| Author |
Topic |
 Big pack hiker who sleeps with bears in tent and falls on slippery logs
Langley, BC
Canada
7344 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2008 : 6:50 PM
|
Information from MoTSA. Of particular interest is the open meeting concerning this strategy in Langley on Jan 13th. For CT members out of the Fraser Valley area or on the Island, there are also sessions in a few of those locations, shown in the 2nd PDF.
-----------------
The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts in partnership with BC Parks and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is pleased to release the Draft Trails Strategy for British Columbia. This Draft Strategy, describes an action plan that enables the development of a world-renowned network of sustainable trails, accessible to all, which fosters social, cultural, health, economic and environmental benefits for trail users, communities and the Province. In fact, this is the Vision for the provincial trail program described in the Draft Strategy. It has been developed through collaboration and consensus by a multi-agency stakeholder and government Trail Strategy Committee and outlines broad, strategic, provincial level goals that the Committee feels are fundamental to a sustainable, world-class trail program.
http://www.clubtread.com/pdf/TrailsStrat_2MB.pdf
The Trail Strategy Committee will be hosting a series of public open house meetings in communities across the Province. We would like to invite interested public to a presentation and public open house to learn about the Strategy, and offer an opportunity for comments and feedback. Information about the Strategy process, and the public meeting details can be found on our website at http://www.tca.gov.bc.ca/sites_trails/ and on the attached page.
http://www.clubtread.com/pdf/TrailStrategyOpenhseNotice.pdf
We recognize that many people throughout British Columbia will be interested in learning about this initiative and providing input but may not be able to attend one of the open house meetings. Due to limited resources we have not been able to plan a meeting in as many communities as there are interested trail advocates. Therefore we are inviting anyone who is interested to review the Draft Trails Strategy for British Columbia on our website and complete a Trails Strategy Feedback Information Form. All input will be considered and reviewed prior to releasing a final Trail Strategy for B.C.
We look forward to hearing from you. If you have any questions please direct them to recinfo@gov.bc.ca
|
|
Dewdney, BC
Canada
384 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2008 : 7:42 PM
|
If it could be made to work I would support it . However ..... I don`t trust those guys for a second . They obviously need to shore up their popularity .
After quickly going over the hype I picked out this item --
Trail plans would --
• Be designed to not adversely impact other users of Crown land resources
such as forestry, mining, ranching and trapping.
So where does that leave the next Elk - Thurston trail ?
I`m tying to decide whether this cynicism or realism . Maybe both .
Wulf |
|
|
|
Big pack hiker who sleeps with bears in tent and falls on slippery logs
Langley, BC
Canada
7344 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2008 : 07:38 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wulf2
If it could be made to work I would support it . However ..... I don`t trust those guys for a second . They obviously need to shore up their popularity .
All the more reason to have a CT showing. |
|
|
 Happy go lucky, plaid wearin, postholin, safeway gaitor sportin, old-school film shootin, giver of many regards
LOGAN LAKE, B.C.
Canada
8579 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2008 : 7:14 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wulf2
If it could be made to work I would support it . However ..... I don`t trust those guys for a second . They obviously need to shore up their popularity .
After quickly going over the hype I picked out this item --
Trail plans would --
• Be designed to not adversely impact other users of Crown land resources
such as forestry, mining, ranching and trapping.
So where does that leave the next Elk - Thurston trail ?
I`m tying to decide whether this cynicism or realism . Maybe both .
Wulf
Looks like the standard phrase used in discussing multiple use of our forest resources. I find it hard to imagine the delerious effects of a trail on these other uses, except for hikers to disturb cattle when they are feeding.
K |
|
|
|
Trail cuttin, GPS packin bushwhacker, wiki hike compilin, who is now Hope-less
Langley, BC
Canada
2397 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2008 : 7:21 PM
|
| I like the point about considering trails when making resource road decisions. (ie/ road deactivation or gating to trailheads) |
|
|
surrey, british columbia
Canada
85 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2008 : 9:28 PM
|
| And perhaps they may also be concerned about cow tipping. |
Edited by - brett on 11/13/2008 9:31 PM |
|
|
386 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2008 : 05:18 AM
|
First, I've heard about it. It's a step in the right direction. Once there's something in place that sees boots on the ground and shovels in the dirt, that's when I'll get excited.
