 |
surveys / parks
| Surveys |
|
|
National Parks
What do our parks mean to you?
In March 2000, following recommendations by a federal panel, Heritage Minister Sheila Copps vowed to preserve the ecological integrity of our national parks by putting the environment before development. We want to track that commitment to assess the health of our national parks on an ongoing basis.
But what we really want to know is what YOU think. Have you ever been to a national park? Should there be any development in parks, and if so, how much is too much? Tell us about your experiences in our national parks, about your expectations when visiting them and about what you think we should be doing to ensure these special places are preserved for future generations.
| NAME |
COMMENTS |
Matthew Porett
Submitted:
Monday, August 14, 2000
|
These comments concern the presumed establishment of a National Marine Conservation Area encompassing a large section of the north shore of Lake Superior. I have witnessed this process for a couple of years now, and am truly concerned by the panel's composition and inherent biases. For one, the majority of the panel's compositions interest are economic in nature, not conservation. You can have conservation or development, but you cannot have both. Encouraging development in and around unique areas by its very nature exposes it to more traffic, different uses, and in many cases
exploitation. If true conservation for future generations is the goal, then restricting development should be the focus. A "cookie-cutter" approach to establishing NMCAs is not in the interest of the unique resource proported to be worthy of protecting. Second, Parks Canada's representatives have been less than honest in portraying so-called "popular support" for the establishment of this
particular NMCA. Certainly if you ask economic developers and small-town mayors if they want this, they will say yes. Again, not for conservation, but for development. I understand that many involved in such proposals mean well, but without true understanding of an area's sensitivities or the potential impact of "drawing attention" to itself. Thus far, it is my
understanding that Parks Canada has pledged $21 million in infrastructure and support over the next several years. All of this for an area that has pretty much managed itself since the last ice age. Matthew Porett I urge |
|
Emese
Submitted:
Sunday, August 13, 2000
|
I myself haven't been to a national park, but of what I've seen, for example Banff, that is WAY TOO MUCH developement. When I finally manage to
go to a national park, I don't want to see malls, restaurants etc. I want to see forests and wildlife untouched by human kind. In my opinion,
developement is something that will ruin parks. |
|
David Rupert
Submitted:
Sunday, August 13, 2000
|
I certainly understand the inherent dichotomy involved in our National Park system; to preserve ecological integrity while encouraging enjoyment of this great country. As one who has spent much time in several of our National parks I would encourage an increase in the enforcement of park
policies on all visitors while also allowing the recreational opportunities (i.e. Rustico Harbour and Lake Louise Ski area)that have existed in the
past to continue to exist. Preserving wildspaces, while a noble cause , cannot exist in the long run unless as many people as possible have a frame
of reference. Much like the argument for the existence of Zoo's. Development for developments sake is not, however, a policy which should
exist unchallenged. Some of the controversy we have seen in Alberta seems to be as much political as over the goals of wilderness preservation which, I would argue, is everyones ultimate goal. Certainly without wildspaces and natural beauty there will be no need for debate over develpoment, there will be no need! |
|
|
Ed Gaudet
Submitted:
Saturday, August 12, 2000
|
Our National Parks are treasures that can not be replaced. We must assure that they cannot and will not be destroyed by politicians who will be here
today and gone tomorrow. The give a chance for Canadians and visitors to reconnect with nature. |
|
Ann Cabot
Submitted:
Wednesday, August 09, 2000
|
I recently visited Ellesmere Island National Park, the Lake Hazen site. It was an awesome experience and I feel priviledged to have gone. However, what I saw was a lack of policy about this park: its use, who can visit, where do they stay. I went with an outfitter, NOrthwinds, who ignored park rules about tent placement and toilet usage at the base camp. MOre and more outfitters are allowing people to come who are unprepared for that environment and allowing them to stay at base camp. I had contacted Wilderness Adventures outfitters who were more than willing to hire an
extra guide to stay with me in base camp. The point is, I was not qualified to go and should have been refused by both companies. On our
trip, only 2 out of 8 people were hikers.
Ultimately, this sort of commercialism will hurt this virgin park. Too many visitors with too few rules will tear up the tundra and litter the
area. I see a real need for more policies and enforcement of those policies. I also see a need to regulate the outfitters and who they take
to this park.
As an interesting aside, there were no Canadians on our trip. 4 Americans and 4 Europeans. We were told Canadians don't visit their Arctic because they get enough cold weather at home. We just smiled!! Ann |
|
Marc Fontaine
Submitted:
Wednesday, August 09, 2000
|
Our National Parks should be preserved for ecology integrity. Throughout our history, we have destroyed enough of the planet for our own benifit
without considering the needs of all the other species of organisms. We need to protect and preserve what we have left. Careful planning and an understanding to provide for the needs of other living organisms would help preserve our ecosystem. |
|
|
|
| ADVERTISEMENT |
|
|
|
|
