Talk:Great Bear Rainforest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Grammar?[edit]

"Originally a name coined by environmental groups in the mid-1990s,[3][4][5] it is a 6.4 million hectare area along British Columbia’s north and central coast." A name "is a 6.4m hectare area"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.155.35 (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

External Links? AlaskaTrekker 16:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC) add these or not or use as references, as you see appropriate

- writing on the Great Bear from a UBC student

- an article on the rainforests of Washington, BC, and Alaska, and environmental issues, from my organization: Ground Truth Trekking

Comment[edit]

Please note: Contrary to the entry here, the Great Bear Rainforest agreement did not create a "Park," which is a specific designation that includes restrictions on hunting, road-building, development and resource extraction.

Instead, the agreement has created a series of protected areas called "conservancies," in which hunting, road-building, and certain kinds of development may be allowed. The conservancies do not comprise one contiguous unit; rather, they are a small areas scattered across the Central Coast. Most of the conservancies have not yet been officially designated by the British Columbia government.

Sources: http://www.savethegreatbear.org/mediacentre/conserve (Vancouver Sun) http://www.savethegreatbear.org/mediacentre/opportunities (Vancouver Sun) ZoeBlunt 01:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it falls in the Integrated Land Resource Management Plan category, like the Lillooet LRMP and others (as you can see I think eventually there should be an article on that); BC gov mapplace (link on BC project talkpage or archive) has a map of all of them. "The Great Bear Rainforest" is an environmental-group-invented term, though so widely current it has become the norm even in government and industry information. It is in no way a historical name of any more than a couple of decades origin, and then deliberately created, and that should be stated; this is otherwise most of "the Central Coast", a term which can include areas south and inland from it, i.e. to Port Hardy and Bella Coola.Skookum1 06:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please add something about the Rainforest Wolf which is a shown to be a distinct genetic population of Grey Wolf, that exibit unique characteristics suited to coastal marine life. website, http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2001/01/30/bcwolves_0010130.html#skip300x250 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.172.107 (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

All political/eco/org or "other" (lobbyists, consultants), as contributors to this page[edit]

Please read WP:COI and WP:What Wikipedia is notSkookum1 (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Content of external links question is nearly all spam[edit]

Noting the removal of two commercial websites, and their replacement by a fundraising campaign for yet another environmental group working on this area....I fail to see the difference between a private business oprating in the area, which contributes to its profile and preservation, and organizations whose primary purpose, and most of their budget, is spent running organizations which work to promote the area, but which do not create jobs or spend money in the region......Both types of links have those links here to get customers, except that the orgnizations get to call them donors (oh, and petition-signers and stamp-lickers and all that too, yes). the only site I see on there that's totally neutral, or seems to be other than its clear POV agenda, is the atlas website from Inforain, which looks like a good resource - haven't checked but if they're not copyrighted and are publicly-usable coule be a great wiki resource; the other sites are promos for fund-raising every bit as much as the eco-adventures companies are out to make some dough, and have some fun while at it too; I'm envious...I'm not sure how this is to be dealt with; this very article's name was invented by one of the type of organization spamming here, the NGOs, but taht doesn't mean it can be part of their fundraising sphere; Wikipedia is not advertising and should not bev considered part of such an org's "foilo". This wording has also been attempt to be supplanted as a name for the region, but it's never caught on except in newsprint or media that comes from these org's own usage; it is equally a tourism marketing usage; but it's otherwise known to the real world as the Central Coast and doesn't date any farther back than the mid-80s, ir that far back....This almost needs to retitled Great Rain Rainforest (environmental campaign). Does the government use the term? Industry? Local communities? First Nations? Among them is it a recognized term for where they live, or would they just say "Central Coast" or "North Coast". Anyway I'm of a mind to remove all the links but the atlas, but will refer this to WikiProject Canada. I think these orgs should get emails asking them to please not consider wikipedia a good place to put their fundraising materials; they shoudl repsect wikipedia and what it is, not consider it just a free page for their favour issue/campaign....Skookum1 (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reinstated one link to an organization, in respect to this note on Wikipedia's External Links guidelines: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article". The site I've included contains detailed information about the current state of the rain forest, unavailable (as far as I can tell) from other sources. Hence, I think it's reasonable to include it.Dbarefoot (alk) 07:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This could be bclaimed about the other enviro-spam as well, I removed it again; it's primary purpose is to rasise funds ("awareness" being the euphemism) and in the context you decribe it's no different from the other spam-sites. I dno't see the difference, and Wikipedia unlike Facebook is not meant to be a venue for "raising awareness" (i.e. funds).Skookum1 (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You do raise a valid question on the naming of the region. I suspect it was named not by tourism agencies, but my environmental groups trying to protect the region. Giving it a proper name is a common strategy in raising public awareness.Dbarefoot (talk) 07:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It already had a name and didn't need a new one - "the Central Coast". Re-naming things is one of those pet affectations of environmental orgs that 's simultaneously an expression of ignorance as well as pretentiousness, something like culturual imperialism. This is not an in-use region name except by these environmental orgs; locaol First Nations (who are the majority population in the area) do not use it. It's not the name of a region, it's the name of an environmental campaign. There's a BIG dfifference....Skookum1 (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Suspicious COV/POI edits[edit]

