Previous Page | Habitat Supply Home Page | Workshop Home Page

Habitat Supply Decision Support Workshop
February 28/March 1, 2001

I realize that we have heard 24 speakers in the last two days and that I am the 25th.  Therefore, I will try to be as brief as possible.  I regard this as a successful workshop, beginning early on when registration reached its maximum number of 150 participants, and I sense that the timing of it is helping to address an identified need for this information by people like you.

To begin with, I would like to extend my thanks to several groups and numerous people.  The organizing committee invested much thought and effort into designing this workshop and I would particularly like to thank Rick Ellis for his insight and fortitude.  The speakers put a great deal of effort into very well-presented talks and the time they took to prepare and deliver their presentations is appreciated by all of us.  Those people who enhanced the workshop with a poster also made a significant contribution to this event.  And thank you to Kandy Akselson and the Forestry Continuing Studies Network for handling all the arrangements and registration.

Also, thank you to the organizing committee and participants for inviting me to be the summary speaker.  I really appreciate this challenge.  And finally, for this talk I have relied on comments and ideas from many of you, some of whom I’ve asked and others who have unknowingly provided input in our discussions.  Thanks very much for your helpful thoughts.

In summarizing the workshop, I will first convey a point from each speaker that I thought helped address the workshop objectives.  Then I will add some of my own thoughts about habitat supply based on my experience and opinion.

Before then, however, I think you should know a little about my background.  First of all, I am not a habitat supply modeller!  When I worked for the Ministry of Forests, I was a stand tending forester, including several years as a member of the Wildlife Tree Committee.  I then worked in research extension, helping to link the information provided by researchers and needed by operational staff—in both directions.  More recently, as a consultant for four years, I have helped to write habitat-related publications, facilitated Type 1 workshops as the silviculturist and then contributed to the silviculture strategy report, and I have worked on various extension efforts for the Enhanced Forest Management Pilot Project.

Summary of Speakers

In trying to extract one key point from each speaker, I looked to the objectives of this “Habitat Supply Decision Support Workshop.”  Just to refresh your memories, the objectives on the original agenda are to extend state-of-the-art information on:

• Decision support tools that are available;
• Recent applications that have been made in BC; and
• Management questions that have been addressed.

Tory Stevens, in her introduction, stated that this is a time for opportunity.  Ron Bronstein then told us that the workshop success depends on those in the audience and that participants need to follow up with their colleagues and share information.  Rick Ellis told us that he believes we are the village that is needed to raise a child, using habitat supply as the child in this metaphor.

One of the points I liked in Bill Bourgeois’s talk is that communications between his company and their public advisory group are two-way.

Gary Townsend ended his talk with the suggestion of a Timber and Habitat Supply Branch, and the establishment of timber and habitat supply reviews.

Mike Fenger talked about how procrastination in the name of reducing risk actually increases risk.  Canadians are well-known for studying issues to death before a decision is made and I think Mike sees that this can be very serious with regard to habitat supply.

Jim Rochelle’s talk about the biodiversity working group’s strategic plan included tracking and communicating emerging needs, from the first stage of awareness to the final stage of extension.

Keith Jones’ talk about the Forest Resources Inventory Committee included how we don’t monitor the effects of our practices very well.  I agree that a lack of monitoring is a shortcoming in our resource management perspectives and programs.

When Rick Ellis introduced analytical tools, he talked about teamwork and how what we’re doing in habitat supply is like making a movie.  He advised us not to be enamoured with the stars because it’s what’s going on in the backroom that counts.  And, we must know what was cut and left on the cutting room floor.  Rick also talked about how dialogue is key, not the special effects.

Don Reimer’s presentation on Plum Creek Timber’s habitat conservation plan talked about trade-offs of one species with other species.  Plum Creek’s planning work emphasizes monitoring, which is considered a key factor.  Annual monitoring and re-running of the models are costly steps but they actually save money in the long run, and are important towards verification of habitat use according to the model results.

Dave Clark talked about how the Ministry of Forests uses a bottom-up approach to produce bio-geo-climatic classification, whereas he regards the top-down approach of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks as climato-geo-biotic.

Pierre Vernier described four models for use at different scales and how to select the best model for the circumstances.  He also talked about trade-offs in model reliability and cost.

When Tory Stevens spoke about her analysis for the Robson Valley TSA she reminded the audience that the Attorney-General’s office determined that TSR is an appropriate place for environmental analysis and that such analysis is not considered a constraint.  The methodology she described uses TSR data, which, to me, shows a lack of exclusivity.

David Byng’s presentation included his view that models are only as good as the inventory data used.  David described a useful variation he made on other’s work, by adding potential sunlight to a black-tailed deer range model.  As well, David questioned the influence of climate change on model development and use.

Walt Klenner told us that our forest management practices may be more a reflection on past and current conditions, not necessarily a sign of our good job of managing.  And conversely, we may not get the results we want for a long time due to the high stand age required to achieve old-growth condition.  Walt also talked about how a cultural shift is required towards strengthening the technical information used in non-timber resource management.

Martin Rafael, at the banquet, presented some collaborative work from Washington that predicted population outcomes for a variety of scenarios.

When we began this morning, Scott McNay talked about his toolbox of SELES, ArcView and Netica, along with five primary models.  Scott admitted that a great deal of data manipulation was required and this could only be managed through MS Access.  Scott’s modelling used basic hardware for future accessibility to many potential users.

Harold Armleder presented a sort of case study of how models were used to address an important objective of the Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan.  The model results needed experienced interpretation but that was only a part of the puzzle that the issue presented.  And, Harold gave an example of how communicating the results effectively takes thought.

Ralph Wells’ presentation answered a question of the Invermere TSR base case in relation to Northern Goshawk nesting habitat.  Ralph stressed the need for field evaluation to test the modelling projections.

Ian Blackburn’s presentation on modelling populations of spotted owl under various management scenarios also re-examined strategic management options.  He questioned how we can know the level of faith to hold in model results.

Rick Bonar talked about the range of natural variability as an historical range.  He described six scales of habitat model reliability with the sixth stage, the most reliable, being a model with good predictive performance developed with local data.

As the representative for the McGregor Model Forest, we would expect Dwight Scott Wolfe to know something about modelling.  Dwight’s high-tech presentation helped to maximize our comprehension of projected changes over the landscape over time, then he described how the components of that projection were derived.

Don Morgan told us that asking the right questions before any modelling work begins is very important, and is analogous to putting a square peg in a square hole.  Don ended his presentation with a recommendation for better habitat supply support.

Fred Hovey provided a fitting end to the technical speakers.  When he tested a cumulative effects model from one area in an adjacent area, he found some problems.  He cautioned us to remember this in our modelling work.

In summary, what I noticed about the presentations is that the speakers didn’t emphasize the model.  Instead, they realized its role in addressing a management issue.  They conveyed that interpretation, application and verification of the model’s results are most important, regardless of all the different situations presented to us.  To me, this is a healthy and realistic approach.  Scott McNay summed it up by advising us that models need to be “useful, useable and used.”

The speakers showed us the logical steps they took to use decision tools for addressing their particular management issue, and I found their work very responsive to the problem or issue they addressed.

Some of the details I liked included the use by Tory Stevens and her colleagues of TSR data for their modelling work.  Along with the basic hardware requirement we heard from Scott McNay, I regard these as measures taken to ensure that the modelling is not perceived or realized as exclusive.  Many speakers stressed the importance of field evaluation to verify model results and assess the model’s reliability, and that communicating the results well is very important.  Finally, partnerships and collaboration were at the forefront of most presentations.  In this day and age, when dealing with the complex issues we learned about, we need to have broad groups of expertise effectively working together.

My Personal Views

My personal views form the second part of this summary presentation.  I will be talking about the bad news, the unfortunate news, the good news, the future, and how to create that future.

