Should there be a Flathead Park Feasibility Study?

This topic has 9 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by gadzuk.

Viewing 9 reply threads

Author

Posts
- October 15, 2009 at 6:30 pm #9808
  
  mikes
  Participant
  
  East Kootenay Residents Land Use Coalition says no to park, B.C. Wildlife Foundation says no to park, Provincial government says no to park.. What do you think>?
- October 17, 2009 at 3:55 pm #17623
  
  slacklocal
  Participant
  
  it seems to me that the reasonable way forward on this long standing issue is to move forward with the parks canada feasibility study. Then a discussion can take place instead of this stupid YES NO fight that has no way of ever resolving itself.
  
  The Regional District of the East Kootenay, The City of Fernie and the Ktunaxa have all agreed to move forward with the feasibility study. They were clear that this was not supporting the creation of the park when they supported the feasibility study. They were just being reasonable and saying that, hey, we should have a discussion about this. Unlike the Keast Kootenay Residents Land Use Coalition, BC Wildlife Hunting Federation and Bill Bennett who are being very childish and saying "no, we don’t even want to take about it"
- October 17, 2009 at 4:49 pm #17624
  
  mikes
  Participant
  
  Bill Bennett has never said "no we don’t want to talk about it." At the All canidates Forum in Fernie. Bill Bennett even said that if 51% of residents wanted the park, then he’d support the park. He told Wildsight and the NDP to hold a referendum about the Flathead park. Guess what… They didn’t respond.. What it happening though is that Wildsight has endless amounts of foreign money to spend on media and advertisment. How are we suppose to compete with Wildsight getting our message around the world. We don’t have a multi-million dollar budget to work with like Wildsight. Maybe if we sold fear we would.
- October 17, 2009 at 4:53 pm #17625
  
  slacklocal
  Participant
  
  well, i will flip that right back at you mikes. I’m sure wildsight has asked bill to "talk about it" and move forward with the parks canada feasibility study. And he hasn’t responded… or I think he did at one of the candidates forums. he said no, i don’t support a feasibility study. therefore not even wanting to talk about it. Why? he must be scared. if bill wants to hold a referendum, why doesn’t he hold a referendum? is he scared of the result?
  
  anyhow, it wouldn’t make sense to hold a referendum on the park without first doing a feasibility study. maybe a park isn’t feasible… we won’t know until we do the study.
- October 17, 2009 at 5:36 pm #17626
  
  mikes
  Participant
  
  You confusing two ideas. Theres not wanting to talk about managing the Flathead. And then theres not wanting to talk about a Feasibility Study. Bill had always wanted to talk about managing the Flathead, and has had a part in managing the Flathead, the way he feels his constituents want it to be managed. Provincially, and not handing the keys over to Ontario. If the majority of people wanted to go ahead with the Feasibility Study, don’t you think NDP’s Troy Sebatian would of won the election? Or at least gave him a run for his money?
- October 17, 2009 at 5:44 pm #17627
  
  slacklocal
  Participant
  
  I hope that people based their vote on something more than just the flathead issue. I know I voted for the Liberals on their record on the economy and supporting business.
- October 17, 2009 at 5:55 pm #17628
  
  mikes
  Participant
  
  Good Point… for me the Flathead Issue was about 25% or more of my considuration of the canidates. I voted Liberal oviously.
- October 18, 2009 at 12:35 am #17629
  
  mikes
  Participant
  
  National Park Feasibility Study‚Äîthe first step towards creation of a new National Park or expansion of an existing park.
  
  or so the sierraclub thinks…
  
  http://www.sierraclub.bc.ca/flathead-ri … -that-work
- October 18, 2009 at 4:50 pm #17630
  
  emjay
  Participant
  
  i say no to flathead park and mines!!! both ideas are rediculous. dont waste the money.
- October 31, 2009 at 12:02 am #17631
  
  gadzuk
  Participant
  
  Parks Canada is an expansionist organization of bureacrats who believe in parks; it’s what they do. Asking them to conduct a park feasibility study will lead to a predictable finding, like painting something red and wondering what color it might be.
  
  As others have said above I want neither a park with yellow gates and no-entry signs, nor mining or CBM. I like it as it is, as it has been.
  
  The residents of the Elk Valley care deeply about this place and we can be trusted to keep caring. Our actions in protecting this spectactular place speak louder than the placcard waving activists funded by foreign foundations.
  
  In May of 2009 the residents of the East Kootenay had the opportunity to choose an MLA. The park question was pretty clear, I’m pretty sure Troy Sebastian got the message.
  
  The stupid YES NO fight is over. Insanity is doing the same thing in the same way and expecting a different outcome.
  _____________________
  No Flathead Park
  http://www.ekaccess.ca
Author

Posts