Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Maintenance of genetic diversity among British Columbia wildlife Williams, Robert Glyn 1982

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1982_A8 W55.pdf [ 10.74MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095264.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095264-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095264-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095264-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095264-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095264-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095264-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095264-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095264.ris

Full Text

MAINTENANCE OF GENETIC DIVERSITY AMONG BRITISH COLUMBIA WILDLIFE by ROBERT GLYN WILLIAMS B.A., York University, 1971 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN THE REQUIREMENTS MASTER PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF FOR THE DEGREE OF OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1982 (c) Robert Glyn Williams, 1982 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Li b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s for s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representatives. I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. School of Community and Regional Planning The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver, Canada ABSTRACT The purpose of thi s thesis i s to define the issues and problems associated with maintaining genetic d i v e r s i t y among w i l d l i f e i n B r i t i s h Columbia, and to i d e n t i f y the require-ments that need to be met to ensure the preservation of species i n the Province. A number of reasons have been proposed for the maintenance of genetic d i v e r s i t y and these include: a) b i o l o g i c a l - that genetic d i v e r s i t y provides evolu-tionary f l e x i b i l i t y and r e s i l i e n c e to i n d i v i d u a l species and ecosystems and as a buffer against harmful environmental change; b) anthropocentric - that the species may now, or i n future provide food, medicine, or other commerical values, function as progenitors of domestic animals, or provide recreational values; and c) moral - that man i s guardian of w i l d l i f e and should prevent t h e i r loss, and t h e i r existence alone i s s u f f i c i e n t reason for t h e i r continued s u r v i v a l . Extinction i s a natural phenomenon which occurs over geo-l o g i c a l time as a consequence of natural disaster or i n a b i l i t y to adapt to environmental conditions, and i n association with an emerging species. However, in h i s t o r i c times, man has emerged as the p r i n c i p a l cause of species declines, e f f e c t i n g an absolute loss to w i l d l i f e habitat and the complement of w i l d l i f e species. On a worldwide basis, 306 birds and mammals have disappeared and 982 are endangered since 1600 AD. In North America, 500 plants and animals have disappeared since the a r r i v a l of the Mayflower. Projections suggest that between 150,000 and 2,500,000 species w i l l disappear before 2000 AD. In B r i t i s h Columbia, 14 vertebrates have disappeared and the s u r v i v a l of up to 73 others i s i n some jeopardy. H i s t o r i c a l accounts confirm declines i n species d i v e r s i t y , d i s t r i b u t i o n and population. Given the d i v e r s i t y of w i l d l i f e i n B.C., t h i s could become an acute problem. W i l d l i f e i s a common property resource, the benefits of which accrue to every member of current and future generations, and the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for which i s necessarily assumed by government. As i t was discerned that government policy i s based on the actions of p o l i t i c i a n s , bureaucrats and i n t e r e s t groups, p o l i t i c a l and administrative theory was reviewed and used to explain past performance of these actors, and the future requirements to preserve genetic d i v e r s i t y . Information for t h i s thesis was c o l l e c t e d through a com-bination of l i b r a r y research, analysis of source documents (eg. l e g i s l a t i o n ) , review of agency f i l e s , and interviews with agency personnel and individuals involved i n the case studies (ie. Vancouver Island marmot and sea o t t e r ) . The findings of the thesis are of two types: a) attitudes i v and perceptions of the public, p o l i t i c i a n s and bureaucrats; and b) the current i n s t i t u t i o n a l structure (ie. l e g i s l a t i o n and bureaucracy). a) Public awareness and understanding of the issue i s r e l a t i v e l y low, although there appears to be a large latent concern i n B r i t i s h Columbia. With the exception of some cosmetic actions, p o l i t i c i a n s have paid n e g l i g i b l e attentipn to the issue. Bureaucrats have recognized the public concern but have lacked the resources or motivation to e f f e c t sub-stantive actions. b) The role of the B.C. government i s of paramount impor-tance since w i l d l i f e i s a p r o v i n c i a l matter and the bulk of the p r o v i n c i a l land base i s Crown owned. A review of the l e g i s l a t i o n and agencies responsible for w i l d l i f e and Crown land indicates that the preservation of genetic d i v e r s i t y i s not incorporated i n l e g i s l a t i o n , mandated to any p r o v i n c i a l agency or supported i n any programs. The W i l d l i f e Act and Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch are oriented to the production of game species. Although Ecol o g i c a l Reserves could be employed as a mechanism to preserve genetic d i v e r s i t y , i t i s hobbled by administrative arrangements and limited resources. The preservation of genetic d i v e r s i t y i s of secondary importance to the Parks Branch and n e g l i g i b l e importance to the Land Management Branch, Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s , and Ministry of Forests. V The e x i s t i n g system i s r e l a t i v e l y i n e f f e c t i v e s i n c e i t n e i t h e r addresses the maintenance of g e n e t i c d i v e r s i t y nor does i t p r o v i d e an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r the s m a l l c o n t i n g e n t of i d e o l o g i c a l l y - m o t i v a t e d i n d i v i d u a l s t o achieve t h i s g o a l . An e f f e c t i v e system would i n c l u d e : * mandating r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o the F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch to develop p o l i c i e s and programs t o maintain g e n e t i c d i v e r s i t y ; * mandating r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s to oth e r agencies t o i n c l u d e the maintenance of g e n e t i c d i v e r s i t y i n t h e i r land use p l a n n i n g ; * mandating p r o v i n c i a l a u t h o r i t y to i n t e r v e n e i n land uses and/or e x p r o p r i a t e lands i n order to maintain g e n e t i c d i v e r s i t y ; * e n a b l i n g E c o l o g i c a l Reserves t o set as i d e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ecosystems i n v i o l a t e of human a c t i v i t i e s ; * i n i t i a t i n g r e s e a r c h on ecosystems and non game s p e c i e s ; * r a i s i n g p u b l i c awareness and concern about m a i n t a i n i n g g e n e t i c d i v e r s i t y and mounting a p o l i t i c a l lobby to i n i t i a t e government a c t i o n ; and * p r o v i d i n g avenues of ongoing p u b l i c i n p u t t o perpetuate the p o l i t i c a l w i l l o f p o l i t i c i a n s and bureaucrats to maintain g e n e t i c d i v e r s i t y . The government of B r i t i s h Columbia i s capable of e n s u r i n g the maintenance of g e n e t i c d i v e r s i t y , pending the emergence of s u f f i c i e n t p u b l i c concern to i n i t i a t e , j u s t i f y and reward government a c t i o n . v i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract i i Table of Contents v i L i s t of Tables x Chapter ONE INTRODUCTION Problem Statement 1 Rationale for Maintaining Species Div e r s i t y . . . 2 What i s Genetic Diversity? 2 Extinction i s a Natural Process 3 Man's Influence on the Rate of Extinction . . 4 Why Should Man Reduce His Influence on Species Declines? 4 Species Declines i n B r i t i s h Columbia 6 Role of the State i n W i l d l i f e Management 6 Necessity for C o l l e c t i v e Action 6 Role of the State to Implement C o l l e c t i v e Action . 7 Research Objectives 8 Assumptions 9 Limitations 10 Research Plan and Methods 10 TWO THEORY Purpose 14 Role of the State i n W i l d l i f e Management 14 Genetic Div e r s i t y as a C o l l e c t i v e Good 15 Theories of P o l i t i c a l and Administrative Behaviour 16 Behaviour of Legislators 18 Behaviour of Bureaucrats 21 Behaviour of Interest Group Members 25 Public Interest Groups . 25 Business Interest Groups . 2 8 Socio-Economic Context 2 9 Relationship With the Natural Environment 30 Relationship With the Socio-Economic Environment 30 C o n f l i c t Between Natural and Socio-Economic Environments 31 Public Choice Theory and the Individual . . . 32 The Importance of Public Perceptions and Attitudes 34 Policy Making E l i t e 35 Conclusion 37 v i i Page Chapter THREE THE PROBLEM OF MAINTAINING GENETIC DIVERSITY Purpose 39 Concept: Species Declines 39 Evidence of Species Declines 41 Trends i n Species Lifespans 41 Inventory, and Rates of Extinctions 42 Causes of Declines i n Genetic D i v e r s i t y . . . 45 What i s the Relevance to B r i t i s h Columbia? Species Inventory . . . . . 46 H i s t o r i c a l Perspectives 48 Fish 48 Birds 49 Mammals 50 Enumeration of Declining Species 52 Causes of Species Declines i n B r i t i s h Columbia Commercial Hunting 54 Recreational Hunting 57 Subsistence Hunting 57 Bounty Hunting 5 8 Alteration/Loss of Habitat 58 Conclusion 59 FOUR PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES Purpose 61 Public Attitudes Regarding Preservation of Genetic Div e r s i t y 61 North American Attitudes 61 Costs of Preservation 65 B r i t i s h Columbia Attitudes 6 8 Public P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n P o l i t i c a l Decision-Making 71 Environmental i n t e r e s t Groups 74 Elected Representatives 76 Findings 77 Bureaucracy 81 Conclusion 82 FIVE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE - LEGISLATION Purpose 86 Federal-Provincial J u r i s d i c t i o n 86 Origin of Canadian Law 88 P r o v i n c i a l L e g i s l a t i o n Relating to W i l d l i f e . . . 90 L e g i s l a t i o n Relating to W i l d l i f e Species . . . 90 v i i i Page Chapter FIVE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE - LEGISLATION (CONT.) B.C. W i l d l i f e Act 90 Leg i s l a t i o n Relating to W i l d l i f e Habitat . . . 98 The Supply of W i l d l i f e Habitat 98 Le g i s l a t i o n 100 Land Act . 10 0 Greenbelt Act 102 W i l d l i f e Act 102 Pursuant to Section 67 103 Leased Lands 103 Purchased Lands 103 Pursuant to Section 78 104 Eco l o g i c a l Reserves Act . 106 Parks Act 106 Quasi-Legal 108 Reserves From the Land Management Branch 108 Consignment of Authority 108 From Other Agencies 109 From Private Landowners 110 Conclusions 110 SIX INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE - BUREAUCRACY Purpose 114 Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch 115 Ecol o g i c a l Reserves Unit 128 Land Management Branch 133 Ministry of Forests 141 Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s 144 Conclusions 147 SEVEN CASE STUDIES Purpose 149 Sea Otter . 149 B i o l o g i c a l Background 149 History of the Sea Otter 150 Case Study 151 Discussion 160 Vancouver Island Marmot 161 B i o l o g i c a l Background 161 Case Study 164 Discussion 175 I x . Page Chapter EIGHT EVALUATION/CONCLUSIONS Objective No. 1: The Problem of Declines i n Genetic Div e r s i t y 178 Objective No. 2: Declining Genetic D i v e r s i t y i n B r i t i s h Columbia 181 Objective No. 3: Role of Government in W i l d l i f e Management 182 Objective No. 4: I n s t i t u t i o n a l Arrangements to Maintain Genetic Diversity 183 Objective No. 5: Public Concern Re Genetic Dive r s i t y 188 Objective No. 6: Explanation of Behaviour of P o l i t i c i a n s , Bureaucrats, Public 190 Objective No. 7: Requirements for E f f e c t i v e Maintenance of Genetic Div e r s i t y 194 Conclusions 197 FOOTNOTES 19 8 BIBLIOGRAPHY 226 APPENDIX Appendix 1: Personal Interviews Completed . . . . 247 Appendix 2: Semantics and P o l i t i c s of Declining Species 248 Appendix 3: Vertebrate Species Gone/Declining - B r i t i s h Columbia 253 Appendix 4: D e f i n i t i o n of W i l d l i f e Act - B.C. W i l d l i f e Act 259 X LIST OF TABLES Page Table 2.1 General Typologies of Individual Motives 33 3.1 Worldwide Rates of Species Extinctions 4 4 3.2 Causes of Declines i n Genetic Div e r s i t y - Worldwide 45 3.3 Vertebrate Species Inventory (Excluding Fish) . . 47 3.4 No. of Vertebrate Species Declining/Gone - B r i t i s h Columbia .' 53 3.5 Causes of Extinction/Extirpation Among B.C. W i l d l i f e Species 55 4.1 Species Preservation vs. Water Uses 64 4.2 Willingness to Preserve W i l d l i f e . . . . 65 4.3 Increased Costs vs. Species Protection 66 4.4 Source of W i l d l i f e Management Funding 6 7 4.5 Hierarchy of Environmental Issues 68 4.6 Public D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n With Government 71 4.7 Attitudes of Environmentally Concerned . . . . . . 75 4.8 Environment vs. Economy 76 5.1 Federal-Provincial L e g i s l a t i v e J u r i s d i c t i o n as Defined by the B r i t i s h North America Act . . . . . 87 5.2 T e r r e s t r i a l Vertebrate Subspecies Present i n B.C. and Included i n the B.C. W i l d l i f e Act 93 5.3 B r i t i s h Columbia Land Area 9 8 5.4 Legal and Quasi-Legal Methods to Secure W i l d l i f e Habitat . 100 6.1 Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch - W i l d l i f e Use Regulations 117 6.2 F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch Expenditures - By Function . 12 4 1 CHAPTER ONE  INTRODUCTION Problem Statement This thesis i s about the problem of declining genetic d i v e r s i t y among w i l d l i f e i n B r i t i s h Columbia and an appraisal of the i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements and human behaviour regarding the preservation of genetic d i v e r s i t y . The loss of genetic d i v e r s i t y i s increasing at an alarming rate. The research c l a r i f i e s the nature of the problem, and the s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of man's actions on species declines i n both a global context and within B r i t i s h Columbia. The role of government i n w i l d l i f e management i s estab-lis h e d and the i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements of l e g i s l a t i o n and bureaucracy are reviewed. The attitudes and behaviours of p o l i t i c i a n s , bureaucracy, i n t e r e s t groups, and c i t i z e n s are presented both i n general and i n terms of two case studies: the sea otter and the Vancouver Island marmot. Public choice theory i s tendered as a possible explanation for the i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements, as well as the attitudes and behaviours of p o l i t i c i a n s , bureaucrats, i n t e r e s t groups and c i t i z e n s . The issue treated i n the research i s maintaining genetic d i v e r s i t y . The case of declining species (ie. endangered, 2 threatened) i s one aspect of the issue which i s employed as a focus for the discussion. Ministering for declining genetic d i v e r s i t y i s ad hoc c r i s i s intervention and therefore more acute than the o v e r a l l objective of maintenance of genetic d i v e r s i t y . I t i s construed by the researcher that the a t t i -tudes and behaviours of i n s t i t u t i o n s and individuals towards declining species w i l l be in d i c a t i v e of the maximum amount of concern available for thi s issue. Rationale for Maintaining Species Diversity What i s Genetic Diversity? Allen (1980) describes genetic d i v e r s i t y as: "...the range of genetic v a r i a t i o n present i n the world's organisms: species, subspecies, v a r i e t i e s , strains and forms of plants, animals, and micro-organisms." (p. 13) The presence of genetic differences among l o c a l populations or subspecies within a p a r t i c u l a r species, although often only surmised (Frankel, 1970), i s c r i t i c a l to the development of w i l d l i f e management strategies (Corbin, 1977). Contrary to popular misconception, the events of speciation should not be thought of as stages i n some pre-determined trend (Gould, 1976), but as expressions of habitat d i v e r s i t y . Over time, l o c a l populations a f f e c t morphological and behavioural d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n which f a c i l i t a t e t h e i r adaptation to, and explo i t a t i o n of l o c a l habitat conditions. Separate subspecies and species emerge when these l o c a l populations are geographi-3 c a l l y i s o l a t e d over geological time. The presence of genetic d i v e r s i t y ensures species v i t a l i t y i n terms of i t s f l e x i b i l i t y for adaptation, and resistance to survival-threatening factors (eg. climate, disease, e t c . ) . A species with a limited range of genetic d i v e r s i t y , although successful i n a stable environment, i s seriously jeopardized under unstable environmental conditions. This research employs the term genetic d i v e r s i t y to indicate: a) the variety of faunal forms within various types of ecosystems; and b) the variety of genetic resources within i n d i v i d u a l faunal forms. The presence of these genetic resources i s acknowledged i n the taxonomic c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of animals (species, subspecies, races, l o c a l populations). Therefore, the objective of maintaining species d i v e r s i t y i s intended to preserve the variety of animals and the genetic v a r i a t i o n within each animal. Throughout the research the term "species" i s employed. This i s intended for the convenience of the reader and not to r e s t r i c t preservation e f f o r t s to a p a r t i c u l a r taxonomic l e v e l . Extinction i s a Natural Process Extinction i s innately a natural process. Species emerge and decline according to t h e i r a b i l i t y to successfully adapt 4 to changing environmental conditions and avoid natural catas-trophes . Under natural conditions, species l i f e s p a n i s measured i n geological time and species declines t r i g g e r or are the consequence of the emergence of successor species. However, the loss of genetic d i v e r s i t y i s both absolute and i r r e v e r s i b l e . Man's Influence on the Rate of Extinction Within h i s t o r i c times, man has emerged as the p r i n c i p a l agent of most species decline. During the natural phenomenon of the "great dying" of the dinosaurs, species became extinct at a rate of one species every one thousand years. I t i s expected that by 2000 AD, man's actions w i l l have increased the extinction rate to about one hundred species per day. In absolute terms, 500 taxa of North American plants and animals have disappeared since the a r r i v a l of the Mayflower (Opler, 1980). On a worldwide basis, up to 2.5 m i l l i o n species may become extinct i n the next two decades (Myers, 1979). Why Should Man Reduce His Influence on Species Declines? Man has influenced both the number of species and the p a r t i c u l a r species which have declined. Species preferences which r e l y heavily on u t i l i t a r i a n concerns, not a commitment to genetic d i v e r s i t y , w i l l determine which species w i l l survive: "Man would d i r e c t the evolution of biota that are of use to him, and the only ones retaining some evolutionary independence would be those he i s unable to suppress." (U.N..E.S.C.0. 1973. p. 15) 5 Many arguments to preserve species are specious or lack the persuasiveness of economic concerns. Given the socio-c u l t u r a l context of B r i t i s h Columbia, economics p r e v a i l over moral or b i o l o g i c a l imperatives. Although the loss of a genetic d i v e r s i t y i s permanent, there i s considerable uncertainty about the f u l l range of di r e c t and i n d i r e c t consequences and t h e i r magnitude. I t i s not always possible to esta b l i s h the causal linkages. However, any change i n the environment ultimately affects man. Contemporary loss of genetic d i v e r s i t y occurs within an h i s t o r i c time frame, frequently as a consequence of, or simul-taneous with, habitat a l t e r a t i o n / l o s s . These conditions do not f a c i l i t a t e the emergence of successor species so that the abandoned eco l o g i c a l niche i s occupied by a 'weed' species (eg. pigeons, s t a r l i n g s , e t c . ) . There i s no replacement of the species and the environment and ecosystem i s impoverished -i e . an absolute loss of genetic d i v e r s i t y . Maintaining genetic d i v e r s i t y ensures the f l e x i b i l i t y of species and t h e i r ecosystems, the effectiveness of evolution and the succession of ecosystems. Man's decision to maintain genetic d i v e r s i t y recognizes the many "values" of genetic resources i n perpetuity, and the interdependence of species (including man) i n the environment. However, t h i s decision rests on what man perceives as genetic d i v e r s i t y and what measures are effected to maintain t h i s d i v e r s i t y . 6 It i s i r o n i c to note that the a b i l i t y to manipulate genetic material i s coincident with unprecedented losses of genetic resources. Species Declines i n B r i t i s h Columbia The evidence available indicates that genetic d i v e r s i t y i s threatened i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The pot e n t i a l magnitude of the problem i n B r i t i s h Columbia i s greater than i n any other Canadian p o l i t i c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n by vi r t u e of the large number of species present i n B r i t i s h Columbia, many of which do not occur anywhere else i n Canada. H i s t o r i c a l descriptions of B r i t i s h Columbia c l e a r l y indicate declines i n the d i v e r s i t y , d i s t r i b u t i o n and population of wild-l i f e species. These declines can be p r i n c i p a l l y attributed to excessive harvests and massive man-induced environmental changes associated with forestry, agriculture and human settlements. In 1980, the B r i t i s h Columbia government o f f i c i a l l y recog-nized four species as "rare and endangered". However, various other authorities suggest that 76 species are declining and 14 have disappeared from the Province. Role of the State i n W i l d l i f e Management  Necessity for C o l l e c t i v e Action W i l d l i f e are a common property resource, the benefits of which are available to every member of the current and future 7 generations. C o l l e c t i v e action i s e s s e n t i a l to the preservation of genetic d i v e r s i t y . Given that modern l i b e r a l democratic states are reluctant to take on new areas of public p o l i c y unless forced by mounting public pressure (Woodrow, 1980), i t i s reasonable to expect that changes i n human concepts w i l l even-t u a l l y induce p o l i t i c a l consequences (Caldwell, 1974). The public i s the ultimate a r b i t e r of environmental issues through setting agendas and establishing l i m i t s within which governments and other actors must operate. This c o l l e c t i v e action i s e v i -dent i n popular opinions, by p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n group action and public meetings and i n the e l e c t i o n of governments. I t i s c o l l e c t i v e action, rather than b i o l o g i c a l ministra -r . tions, which i s the requirement for maintaining species d i v e r s i t y : "These (declines) may seem.-to be problems i n biology, but the r e a l problems are s o c i o l o g i c a l , because the resources l i k e l y w i l l never.rexist to do a proper job of finding the answers to these rid d l e s unless we can convince society they are important and society i s unlikely to conclude they are important unless i t can be convinced there i s some urgency." (Goodwin, 1976. p. 85) Role of the State to Implement C o l l e c t i v e Action Since w i l d l i f e i s a common property resource, the state functions as-resource owner, on behalf of a l l c i t i z e n s , exercising i t s proprietary i n t e r e s t over w i l d l i f e . As custo-dian, the state i s obliged to consider b i o l o g i c a l requirements 8 and public input i n promulgating regulations and undertaking management a c t i v i t i e s . The state regulates the "use" of wild-l i f e by protecting habitat, l i m i t i n g access and imposing conditions on the harvesting of animals. Further, only govern-ment can speak on behalf of the broad constituency of interests within society. Research Objectives The study has three broad objectives: * to understand the problem of declines i n genetic d i v e r s i t y and determine whether i t exists i n B r i t i s h Columbia; * to determine whether the i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements and public concern are adequate to ensure the maintenance of genetic d i v e r s i t y i n B r i t i s h Columbia; and * to determine whether the application of relevant p o l i t i c a l and administrative theories explains i n d i v i d u a l behaviour i n two case studies and provides insight into the i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i t has been the objective of the research: 1) to define the problem of declines i n genetic d i v e r s i t y ; 2) to determine the existence, magnitude and causes of declines of genetic d i v e r s i t y i n B r i t i s h Columbia; 3) to define the role of government i n w i l d l i f e management 9 and delineate federal from p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s ; 4) to outline the current i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements for maintaining genetic d i v e r s i t y (ie. l e g i s l a t i o n and government agencies); 5) to understand public concern for maintaining genetic d i v e r s i t y as indicated by l e g i s l a t i v e debate and expressions of public attitudes/concerns; 6) to explain the actions of p o l i t i c i a n s , bureaucrats and the public regarding the maintenance of genetic d i v e r s i t y through the application of relevant p o l i t i c a l and administrative theories; and 7) to outline the requirements which must be met for rea-l i z a t i o n of an e f f e c t i v e programme to maintain species d i v e r s i t y i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Assumptions This thesis incorporates the assumptions that: 1) natural species declines can be anticipated; 2) genetic d i v e r s i t y i s an indicator of environmental well-being ; 3) maintaining w i l d l i f e species in t h e i r natural habitat i s preferable to ex s i t u preservation i n refuges or storage banks; 4) man's actions pose the most serious threat to main-taining genetic d i v e r s i t y ; and 10 5) genetic d i v e r s i t y should be preserved for i t s own sake. Therefore, a serious e f f o r t should be made to conduct human a f f a i r s so as not to exacerbate any natural phenomenon of species declines among w i l d l i f e and to husband genetic d i v e r s i t y . Limitations The scope of the research i s confined to B r i t i s h Columbia and considers only w i l d l i f e species. Research Plan and Methods Information for the study was developed by a combination of l i b r a r y research, analysis of source documents, and personal interviews. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , and i n terms of the research objectives, the information was generated as follows: * Objective No. 1: "to define the problem of declines i n genetic d i v e r s i t y " . Literature on ecology, genetics, extinction, and environ-mental management was reviewed to determine the reasons for species declines, h i s t o r i c and projected rates of decline, and the implications of declines i n genetic d i v e r s i t y . * Objective No. 2: "to determine the existence, magnitude, and causes of declines of genetic d i v e r s i t y i n B r i t i s h Columbia". H i s t o r i c a l accounts of t r a v e l l e r s , explorers and sportsmen were combined with a review of species checklists to present a 11 scenario of the state of w i l d l i f e i n B r i t i s h Columbia, pre 1900 AD, i n terms of species d i v e r s i t y , d i s t r i b u t i o n s and populations. A compendium of the species described as declining was prepared. An inventory of the w i l d l i f e species occuring i n B r i t i s h Columbia was also prepared for comparison with species inventories for Canada and North America. * Objective No. 3: "to define the role of government i n w i l d l i f e management and delineate federal from p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s " . Literature on the management of common property resources was reviewed along with the B r i t i s h North America Act and i t s subsequent revisions and t r e a t i e s . * Objective No. 4: "to outline the current i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements for maintaining genetic d i v e r s i t y ( i e . l e g i s l a t i o n and government agencies)". a) L e g i s l a t i o n : The l i t e r a t u r e on environmental law related to w i l d l i f e and t h e i r habitats was reviewed along with i n f o r -mation on the relat i o n s h i p of statutory and common lav/. S p e c i f i c pieces of p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n were reviewed to understand t h e i r provisions for maintaining genetic d i v e r s i t y and the mandate provided to various p r o v i n c i a l agencies. b) Government Agencies: Agency publications and general government publications were reviewed for information on p o l i c i e s , programmes, orientation and funding. This was aug-mented by interviews with agency personnel. 12 * Objective No. 5: "to understand public concern for maintaining genetic d i v e r s i t y as indicated by l e g i s l a t i v e debate and expressions of public attitudes/concerns". B.C. Hansard was reviewed for l e g i s l a t i v e debate related to w i l d l i f e , genetic d i v e r s i t y and declining species. Data from public opinion p o l l s from B r i t i s h Columbia and other j u r i s d i c t i o n s with a comparable s o c i o - c u l t u r a l environment were reviewed as was l i t e r a t u r e on the nature and role of attitudes i n resource management decisions. * Objective No. 6: "to explain the actions of p o l i t i c i a n s , bureaucrats, and the public regarding the maintenance of genetic d i v e r s i t y through the application of relevant p o l i t i c a l and administrative theories". The actions of the various actors were determined by a review of newspaper coverage, press releases, and a review of agency f i l e s as in the case of the sea otter and the Vancouver Island marmot. Personal, non-structured interviews with the key actors (n = 18) were undertaken to provide further d e t a i l s about the i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements and in s i g h t into the actions and motivations of the various actors.(Appendix 1). * Objective No. 7: "to outline the requirements that must be met to achieve an e f f e c t i v e program for the maintenance of genetic d i v e r s i t y i n B r i t i s h Columbia". The requirements for an e f f e c t i v e program for the mainte-nance of genetic d i v e r s i t y were derived from the analyses 13 conducted t o meet the o t h e r o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e s t u d y . The r e q u i r e m e n t s o f the program were d e v e l o p e d from t h e inadequacy of c u r r e n t i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements and i n r e c o g n i t i o n o f the l i k e l y b e h a v i o u r o f p o l i t i c i a n s , b u r e a u c r a t s and c i t i z e n s . 14 CHAPTER TWO  THEORY Purpose The purpose of t h i s chapter i s to erect a t h e o r e t i c a l model as a possible explanation for the ex i s t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements of the behaviour of p o l i t i c i a n s , bureaucrats and int e r e s t groups related to the objective of maintaining the genetic d i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia w i l d l i f e . The require-ment for this model flows, i n part, from Long's observation (19 66) that i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z i n g aspects of environmental qua l i t y requires a shrewd appreciation of bureaucratic l i f e , and Downs' (1967) explanation: "...predicting the behaviour of bureaus and bureaucrats i s one of the major purposes of t h i s theory...(it) w i l l allow analysts to s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduce the degree of uncertainty about how a given bureau or o f f i c i a l i s l i k e l y to act in a large percentage of p r a c t i c a l situations...(as well as) increasing understanding of why bureaus and o f f i c i a l s behave the way they do" (p. 48). The t h e o r e t i c a l model developed in th i s thesis attempts to provide a similar insight into p o l i t i c i a n s , i n t e r e s t groups, and the general public. Role of the State i n W i l d l i f e Management W i l d l i f e i n B r i t i s h Columbia are treated as a c o l l e c t i v e good both i n law and i n practice."'" Since individuals can be 15 expected to pursue t h e i r own i n t e r e s t at the expense of others, the absence of a resource owner for c o l l e c t i v e goods f a c i l i t a t e s the exhaustion of the resource - the Tragedy of the Commons. However, Hardin states that t h i s tragedy can be avoided by mutual coercion which i s mutually agreed upon. Government i s the instrument frequently employed to serve t h i s purpose (Victor, 1979). The state, functioning in the name of a l l c i t i z e n s , assumes the role of resource owner, exercising i t s property rights by protecting habitat, l i m i t i n g access, and c o n t r o l l i n g the number of animals that can be harvested (Plourde, 1975). Genetic Div e r s i t y as a C o l l e c t i v e Good The w i l d l i f e resource i s a c o l l e c t i v e good, as i s the 2 genetic d i v e r s i t y among a species and the d i v e r s i t y of species. The benefits of these c o l l e c t i v e goods are available to every member of current and future generations. However, these benefits may not be widely recognized and only discernable as 3 a species approaches extinction (Plourde, 1975). Environmental goods, such as w i l d l i f e , are one type of c o l l e c t i v e good which can be characterized as threatened or lo s t (Mitchell, 1979). Many decisions r e l a t i n g to environmental goods have an i r r e v e r s i b l e nature (Morrison, 1979; Plourde, 1975) or a no e x i t q u a l i t y (Mitchell, 1979; Morrison, 1979). Respectively, t h i s takes into account that losses i n genetic 16 d i v e r s i t y are permanent, and the e f f e c t s of the l o s s e s are unavoidable by p r e s e n t and f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s . Given the nature of g e n e t i c d i v e r s i t y as a c o l l e c t i v e good, and the r a m i f i c a t i o n s of d e c i s i o n s on c u r r e n t and f u t u r e gene-r a t i o n s , d e c i s i o n s must be made through i n s t i t u t i o n s which endeavour to speak and act on b e h a l f of the broad i n t e r e s t s of s o c i e t y . Government i s the o n l y i n s t i t u t i o n which can r e p r e -sent such a broad c o n s t i t u e n c y . The concern i n t h i s t h e s i s i s to determine the adequacy of e x i s t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrange-ments and i n d i v i d u a l behaviours to r e p r e s e n t these i n t e r e s t s . T heories of P o l i t i c a l and A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Behaviour The t h e o r i e s employed i n t h i s r e s e a r c h are d e r i v e d from the l i t e r a t u r e on p o l i t i c a l and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e behaviour. P u b l i c c h o i c e theory, which i s a major component of t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l l i t e r a t u r e , arose from an i n t e r e s t i n the phenomenon of c o l l e c t i v e d e c i s i o n making wherein the aggregation of i n d i -v i d u a l l y - r a t i o n a l a c t i o n s can y i e l d unintended s o c i a l outcomes (Coleman, 1979; F i o r i n a , 1979). R u s s e l l (1979) added t h a t not o n l y do c u r r e n t p u b l i c c h o i c e arrangements in a d e q u a t e l y address p o l i c y problems, but may cause or exacerbate these problems. Responding to t h i s concern, t h e o r i s t s undertook the study of "the mechanisms by which human s o c i e t i e s make d e c i s i o n s about t h e i r c o l l e c t i v e l i v e s " ( R u s s e l l , 1979, p. 1) or, more s p e c i f i -c a l l y , the economic study of non-market d e c i s i o n making. The 17 theory i s b u i l t on two components: 1) the study of the rules (institutions) for a r r i v i n g at c o l l e c t i v e choice on the basis of the i n d i v i d u a l choices by members of the c o l l e c t i v e unity; and 2) the inex t r i c a b l e linkage between the marketplace and i the p o l i t i c a l arena as r e f l e c t e d i n the orientation of i n d i -vidual members of the c o l l e c t i v e unity to maximize t h e i r personal well-being (Russell, 19 79). The theory i s founded on some c r i t i c a l assumptions: a) that i n d i v i d u a l preferences are based on well-defined r a t i o n a l decisions i n terms of s e l f i n t e r e s t of the i n d i v i d u a l ; and b) that the true preferences of each i n d i v i d u a l are included (Russell, 1979). I t was intended that the theory would provide an under-standing of i n d i v i d u a l behaviour i n deriving c o l l e c t i v e decisions for the evaluation of h i s t o r i c a l precedents and, on this basis, to f a c i l i t a t e the design of i n s t i t u t i o n s which would lead s e l f -seeking bureaucrats and p o l i t i c i a n s to maximize public welfare (Tullock, 1979). The theory of c o l l e c t i v e action applies public choice theory in an attempt to explain the a l t r u i s t i c behaviour of s e l f -interested i n d i v i d u a l s who pa r t i c i p a t e i n voluntary associations which seek c o l l e c t i v e goods. In an economic sense, t h i s beha-viour i s i r r a t i o n a l since individuals expend personal resources 18 on behalf of c o l l e c t i v e goods whose benefits are available to everyone regardless of t h e i r contribution. The theory of c o l l e c t i v e action suggests that non-economic motivations of s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n and ideology help explain the phenomenon. Administrative theory applies the tenets of public choice to an organizational setting - government bureaucracy. An important refinement, unique to administrative theory i s that i n d i v i d u a l behaviour can be characterized as 'administrative' rather than 'economic'. Public choice theory suggests that the i n d i v i d u a l w i l l explore every al t e r n a t i v e i n an attempt to achieve the best decision (ie. 'maximize') (eg. pursue 'tax shelters' and 'loopholes' to reduce income tax payments). In contrast, administrative theory suggests that the i n d i v i d u a l w i l l simplify the complexities of the r e a l world into simple causal chains and seek out a solution which i s adequate or good enough ( i e . ' s a t i s f i c e ' ) . Administrative theory recog-nizes the l i m i t a t i o n s of the i n d i v i d u a l himself and the constraints imposed by the organization which preclude rigorous 'economic' behaviour. The individual's r a t i o n a l i t y i s recog-nized as being bound by his/her values which are manifest i n attitudes and perceptions which are, i n turn, the consequence 4 of his/her culture, education and experience. Behaviour, of Legislators Tullock (1979) advises that l e g i s l a t o r s should be thought 19 of as power brokers seeking to maximize t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l well-being rather than further the public good. While h i s t o r i c a l l y p o l i t i c a l o f f i c e seldom provided a pecuniary income premium, the opportunity to secure a permanent pecuniary/non-pecuniary income of l e g a l or extralegal o r i g i n i s a s i g n i f i c a n t incentive (Mueller, 1979). In order to ensure the longevity in o f f i c e , l e g i s l a t o r s attend to the d i s t r i b u t i o n of benefits to c o n s t i -tuents rather than the resolution of macro issues (eg. a i r pollution) (Tullock, 1979). Party ideology does, however, p a r t i a l l y bound and guide the l e g i s l a t o r s ' attentions and actions (Downs, 1967). The macro issues are ignored by l e g i s l a t o r s u n t i l such time as t h e i r resolution may augment or jeopardize the l e g i s l a t o r ' s well-being. A low l e v e l of concern among constituents for macro issues (eg. acid rain) (Downs, 1967; Mueller, 1979; Russell, 19 79) and the weakly established links between consti-tuents and l e g i s l a t o r s on macro issues (Bowman, 1976) provide no incentive for the l e g i s l a t o r to act. However, the p o s s i b i -l i t y of constituent r e p r i s a l at the next e l e c t i o n should an important issues not be resolved (Bowman, 1976; O'Riordan, 1976), and the seizure of an emerging issue by a p o l i t i c a l entrepreneur anxious to gain p o l i t i c a l mileage for him/herself (Hardin, 19 79) are two means whereby a c o l l e c t i v e good can be secured - even i f i t i s secondary to the private motivations of the l e g i s l a t o r . Unfortunately, the actions of l e g i s l a t o r s 20 are often cosmetic rather than the substantive p o l i c i e s that are required, and consist of reassurances to constituents, toothless l e g i s l a t i o n and inadequate allocations for e f f e c t i v e administration (Bowman, 1976). The l e g i s l a t o r maximizes his personal well-being by d e l i v e r i n g private benefits to his/her constituents i n exchange for t h e i r support (Mueller, 1979; Olson, 1965). A s i g n i f i c a n t portion of his time i s devoted to securing exemptions from bureaucratic requirements for his constituents (Russell, 1979; Tullock, 1979). Simon (1957) characterized the relat i o n s h i p between l e g i s -l a t o r s and bureaucrats as passive. This understates the quid pro quo nature of the rel a t i o n s h i p . The l e g i s l a t o r i s eager to secure exceptions from bureaucratic proscription for the benefit of his constituents, and avoid negative r e p r i s a l s from constituents over s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n government allocations to the various agencies in the bureaucracy. In turn, each branch of the bureaucracy i s i n competition for the budget alloc a t i o n s from the l e g i s l a t u r e and attempt to generate as much functional support as possible among both l e g i s l a t o r s and th e i r c l i e n t groups with the expectation that t h i s functional support w i l l ensure t h e i r budget a l l o c a t i o n (Downs, 1967; Simon, 1957). It i s also important to recognize that the l e g i s l a t o r operates within a time frame defined by his term in o f f i c e and a geographic frame defined by his p o l i t i c a l constituency. A 21 c o n c e r n w i t h t h e b a l l o t c o u n t a t t h e n e x t e l e c t i o n i s r e f l e c t e d i n t h e s h o r t t e r m p l a n n i n g h o r i z o n a n d o r i e n t a t i o n t o h i g h p r o f i l e d e c i s i o n s among l e g i s l a t o r s . B e h a v i o u r o f B u r e a u c r a t s A m a j o r a p p l i c a t i o n o f p u b l i c c h o i c e t h e o r y i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t h e o r y w h i c h a t t e m p t s t o e x p l a i n t h e b e h a v i o u r o f b u r e a u c r a t s i n c o l l e c t i v e s o c i a l d e c i s i o n s . The b e h a v i o u r o f b u r e a u c r a t s i s c o m p l i c a t e d b y t h e i r d u a l a l l e g i a n c e t o p r i v a t e m o t i v e s ( a s r a t i o n a l s e l f i n t e r e s t m a x i m i z e r s ) a n d t h e i r s o c i a l f u n c t i o n ( i e . t h e s o c i a l g o a l s s e r v e d b y t h e i r a c t i o n s ) (Downs, 1967). Downs (1967) f u r t h e r i n s i s t s t h a t an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f m o t i v e s t o w h i c h e a c h b u r e a u c r a t r e s p o n d s , s i n c e i t r e f l e c t s a r a t i o n a l s t r a t e g y o f s e l f m a x i m i z a t i o n , i s n e c e s -s a r y t o e v a l u a t e p a s t a c t i o n s a n d p r e d i c t f u t u r e b e h a v i o u r . The r a t i o n a l s e l f m a x i m i z i n g i n d i v i d u a l j o i n s t h e b u r e a u -c r a c y w i t h t h e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t i t w i l l f u r t h e r h i s own i n t e r e s t s , b o t h p r i v a t e a n d s o c i a l (Downs, 1967; S i m o n , 1957). H i s s u b -s e q u e n t b e h a v i o u r t o w a r d s s e l f m a x i m i z a t i o n w i l l be r e f l e c t e d i n b i a s e d d e c i s i o n s a nd a t t e m p t s t o i n c r e a s e t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f h i s r o l e , r a t h e r t h a n i n t h e p u r s u i t o f o p t i m a l s o c i a l d e c i s i o n s (Downs, 1967; L i n d b l o o m , 1965; M u e l l e r , 1979; S i m o n , 1957). The g r e a t e s t s i n g l e p r i o r i t y o f t h e b u r e a u c r a c y i s t o e n s u r e i t s own s u r v i v a l , r a t h e r t h a n t h e d e l i v e r y o f s o c i a l l y o p t i m a l d e c i s i o n s (Downs, 1967). E x t e r n a l s u p p o r t , i n b u d g e t 22 a l l o c a t i o n s , and functional support from a constituency of c l i e n t groups ( l e g i s l a t o r s , i n t e r e s t groups, business and in d i v i d u a l s ) , are the means to ensure th i s s u r v i v a l . With an expectation that c l i e n t support can be parlayed into budget al l o c a t i o n s , the bureau s t r i v e s to maintain/increase this support to ensure bureau survival/growth. Optimal s o c i a l decisions are the price of the security, with exceptions and relaxations from procedural requirements as the means to obtain this functional support (Downs, 1967). While bureaus are usually f u n c t i o n a l l y independent, they are a l l o c a t i o n a l l y interdependent through t h e i r competition for a portion of the general tax revenues doled out by l e g i s l a t o r s (Downs, 19 67). As i n d i v i d u a l bureaus are designed to de l i v e r d i f f e r i n g c o l l e c t i v e goods, t h i s competition among bureaus can be understood as a competition among various c o l l e c t i v e goods, with budget allo c a t i o n s r e f l e c t i n g t h e i r r e l a t i v e impor-tance to society. Given t h i s competitive environment, bureaus zealously pro-tect t h e i r functional boundaries from enemy bureaus seeking to increase t h e i r a l l o c a t i o n through functional conquest -res u l t i n g i n a sit u a t i o n where i n d i v i d u a l bureaus i s o l a t e themselves from other bureaus to avoid t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y (Beuscher, 1966). Individual bureaus can be understood as pur-suing st r a t e g i c which they believe w i l l secure the required functional and a l l o c a t i o n a l support. 23 Bureaus and bureaucrats tend to be conservative, main-taining the status quo i n s o c i a l power relationships i n order to ensure functional support, avoid c o n f l i c t with other bureaus, and as a consequence of the natural 'aging' process in every bureau. Downs (1967) observes increasing formality, the use of rules/procedures for convenience and" security, the avoidance of change, and tremendous i n e r t i a to changes i n the bureau as characterizing t h i s conservative tendency. Beuscher (1966) adds that l i n e agencies responsible for resource/environmental matters quickly f i l l the regulatory f i e l d with rules, and become increasingly myopic to problems. As i n any organization, bureaucrats perceive the greatest personal rewards to be at the top of the hierarchy. However, in the absence of quantitative performance measurements available i n the private sector (eg. increased sales), the e l i g i b i l i t y for promotion l i e s i n q u a l i t a t i v e assessments of the appropriateness of the individual's behaviour and creden-t i a l s (eg. education) (Downs, 1967). Individuals exhibiting q u a l i t i e s valued by t h e i r superior(s), such as l o y a l t y and the f a i t h f u l execution of duties, increase t h e i r chances of pro-motion, and indiv i d u a l s can be expected to act accordingly (Downs, 1967). Short of promotion, increased personal rewards can be secured through aggrandizement - by creative extension or functional capture of additional r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s which would j u s t i f y increases i n budget and support s t a f f (Downs, 1967) . Simon (1957) explains that an organization achieves i t s purpose through the decisions and actions of i n d i v i d u a l s . Since each decision affects the achievement of subsequent and u l t i -mate objectives (O'Riordan, 1976), some group consensus must p r e v a i l over the c o n f l i c t s among the in d i v i d u a l goals of each bureaucrat (Downs, 1967). This coordination i s achieved through the selection of appropriate r e c r u i t s to the bureaucracy and t h e i r indoctrination to attitudes and behaviours advantageous to t h e i r execution of duties. Further, the decision making autonomy of each i n d i v i d u a l i s constrained by: c o n t r o l l i n g the value and fac t u a l premises on which the decision w i l l be based, imposing decisions from other areas in the bureau, and evaluating each decision i n terms of progress toward an u l t i -mate goal (Simon, 1957). I n i t i a l acquiescence i s associated with the ind i v i d u a l ' s conviction that he i s furthering his personal goals and a recognition of the paramount authority i n the employer/employee re l a t i o n s h i p . Gradually, acquiescence evolves to i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with, and loy a l t y to the bureau (Downs, 1967; Simon, 1957). It i s also important to understand the communication func-ti o n within the bureaucracy. Given the cost of communications,, and the p o s s i b i l i t y of swamping senior levels with messages, successive layers of the bureaucracy condense the upwardly-bound message and ensure i t r e f l e c t s favourably on them. There i s also an inherent resistance to any upward communication 25 (Downs, 1967; Simon, 19 57). The d i s c r e t i o n employed i n the interpretation of, and degree of, compliance with d i r e c t i v e s sent downward also provides "leverage for the i n d i v i d u a l bureaucrat to pursue his personal goals (Downs, 1967). Behaviour of Interest Group Members The l i t e r a t u r e on public choice theory devotes considerable attention to the conundrum of p a r t i c i p a t i o n by r a t i o n a l s e l f maximizers i n voluntary associations to achieve public goods i n : a) public i n t e r e s t groups, and b) business i n t e r e s t groups. Whereas individ u a l s pursue private goals separately, the voluntary association of individuals into c o l l e c t i v e groups arises from a desire to achieve some c o l l e c t i v e good (Mitchell, 1979; Olson, 1965). a) Public Interest Groups T r a d i t i o n a l p o l i t i c a l theory suggests that i n t e r e s t groups emerge to meet p a r t i c u l a r needs and that inter-group c o n f l i c t i s an important component i n p o l i c y making (Olson, 1965). While constrained by the budget available from member c o n t r i -butions (Hardin, 1979), the group seeks to increase awareness of t h e i r cause through public information and lobbying p o l i -t i c i a n s , watchdogging the actions of l e g i s l a t o r s and bureaucracy, and i n t i a t i n g precedent-setting l i t i g a t i o n (Hardin, 1979; M i t c h e l l , 1979). Since p o l i t i c i a n s are sensitive both to small 26 vocal groups and the possible mobilization of large latent groups, the concerns of the small group may p r e v a i l , which suggests that e f f i c a c y of mission i s not necessarily a function of size (Olson, 1965).. There are a number of b a r r i e r s to p a r t i c i p a t i o n in i n t e r e s t groups. The most troublesome to public choice theorists i s the 'free r i d e r ' problem, whereby the i n d i v i d u a l recognizes that he w i l l be able to enjoy the c o l l e c t i v e good irregardless of any contribution toward i t s achievement (Mitchell, 19 79; Olson, 1965). Secondly, individuals may r a t i o n a l i z e that t h e i r c o n t r i -bution would not make any s i g n i f i c a n t difference to the r e a l i -zation of the c o l l e c t i v e good (Mitchell, 1979). Thirdly, the threshold costs involved i n establishing and maintaining the organization may preclude the p o s s i b i l i t y of organizing (Mitchell, 1979) . F i n a l l y , i n addition to having a sympathy with the ideology of the group, the i n d i v i d u a l must have con-fidence i n the leadership of the group and be optimistic about the e f f i c a c y of t h e i r strategy (Simon, 1957). For t h e i r part, the i n t e r e s t groups encourage f i n a n c i a l contributions by maximizing convenience for the contributor, r e c i t i n g recent accomplishments, and emphasizing the necessity of a l l contributions regardless of magnitude (Mitchell, 1979). Morrison (1979) suggests that sustaining contributions i s r e l a t i v e l y easy for conservation groups since those perceiving an environmental threat can afford the contribution and are r e l a t i v e l y insulated from economic repercussions pursuant to 27 environmental preservation. T r a d i t i o n a l theories which att r i b u t e the r i s e of i n t e r e s t groups to man's innate gregariousness or a manifestation of s o c i a l evolution are inadequate (Olson, 1965) to explain the ef f o r t s of a r a t i o n a l s e l f maximizer to achieve a public good. A controversy rages over t h i s issue. Olson (19 65) maintains that with the exception of small groups, and i n the absence of coercion,or private incentives, individuals w i l l not act to obtain group goods. Hardin (1979) suggests the behaviour, although i r r a t i o n a l i n an economic sense, i s a response to a perceived moral imperative. Simon (1957) believes individuals are motivated by sympathy with the cause and optimism about i t s e f f i c a c y . A somewhat d i f f e r e n t d i r e c t i o n i s pursued by M i t c h e l l (1979) i n his minimax regret strategy: "In a bad s i t u a t i o n where individuals have a high d i s -u t i l i t y for public bads that they are unable to escape, where they have imperfect information, and where the cost of contributing to a lobby i s low, the act of contributing i s consonant with a. r a t i o n a l strategy seeking to minimize the maximum regret" (Mitchell, 1979, p. 21). The role of ideology of the i n d i v i d u a l r e l a t i v e to the ideology of the group has also been extended as one rationale employed i n the decision of individ u a l s to enter organizations such as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc. which are directed toward securing environmental protection as a public good. 28 b) Business Interest Groups As was the case with individuals i n the public sector, individuals i n the private sector also seek to maximize t h e i r personal well being. However, overt expressions of s e l f maximization are more widely accepted i n the private sector. Interest groups representing segments of the private sector emerge on the basis of geographic, occupational, and product/ service category (eg. Chambers of Commerce, trade unions, and automobile manufacturers). While the goals of these groups may serve c o l l e c t i v e i n t e r e s t s , they are primarily concerned with securing some benefit for the group members. These groups have had some role in furthering the conservation of economi-c a l l y important natural resources as well as perpetuating e x i s t i n g economic e l i t e s . These groups enjoy p o l i t i c a l influence which i s dispro-portionate to t h e i r s i z e . Although they generally have r e l a t i v e l y fewer members who represent r e l a t i v e l y narrow range of i n t e r e s t , they enjoy considerable influence over bureaucrats and p o l i t i c i a n s . This i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to several factors, which include t h e i r e f f e c t i v e mobilization, the potential for personal economic benefits a r i s i n g from t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s , and f i n a n c i a l support for p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s . These groups tend to have r e l a t i v e l y large budgets and u t i l i z e communication media which est a b l i s h a r e l a t i v e l y v i s i b l e and credible image among the general public. Further, they also mount e f f e c t i v e 29 lobbying of p o l i t i c i a n s and can rapidly mobilize t h e i r member-ship. Benefits for the group can be r e a l i z e d i n t h i s fashion, whereas i n d i v i d u a l goods can be achieved through marketplace competition or as a consequence of p o l i t i c a l patronage (Olson, 1965) . Add i t i o n a l l y , these groups can influence the bureaucracy by providing functional support i n exchange for administrative exception, and have been known to capture bureau functions through the appointment of empathetic individuals from the private sector i n key roles i n the bureau (Burch, 1976). Socio-Economic Context Individual r a t i o n a l i t y towards s e l f maximization i s to some extent bound by the set of values to which each i n d i v i d u a l subscribes. These value sets influence one's perception, f i n d a r t i c u l a t i o n i n one's attitudes, and are manifest in one's decisions. Each set of values i s a function of the on-going experience of the i n d i v i d u a l , so that the indiv i d u a l ' s socio-economic context does, to some extent, bound one's r a t i o n a l i t y (Simon, 1957; Russell, 1979; Downs, 1967)* Consequently, any analysis of the behaviour of ind i v i d u a l s must consider the pr e v a i l i n g s o c i a l conditions and technology (Downs, 1967). The following paragraphs consider the relat i o n s h i p of the in d i v i d u a l with his natural and s o c i a l environments so as to understand the bounds of r a t i o n a l i t y . The influence of per-30 ceptions and c u l t u r a l influence on i n d i v i d u a l p o l i t i c a l and administrative behaviour are examined. Relationship With the Natural Environment The predominant view i s of man as dominant, omniscient and independent of the natural environment. The environment i s perceived as a storehouse of raw materials which become resources as t h e i r u t i l i t y i s determined (Beakhurst, 1979; Leiss, 1979; Russell, 1969; White 1966). As such, species declines are dismissed as inevitable (in an evolutionary sense) and inconsequential r e l a t i v e to socio-economic achieve-ments. There i s a ref u s a l to think, i n p r o b a b l i s t i c terms, of the consequences of natural catastrophes and environmental protection e f f o r t s generally focus on tinkering with ecological processes rather than a re-orientating of socio-economic values (Russell, 1969). Relationship With Socio-Economic Environment Individual achievement and economic growth are widely accepted as high p r i o r i t y s o c i a l norms (Bowman, 1976; Long, 1966). A sense of personal well-being i s derived from maxi-mizing immediate material gains i n a rapid success of consumer goods and demands with the expectation of t h i s continuing i n perpetuity (Bowman, 1976; Hooker and van Hulst, 19 79; Leiss, 1979). The dominance of the industrial/consumer machine i s 31 supported through the rigorous protection of property r i g h t s , combined with ameliorating gestures towards environmental protection (Beakhurst, 1979; Leiss, 1979). C o n f l i c t Between Natural and Socio-Economic Environments As implied i n the preceding sections, current socio-economic values are incompatible with e f f e c t i v e environmental protection (Bowman, 1976; Clary et a l , 1977). The most frequently employed approaches to resolving the discrepancy are the s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of complex problems into large single issues with a 'big' solution (Lang, 19 79), or re-casting the problem to f i t the mold of ex i s t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s (Leiss, 1979). Both approaches indicate the inadequacy of the market system and the public decision process to accommodate environmental concerns (Leiss, 1979) . Individuals turn to the state as the property owner of c o l l e c t i v e goods to resolve the c o n f l i c t s i n environmental management. Faith i n the ministrations of an external agent equipped with the expertise and technology to correct any prob-lems i s eagerly accepted as a solution (Bowman, 1976; Coleman, 1979; Long, 196 6; V i c t o r , 1979). But, t h i s appears to be a naive solution given: a) the concern of the state to preserve private property interests (Victor, 1979); b) the pre-emption of s o c i a l l y optimal decisions by bureaucracy i n favour of th e i r own s e l f interests (Simon, 1957); and c) the public concern 32 that l e g i s l a t i o n and bureaucratic action do not r e s t r i c t per-sonal l i b e r t i e s (Downs, 1967; Long, 1966) which are perceived as being prerequisites to the maximization of i n d i v i d u a l w ell-being (Clary et a l , 1977). The solution rests heavily with the general public and inter e s t groups to a c t i v e l y spur the l e g i s l a t i v e and bureau-c r a t i c branches of government to i n i t i a t e actions to ensure the maintenance of species d i v e r s i t y . Public Choice Theory and the Individual Public choice theory suggests a number of behavioural c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s among ind i v i d u a l s , i r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e i r s o c i a l r o l e . I t i s assumed that behaviour w i l l be r a t i o n a l i n an economic sense as:individuals seek to maximize t h e i r well-being (Olson, 1965; Tullock, 1979). A l t r u i s t i c behaviour i s described as r a t i o n a l only i n providing for one's family (Tullock, 1979). Coercion and incentives are required to secure c o l l e c t i v e goods, the benefactors of which include a larger group (Olson, 1965). The following matrix of personal motives, although prepared for bureaucratic o f f i c i a l s , and not exhaustive, does provide a sense of the d i s t i n c t i o n between s e l f i n t e r e s t and c o l l e c t i v e i n t e r e s t (altruism): 33 Table 2.1 General Typologies of Individual Motives Pure Self Interest Mixed Pure Altruism Income (Pecuniary and benefits) . . . . X . • (adapted from: Downs, 1967, p. 84) Individuals are presumed to be the best judge of th e i r own welfare (Victor, 1979) despite the l i m i t a t i o n s imposed by t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l sets of values, knowledge, and unconscious s k i l l s (Simon, 1957). One might expect that individuals would recognize that preserving c o l l e c t i v e environmental goods i n turn preserves the human l i f e support system. However, the d i s t i n c t i o n between needs and preferences has been clouded by the marketplace (ie. 'needs' for luxury consumer goods). Self maximizing behaviour suggests indiv i d u a l s w i l l not become informed about issues^ (Russell, 1979; Tullock, 1979), nor w i l l they come together into voluntary associations to achieve a c o l l e c t i v e good (Olson, 1965). 34 Rather, one can expect b l i t h e resignation to the management expertise of an external agency (ie. the bureaucracy) (Bowman, 1976; Coleman, 1979) and the presumed altruism of p o l i t i c i a n s (Tullock, 1979). Further, the model suggests that the bureaucrats and p o l i t i c i a n s w i l l pursue th e i r own s e l f interests so that the issue i s defaulted e n t i r e l y . The Importance of Public Perceptions and Attitudes The importance of.public perceptions and attitudes i s based on the nature of the resource and the nature of the B r i t i s h Columbia s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l system. Since w i l d l i f e are a common property resource, government i s obliged to assume the role of resource owner and amalgamate both b i o l o g i c a l requirements and public concern into t h e i r management a c t i v i t i e s (Ministry of Environment, 1979). Further, given the nature of government as described i n public choice theory, public concern i s the engine for a f f e c t i n g l e g i s l a t i o n , p o l i c y and program. Individual attitudes are the basic unit of public concern and are the cumulative consequence of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s experi-ence. These attitudes s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t i n d i v i d u a l decision making among private c i t i z e n s as well as among appointed and elected o f f i c i a l s (Lowenthal, 1966). Awareness of an issue i s a necessary precursor to the development of attitudes and any subsequent decisions (Bryan, 1973; B u t t e l , 1978b). With respect to environmental issues, awareness of issues such as p o l l u t i o n , 35 has a mass appeal, however, the adoption of attitudes and commitment to action (eg. expressions of public concern) which may influence the resolution of an issues lacks mass appeal (Bowman, 1977). McTaggart Cowan (19 6 8) describes public input as the "organized conscience of the dedicated" and as being c r i t i c a l to environmental decisions to modify the attention of bureau-crats and p o l i t i c i a n s to, economic concerns. This s e n s i t i v i t y i s based on long-established i n f l u e n t i a l l i n k s between govern-ment and non-preservationist interests (Beatty et a l , 1978; Jackson and Atkinson, 19 80). Public choice theory underscores the importance of public input to i n i t i a t e and support government action. The theory suggests that individuals w i l l seek to maximize t h e i r personal well-being, often at the expense of optimal s o c i a l decisions. The theory c l e a r l y underscores the necessity of expressions of public concern to i n i t i a t e , motivate, j u s t i f y , reward and appraise the adequacy of the actions of elected and appointed o f f i c i a l s . P o l i c y Making E l i t e O'Riordan (1976) describes p o l i c y making as the process of turning p o l i t i c a l inputs into outputs. Of concern in thi s section i s the source and aggregation of these inputs. Irrespective of p o l i t i c a l paradigms and resource management 36 recommendations to the contrary (Clary et a l , 1977), policy formulation i s p r i n c i p a l l y guided by an e l i t e or oligarchy. Bowman (1976) characterized these i n t e r e s t groups, l e g i s l a t i v e committees, and bureaucrats that make up the e l i t e as the "iron t r i a n g l e " of po l i c y formulation. The emergence of a conservation-oriented e l i t e has h i s -t o r i c a l , p o l i t i c a l and economic roots: 1) The emergence of an upscale income/education group i n society with high q u a l i t a t i v e expectations for l i f e s t y l e and environmental management, and i n possession of the a b i l i t y and resources to challenge government actions (Burch, 1976). 2) The i n c l i n a t i o n to remove environment components from the marketplace and i n s t a l l attending cadres of administrators, and professionals (Burch, 1976). 3) The nature of the p o l i t i c a l structure which establishes p o l i t i c i a n s , bureaucrats and in t e r e s t groups as arbiters of environmental p o l i c y and the source of information about these p o l i c i e s (O'Riordan, 1976). 4) The default of individ u a l s from p o l i t i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n as suggested by public choice theory (Russell, 1979), and the willingness to delegate environmental control to an external agent (Bowman, 1976). 5) The stage i n the l i f e c y c l e of a p o l i t i c a l issue, as public attention wanes and only the e l i t e remain (Bowman, 19 76). 37 Conclusion A number of s p e c i f i c conclusions emerge from the role of the state i n w i l d l i f e management and public choice theory: 1) Governmental action i s necessary to preserve w i l d l i f e because i t i s a common property resource. 2) The s o c i o - c u l t u r a l context of B r i t i s h Columbia i s anthro-pocentric and m a t e r i a l i s t i c . Consequently, i n d i v i d u a l species may be valued, but the preservation of genetic d i v e r s i t y would l i k e l y have a r e l a t i v e l y low value attached to i t . Since many species have no apparent anthropocentric or m a t e r i a l i s t i c values. 3) Public p o l i c y development i n a functional area i s domi-nated by a s p e c i a l i z e d e l i t e or oligarchy composed of: a) i n t e r e s t groups; b) bureaucrats; and c) p o l i t i c i a n s . 4) A necessary prerequisite to act i v a t i n g the bureaucracy i s to mobilize public concern which w i l l provide elected o f f i -c i a l s with an impetus to enact l e g i s l a t i o n r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the bureaucracy and to allocate the necessary resources to the bureaucracy to e f f e c t i v e l y execute t h i s mandate. 5) Each of the components of the oligarchy w i l l tend to be motivated by s e l f i n t e r e s t as determined by r a t i o n a l i t y bounded by perceptions, attitudes, and information av a i l a b l e . 6) Small well organized groups with large stakes (eg. 38 business) can have an e f f e c t on public p o l i c y disproportionate to t h e i r s i z e . 7) Contrary to s o c i o - c u l t u r a l norms, altruism and ideology w i l l be-an important motivating force for some individuals and groups. The role of these individuals i s of c r i t i c a l impor-tance to the preservation of genetic d i v e r s i t y because, h i s t o r i c a l l y , s o c i o - c u l t u r a l norms and the pursuit of i n d i v i d u a l s e l f i n t e r e s t has resulted i n the destruction of w i l d l i f e . 8) The maintenance of genetic d i v e r s i t y w i l l only be achieved through an i n s t i t u t i o n a l structure which permits groups and individuals that are i d e o l o g i c a l l y motivated to preserve w i l d l i f e to have the leverage to bring about the appropriate p o l i c i e s and actions. 9) Since the i d e o l o g i c a l l y motivated group i s r e l a t i v e l y small and weak, i t needs to f i n d common ground with larger p o l i t i c a l l y i n f l u e n t i a l groups that are motivated by s e l f i n t e r e s t . 10) Given the short term planning horizon of elected o f f i -c i a l s , t h e i r reluctance to address macro l e v e l issues and the i n e r t i a of appointed o f f i c i a l s , the long term maintenance of species d i v e r s i t y w i l l require provisions for public concern to continue to influence p o l i t i c a l and administrative action. CHAPTER THREE THE PROBLEM OF MAINTAINING GENETIC DIVERSITY Purpose The purpose of this chapter i s to characterize the problem of maintaining genetic d i v e r s i t y . The problem i s reviewed conceptually and on a world-wide basis p r i o r to characterizing the s i t u a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Concept: Species Declines Charles Darwin, i n the Origin of the Species, concluded that any species w i l l continue to be successful i f i t can e f f e c t the s l i g h t variations required to p r o f i t a b l y adapt to i t s habi-t a t . At the micro l e v e l , these s l i g h t variations are expressed morphologically and/or behaviourally, eventually giving r i s e to separate races, subspecies and species. The evolution of a species i s an ad hoc response to l o c a l habitat conditions, rather than a conscious approach toward some pre-deterrained destiny. The a v a i l a b i l i t y of genetic d i v e r s i t y within any species, although less c r i t i c a l under stable habitat conditions, i s ess e n t i a l to f a c i l i t a t e the emergence of s l i g h t variations i n morphology or behaviour which ensure species s u r v i v a l under changing habitat conditions. 40 Extinction i s the culmination of species declines. It i s innately a natural phenomenon whereby species which are unsuccessful i n adapting to t h e i r environment are replaced by more successful l i f e forms. Species declines generally occur in a geological time frame during which the species passes through various stages of decline: * Rare or vulnerable refer to species susceptible to decline due to naturally low population size or s p e c i f i c b i o l o g i c a l / habitat sensitivities/requirements. * Threatened refers to species which could become endangered i f current conditions do not change (Sandhill Cranes i n B.C.). * Endangered refers to species which face immediate extinc-t i o n / e x t i r p a t i o n (eg. Vancouver Island Marmot). * Extirpated refers to species which no longer e x i s t i n a p o l i t i c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n formerly within t h e i r range (eg. sea otters i n B.C.). * Extinct refers to species which no longer ex i s t anywhere in the world (eg. Dawson's Caribou). Due to lack of d e f i n i t i v e b i o l o g i c a l information, there i s considerable controversy over which species are believed to be declining. Further controversy surrounds the perceived stage of decline (eg. i s a species endangered? or threatened?) --much of which i s a function of the p o l i t i c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n and the semantics employed by the designating agency (see Appendix 2) for further discussion of t h i s point). 41 Species declines can be determined from evidence provided by palaeontology, archaeology, and h i s t o r i c a l documentation. Thousands of species which once flourished have declined into obscurity."'" The accuracy of current estimates of species declines i s unknown since awareness of a species i s a pre-re q u i s i t e to recognizing i t s decline; h i s t o r i c a l observers may have f a i l e d to observe or i n c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f i e d species, and the locations of h i s t o r i c a l observations may be inaccurate or incompatible with modern p o l i t i c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s . Evidence of Species Declines Since extinction i s the culmination of species declines, information about extinction i s i n d i c a t i v e of the larger problem of declines i n genetic d i v e r s i t y . Three pieces of evidence suggest the nature of the problem: 1) trends i n species lifespans; 2) the inventory and rates of extinction; and 3) the causes of declines i n genetic d i v e r s i t y . 1) Trends i n Species Lifespans Science recognizes that i n d i v i d u a l species w i l l have a li f e s p a n of between 10,000 years (Taylor, 1966) and several m i l l i o n years (Fisher et a l , 19 69). However, evidence suggests that t h i s l i f e s p a n has contracted within h i s t o r i c a l time. At a point 3 m i l l i o n years ago, the average species l i f e s p a n was 42 1.5 m i l l i o n years (Myers, 1979). However, Ziswiler (1967) indicates that the average life s p a n for a b i r d species has declined from 40,000 years i n 1600 AD to 16,000 years i n 19 64 AD. Similar observations are provided by Fisher et a l (1969) who suggest that West Indian b i r d species currently enjoy an average life s p a n of 1,000 years, a s i g n i f i c a n t reduc-t i o n from the 180,000 year l i f e s p a n i n pre-Columbian times 2 (ie. pre 1492 AD). 2) Inventory and Rates of Extinction The loss of thousands of species of plants and animals i n the "Permian c r i s i s " and the "great dying" of the dinosaurs has been attributed to dramatic changes i n the natural environment (Gould, 19 76). While the causal r e l a t i o n s h i p may be tenuous, exploding human populations and t h e i r hunting pressure on inexperienced prey are suggested as responsible for the "Pleistocene o v e r k i l l " during which about 100 species of pre-h i s t o r i c North American birds and mammals became extinct (Fisher et a l , 1969; Curry-Lindahl, 1972; Martin, 1973; Opler, 1980). Within h i s t o r i c times, man i s c l e a r l y indicted as the p r i n c i p a l agent i n the extinction of w i l d l i f e species. On a worldwide basis, as many as 306 taxa of birds and mammals have disappeared since 1600 AD and an additional 9 82 are considered endangered (Ziswiler, 1967; Fisher e t * a l , 1969; Curry-Lindahl, 1972; Myers, 1969). Within North America alone, 500 plant and 43 animal taxa have disappeared since the a r r i v a l of the Mayflower (Opler, 1980). In terms of just birds and mammals, 32 have become extinct, 7 probably extinct and 16 4 endangered since 1825 (Curry-Lindahl, 1972). The U.S. Fish and W i l d l i f e Service grimly acknowledges that df a l l the continents, North America has witnessed the most d r a s t i c changes i n w i l d l i f e , including the greatest number of extinctions (Laycock, 1969). Unfortunately, the problem i s not simply one of b i o l o g i c a l and botanical history. Future projections suggest a world-wide orgy of extinctions through the end of t h i s century, the mag-nitude of which i s estimated to involve between 150,000 and 2,500,000 species (C.E.Q., 1975; Eckholm, 1978; Myers, 1979). Perhaps most i l l u s t r a t i v e of t h i s point i s the following table (Table 3.1) of the rates of extinction as experienced and anticipated. Although future projections are somewhat specu-l a t i v e , they do correspond with the h i s t o r i c trend. TABLE 3 . 1 WORLDWIDE RATES OF SPECIES EXTINCTION TIME PERIOD RATES OF EXTINCTION PAST* "Great D y i n g " o f d i n o s a u r s . . 1/1000 y r s l P l e i s t o c e n e o v e r k i l l * * * 1/33 y r s 2 pre 1600 AD 1/350 y r s 3 1601 - 1899 AD 1/10 y r s 4 , 5 , 6 1900 - 1949 AD .. l / y r 3 , 7 1950 - 1978 AD 1000/yr8 PRESENT** P r e s e n t c a . 1980 l / y r 9 , 1 0 FUTURE** end o f 19 80 's l / d a y 7 2000 A D . . 1/14.4 m i n u t e s ? Footnotes: * Past extinctions report only birds and mammals known to have existed ** Present and future extinctions include plants and animals *** Includes only North America Sources: 1. M y e r s , 1976. 5. F i s h e r e t a l , 1969. 8. A n o n . , 1974. 2. O p l e r , 1980. 6. C u r r y - L i n d a h l , 1972. 9. I . U . C . N . , 1978. 3. E c k h o l d , 1978. 7. M y e r s , 1979. 10. M y e r s , 1980. 4. Z i s w i l e r , 1967. 45 3) Causes of Declines i n Genetic D i v e r s i t y While the dynamic force of natural selection continues to af f e c t species declines, man has emerged as a more s i g n i f i c a n t influence: TABLE 3.2 CAUSES OF DECLINES IN GENETIC DIVERSITY - WORLDWIDE -EXTINCT ENDANGERED Birds Mammals Birds Mammals Natural Causes (Climate, Natural 24% 25% 32% 14% Hazard, Catastrophe) Man-Related Causes 76% 75% 68% 86% - Hunting (Recreation 42 33 24 43 and Commercial) - Habitat Disruption/Loss 15 19 30 29 - Introduction of 15 17 11 8 Predatory Species - Introduction of 4 6 3 6 Competing Species Source: Adapted from Fisher et a l , 1969, p . 366. Species declines r e s u l t i n g d i r e c t l y from man's actions are r e l a t i v e l y easy to i d e n t i f y and often arouse public i r e (eg. Canadian seal hunt). The i n d i r e c t causes such as habitat d i s -ruption/loss are more insidious since they can be either obvious (eg. draining marshlands) or the consequence of an obscure 46 series of events (eg. the e f f e c t of DDT on the reproduction of raptors). Habitat a l t e r a t i o n has become a more important factor i n contemporary species declines than was the case h i s t o r i c a l l y . What i s the Relevance to B r i t i s h Columbia? The disappearance of the dinosaurs, mammoths and dodo are well known, but how does th i s relate to B r i t i s h Columbia? In th i s section the d i v e r s i t y of the B.C. w i l d l i f e resource i s presented along with a..historical perspective. An inventory of species which have declined/disappeared and the reasons for th e i r decline are also discussed. Species Inventory Genetic d i v e r s i t y of species i s at least p a r t i a l l y an expression of the d i v e r s i t y of biogeoclimatic zones. B r i t i s h Columbia enjoys a d i v e r s i t y of species and zones. In terms of vertebrates (excluding f i s h ) , B r i t i s h Columbia contains 29% of the species which occur i n North America and 66% of the species which occur i n Canada. Further, 22% of a l l Canadian species occur only i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The following table provides a sense of the known d i v e r s i t y of vertebrates in B r i t i s h Columbia within a national and continental context. TABLE 3.3 VERTEBRATE SPECIES INVENTORY (EXCLUDING FISH) B r i t i s h Columbia North America! Canada Total Exclusive* Total Species 1500 1 661 439 146 . . . . . . 4 5 5 1 . . . . . . 3951 650 1 43 2 46 2 163 3 409 3 15 2 19 2 117 3 288 3 6 2 93 76 355 3 Total Subspecies N/A 1324 714 312 N/A N/A N/A 53^ 547 3 663 3 16 2 20 2 286 3 392 3 159 3 127 3 # excludes Mexico * refers to taxa which occur only in B r i t i s h Columbia other p o l i t i c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n within Canada and no Sources: 1. Bury, 19 80. 2. Cook, Francis Logier, E.B.S. 3. Bunnell, F.L.; R., 1981. ; G.C. Toner, 19 61. R.G. Williams, 1980. 48 B r i t i s h Columbia enjoys a d i v e r s i t y of w i l d l i f e species which i s an important component of the complement of species within both Canada and North America. The s i t u a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia exceeds that of any other Canadian p o l i t i c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n both i n absolute size and the number of exclusive species. Clearly, B r i t i s h Columbia has a unique resource i n i t s d i v e r s i t y of w i l d l i f e species. H i s t o r i c a l Perspectives It has been suggested that environmental changes of concern to conservationists take place too slowly for most to appreciate but quickly i n a h i s t o r i c a l sense. A review of the journals of the early explorers, t r a v e l l e r s and sportsmen provides an appreciation of the native state of w i l d l i f e i n B r i t i s h Columbia i n comparison with present conditions. A selection of these observations indicate that the d i v e r s i t y , range and abundance of w i l d l i f e species i n B.C. has declined sharply. - Fish Sturgeon were abundant i n most watercourses from 46° to 53° North l a t i t u d e (Lord, 1866). Simon Fraser (1806) recorded a specimen from Stuart Lake with a 50 pound head (Lamb, 1960) and a half-century l a t e r , sturgeon were caught i n great numbers (Mayne,. 1862) with a 250 pound f i s h being not uncommon (Hazlitt, 1858). Salmon were taken i n such numbers that they were used 49 to f e r t i l i z e crops at Fort Rupert (Mayne, 1862). - Birds 2 Sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis tabida) were recorded at Nootka Sound i n 1791 and furnished a " c a p i t a l soup" (Ha z l i t t , 1858). Daniel Harmon (1820) recorded "incredible numbers" of cranes passing Fort St. James over a ten day period. Descrip-tions of the abundance of t h i s species suggests a decline from "very common" (Lord, 1866) to "tolerably abundant" (Fannin, 1891). Today, about f i f t e e n individuals frequent the Lower Mainland with others found i n i s o l a t e d pockets through the Cariboo and on the Queen Charlotte Islands (Robinson, 1980). Both Alexander Mackenzie (1793) (Pearse, 1968) and Daniel Harmon (1820) observed great numbers of swans (could be either Whistling or Trumpeter Swans) i n northern B.C. Swans were frequently taken on Vancouver Island (Mayne, 1858) and Trumpeter swans remained "not uncommon" at the end of the century (Fannin, 1891). Trumpeter swans have now recovered a f t e r t h e i r numbers were severely reduced by market hunting i n the l a s t century. Early sightings of white pelicans (Pelicanus erythrorhynchos) were recorded at Fort Vancouver, Washington (1824) and Vancouver Island (1853) (Pearse, 1968; H a z l i t t , 1858). Chamberlaine (18 8 7) adjusted Lord's (186 6) "rather rare" to "very rare" to describe t h i s species. The population has declined over the 50 past 20 years to about 300 individuals i n a single breeding colony at Stum Lake (Dunbar et a l , 19 80). C a l i f o r n i a condors (Gymnogyps californianus) were taken at Fort Vancouver, Washington i n 1824 (Pearse, 1968) and spotted at the mouth of the Fraser River as recently as 1888 (Lord, 1866; Macoun, 1909). The l a s t remaining individuals of t h i s species struggle for s u r v i v a l i n C a l i f o r n i a . The passenger pigeon, although never occurring i n large flocks i n B r i t i s h Columbia (Lord, 1866), were taken at Chilliwack i n 1859 (Godfrey, 1966) . By 1891, they had been extirpated (Fannin, 1891) and they were extinct by 1916 (Godfrey, 1966). - Mammals Captain Cook noted many sea otters (Enhydra l u t r i s l u t r i s ) i n the B.C. coastal waters (Pearse, 1968). The large scale trade i n otter p e l t s declined i n the mid 1800's (Rattray, 1862) 3 , and terminated i n 1911. Prior to re-introductions i n 19 69 and subsequent years, the species was considered extirpated from B.C. waters. Plains bison (Bison bison bison) occurred i n the south-western portion of B r i t i s h Columbia (Mayne, 1862; Bunnell and Williams, 1980) and both Simon Fraser (1806) (Lamb, 1960) and Harmon (1820) observed wood bison (Bison bison athabascae) i n the Peace River D i s t r i c t . Wood bison were p r i v a t e l y r e - i n t r o -4 duced to the Province m 19 71. 51 The elk (Cervus canadensis) was observed on Vancouver Island (Mayne, 1862) and was described as the most widely d i s t r i b u t e d deer species, on the continent (Lord, 1866). Within a h a l f -century, the Government of B r i t i s h Columbia (19 0 7) noted that the Roosevelt elk (C.c. roosevelti) was r e s t r i c t e d to northern Vancouver Island and was extinct on the Mainland. A subspecies (C.c. nelsonii) was present i n the southeast corner of the Province. Within 5 years, i t was necessary to p r o h i b i t a l l elk hunting (Williams, 1912). Elk have subsequently been r e - i n t r o -duced into i s o l a t e d pockets throughout the province. Caribou (Rangifer- tarandus) occurred near Kamloops i n s u f f i c i e n t numbers t o j u s t i f y naming t h i s the Cariboo d i s t r i c t (Mayne, 1862; Cheadle, 1971). By 1912, the Dawson Caribou (Rangifer dawsonii) were occasionally found i n the Queen Charlotte Islands andOsborn's Caribou (R.t. osbornii) were numerous through the Cassiar D i s t r i c t i n herds of 20 to 500 individuals (Williams, 1912). The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the species has declined s i g n i f i c a n t l y and the Dawson Caribou i s considered extinct (Allen, 19 42). Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), once d i s t r i b u t e d through the L i l l o o e t , Okanagan, Similkameen and East Kootenay areas (Williams, 1912), are now r e s t r i c t e d to the East Kootenays (Demarchi, 1977). A l l of these observations indicate that B r i t i s h Columbia 52 has experienced a decline i n the d i v e r s i t y , range and population of w i l d l i f e species. Enumeration of Declining Species While the h i s t o r i c a l accounts of w i l d l i f e indicate that we have experienced declines i n the population and d i s t r i b u t i o n of various species, i t remains to e s t a b l i s h the quantitative mag-nitude of the problem. The Lieutenant Governor i n Council has o f f i c i a l l y designated the sea otter, Vancouver Island Marmot, white pelican and burrowing owl as "rare and endangered" i n B r i t i s h Columbia. In contrast, the l i t e r a t u r e on endangered species records the disappearance of 14 species from the Province and indicates that up to 73 others are i n some stage of decline (see Table There i s an obvious discrepancy between the actions of the P r o v i n c i a l Government and the dimensions of the problem as out-li n e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e . The number of extinct and extirpated species underscores the gravity of the current discussion. Some species, which were once present i n B.C., are no longer here. Their passage i s a matter of h i s t o r i c a l record. However, there i s considerable disagreement i n the l i t e r a t u r e as to which species are declining and the class to which they belong (ie . endangered, threatened, rare, e t c . ) . This disagreement arises from a lack of information about the condition of w i l d l i f e species and the use of a variety of d e f i n i t i o n s for endangered Table 3.4 No. of Vertebrate Species Declining/Gone  B r i t i s h Columbia TAXONOMIC CLASS TOTAL Birds Mammals Reptiles Amphibians Fish . 3 1 2 - - -.11 3 5* 2 - 1 Endangered/Threatened - .40 25 10 2 2 1 . 6 2 - - - 4 Under Consideration . . .27 - 18 8 1 - -TOTAL 87 49 25 5 . 2 6 * two species: sea otter and wood bison have been re-introduced NB. Individual species and source documents l i s t e d i n Appendix 3. 54 species (see also Appendix 3). Causes of Species Declines i n B r i t i s h Columbia Declines in the d i v e r s i t y , range and population of species are a consequence of natural and/or man-induced causes. The following table presents the reasons, where known, for the decline of those species which no longer occur i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Post mortem diagnoses on extinct species tends towards speculation i n the absence of d e f i n i t i v e information. However, a review of the evidence suggests that man i s the p r i n c i p a l agent of species declines. H i s t o r i c a l l y , the combination of commercial, recreational and sustenance hunting pressures have been a major factor which has recently been surpassed by habitat a l t e r a t i o n / l o s s . - Commercial Hunting Commercial hunting has included the fur trade, market hunting and bounty hunting. The trade in sea otter pelts pro-foundly affected the history of the northwest coast of North America - prompting exploration of the coast, the establishment of settlements and the sale of Alaska. The imminent extinction of the species was forecast i n the 1860's (Rattray, 1862), but i t was not u n t i l 1911 that the trade i n sea otter pelts was terminated. T e r r e s t r i a l furbearers were taken i n s u f f i c i e n t Table 3.5 Causes of Extinction/Extirpation Among B.C. W i l d l i f e Species Common Name EXTINCT 1 2 Passenger Pigeon ' Dawson's Caribou-^ S t e l l e r ' s Sea Cow2 Latin Name Ectopistes migratoruus Rangifer dawsonii Cause(s) commercial overharvest unknown ( r e l i c t ? overharvest?) overharvest EXTIRPATED C a l i f o r n i a Condor^ Sage Grouse 2 Yellow-billed Cuckoo^ Northern K i t Fox^/ 7. Plains Bison 2 Wood Bison^ Sea Otter 7/9 Rocky Mountain WolflO Northwestern Pond T u r t l e l ' H Pigmy Horned L i z a r d l / H Pilchard or P a c i f i c Sardine 2 Sources: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Gymnogyps californianus Centrocerux urophasianus Coccyzus americanus Vulpes velox hebes Bison bison bison Bison bison athabascae Enhydra l u t r i s l u t r i s Canis lupus Clemmys marmorata Phrynosoma d. douglassi Sardinops sagax caerulea unknown (peripheral?) unknown (overharvest/habitat unknown (peripheral?) loss) unknown (peripheral, persec?) commercial overharvest commercial overharvest commercial overharvest i n d i r e c t (bison predator) unknown (peripheral, habitat?) unknown (peripheral, habitat?) commercial overharvest Stewart, 1974 7. Carl, 1964 8. Banfield, A.W.F., 9. Macoun, J.; Macoun, 19 09 10. Weber, W.C., 19 80 11. I.U.C.N., 1980 Bryan, R., 1973 (per C.W.F.) Bunnell, R.; R. Williams, 19 80 Farr, A.; F. Bunnell, 1980 Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch, 1980 Cook, F., 1976 (per National Museum) 56 numbers to j u s t i f y the development of a network of trading posts. While contemporary observers naively explained the decline of furbearers as a migration of i n d i v i d u a l furbearers away from c i v i l i z a t i o n , conservation e f f o r t s by the Hudson's Bay Company began i n the 1820's i n recognition of the decline of furbearing species (Bryan, 1973). Market hunting was a s i g n i f i c a n t factor i n species declines near white settlements. In 1858, l o c a l l y k i l l e d bear and venison supplemented the inadequate supplies of beef i n an attempt to meet the demand of the gold seekers a r r i v i n g i n V i c t o r i a (Clark, 1964). Rattray (1862) adds: "An abundance of game i s found a l l over both colonies (Vancouver Island and B r i t i s h Columbia); and deer, grouse and an i n f i n i t e variety of wildfowl are shot and sold at a cheap rate by the Indians." p. 82. Both natives and non-natives engaged i n market hunting. Game ordinance laws emerged in response to devastating pressures on w i l d l i f e populations, and by 1870, the possession of game within a mile of V i c t o r i a was prohibited (Clark, 1964). The e f f i c i e n c y of market hunting was increased by the use of buckshot cannons for waterfowl and dynamite for f i s h (Clark, 1964). In 1896, goose sold for 30*, and mallards for 20* (Leach, 1981). Three years l a t e r , a shipment of 21,000 black t a i l e d deer skins l e f t V i c t o r i a for San Francisco (Clark, '1964). Simultaneously, the decline of the A t l a n t i c whale fishery pro-vided impetus to commercial whaling and sealing i n B r i t i s h Columbia. More recently, 86,000 tons of pilchard, with a 57 landed value of $2.5 m i l l i o n were taken i n 1929. By 19 39, t h i s fishery had collapsed e n t i r e l y from overharvesting (Carl, 1964). - Recreational Hunting B r i t i s h Columbia had become i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y renouned as a sportsman's paradise for i t s d i v e r s i t y and numbers of game species. Rattray (1862) noted that the vari e t y of game exceeded any other area on the continent, an observation confirmed a half-century l a t e r by William Hornaday on a c o l l e c t i n g v i s i t to the province (Province, January 4, 1902). Mayne (1862) mentioned the ease with which any number of large ungulates could be taken. Cheadle (19 71) reports taking 20 0 ducks and geese within the period of several days i n 1862, and Rogers (1912) recounts the success of a month-long f i s h i n g t r i p during which he caught 221 salmon and trout with a t o t a l weight of 2 82 6 pounds. Less adventurous sportsmen would commission natives to secure a trophy head, and buy the largest from among the several presented for t h e i r approval (Clark, 1964). Dead peregrine falcons were sold to c o l l e c t o r s for $8 i n 1896 (Leach, 1981). - Subsistence Hunting Although not on the same scale as commercial or recreational hunting, subsistence hunting contributed to species declines, p a r t i c u l a r l y with the increased population and wastage asso-58 ciated with inadequate preservation of meat. Although perhaps an i s o l a t e d example, a Similkameen farmer k i l l e d 9 3 deer i n 1888 for hog feed (Clark, 1964). - Bounty Hunting Bounty hunting was i n s t i t u t e d through the Game Ordinance (1870) and continued u n t i l 1958 on any animals which were per-ceived as a threat of pest to man, domestic animals or game animals. P r i o r to 1948, bounties were paid on bears, bobcats, cats, cougars, coyote, crows, eagles, hawks, magpies and t h e i r eggs, owls, ravens, wildcats and wolves. After 1948, bounties were paid on groundhogs, merganzers, raccoons, rattlesnakes, skunks, s t a r l i n g s and wolverines. The pressures on these species i s apparent when one considers that bounties were paid for 17,625 owls In 1922; 20,192 coyotes in 1927; 701 cougars i 1931; and about 1,000 wolves annually from.1939 to 1949 (Foste 1973) . - Alteration/Loss of Habitat The a l t e r a t i o n / l o s s of habitat i s a more subtle factor i n species declines. The lumber demand for sawmills established i n V i c t o r i a (1848), and at Burrard Inlet (1863), the loss of 28,000 acres of wetlands from draining Sumas Lake (permanent habitat and migratory b i r d staging area), and the settlement and i r r i g a t i o n of the Okanagan Valley, are examples of a l t e r -59 ations which profoundly affected the resident species (Munro and McTaggart Cowan, 1947). More recently, the release of toxic substances into the environment has q u a l i t a t i v e l y affected species habitats. While some of the e f f e c t s are v i s i b l e (eg. o i l s p i l l s on marine b i r d s ) , the less v i s i b l e examples are even more pernicious (eg. e f f e c t of DDT of b i r d reproduction). Conclusion Inherently, extinction i s a natural phenomenon whereby species decline i s accomplished by the emergence of other species. Whereas extinctions were once the consequence of natural phenomenon, man's actions account for two-thirds of the h i s t o r i c extinctions. Species lifespans and the rates of extinction have changed profoundly to the detriment of d i v e r s i t y of w i l d l i f e . The phenomenon of species extinctions and declines i s a problem both worldwide and within B r i t i s h Columbia. B r i t i s h Columbia enjoys a d i v e r s i t y of w i l d l i f e species unparalleled i n Canada and includes many species which occur nowhere else on the continent. H i s t o r i c a l evidence indicates that the present d i v e r s i t y of w i l d l i f e i n B r i t i s h Columbia has declined within the l a s t 150 years, and much of t h i s decline i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to the actions of man. While some controversy exists over the d e f i n i t i o n s and desig-nation of endangered species, the h i s t o r i c trend i s clear. 60 Declines i n species d i v e r s i t y i s most d e f i n i t e l y a problem in B r i t i s h ' Columbia. These declines are largely a ttributable to overharvesting and habitat a l t e r a t i o n / l o s s . E f f o r t s to halt species declines should, therefore, address both of these factors. Further, the s i t u a t i o n underscores the necessity for current accurate i n f o r -mation on species so as to f a c i l i t a t e the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of p o t e n t i a l and actual species declines, and to focus management a c t i v i t i e s for species preservation. 61 CHAPTER FOUR  PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES Purpose I t i s the purpose of t h i s chapter to report information i n d i c a t i v e of: a) the climate of public opinion r e l a t i n g to the preser-vation of the genetic d i v e r s i t y ; and b) the perceptions of public input about the preservation of genetic d i v e r s i t y among p o l i t i c i a n s and bureaucrats. Public Attitudes Regarding Preservation of Genetic D i v e r s i t y Under the assumption that empirical data on public attitudes towards w i l d l i f e and declining species i s in d i c a t i v e of an awareness of and s e n s i t i v i t y towards the preservation of genetic d i v e r s i t y , a summary of relevant data i s presented. Findings from both B r i t i s h Columbia and other j u r i s d i c t i o n s within North America are included i n t h i s composite. 1. North American Attitudes In the absence of certain empirical data for B r i t i s h Columbia, and given the s i m i l a r i t y i n socio-economic milieu within North America, the findings of research for other j u r i s -d ictions are considered. 62 Public knowledge about animals i s r e l a t i v e l y low. A United States survey determined that only about one i n two people know that insects are not vertebrates, that veal does not come from lambs, or that spiders do not have ten legs. People were found to be most knowledgable about animals that i n f l i c t human injury, pets, and domestic animals ( K e l l e r t , 1980). The understanding about declining species i s also very low. Only one i n four people are aware that the passenger pigeon and Carolina parakeet are extinct or can distinguish the endangered species from a l i s t which includes non endangered species. While the awareness of some w i l d l i f e issues i s very high (eg. effects of pesticides on birds - 89% aware, harp seal hunt - 88% aware), fewer than one-half describe themselves as even moder-ately knowledgable about any one of these issues (Kellert, 1979) . The data also indicate a preference hierarchy for species which i s r e f l e c t e d i n the demand for t h e i r preservation. 90% of v i s i t o r s to the Great Smoky Mountain National Park (Tennessee) i n s i s t e d that a l l the w i l d l i f e i n the park should be preserved. However, when queried.further, 50% favoured the removal of snakes (Parsons, 1976). On the basis of public awareness and knowledge about various w i l d l i f e issues, K e l l e r t (1979) con-cluded : "...the public appeared to be far more aware of r e l a t i v e l y emotional issues involving s p e c i f i c , a t t r a c t i v e and higher 63 animals than of more abstract issues involving i n d i r e c t impacts on w i l d l i f e due to habitat loss or dealing with lower animals." (p. 115). Responding to t h i s preference hierarchy, a municipal conser-vation committee i n Massachusetts adopted a po l i c y to favour the conservation of v i s i b l e well-publicized animals (Gary, 1979) . This preference hierarchy also applies to declining species. A senior o f f i c i a l of the U.S. Endangered Species Program r e f l e c t e d : " . . . i t seems that emotions run p a r t i c u l a r l y high when endangered animals are concerned. The warmer the blood, the f u r r i e r the hide, the browner the eye, and the cuddlier the animal, the higher the emotions run to a fever p i t c h . Why don't more people care about a highly endangered rattlesnake?" (U.S. Dept. of Interior, p. 5). This hierarchy has profound implications on the determination of which species are 'worth' preserving, and the r e l a t i v e areas with which i n d i v i d u a l species can secure public support. I t i s also r e f l e c t e d i n the public's willingness to bear any costs of species preservation. Ehrenfeld (1972) characterizes the ' t y p i c a l ' endangered species i n terms of i t s physical a t t r i b u t e s , habitat require-2 ments, reproduction, behaviour and relationshxp with man. However, the variables a f f e c t i n g public attitudes include aesthetics, phylogenetic relatedness to man, s o c i a l impact of decline/recovery, f a m i l i a r i t y with the species, economic/ c u l t u r a l / h i s t o r i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p with the species and perceived humaneness of a c t i v i t i e s a f f e c t i n g the species (Ziswiler, 1967; 64 Brokaw, 1978; K e l l e r t , 1979). Public attitudes are not necessarily founded on b i o l o g i c a l r e a l i t i e s and as a conse-quence c o l l e c t i v e action may inadvertently support a w i l d l i f e 'monoculture 1. K e l l e r t ' s study (19 79) also provides insight into the tradeoff between preserving a species and various projects which would jeopardize i t s s u r v i v a l . TABLE 4.1 SPECIES PRESERVATION VS . WATER USES Would you approve of the following water uses even i f they would endanger a l i t t l e known rare species of fish? (n=3107) Not No Approve Approve Opinion diversion for human drinking water? • 8 7 % • . 11%. . . 2 diversion to i r r i g a t e a g r i c u l t u r a l . 83 . 14 . . . 3 dam for hydroelectric power project? 72 . 24 . . . 4 - members of environmental groups . . 31 . . 69 - non members of environmental . . 73 . . 23 . . 4 diversion to cool i n d u s t r i a l . 48 . 46 . . . 6 dam to create a lake for recreation? 39 . . 57 . . . 4 Source: Adapted from K e l l e r t (19 79) These findings also i l l u s t r a t e the absence of any moral impera-t i v e that w i l d l i f e species must be preserved. While the 65 majority of the population may perceive i t frivolous to endanger a f i s h for recreation purposes, i t i s overwhelmingly j u s t i f i e d i n other cases. Costs of Preservation Although the l i t e r a t u r e has suggested that the willingness to preserve species w i l l only be discernable with proximity to extinction, there i s evidence to indicate that the public w i l l consider bearing some of these costs. K e l l e r t (1979) found a general willingness, i n p r i n c i p l e , to accept costs and f o r f e i t opportunities i n order to preserve and maintain w i l d l i f e . TABLE 4.2 WILLINGNESS TO PRESERVE WILDLIFE Would you accept... (n=3107) Yes No ...higher lumber prices i f timber harvesting done 76% 2 0% ...higher meat prices to r e s t r i c t c a t t l e and sheep grazing on public lands i f they destroy w i l d l i f e 60 34 ...a pot e n t i a l loss of jobs and needed lumber i n order to set aside 2000 hectares for g r i z z l y 56 27 ...much smaller w i l d l i f e populations as a conse-44 51 ...loss of marsh habitat for non endangered ducks and w i l d l i f e i f the area was needed for housing? . . 38 55 ...loss of marsh habitat for an endangered b i r d as a consequence of building an i n d u s t r i a l plant employing 1000 persons i n an area of high unemployment? . . . 39 56 Source: Adapted from K e l l e r t (1979) 66 The foregoing data are most appropriately treated as i n d i -cative only since the s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s were not available to respondents as they would be i n a r e a l world resource management decision. The findings do, however, provide a sense of tradeoff p r i o r i t i e s between w i l d l i f e and various human a c t i v i t i e s . The data do indeed suggest a w i l l i n g n e s s - i n - p r i n c i p l e to bear the costs of species preservation. However, when examining p a r t i c u l a r cases, t h i s willingness i s importantly influenced by the d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs and the p a r t i c u l a r species i n question. K e l l e r t ' s findings indicate the importance of the preference hierarchy for species. Would you accept increased costs of an energy project for the protection of a... (n=3107) TABLE 4.3 INCREASED COSTS VS. SPECIES PROTECTION Yes No No Opinion . .bald eagle? . .agassiz trout? . .american crocodile? . . . ..eastern mountain lion? . .silverspot butterfly? . . ..furbish lousewort? (plant) ..eastern indigo snake? . . . .kauai wolf spider? . . . . 89% 71 70 64 64 48 43 34 8 21 25 28 28 34 48 56 18 8 9 3% 8 5 8 8 Source: Adapted from K e l l e r t (1979) On the basis of these data,,between one-third and two-thirds of the population are unwilling to bear any costs to preserve 67 genetic d i v e r s i t y . In the apparent absence of any moral imperative to maintain genetic d i v e r s i t y , decisions w i l l be made on an ad hoc s i t u a t i o n - s p e c i f i c basis. Additional evidence suggests that the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for funding w i l d l i f e management f a l l s to the resource user and government (Ontario, 1973; K e l l e r t , 1979). Should the cost of maintaining f i s h and w i l d l i f e populations be charged only to the users of the resource or should the general public bear the cost in the form of taxes, or both? (n=1600) Source: Ontario, 1973 What additional funding sources should contribute to w i l d l i f e management? (n=310 7) TABLE 4.4 SOURCE OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT FUNDING User pay Public only pay . . . . Both user and public pay No opinion 41% 15 42 2 Agree Disagree Sales Tax on... Fur clothing Off road vehicles Hiking/camping equipment . . . Birdwatching equipment . . . . Books, magazines, art (Nature) 82% 71 57 54 43 15% 26 40 40 54 Entrance Fees to Refuges, W i l d l i f e Areas 75 23 Increased A l l o c a t i o n from Gen. Tax Revenues 57 38 Source: Adapted from K e l l e r t (1979) 68 2. B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a n A t t i t u d e s B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a n s p e r c e i v e e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r o t e c t i o n t o be t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t i s s u e i n t h e P r o v i n c e t o d a y a n d t h r o u g h t h e n e x t d e c a d e . I t i s r a n k e d a s b e i n g more i m p o r t a n t t h a n o t h e r i s s u e s w h i c h i n c l u d e i n f l a t i o n , u n e m p l o y m e n t , e n e r g y a n d t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f f a r m l a n d (G.V.R.D., 1 9 8 0 ) . W h e t h e r t h i s r e m a i n s t h e c a s e i n 19 82 i s p r o b l e m a t i c . E n d a n g e r e d s p e c i e s r a n k as a l o w p r i o r i t y i n a h i e r a r c h y o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n c e r n s . G e n e t i c d i v e r s i t y w o u l d , h o w e v e r , be i n d i r e c t l y f a c i l i t a t e d t h r o u g h t h e number two p r i o r i t y - h a b i t a t p r e s e r -v a t i o n . TABLE 4.5  HIERARCHY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES What i s t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l / c o n s e r v a t i o n i s s u e o f g r e a t e s t c o n c e r n t o y o u ? (n=850) I n t h e n e x t . . . Y e a r Decade A i r / w a t e r p o l l u t i o n 31% 3 4% H a b i t a t p r e s e r v a t i o n 2 4 2 4 P e s t i c i d e s / h e r b i c i d e s 12 10 L a n d u s e p l a n n i n g 11 16 M o t o r i z e d r e c r e a t i o n 7 6 N a t i v e h u n t i n g / f i s h i n g 5 4 E n d a n g e r e d s p e c i e s 5 5 P r e d a t o r c o n t r o l 2 1 S o u r c e : B.C. O u t d o o r s (1981) The s p e c i e s p r e f e r e n c e h i e r a r c h y i s a l s o e v i d e n t i n B r i t i s h 69 Columbia. A recent survey reveals that public i n t e r e s t i n ungulates (25%) and birds (20%) i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than i n carnivores or endangered species ( 1 0 % each) (Munro, pers. comm.) . Most of the evidence of public concern about genetic d i v e r s i t y i s in f e r r e d from concern about declining species as witnessed by attendance at public meetings and written corre-spondence with elected representatives. a) A series of public meetings about the Proposed W i l d l i f e Management Plan for B.C. were held throughout the Province during May and June, 1979. The W i l d l i f e Management Plan referenced endangered species, as did the then recently-available Preliminary Plan for the Designation of Threatened and Endangered Species i n B.C. Of the 687 individuals who attended the meetings, only four mentioned endangered species as part of t h e i r presentations (Ministry of Environment, 1 9 8 0 ) . b) Public input was s p e c i f i c a l l y sought for the Preliminary Plan for the Designation of Threatened and Endangered Species i n B.C. However, only two or three i n d i v i d u a l s submitted comments (Rogers, 1 9 8 0 ) . c) The Symposium on Threatened and Endangered Species held i n Richmond, B.C. i n March, 19 80, had capacity r e g i s t r a t i o n of 280 delegates and turned others away (Stace-Smith et a l , 1 9 8 0 ) . d) Public input was sought regarding the Discussion Paper on the Proposed W i l d l i f e Act ( 1 9 8 1 ) , which included s i g n i f i c a n t 70 changes i n the d e f i n i t i o n s of declining species and important provisions to secure t h e i r habitat. Only three of over one hundred submissions mentioned these changes. However, a s i g -n i f i c a n t proportion of the submissions expressed concern about the narrow parameters of the term " w i l d l i f e " (Dodd, pers. comm.). e) A sporadic flow of correspondence i s on f i l e i n govern-ment o f f i c e s regarding the Vancouver Island Marmot. The bulk of th i s correspondence originated from the Vancouver Island Marmot Preservation Committee. The volume of correspondence regarding the other endangered species and genetic d i v e r s i t y in general i s n e g l i g i b l e . On the basis of the information available, neither declining species nor genetic d i v e r s i t y appear to be either a mass issue or one of major public concern. However, B r i t i s h Columbians appear to be anomalous to the rest of Canada i n terms of t h e i r awareness of endangered species and t h e i r willingness to support species preservation. A Gallup P o l l commissioned by Greenpeace (October, 1980) noted that the b e l i e f that many species of whales are endangered i s highest in B r i t i s h Columbia (82%), s i g n i f i c a n t l y above the national average (67%). Further, the World W i l d l i f e Fund national advertising campaign to s o l i c i t donations for the Peregrine Falcon, Burrowing Owl, and Black Rhino concluded that "Interest i n B r i t i s h Columbia i n threatened species i s obviously high." In t o t a l , a disproportionately high 28% of a l l the donors and 71 donations were from B r i t i s h Columbia (ie. 941 donors c o n t r i -buted $23,257) (Munro, memo, A p r i l 8, 1981). Irrespective of in t e r e s t i n p a r t i c u l a r declining species, there i s v i r t u a l l y no evidence available to indicate an i n t e r e s t i n maintaining genetic d i v e r s i t y i n spite of i t s being the premier goal of the W i l d l i f e Management Plan. Although i t may be i m p l i c i t l y accepted by most people, there are no indicators available to suggest such a conclusion. Public P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n P o l i t i c a l Decision-Making The r e l a t i v e l y low l e v e l of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the development of w i l d l i f e p o l i c i e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia, while a function of limi t e d opportunities to p a r t i c i p a t e , i s also a r e f l e c t i o n of public i n e r t i a . This i n e r t i a i s somewhat sur-p r i s i n g given the public's expressed d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with government as noted i n opinion p o l l s . TABLE 4.6 PUBLIC DISSATISFACTION WITH GOVERNMENT Most public o f f i c i a l s are doing a responsible job i n pro-tecting the environment. (n=435 members of environmental organizations) Agree Disagree Undecided 12% 72 14 Source: Bowman, 1977 (Continued on following page) 72 TABLE 4.6 (Continued) If the leaders of our nation followed the views of the public more cl o s e l y , do you think the nation would be better o f f , or worse of f than i t i s today? (n=2000) Source: Gallup P o l l (Canada) A p r i l 24, 1976 However, i t appears that there are a number of b a r r i e r s to public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n resource management i n B r i t i s h Columbia, and these include: 1) Most of the l e g i s l a t i o n regarding the environment pro-vides for hearings and appeals against decisions, however, there i s almost no opportunity for the public to be consulted or to contribute s u f f i c i e n t l y i n advance of a decision to influence i t s outcome. Many of these opportunities are e n t i r e l y at the d i s c r e t i o n of a Cabinet Minister. 2) The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for environmental components (water, land, forests, w i l d l i f e , etc.) are d i s t r i b u t e d among several sectoral agencies. In the absence of any bureaucratic or p o l i t i c a l integration other than i n Cabinet, the conceptuali-zation and expression of h o l i s t i c environmental concerns obliges the public to d i f f e r e n t i a t e among and independently access each agency. Better o f f Same 60% 16 13 11 Worse o f f No opinion 73 3) Where th e r e are o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n p r i o r t o decision-making, t h i s i s documented i n m i n i s t e r i a l p o l i c y and p r o v i d e s f o r a wide l a t i t u d e of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . 4) H a r l i n g (pers. comm.) i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t i s extremely d i f f i c u l t t o motivate p u b l i c i n p u t on environmental matters because of antecedent i n e r t i a and pessimism about the outcome. 5) G e n e r a l l y , a long-term commitment (5+ years) i s r e q u i r e d of concerned i n d i v i d u a l s to achieve any r e s u l t s (Hebert, p e r s . comm.). 6) Concerned p u b l i c groups p e r c e i v e t h a t the s i z e o f the group and the i n d i v i d u a l ' s l e v e l of concern are c r i t i c a l q u a l i f i e r s employed by bure a u c r a t s and p o l i t i c i a n s t o determine which i s s u e s t o address. Consequently, concerned i n d i v i d u a l s and groups are p e s s i m i s t i c s i n c e t h e i r membership s i z e and i n t e n s i t y o f concern may be p e r c e i v e d as inadequate by bureau-c r a t s or p o l i t i c i a n s ( S k e l l y , H a r l i n g , p e r s . comm.). 7) P u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s almost e x c l u s i v e l y v o l u n t a r y so t h a t the expenditure of time and funds are borne by the i n d i -v i d u a l c i t i z e n or group ( H a r l i n g , Routledge, p e r s . comm.). 8) Each environmental i s s u e i s c o n s i d e r e d on an ad hoc b a s i s on i t s own m e r i t s and without r e g a r d t o p r e c e d i n g d e c i s i o n s . Concerned c i t i z e n s must r e p e t i t i v e l y launch campaigns with u n p r e d i c t a b l e p o t e n t i a l f o r success ( H a r l i n g , p e r s . comm.). 9) I n d i v i d u a l s are o f t e n unable to a r t i c u l a t e t h e i r a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s f o r i n c o r p o r a t i o n i n resource management 74 decisions p r i o r to the emergence of a problem (Lowenthal, 19 66). Consequently, t h e i r concern upon the emergence of a problem i s often perceived as reactive and negative. Environmental Interest Groups K e l l e r t (1979) cross-tabulated his survey data for w i l l i n g -ness to preserve various species. A very s p e c i f i c p r o f i l e of those most concerned with the issue emerges along with a sketchy p r o f i l e of those who are less concerned. The most concerned group are less than 36 years of age, l i v e in large urban centres, have received university education, and enjoy an above average income derived from employment i n one of the professions. They frequently belong to an environmental protection group, frequently an animal-activity group (eg. birdwatchers). The less concerned group are 56+ years of age and l i v e in r u r a l areas where they work on farms. They have r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e formal education (less than 8th grade). Although awareness and concern about environmental issues crosscut society, action to i n i t i a t e environmental reform does not enjoy popular support. Empirical data suggest that the p r o f i l e of the environmental a c t i v i s t s c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l s K e l l e r t ' s most concerned group and i s d i s t i n c t l y upper middle cl a s s . Buttel (1978b) adds that the group can be defined as the 19 60's generation, both demographically and a t t i t u d i n a l l y . Bowman's findings are i n d i c a t i v e of the a t t i t u d i n a l d i s t i n c t i o n s : 75 TABLE 4.7 ATTITUDES OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CONCERNED Agree It i s important to protect the environment even i f i t means more r e s t r i c t i o n s on i n d i v i d u a l behaviour . . . . 85% More emphasis should be placed on society's environ-mental rig h t s and less placed on the ind i v i d u a l ' s 63 If people got together i n groups to influence t h e i r representatives, p o l l u t i o n problems might be solved . 61 (n=1800 environmentally concerned) Source: Bowman, 19 7 7 The preference of environmental groups for t a c t i c s which favour l e t t e r s , meetings, lawsuits, boycotts, and public edu-cation over the c i v i l disobedience of the c i v i l r ights movement further distinguishes the upper middle class orientation of environmental groups (Bowman, 19 77). One of the greatest hurdles to environmental reform has been the widely accepted b e l i e f that environmental protection threatens economic s t a b i l i t y and growth, and w i l l r e s u l t i n the loss of jobs. While considerable work has been done to debunk thi s b e l i e f , i t appears to be unresolvable given the case-s p e c i f i c nature of environmental protection and the e l i t i s t o rientation of environmental reformers (Kiesnick, 197 8; M i l l e r , 1980). The magnitude of the problem has been determined by 76 K e l l e r t (1979): TABLE 4. 8 ENVIRONMENT VS . ECONOMY The goals of most environmentalists are a threat continued economic prosperity of the country. (n to the =3107) Agree Disagree No Opinion • . .12% . 76 . . . 23 . . . . 1 .82 . . . 17 . . . . 1 Source: K e l l e r t (1979) Elected Representatives Since the. formal adoption of w i l d l i f e p o l i c i e s i s largely the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e and p o l i t i c i a n s are elected spokesmen for the general public, i t i s important to understand the attitudes of the members of the l e g i s l a t u r e towards maintaining genetic d i v e r s i t y . To accomplish t h i s , l i t e r a t u r e on the behaviour of Canadian p o l i t i c i a n s and the debates of the B.C. L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly were reviewed. Jackson and Atkinson (1980) explain that p o l i t i c i a n s experience a metamorphosis when in o f f i c e . During much of the f i r s t term i n o f f i c e , p o l i t i c i a n s , being unfamiliar with t h e i r duties, r e l y heavily on the guidance of party policy and t h e i r more experience colleagues. Every p o l i t i c i a n i s obliged to 77 a d d r e s s b o t h c o n s t i t u e n t i s s u e s a n d p a r t y m a t t e r s t h r o u g h o u t h i s c a r e e r . Once f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e i r d u t i e s , p o l i t i c i a n s a s p i r e t o a p r o m o t i o n t o a C a b i n e t p o s t a nd assume t h e c h a r a c -t e r i s t i c s w h i c h w i l l e n h a n c e t h e i r e l i g i b i l i t y ( i e . s u p p o r t i v e o f p a r t y p o l i c y and p o s i t i o n ) . C a b i n e t M i n i s t e r s d e f a u l t many o f t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n t d u t i e s t o t h e i r n o v i c e c o l l e a g u e s i n f a v o u r o f d e v e l o p i n g p o l i c i e s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , p a r t y p o l i c y c o n s t r a i n s t h e a c t i o n s o f p o l i t i c i a n s a n d , i n t u r n , s h a p e s g o v e r n m e n t d e c i s i o n m a k i n g . U n d e r s t a n d a b l y , t h e p a r a m e t e r s o f t h i s p o l i c y v a r i e s b e t w e e n p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s . A s s u m i n g t h a t l e g i s l a t i v e d e b a t e r e p r e s e n t s some amalgam o f t h e a t t i t u d e s a n d a g e n d a o f t h e p o l i t i c i a n , as w e l l as t h e i n p u t o f c o n s t i t u e n t s a n d i n t e r e s t g r o u p s , t h e B.C. H a n s a r d was r e v i e w e d f o r t h e f r e q u e n c y a nd c o n t e n t o f d e b a t e a b o u t m a i n -t a i n i n g g e n e t i c d i v e r s i t y . I t was e x p e c t e d t h a t t h i s r e v i e w w o u l d i n d i c a t e t h e a w a r e n e s s , u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e i s s u e among p o l i t i c i a n s . F i n d i n g s B.C. H a n s a r d was r e v i e w e d f o r t h e p e r i o d 196 6 t o 19 81 f o r r e l e v a n t d e b a t e . The o n l y i s s u e s w h i c h r e c e i v e d a t t e n t i o n i n t h e l e g i s l a t u r e w e r e : a) p a s s a g e o f e n d a n g e r e d s p e c i e s p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e 1971 r e v i s i o n s t o t h e W i l d l i f e A c t ; a n d b) f u n d i n g t o t h e F i s h a n d W i l d l i f e B r a n c h . 78 a) The Honourable W.K. Kiernan, Minister of Recreation and Conservation, introduced the endangered species provisions i n the 1971 revisions to the W i l d l i f e Act as being the f i r s t piece of Canadian l e g i s l a t i o n for endangered species. However, Kiernan also extended the caveat that t h i s provision: " . . . w i l l apply only to a very limited number of species and only i n limited areas." (Hansard, March 22, 1971. p. 733). Although MLA Dowding (Burnaby - Edmunds) inquired whether the W i l d l i f e Act was intended to preserve w i l d l i f e or prescribe rules for k i l l i n g them, there was no ensuing debate or comment on the endangered species provision. b) Funding to the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch has t r a d i t i o n a l l y evoked some l e g i s l a t i v e debate. In 1973, MLA Radford (Vancouver South) observed that the funding requirements of w i l d l i f e were overshadowed by other programs "which more re a d i l y and e a s i l y demonstrate a monetary means of v i s i b l e benefit" (Hansard, February 19, 1973. p. 542). MLA Sandford (Comox) added that the Branch had been understaffed and "starved f i n a n c i a l l y for years" (Hansard, February 20, 1973. p. 584-5). Sandford p a r t i a l l y based her request for additional Branch funding as enabling the enumeration of endangered species and the develop-ment of genetic banks to ensure the s u r v i v a l of these species. No further discussion of this rationale ensued at the time or in the intervening years. In 197 9, the Honourable Rafe Mair, Minister of Environment, explained to the l e g i s l a t u r e : 79 "...very important to our ministry i s , I think, something that i s long overdue - that i s to upgrade the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch to the position they have long deserved in this province and to give them the f e e l i n g that they are part of the government..." (Hansard, July 10, 1979. p. 644). I r o n i c a l l y , the budget allocated to the Branch in 1979 reached i t s lowest point r e l a t i v e to t o t a l government expenditures (about o n e - f i f t h of 1%) (Ministry of Finance, 1980). There i s v i r t u a l l y no record i n Hansard of any attention to the four species designated as "rare and endangered" i n B r i t i s h Columbia. * There were no announcements, questions or discussion of the three sea otter transplants. The transplants occurred between 1968 and 1972 i n a cooperative venture of p o l i t i c a l , federal and U.S. agencies. * The Order-in-Council decisions r e l a t i n g to the endangered species were neither announced or discussed. These were the: a) designation of White Pelicans and Burrowing Owls as w i l d l i f e ; b) establishment of the Stum Lake W i l d l i f e Sanctuary to protect the nesting ground of the White Pelican; c) designation of the Vancouver Island Marmot as w i l d l i f e ; d) designation of the sea o t t e r , Vancouver Island Marmot, Burrowing Owl, and White Pelican as "rare and endangered". * There has been no debate regarding the proposed ecological reserves for the sea otter or the Vancouver Island Marmot. * The only question brought forward on any of the four 80 e n d a n g e r e d s p e c i e s was i n 1980. MLA M i t c h e l l ( E s q u i m a l t ) a s k e d t h e M i n i s t e r o f E n v i r o n m e n t t o s u b m i t h i s p r o g r a m f o r t h e V a n c o u v e r I s l a n d Marmot a l o n g w i t h h i s b u d g e t e s t i m a t e s f o r t h e M i n i s t r y . The M i n i s t e r , t h e H o n o u r a b l e S t e p h e n R o g e r s , r e p l i e d t h a t a l t h o u g h n o t h i n g was i m m e d i a t e l y a v a i l a b l e , i t was "some-t h i n g (he) w o u l d l i k e t o w o r k o n . " ( H a n s a r d , J u l y 31, 1980. p. 3650). ' O u t s i d e o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , t h e H o n o u r a b l e S t e p h e n R o g e r s , M i n i s t e r o f E n v i r o n m e n t , a c k n o w l e d g e d t h e g r a v i t y o f t h e e n d a n g e r e d s p e c i e s s i t u a t i o n as t h e r a t i o n a l e b e h i n d t h e 1980/1 b u d g e t i n c r e a s e s t o t h i s p r o b l e m and as m o t i v a t i n g h i m t o p e t i t i o n h i s C a b i n e t c o l l e a g u e s f o r a d d i t i o n a l f u n d s and t o s e e k f u n d i n g f r o m t h e B.C. L o t t e r y F u n d ( R o g e r s , 1980). A p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w W i t h MLA R o b e r t S k e l l y ( A l b e r n i ) , t h e O p p o s i t i o n c r i t i c on e n v i r o n m e n t a l m a t t e r s p r o v i d e d a d d i t i o n a l i n s i g h t i n t o t h e a d o p t i o n o f a t t i t u d e s a n d i s s u e s by- p o l i t i c i a n s . S k e l l y s u g g e s t e d t h a t c i t i z e n i n p u t t o t h e b u r e a u c r a c y , t h e g o v e r n i n g p a r t y , a n d o n e ' s MLA w e r e t h e m o s t f r u i t f u l a v e n u e s o f r e g i s t e r i n g c o n c e r n , a n d s h o u l d be p u r s u e d p r i o r t o s e e k i n g s o l u t i o n t h r o u g h t h e o p p o s i t i o n p a r t y . He s u g g e s t e d t h a t r e -e l e c t i o n i s t h e m a j o r g o a l o f p o l i t i c i a n s a n d i n f l u e n c e s t h e i r b e h a v i o u r a n d a t t i t u d e s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , i n d i v i d u a l i s s u e s a r e c a r e f u l l y a p p r a i s e d p r i o r t o b e i n g a d o p t e d by a p o l i t i c i a n . Among t h e a p p r a i s a l c r i t e r i a e m p l o y e d a r e t h e number o f p e o p l e a f f e c t e d a n d / o r c o n c e r n e d a b o u t an i s s u e , t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r 81 s u c c e s s f u l r e s o l u t i o n , t h e a t t e n d i n g e c o n o m i c c o s t s a n d b e n e f i t s , and t h e p o l i t i c a l r e w a r d s o f a d d r e s s i n g t h e i s s u e ( i e . as oppo-s i t i o n c r i t i c , t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e v e a l i n c o m p e t e n c e o f t h e g o v e r n i n g p a r t y a n d d r a w m e d i a a t t e n t i o n t o o n e s e l f ) . I t a l s o a p p e a r e d t h a t t h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f a p o l i t i c i a n ' s c o n s t i t u e n c y a f f e c t e d t h e i s s u e s a d o p t e d . S k e l l y i n d i c a t e d a r e l u c t a n c e t o c h a m p i o n t h e c a u s e o f t h e V a n c o u v e r I s l a n d Marmot s i n c e t h e e c o n o m i c b a s e o f h i s c o n s t i t u e n c y i s t h e l u m b e r i n d u s t r y a n d c o n s t i t u e n t s may p e r c e i v e j o b s as j e o p a r d i z e d b y p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e marmot ( S k e l l y , p e r s . comm.). B u r e a u c r a c y The F i s h a n d W i l d l i f e B r a n c h e x p l a i n s t h a t p u b l i c i n p u t r e g a r d i n g d e c l i n i n g s p e c i e s i s j u s t i f i e d on t h e b a s i s o f p u b l i c o w n e r s h i p o f t h e r e s o u r c e a n d t h e g r a v i t y o f t h e p r o b l e m . On t h e b a s i s o f c o n t a c t w i t h t h e p u b l i c i n d i v i d u a l l y , a t m e e t i n g s and t h r o u g h c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , t h e B r a n c h c o n c l u d e d t h a t : " . . . t h e p u b l i c d e s i r e s t o p r e v e n t e n d a n g e r e d s p e c i e s f r o m d i s a p p e a r i n g . " (Munro, 1980. p. 7 ) . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n e c h o e s one o f t h e t e n e t s o f t h e P r e l i m i n a r y W i l d l i f e Management P l a n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , w h i c h i n s i s t s t h a t : "...no n a t i v e s p e c i e s s h o u l d be e x t i r p a t e d ( d i s a p p e a r f r o m B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ) t h r o u g h t h e a c t i o n s o f man." ( M i n i s t r y o f E n v i r o n m e n t , 19 79. p. 1 5 ) . The P r e l i m i n a r y W i l d l i f e Management P l a n a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f g e n e t i c d i v e r s i t y i s t h e p r i m a r y o b j e c t i v e o f w i l d l i f e management a n d c o m m i t s i t s e l f t o a v o i d i n g a n y r e d u c t i o n 82 i n the d i v e r s i t y or abundance of w i l d l i f e species. Endangered species are ranked as a f i r s t p r i o r i t y i n a hierarchy of wild-l i f e management p r i o r i t i e s derived from the goals for w i l d l i f e management, public demand and public safety (Ministry of Environment, 19 79). This leadership by the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch seems to be a generous interpretation of public concern. However, the po l i c y to exclude subspecies from consideration as endangered, unless there i s s u f f i c i e n t public concern for t h e i r separate management, appears to be contradictory since i t r e l i e s on a r t i c u l a t e d public concern which may not emerge. The Branch i s frequently c r i t i c i z e d as catering to hunters, which the Branch r a t i o n a l i z e s on the basis that hunters have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been the organized, concerned users of w i l d l i f e and the group most interested i n w i l d l i f e . While the Branch acknowledges the emerging concern for non-consumptive uses of w i l d l i f e and non-game species, most of t h e i r programs and budget are directed to game species management. The conceptual acknowledgment of non-game species and non-consumptive w i l d l i f e uses, although incorporated i n the W i l d l i f e Management Plan, i s not supported by substantive a l l o c a t i o n s of manpower or funds. Conclusion Public input i s an important component i n natural resource decisions of p o l i t i c i a n s and bureaucrats. This input i s required 83 to i n i t i a t e and j u s t i f y government action as well as to modify the s e n s i t i v i t y to economic concerns. The review of public attitudes and input provides insight into the e x i s t i n g attitudes of decision-makers and the public demands on the resources. Public choice theory i n s i s t s that public input i s c r i t i c a l i n order to e f f e c t any government action since neither p o l i t i c i a n s nor bureaucrats w i l l undertake any action unless there are rewards i n terms of securing public support. This i s c r i t i c a l with a common property resource l i k e w i l d l i f e , since government assumes the role of resource owner. Empirical data from B r i t i s h Columbia and other j u r i s d i c t i o n s with a common soc i o - c u l t u r a l context were reviewed for an under-standing of the climate of opinion towards declining species and species d i v e r s i t y . Public knowledge about animals i s extremely limited. Awareness of p a r t i c u l a r species i s low as i s the concern for endangered species within a hierarchy of environmental concerns. A very pronounced preference hierarchy for species was discovered. This hierarchy i s founded primarily on aesthetics and emotion rather than b i o l o g i c a l r e a l i t i e s . I t has important consequences regarding which species w i l l benefit from public concern, and the tradeoffs between human a c t i v i t i e s and species preservation. However, dogmatic attention to public concern could lead to an e c o l o g i c a l l y impoverished system of w i l d l i f e monoculture. There seems to be some willingness to bear the costs of w i l d l i f e preservation from general tax revenues 84 although w i l d l i f e users should be subject to some surcharge. The s i t u a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia appears to be somewhat anomalous to other j u r i s d i c t i o n s . As i n other j u r i s d i c t i o n s , active support for maintaining genetic d i v e r s i t y i s limited, however, the latent support appears to be disproportionately large (eg. attendance at Symposium, W.W.F. contributions, awareness of endangered status of whales). There appears to be a close c o r r e l a t i o n between the p r o f i l e of the environmental i n t e r e s t groups and those most w i l l i n g to preserve threatened species. The demographic and a t t i t u d i n a l descriptions are those of the upper middle c l a s s . These i n d i -viduals are prepared to endure economic s a c r i f i c e to secure environmental protection. However, the balance of society, although aware of environmental concerns, i s more concerned with the threat to economic s t a b i l i t y and growth as a conse-quence of environmental protection. There appears to be some d i v i s i o n i n society a r i s i n g from the altruism of the environ-mental movement and the economic scepticism of the rest of society. P o l i t i c i a n s i n B r i t i s h Columbia, as p o l i c y makers for w i l d l i f e , have paid n e g l i g i b l e attention to the issue of main-taining genetic d i v e r s i t y . Although the opportunity has been available on numerous occasions in the l e g i s l a t u r e neither government nor opposition members have been motivated to i n i t i a t e any debate. Public choice theory explains that this i s the 85 p o l i t i c i a n s ' response to issues which have not received s i g n i f i c a n t public concern. The bureaucrats have generously interpreted the amount of a r t i c u l a t e d concern and adopted p o l i c i e s to husband genetic d i v e r s i t y . However, the resources allocated to achieving these p o l i c i e s w i l l be determined by p o l i t i c i a n s on the basis of the expressed public support. Since the a r t i c u l a t e d public support i s sketchy and favours p a r t i c u l a r species, public choice theory suggests that the resource allocations w i l l not be forthcoming or w i l l be directed to s p e c i f i c animals only. Maintaining species d i v e r s i t y i s a low p r i o r i t y public issue. Species declines can be reconciled as casualties of progress. Public concern i s a necessary prerequisite to government action. CHAPTER FIVE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE - LEGISLATION Purpose The major objective of t h i s review i s to determine what p o l i c i e s are enshrined i n law, with respect to: 1) the preservation of genetic d i v e r s i t y ; 2) controls over w i l d l i f e use available to government; and 3) the rights and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of c i t i z e n s with regard to w i l d l i f e . The chapter highlights the l e g i s l a t i o n r e l a t i n g to w i l d l i f e and w i l d l i f e habitat. A review of the l e g i s l a t i o n i s important since l e g i s l a t i o n can r e f l e c t s o c i a l values (Hargrove, 1972), and serve as a substantive instrument of s o c i a l change. Thompson (1974a) explains that laws are ... ". . . a r t i c u l a t e d by society, but they i n turn shape society through an educative process where society's perception of the problem or a c t i v i t y i s inaccurate or becomes obsolete ...new responses to problems and changed attitudes and perceptions can be fostered by statutes and regulations that repeal or modify the established law." (p. 1). Federal - P r o v i n c i a l J u r i s d i c t i o n The delineation of federal and p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s over w i l d l i f e emerge from a combination of proprietary interests and the exclusive r i g h t to l e g i s l a t e for certain classes of subjects. The B r i t i s h North America Act defines these j u r i s d i c t i o n s as 87 follows: TABLE 5.1 FEDERAL - PROVINCIAL LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTIONS AS DEFINED BY THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION FEDERAL JURISDICTION Ar i s i n g From Proprietary Interests Generally, a l l lands i n c province belong to the province (s. 109, 117). Proprietary rights over resources were s p e c i f i -c a l l y transferred to B.C. (B.N.A. Act - 1930: Resource Transfer Agree-ment) Canada retained exclusive autho-r i t y over the coastal marine be l t (ie. below the low water mark) and those areas s p e c i f i -c a l l y transferred to the Dominion, including: harbours, national parts, federal b u i l -d i n g s / f a c i l i t i e s , m i l i t a r y i n s t a l l a t i o n s , Indian reser-vations-L, and w i l d l i f e refuges/ sanctuaries2. (s. 108, schedule 3, and s p e c i f i c federal -p r o v i n c i a l agreements). Arising.From Exclusive Right to Legislate The Province has exclusive rights over the management/ sale of Crown lands and the timber thereon (s. 92.5). Property and c i v i l rights (s. 92.13) and matters of a l o c a l or private nature (s. 9 2.16) are also within the p r o v i n c i a l realm. The Dominion has exclusive j u r i s d i c t i o n to preserve native culture (s. 91.24) and to con-duct research (eg. Canadian W i l d l i f e Service) (s. 91.6). Although the power i s now exhausted, Canada could enter into B r i t i s h Empire Treaties (eg. Migratory Birds Convention Act) . With some exceptions, most notably migratory birds, w i l d l i f e 88 can be considered to be a p r o v i n c i a l matter. However, there are opportunities to extend the federal j u r i s d i c t i o n through: 1) the purchase/lease of lands from a province or private i n d i v i d u a l for purposes of w i l d l i f e management (Thompson, 1973) ; 2) grants/subsidies to provinces to encourage t h e i r imple-mentation v of federal p o l i c i e s but not to the extent as to pre-empt p r o v i n c i a l control (Thompson, 1974b); V 3) the exercise of the residual powers of s. 91 of the 3 B.N.A. Act for "peace, order, and good government" which could be interpreted as including w i l d l i f e which migrate between or otherwise a f f e c t multiple p r o v i n c i a l / t e r r i t o r i a l j u r i s d i c -tions (Thompson, 19 74b). Origin of Canadian Law Canadian law i s a composite of English common law and Canadian statute law. English common law emerges from precedent j u d i c i a l decisions i n Canada and Great B r i t a i n , while statute law i s the product of federal and p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e s . Where statute law ex i s t s , the common law provides insight to j u d i c i a l decisions. However, in the absence of statute law the common law p r e v a i l s . Canadian law recognizes two types of animals: domestic (mansuate naturae) and wild (ferae naturae). Although the Law of Scienter i s applied to determine the category to which each 89 species belongs, i t can be generally accepted that those species usually found i n a domestic state (eg. horses, cows, sheep, etc.) are domestic animals and the balance are wild. A d i s t i n c t body of law (statute and common) has emerged s p e c i f i c a l l y for domestic animals. A much smaller body of law i s available for w i l d l i f e . Under common law, w i l d l i f e are considered to be a common property resource which are reduced to private property through k i l l i n g / c a p t u r i n g the animal. However, a q u a l i f i e d property r i g h t i n w i l d l i f e i s available to owners/occupiers of private lands by virtue of th e i r r i g h t to exclude entry onto t h e i r lands. The B.C. W i l d l i f e Act and the Canada W i l d l i f e Act are statute laws. The B.C. W i l d l i f e Act asserts i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n over w i l d l i f e proclaiming that property i n a l l w i l d l i f e i s vested i n the Crown i n the ri g h t of the Province and the acqui-s i t i o n of property rights i n w i l d l i f e can only be r e a l i z e d in accordance with the provisions of the Act (s. 80.1,.2). The Act delineates the mandate of the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch i n w i l d l i f e management and the rights,and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of in d i v i d u a l c i t i z e n s involved i n consumptive w i l d l i f e uses (eg. permits licences, weapons used, hunting season, and bag l i m i t s ) . The Canada W i l d l i f e Act has j u r i s d i c t i o n over a l l w i l d l i f e on fed e r a l l y - c o n t r o l l e d lands, and defines the role of the Canadian W i l d l i f e Service. The Migratory Birds Convention Act provides 90 federal j u r i s d i c t i o n over migratory birds. P r o v i n c i a l L e g i s l a t i o n Relating to W i l d l i f e The p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n r e l a t i n g to w i l d l i f e i s presented i n two sections: 1) L e g i s l a t i o n Relating to W i l d l i f e Species; and 2) L e g i s l a t i o n Relating to W i l d l i f e Habitat. 1) L e g i s l a t i o n Relating to W i l d l i f e Species  B r i t i s h Columbia W i l d l i f e Act On A p r i l 1, 1966, the B.C. L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly passed "An Act to Provide for the Conservation of W i l d l i f e " which replaced the "Game Act". The " W i l d l i f e Act" as i t was known by i t s short t i t l e , was augmented by regulations and revisions i n 1968, 1971 and 1979. A discussion paper for a further r e v i s i o n was issued for public comment in A p r i l , 1981. A c r i t i c a l aspect to the subsequent discussion i s the d e f i -n i t i o n of " w i l d l i f e " . In contrast to English common law and the Canada W i l d l i f e Act which recognize w i l d l i f e (ferae naturae) as including a l l non domestic animals, a s i g n i f i c a n t l y more r e s t r i c t i v e d e f i n i t i o n i s employed i n the B.C. W i l d l i f e Act: " ' w i l d l i f e ' means game and any other species of vertebrates designated as w i l d l i f e by the Lieutenant Governor i n Council" (s. 1). A sense of the parameters of the B.C. W i l d l i f e Act i s available 91 by disaggregating the components of thi s d e f i n i t i o n of "wild-l i f e " and the discovery that: "'game' includes a l l big game, game birds and fur-bearing animals". Although s p e c i f i c species included within the d e f i -n i t i o n of game are included i n Appendix 4 , i t can be generally understood that "big game" are the large ungulates and c a r n i -vores (eg. moose, bear), "furbearers" are the commercially trapped species (eg. beaver), and "game birds" include non migratory species (eg. q u a i l , pheasant) and migratory game birds as defined i n the Migratory Birds Convention Act (eg. ducks, geese). The Lieutenant Governor i n Council i s empowered to designate additional species as "game" or as " w i l d l i f e " . 4 This authority has been ra r e l y exercised . Two additional classes of fauna exist under the B.C. W i l d l i f e Act, although they are not included within the d e f i n i t i o n of w i l d l i f e (ie. "raptors" and "game f i s h " ) . Raptors include birds of the orders Falconiformes (falcons, hawks), and Strigiformes (owls). A l i s t of 13 species of freshwater game f i s h i s appended to the Act. The implications of this d e f i n i t i o n are profound. The Act e n t i r e l y excludes 23 of the 24 phylum of the animal kingdom. Only the Class Vertebrata among the four classes that comprise the one phylum (Chordata) are considered. Although birds, mammals, f i s h , r e p t i l e s and amphibians are a l l within the Class Vertebrata, the operational d e f i n i t i o n of w i l d l i f e excludes r e p t i l e s and amphibians e n t i r e l y and most of the birds, mammals 92 and f i s h . I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d that common law and the Canada W i l d l i f e Act include a l l non domestic animals, as do the B.C. Ecologic a l Reserves Act and the B.C. Parks Act. The i n c l u s i o n of the more comprehensive d e f i n i t i o n of " w i l d l i f e " i n the B.C. Ecological Reserves Act and Parks Act suggests that p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t o r s understand and have d e l i -berately distinguished between " w i l d l i f e " within the W i l d l i f e Act and " w i l d l i f e " within other l e g i s l a t i o n . Although B r i t i s h Columbia enjoys a d i v e r s i t y of bi r d and mammal species far in excess of any other p o l i t i c a l j u r i s -d i c t i o n i n Canada (Bunnell & Williams, 1980), i t i s i r o n i c that only a r e l a t i v e l y small proportion i s considered w i l d l i f e under the B.C. W i l d l i f e Act. This i s demonstrated in the following table: TABLE 5 .2 TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SUBSPECIES PRESENT IN B .C. AND INCLUDED IN B.C. WILDLIFE ACT Total No. of Included i n B.C. W i l d l i f e Act Subspecies No. "O Designation (No. of Subspecies) B i r d s 1 (breeding) - Total in B. - Restricted B.C. C. to 392 12 7 139 24 35% 19 Migratory game(94), raptors(39), destruction(7)@, endangered(2). Mammals"'"* - Total i n B. - Restricted B.C. C. to 281 159 104 46 37 29 Furbearers(63), big game(29), multiple desig.