Park editorial doesn’t help in understanding park debate

I am writing to respond to your editorial “Park Debate is Not Over,” (May 29).

To the Editor:

I am writing to respond to your editorial “Park Debate is Not Over,” (May 29).

This type of article is not helpful to the national park discussion.  Many of us never saw the article you are talking about.  Why not print it, or at least summarize it, so we can form an informed and unbiased opinion about the article and your response?

You say that the article was written by “special interest groups” as if that is bad.  Groups like our regional governments and First Nations are not special interest groups.  They were elected to represent all of our citizens.

You say that people are going to be negatively impacted by the national park.  Why not identify who these people are so that we can judge the accuracy of your statement?

You say that Parks Canada has had budget cuts so cannot afford this national park.  When the provincial government gets budget cuts does that mean that they cannot govern B.C?

You say that there is “protection being continuously added to the park area that is presently occurring.” What new protection are you talking about?  There has been no new protection since 2001.

You say that you don’t want to see the area further developed.  Then you should want to see the land fully protected, and not available for further development. More than half of the land in the proposed park area can be sold to developers today.

About a year ago, I walked around to talk to my neighbours who are organic farmers, nearly all of them signed a petition saying that they interested in seeing how a national park could enhance their businesses while protecting land from further degradation.

Your editorial is not helpful to our understanding of the benefits or dangers of a national park, which is an important issue to our communities.  A thoughtful editorial based on accurate facts would help us all to be better informed.

Tim Birmingham, Cawston