Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Together for Wildlife Strategies

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kootenays
    Posts
    4,439

    Re: Together for Wildlife Strategies

    Quote Originally Posted by Harvest the Land View Post
    Just took a few minutes to read through the The Indigenous Forum https://www.firstnationsbcwildlifeforum.ca/.

    Maybe you can shed some light on this - when they say that so far they have "Proposed Wildlife Act amendments to support reconciliation", how exactly does supporting reconciliation translate into making more wildlife on the land?
    Reconciliation is not what everyone might agree on. What it means to you, might be different to someone else. For me and listening to Indigenous people at sessions; at the forefront of reconciliation is acceptance (of what happened) and respect going forward. Reconciliation doesn't start with giving someone land. But reconciliation might be a component of shifting stewardship to someone other than the Provincial Government. Because frankly one thing we do agree on, is that for multiple parties, over time, BC Government have not dedicated the budgets and resources to effectively manage wildlife. Indigenous people agree with us on that. Can we do a better job together?

    In back room agreements, which I am completely opposed to, there are agreements being made. Whatever stewardship 'deals' cabinet is making with Indigenous people, should not be coming at the expense of you and I having access to the land. So people like myself are at the forefront of challenging that. Making positional statements that access and the ability to enjoy the land matters to us. In some cases, "co-management" works, but not at the expense of people's opportunity to be on the land and enjoy the land.

    Regarding your question, I'm not sure how changes to the wildlife act will ultimately 'support' reconciliation. What I do know is that if we aren't in the conversation, we're likely worse off.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harvest the Land View Post
    When you say "without personal agenda" in post #3, what exactly were you referring too? Is reconciliation not a personal agenda of many indigenous folks all across this province? Or when they say "Advancing Goal 5 – Collaborative wildlife stewardship advances reconciliation with Indigenous governments", how exactly is advancing reconciliation with indigenous governments going to create more wildlife on the landscape? How is that not considered a "personal agenda" in your mind?
    The comment, "without personal agenda" is from my earlier post and it was intended to be a comment only with respect to the resident hunting, guiding and trapping groups that have agreed, we need to work together. Without personal agenda.
    I don't see reconciliation as a personal agenda. I see it as a starting point. Common ground on the history of what has occurred. Acceptance. We need to treat people better, be more respectful.
    Goal 5 - as we move toward co-management and shared decision making, again, we all have the same objective. We need/demand more wildlife. Creating a document under T4W, setting objectives, goals, budgets, casts in stone, the agreed to activities which must be carried out on the land. I would hope, through this process and with the number of people involved, we can stop the back room dealing that is going on. We set viable targets and together we ensure these are followed through. And together, we find solutions to increasing wildlife populations in a sustainable balanced approach.

    I know, I'm an optimist. Thanks for keeping this important thread alive. Please, if you have more questions, i'll do what I can to answer them to the best of my ability.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Surrounded by Socialists
    Posts
    5,574

    Re: Together for Wildlife Strategies

    Quote Originally Posted by J_T View Post
    Reconciliation is not what everyone might agree on. What it means to you, might be different to someone else. For me and listening to Indigenous people at sessions; at the forefront of reconciliation is acceptance (of what happened) and respect going forward. Reconciliation doesn't start with giving someone land. But reconciliation might be a component of shifting stewardship to someone other than the Provincial Government. Because frankly one thing we do agree on, is that for multiple parties, over time, BC Government have not dedicated the budgets and resources to effectively manage wildlife. Indigenous people agree with us on that. Can we do a better job together?

    In back room agreements, which I am completely opposed to, there are agreements being made. Whatever stewardship 'deals' cabinet is making with Indigenous people, should not be coming at the expense of you and I having access to the land. So people like myself are at the forefront of challenging that. Making positional statements that access and the ability to enjoy the land matters to us. In some cases, "co-management" works, but not at the expense of people's opportunity to be on the land and enjoy the land.

    Regarding your question, I'm not sure how changes to the wildlife act will ultimately 'support' reconciliation. What I do know is that if we aren't in the conversation, we're likely worse off.



    The comment, "without personal agenda" is from my earlier post and it was intended to be a comment only with respect to the resident hunting, guiding and trapping groups that have agreed, we need to work together. Without personal agenda.
    I don't see reconciliation as a personal agenda. I see it as a starting point. Common ground on the history of what has occurred. Acceptance. We need to treat people better, be more respectful.
    Goal 5 - as we move toward co-management and shared decision making, again, we all have the same objective. We need/demand more wildlife. Creating a document under T4W, setting objectives, goals, budgets, casts in stone, the agreed to activities which must be carried out on the land. I would hope, through this process and with the number of people involved, we can stop the back room dealing that is going on. We set viable targets and together we ensure these are followed through. And together, we find solutions to increasing wildlife populations in a sustainable balanced approach.

    I know, I'm an optimist. Thanks for keeping this important thread alive. Please, if you have more questions, i'll do what I can to answer them to the best of my ability.
    Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I completely agree that its well past time for other entities to start playing a larger role in managing our wildlife populations (and hopefully their habitats as well) - the govt is failing and has been for at least a couple decades. Curious to know where your thought on shifting the stewardship of wildlife to FN's might be considered a part of reconciliation - did you hear that directly from FN's groups yourself, or is that just your own personal thought?

    I'm not so delusional or irrational to believe that the future of wildlife mgt doesn't entail FN's playing a much larger role - that's a given. I'm sure you would agree however, that a major component of wildlife mgt would include accurate harvest statistics, population estimates on big game species. It seems like it would be very helpful if FN's who are wishing to take a larger stake in managing wildlife populations in BC, would contribute to getting a better understanding of population dynamics throughout the province, by volunteering their own annual harvest statistics as well as any population estimate data they might have, that take place in the areas they hunt. If they genuinely want to help to better understand and manage wildlife in BC, then why don't they offer to share that very basic info?
    "It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." - Benjamin Franklin

    "A true patriot will defend his country from its Government." - Thomas Jefferson

    "The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule." - John Locke

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    7,940

    Re: Together for Wildlife Strategies

    There is one thing I don’t like about our whole hunting and trapping regs and government bureaucracy.
    That if we shut down a season, it takes years if red tape to open it up again.
    So I fully understand why we dive right into Leh as the best option, but once doing so, it seems we have the same red tape to cut thru, thus we just keep it Leh.
    For me, that’s a slippery slope.
    It certainly has its place in over hunted areas vs actual game #’s.
    But I see it used far too often when the low game #’s are a result if completely other factors other than hunting.
    When this factors arise, there is no money or push to change policy that is creating the decline.
    So, Leh gets implemented, the true culprits carry on, and the government doesn’t throw a penny or a second of time at resolving it.
    R4 sheep should have been closed, problems and solutions corrected and then open it up, and “without the red tape” bs.
    Instead, it will be a hunt limited to a few, problems will remain, and declines continued.
    Its the red tape to close and reopen quickly that I think is poison in the todays policy making, and why we have leaned on Leh more and more.
    Because closing takes too much effort to reopen.
    And for that reason, other policies, that don’t really rectify the situation are accepted.
    Just my thought on one big “management issue” that relates to policy and seasons.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kootenays
    Posts
    4,439

    Re: Together for Wildlife Strategies

    Quote Originally Posted by Harvest the Land View Post
    Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I completely agree that its well past time for other entities to start playing a larger role in managing our wildlife populations (and hopefully their habitats as well) - the govt is failing and has been for at least a couple decades.
    Solid agreement on Gov failure. This is probably a big reason why I stay involved. To hold them accountable. Doesn't matter which party, but right now, the current government has been making promises since before they were elected and they have not been able to generate on the ground results. The delays are very frustrating, and I remind them, they have very little time left before the next election.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harvest the Land View Post
    Curious to know where your thought on shifting the stewardship of wildlife to FN's might be considered a part of reconciliation - did you hear that directly from FN's groups yourself, or is that just your own personal thought?
    To be clear, when I use the phrase 'shifting stewardship' it doesn't always mean giving ownership to someone else. It's about motivating decision makers to do something. To make change that gives wildlife a chance. I recall the Tahltan FN stating they were 'taking over stewardship' of the land, because the BC Gov has failed. The Tahltan's have now re-opened grizzly hunting/management and are working with the mining industry to ensure the industry can continue.
    Shifting stewardship (what we expect out of the land, moving off of a stumpage first business decision) and operating collaboratively shows respect and appreciation for historical traditional evidence. Some recent findings suggest the traditional knowledge provided by Indigenous groups support the resident hunters comments and findings. Supporting each other.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harvest the Land View Post
    I'm not so delusional or irrational to believe that the future of wildlife mgt doesn't entail FN's playing a much larger role - that's a given. I'm sure you would agree however, that a major component of wildlife mgt would include accurate harvest statistics, population estimates on big game species. It seems like it would be very helpful if FN's who are wishing to take a larger stake in managing wildlife populations in BC, would contribute to getting a better understanding of population dynamics throughout the province, by volunteering their own annual harvest statistics as well as any population estimate data they might have, that take place in the areas they hunt. If they genuinely want to help to better understand and manage wildlife in BC, then why don't they offer to share that very basic info?
    I agree, we do need to ensure that FN harvest is included in our annual assessment. FYI, this discussion point does come up and I'm not afraid to state that it's necessary. I intend to raise it again in meetings in December. I know that many in the FN community are working to achieve this as well and I think we are making some progress. It's hard to change attitudes. I think by showing them that these numbers contribute to better wildlife management, rather than putting their rights at risk is gaining momentum.

    Thanks again.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kootenays
    Posts
    4,439

    Re: Together for Wildlife Strategies

    Quote Originally Posted by Bugle M In View Post
    There is one thing I don’t like about our whole hunting and trapping regs and government bureaucracy.
    That if we shut down a season, it takes years if red tape to open it up again.
    So I fully understand why we dive right into Leh as the best option, but once doing so, it seems we have the same red tape to cut thru, thus we just keep it Leh.
    For me, that’s a slippery slope.
    It certainly has its place in over hunted areas vs actual game #’s.
    But I see it used far too often when the low game #’s are a result if completely other factors other than hunting.
    When this factors arise, there is no money or push to change policy that is creating the decline.
    So, Leh gets implemented, the true culprits carry on, and the government doesn’t throw a penny or a second of time at resolving it.
    R4 sheep should have been closed, problems and solutions corrected and then open it up, and “without the red tape” bs.
    Instead, it will be a hunt limited to a few, problems will remain, and declines continued.
    Its the red tape to close and reopen quickly that I think is poison in the todays policy making, and why we have leaned on Leh more and more.
    Because closing takes too much effort to reopen.
    And for that reason, other policies, that don’t really rectify the situation are accepted.
    Just my thought on one big “management issue” that relates to policy and seasons.
    As you know, I am NOT a proponent for LEH. I agree, it has it's place, but it should not be the number one fall onto solution.
    Region 4 sheep did not need LEH, and did not need to be shut down. We 'just' needed to stop killing so many on our highways and railways.

    You are correct, when a hunting opportunity is reduced or closed, it is very difficult to change that. A few of us are working on exactly that right now. Trying to reinstate some lost opportunity using science and find creative ways, to create new opportunity and a balanced approach to hunting opportunity through a combination of seasons, LEH, GOS, BOS.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    7,940

    Re: Together for Wildlife Strategies

    Thanks JT.
    In a nutshell, I just want to see some of the red tape removed in the process.
    Fear if closing something because it’s too hard to “reopen” is not a great situation.
    It makes for bad choices/alternatives versus “what is the right thing/what needs to be done”.

    The R4 BHS is the best example I can currently give.
    I know what the underlying issues were/still are.
    And like we have been doing for decades now, is to allow the ministry to make a decision that long term benefits no one or nothing.

