Muddy Results on Recreation Consultation
11:01 am in Uncategorized by Charles Hodgson
Gatineau Park was founded in large part based on its role for recreation. The more recent emphasis on conservation highlights concerns that park users could with time love the place to death. That was part of the message behind the Recreation Services Plan consultations in the fall of 2009. People who can’t read a map are wandering through the woods using the GPS in their iPhone. People who can’t ski are strapping on snowshoes. More people means more pressure on the park. More nervous animals avoiding places they used to frequent, more shoes scrunching foliage and dislodging pebbles. Gatineau Park can’t be all things to all people and so there are going to have to be some limitations.
At the end of June 2010 the NCC posted a report on the fall consultations. Although the report claims that the consultation clarified how the Plan should look, saying “a majority … were in agreement with the proposed assessment, vision and mission,” in only one case did those who agreed or strongly agreed amount to 50%, in all other cases support was lower.
Click graphs to enlarge.
I think the reason the results were so muddy was that the information that people were asked to comment on was not very specific; it was all very conceptual and didn’t identify how recreation might be restricted or controlled.
At the time the mood appeared to be “it’s all right as far as it goes” but the phrase “the devil is in the details” came up with enough regularity that it is highlighted in the report.
From the material presented so far it’s hard to know what the final Recreational Services Plan might look like. And yet the intent of the NCC in holding its consultation was stated as
“to ensure participation in [the Plan’s] development by the general public, the users as well as user associations.”
A second round of consultations is planned but only after the NCC has a Plan to show Park users. There doesn’t appear to be any opportunity for consultations that would further refine the plan once users had a chance to see it.
I would suggest that the murkiness of the Plan’s detail so far, combined with its lukewarm support by the user community, would speak to the need for deeper user community involvement before the NCC considers the Plan as finalized.
The recently released consultation report underlines this need when it emphasizes that efforts have to be made to increase the trust between the sports community and Gatineau Park’s management team. The report also noted that user consensus would require more consultation and dialogue, plus partnerships with stakeholders.
Other Points
In addition to the fundamental issues noted above, two specific questions emerge from the report.
- Are park users onside with the NCC or are they not?
- Does intensity matter?
Onside?
With respect to users and the NCC being on the same wavelength, the report contains two seemingly contradictory statements:
- “The consultation … confirmed that Park stakeholders are committed to understanding the issues at hand and to contributing to possible solutions.”
- “A growing number of users who are both more individualistic and less informed on the recreational heritage developed throughout the years, and even less sensitive to the objectives of environmental conservation.”
Although these statements appear contradictory what I think they mean is that on the one hand, those Park users who are engaged enough to participate in the Recreation Services Plan consultation are engaged enough to work with the NCC if they can find a way to do so. On the other hand, there are more and more casual Park users with whom it’s difficult to get engaged and therefore difficult to work with.
From this it seems to me that the value of the NCC working with user organizations and associations is amplified. Get buy-in on the most appropriate ways to enjoy the Park and also promote membership in the clubs and associations that partner to those ends.
Intensity?
With respect to “intensity” the report states:
“Respondents made clear their opposition to select statements such as ‘Intensive recreational activities could be practiced outside the Park’ or ‘Activities having an important impact on the environment could be practices along the Park’s boundaries.’”
As I recall it the statement that caused objection was “intensive sport activities or those requiring advanced techniques or equipment should be controlled” and the objection was specifically that in a paradigm aimed at conservation, the intensity of a sport or it’s requirement for advanced techniques should not be the measure for its restriction or control, rather its environmental impact should be the gage.
I’m not sure if a point has been missed here or not.
How does the NCC know that ” People who can’t read a map are wandering through the woods using the GPS in their iPhone ” and of course this as well ” People who can’t ski are strapping on snowshoes ”
I know of at least Hiking Navigation Course that relies exclusively on the map & compass technique and does not allow students to use the GPS.
Many folks , myself included, can x-c ski quite confidently and I own a new pair of snowshoes. These sorts of gratuitous statements which don’t appear to be backed up by any research nor facts only decrease the value of this plan.
Sorry Darrel, it was me who used such insensitive language, not the NCC. The point being that part of the reason that there are more people in the Park is that technology allows it. The NCC doesn’t object to people snowshoeing but the fact that one can do so without having to struggle with lamp wicking means that people who might not have been out in the woods years ago, can enjoy them now. The point made at the consultation session in the fall ws that there are more people out and they are doing a greater diversity of things. Map reading or no, there didn’t formerly exist any activity like geocaching.
Hi Charles
Other technologies which allow lots & lots of folks into the park includes
Roads
Parking Lots
Sign Posts
Silly little NCC Gatineau Park Maps
Busses
Cars
SUVs
Snowmobiles
ATVs
Bikes
Snowplows etc
Whenever I am hiking in the park I take great care not to bruise the granite rocks.
On another note have you ever noticed that the maps ( summer & winter) which the NCC sells are not oriented with True North at the top. if you look carefully you can see the grid lines running sort fo NNW.
Other technologies which allow lots & lots of folks into the park includes
Roads…
Agreed. From a purely environmental standpoint, these technologies suck. That’s why we have to find a balance.
Sadly, there are a *LOT* of hikers who don’t just “bruise the granite” and instead think that because a trail is wet or muddy they should “walk around”, expanding the trail massively, destroying some very fragile ecosystems, trampling rare plants and animal habitats in the process. While you may one of the hikers (like myself and my family) who trudge straight through the middle of the path even if it’s under water, you must have seen the impact of these people… no? The folks who want to get out with nature but not get dirty or wet?
What interests me most is if the NCC even has the mandate to decide conservation over anything else. The parks origins are with the King estate. On King’s death his estate was given over to the Canadian public – for their enjoyment. It was never intended as a preserve.
I won’t even bother talking about the NCC’s own ‘conservation’ practices in the park.
Perhaps you’ll sign up for that nav course, Darrerl; it would teach you that the NCC maps’ grid is indeed oriented to true North.
I always make a point to ask anyone I see in the Park (with one of those useless NCC mini maps) if they need help. Almost always they are confused. The maps are appalling. They should save some money & not print them.
2ndly, who exactly did the NCC consult to get the pie chart results?
I haven’t talked to too many who were consulted or was it the web based consultation? Sort of like using Facebook, a bit fluffy to base important decisions on.
No matter what the direction is with this whole push-it is paramount with the statements about tight budgets that vehicular traffic that operates inside the park boundaties has to pay for this privlege. They are the biggest users, create the greatest amounts of exhaust pollution, noise polution and vandalism and on top of this bring the least educated users of the park.
Next, the alpine ski programs and the rope course programs need to come under the scrutiny as the rest of the users in the park. It looks like they don’t even exist in the study and reports, but it is for sure they are having many negative impacts on the park. But, it is amazing what money came buy for special considerations.
This report has more to do before I know I will have a feeling that we really have a valid direction and that the integrity of the report will lead us into a positve future for all users of the park.
ya darrerl…the map is first class all the way…maybe a little boring yet efficient witih the numbering sysytem. The grid lines, however, are bang on…the paper of the map is twisted clockwise a wee to compensate for the sorta SE to NW/W direction the park takes within its boundaries..basically saving paper resulting in a smaller longer (twisted – angled) map. It comes expertly labeled, shaded, weatherproofed, major roads labelled, with contours lines and multi coloured, with excellent shading and accurate trails and lakes, and it is extremely well indexed…sorry need to challenge your “silly little map comment…one of the best park maps i’ve seen…
“A second round of consultations is planned but only after the NCC has a Plan to show Park users. There doesn’t appear to be any opportunity for consultations that would further refine the plan once users had a chance to see it.” …thx Charles…anybody else see the open-to-discussion irony in that one…
one way to start building trust with user groups would be to honour past agreements. the NCC should keep to its past negotiated agreement with the climber’s access coalition. this group has been successful at negotiating a management plan for climbing access and informing the climbing community in order to keep this activity sustainable. compliance with any management plan will require not only good communication, but also having organizations that represent the user groups on-side so that they can work effectively and organize within their communities. the closures of climbing areas that the climbing community have willing accepted have been tests of the good faith that exists between the access coalition and climbers. more widespread area closures or a climbing ban on a long-established sport would effectively make the activity an unmanageable one.
i agree with Marty on one of his points- manage the cars, that’s the obvious, huge environmental impact on the park, and it’s inherently manageable.
to see what’s been done on the climbing front, check out
http://gatineauclimbingaccess.ca/home/index_e.html