The new “catch phrase” in wildlife circles today is co-management.
How many understand this new concept as we move forward?
The new “catch phrase” in wildlife circles today is co-management.
How many understand this new concept as we move forward?
Site Sponsor
It means that vocal minorities that don’t have our best interests at heart get to **** us over even though they have no elected power and never would.
I bet this threads gonna need some popcorn & beer!
I hope not. It's a good question to ask people and provide some clarity. I'm confused when everything needs have polarized views. Makes no sense, if what we want is healthy upward trending wildlife populations.
For me, wildlife stewardship requires a stewardship plans, that identify any and all risk/issues facing wildlife. The stewardship plan must include actions and measurable objectives. This should be a stewardship plan that - stakeholders, BC Gov, and Indig Gov - can agree to.
There are many parts to co-management. Data and information is required to make good decisions. And our data collection as scientific is limited and of recent observations, rather than 100's of years. When we combine indigenous knowledge to our more acutely acquired data, we look for consistencies and how the data and various methods of data collection, support each other.
The stewardship plan drives the restorative activities, whether that is predator management, habitat enhancement, addressing highway railway mortality and disease. Indigenous groups are not always bound by the societal rules others are, and may be able to accomplish actions and activities, which we are not.
Co-management means working together, and agreeing to the objectives and pursuit of actions that enhance whatever wildlife situation needs to be addressed.
ALL management of ANY resource(s) in BC MUST be done by our elected governments, on a basis of EQUALITY for ALL BC citizens, period. I have spent several decades in this work and am adamantly opposed to any involvement by aboriginals, commercial outfits and foreigners of any sort.
Having worked directly with co-management for a great many years, one might say I have something of a handle on it.
I agree largely with JT's post.
When run properly, cooperative management means the parties included work together directly for the benefit & maintenance of the resource.
I can work just like that (I've seen it and been directly involved) with excellent results.
Of course the parties involved have to agree to operate in that manner, and stick to it.
Means disregarding their differences, which for some is a barrier...
Cheers,
Nog
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
It is just another catchphrase used by the current administration for their nefarious political purposes.......much like "official multiculturalism" and other such bovine fences.
I not at these round tables.
All I can say is there are a few people who are that I trust to look out for my interests as an RH.
If they come back reporting decent progress, I will take them at their word.
As far as co-management, we no longer have a choice, it’s the only way forward, imo.
As long as it’s the user groups have a large say, I am fully in agreement with it.
I wants less of government dictating it, as they have failed miserably.
Also, there needs to be a better collaboration with other groups that don’t hunt, don’t manage wildlife, but impact it drastically.
Without that partnership and acceptance, it’s still going to be a shit show.
In the end, if no one party is completely happy, it’s probably the best deal that can be offered.
But we certainly need a different angle.
So I support it, and let’s see where it goes.
I doubt a different direction and concept can f it up any more than it is already.
Only concern is, funding when could concepts evolve but can only be effective with money.