imported>Bigbadbasstrombone |
|
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | {{Historical |
| | | RedirectPage=Winter Recreation Zoning near VOC Huts |
| | }} |
| | ==Update== |
| | |
| | This page needs to be updated. The mediator's report mentioned at the bottom of the page has been released, with mostly good news, though the bottom of the Phelix Creek Road is to be shared with snowmobiles. More info should be coming soon. |
| | |
| | |
| ==Background== | | ==Background== |
|
| |
|
| Line 7: |
Line 15: |
| The vision of the Forum was to find a way for all recreational users to have reasonable access to an enjoyable experience in the Sea to Sky backcountry. After almost two years of consultations, discussions and negotiations, the Winter Forum developed a Winter Sharing Accord, which designates areas in the Sea to Sky backcountry for different recreational uses. The Winter Sharing Accord was signed off by all Forum participants. Every user group made compromises and trade-offs in order to achieve the Winter Sharing Accord. The Winter Sharing Accord is therefore a total package, balancing the recreational interests of each user group and thereby minimizing conflicts between the different user groups. | | The vision of the Forum was to find a way for all recreational users to have reasonable access to an enjoyable experience in the Sea to Sky backcountry. After almost two years of consultations, discussions and negotiations, the Winter Forum developed a Winter Sharing Accord, which designates areas in the Sea to Sky backcountry for different recreational uses. The Winter Sharing Accord was signed off by all Forum participants. Every user group made compromises and trade-offs in order to achieve the Winter Sharing Accord. The Winter Sharing Accord is therefore a total package, balancing the recreational interests of each user group and thereby minimizing conflicts between the different user groups. |
|
| |
|
| The Sharing Accord was included in the Sea to Sky Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). However, due to complaints by some snowmobilers, the government is considering making the area around Phelix Creek hut motorized, instead of protecting it for non-motorized users. The ring leaders of the complaining snowmobilers include two people who were invited to participate in the backcountry forum, with the same responsibilities as all other forum representatives, but refused. One of them claimed at the time that he did not have to participate because he knew high people in the government. Please tell the government that they have to listen to everyone!
| | ==Early winter 2007/2008 in Retrospect== |
| | |
| The need for letters supporting the Backcountry Forum and the non-motorized zone around Phelix has never been greater. We are truly in a 'use it or lose it' situation -- if we don't write letters and get out there to make ski tracks then we might lose the area to snowmobiles. So get out your pens and read on for inspiration! Remember: individually written letters, printed, signed and mailed, make the most impact.
| |
| | |
| ==2007/2008 Update== | |
| | |
| There are several issues threatening the forum recommendations and the government is considering taking unilateral action to change the forum zoning. In particular this affects Phelix Creek and the [[Brian Waddington Hut]] and [[Mount Sproat]].
| |
| | |
| ===Phelix Creek Issues===
| |
| *LRMP open houses were held in Squamish, Whistler and Pemberton. Attendance was generally poor and some negative comments were received from the snowmobile community. The open houses were advertised in local papers in Squamish, Whistler and Pemberton, but not in Vancouver.
| |
| *No Open house was held in Vancouver, where the majority of recreational users of the sea to sky corridor live (both motorized and non-motorized). The population of the greater vancouver area is 2,000,000 whereas the combined population of Whistler, Squamish and Pemberton is around 50,000.
| |
| *Local snowmobilers don't want to be excluded from Phelix, even though their use is low.
| |
| *A snowmobiler petition was submitted with 121 signatures. This prompted a counter petition which gathered about 350 real and 900 electronic signatures.
| |
| *Harry Redmond is leading the charge on the snowmobile side. He opted out of participating in the stakeholder forum and now wants the government to change the LRMP unilaterally to his liking. If the government listens to him, they are saying that you don't have to participate in stakeholder forums and negotiate to get what you want. This sends a strong message to the rest of BC that they do not have to participate in these kinds of stakeholder forums, merely lobby the government instead. He may be trying to break up the forum altogether by going after one of the prime non motorized zones.
| |
| *Unilateral changes to the forum by the government goes against the spirit of the forum, which is direct stakeholder negotiation to achieve a solution acceptable to all parties
| |
| *Phelix creek was zoned for non-motorized use by the forum. This decision was signed off by all forum representatives, including the representative from the Pemberton Valley Snowmobile Club.
| |
| *The government approach is to isolate Phelix Creek and look at it as a single issue. However, this is not in the spirit of the forum which took a fair and balanced approach to recreation opportunities throughout the Sea to Sky corridor. Any changes to one area upset the balance of the forum recommendations and would require renegotiation with forum stakeholders.
| |
| *Around D'arcy, Phelix Creek is the only non-motorized zone. Birkenhead peak, Haylmore Creek and the Birkenhead River are zoned motorized. Birkenhead Lake park (which is adjacent to the start of the Phelix Creek road, also allows snowmobiling in some parts of the park. New logging roads on the east side of Phelix Creek below 1000m are also already in the motorized zone. In the D'arcy area, there is much more land zoned for motorized recreation than for non-motorized recreation.
| |
| *The [[Brian Waddington Hut]] in Phelix creek was built in 1998. The area has been popular for non-motorized activity since the early 1970s (many first ascents were completed in 1972). The site was selected because it was already a popular area for ski touring and there was no historic snowmobile activity. Access to the area by snowmobile is very difficult due to terrain constraints. At the time, MOF also requested that the chosen site for the cabin have a low potential for skier-snowmobiler conflicts, and the Phelix Creek site was approved with this in mind.
| |
| *Snowmobile use in the area is more recent, as the machines have only recently become powerful enough to get through steep terrain to the alpine.
| |
| *The forum recommendations were accepted into the sea to sky LRMP, subject only to negotiations with first nations. On the ILMB website, it states “Until the final LRMP is completed, the current draft will be used as interim management direction for provincial government decision making with the plan area.”
| |
| *The ILMB Website states: “the upper portions of Phelix Creek are zoned RA1-A for winter recreation, which means non-motorized with air access allowed.” It goes on to say management direction for the valley and adjacent areas is “to maintain the wilderness, natural and visual, and aesthetic (including noise management) qualities with the Birkenhead park and also the Wildlands draining into the park so that the experience for humans and wildlife is the same for both.” The Upper Portion of Phelix Creek is zoned as Wildland, part with a wildlife emphasis and part with a non-motorized recreation emphasis.
| |
| | |
| == Post January 21st meeting with Kevin Kriese update ==
| |
| | |
| Part of the problem seems to be that the government was taken by
| |
| surprise by this whole winter-recreation sharing issue. They seem to
| |
| have felt that the main issue would be negotiation use of resources
| |
| with First Nations, and didn't anticipate any problems (perhaps
| |
| because of the winter forum). They were taken aback by the petition,
| |
| then counter petition, and now flurry of letters arriving about the
| |
| issue. Mr. Kriese also feels
| |
| that the 'locals' (although we stated that we all felt that we were
| |
| also 'locals') weren't so happy and felt like they weren't consulted -
| |
| this impression is from local government members in the communities in
| |
| the area.
| |
| | |
| In response to this, the government has hired a mediator to sort out
| |
| the situation. The Callahan, Sproatt, Brandywine etc (the Squamish Nation area) is apparently
| |
| now a done deal, but the entire NE area of the sea-to-sky (the Lil'wat Nation area) is still
| |
| entirely up for debate, subject to the mediators decicsion. This time
| |
| it will '''not''' be a forum type negotiation where all parties sit down
| |
| together and discuss the problem - every party will talk with the
| |
| mediator individually. It will also be purely recreational, there
| |
| will be no discussion with commercial operators. It's not entirely
| |
| clear how the mediator will decide who to meet with, although
| |
| the VOC has been assured they will be involved. The whole thing will happen quite quickly, and apparently be finished before spring.
| |
| | |
| ''Ok - so what do we do now?''
