National Park

Re: National Park

Postby pentona » Jul 2nd, 2019, 7:16 pm

Just what the area does not need...more tourist roaming around up there and Natives having exclusive hunting rights. A recipe for disaster. Lets hope the Fed Liberals get the boot this Fall and perhaps the Conservatives will fire some of the top heavy Parks Dept people who are living in a dream world, coasting along waiting for their pensions. Its a long ways from any done deal.

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 bob vernon » Jul 3rd, 2019, 6:43 am

Common sense says we don't need the national park.

Common sense says we do need the national park.
bob vernon
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2693
Likes: 8 posts
Liked in: 1542 posts
Joined: Oct 27th, 2008, 10:37 am

Re: National Park

Postby bob vernon » Jul 3rd, 2019, 6:45 am

pentona wrote:Just what the area does not need...more tourist roaming around up there and Natives having exclusive hunting rights. A recipe for disaster. Lets hope the Fed Liberals get the boot this Fall and perhaps the Conservatives will fire some of the top heavy Parks Dept people who are living in a dream world, coasting along waiting for their pensions. Its a long ways from any done deal.



Andy Scheer was in the Okanagan over the long weekend. He said the park will go ahead. And the Harper gumment was working towards the park when they were in office.

Bunnyhop likes this post.
bob vernon
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2693
Likes: 8 posts
Liked in: 1542 posts
Joined: Oct 27th, 2008, 10:37 am

Re: National Park

Postby Bunnyhop » Jul 3rd, 2019, 6:53 am

Conservatives will let the NPR go through.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton ... nat-l-park
Bunnyhop
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 767
Likes: 1297 posts
Liked in: 560 posts
Joined: Dec 13th, 2009, 7:47 pm

Re: National Park

Postby pentona » Jul 3rd, 2019, 7:20 am

Bunnyhop wrote:Conservatives will let the NPR go through.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton ... nat-l-park


From that link:

"I don't think you'll come across anyone that's really against national parks," Konanz said.

Now there's a candidate who is totally out of tune with reality. There are many many local folks who don't want the Park. And here we thought the Cons might see the light and reverse the decision. Very frustrating. :swear:

3 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 Brushy Bill » Jul 3rd, 2019, 7:21 am

Maybe the opposition to the national park has to change tactics

When the proposal first came out a public survey was done and most peeps wanted some type of protection for a space they were told was disappearing. cpaws turned that and said most people want a np.

Maybe its not a yes and no situation, Maybe Joe BC public has to stand up and demand a provincial answer to protection of the same area, keep the control local. Get the Greens on board
Brushy Bill
Fledgling
 
Posts: 222
Likes: 175 posts
Liked in: 93 posts
Joined: Apr 11th, 2012, 11:58 am

Re: National Park

Postby pentona » Jul 3rd, 2019, 7:53 am

Brushy Bill wrote:Maybe the opposition to the national park has to change tactics

When the proposal first came out a public survey was done and most peeps wanted some type of protection for a space they were told was disappearing. cpaws turned that and said most people want a np.

Maybe its not a yes and no situation, Maybe Joe BC public has to stand up and demand a provincial answer to protection of the same area, keep the control local. Get the Greens on board


The protection of the area (my opinion) is not in question. I cannot see anyone wanting to see the area NOT protected. Presently a good chunk of it is already protected under Provinicial Parks rules, which works well and at far less cost. Designating it a National Park will just bring far more tourists stomping around, ruining things and all the while the Natives will be hunting in the woods. The lands in question aren't even on reserves. Why even involve the natives any more than non-natives?

