Province downplays public support for National Park
-
- Guru
- Posts: 5704
- Joined: Sep 4th, 2012, 12:21 pm
Province downplays public support for National Park
http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... htm#175580
Government documents suggest Victoria is downplaying public support for a national park in the South Okanagan, according to an environmental group.
The Wilderness Committee says documents obtained in a Freedom of Information request contradict the province's consultation summary report, which minimized interest in the controversial proposal.
Information in the 5,000-page FOI request reveals 92 per cent of private submissions and 80 per cent of business and local government submissions were supportive of the park.
The province withdrew from park discussions in 2011, stating that although a national park reserve is feasible, it needed more evidence of local support.
The true business of people should be to go back to
school and think about whatever it was they were
thinking about before somebody came along and told
them they had to earn a living.
- Buckminster Fuller
school and think about whatever it was they were
thinking about before somebody came along and told
them they had to earn a living.
- Buckminster Fuller
-
- Lord of the Board
- Posts: 3913
- Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm
Re: Province downplays public support for National Park
Why is, or even should the Province be involved in a National Park discussion. This would be a Federal issue, period.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 5704
- Joined: Sep 4th, 2012, 12:21 pm
Re: Province downplays public support for National Park
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri ... e27655327/
That's why.
The south Okanagan contains one of the most important ecosystems in the world, with nearly 60 federally listed endangered species. At one time, the province was in talks with Ottawa about turning a large swath of the area into a national grasslands park, with all the protections that went with it. B.C. pulled out of the talks in 2011, mostly as the result of opposition from a small but vocal group of hunters and ranchers – many of whom supported the provincial Liberal Party.
In 2013, Ms. Larson, a staunch opponent of any kind of national park, became the local Liberal MLA. Park proponents did not give up, however, and sentiment in the region for a national park continued to swell, with polls showing a vast majority of those living in the area were in favour. The business community also firmly placed its support behind the national park plan because of the tourism and related economic benefits it offered.
It was recently disclosed that Ms. Larson had set up an anonymous five-person focus group to review the hundreds of public submissions the government had invited in response to its intentions paper. The Liberal MLA told the Osoyoos Times the group would distill all of the submissions and present a summary to the Ministry of Environment. She also offered the assurance her task force was comprised of people who represented all sides of the park debate – but people would have to take her word for it.
In a subsequent interview with the CBC Radio program Daybreak South, Ms. Larson said she gave Environment Minister Mary Polak a list of names and organizations that should be considered for the focus group – on top of names the minister had – and out of that group Ms. Polak picked the final five. In a later interview, Ms. Larson said the group was “randomly selected.”
Not surprisingly, news of a secret committee to be overseen by Ms. Larson did not go over well. People were furious, especially park proponents who were skeptical about Ms. Larson’s ability to pick an unbiased group given her fierce opposition to any national park. And beyond that, people wondered why this group was being given the exclusive opportunity to vet public submissions and offer their “interpretation.”
That's why.
The true business of people should be to go back to
school and think about whatever it was they were
thinking about before somebody came along and told
them they had to earn a living.
- Buckminster Fuller
school and think about whatever it was they were
thinking about before somebody came along and told
them they had to earn a living.
- Buckminster Fuller
-
- Guru
- Posts: 5704
- Joined: Sep 4th, 2012, 12:21 pm
Re: Province downplays public support for National Park
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri ... le4210555/
In reality it was 80-90% support across the board. For residents and businesses.
When British Columbia rejected a new national park in the South Okanagan earlier this year, the government cited a lack of public support for a proposal that would have protected “one of the driest, hottest and most threatened ecosystems in Canada.”
The decision was made even though the government had in its possession a study that showed twice as many local residents in support of the park as opposed.
But B.C. Environment Minister Terry Lake defended the decision Monday, saying he felt the level of support wasn’t enough to justify such a dramatic shift in land use.
“It is all in how you look at that data,” he said, acknowledging the government had poll results showing about 39 per cent of respondents slightly or strongly supported the proposed park, while only about 19 per cent were slightly or strongly opposed. The remaining roughly 41 per cent said they neither supported nor opposed the proposal, didn’t know, or needed more information before deciding.
In reality it was 80-90% support across the board. For residents and businesses.
The true business of people should be to go back to
school and think about whatever it was they were
thinking about before somebody came along and told
them they had to earn a living.
- Buckminster Fuller
school and think about whatever it was they were
thinking about before somebody came along and told
them they had to earn a living.
- Buckminster Fuller
-
- Lord of the Board
- Posts: 3913
- Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm
Re: Province downplays public support for National Park
I would say if you want it, lobby the Feds for it, period. I applaud the Province for NOT moving forward on this. A full referendum would be needed to properly get accurate results; not just telephone polls, etc.
ETA: I see lots of "NO National Park" signs in the South Okanagan but have yet to see a single YES to national Park one. Gee, I wonder why.
ETA: I see lots of "NO National Park" signs in the South Okanagan but have yet to see a single YES to national Park one. Gee, I wonder why.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 5704
- Joined: Sep 4th, 2012, 12:21 pm
Re: Province downplays public support for National Park
XT225 wrote:I applaud the Province for NOT moving forward on this. A full referendum would be needed to properly get accurate results; not just telephone polls, etc.
BC Government hides and distorts data in order to cater to a few political party insiders.
You're pleased.
The true business of people should be to go back to
school and think about whatever it was they were
thinking about before somebody came along and told
them they had to earn a living.
- Buckminster Fuller
school and think about whatever it was they were
thinking about before somebody came along and told
them they had to earn a living.
- Buckminster Fuller
- fluffy
- Admiral HMS Castanet
- Posts: 28005
- Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm
Re: Province downplays public support for National Park
Atomoa wrote:BC Government hides and distorts data in order to cater to a few political party insiders.
If that's the case then maybe Ms. Larsen needs to look for another job. The idea that as an elected official, one gets to make decisions for everyone is tender ground. I can see it being okay in matters where one is confident that they are acting as a voice for a clear majority, but to go so far as to misrepresent those she represents then that in my mind, is an abuse of the office.
“We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn't save itself because it wasn't cost effective.” – Kurt Vonnegut
-
- Lord of the Board
- Posts: 3913
- Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm
Re: Province downplays public support for National Park
Atomoa wrote:
BC Government hides and distorts data in order to cater to a few political party insiders.
I disagree with your comment. Back when Terry Lake was Minster of Parks, I had a great discussion with him over the Park issue and found him to be an honest and likeable (rare in a politician I suppose these days). I wish he was staying on in Govt; think he would make an excellent premier. I don't know Ms. Larsen but would rather see a Referendum. Polls are never accurate; just like the last one that predicted the NDP would win BC.
ETA: where are all those YES signs?
-
- Admiral HMS Castanet
- Posts: 25209
- Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 12:47 pm
Re: Province downplays public support for National Park
Take a look at those endangered species. I have, and I've yet to find one species that's actually endangered. They're only at risk "in Canada", or "in BC". And that's only because a tiny, tiny portion of their vast territory is in Canada, or into BC. The territory they call home stretches for hundreds of miles into the south, and there are many, many protected areas ensuring they're not at risk.
This "at risk" labelling is an illusion created by an artificial line in the sand.
Take a look at what's happened to the national parks in the US. They bring in tourists, mostly people who are coming not because they care about the area or are interested in conservation, but because it's on their bucket list. Assume that here, making it a national park succeeds in bringing in 10,000 people a year, and assume no more than 5 per cent of them are complete idiots. That's still a lot of people you're inviting into a sensitive ecosystem to do stupid things. And even those who aren't going to do stupid things intentionally are going to create problems.
The national parks here are every bit as underfunded as the national parks in the US, where park staff for years have been telling us there are just not enough of them to manage the tourists. Look at what idiots did in Yellowstone. There are footsteps off the path all over areas where people are not supposed to go, doing untold damage there. A huge fire in Carlsbad was sparked on the side of the scenic loop they put in. Park staff told us that desert will probably never recover. They're building more infrastructure through Sequoia, widening the existing road through the park so people with bigger motorhomes can cruise through. Even just the repaving to handle the rapidly increasing traffic is an unhelpful thing to do in these sensitive areas.
How does any of this protect the area?
As to the support: yes, the wineries and other tourism operators want it. Of course they do, they think it'll improve their bottom line, but that doesn't protect the area. Yes, a lot of other people (especially outside the immediate area) think it's a great idea. It's easy to say there should be a national park when it doesn't affect you. It's being sold as protecting endangered species, a motherhood-and-apple-pie issue. That's as far as most people go with thinking about the matter.
Yes, even some environmentalists want it. But how on earth they think bringing tourists into the area will protect it, is beyond me. I doubt they've spent much time looking at the serious issues that have been degrading many of the national parks in the US for years.
We do have globally endangered species in BC, genuinely endangered, but so far as I've been able to determine, none of them are in this area. Perhaps people who are genuinely concerned about protecting at-risk species should focus their attention there.
This "at risk" labelling is an illusion created by an artificial line in the sand.
Take a look at what's happened to the national parks in the US. They bring in tourists, mostly people who are coming not because they care about the area or are interested in conservation, but because it's on their bucket list. Assume that here, making it a national park succeeds in bringing in 10,000 people a year, and assume no more than 5 per cent of them are complete idiots. That's still a lot of people you're inviting into a sensitive ecosystem to do stupid things. And even those who aren't going to do stupid things intentionally are going to create problems.
The national parks here are every bit as underfunded as the national parks in the US, where park staff for years have been telling us there are just not enough of them to manage the tourists. Look at what idiots did in Yellowstone. There are footsteps off the path all over areas where people are not supposed to go, doing untold damage there. A huge fire in Carlsbad was sparked on the side of the scenic loop they put in. Park staff told us that desert will probably never recover. They're building more infrastructure through Sequoia, widening the existing road through the park so people with bigger motorhomes can cruise through. Even just the repaving to handle the rapidly increasing traffic is an unhelpful thing to do in these sensitive areas.
How does any of this protect the area?
As to the support: yes, the wineries and other tourism operators want it. Of course they do, they think it'll improve their bottom line, but that doesn't protect the area. Yes, a lot of other people (especially outside the immediate area) think it's a great idea. It's easy to say there should be a national park when it doesn't affect you. It's being sold as protecting endangered species, a motherhood-and-apple-pie issue. That's as far as most people go with thinking about the matter.
Yes, even some environmentalists want it. But how on earth they think bringing tourists into the area will protect it, is beyond me. I doubt they've spent much time looking at the serious issues that have been degrading many of the national parks in the US for years.
We do have globally endangered species in BC, genuinely endangered, but so far as I've been able to determine, none of them are in this area. Perhaps people who are genuinely concerned about protecting at-risk species should focus their attention there.
There is nothing more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King Jr.
- fluffy
- Admiral HMS Castanet
- Posts: 28005
- Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm
Re: Province downplays public support for National Park
XT225 wrote:ETA: where are all those YES signs?
I'm no psychologist, but it would be interesting to look into why it seems that the "NO" side in most public debates is always so much more motivated. There is a appearance of complacency among the 'YES" side, or maybe it's just that many could care less to the point where they are more "Undecided" than firm yes's or no's. Either way, it's my observation that the "NO" side is by nature a lot louder.
“We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn't save itself because it wasn't cost effective.” – Kurt Vonnegut
-
- Guru
- Posts: 5704
- Joined: Sep 4th, 2012, 12:21 pm
Re: Province downplays public support for National Park
fluffy wrote:I'm no psychologist, but it would be interesting to look into why it seems that the "NO" side in most public debates is always so much more motivated. There is a appearance of complacency among the 'YES" side, or maybe it's just that many could care less to the point where they are more "Undecided" than firm yes's or no's. Either way, it's my observation that the "NO" side is by nature a lot louder.
I'd be more interested to know why those "NO" signs are all on properties that have 40-50 rusted out cars and garbage littered all over the property. Hoarders don't want a National Park!
In the Similkameen there are as many "YES" signs as "NO" signs. In some cases they are right beside each other. Little bit of fact bending going on here, just like the BC Liberals and their survey.
The true business of people should be to go back to
school and think about whatever it was they were
thinking about before somebody came along and told
them they had to earn a living.
- Buckminster Fuller
school and think about whatever it was they were
thinking about before somebody came along and told
them they had to earn a living.
- Buckminster Fuller
-
- Admiral HMS Castanet
- Posts: 25209
- Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 12:47 pm
Re: Province downplays public support for National Park
Atomoa wrote:I'd be more interested to know why those "NO" signs are all on properties that have 40-50 rusted out cars and garbage littered all over the property.
In the Similkameen there are as many "YES" signs as "NO" signs. In some cases they are right beside each other. Little bit of fact bending going on here, just like the BC Liberals and their survey.
Not all of them, but you do make a good point.
I've talked to a lot of those who are very concerned about the land and don't want to see it trampled. I'd like to see the Yes side stop "selling" this as protecting endangered species.
It's really about bringing in more tourists, at the expense of the environment they're concerned about.
There is nothing more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King Jr.
- Omnitheo
- Guru
- Posts: 7644
- Joined: Jul 19th, 2011, 10:10 am
Re: Province downplays public support for National Park
fluffy wrote:I'm no psychologist, but it would be interesting to look into why it seems that the "NO" side in most public debates is always so much more motivated. There is a appearance of complacency among the 'YES" side, or maybe it's just that many could care less to the point where they are more "Undecided" than firm yes's or no's. Either way, it's my observation that the "NO" side is by nature a lot louder.
Excellent argument. If it was simply a matter of which group is more vocal and makes more signs, then it would appear there's more support for making abortion illegal, or that the end times are coming because we aren't jehovas witness.
"Dishwashers, the dishwasher, right? You press it. Remember the dishwasher, you press it, there'd be like an explosion. Five minutes later you open it up the steam pours out, the dishes -- now you press it 12 times, women tell me again." - Trump
-
- Guru
- Posts: 5704
- Joined: Sep 4th, 2012, 12:21 pm
Re: Province downplays public support for National Park
rustled wrote:It's really about bringing in more tourists, at the expense of the environment they're concerned about.
Equally it would be nice if local good 'ol boys who have no idea about conservation and don't believe in climate change can stop pretending this isn't about losing their ability to "rip er" up in the backcountry.
Any type of regulation is wrong to them, I can just imagine.
The true business of people should be to go back to
school and think about whatever it was they were
thinking about before somebody came along and told
them they had to earn a living.
- Buckminster Fuller
school and think about whatever it was they were
thinking about before somebody came along and told
them they had to earn a living.
- Buckminster Fuller
-
- Admiral HMS Castanet
- Posts: 25209
- Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 12:47 pm
Re: Province downplays public support for National Park
Another good point, but let's not create a bigger problem trying to prevent that.
Keep in mind there are already quite a few people trying to prevent that sort of thing, people who want the backyard they share respected by all and for all the right reasons.
Incidentally, most of the small fraction of people busted for the wrongdoing that goes on in busy national parks are not caught by parks staff, they're caught because they're dumbasses on social media. Giving fewer locals legitimate access to the area is another problem with instituting a national park. Staff simply cannot manage the volumes of tourists in busy national parks.
Keep in mind there are already quite a few people trying to prevent that sort of thing, people who want the backyard they share respected by all and for all the right reasons.
Incidentally, most of the small fraction of people busted for the wrongdoing that goes on in busy national parks are not caught by parks staff, they're caught because they're dumbasses on social media. Giving fewer locals legitimate access to the area is another problem with instituting a national park. Staff simply cannot manage the volumes of tourists in busy national parks.
There is nothing more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King Jr.