Banff National Park

[McLeod]

 

Is it just me or the others who believe that those who are controlling our National Parks would prefer to turn them into areas where no humans are allowed off the main highways. Is hiking going to be eliminated someday ? I guess I am a little confused on the direction the parks are headed.

It just seems there are some who want the parks returned to how they were 200 hundred years ago and to do that humans would not be allowed..but then who is going to pay the bills.

[ÜberFly]

Should have happened 50 - 100 years ago... A little too late!

 

 

Is it just me or the others who believe that those who are controlling our National Parks would prefer to turn them into areas where no humans are allowed off the main highways. Is hiking going to be eliminated someday ? I guess I am a little confused on the direction the parks are headed.

It just seems there are some who want the parks returned to how they were 200 hundred years ago and to do that humans would not be allowed..but then who is going to pay the bills.

 

[trailhead]

 

That is what some want but I think that they forget that humans have been around that area for 10000 years give or take, so to eliminate them is an unfounded delusion. I guess it's a swing away from when you could drive your car into Lake O'Hara or Marvel Lake and catch your limit.

[AndyW]

Is it just me or the others who believe that those who are controlling our National Parks would prefer to turn them into areas where no humans are allowed off the main highways. Is hiking going to be eliminated someday ? I guess I am a little confused on the direction the parks are headed.

It just seems there are some who want the parks returned to how they were 200 hundred years ago and to do that humans would not be allowed..but then who is going to pay the bills.

 

You bet this is what some of the biologists pulling the strings in Parks Canada want. A few years back there was an internal movement to eliminate all fishing in Banff, looking back it seems like it did not have much steam.

[McLeod]

You bet this is what some of the biologists pulling the strings in Parks Canada want. A few years back there was an internal movement to eliminate all fishing if Banff, looking back it seems like it did not have much steam.

 

but some will keep on trying...

[Smitty]

But has there been anything lately to bring up this concern?

 

Just curious...

 

Smitty

[AndyW]

But has there been anything lately to bring up this concern?

 

Just curious...

 

Smitty

 

Ever since they eliminated mtn bikes on the trail that I used to go to my favorite cutty lake I have not bought a Banff license, and I have not been in the loop with the latest regulation tightening. Last I heard they wanted to kill all the lakes with introduced species and re-introduce only the native fish. again I don't know if that got off the ground either. I guess in some ways the Parks people who want no back country visitors are winning as I never go there anymore...

[McLeod]

But has there been anything lately to bring up this concern?

 

Just curious...

 

Smitty

 

 

Nothing specifically at this time. I think now that I have a little more time to commit with my kids getting older I need to stay proactive on this and a number of other fishing related issues.

 

Parks did remove fish from devon lakes a few years ago. The problem with removing "exotic species "

is when is an exotic no longer an exotic as some of this species weher planted more than 100 years ago.

Further to that what you never hear is that a few of the exotic strains that are in BNP are amoung some of the few fish of that kind left on this planet. They should be protected as a threatened or endangered instead of ever being considered removed.

[ÜberFly]

Thats another issue! They restricted Mtn bikes, but still allow horses!! Which chew up trails more?! I'd say horses!!

 

P

 

 

Ever since they eliminated mtn bikes on the trail that I used to go to my favorite cutty lake I have not bought a Banff license, and I have not been in the loop with the latest regulation tightening. Last I heard they wanted to kill all the lakes with introduced species and re-introduce only the native fish. again I don't know if that got off the ground either. I guess in some ways the Parks people who want no back country visitors are winning as I never go there anymore...

 

[trailhead]

Thats another issue! They restricted Mtn bikes, but still allow horses!! Which chew up trails more?! I'd say horses!!

 

P

Brewsters is a very powerful group in the National Parks.

[ÜberFly]

Hence my previous comment about being 50 - 100 years too late . There should never have been a town in BNP, that's what screwed things up in the first place!

 

P

 

 

Brewsters is a very powerful group in the National Parks.

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Hence my previous comment about being 50 - 100 years too late . There should never have been a town in BNP, that's what screwed things up in the first place!

 

P

 

When I was a biologist I worked with a Senior Parks guy about 15 years ago. He said back then that there was a long term plan to stop all fishing in the National Parks and to drastically limit access to people by any means to a majority of the park.

 

In essense the top brass thinking was you can't shoot and remove an Elk in the park...why then can you fish and kill a bull trout. On one hand I see the hypocracy in holding the value of mammals over fish. On the other hand you can't hunt and release Elk either. I said to him at the time that making it 100% total catch and release in the parks would make sense from a variety of perspectives. Firstly it protects the species in the park better than ignoring them and potentially seeing a loss of a population after the fact rather than a warning provided by interested sportsmen. Secondly it does protect the environment having respected people being the custodians and protectors of the resource. Thirdly you can stop along the road and view the awesome beauty of a bear or an Elk and drive away. You have no appreciation for the fish that swim if you don't know there are any there. I suspect 99.9999% of visitors care less about a bull trout. That .0001% that does is that last guy that refused to give up on fishing the park.

 

Total zero fishing allowed is tantamount to ignoring the fish as a part of nature to be enjoyed and protected.

 

Now as for eliminating access. The same parks people say our very presence creates a foot print that harms wildlife and plants in very specific ways. As such where ever people go...the environment is not a good...pristine if you have it. Therefore they want to only "damage" a small amount of the park. The remainder is to be kept clean of people. They use a variety of means...from labelling a valley a bear concern to eliminating skiing, biking, hiking, fishing, to minimizing the spots available for back country camping. The more "difficult" you make it the more to subtlly and slowly without controversy eliminate people from the equation. This is called a "soft usage reversion". A "hard usage reversion" would entail a sign that says people are no longer allowed. If heavily used...such a sign would spark outrage and protest. Parks hates that.

 

Cheers

 

Sun

[McLeod]

When I was a biologist I worked with a Senior Parks guy about 15 years ago. He said back then that there was a long term plan to stop all fishing in the National Parks and to drastically limit access to people by any means to a majority of the park.

 

In essense the top brass thinking was you can't shoot and remove an Elk in the park...why then can you fish and kill a bull trout. On one hand I see the hypocracy in holding the value of mammals over fish. On the other hand you can't hunt and release Elk either. I said to him at the time that making it 100% total catch and release in the parks would make sense from a variety of perspectives. Firstly it protects the species in the park better than ignoring them and potentially seeing a loss of a population after the fact rather than a warning provided by interested sportsmen. Secondly it does protect the environment having respected people being the custodians and protectors of the resource. Thirdly you can stop along the road and view the awesome beauty of a bear or an Elk and drive away. You have no appreciation for the fish that swim if you don't know there are any there. I suspect 99.9999% of visitors care less about a bull trout. That .0001% that does is that last guy that refused to give up on fishing the park.

 

Total zero fishing allowed is tantamount to ignoring the fish as a part of nature to be enjoyed and protected.

 

Now as for eliminating access. The same parks people say our very presence creates a foot print that harms wildlife and plants in very specific ways. As such where ever people go...the environment is not a good...pristine if you have it. Therefore they want to only "damage" a small amount of the park. The remainder is to be kept clean of people. They use a variety of means...from labelling a valley a bear concern to eliminating skiing, biking, hiking, fishing, to minimizing the spots available for back country camping. The more "difficult" you make it the more to subtlly and slowly without controversy eliminate people from the equation. This is called a "soft usage reversion". A "hard usage reversion" would entail a sign that says people are no longer allowed. If heavily used...such a sign would spark outrage and protest. Parks hates that.

 

Cheers

 

Sun

 

they have just closed of a large area for the year , I suspect for Grizzly bears to be alone but maybe a step towards a permanate closed area

 

[dube]

This has been brought up in previous posts and relates to a few other current threads but I would recommend reading the "black grizzly of whiskey creek" by Sid Marty. It's a good read and is really quite sad. As most of us know wildlife management is tricky business and I wonder sometimes how we ever came to the conclusion that is was necessary considering nature had a way of managing itself long before we came on board. Nonetheless we are inexplicably part of that equation now and there is a fine line between keeping the public happy and safe and protecting the very basis of what makes our National parks exist in the first place.

 

Clearly there is a lot of bureaucracy and bullshit to wade through while maintaining a park like Banff and decisions made may not always be popular or even helpful but it is up to us to want to preserve the essence of what these parks are actually about: which in my mind is keeping pieces of this huge country as natural as they had always been. These parks may be set up for our citizens to enjoy in it's most natural state but the very nature of that idea is based on ensuring it remains that way for all generations to come.

 

Like Uber says we are decades too late but I'm not sure if we can ride that train of thought forever. It might piss us off when one of our favorite trails gets closed but I feel we need to look at the bigger picture and trust that it is in the best interest of our parks and ultimately of ourselves. Of course as individuals most of us have only the best intentions and do our best to tread lightly but when you consider the sheer volume of people visiting Banff every year it's glaringly obvious how huge of an impact we have.

 

Of course, I'm a total hypocrite as I like to get out there take advantage of our wilderness as much as most of you but I also feel that we are an arrogant, obnoxious species and it's really ourselves that needs the management. There are many places to enjoy back country pursuits, or fishing/hunting, biking, boating and ultimately a place like Banff may be the only place where you will not find access roads spreading like cancer and well heads or cut blocks around every corner so if they want to actually cut back usage over add more to let a bear pick berries in peace I'm all for it.

 

my 2 cents.

[McLeod]

This has been brought up in previous posts and relates to a few other current threads but I would recommend reading the "black grizzly of whiskey creek" by Sid Marty. It's a good read and is really quite sad. As most of us know wildlife management is tricky business and I wonder sometimes how we ever came to the conclusion that is was necessary considering nature had a way of managing itself long before we came on board. Nonetheless we are inexplicably part of that equation now and there is a fine line between keeping the public happy and safe and protecting the very basis of what makes our National parks exist in the first place.

 

Clearly there is a lot of bureaucracy and bullshit to wade through while maintaining a park like Banff and decisions made may not always be popular or even helpful but it is up to us to want to preserve the essence of what these parks are actually about: which in my mind is keeping pieces of this huge country as natural as they had always been. These parks may be set up for our citizens to enjoy in it's most natural state but the very nature of that idea is based on ensuring it remains that way for all generations to come.

 

Like Uber says we are decades too late but I'm not sure if we can ride that train of thought forever. It might piss us off when one of our favorite trails gets closed but I feel we need to look at the bigger picture and trust that it is in the best interest of our parks and ultimately of ourselves. Of course as individuals most of us have only the best intentions and do our best to tread lightly but when you consider the sheer volume of people visiting Banff every year it's glaringly obvious how huge of an impact we have.

 

Of course, I'm a total hypocrite as I like to get out there take advantage of our wilderness as much as most of you but I also feel that we are an arrogant, obnoxious species and it's really ourselves that needs the management. There are many places to enjoy back country pursuits, or fishing/hunting, biking, boating and ultimately a place like Banff may be the only place where you will not find access roads spreading like cancer and well heads or cut blocks around every corner so if they want to actually cut back usage over add more to let a bear pick berries in peace I'm all for it.

 

my 2 cents.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head with a couple of your comments,especially when you said it's really ourselves that needs the management. When Banff was set up a doubt they could have imagined a city of a million people a hundred years later on Banff doorstep. But my concern as was addressed in another reply is you can't go back in time and we should be vigilant that parks stay as they are now and not have let a few people try to turn them into areas of no access or we will have a backlash and end up lossing what we have now. Think of the pressures that are going to come on these parks in the future such as water resources etc

Good discussion

[AndyW]

We need more places like the Wilmore wilderness area. More protection than a national or provincial park, with no roads or development of any kind. A staging area and that is it. No cappucino bars, restaurants, teahouse at the top of the mountain or stinky hippies to get in my way. Best of all you can actually go in there and live off the land. Hunt, fish and camp where you want. Go on a trip in the wilmore and you will come out of there invigorated and connected with nature. The National Parks make you feel like a "visitor" which is wrong. Still lots of backcountry jems in the National parks, but the Park attitude is wrong. as I get older I want no part of it.

 

Alberta is on the right track with the "wildland Park" concept. Wild areas with zero development.

[ÜberFly]

I'd have to disagree with the camp (where you want), hunt, live off the land part of that. . Just my opinion though... Potentially huge problems with that, as well (with the many irresponsible types - which unfortunately is quite a few)!!

 

P

 

We need more places like the Wilmore wilderness area. More protection than a national or provincial park, with no roads or development of any kind. A staging area and that is it. No cappucino bars, restaurants, teahouse at the top of the mountain or stinky hippies to get in my way. Best of all you can actually go in there and live off the land. Hunt, fish and camp where you want. Go on a trip in the wilmore and you will come out of there invigorated and connected with nature. The National Parks make you feel like a "visitor" which is wrong. Still lots of backcountry jems in the National parks, but the Park attitude is wrong. as I get older I want no part of it.

 

Alberta is on the right track with the "wildland Park" concept. Wild areas with zero development.

[Keith]

Ever since they eliminated mtn bikes on the trail that I used to go to my favorite cutty lake I have not bought a Banff license, and I have not been in the loop with the latest regulation tightening. Last I heard they wanted to kill all the lakes with introduced species and re-introduce only the native fish. again I don't know if that got off the ground either. I guess in some ways the Parks people who want no back country visitors are winning as I never go there anymore...

 

That's how it's going to go. They won't even tell people they can't go in there, but they'll make it as inconvenient as possible.

[AndyW]

I'd have to disagree with the camp (where you want), hunt, live off the land part of that. . Just my opinion though... Potentially huge problems with that, as well (with the many irresponsible types - which unfortunately is quite a few)!!

 

P

 

When you first here of it, it sounds like it could get out of control. The reality is with ZERO improvements to an area 99% of the folks that are attracted to a regular "park" would never venture to a place like the Wilmore. This place is rugged and wild, and the people who venture there are prepared for this and respect the area more than any place I have ventured to in the Province. Unlike National parks where we can't hunt, hunting is the historical use of the wilmore. There is nothing wild about Banff where elk chase you on golf courses and you can hand feed bighorn sheep. The wilmore has the higest densities of Bighorn sheep in Alberta, very healthy elk herd and it has always been open for hunting. The wildlife just doesn't hang out on the trails waiting for potato chips from tourists. I guess everyones definition of wildlife differs. Managed consumption/hunting of wild ungulates is a good thing, keeps a healthy predator/prey relationship which is gone in the National Parks.

 

IMO places like Banff are becoming more like zoo's than the unfettered natural areas of their original intent. Lots of pretty stuff to look at, but you are left with a feeling that you are only an observer and with the ongoing regulation crackdown in the backcountry, and the ever increasing tourist traps of the the towns and villiages Nat parks are defeating the purpose of their original intent.

[rehsifylf]

Really not sure there is anything that PC could do that would satisfy everyone.

 

 

[Pipestoneflyguy]

Had to debate weighing in on this one, so to cover my backside let me clarify that at anytime I speak here about National Parks or the Agency I am speaking as a concerned citizen not a representitive of the agency. I really don't have any signifigant

 

Great discussion, some of it is remarkably insightful, and some of it is well off the mark

 

To further stimulate conversation I will add a few comments

 

The mandate of the Parks Canada Agency made up of two basic components

1) To protect and preserve natural places in a natural state, and (or ecological Integrety)

2) To be available for the enjoyment of Canadians (Provide an educational and enjoyable visitor experience)

 

In itself the Mandate allows the direction of Parks Canada to vary according to stakeholder interest by containing two somewhat contradictory principles. Stakeholders include the Canadian Public, businesses, government, interest groups, and of course the Agency itself has impact of direction just as legislative authority mandates other aspects of Parks Management. Ultimately Canadians, irregardless of which stakeholder catagory they fit in to have control over the direction of Parks Canada, and this control is manifested by sharing your opinion - attending public forums, round tables and speaking your mind, write letters when you agree or disagree with a new or existing policy, participate in surveys, share your thoughts on future direction with government officials (your MP)

 

The demographics of our society are changing, and as such so is what constitiutes "normal" values and priorities - I saw a recent newspaper article that described Parks Canada as becoming "irrelevant" in the public eye, what has always been intrinsically Canadian may not be such a large component of a our cultural make-up today as it was 20 years ago. Think about this for a bit, the Agency is always seeking input from Canadians, and the fact that fewer citizens are showing interest means your little voice becomes a little louder and a little more important in the sea of public opinion. Ultimately the current existence of National Parks is because this is what Canadians wanted and supported.

 

Just one last thought to ponder - why are barbed hooks still legal in National Parks ? - what does science say about this issue and how it relates to fish mortality - what pressure or feedback is suggesting this is a good policy - who is speaking to Parks Canada on behalf of fishing community, and does that voice represent how YOU feel ?

 

 

 

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Had to debate weighing in on this one, so to cover my backside let me clarify that at anytime I speak here about National Parks or the Agency I am speaking as a concerned citizen not a representitive of the agency. I really don't have any signifigant

 

Great discussion, some of it is remarkably insightful, and some of it is well off the mark

 

To further stimulate conversation I will add a few comments

 

The mandate of the Parks Canada Agency made up of two basic components

1) To protect and preserve natural places in a natural state, and (or ecological Integrety)

2) To be available for the enjoyment of Canadians (Provide an educational and enjoyable visitor experience)

 

In itself the Mandate allows the direction of Parks Canada to vary according to stakeholder interest by containing two somewhat contradictory principles. Stakeholders include the Canadian Public, businesses, government, interest groups, and of course the Agency itself has impact of direction just as legislative authority mandates other aspects of Parks Management. Ultimately Canadians, irregardless of which stakeholder catagory they fit in to have control over the direction of Parks Canada, and this control is manifested by sharing your opinion - attending public forums, round tables and speaking your mind, write letters when you agree or disagree with a new or existing policy, participate in surveys, share your thoughts on future direction with government officials (your MP)

 

The demographics of our society are changing, and as such so is what constitiutes "normal" values and priorities - I saw a recent newspaper article that described Parks Canada as becoming "irrelevant" in the public eye, what has always been intrinsically Canadian may not be such a large component of a our cultural make-up today as it was 20 years ago. Think about this for a bit, the Agency is always seeking input from Canadians, and the fact that fewer citizens are showing interest means your little voice becomes a little louder and a little more important in the sea of public opinion. Ultimately the current existence of National Parks is because this is what Canadians wanted and supported.

 

Just one last thought to ponder - why are barbed hooks still legal in National Parks ? - what does science say about this issue and how it relates to fish mortality - what pressure or feedback is suggesting this is a good policy - who is speaking to Parks Canada on behalf of fishing community, and does that voice represent how YOU feel ?

 

There has always been a power position in parks and that power dictates to a large degree the philosophical direction of the mandate they chose to give the most credence to. It is a tough balance but they have never been fair to fishermen because politically those in power have been opposed in principle to it and have been trying to phase it out.

 

As the parks turns away specific user groups they in turn get less attention and less focus. The thought that now so many have left the parks for fishing elsewhere...one person has a stronger voice is not true IMHO. The parks will look at the million visitors and the one voice expressing displeasure over fishing and say...beep...not consequential. People are seldom heard in the government and the parks people are seeing more and more via tunnel vision.

 

Therefore the park will just get more and more congested as the system tries to shove them all into a smaller and smaller footprint. Fine for some of the animals...but what people don't see...they neither care about nor respect.

 

I don't have a problem in principle insofar as having a refuge for fish just like birds, mammals, frogs, plants and even rock have but the water in Banff and Jasper is far from pristine and who better to appreciate it and respect it and protect it that fishermen. I have no problem with going straight to catch and release in the parks but they have made it so utterly frustrating to fish it just does not seem worth it these days.

 

Barbless hooks add very little to mortality issues. Baited verus unbaited is a huge difference.

[ÜberFly]

Interesting that PC was the first to ban lead, but still allows barbed hooks...

 

Hmmm

 

P

[BBBrownie]

It may surprise you, but there is no statistical difference in release mortality between fish cought on barbed or barbless hooks. Many scientific studies have been completed on this subject, and support this conclusion. The real kicker in release mortality is baited vs unbaited. Fish tend to take baited hooks much deeper, resulting in stomache, throat, gill damage. Where the fish takes the hook is of the greatest concern. If you google "barbed hook release mortality" you will find some papers which back this with science. Just so you know though, I prefer barbless regardless of this stat. Quicker release times, much easier removal when I hook myself (yes, occasoinally this happens to me), and it forces you to be a better angler.