911 delays to be expected in small towns: RCMP

Short delays in 911 response time are to be expected in rural policing situations, said Sgt. Kevin Schur of the South Okanagan detachment of the RCMP.

Last week, the Oliver Chronicle ran a front-page story about a local resident concerned about the amount of time it took for RCMP to respond to an early-morning 911 call. But the reality of the situation is, RCMP are not available instantly in a small area like Oliver.

"We do not have 24-hour policing," said Schur. When asked if 20 minutes is an unreasonable length of time to wait for a response in an emergency situation, he said it would really depend on the call.

There are several things that lead to the delay, Schur said. For one thing, in the last few months, the system has been changed. A 911 call no longer leads directly to a dispatcher. First, the caller talks to a complaint taker, who then communicates the concern to the dispatcher.

But one of the biggest realities facing residents in a rural town is the amount of staff.

"We don’t have enough members for 24-hour policing," said Schur. "We’re not even half-way."

The population of the South Okanagan supports about 12 constables. Right now, due to illness and other circumstances, there are about eight members doing the work of 12. There are two cadets who are not yet fully trained, and Oliver is trying to secure more officers, Schur said.

Regardless, the population base in the area does not support 24-hour RCMP coverage. That means, for at least part of the day, calls are being dealt with by on-call members. And if the member lives in Osoyoos, he or she must get up out of bed, get dressed, and then get to the emergency – and that takes a bit of time.

So how long is too long?

"Is 10 minutes unreasonable for a 911 call? Depends on the emergency," Schur said. But the bottom line is, 911 response can’t be instant, in a small community like Oliver. "If somebody wants that service, they have to move to a bigger centre. That’s the reality of it."

Lines on map for National Park

After a year and a half of examining the issues, Parks Canada has finally set down lines on a map to indicate possible borders for a National Park Reserve.

But they aren’t written in stone.

"We are looking for feedback. At this point any lines on the map are pretty much draft," said project manager Tom Hurd. "We are halfway through the process … we’re at the second stage, and that is to present a park concept."

Hurd can’t emphasize enough that the concept is still very much draft form. That means the lines can – and likely will – be moved.

But as it looks right now, the lines indicate the park could initially include a core area encompassing the Snowy Protected Area, south of Keremeos, and the South Okanagan Grasslands Protected Areas, including five small parcels east of Osoyoos and Oliver. These areas are currently owned by the Province, and would be transferred to Parks Canada. All together, the original core area is about 350 sq. km.

"Then, over a long term, willing buyer-willing seller basis, we would improve on the boundary," Hurd said. That means gradually, the park would get larger.

Those sections are also on the map. They include areas east and north of the Snowy area, including east and west Chopaka. The lines don’t include the Indian Reserve or valley-bottom lands that are used for farming – it only includes lands that haven’t been converted to other purposes.

The lines also expand from the South Okanagan Grasslands area to surrounding land, including crown land to a point north of Fairview Road.

In addition, the proposal allows for potential conservation partnerships with smaller scale acquisitions, perhaps in the White Lake-Vaseaux Lake area. This could range from owning smaller properties, and working closely with the neighbours to contributing resources and expertise that support the conservation efforts of others. Partnerships could include First Nations, conservation organizations, tourism groups, ranchers and municipalities.

Full implementation of the concept would require many years, and the support of landowners, First Nations, other federal departments and the Province of BC.

"Acquisition of private lands would be on a willing seller, willing buyer basis and no properties would be expropriated," states the information package given out by Hurd.

The initial core area meets many of Parks Canada’s objectives for the park. It represents a good range and proportion of ecosystems in the Interior Dry Plateau, from low elevation grasslands to alpine, as well as features that are more distinctive, like extensive areas of low elevation bunchgrass, and habitats for species-at-risk.

It is large enough to manage for some key natural processes, including vegetation succession; it’s compact and consolidated to manage for ecological health; it’s connected with other protected areas; and it includes many complete watersheds.

It also includes a variety of settings, from backcountry to near-urban, and features that provide opportunities for residents and visitors to experience nature "from the desert to the stars."

Hurd emphasizes this is just the mid-point in the process, and what they are seeking now is input.

"We’re still in the middle of a feasibility study. We’re a long way from writing that final report," he said.

The concept is being presented at a series of open houses over the next few weeks, from Keremeos through Kelowna. Then, by late 2006, a draft proposal will be formally presented. Again, that will go through a public consultation process.

Hurd said they are trying to figure out a way to meet the needs and address the concerns held by people about the park.

"The South Okanagan, relative to other parks in process, certainly has its fair share of issues that have to be worked through."

The last step, planned for late 2007, is to provide a report to the federal-provincial steering committee, with a report about how the proposal meets the conservation objectives, public use, social and economic implications, and the level of public support.

For more information, visit the website at www.pc.gc.ca/sols, or call 490-2238. Parks Canada also has an information booth set up at Oliver’s Visitor Information Centre.

Woman pleads guilty, sentenced to a year in jail after triple drug bust

A 38-year-old mother was sentenced to a year in jail Monday in Penticton provincial court after pleading guilty to two charges of trafficking in cocaine and one charge of possessing the drug for the purposes of trafficking.

Laurie A. M. Williams was arrested March 22 after an early morning raid on a home on Highway 97 south of Oliver. An undercover operation had drawn suspicion to the home and when a call was placed to the residence, Williams answered the phone and sold 2.3 grams of cocaine to the undercover officer who later appeared at her door. A second similar quantity was sold by Williams the following day to the same undercover officer.

The home was raided as part of a larger operation that included two other residences and resulted in five other arrests. Nearly 100 grams of cocaine and crack were seized in the raid as well as trafficking paraphernalia such as digital scales, small plastic bags and video surveillance equipment. Small quantities of drugs were found throughout the house which Williams shared with other people.

Federal crown counsel Jennifer Redekop called for a sentence in the range of 18 months to two years. Williams’ prior convictions included a 1999 conviction for possession of a controlled substance for the purposes of trafficking and a 2004 conviction in the U.S. for possession. The U.S. conviction resulted in a five-year sentence but she was deported to Canada rather than having to serve her sentence.

Defence counsel Jim Pennington explained that the U.S. charges resulted from her sharing a house with others in which someone was growing five marijuana plants. Pennington urged provincial court judge Gale Sinclair to consider a conditional sentence of two-years plus a day to be served in the community.

"Unfortunately she became a user," he said explaining that she has been approved for drug counselling through Desert Sun Counselling and Resource Centre and a sentence in the community would allow her to re-establish contact with her 12-year-old son.

Sinclair told the woman, who was appearing by video from a remand centre in the Lower Mainland, that trafficking was "an insidious thing that demanded a sentence that expressed deterrence and denunciation." Noting that this was her second conviction for trafficking, he imposed a one-year sentence.

Information first needed

It takes information to have a decent argument. The recently released map of the proposed national park will at least provide some clarity on what is being proposed.

Earlier mapping that showed the proposed study area produced a great deal of concern among residents because of the enormity of the area. The draft park concept released this week includes lines on a map that encompass an area considerably smaller than the original study-area. They have also clearly marked the map with the note, "This map may change based on public input."

None of this will change the minds of the Grassland Park Review Coalition who distributed a flyer through the mail this week urging citizens to attend the series of open houses to express their opposition to the park plan.

The flyer speaks of Parks Canada as a huge federal bureaucracy based in Ottawa that operates under an inflexible and insensitive Park Act. We would agree that federal bureaucracies do tend to serve their self-interest but would point out that the private operators who utilize public lands also argue their narrow self-interest. Whether it is ranchers grazing herds on crown lands, hunters and trappers taking the wild animals, miners extracting minerals or snowmobile or quad operators using the wild lands for motorized activities, they are using a publicly owned resource. They do not own these lands. Their usage is subject to review and revision and not a permanently grandfathered right.

Those in the community who have no connection with Parks Canada and are not active exploiters of the resources also have an interest in the outcome. Their need is for clear information. What is being proposed? How will losses to traditional users be mitigated? What will be the economic impact? What will be our access to the park?