IE10 and below are not supported.

Contact us for any help on browser support

You need to be signed in to add your comment.

Forum on Key Aspects of Land Management in the Proposed National Park Reserve

11 months ago

This section provides an overview of key aspects related to land management within the proposed national park reserve and addresses views and questions that have been identified through past consultations.

Read the topics that interest you most or read them all.

Add your comments, participate in discussions or ask us a question.


Consultation has concluded.

  • Avalon 7 months ago
    The NPR is without question the best option fir the preservation of the lands and species at risk. Just take a look at our valley floor where agricultural and housing developments have choked out wildlife habitat and funneled wildlife in transit onto the death zones along Highway 97. Without the NPR the status quo will continue with development moving up the mountain much like in Penticton and especially Kelowna. Park opponents insist they want to preserve this area. What for? Hunting, commercial useage, and offroad vehicles. The NPR will protect the land from this demise and be the only viable option to save our species at risk from extirpation.
  • carlamary 10 months ago
    The okanagan-similkameen in one of four most endangered ecosystems in Canada. The pressures we have subjected the environment to, year after year, are polluting our water and air and are driving species into extinction at a very high rate. Something clearly needs to be done to protect at least a part of the precious natural environment. A national park would help protect invaluable resources, wildlife and spaces. Of course there will be challenges to making an adjustment but human activity is not more important that wildlife activity - we need a balance. If that means, reducing certain activities in an area to protect wild flora and fauna then so be it. Humans will need to adjust to the change. I just hope that the national park board is listening to concerns of the people it will affect most and they are taking action to help adjust people to the new park.
    • ShawnHathaway 10 months ago
      Where is the study that says water in that area is polluted? That flora and fauna are endangered in those areas. I would be willing to bet most endangered areas are in the valley bottom. How do you protect an area with almost no human traffic by bringing more development and traffic into it? That alone cause animals to change patterns of migration and behaviour based on increased traffic. More visitors into these areas caused more harm not less.
      • carlamary 10 months ago
        Hmm, that's a good point. I don't have a study in mind. I was (admittedly) making a generalization - globally, our water ways are polluted by plastic, chemicals etc. I value protecting the environment and reducing human impact very greatly. I am still learning about the national park and am participating in the forum to hear opinions of others - I've also started my own research into how the area would benefit from being protected. I hadn't thought about the amount of traffic and development the park would bring in. That's pretty harsh. I do think most of our landscape in southern Canada is at risk of being developed, it happens all the time. So at least with a park, the development would be minimal and will protect the boundaries for years to come. Do you think a national park boundary would be served elsewhere better within the the south okanagan and similkameen? This would be a great point to bring up in the public consultations that are being held. I wonder if there is way for parks Canada to preserve the land in the new national park and not encourage increased traffic?
        • ShawnHathaway 10 months ago
          Like with many things we need smarter long term planning, that takes time and much forethought, which I dont think this project has got. Yes they been at it for decades, with little research accomplished along the way as to what impact will be if this goes through. Just because something is protected to the maximum does not mean that it can't be equally harmed from that extreme to the other side of an utter lack of protections. I think a closer look at how existing protections can be expanded upon, added too, and used better are more efficient at this stage. If your starting from the ground up with something new you are dealing with far more unknowns and could be scraping practices that are already working. You are throwing some bad out with some good, all at the same time. Once you have done all you can with the existing frameworks, then you can move onto more ground up approaches if needed. Through the process of elimination you have worked out what isn't working, what needs improvement, what you don't have to use any more, and what isn't being addressed in the current frame work. I feel that we are throwing out some good practices, just because of a few that happen to be not be working or can be update with minimal effort. So it seems were buying a brand new car when we could just fix the flat tire. As for development & terrain is what keeps that area from being development over the last 100 years and would go for another 100 relatively untouched. It plain and simple just costs to much to really develop on a hillside or mountain. It is far