| |
| | |
| What is '''still very important''' is that we continue to write letters of support for the original backcountry forum as the closest thing to an ideal compromise - something which was already worked very hard on by all parties, and which can not be repeated during a few short months of mediator-based negotiations. Equally important is to support non-motorized access areas. Still a very large and difficult issue for both the government and motorized community to understand is that allowing both motorized and non-motorized access to an area is not sharing. It is fundamental to our arguments that they realize the non-motorized community has been forced to leave time and again as snowmobiles gain access to new areas, and that we're running out of places to retreat to. Every supporting letter from the public (you!) which helps demonstrate the fact that the two activities are incompatible helps remove the stereotype that we (those negotiating) are not simply greedy and unwilling to share territory. This puts us in a much stronger position.
| |
| | |
| If you're waiting to write a letter, now is the time. The negotiations will be concluded, and the zoning decided before the end of the season. While it's true that enough pressure can change any government decision, it is far easier to do so while the decisions are being made!
| |
| | |
| ==Letters of Support==
| |
| | |
| The key points to raise in the letters, if they apply to you, are:
| |
| | |
| *Identify yourself as a recreational user of the Sea to Sky backcountry.
| |
| *Your support for the Winter Sharing Accord developed by the Sea to Sky Winter Backcountry Recreation Forum because it balances the recreational interests of all user groups, including the motorized and non-motorized recreational users.
| |
| *Government should honour the Winter Sharing Accord and support the implementation of the Winter Sharing Accord.
| |
| *Any changes to the Sharing Accord must be negotiated with all users and stakeholders to ensure a fair outcome in the spirit of the original accord. Unilateral changes by the government are not acceptable.
| |
| *Snowmobiles and other motorized uses detract from your backcountry skiing experience.
| |
| *You do not want motorized use of Sproatt Mountain or the area surrounding the [[Brian Waddington Hut]].
| |
| | |
| If you have any questions or need more information regarding the Winter Forum or the Winter Sharing Accord for the Sea to Sky corridor, please contact Monika Bittel at monikabittel AT telus DOT net or Sandra Nicol at sandra DOT nicol AT telus DOT net. Thank you for your support.
| |
| | |
| ==Letter Writing Tips==
| |
| | |
| *Be polite, especially when identifying potential problems with snowmobiling. Many of the people we are writing to are sledders, so personal attacks are absolutely not okay.
| |
| *Avoid copy-pasting. It's more work, but an individually written letter counts for more to the government.
| |
| *Mail a hard copy to Kevin Kriese. At the end of the letter, after the signature, have a list of people that the letter has been CCed to: "CCed by email to:". Write here the names and titles, but not the addresses, of the people above. Attach the letter to emails sent to the CC list. Write a short note in the body of the email, asking them to read your letter regarding your concerns about X (eg motorized recreation in the Phelix area) and to say that the original copy of the letter was sent to Kevin Kriese (include his title).
| |
| *Include your return address in the letter and on the envelope.
| |
| *Encourage your friends to write letters.
| |
| *You do not have to go into a huge amount of detail, or write about a lot of issues. A 1-2 page letter is good.
