West Vancouver Upper Lands review - future of Cypress trails (merged)

let us not single out any one person in particular please.

That person may be the most known in our community, but if you had gone to the Open Houses you will have seen some other citizens that require updated information as to trail usage and maintenance awarenesses that many riders and builders have now-a-days. This is an opportunity to show that. The fact that trails on Cypress are so steep mean they drain relatively quickly.

Let us stop looking backwards and raising past occurrences of "whatever' and focus on how to be a proactive part of what happens on the mountain we visit, essentially, as tourists.

let us not single out any one person in particular please.

That person may be the most known in our community, but if you had gone to the Open Houses you will have seen some other citizens that require updated information as to trail usage and maintenance awarenesses that many riders and builders have now-a-days. This is an opportunity to show that. The fact that trails on Cypress are so steep mean they drain relatively quickly.

Let us stop looking backwards and raising past occurrences of "whatever' and focus on how to be a proactive part of what happens on the mountain we visit, essentially, as tourists.

Tourists in our own backyard!

Hopefully I'll continue to be able to ride my favourite tourist trap trails on Cypress.

keyword "hopefully" I would stress.

Thanks again to everyone that came out to the ULWG Open Houses last week. The Working Group met tonight to review what they heard from the public.

Words cannot express how good it was to hear that mountain bikers were some of the best spoken and most articulate people there. Your passion for the Cypress trails was clear. There was recognition that these trails are a world class resource, know far beyond the biking community.

Well done! :clap:

My response to the recent threads is this:

I am working on my notes from attending the Upper Lands Working Group meeting tonight. I will release these later Friday night as I am at Cypress tomorrow with a GIS firm to test some equipment for our cause, more on that next week in a Press Release in conjunction with 1994canucks. Oh drum roll

Further 1994 the NSMBA challenge is limited by the fact that they are a Registered Not For Profit Charity that is limited in their ability to act in Cypress due to this:

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/bn-ne/bfr/typ/chrts-eng.html

A charity also has to meet a public benefit test. To qualify under this test, an organization must show that:

1- its activities and purposes provide a tangible benefit to the public
those people who are eligible for benefits are either the public as a whole, or a significant section of it,
2- in that they are not a restricted group or one where members share a private connection, such as social clubs or professional associations with specific membership
3- the charity's activities must be legal and must not be contrary to public policy

The key point is 3! the trails are technically illegal so right now, the NSMBA cannot act.

Sneaky/Nsmb/NSMBA.
Didn't mean to offend. There have been some great conversations. What I am saying, it would be beneficial to have them included where possible opportunities are to assist.

got it.

Sneaky/Nsmb/NSMBA.
Didn't mean to offend. There have been some great conversations. What I am saying, it would be beneficial to have them included where possible opportunities are to assist.

Further 1994 the NSMBA challenge is limited by the fact that they are a Registered Not For Profit Charity that is limited in their ability to act in Cypress due to this:

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/bn-ne/bfr/typ/chrts-eng.html

A charity also has to meet a public benefit test. To qualify under this test, an organization must show that:

1- its activities and purposes provide a tangible benefit to the public
those people who are eligible for benefits are either the public as a whole, or a significant section of it,
2- in that they are not a restricted group or one where members share a private connection, such as social clubs or professional associations with specific membership
3- the charity's activities must be legal and must not be contrary to public policy

The key point is 3! the trails are technically illegal so right now, the NSMBA cannot act.

Cypress trails are just as "illegal" as the trails on Seymour and Fromme.

Actually, they're not.

Regardless of my armchair viewpoint the focus should be on the future of a trail systems on Cypress, and, like the current incarnations of Fromme and Seymour, start a process of intention to start being formal stewards of the trails. There are current builders whose passions are the trails clearly, and, as I have been informed by 1994canucks, they maintain them as well. It cannot only be just them. We need riders, like myself and 1994canucks to also acknowledge that we are part of solution up there too.

Further to all this, here is an update from my attending the first Upper Lands Working Group (ULWG) meeting, open to the public, since the Open House they held regarding the Upper Lands Study:

http://westvancouver.ca/sites/default/files/dwv/assets/gov/docs/Committees-Groups/working-groups/upper-lands/2014/ULWG_AGENDA_MARCH_13_201.pdf

There were two Councillors in attendance, the citizen members of the ULWG, two Planners and the Director of Planning and a staffer from the District of West Vancouver, along with 5 members of the public. The format of the meeting is a round table of issues to discuss as forwarded by the Chair of the Meeting, an citizen of the ULWG. The public sat on the outside perimeter of the room to observe only, and at the end of the meeting there was a short question phase where the public could ask questions or make a brief statement.

The meeting itself focussed on the Open Houses, and asked the ULWG members each their views of how the Open House went without getting into the details generally the feedback from the citizen members of the ULWG were that many general people were curious about the proposal, or what was happening, without have any opinions, as many did not have information or knowledge of the topic. Clearly this point does not apply to those that attended with various priorities already in mind, whether environmental, hiking, biking, old growth forest ect. This non opinion segment was especially relevant when those persons had no idea what a point of reference for this process was: Rodgers Creek! One ULWG citizen said frankly that the ULWG cannot expect to get good opinions from the public if the public do not know the scope of issues. When the public are querying "What is the Proposal?" then, it is apparent that the ULWG did not frame enough prior information provision perhaps or maybe, these people are not informed from the ULWG website online. This was a bit of an issue for some citizens members of the ULWG.

There was a short discussion on the content of the questions being asked by the Consultant to the Planning department which ran the Open House. Key point here the Open House Moderator is an Outside Consultant paid by the City to undertake such Open Houses and to provide a report back to the Planning department on the "findings". A draft report is due in the next week or so at the Planning Department, from which, a key Planner will take those findings and integrate them into the DWV Planning Draft document for the ULWG which, is the ULWG deliverable to DWV.

Through April the ULWG will meet three times to power through and finalize this draft. April 1 and 15 at 6 PM in the Learning Room at the Seniors Center at the West Vancouver Community Center. And April 29 at 7 PM tentatively. The target date for the ULWG document to be presented to West Vancouver City Council is June 2 2014.

So All- this is key- do you expect our voices, from those Open Houses, to really be rallied through their document and rallied to their City Council? We have work to do still! The ULWG is like any group project in University I did in my undergrad degrees or my graduate degree in Planning: they have constraints of career, family, time, and energy as well! They will do their best, but their best will still need to be constructively criticized with us providing positive input as to the shortcomings specifically related to the community and regional value of those trails in the woods, hiking and biking, and access to them.

If you want your trails to be protected do not think our presence in an Open House will win the day.

To note: the planners where quite happy with the turnout and participation through out the process, and commented on the fact that the online participation was high as well. Obviously the message was that the Upper Lands meant a lot to many people. It was encouraging to note that a Councillor and another citizen member of the ULWG noted the regional importance of the Upper Lands since they were getting feedback online from people outside of DWV. Though the ULWG mandate is specifically mandated for DWV, they did acknowledge that those areas have also a regional importance.

Anyways back to the Group notes: a number of Citizens noted there was strong opposition to development above 1200 feet. One Councillor indicated that they did not "hear" this opposition in the sessions they attended. I was a bit surprised by that. One comment was that there did not seem like there was a strong opposition to the contour variation- my mouth dropped with what I witnessed there was, with what some other ULWG members witnessed there was so we have to really be strong here, with the hikers and environmentalist so vocalize no development above 1200 feet if we expect to keep the trails that start above that. This is so key. Our work is just starting here and we need to remain vigilant through June 2 to ensure the Working Group hears not just our perspective, but that of many non aligned citizens that DO NOT WANT development any higher of that mountain!

End of my notes to you.
My edits to this post were grammar and a typo.

All:

I place this link here that is public on the Upper Land Working Group site as to the Correspondence received for this last ULWG meeting.

I have started a new thread due to the importance of conduct with respect so the contents of the letters.

There are viewpoints here that express, with respect to mountain biking, builders, ect, that are simply untrue. The author(s), in my opinion, is without current knowledge, or, it could be a baited trap to incite reaction amongst us.

Please do not react. DO NOT flame back. This just makes you look really bad, along with the rest of us. I am working so hard on this matter for all of us I do not want one dumb ass to make me have to go into damage control in the next ULWG meeting defending the rest of us good apples.

What the correspondence shows in the letter with respect to mountain biking is that some people just do not want us around. They are entitled to their opinions.

The ULWG acknowledged reception of the letters, but determined that getting into the details of such remarks is unnecessary as they realize that the process will get dirty first before it starts getting clean.

Let us please keep it clean. Our voice is an important voice, our voice here is being read by the City, ULWG members, and those against our views.

If you have a constructive "correction" in any of the points in a letter, then sure please share.

http://westvancouver.ca/sites/default/files/dwv/assets/gov/docs/Committees-Groups/working-groups/upper-lands/2014/march-13-2014-meeting-handout.pdf

The key point is 3! the trails are technically illegal so right now, the NSMBA cannot act.

Lee felt the need to address this point since it keeps coming up. I've posted this on his behalf. This is not meant as a discussion point. If people want more information they can refer to the citations posted.

_

On unsanctioned vs illegal trails

I am writing about a topic that has bugged me for a long time. It bugs me because the incorrect use of the language

is sloppy; stems from poor understanding of the correct use of the term and in my opinion, sets back the mountain-
bike advocacy movement every time the word is used.

The specific context of this is the North Shore and the use of the words "illegal" to describe the status of trails

when, (for everywhere except for BC Parks) the correct use of the word is "unsanctioned" or "unauthorized". This

is important because when used in the context of law illegal describes an activity that is proscribed by a law that

carries criminal penalties.

It is important to note that no jurisdiction in the North Shore except for BC Parks has implemented laws that make

it a criminal offence to build a trail or structure on public lands (see citations at end of this article). In North

Vancouver and West Vancouver building trails without permission isn't even addressed. In Metro Vancouver

lands building trails without permission carries a fine but no imprisonment. Only in BC Parks is there a risk of

imprisonment for riding bikes without permission. Curiously building trails without permission is not addressed as

an offence under the Parks Act. Only the Forests Act addresses this issue but as there are no active forestry tenures

in the North Shore that point is moot.

The upshot of all this is that it is inaccurate, sloppy and damaging to say that North Shore trails are "illegal". To

use this word paints bikers riding North Shore trails as lawbreaking criminals when this is not the case either from

a technical legal perspective or from a policy making perspective. Using the word "illegal" damages the cause of

mountain biking advocates, lends ammunition to those who would curtail biking and paints trail-builders and trail-
users (remember that any hiker, runner, or little kid who puts in a trail is caught under your lazy, inaccurate use of

word) as scofflaws. Again I emphasize that this is not just pointy-headed academic lawyer speak. Using the wrong

word carries a whole pile of unwanted baggage

Accordingly I urge the use of the word "unsanctioned" or "unauthorized" in the context of North Shore trails as this

is the correct use of the term. If trails are recognized under a process such as the Fromme trails under the long-
drawn out ARGG process then of course they then become sanctioned

And by the way, they're not land owners. They're land managers. They manage the land, for US the taxpayer. Get

that one right too and stop kow-towing to them.

EDIT: This short article cannot address other jurisdictions where there may be indeed criminal penalties for

unauthorized/unsanctioned trail building. American jurisdictions in particular have no shyness about enacting all

manner of laws that criminalize the act of building a trail or structures without permission. I stress that this is not

the case in the North Shore. However the laws in your jurisdiction may be very different so do not take this article

as legal advice to punch in a trail

DNV bylaws

http://www.dnv.org/article.asp?c=74

Environmental Protection and Preservation Bylaw

http://www.dnv.org/upload/pcdocsdocuments/16kw01!.pdf - water, stream and pollution discharges

Park Control Bylaw

http://www.dnv.org/upload/pcdocsdocuments/6zmv01!.pdf - damage to parks in the DNV

DWV bylaws

http://westvancouver.ca/government/bylaws-strategies-reports/bylaws?sort_by=title[HTML_REMOVED]sort_order=ASC

Creeks bylaw

http://westvancouver.ca/sites/default/files/bylaws/CreeksBylawNo.3013%2C1982.pdf - construction that

may impede waterflow

Parks Regulation bylaw

http://westvancouver.ca/sites/default/files/bylaws/ParksRegulationBylawNo.3110%2C1984.pdf - garbage,

litter, animals, wildlife, tennis, golf, watersports, helmet use and pollution in DWV parks

GVRD bylaws

http://www.metrovancouver.org/boards/bylaws/Pages/default.aspx

Regional Parks regulation http://www.metrovancouver.org/boards/bylaws/Amending%20Bylaws/

GVRD_Consolidated_Bylaw_1177.pdf

3.4 - specifically regulates trail construction and (b)prohibits trail construction

15.2 - fine between $ 50 and $ 10,000

BC Parks Parks Act and enabling regulations

Parks Act - http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/00_96344_01

Parks, Conservancy and Recreation Areas Regulation - http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/

180_90_01

Act

13 - structures prohibited

28 - fine of up to $ 1,000,000 or prison of up to one year

Regulation

25 - no riding a cycle unless permitted otherwise
_

Yes But-

(thanks too for this) but the rub IMO is this with respect to Cypress- BPP owns fee simple title to their lands i.e., Private Property like Joe Blow's house in Dundarave. No? Clearly, you review the land ownership maps in the ULWG website much earlier in this forum thread, and you see BPP across the lower slopes, DWV above that. Your comments are succinct yet only apply to those land not owned privately. Private lands are private lands. So, if BPP wanted, they could put a fence around their property and post guards. Or, they could put big white signs in the trees. And what do those signs say? That is the but.

Which is why we need to extend the conversation now to how to work and save the trails and be good neighbours. Some of you old schooler's may hate me for saying that. But really, you knew this day was coming. So now is a critical time to do a self check and ask yourself if you want to be a part of saving and advocating for what has been in those trees for 10-15 plus years? Or, alternatively say screw it and watch it slowly crumble.

Really that is how I see this now every day I go to that hairpin I see more and more stuff happening. So, like the early days of the NSMBA they were passionate about trying to get something going. And when NSMBA Director's say the word that maybe I should whisper I take note.

We need to shift gears. Hate me for saying it folks. This is how I think we have a chance to save the trails for the future and not bulldozed out. We can't blame BPP- they want to maximize what they have. You can't blame the builders pissed about the legacies of older trails being threatened. BPP likely wants us to be a part of the mix for the business we would bring to that hairpin shopping center, and parking, ect. So, there is a conversation to be had now with them. Some of you may just think I am a loony. Maybe so but in my value set, it is something worth fighting for and trying to work out with BPP and DWV. You look at North Van and you see what occurred there. AT LEAST THE TRAILS are still there!