How to best balance people and nature isn’t clear, but what is? The importance of getting the process right when trying to advocate for a better balance.

But as former prime minister Kim Campbell says, “I think process is something that’s very hard to get people excited about.”

Very true. Yet Kim Campbell explains that even if the process doesn’t excite us, it matters.

“The substance – the outcome – is very much a reflection of the process.”

But don’t just take our former prime minister’s word for it.

Canada’s history is littered with ideas that received broad support and ideas that were met with fierce opposition; ideas that worked and ideas that didn’t. And very often, the outcomes – positive or negative – have been dictated by process.

To understand, let’s start here: Grizzly bear 148.

Bear 148 was one of Banff National Park’s most famous bears. Or maybe infamous is more like it.

Born in the complicated heart of Banff – the Bow Valley – 148 learned from her mother the push-pull of risk and reward that goes along with living in the most productive stretch of grizzly habitat in Canada’s oldest national park. The risk?  

“Being hit on the railway track, being hit on the highway. So how does our interaction with that place impact the lives of the animals that are trying to survive there as well?”

It’s a question poet, and educator Angela Waldie keeps coming back to as she works to help a new generation care for species at risk – a journey that was amplified thanks to an encounter with 148’s mother, Banff’s famed Bear 64.

“I think what has made me such a powerful advocate for wildlife is the fact that I’ve had a chance to see them in many contexts. I saw Bear 64 in one of those ‘bear jam’ moments, where the park rangers were there ushering us away.”

Angela explains that how we connect to nature – why we care for nature – increasingly starts with the story of – an experience with – an individual animal.

“Our relationship now, instead of visiting animals in a zoo, we tend to follow them on the internet. So, you can find all of the pictures and articles about Bear 64. And people who never actually saw her still knew a lot about her biography.”

Has a connection to celebrity wildlife like Bear 64 made a difference? 

“With the bears in the national parks, I find that it is encouraging people to care, so it’s certainly encouraging more awareness. But that awareness [needs to] contribute to conservation practices and contribute to our willingness to do what needs to be done. That’s the key. If it’s simply that we’re interested in feeling that we know something about the lives of these bears as characters, without really taking into account what we need to do to make change, then I really think it’s [just] voyeurism.”

The connection to individual animals means parks are under a microscope when it comes to celebrity wildlife, like well-known male grizzly The Boss, says famed bear biologist Dr. Stephen Herrero.

“There are a number of well-known bears and if he [The Boss] gets smacked by a CPR train, there’s going to be a lot of people who feel that the CPR and Parks Canada should have better managed the whole situation.”

Though The Boss endures, Bear 64 was not able to survive on a landscape that requires bears to not only navigate curious onlookers but also juggle three ski resorts, two townsites, 50+ hiking trails, numerous large-scale resorts, a golf course, four park roads, one major highway and a railway.

And, again, it’s why BC Wildlife Federation’s Neil Fletcher says eco-tourism can have more impact than hunting, even if an animal ends up dead at the end of the chase.

“Some of our members are concerned that recreational activities or roads can have just as much of an impact as can hunting, if not more.”

Parks Canada’s Louis-René Sénéchal disagrees.

“What we see as being an overflowing park often would be an overflowing small portion of the park. So, if you manage a wildlife area and you know it’s very popular, you will decide which portions can be overflowing with people. There are other places where you will manage it so that it’s not going to be as accessible, where the animals can tread about without fear of getting struck by [a] car or hugged to death.”

Unfortunately, in Banff, the habitat near the roadsides in the Bow Valley is both prime grizzly habitat and overflowing with people. And for bear 148, she inevitably ran into conflict.

Bear 148 became very comfortable around people – going so far as to mate at the Banff Townsite train station. Yet, for the most part, she stayed out of trouble while providing thousands of visitors and wildlife photographers with an experience of a lifetime.

However, those experiences may have come with a price tag – as they made 148 more trusting of humans and more comfortable with the idea of being around humans. In that regard, Parks Canada and wildlife photographers often criticized the other for not doing enough to help 148, but no formal process brought the two sides together. And that wasn’t an issue until berry season 2017.

