National Park issue heats up
The issue over Park Canada's study area of the South Okanagan and Lower Similkameen continues to be a hot one.
Parks Canada has been studying the area with a view to establishing a national park reserve somewhere within this area of interest .
The Grassland Park Review Coalition, a group consisting of local, provincial and national groups who are stakeholders in the South Okanagan Similkameen Valleys, want to see the area under study remain a multiple use area, allowing current uses such as hiking, logging, livestock grazing and hunting to continue.
Their mandate is to balance the hype and identify the true impacts of a national park in the area.
The coalition is currently circulating a petition which reads, in part: we the undersigned are firmly opposed to the formation of a National Park in the South Okanagan and Lower Similkameen.
We favour implementation and support of the Okanagan-Shuswap Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and other ongoing initiatives that already conserve and/or protect this sensitive ecosystem.rnHow does the petition read to be anti-parks? said coalition spokesman Greg Norton, in response to Brian Brown's (project manager for the Parks Canada feasibility study) comment in a recent newspaper article that the anti-parks coalition sent out the only piece of paper most people would have.rnBrown has since apologized for the accusation that the Grassland Park Review Coalition is anti-park.
However, the comment points to deep division between what the coalition wants to see happen and what Parks Canada is proposing for this region.
Park Canada's update circular insists that a national park reserve would only be established if it was feasible and enjoyed public support.rnWe're just trying to get across to government to declare the parks that have been set aside. They are there, the province has signed off on the LRMP and what Mr. Barisoff's government has to do is declare them through an order in council and then they will be absolutely established. Job done, said Norton.
Much of Norton's frustration stems from what he sees as Parks Canada's initial consultation with only those who supported their proposal.
The project had a huge momentum before the residents in the area knew anything, Norton said.
The Grassland Park Review Coalition maintains the impacts of having a national park in the South Okanagan/Similkameen Valleys will be huge.
There are three main concerns we want to point out, said Norton.
1) the economic impact,
2) loss of recreation,
3) increased threat of wildfire.
First would be the loss of livelihood to existing businesses, particularly the cattle industry, which would affect several ranchers in the area, said Norton.
As well, there's Canadian Helicopters, who have a training base out of Penticton and who use these hills everyday, and orchardists, who may have to contend with increasing bear and deer populations because of a hunting ban.
Second, there would be the impact on recreational opportunities, such as ATV users, motorcycles and snowmobiles. Now that's a huge industry when you consider first the capital expenditures, then the repair shops and equipment manufacturers who would be negatively affected, said Norton.
The fees associated with activities like hiking or picnicking in a national park may exclude some people who can't afford to pay. In that way a national park shuts the door.
The threat of wildfire is the third concern of the coalition.
Surrounding satellite communities such as Twin Lakes, Willowbrook and Kilpoola, an estimated total of around 500 homes, would be vulnerable to wildfire due to elimination of cattle grazing in the area and logging blocks that provide an occasional break in the forest.
Parks Canada says, basically, that their philosophy is to let fires burn, and you don't do that in the South Okanagan. This place is explosive. It could be catastrophic.
The three big fires in Kelowna, Vaseux Lake and on Anarchist all started in ungrazed areas. The cattle regenerate the plants, keep them viable. Cattle prune the bunch grass, said Norton.
The coalition contends that a wedge is being driven between the communities and that the origins of the Parks Canada proposal are completely political.
The auditor general looked at Parks Canada last year and determined that only 17 per cent of their facilities and services were considered good. That means that 83 per cent were deemed to be either fair or poor, said Norton.
Norton said the coalition has the support of MP Jim Gouk, whose position is that there should be no more new parks until they can take care of what they already have.
AMPPE (Association of Mountain Park Protection) is also in agreement with the Grassland Park Review Coalition.
AMPPE advocates for human access, sustainable tourism, a positive user experience and vibrant mountain economies in and around the mountain nation parks of Canada.
We have to work really hard to protect key areas, which I think the LRMP has done. I think they have found a balance between protection and usage, Norton said.
There's no such thing as a perfect plan, but we support the LRMP procedures. We recognize that we are living in a sensitive ecosystem.rnThe Grassland Park Review Coalition has invited Brian Brown to all of their public meetings out of respect for his side of the process, and also to let him listen to the emotion that's out there.
At our public meetings, we always have an LRMP speaker, a speaker about wildlife conservation and we always have a speaker about values. We're globally-minded people.
As frustrated by the battle to see the area of interest remain a multi-use park, Norton said that people are becoming informed about the issue.
The awareness that this is creating is a good thing. It wakes people up.rn
