National Park, South Okanagan-Similkamean

[Rosemary1]

The province has opened the debate again and put up a site to explain what it wants to do.
www..env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/pro ... nagan.html

Got to say it's not clear how the proposal impacts 'private land' included in framework or even what they mean by ''private land' ? Is reserve land included under private too since the Okanagan Nation has a large role in the management of the proposed national park.?

What are the concerns of the 'no national park' folks. It's not clear from the government site alone why anyone would not want a national park. Must be missing something . Anyone out there with specific insight into the issue ?

[Glacier]

The National Park would mostly encompass existing provincial land as well as Crown land up in the mountains. The first nations land would not be included because the reservations are down low in the "desert" area. The park would cover higher elevation areas as well as Vaseux Lake provincial park.

This new statement by the government is not meant to be final, but rather to put forward a starting point for others to join in the discussion, which should finally end once and for all the issue of a national park. There are many reasons to oppose a national park.
1) It bans ranchers from leasing the land for their cows.
2) No more prescribed burns would be allowed as a means of preventing forest fires.
3) Provincial parks already exist, and these existing parks can be expanded easily.
4) The areas where much the "sensitive flora and fauna" live falls outside of the proposed national park boundaries (since this area is largely on reservations and private land in the valley bottoms).
5) National parks are expensive.
6) It would put an end to private conservation areas within the boundary where the Nature Conservancy of Canada has a number of properties they operate in a sustainable way.