Westwood Ridges closed by DND?

[riverrat]

There are articles in the newspapers this weekend: the Department of National Defense says they will be patrolling the lands associated with their rifle range, and bringing punitive measures against trespassers (hikers, bikers, etc.).

There are comments flying from either side, which I will summarize in the best way I can:

• "It's ridiculous that they are asserting this now, all of a sudden. The safety concerns are baseless."
• "I recognize that it's their land and that they have the legal right to punish trespassers; however, it is a major blow to Nanaimo (to its residents and to its tourism interests) to restrict such an integral piece of recreational space."
• "It's their land, they can do what they want. Stop whining. And why should we look out for the safety of anyone stupid enough to hike near an active range? Do us a favour and get yourself shot."

I have always hiked the Ridges (perhaps 75 times in 8 years) and have never before worried about the range. However, in looking at the 3D view in Google Earth (see first image below), I can see why there is a safety concern. The image shows how the line of fire points toward the Ridges.



The safety concern is real. But I would argue that the rifle range should be relocated. Yes, I know it would cost money, and would impinge on the interests of those (military/RCMP/civilian) who currently use the range. I don't make this suggestion lightly. The reason I would support such a coup is because the range can be relocated, whereas the Westwood Ridge trail system cannot.

This map shows my general understanding of the land which is being declared off limits (as you can see, it is a substantial piece of greenspace, in a very convenient location for residents/tourists):



Some will argue that there are other spaces available to the recreational users. While this is true, the inventory should be considered (see the image below). I have marked the areas that are available in this category of use: rugged terrain that is suitable for hikers, runners, and mountain bikers.

• Lantzville Foothills: Residential subdivision began about 10 years ago. While the development is currently snagged, this area is not part of the recreational inventory any more.
• Ammonite Falls area (Benson Creek Falls Regional Park): This is not a large area, and is mostly too steep for biking/running, unless one moves beyond the park borders into the university research forests.
• The Witchcraft Lake trails are too steep for biking, or for less fit hikers/runners.
• The Westwood Ridge system is perfectly located as a supplement to the already-popular Westwood Lake/Morrell Sanctuary park system.

In other words, the Westwood Ridges (including Roberts Roost) are a unique resource and must be considered for protection as a vital recreational resource in Nanaimo.



If anyone knows of any reason why the same argument can be made by the DND ("That is the only land which can be used for our purposes, too") I would urge them to explain why that is the case. Currently, I assume that there are a lot of suitable alternate locations for the rifle range.

[Smokey©]

Maps provided by the Regional District wtih information regarding Mt. Benson Regional Park
PAGE 19 shows surrounding land.
A good read: http://www.rdn.bc.ca/cms/wpattachmen...30atID3214.pdf

[Buzzard]

Its DND land and they want you off it.How much clearer can that picture get?

[riverrat]

Thanks for clarifying, Buzzard! I was a bit confused there.

[riverrat]

Smokey, the map you referred to on p.19* of that PDF lifted my worst concern: that the ENTIRE ridge system would prove to be DND land. The map shows that the northwesternmost part of the ridges (the shrine to the two young men, the lookout that used to have a table) are NOT owned by the DND.

I am still saddened that the two highest, most fascinating peaks are off limits. Hoping for a compromise, brokered by the RDN perhaps(?). Sort of like when private interests were considered subordinate to the public interest in the Parkway.

*EDIT: When I refer to page 19, I refer to the pdf's own pagination, and not to the pagination embedded in the lower corner of the document's pages; the two are very distinct.

[yorway]

I am not a hiker, cyclist or runner but I believe that if someone gets hurt on that land then the DND is liable and that could mean legal action. I am sure that the DND can find much more imaginative ways of wasting my tax dollars (like F35 jet fighters) than defending a court action by some poor soul that injures him/herself on their property.

[All Ages Music Concerts]

I am not a hiker, cyclist or runner but I believe that if someone gets hurt on that land then the DND is liable and that could mean legal action. I am sure that the DND can find much more imaginative ways of wasting my tax dollars (like F35 jet fighters) than defending a court action by some poor soul that injures him/herself on their property.

I for one don't think it has to do with lawsuits at all. They just want people out! No ravers, bush parties and definitely no fires. Simply as that!

[nza]

The CF is running portions of the BMQ this summer for (boot camp for CF recruit), around the Nanaimo area. I suspect they are ramping up this training area because of its ideal location, topography, range etc... My bootcamp was in Kingston, no hills. This trg area that DND has is ideal for all sorts of tradecraft / fieldcraft indoctrination. Having public civilian access may either compromise trg, privacy, security or safety. The last thing DND wants to be in the media for is a civy getting dinged by a flyer...or a bunch of new recruits jumping out of the bush and scaring a hottie hiker with her dogs...hahah

Of course, we can get all tinfoily and say, they are hiding secret alien installation.

I do know that when the dwyer hill boys come to BC for trg, privacy, is paramount, lest their TTPs get documented.

Alot of NIMBY comments out there. Get over it.

[riverrat]

Thanks for the info, nza.

I'm not disputing the safety concerns (see above), nor the military's right to use their own property, or to prevent others from using it. I'm not a NIMBY here (that would imply that I don't want this activity near my backyard because it is undesirable, which is not the case).

I simply think that the property in question represents a greater value to a greater number of people if it is repurposed for public use, and that the private interests could feasibly use a different space. Sort of like if we wanted to link two pieces of a harbourfront walkway, and there was a business occupying the land between the paths. Just because someone owns that land, doesn't mean it's CRAZY to suggest they relocate.

I agree that there are some hysterical comments out there (on both sides of this discussion) but I don't think anyone deserves to be mocked for wanting to maintain access to something so awesome (and I think my post above is conciliatory and moderate).

[nza]

riverrat,
I wasn't responding directly to your post. Just generally ppl's opinions. You're on the money though. If DND sold off that land and bought up some of the TW area in behind...

I think though, the range and facilities will be there to stay, as I doubt Feds will be wheeling and dealing in property any time soon. except selling off assets.