Speaker Notes. Native Plant Society of Saskatchewan Inc. Annual Meeting and Workshop February 4 th and 5 th, 2000 Regina, Saskatchewan

Transcription

1 To promote understanding and conservation of native plants and their ecosystems by facilitating communication, education, and research. Speaker Notes Native Plant Society of Saskatchewan Inc. Annual Meeting and Workshop February 4 th and 5 th, 2000 Regina, Saskatchewan Sponsored in part by: Canadian Adaptation and Rural Development (Sask.) Ducks Unlimited Canada SaskPower Tappit Resources Limited Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management Shand Greenhouse Interlake Conservation Seeds Range Management Division PFRA MeewasinValley Authority Cogema Resources Inc.

2 To promote understanding and conservation of native plants and their ecosystems by facilitating communication, education, and research. Speaker Notes Native Plant Society of Saskatchewan Inc. Annual Meeting and Workshop February 4 th and 5 th, 2000 Regina, Saskatchewan Copies of this document or more information may be obtained from: Native Plant Society of Saskatchewan P.O. Box 21099, Saskatoon, SK, S7H 5N9 Ph: (306) , info@npss.sk.ca i

3 Sponsors The NPSS gratefully acknowledges the generous support of its Partners and workshop sponsors: NPSS Partners Canadian Adaptation and Rural Development (Saskatchewan) Ducks Unlimited Canada SaskPower Tappit Resources Limited Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management Event Partner Interlake Conservation Seeds Shand Greenhouse Meewasin Valley Authority Range Management Division PFRA Cogema Resources Inc. Corporate Patron Grazing and Pasture Technology Program Saskatchewan Wetland Conservation Corporation Workshop Sponsor Luscar Ltd. Golder Associates Erin Consulting Ltd. Patron Saskatchewan Nutraceutical Network Mixed Grass Prairie Habitat Restoration Project Mobil Oil Early s Farm and Garden Centre Prairie Seeds Inc. ii

4 Workshop Agenda and Table of Contents Friday, February 4 th Page # 8:00 Registration 8:40 Opening Remarks 9:00 Native Plant Protection and Use...1 9:00 Intrinsic value of native ecosystems (Don Gayton)...2 9:30 Status of native ecosystems in SK (Nancy Cherney, SERM)...3 9:50 Status of native plant species in SK (Sheila Lamont, SKCDC) :10 Refreshments Blue Jay Bookshop 10:30 Legislation protecting native plants in SK (Earl Wiltse, SERM) :50 Native plant harvesting in southern SK (Wilf Pyle, SAF) :10 Native plant harvesting in northern SK (Gerry Ivanochko, SAF) :30 Lunch 12:00 NPSS Annual General Meeting :15 Sustainable Harvesting of Native Plants: Panel Discussion...22 Panel member questions...23 Native Plant Society of Saskatchewan...24 Nature Conservancy of Canada...26 Saskatchewan Herb and Spice Association...29 Nature Saskatchewan...31 Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration...34 Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management...36 Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food...38 Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations :00 Sustainable harvesting workshop 5:30 Cocktails, Display Viewing 6:30 Banquet 7:30 Keynote Speaker Don Gayton Saturday, February 5 th 9:00 Sustainable Use of Native Plants :00 What is a native plant? (Diana Bizecki Robson) :15 Traditional uses of native plants (Anna Leighton) :45 Native plants for gardening (Judy Haraldson W.P. Fraser Herbarium) :30 Refreshments Displays, Blue Jay Bookshop 11:00 How to landscape with native plants (Keith Barr) :30 Harvesting, cleaning, & preparing seed (Mary Grilz, Blazing Star Wildflowers Seed Company) :00 Lunch 1:00 Plant & Seed Identification Workshop (Judy Haraldson, Keith Barr) 3:30 Wrap-up iii

