Environment Canada re-commissions Banff and Jasper airstrips

On Friday, Parks Canada issued two press releases announcing that the airstrips in Banff and Jasper would be re-commissioned.  The airstrips were closed in 1997 after the Banff Bow Valley Study highlighted the intense threats posed by commercial development and infrastructure, including the airstrips, to the ecological health of the mountain parks. Environment Canada argues that the re-opening of these airstrips will improve pilot safety in Rocky Mountains air space.  I don't disagree with the move to allow commercial aircraft diversions and emergency landings in Banff and Jasper.

What I do find problematic is the opening of the Jasper airstrip for recreational aircraft use. CPAWS sums up the Jasper situation well: "this is about enabling a privileged few to recreate in their personal aircraft in protected areas." Moreover, CPAWS suggests that any emergency landings or diversions would be for personal aircrafts only:

“The ecology and visitor experiences of two of the world’s greatest national parks which are dedicated to the Canadian public are being compromised for the narrow interests of some private pilots. We will make every effort to have this decision reversed and look to all legal means to achieve it."

If this is the case, I'd be interested to know whether commercial jets could or would land at these airstrips in an emergency. If not, should they be re-commissioned to the large detriment of the wildlife in these protected areas? I guess those are questions the forthcoming environmental assessment will have to answer. On a side note: I wonder if Air Tory will have direct flights to Jasper...

Comments

[One Alberta Voter]

This decision is seriously misguided and quite disturbing. Even the safety justification is suspect: Transport Canada and an independent study both found the safety risk of closing the airstrips to be minimal. Also, some of the most enthusiastic pilot champions of the airstrips have been quite imaginative in the past in their definition of "emergency and diversionary".

The key question here is whether this decision - and others such as the new Site Guidelines for the Marmot ski area in Jasper - presage a shift in the government's thinking about the value of national parks. The law says that ecological integrity of the aprks should be Job One, but are we seeing signs that tourism promotion and just plain fun are trumping that? I would love to hear John Baird's answer.