The following letter was sent in response the article “Program Launched To Accelerate Conservation of Areas Around Canada’s National Parks” in the November 7th issue (#18/23) of this newspaper.
Some used to scoff at the “old timers” who were concerned that there were upper government plans to turn most of the upper peninsula into “parkland”. In fact, fear of “an ever-expanding park” was the number one issue during the process to determine if residents/ratepayers would support the establishment of Bruce Peninsula National Park in the 80s. After much discussion, and a referendum in the former Lindsay Township (which voted 63% “no” to inclusion in the park) the following Condition #9 of the Park Establishment Agreement reads “That the boundaries of any national park be within the limits of the national park study area in St. Edmunds Township”. A map was attached, and one of my first successful motions as a councillor after amalgamation in 2000, was that we simply refer to the “area formally known as the Township of St. Edmunds”; and the agreement remained unchanged.
Seems iron clad, right?
The first issue was that entire 100 acre parcels were purchased, when only partial sections were within the study area. I have yet to see proof that the areas outside boundaries were sold back to the public, as was indicated at the time. Then, as we all know, large parcels outside the study area were purchased by conservation groups in consultation with Parks Canada.
Now, all pretence is gone…
Parks Canada is providing funding to the Nature Conservancy of Canada to assist them in buying up to 30,000 hectares near National Parks… and yes, we are listed as one of them.
Some may say “is that really bad?” Aside from the fact that this is a direct slap in the face to all those involved, community and agency, in good faith to come up with an agreement to legally establish the community’s conditional support; here are just some of the consequences, in my opinion:
-Large tracts of eventually only mature forest is not desirable.
-The so-called wildlife corridors could mean broader forest fire concerns.
-Local landowners have done a pretty good job of looking after property because they cut out the deadfall, reducing fire risk, and know much of our wildlife need new growth for food. They know beaver can destroy literally miles of other species habitat if not controlled.
-Our next generations have little to no chance of owning any parcels of land.
-A community does need some expansion to survive… who can live on 6 months of tourism?
-The municipality does not collect a dime on these conservation lands as they are tax exempt. We have already seen, while we do receive a small tax in lieu from PC lands, it hardly touches our costs…even just emergency and fire management costs are rising rapidly.
This decision was made at the upper most level.
Once again, the old timers had a lot right.
Laurie (Smokey) Golden
Councillor
Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula
