Email: apbbc@apbbc.bc.ca Web Site: www.apbbc.bc.ca

Editor: Ed Britton, RPBio.

Staff: Patricia McLellan

FROM THE PRESIDENT

Firstly, I want to take a moment to wish all the best for you and your family this year. No doubt that this will be a year of rapid change, and along with change comes stress. Therefore it will be more important than ever for all of us to take time to enjoy family and friends as we attempt to cope with the new circumstances we find ourselves in.

Over these past number of months, the Association has been in regular contact with government on their "new direction" and the move towards a performance based model and results based code. These discussions have always revolved around the inability of government to truly implement these initiatives in the absence of a mechanism to recognize Registered Professional Biologists as being an integral component in the decision making process. It is clear in our view that the pathway to formally enshrining R.P.Bios into the decision making process is to pass the Biologists Act. It seems most of those we have talked to within government agree with us, however given the vast number of pieces of legislation being brought forward, it is difficult to get onto the agenda. What seems so obvious it not without its challenges though, and your Executive still has a lot of work ahead of them before the Act becomes reality.

The issues of Ethics, Continued Professional Development, and BioServe have prompted some very interesting debate amongst members over the past couple of months. Although the process and appropriate forum for some of this debate may need to be clarified, it is encouraging to see the number of comments from members who are becoming actively engaged in discussing issues with your Board and each other. The Board will be looking at options for enhancing debate, and opportunities for the free flow of opinions for those interested in pursuing discussion, whilst separating out the business related material that must go to all members. Thank you for your patience as we work out the details on these issues.

The CPD comments were very enlightening as well, and although a large majority of those who responded favoured the introduction of a Continued Professional Development program, the Board will work towards addressing the concerns and questions raised by the members.

Lastly, the call for nominations to the Board is nearing the deadline. Please consider putting your name forward, as the issues we will need to address will be very challenging and exciting. As this year unfolds for each of us, please let the APBBC office know of how biologists and the practice of biology will be impacted. We need your input, advice and support.

Mark ZACHARIAS 1375

Alec DALE 1379

Moraia GRAU LOPEZ 1381

Hal NELSON 1383

Anita BLAKLEY 1384

Warren FLEENOR 1385

James STANDEN 1386

Lynn WESTCOTT 1387

Naomi DeLURY 1388

Roger M. PACKHAM 1391

Sean A.K. PUCHALSKI 1392

Michael Brotherston

Adam Compton

Elizabeth Murphy

Erin Palmer

Jocelyn White

Professional Biologists in British Columbia are anxious to learn more about the New Era Promises for Ministries of Forests, Sustainable Resource Management and Water, Land and Air Protection recently announced by the Provincial Government.

We are responding to this need with our Annual General Meeting, Thursday, May 2, 2002 at Dunsmuir Lodge, near Sidney, BC. The topic of this day-long event is Professional Biologists Working in the "New Era" of Government in British Columbia. We have organized an agenda of speakers from government, industry, consulting, non-governmental organizations and academia to address the topics relevant to professionals working in the "New Era". More information will be posted on the web site closer to the date.

We believe that the subject matter of the AGM is of critical importance to all resource professionals within British Columbia and encourage your participation.

A change from previous years is that there is no charge for the AGM, which includes complimentary coffee. Pre-registration is, however, required and you will have the opportunity to purchase lunch tickets ($18.00) to the renowned Dunsmuir Lodge buffet at the time of pre-registration. It will not be possible to purchase lunch tickets on May 2.

Are you interested in a one-day field trip Friday, May 3 YES ___ NO ___

Registration deadline is Monday, April 15^th, 2002 and forms should be sent to:

The Nomination Committee would like to bring to your attention that there are SEVEN positions available on the Board of Directors.

Two positions are for one year, 2002 - 2003 and Five positions are for a two-year period, 2002-2004

The following six incumbents have agreed to stand for re-election:

JOYCE BOON, Kelowna, Director At Large

EDWIN W. BRITTON, Campbell River, Director At Large

CHRISTOPHER CLEMENT, Victoria, Director At Large

MELVIN S. KOTYK, North Vancouver, Director At Large

CAROL A. LAMONT, North Vancouver, Director At Large

PAUL McELLIGOTT, Richmond, Director At Large

Nominations are invited from the membership at large. Please indicate whether the candidate would be a Regional Director or a Director At Large. "Regional" Directors reside outside of Vancouver Island and the New Westminster Land District (Section 34a of the By-Laws).

Nominations must be in writing and supported by the name, address, phone number and signatures of at least two APB members in good standing, and must bear the signature of the nominee. They must be received no later than March 15, 2002 by:

Linda Michaluk, RPBio.

Chair, Nomination Committee,

Association of Professional Biologists of BC

#205 – 733 Johnson Street,

Victoria, B.C. V8W 3C7

250-383-3306 (fax)

Email: apbbc@apbbc.bc.ca

PLEASE GIVE THIS IMPORTANT MATTER YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION

#205 – 733 Johnson Street,

Victoria, B.C. V8W 3C7

Present: Carol Lamont: (Chair), Joyce Boon (phone), Chris Clement, Rick Crozier (phone), Derek Ellis, Lindsay Jones, Maureen Ketcheson, Mel Kotyk (phone)

Staff: Linda Michaluk, Linda Stordeur, Pat McLellan.

Discussion at the January meeting of the Board involved an update of the Professional Reliance initiative and the direction this initiative might take given the results based approach the provincial government is considering. The Association will be providing recommendations regarding an approach being considered by government involving a results based approach to forest management. The Board sees the passage of the Biologists Act as a necessary step, should a results based approach be adopted by government.

The 2002 AGM program was determined and a number of next steps were actioned by various Directors and staff.

The provisional 2002 operating budget was approved, the 2002 Board meeting schedule was determined, and a contract for the updating of the membership directory was approved.

Nominations for Board membership were discussed in light of the call for nominations that has recently been circulated to the membership.

The next Board meeting will be held at the APB offices Wednesday, March 6, 2002 at 10.00 am

APBBC SCHOLARSHIP

The scholarship may be awarded each year to a student who is the son or daughter of

a member in good standing of the Association, or who is a Student Member or Biologist In Training in good standing, of the APB.

The award will be given to an undergraduate who is entering the third or fourth year of an undergraduate program, or to a student member or a BIT entering post-graduate studies in a program that leads to a degree in Biology (or a closely related area as specified in the membership guidelines).

There will be no more than two scholarships funded each year. Students who have won the award will be eligible to re-apply for the scholarship in another year. However, the award will only be available to a recipient for a maximum of two years.

The final date for applications for the scholarship shall be July 31 of the year in which the student will be starting her/his third or fourth year or entering a post-graduate program.

and the trees they are in are protected by the Wildlife Act, even when vacant), and WLAP "policy" (government biologists will want to negotiate any cutting closer than 100 m). I explained that there was already berry farming within 21 m of one side of the colony, so he had a good case for maintaining a buffer smaller than 100 m. However, he was adamant that I should not contact any government authorities; he wanted no government red tape. (Perhaps that should have raised a red flag.) He had apparently asked me to do the survey on his own initiative (I think he knew the herons were there) and had not been requested to do so by any regulatory agency.

Dear In A Flap:

Life is not simple is it? Your question challenged the ethical brain cells!

Firstly, our code of ethics preamble states that we recognize our code of ethics are founded on integrity, competence, and responsibility to provide sound management and conservation of biological resources.

There are two clauses in our code of ethics that provide some guidance in this case. Firstly, section 16(b)(vi) states "The Professional Biologist will advise the employer or client of any adverse consequences to be expected if his/her professional judgment is overruled, and will advise of alternate courses of action". Secondly, Section 16(b)(vii) states "the Professional Biologist will not disclose confidential information unless authorized by the present or former employer or client, required by law, or required under Section 16(A)(i) of this code to disclose information.

Section 16(A)(i) refers to "a Professional Biologist who becomes aware of any undertaking that is profoundly detrimental to sound management and conservation of biological resources will accept responsibility to advise a responsible party…"

In this case I suggest that you should have explained to the landowner the consequences of not acting in accordance with legal requirements and policies. That should have included the impact to the biological resource itself and the legal liability that he/she may incur if he did not comply.

I think you were correct in advising him that he would be OK if he maintained the 100 meter buffer. You were also correct in providing him with an alternate course of action. Specifically, you informed that landowner that in your professional judgment a reduced buffer would likely provide an acceptable level of protection and that government authorities responsible for managing this resource may be open to considering a variation from the 100 meter policy. You should also make it clear there are no assurances that government would waive the 100 meter policy.

The alternate course of action you suggested was based on your understanding of the way that government manages biological resources. Your client must bear the responsibility for not obeying the law and government policy which you made clear to him. In the future under a "results based" system I suspect that private sector professionals may have the latitude and support to make the professional judgment that in retrospect you thought might have been a better approach.

Should you have informed the authorities of the location of the nests even though your client instructed you not to? You were not under any legal responsibility to do so but I think you had an ethical responsibility to do so. Going back to our code’s preamble, it is based on integrity and a responsibility to soundly manage and conserve biological resources. In this case, I don’t think that basic inventory data such as presence absence should be protected by client confidentiality in that government knowledge of this inventory could have assisted in conservation of the nests.

Willard

This column is intended to stimulate thinking and critical analysis and to encourage a free exchange of views about ethical problems encountered in the practice of biology. The names of those who submit an ethical dilemma are not published and identifying information is modified to ensure confidentiality.