Regarding the competing interests (or “institutions” as Dr. Priebe calls them) for space in public parks/spaces…. recreations, playgrounds, off-leash dog areas, environmental considerations…
I have no quarrel with playgrounds (although I wouldn’t want to see them in the river valley outside of a river valley park) – as a grandmother now I understand their importance. And I understand why there has been this huge increase in dog ownership and hence the desire to have places for dogs to run free. We are an affluent society of small families (which comes first?) and so own pets as ersatz children, which might in one sense be good, as dogs have smaller ecological footprints than humans. Research suggests, not unintuitively, that owning dogs improves human health, although I don’t believe that sick and elderly animals do much to provide relaxation and relieve anxiety!
But, as a member of the “institution” of environmentalists, I do have concerns about the effect of off-leash dogs on the environment. We environmentalists feel that the expansion of mountain biking in the river valley and ravines, with the creation of illegal side trails in their steepest, most densely vegetated escarpments, is the biggest threat to ecological integrity, spoiling habitat, degrading soils, polluting water courses (through erosion), etc., but it appears that the environmental threat posed by off-leash dogs is also rising.
Dr. Priebe writes: “Environmentalists have told me that parks planning and service functions were not sympathetic to preservation of ecological heritages or ecological issues more broadly speaking. While I respectfully disagree….”
Would he like to explain further why he disagrees?
Despite understanding the need, I believe that the City has been far too lenient in creating off-leash dog areas in the river valley and ravines, given that these conflict with natural area and Ribbon of Green policies to maintain the ecological integrity of the river valley. I regularly walk (without a dog) an off-leash trail in Patricia Ravine and frequently witness dogs rushing up and down the wooded slopes, creating mini trails, trampling vegetation and chasing wildlife. (Squirrels may be well able to escape, but I am not so sure about hares. Although I haven’t witnessed it in the river valley I have seen a dog in a provincial natural area kill a nest of leverets within minutes. I know of at least one study that found that birds would not nest within x metres of a trail frequented by dogs.) Why this narrow ravine was chosen as an off-leash area I do not know, but it certainly needs a review for the damage that is being done.
A new proposed policy of converting some neighbourhood green spaces is currently being considered. I would not oppose this provided that it does not encroach on environmental green space or that needed for other forms of recreation (apart from dog-exercising). I’ll particularly support any moves that keep dogs out of the river valley (apart from designated areas within parks in the valley). I’d also suggest that people give serious consideration to dog ownership given that the opportunities for dog exercise in cities are necessarily limited and finite.
Dr. Priebe appears to welcome conflicting “institutions,” at least where these are brought together in organized dialogue, and I have to say that I still count as one of the most meaningful examples of public consultation a working group I worked on with Dr. Priebe and others years agi on natural areas and City natural areas policy.
However, I am, as they say, a “solutions-oriented” person.
I see a continuing huge conflict between development, human recreation, dogs and environmental integrity in Edmonton’s green spaces and river valley, and I see no real motivation on the part of the City to resolve it. I believe the only hope is that the Edmonton River Valley Modernization Plan (Ribbon of Green) be implemented with strict ecological guidelines and priorities. Otherwise, within a short space of time, the river valley and ravines will have deteriorated further from the functional ecological corridor they are supposed to be to an overused and abused piece of linear waste ground devoid of all but the most resilient wildlife.
I look forward to more of Dr. Priebe’s vlogs. Would he be able to enlighten us on the planning for and lack of public consultancy over, Hawrelak Park?
My comment about "environmentalists have told me that park planners were not sympathetic to ecological issues" was about my practice experience. I heard this often from ecologists, internally as well. That was not my intent or approach but some may have taken it that way.
My practice was always faced with seeking to mediate between recreation, social, educational, economic and ecological needs in a growing city, now faced with increasing levels of residential development density. In the river valley in particular it has always been seen as our central park that is a magnate for users of all kinds. In retrospect mountain bikes did not happen in my tenure, may have been a bridge too far, but I still don't see how we could keep them out. Moreover, City plan promotes a doubling of the population in multi-family development and smaller lots. The people will come to the RV with their dogs and bikes regardless of bylaws, so my approach was always to say...ok how can we best minimize negative impacts that will come. Your point about a follow up study at Mill Creek Ravine is a good one.
