Exercise #3: Connecting Past and Present
March 15, 2026 By: Michelle Anderson
The following two brief posts connect contemporary media stories to Unit 3 themes-conservation, parks, and urbanization-showing how early twentieth‑century debates over resource use and preservation continue to shape present conflicts and policy choices.
Media Item #1: Surrey students collaborate with First Nation in garden project
A recent local story shows how Indigenous knowledge is being woven into contemporary conservation practice in Surrey Schools. A Peace Arch News report describes Surrey students partnering with the Katzie First Nation to establish a school garden that plants Indigenous species and integrates traditional teachings, creating a hands‑on place‑based lesson in stewardship for young people. This grassroots approach contrasts with the early twentieth‑century, Pinchot‑style model of conservation, summed up in Gifford Pinchot’s The Fight for Conservation, which emphasized scientific, utilitarian management of resources for broad public benefit rather than Indigenous relationships to place. Nash’s chapter on Hetch Hetchy shows the deep historical tension between municipal utility and preservation; the Surrey–Katzie garden points toward a third path that centres Indigenous values and education as a way to reconcile community needs with ecological integrity. Finally, Gillis and Roach’s work on American influence in Canadian conservation helps explain why early policy leaned toward professional, technocratic management, but local Indigenous partnerships and restoration projects (for example, Katzie‑led restoration work documented in recent coverage) demonstrate how Indigenous knowledge and community pedagogy can reshape conservation practice today.
Media Item #2: Surrey awards contracts for new water park and turf fields
Surrey’s recent investment in parks, new water‑play features and turf fields, illustrates how urban growth pressures cities to reshape natural and semi‑natural spaces to meet immediate human needs, a dynamic that echoes Unit 3 debates about municipal demand versus preservation. Nash’s Hetch Hetchy case shows the long‑standing tension between preservationists (like Muir) who argued to protect landscapes for their intrinsic value and utilitarian planners who prioritized public utility; Surrey’s choices about converting land for recreation reflect the same trade‑offs between accessible urban amenities and conserving natural areas. Pinchot’s pragmatic conservationism helps explain why municipal leaders favor managed, multi‑use green spaces that serve large populations, while Gillis and Roach’s work reminds us that Canadian policy historically borrowed American models of professional resource management, models that often prioritized planned use over strict preservation. The key contemporary question, sharpened by these readings, is how to design urban parks and infrastructure that both serve growing communities and protect ecological functions (e.g., retaining wetlands, using LID stormwater design, and preserving tree canopy), rather than simply replacing nature with engineered recreation. Article: https://www.surrey.ca/news-events/news/surrey-awards-contracts-new-water-park-and-turf-fields