Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 1281 - 1300 of total 1453 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Vancouver Canada
Jun 16, 2012 - 01:42am PT
Policy is the on the ground definition of a law. Here's an illustration:

The law says hitting someone on the head with a pipe is defined as assault.
- Mook A hits Mook B over the head with a pipe.
- Mook A says "I did it because he was bothering me, and deserved it".
- Policy says you can only use as much force as necessary to defend yourself. "but I did", says Mook A.
- Enough force starts with walking away, so Mook A went away.

Ignorance is no defense any lawyer or policy maker will tell you...
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Vancouver Canada
Jun 16, 2012 - 01:46am PT
Not yet as they haven't done anything.
Todd Eastman

climber
Bellingham, WA
Jun 16, 2012 - 01:59am PT
bb, from MH, April 8, 2012:

//The B.C. government policy on removing land from parks and protected areas, such as Stawamus Chief and Shannon Falls Provincial Parks, is at http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/docs/boundary_adj_guide.pdf

The "Provincial Protected Area Boundary Adjustment Policy, Process and Guidelines". In this case, removal also requires legislation.

Some pertinent quotes:
• Proposals for protected area boundary adjustments will be considered on a case by case basis where there are compelling provincial economic, environmental and social benefits that collectively exceed maintaining the existing protected area boundary and values.
• The review and evaluation process will be timely and transparent.
• The proponent must establish the case to adjust a protected area boundary (including meeting the provisions of this Policy) and bear the associated costs.
• Suitable public consultation will be required, consistent with the significance of the proposed change.//

The ambiguous wording, the mentioning of a "timely and transparent" process, and "suitable public consultation will be required" seem to beg public concern and deserve questions...


Tricouni

Mountain climber
Vancouver
Jun 16, 2012 - 02:15am PT
I think I'll stop following this thread now.

Bye.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jun 16, 2012 - 02:15am PT
I wonder who bearbreeder could be? 106 posts, over half in the last two months on this thread. Evidently a climber. Hopefully not someone with a personal interest in the gondola proposal - we've already had one faux neutral who turned out not to be.

Perhaps she/he can look at the Park Act, the Protected Areas Act, and (most importantly) the “Provincial Protected Area Boundary Adjustment Policy, Process and Guidelines”: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/bound_adj_policy.html It's a bit of homework, but a good read, and then you'll understand a bit more. It's the law, and in Canada, citizens have the right to insist that the government comply with the law.

If you send me your e-mail, I'll send you the master plan and rock climbing strategy for the Park. The former states that the Park is for "non-mechanized" recreation, and IIRC, at the planning meetings in 1995 - 97, the idea of a tourist gondola in the Park came up momentarily and was dismissed out of hand.

Suffice to say that other, larger and more influential groups than FOSC have become involved. They also have major concerns with the (lack of) process, and the precedent. There will be a rather interesting meeting quite soon. I can't tell you more, but trust me. (So Tricouni should check back in a week.)

As for numbers, our petition may now have jumped to over 1,000 - we have to tally and collate, but it's quite close anyway. It seems that not many hikers and climbers, when asked, think a gondola is a good idea. Too bad no one bothered to ask existing users of the Park before, eh? Wonder how that got forgotten?

As for BB's question, if there is a transparent, credible process where:

a) all those interested in or affected by the proposal have a true opportunity to be informed and comment;
b) BC Parks is given the resources to thoroughly review the proposal, in context of the policy and the Park's master plan, and report on its findings;
c) alternative locations outside the Park (e.g. Goat Ridge) are properly considered; and
d) the policy itself is complied with, and the process is actively and independently managed by B.C. Parks;

then if so, and if the conclusion is that a gondola should be permitted to intrude into the Park, then I personally would abide by the decision. I would never use such a gondola or its related facilities, though. I would not object to a tourist gondola on Goat Ridge, and might even bring myself to use it, if only to entertain visitors.

(My mother's school once had a budgie, named BB = Bayview Boy, except it was a girl.)
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Vancouver Canada
Jun 16, 2012 - 02:34am PT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful idiot
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Vancouver Canada
Jun 16, 2012 - 02:37am PT
I'd be nicer but you have a fondness for straw man arguments.
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Vancouver Canada
Jun 16, 2012 - 02:43am PT
Not at all.

Both Bruce and Hamish support the gondola and also bring cogent reasons forward which I respect but don't automatically agree with. My darned free will getting in the way, hope you understand.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jun 16, 2012 - 02:45am PT
Maybe it's time to knock off for the night, eh guys?
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Vancouver Canada
Jun 16, 2012 - 02:47am PT
Only if you read us a story Anders...
RyanD

climber
Squamish
Jun 16, 2012 - 04:12am PT


Credit: unknown

gf

climber
Jun 16, 2012 - 11:37am PT
happy trails to you bb
hamish f

Social climber
squamish
Jun 16, 2012 - 06:56pm PT
The Bearbreeder is correct, I don't exactly support the gondola, but I most definitely don't oppose it. I believe it's a fair compromise. The Friends of the steep slope in between the Chief and Shannon Falls is doing some interesting work but I must admit it seems their support is a tad low.
I'm still hoping Anders will call up his buddies at TLC and ask them why they felt it was a prudent move to take steps to ensure a gondola would be located there.
As Anders told us early on, follow the money. The Land Consevancy has already profitted a million dollars from this gondola and it's not even built yet.
How much work, time, hurdles, meetings, permits, hiring, firing, investing, construction and risk taking do you think these developers will go through before they can (possibly) make a million bucks? It's high time for the real story from The Land Conservancy. And I don't mean the "Release of Lies", or "Press Release", whatever it's called. We need the Real Story, Anders. If you were so involved with them in the purchasing of the gravel pit in the first place, then you have some history with them. Phone them, meet with them, e-mail them, do whatever you have to do to communicate with them, but get the "goods".
Transparent-translucent-opaque-hidden-not-hidden, whatever the processes are that need to happen, TLC made a huge decision on behalf of everyone and somehow isn't being asked to account for it.
YesToCarrots

climber
Squamish, BC
Jun 16, 2012 - 08:53pm PT
there are many people who enjoy that park who support the gondola, or at the very least are not opposed ...

BB,

Believe me, we get it. But there is a huge difference between "Oh yea, that would be nice" and "We really *need* a gondola, because without it people are truly deprived of something valuable that they will not get any other way." A lot of people will casually say yes to a lot of things (besides carrots), but this does not spell a true need. Once again, the burden of proof is on those who want the gondola and claim that it's necessary.
hamish f

Social climber
squamish
Jun 17, 2012 - 02:29am PT
With all due respect, Carrots, you make it sound like a gov't project paid for with taxpayer money. As far as things we don't need and aren't necessary, where did you want to start the list....

It wasn't "necessary" for Parks to purchase the 13 acre piece of land up at Edith lake (for over a million bucks) a few years ago, but that's what they did. Perhaps they should've spent that money on the Gravel Pit instead. Loki the cat would've approved. That was a boundary adjustment, and a pricey one at that. But it made sense.

B.C. Parks didn't "need" to build two beautiful little log cabins at Porteau Cove Provincial Campground right on the waterfront and rent them out for 500-600 bucks a night, but they did, and it wouldn't surprise me if the income helps balance the books a bit. That was pristine beachfront enjoyed by many families and now it's off limits unless you have a few brown ones in your wallet as opposed to twenty bucks for a campsite.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining at all. Parks needs more revenue and this is a good way to grab it. My point is simply that it most likely didn't mesh perfectly with the Master Plan and it wouln't surprise me if there were a few citizens who didn't agree.

Very difficult to keep everyone happy.
YesToCarrots

climber
Squamish, BC
Jun 17, 2012 - 04:57pm PT
Hamish,

In both of your examples, nothing was taken away from a park, and a class A park at that. My point is, if you do intend to take something away in this case, you need to show compelling reasons. I'm not sure what you mean by comparing that to taxpayer-funded projects, but that was so far from my mind I can't even see a connection. Maybe you were comparing tax dollars to park land (both being public "funds")? But I'd say it's a bit dangerous and a bit cynical to look at park land as disposable currency.

The purchase of land around Edith lake added to the existing parkland, it didn't take away from it. Ironically, maybe that's why they couldn't afford to buy the gravel pit, but that's just guesswork. (I'm interested now in why they did buy that land and will do some research into that.)

And yes, the two cabins at Porteau Cove are cute as buttons and probably generate revenue, but they were added long after the place was developed into campsites. It was hardly pristine by then. Again, nothing got taken away from a park. (I too love Porteau Cove and use the little pebble beach under the cliff, at the very end of the road.)

Parks needs more revenue and this is a good way to grab it.
That's assuming we've accepted the sad and cynical situation where Parks are underfunded and expected to go fend for themselves. But even so, where is the guarantee that any significant amount of revenue from the gondola would go to Parks? Taxes will be paid to the District of Squamish, but where do they go from there?

