Myer

I didn't remember a day use area (now I think I do) with picnic tables etc. So I did a search and the first web site that came up was this.

http://www.ehcanadatravel.com/albert...th-cavell.html

The funny thing is that by the angle of the lake in their pictures they appear to have been taken well below the "open" viewpoint above the lake.

They weren't taken right at the lake but only slightly above it. That appears to be part of the closed area.

Myer

At first I didn't notice all those people down at the lake in the "closed" area.

kgsneds

The photo was likely taken back when that area was open

Myer

I think they closed the trail/path at the viewpoint not because it's dangerous further down but because that's a convenient location since it's where the viewpoint is located.

How far down is safe or not safe I don't know. I also don't know what it would cost to allow the path to go further and end at some point.

While going all the way down to the edge of the lake provides an amazing view, the elevation is only part of it. By going further over to the left you get an excellent view of the lake lining up with the glacier (photography, etc).

I don't remember if the Meadow Trail goes further in that direction (though quite a bit higher).

In summary, it would be much better if the viewpoint was moved a couple of hundred yards/meters further even if it didn't go much/any closer down to the lake.

kgsneds

The closure (a superintendent's order) is indeed due to danger. trail closures are never for convenience - Parks Canada doesn't have time/staff to handle closures unless there's a significant reason. There is very real worry about future ice/glacier fall onto the area and causing flash floods.

When they had the previous big fall of ice from the glacier, there were huge (car sized) ice chunks on the shore where the trail used to go and people walked around. Plus people were well known to ignore the signs at the locations and get too close under the glacier. You can see youtube videos of avalanches coming down in that area with people running away to get out of the way.

It's not always apparent to people who aren't familiar with glaciers and back country terrain how big the ice chunks can be and how far they can fall. We will make significant detours to avoid areas with rock or ice fall.

In anycase, you continue past the closure at your peril - if you are caught, the fine is up to $25,000.

Myer

I didn't write that the closure was for convenience purposes. I wrote that they closed the trail at that exact spot out of convenience. That's where the viewpoint is located. I'm sure if the viewpoint was 100 - 200 yards further but at the same elevation, that's where it would have been closed.

About not having the staff to handle closures. They sure charge enough for entrance to the parks. The only time I've ever seen a ranger was once near Lake Minnewanka and a few times giving presentations at highway pullouts. And of course, at entrances checking for passes.

This summer I saw a group of people walking along the valley bottom towards the lake. I didn't watch them continue and didn't see on which side they ended up. I wouldn't do something like that.

panecott

Thank you, kgs, for your additional input and helpful info.

I canceled one night in Jasper, as per the general consensus on this board, and added it on to Canmore where it seems there'll be plenty to do and see, so I think my itinerary is pretty well set.

I'm glad I will be in the area for the larch festival, something I wasn't aware of, and I appreciate the update on Edith Cavell area. I'll be printing out all these threads and taking them with me.

laverendrye

<<About not having the staff to handle closures. They sure charge enough for entrance to the parks. The only time I've ever seen a ranger was once near Lake Minnewanka and a few times giving presentations at highway pullouts. And of course, at entrances checking for passes.>>

This comes as no surprise. The federal government has been cutting Parks Canada's budget for some years now forcing Parks Canada to cut staff and services to visitors. They are therefore hardly in a position to lower park fees. Environmental issues, including the national parks system, are very low on the priority of our present government.

Myer

I'm not suggesting they lower the fees.

I wonder where the entrance fees are being spent?

laverendrye

<<I wonder where the entrance fees are being spent?>>

Clearly, if the agency's budget is being cut on an annual basis as it has been, then revenues from fees and other non-government sources are being used to help make up that shortfall.

This article might provide more insight into the budgetary crunch which Parks Canada has been undergoing.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...dget_cuts.html

Myer

Actually, I like it the way it is in Canada. No rangers to get in the way.

Sometimes I feel that rangers in US parks act the way they do because they're jealous of those who have a better camera or better equipment than they do.

It's all very sad. I guess people better take advantage of the parks while they're still available.