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

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

According 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.

i was appalled when I was told how the parks airports were closed. I am a new pilot who has had many a story shared with me how parks officials treated the parks as there own private property and when the closure took place a number of pilots opposed it and landed there in protest. In the proceedings many issues with the parks were disputed and parks people were told by people officiating to change there attitude as to whom the parks belonged to. To the people of course!!
We travel to canmore to see family and banff to see our friends and there is untold amounts of vehicle traffic and helicopter after helicopter carrying people with fat wallets site seeing but that seems to be acceptable. Hmmm money talking again. I feel there is little impact from use of the airstrips considering what is considered ok at present.
Some people get addicted to causes and the "liberal" we will take care of everything. It like many other causes start out good but tend to get out of hand. Even with the airports closed I have seen little if any change in vegitation near the airport. I have pictures from the original proposal to close the strip and I cannot see any differance.
It's a hay field! Of which will probably look the same a 100 years from now considering the make up of the top soil, thickness of the soil and moisture holding capabilities etc etc.

I find the small airplanes less intrusive to the park than all the highway traffic and chart helicopters in the area. I would say that all or a very high percentage of helicopter traffic in the park is commercial and during the day in Canmore the run non stop doing tours.
Where is the logic?
FULLY OPEN THESE FACILITIES.

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..

I think what CPAWS asking to John Baird is correct. Reverse decision to re-open airstrips in Banff should to carried out. Also i don't think the highways have a far far more significant impact on wildlife behaviour. This is why am agree with the The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. So regarding this problem John Baird should rethinks about it for good purpose.