That year, berries were more plentiful outside the friendly confines of Banff National Park. Not recognizing the human-made imaginary line on the map, 148 left the park in search of the calories she required for survival.

One problem: The Bow Valley to the east of Banff proper is even more complicated than that inside the park – and it also falls within a different government’s jurisdiction.

Bear 148 found herself eating berries on provincial land and immersed in the hiking and biking trails that surround the bustling town of Canmore. After all, berries grow best in areas we’ve opened to the sunlight – like the sides of trails.

Banff wildlife managers may have prioritized working with 148, knowing that they had to balance safety with tourism dollars that were being spent explicitly to see animals like 148, but on provincial land, wildlife managers had a different outlook.

In Alberta, the province mandates wildlife managers balance safety and human wants – places to hunt, jog, dog walk, hike and bike without the threat of a bear attack.

Though this type of outdoor recreation is available in many places outside of grizzly habitat, the town of Canmore has become Calgary’s playground. People expect nature – cultivated nature, on their terms.

Media stories and splashy headlines spun 148’s saga in different directions, upping the pressure on wildlife managers to do something – anything.

Were 148’s actions threatening? According to community activists, the bear acted no differently in Canmore than she did in Banff, but because the public reacted differently, she was judged differently.

In other words, 148 – who had come to trust people – now suddenly found herself in conflict with humans. And when bears come into conflict with people, there is only one result.

Because of public pressure from community activists in the Bow Valley, 148 wasn’t killed outright but rather relocated to a remote wilderness area north of Mount Robson – the interprovincial protected area known as the Kakwa.

On average, grizzlies have a poor rate of translocation survival. After all, there are new food chains to learn, new competition to fight off, new terrain to understand, and there’s rarely enough time to learn on the fly in the wild. And 148 fared no better than the average bear.

Bear 148 died shortly after she was relocated – shot legally, the last grizzly to be killed as part of the then-BC grizzly bear hunt.

For some, 148’s story is outrageous – the by-product of two governments who simply couldn’t work together to steward an animal they sought to protect when it refused to adhere to a human-made line on a map.

Ironically, the perception of a flawed government process galvanized the public to engage in the process, advocating for grizzlies elsewhere, with the BC grizzly hunt cancelled the following year.

It’s an example of how one individual animal can spark change for entire populations.

And whether we’re talking about bear 148 or the death of the last western black rhino, Humane Canada’s Barbara Cartwright says it’s the stories of individuals that force us to look at the bigger picture.

“It is abstract to us until it happens to us, until it comes to our doorstep. And one of the things I’ve seen happening is that people will get very deeply moved by what they learn about animals – whether it’s hearing about animal cruelty, puppy mills, bestiality, extinction, hunting, trapping – and they start to get into it. And then they realize how big the problem is, and they literally shut down because they can’t seem to take in the enormity of the multiple ways that animals are suffering in our world. Then they turn away. But then the one rhino dies, and then it’s sad. You know what I mean? It’s something that they can hold on to without feeling like they have to take on the entire world, which seems structured against animals.”

But stories like 148’s can have other ripple effects too.

Biologist Dr. Victoria Lukasik says one bad process can beget more bad processes – more questionable decisions.

Like how the blowback from the death of 148 helped ensure grizzlies wouldn’t be part of a predator control program aimed at saving caribou. Instead, as you know, hundreds of wolves have been killed, Victoria argues, unfairly.

“There’s not a lot of evidence that wolves are even eating the caribou, and then there is some evidence that bears are eating caribou. But to kill a bear is really not popular, so they aren’t going to go there. So, there is politics that takes place.”

And that, says hunting advocate Dominic Dugré, is why it’s wrong for society to romanticize individual animals: It leads to bad policy.

Dominic believes we need to see the bigger population picture and trust government processes to make the right, scientific-based decisions, even if those decisions impact the individual animals people grow to love.

“We are seeing a growing human population with more access to the backcountry where there is a growing bear population. We have a growing grizzly bear population in both density and range. All of this translates into more human/wildlife conflict! This is an important issue that needs more work.”

In other words, some believe the conflict surrounding 148 might have been avoided if hunting was allowed in Banff or grizzly hunting was permitted on Alberta provincial land.

It’s why Dominic and groups like the BC Wildlife Federation, who seek to give a voice to wildlife, are advocating to reinstate the grizzly bear hunt in BC. In part, the goal is to resolve potential conflicts while also giving some hunters what they want: The ability to kill grizzlies.

But bear biologist Dr. Stephen Herrero says if the goal is to deal with problem bears and reduce conflict, hunting isn’t the answer.

“Hunting doesn’t tend to remove the animals that are most problematic.”

And though that might be the case, one national park human-wildlife conflict specialist we spoke with on the condition of anonymity, after he was denied permission by Parks Canada to speak to Nature Labs, said managing one bear – one individual – can’t be the answer either.

“The advocacy surrounding bear 148 was appalling. Bow Valley lost their minds. One individual doesn’t matter compared to the health of [the] populations. If they [the public] really care about bears and nature, they should be looking at population trends of species and help those at risk. That’s how you help biodiversity and wildlife. We [Parks] shouldn’t be asked to waste precious resources on one animal when entire species are at risk. Especially when managing one individual offers no guarantee, for the animal or for people.”

Humane Society’s Barbara Cartwright counters, “we should always take risks, right? All life is risk. And we’re looking for solutions, so to cut off an entire possible area of solution [caring for individuals through a compassionate conservation wildlife management model] because we think it won’t work is really ending our ability to innovate on new solutions.”

Biologist Dr. Shelley Alexander also disagrees with the comments from the Parks Canada employee.

“I understand [the Parks Canada employee’s perspective] in a practical sense. Do I agree with that? No, I don’t think that the finances should be driving [wildlife management decisions]. And I do think we often don’t understand enough about which individual we are taking out. Maybe we take the individual that does matter [to the population].”

Dr. Harvey Locke – the person tasked with helping governments globally address biodiversity loss – doesn’t believe the debate over the value of one individual is ultimately about resources.

“This idea of thinking about populations of animals with numbers on them, so you don’t anthropomorphize them and give them names, like Cecil the Lion – or this idea that too many resources are going to one individual versus thinking about the broader [population or ecosystem] – is nested in a scarcity mindset. There’s an unarticulated conversation going on there that if resources are scarce, my priorities should be first over your priority.”

Harvey believes that if our processes don’t allow us to balance people and animals, individuals and populations, we need to create a new one.

“What we have to do is shift that scarcity mindset into an abundance mindset. What do we need to do to maintain the values of everyone in relation to [the issue]? How do we ensure that the individual is part of a robust population? How do we ensure that the ability for humans to connect to stories is maintained through individual animals and not dismiss that as parochial emotional environmentalism? It’s a way that people access these things. Understand that and embrace it.”

Dr. Stephen Herrero has literally written the book on how to live and work with grizzly bears. And he understands both sides of this argument.

“If individuals matter, it does require more sensitive management than if individuals don’t matter.”

But Stephen reminds us that “those people who are concerned about just populations – if they see an individual animal as something that can be lost because there are other animals that can replace it – that’s good for a while, maybe. But, obviously, it’s not a long-term ethic because the more animals that you lose, the more the potential for the population to come under threat.”

And after decades of research, it’s why Stephen says, “yes, individuals ultimately have to matter. They may not matter to population managers in the short run, but in the long run, they matter to all of us.”

No matter where you stand – whether you believe we should care about individual animal welfare or simply focus on the population health of a species; whether you believe people should manage wildlife for people and nature or trust nature to manage itself – we need to find better solutions that work for more people and more species.

For that to happen? We need to help different communities, composed of differing individuals with differing values and ethics, be part of the solution-creation process.

And we need to fight to make sure that process is both respectful and reasonable so that we can actually find a solution that allows different communities to see themselves in the outcome and support it.

