Recreation

Summary of Public Comments : Provincial Parks & Wilderness for the 90’s

In 1991 British Columbia Parks completed a survey of British Columbia communities on the impact of expanding protected places (parks and conservancies). The material extracted below summarizes concerns during that era about the expansion of protected places to 12% of the land by recreational users.

» View PDF (see pgs 39 – 44)

Recreation

Recreational users expressed concern over losing access to recreational opportunities as a result of the normal restrictions that accompany park status. Many people felt such restrictions discriminated in favour of an elite group of users who might not all reside locally.

Restrictions on specific recreational activities, including driving all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiling, horseback riding and resident hunting, were also a concern to some people.

“I would like to see access in these wilderness areas available to snowmobiles.” (Peter Hessels, Pemberton,)

“Most of the regions which I and many of my friends use need vehicle access. To prohibit this access by a park or wilderness area is discriminating against those who cannot walk to these creeks, lakes and mountain peaks.” (Len Gustafson, Nakusp)

• “Backcountry areas are currently open to exploration and enjoyment. Existing uses will be restricted with the designation of a park.”
• “Do not impose such strong restrictions that most of us are unable to benefit… Limiting areas to hikers only, for example, rules out 90% of the population.”
• “Trails or designated areas should be provided for all-terrain vehicles and motorcycles. The exclusion of these uses without alternative locations leads to indiscriminate use.”
• “Recreational float planes should have the privilege of flying into provincial parks.”
• “Grazing of livestock should be permitted to accommodate traditional use by ranchers.”

Individuals and interest groups suggested that a broader range of facilities is now required in parks to meet evolving demands for such uses as horseback riding, cycling, canoeing and kayaking. Trail corridors, they said, should be considered for non-motorized users, and winter recreation activities should have a higher priority than they are now receiving.

Several people called for the development of small parks in popular areas, with facilities for local users.

• “It seems the majority of people prefer a more organized campground setting, with the basic needs such as washrooms, wood supply and fire pits. Maybe the government should spend a little more money on developing more of the existing parks (i.e., expanding the camping facilities), rather than setting aside blocks of land which are not even accessible to the average person.” (Signed: Forest industry employee, Armstrong)
• “Roadside camping facilities in provincial parks are inadequate to handle the peak summer tourist traffic. Please consider expanding where possible, and reducing time limits in one spot from the current 14 days to 5-7 days so that more can enjoy.” (Mark Fenwick, Vancouver)
• “More campsites are needed within driving distance of cities.”
• “Development of provincial park campgrounds is falling behind each year. BC Parks should consider increasing the size of existing campgrounds and, more importantly, building new ones.”
• “… current facilities should be upgraded and new facilities built in existing parks before money is spent on creating new wilderness parks. Serviced campgrounds and trails near urban areas were particularly important to have.”
• In addition to foot access, consider cyclists, canoeists and kayakers in planning camping and other park facilities.
• Develop campground potential along highways and recreational travel corridors.
• Tourist facilities should be around the perimeter of parks, leaving the majority of park areas undeveloped.

Improved Access

Many people called for improving the physical accessibility of park areas for a wider cross-section of the public. Better road and trail access to large parks, for example, were highlighted. Provision for people with restricted mobility was also called for.

• “The only people that would benefit from these plans would be the able- bodied, or individuals with sufficient revenue to hire either guides or helicopters for access.” (no name given)
• “I would like to see ‘no go’ areas in parks so that total unaffected wilderness would remain; and also very limited access areas…that could only be accessed by foot.” (Mike Gallagher, Vancouver)
• “Planning for facilities should incorporate the needs of seniors and the disabled.”
• “I feel your park areas should not all be inaccessible…. At the Mackenzie meeting, a few people were worried that the park areas would be accessible only to people who could afford to get into the remote areas. Family areas have to be considered in your final decisions.”
• There are currently enough parks; the problem is that there is not enough access to them.
• Access to parks should be developed for ordinary people, not just a few select groups.
• Elderly and handicapped individuals cannot reach remote places without some form of transportation.