Alberta Land Rover Enthusiasts Club Forum
General => Non Technical Discussion => Topic started by: Trevor on April 02, 2015, 06:10 PM
The changes are starting to materialize with the land use zones. SRD is now the ESRD and the main website has changed http://esrd.alberta.ca/recreation-public-use/recreation-on-public-land/public-land-use-zones/
They have more PLUZ's now, with Brule lake area becoming one of a few new additions.
http://esrd.alberta.ca/recreation-public-use/recreation-on-public-land/public-land-use-zones/brule-lake-plUZ.aspx
I'm trying to make sense of the new restrictions. They do not mention 4x4's for Brule Pluz (or Coal Branch Pluz) whereas they do in many of the other ones. I don't really know what that means. They only have one designated trail that can be used in the Brule Pluz though from what I can see, and a gravel road.
I also noticed this in "Motorized" section of the Recreation on Public Land pages...
"Keep wheels out of streams, rivers, and lakes. Wheeled or tracked vehicles are not allowed on beds or shores of watercourses, wetlands or waterbodies"
"Driving in these areas produces harmful ruts and erosion problems. In addition, fine sediments stirred up by tires are harmful to fish."
That clearly states vehicles can't go near any water. I do not recall the old laws to be that restrictive. Is this the same as its always been, or is it in fact new wording?
Here's the section where I read it... http://esrd.alberta.ca/recreation-public-use/recreation-on-public-land/motorized.aspx
That looks like no trucks... If you look at areas that allow trucks, there is this extra symbol. Also says the area was created in 1999. Map is 2012.
(http://esrd.alberta.ca/recreation-public-use/recreation-on-public-land/public-land-use-zones/images/GFX-ESRDx-ActivityIcons-OHV.jpg)
The whole management of these area is horrible. It is impossible to understand the regulations. There is little to no signage or information and what there is, can't be understood.
Brown 4x4, Green OHV, yellow just says "motorized access"
I think mostly we drive to the north outside of the FLUZ??
To point out the confusing system... The castle area: http://esrd.alberta.ca/recreation-public-use/recreation-on-public-land/public-land-use-zones/castle-area-pluz.aspx does not have the 4x4 icon but if you look at the map, it clearly says trucks are okay.
Hmm, maybe there was a Brule Pluz before then. I don't recall there being one though.
And right you are regarding the Castle link John, the map does indeed seem to give different info than the main web page legend for that area.
This is a bit of a bear to sort out...
Well that is typical government rhetoric. Makes no sense at all.
"Trucks, jeeps and modified 4x4 vehicles may not be considered OHVs." Does this mean they aren't OHV's, or does it mean they maybe or may not be OHV's?
The whole thing is clear and tar!!!
Heh, yeah, I read that same phrase and came to the same conclusion Bill. These guys are a real piece of work.
Its a real mess. When you look at areas where 4x4's are not allowed (basically any Pluz in and around Nordegg), they have the 4x4 icon with an X through it. And in McLean area the icon is shown, and they are referenced as allowed.
Then you look at Brule and Coalspur (and a few others), and there simply is no 4x4 icon at all. So what is that supposed to mean?
I'm just going to wheel, and if someone gives me a ticket I'll gladly run it through the court system. I'd love to get this in front of a judge and see if ESRD can explain the system to both of us.
I think many folks will come to the same conclusion and go anyway. Maybe they think by being deliberately vague and ambiguous people will err on the side of caution and not go anywhere at all?
I want some of those mudflaps that read "4 wheeling is not a crime".
This s#%t is ridiculous.
This subject tends to get me off on a rant. It is all much worse down here. Around 10 years ago they created about 20 parks from Sundre south to the border. There was no public consultation, no announcements, nothing. It just happened one day. They did not tell anyone. Even to this day, there is no boundary signage in most of these new parks. Quite a few of them were ones that we used to drive in. If they find you driving in them, it is massive fines, despite there being no signage.
In the Castle area they use winter and summer trail signs. The summer sign is a quad. You are allowed to drive anything other than a snowmobile. The winter sign is a snowmobile and it is snow machines only.... In the Ghost, they use the EXACT same quad sign but it means OHVs only (no trucks). This creates fun and exciting discussions on the trail.....
In the Ghost, an OHV is defined as any vehicle up to 65" in width. A Series truck is legally a quad if you fold in the side mirrors. Anyone want to plan a Series only Ghost trip?