easier to stick to valley bottoms, flat areas, and those with the least amount of work to develop. Look at Vancouver, more people, but all of it is in flat easy to access areas. You have some pockets of development in the mountains but largely undeveloped and has been for the last 100 years or more. It is expensive to run services and all the amenities that 95 % of people want. The 5% of people that do live in those areas are usually very conscious of their impact and act accordingly. They are usually very happy buying large amounts land to keep it untouched and to not have people around.I think the NPR right now is not a good fit here for our dollars. I think putting all that money towards improving existing protections will be sustainable long term and see the most improvement for the area. You know the issues, what needs improvement, and where your lacking information/research. I do agree that keeping farming out of there is a good idea purely because its not farm-able land, nature has taken care of that for us. Housing wise again its a lot of effort to get in there and start stuff like that. In the event that is remotely possible I have no issue with designating the area off limits to more housing, I would scale it back a little on the Oliver side to south of fairview/keremeos road. This is purely a line that is easy to mark as a boundary. Another option would be similar to ARL land and saying your only allowed a certain sized home for every X amount of acres that can not be developed of subdivided. Your there to build a small living area and that's it. I don't have the answer to all the issues, but I like to think I give it some serious thought and discussion. I think the answer lies some where in the middle and not at either extreme.
        • myzorna 10 months ago
          I worry that a number of people see this very small, grassland-shrub-steppe park as equivalent to the Rockies NPs and equate having a national park reserve with hordes of tourists and related facilities within the park. This is not what is being considered and while national parks are a tourist draw, much of it is only because there's a park there and the vast majority of people don't even visit the park! (Even in the Rockies parks, I've heard figures of 99% of people go no further than 1/4 km off the main highways and roads.!) NPs do bring many dollars to neighbouring businesses and municipalities, however.
      • alecat 9 months ago
        Google "Hatching success and pesticide exposures in amphibians living in agricultural habitats of the South Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, Canada (2004–2006)Christine A. Bishop Sara L. Ashpole A. Michelle Edwards Graham van Aggelen John E. Elliott"
  • jtooze 8 months ago
    Taken from an Open letter from the BCWF________________________________________________ "There are three areas in the proposed national park reserve in the jurisdiction of the Lower Similkameen, Penticton and Osoyoos bands. Other areas in or adjacent to the proposed parks reserve include thousands of hectares of land purchased by conservation organizations such as; the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC), Ducks Unlimited Canada, and The Nature Trust of British Columbia (TNTBC), often using funds provided by the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation (HCTF) and BC Conservation Foundation,among others.Many of these properties were funded and enhanced through dollars donated or provided by the BC Wildlife Federation membership, and by resident hunters and anglers through licence surcharges paid to the HCTF. Nine HCTF-funded properties were purchased by NCC and TNTBC to conserve the area’s rare grassland habitat and other associated ecosystems. The goal of the South Okanagan land purchases was to conserve and enhance sensitive ecosystems while allowing traditional uses such as; hunting, fishing and enjoying outdoor recreation in a sustainable manner.President of the BC Wildlife Federation, Harvey Andrusak, said the conservation group feelsbetrayed by this process.“Conservation property funders should be key partners in the goal to sustain at-risk-species over the entire landscape, and we are not included in this process, “said Andrusak. “A national park is not the best way to meet conservation objectives because Parks Canada has a dismal record of wildlife management, ecosystem management and biodiversity protection.”
  • jockocampbell 10 months ago
    Our planet is entering its sixth mass extinction where more than 50% of the earth's species will go extinct. The current extinction is not due to an asteroid impact or volcanism as were past extinctions - it is due to the neglect with which our species has managed the planet. This is not alarmism, it is our best science. Look it up at ( of the largest driver's of this extinction event is habitat loss and it is crucial that areas such as this are protected to give nature a fighting chance.
  • Ashnola4all 10 months ago
    Go away would be the best way to proceed. This same boondoggle has been going on for 15 years and serves no benefit to the ecosystems and seriously compromises the use of the area by the people who have protected it. Why not take land that is compromised already and repair and restore diversity rather than expanding a broken model in a functional region with extremely healthy biodiversity. Your proposal appeals to those who don't use the area and who like the idea of Parks from a vacation point of view and not the area residents and users. The area is made up of Provincial Parks and protected areas and the system works well. We don't need consultation on a Park that is not needed or wanted. Stop wasting our money and move on
