| Author |
Topic |
|
Burnaby, BC
Canada
535 Posts |
|
North Vancouver, BC
Canada
1047 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2012 : 10:18 PM
|
I hear they are putting in a dirt bike track, awesome!
|
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
343 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2012 : 11:20 PM
|
| That sucks. The article says that right now they break even financially. Why do they need to do better than that? It is not a 'for-profit' business. |
|
|
North Vancouver, BC
Canada
1602 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 12:07 AM
|
| Time to buy some Viad stock (they own Brewster Travel Canada.) |
|
|
2421 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 10:10 AM
|
Just a comment, but I hadn't realized that one of the primary motives for the creation of Banff National Park was because people were so annoyed at promoters who purchased all the land around Niagara Falls so they could sell off the views. They didn't want a repeat in the Parks.
Source: Interpretative Guides Association Manual
I guess we've come full circle, and we're now at the mercy of the same kind of greedy promoters. |
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3787 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 12:00 PM
|
Read further in the manual. It's not that they didn't want anyone to profit from the hot springs like at Niagra. It's that *they* wanted to profit. The park was originally claimed by the Federal Government so that the government could import rich European tourists to pay big money to ridge CP Rail, visit the Cave and Basin, and the hot springs, and go on hunting expeditions (with Canadian guides).
The major motive was always profit. The government just wanted to make sure the profit didn't go to anyone else. |
|
|
2421 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 2:54 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rachelo
Read further in the manual. It's not that they didn't want anyone to profit from the hot springs like at Niagra. It's that *they* wanted to profit. The park was originally claimed by the Federal Government so that the government could import rich European tourists to pay big money to ridge CP Rail, visit the Cave and Basin, and the hot springs, and go on hunting expeditions (with Canadian guides).
The major motive was always profit. The government just wanted to make sure the profit didn't go to anyone else.
You should do your research a little better, Rachel. You're talking about the hotel and the commercial activities surrounding it; I was talking about Banff National Park. Or are you familiar with the distinction? It's a common mistake.
Yes, the government wanted to recoup some of the money that building the railroad cost, and saw the Banff hot springs as another potential Baden Baden. To those ends they created the Banff Hot Springs Reserve in 1885. Public pressure stemming from the situation at Niagara Falls was what led to the creation of the national parks.
QUOTE: Pg 182 IGA Manual
"The impetus to create national parks in Canada and in the United States was to a real extent born of disgust for what happened at Niagara Falls, where unscrupulous speculators bought up all the grand views and charged exorbitantly just to see the waterfall."
Try to get your facts straight before you go spouting off your opinions. |
Edited by - peter1955 on 05/02/2012 3:13 PM |
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3787 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 4:06 PM
|
Banff National Park which expanded the federal government's area of domain so that they could also sell hunting trips, and later mountain expeditions, as well as continue to charge access to the hot springs.
I'm not talking about the hotel at all.
I'm not criticizing the actions. I'm simply pointing out that there was no desire to prevent money from being made. The criticism of Niagra was that private businesses were in charge of the access. the government wanted to keep that control (and that funding). |
|
|
North Vancouver, bc
Canada
155 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 5:26 PM
|
| Niagara Falls is one of the most depressing places I have ever been. A dirty, Kitschy, concrete, tourist trap which detracts all of the beauty left in that area (which is next to none). If you go to the Alps you will see what mountains look like without wilderness, and understand why people from an area of abundant peaks (over 4000 m) and unlimited access still come to Canada to hike. Once it is gone it is gone. Our government continually uses our wilderness to promote Canada (specifically BC) to the world, and beef up tourism, while simultaneously they try to sell it all off and squeeze any other resources they can out of it, usually to the first bidder. |
|
|
2421 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2012 : 12:13 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rachelo
I'm not criticizing the actions. I'm simply pointing out that there was no desire to prevent money from being made. The criticism of Niagra was that private businesses were in charge of the access. the government wanted to keep that control (and that funding).
Actually, if you read the manual, it refers to public outcry over Niagara providing the impetus to create the parks. The government could have blocked the purchase of land at Niagara but didn't act. The public (not the government) didn't want a repeat.
Government greed was, however, the reason for the creation of the Banff Hot Springs Reserve.
