The Peak District and Banff National Parks

Conclusion

The Peak District National Park is not a wilderness area and the PDNPA does not to seek to manage it as such, and thus, unsurprisingly, it is hard to acknowledge that any of the thirteen principles have been applied in their true sense.

In Banff the situation is very much different and the principles to some extent have been applied to all zones of the park.

Each of the parks can be considered to occupy a position on the Environmental Modification Spectrum. The PDNP lacks any land use zonation and thus occupies a single point which, in American terms, would be somewhere around half way between the ‘paved and the primeval’ (Nash, 1982).

The zonation in Banff allows for the retention of true wilderness areas, although regulations seem less stringent than in the U.S. However such zonation allows all sectors of the community to enjoy a variety of recreational opportunities without infringing detrimentally upon each others interests.

Such zonation would be impractical in the PDNP as there are insufficient areas of undisturbed land to warrant such zonation. Due to the relatively hospitable landscape all areas of the park have been subjected to anthropogenic encroachments at some time. Banff was lucky in this respect as much of the park is uninhabitable, and thus has been spared the ravishes of mankind that have destroyed the ecological integrity of the PDNP. Furthermore the location of Banff some distance from major conurbations has safeguarded it from the purges of millions of day trippers which have been the downfall of its English counterpart.

Both parks offer opportunities to nature and recreation enthusiasts alike, but due to the nature of the parks the experiences would be vastly different, for example skiing is not really plausible in the PDNP, yet sailing is not an option in BNP. As for a wilderness experience, the PDNP falls well short of Banff, where a similar scenario to Yosemite can be expected.

Provisions can be made to limit the impacts of tourist visits, and have been in BNP. Carrying capacities have been determined for camping areas and in particular backcountry access. Trail quotas and even closures becoming an increasingly common feature in BNP, and there are strict regulations regarding expansion of existing buildings. Relocations, for example the Cadet Camp, have also been orchestrated.

No such procedures have been instigated in the PDNP. The main focus of concern appears to be regulation of traffic, largely in an effort to limit congestion and reduce associated emissions, rather than an attempt to quell the number of visitors.

There is considerable emphasis put on wildlife welfare by the BNP Authority. Wildlife is recognised as a key aspect in maintaining environmental naturalness. The creation of wildlife corridors is a very proactive attempt to reverse the negative trends in species persistence. The wildlife corridors in BNP are analogous to the stone walls and hedgerow in the PDNP, which, likewise, are considered integral to the survival of biota. This comparison effectively highlights the inherent differences between the two parks; two of the most highly valued micro-habits in the PDNP are man-made! If such walls had ever existed in the ‘natural’ or backcountry areas of BNP, they would have been removed.

The respective authorities are essentially managing two entirely different resources. The PDNP is a human landscape, having been modified by years of anthropogenic activities. The flora and fauna is barely representative of that which would have flourished before humans settled in the area. The PDNPA can therefore can not be held responsible for the lack of wilderness, or even undisturbed areas, it is something that has been inherited.

BNP, especially the backcountry is largely been spared the wrath of man, and thus can be said to be biologically and physically representative of a primeval era. Fortunately the scarcity and value of wilderness has been recognised early enough to enable effective restoration efforts in those areas which have been imposed upon, mainly the montane eco-region, and maintenance of those other areas which remain ecologically intact.

Canadian Rockies (2002) Canadian Rockies. Available; http://www.discoverbanff.com/ Accessed; May 8^th 2002

Edwards, K. C. & Swinnerton, H. H. & Hall, R. H. (1962) The Peak District. Collins, London.

Hendee, J. C., Stankey, G. H., Lucas, R. C. (1990) Wilderness Management. Fulcrum, Golden, Colorado

Nash, R. (1982) Wilderness and the American Mind. Rev. New Haven, CT. Yale University Press.

Parks Canada (2001) Banff, National Park of Canada. Available; http://www.worldweb.com/ParksCanada-Banff/ Accessed; May 8^th 2002.

Parks Canada (2001) Estimates Parks Canada, Part III – Report on Plans and Priorities 2001-2002. Available; http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/tb/estimate/20012002/rPCA___e.pdf Accessed May 8^th 2002

Peak District National Park Authority (1989) Peak National Park Plan; First Review.

Peak District National Park Authority (2000) National Park Management Plan Strategy 2000-2005. Available; http://www.peakdistrict.org accessed; May 8^th 2002.

Peak District National Park Authority (2000) State of the Park Report. Available; http://www.peakdistrict.org accessed; May 8^th 2002.

World Wide Travel Guide (2002) Banff World Wide Travel Guide. Available; http://www.discoverbanff.com/ Accessed; May 8^th 2002.

Other Pages