Blog Questions

Can parks meet its dual mandate of access and protection? How can this be achieved in Wapusk?

Certain difficulties arise when parks try to meet a dual mandate of access and protection. Allowing people access to the park often threatens natural ecosystems within the park, causing encounters with different species from humans encroaching onto their natural habitat. Although the notion of designating a natural space used primarily for the protection of animal species seems unquestionably a good thing, the practice of letting people into the park actually becomes counterintuitive in its approach. Some parks across Canada have been havens for tourist attractions. Places such as Banff National Park, labeled a must-visit destination, have seen such a high volume of visitors that the degradation of the ecosystem is clearly exacerbated by human influence. Parks protect biodiversity, but they also may lure species to danger. When species are curious, such as bears, they pose a threat to patrons of the park and are sometimes dealt with by deadly force.

Wapusk National Park is a different story. Because of Wapusk’s remote location in the Hudson plain south of Churchill, Manitoba, access and protection can be more likely achieved as human contact with species is minimal in the preservation of the natural ecosystem. It becomes easier to protect species of the park when access is possible only by plane or helicopter. Certain measures can be implemented to reduce species contact with humans: for example, fenced off zones separating people from polar bears serve as a barrier of protection in some areas.

Allowing people into parks may violate the protection of some species, but connecting people with nature also has its benefits. A deeper understanding of ecology will create more empathic people involved with environmental issues, and these people will care more in protecting the diversity of life on Earth.

What future would you like to see for the Alberta Tar Sands project? Continue on current path? Stop development entirely? Some modified continuation?

The scope of the Alberta Tar Sands project is massive in scale. The destruction of the ecosystem by extracting bitumen from the surrounding area has ravished the land beyond repair. From viewing satellite pictures of the mining area, it would almost seem impossible to even recover a fifth of the area to something resembling a natural habitat. The future of the Alberta Tar Sands will depend solely on economic policies of provincial and federal governments; however, the lucrative nature of oil will be a strong deterrent to do anything when it affects the national GDP as much as it does. One thing is for sure: the Alberta Tar Sands cannot continue on its current path.

The situation, nevertheless, is so complicated that it would be impossible to stop development in the area completely. The demand for energy produced by the Tar Sands commands a hefty price. Although it would be prudent to stop development in the area immediately—for the environment’s sake, and just for the sake of ethics—a slow transition away from oil may be the next best option. The development of clean, renewable energy is what we will strive for if the production of oil in the Tar Sands cease to exist. Unless there is an alternative form of clean energy, set up with the infrastructure needed to sustain itself, the giant dirt pit of the Alberta Tar Sands will remain in the foreseeable future.