What "good" is a national park?
by Bob Lincoln
Photo by Graham Osborne.
- Good for people who love back country recreation (nature lovers, horse riders, hikers faced with burgeoning land development and ever-more restricted access in the fastest growing area in Canada – frog metaphor)
- Good for ranchers (profile ranching culture, maintained career investment, real-estate market, long transition)
- Good for hunters (characterization of 'conservationists' before 'hunters' – small price for big gains)
- Good for general public (professional public opinion poll – provides what a majority of residents want)
- Good for resolution of conflicts (through consensus of a local public 'park management advisory committee')
- Good for quality-of-life of residents and visitors (natural viewscapes)
- Good for people's enjoyment (services within the park)
- Good for public education (both 'ecological knowledge' and 'cultural knowledge')
- Good for land security (national park designation more secure than provincial designations);
- Good for management expertise (access to a national pool of ecosystem expertise)
- Good for ecosystem conservation (habitats within the park managed to highest ecological standards, park area large enough to emulate natural ecosystem processes; ~ 650 km2)
- Good for species at risk (enhanced funding for management of species at risk – more effective to conserve locally adapted individuals, than to restore extirpated wildlife populations)
- Good for creation of habitat benchmarks (to which management practices elsewhere can be compared – including livestock grazing prescriptions, thus, good for ranchers)
- Good for enhanced ecosystem research capacity, and, research funding (e.g. working with schools, colleges and universities such as UBCO)
- Good for ecosystem stewardship in surrounding buffer zone (by demonstration of successful habitat management techniques developed within the park)
- Good for weed control (both within the park, and, adjacent the park)
- Good for wildlands fire control (prescribed burns benefiting certain natural ecosystems and forest insect control, as well as benefiting public safety)
- Good for Non-Government Organizations (elevated profile of conservation initiatives in surrounding 'buffer zone', thus, enhanced fund-raising potential for conservation NGOs)
- Good for world-wide recognition (conservation initiatives adjacent park core areas (e.g. LRMP, OCPs, ESAs, DPZs, conservation covenants, private land stewardship), constituting supportive 'buffer zones', qualify the SOS region for recognition as a United Nations 'World Biosphere')
- Good for large areas elsewhere in BC (securing a keystone in north-south ecological corridor crucial for central BC ecological adaptation as climate changes)
- Good for Canada (SOS national park will substantially complete Canada's national parks system)
- Good for international consolidation of conservation efforts (habitat values and security enhanced through synergy with adjacent conservation areas in Washington State)
- Good for an ecological cross-section sample of NA continent (complete final link in a chain of east-west conservation areas forming an ecological cross-section of the north west region of the North American continent – a sample of continental ecosystem gradient from dry to wet)
- Good for water conservation (protected headwaters and basins of community watersheds)
- Good for First Nations collaboration (First Nations culture and traditional ecological knowledge)
- Good for local events (enriched attendance at regional festivals and community events such as the Star Party, IronMan Triathlon, music festivals, fireworks shows, Skaha Bluff rock climbers, paragliders, etc)
- Good for attracting new businesses (relocated from elsewhere to near the park to provide quality-of-life amenities, thus attracting staff)
- Good for local businesses (synergistic consolidation of 'winery tours' with 'nature tours' such as Desert Centre, Nk'Mip Desert Centre; Fairview, Grist Mill, Meadowlark Festival, etc.)
- Good for a very large economic boost to SOS region (in first ten years: 800+ FTE jobs; $70+ million investments; $50+ million income; $120 million expenditures; $40 million tax revenues)
Contact politicians today to tell them to help make the national park a reality!