Ministry of Forests contact for info

[des]

Hello...allow me to introduce myself. My name is Mark Desprez and I work with the Ministry of Forests and Range in Campbell River as part of a coastal wide division addressing off road usage.

This year the provincial government has made off road activities a priority for our division. As part of our first year we are embarking on an educational approach in regards to the environmental considerations, new legislation, as well as working with outdoor groups to identify areas of interest to them.

What I was hoping to do is possibly open up a thread or section of the site where members can ask questions that the Ministry can help with. In addition if you have meetings we have three representatives on the Island and would be happy to take the time to drop in to discuss any questions.

I would appreciate any feedback on how we can facilitate safe and responsible off road sports....thanks.

[chet]

welcome Des,

Nice to see the ministry trying to get involved. The biggest issue for south island is proper access. Yes alot of the area is private land but if the govt. went to bat for us I'm sure the logging co's would relax their gate policies a little.

There is an area in Shawnigan Lake (Renfrew Rd.) that was established as a road many years ago when it was used as a way to Port Renfrew. Timberwest has thrown a get up on it and cloeses it when ever they see fit even on weekends when they are not working or there is no fire season.

Please come back often and if you have a south island counterpart (or get down to the south island) we would be happy to talk to you and possibly take you out for a trail ride!

[alstick]

Welcome Mark, I'm curious to see what the priority is. Use of our crown lands has become a contentious issue over the years with more and more restrictions on access for not only motorized rec but on wilderness camping as well, which also needs that access to the logging road system. Also many of the lakes I have fished in the past are behind those gates as well - pretty hard to hike in a belly boat and gear from the gate at Shawnigan to Weeks Lake or any other lake for that mater behind closed gates.

This is not only a OHV use issue but a general access issue. The average OHV be it a Jeep, ATV, bike, sled etc seems to be targeted as creating damage while we have such a negligible footprint compared to logging, mining etc or even the roads put in for logging access (or the paved ones to get there) in the first place its ridiculous we are arguing over a few two track trails 99% of the population doesn’t even know exist till the news steps in.
I hope your “coastal wide division addressing off road usage” understands the financial impact this segment provides North America wide. While I am a Island native I now reside in the Okanagan partly due to the loss of access as it relates to my business when I was in Victoria. Here you look down the street in the winter and every third house has snow mobiles, the others have quads, jeeps bikes etc… the financial impact is large as it compares to the relatively small amount of people taking part in motorized rec BC wide.

The smaller the town it seems the more outdoor rec you find as that’s the way of life of the people in those areas that do not have malls and multi movie complexes to sit and entertain themselves. Yet the decision on the use of these areas are made where the OHV activities do not take place - by people who do not take part in the activity.

Every segment has its issues of “bad apples” I hope the division can see through those bad apples and realize that OHV use is not only good for the local economy its good for the soul and the well being of the people who live near those areas.

Feel free to contact me any time.

Albert Vandervelde – IRC member
4WD Magazine
[e-mail]

[des]

Thanks for the feedback so far. Great comments. Thought I could start with some background.

The MoFR has recently reorganized to accommodate cross Ministry co-ordination in field services. For recreational users it may mean that you could be approached by say both MOE or ourselves regarding any education or compliance items. The new Regional format has amalgamated the three Districts on the island into one working group titled the Resource Management Co-ordination Division. Each District office maintains a staff member who has been tasked like myself with working with the public.

So what I am seeing so far are some good general questions, in with some local knowledge ones. I will try over time to chip away at the general questions that apply to just normal working policies and will defer any local questions to my counterparts if applicable. Roughly our Districts include South Island, up to Union Bay on the east coast to Estivan Point on the west. Campbell River, Union Bay to Tsitika on the east coast to Brooks Peninsula on the west. Port McNeil covers the rest of the North Island. Your respective contacts are Brent Stoll in South Island (250 731-3076), Paul Bastarache in Port McNeil (250 956-5083) and myself in Campbell River (250 286-9386).

So Chet I hope that gives you some direction for a South Island contact.

I will start a new post to cover some basic answers.

[des]

I’m thinking one of the better overview questions is alstick’s comments about the purpose/drive of the program.

You have detailed well the increasing pressures recreation is facing on all fronts. Like yourself I am an Islander and have seen the shifts from ‘in the know’ small unregulated camping spots with little population pressure, to the need to protect those areas from overuse (supervised, gated). But from what I have reviewed on the background of the program many of the issues have been raised by the public, medical and legal professionals, and more importantly recreation groups such as a 4X4 club. So my impression is not that any particular Ministry is deciding land use issues but facilitating the observations of the groups who have raised concerns. An example would be the upcoming requirement for ATV registration, it is primarily from what I understand a legal issue in regards to reducing ATV theft, a good thing I’m guessing.

For the first year of the program the focus will be on education and that is why I thought contacting user groups was the easiest way to go. However a big part of the program will be working with groups to help establish mutually agreeable locations to all parties with interests and concerns. So if you have any areas you would like to propose we can go out ourselves (MoFR staff) and check the area for any potential issues. I will address your comments regarding environmental foot prints, access and those few bad apples in future posts.

Keep the questions coming....thanks

[chet]

Mark,

even though most of the south island is private have you put any thought into groups like ours adopting remote camping spots for upkeep and clean up? The 4WDABC does this on the mainland and has worked out well. Basically the ministry donates the supplies and the club does the work to build the picnic tables erect signs and clean up the place 2-3 times a year. They also report any problems. With the multitude of small lake campspots up island and the amount of atv clubs it may be a viable option.

[des]

Hey Chet

Thanks for the reference to what has been working on the mainland. These are some or the kinds of ideas I’m looking for. Just for clarity, when you say mainland are you referencing the lower mainland? I just want to identify the correct MoFR District to call in regards to how they facilitate this.

For starters do you have any specific areas of interest?

[chet]

yep lower mainland area. Sunrise lake and Kenyon lake come to mind and I think the Roverlanders have an agreement to clean up the whipsaw trail outside of princeton.

I do not have any specific spots in mind as most of the lakes and camping spots in the lower island are private or organized spots. Although up until WFP sold Weaks lake to the CRD it would have been a prime candidate for a proper campspot

[des]

Hey Chet....sorry for the delay in responce.

As for your suggestion of club participation in Rec site maintenence on the lower mainland. Having checked into it a little further I can tell you that this idea was started a few years back, even in the Campbell River District. As for the CR area it appears the local atv club tried to take on maintenence of a popular off raod site however the participation slipped and the project died. This may work well on the lower mainland due to the numbers of members who can participate. However I would not discount the idea in your area and it may be worth talking to the MInistry of Tourisim, Culture and the Arts (MoTCA).

However, things have progressed at least in the CR area in regards to amending the idea. The local atv club is working with MoTCA to establish an area of atv interest located in an area of several rec sites. The plan does not involve maintenence as the concept just suggests an area of a high probability of groups being able to congrgate in one area (camping) and then knowing the local trails are all low risk to the environment.

Your main contact for any rec site or trail location questions should be directed to your local MoTCA office.

[des]

Gates......

Thought I could shed a little light on the popular off road topic of gates. And I will throw in the additional topic of road barriers.

Gates are primarily used in only two scenarios, barriers in one.

Gates for the most part are located on roads accessing private land, and yes the Island has it's fair share, wouldn't it be nice if we all got those nice land deals of days gone by...but we didn't. So it becomes a simple matter of would you push over a section of your neighbors fence next to his gate because he would not let you through his gated driveway? Although not on this site, other sites do contain posts of intentional disregard and intended damage to gates and the surrounding forest. Private land owners are aware of these sites and the negative posts contribute to the position of the land owners as far as access goes. In all fairness these sites do also have those who will try to dissuade others from destructive behavior but it seems to roll off their backs. My suggestion would be for a club to get involved with the land owners and show good faith by reporting other off readers who are spoiling the party with private land owners. Sorry but the MOFR has no involvement on private forest land and can not lobby on your behalf.

The only other application of gates is to limit access to problem areas. This could be a regional or city watershed or other limited access area. But more frequently it is a logging block located close to a town who has been experiencing vandalism. In these cases an application has to be made to the MoFR and it will only be on site for the duration of the cutting permit, which is usually two years, so it will go away and you will have more roads to play with in the future.

Barricades usually indicate a strong please stay out, there are issues back here.

Now I do sympathies with those who travel distances to practice their chosen pastimes, particularly if that pastime may trip across some unforeseen issues. This brings up the topic of due diligence on behalf of the recreational. With so many tenures for land (private, crown, regional, city) it becomes the due diligence of each person to ensure they are aware of any limitations of area of intended use.

I would like to say it should be as simple as posting areas but it just does not work that way, thanks to some. Example: The CR watershed has an old access road to camping and off road use. The city requires no motorized vehicles or camping. Every attempt to gate the road has resulted in the gate removed, every sign has been shot up, barricades were established with a rock wall on one side and a deep fish stream on the other. Youtube has several clips of 4x4s traveling down the creek and it has become a popular mud bogging site and now campers can access the site when they drive down the fish stream. For our part we try to educate, for your part 'ask'.

In summary, if a gate either back off or contact the owner, for a barricade please respect the concept that someone has identified resources that do not need further impact.

[alstick]

I travel a lot in the summer months for my job so have not kept up with this thread but it seems BC is far behind a lot of other area's when it comes to outdoor rec. It seems the sled clubs in the interior get great support. Recently the Kelowna Snowmobile club received grant funding:

www.cannan.ca/EN/4108/95479

I am a member of the Kelowna sled club which I pay 85.00 a year to access the Greystokes and club members also collect a 10.00 day pass at the staging area for non club members - which all clubs do for these riding areas and other sled areas in BC.

So why not make this a regulation and use it for OHV use - all users.

The Quad squad in Lethbridge received 800,000 in Fed grant money for multipurpose trail development in the Crowsnest Pass area. Despite pressure in Alberta on trails, at least some area's understand the economic benefits of OHV users but this is not the norm in Canada. We all get the feeling that one wrong turn on a trail and the "mud bogging" rules will bite us with a big fine.

In Washington, Oregon, California, Michigan (ones I know for sure and California actually has a gas tax that goes to the OHV fund) Every OHV user carries a 10.00 (yearly fee) OHV sticker on their vehicle. I have an Oregon one on my Jeep from visiting the sand dunes which I travel to yearly, which I also pay a 10.00 per day user fee to be on the sand. The intent of these funds is to manage OHV area's and for groups and organizations to draw from these funds for projects is areas used for OHV pursuits - like the Kelowna sled club does.

I was in the Yakima area recently in a OHV/Jeep trail system and this year several bridges were installed to transit wet areas. Grant funding was applied for by the PNW4x4 assoc for this project and the clubs manpower was used for the projects - at a fraction of the cost due to free labour by those clubs.


I think the entire OHV community be it bikes, sleds, Jeeps etc would welcome a program like this.

[rceme]

Wow,
talk about some good ideas, which actually could meet and possibly pass public and political scrutiny.

[des]

Well, lets see. If I am correct there are two potential proposals here, Federal Funding of projects, and a provincial scheme to collect funds then made available for projects.

I see no barriers to individual clubs in regards to identifying good projects and applying for Federal funding. Currently The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts (MoTCA) is working with clubs identifying potential trails and what improvements can be made.

Your suggestion regarding collecting fee’s towards these projects and maintenance is beyond the scope of the Ministry of Forests and Range but would make a better pitch at the provincial level for MoTCA. I do know that similar schemes similar to the attempt to collect a one time camping fee failed, most probably due to the fact that the administration is a problem.

As just a suggestion I would think the Federal Funding option at least puts the money in the hands of the groups in regards to deciding what projects interest them, as opposed to the province having to divvy it out as they see fit?

[alstick]

I would not think administration should be an issue it is no different than a fishing license or a hunting license, the funds of which are used for conservation, stocking lakes with fish, etc... the same principal can be applied to OHV, a % for administration, a % to land acquisition be it old forestry land or conversion of crown land. A system can be put in place for club level administration via grants as the users know what they need to enjoy their sport, with input from forestry as they have the know how to deal with water run off etc now - things they already need to deal with when clear cutting swaths of forest to identify needed repairs etc that may have further impacts.
In Alberta they have some engineering challenges with so many rivers and they have a current standard for bridges, makes sense though the projects are still handled from a club level but the engineering has to meet forestry practice codes.

Also keep in mind that a total large land base may not be required for OHV use but only trail “by ways” of a certain width – say 20 feet or so. Other uses such as forestry etc could still take place but like a steam a designated trail would be giving a buffer zone to keep it enjoyable by the users. This is how the Rubicon Trail in California one of the most amazing trails and most historic in North America is managed - google it you will find a lot of information.

If you have contact information for me to pitch a fee based system to the right people at the provincial level please send me the info I'd be more than happy to put a proposal together.

[des]

To find the best contact person I suggest contacting the local office for the Ministry of Tourisim, Culture and the Arts who can direct you to the person in Victoria that could best hear your proposal.

Not to be a pessimist however all Ministries are in shrinking mode, programs are disappearing and there are no idications the goverment is expanding it's programs let alone start a new one. The ideas are great but the political/financial aspects (more government staff) may be an issue at this time....good luck!