On Saturday I attended with something more than 50 other people the NCC consultation surrounding their plan to manage recreation in Gatineau Park. Park Managers stressed that what they were trying to do was to evaluate priorities because they were unlikely to be able to achieve all the initiatives suggested, particularly with budget cuts.
The online portion of the consultation is live until February 19th and it was reported that 800 people had already completed the questionnaire. The NCC are also taking written submissions at their info email address.
There are a wide variety of areas of focus so it’s hard to summarize the whole thing but in general I continue to feel that park managers want to provide a rich park experience to outdoor enthusiasts with two caveats. Above all else they place protection of ecosystems. Unfortunately this seems to hit rock climbers hardest—though there is an uneasy peace reigning in that department—and has also influenced access points for back country hikers; and may yet reduce trail choices.
The second caveat appears to be that due to the continuing rise of numbers in park visits, wherever recreational alternatives outside the park can be had, park managers would like to shunt people that way and thereby reduce pressure within the park. Mountain biking might be an example of this (though they seem agreeable to improving mountain biking within the park as well.
Attendees broke into groups and discussed a pre-set range of issues (identical to those in the online exercise) then reported back to the group about their top three. I won’t attempt to report on other groups but my take out of our group went something like this:
- In terms of making better use of volunteers and volunteer park ambassadors we were all for it but recognized that efforts to date along these lines didn’t seem to have flourished. If the NCC were to do it they’d have to dedicate considerable resources to organizing and welcoming and educating volunteers as well as continually maintaining a network with them. The upside would be better communication of park values out to the general park user and adoption of same into park user culture. This could give the NCC good bang for their buck. Thinking about it now I’d say also that inviting those volunteers/ambassadors to help craft what it was to be educated and communicated would solidify the exercise considerably.
- Though there continued to be comment about what constituted enhancement of trails, most people seemed enthusiastic about looped trails and themed trails for walking. This makes me cringe a little bit if it means further mucking up the heritage trail network. Hopefully what we’re talking about here has more to do with signage and possibly trails in areas where there are few now.
- The online booking of overnight stays was pointed up as particularly difficult for non-capital-region Canadians whom the Park is also supposed to be serving. One suggestion was that peak periods have a two night minimum reservation policy said to be more advantageous to those from away.
An issue I brought up in a side conversation with Park staff was their perceived mandate to cater to under-represented groups such as youth and new Canadians. I tried to make a distinction between treating such visitors royally when they do come, and dedicating scarce resources to attempt to market to them. If you want to make such visitors feel welcome and comfortable in the park, by all means do so. But if they aren’t thinking of visiting the park in the first place, why try to draw them in; especially if one of the worries is the growing number of visits.
