Dear Editor:

The  B.C. Environment Ministry’s consultation process relating to the national park debate in the South Okanagan is seriously flawed and vulnerable to legal challenge.

Two weeks prior to the release of the ministry’s summary of public input on its Protected Area’s framework for British Columbia’s South Okanagan, local MLA Linda Larson announced that her government has already made up its mind – the large area west of Oliver (Area 2) will be excluded from the national park.

The consultation summary prepared by the Ministry’s professional staff is an embarrassment to them and an insult to the 3,460 individuals and organizations who took the time to participate in the process.

It shows obvious political bias. Even before receiving her staff’s recommendations, Environment Minister Mary Polak has already announced that Area 2 will be a provincial conservancy.

Everyone recognizes that additional protective measures are necessary to protect our sensitive ecosystems and biodiversity from intense development pressure. Everyone acknowledges that these additional protections must leave room for economic development, including increased tourism; and must respect the rights of First Nations, ranchers and private property owners.  The critical  question is whether these competing objectives can be better achieved by way of a larger and more connected national park or by the province’s protected areas proposal.

Almost all of the formal responses to the Intentions Paper favoured designating Area 2 as part of the national park rather than as a provincial conservancy.

Polak has already decided to ignore this input, instead adopting the uninformed view that ‘there is no evidence’ on this point.

Larson and Polak have already decided to limit the national park to two small areas  separated by about 20 kilometres – a 98-square-mile area (Area 1) west of Osoyoos between the U.S. border and Highway 3 and a separate 68 square mile area (Area 3) west of Vaseaux Lake. Area 2, the 177 square mile area north of Highway 3 between Cawston and Oliver, will be regulated as a provincial conservancy.

This provides a lower level of environmental protection and denies Oliver the economic opportunity to become a gateway community to the national park.

There will be little or no funding for aboriginal co-management, environmental protection or the development of tourism infrastructure. A major recurring theme in the public comments on the Intentions Paper is that connectivity is critical and that the size and scope of the protected area should be expanded.

Mount Kobau needs to be included in the national park to allow visitors to experience its spectacular views and the full elevational range and diversity of our ecosystems. Vaseux Lake must be included for its critical wildlife habitats and White Lake must be included because of its importance to First Nations.

Environment Ministry staff took a very limiting approach in summarizing the views of the public, stating that the alternative of a large connected national park was off the table and would not be reconsidered.

They ruled that the many thoughtful submissions from the public favouring a national park over a provincial conservancy were beyond the scope of the Intentions Paper, indicating that the decision to go with a provincial conservancy has already been made.

In their view, a conservancy better reflects the commitments made to local residents in the 2001 Land and Resource Management Plan to protect existing ranching, forestry and mining tenures, and to ensure local access for hunting and off road vehicles.

The minister’s decision to scale back the size of the national park severely undercuts its tourism appeal and seriously diminishes its effectiveness  to protect endangrwed species. A properly scaled national park would be a showcase for Sylix environmental ethic and cultural values and would preserve and celebrate our over 100 years of cattle ranching heritage. Area 2 needs to be included in the national park to ensure that the park is of sufficient size and diversity to achieve international stature as a world-class tourist destination for outdoor recreation and ecotourism and to achieve meaningful ecosystem management and restoration.

Parks Canada is a leader in both watershed protection and forest fire management suppression, the benefits of which (including federal funding) will be unavailable to Area 2 if it is not included in the national park. Parks Canada would stand ready to purchase private lands in Area 2 on a ‘willing seller, willing buyer’ basis; lands which otherwise over time would be developed, destroying connectivity and migratory corridors.

Polak is being poorly advised by Larson, who is out of touch with her constituents. She needs to start listening to the array of local community and business leaders, ranchers and First Nations who support the national park. Failure to do so will ensure that Larson, whose heavy handed approach has made the park debate an extremely divisive issue within her constituency, will be defeated in the upcoming provincial election.

Al Hudec

Oliver, B.C.

Editor’s Note: Al Hudec is a Vancouver lawyer living in the South Okanagan.