Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 189 of 189

Thread: New hotel proposed in Jasper National Park

  1. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blueline View Post
    Bannffff announced today that they are at their limits for permanent housing space
    Here comes their applications for expansion
    It's unlikely actually...
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  2. #102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    In 2006 a report was tabled on development in the parks that, for the most part, brought in sweeping changes especially to Banff and Jasper. Most of this was development limitations or moratoriums.

    This has all been done under Harper.

    Now I don't like Harper but to insinuate that they have some sort of development agenda for our national parks is just silly.
    No, politically there is some influence be it subtle or not. For instance we have campground staff privatized, services privatized out, mass reductions in fulltime parks employees. Race to the bottom reductions in all roles from Warden to interpreter.

    When I started going to parks there were a lot of free interpretive programs. They had guided hikes each day of the week, sometimes multiple activities in a day, all free, all you had to do was show up. Of course in a different economic climate these free activities are considered automatic deadwood and replaced with for sale interpreters from private ventures like this;

    http://maligneadventures.com/sightse...th-cavell-walk

    To suggest that the political realm never manifests in parks operations is nave as anything you've suggested in the thread.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  3. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueline View Post
    Bannffff announced today that they are at their limits for permanent housing space
    Here comes their applications for expansion
    It's unlikely actually...
    Do you ever go to Banff? Have you not seen the sprawl? If you're old enough you know Banff townsite has grown and extended development in virtually any direction.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  4. #104
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton -> -> Beautiful BC
    Posts
    5,395

    Default

    I don't like the potential for unforseen consequences of this development. Driving through the park yesterday and listening to a podcast featuring a lecture by Jane Jacobs, one of her points made about development is the unforseen results of development. This proposal is the epitome of that.

    Build in the townsite. Leave the natural areas of the park as natural as possible
    Over promise and under deliver. Its the most Edmonton thing you can do.

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Do you ever go to Banff? Have you not seen the sprawl? If you're old enough you know Banff townsite has grown and extended development in virtually any direction.
    It won't be allowed I think, there are already severe restrictions on buying property in Banff (you have to work there). Canmore has become a vacation home town for this reason.
    Last edited by moahunter; 10-08-2013 at 04:59 PM.

  6. #106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueline View Post
    Bannffff announced today that they are at their limits for permanent housing space
    Here comes their applications for expansion
    It's unlikely actually...
    Do you ever go to Banff? Have you not seen the sprawl? If you're old enough you know Banff townsite has grown and extended development in virtually any direction.
    I have been going to banff for a long long time.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  7. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Do you ever go to Banff? Have you not seen the sprawl? If you're old enough you know Banff townsite has grown and extended development in virtually any direction.
    It won't be allowed I think, there are already severe restrictions on buying property in Banff (you have to work there). Canmore has become a vacation home town for this reason.
    Yeah, afaik currently you have to demonstrate having a job and livelihood in the National Park to move there. This is a positive development. This was the rule before they relaxed it thus allowing decades of sprawl in Banff. As it is the City is too big and along with highways and freight trains much of the navigable valley is being used. The changes are too late and damage already done. Banff and Canmore are habitat plugs preventing the safe migration of animal species.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  8. #108

    Default

    Are you now proposing we shut down the railway?
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  9. #109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Are you now proposing we shut down the railway?
    Did I say that?

    I am stating that when one considers the highways, the traintracks, the town of Banff, that effectively speaking the entire bow valley corridor is taken up by human activity. Thus plugging the width of the valley with human activity.
    We're not sharing the park very well.

    As I asked you before ever wonder what all those "wildlife bridges" in Banff on the highway are for? Its a desperate attempt at allowing animals migration to allow access to greater habitat, increased gene pool, decreased highway carnage, and increased chance of survival of species. Its a response, and recognition, that multilane highways combined with freight trains result in considerable threat to habitat with dire consequences.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  10. #110

    Default

    I am very aware of what they are for... again I point out that the park are not natural preserves
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  11. #111

    Default

    Uhh ya national parks are nature preserves first and foremost.

  12. #112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I point out that the park are not natural preserves
    Oh, I see. All that land in the parks is just being saved to build on, and all think those animals on the highways and towns must have just escaped their cages.

  13. #113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I am very aware of what they are for... again I point out that the park are not natural preserves
    What are they then?

    Amusement parks?
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  14. #114

    Default

    ..

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/agen/chart/chartr.aspx

    The Parks Canada Charter

    Our Mandate

    On behalf of the people of Canada, we protect and present nationally significant examples of Canada's natural and cultural heritage, and foster public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment in ways that ensure the ecological and commemorative integrity of these places for present and future generations.

    Our Role

    We are guardians of the national parks, the national historic sites and the national marine conservation areas of Canada.

    We are guides to visitors from around the world, opening doors to places of discovery and learning, reflection and recreation.

    We are partners building on the rich traditions of our Aboriginal people, the strength of our diverse cultures and our commitments to the international community.

    We are storytellers recounting the history of our land and our people - the stories of Canada.

    Our Commitments

    To protect , as a first priority, the natural and cultural heritage of our special places and ensure that they remain healthy and whole.

    To present the beauty and significance of our natural world and to chronicle the human determination and ingenuity which have shaped our nation.

    To celebrate the legacy of visionary Canadians whose passion and knowledge have inspired the character and values of our country.

    To serve Canadians, working together to achieve excellence guided by values of competence, respect and fairness.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  15. #115
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,764

    Default

    You don't need to get a room somewhere to 'discover' it.

    I t says right in the statements above that Parks Canada's first priority is to protect the natural areas of their special places. It seems that the easiest way to do that would be to not develop a hotel at the end of every significant mountain lake there is. People can stay in town. Jasper could use a few more good hotels.

  16. #116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    You don't need to get a room somewhere to 'discover' it.

    I t says right in the statements above that Parks Canada's first priority is to protect the natural areas of their special places. It seems that the easiest way to do that would be to not develop a hotel at the end of every significant mountain lake there is. People can stay in town. Jasper could use a few more good hotels.
    He expected we'd only read the bolded. As if the rest stipulated therein doesn't exist. Basically anybody reading that gets the gist of it. But EDP with a vastly different interpretation from taking one sentence in isolation.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  17. #117

    Default

    ^ I did not bold the statement Matt did.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 12-08-2013 at 11:29 AM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  18. #118

    Default

    Yes, but you are the one that quoted it, and ignored the non-bolded parts...

  19. #119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    You don't need to get a room somewhere to 'discover' it.

    I t says right in the statements above that Parks Canada's first priority is to protect the natural areas of their special places. It seems that the easiest way to do that would be to not develop a hotel at the end of every significant mountain lake there is. People can stay in town. Jasper could use a few more good hotels.
    You are cherry picking the preview of the parks is more than one line.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  20. #120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    ^ I did not bold the statement Matt did.

    You somehow took it in isolation out of context while apparently ignoring the actual missive of the stated mandate.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  21. #121

    Default

    Do NOT put words in my mouth.

    I never claimed that and if the only way you can prove YOUR point is to make up things that I DID NOT SAY.. I guess that speaks more about you than I.

    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  22. #122
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,764

    Default

    Looking at the rest of the Charter in the quote I don't see where it says that everyone has to be able to sleep in a hotel everywhere that they want to observe the natural beauty that Canada's national parks offer.

  23. #123

    Default

    ^ so tell me where they are proposing to build a hotel everywhere in jasper National Park..

    You guys are really grasping at straws.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 12-08-2013 at 11:53 AM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  24. #124

    Default

    I'm pretty sure this hotel is not proposed for in the townsite of Jasper, and there shouldn't really be development outside of the jasper townsite itself.

  25. #125

    Default

    ^ except that development is part of our national parks... without it no Miette hot springs, no ski hills, no campgrounds...

    There is a balance to be struck.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  26. #126

    Default

    and I think that what's being argued is that this development will make things unbalanced. Development in the townsite is appropriate... this isn't.

  27. #127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    and I think that what's being argued is that this development will make things unbalanced. Development in the townsite is appropriate... this isn't.
    I have simply state that I don't feel it would be. Now I am not the person who accepts or declines the recommendation, nor am i aware of the environment impact studies and the mitigation's that are being proposed. which I have continued to say all along.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  28. #128

    Default

    My god, you want unbalanced? I took a quick trip to Lake Louise this weekend - first time in decades. Talk about a tourist gong show...parking lot after parking lot...crowds and more crowds...like you're at Disneyland or something. After that, I'm even more upset over this Maligne development.
    Last edited by River Valley Green; 01-09-2013 at 10:01 PM.

  29. #129
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,617

    Default

    Banff in general has gotten out of control. Coming off the West Coast Trail last week I was talking with a German girl who has been traveling all across Canada, and she said much the same thing about Banff: too busy, too touristy, too much development, etc. But I don`t really know what the solution is, either. It`s a victim of it`s own success.

  30. #130
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Thread update time. Parks Canada says No to hotel on Maligne Lake.

    JASPER, Alta. - Parks Canada is saying no to a proposal for a new hotel on the shores of Jasper National Park's scenic Maligne Lake.

    But the federal agency will continue to consider a series of other plans for area, including tent cabins and an expanded program of boat tours.

    "Today's decision reflects our pledge to ensure our protected natural and cultural heritage remain unimpaired for future generations while facilitating ways for people to meaningfully connect with and learn about nature," said Jasper National Park superintendent Greg Fenton.

    Maligne Lake is the world's second-largest glacier-fed lake, its 22-kilometre length ringed with spectacular, 3,000-metre peaks. A view of the lake's Spirit Island was featured on the old $5 bill.

    Parks Canada's decision was in response to a 2012 series of proposals from Maligne Tours, which has offered commercial services at the lake for decades including boat excursions, a cafeteria and a store.

    The company proposed a high-end, 66-room hotel and 15 tent cabins. It also seeks to restore a historic boathouse, add a restaurant and lounge and offer interpretive activities. Maligne Tours says those attractions would increase the lake's appeal to urban youth and to new Canadians, two groups Parks Canada is keen to reach.

    The upgrades would also bolster the company's bottom line. It says demand for boat tours has fallen by about half since 2005.
    Can't say I'm disappointed.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/07...canada-alberta

  31. #131

    Default

    Expecting a ministerial override of the decision.

  32. #132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Thread update time. Parks Canada says No to hotel on Maligne Lake.

    JASPER, Alta. - Parks Canada is saying no to a proposal for a new hotel on the shores of Jasper National Park's scenic Maligne Lake.

    But the federal agency will continue to consider a series of other plans for area, including tent cabins and an expanded program of boat tours.

    "Today's decision reflects our pledge to ensure our protected natural and cultural heritage remain unimpaired for future generations while facilitating ways for people to meaningfully connect with and learn about nature," said Jasper National Park superintendent Greg Fenton.

    Maligne Lake is the world's second-largest glacier-fed lake, its 22-kilometre length ringed with spectacular, 3,000-metre peaks. A view of the lake's Spirit Island was featured on the old $5 bill.

    Parks Canada's decision was in response to a 2012 series of proposals from Maligne Tours, which has offered commercial services at the lake for decades including boat excursions, a cafeteria and a store.

    The company proposed a high-end, 66-room hotel and 15 tent cabins. It also seeks to restore a historic boathouse, add a restaurant and lounge and offer interpretive activities. Maligne Tours says those attractions would increase the lake's appeal to urban youth and to new Canadians, two groups Parks Canada is keen to reach.

    The upgrades would also bolster the company's bottom line. It says demand for boat tours has fallen by about half since 2005.
    Can't say I'm disappointed.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/07...canada-alberta
    Interesting comment here... While it sounds like nonsense to me, I'd like to understand this better:

    " Maligne Tours says those attractions would increase the lake's appeal to urban youth and to new Canadians, two groups Parks Canada is keen to reach."

  33. #133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Thread update time. Parks Canada says No to hotel on Maligne Lake.

    JASPER, Alta. - Parks Canada is saying no to a proposal for a new hotel on the shores of Jasper National Park's scenic Maligne Lake.

    But the federal agency will continue to consider a series of other plans for area, including tent cabins and an expanded program of boat tours.

    "Today's decision reflects our pledge to ensure our protected natural and cultural heritage remain unimpaired for future generations while facilitating ways for people to meaningfully connect with and learn about nature," said Jasper National Park superintendent Greg Fenton.

    Maligne Lake is the world's second-largest glacier-fed lake, its 22-kilometre length ringed with spectacular, 3,000-metre peaks. A view of the lake's Spirit Island was featured on the old $5 bill.

    Parks Canada's decision was in response to a 2012 series of proposals from Maligne Tours, which has offered commercial services at the lake for decades including boat excursions, a cafeteria and a store.

    The company proposed a high-end, 66-room hotel and 15 tent cabins. It also seeks to restore a historic boathouse, add a restaurant and lounge and offer interpretive activities. Maligne Tours says those attractions would increase the lake's appeal to urban youth and to new Canadians, two groups Parks Canada is keen to reach.

    The upgrades would also bolster the company's bottom line. It says demand for boat tours has fallen by about half since 2005.
    Can't say I'm disappointed.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/07...canada-alberta
    Interesting comment here... While it sounds like nonsense to me, I'd like to understand this better:

    " Maligne Tours says those attractions would increase the lake's appeal to urban youth and to new Canadians, two groups Parks Canada is keen to reach."
    probably you could read as 'Maligne Tours wants to pad their bank accounts at the expense of a majority of canadians, kind of like the stock market scam'

  34. #134
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    If this were in Banff, shovels would already be in the ground.

  35. #135

    Default

    Be glad it's not Banff.

  36. #136
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    49,129

    Default

    I have mixed emotions on this one, but I suppose side with the decision.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  37. #137
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    5,283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    I have mixed emotions on this one, but I suppose side with the decision.
    Mixed emotions? You suppose? Good grief...this pristine area should compel you one way or the other. Is there anything you think is more important than this area to preserve? If so I would sure like to know where your bar is set...it must be other worldly or at the pearly gates.

  38. #138
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    6,054

    Default

    Hrrrm, I wonder. We'll still have cars and buses chugging up and down the road back to Jasper townsite because there's nowhere to stay at the lake.

    This is environmentally better? I'm not so sure.
    ... gobsmacked

  39. #139
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Keep in mind Boo that traffic would increase because of the hotel, let alone the environmental issues that the hotel itself would bring.

  40. #140
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    6,054

    Default

    Maybe, but not so sure. Just suggesting, it isn't such a linear equation as some might suggest.

    We can't say stop a development (hotel or oil/tar sands) and save the environment unless we consider what people will do instead. And they will and we can't legislate.

    Maybe Parks Canada made a globally well considered good decision. Maybe it's also just a feel-good sop that won't really accomplish anything. Probably in our lifetimes you and I won't get any, let alone reliable metrics to judge for sure.
    ... gobsmacked

  41. #141

    Default

    Well sure, let's just ring the lake with hotels and condos, just to be safe.

    You can't get away from it all it you take it all with you.

  42. #142
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    6,054

    Default

    Yes, please add your considerable environmental credentials to the debate. You do that side so much credit afterall.

    Okay, maybe not so much.

    I mean, why have rationale, reasonable debate when exaggeration, hyperbole and true one-way-ism trumps all?
    ... gobsmacked

  43. #143

    Default

    We'll just build a small hotel. What's the harm?

    Oh, we're successful, we need more room.

    Our guests want more amenities. We want to add a pool.

    People are looking for more dining choices. We need to expand the restaurant.

    Our feedback is that people are looking for a more affordable option. We'd like to build a small hotel just up the beach. Don't worry. We won't be expanding it.

    Repeat as necessary.

    Oh, the oil companies are looking at putting in a few wells in the remote parts of the park. Don't worry, the impact will be minimal.

    Etc, etc, etc.

    The passage of Bill 4, known as the Park Amendment Act, will make way for industrial incursions into provincial parklands including energy extraction, construction of pipelines and industry-led research.

    "This bill undermines the very definition of what a 'park' is," Gwen Barlee from the Wilderness Committee said in the same statement, "given that our protected areas will now be open to industrial activity."

    "This is a black day for B.C. parks -- the provincial government is ensuring that none of our parks are now safe from industrial development," she said.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/carol-l...b_5030406.html

    The nose of the camel is under the tent.

  44. #144
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    6,054

    Default

    LMAO, I want to ask you to cite anywhere by anyone where this has been suggested.

    But you're way too valuable the way you carry on - making environmentalists look like two-year old infants having childish tantrums.

    Keep it up. We land rapists rather enjoy it.

    Well, we aren't actually land rapists, but the more you portray us as that, the far less credibility anyone who shares your passion also has.

    You go dude! Meantime, Kitlope has credibility, you don't. Maybe study, learn ...
    ... gobsmacked

  45. #145

    Default

    Nope, don't think you're land rapists. That's your term, and a fairly objectionable one at that. However, I do question you desire to establish hotels in the park. Isn't that what the townsite is for? Do we really ency Calgary's proximity to Banff so much that we want to turn Jasper into a carbon copy of Banff, crowds and all?

    As for where someone has proposed expanding the development:

    The company proposed a high-end, 66-room hotel and 15 tent cabins. It also seeks to restore a historic boathouse, add a restaurant and lounge and offer interpretive activities. Maligne Tours says those attractions would increase the lake's appeal to urban youth and to new Canadians, two groups Parks Canada is keen to reach.
    But no, nothing to see here. Move along.

