next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
=0Amargin:0 --Apple-Mail-2-869606663 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree with Rob Woods. The visitation to Sable Island by eco-tourists could be tightly =20 controlled, as it is for the Gal=E1pagos Islands. It is easy to set up =20= a few marked trails, and require that visitors stay on roads, the few =20= trails, and the beach. The costs alone would prevent mass =20 visitation. The type of visitor would be largely influenced by self-=20 selection: probably only serious nature-lovers would make the trip. =20 It would be best if there were few "improvements": no casinos, hotels, =20= restaurants, &c. Bear in mind that Sable Island shrinks each year, and will not even be =20= there much longer. There is no great harm in letting a few visitors =20 on the island each year, and they could help support a human presence. =97 Paul Boyer On 29 Jan 2010, at 10:47 AM, Rob Woods wrote: > I do not see why Sable Island cannot be a national park but still =20 > require permits to visit. Nahanni NP requires all overnight visitors =20= > to register in advance and access is limited. Also even Float Plane =20= > day visitors are restricted to companies that have a registered =20 > landing permit. > > As for the number of visitors - this is an island 160KM offshore =20 > Canso across rough seas. Your average tourist is not going to make =20 > such a trip both because of cost and time to get there and =20 > especially if facilities are limited. Nahanni does not have visitors =20= > centre either. While I agree their would be more visitors to the =20 > Island than today, I think we are only going to attract the die hard =20= > enviromental tourist who is willing to pay the extra costs which =20 > could help the island and other nova scotia national parks. Access =20 > fees can be made financially significant. > > I am not saying there isnt a better solution but the National Park =20 > System has a lot of latitude with access. As a national park there =20 > also becomes restrictions on ownership, industry, hunting etc. =20 > Usually more so than other wildlife protect areas. > > Rob Woods > Georgefield NS > > From: Fritz McEvoy <fritzmcevoy@hotmail.com> > To: NS NATURE <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca> > Sent: Fri, January 29, 2010 10:27:37 AM > Subject: [NatureNS] Sable Island National Park proposal > > Hi All, > I've been following the discussion of the Feds proposed making =20 > Sable Island a national park on Parker Donham's "Contrarian" blog =20 > and wondered why I haven't seen any discussion here on the idea; =20 > good or bad. > Most of the feedback I've seen has been that it is a bad idea and =20= > at first blush I tend to agree. > The National parks are a wonderful institution but their =20 > philosophy (at least in the Cape Breton Highlands National Park;the =20= > one I know best) on protecting wilderness tends to waffle between =20 > protect everything and keep people out and let in the tourists and =20 > make parks pay for themselves. Over the last decade they have been =20 > doing the former by trying to limit park overuse and emphasizing =20 > more wilderness protection & research. This came after decades of a =20= > more tourist friendly philosophy that was more interested in visitor =20= > totals than wilderness protection. Lately they have turned to a =20 > mixture of the two; protect some parts and encourage tourist =20 > visitation in others. This is probably the best solution as swinging =20= > back and forth; at the whim of whatever philosophy is in vogue at =20 > the moment: makes it impossible to have a long term strategy that =20 > can have time to work for all parties involved. > The sable Island proposal has a few good things going for it; The =20= > National Parks have lots of money for research and would allow for =20 > the installation of infrastructure (permanent air strip, research =20 > facilities' weather station etc.) and a permanent human presence on =20= > the island. > On the other hand they want to allow much more access for tourists =20= > to visit and there is no protection from the oil & gas industries =20 > that I can see. > I don't think the province; who would have to approve this change in =20= > status; have stated a firm position; although they have not ruled it =20= > out and seem OK with further discussion. > For those interested in this proposal I recommend you check out =20 > Parker's blog as he has much more, and better stated, views =20 > including links to the actual proposal and a facebook page for those =20= > opposed to the plan. http://contrarian.ca > All the best. > Fritz McEvoy > Sunrise Valley, CB > > > Windows Live Messenger makes it easier to stay in touch - learn how! > > Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! --Apple-Mail-2-869606663 Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; = -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I agree with Rob = Woods.<div><br></div><div>The visitation to Sable Island by eco-tourists = could be tightly controlled, as it is for the Gal=E1pagos Islands. = It is easy to set up a few marked trails, and require that = visitors stay on roads, the few trails, and the beach. The costs = alone would prevent mass visitation. The type of visitor would be = largely influenced by self-selection: probably only serious = nature-lovers would make the trip. It would be best if there were = few "improvements": no casinos, hotels, restaurants, = &c.</div><div><br></div><div>Bear in mind that Sable Island shrinks = each year, and will not even be there much longer. There is no = great harm in letting a few visitors on the island each year, and they = could help support a human presence.