Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 10:53pm PT
|
I'm not opposed to development, and I'm not opposed to gondolas (in the right areas). I'm opposed to this particular proposal, because it involves whittling away at a Class A Park. To quote the recent BC Parks Annual Report,
Class A parks are Crown lands dedicated to the preservation of their natural environment for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public. Development in Class A parks is limited to that which is necessary for the maintenance of its recreational values. Activities such as grazing, hay cutting and other uses (except commercial logging, mining or hydro electric development) that existed at the time the park was established may be allowed to continue in certain parks.
It seems clear that this proposal falls outside what's permitted in a Class A park. To those that say "they only want to take out 0.4% of the land area", I say that's happened all too often in the past. It's analogous to what happened with the Agricultural Land Reserve, where bit after bit of the prime farmland was taken out of the ALR, a bit at a time, so that we wind up with far less agricultural land and hundreds of acres after hundreds of acres of sprawling suburbs. I don't want that to happen here.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 10:58pm PT
|
I'm not intending any malice here at all but M.H. should probably start using the 2nd narrows bridge for all his Squamish trips. That 3 lane paved easement through the center of Stanley Park must've been a little controversial at the time.
If I remember correctly, that 3-lane bridge, the Lions Gate Bridge, was built by the Guinness company (the ones that make beer). Yes. A private company. And they built it because they owned a bunch of land across the inlet -- the British Properties -- that they thought would be a whole lot easier to sell if people could get to it without a boat.
I have no idea whose palms they had to grease to get a right-of-way through Stanley Park, or indeed if they had to grease any palms. But if there is a complaint about that bridge now, it's that it isn't wide enough. Not that it should never have been built.
So maybe there's a lesson here. Maybe Squamish should sell a bunch of land way up on that hill to... hmmm... New Belgium Brewing? And then they'll build the gondola so that people will be able to justify purchasing lots up there, and...
...and they'll also build a brew pub!
Which renders all other arguments moot.
|
|
Rolfr
Social climber
North Vancouver BC
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 11:37pm PT
|
"Well, it doesn't seem that anyone here is opposed to every development." quote MH
But, there is a vocal enough opposition, that some leverage and advantage may be gained for the local climbing community. After a film crew chopped some bolts, on one of my non de script routes in the Bluffs( for filming convenience), the SAS managed to negotiate that a Certified Squamish guide must oversee any filming in future.
The question should now be, what advantage can we bargain into the Gondola Proposal. If the opponents to the gondola feel, that it infringes on their enjoyment/experience,what concessions do you want, so it enhances your wilderness experience?
This issue has been polarized, into perceived black and white positions, the outdoor/climbing community verses economic development . There must be some attainable middle ground.
The last opposition to a gondola was during a time of economic growth, now with an economic downturn, I doubt whether the average Squamish resident will oppose the development. That may be the crux of the whole issue, as climbers we see route, trail, climbing , DEVELOPMENT as acceptable in our community, but fail to see what is "acceptable development," to the general public.
I agree, alternate location proposals should be considered, but drawing a line in the sand , yes or no, will only get you drowned when the tide turns against you.
|
|
mike m
Trad climber
black hills
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 11:44pm PT
|
Wouldn't Waddington have a much larger economic impact. Just trollin, but just sayin. It would create a lot of climber type jobs. Who's turning down $150k a year to harg up ther for a year or two?
|
|
Kalimon
Trad climber
Ridgway, CO
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 11:47pm PT
|
What's with the the gravel pit in the "Class A" park?
|
|
mike m
Trad climber
black hills
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 11:48pm PT
|
Hey lets do Denali too!
|
|
mike m
Trad climber
black hills
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 11:53pm PT
|
Where else?
Half dome definately needs a second set of cables..... that moves.
Cerro Torre would be good.
Superpin with a really good zip line.
Grand Canyon with Grand Foam pit for base practice.
Not every dream needs to be realized.
|
|
mike m
Trad climber
black hills
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012 - 11:56pm PT
|
Bruce Kay, apperently they say it is kind of hard to get there and sometimes the weather isn't very good. Can we put a pipeline in with it too.
|
|
mike m
Trad climber
black hills
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 12:01am PT
|
You guys are definately thinking too small Waddington is really the ticket. How long would the cable need to be?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 12:17am PT
|
While the cat's away...
Bruce, Ghost: I've worked in the resource industries some, and know a bit about development. Plus a bit about economics. There's no need for red herrings on those scores. Yes, maybe we'd do things differently now than were done in the past. And yes, balanced development is important, and we all depend on a healthy economy. And the Chief and area has high natural values, but is not a wilderness. None of which makes what is proposed at Squamish right.
