Reverse decision to re-open airstrips in Banff, Jasper national parks, CPAWS tells Baird
Posted on March 15, 2008
Ottawa - The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) is calling on Environment Minister John Baird to immediately reverse the decision announced yesterday to “recommission” airstrips in two of Canada’s most famous national parks.
“The closure of the Banff airstrip was one of the first and most important responses of the federal government to the 1997 Bow Valley study which showed Banff is overdeveloped and that sensitive wildlife habitat in the area of the airstrip is deeply compromised. To see the decision to close this environmentally damaging and inappropriate facility reversed is truly shocking” says Harvey Locke, Senior Conservation Advisor to CPAWS.
“Neither of these airstrips is needed. Both areas are well served by highways and rail and have nearby airports. This is about enabling a privileged few to recreate in their personal aircraft in protected areas.” adds Locke. “It is especially wrong to open the Jasper airstrip to recreational use.”
Closing the airstrips was first identified as a priority in the 1987 park management plans for Banff and Jasper, which were tabled in Parliament. The airstrips were legally closed in 1997 after the Banff Bow Valley Study highlighted the intense threats posed by commercial development and infrastructure, including the airstrips, to the ecological health of the mountain parks. The next step to be taken was to decommission the airstrips.
There was no advance warning of the surprise decision that was issued before a week of holidays to CPAWS and other conservation groups that have worked for decades to protect the famous parks. The policy reversal also flies in the face of an extensive Parks Canada study which called for the anomalous airstrips to be decommissioned.
“The ecology and visitor experiences of two of the world’s greatest national parks which are dedicated to the Canadian public are being compromised for the narrow interests of some private pilots. We will make every effort to have this decision reversed and look to all legal means to achieve it,” said Locke.
-30-
Contact: Harvey Locke (647) 225-7438
Comments | Commentaires
Note: Any opinions expressed here, except as specifically noted, are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of CPAWS.You need a balance between an airport that is detrimental to the ecology and an airport for the safety and needs of the area similar to the existing balance you have between having a town (Banff or Jasper) or no town, local roads or only trails, major highway or no highway at all.
My first reaction, not being a pilot of any sort, but considering the possibility, is that an airport could be controlled with landing fees. Perhaps $50 for the first landing, $100 for the second landing within 30 days, $200 for the third within 30 days, etc.. This would be similar but more restrictive than what is already in place at the park gates. The goal is to allow limited access and totally discourage recreation flying for the area. This would have some advantages: 1. Selfishly, my first thought is that if I'm trying to fly through the region (to Vancouver) in small aircraft and caught in bad weather, I would have a place to land instead of crash and be killed. 2. Emergency aircraft other than helicopters, for search and rescue, would have an airport to use.
I was very happy to learn that the Banff and Jasper airports will be recommissioned, albeit to somewhat possibly restricted use. I have never felt the alleged negative impact on the environment was significantly demonstrated. If concern is fully for animals, they would close the highways leading through the mountain parks. Admittedly this would be a ridiculous notion, but the highways have a far far more significant impact on wildlife behaviour, migration patterns, injuries, etc. than those small airstrips could possibly ever have.
Despite the claims, neither location is served by nearby airports - either small or large. Both Banff and Jasper are located about an hour from the closest airport alternative.
As well, pilots flying the corridors through the parks do not have emergency options available if they run into trouble. Keeping the airports open in Banff and Jasper will save lives - it's happened in the past when they were open before, and will happen again.
Dan
Posted by Dan Charrois on April 8, 2008 7:51 PMAccording to the Parks Canada study, there were under 70 landings per year at the Banff airstrip when it was fully open for recreational use. It's hard to see how two planes landing per week could have any effect at all on wildlife, especially when you consider that the trans-canada highway runs right next to the airstrip.
Only opening the airstrip for emergencies will put lives at risk because it will put pilots off making a precautionary landing if they are low on fuel or the weather is marginal because they might be charged with landing illegally.
But the real reason for CPAWS wanting to close the airstrip becomes apparent after reading this article: they think that only the "privileged few" fly their own planes. The reality is that the small planes likely to be landing at Banff are mostly worth less than the price of the average new pickup truck bought in Calgary.
Perhaps we should knock down all the houses in Banff because only the privileged few can afford to live there and they disrupt the movement of wildlife.
Posted by David Jameson on April 19, 2008 10:59 PMPost a comment | Ajouter un commentaire
Comments won't appear on the site immediately. Thanks for your patience!
Subscribe
Dear Minister Baird
I cannot understand why the government has reopened the airstrips in Banff and Jasper National Parks when the Banff Bow Valley Study clearly showed that these were having a negative impact on the ecological health of the parks.
I urge you to take immediate action to reverse this ill conceived decision.
Sincerely
Peter J. Ferris
Posted by Peter Ferris on March 26, 2008 5:05 PM