Sledding Area at Risk

[kootenaycat]

Applications and Reasons for Decision

Just saw this in the Trail times. Big Red Cats has applied for EXCLUSIVE rights to their tenure in the Nancy Greene summit area which includes
Mt. Mackie (Bugle Creek), Neptune and Crowe. This area has been open to public use since they have started cat skiing there a few years ago, but now they want to exclude sledders from crown land that we have enjoyed for decades.

I do not agree with ANY company having exclusive rights to any crown land. It should be there for all to use.

If you agree, please send an email to lwbc.cranbrook@victoria1.gov.bc.ca

Or you can write one by hand and have it sent to the Natural Resource Officer at

FrontCounter BC,
1902 Theatre Road,
Cranbrook, BC
V1C7G1

You can also submit a comment at this site.

Applications and Reasons for Decision

None of you may have ever rode these area, but if it was the Norns or Ladybird or any other area you have rode for years, you would hope every sledder out there would support you.

Here is a general letter you can add to/modify to suit your personal taste.

To whom it may concern:

I am writing in concern to the application from Big Red Cats for exclusive rights to certain areas in the Nancy Greene summit area for the purpose of cat skiing. File number 4404290. I am opposed to giving any one group exclusive rights to public Lands.

Restricting snowmobilers use from lands such as this area will only put more pressure on surrounding areas, which in turn will cause additional conflict between snowmobilers and other recreational users. In short, to approve the Big Red Cats application will create problems more than solve them.

Signed,

Thanks
Kevin Stein

[KierenGaul]

Kevin,

Thanks for your note on this. My wife Paula and I are the tenure holders. Please understand that the application is not to restrict access to our whole tenure, but only to control a few steep and dangerous spots, where there had previously been no access because roads previously did not exist.

We have had great support from the local sledder community that has always acted in a very responsible way.

However last winter we had a persistent problem with some snow mobilers coming up from Washington state, and 2 sled skiers. The result of this has been that we have has 2 accidents and 5 near misses on our snowcat roads. We have just been lucky so far that we have not had a serious injury yet.

The problem seems to be that we have built certain sections of our snowcat roads very steep and hard - in the range from 30-35 degrees. In these circumstances in most conditions when you are coming down these roads in a snowcat or a snowmobile it becomes impossible to stop most of the time - resulting in a collision or possible collision.

What are we doing?
We have applied for 7 intensive use sites in our terrain. The average length is 300 meters by about 6 meters wide. In terms of the total terrain area this covers 0.002% - an incredibly small fraction of the total area.
We have applied for these specific intensive use sites because they represent the most dangerous areas - where we have already had an accident or a near miss - or where we think that it is just a matter of time.

The best example of where similar protection to protect public safety is provided in the Forest and Range practices act. In the Forest service road use regulation in section 3.3 It states the following:

(3) A person must not operate a snowmobile on a forest service road if it appears that the road has been snowplowed, or that the road is otherwise fit for travel by motor vehicles other than snowmobiles.

The reason that this law is in place is in place is to protect the public from collisions with large heavy vehicles coming down slippery roads. BRC’s snowcat roads are 2-3 times as steep as a normally logging road and much narrower – so this same issue applies – but the risk of a serious collision is even greater.

Access:
Compared to the situation before big Red Cats existing we are not reducing access - because all these intensive use sites are in areas where we carved the new trail out through thick forest using chainsaws, excavators or both. The previously existing logging roads are still accessible.

In fact, access now (even if this application were approved) is generally much much better - as we have also cleared out many of the old logging roads that were completely choked with alder. Also after we have finished the season - normally about the 26th of March - there is a trail system that has been created that can be used by anyone. However, during the main part of the season we have found that it is not practically safe on some of our roads to have other motorized traffic. We have up to 4 snowcats circulating on these roads each day. The snowcats weigh almost 25,000 pounds loaded and go an average speed of greater than 20km/hr about the terrain.

