With a whimper, rather than a bang, the summary engagement results from the government’s consultation for how to deal with species at risk have been released.
The results are disappointing. The government was looking for public response, via a web page set up for that purpose, from the population of the province. In total, 461 people, out of 4,751,600, left a comment on how they thought the province could better protect species at risk.
That is a fraction of a fraction of one per cent.
For a province whose people claim to live here mainly because of the majestic beauty of its wilderness, that is a whole lot of ‘meh’ when we are given the chance to participate in saving species at risk. This consultation process was advertised. Newspapers, radio and television ran stories on it.
And yet, only around .01 per cent of B.C.’s population (rounding up!) cared to comment.
That said, those who chose to comment, according to the results, seemed to favour living animals over economics. In the first category of comments, titled ‘Principles for the protection of species at risk’, the most commented on question was ‘Socio-economics – Protection and recovery of species at risk will take into account the social and economic interests of BC’s communities.’ The summary of the comments showed that people generally felt this was an unfair question. Most respondents felt that ‘…weighing the more quantifiable socio-economics against the less measurable benefits of species or habitat would likely favour the former.’ The majority of respondents felt that species should receive the protection they need, with economics coming in second.
Respondents also felt that the patchwork of existing regulations needed to evolve into a more cohesive system. Others promoted the idea that there needed to be tax incentives to be able to save species at risk, and the list goes on.
One commenter, who went by the name ‘Jemma’, pretty much wrote a book. In her comments she outlined a raft of problems with current legislation, including facts such as the Conservation Data Centre lists 826 species and subspecies that are red-listed and 772 species being blue-listed. Under the IWMS (Integrated Wildlife Management Strategy), only 10 per cent of those receive any kind of legal protection from the Province. Furthermore, when it comes to forestry, the IWMS states there is a limit of “…1% (sic) to the allowable impact to short-term harvest levels that may result from implementing measures for Identified Wildlife.” You read that correctly. Should a red-listed species be found within a cutblock, only one per cent of that area would be saved the woodsman’s axe.
Now this editorial isn’t about saving species at risk. The paragraph above wasn’t meant to change anyone’s opinion, it was just presented because very, very few people know those numbers—and those numbers are important. If more people had known them, perhaps there would have been more respondents to the survey.
But maybe not.
What this editorial is about is a horrifying trend that is growing worse over the years. People are voting less and less in matters that concern not only them, but their entire eco-system. To make things worse, many of us will espouse strong views about the current political situation, or whatever subject is at hand.
We will devote endless pages on Facebook to how the ‘One per cent” is screwing over society. And yet, when given a free vote, or a chance to make our views heard, remain silent.
The common worker in this province can’t compete with the dollars of the wealthy, but living in a democracy, we are all given the power to vote or make comments. This power is the great equalizer and the only way that power (our only real power) can be taken away is if we don’t care enough to use it.
It is the hope of this writer that when the new Species at Risk regulations are enacted, those regulations are fair to both the economy and the eco-system. I pray that those new regulations are a work of wonder and beauty that will add immeasurably to the welfare of the people and animals in this province.
I hope for the best because if the regulations are flawed, one-sided or just laughably inadequate, we have given away our right to complain about it.
We had our chance — and we blew it. Here’s hoping for another kick at the can.
by Brian Coombs / Black Press