    Pay no attention to the corporation behind the curtain.

  46. #146
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    In all honesty, I'm against most development in any protected park.

    See here.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitlope...ge_Conservancy

    key word:

    "It preserves the largest continuous tract of coastal temperate rainforest in the world"


    Losing this isn't an option.

  47. #147

    Default

    This all depends on your definition and vision of what a "National Park" should be.

    This

    http://www.discoverlakelouise.com/un...-ski-area.html
    A playground for people and profits for corporations.

    or this

    http://www.cosmos.com/Product.aspx?trip=48915


    http://www.globusjourneys.com/Product.aspx?trip=4CS
    A playground for wildlife and a place to enjoy nature
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  48. #148
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,617

    Default

    ^There's a place for both, and it's certainly not a simple balancing act. But there's plenty of opportunity for the first type to be accomplished outside of national parks. In fact most of the best ski resorts reside outside of the national parks.

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Hrrrm, I wonder. We'll still have cars and buses chugging up and down the road back to Jasper townsite because there's nowhere to stay at the lake.

    This is environmentally better? I'm not so sure.
    Adding a significant development wouldn't result in less traffic to the area. It would result in significantly more, not to mention a much increased need for water, sewage, power and the like.

  49. #149
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    6,054

    Default

    I'm not expert enough to know if Parks Canada made a sound decision or not.

    But we all know a little about human nature. Not having a hotel at Maligne Lake won't save nature. It'll simply move the pressure to someplace else.

    That's all. This, as most such so-called environmental battles, will do zero, nadda, bupkis to change human behaviour.

    And for the record, I much prefer Jasper to Banff.
    ... gobsmacked

  50. #150

    Default

    So, if it will just move development pressure elsewhere we should just approve this project? How about, we resist the development pressure in the new place as well?

    Having the towns right inside the parks has been both a blessing and a curse to Jasper and Banff. Banff has gone the route of more development. I'd hate to see Jasper take the same path.

  51. #151

    Default

    What the vision and definition of what 'parks canada' or national parks in canada is about is fairly easily defined, just looking at their charter.

    The Parks Canada Charter

    Our Mandate

    On behalf of the people of Canada, we protect and present nationally significant examples of Canada's natural and cultural heritage, and foster public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment in ways that ensure the ecological and commemorative integrity of these places for present and future generations.

    Our Role

    We are guardians of the national parks, the national historic sites and the national marine conservation areas of Canada.

    We are guides to visitors from around the world, opening doors to places of discovery and learning, reflection and recreation.

    We are partners building on the rich traditions of our Aboriginal people, the strength of our diverse cultures and our commitments to the international community.

    We are storytellers recounting the history of our land and our people - the stories of Canada.

    Our Commitments

    To protect , as a first priority, the natural and cultural heritage of our special places and ensure that they remain healthy and whole.

    To present the beauty and significance of our natural world and to chronicle the human determination and ingenuity which have shaped our nation.

    To celebrate the legacy of visionary Canadians whose passion and knowledge have inspired the character and values of our country.

    To serve Canadians, working together to achieve excellence guided by values of competence, respect and fairness.
    http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/agen/chart/chartr.aspx

  52. #152

    Default

    Thanks Medwards

    I think we all agree that allowing for the development of high end hotels by private for profit developers are not parts of the Mandate, Role or Commitments of the Parks Canada Charter.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  53. #153

    Default

    "We are guides to visitors from around the world, opening doors to places of discovery and learning, reflection and recreation."
    To me, it's okay to build hotels (high end or not), in a sustainable, and environmentally friendly fashion, that keeps balance the other parts of the charter. Development should be kept limited to the jasper town site only.

  54. #154

    Default

    "We are guides to visitors from around the world, opening doors to places of discovery and learning, reflection and recreation."

    You can do that with a canoe and a tent with much less environmental impact.

    Sorry, no matter how many times I read it, I did not see building 5 start hotels in the Charter
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  55. #155
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,617

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    But we all know a little about human nature. Not having a hotel at Maligne Lake won't save nature. It'll simply move the pressure to someplace else.
    Exactly. Preferably outside of national parks. No one's saying that all development must be halted everywhere.

  56. #156
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,629

    Default

    Maybe its high time Jasper National Park had its own version of Kananaskis just outside its borders.
    You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea. - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  57. #157
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Jasper National Park is only gonna worry about Jasper National Park. That would be up to our provincial government, and we recently just had that debate.

  58. #158
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    I've asked this a long time ago and didn't get an answer.

    Wood Buffalo is pretty much a huge wilderness (apart from the reserve buried deep in the park). I don't believe there are any tourist facilities anywhere in the park. Since it's virtually unspoiled, how many people actually visit Wood Buffalo? Can it be counted in 6 figures, 5 figures or maybe only 4 figures, if even that many.

    Is it vast swaths of undisturbed nature that draws people or is it easier access to nature that does it?

  59. #159

    Default

    The scenery in Wood Buffalo cannot be compared to the grandeur of the Rocky Mountains and the lakes and rivers found there. Boreal forest and hordes of mosquitoes just does not attract people.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  60. #160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    The scenery in Wood Buffalo cannot be compared to the grandeur of the Rocky Mountains and the lakes and rivers found there. Boreal forest and hordes of mosquitoes just does not attract people.
    No, it's not as immediately 'grand' as our mountain parks, but as one who HAS been there, I can tell you it is extremely beautiful. It caters to more of an 'ecotourism' angle rather than the typical Winnebago warriors you see in Banff/Jasper. It is also the largest dark-sky preserve in the WORLD (an area larger than Switzerland) so it attracts astronomers and aurora photographers. The habitat/landscape there is so unique it has been made a UNESCO World Heritage Site (Hint: Banff and Jasper NPs are NOT).

    Have a visit there sometime, you'll see there is much more than trees and mosquitoes...
    Last edited by bulliver; 01-08-2014 at 05:47 AM.
    Support the mob or mysteriously disappear...

  61. #161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TerryH View Post

    Is it vast swaths of undisturbed nature that draws people [...]
    ^ That. You won't ever see the sort of development you see in Banff/Jasper in Wood Buffalo. I couldn't find visitor figures in a quick look, but I'd expect it's low-mid 5 digits per year. In any event, this park is more about preserving the habitat and the wildlife than monetizing busloads of tourists.
    Support the mob or mysteriously disappear...

  62. #162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bulliver View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    The scenery in Wood Buffalo cannot be compared to the grandeur of the Rocky Mountains and the lakes and rivers found there. Boreal forest and hordes of mosquitoes just does not attract people.
    No, it's not as immediately 'grand' as our mountain parks, but as one who HAS been there, I can tell you it is extremely beautiful. It caters to more of an 'ecotourism' angle rather than the typical Winnebago warriors you see in Banff/Jasper. It is also the largest dark-sky preserve in the WORLD (an area larger than Switzerland) so it attracts astronomers and aurora photographers. The habitat/landscape there is so unique it has been made a UNESCO World Heritage Site (Hint: Banff and Jasper NPs are NOT).

    Have a visit there sometime, you'll see there is much more than trees and mosquitoes...
    Actually both banff and jasper are UNESCO world heritage sites
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canad..._Heritage_Site

  63. #163
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TerryH View Post
    I've asked this a long time ago and didn't get an answer.

    Wood Buffalo is pretty much a huge wilderness (apart from the reserve buried deep in the park). I don't believe there are any tourist facilities anywhere in the park. Since it's virtually unspoiled, how many people actually visit Wood Buffalo? Can it be counted in 6 figures, 5 figures or maybe only 4 figures, if even that many.

    Is it vast swaths of undisturbed nature that draws people or is it easier access to nature that does it?
    I wouldn't call Wood Buffalo virtually unspoiled. With the construction of the W.A.C. Bennett damn the much needed flooding of the Peace-Athabasca Delta has been altered and negatively effected the wetlands.
    http://www.ec.gc.ca/inre-nwri/defaul...ll&po=357EBE1F

  64. #164

    Default

    Thankfully the right decision was made re: Maligne Lake hotel. In light of Glacier walk and the usual pressures to exploit National Parks more I'm pleased that a decision to maintain more of a status quo and not allow appreciable economic expansion in a sensitive habitat has been granted.

    Jasper just keeps being better than Banff through prudent actions like this.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  65. #165
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    The reason I brought up Wood Buffalo was that if one wants to make the Edmonton/Jasper corridor a tourism area, then development must be done in Jasper. I know that some don't want anything done and that tourism is better left to other areas of the world.

    As for developing Jasper, there are plenty of places in Europe along the Alps, for example. How many people turn away from France, Austria, Switzerland and Italy because the Alps have been developed? How many would go there if the Alps were like another Wood Buffalo setup? Probably the low 5 figures. I know there are numerous guides to the Alps and more are added and updated every year. How many guides are there to Wood Buffalo? I would guess none.

    So we have to ask if we want Jasper to be more tourist friendly or more like Wood Buffalo.

  66. #166

    Default

    ^ third option, it doesn't have to go either route, and just stay the happy medium it is now. Let Banff be the place the is run over by tourist doing touristy things. Let Jasper be more quiet, natural, preserved.

  67. #167

    Default

    You make it sound like it is either/or. No one is suggesting here to change the park towards a Wood Buffalo model nor an Alps model. What is wrong with the way it is IYHO? If you want a park that caters to tourists, go to Banff, if you want to get away from it all, go to Wood Buffalo or other lesser developed wilderness areas and if you want something in between, there is Jasper. People like Jasper because it is NOT Banff.

    Comparing the Alps with the hundreds of millions of people surrounding it, where there are no significant parks for wildlife to enjoy in their natural habitat is not what people want in a National Park recognized by UNESCO. Austria and Italy have no UNESCO natural sites in the Alps and Switzerland's largest one is only 83,000 Ha, not even a tenth of Jasper. One reason we have so many tourists from Japan, Korea, Germany, England and elsewhere is simply because they want to go to a less crowded and mostly natural place with clean air, blue lakes, clean rivers, minimal habitation and some of the best views in the world.

    I believe that Parks Canada made the right decision and I believe that the majority of Albertans and Canadians who have visited both Jasper and Banff would agree that keeping the status quo is the best choice.

    If you want to go to a hotel, do some shopping and enjoy the water; I can offer you the directions to West Edmonton Mall.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 03-08-2014 at 09:46 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  68. #168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TerryH View Post
    The reason I brought up Wood Buffalo was that if one wants to make the Edmonton/Jasper corridor a tourism area, then development must be done in Jasper. I know that some don't want anything done and that tourism is better left to other areas of the world.

    As for developing Jasper, there are plenty of places in Europe along the Alps, for example. How many people turn away from France, Austria, Switzerland and Italy because the Alps have been developed? How many would go there if the Alps were like another Wood Buffalo setup? Probably the low 5 figures. I know there are numerous guides to the Alps and more are added and updated every year. How many guides are there to Wood Buffalo? I would guess none.

    So we have to ask if we want Jasper to be more tourist friendly or more like Wood Buffalo.
    Yet countless tourists from around the world for decades have made the effort to come to our more pristine parks and made the investment of much more time required to do that. To get away from it all and the crowded and touristy places.

    In a world with increasing population, nonstop noise and urban sprawl surely you can see which will end up being the out of this world jewel. I love where Jasper is situated in this.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  69. #169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perspective View Post
    Actually both banff and jasper are UNESCO world heritage sites
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canad..._Heritage_Site
    Interesting. I thought there were a few specific spots within the parks that were heritage sites (Burgess Shale etc) but I didn't realize the entire mountain park area was one.

    As for Jasper National Park, I see nothing wrong with the status quo. It does not need to be turned into a resort or amusement park, especially not for the benefit of private enterprise.
    Support the mob or mysteriously disappear...

  70. #170
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    I finally read the story and saw that 13 of the 14 improvements asked for were granted (the hotel being the one rejected).

    I also read that nearly 2 million people went through the park in 2012. But, apart from the Columbia Icefield tours and Marmot Basin, how many came to see the other sights? I tried looking up any Icefield tours from Edmonton but only saw Brewster out of Calgary. And it's not surprising that Brewster runs the Icefield tours and the skywalk. It's almost looking like if there's any will to attract more people to Jasper, it'll come from Calgary and Banff. I wouldn't be surprised if someone from Calgary improves the Hinton/Jasper airport to accommodate flights from Calgary.

    It's interesting that there are mountains north of the townsite in which, because of their remoteness, attracts lots of people to view them. The Rajah and Ranee are a pair that sounded interesting, so I looked on Google for images of them. I'm going to post all of them (and in their full sizes) to show the vast interest there in the jewel of the Rockies.



    http://bivouac.com/MtnPg.asp?MtnId=10537



    http://bivouac.com/MtnPg.asp?MtnId=10535

    A lot of photos, I know. So, all kidding aside, why the lack of interest? Could it be that they're just 2nd rate mountains and there are lots of others that are far more enticing? Or could it be that people want to have nature around them and share it with others as an experience and go to places that give them a place to do so?

    Could the hotel have been an eyesore? Maybe, if it was designed as a 1960s plain Jane tourist trap. Could it be a centerpiece? Perhaps. I'm sure people here have at least seen the Waterton Park Hotel (unfortunately. I haven't had the experience of being there). Would people here consider Waterton to be an grand place against the backdrop of the mountains? Or just some eyesore that drags down the park as a whole?



    http://www.wildernessprints.com/gall...Waterton_Lakes

  71. #171

    Default

    The Prince of Wales is already there and is located just 1 km from the townsite. Maligne Lake is located in a remote area, 44 km from the townsite. Not comparable setting at all.

    You want to build a showpiece hotel, build one right in the town of Jasper.

  72. #172

    Default

    TerryH, with your background, I am surprised with your position. You are involved with preserving history but you continue to promote the idea of placing more development in a natural area that is a National Park of world significance for the profits of a corporation.

    Honestly, if someone suggested that you should paint some of your exhibits in candy apple red and green, airbrush on some flames, add some flashy alloy rims and a hydraulic lift kit to attract more tourists, would you do it?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  73. #173
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    ^Actually, my interest in Edmonton's history had to do with its development (I used to do the 100 year history thread but that takes up a lot of time to look through the stories and type out even the local stories). Part of that history would've also involved looking at how the city went from a city of promise and boundless enthusiasm to one of pessimism and lethargy for several decades. That's how I'm looking at the Edmonton to Jasper corridor and see the same original promise and the subsequent letdown and lack of will to go beyond minor changes for the locals.

  74. #174
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    The Prince of Wales is already there and is located just 1 km from the townsite. Maligne Lake is located in a remote area, 44 km from the townsite. Not comparable setting at all.

    You want to build a showpiece hotel, build one right in the town of Jasper.
    The townsite itself could use improvements and expansion. The thing is, though, that Maligne Tours gauged the need for a hotel on the lake. Now, looking at the proposal, I really don't see why it was turned down. The lodge would've been built over where the current day lodge is and wouldn've used existing land. The architecture was more of a rustic style from the late 19th century used in parks in those days. There wouldn't have been any contrast to the surrounding woods and lake. I think those opposed to it just heard the words "hotel" and "Jasper" and didn't bother looking into it.

    http://www.malignelake.com/pdf/Malig...014%202013.pdf

  75. #175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TerryH View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    The Prince of Wales is already there and is located just 1 km from the townsite. Maligne Lake is located in a remote area, 44 km from the townsite. Not comparable setting at all.

    You want to build a showpiece hotel, build one right in the town of Jasper.
    The townsite itself could use improvements and expansion. The thing is, though, that Maligne Tours gauged the need for a hotel on the lake. Now, looking at the proposal, I really don't see why it was turned down. The lodge would've been built over where the current day lodge is and wouldn've used existing land. The architecture was more of a rustic style from the late 19th century used in parks in those days. There wouldn't have been any contrast to the surrounding woods and lake. I think those opposed to it just heard the words "hotel" and "Jasper" and didn't bother looking into it.

    http://www.malignelake.com/pdf/Malig...014%202013.pdf
    Yes, they gauged the need for a hotel to help line their pockets. Oh well. And those opposed to it did look into it. They have valid environmental concerns. Are you dismissing them out of hand?

  76. #176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TerryH View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    The Prince of Wales is already there and is located just 1 km from the townsite. Maligne Lake is located in a remote area, 44 km from the townsite. Not comparable setting at all.

    You want to build a showpiece hotel, build one right in the town of Jasper.
    The townsite itself could use improvements and expansion. The thing is, though, that Maligne Tours gauged the need for a hotel on the lake. Now, looking at the proposal, I really don't see why it was turned down. The lodge would've been built over where the current day lodge is and wouldn've used existing land. The architecture was more of a rustic style from the late 19th century used in parks in those days. There wouldn't have been any contrast to the surrounding woods and lake. I think those opposed to it just heard the words "hotel" and "Jasper" and didn't bother looking into it.

    http://www.malignelake.com/pdf/Malig...014%202013.pdf
    TBH you're seemingly out of your league in this discussion. Now you're talking about a development being ok because it doesn't visually contrast with the surrounding area. In that case and using that logic would you build Banff Springs Hotel there because the stone doesn't contrast with surroundings. This is your definition of ecological intrusion into a sensitive area.

    NOBODY else cares whether or not the design of the facility blends into the surroundings. Everybody cares about how the ecological impact of a hotel impacts the sensitive surroundings.

    As for not looking into it I've read this and countless other environmental impact studies encroaching on NP habitat. You?
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  77. #177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TerryH View Post
    ^Actually, my interest in Edmonton's history had to do with its development (I used to do the 100 year history thread but that takes up a lot of time to look through the stories and type out even the local stories). Part of that history would've also involved looking at how the city went from a city of promise and boundless enthusiasm to one of pessimism and lethargy for several decades. That's how I'm looking at the Edmonton to Jasper corridor and see the same original promise and the subsequent letdown and lack of will to go beyond minor changes for the locals.
    Your interest then contrasts with the missive to maintain the ecological integrity of the NP.

    Where you see letdown and lack of will others marvel at the will and foresight required to preserve this natural heritage for generations to see and to manage to stick to that resolution in the face of increasing pressures.

    Some failure. When I go to JNP I see mankind keeping hands off (mostly) as one of the environmental success stories on the planet.

    Where I see natures grand vision you see unwritten tablet. Depressing really.
    Last edited by Replacement; 07-08-2014 at 12:17 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  78. #178

    Default

    I agree with your two posts Replacement.

    Building a 66 room + 15 tent hotel is more than just the impact on that site. The people who work there would include the management, food staff, cleaning and maintenance staff etc with multiple shifts amount to probably over 100 people. They all have to live somewhere. That means more homes, condos and apartments for those staff and their families living within the park. They also drive cars, frequent restaurants and create more demand for services and increase the load on the town's infrastructure such as schools, garbage, sewage etc. The general rule of thumb is that for every job you create, there are three spin-off jobs.

    It is not just a hotel, it is the sum of it's effects.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  79. #179
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TerryH View Post
    ^Actually, my interest in Edmonton's history had to do with its development (I used to do the 100 year history thread but that takes up a lot of time to look through the stories and type out even the local stories). Part of that history would've also involved looking at how the city went from a city of promise and boundless enthusiasm to one of pessimism and lethargy for several decades. That's how I'm looking at the Edmonton to Jasper corridor and see the same original promise and the subsequent letdown and lack of will to go beyond minor changes for the locals.
    Your interest then contrasts with the missive to maintain the ecological integrity of the NP.

    Where you see letdown and lack of will others marvel at the will and foresight required to preserve this natural heritage for generations to see and to manage to stick to that resolution in the face of increasing pressures.

    Some failure. When I go to JNP I see mankind keeping hands off (mostly) as one of the environmental success stories on the planet.

    Where I see natures grand vision you see unwritten tablet. Depressing really.
    Unfortunately, the same argument against the hotel can be used for anyone who even takes one step into park. How do you know that the next trip you make won't end up killing an animal? Or if you step off a concrete or asphalt surface, you'll end up crushing some sort of plant life underneath? If a 66 unit hotel can cause the type of "ecological damage" as is claimed, then everyone entering the park also does ecological damage. So what do we do? Shut the place down and fence it off? That's very short-sighted and goes against what the parks were originally set up for. A place for people to find rest and relaxation within natural settings.

    I know that people are approaching this more out of emotion. I suggested Wood Buffalo as an either/or situation. And, yes, deciding to deride the thought of a hotel is also an either/or situation with either the thought of opening Jasper to further tourism or curtailing all future development. There doesn't seem to be a happy medium.

  80. #180
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by River Valley Green View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TerryH View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    The Prince of Wales is already there and is located just 1 km from the townsite. Maligne Lake is located in a remote area, 44 km from the townsite. Not comparable setting at all.

    You want to build a showpiece hotel, build one right in the town of Jasper.
    The townsite itself could use improvements and expansion. The thing is, though, that Maligne Tours gauged the need for a hotel on the lake. Now, looking at the proposal, I really don't see why it was turned down. The lodge would've been built over where the current day lodge is and wouldn've used existing land. The architecture was more of a rustic style from the late 19th century used in parks in those days. There wouldn't have been any contrast to the surrounding woods and lake. I think those opposed to it just heard the words "hotel" and "Jasper" and didn't bother looking into it.

    http://www.malignelake.com/pdf/Malig...014%202013.pdf
    Yes, they gauged the need for a hotel to help line their pockets. Oh well. And those opposed to it did look into it. They have valid environmental concerns. Are you dismissing them out of hand?
    Then the parks also have a financial incentive by allowing people in and charging fees.

    As for those "looking" into it, did they? Or was their stance already made the moment they heard about it? Considering some of the scorched earth thinking I've seen, one has to wonder.

  81. #181
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Terry, you really need to throw a backpack on and go hiking for 4 or 5 days in the backcountry of Alberta's National Parks. Then, maybe, you'll get it.

  82. #182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TerryH View Post
    Unfortunately, the same argument against the hotel can be used for anyone who even takes one step into park. How do you know that the next trip you make won't end up killing an animal? Or if you step off a concrete or asphalt surface, you'll end up crushing some sort of plant life underneath? If a 66 unit hotel can cause the type of "ecological damage" as is claimed, then everyone entering the park also does ecological damage. So what do we do? Shut the place down and fence it off? That's very short-sighted and goes against what the parks were originally set up for. A place for people to find rest and relaxation within natural settings.

    I know that people are approaching this more out of emotion. I suggested Wood Buffalo as an either/or situation. And, yes, deciding to deride the thought of a hotel is also an either/or situation with either the thought of opening Jasper to further tourism or curtailing all future development. There doesn't seem to be a happy medium.
    Not sure where you are going with this. Surely you understand the notion of ecological footprint and if you don't its a requisite concept for the thread.

    2primary modes of travel to JNP have occurred during the lifetime of the park.