Mclean Creek, the rule is 50" is width, expect in the winter where the rule is 1000 pounds.
Willow creek, 800 pounds.
Most FLUZs north of the Ghost an OHV is defined as any vehicle under 1300 pounds + <72.8" wheelbase + <70" width..... The wheelbase one kills side by sides, I think.
Why these strange limits? No reason that anyone would ever be able to understand
It would be confusing buying a quad.
Here is a big one: http://www.polaris.com/en-ca/rzr-side-by-side/rzr-xp-4-1000-eps-voodoo-blue/specs
Overall Vehicle Size (L x W x H) 146" x 64" x 73.75"
Estimated Dry Weight (pounds/kg) 1,596 lbs (so over 2000 pounds with people and gear)
Wheelbase 117.0" (longer than a 110)
They seemed to have designed ones to fit exactly in the rules: http://www.polaris.com/en-ca/ranger-utv/ranger-570-efi-sage-green/specs
Overall Vehicle Size (L x W x H) 110 x 58.0 x 73 in.
Estimated Dry Weight (pounds/kg) 1,042lb
Wheelbase 73 in.
The only thing that is clear in all of this land use mumbo jumbo is that the authorities don't want the public to have access public land. Maybe it interferes with their coffee breaks or something but we are definitely not welcome to use what is in essence, our own damn land!
We don't all want to live in cities 24-7.
When I talked with the SRD VP (or whatever her title was) I raised this very topic....the problem with the disjointed PLUZ's and the confusion that results. For most of the subjects we discussed she was fairly open to different points of view and ideas. But on this one it was a very prompt, and curt, "the format will not be changed." When pressed on it she grounded her argument on the fact that each region is different, and has different needs, and those must be managed by regional bodies.
What this does is allow for regional groups to influence a PLUZ. The Nordegg area is a great example. The OHV clubs in that area are very well organized under one lobbying organization, and that org (and the big, local OHV retailers) has ties into the PC party. This played an important role in that area being off limits to 4x4's anywhere in those PLUZ's, whilst OHV's are permitted everywhere.
We see that everywhere through the province. 4x4's have the added challenge of facing off against the OHV dealers, who would like nothing more than to see all 4x4's go away and their owners buy OHV's. Much of the bad name 4x4 owners get in the public's eye comes from the OHV community/retailers. And those OHV retailers are big businesses in Alberta and many are savy enough to support their local PC party and the OHV lobby. For 4x4 shops...well, there are none of significance anywhere in the province. One can organize the 4x4 clubs, but without a hook into the PC party, and the willingness to funnel them money, it will be only marginally successful at best.
That's Alberta. Its been under only 2 fiefdoms for 80+ years. Affecting real change in this province outside the PC party simply does not happen.
It was all "supposed" to be "fixed" with the south Saskatchewan regional plan. But that just seems to be a non-specific non-enforceable talking piece. The whole different regions, different needs things is a bunch of BS. It is just to allow local managers and politicians to have their fiefdoms. Bribes and kickbacks are the way things get done. ESRD is horribly corrupt.
To your point of the ATV crowd keeping 4x4s out. When the Ghost FLUZ was created leaving 50 kms for 4x4s and 600 kms for ATVs, the minister in charge of SRD owned an ATV outfitting business located on the boundary of the new FLUZ.
Political interference and special intrest group are always present no matter whom you have behind the helm. In the recent Outdoors tradeshow, 1/3 was boats,1/3 ohv quads, and 1/3 hunting fishing and conservation.
There was no presence for the 4x4 clubs, vendors or retailers. The car trade show is next couple of weeks and the 4x4s new models will all be there.
What we need is a joint gathering of the clubs to organize accross the province and creat a presence.
It needs to be done in various parts accross the province.
I will be up for a coffee meet if there is enough interest.
The 4x4 club have had organizations to speak for them and massive efforts were put in. The government screwed them over multiple times very badly. All the people that put years of work in eventually gave up as it was clear it was a waste of time.
I don't want to be just discovering this 4x4 world only to have it squeezed out of existence. Let me know if you need anything from me. I'll make connections if necessary!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Gardenome on April 05, 2015, 04:54 PM
I don't want to be just discovering this 4x4 world only to have it squeezed out of existence. Let me know if you need anything from me. I'll make connections if necessary!
Really, I think it is clear from many decades of trying that there is nothing that can be done for the 4x4 community. We are the easy target to appease the greenies and they normally ban us first and that is enough to make people happy. Huge efforts have been put forth and there has been zero result. Most clubs have gone completely underground when discussing trails. They have strict policies of posting no public photos and never, ever discussing the location of trails. It is a long depressing topic.
Quote from: Gardenome on April 05, 2015, 04:54 PM
I don't want to be just discovering this 4x4 world only to have it squeezed out of existence. Let me know if you need anything from me. I'll make connections if necessary!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Up in the northern part of the province we do have it slightly better than the folks down south. North of the Brazeau you have fewer PLUZ's, and those that are there don't cover as much of the trail networks as is the case down south.
It's a bit of a double edged sword though. I think back 25 years to the places I used to 4x4, camp, and fish along the east slopes, and most of them are now either coal mines, forested out, or off limits because they are now private roads owned by oil companies. So what hasn't been added to a fiefdom up north, has basically been sold to a corporation. Pick your posion.
I'd be all for organizing, but one needs significant business/money interests involved to grease the long list of palms that will be in our way. John is spot on imo, it is a terribly corrupt environment that is not easily navigated.
Quite honestly, this is part of the reason I go to Moab every year. They get it there, and they welcome off-roaders. Its an impressive, well run community...and the trails are epic. So, that's where I go to get my wheeling in.
I do recognize the challenges when dealing with a lobby effort with politicians for policy. We went through that as a Consulting Engineering Industry. Within five years, we were able to establish a working selection and reward model on highway and bridge projects with the province. Last week, after ten year effort, we advanced the selection process to be based on Quality not fees on projects. This became the law for procurement of engineering selection. This was also coordinated with municipalities, other provinces and Ottawa.
It takes time for something like this. For offroading, it will take some time. Ignoring it by us will make such sport and culture vanish for our grandkids.
Sure as hell I am not hiking for 15 km to go camping and fishing in Rubys lake.
As for the private roads, dialogue and negotiation is the key...not enforcement.
4x4 is as critial to hunting, fishing, logging and exploration. We just have to organize.
Let's identify the punch list and then form the lobby. Our sport is not a cheap sport and we do have a voting voice!
I'll provide some history of recent things in Reader's digest format.
Back in the beginning, all forestry land was open for motorized use.... In the mid 70's Kananaskis country was created and motorized access was lost for that 4200 square kms except for the small Mclean Creek area. The land was still open for forestry, oil and other tourist development. Many people worked hard at maintaining access...
In the early 2000s, there was a lot of concern over the parties that happen on May long weekends in the Waiparous/Ghost area and damage from OHV use. The party aspect and most of the damage was, in truth, mitigated and had come to an end through better enforcement and construction of fencing. Trail damage was very limited to a few locations next to roads, making it visible. 99.9% of the 1200 km of trails still looked the same as when they where constructed in the 50s and 60s. In any case, SRD wanted to created a trail management plan in order to minimize environmental impact. The various groups of OHV users were on board and keen to produce a sustainable system for this 1500 square km area. AURS, http://www.aurs.org/ was formed as single body to represent 4x4 and ATV users and received huge support from all of the clubs and many individuals.
Meetings were started with SRD. SRD did not know anything about the trail network and asked AURS to help develop a map and make decisions on which trails would be sustainable and locations that made sense for projects. The 4x4 clubs went out and mapped by GPS all of the trails (a huge project), providing the data and maps to SRD with recommendations. Shortly after this point, the meetings stopped and SRD went quiet. About a year or two later, the SRD formed the Ghost FLUZ along with regulations and a trail map. Of the original 1200 km of trails, 600 km was designated for ATVs and 50 km was designated for 4x4s. The definitions of ATVs was solely on width (65"). When asked why trails were set as ATV only, SRD stated it was only because of width. The majority of the trails are a solid 50 feet wide or more, some 200 feet wide, so it was quite obviously all lies.
In any case, people did not throw in the towel. SRD stated that they would open up more trails and formed a framework to achieve this. For the next few years, 1000s of manhours were put in building bridges and fences. Huge efforts were put in to add trails to the network, meeting every little requirement of the SRD. Not one trail was ever added. It became clear that no matter how much work was put in and how many boxes were ticked, the SRD was not ever going to improve access. The only single gain was an extra 50 km of 4x4 trails that were opened for winter use. In reality, they could make all ATV trails open for 4x4 in the winter as trail damage in not possible. SRD agree to the argument, but refuse to make any changes.
The May long weekend following the creation of the Ghost FLUZ, many of the high school parties moved to the "Indian Graves" area, a forestry area on the south border of Kananaskis. The parties received a lot of media attention. A week later, the Willow Creek FLUZ was created (with zero public input). This new FLUZ allows for ATV use and no 4x4 use. There was no rhyme or reason for the rules as the May long weekend problems had nothing to do with off road use. It is a small FLUZ, but it is positioned, in concert with a newer park, that makes it impossible to access a larger forestry area.
Also during this period a large amount of "protected areas"were created. These were created with no public input and done as quietly as is possible. My guess is this lost a solid third of the land still available.
The end result was the elimination all 4x4 access within an hour of Calgary other than Mclean Creek and the 50 kms of trails in the Ghost. The funnelling of all 4x4 use to such a small trail network has caused major damage to the trails making them harder and harder to traverse each passing year. I would expect to see complete closure in the not too distant future as the trail network is too small to be maintainable. Truck use in these areas has vastly diminished and most groups now travel further afield and are extremely careful to not make public the location of the trails they use. What the government does not know about, they cannot close and nobody is willing to help them again.
It is not a fair playing field. By closing areas to 4x4s, they can quickly and easily state they are doing something to protect the environment. The media image of our use is horrible and that is all the public see. We do not have the size to make any impact politically. Nobody builds trucks for off road use any more. 99% of people just buy an ATV. You can get nice big 4 door models for the whole family. Trevor will remember our trip to North Kootenay pass a few years back. We camped next to the trail and god knows how many ATVs drove by. They looked at us like we were aliens. They had never seen a truck on a trail. One guy I chatted with was really concerned that we would be able to make it to the top. It was a super easy trail.
Just go to BC......
Yes, going out of the province/country seems to be only viable option available to us for the time being. Unless you want to risk driving trails illegally.
Don't loose all hope though as ATV's may yet be the savour of larger 4x4's. As they become larger and more powerful they encroach on the dimensions of smaller trucks. As John has already mentioned, Series Land Rovers already qualify by the width standards set forth.
In the last ten years ATV's have become more mainstream and ever bigger. It is a historical fact that any vehicle made for the North American consumer will alway increase in size and power. Usually to the detriment of the original units concept. Maybe all we need do is wait?
Thank you John for the detailed history. Very informative. I am going to research the SRD and try to get a grin on their mandate and setup. There is always a way.
I have two quads and a dirt bike in my storage. They are collecting dust. A Defender or 4x4 has a much higher safety rating than any atv.
Trail damage and wild parties can still happen by atv and hickers. I went camping couple of years ago in Rockey Mountain House area towards the west by the Dam. The quads and their camps where everywhere. It was like NEWYORK Rush hour. They were not there to enjoy access and fishing. They were there to test machines and speed. Such activities can easily be provided in contained and regulated trail parks, like our old Alberta Safari.
Interesting read indeed, the trails I know of down here are a good secret, seems like a few but not many of the locals know of them.
Quote from: Rosco on April 06, 2015, 11:08 AMInteresting read indeed, the trails I know of down here are a good secret, seems like a few but not many of the locals know of them.
The CNP area is a different story. I'm pretty sure all of the trails are public knowledge. The CNP Quad Squad publishes a map in concert with SRD. Are you saying you know trails that are not on the CNPQS map?
They have a close relationship with the local SRD and are keeping them open and for the time being, are all open to 4x4s as well. I don't think there has been enough 4x4 use to upset the cart. The CNPQS does massive amounts of work on trail and bridge maintenance.
There was talk before the SSRP, that the passes would be shut down, but it has not yet happened.
One big area that I am thinking of isnt in the CNP area, crown land with open access for all at the moment.
The cnp seems to be mostly ATV's and side by sides, as all the times I have been there the only 4x4's I have seen were my own or who I was wheeling with.
I know their club is an ATV club, but their maps cover everything from Kananaskis to the border and into BC, not just the CNP area. Most trails in these areas are open to both quads and trucks. Have you had a look at them? The have online versions in various formats for the whole area and they print a nice map that covers the southern half or so, available at the FasGas in Frank.
I havent seen those maps, would you know where I could find the online versions?
Always meet at that gas station, next time I will pop in and see if I can find one there too.
Quote from: Rosco on April 07, 2015, 04:13 PM
I havent seen those maps, would you know where I could find the online versions?
Always meet at that gas station, next time I will pop in and see if I can find one there too.
Sure: PDF version here: http://www.quadsquad.ca/?q=node/39 and a few other options on the list at the left. They also have tracklogs for a lot of trails.
For maps on the computer or GPS, I would use the Southern Alberta Trail Maps: http://albertatrailmaps.ca/
Excellent, thank you!
I saw the albertatrailmaps.ca site before, but I was using an android tablet for my trail mapping, I recently got a toughbook which has a buit in gps, so I think I can use those maps properly now
Look like no more winter trips to Waiparous. I guess we will need to head north next year. Oh well.
We will probably need to wait a few weeks to see what is really closed, but the falls trip is gone certainly.
http://forum.calgaryjeep.com/index.php?topic=30716.msg0;topicseen#new
QuoteJust leaving the flood rehab trail meeting in Cochrane.
We will be losing all of our winter trails.
Any trail that crosses the waiporous will be closed.
We may gain a couple all season trails.
March 15 may be the last day to go to the falls.
We may gain some more trails if we get funding for bridges.
I'm coming at this as a 4x4 outsider, but I do have lots of trail access experience from the mountain bike side of thing. The details are different, but there are many broad parallels. I've also spent a great deal of time in the US (op to 3 months a year for the better part of a decade) and seen varying approaches to land access down there.
It seems to me that the best approach is to recognize the demand for trail access and make balanced accommodations to those demands. I do believe that some level of management is desirable and necessary.
A few thoughts on areas that have shaped my opinion.
There is an area outside of Rifle Colorado that is wide open to cattle, 4x4, ATV, dirt bike and mountain bike traffic. There are virtually no designated trails and as a result the area is a moonscape. By any estimation the area is a disaster. Without trails the features and challenges are ill-defined in spite of some pretty fun topology.The only winner is the lowest common denominator that is happy to do donuts all day.
At the other end of the spectrum (other then Wilderness areas where all mechanized travel is banned) is the area around Powderface and Moose mountain in K-Country. Until recently this area only allowed mountain biking on legacy trails - trails that were established by equestrians and loggers a very long time ago. This meant that all mountain bike traffic was restricted to trail that were ill-suited to mountain biking. Many trails went straight up drainages, across creeks (unnecessarily) and had ridiculously steep grades (modern trails follow contour lines). In short, the very rules that were supposed to be protecting the landscape forced users to take the worst possible routes, maximizing impact (stream damage and erosion) while limiting access (many areas were wet well into spring or too steep for intermediate riders).
The places that seem to work best are the ones that are managed best. New trails can be designed, built and maintained and traffic can be directed away from particularly sensitive areas. If an area has a vision - single track for mountain bikes, ATV trails for ATVs, etc.... It is much easier for users to self police. Without a vision of some sort each user gets to choose what they feel is acceptable - ATV's doing donuts at you favorite fishing/camping spot, dirt bike on mountain bike trails, etc....
Shutting access down completely never seems to end well, the pent up demand manifests itself as poorly built illegal trails that can maximize damage. Illegal trails are also impossible to maintain, it's hard to raise funds and volunteer labour to build a bridge on an unsanctioned trail. I'm thinking of mud holes that grow and grow and trails that become increasingly braided over time. Maybe that's acceptable to some folks, but when I go to the effort of getting out of town it's not what I'm looking for.
I don't want it all to turn into a theme park either, I like exploring, the off-road parks of the UK simply don't appeal to me. I think that properly built trails can be be difficult, I'd hate to see trails dumbed down to make them safe for anyone in a RAV4.
In a separate rant, I'm at a loss to see the logic in closing access to public users when ranching, O&G and forestry seem to get the run of the place.
Quote from: SpeedyJ on February 29, 2016, 11:45 AMIn a separate rant, I'm at a loss to see the logic in closing access to public users when ranching, O&G and forestry seem to get the run of the place.
The logic is that those activities supply money to the government for use of the land. It is pretty easy to understand.
Closure of these areas has nothing to do with the environment or science. It is completely due to politics. The creek discussed above has had fish impacts studies performed. Those studies did not find an impact from vehicle crossings. Unfortunately, AEP (Alberta Environment and Parks) is very corrupt. Most decisions are based on kickbacks instead of science..
