Linda Larson says the people in favour of a National Park in this area are good people with good ideas for all the right reasons.

MLA Larson says she was Mayor of Oliver when this idea came forward and everyone at that time thought there was some merit to exploring the idea because of the environmental benefits.

But today, she says, based on plans and studies – most of the facts are in – that it would have a negative impact with more job loss than jobs gained when everything is considered like potential mining opportunities.

Tourists she says come for the lush green fields of tree fruits and grapes, hiking and biking, the wineries and agriculture including ranching – year round industry with tourism being but for a brief period in the summer.

Larson says a study done in 2008 and commissioned by Parks Canada states that there would be a small net gain of jobs and new employment would not likely involve people moving to the area as permanent residents.

Year round industry, jobs, and profits are needed to help our economy says the local Member of the Legislature.

Larson says Parks Canada rules are too restrictive for what is allowed and she has never seen an official list from the federal government on what is or is not permitted. She says too many people would be negatively impacted.

She indicated that much of the sensitive eco areas can be contained and restricted by provincial law, reserves or as parkland. 56% of the proposed park is existing provincially protected areas.

The study mentioned was done by Lions Gate Consulting of Vancouver and reviewed the proposed 63,000 hectare area of the Similkameen and South Okanagan. The study determined that National Park uses are incompatible with the present economic and pleasure uses of the land.

The park would remove almost 7000 hectares of commercial timber, 29 thousand hectares of potential mining exploration property, prevent trapping, helicopter training and reduce the use of some land for agriculture – almost 5000 hectares in the ALR.

Direct job impact – a gain of 45 and a loss of 40 equaling a net gain of 5 – according to the report.

Quality of life – more non-motorized use and opportunities for the land but with the loss of traditional rural activity and use of the “great outdoors” by local residents.