Topic 3: Protection of species at risk on private land



The Province of BC is interested in supporting local governments, private landowners, industry (e.g., agriculture, private forest lands) and non-government organisations in stewardship efforts to recover and protect species at risk and their habitats on private lands.

WHAT’S THE ISSUE?

A high proportion of the species at risk in British Columbia are found on private land. The Province recognizes that there are gaps in provincial protection of species at risk on private land. Protection of species at risk is a shared responsibility and requires a stewardship approach to their management. There may be opportunities to support improved protection of species at risk on private lands.

BACKGROUND

An example of shared stewardship is the Species and Ecosystems at Risk (SEAR) Local Government Working Group which works to enhance species at risk protection on local government and private lands. The group has developed a discussion paper that provides recommendations to enhance protection on private lands.

A recent government-led project has determined that using a suite of tools are effective in improving protection of species at risk on private land, including legal authority, shared stewardship and protection incentives. The Province understands that private landowners are motivated to protect species at risk on their lands in different ways. A collection of both monetary incentive tools (e.g., tax relief, grants, endowment funds, market certification, etc.) and non-monetary incentive tools (e.g., recognitions, awards, decals, education, demonstration sites, etc.) could better support stewardship efforts on private lands.

Please provide your answers to the following questions:

  • What motivates you to protect species at risk where you live?
  • Please provide examples of effective monetary and non-monetary incentives that the Province might consider.

Sort

86 responses to “Topic 3: Protection of species at risk on private land

    User avatar
    [-] Nesa7

    Respect for life and all living beings. I feel that we have a duty to take care of the living beings because we are the main cause for the decline in life on the planet. I also believe we can reverse some of what we have done.
    Could provide funding to do habitat restoration, seeds, soil, compost etc. To grow things needed for specific habit at requirements.

    Work with First Nations to do inventory and make plans.

    Provide training education promote awareness commercials

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Krista

    I am motivated by an appreciation for nature and wildlife and a firm belief that species at risk are important components of functioning ecosystems that humans need to thrive. Nature/wildlife figures prominently in my artwork and recreational pursuits as it does for many British Columbians. As a high density urban dweller, I have very limited options to protect species at risk on my private property. However, protecting species at risk on the private property where they do occur is essential for some species. I do my part by supporting organizations that are working directly with landowners who own property that does support species at risk and would like more options/incentives to be explored.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Juliet

    We have a responsibility as caretakers of ecosystems to protect species at risk. I have been involved in bat conservation for decades and have found that the factors that influence/motivate people are:
    – learning the ecological role/function of the species (e.g. bats consuming nocturnal flying insects)
    – learning the importance of their stewardship role (e..g. they have an important maternity colony in their attic and stewarding it carefully will influence the success of the species locally)
    – money – we have a Building Homes for Bats program to reimburse the cost of materials for building a bat house
    – personal relationships – over time, building a relationship of trust with landowners is critical. Adequately funding programs to be able to continue them long-term is critical to successful efforts
    – legislation – when required, the ability to let landowners know that bats are protected under the Wildlife Act is a useful tool to motivate for conservation
    – reaching all audiences – we have done outreach to pest control companies, realtors, building inspectors, builders, roofers, etc. Unlikely audiences who may influence species at risk protection

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Bevan

    I live in an urban environment, but am motivated to protect species at risk near where I live by a desire to avoid losing components of local ecosystems. I believe that the current monetary incentives being explored for managing species at risk on private land are the best options for achieving this goal.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] MARION

    An ecological niche must be protected regardless whether it is found on private or public land. I welcome the notion of shared responsibility and stewartship in order to produce real results. What motivates me to do my part? Very simple: I prefer to live in a healthy, ecologically thriving environment that is full of life and diversity rather than barely survive in a dead zone, witnessing destruction and violence against the natural environment all around me. I am very interested in learning more about how I can live in way that is more respectful of ecological concerns.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jeff

    Personal Motivation: Respectful coexistence and stewardship – ensuring ecological integrity is lifestyle priority number one.

    Incentives:
    Monetary
    – property tax benefits/breaks for property owners who steward/maintain/protect/rehabilitate habitat/ecological integrity.
    – proactive enforcement versus current conflict ensuring reactive mentality/model of COS and monetary fines under Section 33.1 BC Wildlife Act re attractant management. Fines to be attached to either BC property taxes and/or ICBC insurance premiums (whichever applies and comes due first).
    – monetary penalties for violations e.g poaching, business/home/property owner attractant management, habitat/nesting tree cutting, fish habitat degradation be of significant value to dissuade negative human behavioural choices/actions in first place.

    Non-monetary
    – the personal knowledge that one is actually living their life in such a way that their behaviour reflects they truly “just want the best for their children.”

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Norma

    The British Columbia Real Estate Association believes that measures to manage invasive species must be based on knowledge, and balanced with the rights of private property owners. When property is expropriated, or its use limited, owners should be compensated through a process that includes a transparent appeal mechanism.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Susan

    I get a lot of pleasure from watching animal behaviour, as well as personal satisfaction in knowing I am contributing positively to my environment. There is a success factor in growing a plant and seeing it thrive in your garden. We all need clean air, clean water, and clean space to live. Keeping our natural world healthy benefits everyone, and this is great motivation.
    I think in certain circumstances, where protecting a species on private land might negatively impact that families income, then monetary compensation should be given, but there should also be oversight to make sure the species is thriving. Education boards about the species could be posted on the property so members of the community would know what is happening and how they too could help.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Alex

    At-risk species legislation must aim to protect species regardless of land ownership and potential for traditional or cultural use.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] SCCP

    What motivates you to protect species at risk where you live?
    The South Coast Conservation Program exists to protect and restore at risk species and ecological communities on BC’s south Coast. Our staff and supporters are dedicated to implementing and achieving this mission statement and have worked to do so since 2005. Our programs have provided valuable information on species at risk recovery to a variety of landowners, land managers and land-use professionals.

    Please provide examples of effective monetary and non-monetary incentives that the Province might consider:
    Many user pay surveys have been undertaken that demonstrate a willingness of the public to contribute to species at risk conservation and recovery. But the reality is that unless this is entrenched through legal mechanisms such as utility taxes or levies relying on a willingness to pay concept provides inconsistent and unreliable funding. There are several conservation funds that have been set up as a parcel tax and administered by local governments and local conservation groups: examples include the funds managed by the Kootenay Regional District and the Kootenay Conservation Program, and the Capital Regional District which uses its funds for land acquisition. The South Okanagan Similkameen Conservation Program is also proposing a similar process for that region. However it is important to note that the conservation fund approach may not be transferrable to every jurisdiction. In areas like the South Coast and Vancouver Island where multiple regional districts and even more numerous independent local governments oversee land use activities, a conservation fund approach will be beneficial but will not necessarily be equitable due to the number of potential beneficiaries. The question of who is deserving of these funds becomes an issue.

    Support the proposal for a Voluntary Conservation Tax Incentive Program to offer a 100% tax exemption for land under a conservation covenant. There are examples of such programs in Nova Scotia and Ontario. The Islands Trust has the Natural Areas Protection Tax Exemption Program (NAPTEP) that has shown through a small tax shift to other properties, there does not have to be a loss of tax revenue.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Anne

    Habitat loss, climate change, air quality, loss of insects etc. are just a few of many reasons species may be at risk. In addition to our vast resource of public land in BC, large tracts of private land, primarily farms & First Nations lands are the main reason many species still exist in BC. Those of us whose lives include subdivisions, small acreages, condos, shopping malls, electricity, roads & highways – need to know this is a significant cause of lost wildlife habitat. It is important that the collective “we” thank & compensate farmers, First Nations & other stewards of this habitat – land management isn’t free. Listen to & value the voices of these people who have been stewards on the land, observing SAR for generations. This knowledge is valuable – value it, value them – its more than monetary.
    Doubt there would be sufficient funds in the public coffers to enforce SAR legislation on private lands even if we robbed the entire education & health care budgets! I cannot imagine how people think this would possibly be an effective strategy??
    Appreciation of nature & species diversity is what motivates me personally.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Eva

    Species at risk should be protected regardless of whether their habitat is on private land,
    public land, or treaty land. Endangered species legislation should protect species regardless
    of land ownership and potential for traditional or cultural use.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Marjorie

    Any interaction with private property owners should be negotiated fairly and OPENLY. I think a tax decrease incentive is a positive for many; especially in areas where smaller industries, farms are struggling.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chico

    Our field teams have been approached by farmers, ranchers and overwhelmed private land owners almost begging us to come on their land and help them clear out noxious weeds but we, and all other partners, have our hands tied.
    There is no one who can or will help them reclaim their pasture land and irrigation ditches etc.

    SOLUTION: There are tons of BC folks like in hard hit areas like Lumby BC willing to go out and do manual labour for a livable wage ( $18/hr) who could be supervised and backed up by a group of trained and licensed Pesticide sprayers/contractors.
    Think of them as SWAT teams for at-risk areas able to quickly target sources of noxious weeds, aquatics etc on any public or private land (the latter with written permission). The name of the game here is speed, consistency of quality training and cross cooperation.
    —-
    The weeds are winning – we have to stop wasting time and effort$ on low priority/low impact species and make a very public dent in the really nasty ones at the source WHOMEVER owns the land. —

    NOTE! Aboriginal tribal councils would have their own staff drawn from their own people but trained to the same quality standards as all the non-native teams. At this point there is no contact going on with them at all which is a terrible waste of talent and a source of great frustration for conservation staff i.e HUGE patches of Scotch Thistle untouched and in full bloom right across a highway from a downwind patch whatever agency just cleared manually or sprayed.

    Thanks
    Chico DeMann

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Gillian

    Species at Risk must be protected by law on private and public land.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Bronwen

    Species at risk should be protected regardless of whether their habitat is on private land,
    public land, or treaty land. Endangered species legislation should protect species regardless
    of land ownership and potential for traditional or cultural use.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] George

    We need major land tax incentives similar to farm tax status. We have people spending thousands of dollars to get hobby farm status and then the land goes back to a weed patch. Why don’t we capitalize on this mind set to get good natural resource management on private land. The urban population is the one that benefits the most and their land taxes should reflect that. They put nothing out for ecological services, but they are the ones that squawk the loudest as long as it does not impact them. There should be a penalty for farmers clearing land right up to the edge of a water source that destroys the most critical buffer for the streams. Encourage people to manage for a stream side buffer through cheaper land taxes. Also Ministry people should be trying to help rather than hinder people that want to do something for the environment. Making an expensive permitting process will only scare people away instead of attracting them to a meaningful program.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Terita

    I am motivated to help protect species-at-risk in the lower mainland because of the encroaching urbanization occurring here is displacing these species, that once roamed in vast numbers. We need a delicate balance between urban and natural habitats. In the Tree of Life, we need all species to live healthy and thrive, so future generations can appreciate the beauty of species. If research on SAR continues, we may be able to solve some human issues, like disease. I feel a kinship with wildlife, they have a large impact on my livelihood.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Islands_Trust

    We suggest the Province continue to implement the recommendations of the Species and Ecosystems at Risk and Local Governments Working Group as described in their discussion paper. Islands Trust has been involved in the working group since 2011.

    We suggest the Province provide incentive programs and resources to encourage local governments and stewardship groups to implement land stewardship programs and education programs.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Richard

    26 November 2016
    Though these comments are mostly about the Endangered Ecosystems within the Coastal Douglas-fir (CDF) BEC zone they are prevenient for many more species and ecosystems. This feedback applies to both crown and private land. Often sustaining, enhancing, and/or making it sustainable for an endangered ecosystem, plant, or animal requires active management. Conservation covenants and Natural Area Tax Exemption Program most often forbid any active management to restore and/or enhance habitat conditions. Solutions that limit active management may not produce the conservation results that were planned to be preserved.
    As we look at endangered species and ecosystems we also need to consider longer term sustainability in the face of natural disturbances and succession. We need to look at least the last 300 years and the many natural disturbances that happened over that time to consider long-term sustainability. What were the conditions, how often did the disturbance happen, and how did the disturbance affect the habitat generally and over smaller areas? We need to consider what will help my area (or endangered species) be sustainable when these disturbances happen again, which they will.
    Examples are:
    • Most Parks’ forest stands in The CDF BEC zone have become too dense, and are now more subject to stand replacement fires than they would have been pre-settlement. Brush often has not been considered as a succession condition and how it may take away from sustainability when fire is considered (by providing ladder conditions and/or increased flame height).
    • Butterflies often need openings and their sun loving plants to provide feed and habitat conditions. Openings and/or prairies often provide endangered species needs.
    • Woodlands, and prairies in the CDF have changed from 35% of some landscapes to 3% (1859 to 2007), therefore cannot provide habitat for endangered species that rely on that type of habitat.
    • Eagle nest trees have diminished and the natural replacement will not replace the nest trees given today’s conditions.

    There has to be a better ways to protect and restore habitat conditions that endangered species and ecosystems need, rather than locking an area up without any management. Aboriginal peoples managed their habitat and produced so-called natural disturbances.
    • Jasper National Park has undertaken thinning to restore habitat and improver interface fire forest conditions.
    • Eagle trees and stands can be grown faster with fertilization, thinning, and canopy modifications.
    • Pre-settlement forest conditions in the CDF offer many advantages: endangered species habitat, drought proofing of stands, fire resiliency, raptor tree creation, improved water quality and some quantity, biodiversity enhancement, carbon storage. But once these conditions are created/rehabilitated they will continue to need active management to be maintained. Brush growth and regeneration of trees will return area to today’s conditions. Controlled burning and/or brush cutting are the only way to maintain the condition. These processes are not cheap, and so far there has not been a way to supplement or offer a carrot to landowners who undertake fire proofing stands on private land much less provide other habitat enhancement.
    • We may need to actively manage our Parks and conservation areas to increase their long-term sustainability (in the face of fire) and return them to conditions created by aboriginal management (Natural Range of Variability).

    Mostly it seems local governments can only influence landowners asking for building permits or in the process of subdividing. More thought is needed about how all levels of government can work together to educate landowners to provide or enhance habitat protection for endangered species.

    Firesmart is a great example:
    • How many people have used the website?
    • How many people have partially of fully implemented any Firesmart recommendations?
    • How can more people be reached?
    • How can more people be helped to become more active and increase their own protection?
    • How effective has the Firesmart web site been?
    • Could governments enforce a Firesmart bylaw or something other than a bylaw?
    • Can governments influence insurance companies to require Firesmart compliance or lowering of insurance rates for compliance?
    • Firesmart increases a landowner’s protection – can something around endangered species increase a landowner’s protection or ability to gain something from their land?
    • Would Firesmart compliance increase endangered species habitat?

    Generally I agree that landowners seem to respond to the idea of carrots much better than to be threatened by penalties.

    References about the CDF:
    Bjorkman, Anne, Changes in the Landscape and Vegetation of Southwestern Vancouver Island and Saltspring Island, Canada since European Settlement. UBC MS Thesis, 2008

    Bjorkman, A & Mark Vellend, Defining Historical Baselines for Conservation: Ecological Changes Since European Settlement on Vancouver Island, Canada. Conservation Biology, 2010, Vol 24 (6) p1559-1568

    Fonda, Richard & Elizabeth Binney, Vegetation Response to Prescribed Fire in Douglas-fir Forests,
    Olympic National Park, Northwest Science 85 (1), 2011, p30-40

    Howe, Clifton Durant, Forest Protection in Canada 1913-1914, Commission of Conservation, 1915. Part V The Reproduction of Commercial Species in the Southern Coastal Forests of BC

    Sprenger, CB & Dunwiddle, PW, Fire History of a Douglas-Fir–Oregon White Oak Woodland, Waldron Island, Washington, Northwest Science, Vol 85 (2), 2011, p 108-119

