The BCWF would like to acknowlege the on-going support of the BC Government.
= BCWF Archive = Read Past Press Releases
Article Abstract
It is rumoured that Hillary Clinton may wish to add her name to the list of proponents for a National Park in the Flathead Valley of South Eastern BC. It is a concern of BC residents that many voices from the US have jumped on this "bandwagon" without doing their homework or taking into consideration the real needs, local wishes, or the economic consequences to British Columbians.
BCWF Press Releases
BC Wildlife Federation Says NO to Proposed Flathead National Park and Asks What
February 6, 2009
Vancouver. It is rumoured that Hillary Clinton may wish to add her name to the list of proponents for a National Park in the Flathead Valley of South Eastern BC. It is a concern of BC residents that many voices from the US have jumped on this "bandwagon" without doing their homework or taking into consideration the real needs, local wishes, or the economic consequences to British Columbians.
The BC Wildlife Federation strongly opposes the initiative to create a National Park in the Flathead Valley. We believe it to be completely unnecessary and will only detract from the use, enjoyment and economic benefits of this region to the British Columbian economy. Upon analysis the BCWF feels that the current land use plan, the Southern Rocky Mountains Management Plan (SRMMP) adequately addresses the concerns brought forward by the proponents of this park proposal. The SRMMP is a powerful land management tool that will ensure the Flathead Valley eco-systems will remain intact for future generations of British Columbians who will be able to recreate and work there. A panel of experts and local stakeholders meets regularly to advise and guide government on the implementation of the Southern Rocky Mountains Management Plan. A considerable amount of local effort is being exerted to ensure the Flathead Valley stays pristine, that wildlife and wilderness values are protected, and that industrial activity is sustainable and does not negatively impact these values.
The economic impacts of the proposed park to the forest industry in South Eastern BC would be devastating, resulting in a huge loss of jobs. The proposed park area represents a very significant part of the sustainable timber supply of the southern East Kootenay region.
Of note is that wise sustainable use has been conducted in the Flathead for more than 40 years. It is recognized over and over as the "Serengeti of the North", in spite of this. The mining and forestry industries have provided measurable benefits to wildlife habitats that are truly noticeable. Almost 30 years of research and monitoring has proven that it has the highest density and highest reproduction rate of inland Grizzly Bears in North America, even though they are a hunted population and live in an area that has seen significant timber harvesting.
Forest management in the Flathead is done under the FSC BC forest management standard-the highest standard of forest management in the world. The proposed park area has been designated by Tembec and their conservation partners as a "High Conservation Value Forest" with special management strategies to protect its identified values.
Additionally, over the years there have been several mining proposals including coal-bed methane extraction proposed for the Flathead Valley. Government regulations regarding coal-bed methane extraction in BC are the strictest in the world and have resulted in these proposals being withdrawn. No mining activity discussed to date has proven to be economically viable.
Forestry and mining by wise sustainable use have not been a threat to this date. If these activities ever do become a threat there is a method of due process to ensure conservation needs are fully met with an opportunity to amend the Kootenay Boundary Land Use Plan or southern Rocky Mountains Management plan if ever needed.
The Flathead is a special place, there is no disputing that fact, but is a park really the best way to protect the values that almost all of us hold dear?
Backgrounder to the Flathead Debate:
From a speech to the BC Legislative Assembly delivered by Bill Bennett, MLA East Kootenay, March, 2008
MANAGING THE FLATHEAD
The eastern half of my Riding, next to Alberta, consists of two
river valleys: the Elk River drainage and the Flathead River drainage.
The Elk River drainage starts high in the mountains to the
north that separate Kananaskis in Alberta from our Elk Lakes Provincial
Park. The valley is still high elevation at Elkford but decreases in
elevation as it meanders south to Sparwood and then swings west through
Fernie.
Legendary trout rivers such as the Wigwam and the Fording feed
into the Elk, which flows into the mighty Kootenay before it arrives at
the Libby, Montana dam that creates Lake Koocanusa.
