A Guide to the Grizzly Bear Stewardship Framework Public Feedback Process
The BC Government's draft Grizzly Bear Stewardship Framework is open for public feedback until 4:00 p.m. PT on September 8, 2023. Your voice is needed now to secure a future for grizzlies in B.C. in a way that reflects your values.
To help you add your voice, we have collaborated with experts from Grizzly Bear Foundation's Research Advisory Committee, the Commercial Bear Viewing Association, and Raincoast Conservation Foundation to review the 75-page framework document and provide a guide to completing the feedback questionnaire. Below you will find our key points to consider when submitting your responses to each question.
GUIDE TO THE FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE
PAGE ONE: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Do you feel the Background section (2-7) provides enough detail for you to provide feedback on the rest of the framework?
No.
Comments:
-
Five weeks is not enough time to read, review, understand, and give input on this 75-page document, and a three-week extension does not remedy this. Further, there was a lack of visibility and information sessions, and no real promotion leading up to the public feedback phase of this Framework.
-
The introduction "ABOUT THE BRITISH COLUMBIA GRIZZLY BEAR (URSUS ARCTOS) STEWARDSHIP FRAMEWORK" is misleading and fails to truly capture the passion, respect, and relationships that BC residents and First Nations have for and with the grizzly bear, which led to the creation of this plan.
-
The addition of a ‘list of terms’ section and thorough in-text citations with an annotated bibliography are essential for transparency, accurate interpretation and usefulness for resources staff, students, and conservation groups to make the best use of this document.
Section 6 lists ten primary threats facing grizzly bear stewardship. In your opinion, are there any threats missing from this list?
Yes.
What do you feel is missing?
- Possibility of future licensed and regulated hunting of grizzly bears
- Lethal removal of grizzly bears justified under current human bear conflict rules by the BC Conservation officer service (COS) or BC residents under the Right to Farm Act
- Illegal killing of grizzly bears
- Regional and jurisdictional predator management schemes
- Food security, including decline of wild salmon populations
-
Need for more specificity within the following listed threats:
-
Pollution - e.g. spraying of cut blocks with glyphosate
-
Human intrusion and disturbance – e.g., unsecured attractants and refuse sites, such as garbage dumps
How effective do you think the current approach to managing grizzly bears and their habitat (outlined in Section 7) has been at ensuring their sustainability and conservation?
‘Somewhat effective’ to ‘Not so effective.’
Please list the top two reasons you chose that answer:
-
‘Very effective’ in ending the grizzly bear hunt eliminated one of the biggest threats facing the well-being and stewardship of the species.
-
‘Not effective’ as the current approach fails by employing traditional management practices, but moving the framework toward stewardship is an essential and monumentally important shift.
-
‘Not so effective’ in failure to adequately protect and recover endangered grizzly bear populations in southwestern BC.
-
‘Not effective’ by failing to protect salmon habitat from industrial logging practices, impacting food security for many individuals and populations throughout the province.
-
‘Not effective’ in acknowledging and emphasizing the well-being of grizzly bears.
PAGE TWO: GOALS
How would you rate each of the five goals on the Grizzly Bear Stewardship Framework (see Section 8 for more details)?
The objective for this section is unclear, which makes responding problematic. If you too feel uncertain or ill-equipped to answer this question, please note that you are able to skip questions throughout this survey.
PAGE THREE: APPROACHES TO MEET GOALS
Please rate the priority of each of the recommended approaches (Sections 9.1 to 9.9).
The objective for this section is unclear, which makes responding problematic. Stewardship is not defined in the draft Framework while “stewardship approaches” are poorly described or not described at all. However:
-
From an animal welfare perspective, approaches 1, 2, 6, and 7 are of high priority with approach 8 not being a priority at all.
-
From a conservation perspective, approaches 6, 1, and 8 are of high priority with approach 4 not being a priority at all.
-
From an economic perspective, approach 9 is of high priority, holding far more economic potential than commercial hunting of grizzly bears.
-
Approach 4 and 5 are problematic because they are difficult to carry out province-wide. Population inventory is possibly valid for a limited geographic area, but province-wide monitoring is near impossible.
Are there any aspects of grizzly bear stewardship that are missing from the list of approaches above?
Yes.
Which aspects do you feel are missing?
Stewardship is not defined in the Framework and the questionnaire. Without a clear definition, it is unclear how “species and population stewardship” is an approach to stewardship.
Overall, do you agree that the Draft Framework does a good job of providing guidance to steward bears and their habitat at the territorial, regional, and local levels?
Disagree or strongly disagree.
Please describe how these approaches could be improved to better support territorial, regional and local decision making:
Please consider the below comments and choose what resonates with you.
-
Integration and coordination are lacking, and that is part of the reason we disagree. With uncertain leadership, ongoing changes in personnel, and conflicting objectives and policies, institutions are as fragmented as the land is.
-
It is unclear how much power Regional and sub-regional Wildlife Advisory Committees will exercise, how they will work alongside Indigenous-led processes, and if they will be harmonized across the province.
-
Devolving primary stewardship responsibilities to regional processes may fragment integrated conservation efforts necessary for the long-term persistence and recovery of free-ranging and self-sustaining grizzly bear populations, as well as potentially infringe on the rights and shared territory of neighbouring First Nations.
PAGE FOUR: MEASURING PROGRESS
Please note your level of support for the performance indicators (Section 10).
Agree.
Comments:
-
More emphasis on remote access management and food security.
-
Performance indicator #15 is the first and only mention of grizzly bear well-being within the draft Framework.
PAGE FIVE: NEXT STEPS
Please note your level of support for each of the 5 noted next steps for territorial, regional and local working groups (Section 11).
The objective for this section is unclear, which makes responding problematic. If you too feel uncertain or ill-equipped to answer this question, please note that you are able to skip questions throughout this survey.
Are there any priority next steps for territorial, regional and local working groups which you feel are missing?
Yes.
Which priority next steps do you feel are missing?
-
Regional Wildlife Advisory Committees Terms of Reference for overall species interest over individual stakeholder interest.
-
How to prevent fragmentation of stewardship for a wide-ranging species.
How effective do you think the proposed Stewardship Framework will be at ensuring the sustainability and conservation of grizzly bears and their habitats?
Somewhat effective or not so effective.
Please list the top two reasons you chose that answer.
-
‘Somewhat effective’ because this draft Framework has made important steps in engaging First Nations and advancing a shared understanding of how provincial laws will work with Indigenous law.
-
‘Not so effective’ because there is a lack of transparency and vagueness throughout the draft Framework as indicated by our above points, including not defining stewardship.
-
‘Not so effective’ because this draft Framework fails to emphasize the importance of allocating resources to protecting the habitat needs of grizzly bears, including the reform of current forestry practices, increasing habitat connectivity, minimizing remote access, and ensuring long-term food security, ie. critical foods – salmon, berries, whitebark pine, etc.
-
‘Not so effective’ because while this draft Framework is presented as a stewardship plan, recognizing the value of the grizzly bear to Indigenous cultures as a family member and teacher, it fails to incorporate many of the values embedded in the word stewardship – namely, recognizing the well-being of grizzly bears and the principles of animal welfare.
Leave a comment
Comments will be approved before showing up.