Since the previous Provincial Liberal Government was against the idea of the Park, perhaps they can save the day. There is little likelyhood that the Horgan and the NDP will survive another election. Konanz and Scheer are a real dissapointment.
pentona
Übergod
 
Posts: 1161
Likes: 290 posts
Liked in: 621 posts
Joined: Feb 21st, 2011, 5:38 pm

Re: National Park

Postby Oculi » Jul 3rd, 2019, 8:38 am

If National Park question was to have a referendum it would not just be local Oliver/Osoyoos/Cawston/ people voting.
By the way these local people are biased and simply a special interest group looking protect local interests of a few people.
If you asked the people of BC the vast majority would say YES, if you asked the people of Canada the vast majority would say Yes, if you asked all the First Nations in Canada the vast majority would say YES. It is Provincial, Federal and First Nations land.
Provincial/Federal and First Nations governments are ALL in favour.
No side has lost.
That is how democracy works boys.
Ship has sailed GET OVER IT?
What is is further action? Revolution...ya right. It’s not your land !!!

gman313 likes this post.
Oculi
 
Posts: 2
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Jul 3rd, 2019, 8:25 am

Re: National Park

Postby rustled » Jul 3rd, 2019, 8:54 am

pentona wrote:
Bunnyhop wrote:Conservatives will let the NPR go through.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton ... nat-l-park


From that link:

"I don't think you'll come across anyone that's really against national parks," Konanz said.

Now there's a candidate who is totally out of tune with reality. There are many many local folks who don't want the Park. And here we thought the Cons might see the light and reverse the decision. Very frustrating. :swear:

The reporting makes it look that way, but read it again.

I haven't come across anyone that's really against national parks. Have you?

I am not personally "against national parks". Are you?

She knows plenty of people who are not against national parks are against this particular national park, for a variety of reasons.

Many of us are not the bunch of hillbilly redneck mudboggers the pro-park folk are making us out to be.

We want to protect that area effectively, including protection from tourists.

We do not for one moment believe a national park can or will provide more effective protection than the land use plan that had already been hammered out and agreed to by local stakeholders, just before Fitzpatrick pulled the rug out from under it with this national park idea.

Brushy Bill likes this post.
rustled
Guru
 
Posts: 7577
Likes: 12600 posts
Liked in: 9786 posts
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 1:47 pm

Re: National Park

Postby rustled » Jul 3rd, 2019, 9:03 am

Brushy Bill wrote:Maybe the opposition to the national park has to change tactics

When the proposal first came out a public survey was done and most peeps wanted some type of protection for a space they were told was disappearing. cpaws turned that and said most people want a np.

Maybe its not a yes and no situation, Maybe Joe BC public has to stand up and demand a provincial answer to protection of the same area, keep the control local. Get the Greens on board

That was done.

A solid agreement between all stakeholders was reached under the LRMP process. Environmentalists of all kinds were represented, and they had all agreed to the LRMP they'd worked out together.

Before it could be enacted Fitzpatrick made his announcement, and some of the environmentalists turned their backs on the neighbours they'd worked with to create the LRMP.

From that day forward, they sold this project with the usual hyperbole about red-listed species while ignoring the negative impacts national parks have had when they're too popular for the good of the environment.

Brushy Bill likes this post.
rustled
Guru
 
Posts: 7577
Likes: 12600 posts
Liked in: 9786 posts
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 1:47 pm

Re: National Park

Postby RupertBear » Jul 3rd, 2019, 9:10 am

rustled wrote:A solid agreement between all stakeholders was reached under the LRMP process. Environmentalists of all kinds were represented, and they had all agreed to the LRMP they'd worked out together.

Before it could be enacted Fitzpatrick made his announcement, and some of the environmentalists turned their backs on the neighbours they'd worked with to create the LRMP.

From that day forward, they sold this project with the usual hyperbole about red-listed species while ignoring the negative impacts national parks have had when they're too popular for the good of the environment.


I must admit, I am not sure of all the details regarding this particular proposal.
Rustled, what do you see as the potential negative impacts of this park?
RupertBear
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 714
Likes: 505 posts
Liked in: 800 posts
Joined: Feb 24th, 2010, 10:00 pm

Re: National Park

Postby Mark5 » Jul 3rd, 2019, 9:33 am

More robbery by the Liberal government. Why are native peoples involved?will they have special rights or provide enforcement? What will happen if the public uses this land as they have traditionally? This is traditional public land and the federal government has no right to trample on our traditions. This needs a court challenge.

pentona likes 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 » Jul 3rd, 2019, 9:45 am

Mark5 wrote:More robbery by the Liberal government. Why are native peoples involved?will they have special rights or provide enforcement? What will happen if the public uses this land as they have traditionally? This is traditional public land and the federal government has no right to trample on our traditions. This needs a court challenge.


