Joffre Lakes has gone F*in INSANE - Page 3 - ClubTread Community

User Tag List

 61Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #31 of (permalink) Old 09-08-2016, 10:16 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: BC, Canada.
Posts: 1,587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlofting View Post
I really dislike the term "fake outdoorsy people" but it does describe a group of individuals who are more often than not, unprepared.
Then why not just call them "unprepared" instead of "fake," thus avoiding the superiority complex?
Candy Sack is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of (permalink) Old 09-08-2016, 11:52 AM
Scaling New Heights
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada.
Interest: Hiking, biking, being outdoors
Posts: 91
Default

Clarification: by "fake" I was referring to those who only hike the aforementioned areas for the attention received from hiking a popular trail. Example: my trip for 10 hours to do the entire Burke Ridge for 30 km of hiking and 1600 m in elevation gain didn't get nearly as many people interested in it as my "hike" of the Chief.
Colin4567 is offline  
post #33 of (permalink) Old 09-08-2016, 12:03 PM
Scaling New Heights
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada.
Interest: Hiking, biking, being outdoors
Posts: 91
Default

In addition, besides all the people hiking these popular places just to get their 10 seconds of fame, there's also a large number of people (again, outdoor retail, I know this) who become overconfident on hikes like Joffre, Chief, etc when wearing shoes for the style vs function (I.E. Nike running shoes seem to be popular) then apply their same choices to more remote or intense hikes while forgetting things like the 10 essentials, proper footwear, etc, then rely on search and rescue or other hikers to bail them out. Like someone else said there is a huge issue with common sense where it seems to defy logic that people think they can go to remote and challenging terrain with so little preparedness.
KARVITK and adm like this.
Colin4567 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of (permalink) Old 09-08-2016, 01:26 PM Thread Starter
Ryl
Headed for the Mountains
 
Ryl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 228
Default

Looks like the other major outlets picked the story up finally, got some hand waving responses from the ministries about being aware of the issue and looking into upgrades.
KARVITK likes this.
Ryl is offline  
post #35 of (permalink) Old 09-08-2016, 01:27 PM
Dru
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Climbing, a mountain, Canada.
Interest: climbing and spraying
Posts: 16,175
Dru is offline  
post #36 of (permalink) Old 09-08-2016, 01:47 PM
Summit Master
 
zeljkok's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Behind the Face Mask
Posts: 4,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aqua Terra View Post
Now stories of people feces upstream and food particles/chunks floating around are common and very true. Semaphore is heading for the same.
Is that true ?? I haven't been up couple of years. This is really unfortunate, as it is such a spectacular area.

My take on "fake outdoorsy": it might not be best coined term & this is probably why it rubbed people the wrong way. My problem is pollution. Cigarette buts, plastic nylon bags (that end up in belly of deer who dies from it -- it happened), beer cans - you pick. Of course only very small minority is the culprit, but it is enough. Someone who has been in the outdoors for awhile knows this is not acceptable and probably won't do it
zeljkok is online now  
post #37 of (permalink) Old 09-08-2016, 04:53 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Port Moody, BC, Canada.
Posts: 981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryl View Post
Looks like the other major outlets picked the story up finally, got some hand waving responses from the ministries about being aware of the issue and looking into upgrades.
Nothing will be solved by providing more parking and almost literally paving the trails. It will only make the matter worse over time. Quite the opposite needs to be done: less parking, rougher 4x4 roads, and rougher trails. This is guaranteed to reduce the number of hikers, especially the "running shoes" hikers that get constantly rescued by SAR. There are city parks and Stanley Park that is much more suitable for these "running shoes".
Arnold is offline  
post #38 of (permalink) Old 09-09-2016, 12:24 AM
Summit Master
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: PNW
Posts: 8,494
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeljkok View Post
Is that true ?? I haven't been up couple of years. This is really unfortunate, as it is such a spectacular area.

My take on "fake outdoorsy": it might not be best coined term & this is probably why it rubbed people the wrong way. My problem is pollution. Cigarette buts, plastic nylon bags (that end up in belly of deer who dies from it -- it happened), beer cans - you pick. Of course only very small minority is the culprit, but it is enough. Someone who has been in the outdoors for awhile knows this is not acceptable and probably won't do it

YES, crap piles from humans and pets are common, and some have been near/ in the glacier creek and the taylor basin.


People brushing their teeth, bathing their sweaty asses, tossing leftover food, doing dishes, and letting their pets swim and use the lake/shore as a toilett is common now, also burning garbage and shrubs is normal, music coming from numerous sources and firecrackers, all witnessed over the last few visits.


The Outhouse has a line up forever with cranky people and many will just let it go somewhere more convenient in the bushes somewhere.


Some may find this untrue, on less busy weeks
Aqua Terra is offline  
post #39 of (permalink) Old 09-09-2016, 03:26 PM Thread Starter
Ryl
Headed for the Mountains
 
Ryl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 228
Default

CBC got a hold of me for radio, once again I tried to impress the lack of preparation in these remote environments and the strain this is causing on SAR, the damage that such large volumes is doing to the environment where plants are vulnerable to large crowds, and the complete lack of parks funding for the past 16 years.

They didn't seem too impressed, seems like they want to push a fees/expansion angle rather than consider the role of the public in things, so we'll see how they slice and dice my replies.
Dru, dlofting and Colin4567 like this.
Ryl is offline  
post #40 of (permalink) Old 09-09-2016, 04:20 PM
Off the Beaten Path
 
ashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Vancouver, Canada.
Interest: Exploring, hiking, scrambling
Posts: 720
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryl View Post
CBC got a hold of me for radio, once again I tried to impress the lack of preparation in these remote environments and the strain this is causing on SAR, the damage that such large volumes is doing to the environment where plants are vulnerable to large crowds, and the complete lack of parks funding for the past 16 years.

They didn't seem too impressed, seems like they want to push a fees/expansion angle rather than consider the role of the public in things, so we'll see how they slice and dice my replies.
Good effort. Hmmm, free access could be why we can't have nice things. I'd be open to fees if it helps pay for something like, say, more rangers.
ashi is offline  
post #41 of (permalink) Old 09-09-2016, 04:25 PM
Dru
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Climbing, a mountain, Canada.
Interest: climbing and spraying
Posts: 16,175
Default

This thread has had me ask myself some fundamental questions and answer them.

Q: what do I think is a better thing - more people or less people in the outdoors?
A: I'd be selfish if I said less. I think more people, or a greater percentage of the population, getting outside is a good thing.

Q: but isn't overuse a problem?
A: Yes. Popular areas are getting hammered. We need people to go to more and different places. We also need people to reduce the intensity of their use. Hiking is fine. Littering and used TP prayer-flags and erosion and wildlife getting habituated to humans and then shot aren't.

Q: How can we address this?
A: Education, enforcement and infrastructure. We need to educate more people more effectively about proper backcountry etiquette. We need to give people more options for places to go - either by building more trails and huts and so on or by popularizing existing areas that aren't as popular. We need more infrastructure designed for heavy use - boardwalks not mud holes, tent pads not meadow camping, outhouses not "shit behind a bush" - in both parks and non-park areas. And we need enforcement of rules for people breaking them - littering and feeding animals and parking illegally and driving quads through off-trail meadows and all that. Overused areas may need permit or quota systems enforced the way they are for Lake O'hara, Bowron Lakes chain, and the WCT.

How can we get that? Join mountain clubs and get your voice heard. Write your politicians and letters to the editor. Volunteer to help out building trails and repairing trails and soon. Advocate for more tax dollars to be spent on recreation, but put up your time as well as your money. Be proactive and educate others through not only words but deeds. And videos and instagrams and blogs and tweets and CT posts.

Last edited by Dru; 09-09-2016 at 04:28 PM.
Dru is offline  
post #42 of (permalink) Old 09-09-2016, 06:48 PM Thread Starter
Ryl
Headed for the Mountains
 
Ryl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashi View Post

Good effort. Hmmm, free access could be why we can't have nice things. I'd be open to fees if it helps pay for something like, say, more rangers.
That was one of the things I said: put parking fees in and lotteries on popular locations, sure, that's standard practice anywhere with this much activity - but only if they're being used to actually fund the parks rather than vanishing into general revenue, and not used as an excuse to cut / stagnate the parks budget. We used to have parking fees for years, after all, and look at how many rangers we have now and what the state of maintenance is.

We'd need a whole lot more rangers than 2 to actually enforce regulation on somewhere like Garibaldi or Joffre.


And that was an excellent post, Dru, well stated.
Ryl is offline  
post #43 of (permalink) Old 09-09-2016, 08:28 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
dlofting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Posts: 258
Default

I'm familiar with the US system as it's implemented in the National Parks in the western states. No limitations on day hikes but overnight camping in the backcountry requires a permit and sites are limited and designated. Canyoneering in the parks requires a permit and, again, numbers are limited. The popular canyons are allocated via lottery. Same goes for backcountry campsites in Yellowstone. Maybe we need to consider something similar for popular areas.
dlofting is offline  
post #44 of (permalink) Old 09-09-2016, 08:57 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Port Moody, BC, Canada.
Posts: 981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dru View Post
This thread has had me ask myself some fundamental questions and answer them.

Q: what do I think is a better thing - more people or less people in the outdoors?
A: I'd be selfish if I said less. I think more people, or a greater percentage of the population, getting outside is a good thing.
I never met anyone who went backcountry camping and upon arrival to the campsite was delighted and overwhelmed by joy seeing dozens of other tents at the site.

You are the first one.

This is the whole point of outdoors: to escape people, city, and other day to day nonsense.
Colin4567 likes this.
Arnold is offline  
post #45 of (permalink) Old 09-09-2016, 10:15 PM
Off the Beaten Path
 
another jeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Langley
Posts: 597
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlofting View Post
I'm familiar with the US system as it's implemented in the National Parks in the western states. No limitations on day hikes but overnight camping in the backcountry requires a permit and sites are limited and designated. Canyoneering in the parks requires a permit and, again, numbers are limited. The popular canyons are allocated via lottery. Same goes for backcountry campsites in Yellowstone. Maybe we need to consider something similar for popular areas.

I think it is unreasonable to expect a provincial parks system to achieve the level of enforcement and regulation of a national park. Limiting overnight campers won't reduce the crowds as the vast majority are daytrippers, nor will any park-based regulation reduce complaints about areas such as Semaphore Lakes.


Not to mention the fact that regulating or restricting daytrippers is unheard of for 99% of the trails of national parks. When it does happen it isn't for something as mitigatable as "not enough parking on a sunny holiday weekend".
Colin4567 likes this.

Semper fudge
another jeff 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