Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Personally I think we've pretty much thrashed this one to death.
Wanna bet? This is SuperTopia, after all.
Anyway good luck with it Anders and I'm sure we'll need your energy in the future, maybe with whatever happens with Crumpit Woods.
I only came out of retirement due to the importance of this issue. Otherwise this stuff goes in the SEP field.
|
|
doser
Mountain climber
Vancouver BC
|
|
A day ago, I stumbled upon a posting on cascadeclimbers.com about this issue, which forced me to think it through and crystalize my opinion. For what it's worth, here's my take:
The Stawamus Chief Park is primarily a recreational mecca, and the gondola offers a plethora of new recreational opportunities, not to mention the just plain 'touristy' benefit of riding into the alpine, which will appeal to those less fit, or with children, etc.
The gondola does not impinge upon the Chief itself, as is obvious from earlier posted photos. Yes, there will be a swath cut beneath the tram (as there is beneath the Grouse Mtn Skyride, for instance), but the line lies several hundred metres south of the climbers campground, and nearly half a kilometre from Shannon Falls. The Chief trail comes close to the tram-line only when it traverses south of the campground, then it quickly climbs away from it as it follows Oleson Creek. The traverse trail from Oleson Crk to Shannon Falls will pass thru the swath, for sure, but 20m (or even 50m) is hardly an eyesore in a non-wilderness setting. There is one small (but pleasant) climbing area left of the tramway, above Oleson Crk, but it's in the trees and faces north and I don't think there will be any intervisibility at all.
As for the positives, I think anything that gets people into 'the mountains' is good, even if it's just a 'resort' setting. Those sorts of people tend to be more sensitive to 'our' issues when it comes down to logging or mining vs. recreation. The tram will re-open easy access to the superb rock on Habrich and the wonderful introductory mountaineering on Sky Pilot, both of which have been nearly lost to us in the past decade with the deterioration and closure of logging roads. Mountain bikers will be ecstatic, and I can imagine several challenging new downhill runs being developed. Hiking (including loops) on Goat Ridge and across to Petgill Lake will be attractive. I can imagine backcountry skiing in the basins north of Sky Pilot and Goat Ridge. Heck, I can even imagine walking DOWN to climb 'A Scottish Tale' when it freezes, then riding the gondola back to civilization.
I respect what people say about the importance of protecting our parks, but they are cultural and social creations, and as society changes I have no problem with 'evolution' of purposes and boundaries. By far the most popular parks in the Vancouver area are Mount Seymour and Cypress Bowl, both of which are heavily 'industrialized' with downhill skiing facilities, yet both of which offer excellent hiking and wilderness skiing opportunities - and both of which are 'remote' enough to kill people now and again. I love the time I spend on Seymour, for instance - one of my very favorite places!
So, overall, I see far more potential for postive outcomes than for problems, and I hope the gondola proposal receives the support necessary to have it go ahead.
Regards,
Don Serl
|
|
Scrubber
climber
Straight outta Squampton
|
|
Well said Don. I share many of those sentiments, but have not been able to bring them together so succinctly. Thanks for your views on the subject.
Kris
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Holy O'God Batman -- the end of the world is upon us! Serl has posted on Supertopo.
|
|
doser
Mountain climber
Vancouver BC
|
|
wow! thanks for all the greetings, old friends. too bad we aren't tucked in some bar somewhere, yelling our differences at each other like the drunken louts we used to do such good jobs of impersonating now and again, 'back in the day'.
and now, to return to silence... carry on...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
All posters here are authentic, core users, aren't they?
No doubt I'll be vilified if the gondola proposal is rejected or abandoned, or even if the government as a face-saver creates a somewhat more credible process that delays it. People like shooting messengers, apparently. When I stepped down from the Access Society four years ago, after 13+ years of effort, exactly one person (who sometimes posts here) took the trouble to send a message or call to thank me. Climbers are not the most graceful bunch at times.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
I'm about 14 posts late but wanted to thank Don for taking the time to sculpt his letter.
