Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: Matt on November 15, 2011, 02:27:01 PM
-
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/)
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/mof/nrra/Discussion-Paper.pdf (http://"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 Ever driven down a backroad where there is no longer active logging/mining?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 (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.
-
links are not wotking for me. dammit i wanna leave some feedback. >:(
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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, 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.
-
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.
-
>:(
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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....
-
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?
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
---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.
-
--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.
-
Not being allowed to use the roads my main concern.
-
Not being allowed to use the roads my main concern.
Then please DO Something about it!!
Cheers,
Nog
-
---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.
-
--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.
-
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]
-
-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
-
http://bcaccess.ca/
http://www.resourceroadsbc.com/
just adding a couple of webpages dedicated to the subject.
-
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
-
Courtenay Fish & Game President on this proposal: http://courtenayfishandgame.org/index_files/v3_president.html
Comments have to be submitted by December 15, 2011.
Lets get some feedback happening people......
Nog
-
--Only a few more days for public comment... Guides and Ecotourism companies... do you think as industrial users you'll be able to use these soon to be private roads without paying a toll or have preferred companies granted access for a price and a promise off exclusion of all competition...
-
--Only a few more days for public comment... Guides and Ecotourism companies... do you think as industrial users you'll be able to use these soon to be private roads without paying a toll or have preferred companies granted access for a price and a promise off exclusion of all competition...
skaha is right folks; there will be only one entity with the road licence. Those licensees will be free to charge whatever they want, that is if they even decide to allow you on the road. Think about it how better to stop prying eyes than too stop access to the public.
-
5 Days Left To Comment!!
PLEASE DO!!
TIA!
Nog