Print

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

[Matt]

The BC government is proposing to put in place an act that will limit access to backroads which we as anglers use on a regular basis.  

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/mof/nrra/

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/mof/nrra/Discussion-Paper.pdf

Part 1. Framework principles
f. Any road lacking a designated maintainer may be subject to deactivation.
What this means: Where there is no designated maintainer, government may determine that the risk to users or the environment is too great to allow the road to continue to remain open.

The way I read this is that unless an entity (ie: logging or mining company) steps forward and volunteers to spend their own money maintaining a backroad, it will be gated or otherwise blocked to prevent access by vehicle.  Ever driven down a backroad where there is no longer active logging/mining?  I can think of many such roads, some of which go to some of my favourite lakes and rivers.

To hell with that idea.  Not only will my tax dollars be going towards blocking roads with concrete blocks, building gates and digging out culverts which WILL be winched out of the way, cut down and bridged or filled respectively,  but it will ensure that the only crowd getting into the areas accessed by these deactivated roads will be the individuals who have shown themselves to be willing to break rules by the very act of accessing these roads.  That groups my include anglers/ hunters who want to merely have access to the area for legal activities, but it will also include the less responsible, law-abiding contingent that often engages in habitat destruction (ie: driving 4wds in wetlands/ creeks), poachers, grow ops.  This act is very poorly thought out.

Please go to this link and submit feedback about the proposed act that will limit your fishing/hunting/hiking etc access.

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/mof/nrra/feedback.htm

Specifically of importance is Part 1, f:
Any road lacking a designated maintainer may be subject to deactivation.
What this means: Where there is no designated maintainer, government may determine that the risk to users or the environment is too great to allow the road to continue to remain open.

[bigblockfox]

links are not wotking for me. dammit i wanna leave some feedback.

[Matt]

Fixed the links.  Please state your opinions firmly but politely, ie: don't use "retarded", use "poorly thought out", its important that we're heard.

[islanddude]

Wow.Going to be a mountain of paperwork for this boondoggle.Who is going to pay for all this bureaucratic redtape?Does the government have enough people to manage their currant legislation?I smell a "corporat" looking to control what belongs to the people of British Columbia and Canada.

[Sandman]

Part 1. Framework principles
f. Any road lacking a designated maintainer may be subject to deactivation.
What this means: Where there is no designated maintainer, government may determine that the risk to users or the environment is too great to allow the road to continue to remain open.[/font][/color]

The way I read this is that unless an entity (ie: logging or mining company) steps forward and volunteers to spend their own money maintaining a backroad, it will be gated or otherwise blocked to prevent access by vehicle.  Ever driven down a backroad where there is no longer active logging/mining?  I can think of many such roads, some of which go to some of my favourite lakes and rivers.

To hell with that idea.  Not only will my tax dollars be going towards blocking roads with concrete blocks, building gates and digging out culverts which WILL be winched out of the way, cut down and bridged or filled respectively,  but it will ensure that the only crowd getting into the areas accessed by these deactivated roads will be the individuals who have shown themselves to be willing to break rules by the very act of accessing these roads.  That groups my include anglers/ hunters who want to merely have access to the area for legal activities, but it will also include the less responsible, law-abiding contingent that often engages in habitat destruction (ie: driving 4wds in wetlands/ creeks), poachers, grow ops.  This act is very poorly thought out.

This really is no different than the current system.  There are currently plenty of roads that have been "deactivated" and blocked off due to their being no longer safe enough to allow access (not maintained).  I was on my way up to a lake in the the Princeton area last year only to find the road was deactivated.  I had the choice of walking in, or detouring 50 km around to another road (that may or may not have been still active). Under the current system, "wilderness" roads (roads no longer used by active industry) are maintained by the Ministry of Forests:

Although management for forest recreation is now under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Tourism, the Ministry of Forests and Range will, subject to available funding [emphasis mine], maintain limited access to established Recreation Sites and Trails.

Where responsibility for Forest Service road maintenance is not transferred or funded on a user-pay basis, those roads will be maintained to the "Wilderness Road" standard, or deactivated.

Roads may be temporarily closed where it would be difficult to provide for a reasonable level of user safety (due to the threat of landslides or bridge load restrictions).

Roads may be permanently deactivated where:
   

• it becomes apparent that necessary repair work on a closed road cannot be carried out;
• the road is located at the back end of a drainage (with little or no current use and no potential for expansion of access); or
• the cost of maintenance outweighs the cost of deactivation.

 This legislation seems to be just consolidating the many Acts that currently regulate these back roads, some of which were created for mining, others for forestry, others for private use, under one Act. The current regulations governing these road already allow for "deactivation" once the road is no longer used for its original purpose and the condition of the road has deteriorated to the point that the road is no longer safe, so it really is not anything new.

[Matt]

Sandman, the difference I see is that it would appear that unless a industrial company is willing to take on the maintenance required for a road, that road will be blocked off.  Thats my fear.  I know plenty of roads that are no longer used by industry that I'd hate to see blocked off because no one steps up to maintain them even though they are still passible.

[Sandman]

Sandman, the difference I see is that it would appear that unless a industrial company is willing to take on the maintenance required for a road, that road will be blocked off.  Thats my fear.  I know plenty of roads that are no longer used by industry that I'd hate to see blocked off because no one steps up to maintain them even though they are still passible.

My point is that this can happen now.  The government does not need a new law to do that.  The Forest Service currently maintains roads that are no longer used by the forest industry in a "Wilderness road" standard, and could, at any point chose to deactivate the road if it deems the cost of maintaining it out weigh the benefits (to recreational users).  There is no need for a new law to do so.  One of the reasons the Forest Service maintains these roads, and the recreational sites we all love to use, is that by maintaining them, they can better control the use of the "back country" by recreational users and thereby minimize the negative impacts of our uncontrolled use (forest fires).  Roads are usually only deactivated when they have bridges which, if they fail due to lack of maintenance, can cause environmental damage.

