Dear Editor:

 

For the past 11 years, Greg Norton and the Grasslands Coalition have worked to block the national park proposal.

 

I find his recent comments in your paper to be shocking. It appears that he has not even read the national park feasibility study that reports on the eight year study in which Norton and members of the Grasslands Coalition were fully engaged. He says that he has never seen, in writing, the fact that cattle grazing would be allowed in the national park. As spokesperson for the Grasslands Coalition, he should know that this is covered three times in the report.

 

And Norton just needs to read your article to see – in writing – statements by Parks Canada confirming that cattle grazing will continue within the national park. How many times does this need to be repeated?

 

No one is asking him to unquestioningly trust Parks Canada. Important decisions like this are not finalized verbally.

 

The provincial and federal governments will sign an inter-government agreement, the National Park Establishment Agreement, where decisions, including decisions about ranching, can be enshrined. And ranchers will continue to have legal agreements to protect them, just as they do today.

 

He also says that a national park will “exclude everyone but a small segment of the population.” As many people are aware, this statement is untrue – people from all walks of life visit and enjoy our national parks. Additionally, a new Nature Interpretation Centre, financial assistance for historic sites, and many other community facilities and benefits can be negotiated in the next stage of the process – all of which will enrich our lives. Norton has every right to participate in the debate about the establishment of a national park reserve in the South Okanagan Similkameen, but he also has a responsibility to be accurate in his statements.

 

Gwen Barlee,

Policy Director

Wilderness Committee