By ROY WOOD

Opposing views have emerged among conservation groups on which level of government is better equipped to be stewards of the land and species of the South Okanagan. And those views are playing into the national park debate.

The B.C. Wildlife Federation (BCWF) believes that Parks Canada’s recent record on endangered species disqualifies it as the best choice for protecting the delicate ecosystems of the South Okanagan and therefore is opposed to the proposed national park in the region.

On the other hand, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS), takes the position that the relatively vast amounts of money available to support national parks make Parks Canada a more viable and reliable protector of the area’s biologically diverse ecosystems.

In a recent interview, BCWF director Jesse Zeman said Parks Canada’s record in protecting endangered species and its emphasis on commercialization and privatization in national parks makes it a poor choice for looking out for the local flora and fauna.

“In the South Okanagan we have an extremely sensitive ecosystem. It’s one of a kind in Canada. … We’ve got this biodiversity hot spot here and the question is, ‘Who can do the best job of managing it?’” he said. “We believe the province can do a better job of managing that ecosystem.”

Zeman is skeptical of Parks Canada’s commitment to preserving wildlife habitat and protecting threatened species. He says that, starting in the 1990s, the department has been moving from its original core function of “promoting biodiversity and maintaining ecological integrity.”

The case Zeman makes against Parks Canada is based primarily on its record in Jasper and Banff National Parks. Specifically, he pointed to:

• Long-range plans for Marmot Basin ski area will expand snow-making, additional parking and tree thinning, all within the winter range of an already threatened caribou herd;
• The Glacier Skywalk in Jasper is a substantial man-made structure that allows tourists to walk to a glass-floored platform to view Rocky Mountain peaks and the valley below. It used to be a free lookout; admission is now $30 plus tax for adults and $15 for kids;
• An independent study, commissioned by a Parks Canada resource conservation manager, showed that all Jasper caribou herds are in decline and some are unviable. The manager was fired and the report buried;
• At Mount Norquay near Banff, new summer operations will intrude on grizzly bear habitat; and
• Proposed expansion of the Lake Louise ski hill will further encroach on wilderness area, including caribou range.

The provincial government, said Zeman, has a considerable toolbox at its disposal to protect the ecosystem.

“We have conservancies and provincial parks. We have different classifications of parks. And we have areas in the north that we basically set aside exclusively for wildlife and not so much for people, … like ecological reserves,” he said.

As well, the provincial control of the lands would have the “opportunity to engage locally and have local control, as opposed to long-distance controls that come from the other end of the county.”

Taking the other point of view is Doreen Olson of Okanagan Falls. She emphasized that she does not speak for CPAWS, but when the organization was contacted, it provided her name as someone local who could speak on the national park issue. She is a coordinator of the South Okanagan-Similkameen National Park Network, which advocates for the park proposal.

“Parks Canada has more funding to look after the land … huge dollars comes in with Parks Canada,” she said.

“B.C. Parks has very little money to operate. Parks Canada will come with people to monitor the area – park rangers, park supervisors, that sort of thing. The minimum they would have would be about 12 people in the area,” she said.

For the provincial government, she said, lack of funding is the key issue. “The problem with them is that they put the land aside, but it comes with no extra monitoring. Nothing is really different from other crown land except that it can’t be sold,” she said.

As for the differences between the two organizations on the national park, Olson pointed to the fact that the BCWF is well known as an advocate for hunters. Non-first-nations hunting is forbidden in national parks.

“Obviously the wildlife federation has done some wonderful work. But they are also hunters and hunters wanting access to crown land,” she said, “Our point is to have a little bit (of land) for wildlife, where they can just be and not have people shooting at them.”

Zeman conceded that wildlife  organization does advocate for hunters. “(But) we are dealing with the big picture issues of biodiversity. Hunting is secondary.

“We do support constitutionally protected rights. We support local hunters being able to go out and enjoy the outdoors,” he said.