next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
--_0a64d759-448e-43f1-9d5b-475bbe0c721f_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi All=2C
I've been following the discussion of the Feds proposed making Sable Isl=
and a national park on Parker Donham's "Contrarian" blog and wondered why I=
haven't seen any discussion here on the idea=3B good or bad.
Most of the feedback I've seen has been that it is a bad idea and at fir=
st blush I tend to agree.=20
The National parks are a wonderful institution but their philosophy (at =
least in the Cape Breton Highlands National Park=3Bthe one I know best) on =
protecting wilderness tends to waffle between protect everything and keep p=
eople out and let in the tourists and make parks pay for themselves. Over t=
he last decade they have been doing the former by trying to limit park over=
use and emphasizing more wilderness protection & research. This came after =
decades of a more tourist friendly philosophy that was more interested in v=
isitor totals than wilderness protection. Lately they have turned to a mixt=
ure of the two=3B protect some parts and encourage tourist visitation in ot=
hers. This is probably the best solution as swinging back and forth=3B at t=
he whim of whatever philosophy is in vogue at the moment: makes it impossib=
le to have a long term strategy that can have time to work for all parties =
involved.
The sable Island proposal has a few good things going for it=3B The Nati=
onal Parks have lots of money for research and would allow for the installa=
tion of infrastructure (permanent air strip=2C research facilities' weather=
station etc.) and a permanent human presence on the island.
On the other hand they want to allow much more access for tourists to visi=
t and there is no protection from the oil & gas industries that I can see.=
=20
I don't think the province=3B who would have to approve this change in stat=
us=3B have stated a firm position=3B although they have not ruled it out an=
d seem OK with further discussion. =20
For those interested in this proposal I recommend you check out Parker's b=
log as he has much more=2C and better stated=2C views including links to th=
e actual proposal and a facebook page for those opposed to the plan. http:/=
/contrarian.ca=20
All the best.
Fritz McEvoy
Sunrise Valley=2C CB =20
=20
_________________________________________________________________
Say Happy New Year with Messenger for Mobile.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=3D9706117=
--_0a64d759-448e-43f1-9d5b-475bbe0c721f_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px=3B
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt=3B
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'>
Hi All=2C<BR> =3B =3B I've been following the discussion of the Fed=
s proposed making Sable Island a national park on Parker Donham's "Contrari=
an" blog and wondered why I haven't seen any discussion here on the idea=3B=
good or bad.<BR> =3B =3B =3BMost of the feedback I've seen has=
been that it is a bad idea and at first blush =3BI tend to agree. <BR>=
 =3B =3B The National parks are a wonderful institution but their p=
hilosophy (at least in the Cape Breton Highlands National Park=3Bthe one I =
know best) =3Bon protecting wilderness tends to waffle between protect =
everything and keep people out and =3Blet in the tourists and make park=
s pay for themselves. =3BOver the =3Blast decade they have been doi=
ng the former =3Bby trying to limit park overuse and =3Bemphasizing=
more wilderness protection &=3B research. This came after decades of a =
more tourist friendly philosophy that was more interested in visitor totals=
than wilderness protection. Lately they have turned to a mixture of the tw=
o=3B protect some parts and encourage tourist visitation in others. This is=
probably the best solution as swinging back and forth=3B at the whim of wh=
atever philosophy is in vogue at the moment: makes it impossible to have a =
long term strategy that can have time to work for all parties involved.<BR>=
 =3B =3B The sable Island proposal has a few good things going for =
it=3B The National Parks have lots of money for research and would =3Ba=
llow for the installation =3Bof infrastructure (permanent air strip=2C =
research facilities' weather station etc.) and a permanent human presence&n=
bsp=3Bon the island.<BR> =3BOn the other hand they want to allow much m=
ore access =3Bfor tourists =3Bto visit and there is no protection f=
rom the =3Boil &=3B gas industries that I can see. <BR>I don't think=
the province=3B who would have to approve =3Bthis change in status=3B =
have stated a firm position=3B although they have not ruled it out and seem=
OK with further discussion. =3B =3B<BR> =3BFor those intereste=
d in this proposal I recommend you check out Parker's blog as he has much m=
ore=2C and better stated=2C views including links to the actual proposal an=
d a =3Bfacebook page for those opposed to the plan. <A href=3D"http://c=
ontrarian.ca">http://contrarian.ca</A> <BR>
 =3BAll the best.<BR>
 =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B&nb=
sp=3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =
=3B =3B =3B =3B Fritz McEvoy<BR>
 =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B&nb=
sp=3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =
=3B =3B =3B =3B Sunrise Valley=2C CB =3B =3B =3B<BR=
><BR> <br /><hr />Windows Live Messenger makes it easier to stay=
in touch - <a href=3D'http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=3D9706113' target=3D=
'_new'>learn how!</a></body>
</html>=
--_0a64d759-448e-43f1-9d5b-475bbe0c721f_--
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects