New Fee to Float Down the Channel?

[omisimaw]

What are you trying to point out gordonh? I am fully aware of and have posted links to information regarding the City and PIB negotiations and the suspension by CC (a PIB company) of the charging of the $2 .... maybe that has changed and they are again charging it I do not know but if they are it is within their right to charge what they want for the use of THEIR facilities.

If it is more convenient for people to access this canal from the facilities provided by this company then you pay, fairly simple concept.

Disagree with the $2 then jump in the water somewhere else! Another fairly simple concept.

[GordonH]

What are you trying to point out gordonh? I am fully aware of and have posted links to information regarding the City and PIB negotiations and the suspension by CC (a PIB company) of the charging of the $2 .... maybe that has changed and they are again charging it I do not know but if they are it is within their right to charge what they want for the use of THEIR facilities.

If it is more convenient for people to access this canal from the facilities provided by this company then you pay, fairly simple concept.

Disagree with the $2 then jump in the water somewhere else! Another fairly simple concept.

Just official city boundaries as is right now, not tomorrow or whenever negotiations may or may not resume.

[omisimaw]

So what? the city boundary has nothing to do with a charge by a company legally in business! Do you know if they have a business license with the City? Or are they just doing what they can legally do on their own lands?
The fact that the two entities are working together for a solution is the important point and all that really matters.

[GordonH]

So what? the city boundary has nothing to do with a charge by a company legally in business! Do you know if they have a business license with the City? Or are they just doing what they can legally do on their own lands?
The fact that the two entities are working together for a solution is the important point and all that really matters.

Why don't you check with Penticton Indian Band who owns & operates Coyote Cruises, as posted earlier.

[omisimaw]

Coyote Cruises is a Penticton Indian Band-owned company that provides both tube rentals and lake to lake bus service for people floating down the channel. Anona Kampe, one of the directors of the company, estimates that about 100,000 people from all over the world take the popular trip each summer

http://www.pentictonwesternnews.com/news/214320071.html

There is no mystery here!

[GordonH]

http://www.pentictonwesternnews.com/news/214320071.html
There is no mystery here!

If you had checked the link I posted on page 5, their was no mystery crazyoleme.

[LoneWolf_53]

Since Coyote Cruises is own and operated by the Band http://www.pibdc.ca/business/coyote-cruises/

Plus the channel is on Band land, I don't know what the problem is here.

I don't have a problem with it, and two bucks is peanuts, I was simply curious as to how it was justified, because the topic title suggests the fee is for floating down the channel, which I thought was federal jurisdiction since it's part of a continuous waterway.

If the fee is for launching on CC property, or for parking, then I can see it, but for someone to charge for floating down something they don't own, well that would be an odd business model, hence my remark about charging to walk along the Greenway in Kelowna.

[twobits]

There is still the issue of the infrastructure at the three main access points, north, mid and south ends, and the cost of installing and maintaining that, plus the cost of picking up after the users. Who covers that ?

I suppose any user who could get in and out of the channel without crossing PIB land would not have been subject to the fee as the channel itself is Federal property.

I have read through the thread and come back to this one to reply and this is what this old fart remembers. The infrastructure that everyone refers to is all off PIB lands including the stairs at the midway and Skaha exit. Not positive if it is city land or Federal right of way but it is not PIB land. The building at the launch point is city land. When Kirk first started the business, the launch point was a dirt bank behind what is now Loco Landing and his buses used the parking lot there next to the rose garden. As the business grew, there were conflicts with this parking lot use so Kirk Cartwright made a deal with the city to lease the current parcel of land at it's current location to construct the building and the bus pull out. Kirk paid to have the building built. An important distinction here is that the lease here is for the land......not a lease that grants rights to access. CC cannot stop anyone from entering the channel even on this leased city land. If you go down there on any typical day, more than half of people getting in are not using CC services and you can bet that if they could say "Get in somewhere else", they would.
As to the Gilligans Island and Skaha exit stairs......my recollection is that they were a joint effort between Kirk, the City and the Jaycee's. The Jaycee's did a lot of fundraising for channel improvements and used to have the annual raft race that was a big hit for years. They also built outhouses and placed garbage cans at several points along the route. Not sure if they are still there or vandalized to oblivion.
As to the new fee.....I had mixed feelings. Good cause but poor implementation and unknown execution. As another poster pointed out, the service has gone downhill considerably while the charges went thru the roof. The canvass seats were rarely repaired or replaced, the tubes would have huge bulges on one side and the best......the bus ride makes you feel like you are in Bangledesh. Gone is the repaired and maintained equipment, the party atmosphere, the jokes, the impromptu tour guide comments and more. And Kirk cleaned up the channel from his revenues because he realized his customers were the bulk of the problem. So here is the rub. If you let service decline to the point that more than half of channel floaters do not bring a revenue stream that can contribute to cleanup, whose fault is it? RIP Kirk, the fun left when you did.

[fluffy]

Thanks for that background twobits. It makes perfect sense that the original owner of CC would have been the driving force behind the improvements as he would have been in a prime position to foresee their value to both his business and the tourist trade in general.

[omisimaw]

LOL we scream because there are not enough entertainment venues then we complain about those we have!
Go figure!
There are without a doubt not enough water type entertainment activities for families that are cost effective in this tourist area. $2 is a small price to pay to have fun with your kids

[Daspoot]

Cool, I'll pm you my address to send me the $2. ;)

[36Drew]

Oh cricky! Where is your proof that a channel put in place by the City of Penticton in the '50s is under federal control

First - the Feds actually dredged out the Okanagan River... in the early 1900's. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/acat/documents/r18253/BackgroundandHistoryOLRS_1274988150212_5894e9abef0f64269169f31973bbcd60b145936f70338bdf3efb731b1ac62955.pdf - as mentioned in that very document, the long-term history of that water system is muddied and murky. However, it wasn't very difficult for me to at least dig up that history.

Second - it's a navigable waterway. All navigable waterways in Canada are owned by the crown and therefore under federal control. This is rather common knowledge. Since you're the one making the claim that the channel (a navigable waterway) is not under federal control (by way of the Navigable Waters Protection Act) - the burden of proof falls squarely on your shoulders.

[omisimaw]

Prove it 36, get some actual proof from the feds that they have jurisdiction! Just send them an email and ask.

To make statements is one thing to back them is another and you do not see 1 mention of federal jurisdiction in any of the legal documents / reports to date between the City and the PIB.

[36Drew]

Prove it 36, get some actual proof from the feds that they have jurisdiction! Just send them an email and ask.

*sigh*

It's a navigable waterway withing the borders of Canada. Federal Jurisdiction. End of story.

You should spend some time reading on the significance of the phrase "navigable waterway" as it pertains to Canadian law. Until you do, your statements - as above - serve only to underscore your ignorance.

[yaktak]

*try again without the personal attack/Jo*