Shuswap Boating Regulations - Regional District of North Okanagan

Transcription

Shuswap Boating
Regulations
Public Consultation Survey Analysis
Regional District of North Okanagan
June 2016
304 – 1353 Ellis St
Kelowna, BC V1Y 1Z9
250-762-2517
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
PURPOSE OF REPORT ......................................................................................................................... 1
2.0
PROPOSED BOATING REGULATIONS .................................................................................................. 2
3.0
SYNOPSIS (SUMMARY REPORT) .......................................................................................................... 3
4.0
OPEN HOUSE ENGAGEMENT SESSIONS............................................................................................ 18
4.1
Enderby & Mabel Lake Hall Open Houses - June 10th & 11th 2015 ............................................. 18
4.2
Enderby Art Festival - July 25th 2015 ........................................................................................... 20
4.3
Grindrod Garlic Festival - August 16th 2015 ................................................................................. 20
5.0
CONCLUDING REMARKS................................................................................................................... 21
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Zone Mapping
Appendix B – Open House Engagement Sessions Feedback
Page i
1.0
PURPOSE OF REPORT
The purpose of the survey analysis report is to provide an objective analysis of the data collected
during the public consultation process, take stock thereof (information at hand) and prepare
summary findings outcome report to be presented to Elected Officials for consideration. The
report is structured addressing the questions posed during the engagement process (online
survey and during open houses), expressing high level interpretation of findings and outcomes,
providing context to various opinions shared, concerns raised, general appreciation and or
alternatives suggested.
In addition, the analysis will develop a broader understanding of the context overview of
responses with general direction influencing the survey findings. The survey findings will be
rationalized to record a general overview / sense of the complexities and issues associated with
the public responses. The report will focus simply on two spectrums those “for” and those “against”
the proposed Shuswap River Vessel Operating Restriction Regulations. Finally the report will
outline such options as alternatives identified and preferred moving forward as recommendations.
Shuswap Boating Regulations | June 2016 | Page 1
2.0
PROPOSED BOATING REGULATIONS
The Regional District of North Okanagan (RDNO) and its partners undertook an initiative to
explore Vessel Operating Restriction Regulations (also referred to as Boating Regulations) on the
Shuswap River. The decision to pursue the boating regulations for the Shuswap River has come
about due to numerous occasions where community groups and residents have raised concerns
with respect to the impacts of motorized vessels on the Shuswap River over the past 20 years.
These concerns were captured during the development of the Shuswap River Watershed
Sustainability Plan (SRWSP) which was endorsed by the RDNO Board of Directors in April 2014.
The concerns and values identified included: the Shuswap River being very important salmon
spawning grounds, high non-motorized recreational usage involving upwards of 1,000 users on a
single day and a reportedly high level of conflict between the motorized boating community and
other user groups and residents. The intent of the proposed boating regulations is to:
•
•
•
•
•
improve recreational safety
reduce bank erosion
reduce disturbance to salmon spawning grounds and other fish and wildlife
improve opportunities for non-motorized recreation
reduce conflict between users
The Boating Regulations being proposed for the Shuswap River are as follows:
•
Zone 1: From the mouth of the Lower Shuswap River at Mara Lake to the Baxter Bridge
(Trinity Valley Rd) – vessel engine size limit of 10 Horse power.
•
Zone 2: Lower Shuswap River from the Baxter Bridge (Trinity Valley Rd) upstream to the
eastern (upstream) end of Skookumchuck Rapids Park – no motorized vessels.
•
Zone 3: From the mouth of Mid Shuswap River at Mabel Lake South upstream to the
Shuswap Falls – no motorized vessels.
Refer to Appendix A – proposed Zone Mapping
3.0
SYNOPSIS (Summary Findings)
This section of the report provides a synopsis of the questions formulated seeking feedback on
the proposed boating regulations.
Question
What activities do you partake in on the Shuswap River?
1
This question allowed respondents to choose from a list of activities pre-determined with an openended category having to provide a description of other uses.
It is evident that the majority of the activities recorded by the respondents are related to swimming,
representing 74% of the 1,959 responses, followed by tubing/floating and wildlife viewing. A total
of 53% of the respondents did indicate motorized boating as their activity of choice. The diagram
below outlines the percentage breakdown per activity.
Question 1 - Activities on the Shuswap River
Other, 8%
No activity,
44%
Stand Up Paddle
Boarding, 15%
Wildlife Viewing, 55%
Motorized
Boating, 53%
Fishing, 41%
Swimming, 74%
Tubing/Floating, 58%
Canoeing, 37%
Kayaking, 40%
A total number of 157 respondents did note additional activities they partake in on the river which
relate amongst others to bird viewing, camping alongside the river front, beach activities, enjoying
the natural tranquility, jet skiing, sea-dooing, hiking along the river banks, trapping and hunting,
drift fishing, irrigation intake, knee boarding, photography, picnic, wakeboarding, whitewater
rafting, canoe coaching, and snorkeling.
Note: A total of 8,316 responses were received selecting different activities of choice with an
average of 4.2 activities per respondent. The total number of respondents were 1,959. The
percentages expressed above relate to the total number of activity responses, hence the distortion
(not equal to 100%).
2000
Question 1 - What activities do you partake in on the
1907
Shuswap River?
1667
1750
1443
1500
1250
1000
750
500
1048
911
1176
1156
803
783
1240
719
1137
1072
887
822
Number of Responses
2250
862
516
292
250
0
Type of Activities
157
0
Yes
No
Question What stretches of the Shuswap River do you
predominantly spend time on?
2
This question was structure to allowed respondents to indicate the preferred choice and section
along the Shuswap River they spend most of their time on, as per their activity recorded in
question one. It is evident from the diagram below that the most of the respondents spend most
of their time along the Mara Lake to Enderby section which could be seen as a sub-zone 1A,
followed by the section from Enderby to Baxter Bridge which also related to Zone 1 seen as subzone 1B. Considering the most time spend per section, Zone 1 represents by far the most use
and activity.
Question 2 - Time Spent on Sections of the Shuswap
River
Mabel Lake to
Shuswap Falls,
22%
Baxter Bridge to
Mabel Lake, 28%
Enderby to
Baxter Bridge
(Trinity Valley
Rd), 36%
Mara Lake to
Enderby, 69%
Note: A total of 3,036 responses were received selecting the stretch of the Shuswap River of use
with an average of 1.6 across-sections/zones per respondent. The total number of respondents
were 1,959. The percentages expressed above relate to the total number of activity responses,
hence the distortion (not equal to 100%). The following sketch below illustrates the zones as
described above.
Question
How often do you use the River on an Annual Basis?
3
Again here the public were given a choice to select between time sequences, with a total of 1,919
responses.
Question 3 - Use of Shuswap River on Annual Basis
1200
No. of Responses
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1-5 times
1
516
6-10 times
306
More than 10 times
1053
Never
44
A total of 55% of the respondents indicated they use the Shuswap River more than 10 times per
annum, followed by those using the river occasionally during the year. It is assumed those are
either seasonal users and or tourists visiting the region for recreational purposes.
Question If you use a motorized vessel on the Shuswap River, which
type of vessel do you use?
4
This particular question relates to those respondents having to select as listed their use of vessel
type. The diagrams below depict that the majority of the respondents use none of the vessels
listed, however with those whom do use a vessel on the Shuswap River is mostly motorized boats,
totaling 47% inclusive of inboard and outboard engines.
No. of Responses
Question 4 - Vessel Type of Use
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Jet Boat
Yes
338
Outboard
Motor Boat
484
No
1620
1474
Inboard
Motor Boat
431
Personal
Water Craft
297
CarTop Boat
1527
1661
1809
Question 4 - vessel Type of Use
CarTop Boat, 8%
Personal Water
Craft, 15%
Inboard Motor
Boat, 22%
Jet Boat, 17%
Outboard Motor
Boat, 25%
150
Question If you use a motorized vessel on the Shuswap River what
size is the engine in horse power?
5
This question narrows down the number of respondents to only those whom did indicate their
choice of vessel used on the Shuswap River. A total of 781 responses were recorded. The engine
capacity was categorized and expressed in the diagram below.
Question5 - Motorized Vessel Engine Size
Horse Power
300
2-4
No of Responses
250
5-8
9-18
200
20-35
150
40-75
100
80-140
150-300
50
0
Over 300
Electric
Engine Size/Hp
The diagram illustrates the majority engine capacity size in between a 150 to 300 horsepower
engine representing 32% of the responses. Taking into account all the other categories, 87% of
the respondents use motorized vessels with engine capacity in excess of 10hp engines. 12% of
the 781 respondents said their motorized vessels fall between 80hp and 140hp.
Question The proposed Shuswap River Boating Regulations are
intended to improve recreational safety, reduce conflict
6
between users, reduce bank erosion, reduce disturbance
to fish and wildlife and improve opportunities for nonmotorized recreation. To what extent do you agree or
disagree that the Shuswap River Boating Regulations
would be beneficial?
The section below outlines the analysis and interpretation of the responses per proposed Zone.
Zone 1 – Lower Shuswap River from Mara Lake upstream to Baxter Bridge
(Trinity Valley Rd) – vessel engine size limit of 10 Horse power
A total of 1,891 responses were recorded with 52% disagreeing with the proposed boating
regulations. From the graph below it is evident that the majority of the respondents in disagreement are located within the North Okanagan, Out of Province and within the Shuswap. It is
notably evident there are opposing views between those in dis-agreement and agreement with
the boating regulations within proposed Zone 1. In respect to the respondent’s in-agreement with
the proposed regulations (45%), the predominant support is from within the North Okanagan
followed by Shuswap residents. Of note, is the insignificance of the seasonal user’s responses
which total 24 (1%) respondents.
Question 6
Zone 1 - Mara Lake to Baxter Bridge
500
400
45% (851)
52% (983)
300
200
100
0
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree or
Disagree
Disagree
British Columbia, but outside of the Okanagan or Shuswap
Central or South Okanagan
North Okanagan
Out of Province
Shuswap
Seasonal
Strongly Disagree
Zone 2 – Lower Shuswap River from the Baxter Bridge (Trinity Valley Rd)
upstream to the eastern (upstream) end of Skookumchuck Rapids Park – no
motorized vessels.
With regards to Zone 2 a total of 1,890 responses were recorded with a slightly greater portion of
the respondents strongly agreeing with the proposed boating regulations (40%) followed by a
further 6% in agreement. The overwhelming support of those in agreement with the proposal in
Zone 2 is again from respondents within the North Okanagan and Shuswap regions. In
comparison 44% of the respondents are generally in dis-agreement with the proposed regulations
within Zone 2. It is evident that of those who strongly disagree, the largest proportion of the
respondents are from the North Okanagan (32%), Shuswap (25%) and Outside the Province.
500
Question 6
Zone 2 - Baxter Bridge upstream to Skookumchuck Rap
400
44% (832)
46% (869)
300
200
100
0
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree or
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
North Okanagan
Out of Province
Shuswap
Seasonal
Zone 3 - Mid Shuswap River from South Mabel Lake upstream to the
Shuswap Falls – no motorized vessels.
In the case of Zone 3, a total of 1,884 responses were recorded with 39% strongly in support and
a further 7% in agreement with the proposed boating regulations. Again it is evident that the
majority (81%) of those in support are from the North Okanagan and Shuswap regions. 35% of
the respondents strongly disagree with a further 7% disagreeing to the boating regulations in Zone
3. Again there seems to be an even re-distribution between those respondents in agreement and
not throughout the zones. It is furthermore evident that those out of province and seasonal
respondent responses are in general against the proposed regulations no matter the particular
zone.
There is in the case of Zone 3, a large proportion of the respondents not certain of their choice
and hence recorded 258 respondents neither in support or dis-agreement to the regulations. One
can assume the lack of their exposure and or experience to particular section of the river systems.
Question 6
Zone 3 - South Mabel lake to Shuswap Falls
400
350
46% (867)
300
42% (791)
250
200
150
100
50
0
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree or
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
North Okanagan
Out of Province
Shuswap
Seasonal
Note: Having assessed and considering the general feedback of the responses per proposed
zone and region of origin (geographic location), it is quite evident and can be assumed that the
same respondents commented the same irrespective of the particular zone. The differences are
negligible but apparent. Refer to diagram below.
Question 6
Summary of Respondents per Zone by Geographic Location
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
British Columbia, Central or South North Okanagan
but outside of the
Okanagan
Okanagan or
Shuswap
Zone 1
Out of Province
Zone 2
Shuswap
