Keep a light touch on waterfall security

THE SPECTATOR’S VIEW

Heightened concern and anxiety over public safety at Hamilton-area waterfalls is understandable, and should be taken seriously. Especially considering the fatality last weekend at Albion Falls, and the overall increase in popularity and traffic to these areas, a reality check with some tough questions is appropriate.

The easy thing to do would be the most extreme. Fencing any place where there is more than average risk. Closing down any access points that are unusually risky. Shock signs warning visitors, with statistics about injuries and deaths. Any number of other measures that might be part of a “lock it down” strategy.

But while that might be the biggest safety boost, and while it might be most effective at mitigating liability, it’s not the best strategy from a nature and community perspective. At some point, “fool-proofing” areas like Albion Falls will end up being a disincentive for visitors and a blot on the natural beauty of the asset. And no matter how many warnings you post or how many fences you erect, people who really want to live on the edge will find a way to do it.

Recognizing that not all the facts are in on problems and solutions, we would argue a more balanced approach is best. Yes, there are probably some access points that need to be closed, or at least more seriously signed. Some new fencing might be needed. But a light touch is in order. More trail markings, identification of less safe areas, seasonal-use warnings are examples.

So is access control. And that’s likely to be more contentious. Illegal parking is rampant in the Albion Falls area, to the extent that emergency vehicle access has been hampered. That needs to change. Paid parking needs to be implemented and enforced. That will reduce traffic to some extent, and therefore reduce the number of visitors. And regular parking violation fines are probably not enough to act as a real deterrent. So raise the fines to make illegal parking near the falls really unappealing.

Then there’s the question of admission. It’s free now, unlike local attractions operated by the Hamilton Conservation Authority. But should it remain free? Investing in safety and environmental concerns isn’t cheap. If additional investment is required, shouldn’t part of that need be met by a user-pay approach as opposed to reaching into general tax revenues?

Charging admission, through paid parking or some other means, will be seen as draconian by many. And undoubtedly there are logistical challenges.

But here’s the reality. Hamilton’s renaissance means more people. More appreciation for our beautiful natural surroundings means more demand. As the story spreads, more people from outside want to come, see and experience. And more people from here want to experience what they’ve been missing. How do we effectively balance that with optimizing public safety?