Challenge 2: Increasing Involvement and Shared Stewardship



How to increase the involvement of non-government conservation organizations as well as a broad range of wildlife and habitat stakeholders and the general public in wildlife management and habitat conservation:

Opportunities:

  • Support and enhance the long-standing role and contributions of non-government conservation organizations in habitat protection and shared stewardship.
  • Engage a wider range of stakeholder groups to provide advice to government through proven and new approaches (for example, provincial/regional wildlife boards).
  • Improve understanding and communication of the social, economic and environmental values of wildlife and their habitats within functioning ecosystems.
  • Develop new governance models for making wildlife management and habitat conservation decisions.

Discussion Questions

  • How should a broad range of stakeholders be involved in wildlife management and habitat conservation decisions?
  • What are your suggestions for a new governance model for wildlife management and habitat conservation?

Sort

178 responses to “Challenge 2: Increasing Involvement and Shared Stewardship

    User avatar
    [-] Jake

    As with Challenge #1, I feel that a return to land use plans will facilitate many of these opportunities.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Maureen

    You need to include private land owners that have no financial gains as well. Many people with acreage do not use it for profit, shouldn’t their opinions count as much as the farmers and foresters? Wildlife and habitat conservation must include this group to be truly diverse. I for one, bought a forested acreage so I could enjoy the wildlife and not so that I could control it for financial gain.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] John

    Unfortunately in BC there is no limit on foreign land ownership.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    The gov actually needs to listen to these groups instead of making emotional decisions just to appease the urban population that have never stepped outside the concrete jungle. If you dont listen then the groups will stop participating

    18
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Bill

    I think the process for involvement is pretty good right now. The issue is the ability of politicians to ignore that process, input and instead push an industry agenda which is often only interested in accessing resources… At least when looking at the big multi nationals. Somehow we need to eliminate that corrupt influence.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Keaton

    I agree with Bill. It is relatively easy for stakeholders to get involved. The trouble is making sure that involvement is meaningful in the face of overwhelming pressure from industry.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Scott

    I believe politics has no place in wildlife management. When politics get involved, uninformed decisions are made. Stakeholders should come together for every region, be that First Nations, trappers, hunters, fish and game clubs, forestry, bio’s, etc. And discuss what they are seeing, any ideas they can bring to the table, concerns, etc. The regional bios should take whatever they can from these “meetings” , and implement them. Habitat and conservation should not be managed through urban polls and activist Facebook posts. This is a serious issue, and social politics has no place in these decisions.
    As for questions #2, I don’t believe we need a new model, we just need to upgrade our current model. We need more funding. All money’s from tags, licenses, fees etc, should go directly back into conservation, not like now where the majority of the money goes back into general revenue. Maybe even a super small tax on all outdoor equipment. Mountain bikes, dirtbikes, ski and snowboard equipment. They all have an effect on the landscape, and they all should contribute. We should look down at our neighbours to the south and see how well they manage their wildlife in certain states. The North American model of wildlife conservation works very well when it is management correctly with enough funding.

    9
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Micah

    Continue to work with the dedicated local and out of province conservation organizations. As with years prior these groups have ran studies, conducted burns and translated species with and without the help of the province. These groups are made up of incredibly passionate people that are willing to volunteer their time to look after species and habitat.
    Listen to these groups as a lot of them and their members have plenty of boots on the ground experience and observations. This includes data sets and photos that can help supplement the work of our wild life biologists and scientists.

    Conservation needs to be about the habitat and species – not public opinion and politics.
    Therefore the model should be managed based off what biologists, experts, scientists and honest organizations are reporting.
    For instance we know road density has a huge impact on wildlife. BC is criss-crossed with FSR roads, just jump on google maps and take a look. Requiring rehabilitating of SOME, not all, FSR roads once logging or mining is done would help greatly with habitat segregation.

    Education should also be included in a new conservation model. Many people have an emotional issue with predator culling and killing / hunting. Teaching the greater population about the circle of life, where their food comes from and conservation is vital. We humans have disrupted this planet greatly and need to manage all wildlife equally.

    9
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] David

    More funding for conservation. We need to know why the animals are disappearing. We need to know the impact of human activity (particularly forestry) on animals. We need to come up with a long term plan to maintain the abundance and beauty of the natural environment. Revenue from hunting license should be funnelled directly to conservation. More funding for conservation, and support and enforcement of necessary conservation policies need to occur.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jerry

    I get worried when I hear the terms “stewardship and reconciliation” coming from a government source. They never mean what the dictionary definition of the words would imply. Substitute reduced access and pay for access and you have a clearer picture of what the agenda is. By reducing access for the people who actually contribute to conservation, i.e. hunters and fisherman who buy licences and tags and giving control of wildlife resources to groups who are not required to abide by hunting seasons or bag limits is a clear path to devastation of our wildlife resources
    Once this happens, and it will, the hunters and fishers of the Province will be left holding the bag and taking the the blame for the decimation of a once wonderful resource.

    10
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Peter

    Totally agree Jerry. With very low amounts of fish and wildlife allocated to sportsman who contribute and have to practise catch and release fishing along with a once in ten year Moose tag we seem to get blamed for devestating fish and wildlife stocks . No one wants to voice the real reason there is nothing left, it would be political suicide. Until politics and special interest groups are removed from the equation and everyone plays on a level field, Beautiful BC will be devoid of fish and wildlife

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] tim

    Forget undrip. Our elected governments run our country NOT the UN. One law for all people, no special interest groups

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] tim

    Forget UNDRIP. You are the elected government. One law for all. Take notice of this recent other provincial development. https://regina.ctvnews.ca/mobile/province-reverses-decision-on-first-nations-and-metis-hunting-rights-sask-wildlife-federation-1.3942082#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=Facebook&_gsc=2VhUMBJ

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Michael

    I think there should be caution in inviting different ngo’s into the management of wildlife and what the interest are in those groups the wildlife in this province is a resource for all to share as food and for Viewing. The funding models need to be considered when giving ngo’s power to change legislation. If hunters are cut out the funding goes with them.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Alan

    increased involvement and stewardship should only be with sound, scientifical, consideration, with sustainablility being formost. Special interest groups involved in ATVing, snowmobiling, logging, mining, skiing, resort management, ranching etc. should take a back seat to wildlife concerns and preserving of back countries.

    4
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Doug

    Over the past 10 years I have noticed a dramatic increase in wolf populations in areas that I have hunted since the 1970s with a corresponding decline ( total absence) of deer, elk, and moose.
    It is well past the time to undertake a wolf cull!

    8
    2
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Greg

    Wildlife boards/panels/committies are usually heavily weighted by anti hunting lobbiests so will always be heavily biased to the banning of the activity.
    Bringing more anti’s into the mix would only muddy the waters further.
    Decisions need to be science based and not “feelings” based.

    9
    2
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Russell

    Could leave too much room for uneducated people to make decisions based on emotions rather than science or for organizations like Raincoast, Greenpeace, and PETA to push their emotionally based agendas. Case in point, the recent grizzly hunt ban.

    8
    3
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Gregory

    These decisions should be left to wildlife biologists who are experts in these areas. Politicians should be left out of the decision entirely. Decisions around wildlife should not be made based on emotion or what will help win an election. We also need to drastically increase funding for wildlife studying and conservation.

    8
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Rick

    Wildlife management and habitat conservation should be done by professionals. Wildlife is a resource that should be shared by all residents of BC. Letting special interest groups, environmentalists, social media, politics, etc influence sound wildlife policy is just wrong. I support a science based approach. Having input from the various user groups is important but ultimately the professionals should be setting policies that balance the needs of the user groups while ensuring that the animal populations are sustainable.

    4
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Daniel

    Listen to your biologists first, they have less of an agenda, they need funding, and the government needs to set clear and accountable objectives for recovery of habitat and wildlife.. Then listen to the concerns of all NGO’s, industries and other user groups. We need to put wildlife and habitat first and that doesn’t neccisarily mean more public input.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Barry

    Politics has no place in wildlife management, emotions have no place in wildlife management. All revenue from licence/tag/LEH sales should go directly to wildlife management. Possibly even consider a small tax on sporting equipment (or as the Pittman Robertson tax, change the name of the PST on sporting equipment) that goes directly to wildlife management.
    One law for all Canadians.

    4
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Len

    Socio-economic-environment balance is required and the process to achieve that must be as localised as possible. Each area has unique problems and therefore need “balanced” solutions developed and continuously adapted that are actually suited to those ever changing local circumstances. Once that inclusive process is established and it generates balanced objectives then that becomes what is the “Social Licence” which is then applied to how we as local communities regulate and sustainably manage all of our natural resources.

    Our entire forestry system is broken and major reforms are required to redefine what social licence is and how we work to uphold those standards.

    Premier Horgan has stated several objectives of this new government in regards to “empowering communities” and “by transferring to local controls over their local resources decisions” as well as restoring the “attachment of resources to communities” in an effort to “stabilise their economies”. Wildlife issues are only one part of this but who better to understand the local dynamics of how to improve this than those who are directly involved?
    What the premier is actually pointing to is that the province needs to divest itself of its central command and control approach that has completely lost its way and is dominated by the demands of corporations. The premier identified the problems but failed to explain how this would be fixed. How exactly do we “increase involvement and shared stewardship”?

    The existing Community Forest Agreement (CFA) Tenure Model is currently the best way to approach this transformation of how we develop and achieve balanced objectives. It is the correct vehicle that transfers the role of forest management to a community which then must work together to locally balance how it operates on the land base. In order for this to succeed and make a meaningful difference, the province must allocate the largest possible areas and volumes so that communities can decide how to best restore/stabilise/improve their local economies while also better manage their local forests for all values. These areas and volumes must come from somewhere and it would be warranted to have the province transfer all/most of the volumes held by BCTS to CFAs which should have occurred in the first place. It has been forgotten that what was originally set out that as part of the tenure takeback (which the public paid to tenure holders to then redistribute to others) that those volumes would be allocated to CFAs and First Nation Woodland Licences . Instead the BCTS program now holds these volumes which it simply sells these same companies the timber we have already paid to them to take back… under the auspices of it appeasing the US assault on our lumber exports..which obviously hasn’t worked.
    It would also be warranted that all/most of the volumes allocated to current tenure holders that are not being utilised be transferred to CFAs as well. If the province wants to have solutions to everything from log exports to local milling to balanced sustainable forest management that gives full consideration to wildlife values then this would be the way to start.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Byron

    100 percent of the funds from licenses and tag would be a good start. Funding studies and proper counts to make informed decisions is key. Every successful management area does this.
    Incentivizing selective logging to cause less habitat disturbance. Better management of large predators to help out ungulate populations.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Peter

    Stop spraying herbicides like glyphosate. Why don’t we leave alder and willow that populate slashes after they are logged. How can we expect wildlife to flood Uriah if we kill their fiood sources and poison them. Also logging companies in zone 7a continue to log right to the waters edge around lakes and fill streams with fallen trees. If you want check Embryo and Purvis LakeS chain on the Leo- Purvis FSR Management unit 7-27. I was last there 18 months ago where they were actively logging and they cut right to the lakeshore. Does anyone enforce these Buffer zone infringements? Is there any foresters left in the bush checking logging companies?

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] John

    I believe as a hunter we should all belong to BCWF.
    I think governance model for wildlife management should be based on several factors. This should be based on actual science, not hypothetical. It should take into account climate changes, predator abundance, timber harvesting. This should be based on several townhall meeting with locals in each region.

    2
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ryan

    NO ONE, and I mean no one outside of an official government capacity should have any jurisdiction over land and what the land is used for, with the exception private land owners.

    A “broad range of stakeholders” is a underhanded way to say the government will be consulting third parties for their thoughts on future land use.

    In Canada it is unnaceptable for anyone outside an elected (voted in!) Position, to have any authority or jurisdiction over the crowns resources (land, and animals)

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ted

    All governance and stewardship matters must be science based and decisions made must not be influenced by emotionally charged social constructs.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Bill

    Stakeholders should be part of the discussion, all parties can have valuable input to the process. Decisions should be by Gov’t only so that no one entity could be able to hold up the process

    Strike a Wildlife Committee with an independent facilitator, someone with no stake in the process whose sole job is to keep discussions on track and moving forward with some structure.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Richie

    I believe that disconnected city dwellers (that make up the magority of the voting population) should not have much clout when it come to wildlife management decisions. They are responding by emotion and not by real knowledge, facts or science. Wildlife managers should have the power to do whatever is needed to balance, improve, increase and enhance. Wildife populations for the user groups in need of wildlife outside of parks. ie sustianance and recreation, resource.
    All animals are fully protected from all consuming user groups in these parks and there plenty of them for the disconnected urbanites viewing pleasure.
    Hunting, trapping regulations are there to restrict the harvest and keep it sustainable and viable. Do not allow the wildlife managers hands to be tied by governments pandering for votes and the disconnected voter.

    7
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Trevor

    The decision to make wildlife management objectives cannot be left to ‘comments’ from non-residents of BC or non tax paying/voting members of BC. The way the current NDP/GREEN government has ‘consulted’ its residents and voters is deplorable. These decisions need to be made with a wildlife board that has hunting/conservation/indigenous/rec user input from the PROVINCE and only the province. Emotion has no place in wildlife management and stakeholder consultation is extremely important.

    Several stakeholders should be involved in these decisions and those recommendations should be brought to government for implementation after discussion. Not at the whim of non-elected parties who are currently in control in a game of political bullshit.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Trevor

    The decision to make wildlife management objectives cannot be left to ‘comments’ from non-residents of BC or non tax paying/voting members of BC. The way the current NDP/GREEN government has ‘consulted’ its residents and voters is deplorable. These decisions need to be made with a wildlife board that has hunting/conservation/indigenous/rec user input from the PROVINCE and only the province. Emotion has no place in wildlife management and stakeholder consultation is extremely important.

    Several stakeholders should be involved in these decisions and those recommendations should be brought to government for implementation after discussion. Not at the whim of non-elected parties who are currently in control in a game of political bullshit.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Dominic

    My first suggestion is that we need to put more weight on the input from active and real uses of our backcountry over bc residents who are “not” also active users . A city based resident who only holds lofty philosophical goals should not trump a duty resident who is also an active backcountry user. Ie a person who never gets out there grandstanding against hunting fishing camping hiking provides a skewed and irrelevant view of backcountry use. Listen to the hunting fishing trapping community , as well as commercial users and consider the impact from their perspective.

    Involve stakeholders like hunting fishing trapping, but also give them weight over other groups who exist merely to oppose them step for step

    Governance. Establish and listen to active ( real) user groups who are already here. Note that hunting, fishing , trapping are not resource extractors we also contribute to conservation- so that we can protect what we love. Much like a gardener tends to his garden he also protects it so that one day he can pick them harvest from It.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] John

    Not enough credit is given to small, independent stakeholders. The current culture sees recognized stakeholders as only being NGO’s. Not enough credit is given to the small rancher, outfitter, trapper, bush pilot, woodlot owner, land owner etc. who, for the most part, spend substantially more time on the land than any other NGO stakeholder and Govt. employee.

    Efforts must be made to include as many of these type of stakeholders in the process. More outreach is needed to increase their awareness that their input is needed and valuable.

    The new governance model should not let political motives enter into the decision making process. The governance must be non-partisan. Perhaps a commission model with members appointed by stakeholders.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Kevin

    I think we need to do a better job of including true users of the habitat and wildlife that BC in our consideration for management instead of simply the average person who may not be informed or passionate about wildlife and habitat. I would prefer to see a council of wildlife management outdoor users comprised of true users groups.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    Wildlife management decisions need to be based on science and decisions from local biologists rather than “social acceptance” or “the number of” internationally sourced emotionally driven emails from special interest groups as arrogantly admitted when the grizzly hunt was banned. Please spot treating wildlife management as a political football for perceived short term popularity wins.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Danny

    You cannot base your model upon private help. They are excellent as a supplement and the more partners the better. Spend government money, just match what some states put into their models. We are so far below average it’s sad, wildlife and ecology is BC’s greatest resource. It’s an investment.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Dave

    I believe the new governance structure should solely rely on a scientific model rather than opinion based. Wildlife values should way heavier than resource values on the landscape. A top priority should be placed on over-wintering habitat protection, and the grazing rights throughout the province should be reviewed to determine if the grazing rights warrant the loss of critical habitat. Ultimately, studies must be undertaken, peer-reviewed and published surrounding any wildlife management and habitat conservation concerns for public review, and possibly vote, prior to making any new decisions. When I say public, I mean people who are directly involved with the wildlife and wild lands, such as hunters, recreational users, anglers, foresters, etc. Rural and city users votes and opinions should be separated and weighted heavier towards user-groups who are directly impacted by the decisions that are made involving wildlife and wild lands. Finally, until there is a quantifiable harvest number from Indigenous peoples, the unknown factor will continue to skew the data collected by professional biologists, and continue to instil a negative perception of Indigenous peoples regarding their consumption of BC wildlife. For example, non-Indigenous hunters are required, by law, to submit their harvest questionnaires annually. Indigenous peoples should be required to do the same. This would be an enormous data set to be collected. As stewards of the land, I imagine they would want to be on the leading edge of wildlife conservation in BC.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Richard

    Agreed

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] James

    I don’t know what the best approach would be, but the current one where the government gets advice from organizations, then makes a decision to pander to voters isn’t the best. The current model we get won’t help widlife, habitat, the people of BC, or more than likely our current government in the long run.

    Maybe all that’s needed is another check/balance.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Donna

    Please lesson to the people that hunt and fish they are to ones that see the most out there . And the guides and outfitters and natives and went need to managed the wild responsible.
    Please to not let the activists that think they now what is best .the biologist and the conservation officer .are the best ones to make the decisions on wildlife management.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Norman

    Check back on history of wildlife regulations and notice that every time beginning in 1919 when mule deer were decimated by doe seasons. Every time there is a healthy population of any ungulates out comes the antlerless seasons and limited entry hunting and it always ends up in overharvesting and a long fight by the hunting community to get it stopped mostly too late as it is now for Elk, Moose, and Deer (both mule and Whitetail deer) We must get better counts of wildlife numbers and not use two or three year old hunter harvest numbers to manage wildlife. Listen to the hunters out there, although they don’t have many letters behind their name or any Doctorate they have a great wealth of knowledge on wildlife.

    0
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Josh

    Wildlife decisions need to be done by science, under the proven and successful North American conservation model. Decisions that were made for social acceptance such as banning the sustainable LEH griz hunt should never happen. The general public should then educated. Predator control should be government supported and funded, look what happened to the south Selkirk caribou herd. Controlled burns should be promoted, along with preserving more winter habitat from development.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] James

    Any stakeholder who may realize a monetary gain or loss from a conservation decision, anyone acting on their behalf or interest, or receiving financial contribution from such organization should not be involved in these decisions. This should include organizations who’s primary business is to generate financial support or contributions to influence decision makers. The involvement of these types of stakeholders should be to contribute ideas and information. removed from opinion, and funding for boots on the ground conservation efforts. Conservation decision making should be reserved for individuals or organizations who may be non-monetarily impacted in the first degree, involved in boots on the ground conservation efforts, or by the professionals in the field dedicated to managing our resources.

    Political agenda needs to be removed from Governance of conservation, democracy should be limited to governing people, resource management needs to be science based. Funding needs to be increased, there are many great examples of funding models in the USA, similar approaches need to be adopted.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Murray

    Until we have some meaningful control over unlicenced and undocumented hunting, Challenge no. 3 will continue. An example is cow moose killed in the spring when they are pregnant.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Kelly

    1) A broad range of stakeholders should be involved to ensure that decisions are made holistically and not for short term gain, but long term health of the province and inhabitants. However, these decisions should also be based on actual science, not public opinion or emotion. Wyoming is opening Grizzly Bear again due to reliance on science, not public opinion. Perhaps a new committee model is required for decisions related to habitat and conservation impacting issues. We need to ensure that voices, that discuss the net impact and benefit over the long term, have a seat at the table.

    2) Let’s look at Idaho, Washington, Alaska, etc. Even the other provinces have better systems than BC does. The issue is we’ve taken our resources for granted in BC. It’s time to get real and make a difference before it’s too late to do anything about it. 100% of license fees to conservation is a must and should happen quickly. Excise tax on firearms and outdoor equipment. Increase hunting licenses. Do what you need to increase funding and put some money on the ground and into science (and start decomissioning and rejuvenating some of these roads…BC road density is an embarrassment and a serious detriment to ungulate populations).

    3
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lee

    Engage BC Nature and affiliated local clubs in management and conservation decisions and notify of papers such as this.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lee

    Also ensure the science on the wildlife and habitats of concern are premier at the table and where possible invite the biologists that have conducted the work. Ensure that funding is available for studies where a concern is raised. BC is a large province and many areas have no scientific study available and rely on old cursory papers which often did not include today’s pressures such as climate change impacts on species and habitats, increased human pressures and easy access and disturbance to wildlife and habitats of concern as ATV and recreational use grows exponentially.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Steve

    To whom it may concern,

    How should a broad range of stakeholders be involved in wildlife management and habitat conservation decisions?

    To begin with, I think it’s important we define the terms that we’re working with.

    Stakeholder: “a person with an interest or concern in something, especially a business.”
    Wildlife Management: “the manipulation of wildlife populations and habitat to achieve a goal (Sargent and Carter, 1999).”

    Habitat Conservation: “a management practice that seeks to conserve, protect and restore habitat areas for wild plants and animals, especially conservation reliant species, and prevent their extinction, fragmentation or reduction in range.”

    With these definitions in mind, I will attempt to answer your question.

    First of all, when seeking the involvement of stakeholders, I think it’s important to acknowledge who is and who is not a stakeholder and to also recognize that not all stakeholders have an equal “interest or concern” in all of our province’s wildlife. For example, an outfitter with a hunting concession in Atlin has a very large interest or concern in the wildlife management practices of the Skeena region. On the other hand, does a resident of White Rock who has never been north of Kamloops (with no intent on changing that in the near future) have an interest in the management of wildlife in B.C.’s Northwest? Hardly.

    Given the dramatically different “stakes” that these two people hold, the outfitter—and others like her (e.g. fishing guides, local scientists, bear viewers and viewing companies, hunters, mining and logging companies, etc.)—should have dramatically more involvement in the Wildlife Management decisions made in the area given that the decisions made will affect their stakes significantly more.

    In short, not all stakeholders are equal and those with the greatest “interest or concerns” in the area should be given larger consideration in making decisions since those decisions will impact them in a far greater way—”more stakeholders” should not mean anybody with an opinion.
    Second, if you want to get maximum involvement of stakeholders, you need to maximize the number of people with an actual stake in the wildlife game. This in turn means maximizing the amount of wildlife at stake in the first place.

    It appears the current policies have a goal dividing up an ever-shrinking pie of wildlife, instead of a goal of increasing the size of the pie so we can all enjoy a slice. In practice, this looks like putting fishing restrictions in place while shutting down or failing to invest in hatcheries. It looks like allowing widespread logging without offsetting habitat restoration afterwards. It looks like limiting natural wildfires without a widespread program of controlled burns to open up new habitat or restore overgrown habitat.

    Another way of looking at it is with the lens of supply and demand. If we only look at the “demand” side of the equation (harvest rates, logging quotas, fishing catch rates), while ignoring the effects of supply (habitat enhancement/alteration, supplementing populations through translocations, hatcheries, etc.), wildlife populations shrink. When populations shrink, you lose opportunity. With less opportunity, there are less participants. With fewer participants, you have fewer stakeholders.

    If you want to increase stakeholders, increase the size of the “wildlife pie” to start so you have a greater pool of true stakeholders with whom to engage.

    Thirdly, is that habitat conservation—as defined above—cannot be a passive activity. Endeavors like controlled burns, stream rehabilitation, classroom hatcheries, and restoration activities must become routine. Rather than looking at an area and asking “what is the carrying capacity for x species” we should be saying “what could the carrying capacity be if we improved the habitat.” In this way, we can increase the amount of wildlife and the opportunities for new and existing stakeholders to enjoy them.

    Finally, engage with the hunting community! Groups like the Wild Sheep Foundation and Wild Sheep Society of B.C., the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Rocky Mountain Goat Alliance, National Wild Turkey Federation, Mule Deer Foundation, B.C. Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited, and others exist to help ensure thriving populations of wild game. They will be the “muscle” you need to improve the carrying capacity of the land.

    These groups raise millions of dollars to ensure thriving populations of game and have armies of volunteers that are eager to collect data, share knowledge, participate in conservation projects, and more. If you ask, they will respond. Ignore, undermine, or denigrate them (like the government did with the grizzly bear decision), and you lose your largest single constituency of stakeholders. Stakeholders willing to give their personal money, time and energy—not just their opinions—to see wildlife thrive in British Columbia.

    What are your suggestions for a new governance model for wildlife management and habitat conservation?

    I don’t think a “new” model is necessarily the answer, just one that is new to British Columbia. Our neighbours to the south have a highly effective model of conservation.

    Using elk as a microcosm, the combined population of elk in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana is approximately 467,000. British Columbia—with approximately the same area—doesn’t even have accurate population data, but the best estimate I could find puts our population at roughly 30,000. While the habitat may not be the exact same, the carrying capacity of British Columbia is most definitely not 6.5% that of those 4 states.

    So what do they do differently? For one, they invest heavily in wildlife management. Oregon’s Department of Fish and Wildlife has a budget 20 times as large as that of B.C. in dollars per kilometer squared and over 5 times as large in absolute terms even though their population is 13% less than British Columbia. Other states demonstrate similar disparities in spending relative to British Columbia.

    Where do they get the money? For one, all of the dollars from the sale of hunting tags and hunting and fishing licenses go directly into the budgets of their Fish and Game departments. In addition, the United States has the Pittman-Robertson act that collects taxes on the sales of all hunting and fishing related products and funnels that money directly into conservation spending.

    With those dollars in hand, the departments themselves take a much more proactive role in monitoring and enhancing wildlife populations in their states. Translocations, supplemental feeding, habitat enhancement, predator control, stream rehabilitation, hatcheries, fish lifts, and more are all major parts of the work they do. The thriving wildlife populations are evidence of their success and yet we ignore their policies and keep trying to divvy up our shrinking pie… Why try to reinvent the wheel? Just talk to those states and borrow their models.

    Additionally, these states prioritize scientific research and planning over emotional responses to management of their wildlife, in particular with respect to hunting. They work with hunters to accomplish their objectives rather than ignoring them.

    Finally, the numbers only represent the state budgets. These states have chosen to work with anglers and hunters and established trust with large hunting groups like those previously mentioned. These groups contribute millions more private funds to the enhancement and preservation of habitat for the benefit of all.

    Sargent, M.S and Carter, K.S., ed. 1999. Introduction to Wildlife & Habitat Management. Retrieved on 29 May 2018 from http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/publications/pdfs/huntingwildlifehabitat/Landowners_Guide/Introduction/Intro_to_Wildlife_and_Hab.htm

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Steve

    Correction: provincial elk populations are estimated at 40-73K… Still a fraction of our neighbors. Of the four states mentioned, Washington has the lowest population estimate at 90,000 elk.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Paul

    Further involvement of NGO’s will complicate an already complicated decision making process. These actions need stream lining, not increasing in their scale. A proliferation of action from Special interest Groups will NOT help wildlife!

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] C

    All people must step up to the plate as far as conservation is concerned. If we and nature is to exist in the future we have to put our greed’s aside and all people have to have some rules or self discipline. As technology expands we can not use that to kill every thing out there. We must leave Barbaric practices and evolve to more compassionate world. You can not multi task use a piece of land.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] CS

    Wildlife should not only belong to hunters and and their wants. Wildlife should be allowed for everyone. Hunting has devastated most of the trophy animals in this province. All other get to see are small boot jacks trying to survive with out the monarch species as a gene pool. Personal greed and ego have stand back.

    0
    8
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Scotty

    Wildlife doesn’t “belong” to hunters. Even though hunters are the ones at the frontline fighting for those same animals protection, and the ones who are footing the majority of the cost to do so. Regulated hunting has not “devastated” the “trophy” animals. Regulated hunting when applied to the North American conservation model has helped many populations to rebound. You just need to look south to our American neighbours and see how well they are doing managing their wildlife. BCs wildlife decline is absolutely not due to regulated hunting. That is a very uniformed statement. When someone makes a comment with “trophy” in the sentence, usually they are anti hunting, and have very skewed facts, if any at all. You, like many people, confirmed that again.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] CJ

    Proof of this please: “Hunting has devastated most of the trophy animals in this province.” People were hunting for a long time before colonization. Hunting is not the problem when ethical and managed, which it most often is. Habitat loss and ecosystem fragmentation/destruction are the big issue.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Glenn

    Wildlife management decisions should be solely evidence-based used the best science available. Public opinion (which is generally emotive and poorly informed) should have very little influence on these decisions. “Politicizing” this process results in decisions that ultimately lead to negative outcomes for wildlife.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jeff

    Only hunters and pro hunting conservation groups should be consulted when making wildlife management and habitat conservation decisions.

    1
    2
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Gary

    The decisions should be made by educated Biologists and on sound scientific research . The laws should be the same for everyone and conservation must be the number one priority.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Dustin

    Clearly there are many stakeholders in wildlife management and habitat conservation decisions. Representatives of these stakeholders should be encouraged to participate in setting goals that are sustainable. I believe that groups as diverse as indigenous groups, hunting/angling groups, conservation groups, and resource industries all share common desire to see a province that is cared for and healthy in the long term. When these groups begin to move from setting goals to making decisions, however, we transition to competitive and even combative stances. The governance model needs to work towards balancing goals for the long-term and prioritizing wildlife and habitat over individual stakeholder desires. I believe this requires a creative funding model where all stakeholders are expected to contribute towards better research, recommendations, implementation, and enforcement.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] M

    As a US resident I appreciate the many thoughtful comments on preserving wildlife and habitat. We are struggling with these same issues in Washington State. BC’s decisions can affect and inform its neighbors. Case in point, our Orca population.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Marc

    Wildlife and habitat need to be managed based on science not emotionally charged opinions. People that hunt, fish and trap have a far greater interest in appropriately managing wildlife than do most others even if they think they do. While they might appreciate wildlife no one puts in more time or money to the support of wildlife than do the responsible hunters and trappers. I personally spend far more time viewing and appreciating wild life than I do hunting it but still value the right to legally hunt when allowable, which I hope is based on science not emotion. Wildlife should be managed by science and if the population of specific animal in a specific area allows for a hunt then allow it. If the public really does not agree with hunting a specific species they will not buy tags.

    3
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] James

    It is due time that the province consults with hunters, fishermen, hikers, and other outdoors people as they are the ones most invested in managing fish and wildlife, and they contribute the most in time and resources to do so. Consultation is FN is fine, but non-FN stakeholders need to be considered too – specifically those that live outside the lower mainland. I do not believe that the average Vancouver resident has any idea about life in the wild and managing those resources, the reality of it is completely alien to them.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Annie

    Get out of the “expert” mind-set. Actually employ sound techniques for allowing people to participate (this exercise itself has from issues). $$ is a huge limitation as is being willing to allow groups to suggest policies that contradict government experts. Listen.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Azeem

    There should be no politics in wildlife management i.e. NGOs, conservation organizations. These decisions should be left to wildlife biologists who are experts in these areas and all funds should be directed for better studies.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Judy

    The province considers animals as a resource or an asset and seems to rank them in order of importance to hunters, trappers and fisher people. The province also appears to be biased against animals that may interfere with animals that are valuable to hunters. This categorization of animals has to stop. I hope the province will begin to look at the value of animals based on an ecosystem approach, rather than a resource approach. I also disagree with the provincial listing of animals in the categories of “pests”. One of the those animals, beavers, are an important keystone species and entire ecosystems rely on the presence of beavers. As long as consumptive users and lobby groups from the hunting and trapping associations form the main stakeholders in provincial dialogues this attitude toward animals as a “resource” will never change. As a result I believe that more stakeholders should be brought into this process, such as people who passively enjoy wildlife viewing, hikers, bikers, campers and more environmental groups. These groups should all have proportional representation in this process moving forward

    1
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Scotty

    Wildlife is and always has been a resource. Hunters, trappers, fisherman are the ones who decide to still be a part of the natural equation. Just because humans have created a life style that doesn’t involve those activities doesn’t mean it is wrong for them to go out and harvest food for their family, or trap animals for their fur. We have now regulations set up so they are a renewable resource. Yes they aren’t perfect, due mostly to our lack of government funding, and our resource extraction activities that seem to trump conservation issues. But those stakeholders work to better habitat and ALL wildlife. I don’t know where you are eating your information from but if you look at the projects that get funded by hunters/ trappers/ guides/ etc. It is for all species and all habitats. You do realize when you make a Habitat better for the huntable species of animals it makes habitat better for every species in that region. There is no bias to other animals for the hunters gain… But at the same time they are wildlife and belong to everyone in this province, so yes I believe everyone gets to have their say, but to hunters, trappers, guides, etc, they mean a lot more. And they are way more in tune with what is going out in the wilds. That’s why they should have a bigger say, and should have more of a representation for this discussion. Environmental groups, bikers, hikers, etc, should have their say, but they do not have the same knowledge as those listed before. That is fact, and you cannot dispute that. And beavers are a nuisance in some regions, doesn’t mean they are a nuisance in other areas. It is a very complicated issue and you can’t just paint a vague brush over everything. How would a wildlife photographer know more about what goes on in , let’s say region A, then a trapper who is region A? The trapper is in there learning the landscape, knows where all the animals are, and is in there all year round. They are there when the weather is the worst and the best. In there at night and early morning. They know what goes on and what different animals are going through there. They are invested in it. They love it, and wants it to be as it is or better forever. They better the habitat so populations flourish. So now our wildlife photographer comes through. Takes some pictures of wild animals in this region A. Sure they stay for a while and see some stuff. But do they know more about it then the trapper? The trapper who has been there for years and seen the fluctuations in numbers? The harsh winters vs warm winters? No they don’t know more. And this is just a very small example as why the users who use wildlife as a renewable resource know much more about the landscape, habitat, and what goes on then a photographer, or a hiker, or a mountain biker. Even more so than a environmental group.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Peter

    Wildlife and environmental protection organizations should be involved. So too should members of the public who oppose hunting and trapping.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] CJ

    Use hunters as a tool for wildlife management, and understand that conservation and genuinely wild places are needed for hunting to continue. Hunting requires conservation, and healthy ecosystems require predators, in the form of hunters. Base wildlife management decisions on science and true sustainability, not emotional propaganda and the public pressure of the squeaky wheels.

