Wildlife Act Review

The continued expansion for “human needs” into the wilderness is not going to allow any “balance” to take place. All that will happen is what has happened in countless past experiences - the wilderness and its life forms will be destroyed.

Nest trees of protected species under the wildlife act receive very little actual protection. The root systems should receive protection to the drip line to prevent excavations that can destroy the roots, and keep materials placed upon them that eventually kill the trees.  There need to be buffer zones around nest trees that protect surrounding soils preventing erosion.  Nearby trees that protect and provide wind protection for future recruitment trees should receive protection status and ensure that they are windfirm. Birds and other wildlife use not only the nest tree but roosting or perch trees for hunting, feeding and guarding territory.  There needs to be protection for identified nest trees on private lands as well as public lands. Protection of these valuable trees provide for future generations.  In towns and cities, nest trees may have historical significance and are very much a part of a community, where families enjoy and share their neighborhood with wildlife. A procedure must be put into place where development of private lands that may impact wildlife habitat be assessed by a registered professional biologist before any alterations to environment.

The lack of any legislative protection for wildlife habitat.  Without protection wildlife habitat is abused and squandered needlessly.  We have the highest diversity of wildlife in Canada and do not provide legislative protection against wanton destruction.  We need to provide legislative protection for habitat, “without habitat there is no wildlife”.

The Act sets out clear expectations, accountabilities and penalties related to non-compliance for all activities that impact wildlife.

It is important that there remain regulations to ensure protection of species.  Encouraging voluntary compliance is nice but in the real world there must be an expectation that the penalty is far worse than compliance with the regulations.  It is far too easy for those who can afford to “pay the price” to put wildlife habitat at risk in order to secure short term profit for a limited few at the expense of long term viability and sustainability.

Habitat must be protected.

Change the act, so that it will be illegal to leave a hardened road surface with your ATV/ Motorized vehicle etc. Example: Many trails are being found that are leaving a hard surface trail, and heading into sensitive alpine/ meadow type habitats.

The present Wildlife Act authorizes decision-making at the appropriate level of government. Decisions made under the authority of the Act are designed to be fair, science-based, and respect the principles of risk management and administrative law.

Issue: There is limited provision in law requiring decision-makers to act on sound science when considering the impact of a land-use decision affecting wildlife habitat. This has been recently observed in Nanaimo, when the City of Nanaimo ignored sound science and put an asphalt trail across a fragile Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory which cut a wildlife corridor in half and exposed wildlife to poylnuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, a known carcinogenic aquatic contaminant. Local wildlife stewards are still fighting this inappropriate land-use decision.
Instead of protracted fights between stewards and land developers, the Act must go beyond asking for voluntary compliance and require best management practices to protect ecological communities at risk. The City of Nanaimo shunned sound advice about its fragile ecosystem.

The purpose of the Sensitive Ecosystems Inventory (SEI) project is to identify remnants of rare and fragile terrestrial ecosystems and to encourage land-use decisions that will ensure the continued integrity of these ecosystems. And the Conservation Data Centre (CDC) collects accurate information on species and ecological communities at risk so that it is available to all planners, decision makers and public interest groups in an effort to ensure biodiversity of the province is preserved.

On June 27th, 2006, Mr. Paul Kluckner, Director of the Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon Region shared his concerns by writing to us the following:

"Environment Canada encourages responsible agencies and land managers to use SEI data and other conservation tools to make land use decisions that protect habitat for migratory birds, sensitive ecosystems, and Species at Risk.

"A recent SEI disturbance mapping project measured changes to SEI polygons over a ten year period (original air photos used were from 1992, photos from 2002 used to determine changes). SEI polygon N0157 showed disturbance to the northern section of the polygon as a result of road construction. The disturbed portion is no longer considered to be a viable representation of the sensitive wetland ecosystem as originally mapped.
Such losses, although small in themselves, are of concern on a cumulative basis.

"Overall depletion of sensitive ecosystems in the Nanaimo sub-unit of the SEI study area were by far the highest in the study area, with over 7% having been lost to disturbance since the original inventory. Losses of wetlands, such as found in N0157, are also highest in the Nanaimo sub-unit, with 3.2% of wetlands lost (losses in other sub-units ranged from 0.6%-1.8%). A loss of 3.2% is especially significant when we take into account that the original inventory found that only 1.6% of the Nanaimo sub-unit was occupied by wetlands in a relatively natural state.
These statistics make it clear that conservation of remaining sensitive ecosystems should be a priority for land use decision makers and that all possible options should be carefully considered before land use changes are made in sensitive ecosystems."

Solution: Through the new Wildlife Act, volunteer wildlife/habitat stewards have a provision in the Act to lay a complaint and seek remedies; create more provisions for the protection of habitat or species populations; that riparian areas and leave strips be based on good science and not an arbitrary 30 meters; that the new Wildlife Act refer to, and have provisions to not only protect, "Species at Risk" but also "Eco-systems at Risk"; that the Wildlife Act mandate habitat values by designating the Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory as a conservation area (protected from development); that provisions be made in the Wildlife Act to mandate decision-makers to consult with front-line volunteer wildlife/habitat stewards; and, provisions, to overturn poor land-use decisions that have adversely impacted wildlife and require land-use abusers to rehabilitate areas damaged.

Addressing the concerns presented above in the new Wildlife Act would be greatly appreciated.

I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the Wildlife Act.

I am very concerned by parts of the legislation dealing with Endangered Species.  To begin, I did not see how species would be designated as imperiled: would the federal list be adopted wholesale, or is there some other mechanism?  This seems an important matter.  Having Cabinet declare species as endangered in a wholly discretionary manner would weaken all other aspects of the law to the point of making the law irrelevant.

I present my other concerns in the order the relevant clauses appear, (proposals in “”, my comments set off by --), but  point (iv) is most worrisome:

(i) “In the new regulation that is being developed, Cabinet may designate a “species residence” (e.g. an individual burrow, den, nest or roost) for a species at risk.”

--This implies that Cabinet both need not (‘may’) designate residences, and that it may do so for an “individual” burrow, etc.  This is discretionary and unwieldy, since government might have to decide on every nest encountered.  The federal law seems to not to include such discretionary language

(ii)  “A residence is defined as:
”a place or area in, or a natural feature of, the habitat of the species at risk, or a class of such a place, area or natural feature, that is habitually occupied or used as a dwelling place by one or more species individuals of the species at risk, or considered as being necessary for that occupation or use””.

--This is broader than the Federal definition, but if my worry in (i) is correct, the breadth has no effect.
(iii) “Proposed protective measures include prohibitions against the following unauthorized actions (unless specifically authorized by regulation”

--This may be standard legislation writing (and if so I apologize), but it would be nice to know what sorts of ‘regulation’ might be meant here -a regulation  concerning the Wildlife Act, or any regulation (e.g. concerning a dam or mine)?

(iv)  “Other components of B.C.'s overall approach focus more managing and protecting habitats and ecosystems to protect and maintain wildlife species. These other programs and legislation include:

    * provincial parks and protected areas;
    * strategic land use planning;
    * strategies for specific, wide-ranging, endangered and threatened species for which a land use planning approach is needed (i.e. Spotted Owl, Marbled Murrelet and Mountain Caribou – under the coordination of the Species at Risk Co-ordination Office of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands);
    * environmental assessment processes;
    * sectoral legislation such as the Forest and Range Practices Act (through the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy); and
    * stewardship partnerships with the public, industry stakeholders, municipalities and conservation organizations.

--This is the point that must be the most contentious.  SARA and the Accord are explicit about the responsibilities of the province, and SARA is clear about designating and protecting critical habitat under reasonable timelines.  BC seems to be avoiding this _sine qua non_ of species protection utterly and completely. BC’s Endangered Species Legislation must itself include strong provisions concerning designating and protecting critical habitat; old, demonstrably failed practices like the FRPA, land use planning and environmental assessments (e.g. in the Okanagan) cannot be invoked. To even name the Spotted Owl as an example where “land use planning approaches” are to be used to protect critical habitat is ironic to the point of pain.  Any outside observer would say unequivocally that that approach, till now, has done nothing to save the critical habitat of the spotted owl; under these proposed changes, nothing will change in law vis a vis critical habitat. 

I urge the government to modify the Wildlife Act in all other areas, but to enact proper Endangered Species Legislation (or perhaps, even better, Endangered Habitat Legislation) immediately and in parallel.  BC is one of the few places on earth where humans still have a chance to organize themselves such that they live within the bounds of their natural environment.  Standard practise has taken us literally to the brink.  Our natural environment will likely be worth unprecedented sums in 100-years' time and we must get serious about putting this heritage in the bank for the coming rainy days.

Your announced intention to amend BC's Wildlife Act strikes me as a great opportunity to enshrine protection of endangered species in provincial legislation.  COSEWIC has already created a national list of species at risk; it's time BC granted these living beings protection in our province.

It is simply silly to bring a species to the brink of extinction and then expect laurels by making appearances to protect it. An ounce of prevention is worth several tons of political whitewashing.

The Ministry of the Environment must acknowledge the warnings from its own biologists that Grizzly populations are endangered and cannot sustain continued hunting pressure. The Ministry is complicit in withholding information from the public that is crucial to understanding the state of the Grizzly in B.C.. A large portion of the Grizzlies killed have cubs that are orphaned and killed, and poaching continues to feed the black market in this era of reduced enforcement. The current hunting regulations will impact pocket populations already under threat. Like the Yellowstone Grizzlies in the U.S. critical measures must be implemented before it is too late. Increased enforcement for poaching and a moratorium on killing Grizzlies is necessary now. B.C. and Alberta should become a Grizzly sanctuary. Revenue would shift from Trophy guide companies to wildlife viewing; a far more advantageous use of our resources.

Species at risk must receive protection through legislation in BC.  This should also include species of special interest.

A new species at risk regulation under the Wildlife Act … (pg. 41)

• It is apparent this new regulation will be the foundation to enable amendments to the Act. To be able to comment with some level of reasonableness, the need to see the specific “protective measures” in the Act and the enabling criteria in the regulation is necessary. Until MOE can provide the specifics there are a number of questions:
  • Is the intent of the new regulation to replace the Species at Risk Act (SARA)?
  • If not, how much duplication will there be?
  • What criteria will be utilized to list species at risk? Will they be different than SARA)?
  • Are definitions going to be consistent (is proposed definition for residence, the same as in SARA)?
  • Are compensation issues addressed?

The Wildlife Act will apply to species at risk on all private and Crown lands … (pg. 41)

• The application of the Wildlife Act to species at risk on all private land appears to be significantly far more reaching than the application of SARA. It is our understanding that the application of SARA on private land is limited to endangered, threatened and extirpated migratory birds (Migratory Bird Conventions Act), endangered, threatened and extirpated aquatic species listed in Schedule 1 of SARA and a limited number of special circumstances.
• Adequate compensation will have to be considered particularly if the application of the Wildlife Act to private land is intended to be unlimited.

National and international species and habitat issues

The APB agrees with the Discussion Paper that the Act should meet or exceed the requirements of other provincial or federal legislation and should accord with international obligations. We have recommendations concerning two high priority issues under this goal. Recommendation 6: the APB appreciates that government has recognized the importance of managing ‘Species At Risk’ in the Discussion Paper. In light of that recognition the APB recommends that the new Act should:

• provide for effective conservation of vulnerable species so they do not become threatened or endangered;
• require species recovery as well as effective management of the species ecosystems, habitats, residences and individuals;
• meet national standards under the national Species at Risk Act;
• provide for Professional Biologists to determine the biological status of species, and to prioritize the species to be recommended for consideration as Threatened or Endangered by Cabinet;
• provide for Cabinet to decide which species will be legally designated as Threatened or Endangered under provincial legislation in a timely way.

Recommendation 7: the revised Act should be brought into compliance with the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy. In 1992 Canada was the first industrialized country to ratify the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Subsequently, in 1994, all Canadian provinces signed the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy, which committed the provinces to conserve biological diversity. To meet the national and international obligations under those commitments the new Act should include:

• a comprehensive definition of biological diversity, consistent with established conservation biology principles. This definition would include the definition of wildlife in Recommendation 8 of this letter;
• legislated authority for the Ministry of Environment to work towards conservation of biological diversity.

This is very simple, bring in stand alone Endangered Species Legislation that protects the habitat of endangered species and not the pockets of the corporations.

I am writing to you out of concern for the endangered species of BC. This includes species of birdlife that live in our old growth forests.

It is not satisfactory to have a Wildlife Bill whose intention is to protect a particular species alone. This Bill must also include the protection of the species habitat in order to ensure its survival.

I live in Pemberton and every day there are logging trucks bringing down old growth forests by the truckloads. I have actually sat and counted as many as 10 per hour in fact! It pains me and so many others in this town to see this knowing how pristine the area was at one time. Clear cutting should be put to rest! Why are we still employing this antiquated practice of logging?

Please bring this to the table before signing off on the new Wildlife Bill. After all what good is such a Bill unless you do something to protect the home of the species first?

Thank you.

I think it is taking too long to move species into the Threatened category or to move species into the Endangered category. It does not help but only harms those particular species.

I completely agree with the proposals for change in this section.

Recommendation 1: the definition of wildlife should include all species groups, flora and fauna, that are native to the province. This will meet the common language definition of “wildlife” and will facilitate conservation of all native species and the ecosystems that support them. See Recommendation 8 for more detail.

Definition of wildlife
The APB appreciates that government believes the current definition of wildlife should be updated. The APB concurs with this approach given the importance of ensuring the ministry have the explicit authority to meet the modern public and scientific concern that all native species be maintained, and further to ensure the ministry has control over alien and hybrid species. Recommendation 8: the APB recommends the new definition of wildlife include:

• all species native to BC, including animals, fish, vegetation, lichens, fungi, and invertebrates. These species collectively are a major component of biological diversity. Native species are those that exist in BC naturally and have not been deliberately or accidentally introduced by human actions. It is recognized that as the climate changes, some new species may naturally become established in BC by moving from other jurisdictions. When this occurs such species may be designated as wildlife;
• selected non-native species that were introduced decades ago, which have been considered as wildlife already, and which are not damaging to humans or native species, for example the pheasant; however, re-introductions of such species should not be allowed;
• selected alien species, where designation as wildlife would facilitate control of invasive aliens damaging to provincial interests; where control of aliens would help prevent introduction of new diseases; or where designation would prevent possession or release by the public or wildlife rehabilitators of species that are dangerous to humans or damaging to native species; captive-bred hybrids which are all or partly from native wildlife species. This provision is essential to prevent release of hybrid species or creation of undesirable hybrids, for example crossing wild cats with domestic cats.
• The APB also recommends the new Act provide the authority to work with federal agencies to harmonize provisions under the ‘Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act’ (WAPPRIITA; 1992).

I think invertebrates should be included. I support the proposals for change.

I think this amendment would only be fair if the Ministry would first create, at least, a preliminary' clean and prohibited list.  These lists should be very extensive.  Otherwise if these lists were not large it would put an unfair burden on citizens and businesses to prove the safety of a huge range of species.  Furthermore there should be some guidelines on what is required to prove that a species is safe, I suspect the resources and time required to do this is beyond that of most citizens.

For instance in a typical garden center there are hundreds of plants with many new hybrids being developed each year, how quickly could the ministry keep pace with new introductions?

I completely agree with the proposals for change in this section.  I also believe that BC should ban/ prohibit the raising of any ungulate species as well as bison in captivity.  I know that some restrictions are in force but I have seen non-native deer (fallow in particular) being raised in farms. 

The potential for 'mad deer, moose. elk' disease is too much of a risk.  It is too difficult to control the use of animal parts in their feed (costs of ongoing and exhaustive testing is prohibitive).  Just ban them.

The concept that the importer of an alien species has to “somehow”  prove a negative is really quite absurd. This could and would be readily interpreted by the “rights” people, out to enforce a policy totally contrary to the “conservation” objectives of set out to govern the Wildlife Act within its mandate of: 

To manage the province's wildlife resources for the benefit and enjoyment of British Columbians - by maintaining an optimal balance between ecological, cultural, economic and recreational needs.

The balance of the needs for different purposes needs to very emphatically direct this kind of “alien” importation rules or many conservation breeding programs etc would be in great jeopardy by “rights” advocates.

Introduction of alien species is a very dangerous practice so it is good that this ministry seems to concerned. This means that there should be zero-tolerance for things like “fur farms”.  For instance, New Zealand allowed possum “farming” and when some escaped, they devastated the environment.

Develop “clean and “prohibited” lists to clarify which species cannot be imported … (pg. 15)

• If such lists are included in regulation there must be a mechanism for quick amendments or exemptions. The forest sector utilizes grass seed and some tree seed imported from the US.
• It is unclear why a proponent would be required to demonstrate impact of a species not found on either list. This is administrative burden going too far. As an example, one would assume if one is not on the US “no-fly” list (and a soon to be released Canadian list), they would be able to board an aircraft accordingly.

Alien species
The APB endorses the proposals in the Discussion Paper regarding Alien Species, as these can pose significant risk to conservation of native species. The APB also endorses the proposals regarding disease and suggests ‘wildlife officers’ be given legislated power to intervene when wildlife or exotic animals pose a threat to human health or safety. Recommendation 9: the APB recommends the new Act should include strong mechanisms to control deliberate introduction of any new non-native species.

“Authorize the Minister to restrict the introduction of, monitor, control and manage species whose introduction into, or presence in, B.C. may present an ecological threat to wild species of native fauna or flora, or negatively impact the Province's economy.”

There are many reasons to increase regulation and enforcement with respect to alien invasive species with in the Province of British Columbia including: loss of biodiversity, reduction in the quality of wildlife habitat, reduction in the quality of forage for wildlife species, spread of alien species into range and agriculture lands, and the spread of alien species into residential and commercial property.  A review of the Wildlife Act offers a tremendous opportunity to begin to correct and mange the problem of the spread of alien invasive species.

I propose that revision of the Wildlife Act focus on a few key areas.  These areas include:

1. Restrict the introduction of, monitor, control and manage species1 in Federal and Provincial parks, conservancies, ecological reserves, protected areas, wildlife management areas, and environmentally sensitive areas;
2. Restrict the introduction of, monitor, control and manage species1 on Federal and Provincial land and land owned or managed by Crown companies;
3. Restrict the introduction of, monitor, control and manage species1 with regards to any habitat restoration and restoration works by the provincial or federal governments; and
   
4. Enforce fines equivalent to the cost of restoration of the above mentioned areas.
   Species as defined by Schedule A Part I and Part II of the BC Weed Control Act-BC Weed Regulation list of provincially and regionally significant noxious weeds.

Personally, I believe that the ministry should be the ones demonstating that a species will negatively impact wildlife. Putting the onus on the individual is an unfair burden. If the unnamed species has a negative track record you as a ministry should know about it.

Perhaps, instead of the importer having to prove that it won't cause a problem (like that is possible) why can't an importer be subjected to a review board for an importation ok or denial?

I support the proposals for change.

Most of this looks good.

Disease transfer to wildlife from domestic animals and stock has been proven to have negative effects on some wildlife species. Though these may not be 'species at risk' in general, the effect may certainly be detrimental to a local population, which may in turn spread to a wider area.

The definition of wildlife must include the following terms to identify groups of wildlife which will be managed for consumptive uses by hunters, fishermen, and trappers: big game, small game, game birds, game fish, and furbearers. Species will be defined and listed for each wildlife group. Another wildlife group will be predators listed by species. Wildlife classified as predators will be managed under a Predator Management Policy enacted by the Wildlife Act.

Global movement towards environmental and ecological preservation is undeniably the trend of the future. We believe that Canadian citizens would rather be the leaders, not the followers, on these issues. Upon review, we find that the current Act ironically contains many provisions that enable trapping and killing of our wildlife. The Act in general lacks enforceable provisions to preserve and protect the beauty and wonder of our wildlife, which we believe should be the primary purpose of the "Wildlife" Act.

We recognize the ministry's intention to amend the definition of wildlife in the Act to better protect the species at risk. However, wherever trapping is allowed, there is a significant chance for species at risk to be harmed or killed by traps that are not intended for them. This is not an issue that can be resolved by amending the definition of wildlife, as the traps cannot distinguish protected species from non-protected ones. Many of the non-target animals caught in traps could be endangered species or species at risk. A proactive approach rather than a reactive approach should be considered – no trap should be allowed in areas where endangered species or species.

Although I understand why the ministry may require "emergency powers" I still have a problem with the concept. There would have to be a very stringent, clear cut flow chart of why and how an officer may use these powers. The ability of officers (or the percieved ability) to abuse this priviledge could cause a tremendous amount of anti-government sentiment.

I support the proposals for change.