AnimalsMagazine

“Everything, to me, is downstream from culture.”

“Entertainment, politics, our cultural biases, our cultural norms around race, gender, empathy, curiosity: Everything is downstream from culture. That’s why it’s so important to have a multidisciplinary effect because the reason why people are not engaged in the environment is often because of cultural issues.”

This is very true journalist and entrepreneur Salimah Ebrahim.

And rural resource communities aren’t the only ones with a culture of being on the land; rural and urban communities also aren’t the only culture we must understand.

As Chloe Dragon-Smith explains, land is “an identity thing. And connecting with the land helps us to understand, first and foremost, ourselves and through that also the land and what it needs to be healthy.”

Chloe is an Indigenous land-use consultant and adviser to the federal government on biodiversity. And though you might assume that Chloe is passionately pro-parks, her perspective on the value of parks is complicated.

“Yeah, that’s probably a whole day-long discussion.”

Why? As Chloe explains, “parks were created separating land from us, [telling us] we have to go out somewhere to get to nature.”

This is going to get complicated. Stay with me.

Sierra Dakin-Kuiper, as you’ll remember, is a cultural anthropologist who has researched why some communities oppose the creation of parks. And Sierra believes opposition is a consequence of “the mainstream environmental movement, which has largely operated without really taking into consideration the historical context at play in local places.”

That local context that Sierra speaks of is why sometimes the biggest opposition to parks isn’t always from rural resource communities.

Sierra says, “the biggest divide [is often] between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities.”

Let’s get into this.

As Sierra explains, “In 1877, that is when [a major] treaty was signed, which then put several First Nations communities on reserves. That freed up a lot of land, and settlers came.”

Settlement, of course, was spurred on by the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. As Sierra continues, “when that railroad is finished, and that last spike is drilled in British Columbia, we know that at around the same time, Banff National Park is established.

That wasn’t a coincidence.

“In displacing Indigenous peoples from their homelands, that actually freed up the room to create these national parks”, Sierra argues. It’s why she believes “national parks are very much an extension of colonialism.”

Louis-René Sénéchal works for Parks Canada, and he understands the point.

“Everything that’s governmental has colonial roots past. Canada recognizes that over centuries there’s been a lot of a lot of bad decisions and a lot of injuries and destruction. And fixing this will take generations.”

Louis René adds, “more and more every time there’s a decision made or a new protected area being discussed, Indigenous communities around or within protected areas – or the areas that we want to protect – are involved from the very beginning.”

And Sierra Dakin Kuiper agrees.

“That is starting to change, to make reconciliation a priority.”

And that holds true of provincial parks too, adds Elliott Ingles.

“We’ve come a long way. We’re kind of at the starting point though where we’re starting to acknowledge it in everything we do.”

Elliott, as you’ll remember, is the Area Supervisor for Mount Robson. He knows wrongs were committed, and Elliott, along with BC Parks, is committed to fostering a better relationship.

“We’re at the beginning of the trail to a long road to reconciliation. But I think we’re doing everything we can to get the conversations going, and I hope that it will be enough eventually. [I hope] that these partnerships will blossom and that we will work together.”

How?

Well, in neighbouring Jasper National Park, Parks Canada agreed to allow for a traditional Indigenous hunt within the park. But Indigenous land-use advocate Chloe Dragon-Smith believes this needs to be more than a one-off in one park.

“Being able to govern and manage our own lands, as we have for millennia, often looks very, very different than the conventional conservation that we think about when we think about parks and protected areas. It often means people being much more engaged in lands. Definitely harvesting, hunting.”

Hunting in provincial protected areas is common, but it’s banned in national parks. The move to allow even a one-off hunt was controversial, says Joe Urie.

“When the Simpcw came in, and they conducted a traditional hunt, the outrage that I heard – and the vitriol of that outrage – was borderline racism from people that I know even. And I don’t think that they’re racist. They’re just ill-informed.”

Joe is the founder of the Jasper Tour Company and is a champion of Indigenous-led tourism.

“The hunt was conducted to reacquaint the Simpcw and their youth with the land. The amount of the animals that were taken was minimal.”

But the reaction? Joe says people worried that more and more animals might be allowed to be hunted in national parks. But Joe argues, “I never hear them get so upset about all the animals that the railway or the highway kills.”

And Joe’s right: There are bigger issues facing Jasper – especially after the fire that devastated Jasper in the summer of 2024.

But when rules change for one culture, rightly or wrongly, other cultures want to be included too.

