Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Michael is on a quest to get his environmental footprint as low as humanly possible. So he built his own off-grid Tiny House. But downsizing and minimizing weren’t enough. He had to take more drastic measures, altering his lifestyle in some extreme ways, all in the name of saving the planet. But when it comes to his goal, he still feels in over his head. He doesn’t know if all the downsizing, minimizing, reducing, reusing, recycling, and sacrificing make a difference. It’s time to bring in the experts.
Join Michael as he sits down with scientists, policymakers, industry leaders, and environmental experts to figure out how to effectively reduce his footprint in all aspects of life. From food and fast fashion to cars and caskets, he gets into what the worst culprits really are and how we can all make more informed choices when it comes to the impact we have on the planet.
If you have feedback or would like to be a guest on In Over My Head, please email: info@inovermyhead.com
(00:00):
This season was made possible with support from the government of Alberta's Heritage Preservation Partnership Program and Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Southern Alberta.
(00:09):
Well, I'm in over my head, no one told me trying to keep my footprint small was harder than I thought it could be. Well, I'm in over my head, what do I really need? Tryin' save the planet, oh will someone please save me? Tryin' save the planet, oh will someone please save me?
(00:33):
Welcome to In Over My Head. I'm Michael Bartz. While looking into the unique history of our provincial parks, I want to learn more about conservation in Kananaskis.
(00:42):
Hi, I am Katie Morrison. I'm the Executive director of the Canadian Parks and Wilder Society or CPAWS Southern Alberta chapter. CPAWs is a national charity, but we have 13 local chapters across the country.
So I mentioned I work for the Southern Alberta chapter, so we actually have two chapters in Alberta, which is a little unusual, but it's just the history of how the organization was created. CPAWs started in
1965 and our chapter was created in 1967, and our main purpose is to work on conservation of public lands. So looking at protected areas, parks and protected areas, ensuring that we have sufficient parks and protected areas and that they're being managed effectively and then on public lands that aren't protected, that we're also considering nature and ecological function and making sure that all the usesthat happen on those non-protected lands are also conserving nature, conserving the function of those spaces. So we do a lot of working on policy advocacy, but really a lot working with communities and the public and engaging citizens in how they can make a difference in conservation.
(01:46):
So when I was looking into the history of our provincial parks, it seems like there was kind of a shift from recreation and then to more conservation. And when I was reading about that, Kananaskis country came up and it seems like Kananaskis is kind a champion for conservation. But then when I was looking to it a bit more, it was like there's a bit more there. There's some concerns around development throughout its history, and I was interested that CPAWs was involved with that history. So I'm looking forward to learning about that with you. Yeah, maybe tell me a little bit about the history of Kananaskis.
(02:15):
Yeah, I mean, Kananaskis is an interesting place and I think we have to start, if we're looking at the history of acknowledging that is the traditional territories of the Niitsítapi, the Nakoda, and the Tsuu'tina. But then if you jump forward in time as early as the nineties forties, it was being highly recognized for its water source potential and its ecological importance. So starting in the 1940s, the whole Eastern slopes was
actually recognized for that water source and biodiversity, although they didn't necessarily use that language then Fish and Wildlife Conservation. So in 1947, a joint action between the provincial government and the federal government created what was called the Eastern Rockies Forest
Conservation. And that board was responsible for looking at the management of almost the whole Eastern slopes. So not just Kananaskis but including the Kananaskis region and looking at how we manage
and protect that place again largely for water and fish and wildlife value.
(03:14):
And so they really were looking at that space as a multi-use concept, but very clearly with water as the highest priority because of the huge value of the Bow River system and the Kananaskis region being the
headwaters of the bow system. And so that whole area was managed by this Eastern Rockies Forest Conservation Board until the early seventies when it was transferred entirely to the Department of Lands and Forests of the provincial management. That body then formed the Environmental
Conservation Authority, and that was a similar process. They were really looking at how do we manage this place to preserve that water value and that ecological value. And they went through a process of hearings and public engagement and expert input and reports, and eventually came out with 23 recommendations for what would eventually form what's called the Eastern Slopes policy. But as part of that, they recommended that large tracks of areas be conserved in the Eastern slopes. I think one area
of the court, they actually said that a minimum of 70% of the Eastern slopes should be kept in a natural or wilderness state, which we know now is not the case. That didn't come to fruition through the
Eastern Slopes policy, through this environment Conservation Authority that it was recognized that something needed to be done in Kananaskis and Kananaskis was formed itself in 1977 as this Kananaskis country concept.
(04:45):
Okay. So you said that the goal was to have 70% conservation and that didn't happen. So what did happen?
(04:52):
Yeah, well, the goal was 70% conservation across the Eastern slopes and the CANES was part of that. So when it actually became protected, there was already some proposals for development in that region, some uses of development that previously existed. And so when they formed Kananaskis Country, it was about 43% at that time was in two parks protection. And then in the eighties they created an integrated resource
plan for that region as well, which it's kind of on top of the can country designation. There's dozens of resource plans across the province that look at that management. Some of them have subzones of what
type of activities is appropriate where, but that in Integrators Reserve Supply also really highlighted the value of that area for water and for low impact recreation activities.
(05:46):
So they have those things in place, they're protecting certain areas, but they're also developing certain areas. So I guess that was part of the plan as well. That's certain recreational areas.
(05:55):
So the Kananaskis Recreation Plan that was created in 1986 really did dig into this idea of how can we maintain that water function, maintain that ecosystem function and have a variety of different recreational experiences. So some of those were more intense developments or commercial areas, things like the golf course, which may or may not actually nowadays fit into what we see as Kananaskis,
but different levels and different, making sure that there is appropriate recreational opportunities for a variety of people in a variety of pursuits from visiting and picnicking to more backcountry style recreation in undisturbed areas. I think Kines has still maintained some of that quality, but we've certainly had to fight for that over the years as different development proposals have come up and different visions of what that means.
(06:52):
Sure. Yeah. Well, yeah, tell me more about that. What sort of development proposals have come up that have perhaps been a concern in the past?
(06:58):
There's several, and some of them are small and they don't make mention in history books, and some of them are larger. One of the ones that is sort of can ask us an adjacent and was the Three Sisters and Wind Valley development in the early nineties. And it's interesting to be talking about this now because Three Sisters is still an ongoing issue, but there was a massive development proposed there in the nineties that included residential but also a big hotel systems, golf courses, resorts, housing units, both in the Three Sisters in the Wind Valley region for many people, including CPAWs. That Wind Valley was one of the really key pieces to that because it is such an important wildlife corridor. So CPAWS as well as
other conservation groups were really active in trying to oppose that development because it was such a large development, it did require to go through the Natural Resource Conservation Board process, and
that is a process that gives direction on how things should be approved or not.
(08:07):
And so it went through that process. CPAWs southern Alberta, the Sierra Club and the Alpine Club were all interveners in the hearing around that. But the public was really involved too. There was public outcry, there was things like Keep the Wind Valley wild t-shirts. Looking at some of this, it became reminiscent to me of some of the Defend border parks campaign that we had a few years ago where the public really took it and grasp it and made these sort of campaign pieces of their own and became really
engaged. So the outcome of that was that the Natural Resource Conservation Board approved the Three Sisters development, which is why we're seeing that come back over and over now with some
conditions. And some of those conditions were protecting the Wildlife Corridor through Three Sisters and turned down the Wind Valley proposal. So kept that development out of Wind Valley, which I think is a really amazing testament and we see this over and over to the power of citizen engagement in these types of proposals and what we really want from our systems and from our natural environment.
(09:17):
Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, no, that's really nice to hear that people got together and that they spoke their mind and that there was actually a positive change. Were there any other sort of developments through
the history of Kananaskis that are worth mentioning?
