BCWF- Biodiversity Conservation Conversation!

[BCWF]

The BCWF is looking for solutions to increase dwindling dollars for biodiversity conservation.

Habitat, fish and wildlife populations are in decline in many parts of B.C. due to a lack of funding. We need to reverse the trend.

It is important to note that it's hunters and anglers who pay for most of the current cost of management of the provincial fisheries and wildlife resources through license fees. In 2014 hunting license revenue was approximately $14.3 million - but only 30% of that was invested in support wildlife resources, the rest went back into general revenues.

Throughout its history and under various names, B.C.’s fish and wildlife management agency has been among the most understaffed and underfunded of any of the fish and wildlife agencies in North America.

We are experiencing declining moose, elk and mule deer in parts of BC; mountain caribou, Thompson steelhead, Kootenay lake kokanee and rainbow trout, and the Adams River sockeye are at all-time lows due to a long-term lack of investment in fish, wildlife and habitat.

The BC Wildlife Federation is calling for non-renewable resource extraction such as mining, and oil and gas to be required to have biodiversity compensation programs attached as a condition of the activity, and long-term public investment strategies to reflect the non-renewable nature of these resources.

Neither of these currently occurs.

The downstream impacts of these activities (cumulative effects) are particularly noticeable on wildlife populations in the northeast.

Another potential solution is a tax or surcharge on merchandise related to outdoor recreation which would be dedicated to conservation, similar to the mechanisms in the US which have been in place for over 70 years now. The BCWF recognizes any new fish, wildlife and habitat investment mechanism would require a majority of support from those affected.


This concept is in the preliminary stages of being explored at a national level by a number of conservation organizations including BCWF.


Here is some background on this possible funding concept from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters:

· As a result of funding pressures, budgets for departments and ministries that deal with natural resources have been constrained, resulting in core programs for fish and wildlife management being cut or severely reduced.

· In the U.S., funding provided to state agencies through two significant pieces of legislation (Pittman-Robertson Act, 1937 for wildlife and Dingell-Johnson, 1950 for fisheries) has resulted in billions of dollars being directed to these agencies through the levying of excise taxes on products used by anglers, hunters and others involved in outdoor pursuits.

http://www.fws.gov/news/ShowNews.cfm?ref=service-distributes-$1.1-billion-to-state-wildlife-agencies-to-support-&_ID=35495

In terms of resource management the sustainability of our watersheds and landscapes are fundamental.
We as an organization are not opposed to development but we need to see the benefits outweigh the risks and costs from an environmental, social and economic perspective, and that to the degree practical that the development impacts are avoided, mitigated, offset and compensated for


There are pros and cons to consider with this approach; however the idea of a similar approach in Canada could be explored.

As we are in the early stages of exploring a number of options for sustainable fish, wildlife and habitat funding in BC, BCWF would like to hear from you.

Join the conservation conversation – and lets shape the future of BC’s biodiversity together!

[Cub Driver]

The management of fish, wildlife and habit needs be removed from FLINRO to put back with the Ministry of Environment. There needs to be a stand alone Minisrty for these issues that is not influenced by anything except what's best for fish, wildlife and habitat and the environment. FLINRO and other resource extraction ministries are advocates for development of resources, not for environmental issues. At the present time under the liberal government structure, Enviromental issues are only advice the the statutory decision maker of for the various ministries need to consider, but to stop poor practices. If this can be accomplished, funding will still be an issue and need to be addressed.

[bridger]

Unfortunately government funding for fish and wildlife in our province has never been a priority regardless of which party was in power. It isn't do much that fish& wildlife resources weren't viewed as important, just that government has only do much money and the political realty is that other venues were given priority.

This initiative is long overdue in my view. I like the thought of other resource users providing funding for the loss of habitat resulting from their operations. BC HYDRO should be at the top of the list.

i also would like to see non consumptive users contribute funding to the resource this tax would bring. As an example the province gets direct and indirect funds when a grizzly bear is harvested, but no direct funds from grizzly bear viewers.

[adriaticum]

Most important thing we can do is to ensure that money spent for conservation from all sources, in fact goes to conservation instead of in the general revenue.
Money needs to be separated from the rest of bull shit government spends money on.

[Rob Chipman]

This is a move in the right direction and I'm happy to see it. The Pittman-Roberston Act has raised a ton of money which has been directed to wildlife....however....based on what I've heard from hunters in the US that revenue stream has to be jealously guarded. Politicians will try to divert it. There are ways to guard it, but they involve political allies.

There should be a standalone ministry for this, and it should not look at wildlife as a resource for government (meaning a revenue stream that can be used for other things). It should be a renewable, sustainable resource for every day BC residents.

A $14.3 million dollar budget for BC wildlife and bio-diversity is a start, but there could be more, so I support a directed tax on hunting and fishing gear, but not all outdoor gear. The reason is that if we were able to a) protect the current $14 million and b) add to it through a new tax, I don't want anti-hunting groups to have a claim on it. I would rather be able to tell hikers, mountain bikers, mushroom pickers, etc., that the funds raised by hunters go toward maintaining bio-diversity and access for everyone else. In this I disagree with Bridger, but that's tactical. I don't want an anti-hunter saying that a tax on his hiking boots supports wildlife just as much as the tax on my hunting gear. I want the moral advantage that comes with paying the bill.



Anyway, I'm really glad BCWF is moving in this direction and I recommend they keep the foot on the pedal.

[Whonnock Boy]

I don't want an anti-hunter saying that a tax on his hiking boots supports wildlife just as much as the tax on my hunting gear. I want the moral advantage that comes with paying the bill.

Plenty of ways to skin that cat. What did they pay or do before, other than complain? Nothing. Who initiated the legislation for the funding/tax? Not them. Who continues to work with government and bios enhancing wildlife and habitat? Not them. Who volunteers countless hours to wildlife and conservation? Not them. Who actually utilizes the entire resource with feed back from all participants? Not them. Who has been doing all of this for decades? Not them. I say it's about time they started contributing. But..... I most certainly see your point, and can most certainly relate.

[J_T]

Different areas of the Province may have different catalysts for initiating conservation programs. In Region 4, (and likely in the Peace) the Columbia Basin F&W Compensation Program is one of the most effective tools to secure project funding.

Used to be the Rocky Mtn Elk foundation was also a good source for partnerships. Nature Trust, and Nature Conservancy are also potential partnerships. Guide Outfitters have partnered with resident hunters here in the past.

Bringing local wildlife groups together to spearhead and manage projects, local sources to finding initial funding, approaching CBFWCP, Rocky Mtn Trench Restoration planning and for partnership dollars. If I offer $1 and you offer $1 and we approach CBFWCP to match our $2...... .

Whether it's burning, thinning, planting or counting, the manpower will be local and hunters love to give back. Volunteers enjoy the work and in my experience this brings all hunters together for the one common primary goal. The difficulty is more recent Gov regulations that require various skills training for people onsite. This is a challenge that in many cases needs to be overcome.

[boxhitch]

Here is another example if how it works in BC
This may only be a snippet of the overall 'plan' but

This is text from the Draft Provincial Framework for Moose Management in BC

Moose management levers (potential actions to assist with achievement of moose management objectives) for B.C.
1
Hunting Regulations
Authorized through Wildlife Act, supported by regulations and policy
2
First Nations Harvest
In the absence of a clear conservation concern, First Nations harvest will most likely be managed through agreements with First Nation governance bodies. Harvesting contrary to agreements may be enforced through the Wildlife Act.
3
Predator Management
Hunting and trapping of predators is authorized through Wildlife Act, although predator control to enhance ungulate hunting opportunities is not supported by current policy (“Control of Species Policy”)2
4
Access Management
Access restrictions authorized through Wildlife Act supported by regulations and policy, also general recreation closures through the Forest and Range Practices Act
5
Habitat Enhancement
Numerous Acts involved, limited authority under Wildlife Act
6
Environmental Assessment and Mitigation
Provincial government staff review land-use applications and can influence mitigation measures to benefit moose (e.g. moose habitat supply through Timber Supply Reviews).

- the draft itself is not complete and long overdue according to info on the gov't site , so therefore not possible to implement.
- the levers mentioned mostly all point to people management
- the mention of habitat management is brushed off as though not their responsibility

This all shows the trend to management being to maintain viable sustainable population ratios and the rest will take care of itself.
There is little mention of target population levels , habitat mapping , or landscape adjustments
All the money in the world won't help if the objective isn't clearly to make more wildlife.

[boxhitch]

The figure of 30% of $14 million doesn't include the $millions that Gov't draws out of the HCTF fund which is also hunter/angler contributions

[Rob Chipman]

"BCWF, instead of finding ways to help the Liberals take more of our money, why aren't you looking into why only 30% of the fees collected are being used where they should be?"

We should be doing both. We have a tradition in Canada of saying a tax is for something specific and then letting government use it for general revenue. We have to find a way to stop that with the money being collected now as well as any future taxes that are levied. From what I gather about some US political struggles, it can be very dangerous for a state politician to cross hunters. I don't think any BC politician is very worried about BC hunters. We should try to change that.

Current fees have to pay for government employees doing wildlife work (which isn't to say that all those costs are covered or that all the fees collected are used for that). Any new tax would have to go toward making new wildlife.

"All the money in the world won't help if the objective isn't clearly to make more wildlife."

Absolutely right. I think it's clear that government has a different objective from that of the majority of hunters. In a perfect world hunters would define the objective and government would implement it. We need to try to move closer to that scenario.