Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 12:09am PT
|
gf is right, the slippery slope is indeed the issue here. We are getting nearer to the precipice I think. They allready legislated the Ashlu project into existance next is the feds with the pipeline. This is just sign of the times. what's next?????
I think both Bruce and Anders are right. There alot of other pressing issues but this sets a precedent for resource development in our parks without consultation which also needs to be addressed.
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 12:27am PT
|
The point is without that meeting this process is invalid. BC Parks must follow thier own guidelines.
edit ^^^^^^^ Obviously Bearbreeder. Par for the course.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 12:33am PT
|
Oh wow, bear breeder & BK on the same page, I thought BB was just subbing in to bust Anders balls while BK was away.
Speaking of being away Bruce, when are u gonna put up a TR? I could use some Sierra psyche since I don't get any Sierra granite till September.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 12:51am PT
|
FOSC has been clear about what the problems are with the process are, and how they can be solved. Compliance with the government's own policy. (It's not "guidelines".) True consideration of alternative locations. (Not done to date.) Publication of information and applications to the government's website. (Not done.) Independent scrutiny by BC Parks of the merits of the proposal. (Not done.) Independent public meetings - Vancouver, Squamish, even internet. (Definitely not done.)
And no, a token public meeting, even if in Vancouver, won't do it. Nice try. Neither would an unlimited number of additional informercials by the proponent, often with select audiences in Squamish.
If the proposal is as genuine and worthwhile as some of you have been hornswoggled into believing, it should withstand real scrutiny and debate. If it isn't, don't you think it's better to know, now?
The proponents should be glad that this isn't subject to a real public review, including full disclosure and cross examination.
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 12:52am PT
|
So basically they make it up as they go. wow.. what's the point of parks again?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 01:12am PT
|
OK, you asked for it - apparently you're unable to click on and read a link. Here are some excerpts - read the damn thing for yourself.
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/bound_adj_policy.html
PROVINCIAL PROTECTED AREA BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT POLICY, PROCESS AND GUIDELINES
Consideration of proposals for protected area boundary changes will be guided by the following principles:
• The BC Government is committed to the protection of provincial protected areas and the integrity of their associated ecological, recreational and cultural values.
• 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.
• Where feasible, consultation will occur with participants that were involved in a public planning process where that process resulted in the establishment of the protected area.
• Consultation with First Nations and local governments will be required.
• Suitable public consultation will be required, consistent with the significance of the proposed change.
That's just the introduction.
Stage 1: Initial Proposal
The proponent submits an initial proposal to the Director responsible for protected area planning, BC Parks. The initial proposal should include:
...
6. Preliminary assessment of alternatives that would avoid the use of protected lands and the reasons those alternatives are not considered feasible.
...
8. Known community groups with an interest in the protected area, and the status of any discussions with these groups.
4. GUIDELINES FOR DETAILED PROPOSALS
Proponents should ensure that the information they submit with their
detailed proposal addresses the following considerations to the satisfaction of the Minister
1. Alternatives to avoid the protected area have been considered.
Proponents must consider and document alternatives that would avoid a protected area boundary adjustment. Clear supporting rationale for supporting or rejecting an alternative must be provided.
3. Social and environmental impacts have been documented.
All potential impacts of the proposed development on the social and environmental values of the protected area must be identified. This should include consideration of how the proposal may impact or benefit traditional user activities, visitor enjoyment and safety, identification and impacts to natural values in the area and associated risks to natural values. Broader environmental impacts or benefits, beyond the protected area, should also be identified.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 01:16am PT
|
bearbreeder, you're being a troll. When creation of the Park was being considered, and then its master plan, BC Parks held public meetings to discuss in Squamish and Vancouver, and maybe even Whistler. Those meetings were widely advertised, and included presentation of information and analysis, discussion, and written feedback.
Local meetings, largely under the control of a proponent with an inherent conflict of interest, don't amount to much. People from FOSC attended some of those meetings, and reported that they were more like infomercials, with no real discussion was possible. And, to repeat a point that you've evidently missed, Stawamus Chief Provincial Park is "local" to far more than those who happen to live in Squamish. Doh!
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 01:18am PT
|
Oh really? Where did FOSC, or I, say that "one" meeting would be enough? How would that address a fundamentally flawed process?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 01:32am PT
|
All in good time, grasshopper. Tomorrow there will be a meeting that may resolve some of these matters. I'll report so soon as I can, though it may not be right away. Patience!
As to the possible responses of FOSC and its allies to various outcomes, we've considered that also. You'll learn soon enough what is decided.
You're a climber - you know determination and tenacity are important. Plus the opera ain't over until the fat lady sings, eh?
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 01:39am PT
|
Anders, I advise you to not get sucked into "barely reads er's" vortex of illogical asinine dribble.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 03:30am PT
|
Hey BB not trying to be an a$$hole I just don't get your point of view at all. Sorry.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 05:56am PT
|
I can't wait for extra foods to open in the morning so I can re-load on cereal.
