Alpine Access Post-Plutonic Activities

Below is an article that appeared in the Peak, followed underneath the asterisks by a reader's response to the subject.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Woodland access under discussion

TICKET TO WONDERLAND: Access to alpine areas is a topic of discussion among Plutonic Power Corporation, recreation users and road permit holders.
Recreational users have concerns about backcountry corridors

by Paul Galinski | reporter@prpeak.com

Published: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:27 AM CST
Backcountry and alpine recreational users are concerned deactivation of roads and infrastructure will restrict wilderness access.

Plutonic Power Corporation is in the process of decommissioning some of the transportation infrastructure it has used to construct power line corridors in Powell River’s backcountry. A series of meetings between Plutonic and various user groups is ongoing to see if a compromise can be reached.

Elisha McCallum, Plutonic director of communications, said Plutonic wants people to know the company doesn’t want to get in the way of access or tourism opportunities. She said the company has certain obligations and needed to have conversations with the road permit holders to ensure it was following the right protocols.

“We are going to be here for the long term,” McCallum said. “We don’t want to get into a situation where we are causing any upset but we also have to meet any obligations we have from a legal and liability perspective.”

McCallum said Plutonic plans on continuing meetings with the road permit holders, such as Western Forest Products (WFP) and the BC Forest Service. “We are going to make a commitment to get back to folks when we have an idea what the next steps are going to be. We did let folks know we weren’t in a position to make decisions...right now.”

Eagle Walz, president of Powell River Parks and Wilderness Society (PRPAWS), said what recreational users want is improved access, not terminated access. “It’s basically a matter of money,” he said.

Walz added he understands it’s between WFP and Plutonic to work out matters such as maintenance costs and liability. “It would be an excellent opportunity for both companies to come out looking like they support the development of tourism in this community that has suffered a major downturn as a result of the forest industry,” he said.

“My understanding is the first discussions last week were positive and they are meeting again this week. Elisha said they are hopeful they can reach some kind of an accommodation.”

Walz said PRPAWS is supportive of the efforts to reach accommodations that will benefit the community and create more jobs rather than fewer.

Randy Mitchell, from the Knuckleheads winter recreation group, said Plutonic tells recreational users they have to take on the liability of the bridge, or someone has to, and this is the contention being worked out right now. “The thing that bothers me is they came in and created the problem,” he said. “If they weren’t here, we wouldn’t have the problem. They just came in and started a hornet’s nest.

“We are all hoping that maybe they would help us get more access and there would be some benefit,” he said. “When people use Crown lands to generate wealth, there should be some spinoff, not just to the provincial government.

“They are basically dismantling the public’s access out there. It’s been slowly going on for years. The public doesn’t have any rights or say.”

Mitchell said as long as those power lines are out there “messing things up,” Plutonic should be taking care of things and allowing some good corporate citizenship.

Dave Hodgins, president of the Powell River ATV Club, said his group has been involved in numerous issues with access. “It does not just involve Plutonic,” he said. “It has involved the Powell River Community Forest, BC Timber Sales/BC Forest Service.

“There are solutions,” he said. “We as a community of recreational users have to come up with compromises. We might not like them. Are we as a community, willing to accept a portion of the liability to maintain access?”

*********************************************************************************

Reader Comments
The following are comments from online readers. In no way do they represent the views of Peak Publishing Ltd. To suggest removal of comments that violate the terms of use, please e-mail webmaster@prpeak.com.

rvalentine wrote on Nov 18, 2009 12:27 PM:

" I absolutely believe that the companies that use our back country road system for profits should be required to leave road access in place. As a kid we used to go up to the lakes and the roads were in great shape. We loved camping and swimming at the many different lakes in the area, it is one of the great things about this area. As years went on and the size of the logging operations decreased, the roads were in a terrible state of barely being maintained. Lots of branch roads deactivated (ditched, blocked, washed out). A lot of lakes access required use of a modified four wheel drive to get to. So I feel it should be these companies, as well as the various levels of government to keep these roads open so everyone can enjoy the things we have right on our doorstep. The recent road upgrades to freda lake main are amazing. I was able recently to take my 83 year grandfather up to freda lake, and to the k branch lookout and he had never been there before, born and raised here. The state of the road before I would not have been able to take him along as it was a terribly rough road. It was hard on the body and took hours to get there. And I shouldn't have to chew the crap out of a road to take my son to a fishing spot. We have many untapped resources here still, opportunities for people here and for tourism expansion. "