Paranoid Creek Bridge Decommission - Page 4 - ClubTread Community

User Tag List

 36Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #46 of (permalink) Old 10-16-2015, 09:22 AM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Stoked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: , , .
Posts: 1,297
Default

One of the alleged infractions in the stop work order reads, “altering the landscape and riparian areas, creating a crossing over creek containing fish, in the cutting of Crown timber and making changes in and about a stream.”

The so-called Paranoid Creek in question, actually the east fork of Skookum Creek draining the south side of Mamquam Mountain, in the area of the footbridge is characterized by steep gradient, fast flowing current, large boulders and numerous waterfalls up to 10 meters in height. Noticeably lacking are large pools where fish could rest or spawn. To characterize the creek as fish bearing stretches the limits of credulity. The alteration to the riparian area alluded to amounts to a single footpath down the creek such as would be made by a hiker filling a canteen. The cutting of Crown timber is an outright falsehood. The log utilized in the crossing is a naturally fallen cedar log. The footbridge actually protects the riparian area, a point that is lost on the myopic ministry.

To put this in perspective. The crossing is 100 meters from a clearcut on the south side of the creek. The park boundary is probably 200 meters beyond on the north side. The creek itself lies in the so-called working forest. If the road had been pushed 100 meters further the riparian area would have been clearcut.

Now, imagine standing at the edge of the clearcut looking south on a clear day. You would see the entire valley of Skookum Creek south of the park boundary. The valley stretches south over seven kilometers to Mamquam River and west for up to two kilometers to the Ring Creek lava flow. In the expanse before your eyes, with the sole exception of inaccessible lava cliffs, every old growth tree was logged and every riparian area was cleared right down to the creek. Say, roughly 20 square kilometers. The main stems of Skookum Creek, to this day, are still choked with logging debris above the dam.

In this bleak picture, the issuing officer also noted the presence of wood chips off the footbridge in the creek.
guntis, simonc, tinman610 and 3 others like this.
Stoked is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #47 of (permalink) Old 10-16-2015, 11:54 AM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Smurf Village, BC, Canada.
Interest: hiking, exploring, reading, random shiny things
Posts: 2,451
Default

In some cases, when I'm "liking" a comment, I'm appreciating the information provided. I'm actually "disliking" the outcomes in some instances.

This officer you speak of seems to be a detail oriented person <cough>.
guntis is offline  
post #48 of (permalink) Old 10-16-2015, 12:25 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: , , .
Posts: 102
Default

Paul speaks the truth. The Skookum drainage (and indeed most of the Mamquam drainage) features landscapes shaped by the industrial logging era. The wood chips comment is comical. I'm sure the nearby bush is hiding rusty logging wire, dead batteries and perhaps a burned out power saw or two.
Ponzini is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #49 of (permalink) Old 10-16-2015, 06:01 PM Thread Starter
Hittin' the Trails
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 41
Default

Yes Ponzini, we found several old strands of rusty logging wire at various points on the logging roads and in clearcuts in the area. The trail also passes by three massive dumps of rotting logs (old growth no less) that are so large and expansive, that they can be seen clearly on the satellite maps. I doubt the enforcement officers noticed those.
junglesavage is offline  
post #50 of (permalink) Old 10-16-2015, 07:10 PM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: , , Canada.
Posts: 1,193
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guntis View Post

This officer you speak of seems to be a detail oriented person <cough>.
This officer you speak of seems to be the only one who survived round after round of cuts. Far too aware of the consequences of failure to please his bosses. Who in turn are overseeing the looting of the parks system before accepting a position with the successful looter. A tried and true formula.

While people are openly talking about how blatant the looting is, I might as well add my bit!

STOP HARPER
on monday would be a start.
cutthroat22, muskeeto, Ryl and 1 others like this.
alexcanuck is offline  
post #51 of (permalink) Old 10-18-2015, 01:46 AM Thread Starter
Hittin' the Trails
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 41
Default

So now a new generating station is going to be built at the half way point from Squamish to the Skookum Dam (on the Mamquam FSR at the Mulligan Spur) for the new LNG in Squamish Project at the request of Squamish First Nation. It is interesting that Forests and Parks are silent in the face of this, the Skookum Power Project, the Mamquam Power Project and the Garibaldi at Squamish proposal (condos 50 meters short of the park boundary, and new ski lifts 100 meters of the park boundary).
http://www.vancouversun.com/technolo..._lsa=c439-554f

Last edited by junglesavage; 10-18-2015 at 04:49 AM.
junglesavage is offline  
post #52 of (permalink) Old 10-18-2015, 10:30 PM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: , BC, Canada.
Posts: 2,463
Default

I was up there today and I've got two questions.

1) Do they have any issue with the "trail" (which is mainly just cleared logging road) from the dam to Paranoid Creek? I was surprised to see the sign warning of illegal trail building activity on that part of the route. Surely they realize how silly it would be to state that users are no longer allowed to perform maintenance on unused logging roads and there is no way they can claim that the clear cuts and logging roads are sensitive habitat.

2) What now? Is there a next step in the application process or is it dead in the water with the trail as-is?

Last edited by Steventy; 10-18-2015 at 10:34 PM.
Steventy is offline  
post #53 of (permalink) Old 10-19-2015, 12:26 AM Thread Starter
Hittin' the Trails
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 41
Default

The forest office and enforcement officers have no authority under the Forest Act to stop people from clearing old logging roads (this is permissible without any permission or paperwork by any user group or individual). This is why the "illegal trail building" sign on the logging road is so comical. We left it there for all to see because it is so ludicrous and laughable, and hope it remains there as long as possible as a symbol of civil-servant stupidity and arrogance (even if the trail is approved in the coming weeks/months/years/decades). Perhaps the enforcement officer who posted this notice has never read the Act (or is willfully ignoring it).
We are awaiting a response/approval from the forest office with regards to our two officially submitted section 57's for the area. I assure you, this issue is anything but dead.
junglesavage is offline  
post #54 of (permalink) Old 10-19-2015, 12:31 AM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: , BC, Canada.
Posts: 2,463
Default

Sounds good.

One thing that I noticed today is some very old flagging (old enough that the tree started to grow around it,) and the remnants of an old bridge just downstream of the current proposed bridge location. It seems to me that if a well respected group like the BCMC wants to restore an existing trail (this is not a new trail - it's a restoration of an old one,) then it should be a very simple process.
Steventy is offline  
post #55 of (permalink) Old 10-19-2015, 10:30 AM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Stoked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: , , .
Posts: 1,297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steventy View Post
Sounds good.

One thing that I noticed today is some very old flagging (old enough that the tree started to grow around it,) and the remnants of an old bridge just downstream of the current proposed bridge location. It seems to me that if a well respected group like the BCMC wants to restore an existing trail (this is not a new trail - it's a restoration of an old one,) then it should be a very simple process.
I think so, too. But the stop work order addresses it. It reads,

Whereas the new trail will trespass direct into and over sensitive ecological sites. Specifically, Mountain Goat Ungulate Winter Range (UWR) 2-002 habitat and mountain goat mineral licks on Darling Ridge.

Whereas it is recognized that a previous route through the Skookum River Valley may have been used by BCMC and other wilderness users prior to the construction of the trail. However, the route provided for difficult access that prevented large numbers of persons into the Park and trespass over sensitive ecological sites.


The issuing officer implies the trail is new construction. That is simply wrong. As you observed, there is an existing bridge and old flagging tape marking the trail. The bridge existed in the 1990s and possibly a lot earlier. The route has been used long before that. VOC articles mention it.

The route is hardly difficult. It can be hiked in running shoes and Darling Lake can be reached in two or three hours from the dam. I suspect there will be speed ascents of Mamquam. I myself encountered such a party from the BCMC about three weeks ago returning from a one day ascent of Mamquam at around 3 PM in the afternoon.

The ministry seems to be implying there is a threshold number beyond which it deems the area is overused. That number has never been sanctioned. It exists solely in the mind of the issuing officer. The 1990 management plan for Garibaldi Park mentions no such threshold number nor does it discuss limiting numbers of park users in the wilderness conservancy. I suspect it is illegal to prevent people from entering a provincial park excepting some localized management requirement such as a dangerous animal or imminent natural disaster.

The issuing officer alludes to sensitive ecological sites yet none has been identified on the trail route. The closest approach the summer trail makes to the winter range of mountain goats is 800 meters, which is a largely inaccessible cliff that no one is going to anyways. The issuing officer allegedly discovered a rare and high quality mineral lick heavily used by mountain goats. That may be but it is nowhere near the trail otherwise there would be abundant evidence of it. It is specious to assume hikers have a major impact on use of a mineral lick by goats. The governments own studies do not identify such an impact. As for UWR 2-002, it comprises 500 square kilometers and includes the town of Squamish. Everything is in UWR 2-002. It includes the entire map sheet. It doesn't mean it is all goat habitat.

For whatever reasons, there appears to be a concerted effort to manufacture pseudo-scientific objections to legitimate use of the park for recreational purposes. These reasons have not been clearly stated. The objecting agency prefers to operate in a cloak of secrecy and not engage in open and fully transparent dialogue.
mj24 likes this.

Last edited by Stoked; 10-19-2015 at 10:49 AM.
Stoked is online now  
post #56 of (permalink) Old 10-26-2015, 12:01 AM
Summit Master
 
mick range's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Forest Gnome Cabin, , Canada.
Interest: Outdoor stuff...especially scrambling,trailrunning,mountain biking,kayaking,and hiking, and of course photography
Posts: 13,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoked View Post




The issuing officer alludes to sensitive ecological sites yet none has been identified on the trail route. The closest approach the summer trail makes to the winter range of mountain goats is 800 meters, which is a largely inaccessible cliff that no one is going to anyways. The issuing officer allegedly discovered a rare and high quality mineral lick heavily used by mountain goats. That may be but it is nowhere near the trail otherwise there would be abundant evidence of it. It is specious to assume hikers have a major impact on use of a mineral lick by goats. The governments own studies do not identify such an impact. As for UWR 2-002, it comprises 500 square kilometers and includes the town of Squamish. Everything is in UWR 2-002. It includes the entire map sheet. It doesn't mean it is all goat habitat.

For whatever reasons, there appears to be a concerted effort to manufacture pseudo-scientific objections to legitimate use of the park for recreational purposes. These reasons have not been clearly stated. The objecting agency prefers to operate in a cloak of secrecy and not engage in open and fully transparent dialogue.
Sounds like the issuing officer has something to hide.
Makes you wonder what their real motivations are. Maybe some paranoid obsession with someone damaging the power project has prompted them to invent this scenario. Either way, seems like typical current BC government nonsense with its hallmark of secrecy and lack of public dialogue.
mick range is offline  
post #57 of (permalink) Old 10-26-2015, 12:32 PM Thread Starter
Hittin' the Trails
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 41
Default

The operators of the Skookum Dam are quite happy with our presence and activities near their dam. We enjoy a very good relationship with them. They repeatedly gave us formal permission to use any scrap materials we like for the trail and the bridge (despite the comical and childish false accusation by the forest office that we stole them), and offered to open the gate to the intake dam should we require closer access in the future. The enforcement officer also falsely claimed that we cut down the naturally fallen tree spanning Paranoid Creek (another blatant falsehood). Needless to say, this kind of desperate behavior/false allegations tend to come only from those who have something to hide or are not telling the truth.
As for your question mick range with regards to the true motivations of Parks and Forests for this area, all I can say at this time is that the answers are coming.
"No one lies so boldly as the man who is indignant" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Last edited by junglesavage; 10-26-2015 at 12:56 PM.
junglesavage is offline  
post #58 of (permalink) Old 11-08-2015, 11:45 PM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Stoked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: , , .
Posts: 1,297
Default

They're at it again up Darling Lake trail. First, they removed all the flagging so that people would get lost. Fortunately, most people have GPS now. Next, they made the BCMC take down the safety line that was put up to stop people falling off the footbridge. Today, I removed piles of brush off the spur road to the bridge. I think they're hoping to make people head down across raging Darling Creek. Someone may unwittingly try to cross. I fear these sickos would welcome a fatality so they can pin it on the BCMC.

Isn't this sort of thing a crime? There was that case in North Van of a trail saboteur trying to inflict grievous bodily harm on mountain bikers. What does it take to make them stop?
mj24 likes this.
Stoked is online now  
post #59 of (permalink) Old 11-17-2015, 11:07 PM
Scaling New Heights
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: , , .
Posts: 61
Default

Does anyone know if Paranoid Creek is swollen right now? thinking about crossing it on Saturday. I bet that the bushwhack section is going to be a lot nicer with some snow on it!
lsnider is offline  
post #60 of (permalink) Old 11-18-2015, 01:06 AM
Off the Beaten Path
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: , , .
Posts: 563
Default

There is a significant difference between clotheslining mountain bikers, and decommissioning a trail.
trick is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1