The CRD’s Regional Parks Strategic Planning process is underway and the need to ensure biodiversity is the primary objective in our parks can not be understated.
The CRD’s current public survey (due April 4th) is open to interpretation and written in a public relations’ style which allows the CRD to appear to be doing all the right things by using modern catch phrases, however, there is a lack of transparency and clarity to properly inform the public of the CRD’s intentions. By doing so, misunderstandings and a broader use of our natural park systems for recreation beyond the simple enjoyment of being in nature as a walker/hiker, could result.
Infrastructure needs to remain minimal in our parks and not become sanitized by the needs of lobby groups with vested interests. The survey uses phrases and words like “sustainable service” and “adaptable” without context. What is a sustainable service? Nature already is sustainable. What does the CRD mean by adaptable? Nature is adaptable, however, does the CRD intend to adapt parks to suit special interest and recreation groups who can damage parks with uses beyond what parks should be: natural, quiet places to enjoy nature without harm to the surrounding environment?
Nature, left in its most natural state, takes action on climate change. What is the CRD proposing as climate action? The best climate action is leaving well enough alone and not making parks into something for everyone, or it will fail.
What does the CRD define as a “healthy, outdoor experience for all”? Are motorized vehicles or noisy, polluting boats considered a healthy, outdoor experience?
Parks are meant to provide a quiet oasis for contemplation of nature through low impact activities like hiking or walking. Recreational activities that disturb the soil, water or foliage should not be contemplated in parks (ie: motorized vehicles, additional park infrastructure, recreational activities that damage foliage or trees. If the activity isn’t able to protect and preserve the land or water, it isn’t the right venue for it. Parks can not be everything to everyone.
In the face of rapid population growth and Covid escalated park use, we need to urgently expand our parks without destroying the life supporting ecology that ensures our common vitality and survival.
Parks need to remain as natural oases for people to enjoy undisturbed by disc golf and biking trails, both of which would very much disrupt the current ecology and create irreparable damage and are better suited to areas already allocated for such use, ie: established biking trails and large playing fields readily available for disc golf users.
The CRD has declared a climate emergency in recognition of the need to act to secure a livable future. Other uses must be managed to be compatible with this primary objective.
The public at large must be representatively included in the new planning and management vision for our parks, not just special interest groups. There is broad public support for ecosystem protection as the overarching priority for parks. A survey providing examples and allowing input on questions without having to be in opposition would be more representative of the values of CRD residents.
As well, if the CRD truly wants to engage First Nations in a reconciliatory way, they must create opportunities for First Nations to play a leading role in park management and stewardship as primary partners vs public relations partners. And, finally, how is resource management being considered for parks as an “opportunity for reconciliation”?
The CRD’s Park Survey, as worded, has the potential to leave the public unaware of the impending and potential dismantling of our parks as we know and value them. We will not remain silent on this issue as biodiversity and conservation are more important now than ever.
May the CRD board use their responsibility as leaders to uphold global and national commitments to protect biodiversity and leave parks as peaceful havens for nature to thrive and humans to lightly enjoy primarily as hikers and walkers. We do not need more infrastructure within parks. To ensure park survival and resiliency, now is the time to insist that a lighter footprint is required and leave it at that.
After listening to recent Parks Committee meeting discussions I too have some real concerns about the ongoing Regional Parks Strategic Planning process.
During that discussion there was a lot of focus on ‘balancing’ recreational use with conservation. At a time when biodiversity is globally endangered and the CRD has declared a climate emergency in recognition of the need to act to secure a livable future, we must stay the course and keep biodiversity as the primary objective in our parks. Other uses must be managed to be compatible with ‘this’ primary objective.
In the face of rapid population growth and a Covid escalated rise in park use, there is no question that we need to urgently expand our parks system and managed it so that our parks can support the need for recreation (our mental health and well-being) without destroying the life supporting ecology that we and all life depend on.
I learned from the discussion that there would be no randomized public survey available before the completion of the 2022 Regional Parks Strategic Plan.
Instead focus group meetings have been held largely attended by organized recreation group members and there has been some polling of residents on specific issues. How will the views of the public at large, who in past statistically valid surveys have showed such strong support for protection of the parks’ biodiversity, be representatively included in the new planning and management vision for our parks?
