VANCOUVER ISLAND WINDTALK

Hello All;

I attended the meeting last Friday. Thanks to Windsurfish for picking me up at the ferry, buying me lunch, and delivering me back to the ferry.

The people there were.

Doug Herchmer, DH Recreation Services
Paul Tataryn, Ministry of Tourism, Sports & the Arts
Judi Thomas, Ditidaht Band Council
Michael Blades, Vancouver, BC
Chris Gill, Nanaimo, BC
Reed, Victoria, BC <-- not sure about the name
Ian, Nanaimo, BC <-- not sure about the name

Doug was contracted last year to develop a plan for the campground. Following last winters blow down he was asked to revisit the plan.

The essence of the plan is that the ministry is concerned about four issues roughly in order of importance:

1. Environmental concerns relating to the health of the old growth trees in the campground
2. Safety and health concerns partly arising out of an incident in which a large branch fell on a camper last year and the shortage of outhouses during peak times
3. Management concerns relating to the operation of the campground, fee collection, and enforcement of BC Park regulations: http://www.bcadventure.com/adventure/ca ... 0Etiquette
4. The users - us windseekers.

Doug showed numerous examples of how the trees are being damaged, particularly in the area adjacent to the lake. He has developed a comprehensive plan for developing the campground but Paul indicated that he believed that a land claim settlement with the Dididaht will occur before the long term plan is implemented. He hopes that the ministry will spend about $50,000 implementing the first phase of the plan. That is to restrict access to the lake side for large RV's and campers by setting up barriers (ie large boulders). They will build sites for tents in this area though.

I think we impressed on them that there was a dire need for more camping sites to compensate for the loss of space and it was important that they provide at least 4 clear access trails from the road to the beach for equipment movement.

There is no doubt that change is coming. Everyone wants to see the flora and fauna protected but we also want to continue to enjoy Nitinat.

There is a map with the development plan but I don't really have permission to post it but a few people have a copy and it will get around I'm sure.

Regards;

Mike

Thanks Mike et al for looking into this and representing the windseekers. There is no question trees are being damaged by a variety of mechanisms, and not just trees but the undergrowth as well. One should not forget though that the majority of damage to trees is by natural causes of winter storms when flooding occurs and rocks/debris/trees bash around the site and scour out the roots of trees, exposing them and damaging bark
Yes, there are some idiots still hammering nails into trees or cutting into them, placing firepits over roots and chopping at branches but this is not necessarily all to do with large RV's, or any RV's, lets' get real. Some root damage happens for sure because of any vehicles but this could be alleviated by replacing the sand/gravel that was washed off the roots exposing them in the first place. I hope the plan considers this and not just defaults to tenters getting to enjoy a waterfront site, that's the case now with a huge beach available already. The reason for the RV's is that families can seek refuge from the cold, not a need to be bigger and better off with the rigs....at least that's the reason why I own mine. And with the fuel prices you will see fewer of them anyway. Getting the families to join us windaddicts and avoiding divorce has always been a problem, being relegated to the bug alleys won't help this much

Some great observations there Kus; I admit I had forgotten just how much damage is done to the trees from the other logs floating around and bashing them during floods. Did this come up at the meeting, Mike or others there?

One of the problems with reducing density in the camp generally is the tendency for people to start using the intervening areas as bathrooms (and I expect tenters are more to blame for this than RVs with holding tanks ). THis was a problem in September when the crowds died off, and in an area that vehicles can't reach between logs.

They need to block off individual tree stems and associated roots, not whole areas.

The hits just keep on coming. What a load of crap. Better not let any vehicles at all on the beach side because if that's what's causing the damage it's more likely all the little westy's and vans that can actually weasel there way in toward the beach amongst the trees, not the RV's! Even then I seriously doubt it's vehicle damage at all (see Kus's pts). What do they think we do, sit there and spin our tires and yell yee hah? Amazing, they log the crap out every adjacent piece of land, give it away to the forest companies ala Jordan River, then knee jerk to "protect" the 1 place that has managed to be a success despite all current and past boneheads with a "master plan". I can see a necessary fee increase to support these well documented phase 1 initiatives. Better pave it quick, establish sites, put in the plumbing, stock the firewood, then you will actually not feel too bad about raping the tax paying public.

Master plan Yea. been going there since the early 80's. only thing that ever changes is the people who are doing the bullshitting. those trees in that park are all rotten and ready to come down. they were left because of that reason, I believe. log it and pave it , I'm with ULR. I think if you looked through the B.C. park system this is probably the worst example of a public park. I give up because I don't think it will ever get any better. see you all next spring.

Guys. I'm no tree expert but Doug said that the Sitka Spruce along the front of the lake were pretty robust and could probably take abuse and survive. The Hemlock is much more fragile apparently and they suffer from Witches Broom and Root Rot which is common in this area. The trees are shallow rooted and the roots do take a lot of abuse from cars driving over them. I am personally more concerned about the random fire pits that spring up everywhere including on the top of roots of trees and in stumps. People are unbelievably stupid about fires at Nitinat. The reason for this problem is that there are no fixed campsites and no fixed fire pits. Anything goes.

I'm a little shocked at the response. These are old trees. They have been there for hundreds of years and they contribute to the ambience of the place. Paving over the campground would probably make camping easier and more straight forward but I can't believe that anybody thinks that is the best solution. The people with 28 foot 5th wheels blame the problem on Westfalias and the Westfalia owners blame it on the RV's. We all use the site - tenters, back seat sleepers and Greyhound bus parkers. There is a lot of selfishness at the site. People park equipment trailers in places that campers could go to have easy access to their motorbikes and personal watercraft. There is no reason why the inside can't be further developed for camping and RV and camper van parking and some of the questionable paths over tree roots blocked to large vehicles.

With respect to this comment "They need to block off individual tree stems and associated roots, not whole areas" I think hat is the intent. There will still be camping areas for vans, tent trailers and smaller RV's on the lake side.

I was shocked to discover that the land adjacent to the campground toward the river, including the area around the river is privately owned and could be sold for development at any time just like the land at the head of the lake.

I had the feeling that the ministry wants to protect the park nature of Nitinat not exploit anything. That was just my take.


Mike

about this comment - "I was shocked to discover that the land adjacent to the campground toward the river, including the area around the river is privately owned and could be sold for development at any time just like the land at the head of the lake. "

Is this TFL or privatly owned by the forestry company. Doesn't this land also have an unsettled land claim by the first nations there?

MTM- THE CITY OF VANCOUVER USED TO BE OLD GROWTH FOREST. WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED OVER THERE?
AND YOU ARE SO RITE. THERE ARE NO RULES AT NITWIT LK. IT'S A FREE FOR ALL . HOMER SIMPSON COULD DO A BETTER JOB. I BELIEVE EVERY ONE IS STEPPING BACK BECAUSE OF THE LAND CLAIMS. I THINK THEY NEED TO GET ON WITH THAT.

heh, once again I wade into the foray of the B.S. hmm think I would learn, but......

Thank you MTM for the post and your attendance at the meeting. For those that think most of the damage occurs from the floods, that is simply not the case. At most, the leading edge trees may take some rubbing but rarely does the flotila enter into the campsite. Yes It IS THE CAMPERS causing the majority of the issues. The hemlock are not healthy, mostly due to other things, but why weaken them more. Yes smaller vehicles wheeedle their way up to the front, but hey there is also larger units that back in, move back over there, move, pivot etc etc to get their spot, all the while causing ground cover damage, not to mention the many impacts bumpers have had on a tree (seen 5 this year alone). There are a ton of responsible campers that use the park, some have been coming for a very long time and respect the area. But my experience over the years is that there are also alot of people that do not. I lost count this season alone at how many people I had to ask to move their fires as their were placed on roots, under low lying tree branches, etc etc only to get the response "those guys did it so why can't we?" Sadly that attitude is prevailing, no matter how much management is in place. This in my mind means that to take action like shutting down the front is required to preserve and limit the damage then so be it. YOu think it is cold in the campground now which requires campers and R.V.s to keep warm?, see how it feels when you lose that front tree buffer. As for less R.V.s due to gas prices etc etc, not likley. I have only been here since 1998 but this year was a breakout year for hardware in the campground. I would estimate at least double from last year. This includes I would say at least half the regular crowd, many showing up this year in new rigs. This year attendance was down drastically due to poorer weather, yet it seemed busy and full, primarily due to all the R.V. and trailers setting up randomly, not neccessarily using the space wisely. As for dudes comment that things dont change just the people, your right the people do change and more new people than ever are flooding into nitinaht, most blown away at the place and swear they are coming back and bringing friends. I truly value all the regulars that come every year, visiting and catching up is fantastic as well as seeing the familys grow or begin. I truly look forward to the beginning of the season to visit, would be sad that people don't come back because it isn't "the same". This isn't a place where only a select group gather anymore, rather it is becoming a world destination. More people are seeking out of the way camping spots, not just windseekers, so better campground design and planning which allows for more effective management is an absolute must if this campground has a chance of accomodating windseekers and others needs while keeping the "beauty" of the place. Change is coming, make it positive rather than complaining of what should be, or how it was or who does what, or whos at fault etc etc, lets move forward and beyond the B.S. to make this a better spot for all to enjoy safely and fairly.

nuff said

Dale out

btw these comments are strictly my personal opinions and reflections, not reflective of any positions of any business or government agency.

