Thanks Sam, some good points, which I will take into consideration of course.
Is it not the responsibility of Recreational Users to keep themselves informed of changes as proposed by Regulatory Agencies? After all it's not that big a place is it?
Of course it is, but we can only inform ourselves if the information is made available. I receive regular email notifications from various agencies whenever changes need to be broadcasted, as they do recognize this website generates quite a bit of readership. Being one of the key contacts of the Chilliwack Vedder River Cleanup Coalition, which the Fraser Valley Regional District works with, I would have expected to be notified when consultation was taking place. Therefore I was both concerned and frustrated when the meeting minutes and a letter of support from the Ch-ihl-kway-uhk Tribe Society, were forwarded to us, not from the government agencies who are involved, but from the chair of the Upper Fraser Valley Sportfishing Advisory Committee.
My previous post was somewhat vague as I did it up in a hurry and tried to summarize it as swiftly as I could. My concern was mostly generated from the meeting minutes of this whole process, operated under the group "Nuisance Mitigation Committee". The whole process intends to solve the current problem that we are seeing, but at the same time it is pushing to limit access with whatever means possible.
BTW-cyclists and walkers also use the river-for recreation.
That's why I stated "recreational users" instead of anglers, even though anglers make up the big percentile of all user groups.
Something needed to be done it may not be perfect but should go a long way to protecting the river against damage.
So people will have to walk further-what's the big deal?
It's true that in the past a person could almost fish from their truck in some places but does anyone really think that convenience could last under the relentless pressure the CV system is under?
It is tough for handicapped users and maybe some allowance-barricaded access points like those on bike trails-should be made for them.
Speaking for myself, there is a self-interest behind whatever I get involved with. I would be a hypocrit if I deny it. In this case, there are two things that I dislike. The sight of the concrete block basically take away whatever scenery that one would see when driving up Chilliwack Lake Road. Not to speak for others, but it would ruin the whole experience for me. Secondly, we are not talking about having alternative parking locations that are further away. Previous existing parking spaces along the road, which caused no problem in the past, have been taken away. As a result, the amount of parking in one specific area is limited when there are no plans to accommodate the same amount of vehicles that will be accessing the area in the coming months. These restrictions are not giving people alternatives, therefore as some have suggested, they will simply push the problems elsewhere.
The answers are simple-car pooling and private paid parking-which is common in other jurisdictions.
Again, it's an alternative that has not been presented in the planning. I would not mind, but sucks for those who cannot afford it.
The old 'less eyes on the river' argument is specious at best and has never been proven.
Statistically unproven, so we can go back and forth on this with no agreement. Based on what we have experienced with this forum and the Chilliwack Vedder River Cleanup Coalition, I feel differently. People out there fishing at one specific spot, see a problem, report it either by posting it in here or emailing one of the directors, problem is then taken care of. The discovery of the tent city above Teskies Rock two years ago by several forum members is a good example of this.
Nonsense and you weaken your post by including it.
Sunset is past 10 PM in June but not in August/September/October when the river is busiest.
What about July?
But I agree, it's a weak argument.
Good Luck in putting your points across but what's done is done, if it means a tougher time for recreational anglers so be it.
It's never permanent because there is always room for improvement, at least that's what I believe in. If a compromise can be reached so quality of angling experience can still be maintained while achieving the goals of this process, then people should not sit back and say, "So be it."
I was going to forward this thread to those who are involved in the process as they usually are interested in reading feedbacks (yes, they do care), but I will not now. Quite a few replies are simply rants, a couple could be intepreted as rude if I was the one making the decision. Those comments would only hinder the process and damage what we are trying to achieve here. If you have ideas and concerns, express it in a presentable manner so people can actually bring them to those who can make a difference. As Sam and FA have stated, I don't have all the points, but they can be fine tuned once others show their view points. Chris is the main person who has set up the meeting. If you want to express your thoughts privately, you can email or PM him.
Author
Topic: No more sleep overs on the Chiliwack River. (Read 7875 times)