An exploration of Hul’qumi’num Coast Salish peoples’ attitudes towards the establishment of...

The Canadian Geographer Le Géographe canadien The Canadian Geographer Le Géographe canadien

An exploration of Hul’qumi’num Coast Salishpeoples’ attitudes towards the establishment ofno-take zones within marine protected areas in theSalish Sea, Canada

Cheri A. AyersUniversity of Victoria and Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group

Phil DeardenDepartment of Geography, University of Victoria

Rick RollinsRecreation and Tourism, Vancouver Island University

The Canadian Government has committed to establishing a national network of Marine Protected Areas.Progress in the Salish Sea (Strait of Georgia) of British Columbia has been slow. Opposition by First Nations is afactor as these protected areas have the potential to impact on Aboriginal rights. This case study with theHul’qumi’num First Nations examines their approaches to marine conservation and their perspectives on“no-take zones” as a component of marine conservation. The study used a variety of community engagementprocedures including relationship building, hiring of a Hul’qumi’num research assistant, conducting individualinterviews, focus groups, and field surveys. Interviews were conducted with 41 participants contacted becauseof their knowledge and interest in marine resource use. The views reported provide a rich understanding ofHul’qumi’num attitudes, but cannot be generalised to the whole population. There was widespread support forefforts to involve local First Nations communities in the development of management plans for marineresources, and also for recognition of First Nation reliance on marine resources for food, social, and ceremonialneeds and for economic development opportunities. The establishment of permanent no-take zones was metwith both opposition and support. The most highly endorsed statement about no-take zones is one ofprinciple—that they are a violation of Aboriginal rights. However, there was also strong agreement thatpermanent no-take zones would help reduce over-fishing. The National Marine Conservation Area program is inits infancy and it remains to be seen how the “strictly protected” zone of the legislation will be interpreted inrelationship to Aboriginal harvesting practices. However it is clear that successful conservation will only occurwith Aboriginal consent in many areas and there needs to be greater investment in understanding Aboriginalperspectives on marine conservation.

Keywords: marine protected areas, First Nations, marine conservation, Aboriginal peoples, no-take zones,community-based participatory research.

Une exploration des attitudes qu’adoptent les Hul’qumi’num, peuples autochtones Salish de la cote,devant la creation de zones sans prelevement dans les zones de protection marines de la Mer deSalish, Colombie-Britannique, Canada

Le Gouvernement du Canada prevoit la creation d’un reseau national de zones de protection marines (ZPM). Laprocedure engagee pour la creation d’aires de protection marines dans la Mer de Salish (Detroit de Georgie) enColombie-Britannique progresse toutefois lentement car leur mise en place se heurte a l’opposition des

Correspondence to/Addresse de Correspondance: Cheri Ayers, 2632 Soole Road, Cowichan Station, BC V9L 6L6. Email/Courrier:[email protected]

The Canadian Geographer / Le Geographe canadien 2012, 56(2): 260–274

DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00433.xC© Canadian Association of Geographers / L’Association canadienne des geographes

Hul’qumi’num attitudes towards marine no-take zones 261

Premieres Nations. La raison est que les ZPM peuvent avoir des repercussions sur les droits des Autochtones.Portant sur les Premieres Nations des Hul’qumi’num, cette etude de cas explore leurs facons d’envisager laconservation marine et leurs manieres de concevoir dans une telle optique les zones sans prelevement. Dans lebut de promouvoir la participation active des communautes, un ensemble de moyens ont ete utilises dans cetteetude, dont notamment l’etablissement de relations personnelles, l’embauche d’un assistant de rechercheHul’qumi’num, la realisation d’entrevues individuelles, la mise sur pied de groupes de discussion, et la tenued’enquetes de terrain. L’intervention des communautes locales des Premieres Nations dans le cadred’elaboration de plans de gestion pour les ressources halieutiques a fait l’objet d’une large adhesion et s’inscritdans une demarche de conservation marine. De meme, la dependance des Premieres Nations envers lesressources halieutiques pour repondre a leurs besoins alimentaires, sociaux et ceremoniaux et pour soutenir ledeveloppement economique est aussi considere comme un fait etabli. Si 35 pour cent des participantss’opposent a la creation de quelques zones sans prelevement permanentes, 48 pour cent d’entre eux seprononcent en faveur. L’enonce qui a recu le plus grand appui concernant les zones sans prelevement se fondesur le principe qu’elles ne respectent pas les droits des Autochtones. Cependant, l’idee que les zones sansprelevement permanentes peuvent entraıner une diminution de la surpeche faisait l’unanimite (85 pour cent).La recherche permet de jeter un eclairage sur les interets que defendent les Autochtones dans la gestion desressources halieutiques et sur l’efficacite des ZPM, dont la creation est envisagee par le gouvernement, pourfaire respecter les cibles et les conceptions de conservation des peuples autochtones.

Mots cles : ZPM, Premieres Nations, conservation marine, peuples autochones, zones sans prelevement

Introduction

As scientific evidence of deteriorating oceanicecosystems has mounted in recent years, oceanconservation has become a focus of interna-tional concern (Roberts 2007). One managementresponse has been to establish marine protectedareas (MPAs) to provide ecosystem protectionand restrictions on exploitation. The positive ef-fects of MPAs on fish assemblages, biodiversity,and productivity have been documented in manyareas of the world (Cote et al. 2001; Guidetti2007; Edgar et al. 2009; Goni et al. 2010) andthere is strong scientific support for the estab-lishment of MPA networks.

Strong political commitments have also beenmade. In 2002, the World Summit on Sustain-able Development, of which Canada was a par-ticipant, made a commitment to establish arepresentative global network of MPAs by 2012(UN 2002). The World Parks Congress in 2003,recommended that these networks strictly pro-tect at least 20–30 percent of each marinehabitat. In 2006, the Convention on BiologicalDiversity adopted a target of having at least10 percent of the world’s ecological systems, in-cluding the world’s oceans, effectively conservedby 2012. This target was not met and estimatessuggest that only 1.17 percent of the world’s

oceans are under effective protection (Toropovaet al. 2010). This figure is considerably lessin Canada, where fishing continues to be al-lowed even in the small number of MPAs thathave been established (see Dearden and Canessa(2008) and Jessen (2011) for a review of differenttypes of MPA legislation in Canada). For exam-ple, a recently designated national marine con-servation area (NMCA) managed jointly by ParksCanada and the Haida Nation (Haida 2010) has 3percent of the area set aside as a no-take zone(NTZ) despite international scientific consensusthat a minimum of 30 percent should be setaside from extractive activities if conservation isto be effective (Stewart et al. 2009)

Given this conservation imperative, it is criticalthat Canada move forward in creating MPA net-works. Many other countries around the world,such as Australia and the United Kingdom,are moving rapidly towards establishing well-protected MPA systems (Spalding et al. 2009).However, establishing protected areas often im-pinges on the rights of local people and of-ten to their detriment. This can be especiallytrue for Aboriginal peoples1 with a long his-tory of relationship with the land and associated

1We use the phrase “First Nation” when we are discussing thiscase study and for BC First Nations, and we use Aboriginalpeoples when generalizing across Canada.


262 Cheri A. Ayers, Phil Dearden, and Rick Rollins

resources. Creating national parks in Canada didnot involve Aboriginal peoples until the very re-cent past (see an example in Mulrennan et al.,this issue, 243); national parks limited or out-lawed traditional Aboriginal practices, and some-times involved the forcible removal of Aborigi-nal peoples from protected areas (Dearden andLangdon 2008). It is therefore not surprising thatAboriginal peoples sometimes oppose the estab-lishment of protected areas.

In Canada, Aboriginal and treaty rights are rec-ognized and affirmed in the Constitution (Canada1982, Part II, Section 35(1)), including the rightto harvest for subsistence purposes on tradi-tional lands and waters, and several high profilecourt cases have subsequently strengthened thisstandard (see Dearden and Langdon 2008 for anoverview). Aboriginal peoples must therefore beinvolved in the planning and management of pro-tected areas within their territories. Their par-ticipation in MPA development has been widelywelcomed and supported, particularly in theCanadian North where Aboriginal people are of-ten strong advocates for protected areas (Dear-den and Langdon 2008). For MPA establishment,an extensive consultation process with local com-munities, such as that required under the Na-tional Marine Conservation Areas Act (Canada2002), is an important step in the designation ofsites. However, overlapping First Nations’ inter-ests in marine territories on the British Columbiacoast make consultation efforts time consumingand costly.

Section 35 of Canada’s Constitution Act pro-tects Aboriginal rights, such as the right toharvest natural resources for food, social, andceremonial use, second only to conservation(Canada 1982). Numerous court decisions haveconfirmed that any conservation measure thathas the potential to affect these rights, such asMPAs, requires consultation with affected Abo-riginal peoples (Wallace and Boyd 2000; Gardnerand Morales 2010).

Proposed MPAs, such as Gabriola Pass, RaceRocks, and the Gulf Islands NMCA, on the southcoast of British Columbia have often met withopposition from First Nations (LeRoy et al. 2004;CPAWS 2009). The British Columbia Aborigi-nal Fisheries Commission identified several chal-lenges with MPAs and First Nations (R. Jones andGuenette 2002):

• Establishment of MPAs independent of the BCTreaty Process may impact future negotiations;

• Tourism and recreational use may hinder FirstNations’ objectives;

• Appropriate co-management arrangementshave yet to be established;

• Planning processes do not currently involveFirst Nations from the outset nor provide ca-pacity funding; and

• Economic impacts to livelihoods as a result ofMPAs need to be considered.

As with all coastal First Nations in BC, theHul’qumi’num of southeastern Vancouver Islandhave traditionally depended upon seafood har-vest for sustenance, their traditional economies,and cultural identity (Richardson 1982; Suttles1987; Castleden et al. 2009). Parks Canada hasproposed a NMCA within the Hul’qumi’numtraditional territory. This article explores theattitudes and beliefs of members of theHul’qumi’num towards NTZs as a component ofmarine conservation found in MPAs.

Consultation processes undertaken by govern-ment agencies typically place Aboriginal peo-ples in a position of reacting to governmentproposals as a precursor to participating ingovernment-designed and led structures, insteadof jointly managed conservation arrangementsthat respect and respond to Aboriginal rightsand title. The rationale for this research was toinitiate the discussion from a Hul’qumi’num per-spective and start with their views on marineconservation, the means to achieve it, and, inparticular, ascertain whether NTZs would consti-tute an acceptable component of conservation ef-forts.

The study area

The Hul’qumi’num, referred to in this paper, area collection of Coast Salish Peoples who sharethe same language dialect, have a large tradi-tional territory spanning the Strait of Georgia(Figure 1), and are represented in the BC TreatyProcess as a coalition by the Hul’qumi’numTreaty Group. The six members of this groupare: Cowichan Tribes, Stz’uminus First Nation(formerly Chemainus First Nation), Halalt FirstNation, Penelakut Tribe, Lyackson First Nation,and Lake Cowichan First Nation (HTG 2011). The



Figure 1Hul’qumi’num core traditional territory. SOURCE: Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group, Ladysmith, BC

Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group is currently in Stage4 of the BC Treaty process, the Agreement-in-Principle stage (BCTC 2012).

Parks Canada has recently designated a Na-tional Park Reserve, in the Southern Gulf Islands,in an area that encompasses much of the south-ern portions of the Hul’qumi’num core territory.A second initiative of Parks Canada, involvinga NMCA feasibility study, is underway for themajority of the core Hul’qumi’num territory inthe Gulf Islands. The Strait of Georgia is one ofthe most productive marine areas on the coastand is home to a significant urban population,including Vancouver and Victoria and extendingsouth down to Seattle. The human population inthis trans-boundary area is projected to increasesubstantially from 7 million people in 2006 to8.4 million in 2025 (US/Canada Multi-agencyRepresentatives 2006). Potential anthropogenicthreats to the area are high and include over-fishing and pollution.

Historically, the Coast Salish were charac-terized as having a complete dependence onhunting, fishing, and gathering, although elabo-rate social systems including a system of landand sea tenure distinguishes the Coast Salishfrom other hunter-gatherers (Richardson 1982;Suttles 1987; Thom 2005). The regulation of ac-cess to the territory for harvesting, through thesystem of tenure, was a key component of thetraditional management system and a means bywhich Coast Salish societies maintained sustain-able resources (Kew and Griggs 1991).

During European colonization, Aboriginal re-source management systems, including thesystem of tenure, were overtaken by colonialownership, where the sea and ocean resourceswere deemed the property of the Crown, heldin trust for all Canadians (Berkes 1985). Despitethe Crown’s desire to settle Aboriginal intereststhrough treaties, no agreements were made withthe Hul’qumi’num or many other coastal First


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231879506_Fishermen_and_'The_Tragedy_of_the_Commons'?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-77e64b6c-27e6-45ea-821c-9da5d5c13cd5&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI1ODcwNTUyMztBUzoxMzgyNzQ2NTE3NzQ5NzZAMTQwOTk3ODY1NDYwNg==


Nation groups, with the exception of the DouglasTreaties, that addressed specific signatory inter-ests in the land or the sea. Although they shareterritory with Douglas Treaty First Nations, theHul’qumi’num did not conclude an original Dou-glas Treaty. The Hul’qumi’num land base on boththe lower Fraser River and on Vancouver Islandwas considered ideal for agriculture and Euro-pean settlement. This resulted in small land re-serves assigned for First Nation settlements, ascoastal First Nations were deemed dependent onthe sea (Harris 2011).

For many coastal First Nations, a contin-ued erosion of access to marine resources hasoccurred since colonization. However, they main-tain a strong connection to the marine en-vironment and continue to assert title andrights to the land, ocean, seabed, and re-sources within. The traditional marine territoryfor Hul’qumi’num, as outlined in their Statementof Intent in the BC Treaty Process, is within theStrait of Georgia (Figure 1).

The establishment of MPAs in Hul’qumi’numtraditional territory has been opposed in thepast. In 1998, the Department of Fisheriesand Oceans undertook an initial assessment forthe establishment of an MPA at Gabriola Pas-sage, within the Hul’qumi’num core territory(Canada 1998; Wallace and Boyd 2000). Numer-ous letters of opposition were written by theHul’qumi’num Nations to the Minister of Fish-eries and Oceans. The primary concern was alien-ation of an area within the traditional territoryof the Hul’qumi’num (Cowichan Tribes member,2004).

Methods

This research responds to calls for a distinctapproach that includes an emphasis on partic-ipatory research techniques especially in casessuch as ours, where the researchers are not ofAboriginal descent (Skelton 2001). Our researchinvolved the Hul’qumi’num in all stages fromgenerating the research question, through theentire data collection process, and interpre-tation and dissemination of the results.2 AHul’qumi’num research assistant was hired to in-

2These methods and procedures were approved by theHul’qumi’num Treaty Group (June 2004) in a formal research

troduce us to members of the community, tohelp conduct interviews, and to assist us inthe interpretation of local terminology in theresponses. The principal researcher (first au-thor) was also well known and trusted withinthe community and continues to work for theHul’qumi’num and member First Nations. It ismost unlikely that research could have been car-ried out without this established and trusted re-lationship.

Another consideration regarding research withAboriginal peoples is that a flexible, culturallyappropriate and collaborative research design beemployed (see Castleden et al., this issue, 160).This was achieved using several different re-search approaches. The first step was to estab-lish what previous research had been conducted.This included a review of ethnographic stud-ies relating to Coast Salish management of ma-rine resources. Key themes were extracted fromthe literature outlining worldviews, social insti-tutions, land and resource management systems,and local knowledge of land and animals.

The second step was to organize a focus groupdiscussion with five community members identi-fied by the principal researcher on the basis ofher engagement with this group over the pastsix years, of those known to have knowledge ofmarine harvesting and conservation. Participantswere asked a set of general questions relating tothe themes identified in the literature and theirviews on marine conservation to stimulate dia-logue. Participants were also asked to share theirviews on how trends in the amount of marine re-sources harvested in the past differ from todayand to identify factors limiting harvests. Themesidentified by this focus group that were not in-cluded in the literature were noted. The sessionwas audio taped and transcribed.

The third step was the development of asurvey questionnaire, generated from informa-tion obtained from the focus group discussions.Subsequent meetings were held with each fo-cus group participant to discuss the validity ofthe survey questionnaire; amendments to somequestions were made in response to sugges-tions to improve participant comprehension. Theamended survey questionnaire went through a

agreement, and by the University of Victoria Ethics Committee(August 2004).



final review by the focus group participants andwas then administered to 41 Hul’qumi’num com-munity members.

Survey respondents were identified using asnow-ball sample method (Johannes et al. 2000),whereby focus group members were asked toidentify community members with knowledgeof the marine environment and then each sur-vey respondent was asked for recommenda-tions of whom to survey next. This commonlyused approach targets expertise and is not arandom survey of the population. The surveyquestions included both open-ended and closed-ended questions with a Likert-type scale using arange of numbers corresponding to their opinion,where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = stronglyagree. Surveys were administered by the princi-pal researcher and assistant in the home of therespondent (where possible) and took one hourto complete.

The fourth step was to conduct a four-hourevening focus group with four Hul’qumi’numyouth (aged 18–25) chosen through referralsfrom other survey participants and because oftheir involvement with the Hul’qumi’num TreatyGroup Youth Committee, a group ranging inage from 17–22 who regularly meet to dis-cuss issues related to the treaty. Focus groupparticipants were asked to complete the ques-tionnaire on their own, with the principalresearcher reading out each question and an-swering any questions. Once all participants fin-ished the questionnaire, a general discussionon goals and objectives for marine conservationwas held and responses recorded and a verba-tim transcript was produced. These responseshelped to qualify survey responses. IncludingHul’qumi’num youth in a focus group discussionand in the survey provided insight into youthperspectives on marine conservation.

The fifth step was a full day field trip to Salt-spring Island with eight survey participants togenerate dialogue relating to traditional use andon-the-ground issues faced by participants. Fieldtrip participants were chosen based on familiar-ity with Saltspring Island and surrounding wa-ters. Participants were video-taped and digitallyrecorded and a verbatim transcript, reviewed byall participants, was produced.

The sixth step was a final focus group meetingwith six key participants, one from the original

focus group and five who participated in the sur-vey and field trip to discuss the research findingsand check the validity of the results.

Results

Approaches to Marine Conservation

“The sea is our refrigerator. When we lose our dietwe lose our teachings, the teachings of the old”(Penelakut elder, Ladysmith, 2004).

Berkes (1999) used four themes (worldviews,social institutions, land and resource man-agement systems, and local knowledge) toanalyze traditional ecological knowledge (TEK).Using these themes, ethnographic literature (Sut-tles 1974, 1987; Richardson 1982; Kew andGriggs 1991) and the responses generated in thefocus group discussions were analyzed to un-derstand Hul’qumi’num perspectives on marinemanagement systems and attitudes towards con-servation. Using the transcripts from each focusgroup discussion, key quotations were extractedand tabularized into the key themes derivedfrom the literature (Berkes 1999). Survey datawas entered into a statistical software program(SPSS) and analyzed using descriptive statistics.The focus group generated four marine conser-vation concepts (Table 1) that aligned with thethemes identified by Berkes (1999) as the key as-pects of TEK to examine management systems: 1)everything is connected; 2) resources are shared;3) take only what is needed; and 4) resources areunderstood.

These four concepts provide insight into theworldview of Hul’qumi’num around marine re-sources and are similar to those of other localAboriginal peoples (e.g., Castleden et al. 2009).Kew and Griggs (1991) describe an ethic ofreciprocity in Coast Salish cultures as funda-mental to this First Nations’ worldview. One es-sential aspect of their relationship to nature isthat humans are formed of the same essence asother life forms and may transform from oneto the other (Kew and Griggs 1991). Other be-liefs include the association of a multitude ofpowers with different life forms that are su-perior to humans and that these life formshave a human-like conciousness. The worldviewthat humans are not supreme is particularly



Table 1Understanding traditional management systems by examining approaches to marine conservation identified in focus group sessions andliterature

Major Theme in Berkes(1999)

Theme of Focus Group andin Literature Example (quote)

Worldview Everything is connected;Respect; Ethic of reciprocity

“the stories I hear from my grandfather are about wolves orkiller whales and how they either taught us or became partof the family and gave people the gift of being able to huntin the ocean or hunt on land. By watching and observingand being near all of these things, that is how they gainedall of their information and their traditional knowledgeand the ability to do things that were done in the past.”

Social institutions Resource sharing; Trade andbarter; Potlatch

“all our Hul’qumi’num tribes traveled over to the Fraser Riverand we as First Nations people shared not only within ourown families but we traded.”

Land & resource management Take only what is needed;Family group ownership;Shifting harvest areas;System of tenure

“Everyone would respect different practices or differentboundaries or other peoples’ family areas. Each group hadtheir own fishing stations and you weren’t allowed to gothere. Within our own tribes we respected our owntraditional areas to harvest.”

Local knowledge Understanding resources andrelationship betweenresources

“That knowledge has supported and created all of thehistorical knowledge that is passed down from generationto generation. You know when the alder buds come out itis time to go out to Pender Island to fish for sockeye. It isdeveloping that understanding of what is there so youknow when changes are happening.”

relevant to understanding their approach to con-servation and management practices. Accord-ing to this worldview, humans are an integralpart of the ecological system (the concept ofembeddedness).

The sharing of the same essence between hu-man and non-human life forms in Indigenousworldviews also leads to a respectful relation-ship. This is the ethic of reciprocity (a stateof mutual exchange) and includes the conceptthat “humans are neither independent nor dom-inant” (Kew and Grigg 1991, 32). Humans areable to take animal life for food because the an-imal gives itself to the human; the human recip-rocates by respecting and honoring the animal(Kew and Grigg 1991; Berkes 1999). As one re-spondent commented “Food comes to you if youtreat it right” (Penelakut Elder, Ladysmith, 2004).This principle, either directly or indirectly, in-forms a conservation ethic premised on the ideathat reduced stocks of resources are the resultof improper human behaviour, including over-harvesting; this view supports a long-term per-spective and wise and judicious use of resources.“Take only what you need, and never abuse what

the water gives you” (Penelakut Elder, Ladysmith,2004).

When survey participants were asked, in anopen-ended question, to define marine conser-vation, the majority of participants respondedthat “respecting marine resources” and “takingonly what is needed” were fundamental princi-ples. However, there was also a strong feelingwithin the focus groups that customary institu-tions of marine conservation have been erodedas a result of the many limitations now encoun-tered by the Hul’qumi’num in trying to accessmarine resources (Table 2). The list is revealingin that it identifies not only direct limitations im-posed from outside but also the more subtle in-direct reasons that are now internalised in manyAboriginal communities and that result largelyfrom outside pressures.

Approaches to Protecting Marine Resources

There are many ways to protect marine re-sources and these vary in aspects such as therange of species considered, who is involved indecision-making, and the mechanisms used.



Table 2Marine resource harvesting limitations identified by focus groups

Limiting Factor Description/ Result Quotation

Loss of access Alienation from resources,inability to harvest

“If you don’t have a canoe or you don’t have a boat or you don’t havethe money for gas, how do you get out there? Before you could walkto anywhere and go to a beach, now where can you go?”

Governmentregulations

Perception that harvesting forsustenance and culture is illegal

“But there is also mental access. My aunty is a good example ofsomeone who is very respectful in how she does things and makessure that as well as her teachings that she does things according tothe law. One day she was talking about going and getting some reedsand going and getting bark and she was saying “well I don’t know if Ican do that but I thought I just had to.” She felt guilty actually, shethought she might be breaking the law by going out and getting reedsand going and getting bark to teach kids about traditional resourcesat a nearby school.”

“Now we are limited, you can’t go and dig unless you have an AboriginalClam License of some sort.”

No involvement inmanagement

Feelings of ownership andresponsibility removed

“Before the responsibility was with the family and with the resources.Now the responsibility is with DFO and overall society. That has reallychanged the structure.” (DFO is the Department of Fisheries andOceans)

Loss of traditionalknowledge

Disconnection from resources “The younger generations don’t know what xixwe (red urchin) tasteslike. They don’t even know what skwi’itthi’ (green urchin) is. Theydon’t think of it as good food.”

Limitations onharvesting

Time limitation on fishing days,limitation on numbers toharvest

“Historically, years back, our people went as a whole to the Fraser bycanoes and the need was met for each group or each family beforethey journeyed back home.”

“Historically years back we had no numbers on what we could catch andnow we have set numbers on all of us of what we can catch.”

Lack of resources Inability to sustain as a foodsource

“Years back we were able to harvest anything that we wanted crab,clams, oysters, xixwe (red urchin), skw’itthi’ (green urchin), kq’i’mukw(octopus). My late father, once a week or once every two weeks or sowhen he was eating kq’i’mukw he would go down and grab one, butyou can’t do it now.”

Contamination Inability to sustain as a foodsource

“There is pollution fronting all of our reserves.”

Loss of familystructure/responsibility

Relationship to resources eroded,family units threatened, cultureaffected

“Historically our ancestors used and harvested all different types ofmarine resources. How resources were prepared is also being lost.”

Loss of knowledge Lack of knowledge about where togo fishing or even how toprocess fish. Communitydepends on band office todeliver fish.

“I think it is the teachings of the old fisheries [that are lost], it seemslike we’re fishing for everybody else. No one is going fishing on theirown anymore. Seems like they depend on us to catch their fish.”

Loss of trade andbarter

Relationships between FirstNations and families eroded

“There is not the same understandings that were in the past. Peopledon’t know their families, they don’t know a lot of their history, it’snot their fault, it’s the way things have happened. Before theresponsibility was with the family and with the resources and now theresponsibility is with DFO and overall society. You know that hasreally changed the structure.”

Survey respondents were asked to indicate theirdegree of support for various approaches. Therewas unanimous support for the top two factorsinvolving local First Nations and appropriate TEKin marine planning (Figure 2). The need for in-

cluding Western science in management was alsosupported by 90 percent of the respondents andand again reveals a very realistic view of cur-rent conservation challenges, whereby both TEKand Western science will need to be brought



Figure 2Approaches to protecting marine resources.

to bear. Conversely, “closing some areas perma-nently to protect marine resources” was opposedor strongly opposed by 77 percent of partici-pants. However, less permanent closures receivedmuch higher endorsement, with 97 percent sup-porting seasonal closures and 90 percent sup-porting temporary closures.

Attitudes Towards No-Take Zones

The concept of closures was the most challeng-ing for both the focus groups and the survey re-spondents. Many MPA systems around the world,

unlike terrestrial parks, allow some forms ofextractive activity, as long as they are undertakenon a sustainable basis. However, for conservationto be effective, there is a strong scientific consen-sus that MPAs must also include no-take zones(NTZs), areas where extractive activities are notallowed (Jessen et al. 2011). The designation ofNTZs is often a key issue in MPA developmentthroughout the world (P. Jones 2006). In Canada,there is a legislative requirement that NMCAsmust include at least one NTZ. Although thescientific consensus is that at least 30 percentof each habitat should be established as NTZ



Table 3Agreement on No-Take Zones

Response (%)

Statement Support Oppose Neither

Overall agreementwith theestablishment ofsome permanentno-take zones

47.5 35.0 17.5

Agreement with theestablishment ofsome permanentno-take zones ifmanaged by theHul’qumi’num

75.0 15.0 10.0

Agreement withno-take zones ifHul’qumi’num werestill allowed to fishinside the no-takezones

87.2 12.8 –

Agreement withno-take zones ifestablished by theHul’qumi’num

88.9 11.1 –

(Jessen et al. 2011), there is no minimum fig-ure established in Canadian legislation or policy.In order to explore the overall attitudes towardsthe establishment of NTZs, a set of single answerquestions were asked (Table 3). Participants’ atti-tudes towards NTZs within a MPA varied, with 35percent of participants opposing and 47.5 per-cent of participants supporting the establishmentof permanent NTZs. An additional 17.5 percentneither supported nor opposed them. Supportvaried depending on the level of Hul’qumi’numinvolvement in the establishment, use, and man-agement of the areas, with 89 percent sup-porting NTZs established with Hul’qumi’numagreement but only 48 percent if there was noinvolvement.

A further exploration of beliefs that may influ-ence attitudes towards NTZs was measured us-ing a Likert-type scale that required participantsto indicate the extent to which they agreed ordisagreed with a set of attitudinal beliefs de-veloped from the focus group results. The Lik-ert approach to attitude measurement posits thatattitudes (e.g., towards an NTZ) are shaped bya number of positive and negative beliefs (e.g.,“will help increase the number of marine re-

sources”; or “are a violation of aboriginal rights”)related to the attitude issue (McDougall andMunro 1994; Fishbein and Ajzen 2010). Thistechnique is consistent with community-basedparticipatory research, where “real” beliefs areidentified, rather than imposing conservation ar-guments derived from the literature.

Positive attitudinal beliefs with the highestlevel of support (Table 4) are: 1) NTZs will helpreduce the effects of over-fishing (85 percentagreement); and 2) NTZs will help increase thenumber of marine resources (82 percent agree-ment). Negative attitudinal beliefs with the high-est level of support are: 1) NTZs will be hardto enforce (90 percent agreement); and 2) NTZsare a violation of aboriginal rights (87.5 percentagreement).

To gain greater understanding of the relation-ship between support for NTZs and beliefs, re-spondents were split into two groups based upontheir support for NTZs. The questionnaire asksrespondents to indicate their level of supportor opposition to NTZs. Based on the responseto this question, respondents were assigned toa “support no-take group,” or to a “oppose no-take group.” Results in Table 4 examine sup-port of each belief item by comparing responsesfrom those who support NTZs (n = 19) withthose who oppose NTZs (n = 21). Interpreta-tion of Table 4 indicates a number of signifi-cant differences between the two groups, withthose holding a positive attitude to NTZs gener-ally having a higher endorsement of positive be-liefs and lower endorsement of negative beliefs.Conversely those in opposition had consistentlyhigher rankings for negative attitudinal beliefs.Overall, five of the eight comparisons are signifi-cantly different (at the p = .05 significance level,using chi-squared analysis). The findings suggestthat there are relatively consistent patterns ofbeliefs regarding NTZs and that there are gen-uine differences between these beliefs amongstthe Hul’qumi’num. These results are indicativeof these differences but due to the non-randomnature of the sample, generalizing to the largerpopulation should be avoided.

Discussion

The ideologies, institutions, and practices thatare a part of Coast Salish culture and marine



Table 4Comparison of belief statement agreement for those who supported and those who opposed NTZs

Percent Agreeing∗

Support OpposeBelief Total NTZ NTZ Chi-Statement Sample Group Group squared Signif

Positive Attitudinal BeliefsA. Permanent NTZs will help reduce the effect of over-fishing of some species 85.0 94.7 76.2 2.691 0.101B. Permanent NTZs will help increase the number of marine resources 82.5 100.0 66.2 7.677 0.006C. I will not fish in a NTZ if established with Hul’qumi’num support 75.0 89.5 61.9 4.013 0.044D. Permanent NTZs are necessary 40.0 68.4 14.3 12.180 0.000E. Permanent NTZs are an Aboriginal concept 15.0 26.3 4.8 3.635 0.057

Negative Attitudinal BeliefsF. Permanent NTZs will be hard to enforce 90.0 94.7 85.7 0.902 0.342G. Permanent NTZs are a violation of Aboriginal rights 87.5 78.9 95.2 2.420 0.120H. Permanent NTZs are another way government can limit my fishing 80.0 63.2 95.2 6.416 0.002I. Permanent NTZs will limit my ability to harvest seafood 80.0 63.2 95.2 6.416 0.011

∗Percent who “strongly agree” or “somewhat agree” with each statement

resource management historically maintained re-source exploitation at sustainable levels (Kewand Griggs 1991). There is urgent need to returnto such outcomes. Understanding Aboriginal ap-proaches to marine conservation is important inthe transition between past and present manage-ment philosophies. The results of this researchprovide a starting point for such understandingamongst the Hul’qumi’num through an examina-tion of marine conservation approaches and atti-tudes towards NTZs within MPAs.

Undertaking the research permitted a num-ber of methodological insights. Although theresearchers determined the topic of interest, ma-rine conservation, from the outset, the method-ological approach taken was to work withthe Hul’qumi’num in defining how the topicwould be approached. This resulted in a highly-consultative, mixed-methods approach rangingfrom individual interviews and focus group dis-cussions involving elders and youth through tofield trips and the development of a surveyquestionnaire. One drawback to such an ap-proach is that the research cannot be takenas representative of Hul’qumi’num views over-all in that only a specific target group, thosewith a known marine orientation, were sampled.On the other hand, the approach resulted in avery rich encounter with a large proportion ofthose knowledgeable about marine and coastalissues.

There are challenges in such an interactiveapproach. One is the difficulty in not allowingresearcher views to influence those of the re-spondents. For example, the scientific literatureis very strong in supporting the need for NTZsfor conservation purposes, and the researchersknow this. However, the aim of the research wasto ascertain Hul’qumi’num perspectives on ma-rine conservation approaches and not influencethose with research results from elsewhere. Thisdoes raise some ethical questions about this kindof research. On the one hand, Indigenous re-spondents are often generously sharing aspectsof TEK with the researchers, who are benefittingfrom this knowledge. On the other hand, the re-searchers may not be sharing well-known scien-tific perspectives for fear of influencing respon-dents’ views. This results in a somewhat one-wayflow of information, despite the highly interactivenature of the approach.

In terms of the results, respondents felt thatthe involvement of First Nations’ communities indeveloping marine resource plans was a key ap-proach to protecting marine resources in NMCAs.Ostensibly, the Government of Canada is alsocommited to such relationships. Parks Canadastates that management requires the develop-ment of partnerships with regional stakehold-ers, coastal communities, and Aboriginal people(Canada 1998). Although this approach involvesFirst Nations communities, it does not reflect the



constitutional protection that prioritizes Aborigi-nal rights above other interest groups. However,in practice, partnerships such as between theHaida Nation and Parks Canada in Haida GwaiiNational Park Reserve and the newly declaredNMCA clearly illustrate the importance whichParks Canada attaches to working with Aborigi-nal peoples.

The use of TEK to manage marine resourcesis also seen as important to Hul’qumi’num, al-though there was also recognition of the value ofWestern science. Parks Canada uses mainly sci-entific criteria to determine whether an area isrepresentative for establishing NMCAs and alsofor management but there is also recognition ofthe value of TEK. Hence, again there appears tobe considerable compatibility between the twoapproaches.

A fundamental difference between governmentpolicies and Hul’qumi’num beliefs is in the at-titude towards NTZs. NTZs are a fundamentalpart of the international scientific discourse onmarine conservation and MPA establishment andthere is a growing literature on the need to haveat least some areas permanently reserved fromhuman harvesting if biodiversity is to recover topre-harvesting levels (Guedetti 2007; Edgar et al.2009; Goni et al. 2010). As mentioned above,the NMCA Act requires one such “strictly pro-tected” zone in each NMCA (Canada 2002). Incontrast, although the majority of Hul’qumi’numinterviewed in the survey did support someform of NTZ, many believe that ecosystems arehealthier and more productive with traditionalmanagement practices than without them. Oneexample raised was that if a clam beach was notharvested, and thus the substrate not dug overon a regular basis, it would become less produc-tive. The concept of NTZs serving as refugia forbiodiversity and fisheries protection is inconsis-tent with this worldview, although Aboriginal so-cieties elsewhere with similar worldviews do sup-port NTZs (Alcala and Russ 2006; Bartlett et al.2009).

The concept of NTZs also contrasts with thetraditional Hul’qumi’num approach of closing ar-eas seasonally to all fishing to protect fish orshellfish populations. Zoning in NMCAs incor-porates different levels of protection depend-ing on the sensitivity of an area. Such zonesare meant to be permanent and hence inconsis-

tent with the more flexible Hul’qumi’num world-view. This fundamental difference is important inrecognizing the embedded relationship betweenHul’qumi’num people and marine resources intheir traditional territories. The exclusion ofHul’qumi’num harvesting in an NTZ would beinconsistent with Hul’qumi’num worldviews. Al-though, Hul’qumi’num recognize that permanentNTZs would help reduce the effects of over-fishing by commercial and recreational fishers,the concept of permanently excluding humansfrom an area for purposes of protection is notfully supported by Hul’qumi’num.

Today Hul’qumi’num, through trade, barter,and commercial fishing, maintain an economicrelationship with marine resources. This rela-tionship has been significantly eroded over timethrough increases in commercial and recreationalfishing, government policies and licensing sys-tems, and political decisions that have impactedHul’qumi’num fishers. Limitations to accessingmarine resources have forced Hul’qumi’num har-vesters into an ethical situation where they mustcurtail their own harvests to avoid resource de-pletion. Establishing NTZs will impose furtherlimits to harvesting and is viewed as violatingAboriginal rights. Many Hul’qumi’num view MPAsas another way the government can limit theirfishing. However, it remains to be seen whetherthe “strictly protected” zones of NMCAs will in-volve restrictions on all harvesting or just non-aboriginal harvesting. The only NMCA thus farproclaimed (Haida Gwaii) has a 3 percent strictlyprotected zone. However, there are no restric-tions on Haida harvesting unless established bymutual agreement.

The key to understanding the difference be-tween traditional Hul’qumi’num and currentWestern protected area management practices isthe scale of the disturbance created by humanactivity. Under traditional management practices,human impacts were only of an intermediatescale and intensity. The scale of impacts undercurrent Western management practices is suchthat many scientists now endorse setting asideNTZs as the only option for protecting marineresources from over-harvesting (Lubchenco et al.2003). In many ways, this is similar to the orig-inal establishment of terrestrial national parks,where a need was seen to protect some areasfrom the large-scale ecosystem impacts taking



place outside of them. A century later, some ofthe difficulties of this approach were realized asnatural succession processes and outside forceschanged the very nature of the ecosystems un-der protection. This realization prompted accep-tance of the need for “active management” ofmany parks, with traditional practices (such ascontrolled burning) being re-introduced (Woodley2008).

Active and collaborative management of MPAswith Aboriginal groups has been developed inmany parts of the world (White et al. 2002).However, the relationship of Aboriginal peo-ples’ cultures, practices, and livelihoods to oceanresources is not well understood by Westernscience (Gardner and Morales 2010). MPAs, a rel-atively recent construct of Western science tocompensate for the failure of more widely recog-nized ocean management approaches (Longhurst2010), provide a type of stop gap measureand may see some success in relation to ma-rine conservation when combined with integratedmanagement approaches that include First Na-tions. Solutions for conservation are likely to un-derachieve or fail without the participation ofthe communities of people that surround them(Agardy 2000).

Conclusions

Establishment of MPAs is a key component ofCanada’s approach to marine conservation, yetprogress in MPA establishment has been mod-est (see an example of this progress in Mulren-nan et al., this issue, 243). This article is di-rected toward understanding the views of theHul’qumi’num peoples towards marine conser-vation, MPAs, and NTZs. A community-basedparticipatory approach to this research assistedin gaining a rich understanding of their cul-tural perspectives. A six step process of mixed-methods community-based participatory researchin which the Hul’qumi’num were involved fromthe outset provided a broad platform for in-sights. However, it is important to note that theapproach was not designed to be representativeof the views of the Hul’qumi’num peoples over-all, nor of their leadership.

The Hul’qumi’num relationship to resourcesgoes far beyond what is possible to describe in

this article. However, similarities and differencesclearly exist between Hul’qumi’num perspectivesand government policies on marine conserva-tion. Fundamentally, both agree that conserva-tion measures are necessary but both partieshave different histories and preferences as tohow this might be approached. One major dif-ference concerns the establishment of NTZs, arequirement under NMCA legislation, and a mea-sure strongly supported by international practice.The results show that Hul’qumi’num perspectiveson permanent NTZs are divergent, with moresupporting the concept than not, but with a sub-stantial number in the latter group. Further anal-ysis showed that these differences seem to bedeep-rooted, and that attitudes and beliefs to-wards NTZs are generally internally very consis-tent for each respondent. NTZs are fundamen-tally different from the Hul’qumi’num view oftheir place in nature as integral to the func-tion of the ecosystem. However, there are cer-tain aspects of NTZs that attract considerablesupport, including temporary and seasonal NTZs,and NTZs established with Hul’qumi’num input.

Given the infancy of the NMCA program, thereis yet little clarity around whether the “strictlyprotected” zones of NMCAs would, and could,restrict Aboriginal harvesting. There is a longhistory of legal decisions supporting Aboriginalresource use in Canada (Dearden and Langdon2008), but usually subject to conservation re-quirements. An argument could be made thatthe “strictly protected” zones are established pre-cisely for that reason and therefore all harvest-ing should be banned. Greater clarity will emergeon this question as the NMCA program expandsover the next few years. However, as seen in thisresearch there are also possibilities for greaterflexibility and agreements between Parks Canadaand Aboriginal groups, whereby the latter, dueto conservation concerns, may voluntarily restricttheir harvests. Whatever the outcome, it is clearthat greater investment needs to be made ingaining greater understanding of Aboriginal per-spectives on conservation in the future.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Hul’qumi’num peoplewho participated in and helped guide the research and pro-vided important critique along the way. The staff of theHul’qumi’num Treaty Group also provided key insights and



a place for the community members to come together. Fish-eries and Oceans Canada supplied much needed funding tohire the research assistant.

References

Agardy, T. 2000. Information needs for marine protected ar-eas: Scientific and societal. Bulletin of Marine Science 66:875–888.

Alcala, A. C., and G. R. Russ. 2006. No-take marine reservesand reef fisheries management in the Philippines: A newpeople power revolution. AMBIO 35(5): 245–254.

Bartlett, C., K. Pakoa, and C. Manua. 2009. Marine reservephenomenon in the Pacific Islands. Marine Policy 33(4):673–678.

BCTC (British Columbia Treaty Commission). 2012. Six-stages: Policies and procedures. http://www.bctreaty.net/files/sixstages.php.

Berkes, F. 1985. Fishermen and “the tragedy of the com-mons.” Environmental Conservation 12(3): 199–206.

——. 1999. Sacred ecology: Traditional ecological knowledgeand resource management. London, UK: Taylor and Fran-cis.

Canada. 1982. Constitution Act. Schedule B to the CanadaAct 1982 (UK).

——. 1998. Canada’s oceans strategy. Ottawa, ON: Fish-eries and Oceans Canada. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/cos-soc/pdf/cos-soc-eng.pdf.

——. 2002. Canada National Marine Conservation Ar-eas Act. Ottawa, ON: Ministry of Justice. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-7.3.pdf.

Castleden, H., T. Garvin, and Huu-ay-aht First Nation. 2009.Hishuk Tsawak (Everything is One/Connected): A Huu-ay-aht worldview for seeing forestry in British Columbia. So-ciety & Natural Resources 22(9): 789–804.

Castleden, H., V. Sloan Morgan, and C. Lamb. 2012. “I spentthe first year drinking tea”: Exploring Canadian univer-sity researchers’ perspectives on community-based partic-ipatory research involving Indigenous peoples. The Cana-dian Geographer 56(2): 160–179.

Cote, I. M., I. Mosqueira, and J. D. Reynolds. 2001. Effectsof marine reserve characteristics on the protection of fishpopulations: A meta-analysis. Journal of Fish Biology 59:178–189.

CPAWS (Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society). 2009. FirstNations and marine protected areas: An introduction toFirst Nations rights, concerns and interests related toMPAs on Canada’s pacific coast. Vancouver, BC: Preparedby Julie Gardner, Dovetail Consulting. http://cpawsbc.org/upload/First Nations MPAs Full Report Oct2009.pdf.

Dearden, P., and R. Canessa. 2008. Marine protected areas. InParks and protected areas in Canada: Planning and man-agement, ed. P. Dearden and R. Rollins. 3rd ed. Toronto,ON: Oxford University Press, 403–431.

Dearden, P., and S. Langdon. 2008. Aboriginal peoplesand national parks. In Parks and protected areas inCanada: Planning and management, ed. P. Dearden andR. Rollins. 3rd ed. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 373–402.

Edgar, G. J., N. S. Barrett, and R. D. Stuart-Smith. 2009.Exploited reefs protected from fishing transform over

decades into conservation features otherwise absent fromseascapes. Ecological Applications 19(8): 1967–1974.

Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 2010. Predicting and changingbehaviour: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY:Tyler and Francis.

Gardner, J., and R. Morales. 2010. Shifting currents: Seekingconvergence in the pursuit of conservation arrangementsthat respect First Nations rights on Canada’s Pacific Coast.Policy Matters 17: 215–223.

Goni, R., R. Hilborn, D. Diaz, S. Mallol, and S. Adlerstein.2010. Net contribution of spillover from a marine reserveto fishery catches. Marine Ecology Progress Series 400:233–243.

Guedetti, P. 2007. Potential of marine reserves to causecommunity-wide changes beyond their boundaries. Conser-vation Biology 21: 540–545.

Haida. 2010. Gwaii Haanas Marine Agreement. http://www.haidanation.ca/Pages/Splash/Documents/GH-MarineAgreement.pdf.

Harris, D. C. 2011. The recognition and regulation of Aborigi-nal Fraser River sockeye salmon fisheries to 1982. Vancou-ver, BC: Cohen Commission. http://www.cohencommission.ca/DownloadExhibit.php?ExhibitID=1196.

HTG (Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group). 2011. Our mandate.http://www.hulquminum.bc.ca/our mandate.

Jessen, S. 2011. A review of Canada’s implementation of theOcean’s Act since 1997—from leader to follower? CoastalManagement 39: 20–56.

Jessen, S., K. Chan, I. Cote, P. Dearden, E. De Santo, M. J.Fortin, F. Guichard, W. Haider, G. Jamieson, D. L. Kramer,A. McCrea-Strub, W. A. Montevecchi, M. Mulrennan, J. Roff,and A. Salomon. 2011. Science-based guidelines for MPAsand MPA networks in Canada. Vancouver, BC: CanadianParks and Wilderness Society.

Johannes, R. E., M. M. R. Freeman, and R. J. Hamilton. 2000.Ignore fishers’ knowledge and miss the boat. Fish and Fish-eries 1: 257–271.

Jones, P. J. S. 2006. Collective action problems posed by no-take zones. Marine Policy 30: 43–156.

Jones, R., and S. Guenette. 2002. First Nation issues and MPAplanning. In Managing protected areas in a changing world:Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Sci-ence and Management of Protected Areas, 14–19 May 2000,ed. S. Bondrup-Nielsen, N.W.P. Munro, G. Nelson, J. H. M.Willison, T. B. Herman, and P. Eagles. Wolfville, NS: Scienceand Management Protected Areas Association, 1427–1437.

Kew, M., and J. Griggs. 1991. Native Indians of the FraserBasin: Towards a model of sustainable resource use. InPerspectives on sustainable development in water manage-ment: Towards agreement in the Fraser Basin, ed. AnthonyDorcey. Vancouver, BC: Westwater Research Centre, 17–47.

LeRoy, S., R. Dobell, T. Dorcey, and J. Tamsey. 2004. Consen-sus vs. implementation: Toward the creation of a marineprotected area at Race Rocks, British Columbia. In Mak-ing ecosystem-based management work: Proceedings of theFifth International Conference on Science and Managementof Protected Areas, ed. N. W. P. Munro, P. Dearden, T. B.Herman, K. Beazley, and S. Bondrup-Nielsen. Wolfville, NS:Science and Management of Protected Areas Association,1–12.

Longhurst, A. 2010. Mismanagement of marine fisheries. NewYork, NY: Cambridge University Press.



Lubchenco, J., S. R. Palumbi, S. D. Gaines, and S. Andelman.2003. Plugging a hole in the ocean: The emerging scienceof marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13: S3–S7.

McDougall, G., and H. Munro. 1994. Scaling and attitudemeasurements in travel and tourism research. In Travel,tourism and hospitality research: A handbook for managersand researchers, ed. J. Ritchie and C. Goeldner. New York,NY: Wiley Press, 115–130.

Mulrennan, M. E., R. Mark, and C. H. Scott. 2012. Revamp-ing community-based conservation through participatoryresearch. The Canadian Geographer 56(2): 243–259.

Richardson, A. 1982. The control of productive resources inthe northwest coast of North America. In Resource man-agers: North America and Australian hunter-gatherers, ed.N. Williams and E. Hunn. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 93–112.

Roberts, C. 2007. The unnatural history of the sea. Washing-ton, DC: Island Press.

Skelton, T. 2001. Cross cultural research: Issues of power,positionality and “race.” In Qualitative methodologies forgeographers, ed. M. Limb and C. Dwyer. New York, NY: Ox-ford University Press, 87–100.

Spalding, M. D., L. Fish, and L. J. Wood. 2009. Toward rep-resentative protection of the world’s coasts and oceans—progress, gaps, and opportunities. Conservation Letters 1:217–226.

Stewart, G. B., M. J. Kaiser, I. M. Cote, B. S. Halpern, S.E. Lester, H. R. Bayliss, and A. S. Pullin. 2009. Temper-ate marine reserves: Global ecological effects and guide-lines for future networks. Conservation Letters 2(6): 243–253.

Suttles, W. 1974. The economic life of the Coast Salish of Haroand Rosario Straits. New York, NY: Garland Publishing Inc.

——. 1987. Coast Salish essays. Vancouver, BC: Talonbooks.Thom, B. 2005. Coast Salish sense of place: Dwelling, mean-

ing, power, property and territory in the Coast Salishworld. PhD thesis, McGill University, Montreal.

Toropova, C., I. Meliane, D. Laffoley, E. Matthews, andM. Spalding, eds. 2010. Global ocean protection: Presentstatus and future possibilities. Brest, France: Agence desaires marines protegees; Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; Cam-bridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC; Arlington, VA: TNC; Tokyo, Japan:UNU, Bronx, NY: WCS.

UN (United Nations). 2002. Report of the World Summit onSustainable Development: Johannesburg, South Africa, 26August–4 September 2002. A/CONF.199/20. New York, NY:UN.

US/Canada Multi-agency Representatives. 2006. Georgia Basin-Puget Sound ecosystem indicator report, executive sum-mary: Population Health. http://www.epa.gov/pugetsound/pdf/Summary Population Health Indicator.pdf.

Wallace, S., and D. R. Boyd. 2000. Out of sight, out of mindand almost out of time. Victoria, BC: Sierra Club of BritishColumbia.

White, A. T., C. A. Courtney, and A. Salamanca. 2002. Experi-ence with marine protected area planning and managementin the Philippines. Coastal Management 30: 1–26.

Woodley, S. 2008. Planning and managing for ecological in-tegrity in Canada’s national parks. In Parks and protectedareas in Canada: Planning and management, ed. P. Dear-den and R. Rollins. 3rd ed. Toronto, ON: Oxford UniversityPress, 111–131.


An exploration of Hul’qumi’num Coast Salish peoples’ attitudes towards the establishment of...

Documents

Transcript of An exploration of Hul’qumi’num Coast Salish peoples’ attitudes towards the establishment of...