(09:30):
So I think there has been a lot of pressure to further develop Kananaskis commercially, and one of the interesting pieces that jumped out from me as I was reviewing our history was some polls that were conducted in the mid-nineties around Kananaskis. And in 1999 there was a government survey actually as they were trying to develop or trying to look at what do people want from this region? And that 88% of those polled agreed that the highest priority should be environmental protection and enhancement in the region. 76% believe that canas as country as a delicate ecosystem and that wilderness and wildlife could be at further risk from development. And some of the reasons those numbers jumped out for me
is that we did some polling about a year ago, not specifically on Kananaskis, but on Albertan's perceptions and views on protection in the province in general.
(10:24):
And then numbers were quite similar. We had about three quarters of people wanting more protection that prevents degradation from industrial or commercial uses. The vast majority of people, I think it was about 85%, were in favour of Alberta committing to protecting 30% of its land and freshwater by 2030, which is part of Canada's international commitments. And so that was really interesting for me to look at and think about that Albertans have stayed pretty constant in their desire for more protection and in their awareness of the constant risks by industrial and commercial developments to these places that they hold really dear.
(11:04):
Yeah, no, that's good. That's good to hear that that's still happening. And if I remember that poll correctly, in the nineties, you guys had your poll, but then actually the government put out their own poll, right? About what sort of future development we could do, right?
(11:17):
Yeah. I think there was a lot of conversation in the nineties of how we manage this place to make sure that we are conserving the ecological function and biodiversity while also ensuring that people can
experience nature and get outside. So there are various polls done, governments were doing polls, CPAWs did a poll at the time. Again, that sort of high interest, high public interest in this region and making sure
that we get things right.
(11:46):
Do you feel like they were getting things right back then?
(11:50):
I think there was attempts to get things right. I think one of the reasons when we hear people talk about these types of things, they often use the word balance. How do we find the balance? And I purposely don't use that word because for me it's not about a balance. It's not about trading off one thing for the other because the base value, the base support of all life, including ourselves, our communities that rely on these places for clean water and for the services that biodiversity provide, that's the core stone. And then we try and how can we use experience and extract resources in some case these areas without really impacting the core function. So it's not about trading off the core function for something else, it's about making sure that we are getting right, that we're not drastically impacting that core function. There are always pressures on places like Kananaskis and I think we see from a recreation perspective more
and more pressure. There was a study in 2011 that said there was I think 1.1 million visitors to Kananaskis that year. We're now looking at over 4 million visitors to Kananaskis every year. And so what was
appropriate or what was okay what those thresholds were back in the seventies, eighties, nineties, they're different again today because we know more about the impact of these developments or of our use on those ecosystems. But there is also very different pressures and particularly from a recreation perspective, a very high and growing pressure.
(13:30):
Was there anything else you wanted to talk about around the history of Kananaskis that you feel like is worth mentioning?
(13:36):
Yeah, I mean I think another really important event and date in Kananaskis history was 2001, and that's when Spray Lake Sawmills was given their forest management agreement that included Kananaskis. So previously there was some timber extraction from Kananaskis, but if you look at integrated resource plan, it is really framed around extracting timber only where it is appropriate within these other goals around water
source conservation, fish and wildlife habitat and recreation, and making sure that if there is timber extraction or other use of the landscape, that it falls under those prime objectives. In 2001, when spray Lake Sawmills was given the forest management agreement, it committed 20 years of timber extraction from that region and under the broader forest management approach in Alberta, which really is timber focus first. And so we're definitely seeing the impact of that now that they're now into their second 20 year agreement and the increasing conflicts between timber extraction and forestry in the region and things like fish and wildlife conservation species at risk and recreation management. So I think that decision which was not based on any public consultation, actually had a really big impact to the face of Kananaskis country and even how we think about that country concept.
(15:10):
Okay. And so because of that, was there too much logging going on? Is that the impact it had or what was the?
(15:17):
Yeah, definitely timber extraction increased has increased since before the forest management agreement and we're seeing it in more and more inappropriate places either from a recreation or a biodiversity conservation perspective.
(15:33):
Yeah, I guess Katie, that makes me think about what's going on now as far as other development concerns. So maybe tell me a bit about that.
(15:40):
Yeah, so forestry is absolutely a concern when we're looking at the current management of Kananaskis. And I think it a little bit falls into that idea of how much has changed as far as our knowledge of the
ecosystem and the impacts of forestry and clearcut logging and logging roads. We have species at risk that were not at the same state 20 to 40 years ago that are being directly impacted by logging activities.
And one of those areas that we're focused on right now is the Highwood. So there's a logging plan in the Highwood close to Loomis Creek that's being proposed that is right along and in some cases directly in
critical habitat for bull trout, which is a federally threatened species. It's also an area that people love to hike. You can see it as you drive Highway 40 past there. Right now it is an area that is not currently developed by logging or commercial developments.
(16:40):
And so that's an area that we've been really focused on, but it's not the only one. It's one that people know well, that there's a clear link to species at risk that we're highlighting, but that logging issue is certainly an issue across Kananaskis on those areas that are unprotected. I mentioned that when Kananaskis was developed, it was I think 43% protected. Now it's actually flipped, so now it's 57% protected
and 43% unprotected, but that's still a fairly large area and I think it's not something that people think about when they think of Kananaskis. We get comments a lot from folks talking about Kananaskis in its
entirety as a park and it's not Kananaskis was created as this country concept that was both parks and public land, although as I mentioned with that primary focus of water conservation biodiversity and low impact
recreation.
(17:35):
But we're seeing that impact of forestry on that unprotected land. And because we also know now that areas are not independent of each other, we are dealing with an ecosystem that those effects of having that patchy landscape of protected and unprotected, there can be large impacts from that development in those unprotected areas. I think the recreation pressure is also sort of a new and growing one, and that is a tricky one because obviously we want people to go out and experience can ask. It's an amazing place, but it is more accessible. It is being so close to Calgary and as Calgary's population grows and people are getting outside more, there is an increased number of people visiting the area, which comes
with a variety of risks to the region. Whether that's safety both for people and wildlife as more vehicle traffic is on roads and chopping up wildlife corridors or movement patterns, whether it's impacts to
water impacts of people staying on trails and the sediment that can come as you disturb vegetation areas or garbage or just the wildlife impact of that many people, sometimes 24 hours as folks even get into night hiking and things like that that can impact wildlife.
(19:02):
So I think it's prime time again to really look at Kananaskis and look at the history, learn from that, go back to those concept of what the highest value of that region is, and then start to look forward and say, how do
we manage this place to make sure that we are protecting those key values? And that is a place that people can safely and sustainably access nature.
(19:29):
Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. And so how do you feel we could best do that? When you mentioned that one logging contracts 20 years ago, the public wasn't consulted. Do you feel like there needs to be more
public involvement or how can we make sure that we're managing these spaces appropriately?
(19:45):
I mean, I think there's a few pieces. In 2014, the government created the South Saskatchewan Regional plan and that is a land use plan. Alberta is divided into seven land use planning regions with the government's intent to create these big picture land use plans and then more detailed plans that go under the vision of those plans. We've only done two in 15 plus years, but the South Saskatchewan is one area that we got an overarching land use plan, which also reinforces the value of these areas for water, wildlife, and recreation. Well, in some areas allowing other industrial and commercial activities. Through that planning process, there was a commitment to do human footprint planning, like what is the impact of all the footprints of industrial commercial roads use of those areas as well as recreation planning for the Kananaskis and ghost region that has yet to be completed.
(20:47):
So we're now at the 10 year mark of those plans and there's actually a 10 year review this year and we still haven't seen those detailed plans of those regions. So I think that we have a process, those processes are meant to be quite engaging and have public consultation and stakeholders and make sure that we are considering how people want to use the area and what our vision for those areas are, incorporating expert opinion on ensuring that we're not impacting the environment itself. And so I think we have these processes, but there isn't really the political will or resources to actually enact them and get those on the ground. But because we are seeing these increased pressures and increased conflicts, I think it's really important that we move forward on some kind of overall planning process for that region, whether it's through the SSRP or whether it's a Kananaskis specific planning process.
