Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 121 to 124 of 124

Thread: National Indigenous Day BCWF Reconciliation Dialogue

  1. #121
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    14

    Re: National Indigenous Day BCWF Reconciliation Dialogue

    Hi Rob,

    Pointed question: do you think we can ignore what the feds and province are doing regarding access to fish, wildlife and the land base and water? That may actually be a point of disagreement between us. I think we need to respond. What I'm hearing from you (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that we should not respond.
    I certainly think a response is necessary. I just feel that the approach in that response is misguided right now. I was hoping to learn more about it at the town hall (can we agree to call it that?). As I say, I walked away disheartened. The positive to come from that though is that I realized that I need to share these criticisms, and hopefully they are taken constructively. That's why I came here after the town hall, and thanks for engaging again.

    the obvious follow up is "OK, what should the response be, given the restrictions that BCWF operates under?"
    I'm not part of the BCWF management and I can't pretend to understand the details of the work, so I can only armchair quarterback this one (as per my June 22 post). Most of what I have to offer comes in the form of approach. Very broadly, I would conserve funds by withdrawing from expensive external consultants (Solomon is a nice guy but I don't think he will build bridges you can't build yourself when needed), and re-deploy them to public awareness campaigns.

    Further discussion of this is an area of interest for me, and would certainly be something I'd like to talk about if I were ever a deeper part of the discussion on approach to these issues at the BCWF.

    but did you miss that the policy that the committee follows has existed for years? We're updating existing policy, but the policy existed before the committee, so I'm not clear what you're disagreeing with.
    No I was unaware of the policy, and that's a big reason why I attended the event. By your own admission though, the policy is outdated, and there is no appropriate replacement at this time, so in my mind there would not have been anything for the panel to credibly offer in terms of policy explanation at that town hall.

    I don't want to give the impression that I'm not sensitive to FN issues, and recent news. My point is that this tragedy shouldn't be a pretext for concessions on wildlife management, nor should conservation be handed over as some sort of reconciliation offering.

    Thanks again Rob,
    Last edited by BydeIt; 06-25-2021 at 08:09 AM. Reason: clarification on my association with BCWF.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    1,888

    Re: National Indigenous Day BCWF Reconciliation Dialogue

    Quote Originally Posted by BydeIt View Post
    By your own admission though, the policy is outdated, and there is no appropriate replacement at this time, so in my mind there would not have been anything for the panel to credibly offer in terms of policy explanation at that town hall.

    We agreed to disagree on this one, right? You are of the opinion that the townhall had one purpose, and I know for a fact that it had another.


    If your opinion of what the organizers were trying to do is accurate then your criticism makes sense. If what the organizers actually say they were trying to do is accurate (which it is) then your criticism does not make sense. We were looking for questions, fears, concerns and other types of feedback and input. We were not ever attempting to explain policy. Everyone on the committee and on the Board knows that we are not at the explanation stage yet.

    You see where I'm going, right? You cannot reasonably say we did a particular task the wrong way when we were never trying to do that task. You can criticize the quality of the communication, but you're kind of stretching when you claim that you know what we were actually thinking but that I don't. I was there, and I was very involved.

    We can't explain policy when the policy is outdated and needs to be updated.

    We can't create policy without knowing what the membership thinks.

    We need to communicate with membership to obtain that knowledge.

    Once we obtain that knowledge we can update a policy to be sent to the Board to go through the approval process.



    Nobody is "admitting" that existing policy is outdated. When you use that term it sounds as if you've proven that someone has been doing something wrong. That's not what occurred between us. You said we should have policy before the committee does anything. I told you that we do have a policy and that it requires updating, ergo the townhall. Your assumption about the state of BCWF IR policy was incorrect. You've gotta take the L on that.


    The word you're probably looking for is "recognized*. Everyone involved in BCWF governance, including guys who were instrumental in writing the existing policy, *recognized* that the existing policy is out of date. Now you've also *recognized* that policy both already exists and is outdated. You're not *admitting* anything. There was nothing particularly wrong with the existing policy. The problem is that the world changed (court cases, new precedents and rulings, plus government policies and goals) and the policy has not yet changed with it.

    I was explaining to you that a) BCWF IR policy exists, therefore there is no "putting the cart before the horse" as you outlined and b) we need to update the policy and that requires feedback from the membership.



    Quote Originally Posted by BydeIt View Post
    Solomon is a nice guy but I don't think he will build bridges you can't build yourself when needed


    It's not Solomon's job to build bridges. Asking him to do that would be a mistake. We identified early in this process that the bridges cannot be between a BCWF retained consultant and First Nations, nor even between an individual within BCWF and First Nations, but must be between the organization and various First Nations. Solomon's job is to provide BCWF with some Indigenous perspective and some First Nations/government relations insights.


    Quote Originally Posted by BydeIt View Post
    I don't want to give the impression that I'm not sensitive to FN issues, and recent news. My point is that this tragedy shouldn't be a pretext for concessions on wildlife management, nor should conservation be handed over as some sort of reconciliation offering.
    I'm at a loss for why you're telling me that you're sensitive to First Nations issues, or any recent news.

    I'm equally at a loss about why you're linking the news out of Kamloops to some sort of pretext that BCWF is using that information to make concessions on wildlife management or conservation. Like, are you under the impression that BCWF is conceding something? What, exactly, would that thing that we're conceding be?


    What, aside from less than perfect communications that gave you an incorrect perception about the purpose if the townhall, do we actually disagree on? It's not the first time I've asked. It would be helpful to know because a) you're a BCWF member and b) we're looking for that kind of input to help us update policy and ensure it reflects what membership wants.
    Rob Chipman
    "The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey
    "Grown men do not need leaders" - also Ed Abbey

  3. #123
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    14

    Re: National Indigenous Day BCWF Reconciliation Dialogue

    Rob,

    You asked:

    but did you miss that the policy that the committee follows has existed for years? We're updating existing policy, but the policy existed before the committee, so I'm not clear what you're disagreeing with.
    I answered

    No I was unaware of the policy, and that's a big reason why I attended the event. By your own admission though, the policy is outdated, and there is no appropriate replacement at this time, so in my mind there would not have been anything for the panel to credibly offer in terms of policy explanation at that town hall.
    Nowhere in here do I suggest what the townhall was for. I'm simply answering your question, and then explaining that I was hoping to gain insight into it by attending the townhall. Regardless of what it was meant for, it is legitimate for me to attend in the hopes of learning more about the thinking at BCWF.



    Here's you:

    Nobody is "admitting" that existing policy is outdated.
    Here's you a few sentences later:

    I told you that we do have a policy and that it requires updating,
    I don't appreciate the difference between "outdated" and "requires updating". Please elaborate.



    It's not Solomon's job to build bridges. Asking him to do that would be a mistake. We identified early in this process that the bridges cannot be between a BCWF retained consultant and First Nations, nor even between an individual within BCWF and First Nations, but must be between the organization and various First Nations. Solomon's job is to provide BCWF with some Indigenous perspective and some First Nations/government relations insights.
    You asked me for my input. I maintain that this consultancy is not a wise use of limited BCWF resources. You could collect the indigenous perspective by direct outreach instead of paying someone to tell you. Feel free to continue to believe you are getting value here - I'm just sharing the perspective I've been asked for.



    I'm at a loss for why you're telling me that you're sensitive to First Nations issues, or any recent news.

    I'm equally at a loss about why you're linking the news out of Kamloops to some sort of pretext that BCWF is using that information to make concessions on wildlife management or conservation.
    Here's you on a June 10 post on this thread:

    Something to consider is that it's really tough to slice conservation off of the bigger reconciliation question.
    You think, at a minimum, that reconciliation and conservation are related. This comment of yours was made in response to the suggestion that science-based conservation needs to be the rule of the land, regardless of FN objections to it. I believe that reconciliation should not deter the BCWF insistence on science-based conservation.

    Perhaps your comment is only indicative of your own perspective, and not a reflection of the thinking at the BCWF. If that's the case feel free to clarify.

    Thanks,

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    1,888

    Re: National Indigenous Day BCWF Reconciliation Dialogue

    Quote Originally Posted by BydeIt View Post
    Nowhere in here do I suggest what the townhall was for.
    You kind of do:
    Quote Originally Posted by BydeIt View Post
    The event was, objectively, much more a live Q&A than it was a session for feedback.
    That perception may be reasonable, but the conclusion is incorrect. We solicited and received a ton of feedback. We're working through 30+ questions from the membership.


    The distinction I was making was between "admitting" and "recognized". "Admitting" can imply that the person doing the admitting had to be somehow forced to suddenly get honest about something. That didn't happen. BCWF *recognized* that we had outdated policy and we undertook to update it. We've been clear about this all along and I've said it to you repeatedly.

    Here's why I've told you this repeatedly:

    Quote Originally Posted by BydeIt View Post
    I would think that a thesis which would drive policy would be in place prior to policy drafting, which in turn would be in place prior to the board committing large amounts of membership fees to an initiative focused on the FN file. This is crucial for me - the cart is being put before the horse here,
    The thesis is in place (BCWF needs to respond to the fact of Truth and Reconciliation, as well as the fact that First Nations exert a great deal of influence over the achievement of BCWF goals). The policy was in place prior to committing time, energy and funds to the initiative. The policy *is* outdated. That's the *current* policy, which is *currently* in place. We're working on updating the policy, and to do that we need membership input. The cart is not before the horse. You're mixed up on that.



    Quote Originally Posted by BydeIt View Post
    I don't appreciate the difference between "outdated" and "requires updating". Please elaborate.
    There is no difference. AS explained above, I wasn't talking about outdated vs requires updating. I was contrasting admitted and recognized, and pointing out that the policy that you felt should be in place before anything else occurred is, in fact, in place.


    Quote Originally Posted by BydeIt View Post
    You could collect the indigenous perspective by direct outreach instead of paying someone to tell you.
    and
    Quote Originally Posted by BydeIt View Post
    It's easy to armchair quarterback these situations,


    Direct outreach is very difficult. In fact, it is one of our biggest challenges. When you hear the phrases "G2G" or Nation to Nation" one of the things that goes along with that is "If you're not a government or a nation or you don't come with a significant amount of funding, we don't want to take your call". Not all First Nations people, groups or governments act that way, but many do. Ask your MLA if they get their calls returned. Mine don't. A lot of my calls are't taken or returned, and, as you have experienced, I don't quit.

    However...if you have that skillset there is a place for you on our committee. The pay off to you is that you'll be providing valuable service to a great conservation organization, you'll help us move the needle on fish, wildlife, habitat and access, and....you'll be able to prove me wrong.

    Thanks for the answer on why you're sensitive to FN issues. I was under the impression that you thought the subject was reconciliation writ large rather than how BCWF responds to it in order to achieve our goals.


    Quote Originally Posted by BydeIt View Post
    You think, at a minimum, that reconciliation and conservation are related.
    Absolutely, but it's critical that you understand why in order to support it. BCWF is trying to achieve conservation goals. One way to do that is to establish effective working relations with First Nations. It follows that collaborating with First Nations on conservation projects (many of which are not divisive) makes sense. Additionally, the government has a history of being hard to move when it comes to loosening purse strings. Most people recognize, however, that the government is a bit more generous when Indigenous peoples and groups are involved (they recognize it because it's a demonstrable fact). We don't have a lot of power over government. Our members (and you're one) are pretty slow to go button hole politicians. We need other pressure points. The government wants lasting reconciliation so we have two avenues: one is to collaborate with First Nations and use that to get government funding (yes, I know that government money is our money, but government doesn't always see it that way) and the second is to tell government that if they want lasting reconciliation they need buy in from, among others, BCWF membership (who currently feel ignored and dismissed). Last reconciliation requires that government consult with BCWF early and often so that we can tell the government what our members feel, fear and want.

    (You see why getting feedback from members on what they feel, fear and want is so critical).




    Quote Originally Posted by BydeIt View Post
    science-based conservation needs to be the rule of the land
    That is BCWF's stated position and we haven't considered abandoning it.

    Quote Originally Posted by BydeIt View Post
    regardless of FN objections to it
    So, when the government commits to listening to First Nations on the value of Indigenous environmental knowledge (which they have done) and when fish, wildlife, habitat and fire scientists do the same, are you suggesting that BCWF take a completely independent position and oppose it or treat it as irrelevant? There's four clear reasons why that's a really bad idea. First, it will piss off people who exert a great deal of influence over what we do. Second, there is plenty of Indigenous knowledge that is worthwhile and valuable. Third (and this should matter to many BCWF members) there are many, many non-Indigenous people who spend lots of time on the land and have lots of knowledge that is very similar to Indigenous knowledge. Those people have been dismissed....forever. They complain about it on this forum....all the time. Because Indigenous knowledge has been recognized, guess what? There's a new, third player: non-Indigenous local knowledge.

    The fourth really clear reason why we don't ignore FN objections to science is that there is no profit in it for us to do so. There is only loss. We're much better off reconciling the two bodies of knowledge as much as possible. Feel free to refute this.

    Quote Originally Posted by BydeIt View Post
    I believe that reconciliation should not deter the BCWF insistence on science-based conservation.
    Reconciliation does not deter BCWF from insisting on science based conservation. I think you might be wanting to place the stress on "insisting", however. Do you think Indigenous peoples reject science or science based management? They do not, whether on predator control or, for example, the SIMDeer project, which is science and has Indigenous participation (the list continues).

    The other hot button issue is non-licensed harvest numbers. BCWF has broached that with First Nations. It's an extremely prickly subject, get's me reamed by Indigenous people fairly often, and it will take a lot of work, but the prickliness isn't based on an objection to science. It's based on mistrust of government.

    These are not personal perspectives. What I've told you are the particulars of the problems we're dealing with.

    If you have a more effective way to handle the challenge of achieving what BCWF has had as its aims and mandate (fish, wildlife, habitat, access, funding, science) come and join the committee.

    I'm out until Sunday night. Your input is valuable because I think it clarifies that many of the membership might be fearing: that BCWF is changing from a conservation organization into something else (We're not. Our goals are what's in our constitution, bylaws, polices, etc. All of that is out in the open).

    I think that there is also a misperception that BCWF can effectively demand that government or First Nations do much more than BCWF can actually do. We're a non-profit volunteer organization. We can only do what our members back us up on and what we have power to do.

    Members have to tell us what they want, and then members have to commit to working for it (by talking to and writing to MLAs and MPS).
    Last edited by Rob Chipman; 06-30-2021 at 11:01 AM.
    Rob Chipman
    "The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey
    "Grown men do not need leaders" - also Ed Abbey

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •