Dear Editor:

With regard to the proposed national park debate, I think that some of the complex and serious issues have not been laid out clearly. At the outset, I want to state that I am one of the individuals who raise cattle within the proposed boundaries and would be adversely affected should this proposal be implemented.
I think the world has changed a bit since former Prime Minister Jean Chretien started us down this road.  We have become conscious that a “l00 mile diet” may be a good thing.
Cattle on grasslands provide a ready, dependable source of protein for Okanagan communities by grazing on grasses that cannot economically be utilized in any other way.
We are living in a world today that experiences food shortages.  In a recent speech given in Brussels, Belgium (The Western Producer, February 2, 2012), Microsoft’s Bill Gates urged world governments to double agricultural research funding in order to increase agriculture output.
Gates stated that there are one billion people now (15 per cent of the global population) who battle starvation every day.
“If you don’t fund the agricultural system, you leave these billion that wake up every day wondering if they’re going to get enough food,” said Gates.
It could be argued on this basis alone that now is not the time to kill a healthy livestock industry (The Parks Act does not allow livestock grazing in a National Park).
Of course, implementation would also curtail or end use by hunters, fisherman, firewood gatherers, etc.  As has been stated many times before, much of the proposed area is already in a “protected” status.
As for the remainder of land, the public should be aware that livestock in B.C. can be grazed on Crown land only upon issuance of a permit or license by the Ministry of Forests.
Each permit or license has incorporated into it a management plan which sets out the number of animals authorized to be grazed, the time frame on how long they can be grazed and the specific location where grazing can take place. This plan must be adhered to and is overseen by professional agrologists within the Ministry of Forests.
It should also be noted that in order to protect “species at risk” on Crown land, the Ministry of Environment, in co-operation with the local ranching community and the Ministry of Forests, has identified and set aside wildlife habitat areas to protect species identified to be at risk. Examples of these would be the Lewis Woodpecker, Tiger Salamander, Antelope Brush, etc.
Raising livestock in the Okanagan is a historic activity that has been established for over a century. The industry contributes to the local economy and provides a healthy diversification in the agricultural community. It was one of the first industries in the Okanagan.
Cattle provide an invaluable service both to the public and wildlife through grazing or “pruning” tall or old grass. This reduces the amount of fuel available to wildfires and provides succulent new growth for wildlife to eat, which is what they prefer (over tall, coarse grasses).
Cattle also provide a “seed ripe” treatment on grasslands. That is, through the grazing process there are hundreds of sharp hooves performing a seed “stomping,” threshing and planting action.
This is documented by wildlife managers in the book The Range by Sherm Ewing  (recommended by U.B.C. Professor David H. Been).  In the book, Montana wildlife area manager Fred King makes this statement –  “this seeding action by cattle is a process more important than any of us realized”.
As a taxpayer, I am very curious as to what establishing this park would cost. There are probably 10,000 to 15,000 acres of private land in the proposed area that Parks Canada would like to buy to include in the park. This is probably going to cost tens of millions of dollars. To purchase the existing ranches would also cost tens of millions. There are also the existing mines, or mining claims, that must be purchased. Dozens of these old mines would have to be made safe by filling in the open pits.
As well, if there are toxic sites connected to these mines (this was an intensive mining area in the past) they would have to be cleaned up at a cost of millions again.
Do national parks pay property taxes on their lands? If they do not, the revenue from taxes on private lands that Parks Canada will purchase will be lost.  It is my understanding that in the U.S. this has been a sore point for years, as private lands purchased there and going into the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) meaning a reduction of the tax base and a greater tax burden on local residents.
We should also assess what the value of standing timber is worth economically, not only to this generation, but also to succeeding generations. I would suggest there are many millions of dollars worth of timber present in the area today, the benefit of which no one will see if this proposal goes ahead.  Forests are a renewable resource that can continually provide revenue into the future for things such as health care and old-age pensions.
I applaud Minister Terry Lake for his decision. Local MLA John Slater is also to be applauded for taking the right position.

Ed Schmalz
Oliver, B.C.