Below is a letter that local forester and kiteboarder Adrian Litz wrote to the Squamish council regarding the possible removal of Spit and the impact this will have on the community. Litz is among several concerned citizens who wrote to the council recently about this issue.
—
I am very disappointed in the lack of consideration for wind and water sport users in the planning that has occurred around removal of the spit and the related loss of access and recreational opportunities that will result from removal.
As a professional Forester working in the Sea to Sky district, the lack of consideration for current user groups who will be significantly affected by the Spit removal and the lack of consultation with these groups is unacceptable from a resource planning perspective and from the perspective of a Professional land manager.
Management of the public lands surrounding our community must consider all uses and values and strive to find an acceptable balance of values.
For example, when planning forest harvesting it is critical to identify the variety of resource values that exist on a particular location and that harvesting is planned in such a way that considers all uses and users.
In our community this requires any and all recreation features to be properly considered, user groups consulted with and harvest planning / silviculture completed in a manner which minimizes impacts on these features and users.
Regarding the Spit, it is not acceptable for a non-profit fish stewardship group to plan and implement a project of this scope without input from the community and local user groups who will be so negatively impacted by the removal plan as it currently stands.
A project of this magnitude must consider and must engage with all community stakeholders to ensure whatever plan is implemented improves or maintains the range of present values provided by the Spit.
The removal of the Spit with no consideration for current use will inevitability lead to a range of social, environmental and safety concerns and problems that the removal plan has not addressed.
Water sports users of all kinds will continue to attempt to access the area (which is unique in North America for quality of conditions for windsports) leading to conflicts with environmentally sensitive areas surrounding the spit.
Loss of this central staging will also lead to conflict and very real safety issues with Squamish Port operations.
For a growing community such as Squamish it is incredibly poor planning to eliminate a primary ocean access location without providing viable alternatives for residents and visitors to access our ocean front and the recreation opportunities that exist there.
I would like to ask Mayor Elliott and the District of Squamish to become a partner in the proposed holistic oceanfront park at the end of The Spit.
Let’s find a win-win scenario for fish and for our growing community. Let’s not allow a world class recreation facility to disappear from the “outdoor adventure capital”.
This is a dis-service to our community to allow the removal to proceed without exploring options to maintain the range of uses and values, while still benefiting salmon.
The proposed park aims to celebrate our connection to the Ocean and the Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish) peoples that were here before us while creating a place for community, nature, wildlife, education, relaxation, and extreme sports.
The lack of oceanfront access for people in Squamish is very concerning and I hope that the District will be willing to act on one of the recommendations that were made in the 2012 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, that is the current master plan for Squamish, that states “Explore the benefits of designating the Spit and Training Dike as a park”.
There is a viable concept that is inclusive, meets the needs of the salmon and the estuary as well as the community. United we can create something that will become a focal point in the community for decades to come.
Adrian Litz is a local kitesurfer and a registered professional forester.
Don Patrick says
And if the fish do return to past numbers (no different than analyzing the forestry base) then would not the fisherman and those that consume fish be winners … ? your group is a distant minority in the sports world, you are benefiting from a mistake of the past … so if you require proof of your importance to the community, show some numbers … ??
Lev Manouvakhov says
Why are you going to use public money to destroy our public wealth?
David Lassmann says
I find Adrian’s arguments to be specious and self-serving. The spit was included in the development and acceptance of the Squamish Estuary Management Plan. The area west of the CNR spur line is a Wildlife Management Area, not a forestry area. It would be appropriate for the District of Squamish to include wind sports in the Official Community Plan. However the important habitat of the Estuary and the Squamish watershed in general is in disastrous condition that along with other factors has resulted in the collapse of several important fish species. The restoration of the aquatic ecosystem has to be given first priority.
Terri Likyn says
After working the fishing industry and even for DFO in the late 1980’s I follow the state of the wild salmon populations closely. There are a number of factors affecting our BC wild salmon stocks.
Driftnet fishing outside our 200 mile limit.
Alaska – when and if the salmon decide to return to our nursery rivers and streams – they don’t know there is a border. If they return through Alaskan waters they are likely fished after the hellsgate treaty expired a number of years ago. Pressure from sport fishermen. And logging. So many factors. I do not agree with the removal of the spit at this stage of the game. Unless there are some sound scientific facts put forth, why would we remove the spit enhance our wild salmon stocks so they can be fished out before they even make it to Canadian waters and enforcement laws?
Andy says
To those of you who are challenging Adrian’s thoughtful letter, Adrian is not against salmon, he is against rash, one sided community planning.
Why can’t there be a way where water access and salmon coexist? There are many people, kiters and many other recreational user groups, who would like to see a real attempt to make that happen.
ted Prior says
This topic has been talked about as far back as i remember . I was on the estuary manage planning group in the 80s and this topic was always being planned .
Liza Yonin says
I don’t see any money being paid to the district for use of this land. There is another lovely jut of land off Nexon Beach why not just move over there
Daniel Wattier says
Newport (aka Nexen) Beach is not a suitable launching and landing spot for kiters. The area has generally milder winds and is a direct upwind launch which is almost impossible for novice kiters. Removing the Spit without a proper alternative will destroy kiting in Squamish and its place as one of the world’s premier kiteboarding destinations. This will no doubt have negative affects on the local economy and the reputation of Squamish as a premier recreational destination. Absolutely shortsighted move with no regard for the collateral impact on the local community.
J. Sissons says
Remember, Squamish is the outdoor recreational capital of Canada. Tourism plays a vital role in the growth and prosperity of the town. The Estuary of course should be protected, and we should look at ways to do that as it is vitally important. We should also look at ways to protect sporting activities that make Squamish a one-of-a-kind destination for sport adventurists. I think Mayor Elliot and Council should be working with both groups to find a solution that will work for everyone. Additional tax revenues from increasing population growth in the community, specifically at the Waterfront should provide additional resources. Developers, should also be encouraged to help in community development projects. Not rocket science people, it can be a win-win for both conservationists and the wind sport community if it is done right. Compromise sometimes is the best answer!
Nadine Beckham says
There are a few questions asked in this thread and a few more comments made that actually answer the questions asked. Why can’t Salmon and people co exist? Answers; Why should we give up our spit for Salmon if they are just going to be consumed by someone else. We want to kite and don’t let anything get in the way of the best kiting in the world. It’s not good enough there, so it’s not an option.
I’m surprised someone didn’t suggest we relocate the Salmon into the Blind Chanel.
The win win situation suggests that wind surfers and conservationist can both get what they want but we forgot we were talking about Salmon. Oh ya why am I not surprised that the Salmon were forgotten.
Humans don’t coexist with any species. Our numbers grow and their numbers fall. So I’ll ask the question: What are we willing to compromise so other species can coexist with us and how much more do we believe the Salmon should compromise for a recreational activity?
Pull out the spit for the Salmon because it’s that right thing to do. The kiters will surely be able to adapt to a new location, if they can find one that works for their very specific needs and don’t mind if in the future we find something better to do with their terrain and ask them to compromise some more. What! the kiters have all vanished. Oh well, moving on.
I really hope we don’t loose all our kiters because they weren’t able to adapt.
Emm Fickle says
The work of trying to save a species is more important than facilitating the activities of an incredibly small group of privileged adults acting like children. Yes, kite surfing is a childish activity. It is not serious business and the idea that any consideration be given to its participants over the concerns of saving the salmon is absurd.