(39:44) Oh the changes! Well, they (Senior Management) started to realize then that you need not only the inventory, but you need to analyze and use the information in order to properly manage the Parks. So they started recruitment of candidates with certificates from the two year technology programs (Forestry & Bio-sciences), then eventually expanded hiring into university degree programs and then Masters and now PHD programs. With that, you had specialization. In the bigger parks (Jasper and Banff) especially where you had the benefit of a lot more staff, you could have teams that were better trained in public safety, as you would know Christine, through your dad (Keith Everts) and some of his experiences. But in resource management you need people who could fight forest fires, who could lead a vegetation study program and handle problem wildlife (Human – Wildlife Co-existence) to ecosystem style management applied to applications for recreational or business developments. And you had to have your specialization in law enforcement because we were dealing with some larger crime units to deal with poaching especially…and from a law enforcement perspective being on the highway was challenging. I was on the Trans Canada highway when I was in Lake Louise and in Jasper I was on the Yellowhead Highway where I got into some nasty situations doing enforcement that had nothing to do with the national parks, it was strictly to do with the mafia drug running! I will leave that for another day, but I ended up appearing in courts at very high levels because, of course, those accused always seem to challenge court prosecutions. At one point, one RCMP officer had told me that “they” are head hunting for us now…”they” were after us… which made for interesting conversations, indeed.
(41:21) Anyway, getting back to the change, the ecosystem management program was being used more and more to determine park policies and development applications. Whether the development should go ahead or not, whether it was the expansion of an OCA (outlying commercial accommodation) or whatever project, you had to be able to sit around the table and negotiate with subject matter specialists from private perspectives and analyze the pros and the cons. And Kurt Seel…who has passed away now, but he was the head of our resource management team in the Calgary regional office. He taught us all about…Resource Description and Analysis of those Biophysical inventories, so that we could understand, for instance, soil types in a particular valley or region. For example, why you would put a trail there or you wouldn’t. Or developing in a ski area…you would have the actual science and research behind you and (could say), “Well, this particular soil is whatever, podzol or clay or whatever it is and will not sustain development. And if you open it and disturb it, you are going to be susceptible to erosion and on and on.” You had to become very scientific and politically suave, as well to be able to convince the decision makers on either side, especially with the Park Superintendent and management…So you can see the need for more than just being able to live on the land and survive out there in the 1970s, to having your staff with PHD’s and university degrees to make sure that you had your ducks in order to have credible, viable propositions and rationale for whatever decision you made.
(43:26) Then of course we got into the big change as you know…the side arm issue. While this was a controversial topic within the organization, this is how I viewed the situation in the end. There were strong personalities on both sides (Union vs. Management), with neither refusing to back down and arrive at a mutual agreement. It was internationally recognized that Game Wardens or Rangers conducting law enforcement duties, must be provided with side arms for their safety, as well as the public. Eventually Parks would have to go that route, it was just a matter of time. But in the meantime challenges between the two sides took its toll, not only budget wise but in staff morale. While staff were no longer in the Law Enforcement role, a soft handed compliance policy was implemented. The RCMP were contracted to backfill the enforcement role for two years, while the Union and Management kept appealing the Labour Canada decisions. The financial cost was estimated to be over $40 million! It was an expensive “band-aid” attempt, with little, if any, successful outcome regarding protection of the natural resources. In the end, it all came down to the re-writing of Job Descriptions. Generally speaking, Park Wardens would be designated to fulfil their Law Enforcement duties while the rest of the staff had their position titles changed to Resource Conservation or Public Safety Specialists, without law enforcement aspects, but watered down to compliance through education and warnings.
(46:51) What was important to me…there was that teamwork aspect, that cohesiveness that we would not be mavericks, not be individuals to the extent of causing ill repute upon the organization and the Warden Service in particular. (In response to the question, “What about the warden service was important to you?’) Towing the line of credibility and so forth. That was really important and keeping ourselves in check, making sure that we were part of that team. You had leaders, but you also had to have followers, right? Making sure that there was that respect and honor that the public expected of us. For instance, participating in the Banff and Jasper community parades or the Calgary Stampede parade on horseback made for good public relations exposure. Sometimes we had politicians and VIPs from headquarters in Ottawa, MPs and ministers who would join us, all good public relations (PR).
(48:36) Of course, in retrospect yes! (In response to the question, “Is there anything about the warden service as you knew it, that you would want future generations to know?”). What was disappointing to me, is that Senior Park Management missed out on the opportunity to have retired Alumni staff provide mentorship for working employees, especially in the backcountry, through Volunteer programs. You can go to university, or you can go to college and you can learn something in the classroom, but when you get out in the field you can actually gain hands-on experience and knowledge. That would have been like “ the passing of the torch”, relaying traditional knowledge, which we know in the Indigenous world is so vitally important.
During my earlier time, some of us were living in the front country, roadside Warden Stations, somewhat centralized, but where you were expected to be “on call for standby”, for which we were compensated. You could have visitors, at your warden station knocking on the door, who had run out of gas, or to report a motor vehicle accident, wildlife incidents, lost hikers or whatever it was, and of course, you had your spouses (silent partners) and your family which could be involved as well. Especially way back in the 1960s and earlier, you know the Dorothy Carleton era. The “war brides” of the past and others…Silent Partners, there is that aspect. Yes, Ann Dixon. Fred and Ann Dixon of course and you have Mac and Cathy Elder. And Colleen and Frank Coggins, that whole concept has disappeared with the removal of the Warden stations. I think the backcountry is probably the one component in the end that has suffered and will suffer the most because there is less presence and enforcement, from illegal camp fires, fishing closed waters, over fish catch limits, etc and the potential for fossil thefts. Hopefully current wardens, with horsemanship & backcountry hiking skills, are still able to focus on remote boundary areas during adjacent provincial game hunting seasons.
(54:05) Well, I guess…again that cohesiveness and team work. (In response to the question, “What would you say that made the warden service such a unique organization?”) Where there was a public safety incident, whether you had a high profile search and rescue, a lost child, a body recovery or a climbing accident where you saved somebody’s life. We were the front line of Parks Canada. The Warden Service was there, if you were fighting a forest fire or if you were doing a prescribed burn, if you were doing some wildlife management such as a marking program for Bighorn Sheep rams in the front country, so if they were poached you’d be able to track them. Just all of those components…the warden service was the leading edge, they were the ones in front of the cameras all the time. Because the Warden Service was so involved in the “public eye” sense, I think they were actually the envy of Senior Park Management, who perhaps wanted a greater share of the limelight …?
(54:58) I’m going to digress a bit…we had Superintendents in the 1960s and 1970s, who came up through the ranks of the organization. They were the faithful believers who were dedicated for the long haul, they were Wardens who became Chief Park Wardens, who became Superintendents, and they went into regional offices later in their careers. They had a good knowledge of park policy, procedure and regulations.Then, at one point, Parks brought people in from the outside, especially in the Communications and Visitor Services departments. Including some from the private industry to promote revenue generating concepts, which meant more visitors with resultant negative resource impacts, especially from a visitor’s personal satisfaction, due to overcrowding and subsequent quota limits in the most popular sites.
(56:12). Examples of commercial developments that have been floated, such as the Jasper Skywalk or the proposal for that bike lane along the Icefields Parkway, to roofed accommodation at Maligne Lake to the reinstating of commercial rafting on the Maligne River again (conflict with Harlequin Ducks) that never even should have been considered. It’s a whole bunch of commercial components that were proposed that caused Parks a lot of issues and that was somewhat politically motivated for commercial and Chamber of Commerce type purposes. Park Management Plans were being developed to increase tourism (visitation), like targets of 2 to 3% growth, it was all about “visitor experience” initiatives that were funneling the budgetary resource allocations away from science and research programs. In my opinion, Banff seemed to always be the exception and seemed to be treated a little more favourably, as after all, it is “the jewel” of the Parks Canada system. Now, Parks are forced into controlling the over-visitation going on at Lake Louise, Moraine Lake, as examples, and in the Banff and Jasper townsites. There’s way too much political interference, especially with the theme of “Parks are for Profit”, it seems. Remember, these are my opinions, as seen through my personal filters, as when some folks might read this and will definitely not see it that way, or are not interested in bringing up past issues. Remember, it’s prudent to look into the past before venturing into the future.
