A shift in values

This whole blog has been about the different ways that we value our land.  Looking at examples both locally and globally has allowed me to realize these differences.  We are currently at a fork in the road, like it or not the decisions we make now are going to have a huge impact on our future and the future of our land.  I hope that through advocacy, education and even industry we are able to pick the right road.  Although many of the examples show what we are doing wrong, I think that we at least have come to an understanding of the issues we now face.

Tourism is a great solution to many of these issues, however, it comes with its own set of problems.  Tourism may protect our lands from strip mining and forestry but it can just as easily fill it with twinned highways and vacation homes.  The way that we designate and develop land needs to be carefully planned out with long term visions and goals.  We are lucky to be in a country with so much space, so many trees, so many mountains and rivers that we often find ourselves complacent.  The thought of always having another valley will soon not be a reality.  We are reaching our peak in what we can realistically consume and we will soon have to make some very difficult changes in the way we live and our values.

The value that we place in the wild will need to change or we will no longer have it to enjoy.  Even though changes are slow, I think that the tourism industry has and will be a leader in a more sustainable future.  Shifting our values from consumerism to conservation will be our solution to a better future.

When was the last time you sat and enjoyed the sunset?  You walked in the trees and marveled at their size?  You reached the top of a mountain just to sit and enjoy the view?  You listened to the roar of a waterfall?
We get lost in our busy lives filled with iphones and laptops, take some time to get out, enjoy the wild and realize why it is worth protecting!

Where did all the trees go?

BC's economy has been built upon and constantly strengthened by tourism and the logging industry.  Unfortunately these two major contributers to the economy are often looking to the same trees to support themselves.  Loggers need trees for lumber and tourism needs trees to give people something to come see.  Noone is going to come to a park to wander through its clearcuts and heavy machinery.

One of the forests currently being threatened is home to the world's largest Douglas Fir tree.  This forest on Vancouver is currently protected by a municipal recreation area, but is also zoned for commercial logging.  Although there are no current plans to log this particular forest, situations like this exist all over the province.  Thew province has a very black and white landuse policy.  If an area is protected under a provincial or national park, then there is to be no industry.  If the area is not under protection then there is a free for all and industry can quite easily develop.

This causes the constant need for more parks and protection but the amount of red tape to get through makes this a very slow process.  Trust in companies with tenure can only hold for so long and eventually this will fail.  Tenures are held because companies hope to develop the area in the future.  They may promise no development in the short term but would have no need for these if they didn't eventually have plans to develop.

I think that this is one of our biggest stumbling block in protecting our wild lands.  Making it so easy for developers and so difficult for conservationists often makes efforts to protect an area too little and too late.  With a change in landuse policy and zoning, we could easily add protection without the need of a park designation.   Land could be set aside as wilderness reserves and get put under 10 or 20 year protected terms.  This would allow the area to remain protected in the short run and give conservationists and park planners time to evaluate whether or not a park would be beneficial both economically and ecologically.

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/World+largest+Douglas+risk+fearful+environmentalists+charge/2615217/story.html

The economic value of a National Park

After listening to a presentation on keeping the Flathead Valley wild by Casey Brennan from Wildsight, I thought it might be interesting to look at the economic value of a national park.  So much of our lives are now driven by the market economy and therefore adding this perspective to a park may be one of the best ways to convince the government of it's true value.

The Flathead is the one missing piece to the Waterton and Glacier National Parks puzzle.  The missing top left corner as it stands right now is still mainly wild but has no legal protection to keep it this way.  The Flathead is the last low elevation valley in the southern part of Canada.  It is unique because of its diversity of plants, ungulates, carnivores and even rocks.  The water quality in this value is unmatched and it is used as a benchmark for studies around the world.  Even with all these valuable qualities the current BC government is unable to see the need to protect it.

The current government has ran on a platform of "open for business" and has effectively began selling off any resource they can get their hands on.  These resources come from our forests, mountains, rivers and oceans.  The government insists on placing a price tag on every tree and will sell to the first bidder regardless the consequence.  This disregard for the environment comes with a mindset that there will always be another river in another valley.

Local residents with support from the federal and international governments are pushing to create a National Park in this region to finally protect it for the long run.  They realize that we are quickly running out of these special places and if we do not act now it will soon be to late.  Because our provincial government is so dollar driven, I think our best chance at saving this value is by giving it a price tag.

The government see's value in the lumber, the coal, the methane and the water.  What we need to do is show them the value in the view, the piece and quite, the serenity and the sanctuary that this valley provides.  If we are able to show these abstract ideas as economic drivers, we can justify the value in protecting this valley.  Studies like this have been done and with the creation of a National Park it has been estimated that there would be 1.4 million dollars contributed to the GDP.  Is this not enough to justify a park?

Round table decision making

Tourism stakeholders often have a hard time being heard above the overpowering influence of big industry.  Logging companies who sponsor political parties are listened to much more frequently then adventure tour operators looking to open a new trail.  One of the solutions to this issue is round table decision making as outlined in the article "Conflict in Natural Area Destinations: A Critique of Representation and Interest in Participatory Process".  

Although there have been and will continue to be growing pains with this process, I think that it is a step in the right direction.  Round table decision making essentially takes representatives from all influenced parties and gives them equal representation and decision making power.  This process allows each voice to be heard and eliminates monocratic decisions.  Because our government is so heavily influenced by lobby groups and industry leaders, this is a way for the smaller interests to be heard.

This style of decision making is fairly new to the park system but will be a great forum for the tourism industry to speak up.  I think that tourism is a great alternative to many other industries and can set a benchmark for ethical use of land.  If all industries come to the same table they will be able to openly share ideas and criticisms.  This will allow the region to see the true economic value and ecological impact of proposed development and make much more educated and rounded decisions.