Richard McGuire, editor, Osoyoos Times
The contentious national park reserve issue has heated and cooled over the years I’ve been in Osoyoos.
This fall it could get a lot hotter, but my hope is that there will be a spirit of compromise on all sides to achieve a solution that works for as many people as possible.
Recently, Parks Canada announced the appointment of Sarah Boyle as the project manager who will work with stakeholders to try to find solutions.
I haven’t spoken to her yet – Parks Canada, which has never been noted for great transparency, is keeping her away from media for now.
But others who have spoken to her are impressed and believe she is the right person to engage with stakeholders across the spectrum and try to find solutions.
Most recently, she helped to bring together environmentalists and farmers in the Toronto area’s Rouge National Urban Park – a shining example of a park created outside the box in contentious circumstances.
Of course there are huge differences between the rural South Okanagan and the “rurban” GTA location of Rouge, but the challenge of seeking compromise between sometimes conflicting interests is the same.
This fall, the three levels of government – federal, provincial and First Nations – are expected to unveil the concept for the new national park reserve, and at least some “soft” boundaries that will likely change as discussions take place.
Given a willingness to compromise, it should be possible to find solutions that meet the interests of ranchers, hikers, a helicopter training school, all-terrain vehicle users, bird watchers, tourism businesses, anglers, First Nations, and a host of others.
And while hunting probably won’t be allowed in the park itself, the park should foster a healthy wildlife population that will give hunters something to shoot at outside the park boundaries.
The two greatest challenges to this idea of a park for all come from opposite ends of the spectrum.
One is from Parks Canada itself and the other is from a small, but vocal section of park opponents who are unwilling to listen to other viewpoints and rely on misinformation.
As mentioned above, Parks Canada has been anything but transparent in the years I’ve dealt with them.
They have some very smart and capable people who I’ve enjoyed talking to on the few times I’ve been able to, but most of the time their media strategy has been to say as little as possible and keep their experts away from the media.
Most of the information I’ve gotten from Parks Canada has been through Access to Information requests, that take months to arrive and are heavily redacted.
Parks Canada is going to have to open up if it’s going to be trusted.
At the other end are the “Angrys,” people whose idea of dialogue is “angry” emoticons on Facebook and “NO NATIONAL PARK” usually in all-capital letters.
Spoiler alert: if anyone tells you the park will come to your doorstep and park rangers will shoot poor Bowser the dog if he steps off your property to chase a chipmunk, they’re lying to you.
It’s up to those who truly want to find solutions to push Parks Canada to be more forthcoming and to call out and challenge those who spread fear mongering misinformation.
RICHARD McGUIRE
Osoyoos Times