We are holding a public forum on this issue on Wednesday the 5th December at 7.00pm at the Red Shutter Inn at the base of the ski hill, and it would be great if you could come and get a full copy of the application and point out your concerns so that we can address them. Hopefully once you see that the actual application does not in fact restrict access to all of our tenure, and understand the safety issues involved, you will understand why this is a necessary measure.

Please do not hesitate to call me if you would like to discuss this further of if you would like a full copy of our application before the meeting. My telephone number is 1 250 362 2271

Kieren Gaul

[kootenaycat]

Kieran, thanks for responding, it's nice to hear from the other side of the story. I understand your reasons for wanting to keep the public safe, but think there should be other ways of doing it.

You state now that the "intensive" use sites are 300m X 6m, but in the application it states 5m x 3m. We as snowmobilers have accessed these ridges for literally 3 decades or more, so you can see why we have a problem with a company coming in and stopping us from riding these areas just so they can make money. It is OUR crown land, is it not? We have been accessing these ridges for a lot longer then you have been building snowcat roads up there, snowmobiles can go places a snowcat can't go. The snowroads just made it that much easier! You say that the restriction only includes 0.002% of your tenure. That is a very misleading statement as those restrictions keep us out of other areas, therefore the restriction would be much larger. We fear that this application is just the first of many to come, which will eventually lead to this area being completely banned from public snowmobiling. You obviously have a business plan, and I'm sure it includes future ventures such as snowmobile touring. In this case, public access will definitely be banned as your snowmobiles will be on all of the trails at any given time, creating a safety issue once again. Do you see where we are coming from?

You didn't mention what "temporarily restricting access" means? That is a very vague statement. Could mean anything from certain hours of the day to the entire time you run the snowcat business on the mountain, several months. And like skiiers, snowmobilers also like to access powder which isn't as common after March26th.

So, instead of restricting snowmobiles from these areas, why can't you place someone at each of these posts with radio contact with the cats. That would make the control of these dangerous spots much easier to control, and still allowing the general public access to their crown land.

Kevin

[KierenGaul]

Kevin,

Thanks for your suggestion on how to keep these danger areas safe. It is a good idea – but it would mean that we would have to employ at least 7 – and probably 14 people to stand around all day in the cold. We simply could not afford it. Would you ask a logging company to do the same thing when they were doing winter logging in multiple areas? Any other suggestions that you have we would be happy to consider these.

I can give you a firm commitment that we will not do a snowmobile tour business because this would seriously detract from what the local snow mobile club is trying to do in the 24 mile area. Also there are far better snowmobiling areas, than the area that we ski. For instance the Norns provides world class riding, and the Castlegar and Rossland clubs provide great trails for their members.

We operate on Crown land so that land that we operate on belongs to all Canadians. This means that it also belongs to most of the guests that we take out each day that enjoy the skiing. Logging companies and ski hills also operate on crown land. However on Forest Service Roads and ski hills there are rules governing winter access to protect public safety – we need some similar rules so that we do not have more accidents on these dangerous but small sections of our snowcat roads

As discussed we have had great support from locals who whenever they have come up have operated safely in the area. Our plan is work with locals on the same basis. If they want to access through the danger areas - we would be happy to arrange this based on a simple phone call. It would involve just pulling out a mobile phone when you are out there, or calling us the night before.

During the winter we employ up to 15 people each day – so have 20-25 staff in total. We take 24-36 guests out each day. We hire the full time equivalent of at least 8 people - that just about all of us have kids in the local schools. We pay the people of Canada an upfront annual fee to use the area, and also a tax on each skier per day. We have invested our money and our time into making this a great operation. All this could be un-done by just 1 serious accident on a snowcat road. All these peoples jobs are at risk if we have just 1 serious accident on a snowcat road. We aim to operate to the highest safety standard in the industry. However this snowcat road safety issue is the real weak link in our operation at present.

Any other suggestion that you have would be appreciated. Please do not hesitate to call us on 1250 362 2271

Kieren

[kootenaycat]

Kieran, I see your point about hiring more people, but I feel you are taking the easiest way out of the liability issue by restricting access. We are feeling more and more restrictions whether it's snowmobiling or atving, or just taking a hike where once it was wilderness but now is a housing development. Is there a way to make the snowcat trails wider or on a less steeper incline? Yes it may cost a bit more, but then you would be thinking about both of our interests, not restricting ours.

BTW, what are your future plans for the tenured area? Basically, I am flat out asking if you intend to apply for exclusive use as Selkirk Wilderness has? Not that I am expecting the truth on that question, just tired of beating around the bush on this subject.

And lastly, again you failed to mention the meaning of "temporarily restricting access" as quoted from the local paper. I would really like to know what that statement means.

Thanks,
Kevin

[Sledderglen]

At least both parties are discussing the issues openly together. Seem like it may not be good deal for sleeding. To many whatiffs and whenevers. Get a foot in and close the door later. JMHO

[Summiteer]

Originally Posted by Sledderglen

At least both parties are discussing the issues openly together. Seem like it may not be good deal for sleeding. To many whatiffs and whenevers. Get a foot in and close the door later. JMHO

I normally agree with most of what you have to say Glen but this time I can't.
Unless I misread Keirans explanation, they want to restrict access to a couple of sections of the snow cat roads that they build in the winter because they are unsafe for vehicles other than snow cats to use. that sounds pretty reasonable to me. Would there be access there if Big Red Cats didn't put in their winter roads? Are they restricting access by sled or keeping trucks with trailers or decks off their roads? What are sleds doing on the roads anyway? Why should Big Red Cats foot the entire bill if they have actually opened up more areas to access through their winter road building.
why would you(Kevin) even ask a question and then basically tell the guy that he's a liar anyway?
Keep in mind I'm asking these questions as a sledder that has no interest in skiing whatsoever and any opinion I have formed is only from information I have read in this thread.

[ratatatat]

Many (not all) of the areas in question were used by sledders before this operation showed up. These areas follow natural lines on ridges that were used by sledders before. Now there is a road there so you use it because the ridge is narrow and there are few options. It certainly appeared that his operators were making an effort to have a minor incident so they could use the safety arguement. Not sure on this one but that was what it looked like. The closures amount to leagal gates that don't just restrict access to the specific spots but will make it very difficult to use the area. There is room for all if only he would operate in good faith. He is a good word smith but things are not as stated. Does that surprise you!

[Summiteer]

Originally Posted by ratatatat

There is room for all if only he would operate in good faith. He is a good word smith but things are not as stated. Does that surprise you!

It surprises me as much as it would if someone I don't know told me that you are a liar.

[kootenaycat]

Originally Posted by Summiteer

I normally agree with most of what you have to say Glen but this time I can't.
Unless I misread Keirans explanation, they want to restrict access to a couple of sections of the snow cat roads that they build in the winter because they are unsafe for vehicles other than snow cats to use. that sounds pretty reasonable to me. Would there be access there if Big Red Cats didn't put in their winter roads? Are they restricting access by sled or keeping trucks with trailers or decks off their roads? What are sleds doing on the roads anyway? Why should Big Red Cats foot the entire bill if they have actually opened up more areas to access through their winter road building.
why would you(Kevin) even ask a question and then basically tell the guy that he's a liar anyway?
Keep in mind I'm asking these questions as a sledder that has no interest in skiing whatsoever and any opinion I have formed is only from information I have read in this thread.

Summiteer, does it sound reasonable to be denied access to any area of crown land that you may have sledded on for more then 20 years? If this was in your back yard, would you be agreeing with a company to have tenure on your sledding territory, knowing that it could turn into an exclusive tenure at any time?

As Ratatat stated, sledders have been using these areas for years, decades actually. The snowcat roads are built on the same lines that sledders have been using before he received tenure on the land.

Summiteer, the "roads" he is using aren't plowed forest access roads, they are built on top of the snow, basically a groomed trail, not plowed to bare earth, so the forest practices act that states a snowmobile can't operate on cleared forest roads does not apply here.

And he hasn't opened up more area by building snowcat roads, he has just made them easier to access. It used to be a challenge to get to some of these ridges, now any stock sled from the '70s can make it with ease.

The biggest mistake we (sledders) made was to not make enough of a noise when the original tenure was applied for. I've seen a few of these cat-ski tenures put in place in the last few years, and every one has caused conflict between snowmobilers and the company owners.

Kieran, you state that the fully loaded cats can travel at speeds greater then 20km/hr. Why don't your operators reduce travelling to a safe speed for everyone? I find it hard to believe that a snowcat that can crawl up an incline of 30degrees can't come down at a safe slow speed and come to a stop from that slow speed. Unlike a snowmobile that needs momentum and track spinning to climb steep hills, the snowcat isn't spinning it's tracks when climbing. I've seen the cat tracks, and they are very distinct in the snow, not a trench like a snowmobile that is spinning to climb. Now I know this will increase travelling times, but if it only has to be done over a 300 metre length, I doubt reducing speed from 20km/hr to 2-5 km/hr over such a short distance will increase times by more then a couple of minutes.

[Sledderglen]

Thanks Summiteer but I have seen it before where if you give up a little it quickly turns around and changes once they get you to change a little. Seems like they are using a issues such as the road acxcess to start the ball rolling because SAFETY is a big issue and it easy to say lets control sleds for safety reasons. I may be other reasons to control access but using safety is a good cover. JMHO. Its like what is happenning here in Alberta now. Team Green is restricting motorized access and industry to protect Grizzly Bears. Problem is that grizzly Bears are asleep most of the winter. How to control access? Say you need to control access to protect the ungulates and such so when the GB are awake they have something to eat. Use one issue to get another issue. GB eat moslty plant life meat not a major part of diet but if it works to eliminate access why not use it. This will effect us all. Make a diversion and attack from a different angle.

[tireguy]

I have to say if you read all the thread their appears to be concern from both sides.That being said an effort to inform and educate ( perhaps with sinage at dangerous areas ) should be attempted. As far as ANY closure to crown lands I must shout a loud NO!!!! This is our land also. As sledders we contribute hugh $$$$ to local economys ( at least I seem to ) and we need to let all concerned know that we do not agree with this or any closure of crown land. Time to speak up and let your voice be heard. Write to the local MLA, join a local club, attend land use meetings and speak up.Otherwise we may be looking at sled videos and woundering why we never get out anymore not even seeing the vast tracts of minor closures that have been or will be issued . Just my .02 thanks for letting me post this. Dan

[Summiteer]

As long as there is reasonable discussion, there is the chance of a resolution that everyone can live with. The more input on both sides, the better.

[Dogbite]

ICBC classifies snowmobiles as snow vehicles, snow cats are classified as snow vehicles also.
The best example of where similar protection to protect public safety is provided in the Forest and Range practices act. In the Forest service road use regulation in section 3.3 It states the following:

(3) A person must not operate a snowmobile on a forest service road if it appears that the road has been snowplowed, or that the road is otherwise fit for travel by motor vehicles other than snowmobiles.

The reason that this law is in place is in place is to protect the public from collisions with large heavy vehicles coming down slippery roads. BRC’s snowcat roads are 2-3 times as steep as a normally logging road and much narrower – so this same issue applies – but the risk of a serious collision is even greater.
Therefore, snowcats are deemed in the same category and are not exempt from the regulation either.

KierenGaul said, "However last winter we had a persistent problem with some snow mobilers coming up from Washington state, and 2 sled skiers. The result of this has been that we have has 2 accidents and 5 near misses on our snowcat roads."

I think that this statement is the basis for Big Red Cats application. What BRCs wants to do is restrict everyone else from the area because of a "[COLOR="Red"]persistent problem with some snow mobilers coming up from Washington state and 2 sled skiers[COLOR="Black"]". I think that this is a very weak agrument for a blanket restriction.

If the Washington sledders are entering Canada without passing through a border portal, then Customs and Immigration and the RCMP should be notified and I'm sure that the US Border Agencies would be happy to receive that information as well.

As far as "sled skiers" are concerned, these individuals have evolved along with snowmobile use as well and should have the same access rights as anyone else. Afterall, what came first, the snowmobile or the snowcat/trailgroomer? I can appreciate the fact that an increase in "sled skiers" would be a detriment to BRC's business, but I don't see it as a reason to restict snowmobile access to the back country.

[Mongrol]

Keep fighting it guys, any concession gives a lever to the otherside. The exclusivists today don't understand "shared assets" and will divert attention to other issues such as safety and environmental extremes.

DON'T TRUST FALSE LOGIC AND CONTRIVED GOOD INTENTIONS!!!

[KierenGaul]

Originally Posted by kootenaycat

Kieran, I see your point about hiring more people, but I feel you are taking the easiest way out of the liability issue by restricting access. We are feeling more and more restrictions whether it's snowmobiling or atving, or just taking a hike where once it was wilderness but now is a housing development. Is there a way to make the snowcat trails wider or on a less steeper incline? Yes it may cost a bit more, but then you would be thinking about both of our interests, not restricting ours.

BTW, what are your future plans for the tenured area? Basically, I am flat out asking if you intend to apply for exclusive use as Selkirk Wilderness has? Not that I am expecting the truth on that question, just tired of beating around the bush on this subject.

And lastly, again you failed to mention the meaning of "temporarily restricting access" as quoted from the local paper. I would really like to know what that statement means.

Thanks,
Kevin

Kevin,

Thanks for these suggestions. I have tried to answer them one by one below. We are also organising a meeting for anyone interested in this issue at 7pm on this Wednesday at the Red Shutter Inn at the base of Red. If you can make it great - if not, I would be happy to meet with you at any other time that might be covienient for you - Please do not hesitate to call me on 250 362 2271

It is not possible to widen or reduce the steepness of the incline without explosives and very large excavators something that we could not afford and something that would not be looked upon favorably by many people in the local community.

Because of the strong local support and great deal of respect that we have enjoyed we felt the approach that we have taken is the best one. Although we have a great respect for the Selkirk operation that you mentioned - we thought that a different approach was the right way to go. If we had the intention of applying for a Selkirk type closure – we simply would have made the application to do so. So the answer is no to your question. However the issue for us is safety - we can not afford to have any more accidents on our snow cat roads.

Temporarily restricting access means that during the time that we operate with the snowcats (normally from about the 20th December to the 26th March) that:
• Putting up very detailed and specific signage highlighting the danger – and urging people not to travel through these very specific parts of our snowcat roads unless they have contacted Big Red Cats first – there will be a phone number on each of these signs that can be called
• If we found people using those parts of snowcat roads - we would ask people not to use these sections of the snowcat roads that we have created - for safety reasons unless they call us first to arrange to safe travel on these sections of snowcat roads. We would explain as best we could the real safety issues and concerns that we have.
• As soon as the season is done we would remove the signs. We would also try to communicate with the local snowmobile club that we are done for the season.
• For those calling by telephone us we would indicate areas were there are not the currently the same safety issues or areas/or snow roads that we are not currently using for some reason. Or if they just wanted to pass through we could organise a safety person to radio them through safely.
• If we had a persistent safety issue with one group of people (say they were yoyo up and down these roads without regard) we would respectfully remind them of the safety issues. If they still continued to use these dangerous sections then we would then call the authorities and ask them to meet with the people at their cars/trucks. So that the authorities could also respectfully discuss the safety issues with those involved.


Kieren