I believe that in a climate crisis context broad public support to prioritize ecosystem protection as the over arching priority for parks remains strong, but without a survey able to confirm this how can we be sure that the process will be truly representative of the values of CRD residents?
We should not base the future of our precious park system on a process that strives for ‘balance’ and favours input from recreation user groups that outweighs the responsibility of our leaders to uphold global and national commitments to protect biodiversity. Nature must have a voice in this process because at the end of the day if our park ecology breaks down, and the parks fail…. and parks after all are where our regions biodiversity is protected…. then we all fail. This is what the science is telling us. This is what climate youth are asking for. We must do our part here …. in our place on the planet … to protect biodiversity.
I ask our CRD representatives …. Please honour the vision and leadership shown by previous boards who supported the creation of the remarkable park system that we now have. Their courage and commitment to create the parks levy and go boldly forward to acquire thousands of acres of new parkland, before those lands were forever lost to development, has shaped the face of our beautiful Capital Region and given us the outstanding quality of life we are blessed with.
We need real leadership now in defence of our parks and biodiversity in this region.
TO: CRD Regional Parks Committee
RE: Future Management of CRD Regional Parks
I am sending this email to members of the Regional Parks Committee as I am concerned about the quality and potential bias of the on-line Strategic Plan Survey.
To start, I am a biologist and am familiar with CRD Parks having been a parks volunteer and also a member of the citizen advisory council for both the 2000 Parks Master Plan and the 2012-2021 Regional Parks Strategic Plan processes. As well, much of my career has focused on the planning and management of park systems here in BC and across Canada.
As was emphasized in both the 2000 and 2017 processes, nature protection and conserving biodiversity is the priority of CRD Parks. Indeed, to quote from the 2017 Strategic Plan: ‘the parks (and trails) act as an ecological storehouse; and thus, the region will be sheltered from unbridled growth and the ecosystems will be safeguarded – unharmed, woven into the cultural fabric, and cherished for all time.’
With my background and this understanding, I was dismayed by the quality of the CRD Strategic Plan Survey and its lack of context and depth on critical issues. The questions themselves were full of jargon and were too generic and/or vague for the respondent to grapple with the future of the regional parks system. The survey lacked definitions and specificity, and along with other weaknesses caused me to think that an analysis of the survey could lead to almost any answer that one wanted. As well, since the survey is on-line and not of a random nature, the results can be easily skewed by a set of users who want their voice(s) to be heard and the results biased to reflect that voice.
To this end, I was surprised to learn that no outside Citizen Advisory Council has been appointed to help guide this review process, like the previous reviews.
The goal of the CRD Parks System, as confirmed in previous documents, is the protection of the region’s biodiversity through conservation, management, restoration and expansion. The integration of First Nations into park management is essential to achieving this purpose. If this goal has or is being considered for change then the public needs to know that, and the survey should be altered to examine the proposed change(s) accordingly.
Human access and recreational uses are not always compatible with the conservation of nature and thus shouldn’t receive the same weight in priority setting. Examples of these ‘human centric’ uses are mountain-biking, disc golf and slack lining. The survey should be examining these potential conflicts and therefore helping to determine when, where or if they should take place; which is not the approach currently being taken. To this end, the regional park classifications description is a key document, as this classification system underscores the different emphasis for each regional park – and these differences need to be acknowledged in their planning and management (page 72, Regional Parks Strategic Plan 2012-2021).
I was also surprised that the survey didn’t put more emphasis on the essential role of carbon sequestration that the regional parks system provides, particularly through its conservation efforts. The importance of acquiring and/or covenanting larger, biodiverse tracts of land – particularly those adjacent to existing parklands could also have received additional emphasis.
The connection between healthy ecosystems and human health is receiving more emphasis and taken a higher profile in people’s minds – particularly in this COVID era. Thus, it is essential the CRD Regional Parks continue to secure the region’s ecology into the future.
In closing, I wanted to contact you directly given my concerns about the quality of the Strategic Plan Survey.
I’d appreciate a reply confirming that the direction of Regional Parks is not changing, and that nature protection and conserving biodiversity will remain the top priority of CRD Regional Parks into the future.
Bob
Bob Peart
11166 Willow Road
North Saanich, BC
V8L 5K6
p: 250-655-0295
bobpeart@shaw.ca