BC government policy on bike trails

Just got back from the N.Van meeting. The new initiative is really ambitious (as they've noted). I think the best thing to come out of this strategy is having a representative that seems to have values and vision that each trail user group can agree on, and can get respect/cooperation with government and municipalities/regions. The planning and implementation phase is a little unclear at this stage but that's to be expected since this was a chance to let the community shape the strategy. I'll let others who were there give their impressions to help elaborate…

I think there were two major points/issues.

Insurance. Which I'll let Lee explain as he came up with a killer point or two.

The second was why should a trailbuilder (or anyone else for that matter) make the government aware of trails ? Problems may arise if the trail doesn't adhere to standards and the trail's status as officially known will not protect it or the area it exists in from being logged or used for housing etc.

Ummm…..

The second was why should a trailbuilder (or anyone else for that matter) make the government aware of trails ?

In my area, an incentive I can see for getting one of our trails officially recognized is that we can have it identified as non-motorized, thereby having some legal clout against the dirtbikes/atv's/4x4's that get a kick out of trashing trails.

Right now 90[HTML_REMOVED]#37; of our trails are unauthorized, and if I go to Compliance and Enforcement officers and complain about ATV's trashing our trails, there is not much they can do (aside from protecting sensitive habitats). My understanding from the meeting I attended is that the trails strategy will provide a mandate to C[HTML_REMOVED]E officers to protect recognized trails from unauthorized use, eg. motorized users on a non motorized trail.

Having your trail recognized wont protect your trail from development, because if it is being developed it is on private land and therefore not technically covered by the trails strategy. If your trail is recognized and is being proposed for logging activities, the forester signing off on the Site Plan must consider the impact of the harvesting on the trail/rec feature and mitigate those impacts. This could include buffers, falling and yarding away from the trail, cleaning up the trail post logging, etc.

Basically nothing will happen. Some nice three ring binders with presentations maybe will result. The whole process is underfunded.

Re liability and insurance. The province can wave a magic wand and make all trail builders and their organizations immune from lawsuits. They can pass a law to make that happen. So why don't they?

Here's my official report. Check it out on the NSMBA website.

Here's my official report. Check it out on the NSMBA website.

Thanks for the report, I couldn't make the meeting due to work timing issues.

On the NSMBA page the "Next" link at the bottom of the page takes you to the announcement for the meeting which I don't think is correct.

This whole thing reminds me of the recreation strategy done for blue mountain. Lots of govt money spent for a 3 ring binder full of info. Then the gov't changes and the report/strategy is passed along to the next guys who say meh, who cares and nothing is ever done.

Basically nothing will happen. Some nice three ring binders with presentations maybe will result. The whole process is underfunded.

This whole thing reminds me of the recreation strategy done for blue mountain. Lots of govt money spent for a 3 ring binder full of info. Then the gov't changes and the report/strategy is passed along to the next guys who say meh, who cares and nothing is ever done.

So true, and the problem is that it is our money in the end. Too many times this happens. Kind of the assessment done on Cypress a few years ago. Nothing ever came of that, but the tax payers still paid for it.

Thanks for the outline Mr. Bond!
Dan

Re liability and insurance. The province can wave a magic wand and make all trail builders and their organizations immune from lawsuits. They can pass a law to make that happen. So why don't they?

Yes why don't they.? Or will it become a situation where only those with deep pockets can afford it?

In response to my question about liability, John the presenter mentioned that the Province would act as the insurer for clubs. What he didn't mention (and I didn't bother pointing out) is that MTCA's form agreement with clubs puts a lot of requirement on clubs to put into place a lot of administration and processes.

My concern is that clubs and volunteer groups already have to deal with a lot of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo and paperwork when dealing with insurance agents.

My concern is that clubs and volunteer groups will still have to deal with a lot of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo and paperwork when dealing with MTCA if MTCA is acting as the club's insurer.

Example of bureaucratese:

Comments:

1. Trail groups have to "apply" to adopt trails. May have to consult with other stakeholders and public. May have to submit land use plans

2. Have to be an organized trail group to adopt trails. Individuals can only get one-off permission for specific projects.

3. SHORT TERM trail work is for one year projects. Simple application process

4. LONG TERM trail work is for up to ten years. Complex application process (organization's resume and past experience; how to deal with other users; environmental mitigation)

5. All new trails must be multi - use (ie no purpose built bike trails - must allow motoX, hikers, horses etc).

6. If trail group builds structures must get $ 2M third party liability insurance; must appoint trail safety coordinator; must file annual report with MTCA about trail and stunt inspection and repair plan, Must follow standards (eg IMBA and Whistler standards)

7. Any trails with structures must have multi-year agreement. All multi-year agreements must have annual operating plan (Submit 1:20,000 map; Plan with nature and timing of proposed trail work)

Note: I didn't bring this up as I felt that I already had my rant at the meeting and it's mice good to let others rant. This will be part of my feedback to MTCA

reading between the lines…..

Fight over a couple recognized high profile trails, jump through the hoops ect

punch in many low profile underground trails with minimal wood structures.

5. All new trails must be multi - use (ie no purpose built bike trails - must allow motoX, hikers, horses etc).

Good points Lee.

John did mention a couple of times that they were aiming for trail opportunities for all all users groups, but not every trail opportunity for all user groups. I.e. single use trails are fine, but we need to look at allowing a good ballance of user groups to build single or multi-use trails in a given area.

This idea really needs a more comprehensive set of guidlines, but it's a good starting point.

John did mention a couple of times that they were aiming for trail opportunities for all all users groups, but not every trail opportunity for all user groups. I.e. single use trails are fine, but we need to look at allowing a good ballance of user groups to build single or multi-use trails in a given area.

At the Nanaimo meeting John stated that mixing motorized and non-motorized user was not the intent of the "multi-use" statement, and that he realises these 2 users groups are incompatible.

Just a reminder that there is another meeting for those that couldn't make it last night and especially for the Valley riders. Apparently the moto riders have been coming out in full force. It would be great to have a good showing of mtbr's.

Langley - 6:30 pm to 9 pm, 13th January 2009
Holiday Inn Express, Langley
8750 204th Street, Langley