SH: Do you want to talk about affirmative action?
Ian: No. I think without naming names, certainly there was an evolution of females and minority representation and some first nations involved in the Warden Service. In some cases, it went well and some cases it didn’t, unfortunately personality driven. Probably some cultural unawareness that things didn’t go 100% but we had some pretty spectacular female staff, very competent, and we had some male staff that had differing views. Those views were not easily changed by departmental training on awareness. It was just one of those managerial things that you had to go through, and I admire those women who were in our fold that persisted and did well.
SH: Thanks (End Part 2: Tape 53:57)
Part 3: Sunday October 23, 2022 – 11:00 am MDT
SH: So Ian, we were talking the other day about changes in the Warden Service. Would you like to continue there?
Ian: To talk a little bit of the 2000s, late ‘90s and early 2000s, and the warden shift, I’ve been reading a couple of the other oral history talks by friends of mine; past Chief Wardens and Superintendents. The realization, and think it was put by Darro Stinson, was the pendulum of organizational thrust swings and the pendulum really did swing during the latter part of our careers. I remember being asked to lunch with then Director of the Mountain Parks, Charlie Zinkan, who was a good friend and also Gaby Fortin, who was the Regional Director for Parks Canada. I kind of figured something might be up and as the lunch went on, I had greater difficulty understanding what was actually being discussed with me. They weren’t telling me to do anything necessarily, but there was just a discussion that seemed vague, but after a bit of reflection I realized that it was pretty clear story about how things, how the pendulum was swinging in Ottawa, and hard.
Scotch Camp Patrol Cabin
The foyer view at Scotch Camp
In the late ‘80s we had gone through quite a significant role change with what was called at that time The Green Plan, where biology, forestry, fire and vegetation, the aquatics specialties, ecosystem management kinds of educational backgrounds … usually Masters, but also PhD types of folks were hired by Parks Canada and came into the fold of the Warden Service as professional people. That was a pretty significant change…. Law enforcement specialization as well. We got some law enforcement specialists. Big parks got some other sorts of roles. The role change at that point in time was definitely a swing towards more resource/cultural conservation and protection through professional disciplines, as well as the enforcement of the National Parks Act.
There were some other indicators of how the Warden Service in the early 2000’s was being viewed within Parks Canada. I remember sitting on a task force with Gaby Fortin about, and this was a national task force, about new roles for the Warden Service.
In this Warden Service review that I am referring to, there was a look at the roles and responsibilities, and confirming whether they were going to exist in the future or not. I remember in a meeting in Montreal, Gaby presented his findings to some of the National Office Directors and Superintendents from other national parks. One Park Superintendent from Eastern Canada stood up at the end of the presentation and asked, “How many park wardens do I need in my park?” And Gaby sort of eluded to enforcement of the National Parks Act, new roles etc.. and he replied, “Well good, I won’t have any.” I found it a really strange answer, but it also highlighted, I think, the discrepancies with what we viewed as our role and what some of park management saw as our role. The reality revolved around this pendulum swing that was well underway at the Ottawa level and it coincided with the arming issue. It was kind of almost the perfect storm for a number of things coming together (or apart) for the Warden Service, and how it was going to fundamentally change from what most of us had experienced in the ‘70s and ‘80s, and ‘90s, to something that was completely different in the 2000s going forward.
That pendulum swing was really the mandate of Parks Canada; it’s always referred to as the three legged stool. With ecosystem protection, ecological integrity being one of the keys, visitor experience, and cultural heritage. (I forget the gov’t speak for these! ). The Green Plan had considerably increased resource management capabilities. The swing was definitely towards improving visitor experience, raising its profile in Parks Canada and as a result, some of the traditional roles of the Warden Service disappeared. It was very tough on warden managers at the time to see what their experiences had been and that their definition of what the Warden Service was about completely change.
I know working with some of my operational managers at the time to initiate this change, was somewhat vague for the Warden Service, but we had to come up with a new way of delivering things like problem wildlife management and public safety, the concept of Duty Wardens within the Warden Service. It was hard, it was hard on us, but those staff did very well.
SH: I remember some of the threats to, well I don’t know if they were threats, but changes to the backcountry like cabins, all of that was going on as well.
Ian: Yes, with that change to Visitor Experience, an evolution to a heightened role of Visitor Experience, and a reduced (some call it “redirected” role for the Warden Service in some of their traditional activities like backcountry patrols and management when we didn’t have the staff to do that anymore, in the ways we did in the ‘80s and ‘90s.
Also, there was a fair amount of discussion that I had with senior management and the perception was fundamentally that “why would (Parks) expend resources in the backcountry when nobody goes there”. I clearly remember that being stated to me. So, I think in response to that perception, I (with your help) decided to put together some statistics for senior managers about backcountry use in the mountain parks, and the perception that nobody went there. I think the approach that I asked you to do was let’s do a little comparison between the National Historic Site visitation in Canada and backcountry visitation in Banff/Lake Louise area. Really the focus could only be on backcountry use permits that were issued for backcountry camping. Banff only to start.
So as we worked through the numbers, I had no idea where this might lead, but as you brought numbers forward, it was pretty interesting that in the end we concluded that backcountry permit issuance in Banff Park exceeded visitation in about 90% of Canada’s Historic sites. There were only four or five National Historic Sites that had visitation greater than what our backcountry visitation was. Backcountry overnight use. And those numbers didn’t consider what we also included in our definition of backcountry, which was day hiking and all that kind of use. We had some hard numbers from some of the social science done in late 90’s but didn’t include these. I remember flying a Director, one of the new mountain Directors, into the upper Lake Louise area, to have a look at all of the trails as well as Skoki, as a kind of orientation. I remember her exclaiming at one point “Gosh there’s a lot of people down there.” This wasn’t done by any kind of formal request by management, this was just a conversation thing that had been told to me that nobody ever went there, and in a very casual conversation later, I mentioned this statistic with numbers… and there was a brief profound silence about the visitation numbers and the perception by senior management that nobody went there. The Director I spoke with was impressed, and we talked about the dangers of “fake news”.
Nonetheless the pendulum was swinging hard as I alluded, and Warden Service’s management of the backcountry was not in the future cards. That went to Visitor Experience. The patrol cabins that existed in Parks Canada, certainly in the mountain parks history, were no longer part of our responsibility, they were transferred over to Assets. So that pendulum swung pretty hard, and it was difficult final couple of years for me in a Manager of Resource Conservation role.
Fortunately, in the late ‘90s Tom Lee had a bit of a vision that Parks Canada needed to look after some of the vast portions of Banff, Yoho, Kootenay and Jasper, by getting in legislation, something called “declared wilderness” into the National Parks Act.
Jillian Roulet and I, because I was backcountry manager in Banff at that time, started to pore over maps about what types of boundaries we would include in the declared wilderness for Banff, and what sorts of activities could be included or excluded. There were certainly corridors for commercial horse use and tent camps and those sorts of things … the backcountry lodges that existed in Banff, Alpine Club huts. But additional commercial use was off the table. So, through time that wilderness designation became legislation and there was actually very distinct rules around how “backcountry” was used. And wasn’t. And backcountry often started where the road ditch ended.
I guess one of the concerns I had always as a Chief Park Warden, whose various roles included the enforcement of the National Parks Act, was the policy that existed around it. Whenever some senior management was proposing actions which contravened direction in things like the park wilderness designations in the National Parks Act, we (resource conservation) provided advice, and when resource conservation provided advice at that time, we were definitely looked on as the bad guys who didn’t want anything to happen in Parks Canada. HR, Finance etc. all kept senior managers informed of the rules governing government finances and HR rules. Accepted unconditionally. I found that a very unfortunate view. We were simply bringing forward, in a respectful way, the direction that was already set down in things like commercial activities in the backcountry that were not allowed.
So, with all of those backcountry cabins, there was definitely a push, a significant push for unloading them to a third party. A fairly significant part of my effort over time was to try and point out that the wilderness declaration didn’t allow that. They are still generally part of Parks Canada’s répertoire; I’m sure they are still trying to figure out what to do with them still. But resource conservation managers definitely had some interesting discussions at the time.
Maintenance of those assets is a challenge. If any of those buildings were in a front-country situation, many would be declared historical assets and there would be tens of thousands of dollars available to maintain them. But because nobody goes there. It’s a funny conundrum sometimes that Parks takes. To me…“what are you thinking?”
SH: Yes, that’s what I was thinking. Okay let’s go onto a new question. What about the Warden Service was important to you? Ideas of protecting and preserving national parks, keeping people safe etc.
SH: I was just thinking of another hat you work briefly Ian, was that whole Rogers Pass tragedy with the kids and hiring and working with Dennis O’Gorman
Ian: We can chat a little about that if you’d like. In February of 2003, a high school group skied up into an area after a significant snowfall, and there was a heightened avalanche hazard. A number of young people perished. Obviously a pretty significant event for Parks Canada as well, and I remember Gaby Fortin asking me to start doing some things around an investigation. There was certainly calls for Parks Canada to do something, and rightly so. Jillian Roulet was Superintendent at that time and she was the management lead. I was more of the hands on. We hired a retired BC Parks Director Dennis O’Gorman to lead the review of that incident. The review was not going to focus on the rescue response or any of those sorts of things. Bill Fisher had met a risk management consultant. He had nothing to do with avalanche risk or those sorts of risks out there, he was a business type who explored how risk was managed so we hired him as well. We also hired a qualified Mountain Guide and Avalanche expert to round out the review. That whole process was interesting.
The report was completed and presented to Parks Canada, which accepted it full on, and I remember telling Dennis that I felt that in order to implement the recommendations of this report, we really needed somebody dedicated to that 100% of the time, to show our seriousness of implementation of recommendations. So in the report there is actually a component that indicated that Parks Canada should hire a person to implement the findings of the report throughout the mountain parks, because it had a mountain parks impact. We held interviews for that position and several internal Parks staff and external mountain guides applied on the position. It was a very interesting interview process. In the end a fellow named Grant Statham-the interview board determined was appropriate to lead this, and he was hired. He was going to report directly to the Executive Director of the Mountain Parks, to provide some recognition that it wasn’t just for Revelstoke Glacier, and it wasn’t just for Banff. It was all the mountain parks.
Grant’s work on implementing this eventually led to a CEO Award of Excellence and more recently the Summit of Excellence Award at the Banff Mountain Film Festival. I think what pleased me because of what Grant was able to bring to the table and the changes he was able to initiate in terrain analysis and risk management. And not forecasting so much, but the example I used for Grant was that behind that sign when you enter the Park about Fire Conditions from low to extreme, there’s a lot of science behind the ratings. There wasn’t anything similar to that in the avalanche business, and yes there’s a lot of complex science that goes in deciding if it’s Low or Moderate, or High or Considerable or Extreme. The general public needs to see something that is particularly simple, if we could do that. Grant through a lot of consultation with industry, and the Avalanche Association and Park Canada, did that. They pulled something remarkable together that kept Parks Canada in the lead as far as I thought.
SH: Are there any legends or stories associated with the Warden Service that you can share? Is there anyone from the Service that stands out in your mind?
I will throw out of a few names. In the late ‘70s I got the opportunity to go on some courses. Those courses involved moving through avalanche terrain, specifically the Eight Pass trip in Jasper. I did that a couple of times. As well as cross country skiing by Willi Pfisterer who was particularly an amazing athlete (Olympic caliber I think) in many ways, and observer of human capacity. Willi never instructed in the traditional sense in telling you what each step might be, it was pretty much up to the individual to observe, and ask questions if you thought they were necessary, but really it was the knowledge gained through observation that moved you forward. He gave you tips and that sort of thing. But Willi Pfisterer was my first exposure to real mountain man. It was quite something. Do what I do.
In Jasper at that time, my first experiences on horseback were with Brian Wallace. I think he’s a legend. Bob Haney was an Assistant Chief Warden in Jasper at that time, and I think Bob also became quite a legend. Quite a good team out of Jasper at that point in time.
We all in the mountain parks remember with some fondness or not, the Fuhrmann sanctions, Peter Fuhrmann’s mountaineering schools. They were quite different than Willi’s schools. Peter was quite a gregarious fellow; I quite enjoyed him. Some of the things we did in his schools …. the Alpine Club benefited significantly from the Warden Service at that point in time, because Peter was the President, but Peter was a biggie. Many, many Fuhrmann sanction stories.
Tim Auger was a biggie. Working with him at Sunshine in the mid ‘80s doing avalanche control, he and Scott Ward and Don Waters and Tim Laboucane. They were the avalanche control folks at that time. Tim Auger was a big legend in my mind definitely. I think that some of our public safety people, like Clair (Israelson) and Gord (Irwin) and Marc (Ledwidge) I had great admiration for, not only in their rescue skills, but for taking people like me up mountains. I had not much experience or no experience in mountain climbing and these guys were able to somehow safely get people up routes in training climbs and start building a little bit of confidence involving them in rescues. I have big admiration for those folks. That took a lot.
Bob Haney as Chief Warden in Banff and Mike McKnight as Assistant Chief in Lake Louise. I have quite a bit of admiration for them and what they brought forward in resource conservation at that time. When you talk about protection, Mike moved on to be the environmental watchdog of the twinning of the railroad in Banff and highways in parts of Banff and Yoho, and the MacDonald railroad tunnel in Glacier Park. Those are big responsibilities that went well.
I think Cliff White did more to advance ecosystem thought in Parks Canada than any. He was way ahead of most of us in his thinking about fire, ecosystem function, first nations influence, change though time, bison reintroduction. He was hard to follow sometimes, especially after he’d had his fourth cup of coffee, but he was one to plant a seed and then let you ruminate on it, then come back and discuss some more.
And I was always impressed by Ron Leblanc. He was a doer with wildlife. He really cared. Didn’t take much credit for the things he initiated…like aversive conditioning; like the research he did on Grizzly/human interactions with Steve Herrero that led to allowing groups of four to traverse safely in backcountry bear areas of concern rather than closing them to access.
I certainly have a great deal of respect for some non-park warden people. I think of Charlie Zinkan, Jillian Roulet, Bill Fisher. I felt we were blessed to have those folks as managers in Parks Canada at the time. They seemed to have an understanding and respect for what the Warden Service was doing and supported them in any way they could which was considerable I thought.
SH: They sure let the staff take risks, with fire I know for sure.
Ian: Absolutely. There was a level of trust there and a level of understanding that sometimes in the burning world, things don’t go one hundred percent according to plan and that was okay. It’s all a learning experience.
SH: Is there anything about the Warden Service, as you knew it, that you would want future generations to know? (Tape 41:17)
Ian: Well I think by in large, this is an interesting one, that there was a generation of mountain park wardens, early 70’s through to 2000s, that for lack of a better term, really enjoyed each other’s company. We generally had quite a bit of respect for each other it seemed. That was largely founded on things of shared experiences…the rescue schools that I talked about with Peter Fuhrmann and Willi Pfisterer, leading those, Fire events, Law Enforcement schools, horse training. It brought people from a number of the mountain parks together to get some training and camping and be in some difficult situations together, and really give them all sorts of material for stories to tell later.
Most of us had some level of exposure to backcountry. I read in some of the other reviews that park wardens first experiences as a park warden was to put them in the backcountry for a season or two and see how they made out. We all had lots of adventures that you can read in the oral histories. None of those events are uncommon to anybody who went through them. Some may not articulate them as well, but they made great reading material and it was just a bunch of people that grew up in the ‘50s and ‘60s and found a job that most of them absolutely loved, and couldn’t believe they got paid to do it, and did things together. We see that both in the Alumni and also whenever there is a funeral unfortunately or some of the post retirement get-togethers, like the 100th anniversary of the Ya Ha Tinda. A huge turnout from many generations of park wardens. We just enjoy each other’s company it seems. Perhaps through the Oral History project you can begin to see the changes that Parks Canada and the Warden Service went through from the late ‘70s to the mid 2000s. We all went thought that together. I’ll leave it at that.
SH: Good answer. What made the Warden Service such a unique organization?
I think I’ll just refer back to what I was talking about a moment ago. We all had our individual experiences, certainly early in our careers with avalanche control or wildlife management and bear problems, and public safety incidents that we responded to, fires or prescribed burns that we were involved with. The amazing thing about the Warden Service at that time was pretty much everybody got involved at some point in those sorts of activities. Everybody had a sense of what that role of protection really meant I thought. Going back to some earlier statements, protection wasn’t just law enforcement, or just biology, or just fire management or just problem wildlife. It was all those things together that made our role special.
