National Park

[twobits]

Just more exclusive hunting range for those that are excluded from nothing.

[pentona]

Just more exclusive hunting range for those that are excluded from nothing.

I do wonder if the Feds have promised "Jobs" to the Native bands in the area; otherwise why the sudden turnaround in the attitude of the Indians (they were against it before, I believe)?

Would be huge loss to ranchers in the area if such a plan went through. Far more negatives than any positives to this nutty idea. God, its not even "Pristine Wilderness". I would bet that many more people are against it than for it. Hopefully a Referendum would be held first as both levels of Govt appear to have lost their minds; let the people decide, properly; not just opinion polls.

[LindaV]

Why do we need a national Park? Shouldn't it be decided by the people that live near it and will loose their livelihood. Not by people that aren't affected by its lac of access. It won't create many jobs. It is already using Millions of tax dollars. The land is already a land reserve. It will open the door for a select group to hunt and fish the rest of us won't be allowed those privileges. If it was your back yard would you be for it. The people it affects live in Okanagan Falls, Oliver, Osoyoos, Cawston, Keremeos and Olalla. The people voting for it aren't local. Some don't even know where the park will be or where the Okanagan is. If you are a NO, Please vote on the petitions on-line or let your MLA know how we really feel.

[Urban Cowboy]

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.

Probably because they are always eager, to be in a position to take credit, for something they didn't do.

[pentona]

Just more exclusive hunting range for those that are excluded from nothing.

I found some info online that indicated that any Status Indians would be allowed exclusive rights any such National Park, whereas all others would be banned. When is this nonsense going to stop. Not impressed with either the Feds or Provincial Governments right now. When Stewart Phillip is all in favor of something, then its time to become suspicious.

[blueliner]

Just more exclusive hunting range for those that are excluded from nothing.

I found some info online that indicated that any Status Indians would be allowed exclusive rights any such National Park, whereas all others would be banned. When is this nonsense going to stop. Not impressed with either the Feds or Provincial Governments right now. When Stewart Phillip is all in favor of something, then its time to become suspicious.

Yes no kidding re Grand Chief Stewart Philip , if it looks like a , smells like a well then folks my guess its a

[cr125]

It's just a bad idea, plain and simple. Leave it alone so we can all enjoy it, any way each person wants to enjoy it, weather it be hiking, biking, quading, 4x4, or trail bike.
Mother nature takes care of her own, no matter what we do to her. For crying out loud, let everyone enjoy the backwoods.

[JagXKR]

What about an idea our neighbors had many decades ago. Kananaskis Country has wilderness areas, provincial parks, recreational use areas and even grazing areas for ranchers. Can still remember walking by cattle grazing in order to get to the top of a mountain. Seeing fossils as well.

https://kaptainkananaskis.com/2016/10/1 ... -mountain/

[twobits]

Put it to a referendum of the local population to gauge support. Let's see via democratic process just how much support there is for this National Park. IMO, support is from a rather small and definable segment of the local population. They just make a lot of noise between bites of tofu.

[tootall23]

i would like to know what was promised to the Natives to get their support. Continued access when most other users will be denied their current uses? Or more likely, money was promised.

We need to get vocal before this gets railroaded through by outsiders.

[pentona]

i would like to know what was promised to the Natives to get their support. Continued access when most other users will be denied their current uses? Or more likely, money was promised.

We need to get vocal before this gets railroaded through by outsiders.

Here is what I found online re Natives; it suggests that everyone except them will not be allowed to hunt in any new National Parks. Totally unfair to the rest of Canadians. Tis no wonder that the Stewart Phillip and his bands are in favor.

In 1979, Parks Canada policy added this clause to reflect the new reality:
“Where new national parks are established in conjunction with the settlement of land claims of native people, an agreement will be negotiated between Parks Canada and representatives of local native communities prior to the formal establishment of the national park creating a joint management regime for the planning and management of the national park.” [1]
The passing of the Constitution Act, 1982, through Section 35, formally entrenched Aboriginal and treaty rights in the supreme law of Canada. It has, however, created some loopholes in the ability of Aboriginal people to exercise their rights within national parks. Parks Canada has taken the position that “legislation used to establish national parks prior to 1982 extinguishes any Aboriginal or treaty rights with regards to those parks. Consequently, of the forty national parks and park reserves in Canada, harvesting as an Aboriginal or treaty right takes place in twenty of them primarily in parks and park reserves established after 1982 or those established in northern Canada under comprehensive land claims.”

[pentona]

I am not a fan of Andrew Weaver, however I might agree with him on this one. We need more access for EVERY person; not just a select group (Natives in this case). The area in question is already protected fairly well under Provincial Park guidelines; a Federal National Park would just create more fences; more roadblock and costs and give Natives the exclusive rights to hunt there.

NO to any National Park in the South Okanagan!

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/211109 ... the-fences

[twobits]

I agree with Weaver's open access thoughts in principle but unfortunately many of the fences put up are to protect areas from the select few morons that have no respect for the back country. Take down some of these fences will just give more access to the few garbage dumpers and riparian area quad rippers looking for a mud run with no thought of the eco system they are destroying. It's unfortunately a damned if we do or don't thing because a few spoil it for everyone.
Unless Weaver can get funding for more conservation and enforcement, I can't support it.

[maryjane48]

I didnt realize the folks of kelowna are scaredof a,national park

What happens when these same folks end up near to jasper ? Or banff ? *removed*

[twobits]

*removed*