NOLS Invasion

From my perspective as a left-leaning American: I think this may be as much about Canadians perceptions of Americans (of late) as it is about well-known, successful "nonprofit" corporations (quotes because it's an oxymoron) feeling like just because they're well-known, successful corporations (ahem, "nonprofit" corporations) they should be entitled to do basically whatever they want.

Just my two cents. :)
 
Note that "Americans" did not stir up this ado; one elected official did. And many of those who appreciate the adventure north of the San Juan Islands (Oregon and Washington) didn't vote or agree with that individual, and respect/appreciate our Canadian neighbors.

I understand the need for "the need for response" when outrageous policies are enacted by one country against another. But please don't confuse "the people" of a county with the actions of those governing.
 
One must always choose how broad a brush to paint a population with, but in the case of the last election where the current government won the popular vote, it's easy for us Canadians to choose a very broad brush.

Add in the 51st State BS (which just got brought up in jest to a room full of top brass) and I can understand why many Canadians are taking a zero tolerance policy.

I feel for those Americans who don't agree with the current government. But as a country, Canada needs to enact policies that reflect the relationship with its neighbour, not the residents therein that it agrees with.
 
alexsidles said:
As a kayaker myself, all of this makes perfect sense to me.
Click to expand...
I guess you'd have to explain to me how a west coast campsite could be used for emergency evacuation from an Inside Passage trip.
The whole application seems deliberately misleading. NOLS wants leases on campsites all over the BC coast for possibly many different courses, but is pretending that the whole point is to merely get permission for one trip up the Inside, involving 10 people.
 
AM said:
You and I do not get to decide who is an "outsider", which means that one day it might apply to us.
Click to expand...
If you are referring to First Nations restrictions, this isn't 'one day', it's already happened. Off topic and better in a different discussion; I know. Back to our regular program....
 
JohnAbercrombie said:
I guess you'd have to explain to me how a west coast campsite could be used for emergency evacuation from an Inside Passage trip.
The whole application seems deliberately misleading. NOLS wants leases on campsites all over the BC coast for possibly many different courses, but is pretending that the whole point is to merely get permission for one trip up the Inside, involving 10 people.
Click to expand...

In the actual application they state:

NOLS has historically offered sea kayak trips in the Central Coast Region and West Coast of
Vancouver Island and Vancouver Island East- North. Central Coast trips have paddled to/from
Bella Bella and/or the surrounding islands. NOLS courses have also sea kayaked round trip from
Telegraph Cove often circumnavigating Gilford Island (Vancouver Island East -North). New is a
proposed Sea Kayak expedition, the Inside Passage, that would paddle the entire British Columbia
Coast from Washington to Alaska.
Click to expand...

Which implies they wish to continue offerings on the West Coast in addition to the Inside Passage trip.
 
JohnAbercrombie said:
I guess you'd have to explain to me how a west coast campsite could be used for emergency evacuation from an Inside Passage trip.
The whole application seems deliberately misleading. NOLS wants leases on campsites all over the BC coast for possibly many different courses, but is pretending that the whole point is to merely get permission for one trip up the Inside, involving 10 people.
Click to expand...
i don't see what's so confusing about it. This is a permit application for both the regular kayaking course campsites and the Inside Passage trip campsites. People who noticed campsites on the west coast and thought they caught NOLS in a lie simply failed to read the permit application.

The permit application explains all of this in clear terms, multiple times. They've got text boxes explaining the different trips, they've got a table where the trips can be compared side-by-side, they've got maps showing all of this. I'm not sure what NOLS could have said differently to make all this easier to understand. The application is not "deliberately misleading." It is not even accidentally misleading. NOLS has been more forthright about this application than any of NOLS's critics have been. And I say that as someone who doesn't even like NOLS!

JohnAbercrombie said:
It's mystifying to me why the government doesn't restrict backcountry leases to Canadians. A complete no-brainer, even 10 years ago.
Click to expand...
NOLS is not applying to lease any land in Canada. This is a camping permit, not a lease.

The camping permit application was submitted by a Canadian woman living in BC in the name of NOLS's registered-in-BC non-profit society.

CPS said:
I feel for those Americans who don't agree with the current government. But as a country, Canada needs to enact policies that reflect the relationship with its neighbour, not the residents therein that it agrees with.
Click to expand...
True, but if the policy is going to be "American companies can no longer get permits to operate in Canada," that would be a pretty sharp change in policy, even compared to what we've already seen so far.

If that isn't the policy, then the NOLS permit application deserves a fair shake. Nothing in the Land Act authorizes the Ministry of Forests to use a camping permit application as an opportunity to impose embargoes on the basis of national origin.

Alex
 
alexsidles said:
True, but if the policy is going to be "American companies can no longer get permits to operate in Canada," that would be a pretty sharp change in policy, even compared to what we've already seen so far.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I don't personally think it's a great idea. I also don't think threatening to annex your neighbour is a great idea.

How does one enact fair policy when one is dealing with a fool? There's a certain animus among Canadians at present, and I can see how someone denying a permit, even one as thorough as this, could score some political points.

Reviewing their IP sites I am inclined to say they haven't applied for ENOUGH of them.
 
alexsidles said:
True, but if the policy is going to be "American companies can no longer get permits to operate in Canada," that would be a pretty sharp change in policy, even compared to what we've already seen so far.

If that isn't the policy, then the NOLS permit application deserves a fair shake.
Click to expand...
My guess is that a large majority of Canadians weren't aware that US companies could use Canadian wilderness for their operations.
It's all been 'under the radar'.
Now that it has been brought (somewhat) to the public's attention, the situation has changed.
I'm interested to see if public scrutiny expands beyond NOLS sea kayaking operations. NOLS also operates land-based courses in Canada, I think.. Are there US charter hunting and fishing operations similarly operating in Canada?
 
JohnAbercrombie said:
Talk about 'working the system'.... a US company using an employee who is a Canadian citizen to submit their application.
Click to expand...

A US non-profit also operating a registered non-profit in Canada. It's like your local McDonald's restaurant. It still abides by local laws even though the global headquarters is in the US.
 
JohnAbercrombie said:
Talk about 'working the system'.... a US company using an employee who is a Canadian citizen to submit their application.
Click to expand...
Ah, ah! A BC Society using an employee who is a Canadian citizen to submit their application! :D

It's not "working the system" for a company (even a non-profit company) to have operations on both sides of the border. I'm pretty sure this very forum is hosted out of the US, for example!

Alex
 
  • Like
Reactions: CPS
JohnAbercrombie said:
I think it is naive to expect that animus would disappear in my lifetime, even if there is a change in regime in the US.
Click to expand...
Well at least "animus" is a more honest reason to oppose the NOLS campout than to pretend this has anything to do with fire hazards, permanent structures, group size, route selection, archaeological sites, or drysuit usage.

Still, among the many reasons to hesitate before going all-in on animus, consider this one: at least some of the employees and students of these NOLS trips are likely to be Canadians. And that's just one of the ways animus has of circling back around on its father! There are plenty of others!

Alex
 
  • Like
Reactions: CPS
alexsidles said:
Ah, ah! A BC Society using an employee who is a Canadian citizen to submit their application!
Click to expand...
Using the Societies Act in this way doesn't make NOLS a Canadian 'operation', even though they use Canada as the (free) locale for part of their business. Is the same (Canadian) person who submitted their application is also the single token Canadian on their 'Society' Board of Directors? It's unfortunate that the financial statements and minutes of meetings of BC Societies aren't publicly posted and are only available by completing a complex request.
 
alexsidles said:
at least some of the employees and students of these NOLS trips are likely to be Canadians
Click to expand...
It's not clear how many - if any- of the NOLS instructors on Canadian trips are Canadians.
And Canadian individuals will decide whether to support US companies, or not.
And US companies (NOLS, NY Yankees, etc... :) ) can decide whether to allow Canadians to buy their products.
 
CPS said:
Fair enough, though without the privilege of the exact wording used by Hugh Braker, the word choice may have been completely editorial.

He said:


Which makes it pretty clear who is being referred to. You could substitute Americans for the word outsider and get a clearer understanding.

Which sort of brings me back to my original comment:
Click to expand...
I need more clarity than that, Pascal. Call me overly cautious (heck, call me suspicious!), but I want to see the downstream consequences clearly articulated.

There's a lot of anger out there. I get it, but I also know that anger feels good -- it therefore can be a dangerous indulgence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top