TIABC Voice of Tourism Newsletter – April 26, 2024

Years ago my uncle joined several of his Keremeos neighbours to erect homemade signs that said, “No National Park”. Travelling through the Similkameen Valley last month, I observed that many of the signs are still there. On the surface it seems odd that locals would be against a national reserve since parks are generally a good thing, especially to maintain the ecological integrity of wildlife habitat and plant species.

However, there is always another perspective (i.e. two sides to the story) worth considering. I’m told the signs originally went up because many residents feared the loss of freedom to enjoy the backcountry, not to mention a new layer of costs for services like parking and permits if government establishes and oversees a park. Even ranchers expressed concern about access to valuable grassland, never mind being able to renew grazing tenures within park boundaries.

For more than 25 years, Parks Canada and the Syilx/Okanagan Nation have been determined to establish a park reserve in the South Okanagan-Similkameen but it was only two years ago that plans progressed to the next stage.

I was reminded about the park scheme recently after learning of a similar proposal that involves the establishment of a national marine conservation area reserve (NMCAR) on the Central Coast. Guided by a steering committee that includes Parks Canada, DFO, the province, feds, and six first nations, an assessment is underway to determine the feasibility of establishing a NMCAR to cover an area of approximately 7800 square kilometres for the purpose of rebuilding fish populations and eco-systems, creating greater resilience to climate change, and providing long-term economic stability for coastal communities.

To be sure, the rationale appears sound, especially given that national marine conservation areas work to achieve conservation while allowing ecologically sustainable activities such as First Nation traditional use, scientific research, commercial and recreational fishing, as well as tourism, to occur.

Yet, in spite of the apparent advantages, some tourism operators remain skeptical about the consultation process, decision-making authority, and other factors including permitted activities within the proposed boundary. In a meeting that CCCTA’s Amy Thacker and I attended last week with Parks Canada, several professional colleagues expressed similar sentiments to the national park issue in the South Okanagan regarding licensing, permits, jurisdiction, control, compensation, impact, and the notion of tourism being treated the same as recreation when it comes to usage should the NMCAR on the Central Coast come to fruition.

This week TIABC’s Policy Committee debated its position on the proposed NMCAR and the subsequent advocacy work we need to do on behalf of the Central Coast marine tourism sector to mitigate potential harm to operators.

In our view, establishing new parks and conservation areas are welcome for myriad reasons but not before extensive consultation with all stakeholders, including the tourism sector, so that potential impacts are taken into account and solutions identified to benefit all parties.

If anything, the ‘No National Park’ signs in Keremeos and Cawston prolonged the inevitable but at least local concerns were heard and somewhat addressed. As I continue to travel throughout BC, I’m curious why so many “No Pipeline” signs still dot the countryside considering the $31+ billion project is essentially complete. My guess is that while the signs failed to stop the pipeline, they remain in place to compel folks to consider both sides of this critical issue.

Walt Judas,

CEO, TIABC