From prdddkg@ctycal.cuug.ab.ca Fri Sep 2 10:16:24 PDT 1994 >From beuucp@cuug.ab.ca Fri Sep 2 10:16:22 1994 Return-Path: Received: from mx3.u.washington.edu by wells.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW94.4/UW-NDC Revision: 2.30 ) id AA24095; Fri, 2 Sep 94 10:16:22 -0700 Received: from [204.50.6.4] by mx3.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW94.4/UW-NDC Revision: 2.30 ) id AA00445; Fri, 2 Sep 94 10:16:15 -0700 Received: by cuugnet.cuug.ab.ca (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03-CUUG-03) id AA17781; Fri, 2 Sep 1994 11:07:36 -0600 Received: by ctycal.cuug.ab.ca (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/IBM-4.03-DAR-1.0) id AA15639; Fri, 2 Sep 1994 10:12:43 -0600 From: prdddkg@ctycal.cuug.ab.ca (Denis Gourdeau) Message-Id: <9409021612.AA15639@ctycal.cuug.ab.ca> Subject: Future of our Mountain National Parks To: consbio@u.washington.edu Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 10:12:43 -0600 (MDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 8822 Dear Members of the Net, I received the attached essay from Mr. Harvey Locke and was asked by him if I would post it on the net. I believe that the information contained with in will be of interest to some of you, and therefore I have agreed to post this on Mr. Locke's behalf. If you have any comments that you would like to get to Mr. Locke you send them c/o my E-Mail address prdddkg@gov.calgary.ab.ca and I will forward them to him. If you would like to send comments to Parks Canada the following is their addresses: Public Consultation Co-ordinator Canadian Heritage, Parks Canada P.O. Box 2989, Station M Calgary, Alberta T2P 3H8 Telephone: 1-800-651-7959 Calgary Calls: 289-4299 Fax: 1-800-651-7951 Calgary Fax: 221-3462 Internet: 4MtnParks@pkswro.dots.doe.ca Thank you for your indulgence. ========Forwarded message begins======================= The Future of our Mountain National Parks by Harvey Locke The management plan for Banff National Park will be determined this year. It is the test case for the future of Canada's national parks. In the last 12 years, close to half a billion dollars worth of building permits have been issued for construction inside Banff National Park. The Banff Springs Hotel, once a castle in the wilderness, is now a castle in the suburbs. The Park's ecosystem is a shambles. Park wardens openly say that its black bear population may not survive and that the park is not operating as a secure sanctuary for grizzly bears. Moose, once a common sight, have disappeared from the lower Bow Valley. Elk have abandoned some of their range in the valley and coyotes die at a higher rate inside Banff Park than they do outside its boundaries. The cause of this ecological mess is too much construction in the Bow Valley. Banff is far and away the most heavily developed national park in North America. All the development in Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Yosemite and Great Smoky Mountains National Parks combined do not add up to as much development as Banff Park contains alone. Banff is internationally recognized as an overdeveloped park. A 1994 study published by the Brookings Institute of Washington D.C. said in general Canada does a better job of managing its national parks than does the U.S. with the glaring exception of Banff which it described as "unique in its excess" and where environmental sensitivities had been countered by "the political clout of pro-development interests". A 1989 study conducted by the Pacific Asia Travel Association by members from Singapore, Japan, New Zealand and the U.S. said of the Town of Banff that "commercial development is already out of hand, seriously affecting the visual aesthetics of the town". Canadians share the international concern for the state of Banff National Park. A 1993 Angus Reid poll surveyed Canadians from across the country on their attitudes towards national parks. It found "when asked specifically about the development of townsites within national parks, a majority of Canadians believe that no further development should be allowed; this anti-development sentiment increases among recent visitors to Banff National Park". The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society ("CPAWS") thinks the time has come for a complete and permanent moratorium on development in Banff National Park. Unfortunately, the proposed management plan falls short. A partial moratorium is in place but excluded from it are the proposal by Canadian Pacific to build nine more holes of golf and a new convention centre at Lake Louise, Sunshine ski area's latest expansion proposal, Skiing Louise's new hotel project, and the Town of Banff's plan for a new housing subdivision. The pressure to exploit Banff Park for profit continues unabated and will continue until Parks Canada and the federal government say "no" means "no". (The twinning of the Trans Canada is a major issue that could cause more damage or present an opportunity to undo some damage. It is not being dealt with as a part of the management plan review.) Those who favour commercial development, shopping, golf courses and ski hill expansions are a small but powerful group. They have been given millions of taxpayers' dollars to fuel development inside Banff Park under the Canada-Alberta Tourism Agreement. Their paid lobbyists relentlessly press their development case in Ottawa so they can chase the industrial tourism market and cater to recreation boosters. Recreation boosters are the tiny minority of the Canadian population (4% according to Angus Reid) who strongly believe in the economic development of recreation resources in national parks, particularly if they involve golf, skiing or shopping. The Angus Reid poll cautions Parks Canada about recreation boosters because this group visits the parks frequently and "has a disproportionately high impact upon the national parks and the Four Mountain Parks". It concludes that "CPS (Parks Canada) should use care to keep the views of this segment in perspective due to their small size". The poll found for most Canadians the most important benefits obtained from a park visit are enjoying the scenery, relaxing and enjoying the quiet contemplation and experiencing nature. It says "preserving and protecting the environment within national park boundaries remains the most important priority for all segments of the Canadian population with the exception of recreation boosters". The commercial destruction of the natural environment in Banff National Park is a clear case of the tyranny of the minority to profit the few at the expense of the many. Those who seek to exploit the parks often use words like "reasonable development" and "balance between preservation and use" to justify their projects. The argument they use is that only a small percentage of the land area of the park is developed and the rest is wilderness full of wildlife. This argument ignores basic ecological reality. Most development in Banff Park is concentrated in the Bow Valley bottom in the environmentally critical montane ecoregion. The montane is often snow free in winter, providing critical winter habitat for elk and deer and their predators-wolves and cougars. It also provides critical spring habitat for black and grizzly bears and is home to the greatest abundance of songbirds and a wide variety of plant species. Yet only 5% of Banff Park is montane. The montane is the heart of the entire region - if it dies so does the rest. In an effort to avoid having to deal with this reality, developers oppose "ecosystem based management". The aesthetic reality is similar to the ecological reality. The vast majority of park visitors see the overdeveloped Bow Valley and the highly commercialized Banff townsite. The visual impact is like a crack in a windshield right in the driver's line of sight. This is a major problem as the Angus Reid survey shows that the most important activities for Canadians who visit a national park are stopping at roadside pullouts to view scenery and wildlife, experiencing accessible nature, learning about the environment and hiking on a trail. Developers don't build things for no reason. Why, if the vast majority of park visitors want nature and natural experiences, would developers have constructed tennis courts, indoor mini-golf, a bowling alley, indoor squash courts and health clubs, 9 more holes of golf and convention facilities inside Banff Park in the last ten years? And why do they want more? The answer is that these facilities are not built for park visitors, they are built for the convention market to bring in year round revenue. This is the lucrative part of the industrial tourism market. The trouble is that to build for the industrial tourism market is to alienate the park visitor who seeks nature based tourism. It is proper and fitting for the national parks to be used for nature based tourism; it is wrong to exploit them for industrial tourism. Banff National Park is being destroyed from within to enrich local businessmen and to cater to a small group of recreation boosters at the expense of the Park's ecology and present and future generations. I believe it is time for the management plan to say no more development should be permitted inside Banff National Park - period. Harvey Locke is a Calgary lawyer and national president of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. =================End of forwarded message=============== -- |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| |Denis K. Gourdeau |These Comments are My Own and not the| |E-Mail: prdddkg@gov.calgary.ab.ca |City of Calgary, Parks & Rec. Depart.| |--------------------------------------------------------------------------| .