2 ms·

> They would do better without the money. No they wouldn't. What about park rangers? What about forest fires? What about keeping wildlife and humans safe from

> They would do better without the money. No they wouldn't. What about park rangers? What about forest fires? What about keeping wildlife and humans safe from one another?

sandworm101 8y ago
Such things should be funded by government, standing budgets not linked to visitor numbers. User fees encourage parks to be run as businesses. They incentive constant growth in favor of human use above wilderness. Go to a few Canadian parks. See what wilderness actually looks like. There is no ranger or fence between you and the bears. Rangers are there to protect nature from humans, not make wild areas more accessible for tourists.
- briga 8y ago
  The difference being that Canada has 10 times fewer people than the USA. They also charge money to access the national parks, by the way.
- StrictDabbler 8y ago
  Both the US and Canadian park services are funded by a combination of federal funds and user fees. A Parks Canada Discovery pass costs $67 CDN and is equivalent to the $80 USD America the Beautiful pass in the states. Many parts of Banff, Jasper, and Garibaldi National Parks are quite manicured, with plenty of fences and visitor trails. There are 30 million people in California. There are 30 million people in Canada. If all of Canada's people lived in Alberta then visiting the core of Banff would be like visiting the core of Yosemite. Very, very crowded. The purpose of encouraging people to visit national parks via advertising is to get people to connect with nature and want to preserve it. There's tons of unpopulated parkland in the US but the very touristy areas are busy because that's the design. Concentrate visitors here, let them see some mountains safely, don't disturb too many animals by letting people just roam around in ATVs.
- eigenvector 8y ago
  As a Canadian who has visited the backcountry of many US and Canadian national parks, you're completely off base. The US NPS has a far stronger wilderness ethic than Parks Canada. Yes, there are manicured front country areas, but there are also vast areas of designated wilderness - a legal designation that requires land to be left 'as though untrammeled by man'[1]. Banff and Jasper both have major private, commercial operations inside them that severely impact wildlife and continue to expand them (see the plan to expand the Sunshine ski area in Banff). Parks Canada funding for protecting the backcountry is almost nil. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_Act

> They would do better without the money. No they wouldn't. What about park rangers? What about forest fires? What about keeping wildlife and humans safe from one another?

sandworm101 8y ago

Such things should be funded by government, standing budgets not linked to visitor numbers. User fees encourage parks to be run as businesses. They incentive constant growth in favor of human use above wilderness. Go to a few Canadian parks. See what wilderness actually looks like. There is no ranger or fence between you and the bears. Rangers are there to protect nature from humans, not make wild areas more accessible for tourists.

briga 8y ago
The difference being that Canada has 10 times fewer people than the USA. They also charge money to access the national parks, by the way.
StrictDabbler 8y ago
Both the US and Canadian park services are funded by a combination of federal funds and user fees. A Parks Canada Discovery pass costs $67 CDN and is equivalent to the $80 USD America the Beautiful pass in the states. Many parts of Banff, Jasper, and Garibaldi National Parks are quite manicured, with plenty of fences and visitor trails. There are 30 million people in California. There are 30 million people in Canada. If all of Canada's people lived in Alberta then visiting the core of Banff would be like visiting the core of Yosemite. Very, very crowded. The purpose of encouraging people to visit national parks via advertising is to get people to connect with nature and want to preserve it. There's tons of unpopulated parkland in the US but the very touristy areas are busy because that's the design. Concentrate visitors here, let them see some mountains safely, don't disturb too many animals by letting people just roam around in ATVs.
eigenvector 8y ago
As a Canadian who has visited the backcountry of many US and Canadian national parks, you're completely off base. The US NPS has a far stronger wilderness ethic than Parks Canada. Yes, there are manicured front country areas, but there are also vast areas of designated wilderness - a legal designation that requires land to be left 'as though untrammeled by man'[1]. Banff and Jasper both have major private, commercial operations inside them that severely impact wildlife and continue to expand them (see the plan to expand the Sunshine ski area in Banff). Parks Canada funding for protecting the backcountry is almost nil. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_Act