    What I hated about the LEH, is it only affected RH.
    GO’s still have their tags.
    FN don’t necessarily have to adhere to any rule.
    Had it been closed, and if FN had to adhere also to the same closure.
    Then That’s 3 big players pounding at the ministry’s door.
    ”To fix the real issue”.
    But, by going Leh, and how things have been going for decades, it will stay Leh.
    The sheep will still decline, and then the GO’s will be trying to hold on to their allocation until a time when they can’t.

    No one wins in the end.
    Because non if the big 3 stuck together.

    Red tape has to be streamlined.
    If it can be closed easily, it should open easily.

    Thanks for all your efforts JT.
    I hope others see the benefit of working together.
    It would help if all 3 were stuck in the same boat however when wildlife numbers go down.
    I think that is the biggest concern for RH.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kootenays
    Posts
    4,439

    Re: Together for Wildlife Strategies

    An update to this discussion.
    Stakeholders of Region 4 EK met this morning with Government. We are in the process of inviting stakeholders to attend this initial RWAC meeting.

    The focus is a collaboration of stakeholders with an objective on land stewardship, wildlife and ecosystem health.

    The foundation meeting in Region 4, East Kootenay is set for mid December.

    If you, or someone you know, has a passion and experience, working for wildlife, collaboratively, we will be working toward establishment of Regional Wildlife Advisory Committees in all regions of the province and we are interested in people
    their perspectives and contributions.

    Regardless of the region you live in, there is a place to contribute. PM me here, or I can provide my email if preferred.

    Thanks

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Port Alberni
    Posts
    10,935

    Thumbs up Re: Together for Wildlife Strategies

    Quote Originally Posted by J_T View Post
    If you, or someone you know, has a passion and experience, working for wildlife, collaboratively, we will be working toward establishment of Regional Wildlife Advisory Committees in all regions of the province and we are interested in people
    their perspectives and contributions.

    Regardless of the region you live in, there is a place to contribute. PM me here, or I can provide my email if preferred.

    Thanks
    First: Many Thanks and a serious tip of the hat for all you efforts!

    Second: You get one up and running on the Island, I would very much like to be involved.
    Please keep me in the loop on this...

    Cheers,
    Matt
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVNNhzkJ-UU&feature=related

    Egotistical, Self Centered, Son of a Bitch Killer that Doesn't Play Well With Others.

    Guess he got to Know me

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kootenays
    Posts
    4,439

    Re: Together for Wildlife Strategies

    Sounds excellent Matt. Thanks for stepping up. I know you would have much to contribute.
    We learned yesterday that there are 4 RWAC's starting to take shape. I would say there are in there very earliest stages. But, it's hopeful.

    Region 6 Skeena
    Region 7
    Region 8 (Kamloops Thompson)
    Region 4 (East Kootenay)

    Some regions are considering adjustments to; manage scope, manage geographic complexity, maximize Indigenous involvement.

    We want to get some priority action items off the ground as soon as possible. Burns, wildlife inventories, habitat assessments.....

    Again, very much appreciate the offer of your time. Thank you

    JT

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    North of Hope
    Posts
    1,764

    Re: Together for Wildlife Strategies

    Quote Originally Posted by J_T View Post
    Sounds excellent Matt. Thanks for stepping up. I know you would have much to contribute.
    We learned yesterday that there are 4 RWAC's starting to take shape. I would say there are in there very earliest stages. But, it's hopeful.

    Region 6 Skeena
    Region 7
    Region 8 (Kamloops Thompson)
    Region 4 (East Kootenay)

    Some regions are considering adjustments to; manage scope, manage geographic complexity, maximize Indigenous involvement.

    We want to get some priority action items off the ground as soon as possible. Burns, wildlife inventories, habitat assessments.....

    Again, very much appreciate the offer of your time. Thank you

    JT
    Interested, when Region 5 starts to take shape. Far too often these advisory positions come up and we never hear of them forming.

Posting Permissions

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