It's very idealistic at this stage but there's nothing wrong with idealism; however, I don't plan on participating at present. I find these initiatives tend to get bogged down with a lot of talk, establishing "frameworks" etc. |
|
|
Chilliwack, BC
Canada
437 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2008 : 09:54 AM
|
I just want to point out that there are reasons for managing how people use crown land. For instance, recreational users often cross fences and open gates. Sometimes they break the fences with quads or leave gates open. Then the poor rancher has very 'free' range cattle. That is not a good situation for anyone.
Also, remember when the hunter shot the woman in Washington? Perhaps managing where hiking trails are in relation to hunting areas can minimize those kind of unfortunate events.
I think I will got to Langley and listen to the plan to find out more about this strategy before I decide if it's worthwhile or more government drivel. |
|
|
 Extreme ski tourin, mountain bikin addict who hikes at least once a year
1994 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2008 : 10:13 AM
|
Some local volunteers are going to put their heads together to ask MOTSA some questions. Here's some questions I'm going to put to them
- Need improvements to Occupiers Liability Act to immunize trail maintenance groups, municipalities, province from liability for users getting injured on trails
- Marketing trail networks will increase trail use. Need funds to grant to trail maintenance groups to offset and compensate for added maintenance burden
- Need inexpensive, simple insurance for trail maintenance groups. Emphasis on SIMPLE. FLAT FEE insurance option is the best. Asking groups to record each member who shows up for every trail day and getting all particulars and getting releases from everyone is NOT simple.
- Need to accommodate groups that are NOT interested in building trails to be used by motorized vehicles. Not interested in building MotoX trails.
- Need to accommodate groups that are NOT interested in building gravel paths. Not interested in building trails like the Seawall or the RJuryn trail |
|
|
|
Satirical photoshop junkie who frolics in the mountains of the Chilliwack River Valley
THE GREAT OUTSIDE
Canada
5610 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2008 : 10:16 AM
|
| A group of us are meeting with Mike Peters of MoTSA on Tuesday regarding the Elk Mtn Trail, so perhaps I will get some further insight into this new plan, at least with regard to Elk. |
|
|
386 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2008 : 5:44 PM
|
| I agree with a lot of what Lee says. A lot of outdoor groups did participate through the auspices of the Outdoor Recreation Council in the late 1980s or early 1990s with a workshop on the Occupiers Liability Act. I was there and so was Anders Ourom (a lawyer and climber who set up the Climbers Access Society later on) and many others. I believe the government of the day took notice and acted on some recommendations that came out of the ORC discussion and I seem to recall there were actual changes to the law (years later). For example, a landowner was not held liable if a trespasser was injured on private property. What it means in practice is that there's no strong reason for a land owner to keep out hikers from merely crossing his or her land, for example way out in the boondocks. One of the legal types would be better informed. I guess what I'm asking is, what further changes are needed to the Occupiers Liability Act? |
Edited by - Stoked on 11/14/2008 5:45 PM |
|
|
|
Extreme ski tourin, mountain bikin addict who hikes at least once a year
1994 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2008 : 5:53 PM
|
The OLA gives pretty decent blanket immunity protection on its face BUT
I've participated in discussions with MoF officials and internal counsel where they've said they wanted clarity on their immunity - examples:
- short statute of limitations to initiate lawsuits
- clearly defined standard of care for anyone to qualify and the standard of care must be set pretty darn low
- clearer examples of land which qualifies for immunity (eg is land contiguous to urban areas subject to the OLA - classic example is Fromme Mtn or Sumas Mtn)
I could go on but its pretty technical. |
|
|
386 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2008 : 6:37 PM
|
| One thing I thought might be very useful to myself would be coverage under WCB for volunteer trail work. Not sure how claims would be substantiated or who would pay the premiums. But if injury should occur wouldn't it be great to know you're covered? |
Edited by - Stoked on 11/15/2008 6:37 PM |
|
|
|
Satirical photoshop junkie who frolics in the mountains of the Chilliwack River Valley
THE GREAT OUTSIDE
Canada
5610 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2008 : 11:11 PM
|
With regard to Volunteer Trail work, the Gov't prefers to work through an officialy recognized group like an outdoor club. For example, the Chwk Outdoor Club maintains the Pierce Lake trail. MoTSA does provide liability coverage but their agreement is quite a lengthy one in order to receive coverage.
Even so, MoTSA didn't want any of us to use power equipment such as chainsaws for trail clearing. I think in alot of ways though it would just be easier to unofficialy do trail work and assume your own risk. |
|
|
386 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2008 : 05:47 AM
|
quote:
assume your own risk
Why shouldn't the risk be mitigated by compensating injury? |
|
|
Dewdney, BC
Canada
384 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2008 : 06:52 AM
|
quote:
I think in alot of ways though it would just be easier to unofficialy do trail work and assume your own risk.
You sure got that right . The minute you bring in liability insurance you bring in regulation . Sooner or later that will require certification of maintenance personnel and in the end less will be accomplished .
How about a law that says " If you`re on the trail either hiking or maintaining it you`re on your own ; you cannot sue anybody for any reason whatsoever " ? I believe most of the people reading this would carry on as they always have and this discussion would have no purpose .
And you would be assured there would not be a WorkSafe inspector standing at the trailhead stopping you because you aren`t certified or are not carrying the required 50 lbs of safety gear .
Wulf |
|
|
|
Satirical photoshop junkie who frolics in the mountains of the Chilliwack River Valley
THE GREAT OUTSIDE
Canada
5610 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2008 : 09:58 AM
|
quote:
The minute you bring in liability insurance you bring in regulation . Sooner or later that will require certification of maintenance personnel and in the end less will be accomplished .
Exactly! I remember back when the trail building crew was working on the Cheam trail from Spoon Valley. In order for them to use power equipment they also had to carry in a fire extinguisher as a precaution, plus they also needed the faller's pants, helmet, ear protection and all other safety equipment. If you want to be covered, you would have to be wearing WCB approved protection; ever hiked with steel toed boots?
I'm still of the opinion that at least for the more basic aspect of trail maintenance, just do it. I know MoTSA here in Chilliwack will send guys in with chainsaws to remove larger deadfall if it's reported. |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
1032 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2008 : 1:33 PM
|
My understanding is that the MoTCA partnership agreement offers third party liability insurance, not accident insurance. The third party liability insurance covers you as a trail builder in the event that Joe Hiker trips on a root and decides to sue you for building an unsafe trail. It does not cover you for cutting your own arm off with a chainsaw while building the trail.
BC Parks has it's own set of rules for volunteers working in provincial park that forbid volunteers from using power equipment. |
|
|
386 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2008 : 04:37 AM
|
Wulf, Scott and BillyGoat all raise a good point. I guess I'm seeking clarification of the volunteer trail maintenance model that is in use at Pierce Lake trail. Actually, training about equipment use and safety is not a bad thing. I've actually taken some training in chain saw use and I've picked up a lot working with volunteer experts. I've also taken some unrelated wilderness first aid. It's just that you don't want to raise the standards so high that the work cannot be reasonably performed. It needs a reality check on both sides.
What is incongruous is the two-tiered approach I see in place. For example, if you cut a large tree with a crosscut saw and the log falls on the person on one end of the saw they're covered or if the log is cut by a forestry employee they're covered. But, if it's cut by a volunteer with a chainsaw they're not.
WorkSafe BC covers all employees by providing compensation in the event of injury. The rates are set by risk and compliance. Yes, there are costs and there are regulations. The rate for fallers is very high due to the risk. Unsafe companies with horrendous safety records will eventually be driven out of business. Is that a bad thing for workers?
In a working model for volunteers identical standards should not necessarily apply. Effectively, what there is today is that all volunteer trail work is de facto falling under the onerous cloud of regulation applied to forestry workers in the province. The model does not pass a reasonableness test for volunteer work. That's why trail maintenance and in particular use of power tools has such a bad rep.
The current state of affairs is simply laughable. I saw the potential in this initiative of addressing something like compensation for volunteer work in the event of a catastrophic injury. I've never been one to simply accept the status quo on either side of the argument. Occasionally, I run across people from various outdoor clubs in the Lower Mainland. The clubs are pretty much all divided about provincial regulations with respect to power tool use. Some recognize that it has led to deplorable upkeep of certain trails and that things are unsatisfactory. I guess there is some reluctance to jeopardize relationships with provincial agencies by taking stands against unreasonable and ineffective policy. In my opinion, the clubs are basically aligning with government policy on this score simply because they're not disagreeing with it. |
Edited by - Stoked on 11/17/2008 04:45 AM |
|
|
|
Extreme ski tourin, mountain bikin addict who hikes at least once a year
1994 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2008 : 10:27 AM
|
I'm against workers comp for volunteer work. It's more bureaucracy and more administration costs. On balance the upsides are far outweighed by the downsides.
Some Kamloops mountain-bike associations have had track-records of dealing with MOTSA for the past 2 years as had Billygoat's association in chilliwack.
Here were my concerns when the first MOTSA framework was issued - from this thread http://bb.nsmb.com/showthread.php?p=2059831#post2059831
To aid in reading- TTF's or stunts are man-made creations peculiar to mountain-biking. The closest equivalent is building a bridge for a hiking trail.
MY COMMENTS:
This looks very bureaucratic although you've made some efforts to stress that trail plans don't require engineering-level drawings.
Asking groups to adopt trails with this kind of administrative headache is a non-starter. Trail groups simply aren't this organized and you will ask people to set themselves up for a fall.
Why the requirement for insurance when the government has the ability to amend the Occupiers Liability Act to make it impossible to sue the government for any injuries occuring due to a stunt/technical trail feature. Insurance is expensive; trail groups will never be able to raise that money.
I read this policy as such - Government basically wants groups to adopt and maintain trails for everyone, then government will market those trails without any obligation to give anything back to the trail groups. Meanwhile, government also wants trail groups to take on public liability for all trails (since almost all trails in BC have stunts).
For North Shore - no effect as very few trails are on crown land. Will affect Woodlot, Vedder, Squamish, Whistler and other places.
http://www.squamishmountainbike.com/...SORCAnews.html - Policy is here
Policy on website also at http://www.tsa.gov.bc.ca/publicrec/. (Note - couldn't find it)
Direct comments to Bill Marshall, Director of Recreation Sites and Trails Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts (Bill.Marshall@gov.bc.ca)
Comments:
1. Trials of the policy in Squamish, Chilliwack, Burns Lake, Terrace, Nelson, Invermere, Kamloops and Williams Lake
2. Applies to crown lands (ie Provincial lands) NOT municipal lands.
3. Will remove trails from crown lands if no organization adopts trails
4. Trail groups have to "apply" to adopt trails. May have to consult with other stakeholders and public. May have to submit land use plans
5. Have to be an organized trail group to adopt trails. Individuals can only get one-off permission for specific projects.
6. SHORT TERM trail work is for one year projects. Simple application process
7. LONG TERM trail work is for up to ten years. Complex application process (organization's resume and past experience; how to deal with other users; environmental mitigation)
8. All new trails must be multi - use (ie no purpose built bike trails - must allow motoX, hikers, horses etc).
9. If trail group builds stunts must get $ 2M third party liability insurance; must appoint trail safety coordinator; must file annual report with MOTSA about trail and stunt inspection and repair plan, Must follow IMBA and Whistler standards
10. Any trails with stunts must have multi-year agreement. All multi-year agreements must have annual operating plan (Submit 1:20,000 map; Plan with nature and timing of proposed trail work)
11. Trails without stunts that are not adopted may become legally sanctioned. Any trails with stunts that is not adopted may be deactivated. |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
714 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2008 : 5:26 PM
|
That's insane. Who's going to be that organized for a recreational activity?
Also, I think there is definitely a need for dedicated mountain bike trails. Do these people not step outside of a gym?
I'm glad there are people here who already have some experience with some of this. I'm learning a lot. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
MoTSA - provincial trail strategies