The work we and others did with Barry Breau and the AEN was super meaningful for me as well. It was meaningful because Barry Breau and Michael Phair brought people to the table for discussion. As an aside, the planning department of the day did not want to be involved in that because we were seen to be "in the service" of the ecologists. They were pushing back throughout. Then when our collective work came forward in the creation of a full time office of natural areas (or whatever we called it), management made a horse trade to let planning control it.
As far as the Modernization Plan, I am skeptical. The title is misleading. Frederick Todd in 1911 council we should maintain it as a space for the community. The river valley itself has always been a working landscape before the creation of the Capital City Recreation Plan and the Ribbon of Green. Are we going to modernize people out of the valley? Environmental impact studies have always been part of everything that happens in the river valley. I have had some discussions with the admin and politicos about incorporating indigenous peoples heritages as part of the proposed national urban park. That initiative is about largely focussed on conservation, which is fine to a point, but that has never been the sole purpose fo the river valley, and won't be in the future. Myself and some other retired colleagues are advocating the introduction of a third pillar about indigenous peoples history and celebration, but not just as a group to consult with. Invoking strict ecological principles will be an administrative nightmare to enforce, would not be reflective today of the lived experiences of people recreating in the river valley.
As far as what is happening in Hawrelak, I am flummoxed and have no idea what transpired, nor have I asked my former colleagues. Whistleblower protection is zero in Alberta. I can tell you that the loss of trees and closure of the park would have been strongly resisted by myself and at least some of my former parkie colleagues. I hope I am wrong but there appears to be a bit of a command and control mentality in the administration, as well as reliance on internal (not informed by) community experts, these days. My next vlog on the Strathcona Public Realm Strategy will talk about research that interrogates how processes today can be manipulated to paint discordant voices as being selfish, not representative of the public or not reflective of already agreed to "broader" public goals.
Finally, the celebration of multiple competing institutions is my reflection on the narrow focus of economic interests (and some planners) as park land as an "asset", not as a community amenity imbued with health and wellness and social meaning. There is not alot of instruction (except the U of A and maybe Waterloo) of park land in a broader health and wellness context.
I fear we are at loggerheads on some issues. My idea is not to diminish the importance of parks for people, but rather to speak up for the protection of the river valley and ravines as ecological entities that have value for non-human life forms.
To rebut some of your comments…
If the river valley is multi-use, then other uses, including use by nature, must be respected, but the tendency is for citizens to look at the river valley and ravines as solely for the use of humans. Apart from recreational use and dog use there is even increased use of the river valley as a place to deposit all kinds of infrastructure and artifacts, as if it were a “house” that they owned.
It is laughable to suggest that “modernizing” will drive people out of the river valley, because all the evidence is that it is going the other way, when more and more people are accessing the river valley and staking their claim on it.
Moreover, no environmentalist has ever suggested keeping people out of the river valley, although many, myself included, may be in favour of reserving some parts of the valley and ravines as restricting human behaviour or even ingress. I don’t know if you know, but last year a number of citizens tried very hard to get the City to budget for a trails survey in the river valley, with the idea of developing a rational trail system that would suit the reasonable needs of mountain bikers but would maybe allow some healing of the plethora of “illegal” trails that fragment some of the most sensitive habitat. The City has not so far found the budget to do this, so sensitive trails continue to be used and no doubt more will be created, as the City sends the message that the state of the river valley is of low priority.
If bylaws cannot be enforced, what is the point of having them? I suspect it is too easy for Administration to say, Oh, we can’t do that, it will be a bureaucratic nightmare, etc., etc. You can do anything with political will, if you give it priority and hence the budget!
