| Author |
Topic |
|
aldergrove, BC
Canada
42 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2011 : 7:24 PM
|
I cut and pasted this from another board.
This proposal threatens ALL users of the forestry roads in this province!!
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/mof/nrra/
Under the guise of catering to our "better interests", the Provincial Government has launched a new legislation proposal "for better regulation of natural resource roads". In the preamble they note: "This simplified process will create certainty about rules and regulations, and provide consistency for all sectors and resource road users".
All their wonderful words (spin) aside, what this really translates to is the wholesale curtailing of access to this province's back country. If passed, this new bill will allow the government to gate all access roads under their control, and hand off "policing" (read LIMIT & GATE) all other roads "owned" by Industry.
Already here on The Rock, Island Timberlands has started slapping up dozens upon dozens of No Trespassing Notices. Not simply on the side roads which are seeing gates assembled at an unprecedented rate, but most of the Main Arteries which of course are the only way for anyone to access the back country. It is assumed they are doing so in preparation for the passage of this bill, and has come as a surprise to both back country users and enforcement (RCMP and CO's). Chiefly this has occurred in the Comox region, but is spreading as I've now seen a handful of new signs/gates in the Port Alberni area.
Left unchecked, it will spread as fast as wildfire to the rest of the Province. If successful in pushing this bill through, the Provincial Government will be in effect curtailing everyone's access to the back country Province Wide. It simply will not matter whether you are "fishermen, hunters, mountain bikers, hikers, climbers, motorized recreation" etc etc, the answer will simply be NO You May NOT Enter!
For any who enjoy our natural heritage, and the ability to access that, I'd strongly suggest you treat this matter with the Seriousness it deserves! Write or call your MLA, send comments to the link posted above, and do it NOW! This is NO time for apathy! We are at extreme risk of losing FAR too much if this overbearing legislation is allowed to go unchecked!
I already have sent letters in, am working on comments to provide to the address noted above, and will post a few suggestions towards that once I have my thoughts assembled. I VERY much hope we can all come together, and ensure our access to OUR Province remains secure!
|
Edited by - tinbasher on 11/26/2011 7:26 PM
|
|
Vancouver
1820 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2011 : 7:43 PM
|
When I first heard about this, I thought it was a way to deal with the "Wild West" aspect of forestry road use. Where the goons use the roads without regard to traffic laws, booze regulation, and a host of other rules that govern a civil socieity.
The "no trespassing" signs and gates makes it look a lot more general. This has been going on in the Chilliwack Valley for a few years, with many important roads blocked off.
There is another approach that I don't know is still current. It used to be that if any public money was spent on a road, the road was "gazetted" and the public could not be barred from using that road. This angle, if still in existence, may be of use in this matter. |
|
|
 | 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 - 11/26/2011 : 7:44 PM
|
| That's a bunch of hooey. You cut and pasted some alarmist bullshit. |
|
|
North Vancouver, BC
Canada
1607 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2011 : 7:45 PM
|
There have been some previous discussion on this board about the issue.
It's an important issue but it's also very complex. This if the first time that I've heard someone suggest that it will definitely lead to the curtailment of access to the backcountry.
My impression is that it wasn't a bad idea to merge a few redundant laws/regulations to cut out some of the inconsistencies and simplify the rules.
I do agree that while this change happens, they could take the opportunity to make it harder to access the backcountry. It's important to provide feedback to make sure that doesn't happen because other groups will certainly push for those changes.
Do you have any facts that suggest the new legislation will impose additional restrictions on access?
As for what is happening on the island, I think it's hard to extrapolate that to the rest of BC. My understanding is that much of the land on the island is privately owned and that means that it is handled very differently.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/02/06/bc-timberwest-vancouver-island-land-for-sale.html
http://www.islandtimberlands.com/community/forest-access-info.htm
|
|
|
aldergrove, BC
Canada
42 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2011 : 8:01 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dru
That's a bunch of hooey. You cut and pasted some alarmist bullshit.
I figured it was a bit alarmist and a bit of truth.
I just thought I'd post it here and see what kind of responses it got. |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
2660 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2011 : 10:15 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by tinbasher
I cut and pasted this from another board.
Cite your sources? I couldn't get past the word 'spin' without knowing the motivation of the person/group who wrote it.
|
|
|
660 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2011 : 07:48 AM
|
From the discussion paper ( http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/mof/nrra/ ):
5. Open Roads: Roads if open are available to everyone except as required to protect the
road, to mitigate unacceptable environment impacts, and to provide for the safety of road
users.
What this means: The designated maintainer cannot decide who is allowed to use
the road. However, users must meet obligations, such as following road use rules,
and those who do not may be subject to enforcement actions.
The designated maintainer will have the authority to temporarily close roads to
everyone for maintenance activities or when conditions put the road, the
environment or users at risk. For example, it may be necessary to restrict use or
close the road temporarily due to timber falling operations next to a road, spring
break-up, or maintenance activities such as bridge replacement.
So it is in there, could perhaps be somewhat stronger protection for recreational access.
I just submitted my feedback:
I would like to see a strong emphasis that the intent of this act is to have public access for recreational purposes maintained and enhanced, and that any necessary closure be strictly limited to demonstrable requirements, and not mere convenience for the industrial user.
For example, the way it is written any road that allows any access to any environmentally sensitive area (all roads!) may be closed to all users who haven't properly submitted an environmental protection plan, meaning the public is effectively excluded.
On the other hand, some effective control on the abusive and damaging effects of off-road vehicles and dangerous driving by "drunken yahoos" would be very welcome and long overdue. I suggest permanent impoundment of the offender vehicles as a good start. |
|
|
Squamish, BC
Canada
70 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2011 : 08:36 AM
|
I'd be surprised to meet anyone that travels in the back country regularly who hasn't noticed more & more gates/access restrictions/de-activated roads or bridges. (I know roads may become deactivated due to lack of industrial use of an area, but I've noticed that bridges are being pulled more often now too).
That's why it's important to get out there and have a prescence in the backcountry, to join a club (ACC, BCMC, canoe or kayak, Snowmobile or ATV club) so there is a stronger & united voice for backcountry users. And let your MPP know what you think on these issues.
It'd be a shame to have our access rights sold out from under us, it'd be kind of like what's happened with our free flowing rivers (think about the Ashlu River IPP & others).
And if there's a no trespassing sign posted on your favorite hike next year, well, you might just have to go ahead and break that rule. In England, back in the day, there were tight restrictions on access to the high country. It was reserved for the gentry & landowners not the commoners. Until a series of mass trespass protests got the point across. Hopefully we won't get that far along the sh!tty access path to require that though.
|
|
|
surrey
Canada
649 Posts |
|
3022 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2011 : 11:19 AM
|
I wonder what BCWF's take is on this?
Also, here on the island, almost 95 percent of land on the east side between the Malahat and past courtney towards the beauforts/strathcona is private timberlands that has been internationally traded several times since the early 90's when Mac Bloe folded out.
Access is a bitch, and perversely the only way to get thru the road-blockages and gates are with ATV's or wings. And these ATV's are rampant all over here 
I'm strongly reconsidering reactivating my Enduro.
Love em or hate em, ORVs are a blessing in disguise, for those that own 'em.
I remember the days when cattle-fences where the issue of access concerns.
Wow, from wires to railroad-metal gates and boulders.
Best to put aside our prejudices and combine a union with the ORVs? |
|
|
203 Posts |
|
3022 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2011 : 9:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by cutthroat22
quote:
Originally posted by cambium
I wonder what BCWF's take is on this?
http://courtenayfishandgame.org/index_files/v3_president.html
@ cutthroat22,
thankyou , that is an informative public statement put out by BCWF's access committee.
I encourage everyone here to take 2 minutes to read this and take another 3 minutes to link onto the Submission Link.
Also contact your various MLAs.
I did just that, and some more this upcoming week to those MLAs in regions of BC that I have visited regularly and know of people that live and recreate in.
Deadline is Dec 15 2011.
I'll pull a couple of paragraphs from the BCWF site....
There is no strategy in the document on how objectives for roads will be established other than the Natural Resource Road Act (NRRA) decision maker will turn to existing plans in making the decision. Resource roads are a valuable asset for the public to access crown land. A clear process and objectives are required to define and balance between;
- recreation, tourism, fire suppression/public safety and other industrial objectives supported by access and,
- protecting wildlife fisheries habitat and other liabilities by limiting access.
The principles simply state the decision maker will make these decisions. Further The BCWF believes government has a responsibility to maintain no-longer-used resource roads to a minimal level subject to the above balance. The public has paid for the road construction and maintenance through taxation.
There will be „pressure from ministries agencies industrial and public users and First Nations to provide or restrict roads access to certain users or to specific uses. There is no objective process to balance these objectives other that trusting the NRRA statutory authority. This increases the potential for political interference at a local and provincial level with the statutory decision makers.
“Right of Access” indicates " a person, other than the government, must not restrict or impair another person's right to access or to use a resource road unless so authorized “. This would be strengthened if the policy stated that "free public access to industrial roads on Crown lands will not be restricted except for legitimate purposes of safety and environmental protection.”
The objectives established for the roads will drive the prescriptions for both maintenance and deactivation. The BCWF strongly suggests clear guidelines around road deactivation practices be adopted and included in the proposed legislation. Unacceptable environmental impact and safe deactivation are not defined. Lack of definition will result in different approaches driven by personalities rather than a consistent approach supported by the policy framework...."
I was thinking a lot about this NRRA today during my afternoon Trip. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
**Dangerous Development**
