We have come full circle, the proposed National Park is entering the final stage of reality. I remember, some were not happy that I said more than a statement of NO would be required to participate in the debate.

There was some meat on the bones from those objecting but from my vantage point, the perception I got was opposition was in a silo approach rather than binding a together story, I also believe many did not understand they had to appeal to a bigger audience than envisioned. The fact is nationally people like the idea of a park even if it is in someone else’s backyard.

The NO side raised some valid concerns at the local level but in my view they had to play to a larger part of the population. That did not happen. Those advocating for a park talked about walking areas, protection of wildlife, rare ecosystems, conservation and its relation to the overall environment. That is a tall order to compete with. There are groups not happy those with off road vehicles, and hunters and others who like things the way they are in the backwoods.

In short a simple no as the statement was not enough to get much if anything in the way of a concession.

Why is this now a * fait accompli?

All the major parties will not oppose it, even the conservatives if they gain power would not review it, the Native Bands are on side, therefore it is no longer an issue in an election year.

I stayed out of picking a side in this thing for the reason it is not in my backyard and I wanted the two sides to determine their own destiny by debate. However “Just say no didn’t stop children from doing drugs as Nancy Reagan hoped either.

Fred Steele