| |
| | |
| ==Government Contacts==
| |
| | |
| The Winter Forum is currently involved in ongoing negotiations and discussions at various levels of government regarding the Winter Sharing Accord. The Winter Forum is therefore seeking letters of support from recreational users of the Sea to Sky backcountry. Letters should be directed to the following government representatives:
| |
| | |
| Kevin Kriese
| |
| Project Director, Strategic Initiatives Division (Smithers)
| |
| 3726 Alfred St
| |
| SMITHERS BC V0J2N0
| |
| Phone: 250 847-7789
| |
| Email: kevin.kriese@gov.bc.ca
| |
| | |
| Ross Kreye, Planning Officer
| |
| 200 - 10428 153 St
| |
| SURREY BC V3R1E1
| |
| Phone: (604) 586-4414
| |
| | |
| Honourable Pat Bell, Minister
| |
| Ministry of Agriculture and Lands
| |
| PO Box 9043, STN PROV GOVT, Victoria
| |
| Victoria, B.C. V8W 9E2
| |
| Phone: 250 387-1023
| |
| Fax: 250-387-1522
| |
| Email: pat.bell.mla@leg.bc.ca
| |
| | |
| Honourable Gordon Campbell, Premier
| |
| Province of British Columbia
| |
| P.O. Box 9041, STN PROV GOVT
| |
| Victoria, B.C. V8W 9E1
| |
| Fax: 250-387-0087
| |
| E-mail: premier@gov.bc.ca
| |
| | |
| ''Although individual letters are best, a good tactic would be to write a letter to Mr. Kriese and indicate on it you've also sent a copy to the others. For the others, include a short cover letter explaining the copy you have sent, and why you have copied them on it''
| |
| | |
| Note: Kevin Kriese is from Smithers but has been brought in as a specialist first nations negoitator for the Sea to Sky LRMP. He is currently negotiating the LRMP adjustments with the Lilwat First Nation, but I understand that he is responsible for most of the LRMP.
| |
| | |
| ===What the other side is saying===
| |
| | |
| *To see the other side of the issue, check out the following snowmobile forum discussion threads:
| |
| *[http://snowest.com/fusetalk/messageview.cfm?catid=8&threadid=334116&STARTPAGE=1&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear]
| |
| *[http://snowest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39623]
| |
| *[http://snowest.com/forum/showthread.php?p=70925]
| |
| | |
| ==Sample Letters==
| |
| | |
| ===2007-2008 Snowmobiling near Brian Waddington Hut (Phelix Creek)===
| |
| | |
| For example see Matthew Carroll's letter: http://carroll.org.uk/files/phelix_creek_access_letter.pdf
| |
| | |
| Also see the wiki page [[Snowmobiling near Brian Waddington Hut]] for another sample letter and more background information.
| |
| | |
| ===2004 VOC letter===
| |
| | |
| '''Here is a copy of the letter sent on behalf of the VOC. Everyone's name didn't fit on but I tried! (Milena)'''
| |
| | |
| March 19, 2004
| |
| Varsity Outdoor Club
| |
| Box 98 Student Union Building
| |
| 6138 Student Union Mall
| |
| Vancouver BC
| |
| V6T 2B9
| |
| | |
| RE: Sea to Sky Backcountry Recreation Forum
| |
| | |
| Honourable Gordon Campbell, Premier
| |
| Province of British Columbia
| |
| PO Box 9041 STN PROV GOVT
| |
| Victoria BC
| |
| V8W 9E1
| |
|
| |
|
| Dear Premier Campbell,
| | Unfortunately, the government waited around a long time before they managed to implement this agreement. During this time memories certainly faded about what precisely was agreed upon (well, nobody felt their memory had faded, but people certainly remembered slightly different things). When the government finally threw up some signs for the winter of 2007/2008 it didn't go so well. A few areas in particular caused alot of heartache. |
|
| |
|
| We, the executive council of the Varsity Outdoor Club at the University of British Columbia, are writing to express our support of the Sea to Sky Winter Backcountry Recreation Sharing Forum, and the Sharing Accord produced by the Forum.
| | * The area around Phelix Creek was signed as non-motorized. This caused a great deal of consternation amongst the snowmobile community, although we would later discover this was more about the East side of Phelix Creek than the area directly around our Brian Waddington Hut. Although both sides of Phelix Creek have a long history of use for backcountry skiing, the West side has become more popular for skiiers in recent times (perhaps due to the hut, and the steeper, forested, access which keeps all but the most determined sledders out) whereas the East side is more open and fairly suited to snowmobile. Although we don't know much about historic use of snowmobiles in the area it certainly became popular recently - the Pemberton Valley Snowmobile Club had even flagged a commonly used route into the Alpine. |
| | * In the intermediate time a commercial heli-sledding tenure was granted on Sproat. The backcountry skiing community was shocked that the closest backcountry daytrip to Whistler would get not only a snowmobile tenure - but a helicopter accessed one. We're still trying to figure out why it is necessary to helicopter snowmboiles somewhere you can reach on skis in 1.5 hours. |
| | * Finally, and perhaps the most sore point of all, the government enacted a section 58 and banned snowmobiles from the Callahan Valley, hoping to turn it into a world-class XC skiing area in preparation for the 2010 Olympics. Although the forum was told to stay away from 2010 planning, the Callahan Valley was truly the snowmobile community's playground and also offered the best access to the Pemberton Icecap (a very popular sledding destination). Unfortunately, cars getting locked behind gates is proving to make this huge area difficult to access for backcountry skiiers, and the XC operators still aren't quite sure what to do with people who want to access the area just outside their trackset. |
|
| |
|
| In case you are not familiar with the Forum, here is a bit of history: in September 2001 a group of community members representing non-motorized backcountry recreationists such as skiers; motorized users such as snowmobilers; and commercial tenure holders, began to hold meetings about backcountry recreation in the Sea to Sky corridor of the Squamish Forest District. Their goal was to create a plan that would ensure that all users of the area would have reasonable access to an enjoyable experience in the backcountry by minimizing the incidences of user conflicts between different groups. A group of approximately 30 people have been meeting once per month since then, and have written and mapped a Sharing Accord which divides the backcountry of the Squamish Forest District into specific use areas. In some areas all use types are permitted (for example, backcountry skiing and snowmobiling are both permitted), and in other areas motorized use is restricted to ensure that non-motorized users have a protected enjoyable experience. For more information on the Forum, we suggest that you refer to the Winter Forum's website at www.backcountryforum.org, or that you speak with MSRM employees Malcolm Leung (formerly with Land and Water BC), Kevin Lee (with LWBC), or Ross Kreye (with the LRMP). Under the guidance of the newly formed Sea to Sky Backcountry Recreation Forum Association, the Sharing Accord map is being included as Recreation's contribution to the draft Squamish Land and Resource Management Plan.
| | Thousands of letters were sent to government. |
|
| |
|
| The Sharing Accord is a finely balanced agreement between user groups that was laboriously constructed through an intensive consultation process to ensure that all users concerns were fairly represented. However, despite verbal support of the Sharing Accord from Land and Water BC, and the presence of representatives from LWBC throughout the process, conflicting tenures continue to be granted by LWBC in the Sea to Sky corridor. A conflicting tenure is one that allows a commercial operator to conduct an activity that is restricted in that area by the Sharing Accord, (eg. allowing a heli-skiing operation to ski in a Non-Motorized area, or permitting snowmobile tours in
| | ==Late winter 2008== |
| a Non-Motorized with Restricted Motorized Access Area). From the start, Forum participants laboured to shape the map around existing tenures, and with each new conflicting tenure granted, the map changes, and the carefully constructed balance - reasonable access to an enjoyable experience for all users - is being lost. With each new
| |
| tenure granted, non-motorized users especially have lost areas that were protected from motorized use, and these areas cannot be regained until the tenures expire. As an organization primarily engaged in non motorized activities, the Varsity Outdoor Club is concerned that our rights to an enjoyable experience are being lost along with these areas.
| |
|
| |
|
| As you can see, LWBC has undermined the Sharing Accord and the efforts of the Forum to represent all user groups, including both motorized and non motorized, commercial and public recreationists. The Varsity Outdoor Club would like at this time to express our unequivocal support for the efforts of the Backcountry Forum in developing this Sharing Accord and to make two recommendations on how the Provincial Government, through the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, should approach this problem. The first is that LWBC should be forbidden from issuing tenures that conflict with the Sharing Accord map. Since this map was developed with all users in mind by a broad based coalition representing a variety of interests, it is only fair that the wishes of the recreation community be reflected in the decisions to grant tenures. The second is that it be put in writing in the LRMP that no tenures with use that conflicts with the LRMP Winter Backcountry Recreation map (currently almost the same as the Sharing Accord map) shall be granted, and that no currently existing conflicting tenures shall be replaced with new conflicting tenures, should the current tenure holder wish to forfeit their tenure, or should their tenure expire.