Sorry, but you did get quite snide by suggesting I 'read the manual'. I'd be happy to lend you mine, if you'd like to learn about the history of the National Parks, or you can get one from the IGA. |
|
|
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2012 : 7:56 PM
|
One of the greatest travesties in modern times in Vancouver was the decision in 1933 to allow a private company, British Pacific Properties, to slice through the middle of Stanley Park with a three lane causeway and build the Lions Gate Bridge- just so they could sell real estate in West Vancouver. This effectively removed 6 hectares of old growth forest from the 405 hectare Park and created a polluted-air and noise corridor on either side of the causeway that probably encompasses a total of 50 hectares, or more than 10% of the park. And all this in the name of development and job creation (remember, 1933 was in the depth of the Depression).
So where were all the concerned environmentalists in 2000 when the Lions Gate Bridge came to the end of its life cycle and either had to be replaced or completely refurbished? That would have been the perfect opportunity to do something about the desecration to the park by moving the roadway to a tunnel under Burrard Inlet. The ONLY thing standing in the way of righting the incredible wrong of slicing Stanley Park in half was $$money$$- the tunnel would have cost three times what refurbishment of the bridge cost. So instead of doing the right thing, the NDP government of the day opted for the cheap alternative- environment be damned- and opted for fixing the bridge and maintaining the causeway.
The Conservative Government has focussed its energy on fiscal responsibility and job creation- following up on the incredible job that was done by the Liberal Government under Paul Martin and Jean Chretien, which has now made Canada the envy of the world with regard to economic matters. Yes, this, of necessity, has required reducing the size of the Civil Service in Canada, including laying off some Park's employees- but will not result in one square metre of Park being removed.
If the Federal Government didn't have the courage to reign in spending and encourage responsible development that helps pay for the services we demand, we would face the same economic crises now gripping Europe- and there is no greater threat to the environment, and to national parks, than a poor economy- when, just as in 1933 with the causeway through Stanley Park, the public opts for short term job creation, rather than supporting policies that encourage long term environmental stewardship. |
Edited by - FrankB on 05/06/2012 10:03 PM |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
874 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2012 : 8:36 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by FrankB
If the Federal Government didn't have the courage to reign in spending and encourage responsible development that helps pay for the services we want,
Have you heard about the the F-35s? Or the new frigates? Or the new prisons we don't need?
The federal budget is almost exactly the same size as last year. The only difference is the relative distribution of the spending. Harper is a neo-con. He favours big business, the wealthy, and the military.
|
|
|
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2012 : 9:51 PM
|
Yes, I am familiar with the F-35 jet matter- and am really happy that the Conservative Government- and the Prime Minister specifically- appointed an independent auditor, Kevin Page, who checked the figures and cost analysis produced by the bureaucrats working in the Department of National Defence, and reported to Parliament that he had some concerns about their math. In other words, the system of checks and balances worked as it was supposed to and the Government can now review this matter, and decide, without losing any credibility, what to do. Would the other political parties have done the same- especially the NDP in Quebec, where union workers in the Canadian aerospace industry will benefit immensely, because they will get a good part of the work, if this deal goes through?
With regard to the frigates- the decision to purchase them has greatly benefited Canadian shipyards, and will help us establish our authority in coastal areas, especially the high arctic. And remember, the decision to go ahead with this purchase was done under a MINORITY government, where the Conservatives needed to get the support of other members of parliament before the purchase could be finalized.
And if you read carefully about the prisons- they are closing antiquated ones that are costing us a bundle, and will instead house prisoners in newer ones where additional space can be provided or built as needed. |
Edited by - FrankB on 05/06/2012 9:57 PM |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
874 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2012 : 03:17 AM
|
The point is we don't need any of the above. Mr Harper has made a choice between military toys versus pensions, health care, parks, etc,. Many Canadians do not agree.
BTW, the prison debacle has not begun yet. It will start when the new Harper minimum sentences (mostly for minor drug offenses) begin. When that happens we will need many more long term prison cells. Fortunately for the neo-cons, the costs will be be fully off-loaded to the provinces.
|
|
|
1078 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2012 : 04:07 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by peter1955
quote:
Originally posted by Rachelo
Read further in the manual. It's not that they didn't want anyone to profit from the hot springs like at Niagra. It's that *they* wanted to profit. The park was originally claimed by the Federal Government so that the government could import rich European tourists to pay big money to ridge CP Rail, visit the Cave and Basin, and the hot springs, and go on hunting expeditions (with Canadian guides).
The major motive was always profit. The government just wanted to make sure the profit didn't go to anyone else.
