Re defining consultation – Parks Canada

The following updates have been added to the web consultation page of the proposed national park reserve in the South Okanagan Similkameen

1. Map – Working boundary of proposed national
park reserve updated with clarification on private lands.

2. Map – Regional context updated with clarification on private lands.

3. A PDF copy of the consultation paper added.

4. A Writable PDF copy of survey added.

5. An Infographic – Update on Key Issues: Visitation, Law Enforcement and Property Values added.

6. Map – Proposed national park reserve boundary overlap with Agriculture Land Reserve added.

7. Map – Proposed national park reserve boundary overlap with provincial Wildlife Management Regions added.

8. An Inset Map of Fairview- Cawston Private Land Parcels added.

9. An Inset Map of Spotted Lake Private Land Parcels added.

10. A kml file of the proposed working national park boundary available for download.

11. A geomark link of the proposed working national park boundary for download.

*NOTE* – there have been problems with the website recognizing some postal codes. This issue has been fixed, so please try the site again if you were previously having issues.

More information on the proposed national park reserve can be found:

Thank you, and please share or distribute this e-mail to others that may also be interested in periodic updates on the proposed national park reserve in the South Okanagan-Similkameen.

Sarah Boyle, M.Sc., P. Biol
Project Manager

Photos and map supplied by Parks Canada

This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Re defining consultation – Parks Canada

  1. Ed Machial says:

    I was informed today that all the NO National Park Signs placed along the highway have be removed and not by the folks that put them up! Seems like someone has their panties in a bunch. Maybe because the signs had a web address on them to a site that is based more on fact, than the propaganda the YES side is spiting out! It’s hard to do you homework when you are steered the wrong direction by those pushing for the park. And make no mistake regardless of what the NPR and YES people are telling us, the NP or NPR has NOT been established and will not be, even in it’s earliest forms, until at least August of 2019! Please, DO NOT confuse the need to protect nature with the need for a National Park!

    Publisher: Agree totally with last line in comment. Yes the Park is coming and yes it is not here yet and it may take even longer than you state. BUT my point to the NO side has and will continue to be – participate in the process and try to steer those in favour to a position of NOT imposing on the locals with a stated purpose of protecting land and nature not attracting a mass of tourists that will cost us dearly in the end – with very few winners.

  2. Julie Kraft says:

    A bit off topic, reminds me of Centennial park, Who listened??, And then we get told ” Hotel full” why, because the Osoyoos flooding caused ” relocating” was a good start, but what now, Jack can we get some stats, as well we can express our concerns, the desicion was made long ago, ODCEDS was still around for those 2 issues, and nothing changed our squacking, so just find someone to help and lay your head on the pillow Tonite and feel like you made a difference

    Publisher: Not sure where you going with this Julie? I was elected again as a councillor in 2005 – the people of this area had talked about a wine village and a hotel. The recession hit and all plans were off the table and ODCEDS died a painful death. Every council from that time forward:
    2005, 2008, 2011, 2014 and beyond favoured a hotel with centennial park as the chosen site by ALL the elected people, elected over and over by the public.
    As to collecting data on the room rentals or the number of photographs Paul Eby processes – that is not my business. What is the news in it for all?

    As for the people squacking or the ducks talking not sure about that either. The National Park is a likely fact – we must shape it to our ideas – the days of No and Yes are over.

    • Michael R Guthrie says:

      Jack, I just don’t agree the pertinence of the statement:

      “Every council from that time forward:
      2005, 2008, 2011, 2014 and beyond favoured a hotel with centennial park as the chosen site by ALL the elected people, elected over and over by the public.”

      Of the hundreds of people I spoke to this last summer, only six exceptions, agreed that the location of the hotel was inappropriate. Everyone agreed that the hotel was needed, just not there. The elected people were in agreement, but the people of this community were clearly not. That should be obvious by the election results; not that that was the only decision/issue that the population disagreed with. Those elected folks, yourself included, were listening only to those ‘prominent’ people. Should have been speaking with and listening to those who weren’t showing up in council chambers; few of us do. Once again, I digress:

      “If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. -Speech at Clinton, Illinois, September 8, 1854.”
      ― Abraham Lincoln

      Publisher: In my opinion as a writer, citizen of long standing and the longest serving municipally elected official in the RDOS – I disagree.
      The election result was positive for three sitting members who supported the hotel location decision – and two lost -each for reasons that only they can assess. Those reasons different in my opinion in each case.

      The hotel location is the best site – because there is no real alternative. Suggest one that was available for the developer. Please do not use the “prominent” word – I have represented Larry Lunchbucket all my life. I have never hung out with people above my station and to be honest most people who live in Oliver came to a small town in the middle of a green ag belt for a reason… to get away from “prominent” people.

      I suggest you are wrong Michael and many will agree with me.

    • Michael R Guthrie says:

      I was not referring to you with respect to the ‘prominent’ comment. You know who first used that disparaging term. As for the rest of it, we agree to disagree.

      Publisher: You seem to have lots of opinions and suggestions. As I have done many times in the past with others – I challenge you to take a seat at council and help make the big decisions. Your choices lately have been – should I walk the dog or shovel the sidewalk. OR can’t you run for public office in Canada? Might be an answer that the “prominent” people would like to hear more about.

      Happy New Year.

      BTW is crime up or down in Oliver? – the RCMP are no longer releasing such information – you might want to inquire as why there is a change in policy.

    • Julie Kraft says:

      My suggestion to put expenditures to public referendum would most likely fall on deaf ears, as nowadays elected folks feel the ballot gave them the go ahead to do as they see fit, and face the consequences at the ballot box next time around, (as we see south of the border today) but would we not be better served and restore good will towards each other if we truly could get a pulse of what is desired, and go with those wishes, as it seems that lobbyists and special interest groups find ears that at times don’t represent the residents of the effected area.
      Publisher: edited for legal reasons
      Once again Julie not sure of your intent. What expense did you want to go to a referendum?

  3. rocky lundy says:

    I agree 100 % with Bill Eggert’s comments and I also stressed these facts in each area we were able to actually voice some input. Sort of an exercise in pick your best selection of the worst scenarios . But, yes, I agree with Anna Machail that we must respond in as constructive a method as we can so that local issues are addressed.

  4. Anna Machial says:

    I completed the survey by listing 8. Other, as my top priority. In the comment space I listed my concerns as an orchardist. My son has done the same. I want various organizations in Oliver to be involved in the consultation process. i.e. everyone from the fruit and grape growers, to the Heritage Society, to local hiking groups, Search and Rescue etc. I’m worried that just yelling ‘no’ will leave important issues unaddressed. I see nothing wrong with expressing your opinion ‘yes’ or ‘no’ but both sides really need to get involved to minimize any negative impact a park may have on our lives.

    Publisher: Anna – bang on!! – let’s consult and talk to the other side. It is time to reshape the map and the message. Only through participating can a change be made.

    • Carolyn Tipler says:

      Well said Anna and Jack – use the opportunity to voice your opinions and concerns in a mature manner.

  5. Debbie Lee says:

    It’s a pile of crap
    No matter what we say its already been agreed upon between two parties. We have no say !!!!
    Our sole has been sold to the devil!!!
    What we all have and are able to enjoy is already protected. What the heck is this stupid change for? Money? Votes? ….A. holes……
    Shame on those trying to fix something that already works and has done so for decades.
    Shame on you!!!

  6. Dorothy A Taylor says:

    Areas to be protected already are!!!
    Wake up Federal Government!!!.
    Do you not have better things to do with our money!!!??
    NO means No to a National park in this area period.

  7. Bill Eggert says:

    Well seeing it is the holiday season I thought I’d sit down and do the survey. I didn’t finish it because there was a multiple answer question on what the most important factors I see from a park. All the answers were “values and opportunities” There was no where in the question to say I didn’t see any advantage. Not only that, but it would not let me finish the survey without answering the question. What comes from this is a list of said values and advantages that you are forced to rate from 1 to 8 that Ms. Boyle can hold up at meetings and say “look how everyone sees the advantages”. It is an old trick and totally unacceptable, but not at all surprising.

    This is no way for a government that is supposed to represent me to do a survey. Totally bogus.

    • David Sabyan says:

      I totally agree with Bill Eggert on this.
      From day one, this was a “proposal” and “feasibility study”. I recall the 100 plus local folks who turned out at the first public event appropriately 10 years ago at the Oliver Legion hall to voice there disagreement with the proposal. This is not about a yes verses no side because that decision was made years ago pretending there was consultation. What a disgusting way to call this in the “best interest of the public”, I hope someone reading this at the federal level feels ashamed. What a way to take so much away from the local people.

  8. Dan Smith says:

    How many more “revisions” to the plan can we expect prior to the end of consultation? Will there be significant alterations to the plan after the majority of the public have submitted their input? How does one provide input on a matter that is subject to change?

    • Dave drought says:

      Quite likely there will be ‘revisions” & ‘alterations’ for some time to come. This process will take at least a decade to bring the NPR to fruition. It’s not like someone is going to draw lines on a map and say “There you go.” So keep inputting your ideas and opinions, or not. But to quibble about things that are ten years away is prematurely paranoid. Parks Canada has a lot of work to do to get this right. Heck, 10% of today’s readers may have passed on by then!

    • Publisher says:


      Maybe 20 percent Dave – Is that not what the advocates for a park want – less opposition? Is Parks Canada not saying a reserve, a park is a fait accompli. Now it is our (Parks Canada)
      job to answer every question and state there is no room for opposition.

      To be honest I have told everyone I know this is your one chance to shape the park. To yell no will be fruitless. Or to quote the borg-group-mind – “resistance is futile.

    • Carolyn C Tipler says:

      “Revisions” ? I read “Updates”. Is providing the general public with more information a negative thing???

    • dave drought says:

      “Revisions, Updates”. With the goal of increased readership, actual information ‘is’ a negative thing. Ever checked out Fox News? Rarely do comments indicate resources. Rampant. But it seems, profitable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *