this unless the strategy is revised to explicitly provide adequate corridors between the protected ares, as well as concentrating on protecting areas of greater size that can provide the vast amounts of space required to sustain grizzly populations. The existing strategy relies too heavily on local land use planning processes to designate areas as GBMAs, when what is needed is an effective, independent committee that can report directly to the Minister of ELP in order to recommend the required areas to be protected. The Grizzly Bear Scientific Advisory Committee that was established in 1995 should have been a blueprint for the type of action needed, but due to powers beyond its control, it was largely ineffective. When the GBSAC was established, it was to provide objective advice on management issues regarding grizzly bears. As time passed on, it became apparent that high level government interests within the Wildlife Branch were only interested in maintaining the status quo, and when the committee did attempt to make recommendations that were different than the government’s agenda, they were quashed. When the GBSAC opposed a ski resort development in critical grizzly habitat, the advice was ignored by the NDP government, and instead an internally drafted paper by a Wildlife Branch staff member supporting the development was issued (Hume, 2000). Government interference proved to be so intense that many of the panel members, including Wayne McCrory, who is one of B.C.’s leading grizzly biologists, are considering declining reappointment on the new committee due to frustrations from their ineffectiveness in enacting change. Wildlife Branch interests have had a history of taking actions that are seen as not being in the grizzly’s best interests for many years now. One of the most contentious issues affecting the grizzly bear hunt in British Columbia has been the accuracy of population estimates used in determining the to...
