The Story Till Now/Recent Controversy

[jayhawkgeoff]

Not sure how many of y’all follow The Story Till Now on Youtube and social media. But there’s been some recent controversy and a bit of backlash against the content creator Shaun for “getting an area closed down” because of a series of videos he has posted of himself and his crew traveling through an area of British Colombia known as Texas Creek. This part of B.C. is traditional First Nations land and has had a roadblock placed at the entrance blocking vehicles from traveling up the trail. They site an “Alpine Vehicle Restriction” that went into effect April 15th 2015 that prohibits off-roaders from going “off established roads above 1700 meters under penalty of incurring a fine up to $100,000 (Canadian)” by authority of The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. I’ve always enjoyed Shaun’s videos and believe he has always been respectful of the trails he’s tackled in his Jeep Gladiator. I’m curious to know of y’all’s thoughts on the impact of posting these “hidden gems” on the internet and if it has a negative effect by possibly increasing traffic, and also if you think he is at fault for having this area closed down.

 

[Boostpowered]

He messed up filming himself and letting people know where the trail is. It sucks but I get it, we have to look at our offroading areas as our secret spots just like with fishing or hunting if you find a good spot and let someone else know within a year that spot will be trashed.

I have no clue on Canadian law but if he and others feel he's right stop fighting on the internet about it and help him get a lawyer to fight in court or whatever Canada's equivalent is to change things.

 

[Maverick9110E]

I don't get the law. It says off a road.. He says it right in the video, what they were on is a road. Sounds like a bunch of eco Karen's trying to stir up more garbage.

I have no issues with people posting up locations. If i ever catch someone dis-respecting a trail while i'm out there though like throwing trash out, damaging things etc, they'll definitely not be leaving happy.

There's a big difference in complaing about people using a trail and complaing about people abusing a trail. Most all of these places are public roads anyway, i don't see a point in trying to "hide it" from the public. At the same time, if you don't want to share the location i don't have an issue with it either. To each their own.

 

[Shakes355]

First, i don't see a controversy here. The tribes have rights to the land and if they want to close a thru-way then that is their right. We don't have to like it or agree with it, but we need to respect it.

Second, any backlash he's receiving is typical internet-reaction stuff. It is not, nor should it be, representative of the conversation.

Much of what we do is make use of privileged access to land and resources. Some private, some public. As traffic increases, so does the risk that our access can be rescinded. I do not personally blame Shaun, but I don't think he's an innocent bystander either. Actions have consequences, for better or worse.

With all that said, I cant make an informed opinion on filming. I have benefited both from privileged access to private land on the condition of keeping it quiet and from seeing new places I wouldn't have found except by way of YouTubers filming their trips. I do not personally film or share photos of where I travel because it's not me, so I cant speak to the merits of those who do.

 

[Shakes355]

As I've been pondering this one, I'm beginning to realize there is no good answer to the filming question. I do however think that there is a conversation to be had about representation. A large section of the land is owned by the tribes. They allow the road as a thruway. Many will approach this from the "I'm a citizen and as long as I stay on the road, I'm within the law" position. And while technically correct, the fact remains that there was a story being told that included the land around them. So we need to ask ourselves, who should tell that story?

We can go into a deep dive at another time but suffice to say, I think if Shaun had approached the tribal community and consulted with them about access, filming and representing their sacred lands, laws, and values in a manner they felt to be acceptable, things may have turned out much different. A little goodwill can go a long way, as I think we all can attest.

 

[Maverick9110E]

As I've been pondering this one, I'm beginning to realize there is no good answer to the filming question. I do however think that there is a conversation to be had about representation. A large section of the land is owned by the tribes. They allow the road as a thruway. Many will approach this from the "I'm a citizen and as long as I stay on the road, I'm within the law" position. And while technically correct, the fact remains that there was a story being told that included the land around them. So we need to ask ourselves, who should tell that story?

We can go into a deep dive at another time but suffice to say, I think if Shaun had approached the tribal community and consulted with them about access, filming and representing their sacred lands, laws, and values in a manner they felt to be acceptable, things may have turned out much different. A little goodwill can go a long way, as I think we all can attest.

I agree but it's not really what they are using or claiming for the reason of the road closure. Honestly, my hardest understanding of this is the fact that its in Canada, and i'm not sure how land rights work in Canada.

 

[Shakes355]

I also am not as familiar with CA land rights, but I believe Indigenous land is still considered sovereign and private. The federal department that deals with land management has thruway rights to access other land. According to their discussion that means the road is open to the public for rec. It only includes the road. At any given time the private entity that owns said land can, at their will, restrict access to nonessential activities (given adequate reason as pertaining to local law).

This particular trail is now closed to all but essential Canadian government service (as required by whatever treaty or agreement was signed) and tribal activities (because they own the land).

Seems pretty straight forward. Logging companies and private property owners do this all the time in the States. DNR land is open to public use except where prohibited either due to conservation, contract, and/or safety. They can also limit certain activities for similar reasons (burn bans, etc).

 

[USStrongman]

This is specifically where our current generations lack creativity for the sake of popularity. My approach would have been much different, inclusive to all persons and most important, educational.

Why didn't he or someone contact the local indigenous people and ask them to tell their story. Tour and tell about the lands, what it means to them, significant historical events and peoples? Use that as a launching platform for a bigger discussion. Also use it as a means to creating a cooperative of people to oversee the trail for rec use (private club/org and indigenous people) for proper land use for maybe a few days or weeks per year and once its a proven method of ecology, expanding times and days to the public. Make it fee oriented to pay for permits, time, etc.

Popularity and getting self-serving social media content is first and foremost to so many IG people. The bigger picture here is letting others tell the story. He could simply serve as the medium to spread their story as editor and publisher.