47395
46202

National Park

National Park

Postby Tony » Oct 27th, 2017, 4:54 am

https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton ... -announced

Did anyone hear what the announcement was?
Tony
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 994
Likes: 342 posts
Liked in: 200 posts
Joined: Aug 11th, 2005, 5:43 am

Re: National Park

Postby Bsuds » Oct 27th, 2017, 6:02 am

The announcement was it's going to be announced today.

Politicians don't get up this early, you will have to wait a bit.
User avatar
Bsuds
The Wagon Master
 
Posts: 40895
Likes: 7057 posts
Liked in: 8889 posts
Joined: Apr 21st, 2005, 9:46 am

Re: National Park

Postby Tony » Oct 27th, 2017, 6:06 am

Apparently I didn't have coffee this morning.....

I was off by a day. Thanks BSuds....
:biggrin:
:bethecoffee:
Tony
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 994
Likes: 342 posts
Liked in: 200 posts
Joined: Aug 11th, 2005, 5:43 am

Re: National Park

Postby Tony » Oct 27th, 2017, 1:23 pm

Seriously? This was the big news? They're going to talk about it again?

Go NDP.... show us your... nope... I have nothing. What a waste.

Nat'l park talks rebooting
Colin Dacre - Oct 27, 2017 / 10:39 am | Story: 210153
Photo: Colton Davies
Catherine McKenna in Osoyoos - Oct. 27

The federal, provincial governments and local First Nations announced Friday a recommitment to creating a national park reserve in the South Okanagan.

Minister responsible for Parks Canada Catherine McKenna was in Osoyoos for the announcement.

"A new national park reserve in the South Okanagan would protect one of Canada's iconic natural and cultural landscapes and provide opportunities to share this inspiring place with Canadians and visitors from around the world," said McKenna. "By renewing our commitment to work together to establish a national park reserve in the South Okanagan, we can conserve this incredible landscape for future generations.”

She was joined by B.C. Minister of Environment, George Heyman. The NDP’s campaign platform included a promise of a national park in the region.

The park will be a partnership with three southern communities of the Syilx/Okanagan Nation. Discussion between all the groups will also consider the continuation of ranching and recreational activities in the region.

Many ranchers and recreational users of the area have been staunchly opposed to the park, including local MLA Linda Larson.

Chief Clarence Louie of the Osoyoos Indian Band says they are looking forward to the talks, “in light of the new advancements that have been made toward a new relationship based on recognition of rights, respect, cooperation, and partnership, which promotes a lasting reconciliation.”

The previous B.C. Liberal government made a nearly identical announcement in the run up to the provincial election in January.

Castanet News has a reporter at the announcement in Osoyoos and will update this story.
Tony
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 994
Likes: 342 posts
Liked in: 200 posts
Joined: Aug 11th, 2005, 5:43 am

Re: National Park

Postby pentona » Oct 27th, 2017, 2:01 pm

Tony wrote:Seriously? This was the big news? They're going to talk about it again?

Go NDP.... show us your... nope... I have nothing. What a waste.



Not sure why the Province (NDP) is involved. This is a Federal matter. Time that the province backed off. Its definately something that should be done via Referendum before any decision is made. Both sides have strong opinions on it.

Personally, I don't want it; would restrict too much activity. Not everyone is capable of hiking up a 6000 ft mountain to enjoy the area, plus the Mount Kobau area is riddled with roads/trails, clearcuts now. Not what one would expect of a Pristine wilderness National Park. We already have the Cathedral Park not far away for flower lovers and tree huggers.

4 people like this post.
pentona
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 738
Likes: 185 posts
Liked in: 297 posts
Joined: Feb 21st, 2011, 4:38 pm

Re: National Park

Postby Glacier » Oct 27th, 2017, 2:13 pm

This is dumb and unnecessary. Much of the land is already provincial park, and the rest is mostly range land for cattle. None of it is the so called "Osoyoos Desert". It serves absolutely no purpose, and I hope it never happens. If they need to preserve more land (which I would like to see), set aside more land for provincial and regional parks in the valley bottom instead of adding ordinary mountain top forest found all over southern BC to Vaseux Provincial Park, and changing it to a national park.

It's not the cattle range lands up on top of the mountains that is under stress from development, but rather the land among the heavily populated valley bottom that needs protection. It's far easier to create smaller regional parks in these sensitive areas than a national one, so go that route.

4 people like this post.
User avatar
Glacier
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 25556
Likes: 2279 posts
Liked in: 7686 posts
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 9:41 pm

Re: National Park

Postby pentona » Oct 27th, 2017, 2:31 pm

Glacier wrote:This is dumb and unnecessary. Much of the land is already provincial park, and the rest is mostly range land for cattle. None of it is the so called "Osoyoos Desert". It serves absolutely no purpose, and I hope it never happens. If they need to preserve more land (which I would like to see), set aside more land for provincial and regional parks in the valley bottom instead of adding ordinary mountain top forest found all over southern BC to Vaseux Provincial Park, and changing it to a national park.

It's not the cattle range lands up on top of the mountains that is under stress from development, but rather the land among the heavily populated valley bottom that needs protection. It's far easier to create smaller regional parks in these sensitive areas than a national one, so go that route.


Well said, Glacier; well said! :up:

I think what a lot of these tree hugger types don't realize, is that if its made into a National Park, the restrictions placed upon road travel would be huge. A lot of these people are older and hiking a trail up to the top of a mountain, instead of driving up is not something that everyone can do. It just isn't the area for it at all.

LindaV likes this post.
pentona
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 738
Likes: 185 posts
Liked in: 297 posts
Joined: Feb 21st, 2011, 4:38 pm

Re: National Park

Postby twobits » Oct 27th, 2017, 8:16 pm

Unfortunately, "National Park" designation has such a sweet and positive ring to it that the majority of supporters of such a ridiculous notion for this area are about as smart as the average voter.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.

LindaV likes this post.
twobits
Guru
 
Posts: 5842
Likes: 476 posts
Liked in: 2090 posts
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am
Location: GPS says Dead Elbow Utah. Think I'm lost

Re: National Park

Postby Dizzy1 » Oct 28th, 2017, 12:23 am

Do National Parks not receive more funding from the Federal level?
Nobody wants to hear your opinion. They just want to hear their own opinion coming out of your mouth.
User avatar
Dizzy1
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 10111
Likes: 3963 posts
Liked in: 4430 posts
Joined: Feb 12th, 2011, 1:56 pm

Re: National Park

Postby Tony » Oct 28th, 2017, 4:44 am

Dizzy1 wrote:Do National Parks not receive more funding from the Federal level?


To do what? This is natural range land that a lot of ranchers make their living on. It's available for public to go to, hunt, fish, hike etc. What are they going to do if it's turned into a park? The ranchers involved will lose their range land, which means they won't be able to run their cattle, which means they will be out of business, which means there will be less BC beef hitting the market.....

It's stupid and it's purely Political why they are revisiting. The NO side needs to get really vocal about now.

2 people like this post.
Tony
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 994
Likes: 342 posts
Liked in: 200 posts
Joined: Aug 11th, 2005, 5:43 am

Re: National Park

Postby Dizzy1 » Oct 28th, 2017, 6:36 am

Tony wrote:
To do what?

I don’t know - ‘twas but a question.
Nobody wants to hear your opinion. They just want to hear their own opinion coming out of your mouth.
User avatar
Dizzy1
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 10111
Likes: 3963 posts
Liked in: 4430 posts
Joined: Feb 12th, 2011, 1:56 pm

Re: National Park

Postby seewood » Oct 28th, 2017, 7:16 am

Likely, the feds will be all for it, however the current National parks are underfunded so what exactly is going to be the scope, degree of access to the public and of course enforcement if the area is now closed to people that have been using the land as is for years ?
Perhaps all this has been documented .
Personally, if some want it protected from development, I'd be thinking there are ways to do it without disturbing the current stakeholders using the area to earn an income, Ranchers, HNZ Helicopters for example.
I am not wealthy but I am rich

2 people like this post.
seewood
Board Meister
 
Posts: 394
Likes: 373 posts
Liked in: 355 posts
Joined: May 29th, 2013, 1:08 pm

Re: National Park

Postby blyon » Oct 28th, 2017, 8:44 am


seewood likes this post.
blyon
 
Posts: 1
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: May 6th, 2016, 12:13 pm

Re: National Park

Postby smoky500 » Oct 28th, 2017, 10:22 am

Unfortunately, "National Park" designation has such a sweet and positive ring to it that the majority of supporters of such a ridiculous notion for this area are about as smart as the average voter.


As George Carlin said, think about how smart/dumb the average person is then realize that half them are dumber
smoky500
 
Posts: 62
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 17 posts
Joined: Apr 23rd, 2008, 12:58 pm

Re: National Park

Postby tootall23 » Oct 28th, 2017, 2:47 pm

Politicians realized a few years ago that "green policy' would get them votes. They don't actually have to accomplish anything. They just have to appear to be doing something green. Message to the politicians. Leave us alone. Keep your National Park and look after the ones you already have.

Many different groups use these areas and hopefully will be able to continue for many years to come. Hikers in expensive SUVs with their bags of granola have no more right to use the land than anyone else.

2 people like this post.
User avatar
tootall23
Fledgling
 
Posts: 137
Likes: 63 posts
Liked in: 92 posts
Joined: Sep 4th, 2006, 9:28 pm
Location: Okanagan

Next

Return to South Okanagan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests