Calgary Mountain Bike Alliance - Bowmont Park Open Houses

Issues > Bowmont Park

Bowmont Park Open Houses

Background
Executive Summary Of Written Comments
Comments and Answers Related to Cycling

A series of public open house sessions were held in April 2001 to gather input on the draft recommendations in the proposed Natural Area Management Plan for Bowmont Natural Environment Park. Advertisement of the open houses included: articles in the adjacent community newsletters; advertisement in the Calgary Herald and the Calgary Sun on March 31, April 1, April 4 and April 8; a mail-out to 300 interested groups and individuals: a flyer delivered door-to-door to households in Silver Springs, Varsity, Bowness, and Montgomery; and various newspaper and radio articles. Members of the public were invited to drop-in to see the plans and talk to staff on a one-to-one basis, or attend a formal presentation held at 10:30am on Saturday, April 7 and at 7:00pm on April 9 and 12.

The three open houses attracted approximately 650 members of the public. It is estimated that about 25 - 30% of these were repeat attendees (i.e., the same people who came to more than one session). The formal presentation included:

A brief introduction to the project and history of the site
A biophysical overview of the site
A description of the resource management zones
A review of the key management strategies
A description of the design development proposals

After the presentation, comments and questions from the audience were entertained. Comments were also solicited via written comment sheets.

[ Top ]

At the three April 2001 public open houses on the draft Bowmont Park Natural Area Management Plan, public input was solicited by way of comment sheets. One hundred and eighty-six (186) comment sheets or other written documents were submitted at or immediately after the meetings.

Of those who submitted written comments, 25 supported the draft Plan in its entirety. An additional 39 supported the general concept of the Plan (accessibility to all users; practical level of protection and rehabilitation; measures to reduce deterioration). In fundamental opposition to the plan, 3 commenters said it was a waste of money ("don't do anything"), and 11 people said human use should take priority over habitat/wildlife protection. Other respondents addressed their comments to specific elements of the draft plan as summarized below.

The main area of concern was the recommended dog off-leash areas in the park. Specifically, 32 commenters said the whole park should be off-leash, while 44 stated that the designated off-leash areas should be increased. Of these, 28 advocated the addition of linkages between the proposed off-leash areas so dog owners could walk long distances off-leash. Thirteen (13) respondents wanted more river access areas for dogs, including the gravel beach area (6 comments) designated in the plan as a nature appreciation area.' Eleven (11) respondents opposed the proposed increase in off-leash areas (5 of these said the whole park should be on-leash), while 14 individuals supported the off-leash areas as proposed, believing them to be a reasonable compromise.

The proposal to designate a non-paved secondary trail system was supported by 26 commenters, while 9 opposed it [primarily because they believed it did not provide enough trails (6 comments), or they wanted to be able to ride the escarpment edges (6 comments)]. Commenters offered various suggestions on trail surfacing, and 4 people suggested dirt trails be closed when wet. Seven (7) respondents advocated separate trails for different users.

The felling of trees by beavers was raised as a major concern by 8 individuals. Rehabilitation of damaged areas was supported by 16.respondents (who referred to it as an important element of the plan), as was a strong education program (17 comments), and improved signage (19 comments). Five others worried about the potential proliferation of signs in the park.

Nineteen (19) people mentioned the need for involving people in park stewardship, while many others indicated that they are interested in being involved in the park in future.

Prepared by Linda Stewart
Public Consultation Services
April 23,2001

[ Top ]

Comment: The erosion problem in the park is created by mountain bikes, not dog walkers. (3 comments)
Comment: You are favouring mountain bikes and cyclists in this plan at the expense of dog walkers. (3 comments)
Comment: You indicate in the discussion part of the Cycling Policy on Undesignated Trails (Council approved 1998) that there is no evidence to support claims that cyclists cause any more damage to designated or undesignated trails than that caused by walkers or runners. This is not correct.
Answer: A lot of time and energy has been spent in the past debating who does damage. Our focus in the management plan is not on "who" does the damage, but how it can be repaired and prevented in the future. This involves strategies to "manage" the use; but it requires cooperation from all users.
Comment: Everybody is off trail right now. Waterfall valley is like a busy street with bikes and people.
Comment: Dog walkers enjoy the park all year round unlike other seasonal park users.
Comment: You enforce the dog bylaw through ticketing, but not the cyclists.
Answer: Bylaw officers ticket cyclists who are breaking the bylaw (speed, bells, lights, etc.). If there are complaints about problems in a specific geographical area, they will do a spot check.
Comment: Dogs are licensed, but cyclists are not (no way of identifying them) - it is not fair. (2 comments). The money from licensing cyclist would help pay for trails.
Comment: Dog trainer/behaviourist concerned about the routing of trails in off-leash areas. Dogs and bikes just do not mix - the predatory instinct of dogs is just too strong and will overtake commands by the owner.
Comment: Off-leash areas in the vicinity of the regional pathway are a bad idea - create conflict and decrease the amount of space for off-leash.
Comment: Dog walkers will simply walk off the trails (doing more damage) so they don't have to put their dogs on leash.
Answer: Everyone has to appreciate that this is a park for all users, and do their share to protect it.
Comment: Will you be using Calgary Mountain Bike Alliance (CMBA) standards in the trail construction?
Answer: The International Mountain Bicycling Assoc. (IMBA) have developed a set of standards that represent best practices in trail building and make sense to apply wherever feasible.
Question: Are the proposed secondary trails for bikes only?
Answer: No, they are intended as multi-use wherever possible (bearing in mind safety and environmental concerns).
Comment: Community associations should have a say in the approvals (permitting) for organized events in Bowmont -e.g., do not want to see mountain bike races in the park.
Answer: Only appropriate events are permitted in parks. A mountain bike race would not be appropriate - it would be better at Canada Olympic Park, for example.
Comment: Let's get on with looking at the plan and stop attacking each other (i.e., bikes vs dog walkers)
Comment: City parks are for all users. I enjoy walking my dog, but I know that compromise and mutual respect are necessary.
Comment: Surprised at how vehement people are against cyclists. Why can't dog owners just reel in the leashes when other pathway users are going by? Calgary has a great pathway system. We need to get along - everyone has a right to be there.
Comment: We are so lucky to have all these parks in Calgary. We should be thankful to the early park superintendents and pioneers for their vision, instead of just complaining.
Comment: All park users need to show respect for one another. Cyclists should slowdown and ring their bells when approaching other users; and dog owners should keep their dogs on leash or under control and pick up the poop. This present generation of park users sound like selfish children. This park needs to be protected for the future!

[ Top ]