User:Wongkat/sandbox

Resource Development
Since the inception of Canada’s National Parks, business and profit had been a major element to their creation and development. Although tourism was the first source of profit in the National Parks, the exploitation of natural resources such as coal, lumber, and other minerals became another major area of revenue. These resources were found in abundance in the Rocky Mountains and were interpreted as being inexhaustible.

Coal was the most plentiful and profitable of all the minerals and therefore its mining in parks was accepted by politicians and Canadian Pacific Railway officials. This was demonstrated by the creation of Bankhead, a coal town on the road to Lake Minnewanka that was established. This coal town was not viewed as a detriment to the overall scenery of Banff National Park, but was instead an added attraction for visitors. In this case, resource exploitation and tourism worked in conjunction with each other to create a more profitable national park. Although tourism and resource development could work together, it was clear from policy making that tourism became secondary to resource exploitation. The resources that were exploited from the National Parks were essential to the CPR's income as it freighted these resources across the province. In 1887, the Rocky Mountains Park Act was established under the Macdonald government and it reflected the importance of resource exploitation for Canada’s economy. Under this regulation, National Parks were not required to be preserved in their natural state but allowed for mining, logging, and grazing to continue.

When the Rocky Mountains Park Bill was proposed, it elicited various criticisms at the time, one being the implicit contradiction between the exploitation of resources within this national reservation. However, the overarching nineteenth century ideology that lumbering and mining would contribute to the usefulness of the reserve as opposed to depreciating the park overshadowed the concerns of resource exploitation. The natural resources within the parks were seen as being unlimited and therefore should be used as it was economically beneficial for the nation.

By 1911, as Canadians saw the depletion of American natural resources, there was a debate of the extent of resources exploitation in Canada’s National Parks. This debate began as early as 1906 at the Forestry Convention in Ottawa as it stimulated a new interest in conservation which spoke to the governmental, academic, and public level. Canada's National Parks were no longer places of unlimited natural resources, but were now considered a place where resources needed to be conserved through regulation to ensure future and continued use.

J.B. Harkin, the Parks Commissioner in 1911, advocated for the complete eradication of coal and mineral extraction in the parks. However, Harkin’s vision did not come to fruition until 1930 when the National Parks Act was established. Under this act, mineral exploration and development were banned and only limited use of timbre was permitted with in the parks. In order for Canada to continue its economic success through resource development, the boundaries of Canada’s National Parks were altered prior to the 1930 Act in order to exclude resource rich land from park areas. The exclusion of resource development in Canada’s National Parks marked a minor shift towards preservationist attitudes of Canada’s parks as recreational use and development was still permitted.

Comments
This is really good Kathryn. It all seems concise and important to me, I don't think there's anything that should be taken out. I have a couple little suggestions: twice you refer to "National Parks" as "it" - this doesn't agree. If you mean Parks Canada, that is an "it", but National Parks are a "they". In your first paragraph you say "profit" a few times, twice in one sentence - maybe one can be revenue or a different word instead? Also when you mention CPR, maybe expand it to the full title or add a link to the CPR wikipage for viewers who don't know what CPR is. :) --Sarah.x.g (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I also think that this is good, but I have one question. what is 1903 Act? is this a typo? you meant 1930 Act?

--Catetoma (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good! One typo - you refer to J.B. Harkin as Harking the first time you introduce his name. --KristinaBlair (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I have posted me section on the article page.--Wongkat (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Kathryn, I was just re-rereading our page and saw a couple things that you might want to adjust in your section. The sentence at the end of the third paragraph - 'Under this regulation, National Parks were not required to be preserved in their natural state but allowed for mining, logging, and grazing to continue' - it is just a bit of an awkward sentence - something like, 'Under this regulation, mining, logging and grazing were allowed within national park boundaries...' or 'Under this regulation, National Parks were not fully preserved in their natural states as mining, logging and grazing continued to be permitted.' (Up to you!)

Here are a couple changes to another sentence....'By 1911, as Canadians became aware of the depletion occurring within America's natural resources, a debate focused on the extent of resource exploitation in Canada’s National Parks erupted.'

In your last paragraph, timber is spelled 'timbre'. Your second to last sentence in your final paragraph uses "in order" twice.

Hope this is helpful! --KristinaBlair (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kristina, I have made your recommended changes. --Wongkat (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)