Gene. Paul Tataryn addressed the land claim issue from the perspective of the ministry. He said that the ministry is prepared to spend up to several hundred thousand dollars to provide better services (more camping spots, outhouses, and tables) but he felt that the land claim would be settled soon and they didn't think investing in an "asset" that they wouldn't own was sensible. That being said they were anxious to proceed with the first phase which I described in my first post. It could be started in April of next year. Everyone recognizes that the place is a destination for wind seekers and should remain so. I agree with Dale. Complaining isn't going to help. They are looking for helpful input that will assist the planning process and that will satisfy the user group and the overall goals.

Nitnat is not the place to go for backcountry camping, there are plenty of other sites for that.

The campsite is much more pleasant since it has been opened up by last winters storms. Nitnat is a good destination, but there are plenty better in fairly close proximity, especially when you get off the island. Nitnat has a unique atmosphere, but that is not everything. We had some great trips down south again this year. As a family, we already spend less time at Nitnat as we discover other great sailing spots.


I side with ULR on this, by far the biggest group to use this site are windusers. They did the best job in running and maintaining the site, yet thet are excluded from all the planning(except as token representatives).

"Know your customer, or they will go elsewhere".

Yep, I'm with you Penguin. Nitnat was/is great but it is not the only option by a long shot! I was just thinking, time to start seriously looking at road trips and vacations elsewhere. I'll do my bit to reduce the "environmental stress" at Nitty by not appearing as much. Haven't had the family down the Washington & Oregon coast and I know they'll love it! The state parks are sweet!

Penquin wrote:I side with ULR on this, by far the biggest group to use this site are windusers. They did the best job in running and maintaining the site, yet thet are excluded from all the planning(except as token representatives).

Birds! Flocking together!

IMHO this is not true. The Windsurfing society did a good job of maintaining the site but I think that the current group is also doing a pretty good job. There are some issues, like long term camping, but, in general I think things are pretty well run and the important things have been taken care of. The campground was devastated last winter and was in a terrible mess but it was cleaned up in time for the 2007 season. The toilets were maintained. Etc. etc. I don't know how having 100 trees destroyed make the place more pleasant but whatever turns your crank. There WAS more sunshine getting through when the sun did shine (which wasn't on any weekend that I remember). As for consultation, Judi invited a large group of the community to attend the meeting. Paul and Doug were anxious to hear how the wind seeker community could be accommodated while still dealing with the management and environmental and safety issues.

I don't know of any public campground that permits people to park wherever they damn well please and to cut whatever they damn well please with a chain saw or to set fires wherever they want including on top of roots. This stuff needs to be controlled for the good of all of the users. People seem angry because they can't do whatever they want. It's weird.

Is this a good time in the Nitinat planning process to write a letter with comments/opinions?

Would we direct a letter to Doug Herchmer, DH Recreation Services?

Any addresses or email are appreciated.

thanks

Penguin wrote: I side with ULR on this, by far the biggest group to use this site are windusers. They did the best job in running and maintaining the site, yet thet are excluded from all the planning(except as token representatives).

I agree that the place seemed best from 2002 and before, but that may be just the relatively fewer users (though it was pretty packed sometimes even then). I wasn't there nearly as much this year as last, but it seemed that Dale did a great job of keeping things clean and as organised as possible. Its too bad he had to put up with so much BS, people wanting to keep their fires on the big tree roots etc.

As for a token appearance, I don't think so, I was invited too but couldn't make it and even without me there were 3? windusers there I believe - 4 if you count Judy wearing her kiting hat (new fashion statement), more than half the meeting. Admittedly, we aren't in control of the process. If you want control, start saving your pennies to buy the adjacent land from the camp to the river - but I doubt if we could afford it even if we all got together and bought it as a society.

[edit] I see MTM was quicker to get his post written, he's made a lot of the same points.

Consensus with all interest groups coming together in that type of meeting can work probably better than any other system, unless you like benevolent dictators.

Contacts, here's one:
Paul Tataryn
Regional Recreation Manager (Coast Region)



Telephone: 250 751-7038 Organization Code: TSA
Alternate Phone: Not Available Organization Unit: RSTB - Recreation, Sites and Trails Branch
Facsimile: 250 751-7190 Email:
Cellular: Not Available


Physical
Address: 2100 Labieux Road
Nanaimo BC

CANADA Mailing Address: 2100 Labieux Road
Nanaimo BC
V9T6E9
CANADA