There seems to be renewed efforts in policing the watershed area beside the Grouse Grind. Wildlife cameras have been set up and I have two sets of buddies that have been stopped, ID taken, and escorted out of the area. As discussion points, I put down the following in no particular order:
1) most major cities do not have closed watershed areas, and besides, we have just paid 2Billion dollars to clean the water. Why do we need to keep this area closed when there is no technical reason to do so?
2) a rough guess of activity is 100 visitors/week in the summer and 10/week in the winter. Is there so much harm done that these things must be escalated to the actions of GVRD above?
3) does the timing of this renewed effort have anything to do with the sale of Grouse as some kind of liability issue to clear up for a new owner?
4) this enforcement will make the historic trail to the Munday cabin fall into disuse. The trail has been around a lot longer than the GVRD mandate.
I wonder what the CT community thinks?

1) Vancouver has fantastic water, truly a wonderful thing and a closed watershed helps to protect that. Thin edge of the wedge and all that.

2) Don't ask, don't tell, don't get caught, don't enter at the obvious places, don't talk online... .

I think if I was looking to keep people out of a desirable outdoor destination I would monitor forums where they meet to discuss plans.....

ID taken? Photos? Escorted out? your friends must be rather slow. In regards to all 3 of those, they would never get my ID, they would never be able to take a picture of me and they wouldn't escort me out anywhere because I would be too busy running through the bush to get away from them Make up a fake name and tell them to beat it.

Thanks for your comments.
Rather than living with this situation, should there be a broader discussion on whether to open up the watershed in some limited way? Wouldn't a trail up to Lake Lomond and back down to Seymour be great? Or how about paths following the old railway lines for families who want to explore our history?
The Metro Vancouver site states that "The watersheds are closed to the public for protection from pollution, erosion, fire and other hazards". This made sense when the drinking water was untreated or lightly treated before distribution. However, the reasons and mandates should be reviewed now that we have paid billions for state of the art filtration systems protecting the water. I don't know of any other major city in the world that has this kind of government held prohibited access public land.

I would like to hear their explanation of why activities like this are allowed in the watershed, yet they crack down on a few hikers.

Attached Thumbnails

 

Yeah, I'm not sure where the official boundaries of the watershed are, but as far as the fall line goes (and the way water falls), the Grouse Mountain Skyride is right above Capilano Lake.

The spectator locations up top (Martin pic), the high road to Dam mtn, the Skyride buildings, and even the west side of Grouse Woods all drain into Capilano Lake. So the reasons provided on the Metro Vancouver site are not reasonably adhered to by allowed and licensed buildings/activity.

The hydrologic and political boundaries of the Capilano Watershed are two or three different things.

The designated community watershed, as per Ministry of Forests, starts at the north end of Capilano Lake and follows the hydrographic divide from there around the Capilano headwaters.

However, the area which is privately owned (by Metro Vancouver) and which is not Crown Land, includes all of the land bordering the reservoir, starting at the dam, and the private land boundary does not always follow the hydrographic divide.

Technically, it's the Greater Vancouver Water District, not Metro Vancouver per se, which owns the private land in Coquitlam, Capilano, and Seymour. The GVWD is run by a board which is appointed from municipal councillors:
http://www.metrovancouver.org/boards/Pages/default.aspx

Note that this makes Capilano Watershed different than, say, Norrish Creek in Mission, which supplies water to Abbotsford and Mission. Norrish Creek is Crown land and is owned by the province. It has ongoing logging and public access.

Capilano Watershed hasn't been logged since the 1990s because the GVWD decided to stop logging on their own, private, land.
The access control on GVWD land is also a private land decision.

GVWD could open up public access if they decided to, the same way they decided to start (in the 60s?) and then stop (in the 90s) logging operations.

It bears mentioning that it took intense public pressure to get the logging halted. The GVWD kind of liked the revenue and claimed (to the point of absurdity in the face of science) that it had no effect on the water quality.

Now they're all proud of the water and how their wise foresight got us here.

A minor point: the Cap watershed is provincial land and the GVWD has a long lease on it: 999 years.

I suggest taking a watershed tour that the District offers. They're pretty interesting and the guides are quite knowledgeable. One could ask about the logging and the fine points being brought up here. But it might just give a taste of something you can't have.

Personally, I like the fact that the watersheds are closed, as much as I'd like to hike them. It's nice that there are some spots that are (somewhat) left alone.

The rules of access and activity are controlled by the municipal directors, who are all elected into power. They allowed Grouse Mountain corp to set up a gondola site on watershed ground, as well as GrouseWoods development and commercial logging for a period of time. If they are looking for revenue, but not worried about controlled activity, perhaps a $2 fee per hiker would be acceptable? Or a yearly pass?
Ive heard of opened cans of oil discarded on the side of the existing roads, so the GVWD folks are not so pure either. It is the double standard that gets my goat.

[QUOTE=oldmatt;754090],
(All true) ... as well as GrouseWoods development ... (all true)


That development and the Grouse Mountain base foot-print are in what was watershed territory but is properly ditched and culverted to divert the run-off below the dam, which does protect the drinking water. Assuming decent design, maintenance and lack of major weather events, of course . Minor point perhaps, but real.
I don't believe any mitigation steps were taken for the portion of the mountaintop area that drains into the lake.

And probably no mitgation was done for the commercial logging, either.