Environmental group lashes out at glacier walk project

Michael Hannan of Brewster Travel Canada, and Eric Herbert-Daly of Canadian parks and Wilderness Society discuss the concern with having the glacier walk project in Jasper.

Watch: See all Videos in the Player

A A | Email This Email | Print | Comments (41) Tweet

An interpretive trail and viewing platform overlooking glaciers along the Icefields Parkway in Jasper National Park, shown in this artist's rendition. Environment Minister Peter Kent is giving a green light to a controversial glacier-walk project in Alberta's Jasper National Park. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/HO-Brewster Travel Canada)

View Larger Image

CTVNews.ca Staff

Date: Fri. Feb. 10 2012 10:40 PM ET

An environmental activist is slamming a plan to allow a private tour company to build an interpretive glacier boardwalk in Jasper National Park, saying Parks Canada is failing to fulfill its conservation and protection mandate.

The multimillion-dollar project received the go-ahead Thursday by Environment Minister Peter Kent.

Eric Herbert-Daly of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society said the project isn't a good fit with the mountain wilderness park.

"The truth is Parks Canada's primary mandate is to protect the ecological integrity of our parks. It has got to be the highest level of conservation in the country that we have." Herbert-Daly told CTV News Channel.

"The truth is we don't know a lot about what the impacts to wildlife like mountain goats or big horned sheep will be...we know they travel through the park and we know they get threatened by things that are above them and we believe this type of threat has not been fully assessed."

The project will be operated by privately-owned Brewster Travel Canada, which has completed a two-year environmental assessment with Parks Canada. Kent said on Thursday that a public consultation process also took place, involving open houses and talks with aboriginal groups.

"Brewster Canada is a model corporation in Canada's mountain national parks," he said in Ottawa.

The company's "Glacier Discovery Walk" comprises a 400-metre trail with a glass-floored observation deck extending 30 metres into the Sunwapta Valley near Highway 93.

Once finished, the boardwalk is expected to be a large tourist draw and become an "iconic" destination for visitors, Kent said.

However, Herbert-Daly said the approval has gone ahead too quickly and once the project is completed it will be too late to go back.

"You can't assess this after the project has been built, you can't suddenly say 'Oh, actually there is an impact, let's take this project apart," he said.

"And the truth is we don't really know and there hasn't been enough study of this and the precautionary principal tells us we shouldn't go ahead when we're not sure."

Herbert-Daly said his organization respects Brewster and the work the company does to help visitors experience the mountains. However, they fundamentally disagree with the glacier walk concept.

Brewster defends project

Michael Hannan, president of Brewster Travel Canada, said the company has done its due diligence to ensure the project meets all necessary requirements.

"We are dedicated to sustainable development with every experience that we deliver, we've gone through a very comprehensive process over the past two years with Parks Canada, we've completed an environmental assessment that's been public for months now," he told CTV News Channel.

The project was delayed nine days ago after the park's superintendent, Greg Fenton, asked for more time to review the large number of comments the project has received.

Brewster's plan has been criticized as a step toward the privatization of Canada's national parks. While Parks Canada will retain ownership of the site, Brewster will operate the project.

Comments are now closed for this story

james lahey
said

glaciers are melting. it'll be gone before they can build it

Ottawagirl
said

I'm intrigued by the last line of the article about the concerns that this will lead to privatization of national parks. I'm currently traveling in New Zealand and there are heaps of tour operations in the national parks and guess what, they pay huge concession fees to the government to operate there. I myself would rather these types of things do operate in a national park then 1) there`s a return in investment right back into the park and 2) there is likely to be stricter operating guideline than on private land. The reality is people want to see these natural wonders and sustainable tourism is the best way. Environmentalist need to accept reality!

SAM
said

Let's build this sucker!

Hilton Shand
said

I know that the Parks Canada staff are competent. It is better to have controlled access, which can serve to prevent uncontrolled access to pristine areas of the park. I hope this is the only reason Parks Canada has considered this. The purpose of National Parks is to preserve for future generations intact ecosystems which are becoming fewer and fewer. The Anti.Environment nuts deny overwhelming scientific evidence about the sad state of our environment�that is nuts.

Al
said

@SaskmikeThanks for mentioning Moraine Lake. I just went and looked at the web site for Moraine Lake Lodge which is what I assume you are talking about. It looks fantastic so my wife and I are going to spend a few nights there next year to celebrate our 45th wedding anniversary. Probably not the reaction you wanted, right.

pigbone
said

If you don't live in a tree the environmentalists don't want anything to do with you so I really could give a shit what they think or want.

Jan
said

quite like the 'natural' of Jasper, I agree with another, send it to the zoo in Banff, there is commercialism at its worst. would hope environmental groups are riled over this, our government is not protecting Jasper's environment, why does this man-made crap have to be added?

Ben Wright
said

Educational Interpretive Center? Brewster will have the "customers" bungee-jumping and zip-lining from this thing before the paint is dry.

Tim
said

I've been to many U.S. Nat'l Parks and one thing I've always admired is the way they incorporate walkways and information kiosks to educate people while their exploring a park. It gets people who normally do not do the rugged outdoor adventure thing to develop an interest and respect for nature. Environmentalism is a cancer to our country if these extremists keep stopping helpful projects like this from having us learn and explore OUR parks. What they term as "environmental damage" is always over the most mundane and trivial impacts.

shawbrooke
said

The same environmentalists who want other people not to view a landscape and quite okay with walking around in the landscape, disrupting the forest, but then it's okay if they do it. Which is going to hurt the environment more, a viewing platform within sight of the highway, or walking paths miles off the road? The answer is obvious and the environmental groups do not win that one.

PJackson
said

Time to lash out at the environmentalists. Enough already, You're wearing me out with your nonstop complaining about everything. No one can do anything or say anything without the voice of some enviro activist's voice shredding the night like a scratched Yoko Ono record!

Sofia
said

I would like to see this built. What harm is there in walking along a walkway and viewing the scenery ..., nothing that's what. More environmental damage is done by those walking around on the paths and trails and dropping their garbage everywhere and destroying plants.

spasticus
said

the guy from Brewster Travel did not answer the questions he was asked in the video all he did was side step and try to tell how much they are concerned about the integrity of the park.. ok i understand their concern but please answer the question asked instead of sounding and acting like a politician by skirting the questions ...for some reason I get the feeling he is kinda creepy he just didn't sound sincere just like a lot of our politicians. It would be good to have an independant assessment done

Eleanore
said

You chose your words very well, Eric. You expressed my thoughts exactly. Great job!

Prof. Pye Chartt
said

@ Sundownshift: Personally, I don't know anyone who's "anti-environment." (I'm certainly not.) This is an environmentally benign walkway -- it has been subject to formal assessment -- that will be available for those seeking a greater appreciation of that particular natural environment. It's no more environmentally "toxic" than other man-made features inhabiting our public parks. (P.S. Environmentalists are important to modern society. However, the "activists" are far too often ideologically oppositional and obstructive.)

Shane
said

Take advantage of the ice while it is still there if you ask me. Tourism $ are a huge boon to our economy so go for it. I see the big horn on the hwy up there walking along the road licking the cars that stop to allow them to pass. They seem to care less about people. Hasn't stopped them from walking across the road. Looks like a large shelf to me. I am sure they (if they even have a route that takes them right under the site) will just keep on walking.

icanseeyurhousefromuphere
said

The sheep and goats will probly take it over . It's up high , has a great view and looks safer than sleeping on a 2 ft wide icy ledge half a mle up on a rock.Did the enviro dude tell us where to donate ?

lc
said

The argument that this will get people to enjoy the great outdoors is a stretch to say the least.People who need a manicured walkway to enjoy the outdoors need to get a life.This is nothing more than con and greed.Without that motive the reformers would be wandering in the wilderness.

Balance
said

There has to be a balance with issues like this. I am ok with the project if and ONLY if they allow the free parking to remain on the site, and anyone can still access the beauty if they choose not to pay to go on the catwalk, just as is done with every other commercial development in the park. If you want to ride the Gondola, you can pay to. If you choose not to you can park there, and hike up the mountain for free.

Mark in Newmarket
said

Don't breath, don't walk, don't look. The environmentalists only want you to look at the photo's of this magnificent creation of God via digital photography posted on their websites. I may or may not agree with what they want to do at Jasper, but sometimes I just feel as if the environmentalists have gone or are going to far. It just appears that they don't want us to do or see anything. What really gets me cranked is how they don't want you to walk on this or that, but yet they want to build walking and biking trails through the eco sensative Oak Ridges Moraine area, which would mean tree's would have to be sacrificed. I feel that National Parks Canada should promote more people to come and see this beauty for themselves. How else are we to be educated if we cannot touch, smell and feel the natural beauty?

Lz in Edmonton
said

I am one of the thousands that WANT it built. Yes we have natural Beauty but I am so tired of looking at it via a photoshop image of some naturalist. Look, we are not building an industrial waste plant in Jasper, its a freaking walkway. An if you want to be an environmentalist, if mankind survives the next thousand years without killing themselves, I am sure mother earth will fix it.

Bill
said

I totally agree with Gerald, the National Parks should in fact have a giant slidfe for 49.95 a run, good work gerald.

MDPinBC
said

There actually is an upside to this project. First, it will keep people in a designated 400 metre area. Second, with good education it will increase knowledge about species at risk, environmental concerns and climate impact. We oppose increasing park fees and this project at least remains in parking lot area. We need to give in some areas and save the battle for the larger picture. I'm not sure this is one that should be fought given the studies that have been done.

mj
said

Breathing is a travesty to some environmental groups. It doesn't matter what the project, there are some who will jump up and down screaming that the environment is being destroyed. I am not an advocate for development all over the place in the national parks, but on the surface this seems to be a way to allow people to see and experience the glacier without destroying it. To me that is a good compromise.

Sludge
said

Look, it does not matter what humans are going to do environmentalists are going to kick and scream and whine and cry while they drive around in their gas guzzlers and live inlarge polluting homes. The environementalist has become so extreme, that the only way that they will happy is if the entire human race is gone, nobody left and then, maybe they'll be satisfied.

libertarian
said

@ pye Many of us believe certain areas of our culture and personal enjoyment should be off limits from commercial gain. It's not political, it's just the right thing to do. Some things simply need to be left alone. And we'll all be the better for it. You can't take money with you when you go, but you can take a sense of ownership with you for being a good steward of the planet.

Bob in YYC
said

@wootwoot - Totally agree with you. Having a 400m path would be catastrophic!! And isn't the point of a "Discovery walk" to educate the public, to bring awareness to environmental issues? And as for the mountain goats, if you have ever spent time in Banff, you will know that the mountain goats have no problem coming right up to you. They do not fear humans, so to worry about a path with a glass floor disturbing them is a little ridiculous! But then again so is this whole story!

Senior taxpayer
said

Best of luck trying to get this conservative government to change it's decision, they are never wrong, even the budget officer was wrong on the OSAP... only conservatives are intelligent and if you disagree with them then you are on the conservative enemy hate list and watch out they will attack. scary for sure.

Sundownshift
said

OK professor pie charrt consider this as you use your highly outdated anti-environmental argument:If it were not for environmentalists, we would still be dumping DDT in our parks and on our beaches making people sick and killing wildlife; we would still be dumping raw sewage in our own waters spreading disease around the country, we would still be destroying our ozone layer with toxic aerosols and causing increased skin cancer rates. So environmental activism has done a good public service in the past. Our national parks have a legal mandate to protect ecological integrity of the areas they contain, and because it is a UNESCO heritage site, it means we have singed on the an international agreement that requires us to uphold the protection of these ecosystems. The galacier walk is in violation of all these mandates

Nathan
said

If we do not balance the protection of the environment with development, in the long run the love and need for protection will be lost on the ones who matter which are youth. We have lots of parks in Canada that have no roads and no development who work strictly to fulfill the demands of protecting wildlife. However the location in Jasper may have some negatives but it also will serve as a way for generations of Canadians and visitors to fall in love with the beauty of the wild so the promotion can continue. Not everyone is capable of climbing a mountain or going on a ten day wilderness excursion. The problem with most environmental groups is they have no balance and this article shows exactly that.

Gundula Baehre
said

Turning National Parks into modern tourist attractions is not my idea of what nature and wilderness are supposed to be. Sure, let's pump more carbon into the air while building this tourist walk (any kind of construction is going to have a negative effect on wildlife, even if temporarily, and the Banff and Jasper National Parks are already much too modernised and developed). And what is next? Perhaps, a 400 room or more resort overlooking the glacier (but I should stop typing, otherwise some hot-shot developer with deep pockets and friends in high, or rather governmental places might get ideas).

jjaycee
said

So we are supposed to pay the bills to have National Parks but we are not supposed to go there?

Gerald Skowronski
said

It is a blight on a natural wonder. Next, there may be a giant nose-bleed slide from top to bottom for only $49.95. Why stop at this scenic walkway?

Keith
said

Good project carefully studied and properly approved. Lets get it built!

Dave
said

Build the walkway.

ryan
said

This is a joke. Many thousands of people have expressed their desire to leave the park the way it is now and still Brewsters gets approval to build the walkway? Why aren't the thousands getting heard and why was this ramrodded through so fast? A joke. Leave Jasper alone. Send it to Banff, it's a zoo there anyway.

wootwoot
said

Just I'm clear - The transcan that runs through the park is OK, the town of Banff is OK, the roads that take everyone to the developed ski spots are OK and charging admission to the park is OK but the GLACIER DISCOVERY WALK is a slap in the face of our National Parks? C'mon, give me a break.

Original Canadien
said

Oh sure, a structure that will encourage people to pay attention to a location that is "threatened" by global warming while keeping them in a safe location is un environmental... Environmentals really ARE crazy.

Saskmike
said

Twenty two years ago, Lake Moraine was one of the most beautiful places I've been. Went back three years ago to show our children and was embarest of the commercialism. Tore down the old log building and put up some metal monstrosity. We won't be returning. I see the same thing happening all over our great parks. Too bad.

Prof. Pye Chartt
said

Quite literally, an environmental argument could be made to support the opposition of every project conducted by man on Earth. If the "cautionary fear" or "precautionary advisement" of a single activist (or group thereof), based upon the remote theoretical possibility of a negative impact upon nature, represented a legitimate reason to abandon a project, humankind would be frozen in time. This project was subject to a vigorous environmental assessment. Public input was garnered. Consultations were had. Unless NEW, relevant, and important information can be brought to the table that renders the ultimate decision fundamentally wrong, it's time to move forward. (Thank goodness environmental activists didn't formally exist 150 years ago; we'd still be living like pioneers, and listening to them lecture us about the evil of our ways.)

Chuck
said

This is one of the silliest issues to arise in our national parks in many years. I have no desire at all to go to any sort of paid "walk" myself, and I don't like the idea of a glass floor, so I have no stake in this.

But really - getting this excited about a conversion of a gravel parking lot? Really?? When the real issues in both Jasper and Banff are the towns themselves, and the rail lines, and the roads, and the ski hills, and the hotels, and just the number of people who use the Parks. The operative word being "people who use the Parks"!

This environmental group has a vision of a pristine nature preserve in which the only use or enjoyment should be "public" (so get rid of all private investment altogether) and "natural" (so eliminate use by the vast majority of Canadians. They are, at their roots, simply selfish - and undemocratic.

This project will do nothing more than human use of the Parks already does, and a lot less than most other uses already being made. Move on.

Today's Top Stories

Labour Minister Lisa Raitt speaks in the House of Commons in Ottawa on Monday, May 28, 2012. (Adrian Wyld / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Pick your location

Top Stories -

News Sections

News Programs

Features

Browse: