Issuu on Google+

Managing for Mountain Pine Beetle in Kootenay and Banff National Parks: A Survey of Park Visitors and Local Residents B.L. McFarlane R.C.G. Stumpf-Allen D.O. Watson A report prepared for the Canadian Forest Service-Parks Canada Joint Initiative on Mountain Pine Beetle Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, 5320 – 122 Street, Edmonton, AB T6H 3S5 November 2004


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The mountain pine beetle(MPB) is endemic in all of Canada’s mountain national parks but has only reached epidemic levels in Kootenay, Yoho, and Waterton parks. Managing the beetle presents a challenge in devising control measures that are compatible with the ecological integrity mandate, acceptable to the public, and that do not have a negative effect on visitor experiences. A study was undertaken in 2003 to determine local resident and park visitors knowledge of mountain pine beetle, their attitudes towards it, and their preferences for mountain pine beetle control within the national parks. Data were collected by mail survey from visitors to Banff and Kootenay national parks and residents of towns in or near the parks and Calgary (n = 2,028). Some highlights include: •

The vast majority of respondents had at least some experience with the parks; less than 5% of each group had not visited Banff or Kootenay national parks in the last five years

Lack of resources such as expertise and funding and introduction of non-native plant and animal species were perceived as the greatest threats to the health and productivity of ecosystems in Banff and Kootenay

All groups considered the MPB issue important, wanted to be informed, and felt it was important to them that management actions conformed with their preferences

Respondents rated themselves as quite well informed about MPB. However, a more objective indicator of knowledge suggests that they were not very knowledgeable. For instance, a majority thought a single MPB could kill a young tree, did not know that MPB infects mostly old pine trees, thought MPB was imported from Europe, and that MPB is found in national parks across Canada.

2


Respondents had a negative view of the MPB. They agreed that the beetle is a threat to biodiversity, is an ecological disaster for national parks, and disagreed that the beetle should have a right to exist in the parks, should be protected in the parks, and is important in rejuvenating the forest.

They supported mountain pine beetle control in national parks, but preferred reactive methods, such as the removal of infected trees over small areas, over proactive approaches of removing or burning healthy but susceptible forests.

Backcountry users tended to be slightly better informed, had more positive attitudes toward the beetle, and were more in favour of letting the beetle run its course without intervention

Passive methods of communication that do not require a specific time commitment appear to be favored over more active types of communication by park users. Although passive forms of communication were also favored by local residents, they appear more willing to invest time in learning about park issues through active methods of communication.

Differences between the samples suggest they may be affected differently by management decisions, and different communication methods may be needed to reach residents and park visitors.

3


TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Mountain Pine Beetle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 The National Parks and the Mountain Pine Beetle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Sample Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 The Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Survey Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Survey Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Recreational Activities and Views of National Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Nature-Related Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Visits to National Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Activities in National Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Perceived Threats to National Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Park Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Interest in Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Communication Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 The Mountain Pine Beetle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Importance of the Mountain Pine Beetle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Knowledge of the Mountain Pine Beetle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Attitudes Towards Mountain Pine Beetle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Preferences for the Control of Mountain Pine Beetle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 New Ecological Paradigm Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 FIGURES 1. MPB Infestation in British Columbia, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2. MPB Infestation in British Columbia, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3. MPB Infestation in Kootenay National Park, 1939 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4. MPB Infestation in Kootenay National Park, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4


TABLES 1. Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2. Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3. Organizational Memberships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4. Dependence on natural resource sectors for economic livelihood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5. Highest level of education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6. Province of residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 7. Comparison of Resident Samples to 2001 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 8. Recreational activities in 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 9. Visits to Banff and Kootenay national parks in past five years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 10. Activities in Banff and Kootenay national parks in 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 11. Threats to ecosystems in Banff and Kootenay national parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 12. Interest in information pertaining to management of Canada’s national parks . . . . . . . . . . . 40 13. Effectiveness of communication methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 14. Importance of mountain pine beetle issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 15. Familiarity with mountain pine beetle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 16. Comparison of Awareness of Frontcountry Users Between On-Site and Mail Surveys . . . . 47 17. Knowledge of mountain pine beetle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 18. Level of respondents indicating “not sure” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 19. Attitudes toward the mountain pine beetle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 20. Preferences for control of mountain pine beetle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 21. New Ecological Paradigm Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 APPENDICES A. THE SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 B. COMMENTS ON COMMUNICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 C. ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Comments related to Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Comments related to Logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Comments related to Chemical Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Comments related to Mountain Pine Beetle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Comments related to the survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Other Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

5


BACKGROUND Mountain Pine Beetle The mountain pine beetle (MPB), Dendroctonus ponderosae, is a naturally occurring insect in the mature lodgepole pine forests of British Columbia and Alberta. It is considered by foresters and others to be one of the most destructive forest pests in western Canada. Recent outbreaks in British Columbia have been declared a forest health emergency due to the effect on the pine forest, the forestry industry and forest dependent communities (BC Ministry of Forests 2001). However, the MPB is also important to the forest ecosystem; outbreaks create succession by opening gaps in the forest which allow new and increased growth for young trees and increased species diversity (Parks Canada 2004a). The principal host of the MPB is lodgepole pine, although western white pine, limber pine, Scots pine and other pines are also vulnerable (Ives and Wong 1988). While spruce and Douglas fir have been attacked by MPB, they are not suitable hosts and broods rarely develop on them. After finding a suitable tree, adult female beetles secrete pheromones to attract males, which in turn attract more beetles, resulting in a mass attack (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2003). The beetles then bore into the tree and feed on the phloem, the portion of the trunk which carries sugar from the pine needles to the roots. The females lay eggs in long vertical galleries and the larvae subsequently bore lateral galleries (Ives and Wong 1988). Larvae overwinter in these galleries and resume feeding in the spring; they emerge as adults in midsummer to move to new host trees. Infestation with MPB also generally results in the introduction of blue-stain fungi, which plugs water and nutrient transport vessels within the tree

6


and leaves a blue or grey tinge to the wood (Natural Resources Canada Canadian Forest Service 2003a). While trees can survive low levels of MPB activity, mass attack generally results in the death of the tree, due in part to the girdling effect of the larval galleries and in part to the bluestain fungi the beetles transmit. Characteristic discoloration of foliage usually occurs in the spring following the infestation, resulting in stands of pines with red needles (Ives and Wong 1988). The likelihood of an epidemic outbreak of MPB increases with an abundance of susceptible pine, favorable stand density and sustained mild winters and warm dry summers (Whitehead et al. 2001). Pine susceptibility increases sharply after 80 years of age, trees lose their vigor and resistance to infection. Stand density affects the ability of the beetle to spread between susceptible trees. Fire reduces the risk of widespread outbreaks of MPB by both physically destroying the insects and by breaking up contiguous areas of suitable hosts (Parks Canada 2004b). Largely due to fire suppression, the area of mature pine forest has tripled in size in British Columbia since 1910, from 2.5 million to 8.0 million hectares; over half of British Columbia’s lodgepole pine forests are now mature (BC Ministry of Forests Forest Analysis Branch 2003). This increases the likelihood of landscape scale infestations of MPB. Additionally, cold temperatures (below -25c for a sustained period) reduce MPB populations, by killing both adult and larval stages of MPBs. Recent mild winters have allowed populations to increase, resulting in territorial expansion beyond what is considered the beetle’s usual range. It is suspected that climate change is contributing to the mild temperatures and hypothesized that the trend may continue (Carroll et al. 2003).

7


As long as weather remains favorable and a supply of mature pines available, it may be impossible to truly control MPB populations (Hughes and Drever 2001). However, forest managers use prescribed burning and silviculture to slow the spread of MPB by reducing the quantity of infected and susceptible trees (BC Ministry of Forests Forest Analysis Branch 2003). Thinning of stands of susceptible trees is also used to improve tree vigor and reduce MPB dispersal (Whitehead et al. 2001). Under some conditions, pheromones are used to concentrate beetles in smaller areas as a means of increasing the effectiveness of other control methods. In Canada, MPB occurs primarily in British Columbia where it was first recorded by foresters in 1910, although scars on lodgepole pine trees provide evidence of MPB activity going back hundreds of years (Natural Resources Canada Canadian Forest Service 2003b). Since that first report, MPB activity has been reported annually, peaking in 1984 when over 480,000 hectares were affected (Wood and Unger 1996). Cold temperatures in October 1984 and November 1985 reduced populations into and through the early 1990s. However, by 1999 populations were again on the rise (BC Ministry of Forests Forest Analysis Branch 2003) (Figure 1). BC is now in the midst of the largest epidemic ever recorded (BC Ministry of Forests Forest Practices Branch 2003). Over 4 million hectares of forest were infected in 2003, primarily in the central interior forests (Figure 2), and the outer periphery of the infestation is continuing to expand (BC Ministry of Forests Forest Analysis Branch 2003). The current infestation is projected to result in a significant decline in timber supply in approximately 15 years, when trees killed by MPB deteriorate beyond merchantable condition (BC Ministry of Forests Forest Analysis Branch 2003). An analysis of 12 management units in central BC, where the MPB infestation is most severe, showed a projected decline of timber

8


supply to 19% below pre-uplift Annual Allowable Cuts.1 This effect could be felt for 100 years, depending on the rate of regeneration of infested forests. At the uplift harvest level, about 200 million cubic meters of dead pine would not be harvested before it deteriorated. That is, of the total volume of lodgepole pine killed by MPB during the current epidemic, while increased AACs would allow much to be salvaged within the “shelf life� of the wood, 200 million cubic meters would be unsalvageable. At an average stumpage rate of about $15 per cubic meter, the effect of this loss on provincial revenues would be about $3 billion (Skelton and Kloster 2003). Lodgepole pine is half of the growing stock in interior BC and is the predominate commercially harvested timber (Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service 2003a). To help address the issue of MPB management, in October 2002 the Government of Canada announced a five-year, $40 million Mountain Pine Beetle Initiative, which brings together the Governments of Canada and BC, national research institutes, First Nations and industry to cooperate on improving control methods, reducing the risk of spread, rehabilitating affected forests, and other MPB related issues.

1

Annual Allowable Cuts (AAC) have been increased to allow industry to harvest additional timber in the face of the MPB infestation. Comparisons are made to the pre-uplift AACs, which are the best baseline for measuring mid-term (16-100 years) timber supply impacts (BC Ministry of Forests Forest Analysis Branch 2003). 9


Figure 1. MPB Infestation in British Columbia, 2000 (BC Ministry of Forests Forest Practices Branch 2004)

Figure 2. MPB Infestation in British Columbia, 2003 (BC Ministry of Forests Forest Practices Branch 2004) 10


The National Parks and the Mountain Pine Beetle The MPB is endemic in all of Canada’s mountain national parks, but has only reached epidemic levels in Kootenay, Yoho, and Waterton. In Kootenay, 65,000 hectares were infested during the 1940s (Parks Canada 2004a) (Figure 3). More recently, an infestation in Kootenay peaked in 1995-96, affecting an area of 2,400 ha and 3,100 ha in those years (Unger 2002). After several years of reduced activity, beetle activity increased again in Kootenay in 2003, affecting 1,280 hectares. The number of trees killed also rose from 45,000 in 2000 (Unger 2002) (Figure 4), to 60,000 in 2002, and 100,000 in 2003 (Unger 2003). Historically, Banff National Park has been less affected by MPB outbreaks than Kootenay. Although it is endemic to the park, MPB outbreaks have been much smaller and historically not a significant natural disturbance agent. For instance, in the 1940s the outbreak in Banff affected only a fraction of the area affected in Kootenay, about 4,000 hectares (Parks Canada 2004a). There was another small outbreak in the southern part of the park in the 1980s. During the most recent outbreak, the number of trees infected in Banff National Park rose from about 50 in 1997 to between 5,000 and 8,000 in 2003 (Parks Canada 2003a). In 2003, approximately 4,000 recently killed trees were detected (compared to 1900 in 2002). Recently, the beetle has extended its range into previously uninfected areas of Banff National Park. In 1997, MPB was found beyond its historical range in Banff, in the Brewster Creek, Healy Creek and Bryant Creek drainages. By 2003, MPB infestations increased significantly in the area of Healy Creek and Mount Norquay, and MPB activity was discovered for the first time along the Bow River between Mount Cory and Castle Junction and in the Lake Minnewanka-Cascade River area. MPB is now also present in the warmer, drier forests of the

11


Bow Valley, including areas outside Banff National Park. For example, in 2002, MPB infested trees were found in the Bow Valley Wildland Park and Canmore (Lux 2003). In addition, killed trees attributed to MPB were detected in Jasper National Park in 1999 (Unger 1999). Some scientists suggest that if the MPB reaches the jack pine forest of central Alberta, it could spread across Canada (Carroll et al. 2003). Since 1988, national parks have been managed based on the principle of ecological integrity (EI), to preserve the sustainability of the characteristic species and processes of the natural region (Parks Canada 2004c). Therefore, parks are generally managed with minimal interference in natural processes, including insect infestations. Based on EI there are arguments both for and against controlling MPB in national parks. On the one hand, MPB may be viewed as a native insect in the parks’ lodgepole pine ecosystems that should be allowed to persist without interference. It plays a role in rejuvenating the forest ecosystem by creating gaps in the forest cover allowing new and increased growth for young trees and increased species diversity (Parks Canada 2004a). On the other hand, the current outbreak of MPB may be viewed as a symptom of an unhealthy ecosystem that is, at least partially, the result of fire suppression policies in the parks. Undertaking management (such as prescribed burning) to restore ecosystems to more natural levels of variation and to prevent uncontrolled wildfires is considered consistent with the ecological integrity mandate (Parks Canada 2004d). By restoring fire to fire-dependent ecosystems, Parks Canada hopes to recreate a mosaic of younger stands of lodgepole pine and aspen, which will also reduce the potential for large-scale MPB outbreaks. Thus, both control and non-control of MPB may be compatible with the parks EI mandate.

12


Figure 3. MPB Infestation in Kootenay National Park, 1939 (Courtesy of Parks Canada)

Figure 4. MPB Infestation in Kootenay National Park, 2000 (Courtesy of Parks Canada) 13


Based on EI goals, and requests for action from the Alberta government which is concerned about potential impacts on provincial lands and the Alberta forest industry (Ellis 2003), Banff National Park has responded with three different strategies for MPB (Parks Canada 2004a). In the area west of the town of Banff, there is a zone of non-intervention, where beetle populations fluctuate without controls. In other areas, prescribed burns are used to reduce buildup of mature pine stands. For instance, in 2003, the Fairholme prescribed burn near the park’s east entrance removed 4,420 hectares of beetle habitat and beetle attacked trees. A research project is now underway to test the effectiveness of this burn in reducing MPB survival and reproductive rates relative to unburned areas. Finally, sanitation cutting, in combination with pheromone baiting and prescribed burns, is used to cut and remove or cut and burn attacked trees to slow the growth of the MPB population. For instance, in 2003, 2,725 attacked trees were cut and burned. 524 pheromone baits were used to concentrate beetles in known areas. These areas have subsequently been surveyed, and about 950 infested trees were removed or are scheduled for removal. Although Kootenay National Park uses prescribed burns to meet EI objectives, it has not implemented measures specifically aimed at controlling MPB populations. Controlling the beetle to prevent its invasion and subsequent damage to timber supply areas presents a challenge for managers in Canada’s national mountain parks. The challenge arises in devising control measures that are compatible with the ecological integrity mandate, acceptable to the public, and that do not have a negative effect on visitor experiences. An informed and supportive public will be crucial for an effective MPB control program within the national parks.

14


In 2003, we undertook a study to examine the familiarity of park visitors and local residents with MPB and control measures, acceptance of potential control measures within parks, and information needs. Specifically, the study examined personal experience with Banff and Kootenay national parks, views of threats to ecosystem health in the national parks, preferences for park communications, the importance of MPB to respondents, knowledge of the MPB, attitudes toward the beetle, preferences for managing the beetle in national parks, environmental value orientation, and demographics.

METHODS Sample Selection Five samples, obtained by three different methods, were included in the survey. During the summer of 2003, staff from Parks Canada conducted on-site interviews with visitors in carbased campgrounds and visitor reception centers (Leake et al. 2003). During the interviews, respondents were questioned about their visit to the park, number of previous visits, awareness of the MPB, and where they lived. Canadian visitors were asked whether they would be willing to participate in a mail survey concerning park management. If they answered yes, their name and address were recorded. A total of 1,703 interviews were conducted, resulting in 552 people willing to participate. Results from the on-site survey and preliminary analysis of the results from the mail survey indicated that the campground and visitor center samples did not differ on the variables of interest in the study. Thus, the two groups were combined and are referred to as the “frontcountry� sample. It is important to note that 2003 was a severe fire year in the parks. For example, the Tokkum-Verendrye fire burned 12.6% of Kootenay National Park (Parks

15


Canada 2003b). This may have affected visitation to the parks, both in numbers and in the type of visitors. The second sample consists of backcountry users, who did an overnight backpacking trip in the summer of 2003. Part of the process of obtaining a permit asked if people would be willing to be surveyed about park issues. Out of a total of 2,470 permits issued from the Banff, Lake Louise, Radium and Field park offices, 316 Canadians with complete useable addresses agreed to be surveyed and were included in the “backcountry” sample. Again, fire in the parks may have impacted this sample; the backcountry in both Banff and Kootenay was closed throughout July, reducing backcountry usage for the season. The other 3 samples were obtained by telephone solicitation of persons willing to participate in a mail survey concerning MPB. By design, the gateway communities of Banff and Kootenay parks were invited to participate. The communities close to Kootenay National Park, referred to as “Columbia Valley”, included Radium, Invermere, Windermere, Edgewater and Fairmont Hot Springs. The gateway communities of Banff National Park, referred to as “Bow Valley”, included Banff, Canmore, and Harvie Heights. The final sample solicited by phone were residents of Calgary, who were considered as a primary user group of the parks. For the telephone solicitation, 9,461 listed telephone numbers from a randomly selected list from the three study areas were contacted. Of these, there were 3,507 where a qualified respondent could not be reached (for sample selection, the respondent had to be a resident of the household, and over 18 years old): equal numbers of men and women were obtained for each sample. 1,817 were ineligible phone numbers (e.g. fax machine number). There were 4,099 dial-ups with qualified people answering and 1,893 agreeing to participate (response rate of

16


45.8%). This was reduced to 1,889 for the final sample. On average, it took 2.8 dials to reach each household called.

The Questionnaire Data were collected by mail survey. Dillman’s (2000) Tailored Design Method was used to guide survey design and implementation. The questionnaire was designed by the Social Science Research Group of the Canadian Forest Service, in consultation with Parks Canada staff, and Canadian Forest Service experts on the MPB. A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix A. Section One of the questionnaire focused on recreational activities and views on threats to national parks. Respondents were asked in which nature-related activities they participated in 2003, how many times they had visited Banff and/or Kootenay national parks since 1999, and in which recreational activities they had participated within the parks in 2003. They were then asked to rate several potential threats as to how great a risk each posed to the health and productivity of ecosystems in Banff and Kootenay national parks. Respondents rated each threat from 1 to 7, with 1 = poses no risk and 7 = poses a great risk. Section Two asked about preferences for park information. Respondents were asked to indicate on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 = not interested at all and 5 = very interested, how interested they were in being informed of issues pertaining to the management of Canada’s national parks. Respondents indicating at least some interest (score > 1) rated the effectiveness of various methods. The methods were rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 = not effective at all and 5 = very

17


effective. An open-ended question allowed respondents to indicate other means by which they may like to receive information about park issues. Section Three focused on respondents’ views and familiarity with the MPB within Canada’s national parks. First, respondents were asked how important the issue is to them personally, how important it is that they be kept informed, and how important it is that management decisions comply with their preferences. Respondents rated each question from 1 to 5, with 1 = not important at all and 5 = very important. Second, knowledge of the MPB was assessed using a subjective, self-rated format and an objective indicator of true or false statements. In the self-rated format respondents rated their familiarity with the beetle ranging from 1 = never heard of it to 4 = know a lot about it. Those indicating at least some knowledge of the MPB (score > 2) were presented with a series of true or false statements related to the beetle. Fourteen statements were developed based on MPB literature and consultation with research scientists and entomologists familiar with the MPB. The statements were rated as true or false with a “not sure” option. The number of correct responses was used as an objective indicator of knowledge of MPB. Third, attitude towards the MPB in the national parks was measured using a series of 10 evaluative statements: 5 statements indicating a positive evaluation (e.g., “the MPB helps ensure that forests are healthy”) and 5 indicating a negative evaluation (e.g., “the MPB is a threat to biodiversity”). Respondents rated the statements on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. Factor analysis identified 2 factors corresponding to the positive and negative evaluations. One statement (“there is no way to control the spread of mountain pine beetle”) did not load on the factors and was excluded from the attitudinal analysis. An attitudinal score was created by reverse coding statements that

18


represented a negative evaluation and summing the ratings on all statements. A summed attitudinal score with a possible minimum of 9 (representing a very negative attitude towards MPB) and maximum of 45 (representing a very positive attitude towards MPB) was calculated for each respondent. Section Four of the questionnaire began with some background information about MPB in Banff and Kootenay national parks and different control options. Respondents were then asked to indicate their views on each control option within the parks. They rated the statements on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 = strongly oppose to 5 = strongly favor. They also had the option of indicating they had “no opinion.� Section Five contained the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale (Dunlap et al. 2000). The NEP represents fundamental views on the relationship between people and the environment. Hence, the NEP constitutes a worldview of the environment that influences attitudes and beliefs about more specific environmental issues such as the MPB. A high score on the NEP indicates a pro-ecological orientation. The NEP consists of 15 statements rated on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. A principal components factor analysis was consistent with Dunlap et al.’s (2000) results suggesting the NEP scale consists of one factor. Statements with a negative loading were reverse coded and a NEP score was created by summing the individual statement scores. Scores ranged from a possible low of 15 to a high of 75. Finally, Section Six collected demographic information including gender, age, education, membership in fishing, hunting or other environmental or conservation organizations, and dependence of a household member on income from natural resource sectors.

19


The questionnaire concluded with an open-ended question allowing respondents to provide additional comments on MPB control, park management or other issues.

Survey Implementation The questionnaire was tested on 3 groups: social scientists familiar with questionnaire design, scientists and managers who are experts in MPB research and management, and a focus group consisting of respondents with varied backgrounds and familiarity with the MPB. Adjustments were made to the initial design to reduce the length of the survey and to clarify instructions. The first mail-out was sent on November 28, 2003 and included a cover letter, questionnaire, and postage paid return envelope. This was followed on December 10, 2003 with a reminder post card. A second complete survey package was mailed to non-respondents on January 2, 2004.

Survey Response Of the 2,757 surveys mailed, a total of 67 were returned to sender, reducing the effective sample to 2,690. A total of 2,028 completed surveys were received by the cutoff date of February 13, 2004. (Another 26 were received after this date but not included in the analysis). The overall response rate for the mail-out was 75.4%, fairly evenly distributed among the samples. Response rates for the samples were: Columbia Valley 77.0%, Bow Valley 73.3%, Calgary 75.3%, backcountry 80.9% and frontcountry 72.6%.

20


RESULTS Demographics Although the samples of residents of Bow Valley, Columbia Valley and Calgary had equal numbers of men and women, in the Columbia Valley more men responed to the mail survey (Table 1). This may indicate greater interest in the issue among men, possibly due to employment in a natural resource sector. Relative to other groups, the Columbia Valley sample had significantly more respondents with household members employed in the forestry and mining sectors (Table 4). The backcountry respondents were predominately male. This is consistent with the lists of backcountry users received from park offices and with other studies of backcountry users in North America, which show backcountry users tend to be male, young, and well educated (Lucas 1980, 1985, 1989; Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987; Watson et al. 1992). However, backcountry registrations may be completed more often by men in the group, thus skewing the sample to include an overrepresentation of men (Roggenbuck 1988). Frontcountry respondents were also somewhat more likely to be male. This is consistent with the gender mix of those in the on-site survey who were willing to receive the written survey. Table 1. Gender Survey group; % of respondents Residents Gender

Park Visitors

Columbia Valley

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

Male

55.4

48.1

51.0

70.9

58.4

Female

44.6

51.9

49.0

29.1

41.6

21


Chi-square=38.3; DF=4; p<.0001. There was a wide range of ages, but most respondents fell into the 35-54 age range (Table 2). Backcountry users tended to be younger than other groups, with many more respondents in the 25-34 category. Residents of Columbia Valley tended to be older, with a much larger number in the 65 or older category and fewer in the 25-34 category.

22


Table 2. Age Survey group; % of respondents Residents Age Group

Park Visitors

Columbia Valley

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

18-24

1.9

3.0

5.3

9.1

3.6

25-34

8.3

20.9

21.0

34.2

14.6

35-44

22.3

27.1

27.4

21.4

27.6

45-54

28.4

25.1

25.2

25.1

27.9

55-64

21.0

14.0

11.0

8.2

18.7

65 or older

18.2

9.9

10.2

2.1

7.4

Mean Age1 50.2b 44.6a 43.5a 38.6c 45.6a (Std Dev) (15.2) (15.8) (15.7) (13.1) (13.7) Chi-square=174.0; DF=24; p<.0001. 1 Any two means in a row that do not share a letter are significantly different (p<0.05) according to Tukeyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s studentized range test. At least 23% of each group belonged to at least one recreation or environment related organization (Table 3). Residents of the Columbia Valley were more likely to hold memberships in fishing and hunting organizations than other groups. Backcountry users were more likely and Calgary residents and frontcountry users less likely to belong to natural history or birdwatching clubs or other outdoor recreation clubs.

23


Table 3. Organizational Memberships Survey group; % of respondents Residents Organization

Park Visitors

Columbia Valley

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

ChiSquare

p value

Fishing

8.6

5.0

4.4

2.5

3.6

17.8

<.0001

Hunting

10.1

1.8

2.2

1.7

4.1

54.5

<.0001

Natural History or birdwatching club

3.6

4.6

2.4

6.6

2.8

9.6

0.0474

Other outdoor recreation clubs

21.6

26.7

13.4

33.1

16.1

51.5

<.0001

Other environmental or conservation organizations

13.0

16.2

9.2

13.6

12.2

10.2

0.0372

I do not belong to any of these

63.2

60.5

76.6

56.6

70.4

43.4

<.0001

Respondents showed a high level of dependence on a natural resource sector, ranging from 30% among frontcountry users to 65% among Columbia Valley residents (Table 4). Residents of the Columbia Valley tended to be much more likely to have a member of their household who worked in forestry or mining, and residents of both Bow Valley and Columbia Valley were much more likely to have a family member who worked in the tourism industry or a natural resource agency. Calgary residents were more likely to depend on income from the oil and gas industry.

24


Table 4. Dependence on natural resource sectors for economic livelihood Survey group; % of respondents Residents Industry

Park Visitors

Columbia Valley

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

ChiSquare

p value

Forest industry

28.3

7.8

6.2

5.0

5.9

170.8

<.0001

Mining industry

7.2

4.6

2.7

0.8

3.9

20.4

<.0001

A natural resource agency

8.2

9.6

2.2

3.3

3.9

33.4

<.0001

Oil and gas industry

9.9

8.2

32.7

19.8

15.9

120.7

<.0001

Tourism industry

40.9

53.6

6.2

12.8

9.0

398.8

<.0001

Nobody in the household depends on them

35.4

35.9

59.6

61.6

70.0

166.2

<.0001

There was wide variation in education level between the groups (Table 5). For instance, the percentage of respondents having at least a Bachelor degree ranged from 27% to 73%. Backcountry users tended to have a much higher level of education than other groups, with all having at least a high school diploma, nearly 3 in 4 having at least a bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degree and 31.0% having a graduate degree. Residents of the Columbia Valley tended to have less education, with just over 1 in 4 having a bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degree or more and over 30% having a high school diploma or less. The other three groups had much more similar levels of education.

25


Table 5. Highest level of education Survey group; % of respondents Residents Highest level of education

Park Visitors

Columbia Valley

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

Grade 9 or less

4.4

0.5

1.3

0.0

1.8

Some High School

8.8

2.0

3.7

0.0

2.6

High School Graduate

17.7

10.0

13.1

4.1

10.3

Technical School or Community College

28.8

24.2

24.7

13.1

25.4

Some University

13.2

19.7

15.3

9.4

13.3

University Degree (Bachelor)

16.8

26.0

27.1

31.0

23.3

Some Graduate Studies

4.6

5.7

5.7

11.4

9.0

5.7

12.0

9.2

31.0

14.4

Graduate University Degree Chi-square=254.6; DF=28; p<.0001.

The origin of respondents shows that most were from Alberta or British Columbia (Table 6). All of the Bow Valley and Calgary samples were from Alberta; 6% of Columbia Valley sample also provided an Alberta mailing address, suggesting they were not permanent residents of the valley. Indeed, the Columbia Valley has 9,000 full-time residents, plus an additional 5,000 to 10,000 summer residents (Columbia Valley Chamber of Commerce 2002-2004). Additionally, 74% of backcountry and 59% of frontcountry samples were from Alberta, and 11% and 14%, respectively, were from BC.

26


Table 6. Province of residence Survey group; number and percentage of respondents Residents Province

Park Visitors

Columbia Valley

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

Alberta

271 (5.6%)

444 (100%)

461 (100%)

182 (74.0%)

231 (58.5%)

British Columbia

453 (94.4%)

28 (11.4%)

57 (14.4%)

4 (1.6%)

18 (4.6%)

Manitoba New Brunswick

1

1 (0.3%)

Nova Scotia

2 (0.8%)

2 (0.5%)

Ontario

12 (4.9%)

54 (13.7%)

Quebec

7 (2.8%)

12 (3.0%)

Saskatchewan 11 (4.5%) Some residents of the Columbia Valley provided an Alberta mailing address.

20 (5.1%)

To help evaluate how representative the samples of residents are of the community they are meant to represent, a comparison was done of gender, age and education level between the resident samples and Statistics Canada 2001 Census (Table 7). For these comparisons, the respondents under 20 years of age were excluded, and the educational categories were merged to conform with 2001 Census categories. As previously indicated, males were over-represented in the Columbia Valley sample. As well, older people and those with higher levels of education are over-represented in each of the three resident samples. This suggests respondents are representative of national park visitors, who have a mean age of 44 to 46 (Accord Research et al. 2000) and wilderness users, who tend to be highly educated (Watson et al. 1992; Lucas 1989; Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987). Thus, respondents may better represent members of the public that have a greater interest in the national parks than other members of the public. 27


Table 7. Comparison of Resident Samples to 2001 Census Region; % of people aged 20 and over1 Census Category

Columbia Valley2

Bow Valley3

Calgary4

Census

Sample

Census

Sample

Census

Sample

Male

50.2

55.2

50.7

48.2

49.4

50.7

Female

49.8

44.8

49.3

51.8

50.6

49.3

Gender

4.65

Chi-Square

1.0

0.3

Age 20-24

8.7

1.1

15.2

2.4

10.3

4.8

25-34

16.1

7.7

27.9

19.4

22.5

20.7

35-44

23.4

22.6

24.1

27.6

25.0

27.0

45-54

24.2

28.7

16.9

25.9

19.6

25.6

55-64

13.1

21.5

7.8

14.6

10.1

11.3

65+

14.4

18.4

8.2

10.1

12.5

10.6

84.15

Chi-Square

105.05

23.55

Education Without High School Diploma

24.1

13.7

13.4

2.4

20.1

5.0

High School Graduate

11.4

17.2

11.0

9.4

10.6

12.8

Technical School or Community College

46.6

28.7

42.2

24.5

36.7

25.3

Some University

6.8

13.3

11.2

19.3

9.2

14.8

Bachelors Degree or more

11.1

27.2

22.3

44.3

23.4

42.1

Chi-Square 200.75 187.85 147.75 1 The figures for the samples were re-calculated to include only those respondents aged 20 and up, in order to allow comparison with the 2001 Census figures. 2 Columbia Valley is approximated by census sub-divisions: East Kootenay A (01 017), Invermere (01 039), Radium Hot Springs (01 040), Columbia Lake 3 (01 804), and Shuswap (01 806). 3 Bow Valley is approximated by census sub-divisions: Canmore (15 023) and Banff (15 035). 4 Calgary is approximated by census sub-division Calgary (06 016). 5 Significant to a level of p<.05.

28


Recreational Activities and Views of National Parks Nature-Related Activities Respondents from all survey groups were active in nature-related activities; less than 4% of each group indicated they did not participate in any of the recreational activities (Table 8). Visiting parks and other natural areas was the most common activity, followed by reading about nature, visiting zoos, aquariums or natural history museums, and purchasing nature-related arts and crafts. For all the recreational activities, except purchasing of art, crafts or posters of nature, there were significant differences in participation between the groups. Backcountry users were more likely and residents of Calgary less likely to have read about nature (93.1% and 76.3%, respectively) and to have visited a national park, provincial park or other natural area (100.0% and 90.2%, respectively) than members of other groups. Residents of the Columbia Valley were less likely to have visited a zoo, aquarium or museum of natural history (35.0% compared to between 51.0% and 61.9% for the other groups), possibly as a result of the distance to such facilities for residents of the Columbia Valley relative to other groups.

29


Table 8. Recreational activities in 2003 Survey group; % of respondents taking part1 Residents Activity

Park Visitors

Columbia Valley

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

ChiSquare

p value

Read books, magazines or articles about nature

81.4

86.6

76.3

93.1

84.7

38.8

<.0001

Purchased art, crafts or posters of nature

39.7

43.3

34.6

40.7

41.3

7.8

0.0981

Visited a zoo, aquarium or museum of natural history

35.0

51.0

61.9

52.9

60.0

82.7

<.0001

Visited a national park, provincial park or other natural area

91.8

94.8

90.2

100.0

98.0

44.7

<.0001

Did not take part 3.4 2.7 2.2 0.0 1.3 11.0 in any of these activities 1 Columns do not total 100% as respondents could answer in multiple categories.

0.0270

Visits to National Parks The vast majority of respondents had at least some experience with the parks; less than 5% of each group had not visited Banff or Kootenay national parks in the last five years and a majority of all groups except frontcountry users had visited Banff or Kootenay national parks at least 6 times in the previous five years (Table 9). Residents of Calgary tended to have visited a moderate to high number of times, and a majority of the Columbia Valley, Bow Valley and backcountry groups had visited more than 10 30


times in the past five years. For residents of the Columbia Valley and Bow Valley, this is likely a result of where they live, in or adjacent to the parks. Frontcountry users tended to have visited Banff or Kootenay less often during the last five years than members of the other groups, probably reflecting their varied origins. While some members of the frontcountry group were residents of nearby communities, 27% were from provinces other than Alberta or British Columbia and would have greater distances to travel (see Table 6 for origin details). Due to sampling techniques, all respondents from the park visitors groups should have indicated at least one trip to the parks. However, some backcountry and frontcountry users indicated they had not visited either park in the past five years. This may reflect uncertainty about park boundaries. For example, some respondents indicated they had visited Lake Louise but had not visited Banff National Park. As well, some of the backcountry users may have in fact purchased their backcountry permit in Field (one of the sites that provided the backcountry sample), but visited Yoho National Park without visiting Banff or Kootenay parks. Finally, the Visitor Reception Centre in Radium, where some frontcountry visitors were first surveyed, is technically outside Kootenay National Park. It may be that some respondents from that site did not in fact visit the parks.

31


Table 9. Visits to Banff and Kootenay national parks in past five years Survey group; % of respondents visiting Residents Number of Visits

Park Visitors

Columbia Valley

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

None

2.3

0.9

4.8

0.8

1.3

1 to 5 times

19.6

6.2

28.8

24.4

49.5

6 to 10 times

15.8

3.2

24.5

14.6

18.1

89.8

41.9

60.2

31.1

more than 10 times 62.2 Chi-square=402.7; DF=12; p<.0001. Activities in National Parks

All groups were quite involved in recreational activities in the parks in 2003. Overall, day hikes, watching wildlife, camping, and downhill skiing were the most popular activities (Table 10). For all groups except residents of Columbia Valley, horseback riding on park trails was the least common activity; residents of Columbia Valley were less likely to have participated in rock or ice climbing. Other activities such as overnight backpacking, rock or ice climbing, fishing, canoeing or kayaking, and golfing were also uncommon. Residents of the Bow Valley were very active in the mountain parks in 2003. Relative to other groups, high numbers of Bow Valley residents went mountain biking, wildlife watching, downhill skiing, cross-country skiing, fishing, canoeing, horseback riding and golfing. Only 8% did not participate in any activities. Backcountry users were most likely to go overnight backpacking, day hiking, camping, and rock or ice climbing, and were active in other adventurerelated activities.

32


Residents of the Columbia Valley were the least active in the mountain parks, with nearly a third indicating they did not participate in any of the activities in 2003. This may reflect more convenient options for recreational activities closer to home, such as Windermere, Panorama or Fairmont Hot Springs.

33


Table 10. Activities in Banff and Kootenay national parks in 2003 Survey group; % of respondents taking part1 Residents Activity

1

Park Visitors

Columbia Valley

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

ChiSquare

p value

No recreational activities

29.6

7.8

25.8

2.4

6.1

180.4

<.0001

Day hikes on park trails

50.3

85.8

59.4

90.7

83.2

249.7

<.0001

Mountain biking on park trails

6.7

34.1

12.2

22.0

18.1

129.2

<.0001

Camping in a serviced campground

13.0

30.7

26.0

62.6

61.0

315.8

<.0001

Watching birds or other wildlife

45.1

59.5

31.9

49.2

57.1

85.6

<.0001

Overnight backpacking

5.0

22.0

5.7

91.5

10.5

912.2

<.0001

Rock or ice climbing

1.5

15.3

4.6

26.8

7.9

149.9

<.0001

Downhill skiing

17.7

57.0

26.2

45.5

23.0

208.4

<.0001

Cross-country skiing

13.0

43.5

10.3

38.2

11.2

242.1

<.0001

Fishing

9.5

15.6

7.6

7.3

7.9

22.1

0.0002

Canoeing or kayaking

7.1

23.8

6.3

13.4

10.2

83.8

<.0001

Horseback riding on park trails

1.9

6.6

4.2

2.0

5.1

16.7

0.0027

Golfing 10.2 19.9 13.8 4.1 11.0 41.7 Columns do not total 100% as respondents could answer in multiple categories.

<.0001

34


Perceived Threats to National Parks Respondents were asked to rate the level of risk posed by several potential threats to the health and productivity of ecosystems in Banff and Kootenay national parks. With few exceptions all items were considered a threat by all groups, receiving mean scores of at least 4.0 (Table 11). Two risks received high (mean > 5.0) scores from all five groups: “lack of resources such as expertise and funding” (with scores of 5.3 to 5.5) and “introduction of non-native plant and animal species” (with scores of 5.0 to 5.3). Other issues received more variable ratings, but were also rated highly, and sometimes higher, as threats by four of the five groups: “mountain pine beetle outbreaks” (with scores of 4.8 to 5.9), “land use development next to national parks” (with scores of 4.2 to 5.7), “industrial activity (such as logging and mining) next to the parks” (with scores of 4.2 to 5.6), “poaching of wildlife” (with scores of 4.8 to 5.5), and “pollutants found in park rivers, lakes and streams” (with scores of 4.8 to 5.5). “Putting a lot of trust in science to solve management issues” was rated as the lowest threat by three groups and received low scores from all groups (between 3.3 and 4.0). “Naturally occurring forest fires in the parks” also received a relatively low risk rating (between 3.0 and 4.3) from all groups. For each threat, there were significant differences between how groups rated the risk they posed to the park ecosystems. For instance, residents of the Columbia Valley rated some issues (such as land use development and industrial activity next to parks, poaching, the number of people using the parks, automobile exhaust, and water pollution) as less of a threat to the national parks than the other groups. However, they rated MPB outbreaks as a greater risk to the parks than other groups.

35


Backcountry users were the opposite, tending to rate issues such as fire, MPB and putting trust in science as lower risks than other groups, and issues such as land use development next to parks, the number of people using the parks, and tourism development within the parks as greater threats. The greatest disagreement between the groups was over the risk to parks from land use development and industrial activity adjacent to the parks. Scores for these threats ranged from 4.2 from Columbia Valley residents to 5.7 from backcountry users. All groups except backcountry users rated MPB as one of the greatest threats facing mountain parks. Columbia Valley residents and frontcountry users rated MPB as the greatest threat (with average ratings of 5.9 and 5.5, respectively). Residents of Calgary rated it second and residents of the Bow Valley placed it fourth, both with a mean rating of 5.4. Backcountry users rated it tenth of the eighteen threats, with a rating of 4.8. High ratings may be due in part to the fact that MPB was the focus of the survey. The risk from spruce budworm outbreaks received a much lower response rate than the other risks; when compared to other risks, between 10 and 50 more respondents per group did not evaluate this risk. This may indicate that those who skipped this question may have been uncertain about the risk from spruce budworm.

36


Table 11. Threats to ecosystems in Banff and Kootenay national parks Survey group1,2 Residents Columbia Valley Threat

Park Visitors

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

Park managers inadvertently making an incorrect decision

460

4.5a (1.8)

428

4.6a (1.7)

444

3.8b (1.6)

244

4.1b (1.5)

388

4.1b (1.6)

Putting a lot of trust in science to solve management issues

464

4.0a (1.7)

429

3.8a (1.6)

443

3.7a (1.5)

236

3.3b (1.5)

385

3.7a (1.4)

Human error in interpreting scientific information

464

4.5a, b (1.7)

433

4.7a (1.6)

450

4.5a, b (1.6)

239

4.3b (1.5)

386

4.6a, b (1.5)

Lack of resources such as expertise and funding

467

5.3a, b (1.6)

439

5.5a (1.4)

455

5.2b (1.4)

241

5.5a, b (1.2)

387

5.4a, b (1.4)

The possibility that scientific information used in management decisions is incorrect

465

4.4a, b (1.6)

431

4.6a (1.7)

451

4.3b, c (1.5)

240

4.0c (1.5)

386

4.2b, c (1.4)

Management and Decision Making

37


Survey group1,2 Residents Columbia Valley

Park Visitors

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

Naturally occurring forest fires in the parks

474

4.3b (2.0)

440

3.9a (1.9)

457

3.9a (1.8)

245

3.0c (1.5)

392

4.0a, b (1.8)

Mountain pine beetle outbreaks

475

5.9b (1.5)

431

5.4a (1.6)

442

5.4a (1.4)

233

4.8c (1.5)

385

5.5a (1.4)

Spruce budworm outbreaks

450

5.0b (1.7)

375

4.5a (1.6)

423

4.9b (1.4)

208

4.2a (1.4)

360

4.9b (1.4)

Land use development next to national 471 parks

4.2b (2.0)

442

5.0a (1.8)

449

5.2a (1.6)

245

5.7c (1.3)

391

5.2a (1.6)

Tourism development in the national parks

474

4.7a (1.8)

444

5.0a (1.7)

457

4.9a (1.5)

244

5.6b (1.3)

392

4.9a (1.5)

Industrial activity (such as logging and mining) next to the parks

472

4.2c (2.0)

439

5.2a (1.6)

456

5.4a, b (1.5)

245

5.6b (1.4)

391

5.3a, b (1.5)

Threat Natural Disturbances

Development Issues

38


Survey group1,2 Residents Columbia Valley

Park Visitors

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

Climate change or global warming

466

4.2c (1.8)

438

5.1a (1.7)

452

4.4c (1.8)

240

4.9a, b (1.8)

391

4.7b (1.6)

Poaching of wildlife

468

4.8b (1.8)

437

5.4a (1.7)

453

5.5a (1.6)

242

5.3a (1.6)

389

5.3a (1.7)

Introduction of non-native plant and animal species

468

5.0b (1.9)

441

5.3a (1.5)

453

5.1a, b (1.7)

245

5.3a, b (1.3)

389

5.2a, b (1.5)

The number of people using the parks

471

4.3b (1.7)

441

4.9a (1.6)

457

4.7a (1.6)

245

5.2c (1.3)

393

4.7a (1.3)

Emissions from automobiles in the parks

473

3.8c (1.7)

439

4.8a (1.6)

457

4.5b (1.6)

244

4.5a, b (1.5)

393

4.3b (1.6)

Pollutants found in park rivers, lakes and streams

473

4.8b (1.8)

439

5.5a (1.5)

456

5.4a (1.5)

243

5.3a (1.5)

392

5.3a (1.5)

Threat Other Human-Related Factors

Wildlife deaths caused by motor 475 4.7b 441 5.5a 457 4.8b 244 5.2a 393 4.8b vehicles and trains (1.7) (1.6) (1.6) (1.5) (1.6) 1 Rated on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 = poses no risk and 7 = poses a great risk. 2 Any two means in a row that do not share a letter are significantly different (p<0.05) according to Tukeyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s studentized range test.

39


Park Communications Interest in Communications More than two thirds of each group indicated they were somewhat or very interested in being informed of issues pertaining to the management of Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s national parks (Table 12). However, residents of Calgary were more likely to indicate they were not at all interested or somewhat uninterested in being informed. Bow Valley residents were most interested, with 89.9% indicating they were somewhat or very interested. Table 12. Interest in information pertaining to management of Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s national parks Survey group; % of respondents Residents Level of interest

Park Visitors

Columbia Valley

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

Not interested at all

7.9

2.7

12.7

3.5

8.7

Somewhat uninterested

5.9

2.2

9.0

6.1

7.1

Neither interested nor uninterested

5.0

5.3

10.0

4.4

4.9

Somewhat interested

50.0

52.8

47.5

53.5

53.7

31.2

37.1

20.8

32.6

25.8

Very interested Chi-square=90.4; DF=16; p<.0001.

Communication Preferences People who expressed at least some interest in getting information about park management issues were asked to rate the effectiveness of several communication methods. We categorized the methods as active or passive based on the level of effort required to access the information. Passive communication methods were generally rated more effective in

40


communicating with park users and the public than active methods, which require the public to attend a meeting or event, search the internet or read technical documents (Table 13). With the exception of technical documents, all methods of communicating with park users and the public were rated as effective (with means greater than 3.0). All groups rated information at park campgrounds as the best method for communicating with park users and the public. Other effective methods included interpretive displays at roadside pull offs, interpretive events with park staff, the internet, and special features in newspapers. The television channel Discovery Channel and the television show The Nature of Things were popular choices, but backcountry users were less likely to indicate that these were good methods of communicating with them. All groups rated technical documents with detailed information as the least effective method of communicating (with scores of 2.9 to 3.1). Frontcountry users preferred receiving their information in-park, through interpretive events, displays, brochures and at campgrounds. Calgary residents and backcountry and frontcountry users demonstrated a preference for unassisted communication methods, such as displays, brochures, newspaper articles and television. Residents of Bow Valley and Columbia Valley were much more likely than other groups to rate public meetings of all kinds in their communities as better methods of reaching park users and the public. Parks Canada often uses public meetings in these communities to gather input on park management issues. High ratings by residents may be a result of their familiarity with them and suggest these meetings are considered effective by residents.

41


Table 13. Effectiveness of communication methods Survey group1,2 Residents Columbia Valley Method of Communicating

Park Visitors

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

Technical documents that contain detailed information

428

2.9a (1.2)

423

2.9a (1.2)

396

2.9a (1.2)

232

3.1a (1.3)

350

2.9a (1.1)

Interpretive events with park staff

431

4.1a (0.9)

425

4.1a (0.9)

396

4.1a (0.9)

233

3.9a (1.0)

355

4.3b (0.8)

The internet (for example an issues page on Parks Canada website)

429

3.9a (1.0)

420

3.9a (1.0)

395

4.1b (0.9)

233

4.1a, b (0.9)

354

4.0a, b (0.9)

An open house in your community where you drop in, receive information, and specialists are present to answer your questions

433

3.6a (1.1)

426

3.7a (1.0)

399

3.1b (1.1)

235

3.1b (1.2)

353

3.1b (1.1)

A town hall style meeting in your community where information is presented and a panel of specialists are present to answer your questions

433

3.5a (1.1)

425

3.6a (1.2)

397

3.0b (1.1)

235

3.1b (1.2)

354

3.0b (1.1)

Seminars on specific park issues held in your community

436

3.5b (1.1)

426

3.8a (1.1)

397

3.0c (1.0)

235

3.2c (1.8)

353

3.1c (1.1)

Active

42


Survey group1,2 Residents Columbia Valley

Park Visitors

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

Brochures that summarize key issues

433

3.8a (0.9)

428

3.8a (1.0)

400

3.8a (0.9)

232

3.9a (0.9)

358

4.1b (0.8)

Interpretive displays at roadside pull offs

432

4.2a (0.8)

427

4.0a, b, c (1.0)

399

4.0b, c (0.9)

234

3.9c (0.9)

358

4.1a, b (0.9)

Information at park campgrounds

433

4.3a, b (0.8)

426

4.2a (0.8)

398

4.3a, b (0.8)

234

4.1a (0.8)

354

4.4b (0.7)

Special features in newspapers

435

4.0a, b (0.9)

427

4.1a (0.9)

398

4.0a, b (0.9)

233

4.0a, b (0.9)

356

3.9b (0.9)

The television channel Discovery Channel

438

4.3a (0.8)

423

4.2a, b (0.9)

401

4.1b (1.0)

235

3.8c (1.2)

350

4.1b (0.9)

Method of Communicating

Passive

The television show The Nature of 437 4.2a 418 4.1a 401 4.0a 236 3.7b 356 4.0a Things (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.2) (1.0) 1 Rated on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = not effective at all and 5 = very effective. 2 Any two means in a row that do not share a letter are significantly different (p<0.05) according to Tukeyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s studentized range test.

43


Respondents were also given the option of specifying additional methods by which they might like to receive information about park issues; 350 people (17% of respondents) did so. The most common responses were radio, e-mail and television. A more detailed description of the responses to this question is available in Appendix B.

The Mountain Pine Beetle Importance of the Mountain Pine Beetle All groups considered the MPB issue important, wanted to be informed, and felt it was important to them that management actions conformed with their preferences (Table 14). Not surprisingly however, on average the issue was most important to residents of Columbia Valley and Bow Valley. Residents of Columbia Valley, and to a lesser degree, the Bow Valley, were more likely to rate the MPB issue as important to them personally, with mean scores of 4.5 and 4.2, respectively. These groups also indicated it was more important to them that they be kept informed and that the government act on their management preferences. Although respondents rated the importance of the MPB issue as high, it was less important to them that they be kept informed, and even less important that management decisions complied with their wishes.

44


Table 14. Importance of mountain pine beetle issue Survey group1,2 Residents Columbia Valley Question of Importance

Park Visitors

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

How important is the mountain pine beetle issue in Canada’s national parks to you personally?

472

4.5b (0.8)

439

4.2a (0.9)

450

3.8c (1.1)

234

3.8c (1.0)

389

3.9c (1.0)

How important is it to you personally that you are informed on the issue of mountain pine beetle in Canada’s national parks?

472

4.1a (0.9)

439

4.0a (0.9)

448

3.5b (1.1)

237

3.7b (0.9)

389

3.7b (1.0)

3.9b 434 3.6a 443 3.3c 233 3.3c 384 3.4a, c How important is it to you personally 465 (1.0) (1.1) (1.1) (1.2) (1.1) that the management actions for mountain pine beetle undertaken by Parks Canada are the same as what you think they should be? 1 Rated on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = not important at all and 5 = very important. 2 Any two means in a row that do not share a letter are significantly different (p<0.05) according to Tukey’s studentized range test.

45


Knowledge of the Mountain Pine Beetle Overall, respondents rated themselves as quite well informed about MPB. In all groups over 80% had at least heard of it and in four groups a majority also indicated they had at least some knowledge (Table 15). Residents of Calgary were less familiar and had less knowledge of the MPB than members of other groups. Residents of Bow Valley and Columbia Valley were more likely to indicate higher levels of awareness and knowledge. Over 82% of both groups indicated they had some knowledge or knew a lot about MPB. In particular, a relatively large portion of Columbia Valley residents, 17.1%, indicated they knew a lot about MPB. This is perhaps attributable to the ongoing effects of MPB infestation in British Columbia, including the outbreak of MPB in the Kootenay area in 1995-96 and educational efforts and media coverage since then. Frontcountry users indicated greater knowledge than residents of Calgary or backcountry users, with 61.4% indicating that they had some knowledge and 2.7% a lot of knowledge about MPB. Only 3.5% of frontcountry users indicated they had never heard of MPB. Table 15. Familiarity with mountain pine beetle Survey group; % of respondents Residents Level of Familiarity

Park Visitors

Bow Valley

Columbia Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

Never heard of it

1.0

0.7

14.2

12.8

3.5

Heard of it but know nothing about it

16.6

13.1

39.0

31.5

32.3

Heard of it and have some knowledge about it

74.3

68.7

45.7

51.5

61.4

8.2

17.1

1.2

4.3

2.7

Know a lot about it Chi-square=329.3; DF=20; p<.0001.

46


Frontcountry users were also asked to rate their knowledge during the on-site survey in the summer of 2003 This allows a comparison of the self-rated knowledge questions from the on-site survey and the mail survey conducted several months later. It appears frontcountry usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; level of knowledge increased between the time of the on-site survey and when they completed the mail survey (Table 16). For example, of the 138 who had indicated they had never heard of the MPB during the on-site survey, 69 indicated in the mail survey they had heard of it but had no knowledge and another 60 indicated they had heard of it and had some knowledge. Sixty-two of the 96 who indicated they had heard of it but had no knowledge in the on-site survey indicated they had heard of it and had some knowledge in the mail survey. These respondents may have acquired familiarity with the beetle during their park visit. However, another 36 respondents indicated their level of knowledge decreased between the on-site and mail surveys. Table 16. Comparison of Awareness of Frontcountry Users Between On-Site and Mail Surveys On-Site Survey; number of respondents Mail Survey

Never heard of it

Heard of it but know nothing about it

Heard of it and have some knowledge about it

Know a lot about it

Never heard of it

9

2

2

0

Heard of it but know nothing about it

69

29

19

1

Heard of it and have some knowledge about it

60

62

88

12

Know a lot about it

0

3

5

2

96

114

15

Total 138 Chi-square=54.5; DF=9; p<.0001. 47


Respondents indicating they had some or a lot of knowledge about MPB on the mail survey were asked a series of fourteen true/false questions to provide a more objective indicator of their knowledge level. The results were not consistent with the self-rating of knowledge (Table 15). Based on the mean knowledge score, backcountry users demonstrated the most knowledge followed by residents of the Columbia Valley, Bow Valley, and frontcountry users (Table 17). However, consistent with their self-rating, the Calgary residents had the lowest knowledge score. This difference between the self-rated level of knowledge and the true/false score suggests that frontcountry users may be over-estimating, and backcountry users underestimating, their levels of knowledge. Overall, respondents were not very knowledgeable about MPB, even though only those who indicated they had at least some knowledge responded to the true/false questions. For instance, a majority of respondents in all groups thought a single MPB could kill a young tree, did not know that MPB infects mostly old pine trees, thought MPB was imported from Europe, and thought MPB is found in national parks across Canada. However, there are some facts which are well known about MPB. For example, a majority in all groups knew that MPB causes visible damage, can be carried in firewood, and is prone to population fluctuations. A majority of all groups was also aware that mild winters have contributed to the current outbreak; not as many were aware that fire suppression has also been a contributing factor. Backcountry users and residents of the Columbia Valley and Bow Valley demonstrated the greatest knowledge of the MPB, getting an average 7.9 and 8.5 correct answers. For backcountry users, this may represent an increased interest in nature and natural processes. For

48


residents of Columbia Valley and Bow Valley, their higher scores may be due in part to coverage by local media on the issue. For example, Rocky Mountain Outlook, based in Canmore, had at least four articles with information about MPB between June and December 2003. Compared to other groups, residents of Calgary and frontcountry users were less informed about MPB, getting 6.7 and 7.0 correct answers, respectively.

49


Table 17. Knowledge of mountain pine beetle Survey group; % of respondents with correct answer Residents True/False Statement

Park Visitors

Correct Response

Columbia Valley

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

ChiSquare

p value

The mountain pine beetle is a naturally occurring insect in the mountain parks

True

59.6

51.5

46.0

63.2

53.9

16.3

0.0026

The mountain pine beetle infects wildlife such as deer and elk

False

80.1

80.3

73.9

84.6

74.6

9.4

0.0517

A single mountain pine beetle can kill a young tree

False

35.0

35.7

27.0

44.1

30.9

12.9

0.0116

The mountain pine beetle causes no visible damage to the tree it infects

False

93.6

92.0

86.7

88.2

89.1

10.7

0.0297

The mountain pine beetle is beneficial to some birds

True

48.0

40.2

37.2

58.1

38.7

22.9

0.0001

The mountain pine beetle can be carried in firewood from one park to another

True

86.5

86.4

84.5

84.6

85.6

0.7494

0.9451

Pesticides are the most effective way of killing the mountain pine beetle

False

61.3

65.4

42.0

55.2

45.7

46.4

<.0001

The mountain pine beetle is spread mainly by birds carrying it from one tree to another

False

64.0

57.3

45.1

56.6

43.4

37.1

<.0001

50


Survey group; % of respondents with correct answer Residents True/False Statement

Park Visitors

Correct Response

Columbia Valley

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

ChiSquare

p value

The mountain pine beetle infects mostly old pine trees

True

28.6

30.2

24.3

40.4

20.3

20.4

0.0004

Mild winters have contributed to the current outbreak of mountain pine beetle

True

90.2

79.8

72.6

79.4

69.9

49.8

<.0001

The mountain pine beetle was imported to Canada from Europe

False

16.0

19.7

8.9

28.7

18.4

25.4

<.0001

The suppression of forest fires has contributed to the current mountain pine beetle outbreak

True

53.5

61.2

47.8

73.5

50.8

31.0

<.0001

The mountain pine beetle is prone to population fluctuations

True

57.9

59.0

57.1

72.1

55.5

11.5

0.0218

The mountain pine beetle is found in most of Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s national parks from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island

False

22.7

29.4

19.5

19.1

23.1

10.5

0.0322

Mean Knowledge Score1 8.0a 7.9a 6.7b 8.5a 7.0b (Std Dev) (2.8) (3.1) (2.9) (2.9) (2.8) 1 Any two means in a row that do not share a letter are significantly different (p<0.05) according to Tukeyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s studentized range test.

51


The lack of knowledge is also apparent from the uncertainty of many respondents regarding MPB facts. On some questions, a large number of respondents selected a “not sure” response (Table 18). This was most common on “the mountain pine beetle was imported to Canada from Europe.” On this question, between 64.4% (backcountry users) and 71.0% (Columbia Valley and Calgary residents) indicated they were unsure of the correct answer; only between 8.9% and 28.7% answered correctly. This is difficult to explain, since respondents exhibited less uncertainty about the statement “the mountain pine beetle is a naturally occurring insect in the mountain parks” and were more likely to get the correct answer. However, all together this may reflect uncertainty about the origin of the MPB. Other questions with a high level of uncertainty included “the mountain pine beetle is found in most of Canada’s national parks from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island,” “the mountain pine beetle is beneficial to some birds,” “pesticides are the most effective way of killing the mountain pine beetle,” “the mountain pine beetle is spread mainly by birds carrying it from one tree to another,” and “the mountain pine beetle is prone to population fluctuations.” Two questions elicited much lower levels of uncertainty, “the mountain pine beetle causes no visible damage to the tree it infects” and “the mountain pine beetle can be carried in firewood from one park to another”. All groups scored relatively well on these questions.

52


Table 18. Level of respondents indicating “not sure” Survey group; % of respondents indicating “not sure” Residents True/False Statement

Park Visitors

Columbia Valley

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

The mountain pine beetle is a naturally occurring insect in the mountain parks

21.0

21.2

27.8

16.7

20.7

The mountain pine beetle infects wildlife such as deer and elk

15.0

13.5

19.3

11.9

18.3

A single mountain pine beetle can kill a young tree

28.2

24.4

33.2

29.3

27.2

The mountain pine beetle causes no visible damage to the tree it infects

2.2

1.7

6.0

3.8

3.9

The mountain pine beetle is beneficial to some birds

39.1

48.6

50.5

33.3

48.2

The mountain pine beetle can be carried in firewood from one park to another

9.4

9.4

8.8

12.8

10.7

Pesticides are the most effective way of killing the mountain pine beetle

34.3

29.1

48.2

41.0

43.3

The mountain pine beetle is spread mainly by birds carrying it from one tree to another

32.6

35.1

45.6

40.6

52.0

The mountain pine beetle infects mostly old pine trees

16.2

25.2

25.6

22.4

32.0

Mild winters have contributed to the current outbreak of mountain pine beetle

7.9

16.1

20.2

17.9

27.6

The mountain pine beetle was imported to Canada from Europe

71.0

66.6

71.0

64.4

65.9

53


Survey group; % of respondents indicating “not sure” Residents

Park Visitors

True/False Statement

Columbia Valley

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

The suppression of forest fires has contributed to the current mountain pine beetle outbreak

23.5

20.1

36.7

19.4

33.2

The mountain pine beetle is prone to population fluctuations

30.5

32.9

32.6

25.4

33.9

The mountain pine beetle is found in most of Canada’s national parks from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island

52.0

52.0

54.6

61.2

54.9

Attitudes Towards Mountain Pine Beetle Overall, respondents had a negative view of the MPB (Table 19). All groups agreed that the beetle is a threat to biodiversity, is an ecological disaster for national parks, and should be controlled in national parks. They also disagreed that the beetle should have a right to exist in the parks, should be protected in the parks, helps ensure a healthy forest, is important in rejuvenating the forest, and is more beneficial than harmful. Columbia Valley and Calgary residents and frontcountry users agreed, whereas Bow Valley residents and backcountry users disagreed, that the “mountain pine beetle results in substantial economic losses to the tourism industry”. Since both the Bow Valley and Columbia Valley rely heavily on tourism and have experienced recent infestations, the differences in responses may reflect differing experiences with the MPB. The Bow Valley outbreak is more recent and less severe than in the Columbia Valley.

54


Backcountry usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; attitudes diverged somewhat from other groups. On five of nine statements they were significantly more positive than other groups. The summed attitudinal score is consistent with the results from the individual statements. Overall, residents of Columbia Valley, Calgary, and Bow Valley and frontcountry users share a similar attitude, with mean scores between 20.6 and 21.9. The similarity in attitudes between these groups occurs despite their differing levels of knowledge of the MPB. Backcountry users, with a mean sum of 25.0, had a more neutral attitude towards the beetle.

55


Table 19. Attitudes toward the mountain pine beetle Survey group1,2 Residents Columbia Valley Attitudinal Statement

Park Visitors

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

413

2.1b (1.3)

363

2.4a (1.3)

220

2.2a, b (1.2)

139

2.9c (1.3)

262

2.4a (1.2)

The mountain pine beetle helps ensure 415 that forests are healthy

2.1c (1.2)

362

2.5a, b (1.3)

221

2.2b, c (1.1)

138

2.8a (1.2)

259

2.4b (1.2)

The mountain pine beetle is important in rejuvenating the forest

413

2.4a (1.2)

357

2.5a (1.2)

220

2.4a (1.1)

139

3.0b (1.2)

260

2.5a (1.2)

The mountain pine beetle should be protected within the parks

416

1.6b (1.0)

361

1.8a (1.0)

222

1.8a, b (1.0)

140

2.1c (1.1)

258

1.8a, c (1.0)

Overall, the mountain pine beetle is more beneficial than harmful for the parks

416

1.9a (1.1)

360

2.1a (1.1)

223

2.0a (1.1)

139

2.4b (1.1)

260

2.0a (1.1)

410

4.0c (1.1)

359

3.6a, b (1.2)

217

3.9c (1.0)

140

3.4a (1.2)

259

3.9b, c (1.1)

Positive Mountain pine beetle should have a right to exist in the parks

Negative The mountain pine beetle is a threat to biodiversity in the parks

56


Survey group1,2 Residents Columbia Valley

Park Visitors

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

Mountain pine beetle outbreaks should be controlled in the parks

414

4.3a (1.1)

364

4.2a (1.0)

223

4.4a (0.9)

141

3.8b (1.2)

260

4.2a (1.1)

The mountain pine beetle results in substantial economic losses to the tourism industry

414

3.3b (1.3)

365

2.8a (1.2)

220

3.2b (1.1)

141

2.7a (1.2)

260

3.2b (1.1)

Mountain pine beetle outbreaks are an ecological disaster for the parks

415

3.7b (1.3)

363

3.3a (1.3)

222

3.7b (1.2)

140

2.9c (1.3)

259

3.5a, b (1.2)

Attitudinal Score3

307

Attitudinal Statement

20.6a 303 21.9a 182 20.6a 128 25.0b 220 21.4a (7.5) (7.8) (6.7) (8.0) (7.3) 1 Rated on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. 2 Any two means in a row that do not share a letter are significantly different (p<0.05) according to Tukeyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s studentized range test. 3 Negative statements were reverse coded and an attitudinal score created by summing responses to all statements. Higher scores indicate a more positive attitude, with a total possible range of 9.0 to 45.0.

57


Preferences for the Control of Mountain Pine Beetle Respondents were asked their level of agreement with the statement “there is no way to control the spread of mountain pine beetle.” All groups disagreed with this statement, with means of between 2.2 and 2.4. In general then, respondents viewed the beetle as controllable. When respondents were asked about their preferred methods of MPB control, there was general agreement (Table 20). The preferred options were “sanitation cutting to remove infected trees from small areas” (with scores between 3.9 and 4.1) and “the use of pheromones to attract beetles to one area” (with scores of 3.9 to 4.0). Other popular choices included “prescribed burning in infected forests in the parks” (with scores of 3.6 to 3.9), “sanitation cutting to remove infected trees from large areas” (with scores of 3.3 to 3.7), and “thinning the forest to remove some of the uninfected but susceptible trees from small areas” (with scores of 3.2 to 3.5). All groups agreed that “allowing the outbreak to follow its course without intervention” (with scores of 1.7 to 2.4) was not an acceptable option. Other options which were generally not supported included chemical control, selective logging to remove all healthy but susceptible trees, and prescribed burning in uninfected but susceptible forests. The comments section of the survey offers some insight into why certain methods were preferred or disliked. For instance, almost all the comments related to chemical control were negative and expressed concerns about the potential for harm to the environment, animals, or human health. Those who wrote about control methods involving logging were generally positive, focusing on increasing biodiversity and wildlife habitat, fuel reduction, improved aesthetics, or the opportunity for revenue generation. Comments about the use of fire were

58


mixed. Positive comments focused on the benefits to the ecosystem by increasing diversity, reducing disease and infestation, improving habitat for wildlife, and helping to prevent large uncontrolled fires. Negative comments expressed concerns that park managers could lose control of prescribed burns, affecting air quality, health, tourism, wildlife, and habitat. See Appendix C for more detail on comments. In all groups, support for control methods such as sanitation cutting, thinning the forest and selective logging dropped as the size of the area involved increased from small to large. Support in all groups for control methods using cutting also dropped dramatically between less invasive (sanitation cutting) and more invasive (thinning the forest and selective logging). As well, respondents were more supportive of removing infected trees rather than removing or burning healthy but susceptible trees. However, there were also significant differences between the groups. Residents of the Columbia Valley were more likely than other groups to support controls involving selective logging; backcountry users tended to be less supportive than other groups of thinning the forest over large areas and more supportive of allowing outbreaks to follow their course without intervention.

59


Table 20. Preferences for control of mountain pine beetle Survey group1,2 Residents Columbia Valley Control Method

Park Visitors

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

Chemical control on small areas

468

2.4a, c (1.4)

432

2.2a, b (1.2)

448

2.5c (1.3)

241

2.1b (1.2)

388

2.5c (1.3)

Sanitation cutting to remove infected trees from small areas

472

4.1a (1.1)

427

4.1a (1.0)

447

4.0a (1.0)

240

3.9a (1.0)

388

4.0a (1.0)

Sanitation cutting to remove infected trees from large areas

467

3.7a (1.3)

423

3.7a (1.2)

443

3.6a (1.2)

238

3.3b (1.3)

383

3.6a, b (1.2)

Thinning the forest to remove some 469 of the uninfected but susceptible trees from small areas

3.5a (1.3)

432

3.5a (1.2)

449

3.3a, b (1.2)

240

3.2b (1.2)

383

3.4a, b (1.2)

472 Thinning the forest to remove some of the uninfected but susceptible trees from large areas

3.4a (1.4)

428

3.2a, b (1.3)

447

3.1b (1.2)

235

2.8c (1.2)

383

3.1a, b (1.2)

Prescribed burning in infected forests in the parks

476

3.6a (1.3)

432

3.7a, b (1.3)

449

3.8a, b (1.1)

241

3.9b (1.1)

387

3.8b (1.1)

Prescribed burning in uninfected but susceptible forests in the parks

475

2.6a (1.3)

431

2.8a (1.3)

446

2.6a (1.2)

240

2.9a (1.3)

387

2.8a (1.2)

Selective logging to remove all

475

3.0b

433

2.7a

448

2.7a

240

2.4a

389

2.7a

60


Survey group1,2 Residents Columbia Valley Control Method

n

healthy but susceptible trees from small areas

Mean (Std Dev)

Park Visitors

Bow Valley n

(1.5)

Mean (Std Dev)

Calgary n

(1.4)

Mean (Std Dev)

Backcountry

Frontcountry

n

n

(1.2)

Mean (Std Dev) (1.2)

Mean (Std Dev) (1.3)

Selective logging to remove all healthy but susceptible trees from large areas

475

2.7c (1.5)

430

2.3a, b (1.3)

448

2.4a (1.2)

241

2.0b (1.1)

388

2.3a, b (1.2)

The use of pheromones to attract beetles to one area

477

3.9a (1.2)

432

3.9a (1.2)

453

4.0a (1.0)

241

3.9a (1.0)

387

3.9a (1.0)

Allowing the outbreak to follow its 476 1.7b 432 2.0a 452 1.9a, b 242 2.4c 389 2.0a course without intervention (1.2) (1.3) (1.3) (1.4) (1.3) 1 Rated on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = strongly oppose and 5 = strongly favor. 2 Any two means in a row that do not share a letter are significantly different (p<0.05) according to Tukeyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s studentized range test.

61


New Ecological Paradigm Scale All groups exhibited a strong ecological orientation towards the environment scoring between 55 and 58 on the summed NEP scale (Table 21). Bow Valley residents and backcountry users had a slightly stronger ecological orientation than the other groups. An examination of the individual statements reveals some discrepancies between respondents environmental worldview and their attitude towards the MPB. For example, on the NEP scale there is strong agreement that “plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist” but on the MPB attitudinal scale (Table 19) there is strong disagreement that “the MPB should have a right to exist in the parks.” Similarly, on the NEP there is strong agreement that interfering with nature often produces disastrous consequences and that “the balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset” yet respondents agreed that “MPB outbreaks should be controlled in the parks” and disagreed that “the MPB should be protected within the parks.” The openended comment section of the survey offers some insight into reasons for these contradictions (Appendix C). Some respondents identified the need to control MPB in order to protect or enhance the environment, and to reduce economic and aesthetic impacts. In the present study, backcountry users were the least likely group to belong to a hunting or fishing organization (Table 3), and are most active in many appreciative activities (Table 10). The high NEP score of backcountry users is therefore consistent with previous research that suggests participants in appreciative activities are more likely than consumptive or motorized users to hold a pro-environmental value orientation (Jackson 1986; Thapa and Graefe 2003).

62


Table 21. New Ecological Paradigm Scale Survey group1,2 Residents Columbia Valley

Park Visitors

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

Statement

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support

473

3.2a, b (1.3)

440

3.5c (1.2)

456

3.2a (1.2)

243

3.5b, c (1.3)

390

3.1a (1.2)

Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs

478

2.4a (1.2)

441

2.3a (1.2)

455

2.4a (1.1)

244

2.5a (1.1)

391

2.4a (1.1)

When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences

478

4.0a (1.1)

442

4.0a, b (1.2)

457

3.8b (1.1)

243

3.9a, b (1.0)

394

3.9a, b (1.0)

Human ingenuity will ensure that we do NOT make the earth unlivable

474

2.9a (1.3)

434

2.6b, c (1.2)

451

2.8a (1.1)

241

2.4c (1.1)

390

2.7a, b (1.1)

Humans are severely abusing the environment

478

4.0a, b (1.1)

442

4.1a, b (1.1)

458

4.0a (1.0)

244

4.2b (1.0)

394

4.0a (1.1)

63


Survey group1,2 Residents Columbia Valley Statement

Park Visitors

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them

474

3.5a (1.3)

437

3.1b (1.3)

459

3.4a (1.2)

243

3.0b (1.4)

392

3.3a (1.3)

Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist

476

4.3a (1.0)

442

4.4a (0.9)

459

4.2a (1.1)

244

4.2a (1.1)

393

4.2a (1.0)

The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations

475

2.0a, b (1.1)

439

1.8a (1.0)

456

2.0b (1.0)

243

1.7a (0.9)

394

1.9a, b (0.9)

Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature

476

4.4a, b (0.8)

439

4.5a (0.7)

455

4.4a, b (0.7)

244

4.4a, b (0.8)

392

4.3b (0.9)

The so-called â&#x20AC;&#x153;ecological crisisâ&#x20AC;? facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated

474

2.5a (1.2)

437

2.2b (1.2)

455

2.5a (1.2)

244

2.2b (1.1)

394

2.4a, b (1.1)

The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources

472

3.6a, b (1.2)

436

3.8c (1.1)

458

3.5a (1.2)

244

3.7b, c (1.1)

394

3.6a, b, c (1.2)

64


Survey group1,2 Residents Columbia Valley Statement

1 2

Park Visitors

Bow Valley

Calgary

Backcountry

Frontcountry

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

n

Mean (Std Dev)

Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature

471

2.1a (1.3)

437

1.8b (1.1)

456

2.2a (1.3)

242

1.9a, b (1.3)

393

2.1a, b (1.2)

The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset

477

4.1a (1.0)

440

4.1a (1.0)

455

4.0a, b (1.0)

244

3.9b (1.1)

395

4.0a, b (1.0)

Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it

477

2.3a (1.2)

439

2.1b (1.0)

458

2.4a (1.1)

244

2.0b (1.0)

393

2.3a (1.1)

If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe

478

3.6a (1.2)

439

3.8a (1.1)

455

3.6a (1.1)

243

3.7a (1.1)

395

3.6a (1.1)

New Ecological Paradigm Score

449

55.7a 414 58.1b 433 55.0a 234 57.9b 376 55.7a (9.6) (9.0) (9.0) (9.0) (8.3) Rated on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = strongly oppose and 5 = strongly favor. Any two means in a row that do not share a letter are significantly different (p<0.05) according to Tukeyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s studentized range test.

65


DISCUSSION This study of park users and local residents of Banff and Kootenay national parks provides insights into their views of MPB and its management in national parks. Most had a keen interest in national park issues and many were frequent visitors to national parks. Mountain pine beetle is an important issue for both residents and park users. This study confirms support for Parks Canada managing the beetle. Both residents and park users believed that the beetle is controllable and that intervention to control its spread should be undertaken in national parks. Implications centre around communications related to MPB management in national parks, acceptable management actions, ecological integrity, and differences among stakeholders. The study has several implications for communications about the MPB and management efforts in Banff and Kootenay national parks. The low level of knowledge about the MPB and the negative attitude towards its presence in national parks suggests the need for a renewed focus on communicating MPBâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role in park ecosystems and factors contributing to the current outbreak. The results revealed that residents and park users lack an understanding of basic information on the MPB, its role in ecosystem processes, and its impact on the environment. Respondents may be confusing it with other insect threats (for instance, a majority did not know MPB was not imported from Europe), or may have an exaggerated perception of its negative impact on the parks (a majority thought it is found in national parks across Canada, a single beetle can kill a tree and that it does not primarily attack old trees). Parks Canada had not yet initiated its pine beetle communication strategy at the time of this study, therefore the media, governments, and the forest industry were probably the main source of information. This suggests that messages being conveyed through these information sources about impacts of the

66


MPB, especially on timber supply areas outside of the national parks, may be influencing respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; views of the MPB in national parks. It appears that park users and local residents are not only lacking information on the role of the MPB in ecosystems but also the connection between beetle outbreaks, past park management, and climate conditions. Some groups, for example, were not well informed about the contribution of fire suppression to MPB outbreaks. Communications on MPB in national parks should also include information on the impacts on park ecosystems from previous fire suppression policies and potential climate change impacts (e.g., warmer winters and drier summers). Attitudes towards MPB are reminiscent of attitudes towards fire. That is, in the past fire was viewed as having large economic impacts that must be controlled with little or no regard for the benefits of fire in ecosystem processes. Now park managers and others are working to convince the public that fire has an important ecological role to play in the forest environment and can be used as an effective management tool. The success of this new effort is perhaps evident in this study. Despite a severe fire year in 2003, naturally occurring forest fires were not perceived as a big threat to the parks. As with fire, managers may now need to communicate some basic facts about MPB to explain its role in the environment and Parks Canada rationale and approach to its management. However, simply providing facts about MPB might not change attitudes or influence support for management approaches. This may be particularly true with the Columbia Valley residents who, despite having a relatively high knowledge scores, had a negative view of MPB, and showed strong support for controlling the beetle in national parks. Successful persuasive communication is a complex process that should consider not only the

67


message but, for example, trust in the information source, personal relevance of the issue, and complexity of the message (Petty et al. 1992). The investigation of preferred methods for communication provide some guidance on how to reach park users and residents. Parks managers may need to use different communication techniques to reach local residents and park visitors. Passive methods of communication that do not require a specific time commitment appear to be favored over more active types of communication by park users. Not surprisingly, the most effective means of reaching park users is through on-site methods, such as interpretive events and displays. However, park users are also receptive to off-site communications. Featuring a park issues page on the parksâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; websites that discusses current management issues, features on nature-related TV shows and channels, and features in newspapers across the country may be effective means of informing park users of management issues before they arrive at the parks. Banff National Park currently maintains information on the MPB on its website that perhaps needs to be advertised or brought to the attention of park users. Although passive forms of communication were also favored by local residents, they appear more willing to invest time in learning about park issues through active methods of communication. In particular, interaction with specialists on particular issues may be well received by local residents. Perhaps workshops, seminars, or forums that engage the public in deliberations and dialogue would be effective. The parks may also want to investigate using radio and e-mail more extensively to reach both residents and park users. In terms of managing the beetle, allowing the infestation to spread unchecked was not considered an acceptable option by respondents. Respondents viewed the beetle as controllable and control in the parks as desirable. However, respondents did not support a carte blanche

68


approach to beetle control. Indeed, preferences were expressed for removing infected trees over small areas using the least invasive means possible. The use of chemicals (i.e., herbicides) and removal of healthy, susceptible trees (with the exception of thinning healthy trees) were generally not supported. These preferences suggest support for some of the control methods currently being taken by Banff National Park. These include sanitation cutting and burning infected areas and the use of pheromone baiting. However, the use of prescribed burns to reduce the build-up of mature pine stands (i.e., the use of prescribed burning in uninfected but susceptible areas of the park) was generally not supported. Comments from respondents related to concern over the danger of escaped fire and smoke suggest that the lack of support may be related to concern over the ability to control fire in the national parks. On a broader level, the lack of support for prescribed burning may also reflect a lack of understanding of how past fire control has left the forest in an age class condition that is susceptible to MPB infestation. The lack of support for letting the beetle run its course without intervention suggests that the approach being taken in Kootenay National Park, (i.e. no management aimed specifically at controlling MPB), may require communication with park users and local residents to increase understanding and acceptance of the rationale of this approach and the role of MPB in the park ecosystem. Respondents showed a strong ecological orientation towards the environment. An ecological orientation seems consistent with Parks Canada values as reflected in the mandate of managing parks under the principle of ecological integrity. Given that the MPB is a naturally occurring insect in the parks (permanent in KNP, and occasional in BNP), and is part of a natural disturbance regime, one might expect that a strong ecological orientation would be associated

69


with positive attitudes toward the MPB and a preference for no intervention in MPB outbreaks in national parks. However, respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; negative view of the beetle and support for controls in the parks seem to contradict this hypothesis, suggesting that attitudes and preferences are rooted in something other than oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s environmental worldview such as concern for oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own well-being or the well-being of others. Respondents, however, did prefer control measures that caused the least disturbance to the ecosystem such as removing infected trees in small areas. Respondents might be accepting of ecological integrity principles to a point, but natural disturbances such as insects may not always be tolerated by the public. That is, there may be limits on the acceptance of natural disturbance in parks especially if it impacts upon local economies and park aesthetics. Therefore, maintaining some natural disturbance in park ecosystems will require convincing the public and park users that there may be some ecological benefit to the parks, while recognizing potential threats to lands outside the parks, and demonstrating flexibility in managing natural disturbance. Differences among some of the stakeholder groups in the study suggest that the groups might be impacted differently by MPB management. The two most contrasted groups were backcountry users and Columbia Valley residents. Backcountry users were unique demographically, being younger, better educated, and more likely to be male. They were also significantly different from other groups in several key attitudes. They were less likely to perceive MPB and fire as threats to the Banff and Kootenay national parks and they were more likely to consider development and overuse as threats to the parks. They also had the most neutral view of MPB of all the groups, and although they supported control of the MPB, their support was weakest among the groups. Therefore, MPB control measures might have a more

70


negative impact on this group than the other groups, particularly if carried out in backcountry areas. Backcountry users might be more accepting of encountering areas in the parks with MPB infestation. Columbia Valley residents were also unique, being older, less educated and more likely to rely on natural resource industries, including forestry and mining, for employment. They were more likely to see MPB as a threat than the other groups. They also considered the MPB issue most important to them personally. Thus, Columbia Valley residents may be most negatively impacted by a perceived lack of effort by Parks Canada to control MPB populations. Although this study has provided valuable insight to the human dimensions of MPB management, some limitations must be recognized. The study included only park visitors from Canada (primarily Alberta and British Columbia) and the public sample was limited to local residents who might have the most interest and be subjected to impacts from the beetle infestation. Their views might differ substantively from non-Canadians or Canadians in other provinces. It is also probable that the survey captured the views of local residents with the most interest in the pine beetle (e.g., those dependent on a natural resource sector for economic livelihood or those who visit the parks). The backcountry sample was recruited from users who indicated, on their backcountry permit, a willingness to participate in a survey on park issues. However, few of the backcountry users completed this section of the permit. This study demonstrates how having a readily available sample of park users can greatly reduce the cost and time of recruitment. For this to be an effective means of sample recruitment, however, greater vigilance must be paid to ensuring that users either accept or decline the invitation to participate in surveys.

71


This report presents a descriptive analysis of the survey data. Future analysis will include multivariate analyses to examine associations between variables such as environmental values, attitude toward MPB, knowledge of MPB, preferences for MPB management, and demographics.

REFERENCES Accord Research; University of Calgary; Parks Canada Western Canada Services Centre. 2000. 2000 patterns of visitor use study for Banff, Kootenay, and Yoho national parks of Canada: A survey of visitors to Banff, Kootenay, and Yoho national parks between June and October, 2000. Parks Canada and the Banff Lake Louise Hotel Motel Association, Banff, AB. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2003. Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) [on-line]. Edmonton, AB. Accessed 12 March 2004. <http://www3.gov.ab.ca/srd/forests/health/i_mpinebeetle.html#life>. BC Ministry of Forests. 2001. West-central BC mountain pine beetle action plan 2001 [online]. Victoria, BC. Accessed 1 March 2004. <http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain_pine_beetle/actionplan.htm>. BC Ministry of Forests, Forest Analysis Branch. 2003. Timber supply and the mountain pine beetle infestation in British Columbia [on-line]. Victoria, BC. Accessed 12 March 2004. <http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/pubs.htm>. BC Ministry of Forests, Forest Practices Branch. 2003. 2003 Summary of forest health conditions in BC [on-line]. Victoria, BC. Accessed 27 February 2004. <http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/FORSITE/overview/overview.htm>. BC Ministry of Forests, Forest Practices Branch. 2004. Forest health aerial overview survey [on-line]. Victoria, BC. Accessed 18 March 2004. <http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/FORSITE/overview/overview.htm>. Carroll, A. L.; Taylor, S. W.; Regniere, J. 2003. Range expansion by mountain pine beetle under climate change: todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reality or tomorrowâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s problem? Presentation to Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network (C-CIARN) Conference in Prince George BC, February 17-19, 2003. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, BC.

72


Columbia Valley Chamber of Commerce. 2002-2004. Welcome to the Columbia Valley! [online]. Invermere, BC. Accessed July 21, 2004. <http://www.columbiavalleychamber.com/>. Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D.; Mertig, A.G.; Jones, R.E. 2000. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56(3):425-442. Ellis, C. 2003. ‘Beetle for wolf’ deal still under review [on-line]. Rocky Mountain Outlook (June 26, 2003), Canmore, AB. Accessed 19 November 2003. <http://www.outlook-rockies.ca/look/prd/search.tpl>. Hughes, J.; Drever, R. 2001. Salvaging solutions: Science-based management of BC’s pine beetle outbreak. David Suzuki Foundation, Forest Watch of British Columbia, and Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Vancouver, BC. Ives, W.G.H; Wong, H.R. 1988. Tree and shrub insects of the prairie provinces. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, AB. Information Report NOR-X-292. Jackson, E.L. 1986. Outdoor recreation participation and attitudes to the environment. Leisure Studies 5(1986):1-23. Leake, N.L.; McFarlane, B.L.; Watson, D.O.; den Otter, M. 2003. Managing for mountain pine beetle in Kootenay and Banff national parks: Selected results from park user surveys. Unpublished report. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, AB. Lucas, R.C. 1980. Use patterns and visitor characteristics, attitudes and preferences in nine wilderness and other roadless areas. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. Res. Paper INT-253. Lucas, R.C. 1985. Visitor characteristics, attitudes, and use patterns in the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex, 1970-82. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. Res. Paper INT-345. Lucas, R.C. 1989. A look at wilderness use and users in transition. Natural Resources Journal 29:41-55. Lux, D. 2003. Mountain pine beetle control plan Bow Valley infestation 2003 [on-line]. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton, AB. Accessed 22 March 2004. <http://www3.gov.ab.ca/srd/forests/health/a_mpbeetle.html>.

73


Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service. 2003a. The state of Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s forests 2002-2003 [on-line]. Ottawa, ON. Accessed 1 March 2004. <www.nrcan.gc.ca/cfsscf/index_e.html>. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, 2003b. Historical mountain pine beetle activity [on-line]. Ottawa, ON. Accessed 1 March 2004. <http://www.pfc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/entomology/mpb/historical/index_e.html>. Parks Canada. 2003a. Park management [on-line]. Ottawa, ON. Accessed 10 October 2003. <http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/ab/banff/plan/index_e.asp>. Parks Canada. 2003b. Revised final fire update [on-line]. Ottawa, ON. Accessed 23 March 2004 <http://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/scond/Cond_E.asp?oID=316&oPark=100092>. Parks Canada. 2004a. Mountain pine beetle winter update 2004 [on-line]. Ottawa, ON. Accessed 22 March 2004. <http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/ab/banff/natcul/natcul22_E.asp>. Parks Canada. 2004b. Fire and disturbance ecology [on-line]. Ottawa, ON. Accessed 23 March 2004. <http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/ab/banff/plan/plan8c_e.asp>. Parks Canada. 2004c. Park management [on-line]. Ottawa, ON. Accessed 23 March 2004. <http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/ab/banff/plan/index_e.asp>. Parks Canada. 2004d. Fire and Vegetation Management [on-line]. Ottawa, ON. Accessed July 22, 2004. <http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/ab/banff/plan/plan8d1_E.asp>. Petty, R.E.; McMichael, S.; Brannon, L.A. 1992. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion: applications in recreation and tourism. Pages 77-101 in M.J. Manfredo, ed. Influencing human behavior. Theory and applications in recreation, tourism, and natural resource management. Sagamore Publishing Inc., Champaign, IL. Roggenbuck, J.W. 1988. Wilderness use and user characteristics: Ending some misconceptions. Western Wildlands 14 (3): 8-14. Roggenbuck, J.W.; Lucas, R.C. 1987. Wilderness use and user characteristics. A state-ofknowledge review. Pages 204-245 in R.C. Lucas, compiler. Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State-of-Knowledge, Future Directions, Fort Collins, Colorado, July 23-26, 1985. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-220. Skelton, C.; Kloster, D. 2003. Pine beetleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s toll prompts call to boost cut. Times Colonist (31 October 2003), p. A1. Victoria, BC.

74


Thapa, B.; Graefe, A.R. 2003. Forest recreationists and environmentalism. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 21(1): 75-103. Unger, L.S. 2002. Kootenay National Park 2002. Pacific Forestry Centre, Forest Health Network, Victoria, BC. In Introduction to Mountain Pine Beetle: Risks, Hazard Assessment, Management Applications and Options, and Long-Term Implications Field Conference Manual, February 25-27, 2003. Regional Reforestation Technical Committee and Canadian Forest Service, Canmore, Banff, Cranbook and Kootenay National Park. Unger, L.S. 2003. Forest Conditions: Kootenay National Park 2003. Unpublished report. Pacific Forestry Centre, Forest Health Network, Victoria, BC. Watson, A.E.; Williams, D.R.; Roggenbuck, J.W.; Daigle, J.J. 1992. Visitor characteristics and preferences for three national forest wildernesses in the south. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. Res. Paper INT-455. Whitehead, R.; Martin, P.; Powelson, A. 2001. Forest health: reducing stand and landscape susceptibility to mountain pine beetle. BC Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. Wood, C.S.; Unger, L. 1996. Mountain pine beetle: a history of outbreaks in pine forests in British Columbia, 1910 to 1995. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Victoria.

75


APPENDIX A. THE SURVEY

Managing Banff and Kootenay National Parks

Thank-you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. The information you provide will help to improve park management. Please try to answer all of the questions. If there are any questions you do not wish to answer, please leave them blank and move to the next question. All information you provide is confidential. Your name will never appear with your answers. Only a summary of everyoneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s answers will be made public. Please return your completed questionnaire in the postage paid envelope provided. We appreciate your help with this study. If you have any questions about this survey please contact: Bonnie McFarlane or (780) 435-7383 bmcfarla@nrcan.gc.ca

Dave Watson (780) 435-7244 dwatson@nrcan.gc.ca

Social Science Research Group Canadian Forest Service 5320-122 Street Edmonton AB T6H 3S5

Printed on recycled paper

76


SECTION 1.

YOUR RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND VIEWS ON NATIONAL PARKS

First, we would like to ask about your recreational activities. 1. During 2003 (January 1, 2003 to the present) did you take part in any of the following activities? (Please check (9) all that apply)

G G G G G

Read books, magazines, or articles on nature Purchased art, crafts, or posters of nature Visited a zoo, aquarium, or museum of natural history Visited a national park, a provincial park, or other natural area I did not take part in any of these activities

2. In the past five years (January 1, 1999 to the present) how many times did you visit Banff and/or Kootenay national parks? (Check only one)

G0 None G1 1 to 5 times G2 6 to 10 times G3 more than 10 times 3. During 2003 (January 1, 2003 to the present) did you take part in the following activities in Banff and/or Kootenay national parks? (Please check all that apply)

G I did not take part in recreational activities in Banff or Kootenay G Day hikes on park trails G Mountain biking on park trails G Camping in a serviced campground G Watching birds or other wildlife G Overnight backpacking G Rock or ice climbing G Downhill skiing G Cross-country skiing G Fishing G Canoeing or kayaking G Horseback riding on park trails G Golfing

77


4. Next, we would like your views on issues facing Banff and Kootenay national parks. Listed below are several items that might pose a threat to the parks. Please rate how much of a risk you think each item poses, in terms of its impact on the health and productivity of ecosystems in Banff and Kootenay national parks. Poses a great risk

Poses no risk

a. Climate change or global warming

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

b. Poaching of wildlife

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

c. Park managers inadvertently making an incorrect decision

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

d. Naturally occurring forest fires in the parks

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

e. Introduction of non-native plant and animal species

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

f. Land use development next to national parks

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

g. Putting a lot of trust in science to solve management issues

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

h. Mountain pine beetle outbreaks

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

i. The number of people using the parks

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

j. Tourism development in the national parks

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

k. Human error in interpreting scientific information

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

l. Spruce budworm outbreaks

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

m. Lack of resources such as expertise and funding

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

n. Emissions from automobiles in the parks

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

o. Pollutants found in park rivers, lakes, and streams

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

p. Industrial activity (such as logging and mining) next to the parks

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

q. Wildlife deaths caused by motor vehicles and trains

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

r. The possibility that scientific information used in management decisions is incorrect

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

78


SECTION 2. YOUR PREFERENCES FOR PARK INFORMATION 5. How interested are you in being informed of issues pertaining to the management of Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s national parks? (Please check one)

G1 Not interested at all

GO TO SECTION 3 ON PAGE 4

G2 Somewhat uninterested G3 Neither interested nor uninterested G4 Somewhat interested

CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 6

G5 Very interested 6. Parks Canada would like to know the best method of communicating with park users and the public. Please rate how effective each of the following would be in communicating with you about park issues. Please note that you will not be sent information as a result of answering this question. Not effective at all

Somewhat not effective

Neither effective nor not effective

Somewhat effective

a. Brochures that summarize the key issues

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

b. Technical documents that contain detailed information

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

c. Interpretive displays at roadside pull offs

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

d. Interpretive events with park staff

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

f. The internet (for example an issues page on Parks Canada website)

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

g. Special features in newspapers

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

h. The television channel Discovery Channel

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

k. A town hall style meeting in your community where information is presented and a panel of specialists are present to answer questions

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

l. Seminars on specific park issues held in your community

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

e. Information at park campgrounds

i. The television show The Nature of Things j. An open house in your community where you drop-in, receive information, and specialists are present to answer your questions

79

Very effective


Please list any other means by which you might like to receive information about park issues. ____________________________________________________________________ SECTION 3. VIEWS, IMPORTANCE, AND FAMILIARITY WITH THE MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE Another important part of understanding people’s views of national parks is asking them about specific management issues. One current issue Parks Canada would like your views on is the mountain pine beetle. The mountain pine beetle is an insect found in Canada including Banff and Kootenay national parks. We would like to know how familiar people are with the beetle, their concerns about the beetle, and preferences for managing the beetle. 7.

How important is the mountain pine beetle issue in Canada’s national parks to you personally?

Not important at all

Somewhat not important

Neither important nor not important

Somewhat important

G1

G2

G3

G4

8.

G5

How important is it to you personally that you are informed on the issue of mountain pine beetle in Canada’s national parks?

Not important at all

Somewhat not important

Neither important nor not important

Somewhat important

G1

G2

G3

G4

9.

Very important

Very important

G5

How important is it to you personally that the management actions for mountain pine beetle undertaken by Parks Canada are the same as what you think they should be?

Not important at all

Somewhat not important

Neither important nor not important

Somewhat important

G1

G2

G3

G4

80

Very important

G5


10. How familiar are you with the mountain pine beetle? (Please check one)

G1 Never heard of it

GO TO SECTION 4

G2 Heard of it but know nothing about it

ON PAGE 7

G3 Heard of it and have some knowledge about it G4 Know a lot about it

CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 11

11. Now we would like your views on the mountain pine beetle in Banff and Kootenay national parks. Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement. Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree

a. The mountain pine beetle is a threat to biodiversity in the parks

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

b. Mountain pine beetle should have a right to exist in the parks

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

c. Mountain pine beetle outbreaks should be controlled in the parks

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

d. The mountain pine beetle helps ensure that forests are healthy

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

e. The mountain pine beetle results in substantial economic losses to the tourism industry

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

f. The mountain pine beetle is important in rejuvenating the forest

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

g. Mountain pine beetle outbreaks are an ecological disaster for the parks

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

h. The mountain pine beetle should be protected within the parks

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

i. There is no way to control the spread of mountain pine beetle

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

j. Overall, the mountain pine beetle is more beneficial than harmful for the parks

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

81

Strongly agree


12. Now we would like to ask about your familiarity with the mountain pine beetle. Please indicate if you think each statement is true or false. a. The mountain pine beetle is a naturally occurring insect in the mountain parks

G1 True

G2 False

G3 Not sure

b. The mountain pine beetle infects wildlife such as deer and elk

G1 True

G2 False

G3 Not sure

c. A single mountain pine beetle can kill a young tree

G1 True

G2 False

G3 Not sure

d. The mountain pine beetle causes no visible damage to the trees it infects

G1 True

G2 False

G3 Not sure

G1 True

G2 False

G3 Not sure

G1 True

G2 False

G3 Not sure

g. Pesticides are the most effective means of killing the mountain pine beetle

G1 True

G2 False

G3 Not sure

h. The mountain pine beetle is spread mainly by birds carrying it from one tree to another

G1 True

G2 False

G3 Not sure

i. The mountain pine beetle infects mostly old pine trees

G1 True

G2 False

G3 Not sure

j. Mild winters have contributed to the current outbreak of mountain pine beetle

G1 True

G2 False

G3 Not sure

k. The mountain pine beetle was imported to Canada from Europe

G1 True

G2 False

G3 Not sure

l. The suppression of forest fires has contributed to the current mountain pine beetle outbreak

G1 True

G2 False

G3 Not sure

m. The mountain pine beetle is prone to population fluctuations

G1 True

G2 False

G3 Not sure

n. The mountain pine beetle is found in most of Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s national parks from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island

G1 True

G2 False

G3 Not sure

e. The mountain pine beetle is beneficial to some birds f. The mountain pine beetle can be carried in firewood from one park to another

82


SECTION 4. PREFERENCES FOR THE CONTROL OF MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE There is currently an outbreak of mountain pine beetle in the forests of Banff and Kootenay national parks. In Banff National Park the outbreak is in its initial stages, with the potential for spread to forests outside the park. Forests outside the park contain stands of commercial timber that could be destroyed by the beetle. Large areas in Kootenay National Park and areas that border the park have been affected by the beetle. Parks Canada is considering methods to control the beetle within the parks to prevent its spread outside the parks. Parks Canada managers need to better understand what methods people prefer. The following describes several methods that can help control the beetleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s spread. PLEASE READ EACH OF THE FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS BEFORE ANSWERING THE NEXT QUESTION. Prescribed burning is the deliberate burning of forested areas under controlled conditions that allow the fire to be confined to a predetermined area. Fire is effective in killing the beetles and in preventing their spread by reducing suitable habitat for the beetle. Chemical control is the application of an herbicide with an insecticidal property (MSMA or monosodium methanearsenate). It is designed to kill trees and destroy beetles in the trees. This method will not achieve complete control but it contains the beetles to small areas. Pheromones are chemicals produced by insects to communicate with other individuals of the same species. They are used in beetle control to attract the beetles to one area. This method concentrates the beetles in small geographic areas in preparation for application of other control measures. Thinning the forest is the harvesting of healthy trees before they are infected with the beetle. It involves removing only selected trees from an area to reduce the susceptibility of the remaining trees. This increases tree vigor and decreases suitable habitat for the beetle. Selective logging also involves harvesting of healthy but susceptible trees before they are infected. This involves removing all trees from an area. Sanitation cutting is the harvesting and burning of trees infected with the beetle. It includes harvesting an individual infected tree or a large number of infected trees. Infected trees are stacked and burned on-site to destroy the beetles. Small area is an area of about 10 hectares or less. Large area is an area of about 20 hectares or more. A hectare is about 2 ½ acres or about the size of 1 2/3 Canadian Football League fields.

83


13. We would like to ask your views on what should be done to control the beetle in Banff and Kootenay national parks. Please indicate the extent to which you are in favour of, or opposed to each method.

a. Chemical control on small areas b. Sanitation cutting to remove infected trees from small areas c. Sanitation cutting to remove infected trees from large areas d. Thinning the forest to remove some of the uninfected but susceptible trees from small areas e. Thinning the forest to remove some of the uninfected but susceptible trees from large areas f. Prescribed burning in infected forests in the parks g. Prescribed burning in uninfected but susceptible forests in the parks h. Selective logging to remove all healthy but susceptible trees from small areas i. Selective logging to remove all healthy but susceptible trees from large areas j. The use of pheromones to attract beetles to one area k. Allowing the outbreak to follow its course without intervention

Strongly oppose

Somewhat oppose

Neither favour nor oppose

Somewhat favour

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

84

Strongly favour

No opinion


SECTION 5. YOUR VIEWS ON THE ENVIRONMENT 14. Now we would like your general views on the relationship between people and the environment. Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement.

Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat Strongly agree agree

a. We are approaching the limit of the number G1 of people the earth can support

G2

G3

G4

G5

b. Humans have the right to modify the natural G1 environment to suit their needs

G2

G3

G4

G5

c. When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

d. Human ingenuity will ensure that we do NOT make the earth unlivable

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

e. Humans are severely abusing the environment

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

f. The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

g. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

h. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

i. Despite our special abilities, humans are still G1 subject to the laws of nature

G2

G3

G4

G5

j. The so-called â&#x20AC;&#x153;ecological crisisâ&#x20AC;? facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

k. The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

l. Humans were meant to rule over the rest

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

Strongly disagree

85


of nature m. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

n. Humans will eventually learn enough about G1 how nature works to be able to control it

G2

G3

G4

G5

o. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological G1 catastrophe

G2

G3

G4

G5

86


SECTION 6. ABOUT YOU Finally, we would like to ask a few questions about you to help determine if there are connections between peoplesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; backgrounds and their opinions. Your name never appears with your answers, however, if there is a question you do not want to answer, leave it blank and move to the next question.

15.

You are:

G0 Male

G1 Female

16. What is your present age? _______ Years

17. Do you belong to any of the following organizations? (Check all that apply) G A fishing organization

G A hunting organization G A natural history or birdwatching club G Other outdoor recreation clubs G Other environmental or conservation organizations G I do not belong to any of these 18. Do you or anyone in your household depend upon the following natural resource sectors for their economic livelihood? (Check all that apply)

G Forest industry G Mining industry G A natural resource agency (e.g. a provincial or federal government department) G Oil and gas industry G Tourism industry G Nobody in the household depends on them 19. What is the highest level of education that you have completed? G1 Grade 9 or less

G5 Some University

G2 Some High School

G6 University Degree (Bachelors)

G3 High School Graduate

G7 Some Graduate Studies

G4 Technical School or Community College

G8 Graduate University Degree

87


Is there anything else you would like to tell us?

____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________

Thank-You For Your Participation! TO RETURN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE, SIMPLY PUT IT IN THE POSTAGE-PAID ENVELOPE PROVIDED AND DROP IT IN THE NEAREST MAILBOX.

88


APPENDIX B. COMMENTS ON COMMUNICATION In the section on preferred methods of communication, respondents were given the option of specifying additional methods by which they might like to receive information about park issues. 350 people (17% of respondents) did so. The most common answer was radio (67), with 18 specifically mentioning CBC and another 5 referring to park radio. Other media were also commonly mentioned, including: - television (53), usually as part of news programs, but also mentioning advertisements, documentaries and specialty channels; - newspapers (22), with some references to local papers such as Rocky Mountain Outlook; and - magazines (13), with specific mention of some magazines considered appropriate, including Nature, Canadian Geographic and MacLeanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. E-mail was also a common response, being mentioned by 64 people. Many respondents specified that they would appreciate the opportunity to sign up for updates from the parks on the Parks Canada website with these updates then e-mailed to them directly. Web forums and discussion groups were also mentioned as possible uses of electronic communication methods. Direct mail was frequently mentioned (45 respondents). Many specified mailings should be sent to all area households; others felt it should be addressed to homes from lists of park pass holders, backcountry permit holders, people registering for campsites, and other park users; still others felt that it should be by subscription only to avoid being viewed as junk mail. Other commonly mentioned communication methods included park staff (19) and schools (19). Fax outs, phone, billboards, a mascot and other methods were also mentioned. 89


Some respondents mentioned other aspects of communication, such as location (39), possible partners in getting the message out (20), the target audience (15), or the content of the message (14). The park gates was the most commonly mentioned location; people suggested brochures could be distributed or park staff could mention important and timely issues. Other locations for information distribution included hotels, campgrounds, trailheads, toilets, restaurants, ski hills, and public libraries. Many people mentioned groups who could partner with Parks Canada to communicate with park users and the public. These included area MPs and MLAs, companies which regularly do large mailings (such as utility companies and banks), recreation-related businesses (such as tour operators, the Alberta Motor Association and Mountain Equipment Co-op), non-profit organizations (such as scouts and the Calgary Field Naturalist Society) and the arts (Banff Mountain Film Festival). Several respondents felt that information should be targeted at park users, such as those purchasing park passes, backcountry permits, or campground site permits. Others felt that messages should be targeted at tourists from outside the country or region who were perceived as less knowledgeable about park issues. Finally, several people mentioned the kind of message they would like to see in communications from Parks Canada. Some wanted the message to be short to increase the likelihood of the public reading it. Although some wanted an alternative or activist message, several people wanted to ensure the message is balanced. APPENDIX C. ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS

90


In addition to quantitative data collected from the close-ended questions on the survey, qualitative data were collected in the form of the respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; written comments. Open-ended questions allow more depth and detail to be expressed by respondents than the close-ended survey questions. Respondents can express their thoughts and perceptions in their own words and provide background to the answers given in the close-ended questions. It also allows respondents an opportunity to raise issues that were not included in other survey questions. 744 respondents (36.7%) took the opportunity to offer additional comments at the end of the survey. Many of these expanded on their views of MPBs and different control options. Other comments touched on other parks management issues such as development issues, fees and facilities, other environmental issues, or the survey itself. NUD*IST Vivo (Nvivo), a software package designed to search, sort, and code qualitative data, was used to sort paragraphs, passages and sentences into specific researcher-defined categories (e.g. fire). Although all comments making up each category are not presented in this report, a select few have been chosen to represent a specific category and are presented in tables below. To begin the analysis, comments were first sorted into broad categories; fire, logging, chemicals, MPB, survey, funding and fees, development and tourism, recreation and facilities, parks management and staff, highway, wildlife, and other. The first four categories were directly related to the primary subject of the survey. While the remaining categories were not, they were the subject of comments by a significant number of respondents. They are identified here in part to recognize the importance respondents placed upon them. Based on the number of comments found, each category was further broken down into secondary categories. For example,

91


comments related to fire were categorized into positive, negative, limitations or reservations, and general. While Nvivo was useful in organizing the comments, the variable nature of the comments required the researcher to classify the comments. Many paragraphs contained multiple subjects; each respondentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s comments could be coded into one or multiple categories. This creates an element of subjectivity to the results. However, they do offer some insight into the choices respondents made on the quantitative portion of the survey.

Comments related to Fire 143 people wrote comments related to fire in general or fire in relation to MPB control (Table C1). Comments about fire were roughly evenly split between positive and negative, with 57 providing positive comments, 52 negative, 30 expressing reservations or suggesting limitations, and another 8 making general statements. (Note that numbers in any category may not sum to the total as one person may have written comments which were classified into multiple sub-categories). Those providing positive comments focused on the benefits to the ecosystem by increasing diversity, reducing disease and infestation, improving habitat for wildlife, and helping to prevent large uncontrolled fires. Others preferred fire as a method of MPB control as it was seen as a natural solution to a natural problem and several respondents felt that fire suppression had resulted in the current outbreak of MPB, so allowing fires to burn was necessary to controlling the population. Of those who had a negative view of fire, many were concerned that park managers could lose control of prescribed burns, affecting air quality, health, tourism, wildlife, and habitat. 92


Another 30 supported fire with reservations, or suggested limitations on prescribed burns. For example, several people suggested only allowing burning in the fall, when they felt it would less likely to get out of control or impact tourism. Typical comments related to fire Category

Example of Comment

Positive Comments

There should be more public awareness that prescribed burns will be necessary in years to come to create / sustain healthy ecosystems. A lot of people still consider a mature forest to be the most attractive, not realizing that a patched open / forested landscape will create a larger diversity and more balanced ecosystem People seemed more concerned over the effect of smoke on tourism this summer, rather than what the devestating effect an uncontrolled, unstoppable fire in the valley may have if our parks are not managed properly now We cannot pretend to have a â&#x20AC;&#x153;naturalâ&#x20AC;? ecosystem occurring when we influence it with a fire wildfire protection program. Unless P burns are an integral part of the program Do fires cause ecologic damage, yes in the short term but long term fire is part of a natural cycle. The severity of beetle infestation is probably exacerbated by long term fire suppression. In turn the damage from very intense fire is probably exacerbated by the severity of the beetle infestation. I feel the combination of logging, thinning and controlled burns to various degrees will not only help control the spread of the beetle but also create and improved habitat for elk and deer. Hopefully this will help to solve the problem of habitated elk in the town site. Burn it: what happened to Kootenay park this summer was wonderful and beautiful to see now with the snow and the new vistas. It has to happen sometime - just do it! Since the pine beetle infestation is a naturally occurring phenomenon, I believe that natural methods should be used to control it. That is the prescribed burning method not only destroys the beetles, its habitat etc but it also melts the resin sealing the lodge pole pine cone seeds and replenishes the nutrients to the soil.

93


Our interest as park users to see old growth stands of trees may not be in the best interest of the long term viability of the forest as a whole. For example: campers may not like the look of burned out sections of forest but fire is a legitimate means of rejuvenating diseased / aging stands of trees. Long term forestation needs must outweigh year to year park usership wants of the tourism industry. Negative Comments

Controlled (oops! â&#x20AC;&#x153;prescribedâ&#x20AC;?) burns sometimes burn more than they were planned for. I am concerned over prescribed burns in the park. I live and own a house in Canmore in a wooded area by the river. My concern is that by starting a fire in Banff park you could burn the whole valley. We have dry forests and strong prevailing winds from the west. One small mistake and we could have whole towns like Canmore, Banff, and even Exshaw burnt to the ground Parks Canada started a controlled burn last spring on the Fairholme bench between Banff and Canmore. This small fire proceeded to fill the Bow Valley with smoke for most of 5 or 6 months, and had a serious impact on health and business. To say that prescribed burning is to burn forested areas under controlled conditions and to contain the forest to a predetermined area is definitely not possible. Nature and the exposed environment is not a libratory, you have no control over wind rain, sun, or temperature. one more forest fire if the magnitude of the last fire, there will not be much to attract a visitor to Kootenay Park. I strongly disagree with controlled burning, because it is done in the spring when birds and animals have their young. This burns the nest and destroys the grass. It also destroys the living habitat for small animals. (every controlled burn so far has gotten out of control, and caused major forest fires) Although fire is a means of killing the beetle, the death of a forest is involved in either event. But to let burnt forest stand like what happened in the Sturn Mtn. fire in 1967 is ugly, unsafe for hikers and uneconomical for all the millions of dollars of wood to rot on the ground. It is demoralizing to see the complete annihilation of a beautiful campground at Red Streak. Under the incompetent direction of park management, a replica of Hiroshima has been created under the guise of forest management!

94


This past 2003 summer we experienced severe smoke for an extended period - both from distant natural forest fires, ie. Crowsnest, Kelowna, etc, but it felt our own prescribed burns in the Bow Valley were the worst - I personally as a senior suffered from health issues related to the smoky air Expressing Reservations

Parks Canada should start all controlled burns in the fall only. Then at least the winter snow would help control the burn, and fewer residents and especially tourists would be impacted. Controlled burning may be a way of achieving some control but please be careful!

Other

So sad about Kootenays’s fire . . . though now it will be interesting to see how natural growth affects wildlife! if they do let a fire burn, wherever it is, parks Canada MUST PROVIDE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE that the fire is necessary for A) bug destruction B) wildlife habitat enhancement C) biodiversity. People don’t seem to trust park’s ability to handle prescribed burns (eg burns getting out of control, burns before a hot summer like 2003 flaring up again), misinformation about specific fires (eg Kootenay park, Tokkum creek), simply be honest with people, don’t tell them “we were fighting the fire 100%, if that wasn’t the case.

Comments related to Logging 107 respondents wrote comments about logging and forestry practices as methods of MPB control (Table C2). Most (79) were positive, focusing on increasing biodiversity and wildlife habitat, fuel reduction, and improved aesthetics. Many of the positive comments also suggested that cutting of trees could bring economic benefits for the parks, or could reduce the need for industry to cut unaffected trees. Some also suggested that horse logging could be used as a tourist attraction. Some respondents suggested logging burnt or infested wood, commenting that leaving the wood in the forest would be a waste.

95


25 respondents wrote negative comments about using forestry to control MPB. Writers focused on the environmental impacts of forestry, and a perceived slippery slope to commercialization and industrialization of national parks. Another two people provided other forestry related comments.

Typical comments related to logging Category

Example of Comment

Positive Comments

I feel the best possible solution would be sanitation cutting and small prescribed burns. In doing this we are effectively controlling the beetle while maintaining a pleasing cosmetic view of the forest. With selective logging you create different age growths of forests providing forest wildlife with a greater variety of habitat. I feel if the general public were more informed with the benefits of sanitation cutting to control the outbreak of beetles they would be more willing to allow logging in national parks. With all the fires last summer in BC and Alberta I only wish that when there is so much potential for disaster in regard to fires that we would harvest and reforest some of the areas. This I especially believe becasue after the fires especially in BC the price of lumber went up dramatically.... What a waste all that potential lumber going up in smoke. To selectively log and undertake fuel reduction programs around populated areas is a responsible non-life threatening proactive method of achieving 2 goals. 1. prevention of naturally occurring forest fires 2. control of the mountain pine beetle Selective logging also created and sustains employment opportunities and it also contributes to the economic livelihood of mills and local people. if the parks decided to log the bug infested areas this would be great 1. control the beetle somewhat 2. enhance range for wild life 3. create some revenue to repair roads campgrounds etc

96


I think the usable trees that have been burned in forest fires should be logged (especially the ones not so visible to the highway). The parks could get a lot of money and the forest would be cleaned up to prevent a fire hazard and also would create grazing for animals. I also think the pine beetle infested wood should also be logged. There could be tree planting done to reforest any area that would be clear cut. It may not be a pleasing sight for a few years to tourists, but in the long road it will be. Beside burned trees and dead beetle killed trees are a worse sight. In some areas selective logging could be done by horse logging to further minimize impact and also create a tourist attraction. Have specific times when tourists can observe safely, have their photographs taken with the horses and loggers, etc. I think education is the most important thing. Take clear cutting or logging. Everybody used to think that all the downed woody debris, etc. was an eyesore but actually if can be good for wildlife and for regeneration etc. We were a bit shocked this year to see the Redstreak campground with the trees being thinned, but totally appreciate what the park is doing... Just whatever you do, don’t change it, keep it natural, the way it is. Negative Comments

Is the control of pine mountain beetle mostly in the interest of commercial uses i.e. if the beetle didn’t attack commercially used trees would the national park management by trying to control it. I’m opposed to stripping hillsides of their trees as can be seen in the USA. I’m opposed to commercialism in the disguise of forestry management Don’t even think about it! Logging or thinning has huge environmental effects, from the trees being cut to soil it is grown in, not to mention the effects to wildlife. Timber value “lost” to mntn pine beetle or fire is irrelevant because that timber was never available to forest companies, and should remain so. I am adamantly opposed to opening up areas of NP for timber harvesting. As a forest technician involved in the BC forest industry for 15 years. I have yet to see the MPB situation slowed at all as a result of large scale stem removal. I have seen the damage done by the logging industry and would worry about allowing even selective logging in the park. Support for thinning and logging in the park is limited by our distrust of the government. The concern is that if the door is opened to logging the government and private industry will see money to be made and open parks to widespread unnecessary logging. 97


Allowing industrial logging in, is like selling water to USA. Other

My support for sanitation cutting is contingent on the agreement made by the province of Alberta to protect wolves.

Comments related to Chemical Controls 16 people wrote about the use of chemicals for MPB control, all but one being opposed to the idea (Table C3). The negative comments focused on the writersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; distrust of the chemicals impact on the environment, animal and human health. The final comment indicated that support of chemical controls was contingent upon proven success combating MPB.

Typical comments related to chemicals Category

Example of Comment

Negative Comments

I strongly disagree with the use of chemicals to irradicate the beetle problem. The chemicals will only leach into our water and kill the birds that feed off the beetles. I think it mtn pine beetle needs to be controlled it ought to be as least intrusive on ecosystem a possible. NO chemicals Chemicals are persistent and have a tendency to bioaccumulate. The rest of society uses these so much : parks should be a leader in eco-conservation and deep-ecology.

Expressing Reservations

As for mountain pine beetle I would not object to limited chemical application and sanitation logging in selected small areas if this was found to be absolutely successful.

98


Comments related to Mountain Pine Beetle 99 respondents wrote more general comments about MPB and whether control was necessary or desirable, without specific mention of a control measure (Table C4). Of these, 36 favored control, because human actions were responsible for the outbreak and there is a perceived need to protect forests both inside and outside the parks. Another 23 respondents favored no control, because it was unnecessary to control a native insect, MPB infestations were seen to have benefits to wildlife and the environment, and the parks could be a control for comparison to forests outside the parks. Another 38 provided more general comments about human activity causing the outbreak, the need for cold weather to reduce the population, that control is hopeless or expressing general concern without mention of a preference for action.

Typical comments related to mountain pine beetle Category

Example of Comment

Favouring Control

We must use all of our means to eventually control the pine beetle or any other insect, animal, plant or human being that is a danger to the national park. Mt. Pine beetle must be controlled to prevent spread throughout the national parks and other forest land. Control of forest fire has contributed to the unchecked spread of the beetle. That human factor should prompt park managers to act to control the rampant spread of beetles. The management of our parks affects how we manage our forests. If the beetle gets out of control in the parks how will we stop it in our other forests. While I recognize that a certain level of insect infestation is healthy, the current amount of damage caused by mountain pine beetles is worrisome. I support prudent measures to bring this under control. However, I do not support any measures that will lead to an increased presence of industry in the national parks - for whatever reason.

99


We’ve lost a lot of trees to the beetle and will be glad to see something beneficial done. I see no value in these bugs! Enlighten me if there is. the pine beetle is a genuine threat to our beautiful environment, community and tourism do what you have to do to minimize this threat If diseased trees are left the beetle will continue until all you have left are dead trees and wood peckers. The spread of the mountain pine beetle and now fir beetles has to be brought under control in the lower part of BC and Alta. It is not the detrimental effect on the forestry industry and tourism industry will be devastating. The logging corporations are trying there hardest to get some kind of grip on this devastation. If the national parks don’t get on board it will be a big waste of time for everyone involved. I realize that this survey is all about national parks, however, I am just as concerned about the impact the parks have on bordering working areas of the forest. It would be a big mistake not to do anything about the bug infestation in the parks. The parks may become an incubator and spread the problem into the working forest, which could lead to huge economic problems. I don’t think that most park users, be they naturalists, casual tourists, repeat visitors or recreationalists, really like lots of brown, dead trees. management of outbreaks such as the mountain pine beetle should be handled differently in each area of the park, intensive control and suppression should be employed in areas readily accessible to visitors, such as , the highway corridors and campgrounds. I feel that the parks have a responsibility to control to mountain pine beetle populations. You cannot be blind to the economic consequences that will occur outside you border if these pests are left un-checked. As far as the parks go I see the beetle as part of the natural cycle. The beetle is probably a food source for some other animal or bird species and helps renew the forest by targeting older trees allowing younger trees to take their place. I don’t see it as something that should be protected nor eradicated (if this was even possible). It just exists. Unfortunately the parks border other forests which are being harvested commercially and an outbreak would be bad for them. Therefore as I see it, outbreaks in the parks need to be “managed” somewhat so that they don’t become an epidemic somewhere else. Please continue trying to get rid of the pine beetle and try to make people and the environment (parks, animals etc) work in harmony 100


Against Control

but I have a ask myself, “are mountain pine beetles just the pest of the century? Are we going to look back and shake our heads at ourselves, the same way we look at the folks who exterminated our large carnivores?” The only thing I’d like to add here is that if the pine beetle is a naturally occurring phenomenom in our parks and the only reason we are actively working oto control and prevent its spread is to protect outside timber interests, then I would strongly disagree with and oppose control measures within the national parks. It should be the economic entities that stand to gain from the beetles control that bear the cost of controlling it!! Not the overtaxed resources and budgets of out national parks system. Letting the beetle do its thing without intervention could lead to large areas of forest dying and regenerating naturally. This would allow a new cycle to occur creating new habitat for wildlife. In turn the Mountain pine beetle might diminish in number as their habitat is being devoured, and the regenerating forest is a less favorable environment for them. The beetle is a result of an over mature pine forest. I believe we have seen an over mature forest “turn over” in Yellowstone and now the beetle and fires we have seen in Kootenay NP is the way these forests will “turn over” Park priority must be maintenance of natural ecosystems - biodiversity protection trumps all other management concerns “ecological integrity” it’s your phrase. Follow it. I think it basically means leave things alone. The beetle is part of nature and nature is not always pretty. If beetle outbreaks affect tourism then they should plan for it much like a farmer must face the fact that weather could ruin his crop for the year.

General Comments

A lot of thought needs to go into the proper management of our environment. But, there is definitely a problem with the mountain pine beetle in our local parks. The effects are becoming more visible with each passing year. Unless we have a major cold weather comeback you will never control the pine beetle The beetle infestation cannot realistically be controlled. There are millions of trees that are infected, might be infected or will never be infected. You can’t find every single beetle!

101


MPB’s are endemic to these regions, and serve a useful ecological purpose. Suppressing forest fires in the parks for decades has led to an abundance of mature pine stands of similar ages, making them prime targets for a MPB outbreak.... The more we allow forest ecosystems to manage themselves naturally, the fewer giant MPB outbreaks we’ll see. The objectives of mountain pine beetle control are unclear to me (and I suspect others). If the intent is to keep “roadside” forests free of beetles for the benefit of tourists in parks this would imply a very different management plan than, say, keeping commercial forests free of beetles. I suspect that if control of beetles in parks is desireable (and it isn’t clear to me that this is the case, and if so, why!) that there should be a variety of methods explored as to effectiveness, as opposed to a ‘one size fits all” approach. My father is working in the forest industry, or what is left of it, back home. As a kid I can remember him carrying huge black pine beetle traps into the forest during an outbreak in the early 80’s. They failed suppressing the beetle, and the timber value of the property was halved. On the other side, the low vegetation gave a rise in the number of moose, which gave an increase in hunting licenses. We make many trips down highway 93 and the visible presence of the mountain pine beetle is becoming very distressing. My kids are worried all our forests will be wiped out. I also share this worry. Mother nature, despite leaving charred scars across the mountainside may prevail over the epidemic of the damaging pine beetle. The frigid temperatures of late may help as well, can’t believe I’m wishing for colder temperatures.

Comments related to the survey 167 respondents wrote comments about the survey itself (Table C5). 71 of these comments were positive, generally expressing appreciation that they had the opportunity to express their opinions. 19 comments were negative, often saying the questions were leading or ambiguous, or that the survey was a waste of money. 32 comments expressed doubts about the value of their own opinion or that of respondents in general in the decision making process.

102


Finally, there were 45 comments of a general nature, asking for more information or suggesting other survey topics.

Typical comments related to the survey Category

Example of Comment

Positive Comments

I’m very pleased that Parks Canada is conducting this sort of active solicitation of views / sentiments from the public. I think it is extremely important in order to ensure the future of our local parks. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this particular survey. Although I may not be as informed as other participants, I believe that this will add diversity to final statistics. These surveys are important and I would gladly participate in the future. You have presented some very good thought provoking questions that tell me that I need to pay closer attention to some of the matters in your questionairre (eg Beetles) and the possible consequences of them. I was honoured to be able to participate. I am usually the one to say . . . why don’t they do this or try that . . . so it was appreciated to have my opinion counted.

Negative Comments

I found this survey to be very guided. I am not sure of its purpose other than possibly making money for the surveyor’s account, more important issues are at hand with park management. You can’t make management decisions by what the outcome of this survey says. People are not going to take the time to look into this before answering. If a bug is involved ; it’s just squish squash stomp it out of here. I started your questionnaire but will not complete it because if you think the pine beetle is the most pressing / important issue to deal with you are wasting a lot of time and money that could be better spent. survey gives distinct impression that management is worried about taking a decision on beetle control issues that might cause public backlash. Has a distinct “cover your as*” tone.

103


Expressing doubt about the value of their opinion

I’m not sure that the general public, including myself, is well enough informed to advise parks about specific issues of management. Lay persons such as ourselves cannot begin to know how to answer some of the questions. “Bug men” with Univ. degrees are the ones who should know the best method of control Parks Canada has professional employees that; I am certain; know more about these management decisions than I do. The information you receive from non-expert people; such as myself; should not be used to influence the management approach implemented by Parks Canada employees. I’m a scientist and find it difficult to answer some of the questions without getting precise definitions. I do not believe that the pine beetle should be managed by democratic questionnaires. My opinion is worth substantially less than a scientist who’s spent years studying the problem.

General Comments

Pine beetle questions hard to answer what is meant by an “uninfected but susceptible tree” and how great are their numbers? How effective is sanitation cutting? I encourage you to send out questionnaires relating to redevelopment of already existing urban areas of the parks, recreational use facilities. Impact of these facilities and their use on the ecology of the parks. Much easier to do on the internet and wouldn’t have cost postage. A lot of the questions were more philosophical as opposed to answers to help decide how to run the parks. Not sure the relevance of this survey I had a hard time answering the questions in section 13 on my view abut various methods of controlling the mountain pine beetle without knowing more about the problem. I would have liked to know such things as; 1. how much forest is lost in a typical outbreak without any intervention 2. is the mountain pine beetle normally found in the Rocky Mountain Parks or has it been introduced from elsewhere 3. how likely is the MSMA to enter the ground water of affect wildlife 4. How is it spread 5. what methods have been most successful in controlling infestations elsewhere 6. can the commercial areas set up “buffer zones” between themselves and park forest sort of like for controlling fire Would like a free ski pass to answer all these questions

104


Other Comments Many respondents took the opportunity to offer comments on topics not related to MPB. For example, 95 people provided comments about funding and fees (Table C6). Of these, 62 commented on fees, usually indicating they thought fees (including annual passes, camping or backcountry fees and other charges) were too high. Some suggested charging differential fees for out of country visitors or RV users others suggested charging everyone a fee, even if they donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t plan on stopping in the parks. Another 33 people provided comments on park funding, usually indicating it was insufficient and they would like to see it increased. Another 6 people provided other revenue related comments.

Typical comments related to funding and fees Category

Example of Comment

Fees

I firmly believe that the park passes are far too expensive for locals living close to the park, like myself I live in Canmore and it is outrageous It has also stopped a large amount of families from visiting Banff NP and learning about every aspect of the mountains because of the extortionate fee charged for an annual pass. It is generally felt that the federal government doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t really want anyone to visit, learn or enjoy the parks through which major highways run. I also think that absolutely everyone driving through the park should have a pass. I think a year pass should be only 20 - 30 dollars a year and every vehicle should need one. It the price is kept affordable people will not complain and I think a lot of passes sold at a low rate is better than only a few sold at a high rate I am an avid back country hiker for over 20 years. I enjoy it very much. The cost has gone through the roof. I am a family of six and would go more often if it wasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t so expensive to enjoy our own provincial parks.

105


I believe that the effort to make the parks more self-sustaining favors foreign tourist at the expense of ordinary Canadians. In short, we should increase fees for foreign tourists and decrease them for Canadians. The profit motives of businesses operating in the parks and federal austerity measures should not take precedence over universal accessability for Canadians. I disagree with park fee’s. I am an ACTIVE outdoor person. As a citizen it’s MY right to enjoy the park(s) at NO charge. I say charge tourists massive amounts to drive them away.... If we have to close town tourist facilities because of lack of funds you tell me how having less tourists in our parks is a bad thing. Growth in tourism in the parks is NOT a good thing, stop treating MY parks like a business. 1. persons camping in tents should not have to pay the same amount as those in RV’s, tent trailers, etc 2. students should not be expected to pay the same rate as families Because if one goes on a camping trip of a few weeks and the average campsite cost is $15 (which is a very low estimate), a student is looking at over $200 to be spent on only campsites . . . This is far too expensive Funding

As you would imagine at my age, I am not able to enjoy the parks and what they have to offer but I did enjoy them when I was younger and because I did, I am most concerned that we have the finances allotted to the Canadian parks dept so they have the means to educate the increasing number of people using them. The parks are a vital natural resource. As such, our taxes should be used effectively to sustain the national park experience. The existence of the parks is vital to the psychological health of the whole nation, and affordable user fees should make it available to as many people as possible and not a preserve of the wealthy. The pine beetle may be a concern, but governmental neglect may be more of a problem. squeezing budgets ad infinitum and postponing needed upkeep and renovations, does not qualify as taking a “long term perspective.”

Other Revenuerelated Comments

I support HEAVY FINES to those who compromise the Parks due to careless use of fire, water pollutants, air pollutants and just plain old littering.

94 people commented on issues related to development and tourism (Table C7). The majority (71) wanted development slowed or limited, 14 supported development and another 8 106


offered general comments about development or offered suggestions on how to mitigate the effects of development. Typical comments related to development and tourism Category

Example of Comment

Slow Development

as much as the parks depend on the tourist industry for financial support, I believe tourism in the parks should be limited. I also feel that there should be large buffer zones between the parks and either logging / mining or commercial / residential development. It would seem a little goofy to have the parks at all it the entire area up to the park boundaries was completely barren. I feel a stronger, more â&#x20AC;&#x153;wildâ&#x20AC;? approach is better for the park. People come for the rugged mountains, not just the spas. Tourism development poses a great threat to the ecological integrity of the parks, and should therefore be halted. In particular, ski resorts should not be allowed to expand or increase capacity and no new backcountry facilities should be allowed I am concerned about the pressures that are presently being put upon our parks and the wildlife within them by increased human activity. I have personally witnessed the results of these pressures on our parks and I strongly support the required restrictions on human activity within the parks, not withstanding that some may cause inconvenience to visitors.

Allow Development

Accept that Banff is tourism oriented. Establish more wilderness areas that are protected but not developed for people. while the cost to manage the parks is surely to rise and therefore the cost would prohibit the average person from being able to visit the parks, I feel that commercial developments in the parks, and to a lesser extent adjacent to them, should greatly subsidize the management and operational costs.

General

Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s important to balance the need to keep the parks as natural as possible with the need for people to experience the parks. The more people that see the parks, experience nature and enjoy the experience the better people will understand the need for the parks to protect the environment. Concentrating human impact in the parks in specific areas such as Banff (or near Canmore / Radium) and Jasper will lessened impact on wildlife in remote areas.

107


Other comments covered a wide range of issues and viewpoints (Table C8). 86 people commented on recreational activities and facilities, 112 respondents commented on parks management and staff, 51 provided comments related to the highway, 31 to wildlife, and 161 provided other comments, relating to other environmental concerns, value statements or personal statements. As these comments were wide-ranging and not easily summarized, some sample comments are provided to demonstrate the range of topics and viewpoints.

Example comments related to other issues Category

Example of Comment

Recreation and Facilities

I feel extremely strongly that ALL forms of MOTORISED VEHICLES eg OHVs, quads, dirt bikes, and similar power boats AND HELICOPTERS (except medical rescue ones / fire fighting ones) should be BANNED. Especially NO “heli-touring / skiing etc scares wildlife to death As a tax-payer that supports the park system I feel like a persona-non-grata in Kootenay and Banff parks. More and more facilities, trails, etc are being closed to the public. I think the best way to garner support for parks from people is through the pleasure they get from using the parks backcountry campgrounds need better management. The permit process for camping needs to be enforced and people without permits need to be ticketed. Maximum numbers at these campgrounds need to be monitored. More patrolling of campgrounds needs to be done. a dog off lease area in / near Banff would reduce the amount of dog waste around the town site as well as reducing dog / wildlife confrontations. I think that you should spend more time educating backpackers who use backcountry comp sites. We saw far too many people doing things like setting up tents off tentpads and washing dishes directly in the lakes and streams. If backcountry campers knew the appropriate protocol, they would likely follow it. As a cyclist I’m very disappointed that many trails in Banff National Park have been closed to cyclists.... Taking Brant Creek as an example, I’d re-open it but implement a quota open to allow it to be used by bikers, but to limit the numbers and times. 108


Thanks for electric bear fence at Lake Louise - we’re tenter’s and enjoy the site! On our last camping visit to Kicking Horse Campground we experienced plugged toilets everyday that we were there (very, very unsanitary) I realize that parks Canada has to strike a good balance between services offered and user fees charged, however, while the fees are raised ever higher, the level or services and infrastructure are visibly declining. I believe an attitude of making trails / backcountry etc access no better than today is the best approach. These should not be highways as the people who will endure the basics are the people who will most appreciate the beauty, value, ecology and quiet of these special locations. Perhaps a system of rotating closures would help the environment recover from human use. Although the trail and back country closures this summer were inconvenient to me personally, I am very pleased that parks officials took those measures to protect the remaining areas from potential fires caused by careless people. The staff made difficult decisions, and were no doubt criticized for those decisions, but I am very pleased they took such a responsible stand. Parks Management and Staff

I would like to public more involve in decisions making concerning parks. Sometime individual in parks different department will make decision according to their belief wich can be wrong. Comitty should be created including public, different agency and park staff went major decision are taken I do believe that forestry and park wardens should be given more authority. Also the manpower to enforce the rules and regulations as they exist. the parks should be advocates for wise use of surrounding land as well as trying to minimize our parks becoming island wildernesses. The top priority of Parks Canada must be the protection of the ecological integrity of our parks at all times. The pine beetle “crisis” provides Parks Canada with an opportunity to teach the public about nature, natural disasters and their effect on the ecosystem, fire management (and human) effects on the ecosystem, succession etc. Perhaps it should be handled as an opportunity? It would be wonderful if more funding was available for interpretive programs within the parks. An educated public would be a more supportive public 109


Parks Canada are doing an excellent job in managing the park balance which is a though job. It is an important part of our province and country. It’s here for all of us to enjoy - responsibly. Keep up the good work Parks Canada has alienated its stewards - the recreational user groups and individuals who try to enjoy the parks. There should be more security in the parks to prevent poaching and destruction of habitat. The cut backs in personnel were too drastic. The only saving grace of the current parks regime is the young people who provide the interpretive programs at the campgrounds. At the rare location where these are still offered, these programs are always well attended by those who are actually using the park, and the message is conveyed to old and young alike. If you’re looking for the most effective communication means, increase your budget to hire a force of energetic summer students to reinstate these programs at all campgrounds. Highway

I do wish consideration would be given to the problems of road and rail kills especially regarding wolves and bears. It seems astronomical to me living in Canmore. This valley with its water source is obviously the home of wildlife. More fencing, underpasses, etc are needed before the wildlife corridors lose all their wildlife. The RCMP need to patrol the highway a lot more or if the resources don’t allow it give park wardens the power to hand out speeding tickets. I’m sick of hearing about all the wildlife killed by motorists. Something needs to be done and I think a more visible RCMP presence would help. The speed limit through Kootenay park should be reduced to 70 km in sensitive “high kill” areas. This is a national park first and foremost. on a positive note, the road maintenance in Kootenay National Park is outstanding. They seem to take personal pride in maintaining the roads to the best of their ability THANK YOU! Get photo radar in the parks! get the RCMP to contract it out to parks, hire staff, lay traps and start raking in the dough! At least in the summer. The trans-Canada is a bane of contention for me. It angers me when I hear of people wanting to twin the whole thing. I would also like to see the tourism try to find bus alternatives. The amount of traffic is extreme and this does effect the environment.

Wildlife

I understand wildlife ie grizzly bears need large areas to survive and hope that they will not find themselves hemmed in by “islands of protected areas” 110


We need to care and preserve them as man is encroaching wnt so much land on earth that the animals have no where no go but where people are living. We all know what happens when wildlife becomes a problem in human populated areas THE ANIMAL LOOSES! Hunting of wolves / bears / cougars / big game should not be allowed within certain distance of park, to protect endangered species (cougar hunting should be completely illegal in Alberta) Bears are a constant threat to campers, hikers and visitors in federal parks. This limits our chances for the enjoyment of nature in many areas in our national parks. A program must be introduced or enhanced to teach bears to fear humans and to keep away from campgrounds and tourism attractions (eg. use of rubber bullets). Every year we read of incidences where tourists have been mauled or killed by bear attacks. I have to admit that as a lover of nature, some of the best experiences are when we are able to see wildlife (including bears) - not feed or bother but get a glimpse. I would like to see continued efforts by park management to find ways for people to commune with all in nature without disturbing the balance. We need to have people in the field, or we risk losing valuable wildlife to poaching, wildfires, etc. Other Environmental Concerns

Air pollution national emission standards will benefit us all We need to establish more national and provincial parks. we are destroying our planet through fossil fuel emissions!!! I disagree with ski restaurants (sunshine) who use mainly Styrofoam plates and plastic cutlery - they should be checked up to be â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;environmentaly friendlyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; - less packaging, more recycling . Parks should concentrate more resources on watershed management and protection. Parks should look more closely at decommissioning dams.

Value Statements

We understand the importance of preserving our natural resources even though population growth impacts our planted we should be able to live and play in our great land. People must be respectful while enjoying life. Moderation is the key. Humans are the crown of Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s creation and therefore are allowed to have control of all other things created. This does not at all mean that people can use creation (nature) to their own selfish greedy purpose.

111


I am of the first nations tribe of the east Kootenays. I truly believe in nature looking after itself. For hundred of years prior contract our people did do selective burning, this was beneficial for new growth that both humans and animals benefited from. I would like to see more of our people in the park helping keep balance. Meaning culing forest growth, harvesting their traditional medicine (plants and berries) with proper respect to nature our plants and forest will flourish. I firmly believe we can and should control the environment in the parks (in most situation) so that people can saying them. I have a problem with the “tree huggers” who are adament in their opinion and before to use common sense to do what is best for the environment and humans. I believe that humans need to be “managed” in the national parks and not the plants and animals. scenic values may overrule bio-diversity values in some instances, particularly in famous or especially attractive areas of the Mtn. Parks I thought the burn scars on Mt Girourd / Mt Peechee very ugly. I feel we are blessed to live in a country like Canada that has so many sources of natural beauty and the foresight to have preserved them by creating our national park reserves. Require people to set out of their god damned cars while in the parks so that they may appreciate the true value of what they now take for granted Although I agree the environment is being and has been damaged by human activity, I think many of the things we hear are often over exaggerated by the media. Local solutions to local problems, Sheila Copps proved that Ottawa has no concept of the issues we face and the solutions we need. Good riddance to her. The parks and nature are like a child. We need to watch over them, keep them from harm. The environment is not a priority for most people. This has been indicated in election results and surveys. Personal Statements

I have lived in Banff National Park for forty-six years and was much more active in using what the park has of offer than I have been in the last year. I really want my grandchildren to enjoy Banff park one day! We enjoyed our trip to Vancouver and our time spent at Banff beautiful place and the people were friendly and helpful 112


If there is ever a reforestation effort to rejeuvinate the areas of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;the mountain parksâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; where logging and prescribed burning have occurred (in order to combat the mountain pine beetle), I would like to indicate that I have lots of experience in the tree planting industry and could be contacted to replant the mountain parks (Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve single-handedly planted over 850, 000 trees over the last 6 summers).

113


Mpbep 2004 11 rpt managingformpbinkootenayandbanffnationalparkssurveyofvisitorsandresidents