Outstanding.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Endless amounts of respect for Anders.
even if I have to keep him in line a little.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
I've got a lot of respect for both Anders and Don, and I respect their opinions even when they don't agree with mine.
But, Don:
... As for the positives, I think anything that gets people into 'the mountains' is good, even if it's just a 'resort' setting.... Those sorts of people tend to be more sensitive to 'our' issues when it comes down to logging or mining vs. recreation.
By this logic, the now-going-ahead Icefield walkway (or whatever) in Jasper is good. And a road into the Black Tusk Meadows would be good because would certainly allow more people to see the beauty of that area, and we could educate them about the fragility of the alpine meadows, etc. etc.
Sorry, I don't buy it. If you want to get more people into the Shannon Creek back areas, refurbish and pave the road up there, put in a huge restaurant, interpretive centre, trails, whatever. Charge $5 to drive up the road; people will come. Put some bears up there, too. People love seeing bears! But the road option isn't as sexy or spectacular as a gondola, so maybe they won't come in as large numbers. You see, the attraction isn't the scenery; it's the perceived scariness or thrill or novelty of the gondola itself.
I respect what people say about the importance of protecting our parks, but they are cultural and social creations, and as society changes I have no problem with 'evolution' of purposes and boundaries. By far the most popular parks in the Vancouver area are Mount Seymour and Cypress Bowl, both of which are heavily 'industrialized' with downhill skiing facilities, yet both of which offer excellent hiking and wilderness skiing opportunities - and both of which are 'remote' enough to kill people now and again. I love the time I spend on Seymour, for instance - one of my very favorite places!
Yes, I like Seymour, too, and I might even support the forthcoming (so I've heard) proposal for a lift to the top of Pump Peak. And in some cases there's a case to be made for rejigging park boundaries - many of them are artificial and arbitrary (who comes up with these boundaries?). But, Don, where do you stop? We can reopen, say, the Tatshenshini debate (and the mine), because that way more people could enjoy the mountains, and it would certainly be good for the economy. If the boundaries are to be fluid, why not reopen the debate about the gondola to the top of the Chief: that would be good for the economy and would draw more people than the present proposal. Just take land out of the park!
I'm not convinced that the present gondola plan is financially viable, and to my way of thinking it's in a poor location. Run it up Goat Ridge. Run it up to a shoulder on Mt. Harvey, or Brunswick. Run it up to the top of Unneccessary for a fabulous view and for the opportunity to hike back to Cypress. I'd proably support any of those options. The main argument that I've heard in favour of the present, low-grade location is that it avoids hassles with powerlines and has plenty of flat land for parking. Please! Look at Europe: they've got gondolas and such in far less promising, steeper places than Lions Bay.
The problem with taking land out of parks is that you can't put it back. When it's gone, it's gone. A bit at a time, the parks get whittled away, all in the name of the economy, or jobs, or changing cultures, or getting more people into the wild.
(an incoherent rant, I realize, and far from the polished prose of Don, but it's late and, like MH, I feel strongly about this issue. And the coffee pot is empty....)
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Another thought: If the sanctity of park land is the point from which you start, and end, your argument, that doesn't necessarily mean you must oppose the removal of any given piece. You could look at the net total instead.
So, if the government wants to remove a piece of land from park status, why not make adding an equivalent piece a condition of your approval? Then, you can look at this particular case and say: "Okay, take a chunk out of this park, and allow a gondola to be built, but in return, add an equivalent or bigger chunk of land elsewhere. Either elsewhere in this park, or elsewhere entirely.
If the real reason for your opposition to a gondola does in the area between Oleson Creek and Shannon Falls is that you really don't think a gondola there is a good idea (bad business plan, eyesore, stupid, whatever), then you can oppose it on those grounds.
However, if you really don't mind the idea of a gondola there, but oppose it because it would require land to be removed from the park, then you can say: "Well, if you want the gondola here, then put some new land into a park elsewhere."
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
Ya, I'm with Casper.
The new Shannon Creek Basin Park, which Anders will procure.
Hi Jim. Must feel good to have the blood running back to your legs. Thank-you. If only I could write like the master (D.S.), I would've had you a week ago.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Let me make it clear, in case I haven't already, that I am neither for nor against this gondola.
It's been a decade now since I was a Squamish regular -- hell, I don't even live in Canada any more -- so my personal opinion wouldn't count for anything even if I had a personal opinion.
The only perspective I can add is that as an occasional visitor to Squamish now, I find it noisy, crowded, urban... Yeah, you can still probably get away from the noise if you climb something up in The Promised Land at 04:00, or in the Valley of Shaddai, but otherwise it's not exactly a wilderness experience any more, and a gondola wouldn't even be noticeable.
But that doesn't mean park land should just be given away without a care.
But, all that sh#t out of the way, we will be trying to get to Squamish a few times this summer, and it would be great to see some old acquaintances again.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
However, if you really don't mind the idea of a gondola there, but oppose it because it would require land to be removed from the park, then you can say: "Well, if you want the gondola here, then put some new land into a park elsewhere."
Well, I do mind the idea of a gondola there, and there are strong public policy reasons why it should not even be considered, including protecting hard-won parks, and the importance of conservation covenants being seen to be effective. Not to mention a process designed with one answer in mind.
The land swap idea may sometimes have some merit, but is often what philosophers call a false equivalency. Someone proposes a horse trade, and claims that proves they're being reasonable, but it turns out the horse they want won the Kentucky Derby, and the one they'll give you resembles Don Quixote's Rosinante.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
I'm sorry, I just don't see any net benefit to the community with this proposal. I see net potential loss if the thing fails and the community is left to clean up the resulting rotting towers, etc.
|
|
Rolfr
Social climber
North Vancouver BC
|
|
It appears that there isn't an overwhelming opposition to the concept of the Gondola and increased public access to back country wilderness, or losing part of the Provincial Park to private interests. Most of us agree on that, including me.
But! I don't think that, is the real issue, I think Anders finally nailed the crux of the issue on his last post.
"The provincial government has been acting more as facilitator than as trustee of the parks and the public interest, and that's wrong."
As much as I support the overall development, the process is flawed. My concern is that if no opposition is mounted to the issue as it currently proposed( even though we support the convenience of the Gondola), a precedent will be in place, to justify future developments in BC, that we may actually all, unanimously oppose.
I'am changing my position and crossing the floor to the Ander's camp.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Not to mention a process designed with one answer in mind.
Well Anders, you live closer to the place than I do, and like I said, it doesn't bother me one way or the other, but be aware that what you are accusing them of (a process designed with one answer in mind) is exactly the approach you're taking, which can be summed up pretty much as "I've already made up my mind, so don't bother talking to me."
Why do you expect them to listen to you if you state in advance that you are not prepared to budge one millimeter from your position?
Maybe you don't care whether they (the govt) listen to you. Maybe you only want to influence some undecided folks to the point that they will raise their voices in support of yours, hoping that with enough voices the govt will be forced to change its position.
In that case, harangue on brother. But I doubt you'll achieve what you're hoping for.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Well, there's more than one way to advance an argument, depending on audience and other factors. Some prefer logical, rational debate, others rhetoric, others respond in other ways. There has to be a mix, certainly founded on facts, principles and reason, but with the issue presented in different ways. That's democracy.
As for the process. Well, I asked a colleague who's familiar with the Squamish area and the Chief, and the issues. He is a facilitator of public participation processes, including designing them to ensure they're inclusive. He thought this process is flawed.
Looking at it another way, when the park was created, the process was quite inclusive. Its management has also been inclusive. People who lived in Squamish seemed more than happy at the resources that others brought to the fight against the gondola in 2004. But now, when they're proposing major change to a park that many of us of have actively contributed to for years, we're not included?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
So is that West Vancouver Bruce, Whistler Bruce, or Squamish Bruce who's talking?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Hmm. Well, I certainly live on the west side, but renting a modest apartment in a location suited for taking care of family responsibilities surely isn't a negative. After all, I've lived in Squamish, not to mention on The Drive.
Oh well, it could be worse. I could be from West Vancouver.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!