National Indigenous Day BCWF Reconciliation Dialogue

[Rob Chipman]

Nowhere in here do I suggest what the townhall was for.

You kind of do:

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 BCWF *recognized* that we had outdated policy and we undertook to update it.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:

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 The policy *is* outdated.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.

I don't appreciate the difference between "outdated" and "requires updating".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 AS explained above, I wasn't talking about outdated vs requires updating.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.

You could collect the indigenous perspective by direct outreach instead of paying someone to tell you.

and

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.

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).

science-based conservation needs to be the rule of the land

That is BCWF's stated position and we haven't considered abandoning it.

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.

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).