    • conservation is for the future 8 months ago
      This is a great idea in addition to establishing greater protections for the region. With increasing population and outdoor recreational interests it would make sense for a protected area to be put into place. I'm all for doing this as well. Why not take land that is compromised already and repair and restore diversity rather than expanding a broken model in a functional region with extremely healthy biodiversity. Conservation and restoration need to go hand in hand. Our British Columbian government is not doing enough to set aside land for wildlife management and habitat conservation. It's being clearcut and developed into more grape orchards and housing developments as I wrote this.
  • CL 10 months ago
    Why is there not going to be a town hall meeting?
  • maroonca 10 months ago
    Access will be a critical issue: On the Okanagan side, from just north of Osoyoos all the way to the where Fairview Road begins to descend into the Similkameen, there are no- zero, nada- public avenues into the area proposed as a park that don’t hit private land almost immediately. (And, yes, there is a public road off Fairview Road down from the north at close to the height of land- but it’s 4WD, and also hits private property within a kilometer or two.) Currently the only publicly accessible 2WD road into the protected area involves driving down to Osoyoos, up to Richter Pass, and then taking the Mount Kobau access road. The only other - at least as near as I can tell- alternative is the hiking passage generously opened up by Tinhorn Winery. But even there, folks pretty much have to head straight up the mountain for 1/4Km or so before they turn North or South, or once again, they’ll be on private land. Here’s a couple of maps that help make the above clear: The first is the Regional District parcel viewer (be aware that some of the lots shown are Crown land): The second is the BC Assessment map, which makes seeing exactly what’s Crown or protected land a little easier. (There’s a link on the RDOS site, too. Add a civic address or PID from the RDOS map to bring up the BC Assessment map viewer):
    • Sledracer500250 10 months ago
      I agree that this is a huge problem and one that a park will not solve. I hate how hard it is to get onto a mountain and I often hear folks from out of town say how nice the mountains look and I always say to them try to walk up to the mountain and go for a hike. Then you see how cut off from the crown land we already are.
      • maroonca 9 months ago
        To my way of thinking a National Park may be the one alternative that does offer at least an opportunity to provide access. This is because they do have a working policy and may have the budget to actually begin buying up at least some of the private land presently blocking access. I also suspect that there will be strong local public support for them to do so. Folks miss the easy accessibility of the past. Being able to use that area again, rather than just looking at it, will be a huge benefit for locals. And after all, if this problem isn’t solved, any economic benefits of the park will- of course- mainly accrue to communities that do offer easy access.
  • Brushy Bill 10 months ago
    How can a NP better protect the natural spaces and ecosystems in the area than what BC provincial protection options would offer ? In one of the original public input surveys for the NP idea, public was asked if they felt the need to protect special ecosystems and habitat and there was a large support for the need.CPAWS has turned this into support for a NP which is just duping the public.Are there (yes there are) provincial measures that BC could implement and manage in this area, especially considering the complexity of activities and business within the proposed boundary?
    • ernewton 10 months ago
      BC parks is in name only, the government of BC provides little in terms of enforcement of habitat protections or restoration of impacted land nor does it engage in management such as prescribed burning to any significant degree. There is no question parks Canada provides a higher level of protection of ecological values while developing educational and cultural engagement with the public.
      • Brushy Bill 10 months ago
        BC has several reserves and preserves , outside BC Parks system, that are protecting valuable wildlife and habitat. The area of the proposed NPR is already fragmented and impacted, not an intact ecosystem, so provincial measures can better work with the current occupiers and users of the area.
  • ShawnHathaway 10 months ago
    How will parks Canada make sure that capital and development costs that are required for this to be a success do not get downloaded onto local residents? Many in these communities are struggling now with higher taxes for community services. Wider roads, for more policing services, more local infrastructure costs are all very real concerns for many on fixed or average household incomes for these communities.