You should do your research a little better, Rachel. You're talking about the hotel and the commercial activities surrounding it; I was talking about Banff National Park. Or are you familiar with the distinction? It's a common mistake.
Yes, the government wanted to recoup some of the money that building the railroad cost, and saw the Banff hot springs as another potential Baden Baden. To those ends they created the Banff Hot Springs Reserve in 1885. Public pressure stemming from the situation at Niagara Falls was what led to the creation of the national parks.
QUOTE: Pg 182 IGA Manual
"The impetus to create national parks in Canada and in the United States was to a real extent born of disgust for what happened at Niagara Falls, where unscrupulous speculators bought up all the grand views and charged exorbitantly just to see the waterfall."
Try to get your facts straight before you go spouting off your opinions.
Does the "manual" give a source for the Niagra falls reference Peter? It is interesting if valid, and I had not heard of that before. It sounds like one of the historical myths so common to things like this, but if true, I'd be curious as to what kind of movement the protesters initiated way back then....how they went about it, and how they influenced the governemnt!
However, from what I had read, Rachelo is right, the primary reasons for the creation of Banff was definitely for government control/profiteering, both of tourism (they looked at the success of Yellowstone), and of natural resources (mining, forestry, etc). I think one of the earliest discussions in parliament was regarding forestry resources in the Rockies, over which, of course, the government wanted to establish control. |
|
|
2421 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2012 : 12:06 PM
|
Gee, Frank! You're one of those people who believe everything the government tells you, even when they're caught in lie after lie, deception after deception, habitual fear-mongering, election rigging, and fraud? The ones that think that the Sierra Club - environmental terrorists, all - should get rid of any foreign finding, while allowing American 'Ethical Oil' ('military intelligence', 'jumbo shrimp'?) to dictate the government's own political agendas? The very government that has actively pushed for the privatization of public viewpoints along the Parkway? That's trying to sell off everything we own just for short-term gain?
Fact: The national parks generate ten times as much tourism revenue for Canada as would be created by mining or forestry in the same area. Compare the money in towns like Jasper to the revenues earned in places like Grande Cache or Nordegg. The Conservative's short-sighted greed is an international embarrassment and the height of environmental stupidity.
|
|
|
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2012 : 7:49 PM
|
Peter1955, you're bringing up a lot of red herrings that have nothing to do with the topic- which is the Government's wish to have some Park facilities, like Banff Hotsprings, administered by a contractor, rather than Park's employees. Fact: will that result in fewer tourists visiting the parks? I don't think so. Fact: will that reduce the size of any Parks? No. Fact: will it increase environmental impacts in the Parks? I don't think so. Fact: are they going to sell-off any Park property for short-term gain? I don't think so. Fact: is Canada the envy of the world in terms of fiscal responsibility? Yes. Fact: was the present government elected in a democratic election? Yes. Fact: is the present government trying to reduce government spending and maintain the long term financial health of the country by reducing the size of the civil service? Yes.
Remember Paul Martin- the Liberal finance minister who earned the wrath of the electorate in his day by also downsizing government and reducing the size of the civil service? The Paul Martin who steered us away from going the way of Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Iceland, and a host of other countries? The Paul Martin who many of us now view as a national hero? Maybe history is repeating itself.
|
Edited by - FrankB on 05/10/2012 7:52 PM |
|
|
2421 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2012 : 3:09 PM
|
Were you aware that calling something a FACT then following it with an unsubstantiated opinion is a contradiction in terms. Your 'facts' are nothing more that rhetorical devices unsubstantiated by the real facts.
For example, you say that the same number of visitors will come to the Parks. FACT: Attendance has been steadily dropping. And if you compare Jasper and Banff, one of the common reasons why people prefer the latter is because it has a bit less of the commercial crap that is hosted at Banff.
Will it increase environmental impact in the Parks? You say "I don't think so." which is hardly a fact. It is indisputable that a corporation motivated by profit not public benefit will always sacrifice the environment in favour of revenues.
Has the government sold off parts of the Parks for Profit? Absolutely - look at the numerous ski resorts, and the latest destruction and privatization of the Tangle Ridge site.
Was the government elected in a democratic election? Not if the thousands of complaints about election rigging via robocalls is anything to judge by.
|
Edited by - peter1955 on 05/16/2012 3:26 PM |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Idiot Harper Selling Off our National Parks
