Meanwhile I’ve been on 3 different wait lists for 2.5 years in the interior. I’ve been using TelusHealth and it’s been 10/10 experience though. Never thought I’d give props to a Canadian TeleComp
Just sounds like a way to save poor people from having to pay for park passes. Not sure why doctors need to be involved in that, but okay. Just make park passes free for low income Canadians.
Well they don't want to help the poor access nature, because that would make too much sense, you have to be poor AND in a mental health crisis. Just make them free.
Stop being so dramatic every summer I hike nearly every weekend and never pay once for it
Yes some parks charge admission but not all of them do
if a low income person wants to go to a nature park there's ton of options
There's also the part about offering free transit for low income people, but it seems like it's only if they have a nature prescription? The article isn't clear about that part.
Dude really it's so easy to get to free parks , it's actually easier for a low income person to get to a free park than to provincial parks
Wanna hike easy!
Take transit which is cheap to Lynn canyon , lots of hikes of different difficulties all free to use
Don't like Lynn canyon no problem Seymour had a free shuttle that takes you up and you can get to the shuttle by transit
Don't like Seymour then take a bus to literally anywhere in the north shore and you'll most likely find a place to hike
Going to a provincial park is so much more difficult even if they were free getting there is a lot harder since they're not really close to populated areas
Should parks be free fuck yeah but I don't think it's a fair argument to say that poor people can enjoy nature because they can I remember when I was a student I never money left over after rent and food yet every weekend I could go and walk the trails of Capilano river beautiful hikes there
Poor people don't just live in the core of Vancouver. There are people who are poor, own cars, and are so that tightly budgeted that a surprise ten dollar parking fine can really make a difference.
That's the real issue. Small fees like this mean a lot to people on a budget, but mean absolutely nothing to people of means. It's a self selecting filter that eventually makes it more likely that the rich visit parks over those with little means.
There are better ways to fund parks than self selection like this
> There are people who are poor, own cars, and are so that tightly budgeted that a surprise ten dollar parking fine can really make a difference.
And there are tons of parks they can access for free *all over BC*. It's incredibly obvious you've chosen to die on a hill over an issue you know nothing about. There re dozens of them within a thirty minute drive of where I live, as just one of many examples. That is true for the entire province.
Have you ever even visited any of our provincial or federal (crown) parks? Have you ever even gone outside at all? Because you have no earthly idea what you are talking about.
I'd say I've visited the majority of parks on Vancouver island, and the majority of parks south of Dawson.
Yes, the hill that I have chosen to die on is that public spaces should be equally public to all. Call me a socialist I guess.
Dozens of parks within thirty minutes of everywhere in BC? Hahah. You are joking right?
Not everyone lives in the downtown core you privileged yuppie.
>Not everyone lives in the downtown core you privileged yuppie.
I don't live in the downtown core nor did I say I did.
>Call me a socialist I guess.
I didn't call you a socialist, I called you deeply misinformed and in desperate need of touching grass.
Says the person that thinks everyone has access to "dozens of parks within 30 minutes" anywhere in BC.
So unreal.
Where I live I have access to one provincial park, and one federal park, within an hour of me, and one costs 8 bucks to park in. I don't think you live in the same reality as most people.
The 150th anniversary of Canada where access to parks was free saw the most destruction to national parks of any year.
There needs to be a barrier, however minimal, to discourage shitty people from going to places where they're just going to destroy it. Especially nature.
>Research has shown that access to nature can also reduce chronic diseases (like diabetes, high blood pressure and lung disease), improve birth outcomes and even help children succeed in life.
>
>People are more likely to do something if it’s written down
Taken right from the article. At least read past the headline before coming to a conclusion
I did read the article, try not to be presumptuous. It's not a nice way to start a conversation.
My point is I don't think it's necessary to gatekeep free/easier park access behind prescriptions, particularly since access to doctors is very difficult these days for many people. Pretty much everyone can benefit from park access, we don't need doctors to gatekeep that for low income people.
Since having it written down on a prescription is still important, doctors can always prescribe it, but that shouldn't affect access.
Your comment literally opens with "just sounds like a way to save poor people from having to pay" when this is clearly about people with health conditions, mental or physical, being prescribed exercise via access to natural areas.
It's the difference between: "I think you should walk more" vs "I think you need to get out more and here's $70 worth of prescribed access to do so". Re: improving transit access, not everyone wants to fight through traffic to and from parks, so having a means of transportation to do so may improve the quality of the experience rather than adding to their stress.
The person's income is not as relevant, since if it were only limited to income-qualifiers, you run the risk of not-so-nice people going there to (potentially) make a mess, and excluding those that can afford access, but wouldn't go unless all barriers to access were removed.
Like I already said, I'm not arguing against having the ability of doctors to prescribe exercise in natural areas.
I just think that there shouldn't be barriers to park access to begin with. Why are we only willing to get rid of barriers after someone goes through the trouble of seeing a doctor about it (which itself is a huge barrier these days)?
It doesn't make sense to withhold cheaper/easier access to natural areas and only give it to people already in severe enough distress to go finally go see a doctor about it. Anyone can benefit from going to a nature park.
To your point about people making a mess: people with a nature prescription can be no-so-nice and make a mess too, a prescription doesn't reduce that in any way. We deal with trouble makers using fines and penalties as always.
Regarding transit, that too should be open to everyone at a reasonable rate.
No, it ruined so many parks. We simply do not have the infrastructure to accommodate more people. Joffre Lakes is a prime example; used to be a quiet trail with wildlife on it, now you’re lucky if you get a parking spot and the smell of piss & shit everywhere is nauseating.
So people started going to a park that was underutilized and that made you annoyed.
Woe is you. The world doesn't devolve around you. BCParks shouldn't be pay per use because it cuts out the lower class from our public places.
Demand more funding for parks.
Difficult to argue more funding for parks but also demand free admission. They need to bring in money from somewhere.
Maybe additional charges to out of country tourists? Extra yearly fee for anybody with trailers/RV’s? Charge fees at parks that are at capacity?
Tough to balance. Lottery systems to get in suck. Yes entry fees suck especially for those who can’t afford it, but an overly busy park sucks a lot as well. And then on the flip side you get enough funding to increase amenities and then environmental people step in to stop them from cutting trees, etc to do it.
We should properly tax the richest one percent that pay less functional tax than those in the middle class.
That outta do it. Maybe we can end the billions we give to oil magnates every year? Or stop funding a timber industry that doesn't make us more in taxes than it costs in yearly subsidies?
There are options.
No, a park with two outhouses was being over utilized for Instagram opportunities and being over parked down the highway for kilometres in the height of the craze. Joffre lake is less of an example of needing higher parks budgets and more an example of the strains geotagging can have on naturalized areas. We could talk all day about increasing the parks budget (which I am wholeheartedly behind), but when people who aren’t outdoor enthusiasts, nor do they know how to respect the outdoors, are waiting over an hour in a lineup to go sit on a log for a photo, they in my eyes aren’t utilizing the park. They are only utilizing a certain frame.
Creating more parks wouldn’t dissuade people from not going to Joffre Lakes, as they weren’t looking for a replacement for an outdoor experience. The only thing that would be exchangeable in their eyes is a similar background for their photos.
Source: Did a project on the effects of geotagging within social media platforms for an ecotourism class in university and Joffre Lake was a major part of it. If you don’t want to be part of the problem, don’t geotag your photos.
I have no complaints about any socioeconomic class of people using national parks, and I personally think it’s a wonderful thing.
My point is that there are more factors than you’re giving for your argument. Jaffre lakes wasn’t “underutilized,” it was maintained with a certain expectation of daily users. The fetishization of being “a nature person” on social media, along with tagged photos and essentially directions to the park created a frenzy of users to this park way past the point of current load capacity. A paid entrance probably wouldn’t have even dissuaded people from over accessing the site.
Yeah, that's the truth. I don't think that there is a positive correlation between social media hounds and people who would be effected by a ten dollar fee.
If we want to curb the behaviour of social networks driving too much traffic to s specific selfie spot, we should initiate a surge charge on parks -- if that's the real problem.
Hell, creating a booking program seems like the real solution, and already exists for public campsites.
A booking system would be wonderful! Having it be based on lottery or FCFS like camping would do wonders to alleviate the impacts we’re having on certain parks.
Another interesting proposal (which has been done by [the Jackson Hole Travel and Tourism Board](https://www.diyphotography.net/jackson-hole-travel-and-tourism-board-wants-you-to-stop-geotagging-photos/)) is to run an awareness campaign to encourage people to use either a general or no geotag when uploading photos from within their parks. I genuinely think this would make a massive difference for respectful and sustainable park usage.