Exactly...why are Native peoples involved any moreso than non-natives? The Liberals have promised them jobs and EXCLUSIVE hunting rights in this Park, should it go ahead; that's why. Of course the Natives would then be in favor of it. What about the present folks who hunt there? Nope, no more, if this goes ahead. Tourists, tree huggers, flower lovers and Native Hunters is not a good mix. Its time that everyone was treated equally in this country. I have seen lots of Provincial Parks folks cruising the areas in question, so enforcement is working just fine as it is, and with a lot less cost. Don't fix what isn't broken.
pentona
Übergod
 
Posts: 1161
Likes: 290 posts
Liked in: 621 posts
Joined: Feb 21st, 2011, 5:38 pm

Re: National Park

Postby rustled » Jul 3rd, 2019, 11:14 am

RupertBear wrote:I must admit, I am not sure of all the details regarding this particular proposal.
Rustled, what do you see as the potential negative impacts of this park?

Every popular national park we visited in North America over the past 35 years is showing some negative impacts related to tourism.

Far more people visit these areas than would otherwise, solely because they are national parks.

These visitors may or may not be conservationists. Most of them are simply tourists interested in seeing what's special about this place, or just to cross it off their list of things to do.

Visitors require infrastructure. Wider and better maintained roads with pullouts. Picnic areas, wildlife viewing areas. Outhouses, garbage bins, service accesses. More trails.

Even careful visitors do accidental damage just by visiting the park. And there is a percentage of tourists who are not careful and never will be. These ones walk where they're told not to walk and touch what they're told not to touch.

The national parks nearest the major population centers get the worst of it. Park staff can't be everywhere monitoring everyone. In a couple of them it looks like the staff has given up. Unless Parks Canada hires a ridiculous number of staff there's no way these people will be properly monitored, but more staff activity in the park means more impact, too.

We stopped visiting national parks when it became clear tourism was detrimental to these special areas, because obviously no matter how careful we were, we were only adding to the problem.

There's no way you can do more to protect this area by making it a tourist attraction.

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

Re: National Park

Postby RupertBear » Jul 3rd, 2019, 12:00 pm

rustled wrote:
RupertBear wrote:I must admit, I am not sure of all the details regarding this particular proposal.
Rustled, what do you see as the potential negative impacts of this park?

Every popular national park we visited in North America over the past 35 years is showing some negative impacts related to tourism.

Far more people visit these areas than would otherwise, solely because they are national parks.

These visitors may or may not be conservationists. Most of them are simply tourists interested in seeing what's special about this place, or just to cross it off their list of things to do.

Visitors require infrastructure. Wider and better maintained roads with pullouts. Picnic areas, wildlife viewing areas. Outhouses, garbage bins, service accesses. More trails.

Even careful visitors do accidental damage just by visiting the park. And there is a percentage of tourists who are not careful and never will be. These ones walk where they're told not to walk and touch what they're told not to touch.

The national parks nearest the major population centers get the worst of it. Park staff can't be everywhere monitoring everyone. In a couple of them it looks like the staff has given up. Unless Parks Canada hires a ridiculous number of staff there's no way these people will be properly monitored, but more staff activity in the park means more impact, too.

We stopped visiting national parks when it became clear tourism was detrimental to these special areas, because obviously no matter how careful we were, we were only adding to the problem.

There's no way you can do more to protect this area by making it a tourist attraction.


Excellent response Rustled. I can see why a park's popularity could actually be a bad thing if those using the park don't treat it with the proper respect.
I have friends who run a back-country tourism company. Their motto is "Take only Memories, Leave only Footprints".

3 people like this post.
RupertBear
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 714
Likes: 505 posts
Liked in: 800 posts
Joined: Feb 24th, 2010, 10:00 pm

PreviousNext

Return to South Okanagan

Who is online

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