    2
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chantal

    Consumptive users and lobby groups from the hunting and trapping communities are a small fraction of British Columbians and outdoor recreationists but are often the only groups at the table.
    Non-consumptive users have just as much stake in how wildlife and habitat are treated and should be represented proportionately.

    2
    4
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Scotty

    Non- consumptive users don’t have the same stake as consumptive users. We feed our family, make a living, actually live in these wild places. Non-consumptive users don’t do any of those. So I disagree with you in everyone should be represented proportionality. Though I do agree that they are for everyone, and should be managed accordingly. But to say everyone should have an even say on what goes on will only worsen things. The general public doesn’t have the same knowledge as the consumptive users on the landscape. And most people haven’t even spent time in the actual “wilderness”

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Wayne

    Part 1. The involvement of stakeholders in wildlife management and habitat conservation decisions can only be done effectively if they have reliable data to work from. However, I do not feel that the government has enough boots on the ground and eyes in the skies to produce such data. Therefore, I believe that the first step is the collection of data so that scientific decisions can be made rather than emotional ones.

    Part 2. I believe that there needs to be recommendations made to the ministry from an independent body of organizations/individuals that can study the data provided to them. The ministry then needs to create policies and regulations that are in the best interests of wildlife and the environment. The policies/regulations must be free from political interference and shared with the public on what they are and why they were created.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Doris

    Non-consumptive users (photographers, birders, hikers, etc.) have just as much stake in how wildlife and habitat are treated and should be represented proportionately.

    2
    3
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sharon

    I agree Doris. Birders have an excellent understanding of numbers of birds in a particular area. The ones in our area are out every week and always counting and recording species. They know what’s going on. They also do a Christmas bird count each year. They are not to be dismissed. Avid mountain bikers and hikers also know what’s happening in the forests. They belong at the table to give a well-rounded, broad view of our wildlife and habitat. Each has a piece of the puzzle to contribute to.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] frances

    I don’t think more boards of anything will make anything better for wildlife. There are agencies in place, and if they do their jobs, wildlife does not need more bureaucracy.
    I will say, particularly with large predators, if I see one, I will not call BC “Conservation”. That’s a death sentence for wildlife, so the Conservation service needs to improve their PR and they need to have the financial capacity to do that. Sorry, but hunters do not great conservation officers make.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Joel

    User groups must be consulted on any activity that impacts wildlife. Hunters are the eyes and ears in the woods and their input should be taken into account. Additionally all license fees collected from hunters must be earmarked for managing the resource.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    Biologists need to set the parameters for what is needed to foster stable wildlife populations and habitat. Special interest groups should be able to participate within those parameters, but in no way define them. Politics and special interest groups do not act in the best interest of wildlife or habitat.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Adam

    How should a broad range of stakeholders be involved in wildlife management and habitat conservation decisions?

    Increased funding and increased government solicitation of partnership from multiple non-conservation organizations on recommendations, funding partnerships, and community engagement of government-led initiatives. Local, as well as provincial stakeholder can be solicited for partnership, rather than the other way around.

    What are your suggestions for a new governance model for wildlife management and habitat conservation?

    Land-use plans. Government should have clear, non-partisan and science-based short and long term objectives on wildlife management and habitat conservation, and solicit non-government conservation organizations for input and assistance on realizing these objectives – not the other away around, which is the perspective many comments here suggest. The current model of various non-government conservation groups squabbling to lobby and provide independent research is not constructive – the focus from government to effective engage non-government conservation groups needs to be on meeting habitat and wildlife management objectives, not determining what those objectives are. Regional or community wildlife / habitat management boards might be formed to expedite and provide local “boots on the ground” but but should be removed from directly influencing decision making or policy.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] William

    There are a number of wildlife biological studies that have been done, the main problem here is the sitting government has disregarded all of them. We as a province need to be allow the science to be implemented, and not respond emotionally.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Glenn

    Until Government realizes it’s Mismanagment of Wildlife over many years, starts to hold its users accountable for proper practises like mining, forestry, deactivation, gravel removal of streams etc etc. Nothing will change. Compare the Government of BC money back into habitat to those like Washington, Akaska, Idaho, Colorodo, Oregon etc etc. BCs commitment is a spit in the bucket compared It’s pathetic.
    Build habitat….. CONTROL PREDATORS …….. All wildlife benefits.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Josh

    More habitat needs to be protected, especially winter range used by ungulates, and more stakeholders and members of the general public should be informed, and advocating for this. More $$ from all stakeholders should be put toward habitat protection and enhancement, and wildlife.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Alexander

    The first step is dealing with the issue that the ministry responsible for habitat and wildlife is also the ministry which is in charge of promoting and managing logging and other resource extraction. This is a conflict of interest which politicizes the issues around habitat and wildlife by allowing them to suffer when governments favour logging or resource extraction. In my advocacy for habitat and wildlife issues, it as always strikes me as odd that I am asking the ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations & Rural Development to protect habitat and enhance wildlife populations and to please do less forestry, land, and natural resource operations or rural development. The ministry should really be transformed into the ministry of “Habitat and Wildlife Management & Extractive Industry Enforcement”. That would set a better tone for the priorities. The priorities should be to protect and restore habitat and wildlife populations to ensure long term sustainability and biodiversity. As a hunter, I believe it is of critical importance to work collaboratively towards this common goal with First Nations and other stakeholders.

    To engage stakeholders, there should be a provincial round table of stakeholder groups to inform the ministry and help shape policy. That way it will improve the mandate to protect common goals as well as highlight any groups acting in bad faith.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Steven

    Involvement and shared stewardship is critical to a coordinated effort in restoring habitat and managing wildlife populations. Stakeholders MUST be active users of the resource, not opinionated bystanders removed from the actual areas under consideration. In order to have input, one must provide evidence of membership in an accredited organization whose interests and mandates include wildlife management and habitat restoration/protection that is based in science. All initiatives must have a scientific approach with science based evidence, not emotional arguments promoting personal ethics and ideals.

    Absolutely no value should be attributed to so called ‘public opinion polls’ generated by media outlets as these are never scientific and far from being unbiased. Opinions originating from foreign countries should similarly be disregarded.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Peter

    Consumptive users and lobby groups from the hunting and trapping communities are a small fraction of British Columbians and outdoor recreationists but are often the only groups at the table.
    Non-consumptive users have just as much stake in how wildlife and habitat are treated and should be represented proportionately.

    1
    2
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Alexander

    There are apoximately 100,000 hunters and 260,000 freshwater anglers BC. While this is a small-medium percentage of the overall population, from my experience these are the only people you encounter outside the well established parks and trails. In most of B.C. the only people in the woods are consumptive users.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Don

    Don’t forget to add Mushroom Harvesters, Mineral Prospectors, Recreational Trail Riders and many, many other groups that utilize the outdoors yet the bulk of the funding comes from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ken

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Model_of_Wildlife_Conservation
    Politics MUST BE REMOVED from wildlife management. It requires significant, consistent funding. The only method of managing wildlife properly, is by the use of science, from the proper people. And I will be candid here. The groups we must NOT use are the anti- hunting groups, such as raincoast and pacific wild. I know what I’m talking about here. Who should be involved? Provincial biologists, resident hunters and anglers, guide outfitters. You can be guaranteed that they’ll have the drive to make the information input a success.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Scotty

    100 percent agree with you.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Don

    Habitat conservation is everyone’s responsibility and should be equally carried by all. Additional taxes should be levied against all forms of outdoor recreation not just hunters. Additional taxes on purchases of ATV’s, Campers, Trailers, RV’s, Boats, Camping, Hunting and Fishing Equipment. These taxes used specifically for habitat enhancement, wildlife management, creating and Forestry Recreation Sites and

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] gerry

    My main concern is the erosion of public involvement through the “professional reliance” models of management implemented in the past two decades. The forest practices code was a step towards more public engagement and up to date information was much more readily available under this structure. Currently the system is being abused by industry and government and the public has been shut out of the decision making process. This has led to a general lack of awareness and increased apathy and cynicism as the public no longer feels empowered to offer input or to critique development plans as they are only being shown “results” presented by so-called professionals and monitored by bureaucrats incentivized to show the system to be working. In the past long term development plans were a requirement of licensees operating on public lands. Bring that back and you will begin to see more organized and invigorated public interest. Re-empower the BC public to feel they have a voice and a venue to be heard. Online polling is only the start. Public meetings in areas where industrial impacts are occurring need to be held regularly so that communities can organize their voices and educate government, industry and eachother what their values truly are. Discussion of what our collective impacts are and options for local change to management structure is currently lacking in small communities.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Holly

    Actually listen to the people. Gain their trust. Killing of animals for the gain of another animal is far far wrong. Wolves are needed every animal has a role. What do caribou need? Land and peace from the outside world.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Yingyan

    Sustainable design should be incorporated in urban planning and resource planning. There should be sanctuaries for all wildlife that are free from human activities. For shared use areas, i.e. areas that have wildlife and open to human recreational activities, there should be seasonal closure during nest and den season to protect the young population. A recent instance of hiker shooting grizzly mother and orphan two cubs is a warning that there should be periods of rest for nature free from human activities.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Hilary

    Take control away from corporations who are only interested in profit. Make sure there is public oversight ensuring that habitat conservation and wildlife management receive at least equal importance as profit.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jody

    There must be more outreach and education about the importance of the natural world. Many people in societies have lost touch with the reality that we all depend on the environment for our survival. Developed countries in particular are plagued by a consumerism culture and are severely lacking in conservation efforts. What our societies need to do is prioritize reducing negative impacts on the natural environment by living more conservatively and more in harmony with the natural world, and transition to a green economy by developing new technologies and utilizing the technologies that already exist.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Dylan

    As Vice President of the Elkford Rod and Gun Club, I can assure you that club members are more than willing to do their part in habitat work and fundraising, but a lack of leadership from regional officials in approaching clubs in what they need help with leaves club executives frustrated in trying to reach regional managers to beg for interaction and input on what we can help with. We see the frustration they face, as their budgets are miniscule, and their power to make big decisions happen is very limited. More funding for wildlife and habitat, a management plan that makes hunting regulations not the only tool regional managers have for managing wildlife, and the staffing and planning to be able to include the groups that represent the users, and the true conservationists, of the land.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] steven

    Stakeholders can get involved easily, the issue is that they are largely ignored on the whims of political parties. Look at the wildlife allocation issues that heard large public outcry, yet the BC Liberals ignored everyone but the Guide Outfitters lobby groups. Regional boards would be a much better approach than the current political model.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] CS

    Main and first most wildlife has to be for wildlife and that natural eco system. The problem with the system ever since Europeans came over was the wildlife was for hunting purposes only. Management of wildlife was for hunting by a hunting managed staff and government and pleasure of killing with out any thought of the animal and hunting and laws and rules were made only for that purposes. New system has to be found and hunting should be last on the list. We have devastated the most majestic big antler animals the most colourful and most valuable genetics. Example double shovel caribou with over 5 points on top is scarce. The idea of most hunters is what they can kill and boost about rather than the value of the species.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ray

    To truly represent all stakeholders who value consumptive and non-consumptive use of wildlife the expansion of interests that sit at PTHAT and regional wildlife management committees with equal say would go a long way in supporting a more inclusive engagement with government and subsequently would inform the development of more holistic policies.

    The governance model for wildlife management and habitat conservation needs to remain objective and not unduly influenced by special interest groups. Stakeholders should be engaged (only in an advisory capacity) to ensure public service remains connected with the public and educates and communicates with the public, and learns from the public. With that in mind, government staff are professionals and are trained to manage their respective areas of expertise and are charged with ensuring objective and science based policy and program delivery; if special interest groups or public too heavily influence this, wildlife management will fail and will place priority over certain preferred species rather then sustainable ecological approaches that maintain ecological health.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] James

    Increasing involvement is about opportunity created to ‘invite’ participation. Providing a neutral venue where the focus is wildlife. Rather than hunting. The common ground is wildlife. Stay focused on that.

    Government might consider taking the lead in putting information out on social media. This dispels the unreliable sources and society will pay more attention to Government data/statistics around wildlife.

    The hunting community need to see that NGcO’s want to put wildlife first as well. The fear, is that hunters will lose opportunity. Government need to be clear about the purpose of bringing groups together.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lisa

    New governance models should be based on herd numbers and trends, and be applied to all uses equally. There could be a formula for adjusting activities that results in wildlife protection.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Mike

    The BC Government can “increase involvement and shared stewardship” by creating a new wildlife society made up of First Nations, stakeholder groups and professionals in wildlife management. This new group would use science, measurable objectives and increased land use planning to make informed decisions on management of wildlife and their habitat; funding generated by use of wildlife and habitat such as hunting licenses sales, outdoor gear sales tax, logging contributions and mining contributions; and finally this group would gain social support for these actions through the responsible stewardship of the resource.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Stephanie

    politics shouldn’t have a place in wildlife conservation decisions. The government makes decisions on wildlife with one thing in mind:political votes in the next election. They ignore science and biologists who know how things need to be managed because the majority of the votes come from the city dwellers-people who have probably never stepped foot into the backcountry (and no, the grouse grind doesn’t count as the back country). There needs to be more education for the public so they can learn what conservation really means no matter how ugly it can be. This includes predator control. What makes a grizzly bear or a wolf more important than a caribou, an elk or a moose? Companies looking to open ski resorts etc shouldn’t have a say in this conversation because they only have profit in mind, not conservation.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sasha

    I would like to see the development of an organization analogous to the Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC comanaging hunting and trapping at the regional level with local First Nations.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Darcy

    First off, you have not defined the term wildlife. Are you talking about hunted species, or all species (all flora and fauna). My below remarks are assuming that you mean all species.

    If you specifically targeting non-government conservation organizations, be sure to include the full range of organizations. So, the range of stakeholders should be broad, ranging from preservation to development-oriented groups. There is a tendency for groups to consider other groups with opposing views “special interest groups”. I have heard hunting organizations call environmental organizations that, and I have heard environment organizations call hunting organizations that. Those organizations have to get past such rhetoric if they are to successfully contribute to solutions.

    The public has not been engaged by government in such issues for some time. The topics that stakeholders should discuss must include a way to expedite land use planning, not a creation of a wish list from each group or individual. Wish lists are the easiest to do, but are the least valuable because proper decisions arise from discussion and negotiation, not from silos).

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Rob

    First question: I believe it is imperative that science-based wildlife management be used as the backbone of this process. The North American Wildlife Management Model has a long history of effectiveness and we feel that those organizations that do not support this model should not participate in this process. Decisions should not be made for political reasons only.
    Second question: I feel that any use group that accesses crown land be responsible for user fees. If individuals are using our natural resources and natural habitat, they should be willing to pay fees associated with this. Examples of this would be wildlife viewing companies such as whale watching companies, bear watching companies, heli-skiing, hunting license fees and resource extraction industries.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Oliver

    This new model of Wildlife Management has its merits; however, it is imperative that only
    stakeholders that are willing to contribute to conservation be involved. Groups should be
    provincial in nature, have a B.C.-based membership/workforce, and conduct on-the-ground
    stewardship activities. Those that fail to give back to wildlife and its well-being should not earn
    a say.
    – It is imperative that science-based wildlife management be used as the backbone of this
    process. The North American Wildlife Management Model has a long history of effectiveness
    and we feel that those organizations that do not support this model should not participate in
    this process.
    – It is important that decision making involvement input from individuals in the regions as to what
    is working in their community.
    – Involve groups at the beginning of the process to offer input and direction and include that
    consistently throughout the entire decision-making process.
    • What are your suggestions for a new governance model for wildlife management and habitat
    conservation?
    – We feel that any use group that accesses crown land be responsible for user fees. If individuals
    are using our natural resources and natural habitat, they should be willing to pay fees associated
    with this. Examples of this would be wildlife viewing companies such as whale watching
    companies, bear watching companies, heli-skiing, hunting license fees and resource extraction
    industries.
    – Fish and wildlife management should have legislated objectives in order that Wildlife Managers
    can be held accountable. Setting meaningful population and habitat objectives such as road
    densities should be a priority.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Emery

    The government (politics) shouldn’t be making decisions for our wildlife, let people that actually live in the area make decisions. I was hunting hunt north last year, and on my way back, I stoped on for a coffee at Tim Hortons.

    This lady came up to us and asked about hunting. So we shared with her why we hunt for the meat.
    she didn’t realize we took the meat. I said we take all the meat and eat it. I later found out she didn’t know we had bison in BC, I informed her we do have a fair amount of them. In the end, she respected hunting for what it is, and she liked the idea of it.

    The long and the short of it is this.
    You can’t make a decision on something you don’t understand or know about. So please don’t let people down south, that haven’t ever gone up north make our rules, because they don’t know what’s best for our area. Let the locals make the decisions For the area.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Anthony

    Well if we can go back in history, this would be a prime example for what happened with the Grizzly bear hunt.

    The stakeholders in the form of hunters and from conservation groups clearly were fighting to retain and manage the grizzly bear hunt as it’s a important part of the ecological balance. However our votes got out numbered from general public who don’t have any understanding of what goes into wildlife conservation.

    Supporting and listening to the “stakeholders” of our province is what should have happened and today we would still have the grizzly bear hunt, as well as a better relationship with our local government.

    Not only do we have to work closely with the indigenous people, the government needs to work together with all hunters, conservation groups and indigenous members so we can create a future for flourishing wildlife populations in this province.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Kent

    Stake holder’s need to provide there in put, but more importantly is the fact that Government employee’s use this info as long as it is science based and not emotional based as the recent Grizzly Bear decision. Boot’s on the ground evidence has much credibility, as some ones six year university degree.. Engage the public but make sure that common sense prevail’s !

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chad

    All stakes holders should be invovled in wildlife management however any decisions on that management should be science based. Zero emotional arguments should be used. Also industry need to step up and start contributing more money towards better wildlife management. Logging companies, oil companies and other industry user should be putting more back in.
    As far as governance the province must put all monies collected from hunting licences back into wildlife management. The liscening money’s should never go into general revenue. It need to go to wildlife. And 40million is simply not enough for the ministry of natural resources to run on. And o that topic a ministry of fish and wildlife should be setup again and separated out of the broader pack. It’s should be ministry of wildlife AND ministry of fish. And give the ministry of wildlife the money it needs to do its job properly. The province also has to get better at working with private firms when it comes to wildlife management.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Kyle

    • How should a broad range of stakeholders be involved in wildlife management and habitat conservation decisions?
    – This new model of Wildlife Management has its merits; however, it is imperative that only stakeholders that are willing to contribute to conservation be involved. Those that fail to invest in wildlife and its well-being and that are unwilling to commit financial or in-kind resources to management should not earn a say.
    – It is imperative that science-based wildlife management be used as the backbone of this process. The North American Wildlife Management Model has a long history of effectiveness and we feel that those organizations that do not support this model should not participate in this process.
    – It is important that decision making involvement input from individuals in the regions as to what is working in their community.
    – Involve groups early in the process to offer input and direction and include that consistently throughout the entire decision-making process.

    • What are your suggestions for a new governance model for wildlife management and habitat conservation?
    – We feel that any use group that accesses crown land be responsible for user fees. If individuals are using our natural resources and natural habitat, they should be willing to pay fees associated with this. Examples of this would be wildlife viewing companies such as whale watching or bear watching companies
    – Fish and wildlife management should have legislated objectives in order that Wildlife Managers can be held accountable. Setting wildlife population objectives should be a priority.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Warren

    Only stakeholders who are willing to contribute to conservation, should be involved. Stakeholder groups need to be provincial in nature and BC based membership/workforce, and conduct on the ground activities. Any other group should not be at the table or have any say.
    Science based wildlife management needs to be the back ground of the process.

    Hunters accessing crown land pay fees in the form of hunting licenses/tags. Companies that provide access to crown land for wildlife viewing , such as whale watching, bear watching, heli skiing should pays access fees, no different than hunters or resource extraction companies

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] christopher

    Involve groups earlier in the process to offer input and direction
    Involve regional representation Citizen science

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] christopher

    Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC type model for Wildlife management
    User fee system for all user groups ( Skiing , quads, bear viewing, forest industry, mining, golfers, developments, hunters & anglers any party that uses crown land ) all proceeds going to HCTF for wildlife
    Legislate fish& wildlife management so managers are accountable and have goals and objectives regarding population level management for sustainable population levels

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Steve

    – Participants in this new model should have “skin in the game.” In other words, contributors should be actively contributing to conservation stewardship initiatives in B.C.. These groups should also be provincial in nature and have a membership that is made up of predominately B.C. residents.
    – It is imperative that science-based wildlife management be used as the backbone of this
    process. The North American Wildlife Management Model has a long history of effectiveness
    and we feel that those organizations that do not support this model should not participate in
    this process. The inclusive nature of the North American Wildlife Management Model–it encourages wildlife to flourish while maintaining access to all forms of users–is integral to its success and why it should be adopted as the foundation for wildlife management in B.C.
    – It is important that decision making involvement input from individuals in the regions as to what
    is working in their community.
    – Involve groups at the beginning of the process to offer input and direction and include that
    consistently throughout the entire decision-making process.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Stephen

    This new model of Wildlife Management has its merits; however, it is imperative that only stakeholders that are willing to contribute to conservation be involved. Groups should be provincial in nature, have a B.C.-based membership/workforce, and conduct on-the-ground stewardship activities. Those that fail to give back to wildlife and its well-being should not earn a say. – It is imperative that science-based wildlife management be used as the backbone of this process. The North American Wildlife Management Model has a long history of effectiveness and we feel that those organizations that do not support this model should not participate in this process. – It is important that decision making involvement input from individuals in the regions as to what is working in their community. – Involve groups at the beginning of the process to offer input and direction and include that consistently throughout the entire decision-making process.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sue

    Support NGOs so their voices are at least equal to those of industry. Incorporate the feedback from NGOs more so than industry as they do not have a financial interest in development and tend to be community/BC based. Look at cumulative impacts for all projects. Use a very long term lens when evaluating impacts. Ensure that the additional impacts of climate change are factored in so there need to be an even lower acceptable risk/impact. Recruit representatives from local First Nations and environmental groups as well as larger NGOs to decision making panels.
    Use the nested circle model for sustainability that shows that the environment supports the other aspects. By using this, long term protection of the environment will be the top priority.
    Get proportional representation adopted for elections so decision are less short term and political for larger projects. Once that is in place, ensure multiple political parties are at the table.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] R.

    I am heavily involved with the WSSBC and other conservation groups in BC.. government red tape and outdated policies are causing ridiculous amounts of delay! This system needs to be reworked immediately, small interest groups are steadily raising money all over BC…yet the prescribed burns for spring were once again held up??? Why?? Who is accountable for this??? It’s time BC, let’s move into the 21 century and get this work approved and done, the money is there and waiting

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Peter

    All stakeholders should be invited. However, there must be agreement on the most essential, non-negotiable tenet that no management action be permitted to trump the objective of achieving and protecting sustained biodiversity.
    Handing governance over to sport hunting fisheries sector is a disgraceful, inexcusable handing off to blatantly human-centered, single-sector interests. BC Ministry of Environment ought to provide leadership in support of encouraging wildlife respect and unqualified biodiversity; it ought not to hand off its responsibility to single-sector interests. A standing, multi-stakeholder advisory committee—one whose ultimate, overriding goal is to ensure and protect sustained biodiversity—should be established.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Gary

    I actually think that the current model of wildlife model is near perfect, but drastically under-funded so it’s not working the way it should. I recently worked in Alberta, West of Edmonton and I was astounded by the number of Conservation Officers an vehicles that I saw on a regular basis. Here in BC, I see almost none until I have to call the RAPP line. If money is an issue, why can’t we consider a Pittman Roberts – style funding model based on sales of hunting and sporting equipment (including ATV/ORVs) like they have in the US?
    I would be for properly funding the current system and enhancing it, rather than changing it to something that may not work as well.
    We also need to rely more on Science-based decision making and avoid populist political decisions. I understand that with so much of our population being urban and disconnected from the realities of a rural existence alongside wildlife, it is challenging to stand-up to the voices calling for over-protection, however we need to let the Science speak to these arguments and help folks understand that protection of the species, not the individual animal must be the ultimate goal, and that will take difficult conversations about ease of access into, and resource extraction from our wild places.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] george

    “The Public”, on the whole, is staggeringly poorly knowledgeable about plants, animals, soil, and all other things that make up the environment/habitat. This is not surprising considering that such a huge portion of the population lives in cities and is quite isolated from the environment, and the education system doesn’t address that in any way.
    Public input should be limited to what we want to see or experience, but should not address the management methods of how to accomplish that goal.
    Management methods should be determined based on real data and scientific process.
    The model for a governance model needs to be based on nothing but data and science. Anything else will ultimately damage the resources managed.
    Habitat conservation requires a realistic regulation of the industries that alter and degrade habitat in a way far beyond what most people are aware of.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Marcy

    Wish there was a way I could double vote this comment!!

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] george

    Fish, wildlife, habitat management – the ministry and the people involved – need to have the authority to regulate the industries that are most responsible for the changes we are seeing.
    That requires much better funding than at present, far better staffing than at present, and the real legal authority to do the job that the public wants done.
    The constant adjustment of hunting and fishing regulations does not, and never will, address the real problem which is habitat destruction.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Mandy

    The government needs to listen to local groups, and groups that are based in BC, not based in the US or elsewhere; or at least groups that have chapters in BC. The government needs to stop listening to urban voters who do not use the back country; and stop basing decisions on emotion, and pressure from anti hunting groups outside of BC, which negatively impacted many stakeholders. Many communities, including my own, and remote indigenous communities, lost thousands upon thousands of dollars in revenue when the grizzly hunt was ended. So involving a broad range of ‘groups’ sounds scary to me as a hunter, and back country user.
    The government needs to engage with actual hunters, trappers, indigenous groups, fish and game clubs, biologists, forestry, and private land owners. Science based decisions should be key. The government has already lost engagement with fellow hunters and rural people because we feel our voices do not matter, and do not count, especially when you look at votes. We are the people who are affected by these decisions, but unfortunately we are disengaged. Regulations are not for urbanites who live in a concrete jungle; many city dwellers do not even get outside of the city. The government must focus on user groups who actually use the resources, hunt, fish and trap, and are out on the land!

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Doug

    Having the forestry sector responsible for achieving proper ungulate habitat would be a good first step.
    Putting a value on wildlife would be a game changer as well. The province appears to be managing wildlife to zero not growing wildlife to to predetermined population target.
    Haing input from ENGO’s, hunters, trappers, commercial sectors is all good as long as none of the groups sitting at the table mandate is to eliminate one of the other groups. I am concerned this sitting government is inviting ENGO’s to the table which mandate is to eliminate hunting. Hunters put real dollars and time back into wildlife enhancement, not like many of the ENGO’s which spend their time and money on media campaigns trying to destroy other user groups (hunters and guides.)
    These ENGO’s should be weeded out of the whole consultation process. Nothing good can come from any group who’s mandate is to attac other working groups. Wildlife need to be the first priority and utilized by everyone that come to our great province.

    0
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jordan

    This new model of Wildlife Management has its merits; however, it is imperative that only stakeholders that are willing to contribute to conservation be involved. Groups should be provincial in nature, have a B.C.-based membership/workforce, and conduct on-the-ground stewardship activities. Those that fail to give back to wildlife and its well-being should not earn a say. It is imperative that science-based wildlife management be used as the backbone of this process. The North American Wildlife Management Model has a long history of effectiveness and we feel that those organizations that do not support this model should not participate in this process. It is important that decision making involvement input from individuals in the regions as to what is working in their community. – Involve groups at the beginning of the process to offer input and direction and include that consistently throughout the entire decision-making process.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ken

    Follow through on the ideas of stakeholders – they are the people who spend countless hours in the field and have a true read on what is going on, as opposed to simply logging hours behind a desk.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] kr

    Without funding, “stakeholder” suggestions almost always follow the agenda of the few volunteers that control the club. Case in point – the BCHA Back country hunters and anglers. They don’t vote on policy or have meetings and engage the members views. It is all about the cabel of Directors who promote “horse” access and no quads or anything else. Stakeholders are a dangerous ploy and government loves them, because it allows them to Consult the Public with a simple process. They exclude the general public who don’t belong to the groups.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Dave

    Involve all stakeholders and regional representatives in process to offer input and direction

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Frank

    let the people who live in their management unit have control on what happens in our area NOT SOME PERSON BEHIND A DESK IN VICTORIA. (we the people that’s the govt)should take care of our wildlife and habitat

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Evelyn

    There are so much knowledge with those that love and care about the wild. Many have done this for decades and decades Their knowledge is valuable and needs to be included.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sarah

    – Please address the negative impacts that big industry has on habitat loss, corridor fragmentation as there are major issues with animals such as wolverines and caribous unable to access habitats

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Rob

    “Stakeholders” is a counter-productive concept. All users of the wild landscape should pay into it’s preservation in accordance to the damage that they do. This payment is for fair value received. It should not confer special stakeholder rights. We’re all stakeholders in the environment.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Michael

    Increased involvement and shared stewardship is a great idea, as long as the right groups are involved. The criteria for any group or individual to be part of the discussion should be as follows:
    -they must be willing to contribute financially to wildlife conservation based on their use/exploitation of natural resources.
    -they must have some knowledge of wildlife and habitat
    -they should agree that decisions concerning wildlife and habitat be based in science.

    Beyond this, there should be a system in place to prevent politicians from ignoring input from legitimate and well informed stakeholder groups in favour of pleasing the public.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Marcy

    Governments need to involve everyone in the discussion process, from the recreational user to the conservation groups to the non-industry affiliated researchers to only 1 or 2 industry representatives. In addition, this needs to be a long term view, like 20 – 50 years. It can’t be based on the next election cycle. What happens now may not sure effects for years to come. But the effects will happen and they can have far reaching effects, like the pine beetle. How to bring so many different and varied people to the table? I’m not sure. But asking for representatives from WWF or Sierra Club would be a start. Providing non-industry funding to researchers at UBC and SFU would be another. Perhaps using a survey system like Talk Vancouver to engage the general public and recreational users would be another. But the biggest thing is to LISTEN to all of this people, not just a select few who contribute to a political party. And somehow ensuring that there is less dependency on election cycles for decision making.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Nadine

    No further loss of habitat. Believe that growth is not required. Maximize already heavily impacted areas within urban environments. If it’s not in our face then it shouldn’t be built. We need to understand that we can’t continue to expand our human footprint. It is ok for us to believe we have had our fair share and we don’t have any right to more.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Karoline

    Wildlife need a voice. Organizations such as the David Suzuki Foundati as well as other wildlife supporting organizations should be at the table. In North Vancouver we have the North Shore Black Bear Society, they help us co-exist with the black bears. They are an excellent example of an organization that should be involved. We need to make sure that we put value on wildlife habitat. Too much has been taken away to profit organizations and expand our own habitat. Organizations that value wildlife must participate.

    1
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jeff

    There should be a Round Table discussion between all stakeholders until there is an agreed upon decision to present to ministry, no loopholes or grey areas will be accepted. Ministers should be educated and experienced outdoorsmen

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Mike

    A round table discussion with concerned parties (industry leaders, wildlife groups, biologists land owners etc) may bring balanced solutions. Or it may be so fractured that no decisions can be made effectively. Ultimately if the government wants to stop the decline of wildlife populations they need to listen to and act upon the biologists recommendations based on the best available science and statistics.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Nick

    Management decisions should be only science based. Nothing else should be factored in. It’s either sustainable or it’s not – black and white.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Kevin

    Wildlife should have primary consideration for all decisions. Incorporate wildlife fences and over /underpasses on all major routes. Governance should take precendence over other considerations.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sharron

    It is important to recognize and value the enormous amount of knowledge, volunteer hours, and involvement of groups like the BCWF and fish and game organizations like the Oceola Fish and Game Club. These groups should be involved in planning at all stages.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Onni

    I look forward to seeing that NGOs supporting environmental protection and stewardship are not seen as “the enemy”. I look forward to seeing that there is recognition for the concern about ineffective management. I look forward to seeing that corporations do not control the legislation that is proposed and passed. How about offering opportunities to the public to become involved in the management and enforcement process like citizen data for bird counts.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ryan

    As the bank of Canada’s role is so crucially important, they are independent from but guided by parliament, I believe that a strong mandate be set and an independent wildlife conservation board be constructed and given authority over all wildlife issues.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Cody

    I believe that there already is a wide range of stake holders already at the table voicing their concerns. These groups are already involved with the wildlife of this province and represent thousand of boots on the ground all around B.C. so it may be wise for the powers at be to involve them some way in the process of decision making and heed what they have to say.

    To have a truly independent and successful model for wildlife management it have scientific based management decisions and objectives. Emotion and feelings are not adequate evidence to base wildlife management decisions on. Wildlife should be telling us with data on population trends, habitat health and recruitment rate on what practices are acceptable.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Nick

    As someone who grew up loving the wild life and wild places in BC but only now at 30 yrs old is starting to take part in advocating on behalf of the animals and their habitats made me feel guilty. I plan on becoming a hunter and harvesting some food from our great province this year and through this process I have realised that i need to contribute in adding a voice to what I feel is important to me. And so I have been drawn to contribute to the like of BC wildlife federation and others I plan to connect with such as the wild sheep society , Backcountry hunters and anglers. All of them passionate about doing what’s fair and what’s best for the animals of our province. I feel decisions about our resources need to be based on science and actual facts about the state of the wild life their habitats and the human impacts on them. Humans are emotional creatures and how we feel about certain species should have no bearing on placing that species in a special category just because it’s popular. A balanced ecosystem with all native species on the landscape in healthy numbers in relation to their habitats is a necessity. With the encroachment of man on all corners of this province the need for active wildlife management is crucial it cannot be left alone to sort itself out. So more frequent studies of wildlife populations need to occur and the results are the only thing that should dicate how they are managed. In addition to listening to what the people who value that wildlife and fish resource the most.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    All stakeholders need to pay their fair share into a fund marked for wildlife and habitat conservation. Wildlife and habitat models need to be based on sound science.
    Too often knee jerk politics, urban polls and foreign interests seem to Trump the needs of Wildlife and the people who spend time in the outdoors.
    Adopting an American style system of wildlife management might be beneficial. They have been very successful in increasing big game species numbers while at the same time allowing hunting.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] David

    The Grizzly Bear ban is a perfect example of what NOT to do… the “downstream” impacts of the affect of more bears on bear-human interaction, prey populations, etc. was not considered and we will soon see the impacts.

    The previous question implied implicit First Nations knowledge on wildlife management – more weight must be given to those living in and around the impacted wildlife as compared to those living outside of the management area.

    The intent must always be to preserve wildlife and access to wildlife for all British Columbians across the entire province. Private land boundaries, territorial boundaries, corporate resource extraction boundaries, etc. must not be a “wink and a nudge” that is really used to create private “preserves” where only a select few have access to the wonders offered by our province.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] John

    The North American Model of Wildlife Management has proven to be an effective management tool, there doesn’t, need to be a new model developed for BC. What needs to occur is proper funding to occur so that proper studies/programs can be developed to restore our wildlife
    Currently funding comes from limited sources, mainly direct users. Future funding should come from non-consumptive users, ie. birdwatchers ets. Resource extraction which alters the habitat is another source of funding.

    Involvement of other groups should be limited so that “agendas” do not influence decisions or actions to manage wildlife. Involvement of members various “interest” groups could have a role in providing input to wildlife managers who need to utilize the principles of NA Model of Wildlife Management Politics and special interest agendas need to be kept out of wildlife management, management needs to be bases on science.
    Citizen science from FN people’s and others can be of assistance in certain programs, ie wildlife surveys, traditional knowledge, etc. Involvement of public in various programs will result in better acceptance objectives of wildlife management, again sticking with the principles of NAMWM.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Dan

    Why? Quit trying to absolve yourselves of the responsibility to protect our land and water. If NGOs want to buy land, great, but it is GOVERNMENT’S role to ensure sustainable land use is observed.

    Just do your job.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jack

    We should be very careful with the statement “A broad range of stakeholders.” It’s a good thing for everyone to be a part of the conversation, but increased credence needs to be given to wildlife biologists and conservation organizations. The grizzly bear hunt ban is a perfect example of the wrong stakeholders making the decision. Governments role is to make the right decision, not just a popular one. Educate the public on the science behind conservation and HEAVILY weigh the experts opinions.

    The question of governance model is a little over the scope of my knowledge. I think that we need to focus on habitat above all. If the proper habitat is preserved, wildlife will do well. What I do know is that greater funding is needed for wildlife management. Conservation should be a larger slice of the budget, and corporations that benefit from resource extraction should be injecting more funding into the system (think National Land and Water Conservation fund in the U.S.). Although unpopular, I would also be in favour of a tax similar to the Pittman-Robertson act in the US.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jefferson

    Ecosystems, habitat conservation, species preservation are essential for all British Columbian human animal residents. ‘Stakeholders’ is a term developed to refer to those involved/partnered in our current consumptive model of government system ‘management’. Consumptive, anthropocentric emphasis equates to ecological imbalance/destruction. New governance must prioritize preservation, rehabilitation and stewardship of ecological integrity independent of archaic human bias for consumptive use, ‘harvest’, etc. For example, vilification and eradication of wolves, over restricting/stopping habitat destruction, and limiting/curbing human activities responsible for reducing/increasing cervid (deer) & bovid (cows) populations….as chronic wasting disease spreads westward, unabated (wolf predation restricts disease spread), and logging (“old growth”) destroys Winter (feeding) range.
    The effects of people, people, people, me, me, me first….is now self-evident to most. 
New Government stewardship is required to address with proactive solutions dedicated to prioritization of preservation of ecological integrity.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Michael

    The current structure for wildlife management indicates that there is a strong bias towards hunting and natural resources industries in BC. There must be a separation of government and industry, so that there is no undue influence and biased policy making. Furthermore, wildlife policy decisions should be made from a more holistic perspective that benefits everyone in BC by taking all key stakeholders’ perspectives into account.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] John

    Wholeheartedly agree with this from Michael.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Allan

    Politics has no place in wildlife management and conservation.

    I believe that hunting, fishing and gathering are among our most basic human rights. It is our nature and our instinct to survive by these activities. Before and since colonization, everywhere on earth. I do not know any human being that can deny it.

    The definition of traditional hunting needs clarification. Modern weapons, lights and vehicles would have no place in traditional hunting. Times have changed and for the sake of reconciliation this must be recognized and the North American Wildlife Conservation Model should be shared, recognized and embraced by all that want to hunt, fish, gather or view and enjoy wildlife and wilderness areas.

    Governments, politicians, lawyers, judges and anti-hunters (disguised as environmentalists) do not want First Nations hunters, resident hunters and guide outfitters to come together and recognize that together we can manage wildlife under the North American Wildlife Conservation Model to all of our benefit. We all need to put wildlife first.

    If that happens it is not good for their business but it would be excellent for the future of healthy wildlife populations.

    Collectively, we are the reason there is still enough for us to share. Under a coalition of all our respected organizations and communities, wildlife and wilderness habitat would, could, should and I hope and pray will thrive. To take this one step further and strengthen such a coalition, wildlife viewing businesses would join us, recognizing that they benefitted and exist due to our labour and investment and could continue to enjoy success by being a partner in this coalition.

    Together, we must provide the government and society the answer: the truth of the way it is outside of the concrete jungle. We have to unite and win for the sake of wildlife.

    United we stand. Division is the end of hunting, to tradition, to heritage and to wildlife and wild places. We are one.

    Government should take direction from us and the paid professional biologists and managers.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Keith

    Preserve wetlands from development within city limits. The vast majority of our population live in the Lower Mainland which is beset by hundreds of thousands of snow geese but the area of public lands and shootable areas is restricted year by year. We need hunting opportunities to help reduce numbers of snow geese for their benefit as well as for our sport and larders. Don’t let municipalities close off these areas or sell them off for development.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Dustin

    I will agree with Jake on this challenge. Land use plans should be in place and decisions need to be based on scientific fact rather than emotional outcry and social media campaigns. We need better funding for our wildlife conservation in this province.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] John

    For far too long, almost all wildlife management decisions in this province have been made by the minority, by the hunting and trapping community. And while hunters and trappers and guide-outfitters absolutely must remain at the table as key stakeholders, the rest of society also needs to be represented: stakeholders and decision makers should be included from the tourism sector, the industrial development sector, First Nations, environmental NGOs, and the general public. Everyone should be given an equal voice and our wildlife should be managed for the good of all, not just for the good of one or two minority groups.

    I also feel there needs to be a much stronger vision toward protecting habitat and involving more of these key stakeholders should help with achieving that. Habitat decisions have been made for far too long with industrial development in mind and I think hunters and trappers and wildlife lovers and hikers, etc can all agree that we need to be setting aside more habitat or we will continue to slowly be managing toward zero.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Dave

    Connecting with local rod and gun clubs and other users groups to share what they are seeing in their regions with their boots on the ground.
    Perhaps it is linked to common web based server so others can see and hear what is happening in other MU’s through posts and photos
    Notes on habitat and what is directly affecting it in real time.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sorelle

    • The provincial government took ownership of stray domestic rabbits and their feral offspring by deeming them ‘wildlife’ as soon as they were abandoned. This in turn caused the municipalities to back away from rabbit control. The loose rabbit problems became much worse under these policies thus I feel that FLNRORD has an obligation to take the lead role to fix this problem. However, there are many avenues of support.
    • The rabbits fall under pets and agriculture as well as wildlife, all those sources should be mined for support. They are a animal welfare and an environmental concern. Support can be garnered from both rabbit fans and foes, eg: animal welfare groups will donate to help support the rabbits, property owners and businesses will pay for pest control. (As urban wildlife, control options are limited).
    • If the rabbits are allowed to continue breeding and spread beyond the cities to native habitats and farmland, control will be impossible.
    • Rabbits are barely given lip service in the provincial and local invasive species management programs.
    • The provincial government must form partnerships with rescues, wildlife associations, municipalities and other government departments (eg: agriculture) to address the growing invasive feral domestic rabbits populations all over BC.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] John

    I believe that under this new government that all stake holders are not treated equal and that hunters are being kicked to the side. I think that all groups need to start being treated equally and I believe that its time all groups work respectfully together on wildlife issues for the better of nature.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Leilah

    The direction needs to be science driven, not by the stakeholders themselves. BC has seen too much of what happens when mining companies and forestry companies get to self-regulate around conservation and corporate responsibility.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Allan

    Politics has no place in wildlife management and conservation.

    I believe that hunting, fishing and gathering are among our most basic human rights. It is our nature and our instinct to survive by these activities. Before and since colonization, everywhere on earth. I do not know any human being that can deny it.

    The definition of traditional hunting needs clarification. Modern weapons, lights and vehicles would have no place in traditional hunting. Times have changed and for the sake of reconciliation this must be recognized and the North American Wildlife Conservation Model should be shared, recognized and embraced by all that want to hunt, fish, gather or view and enjoy wildlife and wilderness areas.

    Governments, politicians, lawyers, judges and anti-hunters (disguised as environmentalists) do not want First Nations hunters, resident hunters and guide outfitters to come together and recognize that together we can manage wildlife under the North American Wildlife Conservation Model to all of our benefit. We all need to put wildlife first.

    If that happens it is not good for their business but it would be excellent for the future of healthy wildlife populations.

    Collectively, we are the reason there is still enough for us to share. Under a coalition of all our respected organizations and communities, wildlife and wilderness habitat would, could, should and I hope and pray will thrive. To take this one step further and strengthen such a coalition, wildlife viewing businesses would join us, recognizing that they benefitted and exist due to our labour and investment and could continue to enjoy success by being a partner in this coalition.

    Together, we must provide the government and society the answer: the truth of the way it is outside of the concrete jungle. We have to unite and win for the sake of wildlife.

    United we stand. Division is the end of hunting, to tradition, to heritage and to wildlife and wild places. We are one.

    Government should take direction from us and the paid professional biologists and managers.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Serena

    Many local hunters and farmers do not use social media. The vote for banning Grizzly Bear hunts would never have passed, if hunters and locals were more informed during the vote. It effects everyone who lives in their habitat.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Andrew

    In order to increase involvement more effort should be placed in terms of advertisement of the current issues and opportunities for involvement. I only knew about this engagement process through my personal interests in wildlife and conservation. I’m sure the majority of British Columbians have no idea this is occuring.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Warren

    It is governments responsibility to manage wildlife and wildlife habitat. Shifting wildlife decisions and policy making to stakeholders may seem like a great way for government to cut costs, but wildlife and habitat will be paying the price. Although many user groups have valuable input, it is the biologists that are the professionals and can truly look at situations and make informed decisions based on science. Stakeholders should be consulted but biologists must be the ones making final decisions. Science must be what all wildlife decisions are based on.

    There is NO need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to a model for wildlife management. The best system with over a hundred years of proven success is the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. All seven core principles must be followed. The only reason there is any discussion of changing the model is because the sixth principle has not been followed. It states that “science is the proper tool for discharge of wildlife policy”. If we let public opinion drive policy wildlife and wildlife habitat does not stand a chance. Science does not have biases or agendas but public opinion certainly does. Science always will lead us to do what is best in building policy.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Josh

    Non-Government Conservation Organizations have a very hard time completing wildlife enhancement projects due to lengthy and cumbersome government approval processes. If efficiencies could be made with these processes much more private funding could be spent on BC’s wild land and wildlife.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] mario

    All wildlife management must be based on sound scientifically based principles. Local rod and gun clubs are often looking for ways to engage in management activities and projects in a meaningful way but they require guidance – perhaps from ministry scientists – to help them to make decisions and choose suitable projects. Hunters have, for the past 150 years, been the main leaders in wildlife conservation in North America. It is a successful model that is the envy of the world. It has resulted in abundant wildlife populations and allowed the common man to have access to hunting opportunities that few other nations could even dream about.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Martin

    Wildlife needs to me managed by science and not by emotion.

    Would think full finding would go a long way… Only a small amount of money that I pay for tags towards tags and management from what I understand why is that? Why do I pay for tags and then the government doesn’t use that money for wildlife management and then I need to donate to groups to make up for the governments mismanagement?

    More funding… More science! You have the money we’ve paid it already.

    100% of tag money to fund conservation

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Leeanne

    The books need to be open and audited regularly by many stakeholders but especially the groups who want to see wildlife alive and not dead. You should have key members of non government wildlife groups at the table for discussions

    0
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Vickie

    I feel that wildlife management should be strictly science based and not political or emotional. That being said there needs to be more funding towards the science that is needed to make the most educated decisions. It certainly doesn’t hurt to keep a wide variety of groups who have a common interest in wildlife conservation a part of any conversation regarding management. I’m sure sending info on current or upcoming decisions to fish and game clubs with enough time to have a conversation happen within the respective clubs would go a long way.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Scott

    “Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money.”
    ~Cree Indian Proverb

    What we appreciate, appreciates. Much more unites us than divides us. Let’s put our differences aside and stay focused on our common goal of achieving healthy wildlife populations, for all to enjoy, now and in the future.

    While it’s important to consult a broad range of stakeholders in wildlife management, it is more important that this is place-based and puts a higher priority upon individuals who are vested in wildlife management. People such as tenure holders, First Nations, and those who have boots on the ground and live in-area need to be most involved because they possess invaluable local knowledge.

    As involvement of stakeholders is increased, care must be taken to evaluate the motives of those contributing. First and foremost, they must share in the common goal of healthy wildlife populations for all to enjoy, now and in the future. Weight should be placed upon the informed, active and directly-engaged users – the ones who have skin in the game and can accurately speak to what is really happening. Extracted from the discussion should be those with uneducated, emotions-based, nonscience-based agendas. We must be mindful of the source of funding for certain organizations, and their larger political motivations. We must ensure that rational thought and science trumps emotion. Otherwise we rob from future generations.

    To this end, hunters and anglers need to be recognized for the vital role they play in conservation – as opposed to being vilified for their wild harvests. Our modern, convenience-based society has become increasingly removed from our food sources and the part we play in the bigger picture. Michael Pollan captured it well in The Omnivores Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals when he stated: “One of the odder ironies of animal rights is that it asks us to acknowledge all we share with animals, and then act toward them in a most un-animalistic way.”

    Wildlife managers (SDMs) must have performance measures with habitat and population objectives to manage to. So too they need more authority over habitat and land use. Once goals have been established, statutory decision makers must legally consider the actions of their land-use decisions. Wildlife goals must be densities based on habitat capacity. Tough, and often unpopular, decisions must be made in wildlife management. These decisions need to be science-based, rooted in habitat capability and population objectives.

    There are many places to which we can look for inspiration and demonstrated success. For example, give a cattleman 100-head of cattle and he will be flexible and strategic to ensure a healthy and profitable cow herd. Yet, give a provincial wildlife manager a herd of moose or caribou to manage and he will watch and count that population decline to zero. This is the heartbreaking reality in British Columbia.

    While the cattleman is driven to make a profit and has the autonomy to take multiple factors into consideration – such as cow size, time of calving, carrying capacity of summer pasture and number of graze days, and protection from predators – the wildlife manager has no such authority over other resource use and no power to grow wildlife. Under current government legislation, wildlife managers are without population objectives to manage to. They are hampered by political agenda, public opinion and pressure from big corporations. This leaves them powerless to enact actual change on the landscape. While the cattleman has a stewardship and entrepreneurial mindset and is driven to make decisions in favor of production and profit, wildlife managers have not been empowered to take the steps required to realize change. Without protected sanctuaries, habitat management, or control over resource extraction, their role has been limited to managing hunters.

    Citizen Science is an important piece of the puzzle. Individuals such as outfitters take a long-term approach to wildlife management and often have thousands of hours on the ground with significant local knowledge. This is mainly because outfitters have defined boundaries and cannot move. Similarly, First Nations have traditional territories and take a seven-generations perspective to wildlife management. Local knowledge and First Nations traditional knowledge must be incorporated into population models to improve accuracy.
    • Local community-based input is crucial
    • Inclusion of local and traditional knowledge
    • Need a balance of all species across the landscape i.e. predator and prey
    • Develop wildlife populations for predator and prey species, based on habitat capability
    • Objectives need to be created so everyone understands what we are managing to

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Alexandra

    Engaging stakeholder groups is great but means of input must be restricted to BC residents or at least input from non-resident respondents must be classified as such. Respondents should have to leave their addresses and the addresses should be audited.

    This consultation is open to anyone, as was the grizzly hunt email consultation. That consultation apparently justified the hunt. If we were discussing transit funding maybe that wouldn’t be a big deal but wildlife issues often receive international attention. With social media, international NGOs could easily swamp a consultation with input from non-residents.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Alexandra

    **should say “justified the hunt ban”

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] David

    Honestly, it is the government’s role to take into consideration non-government stakeholder views of special interest groups both from the conservation and industrial perspectives, however, government must rise above and arrive at a balanced decision that takes into consideration science, as well as social and economic needs of the land base and its constituents. Also, government has a responsibility to look at new data or models when presented.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Tyler

    One ongoing issue is revenue from hunting licenses & tags being directed into a general revenue fund, instead of being 100% directly allocated back into conservation projects, habitat enhancement, etc.

    One suggestion for a new governance model is to manage wildlife on sound scientific data, and not emotion as was done with the cancellation of the grizzly bear hunt. This is a slippery slope and very dangerous for wildlife populations if management decisions continue in this direction.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Warren

    A “broad range of stakeholders” should not be involved in wildlife management and habitat conservation. This is the job of professional biologists. They can examine the data and implement decisions based on science. Too many uneducated opinions that are used to build wildlife policy is just asking for trouble down the line.

    I’m very much against developing a “new” wildlife management model. The North American Wildlife Conservation model is the gold standard that cannot be improved upon. We need to educate our elected officials of this model and hold them to task when they deviate from the seven guiding principles.

    The success of this model speaks for it’s self. Let’s not waste time trying to reinvent the wheel.

    Let’s do the right thing and move out of the way and let the biologists do what they are trained to do.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Laurie

    Start managing our forests for ecosystem values first and foremost, instead of economic and political interests first as is the current situation. I would like to see an end to clear cutting in favor if more progressive forestry practices that are less devastating to ecosystems and wildlife (ecoforestry and selective logging). I would like to see Auditor General’s reports and Forest Practices Board recommendations actually followed by the Ministry of Forests instead of ignored year after year. I’d like to see legal protections for red and blue listed plant communities and animal species throughout the province and those lists updated in accordance with the CDC. I would like to see greater consideration for other public forest values such as watershed protection, recreational values. Get rid of the Liberal appointments in the Ministry as they are continuing to stonewall meaningful change in forest and ecosystems management. Reform the current professional reliance system used by forest companies to get the results they want. Use the precautionary principle in forest management as climate change will have unknown consequences. Create connectivity between remaining natural forests. Preserve at least a third of all representative ecosystems and stop relying on unproven conservation mechanisms like wildlife tree patches and recruitment OGMA to up the preservation quotas. Decrease the AAC in over-harvested areas like Vancouver Is and the Sunshine Coast.

    Farming is a major source of habitat loss and pollution. Offer incentives to organic growers, who encourage wildlife and retain or improve habitat on their properties.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Andrea

    Exclude wildlife management from politics! For example, in our recent election, Grizzly bear hunt regulations should not be included in a party campaign platform. Decisions should be made by managers, with consideration of First Nations, science, and stakeholders. Large lobbyists with deep pockets should not sway management decisions because they have successfully swayed public opinion with emotion based campaigning.

    0
    0
    permalink
Comments are closed.