Airy Shaker hut area

[ratatatat]

Regarding the motorized closed area in Airy (Norns range). There is a hut in this area called the Shaker Hut. It has been there for quite sometime and was traditionally used by hikers and climbers in the area. There was a commercial snowcat operation in there for a few years who built a road that went right by the hut. If you access this area using the climbers right side of the valley and use the road you go by a sign posted by a local hiking and mountaineering group that states the area is closed to motorized use. If you climb up the center of the valley and traverse in towards the hut you do not go by any signs. The sign is small and hard to see. This route is used by sledders as an interesting climb to the ridge and allows you to travel between Airy and Russel. There is a large and committed group of ski tourers in this area. They can be quite radical. Just ask the commercial snowcat operator who does not use this area anymore due to conflicts with locals. I doubt there is any official status to this closure. This is something both the Castlegar and Slocan Valley clubs should address before it gets ugly.

 

[moyiesledhead]

This is more common than it should be, not only for snowmobiling. I've seen guide/outfitters put up false closure signs in their hunting areas as well. They need to be reported to the government ministry responsible and dealt with.

Also...if you come across a closure sign that has no official ministry information at the bottom of it be very suspicious of its legality. Front Counter BC can usually confirm legalities of these closures.

 

[ferniesnow]

And that goes for the east Kootenay's as well. There are signs on many small trails and roads that someone decided they needed to be closed to motorized vehicles. The closure is not supported by the SRMMP (Southern Rocky Mountain Management Plan) and that has been discussed at the table. I make no bones about it; I take them down if they are illegally placed! If one complains to the Ministry, they are never removed as they have (in their eyes) so much more important work to doo.

As for the Airy's situation, it would work if there was a gentleman's agreement between the skiers/boarders, and the two snowmobile clubs. In Fernie we have gentleman's agreements with the Nordic skiers and of the most part it works. Yes, there are azzhats that think they should go in there and make all sledders look bad but it gets dealt with and as I said, "for the most part, it works."

 

[ratatatat]

I'm not sure if there is an agreement in place here or not. It would be good to know and I feel this is where the local clubs need to get pro active and get the word out one way or the other. I do know the locals are very passionate about these two drainages. It was really disappointing to read the other thread that got pulled. Both sides acting without respect. I do know if issues like this are not dealt with respectfully and quickly the motorized side usually comes out on the losing end.

 

[ferniesnow]

I do know if issues like this are not dealt with respectfully and quickly the motorized side usually comes out on the losing end.

You are certainly correct. I would have put it a little different; almost always comes out on the losing end.

 

[kootenaycat]

Regarding the motorized closed area in Airy (Norns range). There is a hut in this area called the Shaker Hut. It has been there for quite sometime and was traditionally used by hikers and climbers in the area. There was a commercial snowcat operation in there for a few years who built a road that went right by the hut. If you access this area using the climbers right side of the valley and use the road you go by a sign posted by a local hiking and mountaineering group that states the area is closed to motorized use. If you climb up the center of the valley and traverse in towards the hut you do not go by any signs. The sign is small and hard to see. This route is used by sledders as an interesting climb to the ridge and allows you to travel between Airy and Russel. There is a large and committed group of ski tourers in this area. They can be quite radical. Just ask the commercial snowcat operator who does not use this area anymore due to conflicts with locals. I doubt there is any official status to this closure. This is something both the Castlegar and Slocan Valley clubs should address before it gets ugly.

I'd like to see the official word from government about it being a motorized closure, sounds to me like another situation where one group thinks they own crown land and put up a sign of their own, there's a few "mountaineering" cabins around where they have tried the same thing. Shakers route is just that, a route into Russel. Pretty sure the skiers can accommodate this considering it's high avy risk until spring and sledders usually aren't up there 'til it get's set up, so they have it from Nov - Feb and sleds use it from Mar - July when the skiing conditions aren't as good as early season.

 

[kootenaycat]

And glad to see that other BS thread by willy taken down. Some guys should think before they start a thread.

 

[powderpilot]

Front Counter BC has a program that you can run with Google Earth and shows you every tenure for every purpose in the povince of BC. You need a tenure to guide, or do anything else with the intent of making money on Crown Land. Nothing in the Airy/Shaker area.

 

[ratatatat]

I don't think the issue here is tenure based commercial use of an area. The issue as I see it is a cooperators agreement between two recreational groups with different values. Based on tradition I think the non motorized group was there first however it is the only reasonable route to access the ridge on a sled.

 

[moyiesledhead]

Front Counter BC has a program that you can run with Google Earth and shows you every tenure for every purpose in the povince of BC. You need a tenure to guide, or do anything else with the intent of making money on Crown Land. Nothing in the Airy/Shaker area.

Most commercial rec tenures, with very few exceptions, are actually non-exclusive so they won't show up as motorized closures. An example that "IS" a motorized closure would be the wildlife act closure at the bottom of Baldface where the gate is closed till the end of April. It in effect gives Baldface exclusive use of his area.....but it's not a provision of his tenure per say. It's to protect ungulate winter range. Figuring this stuff out can actually get pretty complicated.

 

[kootenaycat]

Most commercial rec tenures, with very few exceptions, are actually non-exclusive so they won't show up as motorized closures. An example that "IS" a motorized closure would be the wildlife act closure at the bottom of Baldface where the gate is closed till the end of April. It in effect gives Baldface exclusive use of his area.....but it's not a provision of his tenure per say. It's to protect ungulate winter range. Figuring this stuff out can actually get pretty complicated.

I talked to the guys up Baldface last year and he was quite proud of that fact. Almost rubbing it my face. : ) Wanted to tell him we were building a barge to bring the sleds in the same way he brings his clients in by boat to the road closer to Nelson that IS open all year round.

 

[powderpilot]

Wildlife management agreements are part if the Google Earth overlays, as well as Provincial Parks. As far as I know these are the only two areas restricted to non-motorized vehicles.

 

[powderpilot]

Oh, also Crown Land tenures aren't typically a right to exclusive use of the land. It's just a right to use the land for a specific purpose. We respect the cat ski operations and stay out until they close up for the season, but technically they have no legal right to keep us off Crown Land unless they operate within a Provincial Park or Wildlife Preserve.

I haven't heard this about Baldface before. They always welcome us up there with open arms at the end of their ski season...

 

[Modman]

good points folks but I think its prudent to be cautious of throwing too much out there to "joe public". We really don't need anyone heading off to ride somewhere they shouldn't be because they were given the wrong impression. Tenures can grant their holders access, exclusive use above a certain elevation, etc, all depends on the agreement with the govt and they are specific. Often times they will give them rights to any buildings and structures which may be located on private land if the land has been purchased, so sledders riding in these areas need to understand that while they may have access to the land, they might have to cross private land during that access and they have no rights to cabins etc.

There are many many many facets to how this works, and I have spent hours talking to govt about it, and probably hundreds of hours in Imap figuring out what and where tenures lie. Besides tenures there are caribou closures, watersheds, forest reserves, national and provincial parks, private land, mining claims, wildlife reserves etc that all can overlap and restrict access so while you may think there is no "ski" tenure there (or only a ski tenure), you could be riding somewhere you shouldn't be regardless.

 

[imdoo'n]

man after reading your posts modman, i feel educated and so confused at the same time, so there could be a closure as such, only really no way for a bone head like me to find out about it? great.

 

[powderpilot]

I put a call into the Rec Officer yesterday to confirm the Airy issue. There hasn't been a tenure in there for many years, and normally they have to notify the public if there is a new one coming in.

Our cabins up there are under a management agreement as opposed to tenure. They don't show up on any maps, but we also cannot restrict who uses them.

I'll let everyone know what Justin says, but I'm guessing that someone just randomly put some signs up. There are some interesting ones up in the area if you explore when the snowpack is low, like " you are under video surveylance, we have your license plate number and will find you". And many more like that

 

[Modman]

man after reading your posts modman, i feel educated and so confused at the same time, so there could be a closure as such, only really no way for a bone head like me to find out about it? great.

That's why you should talk to local clubs, riders, govt etc before you go LOL. Often times if sleds are not going there, there is a reason. Most tenure holders will post signs at access points like forestry roads so even if you couldn't find it on paper there may be a sign once you get there (just might mean you spend a little more time driving and a little less sledding that day because you will have to go somewhere else), but if you are accessing from one drainage to another over a ridge at 8,000 ft on a sled, yes, you can't expect to always see a sign and yes, you better know where you are going. These access points are not always signed though either.

 

[moyiesledhead]

I haven't heard this about Baldface before. They always welcome us up there with open arms at the end of their ski season...

I talked to him last year about opening up the lodge for rent to sledders after the ski season. Don"t know if he ever pursued it. Lotta money to be made off of us. Just ask the guys at Chatter Creek!

 

[ratatatat]

I say again, this is not about an official closure of an area but about respect for traditional use of an area by groups with different perspectives.

 

[kjb]

I say again, this is not about an official closure of an area but about respect for traditional use of an area by groups with different perspectives.

Well put ratatatat, In order to get some respect we also have to give some respect. It is hard keeping joe public on our side when we piss off fellow backcountry users.