Zincton and the False Choice Blocking Rural B.C.

The debate around Zincton has drifted away from facts and toward ideology. What should be a straightforward discussion about regulatory process has been framed as a moral ultimatum: require a full environmental assessment or accept environmental recklessness.

That choice is false.

In its legal challenge, Wildsight argues the province acted unreasonably by determining that Zincton Resort does not require a formal environmental assessment. But British Columbia already has a clear regulatory pathway for small, low-impact, all-season resorts — and Zincton was deliberately designed to follow it, including staying below the bed-count threshold that automatically triggers a full assessment.

That isn’t avoidance. It’s compliance.

By dismissing the Mountain Resorts Branch review process as inadequate, Wildsight isn’t just opposing Zincton — it’s undermining the province’s own regulatory framework. Environmental assessment thresholds exist for a reason: to ensure oversight is proportional to scale and impact. Treating every project as if it were a mega-resort ignores both BC’s laws and common sense.

More importantly, this debate misses what matters most to rural communities. Doing nothing is still a decision. In historic mining regions like the area surrounding Zincton, inaction leaves legacy damage untouched and unfunded. Environmental restoration doesn’t happen without long-term investment and a viable economic engine to support it.

Zincton proposes managed improvement, not unchecked growth. It concentrates activity within a controlled footprint, commits to restoring landscapes already altered by past industry, and offers year-round economic stability for nearby communities. That model reflects modern public expectations for recreation development — quieter, lower-impact, and rooted in stewardship rather than sprawl.

Wildsight’s approach increasingly reflects “opposition by default” rather than balanced evaluation. By selectively framing facts and insisting that only one regulatory path is acceptable, it turns environmental protection into an argument for stagnation.

Rural British Columbia isn’t asking for reckless development. It’s asking for realistic, responsible ways forward — ways that allow restoration, community resilience, and recreation to coexist. Zincton was designed around exactly that balance.

Rejecting projects like this on principle doesn’t protect the environment. It simply ensures that nothing changes — and that rural communities continue to bear the cost.