Co-management of wildlife

[bearvalley]

The new “catch phrase” in wildlife circles today is co-management.
How many understand this new concept as we move forward?

[RyoTHC]

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.

[bearvalley]

I bet this threads gonna need some popcorn & beer!

[J_T]

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.

[bearvalley]

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.

Good post J_T

[Otto1946]

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.

[IronNoggin]

The new “catch phrase” in wildlife circles today is co-management.
How many understand this new concept as we move forward?

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

[Walking Buffalo]

The new “catch phrase” in wildlife circles today is co-management.
How many understand this new concept as we move forward?

I have no idea what "co-management" actually means in terms for B.C. wildlife management, as in an agreed to defined concept.

Does this even exist?
If so, please skip the semantics and share.
If not, popcorn and scotch for me please.

[Otto1946]

It is just another catchphrase used by the current administration for their nefarious political purposes.......much like "official multiculturalism" and other such bovine fences.

[Bugle M In]

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.

[adriaticum]

It's another bullshit catch phrase like public/private partnership designed to make the public pay for everything and someone else to benefit. Like recycling etc...

[bearvalley]

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.

How’s that worked out for us so far?

[bearvalley]

I have no idea what "co-management" actually means in terms for B.C. wildlife management, as in an agreed to defined concept.

Does this even exist?
If so, please skip the semantics and share.
If not, popcorn and scotch for me please.

J_T stated what co-management should look like in the perfect world.
At present, in BC co-management doesn’t exist although frameworks are in place for it to start happening.
It does seem the phrase is on the tip of most politicians and bureaucrats tongue but I’m not sure if they understand the meaning of the term.
Popcorn & whiskey it is!

[Otto1946]

Nothing, has worked out in ANY aspect of environmental management in BC/Canada, since the "Viking Era" and there are several historical reasons why. I have work to do on my gunroom right now as we have company coming and my old lady is about to go on the "warpath", so, Ihave no time until next week, but, I will post further to my points here then........cheers, D.

[sthdslayer]

For co-management to work it has to be accepted by all parties the right of the others to exist.

[IronNoggin]

It's another bullshit catch phrase like public/private partnership designed to make the public pay for everything and someone else to benefit. Like recycling etc...

Ignorant reply. When you know NOTHING of the processes involved, and just how well it can work in the real world, you really should learn to keep your yap shut.

Period!

[caddisguy]

The current trend of "co-management" is "yep no worries, you guys go ahead, put up your illegal gates across public roads and we'll turn a blind eye"

Said co-management has nothing to do with conservation. It's about eliminating access to the backcountry for outdoor users and phasing out hunting in general.

They don't want "taking away those poor hunters firearms" to be an excuse on the next gun ban either.

It's a divide and conquer approach and playing the long game for a long time. It's not just about hunting.

[TheObserver]

The current trend of "co-management" is "yep no worries, you guys go ahead, put up your illegal gates across public roads and we'll turn a blind eye"

Said co-management has nothing to do with conservation. It's about eliminating access to the backcountry for outdoor users and phasing out hunting in general.

They don't want "taking away those poor hunters firearms" to be an excuse on the next gun ban either.

It's a divide and conquer approach and playing the long game for a long time. It's not just about hunting.

100% .

[J_T]

The new “catch phrase” in wildlife circles today is co-management.
How many understand this new concept as we move forward?
I can see you are trying. When I read some of the threads, this one, the 'is the BCWF "Woke"' thread, I really understand just how many hunters simply don't get 'it'. I'm surprised.

If 'hunters' on here don't agree with 'collaboration', if they wish to be positional, that really hasn't worked for the past 50 plus years. So, what is it hunters want? To be able to drive up a road? Or to have wildlife populations that are on the rise?

New representative groups are forming in hopes of representing residents interests. They do hope to represent hunters, as so many on here are demanding. Each of these groups then becomes a part of the solution and the path to success is NOT positional statements. It just isn't.

There are more groups talking, there are more groups leading, there is progress being made. Depending on each person's objective.

Is this, huntingbc site, just a bitch fest? Or are people really hoping to achieve some idea of where 'they' can pitch in and help?

There is lots of room to help. Stop complaining and blaming others for 'your' situation.

[TheObserver]

So, what is it hunters want? To be able to drive up a road? Or to have wildlife populations that are on the rise?

Curious, what is the context behind this question and the roads spoken of?

Are these "roads" going to be completely ripped up and trees planted, to help wildlife populations, to try and make the landscape as it once was? Or will these roads stay fully intact and maintained, with gates being locked where only indians, resource extraction employees and companies and other special entries will be permitted to be beyond the gate in their vehicles as much as they please, while everyone else is supposed to just sit and watch?

Not trying to be belligerent or argumentative, genuinely curious to the context of the question.

And what do so many hunters not "get" when they see political propaganda that has nothing to do with wildlife, being promoted by the bcwf and in turn calling them out for what they are pandering, which quite literally happens to be propaganda and language that is all oh so familiar these days

[J_T]

Curious, what is the context behind this question and the roads spoken of?

Are these "roads" going to be completely ripped up and trees planted, to help wildlife populations, to try and make the landscape as it once was? Or will these roads stay fully intact and maintained, with gates being locked where only indians, resource extraction employees and companies and other special entries will be permitted to be beyond the gate in their vehicles as much as they please, while everyone else is supposed to just sit and watch?

Not trying to be belligerent or argumentative, genuinely curious to the context of the question.

And what do so many hunters not "get" when they see political propaganda that has nothing to do with wildlife, being promoted by the bcwf and in turn calling them out for what they are pandering, which quite literally happens to be propaganda and language that is all oh so familiar these days

Context? I've been on here a long time. Context is in the comments that have historically and constantly been spoken of as a 'loss to hunters'. Lost opportunity, lost access... What do hunters want? roads? or wildlife? I'm not saying ALL roads will be completely deactivated. They have their purposes and are enjoyed by hunters and others.

To answer your question of roads. Hunters have led the consultation on roads, access, closures, what occurs at the end of a harvesting prescription, defining roads as assets, or liabilities, the influence of roads on wildlife, the impact of roads on hunters, roads within a harvest prescription, or primary drainage access. Addressing road density and the impact of roads on wildlife. And, ensuring hunters have access to hunt. All important issues. And when i say hunters have been involved, it would seem on here, it's just talk. Not based in knowledge.

Hunters, or rather contributors on here, do not make themselves aware that these discussions are ongoing. HBC members keep saying hunters must get together. They are. Please don't misunderstand my words. I did not say, 'hunters do not see the political propaganda' what I said was, hunters don't seem to ensure they are aware of the work that IS going on out there.

[TheObserver]

Context? I've been on here a long time. Context is in the comments that have historically and constantly been spoken of as a 'loss to hunters'. Lost opportunity, lost access... What do hunters want? roads? or wildlife? I'm not saying ALL roads will be completely deactivated. They have their purposes and are enjoyed by hunters and others.

To answer your question of roads. Hunters have led the consultation on roads, access, closures, what occurs at the end of a harvesting prescription, defining roads as assets, or liabilities, the influence of roads on wildlife, the impact of roads on hunters, roads within a harvest prescription, or primary drainage access. Addressing road density and the impact of roads on wildlife. And, ensuring hunters have access to hunt. All important issues. And when i say hunters have been involved, it would seem on here, it's just talk. Not based in knowledge.

Hunters, or rather contributors on here, do not make themselves aware that these discussions are ongoing. HBC members keep saying hunters must get together. They are. Please don't misunderstand my words. I did not say, 'hunters do not see the political propaganda' what I said was, hunters don't seem to ensure they are aware of the work that IS going on out there.

You misunderstood me, i'm wondering what context the question was in regards to the roads you were speaking of. A member posted a comment I think two before yours, about roads and how gates were being put up and still used by certain people, but other people locked out and that technically, for now, these gates are not only unauthorized but also illegal.

So I am wondering what roads you were referring to roads in general or roads with gates that only certain people can get behind in their vehicles that hunters want to drive up. I'm for making the landscape what it once was in some areas, taking away roads from animal and human use and creating more backcountry i'm young and I hike a lot and push deep and like pristine wilderness that you have to work to get to and the benefits wildlife can get from that. Obviously some roads need to stay intact for various reasons. I'm not for roads staying intact and gates going up and only allowing certain people in and others are supposed to stay out, not for that at all.

I don't think resident hunters get much say or consultation on roads, or really anything lol.

I know you didn't say hunters don't see the political propaganda, it is apparent a lot do people in general not just hunters, it is everywhere. Why does that propaganda have a part in the "big picture", and how do hunters not "get it" when they see the propaganda and call it for what it is?

Do you work for bcwf or are you a biologist or government employee for wildlife management? by the way you speak you are involved on some level I would believe

[J_T]

You misunderstood me, i'm wondering what context the question was in regards to the roads you were speaking of. A member posted a comment I think two before yours, about roads and how gates were being put up and still used by certain people, but other people locked out and that technically, for now, these gates are not only unauthorized but also illegal.

So I am wondering what roads you were referring to roads in general or roads with gates that only certain people can get behind in their vehicles that hunters want to drive up. I'm for making the landscape what it once was in some areas, taking away roads from animal and human use and creating more backcountry i'm young and I hike a lot and push deep and like pristine wilderness that you have to work to get to and the benefits wildlife can get from that. Obviously some roads need to stay intact for various reasons. I'm not for roads staying intact and gates going up and only allowing certain people in and others are supposed to stay out, not for that at all.

I don't think resident hunters get much say or consultation on roads, or really anything lol.

I know you didn't say hunters don't see the political propaganda, it is apparent a lot do people in general not just hunters, it is everywhere. Why does that propaganda have a part in the "big picture", and how do hunters not "get it" when they see the propaganda and call it for what it is?

Do you work for bcwf or are you a biologist or government employee for wildlife management? by the way you speak you are involved on some level I would believe

Well, we'll keep talking until we do understand each other I guess. I'm good with that.
The reason I mentioned roads, was simply because - as you mention - post #17
The current trend of "co-management" is "yep no worries, you guys go ahead, put up your illegal gates across public roads and we'll turn a blind eye"
Roads on Vancouver Island are a crap shoot. Mostly private land, and outside the discussion of roads on crown land. Sorry for those who live there.

While I used roads as an example of what it seems a hunter wants, I was asking the question, what do hunters really want? Access? Or better wildlife numbers? We can't make the landscape, what it once was, but we can do a better job of understanding wildlife needs in a forest driven economy. And we should be able to do things differently so after harvesting or burning, wildlife have a better habitat.

I understand change is inevitable.
I do not work for the BCWF, and I admit I've been disappointed in them for years. I do feel right now the BCWF is showing better leadership than they have in the past.
I'm not a biologist, I don't work for Government.

I'm nobody special. Not trying to build an ego. But you asked. I am simply not a whiner. I'm 100% volunteer. And I have a full time job.

I don't blame anyone but myself and perhaps the generation before me that has left us where we currently find ourselves. I meet with my MLA regularly, I work with any/all groups that will accept collaboration. I've had encouraging discussions with GOABC. I get involved. I co-chaired a provincial access management committee over 1 1/2 years. I've currently made myself available to sit on the LEH review committee. I sit on my regional hunting advisory committee. I am involved in the Together for Wildlife initiative, and I sit on the regional wildlife habitat advisory committee. I engage wildlife scientists to understand more about their work. I sit on the BC Fish Wildlife Habitat Committee which has met with almost every MLA and Minister. There is more if you are interested.

I hope we've clarified more of this between us.

Thanks

[IronNoggin]

Many Thanks for all you do JT!
It is most certainly Appreciated!! https://www.tnof.ca/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/Pozitive.gif

https://www.tnof.ca/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/Cheers.gif
Matt

[TheObserver]

Well, we'll keep talking until we do understand each other I guess. I'm good with that.
The reason I mentioned roads, was simply because - as you mention - post #17
Roads on Vancouver Island are a crap shoot. Mostly private land, and outside the discussion of roads on crown land. Sorry for those who live there.

While I used roads as an example of what it seems a hunter wants, I was asking the question, what do hunters really want? Access? Or better wildlife numbers? We can't make the landscape, what it once was, but we can do a better job of understanding wildlife needs in a forest driven economy. And we should be able to do things differently so after harvesting or burning, wildlife have a better habitat.

I understand change is inevitable.
I do not work for the BCWF, and I admit I've been disappointed in them for years. I do feel right now the BCWF is showing better leadership than they have in the past.
I'm not a biologist, I don't work for Government.

I'm nobody special. Not trying to build an ego. But you asked. I am simply not a whiner. I'm 100% volunteer. And I have a full time job.

I don't blame anyone but myself and perhaps the generation before me that has left us where we currently find ourselves. I meet with my MLA regularly, I work with any/all groups that will accept collaboration. I've had encouraging discussions with GOABC. I get involved. I co-chaired a provincial access management committee over 1 1/2 years. I've currently made myself available to sit on the LEH review committee. I sit on my regional hunting advisory committee. I am involved in the Together for Wildlife initiative, and I sit on the regional wildlife habitat advisory committee. I engage wildlife scientists to understand more about their work. I sit on the BC Fish Wildlife Habitat Committee which has met with almost every MLA and Minister. There is more if you are interested.

I hope we've clarified more of this between us.

Thanks

The roads being illegally gated he is referring to are not on the island but here in region 2.

By harvest you mean logging? And burns, like prescribed burns or wildfires? And doing things differently after meaning block access or deactivate or? Is not predators using the roads a huge issue in some areas, so gating a road I couldn't see having much of a positive effect in regards to that other than limited human pressure/presence because only so many will walk behind it, but that would be null and void if certain people can just drive through.

Do you have faith in the government and together for wildlife?

[J_T]

To follow up on my comments, I want to be clear, I'm not doing this alone. Each organization you people discuss on here, is involved. Working collaboratively. BCBHA, BCWF, GOABC, BCTA, WSS, UBBC, Hunters for BC, Wildlife Stewardship Council. All sit on these various committees and all are working together, with the same objectives. So I do feel frustrated when on here, there is constant talk of the divisive nature of groups (there is not) creating a new 'for hunters' group. or that "Government" isn't doing this or that.

Do I have faith in Government now and in the Together for Wildlife initiative? Well, I've never voted NDP. And at present, the current Government is about $300 million behind in election promises. But have no fear, I have no issue telling them that, and I do. If, Government commits to the T4W implementation and the allocation of funds, given that 'stakeholders' (you and I) have a voice in wildlife stewardship in this province, then yes, I have faith we can make a difference. In all my years, I have never felt there is as consistent an objective from so many groups. I have hope. Along those lines, I am making a presentation to Government later this month about how to continue the implementation of the T4W and the parameters of ensuring there are functioning RWHACS, (Regional Wildlife Habitat Advisory Committees) in every region. I appreciate IronNoggin and others who have stepped up and stated they are interested in RWHACs when they arrive in their region. It's taking more time than I would like.

Roads, gates, harvest prescriptions, access are probably all discussions for a thread on their own. I've lived in the LML, and I know it is very difficult to have an active outdoor hunting lifestyle from there. Which is why I no longer live there.

[high horse Hal]

I did not say, 'hunters do not see the political propaganda' what I said was, hunters don't seem to ensure they are aware of the work that IS going on out there.The number that are engaged is pretty low, the number with strong opinions doesn't reflect the amount of serious interest in learning either

Remember the 'Hunter Satisfaction Survey' done by the reg 3 gang, going back a few years now. It was an eye opener

[J_T]

Are you able to clarify this for me. When you say, "the number with strong opinions doesn't reflect the amount of serious interest in learning" I'm not sure I understand. Can you expand on that?

Thanks

[high horse Hal]

Just saying most don't take the time to investigate and learn