Most would agree it is important to preserve the caribou populations in Jasper National Park, but closing areas of the park takes out two elements of their mandate, education and visitor experience. Nobody will have an experience if the backcountry is closed and therefore opportunities to educate will go with it. Yet if we ignore the protection element, our less than stable three-legged chair still falls over. No more caribou means a failure to protect, and despite an outstanding visitor experience the educational opportunity for caribou will be limited to pictures or statues.
Of course the three-legged chair concept only works if we are to accept that there can be only one way of dealing with the issue. Either we protect the caribou and lose the backcountry or we do nothing and we lose the caribou. Is it really that straight forward?
Perhaps what is really at odds in this situation is the corporate mentality of Parks Canada and the fiery take no prisoners zeal of the backcountry user. Both want to satisfy their own goals. With careful planning and an eye on budgets, Parks Canada needs to protect while showing tangible results for their efforts. The backcountry user wants to have the awe inspiring, adrenaline rush experience they feel every Canadian deserves, which supports local business in the process. What is needed is compromise.
Somehow, Parks Canada must be willing to accept that they can not focus solely on the goal of preserving the caribou at the cost of visitor experience. Visitor experience needs to be included into their planning while still working toward producing the tangible results on paper that the folks in Ottawa like to see.
Somehow, the backcountry user needs to accept the idea of some restrictions to the backcountry experience, and perhaps even be prepared to, in some yet to be determined capacity, participate in Parks Canada’s protection mandate.
To be successful neither party can maintain an uncompromising position or something important and wonderful will be lost.
We’ve heard people say that Parks Canada has already made their decision and that the workshop and public engagement process is nothing more than public relations. Here is an opportunity for Parks Canada to truly change that perception. Parks Canada may need a push in the right direction and the best way to do that is to keep the conversation going. This issue is far to important to not maintain public engagement. Let’s keep talking.
