there in order to use them... and lowering our tax base... and favouring the tourism industry... and opening up our backcountry to nature lovers, photographers, equestrians, hikers and backpackers from around the World... there are many people (even on CT) that support some form of "fixed roof" accommodation in our parks, maybe for the same reasons... "Welcome to BC, but if you wanna visit our parks, you have to carry your own stuff in, sleep on the ground, don't light fires, and remove all your own garbage, so that the bears don't give you a hard time"... Duh... Our parks are truly beautiful, and why we shouldn't welcome visitors regardless of how or where they wanna spend their nights, is something I don't understand
I was going to post a longer response, but C'Jack has captured much of what I would have said. I'm a trained economist (pause here to allow the boos and catcalls to subside), and here's how I would look at it. It's a question of costs and benefits to *everyone*, not just hikers or people who dislike modern civilization.
I do not deny that there are costs caused by noise, etc ('negative externalities' in economist-speak) to allowing such development to proceed (although I think they are greatly overstated.. given the petition, you would think that someone is proposing building a 50,000 acre Disneyland at Cape Scott), but what is being ignored here is the fact that there are benefits of development as well. Employment is generated, profits (more boos and hisses) are earned, and a memorable and enjoyable parks experience is provided for those who don't have the time, taste, or stamina to hike 20km with a pack. Now, I don't know whether the costs outweigh the benefits.. but I *do* know that it is incorrect to entirely ignore the benefits, as I suspect many here would be inclined to do.
You might argue that people who can't or won't hike don't matter, and don't deserve to enjoy the parks. But from the perspective of correctly conducted public policy, they matter as much as hikers do.
You might argue that private enterprise is inherently evil, so the profits should not count as a benefit. The 98% of us who are not doctrinaire communists would disagree.
You might also argue that allowing development in parks is a "slippery slope", but I believe that argument is flawed for two reasons
1. You can't judge policy based on what it "might" lead to, otherwise nothing would ever happen, anywhere. Should we build a road into that town? No, because somebody might want to build a superhighway there later. Should we allow same sex marriage? No, that's a slippery slope, and people will want to marry their pets next.
2. Why are ranger stations, trails, and outhouses in parks acceptable, while 10 bed cabins are on a dangerous slippery slope? It is not obvious to me that they differ in any way, unless you think that hikers are first class citizens (who therefore are entitled to outhouses as a matter of course) and non-hikers are not. |
|
|
| LeeL
Advanced Member
|
Extreme ski tourin, mountain bikin addict who hikes at least once a year
2506 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 8:07 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thog
1. You can't judge policy based on what it "might" lead to, otherwise nothing would ever happen, anywhere. Should we build a road into that town? No, because somebody might want to build a superhighway there later. Should we allow same sex marriage? No, that's a slippery slope, and people will want to marry their pets next.
2. Why are ranger stations, trails, and outhouses in parks acceptable, while 10 bed cabins are on a dangerous slippery slope? It is not obvious to me that they differ in any way, unless you think that hikers are first class citizens (who therefore are entitled to outhouses as a matter of course) and non-hikers are not.
Thog,
I'm also going to respond in economic terms at least to one aspect. I think we can agree that there is an intangible, if unmeasurable, benefit to that amorphous concept commonly cited as a wilderness experience. It would be next to impossible to quantify that benefit so I posit that the "wilderness experience" net benefit or its loss thereof cannot be factored into any economic impact study.
I also want to state for the record that Im a confirmed capitalist and love making money. Positively relish it actually
I would therefore submit that assessing the impact of fixed roof structures purely on a cost-benefit analysis (and I'm not suggesting that you are advocating this) is not an appropriate motive for a policy decision.
Re: Slippery slopes.
I made that argument in one thread. Ordinarily I'd agree with you that slippery slope arguments are the refuge of the paranoid. However, since there are representative examples of situations where one commercial development in a park has led to more commercial development, I think this is one of those rare times when this argument holds water. (Examples include Banff, Manning Park etc.)
Re: Outhouses, ranger stations and trails vs 10 bed cabins.
Now we're entering in the realm of value judgments.
Outhouses - to concentrate human impact.
Ranger stations - to concentrate human impact and disseminate information that may be useful.
Trails - to concentrate human impact
10 bed cabins - to concentrate human impact BUT why not tent pads? There is the value judgment. Any human presence necessarily diminishes that nebulous wilderness experience. I would argue that tent pads are much more appropriate in a park as opposed to 10 bed cabins.
|
|
|
| LeeL
Advanced Member
|
Extreme ski tourin, mountain bikin addict who hikes at least once a year
2506 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 8:10 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thog
Employment is generated, profits (more boos and hisses) are earned, and a memorable and enjoyable parks experience is provided for those who don't have the time, taste, or stamina to hike 20km with a pack.
--------------
You might argue that people who can't or won't hike don't matter, and don't deserve to enjoy the parks. But from the perspective of correctly conducted public policy, they matter as much as hikers do.
I'll take this to another topic. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Campaign for BC Parks
