Transcript: Saving Species, On a Budget | Oct 22, 2018

Nam sits in the studio. She's in her early forties, with shoulder length curly brown hair. She's wearing glasses and a gray blazer over a pink blouse.

A caption on screen reads "Saving species, on a budget. Nam Kiwanuka, @namshine, @theagenda."

Nam says THERE ARE ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED SPECIES IN EVERY
REGION OF THIS ENORMOUS COUNTRY.
AND THE HARD TRUTH IS, WE
PROBABLY CAN'T SAVE THEM ALL.
JOINING US NOW TO CONSIDER
WHETHER AN ECONOMICS LENS COULD
HELP US DO THE BEST JOB WE CAN
WITH THE RESOURCES WE HAVE, ARE:
TARA MARTIN, PROFESSOR IN
CONSERVATION DECISION SCIENCE AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA...

Tara is in her thirties, with shoulder-length straight blond hair and side-swept bangs. She's wearing a leafy print shirt.

Nam continues AND JAMES SNIDER, VICE-PRESIDENT
OF SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND
INNOVATION AT THE WORLD WILDLIFE FUND.

James is in his thirties, with short gray hair and a trimmed beard. He's wearing glasses, a gray suit, gray shirt, and black tie.

Nam continues A WARM WELCOME TO YOU BOTH.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
TARA, YOU CAME ALL THE WAY FROM B.C.

Tara says I DID.

Nam says WELCOME TO ONTARIO.

Tara says THANK YOU.

Nam says JAMES, I WANTED TO
START WITH YOU.
IN 2002, CANADA CREATED THE
SPECIES AT RISK ACT.
HOW SUCCESSFUL HAS IT BEEN
PROTECTING CANADA'S ENDANGERED
SPECIES?

The caption changes to "JAMES SNIDER. World Wildlife Fund."
Then, it changes again to "The Act and its issues."

James says SURE.
IN SHORT, NOT WELL.
IT HASN'T REALLY BEEN VERY
EFFECTIVE AS A WHOLE IN TERMS OF
REVERSING WILDLIFE DECLINE,
ESPECIALLY FOR OUR MOST
IMPERILLED SPECIES, THOSE LISTED
UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT.

Nam says WHEN YOU SAY HASN'T
WORKED, DOES IT MEAN THAT SOME
OF THE SPECIES THAT WERE ON THE
LIST BEFORE HAVE...

James says WELL, SO THOSE SPECIES HAVE
CONTINUED TO DECLINE.
IN THE LIVING PLANET REPORT
RELEASED LAST YEAR FOUND IN THE
PERIOD 2002 TO 2014, THOSE
SPECIES LISTED UNDER THE FEDERAL
ACT HAVE DECLINED ON AVERAGE BY
28 percent IN THAT 12-YEAR PERIOD.
WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT THOSE
SPECIES WOULDN'T NECESSARILY
HAVE DECLINED IF THE ACT WEREN'T
IN PLACE, BUT IT CLEARLY HASN'T
DONE ENOUGH TO STOP THE DECLINE.
AND SO WE KNOW THAT MUCH MORE
NEEDS TO BE DONE TO HELP THE
PLIGHT OF THESE IMPERILLED
SPECIES.

Nam says BECAUSE I'M THINKING,
IF YOU DO SET UP SOMETHING LIKE
AN ACT, YOU'RE DOING IT TO
CONSERVE THE SPECIES.
WHERE DO YOU SEE PROBLEMS WITH
THE SPECIES AT RISK ACT AND ITS
APPROACH TO CONSERVATION.

The caption changes to "James Snider, @WWFCanada."

James says THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF
LIMITATIONS, LET'S SAY, IN TERMS
OF HOW THE ACT ITSELF HAS BEEN
IMPLEMENTED.
IT'S BEEN VERY SLOW.
WE'VE SEEN OVER NOW I GUESS 16
YEARS THAT THE ACT HAS BEEN IN
PLACE THAT IT'S TAKEN A LONG
TIME IN MOST INSTANCES FOR THOSE
SPECIES TO ACTUALLY BECOME
LISTED AND THEN FOR THE ACTIONS
REQUIRED FOR THE RECOVERY TO
ACTUALLY BE TAKEN, AND I THINK
THAT'S THE GREATEST CONCERN, IS
THAT WITH A VERY SLOW
IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS, IN SOME
CASES NOT ENOUGH OR SUFFICIENT
RESOURCING, THEN WE CAN'T TAKE
THE NECESSARY STEPS THAT THOSE
SPECIES REQUIRE IN TERMS OF
STOPPING THE DECLINE BUT ALSO
BRINGING THEM BACK IN THE BRINK.

Nam says AND I'M GUESSING IN
THAT 16-YEAR SPAN, A LOT OF
MONEY HAS BEEN SPENT TO DO THAT?

James says SURE, MILLIONS, HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ARE
ALLOCATED TOWARDS THE SPECIES AT
RISK ACT AND THERE ARE PROGRAMS
BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
SO IT IS A SIGNIFICANT
INVESTMENT.
BUT THAT INVESTMENT HASN'T
CLEARLY BEEN ENOUGH IN TERMS OF
HOW WE'RE ALSO IMPLEMENTING THE
ACT, THE STRATEGIES THAT WE
TAKE.
I THINK WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT
NEW APPROACHES.

Nam says AND A NEW APPROACH
THAT HAS SOME PEOPLE EXCITED AND
SOME PEOPLE, I GUESS, HAVING
MORE QUESTIONS, IS THE ONE THAT
YOU HAVE, TARA.
IT'S THE PRIORITY THREAT
MANAGEMENT.
CAN YOU GIVE US A DEFINITION OF
WHAT THAT IS?

The caption changes to "Tara Martin. University of British Columbia."
Then, it changes again to "Diversity threat management."