Though Dominic Dugré, the president of the Canadian Federation of Outfitter Associations, certainly supports Indigenous hunting rights, he wants those rights extended to all citizens.

“There needs to be a way for national parks to handle their wildlife. For example, the elk populations in Jasper have exploded beyond what the region can accommodate, resulting in habitat destruction and dangerous encounters for humans.”

That’s something wildlife advocate John Marriott has a problem with.

“I have always felt that our wildlife doesn’t have much of a voice speaking out on their behalf. So much of our so-called ‘wildlife management’ is run on a consumptive basis [by hunters and trappers]…But this ignores completely the intrinsic value that nature has and that wild animals and wilderness offer to the majority of us.”

John’s beef isn’t with the Simpcw’s traditional hunt in Jasper but with those who want to see the hunt extended to all peoples in all national parks. And, yet, that’s kind of the point.

Some worry that granting certain rights to one culture will open the door to extending those same rights to other cultures – changing everything in the process. 

For others, the worry is that by elevating the rights of one culture, there will be even less space for their cultural traditions.

After all, different cultures view different cultural traditions, well, differently.  

It’s why to really understand this issue, we need a little perspective – we need to understand something too many of us don’t know we don’t know.

Huh?

Indigenous leader Larry Casper explains.

“We all are inherently úcwalmicw [the people of the land], wherever you originate from.”

Larry Casper is a member of the St’át’imc nation and has been an advocate for his people and his land – our people and our land – for much of his life. Indeed, caring for this land matters deeply to his people because of their history on this land.

“[The St’át’imc and Indigenous connection to place] stems from the historical length of time that the St’át’imc have lived on this land…It seems only natural that a relative newcomer population would not share this same connection to the land, as they have not been here long enough to establish this deep relationship.”

Which is an important perspective on how different cultures value land.

So too, is this:

“The St’át’imc world view of ownership of land or territory still varies from the modern practice of fee simple or site specific ownership of land and/or properties…We are more like ‘caretakers’ of the land for the benefit of our future generations.”

And yet site-specific ownership of land is very much how western society works. And the disputes over ownership are at the heart of what frustrates Larry Casper and so many Indigenous communities.

“Mainstream society would benefit from learning about the European-based doctrine of consent, or terra nullius, which characterizes that the land is empty, as the racist basis for European/Canadian governments to claim ownership of our Indigenous territories.”

The rejection of terra nullius is actually one of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action. Since that particular call to action hasn’t been acted upon, it’s one reason why Larry feels: “the federal/provincial governments still have a long way to go in recognizing us as a full partner in the land we all live in.”

You see, truth and reconciliation isn’t a lowered flag or a land acknowledgement at the start of the hockey game. Not close.

Truth and reconciliation is about honest history and respect, absolutely, but it’s also about land – and cultural rights and determination of that land. And, as Sierra Dakin Kuiper explains, that means parks – and the proposing of parks – can be counterproductive and, in the eyes of some, racist, even.

“I do think that there are certain communities that really do have an obligation to start to peel back the layers of their assumptions about places and about how land is managed and used. [They need to] have conversations and approach communities that they haven’t necessarily really interacted with.”

As an example? Sierra again points to environmental activists pushing to create a national park in the Flathead Valley in the southern portion of Canada’s Rocky Mountains.

“That coalition was largely non-Indigenous, and from the materials that I read at that time, there was really no acknowledgement of whose land that actually is.”

That has, however, changed.

Web sites have now been deleted, and the campaign has been rebranded.

Most environmental advocates, like the Sierra Club, are no longer advocating specifically for a national park but rather are arguing to “protect this unspoiled wilderness pathway for migratory birds, grizzlies, wolverines and other species in alignment with the wishes of the Ktunaxa First Nation.”

That change of messaging addresses Sierra’s point while helping some Flathead advocates align environmental missions with social justice goals and Indigenous ally ship. There is, however, a ‘but’.

In embracing critical reconciliation and social justice objectives, conservationists might be sacrificing their environmental objectives, at least if their past advocacy is to be believed.

 For years, environmentalists declared only the rigours of a national park designation would adequately protect the headwaters and the wildlife who rely on it for connectivity.

Maybe they were wrong, and a national park designation was never that important. Maybe this is the right change. Or maybe it’s the necessary change. But one thing is clear: Increasingly, environmental advocates feel less and less comfortable advocating for park creation for fear of breaking ranks on social issues, even when science dictates rigorous park-like conservation is required.

That’s why Harvey Locke argues conservationists still need to champion conservation.

“This silly idea that it’s a racist idea to talk about protecting life on Earth, that’s a truly, extraordinarily weird comment.”

Harvey – co-founder of Nature Needs Half – says there is nothing racist about advocating for parks or nature.

“Large-scale conservation is very much a value among traditional indigenous people living in still wild and intact areas. So, I outright reject [Sierra’s] criticism.”

Harvey adds, “the Earth is the context for all life, including human life.

“That’s where the atmosphere is. That’s where the weather we have comes from. That’s where the water we drink and the food we eat comes from. Inside that is the human dimension – our species – which shares the world with many. And then inside human society, is our social values and our economy. Those are nested inside what it is to be human, which is nested inside the world. And the idea of elevating the economy or human preferences for use above that context is why we have an environmental crisis in the 21st century.”

And yet should-be ally, Dawn Carr, the long-time executive director of the Canadian Parks Council (a national, multi-government agency that helps coordinate all parks), is concerned that Harvey Locke and Nature Needs Half are further alienating those who already feel left out by parks.

“[Nature Needs Half and parks] can sometimes make people feel like, well, nature’s out there. It’s sort of Nature Needs Half, and then we can use the other half.”

Dawn adds, “I would really love to see the dialogue be more inclusive of a holistic worldview, not dissimilar to how Indigenous people see the world. And if there’s a way to sort of bring that thinking into the way that we talk about managing the land and being on the land, I think that we’d be a little bit further ahead.”

Harvey Locke has a different perspective.

“[Nature Needs Half] doesn’t mean that people like traditional Indigenous people can’t harvest [in parks] if the populations of animals can support it. It doesn’t mean humans are confined to zoos, which is just an artifact of some clownish criticism of the idea.”

But Sierra Dakin-Kuiper says environmental advocates need to re-think their advocacy.

“If we’re thinking about the environment through a social justice framework, then it’s really about stepping down and not thinking what’s best about a place.”

However, Indigenous leader Larry Casper tells us: “My perception of parks is generally favourable as it is a means protecting our environment, as well as key wildlife species and ecosystems that may benefit from this.” 

Whereas Indigenous land-use advocate Chloe Dragon Smith says, “reimagining our relationship with parks and protected areas is essential. And I think it’s absolutely critical to the future of our planet, to the future of humanity.”

Entrepreneur and Okanagan Nation member Libby Garg tells us that diversity of perspectives is why we can’t have a blanket approach to social justice or conservation or any policy proposal.

“There is no such thing in Canada as an Indigenous people.”

Say what? Libby explains, “talking about Indigenous people in a pan-Indigenous way is convenient. It’s a very easy way to talk about it, so I understand why the conversation ends up going there. But Indigenous communities themselves are very unique and they come with their own unique history.”

That means, according to Libby, different communities – different nations – will value nature in different ways.

It’s why, if the goal is to balance people and nature, Libby says, “it’s really important for individuals within each Indigenous community to think about what resources they have and whether an economic path forward that is solely tied to those resources is a wise decision for that community.”

That’s an important point, agrees Ken Wu.

“These are complex situations because many First Nations are also engaged by an active effort in a lot of these industries to log old growth and to engage in oil and gas activities and so forth.”

And that might surprise some people. But it shouldn’t, and Ken, the founder of Endangered Ecosystem Alliance, tells us why.

“Everyone needs an economy. And First Nations who’ve been deprived of the opportunity since the time of colonization need [an economy] as well.”

Ken Wu believes this must be a shared problem across all of society.

“It’s up to the provinces and the federal government and the conservation movement to help foster an economic alternative [to resource development].”

If that is an alternative is needed.

Because some Indigenous nations don’t want alternative employment in order to advance conservation, they simply want to be full partners in existing resource development.

As pollster Shachi Kurl explains, “There is a subset of the Canadian population who cannot get their heads around the fact that many Indigenous people in this country – and many First Nations – are actually pro-pipelines because they see a way to reconciliation and economic opportunity, which is part of that social justice-equality-reconciliation package. ‘When my people can come up to the level that everyone else has been enjoying for a long time, we will feel that sense of equality.’”

Here’s what Shachi means:

Tsimshian Nation’s Calvin Helin is the leading champion of the would-be Indigenous-owned Eagle Spirit pipeline from Alberta’s oil sands to the north coast of BC. His proposal to transport oil to tidewater is not dissimilar from the deeply controversial Northern Gateway pipeline, once proposed by energy company Enbridge.

And then there’s Fairy Creek. Don’t know about Fairy Creek? It’s the controversial, Indigenous-led plan to log old-growth or primary forests on Vancouver Island that was met with mass protests.

In both these cases, some Indigenous leaders, like Calvin Helin, have labelled environmental advocates as eco-colonialists.

As Calvin told SeaWest News: “Under the guise of environmental concern, they keep First Nations peoples in poverty and restrict economic growth. We have been watching over our seas and lands for over 10,000 years, and we don’t need these big-city folk and activists with huge American foundation money coming up here to tell us what to do…they have no regard for our communities and keep us from moving forward.”

Indigenous activist Nikki Sanchez agrees environmentalists can be colonial in their approach.

“The failures that we’ve seen within the environmental movement over the last 50 years have essentially been because it’s refused to do the work in bridging social and environmental issues.”

But Nikki disagrees with Calvin Helin on industrial development. And Nikki tells us that there shouldn’t be confusion about which Indigenous leaders are the right Indigenous leaders to support when Indigenous communities have differing opinions on environmental issues.

“I think that’s a place where I really invite people to use their own logic and to really be critically minded and look at our current economic system in terms of access to resources, economic growth and environmental carrying capacity.”

Nikki adds, “there is a difference between our elders and our olders. And our olders aren’t always right. Our elders have been chosen because they’ve shown a lifetime of wisdom.”

But pollster Shachi Kurl counters.

“The intersections here get pretty complex, pretty quickly. And I think so much of the debate, on so many issues in this country, has really been boiled down to: It’s this or it’s that, and it can’t ever be both, and this one is right and that one is wrong.”

Indeed, in the wake of the Freedom Convoy of truckers that disrupted many parts of Canada, but most especially Ottawa, in 2022, there are those arguing that our generalizations have moved into an even more dangerous space. We’re picking and choosing when we apply the law and to whom.

It’s at the heart of racial discrimination and the urban-rural divide and to solve both issues, as was argued by economist Brian Lee Crowley in The Line, we need to accept some hard truths: In issues of the law and rights, we can’t pick winners and losers based on our political beliefs.

And look: We can debate whose justice is more just – who’s right and who’s wrong on any given issue – but that distracts from the bigger issue. Until we stop generalizing and putting people into boxes we assume they should fit, we won’t solve anything.

As Shachi Kurl says, “we have to get away from that. But the finger wag, on all sides, is very, very quick to come out now.”

Yet disagreement isn’t world-ending, so long as we can respectfully disagree and allow for healthy disagreement. As Chloe Dragon Smith points out:

“There will always be disagreements. Relationships come with conflict, and that’s part of the beauty of them as well.”

But Shachi counters, “we have lost the ability to question respectfully without being accused of either being a terrible person or not being patriotic or this or that.”

In fact, will those who state we can disagree only agree to disagree with those who share their same worldview, simply deepening our divides and preventing any room for conversation or collaboration across the divides?

If the answer is yes, that’s a big problem. Because when it comes to rights and economics and biodiversity, it’s not sports. The final score isn’t necessarily the full story. It’s not as simple as securing the most victories, but about securing the right victories.

As the UN’s former Deputy Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, David Cooper explains, “we can devote certain areas where we prioritize the conservation of biodiversity, and that is an essential part of the policy mix that is needed. But in doing so, we must make sure that we protect the most important areas for biodiversity.”

Here’s what David means: In a strategic relationship aimed at helping nature, sometimes areas get saved that need saving; sometimes areas that should be developed get protected; sometimes areas get developed that need to be saved. Even if the calculus works most of the time – for communities, for businesses, for activists – there is always the chance that when it doesn’t work, it’s the one time it must work, for people or for nature.

But it’s hard to secure the right victories against this reality, as Ken Wu reminds us:

“In this era, everyone needs a means to live. And when you have historically – and still today in some places – 70% unemployment, of course, people are going to take the logging jobs when they’re offered. Of course, people are going to take the oil and gas revenues when they’re offered.”

And that begs this even harder question: 

As western society has slowly eroded our global natural inheritance, the last hope of protecting true wilderness – along with its carbon sinks and intricate, fragile life cycles that sustain us all – is now increasingly falling on the shoulders of Indigenous communities.

In some extreme cases, their isolated traditional territories must be protected in full to conserve the gene pools of species being lost elsewhere. Yet these same territories, if developed, offer the potential to create countless jobs and economic stability for communities long denied their share of the prosperity pie.

How can this land not be protected for the sake of saving humanity as a whole? How can society, having denied sharing the spoils of resource development with Indigenous communities for so long, now ask Indigenous communities to forgo their chance at economic success just because the rest of society failed to do its part?

The very question flies in the face of reconciliation.

Real or imagined, in this context, it’s hard not to look cynically at even the purest of intentions. That creates not only a political Molotov cocktail but erodes any foundation of trust with which to solve the problems we face.

Indeed, in this reality, is it actually possible to achieve the big, audacious, scientifically-rigorous goals we need to accomplish for biodiversity and meaningfully advance truth and reconciliation and grow our economy for all? Is it actually possible to have our cake and eat it too – to have social justice and economic growth and environmental sustainability? Is it actually possible to accomplish these goals and heal the urban-rural divide that threatens our very democracy?

The knee-jerk reaction is: Of course. But that’s only if we generalize – only if we refuse to be honest that the sum of the parts is different than the parts that make the whole. And we can’t generalize just to make life or a solution easier.

A solution should be mostly possible. But will it always be possible? And what happens if it’s not possible? Or not possible in every region? What culture can we overlook? What community is it appropriate to sacrifice? What animal or ecosystem can we afford to lose?

Ethicist Dr. Kerry Bowman says about this reality, “It’s hard. It’s really, really hard.”

Journalist Salimah Ebrahim adds that it’s hard “to have any of these conversations around land or historical abuse when there’s not a feeling of justice. The idea of peacemaking – environmental peacemaking – comes from a foundation of justice. It’s something that I’ve seen echoed again and again and again to me.”

Kerry Bowman agrees.

“It’s very tough. It’s very tough indeed. And one of the things I’ve seen in Africa is, you know, people have said: ‘You cut down all your forest to make progress. Look at Europe; look at Britain. Britain used to be forested! Scotland was forested! Now you have nothing. And you’re telling us we can’t do this? That we’re not allowed? That this is wrong for us to [develop our natural resources]? You did it so that you can move forward. So, how can you say we can’t do it? Why can you do that [develop resources and have economic progress], and why should we do this [protect our landscape] when I’m living in a state of poverty?’ And I don’t have a good answer for that. I don’t. I’m struggling with these things.” 

If we’re not prepared for these questions – this possible collision – we won’t know what to do when it happens.

And then everyone loses.

Kerry tells us, “I think all we can do – and without being preachy – is to raise people’s awareness as to how we all need forests if we’re really going to survive as a species because the environmental situation is getting that serious.”

This is why we need to know what we don’t know and what we don’t want to know. This is why we need to ask the better questions, always and relentlessly.

Look, no matter where you stand on this issue – no matter how you feel about the opinions of those voiced in this story – we must remember that everyone is entitled to their perspective, their grievances and their fears. Minority views need to be heard. Majority views aren’t irrelevant. Rural views matter, just as urban views do too. We don’t have to agree with those we disagree with, but we must learn to live with those who have differing opinions from our own.

And though it’s tempting to go with the solution that solves the most problems at once, former Alberta cabinet minister Donna Kennedy-Glans reminds us: “If you’re going to come up with solutions about how to make your parks better, it means you have to really understand the detail and the complexity and the options. If you take one option off the table, what does that mean for something else?”

As an example, ethicist Kerry Bowman says, “the risk with community involvement is that the voices of non-human life are not there either. So, we always have to be very careful because communities could say, well, do this or do that. You’re still not factoring in this multitude of species and biodiversity and the whole web of life.”

Also understand this, says Northern Development’s CEO Joel McKay: “The policy, frameworks and structures we use to order our country are not conducive to rural [communities]. In order to bridge that challenge, we must have a hard look at how we structure everything.”

And then there’s this, says journalist Salimah Ebrahim: “Our political leadership, First Nations political leadership? It is very complicated, and they sometimes represent us, and they sometimes don’t represent us.”

Donna Kennedy-Glans tells us, “the issue of whose decision is this to make, I think, is one of the most profound conversations we still need to have.”

You see, sometimes, when we wish and hope for something to be true, we gloss over hard truths. And what happens when we do that? Win-wins suddenly become lose-lose scenarios. Sometimes people don’t get heard. Sometimes resentment builds, or species disappear and then?

“Every action has a reaction”, pollster Shachi Kurl concludes.

So, yes, sometimes we need to have the brutal conversation out loud – even if unpleasant, even if it’s messy. Only when we truly understand how everyone feels – what everyone thinks – will we find the better answers we’ve all overlooked.