| | After a bit of a rough start, we were able to get a few meetings going between some of the leaders in the snowmobile community and leaders in the mountaineering and skiing community. I was surprised at how much we could agree on, and how much we all felt let down that the government took so long before attempting to implement the results ofthe winter backcountry forum. Most of the problem, it seemed, was that the government waited too long and the situation had changed withfading memories. Most of the problem in Phelix Creek, as it appears to me (written by Christian Veenstra), is that there was never really a solid agreement on what was supposed to happen. People remembered what they wanted to remember. There is ''no'' agreement on this, by the way. |
|
| |
|
| Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. We believe that this Forum has had great success in bringing together a diverse variety of groups with one common goal in mind the enjoyment of British Columbia's beautiful backcountry areas. We feel the Sharing Accord is a progressive solution to the conflicts which occur in the backcountry, and hope that with your support, the Forum's goal can be realized. Your prompt actions on this matter will be truly appreciated by the Varsity Outdoor Club, and all recreationists in the Sea to Sky corridor.
| | The government assigned a mediator to deal with the situation and come up with some recommendations for the minister (Pat Bell at the time). To me, the mediator seemed like an ideal candidate for the job, and did a good job listening to reasonable suggestions from both sides without getting sidetracked by the crazy ones. Of course, there were some pretty far out ideas on both sides. |
|
| |
|
| Respectfully,
| | ==Late Summer 2008== |
|
| |
|
| Roberta Holden (President)
| | The mediators recommendations have been set down in writing but not yet released (but I anticipate they will be fair). They should go up [http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/surrey/s2s/ here] (likely under the "what's new" or "reports" tab) in the next few weeks. |
| Chris Stathers (Vice President)
| |
| Sandra Nicol (Sea to Sky Winter Backcountry Forum Representative)
| |
| Milena Semproni (Sea to Sky Summer Backcountry Forum Representative)
| |
|
| |
|
| On Behalf of the:
| | As far as Phelix Creek goes, I feel it is likely the zoning recommendation will be shared as far as the branch between Phelix Main and Phelix East, and other than that the West side of the drainage (the area around the hut) will be non-motorized. This only extends to the height-of-land between Aragorn and Shadowfax - that's the basically the border of the Sea-to-Sky area. |
|
| |
|
| Membership and Executive of the Varsity Outdoor Club, University of British Columbia
| | The most important thing is that we get zoning in place - and this should be done before next winter. I really hope this happens, before we forget what we agreed upon again. |
|
| |
|
| cc: Honourable George Abbott, Minister of Sustainable Resource Management
| | When they are released, we will need another wave of letters to make sure something is done with them before the snow starts falling. |
| Bill Valentine, CEO, Land and Water BC Inc.
| |
Update
This page needs to be updated. The mediator's report mentioned at the bottom of the page has been released, with mostly good news, though the bottom of the Phelix Creek Road is to be shared with snowmobiles. More info should be coming soon.
Background
This is the fact sheet for those wishing to write a letter of support for the Sea to Sky Winter Backcountry Forum. Anything helps!!!
In September 2001, the Sea to Sky Winter Backcountry Recreation Forum (Winter Forum) began monthly meetings to resolve the growing conflict among recreation users in the Sea to Sky backcountry. The Winter Forum included representatives from outdoor recreation clubs (backcountry skiers, snowshoers and snowmobilers), commercial recreation operators (heli-ski, snow-cat and snowmobile tour operators), and government representatives. All representatives recognized the increasing and often conflicting recreational demands placed on the Sea to Sky backcountry. There are over six million recreational visits to the Sea to Sky corridor each year. The number of recreational visits will increase with the 2010 Olympics.
The vision of the Forum was to find a way for all recreational users to have reasonable access to an enjoyable experience in the Sea to Sky backcountry. After almost two years of consultations, discussions and negotiations, the Winter Forum developed a Winter Sharing Accord, which designates areas in the Sea to Sky backcountry for different recreational uses. The Winter Sharing Accord was signed off by all Forum participants. Every user group made compromises and trade-offs in order to achieve the Winter Sharing Accord. The Winter Sharing Accord is therefore a total package, balancing the recreational interests of each user group and thereby minimizing conflicts between the different user groups.
Early winter 2007/2008 in Retrospect
Unfortunately, the government waited around a long time before they managed to implement this agreement. During this time memories certainly faded about what precisely was agreed upon (well, nobody felt their memory had faded, but people certainly remembered slightly different things). When the government finally threw up some signs for the winter of 2007/2008 it didn't go so well. A few areas in particular caused alot of heartache.
- The area around Phelix Creek was signed as non-motorized. This caused a great deal of consternation amongst the snowmobile community, although we would later discover this was more about the East side of Phelix Creek than the area directly around our Brian Waddington Hut. Although both sides of Phelix Creek have a long history of use for backcountry skiing, the West side has become more popular for skiiers in recent times (perhaps due to the hut, and the steeper, forested, access which keeps all but the most determined sledders out) whereas the East side is more open and fairly suited to snowmobile. Although we don't know much about historic use of snowmobiles in the area it certainly became popular recently - the Pemberton Valley Snowmobile Club had even flagged a commonly used route into the Alpine.
- In the intermediate time a commercial heli-sledding tenure was granted on Sproat. The backcountry skiing community was shocked that the closest backcountry daytrip to Whistler would get not only a snowmobile tenure - but a helicopter accessed one. We're still trying to figure out why it is necessary to helicopter snowmboiles somewhere you can reach on skis in 1.5 hours.
- Finally, and perhaps the most sore point of all, the government enacted a section 58 and banned snowmobiles from the Callahan Valley, hoping to turn it into a world-class XC skiing area in preparation for the 2010 Olympics. Although the forum was told to stay away from 2010 planning, the Callahan Valley was truly the snowmobile community's playground and also offered the best access to the Pemberton Icecap (a very popular sledding destination). Unfortunately, cars getting locked behind gates is proving to make this huge area difficult to access for backcountry skiiers, and the XC operators still aren't quite sure what to do with people who want to access the area just outside their trackset.
Thousands of letters were sent to government.
Late winter 2008
After a bit of a rough start, we were able to get a few meetings going between some of the leaders in the snowmobile community and leaders in the mountaineering and skiing community. I was surprised at how much we could agree on, and how much we all felt let down that the government took so long before attempting to implement the results ofthe winter backcountry forum. Most of the problem, it seemed, was that the government waited too long and the situation had changed withfading memories. Most of the problem in Phelix Creek, as it appears to me (written by Christian Veenstra), is that there was never really a solid agreement on what was supposed to happen. People remembered what they wanted to remember. There is no agreement on this, by the way.
The government assigned a mediator to deal with the situation and come up with some recommendations for the minister (Pat Bell at the time). To me, the mediator seemed like an ideal candidate for the job, and did a good job listening to reasonable suggestions from both sides without getting sidetracked by the crazy ones. Of course, there were some pretty far out ideas on both sides.
Late Summer 2008
The mediators recommendations have been set down in writing but not yet released (but I anticipate they will be fair). They should go up here (likely under the "what's new" or "reports" tab) in the next few weeks.
As far as Phelix Creek goes, I feel it is likely the zoning recommendation will be shared as far as the branch between Phelix Main and Phelix East, and other than that the West side of the drainage (the area around the hut) will be non-motorized. This only extends to the height-of-land between Aragorn and Shadowfax - that's the basically the border of the Sea-to-Sky area.
The most important thing is that we get zoning in place - and this should be done before next winter. I really hope this happens, before we forget what we agreed upon again.
When they are released, we will need another wave of letters to make sure something is done with them before the snow starts falling.
