Weather Talk For BC no matter what you ride

Information about spit removal- new petition

Windsurfing shop talk

by Jennifer » Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:18 pm

Hi, the SWS has made a petition in response to the district moving forward with plans to remove the spit. Information in the petition but sounds like they just want to leave an island
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 10:55 am

by dan.e » Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:40 pm

This seems so short sighted.. I've shared it with my outdoorsy friends too.
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:01 pm

by tattooedferret » Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am

Signed and shared with all the other windsports groups I'm in.
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:09 am

by Ryan » Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:45 pm

Here's a recent Squamish chief, article. ... it-3455035

What about a floating pier to the remainder of the spit, from near the end of 3rd Avenue?
The picture is of a floating pier that the artist Christo built.
The current might be too strong for this though.

GettyImages-541030722-1024x683.jpg (152.54 KiB) Viewed 563 times
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 3:19 pm

by Michael » Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:27 pm

I was trying to picture this.....
If they are not going to build any sort of access from 3rd would it be so bad it the entire thing was gone?
This rendition might be wishful thinking but it would create a much bigger sailing area.

Squamish_SansSpit.jpg (222.25 KiB) Viewed 542 times

1308473-dsc01990.jpg;w=960;h=640;bgcolor=000000.jpeg (93.68 KiB) Viewed 542 times
Posts: 2262
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:31 pm

by raquo » Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:26 pm

Sorry but it's wishful thinking.

Only DFO has any idea how the sandbars would look like if they removed the spit, but I highly doubt the sandbar would conveniently relocate itself to be where the 3rd ave berm was supposed to be (as shown in the image). That would mean significant sediment accumulation at the berth, and the port would never have it.

And if DFO thought there was a chance that we would be able to maintain any kind of usable access with a removed spit, they would have at the very least said so. They didn't.

The wind up the estuary is not as strong, and dies first. You might still be sailing out in the usual area, but you won't be able to come back, up the current, in weaker wind. It would be dangerous, and especially so for beginners, windsurfers, or if the SWS rescue is busy or unavailable or ceased to exist.
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2019 10:37 pm

by drh » Mon Mar 01, 2021 8:23 am

Yesterday, I happened to be listening to the CBC national news on the radio and they were reporting that this would be the last summer that the spit would be accessible before the fish zealots tear out the road. I think people started windsurfing there in the early part of the 1980's (1986 was my first year). It's a shame for Canada to lose one of it's premier windsurfing and kiting spots. I fully support salmon conservation but not at the cost of decimating wind sports in the area.
User avatar
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 12:35 pm

by JonathanP » Mon Mar 01, 2021 2:47 pm

The watershed plan is total BS to be. Looking at Michael's rendering there it's pretty obvious that there is little difference in the river outflow with the terminal remaining free of sediment flow and therefore no difference to the salmon. I don't think it's possible to return the salmon habitat without silting the terminal. The fish go where the silt goes and the terminal is built right on the bank of the estuary. Seems fishy to me that they haven't even been mentioned as a problem as if there is some good given right to operate a second shipping berth literally inside the estuary! Industry/development is the main terrestrial threat to salmon here, not recreation as CBC seems to think...
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:06 pm

by raquo » Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:03 pm

Someone mentioned it as a conspiracy theory, but where do you think the rip rap and gravel from the spit will end up? It's not like it's going to the landfill. It's worth several million. Probably will be sold for cheap to the developers of Nexen, or to Woodfibre LNG. Makes sense, and would explain why they're so hell bent on removing the spit specifically, and on not using its material to build alternative access.

If they really wanted to help salmon they would have opened up the estuary channel way upstream, where they put the culverts, because that's where the river used to flow. The river is not magically going to flow upstream into the estuary if the spit is removed.

Such bullshit, all this.

Subsidizing the fracking industry and a methane export terminal with tens of millions of dollars – business as usual. Investing a couple million to prevent a rare, prolific site for an olympic sport from destruction – meh, who needs that. Everyone knows when you're on your deathbed your main regret is that you didn't drill enough oil and didn't prevent enough people from kiteboarding.
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2019 10:37 pm

Return to Windsurfing