“Well, I think it’s a fight we have to fight because of the enormous rewards that society and people can reap from learning to live co-operatively with species like grizzly bears, mountain caribou and other wildlife [facing the challenge of] coexisting with humans.”

Stephen Herrero is right. Because as he reminds us, “we’ve learned a lot. We learned a huge amount, but it’s not time to go to sleep yet.”

And that’s why Mount Robson’s Area Supervisor Elliott Ingles says, “we need youth to be creative and to support us with new ideas.”

Why?

Elliott explains, “we’ve got a long way to go. In the grand scheme of things, protected areas can’t do it all. We need everybody to work together, and I think just one person can make a huge difference.”

That’s why Nature Conservancy Vice President Nancy Newhouse says to be creative – to make a difference – do what you love.

“It’s about following your heart. So, if you’re passionate about writing or you’re passionate about art? Follow that and link it to broader objectives in nature. I think that’s where you’ll find the most success.”

Just don’t forget, regardless of what you love or what you do, every good process – every successful outcome – begins with relationships.

“Ultimately, I think it’s about figuring out what values there are for people. We know there’s common values. People love their family. They need food sources. They need to be able to drink fresh water. And when you can recognize that everyone holds that in common and that people are not evil inherently because they’re working with an oil company or doing some timber harvesting? That they’re trying to make a living? [Then we see] that they can be deeply concerned about the future for their own children and about the wildlife that they love.”

Which is why Nancy says the most important skills needed to solve this question and others like it aren’t always the ones we might assume.

“I think some of the most useful learning is Philosophy and Religious Studies because that’s what drives decision-making.”

BC Wildlife Federation’s Neil Fletcher agrees, adding, “being a good writer and a good communicator – doesn’t matter what you do in your life – those two things by themselves are so important in any position you do.”

It’s a skill that Neil believes we must have in order to find better ways to work together with those we disagree with.

“We need to be finding solutions where we can work together and put those little issues aside. Focus on the big issue and take your position out of it.”

Humane Canada’s Barbara Cartwright concurs we need to work together – including with animals; inclusive of considering the welfare of animals.

“What can we do to ensure that the animal is having a good experience of its own life? It’s simple. And we should be having that in our food policies. We should be having that in our criminal law policies. We should be having it in our environmental policies. But it’s not a question we ask very often. In fact, we rarely ask it at all.”

And remember, Barbara says, don’t assume you know who will and won’t support an issue you care about.

“And this idea that somehow conservatives don’t care about animals has not been my experience at all. In fact, we’ve seen most of our major leaps forward in animal welfare policy coming from conservative regimes.”

Former Alberta cabinet minister Donna Kennedy-Glans agrees we can’t assume what someone – anyone – thinks about any given issue.

“I am small ‘c’ conservative. I was raised in a traditional setting, so I have these values, but I also have lots of other values that aren’t conservative. So, let me decide about me.”

Don’t put hunting advocate Neil Fletcher in a box either.

“Full disclosure, I’m actually a vegetarian.”

This may surprise you. Maybe the following from compassionate conservation advocate Dr. Shelley Alexander might surprise you.

“There are ethical principles around hunting. A vegetarian-based diet? If anybody spent any time in a prairie system? Animals die. Animals are displaced. There is no clean way through any of these decisions.”

That’s why Anthony – an engineer and Twitter’s Thankful Outdoorsman – says good process, good ideas, and good solutions always move beyond assumptions.

“When you hear something – if you hear somebody say they’re a hunter – don’t think trophy hunting. Don’t make the judgment. Ask questions. Be open-minded. And I think if people are, then people will learn. But if people are one-sided and very blinded, they shut down, and it’s ‘my way or no way,’ and that’s a problem.”

Which might be the most important point of all.

Every human is different. Every community is different. Every group of peoples is different.

When we speak for or assume that subtle differences don’t exist, we do a disservice to our democracy and the ideals we stand for. We lose our ability to think critically. We can’t act creatively. We get locked into paradigms, stale and failed.

And maybe turning the kaleidoscope will help. Maybe changing the dynamics of a decision-making axis from economy versus environment to culture or development will help us gain a new appreciation for those we disagree with – help us better separate what we need from what we want.

Or not.

But if we fail to be truly honest about our problems and the diversity of opinions, we render every debate stupid – and simplicity is where good ideas – good process – go to die.

Which is why we need to be reminded of this point, made by BC’s former Lieutenant Governor, Janet Austin:

“So often [we] have the expectation that there are simple answers to really complex problems. For every complex problem there is a simple, wrong solution.”

And that’s why it’s too late in the game to simply stand against something.

What matters now is standing for something.

Right, journalist Dawna Friesen?

“What I’m looking for now are those people who are not just saying, ‘we need change, and we should listen to young people,’ but are coming up with ideas and theories about how to bridge that divide between all the adults talking and the children who are saying ‘enough talk.’”

In other words, don’t simply oppose a problem or a solution because you don’t like it.

As biodiversity champion Harvey Locke argues, “it’s time for us to become wise and think together about how we can make the world work, given what we’ve done to it, given our capacity and given what we know. We can’t stick our heads in the sand and say it can’t be done for this reason, can’t be done for that reason. Move ahead, not behind. Don’t be looking for a hundred critiques; look for solutions to the challenges that we all face.”

Exactly. Disagree by unleashing your creativity and the next, better idea.

Because remember, we need your creativity. We need you to contribute your ideas and perspectives – your passions and your skills – to the problems at hand so we can find better answers.

As Harvey argues: “None of us knows exactly how change is made – at any scale, by anyone, anywhere – but we do know that nothing changes if no one tries.”

True. Nothing changes when we don’t make our voices heard, and everything can change when we do.

So, heed these words from our former prime minister Kim Campbell: “Go for it.” 

Indeed.

After all, this story doesn’t have an end because we haven’t written the final chapter. We haven’t settled on our chosen course or the proper solution to this question we’ve been debating: Does one individual matter?

That will be up to you.

And who knows what your answer will mean for Mount Robson’s future, for Canada’s future, and for our collective future. But we’ll never know if you don’t choose hope over despair, if you don’t choose acting over wishing.

Think about it.

Mount Robson Provincial Park isn’t perfect. It’s still missing species that once called it home. It’s still struggling to balance people and nature, even within a space designated for nature. It’s still working to build its relationship with its neighbours and repair its relationship with its former stewards.

As Mount Robson’s Elliott Ingles says, “We’ll strengthen that relationship, and we’ll just keep moving forward.”

Which is important. After all, as Elliott adds, it’s a place that matters.

“Mount Robson is such a special place to focus on.”

And trying for better, here or anywhere, is not only possible but important. After all, Elliott tells us, “we’re at the beginning. We’re at the beginning of the trail to a long road.”

Yet no matter how long or hard the road ahead might be, Elliott and his team have never quit – never stopped working for that better tomorrow.

And, ultimately, that’s all we can ask: To demand better of ourselves, of each other, of our communities, and of our world.

Demand better and try hard to do better: Make better decisions, be more thoughtful citizens and work together – in hard times and good, with those we love and with those we hate – to create better.

For people. For nature. For all. Today, tomorrow and for generations to come.

It might seem impossible. But it’s not.

After all, this story is the real-world application of everything you’ve learned in this class. You now have the tools – and we already know you have the creativity.

The answer to this problem – does one individual matter? – is where politics and socials meet biodiversity and science. It’s where economics and careers meet research and experience. It’s the basis for our art, the springboard for our stories.

This question? It’s not going to be answered by Barbara Cartwright or Dominic Dugré. Nor Dr. Shelley Alexander, Neil Fletcher, Joel McKay, or Chloe Dragon-Smith.

This question? It’s your opportunity to do your part, in ways big and small, now and in the future, to author your story – and ours – in ways no one has previously imagined.

In other words, the answers? The right answers? The better answers? They’re in you.

Time to find yours and share them with the world.

Your time is now.