Editor:
This is in response to the article of the parkway restriction and closure, which I feel compelled to respond to as there are many misleading and incorrect statements.
While it is easy and very noble to hold up the mantra of “save the wildlife,” it also seems that it is justifiable to create false information to further one’s stance. For nearly two decades, defending the side of keeping the Parkway open for all has not been an easy endeavour when continually facing the mantra of “protect and save the wildlife.” Who doesn’t want to protect them?
The reality of the situation is that the traffic restriction on the Parkway was and is an ineffective solution to a non-existing problem. Unlike Jim Pissot, with opinions, I would prefer to offer facts with Parks traffic counts that clearly states traffic on the Bow Valley Parkway has declined since 1997.
This is clearly supported by data, not opinion. Another very important factor (again, inconvenient factual data) is that from dusk to dawn – during the restriction or closure time of March 1 to June 25 – there is less than two cars per hour.
From an animal’s perspective this is less than three seconds per hour that a vehicle goes by. In 18 years of sitting on three different advisory committees, there has never been any evidence presented to support any issue with animal mortality or with animal displacement. Not a single compelling report that clearly shows the Parkway has any measurable negative affect on the wildlife. As such, there can be no way of measuring any effectiveness of the gates.
However, the negative effect on tourism and perception of the Park is very real. The closure is for part of the road, for part of the day, for part of the year with a rationale that is equally confusing.
As the years rolled by, the justification and rationale for closure shifted more often than superintendent positions, who each tried to wrestle with this recommendation from the Bow Valley Study.
Historically, it is important to note that the same study recommended removing the Rimrock and the then Timberline Lodge. In addition, the “study” created alarming and serious concerns projecting an absolute explosion of tourist numbers in Banff National Park.
Two decades later it has become sobering clear that these visitation projections were radically wrong and hugely fabricated as Parks is now faced with looking for ways to increase visitation. A competent scientist would now throw out the entire study and actions recommended because the foundations were based on such unrealistic and false number projections.
The only real human disturbance that I have ever experienced for wildlife on the Parkway has been a variety of wildlife photographers. With their zeal to capture the images of wolf pups, the “puparazzi” has continually showcased shockingly bad judgment and actions. Their specific activities directly resulted in Parks Canada closing off huge areas of the Parkway near Hillsdale in spring.
On a positive note, Parks Canada has been doing excellent work in providing huge ecological gains for the BNP as a whole with the completion of the twinning of Highway 1 with its fencing and the overpasses, which further helped the wildlife and resulted in lessened traffic with staff commuters or skiers no longer needing the Parkway as a safer route.
In closing, if there was credible evidence to support that the Parkway was or has ever been detrimental to wildlife, we would gladly support the restriction. After all, who doesn’t want to protect them?
G.T. Nokes,
Bow Valley Advisory Committee Member
