Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alwaysfishn]

What is really at issue here is the government, by slashing corporate taxes for years, no longer has the revenue to continue having the Forest Service maintain "wilderness roads."  Unless you accept a tax increase yourself, or demand the government return to taxing the rich, the government will continue to seek ways to save money any way it can.  Refusing to maintain backroads is an easy way to save a bucket load of revenue.

Wow, talk about simplification...  Tax the rich and the corporations and everything will be fine???  Sounds like NDP policy.

The only thing that would accomplish is getting the rich and the corporations to move out of BC....

[Sandman]

Wow, talk about simplification...  Tax the rich and the corporations and everything will be fine???  Sounds like NDP policy.

The only thing that would accomplish is getting the rich and the corporations to move out of BC....

Did I say that?  Talk about simplification.  My first option was agree to a tax hike for yourself, but of course you ignored that.  If you do not wish to pay more taxes yourself, and you do not want the rich corporations to pay for fear they are all going to move out of BC (like THAT is not over simplification), then you cannot expect the government to continue paying to keep your backroads open.  It really IS that simple.  Maintaining roads and bridges cost money, the government has no more money (just ask the teachers), so what is a government to do?

[alwaysfishn]

Did I say that?  Talk about simplification.  My first option was agree to a tax hike for yourself, but of course you ignored that.  If you do not wish to pay more taxes yourself, and you do not want the rich corporations to pay for fear they are all going to move out of BC (like THAT is not over simplification), then you cannot expect the government to continue paying to keep your backroads open.  It really IS that simple.  Maintaining roads and bridges cost money, the government has no more money (just ask the teachers), so what is a government to do?

Of course raising taxes would give the government more money (for a short while) so they could spend it on maintaining roads.

But you can't throw out a solution like that and just ignore the problems it would create...  If the rich and the corporations move out of the province we'll have more problems than just roads not being maintained.

Disclosure: I'm a hunter and I appreciate a semi maintained FSR!

[Sandman]

Disclosure: I'm a hunter and I appreciate a semi maintained FSR!

Well, unless you plan on maintaining it yourself (becoming a "designated maintainer"), you will be out of luck if the government decides to get out of the FSR maintenance business. 

There is more to a corporation's decision to locate in a city (or province) than taxes (existing infrastructure, labour markets, primary and secondary resources, and destination markets, to name a few).  To argue that these corporations would automatically relocate if they had to pay more taxes ignores the other factors that make BC attractive (like having one of the lowest minimum wages in Canada, and close access to the Pacific Rim , and outstanding corporate recreational opportunities).  What lowering Corporate taxes has done is make the corporations more profitable (nice for those shareholders) and reduce the government revenue by over $300 million in just the last two years alone (couple that with a reduction of $100 million in forestry revenue, and there is not much left to maintain those FSRs.

[skaha]

As usual, everyone has an opinion, including myself.

1.  You probably did not pay for the original construction of the road - it was a forest company.  So why would you assume that you have the right to use it into perpetuity?
4.  By stating that you will access blocked off roads through criminal acts like pulling down barricades or gates, you are the problem not the solution.
5.  User Pay - it's the way of the future so get used to it.  We can't have everything for nothing.

Again, just my opinion.

---1....if it was a road built by forest company... you did pay for it and the maintenance of it through stumpage
---3....I have seen several roads with illegal barricades or signage stating they were private when they were not... Whoever is in charge now?..often used to be Forest service will be to chicken ... and resource poor to do anything about illegal blockage
---5.. I say again we have paid for many of  these roads so why are we giving them to private entities for free so they can charge for the use of them.

[alwaysfishn]

---1....if it was a road built by forest company... you did pay for it and the maintenance of it through stumpage
---3....I have seen several roads with illegal barricades or signage stating they were private when they were not... Whoever is in charge now?..often used to be Forest service will be to chicken ... and resource poor to do anything about illegal blockage
---5.. I say again we have paid for many of  these roads so why are we giving them to private entities for free so they can charge for the use of them.

I'm not 100% certain but I believe the mining & forestry companies pay to have all these roads developed. The stumpage fees or royalty fees they pay to the government are an extra tax or royalty which gives them the right to harvest the trees/minerals. I believe the laws of the land state that unless these roads continue to be used and maintained by the forestry company, then the roads, bridges etc. revert back to being owned by and the responsibility of the government.

[skaha]

--I don't know how the coastal system works nor mining
--Forest road development and maintenance costs in the interior are deducted from the value of the standing trees in the calculation for stumpage paid.. In other words we pay for them.

[cutthroat22]

Not being allowed to use the roads my main concern.








 

[IronNoggin]

Not being allowed to use the roads my main concern.

Then please DO Something about it!!

Cheers,
Nog

[skaha]

---In the doing something category... Our flyfishing club has discussed this issue... we are sending a letter as a club to both BCWF and to Government MLA's...
--Further we are encouraging each member to send and make comment on the official web site as individuals.

--there is no question in my mind that we will be severely limited in our use of resource roads if this goes through as was said it was already rejected in 2008. but they keep bringing it back when no one is paying attention to slide it through.

[Sandy]

--I don't know how the coastal system works nor mining
--Forest road development and maintenance costs in the interior are deducted from the value of the standing trees in the calculation for stumpage paid.. In other words we pay for them.

same thing for mining, used for assessment credits and possibly against accrued stumpage depending on the size of road and disturbance etc.

This is serious, what means is that mega mining/logging or even worse energy inc ,will inherit the roads and can charge what they wish, if they even want to let anyone on the road. Think about it, Squamish River? who will own the road? Stamp/ash ? same thing. What about some of the biggies, Bulkley etc. Those are mostly considered resource roads. Now start thinking about secret lake ,where there is no Gov campsites.
What we are allowing is a handing over of Bush BC to big business, so they can charge us what they wish to use crown land.

[Sandy]

sorry , going to use your example in the reverse

As usual, everyone has an opinion, including myself.

1.  You probably did not pay for the original construction of the road - it was a forest company.  So why would you assume that you have the right to use it into perpetuity?

We all have paid for the building of the roads as taxpayers, when the company assessed the potential proffit from the area the included the building of the road and the credits they receive from Forestry, BC government and federal tax as a cost of doing business.
 
2.  The RRA is intended to prevent environmental damage in sensitive areas.  If the bad apples of the off-road community could be rounded up and shipped off, we would not require this legislation.

Legislation is allready in place to cover this.
If anyone is caught tearing up roads or in off road area causing damage, they can be charged for all the repairs necessary. I in fact had a situation where we were early into the bush during breakup, this entailed the use of pickups. In order to access the area we had to agree to grade the road at our expense.
the problem is policing the roads, Who pays?.it should be MOF but they have been butchered to the bone, Why Resource industries have whined and sniveled about fees cutting into their proffit margins. Sorry it's a cost of doing business, see #1 above.

3.  Gov't is responsible to ensure that existing access to Crown Lands that is no longer under any permit is safe.  If there is no money to keep safe, then is is deactivated or blocked off.  It's not the Government's fault.

[color=blue]That's easy, how about a permit? you buy a sticker, say 10.00 bucks.... but in buying that sticker you absolve the people of BC/crown from any lawsuite and that you understand that you are using the roads at your own risk.

4.  By stating that you will access blocked off roads through criminal acts like pulling down barricades or gates, you are the problem not the solution.
Isn't a criminal act, civil trespass maybee, who is policing this? and at what cost? BTW donot agree with doing any damage to equipment at any time[/font][/color]
5.  User Pay - it's the way of the future so get used to it.  We can't have everything for nothing.

See number 3
some roads need to be deactivated and properly rehabed. That should be at the cost of the licence holder that built them.

Again, just my opinion.

[/color]

[skaha]

-December 15th deadline for public input so get your ideas off this site and on to the official site as indicated by this thread!
--It is not important that you agree with my concerns for abuse under this seemingly well intended consolidation of the act... It is in my opinion not just a consolidation and simplification of several regulations into one but a significant change toward privatization of our public resource.
--Comments for against or suggestions for modifications all indicate to government that people are interested and watching.

-NOTE: below part of an article I submitted to a local news paper.
 
----Some may view spending pubic money on back country roads should not be a priority given the current economic constraint our province is experiencing.  There are however many direct benefits associated with public use of Resource roads which are essential for access to back country areas.
 
-Information from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Operations indicate that: 
 
Freshwater anglers spend $480 million every year on equipment, travel and
accommodation and hospitality services, supporting 7,500 direct jobs.
* Sustainable hunting by resident hunters and guide outfitters contributes
approximately $350 million to the province annually.
* The guiding industry provides 2,000 jobs for rural communities and
families, generating approximately $116 million in revenue each year.
 
-Resource roads with public access are an essential component of a sustainable  economy for Rural British Columbia.

The best way to provide feedback is via the Natural Resource Road Act Project website at
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/mof/nrra/.
All feedback will be considered and accepted until Dec. 15, 2011. P

[cutthroat22]

http://bcaccess.ca/

http://www.resourceroadsbc.com/

just adding a couple of webpages dedicated to the subject.

[IronNoggin]

This current proposal is a resurrection of the old Bill 30 put forward by the Campbell government in April of 2008 (as noted in the link provided by cutthroat above). Back then it was met with strong public resistance, and eventually died before passing. This time around, the Provincial government is being awfully quiet about their "new" proposal, I'd guess hoping that it will sneak it's way through before the general public is even aware it exists. NOT at all surprised by their underhanded tactics in this matter - seems if they don't get their way initially, they will quietly ignore the stated concerns of those they supposedly "represent" and do whatever the hell they want anyway. 

The question this time is once again: Are you prepared to stand idly by while YOUR access to YOUR Province is stolen away right under your nose?

I hope NOT!

Nog