Glacier Discovery Walk in Jasper – What Do You Want?

Posted by on Dec 15, 2011 in Announcements, Food For Thought | 36 Comments

There is a proposal by Brewster to build a a 400-metre interpretive boardwalk and a glass-floored observation platform extending 30 metres out over the Sunwapta Valley at Tangle Ridge Viewpoint just north of the Icefields Centre. According to Brewster, “The Glacier Discovery Walk will enable visitors to engage with this dramatic landscape in a way that was not previously accessible to the majority of Jasper Park visitors”.  Their illustrations of the proposed structure are intriguing.  To learn more about this proposal click here or on the photo below:

Brewster says the function of the walk is so that “visitors will experience a guided interpretive walk… [that] will contain interpretive stations highlighting the ecology, geology, glaciology, Aboriginal history and social history of the area.” Of course, there will be a charge to walk the glass walkway (visitors will be bused from the nearby Icefields Centre.)

Some people are very excited about this proposal (meaning more revenue for the park and for travel companies — mostly Brewster).

Environmental groups such as The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) is opposed to the development for the following reasons:

  • It would set a dangerous precedent for renewed commercial development in our mountain national parks.  If this goes ahead, what will be next?
  • The long term impact on wildlife, including mountain goats and big horn sheep, cannot be predicted with confidence: there just isn’t enough data.
  • It would contravene Parks Canada’s own policy that says that “Only outdoor activities which promote the appreciation of a park’s purpose and objectives, which respect the integrity of the ecosystem, and which call for a minimum of built facilities will be permitted.”(Parks Canada Guiding Principles and Operational Policy, section 4.1.3). Read entire policy here.
  • There is no evidence that this would meet the objective of connecting Canadians with the natural heritage in their national parks.
  • There is little evidence that this infrastructure-focused development is what Canadians want for their national parks. The survey the company conducted was not representative of the views of all Canadians, but focused primarily on bus tour customers.

If you want to have a say in whether this project goes ahead or not then please drop a line by December 16, 2011 to:

THE HONOURABLE PETER KENT – Minister of the Environment
email: Minister@ec.gc.ca
819-997-1441 (tel) or 819-953-0279 (fax)

THE SUPERINTENDENT GREG FENTON
Jasper National Park, Parks Canada Agency
Fax: (780) 852-6229
email: Greg.Fenton@pc.gc.ca.

Sheep at Tangle Viewpoint using the already spectacular natural view!

What do we think? Well, we have grave concerns about these kinds of ‘theme park’ developments.  We go to Jasper (and all our natural areas) to get away from man-made structures and human-altered environments.  We also try to minimize our impact on the Parks as much as our business allows.  To get great views, we hike the wonderful trails in the Park.  While we appreciate that Parks Canada may be under pressure financially and searching for ways to make the Parks more profitable, we believe some things have inherent value that can’t be measured by how much they make some company rich.  We have heard that this area is important for critters like mountain goats and bighorn sheep which might be displaced so that humans can get a better view.  There just doesn’t seem to be enough information for us to measure the benefits of this development against its potential costs.  What are your views?

About the Author

I am a Canadian landscape and outdoor photographer who loves long hikes in the woods, yummy food, hairy dogs, good company and a good guitar jam.

36 Comments

  1. Chris Plante
    December 15, 2011

    I agree with you, Darwin. I too hit the wilderness on occasion to get away from man-made objects. Man came from nature and it’s therapeutic to visit her on occasion. That’s why we call it nature… man is not suppose to manipulate it. It’s kinda like comparing sitting around a real wood fire as apposed to sitting around an electric one. Not to mention, the possible impact on the wildlife in the area.

  2. Stephen Desroches
    December 15, 2011

    Looks a little bit like monkey-see monkey-do with the Grand Canyon Skywalk. An interesting $30 view that forbids taking a camera out on to the glass walk.

  3. maljo
    December 15, 2011

    100% with you on this one. The less development, the better. Banff/Jasper are as close to perfect as a place can be.

  4. Wayne Simpson
    December 15, 2011

    That just seems so wrong – it gives me a sick feeling actually. I agree that we should keep our natural areas as natural as possible. People are already blown away when they take in the scenery, I think this is just another case of man being greedy and destroying natural areas. At the end of the day we would end up with a big eye sore on the mountain, no matter how amazing the architecture may be.