(21:45):
Okay. Yeah. And you said with that more current plan, it hasn't been pushed through yet. Why do you think that's the case? What's holding it back? Is it just money?
(21:59):
Planning is hard.
(22:00):
Okay. Yeah. Is there resistance from developers or things like that or are people getting along or, I don't know. I'm just asking.
(22:08):
Yeah, I mean these planning processes, while planning puts most people to sleep, when you get into the planning processes themselves, there does start to be some of those trade-off conversations. So not everything can happen everywhere all the time. I think in some of these areas we've forgotten that and we've kind of slumped into, we can just fit everything in, we can fit everything into the boundary of Kananaskis or we can fit everything into a certain area of the province. And that's just not true. Not if we actually want to maintain the values that we say that we want to maintain. So they can be difficult, they can be somewhat expensive for the government, but I would argue that the cost of not doing something
is much larger and they can be high conflict. It may mean things don't go forward or it may mean that we cut back on certain uses or put more management around how people use an area and change is hard. And so I think there hasn't been the political will to do something that might be controversial, but as I mentioned, I think the cost of not doing that is much greater and we just put our blinders on and hope that it works out and I don't think that's going to be the case.
(23:28):
So what would be the cost of not doing anything or not following that plan?
(23:32):
I think we are already seeing some of that cost, things like these logging activities and really inappropriate areas, things like user conflicts as we get more and more people in different types of users using the same or different trails, I think Kananaskis is a little bit different in that they did do some planning in the original Kananaskis country concept around separating uses that may not be complimentary. We have a specific OHV zone for better or for worse in that region. And then most of Kananaskis is not motorized. And so I think there's already some steps in Kananaskis that other regions have not had. But as we see more and more people, I think we do need to look at how we manage people both in space and time so that we're not having these massive impacts on wildlife through
vehicles or through just the constant activity of people, which some wildlife species can be quite sensitive to that we're not having impacts on water through either logging or through trail breeding and things that can create erosion. And certainly on experience. I think Kananaskis a little bit used to be the place that you went when you didn't go to Banff because Banff was too busy at least for locals, but Kananaskis is now very, very busy. So I think people are still looking for experiences that they're not just all on the same trail, but that means are they spreading out more? Are they going further back into the backcountry? Are they going off trails
and creating some of those wildlife conflict issues? So I think really looking at that, what is that state and how can we improve that in a way that doesn't shut everything down or that's not what anybody wants,
but it's about finding that right approach that continues to prioritize and value and actually achieve the things that we're trying to achieve in that area.
(25:25):
Yeah, I guess you talk about managing people. Is that on maybe the policy side or is that about enforcement? How could you manage Kananaskis for the people?
(25:38):
Yeah, I think it's all above. I mean, one of the pieces we might say is that we need more protected areas in Kananaskis or more recreation management so that we're not having first these industrial
recreational conflicts, which then also because they're also conflicts with species at risk and things. So it sort of considers both those key values. So I think that could be part of it. Some of it is they brought in
the Kananaskis country Conservation pass a few years ago, which I think we're still yet to see what the impacts of that are as far as accessibility. One of our concerns when they implemented that was is it still going to be affordable and manageable for everyone to be able to access the outdoors? And so I think that still, we're still trying to figure that out, whether it had an impact on that, but then also making sure that if they are collecting funds through that sort of pay-per-use system, that the funds are really going back to the conservation of that region, not just building more recreation infrastructure or more development, but really going back into the conservation and in some areas, restoration of the region.
(26:50):
And I know we get people bringing up a lot around some of these industrial issues and forestry issues. I'm paying my $90 conservation pass and they're logging an area which is clearly not contributing to
conservation. So I think really looking at the uses on the landscape level of what the area can sustain and what those major conflicts are. And then when we get into people management, there's a lot of different ways of going around people management and I wouldn't want to say here's the solution because we haven't been through that process yet. That would be what the planning process is about. But there are some of it could be managing how many people can go on certain trails at a time or over a
certain time. Some of that could be making sure that people are aware of the different trail opportunities so everyone's not going to the same trail because that's the one they heard about. Some of it is definitely in enforcement, in education around how you respectfully engage in a natural environment to have minimal impact, making sure people are aware that it is wildlife habitat and that they are doing everything they can to avoid conflicts with wildlife. I think there was just this whole
spectrum of things, and many of them we do do and can ask does and Alberta Parks does. So we're not starting from scratch. It's just really taking another clear look at that region where we are today and
what we can do to best manage it.
(28:17):
Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, and that just makes me think about what people can do individually when you're talking about some of these things and managing people. That's also on the people visiting Kananaskis and to a certain degree development as well. But yeah, I guess on the individual level, what can people do to have an impact
(28:36):
On sort of an individual in place? I think there's some simple ones of staying on trails, knowing where you are and what is around those trails so that you are acting responsibly and not stepping off a trail and
onto rare plants or something like that. Being prepared for wildlife conflicts. So understanding that it is grizzly bear territory and that you're carrying bear spray and you're trained how to use it and you're not
going to create a situation that is worse if there is an encounter. Similarly with camping and garbage, there can be wildlife conflicts or wildlife attractants through garbage through campsites. And some of these things are a lot of things that we know or think we know, but don't always follow because we get a little lazy or I'm just popping out of the campground for a couple minutes. But I think those are really
simple, basic ones that are really important.
(29:31):
And I think most people do follow to some extent. And I'll always say that there's also the next piece, there's how you interact when you're out there, and then it's how you engage as a citizen day to day that involves thinking about what these places mean to you and what we really want from both our experience and from the land going forward. So being actively engaged as a citizen in things like the Highwood logging campaign, the Defender Alberta Parks campaign was an amazing example where Albertans said, no, these are places that we love. These are too important for us. You cannot take them away. But also letting government, letting your elected officials, letting the folks managing know this is what I want to see from this space and I'm willing as a citizen to engage in that process.
(30:20):
Yeah, it seems like generally when we looked at the past and more present as well, that public voice seems really important too, right? People speaking their minds and letting governments know and
letting officials know that they care about these places. Do you feel like that's happening with Kananaskis?
(30:38):
Yeah, I think it's throughout history. If we look at Kananaskis or Alberta conservation as a whole or most social change as a whole, it really comes down to people making decision-makers know that they care
about something and the direction that they want to go. Whether it's sort of a positive direction or like the defend Alberta Parks saying, no, stop, that's not the right policy or direction. And that's why the
work of CPAWs is so important. And what I love so much about the work of CPAWs is it really is about making folks aware of the opportunities or the threats, making it easy for people to engage and understand how they can engage in these processes. So I think it is happening in Kananaskis as we're seeing that, as I mentioned with the logging campaign, with the defend Alberta Parks campaign, which didhave some sites in Kananaskis, we saw it on the coal campaign, which is not Kananaskis specific, but all of those were really due to people standing up and saying, this is what I care and this is what I value. Andwe can see that in the past as well. So there's not a process for Kananaskis per se right now. So I think
that it's not happening on the scale of some of these other examples because there's not something that people are reacting to or a process to engage in other than logging plans or those types of things. But I think given the huge value of this place to Albertans that people are very engaged, very invested in the management now and into the future.
(32:12):
Next time on Remembering Alberta Parks, I learn about the significance of Áísínai’pi or Writing-on-Stone Provincial Park to the Niitsítapi community.
(32:22):
One thing people don't realize is for Blackfoot people to work at these sites to tell Blackfoot history and culture in our way that is a human right of self-determination. And for so long our people have been denied. It's 2024. I don't think we should be denied that much longer, any longer.
(32:47):
In Over My Head's Remembering Alberta Parks was produced by Michael Bartz with production assistance from Shinichi Hara. Special thanks to all the guests who gave generously of their time and expertise.
(32:56):
I'm trying to save the planet. oh will someone please save me?
(33:06):
This season was made possible with support from the government of Alberta's Heritage Preservation Partnership Program and Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Southern Alberta.