Zincton Resort’s fate may rest on an upcoming court decision, and founder David Harley says the consequences could be dire.
A week after Wildsight filed a petition seeking to compel a full environmental assessment for the backcountry ski project, Harley told Powder Canada that a loss in court would end the project.
Harley has already put millions into the plan, even as nearby New Denver — the community he calls home — struggles with economic decline, an exodus of families and drug culture.
His comments, reported by Powder Canada, underscored long-standing divisions in the Selkirk Mountains, where the balance between conservation, recreation and the survival of rural towns has shaped debate for years.
Wildsight argues the province made a mistake when it determined that Zincton did not require a full environmental review. The government found the project’s scale — fewer than 1,700 beds, under the 2,000-bed threshold set in legislation — allowed the Mountain Resorts Branch to oversee the process without triggering a formal EA.
The group wants the B.C. Supreme Court to reverse that conclusion.
Harley maintains the proposal complies with legislation and says a mandatory EA would financially sink a project intentionally designed to be smaller, privately funded and centred on community needs. He notes most development would occur on private land, incorporate cleanup of historic mining damage and help stabilize the year-round economy of New Denver and adjacent towns.
Wildlife concerns, he added, have been misrepresented.
“There is also a ton of quantifiable evidence that grizzlies and bears, with dedicated wildlife corridors and flexible seasonal closures, prosper. Populations grow and bear populations remain healthy—like Banff, Lake Louise, Whistler, Jackson Hole, Fernie, Yellowstone,” he said.
“So Wildsight appears to be ignoring raptors and fisheries, but exaggerating risks to grizzlies and bears, in the face of ample evidence. It is suspect — better fundraising opportunities but…”
He said Zincton intends to prioritize waterway restoration in the master plan stage while incorporating corridor planning and seasonal restrictions recommended by experts.
“Wildsight seeks to stop Zincton, but not the skiers who already populate the area,” he said. “If successful, they will ensure the grizzlies keep drinking contaminated water, the raptors and fisheries are poisoned, in order to replenish their piggy bank.”
Harley said the resort is built around a different philosophy for mountain development.
“Zincton believes the ski business needs to ‘scale down,’” he said. “Less skiers, less density, better snow but way less impact. No more Whistlers.”
Critics say avoiding a full EA raises suspicions about Zincton’s intentions. Harley disputes that, arguing the entire proposal was crafted to match provincial criteria for low-impact projects.
“Declining to spend millions on a redundant process isn’t avoidance — it’s common sense,” he said.
He added that environmental repair is the foundation of the project.
“We believe our initiative to address contaminated waterways first is imperative,” he said. “There is a ton of evidence that lead poisoning from historical mining contamination is the number one source of lead poisoning — mostly raptors — all eagles, hawks, plus swans, and all fisheries.”
Harley also described Zincton as part of a broader survival strategy for rural towns.
“We believe we are the future, where small communities can support a ski area as part of a survival plan in rural B.C., attract families with employment and ensure health and educational services are sustainable."
He said he could “write the cheque for an EA tomorrow,” but doing so would set a precedent that would “doom” small, low-impact resorts by imposing requirements designed for large, high-density developments.
“Zincton wants to demonstrate the future,” he said. “That’s why Wildsight opposes Zincton — it’s an environmental solution. Down-scaling is affordable, has minimal impact and better skiing.”
Across rural British Columbia, expectations for new development increasingly focus on repairing damaged landscapes, reducing ecological footprints, respecting Indigenous values and providing stable, year-round work. Supporters argue Zincton fits those priorities more closely than most mountain proposals in the province.
Wildsight’s latest challenge reflects what Harley and some residents describe as an increasingly inflexible, anti-development posture from the organization — one they say fails to account for small communities that rely on recreation economies to survive. Wildsight counters that the provincial review was inadequate and must be revisited.
As Powder Canada reports, the dispute now moves to the courts. A ruling against the province could reshape how future mountain projects are evaluated and determine whether low-impact, restoration-based resorts can proceed under current rules.
Regardless of the outcome, the decision is expected to influence how communities, Indigenous Nations, conservation groups and developers negotiate the next generation of ski and backcountry projects — and whether rural mountain towns will be given room to build toward the future they envision.
This article uses significant material from Powder Canada.