I have been watching the verbal joust -pro and con- with regard to the proposed National Park.

When it is all said and done it will take a lot more than a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down.

One side sights all the benefits of having a park. And for some if not many the benefits are not positive or vague.

The other side for the most part just say what part of NO do you not understand. The problem is no one is getting the message through about why they are saying NO.

The yes side can’t believe there are people opposed.

The end result will be no one happy with the end result.

The discussion needs to evolve or the government bureaucrats will simply impose their will.. Where does the discussion need to go?

The yes side needs to understand the people of the region had a life before there was a Canada. They have a park in their own sense of the word in that they have hunted, fished and utilized the land base including the water for over a century. Those who love the land claim they are doing it for sound reasons and that may be true. The concept of opening an area up to everyone and changing all the rules comes with push back. It is like saying we are going to welcome strangers into our house only to find the visitors have taken over the remote control on the TV and changed the dinner menu. Oh but the purest of intentions are being put in place to ensure everyone is heard.

My answer to that is, condominium housing was originally set up to serve the interests of all. The the housing council opened the discussion. It was not long before what is termed the, Condo Nazis showed up and now no one is happy. It should never be assumed because we have good intentions we have a good idea.

The no side has to get past we can just say no, and no means no. The no side is not going on a date, they are discussing the future of their surroundings and its implications forever.

From what I sense in the mood of the discussion there is going to be a Park. Instead of a one word answer the no side has to move. In so doing they can concentrate on safeguarding most of their culture. Before we go further, I am not taking sides I am informing you of what I see happening from outside the circle as it were.

Start with strangers will come, use the park and crime will go up. This is a hollow argument. Park visitors will be tourists and the area receives thousands of tourists every year. Read the local news and follow Oliver Daily News stories. From what I see most crimes are committed by residents with local street addresses. Instead of pedaling fear and discontent tell the real story about agriculture and water and how people will be impacted by the loss of recreational pursuits you currently enjoy, such as hunting. A story of negative impact and measurable consequences is easy to understand and make accommodation for. The word NO has no traction anymore.

Both sides have to figure out what they want and how to fit it into a world that is changing around us. Both side of the issue have merit. Not everyone is going to be happy but a lack of give and take and no cooperation will ensure no one is happy.

Fred Steele