Talk:Garibaldi Provincial Park
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
|
 |
If anyone wants to use any of my images from http://gallery.gotroot.ca/v/hiking/ on this page, leave a message on my talk page and I will upload them.
[edit] IUCN Category II (National Park)
The infobox read "IUCN Category II (National Park)", which is clearly not the case, so I removed the IUCN designation. If anyone knows the correct category, feel free to add it back in. →smably 15:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe Category II is the correct category. Though the IUCN designation says national, the verbose definition doesn't mention national governance at all - see [[1]]). The UN page linked also calls it Cat II. Further, National_park#Other_sites_designated_for_preservation states "In many countries, local governmental bodies may be responsible for the maintenance of park systems. Some of these are also called national parks." It simply doesn't make sense for an entity concerned with conservation of nature make a distinction between nationally governed and provincially governed parks. They exist for the same purpose (the def'n of a Category II) and there is no other space in the rating system for such a park. I've readded the IUCN category II designation to the page.→Ktims 01:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's hard to place a IUCN category, as BC Parks is NOT affiliated to ICUN. --Qyd 01:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- From what I was reading yesterday on the World Database on Protected Areas site, linked at the article, their source is the Canadian Conservation Areas Database. If you follow up on that site, one of their goals is to classify Canadian protected areas under the IUCN classifications. Taken together, I'd consider this data somewhat authoritative, especially since it's listed on the IUCN-affiliated WDPA site. Further, I'm not sure these classifications are given out by the IUCN, it seems to just be specifying a classification system and allowing local organizations to apply it themselves. If you don't think there's enough of an argument for using these classifications, I don't have a huge problem with removing it.--Ktims 05:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