Edit: on a lighter note, Happy Father's Day!
hamish f

Social climber
squamish
Jun 17, 2012 - 07:27pm PT
Thank-you, and a great Father's Day it was. My examples were really only to show that some people out there might not always agree with the moves taken by B.C. Parks.
I guess I find it tough to understand your part about people being required to prove that we "need" a gondola. I'm not too sure there is a gondola in the world which is actually "needed". Seems like a bit of an oxymoron to me, as the majority of Park services and attributes are all perks for the rather spoiled first world we live in.
B.C. Parks also underwent a major renovation up at Alice Lk. to run underground power to most of the campsites, at a cost you really don't want to know. Do people really "need" to plug in whilst on their "camping" trip?
Do we actually "need" a gondola? Of course not; I couldn't agree more. But someone decided to call this place the recreation capital of Canada and I'm not too surprised to see something of this nature, all things considered.
I don't think we "need" a Wendy's/ Tim Horton's, Burger King, Fatburger, White Spot, Taco Hell, "Adventure Center", Casino, Million-Dollar Overpass to get to the Casino....... it's endless.
We didn't really "need" a billion dollar highway, but now that it's finished, it's pretty handy. We don't need access up to the Shannon Creek basin but if these guys do a good job, it too could be pretty handy. Best case scenerio, imagine heading up there after breakfast with your kid and your bikes, stopping at the circus up top for a coffee and a view, and then heading off on a seven hour bike tour/descent all the way to Britannia where your hubby picks you up. Fun day or what? Now I realize that's the best case scenerio but no pain, no gain.

I agree, there isn't any proof the gondola development will be kicking any money in the Park's direction, but I think everyone needs to be patient as they most definitely haven't finished with their Park Use Permit etc..

You and I may believe those little log cabins at Porteau are cute, cozy, and a bright way to generate three or four thousand dollars a week, but I can assure you there are some people out there who aren't very impressed. Sure, the place had campsites already, but that ain't camping; not at three hundred dollars/night.

Sorry for hogging the site so much, just seems to be raining SO much lately.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jun 17, 2012 - 09:46pm PT
"outdoor" recreation capital of Canada. Self-styled.

And yes, it's clear that some in Squamish, most likely with support from Whistler, have long wanted a gondola.

References to Porteau and Alice Lake aren't necessarily all that helpful, in that both are classic 1950s roadside campgrounds, dolled up a bit. Not very similar to the Chief, and with very different purposes.

And yes, that pedestrian bridge to the Malamute is going to embarrass us for a long time - an underpass/tunnel would have cost a fraction of that, and maybe allowed some of the money to be redirected to other needed work at the Chief.

Hamish raises some key questions about the role and stewardship of parks in our fortunate society. Questions that are familiar elsewhere, even in Yosemite, with it being an early national park, perennially threatened with development, the Hetch Hetchy event, and so on.

In the case of the proposed gondola, no one seems to have genuinely considered most of the underlying questions of principle:

1. Why was the park created, for what purpose(s)?

2. Should removal of land from parks, including this park, be considered at all? If so, when and how?

3. Are there other suitable nearby locations, outside the park, whether or not they're ideal from the proponent's perspective?

4. If a removal is to be considered, what process should be used, bearing in mind the requirements of government policy (law), and the simple democratic need to inform those who are or might be affected, and seek their views.

5. BC Parks has chronic problems with underfunding, and the park system is increasingly under siege by commercial and industrial development. The area 'protected' in parks doubled during the 1990s, largely due to the Protected Areas Strategy, a byproduct of the Brundtland Commissions recommended 12%. The budget for BC Parks has been significantly reduced over that time. Recipe for problems.

6. If and only if a proposal passes the above hurdles - as mentioned, if BC Parks could get some backbone, and start to tell developers to simply piss off, that'd help - then an initial step should be hard, independent scrutiny of what's proposed, and the risk/return to the park. It is in every proponent's interests to inflate supposed benefits, and downplay risks, and the government, instead of facilitating, should be examining.

So I agree with carrotclimber - the onus is on every developer to conclusively demonstrate that it is in a park's and the public's interest to even consider something like this, and if so, it's essential that the process be public and independent.
hamish f

Social climber
squamish
Jun 17, 2012 - 10:34pm PT
I meant the overpass going in at the Casino, as we speak, not the blue bridge to the Malemute.

Is that really you writing bullet #6? Holy Moly Anders, I do appreciate seeing your various sides. That tone of language is bound to develop good working relationships with your peers. Good on you.

I realize my examples aren't very interesting to you Anders, but would you please tell me what you think about the pricey cabins available at Porteau?
Thank-you.
Hoser

climber
vancouver
Jun 17, 2012 - 11:02pm PT
What's the worst case Hamish? Kinda hard to include bikes as a best case since they are already not allowed.
Messages 1281 - 1300 of total 1453 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews