I am writing to comment on the July 27 article on the UNESCO report calling for greater protection of the Flathead. In following the debate about the future status of the area, I have become concerned about the misleading and hyperbolic language which is often used to describe this part of the province, and the inconsistent logic which is put forward to advocate for changes to its status.

The UNESCO report describes the Flathead as "remote, uninhabited and pristine". The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines pristine as 'not spoiled, corrupted or polluted by civilization'. Unfortunately this description is not in keeping with reality. I have had the opportunity to visit the Flathead drainage many times over the past 7 years conducting species at risk research for Tembec and the Ministry of the Environment, and breeding bird surveys for Bird Studies Canada. I have been able to access the Flathead because of an extensive series of logging and mining roads that date back decades. The lower part of the valley bottom has been extensively logged over the years, and logging in the upper part of the watershed is currently taking place. In the valley there is a functional airstrip, former oil wells and a number of guide outfitter cabins. Sixty years ago there was a sizable community along the river, and up until a few decades ago there was an active border crossing staffed on both the American and Canadian sides. This is not to say that the area is not beautiful, but it is hardly pristine, and I would go further to suggest it is no more beautiful or stunning than many other areas of East Kootenay.

Although I am a naturalist and consider myself an environmentalist, I am confused by the logic used by some of the environmental groups in arguing why the area needs further protection. It is true that the area has important wildlife values, that it home to significant populations of a number of endangered and threatened species and that expanding a wildlife corridor for large mammals has strong scientific merit. It is also true, however, that the wildlife situation in the valley, which is often described as unique or exceptional, exists despite the development that has taken place over the years , and despite the continued use of the area by guide outfitters and other recreationalists. I salute the decision by the BC government to ban further mining and mining exploration in the watershed, and would like to see an end to logging in the area as well, but I am not yet convinced by arguments that the area needs the same protection status as Waterton or Glacier Parks.

It is a curious form of double speak to on the one hand condemn development of the area and demand greater protection, while at the same time stating that a benefit of establishing a national park would be to "increase entrepreneurial activity, bring new capital investments, create ongoing spending by Parks Canada and increase visitation", as is suggested by comments in the report of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. If the area's wilderness values are to be preserved it is not going to be by encouraging more of these activities. The fact that the area is relatively difficult to access and sees few visitors is no doubt one of the reasons that it has retained its wilderness values despite the development.

The Flathead drainage is important and must be managed to ensure that the wilderness values are preserved and enhanced. Unfortunately, the discussion to date on the Flathead's future has been has been tainted by rhetoric, hyperbole and questionable logic which do not help to generate meaningful discussion of the issue. Whether it is MLA Bill Bennett calling groups who support a park 'eco-fascists' or environmental groups presenting a deliberately slanted description of the area, the debate as to what is truly the best solution for this area is not well served.

Dean Nicholson

Cranbrook