A local landowner put me on the spot last week by asking if I favoured the proposed national park.
He said he stopped buying the Chronicle because it was his opinion that the newspaper was pro-park (since it tends to publish more of the yes side than the no side).
I replied that we have published both sides of the argument, however, it was noted that the pro-park voice appears to be more vocal than their opponents. If more of the yes side speaks up, it stands to reason that you’re going to see more pro-park coverage in the paper.
The resident made several points about national parks unfairly excluding traditional users, such as hunters and other recreationalists.
The BC Wildlife Federation claims that a national park will exclude non-First Nations angling. But this is not true because fishing is permitted in national parks, albeit under certain conditions (catch and release, for example).
Be wary of the misinformation out there.
The federation also claims that horseback riding will be excluded, but there has been nothing said about restricting this activity. Banff National Park permits horse travel within most of its boundaries.
Despite assurances that cattle grazing opportunities will continue in the national park, ranchers are still not convinced, saying they’ve seen nothing in writing.
There are still unanswered questions that make it hard to form an opinion on the national park initiative.
Water councillor Rick Machial asks why establish a park that excludes people, particularly traditional users?
If you’re a hunter or avid off-road vehicle user, how would you feel if you could no longer continue these activities in this area?
Another reality that people tend to forget: a national park means endless rules and regulations, gates that restrict access, and admission charges.
But there is no doubt that national parks offer definitive protection for the environment and habitat. You won’t have to worry about ATV operators marking up the land or hunters drawing a bead on wildlife. And you’ll never see a housing development or commercial enterprise sprouting up among the wildflowers.
Funny how there was a big hue and cry when national park negotiations stalled. The government came back with options and people are still arguing. It will never end even if the best compromise is offered.
This issue has divided the community to the point that neighbours are butting heads with neighbours.
We say resolve this by letting the people decide via a referendum. No one group should be dictating anything; let democracy decide the issue.
By Lyonel Doherty, editor
