National Park

[Tony]

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*

First off, I don't live in Kelowna.

Second - I am not "scared" of a National Park. I've spent lots of time in Banff and Jasper, love our Provincial Parks as well.

I am opposed to this park, as it is not necessary. It will put some cattle ranchers out of business, and cut our beef production down substantially. As a result of that, the Auction Market in Okanagan Falls could potentially close, putting several people out of work, and costing the remaining ranchers more money by having to haul cattle to Kamloops (closest Livestock Auction Market since Armstrong closed). Direct result of this, is higher beef prices, and we pay lots now.

Not to mention by turning this into a National Park, it would take away a part of the beauty of living in the South Okanagan, and that is the ability to go into the backwoods, whether you hike, take pictures or hunt with out having to pay. I can't see it bringing any new revenue into the area, and not even sure how it would. The people who want to hike or take pictures can do that now -for FREE.

[pentona]

First off, I don't live in Kelowna.

Second - I am not "scared" of a National Park. I've spent lots of time in Banff and Jasper, love our Provincial Parks as well.

I am opposed to this park, as it is not necessary. It will put some cattle ranchers out of business, and cut our beef production down substantially. As a result of that, the Auction Market in Okanagan Falls could potentially close, putting several people out of work, and costing the remaining ranchers more money by having to haul cattle to Kamloops (closest Livestock Auction Market since Armstrong closed). Direct result of this, is higher beef prices, and we pay lots now.

Not to mention by turning this into a National Park, it would take away a part of the beauty of living in the South Okanagan, and that is the ability to go into the backwoods, whether you hike, take pictures or hunt with out having to pay. I can't see it bringing any new revenue into the area, and not even sure how it would. The people who want to hike or take pictures can do that now -for FREE.

I agree with most of what you say. At present, people have mostly free range access to the area and its also a semi-protected area by Provincial park regs. If this goes through, hunting will not be allowed except by First Nations people (they would have exclusive rights - totally unfair), it will cost to access the park(presently free), the Government will have to hire employees at taxpayers expense; the list goes on. I can seen no benefits to the plan whatsoever.

The whole idea is being pushed by a few tree hugger/flower lover type people that have nothing financial to lose (many of them outside of the Okanagan). Rancher's livelihoods and free access to all is what will be lost. It must go to a Referendum for all the South Okanagan peoples.

[twobits]

Am I just so used to the back country around here that I see nothing particularly special about this proposed park area that would justify a National Park designation? It's a real stretch IMO to consider this area as needing National Park status. I can think of several other areas more worthy due to their uniqueness that also do not impact current economic activities.
Sure the area is unique in it's own way but there is no way I can see that it deserves such a recognition that should be granted only very carefully and as a National treasure because of it's special status......not because some locals think it's a good idea or political parties trying to sway some votes.

[Bunnyhop]

Am I just so used to the back country around here that I see nothing particularly special about this proposed park area that would justify a National Park designation? It's a real stretch IMO to consider this area as needing National Park status. I can think of several other areas more worthy due to their uniqueness that also do not impact current economic activities.
Sure the area is unique in it's own way but there is no way I can see that it deserves such a recognition that should be granted only very carefully and as a National treasure because of it's special status......not because some locals think it's a good idea or political parties trying to sway some votes.

Very good point. Add to that, much of the proposed area is already protected as provincial park status or ecological reserve.

Richard Cannings keeps mentioning “economic opportunities “ that will come with the national park, but won’t elaborate on what that might look like. Curiouser and curiouser as to who will really benefit from this going through.

[pentona]

This appeared on Social Media today; might be worth attending:

If you are opposed to a national park in your back yard for any reason, you have a opportunity to express your objection on Saturday, November 18th at 12 Noon in front of the Oliver Town Hall.

Please mark your calendars and tell everyone you know (Moms, Dads, Kids, Grand Ma’s and Grandpa’s, aunts Uncles, cousins, friends, any one you know or speak to) who might attend that we will be having a protest in Oliver at 12 noon on Saturday November the 18th in front of Town Hall 6150 Main Street.

PLEASE ATTEND! If we don't get people out there we'll never get a voice and will not be taken seriously. This is our opportunity to show them that we're not the minority in this fight.

[Tony]

I would be there in a heartbeat, but I'm out of town. Please get as many on our side as possible to attend.

[CTF]

At least some of the proposed protected area within this National park would be subject to first nations land claims - this in turn means local first nations would be entitled to compensation for the loss of timber rights and mineral rights along with other considerations. All of these things carry significant costs and I have noted nowhere, anywhere is a dollar value publicly stated as to what this park would actually cost.

I have nothing again a National park but I believe the costs need to be made public. When we hear of people camping out on crown lands because they cannot afford housing it seems ironic money would be spent on converting mostly already protected lands into as National park that those who cannot afford a home would not be allowed to camp on as they are now with BC crown lands.

[twobits]

At least some of the proposed protected area within this National park would be subject to first nations land claims - this in turn means local first nations would be entitled to compensation for the loss of timber rights and mineral rights along with other considerations. All of these things carry significant costs and I have noted nowhere, anywhere is a dollar value publicly stated as to what this park would actually cost.

I have nothing again a National park but I believe the costs need to be made public. When we hear of people camping out on crown lands because they cannot afford housing it seems ironic money would be spent on converting mostly already protected lands into as National park that those who cannot afford a home would not be allowed to camp on as they are now with BC crown lands.

Can I like this post a hundred times!

[Tony]

At least some of the proposed protected area within this National park would be subject to first nations land claims - this in turn means local first nations would be entitled to compensation for the loss of timber rights and mineral rights along with other considerations. All of these things carry significant costs and I have noted nowhere, anywhere is a dollar value publicly stated as to what this park would actually cost.

I have nothing again a National park but I believe the costs need to be made public. When we hear of people camping out on crown lands because they cannot afford housing it seems ironic money would be spent on converting mostly already protected lands into as National park that those who cannot afford a home would not be allowed to camp on as they are now with BC crown lands.

I'm just curious..... Are First Nations logging or mining the area now? If not, why do they need to be compensated for something they aren't getting making money with now?

[twobits]

If not, why do they need to be compensated for something they aren't getting making money with now?

Tony, only a fraction of compensation is ever reflected by lost revenue to current activities. It's all about ownership rights and it doesn't have to mean there is any future commercial value to the lands. I believe it's more principle than anything else. They can't just say we're all good with it being National Park as long as we have hunting and mineral rights in the future without compromising future agreements with precedence.

[Tony]

Tony, only a fraction of compensation is ever reflected by lost revenue to current activities. It's all about ownership rights and it doesn't have to mean there is any future commercial value to the lands. I believe it's more principle than anything else. They can't just say we're all good with it being National Park as long as we have hunting and mineral rights in the future without compromising future agreements with precedence.

I may be wrong, but how do you work out compensation if there's no revenue being generated? If I were to hit an apple tree in an orchard, the orchardist can claim that that tree generated $1,000 a year in revenue... (just a number folks). It will take 5 years to grow a new tree, so the orchardist is entitled to $5,000.00. If I drive into an orchard where there could be, but isn't a tree, he's not entitled to anything as there is no revenue in that area.

If I were to buy a piece of commercial property by outbidding someone on it and put a convenience store on it they couldn't come after me an say they were going to put a convenience store with a gas station on it, and therefore I owe them money because they didn't get to do it first.

If I own a property and have the mineral rights to it, but never do anything with the mineral rights, and then I sell said property and mineral rights and the new owner drills a well and hits oil, I don't get anything from that as I don't own the mineral rights anymore. That was my negligence for not drilling for whatever reason.


If the land isn't being harvested by either logging or mining, then there is no revenue, so how do you figure a compensation package that goes with it? Pulling a number out of the clear blue doesn't cut it IMHO.

[twobits]

If the land isn't being harvested by either logging or mining, then there is no revenue, so how do you figure a compensation package that goes with it? Pulling a number out of the clear blue doesn't cut it IMHO.

I don't think any FN land claim is based solely on current revenue stream of the lands. The valuation fer sure has got to be complicated as it has to take into account potential future value, current income stream if any, as well as heritage and cultural significance.
Not that I agree with some of the FN claims for compensation, but I also have to concede that that there are different points of view here that make the discussion far more than current revenue streams.

[Tony]

https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton ... e-heats-up

Well, this topic is back in the news. The Federal Government has shied away from any public forums of any kind, and there's a lot of people who don't want the Park.

What really gets me is that this was all set, after a 5 year consultation with stakeholders and the Provincial Government to form the LRMP https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/indu ... uswap-lrmp that protects what needs to be protect, lets the people who make a living off the land, make a living, and allows the public who know, respect and love that land use it.

Please remember to get all the facts before you fill out the ballot.

[pentona]

https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton/249625/Nat-l-park-debate-heats-up

Well, this topic is back in the news. The Federal Government has shied away from any public forums of any kind, and there's a lot of people who don't want the Park.

What really gets me is that this was all set, after a 5 year consultation with stakeholders and the Provincial Government to form the LRMP https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/indu ... uswap-lrmp that protects what needs to be protect, lets the people who make a living off the land, make a living, and allows the public who know, respect and love that land use it.

Please remember to get all the facts before you fill out the ballot.

I filled out the online form/ballot. Its very obvious that the Pro-Park folks do not want any form of Referendum as they know full well that it would fail miserably. Nobody outside the RDOS should be allowed a say, in my opinion.

I think with any luck, we might have a new Federal Government before this ever comes to pass; we can only hope. I am pretty sure that the Conservatives would axe this one, pronto as its a complete waste of tax dollars.

[pentona]

Good for the Mayor of Oliver for wanting to see that the people have a proper say. What's wrong with any councillor in Oliver who would NOT want to see that occur? Sure it will cost money to hold one but with this Park proposal being so controversial, it requires that the local people are allowed a say.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton ... -park-vote