Perhaps B.B.'s and B.K.'s point is simply the probable outcome of any number of public meetings, should they come around. Fast forward to any meeting, anywhere in B.C., Point Grey/Kits for example.
Some FOSCers weigh in and voice their concern, Parks says that these complaints have been addressed already and thanks very much for bringing them up again.
Another FOSCer stands up and says they want the Bean Around The World coffee served up top instead of the usual Starbucks. Parks barks back that they are fine with Starbucks being served (this way Jim can build it) and the issue is resolved.
Another FOSCer gets vertical and says he's found a far superior location down the highway, far away from the Park. Parks finds this slightly interesting but points out how extra construction costs would deem this site prohibitive.
A final FOSCer raises his hand and says he doesn't want the gondola in his sight line when he's climbing on the south end of the Bulletheads. To this Parks replies something along the lines of suggesting the climber wear those sunglasses with the little light blocks on each side, so as to cut down on anything in his periphery.
Then the meeting will end.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 12:18pm PT
|
Cheerios for this pilgrim today. Either that, or Wheaties, the breakfast of champions.
You guys are fixated on the idea that all that's needed is a token meeting, maybe in Vancouver. Not so. First comes a credible, independent and transparent review of the proposal. Including whether it has met the basic requirements of the government policy. For example, alternate locations must be thoroughly examined. They weren't. And so on. Plans, implementation, finances, management - publicly scrutinized. Then, and only then, public meetings where the information and BC Parks assessment of it is presented, and the public is asked for its views. In Squamish, Vancouver, by the internet, and even on the Chief. It's quite clear that such meetings would show that there is substantial opposition, - notwithstanding the proponent's report to the contrary.
The government might still ultimately have to decide, but at least it would be a better informed decision, with objective information as to the various issues.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 04:33pm PT
|
Bruce, are you saying that the opinions held by the developers that guided them through the different levels of securing government support, are more important than the opinions of those that want a more rigorous governmental review?
Opinions matter, but in this case the opinions backed by money and assertions of future benefits matter more...?
Whether the issue is a gondola at Squamish, hydro power further up the coast, or pipelines, public review is important. Without it money will always trump the public's interests and rights. Only constant demanding of the most transparent processes will assure future adherence by the agencies and regulators to laws and policies.
Good on ya for getting in some climbing in the sunny south!
The moss grew back in at the local boulders over the last few weeks.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 04:52pm PT
|
#1,800.
Almost 1,000 more than the "Climbing at Squamish in the 1970s" thread.
Maybe in a way it's good - we need to look to the future, too.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2012 - 07:57pm PT
|
From: Minister, ENV ENV:EX [mailto:ENV.Minister@gov.bc.ca]
Sent: June 22, 2012 4:52 PM
Reference: 169517i
June 22, 2012
Dear (sir):
Thank you for your letters of May 23 and 29, and June 1 and 13, 2012, regarding the Sea to Sky Gondola Corporation’s application to adjust the boundary of Stawamus Chief Park.
This email is to acknowledge the receipt of your correspondence and to assure you that a detailed response will be provided once I have had the opportunity to review with ministry staff the issues you have raised.
Thank you again for taking the time to write.
Sincerely,
Terry Lake
Minister of Environment
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Bruce, where were you last night, you hoser? I brought your button and everything.
The Tyee article is reasonable, but doesn't say a lot new, although for once both the Minister and the proponent actually spoke. It'd be useful to know when the Minister was interviewed, before or after a meeting on June 22nd. No doubt he's saying what his staff tell him to say, but still, if I were him, I'd be somewhat embarrassed. He's insisting that everything is hunky dory with the park, the process, and the proposal, and there's a lot that says otherwise. And much of what he says in terms of the goals and values of the park is outright revisionist.
As for creation of the park, and the master plan. I was there, and neither you nor the Minister were. The subject of a gondola anywhere in the park was brought up, IIRC by Jim S - he'd been exposed to them in Europe. He wasn't quite laughed out of the room, but close.
Whether hiring Mr. Faulkner does anything for the credibility of the proposal is a matter of opinion.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2012 - 02:56am PT
|
Bruce, the assumption that this gondola would actually expand recreation in previously hard to reach sections of the Park complex (Squamish/Shannon Falls) is without merit unless the hours of operation are expanded top allow late returns from high-country trips And/or early starts. Now if BC Parks were to stipulate that hours of operation were to meet nearly all users including early and late arriving backcountry users, the gondola proposal might have a degree of merit. Still, this group of developers has gamed the system to get to where it is now and those opposing it are fully entitled to utilize other means within the system to de-rail it. These chumps are using the same methods to circumvent the process as those chumps building dams further up the coast and the chumps wanting to build pipelines all over this continent.
It is all the same problem. Practice on the small stuff and get good; and then have at the big ones!
I hope summer is cranking up your way. The chores and skiing have kept me from doing anything but bouldering locally, but one of these days...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!