    First by rail, then by highway. Each of these involved infrastructure to be setup and were situated using primarily naturally developed passages.

    These were decisions that were made and yes they represent footprint. But these were the interventions that already allow the access that you are somehow questioning.

    Roads in JNP though have remained essentially unchanged for several decades so that increase in routes, or intrusion into new habitat has been avoided.

    My own take is that probably too many roads currently exist. As someone who puts a priority on the preservation aspect I'd be fine if some routes were closed or were subject to bus only traffic. ( for instance Maligne road)

    In anycase access to anybody is currently in place and no more is required. So not sure what your argument is.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  83. #183
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TerryH View Post
    Unfortunately, the same argument against the hotel can be used for anyone who even takes one step into park. How do you know that the next trip you make won't end up killing an animal? Or if you step off a concrete or asphalt surface, you'll end up crushing some sort of plant life underneath? If a 66 unit hotel can cause the type of "ecological damage" as is claimed, then everyone entering the park also does ecological damage. So what do we do? Shut the place down and fence it off? That's very short-sighted and goes against what the parks were originally set up for. A place for people to find rest and relaxation within natural settings.

    I know that people are approaching this more out of emotion. I suggested Wood Buffalo as an either/or situation. And, yes, deciding to deride the thought of a hotel is also an either/or situation with either the thought of opening Jasper to further tourism or curtailing all future development. There doesn't seem to be a happy medium.
    Not sure where you are going with this. Surely you understand the notion of ecological footprint and if you don't its a requisite concept for the thread.

    2primary modes of travel to JNP have occurred during the lifetime of the park.

    First by rail, then by highway. Each of these involved infrastructure to be setup and were situated using primarily naturally developed passages.

    These were decisions that were made and yes they represent footprint. But these were the interventions that already allow the access that you are somehow questioning.

    Roads in JNP though have remained essentially unchanged for several decades so that increase in routes, or intrusion into new habitat has been avoided.

    My own take is that probably too many roads currently exist. As someone who puts a priority on the preservation aspect I'd be fine if some routes were closed or were subject to bus only traffic. ( for instance Maligne road)

    In anycase access to anybody is currently in place and no more is required. So not sure what your argument is.
    The existing access is adequate but the facilities need to be improved. I don't bother with an "ecological footprint" as the idea of ecology has little to do with nature (other than as an accessory to its overall thought). As the hotel's foundation would've added little to the surrounding area, its existence would've made no difference one way or another. So, compared with the amount of people already visiting Maligne Lake (about 400,000 per year), the change would've been insignificant enough to be virtually nil.

    As for roads, many areas are either too challenging to build roads to or are close enough to the existing roads to not warrant new ones. One has to remember that a road leading somewhere in the park has to lead to something with a vista (a large lake or a natural clearing in a high elevation that also has a flat enough area to congregate). If the natural accesses are too narrow or require extensive engineering, it's not worth it. The existing highways and railway used passes that allowed for easy access.

    But, if one subscribes to an "ecological footprint", then it's not just restricted to permanent man-made changes, as in roads or buildings. It also refers to changes made that change the landscape just by one's actions or carelessness. A forest fire started accidentally by even just breaking a glass object on the ground changes the landscape, meaning that different plants may grow in or not grow back at all, and the potential loss of wildlife. Digging around in the ground next a lake or creek may cause damage through erosion. Even so, to reduce that risk, it's better not to go at all. However, the way I look at it, the best way is to mitigate the risks, while knowing that it's impossible to not change even the tiniest thing. And it's something that almost all people do in any natural setting, whether it's a park or something on their own property.

  84. #184

    Default

    Don't it always seem to go
    That you don't know what you've got
    Till it's gone
    They paved paradise
    And put up a parking lot

  85. #185
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Terry, you really need to throw a backpack on and go hiking for 4 or 5 days in the backcountry of Alberta's National Parks. Then, maybe, you'll get it.
    It would've been something I would've tried when I was younger. But, having to work low paying jobs for too many years and not being able to get out of the city because of not being able to afford a vehicle, killed that. These days, I still have to work to stay ahead of the bills and youth isn't on my side anymore. On top of that, I consider myself a "wanting to see what's over the next hill" type of explorer. I don't have a favourite place and look at the countryside as containing countless thousands of places to explore. I figure one can explore Canada all their lives and still not see a lot of places. I guess it's the same for Alberta. If I had a camper and the time, I'd stay one day at a campground then drive the next day to the next campground and spend a day there.

    I'll even take alternate highways and back roads to get from one place to another, instead of the direct route, just to see what sights there are. Probably the most remote road I took was the "Old Conklin Road" (before 881 was built from Conklin), driving back from Fort McMurray. No civilization except for crossing the AlPac road and a couple of miles of farmland before you get to 858.

  86. #186
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    BTW, I should say the greatest disservice I've done to Maligne Lake has been to never visit. This year may be too late but perhaps next year.

  87. #187

    Default

    I agree with the people that said they should just vamp up the hotels/lodge in the Town of Jasper and people can drive/bike to Maligne Lake.

    I don't see any real benefit to building something at Maligne Lake rather than at the townsite. Might as well consolidate all your resources.

  88. #188

    Default

    Seems like it's not over yet.

    In July, Parks Canada considered 14 proposals from Maligne Tours, a company that runs boat excursions and other operations at the lake, one of the park's biggest attractions.

    Parks Canada turned down a plan for a high-end, 66-room hotel. But it agreed to consider the other 13 proposals, including the tent cabins.

    Thomson said that breaks Parks Canada's own guidelines, which are supposed to rule out any new commercial accommodation outside park town sites.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/08...n_5729250.html

  89. #189
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    6,054

    Default

    We'll see, but it most likely is over.

    CPAWS (and others) can't re-argue the case presented to Parks Canada. They can only argue that PC made an error in law in reaching its decision.

    Possibly - but unlikely.
    ... gobsmacked

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •