|
|
It took three years for representatives of the British Columbia Wildlife Federation, the Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia, and BC’s Ministry of Environment to come to agreement on a new wildlife allocation policy. The process started in 2004 and the “new” BC Allocation Policy was partially implemented, rather than fully implemented starting in 2007 to give the Guide Outfitters some time to adjust their business practices. We are now in the fifth year of the interim implementation of the policy, with full implementation scheduled to occur in 2012 as guaranteed in writing by Tom Eithier, Director of Wildlife, and in person by the Honourable Barry Penner, then Minister of Environment, at the 2010 BCWF annual general meeting.
It now appears that these may have been idle promises as the Wildlife Branch has appointed Chris Trumpy, a past ADM for MOE, as a contractor to “complete an analysis of the affects of implementation of the current allocations policy on the guide outfitting industry.” The situation with GOABC is currently being described by government officials as “explosive” because at least some members of GOABC are aggressively challenging the full implementation of the policy in 2012. We believe that the review by Chris Trumpey is a direct result of intense lobbying by GOABC and from political pressure on GOABC’s behalf by Cariboo-Chilcotin MLA Donna Barnett.
When it became know that the government contracted Chris Trumpy to review the allocation policy, Mike Langegger of the Northwest Fish and Wildlife Conservation Association wrote an eloquent letter to Tom Either that well describes the concerns of resident hunters. Mike has recently received a Fish and Wildlife Branch’s response to the letter, and the tone of the letter should be a concern to resident hunters, as it does not indicate that that allocation policy will be fully implemented in 2012 as promised. Instead it talks about concerns, fairness, and economic hardship. You can read Mike’s letter and Ian Hatter’s response for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
Resident hunters from around the province are approaching their MLAs to express their concern that the Trumpy review of the allocation policy will unacceptably delay the full implementation of the policy in 2012, and may even open the policy up for renegotiation before it is even implemented. Trumpy’s mandate allows him to make recommendations on just about all aspects of the allocation policy. It’s time that politicians hear the voice of the 80,000 plus resident hunters in BC and make those politicians understand that decisions that erode resident priority will have political fallout. Go to your local MLA and ask him or her what they know about the allocation policy review and make sure they understand your position as a resident hunter.
2012 Allocation Policy Letter and Response
Cohen’s Interim Report Gets an “F”
John Cummins, M.P.
Delta- Richmond East
News Release
November 8, 2010
Cohen’s Interim Report Gets an “F”
OTTAWA– The Cohen Inquiry has issued its first report three months late. The report weighs in at 680 grams or nearly 1½ pounds and has 302 pages. If prizes were awarded for weight or number of pages the report would be given high marks; for content it warrants an “F”.
The Inquiry was established on November 5, 2009 and was ordered to submit an interim report by August 1st setting out Justice Cohen’s assessment of (i) previous investigations he considered relevant to his inquiry into the Fraser River salmon fishery and (ii) the government’s action to implement their recommendations.
The dictionary says that an “assessment” evaluates or judges the value or quality of something. Cohen was never asked to summarize previous studies, he was asked to evaluate or judge the value or quality of both them and the government’s response. He did neither.
Cohen failed on all counts. His interim report does not contain any substantive assessments. Nowhere in the 302 pages of his report did he evaluate or judge the value or quality of previous studies or of the government’s response to them.Instead of selecting investigations which were directly relevant to his inquiry,
Cohen simply summarizes the recommendations of 22 different reports. Some were noteworthy but most were inconsequential.
Instead of making substantive assessments of how the government implemented or failed to implement recommendations, he merely summarized in point form what the government claimed to have done.
Fishermen have not forgotten that the investigations by Peter Pearse, John Fraser and Bryan Williams all heard considerable evidence of widespread and ongoing problems in the administration and enforcement of aboriginal fisheries.
Their reports contained a long series of recommendations with regard to addressing the problems in the administration and enforcement. This interim report paid scant attention to these issues.
There are many references to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sparrow, but only one to the Van der Peet decision and it made no mention of the fact that the court rejected a Sto:lo claim to an aboriginal right to sell or trade salmon, an issue central to many of the fisheries management and enforcement problems on the Fraser.
The interim report sets out the various technical and scientific studies that the Inquiry has established yet seems blind to the obvious problem of using former DFO staff to conduct such work when the inquiry has as its first order of business a review of DFO departmental management policies and practices.
In addition it is never explained why the commission is undertaking such work.
Cohen’s terms of reference never requested such scientific studies. Furthermore the interim report was never to be a recitation of what the commission was doing, its sole task was to evaluate or judge the value or quality of previous studies and the government’s implementation of their recommendations.
At no time does Cohen explain why he failed to make the required assessments.
While DFO is undoubtedly relieved at not having to face any assessment of their failures to implement earlier investigations, Cohen’s inaction is not something that can be put at the door of DFO.
