Yes, the 2/3rds of the Flathead River Valley not covered by the park would be open to hunting as it has always been. Protected areas act as a source of animals to outlying areas and to the hunting public. The establishment of a National park Wilderness Reserve in the far southeastern 1/3rd of the Flathead would increase hunting opportunity outside of the park boundaries.

Much of the merchantable timber in the proposed park area has either already been logged, or is currently being harvested. The remaining 2/3rds of the Flathead River Valley not covered by the proposed park would remain open to timber harvest as currently permitted.

Yes and No…

A study conducted on grizzly bear mortality in National Parks concluded that there were unusually high mortality rates in National Parks. However, the primary cause was from impacts of highways and rail lines as well as encroachment of human settlements in bear habitat.

The proposed Flathead National Park Wilderness Reserve would have no permanent human habitation, no highways and no rail lines. It would therefore serve as a refuge and source for replenishing grizzlies in surrounding areas.

Yes, the 2/3rds of the Flathead River Valley not covered by the park would be open to fishing as currently permitted. Furthermore, the area covered by the park would also be open to fishing under the jurisdiction of Parks Canada.

Yes, the 2/3rds of the Flathead River Valley not covered by the park would be open to guide outfitting as currently permitted. There would also be additional opportunities for non motorized non hunting guiding in the new park area.

Guide outfitters that have territory in the new park area would be compensated by Parks Canada as part of a 20 year phase out period.

Yes, THE 2/3rds of the Flathead River Valley not covered by the park would be open to access as currently permitted.

Yes, the 2/3rds of the Flathead River Valley not covered by the park would be open to access as currently permitted. The area covered by the park would impact very little snowmobile use areas.

Independent economic assessments of the proposed park demonstrate that a Flathead National Park Wilderness Reserve would benefit Elk Valley communities because of the federal investments made in those communities in support of the park, including new jobs and a National Park office. Additional economic benefits would include increased visitor spending and benefits of new residents moving to the region because of it's proximity to a National Park.

Yes, the wildlife in the Flathead is currently doing fine, due largely to the national parks of Waterton and Glacier that border it and that provide a refuge for wildlife.

A Flathead National Park Wilderness Reserve would expand that sanctuary and would represent B.C.'s contribution to ensuring that wildlife continue to thrive in the Flathead.  Every generation since Waterton was created has said that B.C. should add the "missing piece" of the Flathead to make Waterton Park complete.

The National Park proposed for the Flathead would cover the southeastern 1/3rd of the Flathead River Valley. The park would be designated a Wilderness Reserve with no development outside of tent sites and trail maintenance. As such it would not remotely resemble Banf or the human development there.

The local first nations, the Ktunaxa, have supported the proposed Parks Canada feasibility study.  This is not an expression of support of the park however.

A 2008 poll of over 900 Kootenay residends found that 73 percent of residents in the Kootenays support protecting the far southeastern one third of the Flathead River Valley.

For more detailed information on the public sentiment, visit this page.

The next step is to proceed with the proposed Parks Canada Feasibility Study.  The City of Fernie, Regional District of the East Kootenay and the Ktunaxa have agreed to proceed with the feasibility study.  The Province of BC has yet to agree, and this is required before it can proceed.

What is a Feasibility Study?

A feasibility study explores the option, through studies and consultations, of creating a national park. Is a national park both practical and desirable? Can the goals of a national park be achieved in the study area? Is broad, community-based support present, especially with local residents, First Nations and stakeholder groups?

• fisheries
• water quality
• marine biodiversity and habitat
• marine transportation
• recreation
• cultural resources
• economic resources and uses
• other marine uses, and
• potential for ecologically sustainable use

The name "Flathead" comes from what the first white men called the first nations in this region.

The name is often said to derive from the flat head produced by binding infants' skulls with boards. However, this is mistaken folk etymology, as the tribes never practiced head flattening. In fact, the Salish were called "flat head" precisely because the tops of their heads were not distorted, as were those of neighboring tribespeople who practiced vertical head-binding. The sign language used by neighboring tribes to distinguish the Flatheads consisted of "pressing each side of the head" with the hands. The Flatheads call themselves Salish meaning the people.

The details on the management of the park would be established through the Parks Canada Feasibility study process in consultation with local stakeholders.  As the park would be in Canada it would be under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Federal Government through Parks Canada. 

However, the Flathead Park would likely be added to the UNESCO World Heritage Site and International Peace Park and there would be much collaboration with the National Parks Service in the US on the co-managment of the park.

Parks Canada would also likely base it's management out of the existing Waterton National Park headquarters as the Flathead is adjacent to those facilities.

The Flathead River watershed is approximatley 4,200 sq/km with 38% in Canada and 62% in The US.  On the US side about half of their watershed is included in Glacier National Park.  On the Canadian side nothing is currently protected.

The proposed park area would be approximatley 500 sq/km.  Covering 1/3rd of the Canadian Flathead River Valley.

In 1932, the United States and Canada joined together to create the world’s first International Peace Park: Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park.

The designation of a WMA does not affect any rights granted before the designation.

Any other activities that involve use of land or resources in a WMA require written permission from the Regional Manager, Environmental Steward Division, Ministry of Environment. The Regional Manager may establish orders that prohibit or restrict certain activities in a WMA which may affect wildlife or habitat.

The Minister or Cabinet may also make certain regulations respecting use or occupation of a WMA.

SOURCE: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/explore/wma/

The proposed Southern Rockies Wildlife Management Area (WMA) covers the entire Flathead River watershed in BC, the Wigwam River, West Elk Valley, and Upper White River.

The mining ban is permanent legislation that can only be reversed by a vote by all members in the BC legislature.  Which is very unlikely.

Yes, the road from Corbin to the old border site is passable.  Any regular truck or SUV will have no problems.  A smoother route is the one over Harvey Pass up Lodgepole.  This route is passable by small car.

Roads.   While logging is often pointed to as an issue in the Flathead, it is not so much the logging itself that is the problem, but the hundreds upon hundreds of new roads that it leaves crisscrossing the landscape.  Creating access issues, erosion issues, predator issues.  

In the Canadian Flathead logging companies get tax credits to build new roads.  In the US Flathead logging companies get tax credits to remove the roads.  

The Flathead is a special place, in order to stay that way it needs a special land use plan that protects it's wild values.  That's not what we have right now.