Social and cultural dimensions
In response to the negative effects of strict fire-exclusion, British Columbia began prescribed burns in Provincial parks in the mid-1960s; some National Parks followed in the 1970s (Parminter, 1975). The Rocky Mountain Trench was one of the first areas in the Province to begin ecosystem restoration on non-park land (Egan, 1998). Burns were first conducted in 1992, by EMBER (Ecosystem Maintaining Burning Evaluation and Research), a federal-provincial partnership (Daigle, 1996). Since 1998, provincial, federal, and local government agencies, First Nations, NGOs and several community stakeholder groups have partnered to form the Rocky Mountain Trench Ecosystem Restoration Program (RMTERP) (Rocky Mountain Trench Ecosystem Restoration Program, n.d.).
Led primarily by Provincial government agencies, RMTERP envisions ecosystems which support, "The native and historical and condition matrix of trees plants and animals; a sustainable forage resource for wild and domestic grazing ungulates and; the social economic and cultural needs of stakeholders as they relate to the open range and open forests of the Trench". Their mission is to restore 118,500 hectares to "an ecologically appropriate fire maintenance condition" by 2030, and then maintaining this "open range or open forest condition in perpetuity" (Harris, 2011). There is no explicit mention in either their vision or mission of the importance of First Nations burning practices in maintaining the type of forest conditions. They do recognize this as critical in other documents (eg. The Blueprint For Action, a report on the progress so far and future trajectory of Trench restoration, 2013).
The Forest Stewardship Plan for the Rocky Mountain Trench, which documents how land management meets the laws described in British Columbia's Forest and Range Practices Act, includes objectives related to timber, biodiversity, wildlife, visual quality, and fire-maintained ecosystems; this document is generated primarily by the Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations with consultation of First Nations (Harris, 2013). The document provides the "high-level" plan for restoration provincial land within the program, while individual restoration blocks are prioritized based a composite rank composed of scores for the following categories: interface zone (if the area is adjacent to a community or infrastructure), non-game species, game species, biodiversity, forage presently available for agricultural grazing, difficulty of planning, economical situtation, and regional priority (Harris, 2011).
Led primarily by Provincial government agencies, RMTERP envisions ecosystems which support, "The native and historical and condition matrix of trees plants and animals; a sustainable forage resource for wild and domestic grazing ungulates and; the social economic and cultural needs of stakeholders as they relate to the open range and open forests of the Trench". Their mission is to restore 118,500 hectares to "an ecologically appropriate fire maintenance condition" by 2030, and then maintaining this "open range or open forest condition in perpetuity" (Harris, 2011). There is no explicit mention in either their vision or mission of the importance of First Nations burning practices in maintaining the type of forest conditions. They do recognize this as critical in other documents (eg. The Blueprint For Action, a report on the progress so far and future trajectory of Trench restoration, 2013).
The Forest Stewardship Plan for the Rocky Mountain Trench, which documents how land management meets the laws described in British Columbia's Forest and Range Practices Act, includes objectives related to timber, biodiversity, wildlife, visual quality, and fire-maintained ecosystems; this document is generated primarily by the Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations with consultation of First Nations (Harris, 2013). The document provides the "high-level" plan for restoration provincial land within the program, while individual restoration blocks are prioritized based a composite rank composed of scores for the following categories: interface zone (if the area is adjacent to a community or infrastructure), non-game species, game species, biodiversity, forage presently available for agricultural grazing, difficulty of planning, economical situtation, and regional priority (Harris, 2011).