It’s clear that the provincial government and MLA Linda Larson would like the to national park issue simply to go away.
When the B.C. government abruptly ended talks with the federal government early in 2012, they probably hoped the issue would quietly fade into history.
Opponents, representing a mix of hunters, ATVers and some ranchers, have been visible with a few dozen large red “No National Park” signs posted along local highways.
Supporters, however, have been very busy lately. Doreen Olson, of the South Okanagan Similkameen National Park Network, is just one such supporter and she’s been running back and forth meeting with local councils, regional districts and other organizations, urging them to pass resolutions calling on the government to resume talks.
Others have been engaged in letter writing campaigns, sending letters to newspapers and politicians.
Ultimately, however, an issue this important shouldn’t be decided by the number of signs, number of resolutions or column inches of letters to the editor.
The decision should be based on what is in the best interests of local residents, the natural environment and Canadians more broadly.
It should also be based on facts and data.
Olson and other park supporters have attempted to attach numbers to their arguments, pointing to figures such as the number of jobs a park would create, the likely budget for a national park of this size and other measures of economic spinoffs that can be expected.
Of course one can argue with their figures. We won’t really know the size of park budgets or number of staff until the process is much further along. Averages based on other national parks in B.C. can only provide ball park numbers that may be skewed by some of the larger parks.
Nonetheless, at least supporters are attempting to quantify the benefits.
Opponents such as Greg Norton of the Grasslands Coalition argue that a national park isn’t needed and the land can be protected under the existing Land and Resource Management Plan. Certainly that’s a fair argument, but they’ve been less forthcoming with numbers to support it.
Some of their arguments are clearly not factual and are misleading. Norton, for example, says he’s seen no indication that cattle grazing would be permitted in the national park, but this is clearly stated in the joint feasibility study. Parks Canada has been clear that grazing outside of some more sensitive areas could still continue in a national park reserve here.
Much as MLA Larson and the B.C. government may wish, the issue has not gone away and it won’t.
As more and more municipalities, regional districts and chambers of commerce express support for reopening talks with the feds, this groundswell will be hard to ignore.
Supporters of a park point out that waiting for a new government, or for this government to change its mind, may mean a park will come too late.
The South Okanagan grasslands are unique in Canada and are environmentally sensitive. They are a national treasure for all Canadians to cherish.
The provincial government is not devoting the funds or staffing to protect the land under its control and economic pressures to subdivide and develop the privately owned land will only increase.
New parks are proceeding elsewhere in Canada, bringing tourism with them.
Whatever the ultimate outcome, it’s time for the provincial government to engage in serious talks with all major local stakeholders. And then to reopen talks with the federal government.
