Dear Editor:

After years of observing local debate over the proposed South Okanagan-Similkameen national park, we feel compelled to add our point of view on the issue.

We are Oliver born and raised and have enjoyed the land in question as long as we can remember. Our family has hunted, hiked, and fished throughout the area, and we have never missed a year finding Christmas trees there.

We value our access to the hills as much as anyone, and we worry that we will lose it – not because of the proposed park, but because of what will happen without it.

The question we would like to pose: if no park, what then?

We need only look to the mountains for an indication of where things are headed. Space in the valley bottom is nearing its limits, and private development is creeping further and further upward. The South Okanagan hills are looking ever more attractive to buyers- many foreign- as we have seen with the Regal Ridge development on Anarchist Mountain.

This valley is facing unprecedented pressure from population growth, climate change, and limited space and water. These risks will only increase with time, and we underestimate them at our peril. It will be anything but easy to balance positive development with the preservation of the natural character that makes living here so desirable. Our town in particular has a promising opportunity to address these issues in advance, because it hasn’t yet seen the same development as its neighbours.

The provincial government’s Land Resource Management Plan provides limited protection of some local areas, but governments change, and best intentions can be trumped by the promise of quick revenue from crown land sales and resource extraction- especially during deficit periods. We doubt that the LRMP can withstand the pressures listed above.

We have the privilege of living in one of the most beautiful areas in Canada. It is climactically and ecologically unique, delicate, and precious. It is why we chose to return here. Our responsibility to protect it and the challenges we face in doing so are therefore great. Despite their differing opinions, we believe people on both sides of the park issue share this view, which is why the debate has been so passionate.

The point of a national park is not to restrict our access to lands, but to preserve it. Yet as a tool for protecting lands, it can be a far reaching and, unfortunately, blunt instrument. If the park goes forward, the process must further involve public input while respecting ranchers’ livelihoods and the rights of First Nations.

We are very lucky to be able to head into the hills on foot, bike or ATV whenever we like, and yes, we will lose some of this freedom if a park is established.

Maintaining the status  quo, however, is at best a short-term luxury, and it will cost those of us who will be here      50, 40, 30 years from now – probably much sooner. If these lands are privatized or developed, they are lost to us all, whether we’re for or against the issue, forever. We must ask ourselves what outcome we are willing to accept, keeping well in mind what we stand to lose.

Tim Martiniuk

Jay Martiniuk

Oliver, B.C.