Can parks meet dual mandate for protection and access? How can this be achieved at Wapusk? I have started this blog post many times but have found these questions particularly difficult and thought provoking. In short, obviously it would be ideal if a park could both remain protected while being accessible. Those are two of their main purposes, aren’t they? However, when looking at the situation realistically, especially at Wapusk, I’m not sure if this is entirely possible. First, there are practical issues. Accessibility comes with the need to meet human needs. At the most basic level, this requires bathrooms. In order to have these facilities a portion of the landscape is going to need to be cleared (resulting in vegetation loss), then there’s construction and hauling materials (requiring roads, creating pollution and noise) and will likely involve some sort of human wildlife interaction (which doesn’t always end well for the animal). Right there after we have just touched upon one human need, the landscape has already been altered for our needs/uses at the expense of the wildlife. If bathrooms weren’t created, there are still plenty of other issues: we need food, where will we dispose of the scrapes/wrappers? Will trails and roads be created allowing us to easily move through the landscape? What would that mean for the species in the area? What happens when there is a instance of human wildlife interaction? I am far from an expert on the topic but I find this reality sad.

Wapusk is a beautiful, isolated, pristine location and it seems an absolute shame to keep it from people who could greatly benefit. We are disconnected from nature, the land and animals. If we could see it in a relatively untouched environment, could you imagine the appreciation and respect for nature that could be sparked? However, we need to stop thinking of parks as something humans can benefit from and remember that these spaces are home to many other species. I think the main priority for Wapusk should be the animals and vegetation, their protection and research, then accessibility as a very distant second. In my opinion, keeping access limited and a privilege is the best solution for allowing both humans and animals to benefit.

With all this being said, I think smaller, more local parks can potentially do both. While humans love looking at images of polar bears online, no one wants to come face to face with one alone in the wild. We tend to have very different opinions of deer and squirrels. This is why parks like Assiniboine Park are so important. They allow us all the conveniences we require (like bathrooms), while allowing us to soak up all the benefits of being in nature but do not completely displace the natural inhabitants of the land and allowing for interaction (and hopefully appreciation).

After watching “How Trees Talk to Each Other” and “Why I Love Vultures”, I took some time to reflect.

Of course I knew trees were living things and assumed that they probably had some sort method of communicating. I had no idea their methods of communication and levels of knowing were advanced enough to recognize and treat their offspring differently than the offspring of another tree of the same species. This was a very interesting discovery to me. I feel as though many people see plants as nothing more than plants, and while they maybe “be alive” they don’t feel/know and are very different from us and other living things. This has definitely changed my view of trees and my connection to them. I think it is easier to feel connection to animals as we often actively interact with them and either witness them interacting with each other/their young on TV or in zoos. Knowing that trees essentially do that same things just under ground and unbeknownst to us is quite enlightening. We often take trees for granted and forget that they to are alive, are members of the same Earth as we are and while also being beautiful, they have serious and very important roles to play in our survival.

I have never given much thought to vultures, sure I’ve heard people refer to them as “disgusting creatures” and sort of nodded along. After watching this TED talk and reading “The Urban Bestiary” I have started thinking of “pests” in a new light. Vultures, like trees, have a role to play here on our planet, whether we acknowledge this or are oblivious to it. I didn’t know the vital roles vultures play in things such as reducing the spread of diseases. I can’t say I’m surprised I had never heard anything nice/good about vultures. They aren’t exactly cute or cuddly and once something is labelled as disgusting/a pest, we often don’t hear about the good things the creature does for us/the environment. Anytime a species is on the brink of extinction, we should care. Especially with the mass extinct that is taking place now, we have caused this and need to acknowledge this if anything is going to change. We should care regardless of what the species is, whether it is a plant, a bird or a rodent, however we tend to care less when we feel less connected to the species. This TED talk opened my eyes as to why we should care about not only the vultures but all species as we all have a role to play here.

What aspects of nature and biodiversity are most important to protect? To me, there is one place protection and care needs to start and that is with the environment itself. Some may say “I want to protect the animals”. I am not an animal hater and am all for saving the animals but if we don’t protect their habitats, the land, the water, their ecosystems, we can try and save them all we want but where will they live and how will they survive? One example of the benefits of protecting the environment is the sustainable agriculture practice of caring for the grass or “farming grass” which provides the farm animals with food grown from the land and enough space to meet their needs. People want to save the polar bears but they are losing their habitat due to climate change and are unable to adapt to the warming temperatures fast enough. We need to address things like our greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, urban sprawling, pollution and increasing ocean/atmosphere temperatures if we have any hope in saving anything else.

Where do my environmental ethics lie? Ecocentrism focuses on the health of entire systems. There is only one planet Earth and I believe we need to find ways for all  species to live in harmony as well as protect the ecosystems that house each species. I debated which term to use and decided on  “harmony” over “together”. For humans to have the sense of safety and security they desire and animals/plants to have the habitat and space they need, we need to exist in parallel (with some separation). I am not naïve to the fact this will take a great shift in current mind sets and the current practices in place, I just believe a lot of things need to change, some rather drastically, as we are running out of time to act. 

 The issue separating ecocentrism from biocentrism that really solidified my choice was the issue of invasive species – don’t get me wrong, I have also killed a mosquito and spider or two. If all life is equal, there are minimal options when it comes to dealing with invasive species in an ecosystem. Invasive species are by definition invaders that have tremendous impacts on the ecosystems they are introduced to. Failure to intervene will lead to great loss of ecosystems, habitats and the species that inhabit those places. With the mass extinction we are already facing, is this something that we can afford? Species cannot be protected and thrive if they have no home, this is why I believe the only way to move sustainably into the future is  ecocentrism.

Whatever a person’s motivation is to make environmentally sound decisions is really irrelevant to me, as long as we recognize this is a group effort and that we need to do better before it is too late for all of us.

We rely on the environment every second of every day, yet the majority of people now a days have become disconnected from the environment that surrounds us. There are many things that contribute to this disconnection. Most of us spend the majority of our days in various buildings or traveling from one location to the next (often by vehicle), this is all time we spend separated from nature. Technology has also added to this disconnection. People now have the ability to telecommute or work from home, can visit with family and friends from their couches with things like FaceTime and Skype and don’t even have to leave their houses for groceries/food or clothing thanks to online shopping (which I won’t deny has it’s upside during frigid Winnipeg winters). While children in pre-advanced technology generations spent a lot of their days playing outside, the majority of today’s youth are in front of televisions or gaming systems which we know has been linked to things like obesity.

This is why the disconnection that plagues many of us is dangerous, not only to us but for the environment as well. The less connection people feel to the environment, it’s animals and it’s beauty, the less important it’s protection will become to them. This can become especially important when making decisions and weighing environmental impact versus economical value. Many people take for granted that there is water when they turn the taps on, there is oxygen ready for us to breathe and that there is plenty of food in grocery stores just waiting for someone to scoop it up. I’d argue few people think of the pressures put on all the natural resources that go into making our daily lives and lifestyles possible, as we’ve become so disconnected. With all that being said, I don’t think us humans are a lost cause just yet. There’s hope for reconnection, it just takes that first step and some effort. There has been a push for things like more green spaces in cities and bike lanes that allow people who may be in heavily developed areas to still connect with the environment and enjoy it’s beauty. Parks are such incredible areas as they contain trees, green space and animals that allow our ever growing disconnected society a chance to reconnect with something that is so vital for our existence.