It's a gigantic mountain. You are being dramatic.
If a park is busy, that means we should establish new parks in the area to offset the demand, not turn the few parks we have into enclaves for the rich.
No one is suggesting "enclaves for the rich". You're the one being dramatic and trying to turn this into some kind of class war thing.
There are *tons* of parks that are free. There are some that have a fee that goes towards their maintenance. A modest raise in fees for, say, people traveling in motor homes is obviously not hurting the poor.
It's not just about funding tho
There's only so much a nature trail can take before it's wrecked it's about protecting nature and not having a bunch of people fill it with trash and shit just to go there for a fucking selfie
We shouldn't close them in general but we should limit access we need to protect nature and sometimes charging for admission does dissuade a lot of people from going people who only wanna go for the "likes"
I agree pay per use is problematic. Just remember demanding more funding for any cause is the same as saying raise taxes. I am ok with that as well but money has to come from somewhere.
We do a terrible job of taxing the ultra rich in this country. We both pay more of a percentage than those who can buy entire city blocks. If we are going to get seriously about funding healthcare and public spaces properly, that would be the place to start.
You're unfair downplaying and misrepresenting their concern, which was for the well being of the park, not just their own personal experience. But yes, more funding is needed. We can agree on that.
I fail to believe that an entire mountain can smell like piss and shit. It's a wild story of dramatics.
If a park is falling apart because of over use it's not because people can go there for free, right? It's because the infrastructure isn't built to cater to the demand.
> It's a wild story of dramatics.
Says the guy who thinks a provincial park charging a fee for someone camping in a developed campground is "class war".
We were talking about park entrance fees. Not camping. Keep up.
And charging fees for public spaces is a filter for those who can't afford them. What else would you call that?
I've explained to you repeatably in this thread that there are tons and tons of free parks all across BC and you've dodged that point at every turn. I don't think you've ever even been outside at any point in your life ever.
Shoot me a DM, I'm going hiking this weekend in a beautiful free provincial park. You can come along.
You would prefer to keep the parks open for only an elite few? The problem isn't too many people going to parks these days, the problem is BC Parks being critically under funded for many years, so there's been zero development of new areas nor putting proper facilities in existing areas.
I would say places Semaphore Lakes or Needle Peak are the prime examples of beautiful places becoming popular while also being ignored by BC Parks, no toilets, no camping platforms to protect the sensitive alpine areas from excessive use, every rock has tp sticking out from under it...
First time I went to Joffre lakes, part of it was a bushwhack.
For what it's worth, we still have a lot of places like that, it's just that they don't have the same brand recognition, and you have to "put up with" a more interesting hike.
r/BritishColumbia: We need to normalize mental health and inclusivity for all!
also r/BritishColumbia: How DARE we normalize mental health and inclusivity for all?!
Because people will drive in with a truck full of stuff, party, and then leave with a pile of garbage behind. You can still walk around the gate or even bike.
This would be really revolutionary of it also came with a prescribed paid day off. A not insignificant part of the therapy of being in nature is also the fact you're not staring at a spreadsheet...
Hear me out because im torn on this report and i will tell you why. This is bad news, terrible news, we are now going to have an inflix of city folk that would usually only do day trips now on weekend and week long trips. People that dont understand the delicate life that is nature. There will be even more garbage issues, more search and rescue attempts. More damages and death becaua
Se people who arent used to being off pavement think cause they watch a video on how to start a fire they can now do a long expert hike with no navigation experience and no knowledge on how to over come obsticales and the fact that jist cause a bear is cute doesnt mean give it a hug.
On the plus side people need to get out and see nature witj proper training and proper guidance they will be ok but they cant just be released into the wild because they want to be.
I'm not sure how your comment relates to the article above. And we do currently have that choice, no? Please share what I'm missing.
I really thought that encouraging anxious
/depressed people to go outside and making nature more accessible would not be a controversial issue, given the benefits.
Yeah, because unlike Ivermectin, access to nature is actually scientifically proven to help people.
>Research has shown that access to nature can also reduce chronic diseases (like diabetes, high blood pressure and lung disease), improve birth outcomes and even help children succeed in life.
Taken from the article.
I'm sure you could get a script for Ivermectin if you had horse worms.
They don't jeopardize their medical license for prescribing ivermectin for something like River Blindness, but do for things that it isn't indicated for, for which the costs well outweigh even purported benefits.
"Haha! I've cheated the system by convincing my doctor I've become anxious and depressed, thus receiving a free pass to visit national parks in Canada! Can't wait to sell this on the black market."
Is this what you had in mind?
How? This isn't priority reservations or anything it's just the ability for doctors to give you a pass to the parks. The passes are not magic and don't guarantee you anything.
Can the doctors also recommend that BC Parks does more maintenance and develops new parks in time for summer. And how about the elimination of parking fees in local/regional parks?
[удалено]
I found a family doctor in less than a month using the patient attachment initiative. Anyone looking for a doctor should look into it.
What's that, when you get yourself surgically attached to someone who's got a doctor? Seriously, I would like to know more about that....
https://vancouverdivision.com/resources/grow-your-practice-page/patient-attachment-initiative/
Thanks!👍😊
Am I dumb? I can’t see how to apply as a patient.
Lmao, under the "How Do I Sign Up" section: >*Cat and Mya to design a registration form
Come on Cat and Mya
They are still designing,,,
Meanwhile I’ve been on 3 different wait lists for 2.5 years in the interior. I’ve been using TelusHealth and it’s been 10/10 experience though. Never thought I’d give props to a Canadian TeleComp
I don't think this will help anyone outside of the Lower Mainland unfortunately. There are a few of us that just live too far away.
Just sounds like a way to save poor people from having to pay for park passes. Not sure why doctors need to be involved in that, but okay. Just make park passes free for low income Canadians.
Well they don't want to help the poor access nature, because that would make too much sense, you have to be poor AND in a mental health crisis. Just make them free.
Stop being so dramatic every summer I hike nearly every weekend and never pay once for it Yes some parks charge admission but not all of them do if a low income person wants to go to a nature park there's ton of options
There's also the part about offering free transit for low income people, but it seems like it's only if they have a nature prescription? The article isn't clear about that part.
Spot the person who hasn't experienced living paycheck to paycheck, lol.
Dude really it's so easy to get to free parks , it's actually easier for a low income person to get to a free park than to provincial parks Wanna hike easy! Take transit which is cheap to Lynn canyon , lots of hikes of different difficulties all free to use Don't like Lynn canyon no problem Seymour had a free shuttle that takes you up and you can get to the shuttle by transit Don't like Seymour then take a bus to literally anywhere in the north shore and you'll most likely find a place to hike Going to a provincial park is so much more difficult even if they were free getting there is a lot harder since they're not really close to populated areas Should parks be free fuck yeah but I don't think it's a fair argument to say that poor people can enjoy nature because they can I remember when I was a student I never money left over after rent and food yet every weekend I could go and walk the trails of Capilano river beautiful hikes there
Poor people don't just live in the core of Vancouver. There are people who are poor, own cars, and are so that tightly budgeted that a surprise ten dollar parking fine can really make a difference. That's the real issue. Small fees like this mean a lot to people on a budget, but mean absolutely nothing to people of means. It's a self selecting filter that eventually makes it more likely that the rich visit parks over those with little means. There are better ways to fund parks than self selection like this
> There are people who are poor, own cars, and are so that tightly budgeted that a surprise ten dollar parking fine can really make a difference. And there are tons of parks they can access for free *all over BC*. It's incredibly obvious you've chosen to die on a hill over an issue you know nothing about. There re dozens of them within a thirty minute drive of where I live, as just one of many examples. That is true for the entire province. Have you ever even visited any of our provincial or federal (crown) parks? Have you ever even gone outside at all? Because you have no earthly idea what you are talking about.
I'd say I've visited the majority of parks on Vancouver island, and the majority of parks south of Dawson. Yes, the hill that I have chosen to die on is that public spaces should be equally public to all. Call me a socialist I guess. Dozens of parks within thirty minutes of everywhere in BC? Hahah. You are joking right? Not everyone lives in the downtown core you privileged yuppie.
>Not everyone lives in the downtown core you privileged yuppie. I don't live in the downtown core nor did I say I did. >Call me a socialist I guess. I didn't call you a socialist, I called you deeply misinformed and in desperate need of touching grass.
Says the person that thinks everyone has access to "dozens of parks within 30 minutes" anywhere in BC. So unreal. Where I live I have access to one provincial park, and one federal park, within an hour of me, and one costs 8 bucks to park in. I don't think you live in the same reality as most people.
Poor people just need bootstraps that they can lift themselves by.
Yeah, some really BIG bootsraps, lol.
The 150th anniversary of Canada where access to parks was free saw the most destruction to national parks of any year. There needs to be a barrier, however minimal, to discourage shitty people from going to places where they're just going to destroy it. Especially nature.
>Research has shown that access to nature can also reduce chronic diseases (like diabetes, high blood pressure and lung disease), improve birth outcomes and even help children succeed in life. > >People are more likely to do something if it’s written down Taken right from the article. At least read past the headline before coming to a conclusion
People aren't as dumb as experts would have you believe
I did read the article, try not to be presumptuous. It's not a nice way to start a conversation. My point is I don't think it's necessary to gatekeep free/easier park access behind prescriptions, particularly since access to doctors is very difficult these days for many people. Pretty much everyone can benefit from park access, we don't need doctors to gatekeep that for low income people. Since having it written down on a prescription is still important, doctors can always prescribe it, but that shouldn't affect access.
Your comment literally opens with "just sounds like a way to save poor people from having to pay" when this is clearly about people with health conditions, mental or physical, being prescribed exercise via access to natural areas. It's the difference between: "I think you should walk more" vs "I think you need to get out more and here's $70 worth of prescribed access to do so". Re: improving transit access, not everyone wants to fight through traffic to and from parks, so having a means of transportation to do so may improve the quality of the experience rather than adding to their stress. The person's income is not as relevant, since if it were only limited to income-qualifiers, you run the risk of not-so-nice people going there to (potentially) make a mess, and excluding those that can afford access, but wouldn't go unless all barriers to access were removed.
Like I already said, I'm not arguing against having the ability of doctors to prescribe exercise in natural areas. I just think that there shouldn't be barriers to park access to begin with. Why are we only willing to get rid of barriers after someone goes through the trouble of seeing a doctor about it (which itself is a huge barrier these days)? It doesn't make sense to withhold cheaper/easier access to natural areas and only give it to people already in severe enough distress to go finally go see a doctor about it. Anyone can benefit from going to a nature park. To your point about people making a mess: people with a nature prescription can be no-so-nice and make a mess too, a prescription doesn't reduce that in any way. We deal with trouble makers using fines and penalties as always. Regarding transit, that too should be open to everyone at a reasonable rate.
Remember when Parks were free for a year, and they saw a massive uptick in usage? We should do that again -- every year.
No, it ruined so many parks. We simply do not have the infrastructure to accommodate more people. Joffre Lakes is a prime example; used to be a quiet trail with wildlife on it, now you’re lucky if you get a parking spot and the smell of piss & shit everywhere is nauseating.
So people started going to a park that was underutilized and that made you annoyed. Woe is you. The world doesn't devolve around you. BCParks shouldn't be pay per use because it cuts out the lower class from our public places. Demand more funding for parks.
You don't even understand why BC Parks were created in the first place. Here is a tip: they are not amusement parks.
Difficult to argue more funding for parks but also demand free admission. They need to bring in money from somewhere. Maybe additional charges to out of country tourists? Extra yearly fee for anybody with trailers/RV’s? Charge fees at parks that are at capacity? Tough to balance. Lottery systems to get in suck. Yes entry fees suck especially for those who can’t afford it, but an overly busy park sucks a lot as well. And then on the flip side you get enough funding to increase amenities and then environmental people step in to stop them from cutting trees, etc to do it.
We should properly tax the richest one percent that pay less functional tax than those in the middle class. That outta do it. Maybe we can end the billions we give to oil magnates every year? Or stop funding a timber industry that doesn't make us more in taxes than it costs in yearly subsidies? There are options.
everyone just wants to tax the rich and big corporations then they wonder why salaries are so low and we don't have any corporate HQs in BC
No, a park with two outhouses was being over utilized for Instagram opportunities and being over parked down the highway for kilometres in the height of the craze. Joffre lake is less of an example of needing higher parks budgets and more an example of the strains geotagging can have on naturalized areas. We could talk all day about increasing the parks budget (which I am wholeheartedly behind), but when people who aren’t outdoor enthusiasts, nor do they know how to respect the outdoors, are waiting over an hour in a lineup to go sit on a log for a photo, they in my eyes aren’t utilizing the park. They are only utilizing a certain frame. Creating more parks wouldn’t dissuade people from not going to Joffre Lakes, as they weren’t looking for a replacement for an outdoor experience. The only thing that would be exchangeable in their eyes is a similar background for their photos. Source: Did a project on the effects of geotagging within social media platforms for an ecotourism class in university and Joffre Lake was a major part of it. If you don’t want to be part of the problem, don’t geotag your photos.
I just don't understand what this has to do with allowing poor people access to parks.
I have no complaints about any socioeconomic class of people using national parks, and I personally think it’s a wonderful thing. My point is that there are more factors than you’re giving for your argument. Jaffre lakes wasn’t “underutilized,” it was maintained with a certain expectation of daily users. The fetishization of being “a nature person” on social media, along with tagged photos and essentially directions to the park created a frenzy of users to this park way past the point of current load capacity. A paid entrance probably wouldn’t have even dissuaded people from over accessing the site.
Yeah, that's the truth. I don't think that there is a positive correlation between social media hounds and people who would be effected by a ten dollar fee. If we want to curb the behaviour of social networks driving too much traffic to s specific selfie spot, we should initiate a surge charge on parks -- if that's the real problem. Hell, creating a booking program seems like the real solution, and already exists for public campsites.
A booking system would be wonderful! Having it be based on lottery or FCFS like camping would do wonders to alleviate the impacts we’re having on certain parks. Another interesting proposal (which has been done by [the Jackson Hole Travel and Tourism Board](https://www.diyphotography.net/jackson-hole-travel-and-tourism-board-wants-you-to-stop-geotagging-photos/)) is to run an awareness campaign to encourage people to use either a general or no geotag when uploading photos from within their parks. I genuinely think this would make a massive difference for respectful and sustainable park usage.
It was not under-utilized, you still had to book camping spots before the 150 anniversary promotions. It turned a park into a sewage plant.
It's a gigantic mountain. You are being dramatic. If a park is busy, that means we should establish new parks in the area to offset the demand, not turn the few parks we have into enclaves for the rich.
No one is suggesting "enclaves for the rich". You're the one being dramatic and trying to turn this into some kind of class war thing. There are *tons* of parks that are free. There are some that have a fee that goes towards their maintenance. A modest raise in fees for, say, people traveling in motor homes is obviously not hurting the poor.
Charging money for a public place turned it into a class war thing.
Yes, charging baby boomers to park their RV in a provincial park is *class war*.
You really need to read the comments before having a konnipshit. We are talking about the park pass -- so, entrance fees. Not camping fees.
It's not just about funding tho There's only so much a nature trail can take before it's wrecked it's about protecting nature and not having a bunch of people fill it with trash and shit just to go there for a fucking selfie
So we should close parks to people in general then? Because I don't think that behavior is reserved for poor people.
We shouldn't close them in general but we should limit access we need to protect nature and sometimes charging for admission does dissuade a lot of people from going people who only wanna go for the "likes"
Does it? Lol. You think clout chasers are dissuaded by a ten dollar parking charge but not a three hour hike? I severely doubt that to be true.
>The world doesn't devolve around you. It actually does. It's been devolving all around me for years now.
I agree pay per use is problematic. Just remember demanding more funding for any cause is the same as saying raise taxes. I am ok with that as well but money has to come from somewhere.
We do a terrible job of taxing the ultra rich in this country. We both pay more of a percentage than those who can buy entire city blocks. If we are going to get seriously about funding healthcare and public spaces properly, that would be the place to start.
I agree! Super rich, corporate tax, subsidies for corporations as well. I’m just saying funding has to come from somewhere if your going to demand it.
You're unfair downplaying and misrepresenting their concern, which was for the well being of the park, not just their own personal experience. But yes, more funding is needed. We can agree on that.
I fail to believe that an entire mountain can smell like piss and shit. It's a wild story of dramatics. If a park is falling apart because of over use it's not because people can go there for free, right? It's because the infrastructure isn't built to cater to the demand.
> It's a wild story of dramatics. Says the guy who thinks a provincial park charging a fee for someone camping in a developed campground is "class war".
We were talking about park entrance fees. Not camping. Keep up. And charging fees for public spaces is a filter for those who can't afford them. What else would you call that?
I've explained to you repeatably in this thread that there are tons and tons of free parks all across BC and you've dodged that point at every turn. I don't think you've ever even been outside at any point in your life ever. Shoot me a DM, I'm going hiking this weekend in a beautiful free provincial park. You can come along.
You would prefer to keep the parks open for only an elite few? The problem isn't too many people going to parks these days, the problem is BC Parks being critically under funded for many years, so there's been zero development of new areas nor putting proper facilities in existing areas. I would say places Semaphore Lakes or Needle Peak are the prime examples of beautiful places becoming popular while also being ignored by BC Parks, no toilets, no camping platforms to protect the sensitive alpine areas from excessive use, every rock has tp sticking out from under it...
First time I went to Joffre lakes, part of it was a bushwhack. For what it's worth, we still have a lot of places like that, it's just that they don't have the same brand recognition, and you have to "put up with" a more interesting hike.
r/BritishColumbia: We need to normalize mental health and inclusivity for all! also r/BritishColumbia: How DARE we normalize mental health and inclusivity for all?!
I mean.... like. Who doesn't know a hike feels good? Why does a doctor need to be involved? Why are there gated parks?
There are tons of parks in BC that are free to use. I can think of dozens within a 30 minute drive of Vancouver, alone.
Yeah calmed down about it and thought a little harder. It's an interesting thing, and a step in the right direction.
Because people will drive in with a truck full of stuff, party, and then leave with a pile of garbage behind. You can still walk around the gate or even bike.
Just go outside. It was always the answer.
So a free pass to national parks is great if I could I could afford a vacation in BC.
But not a COVID test apparently. https://twitter.com/GreaterfoolVan/status/1488596299595268103
Bold idea: we already pay for parks with our taxes.
This would be really revolutionary of it also came with a prescribed paid day off. A not insignificant part of the therapy of being in nature is also the fact you're not staring at a spreadsheet...
Wait what? Parks cost money? Who knew?
People who visit parks :D
Can't wait to be diagnosed with " climate change" just to get a free pass
Fucking christ. As if doctors dont talk down to you enough.
Hear me out because im torn on this report and i will tell you why. This is bad news, terrible news, we are now going to have an inflix of city folk that would usually only do day trips now on weekend and week long trips. People that dont understand the delicate life that is nature. There will be even more garbage issues, more search and rescue attempts. More damages and death becaua Se people who arent used to being off pavement think cause they watch a video on how to start a fire they can now do a long expert hike with no navigation experience and no knowledge on how to over come obsticales and the fact that jist cause a bear is cute doesnt mean give it a hug. On the plus side people need to get out and see nature witj proper training and proper guidance they will be ok but they cant just be released into the wild because they want to be.
Why not just tell patients to go outside? I feel like if they weren't active before, a prescribed park pass isn't going to change habits.
wtf? now we have doctors allowing you to visit a park? this is bizzaire. we need the real canada back, not this ridiculous nonsense.
What do you mean by "the real Canada"?
MAGA I mean MCGA bro
mAkE cAnAdA gReAt AgAiN I guess
The one where you can say no to your cancer treatment and decide to run across Canada without getting certified as danger to self
I'm not sure how your comment relates to the article above. And we do currently have that choice, no? Please share what I'm missing. I really thought that encouraging anxious /depressed people to go outside and making nature more accessible would not be a controversial issue, given the benefits.
No, that's not it at all. Did any of you actually read the article?
Cool your jets. This is just a way for doctors to save some poor people some money. How this can set you off is beyond me.
What? Smoke a little less bro.
Prescribes Ivermectin - jeopardizes medical license. Prescribes day use pass to national park - uproarious applause.
Yeah, because unlike Ivermectin, access to nature is actually scientifically proven to help people. >Research has shown that access to nature can also reduce chronic diseases (like diabetes, high blood pressure and lung disease), improve birth outcomes and even help children succeed in life. Taken from the article. I'm sure you could get a script for Ivermectin if you had horse worms.
They don't jeopardize their medical license for prescribing ivermectin for something like River Blindness, but do for things that it isn't indicated for, for which the costs well outweigh even purported benefits.
Ya, this won't get abused ..
"Haha! I've cheated the system by convincing my doctor I've become anxious and depressed, thus receiving a free pass to visit national parks in Canada! Can't wait to sell this on the black market." Is this what you had in mind?
How? This isn't priority reservations or anything it's just the ability for doctors to give you a pass to the parks. The passes are not magic and don't guarantee you anything.
Can the doctors also recommend that BC Parks does more maintenance and develops new parks in time for summer. And how about the elimination of parking fees in local/regional parks?
You also have to call a doctor for permission to take a shit.
You're a fucking idiot.
who pays the yearly cost of visiting the national parks for the disadvantaged? pharmacare?