Decision time.

What should we do? How would you balance people and nature – how would you safeguard biodiversity while bridging the urban-rural divide, growing our economy, meaningfully achieving reconciliation and overcoming divisive cultural wars?

Look, picking sides is easy. Knowing who’s right and who’s wrong is easy. But making the call? Living with the consequences? That’s hard.

We might not live in the society we want to live in. We might not have the leaders we want – in politics, in business, in advocacy, in media. We might not like the facts we’re told – or how the facts are presented.

And yet today? This is what we have.

We can change it, but change takes time. And the question isn’t what we’ll do tomorrow, but what can we do today?

After all, the issues are too urgent and too real to wait until tomorrow. We need to make a decision today – for people and for nature.

But how?

Biologist Dr. Victoria Lukasik tells us that to make better decisions that balance people and nature, first, we have to understand the nature of decision-making – even scientific decision-making.

“There are these huge battles about wildlife, and actually, it’s really not about the animals at all. It’s really about politics and different people’s values, and they turn it into a left-wing versus right-wing. We’re not talking about the animals and trying to figure out how to live with them, but we’re just using them as kind of a pawn in a political argument.”

That’s the reality decision-makers must navigate when grappling with how best to manage wildlife. And Victoria should know. She’s researched the dynamics of how wildlife managers make decisions.

“The majority of my research was interviewing provincial wildlife biologists. So, we call them managers. One of the interesting things is that, almost across the board, they don’t consider themselves decision-makers. They can advise on the science of the matter, but they don’t consider themselves decision makers.”

That means when government managers make decisions about a public resource on behalf of the public, they defer to those who actually engage in the process.

Victoria explains that “the people who are most involved in wildlife management are the people who like it the way it is, for the most part. They want to have their animals to hunt, and they don’t want there to be too many carnivores or, ironically, so-called game species competing with their livestock. That’s what we kind of manage for.”

It’s a story that’s not unique to Canada.

In the United States, hunters and the hunting industry are heavily engaged in wildlife management decisions – not only because they’re vocal stakeholders but also because they help pay the conservation bill.

It’s why, in part, hunters have such a large say in US wildlife policy, even though fewer than 5% of Americans hunt.

Moreover, the US gun lobby helps elevate pro-hunting issues, in part because 32% of Americans own guns – and over 40% live in a household with guns present. In Canada, only 13% of Canadians own a gun. And like America, roughly 5% of our population hunts.

Here’s the thing: 5% of the American population is 15 million people. That’s big business, and that means big money flowing towards conservation. In Canada, 5% is just over two million. And though that’s still big business, it’s not on the same scale.

And though hunters certainly fund conservation work in Canada – especially through pro-hunting organizations like Ducks Unlimited and the Canadian Wildlife Federation and its chapters like the BC Wildlife Federation – unlike the US, Canadian hunters aren’t the biggest funder of parks, species recovery, and other environmental initiatives. That work falls mostly to governments and the taxpayer.

But as Dr. Victoria Lukasik’s research highlights, Canadian wildlife policies are still managed with hunters in mind, not only because they’re the most engaged in decision-making processes but also because they vote on hunting issues. And even if hunters and trappers represent a small portion of the voting population, their vote is heavily concentrated, Victoria argues.

“Especially in western Canada, our vote is really affected by the rural populations over the urban populations.”

Northern Development’s Joel McKay vehemently disagrees that rural voices have the power to sway decisions.

“Just as BC has very little say in the outcome of most federal elections, rural BC has very little to say where it concerns provincial elections, much less than federal ones. Unlike other jurisdictions, Canada does not have a proportionate electoral system, business environment or taxation regime that recognizes the outside value rural areas generate for the rest of the country.”

Political Science professor Dr. Will Greaves agrees Canada’s electoral system isn’t proportional but says that doesn’t mean minority voices have no power.

“Actors who are, maybe, relatively minor within our system can still be veto players. Under the right circumstances, the mayor of Montreal or the mayor of Vancouver, or the premier of one province or another, or as has been the case in Canadian history, even a single legislator in a single provincial legislature, can have the power to fundamentally alter the course of the country’s history.”

Who’s right? Well, in truth, they all are.

Rural communities have less of a say in provincial and national matters than those who live in urban centres because urbanites are the significantly larger demographic in Canada – they represent more than 80% of the Canadian population. Yet urbanites are significantly underrepresented in Canada’s first-past-the-post electoral system.

As Michael Pal of the University of Ottawa explained to CBC Radio, “your vote in Labrador is probably worth three and a half times more than a vote in Vancouver. So, it’s as if we said everybody in Labrador gets three and a half ballots, and everybody in Vancouver gets one.”

And there are countless examples of urban ridings that have populations in the hundreds of thousands and rural ridings with populations in the tens of thousands.

Michael Pal added to CBC, quote, “The least powerful voter in Canada is probably a recent immigrant from Pakistan, Bangladesh, India or China, who lives in Brampton, Markham or Mississauga – places where [the] population is growing very quickly. So that tends to be the suburbs around the biggest cities. So, it’s not necessarily downtown Toronto, but it’s the 905-area code [the suburbs around Toronto].”

Even still, in our system, broad, less-specific policies – like, say, regulations that limit primary forest logging or, maybe, a carbon tax – usually can succeed despite rural opposition. After all, it’s much harder for rural voices to oppose something that enjoys broad support across urban ridings.

In this case, a broad policy might be the top issue for enough voters in enough urban ridings. And if way more people in way more ridings contact their representatives about one policy, then the urban representatives will be united on the issue. And given that there are more urban ridings than rural ridings, a majority of urban elected representatives can overrule the majority of rural representatives.

And yet, our system also makes it easier for specific, niche issues to be advanced – or derailed – by rural ridings.

Rural constituents have fewer voices to battle to get the attention of their elected representative. And given that a rural representative has fewer constituents and fewer issues to juggle, they, in turn, can be effective advocates in government or opposition.

It’s why strong opposition to a park proposal that bans hunting in one rural riding can kill the planned park outright. After all, wildlife management decisions in one part of the country are rarely the top issue for a majority of voters in enough urban ridings to counter the focused political advocate for the one riding where opposition is strongest.

As biologist Dr. Victoria Lukasik says, “if the wildlife managers are kind of pushing for certain things, and someone doesn’t like it, they know who to speak to. They know their representative. They go to the grocery store and bump into them, and they say: ‘Hey, this is what’s happening. I don’t like it. And if you want my vote, you’re going to fix it.’ So, sometimes the whole management process gets diverted by a politician who says ‘oh, someone’s upset about this,’ and then they just quash it.”

In other words, the old squeaky wheel gets the oil.

For that reason, as Victoria explains, “it’s really tough to make changes and to push for things unless you know that you’re going to have public support. It’s a lot easier for the politicians to basically keep things as they are. As soon as they change things, they risk that someone may get upset, and they don’t want to lose votes.”

Sam Sullivan, a former urban mayor and cabinet minister in a government heavily supported by rural ridings agrees.

“Politicians will be very attuned to what might clobber them if they go in one direction.”

And that’s why, Victoria argues, the North America Model of Wildlife Conservation has remained the guiding policy for wildlife managers for over a century: Those who believe in it care enough to be involved.

As for those who don’t? Victoria says the “environment and wildlife are not typically big election issues. Or they don’t even come up as election issues half the time.”

And maybe that’s a good thing, and maybe it’s not – that’s for you to decide. But what’s important to remember is that democracy and decisions always favour the engaged.

It’s why Alberta political backroom wizard Donn Lovett says to those who disagree with the status quo:

“If they don’t get involved in politics, I don’t want to listen to them. I don’t want to hear somebody complaining if they haven’t voted, in the very least, or they haven’t got involved and done something to better the situation. I’m not interested in listening to them.”

Dr. Victoria Lukasik agrees and, for that reason, urges everyone to engage in the process – not to sway decisions necessarily, but to ensure every perspective is heard and weighed when important decisions are made.

“My take home message is: The public needs to be involved and have a louder voice. And don’t just wait for an election. As much as you may love the environment, it’s probably not the only factor you’re making when you’re casting your vote. You need to be involved the whole way through. You have to be that squeaky wheel.”

But even if we all make our voices heard, that doesn’t make finding the right decision any easier.

After all, balancing majority will and minority rights is hard – and it’s even harder to balance minority rights of one segment of the population against the rights of other minority populations.

Why?

Almost every decision impacts someone’s bottom line – their culture, their beliefs, their livelihood, their sense of justice, their – our – environment. And it’s hard to argue minority rights for one segment of the population without applying those same rights to the other.

Indeed, in the wake of the so-called 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, it was argued by Brian Lee Crowley in The Line, that 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 though that might seem like a tangential point, it’s not.

We need to consider this lesson – this reality – when it comes to deciding how best to balance ethics and culture; how best to balance populations and individuals. We need to ensure our decisions aren’t just solutions that work for those who share our worldview but also account for those we disagree with.

For that to happen, though, everyone needs to be working from a common set of facts. And that, Dr. Victoria Lukasik explains, is a challenge.

“We’re trying to make decisions, but we don’t have the money to collect a lot of data. Half the time, we don’t even do a lot of monitoring because that requires time and data. We get information based on hunting, and we get information based on studies, often with grad students. We don’t always know as much about the system [nature] as we should know because we just don’t have the resources to gather that data.”

With the data and research decision-makers can access, there is always the question of bias.

“As much as this [research] being science-based and as much as we try to talk about it being objective, every journal has a certain scope. They’re not covering the full breadth of the science that’s out there, and they’re not maybe getting the new perspectives coming from a different viewpoint.”

Some new studies are reaffirming and updating the North America Model of Wildlife Conservation, arguing that we must continue to focus on wildlife population health when making decisions.

Some new studies are making a case for adopting compassionate conservation as a wildlife management model, arguing that we must start prioritizing the welfare and impact of individual animals.

Each side of the scientific debate accuses the other of biased science – allowing every side of this issue to call decisions into question if it doesn’t align with their values.

So, how to decide whose science is the right science? Well, it’s complicated.

Environmental lawyer Kerrie Blaise says, “you look for third-party expertise. So, you look at who funded them and where are they affiliated.”

But scientist Sandra Nelson – often hired by government and industry to collect data to inform decisions – tells us all scientists, no matter who they work for, try their best to help make better decisions.

“I’m trying to provide the most accurate data that I can so that the people who ultimately have that decision to make have the best information that they can get at their fingertips to make that decision.”

And Sandra is offended when people call her neutrality into question.

“I am a registered professional biologist. I have a responsibility to the resource – it’s written into our code of ethics. I take that very seriously. If I’m getting pressured to change an answer, that is a huge problem, and I don’t do it.”

And independent bear biologist Gordon Stenhouse agrees.

“I always believe that scientific data speaks for itself and that scientists must accept their results even if they do not support preconceived notions or bias. The challenge scientists face is when it comes down to interpreting scientific results in an open and honest manner, which is usually seen in management recommendations. The key is to not extend beyond what the data reveals and clearly articulate statements that are opinion or speculation.”

However, there is also this to consider: The question that informs the scientific inquiry – the scope or context included or excluded – can also skew the results.

It’s why you can have such differing scientific results and still have both sides claim their positions are rooted in the best available science. After all, every scientific inquiry – every political decision – is made by humans. And all humans have bias, says mathematical ecologist Andria Dawson.

“I think that there are inherent biases everywhere in society, and science is no exception to that.”

Biologist Dr. Shelley Alexander acknowledges she has a bias supporting a new model of wildlife management, but she says that doesn’t make her science flawed.

Shelley argues that if there is a scientist who says, “‘I choose to disregard animal suffering, and so all my science is going to be around that.’ And this person over here says, ‘I accept animal suffering and will consider that in my science.’ These two things? Neither one is more objective than the other. What it comes down to is, as a student trying to understand this, you look at the methods. What are the methods? Are they supported? Who is doing the research? What are the outcomes?”

Shelley adds what you need to realize about scientists is that “we are not supposed to speak in 100% proof of anything. We’re always supposed to couch things in terms of uncertainty. And, so, it leaves room for interpretation, and it leaves scientists open to attack from people who say that people who do conservation just cherry-pick the facts. But the reality is, on the other side, people are also just cherry-picking facts.”

That’s an important point. It also means science-based decisions are never pure, and all processes – all reporting – won’t always tell the full story. It’s why, whether you’re a decision-maker, solution-proposer, or simply a citizen-debater, Global National anchor Dawna Friesen says, “you should be consuming, if you can, as many sources of news as you can. So, don’t just look to one place because [you need] a multiplicity of voices.”

That’s true of journalism, research and science. But Dawna adds, “I don’t think that people should feel that it’s such a burden to try to find accurate information, that you almost go: ‘I don’t know where I’m going to find it.’ And they just give up. I think, as citizens, you need to keep yourself informed, but you shouldn’t have to think: ‘Oh my goodness, where do I even start? How can I believe this stuff?’”

And that’s where journalism should step in, making the truth easier to find. Though Dawna acknowledges, “of course we make mistakes. And we’re all human. We work as a team, and we work on very short deadlines. Of course, we make mistakes. But we work hard to get a multiplicity of voices, see things from multiple perspectives – not just take something at face value, but look a little deeper.”

That approach, says scientist Story Warren, is one we all need to embody.

“Every once in a while, I think it’s a healthy thought exercise to think: ‘What if I’m wrong about this? What if they’re right?’ And you can see parts of their argument that makes sense to them, that makes sense to their community. And then you can address those and address them one-on-one, as people.”

It’s in doing this that some have suggested we need to find a compromise solution to this debate. Like making all parks actual wildlife sanctuaries – places where Compassionate Conservation principals come first – and leave all remaining public or Crown land to be managed under the North America Model of Wildlife Conservation policy.

Additionally, the idea goes, buffer zones should be created around parks that blur the two models, helping animals who have learned to trust humans adjust to the different standards when they cross an arbitrary line on the map.

As biologist Dr. Victoria Lukasik explains, “as soon as these animals are crossing past a certain line that’s invisible, but it’s our sort of threshold, then they’re breaking a rule that they don’t even know exists.”

Parks Canada’s Louis-René Sénéchal agrees, adding, “animals go in and out of these parks. So, unless you plan some buffer space, some corridors, some links for these animals to reach other spaces they want to spend some time in, then you’re alone with your small protected space, and that’s not going to work.”

It’s a question up-and-coming biologist Story Warren has struggled with.

“We assign more value to the wolves that we know than the wolves that we don’t. And I don’t know how fair or right that is, but it’s a very human-centric thing that we do. Because certain wolves happen to be born in Yellowstone or Banff, people care about them more. I don’t have an answer for if there should be a buffer or not. But there is a question of fairness to me.”

Good point. And then there’s this: As Indigenous land-use advocate Chloe Dragon-Smith reminds us, “what’s in common in Canada is that everywhere you are is the traditional territory of somebody.”

Chloe also adds that “when we separate ourselves, we do ourselves a disservice, and we also do the land a disservice. And that goes for everybody, but that especially goes for our Indigenous peoples, who are very, very closely tied to place.”

It’s for that reason Guide Outfitters’ Dominic Dugré disagrees with any solution that limits people and their cultural traditions.

“Rather than having blocks where only animals live or where only humans live, we believe that it is important to find a way that we can live together in balance.”

Humane Society’s Barbara Cartwright agrees we need to live in balance everywhere.

“On one side, we’re impacting our environment too much, so can we calve off some space for the rest of the world to live without our influence? But if we do that, we’re going to lose our ability to live together and to maintain the health of the ecosystem with us in it.”

But Barbara also believes that if we want to be connected to nature everywhere, that means we need to value individual animals everywhere.

“If we only see something as one big mass, and we don’t connect into each of the individuals in it, then we lose our connection.”

Dominic counters that it’s populations, not individuals, that matter.

“Today’s hunting regulations are highly prescriptive, and hunting is of no threat to wildlife populations.”

But Barbara says that’s a mixed message.

“If we tell people: ‘We have to care about elephants, but not these ones – we’re going to kill them, or not these ones they get to go in a zoo – then it’s not a consistent message [that elephants matter].”

Ultimately, biologist Dr. Shelley Alexander says, “the bottom line is there are multiple truths – there are multiple ways to see the world – and what we believe is important.”

That is very true and it’s why compromises so rarely work. It’s also why, against that backdrop, so many of us would rather shut off than engage.

“Hasan Minhaj, one of the online comedians in the US, has this line where he says, ‘I’m lazier than I am woke.’ And I think that’s true for many of us.”

Dr. Aleem Bharwani is the director of public policy at the Cumming School of Medicine at the University of Calgary and he understands that the issues are complicated – that what to do isn’t easy or obvious. But Aleem adds, “It’s true of personal relationships, it’s true of big system issues, it’s true of a lot of things: We do always realize what we’ve got until it until it’s gone.”

It’s why Aleem believes we all need to overcome our fear – and laziness – to help find solutions to this question and all challenges we face. But in the doing, we must remember:

“There is no point in policy, even if it’s exactly what people want, if it’s not true, if it’s grounded in reality. Otherwise, it’s no different than a wishing well.”

Aleem says that means “the goal should be to facilitate honest, respectful dialogue.”

Which is easier said than done until you think about this, as Aleem argues:

“Sometimes you just need a turn of the Kaleidoscope, where you’re looking at that same problem, that same piece of that same wall, and if some components are turned a slight way, now suddenly you can drive that line of inquiry in a very different direction.”

So, let’s do just that.

By now, you understand why the intersection of people and nature is so accident prone – so messy for decision-makers. And yet that’s in part because the decision-making axis has always been trees versus jobs, environment versus the economy, as Dr. Victoria Lukasik reminds us.

“Our economic interests, which are usually the same as our political interests, are things that are often in contrast with what is best for wildlife and our environment. It’s not to say that it has to be environment versus jobs – there are other ways – but that’s the way we kind of operate as a society in Canada.”

But what if we turn the kaleidoscope? What if we looked at the issue from a different perspective?

“I do think that there’s a lot of species that can survive [without parks]. Maybe it’s not the ideal, but they can survive in these modified landscapes that we’ve created.”

Victoria is a scientist who has worked with communities and decision-makers to better understand what it will take to save biodiversity. And Victoria says emerging science suggests parks are only necessary because we refuse to coexist with large carnivores.

“The large carnivores, we think of them as sort of being in need of pristine wilderness. And I think we’re more and more seeing that, actually, what they need is just for people to tolerate them.”

Grizzly bear biologist Gordon Stenhouse has been one of the leading researchers on this very subject. Gordon tells us, “our long-term data and published research papers allowed the government and industry to agree with the need for open road density thresholds for these [developed] habitats in order to ensure high levels of grizzly bear survival.”

What does that mean? Roads – and the activities that usually go along with them, like ATV use, hunting, biking, and hiking – are more problematic for grizzlies than habitat loss.

“And so that does sometimes require sacrifice on our part,” explains Dr. Victoria Lukasik.

It also means we face a choice.

Victoria says, “if the people on the landscape could make the space for wildlife, then we wouldn’t need to have a ton of parks.”

Famed bear biologist Dr. Stephen Herrero agrees, adding the biggest threat to grizzlies is?

“It’s really the lack of people willing to coexist. In order to coexist with grizzlies, you need to be willing to accept a certain set of behavioural standards. Garbage, simple thing. But managing garbage, and storing it in a way that won’t attract grizzlies, is essential [for their survival].”

It’s why Humane Canada’s Barbara Cartwright says coexistence matters more than parks, more important than ideas like Nature Needs Half.

“On one side, we’re impacting our environment too much. So, can we have some space for the rest of the world to live without our influence? But then, if we do that, we’re going to lose our ability to live together and to maintain the health of the ecosystem with us in it.”

Northern Development’s Joel McKay agrees that we need to find a way to help nature while still allowing the opportunity for people to earn a living on the landscape.

Joel tells us that “you always want to pursue a balance between local economic needs and local environmental needs.”

But Joel reminds us that what “needs to be realized is that rural communities, especially those in the North, have few realistic options for private-sector employment that are outside of natural resource industries.”

Joel adds: “The question we need to answer is how do we right-size these industries so that they’re sustainable over the long term and operate them in a way that has little to no impact on the environment but still generates a healthy profit margin?”

Dr. Shelley Alexander is one of Canada’s leading experts on wildlife coexistence, and she believes: “coexistence is possible.”

Shelley’s work with canids around the globe – and specifically with coyotes in urban and suburban Calgary – have underscored this point.

“In most environments, if people manage themselves, carnivores mind their own business and do their own thing, and the conflict will not arise. That means there are options on a daily basis, if you’re living in an urban environment, to think about maintaining biodiversity, to coexist with carnivores.”

That said, even though Shelley knows we’re capable of coexistence, she doesn’t believe enough of us are actually willing to coexist with carnivores.

“There are people who are [saying] just forget this whole save half world thing. Just make it all about coexisting, humans and animals. But there’s limits to that. It’s not like we’re never going to run into conflict without something going wrong.”

Which is why Shelley believes only concepts like Nature Needs Half – the proposal to protect half the world – will ultimately save biodiversity.

“I am still an advocate for maintaining big, protected areas where, to the best of their ability, these animals can still live out their lives.”

But what if in exchange for more parks – having a policy like Nature Needs Half – we would also need to prioritize cultural and recreation traditions within them – including hunting, ATV use, skiing and wildlife photography? Neil Fletcher of the BC Wildlife Foundation says the only good solutions are those that take into account rural culture and values.

“These people are here to stay. They’re not going anywhere. They’re going to be living on this landscape with you, and the earlier you can get towards working with them and understanding their positions, the better you might be able to find some shared solutions.”

And that’s why Ken Wu – founder of Endangered Ecosystem Alliance – believes this is exactly the kind of trade we need to be willing to make.

“You can’t make an alliance with everybody, but it’s just that we can make alliances way beyond where we are now. Why? Environmental activists are good at rallying up other environmental activists.”

Which is fair, Ken says.

“You know, you talk to your own kind. You don’t normally try to do something uncomfortable all the time out with people who are not like you. That’s just not a natural instinct, right? But we’re gonna lose if we keep on doing this.”

Think about it: What if the choice isn’t environment or the economy but culture or the economy? Animal rights or ecosystem rights?

How might existing alliances devolve and form? How might voting blocs shift? How might the conversation be altered?

Of course, there would still be division and disagreement, but maybe not down the same fault lines.

And if every debate didn’t send our traditional, national solitudes to their traditional corners for a pitted culture war – Indigenous values versus non-Indigenous values, pro-environment versus pro-economy, urban versus rural, east versus west – what might that mean?

It could be the spark needed for old adversaries to build new alliances, reshaping our debates and bridging our divides in the process.

Right now, our decision-making paradigm is predicated on having our cake and eating it too. But that seems like an old-world model; it seems naïve to think the good old-fashioned Canadian compromise can still yield enough win-wins for enough of us.

By choosing between (a) way more resource development than we’re currently allowing, way fewer parks and very few recreational opportunities, such as hunting, skiing, hiking, photography and ATV use; or (b) way fewer regulations, allowing for way, way more hunting, skiing, hiking, photography and ATV use opportunities, but also vastly increasing the amount of protected land and significantly scaling back resource development, we’d all be forced to reassess our priorities and understand what truly matters the most, to each of us.

We’d be forced to re-look at the policy proposals, economics, science, research, and stories of all affected to see what scenario best balances the needs of people and nature.

Which isn’t to say this is how we should solve our problems – that decisions are this simplistic.

They’re not.

But we do need to re-examine the problems we’re facing and how we make decisions. We can’t live in a world of zero-sum wins that cost more than dollars or species, but also the very health of our democracy.

We need to think critically, act creatively and simply do better – in our conversations, our negotiations, our decisions – for people and nature.

In the words of our former prime minister, Kim Campbell, “create, as much as possible, bridges with people who may not think alike. Try and find ways of building around dogmatism and political polarization by finding the common ground. And it’s hard.”

For the sake of our democracy, we must consider those we disagree with when we decide what we must have and what we only wish we could have. Because, after all, as Dr. Shelley Alexander reminds us: “it comes down again to values what do we want? What’s the legacy?”