The Elk Valley has supported both logging and coal mining for
over a century and today thousands of British Columbia families depend
on mining and forestry from the Elk Valley.
The Elk River drainage is prima facie evidence that a major
industrial activity can co-exist with a clean and vibrant natural
environment. Ask the thousands of people from around the world where the
best cutthroat trout fishing is and they'll tell you the Elk, the
Fording and the Wigwam rivers.
Ask any hunter in the Elk Valley and they will tell you about
huge populations of grizzly, elk, deer and sheep on the reclaimed mine
properties.
The Flathead River drainage is south of the Elk River drainage
and forms the western boundary of Glacier National Park, which our US
neighbours refer to as the crown jewel of the US national park system.
This is an iconic river for the folks in Montana and we in BC
must respect that fact.
However, Montana politicians must also respect that the
Canadian Flathead is BC's jurisdiction and that within Canada's
acknowledged international obligation to steward waterways upstream from
the US, we will manage the Canadian Flathead in accordance with
responsible British Columbia standards and policies.
It does not advance Canadian-US relations or the debate, for
Montana politicians to consistently make disrespectful public comments
about British Columbia laws, regulations and processes.
An important distinction between the two valleys is the absence
of permanent human habitation in the Flathead.
Another distinction: the Flathead, unlike the Elk Valley,
contains only one major industrial activity - forestry...
...although like the Elk Valley, there is also mining
exploration, guide-outfitting, trapping, hunting, angling, camping and
recreation.
For the past 50 years, logging has been the primary resource
extraction activity in the Flathead.
The Flathead actually saw BC's first pine beetle epidemic in
the 1970's. The wise stewards of the day had a large portion of the
Flathead Valley clear-cut to stop the epidemic in its tracks.
A few of my constituents and many Americans would like to see
logging, hunting, guide-outfitting, trapping and motorized recreation
removed forever from the Flathead by the creation of a federal park.
If logging was stopped in the Flathead, the major employer in
the region, Tembec, would probably go out of business and for certain
their Elko mill would shut down, throwing hundreds of East Kootenay
families out of work.
But the majority of my constituents support the current
activities in the Flathead and they do not wish to end logging, hunting,
guide-outfitting, trapping and motorized recreation.
It is a logical inconsistency that the proponents of a federal
park argue we must stop doing what we have been doing for the past 50
years so that we can preserve the result of the past 50 year's
management.
Placing a federal park over the Flathead Valley would prevent
local people from enjoying this beautiful area the way they have for
generations and would kill the jobs generated from the Flathead.
Certainly species like moose, elk, white-tail and mule deer and
black bear all profit from the habitat created by logging. This of
course is not true of all species, but overall the Canadian Flathead has
flourished under the current management model.
Some people suggest that a federal park would be a great
economic driver for the area.
But how can they argue there are too many people in the
Flathead and then argue a federal park should be created so it will
attract thousands of tourists who will crawl all over the Flathead.
And as for the huge economic park spin-off, ask people in
Golden who are 10 minutes away from Yoho and they will tell you the
benefits are very minimal.
And there's one more thing - although I support the tourism
industry, not all rural British Columbians aspire to work in the service
sector. They prefer logging, mining and construction and thank goodness
for the rest of us they do, because BC's wealth is still coming from the
ground, despite our post-modern penchant to pretend otherwise.
Over the past five years, with the world price of coal rising
and natural gas reserves dwindling, the Flathead has seen a renewed
interest in exploration for both commodities.
It is believed there are trillions of cubic feet of clean, pure
natural gas trapped in Flathead coal seams. And of course there is coal
aplenty in the Flathead.
Unfortunately, the debate about managing the Flathead isn't
about management models. It is more like a school yard fracas where
name-calling is the order of the day.
The proponents of a federal park trot out the absolute worst
horror stories they can find about cbg in the US, often from 20 years
ago when the industry was unregulated.
Our friends in Montana reverse the Sam Slick stereotype that
some Canadians love to use against Americans and try to paint British
Columbians as Neanderthals eager to mine the heck out of every square
inch. Both stereotypes are simple-minded.
And of course the provincial Opposition is only too happy to
hop aboard that bandwagon of simple-mindedness, thereby further reducing
the chances of any meaningful dialogue between the different points of
view.
Last year, a local environmentalist in Fernie, after saying the
Province had no environmental conscience, claimed on CBC radio that he
could sit "on top of one of these great Rocky Mountain peaks in the
Flathead and not see anywhere where the humans are, where the humans
have done whatever humans do... "
Only if he sat there with his eyes closed, could he actually
say this with a straight face. There is evidence of humans in most parts
of the Flathead. But that is the nature of the Flathead debate.
Today, the Flathead, with all that activity over the decades
has the highest concentrations of grizzlies in inland N.A. and a
diversity of life that is all the more remarkable because of how far
south in Canada it is located.
Which brings me to the crux of the matter: what management
model will work best to ensure that future generations have the same
opportunity to hike, hunt, fish, trap, guide and recreate in the
beautiful Flathead Valley and see the same vibrant diversity of flora
and fauna that exists there today?
CONCLUSION
Today, the Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan guides activities in
our region and after the 2001 election, we kept our promise to my
constituents and completed an exhaustive public land use planning
process to create the SRMMP.
A committee of local people with diverse perspectives now meet
regularly to advise government on how the SRMMP should be implemented.
Since the Plan was created in, 2003, government has added AMA's
under the Wildlife Act and in, 2004, we put staking reserves on the Cabin
and Sage Creeks area of the Flathead.
Our approach is in contrast to the attempt in early 2001 by the
former government to make a secret deal with the local environmentalist
group to restrict local people, without going through the difficult but
essential public consultation process.
Apparently they felt it was just simpler to bypass listening to
the people who have used the Flathead for business and pleasure the past
50 years.
The SRMMP currently allows mining and oil and gas exploration
in the Flathead, as did the KBLUP created under the New Democrats.
* The question is: can the Flathead retain its ecological
integrity and diversity, with coal mining and/or cbg development added
to what activities already happen there.
In my opinion as the local MLA, the majority of my constituents
do not support coal mining in the Flathead Valley and I support my
constituents in that view.
The Elk Valley, including the north piece of the Dominion Coal
Block, have enough coal to sustain our SE coal industry for a hundred
years. Limit the coal mining to the Elk Valley.
There is one proposed coal mining project in the Flathead, that
after more than two years of talking about building a mine, is still in
pre-assessment at the EAO.
Opponents want government to simply make a political decision.
Scrap due process, to heck with the proponent's rights and to heck with
the reputation of BC to investors from around the world.
But we do have a vehicle we can use to advise government on how
the management of the Flathead should change and that's the SRMMP
advisory committee.
There are legal implications to saying no to mining in the
Flathead because there are other claims and exploration in the Valley in
addition to the one proposed project but it is not an impossible task.
The SRMMP advisory committee should have this difficult
discussion and to decide if they want to recommend to government that
the SRMMP be changed to remove mining from acceptable uses in the
Flathead.
As for cbg exploration and development, I recently asked our
government to not include the Flathead in the cbg tenure being
advertised.
BP, if it obtains the tenure in the Elk Valley, will have the
opportunity to prove to the public how well it operates before it
applies to explore in the Flathead.
Over the next few years, my constituents will have an
opportunity to assess cbg exploration and to inform the SRMMP advisory
committee whether cbg exploration and development in the
Flathead will be acceptable, or not.
Government policies on managing the Flathead must be informed
by the people who know the area intimately and policies must be based on
science and the best interests of British Columbians.
No one disputes the value of what we have in the Canadian side
of the Flathead and the absolute moral imperative to ensure what we have
today is there for future generations.