Is the Federal Government trying to provoke resistance to the Sage-Grouse Emergency Order?

from Medicine Hat Review--stakeholders' meeting in Manyberries

Or are they just being ham-fisted and naive about how their words and actions influence landowners and ranchers?

Warning: rumour and unproven speculation ahead, but first here are some things we know for sure.

1. The courts have forced Environment Canada to comply with the Species At Risk Act and finally do something to protect the Greater Sage-Grouse, by enacting the first Emergency Order under the act.

2.The Greater Sage-Grouse is a species that has dwindled down to 2% of what the population was at the end of the 1980s. People are calling it the most endangered bird in the country, because last year there were fewer than 130 adult birds recorded in Canada. (With fewer than ten in the country, the Kirtland's Warbler probably is more worthy of that title.)

3.The oil and gas activity is believed to be a major cause of the decline of the Sage-Grouse. Here is what Mark Boyce, University of Alberta Professor and Sage-Grouse expert, said when Ecojustice began calling for the Emergency Order back in 2011:

“We have strong science telling us how and where oil and gas development must be regulated if sage-grouse are to survive in Canada, but the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan and the oil and gas industry are refusing to act on it. Unless they change course immediately, sage-grouse will become the first species extirpated because of the oil and gas industry.”

“We have strong science telling us how and where oil and gas development must be regulated if sage-grouse are to survive in Canada, but the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan and the oil and gas industry are refusing to act on it,” said Dr. Mark Boyce, sage-grouse expert and professor at the University of Alberta. "Unless they change course immediately, sage-grouse will become the first species extirpated because of the oil and gas industry.” - See more at: http://www.ecojustice.ca/media-centre/press-releases/federal-government-must-prevent-extinction-of-sage-grouse-in-canada#sthash.twqIc0U3.dpuf

“We have strong science telling us how and where oil and gas development must be regulated if sage-grouse are to survive in Canada, but the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan and the oil and gas industry are refusing to act on it,” said Dr. Mark Boyce, sage-grouse expert and professor at the University of Alberta. "Unless they change course immediately, sage-grouse will become the first species extirpated because of the oil and gas industry.” - See more at: http://www.ecojustice.ca/media-centre/press-releases/federal-government-must-prevent-extinction-of-sage-grouse-in-canada#sthash.twqIc0U3.dpuf

“We have strong science telling us how and where oil and gas development must be regulated if sage-grouse are to survive in Canada, but the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan and the oil and gas industry are refusing to act on it,” said Dr. Mark Boyce, sage-grouse expert and professor at the University of Alberta. "Unless they change course immediately, sage-grouse will become the first species extirpated because of the oil and gas industry.” - See more at: http://www.ecojustice.ca/media-centre/press-releases/federal-government-must-prevent-extinction-of-sage-grouse-in-canada#sthash.twqIc0U3.dpuf

4. No one has made a case that cattle grazing practices on and near Sage-Grouse habitat are a significant factor in the decline.

5. Last week, on January 21st, some representatives of the Federal Government held a public meeting in Consul to discuss what the provisions of the Emergency Order will mean for ranchers.

6. I was not at that meeting, but, [here is where the rumour and unproven speculation begins]....

I have heard through the grapevine that the meeting did not go that well. Some ranchers left feeling like they were going to be told what they can do and cannot do with the land they graze. And it was not so much the details of the potential restrictions that were a problem as the way the information was delivered. In fact, my informant said that it is likely that most of the provisions will align with practices they are already following, but any time you tell ranchers they must do this and not do that, they begin to resent the implied message: i.e. you don't know what is good for the land and its wildlife, but don't worry, we do and here are some wonderful new rules you can follow to tune up your management.

I don't know who was representing the Federal Government at the meeting, and I do not know how they spoke or if they did tell ranchers what they can and cannot do on public land they graze (here is an article on a similar meeting in Manyberries in mid-December, which makes it sound like the meeting pleased no one, conservationists or ranchers).

In my experience, the few federal biologists who remain in this part of the country seem pretty good at presenting information to the public and to ranchers, so I was surprised to hear that ranchers were put off by the presentation. But perhaps rather than the biologists, it was a representative of some other level of the Ministry of Environment, a managerial or policy wonk or, god forbid, some public relations person.

Or was it simply a case of some, not all, ranchers at the meeting not wanting to hear any talk of endangered species protection provisions at all, no matter how carefully the information is delivered? That is possible: ranchers, by nature are independent characters who are slow to warm up to any government program that might require their cooperation. It is part of who they are and some of that irascibility is probably tied up with the same passion and stubbornness that makes many of them good stewards of grassland in the face of a difficult market for beef.

Surely by now, though, everyone in the Ministry of Environment knows that the quickest way to anger a rancher is to stand up at a meeting and announce things that might restrict his autonomy to manage the land the way he sees fit.

Hmmm--ok, this is where it is easy to get paranoid and conspiratorial. What if that is the Federal Government's goal? Is it too much of a stretch to say that the Harper Government is reacting against the Emergency Order they were forced to implement by doing a bad job of it? And, further, that they may be trying to drive a wedge between cattle producers and conservationists concerned about the Sage-Grouse?

In my house this is called a "display of inadequacy." I give one of my kids a chore to do in the kitchen. They do a poor job of it, hoping I will in frustration either let them off the hook and do it myself, or not bother to ask them next time round, or, ideally, both. (When this happens, I try to give them an extra task for "practice" to ensure this strategy backfires, but sometimes they win and I get sucked in to the inadequacy vortex.)

Others might call this "malicious compliance," a kind of "work to rule" protest--just do the minimum, but do it grudgingly and badly to punish whomever made you do the work in the first place.

I realize this is for now a largely groundless accusation, but the Harper Government has given us ample cause to expect the worst. And this very first SAR Emergency Order will be something of a template. Are there people higher up in the Ministry and in the government who want this to fail so they can dissuade the Environmental community from holding their feet to the fire on the Orca, the Woodland Caribou and other species rapidly declining across the country?

As I said, I was not at the meeting and can't be sure who was doing the speaking, what was said or how it was delivered, but it sounds like ranchers walked away feeling unappreciated, disrespected, and imposed upon by people who neither live nor work where they live and work.

If the rumours are true, some of them may have left with a sour taste in their mouths for those damned city environmentalists and their endangered species. How will they respond the next time a conservation organization wants to "partner" on this or any other species that uses their land?

If the rumours are true, conservationists in Alberta and Saskatchewan will have some damage control to do. We can't let the Federal Government, either willfully or through ineptitude, degrade the relationships and mutual trust built during hours of going to meetings to discuss the Sage-Grouse and other grassland conservation concerns.

I would love to hear from others who were at this meeting in Consul. Did the Federal representatives botch it, how did ranchers respond, what are the ranchers' concerns? Are the Ministry of Environment reps just being careless or have they been instructed to act in ways they know will alienate the ranchers from the process, stirring up resistance to the Emergency Order? And if that is happening, what can we do to disable that strategy? Leave a comment or email me at trevorherriot@gmail.com

image courtesy of Branimir Gjetvaj