private resorts provide valuable emergency response capabilities

Vancouver-Hastings MLA Shane Simpson found his way into the news again last week, this time in a Globe and Mail Piece entitled "Environmentalists blast parks plan." (You didn't think he'd have something nice to say did you?) According to the piece Simpson objects to BC Environment Minister Barry Penner's decision to announce proposals for resort construction in 12 wilderness areas. The decision has been made during the legislatures summer break which, in Mr. Simpsons opinion does not allow for "meaningful consultation of the issue".

What do you think? Aside from the fact that the BC Resort Strategy and Action Plan has been in place and available to anyone interested since November 2004, why not take steps to increase tourist visits in our province. Will 12 new resorts result in the mass destruction of BC Parks and Forests as we know them, or will it create a new group of ambassadors to educate even more people about our parks all while providing valuable resources to aid in emergencies. The fact is that we need tourism dollars to cover increased spending in areas such as education and health care and to make up for declines amongst other sectors.

In 2004, we welcomed 22.4 million visitors to the province and they provided us with $9.5 billion in revenue. Within the tourism industry, the resort sector (in 2004) accounted for 20% of this revenue and employed some 26,000 people. Overall in 2004, tourism provided 117,500 full-time jobs while representing a mere fraction of the provinces budget compared to other industries such as forestry. The fact is that tourism has become an extremely valuable asset to our province and the wholesale destruction of "public parks" is unlikely to occur if for no other reason than the fact that its not in the interest of private resort owners to allow this.

In this same article, Policy Director for the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, Gwen Barlee raises her concern that resort development will require the clearing of substantial amounts of land to control the risk of forest fire. While there may be a grain of truth to this statement (some trees will likely have to be cut down), I don't think that she or Shane Simpson are considering the importance that private resort owners and their staff have (and will have) in regards to emergency response in remote areas. Private resort owners, for a variety of reasons such as insurance and liability requirements will staff trained people to respond to the multitude of emergencies that occur everyday in the BC wilderness. Events such as lost hikers, avalanches, medical emergencies and, as the North Shore witnessed this past Sunday, forest fires caused by natural acts like lightning (to name a few) may be dealt with much more quickly through the partnerships that will be developed between resorts and public emergency services.

BC is a wonderful province with much to offer its residents and our guests. "Environmentalists" like Shane Simpson need to understand the importance that private resorts and other tourism operators have in preserving our wilderness and parks rather than discounting them immediately as enemies of the environment bent on the destruction of public park space.