| Author |
Topic |
 | LeeL
Advanced Member
|
 Extreme ski tourin, mountain bikin addict who hikes at least once a year
2506 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 8:12 PM
|
Apologies for taking this quote of Thog out of context but his question here made me think.
Thog stated this in the context of the CONSERVATION CORNER Topic re saving BC Parks.
http://www.clubtread.com/sforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=18898
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.
Well???
|
|
| 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 : 8:33 PM
|
All things in their place. There is a place for commercial recreation and private enterprise - and that place is not in parks, which are public spaces devoted to conservation rather than development. My two bits.
In other words, if you want to see a waterfall jazzed up with a laser light show, casinos, Ferris wheels etc. you've got Niagara, and if you want to see a waterfall with no lodges, casinos etc in the way you've got Della Falls.
----------------------------------------
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. |
|
|
|
opinionated-stove huggin'-fleece wearin'-arse burnin' hill virgin
Here
Canada
4642 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 8:40 PM
|
I agree. Money issues aside, I think accessabilty for all tax payers should be a consideration. The parks do not just belong to hikers as much as we would like them to. I have heard the old arguemnts that "They (meaning anyone who can't hike)" should be statisfied with what they already have access to...why? They deserve to see Berg Lake or perhaps Mt. Assiniboine as much as any other taxpayer. Some people are already handicapped, they don't need to be made more so by their fellow citizens. It's obviously impossible for everything to be accessable for everyone but I think we could be more charitable with some areas....just my opinion...I like a nice quiet unpopulated wilderness as much as the next person.
----------------------------------------
"Got a gear idea? Drop me a line, hb@clubtread.com"  |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
343 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 9:49 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dru
There is a place for commercial recreation and private enterprise - and that place is not in parks, which are public spaces devoted to conservation rather than development.
There is a place for everything.
Parks are not for commercial development.
This could be taken one step farther... in addition to conservation, something should be devoted to complete preservation. |
|
|
 Back busted, pumpkin carvin, toyota drivin, wacky hair canvas painter that likes a cold Beer on a subzero day
Abbotsford, B.C.
Canada
1078 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 10:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by timv
This could be taken one step farther... in addition to conservation, something should be devoted to complete preservation.
Aren’t parks for the people?
In my mind complete preservation would mean keeping the people out totally.
There must be a medium, we all should be able to enjoy our parks (and still conserve them) with out having to hike…
----------------------------------------
Whatever doesn’t kill me, is almost certainly going to hurt like hell! |
|
|
Surrey, BC
Canada
1036 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 10:18 PM
|
| The question is accessibility. Some people want to hike, some don't or can't. Some want to ski, some don't or can't. You can't force people if they can't or don't hike or ski to access remote areas. In that case, do you want to bring remote areas to the people who can't or don't hike or ski in the name of universal accessibility? If universal accessibility is the desired goal, then whatever happens to "remote" area? |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
1126 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 10:52 PM
|
larryl pretty much captured how I feel about it.
It is impossible to have wheelchair access to the backcountry. By definition.
So the question is not about facilitating access to backcountry regions, but about converting backcountry regions to frontcountry regions. I think it would have to be argued on a case by case basis. |
|
|
|
Mysterious, pop can stove stashin', gps totin', overnighter virgin, wannabe tentmaker and foul weather wuss who rides a thumper to the trailhead with wonderdog Max to hike the Chilliwack Valley
Chwk
Canada
4908 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 11:14 PM
|
I'd like to see the earth from outer space...does that mean I deserve to?
Does it mean that the government should allow me passage on the next shuttle?
There's an old Clint Eastwood lines that says: "A man's gotta know his limitations".
This idea of giving access to all is just another layer to the silliness known as Political Correctness.
IMO, if you want to see the wilderness, then put on the pack and go see...otherwise stay at the KOA.
----------------------------------------
If Jimmy cracks corn and nobody cares...why write a song about it? |
|
|
|
Trail running, bike hucking, fast packing, beer drinking collector of pine cones on a day pass
AKA
Dances with Trees
Forest Gnome Cabin
Canada
13047 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 11:41 PM
|
One of the best reasons that parks should be left to be accessed by hikers alone is that parks are NOT just for people , but primarily for the wildlife and the preservation of ecosystems.
Many of these areas are valuable sanctuaries for the true residents, and we are supposed to be priveleged visitors to these places, not exploiters of nature. So, while access could be provided for all in some cases, it would not be suitable in others |
|
|
|
Coffee swillin', wine lovin', Owl fearin' Andie McDowell stunt double, who sports retro gear
Vancouver, BC
5465 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 11:46 PM
|
| What Mick said! |
|
|
Ladner, BC
Canada
1176 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 11:48 PM
|
in moderation with good consideration.
There are places with restricted human access, commercial access, and everything in between. Adding, subtracting or reclassifying areas takes good consideration.... as long as voices are heard and considered....
We don't need a Starbucks at the Garibaldi Trail head... but perhaps a security guard... heh
----------------------------------------
The tougher the climb, the better the food tastes. -Lupin- |
|
|
|
Night owl posting,Subie driving, backpacking Dad who is perpetually trying to catch up to his kids on the trail.
Vancouver, BC
Canada
3054 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 12:50 AM
|
I have yet to settle on a firm position on this question.
On the one hand I look at existing "roofed development" in our Parks such as the Elfin Lakes shelter or Manning Park Lodge and think that these are not inherently evil. Many on this site moan and complain when the Elfin heater isn't working and express fear and anger at the possibility that the shelter might be shut down. That destination is probably the most popular hike in the Province with thousands of visits every year. I think it's a good facility to have within a Park and it's in an appropriate location for the volume of traffic it invites. Same with Manning Park Lodge: it's hard to complain of wilderness destruction where you have a facility built right on the side of a 4-lane highway. In that context, I cannot accept the premise that any development of roofed structures in a park is necessarily inappropriate.
But when one talks about expanding development into more remote park locations, my 1st question is, why is this necessary? If the issue is simply one of providing access to BC wilderness experience to those who don't want to hump a pack over a trail, that objective is easily served without intruding on our park system. Two obvious examples are Strathcona Park Lodge and Tyax Lodge. These are facilities that provide both comfortable accommodation and ready access to great "wilderness" experiences without intruding into our parks. Our Province contains an immense area of wild country that remains outside of the parks, so why not focus on "wilderness development" and eco-tourism in those areas?
Put another way, I accept that there are legitimate public policy objectives to be served by providing resort style access to relatively remote, wild areas of our Province. I also believe that fostering tourism of this kind would be of significant benefit to the Province and could provide a preferable land-use alternative to resource extraction industries. Yet all of that can be achieved outside or our existing parks. So again, why invite development of this kind within our parks?
I expect the answer is simply this: the invitation for development is Department specific. This is not an abstract public policy initiative, it is an initiative of the Ministry of the Environment responsible for BC Parks. That Ministry would not obtain any revenue from development outside of existing parks. That Ministry is looking for sources of revenue to offset the expenses of maintaining the existing park system. That Ministry is not focussed on the general good of the Province: it is focussed on its own, more narrow mandate and area of responsibility.
So we are dealing with more narrow, beauracratic interests. But that can't end the debate because, like it or not, that is the nature of government. To the extent that we want more parks and improved facilities (how about a Semaphore Lakes Park with an outhouse or two?), that Ministry needs more revenue to be able to offer more services. We all bitch and moan about parking fees so what is left? Development in parks ...
However, at the end of the day I still think this is a debate that is more about imagined fears than it is about reality. While there may be some "expressions of interest", and maybe even a few that are attempted to implement, I really doubt that the economics will result in significant development. Any entrepeneur interested in resort development has the option of obtaining land outside of existing parks. Within parks the most that they can obtain is a limited tenure. Given a choice between land ownership and a short-term tenure, few if any will choose the latter. Developing any significant resort facilities requires a major capital committment up front as well as an acceptance of major, ongoing expenses. Few if any will take that on where they have the very limited kind of tenure contemplate in the invitations to tender.
... don't worry, be happy...
----------------------------------------
"Aging ... it beats the alternative" |
|
|
Delta, bc
Canada
10 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 06:04 AM
|
I guess it boils down to the allmighty dollar.
Larryl, and Shrubhugger sum it up well... Backcountry, by definition is not. cannot be accessable to everyone.
----------------------------------------
If it ain't broke, fix it 'till it is. |
|
|
|
Fungi Filmin', Wine Drinkin', 'Shroom Eatin', Early Risin', Deer Whisperin', Curry Cookin', Macro Maniac
Chilliwack + Osoyoos
3618 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 06:57 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stokes
I guess it boils down to the allmighty dollar. Larryl, and Shrubhugger sum it up well... Backcountry, by definition is not. cannot be accessable to everyone.
Shhhh... don't tell Rick Hansen that... just type in "wheelchair hiking" or "backcountry wheelchair" into Google, and see what comes up...
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 - 10/18/2006 : 07:16 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mick range
One of the best reasons that parks should be left to be accessed by hikers alone is that parks are NOT just for people , but primarily for the wildlife and the preservation of ecosystems.
Many of these areas are valuable sanctuaries for the true residents, and we are supposed to be priveleged visitors to these places, not exploiters of nature. So, while access could be provided for all in some cases, it would not be suitable in others
Wow, Mick... I thought I knew you better than that... guess not... kinda screws up the whole concept of the Lower Seymour Conservation area, right???
Maybe we should turn everything into Capilano or Coquitlam watersheds... why even let hikers in ???
Anyways... I got another busy day ahead of me...
C'Jack...
----------------------------------------
...hang on, I'm coming... |
|
|
|
Trail running, bike hucking, fast packing, beer drinking collector of pine cones on a day pass
AKA
Dances with Trees
Forest Gnome Cabin
Canada
13047 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 07:55 AM
|
| How is it you interpreted what I said in that way ? I am just saying that access to any area needs to be closely weighed against the consequences. |
|
|
|
Satirical photoshop junkie who frolics in the mountains of the Chilliwack River Valley
Chilliwack, BC
Canada
6908 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 09:08 AM
|
I've been trying to compose why the title of this thread bothers me.
To me it demonstrates the epitome of human greed.
The definition of wilderness for me is a place that is wild and relatively untouched or touched to the bare minimum by the civilized world. I don't "Hate" civilization, although it does frustrate me as we have this inate capacity to take that which is beautiful and free and attractive and exploit it for capital gain. I like civilization well enough. I just don't trust it, nor it's true motives.
To use a phrase like "People who can't or won't hike don't matter" is simply putting blame and inferring motive to a community that is on the average, miles beyond average civilization in the knowing of, acceptance and love of wild places. We have no problem sacrificing personal comforts and in some instances our very safety to visit the wilderness on it's terms. It's really the only way you'll ever begin to appreciate it on a deep level.
My heart truely goes out to those who, because of disability cannot do what I do, to the same capacity. As for people who "won't hike" that is a personal choice and as adults we need to be responsible for our own choices. If you don't want to hike, fine you've made that choice, stay in the the frontcountry. There are a number of places of incredible beauty that you can still visit. Ask yourself, if I want to go there but am unwilling to make any sacrifice other than a monetary one to be there, what sacrifices am I forcing on the natural environment to make way for "My Right" to visit these places? Is that truely fair?
Always keep in mind that by definition wilderness is something that is relatively untouched by civilization. Once civilization starts chasing it and insists on forcing it's terms (large fixed roof shelters, vehicles, crowds, refuse/manufactured goods on a grand scale that are left in place of the wild environment) The wilderness becomes overwhelmed by civlization and retreats, as it will always be the one to lose in the short term. Once the wilderness is no longer wild, do we pick up and chase it again?
I think the fear or perception being presented here by those who have taken the time, put in the effort and are happy to meet the wilderness on it's own terms, is that the understanding we've gained of these places tells us that something very valuable will be lost once the comforts and then crowds of people that come with civilzation are introduced to wilderness areas.
Is it really right to do this when it's really about the money?
|
Edited by - BillyGoat on 10/18/2006 11:23 AM |
|
|
| LeeL
Advanced Member
|
Extreme ski tourin, mountain bikin addict who hikes at least once a year
2506 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 09:16 AM
|
chuck - thanks. Your economic argument make a lot of sense. I do think that any private operator seeing a significant public grounswell of opposition to the government proposal would also take that into account into their investement due dilligence. Hopefully, political uncertainty introduced by public opposition to development in parks is enough of a risk factor that private operators would come to the conclusion that outside parks would be a better place for their investment.
Mick- fyi I have hiked and biked with a friend who's paraplegic and has used an off-road wheelchair and handcycle. Those chairs cannot access very technical trails. To give an example, such trails would find the Baden Powell trails near Mountain Highway almost impossible to navigate without substantial help. They could navigate gravel paths with small obstructions.
To give another scenario closer to home. An organization with which I volunteer has applied for some grants to do trail maintenance. One criteria for the grant is that the trails be maintained to a standard which would mean gravelling the trail and using a small excavator to take out roots, rocks and obstructions from the trails. We decided to not seek those funds.
By not pursuing funds to maintain those trails are we excluding the infirm, the aged, the young, the unfit, the time-deprived?
These trails are the Bridle Path in Seymour and the Baden Powell between Mosquito Creek and Mountain Highway. |
|
|
|
Outward Bound author of the Seinfeld Thread, who builds his own snowshoes
Troy, MT
USA
3124 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 11:57 AM
|
personally, I know that at least some people who cant hike admit they will never be able to see the true wilderness. my mom is a prime example of that. she shattered her ankle 16 years ago, and has a hard time walking, because her ankle no londer bends. I show her pictures of my hikes, and I know she would like to see those places in person, but knows its impossible. people that wont hike because of lazyness or whatever are a completly different group. they are 100% capable of reaching those areas, but choose not to. That isnt my, or anyone else in this provinces problem, and the publics tax dollers shouldnt go to support making them lazy. as for the so called "greying population", there are plenty of older people who get out there and enjoy the outdoors, so once again, its a matter of choice. i cant remember where I was, but I was talking to someone who was at a hut somewhere in the rockies. there was a couple in there 90's that lived there for several months of the year, maintaining the place. they would both go off and do their thing for the the full day, almost every day, starting early in the morning, and arriving back just as the sun was setting. if a couple of 90 year olds can manage that, I dont think many people have an excuse.
keep resorts in the front country, where it is easy and cheaper to get recources like power, water and sewers to them. leave the wilderness as it is.
----------------------------------------
Bryan
|
|
|
victoria
Canada
73 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 1:26 PM
|
In a perfect world we would spend our money on solving the physical problems people have that limit their abilities. As far as development goes I agree with Lupin
"in moderation with good consideration"
----------------------------------------
If you get confused, listen to the music play. |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
114 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 1:39 PM
|
We have to look at the situation as it is really, I don't think that developping our parks even more (an other question about development, I think our parks are already too developed) will bring access to the disabled - it will just grant access to a select class of society who can acttually afford the luxury of a hot tub in the backcountry. It is not a matter of access at all!
Our parks are already way too developped and we are no longer the select group of people who will venture to the backcountry to really get the feel of no-man-land. To spend a weekend at Garibaldi, you no longer need to pack a tent, bring a stove care to stay warm, adventure is taking a major hit my friends and BC parks are the most obvious example.
Now for the true genuine adventurer, the only option left, it to go even farther in the wild in no trail land, well sorry for the rant but in my mind a lodge in the alpine has as much value as a gondola over the chief!
----------------------------------------
If you're not living your life on the edge, you're taking up too much space |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
People who can't or won't hike don't matter
