PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES Number 45 Off Limits: How Radical Environmentalists are Stealing Canada’s National Parks Sylvia LeRoy and Barry Cooper Contents Executive Summary ................................................ 3 Introduction ..................................................... 5 Ideology: Trends in Wilderness Conservation ............................. 10 Policy ......................................................... 22 Process ......................................................... 34 Politics ......................................................... 39 Alternatives ..................................................... 47 Conclusion ...................................................... 51 Appendix A ...................................................... 53 Bibliography ..................................................... 54 About the Authors ................................................ 58 A FRASER INSTITUTE OCCASIONAL PAPER Public Policy Sources is published periodically throughout the year by The Fraser Institute, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. The Fraser Institute is an independent Canadian economic and social research and educational organi- zation. It has as its objective the redirection of public attention to the role of competitive markets in pro- viding for the well-being of Canadians. Where markets work, the Institute’s interest lies in trying to discover prospects for improvement. Where markets do not work, its interest lies in finding the reasons. Where competitive markets have been replaced by government control, the interest of the Institute lies in documenting objectively the nature of the improvement or deterioration resulting from government intervention. The work of the Institute is assisted by an Editorial Advisory Board of internationally re- nowned economists. The Fraser Institute is a national, federally chartered non-profit organization fi- nanced by the sale of its publications and the tax-deductible contributions of its members, foundations, and other supporters; it receives no government funding. For information about Fraser Institute membership, please call Sherry Stein at The Fraser Institute at (604) 688-0221, ext. 590 or (416) 363-6575, ext. 590. Editor & Designer: Kristin McCahon For media information, please contact Suzanne Walters, Director of Communications, (604) 688-0221, ext. 582 or (416) 363-6575, ext. 582 To order additional copies, write or call The Fraser Institute, 4th Floor, 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, B.C., V6J 3G7 Toll-free order line: 1-800-665-3558; Telephone: (604) 688-0221, ext. 580; Fax: (604) 688-8539 In Toronto, write or call The Fraser Institute, Suite 2550 – 55 King Street West, Toronto, ON, M5K 1E7 Telephone: (416) 363-6575, ext. 580; Fax: (416) 601-7322 Visit our Web site at http://www.fraserinstitute.ca Copyright 8 2000 The Fraser Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this monograph may be repro- duced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations em- bodied in critical articles and reviews. The author of this study has worked independently and opinions expressed by him are, therefore, his own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the members or trustees of The Fraser Institute. Printed and bound in Canada. ISSN 1206-6257 Executive Summary Banff in the Balance: Ecological Integrity Panel cited Y2Y as part of Radical Environmentalism in “the new paradigm of protected areas.” Parks Canada Policy • The “ecosystem approach” adopted by Parks Canada is an extremely problematic manage- ver the past decade, Banff has become the ment philosophy because of the fact that eco- Ocentre of the debate over the future of Cana- systems are not, in fact, concrete systems, but da’s national parks policy. Environmentalists mental constructs (“geographic free-for- have consistently clashed with community plan- alls”). For instance, the Greater Yellowstone ners and commercial interests asserting that the ecosystem has been estimated to cover any- multiple-use philosophy that inspired the estab- where from 5 to 19 million acres, depending lishment of Canada’s first national park is now on who’s defining it. imperiling it. As restrictions on access to, and ac- • tivities within, Banff National Park continue to The “top-down theory” that asserts that large add up, this Public Policy Source seeks to investi- carnivores serve a special role in regulating gate the growing influence of radical environ- ecosystems lacks widespread support within mentalism on Parks Canada policy. We will the scientific community. Nonetheless, envi- document how: ronmentalists have made the grizzly bear the rallying symbol in their public advocacy cam- paigns. Their cause is advanced by the re- • Policy debate continues to focus on the com- search and policy-making efforts of mercial and recreational activities such as “independent” projects such as the Eastern downhill skiing, golf, and tourist activities in Slopes Grizzly Bear Project (ESGBP), whose the Banff townsite despite the fact that less Parks Canada representative “ultimately be- than four percent of the park has ever been came the main author of the park manage- open to them. This crisis rhetoric does not re- ment plan.” Such “mission-oriented” science flect the positive increase in Canada’s pro- projects are guided by the unique blend of sci- tected areas network over the past decade (38 ence, ideology, and activism characteristic of million hectares); rather, it reflects the “mov- contemporary environmentalism. ing targets” of environmentalist campaigns. • By providing grants and establishing commu- • The environmentalist agenda has expanded nity funding (or “animation”) programs to its attention from saving species to saving support the lobbying and research efforts of spaces through “rewilding schemes” such as environmental groups, government is tilting the Wildlands Project, Y2Y (Yellowstone to the playing field in the debate over park pol- Yukon), and A2A (Algonquin to Adiron- icy towards the agendas of special interests. dacks). As Banff is considered part of the “critical link” of the Y2Y initiative, environ- • The Banff-Bow Valley Study (BBVS) released mentalists have devoted significant resources in 1996 painted a dark future for the park by to phasing development out of Banff. The so- warning that “Commercial interests will ease cial and economic consequences of such radi- out spiritual values, to the detriment and cal schemes are severe, but policy-makers are creativity of the nation.” However, the reli- responding favourably to such projects. The ability of the predictive models is question- The Fraser Institute 3 Off Limits PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES, NUMBER 45 able, and the paucity of social science • Parks Canada has commissioned policy re- evidence casts doubt on the study’s conclu- view studies that have debated such ques- sions. For example, despite relying on esti- tionable projects as the extermination of all mated rates of visitation ranging from 3 to 6 non-native species of wildlife and vegetation; percent, the actual rates of visitation since raising or burying the Trans-Canada High- have resulted in close to a cumulative 1 per- way; returning golf courses to “pristine mon- cent drop (this drop amounts to over 13 per- tane conditions”; and having downhill skiing cent if one discounts the anomalous surge in declared and “inappropriate activity,” or at attendance in 1994-95). the very least, having it classified as a “non- conforming use.” Several of these projects are • The Panel on Outlying Commercial Accom- already under way. modation (OCA) was established in 1998 to review guidelines for OCAs and ski areas in • Environmental groups are now poised to gain the mountain parks. Again adopting the added clout as a result of the expanded hu- round table process, the constructive efforts man resource potential of the new Parks Can- of Parks Canada to draft new ski area guide- ada Agency, whose very creation reflects the lines in conjunction with ski area operators use of organizational redesign as a policy in- were rejected by environmentalists in their strument. Lamenting a “green ceiling” within entirety. Instead, the Panel heard suggestions the organization, the EI Panel recommended that “When a ski area’s lease runs out, shut transforming the parks agency into an advo- the things down, yank the equipment, raze cacy organization. the buildings and reclaim the access road.” A centralized approach to policy-making, • The Ecological Integrity (EI) Panel review including environmental policy, provides an (which released its final report last March) inviting target for small, highly focused and was billed as a participatory process, al- aggrieved groups. In order to be able to afford though a review of the organization affilia- sustaining a national park system guided by tions of the individuals invited to participate sound science (estimated by the EI Panel to in the Panel’s workshops (as well as the com- require $28 million per year in additional position of the Panel and secretariat them- funding) and management, new revenue selves) reveal that environmentalists, park generation mechanisms are going to be needed. professionals, and scientists clearly outnum- User fees, environmental entrepreneurship, and ber other interested stake holders. The rela- private stewardship all allow market tive influence of environmentalists is mechanisms naturally to protect the scarcity of reflected in the final report of the Panel, which Canada’s parks and wilderness. concluded that