When the National Parks Act became law in 1930 the language of the bill presented the three key mandates for the management of these federal resources.

While human enjoyment and education are expressly mentioned, these elements are subject to a concept that has come to be referred to in more modern times as ecological integrity. The idea, essentially, is that the first order of business for Parks Canada is to maintain and restore (where needed) habitats and processes for the flora and fauna that populate the national parks system.

Then, in the late 1980s, something called the precautionary principle became increasingly relevant to Canada’s national parks. From its first endorsement as part of the World Charter for Nature, signed in 1982, the principle became de rigeur in the environmental world and is still used by Parks Canada today. While this does not have offical policy status within the agency, the core idea behind it is part of the Parks approach: that a lack of complete scientific knowledge should not preclude action if it is believed that inaction could have serious or irreversible consequences.

Of course, application of this principle cannot be universal. If it was the be all, end all of management for national parks, you wouldn’t be reading this paper. At least, not in Jasper. However, it seems that the action plan for caribou recovery in Jasper National Park has forsaken a careful consideration of this core conservation value.

It has been one year since the action plan was published, and even longer since some of the recovery strategies were discussed by a small team of wildlife biologists and communtiy members. Out of 30 options debated, 14 were recommended as part of Phase I recovery. Among those measures that did not make the cut: seasonal closure of trails, the closure of the Maligne Road in winter and the re-routing of trails in high quality summer caribou habitat. It’s interesting to make note of the composition of the recovery team, but unfair to its members to assign responsibility for various actions or inactions to them. After all, they merely made recommendations, and Parks Canada made the final decisions on what steps to take.

It’s far too soon to say what, if any, difference the recovery measures that were approved have made for the South Jasper caribou herd. This newspaper does not suggest that Parks Canada reverse direction on any of these steps, with the possible exception of wolf fladry, which has, in Parks’ own admission, been a failure this winter. Instead, we question why more substantial steps have not yet been taken, and, for the time being at least, seem to be beyond consideration.

Take human activity on the Brazeau Loop trails as one example. Without question this is one of the most splendid tracts of backcountry anywhere on the planet, but the high passes that the popular trails transit also happen to be important summer caribou habitat. A study by Parks Canada biologist Jesse Wittington has suggested that in the summer months, caribou avoid trails in order to avoid humans. How much stress or interference this causes the animals is unknown. More research, monitoring and number crunching is deemed necessary before the application of any closure or limitation in the area is considered.

Here’s where we return to the precautionary principle. We don’t know the extent of the impact that humans have on caribou in this area, but we do know that our activity makes some difference. If Parks was to re-route those trails or install some system of quotas, it might create positive outcomes for the caribou. Failure to act might not do anything, or it may lead to further decline in a small population of a species that is considered threatened by the strict criteria of the Species at Risk Act. That would be the serious or irreversible consequence that application of the precautionary principle is intended to avoid.

If the concept is inverted, we can consider what impact such a decision would have on the trail users and tourism operators. Would the effects be serious? Perhaps, but they would not be irreversible. If quotas make no difference, they could be lifted, as could closure orders. If trails have been re-routed, they would likely remain in their new positions, but many of the fundamental qualities of the backcountry trail experience would remain unchanged.

Jasper National Park takes justifiable pride in their community team approach to caribou recovery planning, but as national and provincial plans for broader populations of woodland caribou are discussed, shouldn’t Parks Canada want to provide an example in the plan itself? If the recovery effort in the national park is limited by concerns over public access and industry interests, what sort of message does that send to jurisdictions that were not founded for the reasons that the parks were? To borrow a phrase from Jill Seaton of the Jasper Environmental Association, if the caribou can’t be protected effectively in Jasper, they have little hope elsewhere.