Editor:
Re: MD of Bighorn Land Exchange Proposal
The Dec. 19, 2013 edition of the Outlook carried an article titled: G8 Legacy manager urges MD to return to table (pg. 30). It was in response to the fuss the council for the MD of Bighorn had raised when the Alberta Government declined to accept its land exchange proposal as presented (Bighorn angry with lack of progress on land exchange” Rocky Mountain Outlook, Dec. 12, p. 11.)
I find it surprising and disturbing that whenever this particular issue is discussed in the media there never is any suggestion that the council for the MD of Bighorn should accept responsibility for ecologically valuable land within its jurisdiction and manage it accordingly. Have we forgotten that the MD was a full participant in the Bow Corridor Ecosystem Advisory Group, the organization that produced Wildlife Corridor and Habitat Patch Guidelines (1998) for the Bow Valley?
I realize these guidelines have no statutory teeth, but presumably most people in the valley expect all participating jurisdictions to respect their spirit and intent. Instead, the MD council appears all too willing to hold this particular ecologically valuable piece of land as a hostage. “Give us what we want or we’ll see to it that these 34 hectares of wildlife habitat are trashed by development.”
Have we also forgotten that the MD hosted and chaired the Bow Valley Special Places Local Committee, a multi-sectoral group that produced concensus recommendations looking to the near and distant future. One of those recommendations called for “... the redesignation of all of Yamnuska Natural Area to become part of Bow Valley Wildland Park” noting this “was supported by neighbouring jurisdictions, stakeholders and the public …” Apparently, one of those neighbouring jurisdictions is having second thoughts as the Yamnuska portion of the wildland park is the one targeted by the MD for an industrial park.
The recommendations also included statements that “limits to growth are necessary” and there is “a recognized need to plan for the long term.” It seems we are bumping face-first into those limits and wrestling with a failure in long-term planning.
At the end of the article a rather sweeping generalization was quoted, suggesting “the conservation community is on board, albeit reluctantly” with the arrangement proposed by the MD and that because of the value of the MD land in question ”we could all hold our noses and accept thinking about the bigger picture.”
It must be clarified though, that not all conservationists are ready at this moment to endorse the land exchange proposed by the MD or to criticize the provincial government for standing its ground with respect to the integrity of the wildland park.
I, for one, welcome the province’s position. However, this in no way implies an inability to appreciate the value of the MD land in question. For now, it simply represents a deep reluctance to admit that we are in such dire shape in this valley we must trade off one good area for another even if the areas are valuable in different ways.
When I think of all the currently disturbed land in our valley, I am not convinced it is impossible to find a suitable location for an industrial park, perhaps at a site that might be remediated to some extent by such a development. I am not prepared to assume that all options have been fully explored.
Do we really want to shape a future for coming generations by holding our noses? And when will that stop?
I join others in urging the MD to return to the table to seek a workable solution that does not involve destroying a vitally important area of wildlife habitat or encroaching into a wildland park.
Mike McIvor,
Banff