This and this and the orioginal placement of ForestEthics as first-in-line of a only three of a large coalition of groups to be mentioned, indicate to me that a ForestEthics staffer/member is editing this page, and since this is a page about campaign by a coalition of groups, such edits are WP:COI and also not un-interestingly have a POV flavour, with EPOV the nature of the offense (eco-POV).; dumping the terms "logger" and "hunter" are prcisely what I mean, altong with a change in tone and a removal of the FACT that this is not an actual name for a region by anyone but these groups (and those branches of the government which may use it in myarketing hype, like BC Tourism, although I don't recall seeing on hellobc.com...."advocacy content" and similar bias is the same as having the government or ruling party or their proxies edit such a page; neutral edits are fine, but not un-neutral ones. Also, curiously, noting that ForestEthnics is apparently on-side with the campaign to exploit the region's rivers, which is the Premier's happy dance lately, it's not all that odd that mention of the Premier was inserted into the paragraph where there need be none, and where there had been none before. Talking one side while dancing the other is an old game in BC, especially with community-advocacy groups. I know for a FACT that the British Columbia Wildlife Federation was involved in the effort to preserve the region, as were loggers - individuals at least, maybe even some organizations, don't know about the forest unions - so removing them from the article was POV, as was inserting the Premier where he need not be, as well as the re-insertion of Forest Ethics in mid, if not head of the pack. Since when is ForestEthics more notable than the Sierra Club? And since when has ForestEthics been higher profile than the Wilderness Canada or the Canadian WWF and others of much more note and presence on the BC environmental scene? For now I'm only reversing the last of these edits, and putting ForestEthics back at the end of the chain, simplifying Sierra Club to just Sierra Club (sicne ForestEthics is a BC chapter too, of a much larger American organization), and also removing the new bit of fund-raising spam that was re-inserted.Skookum1 (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Not "most common usage"[edit]

A recent IP edit to this ar5ticle attempted to re-phrase it as if this were the accpeted name for this region, and not the title of the campaign aimed at preserving it; there's a big difference. In the edit-comment justification it was claimed Great Bear Rainforest was the most common usage, and in re-inserting a fundraising link claimed "let the redaership decide". Leaving the last POV-ish comment aside, there are good grounds to show that this is NOT the most common name for this region; it is only the most common name for the region if only environmental-group websites/publications are taken and nothing else. None of the town or cmomunity websites in the region use it, perhaps one or two of the First Nations websites use it (I haven't noticed any....) and in weather forecasts this is always called "the Central Coast" or "the North Coast", or "the North and Central Coasts". Wanting something to be the most common usage, and it actually being the most common usage, are two different things. This article should not masquerade as the name for a region when it's clearly the name of a campaign associated with the region, which already has a name.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk about your POV edits!![edit]

Please stop typing, Skookum, It's clear you work for (or did at one time) one of the logging firms in that region. Hundreds of international and Canadian newspaper articles refer to the region as "the Great Bear Rainforest." Businesses in the region advertise themselves using this designation and so do a number of academic publications.

It is certainly within the scope of Wikipedia to provide information about how a protected region was created. The lack of specifics regarding the political fight that surrounded the eventual agreement and the dearth of information about the First Nations, eco groups, Canadian governmental agencies, businesses and residents involved is appaling. So is the lack of specifics about the flora and fauna in this region and the lack of photographs or maps.

At the very least, the planned clearcutting by Interfor, Doman and others that precipitated the eventual international and regional campaign to protect the GBR must be added. Otherwise this article makes no sense. This article needs serious reworking, reference to the Clayoquout Sound controversy and protection by Wikipedia editors from further attack edits 69.237.154.123 (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

