National Park

Re: National Park

Postby Tony » May 2nd, 2019, 5:26 am

So, on Feb 25 I was able to attend a meeting held by Parks Canada and the two main groups that are opposed to the park. This was held in Penticton, and many questions were asked. Parks Canada could not answer any of the questions at the time, and promised us a complete review in the very near future. Two months later, we finally received their summary of the meeting. I have attached it here. You will see that their summary is a list of questions that were asked. That's it, no answers, no explanations, nothing. How could anyone possibly support something that the people that are running the show have no idea what is happening? Blows me away.

This is the summary we received. Unfortunately I can't attach the original so I had to cut and paste.


Date and time of communication: February 25, 2019 @ 7pm
Location of communication: Provincial Government Office, 102 Industrial Place Name(s) of individuals consulted:


Groups:

South Okanagan-Similkameen Preservation Society, Grassland Coalition, BCWF
Method of communication: In person
Number in attendance: 14
Staff Present: Sarah Boyle, Isaac Gilbert, Darlene Upton, Nadine Spence, Jamie MacDonald Keith Baric, John Trewitt
Record of Issues/Themes/Questions Raised:
Governance in a National Park Reserve • Will Parks Canada be transparent with their decision making process in the region? • Concerns on First Nations access to do things on the proposed national park reserve that others cannot. • How much did other national parks cost to establish? • What is the tax payer going to pay to establish the national park reserve? • What will be the increase of costs to infrastructure to the towns within proximity of the national park reserve (Cawston, Oliver, and Osoyoos) because of increased tourism? o Roads, hospital, policing, and fire • We would like to see a business plan for the national park reserve. • Can BC Parks put more money into the existing provincial park and make it better than Parks Canada? • How does this proposed park represent reconciliation? • Will Parks Canada control what can be done on private land ?

Park Boundary • The proposed working boundary of the park misrepresents what the boundary will really be if the park is established.

Consultation Report: South Okanagan – Similkameen NPR Proposal *This section is for processing purposes only File #: 035-2019
Added to database by:
Date entered: Keywords: Copy of relevant documents and/or correspondence attached:
2


Willing Seller/Willing Buyer • What is the estimated cost to purchase private lands from land owners inside the working boundary?
Road Access • Will this park block access for private property owners within the proposed boundary and local residents?

Agricultural Land Reserve • If Parks Canada were to take on ALR lands, would they be willing to replace it somewhere else in the area, but outside of the proposed national park reserve boundary?
Ecology • BC Parks, Nature Trust, Nature Conservancy of Canada, and local residents have done a good job at protecting the ecology • Parks Canada has extirpated Caribou from other national parks. • CPAWS executive summaries and documents do not shine a favourable light on Parks Canada when it comes to protecting and managing the ecology of the land.

Activities • Now residents in the area will have to purchase two permits to fish. One from BC Government and one from Parks Canada. • Is there any way to streamline fishing permits to allow for one that works on both federal and provincial lands?

Tenures and Licenses • History will repeat itself when tenures and licenses are transferred from one agency to the other. Politicians say everything will stay the same and once the transfer happens restrictions then take place. This pushes out business from the area. From this history, it is hard to trust Parks Canada. • Can you give us what your mechanism will be to manage for tenures, licenses, and permits? • How is this proposed national park reserve helping to protect wildlife when First Nations will still be able to hunt whenever they want?

Feedback for Consultation Process
• Steering Committee o Who is on the steering committee? Can you have an independent or local municipal representative on the steering committee? • Consultation Process o Why was the meeting in Oliver cancelled? What was the reason for canceling the meeting? o Parks Canada is not transparent because the public is not being given a public meeting and not being invited out to stakeholder meetings. o People want to have a public meeting to ask questions and have them answered. o Polls [Innovative Research Group Poll – Conducted for SOSPS in December] say people do not want the park. The poll also suggests having a public referendum. o Was Parks Canada going to go ahead with the meeting in Oliver? Because Parks ended up having a meeting in Keremeos with the volunteer fire department. o The 2 week extension for the consultation period is not enough, requesting 2 months. o The groups SOSPS and Grasslands Coalition have not been given the opportunity to speak at town councils and RDOS meetings.
3

o Why are the First Nation representatives not at the table tonight? o Our groups are not going to invite violence, disrespectful behaviour, and will keep calm in a public meeting. o This proposed national park reserve is dividing families and the community. There was a fight in the school yard between children, with one being syilx and the other a non-aboriginal resident, stating they cannot go in the park when it is created because they are not syilx. o Not a lot of people know about where the park is going or about it. o When there is such a large opposition why cram a park down our throat? o What is the likelihood of a referendum? o Has a decision already been made? o What determines the National Park Reserve going forward?
• Information Package/Website/Survey o Seniors are not sitting down and filling out the surveys online because of the difficulty of the survey format online. o There is misinformation coming from other sources outside of Parks Canada, specifically the proponents of the National Park Reserve. The website of the Wildness Committee has prompted answers for your questions to the survey. The Burrowing Owl has been having wine tasting and will fill out the survey for participants. Can you stop groups like this from their activities? o The mailing packages for the private residents arrived 2/3 the way in the consultation process.



Commitments made: Respond - if there will be a public meeting? Respond to request for an extension of the consultation period to 2 months; Respond to request for access to public consultation results. Follow up required: Report prepared by: Isaac Gilbert Date prepared: February 26, 201
Tony
Übergod
 
Posts: 1180
Likes: 713 posts
Liked in: 425 posts
Joined: Aug 11th, 2005, 6:43 am

Re: National Park

Postby Bunnyhop » May 2nd, 2019, 7:20 am

Parks Canada seems to be doing everything in its power to obscure its intentions with this proposal.

I’m curious if they made any comment during the meeting either in agreement or disagreement on the Ecology section, that BC Parks, Natures Trust, etc is doing a good job in protecting the area.

pentona likes this post.
Bunnyhop
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 767
Likes: 1297 posts
Liked in: 560 posts
Joined: Dec 13th, 2009, 7:47 pm

Re: National Park

Postby Tony » May 3rd, 2019, 5:01 am

Bunnyhop wrote:Parks Canada seems to be doing everything in its power to obscure its intentions with this proposal.

I’m curious if they made any comment during the meeting either in agreement or disagreement on the Ecology section, that BC Parks, Natures Trust, etc is doing a good job in protecting the area.


None at all. We brought up the LRMP, which was almost in place before Ottawa decided we needed a park, and they barely acknowledged that. I've attached the link to the LRMP (Land Resource Management Plan), which was laid out by 30 individuals, from Government to loggers, to ranchers etc, and takes care of all sensitive areas, riparian areas etc. The Feds level of communication is dismal, and they have no answers whatsoever.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/indu ... uswap-lrmp
Tony
Übergod
 
Posts: 1180
Likes: 713 posts
Liked in: 425 posts
Joined: Aug 11th, 2005, 6:43 am

Re: National Park

Postby pentona » May 14th, 2019, 6:14 pm

Another reason not to develop this area into a National Park....fire suppression could be limited or non-existent. Fires in National Parks are often left to burn, and with this proposed area encompassing several privately owned lands, this could result in disaster for these folks and/or nearby communities. Let us hope that the Federal Liberal Government is defeated before this can ridiculous plan could ever come to pass. I seriously doubt that the Conservatives would give such a plan a second thought.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton ... lerts-grow

Glacier likes this post.
pentona
Übergod
 
Posts: 1161
Likes: 290 posts
Liked in: 621 posts
Joined: Feb 21st, 2011, 5:38 pm

Re: National Park

Postby madmudder » May 15th, 2019, 4:37 am

https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton ... -years-off

Nice to see they didn't ram it through.

Tony likes this post.
User avatar
madmudder
Board Meister
 
Posts: 484
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 158 posts
Joined: Jan 1st, 2009, 7:32 pm

Re: National Park

Postby pentona » May 23rd, 2019, 7:06 pm

Interesting story here. The National Parks Department folks had pretty much said that they would no longer listen and that the Park was going ahead. Yet, the Federal Tourism Minister says something quite different now? Sounds like the front end of the Horse has no clue what the back end is doing!

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#256988

The following two sentences were especially interesting. I wasn't aware that the community even HAD a plan for any such Park; few seem committed or even want it:

When asked whether she thought the proposed national park in the South Okanagan, which has been highly contentious, was a good idea for tourism, she was vague.

"Any good investments in infrastructure would be relevant. Now, if the community has a plan for a national park, we're always willing to listen," Joly said.

Bunnyhop likes this post.
pentona
Übergod
 
Posts: 1161
Likes: 290 posts
Liked in: 621 posts
Joined: Feb 21st, 2011, 5:38 pm

Re: National Park

Postby BGDK » Jun 23rd, 2019, 7:54 am

The Premier is coming to our community is anyone setting up a protest or rally as i would like to attend...
BGDK
 
Posts: 1
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Jun 11th, 2017, 12:20 pm

Re: National Park

Postby Mark5 » Jun 26th, 2019, 3:34 pm

The area becoming a national park is pretty well a forgone conclusion. The Trudeau Liberals do not care what local residents might think. It is all academic to them and it likley fits in with their totalitarian and parasitic "climate change emergency" plans.

I will be surprised if it does not pass. If and when it does pass I would think that people will ignore this designation and continue to use the area as they always have for recreational activities. The federal government has no right to deny access or activities on this land. I doubt there will be any enforcement. Court challenges may follow if there is.

2 people like this post.
Mark5
Fledgling
 
Posts: 300
Likes: 15 posts
Liked in: 324 posts
Joined: Jun 7th, 2007, 4:46 pm

Re: National Park

Postby pentona » Jun 26th, 2019, 6:07 pm

Mark5 wrote:The area becoming a national park is pretty well a forgone conclusion. The Trudeau Liberals do not care what local residents might think. It is all academic to them and it likley fits in with their totalitarian and parasitic "climate change emergency" plans.

I will be surprised if it does not pass. If and when it does pass I would think that people will ignore this designation and continue to use the area as they always have for recreational activities. The federal government has no right to deny access or activities on this land. I doubt there will be any enforcement. Court challenges may follow if there is.


With any luck, the Natives will stall the decision and there will be a Federal election before the Liberals can get it passed. There is little doubt that they will be ousted and the whole issue will go away. No way will the Conservatives proceed with it and the NDP don't have a chance at winning.
Last edited by pentona on Jun 26th, 2019, 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

2 people like this post.
pentona
Übergod
 
Posts: 1161
Likes: 290 posts
Liked in: 621 posts
Joined: Feb 21st, 2011, 5:38 pm

Re: National Park

Postby tootall23 » Jun 26th, 2019, 7:34 pm

pentona, those are my exact thoughts. The politicians see this as a good photo opportunity to help them keep their jobs come election time.
Doesn't matter that the National Park will be a huge waste of money, only that they have the appearance of doing something good for the environment. The natives will be on board because of some promise of goodies coming their way in return for their support.

The Federal election can't come soon enough. Bye Justin. Have a nice life.

2 people like this post.
User avatar
tootall23
Fledgling
 
Posts: 150
Likes: 78 posts
Liked in: 107 posts
Joined: Sep 4th, 2006, 10:28 pm
Location: Okanagan

Re: National Park

Postby Brushy Bill » Jun 27th, 2019, 8:39 am

Do you really think the drive for the park is a trudeau thing? The proposal was launched way before he got out of drama class.
As long as there is a federal committee with paid staff with the adgenda to increase conservation lands there will be a drive for the park, their pensions rely on it

2 people like this post.
Brushy Bill
Fledgling
 
Posts: 222
Likes: 175 posts
Liked in: 93 posts
Joined: Apr 11th, 2012, 11:58 am

Re: National Park

Postby Bunnyhop » Jun 27th, 2019, 2:43 pm

Brushy Bill wrote:Do you really think the drive for the park is a trudeau thing? The proposal was launched way before he got out of drama class.
As long as there is a federal committee with paid staff with the adgenda to increase conservation lands there will be a drive for the park, their pensions rely on it


Agree with Bill. This park effort has been going on for over 15 years and isn’t the pet project of any one political party. Don’t hold your breath thinking the Conservatives will quash it - they won’t.

The only people that could have stopped it were the Natives. And they have no reason to stop it.

The NPR is a GO, the only thing that remains to be seen is the boundaries. By the time all is said and done, I’m betting the northern boundary will include the White Lake Grasslands and I predict Parks Canada will see the economic opportunities of including the rail trail south of OK Falls and Vaseaux Lake. They already included McIntyre Bluff in all of their promotional materials so it’s in their sights. The boundary can’t go south (US border), east and west are native reserves, the only direction they can go is north.
Bunnyhop
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 767
Likes: 1297 posts
Liked in: 560 posts
Joined: Dec 13th, 2009, 7:47 pm

Re: National Park

Postby pentona » Jun 27th, 2019, 10:03 pm

Bunnyhop wrote:
Brushy Bill wrote:Do you really think the drive for the park is a trudeau thing? The proposal was launched way before he got out of drama class.
As long as there is a federal committee with paid staff with the adgenda to increase conservation lands there will be a drive for the park, their pensions rely on it


Agree with Bill. This park effort has been going on for over 15 years and isn’t the pet project of any one political party. Don’t hold your breath thinking the Conservatives will quash it - they won’t.

The only people that could have stopped it were the Natives. And they have no reason to stop it.

The NPR is a GO, the only thing that remains to be seen is the boundaries. By the time all is said and done, I’m betting the northern boundary will include the White Lake Grasslands and I predict Parks Canada will see the economic opportunities of including the rail trail south of OK Falls and Vaseaux Lake. They already included McIntyre Bluff in all of their promotional materials so it’s in their sights. The boundary can’t go south (US border), east and west are native reserves, the only direction they can go is north.


I still do not believe that it will fly. Both levels of Government are most certainly going to change (Feds and Province) and the B.C. Liberals (who will likely form the next Government) were dead against the Park proposal. Without the support of the Province, its a no-go. Some natives support it (who wouldn't, with the promise of jobs and exclusive hunting rights) but many do not. Don't count your Provincial NDP/Fed. Liberal chickens before they hatch!

tootall23 likes this post.
pentona
Übergod
 
Posts: 1161
Likes: 290 posts
Liked in: 621 posts
Joined: Feb 21st, 2011, 5:38 pm

Re: National Park

Postby Bunnyhop » Jun 28th, 2019, 7:16 am

I still do not believe that it will fly. Both levels of Government are most certainly going to change (Feds and Province) and the B.C. Liberals (who will likely form the next Government) were dead against the Park proposal. Without the support of the Province, its a no-go. Some natives support it (who wouldn't, with the promise of jobs and exclusive hunting rights) but many do not. Don't count your Provincial NDP/Fed. Liberal chickens before they hatch![/quote]

Pentona I really hope you are right.

Brushy Bill likes this post.
Bunnyhop
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 767
Likes: 1297 posts
Liked in: 560 posts
Joined: Dec 13th, 2009, 7:47 pm

Re: National Park

Postby rustled » Jul 2nd, 2019, 6:03 pm

Today McKenna did that "if you say it often enough, people will believe it" thing again, claiming the national park proposed for the South Okanagan will protect "one of the most endangered and extraordinary ecosystems in the world".
https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton ... s-released
It would be interesting to know where this ecosystem actually sits on any legitimate organization's list of the most threatened ecosystems in the world. No case study has been done on this ecosystem. It does not seem to be considered as endangered as the Great Lakes Alvars, the only ecosystem Canada has jurisdiction over that was in the 20 ecosystems the IUCN had assessed up to 2013. https://www.livescience.com/29445-iucn- ... ailed.html

It has not been a priority for assessment since that date either. https://iucnrle.org/resources/published-assessments/

The greatest danger to the ecosystem in the South Okanagan is tourism. Creating a national park reserve is not the solution. This is worse than an exercise in futility. It is a means of making the already precarious ecological health of the very small part of an otherwise vast ecosystem (the tiny bit that extends above the 49th parallel) even more precarious.

I doubt McKenna understands this at all, and I doubt she has spent enough time in popular North American national parks to understand what she's supporting by signing this MOU.

6 people like this post.
rustled
Guru
 
Posts: 7577
Likes: 12600 posts
Liked in: 9786 posts
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 1:47 pm

PreviousNext

Return to South Okanagan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests