It likely won’t be the perceived danger that will shut the rod and gun club down, it will be the Government. Every couple of years they send a site inspector around to inspect gun clubs and the facilities they run. If they catch wind of a trail out there, that’s the end of the gun club. There is no way they could afford to move, and the city would lose not just the gun club, but the money they donate to the community.
All because of a trail? Surely there is a way to accommodate both sides.
Not a lot of time to reply right now but I am totally in agreement with both Mig and CrazyMike here.
I am concerned that a lot of people in Prince Rupert don’t understand the ramifications if that particular trail goes ahead, it seems that many of the folks in town think that it is possible for the trail and the range to co-exist.
If the proposed trail goes through, it is extremely likely that the range will be shut down sooner than later. Other ranges in BC (Campbell River, Powell River) have been shut down for similar situations in the last ten years or so. While the current governments in Ottawa and Victoria may be somewhat accommodating to shooting ranges, that can change very quickly come election time.
Once the range shuts down, the City will then be paying for local RCMP officers to travel to Terrace or elsewhere for their firearms training and qualifying, this will not be an insignificant amount of money out of our policing budget each and every year! Let’s not forget the additional costs to Sheriffs Services and Border Services as well.
Yes, I beleive it is monthly, as do most other law enforcement agencies who are mandated to carry side arms. There are a lot of factors to be considered in this issue. Firstly there are other trail options being proposed several of which would be better or more practical at this time, depending of course on personal perspective. The rod and gun club has a very large membership compared to many other clubs in town and has been in existance in the same location for almost a hundred years, and it is used by far more people than the general public realizes, and it would really be a shame to lose this facility.Trails are very expensive to both build and maintain in this rugged coastal rainforest. There have been several trails established in recent memory. The perimeter trail system, the Tall Tree Trail, etc. which did not last long because they were not used by enough people, and therefore not maintained properly. If there is money now available through grants, various levels of government, service clubs or whatever, I think there should be input from all user groups affected and interested stakeholders from throughout the community and all these factors taken properly into consideration before a decision is made. Personally I think as important as this project is to expand outdoor recreation possibilities for the community and region, there is a better and more practical option available, that would be used more without negatively impacting another club and facility like this. For example the Mount Oldfield, Mount Hays route, among others.
Just out of curiosity, why can’t we (the city) refurbish the Rushbrook Trail as they have been promising now for at least the last 5-6 years. It is such a beautiful trail and has great potential and would be wonderful for the cruise ship passengers who only have the time for a small hike while they are here. A couple asked us about that last week, where could they go for a nice walk, not too far out of the way? She wanted to see some trees !! It would be perfect especially when the seals are down there sunning themselves and all. Great berry pickin’ too !!
Doesn’t the same problem with a trail placed so close also apply to Oliver Lakethat i believe is fairly close, too? Isn’t the proximity of the highway also a danger?
I know that in the trail scenario, gun bullets are aimed in that direction (though of course during 99.9 per cent of the time would never be intended for bicyclists), but the question I want answered: how are drivers guaranteed that they won’t be hit as they drive by? And if those guarantees are considered enough, would the same principle not apply to a bike trail that is planned to be further away?
The shooting ranges are aimed away from the highway. Shooting happens in the direction away from the highway. No JFK-style magic bullets used at the gun club.
The same principle wouldn’t apply to a trail that would run behind the ranges, since they would be shooting in their direction. I don’t think it’s a huge deal, especially for the pistols and shotguns which have only short ranges anyway. Besides, there are berms and stuff for the rifles.
But that’s not the point, even with an absolute assurance of safety, the perception of danger still exists if someone is shooting in your direction. Which is too bad, because the gun club guys take safety very seriously.
If the trail goes in, the Rod and Gun club will be closed. The danger range for pistol is all the way down to the water. I cant remember exactly how it goes, but i beleave the the city signs off saying they are not worried about ricochets because they is nothing going on behind the club. If the trail goes in, the city will not sign off, and then the CFO will not give the club range approval. If the club doesn’t have a rifle/pistol range, the club will fold.
I have not checked personally, but I understand SQCRD has or had copies of the trail proposal available to the public at its office, so it would seem to follow that the RD would receive comments from citizens.
The City’s position is a bit difficult to follow. The July 27 minutes say that council gives “approval and consent … provided that the cost of the Capital work be paid through external grants and that SQCRD be responsible for ongoing trail maintenance, and concerns of stakeholders, such as the Rod and Gun Club, are sufficiently addressed.”
The City hence appears to have given conditional consent. But who determines whether stakeholder concerns have been “sufficiently addressed”? And how or through what process do they determine that? The council seems to have given the project an amber rather than a green light.
It would seem advisable to send e-mails, letters or other expressions of podunkian concern to either or both the SQCRD and the City.
There are several more pre-existing trails around that could be easily re-furbished, most of which have been there a long while, some were part of the old ‘perimeter trail system’.
There was an article in the Daily news recently about the trail society re-doing the one from Omineca Ave to Wantage Road. There is another from the entrance to the graveyard which also goes to Wantage road.
There is another along wantage road following Hays Creek. Another from the industrial road / old Hwy. beside Rupert towing compound which goes down to Sealcove seaplane base. And another Really nice one was the old Tall Tree trail which goes up Mt. Oldfield and across the alpine to Mt. Hays, this one could easily be extended to connect with several other already existing routes off the mountain, either down wantage road, or off the back ridge to the ‘secret garden’ trail, or down the South ridge to the Ridley access road.
And how about the ‘thousand stairs’ trail from the graveyard to the lookout on Mount Hays?
So there are a great many other options available and no need to impact the shooting range which is more of an assett to this community than another trail that will not get used much.
I agree with you MiG. I actually don’ think it is as big a safety deal as it is being made out to be. I’ve been down there to shoot (once) and I was made to feel that the range is very secure.
But the perception argument really shouldn’t stand up given that if you believe a bullet could kill someone on a bike trail out of range from a pistol, then you darn sure could believe that… ooops!.. I just accidently shot someone in a Tercel, no looking. (Sarcasm!)
Remember, guns don’t kill people. Keeping BC Strong, does.