Together for Wildlife Strategies

[Bugle M In]

Just posting up a link for those interested “Together for Wildlife Projects”:

https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/1f077552bed941759392fdf3c2bb913a

[Imdone]

Did the TOGETHER FOR WILDLIFE group even consider anything from resident groups in their decisions on the Moose and Caribou regulations changes for Region 7 this past spring .......
NOT !

[J_T]

Did the TOGETHER FOR WILDLIFE group even consider anything from resident groups in their decisions on the Moose and Caribou regulations changes for Region 7 this past spring .......
NOT !
Together for Wildlife is a group of stakeholders (many are hunters) who have found common ground in working together, without personal agenda. The T4W focus is wildlife and habitat. Not hunting regulations. The critical focus is wildlife populations. However, to your point, are residents included in the discussions/decisions. Residents 'generate' the overarching discussions. Government renders the decision. A person can not link the activities of 'supporting wildlife' and hunting regulation with external Government decisions impacting many users of the land. Sorry, maybe a bit convoluted. But the decisions made on the land which are alienating residents is coming from another Government effort. In my opinion.

[high horse Hal]

"But the decisions made on the land which are alienating residents is coming from another Government effort."
the federal response to UNDRIP will always be the trump card

[huntingfamily]

"But the decisions made on the land which are alienating residents is coming from another Government effort."
the federal response to UNDRIP will always be the trump card

In this case the BC NDP government's commitment to UNDRIP.

[huntingfamily]

Here is the Minister's Wildlife Advisory Council
https://www.ministerswildlifeadvisory.ca/about-us/meet-the-council

[J_T]

Here is the Minister's Wildlife Advisory Council
https://www.ministerswildlifeadvisory.ca/about-us/meet-the-council

And directly from MWAC and under the T4W, Regional Wildlife Advisory Tables (RWAC) are being set up. The focus on land stewardship, fish/wildlife and their habitats. Wildlife inventory, access management, burn management, harvest plans (FLPs), eco-tourism, highway mortality.
And the continuation of any current regional hunting trapping advisory tables. And the establishment of additional regional tables where currently they may not be active. And ensuring all regions follow a common/modified framework.

There are a number of groups in active discussion feeding ideas toward this.
The Indigenous Forum https://www.firstnationsbcwildlifeforum.ca/
The Provincial Hunting Trapping Advisory Team https://www.bchuntingtrappingadvisory.ca/

And the BC Fish Wildlife and Habitat Coalition https://fwhbc.ca/

Not to mention BCWF, WSSC, BC BHA, Hunters for BC, UBBC, and the list goes on. Each of these organizations is represented in most of these groups above. Hunters do have a voice. If people want to get involved there is room. It takes time to find ones footing in the big picture but all contribution is valued. If people want to engage in discussion on here, in meaningful dialogue, myself and others on here are all listening. Scope management would be a key and difficult component of the discussion I'm sure.

Awareness is what its all about. There are lots of discussions that are not public and actions and decisions take time to clarify. With a public release such as this T4W release, it opens opportunity to dig a little deeper into discussions and ideas.

The objective of T4W is to make more wildlife and establish better practices on the land.

[Night Hawk 3]

Dragging this back up to the top as it hit page 2 too quickly and disappeared.

There is some important information in this thread.

NH3

[Harvest the Land]

And directly from MWAC and under the T4W, Regional Wildlife Advisory Tables (RWAC) are being set up. The focus on land stewardship, fish/wildlife and their habitats. Wildlife inventory, access management, burn management, harvest plans (FLPs), eco-tourism, highway mortality.
And the continuation of any current regional hunting trapping advisory tables. And the establishment of additional regional tables where currently they may not be active. And ensuring all regions follow a common/modified framework.

There are a number of groups in active discussion feeding ideas toward this.
The Indigenous Forum https://www.firstnationsbcwildlifeforum.ca/
The Provincial Hunting Trapping Advisory Team https://www.bchuntingtrappingadvisory.ca/

And the BC Fish Wildlife and Habitat Coalition https://fwhbc.ca/

Not to mention BCWF, WSSC, BC BHA, Hunters for BC, UBBC, and the list goes on. Each of these organizations is represented in most of these groups above. Hunters do have a voice. If people want to get involved there is room. It takes time to find ones footing in the big picture but all contribution is valued. If people want to engage in discussion on here, in meaningful dialogue, myself and others on here are all listening. Scope management would be a key and difficult component of the discussion I'm sure.

Awareness is what its all about. There are lots of discussions that are not public and actions and decisions take time to clarify. With a public release such as this T4W release, it opens opportunity to dig a little deeper into discussions and ideas.

The objective of T4W is to make more wildlife and establish better practices on the land.

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? 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?

[Bugle M In]

Look, there certainly is a lot of “what ifs” and “what’s the end game” for RH.
Certainly BC is going thru a big change, and how I plays out no one really knows.
I also get we have had decades of many folks making recommendations and no one listening, ie, government, especially if you fall into the RH category only.
Reconciliation is totally another beast to contend with, and no one knows where it’s headed.

What JT is trying to say to us, RH, is we can’t sit on the sidelines and just continue to bitch.
Nixon once said the reason we see a society either too far to the right it left, is because the “majority of folks stay silent”, thus you end up being in a system that does not reflect “your values”.

However, being vocal has to be done right.
Bitching sideways, makes no headway and only rips apart friendships with those with similar interests.
Staying quiet, sitting back, also is no good.
Thats surely a recipe for disaster and that lack of commitment only gets us exactly what we deserve, nothing.

Example, we all know how stupid the Chinook fishing has gotten within the regs.
And for years now, there has been a dedicated group of folks in the sport fishing arena who have tried hard to provide science and hands on efforts to get government to listen.
For years now it has looked like a total lost cause and head bangingly frustrated.
Bit now, there is rumours that change might be coming for next season.
No guarantee yet, but some hope for the first time in years.

Folks like JT are “volunteering” their time.
He isn’t getting paid.
Snd there is a group of folks like JT out there right now trying their best.
The problem is, it’s a “small group if dedicated folks”!
We need “more folks”!!
Basically has many hands/boots and minds as possible right now.
There is no guarantees what prevails in the end.
Blind faith right now to be honest.

But I guarantee if everyone just sits on the sidelines, bickering at each other, that the end game is a big fat “0” for RH.
There is no other options.

These committees need “our support”.
Dies anybody have any better solutions currently?
Does sitting around bitching about it or doing nothing, or tolling iced and okay dead going to make it better?
Or are people only going to show up after it’s over and its too late?

No effort, no constructive voice, no pay off!
Then you end up with exactly what you put in…… nothing.
May not end up being fair, but we need wildlife first, and they need habitat.
The other parts if the pie comes later.

[J_T]

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.



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.

[Harvest 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.



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?

[Bugle M In]

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.

[J_T]

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.


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.



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.

[J_T]

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.

[Bugle M In]

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.

[J_T]

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

[IronNoggin]

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

[J_T]

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

[HappyJack]

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.

[J_T]

Interested, when Region 5 starts to take shape. Far too often these advisory positions come up and we never hear of them forming.
Very positive to see people take a look at how they might contribute and then state they are prepared to be involved. This is excellent. Thank you.

Let's keep our discussion of PM's and emails flowing.

I will reach out to Region 1 (Matt/IronNoggin) and Region 5 (yourself). And find some contacts for us in those regions. Great news guys.

As mentioned in our PM, and for Matt's information, I have put together a draft terms of reference for R4. I can share it through email. PM me for emails.

Also important for others to understand, we have some flexibility in how these RWACS go forward. WE want them to be driven by stakeholders, rather than 'driven' by Government. This is important to keep in mind.

[LBM]

So it says members of the public are part of it where does one in region 4 sign up.

[J_T]

So it says members of the public are part of it where does one in region 4 sign up.
LBM, thanks for the reply. Send me a PM with your information. I can send you some additional information. R4 has a long list of potential stakeholders. Almost 100 thus far. It will be important to get it down to a manageable number and then operate with sub regional and sub committee groupings as well.

Please send your details (email) to me in a PM and I'll reply.

[Bugle M In]

Thought I would bump this thread up again.