[Nucks]

You'd be surprised how many roads actually have a designated maintainer. Having said that, it's easy for a licensee to be relieved of their obligations so that they are no longer the designated maintainer.

Low risk roads will most likely not be deactivated. I'm assuming that only the ones that have structures on them like bridges and major culverts will as the risk increases. As it states, government will determine the risk and go from there.

If you're really concerned about access to your secret lake, go to your local Forest Service office and find out if anyone is the maintainer on that particular road. If there is a licensee that is the maintainer, you can phone them up and ask what there plans are for the road.

Hope this helps.

[Nicole]

 

This bill was killed in 2008, and has now reared it's ugly head yet again...

http://www.resourceroadsbc.com/information.htm

Once Section 14 of Bill 30 comes into force, publicly owned forest service roads will cease to exist. Re-designated as “resource roads”, everyone's right to access to Crown Lands using existing roads will be determined under Section 11 of the new “Resource Road Act”, and if deemed a “commercial activity”, by Sections 38 and 39.

Section 11 of Bill 30 states: “A holder of a road authorization applicable to a resource road must not request or obtain money or any benefit or compensation from any person using or wishing to use the resource road unless, (a) in the case of a person using or wishing to use the resource road for a purpose that is not an industrial purpose, the regulations otherwise provide”.

In plain English Section 11(a) “enables” this government (or any future government) to enact regulations which impose fees and/or restrictions on the general public. The public's right of access is not enshrined in this Act.

Entire areas of the Island are now off limits to BC residents due to logging companies not wanting to shell out for liability insurance...

Do everything you can to maintain your right to access your crown land - this one is very important to speak up on.

Cheers,
Nicole

[Sandman]

There certainly seems to be an attempt to address the concerns raised regarding the previous Bill 30.  

Use at Own Risk:Liability to third parties will be limited to instances of misfeasance.
What this means: Unless a designated maintainer or the government has intentionally or negligently created a hazard that causes another user injury or vehicle damage, there will be no recourse compensation. This policy will encourage government to allow more roads to remain open for public use (instead of being deactivated) when the designated maintainer no longer requires the road. It is also intended to encourage safer behaviour on resource roads.

Submit your feedback and keep on top of the developments of this legislation. 
Write to your MLAs (both Liberal and Opposition) and let them know this will be an election concern.

[chironomidking]

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?
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.
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.
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.

[IronNoggin]

Apparently the BC legislation is part of an International Public Access Management Plan.

It is directly connected to US and Alberta PUBLIC access plans.

Read this report, lots of information pertinent to BC: http://issuu.com/foothillsresearchinstitute/docs/flmf_2009_03_report_accessmgmtstudy_final

From that Plan we get:

"At the end of the work, perhaps the overriding lesson is that access management is one of the most difficult land use planning problems. This is particularly true when the objective involves denying public users access to existing routes."

And there, in a nutshell, is what we're facing... 

Nog

[Matt]

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?
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.
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.
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. Once a road is opened up and access allowed, the users become a stakeholder.  What gives anyone the right to take it away simply because there isn't anyone there to repair the road.
2.  The bad apples will still get there, winches and modified 4wds will be able to breach most obstructions with ease.  Blocking off access to keeps out the public and in most cases, effectively the authorities too.  This will drastically reduce the number of law-abiding people who would report environmental abuse.  
3. "Use at your own risk"/ "this road is no longer maintained" signs, with legal precedent to back it up.
4.  I never implied that I would do anything, except state my dissatisfaction about the RRA online on the link I provided.  As someone who travels a lot of backroads, I have seen first hand that most deactivations get breached/bridged in short order.  I clearly stated that as an observation, not a set of intentions.
5.  I'm not asking anyone to maintain the roads, just not to block it.

[Sandman]

1. Once a road is opened up and access allowed, the users become a stakeholder.  What gives anyone the right to take it away simply because there isn't anyone there to repair the road.

The government has an obligation to ensure the roads in BC are safe for use, if the continued use of the road would cause harm to the road, the environment, or the user, then the government is obligated to repair/maintain the road or close/deactivate the road.

2.  The bad apples will still get there, winches and modified 4wds will be able to breach most obstructions with ease.  Blocking off access to keeps out the public and in most cases, effectively the authorities too.  This will drastically reduce the number of law-abiding people who would report environmental abuse.

This is true of all currently deactivated roads.  If someone breaches a barricade and gets hurt or cause environmental damage, there is a clear case against them as it is clear the road was closed and they were not supposed to be using it.  

3. "Use at your own risk"/ "this road is no longer maintained" signs, with legal precedent to back it up.

If the road is left open and the user fails to notice a bridge has been damaged and it collapses into a stream killing the driver, spilling fuel in the river and causing an obstruction in the creek that creates a flash flood when it eventually breaks and injures people/property downstream, would the fact that it was "use at your own risk" really help those negatively affected?

4.  I never implied that I would do anything, except state my dissatisfaction about the RRA online on the link I provided.  As someone who travels a lot of backroads, I have seen first hand that most deactivations get breached/bridged in short order.  I clearly stated that as an observation, not a set of intentions.

No comment.

5.  I'm not asking anyone to maintain the roads, just not to block it.

Most roads (as the discussion paper suggests) could and should remain open, only roads that are so degraded as to cause harm to the user, or the environment through continued use, would be closed. (This is the part most people fear could be abused and the "open road" policy ignored or distorted to the effect that all back roads become closed.)

[Sandman]

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.