My Response:
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/publicati...fe_and_Hab.htm
Senior Member
Originally Posted by caddisguy
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote