I disagree strongly. They are the ones tasked with the rescue of any back country users benighted by late starts on mountain trips. I would like to see participation from all relevant parties

This is a quote from the Federation of Mountain Clubs of British Columbia website.

"In the Trails & Access program, the committees’ work includes trail access, trail building and maintenance, advocating for new trail projects, networking with BC Parks, the Ministry of Forests and Range, and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts. The FMCBC works to have British Columbia’s hiking and climbing access trails recognized, protected and maintained. The FMCBC also takes on trail building projects put forward by its members and supports clubs in their trail building efforts. The FMCBC developed the Adopt-A-Trail program for volunteer groups and coordinated adoptions with government agencies and municipalities."

It would appear that they have the experience and resources to lend a hand here.

Definitely, I have asked for their participation, as well as that of the BCMC. Anyone out there know whether the VOC and the ACC might be interested in participating?

Lots of background info here:

http://mountainclubs.org/bc-parks-ap...resort-policy/

The issue isn't who thinks we should have access and why they think we should. The issue is that all citizens already have unfettered access to parks, and this company is interfering with that. It's a legal matter. As soon as you start asking groups like SAR to work outside of their mandate by applying irrelevant arguments that totally miss the point, you just waste a bunch of time and obfuscate the real issue. SAR is not a political entity, they simply fulfill their mandate to their tasking agencies when asked to do so. They have nothing to do with a private business restricting access to a provincial park.

I respect your opinion but I've already made the overture to them.
What you are saying is somewhat true but there is no conflict of interest in asking for input. They and other SAR groups give their opinions freely to the public and to private business on occasion regarding possible safety hazards and there is certainly no harm in being part of the equation. What are these irrelevant arguments, specifically, that you speak of? I'm trying to be inclusive, for one, and for two, they may very well decline to attend for whatever reason they cite, after all.
I'll be letting you know either way.

The safety issue is irrelevant. The onus is on the resort to figure out how to groom the run without, a)restricting access, and b)hurting anyone. A simple solution would be to have a flag person guard the crossing for the few moments that the groomer is active in the area. A more complicated solution would be a pedestrian overpass. The point is, it's up to the resort to figure that out. In the mean time, they're not legally entitled to restrict access. That should be challenged in court immediately.

As soon as you start discussing the "safety" argument with them, you're validating what amounts to an illegal act on their part. Involving "stakeholders" such as SAR in that conversation further validates the bullshit.

Either it is safe to cross or it is not. "Allowing" late returning bc users to cross implies that it is safe to do so. Therefore, BC Parks should not be restricting early morning users from crossing.

Thanks to those involved for working so hard on this issue.

jeff

There is a pattern developing with the BC Liberal Government .Business interests supersede the public trust of not only backcountry access but many other public access points for other types of crown land use . Hell they privatized 40 % of our wildlife last year in support of foreign trophy hunting allowing corporations to run huge private hunting clubs.
They have a privatization agenda for all crown land use as far as i can see.

I guess we don't disagree on most counts, I already made that crossing guard suggestion and I also illustrated that the crossing was safe.I also suggested this back country pass they make people get ought to be abolished.

I don't disagree that a court challenge might eventually be needed either.

They also are restricting access up the mountain road prior to 7 am, which I also consider an infringement of rights, access should be 24-7-365, which I also have said. Mt Seymour, btw, is also doing the same on their park road.

That leaves the whole 9 am restriction, which is both an infringement of our rights and a safety issue. I was not implying it was the primary issue, just a significant part of it, but I can agree to disagree on that.
The 9 am part just makes it that more egregious.



Update, I have been advised again by the ministry that they are still working on a solution, so for now I am waiting to hear back.

Well, at least BC Parks is consistent in its siding with corporate and commercial interests, and giving the average taxpaying citizens of this Province the shaft. This seems to be a consistent practice in all BC parks these days (Garibaldi and Cypress both being splendid examples).

I wonder if anyone out there in the hiking and mountaineering community is still under the delusion that BC Parks are the 'good guys' and trustworthy stewards of the precious gift of the parks (they seem to have forgotten that it was we citizens who granted them this authority) that they have been entrusted to care for?

It seems that BC Parks has lost all its moral authority to protect and manage the parks. BC Parks itself is now one of the major threats to our parks (if not the single most major threat).

My friends, the time for change and action nears.

Sadly the time for action was long ago......As long as the Sheeple in this province keep voting for 'Krispy the un-educated three-time university dropout Klown' and her band of Kriminals nothing will change. She does not care about the people of BC she only cares about resource extraction, corporate give-aways, and building idiotic bridges we do not need.

We need to dump the KLOWN before we have any chance of repairing the damage this Conservative provincial government has wrought over the last 15 years.

I agree that there have been many times in the recent past where strong public action regarding the pillaging and plundering of our parks was warranted and desirable. While many critical opportunities and moments may have been missed, in my mind, it is never too late to take a stand.
It is incredibly troubling to me to think that we as citizens are so beaten down by a power hungry and corrupt elected government and sellout/duplicitous BC Parks bureaucrats, that we should no longer try.
I am trying my hardest, and will continue to do try my hardest.

I agree with that, there is nothing like apathy to set standards back. The minute you you create a void by doing nothing, it's nearly always filled by opportunistic greed. What is going on and around in our parks is not right and we should care about it.

Our parks ought not be open for industrial concerns, and our most perfect places, like the West Walbran or Jumbo, say, ought to be parks, and not for sale to "rights holders" or highest bidders. This generation needs to care because it's important. Once land like that is pillaged, it's gone for good.

Let's not forget that in the 1970s part of a forest of historical significance was in fact logged to clear area for ski runs. I was told that some of the yellow cedars that fell were nearly eight hundred years old. Where did that happen? Cypress Provincial Park. If you want to know what that forest was like simply walk from the parking lot along the Baden Powell to Hollyburn Junction.

( Edit: ^Important and fair to note the current management was not reponsible for that action )

Um, don't you mean Liberal Provincial Government? While they may act center-right, and lean small "c" conservative, the BC Conservative Party has been a minor player for decades