National Park

Re: National Park

Postby pentona » Jul 3rd, 2019, 12:06 pm

Parks Canada cannot even keep up with maintaining what they have NOW, let alone build new parks. Its protected quite nicely now (by the Province) with fewer visitors out there stomping around and at considerable less cost. The Feds should clean up their present parks before ever starting on more of them that they can't properly manage.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/parks- ... -1.3952144

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 rustled » Jul 3rd, 2019, 12:26 pm

RupertBear wrote:... 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".

There are parts of many national parks where they don't even want the footprints. Guess what? Footprints galore. Whether it's because people don't stay on the trail out of mindlessness, or because they just have to go where they've been told not to, it still does damage.

People who make the efforts required for back-country tourism aren't usually as mindless as the majority of tourists who visit national parks.

And I don't mean "mindless" in a bad way here. A lot of people are just not aware of why they're being told to stay on the trail, or they just keep forgetting because they're not in the habit of treading lightly in the back-country.
rustled
Guru
 
Posts: 7577
Likes: 12600 posts
Liked in: 9787 posts
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 1:47 pm

Re: National Park

Postby Bunnyhop » Jul 3rd, 2019, 12:43 pm

pentona wrote:Parks Canada cannot even keep up with maintaining what they have NOW, let alone build new parks. Its protected quite nicely now (by the Province) with fewer visitors out there stomping around and at considerable less cost. The Feds should clean up their present parks before ever starting on more of them that they can't properly manage.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/parks- ... -1.3952144


This point is actually most of the NO PARK sides concern.

Let’s not downplay how far behind PC is in upkeep and maintenance of their existing parks. Their own study revealed 40% of their real estate is in poor to unusable condition and it will take an estimated $9 Billion to get up to speed

The most sensitive ecological areas in the proposed park are already protected through provincial park, ecological reserve, conservancy trust or nature’s trust. How is exploiting those areas to generate revenues going to be better than what’s going on now?

4 people like 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 pentona » Jul 3rd, 2019, 12:57 pm

Bunnyhop wrote:
pentona wrote:Parks Canada cannot even keep up with maintaining what they have NOW, let alone build new parks. Its protected quite nicely now (by the Province) with fewer visitors out there stomping around and at considerable less cost. The Feds should clean up their present parks before ever starting on more of them that they can't properly manage.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/parks- ... -1.3952144


This point is actually most of the NO PARK sides concern.

Let’s not downplay how far behind PC is in upkeep and maintenance of their existing parks. Their own study revealed 40% of their real estate is in poor to unusable condition and it will take an estimated $9 Billion to get up to speed

The most sensitive ecological areas in the proposed park are already protected through provincial park, ecological reserve, conservancy trust or nature’s trust. How is exploiting those areas to generate revenues going to be better than what’s going on now?


Well said, Bunnyhop. If you believe (and I do not) Helena Konanz, she claims there aren't any folks who are against the Park. Shows you little she has spoken to the people in the South Okanagan; she really hasn't a clue. I've yet to see even ONE "Yes" sign.
From the Castanet article:
"I don't think you'll come across anyone that's really against national parks," Konanz said. "But I think communication has been botched, with the people that actually live here and work in this area."

Her last statement (in red) shows just how much she has NOT talked to the locals; the ones really affected by such a proposal.
Last edited by pentona on Jul 3rd, 2019, 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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, 1:06 pm

pentona wrote:Well said, Bunnyhop. If you believe (and I do not) Helena Konanz, she claims there aren't any folks who are against the Park. Shows you little she has spoken to the people in the South Okanagan; she really hasn't a clue. I've yet to see even ONE "Yes" sign.

Did she say there aren't any people against this park? I haven't heard her do that.

In the quote posted with the Castanet story, the part you're referencing, she was talking about people being against national parks. She then talked about the people who are opposed to this park. It seemed pretty clear to me that her first reference was to national parks in general.
"There are a lot of angry, upset people,


It's election time, and federal politicians are walking a tightrope with pragmatic environmentalists on one side and starry-eyed idealist environmentalists on the other.

Merry likes this post.
rustled
Guru
 
Posts: 7577
Likes: 12600 posts
Liked in: 9787 posts
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 1:47 pm

Re: National Park

Postby pentona » Jul 3rd, 2019, 1:16 pm

rustled wrote:
pentona wrote:Well said, Bunnyhop. If you believe (and I do not) Helena Konanz, she claims there aren't any folks who are against the Park. Shows you little she has spoken to the people in the South Okanagan; she really hasn't a clue. I've yet to see even ONE "Yes" sign.

Did she say there aren't any people against this park? I haven't heard her do that.

In the quote posted with the Castanet story, the part you're referencing, she was talking about people being against national parks. She then talked about the people who are opposed to this park. It seemed pretty clear to me that her first reference was to national parks in general.
"There are a lot of angry, upset people,


It's election time, and federal politicians are walking a tightrope with pragmatic environmentalists on one side and starry-eyed idealist environmentalists on the other.


You could have a valid point there with what she was referring to; parks in general. However, we know that Parks in Canada are underfunded and in sad need of work, so this is a perfect case of why this new one should not go ahead. Fix what you have and get them up to par before starting on any new projects. It only makes sense.

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 Bunnyhop » Jul 3rd, 2019, 8:04 pm

rustled wrote:
RupertBear wrote:... 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".

There are parts of many national parks where they don't even want the footprints. Guess what? Footprints galore. Whether it's because people don't stay on the trail out of mindlessness, or because they just have to go where they've been told not to, it still does damage.

People who make the efforts required for back-country tourism aren't usually as mindless as the majority of tourists who visit national parks.

And I don't mean "mindless" in a bad way here. A lot of people are just not aware of why they're being told to stay on the trail, or they just keep forgetting because they're not in the habit of treading lightly in the back-country.


Its interesting because we do a fair amount of hiking in the current ecological reserves, provincial parks, etc and see little evidence of people going off trail. Other hikers seem to be the “hiking types” as opposed to random tourists out to see what they can see.

Although, there’s nothing to say yet that those areas will still be accessible once an NPR is established. Its the Reserve designation that might shut a lot of these areas down to everyone, including those of us who have been respectfully enjoying them for years.

rustled 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 Glacier » Jul 4th, 2019, 8:58 am

Look at the map...

english_map_-_proposed_so_npr_boundary_p3395105.jpg


NOTE:

- Green is ALREADY protected!
- Orange is NOT part of the park because it's private (although they could sell to Parks Canada in the future if they so choose).
- That leaves us with the few patches of unshaded bits cobbled together.
- This has nothing to do with preserving land, and everything to do with creating more union jobs and/or suckering the government into funneling an unfair amount of federal dollars into Osoyoos and the OIB which already gets more than their fair share.


Don't get me wrong, I'm all for federal dollars if it makes sense for some important habitat, but this is not the case here.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
“Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die”

2 people like this post.
User avatar
Glacier
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 29746
Likes: 4862 posts
Liked in: 12464 posts
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Previous

Return to South Okanagan

Who is online

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