The Bad News

What I consider to be the bad news is that I feel that, in some circumstances, habitat is significantly under-rated and regarded despite its importance.  At worst, habitat values are still considered by some as a constraint to “getting the wood out.”  I have despaired over this attitude, especially when I know that it is the predominant mindset in some workplaces and other venues.

This was evident to me when I worked last year on Type 1 analyses for silviculture strategies.  As a co-facilitator it was apparent to me that habitat supply would be pushed to the side by the group unless the Forest Ecosystem Specialist or other MELP representative was very vocal and outspoken.  In some cases, that representative appeared intimidated and no matter how the facilitators tried to project habitat supply as an important part of the workshop and the ensuing silviculture strategy, it was not reflected in the final report because the participants hadn’t adequately considered it as a factor.

The Unfortunate News

Public expectations and certification are often used as the reasons to be more inclusive in defining and addressing a variety of resource management values, including habitat.  What I would like is for the resource management professionals to be acknowledging their relevant Code of Ethics, their training—and what I really think they truly believe—and putting non-timber values more in the forefront.  I don’t think we are adequately demonstrating the individual pressure we feel.  Instead we too often talk about the external pressures as if they are the only reason we care.

The Good News

The good news is that public expectations and certification will help us achieve what we want regarding habitat values and habitat supply.  As well, I believe that professional accountability by all resource management professionals (foresters, biologists, engineers, geoscientists and agrologists) will play a key role.  Professional accountability is a term that I think gets used too loosely in some cases, so I will help to clarify it.  The definition of professional accountability by the Association of BC Professional Foresters includes the following:

• Independence from one’s employer or client;
• Respect for others’ professional judgment;
• Knowing one’s limits of practice and competence; and
• Demonstrating high levels of professional competence, conduct and integrity.

In particular, professionals have to be questioning their independence.  Independence is not a switch that can be turned on.  It grows by awareness, by questioning and through dialogue with others.

The good news also includes the fact that silviculture strategies will include habitat supply management objectives, and we know from this workshop that we have some excellent tools for predicting habitat supply in the process of selecting management options.

The Future

In my opinion, the future will continue to see public expectations and certification as driving forces, and professional accountability will increase in importance.  In short, there will be no timber supply without habitat supply.  The future will see a continually changing mindset in the relationship of habitat supply and timber supply.

How to Create a Better Future for Habitat Supply

Well, how do we create a better future for habitat supply?

We need some consolidation of the habitat supply decision support tools we’ve learned about at this workshop, for more widespread, easily-understood use.

We need better communication and more of it in the field, and when commitments are made in the field, they must stand.

We need professional independence.  Independence is paramount to our credibility and it’s a growing issue with the public.  Recently, we have seen two national issues on the Canadian public’s radar screen that relate to professional independence.  The first is who the federal ethics counsellor reports to and his perceived lack of independence when he examines the Prime Minister and then reports to him.  We have also seen a declared “independent” review by a lawyer regarding the significant donation to a political party by a professional who had just worked for the political party on a widely-known case.  That review determined that the donation was acceptable, but I think many Canadians perceived it as possibly a financial kick-back for the initial work undertaken.

In my consulting work, I want to know that whatever results I produce will be regarded as independent.  But, we have an increasingly skeptical public and we have to deal with that.  Therefore, we need to be talking about independence and questioning our own independence to become better professionals.

The future will see better extension through various means—conferences, small indoor workshops, publications and field-based events.  We’re seeing an example right here at this workshop: presentations, posters, dialogue, publications, printed hand-outs and contact information.  No one way will do it.  We need to think of our audience’s preferred ways of receiving information – and asking them if we don’t know – and extending habitat supply decision support tools and related information.

The future requires persistence and understanding, and it requires trust.  Then, when these things are working well, habitat will be truly an objective, and not a constraint.

Previous Page | Habitat Supply Module Home Page | Workshop Home Page