Here is my effort to give a somewhat balanced view of each side of the National Park Reserve debate. Perhaps you could also get an ardent ‘No Sider’ to similarly write up their version of the pros and cons. Hopefully you can screen for personal attacks and get both sides to focus on the actual issues.
I think that the strongest arguments for the park are that it offers federal funding for the protection of our fragile ecosystem and threatened species and the chance to supplement are already strong tourist economy with some eco-tourism The South Okanogan is the last large unique ecosystem within Canada which is not protected by a national park. Designation of an NPR helps reach Canada’s international obligations to preserve a larger percentage of our land base, further protects against development of currently private lands and helps fight global warming.
The ‘no side’ is very distrustful and antagonistic towards federal government intervention in the region. They regard our rural areas as their own backyard and value unrestricted access for both industry and recreation-for ranching, for hunting, quading, partying, etc. Many ranchers and hunters in particular are very sensitive to environmental values and protect what we value. We don’t need federal intervention to help with this
The No Side sees all conflicting land-use issues as having been resolved in the 2000 LRMP. The Yes side sees an evolution in thinking of how to protect our region, particularly through the very significant compromises contained the 2011 compromise proposal on the national Park and in the more recent provincial intentions paper process. The no side sees Parks Canada as currently rushing towards a predetermined decision ahead of the completion of its current consultative process.
The yes side sees the federal and provincial governments and local First Nations finally coming together in agreement. The current NPR proposal represents a series of compromises arrived at over the almost 20 years consultation and debate on the topic. Over that time the geographic extent of the park has been significantly reduced from the original proposal- for example to exclude the snowy area valued for hunting and the Vaseux and White Lake areas where there is already a lot of private protection through land trusts etc. The ‘No side’ is suspicious that representations as to the preservation of existing uses such as ranching and helicopter training will be honoured. No doubt ranching within the park will probably be subject to more vigorous enforcement of environmental regulations than is currently the case.
Some on the ‘Yes Side’ have overstated the economic spin offs from the park. Similarly some of the No Side exaggerate their argument, fearing that our park will become like Banff, seriously overwhelming our existing highway infrastructure and tourist facilities. More likely the reality will be a middle ground – a much more modest park achieving an appropriate balance between making portions of the park accessible to the public for low impact recreation such as hiking, biking, maybe horse riding; with increased resources to enhance protection of the rest of the park area; and the development of interpretive center‘s to celebrate both our indigenous and ranching heritages The preservation of Kobau as a dark sky preserve for star gazing excites the yes side.
The yes side sees the park as a recognition of aboriginal rights and title in the area, including the opportunity for First Nations co-management of the park. The no side resents the preservation of aboriginal hunting rights, seeing themselves as having similar long established traditional rights.
Generally, both sides have been passionate in their arguments. Unfortunately, in many instances the debate has pitted neighbor against neighbor. But it does appear that we are finally coming to a compromise solution that probably won’t make anyone entirely happy, but which hopefully we can all live with.