Flathead: Next National Park?
Pristine valley 'vital' for grizzlies, ripe for development. Last of two parts.
The Flathead River Valley. Photo Sabine Jesson.
The section of the Rocky Mountains that straddles the Canada-U.S. border has long been recognized as a region of outstanding biological diversity, often referred to as the Crown of the Continent ecosystem. But few British Columbians realize that their province owns a share of this treasure in the form of the little-known Flathead Valley.
In recognition of the Crown of the Continent's natural beauty and abundant wildlife, Waterton Lakes National Park was established in Alberta's southern Rockies in 1895. Fifteen years later, the Americans created Glacier National Park next door in northern Montana. In 1932, the two parks were honoured as the world's first international peace park.
In 1995, UNESCO designated Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park a World Heritage Site. But it noted that the adjoining section of British Columbia's Flathead Valley was "a missing element," and recommended that the site boundaries eventually be expanded to include it.
This was not a new idea. Waterton's first superintendent, John George "Kootenai" Brown, wrote in 1911: "It seems advisable to greatly enlarge this park . . . it might be well to have a preserve and breeding grounds in conjunction with the United States Glacier Park." Others also espoused this idea throughout the following decades, all without success.
In 1980, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society took up the cause and began pushing for establishment of a large provincial park in the Flathead's southeast corner. "Fifteen years later, we got Akamina-Kishinena Provincial Park," recalls Bob Peart, one of the original campaigners, "but it was woefully inadequate." At 109 square kilometres, he says, it was too small, lacked important valley-bottom habitat, and, like many B.C. parks, remained open to hunting.
'Peace Park Plus'
Undeterred, conservationists set their sights on a new goal: a national park. As proposed by CPAWS, the 405-square-kilometre park would incorporate Akamina-Kishinena Provincial Park and extend from the U.S. border to Haig Brook, about 25 kilometres to the north, and from the Flathead River's west side to the Alberta border. According to a 2001 Wildlife Conservation Society report, this area, which represents approximately one third of B.C.'s share of the watershed, is "especially vital for carnivores."
Dubbed "Peace Park Plus," this new proposal quickly gained momentum. First, forestry company Tembec Inc. offered to relinquish its logging rights within the projected park area in exchange for financial assistance to upgrade its mill at nearby Elko. Then in 2002, Jean Chrétien, as prime minister, announced federal interest in the park idea.
Since that time, however, the plan has been in limbo. Tembec's original offer is no longer on the table, as the company has already completed the mill upgrade, and lack of cooperation from the B.C. government has prevented Parks Canada from moving forward.
"The province isn't interested in a feasibility study for a national park and that's kind of the beginning and the end of it," says Doug Harvey, Parks Canada's chief for new park proposals. On the other hand, there is support for a feasibility study from the Regional District of East Kootenay, the City of Fernie, and the Ktunaxa Nation, whose traditional territory includes the Flathead Valley.
'We don't need any more parks'
One outspoken critic of the proposal is Mike Sosnowski, a Fernie-based backcountry snowmobile-tour operator who was elected as a regional district director in 2005. "People in the area are opposed to the Flathead area becoming a park because of the restrictive nature of national parks," Sosnowski says. "If it's a national park there can't be any more logging, there can't be any mining, there can't be any oil and gas, any hunting, any fishing, any random camping. . . . We don't need any more parks."
Even if the provincial government was to give its blessing for a feasibility study, it could still take a decade for the park-establishment process to unfold. No matter, Peart says; he isn't about to give up now. "I've been working on this issue for more than 20 years," he says. "I'm still as keen as ever."
Meanwhile, for provincial biologist Bruce McLellan the debate about establishing a national park in B.C.'s corner of the Crown of the Continent ecosystem obscures a more critical issue. After nearly three decades of studying the Flathead Valley's grizzlies he believes that the one thing that would most undermine the bears' prosperity here is development.
Settlers coming?
