Comments on: Muddy Results on Recreation Consultation

By: toivo koivukoski

toivo koivukoski — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:03:46 +0000

to see what’s been done on the climbing front, check out

http://gatineauclimbingaccess.ca/home/index_e.html

By: toivo koivukoski

toivo koivukoski — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 13:59:28 +0000

one way to start building trust with user groups would be to honour past agreements. the NCC should keep to its past negotiated agreement with the climber’s access coalition. this group has been successful at negotiating a management plan for climbing access and informing the climbing community in order to keep this activity sustainable. compliance with any management plan will require not only good communication, but also having organizations that represent the user groups on-side so that they can work effectively and organize within their communities. the closures of climbing areas that the climbing community have willing accepted have been tests of the good faith that exists between the access coalition and climbers. more widespread area closures or a climbing ban on a long-established sport would effectively make the activity an unmanageable one.

i agree with Marty on one of his points- manage the cars, that’s the obvious, huge environmental impact on the park, and it’s inherently manageable.

By: bcguru

bcguru — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 02:57:16 +0000

“A second round of consultations is planned but only after the NCC has a Plan to show Park users. There doesn’t appear to be any opportunity for consultations that would further refine the plan once users had a chance to see it.” …thx Charles…anybody else see the open-to-discussion irony in that one…

By: bcguru

bcguru — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 02:45:13 +0000

ya darrerl…the map is first class all the way…maybe a little boring yet efficient witih the numbering sysytem. The grid lines, however, are bang on…the paper of the map is twisted clockwise a wee to compensate for the sorta SE to NW/W direction the park takes within its boundaries..basically saving paper resulting in a smaller longer (twisted – angled) map. It comes expertly labeled, shaded, weatherproofed, major roads labelled, with contours lines and multi coloured, with excellent shading and accurate trails and lakes, and it is extremely well indexed…sorry need to challenge your “silly little map comment…one of the best park maps i’ve seen…

By: Marty Hall

Marty Hall — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 02:25:29 +0000

No matter what the direction is with this whole push-it is paramount with the statements about tight budgets that vehicular traffic that operates inside the park boundaties has to pay for this privlege. They are the biggest users, create the greatest amounts of exhaust pollution, noise polution and vandalism and on top of this bring the least educated users of the park.
Next, the alpine ski programs and the rope course programs need to come under the scrutiny as the rest of the users in the park. It looks like they don’t even exist in the study and reports, but it is for sure they are having many negative impacts on the park. But, it is amazing what money came buy for special considerations.
This report has more to do before I know I will have a feeling that we really have a valid direction and that the integrity of the report will lead us into a positve future for all users of the park.

By: ian s

ian s — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 20:02:33 +0000

I always make a point to ask anyone I see in the Park (with one of those useless NCC mini maps) if they need help. Almost always they are confused. The maps are appalling. They should save some money & not print them.
2ndly, who exactly did the NCC consult to get the pie chart results?
I haven’t talked to too many who were consulted or was it the web based consultation? Sort of like using Facebook, a bit fluffy to base important decisions on.

By: Pete Brown

Pete Brown — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 18:16:49 +0000

Perhaps you’ll sign up for that nav course, Darrerl; it would teach you that the NCC maps’ grid is indeed oriented to true North.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 11:53:58 +0000

What interests me most is if the NCC even has the mandate to decide conservation over anything else. The parks origins are with the King estate. On King’s death his estate was given over to the Canadian public – for their enjoyment. It was never intended as a preserve.

I won’t even bother talking about the NCC’s own ‘conservation’ practices in the park.

By: Scott M.

Scott M. — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 11:45:40 +0000

Other technologies which allow lots & lots of folks into the park includes
Roads…

Agreed. From a purely environmental standpoint, these technologies suck. That’s why we have to find a balance.

Sadly, there are a *LOT* of hikers who don’t just “bruise the granite” and instead think that because a trail is wet or muddy they should “walk around”, expanding the trail massively, destroying some very fragile ecosystems, trampling rare plants and animal habitats in the process. While you may one of the hikers (like myself and my family) who trudge straight through the middle of the path even if it’s under water, you must have seen the impact of these people… no? The folks who want to get out with nature but not get dirty or wet?

By: Darrerl Newman

Darrerl Newman — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 22:44:20 +0000

Hi Charles

Other technologies which allow lots & lots of folks into the park includes
Roads
Parking Lots
Sign Posts
Silly little NCC Gatineau Park Maps
Busses
Cars
SUVs
Snowmobiles
ATVs
Bikes
Snowplows etc

Whenever I am hiking in the park I take great care not to bruise the granite rocks.

On another note have you ever noticed that the maps ( summer & winter) which the NCC sells are not oriented with True North at the top. if you look carefully you can see the grid lines running sort fo NNW.