Yes. Thank you for the question.
Following on from what Barry offered, I think part of the issue we're seeing outside of the park, in other jurisdictions with wildfires—there have been a number of catastrophic fires in Alberta over the past 20 years—is that forestry practices also need to evolve somewhat. Planting monoculture forests is not conducive to mitigating against wildfires either, so there is something to be further considered there.
One of the issues in Jasper National Park, of course, is that around the townsite, there wasn't an appropriate fireguard put in place. As I said, there are a number of competing interests at play in terms of the residents, who obviously want to be safe but live in Jasper for a reason. They love the nature it provides. With regard to visitors, the idea of creating large fireguards is quite unpopular with international and even Canadian visitors.
I think it's possible, though, to remediate, restore and create fireguards and have more diverse species of trees planted in their place so that when there is remediation happening, even in places where cultural burning is happening, you're going to see that biodiverse landscape return. Those landscapes are more conducive to mitigating against future wildfires. A lot of those species, whether they're trees, shrubs or forbs, also have cultural meaning to indigenous peoples.
For many years, there was no harvesting in the park. A lot of the species that have returned to the park—traditional ecological knowledge species or native species—can actually also contribute to a return to cultural harvesting in the park in a way that isn't possible now, because many of those species have been impacted as well.
I think it is possible, certainly, with cultural burns and a focus on TEK species for restoration and remediation to really make some headway in the park.