Seasonal
Zone 3
Summarizing the responses per proposed zone, it is notably evident that the most respondents
provided their responses across the different zones, with no particular preference to a section of
the Shuswap River. Furthermore the majority of the respondents are from the North Okanagan
and Shuswap Areas.
Question If access for non-motorized vessels such as float boats,
kayaks & canoes was improved (put in and take outs),
7
would your level of support for the proposed regulations
change?
The majority of the respondents (68% of 1,913) did note their attitude towards the proposed
boating regulations would remain unchanged whether or not non-motorized vessel access to the
Shuswap River was improved.
No. of Responses
Question 7 - Non-motorized Change View towards
Regulations
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Increased Support
1
424
No-change to level of support
1292
Decresed level of support
197
Attitude to Improved Access
Question Where do you live?
8
Of a total of 1,921 respondents the majority are from the North Okanagan and Shuswap region
representing 67%.
Question 8 - Geographical Location
Out of Province
16%
Other
4%
BC, but outside
Okanagan/Shus
wap
8%
Central or South
Okanagan
5%
North Okanagan
40%
Shuswap
27%
With regards to those respondents outside the Okanagan Region, 8% indicated their origin as
from Kamloops, Revelstoke, North Vancouver, Kootenays, with a further 16% from a far as
Alberta (Calgary and Edmonton). A few reported their seasonal visits to the Shuswap River as
being periodic and residing as far as Ottawa, Florida (USA) and Switzerland.
Question Do you own or work for a Business that is influenced by
motorized boating on the Shuswap River?
9
Of the total of 1,895 respondents 94% recorded the motorized boating industry in no way affects
their economic livelihood.
Question
10
Do you represent a business or organization? If so please
provide the nature of the organization e.g. boat retail
outlet, recreational fishing organization and if you wish,
the name of the organization.
The table below provides a general overview of the various business/organizations represented
within the immediate surrounds i.e. Enderby and who are directly contributing or associated with
the local economy and related recreational sector. It is evident that a number of business are
dependent on the seasonal tourism influx, outdoor activities on and along the Shuswap River and
or complementary support services.
Business Representation
Ashton Creek general Store
BC Trapper Association
Grants Tackle Box
Gibson Motor Toys
Central Alberta River Boat Ass.
City of Enderby
Eagle Valley
Entity unknown
Entity unknown
Entity unknown
Lower Shuswap Stewardship Society
Resident & Cottage Owner
Elements Adventure Company Ltd
Kanu Tips Paddling School
Entity unknown
Support Industry
Individual / Resident
Kalamalka Flyfisher Society
Mable Lake Golf & Country Club
Enterprise
Mara Station B&B
Kingfisher Community Society
Entity unknown
Trinity Dairies Ltd - Farmer
Mara Food Liner
Adventure Company
Rehbekah Camp Site
Evolution Boats
Riverfront Pub & Grill
Shuswap Trail Alliance
Shuswap Environmental Action Society
Waterside Winery
Wildmark Pharmacy
Canadian Cadet Movement
Local Economic Development Support
Consumables, groceries, daily needs
Trapping & Hunting Excursions
Boat Sales, Services & Fishing Accessories
Boat Sales & Services
Unknown
Development Control
Storage
Campground (RV's & Tenting)
Outdoor Adventure Groups – use river for recreation
Realtor
Membership Club – river stewardship
Support local economy
Recreational Activities, canoe guides, tours and teaching skills
Educational/training/coaching
Restaurant
Aluminum Welding Shop - boat building
Seasonal Employment
Membership – use of river for recreation youth focus
Hospitality & Recreation
Parks Maintenance - Opportunity
Hospitality & Accommodation
Membership Club – use of river for recreational purposes
Mechanical Repairs
Support & contribute to local Economy
Groceries & Fuel
Canoe guide, tours and
Members only
Boat Builder & repairs
Entertainment & hospitality
Non-motorized recreation, paddling
Nature Conservation
Agri-tourism & Hospitality
Support & contribute to local economy
Youth Organization use river for canoe trips
Question
11 & 12
Do you have any comments with respect to recreational
activities on the Shuswap River? If so please describe
them here. And Question Twelve (12) - Please provide
any further comments you would like to make with
respect to the proposed Shuswap River Boating
Regulations?
The responses with regards to question 11 and 12 are very similar and perhaps identical when
analyzing the data sets. In both cases a total of 1,223 responses were recorded.
The additional comments received were open-ended with input varying from general statements,
providing individual perspectives and opinions, to those with sincere concerns and in some
instances a passionate outcry in-support thereof, to those not in-favour of the proposed boating
regulations. To make some sense within reason, the comments were grouped into apparent
themes to obtain a better understanding of the overall responses. The table below outlines a
synopsis of the themes recorded and the number of comments related with the particular subject.
Comments by Theme
Need to find Alternatives
Agree with Proposal
Do NOT agree with Proposal
Environmental Integrity
Other problems on River than Boats
Erosion not Caused by Boats
Motorized Boats don’t have impact as Suggested
Can Recreate and be Responsible
Consider further Zone (Shuswap Falls to Sugar Lake
Tubers are a problem
Property Ownership have the right on River
Economic Impact – Commercial interest with be Compromised
Noise
Regulations would need more Enforcement
Boating Season Short
Concern with Process followed – assertions
10hp do create wake
River is Transportation Link
River should be for ALL
Specific concern is with Jet Boats & See-Doos
Not all Boaters are Disrespectful
Access to Fishing
Comments by Number
253
140
135
76
73
66
55
45
35
33
30
33
23
22
22
52
7
7
3
2
2
18
In reaction to both the questions the responses were noticeably many “for” the boating regulations
and many as “against” such. Although some of the comments were emotionally directed, many
put forward suggested alternatives to be considered to find a suitable compromise (as some
called it – a balance) to protect on the one-hand and enjoy in responsible manner on the other
hand. The majority of the respondents contributed in a rational manner, however with strong
feelings towards user-conflict with safety being compromised and environmental detriments,
hence in support of the proposed regulations. Concurrently, another segment of the responses
were in dis-agreement with the proposed regulations referencing economic impacts, motorized
boating do not necessarily have the environmental impact as suggested, river offers variety of
recreational activities and should be permitted to use, boating season is short, to commercial
interest will be compromised.
The following alternative restrictions were suggested by the respondents as feedback to be
considered as control measures influencing the proposed regulations.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Speed Limit Restrictions
Non-motorized Boating
Consider additional / different Zones
Ban Towing / Skiing / Boarding
Enforcement - Policing & Patrol
Limit Tuber Users
Restrict Boat Length
Seasonal Restrictions
Promote Non-motorized Use
Electric Motors Only
Signage & Education
Restrict Engine Size
No Wake
No Jet Boats / Sea-Doos
To include Upstream to Sugar Lake
With regards to the alternative considerations or suggested restrictions, a large group were in
support of a speed restriction with clear signage at high potential incident/conflict zones, banning
towing, skiing, boarding and use of wakeboards, promoting non-motorized use, seasonal
restriction, to considering an additional sub-zone.
4.0
OPEN HOUSE ENGAGEMENT SESSIONS
The following section provides an overview of the comments received and noted during the
respective open house sessions held throughout the region. The comments are recorded as
those in favour “agree” and those against “disagree” with the proposed boating regulations on the
Shuswap River per defined zone, as well as suggested alternatives to be considered during the
process going forward. Refer to Appendix B for more detail.
4.1
Enderby Open House - June 10th 2015
The following insert provides a summary of the statement/comments made during this session
per proposed Zone, broken into those agreeing and those dis-agreeing with the proposed boating
regulations.
Zone 1: From the mouth of the Lower Shuswap River at Mara Lake to the Baxter
Bridge (Trinity Valley Rd) – vessel engine size limit of 10 Horse power.
Agree
•
To impose speed zone restriction
•
To it being unsafe for public use without regulations with specific reference to wake disturbance
•
Consideration towards the environmental health of the river
•
In favour to restrict the engine size with 10hp as compromise
•
Consider noise zone and potential impacts
•
Support and promote self-propelled recreation – with personal health and environmental benefit
•
Contribute to ecological values
•
Environmental sustainability - pollution control
•
Safety of all Users
•
Unsafe watercraft usage
•
Restrict / limit the use tubers, sea-doo’s
Disagree
•
Property entitlement – bought for this reason and don’t need permission
•
Different types of recreational users – “responsibility rest with all of us” – don’t penalize safe
boaters
•
High water also impacts the river banks
•
Will negatively impact the local economy – restriction will deter potential users
•
Seasonal users are the insensitive and un-educated users
•
Boating is a way of life – livelihood
Summary Suggestions
•
Speed restriction in high-use zones incorporate signage and educating seasonal users
•
Retain health of Shuswap River System – protect environmental integrity
•
Engine size restriction to maximum of 10hp
•
No towing, jet boating/skiing
•
Safety of all users needs to be considered
•
Boat count to qualify and confirm context and scale of usage
•
Zone should be re-defined as from the mouth of the Lower Shuswap River at Mara Lake to
Enderby
•
Property owners responsible maintain and protect river banks
•
Commissionaires to help with enforcement
Zone 2: Lower Shuswap River from the Baxter Bridge (Trinity Valley Rd)
upstream to the eastern (upstream) end of Skookumchuck Rapids Park – no
motorized vessels.
Agree
•
Need for more non-motorized recreation
•
Protect the valuable natural eco-systems
•
Safety – no motorized boats
•
Environmental integrity – ecologically sensitive
•
Predominantly canoe, kayak and rafting section of the river
•
Best Salmon habitat – pristine wilderness area
•
Rivers need to be protected – use the lakes!
Disagree
•
Negative impact on property investment – bought with intent to use boat
•
Out of Towners (floaters) show disrespect
•
Impact business activity – trapping & hunting
Summary Suggestions
•
Dedicating boating routes at low water and during spawning
•
Mabel lake to Baxter bridge – no boats
•
Baxter bridge to Enderby – no jet boats, when swimmers are present limit speed to 10mph
•
Enderby to Mara – no jet boats, when swimmers are present limit speed to 10mph
Zone 3: From the mouth of Mid Shuswap River at Mabel Lake South upstream
to the Shuswap Falls – no motorized vessels.
Agree
•
Protect wildlife and environmental values
•
Many alternative sites (lakes) for boating – not here!
•
Environmentally Sensitive Area
Disagree
•
Question – who will police
•
Waste of time and money
Summary Suggestions
•
Promote co-use by everyone (leave river for non-motorized users
•
Restrict all that includes canoes, kayak, etc. during spawning and smelt season
•
Non-motorized all the way to Sugar Lake
Mabel Lake Hall Open House - June 11th 2015
Not many comments were received although the following are noteworthy to share as part of the
analysis.
•
Suggest the use of electric boats
•
No motorized boats along the whole river system
•
Protect wildlife, environmental pollution
•
Need to study to clarify bank erosion impact – boats don’t alone cause sole erosion
•
Zone 3 – too narrow to navigate safely
•
Speed limit – don’t take away boats
Summary Suggestions
•
Educate teaching people how to safely use river
•
Speed limit restriction – not engine size
•
No motorized boating from Mara Lake to Kingfisher
•
No motorized boating past the Shuswap River Delta where the Shuswap River enters Mabel Lake
i.e. Oddfellows
•
No motorized boating from Mara & Greenbush
•
Zone 2 – Upper 50hp or 25kph limit light boats causing less wake
•
Police the river
•
Allow boating only during certain seasonal time – consider fish life cycle
•
Include Zone 4 – middle Shuswap River and Sugar Lake to Wilsey Dam
4.2
Enderby Art Festival - July 25th 2015
None to note
4.3
Grindrod Garlic Festival - August 16th 2015
None of note
5.0
CONCLUDING REMARKS
It is noticeably evident that there is a large portion of the respondents generally in favour of the proposed
boating regulations across the entire section of the Shuswap River irrespective of the proposed zone, as
well as some respondents in support of finding a compromise, subject to alternative restriction with due
consideration to multi-users, speed restrictions, appropriate signage, protecting the environmental integrity
and considering additional zones. On the other hand there are equal proportions of respondents against
the proposed regulations, again irrespective of the particular zone or use of vessel type or engine size.
The opinions shared, concerns raised and overall appreciation for the initiative undertaken, has reported
mixed viewpoints. The data gathered is not of such nature that the analysis could be a clear-cut formulation
towards “those in-favour and those not-favour”, hence the need to be objective and sensitive to the
responses recorded. The table below outlines a comparison between the zones in relation to question 6.
Proposed Zone
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Agree
45%
46%
46%
Disagree
52%
44%
42%
Neither
3%
10%
12%
*Geographic Location
North Okanagan Shuswap Area
*The majority of the responses from the particular geographical location.
With regards to question eleven and twelve, the additional comments recorded are inclined towards finding
an amicable solution that acknowledges and respect the Shuswap River System as a valuable natural asset
to be preserved with significant recreational usage opportunities promoting local economic growth and
development.
With opposing views and cross spectrum responses as well as a lack of consensus towards the proposed
boating regulations per defined zones, it is proposed that the following zone variations with suggested
guiding controls, limiting conditions and restrictions be considered as options.
*Note any final boating regulations will need to comply with Transport Canada Guidelines/Requirements
Zone 1A – Lower Shuswap River at Mara Lake upstream to Enderby (Bridge Crossing)
•
Permit Multi-Users (motorized, non-motorized and recreational)
•
Impose speed zone restriction (entire section or partly linked to high intensity use or conflict safety
zones incorporating appropriate signage)
•
No vessel type or engine type restriction
•
Educational program for seasonal users
•
Seasonal enforcement (incorporate public monitoring)
Zone 1B – Lower Shuswap River from Enderby upstream to Baxter Bridge (Trinity Valley
Rd)
•
Permit Multi-Users (motorized, non-motorized and recreational)
•
Impose speed zone restriction (entire section or partly linked to high intensity use or conflict safety
zones incorporating appropriate signage)
•
No vessel type restriction
•
Limited vessel engine size limit to 10hp
•
•
Zone 2 – Baxter Bridge (Trinity Valley Rd) to the eastern upstream end of Skookumchuck
Rapid Park (Mable Lake)
•
Permit Multi-Users (only non-motorized and recreational users)
•
Dedicate boating routes at low water and during spawning (promote environmental protection)
•
•
•
Exemptions for commercial operators (e.g. trappers & fishing guides)
Zone 3 – Mouth of Mid Shuswap River at Mabel Lake upstream to Shuswap Falls
•
Permit non-motorized and recreational users
•
Zone 4 – Shuswap Falls (Wilsey Dam) upstream to Sugar Lake
•
Permit non-motorized and recreational users
•
In view of the proposed options, it is recommended that the RDNO do pursue further discussions working
closely with focused interest groups representing a particular zone (section of river) to consider alternative
restrictions and or controls guiding appropriate regulations. In conclusion, it is evident that there is a need
for general agreement and support within the community to find best workable solutions to reduce conflict
between the user groups, hence the need to continue the dialogue.
APPENDIX A
Zone Mapping
Zone 1
Lower Shuswap River from Mara Lake Upstream
to Baxter Bridge (Trinity Valley Road)
/
Mara Lake
Rosemond
Legend
Engine size limit 10 hp
No motorized vessels
Chinook and Sockeye Spawing Areas
2011, Lower Shuswap River Inventory,
Mapping and Aquatic Habitat Index
Hw
y9
7A
LOWER SHUSWAP RIVER
!
Grindrod
Hw
y9
Ende
rby
Grind
rod R
o
ad
7B
Hw
y9
7A
!
1:24,000
Enderby
Road
e
k
a
L
l
e
b
a
M
y
Enderb
Ashton Creek
BAXTER BRIDGE T
rin
(Trinity Valley Road) ity Va
lle
y
R
oa
d
/
Zone 2
Lower Shuswap River from Baxter Bridge (Trinity Valley Road)
to the eastern (upstream) end of Skookumchuck Rapids Park
Legend
Engine size limit 10hp
Kingfisher
Skookumchuck Rapids Park
Provincial Parks
Chinook and Sockeye Spawning Areas
2011, Lower Shuswap River Inventory,
Mapping and Aquatic Habitat Index
LOWER SHUSWAP RIVER
Trinity Valley Rd
Ashton Creek
erby
End
BAXTER BRIDGE
1:24,000
a
el L
b
a
M
d
ke R
Shuswap River Islands Park
Mabel Lake
Mabel Lake
Zone 3
Mid Shuswap River from Mabel Lake
Upstream to Shuswap Falls.
Legend
Engine size limit 10hp
Chinook, Sockeye, Coho Spawning Areas
Lumby M
abel Lak
e Rd
MID SHUSWAP RIVER
m
Lu
d
Lake Roa
l
e
b
a
M
y
Lumb
1:18,000
by
M
el
ab
k
La
e
a
Ro
d
SHUSWAP FALLS
/
APPENDIX B
Open House Engagement Sessions
June 10th Open House Enderby - Zone 1 Comments
AGREE
In favour of setting up speed zones in certain sections i.e.: from Enderby Bridge to Tuey Park. Ban all out speed boats and enforce dangerous operation of watercraft
i.e.: cutting power turns etc. Possibly lower speeds at maximum water height
In favour of banning skii8ng, waterboarding and screwing around.
Boating restrictions are absolutely necessary.
Agree, Witness lots of erosion from boats/ jet skis, irrigation water also silted up.
Restrict it for all. Boaters are making the river unsafe for the public who want to enjoy it without a boat
Governments are here to do the right thing. Too often they fail.
Agree with the proposed regulation for Zone 1. Wake disturbance and safety concerns need to be addressed. This proposal goes some way towards this.
Zone 1 regulations are needed and necessary for the health of the river and riverbanks. Motorboats are creating wash which erodes river banks and deposits silt in the
river. While some boaters are responsible others seem to have a complete disregard for the river. It is not a highway. A restriction in engine size and boater education
are necessary to prevent further damage to property and fish habitat.
I am against any motorized boats on the Shuswap however a restriction of a 10hp motor would be a compromise for boat users. The difficulty is still reinforcing the
safety aspect of people who disregard the rights of other users. A no motorized restriction would be less cost to reinforce. Unfortunately the boaters who have
disregarded the safety of others and a total lack of respect for the river and its environment and wildlife has led us to these consultations.
I am opposed to any powerboat use on the river. In an age where people all around the world are actively looking for ways to reduce carbon emissions, we need to
examine how we recreate. Powerboats emit carbon for no necessary reason and cause a whole host of other issues. Noise, erosion and safety etc. If there were no
powerboats on the river it would encourage much more self-propelled recreation with health and environmental benefits. Kids could be learning skills such as paddleboarding, kayaking, canoeing, dragon boating, rowing etc. And in the process a new recreational paragon (much more environmental benefits) would grow.
I agree with limiting engine size to 10hp in Zone 1. I haven't spent much time on the river (we moved here 2 years ago). But would love to try paddle boarding or tubing
on the river. If we don’t take care of the river and our environment in general, we will be regretful down the road. The beauty of the river as a wildlife habitat will be
lost, and we will be left with a dead canal.
Policing any policy will be very challenging in these days of ongoing budget cutbacks. The only answer is regulation with concrete limiters. I see no problem with a small
motor cap.
I think the proposed 10hp limit and no wake is the perfect scenario to this objective. With all the lakes in the area the need for fast boating and water skiing on the
shuswap is an accident waiting to happen. As well as all the fish you would kill or maim. Maybe not enough people injured or? bank erosion is another concern.
Somebody is going to have to die to settle this issue. Take the big boats to Mara Lake - use the kickers to get there. Why should some wealthy Albertan who is only
here 6 weeks/year be allowed to treat this as his private playground.
I agree with the proposed regulations. I am hoping decisions will be made politically considering all aspects of the river - erosion, wildlife, fish and the spiritual values.
I've lived on the river for 35 years. The evidence appears clear to me that it needs us to be its caretaker. Don't judge or make a decision based on who is the loudest.
People are just one part of the equation.
For the health of the river and to reduce heart attacks in the people it should be restricted to low boats, canoes and small sailboats.
I have personally seen the bank erosion caused by higher HP boats and PWC's while standing on the bank watching them go by. We need to protect the wildlife and
ecological values and especially the Salmon runs. It takes a long time for the silty water to clear after a boater goes by and this must surely affect the fish and the water
users (domestic) along the river. Boaters have plenty of larger water bodies to pursue their sport.
I am against motorized vehicles on any part of the Shuswap river. There should also be fines for people who litter and dump their garbage in the river. We are in a time
where we can take steps to reduce the pollution and make the Shuswap a non-contaminated river. If we don't act now there will be no turning back. The affects from
people who disregard the river and safety of others is becoming a bigger problem each year! We need to protect the Shuswap - Its environment and wildlife BEFORE
profit!
I strongly agree with the proposed regs. A 10hp limit would decrease environmental and erosion concerns, protect wildlife, and reduce safety concerns for other nonmotorized river users.
An engine size limit of 10hp is the absolute maximum. I would prefer non-motorized craft only. Why? Water turbidity, fish habitat, bank erosion and noise. There is no
need for waterskiing on the river with Mara Lake and Shuswap Lake near by i.e.: down river. How much will it cost in taxpayers dollars to enforce the 10hp The river
belongs to all of us!!!
Could be one idea but who is going to enforce this motor regulation and what about sea-doos. How many times have we frozen in fright when boats or sea-doos hardly
slowing down weaving around my children at paddlewheel beach or in and out of all the tubers (100's of them!!!) The lakes are for the boats etc.
I fully support the proposed regulation on Zone 1
I am for the proposed boating regulations in Zone 1. We live on Shuswap River and are concerned about the safety of all users, impact to wildlife and fish and bank
erosion. Our bank is eroding from natural causes (high water, current etc.) and from boats going by frequently in the busy season. If no regulation is allowed at least it
should be made easier for property owners to take actions to protect the bank. It is almost impossible now to do anything along the river (fisheries regulations) to
protect the bank. We have tried in the past to go through the right ways to do what's needed to protect the bank, but was too costly just be cause of all the approval
processes and beaurocratic headaches we had to go through. It would be good to make this process more accessible combined with continued recreational activities on
the river (10hp in Zone 1)
I am very much in favour of special restrictions on the Shuswap river. We have an adjacent property - love to kayak and canoe and float on the water. But the motor
boats and skiers all travel at high speed making this an extremely dangerous situation. I am also very concerned about the bank erosion and disturbance to the
fish/wildlife habitat. A speed restriction and no wake, rule to me makes a lot of sense.
People in general are being more environmentally conscious. Just as trails are becoming more and more popular and bring in tourists to the Okanagan/Shuswap - so to
our peaceful river activities that aren't harmful and are in general more health and promote sustainability of fish and waterfowl habitat. Boaters have many other
options than our rivers especially around Enderby/Grindrod areas. Lets at least limit size of HP if not eliminate boaters from Area 1.
I have lived on the river for 30 years. Seen natural damage and damage from speed boats - in the last week we had two speed boats come by. We live at Ashton Creek
they both threw beer cans out of their boats. In reality to me the river doesn’t belong to the boaters or floaters its the environment if we don't do something now - its
going to cost millions to clean up our act.
Agree - no need for speed
Our environment is more important than money or large boat purchases. Changes / restrictions must be enforced so the river stays healthy! No price can be put on the
health of a river and the wildlife that depend on it.
There is room for everyone to use this waterway and respect their fellow users. Take your garbage home and stay to one side to pass just like in the boating regs. After
July there is not enough water to run a large boat anyway. How will this effect our "Eco Tourism" proposal? I am a boater and I say boaters stay off the sensitive areas.
There are other place to go.
No wake - no river bank erosion. No fish destruction. Take your wakes to the lake. Who is going to pay for my bank riprap. If you erode you should pay. I have lost 10
horizontal feet in 10 years. Highways paid for 1 km of riprap 1/2 km from my 384 ft. of shore. The birds and fish are more important to me than the abusers of the
habitat.
Fully agree - the 10hp and/or a speed limit is long overdue. Having grown up on Ontario lakes, it is bizarre to me that anyone would expect to move unrestricted on a
river or to waterski!! Wow!!!When we have such fabulous lakes nearby why would someone expect so speed on a river.
Money wont save the river for future users. We need a sustainable watershed for our children's children to enjoy and benefit from. This river especially in the Enderby
area is very accessible even in a large boat with a small motor. Regulation is required because common sense and responsible use of river is not controllable.
Restrictions are necessary. This is an important fish and bird river. Nearly all boats are out there for thrills - noisy, fast and usually accompanied with drinking. Jet skis,
wake boards, boats cause major problems. I have been swamped and tipped in my canoe, also within inches of being run over. This is not a big river but it is a real
important one - lets protect it. A speed reduction should be enforced as well as the boating and drinking. those that live on the river should be allowed to use it for
travel but with speed restrictions. The "I have a right to destroy bunch" should go back to wherever they are from and wreck/pollute there.
We have 2 boats and still feel all we boaters should stay out of the entire river canal.
2015 DFO/Okanagan College research (R. Bauer) indicates 1,000 passes at the Bruns research site in ONE week (August long weekend) 10hp vessels are not the majority
of vessels by far. Erosion in that week is greater than erosion from high water. Safety on non-motorized users is at risk. Wake Boats make canoeing & even >10hp
boats difficult to control. Wildlife & habitat and the spiritual renewal offered by the natural river environment are values that matter, all the rights boaters claim are not
more important then the rights of the fish, birds, and other wildlife and aquatic invertebrates and on down the food chain.
10hp lower only no speed boats or higher hp, turbidity/bank erosion #1 concerns, salmon and fish habitat #2 concern, bird and wildlife habitat #3 concern, 39 years
living on the shuswap have witnessed atrocious misuse and disrespect, pollution not excluding open urination and disposal of beverage containers and cheap floaties.
My domestic water maintenance annually costs $1500 due to motor boat turbidity. Unsafe watercraft usage circling and dodging around our family, friends and pets.
39 years and over 1000 people rescued at night not knowing river and float times. They cant believe its still 8 hours to Grindrod from N. Enderby Timber
I would prefer to see a total power ban but can live with a ten hp restriction. We need to protect the ecological and wildlife values on the river. I have personally seen
the silting and erosion aspects of passing motorboats. There are plenty of open lake areas for high powered boaters to enjoy their sport. I am sure that people will still
go to a dealer and buy a boat irregardless of whether there is a restriction on the river or not as there are plenty of other areas to use their boats. We have a chance to
do some real good by implementing this restriction. The 10hp allowance will permit fishermen and leisurely boaters to pursue their sport and is a good compromise.
I am in favour of the regulation for this part of the river. Regardless of the debate about bank erosion. There is evidence that motor boats cause bottom disturbance. I
think this stretch of the river is suitable only for low horsepower slow moving motor boats. Also as this stretch is used so much by swimmers.
Limiting HP is a good 1st step. We need to think more about the rights of all wildlife, salmon, river, environment and less about the supposed rights of the few.
Keep the river healthy. The science is there - facts should dictate the decisions. The local gov'ts make and the federal govt should be responsive. Should temporary or
seasonal residents dictate the future wellness of our river system?
I am opposed to any powerboats in Zone 1
No more than 10 HP please - big accommodation
Enderby Drill Hall is full of boaters and concerned citizens - if this is an indication of the boating traffic on the river - please please as lovers of the river - lets all get
together and preserve the Shuswap River and its aquatic inhabitants. There are many miles of water surface for fast boats to play on; On lakes. Please care for the
river.
Our society today is increasingly becoming "its' all about me". When do we start making it about saving our natural resources? It seems a lot of river users are only
thinking about their pleasure - with no regard to the health of our water system or other users! No wake around the beaches. My parents live near the waterwheel and
witness numerous occasions of speed boats, even pulling tubers at high speeds near the swimmers. I've even seen boats crash along the sandbar. It's just a matter of
time before a tragic accident is going to happen. I'm in favour of slow motorized vessels, to help protect peoples property as well. Livestock be fenced off and not have
access to the water.
The health of the river is most important, by encouraging more boats with bigger motors it will destroy the river for all. As time goes on there will always be more
boaters not less. Please impose no boating/10horsepower
Jet boats and other speed boats are a hazard and should be restricted to the lakes. We have lots of lakes no shortage. Perhaps those with bigger boats who live along
the river could get special license to travel to and from the lake. Possible solution for the Albertans.
I think there should be no motorized boats on the river they can go to the lake. Tubers are in danger of getting hit people are drinking and boating. And we have lost a
lot of property due to erosion, we put no wake signs up and the neighbours make sure to circle in front of our intake pipe for 30 minutes at a time. We cannot use
water at that time because it would break our intake pump no to motorized boats.
I am a boat owner yet not selfish enough to damage our river and banks. My boat has not and will not ever go into the Shuswap River at any point., Lakes are many and
easy to access. Damage to the river/bed/salmon/banks etc. Risk of injury or death. These are by far more important than my desire to boat the river. Don't be so lazy
and disrespectful people. Your convenience is not a priority over our habitat. The river was here first take your boat to the lake, as my family does. Float the river,
canoe, kayak or paddleboard. You can even noodle it!
A good proposal that makes sense for those who care about sustainability. Those who support unrestricted boating should think less about their personal interests and
more about the long view. Increased boat traffic can only cause habitat danger and create safety risks for other users. No rational person could say otherwise. There
are plenty of other options of high speed boaters.
Restrict boating on the Shuswap! Why should a few people profit at the expense of the impact on the river and the safety of others. Canoes, kayakers and tubers spend
money too! Enforce the NOISE POLLUTION big boats and loud music. This would go away with boat restrictions
Where are the animal rights to habitat?
Boats are causing huge harm to our river. Erosion happens in a system. So the high water washes away and deposits sediment. The areas being undercut by boat wake
then get sloughed off the bank at high water. Its part of the erosion system and boat wake exacerbates the erosion in problem areas. Also the bank wake washes
sediment from the banks into the center river channel. This fills in the salmon spawning redds. There is a reason you don't see many salmon spawning areas left in
Zone 1 - boat traffic. And if you want the salmon to spawn there you need to bring back the redds.
Why is the survey open to people to fill out who don’t live in our area? How much "weight" will their answers have coming to a decision? Especially out of province
visitors who are only here for a short time and don’t have to deal with the consequences of bank erosion impact on wildlife and cleaning up garbage. Who and how will
a decision be made on the proposed restrictions?
Total = 53
DISAGREE
Regulations not required! It's a river….High water, spring run off and heavy rain create more erosion problems than any amount of boats.
Erosion is 99% caused by natural phenomena mostly freshet.
People own on this river so they can boat. RDNO should spend the money to patrol it instead of limiting people.
Not in favor of 10hp restriction
We paid a premium for waterfront property so we could enjoy the river including boating to shuswap lake. It is not viable to come up river with 10hp.
Don't need the regulations to limit boats. Stop all the piss & excrement and pollution the tubers do, let alone the cattle and treated sewage that goes into the system
too! Is water quality not the real issue? The amount of boats is so, so small. Everyone is missing the point. Go do a boat count! See for yourself.
No engine size requirement the river is a road same as the highway. Originally a means of transportation paddle wheeler. Yes there are people that abuse it. But far
more people with motorized boats respect it. It would be a shame to ruin the recreational use of the river because of a few bad people. "No rules" allow boating
I am against 10hp on river from Mara Lake to Baxter bridge. Open mike required.
All involved should respect the river, fish and habitat. Boat with care of others and the environment. Don’t take away the privilege but respect the right.
Leave the river the way it is. NO RESTRICTIONS. Who is going to clean up after the tubers? I lived here for 43 years born here we deserve to use the river.
Totally disagree, no accidents, no proof the 6 weeks of boating causes all the erosion. Have the visitors get boating licenses. This is absurd. Garbage from tubers is
disgusting!!! Ridiculous meeting, should be open mike.
I am in favour of watercraft users on the river as there are many different recreational users and use for the river. I have been on the river several times and the boaters
have always been respectful no matter it be a paddleboat or a motorized boat.
Total disagree! High water creates more problems than a few boaters. Get rid of tube town!!!
I love boating. If you were worried about banks eroding you would let owners on riverfront pound posts or put concrete down But instead you just let it erode. Leave
the boats on!!
As far as erosion I have seen numerous cows on the river banks knee deep, breaking up the banks! Also I have photos of fertilizer and shit dumped in river and floating
by for 1/2 hour or more in early 5am mornings. Leave boaters enjoy the river and have respect for each other.
When I purchased my place I paid a premium so I could use the river. My taxes will not go down nor will the premium I paid for the property.
I am against the proposed regulation as tabled. I hold a commercial provincial tenure and this regulation would impact my ability to carry out my business activities. I
do not recreate on the river. I operate commercially from Mid Sept to Mid April. I cannot operate with a 10hp restriction.
I don’t think it is the size of the motor that is the problem with boating on the river - it is the size of the brain.
No to restricting the river and no need to be on there in high water.
As a resident of Zone 1 I wish to express the fact I feel the proposal to ban on boating will have a very negative effect on the economy, but I further feel most erosion is
caused by natural flow when the river is in flood. Boating is a privilege and should be enjoyed as part of our heritage. I have not observed dead fry on either the creek
or river banks which surround my property. Overall the Shuswap should remain a pleasure to all.
I total disagree with boating restrictions on the river. There are so many things that come into play. I have been boating on the river for over 30 years and have never
had a problem to date. Common sense and respect for others would eliminate conflict and natural erosion is going to happen over time. Banning some but not all
activity on the river, takes from some while giving to others. We live here because of the river and surrounding area - to lose it would change the way we live.
I use the river every day I live in Enderby. I like campfires, fishing, boating and floating down the river. The river is for all tubers, kayakers and boating. The river is for
everyone.
There should be no restrictions on the Shuswap river. I strongly disagree with proposed regulations stewardship and safe boating practices are what keeps the river
enjoyable for all.
I am against this proposition. Open up the hand launches to power boats so they don’t have to go up the river as far when they are fishing. In my opinion the tubers are
doing more harm by littering in the river. Cans, old tubes, glass bottles
I strongly disagree with this proposed regulation. I have used the river regularly with my family for 11 years and this proposal seems to address the voice of a few
leaving the voice of many unheard. We use the river safely in motorized and non-motorized craft and we respect the great resource we all should continue to have
access to.
Born and raised on the river owner of 2 boats and family owns riverfront property. Am a local user with boat with common sense and courtesy
Not in favour - put it to a vote of the community - no changes more transparency is needed have meetings at a time when Albertans are most likely to be in attendance.
I am definitely not in favour of these regulations or banning boats from the river. My family has been here for 3 generations and is in the marine boat business. It is the
bread and butter. If you bring these regs in to place you will kill a lot of business and tourism in the Enderby area and thus Enderby will become a ghost town and no
one will want to come visit here or spend any money. Go look at Big Lakes or Shuswap or OK lake if you want to see big boats. I'm in favor of everyone using the river
and thus using their heads this includes fisherman, floaters, swimmers, tubes and boaters. Respect use sensibly. Boats and floaters and salmon fish are welcome here.
We jet ski every year respectfully. We don’t litter, but actually pickup litter from tubers. We spend over $2000/yr. in fuel, food and of course the odd beer. This whole
issue is self serving to the few as a whole, allowing free use of this river greatly benefits the area economically. We stay away in the spring when the water is high to
avoid conflict with select land owners.
Not in agreement because many crafts with different size motors can make all sorts of wakes, pollution and noise. The only way to stop what is happening on the river
now is to enforce a speed limit in zone 1. Put some $$ into training and enforcement. We live on the river and have 5 acres all along it. We are willing to pay our fair
share to have an enforced speed limit. Also, Tuey Park, where the swimmers go, should be dredged back to a more reasonable encroachment on the river. The sandbar
there has become so huge there is nowhere for the water to go therefore it is eating away at every corner and bank along much of Zone 1, from Enderby bridge to Tuey
Park.
In response to bank erosion I have noticed that at my place, boating traffic does leave a line of muddy water along the higher banks that are mostly clay. However I
notice evidence of the banks falling in after the flood stage is going down. As for water turbidity the absolute worst was or is when a creek washes out. This puts more
mud and silt in the river than any boat traffic. The river is now shallower than ever and this causes bigger floods and more pollution than any vehicle traffic on the river.
I suggest that dredging of certain spots on the river would cut down on more damage to the banks than any other restrictions.
First of all the zone should be Mara Lake to Enderby because water flow is similar. A 10hp limit does not reconcile the users, it eliminates and alienates boat owners on
the river in favour of a minority of floaters. If all boat owners in Mara have to launch at lake there is no room at provincial park - 12 stalls always full already. Property
owners all the way to Enderby are cut off access to the lake. With these points in mind I realize boats and wakes are bigger so I recommend a no tow zone - easy to
enforce.
No at low tide only! The river creates the main erosion.
Not in favour of 10hp because slower the boat more wake they make.
I strongly disagree with the proposed changes. There are NO FACTS to back the idea that eliminating boats would have a significant positive impact. Boating on the
river is safer than the lake (Fact) The riverbanks will erode with or without boats. The report states that there were more boats in 2014 than 2013 yet less erosion in
2013? Boat traffic is minimal when Fish would be affected. Solutions need to have all parties at the table. This proposal is completely unfair.
The Shuswap River should be available to all users. We are locals and have riverfront property. I have lived in this community for 49 years. I took swimming lessons at
the Grindrod Bridge at the age of 5 since then skiing, floating, boating has been a part of our life. Erosion in my opinion is worse during high water, salmon are not
affected as boating season is done due to low water. Riverfront owners do have a responsibility to protect their banks if they don't want to see erosion, one item that if
do not see addressed is the garbage issue and from what I can tell it is not from Boaters, it could be from floaters, beer cans, bottles, plastic tubes, hats, flip flops are all
items we have removed from our part of the river. The Shuswap River is the most beautiful spot and all users should have the opportunity to enjoy it! Conflict of users
will always be an issue, that is a poor reason to stop boating.
Lived on river for 30 years (upper and lower) to imposition on peoples personal rights as boaters, lowers property values, hurts business, hurts tourism, only 8 weeks of
the year, for speed limit /no HP limit, get the water skier off and wake boats and reckless boaters. Don't penalize the safe boaters
I disagree with bowing to any small interest group, fisheries uses boats on the river which they wouldn’t do if it was hard on the salmon habitat. This river is and should
be used by all including boaters!! Speed zones in high traffic areas can be a compromise but safety is an excuse there is more accidents from drowning due to logs
(nature) than boats will ever cause. Where are the studies proving % erosion from boats verses natural current? What is the next right to be taken?
I own 3/4 mile of river frontage. I have spent $80,000 on a boat. What right do you have to stop me from accessing my property? How would you like it if rules
changed in your neighbourhood and they didn’t allow cars, only scooters and motorbikes. The owners care for our river. Erosion is not a problem from a few weeks of
boating. The drunks on the river are the rafters that float down and party, not the boaters. Allow motorboats of all sizes in Zone 1. Let the rest of people have Zone 2&
3. Make everyone happy.
I feel that there hasn’t been enough research into this proposed regulation. How many boats a day in July are above a certain horsepower using this part of the river?
The salmon spawning beds need to be protected if they are being harmed. I personally feel the cows/farms and tubers are causing exponentially more damage to our
water quality and bank erosion. This needs to be addressed. One UBC Okanagan student study with isolated areas being tested is not enough. Speed boats are a drop
in the bucket compared to the erosion caused by high water and river forces undercutting the banks. People do, however need to control their speed in tubing
proximities.
Do not remove boats from river. There's money made for this town in boaters. Remove the boats you remove the needed money.
Maybe a speed limit in certain areas, but not HP restrictions and boating restrictions. I've lived here all my life near and on the river. Restrictions what people can or
cannot do on the river is ridiculous! More erosion and pollution are caused by animals (I still see cows in the river regularly and although I'm told its illegal) Spring runoff and high water. I have watched my property slough off into the river year after year between May and June when water is high. My yard has flooded and been
damaged when water is high. The short boating season and small # of boats are not enough to shut it down, or restrict horsepower, compare wakes of a 10hp fishing
boat going full out to other boats at reasonable speed on plane. Not much difference. I witness it everyday. The increase in the # of tubers has caused way more
pollution and garbage in my area (Directly between Bawtree Bridge an Waterwheel). Maybe police that!
Disagree - I believe there should be a speed restriction - depending on time of year (High water) but need more power at times. No Wake. A speed restriction would
deter a lot of the users. (Speed boating, water skiers and tubes, Jet skis) Also, boating regulations used to stress that you were supposed to slow down when passing
non-motorized crafts (which a few users seems to have forgotten like the jet skis etc.) Generally locals seem to be respectful of the environment they live in. As far as
erosion - high water events seem to be the worst offender. As far as garbage, floaters seem to be the worst offenders.
a 10hp engine will not push a boat with 5 or 6 people in it against the current. It would actually be dangerous. Larger boats are the norm, many people on the river
have such boats. Leave it as it is.
I think the river should remain open for all boaters. I've never had an issue on the river - used it for 35 years
Engine hp restrictions are not the answer. Common sense and responsible boat operation is the answer. HP restriction will severely limit usage and limit boat
passenger capacity and also will not allow safe navigation in strong currents. Current causes most severe erosion during high runoff. Eliminate wake boarding as these
boats deliberately cause large wakes. Best option: Leave it alone
HP limited is a bad solution. Property owners need to access their property via boat. Heavy boat use only exists for 6 weeks per year. Can't get a pontoon boat with 610 family members up river with 10 hp.
We all in the past 10+ years bought water front for water access if it is restricted my question is who (government i.e.: RDNO) is going to reimburse me 1 million in
property devaluation. Local. Business is limited in our area Mara - Grindrod are we going to risk these business and subsequent local jobs. 10hp wouldn't power a
floaty. Seriously get a grip!
As far as I know there have not been any boating accidents on this river of any serious nature. I think all people have the right to enjoy the lake and rivers of this
province. Closing the river would cause major backup at all the local boat launches as all people previously using their own docks (locals) would need a new place to
launch. It would be negative for tourism which we all need to thrive. Lowers property value of every house/land located on the river! Leave the river open please.
You should leave this river alone!! 10HP is not enough for many boat owners to travel the river e.g.: pontoon boat that I have travelled in with friends. Some people
need the comfort and accessibility of a larger boat. Only a few bad boaters, bad tubers and bad fisherman. Don't punish the rest for a few. I would like to know who
started this idea and they should make themselves known to the public. A few "personal interests" people should not cause so much time and money to be spent on
this.
No boaters during hatching season very few boaters during Salmon Season no erosion on our property from river in the 36 years we've lived in Grindrod. But also have
a creek with lots of erosion (no boats there). More wildlife than ever on our property and nearby. Please leave the river as is. Both my husband and my families have
lived in Enderby-Grindrod for over 100 years. I don't see the issues from our standpoint. Pictures @ Grindrod pub shows our property many many years ago, same tree
standing.
Leave the river for all to enjoy. I have been a responsible "motorboat" and PWC user of the river for 20+ years, LOVE our "family" boating (Waterskiing)activities on
their beautiful location. (someone commented below this and said " waterskiing is not responsible boat use on the river!)
I have lived here 22 years on the river - Enderby - Leave the river free for all people. Noisy hi speed boats should definitely adhere to noise and speed especially Trinity
to Mara
Have lived on Shuswap for 26 years have not seen any close calls or accidents, personal property has not changed shoreline from heavy traffic near boat launch. Leave
as is with some changes in spawning areas.
Enderby-Grindrod area - by restricting the size of motor you are telling me that I can not run my pontoon boat on the river. Why? There is no wake. There is no speed.
Don't know what the alternative is but keep trying because I oppose this restriction.
The River is for all Canadians
It is a nation highway since the confederation of this great county. Should never be closed to anyone that wants to control our waterways.
Everyone should have the opportunity to recreate and experience the river, but there is absolutely no need to allow destructive boat behaviour. Com and enjoy the
river but leave the big boat at home or on the lake.
My wife and I enjoy taking friends for a wonderful cruise up the river in our patio boat and drifting and sometimes swimming along side the boat. The proposed
restrictions would ruin this pleasure for ourselves and many others
We hope you will consider us seniors who own a patio boat for years and enjoy the times that we can take our dear friends and seniors up the river and just relax in the
boat drifting down past many beautiful scenes that would never be possible otherwise. Please consider us seniors too. We love the river scenes.
I am a local resident, I think the river should be enjoyed by everyone the same way it has since I was a kid.
I think the river should remain open to boaters. When there is work done on the Mara bridge the only way out is by boat. We are not allowed to walk on the bridge
during the working hours. We have spent many hours with our children and now grandchildren swimming and floating in the river and have never had a close call with a
boater. I have had otters swim into me in the river.
I feel that if anything needs to be regulated perhaps a speed limit, no hp. We bought here to enjoy all of the river and lake. We shouldn’t be penalized and have land
value depreciate because the river is "off limits". Best option - Leave it alone.
Leave things alone please
We do not need any regulations this new regulation will hurt tourism
The proposed HP restrictions will negatively impact this area. People on the river want to be able to use the river, I personally do I own a small jet boat (sea-doo style)
as well as 4 kayaks. I enjoy using both and imagine most people on the river would. I have seen a few idiots on the river but for more respectful people enjoying it. My
jet boat has a very small wake. I have seen boats going slower that have produced a much larger wake. I also live across from an island in Grindrod and can say that I
see high water change the river more in a couple of weeks than years of boating. Don't restrict the boats restrict the idiots.
I strongly disagree with the boat restrictions on the Shuswap river. I have lived on the river for 20+ years and have a bad erosion problem but it is because the river
channel is changing not because of boat traffic. I've seen small boat make the same wake as the larger boats. We have lost alot of recreation in our area. I would hate
to see the community lose this. I've also seen more pollution on the banks and at the bottom of the river since the tubing has started to get busy.
I disagree strongly with these proposed regulations. I think this is a waste of taxpayer money and will create a major divide in the community. Who pays for policing?
Money would be better spent on education and other beneficial projects. I would support some speed zones in high traffic areas such as public beaches. Not engine
size of boat ban.
Leave it alone - no boat accidents
50 years of boating on the river have never witnessed a close call. We own 1/2 of river short. We see no more damage from boats as we do from high water.
Just the water flowing down the river is eroding the shorelines - Leave it alone
Leave River for all uses - no restrictions on boating other than maybe speed
24 years living on river
Leave it be
Leave it alone - or enforce a speed limit. The river belongs to everyone. Make some rules on speed and everyone can enjoy
Do not agree with this. Lots of responsible people use pontoon boats or other boats with engines larger than 10 hp and do not cause problems with either erosion or
safety.
Speed boats going very fast are a problem but are a small percentage of those that use the river. By putting the 10hp motor law on that penalizes all. When people
speed on the highway, they don't penalize everyone, they penalize the ones that abuse the speed limit. Erosion is caused by more than just boats. Boats do not go on
the river when it is shallow so do not disturb the Salmon run. Jet boats however do. If you penalize anyone it should be only the jet boats
There is only 12 boat trailer parking spots in Mara park. Where will we launch our patio boat??
We live within the city limits along side the Shuswap. WE have witnessed high speed boats pulling tubers and other dangerous activities. In July and August dozens of
personal watercraft do donuts in front of our house. I don’t want to see restrictions but more policing and signage. Bank erosion is always going to happen when the
river floods every year. Farmers need to keep their cattle a distance from the river.
I feel restricting boating of any kind isn't the only issue needed. If 10 hp are the only boats there will be less usage of course. A large wake is still apparent with a 10hp.
Erosion seems to be from farmers cows, irrigation causes erosion from behind the banks and boats. Responsibility is the answer. Locals seem to respect it more than
the tourists. Educating boaters - take the "Ambassadors" to cabins and homes along the river with pamphlets on educating people: erosion, speed etc. especially the
river mouth. A forum would be important people need to voice their opinion and hear both sides of issues to questions. More educated information: the UBC
presenter at LSSS for info to tell people scientific knowledge. No sewer system at the river - City of Enderby!! No Police to keep enforcement!! More riparian work
needed - property owners need to take responsibility
I have never seen a dead fry in the river. I have seen a fishery officer cruising the river in a 20 foot plus boat with a 100hp motor during the fry release period.
I bought on the river to use the river boating etc.
I think the river is for all
A speed boat at 35 mph makes less wake than a party boat at 10mph. Check it out. Don't take someone else's word.
I'm concerned about the garbage from tubers also lack of toilet facilities. I see them often near my house relieving themselves.
I believe a lot of the erosion around Enderby is caused by the silting in the river forcing it to widen. I have noticed the loss of a definite channel in front of my place. I
think livestock should be barred from river banks and access to the river.
As far as river erosion the main reason is the river is no longer dredged as it was in years and years ago. The river is shallower and getting wider allowing the water to
spread to places not been before. Tubers and floaters cause more problems environmentally than any boater with all the garbage and stuff left in the river for us
landowners to take care of.
I'm not concerned about motor size but I am about how the boats and sea-doos are operated. Going around in circles is very erosive. Turning around with a motorized
boat at high speed also a problem. In the last 10 years 2 good size chunks of our land has ended up caving in. Floaters are littering and at times threatening the land
owners. Respect is very much lacking.
as a Kayaker I am less familiar with the issues in zone 1, re: erosion As a person of science, I would expect that an analysis of wakes with respect to boat size/depth and
towing/not towing and speed and their effect on river bank erosion vs natural erosion. Should be rigourously studied - let science predominate. I'm not sure a 10hp
restriction itself on this section will achieve the desired effect, but if would canoe/kayak this section and I agree that threatened salmon stocks have enough to contend
with in the open ocean (overfishing & fish farm proximity) that their arrival in zone 1 waters should be greeted with some degree of calm - not jet boats.
Total = 91
ALTERNATIVE
Propose - Electric motors only
I think the boat should not only be controlled by HP but also they should be electrically powered.
Limit the speed - possibly the number of boats/per day
10hp would be ok but if that is not agreed on a possible compromise is a 30kph speed limit - maybe use the radar cameras that were taken off the highways.
Limiting size of motor sounds good - but who is going to enforce it
Zone 1: Limit to 10 hp - think about a season restriction in July and August
High water closures maybe
Enforce a speed limit
I recommend a no tow zone - easy to enforce
Allow motorboats of all sizes in Zone 1. Let the rest of people have Zone 2& 3.
No-tow is the way to go - affects fewest, protects most, safer for all
Boating has been a way of life in Enderby forever. But safety is a very important issue. Has anybody ever considered the Commissionaires to help with enforcement at a
speed limit?
Just limit the speed. Erosion is going to happen no matter what. Everyone is entitled to enjoy the river responsibly
Boat access from Mara Lake to the river front property is very important. If there is concern, do not limit HP instead limit the speed or make it a no tow zone.
I believe a "no towing" rule would accomplish more and be much more palatable to the majority.
I think that policing the river would be a better solution.
If there had to be any restriction I think that a no tow zone would be more than adequate to limit wakes.
I don’t want to see restriction but more policing and signage warning people (boaters) of swimming areas and tubers. It is surprising there aren't more accidents.
Limit speed and size of motors up to Enderby. No boats beyond. Let speed boats and sea-doos stay on the lakes. Preserve the rivers habitat for fish, bird-life before it
all goes. Think of the future
A speed restriction may be a more palatable option for many boaters. Enforcement shouldn’t be an issue as compliance will be mostly voluntary anyway./
We have lived on the river for many years and have seen minimal erosion. A no tow zone is best.
No wake - 10 hp boats make wakes, some 100hp boats make no wake. The wake makes the erosion
Riprap the river - best skiing between Calgary and Vancouver is from Mara Lake up 1/2 mile - if the banks are riprapped no problem
Jet boats are causing everyone to be upset. Boats are loud and drivers are obnoxious especially around swimmers. There is an obvious problem with the Fish in Salmon
season and fry in the spring.
Total = 25
AGREE
RIVER FOR ALL - This river is a major natural resource. We need to keep it healthy for all to enjoy for a very long time. Regulation and blatant
limitation are required!
No more powerboats on the river! They have all the lakes to recreate on. We need more safe, enjoyable place for people who do non-motorized
recreation!! Bird watching, floating, paddling and outrigger canoeing etc.
Habitats should not be endangered by the whims of a few pleasure seekers. The impacts to other organisms can have strong repercussions to our
future lives and generations. No motorized vehicles will help to protect our valuable natural eco-systems.
I'd be in favour of getting all traffic off the river at this point. Too many people cause problems for salmon.
A good proposal. We need to consider safety and the rights of the Salmon, the wildlife and the environment instead of catering to the few who would
rather play on the river with high-powered boats.
Zone 2 is a major kayak, canoe and raft usage area. I use a canoe and both my sisters kayak here. There are more and more powerboats going through
the skookumchuk rapids for fun, and sure it is a rush but it's dangerous! The power boater often have no life jackets, beer in hand, and drive recklessly.
I have seen the powerboats hit rocks twice. They got lucky and did not sink. I also have seen and heard of several near-miss situations with kayakers.
The small river kayaks can be hidden from boater view while they play in the wave. The "greyhound" wave is as big as a bus! By the time a motorboat
crests the wave its too late for any kayaker. The motorboats are not safety first. They need regulations! No motorboats
Have owned property on the river for 25 years (at Isobel Falls). We have camped, fished, canoed, kayaked and motor boated during this time. The
hours of use by all users has increased to ridiculous numbers. I am against jet boats! To much spew and wake. There will be a bad accident. Can't
believe it hasn't happened yet! Maybe this year. Stop all motorized boats in this part of the river. It's to delicate.
I agree that regulations are necessary to protect the natural environment.
I agree with the proposed restrictions. Those few special salmon (10-14 years excluded) that make it this far upstream should be protected let people
peacefully fish or float through this wonder of nature and not be disturbed by excessive noise & horsepower of a few unruly jet-boaters. Just as our
national and BC Parks offer lower horsepower alternatives for the enjoyment of most (democracy) so too should this section be limited and monitored.
As a kayaker, I've almost been run over by a 60 kmh jet boat screaming up past cook creek pullout at sunset!
I agree with no power craft on Zone 2! Zone 2 is some of the best salmon habitat in the world and is presently in relatively pristine habitat for all kinds
of wildlife. Side channels abound and are crucial for young salmon habitat. I have personally witnessed jet boats driving up these side channels,
jumping log jams and causing havoc even though they have sensitive habitat. Do not enter signage. In high water fry have just come out of the gravel
and are washed up on shore where they are stranded. These are just a few issues with boaters and wildlife. What about spiritual and cultural values?
Jet boats are an insult to the river environment.
Agreed, no motor boats in these areas. There is all of Mara, Kalamalka, Okanagan etc. for them to disturb
I agree with proposed restrictions. Consider all aspects. There are many lakes with plenty of room for powerboats. The river needs our protection.
I agree with the Zone 2 proposed regulation. It seems that this area is more ecologically sensitive, and I would like the beauty of this area to be
preserved. Also, the salmon spawning areas are important to care for: we cannot replace them if they're gone. I agree with others that there are
plenty of lakes to boat on (with motorized vessels) Let the people who enjoy the natural environment, enjoy it on its own terms (non-motorized)
I agree with no-motorized vessels on Trinity Valley Bridge upstream. This is a small river at many times of the year, great for kayaking if you don't have
speedboats coming at you from both directions. While slow powered boats might sometimes be ok, at mid to low water the channel is to narrow.
I am in total agreement with the proposal - no motorized vessels
I agree - no motors on the section
I fully agree and endorse zone 2 proposed regulation of no boats. I live on Mabel Lake Rd in Kingfisher and use the river almost daily in the summer. I
have witnessed many close calls with motor boats and non-motorized users. I have witnessed erosion and habitat decimation at the KFIC. This
regulation will inconvenience a few people for the benefit of a great many others including fish and wildlife.
I agree with this proposal unfortunately more and more people in motorized boats (also jet) are using the river and its not sustainable anymore for
many reasons, ecological and personal safety (i.e.: swimmers and tubing)
I agree very much with the proposed regulations. Long, long overdue. If there is any chance what so ever of saving any salmon habitat we best do it
yesterday and stop crying about the loss of a very limited strip of river. There are plenty of lakes in the Okanagan to boat on. No boats please
no motorized vessels. Great idea and long overdue. Extend the same proposal to Zone 1.
I am in complete agreement with the proposed regulations. My main reason is my concern for safety of all users. Tubers, swimmers, canoes and
kayaks all are in danger when motorized craft are on the river, especially swimmers and tubers. 2nd habitat (salmon, wildlife including ducks and other
river birds, fauna, aquatic invertebrates) are negatively impacted by motorized vessels.
Rivers are to use not abuse. Heritage for our grand kids. Zone 2 no motors lots of use and people
Fully agree - Hate when I hear about impact on salmon spawning and fry
I agree - no boats - people first - boats last
I fully support no motorized vessels on Zone 2
I am in favour of the proposed motor restrictions, for several reasons. Salmon habitat, and other fish, trout mainly. We need to restore the viability of
the ecosystem. Even though most motor boaters are courteous, small slow boats can still be destructive. I've witnessed plenty of soil erosion, and
that's not exclusively from boaters, but wake can still be disruptive. When my little kids are learning to swim, a big slow pontoon cautiously driving, is
not creating a safe area for others. No motors on the trail either!
Absolutely no motorized vessels in this area - leave it for the fish folk who appreciate quiet paddling.
Personal watercraft, pontoons, wake boats and jet boats on this section of prime spawning ground needs to be prohibited. The alternative regulation
needs to include enforcement.
Agree. We need the motor restrictions on the entire river system. Ecology of the river system. Ecology of the river is more important than noisy,
erosive recreation.
Those few people that ruin it for many make us need the regulations.
If you want to speed use the lake. The river for slow boats. Preserve the environment for all to enjoy.
This is one of the few rivers in the world that a person can float quietly without alligator, poisonous snakes, and can drink the water. Let's protect it
from abuse and misuse. Destroying the habitat with boats, oil, gas, litter and eroding the banks AND the safety of the users in the water.
I support no motorized vessels in Zone 2. Need to preserve the river habitat for nature and for people to enjoy
We live on the river above Baxter Bridge. We see jet boats, at high speeds, destroy and damage sockeye spawning beds. We have pretty much seen it
all. In our opinion it is a very good idea to stop power boat traffic above Baxter Bridge and reduce horse power below to Mara Lake. The river is
getting busier every year. In low water a power boat simply looks out of place on the river above Baxter Bridge. Thank you for giving us the
opportunity to voice our opinion
There are so many folks in canoes, kayaks and on tubes, swimming, down from Hupple to Ashton Creek. It would be quite dangerous to have
motorboats roaring up and down there. Somebody is going to have to die before change can happen to get rid of the motors. Individual vs collective
rights. I'm for the well being of all of us, not just the recreation of a few Albertans.
Agree with the proposed regulation for Zone 2. Motorized vessels have priority over most lakes and rivers in the Okanagan. Would like to have the
peace and safety afforded by limited motorized vessels in Zone 2.
The community should move towards no power boats. Ban trapping while we're at it.
The river and its flora/fauna is of utmost importance. Whatever we can do to keep it healthy must be the way to go. Also safety of kayakers, canoers
etc. over speed of motor boats. I have had a couple of near capsizes from motor boat wake.
Agree. To those who say they want to boat to salmon fishing holes, I say use the nearest access up stream and float to it. There are numerous handlaunch sites in this section of the river.
No speeding on river - it washes the banks away. Also would like to see a lot less tubers - they are very thoughtless.
This section of the river used to be a favorite for tubers, kayaks, canoes, and other non-motorized vessels. Many people have been afraid to swim or
float in this section because of high-powered and inconsiderate boaters. Wildlife to have been deliberately chased and shoreline cattle taunted. Good
restrictions. More money in many floaters than boaters bring to economy.
I agree full hearted the recommendation of no motors, limited to 10 hp in Zone 1. It's so inappropriate to habitat (fish) and residents to have power
boats, jet boats, etc. Good job with recommendations. It's a sanctuary to sustain.
Great process - thanks. The river issues rate bigger than accommodating adolescent, destructive boating practices
Noise pollution, carbon emissions, erosion, spillage and leakage of, habitat destruction, waste of fossil fuels, poor example for kids. The choice seems
obvious!
Unfortunately not all can enjoy with all of the pitfalls of the reckless (not all) vessel owners/drivers. See safety, bank erosion, noise, etc. etc.
Total = 46
DISAGREE
I have enjoyed boating on the river for 40 years we now own property on the river. Please don’t take it away from us!! Invite us to be part of the
process! We should ALL work together so we can all enjoy the river.
I disagree with no boating on the river. The river is a water road and a recreational place. There are people who boat and do not respect the river but I
feel there are more people who respect the river and use it for recreation with caution. Boats please
KEEP THE BOATS! People whom bought river front should've realized that their would be boats. Would you tell boaters on the lake to stop because
your lake front? NO! It does not effect the environment, fisher, nor people
Leave the users alone. If you want to patrol it great spend the money!
NO TO ALL BOAT RESTRICTIONS
Strongly disagree!! We who live here and pay taxes here love our river and most sensible boaters and fishermen respect the river. Out of towners
(floaters) disrespect not only the river, but the boaters, fingering, swearing, throwing garbage , bottles, cans, dirty diapers, popped tubes etc. etc. etc.
One afternoon I picked up 14 bags of garbage, $64.75 in bottles out of the river.
Just need common sense on both sides. When will that happen! You can't fix "stupid"
Use of the river should be for everyone
Leave the river for all to use
All people should be able to enjoy the river but are unable to self propel. Also floaters tend to throw more garbage in river as they have no boat to
keep it in.
Leave the river for all to enjoy - NO restrictions
Agreed - leave the river for all to enjoy
Rivers are our right to be used by all Canadians not just a choice few
One hundred or more years ago there was much logging from Mabel Lake and logs went all the way down the river. They were extracted at many
points along the way. Well we still have Salmon returning and considerable wildlife on this river. The river is for all of us to enjoy. Education on
behaviour would do more good.
I am against this proposed regulations as tabled. I hold a provincial commercial tenure (trapping) on this section of river and this regulation would
impact my ability to carry out normal business activities I do not recreate on the river. I operate commercially from Mid Sept through Mid April. I
cannot operate safely or effectively with this proposed regulation.
I disagree with this. I would agree with speed limits and establishing designated boat routes at low water and during spawning.
No restrictions. Boaters have the right to use the river. High water closures maybe.
We have used the Shuswap River as a highway to get from Sicamous to Grindrod for years. This is an important transport. We are not 10 hp people
but can use river with respect.
We own a mile and a half of river front - I can put 100 head of cattle drinking off that river - do you want that or 1 boat? 1 cow will do more erosion
than 1 boat. You're going after the wrong thing!!!! Also there's more garbage left on our shorelines and in the water from tubers, canoers etc.
Let's see the facts: This whole process is one sided! The people who want the river closed are selfish and never learned how to share!
24 hours per day running water 365 days per year plus high water do more damage than boats. Cows on the river banks do more damage than boats.
What about the increase in garbage since the tubing started - not boater!!!
Why wasn't everyone given one paper to fill out. 5 of us watched people at the end of evening fill out multiple papers in favor of closing river. This
process is skewed! Totally biased.
Total = 23
ALTERNATIVE
Get rid of the tubers - too much plastic left behind
Compromise something for everyone. Zone 2 yes but include down to Enderby and promote river from Mabel Lake to Enderby for Kayaking and
Canoeing. From Enderby to Grindrod 10hp. Below Grindrod bridge to Mara Lake leave as is. That is where all the boat people are.
At low tide only
It is unfortunate that rules and regulations have to be put in place but we can never prevent stupidity. Ignorance and indifference on the other hand
can be worked on through education.
I agree to the above.
Mabel Lake to Baxter bridge - no motor boats. Baxter bridge to Enderby - no jet boats. When swimmers are present 10 mph speed limit. Enderby to
Mara - no jet boats. When swimmers are present 10 mph speed limit
I believe boats with up to 10hp should be allowed upstream of Baxter Bridge. That would accommodate those that like to Salmon fish in the fall
months and pursue other recreational pursuits with smaller motorized craft.
If you are really worried about erosion then foreshore property owners should be allowed to protect their own banks/shorelines. Why were multiple
surveys allowed per person. Each person walking should've only been given one piece of paper. Anonymity is ridiculous- everyone should put their
money where their mouth is. I'll for speed zones & regulating but to cut all motorized boats over 10hp is just a "not in my backyard" crap!
Total = 8
For an example of jet-boating go to YouTube and watch "Running The Shuswap"! Do we want this?
After fishing with a motorized vessel on the river for the past 25 years, I've never seen the DFO or RCMP. How the heck are you going to police this? If
it's not policed, the problem will continue to exist and I DO NOT want police presence on the river.
AGREE
Agree w/regulation on Zone 3
Agree with restrictions
I am in total agreement of proposed restrictions which are necessary to protect wildlife and environmental values and prevent bank erosion which I am
familiar with on my stretch of the river and are caused by high powered boating. High powered boaters have plenty of Lake space to enjoy their sport.
I support no motorized boats here. Its too intrusive to local habitat and residences. Zero noise / erosion of habitat intrusion
Proposed regulation would help avoid increased erosion, environmental damage, harassing wildlife and improve safety for non-motorized river users.
There are many other areas for motorized boats to enjoy the water (Mabel, shuswap, Okanagan Lake) close by. The river deserves special regulations to
ensure sustainability long term.
Agreed - go elsewhere where there are boats and we are boaters!
Zone 3 - absolutely no motorized vessels
I agree with the Zone 3 proposed regulation. It seems to me that the best way to enjoy sensitive habitat, especially salmon spawning grounds is to travel
non-motorized, no noise, no fumes, no oil slicks. And this has the least impact as well. If we destroy this habitat, it won't easily be replaced.
In favour! No motorized vessels. Keep the river for the spawning salmon.
No motorized vessels here! Must protect fish habitat and other wildlife considerations. Let those who enjoy the quiet paddle or swim do so in peace!
Zone 3 - keep the motorized boats out and protect the banks for healthier fish and other wildlife.
I agree - no motorboats
I am a boater and I agree no boats in these sensitive areas!
I support regulations on zone 3 - protect the sensitive habitats
I support no motorized vessels beyond mid Shuswap need to preserve that natural habitat.
Agree, this section of the river, like many,, many sections, support a diverse range of flora, fauna, salmon need good habitat, aquatic invertebrates need
good habitat. Silt, wakes, noise disturb a whole eco-system.
Please remove power boats from the river.
I agree - no more powerboats - pls n ty
No motorized vessels. Absolutely and extend this proposal to zone 1
Zone 3 - not familiar with this part of the river but would seem to be consistent with concerns of zone 2 so fully agree.
The argument that the river belongs to everyone is correct - but who has the most power to swamp or hit a swimmer or tube or destroy the
environment - certainly no the one without the motor!
Our rivers are not recreational playgrounds for the few. We need to consider all stakeholders including the wildlife, the salmon, the environment and all
people.
Boat motor restriction on Gardom Lake have resulted in more people enjoying more aspects of the lake. Peaceful, filled with the sounds of birds and
wildlife….a great change!!!
Yes the river is for everyone! But swimmers, canoeists, tubers and wildlife don't have a chance to enjoy it when big motors go by with such disregard for
others - and the slow fold don’t destroy the ecosystems etc. etc.
Zone 3 no motors fed the fish
Total = 27
DISAGREE
I have been fishing on this river for 35 years and my sons and my grandchildren. I have a boat I purchased for this reason and I am opposed to shutting
down boats. As it is a very short time of the year. There is a lot more reasons for pollution or what ever is the problem.
Zone 1, 2 & 3 - Disagree. Should have boating get rid of floaters dumping garbage and urinating.
I don’t agree to being pushed into selling my boat just to make the kayakers and floaters happy. I have boated in this river for years. Its letting the
tourists run our places of fun like campsites etc. Money talks we walk. I don’t think that’s right! Do you?
NO NO NO! Keep the boats,. Boats do NO harm. The high water is what effects the river banks. Boats save people. They do NO harm to the
environment, fishery or people. Keep the boats, people who are against it bought riverfront, would you ask people on the lake to stop boating near your
lake front? NO
No change to the current system. Promote co-usage by everyone. The river does not belong o one group. Open meeting please or drop process.
Disagree. All people should be able to enjoy the river. Not everyone is able to self propel. Also floaters tend to throw their garbage in the river as there
is no boat to keep it in.
River for all
The people trying to remove the boats are self-serving. I alone spend over $2000 in Enderby and Grindrod each summer. We respect the river and
property owners. We don't ride upriver when the water is high. We use Jet skis and not boats. The ski boats with fat sacks cause the most wake. Jet
skis cause almost nil.
Keep the boats
I strongly disagree. These regulations are a waste of time and money. Who will pay for policing? Use the money to do something useful instead of
isolating a large portion of the community.
Leave the river for "all" to enjoy!! "NO" restrictions
The river is for all. If you want to patrol it great! Buck up the funds.
The use of the river is for everyone
No Provincial Community has the right to close any Federal Waterway. It is our right as Canadians to have access to all waterways in this Nation.
I have not talked to anyone at this meeting that feels the format gives them an opportunity speak. Please have an open forum if the process continues.
Please do not take boats off the river
Open mike meeting required!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think it is not the size of the motor that is the problem on the river it is the size of the brain.
We will have to address the tubers next.
Total = 18
ALTERNATIVE
Restrict boating on all of the Shuswap! Boats are getting bigger and faster causing damage and huge safety issues. There are numerous lakes for
boaters. Leave the river for non-motorized toys! Tubing, kayaking and canoeing
Restriction during spawning and smelt seasons. Speed or horsepower or boats altogether - canoes, kayaks too!
Transport Canada's control of inland waters like the mid-shuswap (S. Mabel Lake) up to Shuswap Falls comes from an entirely different era, long before
Haber craft river Jet boats were available for "pleasure seekers". This section of the river will be used by river jet boats. River jets are being marketed
without concern for the watershed (as a whole). Why would we allow "pleasure seekers" to negatively impact habitat that should be preserved for
generations to come. Add regulation all the way to Sugar Lake - my alternative regulation.
I think we need a horsepower restriction on the river. Too many bad boaters are on the river at all times.
Only when the river has crested
I am least familiar with this section of the Shuswap, but I imagine below the Dam blockade that salmon habitat is most important and I notice the largest
area of the Shuswap for salmon spawning. I have kayaked both above and below the dam and have rarely encountered aggressive Jet boats. Mostly I
have experienced their noise and speed b/w trinity valley road bridge and Mabel Lake. Thus in my opinion, this section of river would benefit from a
10hp restriction and to a complete banning of motorized but I would appreciate the opinion of science.
Total = 6
June 11th Open House Mabel Lake Hall - Zone 1 Comments
AGREE
There should be no motor boats on the whole system, period.
Good idea - salmon, bank erosion, tubers and paddlers
Good 1st step - I agree boats have to be regulated. My preference would be only electric motors and small boats. Large HP boats destroy fish,
amphibians and bird habitat resulting in pollution. Make low footprint recreation like swimming, kayaking, canoeing dangerous or impossible. Let
boats go to large lakes only - not in rivers.
We are missing an opportunity to promote the non-motorized use at this amazing river for canoes, kayaks if we continue to allow jet boats to use them.
Great idea - Fish Habitat, erosion, safety
I support the regulation. Some people will be impacted but it’s the right thing to do for the future health of a pristine river. It's for future generations
The rivers and wildlife need to be protected. Lack of regulations could result in irreparable damage being done to the river and wildlife.
Total = 7
DISAGREE
No restriction for boating
I do not think there should be any restrictions from where we are now.
Disagree - Billions of tons of water flow thru the river every year, the river is mud brown and there are trees, boulders and tons of dirt blasting down,
the fish are fine!!! You're telling me that a boat is causing damage? Really?
While river boating last year near Enderby, we came across some tubers in trouble. Likely alcohol, or sun stroke impaired there abilities and they were
injured, in danger of drowning, when we came upon their group and quite possibly saved one persons life. With boats banned, future floaters are not
going to have an option of flagging down help as a boat goes by. Not in support of new or any regulations.
No regulations against boaters. The rivers are public waterways and should be open to all.
I've notice that tubers leave behind garbage because they have nowhere to pack it out. Are you planning on banning them as well?
Total = 6
ALTERNATIVE
Put money towards teaching people how to safely use the river without motors. Canoes, kayaks, SUP's they're healthy for you! And piss less people off
If a restriction is going to be made, make it a "speed limit": restriction, not an ":engine size" restriction.
My 12 ft. with 10 hp sits lower and creates more wake than my 16 ft. with 25 hp. How does a horsepower limit help? Police the wake from boats that
are not designed for rivers.
Speed Limits!!
Do not have a no wake or hp limit, patrol and educate people have purchased property because they can boat
Place a speed limit on areas that are prone to erosion.
There should be no motorized boating whatsoever from Mara Lake to Kingfisher!!! Neither should there be any motorized boats past the Shuswap
river delta where the Shuswap entered Mabel Lakes i.e.: Oddfellows, Dept. of Fisheries here near the Hatchery!!!!
Total = 7
AGREE
Great idea
I agree - no motorized vehicles
I definitely support the regulations…why? 1) protect the river from litter and pollution 2) protect the banks 3) protect the wildlife
Definitely agree. We need to protect this stretch of the river now. Boats are turning salmon habitat into a polluted noisy area that cannot support the
wildlife needed to keep the river healthy. BAN THEM
Agree
Great idea
No motorized vehicles please. To protect the river banks from unnecessary erosion, to ensure spawning salmon can travel to spawning grounds, to
allow eggs and salmon fry to survive
Strongly agree. A regulation like this is long overdue for such productive salmon habitat
All motorized boats off the river
I think it should be made more public what value these rivers have as salmon spawning grounds. I think you (RDNO) are withholding the truth about
how important/vital these rivers are to fish and where this river ranks in the world for salmon spawning habitat. Kingfisher Interpretive Centre says the
Lower Shuswap is the most productive in the world.
Total = 10
DISAGREE
No restrictions what-so-ever. Keep it as is.
Strongly disagree. The idea that a boat kills fish or fish eggs is absolutely insane. If a hydro electric dam cant kill them I'm pretty sure they can survive a
few waves. (fish swim thru rapids, think about that for a second)
Speed limits wont work. People will go over the limit anyway and there are not nearly enough resources to enforce it.
Terrible idea. No study has ever proven boating, erodes banks, kills fish or affects the river in any way. How do you pl.an on enforcing speed limits with
a pile of boats?
Do not agree. I do not support the suggested regulations…period.
Do not agree - RDNO needs to consider all - be fair
Do not agree
No speed or motor restrictions. Leave it as it is
Total = 8
ALTERNATIVE
Place a speed limit on all types of motorized boats.
No motorized boats from Mara & Greenbush
How will anyone with a disability or of older age be able to fish when you have to go all the way to the lake to pullout. My grandkids will miss out on
my favorite river. Leave open during high water and spring season. Protect the fish during low water and police the river.
Upper - 50hp or 25kmh limit light boat less wake and motor only during king salmon season. Lower - 50hp or 25kmh
Total = 4
AGREE
Yes I think the restriction should be from Green Bush Lake to Mabel Lake
No Motor boats. Green Bush to Woolsey (WILSEY?) Dam. Too narrow to navigate safely (swimmers, kayakers, tubers). Birdlife and wildlife in and
along its shores (very sensitive habitat). Potential hazardous contaminant from motors, spills. Noise pollution (echo up and down valley). Keep the
river for soft recreation. Bank erosion
I agree no motorized boats in Zone 3. WE have an amazing fish habitat - that requires protection.
We feel strongly - very strongly that the whole Shuswap River watershed should be included in this public consultation process. From Green Bush to
Sugar Lake to Mabel Lake including Sugar Lake. No Jet Boats No sea-doos No towing (wakeboarding, etc.) Save the source!
No boat motors
No motors at all. Increased traffic will just disturb fish and wildlife. Also it will cause a pollution problem, litter, cow and garbage
No motorized boats on the Middle Shuswap - Period. We live beside the river - we see the wash/wake from motorized boats, and see how it does
contribute to bank erosion. We see numerous birds, fish, reptiles and mammals (including beaver) using the river in this area. Motorized boats cause
mayhem for them. Nests are flooded, bank beaver dens are eroded, birds are frightened away from feeding, and spawning grounds are disrupted by
the increased turbulence. The only people who need to have power boat access are the fisheries workers, and we would like to see them use
powered boats which are "friendlier to the river".
Absolutely no boats with motors
Agree strongly - why would we allow boaters to damage some of the most productive salmon spawning grounds in the world. This affects far more
people downstream (and that fish the oceans) than what is outlined here today.
Absolutely Agree - because of the interference of motor boats that affects the river banks and the animals living there. It is the only way to preserve
the river and wildlife.
No motorized boats Lake to Falls very sensitive fish habitat.
There should be no motor boats between Green Bush Lake and Mabel Lake and none on the lakes either. We drink the water.
No motor boats. It's just common sense!
I am from the Upper Shuswap and strongly against motorized boats, just canoes, kayaks, tubers, and people swimming/floating with life jackets and
snorkels. All your posters show the very negative effects of motorized boats towards fish, water flow, erosion and lets add "danger" to people
including children even just swimming! We had had jet boats in low water level going full speed including up shallow back channels, no concern for
wildlife of fish habitat or erosion.
I agree no motorized boats in Zone 3.
Keep the boats out
No an alternative is not a solution. No motors
Totally agree with this proposed regulation. Motor boats create too many problems for the health of the river and wildlife.
Agree, please include from Wilsey Dam to Green Bush. People concerned w/fishing can use non-motorized watercraft, canoes, kayaks, pontoon boats,
shore etc. Protect the fragile fish habitat. Protect the pristine water. Protect the vegetation and shoreline
No motorboats from Mabel Lake to Green Bush Lake.
Absolutely no motorized vessels !!!
I strongly agree with this regulation, however I feel it's a bit short-sighted not to add a 4th zone from Shuswap Falls upstream to Sugar Lake. Boaters
will just go there.
No motorized vehicles
Soil erosion, noise, between 2 dams control of flow to height of river flow. Erosion!!! Garbage from this kind of bate. Trout - whitefish-dolly varden
hatch. Destruction of spawning grounds
Total = 24
DISAGREE
No more regulations on the river. Way too many right now.
No speed or motor restrictions. Leave it as it is
Disagree! Boats do not cause any measurable erosion, millions of gallons flow through every day. Whatever happened to common sense.
Disagree. Reasons 1) Technology no motor is no motor, there are solar powered assist motors for paddle boards, kayaks and canoes and probably
even tubes. 2) Traditional use - over last 40 years guides came up river with clients to fish also I live on the river just upstream from Mabel Lake on
West Bank - my only access to the Lake and Store at Campsite. 3) Traditional use - after the "truth" and reevaluation you would expect 1st nations
culture to be respected. Indigenous use of motors in the Amazon, Columbia Venezuela etc. is respected. Are we still imposing our ways? Just limit
speed and/or horsepower
Do not agree. RDNO should consider everybody
Disagree. With no motorized boating in this section (Shuswap Falls to Mabel Lake) there will be no way to access most of the fishing holes, private
land owners wont allow people to cross there property.
I am opposed to closing the river to all motorized boats. If there have been problems between motorized boats and non-motorized boats, then
regulations can be imposed. I do not feel that because I have a motor on my boat that I have less rights than a person who wishes to row, paddle,
whatever. As far as disturbing fish habitat and erosion, I think it is poppycock. But if I am wrong, then let's put in laws to prevent it. If there are times
in the year where any boating is detrimental, then close the river to all boating for that period of time including tubes, kayaks, canoes. The only boat
access to the river from the road is through private land. I have used this river for 50 years and am not about to start floating down with tubes unless
someone can come up with a better reason than erosion or fish disturbance. Salmon have left the river by June. Nobody can tell me that a 60 ft.
cottonwood banging up against the shore doesn't create more erosion than a boat going up and down the river. If I am wrong then maybe impose
speed restrictions.
No regulation should be imposed. The areas in question should be open all user groups.
No regulation should be imposed. The rivers belong to the people all the people, not just select groups.
No. Alternative rarely work and it would be too difficult to regulate and enforce.
You would be forcing people to try to float the river to fish. How could anyone with any kind of disability or advance age be able to attempt this. The
few boating hours that are used on the river are at lower water time so less effect on river banks and most boats are not on the river after spring
season therefore they don't effect the sockeye or Coho.
This proposal would endanger many people using non-motorized water craft.
Total = 12
ALTERNATIVE
Speed Limit
Agree. 10 HP max, critical fish habitat, no reason for speed boat access what-so-ever
Speed Limit
10 HP restriction (written on sheet/poster)
HP Restriction
Surely there could be some compromise limiting the speed limit or closing the river during crucial times in the fish life cycle.
Strong regulations banning: motors powered by fossil fuels for reasons of climate effects and of water quality and Restrictions: speeds, irrespective
of propulsion type for reasons of shoreline degradation and of habitat degradation and of safety, noise for reasons of wildlife disturbance and quality
of life. This should include Wilsey dam to the eastern limits of RDNO (Zone 4)
Yes limit speed. Set up posted signs explaining concerns. Set up speed signaling to flash at fast boats. There are ways of checking speed - start with
the operator.
There should be no motorized boats during spawning season.
Total = 9
Can we include Dept. of Fisheries?
ALTERNATIVE
Include a Zone 4 - Sugar Lake and Middle Shuswap River
We in Zone 4 (Sugar Lake to Woolsey Dam) want a ban on motorized boats (Including jet skis) on the Shuswap River and its tributaries.
PLEASE INCLUDE US IN THIS SURVEY. Bad for fish, accident waiting to happen. I agree with others about NO motorized vehicles in Zone
3.
Zone 4 - no motorized boats. The proposed regulations also must apply to the Shuswap River from Green Bush Lake to the North end of
Sugar Lake and from the South end of Sugar Lake to the Wilsey Dam. There are recent reports of Jet boats on the river between
Cherryville and the Wilsey Dam, this is inexcusable!!! and must be stopped!!! A Zone 4 must be created and protected.
Please include from Green Bush Lake to Wilsey Dam = Zone 4. With no motor boats on the river and in the lake - no towing no jet boats
no sea doos. There are now jet boats ruining this part of the river and endangering swimmers and kayakers and canoeists. We must act
while there is still time before it gets ruined. This is the HEAD of the Shuswap and must be protect3ed. SAVE THE SOURCE.
I live on the river below Sugar Lake. Please respect our feelings towards keeping the river as clean and pristine as possible. No motors
wanted!!
Total = 5
Upper Middle. Turtle habitat, canoe launch, destruction of habitat. Trout - dolly, whitefish, spawning area. Erosion, Birds, Habitat, Bank
erosion, Gravel flow from Sugar Lake slide moving down river.
Enderby Arts Festival Jul 25th 2015
I have lived on riverfrint property my entire life. Its sad to see boaters abuse the river the way it has been. Its dangerous and killing fish habitat.
Never mind the damage it causes to the banks. Peace on the river would be amazing. Enjoy it on a non-abrasive float instead.
Possibly a speed and no towing restriction to allow subdued motorized enjoyment. This would accommodate more people who wish to SEE the
river, by going slow. A lot of enforcement would be needed first, then peer pressure would soon take over.
I agree - no wake boats and no towing. Also its usually the jet skis gooing too fast. NO WATER SKIING!
Grindrod Garlic Festival Aug 16th, 2015
I disagree with the regulations because as a landowner I think it will drag down property values in the Grindrod/Enderby area.
I disagree with applying regulations as it will decrease interest in the area and cause the community to loose revenue
I disagree with the propsed regulations. The 5 "harms" at the beginning of the survey make the general public believe there is a problem when in fact
there is no evidence of this - no safety issues, no wildlife issues (we've seen more wildlife than ever), bank erosion is primarily caused by currents,
conflict between users (boaters have saved many tubers), and of course everyone would love to have the river to themselves.
Riverfront owners were sent a letter <3months before this issue closed to the public. Why didn't you send us a letter years ago to see how we felt as
we are stakeholders in the area?
I feel this process is biased. A lady approached us while we were boating to tell us to stop because we were killing fish and she heard an offical say that
on CBC.
The survey leads people to believe that boats are causing harm and there is no evidence for this.
If you just use the "vote" (survey) system this is unfair to riverfront owners who have more to lose financially (real estate values) and a lifestyle.
Many people simply say "I don't want boats". Not wanting boats is a "preference". We all like things our way but we should be able to Share the River.
My view: Salmon First!! Thank you

Shuswap Boating Regulations - Regional District of North Okanagan

Transcription

Similar documents

For sale is a Classic 1959 Feather Craft boat

Drive on docks for Poontoon and Tritoon boats up to 20 feet

Fall 2007 - Strong`s Marine

Special Seafair Rules and Regulations

Design and Engineering Solutions for Aluminum Boat Builders

Jetpower teams up with leading USA brand: G3 Boats

Site Summary - Internet Brands

H2OuTRaGEOus

New Procraft packs a punch on a budget

The Global Challenge