</div><div><br></div><div>=97 Paul = Boyer</div><div><br><div><div>On 29 Jan 2010, at 10:47 AM, Rob Woods = wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote = type=3D"cite"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: = separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Times; font-size: medium; = font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; = letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: = auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; = widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; = -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; = -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: = auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div><div style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; = font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: = 12pt; "><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: = 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">I do not see why Sable Island cannot be a = national park but still require permits to visit. Nahanni NP requires = all overnight visitors to register in advance and access is limited. = Also even Float Plane day visitors are restricted to companies that have = a registered landing permit.</div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; = "> </div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">As for the number of visitors - = this is an island 160KM offshore Canso across rough seas. Your average = tourist is not going to make such a trip both because of cost and time = to get there and especially if facilities are limited. Nahanni does not = have visitors centre either. While I agree their would be more visitors = to the Island than today, I think we are only going to attract the die = hard enviromental tourist who is willing to pay the extra = costs which could help the island and other nova scotia national parks. = Access fees can be made financially significant.</div><div = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; "> </div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">I am not = saying there isnt a better solution but the National Park System has a = lot of latitude with access. As a national park there also becomes = restrictions on ownership, industry, hunting etc. Usually more so than = other wildlife protect areas.</div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; = "> </div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Rob Woods</div><div = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">Georgefield NS<br></div><div style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font-size: = 12pt; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; = "><br><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: = 0px; margin-left: 0px; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'times new roman', = 'new york', times, serif; "><font face=3D"Tahoma" size=3D"2"><hr = size=3D"1"><b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold; ">From:</span></b><span = class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> </span>Fritz McEvoy <<a = href=3D"mailto:fritzmcevoy@hotmail.com">fritzmcevoy@hotmail.com</a>><br= ><b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold; ">To:</span></b><span = class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> </span>NS NATURE <<a = href=3D"mailto:naturens@chebucto.ns.ca">naturens@chebucto.ns.ca</a>><br= ><b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold; ">Sent:</span></b><span = class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> </span>Fri, January 29, 2010 = 10:27:37 AM<br><b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold; = ">Subject:</span></b><span = class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> </span>[NatureNS] Sable Island = National Park proposal<br></font><br>Hi All,<br> I've been = following the discussion of the Feds proposed making Sable Island a = national park on Parker Donham's "Contrarian" blog and wondered why I = haven't seen any discussion here on the idea; good or = bad.<br> Most of the feedback I've seen has been that = it is a bad idea and at first blush I tend to agree.<span = class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> </span><br> The = National parks are a wonderful institution but their philosophy (at = least in the Cape Breton Highlands National Park;the one I know = best) on protecting wilderness tends to waffle between protect = everything and keep people out and let in the tourists and make = parks pay for themselves. Over the last decade they have been = doing the former by trying to limit park overuse = and emphasizing more wilderness protection & 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 two; protect some parts and encourage = tourist visitation in others. This is probably the best solution as = swinging back and forth; at the whim of whatever 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> The sable = Island proposal has a few good things going for it; The National Parks = have lots of money for research and would allow for the = installation of infrastructure (permanent air strip, research = facilities' weather station etc.) and a permanent human presence on = the island.<br> On the other hand they want to allow much more = access for tourists to visit and there is no protection from = the oil & gas industries that I can see.<span = class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>I don't think the = province; who would have to approve this change in status; have = stated a firm position; although they have not ruled it out and seem OK = with further discussion. <br> For those interested in = this proposal I recommend you check out Parker's blog as he has much = more, and better stated, views including links to the actual proposal = and a facebook page for those opposed to the plan.<span = class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> </span><a = href=3D"http://contrarian.ca/" target=3D"_blank" = rel=3D"nofollow">http://contrarian.ca</a><span = class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> </span><br> All the = best.<br>  = ; = Fritz = McEvoy<br> &nbs= p; = Sunrise Valley, CB <br><br><br><hr>Windows Live = Messenger makes it easier to stay in touch -<span = class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> </span><a = href=3D"http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=3D9706113" target=3D"_blank" = rel=3D"nofollow">learn how!</a></div></div></div><br><hr = size=3D"1">Looking for the perfect gift?<a = href=3D"http://www.flickr.com/gift/"><b><span = class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> </span>Give the gift of = Flickr!</b></a></div></span></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>= --Apple-Mail-2-869606663--
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects