GSMG annual report

[Dobi]

for your reading pleasure

[Hendrix13]

On a positive note, at least I wasn't deeply offended by this report. That's nice for a change

I think the most important statement was;

"..The GSMG does not, on its own, initiate trail projects/closures: the GSMG receives proposals from groups/organizations (aka RMDRA), and reviews these proposals, using the criteria and guidelines that have been established through the past six years. The results of the reviews will determine whether the GSMG supports the application (and recommends approval to the Provincial government), advises the applicant that changes are needed, or declines to support the application altogether.."

[JohnE]

The report identified four “challenges” which are impacting the development of a sustainable trail system, including “resolution of issues related to public liability in the development and maintenance of trails.”

I’m surprised this is identified as an issue. We are required to be insured so that can’t be the problem. I read the Occupier’s Liability Act as applying to recreational users in “forested or wilderness premises” and “recreational trails reasonably marked as such”. In that case, the landowner (I think this includes government on Crown land?) is only liable for “wilful or reckless conduct”. Doesn’t look like an issue for the government to me, but maybe I’m missing the point.

If there isn’t a real issue here I think the committee should remove this as challenge – the less challenges to developing the trail system the better.

[Dobi]

The report identified four “challenges” which are impacting the development of a sustainable trail system, including “resolution of issues related to public liability in the development and maintenance of trails.”

I’m surprised this is identified as an issue. We are required to be insured so that can’t be the problem. I read the Occupier’s Liability Act as applying to recreational users in “forested or wilderness premises” and “recreational trails reasonably marked as such”. In that case, the landowner (I think this includes government on Crown land?) is only liable for “wilful or reckless conduct”. Doesn’t look like an issue for the government to me, but maybe I’m missing the point.

If there isn’t a real issue here I think the committee should remove this as challenge – the less challenges to developing the trail system the better.

It is an ASRD challenge and one that we have gotten around by signing "recreational site agreements" in the past. This one is being worked at a provincial gov't level

Hendrix - It is what it is, it could be worse. We are making traction and need to move forward with the master plan.....

[JohnE]

It is an ASRD challenge and one that we have gotten around by signing "recreational site agreements" in the past. This one is being worked at a provincial gov't level

Thanks for the explanation. After my post I double checked and the government is bound by the Occupiers Liability Act. So I think ASRD is probably being really conservative on that, but of course that's what the Committee has to work with.