Kalimon: The history and development of the area is somewhat complex. It's probably simplest to say that the gravel pit was left an orphan in 1995, when the park was finally created. An inholding, identified as needed to protect the values of the parks.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 12:18am PT
|
when I first went to the 'Bugs in 1984 we were worried about being hit by a speeding logging truck on the way in... but once there it was a wonderful alpine experience...
returning in 1996 we found a better road, no logging trucks, but once in the incessant wop-wop-wop of helicopters taking hikers into the back country so they could hike on out...
I'm sure it was great for the local economy, and a convenience for those hikers who could afford the ride, but it wasn't the same place as in '84, something was truly lost in the interim due to "development."
I don't know about Canadian Parks, but certainly there should be wild places where people's every desire isn't catered to, places where people aren't the highest priority... there are few enough of those places left, certainly it is not a tragedy to preserve them for future generations.
|
|
Rolfr
Social climber
North Vancouver BC
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 12:33am PT
|
A slippery slope Ed. I remember caving in North Vancouver island in the 70's and the local logging community had the same lament. "places where people aren't the highest priority" meaning us, the new spelunkers.
|
|
Scrubber
climber
Straight outta Squampton
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 12:42am PT
|
Not to condone the reclassification of Class A park land to protected area status, but here's an idea. What if it were part of a land swap? If the province could be persuaded to add an equal or greater parcel of land adjacent to the parks to them as Class A park land, would that be a palatable alternative? Would the park as a whole come out ahead by gaining more land?
Maybe the developer could be given the option to purchase some comparable parcel of adjacent land to donate to Shannon Falls or Stawamus Chief Provincial Park.
I know this probably sounds like: "Oh goody, as a developer I can just buy my way into a park by purchasing some crappy parcel of land in the back 40 and donating it to the park in exchange for this prime piece of road-front real estate".
There may be something to be gained by pressuring the powers that be in this direction. If the project does go ahead, we may as well fight to get everything we can for the parks out of the deal, such as more land, trail development, park infrastructure, maintenance, etc.
K
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 01:51am PT
|
Kris, there doesn't seem much evidence that that would work, mainly because the government seems to see its role as facilitator, rather than negotiator let alone gatekeeper or protector. The lack of any public role for B.C. Parks speaks for itself. They'd be best able to independently and publicly assess development and other proposals, in the public interest. Certainly better than the politicians, or the self-interested positions of the developers.
It's tempting to conclude that the lack of a public role for B.C. Parks in assessing the proposal (or for that matter the one in 2004), and conducting independent meetings to discuss it, amounts to a gag by the politicians. It certainly doesn't seem to conform with the proper role of a government agency managing public property, or the spirit if not letter of the Park Act and the Protected Areas of B.C. Act.
Again, an FoI request might reveal some interesting things about how this has been handled within governments, and their dealings with the developer. Perhaps they're working their shredders and delete buttons as we speak...
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 10:22am PT
|
I'd like to think all the concerned citizens writing in do indeed have a current "wilderness" backside trail experience. I recall hiking up the chief in the 70's and it was quiet, very quiet.
I've also hiked up there over the last couple of years and I was blown away with the number of hikers. I think this is great for everyone, and eventually a whole lot better for our medical system, as people need to get their heart rates up. There are hundreds and hundreds of people, sometimes solid lines of 'em, hiking that trail on a daily basis (during busy times). Doesn't really seem to me to still be that "wilderness" experience it was in the old days.
This doesn't have much to do with the population of Squamish, it has everything to do with the two million people down the street half an hour to the south. Vancouver is one of the nicest cities in the world and is pushing outwards. People want to blast out of the anthill and breathe some fresh air.
The Gondola Guys don't want to build a casino or Wal-Mart up there, they're talking hiking trails and bike trails.
Perhaps, as a trade for the easement, Parks could require the Gondola Guys to build a new trail, off to the south a bit. This could take some of the heat off the backside trail and be an uber-workout for all those grouse-grinders.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 11:47am PT
|
It's interesting how all those hikers on the Chief manage to get up, and down - without a gondola. It suggests that the real issue is a lack of trails, not a lack of gondolas. Certainly it's helped that BC Parks has finally gotten some budget to work on the existing trails, although of course not everyone may agree with the results. But isn't the real need for more trails?
Times certainly have changed, though. I remember "helping" my father with The Vancouver Province public hikes on the Chief, in spring 1965 or 1966. (Before he broke his leg while on a search with the Mountain Rescue Group, in summer 1966.) There were four hikes every spring, sponsored by the Mountain Access Committee and The Province, including Hollyburn, The Chief, Diamond Head, and another. Widely publicized. For the Chief hikes, we strung handlines (probably MRG ropes...) at steep bits.
But then if it weren't for those darn people writing guidebooks and magazine articles, teaching others to climb, and stuff like that, maybe things would be different. Well, they aren't.
A plan for the Squamish, Shannon Creek, and Goat Ridge area something along the following lines makes sense:
 Finish rebuilding the existing hikers' trails on the Chief and Slhanay, using native materials where possible, and as little in the way of ladders, chains etc as possible.
A new parking area at the start of the Slhanay trails.
A new trail up the old mountaineers' route to the saddle between the Chief and Slhanay, connnecting into the existing trails, with perhaps a restored link back to the Shannon Creek road.
A new trail from the Slhanay parking area, paralleling the Stawamus River road back to the Apron.
A good wheelchair-accessible trail, close to either the current main tourist parking, or Shannon Falls. Accessible for free - no need to buy expensive gondola tickets, which are often beyond the means of the disabled and their caregivers.
Expanded parking in the gravel pit, once it is (finally) obtained by B.C. Parks, perhaps some RV type camping there, maybe some low-impact services and concessions.
Restoring the Shannon Creek road, with mountain bike access from it to the upper Shannon Creek basin, with a network of bike trails there, and hiker/mountaineer access thence to Habrich and Sky Pilot. (This could also provide access to an upper gondola terminal on Goat Ridge.)
If deemed appropriate after needed planning, a gondola on upper Goat Ridge.
Restoring the hiking trails on Goat Ridge, from Murrin Park to Petgill Lake to a gondola terminal, and up.
If they fit, mountain bike trails on Goat Ridge, below the gondola.
If geography allows (unclear), new hiking trails linking from the Chief through upper Shannon Creek to Goat Ridge.
Whatever trails make sense on the Britannia Creek side of the gondola.
Lastly, a foot/bicycle trail linking the Chief all the way to Murrin Park.
Maybe even consider whether a "via ferrata" ladder system ought to be built on the Chief, if so where, and to the accepted standards for such things. Perhaps there's some appropriate location, if it's done properly.
That's a plan that fits better with the area, and would prevent a mistake that would be regretted for a long time.
Horse trading with the developers seems a lose/win strategy. You'd be conceding from the outset the key issue, which is high-impact deletions from Class A parks. No matter what bells and whistles they throw in, and whatever deals they privately do, it's still a gondola in the middle of parks that are there for other reasons.
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 11:57am PT
|
Those 13 items on M.H.'s list; ya, Parks will get right on that, as they're swimming in money these days...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 12:22pm PT
|
Slhanay is the (relatively) new name for the crag that was formerly known as the "Squaw". I don't know if it's an official CPCGN name, but the name Slhanay was given to it several years ago, by the Squamish Nation. IIRC, the Access Society first suggested the renaming about ten years ago.
bearbreeder is right - Jumbo Glacier may be a bigger issue. (http://www.keepitwild.ca/); Perhaps there's some linkage, though. That proposal seems likely to be tied up in the courts for years to come though, like the Enbridge pipeline. The First Nations have constitutional rights which governments can't easily override.
The "plan" I fleshed out above might take five or ten years to create, and is simply provided to show that there really are alternatives. You don't have to be a developer or government to have some vision for the area, and it seems realistic. Squamish and the Chief at one end, Britannia and a gondola at the other, appropriate recreation in between.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 02:06pm PT
|
I echo bearbreeders comments. I'm really quite mystified at the intransigent negativism.
Ditto. Climbing and hiking on the Chief is such a noisy, crowded, urban experience now that the addition of the gondola will make zero difference. It may even make things better, if it provides access to new crags and bike terrain up high.
It seems to me that the real issue is the "is it okay to allow land in the park to be used for commercial purposes" question. And on that question, there is a basic division here on ST between those who say "NEVER!!!" and those who say "It depends."
The former remind me of religious fanatics whose arguments take the form of "Because it says so in the Bible."
As a staunch supporter of the whole concept of public parks, I would hate to see the system become little more than a concession-granting, pocket-lining scheme for developers and politicians. On the other hand, to simply say "Because the Bible says so" is to lose all credibility in the discussion of individual cases -- both this current one and those that are sure to arise in the future.
Someone upthread brought up the subject of requiring compensation by the developer for access to park land. Others have pointed out that this particular gondola may offer benefits to current users of the park (i.e. us climbers). Local residents seem to be in favor.
If you want to have any chance of convincing these folks that they are mistaken, you will need to step down from the pulpit and act like you understand that you are not smarter then them, better than them, possessed of wisdom that they are denied...
|
|
hamish f
Social climber
squamish
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 03:25pm PT
|
Whoever you are, Mr. Ghost, YOU are my hero, currently. I wish I could write like that.
Bruce Kay seems to be picking all the right words as well. Nicely written.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!