  5. Robin
    December 15, 2011

    I with you guys on this one! Leave the parks the way they are. That’s why they are parks. Something like this cannon be built with doing untold damage to the area. Every man-made development destroys an echo-system, big and minute!

  6. Bill Davis
    December 15, 2011

    I agree with you. This is so wrong. Living near Niagara Falls I am well aware of what commercial development does to natural beauty. Joni Mitchell had it right: “they paved paradise and put up a parking lot”!

  7. Gary Paakkonen
    December 15, 2011

    I’m with the Parks service on this one. As cool as the walk looks it does not belong in a National Park.

  8. Brent Parkin
    December 15, 2011

    I watched a series of movies about the U.S. National Parks called “The National Parks: America’s Best Idea”. It was interesting to see how they struggled through an age where things like the damming of entire valleys within National Parks or commercialization of areas was ok. They ultimately learned their lesson but still struggle to keep the wild places as wild as they can.

    Perhaps this will be one of our tests to see if we value our wild places. Hopefully we don’t have to lose something important before we realize that we should not commercialize things any worse than we already have. Heck, I remember when Banff was more like Waterton than what it is today.

    Personally I sure don’t want that thing hanging out there where it can be seen in my pictures. If I want to shoot architecture, I can goto a city. When I’m in the mountains, I don’t want to see that sort of thing.

    Just the two cents of a Prairie Photographer!!

  9. Wayne Simpson
    December 15, 2011

    Just wrote a letter to the minister voicing my concerns, hope others are doing the same.

  10. Shannon
    December 16, 2011

    Wow I just don’t even know where to start! The image of the sheep overlooking the the valley says it all! Makes me want to cry. SAD. I just hope who ever does the enviromental impact asscessment does it in such a way to get a big ” NOT APPROVED ” …. HMMMM Wonder who is bidding on that job.
    Shannon Carson ( nature lover, photographer, owner of RCBioSolutions LtD )

  11. Olivier Du Tré
    December 16, 2011

    This is so stupid it’s beyond words. The Provincial Parks and National Parks are there for a reason. To make people escape out of the concrete jungle.
    This is just another one of those bright American Ideas, like how they ruined the Grand Canyon viewpoint as well with the same skywalk idea.

    • Stephen Desroches
      December 17, 2011

      While I do agree, it’s worth noting the Grand Canyon Skywalk is not in the National Park but on private land several hours away.

  12. Tom Nevesely
    December 16, 2011

    I’m not at all surprised by the proposal because it all boils down to money, and certain people wanting more of it. Over a century ago, Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) started building luxury hotels in Banff. CPR president at the time, William Van Horne famously said: “If we can’t export the scenery, we’ll import the tourists.” Do you really think he wanted to bring in tourists because he wanted to “share” the beauty of the Rockies for free?

    I’d like to think that people and their attitudes toward the environment are changing, but more and more I’m convinced that the only thing that changes is the date on the calendar. Ok, that’s not entirely true; I do believe that people as a whole are becoming better and are more aware of our impact on our planet, but it just seems that the change is happening very, very slowly. Just look at all of the people in their cars at restaurant’s drive-throughs.

    The sad fact is that even today; to some people the national parks are not a special place that needs to be protected for future generations, but rather a commodity that can be profited from.

    • Samantha
      December 17, 2011

      I think you are right Tom that people are more aware, but at the same time it is aware in a way that we hear about things, but we don’t actually experience them (so, in my opinion, we don’t actually fully ‘get it’). Good example: I don’t have children, but I do have opinions on how they should behave, be raised etc. as members of society. Who doesn’t, right? But boy, don’t ever tell a parent how to ‘parent’ if you don’t have kids. Your comments (whether helpful or not) will just be written off because you don’t have children, so you don’t understand how hard it is to actually raise them. They have a point. And this is the analogy I see with nature. If you can’t get out in nature, really get out, like hike away from your car, sleep away from your house, hotel or even a trailer or motorhome, then you aren’t really experiencing nature. People just stay ‘plugged in’ with their ipods, iphones, and tablets which means that they are not really taking in much sensory information. Which means that they are disconnected from nature, and not really GETTING it. This is our biggest hurdle if we want to have any natural spaces left for our children. Pull the damn earbuds out of their ears! Get hiking! Chop wood! Carry water!

    • Chris Plante
      December 18, 2011

      I laugh at the fact people will stay in a 15 minute drive thru lane at Tim Hortons in the summer time in Vancouver. When in fact, it may only take 5-10 minutes to get a coffee if they parked the car! It’s all part of the Xbox generation. LAZYINESS! Therefore, lazy people don’t truly visit nature. They want to be carted up to a man built view point, snap a few pics then be shuttled back to the hotel.

  13. Chris Plante
    December 18, 2011

    Amen, Samantha.

  14. Brad Houston
    December 19, 2011

    Being that I have spent almost all of my 49 years on this planet in this wonderful national park I feel that I can give you an opinion on this. I feel blessed that I was able to grow up in this park and enjoy all that it has to offer including packpacking this this very area. The trail crew in Jasper is second to none and do a fantastic job keeping the trails in great shape. The place that this development is proposed is right on the highway and quite frankly would be a wonderful addition to the park as it keeps people out of the back country where people do more damage by just walking around. What most people do not understand is that the growing season here is only approx. 2 to 3 weeks as the whole area is still covered by the columbia ice fields.

    As more and more people find out about the parks system the more people come, if we do not have projects like this people will go out and do their own thing. THIS WOULD BE A LOT WORSE than keeping them in a controled area. And for all of you who are going to cut me up for this comment maybe you should actually take a trip to Jasper and find out for yourself just what this community is all about. The people who live here have always looked after this park like it was their own back yard. The town of Jasper is one square mile and will never get any bigger and we want it that way, and the park is bigger than a lot of countries in the world, having said that if you want to keep the people who have guarded this park for all of these years they need to be able to make a living otherwise they will sell out leave our park and leave it to the people with cash and do not care about the park. So I say to all of those who think this is a bad idea be very careful what you wish for you may just get it!!!!

    • Darwin Wiggett
      December 21, 2011

      Hi Brad, I was fortunate enough to live in Jasper for one year (a small amount of time I know) but I did come to see that Jasper residents are wonderful stewards of the park. I also understand the Catch 22 that many residents have with tourists. Tourists provide needed jobs (it’s really tough to make a living in Jasper considering the high cost of residing there – I could not afford it). On the other hand many Jasper residents really do not look forward to the onslaught of the summer crowds especially because of the naive behaviour of tourists that often jeopardized the natural environment of the park. I felt the same way when I lived there.

      The Discovery Walk will likely add jobs for the Jasper Residents, that is a given. And by your argument that will ensure these good stewards remain in the park. Understood.

      But philosophically (in the big picture) I think we (society) have it all wrong. Parks should not need to be self-supporting. The Gov’t wants the parks to pay their own way and that would require further development in the absence of gov’t funding (so next in line are zip-lines, waterparks, canopy walks etc). All of these things are at odds with the natural environment and the wildlife needs. It comes back to that old problem of the definition of parks, are they for people or for nature? If the former, then turn it into Nature’s Disneyland; if the latter, then keep all people out. But I believe there is a compromise where we can have the best of both with lower-impact such as activities (back-packing, camping, sight-seeing) but without big intrusive development.

      In my opinion, I think we got it wrong by bringing in ski hills, golf courses, malls and the like into National Parks. And I think National Parks should get enough funding through user fees, and gov’t funding for this public resource (taxpayers’ money). I am willing to pay more and have the privilege of visiting less in order to keep Jasper as pristine as possible (like Lake O’Hara which limits the number of visitors).

      Personally, I think there should be a moratorium on further development in the Parks (just like the town of Jasper already has). I think we, as society, all need to start thinking of what’s best for the parks and a little less of what’s best for us and our interests (and I include myself in this latter crowd!). Darwin

  15. Michael
    December 19, 2011

    When I first saw the photos and watched the promo video on the company’s website, I was in awe. WOW, wouldn’t that be a sight. But I overlooked one thing: nature.

    As interesting as it is, it goes against nature. What is the point of promoting a National Park, promoting the wild spaces and wild areas if we are going to throw that out the window for commercial development just to make some tourist bucks? This project, while interesting, will do one thing to the area: draw mega tourists in, and push wildlife out. Anything that man does that forces wildlife to relocate is NOT a good thing.

    I’ll be perfectly honest. As a photographer, there is NOTHING I hate more in the Rockies than pulling up to a beautiful area that I’ve always wanted to photograph and seeing tour buses loaded with tourists. I know it is revenue for the park, but for photographers looking to capture nature’s splendor, it makes it so hard when you have so much commercialization. One of the best features of the Rockies is how natural they are. If this project is allowed, it will only open up a can of worms, and before you know it there will be commercial developments like this all over the Parks.

    Tourism is great to promote our natural wonders, but NOT at the expense of wildlife and the natural environment. As humans we have a responsibility to protect and preserve what little natural space we have left. Humans have always made the almighty dollar more important than doing the right and moral thing. That is why we are the most destructive species on this planet. That needs to change.

    A BIG NO to commercializing the Rockies.

  16. Hendrik
    December 19, 2011

    This is so wrong in many ways, but after living in Canada for nearly four years now it does not come as a surprise.
    When we first came to this country we were reading a lot about our new home and were thrilled to be able to see all the wildlife, the rough mountains and the green valleys. Soon after arriving here the nice picture we had started to crumble and we realized that it is nothing close to what one would expect and hope to see.

    It is already a shame that there is a discussion allowed over this horrible thing and that Brewster is even allowed to propose building something like this. There is a parking lot right now where I can park the car, get out, enjoy the amazing view of the valley, it’s where I saw my first ever mountain goats. How can people accept the idea of paying for something you can now have for free?
    What will be next? A roller coaster through the valley? A big tower to oversee the mountains? A petting zoo with bears, goats and elk?

    Even more surprising is the fact that until today Banff National Park is still considered an UNESCO world heritage. How does BNP deserve this? Parks Canada is ‘managing’ it against their mandate and only serves as a puppet for the tourism industry. Instead of managing the tourists and visitors, they ‘manage’ nature, or at least they think they do. If one asks questions about the efficiency of their job, one only gets standard replies telling you that they are a ‘world leader’ in wildlife and nature management. If our national soccer team would only rest and talk about what they achieved in the past, Germany would never win a single world cup again. The team is only successful because they are never happy with what they achieve and work hard to get even better. Not Parks Canada.

    To me it seems that Parks Canada is happy in their role, all the foreign tourists come and see what they expect without getting the full picture, but have no idea what really is going on. So instead of working harder to get better and do what they are supposed to do, they just sit back and do whatever they did, as long as the dollars come in.

    I am hoping that the UNESCO will revoke the world heritage status sooner than later, maybe that will wake up some of these people and start getting their act together. It is very easy to revoke it, it happened before in Germany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden_Elbe_Valley
    So if this ugly thing really gets the green light to be build, I expect it to be revoked immediately, even better before it gets built.

    Banff NP could be a leader in doing what they are supposed to do, but they dropped the ball. You just have to look South to Waterton Lakes NP. A small peaceful place in the Rockies, where tourists get education and knowledge. Just take the wildflower and wildlife festival weekends as an example. For $10-20 you get a two hour workshop on that weekend that includes wildlife watching with biologists studying the animals, you are able to learn about the bears with members of the renowned Russell family, there are speeches and photo shows, you get guided walks explaining the countless wildflowers, some of which only grow there. You not only get to see and experience of what Waterton Lakes NP has to, but you are beginning to understand your impact and get a bond with nature, so immediately you start respecting nature.

    And in Banff? You get skiing, Tim Hortons and Chinese manufactured crap sold in the countless stores. Information? The odd sign along roads. Instead of working together with renowned biologists that work on getting more information about the ecosystem they try to make their life and work a nightmare. Instead of fining people for approaching grizzly bears and making them behave unnatural, the grizzlies get shot. Instead of closing the 1A for a couple of weeks while animals give birth and try to raise the precious new life, they put up signs with a ‘voluntary closure’, which is no reason for the Brewster buses to speed down the road with the first sunlight endangering fragile animal population.

    If you talk to Parks about these issues, the answer is always: There is not enough money to do this!
    Everyone with a right mind knows that it is nothing but a huge pile of BS, the money is literally on the street in Banff but nobody picks it up. People approach wolfs with pups and grizzlies with cubs, instead of fining them (which they could), they say “We have to let people have their wildlife experience and don’t fine first time offenders!”. I’d love to hear a cop say “Oh, it’s the first time you crossed a red light, promise you won’t do it again and I won’t fine you $300!”. It’s an open secret that you have semis pass you with 140km/h while the speed limit is 90km/h.

    All this money could be taken from people that show no respect for nature in Banff NP, it could be used to educate people and give them a general understanding about the whole ecosystem in the park. There could be more staff that actually goes out and does their job. But instead of taking this money, they’d rather have the tourists spend it on t-shirts, McDonalds or other gifts. So they get what they expect to see in Banff.

    SHAME ON YOU, PARKS CANADA!

    • Darwin Wiggett
      December 21, 2011

      Hendrik, tell us what you really think, but don’t hold back ;-)

  17. Royce Howland
    December 22, 2011

    @Brad Houston: Thanks for sharing your perspective. I hear what you say, and it reflects the systemic nature of every major conservation challenge we’re faced with. These are not simple problems, rather they’re complex issues at the intersection of dwindling natural environment, expanding human culture, and economics based on exploiting “resources” (which has been often done in an unsustainable way). What many conservation efforts fail to successfully grapple with is the cultural & economic underpinnings of why the conservation issue occurs in the first place. It’s not an easy situation to handle.

    Having said that, being a hard problem doesn’t mean that taking easy or partial point-solutions is the right answer. Choosing a bad solution because some other solution is worse, also is not the right answer. Both of these routes are unsustainable, and lead to further degradation and loss of what is irreplaceable, and valuable beyond $.

    To me, this Brewster proposal looks like a purely commercial development wrapped up in a bit of green, and I oppose it for the kinds of reasons CPAWS outlines. I think we do need to find other ways to approach conservation of our remaining wild places, ways that acknowledge the /essential/ (not just the desired) cultural and economic goals at the same time. But I think we should look for options that don’t involve for-profit enterprises busing loads of people into artificial edifices that emplace concrete, steel and glass in the heart of wilderness and important environmental & ecological locations, simply to “interpret” things for casual viewers in a few minutes with some nice displays and automated voice loops.

    At the risk of over-thinking things, I even reflect on a phrase in the opening sentence of Brewster’s Glacier Discovery Walk website — “fully accessible unique viewing experience”. It may very well be unique and the artist’s renderings do look pretty cool. But aside from that, this is pretty close to an oxymoron, in this context. As a photographer, I fully appreciate the irony of saying this — viewing is not experiencing. And at no time should we view the value of wilderness as dependent on being “fully accessible”. I agree with Darwin about seeing more places modeled on the approach taken at Lake O’Hara… more access is not necessarily a good thing, and at no time should it be raised within the National Parks as an unchallenged objective.

  18. Jane Chesebrough
    December 22, 2011

    I regularly do surveys for the parks and am always commenting on the garbage . When I went to the Icefields I was dismayed to see the litter in the parking lots and beyond, despite the garbage containers. So here is a new vantage point to toss your garbage from.. I believe we need to let people in, in moderation, to educate them about the wilderness and I even agree with some paved pathways so people in wheelchairs and with other mobility issues can access spots like Lake Louise.The advantage is that people don’t wander off the trails and disturb the delicate structures off- trail. I love hearing the quiet in the back country or the roar of a snowslide or the whistle of some small animal that I am never goingto hear elsewhere. I worked in a camp years ago with pre teens and they just about died when we said no radios. But they adjusted and found their interaction with nature to be a rich experience that they wanted to revisit. I do not want these structures, cell towers, billboards obscurring the natural view and I am happy getting my fat rump out of my vehicle (God knows i need the exercise) and going for a walk down a trail with a camera or binnoculars but no cell and no ipod.Although I must admit that I was fascinated by an iphone app that that a woman at a hostel showed me that played bird songs and helped you ID them. Those things we can pack in and pack out, leaving a light footprint. But the big structures? It is not wilderness anymore. Shame.

  19. hiro
    December 24, 2011

    This reminds me one phrase in Roger Waters’s (Former Pink Floyd) album, ‘Amused to Death”. It says,” Yosemite’s been turned into a golf course for the Japs”. I hate corporations with a large capitalization go to someone’s land and do whatever they want without consideration of values, identities and culture. It is invasion by money. So…what is value of Canadian Rockies. What is the identity and purposes of national parks. How native people feel when the gigantic structure appears in the holy land. 80% of land of Japan is covered by forest; however, untouched wild forest is scarce. (It is not bad thing actually in Japan. This is just the result of history, culture and philosophy.) When I first visited Canadian Rockies, I was surprised and amazed by the fact the such a large area of primeval forest still existed and wild life strutted in the town of Jasper. I think it is value and identity of the national parks. The change is usually drastic and irreversible. When outcome is uncertain as CPAWS stated there is “no evidence”, a decision has to be made really carefully, otherwise next generations will suffer.
    One more thing I found is poor sensibility of the tourists. I think people having a chance to visit Canadian Rockies is not all bad. After retired, attending a tour to Canada and visiting Canadian Rockies, or staying in Banff spring hotel as a honeymoon. That is understandable. It is like introductory course of Canadian Rockies. However, when I talk to Japanese tourists or I myself was a tourist 10 years ago, the responses I hear are not I expected. I usually feel “Is that all, what have you seen?” Banff, Jasper and Lake Louise have already been developed and have history which must be enough to interest tourists. There are some museums where they can learn about wild life in Rockies. But they do not seem to be interested, or they do not know so many other things possibly they can see. I think this is another abuse by tour companies, just pumping in and pumping out customers. And now came up with the idea to built the attraction? I do not see a fragment of intelligence is the proposal.

  20. Peter Calamai
    December 28, 2011

    I have just downloaded the envrironmental impact assessment which has only recently been posted. When I have had time to review it, I’ll post a comment if warranted. Always preferable in my view to have the most possible facts before making up your mind.
    I do note, however, that the proposal will solve the problem that the icefields are not currently accessible to anyone with major mobility problems.

    • Darwin Wiggett
      December 31, 2011

      Well… I am guessing that freelance photographers will be under attack again as Parks Canada looks to make money off our activities in the park (a photo license). Well Parks, what about writers, painters, poets etc that make products inspired by a visit to the parks… you gonna try and license them as well. In some ways I wish we had a system like in the US (which is not perfect) but which I believe allows taxpayers to designate where a portion of their annual tax dollars collected goes – mine would go to the National Parks to give needed funding.

    • Darwin Wiggett
      December 31, 2011

      Peter is is always best to have the most info possible before making any conclusion. Good on you! Hopefully these kinds of discussions will bring more info forward so we can all make better decisions!

  21. Oppose development of the Glacier Discovery Walk in Jasper | oopoomoo
    January 5, 2012

    [...] Walk over Tangle Ridge in Jasper National Park previously. To read more about the proposal see our link. We would like more public input before this proposal goes ahead.  For those of you who are [...]

  22. Jane Chesebrough
    January 6, 2012

    This is a copy of what I sent in an e-mail to Parks Canada because I do want more information. “I s this a “go-ahead for the Brewster company? what about environmental impact? I would like to see a large view of the area where this site is proposed.How much view that was accessible before will be disrupted?What about money that may go to the park from Brewster? I would like the opinion from the position of the Park, I have read the viewpoint from Brewster’s .Are people going to see wildlife from this viewpoint? What about further development after this site, such as a restuarant/souvenoir shop? comments and access to studies much appreciated .” What worries me is that by the time the larger public hears about this the decision to go ahead is already made. Sam and Darwin, do you have photos of this area to see where it is possibly going to be built?

  23. Oppose the “Glacier Discovery Walk” « Royce Howland | Vivid Aspect Photography
    January 7, 2012

    [...] read about this at Samantha Chrysanthou & Darwin Wiggett’s new site Oopoomoo. See their first and second posts on the topic for background and some [...]

  24. Chuck Kling
    January 8, 2012

    We’ve visited the parks, 8 times since 1988. Amongst other things , we always pull over at the Tangle Ridge Viewpoint.

    WHAT ???…Possible I won’t be allowed to do that any more ??….. Hey…it’s MY park also!!
    All of a sudden there is a NO- GO area ?!………What in tarnation !!

    Chuck.

  25. David Lyall
    January 8, 2012

    A very comprehensive assessment of the challenges with this project courtesy of Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society of Northern Alberta (CPAWS NAB):
    https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150108807103365

  26. Information on proposed Brewster Glacier Discovery Walk « glacierdiscoverywalkjasper
    January 15, 2012

    [...] Oopoomoo Do you want the Glacier Discovery Walk in Jasper National Park? [...]

  27. Michael
    February 21, 2012

    So I learned a few days ago that this project was approved? If so, I guess we know where Parks Canada stands on protecting our Natural Parks. Money wins, every time. Its comforting to know that we have an organization that puts money before environment protecting our natural spaces. And Brewster must feel good knowing that it can exploit Canada’s Parks to make itself even richer.

    The thing that bugs me about the logic in defending this project is this: Those in favor of it said it will make the area more accessible to more people. This is a smokescreen defense that is to hide the true motivation behind it: Charging for access to a natural area and more buses equals more revenue for the company. Do you think they really give a rip about the environment or the wild spaces and creatures in the Parks? They saw a chance to make money and they sold it to Parks Canada and our Government.

    I wonder what part of our National Parks will be destroyed next…

Top