"The biggest threat in the long term is that someone decides we should settle the valley and put in homes and ranches and all that," McLellan says. "People are not good with attractants and bears get lured into people's yards by compost or beehives or fruit trees or garbage." When wild bears become "problem bears," they are relocated or shot. "That's why there are relatively few bears in all these settled valleys," he says. And why the B.C. portion of the Flathead, which has no resident humans, supports the highest documented density of grizzlies in inland North America.
While other conservation groups concentrate on watershed-wide initiatives in the Flathead, the Nature Conservancy of Canada has focused its attention on the valley's privately owned real estate. In 2002, the group purchased a small riverside property along the international border where a hunting guide-outfitter and his family had lived.
"It's the only piece of private property down in that part of the Flathead Valley and when we purchased the property it was unzoned, so it was quite ripe for some type of development," says Dave Hillary, the conservancy's Canadian Rocky Mountains program manager. Under the conservancy's stewardship, the land -- just under one square kilometre -- will remain in its natural state.
Timber company eyes development
Another area of interest is a 9.9-square-kilometre block of private land that straddles the Flathead River near the valley's north end. Commonly known as the Flathead townsite, the property, now owned by Tembec, was surveyed in the 1920s in anticipation of an oil boom; but the oil wells were never drilled and the town never built. Now, with recreational property sales booming around Fernie, there is renewed interest in the site's settlement possibilities.
In October 2006, Tembec included the property in a portfolio of company lands being offered for sale. These properties, explains Dennis Rounsville, Tembec's president of forest products, "potentially have value beyond just growing trees."
In its information package for prospective buyers, Tembec acknowledges its 2004 agreement with the Nature Conservancy to place a 10-year moratorium on subdivision or residential development of the townsite. It also notes that: "The agreement does not restrict other uses within the zoning such as backcountry lodges or guest ranches."
Whether the yet-unsold townsite property will be the wedge that opens the Flathead Valley to settlement -- with the attendant risks McLellan predicts for grizzlies and other wildlife -- remains to be seen.
Related Tyee stories:
- Threat to Bear Heaven
In BC's Flathead Valley, zero people makes paradise for other predators. Not for long? Part one of two. - Who Are Great Canadians?
Five people who prove our nation's potential, including a Flathead Valley activist. - Clash over Coalbed Methane
Northern towns rebuff push by government. Special report.



Right to Bear
03-01-2008
Money vs. Ecological integrity...
Nothing surprises me here: Money, once again, attempts to trump environmental integrity, and usually does.
I do hope Bruce McLellan efforts will shake out to be a good thing for the animals, but, I can not help but mention that in my experience with this hunter, government biologist, he has a history of promoting initiatives that many have said, are NOT ecologically based. Recently, he is one of the voices behind the large predator cull, with an emphasis on wolves, happening today in B.C. The cull is done supposedly on behalf of the Mountain caribou due to a decline in their numbers, but everyone knows that it is industry not wolves that is behind the depressed numbers of the caribou in both B.C. and Alberta.
My thought are that is this case, it is the hunters who do not want the industry, but they also do not want the wolves...
Peace,
Bear
Moat
03-01-2008
Mike Sosnowski?
I hope that this fellow's quote was in fair context as I am going to comment on it. I am at a loss trying to figure out why Mr. Sosnowski cannot find backcountry that has already undergone some resource extraction for his snowmobile operation to travel on, then I suggest his operation is not sustainable.
Mind you, he holds an "elected" position, so he could argue that he is representative of the population.
Still,I always get saddened when I hear people say that we "Don't need anymore parks".
Best wishes for those who are trying to save the condition of the land for future generations.
Right to Bear
03-01-2008
Traditional Management and Parks...
Mr. Sosnowski said (if the quote is accurate)
Really?? What if I suggested Mr. S. that the forests and all the animals will still be there only if we have parks... When I say parks, I do not mean Banff National Park type where all the animals are being wiped out by planes, trains and automobiles (o.k. not planes), but a well protected park with an habitat that has not been fragmented or tampered with. A place where we and our children can still walk in the woods and enjoy the glory of the natural world of which we so desperately need.
Yes we need parks today but too we need to incorporate traditional management of lands by the First Peoples. The way lands have been managed recently, has proven that the mainstream do not respond respectfully to the concept of sustainability when it comes to living and being a part of the natural world. It is clear that mainstream becomes parasitic in their approach and continues to be so.
Traditional managements of lands by the first peoples has a very promising, and sustainable future, and parks too at this time are necessary ...
Cheers,
Bear
Umslopogaas
05-01-2008
Keep it a secret.
Please do not turn the Flathead into a park. Park designation would attract more in a convoy! Nice friendly people from Alberta out for a trip in the mountains. They all stopped, surprised to see two people that actually still knew how to walk perhaps. After telling us how much they admired people like us working in the wilderness, they all mounted their machines and "blubber on rubber" style headed off down another remote trail, raising dust, ripping up the mud puddles and discarding plastic water bottles in their wake.
Now a park might prevent that sort of thing but it would also attract more development.(Gotta be able to park all those fifth wheelers.)
Do we need even more real estate agents trying to squeeze more of those oil bucks out of even more Albertans?
So here is my proposal:
Restrict access to the Flathead.
Only allow local residents, people who actually live in the area year round, to go there for any purpose whatsoever, be that fishing, hunting, cutting firewood.
Snowmobiling is out unless you are a local. (Take the snowmobiling tourists along the hydro line, they wouldn't know the difference anyway.)
Make it a death penalty for a real estate agent to enter the Flathead.
Just my two cents worth.
I enjoyed many years in Fernie and I was sad to see how it has been ruined by greed. I hope to enjoy some time in the Flathead before the Calgary crowd ruins it too.
Umslopogaas
05-01-2008
kepp it a secret continued
tourists and that would be another disaster for South East B.C. On the other hand, stop some of the things that go in the Flathead before it is destroyed.
Tourists(Albertans from Calgary mainly)have already ruined Fernie and the Elk Valley. House prices have soared out of reach. Half the homes in Fernie are now owned by absentee Calgarians and any other homes that come onto the market are snapped up by over-wealthy Albertans. Real estate developers have insinuated themselves into the Fernie Council and the town is for sale. Tasteless bill boards, featuring pictures of real estate agents adorn the highways and block the view of the mountains. Every copy of the local paper has more of the same on the front page. The whole thing is sickening.
The Elk Valley locals can no longer afford to raise a family there, or expect their children to be able to stay on and live in the community.
To paraphrase Yogi Berra, Fernie has become so popular that hardly anyone would want to go there anymore.
If the Flathead is given park stature it would be more of the same. Imagine wall-to-wall SUVs, hundreds of Albertans thrashing the trout stream to a froth, dozens of drift boats on the Flathead River unloading litter by the ton, big fifth wheel trailers in every camp site(roughing it.) And let's not forget the 4wd drive monster trucks driving like maniacs and trying to pass everyone in sight - no matter what the road conditions or speed limits are.
Last summer I was working in the Flathead and was surprised to hear what sounded like the noise from a busy highway. In a few minutes I was surprised to see not one or two quads, but 27 quads
Moat
06-01-2008
So, it is a matter of what type of park....
Well, I am not really sure if I totally agree with you on this one. It depends what type of park you create.
Restricting access only for locals puts more pressure for the land to be developed. I have often found through my travels that there are a lot of locals that never set foot in their "backyard." These people push for development to get the bush into productivity. Someone's gotta be making a buck off the land, eh?
I think your main beef is vehicle access. Limit road development, and you sure can clean up and area. That is why I am always puzzled by the deactivation of some forest service roads. Give the yahoos an outlet into areas that are already being used for resource extraction.
Is it really that grim for Fernie? I have not been there for a few years. I kind of liked the old town with the fancy ski hill combination. Is it starting to sprawl? I thought there was hope for this town for compact development. Victim of its own success I suppose. I wonder which south east BC ski-resort town will be the first to go broke after a major expansion.
Sounds like the grizzly is in some real trouble here. Unless the grizzlies get jobs, start contributing more to the local economy, and stop leeching off the land...