|
CAN HIKE ONTARIO CLUBS CONTINUE TO OFFER VALUABLE STEWARDSHIP TO THEIR COMMUNITIES?
I wish to outline an issue for Hike Ontario (HO) - that being the survival of Hike Ontario's brand of stewardship as embraced by most of its member clubs.
Through landowner agreements, most HO hiking clubs share a dedication to safe hiking trails on both private and public land. These agreements nearly always involve a significant commitment by the club to maintain a trail in a safe condition for the public.
This brand of Hike Ontario club stewardship is unique. This brand of stewardship is not just sitting in a few meetings convened by public outreach staff. This brand of stewardship is taking responsibility of a safe public trail for the sheer pride of providing a useful public service. This brand of stewardship involves a significant club commitment in time, money and community involvement.
I believe this brand of stewardship tends to survive well because local community members are attracted by taking virtual "ownership" of the trail in their community/backyard and they understand they provide a valuable public service free of taxpayer cost.
Hike Ontario calculates that its member clubs contribute in time and dollars from grants, member dues and donations several million dollars per year to their communities for management of safe hiking trails.
Over the last few years, particularly in fast developing towns, public agencies and municipalities are responding to population growth by creating multiuse trails (the additional us mainly being biking). These multiuse trails are intended to be part of the taxpayer maintained trail infrastructure. This may make sense in legally approved (under Planning Act) urban development areas. But is does not make as much sense in rural, agricultural and natural areas outside development areas, especially if pedestrian - only trails are converted to multiuse.
Urban areas understandably are serving a much greater population concentration with varied interests. Rural areas, on the other hand, are more natural and spacious, allowing trail use separation more readily. Rural/natural areas, moreover offer unique hiking experiences of quiet enjoyment in rich natural environments especially if free of multiuse traffic. This is particularly important as we become aware of nature deficit in our children in an era of growing urbanization, estrangement from nature and declining formal outdoor education opportunities. Nevertheless, my experience is that the taxpayer is increasingly funding multiuse trails in non-development areas at times on routes of former pedestrian trails. Moreover, I see that multiuse trails do not encourage the Hike Ontario brand of stewardship.
Is the pedestrian trail becoming an endangered facility in Ontario? Are local groups who have provided significant services to their communities free of tax payer costs being unnecessarily ignored by municipal and conservation organizations?
Hike Ontario's position is to advocate the HO stewardship brand involving a significant volunteer commitment by local clubs because those clubs have shown that they are sustainable and they can save taxpayers' dollars with valuable volunteer public service.*
Your comments on my message are welcome.
Bill Wilson, President, Hike Ontario.
|