Fair enough on the economic impact of commercial operations. My focus tends to be on West Bragg Creek, so my my thoughts are based on the impact that Spay Lake Sawmills has had on what is an obviously important recreation area. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where the economic benefits of forestry was weighed against the economic (and other) benefits recreation, they may not be direct, but the cumulative benefit of retail, tourism and hospitality should count for something more, especially since recreational activities are sustainable. Modern mechanized forestry simply doesn't employ the number of people that it once did. I think that the benefits of forestry, in this area anyway, have been overstated (unless you happen to profit directly from Spray Lake Sawmill).
Other then that I think we're mostly agreeing here. I'm all for rational, science based decision making.
The West Bragg area is forestry and not a protected area. It is not a PLUZ or a park. Spray Lakes pays money to the government for the leases. The area is specifically for resource utilization. If you want it to be a park or recreational area you need to convince the government to change its designation. They don't want to do that because the forestry company has paid in advance and based it long term economics on having a certain amount of land available.
I've given up on AB. It's just too difficult to wheel legally and what little is left is not worth the effort. Perhaps that's what the powers that be have intended all along or perhaps it's just worked out that way. Plenty of walking trails for outdoor enthusiasts but AB is a bloody big place and I'm not hiking across it.
So I will just go elsewhere. In AB, if I'm required to drive 15 hours north just to find a crappy 3 mile long trail to drive, I may as well drive somewhere nicer south or west.
My 2c.
There are still a lot of places open Matt. You just need a ph.D in land use management to know where to go. Most of the mountain areas closest to you are completely free. It is just the areas near Calgary that get the brunt of the regulations...
Here is the study on sediment loading into the creek. http://esrd.alberta.ca/water/programs-and-services/surface-water-quality-program/documents/WaterQualityWaiparousCreek-Feb2006.pdf
To paraphrase...
1) A study was made purposely to come to the conclusion that OHV use is causing sediment increase.
2) The data could not prove a causation link of OHV use to sediment loading.
3) OHV use probably causes it anyway because that makes sense....
It is embarrassing to call oneself a scientist these days.
Yeah, I suppose there is still the Crowsnest Pass area. I just get disheartened when all I hear are trails being closed.
I like your summery of the land management study. It would even be funny if it were not true!
Quote from: Matt H on February 29, 2016, 03:15 PM
Yeah, I suppose there is still the Crowsnest Pass area. I just get disheartened when all I hear are trails being closed.
Keep in mind that a lot of the area south of the highway may or may not become a park soon.... Make me want to do a decent trip there this summer as a last kick at it. There are a few trails we have not investigated.
http://www.albertaparks.ca/albertaparksca/about-us/public-consultations/archives/enhancing-the-protection-of-the-castle-area/
I gave up on Alberta.
I just go to Moab now for wheeling...it's infinitely better anyway, they genuinely like 4-wheelers down there, and you get to see how things can work when they're done properly.
Next year I hope to make it down to the Black Hills in South Dakota and check out the big September rally they have. Its supposed to be a lot of fun.
The quaders, and their infinite trail of beer cans, can have Alberta.
Too much monetary and political clout in the SW corner of Alberta. It's all about control of the land and resources.....and long term cattle leases.
Heck....I've first hand experience of a minister and director of the AFS sitting in the back seat of a suburban, driving along the highway, looking out the window at the spruce, pine, poplar forest go by and make a decision on moving forest management boundaries just so they could over commit the wood supply in one area. And the director did it all while scratching the base of his brain, with his finger jammed up his nose!!!!!
Unfortunately Alberta has a long history of management without regard for the sciences. Cowboy, shoot from the hip decision making! Moab is an incredible sensitive area with regards to vegetation, soil and water course management. Yet they have been managing the area very very well for some time. The users themselves, as well as the local take great pride in maintaining the area and keeping it clean. BC has trails in the sub-alpine that are very nice...but well regulated (as they should be). Go off the trail and get caught you face very stiff penalties. The Whipsaw and JEEP trail are two expamples of this. Unfortunately the camp areas on the Jeep trail (I think?) closer to the trail heads were filthy as it's close enough to bring in tons of part junk and leave it behind. We have an incredible resource at our door step but there needs to be some good thought an regulation going into it's use. No reason to shut it down....but we do need to manage it responsibly.
Rant over....base clear!