    Wetzel, S.A. & R.W.Fonda, Fire History of Douglas-fir Forests in the Morse Creek Drainage of Olympic National Park, Washington, Northwest Science, Vol 74 (4), 2000, p 263-279

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sharon

    Species at risk depend on habitat suited to their needs. Whether on private, crown or treaty land, species at risk need to be protected. Every species has a place in the eco-system, and when we lose a species it affects the whole system, ourselves included. We are losing too many species globally and have already entered the sixth extinction according to scientists. As a province we are sorely lacking in protection and need to make immediate steps toward protection of species at risk.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jennifer

    Species at risk should be protected regardless of whether their habitat is on private land, public land, or treaty land. Endangered species legislation should protect species regardless of land ownership and potential for traditional or cultural use.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sue

    Protecting all animals is our obligation. This stewardship to protect all species should apply to all land, regardless of ownership. Keep it simple.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Magda

    Species at Risk/ Endangered Species legislation should protect all of that species regardless of what type of land they live on. We cannot adequately protect a species as a whole if we are limiting our work to a specific population of that species.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Deborah

    It is our duty, not an option, for us to protect all wildlife on the planet. Instead of murdering wild animals, we MUST coexist with them as they have done so with us. It is time for our species to EVOLVE and COEXIST with other fellow creatures!

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chloe

    Species at risk should be protected regardless of whether their habitat is on private land,
    public land, or treaty land. Endangered species legislation should protect species regardless
    of land ownership and potential for traditional or cultural use.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] John

    Public education is the first step toward better management on private land. Better information must be made available to private landowners if SAR are to be effectively recovered. The majority of species at risk are not recognized by private landowners, be they individuals or companies. Legislated protection must be applied to private as well as public lands. Only through recognition that there are penalties associated with failure to address SAR will most private land holders pay attention.

    Land use covenants are one tool to secure protection of critical habitats where significant habitat has been identified. Many of the present covenants simply exclude subdivision. They must be expanded to include management for species at risk.

    The province presently provides incentives for such things as wildlife exclusion fencing to private landowners. Any government incentives should include a requirement for species at risk identification and an enforceable management plan.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Warren

    Every species lost is a loss to the planet and to us. To add incentive to landowners, use fines, and add costs of habitat restoration to the bill. Also, have a vigorous, pro-active information campaign to augment the rules and regulations.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Valerie

    1. I moved from Edmonton to the mountains of BC about 22 years ago. The land and creatures have healed me, and the least I can do is give back. I was too late to protect the beaver from CN employees who trapped and killed them, but have been looking for a replacement pair for the past few years. I watch the migrating wolf pack interact and play with my horses and dogs; a coyote who followed me and introduced her young and injured adults to me for my assistance until and ignorant neighbour shot and killed her. A pair of ravens have been my companions for as long as I have been here, and have taught me much, as have the rest of the creatures. I watch how all these different species care for their young, elderly, the sick, their mates, and can only conclude that the reason why society seems intent to destroy them and their respective habitats is because of Jealousy, that in those areas of relationships, they, by far, are more highly evolved when compared to humans’ destruct/self-destruct mode.
    2. Prevent KinderMorgan from destroying more land and habitats for their twinning project. They are obliging when their pipeline is near Reservations and large communities, but I live 25 km from a village and 300 km from Prince George and Kamloops. I have not signed their “agreement” for the expansion project through my property, They have shown neither myself or my property any respect. In fact I have spent money repairing the damage they have incurred. Stop KinderMorgan and their expansion project.
    3. I do everything at my own expense and energy. I am a single voice. Help me help the creatures.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Onni

    Species at risk should be protected regardless of whether their habitat is on private, public or treaty land. I consider the Nature Conservancy of Canada an excellent role model to follow with their model of co-operative management.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Carol

    Species at risk should be protected regardless of whether their habitat is on private land,
    public land, or treaty land. Endangered species legislation should protect species regardless
    of land ownership.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Des

    We should not only encourage private landowners to provide protection for endangered species, we should have fines for them if they deliberately destroy critical habitat or kill the most at risk species as well as providing financial and other incentives to them for providing protection. Tax breaks, grants for habitat improvement or putting up shelter or breeding/nesting structures (say for bats) or planting food plants for certain insects, for example.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ann

    I am motivated because it is the right thing to do. I do not have the right to destroy things. I have a responsibility to use things carefully and respectfully. Awards can be non-monetary incentives. Tax breaks could be provided to land owners as an incentive.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sonia

    Please enact ALL of the excellent recommendations made by the SEAR Working group.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jody

    Species at risk should be protected regardless of whether their habitat is on private land, public land, or treaty land. Endangered species legislation should protect species regardless of land ownership and potential for traditional or cultural use.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lynda

    Use a mix of legislative and regulatory approaches, financial incentives and penalties, and education to protect species at risk on private land. The government could fund habitat restoration projects on private land, subject to private owners agreeing to covenants on their land. The government could partially subsidize landscaping projects that provide habitat for species at risk.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Peter

