Bigger Waterton also would benefit Montana's fish, wildlife, air and water

By Greg Lakes, editor
Headwaters News
April 17, 2002

In addition to its symbolism for a global consumer economy, the expansion of Waterton National Park would have some tangible environmental benefits on both sides of the border -- but at Canadians' expense, according to critics.

The plan, a proposal of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, would add 100,000 acres on the west side of Waterton to the North Fork of the Flathead River.

The newly incorporated area would protect habitat, water quality and fish populations in the North Fork, which flows south along the western edge of Glacier National Park in Montana and into Flathead Lake.

On the U.S. side, that would mean more secure habitat for the big carnivores that have had to be reintroduced amid so much controversy, as well as pristine habitat for cutthroat and bull trout in the Flathead headwaters.

Without protection, U.S. interests in the Canadian Flathead are beyond its control, as was made clear in the early 1980s, when a company proposed a giant open-pit coal mine that opponents said would foul the air over Glacier, ruin the views and choke the streams.

That plan died but more insidious threats haven't. The Montana side of the North Fork is home to scattered cabins and one anachronistic settlement.

But the Canadian side is becoming more attractive as a haven for mountain retreats and second homes. Energy companies have punched roads into valleys and along ridges in nearby portions of B.C. and Alberta, and at least one coal company has explored west of the Flathead River.

The timber company with the largest stake has agreed to back an expansion of the park, in exchange for improvements at a mill a little farther west.

But critics of the plan, including the provincial outfitters association, say national park status would eliminate hunting, fishing and most motorized off-road access.

Others worry that an international peace park designation would draw even more visitors, at the expense of backcountry values.

But advocates have bigger plans yet. The expansion would be part of a Southern Rocky Mountain Wildlife Management Area that they hope would cover 700,000 acres across the Wigwam, Elk and Bull river valleys.

Have an opinion? Join the discussion in this week's forum.

Or click here to view all our forums.