Tara says YEAH.
SO PRIORITY THREAT MANAGEMENT IS
A DECISION-MAKING TOOL WHICH WE
DEVELOPED TO ESSENTIALLY
IDENTIFY THE MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES NEEDED TO SAVE AS
MANY SPECIES AS POSSIBLE FOR THE
LEAST ECONOMIC COST.
WE DO THIS BY IDENTIFYING THE
STRATEGIES.
SO THOSE STRATEGIES MIGHT BE
EVERYTHING FROM HABITAT
PROTECTION, HABITAT RESTORATION,
MANAGING INAPPROPRIATE FIRE
REGIMES.
WE IDENTIFY THOSE STRATEGIES.
WE ESTIMATE THE BENEFIT OF THOSE
STRATEGIES IN ACHIEVING THE
RECOVERY OF SPECIES.
WE ESTIMATE THE ECONOMIC COST OF
THOSE STRATEGIES.
AND FINALLY, WE ESTIMATE THE
SOCIOECONOMIC AND TECHNICAL
FEASIBILITY OF THOSE STRATEGIES.
SO WE START WITH THE PREMISE
THAT ALL SPECIES, ALL LISTED
SPECIES, ALL SPECIES UNDER OUR
SPECIES AT RISK ACT, AND EVEN
SOME SPECIES THAT MAY NOT BE
LISTED YET BUT ARE BELIEVED TO
BE THREATENED BASED ON VARIOUS
EVIDENCE, WE START WITH THE
PREMISE THAT THERE'S A BUNCH OF
SPECIES AND THERE'S A BUNCH OF
ACTIONS THAT WE COULD TAKE TO
SAVE THOSE SPECIES.
SO THIS IS NOT ABOUT
PRIORITIZING WHICH SPECIES GET
SAVED.
THIS IS ACTUALLY ABOUT
PRIORITIZING THE ACTIONS TO SAVE
THOSE SPECIES.
BECAUSE IT'S THE ACTIONS THAT
USE THE RESOURCES.
IT'S NOT THE SPECIES THEMSELVES.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE
WHAT ACTIONS CAN WE TAKE THAT
ARE GOING TO SAVE AS MANY THINGS
AS POSSIBLE.

Nam says BUT IN THAT PROCESS,
YOU ARE CHOOSING CERTAIN SPECIES
TO FOCUS ON AND OTHERS YOU WON'T
FOCUS ON THEM SO THEY'LL
PROBABLY GO EXTINCT, RIGHT?

The caption changes to "Tara Martin, @TaraGMartin."

Tara says WE ARE PRIORITIZING, AGAIN,
THOSE ACTIONS.
SO IT MIGHT BE THAT THE ACTIONS
WHICH ARE GOING TO SAVE THE MOST
NUMBER OF SPECIES, THERE MIGHT
BE SOME SPECIES THAT FALL OUT,
THAT DON'T GET SAVED.
BUT IT'S NOT... THE SPECIES THAT
WE DON'T INVEST IN, IT'S NOT
BECAUSE THEY COST TOO MUCH, IT'S
BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE... WE HAVE
NOT IDENTIFIED THE MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS THAT COULD LEAD TO THEIR
RECOVERY.
AND SO... AND PART OF THAT ISSUE
IS THAT WE'VE SIMPLY LEFT IT TOO
LATE.

Nam says REALLY?
AND WHEN YOU SAY THAT, THAT
SENDS ALARM BELLS.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

Tara says SO AT THE MOMENT, AS JAMES
WAS SAYING, WE HAVE THIS PROCESS
WHERE WE LIST A SPECIES, WE THEN
DEVELOP THIS RECOVERY STRATEGY
THAT MOVES TO AN ACTION PLAN.
THAT PROCESS, FROM THE LISTING
OF A SPECIES THROUGH TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AN ACTION PLAN,
WHICH SHOULD TELL US WHAT WE
SHOULD BE DOING TO SAVE THAT
SPECIES, THAT PROCESS CAN TAKE
UPWARDS OF 18 YEARS.
DURING THAT TIME, THE
THREATENING PROCESSES ARE
CONTINUING.
SO FOR MOUNTAIN CARIBOU, FOR
EXAMPLE, 18 YEARS FROM THE
LISTING OF THAT SPECIES TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AN ACTION PLAN.
DURING THAT TIME, HABITAT...
CRITICAL HABITAT CONTINUED TO BE
DEGRADED.
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED
UNABATED.
AND SO NOW WE'RE IN A SITUATION
WHERE THE COST OF RECOVERING
CARIBOU IS MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE
AND MUCH HARDER THAN IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN 18 YEARS AGO.

Nam says BECAUSE WE'RE 18 YEARS
BEHIND NOW.

Tara says EXACTLY.

Nam says JAMES, HOW DIFFERENT
IS THE APPROACH WE'VE BEEN USING
FOR SPECIES CONSERVATION IN
CANADA, DIFFERENT FROM WHAT
DR. MARTIN IS PROPOSING?

James says THE KEY
POINTS I WOULD SAY RELATE TO THE
TRANSPARENCY OF THE PROCESS.
REALLY, IN TERMS OF THESE
DIFFICULT DECISIONS THAT WE, AS
A SOCIETY, HAVE TO MAKE AROUND
THE PLIGHT OF THESE SPECIES,
WHAT ACTIONS ARE WE GOING TO
TAKE?
SO BRINGING A DEGREE OF
TRANSPARENCY AND RIGOUR AND
REPLICATABILITY ARE CRITICAL FOR
US, THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
IN ATLANTIC CANADA WOULD BE THE
SAME AS THAT IN B.C. AND THE
RANKING OF THE DECISIONS AROUND
THE ACTIONS THAT BENEFIT
MULTIPLE SPECIES THAT IS DONE IN
THE SAME CONSISTENT WAY.
FOR ME I THINK THE CRITICAL
POINT IS AROUND TRANSPARENCY.
KNOWING THAT WE CAN HAVE THAT
EVIDENCE-BASED CONVERSATION,
THAT THAT INFORMATION IS THERE
AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND WE
KNOW THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE,
THE LIKELIHOOD OF FEASIBILITY,
THAT'S INFORMATION THAT'S AT OUR
HANDS IN TERMS OF MAKING THE
BEST POSSIBLE DECISION AROUND
THE ALLOCATION OF SCARCE
DOLLARS.

Nam says THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF
REACTION TO WHAT YOU'RE
PROPOSING.
AN ARTICLE IN THE GLOBE AND MAIL
STATED...

A quote appears on screen, under the title "Do the math." The quote reads "Sometimes the most beneficial actions of all are the least realizable. For example, if all cats were kept indoors, the benefits to songbirds would be extremely high, but the achievability of such an action is also extremely low. Only by doing the math is it clear which actions are most cost effective."
Quoted from Ivan Semeniuk, The Globe and Mail. September 14, 2018.

The caption changes to "Understanding the formula."

Nam says YOU'VE DONE THE MATH
AND CREATED THE FORMULA.
CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH WHAT
THIS GRAPH MEANS?

A graph appears with a formula that reads "C.E. subscript I equals B subscript I times F subscript I, divided by C subscript i.

Tara says SO CE IS THE
COST EFFECTIVENESS.
AND IT EQUALS B, WHICH IS THE
BENEFIT, TIMES THE FEASIBILITY
DIVIDED BY THE COST.
NOW, LET'S BREAK THAT DOWN.
SO THE BENEFIT HERE... THIS
EQUATION LOOKS A LOT LIKE A
CLASSIC COST-BENEFIT EQUATION.
THE KEY DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE
BENEFIT HERE IS NOT AN ECONOMIC
BENEFIT OF SAVING A SPECIES.
ALTHOUGH THERE ARE HUGE ECONOMIC
BENEFITS TO SAVING A SPECIES AND
OUR WHOLE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM
DEPENDS ON SAVING SPECIES.
HOWEVER, THE BENEFIT THAT WE
CARE ABOUT AND THAT WE'RE TRYING
TO MEASURE HERE IS THE BENEFIT
OF A MANAGEMENT ACTION IN TERMS
OF RECOVERING THAT SPECIES.
SO WHAT IS THE PROBABILITY THAT
IF I TAKE THIS ACTION, IT'S
GOING TO LEAD TO RECOVERY OF
THIS PARTICULAR SPECIES.
THE NEXT VARIABLE IN THAT
EQUATION IS THAT F, THE
FEASIBILITY.
SO THAT'S TWO-PRONGED.
THAT'S THE PROBABILITY THAT IF I
TOOK THIS ACTION, IT WOULD BE
SUCCESSFUL IN ACHIEVING THAT
BENEFIT.
AND IT'S ALSO THE PROBABILITY
THAT IF I UNDERTOOK THIS ACTION,
IT WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED, IT
WOULD BE TAKEN UP.
AND SO THINGS LIKE SOCIAL,
POLITICAL PRESSURE INFLUENCE
THAT ABILITY OF UPTAKE.
AND THEN FINALLY WE DIVIDE BY
THE COST.
SO THE COST OF IMPLEMENTING THAT
MANAGEMENT ACTION OVER A GIVEN
TIME FRAME.
SO TOGETHER THAT GIVES US ALL OF
THESE... THE CORE ELEMENTS THAT
WE NEED TO IDENTIFY WHICH
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ARE GOING
TO GIVE US THE MOST JUICE FOR
THE SQUEEZE.
NOW, THERE'S OTHER ELEMENTS THAT
WE CAN ADD TO THAT EQUATION.
THERE'S OTHER REALLY IMPORTANT
THINGS LIKE CULTURAL VALUES, FOR
EXAMPLE.
WE'RE WORKING ON A PROJECT WITH
FOUR FIRST NATIONS ON THE
CENTRAL COAST OF BRITISH
COLUMBIA, IDENTIFYING THE
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES NEEDED TO
RECOVER 79 CONSERVATION UNITS,
DISTINCT POPULATIONS OF SALMON.
NOW, THOSE POPULATION... THOSE
POPULATIONS ARE VALUED
DIFFERENTLY BY THOSE FIRST
NATIONS.
AND SO WE'RE INCORPORATING THEIR
VALUE OF THOSE POPULATIONS INTO
THAT MODEL EXPLICITLY.

Nam says HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN
THAT IN LAYMAN'S TERMS TO
SOMEBODY WHO MIGHT NOT
UNDERSTAND THE MATH BEHIND IT?

Tara says SO WE ACTUALLY... THESE
COMPONENTS OF THAT MODEL ARE
THINGS THAT WE USE EVERY DAY TO
MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT WE'RE
GOING TO EAT FOR LUNCH, YOU
KNOW, WHAT'S THE BENEFIT TO MY
HEALTH, HOW MUCH DOES IT COST,
HOW FEASIBLE, DO I HAVE IT IN
THE FRIDGE, THROUGH TO, WHAT
SCHOOL ARE YOU GOING TO SEND
YOUR KID TO.
THIS ANALYSIS IS ACTUALLY
SOMETHING THAT WE'RE DOING ALL
THE TIME IN ALMOST EVERY
DECISION WE MAKE.
THE STRANGE THING IS THAT WE
HAVEN'T BEEN DOING IT IN
CONSERVATION.
WE HAVE BEEN KIND OF SHOPPING
WITHOUT PRICE TAGS, ASSUMING
THAT WE HAVE INFINITE RESOURCES
TO DO EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE, AND
THAT'S JUST NOT THE CASE.
WHAT THIS PROCESS CAN HELP
IDENTIFY IS, ASK THESE KEY
QUESTIONS, LIKE HOW MUCH WOULD
IT COST TO SAVE ALL SPECIES AT
RISK IN CANADA?

Nam says DO WE KNOW A NUMBER?

Tara says WE DON'T KNOW A NUMBER.

Nam says SHOULD IT BE ABOUT COST?

Tara says WE SHOULD KNOW... WE WANT TO KNOW THAT NUMBER BECAUSE IF WE
DON'T HAVE THE INVESTMENT
REQUIRED CURRENTLY, WE NEED TO
DO SOME SERIOUS FUND-RAISING TO
MAKE UP THAT SHORTFALL.
SO THAT'S A KEY COMPONENT OF A
DECISION: HOW MUCH DOES IT COST?
WHAT'S THE EXPECTED... WHAT'S
THE LIKELIHOOD WE COULD ACTUALLY
RECOVER ALL OF THESE SPECIES AND
WHAT'S THE FEASIBILITY?
SO THOSE ARE REALLY THE
FOUNDATIONS OF DECISION-MAKING.
ULTIMATELY, THIS PROCESS IS JUST
HELPING TO INFORM DECISIONS.
IT DOESN'T MAKE THE DECISIONS.
YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ULTIMATELY MAKE
THOSE DECISIONS, BUT THIS IS A
WAY TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO
INFORM THOSE DECISIONS IN A VERY
TRANSPARENT WAY.

