Course:IGS585/OK2020WT2/GuestSarahBoyle

Sara Boyle - Parks Canada

To add your reflection, log in using your CWL and select edit. Starting below any other material on the page, add your name using the heading style. It will appear as your name with a horizontal line. Below this, add your reflection. Your reflection should be no more than 500 words.

If you are commenting on another reflection, select edit and insert your comment after the original reflection. Use the 'Sub-heading 2' style to add your name above your comments.

	Reflection Authors and Commenters
Author	Ian Chambers	Ayla de Grandpre	Adam Kunis	Joshua Ayer	Luis Cadavid	Janna Wale
Commenter	Janna Wale	Joshua Ayer	Luis Cadavid	Adam Kunis	Ian Chambers	Ayla de Grandpre

Below is an example of how a reflection and a comment should be organized. You can copy the content inside the box and paste it to get the formatting right.

Ayla De Grandpre Sarah Boyle’s presentation was really useful to me in that it reinforced many of the ideologies and processes related to parks that I just read in a book Dr. Senese gave me over Christmas break called “Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: Planning and management” by Dearden & Rollins. Some of the newer information that I learned in this presentation, however, came at the end when I asked Sarah about the impact of the proposed National Park on the community of Keremeos. While I was familiar with the issues and complaints regarding the fear of turning into a tourist destination like Banff, the loss of access to lands, especially for cattle grazing and recreational uses such as ATVing, I was surprised by some of the benefits that Sarah shared with us. In particular, I had not considered the socio-economic impact of the creation of new jobs. These jobs could not only provide some “higher quality” job opportunities in the community, but also potentially attract younger job seekers, which Keremeos nneds. I feel very excited about the prospect of a National Park in Keremeos, although I am cognoscente that I am an outsider, who does not really understand the values and ways of life of the people who live there, and therefore, should not pass judgment on whether this would be the best option for the community. The discussion about the perspectives of those opposed to the National Park reminded me of something I read a while ago from Dr. mark Elbroch about “Fortress Ecology”. In simple terms, the idea of fortress ecology was brought about after people in other countries (India especially) were advocating for integrated ecology and denouncing the idea of Parks as boundaries between the human and natural worlds. They argued that more parks were actually undermining conservation and the idea that humans are a part of natural systems, given that parks creating a physical and mental divide between the two. I have drawn a few parallels between this attitude and that of the anti-park residents of Keremeos. What I have taken from this is the conclusion that they might feel as though they are losing sovereignty in that their ability to access and interact with that land is being restricted. I see this connection highlighted in particular for cattle ranchers, who rely on their connection to the land and the natural capital it provides for their livelihoods. A National Park is thus a threat to their way of life, their connection to the land and their livelihoods. I thought that Sarah Boyle’s presentation was much needed, and I would really like to follow up with her with a few more questions regarding the attitudes of the local people towards the proposed park. I am also interested in reading some of the documents that Sarah pointed us to – such as the “what we heard report”, to explore these attitudes. I think that one of the most valuable things that I took from Sarah’s presentation was the illustration of how what we do with the physical environment, the landscape at large, is highly entangled and dependent upon our social and cultural values and worldviews. This emphasises an idea I have heard many times in my discipline of geography, but not integrated well, that physical place is and can be a reflection of the human world. Joshua Ayer I also found the socio-economic benefits that Sarah Boyle described (predominantly the new employment opportunities) intriguing and exciting.  Though, similar to you, my awareness of our status as outsiders makes me a little cautious about it as well. I worry that even though the benefits seem obvious, it is really important that the community is genuinely ‘on-board.’  However, you also raise an good point about the complexity and nuance around parks and protected lands.  I am not familiar with Fortress Ecology, but I have been reading some recent thinkers who problematize the division between human societies and nature that a National Park may inherently reinforce.  What those spaces can have an effect of doing is separating human culture and society from nature, as nature is something ‘over there’ which can discourage the more holistic lens that sustainability and resiliency perhaps require.  Of course, another of the consequences of this division can be the perception that land that is not protected is less important. I, personally, am still ‘team park’ in this conversation, but I really appreciated that you brought some nuance to the town’s resistance, even if they are not explicitly arguing for ‘integrated ecology’ they might nevertheless be touching on a similar vein of thought that would caution the epistemology of a park.

Janna Wale Reflecting on Sara Boyle’s presentation, the part that surprised me the most was the emphasis and stress placed on the relationship between Parks Canada and the Indigenous nations they are working with. Particularly, on the consultation and the right to continue traditional subsistence strategies. As a former Parks Canada employee (2017), this is largely different from the level of engagement with Indigenous people that was considered standard practice. Unfortunately, there was not very much support given to employees around training and engagement with Indigenous people, and I largely had to rely on my own skills and background. Listening to Sara’s presentation has given me hope that perhaps changes are being made in how we are approaching these highly contentious issues, and perhaps that we are making some headway in more respectful Indigenous relations 6 years after the publication of the Truth and Reconciliation Report of Canada (rather than 2 that had passed during my own employment with them). Similarly, I was very interested to hear and reflect on the information she shared with us about how Indigenous hunting access and subsistence strategies are to be maintained. As well, the mention of Non-Indigenous hunters that are worried about lack of access to these areas. While this is a very debated issue, I was happy to hear that Parks Canada is not shying away from these difficult but important conversations, and that they are seemingly committed to finding solutions that will not impede traditional hunting rights under Section 33. Continuing to reflect on our discussion, the idea of creating a national park in Keremeos is an interesting one. While I am not from the community and therefore do not have any substantial weight behind my opinions, I feel that this could potentially create both tourism opportunities as well as job prospects for the region. In effect, this could help lower the age demographic by attracting younger park rangers, who may be able to live there full-time rather than just seasonally (given the climate of Keremeos). A question that I did not get to ask Sara was the difference between a “National Park” and a “National Park Reserve”, and how this could affect outcomes for community members (both Indigenous and non-Indigenous) should the project move forward. Overall, I enjoyed listening to Sara’s perspective, and enjoyed reminiscing about my time working for Parks. I would also be interested to learn a little bit more about how Parks Canada differs in jurisdiction from BC Parks, and how this could impact the outcomes in Keremeos. Ayla De Grandpre Janna, Like you, I was also surprised regarding the level of emphasis that Sarah and her team have placed on engagement with Indigenous peoples for planning the park. I am curious to know how meaningful this engagement was - whether the bands felt as though their contributions were sufficiently headed, or whether significant concerns have been left unchecked. I was also surprised to hear that traditional hunting rights and land access were going to be preserved. I think this sets a great precedent for parks elsewhere in the country. Your comment also made me curious to know if there was any significant opposition from band members, given the less-than-ideal history of Indigenous land dispossessions in the name of Parks in North America. How do you think that your community would react if parks were to propose a national park on your nation's land?

Ian Chambers I really enjoyed Megan’s presentation and getting a behind the scenes look at establishing a national park in Canada. As a zoologist I’ve always held Parks Canada in very high regards as we are often taught that the best way to conserve species and ecosystems is through protecting lands such as national parks. I had never really considered the amount of work and time that goes into developing a national park though, and I often only think of national parks in terms of nature and not the impact that they could have on local communities. Hearing Megan’s presentation was therefore very interesting to me, and I found it shocking that it takes an average of about 35 years to establish a national park. This makes me wonder how Canada will ever reach its target of having 30% of oceans and lands protected by 2030. I also did not know that Canada has been divided into 39 “Natural Regions” and that Parks Canada aims to have a representative National Park in each region. I’d be curious to know more about how these regions were divided and designated, as I’d assume Canada being such a large country would have many more diverse and unique natural areas. I’d also be curious to hear of any other national parks that are currently being negotiated to see if there are similarities with the proposed South Okanagan-Similkameen National Park Reserve. I also found it very interesting to hear Megan address many of the concerns we have discussed regarding the residents of Keremeos opposition to the proposed South Okanagan Similkameen National Park Reserve. I’d be curious to see how Parks Canada negotiates these concerns with residents. One of the biggest opposition objections was related to cattle ranching and grazing lands, which Megan confirmed would be allowed to continue. However, in our previous research I remember finding an article where one rancher stated that he doesn’t “want to ranch on a piece of land where people aren’t happy to see [him]”. I wonder if there are other national parks that allow ranching and if similar concerns were raised during the establishment and negotiation process. Another major concern was local’s losing access to the land they have enjoyed recreational activities on for many years, such as off roading and hunting. Megan stated that residents would lose the ability to hunt and use off road vehicles in the national park but would not have to pay to access the land. If the locals can’t enjoy their same recreational activities though, this doesn’t seem like much of a compensation. I wonder if there are more effective ways to address this concern. Finally, Megan addressed the concern of increased tourism where she stated they projected four to seven thousand visitors a year, most of which are already in the area. She additionally said that the shoulder season would likely see the largest increase in tourism, which I suspect would help increase the local economy. I wonder what resident responses would be if provided this information. Janna Wale Ian, I agree that I had never really considered the logistical implications of trying to develop a National Park - 35 years is a very long time and you could have a very different landscape where the park is planned to be at the beginning to when the park is actually in place and is recognized. The idea of having "Natural Regions" is new for me as well, and I wonder how widely adopted this term is and if it is something really only used as government jargon. I agree that there are many complexities in the establishment of the park, and am also interested in the conflict resolution process that they must go through. It makes me wonder who decides what aspects will be changed, and whether or not these will be implemented gradually (over the 35 years) or all at once. I would also wonder at the amount of turnover a community might see - how would they go about educating/consulting with people who are either transitioning in or out of the community? Like you, overall I found Megan's presentation very interesting and very informative.

Joshua Ayer

Ayla already mentioned this during the presentation, but the possibility of a National Park generating employment for the lower Similkameen area is interesting; it was something I hadn’t thought of or factored into the advantages of having a National Park.   Linking this back to Dr. Lovegrove’s and Cory’s presentations, I wonder if this is something that matters to the Keremeos community, if it is an element that they think is important, or redundant?  It is also interesting to think about what other secondary effects this could have on the town if a National Park is successfully established.  It could, perhaps, go some way in bringing back a mode of transit if there is a higher demand of people wanting to get into and out of the park.  Sarah mentioned that wildfire response and action teams would also need to be established in the area, so another opportunity for jobs, particularly jobs aged at a younger demographic.  What other services could be erected if a National Park is established?  Ultimately, the sense I got from Sarah’s presentation was that having a National Park begins to create these stronger linkages between Keremeos (an otherwise rather remote political entity) to the greater economic whole of the Province/Nation through a tourism industry. The benefits, of course, extend further than new businesses to potentially strengthening the local pre-existing businesses to with greater inflow of tourists. The expanding of the local economy and the stronger linkages back up to the whole economy bring with them the sustainability and resiliency challenges that I have been reflecting on overall these past few weeks: mainly balancing growth with sustainability, but I can’t help but feel like some of these risks are offset by the innate focus of the National Park in preserving the landscapes.  Additionally, in consulting multiple stakeholders, the Park potentially lends itself to strengthening that community sustainability. 

With mention of community sustainability though comes the caveat that the Keremeos community seems precisely the nodal point of most resistance.  Even if the citizens concerns can be dispelled by more information from Park’s Canada, what sort of impact would this have on the local culture?  Especially if the local culture is inherently antagonistic to government agencies?  That’s considering if the culture is partly defined by that antagonism, to say nothing of the possibility that other cultural elements, including the 4x4’ing in the area, would be negatively impacted by the Park. What binds the community together and makes them resilient, or gives them a sense of unity? If this is inherently at odds with the establishment of a National Park then will its establishment ultimately have a positive or negative impact on the community’s identity?

Adam Kunis

Josh, what I am curious about is where the funding for all these new jobs would come from. While I assume that the federal government would assist in bringing jobs, I'm curious if the workers' paid responsibilities would overlap between the municipal region and the park. Would Keremeos have to pay the federal government if they needed their services? Another thing a lot of these communities fear is the prioritization of infrastructure for tourists over locals. Travis talks extensively about this in his book New Geographies of the American West. Additionally, it is often very difficult for locals to adapt and provide for the wants (and needs) of tourists. This can lead to the appearance of foreign chains, economic leakages, and enclavisation.

I think you key in on an important concept about doing what it is best for the community. This dispute may rattle surrounding areas as it begins to question the powers of the government. Can the government come in and impose a park (even if it is the best pathway) to a community that is apprehensive?

Adam Kunis While I greatly enjoy national parks, I had never given much thought towards their purpose beyond my personal enjoyment. Sara Boyle’s presentation shed light on the purpose of the Parks and Reservation System within the Canadian context. I had never heard of the Pathway to Target 1 initiative which Sara elaborated on as a means to achieve Canada’s biodiversity and conservation goals. By conserving a representative example of each of Canada’s 39 natural regions, I see great potential benefit. This would allow researchers to study the ecology of each region and could be a powerful educational tool for climate change. For many people locked in the city, it is hard for them to comprehend their impact on natural regions they’ve never seen; to shift perspectives on climate change, experiential learning is one of the more effective methods in eliciting an attitudinal shift. If these areas are preserved, it leaves the opportunity for experiential learning. While I do belthe ieve protection of these aiss are important, I am curaboutus of the management strategies that would accompany these regions. I was surprised that Sara greatly focused on the proposal and development elements of park planning instead of management. It would be hard for me to support a park without knowing how the protected area would be managed. I’m curious if Canada has had an event/conflict similar to Pinchot vs Muir on the Hetch Hetchy that defines and delineates the rules and responsibilities of the park service. While not covered directly in the presentation, Sara did answer management questions about active land tenures, Keremeos anticipations, and expectations of the government. While I was happy to see that Indigenous land use can continue as a right and that non-indigenous land use could continue as a privilege, I found this statement very vague. What defines “Indigenous land use” and who defines it? When I followed up regarding how active land tenures would be affected, her response made it appear as if each tenure would be handled oo a case-by-case sbasis I would be afraid as a farmer, rancher, etc. that there would be no standard and a lack of consistency in who’s tenures would be allowed to continue under the park system. This adds clarity for me as to why the non-amenity migrant locals may be in opposition to the park. I believe Sara may be correct in assuming that the Keremeos local population envisions a future scenario similar to Banff. While I agree with the benefits she listed regarding economic employment and the environment, she failed to mention the expectations that would be imposed on the community. Gateway communities and communities in national parks often have to pay higher taxes and operate under regulations (construction, zoning, even home improvement) that are approved by the parks system. While I doubt Keremeos is worried about exponential population growth, a park does place borders on the community which could limit long-run growth and expansion, especially in a valley. Name of Contributing Author