    What motivates me. As an Agriculture Land owner I want to make sure the biodiversity on my property is improving. I have walked regions of the world where you can see what has happened if you ignore the biodiversity. Where the only thing left for a hunter to shoot are pigeons.
    Monetary Incentives. I am enrolled in the Agriculture Wildlife Program, where I am compensated for losses to wildlife on cultivated crops. Works well for me…hundreds of elk and deer. The wildlife enjoy the forage, and so do the hunters who can access the prime habitat. Also the Environmental Stewardship Incentive is a program I enrolled in where I manage riparian areas, so they are not negatively impacted by livestock.
    Hmm…non-monetary…more recognition by the public of what I do.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Dianne

    We had a foreign developer wants to buy up the properties of the upper bench in Deroche BC. The FVRD (Chilliwack) was wanting to back them up for this development selling off the small farm steads and wanting to put in a 100 houses on the bench. There is an old barn that houses the little brown bats that you have displayed on your web site that live up there. They would tear it down for progress. I have put up bat houses to help them multiply on my property.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lenore

    All wildlife has intrinsic value. The government abdicates responsibility by letting traditional wildlife conservation advocates – like Wildsafe BC, BC Conservation Foundation, Wildsight and many others, along with for-profit natural resource companies like Vast Resources – perform the management and research they should.
    The government gives out multi-year permits to municipalities to “cull” / slaughter wildlife while at the same time, their contractors report on the decline of ungulate populations.
    They turn a blind eye while domestic animals chase deer and when residents trap and kill “pests”.
    http://thenelsondaily.com/news/moose-ungulate-populations-under-fire-kootenay-region-43206#.WDdnSeYrK00
    Why is wildlife different than minerals – the private owners and residents of municipalities should not be able to kill, relocate or otherwise disturb animals.
    Huge tracts of private land are fenced to exclude wildlife – subsidised by government while open range / crown land is managed to exclude wildlife and government money is spent on eco-system restoration to benefit range users and hunters. it is all about economy now – and it should be about animals.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jenefer

    1. Awareness, and education, if I am unaware of SAR why would I care? Enforcement/law would be key to motivate private land owners as well. Therefore, we as private land owners would know whats at stake on our properties, and would be held accountable if we harmed SAR on our properties. The problem is there is no one to enforce what we do have now, no one checking in on private land/agriculture land owners to uphold existing regulations and acts. There are to few Fisheries officers and Conservation officers etc. All of this would surely motivate people.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ron

    Wildlife and most other species risk are transient – and belong to all British Columbians, and not to private landowners. Policy and practice must follow this reality.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Judy

    It should be a source of pride for private landowners to share their land with species at risk and some farmers (eg Natural Pastures) have used this to their promotional advantage.
    The full list of species at risk should also be incorporated into FRPA and the Private Managed Forest Lands Act, as well as being taken into consideration when any private land is developed.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sue

    The motivation often comes from knowledge of what is at stake. A non-monetary example is making sure the regulation applies to private land as well. People tend to have settled in valleys and near water so there is likely to be a higher concentration of private land near wetlands and other key habitats that may be scarce if only public lands are considered. If we are serious about protecting species at risk and we must be, then private land will need to be regulated too.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Mark

    Motivation is largely guided by our emotional psychology. Working as a conservation biologists makes it necessary to understand the science of conservation psychology and what motivates people. Many people will respond with “education” will motivate the public to act on SAR, but psychologist tell us something different. We are motivated by what affects us directly. What motives me to protect SAR – or more broadly, the ecosystems that are part of my extended community – is the services that are provided by these systems. My kids love nature. My community loves nature. There are many great benefits to getting outdoors and we are motivated to do so. However, it is getting increasingly difficult to engage with nature in an increasingly urbanized world. City planners establish plans the clear the naturalness out of the land and establish a new manicured landscape that lacks many of the functional elements of biodiversity that previously existed there. This is a large driver of global biodeversity decline and it alienates the urban dweller from nature. We become eco-illiterate and lack motivation to protect what we don’t understand.

    Research shows that urban parks and green space increases activity, reduces mortality, and has measurable health benefits for communities that have access to such places. Increasing access to nature motivates people to protect it, because the goods and services derived from this access is recognized. Kids love it! This relates to the issue of public / private land – because municipalities often sub-divide new urban plans into blocks of private land that is sold. Urban planners are not conservation biologists and do not understand or plan for conservation psychology when they design urban dwellings without the indiginous natural element. We need migratory corridors to pass through urban areas so that the ecosystem services can flow in.

    My discussion on ecosystem services should provide the basis for examples of “monetary” and “non-monetary” incentives that the province might consider. The province needs to be more proactive in disclosing the value of nature in terms of added improvements to health services, climate regulation, education, enjoyment, food, water, soils, and as a fundamental right. There also needs to be more of a monetary incentive to study and manage common species. The emphasis on funding projects toward SAR misses a great opportunity to fund science into common species, which provides a greater understanding of how we can manage for species that might be at risk or in need of conservation intervention. Common species are the more important indicator of natural capital and they are at the front lines and doors of our urban landscape. They are the gateway to nature and the emotional connections and motivations that children and others form for the protection of of our ecosystems.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] dave

    compensation would motivate me to protect species. as I look around and see destruction of natural habitant from channelization of streams and rivers to highway and utility corridors to urbanization of the same land that we are expected to protect habitats on while others are not held accountable to me is not a fair way to protect habitats. education is a good way to have land owners made aware and work into there plans to protect habitats. purchasing of development rights might be one way of protecting habitats. tax incentives are not always a good way to go.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Keith

    What motivates me and hopefully most people is awareness. Education is important. If the government wants to encourage protection of species at risk on private land then they have to lead by example. If habitat hasn’t been protected on adjacent crown land then it may be difficult to achieve co-operation from land owners. Government has to have the legislative authority to intervene on behalf of species at risk on private land. This authority should only be used as a last resort but if the government can expropriate land for projects that threaten species at risk why not use the same tool for protection?
    Monetary incentives should focus on compensation for costs or lost revenue opportunities. It some cases it would be better in the long term for the government to purchase the property.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Tina

    Legislate protection of SEAR on private lands. Voluntary protection is not nearly enough.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Bernadette

    Species at risk must be protected, whether their habitat is on public or private land.
    BC needs a strong provincial endangered species law that requires endangered species habitat to be protected regardless of land ownership.
    Salmon are a case in point. Government and private land development along the Fraser River is contributing to the destruction of salmon habitat. Everyone loses if this species is destroys as it contributes much to sensitive eco-systems.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Valerie

    Knowing that species at risk are in my area motivates me to help protect them. People hold their homes in a close space in their hearts and feel a certain ownership of the area around them. For me, that extends to species at risk. However, i need to know that the species at risk are there in the first place in order to care! For me to even address the question of what motivates you to protect species at risk i must say that the main motivation is knowing that they are there. The concept being tangible. That is the greatest motivation! Secondary to that i would say tax relief. If i am going to put money or time into creating the area around my home into a more suitable habitat for a certain species it would be nice if this work was recognized and rewarded. Demonstration sites would also be a benefit. An outline of what type of habitat that species needs, a user-friendly overview so that i do not have to put a lot of research into it myself.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Janne

    Makes no difference whether land is public or private – species atbrisk are species at risk and should be subject to equal protection no matter the land designation!

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sarah

    •Species at risk must be protected, whether their habitat is on public or private land.
    •BC needs a strong provincial endangered species law that requires endangered species habitat to be protected regardless of land ownership.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] BCSPCA

    Species at risk should be protected regardless of whether their habitat is on private land, public land, or treaty land. Endangered species legislation should protect species regardless of land ownership and potential for traditional or cultural use.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Noah

    There is no constitutional right to property, and property ownership comes with obligations to respect the public interest– whether this be against pollution under the waste management act or municipal zoning. Endangered species/species at risk legislation is not a ‘taking’ and private landowners should not be compensated, unless in extreme situations where small owners have no other ways to earn a basic living.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Alanah

    Voluntary conservation and stewardship is so important to protecting the habitat species at risk can’t afford to lose. We need a tax incentive to encourage landowners to take the step to put conservation covenants on their land. We need to continue encouraging groups that are supporting those with ecologically important land to make informed decisions as stewards of the land.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Scott

    As far as the motivation to protect goes, the absolute first need is to be relatively certain that bug or rat-like animal is actually a Species At Risk.

    It doesn’t have to be 100% but one should be 80% sure that their efforts will not be wasted, that their actions will actually make a difference that “they can see”.

    Currently SAR registries are quite poor at describing animals that everyone should be concerned about being helpful to. They tend not to be very engaging and use
    a lot of scientific jargon that puts the general public to sleep because they can’t visualize what the Latin terms mean.

    A lot of psychology books describe how to build motivation to take action.
    For the case of learning to play the guitar, it will just never happen if the guitar is stored in a closet, if it is 5 feet away from the couch it is better but often not enough, if it is within arms’ reach of your favourite spot then only now it has a low enough “friction” to actually pick it up and start.

    Now imagine the effort to report a SAR sighting to “someone”. Search the internet, is it the BC gov, agriculture, forestry, environment, animal control, is it Conservation, is it Green Peace, or can I just dial 911 emergency and have them direct me.

    Through the eyes of an outsider, it is a whole lot of effort just to get started, so the moral of the story is: even if I am a keener I still need to put a lot of effort in to learn who to call
    so I need to been very certain that I am not wasting my time, or worse, wasting the time of the government employee on the other end of the phone.

    The key phrase is “relatively certain”.

    Here is the proof… how many actuall calls do you get from the “real general public”? not the barely 100 environmentally plugged-in people who often already work in the industry.

    If you want the public’s help I believe all you need to do is make them relatively certain that their time will make a difference.

    Downloading an app is not helpful to cross the initial “friction barrier”, something else had to happen first because: you have to search for it, trust it is reputable, make sure their is memory available on your phone, then think the data actually goes somewhere.

    I don’t think any monetary incentive is required, the non-monetary incentive is just the feeling “I made a difference, and there is my mark on the map”.

    So how to start the process… make content for school kids who bring it home to Mom and Dad to help explore their backyards and record the biodiversity they find there. All the while they look out for SAR and invasive species that harm SAR.

    Yes I am excited about this new tool and envision what it could look like in the future with a few tweeks or added modules.

    https://www.BlackholeCollections.org/google/general/demo?bcs

    and what their project’s goals appear to be

    https://www.BlackholeCollections.org/about

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Dan

    Species don’t know property lines. No one should have the right to harm species that are part of an ecosystem that extends far beyond their property line. Once a species is listed on BC’s hopefully forthcoming Species At Risk Act, it should be protected everywhere.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] John

    Topic 3: Protection of species at risk on private land
    Species at risk must be protected, whether their habitat is on public or private land.
    BC needs a strong provincial endangered species law that requires endangered species habitat to be protected regardless of land ownership.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Wendy

    Wild creatures can’t read – they don’t know if they’re on private land! We need over-riding legislation that protects them everywhere in the province, not just in Parks and designated areas. We need to look at how other countries have handled this, and learn from those that have had success.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Renee

    Educating people about habitat protection and ecosystems is important. Private lands should not be immune to protecting species at risk. I am motivated by love of my country and all creatures, great and small.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Mark

    The Province should work with conservation organizations and landowners across BC to implement a range of stewardship and conservation land use planning tools, including the use of instruments such as conservation covenants and outright purchase of critical habitat areas where necessary, especially in lowland grassland habitat areas in the north/south oriented valleys in the southern Interior, such as the Okanagan, where a great many species at risk reside and which are at great risk of habitat loss due to urbanization and agricultural development. Ensuring that adequate habitat corridors are conserved in these areas will benefit species at risk now, as well as provide migration corridors for southern species to relocate northwards as the climate change effects are experienced.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] E.

    Species at risk must be protected, whether their habitat is on public or private land.
    BC needs a strong provincial endangered species law that requires endangered species habitat to be protected regardless of land ownership.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Tom

    I dont want anyone hunting on my land ,I have very few animals left now compared to 40 years ago when I moved to the country there used to be lots of chicken and quail here but now there are very few I can not control hunters on the roads but they seem to want to kill everything they see I love nature and wildlife and dont want to see it disapear

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Michael

    The protection of species at risk in BC is our responsibility as intelligent beings

    Care for the animals

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Roy

    Protecting SAR on private land requires a much greater number of wildlife/species-at-risk officers than public land per area size. Without funding there will be no protection for SAR

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Karl

    Species at risk legislation should apply to private and public land, although on private land (assuming the species is also present on public land) there may be some relaxation to allow the owner to use the land as well. As with BC’s contaminated site legislation which holds private owners accountable for pollution on private land, BC should have a separate species at risk law that creates obligations of landowners to preserve biodiversity.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jennifer

    Species at risk must be protected, whether their habitat is on public or private land.
    BC needs a strong provincial endangered species law that requires endangered species habitat to be protected regardless of land ownership.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Roberta

    • Species at risk must be protected, whether their habitat is on public or private land.
    • BC needs a strong provincial endangered species law that requires endangered species habitat to be protected regardless of land ownership.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jim

    If the Province wants to impose its wildlife objectives on private land areas, it should purchase the land to add to the 94 % of the province it already owns.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Krysta

    BC needs a strong provincial endangered species law that requires endangered species habitat to be protected regardless of land ownership.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Paul

    private land owners have the same responsibility/liabilities to promote the well being of any identified species at risk. No exceptions

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ursula

    Motivation is achieved through education and emotional attachment to the place where we live. Non-resident developers are only motivated by profit, so within our present system there needs to be some monetary incentive. However, just like there is zoning in private urban environments to protect human interests, there could be zoning on private rural lands to benefit species at risk. These species are a common heritage and therefore our common interest.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Helen

    I assisted a landowner in putting a covenant on their private land to protect habitat for a Threatened species. Through this experience I learned that government needs to reduce the red tape and costs for landowners. It cost >$10,000 to put the covenant in place and took at least a year! Much of the money goes to land surveyors and lawyers. The government should be assisting landowners who want to do this, preferably making it free for them to do so!

    Provincial government should also partner with municipal governments to better protect and manage land under municipal control (e.g., regional parks) for species at risk. Some stewardship agreements were written to do this but the provincial government doesn’t have the capacity to monitor these agreements or even give basic assistance to the regional governments when it’s requested (due to chronic under-funding and therefore under-staffing of the ministries responsible!).

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Margaret

    Non-monetary incentives: fines for all the existing legislation for which there is no penalty for building/bulldozing first and hoping no one notices. We have very poor protection of wetlands and riparian areas. It is left up to private environmental contractors to advise and supervise developers–bad idea.
    Monetary incentives: lowered taxes for land in covenants, including agricultural land.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Tracy

    I’m motivated by the desire to maintain an intact and functioning ecosystem. All species are important and losing one species has impacts that can be felt in larger circles.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Mary

    What motivates rural landowners to protect species at risk, is that they are interested in, and work in, the natural world and the vast majority are intrigued by the various life forms that inhabit the landowners’ land. What de-motivates landowners from protecting species at risk is the threat of regulation which affects their control over their land, and which turns the species at risk from an organism of interest, into a problem and a liability. So any efforts to protect species at risk in private lands must be done on a guarantee of no future regulation affecting that landowner and no new right of access to private land relating to the species at risk, so as to remove the risk to the landowner that follows merely identifying species at risk, and a completely voluntary approach to protection, with financial incentives towards habitat improvement for SAR. A regime which reduces landowner control over private land and makes SAR into a problem and a liability does not improve SAR chances for survival. If you want to improve environmental protection on private land, you need to be with and to work with private rural landowners, rather than having a bunch of urbanites, who don’t understand rural culture and how to get things done with rural landowners, make a bunch of rules which are counterproductive and for which there’s limited-to-no budget for enforcement in any event. The federal money and soft approach for habitat improvement for SAR is an example of a program that may be successful. More guarantees around no regulation and no access rights would make it even more successful.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] James

    I am motivated by my interest in doing the right thing. I want to live in a province filled with a diverse array of species. I would be even more motivated by tax breaks for SAR on my land, or grants/tech expertise that would be made available to me to make my land of greater value to species at risk. Support for monitoring the species on my land – and even a place to capture my observation would also be great.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sharon

    Conservation needs funding to buy Trail cameras to catch at large dogs around the ponds at Valley of the Sun Westside Road Kelowna BC so that dogs don’t go after the western painted turtle that migrate to the ponds across Westside Road because RDCO dog control is not able to control at large dogs 45 minutes from town because its too far. At large dogs are out chasing and barking at wildlife at Valley of the Sun most nights. Also turtle crossing signs that use to be on the hill at Valley of the Sun at Westside Road have disappeared and need to be replaced. Basking logs may also be needed. A viewing bench would be nice so that people can sit and watch the western painted turtle. A bench that is attached and metal so it cannot be light on fire.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Paul

    as a commercial pilot I fly all over BC I see valley after valley logged out I see new roads being pushed into untouched areas and its not pretty as an amateur photographer I spend a lot of time in the Worlds only Inland Rainforest starting east of Prince George taking photos of the ancient forest which so badly needs protecting.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] David

    There are several species at risk on our property including birds and the sharp-tailed snake. We are happy to take the steps required to protect these endangered species and their habitat. We do not view property ownership as giving us any rights to harm natural ecosystems but rather view ourselves as part of the human and natural communities, with responsibilities towards other people and other species.
    Tax incentives for permanent protection of critical habitat on private land may be useful.
    At the end of the day, if people will not act voluntarily they should be legally obligated to protect endangered species and their habitat on both private and public land.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Dave

    Need and inventory and education program so landowners know their obligations and roles in shared natural resource protection. Most folks do not know that they are stewarding critical habitat for species X, Y, or Z, or what they can or should do to maintain habitat capability.

    Once landowners know their boundaries, I think there should be clear limits on development and strong penalties for habitat destruction as a result of private landowner activities.

    I think that a voluntary program of habitat enhancement, with provincial funding, should be accessible for landowners who want o participate more fully in shared management. Obligatory habitat augmentation or restoration on private land will likely never be a reality, although penalties for active destruction of known habitat attributes, and regulations through municipalities and regional districts in terms of building permits, access permits, development permits are needed.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Wayne

    Governments, at all levels including Municipal, Regional, Provincial and Federal should recognise the value of, and provide meaningful incentives for private land owners to provide ecosystems services that serve to protect species at risk. Many private land owners already carry a disproportionate or all of the amount of the financial costs that are required to provide and protect the habitat and ecosystems that support the survival of species at risk.
    Governments should do more to eradicate the invasive species that compete with the natural flora and fauna of the various regions of BC, and have harsh and enforceable penalties for those involved in the transplantation of not only invasive plants, but invasive animals such as Elk, Raccoons, Rats, Opossums, Bull Frogs, Carp, Goldfish, Northern Pike, Bass etc. that have been (often intentionally) introduced into regions around the province for many years that outcompete native species including those that are now at risk, or soon will be at risk.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Wendy

    To ensure risk protection is paramount for all species including plants, in my area (North East side of Columbia Lake) there are many species such as the painted Turtle and plants that are at risk from future development and improvement of the road going into the Provincial Park. Attend meetings and get your voice heard against anything that will disturb this fragile ecosystem.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lee

    The side effect of stopping development in BC is the effect on the Fraser delta area. It would create an interesting feed back loop, pitting the delta people against everyone else in the province.
    By closing opportunities to new and more places to live outside the delta, people are forced to congest the delta area. As the congestion and pollution escalate on the delta, those people become more wistful about the “clean” environment and wildlife remaining in the rest of the province.
    As a democratic society the delta block of people out vote the rest of the province and effectively dictate how the rest the province should live, based on the living conditions and filthy polluted environment in the delta. The feed back loop effectively shows up in the disparity between trying to regulate some semblance of a livable environment in the delta and it’s mega-city, and over regulating the rest of BC in compensation for the rat race the delta has turned into.
    There has to be a mechanism, like a separate effective board for the rest of the province, to moderate the overburden of disassociation with the environment that exists in the delta where the environment regulations are dispensed from. The worse the natural and artificial environment becomes in the delta mega-city, the more the rest of the province gets regulated. Feed back loop.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sadie

    The province needs to begin to recognize, celebrate and EMPHASIZE ecosystem services, such as air and water purification, much more so. Education about the importance of diversity for resilient ecosystems and communities would likely help public understand and appreciate the inherent responsibility to preserve biodiversity and may be more willing to volunteer to participate (through use of their land).

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Brian

    There should be no monetary benefit to the private land owners since the majority of the land in question was sold to the logging companies at a fraction of it’s value at the time by the government. Their job is to cut trees down which would conflict with any species in the area so why play a shell game and give them money.
    If a species is at risk in an area then the government should buy the land back from the logging company and pay fair market value based on original sale price plus 2 times inflation. Paying any higher rate would indicated the USA softwood complaint actually has merit.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] George

    Meaningful “Land Tax” incentives are critical to getting private land owners to protect and enhance critical habitat. Unfortunately past experience with government programs such as the Managed Forest Land policy has proven that once one commits to a program, the government changes the rules and regulations so that there is no longer any benefit of co-operating with government. This is my biggest fear over the proposed program and would tend to keep me at arms length on my private land.

    0
    0
    permalink
Comments are closed.