On September 15, 2009 I participated in the first of two workshops the National Capital Commission is holding to consult with the public about how people use Gatineau Park recreationally; and more specifically how these activities can best be managed in the future.
The bottom line is that there are changes coming.
There are going to be more restrictions imposed on park users.
What those restrictions are, we don’t know yet. But now is the time to speak up if you have ideas on how the park should be managed.
Although discussion at the meeting was polite and usually constructive, managing recreation in the park has the potential to be a contentious issue and once or twice, more incendiary topics did get raised.
There were about 80 people there plus those representing the NCC.
Although I’ve heard numerous times about people’s frustration in dealing with the NCC, my impression was that at this workshop there was a sincere desire to get people’s suggestions.
There was a degree of “being talked at” but I think the intent was to keep that to a minimum.
There was also an effort to keep people with specific advocacy messages from dominating the discussion.
The main two points they needed to convey were
- the context of the coming changes, and
- what specifically they’d like from the evening’s exercise.
The context is, as one person put it, we are beginning to love Gatineau Park to death.
The presentation package for the workshop offers the believable scenario that just as we’ve seen more and more people in Gatineau Park over the last few decades, we can expect to see even more in the future. Plus they’ll be doing more things.
Not only is the population increasing but doing things in the park is getting easier.
People who don’t know how to ski are buying snowshoes. People who don’t know how to read a map are buying GPSs.
Another part of the context is that this coming “recreational management” is subordinate to the overall objective of the NCC that Gatineau Park be preserved as a natural environment.
This falls under the Gatineau Park Master Plan and an Ecosystems Management Plan (or is it called a Ecosystem Conservation Plan?). The first of these came out in 2005 but I couldn’t find the Ecosystems Management Plan anywhere online yet.
So the context is that we can expect more people loving the park in more ways and the NCC owns the problem of letting them love it, even promoting its love, while keeping all of us from loving it to death.
What the workshop wanted from us happened in two rounds. First was simple enough. Do you agree with the general direction of the plan?
There were objections—legitimate objections: For instance:
- what kind of science-based information do we have about what sustainable levels of conservation are;
- enhancing protection for the park in law,
- increasing the educational element in the plan.
There were others. One that particularly stuck in my craw was “Intensive sport activities or those requiring advanced techniques or equipment should be controlled.”
It seems to me, and seemed to others, that technique, equipment or intensiveness shouldn’t be the measure, but impact on conservation.
But in general the planning documents so far are presented at a high conceptual level. In that they seem reasonable and appropriate. No one I heard radically disagreed with their direction.
But the phrase “the devil is in the detail” was heard more than once.
The NCC handed out paper versions of the survey now available online and I guess time will tell if people agree with the general direction.
The other thing they wanted out of the workshop was specific recommendations of how that high level concept might be implemented on the ground. More than that, they wanted some measure of the popularity of those suggestions.
This was harder.
We worked at our tables of six or eight people to come up with a short list of specific actions that would support what they defined as “responsible recreation.”
Part of the problem was that not everyone agreed on what any of the individual words really meant in this context: conservation, recreation, responsible, there were a range of opinions.
Another problem was that the exercise generated an overwhelming number of suggestions. The “short list” from each table was sometimes eight or ten items long.
These suggestions were scribbled on flipcharts and pinned to the walls.
To get a measure of the popularity of suggestions the workshop tried to get creative. People were given monopoly money and asked to tape their bills to the suggestions they liked best.
The problem with this was the sheer number of suggestions to consider and the crowd of other people standing in front of the flipchart pages.
For me personally with my poor French the shorthand of flipchart notes went from cryptic to impenetrable since the workshop was completely bilang.
Because of that I have trouble telling you what some of the best suggestions were.
I’m sure the NCC will be able to sift out some value from the exercise—aside from getting public buy-in.
I feel I have two responsibilities coming out of this.
- One is to submit my own personal suggestion that was too long to scribble on a flipchart.
- The other is to submit the notes from my table’s discussion since I was the designated reporter for our group.
The NCC has extended the deadline for this round of feedback to October 5, 2009.
The main vehicle they hope you’ll use is their 5 item questionnaire.
This online form allows you to rate your level of agreement but it also offers space for free-form suggestions. That’s one way you can submit specific ideas.
I’ll post both my personal idea and my group report of ideas on the GuideGatineau website if you need examples of some of the other ideas being submitted.
You can post your ideas there too since the ones sent in to the NCC are not at the moment being posted online.
Next spring, in 2010, the NCC will hold another workshop, hopefully with more granular detail of the directions they are taking.
The important point here is that changes are coming. There will be restrictions.
Join the discussion on what restrictions are reasonable and what are not.
Coming away from the workshop I had to take some time to sort out what it all meant.
Going home after the workshop I listened to Moshe Safdie being interviewed on CBC.
Moshe Safdie is the architect who designed the National Gallery in Ottawa and Habitat in Montreal for Expo 67. He was talking about his work in Jerusalem and how managing properties in that city was contentious.
It made me feel better about the challenges ahead for managing Gatineau Park. I don’t think there are any advocates of any position who are ready to resort to killing each other over what controls should or shouldn’t be imposed on Gatineau Park.
Well said
I have always appreciated the things available to me a a citizen ot the country,province and the city I live in. As a under previledged young boy growing up in Toronto it was the community outdoor skating rings and the cities neigbourhood swimming pools that give me opportunities.
Gatieneau Park provides wounderful opportunities for all ages. There is no doubt you are already aware of this fact and are now seeking way to control access.
My life experience has shown me two such solutions in North America.
The Toronto Islands was our get away weekend. Fro the price of a public transit the whole family could escape the heat and hussel of the downtown city. Crossing the Toronto Harour was like going to cottage contry. No cars. The city could have easily built a bridge, But choose to preserve the islands for family retreats of recreation of all kinds. The controll was the access by Fairries and a natural boundry of water.
The Grand Canyon is anothet example of natural beauty by nature and yet recieves Millions of visitors each year every year. It too needs to be protected from loving it too much. Yet it provides visitors with the spectacular experience.
In particular access to many of the look outs along the rim. They have limited access to none motorised vehicals ie. walking bikes and limited electric busses.
This afford access to many without the added stress of so many motorized vehicals next to those who are enjoying the out door experience.
This brings me to Gatieau park. If we are to control the visit to the park why can we not start by controlling the number of motorized vehicals first. Provide a parking lot at the south end. Allow no motorized vehical (except for park services) beyond a given point. Provide low environmental impact buses, perhapes with detachable passenger carrien cars or trailes for havey trffic days. These buses would be linked at a common bus stop at the perrimeter of the park with public transit. The number of visitors could be controlled. the current roards would have far less traffic, trained bus drivers would be trianed to share the road with other non motorized park users such as cyclist and roller bladers and people ski training. This could easily control the over use in the park.
There are a great number of other benifits to a plan like this that has work for so many other enviromentally sensative places. Take a look at what Florida did in the everglades or some of our national parks.
Tom Stratton
Marty Hall has posted a piece over at XCOttawa concerning the NCC Recreation Management Plan for Gatineau Park. Bravo for letting more skiers know that changes are coming and encouraging them to add their voices to the consultation.
The most important point here is that the consultation is still ongoing. The NCC are inviting input in this first round up until October 5th.
There will be a second round in the spring but by then plans will have been more firmly fixed.
I don’t know if there is any merit in Marty’s claim that high-performance skiers might possibly be unfairly treated by restrictions. We don’t yet know what the restrictions are. Do take a moment to review the “examples” offered in the framework document. If those appear problematic then tell the NCC why.
Similarly I don’t know if it is helpful to say there is a “double standard” operating here, as Marty claimed about Camp Fortune and their “aerial experience.” I did hear the NCC representative say that their estimate of number of visits to the park did not include the number of visits to Camp Fortune, but that’s not the same as saying Camp Fortune will be allowed to operate without the restrictions that everyone else must abide by. This is a valid question though and one that I’ve added as a supplementary to my submission.
I asked one of the NCC staffers about the Ecosystem Conservation Plan, to which they replied that it has not been finished. To me this would suggest that Plan has not yet been approved by the NCC. So who said that the Park is conservation first? Was this approved by Parliament? Cabinet? NCC management?
Last week’s session seemed to be about the consultants asserting a new management framework on the public: conservation first, recreation second. They seemed to achieved this as the discussions were focused on recreation being subordinate to conservation.
I really don’t know what the Park means by conservation. So I felt that the session was a bunch of feel good motherhood statements, which are hard to argue against. What I really want to know is what does the Park mean by conservation.
Over at Tryrudy Claude D’Aoust made some suggestions:
* that the next time they need to repair the parkways that they widen them (a foot each side would be nice)
* that they close it to traffic and only buses are allowed (at least during the high season of the fall colours)+ one way!?
* that they make some/all of the parkways one way – one complete lane divided as a two way for cyclists – as done in Prince William Forest Park in North Virginia
* that they close some or all parkway one or two late afternoon/evening to motorized traffic as done on Sunday mornings
* to raise funds that they initiate paid parking or 3 season pass (too many 3 season access outside of official parking areas to control anyhow but may encourage non motorized access!?)
* that they build a world class XC ski facility lodge instead of hiding their visitor centers (Chelsea and the Skinouk facility) for use by such a small percentage of users: imagine having at let’s say P8 a heated change room, stretching/warm up area, waxing room, special events room, cafeteria = hmmm hot choco after a traning ski in ± -20C, shower, lighted safe parking area + trails (solar powered)
see http://www.trirudy.com/region/OE/list/index.cfm?listing=2196#3
Personally, I have been using the gatineaus for over 18 years now.
I love it! Its my home away from home.
Its my sanctuary to hide away from everything.
It offers me a place to think.
It offers me freedom on my bike.
But, the traffic that comes through there in early spring (as soon as it opens until 3 weeks after) then again in the fall (end of Sept to Oct), just ruins the experience.
I might as well be downtown.
What I would like to see:
1) close the gates until May 10th or so
2) close the gates around Sept 25th or so
Allow cycling groups and bike companies the opportunity to offer up free lessons on biking. Users can rent bikes from the various companies. This would be available at key parking lots – Asticou, Gamelin, and others…
During this period of closure. Users can bike without worry.
The only vehicles allowed in the park are tour buses no larger than 20 passenger vehicles. There would be a charge for all users,
youth less than 12 2 dollars, adults 8 dollars or so, seniors 4 dollars, and those with valid disability cards free.
Tour guides would be available at a cost during this period.
And, they would offer up a variety of activities for all ages.
Ranging from geo-caching to historical trail walks to leaf collecting …
Parking fees would be in effect on weekends at selected parking lots.
THE PARK WOULD BE OPEN TO CYCLISTS. NOT RESTRICTED IN DIRECTION!!!
a suitable alternative mode of transportation that is 100% eco-friendly.
The summers would remain as is as the parks usage is minimal during the months of June – mid-Sept, typically.
The gatineaus could be closed on Tuesday nights after 6pm for special events. Use at own risk signs would be posted.
Plan, simple… captures the problem areas.
At TriRudy Ian Stewart has posted “Straw Poll About Gatineau Park Changes” where he says
A quick poll, who is happy with the changes that officials will impose in Gatineau Park? Yes they will this is standard sham consultation for them. Also who is willing to not just complain but actually stage protests against this plan & the general manner that the NCC runs Gatineau Park.
Don’t wait, they eat all opposition that tries to play their game.
The NCC hates negative press (petitions, placards, continuous letters to politicians)
For anyone who is competative this is the biggest competitor you will likely face. Are you up to the fight or does the NCC steal YOUR park from you?
I’ve responded saying:
Let’s be constructive. Whether or not the consultation process is window-dressing, isn’t it more constructive to advocate opening it up more?
For instance let’s call for the comments and suggestions that have been submitted via the consultation process to be made public.
At the workshop on Sept 15 there was an attempt to see how popular various suggestions were. Let’s call for a web-based poll on the popularity of the suggestions.
The governing factor in the coming changes seems to be “conservation.” Lots of people don’t feel they quite understand what “conservation” means. How could they? The “Ecosystem Conservation Plan” document hasn’t yet appeared in public. Let’s call for more information on that.
How can we be happy or unhappy about changes that have not yet been proposed?
The “planning framework” PowerPoint from the NCC mentions “enhancing” activities infrastructure and services not just restricting them.
Admittedly the same document gives as one “possible orientation” the extremely BAD example of “Intensive sport activities or those requiring advanced techniques or equipment should be controlled.”
We SHOULD object to this.
But in its place let’s constructively suggest instead that impact on “conservation” be the measure not “intensive” “technique” or “equipment.”
More from Ian Stewart via TriRudy. Ian encourages careful reading of NCC documents and I’ve been slowly going through a number of them.
I’m far from done but I do see a clear direction plus some interesting side points. Some of the direction is good for athletic power-users of the park (as are those following via TriRudy), some of it is bad.
On the good side the Master Plan says “Self-powered activities such as hiking, canoeing, crosscountry skiing, snowshoeing cycling and so on, will continue to be encouraged.”
On the bad side the Master Plan says “Avoid the development of new infrastructure intended specifically for competitive sporting activities.”
This says to me that the NCC welcome such uses as skiing, cycling and running in Gatineau Park insofar as they use the infrastructure set up for everyone. However, they don’t see themselves as an elite sport facility.
This goes to the core of the NCC mandate and I don’t myself feel that it is something that either needs fighting or is worth fighting.
Some activities I can see being affected by the coming changes. For instance orienteering often involves diving into the bush away from official trails. But in general I don’t see any clear indication of what activities the NCC wishes to curtail in the “self powered” category. The devil is in the detail and the detail has yet to be exposed.
I’ve read enough of the Master Plan now to see how the following distasteful sentence from the workshop framework document came about: “Intensive sport activities or those requiring advanced techniques or equipment should be controlled.” In the Master Plan it says “Prohibit extreme recreational activities, such as survivor type activities requiring special infrastructure and safety measures.” Again, the specifics of what these activities might be are lacking so it’s hard to comment.
At TriRudy Michael Abraham has posted a letter that he’s sent to John Baird, Minister responsible for the NCC.
The PDF linked here was sent as an email to GuideGatineau by Mike Abraham late on October 5th.
It is a copy of an email/letter he submitted to the NCC’ Emily Keogh and represents Mike’s impressions of the consultation process.
Pingback: GuideGatineau.ca (Beta) — Blog — Entry Points to Gatineau Park - Design Consultation
Pingback: we love Gatineau Park | Blog | Muddy Results on Recreation Consultation
Pingback: Recreation Management Plan Delayed | GuideGatineau.ca