BC Strategy for Wildlife Questionnaire

[IronNoggin]

Here's your opportunity to provide input on the future of BC's wildlife.

My suggestions included:

1) Dedicated funding model

2) All license/tag fees go back to the resource, like freshwater fisheries

3) It has independent oversight

4) Government sets objectives immediately

What will yours be??

https://feedback.engage.gov.bc.ca/417927

DEADLINE: January 9, 2020 at 4:00pm PST.

[elknut]

Sounds pretty good Nog ...If we get one of those it will be a win ...Govts move slowly...Dennis

[Stroodle]

I just read the BC Strategy and have a lot of trouble agreeing to all the involvement of "First Nations" and their "traditional" input through "stories" handed down from generation to generation. Have you ever played the telephone game and seen the results of that??? I understand the desire to "include" all members of our province, but am absolutely sickened by the wording and special privilege continually stuffed down my throat. Talk about instilling racism by our government. I am trying to be accepting to all ideas but some of this makes me want to puke. That said, Nog, I like your suggested points and will incorporate them into my additions. I hope others take the time to make their points as well.

[Ourea]

Here's your opportunity to provide input on the future of BC's wildlife.

My suggestions included:

1) Dedicated funding model

2) All license/tag fees go back to the resource, like freshwater fisheries

3) It has independent oversight

4) Government sets objectives immediately

What will yours be??

https://feedback.engage.gov.bc.ca/417927

DEADLINE: January 9, 2020 at 4:00pm PST.

Great post Nog.

Ive penned a few and the only way I see things working in the big picture is a dedicated funding model, one that is insulated from Gov. It can't be lost with a change in election results.

In addition to all license and tag fees being dedicated to wildlife a small tax on all goods and services that are outdoor related.
Every sleeping bag, flyrod, quad, charter sold pumps in 2 or 3 % back to wildlife.

14 million in license and tags.
20 million + in a wildlife tax fund, (conservative estimation to start)
34 million is a start, but still well shy of what is needed to right the ship.
IMHO the goal needs to be closer to 100 million to be of impact.

[HarryToolips]

Here's your opportunity to provide input on the future of BC's wildlife.

My suggestions included:

1) Dedicated funding model

2) All license/tag fees go back to the resource, like freshwater fisheries

3) It has independent oversight

4) Government sets objectives immediately

What will yours be??

https://feedback.engage.gov.bc.ca/417927

DEADLINE: January 9, 2020 at 4:00pm PST.
I like your suggestions, mine were basically the same....

[huntingfamily]

If you have facebook, here's a good post by Jesse Zemen regarding this.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10162651268985401&id=796115400

Deadline is Jan 9!

[338win mag]

Thanks for posting this^^^^^.

[todbartell]

here's Jesse Zeman's post on fb :

You have until Jan 9 to send in your feedback to the BC gov "together for wildlife" document. The current document will not do anything for wildlife - better send in your thoughts.

I've also attached what the current government said it would do. If you compare it to what's in the "Together for Wildlife" document, they are world's apart. The government is intentionally reneging on what it said it would do.

Here are a few of the major issues.

Funding is not dedicated. Not having a line of sight being taxes and funding, means the status quo will continue, that is funding for fish/wildlife/habitat is the last to be funded in the good times, and the first cut in bad times. People often do not support taxes that they cannot see the benefits from.....

A lack of dedicated funding also means government is not committed recovering wildlife and habitat. In fact, the BC gov is currently cutting budgets and staff as we speak.

Government is currently forcing staff to return funding for critical wildlife inventory and not replacing positions through attrition. For example the cumulative effects position on the Kootenays is not being filled. So while they say one thing (we're giving more money) they are doing another (asking for money back).

By internalizing all the funding, it excludes external funding from other Conservation ENGOs. Government is generally incompetent at raising funding from outside its own tax base.
While government says it will 'leverage' through other government funds, reality is that already happens; that is a misallocation of budgets not leveraging.

Strategically, what this ensures is the power dominated by political and agency interests. This also means that government cares not about growing the pie, it only cares that it has control over the pie.

In 2017, government also correctly identified, a lack of funding cuts to capacity and ineffective policies as ultimate drivers of decline. This is true, but funding as a proportion of the budget, has declined for decades current and forecast budgets continue to do more of the same. This government is either the second worst, or the worst government in BC's history at funding Natural Resource Management.

Government also said it would deal with ineffective policies. Things like road density thresholds, linear features, invasive weeds, predator/prey management, fire suppression have been identified for decades, are included in reports, and management plans, but there has been no move in this direction.

While the science is already in, there has been nothing done. In the document, it does talk about discussing this, but not until 2021 - the same year of the next provincial election. This is kicking the political football downfield.

For example, we are nuking endangered, and threatened caribou habitat, continuing oil and gas exploration unmitigated. Caribou are the most intensively studied large mammal in Canada.

In 2016, government commissioned "A strategy to help restore moose populations in British Columbia" - nothing has been done since. The are Land use plans from the 1990s that have never been implemented, and species specific plans, some with objectives, that the government will not touch.

The East Kootenays have had a number of elk management plans and has never pulled any of the significant levers identified to restore populations.

The government plans, by 2021 to complete a comprehensive review of land designations to ensure they effectively target intended habitat, and in 2022 start on the ground assessments.

Again, this is post the next election. Secondly, if gov is committed to making wildlife a priority, why are we policing these designations and 'making recommendations' we already know about?

Clearly, because the objective is to ensure nothing changes.

Starting in 2021, government will produce annual financial reports. Why does it take 4 years to report public spending on wildlife management? You can find spending for nearly every other jurisdictions in NA using google.

Finally, but most importantly, there is little in this document about things that conserve/restore habitat/wildlife, especially until after the next election.

The worst is gov already knows how its going to spend the $10M and that is to count things as they disappear. The majority of the funding will be spent on re-building capacity and spending money on inventory and monitoring. While this is needed, it does nothing to conserve and restore wildlife.

The long history of managing wildlife to zero continues here in BC. Our kids and grandkids will pay dearly for this.

Send in your feedback here: https://feedback.engage.gov.bc.ca/417927

[huntingfamily]

Thanks Mark!
Can you include the charts, etc that he posted?

[todbartell]

https://i.imgur.com/5UT3vaD.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/XdHop3G.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/H5bMnoH.jpg

[twoSevenO]

Very nice input guys. Thanks for sharing. Will help me when I draft my own up soon!!

[northernguy]

I mentioned that using wildlife management as a reconciliation tool is not appropriate. It will only draw more of what little resources are put into wildlife management. It's a distraction. We're all in this together so lets not play identity politics and get on with the work at hand.

[Ourea]

Any effort for sustainable wildlife recovery requires 2 key things.

1) Funding
2) Political will

If I read one more comment on "REGULATION" changes as the answer, we are doomed.

We need to make more wildlife.
We need a sustainable funding model.
We need Gov to recognize how critical the situation is.
We need them to get behind and commit to making wildlife a priority in this province.

A crossbow regulation this, shorter season that.... will do absolutely FA in wildlife recovery.

[338win mag]

Any effort for sustainable wildlife recovery requires 2 key things.

1) Funding
2) Political will

If I read one more comment on "REGULATION" changes as the answer, we are doomed.

We need to make more wildlife.
We need a sustainable funding model.
We need Gov to recognize how critical the situation is.
We need them to get behind and commit to making wildlife a priority in this province.

A crossbow regulation this, shorter season that.... will do absolutely FA in wildlife recovery.
Exactly,^^^^^^^funding.
the political will is absent thus far to make more game, lets see what happens.

[GreyDog]

It would be difficult to write a pamphlet of less substance than that in "Together for Wildlife". It appeared to be mostly geared toward making us understand the importance of the "Indigenous community" and how we should look at this as an opportunity to further reconciliation. I saw little or nothing about trying to recover wildlife populations or habitat. GD

[happyhunter]

Any effort for sustainable wildlife recovery requires 2 key things.

1) Funding
2) Political will

If I read one more comment on "REGULATION" changes as the answer, we are doomed.

We need to make more wildlife.
We need a sustainable funding model.
We need Gov to recognize how critical the situation is.
We need them to get behind and commit to making wildlife a priority in this province.

A crossbow regulation this, shorter season that.... will do absolutely FA in wildlife recovery.

Well said. Funding, political will.

and I would add legislated population targets although that can be part of the first 2 key things.

Anything else is missing the big picture

[kitnayakwa77]

It would be difficult to write a pamphlet of less substance than that in "Together for Wildlife". It appeared to be mostly geared toward making us understand the importance of the "Indigenous community" and how we should look at this as an opportunity to further reconciliation. I saw little or nothing about trying to recover wildlife populations or habitat. GD

this was my take on the "strategy" as well! more talk, more plans, more time as habitat continues to degrade and talks continue. frustrating to say the least. the time for talk is over, the time for real measures to improve habitat and therefore wildlife is now.

[IronNoggin]

It would be difficult to write a pamphlet of less substance than that in "Together for Wildlife". It appeared to be mostly geared toward making us understand the importance of the "Indigenous community" and how we should look at this as an opportunity to further reconciliation. I saw little or nothing about trying to recover wildlife populations or habitat. GD

BINGO!! Nailed It!

[J_T]

My response to this suggested it was important to document this "Together for Wildlife" came about because hunters demanded it. We made it an election issue. We are the ones holding Government responsible to deliver. Documents of this nature south of the border use words like, hunting, hunter, hunt. It seems the NDP saw this 'wildlife plan' as a logical merger to Indigenous reconciliation. The two files are distinct. For me, we need words that suggest the target is 'huntable' populations. Not just sustainable.

[m5wilson]

They sure don't give much room for feedback. They want to hear what we have to say but not too much. Anyone else only able to put 2-4 sentences before being cut off or is it just me?

[northernguy]

I think most of us would agree with this letter in the Vancouver Sun regarding the strategy...

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/opinion-cautious-optimism-for-provincial-wildlife-strategy

[sthdslayer]

Here is an example of management

https://idfg.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/plan-deer-mule-2020-25.pdf

[Ron.C]

[QUOTE=J_T;2144056For me, we need words that suggest the target is 'huntable' populations. Not just sustainable.[/QUOTE]

Agree 100% JT. This wording cannot be ambiguous and open in any way to interpretation.

[J_T]

They sure don't give much room for feedback. They want to hear what we have to say but not too much. Anyone else only able to put 2-4 sentences before being cut off or is it just me? I sent them the entire document back with my edits. I sent it directly to Chris Hamilton and Jennifer Psyllakis.

[m5wilson]

I sent them the entire document back with my edits. I sent it directly to Chris Hamilton and Jennifer Psyllakis.

Good on ya. Trying to do my part but will have to think more outside the box in the future

[Redthies]

I just read the BC Strategy and have a lot of trouble agreeing to all the involvement of "First Nations" and their "traditional" input through "stories" handed down from generation to generation. Have you ever played the telephone game and seen the results of that??? I understand the desire to "include" all members of our province, but am absolutely sickened by the wording and special privilege continually stuffed down my throat. Talk about instilling racism by our government. I am trying to be accepting to all ideas but some of this makes me want to puke. That said, Nog, I like your suggested points and will incorporate them into my additions. I hope others take the time to make their points as well.

My input took the tone of: “I was born in BC, and feel ALL people should be treated equally, and be governed by the same set of rules and regulations. Special interest groups, specifically FNs, having different regulations is divisive, and in a sense a form of reverse racism. Governing our resources based on things that occurred 100+ years ago is folly”.

I somehow doubt that they will take any of my input to heart.

[Redthies]

I mentioned that using wildlife management as a reconciliation tool is not appropriate. It will only draw more of what little resources are put into wildlife management. It's a distraction. We're all in this together so lets not play identity politics and get on with the work at hand.

Well said!

[Yuritau]

I commented that FN hunting/angling needed to have SOME limitations. I didn't bother trying to suggest that they should follow all the same regs that we have to, cause that's simply not going to happen regardless. But there NEEDS to be some kind of limits in place, or the entirety of the strategy is little more than wasted effort.

[IronNoggin]

DEADLINE: TODAY, January 9, 2020 at 4:00pm PST.

[Bugle M In]

Filled it all out "TWICE" and then hit submit and get "Timed OUT"!!????????????WTF

[Cabled]

You can also make a word document with your ideas/views and email to wildlifeandhabitat@gov.bc.ca in addition to filling out their questionnaire. Deadline is 4pm today. If you have the time it would be great to do that also. Thanks to all who are doing what they can to fight for our wildlife.