(OPENING MUSIC) NARRATOR: The B.C. Wildlife Federation, in cooperation with the Communications Branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada presents 'Westland,' a series of programmes discussing natural resources conservation and land use in British Columbia. MIKE HALLERAN: You're looking at the junction of the Fraser and Chilcotin Rivers. Possibly no other place so exemplifies the feeling of B.C.'s interior plateau country, as this place right here. It's called, 'The Junction Range.' I'm Mike Halleran. All sorts of land uses take place in this part of the country. It's famous for tourism and outdoor recreation. It has extensive wildlife, fisheries, range and forest values. It also has a history of conflict between these varied resource interests. The B.C. Wildlife Federation, its member clubs and the Cariboo Chilcotin Region and the producers of Westland, gathered people together from all these interests, and got them into the same conference room on the same day. I think you'll find the results... Interesting. LAURIE HALL: As president of the Cariboo Chilcotin Regional Wildlife Association, I declare this conference open. We hope it will give everyone present a better understanding of fish and wildlife in the Cariboo Chilcotin, and the related problems of resource management. May this conference be the first of many for our region. (PAPER RUSTLES) I would like to introduce Carmen Purdy, president of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. CARMEN PURDY: Good morning. Thank you very much, Laurie. I too am happy to be back in the Cariboo, and I am certainly pleased to see the number of people attending this conference. We've had several conferences like this throughout the province, and we plan on having more, we think that it brings together the resource users and resource managers to talk about things and objectives that are common to all of us. We all recognize that wildlife and fish are not inexhaustible resources, and that protection, regulatory controls, and conservation measures are necessary to ensure the perpetuation of fish and wildlife, but also necessary to ensure that hunting and fishing can continue as well. BILL YOUNG: Addressing the issues of the wise management of forest lands there are many problems, or as some would rather refer to them as challenges. At this time, a speaker before a group like this, I should really embrace the great Canadian strategy, and place all the blame on government. Like some silver-tongued orders, I could also try to come off the ceiling with a fire and brimstone government bashing outburst. By inventing a few sexy throwaway phrases, I could assuredly capture some media space. In other words, if government would do something, we could all return to the era of super abundance, where there would be no resource conflicts, and endless trees, grass, moose, and fish for everyone. Of course, the so-called era of super abundance will never return. But the big problem with the bash government approach used by so many, if not the majority, is in my opinion, largely a cop-out. I submit that it's a cop-out simply because it is often used as a convenient and comfortable diversion from addressing the issue itself head-on. My opinion is that many of the resource issues and conflicts often have much more to do with people attitudes than it has to do with government policies, the trees, the grass, the moose, or the fish. In other words, as a famed philosopher once stated, 'We have met the enemy and he is us.' Now let's pursue this subject of people attitudes in resource issues a little further, as far as resource issues themselves go. Many of you have heard of my bridge builder spear chucker philosophy, and today I'd like to expand this type of characterization further, and to begin the development of a resource management interface formula, and a relative barometer. I've decided to call this new barometer a young-ometer, and before anyone gets too excited, I want you to know that I've applied for a patent for my young-ometer, and intend to see that it gets widespread use during resource management deliberations in British Columbia. Consider whether the person is one who is always working towards bridging the information and communication gap in a positive, productive way. Or is he or she one who is simply ready to dig in, and argue each issue from his own perspective forever. Is the individual receptive to a give-and-take, consensus type discussion, or does he only attack and defend your and his position respectively? For input into the young-ometer, this category is worth 20 points, with spear chuckers rated, you can rate them anywhere from 0-7, and the bridge builders from 8-20. Positive people are full of gung-ho enthusiasm. Positive people are people who are not content with the status quo. Positive people are people who are always looking for a better way, no matter how poorly, or how well, something is currently being done. On the other hand, negative people are people who continuously see the black side of every issue. They are cynical people, in fact I try not to associate with negative people because sooner or later they will assuredly drag you down. You won't drag them up; they will drag you down, as sure as we're sitting here. The next input into the young-ometer involves classifying of resource managers or resource users, and rating them into one of three categories. The bitchers and bawlers, the snoozers and sleepers, and the shakers and movers. First the bitcher. I say the bitcher is just that: nothing is right. Unfortunately this type of person can only go so far as to complain and attach blame. He does little or nothing to work towards a solution. In other words, he may, and I underline may, he may perform some useful function in identifying the problem, but he contributes nothing to resolving it. You and I all know this type of person. Every time you meet them, you can bet your bottom dollar that their first words will be to bitch, bawl, or complain about something. For example, two 81 people would need a little time to arrive at a consensus on an issue. On the other hand, two 103 people would have reached consensus before they could finish their first cup of coffee. So now you have it—the working of the young-ometer. I contend that arriving at the young-ometer rating is really more important during the initial phase of any resource discussion, then concentrating on resource inventories, planning models, and the like. Finally I contend that the young-ometer can help develop a common bond between resource managers and users of the forest in its broadest sense. Loggers, cattlemen, recreationists, hunters, fishermen, and the like, all reap the benefits of the forest. We may occasionally have our difference, but the health and welfare of the forest estate itself, with its trees, grass, and shrubs, should be of mutual concern. I couldn't conclude this presentation in any better manner, than to quote a renowned wildlife biologist when he said: 'We may occasionally argue over who should have the bat and ball, but there should be no argument when it comes to the maintenance of the ballpark.' GRANT HUFFMAN: I can tell you that it's pure hell to have been rated as a seven and thought that was great until—I thought it was on a scale of ten—(CHUCKLES) I find out that it's out of 103. What I think we should be hearing from groups like yours and mine, and in fact all user groups, is that we should be committed to seeing that there are viable populations of all kinds of wildlife. Hopefully these populations will always be large enough to satisfy both non-consumptive and consumptive users with their needs, while still respecting the resource needs of industries like agriculture, forestry, and mining. I think that the bottom line on population sizes is essentially, big. I agree with that. It's the potential, if you like, below that bottom line, that I think does require the compromise, and the understanding, of all sides, in deciding just how big is big enough. Certainly we've come to another issue that, that is more close to home, and that's elk. It's been discussed very much, we've heard a lot about it, and I've gotta tell you very honestly that cattlemen in this area still have major concerns. We have concerns that there is a real potential for conflicts with agriculture as it now exists, really not just on our crown land, in fact, maybe not as much on our crown land as on private land. We admit to not being elk experts; we certainly do talk to our counterparts in the Kootenays and other areas that have had significant problems with elk-agriculture interface. What we're concerned about, and this may sound... A little blunt, but I think we're concerned about the possibility, at least, of there being real costs—I mean economic costs—to ranchers' operations that we really don't need. I, like most of you, have read the proposal put forward regarding elk, and have looked at and tried to evaluate the proposed control measures. One of the things that worries us is that down the road, there are personnel changes, there are attitudinal changes, by not only personnel but the general public. Will those control measures down the road be given the same kind of significance that they are given in this report? And I say this with no malice and with no... With a great deal of respect for those that are promoting this idea. I'm not questioning their sincerity, but things do change, and we could well see ourselves backed into a corner fairly nearly down the road. As I said we are not elk experts, we are probably on shaky ground in making some of the assumptions that we are saying in that we don't know how elk could react in this area. But in talking to fish and wildlife personnel, they're not entirely sure how elk could react in this area either. MARTY BEETS: Because we're dealing with fish and wildlife concerns at this conference, I thought you might be interested in just a few of the issues we deal with in the Cariboo that affect fish and wildlife. With forestry, we have bundle booming on Quesnel Lake, river log drives, cross-stream yarding, blowdown, mountain pine beetle, Douglas fir bark beetle, and a variety of insect problems, high elevation logging, old growth Douglas fir, mule deer winter range problems, old growth timber, caribou concerns, timber supply analysis, allowable cuts, subsidiary partnership agreements between Ministry of Forests and industry, steep slope logging, road building, culverts, bridges, fish passage, coastal logging grizzly bear habitat concerns, access corridors. With range management we have elk, cattle distribution, over-grazing, new opportunities in areas that are not presently grazed by domestic livestock, high elevation grazing concerns, forage allocation for wildlife and cattle, winter wrestling by cattle on moose winter ranges, wildlife-safe fences, community pastures, range permits, grazing licenses, stocking rates, wetland use, trespass horses. Under land alienation problems we have agriculture leases, grazing leases, subdivisions, rezoning, agricultural land reserve, licenses of occupation, hay cutting permits, hay cutting licenses, trespass land problems, wetland alienation. With mining we have mining exploration and access related problems, stage one report for new mines, and we had over 500 plaster mining operation forms processed through our region alone this year. We have gas and oil exploration in the Interior, offshore gas and oil exploration proposed in the near future, in the mid-coast portion of our region. We have highways concerns such as a potential road from Anahim Lake to Vanderhoof, road failures in areas such as the Bella Coola highway, culverts, fish passage, fences. We have B.C. Hydro concerns: West Coast transmission proposed pipeline to the Vancouver Island. We have pollution problems of all kinds: herbicide and pesticide use is increasing, low-flow problems on streams, garbage bear and related concerns. We don't get bored. DARYL HEBERT: The Cariboo has a varied and abundant wildlife resource. We have approximately 1,200 to 1,500 California bighorn sheep, about 50 to 60% of the provincial total. The Junction band, which most of you are familiar with, contains approximately 600 sheep, one of the largest populations in British Columbia. As most of you know, it's been responsible for transplants to the depleted areas of the United States, and we've stocked over six different states in the last 25 to 30 years. The Ogatcha band is the northernmost band of California bighorn sheep in North America, and it is of biological significance because of its location in the province. We have approximately 1,500 caribou. The Itcha-Ilgatcha band has approximately 1,000 of those caribou, it is the largest southernmost band in British Columbia. On the east side of this region, we are currently undertaking a cooperative study with the forest industry, and are studying the Quesnel Highland caribou herd. We have the largest grizzly bear ecotype in North America, and this occurs in the Bella Coola part of coastal British Columbia. Five of six of the top bears in Boone and Crockett come from this region. 37% of the top 100 bears occur in this part of coastal British Columbia. We have the only nesting colony of white pelicans in B.C. In addition to the species that I just mentioned, we have some of the highest ecological capability for elk in the province. As a result of this diversified and abundant resource, we rank second or third in the harvest of moose in the province, and with improved logging planning, with enhancement from the habitat conservation fund, and redistribution of hunters, we could be first or second in moose harvest annually. We currently rank third or fourth in the harvest of mule deer. Our moose and deer hunter days are between 200 and 250,000 annually, and we rank second provincially. Two management units in this region provide 10% of the moose harvest in B.C., and these same two management units provide 20 to 25% of the regional harvest annually. 60% of the hunters come from outside the region, and provide a tremendous economic and tourism benefit. Almost 30% of the guides and 30 to 35% of the trappers reside in the Cariboo region. As a result of this resource, our economic value runs between $14 million annually for consumptive or direct users, and approximately $13 million annually for non-consumptive users, for a total of $27 million. Compare this to Grant Huffman's total of $30 million for the cattle resource in the Cariboo, and you can see that we have a very significant wildlife resource. "CHILCO" CHOATE: I believe that we should do whatever's necessary to bring back and maintain a Bible elk herd here. Most people in this room already know that there are already a few elk in the area, and more probably coming. We have every moral and economic right to demand representative share to this land base, but it's doubtful that those who have already made a grab for it, will return our share willingly. We may have to agree to a rigidly controlled herd, but I see nothing wrong with that either, because we should not expect the elk to winter on agricultural lowlands. There are plenty of meadows and new logging sloughs at higher elevations for them and we know from the location of the old elk horns that they used to winter above 4,000 feet, so there's no reason to believe that they won't do it again. WHITEY ANDERSON: I believe and, my opinion is, that we have made great strides in our planning process. We've made great strides in the methods that we do in conducting the harvest, and we've made great strides in regenerating the land base. Unfortunately the forest industry is still perceived as somewhat of a rapist of the forest, someone that really doesn't care for other users. It's a little bit not too unlike the view that a lot of people have about hunters, who view them as killers, and vandalizers of property and machinery. Now we know that is just not true. We have moved out of that era of being adversaries, and that pleases me. I've been around for quite some time in the forest industry, and in the forest (INAUDIBLE) previously, and that's only a short span though in the time of tree farming really, and I've been able to see us move from a period of exploitation, no doubt about it, into a period of confrontation, and now I see us moving into a period of consultation. And the very papers that hopefully, up to date at least, presented today, indicates to me and other conferences lately that I've been attending, that we have moved out of confrontation into consultation, and there's nothing but uh—going up from here on in. And I just wanted to say, as Bill would say too, out with the spear chuckers and in with the bridge builders. Now we have lots of time for questions. (APPLAUSE) LAURIE RIEDEL: My predictions for the future. Number one: Logging company foresters, Ministry of Environment person—B.C. forest service personnel, and well-organized citizen groups, having friendly meetings together to iron out all their problems. Number two: I see allowing logging companies to try their own ideas about cut block size and method of logging. If it works, we've all gained. If they blow it, we're no worse off than we were before. Number three: I see all logging roads in remoter areas being put to bed after logging is finished, and I mean put to bed: bulldozed, blown up, whatever it takes. I see banning the use of ATVs to transport hunters, or game. I see fish and wildlife and foresters jointly inspecting logging sites three or four times a year, to ensure all goes well on both sides. I see moose and deer season closed during the rut. And last, I see limited entry in many more game management areas. Who cares if land owners lock their gates, and access is denied? Who cares if the fish and wildlife doesn't get that deer wintering area? Who cares if moose grazing areas are decimated? Who cares if fishing success and lake declines? Who cares? We should, because this is the region in which we choose to live, so it is gonna be up to us as citizens of it to help the Cariboo realize its potential as a prime recreational area, believe it or not. WAYNE SHINNERS: We'd like to see a rational debate and a rational response from the sports fishing sector to the problems in the fishery. I honestly don't feel that I've seen one. But in terms of willingness, I'm more than willing to look at the possibilities of taking sockeye in the Fraser River. We've talked about it before, and I suppose we're talking about it again, and you're saying well we still haven't—we still haven't been allowed to do so. Well, maybe you will in 1985. That's all I can say at the moment. Food fish issue is a very complicated one. Not an easy one to deal with, a very sensitive one as the questioner indicated. It's a priority for the federal government, it evolves around Aboriginal rights, the Constitution, and land claims. We have been attempting over the last couple of years to try and get Native bands or individuals to agree to numbers—you know, how many fish do you legitimately need for food fish purposes. We'll give you a permit for that number of fish, if we can agree on a number, and we'll work with you on getting those fish. But, the Native community is not prepared to deal in numbers, and maybe from their perspective rightly so. They're involved in land claims, Aboriginal rights, and the last thing they need is somebody walking around with a piece of paper that says this particular band has agreed that 1,500 fish, because the obvious concern that that 1,500 is gonna become it, they'll say well you agreed to 1,500, and you're stuck with that number. They feel that they have yet to deal with that issue, and they're gonna deal with that issue, not with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, not at all, they're not dealing with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and land claims, they're dealing with the Government of Canada and the Federal Cabinet on land claim and Aboriginal rights and the Constitution, so it'll be the Government of Canada and the Cabinet and maybe the Supreme Court of the country that may end up... may in the end decide how many fish, or what level of participation the Natives take. Because there's no doubt that here in B.C. it is totally possible to have a very strong viable forestry sector, a very strong viable fishery sector, agricultural sector, tourist sector—it's all possible. What we have to do is get out of the ruts we've found ourselves in, or have found ourselves in, and I've certainly been one of those as well, to get out of those ruts, and to see slightly beyond the horizon, and try desperately to understand the other individual's point of view, maybe even to accept it if you don't understand it totally, but to show some good will on your part to try and make things happen. And I think if that's done, we can go a long way. So maybe just summing up, and I can do it really in only a few sentences: in terms of the prospects on the Fraser, they are outstanding prospects provided the right things are done. Namely, we have to provide a better job of providing escapements to the upper reaches of the Fraser River. It's totally essential that we get a Canada-U.S. agreement. We have to move away from the confrontation stance, or the environment that we've had with regards to habitat issues, and begin dealing a little more forthrightly and supportively with the other user—resource users out there, water users out there—and with the supports of the communities, the grassroots level, I think it's possible to turn the situation around rather radically, and to provide both you, and the people of B.C. with many opportunities in the fishery to participate recreationally, or just see and have the pleasure of seeing an Adam's River type run in other parts of the Fraser, or the ability to put a hook in the water here and to take a fish home for dinner. MIKE HALLERAN: This is a part of the world where larger-than-life characters are not uncommon. Of course, the land itself is the only element that is really lasting. That's why what we do with it is so important. Nevertheless, there are human milestones too, and it's healthy to remember them. On zoomed-in close-up of plaque: [THIS PLAQUE IS DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF HAROLD MITCHELL, WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST AND WES PREDIGER, WILDLIFE TECHNICIAN, KILLED IN A HELICOPTER CRASH MARCH 2, 1981. THESE MEN WORKED TIRELESSLY TO HAVE THE "junction range" SET ASIDE AS A PERMANENT HABITAT FOR CALIFORNIA BIGHORN SHEEP, HISTORIC RESIDENTS OF THIS NATURAL GRASSLAND. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT OCTOBER, 1982] SINGER: #The changing tide of progress may be our last downfall.# #The ones who stand for wild things come to see... there's more than many problems, and there's no rewards at all, except to know they're out there, running free.# #There's more than many problems, and there's no rewards at all, except to know they're out there, running free.# (WHISTLING TUNE) MIKE HALLERAN: Well, Westland, and the Wildlife Federation put on a land use conference in Williams Lake, and lots of people came. There were some very strong feelings expressed, and it is obvious that lots of problems remain. But, nobody had to punch anybody. On the whole, it was pretty constructive. There were times of tension, but also times of warmth and common purpose. All the speakers, from all the interests here were excellent, but best of all, this conference got them into the same room, at the same time, where they were able to spend almost an entire day listening. I'm Mike Halleran for Westland, goodnight. (CLOSING MUSIC)
Westland"; A Joint Presentation of the B.C. Wildlife Federation; Communications Branch Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada); Series Producer: Mike Halleran; Production Assistant: Jeanne Halleran; Series Editor: Danny Tanaka; We wish to acknowledge the assistance of the B.C. Ministry of Forests; We wish to acknowledge the assistance of the B.C. Fish & Wildlife Branch; Produced through the facilities of The Knowledge Network