Dave Dodge-CKUA-Ecofile: Dr. Page, why was the study launched in the first place?

Dr. Page:Michael Dupuis, who was then the Minister of Canadian Heritage responsible for parks was very concerned with the way in which polarization in Banff-Bow Valley was increasing tensions and potentially creating a whole series of problems both for tourism in the valley and for everyone involved. And so he wanted to do something to try and intervene, to try and bring some new management perspectives to the valley which hopefully would end the fighting.

Dave Dodge-CKUA-Ecofile: The study took about two years to complete?

Dr. Page:Yes it did, it actually was we were given two years and we took two years and about three months.

Dave Dodge-CKUA-Ecofile: Did you do the study on your own or did you consult the public?

Dr. Page:We used a variety of approaches, including public consultation. We conducted a round table in Banff which met regularly for 14 months. It was composed of 14 different sectoral working groups, some of which had several hundred people behind them and we also had public meetings from Ottawa to Vancouver. We had a store-front operation in downtown Banff. We had deputations from a variety of regional and national organizations and we had input from over 1,000 Canadians in written form, or one kind or another.

Dave Dodge-CKUA-Ecofile: I'd like to get your opinion on a number of issues related to the problems in Banff. How do you see National Parks? What are they for?

Dr. Page:In terms of the National Parks amendments of '88 and the national parks policy of 1994, parks are primarily concerned with the ecological integrity of the habitat. They also have a secondary role with providing tourism and certainly the whole question of the issue of the public of Canada being able to enjoy their national parks is an important feature as well.

Dave Dodge-CKUA-Ecofile: Do you think people forget these purposes or don't understand them?

Dr. Page:Well I think they do. There were times in which arguments were made to us that made it imply that there was no difference between West Edmonton Mall and the town of Banff. There were also arguments that were made to us that Banff should be a kind of pristine wilderness area without highways, railways, townsites or any of the other amenities for visitor enjoyment so we try to find the middle ground between those two poles.

Dave Dodge-CKUA-Ecofile: Who are the special interests in this issue?

Dr. Page:The special interests I think are a variety of individuals, groups and organizations each of whom has a slightly different image of what the park should be. If you look at Canadian Pacific Hotels, certainly their most attractive properties and profitable properties are those in the Rocky Mountains. And on the other side there are certainly a number of people of view the national parks as a kind of battle ground for the much wider battles taking place across Canada and across North America right now.

I try to avoid that word special because it's loaded. I think there are some very clear interests and some very important interests. If one wants to look at it from an economic point of view. In 1995, about $870 million dollars was spent by visitors in the Park and that's a big chunk of the Alberta economy. On the other side Banff is also a national icon. It is viewed as a kind of symbol in the wider sense of our national parks and the struggle for protected spaces and endangered species within Canada which is very important to a great number of Canadians.

Dave Dodge-CKUA-Ecofile: And, through the course of your study, you determined that Banff is in trouble?

Dr. Page:Yes, and our view on this hardened as we gradually amassed the evidence. We tried to draw some of the best scientists in North America into our process. We tried to have an open exchange of scientific information whereby various stakeholders had observers or participants in that scientific process. But by the end we came to believe, and this is written in our report, that Banff was heading into very serious problems for the future with regard to maintaining wildlife species given the current levels and current rate of development and visitation and so we had to then pose a whole series of measures to slow down that rate of growth and slow down the impacts of the developments that already exist. And some of them have turned out to be controversial.

Dave Dodge-CKUA-Ecofile: On what issues did the task force base its statement that Banff is in trouble?

Dr. Page:First of all when you look at the ecosystem management questions you are looking much wider than just the park boundaries. We are seeing development taking place right up to the park boundaries. Clearcutting on the B.C. side from Forestry access roads. On the Alberta side in Kananaskis Country important new expansion of development being proposed for the next ten years. So the habitat around the park is currently seeing much higher levels of development being proposed.

Secondly species like grizzlies operate over a very wide territory and some of them move from Waterton on the American border all the way thorough Jasper and on both the Alberta and B.C. side of the continental divide. So, the national parks are core habitat but also of critical importance are the issues of wildlife corridors or connectivity whereby then wildlife can move between Banff and some other habitat area. One of the most troubling aspects of this is the most attractive habitat in Banff National parks is the warm valley floors, or the Montane region, which is about four per cent of the park. Over half of the Montane region is seriously impacted by development of one kind or another.

Dave Dodge-CKUA-Ecofile: So on the surface, it looks as if just a small amount of Banff is developed, but what matters is where the development takes place?

Dr. Page:Look at satellite photos of Banff National Park and you'll see how much of it is ice and rock and alpine and areas which are really not very significant from a biological point of view even if they are very beautiful.

Dave Dodge-CKUA-Ecofile: So, is your report based on science, or is it simply a summary of the opinions of the various interest groups?

Dr. Page:Well we tried to tap the best Rocky Mountain Scientists in both Canada and the United States. We held extensive multi-day workshops in which they came together having prepared materials and they then openly discussed the materials with the task force and representatives from the round table. And we went through that very, very carefully. Now we are not a Royal Commission in that we did not spawn a huge new original research of our own. But there were studies like Stephen Herrero's massive five-year-study on the eastern slopes on the grizzlies. And Stephen and his scientists gave us a lot of insight into the grizzlies in Banff. So we were tying into existing work and trying to bring it together and develop it and put in into a coherent policy statement.

Dave Dodge-CKUA-Ecofile: What are some of the most important recommendations?

Dr. Page:I've already made reference to the whole idea of wildlife corridors--the Town of Banff acts like a kind of plug in the Montane region for the movement of wildlife and we have made a whole series of recommendations relating to the periphery of Banff. We aren't recommending changes to the current boundaries of Banff townsite. But on the periphery of Banff there are a variety of things like the Banff Springs Hotel Golf course and CP has already withdrawn its application to expand that. In our report we have a whole series of recommendations with regard to public transportation to the golf course and a variety of other impacts in that critical cut through the valley there where the golf course is.

Secondly there were a series of facilities, the cadet camp, the air strip, the buffalo paddock, the stables, that were on the far side of the Trans-Canada highway from the town of Banff. They are in a critical position and we proposed that they should be closed and the Minister has agreed with that and already announced that when she released the report. She indicated her support for all of those.

There are also provisions with regard to public transportation in critical parts of the valley on highway 1A and there are new design proposals with regard to the future development of the twinning of the Trans-Canada highway and for the operations of CP rail through Banff National Park. So there are a whole variety of things, but the whole question of wildlife and the viability and sustainability of wildlife is critical in our view and it is in decline right now.

Dave Dodge-CKUA-Ecofile: What recommendations have been most controversial?

Dr. Page:Well one of the ones that has turned out to be most controversial was we had proposed a fence around the town of Banff. As everyone knows who's in Banff these days there are ever increasing numbers of Elk in the town itself. And what we were proposing to do is try to keep them out of the townsite for a variety of reasons including the needs of the residents themselves. We would do this through a series of gates and other things so that people could get out for their hiking and other things but the elk would not be getting in. Some of the residents have called this a Berlin wall to make the town of Banff a penitentiary which we felt was bit excessive as a response to what we were saying.

We also have raised questions with respect to three of the commercial establishments: The Timberline Hotel, the Rimrock and Rocky Mountain Resorts. All of these are operating outside of the town of Banff. They are all operating in areas where there are concerns with regard to wildlife habitat and corridors. And they have certainly been viewed with some controversy in connection with it.

So those are a couple of areas where there is controversy. I think that there has been a drift in parks policy for a long time. And therefore whenever you are talking about setting absolute and clear standards for the future then you are going to run into controversy from people who were benefiting from that drift in policy.

Dave Dodge-CKUA-Ecofile: I remember when Warren Allman, I think he was the secretary of the interior, looked at the sunshine ski resort and the developments around sunshine and he said that in approving an expansion at the time he was going to set the ultimate limit at 1,245 skiers per day. I think was the number. And I don't know what the number is today, but it is probably many times that. Will the government have the courage to follow through on your report do you think, when it didn't in the past?

Dr. Page:Well I hope so. Sheila Copps, when she was out at Banff to release the report on October 7, made a very clear commitment to it. She made a number of executive decisions immediately on it and she has put in place a kind of high level committee for the implementation of the rest which is now in operation. It includes myself, but it also includes Harvey Locke from CPAWS, it includes David Morrison President of Brewsters, it includes the former Mayor of Banff, it includes the former President of the Trans-Alta Corporation. These people are very knowledgeable on Banff questions they're going to be part of the solution. She set a time-frame for them to report by the end of January and to have the changes in the park's management plan into parliament by the end of March before an election. So we are hopeful at this time that we are certainly going to be seeing a timely decisions on these matters.

Dave Dodge-CKUA-Ecofile: Some people were a little surprised to see the report as strong as it is. In some cases it has obviously raised some controversy because you have recognized problems.

Dr. Page:Well I think that it was an amazing education for all of us. I mean I thought I knew Banff very, very well. My wife and I have visited often. We're quite knowledgeable with regard to the townsites and other things in connection with it. And, yet as we went through the evidence, it indicated to us that things are worse than I had assumed when we began the work.

And the second thing I think which is a very, very important point, is that when you drive the Trans-Canada into Banff and see all the beautiful green trees, there is an impression that everything is fine. But, when you begin to dig into the science you see it is not the case. And I think that was the thing that was the sobering reality of all of us.

Especially for people like Doug Cook. Doug was one of our task force members, a former executive of Imperial Oil, a person who was used to seeing management questions in a complex and difficult way. It was very interesting to watch Doug responding to all of this evidence as it came in

I think another of the things that you have to look at is what has happened in similar circumstances in parks in North America. If you go back to the U.S. example, there have been so many instances where the evidence was not available to the decision makers far enough in advance to reverse trends before trends became irreversible.

Dave Dodge-CKUA-Ecofile: What examples are you thinking about?

Dr. Page:I'm thinking of the decline of Yellowstone, Yosemite, there's a variety of American examples here where action was taken, but it was taken after the decline of the species was very evident. And I guess that's one of the things we are trying to anticipate here.

Dave Dodge-CKUA-Ecofile: Do you think people on the street have intuitively recognized these problems? I don't know how many people I have talked to who said I don't go to Banff anymore, I go to jasper. It's got the feel of the national parks that I used to know and I prefer to go there now.

Dr. Page:Well certainly quite a number of Calgarians said the same thing. That they go to Kananaskis Country instead of Banff. And that's certainly a very sobering reality for the future.

I think we just have to try to put very clear, fair, and dependable regulations in place so the business community, the visitors and everyone else knows what is to happen for the future.

Dave Dodge-CKUA-Ecofile: Has this new group, the implementation panel, met yet? And will it finish on time?

Dr. Page:We've already meet for the first time. The minister's direction to us was that she wanted us to deal principally with the report. She said she wanted it in parliament by the end of March.

Dave Dodge-CKUA-Ecofile: Is there anything else you'd like to offer?

Dr. Page:One of the things that's been interesting is the international reaction to this. A large article from the Economist from London just hit my desk about ten days ago where they thought this was a very important issue not only in terms of Canada but for the wider questions of protected spaces around the globe.

I was at the IUCN conference in Montreal about two weeks after the report was released in October and we found enormous international interest in this. Over 50 countries have now indicated interest in our report. And so these things are very interesting because we are trying to deal with Banff here with the kinds of issues that have global dimensions, with regard to biodiversity and protected spaces and a lot of people have said to me if you can't do it in Canada then no-one is going to do it.

Dave Dodge-CKUA-Ecofile: What are the implications for the rest of the National Parks System?

Dr. Page:Well this was something the minister made very clear to me and she also made it clear in her speech in Banff. The idea is that our report will be applied immediately to Banff National Park, but it will also be applied as quickly as possible to all of the Rocky Mountain Parks. Jasper is a little further behind Banff in its levels of development. But the parallel between the two is striking. If you are going to do it in Banff then you automatically should be applying these ideas as well to Jasper and the other Mountain parks. The Minister is interested in taking the report and seeing it applied to the whole national park system--those recommendations that are relevant.

Credits: The EcoFile is CKUA Radio's weekly program about sustainable development and environment issues in Alberta. It is broadcast on Saturdays at 12:10 pm on 94.9 FM in Edmonton, 93.7 in Calgary and many other frequencies across Alberta. It is also available on 580 AM. Copyright held by David Dodge, 1996