Nam says WELL, THE DAVID SUZUKI
FOUNDATION HAS CALLED
DR. MARTIN'S APPROACH OVERLY
REDUCTIONIST, CALLING IT THE
NOAH'S ARK APPROACH.
IN YOUR OPINION IS THAT A
REASONABLE CRITICISM?

James says I THINK AT
TIMES WE FALSELY EXTEND THE
CONCEPT OF PRIORITY MANAGEMENT
INTO A BROADER IDEA THAT WE AT
TIMES CALL CONSERVATION TRIAGE.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIORITY
ACTIONS FOR A SPECIES, IN MANY
CASES AN AGGREGATE OF SPECIES,
VERSUS THAT BROADER QUESTION OF
WHICH SPECIES SHOULD WE SAVE?
AND I THINK VERY CLEARLY, AS
TARA SAID, THE TOOL, THE
METHODOLOGY, DOESN'T MAKE THE
DECISION FOR US.
WE, AS SOCIETY, NEED TO MAKE
THIS DECISION.
WE HAVE THE BEST TOOL KIT TO
MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION AROUND
THE USE OF THOSE RESOURCES.
SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT IS
NECESSARILY PURELY A
REDUCTIONIST PROCESS AT ALL.
IF ANYTHING, OUR EXISTING
APPROACH TO SPECIES AT RISK IN
CANADA HAS LARGELY BEEN FOCUSED
ON A SINGLE STRATEGY, WHERE WE
HAVE ACTION PLANS... MORE THAN
600 LISTED SPECIES IN CANADA,
THOSE RECOVERY STRATEGIES, THOSE
ACTIONS PLANS SOMETIMES DON'T
EXIST BUT FOCUS ON SPECIES ONE
BY ONE.
HOW CAN WE EFFECTIVELY,
EFFICIENTLY PROTECT THOSE
SPECIES, RECOVER THOSE SPECIES,
IF WE DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES
THAT THEY REQUIRE?
AND BETTER YET, THE PRIORITY
THREAT MANAGEMENT APPROACH
ACTUALLY IS DESIGNED, AND
CERTAINLY WHERE IT'S BEEN
APPLIED MORE RECENTLY, IN
SASKATCHEWAN, IS ACTUALLY A
MULTISPECIES APPROACH.
WE'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT APP
AGGREGATE, A GROUP OF SPECIES AT
AN EXISTING LEVEL.
THAT FOR US IS A KEY TREND IN
TERMS OF WHAT OUR NEW APPROACHES
TO CONSERVATION IN CANADA SHOULD
BE.
WE SHOULD BE LOOKING IN A MORE
HOLISTIC WAY.
WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THE
INTERACTION OF SPECIES BETWEEN
THEMSELVES AND THEIR
ENVIRONMENT.
AND SO I DO BELIEVE THAT
PRIORITY THREAT MANAGEMENT, PTM
AS WE CALL IT, IS PART OF THAT
BROADER TOOL KIT IN TERMS OF
MULTI-SPECIES RECOVERY AND
PROTECTION OF AT RISK SPECIES IN
CANADA LOOKS LIKE AND AROUND THE
WORLD.

Nam says YOU SAID A FEW TIMES
ULTIMATELY CITIZENS WOULD DECIDE.
WOULD THERE BE A REFERENDUM OR...

James says WE'RE HAVING
THESE CONVERSATIONS ALREADY TODAY.
AND THEY ARE DIFFICULT
CONVERSATIONS AROUND, HOW DO WE
NOT ONLY TAKE RECOVERY ACTIONS
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE
SPECIES?
PERHAPS, MOST IMPORTANTLY, WHAT
STEPS ARE WE TAKING TO REDUCE
THOSE STRESSORS THAT HAVE GOT
THEM TO THAT POINT THAT THEY'RE
ARGUABLY AT RISK OF EXTINCTION.
THAT'S WHY THEY'RE DESIGNATED AT
RISK OF EXTINCTION.
IT IS THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE THAT
IS DRIVING THAT DECLINE.
WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL IN
TERMS OF DEVELOPING THESE
RECOVERY STRATEGIES ARE BROADER
FOR SOCIETAL INVESTMENT, ACTIONS
THAT WE ARE COLLECTIVELY TAKING
TO REDUCE THOSE STRESSORS.
THAT'S THE CONVERSATION THAT WE
SHOULD BE HAVING.

Nam says I WANT TO READ
SOMETHING ELSE FROM THAT GLOBE
AND MAIL ARTICLE...

Another quote by the same author appears on screen, under the title "The burrowing owl." The quote reads With fewer than one thousand breeding pairs left in Canada, burrowing owls are listed among our most endangered species. In principle, Dr. Martin would like to save them. But in practice, she's advocating a new approach to conservation that admits a harsh fact: saving burrowing owls, at least in this country, is likely beyond our means."

Nam says TARA, WHAT MAKES THE
BURROWING OWL TOO EXPENSIVE TO SAVE?

The caption changes to "Specific species."

Tara says I GUESS
FIRSTLY IT'S NOT THAT THE
BURROWING OWL IS TOO EXPENSIVE
TO SAVE, AND THERE IS A CHANCE
THAT WE CAN SAVE IT IN CANADA.
WHAT OUR STUDY SHOWED WAS THAT
IT REQUIRES BROAD COOPERATION
BEYOND CANADA.
THIS IS A MIGRATORY SPECIES THAT
MOVES THROUGH THE U.S., DOWN TO
MEXICO, AND BACK AGAIN.
AND WITHOUT THAT COOPERATION
BETWEEN COUNTRIES, THERE'S VERY
LITTLE CHANCE THAT WE COULD
RECOVER BURROWING OWLS IN
CANADA.
SO WHAT THE STUDY REALLY
REVEALED WAS THAT FOR SOME
SPECIES, ACTIONS BEYOND CANADA
ARE NECESSARY TO SAVE THAT
SPECIES.

The caption changes to "Watch us anytime: tvo.org, Twitter: @theagenda, Facebook Live."

Nam says I'M THINKING THAT
WOULD BE VERY COMPLICATED.
HOW COMPLICATED IS THAT PROCESS,
JAMES?

James says WELL,
CONSERVATION OF SPECIES ACROSS
POLITICAL BOUNDARIES IS
CHALLENGING.
IT'S COMPLEX, THAT'S FOR SURE.
WHETHER IT'S ACROSS OUR
PROVINCES.
WE WORK AROUND ECOLOGICAL
BOUNDARIES, A RANGE OF SPECIES.
AND IN SOME CASES THAT MIGHT
SPAN SEVERAL PROVINCES, IN THE
CASE OF THE BURROWING OWL, AND
SPECIES IN GRASSES IN ALBERTA
AND SASKATCHEWAN, THEY'RE IN THE
U.S. AS WELL.
THAT'S ESPECIALLY TRUE FOR
BROAD-RANGING SPECIES.
SOME SPECIES LIKE THE MONARCH
BUTTERFLY IS TRAVELLING ACROSS
THE ENTIRE CONTINENT, FROM
CANADA, THROUGH THE U.S., INTO
MEXICO.
AND SO FOR US I THINK THAT
REALLY ALSO BRINGS US BACK TO,
THESE ARE INHERENTLY
INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONS.
THE CONCEPTS OF THE WORK THAT WE
HAVE HERE ON SPECIES AT RISK
ALSO RELATES TO THAT OF OUR
BROADER INTERNATIONAL
COMMITMENTS TO THE CONVENTION ON
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY.
THAT ACTUALLY BRINGS A POINT OF
URGENCY IN THAT WE'VE MADE
COMMITMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF THE
PROTECTION OF NATURE, PROTECTION
OF WILD PLACES AND FOR WILD
SPECIES...

Nam says WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT
COMMITMENT?

James says TOP OF MIND RELATES TO...
TERRESTRIAL AND INLAND WATERS,
17 percent.
RIGHT NOW CANADA IS RANKED 7TH
AMONG THE G-7 NATIONS, WE'RE
LAST AMONG THE G-7 NATIONS.
THERE IS AN URGENCY IN ACTION
THAT WE NEED TO TAKE TO GET TO
2020 THAT'S ONLY A COUPLE YEARS
AWAY.
SO MIGRATORY SPECIES ARE VERY
MUCH BRING TO LIGHT THE NEED FOR
US TO BE WORKING WITHIN A
BROADER INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT
AND WHERE WE HAVE IS GROWING
URGENCY OF WHAT OUR COMMITMENTS
WILL BE IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS.

Nam says I WANT TO ADD ANOTHER
VOICE TO THE CONVERSATION.
MELANIE GOODCHILD FROM THE
WATERLOO INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL
INNOVATION AND RESILIENCE.
HI, MELANIE.
IT'S NICE TO HAVE YOU ON THE SHOW.

Melanie says HI, NAM.
THANK YOU.

Melanie is in her forties, with short dark hair. She's wearing glasses and a beige sweater.

Nam says I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN
LISTENING TO THE CONVERSATION.
HOW DIFFERENTLY WOULD
TRADITIONAL INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE
LOOK AT CONSERVATION OF SPECIES
LIKE THE BURROWING OWL?

The caption changes to "Melanie Goodchild. University of Waterloo."

A map pops up briefly highlighting the location of Waterloo.

Melanie says I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE
CONTEXT FOR WHAT WE CALL
ANISHINAABE... WHICH IS OUR
WORLD VIEW AND OUR WAY OF
RELATING TO THE WORLD.
WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A SEPARATION
OF OURSELVES AS HUMAN BEINGS
FROM NATURE, FROM WHAT WE WOULD
CALL THE ECOSYSTEM IN WESTERN
SCIENCE, AND SO IN OUR CREATION
STORIES, WE WERE PLACED HERE
ALONGSIDE WHAT WE CALL OUR
RELATIVES, WE SAY (SPEAKING
INDIGENOUS LANGUAGE).
SO WE ARE ACTUALLY RELATIVES.
SO THE CONVERSATION IS ACTUALLY
QUITE A BIT DIFFERENT FOR US
BECAUSE IT'S TALKING ABOUT OUR
CLANS, OUR RELATIVES, MEDICINES,
SOURCES OF SPIRITUALITY AND
CULTURE FOR US.
AND SO I THINK THAT IT'S
ACTUALLY VERY COMPLEX, WHAT
SEEMS LIKE A SIMPLE EQUATION,
AND CERTAINLY PART OF THE TOOL
KIT FOR CONSERVATION DOESN'T
NECESSARILY INCLUDE ATLANTA
PERSPECTIVE... THAT PERSPECTIVE
AND WE MIGHT NEED TO BROADEN IT
TO INCLUDE THAT PERSPECTIVE.

Nam says WHAT DO YOU THINK
ABOUT WHAT MELANIE SAID, THAT
THERE IS NO SEPARATION.
WHEN IT COMES TO CONSERVATION,
HOW WOULD YOU GO ABOUT DECIDING
WHICH ANIMALS WE SAVE?

Tara says I THINK
MELANIE MAKES A REALLY CRITICAL
POINT IN THAT ULTIMATELY THE
DECISIONS WE MAKE ARE BASED ON
VALUES.
AND THIS IS JUST... WE'VE
DEVELOPED A TOOL TO HELP BRING
TOGETHER SOME OF THE
QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION THAT WE
NEED TO INFORM A DECISION, BUT
IT'S ULTIMATELY HUMANS THAT ARE
MAKING THOSE DECISIONS.
AND WE MAKE THOSE BASED ON OUR
OWN VALUES AND OUR OWN WAY OF
SEEING THE WORLD.
SO I THINK THERE'S HUGE
OPPORTUNITIES TO BRING IN
DIFFERENT VALUES IN A MORE
QUANTITATIVE WAY INTO THESE
MODELS, BUT ULTIMATELY, IT'S
ABOUT PEOPLE SITTING AROUND A
TABLE AND COMMUNICATING AND
TALKING AND DECIDING HOW THEY'RE
GOING TO BE ALLOCATING THESE
RESOURCES TO SAVE AS MANY
SPECIES AS POSSIBLE.
I THINK THE REALLY KEY THING
THAT WE CAN IDENTIFY IN THIS
PROCESS IS, WHAT'S THE GAP?
AT THE MOMENT WE'VE DEVELOPED
THIS TOOL BECAUSE THERE WAS A
NEED, BECAUSE SPECIES AT RISK
WAS FAILING, BECAUSE WE WERE
SPENDING A LOT OF OUR SCARCE
RESOURCES ON SPECIES THAT HAVE A
VERY HIGH COST AND A VERY LOW
LIKELIHOOD OF RECOVERY.
WHAT WE WANT TO MOVE TO IS TO A
FULL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT
WOULD COST TO DO THE BEST JOB
POSSIBLE, AND THIS IS REALLY
WHAT THIS PROCESS WILL PROVIDE
US WITH.

Nam says JAMES, DO YOU WANT TO ADD...

James says IF ANYTHING,
THE APPROACH OF PART OF THAT
MANAGEMENT AND LOOKING AT
COST-BENEFIT, DOES ALLOW US TO
MOVE INTO THIS BROADER
CONVERSATION AND THE ROLE OF
HUMANS AS PART OF THE BROADER
SYSTEM, NOT SEPARATE, YOU KNOW,
FROM WILDLIFE, BUT AS PART OF
THAT ECOSYSTEM, AND SPEAKING TO
THE BENEFITS THAT CONSERVATION
ACTIONS CAN HAVE FOR PEOPLE,
RIGHT?
THAT IS A MISSING PART OF THE
CONVERSATION THAT WE'RE OFTEN IN
TODAY.
THE BENEFITS OF CONSERVATION,
ACTION OF RECOVERY OF SPECIES AT
RISK TO THE COMMUNITIES THAT
LIVE NEAR THEM.
THE JOBS THAT RECOVERY AND
RESTORATION ACTIONS CAN ACTUALLY
BRING TO THE COMMUNITY.
THAT'S VERY REAL, THAT STORY,
AND I THINK BY TAKING A
COST-BENEFIT APPROACH, BY
BRINGING THAT TO BE PART OF THE
EQUATION, IF YOU WOULD SAY, THEN
WE CAN BE MORE TRULY VALUING THE
BENEFIT OF THOSE SPECIES, THOSE
ECOSYSTEMS, AND THE SERVICES AND
GOODS THAT WE, AS HUMANS, RELY
UPON FROM THEM.

Nam says OH, SORRY.

Tara says THIS IS A
REALLY GREAT POINT THAT BOTH
MELANIE AND JAMES HAVE MADE,
THAT CO-SAVING SPECIES.
WE'RE LOOKING AT THE BENEFIT OF
THE LIKELIHOOD OF SAVING THESE
SPECIES.
THERE ARE ECONOMIC BENEFITS, BUT
THERE ARE CULTURAL BENEFITS,
THERE ARE JOBS CREATED BY
IMPLEMENTING ALL OF THE
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS REQUIRED.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE
TRYING TO DO NOW IS ACTUALLY
ESTIMATE ALL OF THOSE OTHER
CO-BENEFITS TO SAVING SPECIES.
BECAUSE THIS NARRATIVE THAT
SAVING SPECIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
COSTS JOBS IS JUST NOT CORRECT,
YOU KNOW.
FOR DECADES WE'VE BEEN STUCK IN
THIS MANTRA THAT CONSERVATION
COSTS JOBS.
AND IT'S ACTUALLY NOT CORRECT.
CONSERVATION CAN ACTUALLY BRING
ABOUT MANY NEW TYPES OF JOBS AND
CREATE SUSTAINABLE JOBS FOR THE
LONG TERM.

Nam says SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T
REALLY BEEN TALKING ABOUT ARE
PLANTS.
MELANIE, HOW MUCH IMPORTANCE
SHOULD WE BE PLACING ON THE
PLANT KINGDOM IN A DISCUSSION
LIKE THIS?

The caption changes to "Melanie Goodchild, @leaders_indig."

Melanie says WE
CONSIDER IN ANISHINAABE, OUR
CULTURE, AND OUR WORLD VIEW, WE
CONSIDER PLANTS AS PART OF THIS
SPIRITUAL WELLNESS OF BOTH THE
PLANET, AT KIND OF A MACRO
LEVEL, AND AT A MICRO LEVEL
INDIVIDUALLY.
SO PLANTS ARE VIEWED AS GIVERS
OF LIFE.
THEY PROVIDE US MEDICINES.
WE COLLECT MAPLE AND MAPLE
WATER, MAPLE SYRUP.
THE FOUR SACRED MEDICINES ARE
ALL PLANTS IN OUR CULTURE,
SWEETGRASS, SAGE, CEDAR, AND
TOBACCO.
AND SO FOR US, YOU KNOW, TALKING
ABOUT BIODIVERSITY LOSS AND THE
CONSERVATION OF SPECIES
INHERENTLY INVOLVES OR DE FACTO
INVOLVES THE CONSERVATION OF
THESE PLANTS AS WELL BECAUSE
THEY PLAY ROLES IN THE ECOSYSTEM
AND WE BELIEVE AND UNDERSTAND
THAT WE HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH
THEM AS SENTIENT BEINGS.
SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
SWEETGRASS, WE'RE NOT TALKING
ABOUT A NOUN OR A PLANT OR AN
IT.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A
RELATIVE.
SO IN THAT WAY, AGAIN, IT REALLY
CHANGES THE CONVERSATION WHEN
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PLANTS AND
THE IMPORTANCE OF PLANTS.
WE DON'T KNOW SOMETIMES HOW
DEEPLY THEY ARE NEEDED UNTIL
WE'VE LOST THEM.

Nam says THAT IS SOMETHING THAT
I WAS THINKING ABOUT.
YES, THESE DECISIONS HAVE TO BE
MADE.
WHAT IF WE MAKE THE WRONG
DECISION AND 50 YEARS FROM NOW
WE ALL SUFFER BECAUSE OF THAT
DECISION?

Tara says SO RIGHT NOW
WE ARE MAKING DECISIONS AND
RIGHT NOW WE'RE MAKING THE
DECISION TO INVEST IN A VERY
SMALL SUBSET OF SPECIES AT THE
COST OF MANY, MANY OTHER
SPECIES.
AND SO SPECIES ARE ALREADY BEING
NEGLECTED.
WHAT THIS TYPE OF THINKING CAN
BRING ABOUT IS THE POSSIBILITY
OF SAVING MANY MORE SPECIES THAN
WE CURRENTLY ARE, INCLUDING
THESE PLANTS, INCLUDING THESE
SPECIES OF HUGE CULTURAL AND
SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE.

Nam says JAMES, CAN YOU TELL US
ABOUT THE ENDANGERED SPECIES
HERE IN ONTARIO THAT HAS BEEN
THE FOCUS OF A SIGNIFICANT
MONETARY INVESTMENT?

The caption changes to "Ontario's threatened species."

James says WELL, ONTARIO
HAS A HUGE NUMBER OF SPECIES,
MORE THAN 200 SPECIES AT RISK IN
ONTARIO, WHICH IS PROBABLY NEWS
TO MANY OF US.
SOUTHERN ONTARIO IN PARTICULAR
IS A HOT SPOT OF SPECIES AT
RISK, AND WHETHER THAT INCLUDES
SOME OF THE SAME GRASSLAND
SPECIES THAT WE'VE SPOKEN ABOUT
IN SASKATCHEWAN, LIKE THE
BABALINK, WHICH IS A GRASSLAND
BIRD HERE, OR WHETHER IT'S
REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS.
WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE SEVEN
TURTLES IN CANADA.
I THINK ALL SEVEN NOW HAVE SOME
FORMAL DESIGNATION OF BEING
CONSIDERED AT RISK.
SO THIS IS A VERY HEAVILY
SETTLED AND USED LANDSCAPE.
THERE ARE MANY PRESSURES ON
SPECIES IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO IN
PARTICULAR.
AND SO THERE HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW,
A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF EFFORT
TO TRY TO STEM THAT TIDE, YOU
KNOW, TO BRING THOSE SPECIES,
YOU KNOW, BACK TO HEALTHY
POPULATIONS, AND THAT'S
CONTINUED IN SOME CASES OVER
GENERATIONS.
I THINK THAT'S A REALLY CRITICAL
POINT THAT WE NEED TO MAKE HERE,
WHICH IS TO SAY, CONSERVATION
SUCCESS DOESN'T HAPPEN
OVERNIGHT.
IT DOESN'T HAPPEN WITHIN TWO TO
FIVE YEARS.
IN MANY CASES EFFECTIVE RECOVERY
OF AT-RISK SPECIES WILL TAKE
GENERATIONS.
IT WILL TAKE DECADES.
AND WE NEED TO SUSTAIN OUR
INVESTMENT AT THE SAME LEVEL OF
THE INVESTMENT IN THESE HUMAN
ACTIVITIES THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY
BE LEADING TO THEIR DECLINE.

Nam says HAVING SAID THAT, WHAT
YOU SAID ABOUT SPECIES AT RISK,
MAYBE SOME PEOPLE WILL SAY YOU
HAVEN'T GIVEN IT ENOUGH TIME IF
YOU ARE SAYING IT WILL TAKE
GENERATIONS; WOULD THAT BE FAIR?

James says IN SOME WAYS
OUR BIGGEST CONSERVATION
SUCCESSES, AND THESE ARE TOUGH
STORIES, FOR EXAMPLE, THE SWIFT
FOX.
THE SWIFT FOX WAS A SPECIES AT
THE BRINK OF EXTINCTION.
WE WERE DOWN TO A FEW
INDIVIDUALS IN CANADA.
WE HAD TO REINTRODUCE THEM FROM
THE U.S.
SO THIS IS A BREEDING PROGRAM.
WE'RE BRINGING THEM BACK.
GENERATIONS.
BUT THIS IS FROM THE 1970S,
RIGHT?
AND NOW WE'RE AT A MUCH LARGER
NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS.
BUT IS IT FULLY A
SELF-SUSTAINING POPULATION?
IS IT EFFECTIVELY OFF OF LIFE
SUPPORT, IF YOU WILL?
OR DO WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO
ENSURE HUMAN ACTIVITY SO THAT
THAT SPECIES CAN PERSIST INTO
THE FUTURE?
I THINK THAT'S A REALLY REAL
RISK FOR MANY OF OUR AT-RISK
SPECIES, GIVEN THAT ARE SO MANY
OF THEM, 600 OR MORE, AND
THERE'S A HANDFUL OF THEM WE'VE
BEEN INVESTING IN ON AN ONGOING
WAY, BUT WHERE THEY'RE NOT YET
FULLY SELF-SUSTAINING AND THE
QUESTION IS TO US, AND THIS IS
THE REALITY OF CONSERVATION IN
THIS DAY AND AGE, IS WHEN AND
HOW WILL THEY BE?
AND THAT'S WHY EXACTLY NEW
APPROACHES ARE NEEDED.
WE NEED TO BE SHIFTING THE WAY
THAT WE'RE DOING THINGS SO THAT
WE CAN TAKE THAT STEP CHANGE.
SO THAT WE'RE NOT CONTINUING TO
HAVE SPECIES ON THE BRINK OF
EXTINCTION.

Nam says WE ONLY HAVE A FEW
MINUTES LEFT.
TARA, YOU WANTED TO ADD
SOMETHING?

Tara says I JUST WANTED
TO SAY THAT PART OF THE REASON
WHY WE ARE NOT DOING AS WELL AS
WE COULD BE DOING IS BECAUSE
IT'S SIMPLY JUST TAKING TOO
LONG.
WE KNOW THAT THESE SUCCESSES,
SPECIES RECOVERY HAS BEEN
SUCCESSFUL IN CERTAIN AREAS
BECAUSE DECISIONS WERE MADE
QUICKLY AND THERE WAS SUFFICIENT
INVESTMENT.
AND SO THIS IS ONE OF THE KEY
ISSUES WE NEED TO DEAL WITH, WE
CANNOT CONTINUE TO DELAY
DECISION-MAKING.
IN THE CURRENT PROCESS, 18 YEARS
FROM LISTING A SPECIES TO
DEVELOPING AN ACTION PLAN IS
JUST SIMPLY NOT WORKABLE.

Nam says WELL, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS ANNOUNCED SOME
NEW MONEY FOR CONSERVATION.
JAMES, CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT?

The caption changes to "New money and how to spend it."

James says WELL, YES.
THIS PAST YEAR, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS MADE A
SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT IN THE
PROTECTION OF NATURE AND
RECOVERY OF WILD SPECIES, A
1.3 BILLION DOLLAR INVESTMENT, WHICH
IS BILLED AS A GENERATIONAL
INVESTMENT.
AND THERE'S NO IFS, ANDS, OR
BUTS.
IT IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT CHUNK
OF RESOURCES AND IS REALLY, YOU
KNOW, DIRELY NEEDED TODAY.
THAT INCLUDES A CONSERVATION
FUND, THE NATURE FUND, AS IT'S
BILLED.
A 500 MILLION DOLLAR FUND THAT IS
HOPED, INTENDED TO BE A MATCHING
FUND THAT WOULD ALLOW THE
PROVINCES, THE TERRITORIES,
PHILANTHROPIC, PRIVATE INVESTORS
TO BRING INVESTMENTS TO THE
TABLE SO WE HAVE A BILLION
DOLLARS INVESTMENT IN
CONSERVATION ACTION.
IMPORTANTLY THAT INCLUDES
PROTECTED AREAS AND FOR SPECIES
AT RISK, RIGHT?

The caption changes to "Connect with us: Twitter: @theagenda; Facebook, agendaconnect@tvo.org, Instagram."

Nam says THERE ARE SOME ANIMALS
THAT I GUESS... SOME SPECIES
THAT RECEIVE A LOT OF ATTENTION
FROM THE MEDIA, FROM US, ABOUT
WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE SAVED OR
MONEY PUT TO CONSTABLE SERVE THEM.
AND THE SOUTHERN RESIDENT KILLER
WHALE I THINK IS ONE OF THEM.
TARA, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN AN
ICONIC SPECIES LIKE THAT, SHOWN
BY YOUR EQUATION TO NOT BE SAVABLE?

Tara says THE GOOD NEWS
IS WE HAVE WORKED ON THE
SOUTHERN RESIDENT KILLER WHALE
AND WE THINK IT IS SAVEABLE.
WE THINK IF WE TAKE ACTION
QUICKLY ON DEALING WITH THE
UNDERLYING THREATS OF FOOD
SCARCITY AND POOR HABITAT
QUALITY, WE COULD SAVE THAT
SPECIES.
THE CHALLENGE IS WHEN WE HAVE A
SPECIES WHERE IT'S ICONIC, IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT, AND WHERE
WE'VE SIMPLY LEFT IT TOO LATE.
SO OUR EQUATION, WE NEVER RULE
OUT SPECIES BECAUSE IT'S TOO
EXPENSIVE.
WE ONLY RULE THEM OUT WHEN THERE
ARE NO MANAGEMENT ACTIONS THAT
WE COULD TAKE THAT WOULD RECOVER
THAT SPECIES BECAUSE WE'VE LEFT
IT TOO LATE.

Nam says MELANIE, I KNOW ORCAS
ARE CLOSE TO YOUR HEART.
WHAT DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU WOULD
LOSE PERSONALLY IF THE SOUTHERN
RESIDENT KILLER WHALE WERE TO GO
EXTINCT?

Melanie says YEAH.
I JUST THOUGHT I WOULD SHOW...
THIS IS SOME BEADWORK HERE IN MY HOME.

Melanie shows a beadwork design featuring an orca against a blue background, then says
AND FOR US, THE ORCA IS A
REPRESENTATIVE OF A SPIRITUAL
BEING AND A RELATIVE.
SO IF WE WERE TO LOSE THOSE
SPECIES, IF WE WERE TO LOSE
ORCAS AND NUMBERS OF OTHERS,
TURTLES AND SO MANY OTHERS,
THEY'RE ICONIC IN THE SENSE THAT
I THINK HUMAN BEINGS HAVE AN
EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT TO THEM,
AND WE LOVE TO SEE THEM IN THE
WILD, AND WE SAW A MOTHER ORCA
THIS YEAR, YOU KNOW, CARRY HER
DEAD CALF FOR WEEKS, WHICH I
THINK WAS A CALL FROM HER AND
HER SPECIES AND FOR US.
I THINK WHAT I WOULD JUST SAY IS
THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS EQUATION
FOUNDS LIKE A MONETIZATION, AND
I KNOW IT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE
LIMITED FUNDS, BUT IT'S
IMPORTANT WE WORK TOGETHER
HOLISTICALLY AND THINK ABOUT
OTHER KNOWLEDGE SOURCES, THAT WE
THINK ABOUT CEREMONIES,
LANGUAGE, AND MAYBE CHANGE THE
NARRATIVE AROUND CONSERVATION,
BECAUSE IF WE WERE TO LOSE THE
ORCAS, YOU KNOW, SO MANY TRIBES,
WE HAVE ORCA SONGS, WE HAVE
WHALE SONGS, WE HAVE CEREMONIES,
AND EVERYTHING FROM THE ORCA,
ITS TEETH AND EVERYTHING IT
TEACHES US ABOUT HOW TO LIVE,
THOSE STORIES WOULD BE LOST, AND
AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR
CULTURE, WHAT MAKES US
ANISHINAABE, WOULD BE LOST.

The caption changes to "Producer: Gregg Thurlbeck, @GreggThurlbeck."

Nam says MELANIE, THANKS SO
MUCH FOR JOINING US.
WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
TARA MARTIN AND JAMES SNIDER,
THANKS SO MUCH FOR BEING IN THE
STUDIO AND SHARING YOUR
INSIGHTS.
IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE.

James says MIIGWETCH.

Watch: Saving Species, On a Budget