5 Native Plant Protection and Use 1

6 THE INTRINSIC VALUE OF NATURAL LANDSCAPES By Don Gayton, M.Sc., P.Ag. The intrinsic values of natural landscapes are well known to most of us. They are a rich source of largely unexplored genetic diversity. A permanent, effective carbon sink for our petrochemical fantasies. They provide habitat for our wildlife. A place to recreate, and good quality forage for our domestic livestock. Buffer zones to help reduce the spread of agricultural pests. Personal, aesthetic, and spiritual values, and a dozen other values and services are provided by natural landscapes. Value is what this whole issue turns on. Value defines the relationship humans and cultures have with nature. Currently, that value is determined almost entirely in economic terms. Highest and best use is the touchstone of all of our land planning, land management and land taxation decisions. So in spite of all the useful, positive and creative ecosystem and human services we can ascribe to natural landscapes, by and large they live a temporary and threatened existence because they stand in blatant violation of highest and best use that is, agricultural or urban development. I wish I could blame this injustice on bureaucrats and economists. I can t. We have met the enemy, as Pogo said, and they is us. Putting aside the value question, most of us privately admit that natural landscapes are rich in personal, creative and spiritual resources, elements that will never fit into any economist s scheme. I have had a wealth of such formative experiences on Saskatchewan native grasslands, and personally treasure those moments. These are experiences that are difficult to classify and hard to talk about, but they are very real. We will never be able to enter natural landscapes into the economic game of highest and best use and expect to win, but what we can do is strengthen the cultural values of these landscapes. What is needed is a culture of nature, one where we transfer the values of art, story, performance and ritual on to the body of the land, as a means of enhancing its preciousness in the eyes of society. Native plant sales, no matter how well or cleverly they are marketed, will never win the economic game either; petunias will always be cheaper and flashier. But if we build a culture around native plants, a rich lore and art and perhaps some mystery that can set the agropyron apart from the petunia, then we might stand a chance in the marketplace. Don Gayton is an ecologist and author of two books, The Wheatgrass Mechanism and Landscapes of the Interior. 2

7 Saskatchewan s Representative Areas Network Status Report on Progress to February 2000 (Status of Native Ecosystems in Saskatchewan) Nancy Cherney, Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management 3

8 4

9 Status of Native Plants in Saskatchewan By Sheila Lamont, Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre Saskatchewan hosts about 1500 species of vascular plants, and 250 bryophytes; the number of lichens, fungi, algae, and phytoplankton, etc. have not yet been enumerated by the Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre. Within the vascular flora about 70 % of the species are widespread, abundant and secure. The remaining 30 % are uncommon to rare, and are vulnerable to human disturbances and the effects of the presence of exotic plant and animal species. There are different reasons for species to be rare, among them limited range, specific requirements for rare habitats, low reproductive capacity, and simply jurisdictional limits. Remedial measures must be taken where species have declined or become extirpated due to specific actions of humans, and mitigation should occur where developments of humans impinge on the populations of sensitive species. Currently the Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre is analyzing the status of all vascular plant species found within the province at the request of the Fish and Wildlife Branch of SERM, so that it can be used in the year 2000 to generate national ranks. This will allow the federal jurisdiction to determine where recovery of species is required. 5

10 Legislation Protecting Native Plants in Saskatchewan Earl Wiltse, Wildlife Branch, Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management 6

11 7

12 8

13 9

14 10

15 11

16 Cooperation, Challenge and Change The Road to Integrated Land Use Management Wilf Pyle, Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food Introduction The Lands Branch of Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food originated from the transfer of lands from the Department of Natural Resources in At the time farming was becoming a firmly established industry moving from small low productive units to sizeable family farms that were highly productive and economically stable. The transfer was to achieve three goals considered important to the provincial farm economy. These were to further develop the remaining crown lands into agriculturally productive lands, provide an alternative means of land tenure that was secure over a long term and offer an opportunity through leasing and sales to help stabilize the income earning potential of thousands of family farms. This presentation details some interesting history of crown lands, mentions the changes necessary in moving to administering to the health of the land and provides an over view of branch principles and processes around native plant harvest. History In the early years it was thought that by capturing the economic benefits from the grain and meat trades emerging from post World War II redevelopment in Europe and Britain, farmers could benefit and contribute further to the economic development of the province. Crown land became an opportunity. These lands, numbering some ten million acres at the time, had been largely ignored as much acreage remained vacant since the 1937 Resource Transfer Agreement under which the federal government transferred to the province the Crown lands remaining from the failed settlement programs of the 1880s. As well, there were many acres of deeded lands that had been abandoned during the 1930s that were foreclosed on and eventually returned to the federal land portfolio. Against this challenging historical background, the provincial government recognized that strong tools were necessary if government was to succeed at achieving land use goals directed to the farm industry. While leaving the Lands Act as little more than a copy of the old federal legislation, a separate set of land regulations were created. These empowered government to work at developing lands for agricultural purposes, to classify lands, to lease at favorable rental rates based on productivity and to sell land to stabilize small units. A new act, the Land Utilization Act empowered the provincial government to buy, sell, trade and exchange lands for agricultural purposes. As well, the Act allowed the provincial government to work with the federal government to assemble lands for irrigation, community pastures and even resettlement. Provincial land in the agricultural area of the province is administered under the Provincial Lands Act and accompanying regulations by Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food, Lands Branch. There are about 8 million acres of land in the surveyed portion of the province. These holdings represent about 5 percent of the provinces total land base. 12

17 In Saskatchewan these lands are primarily located in the southwest, northwest and a heavier concentration in the northeast. For the oil and gas industry, there are about 3700 surface lease contracts occupying about 16,000 acres of land in existence. This has grown to this number from as few as 1400 in For farmers it represents some 12, 000 agreements of various kinds. Sand and gravel leaseholders have about 400 dispositions. All of these are at historic highs. At the same time environmental interests have also grown. The forest area, often referred to as the forest fringe, separates the Resource Lands from the Agricultural Lands. The legislative authority for the management and the disposition of land derives from the Lands Act of There are two sets of regulations governing the management of crown held lands. One set of regulations applies to provincial crown agricultural lands and the second directs the management of the resource lands looked after by our sister department Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management. Crown lands in Saskatchewan are those held by the provincial government. These are held without title. The vast majority of land is held without title. Generally, titles are not raised unless the land is sold and then a grant is necessary which is really little more than a statement from the crown legally describing the land. This is important in understanding that liens and encumbrances cannot be placed against crown lands where no title is present. The Origins of Crown Land Given that public land has always been part of the Saskatchewan fabric where did the current 8.8 million acres of crown agricultural land come? In a nutshell, this land is the remains of a number of government policies of varying success. In 1869 the federal government bought the land from the Hudson s Bay Company for a large amount of cash and the retention of trading post sites and one twentieth of the land in the fertile belt of the province. This was done to further finance the development of the railroad infrastructure. The crown essentially owned the land and through agreements with the railway companies negotiated the economic development of the west. From a political perspective, this was felt necessary as way to establish a Canadian presence in what was little more than a vast seas of grass and curtail the growing political aspirations of our American neighbours as represented by their Manifest Destiny movement. Over half the acreage was then granted to the railroads. School lands were also designated with the goal of selling these lands to finance educational development across the prairies. 13

18 Hudson Bay lands, school lands and federal crown lands were then available for sale to any takers at considerable price. In 1872 the federal government threw open western lands for free homestead entry as way to further colonise the west and support the railroads. In 1879 under growing pressure an amendment to the act made it possible for homesteaders to obtain up to 160 acres adjoining the homestead by a legal process called pre-emption. In reality these programs failed to entice high levels of settlement in Saskatchewan. For Europeans, conditions in the United States were more attractive and much new land was still available. As well, the world wide farm economy was in decline and at home the Canadian Shield region was proving to be a natural barrier to continuous western movement. This changed by the early 1900's. US lands were in short supply, land prices were high, farm commodity prices were improving and an era of efficient farm machinery was developing. Also, early maturing grains were becoming available. These factors were combining to change the face of prairie farming. Most prairie settlement took place while lands were under federal control. However, in 1905, the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were created. The federal government however, retained ownership and control of the Crown lands and minerals in the interests of carrying out federal policies of development and settlement. Over 70 percent of the homesteads offered in Saskatchewan would eventually fail. Interestingly, Alberta and Saskatchewan were to be divided on an east west axis rather than the current north south boundaries. However, it was thought the too much political influence would exist in the south portions the boundary was run north south. Creating the provinces was only part of the step. Resources for taxation and development were needed and beginning in 1910 discussions with the federal government were initiated to transfer some resources to the provinces to aid in development and economic stabilisation A series of resource transfer agreements covering all natural resources were eventually negotiated with the federal government. At that time crown agriculture land was considered a natural resource along with water, minerals, oil and gas. The control of lands and forests were the last resources transferred to the western provinces on March 20, The early homestead programs were made possible by the use of the Torrens legal land record system of registration in combination with the Australian survey system. The system was modified from use in the United States. The system allowed the user to pin point lands down to ten acres in size. This was superior to the county, township, and concession system used in eastern Canada and more orderly than the farm name and field position system used through out Europe. The Durham report had recommended an orderly system of land administration as a way of encouraging western settlement. It was independent of natural features. The system was easy to understand and, importantly, employed by the railways in the United States. On the down side it didn t take in to account natural barriers, drainage, mineral or agricultural potential. 14

19 With the transfer of lands and minerals in 1930, a Lands Branch was formed under the Department of Natural Resources. Over time, the administration of provincial resources has been departmentalised for administration and specific program delivery. Saskatchewan Energy and Mines (SEM) now administers the mineral rights in the province, Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management (SERM) administers the northern forests and other special interest lands and Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food (SAF) administers the Crown held agricultural lands in the province. At the time of transfer there were just under 22 million acres of crown land. Over the past six decades, other lands were also transferred or acquired by the Crown and are now administered by SAF. These include lands from: Saskatchewan Farm Loan Board Land Utilisation Board Lands - one million acres assembled for projects Municipal Affairs (tax title lands from the LIDs) South Saskatchewan River Reservoir ( lands purchased for flooding) Saskatchewan Power Corporation (Tobin Reservoir) A.R.D.A. (Purchased with federal money) Land Bank Lands Branch within the department of Agriculture came into being in 1947 with a very specific the mandate to lease land to developing and established farmers for the purpose of expanding, diversifying and developing the agricultural industry. The mandate was simple, clear and specific. The branch was to issue leases on grazing lands scattered across the province and sell cultivated lands. The vast majority of the lands were abandoned as a result of the 1930's, many thousands of acres had not been homesteaded, school lands that did not sell or reverted to the crown, lands foreclosed upon for tax. The Lands Branch Mandate and How it Relates to Native Plants The mission for crown land management is to provide a long-term integrated management approach to Crown land that balances economic, environmental and social benefits for present and future generations. By 1960, sales and leasing of Crown agricultural lands had become a major agricultural program. The role of Crown land and its importance to farm viability was well recognized and in some cases farms with much associated Crown land traded at a premium. In areas where there remained extensive patches of Crown land, prairie agriculture thrived under the alternated tenure system that featured long-term lease contracts at rents based on land productivity. Community pastures were aggressively established with the objectives of conserving soil, providing an opportunity for farmers to diversify into livestock and to improve the genetics in the provincial cattle herd. Interestingly and particularly germane to this paper, is that during this decade there was little interest in the use of Crown land for anything more than agriculture. There was minimal demand for sand and gravel sites and records reveal that less than 1000 petroleum and gas surface sites were in effect. Environmental interests in Crown land were nonexistent. Nobody asked to harvest native plants although forestry thrived. 15

20 In the 1970s further development of Crown lands were undertaken. Clearing and breaking programs were intensified with incentives, and a commitment to increase the provincial cattle herd on Crown land was made to further diversify the economy away from grain. During this decade interest toward a more integrated approach to Crown land management was seen for the first time as wildlife groups became concerned about improving Crown land in areas where habitat for white-tailed deer was thought in critically short supply. Hunting interests began to identify their own resource use as part of the economic fabric of the province and a legitimate use of land that, in their mind, was a public asset and one not solely restricted to agricultural use. Expanding the Focus: The integration of wildlife and agriculture interests culminated in the passage of the then Critical Wildlife Habitat Act in the early 1980s. This legislation restricted development on some four million acres of agriculture land. Little public consultation was undertaken prior to the act passing. Agriculture interest groups felt threatened by this legislation that can restrict the individual leaseholders ability to improve Crown land for agricultural purposes and impact the economic contribution a lease might have to the operation of the overall farm unit. Other users of Crown land became aware of the potential for environmental interests to impact their activities on Crown lands. In the early 1980s the focus of Crown land management became even more complicated with the advent of a more formal environmental agenda with respect to Crown land management. Following passage of the Wildlife Habitat Protection Act in , a number of environmentally driven initiatives including the Representative Areas Network (RAN) and, more recently, the Endangered Species Legislation, SAF Crown lands are no longer considered the exclusive domain of the agricultural sector. What Clients Want: In the 1990s these interests, and those arising from growing commercial demands, have created the opportunity to reconsider the direction, overall purpose and goal for all Crown lands in the province. Demands from groups like the oil and gas industry, the ecotourism and recreation industry, guides and outfitters, forestry interests and Indian Bands acquiring lands under the Treaty Land Entitlement Agreement require a balanced approach to Crown land use that does not always favors traditional agriculture. As well, there are emerging alternate agricultural interests that view land as an opportunity for their economic efforts. These include forestry farming, game ranching, specialty crop and spices and herb production, wild seed harvesting, traditional gathering and aquaculture. The demand for an integrated land use effort or, at least, a clear understanding of what the rules are as they apply to Crown land is uppermost in the minds of Crown land users. These users see themselves as clients of Crown lands wanting single window service covering a broad spectrum of land uses from a system that was essentially designed to serve the needs of a developing agriculture economy based on the models of the 1940s. The practical challenge for the branch is to move away from a single focus that supports 16

21 traditional Saskatchewan agriculture to one that broadly serves all land use choices. The traditional resource use model of land classification, allocation, leasing and regulation must now be replaced with a client based model that matches needs of the client with the needs of land. Implications for Government: Matching client needs to land needs is challenging. The impact of an integrated approach to land management means new tools are needed to support the many facets possible on Crown lands. The branch must lead in this process to ensure its role in the future as well as to protect the current portfolio of agricultural leaseholders who expect a commitment made to them by government to remain in place at least for the length of their lease agreement. New policies covering allocation, commercial access, rentals and support are needed and these require much discussion within government and among interest groups. Many departments must come together with the needs of the land and the client clearly understood. There must exist willingness by government interests to match client and land. Legal issues of access, profit apprendra, accrual and accretion, rights conveyed and trespass must be resolved to position the branch to better serve the new and expanding client driven demand for use of Crown agricultural lands. A new act addressing modern land use is necessary. It must provide government with broad powers of consultation, management, mediation and regulation. A new act must allow mechanisms that provide flexibility to the land use decision making yet provide sufficient authority to allow land use managers to deal decisively in matters of protection, conservation and health. At best, a new act would be simple and easy to understand and developed with consultation of the various stakeholders identified in this paper. Implications for Clients: From a client perspective, the move toward an integrated approach to land management may pose threats to current leaseholders or challenges to current land management practices especially in the areas of native prairie conservation, grazing use, riparian protection, shoreline development, rejuvenation and clearing and breaking. For government, it is necessary to take steps to ensure that these issues are managed to eliminate any perception that one group of users is benefiting over another. In much of the traditional agricultural area of the province there remains the notion that a Crown lease is much like owning the land where total control over the surface is conveyed by the title. For clients, any shift from the current tenets of land leasing is a source of concern and potential political fodder. Government would have to lead in establishing base line rules for an integrated approach to land management. One step for government would require an education program alerting and training participants in the process and expectations of integrated land use planning. Clients will become knowledgeable and able to drive the land use planning process on any scale. After this, groups could largely lead the planning process and any 17

22 allocation or conveyance of Crown rights would be done within the context of the integrated plan. Government would have to work closely with the various land uses groups to ensure that at least some level of buy-in or outright understanding takes place. This would require good efforts on the part of government and the assiduous use of public relations to ensure that all interests are heard and site specific problems are perceived to have been dealt with in a fair and consistent way. Lands Branch continues to receive a growing number of requests to use Crown land for non-traditional agricultural uses. Legislation and policies have focused on traditional agriculture and petroleum development. Preparations need to be made to accommodate these non-traditional requests if development and diversification opportunities on SAF administered Crown lands are to be realized. With the expansion of the oil and gas industry in Saskatchewan, Lands Branch created a secondary focus of providing secure access for this kind of development on Crown land. The interface between this industry and the agricultural lessee has complicated land management and been the source of numerous land use conflicts. At the same time, the 4,000 oil and gas wells located on SAF Crown land, make a significant contribution towards Branch revenues, the provincial economy and rural employment. While other uses of land, such as sand and gravel excavation and public use, have always been accommodated, they have not been a large part of Lands Branch s focus. Recent developments in rural Saskatchewan, as the agricultural economy looks for ways to restructure itself, have placed an added burden on Crown land administration. New types of land use requests (i.e. forestry; agro forestry; outfitting; eco tourism; etc.) are being received at an ever-increasing rate as rural residents seek means of creating wealth. Pro-active role in non-traditional use. The Department would pro-actively plan for changes in land use in an attempt to accommodate new ideas as they occur. This would: Require amendments to regulations and development of new policy to facilitate these uses. Update the department s goals and objectives. Result in integrated land use eg plants and animals. Facilitate economic diversification. Increase revenues from Crown land. Require significant consultation. Likely result in increased land use conflicts and, therefore, requires enhancement to the Department s ability to resolve them. within the time frame required making the necessary amendments. Facilitate limited economic diversification. Increase revenues from Crown land. Require consultation on specific issues eg native plant harvesting. 18

23 Native Plant Harvesting in Northern Sask. Gerry Ivanochko, Saskatchewan Agriculture & Food, La Ronge, SK Native plant harvesting or wildcrafting is occurring in Northern Sask.as northerners look for economic opportunities to make a living. Wildcrafting is the gathering of plant material that is not cultivated. Products harvested may range from bark, twigs, moss, and lichen which are used in the floral and craft industries, to wild berries and mushrooms and medicinal plants which are used as food and health products. The interest in wildcrafting has grown over the last few years as companies seek natural ingredients in their products. Although many gatherers are looking to make some supplemental income from harvesting various products from the forest, one of the main reasons for participating in this industry is the opportunity to get out and enjoy nature. Wildcrafting does not require a large capital investment to get started. Knowledge of the outdoors, a means of transportation and hard work are the most important factors for success. A common myth about wildcrafting is that there is lots of money to be made harvesting products from the wild. Occasionally when prices are good and there is an abundant crop, good profits can be made. However, the norm is that long hours and strenuous work are often required to make sufficient returns. A lot of time must be spent scouting areas for product. People who are trying to make a living in this industry have to concentrate on products which will bring the highest return. Therefore, harvesters will switch between several different products depending on the markets, availability of product and demand. Saskatchewan Environment & Resource Management (SERM) regulates activities on crown land. If harvest is done on provincial forest lands, licensing will be required authorizing individuals or companies to buy and/or process non-timber forest products. Regulations and licensing fees have been developed which regulate harvesting activities. The fate of the wildcrafting industry is dependent upon the regulations. Over-regulation and high fees will destroy the industry. The challenge is for SERM to manage the forest resources for production rather than simply restricting access to the resource. More education rather than regulation will help to ensure the sustainability of our resources. SERM has concentrated on data collection by licensing buyers who are required to report on volumes of product purchased. This information is vital for any decisions that are made. Over-regulation may force the industry underground and discourage harvest reporting. There is a public misconception that large volumes of product are being harvested from Northern Sask. The wildcrafting industry is centered around the wild mushroom industry because they bring the highest return. At times, the volumes of wild mushrooms may be high. Morels and chanterelles are the two main species harvested. All of the other products are harvested in small volumes. These products may include wild blueberries, lingonberries, fireweed, birch bark, birch tops, lichen and green moss. A few 19

24 acres could supply all of the current demand for some of these products. The Department of Highways harvests many tons more of product by mowing ditches along highways. These ditches may also contain plants that are considered to be threatened ie. ladyslippers or are protected ie. Western wood lily. An Agriculture Development Fund project carried out by Fytokem Products Inc. on "Chemical Products from Saskatchewan Wild Plants" estimated that in 1995 at least 50,000 prairie lilies were mowed down along the highway between Prince Albert and La Ronge. Timber companies annually harvest thousands of acres of northern forest with very few regulations regarding understory plants. Should wildcrafters have regulations placed upon them which restrict their harvest activities in an area if a timber company can go into the same area and not have the same restrictions imposed? Wildcrafters will practice sustainable harvest practices to ensure that they have an area where they can continuously harvest product. I do not think that they have to be legislated to do so. The non-timber forest products industry has recommended that wildcrafters have access to the resource. A lot of plant material can be obtained from areas designated for timber harvesting. This practice helps to promote the more efficient use of our limited resources. Most of the plant population that is harvested from these areas will not regenerate in these areas until there is sufficient forest canopy. In conclusion, I would like to state that harvesting of native plants and mushrooms is occurring in Northern Sask. Volumes for native plants are still very low but there is a potential for increased activity if markets can be developed and sufficient return obtained by wildcrafters. The volume of wild mushrooms is much higher but is very erratic due to annual variations in climatic conditions. The largest problem faced by wildcrafters is the lack of markets. The loss of suitable habitat through timber harvesting operations is a major concern especially for wild mushroom harvesters. Wildcrafting can provide some supplemental income for northerners. It can provide economic opportunities for trappers and fisherman who have seen their income decline from their traditional occupations. Over-regulation will destroy this opportunity. Regulations and policies must be developed in conjunction with development of the industry and consultation with stakeholders. 20

25 Native Plant Society of Saskatchewan Annual General Meeting Agenda 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of agenda 3. President s report 4. Coordinator s Report 5. Treasurer s report 6. Bylaw change 7. Election of officers 8. Resolutions 9. Other business 10. Adjournment Notes: 21

26 Sustainable Harvesting of Native Plants: Panel Discussion and Workshop 22

27 Panel Member Questions Each of the panel members were invited to provide a brief position statement on matters related to harvesting of native plants. To provide focus to the panel presentations, the following set of questions were provided for the panel members. The panel members were asked to submit a written response to the questions provided. 1. Does your organization support/promote sustainable harvest of native plant species? If 'yes', how; if 'no', why? Harvest is sustainable onlywhen it meets the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.) 2. Can, ALL native plants be harvested sustainably? (i.e. can all native species be harvested in some manner without compromising that species' existence in the future?) Briefly explain your position. 3. Should wild plant harvesting be government-regulated? If 'yes', which department? If 'no', should there be voluntary industry guidelines, and self-policing of wild harvesters? 4. Is your organization willing to participate in development of regulations/guidelines based on the outcome of this workshop? 5. Sustainable harvesting requires monitoring of plant populations. Who should take responsibility to see that this is done, and who should help pay for this? 6. What issues regarding native plant use is your organization currently facing. 7. Which one of the following three choices should be given the highest priority in the future? Why? a) Conservation of remaining natural areas b) Preservation of remaining natural areas c) Restoration of altered ecosystems 23

28 Native Plant Society of Saskatchewan Presented by Nora Stewart While the NPSS has developed guidelines for collection and use of native plants, these guidelines were not intended for large scale commercial harvesting. The following remarks are based on the opinions of the NPSS board of directors. Part of the purpose of this workshop is to seek the input of the entire NPSS membership. 1. While the NPSS supports sustainable harvest of native plant seed, we do not support harvest of entire plants. NPSS support for seed collectors and producers is most evident by our website and listing service. We also support the use of "local" native seed for restoration and reclamation projects. However, this support is moderated by our interest in conservation of native plant habitats and that is the reason for this workshop. We promote practices which allow the ecosystem to rest and repopulate (see our published "Recommendations for Collection and Use of Native Plants"). We also recommend that seed from wild harvesting be used to develop nurseries for further seed production. This allows development of a more reliable seed source while ensuring that native habitats are not put at risk. 2. The sustainability of seed harvest is highly species dependent and we have insufficient knowledge of the effects of direct seed harvesting for most species at this time. For many species, collection only for the purpose of propagation is recommended. It is fundamentally important to recognize that harvesting guidelines will vary depending on: a) the degree to which the species is limited in abundance locally, provincially, nationally, or worldwide, b) harvesting practices which destroy the plant versus those that do not, c) harvesting for commercial purposes versus harvesting for personal use, and d) frequency and amount of seed production. 3. Land with native plants is owned/managed by a variety of organizations, government departments, and private individuals. This greatly complicates the issue and it is unlikely that government regulation can address these ownership issues. As such, we believe that voluntary guidelines and self-policing would be most effective. 4. Yes, the NPSS is willing participate in development of harvesting guidelines. 5. Monitoring should be done to provide data for harvesting guidelines. SAF and SERM should coordinate the monitoring program, contracting the work to research institutions or consultants. Two components are involved: a) detailed research on plots with various harvesting treatments applied, and b) monitoring of benchmark sites throughout the province. Long-term support is needed to monitor changes in populations. This is an issue of environmental management so funding should come from government, various granting agencies, as well as from industry. An alternative approach would be to force those who use native habitats to prove that their practices are sustainable. Industries and individuals who profit from harvesting native plants must be willing to support monitoring and related research. 24

29 6. Issues regarding native plant use identified by NPSS include: habitat loss and disturbance, exotic species invasion, genetic contamination, non-sustainable wild harvesting, unstable or insecure markets, poor habitat management and population reductions. 7. Conservation, which allows sustainable use, should be given the highest priority. Preservation, in which human management and use are excluded, is not realistic because some disturbances are necessary to maintain the ecosystem. It could be argued, however, that part of a preservation plan would involve creating or simulating a natural disturbance regime in order to maintain the ecosystem. Restoration is difficult and expensive, but may be a valuable way to improve severely disturbed regions, even though the result may never match the pre-disturbance ecosystem. It may be useful also in providing a buffer to protect natural areas, or as a means of genetic salvage. One aspect of using native plants in highly visible areas is the potential to secure public support for conservation of native plants and their habitats. As costs drop with increased availability of seed, as we learn more about the complexities of natural areas, and as those habitats become more threatened, restoration may become more of a priority. 25

30 Position Of The Nature Conservancy of Canada Presented by Sue Michalsky 1. Does your organization support/promote sustainable wild harvest of native plant species? 1. The Nature Conservancy of Canada is committed to managing its own properties for the specific conservation values for which they were secured, and for the enhancement of the overall biological diversity of the properties. To do this, we develop site stewardship statements or management plans, that itemize the site values to be stewarded and the permitted uses that are not expected to compromise those values. Within this framework, the Conservancy would consider the sustainable harvest and use of native plants on its properties. The Conservancy owns lands that are managed as nature reserves, where the attempt is made to minimize human intervention, while other lands require or are appropriate for more active management to maintain particular ecosystems, such as grazing. 2. Can ALL native plants be harvested sustainably? No, there are some native species that should not be harvested, sustainably or not. There are documented cases in Canada of very common wild native plant species being seriously diminished by over-harvesting (e.g., Wild Leek, Ginseng, White Pine, etc.), and there are also documented cases of rare species being diminished or locally extirpated by over-harvesting (orchids, lilies, etc.) In general, species at risk should be considered as species that deserve protection and enhancement of their populations. In some of these cases, such as Chestnut and Red Mulberry, plant materials are being harvested for the specific purpose of propagating more individuals and restoring them to appropriate habitats. In many jurisdictions, wildflower protection laws are in place to address the question of what species can or can not be harvested. In practice, it is important that there be sound guidelines that define the level of harvest and use that is appropriate or "sustainable". Because we know less than we should about the impacts of harvesting different species, it would also be beneficial to have guidelines that suggest how individuals can monitor the effects of native plant harvesting over time. 3. Should wild plant harvesting be government - regulated? If yes which department? If no, should there be some voluntary industry guidelines, and self-policing of wild harvesters? The Nature Conservancy of Canada supports the protection of indigenous species at risk, and supports provincial and federal efforts that list and rank species at risk, and that offer incentives to landowners and protection to species in need. In different jurisdictions this has taken the form of endangered species laws, wildflower protection laws, property tax reductions, habitat improvement programs, etc. Current levels of wild plant harvesting in Saskatchewan do not appear to warrant general government regulation. Therefore, it is appropriate to develop voluntary industry guidelines and self-policing. NCC SK supports currently existing guidelines such as the NPSS' "Recommendations for the Collection and 26

31 Use of Native Plants". We further note that other guidelines have been developed by the Canadian Botanical Association and the Canadian Wildflower Society. "Wildcrafting Ethics and Guidelines" prepared by the Rocky Mountain Herbalists' Coalition deal with minimizing the effects of whole plant harvesting on the environment and the plant population. A review of all these materials in the formulation of guidelines specific to Saskatchewan would be very beneficial to land managers and protected-area managers. 4. Is your organization willing to participate in development of regulations/guidelines based on the outcome of this workshop? NCC SK is willing to participate in the development of guidelines that could be useful in the stewardship of the lands that we own and the landowners we work with. 5. Sustainable harvesting requires monitoring of plant populations. Who should take responsibility to see that this is done, and who should help pay for this? The responsibility for monitoring lies with the land owner or land manager (in the case of public lands). The responsibility for funding monitoring programs should also lay with the land owner or manager, and could be funded partially from a permit system (similar to Saskatchewan s Fish & Wildlife Development Fund). 6. What issues regarding native plant use is your organization currently facing? NCC is currently planning for restoration of cultivated lands on the Old Man on His Back Prairie and Heritage Conservation Area. We hand picked some native forb seeds in 1999, and are considering gathering seed from the property on a larger scale in the future. Issues we are dealing with include: whether to seed the cultivated land to native grass with commercially available seed or to use seed gathered from the property; the impact of gathering native seed from the property to undertake such a large restoration project; the potential impact of using an ATV to collect seed on the property; how to determine an acceptable level of seed harvest from native plants on the property in years of differing seed production; and the potential impact of gathering seed of rare species to introduce into restored prairie. 7. Which one of the following three choices should be given the highest priority in the future: a) conservation of remaining natural areas, b) preservation of remaining natural areas, c) restoration of altered ecosystems? Why? The Conservancy identifies the natural values for sites secured, inventories sites in relation to their natural features and the species and communities at risk, and stewards the land accordingly. Stewardship always involves conservation and sometimes involves preservation and restoration. 27

32 There is a small percentage of natural area left within the grassland and parkland ecoregions, and what is left is still being lost at a rapid rate. What is left provides the conservation values that are still sustainable today. We do not know how much of an intact ecosystem is required to sustain diversity, and we cannot afford to risk losing what remains. We must work quickly to ensure the remaining natural areas are not lost. 28

33 Saskatchewan Herb and Spice Association Presented by: Connie Kehler Due to the great interest and concern about the depletion of certain wildcrafted species such as senega, we have received many inquiries as to whether we support the restricting of the wildcrafting of these plants. Our association represents wildcrafters and thus represents their interests. Because of this we have been posed several questions when being requested for support. Below are a few of the questions we have asked and some of the answers. Has there actually been a survey done to confirm the depletion of these crops? Every time we have asked this question, the answer has been negative or unknown. In regards to the areas that are claimed to be depleted, what is the land use now? The answer to this has always been that the land is either cultivated agricultural land or developed land for highways or commercial use. SHSA understands and supports controlling unethical wildcrafting practises. To date, as an association, we have not seen any cited cases of this in the province. We feel that any policies developed should reflect the actual cause and location of resource depletion. From observation and examination of wildcrafters in the association we find their efforts may actually preserve the species in question not deplete them. As an association we have no consensus as to who should be monitoring the impacts of wildharvesting. We would however like to see a more comprehensive evaluation as to what exactly is impacting the populations and what the actual populations are. We look forward to participating in this forum to listen, learn and form some opinions to take back to our membership on the policing issue of wildharvesting. Below is the official paper on SHSA wildcrafting. SHSA still supports ethical wildcrafting practises and access by wildcrafters to crown lands, excluding parks, for such purposes as wild seed collection, berry picking, harvest of aerial portions of plants, and harvest of roots if it can be done in a sustainable manner - i.e. plants are abundant and annual harvest levels so not exceed 30% of plants in a given population. SHSA challenges policy of PFRA in denying access to Echinacea seed harvesters who proposed sustainable harvest of these perennial herb seeds in Coalfields PFRA community pasture. Background: The Sask Conservation Data Centre ranks native plants according to their abundance and occurrence provincially. Echinacea angustifolia, although it is quite abundant in a limited range, is ranked S-3 and is therefore protected by the PFRA in terms of commercial seed harvest. The commercial harvest of these seeds should be viewed as a part of a conservation strategy. Limited seed collection of these hardy perennial plants does not harm them in the least since new stems will grow from their rootstocks. The benefit of having local genotype available for commercial propagation far outweighs any negative impact hand-harvesting may pose. 29

34 SHSA supports efforts to domesticate and commercially grow native medicinal plants, i.e. operation senega root via ADF grant to Parkland Botanicals, Fytokem's efforts to contract Epilobium angustifolium (fireweed) production, research into Echinacea angustifolia commercial production and disease control. SHSA supports efforts and research to domesticate and commercially grow native medicinal plants. 30