Scarborough Heights Park Fence Survey

In Favour of Fencing SHT

Opposed to Fencing SHT

Paula Christie , Daniela Dumas , Scott Hodgson. , Tanya M. , Marina Davydova , Joanne Davidson, Ron O’Brien, Cas Shields

Yes, despite tickets, people keep scaling the bluffs. My partner is a first responder. Not only is reckless misuse of time/funds, but it puts the firefighters at risk.

Laws, rules, fences pander to the lowest common denominator. We assume people will behave appropriately, but enforcement, ultimately, becomes necessarily.


The problem isn’t so much about people climbing down the bluffs, as it is about people climbing up the bluffs from below. We live down the street from the park and people climb UP into our back yards, at least 2-3 times a year. For their own thrill, they damage our properties, and at no consequence to themselves because fines are never laid or enforced.
Aside from the eye sore this will bring to this beautiful conservation area, all this will achieve will be to force those climbers more so into our back yards. So no, I cannot support this action. Something needs to be done at the bottom of the bluffs, not the top. A good start can be appropriate signage along the shoreline trails and real enforcement of fines.

Chris Guzzo

The statistics don’t support a fence here, vs other sections of the Bluffs.
– The enforcement option hasn’t been fully exhausted; in fact, we see little evidence of fines being issued, just warnings. A few fines to key violators (news of which could amplify via social media) would be a very effective deterrent.
– The most popular (and dangerous) area for trespassers (the ‘point’ in Scarborough Crescent Park, to the East) still only has a ~3.5′ barrier which is easily traversable by almost anyone.
– The dense foliage at the top of Scarborough Heights Park already serves as a natural barrier and deterrent at this location.
– The proposed fences at Scarborough Heights Park are open-ended, meaning anyone could simply walk around them to traverse the barrier at either side.
– A significant number of rescue incidents likely arises out of individuals climbing the Bluffs from the bottom; a fence at the top would therefore do nothing to deter this.
– Consider using money and resources to build viewing platforms or otherwise develop areas where folks could safely enjoy the view (like countless other natural attractions have done), instead of a fence. Guide visitors to where they can go safely, instead of telling them where they can’t.
– Investigate the very real possibility that there was a clerical/administrative error made – it simply doesn’t make sense for such a high and intrusive fence to be erected at the Scarborough Heights location (especially the West portion; it isn’t dangerous, nor would it even be of interest for anyone to venture down the heavily-wooded embankment here). It was likely intended for Scarborough Crescent Park or another section of the Bluffs where both the terrain and statistics supported such a barrier. A simple physical site visit by City staff would support this hypothesis.

Brian Lalancette

It’s not an appropriate fence for the bluffs. It will disrupt the wildlife and ruin the view. Put the same short fence there is everywhere else.

Laura Savage

A high fence will not stop the reckless people who venture out to the edge of the bluffs. They’ll climb it anyway. It only serves to impede the efforts of our rescue services. Once again it would be the few who spoil this natural area for the majority. I am against installing a high fence anywhere along our bluffs.

Lynne Braund

Total waste of budget when so many other Parks issues to be addressed. No real justification was given, no transparency as to who initiated this and why.

Carl Brand

Fencing and signs don’t work. Increased bylaw officer presence and tickets to law breakers will.

Christine Martin

Aesthetic – the fence will look terrible
Placement – most climb the bluffs from the bottom so a fence at the top is safety theatre
Rarity – the number of people who need to be rescued is less than .00009%
Responsibility – the bluffs are dangerous and people must act responsibly

Tim Daciuk

There is no problem at Scarborough Heights so there was no need to spend any money on a fence. This is a complete waste of money.

Adolph Kahan

There are some dangerous sections of the bluffs where people should be very careful. I live on another park on the bluffs and do not want a fence. I do think that more attention should be paid to the fining of individuals who ignore signage. Entire families with small children go under a small chain into a no trespassing area; however, people aren’t falling over the top, they are climbing up from the bottom.

Shirley Cuthbertson

Absolutely no environmental assessment or concern for the wildlife! Additionally, no consultation within the community!!


Comments – : This is simply NOT an evidence-based decision. It is ‘safety theatre’. (Also, the original fence in the proposal just… stopped, half way along the bluff 😆 people could have just walked around the edge!).
The number of rescues that take place don’t justify this. Many times it’s climbers from the bottom that need rescuing. As well, the types of people that want to act stupid and go down the bluff would easily find their way over / around ANY fence (and, see stupid planning note above).
This thing was set to absolutely ruin the beauty of this park. Put up some more signs and some more low post-and-cable fencing that actually blends with the environment, and then the city will have done its’ due diligence.
Pretty disappointing that this was done without any community consultation. Would this have occurred in a more affluent area of the city?

Kerry Tait

Comments – : I oppose the fence and any other fence the city proposes to erect in any bluffs Park that will impact the bluffs and the wildlife. The 0.0009% who disobey the law should be charged and fined accordingly. No reason to stop law abiding citizens from enjoying the bluffs and paying for the expense of a fence.

Cheryl Benson

 It’s probably the dumbest idea yet. Spend our tax dollars wisely instead of like a bunch of clowns.

Scott Aube

For some reason Parks and Rec. staff seem to think that they are in charge, happily making decisions and instituting them without consulting anyone. This was, and still is, an absurd idea.

Tim Shields

There have been 5 rescues over 10 years so from a safety point of view it isn’t worth it. From a mental health point of view, walking in a natural setting is most beneficial. I am there every day and appreciate the solitude and beauty I see daily.

Lorna Larmour

Makes it look more like a prison day-yard than a park once a budget chain link fence goes in. Every level of government is bankrupt why spend money on an unnecessary fence?

Jon Eatpn

As a former climber, it is easier to climb up than it is to go down. To stop the need for rescues, you’d have to fence off the bottom access to the bluffs as well. With what is planned, it will only hamper rescue access.


The bluffs are a natural feature which have been there for millennia. You can’t fix stupid and anyone dumb enough to endanger themselves at the edge of the bluffs deserves their fate . Furthermore those in need of rescue should be billed for the resources

Carl Doose

Totally unnecessary. Enforced steep fines are a better deterrent.
Fencing built this year can fall in time with erosion. This would then become a bigger environmental issue.


Not necessary. I only see mature, quiet residents taking nature strolls or walking their dogs. And I go there almost every day. I’ve never seen anyone try to walk down those cliffs. Why would they ? There is a road right next to the park leading to the water. Very quiet park. The view is spectacular. Save the lookouts❤. Amazing.

Anna Gillis

This waste of tax dollars was decided upon without community consultation. Many in the community want more emphasis on individual responsibility and charge backs for rescues. Increased enforcement and an intensive education blitz to persuade more to follow the rules and respect the community and the beauty of the Bluffs. There are many projects that need doing in SSW. A fence that will prevent nothing and harms wildlife is not one of them.

N. Martin

Some form of low unobtrusive wire system could be used. Some form of warning for the idiots is required.

David Hopper.

The bluffs ate (are) our gem. Fences and locks only keep honest men out.
Ugly, punishes the wildlufe (wildlife), the residents, and was not comunity (community) consulted. The fence will not stop dishonest peopje or even bottom climbers. Stupid idea waste of $$$.
Quit advertising the bluffs!

Sandra Spratt

Nothing will prevent people from putting themselves in danger. I’d rather the funds be put into more garbage receptacles and more frequent pick-up.

Mike Hren

There must be a better option m. Society should not cater to the lowest common denominator, the selfish or the ignorant. Enforcing fines to offset the cost of rescue services is a much better option not to mention the avoided cost of erecting w large fence.

Dona B.