They were never attack edits, and I have never worked for any logging company of any kind; I have, on the other hand, had experience within WC2 and the Green Party and other groups; I am anything but a supporter of clearcut logging; I was raised in forestry-based communities and do have some friends in the industry (hard not to in BC, especially in small towns); I have never supported clearcutting or megaproject forestry and have . What I am however, is a dedicated wikipedian and as such, correct articles which are written as spam, propaganda, fund-raising or under false pretenses. The only times when media use "Great Bear Rainforest" is when in reference to the preservation campaign; Bella Bella and Namu are not "in the Great Bear Rainforest", they are "in the Central Coast" and/or "in the North Coast" (depending on where the line is drawn; Bella Bella is Central Coast, Namu may be North Coast). Or, if you wish, in various other subdivisions of British Columbia available, whether regional or forests or school or land districts. "Great Bear Rainforest" is not a "common use" name for this region except when in reference to the associated campaign; it is a superimposed name by a particular group of special interest groups; it's not used by those who live in hte region unless they are associated with that campaign, or making reference to it (as the Nuxalk or Oweekeno might do). This article must be encyclopedic in character, not promoting the campaign or pretending that this is "now" the name for this region just because environmental groups want it to be. Wikipedia's job is not to assist in promotional/political campaigns; it can report on them, it cannot adopt their viewpoints or their agendas. That was the problem with this article, which also had a linkfarm of fundraising links when I started editing them out (they're spam by wiki definitions).Skookum1 (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Like it or not, anti-logging content/tone is not acceptable as being highly WP:POV and also WP:SOAP. Wikipedia pages are not "free web pages" for organizations/campaigns.Skookum1 (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I have added a few references for the statement that "Great Bear Rainforest" is a term given by environmentalists. I'm not familiar with any other POV issues discussed above, but I invite the IP user to assume good faith and familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:SOAP. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
One of the main rules in using citations (when provided) is that the content cited should match what's in the cite. This is not the case with the references to provincial and federal government plans/funds for this region; the BC Government uses "North and Central Coast" (one set of press releases/backgrounders HERE, I haven't found the federal government's terminology yet. And I know that with maybe only one or two exceptions the term "Great Bear Rainforest" is not used by the First Nations in this area, who would regard such a term as an outside imposition. So the claims made that this region ("the Great Bear Rainforest") have so much in funding, so much land etc are just not right; they are funds and land reserves which apply in the area described by the term, but it is not the name used by those funds/reserves and accompanying policies/documents. If I was really harshly applying Wikipedia standards, this article could be reduced to a one-line "The Great Bear Rainforest is a term used by conservation groups to refer to the North and Central Coast regions of British Columbia". The remaining deceptive/misleading allusions to federal and provincial FN recognition/plans have to be adjusted, as they are not about the "Great Bear Rainforest and do not even mention the term. "Great Bear Rainforest" may be trendy, and may have wormed its way in to the UK and European press as if it were the name of this region, but in very plain terms that's just not the case and is the result of lobbying/promotion by the environmental/conservationist groups advancing the term. Also, the claim about this being the largest unspoiled temperate rainforest in the world is pretty much hogwash, as there is lots of clear-cut and second-growth from older clearcuts throughout this region; only by applying the selective definition used by the enviro groups which excludes such areas is such a claim possible. It's also a claim made about the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, and I've heard it about the forests on the Olympic Peninsula as well.....all depends on who's drawing hte boundaries, and drawing up the fundraising literature, I'd say....from what I can see "Coast Land Use Management Plan Area" is the "official" name....I had a good look through those BC government documents, didn't see "Great Bear Rainforest" even once (and that includes in NDP-era documents).Skookum1 (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a list of SRMPs/LRMPs from the Integrated Land Management Bureau; note the North Island-Central Coast SRMP, though I think the provincial agreement/promise mentioned in the article is Central and North Coast EBM Implementation (EBM is "ecosystem-based management). "Branding" this area to make it catchy for donors in Europe in the US is one thing; actually reflecting local history/culture and actual management plans (by their real names) is not something often found in enviro-group sources, which like to skew things to their own POV and to make it sound like their campaign is why this area was "protected" (it really has a LOT much more to do with First Nations and their rising political/legal clout than with the result of any organized campaign by outsiders).Skookum1 (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

References[edit]

This article is devoid of references, while many exist. I don't have the time to flesh these out at the moment, but here are some links: DigitalC (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Fifty per cent of the Great Bear Rainforest is off limits to logging through a combination of protected areas and logging regulations with the goal of setting aside 70 per cent of the natural forest.

Press release[edit]

Hmm, I don't think you searched too hard or broadly, Skookum.

http://www.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/cencoast/news/nr4401.htm

Office of the Premier

For Immediate Release April 4, 2001

COASTAL PLAN CREATES UNIQUE PROTECTION AREA, ECONOMIC AGREEMENT AND NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR FIRST NATIONS VANCOUVER – The B.C. government has agreed to protect significant valleys within the internationally-recognized Great Bear Rainforest and is entering into a unique agreement with First Nations on Land Resource Management Planning in B.C.’s central and north coast regions, Premier Ujjal Dosanjh announced today.

These two achievements mark the latest milestones in B.C.’s 10-year Land Resource Management Planning initiative program, which has put more responsibility for regional Land Resource Management Planning in the hands of local communities and residents.

“While the preliminary recommendations of the Central Coast land-use process are still a work in progress, the government is accepting them today to give protection to more of B.C.'s unique natural heritage and provide greater economic and community stability for the region,” Dosanjh said.

“The people of the coast – and all British Columbians – can take pride in these achievements,” said Dosanjh. “They have reached a hard-won consensus aimed at saving areas of global significance. They’ve shown that what is good for the environment can be good for working people and communities.”

Dosanjh says said the government has accepted the preliminary map agreed upon by the Central Coast land-use table, including the protection of major valleys within the Great Bear Rainforest and other areas, subject to consultation with First Nations and confirmation of boundaries.

In creating the 96,458-hectare Spirit Bear protection area (an area of 96,458 hectares), the government is saving essential habitat of the Spirit Bear – a rare white subspecies of black bear – and recognizing the cultural significance of the area to the Kitasoo and Gitga’at nations.

“The area referred to as the Great Bear Rainforest is an icon of the unique environmental and cultural values B.C. can share with the world,” said Dosanjh. “All of the people involved in this decision – First Nations, environmentalists, industry, workers, communities and government – have recognized what’s at stake, and have fulfilled B.C.’s role as environmental leaders on the world stage.” 69.237.156.116 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This article needs a map[edit]

A map showing exactly where this rainforest is would be great for people who know nothing about the place. I understand that it starts off parallel to the northern coast of Vancouver Island and expands up the BC coast to just south of the Haida Gwaii. But most people wouldn't necessarily know that. MrMonday1 (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not hard to find maps showing the boundaries of the GBR, but many are obviously out of date. I'm looking for current GIS data showing official boundaries--assuming there even is an official boundary. This dataset, Central and North Coast Ecosystem Based Management Plan might have such info. If not that, maybe something else from GeoBC Geographic Data Discovery Service. From what I can tell the term "Great Bear Rainforest" is not used by the BC government in the names of its GIS datasets. But perhaps within some dataset there are polygons showing the defined project area. Pfly (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Well those links didn't result in anything useful for me. But there is a lot more info, maps, etc at Coast Land Use Decision Implementation. Browsing there made it clear that what environmental groups call the "Great Bear Rainforest" is the same area that the BC government refers to as the "Central Coast and North Coast Land and Resource Management Plan", or LRMP "North Coast" and LRMP "Central Coast". Here's a link to a detailed PDF map of both LRMPs: North Coast/Central Coast Land Use Zones - July 2009. I probably won't get around to making a map for a while. Mainly posting this info here for future reference. Pfly (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Some sort of map still needed. ----

Maps and overall tone/spin[edit]

Continuing from the above section about maps, there appears to be an exact match between the what environmental groups call the "Great Bear Rainforest" and what the government of BC calls the Central and North Coast: Compare Greenpeace map, savethegreatbear (Greenpeace/ForestEthics/Sierra Club BC) map, National Geographic map, these BC Integrated Land Management Bureau maps, and BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations maps Central Coast map, North Coast map. But there does not appear to be an exact match with what the BC government calls "Timber Supply Areas" (TSAa). Compare the above maps with this BC ILMB Map of Tree Farm Licences, Timber Supply Areas, Regions and Districts or this map and the pages it links to, Coast Region TSAs. The northern part of the Great Bear Rainforest matches the North Coast TSA and Mid Coast TSA, but in the south there is no obvious match--the Great Bear Rainforest includes parts, but not all of the Kingcome TSA, Strathcoma TSA, and Sunshine Coast TSA. I'm mentioning this in part because the page had said the the Great Bear Rainforest "was previously known by the government and the forest industry as "the Mid and North Coast Timber Supply Areas"."

Researching all this makes me think the page is still more about the region as the environmental groups talk about it and not enough from the perspective of the BC government, First Nations, and the logging and "forest product" industry. While the government and industry stakeholders don't often call it "Great Bear Rainforest", they are an important part of the whole topic, and just as much stakeholders as the environmental groups. The 2006 agreement (which only the environmental groups call "the Great Bear Rainforest Agreement") was a collaboration between Greenpeace, ForestEthics, the Sierra Club BC Chapter, Canadian Forest Products, Catalyst Paper Corporation, International Forest Products, Western Forest Products, along with First Nations, the BC government, and others. Personally, I'm all for the protection of as much of this region as possible, but I'd prefer Wikipedia to present a balanced view without "spin". As the page currently stands I think it has quite a bit of environmentalist spin. Pfly (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The CBS source links to This. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)