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

As we are now in the middle of the festive season, I would like to wish our members all the best for you, for each of you and your family. As it seems we are about to enter a very tumultuous year in the resource sector, I hope we all take time to anchor our values and ethics on those things that are truly lasting.

No doubt, our confidence will be tested over the next 12 months, and it will be more important than ever to maintain professionalism in the way we approach our circumstances. Opportunities and challenges come and go; however two things that can never be taken away from us are our ethics and our personal integrity. It will be critical that we maintain the credibility that comes with the RPBio designation placed behind our names.

So, how does a professional gain the support and confidence of the public in a results based environmental management system?

There has been much discussion and debate on the role of the professional and how the government will be moving towards a performance or results based model of management. It was interesting to read the various opinions being put forward by some professional associations in publications to their members.

The definition the Professional Reliance Action Team, consisting of the ABCPF, APEGBC, BCIA, and APBBC developed states: "Professional reliance means the delegation of decision making

The accountability framework set out by the various professional associations are clearly stated within the definitions of practice of the respective Acts and detailed in the Codes of Ethics. One phrase contained in each of the definitions of practice requires professionals to practice in accordance with experience and training.

A significant amount of debate has focused on how the public, and government, will place an increased reliance on professionals to act in a performance based model. What has been especially interesting is the scope of practice being discussed by various Associations.

Suffice it to say that the management of the natural environment is a field of study that is extremely complex, with diverse views on whether professionals should act as a resource extractor or a resource conservationist, an agent of the company or an agent of the public, an agent with the protection of biodiversity as the prime mandate or an agent to ensure the economy grows. The reality is somewhere in the middle of these scenarios.

To truly examine the role of the professional in a multi-disciplined and complex environment, one could look to other sectors to determine how professionals interact with each other. One could examine the role of the health professionals, and learn from lessons there. We have all come to expect that a Doctor will ensure that their patients are provided the most current and professional advice available. It should be noted, medical and dental students often take the same classes in their first and second year of training. This is often not too dissimilar to forestry, biology, agrology, and some environmental engineering students. As the medical or dental students becomes more trained in their areas of specialization the training becomes more specific and narrow. Again, this is similar to the environmental field, where forestry students will specialize, as do biology students, etc.

The public will expect the resource professionals to maintain the same degree of professionalism as the health professions where the fields of practice are clearly understood, and the Codes of Ethics ensure that professionals do not stray into areas for which they are not qualified.

Does a Doctor know the basic elements of dental health? Does a Dentist have knowledge of basic functions of the digestive system? Obviously the answer to both is - Yes. Does the environmental professional understand the basic functions of ecological systems in terrestrial and aquatic systems? Again the obvious answer is yes. After all, we have all taken the same introductory courses in University. Would you go to your Dentist for a stomach ailment, or to your Doctor for a cap on a tooth? The obvious answer to both questions is – No.

Therefore, why is it that some environmental professionals feel that they have the professional authority to override another professional’s opinion on a particular field of practice, or to provide opinion in an area of specialization that is not their own? Is it right for a Registered Professional Biologist to practice in the area of silviculture using basic Botany courses as their guide? Obviously not. Is it right for a Professional Forester to practice in the field of wildlife biology using their early Zoology and Ecology courses as their guide? Again, obviously not. Neither are we macro-economists, social ethicists nor have we the expertise in a whole host of other fields of specialization which have their own experts and professional accountability structures.

It can be very easy, and sometimes appealing, to be lured into interpreting what appears to be ‘community values’ in making a resource management decision. Our recommendations could easily impact the livelihood of resource dependent businesses or communities, and it is difficult not to be swayed by economic arguments when making out our reports. However these social-type of decisions are best made by elected officials and their representatives. That being said, it is critical that we participate in the decision making process, and there are no better advocates than those who are passionate about a subject. But let’s not confuse being an advocate on a particular topic with our professional responsibility in providing unbiased opinion on our area of expertise.

Going back to the initial question – How does one gain the support and confidence of the public in a results based management system? By adhering to the respective Definition of Practice and Codes of Ethics which clearly state that the professional will adhere to those areas of specialized knowledge, training and experience.

Hansard - Thursday, July 6, 2000 Afternoon Sitting Volume 20, Number 24.

With the New Era that your Government is taking the Province of British Columbia into, and with issues such as: Forest Practices Code deregulation, Living Rivers Act, oil and gas exploration, Aquaculture, Fish Protection Act - Streamside Protection Regulation, and the federal Species At Risk Act (to name but a few), how will your government ensure that species, habitats and ecosystems will not only be protected, but be seen, by local and international communities, to be protected?

What is your Governments plan to introduce and pass the Biologists Act, and ensure that advice given to the public is from qualified and accountable professionals?

Mel Kotyk, R.P.Bio
President
Association of Professional Biologists of British Columbia
250 - 733 Johnson Street, Victoria, B.C. V8W 3C7 (250) 383-3306

Subject: RE: Biologists Act

Dear Mel Kotyk:

Thank you for your email seeking a sense of my government's plans with respect to the Biologist Act proposal. Please accept my apologies for the delay in providing a response.

I have instructed each member of Cabinet to ensure that economic development maintains the highest environmental standards and respects the strong environmental concerns of British Columbians and to be vigilant within their ministry to assure our environmental stewardship is exemplary.

As we develop and implement a results-based approach to ensuring a sustainable environment, we will be examining a range of new tools that will encourage exemplary environmental stewardship by all elements of society. This assessment includes examining the role that increased recognition of environmental professionals, such as Registered Professional Biologists, could play in achieving this objective. Previous work by the Association of Professional Biologists of British Columbia will play an important role in these deliberations and we will seek further advice from the Association as we proceed.

I appreciate having the opportunity to review your comments.

Sincerely,
Gordon Campbell
Premier

November 13^th, 2001

Mr. Van Scoffield, RPF,

Executive Director,

Association of BC Professional Foresters,

#1201 - 1130 W. Pender Street,

Vancouver, BC

V6E 4A4

Dear Van,

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed amendments to the Forester’s Act. The opportunity to review is timely given that the Association of Professional Biologists of B.C. (APBBC) is also involved in working with the Professional Reliance Action Team (PRAT) to ensure that the shift to results-based legislation will be practicable and effective, and afford the protection of the public interest in matters concerning the utilization and protection of British Columbia’s natural resources. As you know, the PRAT group, involving among others the ABCPF, BCIA, APEGBC and APBBC, has acknowledged the need for resource decisions to be taken within a team environment, where the team is composed of equally qualified, accountable and recognized professionals. With this in mind, we find that your legislative proposal would seem to be contrary to the findings of this group; consequently, we must advise that we cannot support your legislative

proposal. We offer the following comments on your legislative proposal.

The Foresters’ definition of practice contained in the legislative proposal would seem to create the situation where the responsibility for the health of forests and forest ecology resides within a single professional group – the Foresters. This appears to contradict your previous statements concerning the need for a team approach in forest resource management, in which a group of suitably trained professionals must be fully involved and accountable. Specific examples within the practice definition include:

• requiring such activities to be done for the integration and optimal realization of their total resource values as required by present, and as may be required by future generations

You have also included a section in your legislative proposal called "Duty to Resource" that appears to give Foresters the sole responsibility for balancing the health and sustainability of forests, forest lands and resources, and forest ecosystems with the needs of those who use these elements. I respectfully suggest that this may require the talents, expertise and participation of other professional groups in addition to Foresters.

In reviewing your legislative proposal, I note that it has similarities with legislation from Ontario and Alberta that relate to the practice of professional forestry. However, there are significant differences between your proposal and the Ontario and Alberta situations. For example, the 2000 Ontario Professional Foresters Act includes a section (2(b)) wherein the Act excludes actions performed in relation to the management of forests if they are performed by a person acting within the scope of practice of a profession listed in the regulations (which includes biologists, ecologists, botanists, zoologists, etc.). The Alberta Forestry Profession Act provides foresters in Alberta with "Right to Title" but not to "Right to Practice", thereby avoiding the imposition of restrictions concerning activities and areas of practice that would result from your legislative proposal.

An additional troubling aspect of your legislative proposal is the proposed deletion of clause 22(4)©, which sets out that Forester’s Act does not prevent a person from undertaking many of the tasks included in your revised definition, when those tasks are associated with an occupation by a trained practitioner. This deletion would remove the existing mechanism through which qualified biologists and foresters cooperate, and be contrary to ensuring that appropriate respect and acknowledgment are given to professionals from all of the disciplines required to properly manage our public forest resources. The removal of this clause does not appear to be offset by the addition of an appropriate exclusion clause.

To summarize, the APBBC feels that your proposed revision of the Definition of Practice for professional foresters does not make the necessary distinction between the responsibilities of a professional forester involved in the practice of forestry, and the responsibilities of a professional biologist engaged in habitat protection/forest management. We are concerned that this proposal does not reflect the discussions of the Professional Reliance Action Team through the recognition of complimentary practice between and across professions. We are strongly of the opinion that giving foresters exclusive responsibility for all aspects of forest ecosystem management through the granting of such a broad practice definition in a restrictive practice statute will not serve the public interest or adequately protect British Columbia’s resources.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on your revised legislation. Please be assured that the APBBC is looking forward to continuing to work with the ABCPF to improve legislation that will benefit professional practice and accomplish the goals of both Associations. We would be pleased to discuss these comments further at a mutually convenient time.

Yours truly,

Mel Kotyk, RPBio.

President

Association of Professional Biologists

of BC

We have had some struggle over what to call it - we have sometimes used the term "continuing education," and other times "professional development." However, the word "education" is often associated with "school" and "course", and since the proposed program emphasizes things like self-study and new working experience, we have decided to use the term "continuing professional development" (CPD) to avoid suggesting a bias toward course work.

One question often asked is, "How can I accumulate 30 hours of CPD every year?" The question often comes from people who live and work in isolated areas, but also from our members who are so overwhelmed with their work and family responsibilities that they can’t see how they can find another 30 hours!

When Ed Britton conducted research into continuing education in the APBBC over the past several years, he asked dozens of biologists what they did for professional development. The most common answer was, "Oh, I know I should, but I simply don't have time!" However, when more specific questions were asked, such as, "Do you read journals, attend conferences, read BioLine, learn new field techniques, take on new kinds of jobs, attend work-related training …" everyone answered affirmatively on several counts. The vast majority of members already participate in CPD, but may not appreciate that much of what they do as a matter of course actually constitutes quality learning.

When most people think of CPD, they think of formal learning activities such as courses offered at universities or colleges. Yes, these are very good ways to do your professional education. But, is this the only way? The answer is a resounding NO!

So what else qualifies? Well, one annual source of CPD credit is the Annual General Meeting of our Association, and our regional meetings. Each year at the AGM, we have a theme on some aspect of biology, and we do our best to bring in well-qualified and up-to-the minute speakers to share their expertise with you about timely topics. While many people can’t afford the time or the money to come to the meetings, we publish the proceedings in BioLine, which is distributed to all members. Just reading the papers is a kind of CPD.

We have had regional meetings in Nelson, Smithers and Prince George where we have had speakers, discussion groups and chances for meeting and talking with your colleagues. The sharing of ideas with colleagues is a legitimate form of professional education, and whether this occurs at an APBBC meeting, or in the course of your work, it still counts.

Many people who work in larger organizations have team meetings where discussions about improving work in progress or directions for the future improvements occur. These are informative, lead to sharing of ideas and are a legitimate form of learning. Teamwork is a recognized way of improving your skills - you learn from the other person and the other person learns from you. When you are the one to help the new member of your group get up-to-speed on what has been happening and what the future plans are, you are engaging in professional education. When you are the one who meets the public or gives information sessions to various groups, then you are carrying out CPD. There sure aren’t many people who don’t have to spend time to do their research and organize their material in an understandable way. This is a good educational experience for you as well as for your audience.

Most of us have to read extensively to keep up with the information explosion that is occurring. Whether you read journal articles, use the Internet to look up advances in your field or read reports produced by others, this is all learning. When you spend time trying to keep up with the changing regulations and decisions made by government, you are definitely doing CPD! Taking on challenging new assignments often involves steep learning curves, and when we approach these assignments with a systematic manner of learning to do the job, then we are practicing continuing professional development.

Perhaps you decide that it would be useful if you could learn how to use PowerPoint, a data base program, or a spreadsheet program. You buy the software, take the manual and teach yourself how to use the program. You practice with information that you take from your work, or get from colleagues, and this is part of the learning experience.

If you have the time, you volunteer in your community because of your biological knowledge, or with a worthwhile cause. Perhaps you even run for a position on the board of the APB, or serve on the board of examiners. All of these will add to your skill set in dealing with people and in planning and implementing projects.

Reflecting upon our work and actively striving to improve is a valuable mode of learning, and can be enhanced by keeping a regular journal. A common practice in business, called "benchmarking", involves studying an industry leader and striving to match their performance. Benchmarking can be practiced on a personal level as well. Some people find the social part of learning enhances their experience, and so they may form a learning partnership, or a learning team. A common form of learning partnership is mentoring, and is a valuable experience for both partners.

We have also heard the comment that we are being liberal in our definition of a qualifying learning activity. However, learning research, as well as personal experience, clearly demonstrates that informal learning experiences are rich and meaningful, at least as meaningful as the formal course. While doubtless we have much to learn about CPD programs, we feel it is better to err on the side of inclusiveness as we develop our collective experience in professional learning.

Don’t be too quick to say you don't have the time - because you are likely already doing more than 30 hours of CPD a year. Try recording the learning opportunities that you have and take advantage of on a day-to-day basis. You’ll be surprised at how much CPD you actually do in a year!

Tania Persoff 1367

Carmen Oleskevich 1368

Ronnie Drever 1369

Tanya Wahbe 1370

Chad Croft 1371

Anne Hayes 1372

Richard Case 1373

Chris Brodie 1374

Julie Towers 1376

Kimberly Wickert 1379

Don Robinson 1380

Dalyce Epp

Kyle Hawes

Stephanie Lemmon

Lindsay Pellow

Richard Smith

Angela Thomas

Christy Wright

Mark Bidwell

Patrick Tobler 1382

Willard Thrush, a key character in the ethics skit presented at the 2001 AGM, has agreed to write a regular column in BioNews that answers ethics questions submitted by our members. Willard invites all members to submit any ethics questions to him. Willard also welcomes any comments members may have about his answers. Send by mail to the Association of Professional Biologists of British Columbia, Suite 205-733 Johnson Street, Victoria, B.C. V8W 3C7 or by

Dear Willard:

I have been working as a professional biologist in the private sector for about 5

years. Prior to working in the private sector I worked 20 years for government as a field biologist. I am concerned that

a young, newly employed government biologist has imposed conditions on a development that go far beyond that required for sound management and conservation of biological resources. This in turn is resulting in my client having to spend money which, in my professional opinion, is not resulting in significant benefit.

Signed "Frustrated in BC"

Dear Frustrated:

The young inexperienced government biologist may be recommending work you do not feel is warranted, but he/she may not be acting unethically. For example, the government biologist may be taking direction from superiors in the office, and/or may be taking guidance from department policies. It is important to note that all parties in this situation may be acting ethically but there may be a difference of professional opinion on what constitutes an acceptable level of risk.

In terms of determining whether the actions have been ethical, if the government biologist is a member of the APBBC you should first consider the appropriate sections of our code of ethics. Do you have solid information to show a violation of 16 (a)(ii)? That is the "Professional Biologist will offer professional services only in matters in which s/he is qualified through professional training and/or experience. S/he will be objective and honest in all estimates, reports, testimony and other matters…".

Also, section 16(a)(v) states that, "when presenting a difference of opinion with another biologist, the Professional Biologist will state the basis for that difference". Is the government biologist giving his/her rationale for differing with your assessment?

If the government biologist is a member of the APBBC and you find clear evidence of a violation of the code of ethics you should consider making a complaint under section 17 of our bylaws.

In addition, you may wish to consider any legislative provisions that exist to appeal the government decision. The appeal mechanism provides a forum for independent review of a statutory decision maker’s decision. I recognize that the timeline associated with this process may mean that this recommendation is not acceptable to you and your client.

In the meantime, I recommend you make every effort to work with the government biologist and present technical information that supports your position.

Willard

Regarding the November 2001 BioNews article by Ed Britton regarding Continued Professional Education (CPE) I must point out that Mr. Britton's views are those of an educator, and are predictably supportive of making CPE mandatory for RPBio's. While CPE is something the Association should support and encourage, making it mandatory is not likely to provide any level of assurance of the professionalism and competence of its members. Consider that there is currently no requirement to work as a biologist in order to maintain one's registration. This would be a logical place to start if the Association wants to have mandatory criteria aimed at demonstrating competence.

People who are employed as biologists will presumably need to demonstrate competency in order to maintain their livelihood. Working biologists typically must maintain their competency through on the job learning and formal training venues such as courses, workshops and conferences. It doesn't make sense to make CPE mandatory for RPBio's, while not requiring that registered members are actively employed as biologists, or in other professional capacities in which they have professional responsibilities relevant to the biological sciences.

This is the key requirement to maintain registration or certification in other organizations. For example, the Canadian Environmental Auditing Association (CEAA) requires its members to re-certify every three years, demonstrating that they have completed a minimum number of environmental audits during that period. While CEAA also has CPE requirements, in my view, the need to demonstrate that

I appreciate receiving feedback from members on the initiatives undertaken at the Board level. Feedback assists us in communicating, because it helps us to hear what you are hearing.

From time to time we hear the perception that we want members to take courses to maintain their registration. This isn't so. We have defined concept of learning broadly so that many activities are captured, including much of what members do as part of their working lives. (See in this issue of BioNews, Professional Development Activities for Biologists). Our use of the word "education" may be mis-leading in this regard, and so we are favouring the phrase, "Continuing Professional Development" (CPD) as more accurately reflecting the nature of our proposal.

Clearly, working at professional biology is effective professional development. However, there are other effective ways to stay current, and, depending on circumstances, other means may be more suitable. We feel it best to leave the decision to the judgement of the individual member. Professionalism encompasses the workplace, but extends into other spheres of society as well. Tying professional registration too closely to the workplace may not

sufficiently value non-workplace functions, and may adversely affect the relationship between a professional and their employer/client.

For particular functions, such as environmental auditing, current practice may be a desirable criterion for certification, such as offered by the Canadian Environmental Auditing Association. A voluntary certification offered by the Canadian Council for Human Resources in the Environment Industry also uses current employment as a criterion. However, in an organization as broadly scoped as the APBBC, the nature of employment and other professional activity is too broad to be considered as a criterion for continued registration.

Finally, our CPD proposal must be considered as an integral part of the qualification package for a professional biologist. On its own, it would not go very far to demonstrate professionalism. Taken with our registration requirements, the ethics package and disciplinary process, we see CPD as providing evidence of continuing professional development after a rigorous, initial qualifying test.

MERITORIOUS SERVICE AWARDS: the Board of Directors of the APBBC each year, honours those members of the Association who have made contributions to the APB which are outstanding, above and beyond the contributions normally expected of members. These contributions should be in association with the setting and achievement of goals of the APBBC and the advancement of the Association as a professional organization. The recipients will be acknowledged at the Annual General Meeting each year, and their service will be recorded on a meritorious service plaque in the office of the APBBC in Victoria.

Nominations for this award should be submitted, by members in good standing of the APBBC, to the Chairperson of the Education and Awards Committee by January 31 each year. The nominations should include supporting information that will help the Committee to evaluate the contributions of the nominee.

A subcommittee of the Board chaired by the Education and Awards Chairperson, and consisting of at least 2 other Board members, will evaluate the nominations and recommend to the Board, the recipients for that year.

Persons who are currently serving on the Board of Directors, or on standing committees, will not be eligible for awards until their term(s) of office end.

Nominations should be submitted by January 31, 2002 to:

Joyce Boon, R.P.Bio.,

Chairperson, Education & Awards Committee, APBBC.,

c/o Biology Department,

Okanagan University College, 3333 College Way, Kelowna, B.C. V1V 1V7

D. ALAN BIRDSALL MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP: this $2,000 scholarship is awarded to a University of British Columbia student or fellow registered in or admissible to a full-time thesis program leading to a doctoral degree or post-doctoral fellowship at the University of Alberta in ecology and resource management, preferably in applied fisheries management.

Applications for this award should be made by letter before January 31, 2002 to:

Chair,

Department of Zoology,

University of Alberta,

Edmonton, Alta.

Dear Ms Boon,

I am honoured to have received the Association of Professional Biologists' Year 2001 Academic Scholarship. I am currently in my third work term in my combined Biology Co-op/Honours Botany program at the University of British Columbia. The work experience in combination with my studies has given me insight into how I wish to pursue my graduate experience in Botanical Diversity. The scholarship from APB will help me to further my education and to ultimately become a Professional Biologist. Thank you again for your generous assistance.

Sincerely,

Solveig Adair

Student Biologist APBBC

Terrace, BC

Mel Kotyk (President, APBBC) wrote a letter to Premier Gordon Campbell inquiring about the provincial government's intentions with regard to the proposed Biologists Act. Premier Campbell replied (see his letter in this issue of BioNews). Our president has also promoted our Association at several events in Ottawa during his present secondment to the capital city.

Mel Kotyk and Linda Michaluk have continued ongoing representation at the Professional Reliance Action Team, investigating the future role of registered professionals in the management of our provincial environment. Also, representations have been made to the Association of British Columbia Professional Foresters regarding proposed changes to the Foresters Act. (See Mel Kotyk's article on Professional Reliance and his letter to Mr. Van Scoffield, Executive Director of the ABCPG, both in this issue of BioNews).

Rick Crozier led a discussion on a proposed ethics examination to be required of all members. The Board completed the open book exam as a pilot test and will continue to refine the instrument. (By the way, every one that took the exam actually passed it - although it is rumoured that Mel's Mom helped him with it).

A regional meeting was held in Prince George on October 12/13 and was well attended. A paper was presented by John Stadt, RPBio, on beetle killed trees.

Don McLennan led a discussion on the role of advocacy in the Association. Discussions were held on Continuing Professional Development (see the article, Professional Development Activities for Biologists in this issue of BioNews). A motion amending the scholarship guidelines was passed. The motion provides that a scholarship recipient may apply for a second scholarship in the following year, but that the second scholarship will not automatically be awarded. The financial statement was distributed and received.

All members in good standing have been automatically subscribed to the APBBC listserve. This list has been developed to aid in communication between APB members, and between APB members and the Association. We anticipate this list will be used to receive feedback on topics of interest, to provide notices of meetings, seminar and other events, and update on Association activities. This listserve is a closed system, so is not available to anyone outside the Association.

We currently have an opening for an Intermediate Fisheries Biologist with 5-10 years experience in water quality, benthos, impact assessments, riparian vegetation, biophysical inventories, and limnology. Field experience with boats, small motors, wildlife, seine netting and electro-shocking are an asset. Good report writing and communication skills are essential for this position. Candidates must have or be eligible for RPBio designation in BC.

The application deadline for this position is 4:00pm Monday January 14, 2002. We thank all candidates in advance however, only those selected for interviews will be contacted. Please send a resume by fax or mail to:

1444 Alberni Street, 4th Floor

Vancouver, BC V6G 2Z4

Paid Advertisement

Conference major themes; 1) Climate Change Impacts on Aquatic Ecosystems, 2) Fish Biology: Behaviour, Conservation and Evolutionary Genetics, 3) W.E. Ricker: Shaping a Science, 4) Aquatic Ecological Research: Scaling, Society and Priorities, 5) Productive Capacity of Aquatic Habitat.

Tentative date: 2 days during week of January 7th, Place TBA

Contact: Michelle Boshard, BSc.

Okanagan Similkameen Boundary Regional Stewardship Coordinator

Phone: 250 707 0095 local 102, Fax: 250 707 0166, Cell: 250 878 5084

National Fisheries Marine Service, 4th Annual Salmon Ocean Ecology Meeting
January 15-16, 2002, Santa Cruz, California
Information: http://www.pfeg.noaa.gov/events/SalmonMeeting

Announcement/Formal Call for papers (December 15, 2001 deadline)

For more information and to register, go to:

For Program information, contact Dan Moore (Program Chair, UBC)

604-822-3538 rdmoore@geog.ubc.ca

mailto:leslie_taylor@banffcentre.ca>leslie_taylor@banffcentre.ca or view the web site at:

http://www.banffcentre.ca/cmc>www.banffcentre.ca/cmc

Developed by the Washington State University Cooperative Extension this 17-minute video is intended to improve the success of streamside planting projects by providing essential information to students and volunteers on proper planting techniques. A fact sheet accompanies the video. To order call 800/723-1763 or download the video from <http://wawater.wsu.edu