nextCITY

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

Whistler's not in a national or provincial park. Do you honestly not understand the premise of national parks? Or do you not understand the difference between an alpine forest and a ski resort? Or are you trolling?

Originally Posted by Riise

You are looking at this through an almost purely anthropocentric lens. However, even anthropocentric environmental sustainability recognizes that the market will not protect the environment and user-demand should not dictate environmental policy.

I'm honestly not trolling. What determines the placement of national parks? Why is the area around Banff not allowed to have any development, but the areas of equal natural beauty/significance (to my eyes) around Golden or Whistler are allowed to be developed? Please don't tell me 'because it is in a park'.

Originally Posted by artvandelay

I agree that Parks Canada's number one mandate should be protecting the unspoiled landscapes in our national parks. Having said that, there's absolutely nothing wrong with improving upon areas that are already home to development. The lengths that some of these bureaucrats go to in order to obstruct and impede any change within park boundaries are ridiculous and not a productive use of public funds.

Park attendance is only going to increase and we need to continuously improve our infrastructure to accommodate this.

This is close to what I mean. The highway 1 corridor is not true wilderness. The places that are true wilderness are far away from that road and the surrounding towns, and we are lucky to have huge amounts of this land that are unspoiled and will remain that way.