It was Cohen’s job and he failed to do it.
Cohen claims that his staff “toiled long hours to get the commission in operation as quickly and efficiently as possible.” Fishermen might be tempted to ask to what end?
Cohen and his staff have clearly wasted their first year. There is nothing in this interim report on how DFO might make changes in its management of the 2011 fishery. Most importantly this is not the report that was asked for nor is it what fishermen had reason to hope for when the Cohen Inquiry was established one year ago.
Contact: John Cummins, M.P.
(613) 992-2957, (cell) (604) 970-0937, (604) 940-8040 or www.johncummins.ca
Vancouver, BC – So, you thought Canada’s fish resources were owned by the public. Not according to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), says The BC Wildlife Federation.
On October 18 the public will be prohibited from retaining halibut for the rest of the year while private interests continue to harvest this species. Once again, the Harper government, through the actions of DFO, skewers coastal communities in BC by depriving them of economic opportunities from the recreational fishery. Why? Because, in contravention of the Fisheries Act, our federal government has gifted 88% of the total allowable catch quota of halibut to 327 private businessmen to dispose of as they choose.
“Over half of this commercial quota is not even being fished by the original quota recipients,” said Wayne Harling, a member of BCWF’s Tidal Water Fisheries Committee. “Instead, they lease ‘their’ quota annually for $2 -$3 per pound (in some cases, this amounts to more than $100,000) and retire to warmer climates at the expense of the Canadian public. And that gift was permanent which means that their quota can be sold or passed on to relatives in perpetuity, even if the recipients never fish for halibut”.
“This gifting of halibut quota is just the tip of the iceberg”, said Paul Rickard, also a member of BCWF’s Tidal Water Fisheries Committee .” Unless there is a public uproar over this give-away, of halibut, DFO intends to go the same route for all commercially-caught fish and shellfish on the Pacific coast. All Canadians who value our public fishery should contact Federal Fisheries Minister Gail Shea to voice their concern.”
-30-
For further information, please contact Patti MacAhonic, Executive Director, BCWF, at 604-291-9990 extension 230 or 604-308-1914. www.bcwf.bc.ca
The Resident Angler and Hunter Preservation Fund has purportedly been blamed for the cancellation of the Special Premier’s Permits for Roosevelt Elk and sheep.
Not true!
In March of 2009, Greg Sawchuck, BC Wildlife Federation (BCWF) Representative on the Special Premier’s Permits Committee received an email from the Director of Fish & Wildlife requesting the BCWF position on the following options. The three-year contract for the Special Premier’s Permits is up and the contract needs to be renewed to continue.
1) Disconnecting the Roosevelt Elk Permit
2) Continuing with a resident only Roosevelt Elk Permit
3) Continuing with a resident only Mountain Sheep Permit
4) Continuing with the non resident auctioned Mtn Sheep Permit
The BCWF President requested the BCWF Allocation Committee provide recommendations to the BCWF Board of Directors (BOD). It was the Allocation Committee’s understanding that the GOABC did not support the Premier’s Roosevelt Elk Permit.
The BCWF Allocation committee recommended that a resolution be drafted and presented on the floor of the BCWF annual general meeting in Fernie in April, 2009. The following resolution was put forward and passed by the delegates at the BCWF AGM:
PREMIER’S SPECIAL SHEEP & ROOSEVELT ELK PERMITS
WHEREAS the BC Wildlife Federation reluctantly gave support for the BC Premier Sheep and Roosevelt Elk Permits, and
WHEREAS the BC Wildlife Federation gave support to these permits as long as they occurred in areas where hunting for these species occurred, and
WHEREAS there are now proposals to have areas which are currently closed, opened strictly for the Premier’s Permits for special trophy opportunities, a condition the membership did not support, and
WHEREAS there are problems with the Premier’s Sheep and Roosevelt Elk Permits including delivery and revenue, and
WHEREAS the three year contract for the Premier’s Sheep and Roosevelt Elk Permits is coming to an end, and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the membership of the BC Wildlife Federation withdraw their support for the BC Premier’s Special Sheep and Roosevelt Elk Permits if the present direction and policy are changed from the original direction and stipulations, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the BC Wildlife Federation inform the Ministry of Environment that the BC Wildlife Federation membership will not support changes to the direction or policy of the BC Premier’s Permits.
SUBMITTED BY:
BC Wildlife Federation Wildlife Allocation Committee
Passed by BC Wildlife Federation Board of Directors, Dec 17, 2008
DISPOSITION:
Amended_____ Passed_____ Defeated_____
Withdrawn_____ Deferred_____
SUPPORTING BRIEF:
The BC Wildlife Federation gave their support for the Premier’s Special Permits based on a fixed set of criteria. The Permits have not been providing an exceptional amount of revenue in comparison to other permits that are auctioned from other jurisdictions. Now other options are being considered for the Premier’s permits which are not supported by the BCWF Board of Directors or the BCWF Wildlife Allocation Committee. These are in opposition to the direction provided by the BCWF membership.
The BC Wildlife Federation has always valued the public ownership of wildlife in B.C. It would be beneficial to withdraw support for these permits to emphasize this important value.
As you can see, with legitimate reasoning, the delegates at the 2009 BCWF AGM voted against any change in the direction and policy related to the Premier’s Special Permits. The RAHPF, which hadn’t even been formed at that point, had nothing to do with the vote at the AGM. It was a government decision to cancel the permit, so one must assume that the Ministry of Environment was not happy with the status quo and wants to change the direction or policy of the Premier’s Special Permits. We also know that GOABC withdrew their support for the Roosevelt Elk Premier’s permit, so we have to assume that influenced the MoE’s decision. Neither the BCWF not the RAHPF can accept responsibility for the government decision—government had the option of keeping things they way they were.
The RAHPF does support the direction that the membership provided at the 2009 BCWF AGM.
February 11, 2010
It has been brought to the attention of BC Wildlife Federation that a number of Coastal First Nation Bands have formed a consortium going by the name of “Coastal First Nations”. See www.coastalfirstnations.ca for more information. Does this Coastal First Nations group represent all First Nations members along the entire Coast? Ordinarily we would not get involved in the business of First Nations people or their relationship with the BC Government; however in this case an effort is being made by the consortium to virtually eliminate residents’ long and established cultural right to hunt.
It is troubling to us that after speaking to numerous First Nations people living in Prince Rupert, no one was aware of the consortium or their efforts to end bear hunting on the North and Central Coast. In addition, none of the First Nations people we spoke with were opposed to bear hunting if it is done in a sustainable manner. In fact, some of the people we spoke with either hunted bears or had a family member who hunted bears.
The intent of this letter is to encourage you to ask a number of questions.
Have you been properly consulted by those who claim to represent your interest? It is our belief that First Nations people living on the North and Central Coast hunted bears traditionally for food, clothing and tool-making material. What right do those who claim to represent you have to restrict future generations of First Nations people from hunting bear?
Residents in British Columbia and Canada have a long history of hunting and trapping for fur and for meat. It is a part of our heritage and our culture stemming back to the early days of the Hudson’s Bay Company and before.
For the benefit of those that don’t know, we wish to explain how the Ministry of Environment establishes the annual allowable harvest of bears and how the hunts are managed.
The Ministry of Environment conducts random surveys along with identifying the different types of habitats available for bears. A population is established for each bear population area. There is a harvest percentage provided for each population unit. Hunting only occurs where the population can sustain a harvest over time. Hunting for bears can occur in either the spring or fall. Black bears are estimated at 120,000 to 160,000 animals in the province. White or blue coloured phases of black bears are not hunted.
Grizzly bears, because of their population numbers (approximately 16,000), are only hunted through Limited Entry Hunting for residents or quota system for non-residents. The current licensed harvest rate is approximately 2% of the population. Natural population recruitment is typically 6% – 8%.
There is a scientific, peer reviewed, Grizzly Bear Harvest Management Policy that guides all grizzly bear hunting opportunity. This strategy was developed by independent scientists not working for the Ministry. It has many special safeguards including vast no hunting areas to ensure that grizzly bears will not be over hunted as conservation is always the first priority.
It has been expressed by the “Coastal First Nations” consortium that they have an interest in pursuing commercialized bear viewing. Members of BC Wildlife Federation have concerns about this unregulated activity. We believe that all wild animals should remain wild and not become habituated or dependant on humans to live. Habituation means that an animal loses its instinct to avoid humans and no longer acts in a natural way or looses its ability to forage naturally. We have always commented that commercial bear viewing can occur but should not cause the habituation of any animals. The habituation of bears leads to their inevitable demise. For example, a habituated bear who wanders into a schoolyard because it has become accustomed to human interaction, or looks for easy food, becomes a public safety issue and will be destroyed and disposed of at the expense of the taxpayers of this province.
BCWF looks for positive solutions where there is a tolerance for each other’s views and opportunities. All hunters need to respect each other’s needs and continue to promote sustainable hunting. Commercial bear viewing needs to be properly regulated to avoid habituation and conflict with others. Those who choose not to hunt need to respect the cultural and traditional importance to those who do.
Yours in conservation,
Mel Arnold, President
BC Wildlife Federation
Unit 101 – 3060 Norland Avenue
Burnaby, BC V5B 3A6
Telephone: 604-291-9990 Fax: 604-291-9933
Toll Free: 1-888-881 BCWF (2293)
officeinfo@bcwf.bc.ca www.bcwf.bc.ca
|
|