You suggest that Indigenous people may be allowed to practice cultural activities that may not align with strict ecological principles. I should mention that I left the Edmonton River Valley Conservation Coalition because of the insistence of the Chair that the Coalition support allowing Indigenous people to harvest in the river valley in contravention of Parkland bylaw 2202. You can’t have your cake and eat it too! Colonization has altered things irreversibly since the times when Indigenous people could hunt and gather without appreciable impacts on natural populations. People are people and non-humans don’t discriminate racially. The activities of Homo sapiens are generally inimical to vegetation and wildlife, with perhaps the possible exception of fire. Are we going to use fire in the river valley? I don’t think so! Another example of hypocrisy!
I had hoped that we could maintain the river valley in some sort of functional, ecologically sustainable form until such time as Edmontonians were morally advanced enough to embrace the paradigm of the rights of nature and putting earth first. Yet it seems to me we are making little progress in this regard, in fact we may be going backwards. As I say, “human ownership” of the river valley and ravines seems to be increasing, and will no doubt continue to do so as population increases. There seems to be a contingent who believe that there is no place for coyotes in our urban valley, and we take part in all sorts of questionable behaviour that adapt wild creatures to urban life, such as feeding chickadees (I’ve been guilty of it myself).
Well, what do I care? I soon shan’t be around. Well, I do care, because the earth is the only semi-permanent thing we have, that transcends all generations, and on which all forms of life depend.
Let me just say this. I see no reason why parts of the river valley cannot be preserved as semi-natural ecosystems where human activity is limited and use is not a priority. Secondly, the city will be making a grave error if it sacrifices green space for residential development.
Re Hawrelak Park, the whole project needs to be stopped pending a thorough review by Council and Administration, and with public consultation.
I am not suggesting some of the things you are saying Patsy, or I am not making my points clearer. I am not sure we are that far apart at the core of your interests, with some exceptions. For me its about the "how" this can occur. We should have a coffee sometime.
Coffee would be fine. Maybe sometime early next month. I believe Rocky Feroe and possibly her husband Eric Gormley might like to join us. They live in Riverdale. What about a central meet-up somewhere, say even City Hall?
Let’s all meet. Patsy and I sometimes SEEM to disagree on stuff too and I love productive conversations with people with whom I SEEM to disagree. Those conversations are where I learn.
Regarding the competing interests (or “institutions” as Dr. Priebe calls them) for space in public parks/spaces…. recreations, playgrounds, off-leash dog areas, environmental considerations…
I have no quarrel with playgrounds (although I wouldn’t want to see them in the river valley outside of a river valley park) – as a grandmother now I understand their importance. And I understand why there has been this huge increase in dog ownership and hence the desire to have places for dogs to run free. We are an affluent society of small families (which comes first?) and so own pets as ersatz children, which might in one sense be good, as dogs have smaller ecological footprints than humans. Research suggests, not unintuitively, that owning dogs improves human health, although I don’t believe that sick and elderly animals do much to provide relaxation and relieve anxiety!
But, as a member of the “institution” of environmentalists, I do have concerns about the effect of off-leash dogs on the environment. We environmentalists feel that the expansion of mountain biking in the river valley and ravines, with the creation of illegal side trails in their steepest, most densely vegetated escarpments, is the biggest threat to ecological integrity, spoiling habitat, degrading soils, polluting water courses (through erosion), etc., but it appears that the environmental threat posed by off-leash dogs is also rising.
Dr. Priebe writes: “Environmentalists have told me that parks planning and service functions were not sympathetic to preservation of ecological heritages or ecological issues more broadly speaking. While I respectfully disagree….”
Would he like to explain further why he disagrees?
Despite understanding the need, I believe that the City has been far too lenient in creating off-leash dog areas in the river valley and ravines, given that these conflict with natural area and Ribbon of Green policies to maintain the ecological integrity of the river valley. I regularly walk (without a dog) an off-leash trail in Patricia Ravine and frequently witness dogs rushing up and down the wooded slopes, creating mini trails, trampling vegetation and chasing wildlife. (Squirrels may be well able to escape, but I am not so sure about hares. Although I haven’t witnessed it in the river valley I have seen a dog in a provincial natural area kill a nest of leverets within minutes. I know of at least one study that found that birds would not nest within x metres of a trail frequented by dogs.) Why this narrow ravine was chosen as an off-leash area I do not know, but it certainly needs a review for the damage that is being done.
A new proposed policy of converting some neighbourhood green spaces is currently being considered. I would not oppose this provided that it does not encroach on environmental green space or that needed for other forms of recreation (apart from dog-exercising). I’ll particularly support any moves that keep dogs out of the river valley (apart from designated areas within parks in the valley). I’d also suggest that people give serious consideration to dog ownership given that the opportunities for dog exercise in cities are necessarily limited and finite.
Dr. Priebe appears to welcome conflicting “institutions,” at least where these are brought together in organized dialogue, and I have to say that I still count as one of the most meaningful examples of public consultation a working group I worked on with Dr. Priebe and others years agi on natural areas and City natural areas policy.
However, I am, as they say, a “solutions-oriented” person.
I see a continuing huge conflict between development, human recreation, dogs and environmental integrity in Edmonton’s green spaces and river valley, and I see no real motivation on the part of the City to resolve it. I believe the only hope is that the Edmonton River Valley Modernization Plan (Ribbon of Green) be implemented with strict ecological guidelines and priorities. Otherwise, within a short space of time, the river valley and ravines will have deteriorated further from the functional ecological corridor they are supposed to be to an overused and abused piece of linear waste ground devoid of all but the most resilient wildlife.
I look forward to more of Dr. Priebe’s vlogs. Would he be able to enlighten us on the planning for and lack of public consultancy over, Hawrelak Park?
Thanks Patsy. Nice to hear from you again.
My comment about "environmentalists have told me that park planners were not sympathetic to ecological issues" was about my practice experience. I heard this often from ecologists, internally as well. That was not my intent or approach but some may have taken it that way.
My practice was always faced with seeking to mediate between recreation, social, educational, economic and ecological needs in a growing city, now faced with increasing levels of residential development density. In the river valley in particular it has always been seen as our central park that is a magnate for users of all kinds. In retrospect mountain bikes did not happen in my tenure, may have been a bridge too far, but I still don't see how we could keep them out. Moreover, City plan promotes a doubling of the population in multi-family development and smaller lots. The people will come to the RV with their dogs and bikes regardless of bylaws, so my approach was always to say...ok how can we best minimize negative impacts that will come. Your point about a follow up study at Mill Creek Ravine is a good one.
The work we and others did with Barry Breau and the AEN was super meaningful for me as well. It was meaningful because Barry Breau and Michael Phair brought people to the table for discussion. As an aside, the planning department of the day did not want to be involved in that because we were seen to be "in the service" of the ecologists. They were pushing back throughout. Then when our collective work came forward in the creation of a full time office of natural areas (or whatever we called it), management made a horse trade to let planning control it.
As far as the Modernization Plan, I am skeptical. The title is misleading. Frederick Todd in 1911 council we should maintain it as a space for the community. The river valley itself has always been a working landscape before the creation of the Capital City Recreation Plan and the Ribbon of Green. Are we going to modernize people out of the valley? Environmental impact studies have always been part of everything that happens in the river valley. I have had some discussions with the admin and politicos about incorporating indigenous peoples heritages as part of the proposed national urban park. That initiative is about largely focussed on conservation, which is fine to a point, but that has never been the sole purpose fo the river valley, and won't be in the future. Myself and some other retired colleagues are advocating the introduction of a third pillar about indigenous peoples history and celebration, but not just as a group to consult with. Invoking strict ecological principles will be an administrative nightmare to enforce, would not be reflective today of the lived experiences of people recreating in the river valley.
As far as what is happening in Hawrelak, I am flummoxed and have no idea what transpired, nor have I asked my former colleagues. Whistleblower protection is zero in Alberta. I can tell you that the loss of trees and closure of the park would have been strongly resisted by myself and at least some of my former parkie colleagues. I hope I am wrong but there appears to be a bit of a command and control mentality in the administration, as well as reliance on internal (not informed by) community experts, these days. My next vlog on the Strathcona Public Realm Strategy will talk about research that interrogates how processes today can be manipulated to paint discordant voices as being selfish, not representative of the public or not reflective of already agreed to "broader" public goals.
Finally, the celebration of multiple competing institutions is my reflection on the narrow focus of economic interests (and some planners) as park land as an "asset", not as a community amenity imbued with health and wellness and social meaning. There is not alot of instruction (except the U of A and maybe Waterloo) of park land in a broader health and wellness context.
Hi Bob:
I fear we are at loggerheads on some issues. My idea is not to diminish the importance of parks for people, but rather to speak up for the protection of the river valley and ravines as ecological entities that have value for non-human life forms.
To rebut some of your comments…
If the river valley is multi-use, then other uses, including use by nature, must be respected, but the tendency is for citizens to look at the river valley and ravines as solely for the use of humans. Apart from recreational use and dog use there is even increased use of the river valley as a place to deposit all kinds of infrastructure and artifacts, as if it were a “house” that they owned.
It is laughable to suggest that “modernizing” will drive people out of the river valley, because all the evidence is that it is going the other way, when more and more people are accessing the river valley and staking their claim on it.
Moreover, no environmentalist has ever suggested keeping people out of the river valley, although many, myself included, may be in favour of reserving some parts of the valley and ravines as restricting human behaviour or even ingress. I don’t know if you know, but last year a number of citizens tried very hard to get the City to budget for a trails survey in the river valley, with the idea of developing a rational trail system that would suit the reasonable needs of mountain bikers but would maybe allow some healing of the plethora of “illegal” trails that fragment some of the most sensitive habitat. The City has not so far found the budget to do this, so sensitive trails continue to be used and no doubt more will be created, as the City sends the message that the state of the river valley is of low priority.
If bylaws cannot be enforced, what is the point of having them? I suspect it is too easy for Administration to say, Oh, we can’t do that, it will be a bureaucratic nightmare, etc., etc. You can do anything with political will, if you give it priority and hence the budget!
You suggest that Indigenous people may be allowed to practice cultural activities that may not align with strict ecological principles. I should mention that I left the Edmonton River Valley Conservation Coalition because of the insistence of the Chair that the Coalition support allowing Indigenous people to harvest in the river valley in contravention of Parkland bylaw 2202. You can’t have your cake and eat it too! Colonization has altered things irreversibly since the times when Indigenous people could hunt and gather without appreciable impacts on natural populations. People are people and non-humans don’t discriminate racially. The activities of Homo sapiens are generally inimical to vegetation and wildlife, with perhaps the possible exception of fire. Are we going to use fire in the river valley? I don’t think so! Another example of hypocrisy!
I had hoped that we could maintain the river valley in some sort of functional, ecologically sustainable form until such time as Edmontonians were morally advanced enough to embrace the paradigm of the rights of nature and putting earth first. Yet it seems to me we are making little progress in this regard, in fact we may be going backwards. As I say, “human ownership” of the river valley and ravines seems to be increasing, and will no doubt continue to do so as population increases. There seems to be a contingent who believe that there is no place for coyotes in our urban valley, and we take part in all sorts of questionable behaviour that adapt wild creatures to urban life, such as feeding chickadees (I’ve been guilty of it myself).
Well, what do I care? I soon shan’t be around. Well, I do care, because the earth is the only semi-permanent thing we have, that transcends all generations, and on which all forms of life depend.
Let me just say this. I see no reason why parts of the river valley cannot be preserved as semi-natural ecosystems where human activity is limited and use is not a priority. Secondly, the city will be making a grave error if it sacrifices green space for residential development.
Re Hawrelak Park, the whole project needs to be stopped pending a thorough review by Council and Administration, and with public consultation.
I am not suggesting some of the things you are saying Patsy, or I am not making my points clearer. I am not sure we are that far apart at the core of your interests, with some exceptions. For me its about the "how" this can occur. We should have a coffee sometime.
Hi Bob:
Coffee would be fine. Maybe sometime early next month. I believe Rocky Feroe and possibly her husband Eric Gormley might like to join us. They live in Riverdale. What about a central meet-up somewhere, say even City Hall?
Patsy
Let’s all meet. Patsy and I sometimes SEEM to disagree on stuff too and I love productive conversations with people with whom I SEEM to disagree. Those conversations are where I learn.