(6), w i l d l i f e ( 4 ) , endangered(2) . 2 Reptiles - Total i n B. - Restricted B.C. C. to 16 15 0 0 0 0 N / A  . . 2 Amphibians - Total i n B. - Restricted B.C. C. to 20 11 0 0 0 0 N/A TOTAL - Total in B. - Restricted B.C. C. to 709 312 243 70 34% 22 Notes: * excludes pinnipedia (seals) @ per W i l d l i f e Act (starlings, crows, etc.) Source: 1. Bunnell & Williams, 19 80. 2. Cook, 1981; Logier & Toner, 1961. 94 These data provide a clear i n d i c a t i o n of a consumptive w i l d l i f e orientation of the l e g i s l a t i o n and an i n s e n s i t i v i t y to the unique faunal complement of B r i t i s h Columbia (ie. paucity of coverage in t o t a l and for taxa unique to B r i t i s h Columbia). Further, since each species i s a component of some ecosystem, species management i s necessarily ecosystem management. Failure to recognize, t h i s fact i n l e g i s l a t i o n and management res u l t s i n an e f f o r t to 'farm' selected species rather than manage t h e i r ecosystems. The provisions of the B.C. W i l d l i f e Act focus on the con-di t i o n s and regulations for consumptive w i l d l i f e uses. Included in the Act are sections s p e c i f i c a l l y for commercial w i l d l i f e a c t i v i t i e s (ie. trapping, guiding, taxidermy). Individual c i t i -zens are e n t i t l e d to pursue s p e c i f i c animals i n accordance with the regulations respecting hunting seasons, r e s t r i c t e d areas, permits/licences and method of k i l l i n g . The 1971 rev i s i o n of the B.C. W i l d l i f e Act included enabling provisions for the designation and protection of endangered species. This i s an extension of the authority of the Act, and recognizes the concept that speciescide i s to be avoided (Teclaff, 1974). The substance of the endangered species provision was included as a d e f i n i t i o n : "'rare and endangered species' means any species of w i l d l i f e that i s designated by the regulations as a rare and endan-gered species" (s. 1). 95 and empowered the Lieutenant Governor i n Council to make regu-l a t i o n s : "to define and designate certain w i l d l i f e as rare and endangered species and to provide prohibitions, permits and other protective regulations r e l a t i n g to them", (s. 78dd). The exercise of these powers i s e n t i r e l y discretionary, i n contrast with the argument that endangered species l e g i s l a t i o n should define mandatory duties since endangered species may be into l e r a n t of p o l i c y changes stemming from the exercise of the discretionary powers (Weller, 1979). Although a major re v i s i o n of the W i l d l i f e Act i s underway, the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch explains that neither the Lieutenant Governor i n Council nor the Minister w i l l be charged with any mandatory r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s related to endangered species or the preservation of genetic d i v e r s i t y . This approach was adopted i n recognition of the reluctance of p o l i t i c i a n s to pass l e g i s l a t i o n with mandatory provisions (Dodd, pers. comm.). Rare and endangered species are designated from among the species already recognized as w i l d l i f e . The r e s t r i c t e d d e f i n i -t i o n of w i l d l i f e employed i n the B.C. W i l d l i f e Act, precludes r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for maintaining genetic d i v e r s i t y since only about one-third of the birds and mammals are immediately e l i g i b l e for designation as endangered. However, this does not preclude the designation of other animals as w i l d l i f e and, i n turn, rare and endangered through an Order-in-Council. Presumably, the p o l i t i c a l rewards would have to be proportionately greater for 96 Cabinet to undertake the two-step designation, and would be motivated by expressions of public concern. Although incorporated i n the 19 71 r e v i s i o n to the W i l d l i f e Act, i t was not u n t i l 1979, with the acceptance of the P r e l i -minary Plan for the Designation of Threatened and Endangered Species i n B.C. (prepared by the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch), that formal c r i t e r i a were available for the designation of endangered species. The following year, the Lieutenant Governor i n Council proclaimed the f i r s t "rare and endangered species" to be: 1) Vancouver Island Marmot (Marmota vancouverensis); 2) Sea otter (Enhydra l u t r i s l u t r i s ) ; 3) Burrowing Owl (Spectyto c u n i c u l a r i a ) ; and 4) White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos). March 4, 1980. B.C. Regs 68/80 It i s in t e r e s t i n g to note that three of these four endangered species were not considered " w i l d l i f e " in the 1966 version of the W i l d l i f e Act. Each of these three species required an Order-in-Council to be issued by the Lieutenant Governor i n Council for t h e i r i n c l u s i o n within the Act. * On May 15, 1970 (B.C. Regs 140/70), both the White Pelican and the order Strigiformes, of which the Burrowing Owl i s a member, were designated as "game birds". No member of the taxonomic order of which the White Pelican i s a member i s covered by the Migratory Birds Convention Act^. The White 97 Pelican i s the only member of that order, which includes three species of cormorants found i n B.C., that i s covered by the B.C. W i l d l i f e Act. The Burrowing Owl, and i t s taxonomic order, are non migratory. I n i t i a l l y designated "game birds", the order was re-designated 'raptors' i n the 1979 rev i s i o n to the W i l d l i f e Act. However, 'raptors' are considered a separate class of fauna from ' w i l d l i f e ' according to the 1979 rev i s i o n to the W i l d l i f e Act. * The Vancouver Island Marmot was designated ' w i l d l i f e ' by Order-in-Council, on July 5, 1973 (B.C. Regs 231/73). With the exception of s q u i r r e l s , which are designated as 'furbearers', the marmot i s the only other rodent covered by the B.C. W i l d l i f e Act. * The sea otter had been included i n the former Game Act and i s now included i n the W i l d l i f e Act as a 'furbearing animal 1, a designation which r e c a l l s i t s former status i n the pr o v i n c i a l economy. Although the 1971 re v i s i o n to the W i l d l i f e Act empowered the Lieutenant Governor i n Council to promulgate regulations for. the preservation of 'rare and endangered' species (s. 78dd), no such regulations have been forthcoming in the intervening decade. 98 2) L e g i s l a t i o n Relating to W i l d l i f e Habitat  The Supply of W i l d l i f e Habitat B r i t i s h Columbia encompasses an area of 366,255 square miles (94,859,605 hectares) and 12 biogeoclimatic zones with t h e i r constituent species of w i l d l i f e . The bulk of t h i s land area, with the exception of human settlements and areas which are inhospitable for w i l d l i f e (eg. g l a c i e r s ) , i s capable of sustaining w i l d l i f e . Further, over 90% of the P r o v i n c i a l land base i s Crown land under the control of the Pr o v i n c i a l government. TABLE 5.3 BRITISH COLUMBIA LAND AREA Total Area of Province 9 4,1 359,605 ha* Unreserved Crown Land (Ministry of Lands, Parks . . • 53 % and Housing) P r o v i n c i a l Forest . 36 Private Lands , 6 P r o v i n c i a l Parks 4 ',' 1 * Includes 1,806,776 ha of freshwater lakes, r i v e r s Source: Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Corpus Directory The bulk of the Crown lands are within the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing (Land Management 99 Branch) and the Ministry of Forests. However, the Parks Branch and Ecological Reserves Unit of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, the Ministry of Highways, Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s , and Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources, and the Water Rights and Fish and W i l d l i f e Branches of the Ministry of Environment also have control over areas of Crown lands. The Deferred Area planning process of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing could substantially a l t e r the land area under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of various m i n i s t r i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y the Ministry of Forests which could experience a substantial increase. Control over the use of private lands can be exercised through municipal and regional d i s t r i c t zoning of land uses or by securing control through the lease, purchase or management agreement r e l a t i n g to these lands. However, since any proposed zoning changes.by municipal or regional d i s t r i c t governments must be approved by the Minister of Municipal A f f a i r s , some p r o v i n c i a l influence could be exercised over changes i n land use which might be deleterious to w i l d l i f e . There are at least f i v e pieces of p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n which provide control over w i l d l i f e habitat and three quasi-l e g a l procedures. 100 LEGAL AND QUASI-LEGAL METHODS TO SECURE WILDLIFE HABITAT A) Le g i s l a t i o n Based Methods Area Secured by Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch, Ecological Reserves*, Parks 0 i) Land Act - Order-in-Council Reserves. 369,013.5 ha. 3,324.4 2,171.1 86,168.7* . 4,537,757.0° B) Quasi-Legal Methods, i) Reserves From the Land Mgmt. Branch - Map Reserves (F&W Branch) . . . . 354,511.3 - Notations of Interest (F&W Branch) 143,6 81.6 i i ) Consignment From - Private Landov/ners ^ , J J U . U A) L e g i s l a t i o n i) Land Act This l e g i s l a t i o n relates to the a l l o c a t i o n , use and regu-l a t i o n of unalienated Crown lands and defines the mandate of the Land Management Branch (Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing). The Land Act invests the Lieutenant Governor i n Council with a broad range of discretionary powers which include: * the creation, amendment and cancellation of reserves against the alienation of Crown lands (s. 11); 101 * p r o h i b i t i n g s p e c i f i c use(s) of designated area(s) of Crown lands (s. 61.1); * exchanging parcels of Crown lands for other lands when t h i s serves the public i n t e r e s t (s. 90.1); and * t r a n s f e r r i n g to any p r o v i n c i a l government ministry the administration of any area of Crown land (s. 101.2). This l e g i s l a t i o n i s important for i t s authority to e s t a b l i s h land reserves and as the seat of authority for land a c q u i s i t i o n by the various government agencies through t h e i r respective statutes. Order-in-Council reserves are the most e f f e c t i v e form of land reserve available from the Land Management Branch since they l e g a l l y e s t a b l i s h the management mandate of any government agency (eg. Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch) over a p a r t i c u l a r area. The transfer of authority i s accomplished by an Order-in-Council which i s the only avenue to l e g a l l y pass aspects of authority between Ministers (pursuant to B.C. Constitution Act, s. 10.1). The Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch has secured authority over 369,013.5 hectares through t h i s procedure. The Act enables the Lieutenant Governor i n Council to pro-h i b i t s p e c i f i c land uses (s. 61.1) which might be deleterious to w i l d l i f e (eg. p r o h i b i t i n g the use of snowmobiles on Crown lands). Further, at the d i s c r e t i o n of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the Crown can exchange Crown lands for other lands i n deference to the public benefits available (s. 90.1). The 102 Vancouver Island Marmot Preservation Committee petitioned the P r o v i n c i a l government to exercise t h i s authority to include an area of marmot habitat (Green Mountain), which was on privately-owned lands, i n the land exchange with Canadian P a c i f i c r e l a t i n g to B.C. Place i n Vancouver. The P r o v i n c i a l government did gain control over Green Mountain i n the exchange and were subsequently petitioned to es t a b l i s h a reserve against the alienation of th i s area (per s . l l ) to preserve marmot habitat. i i ) Greenbelt Act The Greenbelt Protection Act (1972) empowered the P r o v i n c i a l government to secure greenbelt lands at the request of l o c a l and p r o v i n c i a l government agencies. Passage of the Greenbelt Act, i n 1975, repealed the e a r l i e r l e g i s l a t i o n and provided for the transfer of authority over these lands to the agencies which requested t h e i r purchase. The Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch has secured authority over 3,324.4 hectares through t h i s procedure. i i i ) W i l d l i f e Act Two sections of the W i l d l i f e Act enable the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch to secure control over lands for the purpose of managing w i l d l i f e and i t s habitat: a) on the recommendation of the Minister, and subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor i n Council, to acquire, 103 exchange, or expropriate land, improvements on land, timber, timber r i g h t s , and other rights (s. 67); and b) by the action of the Lieutenant Governor i n Council to set aside areas as w i l d l i f e sanctuary (s. 78e). a) Pursuant to Section 67 Flowing from the authority provided i n section 67, the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch has obtained management control over lands through lease and fee simple tenure. Leased Lands Lands are leased for conservation purposes from the National Second Century Fund for B.C., the Nature Conservancy of Canada, and B.C. Hydro. Management authority from the two former organi-zations i s available for a nominal fee (eg. $1 for 99 years) and subject to any conditions i n the lease. Land i s also leased from B.C. Hydro and could be leased from any public or private body. The Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch has secured authority over 70 2.1 hectares through t h i s procedure. Purchased Lands In accordance with section 67 of the Act, the Minister, subject to approval of the Lieutenant Governor i n Council, can purchase land or rights over land and thereby secure fee simple tenure over such lands. Funds for acq u i s i t i o n are i n the 104 annual Branch budget (about $4,000 per year) with additional funds received as compensation for impacts on w i l d l i f e r e s u l t i n g from large scale development projects (eg. hydro-e l e c t r i c dams). However, funds derived from impact compen-sation are generally directed towards the same species i n the same area as the impact (Sil v e r , pers. comm.). The Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch has secured authority over 1,469.0 hectares through t h i s procedure. b) Pursuant to Section 78 Section 78e of the Act enables the Lieutenant Governor i n Council to set aside Crown lands for w i l d l i f e sanctuaries. As 7 of 19 81, a t o t a l of 12 sanctuaries have been established. Hunting, trapping and the discharge of firearms i s e n t i r e l y prohibited i n these areas. Whereas most of the sanctuaries function i n the production of game species of waterfowl, the Stum Lake W i l d l i f e Sanctuary was established s p e c i f i c a l l y to obviate disturbance to the nesting ground of the endangered White Pelican. The Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch has secured 12 of these areas. In addition to the provisions of the W i l d l i f e Act, the Habitat Conservation Fund and the proposed revisions to the W i l d l i f e Act provide additional avenues to secure w i l d l i f e habitat. The establishment of the Habitat Conservation Fund i n early 105 19 81 for the purpose of the "preservation and management of unique or c r i t i c a l f i s h and w i l d l i f e habitats i n B r i t i s h Columbia" (Ministry of Environment, March, 1981) provides an additional funding source for habitat a c q u i s i t i o n . As of August, 19 81, no purchases had been made from the annual budget of $1.25 m i l l i o n (Silver, pers. comm.). The proposed revisions to the W i l d l i f e Act (1981) include sections empowering the Lieutenant Governor i n Council to designate Crown lands as c r i t i c a l w i l d l i f e areas and enabling the Minister to acquire control over c r i t i c a l w i l d l i f e areas through agreement with other Ministers, or through purchase, lease or exchange for the land and/or w i l d l i f e management r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s (Ministry of Environment, 19 81). The discussion paper for proposed revisions to the W i l d l i f e Act envisions that the c r i t i c a l w i l d l i f e area would only be secured for endangered species. While the exact parameters of t h i s provision are presently i n flux, i t seems l i k e l y that some semblance of t h i s concept w i l l appear i n the f i n a l l e g i s -l a t i o n . Although the revisions to the W i l d l i f e Act suggest greater habitat protection for endangered species, i t also seems l i k e l y that the general power of the Minister to expropriate land i n order to secure w i l d l i f e habitat w i l l be removed (Dodd, pers. comm.) . 106 iv) E c o l o g i c a l Reserves Act The setting aside of Crown lands for the preservation of rare or endangered native animals or unique and rare zoological phenomenon are among the stated purposes of t h i s Act (s. 2d,e). The Act empowers the Lieutenant Governor i n Council to est a b l i s h , cancel or amend any ecological reserve (s. 3,4) and creation of the ecol o g i c a l reserve precludes d i s p o s i t i o n of the land and a l l resource uses (s. 5). The Act also enables nature conservancies under the Park Act to be established as ecological reserves (s. 6). Management authority over these reserves i s exclusively allocated to the Ecological Reserves Unit (Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing). As of January, 1981, a t o t a l of 100 ec o l o g i c a l reserves, representing 86,168.7 hectares, had been established. Of the 2 4 reserves established s p e c i f i c a l l y for w i l d l i f e , 16 are for marine w i l d l i f e and 1 i s for a unique species of f i s h . However, the creation of ecological reserves for two of the endangered species of w i l d l i f e , the Vancouver Island Marmot and the Sea Otter, i s well advanced and only requires the approval of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and his cabinet colleagues. v) Parks Act Although primarily intended to provide recreational oppor-t u n i t i e s , the p r o v i n c i a l parks system also protects w i l d l i f e habitat. 107 The Act enables the Lieutenant Governor i n Council to e s t a b l i s h or cancel parks and to define both t h e i r boundaries and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n (s. 5,7). As required, management zones within i n d i v i d u a l parks can be designated (s. 33.3). . The categorization of each park, which defines i t s manage-ment, i s determined by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Management plans are prepared for each park respecting i t s category and character (Jones, pers. comm.). Category 1 parks have, as t h e i r main purpose, the "preservation of p a r t i -cular atmosphere, environment or ecology"(s. 12.1a). Nature conservancies and wilderness conservancies, within which ecolo-g i c a l preservation i s paramount to outdoor recreation, f a l l within t h i s category (Province of B.C., 1979). Consumptive w i l d l i f e uses within the parks system are governed by the W i l d l i f e Act as augmented by Park Act regu-lation s promulgated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council (s. 14, 33.2b,c,d,e,f), and the Minister (s. 9.1). With the exception of the defined uses of w i l d l i f e , no rights over, or in t e r e s t i n , w i l d l i f e resources can be granted which may negatively a f f e c t the recreation value of a park (s. 9.1a,b). No rights over, or i n t e r e s t i n , any natural resource i s available i n the conservancy areas (s. 9.1c). Stum Lake W i l d l i f e Sanctuary (re White Pelican) created under the W i l d l i f e Act, has been transferred to the Parks Branch. The habitat protection authority of the Parks Act was deemed more 10 8 e f f e c t i v e i n securing protection of the birds while management of the birds and t h e i r habitat remains with the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch (Jones, Dunbar, pers. comm.). In the instance where the habitat of an endangered species i s found to exi s t within p r o v i n c i a l park boundaries, i t i s possible to rezone a portion of the park and develop an appropriate management plan for the zone and park (Jones, pers. comm.). In 1979, the p r o v i n c i a l parks system contained 4,537,757 hectares, which included 1 wilderness conservancy (131,523 hectares) and 7 nature conservancies (6 57,09 8 hectares) (Province of B.C., 1979). B) Quasi-Legal Procedures i) Reserves From the Land Management Branch Map reserves and notations of inter e s t are two additional forms of reserves available from the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing (Land Management Branch). The Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch, with the agreement of the Land Management Branch, has undertaken habitat management a c t i v i t i e s on several areas through t h i s arrangement. However, since transfers of authority between the Ministers can only be effected by Order-in-Council and these reserves are established through informal arrange-ments, they lack l e g a l standing. Ministrations by the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch over these lands are e n t i r e l y at the di s c r e t i o n 109 of the Land Management Branch and subject to the absence of a l e g a l claim over the reserves. A map reserve establishes a reserve against land uses which could a f f e c t the interests of any government agency - i n t h i s case, the Fi s h and W i l d l i f e Branch. The Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch has secured agreement from the Land Management Branch to undertake habitat management on 354,511.8 hectares through map reserves. A notation of intere s t i s usually granted on areas where the resource mix i s too complex for an Order-in-Council reserve or map reserve or to secure interim protection of an area pending the a v a i l a b i l i t y of more detailed studies. The Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch has secure agreement from the Land Manage-ment Branch to undertake habitat management on 143,681.6 hectares through notations of in t e r e s t . i i ) Consignment of Authority The p r i v i l e g e to manage habitat i s also available to the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch through the consignment of authority from other government agencies or private landowners. The t o t a l area of lands secured through these agreements i s 2,074.0 hectares. 1) From Other Agencies Habitat management p r i v i l e g e s over areas with w i l d l i f e 110 c a p a b i l i t y can be consigned to the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch by a l e t t e r of agreement from another government agency. The conditions of the consignment can vary. However, since t h i s consignment lacks the le g a l standing provided by Order-in-Council declaration, i t i s an informal procedure the longevity of which i s subject to immediate termination. 2) From Private Landowners Habitat management p r i v i l e g e s over areas with w i l d l i f e c a p a b i l i t y can be secured by the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch through agreement with private landowners. The terms of any agreement would be negotiated i n d i v i d u a l l y by the Branch and the landowner. An agreement between the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch, MacMillan Bloedel and Crown Zellerbach i n 19 73, to ensure the preservation of Vancouver Island Marmot habitat i n the Haley Lake Basin area of Vancouver Island, i s an example of t h i s type of arrangement. While tenure over the area remained in the private ownership of the forest companies, i t was agreed that forest harvesting a c t i v i t i e s would avoid the marmot habitat areas and the Branch would be allowed to undertake required management a c t i v i t i e s . Conclusions A number of conclusions flow from t h i s review of w i l d l i f e -related l e g i s l a t i o n . I l l 1) The Federal role in w i l d l i f e management i s minimal although there are some opportunities available to foster species d i v e r s i t y . 2) The P r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n does not e x p l i c i t l y include a d i r e c t i v e to maintain species d i v e r s i t y although the de s i -r a b i l i t y of preserving rare and endangered species i s recognized. 3) Although the d e f i n i t i o n of w i l d l i f e employed i n the Pro v i n c i a l W i l d l i f e Act r e s t r i c t s the scope of w i l d l i f e manage-ment and does not r e f l e c t a p o l i c y of maintaining species d i v e r s i t y , the Province does possess both the l e g a l authority and the leg a l structure to preserve species d i v e r s i t y . a) The Province can declare any species of fauna as w i l d l i f e by Order-in-Council and, under the W i l d l i f e Act, regulate the use of w i l d l i f e and define the rights and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of individuals to w i l d l i f e . b) Since the Province enjoys control over the vast majority of the p r o v i n c i a l landbase, i t can, through various pieces of l e g i s l a t i o n , regulate w i l d l i f e , habitat and human-wildlife interactions on Crown lands. c) As the approving body for changes in land use zoning, the Province can exercise control over uses of private lands which could jeopardize w i l d l i f e . 4) Since genetic d i v e r s i t y i s a function of habitat con-di t i o n s and t h i s habitat i s c r i t i c a l to species s u r v i v a l , l e g i s l a t i o n preserving the habitat and ecosystem of which 112 species are a part i s an important element i n maintaining genetic d i v e r s i t y . L e g i s l a t i o n which provides for ad hoc tinkering with the management of i n d i v i d u a l species i s probably less e f f e c t i v e than measures to preserve habitats and ecosystems in maintaining genetic d i v e r s i t y . 5) The t o t a l area and the dimensions of the constituent parcels of Crown lands are probably s u f f i c i e n t to maintain the d i v e r s i t y of w i l d l i f e species. However, the uses of these lands which can be define by l e g i s l a t i o n can a f f e c t the main-tenance of ecosystems and, i n turn, the genetic d i v e r s i t y of constituent species. 6) At present, only a r e l a t i v e l y minute f r a c t i o n (1.8%) of the t o t a l p r o v i n c i a l land base i s dedicated e x p l i c i t l y for the protection of w i l d l i f e and ecol o g i c a l systems: Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch 872,702.5 ha (498,193.5 lack l e g a l standing) Ec o l o g i c a l Reserves 86,168.7 ha Parks Branch (Conservancies) 788,621.0 ha TOTAL 1,747,492.2 ha and a further 3,749,136 hectares are contained in the parks systems and provide i m p l i c i t protection for w i l d l i f e . These lands are set aside in many separate parcels which range i n siz e from 0.6 hectares to 131,523 hectares. It i s l i k e l y that many of these parcels are i n s u f f i c i e n t i n area to protect ecological systems and t h e i r constituent species. 7) H i s t o r i c uses of Crown lands have been polarized. This 113 has been the consequence of s e c t o r a l resource extraction (eg. forestry) which may be incompatible with the maintenance of genetic d i v e r s i t y . S i m i l a r l y , ecological reserves preclude any resource use i n favour of maintaining a p a r t i c u l a r ecosystem or geological feature. However, the maintenance of genetic d i v e r s i t y depends, i n part, on the existence of the benchmark areas provided by ecological reserves. The exclusion of a l l resource extraction i n ecological reserves fosters animosities among various interests and resource agencies since i t reduces the absolute dimensions of resource lands. Further, i t may be that integrated resource management of Crown lands would a l l e v i a t e the single-resource orientation and reduce the reluctance to designate lands for e c o l o g i c a l reserve purposes. 8) Under the revised W i l d l i f e Act, the power of the Minister of Environment to expropriate lands for w i l d l i f e habitat w i l l be removed. Although provisions enabling the establishment of c r i t i c a l w i l d l i f e habitat w i l l be included, these w i l l be e n t i r e l y at the d i s c r e t i o n of the Minister. At present, the Province has the l e g i s l a t i v e mandate to-enshrine the preservation of species d i v e r s i t y i n law and the administrative mandate to enforce t h i s p o l i c y over the bulk of the p r o v i n c i a l land base. However, the maintenance of species d i v e r s i t y i s not addressed i n p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n and authority over w i l d l i f e i s confined to regulating consumptive w i l d l i f e uses of game species. 114 CHAPTER SIX  INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE - BUREAUCRACY Purpose It has been established that the maintenance of genetic d i v e r s i t y depends upon: a) the control of human interactions with w i l d l i f e ; and b) the provision of habitat and ecosystems which define and sustain species d i v e r s i t y . The existence of agencies which regulate w i l d l i f e uses and w i l d l i f e habitat and the manner i n which they discharge these r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s determines whether genetic d i v e r s i t y w i l l , i n f a c t , be maintained. Since Crown lands constitute such a large proportion of the p r o v i n c i a l land base and both the management of these lands and the w i l d l i f e component i s a p r o v i n c i a l matter, the role of p r o v i n c i a l agencies i s of c r i t i c a l importance to the maintenance of genetic d i v e r s i t y . I t i s the objective of t h i s chapter to describe the orientation, r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , functions and c a p a b i l i t i e s of the major p r o v i n c i a l agencies which have mandated responsi-b i l i t i e s related to the maintenance of genetic d i v e r s i t y . More p a r t i c u l a r l y , the chapter seeks to determine the com-p a t a b i l i t y of bureaucratic orientation, r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and c a p a b i l i t i e s to the r e a l i z a t i o n of a goal of maintaining genetic 115 d i v e r s i t y . The agencies reviewed are: - Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch (Ministry of Environment) - Ecological Reserves Unit (Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing) - Land Management Branch (Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing - Parks Branch (Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing) - Ministry of Forests - Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch  R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s The history of the Fi s h and W i l d l i f e Branch began i n 190 5 with the appointment of the f i r s t P r o v i n c i a l Game Warden. However, i t was not u n t i l 1949 that the f i r s t game b i o l o g i s t joined the Game Commission, as i t was known then, and s c i e n t i f i c studies could be undertaken i n addition to the enforcement role of the agency. In December, 1978, the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch was transferred to the Ministry of Environment from the Department of Recreation and Conservation. The W i l d l i f e Act provides the authority to protect, enhance and manage the fur, w i l d l i f e and freshwater f i s h resources and habitats. These resources are to be managed for recreational and commercial benefits (Ministry of Finance, 19 79). The focus 116 of Branch r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i s on w i l d l i f e species and i t has r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e control over habitat. The Branch undertakes habitat management on 872,702.5 hectares, or less than 1% of the land area of the Province. Of these lands, 498,193.5 hectares lack l e g a l standing and could be terminated at any time. Functions There are seven components to the Branch's W i l d l i f e Manage-ment Program: 1) habitat protection; 2) licences/permits; 3) w i l d l i f e use regulations; 4) Public Conservation Assistance Fund; 5) special hunting areas; 6) trapper education; and 7) w i l d l i f e control. (Gov't. Info. Pgms. 1981) 1) Habitat Protection i s involved i n attempts to. modify or prevent habitat destruction. This i s accomplished through p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n regional resource management planning (Public Serv. Comm. 1980), and the r e f e r r a l system. In the r e f e r r a l system, projects which may adversely a f f e c t other resource agencies are c i r c u l a t e d for input. In 1979, the Branch pro-cessed.8,000 r e f e r r a l s , however, there i s no obligation for the 117 lead agency to adhere to the recommendations received (Sil v e r , pers. comm.). 2) The Branch i s involved i n the issuance of licences and permits r e l a t i n g to recreational and commercial w i l d l i f e a c t i v i t i e s including hunting, trapping, taxidermy, tanning, angling for freshwater gamefish, and keeping captive w i l d l i f e (Gov't Info. Pgms. 1981; Ministry of Finance, 1980). 3) The Branch establishes and enforces w i l d l i f e use regu-latio n s for recreational and commercial w i l d l i f e uses including: Table 6. 1 Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch W i l d l i f e Use Regulations Recreational Uses Commercial Uses Hunting: seasons, bag l i m i t s , Guiding: regulations, s p e c i a l regulations, l i c e n c i n g . and l i c e n c i n g . Trapping: regulating trap-Keeping captive w i l d l i f e eg. l i n e s , conditions, falconry. methods, licencing. Fishing: catch l i m i t s , pro- Taxidermy, tanning. h i b i t i o n s , gear Keeping captive w i l d l i f e : r e s t r i c t i o n s , regu- regulating com-la t i o n s , l i c e n c i n g . mercial zoos. Fishing: commercial f i s h i n g , f i s h farming. Source: Ministry of Finance, 19 79 , 1980 . Gov't Info. Pgms. 19 8 1. 4) The Public Conservation Assistance Fund i s administered by the Branch and provides public i n t e r e s t groups with grants 118 to undertake conservation projects. The Vancouver Island Marmot Preservation Committee received $5,000 i n 1979 and $10,0 00 i n 19 80 to enumerate marmot colonies and i n d i v i d u a l animals. The B.C. Federation of Naturalists has received funds to produce posters promoting conservation. 5) The Branch has worked with private interests i n esta-b l i s h i n g Special Hunting Areas which preserve w i l d l i f e habitat and hunting opportunities. These areas are intended to har-moniously integrate the interests of hunters, private land owners and the general public (Gov't Info. Pgms. 1981). 6) The Branch sponsors a Trapper Education course, the successful completion of which i s a prerequisite to obtaining a trapping licence. The course concentrates on the methods of trapping and preparing hides and the related regulations (Gov't Info. Pgms. 1981). 7) Considerable e f f o r t i s expended i n W i l d l i f e Control to remove/destroy problem animals which threaten humans, domestic stock or private property. These e f f o r t s primarily involve large carnivores (eg. bears, wolves and coyotes) and large ungulates (eg. deer and elk) since l o c a l agencies or individuals manage smaller animals (eg. skunks, racoons, e t c . ) . The Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch also undertakes several other functions which include: - the introduction of non-native game animals to the Province to improve the hunting experience (Carl and 119 Guiget, 1965); - b i o l o g i c a l research on w i l d l i f e (Ministry of Finance, 1980) - dissemination of information about w i l d l i f e to the general public (Ministry of Finance, 19 79); - hunter t r a i n i n g programmes to f a m i l i a r i z e aspiring hunters with knowledge about safety measures, hunting regulations, etc. (Ministry of Finance, 1979); and - Habitat Conservation Fund established i n 1981 to secure habitat and sponsor research. The Board of Directors i s now i n place, and several projects have been approved. The fund i s based on monies from the sale of Crown lands and a surcharge on hunting and f i s h i n g licences (Silver, pers. comm.). Orientation The evidence suggests that the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch i s c l e a r l y oriented to the production and management of game species of w i l d l i f e . "(The) W i l d l i f e Programme manages 750 species of w i l d l i f e for approximately 150,000 resident sportsmen, 5,000 trappers, 1,2 00 guides and thousands of B r i t i s h Columbians who enjoy the w i l d l i f e resource." (Public Serv. Comm. 1980, p. 99). This orientation i s r e f l e c t e d i n the W i l d l i f e Act but i s also re-inforced by (a) the revenues generated from w i l d l i f e , (b) s t a f f t r a i n i n g , (c) public support of the Branch, and 120 (d) w i l d l i f e management planning. a) In 1979/80, t h e Branch r e a l i z e d $6.5 m i l l i o n i n revenues from licences and fines , 60% of which was from w i l d l i f e and 38% from f i s h (Ministry of Finance, 1980). Total economic benefits from w i l d l i f e rose to $54 m i l l i o n i n 1980 from $43.8 m i l l i o n i n 1979 (Ministry of Environment, 1979; Ministry of Finance, 1980). Consumptive w i l d l i f e uses account for about two-thirds of these economic benefits and non-consumptive uses make up the balance (Ministry of Environment, 1979). b) H i s t o r i c a l l y , most w i l d l i f e management education/training has focussed on game species (Singleton, pers. comm.). Unlike non-game species, there i s a body of knowledge about, and active a r t i c u l a t e d public i n t e r e s t i n , game species which f a c i l i t a t e s t h e i r management. c) I t i s r e l a t i v e l y easy to understand the magnitude and composition of the consumptive-use-clientele served by the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch. The information i s re a d i l y available from the number and type of licences sold. Consequently, the B.C. W i l d l i f e Federation, as an a f f i l i a t i o n of recreational hunters and fishermen from clubs throughout the Province, can exercise p o l i t i c a l influence regarding w i l d l i f e matters. In contrast, the information on non-consumptive w i l d l i f e users i s d i f f i c u l t to quantify and t h e i r p o l i t i c a l influence i s less d i r e c t . 121 d) The Branch has issued a series of p r o v i n c i a l w i l d l i f e management plans which are intended to guide w i l d l i f e manage-ment a c t i v i t i e s over a f i v e year period. An o v e r a l l plan (Preliminary W i l d l i f e Management Plan) and i n d i v i d u a l species management plans have been prepared. The o v e r a l l plan i n s i s t s that: - the maintenance of species d i v e r s i t y i s the premier goal of w i l d l i f e management; - i t i s incumbent on B r i t i s h Columbia to manage i t s w i l d l i f e resource, which i s of international importance; - no native species should be extirpated by man's actions; and - every e f f o r t should be undertaken to avoid reduction i n the d i v e r s i t y or abundance of species (Ministry of Environment, 19 79). However, the i n d i v i d u a l plans treat each species separately rather than as components of ecosystems. Consequently, w i l d l i f e management w i l l be based on the management of a set of i n d i -vidual species rather than the management of ecosystems. This species orientation i s also evident i n the hierarchy for Branch management a c t i v i t i e s which places endangered species as the f i r s t p r i o r i t y . The other p r i o r i t i e s , in descending order, are large game, predators, game birds and furbearers, and non-game species (Ministry of Environment, 1979). The orientation of the Branch i s also r e f l e c t e d i n the 122 treatment of declining species. To be e l i g i b l e for any special protective measures as "rare and endangered", a species must q u a l i f y as " w i l d l i f e " under the Act, and be s u f f i c i e n t l y jeo-pardized to merit the special attention. However, as outlined in the Preliminary Plan for the Designation of Threatened and Endangered Species, animals which are subspecies, whose range barely extends into the Province (peripherals), and I n t r o d u c e d species (exotics) would not be e l i g i b l e for designation as "rare and endangered". I t i s also important to note that t h i s Plan became available i n 1979, eight years af t e r the l e g i s l a t i v e mandate of the Branch was extended to include declining species. F i n a l l y , i t i s noted that the revisions to the W i l d l i f e Act (1981), as recently proposed, include the wood bison and antelope as game animals. The v/ood bison was formerly consi-dered threatened and since the antelope does not now occur in the Province, i t s i n c l u s i o n implies that i t w i l l be introduced to the Province. Presumably these actions are intended to enhance the hunting experience available i n B.C. A major portion of the e f f o r t s of the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch i s concerned with responding to complaints of w i l d l i f e -human interactions (eg. predator control, bear removal, protection of orchards, and prevention of waterfowl destruction of a g r i c u l t u r a l crops) (Public Serv. Comm., 1980). The W i l d l i f e Act i t s e l f focusses on consumptive uses of w i l d l i f e . This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y apparent i n the parameters of 123 the species included as " w i l d l i f e " . The Act considers only about one-third of the t o t a l complement of birds, mammals, r e p t i l e s and amphibians which occur i n the province. Most of the species included i n the Act have recreational or com-mercial consumptive uses as game f i s h , game birds, big game or furbearers. Despite the opportunity to extend t h i s species mandate i n the current revisions to the W i l d l i f e Act, and considerable public support i n favour of t h i s extension, the Branch intends to r e t a i n the current limited d e f i n i t i o n of " w i l d l i f e " (Dodd;, pers. comm.). C a p a b i l i t i e s Budget allo c a t i o n s to the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch have increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y during the period from 1973-1980 from $3.5 m i l l i o n to $10.99 m i l l i o n . However, the annual increment has fluctuated widely from -5.7% to +60.3% (Ministry of Finance, various dates). During the years 1977 and 1978, the in t e r n a l a l l o c a t i o n of Branch funds was as follows: 124 Table 6.2 Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch - By Function Expenditures 197 7 197 8 Total Budget $9> 068 ,231 $8, 549 ,144 Administration . 25. 2% . . 22. 4% Enforcement . . 24. 9 . . 25. 6 Fisheries 18. 5 . . 21. 1 W i l d l i f e . . . . 16'. 0 . . 16. 2 Habitat Protection 8. 7 . . 10. 6 Information/Education . . . . 4. 8 . . 4. 1 Federal/Other Agency Projects 1. 9 . . -Source: Ministry of Finance, 1977, 19 78. During these years, the budget for land a c q u i s i t i o n was $11,051 (1977) and $4,104 (1978) (Ministry of Finance, 1977, 1978). While s p e c i f i c a l l o c a t i o n s were directed to f i s h e r i e s and w i l d l i f e , the rest of the budget was d i s t r i b u t e d equally between f i s h e r i e s and w i l d l i f e - despite the fact that f i s h e r i e s usually only generated about 40% of the revenues (Ministry of Environment, 1978, 1979). The importance of c o n t r o l l i n g problem animals i s evident i n the 19 80 expenditure of $325,000 for t h i s purpose (Public Serv. Comm. 1980). It i s also important to recognize that a s i g n i f i c a n t portion of expenditures on the management of w i l d l i f e and habitat o r i g i -nate from non-governmental organizations. Ducks Unlimited spent $11.0 m i l l i o n i n 1978 and $14.5 m i l l i o n in 1979 on projects in 125 B r i t i s h Columbia, two of which were e n t i r e l y funded by the State of C a l i f o r n i a (Transactions 42 and 43, Federal P r o v i n c i a l W i l d l i f e Conference, 1978, 1979). Dr. Darryl Hiebert, Vancouver Island Regional W i l d l i f e B i o l o g i s t , Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch (Nanaimo), has regularly s o l i c i t e d in excess of $100,000 annually from non-governmental organizations to fund regional w i l d l i f e management a c t i v i t i e s . Perhaps the $1.5 m i l l i o n annual budget available to the Habitat Conservation Fund w i l l p a r t i a l l y ameliorate any government funding s h o r t f a l l . The t o t a l s t a f f complement of the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch i s approximately 300, of which one-third are involved in enforce-ment. The s t a f f are di s t r i b u t e d i n seven regional o f f i c e s and at the V i c t o r i a headquarters (Public Serv. Comm. 19 80). The area under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of each regional o f f i c e i s quite large and can include a diverse range of b i o t i c zones and wild-l i f e species. Individual members of the f i e l d s t a f f i n Northern B.C. are responsible for areas equivalent i n size to England (Fox, pers. comm.). The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of additional functional r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f or the Branch are usually d i s t r i b u t e d among the exi s t i n g s t a f f rather than j u s t i f y i n g an additional s t a f f member (Dodd, Munro, Smith, pers. comm.). The s t a f f complement devoted to declining species i s one-tenth of one man year. No other s t a f f have on-going responsi-b i l i t i e s for either declining species or non-game species 126 (Munro, pers. comm.). In the decade subsequent to enabling l e g i s l a t i o n related to declining species (1971-1981), t o t a l expenditures on declining species are estimated at about $39,000, a l l of which has occurred since 1976. Direct expenses account for about $24,000 and s t a f f time and expenses t o t a l about $15,000 (Munro, pers. comm.; Rogers, 1980; Ministry of Finance, 1971-1981). The states of Washington and C a l i f o r n i a spent $6.2 m i l l i o n on declining species from 1976 to 1979. Discounting for the two-thirds federal grant-in-aid available i n the U.S., i t i s discovered that the State of Washington allocated $58,000 annually from state revenues through t h i s period (U.S. Dept. of the Int e r i o r , various dates). Further investigation revealed that a s i g n i f i c a n t portion of the expenditures on declining species i n B.C. originate from the federal government, other p r o v i n c i a l agencies and non-govern-mental organizations. Some examples follow: a) White Pelican - Of the $13,325 spent on white pelican research, the funding was as follows: federal government -$10,000, Paries Branch - $3,200, and Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch provided $3,000 for the preparation of a recovery plan (Dunbar, pers. comm.). b) Burrowing Owl - Most of the background data has been colle c t e d by i n d i v i d u a l volunteers. However, i n order to prepare a recovery plan, the World W i l d l i f e Fund has been requested to provide $2,000 to augment a $900 grant from the Fish and W i l d l i f e 127 Branch (B.C. Fed. of Nats., pers. c o r r . ) . The example of the sea otter and Vancouver Island Marmot are treated as case studies i n a l a t e r section of t h i s research. c) During the period from January to October, 19 80, the World W i l d l i f e Fund (Canada) committed $25,000 to declining species a c t i v i t i e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia, or about two-thirds of the expenditures by the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch since 1971 (W.W.F., 1980). Conclusion A number of conclusions emerge from the review of the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch which have implications for the maintenance of genetic d i v e r s i t y . 1) The Branch i s oriented towards species rather than ecosystems. This i s evident i n planning for w i l d l i f e on a species basis and the assignment of s t a f f to p a r t i c u l a r types of animals (eg. b i r d management). 2) The Branch exhibits a d e f i n i t e orientation to game species. This follows the mandate outlined i n the W i l d l i f e Act but i s reinforced by the t r a i n i n g of w i l d l i f e managers and the revenues generated from consumptive uses of game species. 3) The Branch i s involved i n c o n t r o l l i n g the effects of w i l d l i f e on man through removal of problem animals and predator control, but has r e l a t i v e l y less control over the effects of 128 man oh w i l d l i f e . 4) The Branch i s the sole agency responsible for w i l d l i f e but has r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e control over w i l d l i f e habitat. 5) Non-game animals and non-consumptive w i l d l i f e uses receive l i t t l e substantive attention. The Branch recognizes an emerging i n t e r e s t in the issues; however, the expressions of i n t e r e s t have been i n s u f f i c i e n t to motivate s i g n i f i c a n t changes. 6) Although the Branch has addressed i t s e l f to declining species, the paucity of all o c a t i o n s of funds and manpower preclude any substantive achievements. 7) The long-term a c t i v i t i e s of the Branch are hobbled by year-to-year budget fluctuations, a n e g l i g i b l e land a c q u i s i t i o n budget, thin coverage by f i e l d s t a f f and the a l l o c a t i o n of additional functional r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s to exis t i n g s t a f f . The effects of t h i s are ameliorated at least p a r t i a l l y by substantial amounts of funding from non-governmental organizations. While the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch would be expected to lead e f f o r t s to maintain genetic d i v e r s i t y , i t lacks the mandate and resources to accomplish th i s objective. Eco l o g i c a l Reserves Unit  R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s It was intended that the Ecolog i c a l Reserves Unit would permanently secure a representative sample of ecosystems and 129 areas from each of the 12 b i o t i c zones i n B r i t i s h Columbia (Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, 1980). It had been expected that t h i s objective would have been r e a l i z e d with the creation of 100 reserves, however, th i s was revised to 0.05% of the P r o v i n c i a l land area (ie. 400,000 ha.) i n 1976 (Foster, 1976). The mandate of the Unit i s threefold: (a) to design, select and est a b l i s h reserves; (b) to undertake research on the reserve; and (c) to manage and protect the reserves (Foster, 1976). Reserve proposals may originate from any source, including the Unit, and are screened by a s e l e c t i o n committee. Subsequently, the proposal i s c i r c u l a t e d to affected resource agencies and t h e i r unanimous approval must be secured. Orientation The Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing sees E c o l o g i c a l Reserves as d i s t i n c t from the p r i n c i p a l programs of the Ministry (Public Serv. Comm. 1980). In turn, Ecological Reserves d i s -tinguishes i t s e l f from Parks on the basis of setting aside areas for long-term s c i e n t i f i c purposes which tolerate limited human access, rather than for short-term recreational needs (Foster, 1976; Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, 1980). The Ecolo g i c a l Reserves Act enables reserves to be esta-blished for zoological, botanical and geological phenomenon. The d e f i n i t i o n provides for broader coverage of faunal species 130 than i s available under the W i l d l i f e Act. However, only 20 of the 100 e c o l o g i c a l reserves were established i n recognition of t h e i r w i l d l i f e , 16 of which are for marine w i l d l i f e . The rationale for establishing most of the reserves appears to be in deference to vegetation communities (Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, 1981). The i n i t i a l few ec o l o g i c a l reserves were e a s i l y established since there was l i t t l e consultation with other agencies and the reserves were r e l a t i v e l y remote from human a c t i v i t i e s (Foster, 1975) . L a t t e r l y , there had been increasing resistance from other resource agencies. This resistance i s manifest i n the d i f f i -c ulty of achieving unanimous approval of proposed reserves from other resource agencies and the reluctance of other agencies to provide enforcement over areas i n ecological reserves. Although establishing an ec o l o g i c a l reserve pre-empts the claim of any other agency over the area and i t s resources, the Unit lacks the resources to protect the reserves. Ecological Reserves has attempted to ameliorate the s i t u a t i o n by generating public support for the program and proposed reserves as well as i n v o l -ving l o c a l conservation groups as volunteer wardens over the reserves i n t h e i r area. As a consequence of t h i s resistance, i n d i v i d u a l e c o l o g i c a l reserves tend to be small and i s o l a t e d from one another which i s a r e f l e c t i o n of the concessions and compromises required to establish a reserve. B i o l o g i c a l require-131 merits of preserving ecological communities are thereby s a c r i f i c e d . From the point of view of the Eco l o g i c a l Reserves Unit, the permanence of the reserves i s c r i t i c a l and paramount to the naturalness of the reserves (Foster, 1976). Even though areas protected may not be endangered today, the Unit foresees t h e i r future endangerment as the balance of the environment i s altered by man's actions (Foster, 1980). C a p a b i l i t i e s The s t a f f complement of the Ecological Reserves Unit has remained at three since 1974, and i s made up of the Director, a b i o l o g i s t / b o t a n i s t , and an assistant. In the absence of an enforcement arm, the Unit has developed the volunteer warden system with l o c a l n a t u r a l i s t groups (Milne, pers. comm.). The budget for the Unit i s unavailable from government documents although i t i s understood as lim i t e d . The budget available i s allocated to operational costs and support for some research a c t i v i t i e s . No budget i s available for land a c q u i s i t i o n (E.R.U. f i l e s ) . Conclusions A number of conclusions emerge from the review of the Ecol o g i c a l Reserves Unit which have implications on maintaining species d i v e r s i t y . 132 1) The Ecological Reserves Program could be an important way of maintaining species d i v e r s i t y since the reserves are intended to set aside representative examples of the b i o t i c zones i n the Province i n perpetuity. The reserves recognize the importance of securing ecosystems, i n s i t u , and the con-s t i t u e n t species. 2) Given the l i k e l i h o o d that many non-game species may not att r a c t public attention for t h e i r separate management, eco-l o g i c a l reserves may be the only means to ensure t h e i r s u r v i v a l . 3) One of the c r i t i c a l weaknesses of the reserves program has been the i n a b i l i t y to secure areas which are s u f f i c i e n t l y large to contain a p a r t i c u l a r ecosystem or the habitat of wide-ranging species such as g r i z z l i e s or caribou. To date, the program has taken the route of least resistance i n order to secure any reserves and the small size and focus on coastal islands i s the consequence. Ecolo g i c a l Reserves has been obliged to a l t e r the size of reserves in order to secure approval from other agencies, and has allowed public access to the areas to avoid public backlash. The program lacks the authority to expropriate land or any budget to acquire lands. 4) In the absence of enforcement c a p a b i l i t y , the reserves are subject to human interference. 5) Although e c o l o g i c a l reserves are appropriate for main-taining species d i v e r s i t y , they lack the management resources to b u i l d up the stocks of a declining species. 133 6) Although pragmatically, reserves s u f f i c i e n t i n size and number could preserve species d i v e r s i t y , they also provide an excuse for not maintaining w i l d l i f e on the rest of the land base. I t i s suggested that the reserves should not provide a sop for land use planning which excludes w i l d l i f e consi-erations. Eco l o g i c a l Reserves could be an e f f e c t i v e mechanism to maintain genetic d i v e r s i t y by preserving p a r t i c u l a r gene pools and establishing the benchmark areas. However, the approval process and lack of resources available to t h i s agency r e f l e c t s a resistance within government and the general public to such a program. Land Management Branch  Re s p o n s i b i l i t i e s The Land Management Branch was transferred to the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing from the Ministry of Environment i n December, 1978. Under the Land Act, the Branch i s responsible for the management of Crown land (Ministry of Finance, 19 79). This i s a s i g n i f i c a n t mandate since i n excess of 50% of the P r o v i n c i a l land area i s Crown owned land which i s outside forest, park or a g r i c u l t u r a l reserves and not set aside for s p e c i f i c uses (Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, 1981). The W i l d l i f e Act i s not l i s t e d among the statutes over which the Branch has j u r i s d i c t i o n or considers relevant. 134 Functions As the Crown land, management agency, the Land Management Branch functions i n the design, management and audit of land programs which ensure the most e f f e c t i v e use of Crown lands (Public Serv. Comm. 1980). This involves land status planning, environmental impact studies and the resolution of problems among competing uses of Crown lands (Ministry of Finance, 19 80; Gov't Info. Pgms., 1981). Orientation The Land Management Branch i s oriented towards maximizing the benefits to many of various uses of Crown lands. This i s evident i n the various purposes for which Crown land can be acquired which includes: schools, commercial a c t i v i t i e s , quarries, i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t i e s , , r e s i d e n t i a l housing and recreational a c t i v i t i e s (Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, 1981). I t i s also evident in the reasons for Crown land tenure grants i n 1980: agriculture (237 grants), r e s i d e n t i a l housing (149 grants), log storage (77 grants), and quarrying (41 grants) (Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, 19 80). However, the Branch does provide for s p e c i a l public purpose grants of Crown lands for uses which include watershed protection (Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, 1981). 135 C a p a b i l i t i e s I t i s d i f f i c u l t to discern the budgetary and s t a f f resources available to the Land Management Branch since i t has changed mi n i s t r i e s and i s now included with Ecol o g i c a l Reserves and Greenbelts i n the Crown Land Planning Program. However, i t appears that $386,083 were available for land a c q u i s i t i o n i n 1980 (Ministry of Finance, 1980), and the budget for the Branch (including Ecological Reserves and Greenbelts) has increased from $938,885 i n 1972/3 to $8,731,185 i n 1979/80 (Ministry of Finance, various dates). Conclusions Several conclusions emerge from t h i s review of the Land Management Branch i n terms of maintaining genetic d i v e r s i t y . 1) The Branch has control over a large portion of the Crown lands and are involved i n actions which provide them with s i g n i f i c a n t authority over these lands. This authority could be exercised to maintain genetic d i v e r s i t y by including t h i s consideration: a) i n Branch planning; b) as a factor i n impact studies; c) as a condition i n reserves, leases and grants of Crown land; d) as a c r i t e r i o n i n determining which Crown lands could be alienated and the uses of these lands; 136 e) as a demonstration of the importance of species d i v e r s i t y to the p r o v i n c i a l government; f) as a reason to promulgate regulations to p r o h i b i t actions which would jeopardize species d i v e r s i t y ; and g) as a reason for undertaking land a c q u i s i t i o n and exchanges of Crown lands. The Branch has considerable authority over large tracts of Crown land. Including the maintenance of species d i v e r s i t y as a factor i n the management of these lands would demonstrate a government commitment to environmentally-responsible land use planning and have a s i g n i f i c a n t influence over the use and a l l o c a t i o n of Crown lands. Parks and Outdoor Recreation Branch  Re s p o n s i b i l i t i e s The mandate of the Parks and Outdoor Recreation Branch i s defined by the Parks Act. The Lieutenant Government i n Council i s enable to e s t a b l i s h , amend and cancel parks while the Minister defines t h e i r management. The Branch i t s e l f i s a major component of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. The parks system includes 4,537,757 hectares of which 788,621 hectares are i n conservancy areas which permits recreational uses but precludes the a v a i l a b i l i t y of any rights i n t h e i r natural resources. The balance of the area i s available for recreational uses and some natural resource 137 uses. Consumptive uses of w i l d l i f e i n parks are permitted according to the W i l d l i f e Act and the Parks Act so long as they do not negatively a f f e c t the recreational value of the park. Functions The purpose of the Parks and Outdoor Recreation Branch i s two-fold: a) to manage special unique elements of natural, h i s t o r i c , scenic and wildernesss heritage of B r i t i s h Columbia through a system of parks; and b) to plan and coordinate the conservation, protection and recreational use of outdoor recreational resources of the Crown with other m i n i s t r i e s (Public Serv. Comm. 1980). Within the Branch, the Planning and Design group are respon-s i b l e for p o l i c i e s , plans and programs for recreational land uses and the management of natural resources within the parks system. This group generates p r i o r i t i e s for spending and land a c q u i s i t i o n . Following from the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the park as defined by the Lieutenant Governor i n Council and the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, i n d i v i d u a l management plans are developed for the parks. Other a c t i v i t i e s of the Branch include coordination of research on parks, as exemplified i n the sponsorship of research on the endangered white pelican. The Extension and Information group i s involved i n the dissemination of information to the 138 public through in t e r p r e t i v e programs i n the parks and other media. I t i s t h i s l a t t e r group which provided the information display for the captive Vancouver Island Marmots in.the Okanagan Game Farm (Routledge, pers. comm.). Orientation The focus of the Parks and Outdoor Recreation Branch i s on recreation and the operation of the parks system, and environ-mental management of the natural resources within the parks (Pgm. Dir., 1981). A caveat to resource use i n the parks i s that i t should not negatively a f f e c t the recreational value of the park (Jones, pers. comm.). The only park i n the system which discourages recreational use i s Stum Lake for the colony of endangered white pelicans. This park i s anomalous to the rest of the system and was transferred to Parks from Fish and W i l d l i f e because the l e g i s l a t i o n and enforcement c a p a b i l i t y available under the Parks Branch was considered more e f f e c t i v e to maintain t h i s b i r d . The Parks Branch i s responsible for the protection of t h i s area, but the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch pro-vides w i l d l i f e and habitat management support (Jones, Dunbar, pers. comm.). Where the habitat of a sensitive or declining species i s p a r t i a l l y or completely contained within park boundaries, the subject area can be separately zoned from the balance of the park and receive an appropriate management plan, which could 139 exclude recreational uses. The P a c i f i c Giant Salamander i s a rare amphibian i n B r i t i s h Columbia and i t s habitat occurs along a p a r t i c u l a r stream i n Cultus Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park. No separate zoning was established for th i s animal. As a conse-quence, a bulldozer was used to clear the stream bed and widen the stream to maintain the aesthetics of the stream i n spring, 19 81. The impact of t h i s habitat a l t e r a t i o n on adult and l a r v a l stages of the salamanders i s uncertain but they may have been extirpated l o c a l l y as a consequence (Bunnell, pers. comm.). Ca p a b i l i t i e s The s t a f f complement of the Parks and Outdoor Recreation i s not known. The budgetary c a p a b i l i t i e s of the Branch have increased rapidly through the period 1972 to 1980 from $3.9 m i l l i o n to $24.3 m i l l i o n . Within t h i s budget, funds have been allocated to land a c q u i s i t i o n . During the four f i s c a l years of 1976/7 through 19 79/80, $3.7 m i l l i o n were allocated to land a c q u i s i t i o n , or over $900,000 annually (Ministry of Finance, various dates). Conclusions Several conclusions emerge from the review of the Parks and Outdoor Recreation Branch which re l a t e to maintaining genetic d i v e r s i t y . 140 1) The Parks Branch has a strong mandate and enforcement c a p a b i l i t y and i s able to provide protection to the d i v e r s i t y of species contained within the parks system. 2) Recreation i s the main purpose of the parks system and species d i v e r s i t y would be an in c i d e n t a l benefit of removing lands from private development. 3) Lands are selected for in c l u s i o n i n the parks system on the basis of t h e i r recreational c a p a b i l i t i e s so the boundaries of i n d i v i d u a l parks cannot be expected to contain entire eco-systems or s u f f i c i e n t range for a l l constituent species of w i l d l i f e . 4) Although w i l d l i f e may be included as a recreational amenity of parks, p a r t i c u l a r species may be negatively affected by human presence or negatively a f f e c t recreation a c t i v i t i e s . The decline or removal of these species may a f f e c t t h e i r eco-systems disastrously. 5) The Parks Branch has substantial resources for research, planning and management of parks, and the ac q u i s i t i o n of lands. Benefits to the maintenance of species d i v e r s i t y would be secondary to providing for the recreational amenity. 6) Individual parks are administered by short-term manage-ment p o l i c i e s which may adversely a f f e c t the maintenance of species d i v e r s i t y over a longer term. While the Parks and Outdoor Recreation Branch provides a means to secure w i l d l i f e habitat and possesses the mandate to 141 administer w i l d l i f e within the parks system, e f f o r t s to maintain species d i v e r s i t y w i l l be in c i d e n t a l to providing recreational opportunities. Ministry of Forests  R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s The mandate of the Ministry of Forests i s p r i n c i p a l l y defined by the Forest Act, Range Act, and the Ministry of Forests Acts. The Ministry i s , therefore, the agency respon-s i b l e for the forest and range resource (Public Serv. Comm. 1980) . The land base under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s Ministry i s considerable and includes . 52,104,600 hectares of forest lands and 10,383,100 hectares of range lands. This area could increase s u b s t a n t i a l l y from the r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of Crown lands affected i n Deferred Area Planning. The j u r i s d i c t i o n i s enhanced by the fact that 9 4% of the forest lands are owned by the Crown i n the ri g h t of the Province (Ministry of Forests, 1981) . The W i l d l i f e Act i s not among the statutes over which the Ministry, has j u r i s d i c t i o n or considers relevant. Functions The Ministry of Forests i s concerned with maximizing the production of the p r o v i n c i a l forests through intensive forest management. The branches within the Ministry meet the various requirements of this management process and include s c i e n t i f i c 142 research on the trees and optimal growing conditions, growth management by eliminating pests, and selec t i v e thinning through to the establishment and enforcement of harvesting quotas and marketing assistance. One of the programs does address Recreational Management whereby landscape management and recreational uses of Crown forests are undertaken i n conjunction with other m i n i s t r i e s (Gov't Info. Pgms., 1981). Orientation The orientation of the Ministry of Forests i s c l e a r l y focused on maximizing the benefits from the forest resource. 60% of the commercially usable timber resources i n Canada occur i n B r i t i s h Columbia and are subject to the Ministry's j u r i s -d i c t i o n . While the Ministry claims that i t shares the use of t h i s resource with the recreational and le i s u r e pursuits of in d i v i d u a l c i t i z e n s , the Ministry objectives suggest a singular focus: * to maximize productivity of forest and range resources; * to manage these forests and range resources for present and future generations; * to ensure that B r i t i s h Columbia forest products are competitive on world markets; and * to assert the f i n a n c i a l i n t e r e s t of the Crown i n the forest and range resources. The f i n a l Ministry objective of integrated multiple resource 143 planning/use with other agencies/interests pales i n comparison with the focus on maximizing the benefits from harvesting the forest resource (Public Serv. Comm. 1980). A system of reserves similar to those available through the Lands Management Branch e x i s t within the Ministry of Forests. However, the Ministry has not provided any such reserves for the ministrations of the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch for the management of w i l d l i f e habitat and species. C a p a b i l i t i e s The s t a f f and f i n a n c i a l resources available to the Ministry of Forests dwarf the resources of the other agencies considered i n t h i s discussion. Regrettably, a breakdown of s t a f f by function was unavailable, however, the t o t a l Ministry included i n excess of 3,100 s t a f f i n 1980 (Public Serv. Comm. 1980) and had.a 1979/80 budget a l l o c a t i o n of $151.8 m i l l i o n (Ministry of Finance, 19 80). The budget a l l o c a t i o n had increased annually from a l e v e l of $41.3 m i l l i o n i n 1972/3 (Department of Finance, 1973). Although unavailable for every year, i n 1976 the budget for public recreation was about $610,000 or about eight-tenths of one percent of the t o t a l M i n i s t e r i a l budget (Ministry of Finance, 19 76) . Conclusions Several conclusions emerge from the review of the Ministry 144 of Forests which relate to maintaining genetic d i v e r s i t y . 1) The Ministry of Forests has a j u r i s d i c t i o n and resources which dwarf other government agencies (65.9% of the t o t a l land base) and may increase s u b s t a n t i a l l y . A s i g n i f i c a n t portion of t o t a l w i l d l i f e habitat i s therefore capable of providing a s i g n i f i c a n t contribution to preserving species d i v e r s i t y . Although i t i s possible to secure reserves for w i l d l i f e , the Ministry has refused to do so. Further, i t i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y possible to include the preservation of species d i v e r s i t y i n forest management a c t i v i t i e s . However, the Ministry i s focused on maximizing the economic benefits of the forest. The Ministry possesses the means to make a s i g n i f i c a n t contribution to main-taining genetic d i v e r s i t y but lacks an i n t e r e s t in doing so. Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s  R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s The mandate of the Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s i s largely defined by the Municipal Act. Under t h i s Act, the Ministry i s responsible for the supervision of l o c a l governments: munici-p a l i t i e s , regional d i s t r i c t s and improvement d i s t r i c t s and t h e i r control of land use for private and public lands. The W i l d l i f e Act i s not l i s t e d among the statutes over which the Ministry has any j u r i s d i c t i o n or considers relevant (Public Serv. Comm. 1930) . 145 Functions There are two functions of concern to the discussion at hand: assistance provided to l o c a l governments i n the pre-paration of bylaws and a planning service. With respect to bylaws, the Ministry reviews l o c a l land use bylaws to ensure they conform to statutory requirements and are acceptable for approval by the Inspector of M u n i c i p a l i t i e s , Minister of Municipal A f f a i r s , and the Lieutenant Governor i n Council. These successive approvals are required for the bylaws to acquire legal standing. The Ministry also undertakes a program to review, support and advance community and regional planning at the municipal and regional d i s t r i c t l e v e l s (Ministry of Finance, 1980). This involves assuming a support or leadership r o l e , as required by l o c a l government, and includes stages such as: development of guidelines, review of materials, f i n a n c i a l and/or technical support, coordination with other agencies, and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the development and implementation of plans and projects. This involvement ensures the coordination of l o c a l plans with p r o v i n c i a l goals and p o l i c i e s and i d e n t i f i e s the implications of l o c a l planning Issues on p r o v i n c i a l i n t e -r e s t s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , the Ministry can i n i t i a t e or p a r t i c i p a t e i n studies of the impact of planning and development programs on the community or region (Ministry of Finance, 1980; Gov't Info. Pgms., 1981). 146 Orientation The notation that Municipal A f f a i r s undertakes "coordination of P r o v i n c i a l planning p o l i c i e s , proposals and i n i t i a t i v e s with l o c a l government planning a c t i v i t i e s " (Ministry of Finance, 19 80, p. 159) suggests an opportunity for the Ministry to i n f l u -ence and integrate many land use controls. However, the orientation i s generally confined to the physical (eg. roads, sewers, street lighting) and s o c i a l service (eg. police) i n f r a -structure of human settlements rather than t h e i r environmental context (Public Serv. Comm. 1980). C a p a b i l i t i e s Although no breakdown i s available on the s t a f f consignment or budget to provide planning services to l o c a l government, i t i s noted that the t o t a l budget of the Ministry was about $69 m i l l i o n i n 1972/3 (Department of Finance, 1973). Conclusions The review of the Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s suggests that i t can exercise some influence over the maintenance of genetic d i v e r s i t y . Since t h i s Ministry provides both guidance and f i n a l approval to the land use planning mechanisms at the municipal and regional d i s t r i c t l e v e l s , they can exercise leverage to ensure that species d i v e r s i t y i s addressed. This provides i n d i r e c t p r o v i n c i a l authority over planning and land 147 use on public and private lands at the l o c a l l e v e l . Adherence to a p o l i c y of maintaining species d i v e r s i t y could be esta-blished as a condition to secure approval of plans and bylaws or as a prerequisite to e l i g i b i l i t y for l o c a l funding. However, the Ministry r e s t r i c t s i t s e l f to matters concerning the i n f r a s t r u c t u r e of human settlements. While the Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s has the means to make a contribution towards maintaining genetic d i v e r s i t y , i t lacks an i n t e r e s t i n doing so. Conclusions A variety of government agencies have some relat i o n s h i p with a goal of maintaining genetic d i v e r s i t y . The Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch i s exclusively responsible for the control of human-wildlife in t e r a c t i o n s . However, t h e i r orientation i s towards recreational and commercial consumptive uses of game species of w i l d l i f e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , the Branch attends to w i l d l i f e problems for man. This orientation i s in harmony with the W i l d l i f e Act and reinforced by a number of other factors. The Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch has r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e control over w i l d l i f e habitat. The size of t h i s land base i s augmented by E c o l o g i c a l Reserves and Parks conservancies. Although Eco l o g i c a l Reserves could be an e f f e c t i v e mechanism for securing habitat and genetic d i v e r s i t y , i t i s f u n c t i o n a l l y weak, subject to the demands of other resource agencies, and lacks i n t e r n a l 148 resources. E c o l o g i c a l Reserves Unit possess the w i l l to main-tai n genetic d i v e r s i t y but lack the means to do so. Parks focus on recreational benefits with preservation of genetic d i v e r s i t y as an i n c i d e n t a l benefit. The Land Management Branch, Ministry of Forests, and Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s can exercise control over a s i g n i f i c a n t land base and, i n turn, a f f e c t genetic d i v e r s i t y . However, they lack the i n t e r e s t and motivation to incorporate the maintenance of genetic d i v e r s i t y as an objective. To a f f e c t the maintenance of genetic d i v e r s i t y , i t i s necessary to control human-animal interactions and to provide habitat to support the species and t h e i r ecosystems. Although i t would be possible to preserve species and habitats with the combined authority available to a number of government agencies, these agencies lack the i n t e r e s t or resources to do the job. These agencies currently provide services and benefits to man; most of which are tangible and of an economic nature. The i n c l u s i o n of maintaining species d i v e r s i t y as an objective of these agencies would present a re-orientation of t h e i r programs which would necessarily require public support d i r e c t l y from the general public and i n d i r e c t l y through p o l i t i c i a n s . 149 CHAPTER SEVEN  CASE STUDIES Purpose This chapter b r i e f l y reviews two case studies: a) Sea Otter (Enhydra l u t r i s l u t r i s ) ; and b) Vancouver Island Marmot (Marmota vancouverensis). These case studies i l l u s t r a t e the use of i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements and the behaviour of p o l i t i c i a n s , bureaucrats and int e r e s t groups to preserve these species. Both species are l i s t e d as "rare and endangered" i n B r i t i s h Columbia. a) Sea Otter B i o l o g i c a l Background The Sea Otter (Enhydra l u t r i s ) i s a marine mammal formerly d i s t r i b u t e d around the northern P a c i f i c Coast coast, from Japan through Baja, C a l i f o r n i a . There are two subspecies; the Northern (Enhydra l u t r i s l u t r i s ) and the Southern Sea Otter (Enhydra l u t r i s nereis), d i f f e r e n t i a t e d through minor c r a n i a l v a r i a t i o n s . The Northern Sea Otter occurred i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The sea otte r grows to f i v e feet i n length and up to one hundred pounds i n weight, considerably larger than the land otter (to four feet in length and t h i r t y pounds i n weight). 150 i Most of the sea otter's l i f e i s spent f l o a t i n g on i t s back i n colonies several hundred yards from shore i n the kelp beds, which provide i t s shelter and food. Unlike other sea mammals, the sea otter lacks a layer of blubber so i t maintains i t s body heat by a i r entrapped i n i t s pelage. Almost continual grooming i s required to prevent pelage-s o i l i n g and the onset of f a t a l hypothermia. An opportunistic carnivore, the sea otter consumes about 20% of i t s body weight i n protein d a i l y i n a combination of sea urchins, clams, abalone, mussels and smaller moluscs (Cowan, 1965; Stewart, 1978; Farr and Bunnell, 1980). Sea urchins and abalone are herbivores which graze on the kelp. When the otters consume these animals, the kelp flourishes to the advantage of kelp-dwelling f i s h (eg. herring and small l i n g cod). A predator-prey r e l a t i o n s h i p i s established i n the colony and the a v a i l a b i l i t y of food l i m i t s sea otter populations and motivates range expansion (Farr and Bunnell, 1980). In B.C. waters, k i l l e r whales would be the only animal preying on the sea otter. History of the Sea Otter Both Vitus Bering (1742) and James Cook (1778) inadvertently discovered the lu c r a t i v e Oriental market for sea otter p e l t s . Large scale exploitation commenced in 1779 and continued u n t i l the signing of the Fur Seal Treaty i n 1911 (Japan, Russia, United States, and Great B r i t a i n for Canada). The native 151 population of sea otters declined from 150,000 in 1742 to 2,000 i n 1911 1 as a d i r e c t consequence of harvesting almost one m i l l i o n pelts (Farr and Bunnell, 19 80). Although extinction was predicted as early as the 1830's (Munro, 1979), i t was o f f i c i a l l y recognized only i n 1911 (Stewart, 1974). While the catch declined steadily, t h i s was more than o f f s e t by increasing price per p e l t (from $10-$25 i n 1742 to $17,033.33 i n 1910) (Farr and Bunnell, 1980). In B r i t i s h Columbia, the sea otter has been extirpated since 1929 (Cowan and Guiget, 1965). In 1935, a surviving colony of 1,000 to 3,000 Northern Sea Otter was discovered i n the Amchitka Islands of Alaska and a w i l d l i f e refuge was established ( V i c t o r i a Colonist, August 1, 1935, p. 1; November 26, 1936, p. 1). Public i n t e r e s t i n the sea otter emerged i n 1959 with pro-posals to incorporate the sea otter on the B r i t i s h Columbia coat of arms, and to establish a federal marine park for the 2 animal (V i c t o r i a Times, November 21, 19 59, p. 19; November 23, 1959, p. 17). However, nothing came of these suggestions. Case Study Donald Blood, Regional W i l d l i f e O f f i c e r (Nanaimo) i n i t i a t e d the sea otter transplant program as a centennial project i n 19 67, and as an "exciting d i s t r a c t i o n " from the routine of game 3 management (Blood, pers. comm.). He recognized B r i t i s h 152 Columbia's debt to the sea otter and was b i o l o g i c a l l y intrigued by the concept of species re-introduction. On his own i n i t i a -t i v e , he ascertained the a v a i l a b i l i t y of otters from the state of Alaska and looked for support from his peers. Ian MacAskie of the Federal P a c i f i c B i o l o g i c a l Station (Nanaimo) came forward to support the project. Alaska had successfully transplanted sea otters since 1955, and by 1968 could harvest some p e l t s . There was b i o l o g i c a l concern for the sur v i v a l of the species since nuclear testing was underway i n the core of sea otter habitat from 19 66 to 19 71 (Regenstein, 1975). Within B r i t i s h Columbia, there was a strong l i n k between the sea otter and p r o v i n c i a l development and a latent g u i l t about hunting the animal to "extinction" (Blood, pers. comm.). Further, the sea otter habitat was int a c t , and there were no c o n f l i c t i n g uses for the habitat areas. Although primarily intended as a b i o l o g i c a l exercise, the poten t i a l to re-est a b l i s h a lucrativ e harvest of pelts enhanced the appeal of the project (Blood, pers. comm.). Consultation' ensued with Dr. Carl Kenyon, the recognized expert on sea otte r s , who advised on the operational aspects of a transplant and undertook an a e r i a l survey of Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands i n search of suitable otter 4 habitat. Blood and MacAskie investigated l i k e l y s i t e s by boat and selected the Bunsby Islands on the northwest coast of Vancouver Island. Blood had now succeeded in establishing the I 153 physical f e a s i b i l i t y of the transplant, however, i t remained to e s t a b l i s h the cost of the transplant and the public benefit which would accrue. The project became more a t t r a c t i v e , since many of the costs and services were donated by various agencies in the U.S. and the Canadian federal government. There were few costs for the p r o v i n c i a l government other than s t a f f time. The animals were a g i f t from the State of Alaska (Smith, pers. comm.) and the costs of capture and transport were borne by Alaska, the U.S. Atomic Energy Corporation, the Canadian govern-ment, and non-governmental organizations (Blood, Hiebert, Smith, pers. comm.). Further, a l i n k was established with the B.C. W i l d l i f e Federation (Howard Paisch) to guarantee assistance should any f i n a n c i a l s h o r t f a l l be experienced and to generate public support. Blood's next task was to convincingly demon-strate the need and f e a s i b i l i t y of the project to his superiors, which he i n i t i a t e d in his formal proposal to Glen Smith, Chief of W i l d l i f e Management, and Dr. James Hatter, Director of the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch. In early July, 1967, the Honourable Ken Kiernan, Minister of Recreation and Conservation (the Minister responsible) announced a j o i n t f e d e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l project to re-introduce the sea otter to both Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands. Increased public awareness was generated by the announcement, Blood's a r t i c l e in W i l d l i f e Review, and Paisch's item i n the Vancouver Sun (July 22, 1967, p. 5). However, within two weeks of the announcement, the 154 project was postponed to 1968 (Victoria Times, July 21, 1967, p. 12). 5 Negotiations for a 1968 transplant of 40 sea otter were concluded i n A p r i l with reassurance to B.C. fishermen that the otters would not a f f e c t the salmon stocks (Vancouver Province, A p r i l 3, 1968, p. 27; Vancouver Sun, A p r i l 4, 1968, p. 21). Considerable bitterness arose over a further postponement 6 7 announced l a t e r i n the year. ' The transplant, Operation Ah-Sa, f i n a l l y occurred i n July, 1969, when B r i t i s h Columbia shared a shipment of otters with Washington State. In t o t a l , 70 otters were transported by a i r p to Hoquiam, Washington, 30 of which were transported by Canadian Forces a i r c r a f t to the release s i t e i n the Bunsby 9 Islands. There was considerable apprehension about the success of the transplant. 1^ Since Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch lacked the resources to monitor the colony, l o c a l fishermen, natives and the general public were requested to report any sightings to the Branch. The v u l n e r a b i l i t y of the colony was highlighted i n December, 1969, when an o i l - s p i l l from a grounded o i l tanker occurred near the colony. Not only would an o i l - s p i l l be f a t a l for the sea otters but the entire B.C. population of sea otters could be extirpated from one accident. Negotiations for a second transplant were f i n a l i z e d in June, 19 70. B.C. personnel were to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the capture of sea 155 otters and the federal f i s h e r i e s vessel G.B. Reed was provided to transport the otters."'""'" The e f f o r t was organized by the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch and economies were to be effected 12 wherever possible. Ian Smith of the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch 13 was in charge. Only 14 of the 39 to 50 otters captured in Prince William Sound (Alaska) survived the t r i p to the release s i t e (Bunsby Islands). In 1970, the federal government asserted i t s authority over the sea otter by promulgating regulations to the Federal Fisheries Act which prohibited disturbance to or taking of sea otters or the possession of a l l or part of a sea otter p e l t . Further, a federal permit was required to capture a sea otter ( V i c t o r i a Colonist, February 21, 1970, p. 17, and August 29, 1970, p. 17). However, there was s t i l l no mechanism to preserve the sea otter habitat. In January, 19 71, "The Way Back", a f i l m commissioned by the Branch to document the sea otter transplants i n 1969 and 14 1970, was released for public d i s t r i b u t i o n (V i c t o r i a Times, January 15, 1971, p. 3). In March, enabling provisions for endangered species were incorporated i n the W i l d l i f e Act. Ian Smith of Fish and W i l d l i f e explained that the s u r v i v a l of the otters, the primary objective of the transplant, had been achieved, although he remained s c e p t i c a l about t h e i r breeding success ( V i c t o r i a Times, September 10, 1971, p. 1; Vancouver Province, September 13, 1971, p. 19). With the knowledge that 156 up to 1000 sea otters may have been k i l l e d i n the Amchitka nuclear b l a s t , the Alaska Fish and Game Commission suspended the harvest and transplant of sea otters u n t i l stocks recovered (Vi c t o r i a Times, November 29, 1971, p. 33; December 1, 1971, p. 17; Vancouver Province, December 1, 1971, p. 37). The f i n a l transplant occurred i n 19 72 under the d i r e c t i o n of Dr. Michael Bigg, a mammologist from the P a c i f i c B i o l o g i c a l Station. As i n 1969, B r i t i s h Columbia shared a shipment with 15 Washington State, and the Canadian Forces a i r l i f t e d 45 otters to the Bunsby Island release s i t e . The involvement of the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch was concluded with t h i s t h i r d transplant i n 1972. The p o s s i b i l i t y of trans-plants to the Queen Charlottes had been abandoned in 1972. The objective of establishing a population i n B r i t i s h Columbia had been achieved, although the breeding success of the colony remained uncertain. The public support and enthusiastic media coverage for the program had dissipated. Legal protection was available through the Federal Fisheries Act and the P r o v i n c i a l government had discretionary powers available to protect endangered species. However, no budget had been, or was, f o r t h -coming to monitor, research or management the sea otter colony. Further, j u r i s d i c t i o n over the sea otter was uncertain as P r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n ended at the low water mark and the otters l i v e several hundred yards offshore, ostensibly i n Federal j u r i s d i c t i o n . 157 A hiatus of f i v e years ensued, during which time potential but specious c o n f l i c t s emerged between commercial f i s h i n g i n t e r e s t s and the sea otter colony. It was suggested that the sea otter might have adverse effects on the fishery for salmon, sea urchins and abalone (Vancouver Sun, February 8, 19 73, p. 44; V i c t o r i a Times, February 9, 19 73, p. 13; Vancouver Province, May 27, 1977, p. 44). However, there was no record of a sea otter ever having taken a salmon. The sea urchin fishery, having exhausted l o c a l stocks, had moved1*' away from Tofino. V i r t u a l l y none of the harvest of abalone and s h e l l -f i s h come from the P a c i f i c side of Vancouver Island (Farr and Bunnell, 19 80).. Ian MacAskie and Michael Bigg of the P a c i f i c B i o l o g i c a l 17 Station counted 60 sea otters i n May 19 7 7 and claimed the transplant had been successful ( V i c t o r i a Times, May 27, 1977, p. 23; Vancouver Province, May 27, 19 77, p. 44). The bulk of the sea otters had remained i n Checleset Bay in the Bunsby Islands. Since the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch had not undertaken any actions to protect or manage the otters, MacAskie proposed the sea otter habitat for Ecological Reserve status (June 13, 1977). A description of the proposed reserve was prepared i n November, 1977, defining an area of 33,890 hectares of Crown land, tidelands, and sea f l o o r for the preservation of the sea otter and a rare native oyster (Ostrea l u r i d e a ) . In 19 78, the Ecological Reserves Unit commenced a two-158 pronged approach to secure the sea o t t e r : a) by e s t a b l i s h i n g the e x i s t i n g colony as an E c o l o g i c a l Reserve; and b) proposing a f u r t h e r t r a n s p l a n t t o an e x i s t i n g E c o l o -g i c a l Reserve (Hippa Island) i n the Queen C h a r l o t t e I s l a n d s . a) The approval procedure f o r the C h e c l e s e t Bay E c o l o g i c a l Reserve commenced i n December, 19 77, and was concluded i n February, 19 80. The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the r e s e r v e was questioned i n February, 1978, and i t was apparent t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t r e s i s -tance would ensue. The proposed r e s e r v e i s w i t h i n F e d e r a l 18 j u r i s d i c t i o n and i s s u b j e c t to the F e d e r a l F i s h e r i e s A c t and the F e d e r a l Navigable Waters A c t . Since f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n has paramouncy over p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n , an E c o l o g i c a l Reserve f o r the sea o t t e r c o u l d not a f f e c t , impair or r e g u l a t e f i s h i n g or n a v i g a t i o n , there are some severe l i m i t a t i o n s on the a u t h o r i t y of the r e s e r v e . Through 1978, E c o l o g i c a l Reserves U n i t responded t o the concerns of other resource agencies, 19 conceding as necessary to f u r t h e r the p r o p o s a l . To f u r t h e r s u b s t a n t i a t e the p r o p o s a l , E c o l o g i c a l Reserves U n i t funded 20 r e s e a r c h on the sea o t t e r by the U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a and encouraged a study of the i n v e r t e b r a t e s of C h e c l e s e t Bay by the 21 P a c i f i c B i o l o g i c a l S t a t i o n . b) The o r i g i n a l o b j e c t i v e of the F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch to 159 es t a b l i s h a number of sea otter colonies on Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands had been abandoned by 1970. A proposal from the Islands Protection Society and supported by the E c o l o g i c a l Reserves Unit suggested a transplant to the Hippa Island Ecological Reserve (V i c t o r i a Times, A p r i l 26, 19 78, p. 21). The Alaska Fish and Game Commission sought to discourage t h i s plan with p r o h i b i t i v e cost estimates, and 22 pointing out the. mappropriateness of the s i t e . Meeting t h i s resistance, E c o l o g i c a l Reserves inquired about 23 the a v a i l a b i l i t y of southern sea otters for transplant from C a l i f o r n i a . The Minister of Environment, Rafe Mair, scotched t h i s i n i t i a t i v e explaining that the Province was not interested i n the transplant of a non-native sea otter subspecies ( l e t t e r , January 31, 19 79). A functional c o n f l i c t over the sea otter had emerged, and i t was subsequently established that l i a i s o n and j u r i s d i c t i o n over the sea otter was a Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch matter with 24 technical assistance from E c o l o g i c a l Reserves Unit. Meanwhile, negotiations to secure E c o l o g i c a l Reserve status continued, and i n July, 19 80, the proposed Checleset Bay E c o l o g i c a l Reserve, with i t s supporting documentation, was available for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing to take to Cabinet for r a t i f i c a t i o n . The E c o l o g i c a l Reserve was f i n a l l y declared by Cabinet in December, 19 81 by,an :0 . 1.C., . almost 18 months afte r a l l the administrative d e t a i l s were in place. 160 Discussion A review of the case of the sea otter indicates that: 1) The transplant resulted from the commitment and dedi-cation of a few indivi d u a l s rather than as a response to public pressure or o f f i c i a l p o l i c y . These individuals were probably motivated by an i d e o l o g i c a l commitment to maintain genetic d i v e r s i t y and p a r t i c i p a t e i n a transplant for the sense of personal accomplishment and enhancement of professional status as b i o l o g i s t s . 2) The p r o b a b i l i t y of success was very high and the rewards were substantial for the transplant. Expertise was available and the Branch p r o f i l e could benefit. Success could translate into increased budget to the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch. 3) Public and p o l i t i c a l l e v e l i n t e r e s t seems to have been sparked by the h i s t o r i c s i gnificance of the sea otter rather than a general i n t e r e s t i n preserving an endangered species. 4) Once the transplant was achieved, neither o f f i c i a l i n t e r e s t nor public i n t e r e s t were s u f f i c i e n t to assure funding to monitor and protect the species. 5) The e f f o r t to esta b l i s h an Ecolog i c a l Reserve for the sea otter, although f i n a l l y culminated, suggests a lack of public support, p a r t i c u l a r l y since i t s declaration only required the approval of Cabinet. 6) Ecolog i c a l Reserves Unit has enjoyed success i n esta-b l i s h i n g a reserve for the sea otter. The reserve i s a 161 s i g n i f i c a n t addition to the lands under the d i r e c t i o n of Ecological Reserves Unit. However, the limited budget and manpower available to the Unit and the paramouncy of Federal j u r i s d i c t i o n does not provide the Unit with e f f e c t i v e control of the area. 7) The contribution of i n t e r e s t groups to bringing about the transplant was minimal and evidently no s i g n i f i c a n t sub-sequent pressure has been exercised to secure adequate protection for the sea otter. 8) The limited role of public involvement i s also evident from the absence of budget and manpower to manage or even monitor the success of the transplant. 9) The uncertainty surrounding the success of the trans-plant may have made p o l i t i c i a n s apprehensive about a l l o c a t i n g further funds and s t a f f to the project. 10) The role of a variety of bureaucrats waxed and waned through the course of events. Doubtless, there were a variety of motives from i d e o l o g i c a l through entrepreneurial. However, with the exception of MacAskie, almost no one continued to be a c t i v e l y involved over an extended period of time. b) Vancouver Island Marmot B i o l o g i c a l Background The Vancouver Island Marmot (Marmota vancouverensis) i s a 162 burrowing rodent which l i v e s i n small colonies. Adult animals are about 100 centimeters i n length and weigh 3-6 kilograms. Their pelage i s brown/black i n colour with a white patch on the muzzle, forehead and chest (Cowan and Guiget, 1965; Munro, 1979). This animal i s r e s t r i c t e d to Vancouver Island, with the bulk of the population found i n the Beaufort Range, 1 a rugged t e r r a i n dissected with numerous ridges (Cowan and Guiget, 1965; M i l l e r , 1980). It has most frequently been found i n alpine and upper subalpine meadows (Cowan and Guiget, 1965). I t i s known to occur i n open alpine meadows, talus slopes and i n subalpine areas overgrown with low shrubs (Routledge and Merilees, 1980). However, marmots are also known from a t y p i c a l lowland areas (Smith, pers. comm.). The marmots usually burrow into the h i l l s i d e of a steeply sloping south-facing basin (Heard, 1977). It i s believed that the marmot migrated to Vancouver Island on a land bridge with the bison, mastodon and horse, between 20,000 and 100,000 years B.P. and i s either a r e l i c t or an emerging species (Stewart, 1974; Heard, 1977; M i l l e r , 1980). Although the marmot i s believed to have flourished i n the p r e v a i l i n g alpine climate of the ice age, the onset of milder temperatures and return of vegetation confined i t s range to i s o l a t e d mountain slopes (Heard, 1977). The marmot was b i o l o g i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d i n 1910 as a separate species from the Hoary Marmot (Marmota caligata) on the main-2 land. This was based on minor differences i n i t s c r a n i a l 163 s t r u c t u r e a n d p e l a g e c o l o u r a t i o n . B i o l o g i s t s a r e a n x i o u s t o g e n e t i c a l l y c o n f i r m t h e t a x o n o m i c d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e 3 marmot s p e c i e s . F u l l s p e c i e s s t a t u s i s one o f t h e c r i t i c a l e l e m e n t s o f t h e marmot p r e s e r v a t i o n c a m p a i g n . T h i s c a m p a i g n t r a d e s h e a v i l y on t h e f a c t t h a t t h e V a n c o u v e r I s l a n d Marmot i s one o f o n l y two ( M i l l e r , 1980) o r t h r e e ( H a w r y z k i and C a r p e n t e r , 1978) mammal s p e c i e s whose r a n g e i s e x c l u s i v e t o C a n a d a a n d i s "Canada's o n l y e n d e m i c e n d a n g e r e d s p e c i e s o f mammal" (V.I.M.P.C. - V a n c o u v e r I s l a n d Marmot P r e s e r v a t i o n C o m m i t t e e ) . Marmots a r e h e r b i v o r e s a n d , w h i l e some p r e f e r r e d f o o d s a r e known, t h e y a p p e a r t o be o p p o r t u n i s t i c f e e d e r s (Munro, 1979; S m i t h , p e r s . comm.). They h i b e r n a t e f o r a b o u t s e v e n months a y e a r , e m e r g i n g i n t h e l a t e s p r i n g . I t i s b e l i e v e d t h a t marmots b r e e d b i e n n i a l l y a f t e r t h r e e y e a r s o f age a n d s e x u a l l y i m m a t u r e s u b a d u l t s d i s p e r s e f r o m t h e c o l o n y a t two y e a r s o f age (Munro, 1979; Cowan a n d G u i g e t , 1965). M a r m o t s make a w a r n i n g w h i s t l e a t any s i g n o f d a n g e r and i n d i v i d u a l s r e t r e a t t o t h e i r b u r r o w s ( S m i t h , p e r s . comm.). How e v e r , t h e y a r e o c c a s i o n a l l y t a k e n b y h a w k s , e a g l e s , c o u g a r s , w o l v e s o r b e a r s ( H a r l i n g , 1980; H e a r d , 1977). W i t h i n r e c e n t g e o l o g i c a l h i s t o r y , t h e V a n c o u v e r I s l a n d Marmot h a s p r o b a b l y a l w a y s b e e n a r a r e a n i m a l o w i n g t o i t s s p e c i a l i z e d h a b i t a t r e q u i r e m e n t s . R e c e n t c o n c e r n f o r t h i s a n i m a l i s b a s e d on t h i s r a r i t y , f u e l e d b y t h e f a c t t h a t t h e 164 entire worldwide population i s within p r o v i n c i a l boundaries. The marmot i s innately vulnerable to decline as i t i s neither numerous within i n d i v i d u a l colonies nor are there numerous known colonies. The lack of complete behavioural and b i o l o g i c a l information f a c i l i t a t e s misunderstanding and speculation. While the population appears to be stable, the population trend i s unclear. Some i n d i v i d u a l colonies have experienced declines or have been abandoned while other colonies have increased and new colonies have been established (Routledge and Merilees, 1980; Smith, pers. comm.). It i s suggested that human interference through logging and recreation may be a s i g n i f i c a n t factor in any marmot decline. I t i s suggested that logging proximate to marmot colonies puts stress on the animals and that c l e a r c u t t i n g the timber between po t e n t i a l marmot colony s i t e s exposes the migrating subadults to greater predation. Both i n d i v i d u a l , unorganized (hunting, hiking, use of motorized vehicles, etc.) and organized recrea-t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s ( i e . s k i developments) may negatively a f f e c t the animals. Case Study For purposes of t h i s research, the history of the Vancouver Island Marmot begins i n 19 71.^ At that time, the B.C. Pr o v i n c i a l Museum was anxious to esta b l i s h the status of the marmot and sought public assistance i n reporting any sightings 165 ( V i c t o r i a Times, August 11, 1971, p. 39).' In 1972, members of the Nanaimo F i s h and Game Club noticed 8 logging markers on trees near the Haley Basin marmot colony, and, fearing damage to what they knew was a rare animal, reported t h e i r concern to the Club. The Club decided to under-take a campaign to prevent destruction of marmot habitat and to secure timber buffers around the colony as well as to increase public awareness of the animal (Harling, 1980). Meetings were arranged i n late 1972 and early 1973 with MacMillan Bloedel, Crown Zellerbach and the B.C. Fish and 9 W i l d l i f e Branch. Since r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e was known about the marmot beyond i t s r a r i t y , i t was mutually agreed that the colonies and surrounding buffer zones would be excluded from the timber cutting plans and proposed logging roads would be re-routed away from the colony. Pending further research, i t was thought that human interference could jeopardize the two colonies and i t was agreed that t h e i r locations would remain a secret. In 19 73, Crown Zellerbach set aside 102 acres (41.3 ha) for marmot habitat (Pea Mountain), and MacMillan Bloedel set aside an area on the other side of the ridge (Haley Lake Basin) and erected a gate on the road leading to the c o l o n y 1 1 (Harling, 1980; Smith, pers. comm.). During the summer of 1973, two research projects were 12 underway to study the behaviour, and census the population of 13 marmots. The former study, undertaken by Doug Heard, a U.B.C. 166 graduate student, continued again i n the summer of 1974. I t was at this point that members of a l o c a l n a t u r a l i s t group found out about Heard's work and learned of the r a r i t y of the marmot. Subsequently, the Vancouver Island Chapter of the Federation of B.C. Naturalists made a submission to the B.C. Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch o u t l i n i n g t h e i r concern for the animal and t h e i r desire to secure some form of permanent habitat protection (Routledge, pers. comm.; Harling, 1980). Heard, meanwhile, had completed h i s fieldwork but re-emerged i n May, 1975, as the proponent of an ecological reserve for the marmot. His proposal noted that the t o t a l population of marmots was d e f i n i t e l y less than 1000 and possibly less that 150, and suggested that 13,000 acres (5263.16 ha) be set aside for marmot preservation. The proposal was forwarded under the auspices of 14 the Nanaimo Fish and Game Club, and endorsed by the Regional 15 D i s t r i c t of Nanaimo. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Waters (Robert A. Williams) advised the proponents that private lands were not within his j u r i s d i c t i o n (July 21, 1975, pers. corr.) but he would meet with both Crown Zellerbach and MacMillan Bloedel I n the f a l l (July 30, 1975, per. c o r r . ) . E c o l o g i c a l Reserves Unit was requested to review the proposal. They also issued l e t t e r s to the proponents congratulating t h e i r 17 i n i t i a t i v e and encouraging t h e i r support. Crown Zellerbach and MacMillan Bloedel advised the various parties that the proposed reserve had been removed from t h e i r cutting plans i n 167 1973 (July 21, 1975, and July 30, 1975, pers. c o r r . ) . 18 MacMillan Bloedel and Ecol o g i c a l Reserves Unit simultaneously recognized the p o s s i b i l i t y of compensation for these lands (July 30, 1975, pers. corr. and July 30, 1975 memo). Public 19 support for the reserve emerged through autumn, 1975. The meeting between MacMillan Bloedel, Crown Zellerbach and Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch (October 30, 1975) resolved that the l e v e l of protection required for the marmot was unknown and further research was required to define the boundaries of any reserve. Heard's thesis was expected to provide much of t h i s information, however, i t was not forthcoming for another two 20 years (19 77). Further evidence indicated that the companies would prefer to trade rather than s e l l t h e i r land. In December, 1976, both Crown Zellerbach and MacMillan Bloedel discouraged the request by the B.C. Federation of Naturalists to post signs which may a l e r t the public to the location of the marmot colonies (December 4/and 16, 1976, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . MacMillan Bloedel also noted that they were unable to discourage public access by means other than the already present gate on the road leading to the colony (December 16, 1976, pers. c o r r . ) . The f i r s t Marmot Committee meeting was held October 30, 19 77, as an ad hoc group representing a l l of the concerned 22 • p a r t i e s . The minutes of the meeting noted that i t would be most appropriate to manage the animal on a s i t e - s p e c i f i c basis 168 and uncertainty about the t o t a l population of marmots precluded t h e i r designation as "rare and endangered" under the W i l d l i f e Act. Darryl Hiebert of Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch and G.V. Westharp of MacMillan Bloedel outlined a map of the proposed reserve. The Vancouver Island Marmot emerged as a concern i n the Mount Washington s k i development (Crown Zellerbach property). 23 The intervention of E c o l o g i c a l Reserves Unit (January 11, 1978, pers. corr.) was rebuffed by Crown Zellerbach: "the knowledge that there are colonies on Mount Washington and on a number of other mountains leads me (W.P.T. McGhee of C.Z.) to question the c r e d i b i l i t y of previous statements by the l o c a l outdoor people i n Nanaimo that t h i s animal was an endangered species" (January 27, 1978, pers. c o r r . ) . Through the balance of 1978, E c o l o g i c a l Reserves Unit 24 sought to upgrade t h e i r information base on the marmot and mobilize public pressure on MacMillan Bloedel and Crown 25 Zellerbach to donate t h e i r lands as e c o l o g i c a l reserves. An eco l o g i c a l reserve proposal was prepared for the Pea Mountain colony i n October. An a r t i c l e i n the V i c t o r i a Times (October 17, 1978, p. 11) notes the emergence of David Routledge as a spokesman for the marmots, and announced the a v a i l a b i l i t y of a poster of the marmot. The a r t i c l e also noted that the B.C. Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch had imposed a ban on shooting marmots, but was unable to undertake management action because of a lack of funds. The Vancouver Island Marmot Preservation Committee emerged 169 in 1979 as a subcommittee of the Federation of B.C. Naturalists (May 2, 19 79) and meetings were held at regular i n t e r v a l s . Their mandate was to census the population of marmots and 2 6 survey the status of known and p o t e n t i a l colony s i t e s . Funding was available through the Young Canada Works programme to hire David Routledge and two assistants for the summer. Additional funds were s o l i c i t e d from p r o v i n c i a l government 27 agencxes and non-government organizations. Ministry of Environment strategy for the marmot was deve-loped from A p r i l through June, and i t was recognized that 2 s i g n i f i c a n t benefits would arise from securing marmot habitat. Minister of Environment (Rafe Mair) suggested that the Minister of Forests (Tom Waterland) provide land to trade with the forest companies (July 24, 1979, memo). Waterland responded that a land trade was a l a s t resort and endangered species l e g i s l a t i o n was i n e f f e c t u a l ; he would recommend a j o i n t venture 29 between the two m i n i s t r i e s . Mair, however, did not share his enthusiasm for a j o i n t v e n t u r e . ^ The findings of the 1979 marmot survey became available in 31 February, 19 80. Although the report suggests that there are as few as 45 marmots, Dr. Ian McTaggart Cowan, using data i n 32 the report, estimated the population as about 300. This was a severe challenge to the c r e d i b i l i t y and leadership of the group and a turning point i n i t s history. Attendance at meetings dropped o f f sharply, as bureaucrats and foresters were 170 alienated by the core group. Routledge emerged as the dominant figure i n the group. The group became increasingly dogmatic, i n s i s t i n g that there were fewer than 100 marmots, r e s i s t i n g any b i o l o g i c a l research on the marmot - including genetic analysis which would confirm whether the marmot i s a species of subspecies, and concentrating on ecol o g i c a l reserve status as the only way to preserve marmot habitat. Internal admini-s t r a t i v e problems began to plague the group. Routledge under-took a l e t t e r - w r i t i n g campaign without the knowledge of group 33 members. He demanded that p o l i t i c i a n s take immediate action to protect the marmot. V.I.M.P.C. morale was boosted i n early March, 1980, by the designation of the marmot as "rare and endangered1', and MacMillan Bloedel's donation of 204 hectares i n Haley Lake Basin as ecol o g i c a l reserve. In mid-March, 1980, Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch (Victoria) expressed i t s serious concerns about the qu a l i t y of data in the 197 9 marmot survey, and recommended that t h e i r regional o f f i c e 3 (Nanaimo) assume administrative r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the project. However, Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch involvement declined over the next several months as the V.I.M.P.C. became increasingly dogmatic. Through the next several months (March - May, 1980), pressure to encourage a Crown Zellerbach land donation increased through l e t t e r s from Routledge, Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch, and 171 Ecolo g i c a l Reserves Unit as a re s u l t of public exposure. Crown Zellerbach, unmoved, was simultaneously confused by and 3 6 sc e p t i c a l of the arguments presented. J In terms of funding, the V.I.M.P.C. was granted $10,000 from the Public Conservation Assistance Fund to continue and extend the 1979 marmot survey. Although MacMillan Bloedel's land donation was announced i n March, 19 80, the boundaries were not f i n a l i z e d for some time. MacMillan Bloedel's o f f e r had been for two parcels of land, 95 hectares on the west slope of Pea Mountain and 109 hectares to the northwest of Haley Lake on Green Mountain (Vancouver Province, March 14, 1980, p. 17), the exact boun-daries of which had not been defined. There was considerable uncertainty on the government side as to what the boundaries 37 should be. The boundarxes had not been resolved by 3 8 September, 1980. However, i t was clear that the area would be considerably less than had been secured i n the informal 39 'private reserve' arrangement, and less control was available 39a over these lands. The reserve had not been declared by Cabinet as of September, 1981. In late August, 1980, two marmots were sent to the Okanagan Game Farm i n a captive breeding programme funded by the Game Farm, and the World W i l d l i f e Fund (Canada) ($1500 from WWF). With the exception of a sign donated by the Parks Branch, no Pr o v i n c i a l government expenditures were involved (Routledge, 172 pers. comm.). In October, 19 80, the f i r s t d r aft of a Proposed Five Year 40 Recovery Plan for the marmot was completed. Further drafts were undertaken i n subsequent months and a campaign to s o l i c i t the required funds ($535,000) commenced. In December, 1980, David Routledge, on behalf of the V.I.M.P.C., undertook a mail campaign of selected p r o v i n c i a l and federal parliamentarians to have Green Mountain, a known marmot habitat area, included i n the land exchange underway for B.C. Place. Green Mountain was owned by Canadian P a c i f i c which was involved i n the development of B.C. Place (Vancouver). 41 Support was forthcoming from a number of l e g i s l a t o r s while government ministers provided assurances that they had the 42 best interests of the marmot i n mind. Subsequent to the government gaining control over Green Mountain, a further series of l e t t e r s were issued by Routledge (January, 19 81) and a presentation to Cabinet (February, 1981) requested that a marmot sanctuary be established with a minimum of p u b l i c i t y . 43 M i n i s t e r i a l assurances were again provided. " Public awareness of the marmot increased i n A p r i l , 1981, with the release of the "marmot" postage stamp by the Canada Post O f f i c e . . As i t became increasingly clear to V.I.M.P.C. and E c o l o g i c a l Reserves Unit that Crown Zellerbach would not donate t h e i r land for marmot reserve, and the p o s s i b i l i t y of a land trade was 173 remote, the property was appraised and sources of a c q u i s i t i o n 44 funds were explored. Ecological Reserves Unit experienced a setback i n June, 1981, when i t was discovered that there were mineral claims on the proposed reserves at Butler Peak and Haley Lake which the claimant i n s i s t e d on retaining (Milne, p . c ) . The Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch, un s a t i s f i e d with the 19 80 marmot survey by V.I.M.P.C, commenced i t s own survey i n the summer of 1981 (Hiebert, pers. comm.). By mid-summer, the p a r t i a l l y complete survey already estimated the population as at least 150 animals (Smith, pers. comm.). Add i t i o n a l l y , the Canadian W i l d l i f e Service volunteered a summer student to a s s i s t i n t h i s survey. The Vancouver Island Marmot Preservation Committee continued to experience administrative d i f f i c u l t i e s . Members became d i s -couraged with the perceived slow rate of progress i n securing marmot habitat as a ec o l o g i c a l reserve (Routledge, pers. comm.). Relations appeared to be deteriorating between the Committee and the B.C. Federation of Natu r a l i s t s , the parent organization from which the Committee had been struck. The Federation was uneasy about the limited degree of authority they could exercise over the Committee and the administrative record-keeping by the Committee. In turn, the Committee was goal-oriented and rebelled against what they perceived as onerous administrative duties (Routledge, pers. comm.). By late summer, 1981, the Committee entertained the idea of establishing i t s e l f 174 as an independent non-profit society, with a new administrative structure and the involvement of h i g h - p r o f i l e , credible directors (Blood, pers. comm.). The s p l i t was f i n a l l y accom-plished in the f a l l of 1981, when the Committee re-aligned i t s e l f with the Sierra Club of Western Canada. Don Blood joined Dave Routledge on the executive of the new group (Smith, pers. comm.). A regular flow of correspondence to the Minister of Environment and several newspaper a r t i c l e s emerged i n an attempt 45 to maintain public and p o l i t i c a l awareness of the marmot. However, a f a i r l y major setback was experienced by the group i n January, 19 82, as i t was determined that the required survey of the MacMillan Bloedel donation for a marmot ecolo g i c a l reserve would cost $21,000 (Smith, pers. comm.). Further, the Fish and W i l d l i f e marmot survey provided strong indications that the marmot population was considerably above the espoused by the marmot preservationists. Indeed, the marmot population appeared to have increased from h i s t o r i c l e v e l s , new colonies were sighted, and burrows were located i n dense undergrowth (a habitat considered a l i e n to marmots) (Smith, pers. comm.). It would appear that the marmots are more numerous than o r i g i n a l l y estimated, which may be attributable to r e l a t i v e l y few h i s t o r i c a l sightings, a lack of knowledge about the animal; or a succession of years with favourable conditions for marmots. 175 Discussion A review of the case of the Vancouver Island Marmot i n d i -cates that: 1) Relatively l i t t l e s c i e n t i f i c data on the biology or ecology of the marmot has ever been available. The population status and trend i s unknown and i t may be that the animal i s not endangered at a l l . However, the lack of information has provided leverage to a l l parties to further t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s . 2) The marmot has always represented an opportunity for the F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch to consolidate i t s functional support, increase i t s leverage, secure additional budget a l l o -cations, and be b i o l o g i c a l l y responsive. Consequently, they responded quickly to the concerns of t h e i r c l i e n t e l e groups and the on-going input of the i n t e r e s t groups. 3) The decision to keep information about the marmot a secret prevented public interference with the animal but also precluded the benefits of expression of public concern and public support and removed the p o l i t i c a l and public r e l a t i o n s values of e f f o r t s of p o l i t i c i a n s , bureaucrats and business. 4) The Branch continued to treat the marmot as a b i o l o g i c a l issue rather than the p o l i t i c a l issue which i t had become. This was to the advantage of Ecolog i c a l Reserves which p o l i t i -cized the issue. 5) While the B.C. W i l d l i f e Federation appears to have considerable rapport and influence with the Fish and W i l d l i f e 176 Branch, the B.C. Federation of Naturalists appears to enjoy a s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p with Ecolo g i c a l Reserves. 6) The achievements to date on behalf of the marmot have been achieved through the commitment and dedication of a small group rather than as a response to broad-based public pressure or o f f i c i a l p o l i c y . 7) Public and p o l i t i c a l l e v e l i n t e r e s t seems to have been based on the uniqueness of the marmot rather than a general i n t e r e s t i n preserving endangered species or maintaining species d i v e r s i t y . 8) The Vancouver Island Marmot Preservation Committee i s an a t y p i c a l i n t e r e s t group. Established s p e c i f i c a l l y to census the marmot population, i t s membership base has been constricted and i t s c r e d i b i l i t y was severely challenged as a consequence of the census undertaken by the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch. Routledge emerged as the leader and quasi-employee, dominating the a c t i v i t i e s of the group. Although some gains have been r e a l i z e d , the group has been discouraged, fatigued and d i s -appointed that the issue has not been resolved. 9) In the absence of broad-based public awareness or concern about the marmot, p o l i t i c i a n s had r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e on-going i n t e r e s t i n th i s issue. As a r e s u l t , cosmetic measures were adopted ( i e . declaring marmots as " w i l d l i f e " and "rare and endangered"), but nothing substantive was done. The lack of broad-based public awareness or concern i s evident i n the 177 newspaper coverage of the issue which was s i g n i f i c a n t l y less i n Vancouver than i n V i c t o r i a . 10) The e f f o r t to esta b l i s h an ecological reserve for the marmot has been unsuccessful which suggests a lack of on-going public support. Ecol o g i c a l Reserves has treated the marmot as a p o l i t i c a l rather than a b i o l o g i c a l issue and managed to take t h e i r proposal quite f a r . However, once declared as an ecolo-g i c a l reserve, the Eco l o g i c a l Reserves Unit lack the s t a f f or budgetary resources to manage, monitor and enforce the reserve. While th i s lack of resources i s also a problem with the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch, i t i s i r o n i c to note that under the o r i g i n a l informal arrangement, the forest companies bore a l l costs of preservation. 11) Setting aside lands for marmot habitat involved neither economic s a c r i f i c e nor public r e l a t i o n s benefits for MacMillan Bloedel and Crown Zellerbach, although i t did demonstrate a cooperative attitude to government. Subsequent to years of badgering, MacMillan Bloedel r e a l i z e d some b e n e f i c i a l public r e l a t i o n s from i t s donation of lands for a marmot preserve. In contrast, Crown Zellerbach continued to challenge the c r e d i b i -l i t y of the marmot's endangered status and i n s i s t e d on compen-sation for its.lands without su f f e r i n g any apparent damage to th e i r corporate image. 178 CHAPTER EIGHT  EVALUATION/CONCLUSIONS Conclusions The conclusions of t h i s research are summarized i n the following pages i n terms of the i n d i v i d u a l objectives of the research. Objective No. 1; "to define the problem of declines i n genetic d i v e r s i t y " Species declines are innately a natural phenomenon which occur i n a geological time frame as a consequence of natural catastrophe or the i n a b i l i t y of species to adapt to environ-mental change. Natural declines are accompanied by, or caused by, the emergence of successor species. However, as a conse-quence of overharvesting and habitat a l t e r a t i o n / l o s s , man has emerged as the p r i n c i p a l cause of species declines which now occur in a h i s t o r i c a l time frame. The r a p i d i t y of the decline and the a l t e r a t i o n / l o s s of habitat preclude the emergence of successor species, so "weed" species occupy the abandoned eco-l o g i c a l niches. The consequence i s a decline in the absolute number of species - a decline i n species d i v e r s i t y . The loss of a species i s an i r r e t r i e v a b l e loss. However, within h i s t o r i c times, man has emerged as the p r i n c i p a l cause of species declines, e f f e c t i n g an absolute loss 179 to w i l d l i f e habitat and the complement of w i l d l i f e species. On a worldwide basis, 306 birds and mammals have disappeared and 982 have become endangered since 1600 AD. In North America, 50 0 plants and animals have disappeared since the a r r i v a l of the Mayflower. Projections suggest that between 150,000 and 2,500,000 species w i l l disappear before 2000 AD. In B r i t i s h Columbia, 14 vertebrates have disappeared and the s u r v i v a l of up to 73 others i s i n some jeopardy. H i s t o r i c a l accounts con-firm declines i n species d i v e r s i t y , d i s t r i b u t i o n and population. Given the d i v e r s i t y of w i l d l i f e i n B r i t i s h Columbia, t h i s could become an acute problem. The maintenance of genetic d i v e r s i t y i s concerned with both the genetic d i v e r s i t y within a species and the variety of species. Species are an expression of l o c a l habitat conditions. Local populations incorporate behavioural and morphological adaptations which f a c i l i t a t e t h e i r s u r v i v a l . Over geological time, these adaptations are transmitted g e n e t i c a l l y , and i f l o c a l populations are i s o l a t e d from each other, d i s t i n c t l y separate taxa w i l l emerge (ie. subspecies, species). This range of genetic d i v e r s i t y within p a r t i c u l a r species i s the foundation for further evolution of the species or the emergence of new taxa, and i t provides v i t a l i t y to the t o t a l species to ensure i t s s u r v i v a l . Although the bulk of the genetic material within any given mammallian species can be ca r r i e d by about a dozen in d i v i d u a l s , these species are ge n e t i c a l l y pauperate and are 180 less l i k e l y to survive environmental changes. A number of reasons have been put forward i n support of maintaining genetic d i v e r s i t y , and these include: a) b i o l o g i c a l - that genetic d i v e r s i t y within a species provides evolutionary f l e x i b i l i t y and r e s i l i e n c e to i n d i v i d u a l species and ecosystems and serves as a buffer against harmful environmental change. Further, given the limited knowledge about many ecosystems and t h e i r component species, the conse-quences of any decline i n genetic d i v e r s i t y i s largely unknown; b) anthropocentric - that the species may now, or i n the future, provide food, medicine, or other commercial values, function as progrenitors of domestic animals, or provide recre-a t i o n a l values; and c) moral - that man i s the guardian of w i l d l i f e and should prevent any losses, and t h e i r existence alone i s s u f f i c i e n t reason for t h e i r continued s u r v i v a l . Maintaining genetic d i v e r s i t y and preventing species declines i s generally most successfully accomplished by maintaining the species within i t s ecosystem and natural habitat. Ex s i t u management in a zoo, refuge or genetic storage f a c i l i t y i s less successful i n ensuring the s u r v i v a l of the species.and termi-nates the dynamics of adaptations to l o c a l environmental con-diti o n s i n favour of adaptations to captive conditions. Further, the maintenance of genetic d i v e r s i t y while species populations are numerous i s more successful and requires less c a p i t a l invest-181 ment than recovering declining species on an ad hoc basis. Objective No. 2: "to determine the existence, magnitude and  causes of declines i n .genetic d i v e r s i t y in B r i t i s h Columbia" Species declines are a l i t t l e - r e c o g n i z e d problem i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Within a h i s t o r i c a l time frame, the d i v e r s i t y , d i s t r i b u t i o n and population of native species has declined. Most of these declines have been caused by man's overharvest of i n d i v i d u a l species and the al t e r a t i o n / l o s s of w i l d l i f e habi-tat as a consequence of agriculture, resource extraction and human settlement. B r i t i s h Columbia enjoys a d i v e r s i t y of w i l d l i f e species which i s unmatched i n any other Canadian p o l i t i c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . A s i g n i f i c a n t portion of the Canadian complement of vertebrate w i l d l i f e occur i n B r i t i s h Columbia, many of which do not occur elsewhere i n Canada. This s i t u a t i o n arises because of the presence of 12 b i o t i c zones within the Province. Consequently, the magnitude of the po t e n t i a l problem in B r i t i s h Columbia i s much larger than elsewhere i n Canada. Anecdotal information contained within the journals of early v i s i t o r s to the Province records a d i v e r s i t y and d i s t r i b u t i o n of species which contrasts sharply with the contemporary s i t u -ation, and accounts of the abundance of native w i l d l i f e almost defy c r e d i b i l i t y . Recognition by the B r i t i s h Columbia government of the 182 problem of species declines, and the loss of species d i v e r s i t y understates the s i t u a t i o n . Only the sea otter, Vancouver Island Marmot, white pelican and burrowing owl have been recognized as "rare and endangered". However, other authorities have i d e n t i f i e d 14 species which have disappeared from the Province and 76 others whose su r v i v a l i s jeopardized. While there may be grounds to debate th i s quantitative measure, there i s l i t t l e doubt that species declines have occurred i n B r i t i s h Columbia and continue to occur. Objective No. 3: "to define the role of government i n w i l d l i f e  management and delineate federal from p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s " W i l d l i f e i s a common property resource, the benefits of which are available to every c i t i z e n of present and future generations. However, i n the absence of a resource owner, there i s no incentive for individuals to conserve the resource - the tragedy of the commons. In these s i t u a t i o n s , the state, as the agent for every c i t i z e n , assumes the role of resource owner and exercises i t s property rights to protect and regulate the use of w i l d l i f e and to define the rights and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of c i t i z e n s . As resource owner, the state i s obliged to consider both b i o l o g i c a l requirements and public concerns and demands i n the management of w i l d l i f e . P o l i t i c i a n s , as elected represen-t a t i v e s of the public formulate p o l i c y and l e g i s l a t i o n while bureaucracy administers and enforces these d i r e c t i v e s . 183 The B r i t i s h North America Act largely defines the a l l o c a t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s between the federal and p r o v i n c i a l levels of government. With the exception of migratory game birds and w i l d l i f e on f e d e r a l l y - c o n t r o l l e d lands, w i l d l i f e i s a p r o v i n c i a l matter. However, some residual authority i s available to the Federal government to influence p r o v i n c i a l w i l d l i f e p o l i c y and programs. The authority available to the B r i t i s h Columbia government over w i l d l i f e i s augmented by the substantial portion of the P r o v i n c i a l landbase which i s owned by the Crown, i n the r i g h t of the Province (over 90%). The P r o v i n c i a l government, there-fore, enjoys almost absolute authority over w i l d l i f e and can adopt whatever p o l i c i e s and programs i t considers appropriate and decide whether the maintenance of species d i v e r s i t y i s worthwhile. Objective No. 4: "to outline the current i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrange- ments for maintaining genetic d i v e r s i t y ( i e . l e g i s l a t i o n and  government agencies)" The i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements are of two types: a) as enshrined i n l e g i s l a t i o n ; and b) as administered by bureaucracy. a) L e g i s l a t i o n Law r e l a t i n g to w i l d l i f e i s a combination of English common 184 law and statute law. The common law, which pr e v a i l s i n the absence of statute law, provides for the acq u i s i t i o n of property rights i n w i l d l i f e but not for w i l d l i f e conservation. Statu-tory laws have been developed for: i) species, and i i ) t h e i r habitats. i) Statute Law - Species The W i l d l i f e Act i s the single piece of l e g i s l a t i o n for w i l d l i f e species. However, the d e f i n i t i o n of " w i l d l i f e " employed i n the Act excludes the bulk of the animal kingdom i n favour of those species which have some economic value asso-ciated with t h e i r consumption (ie. game animals and furbearers). In contrast, at common law and i n the statute law of other Canadian j u r i s d i c t i o n s , w i l d l i f e includes a l l non-domestic animals. This Act focusses on regulating the consumptive uses of w i l d l i f e and does not include any d i r e c t i v e to maintain species d i v e r s i t y . Although enabling provisions for the preservation of declining species were included i n the 1971 revisions to the Act, only species recognized as " w i l d l i f e " are e l i g i b l e for in c l u s i o n . Almost a decade l a t e r , i n 1980, the sea otter, Vancouver Island Marmot, white pelican and burrowing owl were designated as "rare and endangered". No protective regulations have been promulgated as of October, 1981. 185 i i ) Statute Law - Habitat Authority over w i l d l i f e habitat i s available through a com-bination of l e g a l and quasi-legal mechanisms. The Crown owns the bulk of the p r o v i n c i a l land base and has delegated authority over these lands to various m i n i s t r i e s through l e g i s l a t i o n . However, only a r e l a t i v e l y small portion of the province has been managed i m p l i c i t l y or e x p l i c i t l y for w i l d l i f e habitat. Although the W i l d l i f e Act provides l i t t l e authority over habitat, the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch has secured l e g a l and quasi-legal authority over other areas t o t a l l i n g about 1% of the p r o v i n c i a l land base. About one^-tenth of 1% of the p r o v i n c i a l land base i s set aside i n perpetuity as e c o l o g i c a l reserves under the E c o l o g i c a l Reserves Act. A d d i t i o n a l l y , eight-tenths of 1% are conservancy areas under the Parks Act. The Province can exercise i n d i r e c t control over w i l d l i f e on private lands through t h e i r approval of the land use planning mechanisms of l o c a l governments. b) Bureaucracy While the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch and E c o l o g i c a l Reserves are most: d i r e c t l y related to the objective of maintaining species d i v e r s i t y , several other agencies can exert a major influence by v i r t u e of the landbase within t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n . These l a t t e r agencies include the Land Management Branch, Parks 186 and Outdoor Recreation Branch, Ministry of Forests, and the Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s . i) Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch The Branch i s oriented to game species, consumptive uses of w i l d l i f e , and the control of problem w i l d l i f e . This i s defined i n l e g i s l a t i o n and reinforced by other factors. In the absence of s i g n i f i c a n t expressions of public concern, no sub-stantive program to maintain species d i v e r s i t y has been imple-mented. W i l d l i f e management i s augmented s i g n i f i c a n t l y by f i n a n c i a l contributions of non-governmental organizations. W i l d l i f e are managed on a species basis rather than an ecosystem basis and the c a p a b i l i t i e s to secure control over w i l d l i f e habi-tat are extremely l i m i t e d . i i ) E c o l o g i c a l Reserves Unit Although t h i s program could be an e f f e c t i v e mechanism to maintain species d i v e r s i t y , i t lacks the resources to manage a system of reserves. The procedure for establishing reserves i m p l i c i t l y underscores the low p r i o r i t y of the reserves, since reserves are established at the di s c r e t i o n of resource agencies rather than the requirements of ecology. At present, the t o t a l area i n ecological reserves and the area of i n d i v i d u a l reserves i s inadequate to preserve species d i v e r s i t y . 187 i i i ) Land Management Branch The Land Management Branch has control over a large portion of the p r o v i n c i a l land base and has authority over the use and a l l o c a t i o n of these lands. P o t e n t i a l l y , t h i s Branch could influence the maintenance of species d i v e r s i t y in conjunction with t h e i r other a c t i v i t i e s , but lacks the w i l l to do so. iv) Parks and Outdoor Recreation Branch The Parks Branch has absolute authority over the Parks system and i t s resources. However, the benefits to maintaining species d i v e r s i t y are secondary to maximizing the recreational amenity of the parks. v) Ministry of Forests The Ministry of Forests has j u r i s d i c t i o n over an enormous portion of the p r o v i n c i a l land base and could exercise consi-derable influence on the maintenance of species d i v e r s i t y on these lands. However, the singular focus of the Ministry i s on maximizing the economic benefits of forestry and precludes other concerns. vi) Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s The Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s has i n d i r e c t influence on land use on private lands by virtu e of t h e i r authority to approve and develop land use mechanisms for more junior j u r i s d i c t i o n s . 188 Although th i s provides the opportunity to promote the mainte-nance of species diversi-ty, the Ministry i s exclusively oriented to human settlement concerns. The B r i t i s h Columbia government has authority over the w i l d l i f e resource and the bulk of the p r o v i n c i a l land base, and l e g i s l a t i o n and government agencies are i n place to manage these r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . However, the maintenance of species d i v e r s i t y has not been:enshrined i n law or incorporated i n programs. E f f e c t i n g the necessary l e g i s l a t i v e amendments and d i r e c t i v e s to bureaucrats to ensure that t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s did not adversely a f f e c t the maintenance of species d i v e r s i t y could be accomplished r e l a t i v e l y e a s i l y . However, the p o l i t i c a l w i l l to do so does not e x i s t . Objective No. 5: "to understand public concern for declining  species as indicated by l e g i s l a t i v e debate and expressions of  public attitudes/concern" Public input i s an important component i n w i l d l i f e management since the government functions as resource owner and the input indicates the demand for w i l d l i f e and the d i r e c t i o n of manage-ment a c t i v i t i e s . Public awareness and understanding of w i l d l i f e issues i s generally low. There i s a myopic demand for the pre-servation of p a r t i c u l a r species on the basis of aesthetics and emotion, rather than b i o l o g i c a l r e a l i t i e s . Attention to t h i s 189 demand may be contrary to the goal of maintaining species d i v e r s i t y . There i s some ind i c a t i o n that the latent concern for preserving w i l d l i f e species i s higher i n B r i t i s h Columbia than i n other j u r i s d i c t i o n s and t h i s concern i s manifest in an i n t e r e s t i n w i l d l i f e concerns and a willingness to fund related a c t i v i t i e s . The environmental I n t e r e s t groups can be distinguished a t t i t u d i n a l l y and demographically from the rest of society and are largely motivated by ideology and altruism. However, there i s an innate scepticism i n the balance of society based on concerns about the economic implications of environmental protection. Among p o l i t i c i a n s there has been n e g l i g i b l e attention to maintaining species d i v e r s i t y and preventing species declines. Most of the relevant p o l i t i c a l decisions have been made by Cabinet v/ithout any debate i n the l e g i s l a t u r e . These decisions have been of a cosmetic nature. While bureaucrats recognize the emergence of some public concern for the issue, they lack the resources or motivation to e f f e c t substantive actions. Maintaining species d i v e r s i t y i s a low p r i o r i t y public issue. Public concern for i n d i v i d u a l species i s l i k e l y to emerge only with proximity to extinction and attitudes towards the p a r t i c u l a r animal. Species declines can be e a s i l y recon-c i l e d as inevitable casualties of economic progress. It i s unlikel y that broadly based public support w i l l emerge for the 190 maintenance of species d i v e r s i t y in the short term. At present, broad based public support i s the engine for government action. Objective No. 6: "to explain the actions of p o l i t i c i a n s ,  bureaucrats, and the public regarding the maintenance of genetic  d i v e r s i t y through the application of relevant p o l i t i c a l and  administrative theories" The model for explaining p o l i t i c a l and administrative behaviour assumes that individuals are r a t i o n a l and that they pursue t h e i r s e l f i n t e r e s t . Their r a t i o n a l i t y , however, i s bounded by t h e i r perceptions which are governed by t h e i r experiences which includes t h e i r education and the general climate of opinion i n which they l i v e . Ideologies which derive from a number of complex influences may moderate or l i m i t the s e l f i n t e r e s t motivational factors. According to the model, p o l i t i c i a n s can be expected to act i n a fashion to maximize the votes s/he w i l l receive at the next e l e c t i o n . Career service government personnel w i l l pursue personal goals (eg. advancement, recognition, status) which often are t i e d to the fortunes of the organization of which they are a part. Consequently, they tend to promote the growth and influence of these organizations. Nevertheless, these motivations w i l l be bounded or conditioned by i n d i v i d u a l per-ceptions and ideologies. Therefore, an i n d i v i d u a l with a strong i d e o l o g i c a l bent may pursue a p a r t i c u l a r goal even though i t 191 may not contribute to his s e l f i n t e r e s t , narrowly defined i n economic terms, but i t may provide the s a t i s f a c t i o n of having done the "right" thing. Public choice theory suggests that i n t e r e s t groups com-posed of a large number of individuals have great d i f f i c u l t y i n organizing and taking c o l l e c t i v e action because no i n d i v i d u a l has s u f f i c i e n t at stake that he feels the transaction costs of promoting the development of an organizational e f f o r t are worth the cost. The exception I s where individuals have powerful i d e o l o g i c a l motivations which make them f e e l that the common good demands th e i r personal s a c r i f i c e . Also, i n some cases, individuals f i n d s a t i s f a c t i o n from the status, recognition, or authority they derive from helping to organize and promote such an e f f o r t . The case studies together with the lack of l e g i s l a t i v e and Cabinet i n t e r e s t and support for the preservations of species d i v e r s i t y and the fate of declining species demonstrates that p o l i t i c i a n s saw l i t t l e to gain i n the way of public support on t h i s issue. Thus, they displayed an active i n t e r e s t in the subject only when an action was s u f f i c i e n t l y dramatic to appeal to public imagination and feelings, as i n the case of the sea ott e r transplant. However, even then support was limited to the v i s i b l e aspects of the transplant rather than to the long range less v i s i b l e aspects of the project. The case studies and a c t i v i t i e s of the Fish and W i l d l i f e 192 B r a n c h a n d t h e E c o l o g i c a l R e s e r v e s U n i t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e b e h a v i o u r o f t h e s e two o r g a n i z a t i o n s i s e x p l a i n e d r e a s o n a b l y w e l l b y t h e p u b l i c c h o i c e m o d e l . The p e r c e p t i o n s o f F i s h a n d W i l d l i f e s t a f f a p p e a r s t o d e r i v e , i n a l a r g e p a r t , f r o m t h e i r t r a i n i n g i n w i l d l i f e management w h i c h e m p h a s i z e s t h e management o f game s p e c i e s . T h i s f a c t o r c o m b i n e d w i t h t h e f a c t t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t g r o u p f r o m w h i c h t h e y s e c u r e t h e i r g r e a t e s t s u p p o r t - t h e B.C. W i l d l i f e F e d e r a t i o n - i s game o r i e n t e d . The l a c k o f i n t e r e s t w i t h i n C a b i n e t a n d among p o l i t i c i a n s f o r non-' game s p e c i e s a n d n o n - c o n s u m p t i v e w i l d l i f e u s e s h a s g i v e n s t a f f l i t t l e m o t i v a t i o n t o p r o m o t e t h e management o f t h e s e s p e c i e s a n d u s e s . The p e r c e p t i o n s a n d i d e o l o g i e s t h a t f l o w f r o m t h e e d u c a t i o n o f many s t a f f members a s b i o l o g i s t s a p p e a r s t o m o t i -v a t e some i n d i v i d u a l s t o t a k e a s t r o n g i n t e r e s t i n m a i n t a i n i n g s p e c i e s d i v e r s i t y a n d p r e v e n t i n g s p e c i e s d e c l i n e s . D o u b t l e s s , t h i s was a m a j o r f a c t o r In t h e s u c c e s s o f t h e s e a o t t e r t r a n s -p l a n t s a n d t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f a r e a s f o r marmot h a b i t a t . H o w e v e r , t h i s i d e o l o g i c a l s u p p o r t b y F i s h a n d W i l d l i f e s t a f f i s b o u n d e d b y t h e B r a n c h f o c u s on game s p e c i e s a n d mu t e d b y t h e l a c k o f s t r o n g s u p p o r t f r o m e i t h e r i n t e r e s t g r o u p s o r p o l i -t i c i a n s . The p r o g r a m o f t h e E c o l o g i c a l R e s e r v e s U n i t i s b a s e d , i n p a r t , on t h e i d e o l o g y t h a t t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f s p e c i e s a n d t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f e c o l o g i c a l s y s t e m s i s i m p o r t a n t f o r human w e l f a r e . I t h a s b e e n f r u s t r a t e d i n t h e r e a l i z a t i o n o f i t s g o a l s 193 because of the d i f f i c u l t y of securing large enough reserves to preserve some types of ecological systems and t h e i r component species. This has been p a r t i c u l a r l y true of larger mammals. The behaviour of the Ecological Reserves Unit would appear to be explained by two motivations. In accord with i t s mandate and the ideology upon which i t i s based, the establishment of eco l o g i c a l reserves to protect the sea otter and Vancouver Island Marmot would accord with organizational goals. Further-more, such reserves would add to the status and importance of the Unit which i n turn would enhance the positions of s t a f f members. There i s some evidence that there i s a widespread but r e l a t i v e l y low l e v e l of public i n t e r e s t i n the preservation of threatened and endangered species. This r e l a t i v e l y low l e v e l of public i n t e r e s t appears to account for the general lack of i n t e r e s t group support for programs designed to promote the maintenance of species d i v e r s i t y . The B.C. W i l d l i f e Federation supported the transplant of the sea otter but t h i s was not a p r i o r i t y matter for the organization. The i n t e r e s t groups con-cerned with the Vancouver Island Marmot were largely limited to residents of Vancouver Island who took a special i n t e r e s t i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r matter.. No i n t e r e s t groups are giving s u f f i -c i e n t l y high p r i o r i t y to species preservation to make this a v i s i b l e issue of general importance that demands the attention of elected o f f i c i a l s and agency personnel. What support i s available i s usually directed to p a r t i c u l a r species (eg. Society 194 f o r P r o t e c t i o n o f F u r B e a r i n g A n i m a l s , G r e e n p e a c e - w h a l e s a n d s e a l s , e t c . ) . I n f o r m a t i o n i s n o t a v a i l a b l e t o e x p l a i n t h e b e h a v i o u r o f t h e two f o r e s t p r o d u c t s c o m p a n i e s . The a c t i o n o f M a c M i l l a n B l o e d e l a n d Crown Z e l l e r b a c h t o s e t a s i d e p r i v a t e r e s e r v e s f o r t h e marmots and t h e s u b s e q u e n t d o n a t i o n o f t h e s e l a n d s b y M a c M i l l a n B l o e d e l may be e x p l a i n e d e i t h e r b y t h e a l t r u i s m o f company e x e c u t i v e s , a b e l i e f t h a t s u c h an a c t i o n was i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f g o o d p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e g o v e r n m e n t , o r a c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e s e m o t i v a t i o n s . The Crown Z e l l e r b a c h r e f u s a l t o d o n a t e t h e i r l a n d s may be e x p l a i n e d by t h e c o s t t h a t d e d i c a t i o n o f t h e l a n d w o u l d i m p o s e on t h e company o r t h e i r l a c k o f f a i t h i n t h e management o f E c o l o g i c a l R e s e r v e s . O b j e c t i v e No. 7: " t o o u t l i n e t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s t h a t m u s t be met  t o a c h i e v e an e f f e c t i v e p r o g r a m f o r t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f g e n e t i c  d i v e r s i t y i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a " T h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e v e r y l i m i t e d e f f o r t s t o p r e s e r v e d e c l i n i n g s p e c i e s and m a i n t a i n s p e c i e s d i v e r s i t y i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a i s t h e c o n s e q u e n c e o f a l a c k o f s t r o n g e n o u g h p u b l i c s u p p o r t t o make t h i s a m a t t e r o f s u f f i c i e n t p r i o r i t y f o r g o v e r n m e n t t o i n i t i a t e l e g i s l a t i o n a n d p r o g r a m s t h a n an e f f e c -t i v e p r e s e r v a t i o n e f f o r t w o u l d r e q u i r e . I t w o u l d a p p e a r t h a t t h i s m a t t e r n e e d s t o be g i v e n a h i g h p r i o r i t y b y one o r more i n t e r e s t g r o u p s w h i c h i n t u r n w o u l d c a r r y o u t t h e e d u c a t i o n a l 195 a c t i v i t i e s and lobbying necessary to make preservation of species of s u f f i c i e n t p o l i t i c a l importance that i t would not be ignored by government. Since there i s widespread latent support, the p o t e n t i a l appears to ex i s t for mobilizing t h i s i n t e r e s t into a potent p o l i t i c a l force. However, our theory suggests that to bring t h i s about, a number of individuals who are i d e o l o g i c a l l y committed to the preservation and who are w i l l i n g to incur the costs i n time and e f f o r t must take the lead i n educating the public and i n organizing people for e f f e c t i v e p o l i t i c a l action. This can probably be done through e x i s t i n g conservation i n t e r e s t groups. The program of such an endeavour would include: 1) A concerted e f f o r t to rai s e the consciousness of the public to the importance of maintaining species d i v e r s i t y and preventing species declines. 2) A campaign to secure changes i n w i l d l i f e - r e l a t e d l e g i s -l a t i o n that would provide the foundation for e f f e c t i v e preser-vation programs. This would include: a) mandating r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s to the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch to develop p o l i c i e s and programs to maintain species d i v e r s i t y ; b) mandating r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s to other agencies to include the maintenance of species d i v e r s i t y i n t h e i r land use planning (ie. Forests, Parks, etc.); c) extending the d e f i n i t i o n of " w i l d l i f e " under the W i l d l i f e 196 Act to include a l l members of the animal kingdom; d) mandating p r o v i n c i a l authority to intervene i n land uses and/or expropriate lands i n order to maintain species d i v e r s i t y ; and e) enabling E c o l o g i c a l Reserves to set aside representative ecosystems i n v i o l a t e of human a c t i v i t i e s , as required b i o l o g i -c a l l y rather than at the d i s c r e t i o n of resource agencies. 3) The establishment of s p e c i f i c immediate and more general long term goals for species preservation programs. These /goals should cover research and data c o l l e c t i o n needs as well as actions to protect p a r t i c u l a r species and the ecosystems to which they belong. 4) The mounting of a lobbying e f f o r t to convince l e g i s l a t o r s and bureaucrats of the importance of implementing the proposed program. 5) The establishment of on^going avenues for the incl u s i o n of public input into the management of species d i v e r s i t y by the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch, and ensuring public input on t h i s issue i n the planning a c t i v i t i e s for Crown lands. This would perpetuate the p o l i t i c a l w i l l and rewards available to l e g i s -l a t o r s and bureaucrats for consideration of t h i s issue. I t i s clear that needed accomplishments w i l l not be achieved by merely recommending appropriate l e g i s l a t i o n and programs to government. Public i n t e r e s t and support must be mobilized and sustained to create and husband the p o l i t i c a l w i l l to e f f e c t 197 the needed actions to maintain species d i v e r s i t y . Conclusions Species declines among w i l d l i f e i s an environmental problem with profound implications. This problem exists in B r i t i s h Columbia where i t could p o t e n t i a l l y be of greater magnitude than anywhere else in Canada. The British••Columbia government has almost absolute authority over w i l d l i f e and owns most of the P r o v i n c i a l land base. However, the government has not adequately addressed the issue of maintaining genetic diver-s i t y , i n l e g i s l a t i o n or programs. This i s the consequence of inadequate public attention to the issue. A latent and underdeveloped i n t e r e s t i n the issue appears to e x i s t which w i l l have to be mobilized to i n i t i a t e government action. The importance of immediate attention to thi s task i s underscored by the fact that substantial habitat alterations and species declines continue, pending the emergence of thi s public concern. 198 CHAPTER 1: FOOTNOTES At common law, w i l d l i f e (ferae naturae) are treated as a c o l l e c t i v e public good although private property i n w i l d l i f e accrues to the owner of the lands on which the animals are captured or k i l l e d . In Canada, federal and p r o v i n c i a l claims to property rights i n w i l d l i f e arises from t h e i r control of Crown lands. B r i t i s h Columbia substantiates t h i s claim i n statute law, declaring: "The property i n a l l w i l d l i f e i n the Province i s vested i n the Crown in the r i g h t of the Province." --B.C. R.S. Chapt. 433 W i l d l i f e Act s. 80(1) Market forces, i n the absence of property r i g h t s , are d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t a b l e to the decline of a number of species i n North America as elsewhere. Perhaps the most numerically dramatic are the declines of the plains bison, the passenger pigeon, and the sea otter; a l l of which are attributable to over-exploitation to meet market demand. Many in t e r e s t groups have also i n s t i t u t e d classes of membership ( f u l l member, associate member, student member, etc.) and d i f f e r e n t i a l s in membership fees for each c l a s s . The opportunity to contribute i n excess of the annual membership dues, the a v a i l a b i l i t y of l i f e t i m e membership, and the recognition of contributions for tax deductions 199 provide additional convenience. It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that environmental components for which u t i l i t y has been discovered appear to be deserving of careful husbandry as 'natural resources'. In the absence of a discovered u t i l i t y , individuals and society do not recognize the same impetus for conservation e f f o r t s . David Ehrenfeld devotes considerable time to the conside-rati o n of t h i s issue (see Ehrenfeld, D., 1976. Conservation of Non-Resources. TAmercian S c i e n t i s t . 64: 648-656). White (1966) notes that the major rationale for public i n f o r -mation expenditures i s that the dissemination of information w i l l i n i t i a t e an attitude change which w i l l ultimately be r e f l e c t e d i n 'correct' s o c i a l decisions. 200 CHAPTER 3: FOOTNOTES 1. I t may be that the use of birds somewhat overstates the case. The work of Corbin (1977) on the Order Passiformes indicates a high l e v e l of genetic s i m i l a r i t y among b i r d species: "Subspecies of .birds are about 100 times more sim i l a r to each other than are subspecies of mammals, sala-manders and f i s h . Indeed genera of birds are about as gen e t i c a l l y s i m i l a r to one another as are subspecies of these other vertebrate classes" (Corbin, 1977, p. 298). The loss of species of birds may not be as s i g n i f i c a n t as one would i n i t i a l l y conclude given t h i s genetic s i m i l a r i t y and t h e i r demonstrated a b i l i t y to throw off subspecies at a much higher rate than the other vertebrates (Corbin, 19 77). However, despite any weaknesses inherent i n the b i r d example, i t i s clear that species l i f e s p a n have declined dramatically within h i s t o r i c times. 2. Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) i s often erroneously i d e n t i f i e d as a "crane". I t i s possible that the records from Vancouver Island are herons. The sightings from northern B.C. are indisputably the Sandhill Crane, since i t breeds i n the Yukon and N.W.T. 3. Over 10,000 sea otter pelts were removed from the northwest coast during the decade 1779/89 alone (Pethick, 1976). 201 About one m i l l i o n pelts were taken between 1741 and 1911 (Farr and Bunnell, 1980). The trade was terminated by the Fur Seal Treaty (1911) . 4. Lynn Ross, a B.C. big game guide, re-introduced wood bison as part of a trophy hunting scheme. 202 CHAPTER 4: FOOTNOTES 1. The following table contrasts the variables which af f e c t public attitudes to endangered species with the character-i s t i c s of endangered species. I t i s apparent that ecolo-g i c a l r e a l i t i e s have r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e to do with favourable public attitudes to a species. As a consequence, the public may be surprised by the bio-l o g i c a l p r i o r i t y regarding species preservation (Ramsay, 19 76) and not motivated to action or favourable attitudes. 2. Environmental protection i s often suggested as a threat to the economy. The enforcement of environmental r e s t r i c t i o n s i s usually suggested as forcing plant closures and the loss of jobs which a f f e c t a l o c a l area and the economy of the nation. Kieschnick (1978) observes that t h i s c o n f l i c t i s exaggerated by labour and industry and i s outweighed by the environmental jobs created. During the period 1971-1979, 128 U.S. plants were closed at a cost of 23,737 jobs as a di r e c t r e s u l t of enforcing environmental r e s t r i c t i o n s . In 19 75 alone, $1 b i l l i o n was spent on environmental matters and 66,960 jobs were created ( M i l l e r , 1980). Leonard Woodcock, former U.A.W. President, describes the c o n f l i c t between environment and economy as a matter of corporate blackmail (Miller, 1980). Comparison of Elements of Public Attitude and E c o l o g i c a l Reality re Endangered Species Variables Affecting Public Attitudes Characteristics of Endangered Species 1. Aesthetics - attractiveness, uniqueness of form/behaviour, vertebrates, large s i z e , mammals, etc. prefer red. 2. Phylogenetic relatedness - r e a l (physical, s o c i a l , behavioural), or anthropomorphic s i m i l a r i t i e s . 3. Cause of endangerment - greater sympathy/ g u i l t associated with d i r e c t causes such as overharvest than with i n d i r e c t causes l i k e habitat loss. 4. Economic value of species - the absolute value for consumptive and non-consumptive uses and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of"benefits, costs 5. S o c i a l impact - the number of type of people affected by p o s i t i v e and negative impacts of protection e f f o r t s . 6. General f a m i l i a r i t y with and knowledge about the species. 7. a) Cultural relationship with species (eg. bald eagle i n U.S.). b) H i s t o r i c a l relationship with species (eg. sea otter i n B.C.). 8. Humaneness of a c t i v i t i e s affecting the species (ie. perceived a b i l i t y of species to think or f e e l ) . Sources: Ziswiler, 1967; Brokaw, 1978; K e l l e r t , 1. Large physical size of animal. 2. Predators. 3. Narrow habitat tolerance. 4. Possess valuable fur, hide, tusks, etc. 5. Hunted for sport or market and no game management. 6. Restricted population d i s t r i b u t i o n . 7. Habitat extends over multiple p o l i -t i c a l , j u r i s d i c t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y i f in t e r n a t i o n a l or migratory. 8. Intolerant of human presence. 9. Reproduce in a few numbers of large aggregates (eg. c o l o n i a l b i r d s ) . I. 0. Reproduction involves long gesta-t i o n , small l i t t e r and/or maternal care. II. Non-adaptive behavioural idiosyn-cr a c i e s . 12. Approaching a known/unknown c r i t i c a l population size (below which species declines rapidly to e x t i n c t i o n ) . 1979; Ehrenfeld, 1972. 204 CHAPTER 5: FOOTNOTES Krag (19 75) notes that there are 15 tr e a t i e s i n force i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 14 of which are on Vancouver Island and 1 i n the northeast of the Province. The B.C. W i l d l i f e Act i s not enforced on the reserves as p r o v i n c i a l laws are not applicable to treaty Indians. In t o t a l , 7 migratory b i r d sanctuaries and 4 w i l d l i f e areas are designated as federal w i l d l i f e management areas within B r i t i s h Columbia.. Migratory Bird Sanctuaries 1) C h r i s t i e I n l e t 4) Nechako River 2) Esquimalt Lagoon 5) Shoal Harbour 3) George E. R e i f e l 6) Vaseaux Lake Bi r d Sanctuary 7) V i c t o r i a Harbour - Migratory Bird Sanctuary Regulations Consolidated Regulations of Canada (1978) C. 1636 W i l d l i f e Areas 1) Alaksen 2) Widgeon Valley 3) Wilmer 4) Qualicum - W i l d l i f e Area Regulations Consolidated Regulations of Canada (1978) C. 1608 205 The extent of t h i s power i s unclear and the p o s s i b i l i t y of Federal expropriation of land i s not resolved (Thompson, 1973a) . The Lieutenant Governor i n Council has designated the following species as w i l d l i f e : Species birds of the order F a l c o n i -formes (re-designated "game birds" i n 19 69) coyote (Canis latrans) Vancouver Island Marmot (Marmota vancouverensis) game f i s h (13 species named) Bison (bison) White t a i l e d jackrabbit ) (Lepus townsendii) ) Mountain c o t t o n t a i l ) (Sylvilagus n u t t a l i ) ) Raccoon dog (Nyctercutes procyonoides) B.C. Regs. Date 16/69 December 13, 1968 162/71 June 18, 1971 231/73 July 5, 1973 138/75 February 6, 1975 414/75 May 22, 1975 242/78 June 1, 1978 570/80 December 15, 1980 The limited range of w i l d l i f e species included within the d e f i n i t i o n of "wildlife-" under the B.C. W i l d l i f e Act (about one-third of b i r d and mammal taxa) from which endangered species would be drawn, combined with the exclusion of subspecies, peripherals and exotics e f f e c t i v e l y ensures that only a "very limited number of species" could be designated as endangered. H i s t o r i c a l l y , the White Pelican has been perceived as com-peting with man's commercial and recreational demand for 206 game f i s h . D e f i n i t i v e b i o l o g i c a l evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t p e l i c a n s feed on slow moving 'rough f i s h ' r a t h e r than game s p e c i e s . Although the b i r d s i n c l u d e d w i t h i n the M i g r a t o r y B i r d s Convention A c t are c u r r e n t l y b e i n g reviewed, the Canadian government i s not proposing the i n c l u s i o n of the White P e l i c a n (Dunbar, p e r s . comm.). 7. B.C. P r o v i n c i a l W i l d l i f e S a n c t u a r i e s : " f o r p r o t e c t i o n and management of w i l d l i f e and no person s h a l l hunt, t r a p or d i s c h a r g e a f i r e a r m i n those areas." a) Bergenham and Moberly W i l d l i f e Sanctuary b) Columbia Lake and R i v e r W i l d l i f e Sanctuary c) Lucy I s l a n d W i l d l i f e Sanctuary d) M c G i l l i v r a y Creek W i l d l i f e Sanctuary e) D e l k a t l a Slough W i l d l i f e Sanctuary f) George C. R e i f e l W i l d l i f e Sanctuary g) Serpentine R i v e r W i l d l i f e Sanctuary h) Shaw Creek W i l d l i f e Sanctuary i) Robert W. S t a r r a t t W i l d l i f e Sanctuary j) Tunkwa Lake W i l d l i f e Sanctuary k) Wasa Slough W i l d l i f e Sanctuary "as annual w i l d l i f e sanctuary d u r i n g the p e r i o d March 1 to August 31 and no person s h a l l t r e s p a s s on water or i n the a i r , hunt, t r a p or d i s c h a r g e a f i r e a r m d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d " . Stum Lake W i l d l i f e Sanctuary 207 CHAPTER 7: FOOTNOTES - (a) SEA OTTER The sea otter was presumed extinct with the signing of the Fur Seal Treaty (1911). It was not u n t i l about 25 years l a t e r that any sea otter colonies were discovered. Support was provided by conservationists, n a t u r a l i s t s , b i o l o g i s t s , and park experts. Blood's was the f i r s t of several proposals to re-introduce the sea otter (Smith, pers. comm.). This can be taken as an in d i c a t i o n of a l e v e l of i n t e r e s t and the favourable climate for e f f e c t i n g the transplant. Kenyon produced a summary report of pot e n t i a l sea otter habitat i n July, 1967. Kiernan's press release explained that a f i r e had damaged the trapping equipment (V i c t o r i a Times, July 21, 1967, p. 12). However, some s t a f f changes associated with an Alaska State e l e c t i o n had some e f f e c t (Blood, pers. comm.). It has been suggested that t h i s was the manifestation of p o l i t i c a l tensions between the State of Alaska and B r i t i s h Columbia (Smith, pers. comm.), or a p o l i t i c a l whim of the 208 newly-elected Governor of Alaska ( V i c t o r i a Times, November 14, 1968, p. 32). 7. MacAskie suggested that the U.S.S.R. might be a more r e l i a b l e source of animals. He also noted his dismay at U.S. bad f a i t h , p a r t i c u l a r l y since U.S. traders were largely responsible for decimating the sea otter stocks and Canada had been obliged to enforce the provisions of the Fur Seal Treaty (1911). Hatter added his surprise since B.C. had supplied numerous animals for transplants into continental U.S. (Victoria Times, November 14, 1968, p. 32; Vancouver Province, November 15, 1968, p. 8; Vancouver Sun, November 15, 1968, p. 24). 8. In t o t a l , 30 otters were destined for B.C., one of which died, leaving 19 females and 10 males. 9. Donald Blood l e f t the B.C. Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch within days afte r the release of the f i r s t transplant to assume w i l d l i f e duties with the Province of Saskatchewan (Blood, pers. comm.). His successor was Ian Smith. 10. Apprehension increased when 14 of 29 otters transplanted i n Washington died, and only a s k u l l was available as evidence i n B r i t i s h Columbia. A fly-over of the transplant 209 s i t e i n October, 1969, by Charlie Estlem (Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch) f a i l e d to spot any otters. 11. Ian Smith, Regional W i l d l i f e O f f i c e r , and W i l d l i f e Tech-n i c i a n Gordon "Bud" Smith, represented the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch (Smith, pers. comm.). 12. Boats were borrowed from the B i o l o g i c a l Station, the Department of Transport and Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Holding tanks and outboard motors were borrowed from the B i o l o g i c a l Station. Transportation was provided by Federal Fisheries and the Department of Defense. Special prices were obtained on capture nets, f i l m , and f i s h to feed the captive otters. Garbage cans were considered for capture "boxes", additional holding tanks were home-built by p a r t i c i p a t i n g personnel. Requests to purchase water f i l t e r i n g equipment and transportation costs for a v e t e r i -narian who volunteered his time were rejected (Fish and W i l d l i f e f i l e s ; Smith, pers. comm.). 13. Six males, eight females. 14. The expenditure on a f i l m about the transplants contrasts sharply with the ill-equipped 1970 transplant. 210 15. A t o t a l of 47 otters were provided, but one died and one was too sick to be released. 16. (a) The sea urchin fishery, o r i g i n a l l y based at Tofino, B.C., and r e l a t i v e l y close to the sea otters, had commer-c i a l l y exhausted l o c a l stocks so re-located to Sidney, B.C., at the south end of Vancouver Island. 16. (b) A t o t a l of 89 sea otters had been transplanted. 17. P r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n ends at the low water mark and the sea otters spend most of t h e i r time several hundred yards offshore. 18. A number of concerns about the reserve were included i n a memo to the Chief Forester from D i s t r i c t Forester, Zone 3 (D.G. McPhail). These were subsequently addressed i n l e t t e r s from Ian MacAskie (March 31, 1978) and E c o l o g i c a l Reserves (A p r i l 11, 1978). I t i s noted that the proposed reserve: (a) could not bind the natives i n the area (April 11, 1978); (b) would not r e s t r i c t the movement of boats, barges, or log booms through the area (April 11, 1978); (c) would allow beachcombing to continue (March 31, 1978); (d) would allow log booming to continue i n the i n l e t s 211 (March 31, 1978); and (e) would extend to the mainland shore and not end 20 chains offshore (March 31, 1978) . Further, there appears to be some confusion as to r e s t r i c -tions on commercial f i s h i n g . MacAskie suggested that the harvest of kelp and s h e l l f i s h would be r e s t r i c t e d . E c o l o g i c a l Reserves suggested that no harvest would be r e s t r i c t e d ( A p r i l 11, 1978), then revised i t s position to r e s t r i c t i n g kelp and abalone harvests (Vi c t o r i a Colonist, May 5, 197 8, p. 1). The Parks Branch astutely recognized that a harvest closure on kelp and s h e l l f i s h i n the area would have the same e f f e c t as the ecolo g i c a l reserve. 19. In February, 19 78, Ecolo g i c a l Reserves agreed to fund the summer work of one student ( l e t t e r to D. E l l i s , February 22, 1978), however, the Minister of Environment was subsequently advised that E.R.U. had hired two students (memo, May 16, 1978). A press release (Colonist, August 27, 1978, p. 1) noted that the project was e n t i r e l y funded by the University of V i c t o r i a . Further, the students had counted over 100 sea otters, when previous counts consistently found 50-70 animals. The report also concluded that ecological reserve status was necessary to secure the animals t h e i r habitat and food. 212 20. A l e t t e r to Ian MacAskie of the P a c i f i c B i o l o g i c a l Station (May 10, 1978) from Ecolo g i c a l Reserves noted that the Forest Service was anxious to remove some portion of the o r i g i n a l l y proposed reserve but "hopefully" the inverte-brate research i n Checleset Bay would j u s t i f y the o r i g i n a l boundaries. 21. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game suggested i n a l e t t e r to the Queen Cnarlotte Islands Museum that 60 otters would cost a minimum of $25,000 through the f i r s t year (July 20, 1978, pers. c o r r . ) . By July 25, 1980, Alaskan o f f i c i a l s advised Ecol o g i c a l Reserves that a recent trans-plant had cost $48,629 for four otters (July 25, 1980, pers. comm.). The QCI Museum was advised that the s i t e was too small and d i f f i c u l t (September 26, 1980, pers. c o r r . ) . 22. Ecological Reserves contacted the C a l i f o r n i a Department of Fish and Game by l e t t e r (September 29, 1978). 23. P r o v i n c i a l Secretary Hugh Curtis outlined the d i v i s i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n a memo to Ecologi c a l Reserves (December 18, 1978) and the Minister responsible (Lands, Parks and Housing - J. Chabot) agrees on March 14, 1979. In October, the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch volunteers to 213 p r o v i d e one man p l u s expenses f o r a t r a n s p l a n t t o Hippa I s l a n d (memo, October 25, 19 79). CHAPTER 7: FOOTNOTES - (b) MARMOT The core area i s defined as bounded by 124° 10'W to 124° 50'W longitude and 48° 50 "N to 49° 10'N lat i t u d e (Mi l l e r , 1980) . Harry Swarth, a f i e l d c o l l e c t o r for the University of C a l i f o r n i a , 'discovered' the marmot. Karotyping undertaken at a l a t e r date j u s t i f i e s i t s denomi-nation as a separate species. However, more sophisticated genotyping techniques are now available and b i o l o g i s t s are anxious to v e r i f y the species status of the Vancouver Island Marmot. The Vancouver Island Marmot Preservation Committee i s s a t i s f i e d with the karotyping and r e s i s t s e f f o r t s to undertake the more sophisticated testing (Hebert, pers. comm.). Mayr (1941) notes that mammals require i s o l a t i o n for about 100,000 years to emerge as a separate species. D.C. Heard's MSc. Thesis (U.B.C.) The Behaviour of Vancouver Island Marmots and The Vancouver Island Marmot Survey - 1979 (Routledge, D., W.J. Merilees) are examples. 215 6. Although uncertain, i t may be necessary to trace the history back to 19 6 4/5 and the introduction of c o t t o n t a i l rabbits to the Metchosin d i s t r i c t of V i c t o r i a . The population of red t a i l e d hawks and golden eagles increased i n response to the abundance of prey. As a consequence, the rabbits may encroach on marmot habitat and increased predator pressure may be experienced by the marmots (B.C. Na t u r a l i s t 18(2): 3, 19 80). 7. The f i r s t sighting i n the "Great Marmot Hunt" was the capture of a Hyrax, which had formerly belonged to. B r i s t o l Foster, l a t e r of the Ecologi c a l Reserves Unit ( V i c t o r i a Times, August 12, 1971, p. 11). 8. The "Haley Basin" i s p r i v a t e l y owned by MacMillan Bloedel. A second marmot colony i s located on the other side of the ridge on property p r i v a t e l y owned by Crown Zellerbach ("Pea Mountain") . 9. An a r t i c l e i n the V i c t o r i a Times (October 26, 1972, p. 25) reprised the si t u a t i o n and i d e n t i f i e d the Nanaimo Fish and Game Club as guardian of the marmot. 10. Periodic meetings between Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch, Nanaimo Fis h and Game Club, Crown Zellerbach and MacMillan Bloedel 216 continued. 11. Doug Heard, a U.B.C. graduate student working under Dr. Ian McTaggart Cowan commenced a 2 year f i e l d study of marmot behaviour. World W i l d l i f e Fund (Canada) p a r t i c i -pated i n funding the project, documented in Heard's 1977 the s i s . 12. William Darling and Max F i n k e l s t e i n were commissioned by the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch to census 7 colony areas. This i s documented i n an unpublished Fish and W i l d l i f e report "Marmot Summer Survey - 1973". 13. The proposal was sent to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation by T.E. Baroby (President, Nanaimo Fish and Game Preservation Association), and the Regional D i s t r i c t of Nanaimo (for endorsation) (June 24, 1975; pers. comm.). 14. The Regional D i s t r i c t of Nanaimo advised the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water of t h e i r endorsation of the ecolo-g i c a l reserves proposal (July 7, 1975; pers. c o r r . ) . 15. At t h i s point, Ecological Reserves Unit was within the Ministry of Lands, Forests and Waters whereas the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch was i n the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation. 217 16. A l e t t e r to the Nanaimo D i s t r i c t Fish and Game Protection Association also inquired whether the area of the proposed reserve should be 1,300 acres rather than the stated 13,000 acres (July 25, 1975; pers. c o r r . ) . This was corrected i n a revised proposal (October 6, 1975). 17. Ec o l o g i c a l Reserves advises the Minister of Lands, Forests and Waters that the proposed lands are a Crown Grant and a meeting with Crown Zellerbach and MacMillan Bloedel should address both reserve boundaries and compensation (July 30, 1975; memo). MacMillan Bloedel suggests a land trade to the Regional D i s t r i c t of Nanaimo (July 30, 19 75; pers. corr.) . 18. Personal correspondence was received by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Waters (R.A. Williams) on: - September 30, 19 75, from a private c i t i z e n ; - October 9, 19 75, from the Nanaimo Fish and Game Club, r e i t e r a t i n g t h e i r support; - October 21, 19.7 5, from the B.C. W i l d l i f e Federation (parent body to the Nanaimo Fish and Game Club); and - December 4, 1975, from the Cowichan Valley Natural History Society. 19. The minutes of the meeting note the conspicuous absence of Ecol o g i c a l Reserves and Heard's s a t i s f a c t i o n with the 218 current arrangement of 'private reserves' (Minutes, October 30, 19 75). 20. I t i s uncertain whether t h i s meeting i s the one suggested by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Waters (July 30, 1975), p a r t i c u l a r l y since Fish and W i l d l i f e i s i n another Ministry. Further, a l e t t e r from Ecolo g i c a l Reserves to the Cowichan Valley Natural History Society (December 17, 1975) noted that the companies would prefer to trade rather than s e l l t h e i r land, an item not recorded i n the minutes of the October 30th meeting. 21. I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d that the Nanaimo Fish and Game Club i n i t i a t e d the reserve proposal in June, 19 75. 22. In t o t a l , 15 individuals were in attendance, representing the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch, Ecolo g i c a l Reserves Unit, MacMillan Bloedel, Crown Zellerbach, Nanaimo Fish and Game Club with t h e i r parent organization (B.C. W i l d l i f e Federation), and the Cowichan Valley Natural History Society with t h e i r parent organization (B.C. Federation of Naturalists) (minutes/ October 30, 1977). 23. There i s concern that the continued packing of the s k i run snow may delay the snow melt, destroy the early spring 219 vegetation, and cause suffocation to hibernating marmots. With about 300 chalets, interference from humans and predation by domestic pets i s also a problem (Harling, 1980) . 24. A data summary prepared by Trudy Carson of Ecolog i c a l Reserves: "Vancouver Island Marmot: An Endangered Species i n Canada" (November, 1978). The report noted that l i t t l e protection was available to the marmots under the current land tenure arrangements and that Crown Zellerbach had not been cooperative in securing marmot preservation. 25. A l e t t e r to Doug Heard from Ecolo g i c a l Reserves noted that the n a t u r a l i s t group lobby was i n s u f f i c i e n t and broad-based public pressure was necessary to force the donation of the forest company lands (March 16, 1978, pers. c o r r . ) . 26. The short term objective was to develop the baseline survey, whereas a longer term objective was to set aside marmot habitat with a surrounding buffer zone and implement a management plan for the animal (Routledge, pers. comm.). 27. During 19 79, funds were secured from the following sources: Public Conservation Assistance Fund $5000 Elsa Wild Animal Appeal (Canada) 1500 220 B.C. Federation of Naturalists N/A Nanaimo Fish and Game Club N/A B.C. W i l d l i f e Federation N/A Young Canada Works Program N/A Individual n a t u r a l i s t s , conservation clubs, etc. N/A As a subcommittee of the B.C. Federation of Na t u r a l i s t s , there were no membership dues to the Committee d i r e c t l y and funds were s o l i c i t e d or donated. 28. A memo from D.J. Robinson of Fish and W i l d l i f e to Tony Stark, Policy Coordinator i n the Ministry, r e f l e c t s on the benefits of a land trade for marmot habitat: "If such a trade could be negotiated between the government and the companies and the land thus obtained made into a W i l d l i f e Management Area for marmots, i t would l i k e l y he hailed by conservationists i n t h i s province as one of the best things the government could possibly do in the w i l d l i f e f i e l d . " ( A p r i l 26, 1979) 29. Minister of Forests, Tom Waterland, was enthusiastic about working with the Ministry of Environment: "This looks l i k e an excellent opportunity for our ministries to work together seeking a solution to a highly emotional issue with great public appeal." (August 13, 1979; memo) 30. A memo to the Minister of Forests (Waterland) from Minister 221 of Environment (Mair) acknowledges his memo of August 13, 1979, and notes that a management plan i s underway (October 2, 1979). 31. "Vancouver Island Marmot Survey - 1979". Routledge, David; and William J. Merilees. The census team made on-the-ground v i s i t s to 45 s i t e s and a e r i a l passes over 47 others. They saw 45 marmots, 116 burrows and 13 active colonies. 32. McTaggart Cowan, af t e r reviewing the report, included t h i s estimate i n a l e t t e r to Margaret Evans: "My guess of thi s t o t a l population would be nearer 300." (January 31, 1980; pers. corr.) 33. The l e t t e r to the Minister of Environment (Steven Rogers) read i n part: "Canada's only endangered endemic species of mammals i s in your hands, Mr. Rogers; we and the many future generations to come await your ultimate decision EXTINCTION OR PROTECTION NOW!!" 34. An in t e r n a l memo at the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch (March 19, 1980) described the report as produced by ind i v i d u a l s "playing at being b i o l o g i s t s " and recommended that any monies for marmot fieldwork i n 19 80 be administered by the Nanaimo Regional Office of Fish and W i l d l i f e . A l e t t e r out-l i n i n g concerns about the report was also forwarded to the 222 V.I.M.P.C. on the same date. 35. A public meeting on March 28, 1980; an a r t i c l e i n Nanaimo Times, March 30, 1980; a l e t t e r from Ecolo g i c a l Reserves, A p r i l 1, 1980; Vancouver Sun, A p r i l 15, 1980. 36. Crown Zellerbach was uncertain whether the A p r i l 1, 1980 l e t t e r from Ecological Reserves was a formal request and what i t s re l a t i o n s h i p was with an A p r i l 3 l e t t e r from Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch. Crown Zellerbach had expected coor-dination and agreement between the. various participants ( l e t t e r to D. Hiebert, May 5, 1980). In a l e t t e r to Routledge (March 28, 19 80), Crown Zellerbach refutes the claim by Routledge that the only marmot colony occurs on Crown Zellerbach land. 37. Tentative boundaries were suggested by Ecolo g i c a l Reserves (March 30, 1980'and July 18, 1980) and Fish and W i l d l i f e ( A p r i l 8, 1980). E c o l o g i c a l Reserves asked Routledge to approve the proposed boundaries (May 1, 1980). 38. A l e t t e r to Ecological Reserves from MacMillan Bloedel (August 29, 19 80) sought to resolve the boundaries. 39. The minutes of the June 10, 1980, V.I.M.P.C. meeting noted that the proposed MacMillan Bloedel reserve was less 223 desirable than i t had been i n 1974. 39. (a) G. Smith of Fish and W i l d l i f e (Nanaimo) was openly c r i t i c a l to the creation of a marmot ecolo g i c a l reserve. "Why did you l e t MacMillan Bloedel o f f the hook?" ( l e t t e r to E c o l o g i c a l Reserves Unit, March 11, 1980). In November, MacMillan Bloedel indicated that they would repair the gate on the road to the colony but i t was a low p r i o r i t y ( l e t t e r to G. Smith, November 19, 1980). Not only was the reserve smaller i n area than the o r i g i n a l "private" reserves, but E c o l o g i c a l Reserves lacked the resources to manage and enforce t h e i r newly acquired area. 40. I t was estimated that the Plan would cost $535,000. 41. Support was provided by MLA Robert Skelly, Environment Opposition C r i t i c (December 8, 1980); MLA Frank M i t c h e l l , Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (December 8, 19 80); and MP Ted M i l l e r , Nanaimo (December 18, 1980). 42. Assurances were provided by Minister of Forests, Tom Waterland (December 29, 1980); Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, Jim Chabot (January 15, 1981). 43. Minister of Environment (S. Rogers) advised V.I.M.P.C.: 224 "... convey to your Committee the assurance that my Ministry i s a c t i v e l y concerned with the future welfare of the Vancouver Island Marmot and that we w i l l do anything within our means to ensure perpetuation of the species" ( l e t t e r to K. Goldberg, V. I .M.P .C, January 27, 1981). Interestingly, a l e t t e r to Routledge from the Minister of Environment (February 16, 19 81) provided a verbatim d u p l i -cation of his January 27th assurance: i e . "... the assurance that my Ministry i s a c t i v e l y . . . " 44. Crown Zellerbach (February 20, 1981) i d e n t i f i e d they w i l l trade or s e l l t h e i r 102 acres at Pea Mountain, but w i l l not donate i t . E c o l o g i c a l Reserves indicated to V.I.M.P.C. that a land trade was un l i k e l y and the V.I.M.P.C. should pursue National Second Century Fund and the Nature Conservancy of Canada for funds (March 9, 1981). However, i t might also be possible to use the Land Acquisition Fund or the natura-l i s t s could raise the funds personally (Ecological Reserves Unit i n t e r - o f f i c e memo, March 16, 1981). An assessment of Crown Zellerbach lands was commissioned (April 15, 1981), but the p o s s i b i l i t y of a land exchange through Parks Branch (April 15, 1981) or Ministry a c q u i s i t i o n funds (May 12, 1981) was also considered. 45. Preliminary results were made available (January 22, 1981) and 99 marmots had been counted. Newspaper coverage of the marmot i n early 19 81 focussed on 225 the release of the postage stamp (Victoria Times Colonist, March 26, p. 8, A p r i l 1, p. 45; Vancouver Province, A p r i l 5, p. 3, magazine). Coverage became more frequent from October through December, 1981. However, t h i s coverage was largely confined to the V i c t o r i a Times Colonist (Vi c t o r i a Times Colonist, October 3, p. 4; October 30, p. 22; December 6, p. 4, magazine; December 10, p. 15; Vancouver Province, December 4, p. 61). 226 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adamus, Paul R., G.C. Clough. 1978. Evaluating Species for Protection i n Natural Areas. B i o l o g i c a l Conservation. 13 (3) : 165-178. Addor, E.E. , V.E. LaGarde. 1974. A User Access Computer Information System for Environmentally Sensitive W i l d l i f e . U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Mobility and Environmental Systems Laboratory. Vicksburg, M i s s i s s i p p i . A i r d , Paul L. 19 76. Introductory Remarks - The Future: Problems and Solutions. In Mosquin, T., C. Suchal (eds.). 1977. Canada's Threatened Species and Habitats. Canadian Nature Federation. Ottawa. pp. 172. Alberta. 19 76. Protection for Alberta's Endangered W i l d l i f e . Alberta Fish and W i l d l i f e D i v i s i o n . W i l d l i f e Management Series No. 8. Edmonton. Alison, R.M. 1976. Are North American W i l d l i f e Populations i n Trouble? In Mosquin, T., C. Suchal (eds.). 1977. Canada's Threatened Species and Habitats. Canadian Nature Federation. Ottawa. pp. 142-145. A l l e n , Durward L. 19 73. Needed: A New North American W i l d l i f e P o l i c y . National Parks and Conservation Magazine. 47(8): 10. A l l e n , Glover M. 1942. Extinct and Vanishing Animals of the Western Hemisphere. American Commission for International W i l d l i f e Protection. Intelligencer P r i n t i n g . Lancaster, PA. A l l e n , Robert. 19 80. How to Save the World - A Strategy for World Conservation. Prentice-Hall of Canada. Scarborough, Ontario. Alston, Richard M., David M. Freemen. 1975. The Natural Resources Decision-maker as P o l i t i c a l and Economic Man: Toward a Synthesis. Journal of Environmental Management. 3(3): 167-181. Anderson, E., G.L. Stebbins J r . 1954. Hybridization as an Evolutionary Stimulus. In Jameson, D.L. Genetics of Speciation. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross. London. pp. 2 76-286. 227 Anon. 1973. Our W i l d l i f e Refuge System i n Trouble. National Parks and Conservation Magazine. 47(6): 28-30. Anon. 1978. Humans Attach Many Values to W i l d l i f e Species. Conservation Federation Letter. May, 19 78. Anon. 19 78. Few Jobs Endangered by Rare Species Fight. Engi-neering News Record. 201(11): 18-19. Anon. 1979. From Protest to Policy Making. Business Week. 2578: 58. Anon. 1981. Wilderness i s A l l . B.C. Outdoors. 37(1): 20-24. Anon. 1981. G.V.R.D. Survey. G.C. Outdoors. 37(3): 11. Arensburg, Walter W. 1980. Book Review: The Environmental Protection Hustle - Bernard J. Frieden. Environmental Management. 4(4): 348-350. Argus, George W. 1976. The Conservation of Canadian Rare and Endangered Plants. In Mosquin, T., C. Suchal (eds.). Canada's Threatened Species and Habitats.. Canadian Nature Federation. Ottawa. pp. 139-143. Bachmura, Frank T. 19 71. The Economics of Vanishing Species. Natural Resource Journal. 11(4): 674-692. Bailey, Carol. 1978. Environmental!sm, the Left and the Conserver Society. Conserver Society Notes. 1(2): 22. Baker, H.G. 1970. Taxonomy and the B i o l o g i c a l Species Concept i n Cultivate Plants. pp. 49-68. In Frankel, O.H., E. Bennett (eds.). Genetic Resources i n Plants. International B i o l o g i c a l Programme Handbook No. 11. Blackwell S c i e n t i f i c Pubs. Oxford. Baldwin, Deborah. 19 79. Look Who's Funding the Movement. Environmental Action. 11(4): 10. Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The Mammals of Canada. U. of T. Press. Toronto. Barrett-Lennard. 1862. Travels i n B r i t i s h Columbia. n.p. London. Beakhurst, Grahame. 1979. P o l i t i c a l Ecology. In Leiss, William, (ed.). Ecology Versus P o l i t i c s i n Canada. Univer-s i t y of Toronto Press. Toronto. pp. 2 0-33. 228 Bean, Michael J. 1977. The Endangered Species Act Under F i r e . National Parks Conservation Magazine. 51(6): 16-20. Beatty, K.M., H. Doerksen, J.C. Pierce. 1978. Water Resource P o l i t i c s and Interest Group Tac t i c s . Water Resources B u l l e t i n . 14(2): 394-403. Beebe, Frank L. nd. The Myth of the Vanishing Peregrine. Canadian Raptor Society. N. Surrey, B.C. Bendire, Charles. 1892. L i f e H i s t o r i e s of North American Birds. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e . Washington, D.C. Benirschke, Kurt. 1973. C e l l and Sperm Banks for the Zoological Parks. In Research i n Zoos and Aquariums: A Symposium. National Academy of Sciences. Washington, D.C. pp. 144-150. Bennett, Erna. 1970. Adaptation in Wild and Cultivated Plant Populations. pp. 115-129. In Frankel, O.H., and E. Bennett (eds.). Genetic Resources i n Plants. International Bio-l o g i c a l Programme Handbook No. 11. Blackwell S c i e n t i f i c Pubs. Oxford. Beuscher, Jacob H. 196 6. Some New Machinery to Help do the Job. In Henry J a r r e t t (ed.). Environmental Quality i n a Growing Economy. Resources for the Future Inc. Johns Hopkins Press. Baltimore. pp. 156-16 3. Bishop, Richard C. 1980. Endangered Species: An Economic Perspective. pp. 208-218. In Sabol, Kenneth (ed.). Transactions: 45th N.A. W i l d l i f e and Natural Resources Conf. Wildife Mgmt. I n s t i t . Washington, D.C. Bowman, James S. 1976. The Environmental Movement: An Assess-ment of Eco l o g i c a l P o l i t i c s . Environmental A f f a i r s . 5(4): 659-668. . 1977. Attitudes and Orientations of Environmentally Concerned C i t i z e n s . Environmental Conservation. 4(4): 259-269. _. 1977. Public Opinion and the Environment: Post Earth Day Attitudes Among College Students. Environment and Behaviour. 9(3): 385-397. B r i t i s h Columbia. 1974. Living Space: A Proposal for the Acquisit i o n and Management of C r i t i c a l W i l d l i f e Habitat. Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch. Dept. of Recreation and Conser-vation. V i c t o r i a . 229 B r i t i s h Columbia. 1977. A Review of the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch. Ministry of Recreation and Conservation. V i c t o r i a . . 1977. The Goals and Objectives of the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch: A Statement of Present and Future Objec-tives i n F i s h and W i l d l i f e Management. Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch. Ministry of Recreation and Conservation. V i c t o r i a . . 1978. Ec o l o g i c a l Reserves i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Ministry of Environment. V i c t o r i a . -. 1978. Planning Strategy. Land Management Branch. Ministry of Environment. V i c t o r i a . . 19 79. W i l d l i f e Management Plan. W i l d l i f e Review. VIII (9) : 3-15. . 19 79. W i l d l i f e Act. R.S. Chapter 433. V i c t o r i a . . 1980. Public Comment on the Proposed W i l d l i f e Management Plan for B.C. Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch. Ministry of Environment. V i c t o r i a . . 1981. Discussion Paper: A New W i l d l i f e Act. Ministry of Environment. V i c t o r i a . . nd. Securing Crown Land for Ecolo g i c a l Reserves. Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. V i c t o r i a . . nd. The Crown Land Fund. Ministry of Lands,. Parks and Housing. V i c t o r i a . . various. Press Releases - Ministry of Environment. V i c t o r i a . Brooks, A l l a n , Harry S. Swarth. 1925. A D i s t r i b u t i o n a l L i s t of the Birds of B r i t i s h Columbia. Cooper Orinothological Club. Berkeley, CA. Brooks, Lester. 1979. Reassessing Our Environmental Imperatives. Exxon, U.S.A. 18(2): 8. Bryan, Royce. 1973. Much i s Taken, Much Remains: Canadian Issues i n Environmental Conservation. Duxbury.Press. North Scituate, Mass. Bunnell, F.L., R.G. Williams. 1980. Subspecies and Dive r s i t y - The Spice of L i f e or Prophet of Doom. In Stace-Smith, R. et a l (eds.). Syposium on Threatened Species and Habitats i n B.C. and the Yukon. Ministry of Environment. V i c t o r i a , pp. 246-259. 230 Bunnell, F.L., R.G. Williams. 19 80. Threatened Species and Habitats - Why Bother? In Stace-Smith, R. et a l (eds.). Symposium on Threatened Species and Habitats i n B r i t i s h Columbia and the Yukon. Ministry of Environment. V i c t o r i a , pp. 260-281. Burch, Williams R. J r . 1976. Who P a r t i c i p a t e s : A Socio-l o g i c a l Interpretation of Natural Resource Decisions. Natural Resources Journal. 16(1): 41-54. Burton, I. 1971. The Social Role of Attitude and Perception Studies. In Sewell, W.R.D., I. Burton (eds.). 1971. Perceptions and Attitudes i n Resource Management. University of Toronto Press. Toronto. pp. 15-37. Bury, R.B., H.W. Campbell, N.J. Scott. 1980. Role and Impor-tance of Non-Game W i l d l i f e . In Sabol, Kenneth (ed.). Transactions of the 45th N.A. W i l d l i f e and Natural Resources Conference. W i l d l i f e Management I n s t i t u t e . Washington, D.C. pp. 197-207. Buttel, Frederick H., William L. F l i n n . 1978. The P o l i t i c s of Environmental Concern: The Impacts of Party I d e n t i f i -cation and P o l i t i c a l Ideology on Environmental Attitudes. Environment and Behaviour. 10(1): 17-36. . 1978 . So c i a l Class and Mass Environmental B e l i e f s : A Reconsideration. Environment and Behaviour. 10(3): 433-450. Caldwell, Lynton K. 19 74. Concepts i n Development of Inter-national Environmental P o l i c i e s . In Ludwick A. T e c l a f f , A.E. Utton (eds.). International Environmental Law. Praeger, New York. pp. 12-24. Callahan, R.Z. 1970. Geographic Variation i n Forest Trees, pp. 44-48. In Frankel, O.H., E. Bennett (eds.). Genetic Resources i n Plants. International B i o l o g i c a l Programme Handbook No. 11. Blackwell S c i e n t i f i c Pub. Oxford. C a l l i s o n , Charles H. 1977. Endangered Species and Habitats: The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations. In Mosquin, T., C. Suchal (eds.). Canada's Threatened Species and Habitats. Canadian Nature Federation. Ottawa. pp. 16 3-16 5. Cameron, J.F. 1972. Coordination of Information A c t i v i t i e s . Transactions: 36th Federal - P r o v i n c i a l W i l d l i f e Conference. Canadian W i l d l i f e Service. Ottawa. pp. 27-31. Campbell, Craig. 1976. Canada's Threatened Turtles. In Mosquin, T., C. Suchal (eds.). Canada's Threatened Species and Habitats. Canadian Nature Federation. Ottawa. pp. 132. 231 Canadian Gallup P o l l . Toronto. A p r i l 24, 197 6. re: Leader Responsiveness. A p r i l 8, 1978. re: Seal Hunt. March 26, 1980. re: P o l l u t i o n . October, 1980. re: Whales (Greenpeace). October 15, 19 80. re: Acid Rain. Caras, R.A. 1966. Last Chance on Earth. Chilton Books. New York. C a r l , G. C l i f f o r d . 1964. Vanishing Treasurers. W i l d l i f e Review. 111(3): 4-6. . 1966. The Amphibians of B.C. Handbook No. 2.. B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Museum. V i c t o r i a . . 1966. The Reptiles of B r i t i s h Columbia. Handbook No. 3. B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Museum. V i c t o r i a . Carter, R.E., D. Lasengy. 1977. Values and Ecology. A l t e r -natives. 6 (2): 39-44. Chamberlaine, Montague. 1887. A Catalogue of Canadian Birds. J. & A. McMillan. St. John, N.B. Chambers, A. 1976. An Approach to Multiple Use Problems i n Canada. In Man and the Boraal Forest. Proceedings, Regional Meeting Within Project 2 of M.A.B. Stockholm. October, 1975. CO. Tamm (ed.). E c o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n s / N.F.R. 21. pp. 47-52. Chanter, D., D.F. Owen. 1976. Nature Reserves: A Customer S a t i s f a c t i o n Index. Oikos. 27(1): 165-167. Cheadle, Walter. 1971. (re p r i n t ) . Cheadle 1s Journal of a Trip Across Canada, 1862-3. M.G. Hurtig. Edmonton. Clark, C.W. 1973. P r o f i t Maximization and Extinction of Animal Species. Journal of P o l i t i c a l Economy. 81:950-955. Clark, C e c i l . 1964. Lots More Where They Came From. W i l d l i f e Review. I l l ( 8 ) : 4-7. Clark, Tim. 1978. Losing the Ferret. Defenders. 53(5): 245. Clarke, Arthur H. 197 6. The Endangered Molluscs of Canada. In Mosquin, T., C. Suchal (eds.). Threatened Species and Habitats. Canadian Nature Federation. Ottawa. pp. 148-151. Clarke, Bryan. 1975. The Causes of B i o l o g i c a l D i v e r s i t y . S c i e n t i f i c American. 233(2): 217-223. 232 Clary, B.C., C.E. Roe, E. Swearington. 1977. Environmental P r i o r i t i e s of Opinion-Makers. Environmental A f f a i r s . 6(1): 33-62. Clausen, J . , D.D. Keck, W.M. Hiesey. 1947. Heredity of Geographically and E c o l o g i c a l l y Isolated Races. In Jameson, D.L. Genetics of Speciation. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross. pp. 43-62. Coleman, James S. 1979. Future Directions for Work i n Public Choice. In C l i f f o r d S. Russell (ed.). C o l l e c t i v e Decision Making: Applications From Public Choice Theory. Johns Hopkins U. Press. Baltimore. pp. 287-290. Colinvaux, C o l i n . 1978. Why Big Fierce Animals are Rare: An Ecologist's Perspective. Princeton U. Press. Princeton. C o l l i n s , P. 1975. Conserving Genetic Resources. Nature (London). 258: 184-185. Conacher, A.J. 1978. Resources and Environmental Management: Fundamental Concepts and D e f i n i t i o n s . Search. 9(12): 437. Conway, William G. 1977. Breeding Endangered Birds i n Capt i v i t y : The Last Resort. In Temple, Stanley (ed.). Endangered Birds: Management Techniques for Preserving Threatened Species. U. of Wisconsin Press. Madison, pp. 225-230. Cook, Francis R. 1976. Review of the Canadian Herpetological Scene. In Mosquin, T. C. Suchal (eds.). Canada's Threatened Species and Habitats. Canadian Nature Federation. Ottawa. pp. 117-121. . 1981. Checklist of Amphibians and Reptiles of Canada. Canadian Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Society Newsletter. 18: 2-6. Corbin, Kendall W. 1977. Genetic Dive r s i t y i n Avian Popu-l a t i o n s . In Temple, Stanley (ed.). Endangered Birds: Management Techniques for Preserving Threatened Species. U. of Wisconsin Press. Madison. pp. 291-302. Council on Environmental. Quality (C.E.Q.). 1975. Sixth Annual Report. U.S. Government Pr i n t i n g O f f i c e . Washington. Cowan, I. McT., G.C. Guiget. 1965. Mammals of B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Museum. V i c t o r i a . 233 Cowan, I. MoT. 1968. Wilderness - Concept, Function and Management. The Horace M. Albright Conservation Lecture-ship VIII. U. of Cal. School of Forestry and Conservation. Berkeley, CA. Curry - Lindahl, Kai. 1978. Background and Development of the International Conservation Organizations and Their Role i n the Future. Environmental Conservation. 5 ( 3 ) : 163-169. . 1980. Zoogeographic Subregions of the P a c i f i c Realm as a Background for T e r r e s t r i a l E c o l o g i c a l Reserves: Part 1 General Introduction and Northern and Western P a c i f i c Regions. Environmental Conservation. 7 ( 1 ) : 67-76. Cutler, M. Rupert. 1978. New Help for the Environment From 'The People's Department'. Catalyst for Environmental Quality. 6 ( 3 ) : 9. Dagg, Anne Innis. 1974. Canadian W i l d l i f e and Man. McClelland and Stewart. Toronto. Dales, J.H. 1968. P o l l u t i o n Property and Prices. U. of T. Press. Toronto. DeLong, Edward K. 1979. Environmentalism i n Our Age. Ecolibrium. 8 ( 1 ) : 17. Demarchi, R.A. 1977. Canada's Mountain Sheep - Their Present Status and Future Prospects. In Mosquin, T., C. Suchal (eds.). Canada's Threatened Species and Habitats. Canadian Nature Federation. Ottawa. pp. 157-160. Denniston, Carter. 1977. Small Population Size and Genetic Di v e r s i t y : Implications for Endangered Species. In Temple, Stanley (ed.). Endangered Birds: Management Tech-niques for Preserving Threatened Species. U. of Wisconsin Press. Madison. pp. 281-289. DeYoung, Henry G. 1973. The Bison i s Beleagured Again. Natural History. 8 2 ( 5 ) : 48-55. Diamond, Jared M., Robert M. May. 1976. Island Biogeography and the Design of Nature Reserves. In May, Robert M. (ed.). Theoretical Ecology: P r i n c i p l e s and Applications. Blackwell Pub. Oxford. pp. 163-186. Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetic Nature of Species Differences. In Jameson, D.L. Genetics of Speciation. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross. London. pp. 130-146. 234 D o u g l a s , W.O. 1972. T h r e e H u n d r e d Y e a r War: A C h r o n i c a l o f E c o l o g i c a l D i s a s t e r . Randon H o u s e . New Y o r k . Downs, A n t h o n y . 1967. I n s i d e B u r e a u c r a c y . L i t t l e , B rown a nd Co. B o s t o n . E c k h o l m , E r i c . 1 978. D i s a p p e a r i n g S p e c i e s : The S o c i a l C h a l l e n g e . W o r l d W a t c h P a p e r 22. W o r l d W a t c h I n s t i t u t e . W a s h i n g t o n , D.C. E h r e n f e l d , D a v i d W. 1972. C o n s e r v i n g L i f e on E a r t h . O x f o r d U. P r e s s . New Y o r k . . 1976. The C o n s e r v a t i o n o f Non-Resources.. A m e r i c a n S c i e n t i s t . . 64: 648-656. . 1978. The A r r o g a n c e o f Humanism. O x f o r d U. P r e s s . New Y o r k . E i d s v i k , H.K. 1976. M e e t i n g t h e Needs o f t h e F u t u r e - The R o l e o f P a r k s . I n M o s q u i n , T., C. S u c h a l ( e d s . ) . C a n a d a ' s T h r e a t e n e d S p e c i e s a n d H a b i t a t s . C a n a d i a n N a t u r e F e d e r a t i o n . O t t a w a . p p . 175- 1 7 6 . E n d a n g e r e d S p e c i e s T e c h n i c a l B u l l e t i n . v a r i o u s d a t e s . U.S. D e p a r t m e n t o f t h e I n t e r i o r . E n d a n g e r e d S p e c i e s B r a n c h . F a n n i n , J o h n . 1 8 9 1. C h e c k L i s t o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a B i r d s . Queen's P r i n t e r . V i c t o r i a . F a r r , A . C M . , F . L . B u n n e l l . 1 980. The S e a O t t e r i n B.C. I n S t a c e - S m i t h , R. e t a l ( e d s . ) . Symposium on T h r e a t e n e d S p e c i e s a n d H a b i t a t s i n B.C. a n d t h e Y u k o n . M i n i s t r y o f E n v i r o n m e n t . V i c t o r i a . p p . 1 1 0 - 1 2 8 . F e r n a n d o , V., M. Pugh Thomas. 1978. An A s s e s s m e n t o f t h e E c o l o g i c a l I m p l i c a t i o n s o f New V a r i e t i e s o f S e e d s . I n t e r -n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l S t u d i e s . 1 2 ( 4 ) : 2 8 9 - 2 9 3 . F i o r i n a , M o r r i s P. 1979. Comments o n : P u b l i c C h o i c e i n P r a c t i c e . (G. T u l l o c k ) . I n R u s s e l l , C l i f f o r d S. ( e d . ) . C o l l e c t i v e D e c i s i o n M a k i n g : A p p l i c a t i o n s From P u b l i c C h o i c e T h e o r y . J o h n s H o p k i n s U. P r e s s . B a l t i m o r e . p p . 4 6 - 5 1 . F i s h e r , J . , N. S i m o n , J . V i n c e n t . 1 9 6 9 . W i l d l i f e i n D a n g e r . V i k i n g P r e s s . New Y o r k . F o s t e r , B. 1973. Human A t t i t u d e s a r e C h a n g i n g . W i l d l i f e . R e v i e w . V I ( 1 0 ) : 2 2 - 2 3 . . 1 9 76. E c o l o g i c a l R e s e r v e s i n C a n a d a . I n M o s q u i n , T., C. S u c h a l ( e d s . ) . C a n a d a ' s T h r e a t e n e d S p e c i e s a n d H a b i t a t s . C a n a d i a n N a t u r e F e d e r a t i o n . O t t a w a . p p . 1 6 1 - 1 6 3 . 235 Foster, B. 1980. The Role of Ecological Reserves i n Canada. In Mosquin, T., C. Suchal (eds.). Canada's Threatened Species and Habitats. Canadian Nature Federation. Ottawa, pp. 161-163. Foster, Janet. 1978. Working for W i l d l i f e : The Beginning of Preservation i n Canada. U. of T. Press. Toronto. Francis, G.R. 1976. Summary Observations of Canadian Reptiles and Amphibians. In Mosquin, T., C. Suchal (eds.). • Canada's Threatened Species and Habitats. Canadian Nature Federation. Ottawa. pp. 133-135. Frankel, O.H., E. Bennett. 1970. Genetic Resources i n Plants. I.B.P. Handbook No. 11. Blackwell S c i e n t i f i c Pub. Oxford. Frankel, O.H. 1970. Genetic Conservation i n Perspective. In 0. H. Frankel, E. Bennett. Genetic Resources i n Plants. 1. B.P. Handbook No. 11. Blackwell S c i e n t i f i c Pub. Oxford, pp. 469-489. Freudenthal, David D. 19 79. Environmental Law — A Threat to Private Use of the Public Domain. Land and Water Law Review. 14(1): 105-115. Gardner, J.E., J.G. Nelson. 1980. Comparing National Park and Related Reserve Policy i n Hinterland Areas: Alaska, Northern Canada and Northern A u s t r a l i a . Environmental Conservation. 7(1): 43-50. Garrett, Tom. 1973. Vanishing Point: The P r a i r i e Dog. Environmental Quality. 4(5): 28-34. Gary, Gary G. 1979. Urban Conservation Leadership and the W i l d l i f e Resource. Urban Ecology. 4(1):1. Gelbach, F.R. 1975. Investigation, Evaluation and P r i o r i t y Ranking of Natural Areas. B i o l o g i c a l Conservation. 8: 79-88. Gibson, D. 1973. Constitutional J u r i s d i c t i o n Over Environmental Management i n Canada. University of Toronto Law Journal. 23(54): 65-66. Glynn, C a r r o l l J ., Albert R. Tim. 1980. Environmental and Natural Resource Issues - Press Sensationalism. In Sabol, Kenneth (ed.). Transactions: 45th North Amercian W i l d l i f e and Natural Resources Conference. Washington, D.C. pp. 99-110. 236 Godfrey, W. E a r l . 19 66. The Birds of Canada. Queen's Pri n t e r . Ottawa. Goodwin, Cl i v e E. 19 76. Rare and Threatened Birds in Canada. In Mosquin, Theodore, and Cecile Suchal (eds.). Canada's Threatened Species and Habitats. Ottawa: Canadian Nature Federation. Ottawa. pp. 85-87. Gould, Stephen Jay. 1976. Palaeontology Plus Ecology as Palaeobiology. In May, Robert M. (ed.). Theoretical Ecology: P r i n c i p l e s and Applications. Blackwell S c i e n t i f i c Publications. Oxford. pp. 218-236. Government of B.C. 1907. Handbook of B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada. Bureau of P r o v i n c i a l Information. V i c t o r i a . Graul, Walter D., John Torres, Richard Denney. 1976. A Species-Ecosystem Approach for Non-Game Programs. W i l d l i f e Society B u l l e t i n . 4(2): 79-80. Gregory, Patrick T. 1976. Rare and Threatened Snake Species i n Canada. In Mosquin, Theodore, and Cecile Suchal (eds.). Canada's Threatened Species and Habitats. Ottawa: Canadian Nature Federation. Ottawa. pp. 122-126. Gum, R.L., T.G. Roefs, D.B. Kimball. 1976. Quantifying So c i e t a l Goals: Development of a Weighting Methodology. Water Resources Branch. 12(4): 617-633. Haefele, Edwin T. 1979. P o l i t i c a l Applications of S o c i a l Choice Theory. In C l i f f o r d S. Russell (ed.). C o l l e c t i v e Decision Making: Applications From Public Choice Theory. Johns Hopkins U. Press. Baltimore. pp. 283-286. Hahn, Paul. 1963. Where i s that Vanished Bird: An Index to the Known Specimens of Extinct and Near Extinct North American Species. Royal Ontario Museum. Toronto. Hardin, Russell. 1979. Comments: National Environmental Lobbies (R.C. M i t c h e l l ) . In C l i f f o r d S. Russell (ed.). C o l l e c t i v e Decision Making: Applications From Public Choice Theory. Johns Hopkins U. Press. Baltimore. pp. 122-129. Hargrove, John Lawrence. 1972. Law, I n s t i t u t i o n s and the Global Environment. Oceana Publications. Dobbs' Ferry, New York. 237 Harlan, J.R. 1976. Evolution of Cultivated Plants. In Frankel, O.H. and E. Bennett (eds.). Genetic Resources i n Plants - Their Exploration and Conservation. International B i o l o g i c a l Programme Handbook No. 11. Blackwell S c i e n t i f i c Publications. Oxford. pp. 19-32. Harmon, Daniel Williams. 1820. A Journal of Voyages and Travels i n the Interior of North America. Flagg and Gould. Andover. Harris, Douglas H. 1977. The Human Dimensions of Water Resources Planning. Human Factors. 19(3): 241-256. Harris, Marvin. 1977. Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of Culture. Random House. New York. Haskell, William S. 1914. Protection of Migratory Birds. Commission of Conservation. Ottawa. Hatter, James. 19 76. Meeting the Needs of the Future: A Pr o v i n c i a l Perspective on Threatened Species and Habitats. In Mosquin, Theodore, and Cecile Suchal (eds.). 1977. Canada's Threatened Species and Habitats. Canadian Nature Federation. Ottawa. pp. 177-178. Hay, Colin G. 19 78. Science, Environmental!sm and the Public. Science. 9(11): 407-417. H a z l i t t , William Carew. 1858. B r i t i s h Columbia and Vancouver Island. G. Routledge and Co. London. Henslow, J . 19 76. Near the End of the Butterly B a l l . F i e l d . 24(6427): 566-567. Hooker, C.A., R. van Hulst. 1979. The Meaning of Environmental Problems for Public P o l i t i c a l I n s t i t u t i o n s . In Lei s s , William (ed.). Ecology Versus P o l i t i c s i n Canada. Univer-s i t y of Toronto Press. Toronto. pp. 130-163. . H. R.H. Prince of Netherlands. 1976. Plants and the Future of Man. Environmental Conservation. 3(1): 23-26. Hudson, Dale A. 1979. Sie r r a Club V. Department of the Int e r i o r : The Fight to Preserve the Redwood National Park. Ecology Law Quarterly. 7(3): 781-793. I. U.C.N. 1973. Saving Endangered W i l d l i f e . I.U.C.N. B u l l e t i n . 4(6): 21. _ . 1980. Red Data Book. I.U.C.N. Norges. 238 I.U.C.N. 19 80. Executive Summary 17: A Global Programme for the Protection of Genetic Resource Areas. World Conser-vation Strategy. I.U.C.N. Norges. Jackson, R.J., M.M. Atkinson. 1980. The Canadian L e g i s l a t i v e System: P o l i t i c i a n s and Policy-making. Macmillan of Canada. Toronto. Jameson, D.L. 1973. Genetics of Speciation. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross. Stroudsburg. Keith, J.A. 19 76. Meeting the Needs of the Future: A Future W i l d l i f e Perspective. In Mosquin, Theodore, and Cecile Suchal (eds.). 1977. Canada's Threatened Species and Habitats. Canadian Nature Federation. Ottawa. pp. 173-174. K e l l e r t , Stephen R. 1979. Public Attitudes Toward C r i t i c a l W i l d l i f e and Natural Habitat Issues - Part I. Prepared for Fish and W i l d l i f e Service, Department of I n t e r i o r , National Technical Information Service. S p r i n g f i e l d , V i r g i n i a . . 1980. American's Attitudes and Knowledge of Animals. In Sabol, Kenneth (ed.). Transactions of the 45th North American W i l d l i f e and Natural Resources Conference. W i l d l i f e Management I n s t i t u t e . Washington, D.C. pp. 111-124. Kieschnick, M. 1978. Labour vs. Environmentalists: Where i s the C o n f l i c t ? Working Papers. 6(4): 20-35. King, Warren B. 19 77. Endangered Birds of the World and Current E f f o r t s Toward Managing Them. In Temple, Stanley (ed.). 1977. Proceedings of the Symposium on Management Techniques for Preserving Threatened Species. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison. pp. 9-17. King, W. Ross. 1866. The Sportsman and N a t u r a l i s t i n Canada. Hurst and Blackett. London. Krag, K. 19 75. A Survey of Native Rights as They Relate to Fish and W i l d l i f e Protection in B.C. B.C. Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch. Department of Recreation and Conservation. V i c t o r i a . Krajina, V.J.., J.B. Foster, J . Pojar, T. Carson. 1978. Ecolo-g i c a l Reserves i n B.C. E c o l o g i c a l Reserves Unit. Ministry of Environment. V i c t o r i a . Lamb, W. Kaye (ed.). 1960. The Letters and Journals of Simon Fraser 1806-8. Pioneer Books. Toronto. 239 Lang, Reg. 1979. Environmental Impact. In Leiss, W. (ed.). Ecology vs. P o l i t i c s in Canada. U. of T. Press. Toronto, ppl 233-255. p Laycock, George. 1969. /America's Endangered W i l d l i f e . W.W. Norton and Co. Ltd. New York. Leach, Barry. 1981. Living With W i l d l i f e . B.C. Outdoors. 37 (1) : 20-23. Lei s s , William. 1979. P o l i t i c a l Aspects of Environmental Issues. In Leiss, William (ed.). Ecology Versus P o l i t i c s in Canada. University of Toronto Press. Toronto. pp. 256-279. Lemieux, G i l l e s . 1976. Quebec Ecolog i c a l Reserves Programme. In.Mosquin, Theodore, and Cecile Suchal (eds.). Canada's Threatened Species and Habitats. Ottawa: Canadian Nature Federation. pp. 168-170. Lemon, James. 1976. Environment, Resident's Groups and P o l i t i c a l Parties. Alternatives. 5(3/4): 31-35. Lindblom, Charles E. 19 65. The Intelligence of Democracy. The Free Press. New York. Logier, E.B.S., G.C. Toner. 1961. Checklist of the Amphibians and Reptiles in Canada and Alaska. Toronto. R.O.M. Con-t r i b u t i o n No. 53. Long, Norton E. 1966. New Tasks for a l l Levels of Government. In Henry J a r r e t t (ed.). Environmental Quality i n a Growing Economy. Resources for the Future Inc. Johns Hopkins Press. Baltimore. pp. 141-155. Lord, John Keast. 1866. The N a t u r a l i s t i n Vancouver Island .and B r i t i s h Columbia. Richard Bentley. London. Loughrey, A.G. 1978. Report of Canadian W i l d l i f e Service. Transactions: 42nd. F/P W i l d l i f e Conference, Environment Canada. Ottawa. pp. 43-52. Lovejoy, Thomas. 1976. We Must Decide Which Species w i l l go Forever. Smithsonian. 7(4): 52-58. . 1977. Genetic Aspects of Dwindling Populations: A Review. In Temple, Stanley A. (ed.). Proceedings of the Symposium on Management Techniques for Preserving Threatened Species. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison. pp. 275-279. 240 Lowenthal, David. 19 66. Assumptions Behind the Public A t t i -tudes. In J a r r e t t , Henry (ed.). Environmental Quality i n a Growing Economy. Resources for the Future Inc. Johns Hopkins Press. Baltimore, Md. pp. 128-137. Macoun, John, James M. Macoun. 1909. Catalogue of Canadian Birds. Department of Mines. Government Prin t i n g Bureau. Ottawa. Marshall, David B. 1977. The Recovery Plan Approach to Endangered Species Restoration i n the United States. In Temple, Stanley A. (ed.).. Proceedings of the Symposium on Management Techniques for Preserving Threatened Species. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison. pp. 429-434. Martin, P.S. 1973. The Discovery of America. Science. 179: 969-971. Mayne, R.C. (Commander). 1862. Four Years i n B r i t i s h Columbia and Vancouver Island. John Murray. London. Menzel, Donald C., David G. Williams. 1978. Speculative Policy Making i n the Environmental Arena. Water Resources. 1 4 ( 2 ) : 374-386. M i l l e r , Alan S. 19 80. Towards an Environmental/Labour C o a l i t i o n . Environment. 2 2 ( 5 ) : 32-39. M i l l e r , M.D. 1980. Vancouver Island Marmot. In Stace-Smith, R. et a l (eds.). Threatened and Endangered Species and Habitats i n B.C. and the Yukon. Ministry of Environment. V i c t o r i a . pp. 106-109. M i l l e r , Richard S. 19 80. Book Review: The Sinking Ark: A New Look at the Problem of Disappearing Species - Norman . Myers. Environmental Management. 4 ( 4 ) : 347-349. M i t c h e l l , Robert Cameron. 1979. National Environmental Lobbies and the Apparent I l l o g i c of C o l l e c t i v e Action. In Russell, C l i f f o r d S. (ed.). C o l l e c t i v e Decision Making: Applications From Public Choice Theory. Johns Hopkins U. Press. Baltimore. pp. 87-121. Morrison, Denton E. 1979. U p h i l l and Downhill Battles and Contributions to C o l l e c t i v e Action. In Russell, C l i f f o r d S. (ed.). C o l l e c t i v e Decision Making: Applications From Public Choice Theory. Johns Hopkins U. Press. Baltimore, pp. 52-58. 241 Mueller, Dennis C. 1979. Comments on: Public Choice i n Practice (G. Tullock). In Russell, C l i f f o r d S. (ed.). C o l l e c t i v e Decision Making: Applications From Public Choice Theory. Johns Hopkins U. Press. Baltimore, pp. 52-58. Munro, J.A., I. McTaggart Cowan. 1947. A Review of Bird Fauna i n B.C. B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Museum. Spec. Pub. No. 2. V i c t o r i a . Murray, A l l a n . 19 72. Bringing the Public into W i l d l i f e Manage-ment. Transactions: 36th Federal-Provincial W i l d l i f e Conference. Canadian W i l d l i f e Service. Ottawa. pp. 50-56. Myers, Norman. 1979. The Sinking Ark: A New Look at the Problem of Disappearing Species. Pergammon Press. Oxford. . 1980. The Sinking Ark. Harrowsmith. (3): 31-41. Nisbet, Ian C.T. 1977. Concluding Remarks on the Problems of Managing Endangered Birds. In Temple, Stanley A. (ed.). Proceedings of the Symposium on Management Techniques for Preserving Threatened Species. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison. pp. 447-451. Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of C o l l e c t i v e Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Harvard U. Press. Cambridge. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1973. Response: An Opinion Survey on the Use, Ownership and Management of Natural Resources. Queen's Pri n t e r . Toronto. Opler, P.O. 1980. A Parade of Passing Species. Oregon W i l d l i f e . 35: 8-9. O'Riordan, Timothy. 197 6. Policy Making and Environmental Management: Some Thoughts on Processes and Research Issues. Natural Resources Journal. 16(1): 55-67. Parsons, Harry. 19 76. Foul and Loathsome Creatures. Indian and Northern A f f a i r s . Parks Canada. Department of Supply and Services. Ottawa. Pearse, Theed. 1968. Birds of the Early Explorers.in the North P a c i f i c . "The Close". Comox, B.C. Pethick, Derek. 1976. F i r s t Approaches to the Northwest Coast. Douglas and Mclntyre. Vancouver. 242 Pinder, N.J., J.P. Barkham. 1978. An Assessment of the Contribution of Captive Breeding to the Conservation of Rare Mammals. B i o l o g i c a l Conservation. 13(3): 187-245. Plourde, Charles. 19 75. Conservation of Extinguishable Species. Natural Resources Journal. 15(4): 791-797. Post, Thomas R., Ronald B. Ravikoff. 19 78. Organizational Support to Fund Environmental L i t i g a t i o n . Environmental A f f a i r s . 6(4): 457. Presthus, Robert. 1973. E l i t e Accommodation i n Canadian P o l i t i c s . Macmillan of Canada. Toronto. Raine, Walter. 1892. Bird Nesting i n Northwest Canada. Hunter, Rose and Co. Toronto. R a t c l i f f e , D.A. 1976. Thoughts Towards a Philosophy of Nature Conservation. B i o l o g i c a l Conservation. 9(1): 45-53. Rattray, Alexander. 1862. Vancouver Island and B r i t i s h Columbia. Smith, Elder and Co. London. Ray, G. Charlton, James A. Dobbin, R.V. Salm. 1978. Strategies for Protecting Marine Mammal Habitats. Oceanus. 21(2): 55-67. Reed, Chester A. 1906. Bird Guide: Water Birds, Game Birds, and Birds of Prey. Doubleday, Page and Co. Garden City, N.Y. Regenstein, Lewis. 1975. The P o l i t i c s of Extinction:' The Shocking Story of Endangered W i l d l i f e . Macmillan. New York. Reisner, Marc. 1978. What are Species Good For? Frontiers. 42(4): 24-31. R i t t e l , Horst W.J., Melvin W. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Po l i c y Science. 4: 155-169. Robinson, W. 19 80. The Greater Sandhill Crane. In Stace-Smith, R. et a l (eds.). Threatened and Endangered Species and Habitats i n B r i t i s h Columbia and the Yukon. Ministry of Environment. V i c t o r i a . pp. 183-188. Rogers, (Sir) John. 1912. Sport i n Vancouver Island and Newfoundland. Chapman and H a l l Ltd. London. Rogers, Stephen. 19 80. Opening Address. In Stace-Smith, R. et a l . Threatened and Endangered Species and Habitats i n B.C. and the Yukon. Ministry of Environment. V i c t o r i a , pp. iv-v. 243 Russell, C l i f f o r d S. 1969. Losses From Natural Hazards. Working Paper No. 10. Department of Geography. Natural Hazard Research. U. of Chicago. Chicago. . 1979. Applications of Public Choice Theory: An Introduction. In Russell, C l i f f o r d S. (ed.). C o l l e c t i v e Decision Making: Applications From Public Choice Theory. Johns Hopkins U. Press. Baltimore. pp. 1-26. Scheffer, B. 1976. The Future of W i l d l i f e Management. W i l d l i f e Society B u l l e t i n . 4(2): 51-54. Sc h i f f , Myra R. 19 71. The D e f i n i t i o n of Perceptions and Attitudes. In Sewell, W.R.D., I. Burton (eds.). 1971. Perceptions and Attitudes i n Resource Management. Univer-s i t y of Toronto Press. Toronto. pp. 12-25. Schreiner, Keith M. 1979. Looking Back Over My Shoulder. Endangered Species Technical B u l l e t i n . IV(2): 5-7. Seal, U.S., D.G. Makey. 1973. Computer Usage for Total Animal and Endangered Species Inventory Systems: A Spe c i f i c Proposal. In Research i n Zoos and Aquariums: A Symposium Held at the 49th Conference of the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. National Academy of Sciences. Washington, D.C. pp. 78-188. Sewell, W.R.D., T. O'Riordan. 1976. The Culture of P a r t i c i -pation i n Environmental Decision-making. Natural Resources Journal. 16(1): 1-22. Shaw, L., F. Reuben. 1973. Constitutional Legal Underpinning of Department of Environment's Role i n Resource and Environmental Management i n Canada. Queen's Pri n t e r . Ottawa. Shea, Kevin P. 1973. The Bison's Woe. Environment. 15(6): 34-39. Simon, Herbert A. 1957. Administrative Behaviour. Macmillan and Co. New York. S l a t i s , Herman J. 1975. The Genetics of Inbreeding. In Research i n Zoos and Aquariums: A Symposium Held at the 49th Conference of the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. National Academy of Sciences. Washington, D.C. pp. 137-143. Small, H. Beaumont. 1864. The Animals of North America Series 1: Mammalia. John L o v e l l . Montreal. 244 S t e r l i n g , D. 1974. Endangered i n B.C. Oryx. XII(5): 540. Stewart, D. 1974. Canadian Endangered Species. Gage Pub-l i s h i n g Co. Toronto. . 1978. From the Edge of Extinction: The Fight to Save a Species. McClelland and Stewart. Toronto. Stewart, Richard B. 1979. The Resource A l l o c a t i o n Role of Reviewing Courts: Common Law Functions i n a Regulatory Era. In Russell, C l i f f o r d S. (ed.). C o l l e c t i v e Decision Making: Applications From Public Choice Theory. Johns Hopkins U. Press. Baltimore. pp. 2 05-229. Taylor, Mark E. 19 79. Ecology and Governments in Canada. In Leiss, W. (ed.). Ecology Versus P o l i t i c s i n Canada. University of Toronto Press. Toronto. pp. 3-19. T e c l a f f , Ludwik A. 1974. The Impact of Environmental Concern on the Development of International Law. In T e c l a f f , Ludwik A.., Albert E. Utton. 1974. International Environ-mental Law. Praegar. New York. Temple, Stanley A. 19 77. The Concept of Managing Endangered Birds. pp. 3-9. In Temple, Stanley A. (ed.). Endangered Birds: Management Techniques for Preserving Threatened Species. U. of Wisconsin Press. Madison. Thompson, A.R., H.R. Eddy. 1973. J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Problems i n Natural Resource Management i n Canada. In Essays on Aspects of Resources Policy. Background Study for Science Council of Canada #27. Southam Murray. Toronto. pp. 67-91. Thompson, Andrew R. 1973. Landowner - W i l d l i f e Relationship: A Preliminary Legal Study. In Transactions of 37th Federal-Provincial W i l d l i f e Conference. Environment Canada. Ottawa. pp. 36-50. . 1974. Land, Law and W i l d l i f e . Parts I and I I . A Legal Study of Landowner - W i l d l i f e Relationships and Rights and Property i n W i l d l i f e . Canadian W i l d l i f e Service. Ottawa. Tullock, Gordon. 19 79. Public Choice i n Practice. In Russell, C l i f f o r d S. (ed.). C o l l e c t i v e Decision Making: App l i -cations From Public Choice Theory. Johns Hopkins U. Press. Baltimore. pp. 27-45. 245 U.N.E.S.C.O. 1973. Conservation of Natural Areas and of the Genetic Material They Contain. Expert Panels on Project 8. Programme on Man and the Biosphere (M.A.B.). Report No. 12. Morges. Vi c t o r , Peter A. 1979. Economics and the Challenge of Environmental Issues. In Leiss, W. (ed.). Ecology Versus P o l i t i c s in Canada. University of Toronto Press. Toronto. pp. 3 4-5 6. Vida, Gabor. 1978. Genetic Div e r s i t y and Environmental Future. Environmental Conservation. 5(2): 127-132. Weller, Brian. 1979. Endangered Species Conservation i n Ontario. Directions for Improvement. Master's Thesis. School of Community and Regional Planning. University of Waterloo. Wengert, Norman. 1976. C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n : Practice i n Search of a Theory. Natural Resources Journal. 16(1): 23-40. White, G i l b e r t F. 1966. Formation and Role of Public A t t i -tudes. In J a r r e t t , Henry (ed.). Environmental Quality i n a Growing Economy. Johns Hopkins Press. Baltimore, Md. pp. 105-127. W i l l i a m s , A. Bryan. 1912. Fauna: Game Resources of the Province. In Boam, Henry J. (ed.). B r i t i s h Columbia: Its History, People, Commerce, Industries and Resources. B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Government. Gresham Press. London. pp. 152-155. Wright, S. 1940. Breeding Structure of Populations i n Relationship to Speciation. In Jameson, D.L. (ed.). Genetics of Speciation.. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, pp.26-42. Woodrow, R. Brian. 1980. Resources and Environmental Policy Making at the National Level - The Search for Focus. In Divendi, O.P. (ed.). Resources and Environment: Policy Perspectives i n Canada. McClelland and Stewart. Toronto, pp. 23-48. Ziswiler, Vinzenz. 1967. Extinct and Vanishing Animals: A Biology of Extinction and Survival. Revised English Ed. by Fred and P i l l e Bunnell. Springer - Verlag. New York. 246 Zohary, Daniel. 1970. Centres of Di v e r s i t y and Centres of Origin. In Frankel, O.H., E. Bennett (eds.). Genetic Resources i n Plants - Their Exploration and Conservation. International B i o l o g i c a l Programme Handbook No. 11. Blackwell S c i e n t i f i c Pubs. Oxford. pp. 33-42. 247 APPENDIX 1: Personal Interviews Completed John Dick . . . . Ministry of Environment . . . August, 1981 Chris Dodd. . . . Fish and W i l d l i f e ( V i c t o r i a ) . August, 19 81 Darryl Hiebert. . Fish and W i l d l i f e (Nanaimo) . August, 1981 Greg Jones. . . . Parks Branch (Victoria) . . . August, 1981 Herb Langin . . . Fish and W i l d l i f e (Nanaimo) . August, 1981 Lynn Milne. . . . Ecologic a l Reserves Unit. . . August, 1981 B i l l Munro. . . . Fish and W i l d l i f e ( V i c t o r i a ) . August, 1981 Rod S i l v e r . . . . Fish and W i l d l i f e ( V i c t o r i a ) . August, 1981 Bud Smith . . . . Fish and W i l d l i f e (Nanaimo) . August, 1981 Robert Skelley. . August, 1981 Paul A i r d . . . Wayne Harling . Monte •Hummell . David Routledge December, 19 80 August, 1981 U. of Toronto (Forestry). . Nanaimo Fish and Game Club. World W i l d l i f e Fund (Canada). December, 1980 Van. Is. Marmot Pres. Comm. . August, 19 81 Michael Singleton Federation of Ontario Nats. . December, 19 80 Don Blood . . . . Consultant (Former F&W) . Dave Dunbar . . . U.B.C. (Graduate Student) August, 19 81 August, 1981 248 APPENDIX 2: Semantics and P o l i t i c s of Declining Species The B.C. W i l d l i f e Act R.S. Chapter 433 (1979) empowers the Lieutenant Governor i n Council to designate c e r t a i n species of w i l d l i f e as "rare and endangered" (s. 78 dd) . "Rare and endan-gered" i s the only term available to o f f i c i a l l y designate the endangered species of B r i t i s h Columbia. Looking beyond the c i r -cular d e f i n i t i o n of the W i l d l i f e Act to a companion document (The Preliminary P l a n for the Designation of Threatened and Endangered Species), one finds that "rare and endangered" species means: "populations (of a l l species and some subspecies) immediately facing extinction in B r i t i s h Columbia and requiring s p e c i a l p rotective and enhancement measures or both to ensure t h e i r s u r v i v a l " (Ministry of Environment, 1979, p. 40). Apart from the b i o l o g i c a l r e a l i t i e s of declines i n the population size and/or the size and qu a l i t y of habitat, much of which i s unknown for endangered species (Hiebert, Singleton, pers. comm.), both semantics and p o l i t i c s a f f e c t the d e f i n i t i o n and enumeration of endangered species. 1) Semantics The determination of which species are declining, although some c r i t e r i a are employed (ie . loss of habitat, declining reproductive success, declining population levels) i s highly subjective. This i s the consequence of inadequate information about the species and l i t e r a r y licence among popular authors. Having made the determination that the species i s experiencing 249 a decline, i t s status i s c l a s s i f i e d as endangered, threatened, rare, or indeterminate/vulnerable. Frequently, a species w i l l be classed as in varying states of decline according to several au t h o r i t i e s . 2) P o l i t i c s L i s t s of endangered species have been prepared by govern-ment agencies, and non-government organizations at the i n t e r -national, national and p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l s , as well as by private i n d i v i d u a l s . The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (I.U.C.N.) enumerates endangered species i n an i n t e r -national context; the Committee on the Status of Endangered W i l d l i f e i n Canada (e.O.S.E.W.I.C), the Canadian W i l d l i f e Service and Canadian W i l d l i f e Federation use a national context; and the B.C. Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch focus on the endangered species within the Province. As a consequence, the more junior j u r i s d i c t i o n s tend to be myopic in t h e i r recognition of endangered species. Although given some consideration, the designation of endangered species by the B.C. government i s largely independent of the species status i n other provinces and senior j u r i s d i c t i o n s . This means that no special status necessarily accrues to species which occur i n B.C. and which are endangered or extirpated i n other parts of t h e i r range, or which are e n t i r e l y contained within the province. Conversely, species designated as endangered i n B.C. may be present and 250 numerous in other j u r i s d i c t i o n s . Further, the B.C. policy for designation of endangered species e x p l i c i t l y precludes con-sideration of declines i n any subspecies, race or l o c a l population of a species unless t h i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t s the species' status at the p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l . Understandably, there i s considerable confusion when the one authority describes the Northern K i t Fox (Vulpes velox hebes) as extirpated (I.U.C.N. Red Data Book, 1980), while another claims i t i s endangered (Canadian W i l d l i f e Federation, 1980). Further, the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch faces the unique dilemna of decimated ungulate populations attributed to unprecedented numbers of the Vancouver Island Wolf (Canis lupus Vancouverensis) (Smith, pers. comm.), a species described as endangered by at least four sources (Canadian W i l d l i f e Service, 1970; Canadian W i l d l i f e Federation, 1973, 1980; St e r l i n g , 1974; Stewart, 1974). This example also underscores the necessity for current information on the status of w i l d l i f e . Definitions Provided i n L e g i s l a t i o n Given the range of d e f i n i t i o n s of "endangered" and "threatened" employed, some sense of the standard components was sought from endangered species l e g i s l a t i o n (Ontario, New Brunswick, and the United States). Four common elements emerge: 1) S p a t i a l Considerations a) The l e g i s l a t i o n e x p l i c i t l y or i m p l i c i t l y defines the 251 p o l i t i c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n of concern (eg. "whose existence i n B r i t i s h Columbia i s threatened"). b) The l e g i s l a t i o n usually outlines the proportion of the species' habitat and/or range which i s affected (eg. "through-out a l l or a s i g n i f i c a n t portion of i t s range"). 2) Temporal Considerations The l e g i s l a t i o n e x p l i c i t l y defines the immediacy of the threat of extinction (eg. "facing immediate e x t i n c t i o n " ) . 3) Taxonomic Considerations The l e g i s l a t i o n defines i t s coverage as including fauna and/or f l o r a and the l e v e l of taxonomic resolution ( i e . species, subspecies, races, populations, e t c . ) . 4) Human Role The purview of the l e g i s l a t i o n i s usually confined to man-induced species declines (ie. natural declines are exempt). In B r i t i s h Columbia, the W i l d l i f e Act R.S. Chapter 433 (1979) and the Preliminary Plan for the Designation of Threatened and Endangered Species i n B.C. e x p l i c i t l y include the p o l i t i c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n immediacy of extinction and taxonomy as elements in the d e f i n i t i o n of "rare and endangered". The proposed re v i s i o n to the W i l d l i f e Act disaggregates "rare and endangered" to "endangered" and "threatened" according to the immediacy of extinction, and as a consequence of the actions of man (Ministry of Environment, 1981). Although C.0.S.E.W.I.C. addresses i t s e l f to "indigenous 252 species", the Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch, i n the absence of d e f i n i t i v e c r i t e r i a to l e g a l l y e s t a b l i s h "indigenous" and "native" species, w i l l not include this element i n the B.C. W i l d l i f e Act (Dodd, pers. comm.). Conclusion Subtle d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s of semantics and p o l i t i c s influence the meaning and number of endangered species. However, the d e f i n i t i o n and enumeration of endangered species has i t s r e a l value i n establishing a formal l i s t of p r i o r i t i e s for recovery a c t i v i t i e s . I t makes l i t t l e difference whether the l i s t con-tains four or seventy-four species i f no action i s undertaken to prevent further declines. 253 APPENDIX 3: .: Vertebrate Species Gone/Declining B r i t i s h Columbia SPECIES SOURCE EXTINCT Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius). 15,22 Dawson's Caribou (Rangifer dawsonii) . . . 2 S t e l l e r ' s Sea Cow 22 EXTIRPATED C a l i f o r n i a Condor (Gymnogyps californianus) 4 Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). . 3,22 Yellow B i l l e d Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) 3 Northern K i t Fox (Vulpes velox heges) . . 8,11 (E)20 Plains Bison (Bison bison bison) 6,22 Wood Bison (Gison bison Athabascae) . . . 5 (E)12,13,18,22 Sea Otter (Enhydra l u t r i s l u t r i s ) . . . . 7,11 (E)12,13,16,18, 20,22 Rocky Mountain Wolf (Canis lupus) . . . . 21 (E)20 Northwestern Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata) 9,15 Pygmy Horned Li z a r d (Phrynosoma douglassi d.) 9,15 Pilchard (Sardinops sagax caerulea) . . . 22 (R)23 ENDANGERED/THREATENED Bald Eagle (Haliacetus leucocephalus . . . 11,15 254 SPECIES SOURCE Barn Owl (Tyto alba) 17 (03,14 Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) . . . . 3,12,13,14,16,17 C a l i f o r n i a Gull (Larus califbrnianus) . . 3 Canon Wren (Catherpes mexicanus) 17 Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) 14,17 (C)3 Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus) . . . . 17 (C)3,14 Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) 3 Lewis Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) . . .17 (C)3 Mountain Quail (Oreortyx pictus) . . . . . . 17. Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) 11,15 (C)3 Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrine anatum) . . . 3,12,13,15,17 (Falco peregrinus pealei) 3,17 (R)14 Pigeon Hawk (Falco columbarius) 11 P r a i r i e Falcon (Falco mexicanus 11,17 (C)3,14,15 Purple Martin (Progne subis) 17 (C) 3 Ring-Billed Gull (Larus delwarensis) . . . 3 Sage Thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) . . . 3,17 Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensisitabida) . 3,11,15,17 (C)14 Sharptailed Grouse (Pedioecetes phasianellus) 17 Skylark (Alauda arvensis) 17 Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis) 17 (C)3,14. Streaked Horned Lark (Gremophila a l p e s t r i s strigata) . . 3 Western Bluebird ( S i a l i a mexicans) . . . . 17 (C)3 255 SPECIES SOURCE Western Grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis) 3 White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) 3,12,13,15,16,17 Bighorn Sheep (Ovis c. canadensis) 18 (Ovis c. californiana) 11,15,18 Bowhead Whale 14 Cougar (Fe l i s concolor) . . 15 G r i z z l y Bear (Ursus arctos) 11 (C) 15 Right Whale (Balaena g l a c i a l i s japonica) . 14 Roosevelt Elk (Cervus canadensis roosevelti) 15,17,18 Vancouver Island Marmot (Marmota vancouverensis) 12,16 Vancouver Island Wolf (Canis lupus Vancouver.) 11,15,17,18,20 Yellow Badger (Taxidea taxus) 12,17 (C)14 White Ta i l e d Jackrabbit . 17 P a c i f i c Gopher Snake (Pituophis m. catenifer) 9,15,19,20 Sharp T a i l e d Snake (Confia tenuis) . . . . 9,15 (C)19 P a c i f i c Giant Salamander (Diacamptodon ensatus) . 9,15,19 Tailed Frog (Ascaphus truei) . 9,15,19 Shorthead Sculpin (Cottus confusus) . . . 23 RARE Great Grey Owl (Strix nebulosa) 14 256 SPECIES SOURCE Trumpeter Swan (Olor buccinator) 14 Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus) . . . 23 Campbell Sucker (Catostomus sp.) . . . . . 23 Y - Prickleback (Allalumpenus hypochromus) 2 3 Giant Stickleback (Gasterosteus sp.) . . . 2 3 UNDER CONSIDERATION American B i t t e r n (Botaurus lentigonosus) 3 Ancient Murrelet (Synthloboramphus antiquum) 3 A r c t i c Tern (Sterna paradisaea) . . . . . 14 Black Tern (Chlidonias niger) . . . . . . 3 Brandt Cormorant (Phalacrocorax p e n i c i l l a t u s ) . . . . . . . 3,14 Columbian Sharptailed Grouse (Petiocetes p. c.) 3 Common Murre (Uria aalge) 3 Double Crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) 14 Foster's Tern (Sterna f o r s t e r i ) 3 Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) . . . . 3 Horned Puf f i n (Fratercula corniculata) . . 3 Long B i l l e d Curlew (Numenius americanus) . 3 Mountain Bluebird ( S i a l i a currocoides) . . 3 Red Necked Grebe (Podiceps grisegena) . . 14 257 SPECIES SOURCE Vancouver Is. White Tailed Ptarmigan (Lagopus leucurus s a x a t i l i s ) 3 White Headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus) 3 Wilson's Phalarope (Steganopus t r i c o l o r ) . 3 Yellow Headed Blackbird (Xanthocephalus x.) 3 Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) . . . . 14 Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus) . . . . 14 Grey Whale (Eschricht us robustus) . . . . 14 Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) . 14 Mountain Beaver (Aplodbntia rufa) . . . . 14 Northern Elephant Seal (Mirounga angustirostris) 14 Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis) Wolverine (Gulo luscus) . . . . Leatherback Turtle 14 14 14 (E) Endangered/Threatened (R) Rare (C) Under Consideration Sources: 1. Fannin, J., 19 81 2. Banfield, A.W.F., 1966 3. Weber, W.C., 1980 4. Macoun, J . , J . Macoun, 1909 5. Banfield, A.W.F., 1966 6. Bunnell, F., R. Williams, 1980 7. Farr, A., F. Bunnell, 19 80 8. I.U.C.N., 1980 258 Sources: (continued) 9. Cook, F., 1976 10. M c A l l i s t e r , D. , C. Gruchy, 19 76 11. Bryan, R., 1973 12. Munro, W. , D. Low, 19 80 13. Muir, R., 1980 14. C O . S.E.W. I.C., 1980 15. Stewart, A., 1974 16. B.C. Regs. 17. S t e r l i n g , D., 1974 18. Ndvakowski, 1970 19. Cook,. F. , 19 70 20. Can. W i l d l i f e Fed., 1980 21. B.C. Fish and W i l d l i f e , 19 22. C a r l , G., 1964 23. M c A l l i s t e r , D., C. Gruchy, 1976 B.C. W i l d l i f e Act (1979) R.S. Chapter 433 APPENDIX 4 DEFINITION OF WILDLIFE " ' w i l d l i f e ' means game and any other species of vertebrates designated as w i l d l i f e by the Lieutenant Governor i n Council' "'Big game' means (a) any mountain sheep or mountain goat; (b) any member of the deer family; (c) any bear; (d) any cougar or wolf; or (e) any mammal designated as big game by regulation" + "'Furbearing animal' means a fox, badger, beaver, marten, f i s h e r , mink, muskrat, land otter, sea otter, racoon, skunk, s q u i r r e l , weasel, wolverine, lynx, or bobcat, or any other mammal defined by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council as a furbearing animal" + "'Game bird' means a grouse, partridge, q u a i l , pheasant, or ptarmigan and includes migratory game birds as defined i n the Migratory Birds Convention Act of Canada, or a bi r d defined as a game bi r d by order of the Lieutenant Governor i n Council, and includes the eggs of those birds (revided C. Regs. 307/80)" Subtotal = "Game" + "any other species of vertebrates designated as w i l d l i f e by the Lieutenant Governor i n Council" Total = " W i l d l i f e " "'rare and endangered species' means any species of w i l d l i f e that i s designated by the regulations as a rare and endangered species" N.B. excludes peripherals, exotics, and subspecies Other Classes of Fauna mentioned in the W i l d l i f e Act: "'raptors' means a bi r d of the order Falconiforme or Strigiforme"; "'game f i s h ' means a f i s h named i n the Schedule to t h i s Act (13 species). 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095264/manifest

Comment

Related Items