TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE IN NORTHWESTERN BC PARKS:
EXPLORING PATHS TO RECONCILIATION AND SELF-DETERMINATION IN
PARK PLANNING AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
By
Sophia Eve Graham
B.A. (Hons), University of Alberta, 2017

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
IN
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
April 2025
© Sophia Graham, 2025

Abstract
This research explores how Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) can be meaningfully
integrated into BC Parks’ planning and operations management to enhance socially and
environmentally responsible management plans. The objectives of this study were to identify
historical and current socio-political barriers to the inclusion of TEK in park planning and
operations management and to develop recommendations for park planners and managers to
integrate TEK that prioritize reconciliation and self-determination. There is a paucity of research
examining the inclusion of TEK and the roles of reconciliation and self-determination in park
planning and management at the provincial level in Canada. Qualitative semi-structured
interviews with Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders and BC Parks North Coast Skeena
regional staff were analyzed to develop practical recommendations for the inclusion of
Indigenous Peoples and their Knowledges in BC Parks planning and operations management.
These recommendations address relations of power and policies, and they prioritize
reconciliation and self-determination as a strategy for social change. I argue that the inclusion of
TEK is necessary to improve park planning and management and to address the larger social and
environmental issues in society. The findings of this study contribute empirical evidence to
ongoing academic discussions regarding Indigenous inclusion, TEK, reconciliation, and selfdetermination in park planning and management. This work responds to the federal
government’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action and British Columbia’s
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, and it is my hope that this project
contributes to advancing reconciliation and self-determination in park planning and management.

ii

Table of Contents

Abstract............................................................................................................................................ii
Table of Contents...........................................................................................................................iii
List of Tables.................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures................................................................................................................................vii
List of Acronyms..........................................................................................................................viii
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ ix
Chapter One: Introduction............................................................................................................... 1
Historical Context........................................................................................................................ 5
Supreme Court Rulings and Aboriginal Rights.......................................................................8
Historic and Modern Treaties and the BC Treaty Commission............................................11
Other Collaborative Agreements Between First Nations and BC Government for Working
Together in Advance of Treaties........................................................................................... 15
Modern Legislation and Politics in BC.................................................................................19
Background and Positionality....................................................................................................20
Project Scope............................................................................................................................. 25
Purpose and Research Questions............................................................................................... 32
Relevance to Literature..............................................................................................................33
Theoretical Considerations........................................................................................................35
Two-eyed Seeing Theory.......................................................................................................35
Settler Colonialism................................................................................................................ 37
Decolonization....................................................................................................................... 39
Key Concepts.........................................................................................................................40
Significance of Study.................................................................................................................43
The Chapters.............................................................................................................................. 44
Chapter Two: Literature Review...................................................................................................45
Locating My Research in Reconciliation: Responding to the Calls..........................................45
Reconciliation in Parks and Protected Areas.........................................................................47
Park Planning and Management................................................................................................50
Resource Management...........................................................................................................57
Settler Colonialism.................................................................................................................... 61
Park History........................................................................................................................... 61
Wilderness and the North...................................................................................................... 66
Indigenous Perspectives.............................................................................................................68

iii

Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 75
Chapter Three: Methodology.........................................................................................................77
Case Study Methodology...........................................................................................................77
Strengths of a Case Study Approach..................................................................................... 79
Limitations of a Case Study Approach.................................................................................. 79
A Note on Generalizability in My Project............................................................................. 80
Guiding Principles for Research with Indigenous Peoples........................................................80
How My Theoretical Approach Influenced My Methodology..................................................83
Individual Semi-structured Interviews......................................................................................84
Data Analysis: Thematic Coding...............................................................................................90
Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 97
Chapter Four: Findings.................................................................................................................. 98
1.

Historical and Current Social, Political and Economic Factors........................................98
BC Parks Policies................................................................................................................ 105
BC Parks Training............................................................................................................... 111
Unique Characteristics of Working in the North Coast Skeena Region..............................117

2.

Values, Beliefs and Traditions.........................................................................................120
Gitxsan First Nation Laws, Culture, and Traditions............................................................122

3. Applications of TEK in BC Parks Planning and Operations Management and Associated
Challenges................................................................................................................................125
Applications of TEK in Park Planning................................................................................126
Applications of TEK in Park Operations Management.......................................................130
Challenges to Applying TEK in Planning and Operations Management............................132
4.

Reconciliation and Self-determination in Park Planning and Operations Management. 136

Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 147
Chapter Five: Discussion............................................................................................................. 149
Park Planning and Operations Management............................................................................149
TEK Inclusion..........................................................................................................................162
Reconciliation.......................................................................................................................... 171
Self-determination................................................................................................................... 179
Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 185
Chapter Six: Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 187
The Main Arguments and Recommendations.........................................................................187
Significance of the Study.........................................................................................................190
Reflection on my Personal Trajectory.....................................................................................193
Limitations and Future Directions........................................................................................... 195

iv

Next Projects............................................................................................................................199
References....................................................................................................................................200
Appendix A: Gitxsan First Nation Approval of Research Project and Research Activities.......250
Appendix B: Research Agreement and Data-sharing Protocol with Gitxsan First Nation..........251
Appendix C: BC Parks Approval of Research Project and Research Activities.........................266
Appendix D: Research Ethics Board Approvals......................................................................... 267
Appendix E: Gitxsan Research Information Letter and Participant Consent Form....................269
Appendix F: BC Parks Research Information Letter and Participant Consent Form..................277
Appendix G: Interview Questions for BC Parks Staff.................................................................283
Appendix H: Interview Questions for First Nations Chiefs and Elders......................................285
Appendix I: Interview Preparation Material................................................................................287
Appendix J: Codebook................................................................................................................ 289

v

List of Tables
Table 1: Individual Interview Participants: BC Parks Employees................................................88
Table 2: Individual Interview Participants: Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders....................89

vi

List of Figures
Figure 1: Northwestern BC First Nations Map...............................................................................2
Figure 2: Treaties in British Columbia......................................................................................... 14
Figure 3: Map of BC Parks’ North Coast Skeena Region............................................................26
Figure 4: BC Parks Regional Staff Responsible for BC Parks Management Plan Development 28
Figure 5: BC Parks Regions and Offices......................................................................................29
Figure 6: Gitxsan First Nation Laxyip Boundary Map.................................................................31
Figure 7: Final Thematic Network................................................................................................94
Figure 8: Codebook...................................................................................................................... 95

vii

List of Acronyms
ABA: Atmospheric Benefit Agreement
BC: The Canadian Province of British Columbia
DRIPA: British Columbia’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act
ECDA: Economic and Community Development Agreement
FCRSA: Forest Consultation and Revenue Sharing Agreement
IPCA: Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area
IRSSA: Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement
ITA: Incremental Treaty Agreement
LRMP: Land and Resource Management Plans
MOU: Memorandum of Understanding
RCMP: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police
SEA: Strategic Engagement Agreement
TEK: Traditional Ecological Knowledge
TRC: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada
UN Declaration: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
UNDRIP: Same as above, used interchangeably in this thesis with UN Declaration
WSK: Western Scientific Knowledge

viii

Acknowledgements
This project is truly the result of a collaborative effort between many people, and it would not
have been possible without the trust, generosity, and collaborative spirit of Gitxsan First Nation
and BC Parks. T'oyaxsii'm 'niin to Gordon Sebastian (Luutkudziwus) for supporting my
project and to all the Elders and Simgiigyet from the Gitxsan First Nation communities that
participated in my research. T'ooyaxsi'y' nisi'm for welcoming me onto your Laxyip, into your
communities, opening your lives, and giving your time to this research project. Hamiyaa to
Monica Jeffrey (Miluulak) for your friendship, wisdom, and knowledge-sharing. You are a true
matriarch in your community, as your mother was. I cannot thank you enough for your teachings
on Gitxsan cultural protocols and the Gitxsanimx̱ language. A special thank you to Nancy and
David with BC Parks for providing me with so much support, guidance and assistance
throughout the project, and to all the BC Parks North Coast Skeena Regional staff that
participated in my research for all that you shared. This project would not have been possible
without any of you.
Thank you to my graduate supervisor, Dr. Jennifer Wigglesworth, for all your advice,
guidance, motivation, and encouragement. Your endless support, professionalism, and
inspiration guided me through this thesis work. You are a wonderful and amazing person,
scholar, and supervisor, and you inspire me in so many ways. You taught me more than I could
have ever wished for, and you always believed in me. Thank you to my committee members,
Drs. Daniel Sims and Pam Wright, for helping me to understand the socio-political and
historical background of BC Parks and First Nations in Northwestern BC. Thank you for
encouraging me to examine my topic from different angles and perspectives and with various
literatures that contributed to a greater understanding of my research project.
Thank you to my parents, Ralph and Colleen. Dad, thank you for reading my thesis chapters
and offering feedback and for always being in my corner, cheering me on, and believing in me.
Thank you for all the ways that you have supported and continue to support me. Mom, thank you
for picking up the phone every day. You have always been there for me to talk at any time on
any day—and that means the world to me. Thank you for instilling in me the values of kindness,
caring, humility, and empathy for people, and for always telling me to aim for the stars and fulfill
my goals and dreams. As you always said, “kindliness counts.” I strive to be the ‘twinkle star’
you always told me I am. Thank you to my dearest and most wonderful sister, Aliza, for your
unwavering support in all my endeavours, for always making me laugh, and for your love. Thank
you for reminding me to take a break when I need it, being there for me during difficult times,
and always helping me see a way forward. You are the joy of my life. As we always say, “I
LOVE HER!”
Thank you to my Uncle Gary for being my second dad when I wasn’t near any other family and
always believing I can achieve my dreams. Thank you also for instilling in me a deep connection
to and love for BC’s Northwest Coast from a young age. You are so special and dear to me—I
love you.
Lastly, thank you to Lucy, for being my best friend, companion, and giving me comfort and
support whenever I’ve needed it.

ix

Chapter One: Introduction
My research is concerned with the value and use of Traditional Ecological Knowledge
(TEK) in BC Parks planning and operations management. Over a period of eight years, prior to
my graduate studies, I was employed as a Park Supervisor, Park Operations Supervisor,
Recreation Coordinator, Environmental Planner, and Trail Planner for federal, provincial and
municipal government-operated parks. This work experience revealed to me an unfortunate lack
of acknowledgement and application of Indigenous Knowledge systems within parks
organizations. Canadian governments have historically relied on western scientific knowledge
(WSK) and undervalued the importance of TEK in the environmental planning and management
of parks and protected areas (Devin & Doberstein, 2004; Kadykalo et al., 2021; Lemieux et al.,
2018). An appreciation of TEK is fundamental in achieving a comprehensive understanding of
interconnected ecological and social realities of natural areas; hence, Indigenous Peoples’
perspectives and knowledge should play a central role in planning and managing these lands
(Folke, 2004). It is my contention that the inclusion of TEK is imperative for redefining parks
planning and management approaches to address environmental problems more effectively, as
well as issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion in broader society (Eckert et al., 2020;
McGregor, 2004). This project was motivated by my desire to improve park agency awareness of
TEK and relations with Indigenous Peoples by meaningfully integrating TEK into park planning
and management. It is my hope that my research will contribute to increasing social justice,
healing inter-generational wounds, and attaining full and fair Indigenous participation in BC
Parks’ planning and management.
My research took place in Northwestern British Columbia (BC), an area which comprises
numerous First Nations Territories (see Figure 1). As direct rightsholders in environmental

1

management plans, Indigenous Peoples and their TEK are essential for strengthening and
improving BC Parks' resource and environmental management. In this thesis project, I worked
with Gitxsan First Nation and BC Parks North Coast Skeena Region to explore the application of
TEK in BC Parks planning processes and operations management. In order to combat
environmental degradation, a worsening regional biodiversity crisis, and support reconciliation in
BC, park managers must prioritize Indigenous Knowledge and leadership (Gayton, 2008; Moola
et al., 2007; Westwood et al., 2019). Indigenous Knowledge Holders should be recognized as
experts by park managers and invited as co-creators of management solutions.

2

Figure 1. Northwestern BC First Nations Map. Reprinted from: Indigenous Peoples Resources,
by Indigenous Peoples Media. First Nations Peoples of British Columbia Map, 2020,
https://indigenouspeoplesresources.com/collections/first-nations-maps/products/canada-firstnations-peoples-of-british-columbia-map. Copyright 2020 by Indigenous Peoples Media.
Reprinted with permission.
I use a case study methodology and two-eyed seeing theory to examine historical and
current socio-political factors that influence the uptake of TEK in BC Parks planning and
management. In terms of methodological steps, first, I conducted 28 individual, semi-structured
interviews with Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders, and BC Parks staff within Northwestern
BC. Then, I analyzed the transcripts using thematic coding and analysis. My methodology was

3

motivated by the aim to understand how Indigenous participation and their TEK can be
meaningfully integrated into BC Parks planning and operations management.
It is important to underline that BC Parks planning processes and operations, while
related, have very different ways that TEK can be incorporated. Planning is defined as a process
with different phases that occurs during a specific time period to develop management direction
in the form of a park management plan or similar document (e.g., management direction
statement) (BC Parks, 2013). Planning refers to the strategic process of developing park
management plans for protected areas, which includes identifying the key features and values of
the protected area (i.e., natural, cultural, recreational), conservation priorities, analyzing
environmental impacts, and determining appropriate management activities, levels of use,
development and recreational uses (BC Parks, 2023a). A management plan is the result of a
planning process and it is developed with First Nations, local governments, the public and other
interested parties (BC Parks, 2023a). Park management plans outline “the management direction
and desired future condition for a protected area and how to achieve it” (BC Parks, 2013, p. 1).
Operations is defined as the ongoing management of the park, which implements the
management direction that is outlined in the management plan over time (N. White, personal
communications, January 3, 2025). Operations refers to the day-to-day management of parks and
protected areas, such as maintaining facilities, trails, enforcing park regulations, providing visitor
information, and responding to emergencies (BC Parks, 2013). In short, planning focuses on the
future vision of a park, while operations focuses on its current functioning.
This project initially aimed to explore the integration of TEK into BC Parks management
plan development. However, while all of the BC Parks participants that I interviewed had been
involved in developing park management plans, most of the BC Parks participants worked in

4

operations management positions, and not as planners. Therefore, the findings and
recommendations of this study focus more on operations management than planning processes.
Additionally, all of the BC Parks that are located in Gitxsan First Nation Territory have had their
management direction developed since the early 2000s, and no new planning processes have
taken place in Gitxsan First Nation Territory since this time due to the creation of many new
parks and protected areas that have needed management direction (N. White, personal
communication, November 8, 2024). Therefore, the Gitxsan First Nation participants that I
interviewed had not been involved in any of BC Parks planning processes. Because of this, my
discussions with Gitxsan First Nation participants were directed more towards consultation for
statutory decision-making and operations management of parks in Gitxsan First Nation Territory
than planning processes. Planning processes were only minimally discussed by BC Parks
participants and not at all by Gitxsan First Nation participants. Nevertheless, this is not a
limitation of my project, as operations management staff do have the agency and influence to
meaningfully incorporate TEK in implementing the management direction of parks.
Additionally, operations management staff are tasked with the day-to-day management of parks
and protected areas in working with First Nations on the ground and applying TEK in ways
which support the current functioning of a park.
The remaining sections of this chapter present an overview of my thesis project. First, I
detail the historical context necessary to understand the current relationship of BC Parks with
First Nations. Then, I discuss my background and who I am relative to this project. Following
this, I detail the scope and purpose of the project and identify my research questions. Next, I
explain how this project responds and contributes to existing literature. After that, I discuss my
theoretical orientation and define the key terms and concepts that I used to explore and analyze

5

my topic. I conclude by describing the significance of my project and providing an overview of
my thesis chapters.
Historical Context
Although Indigenous territories pre-date European settlement, Canada has had a long,
odious history of expropriating, marginalizing, and stigmatizing Indigenous Peoples. The
colonial view that Indigenous Peoples are ‘primitive savages’ has long provided a rationale for
the government to treat them as obstacles in the way of “progress” (Harding, 2006). Indigenous
Peoples’ land was seen by colonizers as stagnant and unproductive and in need of efficient,
Western means of agricultural and commercial development (Harris, 2002; Simpson, 1999). In
many cases, Indigenous Peoples were forcibly removed from areas in Canada where national and
provincial park development was taking place and denied cultural use of the area, which resulted
in displacement and a loss of cultural identity and values (Dearden & Rollins, 2009; Mason,
2021). As Mark Spence (1999) argued, wilderness is socially constructed—it had to be created
before it could be preserved. He explains, “Indian removal has largely made parks into…
symbols of wilderness” (Spence, 1999, p.7). Similarly, Bruce Erickson (2020) asserted that
colonizers’ representations of the landscape as empty served to restrict Indigenous Peoples’
resistance to settler colonialism. Thus, the creation of parks in Canada coincided with efforts to
restrict Indigenous Peoples to reserves and assimilate them into White settler-society. However,
it is important to note that most BC Parks in the North Coast Skeena Region have been created
within the last 20 to 30 years, with the exception of 54 parks created between 1930 and 1990 (N.
White, personal communication, February 12, 2025).
In addition to stealing the land and resources, the federal government sought to restrict
Indigenous Peoples’ movement and eliminate their cultures. During the early 1800s, and up until

6

the late 1990s, Indigenous Peoples were expropriated and relocated to reserves and residential
schools to be assimilated and learn the Western curriculum as a mandatory requirement set forth
in the Indian Act (1894). However, the reserve system in Canada has a longer history, with some
reserves created earlier under Roman Catholic missionary orders and private individuals in New
France during the 17th century. For example, the first reserve in Canada was established at
Sillery, near Québec City, in 1637 (Stanley, 1950). Residential schools became mandatory under
the Indian Act of 1894. The government took Indigenous children from their homes and placed
them into residential school systems where they were no longer able to speak their Indigenous
languages or continue their cultural practices. The children suffered physical and sexual abuse,
among many other hardships; and many children did not come home (MacDonald & Hudson,
2012; Wilk et al., 2017). One of the first residential schools in Canada, the Mohawk Institute in
Brantford, Ontario, began operating in Canada in 1828 (Eagle, 2021); and the last residential
school to close in Canada was Kivalliq Hall in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, which stopped operating
in 1997 (Epp, 2018). It is estimated that over 150,000 children attended these schools and
approximately 6,000 children died there, however, the exact number of deaths remains unknown
(Minton, 2019). In 2021, the unmarked graves at residential school sites received mainstream
media attention when the first mass grave was discovered at Kamloops Indian Residential School
in BC (Austen, 2021). The bodies of 215 children, “lost to their parents, their families, and their
communities, were found callously discarded beneath the school” (Austen, 2021, p. 1). A month
later, the remains of 751 Indigenous Peoples, mainly children, were discovered at the former
Marieval Indian Residential School, located on the Cowessess 73 reserve in Saskatchewan
(Austen, 2021). Today, unmarked graves continue to be found at residential school sites and
investigations are ongoing (Thorne & Moss, 2022). According to the former premier of BC,

7

William Smithe, the Indigenous children “were little better than wild animals that rove over the
hills” (British Columbia Sessional Papers, 1887). This quote exemplifies the marginalization and
degradation of Indigenous Peoples by European settlers; it is indicative of early ethnocentric
racism that continues to permeate our society today. Ethnocentrism refers to the predisposition of
a group affiliated by race or ethnicity to view the world only in their culture’s context and to
consider their group as holding a central position of cultural superiority (Bizumic & Duckitt,
2012). Therefore, the use of the residential school system by the Canadian government is an
example of state-sponsored cultural genocide (Neu & Therrien, 2003; Tatz, 2003)
The racist, ethnocentric attitude of Canadian governments and Canadian park agencies
began to shift for the better with the rise of the global environmental movement and legal
recognition of Aboriginal rights and title. Beginning in the 1970s, parks policy has adjusted in
response to global political pressures (Dearden & Rollins, 2009). Supreme Court rulings, land
claim and treaty settlements, Aboriginal rights, inclusions made in Canada’s Constitution Act in
1982 (i.e., Sections 25 and 35), and amendments made to the National Parks Act in 1988 and
2000, have all contributed to BC Parks’ further consideration and involvement of Indigenous
Peoples in park planning and management (Dearden & Rollins, 2009).
Supreme Court Rulings and Aboriginal Rights
A Supreme Court case to broaden Indigenous policy and law in Canada was the Calder
case of 1973 (Calder et al. v. Attorney-General of British Columbia, 1973), which was an appeal
by the Nisga’a to the Supreme Court of Canada. This court case marked the first time that the
Supreme Court recognized Aboriginal title existed at the time of colonization. The court
recognized that the claim to land was a legal right derived from its historical possession and

8

occupation, independent of any proclamation, legislative act, or treaty (Dearden & Rollins,
2009).
Canada’s Constitution Act of 1982 extended and consolidated the British North America
Act of 1867, and it included Sections 25 and 35 (Constitution Act, 1982), entitled “Rights of the
Aboriginal Peoples of Canada,” which became known as the ‘common law doctrine of
Aboriginal rights.’ This doctrine claims that property rights and the customary and governmental
institutions of Indigenous Peoples are assumed to survive the Crown’s acquisition of North
American territories (Dearden & Rollins, 2009).
The Guerin Case (R. v. Guerin, 1984) was a landmark Supreme Court decision which
established the Crown’s fiduciary duty to consult transparently with Indigenous Peoples before
making decisions regarding use of their land, which fundamentally shifted the relationship
between the Canadian government and Indigenous Peoples. The Musqueam First Nation
surrendered valuable surplus reserve lands in Vancouver to the Crown for lease to a golf club.
However, the terms which were obtained were much less favourable than the terms which the
Musqueam First Nation had approved, and the Indian Affairs Branch did not return to them for
approving the revised terms. The trial judge found the Crown in breach of trust in entering the
lease (Supreme Court of Canada, 2025).
Another influential case that historizes my project is the 1990 Sparrow case (R v.
Sparrow, 1990). Ronald Edward Sparrow was a Musqueam man from BC who was charged
under the Fisheries Act in 1984 for using a drift net longer than that which was permitted.
Sparrow appealed this charge, and the appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada. The
Supreme Court's decision to uphold Sparrow’s appeal affirmed that Indigenous Peoples have an
unextinguished right to fish, which set up a framework for defining the existence and scope of

9

Aboriginal rights in Canada (Dearden & Rollins, 2009). Consequently, the Sparrow case directed
the federal government to include Indigenous Peoples in the cooperative management of natural
resources (Dearden & Rollins, 2009).
Seven years later, Gitxsan First Nation and Wet’suwet’en First Nation claimed rights to
their traditional lands in Northwestern BC and appealed their case to the Supreme Court of
Canada—a case known as the Delgamuukw (Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997). The court
affirmed that oral historical accounts are valid in land claim cases (Dearden & Bennett, 2016, p.
381). As a result, the government amended the National Parks Act in 1988 and 2000 to allow
specific First Nations to carry out traditional resource harvesting in certain parks.
In 2004, two Supreme Court cases involving rights and title—Haida Nation v. British
Columbia (2004) and Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (2004)—ruled that the
Crown has a legal duty to consult with Indigenous Peoples and accommodate their interests
when there is knowledge of potential existing rights and title and conduct that may adversely
affect Indigenous Peoples (Dearden & Rollins, 2009). Haida Nation v. British Columbia (2004)
and Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (2004) both “gave more leverage to the
First Nations in protected areas by increasing their role in strategic planning and natural
resources policy making” (Houde, 2007, p. 2). In 2006, a Court Appeal in New Brunswick (R v.
Sappier; R v. Gray, 2006) acquitted Mi’kmaq respondents on charges of unlawful cutting and
possession of timber, which resulted in the Aboriginal right to harvest timber for personal use. In
addition to these pivotal court appeals and decisions, the Canadian government’s formation of
the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is an important action to analyze.
In 2006, Indigenous communities sued the federal government for the residential school
system in the largest class-action lawsuit in Canadian history. This lawsuit led to the Indian

10

Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) and coincided with the formation of the
Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of Canada in 2008 (Reid-Hresko & Warren, 2021).
The TRC was established as one of the mandated aspects of the IRSSA. As per the IRSSA, a $60
million budget over five years was allocated for the work of the TRC to take place. The TRC
was active from 2008 to 2015 and documented the inter-generational impacts of residential
schools for Indigenous communities (Reid-Hresko & Warren, 2021). The TRC’s 94 Calls to
Action (2015a) were created to redress the legacy of residential schools and advance the process
of Canadian reconciliation.
In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada made a landmark decision. Tsilhqot’in Nation v.
British Columbia (2014) outlined what is required to establish Aboriginal rights and title in
unresolved land claims, including as it pertains to semi-nomadic Indigenous Peoples. In this
case, the court ruled that Aboriginal land title can exist on a territorial basis. Aboriginal title
requires that Indigenous land occupation is sufficient, continuous, and exclusive. This ruling also
found that Indigenous communities holding official land title have “a right to benefit from the
land economically and determine how that land will be used by future generations” (Chapman &
Schott, 2020, p. 931). Occupation sufficient to ground Aboriginal title is not confined to specific
sites of settlement but extends to lands traditionally used by Indigenous Peoples for hunting,
fishing, and other resources that they exercised effective control over at the time European
sovereignty was asserted. The alleged breach in this case arises from the province’s issuance of
logging licenses in an area regarded as semi-nomadic Tsilhqot’in First Nation Territory. The
Supreme Court found that the Forest Act’s definition of “Crown timber” and “Crown lands” did
not include timber on Aboriginal title lands. Therefore, once Aboriginal title is proven, the land

11

and its resources belong to the Aboriginal title holder and meaningful consultation is required
when proposing to make decisions or conduct business on Indigenous territories.
Historic and Modern Treaties and the BC Treaty Commission
The British Crown established treaties in most parts of Canada with Indigenous Peoples
before the Canadian Confederation. From 1701 to 1760, the Treaties of Peace and Neutrality
were signed, which began with the Albany Deed in 1701 and ended with the Treaty of
Swegatchy and the Huron-British Treaty of 1760 (Government of Canada, 2022). These treaties
were signed with France's former Indigenous allies. From 1725 to 1779, the Peace and
Friendship Treaties were signed between the L'nu (Mi'gmaq, Micmac, Mi'kmaq), Wolastoqiyik
(Maliseet, Malicite), and British authorities in Québec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick
(Government of Canada, 2022). The 1923 Williams Treaties ceded all lands located between
Georgian Bay, Ottawa River, Lake Simcoe, and the lands west of the Bay of Quinte for a fixed
one-time cash payment, similar to the Upper Canada Land Surrenders, which took place from
1764 to 1962 in the Great Lakes Region (Government of Canada, 2022).
James Douglas of the Hudson's Bay Company, who was also the second Governor of
Vancouver Island, “made 14 purchases of First Nations land between 1850 and 1854 at the
request of the British Crown, and these transactions are known as the Douglas Treaties”
(Government of British Columbia, 2024a, para. 5). At this time, the Colony of BC did not exist,
and would not merge with Vancouver Island until 1866. Following the system of the 1850
Robinson Treaties (i.e., the Robinson-Huron Treaty and the Robinson-Superior Treaty), which
were negotiated between the Crown and Ojibwa Chiefs on the shores of Lake Huron and Lake
Superior, the Crown negotiated eleven other treaties with First Nations between 1871 and 1921,
which are now known as the Numbered Treaties in Canada. The Numbered Treaties extend from

12

the “Lake of the Woods to the Rocky Mountains to the Beaufort Sea” (Government of Canada,
2023, para. 5). The Numbered Treaties “promised reserve lands, annuities, and the continued
right to hunt and fish on unoccupied Crown lands in exchange for Aboriginal title” (Government
of Canada, 2023, para. 5). When BC joined the Confederation in 1871, the province did not
recognize Aboriginal title, aside from the already existing Douglas Treaties on Vancouver Island.
In 1899, Treaty 8 was established, and it was signed by Crown representatives and
various First Nations of the Lesser Slave Lake area (Mair, 2022) in efforts to resolve problems
related to the Klondike Gold Rush (Government of British Columbia, 2010). It is one of the most
comprehensive of the Numbered Treaties and extends over three provinces and the Northwest
Territories. The Treaty 8 First Nations in Northeastern BC are: Doig River, Fort Nelson,
Halfway River, McLeod Lake, Prophet River, Saulteau, West Moberly and Blueberry River First
Nations (Government of British Columbia, 2024a). The Dominion of Canada continued to
finalize treaties with Indigenous Peoples before the west was opened for expansion and
settlement, however, in BC, this process of treaty-making was never completed (Government of
British Columbia, 2024a), and claims and Aboriginal title for the rest of the province was left
unresolved. The majority of Indigenous territories in BC remain unceded land today, as this land
was never legally ceded, or given up to the Crown, through a treaty or other agreement (BC
Treaty Commission, 2023). Apart from Treaty 8 and the Nisga’a Treaty, most Indigenous
Peoples were unable to pursue their Aboriginal rights through the BC treaty negotiations process
until 1993 (BC Treaty Commission, 2023).
In 1990, Canada, BC and the Nisga'a Tribal Council agreed to the Nisga’a Treaty, which
came into effect in 2000 (BC Treaty Commission, 2023). Although negotiated outside of the
current BC Treaty Commission framework, the Nisga'a Treaty was negotiated using a similar

13

process and is considered to be the first modern-day treaty in BC. In 1991, the BC Claims Task
Force recommended the creation of a BC Treaty Commission to facilitate the negotiation process
of modern treaties in BC (Stevenson, 2013). All modern treaties ratified after the Nisga’a Treaty
have been through the BC Treaty Commission process. The modern treaties in BC refer to the
four treaties, with eight First Nations, that came into effect in the 21st century: the Nisga’a
Treaty, the Tsawwassen Treaty, the Maa-nulth Treaty, and the Tla’amin Treaty (Government of
British Columbia, 2024a). Some of the main components of modern treaties finalized through the
BC Treaty Commission are: “First Nations rights, self-government, land and resources,
economic opportunities, fishing and forestry” (BC Treaty Commission, 2023, para. 5). Modern
treaties provide a framework for Canada, BC, and a First Nation to identify common goals and
build relationships through constitutionally protected understandings.
Kitselas First Nation and Kitsumkalum First Nation have been involved in treaty
negotiations with the governments of Canada and BC since the early 1990s. While both Kitselas
and Kitsumkalum First Nations are negotiating their treaties together, “the negotiations will
result in two distinct, separate treaties” (Government of British Columbia, 2024b, para. 2). This
treaty table includes Kitselas First Nation, Kitsumkalum First Nation, Canada, BC, the BC
Treaty Commission, the Tsimshian First Nations Treaty Society, and local government
representatives, including the City of Terrace. In June 2024, the Kitselas Treaty draft and the
Kitsumkalum Treaty draft were both signed; therefore, these new treaties will be ratified soon
(see Figure 2). Shortly after the signing of the Kitselas and Kitsumkalum Treaty drafts, in July
2024, the K’ómoks Treaty draft was also signed (Government of Canada, 2024). Several other
First Nations are in the final stages of the BC Treaty Commission process; hence, it is likely that
more modern treaties will be finalized in the coming years.

14

Figure 2. Treaties in British Columbia. The orange, green, brown and black filled-in areas in the
map represent the ratified treaties in BC (i.e., the Douglas Treaties are orange; Treaty 8 is green;
and the Modern Treaties are brown and black). The area with a brown outline and not filled-in
represents the Kitselas and Kitsumkalum draft treaties, which are signed and almost ratified.
Adapted from: Government of Canada. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information System, 2025,
https://sidait-atris.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/SIDAIT-GEO-ATRIS/index-eng.html

15

Other Collaborative Agreements Between First Nations and BC Government for Working
Together in Advance of Treaties
The Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation leads the Government of BC in
pursuing reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. The BC Government has various agreements
with First Nations that provide cooperative ways of working together and providing benefits in
advance of treaties. Some of these agreements include Incremental Treaty Agreements (ITAs),
Forest Consultation and Revenue Sharing Agreements (FCRSAs), Strategic Engagement
Agreements (SEAs), Economic and Community Development Agreements (ECDAs), First
Nations Clean Energy Business Fund Revenue-sharing Agreements, Reconciliation Agreements,
Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs), Forestry Agreements, Atmospheric Benefit
Agreements (ABAs), and Natural Gas Benefits Agreements.
ITAs allow First Nations and the Province to “enjoy shared benefits in advance of
concluding a full treaty” (Government of British Columbia, 2024c, para. 1). ITAs are legally
binding pre-treaty agreements, which are negotiated through a BC generated process by the
Province and the First Nation or First Nations at a treaty table. ITAs “build trust among the
parties, create incentives to reach further milestones and provide increased predictability over
land and resources” (Government of British Columbia, 2024c, para. 2). ITAs do not replace
treaties. Instead, they are an incremental step that advances treaty-related benefits for First
Nations prior to reaching a final treaty agreement. FCRSAs and Forestry Agreements provide
economic benefits directly to First Nation communities based on the harvest activities that occur
in their territories (Government of British Columbia, 2024d). SEAs establish “mutually agreed
upon procedures for consultation and accommodation” (Government of British Columbia, 2024e,
para. 1) and allow First Nations to take a more active role in decision-making processes. ECDAs

16

are agreements between the Province and First Nations for sharing the “direct mineral tax
revenue on new mines, major mine expansions, and mines coming out of care and maintenance”
(Government of British Columbia, 2024f, para. 1). First Nations Clean Energy Business Fund
Revenue-sharing Agreements are negotiated between the Province and First Nations to “provide
revenue sharing opportunities for clean energy projects” (Government of British Columbia,
2024g, para. 1). Reconciliation Agreements are negotiated between the Province and First
Nations to support reconciliation focussed on “closing socio-economic gaps that separate
Indigenous People from other people living in BC and building a province where everyone can
participate in a prosperous economy” (Government of British Columbia, 2024h, para. 2). MOUs
facilitate “a more collaborative, coordinated and efficient approach to the management of land
and natural resources; and develop new economic opportunities and initiatives that enable First
Nations to make progress toward their socio-economic objectives” (Government of British
Columbia, 2024h, para. 8). ABAs allow First Nations to demonstrate ownership of atmospheric
benefits in BC. More specifically, ABAs utilize offset protocols in order to quantify greenhouse
gas emission reductions from projects taking place in First Nations’ territories. These protocols
ensure that standards are met for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas
emissions (Government of British Columbia, 2024i). Lastly, Natural Gas Benefits Agreements
are agreements between the Province and First Nations as part of the province's comprehensive
approach to partnering with First Nations on liquefied natural gas (LNG) opportunities. These
agreements also include the development of skills training and environmental stewardship
projects with First Nations to provide mechanisms for First Nations to participate and benefit
from the resource development taking place in their territories (Government of British Columbia,
2024j).

17

The BC government is currently incorporating First Nations into park planning processes
and management through the use of the engagement processes listed above, which can range
from consultation to collaboration, depending on the requirements of the engagement agreements
that are in place, and the interest of a First Nation in participating and working with BC Parks.
Some of these agreements include SEAs (BC Parks, 2024a), Collaborative Management
Agreements (CMAs), Reconciliation Agreements, and Consultation Agreements (BC Parks,
2024b). While SEAs, Reconciliation Agreements and Consultation Agreements are agreements
between the Province and First Nations, and not specifically with BC Parks, there may or may
not be specific commitments for BC Parks within these agreements. CMAs are not publicly
available documents and they are specific to park planning and management. However, some
SEAs and Reconciliation Agreements do include provisions for collaborative park planning and
management where a CMA doesn’t already exist (N. White, personal communication, November
8, 2024). CMAs include principles that Parties will: 1) work together collaboratively on the
planning and management of the PPAs in a manner that respects the interests of both the First
Nation and the Province; 2) be informed by the best available traditional knowledge, technical
information and science; and 3) work together collaboratively to steward the lands of the PPAs
in a manner that is guided by their respective customs, polices, laws, & traditions (N. White,
personal communication, February 5, 2025). CMAs can involve collaboratively writing park
management plans, collaborative operations and management of parks, collaborative meetings,
joint patrols, discussing park use permits, joint work plans, joint projects and research, and other
collaborative activities (N. White, personal communication, November 8, 2024). Therefore, park
management plans are only one way in which TEK can be considered and incorporated by BC
Parks, as CMAs often require collaborative operations and management of protected areas as a

18

whole, and involve First Nations in a variety of ways. Relationships between BC Parks and First
Nations are also not necessarily documented in park management plans, as these documents are
not meant to be engagement agreements. Still, BC Parks has been working with different First
Nations in the region and TEK is incorporated on the ground, in the field, and through
relationships (N. White, personal communication, November 8, 2024).
The BC Parks Zoning Framework (BC Parks, 2012) is a management planning tool that
includes Cultural Zoning to delineate areas that are of cultural importance to First Nations.
Cultural Heritage Assessments may be undertaken before or during planning processes, where
First Nations cultural values must be considered during the development of management
direction. Nevertheless, due to conflict regarding First Nation territory overlaps, including
cultural information in park management plans has been increasingly difficult. Therefore, where
overlaps occur, BC Parks North Coast Skeena Region has been limiting the content within their
management plans and incorporating cultural and other values and information into background
documents that are supportive of the management plan and provide management direction for
parks and protected areas. BC Parks’ collaborative partners may also try to limit the content
available within the management plan (N. White, personal communication, November 8, 2024).
This method also ensures that the sensitivity of cultural information is protected from the public,
which is often at the request of a First Nation.
Modern Legislation and Politics in BC
In November 2019, Members of the Legislative Assembly in BC unanimously passed the
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) into law. DRIPA (2019)
establishes the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) (UNDRIP
or UN Declaration) as the province’s framework for reconciliation, as called for by Principle 43

19

of the TRC Calls to Action (2015a). DRIPA (2019) aims to create a path forward that respects
the human rights of Indigenous Peoples, while introducing better transparency, accountability
and predictability in embarking on a ‘New Relationship’ together (Legislative Assembly of
British Columbia, Bill 41, 2019). It mandates that the province bring its provincial laws into
alignment with the UN Declaration. BC responded to Principle 44 of the TRC Calls to Action
(2015a) with an Action Plan (Government of British Columbia, 2022a), which outlines a
collaborative approach with Indigenous Peoples to identify the important goals and actions to be
achieved under DRIPA (2019). BC is the first and only province in Canada to enact Principles 43
and 44 in legislation. By following up its Declaration Act with an Action Plan, as mandated by
the TRC (2015a), BC is demonstrating a commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples.
I utilize the TRC’s Calls to Action (2015a) and DRIPA (2019) to help position my research.
Progress towards reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples in Canada requires political
support from provincial and federal governments and our broader society. The current political
administration in BC, the New Democratic Party (NDP), has taken significant steps towards
reconciliation by responding to the TRC’s Calls to Action (2015a) and enacting DRIPA (2019).
My research on the inclusion of TEK in BC Parks planning and operations management was
certainly facilitated by this progressive political milieu during the early 2020s. The lead-up to the
provincial election in October 2024 saw considerable push-back to reconciliation by the
opposition conservative voices who garnered popular support by spreading fear and
misinformation regarding DRIPA and proposed amendments to the Land Act (Kwetásel’wet
Wood, 2024; West Moberly First Nation, 2024). The resulting political tensions threaten
continued progress towards reconciliation in BC and highlight the significance of my project.
There has been a substantial cultural shift since enacting DRIPA in 2019, and it is necessary that

20

research such as my own continue to shine a light on the possibilities of reconciliatory actions by
government institutions.
Background and Positionality
I am a White, cis-gendered, middle class, able-bodied woman of Northern European
settler descent (Swedish, Norwegian, and Scottish). I am from amiskwacîwâskahikan, which is
the Cree name for what is now known as Edmonton, Alberta. It is situated on Treaty 6 Territory
—the traditional territory of many Indigenous Peoples, including the Nehiyaw (Cree),
Denesuliné (Dene), Nakota Sioux (Stoney), Anishnabae (Sauteaux), Niitsitapi (Blackfoot), and
Métis. I grew up next door to Edmonton’s Mill Creek Ravine, an arm of the city’s river-valley
park system, which is the largest contiguous area of urban parkland in Canada. My parents tell
me I was always infatuated with trees and joke that I was a born ‘tree hugger.’ As a toddler, I
would hug and kiss trees that seemed damaged or hurt. I remember many family vacations to
parks, protected areas, and Indigenous territories. My parents were avid campers, and we were
privileged to live in a province with many accessible parks and protected areas. The Rocky
Mountain Parks of Jasper and Banff, arguably some of the most beautiful parks in the world, are
only a few hours away from Edmonton. My mother tells me that I was only eight months old on
my first camping trip, and we went every year after that, exploring different parts of Alberta and
BC.
My interest in Northwestern BC and First Nations in the area stretches throughout my
life. Some of my fondest childhood memories are of visiting Northwestern BC First Nations’
territories and appreciating their lands, history, art and culture. Family vacations often entailed
driving fifteen hours Northwest from our home in Edmonton, Alberta, to visit my uncle in
Terrace, BC. He had many Indigenous connections and made a point of taking us to the various

21

First Nations Territories of Kitsumkalum, Nisga’a, Kitselas, Haisla, Gitxsan, Wet’suwet’en, and
others. From the time I was a little girl, my family frequented Gitxsan First Nation Territory for
the Kispiox Valley Music Festival. On these trips, I experienced Indigenous arts and crafts, heard
Elders’ stories, and learned about the cultural importance of their lands, rivers and salmon. These
experiences encouraged me to learn and absorb knowledge outside of the western institutions in
which I was socialized and formally educated. While each Indigenous culture is unique, at a
young age I could recognize considerable differences between how Indigenous Peoples perceive
the world and how settler-society sees it. Indigenous Peoples have a deep sense of cultural
identity and generational knowledge that is intimately attached to the lands they inhabit. These
formative trips and my early exposure to Indigenous cultures have been instructive. As a young
girl, I could already recognize the cultural significance of places, and, because of these trips, I
fell in love with the Northwest. I felt a deep connection to the area that grew stronger over the
years and eventually compelled me to make it my home.
My appreciation for Indigenous culture continued to grow since moving to Northwestern
BC. For the duration of most of my thesis research, I lived in Kitimat, which is located on Haisla
Territory. I played women’s soccer for Haisla Nation for four years, where we travelled and
competed with First Nations throughout the Northwest region. I have many Indigenous
connections in Northwestern BC and spent much of my recreational time in the Northwest with
Indigenous friends, often hiking, fishing, kayaking or playing sports. From the time I moved to
this region, I welcomed opportunities to take part in traditional ceremonies, medicinal plant
gathering, and other cultural activities. I was exposed to Haisla First Nation and Gitxsan First
Nation cultural values by my friends and their families. All of this helped to prepare me for my
research-related meetings and conversations with Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders. This

22

project required early relationship-building and communication with First Nations communities
in the region to establish rapport and trust prior to receiving approval for research activities (Ban
et al., 2018; Tondu et al., 2014). Having valued Gitxsan First Nation friends and mentors
reinforced my sense of responsibility to First Nation communities. Having a community mentor
is important for facilitating community input and involvement throughout the research process
and maintaining responsibility to the community (Brown & Strega, 2015). The input of my
Gitxsan First Nation friends and mentors on designing my research questions helped to frame
questions which were more relevant to community interests and priorities. While these
relationships benefited my research, I was cautiously aware that my role as a researcher could
change the character or quality of our friendships (Cotterhill, 1992; Kirsch, 2005; Puwar, 1997).
I am cognizant of the fact that my position, arguments, and choice of research methods
are framed and influenced by social, political and historical factors. My positionality both
enables and constrains the ways I access information, interact with participants, interpret findings
and discuss results. Researchers make epistemological, methodological and personal choices in
research that influence the research questions asked, how questions are asked and answered, and
what is done with the research results (Smith, 2021). My academic training is in sociology and
philosophy. This educational background renders me well equipped to understand how power
and privilege manifest interlocking oppressions in society, and how this power is protected and
maintained by the nation-state and institutions which frame understandings of the land and
environment. My educational background has informed and shaped my approach to
environmental concerns, imparting to me a beneficial appreciation of the interrelations between
peoples and their environments. To my mind, the social is environmental; and the environmental
is political. Research is inherently political because the entire research process is politically

23

bound and the knowledge it produces has political implications (Harding, 2004). Following
Donna Haraway (1988), I assume that all knowledge is situated and partial—there is no research
stance, including my own, that is free from culture, society, and power. Thus, it is necessary to
explain who I am relative to this research project and reflexively examine my methodological
choices and assumptions. The way I framed my research questions was influenced by my life and
work experiences. This project has its origins in my long-standing interest in how Indigenous
communities might be better included in park management decisions.
My identity and socialization as a White, middle-class woman, my academic history in
social sciences and humanities, my previous work for various government parks, as well as my
progressive political views, all influence the ways I approach, interpret, and analyze issues. I
realize that I am socialized within White-settler culture, and that this has impacted my identity,
worldview and research. With that awareness in mind, I must strive to acknowledge and
extinguish prejudices that may spring from my background and training, try to be open to
learning from all cultures, and to appreciate diversity in all its manifestations. By striving to
recognize my own Eurocentric assumptions, and by tracing ideas through historical analysis, I
am better able to examine how settler colonial, social, political, and institutional structures
exercise and maintain power. My Whiteness and White privilege can both help and hinder my
research. White privilege assumes the ethnocentric biases of European cultural superiority and
connotes advantages and opportunities available to White society, by virtue of their skin colour
and White-settler heritage (Collins, 2018; Hargrove, 2009). These advantages include a relative
freedom from negative discrimination based on race or skin colour (McIntosh, 1989). White
privilege manifests in a tendency to use Western perspectives and social norms as the sole basis

24

for thinking and for judging other cultures’ knowledge, beliefs and social norms (Braun, 2003;
hooks, 1992; Mohanty, 1984; Scott, 1991).
As Paulo Freire (1985) advised, I can unlearn discriminatory assumptions, stereotypes
and understandings of ‘other’ people by increasing my critical consciousness and self-awareness.
In building a stronger critical consciousness, I aim to respond to Bryan Grimwood’s (2021)
request for settlers to ‘undo’ themselves and shoulder more responsibility in resisting settler
colonialism through practices of solidarity, allyship and accountability. I align with Leeyq’sun
scholar, Rachel Flowers’ (2015) assertion that I have a set of responsibilities to listen, learn, and
act in relation to colonial indifference, and in solidarity with Indigenous sovereignty. As a settler,
I ought to oppose rather than perpetuate “structures of domination and the settler position of
privilege…recognizing opportunities and preconditions for ethical engagement based on respect,
while keeping in mind that solidarity is not a temporal event but a ‘long-term commitment to
structural change’” (Flowers, 2015, pp. 34-35). Tuck and Yang (2012) remind me that by not
bringing to the forefront an acknowledgment of my own privilege in the research process, I am
“recentering whiteness, resettling theory and entertaining a settler-future by extending innocence
to the settler” (p. 3). As Plains Cree and Saulteaux scholar, Margaret Kovach (2015) suggests,
non-Indigenous academics must do relational work by decolonizing their minds and hearts and
truly engaging with Indigenous communities. I immersed myself in nearby Indigenous
communities by being visible and available to those who reached out to me, responding to
invitations for further involvement in the communities, and communicating my research to those
who were interested.

25

Project Scope
Several research parameters defined the scope of my project. First, my research focussed
specifically on BC Parks’ North Coast Skeena Region (see Figure 3). This is an ideal location to
research the inclusion of TEK in BC Parks planning and management, as it is home to myriad
First Nations and many parks and protected areas. BC Parks North Coast Skeena Region
contains 190 parks and protected areas and it covers approximately one-third of the province of
BC (British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, 2020). Of the 190
parks and protected areas within BC Parks North Coast Skeena Region, 98 parks and protected
areas have valid management direction. Many of the 92 parks and protected areas that do not
have valid management direction have never had a park management plan developed, and of
those which have had management direction, it is no longer considered to be valid (N. White,
personal communication, January 29, 2025). The region’s fragile ecosystems are unique on our
environmentally threatened planet and are of great cultural importance to First Nations
(Gottesfeld, 1994; Turner & Spalding, 2013).

26

Figure 3. Map of BC Parks’ North Coast Skeena Region. Reprinted with permission from
personal communication with BC Parks: D. Brown, personal communication, October 28, 2024.
Second, I limited my sample of BC Parks participants to staff responsible for BC Parks
management plan development in Northwestern BC (see Figure 4). As noted earlier, although all
27

of the BC Parks participants in my study had been involved in the process of developing park
management plans, most of the participants worked in operations management positions, and not
as planners. In developing a park management plan, a management planning project team is
assembled by a project lead. The project lead is responsible for facilitating and completing the
entire planning process, identifying and engaging potential partners, engaging First Nations and
interested parties (communities, individuals, organizations) and getting required approval(s) of
the project plan, draft management plan and final management plan. The project lead is typically
a BC Parks Planning Section Head / Regional Planner (BC Parks, 2016). I was interested in how
BC Parks staff perceive and utilize TEK in their work and what barriers they might reveal that
prevent the inclusion of TEK in park planning and operations management.

28

Figure 4. BC Parks Regional Staff Responsible for BC Parks Management Plan Development.
Reprinted from: BC Parks, 2016, BC Parks Regional Staff Responsible for BC Parks
Management Plan Development. Retrieved October 12, 2024, from
https://nrs.objectstore.gov.bc.ca/kuwyyf/management_planning_manual_415d24c1ed.pdf.
Copyright 2016 by BC Parks. Reprinted with permission.
I contacted the Terrace, Smithers, Dease Lake and Atlin BC Parks offices (see Figure 5)
in the North Coast Skeena Region by email and telephone to recruit participants. There are
approximately 11 BC Parks employees that contribute to park management plans working in the
offices I contacted. The North Coast Skeena Region has two Operations Section Heads, two
Planners, one Conservation Specialist, and seven Area Supervisors. Each Area Supervisor has a
Ranger below them. Senior Rangers with time, availability and knowledge may also contribute
to park management plans. BC Parks North Coast Skeena Region has 10 Protected Area
Collaborative Management Agreements with the following First Nations: Allied Tsimshian
Tribes of Lax Kw’alaams First Nation; Metlakatla First Nation; Kitsumkalum First Nation;
Kitselas First Nation; Gitga’at First Nation; Haisla First Nation; Gitxaala First Nation; Kitasoo
Xai’xais First Nation (managed primarily out of the West Coast Region); Lake Babine Nation;
and the Champagne and Aishihik First Nation. Additionally, the Nisga’a Final Agreement Treaty
document specifically informs management planning for certain protected areas on Nisga’a
Territory.

29

Figure 5. BC Parks Regions and Offices. Reprinted from: BC Parks, 2021, Park Contacts,
Conditions, and Restrictions. Retrieved February 9, 2025, from
https://portalext.nrs.gov.bc.ca/documents/processed_files/Park+Contacts+Conditions+and+Restr
ictions+2021-01-18.pdf. Copyright 2021 by BC Parks. Reprinted with permission.
Third, I only interviewed members of Gitxsan First Nation who identified as Chiefs or
Elders. I made this choice because Chiefs and Elders are considered to be the members of a First
Nation with authority to share TEK (Simpson, 2001). Gitxsan Huwilp Government has 60
Hereditary Chiefs (Simgiigyet), and of these 60 Simgiigyet, 38 Wilps (Houses) govern the
Territory (Laxyip) (Gitxsan Huwilp Government, 2021a). Gitxsan First Nation Government
operates according to a hereditary system that is based upon Wilp (house group), Ayook (law),
and Adaawk (oral history) (Gitxsan Huwilp Government, 2021b). I wanted to understand how

30

TEK, oral history, and other aspects of culture can function to support planning and operations
management, and how these findings can be applied by park agencies.
I chose to conduct my research with Gitxsan First Nation because of my personal
connections with Gitxsan Peoples, the size of their Territory, and the number of BC Parks
located within their Territory. Archaeological evidence supports the Gitxsan People’s continuous
habitation on Gitxsan Territory for at least 10,000 years (Harris, 1997). Gitxsan Laxyip is 33,000
km2, which is approximately five times the size of Prince Edward Island (Gitxsan Huwilp
Government, 2021a) and comparable in size to the state of Maryland in the United States, or the
European country of Belgium. Gitxsan means “People of the Misty River.” The Babine, Bulkley,
Kispiox, Nass, Sustut, Suskwa, Kitseguecla, and Skeena Rivers are all located on Gitxsan Laxyip
(see Figure 6). These watersheds provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife species and are
ecologically important for maintaining the rich biodiversity of the Northwest region (BC Forest
Service, 2007; Johnson, 2000). There are 18,000 Gitxsan Peoples that own the Gitxsan Laxyip
(G. Sebastian, personal communication, March 25, 2023). Eastern Gitxsan includes the
communities of Gitanmaax, Glen Vowell (Sik-e-dakh), and Kispiox (Anspayaxw). Western
Gitxsan includes the communities of Gitwangak (Kitwanga), Gitanyow (Kitwancool), and
Gitsegukla. There are ten BC Parks in Gitxsan Laxyip: Babine River Corridor Park, Swan Lake
Kispiox River Park, Sustut Park, Damdochax Protected Area, Ross Lake Park, Anderson Flats
Park, Bulkley Junction Park, Seeley Lake Park, Kitwanga Mountain Park, and Seven Sisters
Park. All of these parks have management direction that was developed in the early 2000s. The
management direction for Babine River Corridor Park, Ross Lake Park, Bulkley Junction Park,
Seeley Lake Park, and Kitwanga Mountain Park was developed in 2000 (BC Parks Skeena
District, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2000d, 2000e). The management direction for Swan Lake Kispiox

31

River Park, Sustut Park, Damdochax Protected Area, and Seven Sisters Park was developed in
2003 (BC Parks Skeena Region, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c, 2003d). And, lastly, the management
direction for Anderson Flats Park was developed in 2007 (BC Parks, 2007).

Figure 6. Gitxsan First Nation Laxyip Boundary Map. Reprinted from: Huwilp Gitxsan
Government, 2019, Gald’m Mahlasxw, Gitxsan Laxyip. Retrieved May 1, 2022 from
https://gitxsan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Gitxsan_MarchNewsletter_2019.pdf. Copyright
2019 by Gitxsan Huwilp Government. Reprinted with permission.
The scope of this qualitative case study did not include the application of protected area
management effectiveness (PAME) assessment tools, though these are useful for improving

32

protected area management and accountability (Hockings et al., 2006; Leverington et al., 2008).
BC Parks North Coast Skeena Region has been involved in PAME evaluations in the past. For
example, one PAME evaluation was completed with the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations
for Tatshenshini-Alsek Park in 2022 (N. White, personal communication, January 29, 2025).
However, I intended to scope my research to focus on Indigenous-settler relations, the lived
experiences of Gitxsan First Nation members and BC Parks staff, and the appropriate and just
participation of Indigenous Peoples in park planning and management. I did not attempt to
perform an overall evaluation of BC Parks management performance or their delivery of
protected area objectives (Hockings et al., 2006). A primary goal of this project was to identify
historical and current socio-political barriers to the uptake of TEK in park planning and
operations management. I hope my research will provide accessible, practicable
recommendations for BC Parks to integrate TEK which prioritize the principles of reconciliation
and self-determination in park planning and operations management.
Purpose and Research Questions
The purpose of my research is to investigate how TEK can be meaningfully integrated
into BC Parks’ planning and management, so as to enhance socially and environmentally
responsible management plans. My project was guided by the following research questions:
1) What historical and current social, political, and economic factors influence the
understandings and uptake of TEK in park planning and management?
2) What values and beliefs about WSK and TEK are held within the institutional culture
of BC Parks?
3) How do BC Parks employees incorporate or exclude TEK in park planning and
management?

33

4) How do Chiefs, Elders and Parks personnel view self-determination and
reconciliation in terms of park planning and management?
Relevance to Literature
There is a paucity of research examining the inclusion of TEK and the roles of
reconciliation and self-determination in park planning and management at the provincial level in
Canada. Most relevant research discusses the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and their
knowledge within federal parks operated by Parks Canada (Cook, 2020; Houde, 2007; Johnston
& Mason, 2020, 2021; Moore, 2020), and it focusses mainly on environmental monitoring
(Beausoleil et al., 2021; Berkes et al., 2007; Fitzsimmons, 2020; Popp et al., 2019; Thompson et
al., 2019; Tran et al., 2020; Turner & Clifton, 2009a; Wyllie de Echeverria & Thornton, 2019).
To date, there are no studies that offer recommendations for including TEK in BC Parks
planning and management. The only study that discusses the use of TEK in BC Parks was
conducted by Andrew Kadykalo et al. (2021), who interviewed and surveyed BC government
decision-makers from a variety of ministries. My project builds upon Kadykalo et al.’s (2021)
work in that it focusses on BC Parks management and includes Indigenous Peoples’
perspectives. While previous scholarship has examined Parks Canada’s reconciliation policies
(Bruce, 2024; Corntassel, 2009; Finegan, 2018), this literature has not analyzed the role of
reconciliation in provincial park management agencies, or how self-determination can be best
supported by park agencies and managers. My research attempts to address these literature gaps,
with an emphasis on the ways in which socio-political factors influence the use of TEK in BC
Parks, and how BC Parks can prioritize reconciliation and self-determination within their agency,
work, and in their planning and management of protected areas.

34

Previous literature indicates that socio-political and economic factors play a primary role
in environmental decision-making (Policansky; 1988) and impact park managers’ valuation and
use of TEK (Kadykalo et al., 2021; Lemieux et al., 2018; Young et al., 2016). Numerous studies
have shown that environmental managers are hesitant to engage evidence and new ideas in
making their decisions; they rely more on intuition, experience, values, beliefs and opinion
(Cook et al., 2010; Fabian et al., 2019; Matzek et al., 2014; Pullin et al., 2016). This is despite
the growing need to use multiple forms of knowledge in environmental planning, management,
and decision-making (Esmail & Geneletti, 2018).
Kadykalo et al. (2021), Christopher Lemieux et al. (2018), and Helen Wheeler et al.
(2020) lend support to my observation that TEK is lacking and undervalued in park planning and
management. Their findings emphasize the need for accessible recommendations to integrate
TEK. These recommendations must be clear, cost-effective, function with limited resources, and
foster relationship-building. Wheeler and colleagues’ (2020) study found that cultural
assimilation and colonialism, unconducive values, inequities, and dominant knowledge
frameworks for the use of TEK limit the use of TEK in science.
Existing scholarship suggests that not enough work has been done to understand how
power, politics, and colonialism structure and influence institutional decision-making for parks
and protected areas (Kadykalo et al., 2021; Lemieux et al., 2018; Young et al., 2016, Wheeler et
al., 2020). My project responds to this existing literature gap by seeking perspectives from BC
Parks staff and Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders in Northwestern BC, to develop
recommendations for including TEK in BC Parks planning processes and operations
management.

35

Theoretical Considerations
Two-eyed Seeing Theory
Mi’kmaq Elders, Drs. Murdena and Albert Marshall, first coined the concept ‘two-eyed
seeing’ (Bartlett et al., 2012). They theorized two-eyed seeing as a way to join Indigenous
Knowledge systems with WSK, to illuminate the advantages of bi-focal vision for generating
collaborative knowledge. It has been applied as a protocol, guiding principle, concept, theory and
methodology in research (Wright et al., 2019). Cited in Reid et al. (2021), Dr. Marshall
explained that:
Two-eyed Seeing (Etuaptmumk in Mi’kmaw) embraces learning to see from one eye with
the strengths of Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing, and from the other eye
with the strengths of mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing, and to use both these
eyes together, for the benefit of all. (p. 243)
Two-eyed seeing provides a positive conceptual approach to the dichotomous
relationship between WSK and TEK and upholds an Indigenous theoretical lens to assist with
joining these two paradigms in park management. Two-eyed seeing requires: an ongoing
commitment to relationships; ongoing personal efforts to understand positionality; acting upon
responsibilities for relational reciprocities and accountabilities; and ongoing consideration of colearning (Bartlett, 2017). Anishinaabe scholar, Cindy Peltier (2018) asserted that two-eyed
seeing theory offers a relationship-based approach for non-Indigenous researchers to engage with
Indigenous Peoples. Two-eyed seeing aligns with Indigenous worldviews and supports
reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples by providing the opportunity to engage ethically,
meaningfully and respectfully with Indigenous participants (Peltier, 2018).

36

While two-eyed seeing has many advantages, there is a long history of adverse
experiences with misguided research on Indigenous Peoples that has made it challenging to
change how Indigenous Peoples understand research and to build trust in this context (Smith,
2021). Therefore, applying two-eyed seeing theory in research requires the researcher to
emphasize the resiliency of Indigenous Peoples, promote Indigenous self-determination and
governance, and not further perpetuate negative stereotypes (Carter et al. 2017; Marsh et al.,
2016; Martin, 2017). White settlers face epistemological and socialization-based limitations in
the ability to interpret Indigenous Peoples’ experiences on their own terms, and to develop
understandings not explicitly or implicitly distorted by settler colonial privilege or White
supremacy (Carlson, 2017; Kovach, 2021). These challenges and limitations require the
researcher to practice humility, reciprocity, resistance and subversion to settler colonialism,
relational and epistemic accountability to Indigenous Peoples, land engagement and
accountability, and social location and reflexivity (Smith, 2021). With Indigenous theories and
methodologies, the role of White-settler academics is “at the periphery, making space, and
pushing back against colonial practices, mentalities, and land theft” (Carlson, 2017, p. 501).
While the use of Indigenous methodologies by White settlers is limited, it remains a moral and
ethical responsibility (Kovach, 2021). Indigenous theories and methodologies should be used by
White academics to “foster the political mobilization to stop the colonial attack on Indigenous
Knowledge and Indigenous Peoples…and require the recovery of Indigenous intellectual
traditions, Indigenous control over Indigenous national territories, and the protection of
Indigenous lands from destruction” (Simpson, 2004, pp. 381-382). The aims of two-eyed seeing
theories must occur in relationship and dialogue with Indigenous Peoples, Knowledge Keepers,
and draw upon the work of Indigenous scholars (Simpson, 2004; Smith, 2021). More broadly, to

37

help me make sense of colonial logics in park planning and management, I draw from
conceptualizations of two-eyed seeing, decolonization, settler colonialism (Baldwin et al., 2011;
Braun, 2002, Mason, 2014; Spence, 1999), place names, mapping, and recreational colonialism
(Cruikshank, 2005; Erickson, 2020; Lowan-Trudeau, 2021).
Reconciliation efforts begin with an appreciation of the harms inflicted on Indigenous
populations through historical and contemporary cultural, structural, political, economic and
environmental inequities. I see two-eyed seeing theory as the most apt theoretical paradigm in
which to ground my research because it allows me to recognize the multi-faceted and systemic
racism that has afflicted and continues to impact Indigenous Peoples in Canada, while also
identifying ways to meaningfully integrate TEK into BC Parks planning and management.
Pertinent to my two-eyed seeing theoretical orientation are the key concepts of settler
colonialism and decolonization.
Settler Colonialism
Settler colonialism is a distinct type of colonialism, in which settlers seek to remove and
erase Indigenous Peoples through culturally genocidal practices, so as to facilitate the
expropriation and use of their lands in perpetuity. Indigenous scholars, Eve Tuck (Unangax̂ ) and
K. Wayne Yang (2012), define settler colonialism as a “violent structure and process wherein
settlers transform Indigenous land into their new home and a source of capital, which disrupts
Indigenous relationships to the land” (p. 5). This form of colonialism aims to replace the
identities of Indigenous populations with a colonial identity—often through forcible means of
assimilation—as in the case of Canadian colonial settlement (e.g., the Sixties Scoop and the
Residential School system).

38

The issue of land is central to understandings of settler colonialism. Land is what is most
valuable, contested and required. The disruption of Indigenous relationships to the land
represents profound “epistemological, ontological, and cosmological violence” (Tuck & Yang,
2012, p. 5). Tuck and Yang (2012) assert that this violence is not temporally contained but is
reasserted each day of occupation. Therefore, as Patrick Wolfe (1999) emphasizes, settler
colonialism is a structure, not an event. The foundations of settler colonialism require continued
institutional structures to control landscapes and resources. However, settler colonialism is also
reproduced through more subtle mechanisms, including the modification of landscapes and
claims to belonging (Tuck & Yang, 2012). In the process of settler colonialism, Indigenous land
has been remade into government property through the creation of parks as wilderness spaces.
This has restricted Indigenous relationships to their territories by limiting their capacity to
maintain connections to these lands as dependent on their relationship with the government and
its parks institutions.
Academic literature analyzing settler colonialism and how it structures understandings of
the environment are crucial to my topic. Works discussing the settler colonial construction of
wilderness spaces, parks (Braun, 2002; Mason, 2014, 2021; Spence, 1999), the North, and
colonial (re)mapping of lands (Baldwin et al., 2011; Erickson, 2020; Cruikshank, 2005; LowanTrudeau, 2021), all inform my understanding of parks and how power has operated within park
discourses to marginalize Indigenous Peoples. This scholarship encourages investigation of
contemporary settler colonialism as a social, ideological, and institutional process through which
the settler-state implicitly and explicitly ‘others’ (Said, 1991) and excludes Indigenous Peoples.

39

Decolonization
Decolonization involves the critical deconstruction and analysis of colonial systems
(Smith, 2021). Scholars who inform my understanding of decolonization include Leslie Brown
and Susan Strega (2015), Jenalee Kluttz, Jude Walker and Pierre Walter (2020), Rachel Flowers
(2015), Leanne Betasamosake Simpson (2004), Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2021), Tuck and Yang
(2012), and Shawn Wilson (2008). Simpson (2004) describes decolonization as a shift in mindset
from seeing Indigenous Peoples as a resource to extract to seeing them as articulate, relevant,
living Peoples and First Nations, which requires individuals and communities to develop fair,
meaningful, authentic relationships. One part of decolonization has focussed on examining how
research is undertaken (Smith, 2021). Ian Hay and Meghan Cope (2021) discuss decolonizing
research as “Research whose goals, methodology, and use of research findings contest
imperialism and other oppression of peoples, groups, and classes by challenging the crosscultural discourses, asymmetrical power relationships, and institutions on which they are based”
(p. 418). My work centres reconciliation and self-determination by aiming to support increased
Indigenous governance over parklands. Decolonial theories guide my research goals; they are
valuable for analyzing systemic barriers to TEK inclusion and developing recommendations that
facilitate meaningful engagement and collaborative management.
I am inspired by decolonial theories, as I am concerned with social justice. However, as
Tuck and Yang (2012) explain, “decolonization specifically requires the repatriation of
Indigenous land and life. Decolonization is not a metonym for social justice” (p. 21).
Decolonization is a historical and political process which involves dismantling the power
structures of settler colonialism, with the goal of repatriating Indigenous land and life (Simpson,
2004; Tuck & Yang, 2012). This entails decentering Euro-Western knowledge and taking stock

40

of how settler perspectives structure and rationalize inequality, in order to eliminate racism,
dismantle imperialism, and return stolen land. With decolonial theories, colonialism is conceived
of not as a historical memory, but as a present past (How, 2017). Considering the repatriation
and dismantling of power structures that decolonization requires, this can sometimes conflict
with the knowledge-sharing model of two-eyed seeing, as there is a risk that decolonization is
reduced to mean collaboration (Brouwer, 2024; Townsend, 2022). However, fostering
reconciliation and self-determination were key objectives of my project, and theories of
decolonization informed my work and deepened my analysis in addressing settler colonialism
and discrimination within park planning and management processes.
Key Concepts
There are several key concepts that ground my analysis. Western scientific knowledge
(WSK) is a body of knowledge, associated with Western society, that is purported to be based on
reason, scientific laws, evidence, facts, universality, objectivity, rationalism and deduction
(Agrawal, 1995). I adopted a nested structure for defining Indigenous Knowledges and
perspectives and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in this thesis. I use the term
Indigenous Knowledges and perspectives to refer to the diverse knowledge systems regarding
Indigenous Peoples’ cultures, histories, traditions and protocols, and I use the term TEK to
discuss the application of Indigenous Knowledges and perspectives within Western
environmental contexts, as this is how these terms were used by the participants in my study. It is
also important to clarify that while TEK is often used as a synonym for Indigenous Knowledges
in scholarship, it has also been applied more broadly to include to non-Indigenous local
knowledge systems (Ludwig & Poliseli, 2018). Nevertheless, in this thesis, the term TEK always
refers to Indigenous knowledge systems.

41

I draw upon the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and Maria Tengö et al. (2017) to define Indigenous Knowledges
and perspectives as: “a cumulative body of knowledge, practice and belief, evolving and
governed by adaptive processes and handed down and across (through) generations by cultural
transmission, about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one another and
with their environment” (p. 17). Indigenous Peoples define their Knowledges as dynamic, placebased, and holistic systems of thinking and understanding the world, which are interconnected
with their relationships to the natural and spiritual worlds and their ancestors (Absolon, 2022;
Bruchac, 2014; Cajete, 1994; Cajete, 2013; Craft, 2016; Craft et al., 2021; Simpson, 2001).
Indigenous Knowledges are passed down intergenerationally through oral traditions, cultural
practices, ceremonies, and lived experiences. Indigenous Knowledges are holistic in that they are
connected to phenomena across biological, physical, social, cultural, and spiritual systems.
Iñupiaq scholar, Heather Sauyaq Jean Gordon (2023) explains that Indigenous Knowledges are:
1) based on millennia of observations, 2) temporal and place-based, 3) living, 4) kinshipbased, and 5) wholistic —with an added “w” to emphasize that it wholly encompasses all
things, covering all areas of human life such as medicine, culture, and spirituality, as well
as extensive Knowledge of ecology. (p. 1)
Indigenous Knowledges stem from and are based on Indigenous epistemologies (ways of
knowing), ontologies (understandings of nature, human existence, and being), and axiology’s
(values, value judgements, and ethics) (Bear, 2000; Cajete, 2021; Gordon, 2023; Smith, 2021;
Tsosie et al., 2022). I use Michi Saagiig Nishnaabeg scholar, Leanne Betasamosake Simpson’s
(2001) definition of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). In Simpson’s (2001) words, TEK
refers to all types of knowledge about the environment derived from “relationships, experiences,

42

storytelling, participating in ceremonies, the oral tradition, experimentation and observation,
from the Elders, children, or from teachers in the plant and animal worlds” (p. 142). TEK is
ancestral knowledge that is passed down orally through generations and is based on culture,
history, spirituality, subjectivity, empiricism and induction. Simpson (2001) writes, “TEK ‘data’
or factual information is at the fore, rather than seeing our knowledge as worldviews, values and
processes” (p. 139). It is important to underline that Indigenous Peoples have used TEK to “suit
their own needs and live sustainably since time immemorial” (Simpson, 2001, p. 143).
Structures and institutions of dominant capitalist society marginalize and ‘other’
Indigenous Knowledges (Said, 1991) through pervasive colonial dichotomies regarding
apprehensions of reality and what counts as Truth/fact. When considering this othering, another
idea that helped me make sense of this is Donna Haraway’s (1988) concept of situated
knowledges. This concept reveals that all knowledge is “situated, partial, contingent, and
interpretive” (Haraway, 1988, p. 586).
I used a Foucauldian definition of discourse in my project. Michel Foucault (1977)
defines discourses as systems of thoughts that are composed of ideas, attitudes, courses of action,
beliefs, and practices that construct subjects and their understandings of the world. Foucault
described discourses as instruments of power and forms of resistance. Discourse is “a historically
contingent social system that produces knowledge and meaning” (Critical Legal Thinking, 2017,
para 2). Discourse is never produced in the absence of context and cannot be properly understood
without taking political, economic, and cultural circumstances into consideration (Foucault,
1977).
Another concept that is pivotal to my thinking and research approach is reconciliation. I
adopted the TRC’s (2015b) definition of reconciliation:

43

Reconciliation is establishing and maintaining a mutually respectful relationship between
Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in Canada [sic]. For that to happen, there has to
be awareness of the past, acknowledgement of the harm that has been inflicted,
atonement for the causes, and action to change behavior. (pp. 6-7)
Finally, self-determination informs my theoretical orientation. Self-determination is a First
Nation’s right to self-government of their lands, territories and resources. It is further defined by
the TRC (2015b):
Self-determination is an animating force for efforts towards reconciliation… Selfdetermination requires confronting and reversing the legacies of empire, discrimination,
and cultural suffocation…not to foster divisiveness but rather to build a social and
political order based on relations of mutual understanding and respect. (pp. 187-188)
Significance of Study
This study collects instructive data through qualitative interviews with BC Parks staff,
and Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders, to develop practical, reconciliatory
recommendations for the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and their Knowledges in BC Parks
planning and operations management. These recommendations address relations of power,
problematic policies and socio-political factors that limit the inclusion of TEK, and encourage
action towards reconciliation and self-determination in park planning and management as a
strategy for social change. This work contributes empirical evidence to ongoing academic
discussions regarding reconciliation, self-determination, TEK and Indigenous involvement in
park planning and management, in efforts to address the legacies and current realities of settler
colonialism in government institutions.

44

The Chapters
My thesis chapters are arranged as follows. In Chapter Two, I review the literature that
informs my project. I discuss relevant works on reconciliation, park history, settler colonial
discourses in parks, Indigenous perspectives, challenges to TEK inclusion in parks, and ways
forward with respect to integrating TEK in park planning and management. Chapter Three
outlines my project’s methodology. I explain my methods and examine some of the political and
ethical considerations that require attention while conducting this research as a White woman on
Indigenous land. Chapter Four discusses my findings from the semi-structured interviews with
Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders and BC Parks employees. Chapter Five places these
findings into conversation with the literature and my two-eyed seeing theoretical lens, to offer
recommendations for park planners and managers to meaningfully include Indigenous Peoples
and their TEK in park planning and operations management. Lastly, in Chapter Six, I summarize
the project’s main arguments and recommendations, discuss the significance and limitations of
the work, reflect on my personal trajectory, and suggest areas for future research.

45

Chapter Two: Literature Review
Various disciplines and bodies of literature inform my project. I draw upon sociology,
environmental studies, geography, history, First Nations studies, cultural studies, and leisure
studies. This literature review places my work into conversation with the above fields of
scholarship and helps to establish the parameters of my project. I also continue to clarify key
concepts, so that readers can more readily follow my subsequent analyses. My literature review
is organized into four main themes that support my analysis: reconciliation; park planning and
management; settler colonialism; and Indigenous perspectives. These content areas provide
context for understanding how park history and settler colonialism, as well as relations of power
and inequality, impact TEK inclusion and reveal ways to overcome these challenges in
meaningfully integrating TEK in BC Parks planning and management.
Locating My Research in Reconciliation: Responding to the Calls
Reconciliation is central to my ethical orientation. Two important documents that have
guided my research and underpinned my political praxis are the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission’s (TRC) Calls to Action (2015a) and Carmen Wong et al.’s (2020), “Towards
Reconciliation: 10 Calls to Action to Natural Scientists Working in Canada.”
This project responds to Principles 43, 44 and 79 of the TRC Calls to Action (2015a).
Principles 43 and 44 of the Reconciliation Principles (2015a) state:
43. We call upon federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments to fully adopt
and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as
the framework for reconciliation.

46

44. We call upon governments to develop a national action plan, strategies, and other
concrete measures to achieve the goals of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples. (p. 4)
Principle 79 of the Commemoration Principles has four parts, two of which are relevant to my
research: Principle 79 “i) Amending the Historic Sites and Monuments Act to include First
Nations, Inuit, and Métis representation on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada
and its Secretariat” and “iii) Developing and implementing a national heritage plan and strategy
for commemorating residential school sites, the history and legacy of residential schools, and the
contributions of Aboriginal peoples to Canada’s history” (p. 9). The TRC Principles (2015a) 43,
44 and 79 are directly related to park planning and management. As I mentioned in Chapter One,
BC is the first and only province in Canada to enact Principles 43 and 44 in legislation. Principle
79 urges BC Parks to implement historic sites which include Indigenous Peoples and their
history. Over the past twenty years, BC Parks has made progressive changes to its planning and
management policies in working towards a ‘New Relationship’ that fosters trust and respect with
Indigenous Peoples (Government of British Columbia, 2005; BC Parks Future Strategy, 2016).
BC Parks is placing more emphasis on the cultural values of parks and protected areas. In
addition to CMAs, SEAs, Reconciliation Agreements, Consultation Agreements, Conservancy
designations, Cultural Zoning Frameworks, and Cultural Heritage Assessments, the agency has
also implemented an Indigenous Reconciliation Program (BC Parks, 2022) and is organizing
Indigenous Relations Projects funded through BC Parks Licence Plate Program, which brings in
millions of dollars every year for park projects (BC Parks, 2025). For example, in fiscal year
2022/2023, there was ~$10,000,000 in net revenue generated by the Licence Plate Program (BC
Parks, 2024c), and in fiscal year 2021/2022, there was $8,000,000 in net revenue generated (BC

47

Parks, 2023b). BC Parks has been renaming parks and trails to reflect traditional Indigenous
place names, as well as implementing signage for territory acknowledgements. Additionally, BC
Parks has implemented a Guardian Shared Compliance and Enforcement Pilot Program with the
Nuxalk and Kitasoo Xai’xais First Nations, where First Nations members now exercise Park
Ranger authorities in overseeing the management of their Territory (British Columbia Ministry
of Environment and Parks, 2023). This program may be expanded to other Guardian Programs
with other Indigenous Peoples in the future. Nevertheless, BC Parks must do more to further
incorporate TEK into its planning and operations management practices and policies to align its
work with the TRC Calls to Action (2015a).
In their article, Wong et al. (2020), outline 10 Calls to Action to natural scientists
working in Canada. My project specifically responds to Call 1: “We call on natural scientists to
understand the socio-political landscape around their research sites” (p. 772); Call 2: “We call on
natural scientists to recognize that generating knowledge about the land is a goal shared with
Indigenous Peoples and seek meaningful relationships and possible collaboration for better
outcomes for all involved” (p. 772); and Call 3: “We call on natural scientists to enable
knowledge sharing and knowledge co-production” (p. 774). My research aimed to be a direct
response to Wong et al.’s (2020) Calls 2 and 3, by working with Gitxsan First Nation and BC
Parks to understand my topic, develop and design my project, and by offering a set of
recommendations for BC Parks to foster meaningful engagement with Indigenous Peoples and
improve the application of TEK in park planning and management.
Reconciliation in Parks and Protected Areas
The Indigenous Circle of Experts (2018) outline several recommendations for supporting
Indigenous-led conservation in their report, including the transformation of existing parks and

48

protected areas. Specifically, they call on “federal, provincial, and territorial governments to
develop collaborative governance and management arrangements” (p. 59) for existing parks and
protected areas (Recommendation 6.2). This research responds to their request by aiming to
provide recommendations for park planners and managers to increase Indigenous governance
and co-management approaches in parks and advance reconciliation efforts in parks and
protected areas.
Political scientist, Chance Finegan (2018) conducted an analysis of reconciliation policies
in Canada, Australia, and the United States to develop recommendations for achieving
Indigenous reconciliation in protected areas. He identified reflection, acknowledgement, and
justice as integral for achieving reconciliation in protected areas. He explained that reconciliation
in parks requires an Indigenous-centred agenda that goes beyond efforts to ‘work better’ with
Indigenous Peoples, to involve “truth telling, acknowledging harm, and providing justice in
protected areas” (Finegan, 2018, p.1). This process should also afford more sovereignty to
Indigenous Peoples managing their territories. Difficult conversations are an essential part of
reconciliation, due to the interrelationship between land, sovereignty, and cultural continuity for
Indigenous Peoples (Corntassel & Holder, 2008; Snelgrove et al., 2014; Tuck & Yang, 2012), as
well as the control exercised by parks for determining allowable activities of people on a land
base (Kelly, 2015). It is important that reconciliation dismantles settler colonial systems and is
“driven by and accountable to Indigenous interests rather than a sense of political expediency”
(Finegan, 2018, p. 2). Thus, indigeneity must be integrated into settler colonial government
institutions through recognizing reconciliation as a part of the past and future that strives towards
community-based forms of justice (Finegan, 2018).

49

Finegan (2018) also provides important information about what reconciliation is not in
park agencies. Reconciliation is not about ‘letting go’ of the past or assuming that “…the past is
over and reconciliation is about forgiveness and moving on” (Nagy, 2012, p. 360). Instead, park
institutions must understand how the past is reflected in Indigenous Peoples’ current lived
experiences and build new relationships that provide atonement for wrongdoings in the form of
restorative justice (Finegan, 2018; Sandlos, 2014; Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernandez, 2013).
Finegan (2018) and other studies (Berkes, 2009; Langdon et al., 2010; Nadasdy, 1999) have also
cautioned against co-management approaches as a strategy for reconciliation or increasing
Indigenous self-determination in parks. This is because co-management approaches force
Indigenous Peoples to fit within existing “settler-dominated government structures and
processes” (p. Finegan, 2018, p. 11) and therefore fail to incorporate Indigeneity into park
governance.
Cherokee Nation scholar, Jeff Corntassel (2009) argued in his research on ‘restorying’
Indigenous justice in Canada that truth-telling must be combined with community-centering
actions for stories and truths to have meaningful effects and result in reconciliation. Corntassel
(2009) described reconciliation as focussing on decolonizing actions, such as providing stories
and acknowledging harm, which can also entail a formal apology. He explained that justice is
accomplished in reconciliation through a meaningful, community-centred, and communitydriven healing processes (Corntassel, 2009). The restorying process of changing narratives
involves questioning the imposition of colonial histories on Indigenous Peoples and including
Indigenous histories in reconciliatory actions (Corntassel, 2009). Corntassel (2009) stressed that
is important for Canadians to educate themselves and their children on Indigenous history and
colonization and for Canadian institutions to educate their employees. He explained that

50

reconciliation cannot be forced, as it is a process and will take time to mend relationships, build
relationships, and develop meaningful actions for working together.
Kai Bruce’s (2023) master’s thesis in geography focussed on the role of Indigenous-led
collaborations for reconciliation in Parks Canada. He used governance analysis and interviews to
study Indigenous and non-Indigenous perspectives and understand how co-management of
national parks might mobilize reconciliation. Bruce (2023) was also part of a communitypartnered project to analyze relationship-building techniques with Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation
in Vuntut National Park. His results showed that co-management of national parks supports
Indigenous-state reconciliation and renewing relationships. He found that self-determination,
self-governance, and co-management agreements that “allow for consensus-based decision
making…at the park level” (p. 77), are all key components in working towards reconciliation.
However, Bruce (2023) also found that self-determination and self-governance can be
undermined by co-management agreements because legislation upholds “the ultimate authority
of the Minister over national parks” (p. 77). Therefore, co-management principles should be
included in protected area legislation to develop a unified policy for working with Indigenous
Peoples in protected area establishment, governance and management (Bruce, 2023).
Park Planning and Management
Studies have found that TEK is used less than WSK in park planning and management
(Kadykalo et al., 2021; Lemieux et al., 2018). Conservation scientists Andrew Kadykalo et al.
(2021) interviewed 65 BC government decision-makers and surveyed 403 BC government
decision-makers from a variety of ministries. Their data revealed that environmental managers
are more likely to draw on intuition, past experience, or opinion to inform important decisions,
rather than rely on evidence (including TEK). Socio-economic and political interference

51

corresponded with lack of evidence (including TEK) in planning and management. According to
Kadykalo et al. (2021), most government staff members witnessed underfunded and diminished
research capacity within their ministry/branch and believed that there were insufficient resources
to effectively fulfill their ministerial/branch mandate. Participants highlighted difficulties in
assessing the reliability of TEK. In Christopher Lemieux et al.’s (2018) national survey of 121
Canadian protected area managers, they identified the following barriers to incorporating TEK:
limited financial resources; lack of staff; inadequate timeframes for decision-making; a lack of
monitoring programs; and a disconnect between researchers and decision-makers. Lemieux et al.
(2018) indicated that government agencies lack the appropriate resources, tools and frameworks
for proper utilization and inclusion of TEK. These findings show that the BC and Canadian
governments are not allocating enough resources to reconciliation with, and fair treatment of,
Indigenous Peoples in park agencies.
Scholarship has highlighted that structural and cultural barriers impede the use of TEK.
There are structural impediments when it comes to funding, timelines, guidelines, policies,
programming, resources and hiring capacity (Cvitanovic et al., 2016; Kadykalo et al., 2021;
Lemieux et al., 2018). During their qualitative interviews with 24 park managers, Christopher
Cvitanovic et al. (2016) identified factors responsible for the lack of TEK in park management,
including: cultural differences between TEK and WSK; timeframes/insufficient resources (i.e.,
managers don’t have time to gather TEK); poor guidelines, policies and program planning; and
geographic isolation of Indigenous communities. They found that decision-makers are “typically
focussed on day-to-day operations, and driven by… political, economic, and social drivers that
reflect broader societal issues” (p. 870). These results indicate a limited capacity for

52

incorporating TEK, which can serve to perpetuate a culture in which TEK is not valued or used
in decision-making processes.
Several studies demonstrate the ways in which socio-political factors impact park
managers’ valuation and use of TEK (Kadykalo et al., 2021; Lemieux et al., 2018; Wheeler et al.,
2020). Helen Wheeler et al. (2020) surveyed 18 participants, of which 50% were Indigenous
Knowledge (IK) Holders, 67% were working to support the use of IK, 50% worked for
environmental decision-making organizations which involve IK, and 56% worked in monitoring
programs that involve IK. The participants identified cultural assimilation and colonialism,
values, inequities, and dominant frameworks for the use of knowledge as some of the key issues
limiting the use of IK in science. Participants described the lack of frameworks for using TEK as
a limitation and noted that frameworks proposed by Indigenous organizations are often ignored.
They also identified insufficient involvement, power, and agency of IK Holders in scientific
research. These findings stress the need for a process to integrate TEK in park management that
is clear and fosters relationship-building.
Various studies have indicated that park planners and managers are more likely to draw
on intuition, past experiences, or opinion than to rely on evidence (Cook et al., 2010; Fabian et
al., 2019; Kadykalo et al., 2021; Matzek et al., 2014; Pullin et al., 2016). This finding is cited as
being problematic, with critiques dating back to the 1980s. One instance of this critique is
fisheries biologist David Policansky’s (1988) research on National Science Research Council
observation reports of freshwater resources, wetlands deterioration, and declining salmon
populations in the Pacific Northwest. His findings revealed that resource management does not
focus on science or evidence, but rather on economics, politics, values, beliefs, and other factors.
Policansky’s (1988) argument is supported by a large evidence base over 30 years, which raises

53

the question of why no changes have been made by now to address this problem in today’s park
management systems. I investigated this issue in my own study and asked BC Parks participants
about how their values and beliefs influence their work in planning and operations management,
as well as how current and historical, social, political, and economic conditions influence how
TEK is utilized in their work. While there is only one statutory decision-maker in BC Parks
North Coast Skeena Region, which is the Regional Director, there are some delegated authorities
to the Operations Section Heads for small, operational decisions.
The only studies I found that have created frameworks to include TEK in provincial park
management are those of Roger Spielmann and Marina Unger (2000) and David Cook (2020).
Spielmann and Unger (2000) conducted interviews with 17 First Nations People and nine
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources officials and employees, and they found that design
issues, lack of funding, absence of cross-cultural training of employees, poor recognition of
Indigenous heritage and culture, and inadequate and rushed consultation all contributed to
Ontario Parks’ failure to properly engage with Indigenous Peoples in planning and management.
They created a co-management model that offers an effective communication process for
addressing the lack of opportunity for Indigenous Peoples to be equal partners in park
management. The authors provided recommendations with examples for improving consultation,
communication, policies and development and monitoring of joint stewardship programs, with
increased TEK inclusion (Spielmann & Unger, 2000).
David Cook’s (2020) research shows that there must be a set of rules and policies that
provide consistency in the approach taken by protected area agencies when cooperating with
Indigenous Peoples. Cook (2020) examined two case studies—Nahanni National Park and
Reserve in the Northwest Territories and Whitefeather Forest Protected Area in Ontario—to

54

explore how TEK was being used in park management. He also analyzed relevant literatures and
federal and provincial policies to determine that three main areas enhance the adoption of TEK
in park management: standard policies; communications; and training of park and policy
agencies and Indigenous communities. He found that Parks Canada and Ontario Parks agencies
are failing to include TEK due to inconsistent policies for inclusion, budget cuts/lack of funding,
and an overall lack of resources for guiding the incorporation of TEK in planning and
management. Cook (2020) highlights that:
…in Ontario Parks as with Parks Canada, building relationships comes down to the
individual parks’ managers. In any given parks and protected area planning zone, there
can be up to eight parks to a single planner covering vast areas of isolated communities.
(pp. 43-44)
Cook (2020) stressed three main challenges for park planners and managers to incorporate TEK.
These are: 1) Indigenous communities’ lack of trust in the government 2) people’s view that
TEK is fanciful and the imposition of religion on Canadian citizens; and 3) a lack of collection
and interpretation of TEK. For Cook (2020), given the variable, regionally specific nature of
TEK, its adoption into park management is not always possible (p. 36). My research was also
concerned with these challenges, and I explored them in my qualitative interviews.
It is my belief, bolstered by Cook’s (2020) work, that TEK can be braided with WSK in
park planning and management. Accordingly, my project responds to Cook’s (2020)
recommendations for future research:
While there is a growing academic field looking at TEK, there is not a lot of work being
done on how to incorporate TEK into management plans. Few scholars discuss how to
braid TEK with western science in a manner that can be easily reproduced. The

55

discussion around TEK acknowledges each community has TEK that is specific to their
ecoregion, and for this reason there is a difficulty in working in the field. Despite the
challenges, this is still an area needing much more research in multiple places. (p. 44)
Because my study involves one particular area and one particular First Nation, I cannot say that
my findings are generalizable to other Indigenous Peoples and territories; however, the insights
of the participants in my project are relevant beyond a single geographic location.
At the federal level, there is research on Parks Canada’s inclusion of Indigenous Peoples
and their Knowledge within national parks. Sarah Devin and Brent Doberstein (2004) and
Nicolas Houde (2007) each devised frameworks for the inclusion of TEK in Canadian parks
management. Devin and Doberstein (2004) created an evaluative framework that outlined the
beneficial contributions of including TEK in park planning and management. They applied their
framework to a case study of Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve to demonstrate the presence
or absence of TEK in management actions. Their paper set forth recommendations to improve
the integration of TEK into Canadian parks management. Houde’s (2007) framework identified
“six faces” of TEK, including, factual observations, management systems, past and current land
uses, ethics and values, culture and identity, and cosmology. His framework detailed the
challenges and opportunities that each of these ‘faces’ poses to the co-management of natural
resources in Canada.
The frameworks set forth for TEK inclusion in Canadian parks by Doberstein (2004) and
Houde (2007) can be paired with the provincial co-management model for TEK inclusion by
Spielmann and Unger (2000), to identify appropriate uses of TEK in BC Parks management
plans and inform my own recommendations for BC Parks. In reviewing these frameworks for
TEK inclusion, it is evident that literature on TEK in park management has been geared more

56

toward evaluating TEK for its potential to complement WSK and existing management
approaches (Houde, 2007), than for its capacity to enhance social justice in park agencies and
encourage new management approaches. In my own work, I contribute to this scholarly
discussion by positioning social justice at the centre of my research design and
recommendations, considering how reconciliation and self-determination are influencing BC
Parks’ planning and operations management.
Jason Johnston and Courtney Mason’s (2020) research was more similar to my project in
that it aimed to improve consultation and reconciliation in park planning and management. The
authors conducted interviews with five Jasper National Park (JNP) managers and 12 members of
the Jasper Indigenous Forum (JIF). They used Indigenous methodologies to guide their research.
Their study collected the following qualitative data: the Indigenous history of JNP; current
problems concerning JNP’s consultation process with JIF; barriers to—and opportunities for—
achieving respectful representations of Indigenous cultures in JNP; and “ways to improve the
consultation process and support reconciliation in JNP” (p. 2). Their findings showed that there
is underrepresentation and misrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples in Jasper. They noted a lack
of Indigenous content within signage and programming in the park and a limited understanding
of Indigenous histories by JNP staff and visitors. Where Indigenous cultural history is present in
the park, it is constructed through Eurocentric perspectives and emphasizes colonial use of, and
expansion into, the area. As found by the authors, Indigenous Peoples disliked seeing their
cultures presented through Eurocentric perspectives in interpretive programming (Johnston &
Mason, 2020). Indigenous participants felt that their Knowledge was not valued, and their
histories were not acknowledged. The Indigenous participants also indicated that there is an
overall reluctance by JNP staff to learn about and share colonial histories. This reluctance seems

57

to stem from “Indigenous perspectives not matching the romanticized ideas of what Jasper was
and is today” (Johnston & Mason, 2020, p. 12). The authors found that the lack of Indigenous
representation in programs and signs in Jasper has contributed to misinformed ideas about
Indigenous histories, especially on the parts of non-Indigenous visitors and JNP staff. Johnston
and Mason’s (2020) instructive recommendations as to how parks can improve their work on
reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples inform my own research.
Resource Management
Scholarship in fisheries, wildlife, and forestry has also analyzed the inclusion of
Indigenous Peoples and their TEK, and these studies demonstrate how TEK can be woven with
WSK to provide new insights in natural resource management. Fisheries studies have illustrated
the importance of combining TEK with WSK to promote sustainable resource use and ecological
resilience (Eisenberg, 2015; Hatch, 2016; Keenan, 2017; Berkes & Turner, 2006; Huntington &
Wenzel, 2016; Turner & Clifton, 2009b; Gibson & Maru, 2020). Berkes and Turner (2006)
applied a social-ecological-systems framework to analyze fisheries case studies working with
Indigenous Peoples in the Pacific Northwest and the Great Bear Rainforest to better understand
how TEK has been applied in fisheries management and how it is being integrated with WSK.
They found that TEK can enhance fisheries management by providing comprehensive insights
into ecological processes that Western science often overlooks, particularly in coastal and
northern regions. Berkes and Turner (2006) note that Indigenous Knowledges and perspectives
are especially valuable in environments where historical data can help predict ecological shifts
that may not be apparent through WSK monitoring alone. The authors argue that that TEK can
significantly contribute to adaptive management practices in fisheries management by providing

58

local, place-based knowledge about ecosystems and their changes over time (Berkes & Turner,
2006).
Huntington and Wenzel (2016) employed 30 interviews with Inuit Indigenous
Knowledge Holders and analysis of policy documents to examine the role of TEK in fisheries
management in Canada’s Arctic. They used descriptive narratives and thematic analysis to
identify how Indigenous communities observed fish populations, migration patterns, and
environmental cues (e.g., ice conditions, water temperature), and how these observations can
inform fisheries management in the Arctic. The authors found that TEK regarding fish migration
patterns and seasonal cycles complements and strengthens WSK models to improve the accuracy
of fishery predictions and demonstrate the interconnectedness of fish species with other fish and
wildlife (Huntington & Wenzel, 2016). Turner and Clifton (2009b) underscore how integrating
TEK in scientific monitoring has proved to be successful in Pacific Northwest salmon
conservation. They found that because TEK is experiential, context-specific, and narrative-based
and WSK is typically quantitative, systematic, and often standardized, these differences can lead
to tensions or misunderstandings when attempting to combine the two knowledge systems
(Turner & Clifton, 2009b). Additionally, institutional barriers impede the use of TEK, such as
government reluctance to formally recognize TEK as a valid source of knowledge or the lack of
trust in Indigenous Knowledge by certain stakeholders (Turner & Clifton, 2009b). Nevertheless,
they found that managing fish stocks, setting fishing quotas, and determining fishing seasons are
more effective when TEK is integrated due to the detailed understandings that TEK offers
regarding spawning grounds, migration routes, and habitat conditions, which are crucial for
managing and conserving species effectively (Turner & Clifton, 2009b). The authors argue that
collaborative governance of fisheries allows for relationship-building, mutual respect and shared

59

responsibility, helping to create sustainable management practices that take both WSK and TEK
into account (Turner & Clifton, 2009b). These studies illustrate that despite the challenges in
reconciling these different epistemological frameworks, the weaving of TEK and WSK in
fisheries management provides adaptive, context-specific, and culturally inclusive strategies for
conservation and sustainable use of aquatic resources (Gibson & Maru, 2020).
Berkes et al. (2000) investigated the role of Indigenous Knowledge in the management of
caribou populations in Northern Canada. Through interviews and participatory research with
Inuit Peoples, they found that Indigenous hunters had a deep understanding of caribou migration,
calving grounds, and behavioral patterns, which contributed to sustainable hunting practices and
species conservation. Natcher and Hickey (2009) utilized 25 interviews with Indigenous
Knowledge Holders and scientific data on bear populations in their study on grizzly bear
management in the Yukon. They found that Indigenous Knowledge of bear behavior and habitat
use provides important insights for improving grizzly bear conservation efforts. Stevenson
(2006) explored the weaving of TEK and WSK in managing moose populations in Ontario, using
15 interviews with Indigenous hunters and Elders to collect TEK on moose behavior, habitat
preferences, and seasonal movements. She found that TEK provides valuable information on
seasonal moose movements and habitat preferences which WSK is unable to capture, thus
improving the accuracy and reliability of scientific models for moose population dynamics. This
is because the general and limited nature of scientific data in population modelling commonly
lacks the details and specificity that TEK is able to provide (Stevenson, 2006). Lastly, Martin et
al. (2016) interviewed 22 Indigenous trackers and 13 wildlife biologists to explore the use of
TEK in managing wolves in the Northern Rockies. Their study found that TEK of wolf pack
territories, behavioral patterns, and interactions with other species played a crucial role in

60

developing more effective conservation policies for wolves. These studies all underscore the
value of combining TEK with WSK to manage wildlife sustainably, ensuring both biodiversity in
conservation and cultural integrity in Indigenous communities. The inclusion of both knowledge
systems enhances the adaptive management of wildlife species, improving the ability of wildlife
managers to become more resilient and responsive to environmental shifts. Because TEK is
flexible and adaptive to ecological changes on the landscapes that Indigenous Peoples reside
within, particularly in the face of climate change and shifting ecosystems—as seen in the
management of grizzly bears and moose populations (Natcher & Hickey, 2009; Stevenson, 2006)
—TEK improves the ability of wildlife managers to adjust conservation strategies based on
ecological changes.
Forestry scholars have explored the weaving of TEK with WSK to improve
understandings of forest management, conservation, and ecological restoration. Parrotta et al.
(2012) synthesized existing literature on community-based forest management and comanagement of forests with Indigenous Peoples from various global contexts to emphasize that
TEK, when integrated with scientific forestry practices, enhances biodiversity conservation and
supports sustainable land use by promoting ecosystem health, species regeneration, and forest
restoration. Turner et al. (2000) conducted 26 interviews with Elders in BC Indigenous
communities on forest management practices and found that Indigenous forest stewardship is
especially effective in the management of cedar and fir forests, as controlled burns and cultural
harvesting practices contributed to forest health and species diversity. Lastly, Gadgil et al. (1993)
analyzed case studies from India and North America and found that integrating TEK with WSK
in forestry leads to more effective forest conservation and species preservation. Collectively,
studies on TEK inclusion in forestry illustrate how TEK supports a holistic and long-term

61

perspective to forest management, offering critical insights into ecological balance, sustainable
harvesting practices, and resilience to environmental changes, making it an instrumental body of
knowledge to include and apply alongside WSK in modern forestry practices. Literature on TEK
inclusion in fisheries, wildlife, and forestry highlight the importance of incorporating TEK in
natural resource management and demonstrate how TEK can facilitate nuanced, context-specific
adaptive management practices in addressing both social and environmental aspects of natural
resource management.
Settler Colonialism
Scholarship on park planning and management suggests that the lack of TEK in park
institutions stems largely from settler colonialism and that new approaches are needed to
improve collaborative planning and management with Indigenous Peoples. To understand the
context of settler colonialism in government parks, it is necessary to understand how park history
and colonial policy inform power relations between park agencies and Indigenous Peoples. In
what follows, I divide my review of scholarship on settler colonialism into two subsections.
First, I discuss park history, then I examine ideas of wilderness and the North.
Park History
The Canadian nation-state was built upon theories that Indigenous lands were new (terra
nullius) (Tuck et al., 2014) and vacant (vacuum domicilium) (Corcoran, 2018). This settler logic
justified ignoring and erasing Indigenous histories, cartographies, land use, governance and
practices. For example, cultural geographers have shown how the colonizer maps and names
land to exert dominance, ensure a visible presence and to erase Indigenous residents and histories
(Clayton, 2000; Cruikshank, 2005; Lucchesi, 2018; Monmonier, 2006). By navigating,
(re)mapping and mastering so-called wild places, the colonizer exercises control over them. In

62

Greg Lowan-Trudeau’s (2021) research on the taken-for-granted power of colonial cartography,
he used a comparative analysis of colonial and Indigenous maps in Northwestern BC to convey
how choosing colonial, rather than Indigenous, political regions and place names on a map
denies political sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples and “is representative of how deeply colonial
values and assumptions are imbedded in contemporary North American epistemologies,
ontologies, and axiologies” (p. 4). Lowan-Trudeau (2021) demonstrated that maps hold
unquestioned power in shaping public opinion and perceptions of Indigenous lands and
sovereignty. Colonial perspectives and values are propagated through the mapping of parks and
protected areas, which have stolen and (re)mapped Indigenous lands, diminishing their cultures,
histories, and sovereignty, while imposing settler names and conceptualizations on lands and
waters.
Courtney Mason’s (2014) case study of Rocky Mountains Park (now Banff National
Park) found that conservation discourse is “intricately linked to the implementation of levels of
discipline designed to foster the repression of Indigenous cultural practices” (p. 49). Competing
ideas of conservation, between settlers and Indigenous Peoples, exacerbated divisions and
fostered government policies designed to assimilate Indigenous Peoples. Mason (2014) writes:
Indian agents and the mounted police used section 114 of the Indian Act to ban the
performing of Sun Dances. By 1914, stronger efforts were made to eradicate the cultural
practices of the Plains peoples as it became illegal to wear Indigenous dress or perform
traditional dances. (p. 62)
The government never consulted with or informed Indigenous Peoples prior to their physical
removal from lands onto reserves for the creation of parks (Binnema and Niema, 2006; Mason,
2014; Moola & Roth, 2019; Spence, 1999; Stevens, 2014; West et al., 2006). The Indian Act of

63

1884 outlined the banning of cultural practices in parks (Stevens & De Lacy, 1997). The
government’s ban on the potlatch targeted communities on Canada’s West Coast, while their ban
on the Sun Dance impacted the Plains Peoples (Mason, 2014). Indigenous subsistence land uses,
including hunting, gathering, trapping, and fishing, have long been a source of conflict between
park managers and local Indigenous communities. Scientific studies and reports documented and
supported the subjugation of Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous ways of knowing (Mason,
2014). This finding illustrates how power and privilege are systemically enacted by and through
parks. Mason’s findings also demonstrate how parks have historically used biased application of
science to protect the power and privilege of settler-colonial dialogue over Indigenous discourses
in the area of conservation.
Environmental historians Ted Binnema and Melanie Niemi (2006) also elaborated on the
history and removal of Indigenous Peoples from National Parks in their case study on the
exclusion of the Stoney Peoples from Banff National Park between 1890 and 1920. The authors
argued that the example of Banff National Park exhibits the exclusion of Indigenous Peoples in
the interests of game conservation, sport hunting, tourism and ‘Indian assimilation,’ to ensure
that national parks became uninhabited wilderness areas. Fellow environmental historians, Keith
Thor Carlson and Jonathan Clapperton (2012), thematically analyzed discussions from a
symposium titled: “Historical and Global Perspectives on Provincial and Local/regional Parks in
Canada.” The symposium was a gathering of mainly historians in 2010 at the University of
Saskatchewan, and their discussion focussed on local and provincial parks. The authors found
that park creation and management, by definition, are exercises in boundary maintenance that
ignore the reality of exclusion. Carlson and Clapperton (2012) explained that: “Park creation is
fundamentally about preserving a historical, culturally-specific understanding of how people

64

should interact with their non-human surroundings in a delimited space” (p. 482). The dominant
discourse about parks is that they are spaces ‘for all to enjoy.’ However, environmental and
heritage protection have promoted culturally insensitive, colonial notions about how parks are
meant to be experienced and by whom, as well as who should be involved in their management
(Carlson & Clapperton, 2012). Their research reminds me that power and privilege are often
invisible, taken-for-granted, and woven into the narratives and socio-cultural norms of Whitesettler society. Put another way, the postcolonial scholar Edward Said (1991) stated that
unreflective ‘insiders,’ do not recognize what it is to be those ‘outside,’ or, what it is to be “the
other”.
In a more recent study, cultural geographer Courtney Mason (2021) analyzed colonial
policy and evidence from the 19th century to ascertain how scientific inquiry, conservation ethics,
and hunting and fishing policies have contributed to excluding Indigenous Peoples from
parklands and reinforced the repression and assimilation of Indigenous cultural practices.
Ecology and wildlife management policies were highly influential in colonizing Canada by
shaping conservation practice and promoting principles that marginalize local use of wildlife
(Mason, 2021). The government displaced Indigenous communities and made their sustenance
hunting practices illegal. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) monitored Indigenous
activities and were attentive to “the movements of their Indians” (Mason, 2021, p. 7). Therefore,
government policies functioned to remove Indigenous Peoples from parklands and park
management.
Anishinaabe, First Nations studies scholar, Mark Aquash (2013), discusses settler
colonialism in Canada as being deeply rooted in paternalistic power structures and policies
designed to control, repress, and devalue Indigenous Peoples. His study on geo-political policy

65

relationships between First Nations and Canada used Indigenous paradigms and histography to
relate settler colonialism to Foucauldian principles that are relevant to my topic. Michel Foucault
defined domination in terms of relations of power (Miller, 2019). Foucault’s (1991) concept of
surveillance, as a means to maintain power, authority and control, can be linked to the ways in
which colonial policies, such as the Indian Act and Rocky Mountains Park Act, have been used
by parks to erase Indigenous cultures and histories. Foucault’s (1991) concept of the panopticon
can be used to make sense of the RCMP’s surveillance and forcible removal of Indigenous
Peoples from their lands for the creation of parks. Foucault’s panoptic mechanism of power
works to construct a pervasive form of moral control and broad form of behavioural regulation.
In this Foucauldian sense, Canada’s colonial policies have been instruments in maintaining the
dominant White-settler ideology and a park mythos built on power structures that dispossess and
exclude Indigenous communities in park management.
Aquash (2013) emphasizes that the Canadian public has remained largely uninformed
and unaware of Indigenous history, treaties and imposed legislation that defines legal obligations
to First Nations as Canadian allies. Much of the reason for this “lies in the historical and
contemporary educational system practices, which offer comparatively little in curricula to teach,
explain, and acknowledge First Nation realities” (Aquash, 2013, p. 129). This resonates with the
findings of Johnston and Mason’s (2020) study of Jasper National Park, wherein there is an
underrepresentation and misrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples in park interpretation, signage,
and programming, and park staff and visitors have limited understandings of Indigenous and
colonial histories in the park. With the recent discoveries of thousands of children buried in
unmarked graves in Residential ‘School’ yards across Canada, there has been an increased
recognition of Canada’s dark colonial history. What the above studies make clear is that more

66

must be done in working towards reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples and educating the
public on settler colonial history in Canada.
Mason (2014; 2021), Binnema and Niemi (2006), Carlson and Clapperton (2012) and
Aquash (2013) all bring awareness to the role of National Parks in colonization in Canada. In
acknowledging this history and its tendrils into contemporary society, we can better address the
intricacies of power relations sustained by ethnocentrism and settler colonialism, at both the
individual and institutional level.
Wilderness and the North
A number of scholars have analyzed the settler colonial construction of wilderness spaces
(Baldwin et al., 2011; Braun, 2002; Erickson, 2020; Lowan-Trudeau, 2021; Mason, 2014, 2021;
Spence, 1999). Colonial policies have functioned to other (Said, 1991) Indigenous Peoples,
remove them from their traditional lands, disregard their rights and title, and misappropriate
parks as exemplary, colonial representations of Canadian heritage. In his book, Dispossessing
the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of National Parks, Mark Spence (1999)
analyzed the simultaneous development of national parks and ‘Indian reserves.’ He explains that
“Indian removal has largely made these parks into…symbols of wilderness” (p.7). The creation
of parks coincided with efforts to restrict Indigenous Peoples to reserves and assimilate them into
White settler-society. It is important to note that while government parks have been used as a
tool for settler colonialism, systems of land stewardship and protection did exist in Indigenous
cultures prior to colonization.
Several scholars have demonstrated how colonizers uphold a human-centred approach
that views the non-human environment as empty and passive (Erickson, 2020; Hudson-Rodd,
1998; Plumwood, 2003). In his chapter on North American Arctic tours that advocate on behalf

67

of environmental issues, cultural geographer and leisure studies scholar, Bruce Erickson (2020),
explained that wilderness is “…a story of the North” (p. 71), which has been heavily influenced
by colonialism. He asserted that these tours are part of a colonial legacy that has long pictured
the North as a vast and empty landscape. This assumption erases the lived experiences and
stories of people inhabiting Northern communities (Erickson, 2020). Explorers and scientists
have shaped the way that colonial governments and southern markets valued northern lands for
trade and natural resource extraction and exploitation.
Historical geographers Andrew Baldwin et al. (2011) recognized how the great Canadian
outdoors, or the “Great White North,” rests on colonial logic (p. 1). They examined the structural
dominance involved in representations of Canada as the ‘Great White North.’ Baldwin et al.
(2011) underlined the way in which parklands have been used to “invoke a metaphor of nature’s
purity to reinforce norms of racial purity” (p. 1). They described how the double meaning of the
word ‘White,’ as embodied in the concept of the ‘Great White North,’ parallels a double
movement in our “…social and cultural history both to assert the dominance of Whiteness as a
cultural norm and to build a sense of national identity linked closely to nature and wilderness”
(Baldwin et al., 2011, p.1). Non-White and Indigenous Peoples have been excluded from this
norm since Canada’s inception. ‘Great White North’ is synonymous with the values upon which
the nation was built, and such values are upheld and reinforced in parks today by the ongoing
exclusion of Indigenous participation in park management. The North draws together cultural
value and identity to produce a metaphor of “imperial grandeur, innocence and sovereignty”
(Baldwin et al., 2011, p. 2). Due to systemic racism and legacies of colonialism, wilderness
spaces are codified as pristine “White spaces” (Finney, 2014).

68

Sport sociologists and leisure scholars have discussed how the Canadian wilderness has
been socially constructed to empty the land of the presence of Indigenous Peoples and produce
spaces where Whiteness is taken-for-granted, normalized, and naturalized (Braun, 2002;
Coleman, 1996; Erickson, 2003; Lowan-Trudeau, 2021; Stoddart, 2012). Braun (2002) argues in
his study on colonial logic in BC’s forestry economy that the segregation and erasure of
Indigenous populations from their traditional territories to transform these lands as national
symbols of Canadian heritage (“wilderness”) or to consume and exploit them by private industry,
is “exemplary of how colonial logic persists in postcolonial environmentalism” (p. 29). African
American leisure scholar and cultural geographer, Carolyn Finney (2014), explained that a
“White wilderness” is socially constructed by the meanings that we attribute to the environment,
which are grounded in race, class, gender, and cultural ideologies. Whiteness, as a way of
knowing and reading the world, becomes the way to understand our environment. Through
representation and rhetoric, Whiteness is normalized in educational systems, institutions, and
personal beliefs and has the power to determine which voices are heard in environmental debates
and which voices are not. Finney (2014) argued that, by placing ideas of wilderness in a
historical context and deconstructing their explicit and implicit racial connotations, scholars can
push past mainstream environmental institutions and larger society to consider alternate
understandings of the outdoors.
Indigenous Perspectives
A foundational concept in most Indigenous perspectives on the environment is
relationality. Indigenous Peoples live in relationship with the land, water, plants, animals, soil,
and all other life forms on earth (Bear, 2000; Cajete, 2004; Kimmerer, 2021). In her Earth Day
Keynote presentation, plant ecologist and member of Potawatomi First Nation, Robin Kimmerer

69

(2021) explained that many Indigenous languages lack a word for the English word “it”. Instead,
a tree, animal or the earth is referred to as their teacher, mother, friend—a person. She claims
that the objectification of the natural world by the English language using the term “it” absolves
moral responsibility and opens the door to exploitation. She indicated that the pernicious
influence of using English grammar and language to refer to nature as an object rather than as a
subject has devastating everyday consequences that promote and sustain the exploitation and
abuse of Mother Earth. When plants, animals and the earth are regarded as other beings, we can
learn from this Indigenous way of understanding to give plants, wildlife, and the earth more care
and respect. Kimmerer explains in her presentation that this relationality with Mother Earth
informs the ethics that drive how Indigenous Peoples perceive their duties to humans, animals,
land, water, climate, and every other aspect of the world(s) which they inhabit.
Leroy Little Bear (2000), professor emeritus at the University of Lethbridge and Kainai
First Nation member, also highlights the role of Indigenous languages in understanding and
relating to the land. He stresses that the either/or and animate/inanimate dichotomies which exist
in the English language do not exist in Indigenous languages and epistemologies, as everything
is one complete animate system in constant interaction and change. Consequently, Indigenous
languages allow for the transcendence of boundaries, such as talking to trees, rivers, rocks,
wildlife and fish, which is an allowance that is not accorded in English. If everything is animate,
then everything also has spirit and knowledge. In the words of Little Bear (2000), when
everything in the world is considered to have spirit and knowledge, “…then all are like me. If all
are like me, then all are my relations” (p. 78). The idea of all life forms being in constant motion
or flux leads to a holistic and cyclical view of the world.

70

Professor emeritus at Trent University and Mohawk First Nation member, Marlene Brant
Castellano (2000), notes that storytelling is an integral part of Indigenous culture and
environmental knowledge. She explains that:
…stories [about the land] are given by the Creator on how to relate appropriately with the
beings of Creation. It is important to understand that in the Aboriginal worldview,
knowledge comes from the Creator and from Creation itself. Many stories and teachings
are gained from animals, plants, the moon, the stars, water, wind, and the spirit world.
Knowledge is also gained from vision, ceremony, prayer, intuitions, dreams, and personal
experience. (p. 38)
Castellano (2000) notes that Indigenous Peoples in Canada live in relationship with the Creator
and assume the responsibilities given to them by the Creator. The relationship with Creation and
its beings was meant to be maintained and enhanced, and the knowledge transferred
intergenerationally through storytelling would ensure this was passed on for generations over
thousands of years. Principles and values such as respect, coexistence, cooperation, honour,
thanksgiving, reciprocity, balance and harmony, connectivity, and recognition of
interrelationships among all of Creation are woven into the storytelling of Indigenous Peoples’
cultures and still relevant in contemporary times (Castellano, 2000).
Leisure scholar, Margaret McKeon (2012), highlights a powerful Indigenous teaching
that she learned from Mi’kmaq Elder, Kevin Barnes. This quote demonstrates the confluence of
ideas intrinsic to Indigenous, biocentric worldviews:
What is this? Moss? Ground? Aboriginal peoples call this Mother Earth. What pops in
your mind when you say the word mother? What does your mom do for you? What does
Mother Earth do for us?” He speaks to the specialness of what Mother Earth does for us

71

(for free) and asks if we treat Mother Earth the way she should be treated. (McKeon,
2012, p. 134)
McKeon (2012) uses this teaching by Elder Kevin Barnes to argue that Western environmental
visions are failing because they are anthropocentric and technocentric. She urges environmental
educators to move away from “historical roots within the Western worldview” (p. 132) and look
to Indigenous visions, teachings, and understandings. McKeon (2012) sees Indigenous visions as
biocentric, concentrating on interconnectivity and wholeness (holism) of self with
nature/land/place, storytelling, social relations, caretaking, and the environment, and she
maintains that environmental education is fundamentally tied to environmental practice. Current
environmental issues require that we become more open to new ideas and new ways of thinking,
planning, and managing, to improve the ecological and cultural integrity of our environment. The
literature outlined above offers an alternative to WSK in terms of knowing, engaging with, and
relating to the world, which can provide a multitude of benefits when applied in park planning
and management. Next, I review literature discussing how Indigenous values and understandings
of the environment are being applied in parkland governance using Indigenous Protected and
Conserved Areas (IPCAs).
IPCAs are protected areas legislated under the jurisdiction and laws of individual
Indigenous communities, governments and Nations to protect their lands and waters (Finegan,
2018). IPCAs are often established by Indigenous Peoples in BC when the province is not
responsive or does not act on requests for a Conservancy designation (Simmons, 2021). IPCAs
have been “framed as an opportunity for Indigenous Peoples to reclaim stewardship of their
territories, create space for Indigenous resurgence and cultural revitalization, and transform
approaches to protected areas in Canada” (Papadopoulos, 2021, p. vii). In Anastasia

72

Papadopoulos’ (2021) environmental studies graduate research on Mi’kmaw perspectives on
IPCAs in Nova Scotia, she found that IPCAs are managed and governed by the core values of the
Mi’kmaq, which include sharing, generosity, inclusion, and reciprocity. Mi’kmaw communities’
lifestyles and land management practices are based on the principle of “netukulimk,” which
translates into peaceful co-existence between the Mi’kmaq and the rest of Creation; netukulimk
is embodied through taking only what is needed for self-support and well-being (McMillan &
Prosper, 2016; Hanrahan, 2016). Through managing IPCAs based on this principle and set of
values, the Mi’kmaw ensure the futurity of their land and culture (Papadopoulos, 2021).
Marine scientists Grant Murray and Danielle Burrows (2017) examine how Tla-o-qui-aht
First Nation has exercised power and self-determination in the creation of their IPCA Wanachishilth-hoo-is Tribal Park (Meares Island). The creation of their IPCA took place in 1984 in direct
response to logging plans on the island. In their declaration of the IPCA, the Tla-o-qui-aht
claimed title to their land in the heart of Clayoquot Sound, insisting that visitors “…adhere to the
Laws of our Forefathers, which were always there” (p. 763). The Tla-o-qui-aht’s declaration
further stated that protection of that land was necessary for “...the survival of our Native way of
life” (p. 765). Thirty years later, the Tla-o-qui-aht implemented an ecosystem services fee, which
involves negotiated payment to Tribal Parks representatives by ecotourism outfitters that travel
to Wanachis-hilth-hoo-is. The agreement was that fees are visibly included (i.e., tourists know
they are paying the fee) in the overall price that tourists pay the outfitters, and outfitters then
remit the fees to Tribal Parks officials. This system has worked well and been economically
advantageous to the Nation (Murray & Burrows, 2017). Murray and Burrows (2017) found that
outfitters were supportive of the program because it supported Tla-o-qui-aht initiatives to
steward their own land and to create jobs for their people. An area of general agreement was

73

identified related to a perceived need for both conservation action and the need to raise
conservation awareness with tourists.
Environmental scientists, Tanya Tran et al. (2020) collaborated with the Kitasoo Xai’xais
Nation to identify the key successes, challenges, and lessons from developing their IPCA. The
authors used a mixed methods approach to summarize the Nation’s rationale and process. They
found that IPCA development is an iteration of ongoing efforts to address limitations of state
protected areas to better reflect Kitasoo Xai’xais rights and responsibilities while preserving
culture, biodiversity, and economic opportunity. The Kitasoo Xai’xais process was rooted in
long-term Territory planning and contemporary stewardship capacity building. The Nation faces
similar challenges to other protected areas and is additionally burdened by ongoing colonization
impacts (Tran et al., 2020). To address these challenges, the Nation is seeking “state legislative
IPCA recognition, applying Indigenous and complementary western stewardship approaches,
and pursuing responsibility-based partnerships” (Tran et al., 2020, p. 3). Indigenous Peoples can
achieve tangible benefits from partnering with other actors to manage their IPCAs. In some
cases, partnering with state legislative agencies may increase the financial stability of IPCA
management for Indigenous leaders (Smyth & Jaireith, 2012). Seeking state recognition and
support can help IPCA managers access more resources for capacity building and increase
political capital for Indigenous organizations. In addition, Indigenous actors can build
partnerships to leverage funding and in-kind support to achieve management goals (Davies et al.,
2013). Indigenous organizations embracing hybrid management approaches can benefit from
both Indigenous and western conservation science and land management to create unique and
adaptable planning and management tools, such as land use zoning with Indigenous law guiding
principles in Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Park (Murray & King, 2012; Murray & Burrows, 2017).

74

Analyzing studies on IPCAs sheds light on the need to bridge TEK with WSK in a mutually
beneficial relationship that empowers Indigenous Peoples. In working towards reconciliation and
collaborative management approaches, parks managers should strive to appreciate and include
Indigenous values in park planning and management.
Fisheries scientists, Jacqueline Chapman and Stephan Schott (2020) engaged two-eyed
seeing as a methodology to present a knowledge ‘coevolution’ framework that integrates TEK
and WSK into environmental practice. They applied their framework to a fisheries harvest
management study in Gjoa Haven, Nunavut. Their coevolution framework prioritized Indigenous
self-governance within the project’s governance, structure, implementation, and evaluation
(Chapman & Schott, 2020). The authors explained that TEK must be meaningfully integrated to
avoid tokenism, which is the “inclusion of TEK with the sole purpose of benefitting the
researchers by appeasing formal requirements to simply ‘look good’” (Chapman & Schott, 2020,
p. 932). Insincere tokenism, by making a show of minor engagement with select Indigenous
representatives, presents a false image of a just fulfillment of obligations respecting Indigenous
People’s involvement in matters such as management planning. Although new approaches are
being developed by BC Parks in response to federal and global pressures for reconciliation and
cultural restoration, these terms can serve as rhetorical cover for governments to disguise
ongoing oppression and inequality; they can become hollow, mollifying catchphrases that help to
protect and perpetuate institutional power and the status quo. A BC government decision maker’s
quote in Kadykalo et al.’s (2021) study illustrates this point: “Much of these [Indigenous]
obligations are just ‘paid lip service’, lacking action” (p. 8). Kadykalo et al.’s (2021) finding
demonstrates how governments can subtly, and invisibly perpetuate power imbalances in society.

75

Indigenous and non-Indigenous environmental scientists, Aisling Rayne et al. (2020),
used two-eyed seeing in their study on Indigenous-led conservation translocations. The authors
layered genomic data of species with mātauraka Māori Knowledge in order to co-design
conservation translocation decisions for fish and invertebrates with cultural significance for the
Nation. Rayne et al. (2020) emphasized that TEK “extends to species…often underrepresented in
Western science conservation management” (p. 516). This is because Western science often uses
an ‘either/or’ approach to ecological restoration, whereas Indigenous approaches are more
holistic and “likely to integrate both” (p. 516). Therefore, incorporating TEK can strengthen and
expand environmental management actions by considering all of the interconnected aspects of an
ecosystem and the cultural importance of them in decision-making.
Effective and appropriate braiding of WSK with TEK is a subject of ongoing, evolving
discussion in academic literature. Amy Wright and colleagues (2019) conducted a review of 37
articles which applied two-eyed seeing as a theory or methodology to determine the
requirements, benefits, and limitations of this approach. Wright et al. (2019) found that two-eyed
seeing must go beyond an appreciation of Indigenous ways of knowing to incorporate “authentic
relationships, reciprocal research, relational accountability, Indigenous involvement, Indigenous
methodology, and Western deference to Indigenous leadership” (p. 15). This review is directly
applicable to my project. Wright et al.’s (2019) study highlights that using two-eyed seeing
theory requires a research design and objectives which align with and reinforce my
responsibilities to the Nation and community members.
Conclusion
The literature reviewed in this chapter informs my research on the value and use of TEK
in park management. Interlocking analyses of literature on reconciliation, park planning and

76

management, settler colonialism, and Indigenous perspectives, reveal complex environmental
and social justice issues regarding the inclusion of TEK in conservation. The literature supports
my argument that TEK and Indigenous leadership are necessary to address these issues in park
planning and management.
Reconciliation principles demand that we make every effort to understand and counter
Canada’s colonial history with Indigenous Peoples. I take to heart the principles of reconciliation
and incorporated them in designing and completing my research. Studies on TEK in park
planning and management suggest that more research is needed to identify barriers to
incorporating TEK and strategies for its inclusion in park planning and management. The
scholarship that I reviewed indicates that the role of Indigenous Peoples in park planning and
management has been historically, politically, and socially constructed—and restricted. One of
the key takeaways of this literature review for my project is the importance of historicizing my
discussions of WSK and TEK and recognizing these knowledge systems as relations of power
that can operate in sometimes subtle or invisible ways. Literature discussing Indigenous
perspectives on the environment, park governance and management, as well as research applying
two-eyed seeing in environmental studies, provide context for exploring how TEK and WSK
may be intertwined to enhance reconciliation and self-determination in environmental planning
and management. I will expand upon how this informs my methodological decisions in the next
chapter.

77

Chapter Three: Methodology
My methodology is motivated by the aim to understand how Indigenous participation and
their TEK can be meaningfully integrated into BC Parks planning processes and operations
management. Chapters One and Two provide background for designing a research approach that
is most appropriate for gaining a more detailed understanding of Indigenous-settler relations, and
the local knowledges, perspectives and lived-experiences of First Nations and BC Parks staff in
Northwestern BC. This project uses a case study methodology, and it uses the methods of
individual semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis to answer the questions and
objectives introduced in Chapter One.
In this chapter, I discuss case study methodology and why this methodology was an
appropriate choice for my project. I outline the strengths and limitations of case studies, as well
as the strategies I used for addressing associated challenges. Following this, I detail some
political and ethical considerations and explain the principles which guide my research with
Indigenous Peoples. From there, I briefly review my theoretical approach and explain how twoeyed seeing guided my methodological decisions in coding and thematic analysis of transcripts.
Next, I review the methods of semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis and clarify why I
chose each of these to inform my work. Finally, I outline how I went about recruiting
participants, and collecting and analyzing materials, clarifying the decisions I made in my data
collection and analysis.
Case Study Methodology
Case study is a research methodology that explores a phenomenon within a particular
context through a variety of lenses and data sources, in order to reveal its multiple facets (Baxter
& Jack, 2008). Case studies are often used in exploratory research. This methodology generates

78

new ideas and comprises an important strategy for applying theories and illustrating different,
inter-related aspects of a case (Yin, 2009). John Gerring (2004) explains that a case study is an
“intensive study of a single unit for the purpose of understanding a larger class of (similar) units”
(p. 342). In a case study, a phenomenon is explored within its naturally occurring context, with
the consideration that different contexts yield different data (Kaarbo & Beasley, 1999). The
objective of a case study is to do intensive research on a specific case, such as an individual, a
group, institute, community, process, space or event (Baxter, 2021; Punch, 2005). Gary
Anderson (1993) and Robert Stake (2005) view case studies as being concerned with how and
why things happen, allowing the investigation of contextual realities. Case studies enable the
researcher to gain a holistic view of phenomena or events through a variety of methods, such as
surveys, interviews, focus groups and observations (Gummesson, 1991; Noor, 2008).
My case study focusses on the institution of BC Parks, the TEK of Gitxsan First Nation
communities, and the processes of BC Parks planning and operations management, within the
context of Northwestern BC. Because my research is exploratory in nature, it is a theorygenerating case study. By studying the real-world aspects of the case, my analysis of the data
collected generated new concepts (theory) to explain my findings (Baxter, 2021). This study is a
cross-sectional case study, conducted at one point in time (Yin, 2011).
A case study methodology was best suited for exploring my topic for a few reasons. First,
in a case study, there is the prior development of a theoretical position to guide data collection
(Dul & Hak, 2008; Ebneyamini & Sadeghi Moghadam, 2018; Yin, 2003), which I did by reading
and learning about two-eyed seeing before collecting data. Recent studies have found that pairing
two-eyed seeing with case study methodology is beneficial for exploring how to “bridge”
Western science and TEK in studying how to mobilize knowledge and co-produce insights and

79

decisions (Abu et al., 2019; Reid et al., 2021; Wright et al., 2019). Second, the specificity of my
research parameters constituted a ‘case’ (i.e., Northwestern BC Parks planning and operations
management and Gitxsan First Nation TEK). Lastly, I used multiple methods to inform my work
(i.e., interviews and thematic coding), which is characteristic of case study research (Baxter,
2021; Yin, 1989, 1994).
Strengths of a Case Study Approach
Case studies are useful in capturing the emergent and immanent properties of life in
organizations and the ebb and flow of organizational activity, especially where it is changing fast
(Hartley, 1994). Jerry Willis et al. (2007) explain that case studies allow the researcher to gather
rich, detailed data in an authentic setting. This approach supports the idea that much of what we
know about human behaviour is best understood as lived experience in the social context.
According to Phil Hodkinson and Heather Hodkinson (2001), case studies elucidate complex
inter-relationships through their restricted focus, which facilitates in-depth understandings of a
topic. Furthermore, case studies retain more ‘real life’ information than many other types of
research because they can show the deep and complex processes involved in causal relationships
(Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2001). Good case studies are comprehensive—they synthesize data
collected from various data collection tools to minimize bias and present findings that reveal
multiple aspects of a case which demonstrate an integrated analysis of the topic being explored
(Rashid et al., 2019; Yin, 1994).
Limitations of a Case Study Approach
Some scholars have criticized case studies for lacking generalizability (Baxter, 2021;
Noor, 2008; Yin, 2003). Generalizability, also known as transferability, is the degree to which
findings apply to other cases of the phenomenon in question (Baxter, 2021). Case study

80

generalizations are problematic, as they are based on the assumption that multiple cases can lead
to a form of replication (Noor, 2008). Another limitation of case studies is that they are
expensive and time-consuming. Hodkinson and Hodkinson (2001) indicate that due to the
tendency of case studies to utilize multiple methods, they can produce too much data for quick
and easy analysis or comprehensive publication, and ‘cutting corners’ weakens the value and
credibility of data and findings. This can present difficulty for early career researchers when
analyzing their data and publishing their findings.
A Note on Generalizability in My Project
The parameters of my research are specific to Northwestern BC Parks and centre the
TEK of Gitxsan First Nation. Consequently, my study provides recommendations which are
most applicable in the context of Northern First Nations within BC Parks’ management system.
It lacks complete generalizability for other parks and regions. But despite its limited focus, some
elements of my work—including practical, adaptable recommendations for TEK inclusion—may
be more generally useful. It can encourage appreciation and adoption of TEK elsewhere and
promote a path of Truth and Reconciliation (2015a, 2015b) for park agencies and managers.
Good case studies that comprise multiple aspects of a case and demonstrate detailed analysis of
the topic can be applied in other contexts and settings (Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2001; Yin,
2009). It is possible for case studies to highlight general themes or considerations that apply
beyond their specific locality (Meletis & Campbell, 2007).
Guiding Principles for Research with Indigenous Peoples
Research ‘on’ or ‘about’ Indigenous Peoples has been largely extractive and exploitative,
reasserting colonial dominance, systemic racism and White privilege within academia (Smith,
2021). In extractive research, something meaningful is removed, such as the context, values, and

81

on-the-ground struggles of the people who provide data to the researcher (Brown & Strega,
2015). Extractive researchers have had little staked on preserving the integrity of extracted
Indigenous Knowledge, as the Indigenous participants in these studies have rarely been
considered the primary audience for research dissemination. Māori, Indigenous Studies
professor, Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2021), provides guidance on how to conduct research ‘for’ and
‘with’ Indigenous communities. This requires maintaining respect, responsibility, reciprocity,
and relationships with Indigenous Peoples in research (Smith, 2021; Wilson, 2008). La Donna
Harris and Jacqueline Wasilewski (2004) encourage researchers to adopt the four “R’s’ of
Indigeneity” into their work: relationship is the kinship obligation; responsibility is the
community obligation; reciprocity is the cyclical obligation; and redistribution is the sharing
obligation. Several other scholars have underscored the unique qualities of Northern and
Indigenous research areas that necessitate community engagement (Hayward et al., 2021, 2021b;
Mashford-Pringle & Pavagadhi, 2020; Mead et al., 1994; Tondu et al., 2014).
The above literature has prompted me to be meticulous in my collection and
interpretation of cultural knowledge and to be cognizant of previous research that has
perpetuated colonial discourses by misappropriating or misrepresenting Indigenous Knowledge.
Acknowledging the historical and ongoing harms that have resulted from research involving
Indigenous Peoples has improved my capacity to build meaningful relationships with Indigenous
Peoples and plan a mutually beneficial, collaborative, community-based research process.
Throughout this work, I have maintained a reciprocal and meaningful relationship with Gitxsan
First Nation and community members. I followed ethical guidelines and sought community
involvement in determining the priorities and desired outcomes of the research project. I also

82

extended an invitation for co-authorship to the Gitxsan First Nation members who shared their
Knowledge with me.
To avoid perpetuating the historical and contemporary traumas brought about by
extractive colonial research, Indigenous research must be conducted in collaboration with
Indigenous communities and in adherence to strict ethical guidelines (Mashford-Pringle &
Pavagadhi, 2020). I followed the principles set forth in the Tri-Council Policy Statement on
Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (2018) and the Assembly of First Nations
Ethics Guide on Research and Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (2016; 2009), which outlined
the requirements for conducting ethical research with First Nations. I completed the First Nations
Information Governance Centre’s course on Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession (OCAP
Principles), and incorporated these principles into my study. The OCAP Principles are guiding
principles for research with Indigenous Peoples that support Indigenous information governance,
self-determination, and data sovereignty. These principles outline a set of ethical criteria relating
to how Indigenous information must be “collected, stored, interpreted, protected, used and
shared” (First Nations Information Governance Centre, 2022, para. 3). There are several benefits
to applying OCAP in research: rebuilding trust; improved research quality and relevance;
decreased bias; meaningful capacity and development; and community empowerment to make
change (Schnarch, 2004).
I communicated my research with Gitxsan Huwilp Government and provided the First
Nation with drafts of my thesis proposal chapters to review. Gitxsan First Nation approved my
research project and research activities in June 2022 (see Appendix A). I worked with Gitxsan
Huwilp Government to develop a formal Research Agreement and Data-sharing Protocol in
November 2022 (Appendix B). The Executive Director of Gitxsan Huwilp Government is also a

83

licensed attorney. His legal proficiency was instrumental in fashioning an official contract that
translated complex legal concepts into precise legalese. This document clearly outlined the
binding expectations between the First Nation and me regarding the collection, use, storage,
disclosure, and analysis of data. Research Agreements and Data-sharing Protocols are used to
eliminate misunderstanding and misconduct. They provide tools for protecting community
interests, information and privacy. By following the Tri-Council policy, Gitxsan First Nation
research protocols, the Assembly of First Nations Ethics Guide on Research and Aboriginal
Traditional Knowledge (2016; 2009), and by ensuring First Nation ownership, control, access,
and possession (OCAP) of the TEK that was shared with me, I had clear direction on how to
ethically proceed with the project. Gitxsan First Nation Government provided guidance as to
how information was best collected, stored, shared and delivered.
How My Theoretical Approach Influenced My Methodology
My methodology was heavily influenced by two-eyed seeing theory. To recap, two-eyed
seeing recognizes the benefits of seeing from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous ways of
knowing, and from the other eye with the strengths of Western ways of knowing, and to use both
ways of seeing simultaneously (Iwama et al., 2009). Applying a ‘two-eyed way of seeing’
approach enables the researcher to combine these seemingly opposing worldviews so that they
can work alongside one another with respect and balance (McKeon, 2012). Using a theory that
considered both Western and Indigenous views throughout the research process offered a more
balanced perspective in designing my interview questions, collecting, analyzing, and interpreting
data, and identifying patterns in the codes to determine themes. Instead of approaching my data
analysis by separating BC Parks and Gitxsan First Nation interview transcripts, I chose to code
all the interview transcripts together as one large dataset using the same steps and approaches,

84

weaving the different worldviews together in developing a thematic network. By analyzing all of
the transcript data together, all transcripts were subjected to the same degree of rigour in data
analysis. I made a conscious effort to design my methodology in a way that would capture the
ideas of both BC Parks and Gitxsan First Nation participants by putting the two worldviews into
conversation with each other in answering my research questions. For example, I asked both
participant groups several of the same interview questions so that I could join both worldviews in
my analysis. Where interview questions deviated, I still designed the questions in efforts to
answer my research questions from the perspective of both participant groups.
A main goal of two-eyed seeing theory is to further collaboration and understanding by
working to harmonize two different worldviews and recognizing them as complementary in
solving problems (Wright et al., 2019). As outlined earlier in Chapter One, my thesis project
aims to 1) identify historical and contemporary socio-political barriers to the uptake of TEK in
park planning and operations management, and 2) to help overcome these barriers in developing
recommendations to integrate TEK that prioritize reconciliation and self-determination in park
planning and operations management. A theoretical grounding in two-eyed seeing and the key
concepts of settler colonialism and decolonization helped me to incorporate Indigenous
worldviews throughout the research design, analysis, and development of reconciliatory
recommendations.
Individual Semi-structured Interviews
The Regional Director and Planning Section Head of BC Parks North Coast Skeena
Region approved my research project and activities in September 2022 (see Appendix C). I
sought participants for my semi-structured interviews using purposive convenience sampling and
snowball sampling techniques. Purposive convenience sampling is a type of nonprobability or

85

non-random sampling where members of the target population that meet certain practical criteria,
such as easy accessibility, geographical proximity, availability at a given time, or the willingness
to participate, are included for the purpose of the study (Etikan et al., 2013). Snowball sampling
is a nonprobability method of sample selection that is commonly used to locate hidden
populations. This method relies on referrals from initially sampled participants to other persons
believed to have the characteristics of interest (Johnson, 2014). The Regional Director and
Planning Section Head of BC Parks North Coast Skeena Region and the Executive Director of
Gitxsan Huwilp Government helped to identify suitable participants and facilitate
communication with them.
This project was approved by UNBC’s Research Ethics Board (see Appendix D). Prior to
conducting interviews, I provided all participants with an information letter and consent form
(see Appendix E and F) to ensure fully informed consent regarding the project’s rationale,
purpose, questions, methods, and protocol for the management of shared information.
Participants gave their informed consent to participate and were provided with all appropriate
materials to make an educated decision on their participation. To ensure participant anonymity,
each participant was assigned a pseudonym, and all contact information, audio recordings and
transcripts were kept in a locked, secure, password-protected computer and a password-protected
external hard drive. Any physical copies of notes or other materials with potentially identifiable
information were stored in a locked office cabinet to which only I had access. All physical and
electronic data will be destroyed after two years.
I chose to conduct semi-structured interviews rather than surveys because they are an
interactive form of qualitative data collection (Adler & Clark, 2011), which provide a more
personalized exchange of information (Jain, 2021). Surveys are a common method for collecting

86

quantitative data (Shackleton et al., 2021), which was not of principal interest in my study. Semistructured interviews also offer more flexibility than structured interviews. Semi-structured
interviews have some degree of order and topical prompts, but they remain flexible in the ways
that the participant can address issues (Dunn, 2021). I wanted participants to be able to deviate
from my interview guide and express themselves by discussing what they think is important and
offering examples or personal experiences that informed my research questions. One of the
strengths of semi-structured interviews is that they provide some access to participants’ social
life—their interactions, notions of self, agency, and collective identities (Arksey & Knight,
1999). They are an excellent method for gaining access to information about places, events,
opinions and experiences (Dunn, 2021).
I employed two interview guides—one for interviews with BC Parks staff (see Appendix
G), and another for interviews with First Nations members (see Appendix H). Both guides
included broad, open-ended questions and prompts (Creswell, 2014; Fetters et al., 2013) to
gently steer interviews towards the project’s research questions, yet still offered space for
dynamic discussions. My interview questions aimed to collect information from BC Parks staff
on social, political, and economic barriers to Indigenous inclusion in park planning and
operations management, BC Parks policies and training for work with First Nations, and
perspectives on TEK, self-determination and reconciliation in park planning and management.
My interview questions for Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders focussed on perceptions of
BC Parks consultation and operations management, as none of the Chiefs and Elders I
interviewed had been involved in BC Parks planning processes or the development of park
management plans in their Territory. I also asked Chiefs and Elders about their historical and
current inclusion/exclusion in BC Parks management, and strategies that they might recommend

87

for meaningful engagement, reconciliation, and self-determination in park planning processes
and operations management. The questions for the Chiefs and Elders were developed as a result
of discussions with Gitxsan Huwilp Government, Indigenous friends, and their relatives. I asked
Gitxsan Huwilp Government what their interests and priorities were and what suggestions they
had regarding my interview questions and incorporated their feedback into the research design.
For example, a priority for the Hereditary Chiefs was to be engaged and consulted with at the
House or Wilp level of governance. Therefore, my interview questions were reframed to ask
Gitxsan First Nation participants about their Wilp’s procedures for engagement, their cultural
practices, culturally important areas, previous experience with BC Parks, their beliefs about BC
Parks, and what they would recommend as engagement strategies with their Wilp.
Due to visitor restrictions and accessibility barriers, and for practical reasons of time,
distance and cost, 21 out of 28 interviews were conducted online, through the Zoom video
conferencing platform. Seven interviews were conducted in person at the Nora Building in
Smithers, BC (i.e., North Coast Skeena Regional Headquarters) and at the Gitxsan Huwilp
Government Treaty Office. There is a large body of literature that supports video-call
interviewing as a method with many advantages (Archibald et al., 2019; Gray et al. 2020;
Howlett, 2021; Marhefka, 2020; Reñosa et al. 2020; Wahl-Jorgensen, 2021). Previous research
demonstrates that participants feel more comfortable discussing issues in the comfort of their
own homes, at a safe distance from the interviewer (Gray et al. 2020; Nind et al. 2021). Online
interviews can be less taxing for participants in terms of meeting the interviewer, less expensive
in terms of time and resources, and timesaving in terms of automatic transcription options (Gray,
2020; Howlett, 2021; Nind et al., 2021). The main challenges to video-call interviews are risks of
technological failures, unstable internet access, and lack of ethnographic context in relation to

88

face-to-face interviews (Dunn, 2021). I tried to mitigate these challenges by following the
recommendations made by Stephanie Marhefka et al. (2020) and distributing a Zoom Interview
Protocol Form (see Appendix I) as an interview preparation material. This form guides the
participant on how to download and set up Zoom and ensure stable internet and clear audio
during the interview.
I interviewed 11 BC Parks employees in the North Coast Skeena Region (see Table 1)
and 17 Chiefs and Elders from Gitxsan First Nation communities (see Table 2). All participants
met the interview criteria. All BC Parks participants had experience developing current or past
park management plans in the North Coast Skeena Region and all Gitxsan First Nation
participants were Chiefs and Elders with the right to share TEK as community Knowledge
Holders. Individual demographics were not collected from the participants, aside from job
position (BC Parks participants) and community (Gitxsan First Nation participants).
Pseudonym
Dennis
Stanley
Theresa
Nelly
Brianne
Isabelle
Geoff
Darlene
Kenneth
Casey
Tammy

Job Position
Operations Management
Planning Team
Planning Team
Operations Management
Planning Team
Planning Team
Operations Management
Operations Management
Planning Team
Operations Management
Operations Management

Table 1. Individual Interview Participants: BC Parks Employees (n=11)
Pseudonym
Wesley
Donald
Desiree

Community
Gitwangak
Kispiox
Kispiox

Chief/Elder
Elder
Chief
Elder
89

Herb
Eddie
Annelise
Mary
Roy
Gladys
Mia
Abigail
Danni
Sheila
Spring
Krystal
Jerry
Fred

Gitanyow
Gitanmaax
Gitanyow
Glen Vowell
Gitanmaax
Kispiox
Glen Vowell
Gitsegukla
Gitwangak
Gitsegukla
Kispiox
Gitwangak
Gitanyow
Glen Vowell

Chief
Elder
Chief
Chief
Chief
Elder
Elder
Chief
Chief
Chief
Elder
Chief
Chief
Elder

Table 2. Individual Interview Participants: Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders (n=17)
Within BC Parks North Coast Skeena Region, I interviewed two Planners, two Parks and
Parks and Protected Area Section Heads, two Area Supervisors, one Senior Park Ranger, one
Conservation Specialist, and the Regional Director of the North Coast Skeena Region. I also
interviewed one Planner and one Parks and Protected Area Section Head from another Northern
region, who both had previous experience working in Northwestern BC. This was at the
recommendation of BC Parks administration, due to some employees being unavailable or on
leave in the North Coast Skeena Region. However, I generalized the BC Parks participants’ job
positions in my study to protect the privacy and anonymity of the small sample of participants.
Gitxsan First Nation participants were identified only by their community to provide context to
their statements and permission was given to identify participants by their communities.
Interviews for this study began in March 2023 and were completed by July 2023. The
interviews ranged from one to three and a half hours, with the average interview taking two
hours to complete. Prior to each semi-structured interview, I introduced my project by reviewing
the information letter and consent form and requesting consent for audio-recording. I took
handwritten notes to capture any recurrent themes, connections, or other observations that

90

occurred to me during the interview. These notes were used to supplement the coding and
analysis process. Post-interview, I transcribed the interviews verbatim in Microsoft Word.
During transcription, I noted details such as pauses or laughter to give further context to what
was said. Then I conducted member-checking (Birt et al., 2016) by providing each participant an
electronic copy of their transcribed interview and giving them an opportunity to review their
transcript and suggest additions, deletions, or revisions. Participants elaborated, clarified, or
removed sections as they saw fit. The member-checking process was completed by November
2023 with a 100% response rate. Next, I uploaded the transcriptions to the coding software
NVivo (QSR International Pty Ltd., 2023) and started thematic analysis.
Data Analysis: Thematic Coding
My individual interview transcripts totalled 743 single-spaced pages. I used thematic
analysis to code the interview transcripts in the coding software NVivo (QSR International Pty
Ltd., 2023). Thematic analysis focusses on themes or patterns that emerge from the data in an
attempt to explore and understand an issue (Aronson, 1995; Attride-Stirling, 2001; Cope, 2021).
Thematic analysis requires a great deal of familiarity with the data (Attride-Stirling, 2001; Guest
et al., 2012; Nowell et al., 2017). As O’Reilly (2009) explains, “We seek patterns in the data like
putting together building blocks: moving, re-aligning, and building until patterns emerge that
make some sense" (p. 36). Patterns in the data, or themes, can be identified by using two primary
approaches: an inductive “bottom up” approach (i.e., data-driven), or a deductive “top down”
approach (i.e., theory-driven) (Braun & Clarke, 2006). An inductive approach uses data-driven
coding, wherein the themes identified are strongly linked to the data themselves. Inductive
analysis is therefore “a process of coding the data without trying to fit it into a pre-existing
coding frame, or the researcher’s analytic preconceptions” (Crabtree & Miller, 2022). A

91

deductive approach is driven by the project’s research questions and theories and is thus more
explicitly analyst-driven (DeCuir-Gunby et al., 2011).
Coding is a process of data reduction and organization to identify sections of text that
represent the basic themes that have emerged from the first review of transcripts (Braun &
Clarke, 2012; Cope, 2021; Saldaña, 2021; Vaismoradi et al., 2016). Coding entails assigning
codes that have been previously defined or operationalized in a codebook to raw data. This
allows researchers to engage in data reduction and simplification. It also allows for data
expansion (making new connections between concepts), transformation (converting data into
meaningful units), and reconceptualization (rethinking theoretical associations) (Coffey &
Atkinson, 1996). Therefore, through coding, researchers make connections between ideas and
concepts. Applying codes to raw data enables the researcher to begin examining how their data
supports or contradicts the theory that is guiding their research as well as enhances the current
research literature. Coding is, in essence, a circular process in that the researcher may then revisit
the raw data based upon theoretical findings and the current research literature (Adu, 2019).
If a group of codes are repeated in a patterned way and in multiple situations, they have
potential to become a theme. Comparison has the capacity to reveal the link between codes and
nominate themes using researchers’ intellectual judgment (Vaismoradi et al., 2016). Testing
propositions and asking questions of similarities and differences between codes enables the
detection of a theme (Adu, 2019; Saldaña, 2021). The more the same code occurs in a text, the
more likely it can be considered to be a theme, but the constitution of a theme through the
frequency of repetitions has to be decided by researchers’ judgment (Vaismoradi et al., 2016).
Analyzing data is an opportunity to test interconnections between codes, and to find themes that
fit the data (Knudsen et al., 2012). The researcher finds and compares participants’ similar

92

discussion points to assess whether they can be explained by the theme as an umbrella
(Vaismoradi & Snelgrove, 2019). Codes and subcodes are instruments of data analysis which are
used to identify the multiple realities of the phenomenon being explored. Code categorization
and finding themes from code categories and analytical insights will present an overall story line
of the data (Cho & Lee, 2014; Connelly & Peltzer, 2016; Erlingsson & Brysiewicz, 2013).
Themes can further be divided into subthemes to cover the different levels of similarities and
differences (Indulska et al., 2012; Egberg Thyme et al., 2013; Snowden & Martin, 2011).
Therefore, in thematic coding, themes are the final products of data analysis, and codes, code
categories, and their subdivisions, including code subcategories and subthemes, are the analytical
products of data analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022, 2006).
I sorted and labelled the data to identify and assign meaning, using descriptive,
interpretive, and conceptual theory-and-data-driven codes (Cope, 2021). I began my analysis by
developing four theory-driven codes directly from my research questions and the relevant
literatures, so that I could answer the research questions that I had posed for my study. I then
developed codes from the topics raised in the data using line-by-line coding. Line-by-line coding
is very tedious and time consuming, but it is a thorough and reliable approach which identifies
ideas and concepts that come directly from the data in building a detailed list of data-driven
codes (Chenail, 2012; Cunningham & Carmichael, 2017). I continued line-by-line coding until
saturation was reached and the same codes were reoccurring, with no new codes emerging from
the dataset. Saturation refers to the point in data collection and analysis when no additional codes
are emerging from the data, and all relevant codes have been identified, explored, and exhausted.
This signals that the code categories are “saturated”, and the emerging theory from the codes is
comprehensive and credible (Hennink et al., 2017). Once all the interview transcripts had been

93

coded using theory-and-data-driven codes, I reviewed the long list of codes and created code
categories (parent codes) to guide my next stage of analysis. By bundling together similar or
related codes, and merging them into more inclusive codes, I was able to create code categories
which effectively organized the data. Refocussing my analysis at the broader level of themes,
rather than codes, I organized and sorted the different code categories into potential themes,
collating all the relevant coded data extracts within the identified themes. In this step, I analyzed
my codes to consider how different codes may combine to form an overarching theme. In
addition to NVivo, I used tables and mind-maps, and I wrote the name of each code with its brief
description on a separate piece of paper and played around with it by organizing the various
codes into candidate theme-piles. Following this, I refined these themes by reducing the data
again into data sets that represented sets of salient, significant, and common themes. Finally, I
organized these sets into similar groupings, adding a relational element to the interpretation of
data (Cope, 2021), which became the thematic network (Aronson, 1995; Braun & Clarke, 2006,
2012; Saldaña, 2021), or what some scholars refer to as a code tree. By drawing meaning from
the data and identifying relationships between themes, I was able to produce a narrative. Using
NVivo, I applied codes which created a code tree of themes and subthemes, which eventually
was developed into the final thematic network (see Figure 7); I will discuss the findings of my
thematic network in Chapter Four. In my data analysis, I differentiated between themes and
subthemes based on relationships between the ideas and concepts discussed in the data, total
word frequencies of words used in different contexts across the dataset, and the number of
interview transcripts in which those words occurred. It is important to note that some themes
developed solely from the Chiefs and Elders’ transcripts, and some were identified solely from

94

the BC Parks employees’ transcripts. This is because I used different interview guides for the
participant groups, as not all my questions were relevant or appropriate to ask both groups.

Figure 7. Final Thematic Network. The author’s final thematic network. The image was created
by the author. S. Graham, 2024.
In a codebook, I described the decisions I made about how the themes are grouped (Cope,
2021). A codebook is a set of codes, definitions, and examples used as a guide to help analyze
interview data. Codebooks are essential to analyzing qualitative research because they provide a
formalized operationalization of the codes (Crabtree & Miller, 1992; Fereday & Muir-Cochrane,
2006; Fonteyn et al., 2008; MacQueen et al., 2008). Like codes, codebooks are developed
through an iterative process that necessitate revising definitions as the researcher gains clearer

95

insights about the interview data (DeCuir-Gunby et al., 2011). The more specificity and detail in
a codebook, the easier it is for coders to distinguish between codes and to determine examples
from nonexamples of individual codes (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). MacQueen et al.
(1998) suggest that the structure of codebooks should consist of six components, including the
code name/label, brief definition, full definition, inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, and
examples. However, in this study, I chose to structure my codebook using three components:
code name/label, full definition (an extensive definition that collapses inclusion and exclusion
criteria), and examples (see Figure 8). I did not include the examples in my codebook in the
version pictured in Figure 8, or in my full codebook that I have attached to this thesis (see
Appendix J), because I wanted to protect sensitive information collected from the participants.

Figure 8. Codebook. This image illustrates how codes were organized in the author’s codebook.
The image was created by the author. S. Graham, 2024.
I developed and refined my codebook in four stages. First, I identified four, overarching,
deductive code categories directly from my research questions and defined them in my codebook
using the structure outlined above. I applied these four deductive codes to all 28 transcripts.
Second, using inductive, line-by-line coding, I reviewed and coded 19 transcripts (seven BC

96

Parks employees’ transcripts and 12 Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders’ transcripts), until no
new codes were emerging from the data. At this stage, not every code was defined. Third, I
defined the code categories that arose from my inductive line-by-line coding, and I combined
these data-driven code categories with my four deductive code categories to develop a
preliminary codebook. Then I applied the preliminary codebook and its code definitions to the
next nine transcripts, being mindful of potential modifications. Fourth, I refined the codebook
according to how the codes could be organized and grouped within different themes and
reapplied the refined codebook to all 28 transcripts.
Following one round of revisions of the draft thesis by the Executive Director of Gitxsan
Huwilp Government and the Regional Director and Planning Section Head of BC Parks North
Coast Skeena Region, a final review of the transcripts was completed to address the comments
and feedback which were provided. This transcript review entailed deductively coding for cases
of collaboration with First Nations in park planning processes and operations management within
other areas of the North Coast Skeena Region. The intention for this transcript review was to
shed light on current collaborative management planning processes and operations that are
occurring within other First Nations Territories in the North Coast Skeena Region. This context
is important, as BC Parks had not worked with Gitxsan First Nation on planning processes since
the early 2000s. Gitxsan First Nation participants in my study indicated that they had no
experience being involved in planning processes; therefore, the findings and recommendations of
the case study are centred more on consultation for statutory decision-making and operations
management than planning processes or park management plans.

97

Conclusion
The Indigenous research principles that underscored my methodology provided insights
for weaving WSK with TEK. The data I collected through qualitative interviews with BC Parks
staff and Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders led to more nuanced understandings of the
inclusion of TEK in park planning and operations management. In the next chapter, I present my
findings.

98

Chapter Four: Findings
In this chapter, I present the findings from my thematic analysis of 28 interview
transcripts with both Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders and BC Parks employees. I organize
the findings into sections that connect to my four research questions. In referencing the
participants’ words and ideas, I identify each participant by their chosen pseudonym, and, with
permission, either their community (Gitxsan First Nation participants) or job position (BC Parks
participants).
The chapter is divided into four sections, each with supporting evidence from
participants. First, I outline the historical and current social, political, and economic conditions
affecting park management, the policies and training procedures that guide BC Parks employees’
work, and the unique characteristics of working in the North Coast Skeena Region. Second, I
present the values, beliefs and traditions that influence the application of TEK in park planning
and operations management, including BC Parks employees’ values and beliefs about WSK and
TEK, and Gitxsan First Nation members’ laws, culture, and traditions. Third, I discuss how BC
Parks is applying TEK in park planning and operations management, and the challenges of doing
so. Fourth, I examine the actions recommended by participants for fostering reconciliation and
Indigenous self-determination in park planning and operations management. As discussed in
Chapters One and Three, the research findings are centred more on consultation and operations
management than planning, due to the majority of BC Parks participants working in operations
roles, and the lack of Gitxsan First Nation participants’ experience with BC Parks planning
processes.
1. Historical and Current Social, Political and Economic Factors

99

To answer my first research question, in my interviews I asked BC Parks participants to
describe the current and historical social, political, and economic factors that influence
Indigenous involvement in park planning and operations management. Then, in my interviews
with Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders, I asked if any social, political, or economic factors
have influenced their relationship with BC Parks. I asked these questions because I wanted to
understand the current and historical context of BC Parks’ relationship with Gitxsan First Nation
and identify how social, political, and economic factors might be influencing park planning and
operations management.
For clarity, I decided to refer to any events before the year 2000 as historical, and any
events after this time as current (especially when my participants did not indicate if they saw
certain events as historical or current). I chose the year 2000 because BC Parks’ more recent
approaches to Indigenous inclusion, such as engagement agreements with First Nations (BC
Parks, 2024a; 2024b) and the Conservancy park designation (BC Parks, n.d.), occurred after this
time. From my interviews with both BC Parks employees and Gitxsan First Nation members, I
found that First Nations’ lack of trust in the government, climate change, reconciliation, treaty
negotiations, funding, staffing, and budget timelines all interact to shape BC Parks planning
processes and operations management. These factors, as well as BC Parks policies and training
procedures, also influence how TEK is included in park planning processes and operations
management.
Sixteen out of the 17 Gitxsan First Nation participants described historical tensions in
their relationship with the province, arising from settler colonialism, the residential school
system and assimilation policies. The participants expressed how a dark history has made it
difficult to work with and trust the government. Krystal (Chief, Gitwangak) stated: “Our ancient

100

traditional livelihoods and political systems were broken down by the federal and provincial
governments of Canada and BC…so how do you trust them when they say they want to work
together?” Danni (Chief, Gitwangak) talked about the history of her family and Wilp (i.e., House
Group) with BC Parks: “My mom and grandma remember not being able to use parks for
medicine gathering anymore, or other sustenance uses practiced by my Wilp there for thousands
of years before BC Parks were established.” The repression of First Nations’ sustenance uses of
parks was the result of assimilation policies under the Indian Act, which banned cultural
practices, such as feasts and other activities. Mia (Elder, Glen Vowell) explained: “Historically,
there was no consideration for our People’s social, ceremonial or cultural use of the Park.” These
statements demonstrate the loss of cultural practices in parks and the lack of trust for the
government because of this history.
Eight BC Parks employees described First Nations’ lack of trust in the government—
which developed historically and continues to have implications today—as a major social barrier
in park planning and management. As Casey (Operations) stated, “employees must build
relationships with First Nations that have historically been undermined, mistreated, and exploited
by government policies and relationships.” It is difficult for employees to overcome this mistrust
in their work. Nelly (Operations) explained: “Being a provincial representative… unless you
have those good relationships, you’re just whitewashed with all the other ministries and
agencies. It takes a lot of time to build those relationships and understandings, working at the
community level on them.” Working towards creating better relationships with First Nations is
necessary to build trust and increase their inclusion in park management (Nelly, Operations).
Seven BC Parks employees expressed that relationship building can be difficult when there are
frequent changes in staff, both within the province and within First Nations governments. For

101

example, Isabelle noted that: “It’s a lot harder for the Nations when you have a rotational door of
government [staff] coming in, and you have to re-train everybody to have the same
understanding.” Dennis (Operations), Stanley (Planning), and Tammy (Operations) all stated that
frequent staff turnover can damage relationships with First Nations. These findings show that
relationships with First Nations are fragile and building relationships can be compromised by
changes in staff. Engagement and consultation with First Nations are the responsibility of
regional staff, and, with limited capacity and staff changes, relationship building with First
Nations can sometimes be difficult.
The main socio-political factors that BC Parks participants described as currently
influencing park planning and operations management were reconciliation, climate change, and
treaty negotiations. As Tammy (Operations) explained: “Well, right now, its climate change,
DRIPA, reconciliation, treaty negotiations—those are at the forefront of our work right now.
Planning and management is being influenced by all those social and political factors.” Brianne
(Planning) provided examples to illustrate what inclusion of these socio-political factors looks
like in practice: “There's a lens on things like UNDRIP and climate…and you see the different
groups having to come together at tables to discuss these and having to problem-solve, and
having to accommodate these new agendas that are really important.” Gitxsan First Nation
Chiefs and Elders discussed the same social and political factors outlined by BC Parks
employees. As Fred (Elder, Glen Vowell) specified: “I think they are considering us more in
their [operational] decision-making now with the DRIPA legislation, climate change, and treaties
in the final stages.” Annelise (Chief, Gitanyow) similarly claimed: “Government wants to…
mend our relationship. They’re interested in co-managing and collaborating with us. They’re not
getting every single part of it right yet, but that’s to be expected, they’re just trying to figure

102

things out with the treaty negotiations.” Gitxsan First Nation participants discussed how the
climate research on First Nations territories is becoming more collaborative. As Wesley (Elder,
Gitwangak) explained, “There’s been some climate research in Gitanyow on the glaciers, where
their lands department partnered with government. Some of the other Northern Nations are
working with government to understand climate change in their territories too.” It is evident that
reconciliation, climate change, and treaty negotiations are shaping approaches to park planning
and operations management, as well as the work of BC Parks employees, and these current
issues are encouraging new areas of collaboration between First Nations and government.
Ten BC Parks participants described how the political environment impacts how areas are
prioritized in planning. Casey (Operations) discussed this in his interview: “We have to sort of
rank areas that don’t have management plans in priorities and that’s usually based on political
issues or social pressures.” BC Parks employees cited issues of species habitat conservation,
user-group conflicts, natural resource industry, and treaty negotiations as examples of political
and social pressures. Theresa (Planning) explained how pressures from the social and political
environment have also changed the park management planning process: “It’s really about…
instead of thinking about this big, huge planning process for every single park and protected
area, it’s customizing it to what is actually needed here and what will work in the political
environment that we are working in.” Using a tailored approach allows planners to be nimble and
flexible in adapting their planning process to the current political landscape.
Nine BC Parks employees indicated that funding allocations have influenced park
planning and operations management, as well as the involvement of First Nations in them. Casey
(Operations) stated: “Economic, financial barriers have been big factors in both the development
and implementation of management plans.” The BC Parks participants expressed that in the

103

1990s there was a lack of funding for Indigenous engagement and collaboration, and often First
Nations couldn’t afford to increase their involvement in park management plans. The LRMP
process was long, and while it provided for a collaborative engagement process, First Nations
could not always afford to attend meetings consistently. Tammy (Operations) reinforced this
point: “[First Nations] had opportunities to engage, but…most people wouldn’t be able to say, ‘I
can take the next three years and not get paid just to be able to ensure my interest is recognized
in this plan.’” Darlene (Operations) discussed the consequences of these financial barriers: “To
expect [First Nations] to volunteer that amount of time, I don’t think was reasonable…and if
everyone is not equal at the table—which they are supposed to be—you see what was really
represented as there, which was industry and government.” This finding illustrates that First
Nations require funding to participate in BC Parks management plans and BC did not provide
adequate funding to support First Nations participation in the 1990s.
Current economic factors influencing Indigenous involvement in park planning and
operations management include funding, budget timelines, and staffing. As Kenneth (Planning)
stated: “Usually a Planner has five or six park plans they’re working on at a given time and we
will kind of help… So, right off the bat, you’re starting with a planning process where it’s very
challenged financially to move through the process.” Stanley (Planning) described that, partly
due to these financial challenges, the ideas that are put into park management plans have become
less imaginative and more specific over time; these plans now often only contain basic, relevant
and necessary information to maintain ongoing management direction of a park. Additionally,
the goals of park management plans have become “more focussed and realistic” (Kenneth,
Planning). Isabelle (Planning) explained that “with limited staff and finances to implement
projects and plans, it is important to narrow the scope of a plan to what is needed to ensure that a

104

plan is achievable.” Dennis (Operations) outlined the budget timeline for implementing
Indigenous projects and programs in operations management: “We are sometimes constrained by
a fiscal year-end… You get your budget in May if you’re lucky and then you only have until
March 31 to spend it.” These budgets are a fiscal responsibility which can create challenges and
place pressure on BC Parks employees to begin and complete projects involving First Nations
within a limiting time frame.
Six out of the 11 BC Parks participants described past park management plans as being
lengthy documents that allowed for more research. Darlene (Operations) noted: “Management
plans of the past were much more lengthy documents…when I first started with BC Parks it
seemed to me that Parks were better researched.” Kenneth (Planning) similarly explained that
past park management plans were more elaborate: “in the older plans you would see much
greater ideas in terms of what are we going to do in this park? From gondolas to other sorts of
things.” Tammy (Operations) corroborated this: “Our Stikine Country Management Plan is, you
know, probably a 400-page document. Our Seven Sisters Management Plan is, you know, 200
pages. It’s a pretty thick document. Whereas now, they might be three to four pages.” Geoff
(Operations) stated that one of the reasons why park management plan documents have scaled
down in size over time is because the older plans were often too detailed to fulfill management
directives, or too restrictive to accommodate the activities emerging in parks.
All 11 BC Parks participants discussed Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs).
According to Darlene (Operations), LRMPs guide the current decisions in park management
plans, and they are important for understanding the historical context of park management
planning. The creation of LRMPs in BC, and their use as tools to help resolve land use conflicts,
accelerated in the early 1990s (Jackson & Curry, 2002). LRMPs are strategic, sub-regional land

105

use plans in BC that guide the management of Crown land resources. They are consensus-based
decision-making processes, which were designed to integrate First Nations and other interested
parties into the park planning and designation process, and they provide direction for managing
resources to sustain biodiversity, and to balance the needs and interests of different user groups
(British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural
Development, 2020). The purpose of a LRMP is to identify resource management zones and
protected areas, and to outline the objectives and strategies that govern how the land and
resources are managed within a sub-region (Peter, 2007). However, BC Parks is not involved in
developing LRMPs anymore. BC’s Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship is now
responsible for LRMPs and works in partnership with First Nations, local government, industry
and other interested parties. As Stanley (Planning) explained: “BC Parks is consulted with or
notified of potential candidate protected areas, but now other ministries negotiate with
stakeholder groups and First Nations for creating new designated land statuses.” Instead, BC
Parks created a new designation, Conservancies, in 2006, to explicitly recognize important areas
to First Nations for social, ceremonial, and cultural uses. Theresa (Planning) stated that the
Conservancy designation and Collaborative Management Agreements that BC Parks now has
with specific First Nations emerged from the Coastal LRMP processes.
BC Parks Policies
In my policy-related conversations with BC Parks participants, we discussed BC Parks
statutory decision-making, BC Parks programs, and consultation. None of the Gitxsan First
Nation participants had been involved in BC Parks management plans, programs, or projects, so
my conversations with them focussed instead on their experiences participating in consultation
for statutory decision-making and park operations. Consultation is very different from planning

106

processes, which, as discussed earlier in Chapter One, may be collaborative in nature (N. White,
personal communication, January 3, 2024). Consultation for the purposes of statutory decisionmaking must meet legal requirements and has prescribed timelines. This type of consultation is
done by the operations staff for the purposes of permitting. Consultation usually refers to the
Province’s legal duty to consult, which is often in a specific format within specific timeframes,
and it is usually for the purposes of statutory decisions. BC Parks consults First Nations on a
variety of issues, such as park management plans, park use permits, and proposed activities, and
the level of engagement and type of consultation required varies according to the specific
circumstances of the project and the protected area, as well as the engagement agreements that
are in place (BC Parks, 2023a). Engagement for planning processes is led by planning staff and
can include consultation with certain First Nations, but it is often an ongoing, collaborative
process (N. White, personal communication, January 3, 2025).
Collaboration in terms of policy refers to ongoing engagement and cooperation between
BC Parks and a First Nation. This type of engagement is typical for management planning
processes, particularly if there is a Collaborative Management Agreement in place. There are no
specified timeframes or format and the process is often co-designed with First Nations (N.
White, personal communication, February 5, 2025). BC Parks policies guide planning processes,
operations management, consultation, programming, hiring practices, and the roles and duties of
employees. BC Parks policies also structure how BC Parks engages with First Nations by
outlining who engages with First Nations, how they are engaged, the level of engagement, and
how much they can be integrated into planning and operations. Therefore, policy changes are a
principal mechanism for increasing the inclusion of TEK in park planning and operations
management.

107

Four of my interview questions for BC Parks’ employees were about how First Nations
may be involved in park planning and operations management. All 11 BC Parks participants
explained that despite the lack of staff in the North Coast Skeena Region, the regional team does
its best to incorporate First Nations in their work. Dennis (Operations) underlined this in his
interview: “We integrate with the Nations as tightly as we possibly can within the capacity that
we have. I think that every decision that we make…we are looking for consensus on it. Even on
the day-to-day.” In operational decisions, BC Parks employees begin the park season by
identifying where the priorities of the province and First Nations align and what opportunities
exist for collaboration on projects (Tammy, Operations). Casey (Operations) stressed that “staff
aim for consent-based decision-making with the Nations that they work with.” Employees are
continually trying to improve and have higher-level engagement with First Nations (Nelly,
Operations). Brianne (Planning) emphasized that “while the province is the decision-making
body, the final decision usually rests with the Nations” in park planning. Kenneth (Planning)
noted that: “…where we've got better relationships, we’re having shared governance in making
decisions.” This finding reinforces the importance of the earlier finding regarding building trust
and relationships with First Nations.
In my conversations regarding operations with BC Parks employees, six BC Parks
participants observed that much of the operational budget decision-making in BC Parks North
Coast Skeena Region is done by employees working at the BC Parks Headquarters office in
Victoria. As Nelly (Operations) stated: “You have all these folks making these decisions down
South. And I’ve always said, come up and give me at least two weeks, and let me introduce you
to these Nations and show you these places. This isn’t… Joffre Lakes [laughs].” In her interview,
Nelly highlighted that understanding the challenges of navigating unceded territories in

108

Northwestern BC is difficult for the people working down South: “[they] don’t understand the
challenges when, you know, these aren’t treaty folks… I think that there is kind of a disconnect
between who’s making those larger decisions and providing these budgets for these folks in the
North.” Kenneth (Planning) echoed this sentiment, “I feel like lower mainland people
[employees in the South] are quite divided, like they don’t really understand the North, it’s kind
of out of their realm or whatnot.” Five employees noted that it would be ideal for the regional
operations management teams to make their own budget decisions, as they are more familiar
with the areas being managed. These findings support my findings regarding unique
characteristics of working in the North Coast Skeena Region, and I will return to these in my
Discussion Chapter.
BC Parks is implementing several programs that include First Nations in operations
management and nine BC Parks participants made note of these in their interviews. Seven
employees cited the Indigenous Guardian Shared Compliance and Enforcement Program. This
program provides training and career opportunities for Indigenous Peoples to work as equal
partners with government in their role as Land Guardians for BC Parks. They are trained
alongside Park Rangers and the program designates selected Indigenous Guardians with the same
legal authorities as BC Parks Rangers (Government of British Columbia, 2022b). Dennis
(Operations) gave an overview of the program: “There’s a shared compliance and enforcement
pilot program role where we… appoint select Indigenous Guardians from each Nation with Park
Act authorities—similar to that of a Park Ranger—but they are employed by their Nation, not
BC Parks.” Kenneth (Planning) indicated that the province has provided approximately 8.9
million dollars in funding over the past three years to support the training in Guardian Programs.
Isabelle (Planning) explained that the programs support reconciliatory goals that First Nations

109

have for increasing their “…autonomy over the land-base and also around decision-making too.”
Guardian Programs have resulted from BC Parks’ working relationships over the years with
several First Nations (Dennis, Operations). Five BC Parks employees stated that First Nations
are developing the program to manage important components of their culture (e.g., culturally
significant areas, wildlife, marine habitat, etc.).
Two other programs discussed by BC Parks participants were the Licence Plate Program
and the Indigenous Funding Program. Theresa (Planning) stated: “We have an Indigenous
Funding Program that we draw from for participation from the First Nations... we also have the
Licence Plates Program—which is a lot of money.” Theresa (Planning) noted that “the Licence
Plate Program which brings in millions of dollars every year for park projects. In 2024, we
reached a milestone of 500,000 plates sold.” All of BC Parks funding programs have an
Indigenous component through which employees can apply for funding to support First Nations
collaboration or engagement. For example, an Area Supervisor can put an application in through
the Licence Plate Program to fund a cultural camp in a park. My conversations with BC Parks
employees indicated that this happens more often where there are stronger relationships with
First Nations and when employees have the time and workload capacity to apply for this funding.
As discussed above, budget timelines also constrain the ability of employees to help fund and
organize projects with First Nations.
All 11 BC Parks employees stressed that hiring regionally located Indigenous Relations
staff to support regional employees with their consultation, engagement and relationshipbuilding with First Nations in their areas would be beneficial. Darlene (Operations) discussed the
emergence of an Indigenous Relations Branch in BC Parks: “Just in the last 10 years maybe, we
saw BC Parks agency develop the Indigenous Relationship Branch, but it was one person. I think

110

they ballooned into three people now, but that’s down in headquarters! That’s not in our
regions.” The current Indigenous Relations Branch is housed in the Provincial Services Branch
in Victoria, BC, and these staff are focussed on policy, and not engagement or consultation with
First Nations (N. White, personal communication, January 3, 2025). The BC Parks participants
explained that having an Indigenous Relations specialist located within the region with the
purpose of assisting them with engagement and consultation with First Nations was important,
because having designated staff that hold localized knowledge of the landscape and
Northwestern First Nations would provide helpful information for employees to complete their
engagement and consultation work. Casey (Operations) stressed this in his interview: “…it’s
something that we all talk about in parks like kind of across the board, that each region really
needs its own Indigenous Relations folks so that they can understand the nuances of each
Nation.” This recommendation was made by all 11 BC Parks employees, and I discuss this
finding with more detail in the following chapter.
Seven BC Parks participants emphasized the lack of Indigenous representation within the
region and agency as an issue of concern. Isabelle (Planning) stated: “I feel there is a lack of
diversity among employees within BC Parks, it would be great to hire more Indigenous Peoples,
and other People of Colour, in our regions and across the agency.” Tammy (Operations) also
supported this point in her interview: “Most of BC Parks is White, which is a bit problematic…
as I feel we should have a more diverse workforce.” Six BC Parks participants recommended
hiring more local Indigenous Peoples within the region to support their work.
The Gitxsan First Nation participants discussed what works well and what does not work
well in terms of consultation for statutory decision-making, and they provided suggestions to
government agencies. All 17 Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders explained that being

111

respectful, kind, transparent, and dedicated to collaboration are what is needed in consultation
processes. As Jerry (Chief, Gitanyow) explained:
Consultation… What doesn’t work is walking in and assuming you’re in control. Or
assuming you’re the boss. Taking the attitude of hey, I’m here to tell you how this is
gonna’ work. You might as well not show up…I would say what does work is a genuine
and sincere interest in how to do it better.
Donald (Chief, Kispiox) stated: “A very common question that you’ll see when a group of Chiefs
are sitting with someone who is not from their band is: “Is this being check marked for
consultation?”” Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders explained that this is because when
organizations or agency representatives come to meet with their First Nation to discuss a project
or a decision, the meeting is often not clarified to be consultation, yet a short time later the
Nation becomes aware that a major decision was made or is being executed without their actual
consent or agreement. This finding relates to Nelly’s (Operations) earlier comment, in which she
explained that building relationships is necessary to avoid being perceived as “whitewashed”
together with other ministries and agencies. These findings demonstrate the need for BC Parks to
be transparent about consultation; otherwise, the agency risks facing resistance, due to having the
same poor consultative practices that First Nations have experienced with other ministries and
agencies.
BC Parks Training
Training procedures structure how BC Parks employees are trained to engage with First
Nations and determine their degree of preparedness for this engagement. To gain a better
understanding of the nature and extent of their training, I asked BC Parks participants about their
instruction in four pertinent areas: cultural awareness, TEK, First Nations collaboration, and

112

parks history. The findings in this section offer suggestions for improved training and enhancing
overall Indigenous engagement. BC Parks participants recommended that a mentorship program
be put in place to ensure that important background information about park history and First
Nations within the areas can be passed down to new employees. Both participant groups
expressed their desire for more Indigenous-led training opportunities in First Nations territories,
with Gitxsan First Nation members stressing the importance of learning their laws, culture and
history.
The BC Parks operation management participants suggested that training should be
revised to better prepare operations employees for consultation negotiations, including their
consultation for statutory decision-making. Five BC Parks participants expressed that they
received no training for consulting with First Nations, two employees stated that the training they
received was minimal and optional, and one employee noted that the agency provided “basic
consultation training” (Geoff, Operations). The BC Parks employees expressed that, due to the
paucity of formal training procedures, they learned how to consult from their own experiences
on-the-job and through requesting advice from senior employees. Isabelle (Planning) explained
that “there's lots of people that have to do consultation, because we don't have dedicated people
to do it. Which is fine, but it's a big learning curve for those of us that have to learn.” Consulting
with First Nations can be challenging. As Dennis (Operations) shared: “I didn’t do the wrongs of
the past, but I am still wearing the uniform and working for the ones that have, so, you have to be
able to understand that’s what your role is going in there.” Kenneth (Planning) reviewed the
traditional approach to consultation for statutory decision-making which was most often used by
BC Parks prior to DRIPA: “the historical process was…how does this impact Aboriginal rights
and title? That was kind of the post-1990s up until the Declaration Act process…it’s more the

113

fiduciary duty.” After DRIPA, there has been movement to “try and reconcile the Aboriginal
rights and title and Aboriginal laws and interests with the province so…it’s a big period of
change in trying to figure that out” (Kenneth, Planning). Since BC’s enactment of DRIPA in
2019, there has been a legislative shift in the government’s approach to Indigenous consultations
for statutory decision-making. As indicated in interviews with BC Parks employees and Gitxsan
First Nation Chiefs and Elders, training in such consultations has historically been scant and
remains so today. Furthermore, what training there is has not kept pace with modern legislation
and has not been given the heightened level of importance that it deserves in our contemporary
context. More and better consultative training for BC Parks operations employees is needed.
Kenneth (Planning) summarized some of the standard training procedures that all newly
hired employees receive: “We present a basic history of the Park Agency to new staff that talks
about our background from a Western perspective…first parks designated, the development of
the system, land use planning, and those sorts of things.” All BC Parks employees explained that
their knowledge of the history of parks they work in or manage has come from “lots of selfstudy” (Nelly, Operations) and on-the-ground experiences, such as meetings with First Nations.
Planning employees working on park management plans “try to gain awareness of the areas they
are planning through discussions with the Nations, mentorship from other employees, and
learning from previous plans for the area or surrounding area” (Isabelle, Planning). Through my
interviews with BC Parks participants, I found that in areas where formal training was lacking,
employees learned instead from their experiences on-the-job and from senior employees.
Six BC Parks employees recommended a mentorship program to support employees in
their training. Darlene (Operations) stated:

114

I do worry, for successors, like that’s a lot of paper to go through to maybe come across
some of this information, so how do we ensure the next line of park managers have that
information moving forward? Something the world is struggling with right now with the
baby boomers set to retire, how much mentorship do we really have?
To address what Isabelle (Planning) has articulated as “the loss of information from employees
retiring and newer employees moving into their positions,” Tammy (Operations), Darlene
(Operations), Casey (Operations), and Isabelle (Planning) suggested a job-shadowing program in
BC Parks, where new hires learn from senior employees. Because employees’ knowledge of how
to engage with First Nations is largely learned through working on-the-job, and a lot of
information can be lost when employees retire, the need for a mentorship program is an
important finding, and I discuss the implications of this in the next chapter.
BC Parks offers several formal and informal training sessions that are available to
employees. According to Tammy (Operations): “The province does a good job of having
informal and formal training opportunities. I've been on a ‘writing for Indigenous content’
training course before, and they're really leaning on Indigenous contractors these days for those
types of things.” Dennis (Operations), Stanley (Planning), Brianne (Planning), Theresa
(Planning), Nelly (Operations), and Kenneth (Planning) mentioned several other training
workshops on the topics of cultural sensitivity, cultural awareness, cultural heritage information,
colonialism, the residential school system, diversity and inclusion, partner engagement, and First
Nations’ perspectives. When asked about his formal and informal training experiences in BC
Parks, Dennis (Operations) articulated:
We talked about colonialism, TEK, and reconciliation in a workshop… It was voluntary,
so you could sign-up. In terms of mandatory training, there are cultural awareness

115

workshops and those are mandatory. Otherwise, it’s been the eye-opening components
for me…getting out on the land and seeing that there has been human presence here since
time immemorial…having Nations show you these sacred sites to say, “Here, this is why
this area is protected. This is why it’s really important to us.” Experiences led by First
Nations are the ones you learn the most from.
All 11 of the BC Parks participants expressed that working with Elders and Chiefs is beneficial
for their work. Nine employees stated that they learned the most in their jobs from working with
First Nations and from Indigenous-led training opportunities. Five employees noted that this was
their favourite part of their work. As Nelly (Operations) claimed: “it’s all learning and it’s the
best kind of learning. When you have somebody who is telling you those stories, you’re talking
to Elders, and you can get out on the land with them…that’s so special. It’s my favourite part.”
These findings stress the importance of being on the land with Indigenous Peoples and having
the time to build trust and relationships with First Nations members.
While getting out on the land with Elders in communities is a great way to learn and
build relationships with First Nations, due to funding and staffing constraints, this is not a regular
training activity. Stanley (Planning) outlined this well: “Getting out on the ground with some of
the representatives of the Nations and some of the respective House Chiefs and Wing Chiefs and
groups is an invaluable learning experience but limited by our regional capacity.” In a similar
way, all 17 of the Gitxsan First Nation participants recommended that BC Parks employees go
out on the land with Elders to learn the history of parklands and the areas important to their First
Nation. Sheila (Chief, Gitsegukla) indicated that the role of Indigenous Peoples in BC Parks
should be “educating the parks department on the history of the land. They should teach them in

116

training how to consult with Elders.” Wesley (Elder, Gitwangak) also emphasized the
importance of learning from Elders:
If you want to go onto the land and learn everything about that land, I know it’s best to
find an Elder and to go out with them for a walk or a tour of their territory. Ask them
about the history of that Nation, community, or area more generally. Because BC Parks
employees could never learn that in the same way or capacity without walking with an
Elder. The cuts in the trees, the burial boxes, food caches, pictographs… you must ask to
speak with the Elders to know about and protect these.
There are many important cultural resources within First Nations territories. Thirteen Gitxsan
First Nation participants explained that they would like to work with BC Parks to increase
protection of their Territorial resources and artifacts; however, they feel unable to do so, due to
poor relationships with government and a lack of strong legislation supportive of their Territorial
claims.
Fifteen Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders stated that understanding their laws,
culture and history is important for improving working relations with them. As Desiree (Elder,
Kispiox) claimed, BC Parks employees should be educated on “our laws, culture, and history, to
develop more understanding and respect for our protocols and improve their opportunities for
engagement and working with us on different projects in parks.” Eddie (Elder, Gitanmaax) noted
that “you need to understand [Gitxsan] laws, customs, traditions—our culture—to work together
and collaborate.” Five Gitxsan First Nation participants recommended that, prior to meeting with
Indigenous Peoples, BC Parks employees should “do their research online on the First Nations’
website, read information about the Nation, talk to community members, or people living nearby
the communities who are culturally aware and do their best to learn some basic cultural

117

protocols” (Annelise, Chief, Gitanyow) to get a sense of how to appropriately engage with them.
There was a broad consensus among all participants that it is crucial that employees be trained to
engage with First Nations in the best ways that they can to foster relationship-building and
meaningful engagement.
Unique Characteristics of Working in the North Coast Skeena Region
I asked each BC Parks participant to describe what made working in the North Coast
Skeena Region unique. All 11 BC Parks participants cited living and working in proximity to
First Nations, the emphasis on First Nations engagement in employees’ work, and the
remoteness of the region as the top three unique factors. Nelly (Operations) described the
integrated nature of communities in the region: “Terrace is about half White, half Indigenous. In
Dease Lake more than half is Indigenous. That’s life in the North…living and working closely
with First Nations is a unique aspect of this region.” Tammy (Operations) also spoke to this in
her interview: “living with First Nations is a part of our social fabric in the North. You’re
interacting with them every day—you’re a part of the community together and there’s not space
between your community and the First Nations communities.” For BC Parks participants,
working in the North Coast Skeena Region comes with a heavy emphasis on working with First
Nations. For example, Stanley (Planning) outlined his experience in the North: “I have been very
fortunate to have collaborated and worked with many of the First Nations, with a fair bit of
differences amongst the Nations, and then the capacity and levels of implementation and the
activities.” In the North Coast Skeena Region, employees are provided with a broad range of
experiences working with a variety of First Nations.
Another unique characteristic discussed by eight BC Parks participants was the region’s
remoteness and low population density. In the words of Dennis (Operations): “In the North,

118

you’re really working in these remote wilderness settings, versus the South Coast or lower
mainland where you’re working in densely populated areas… not having denser populations is
unique.” Because the landscape is large and quite remote, day-to-day activities are not focussed
on visitor-use or recreation management. As Brianne (Planning) stated: “We're not… my
counterparts down South. So, a lot of their work consists of trying to figure out how they can
account for and accommodate 6,000 people pooping or mountain biking a week, like our work is
quite different.” Instead, BC Parks North Coast Skeena Regional employees focus on managing
a large and “diverse landscape with diverse politics” (Theresa, Planning). Six BC Parks
participants indicated that there is a wide array of different governance structures on the land
base, with many First Nations governments, and various provincial and federal government
agencies managing different areas as well. There are also natural resource extraction activities
(forestry, oil, gas, and mining) taking place across the landscape, which have created political
tensions and conflict due to the different values and goals held by interested parties across the
region. The Coastal GasLink LNG pipeline is a good example of this; some First Nations support
the pipeline (e.g., Nisga’a First Nation) while others strongly oppose it (Tammy, Operations;
Stanley, Planning). BC Parks made two park boundary adjustments within Nisga’a Memorial
Lava Bed Provincial Park to allow for the development of the LNG pipeline through the park in
response to support from Nisga’a First Nation, who desired the economic benefits of the pipeline
for their communities (Stanley, Planning).
Seven BC Parks participants described operating across large geographic areas as a
unique characteristic of working in the Skeena Region. Kenneth’s (Planning) thoughts on this are
emblematic of this finding: “In the Northern positions, people operate in very large geographic
areas…it’s a gigantic land mass and we’ve got a lot less people than the lower mainland.” Six

119

BC Parks participants explained that working in a large region with a small number of staff
makes it difficult to become intricately connected to parks in the same ways that staff in other
regions can be. However, “the ecological and cultural diversity of the landscape offers special
opportunities for staff, such as exposure to a variety of cultures and developing an assortment of
skills” (Casey, Operations). For instance, Brianne proudly recalled: “I've worked with caribou
experts, I've sat down at park tables with Nations and talked about how one of them grew up
right inside the park that we are planning.” Positions in the North offer the ability to “hear all
these different voices from a really wide variety of backgrounds and incorporate them in your
work without the noise of an intense number of people or visitors” (Brianne, Planning). While
working in a large landscape has its own set of challenges, employees gain a strong background
in working with rich cultural diversity and mediating environmental issues or resolving conflicts
with a variety of different actors.
Five BC Parks employees highlighted The Nisga’a Treaty and Aboriginal case law as
unique aspects of working in Northwestern BC. As Nelly (Operations) explained, “the Nisga’a
was the perfect example of a modern-day treaty and something that the Nations around them can
see how successful that is.” The Nisga’a Final Agreement came into effect in 2000, and it was
the first modern-day treaty in BC. It set an example for other First Nations who may choose to
go through the BC Treaty Commission process to establish ownership over their lands (Nelly,
Operations; Stanley, Planning). As discussed in Chapter One, Aboriginal case law has largely
taken place in Northwestern BC. Theresa (Planning) described the North Coast Skeena Region as
being the “leading edge of change that happens in the province” because of “Aboriginal case law
that comes out of our region…Those cases happen here! It feels like things start here and then
they kind of roll out around the province. Often pilot projects…start in the Skeena and then they

120

roll out.” The North Coast Skeena Region’s vast area provides a variety of landscapes and
communities to trial programs and projects. This has been beneficial for employees to learn and
hone new strategies and techniques for planning and managing parks.
2. Values, Beliefs and Traditions
In the interviews, I asked BC Parks participants what values and beliefs they had
regarding WSK and TEK and how these values and beliefs might influence their park
management plan decisions. Through my interviews, I found that WSK is viewed by BC Parks
employees as being neutral and that TEK is viewed as having more utility when WSK confirms
it. Both participant groups expressed that much of the TEK within many Indigenous
communities has been lost because of settler colonialism and the residential school system. I also
found that BC Parks and Gitxsan First Nation participants shared similar values in terms of
environmental protection. Both groups place high value on conservation and protection of
natural systems. Understanding the beliefs and values BC Parks holds regarding WSK and TEK
provides important context when considering the applications of TEK in park planning and
management.
Eight BC Parks participants associated WSK with neutrality. In the words of Isabelle
(Planning), it provides a “neutral place to start” in management planning. Theresa (Planning)
captured this idea well: “I’m trying to keep it as neutral as possible… It’s like here, we have
these types of trees and these red and blue listed species, and everyone can agree on that and
there’s not a lot of debate about it.” Then, she went on to say, when a First Nation wants to add
TEK to a management plan, “…it’s not really something that needs to be debated.” (Theresa,
Planning). Similar statements about science being neutral were made by other employees.
Tammy (Operations) claimed: “I think Western science is more neutral…its objective knowledge

121

that everyone agrees with.” Casey (Operations) explained how he sees and uses WSK and TEK
in his work in operations management:
Western science tends to be our main tool for informed decision-making and TEK is
good to include when it isn't contentious, sensitive, or too subjective. If a group of Chiefs
or Elders agree on that TEK of the community, it is more likely to be taken seriously and
utilized. A family's TEK might be considered, but TEK is stronger at the community
level. Science isn't up for debate and that's just how I've seen them both in my work.
Eight BC Parks participants described TEK as valuable, but more valid and reliable when
it is supported with findings from Western science. Nelly (Operations) maintained that “if you
can prove it [TEK] on a scientifical level, there is going to be more leverage across the board to
use it.” Isabelle (Planning) explained that park management plans are based on “Western science
with the ecological assessment first, and then the First Nations, TEK piece comes in based on
interest.” Thus, in terms of utility, TEK is an additional piece in park management planning that
is integrated based on interest and after scientific data is collected.
Six BC Parks participants indicated that “a lot of TEK has been lost within communities”
(Casey, Operations). Dennis (Operations) described how settler colonialism, the residential
school system, and other strategies of cultural genocide used by the Canadian government have
removed TEK from communities: “This TEK is so broken in so many Nations with all the
colonization, the smallpox epidemic, residential schools… the oppression that’s been placed on
these Nations. So, when I think TEK, I just think of what’s lost… it’s so hard.” Dennis’ thoughts
coincided with the statements made by Gitxsan First Nation participants. Eleven Chiefs and
Elders expressed a loss of culture, language, and TEK in their communities as the result of settler

122

colonialism, which has severely damaged their traditional ways of life. For example, Danni
(Chief, Gitwangak) observed:
We have lost so much of our TEK over the years...along with our language and the
Gitxsan laws... a lot of that is lost now within my family and community. It makes me
pretty sad that so much has been lost because of the colonization, the oppression,
assimilation... but it makes me happy I do know what I know still...what was passed
down to me I will pass on to my kids.
Incorporating and implementing TEK in BC Parks is difficult when there are few First Nation
members who have this Knowledge; however, as Danni points to, there is also resilience within
her community and TEK continues to be passed down to younger generations.
Seven BC Parks participants and 13 Gitxsan First Nation members stated that BC Parks
and First Nations have similar goals and values in terms of conservation, protection, and
enjoyment of land. As Wesley (Chief, Gitwangak) stated: “We have a lot on our plate and at
least align more with what parks’ reasoning is… Our conservation interests and goals overlap.”
Stanley (Planning) summarized BC Parks overlapping values with First Nations: “We have so
many common values and that’s always a great way to start and how to resolve any conflict is
pointing out common ground or values and working towards those.” Both BC Parks and Gitxsan
First Nation participants expressed the importance of ecosystem health and environmental
protection and said that these values provide a “common ground” when working together.
Gitxsan First Nation Laws, Culture, and Traditions
The laws, culture and traditions of Gitxsan First Nation inform park management
practices by providing direction on how best to engage and collaborate with them in park
management. While each First Nation has its own distinct cultural protocols, laws and traditions

123

that guide negotiations, the Gitxsan First Nation participants iterate that reciprocity, kindness,
and respect are common among them. By taking time to understand the cultural protocols of First
Nations, BC Parks can work with them in more culturally appropriate and respectful ways. From
the transcripts I analyzed, becoming culturally informed about each First Nation’s specific
practices, and implementing these in meetings as a sign of respect would help build relationships
and trust with First Nations.
Gitxsan First Nation is made up of four clans and House Groups called Huwilp led by
Simgiigyet (Chiefs) who hold the Daxgyet (governance authority). The traditional, matrilineal
society is governed by a system of laws (Ayook) and oral histories (Adaakw), which are all
carried out in a feast hall (Lilliget). As Jerry (Chief, Gitanyow) explained: “Feasts have protocols
and work within the clan system. Feasts take place for a death in the community, for poleraising, marriage…Ceremonies take place for the first born, first kill, to celebrate manhood,
womanhood and the first salmon.”
All 17 Gitxsan First Nation participants emphasized the importance of the land to their
identity. In Mia’s (Elder, Glen Vowell) words:
Everything growing from the land is a part of the Gitxsan. The plants and animals are our
relatives, they are our family. That is why Gitxsan respect this land and it is sacred…All
the teachings, protocols, and ceremonies we have…they all teach our People
responsibility, reciprocity, humility, respect, connection, and balance in caring for our
family members, and that contributes to good stewardship of the Territories.
Wesley (Elder, Gitwangak) similarly said “the land is who we are. We are intricately connected
to all living things—animals, plants, the fish, the rivers, the mountains, the sky, the changes in

124

weather—our culture is based in and on this land.” Gitxsan Peoples are intimately linked to their
environment and ensuring protection of their land is necessary for preserving their culture.
The Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders that participated in my study discussed key
aspects of their laws, culture and traditions that affect their relationship with BC Parks and other
government agencies. Fourteen Gitxsan First Nation participants referenced the trespassing law
and the law against recreational fishing on the Anaat (traditional fishing holes owned by the
Gitxsan) as the two most important laws affecting their relationship with government. As Wesley
(Elder, Gitwangak) summarized nicely: “Within our culture, it is taught that you do not play with
your food. We are against recreational fishing, and this is tied to our Ayook." Gitxsan First
Nation has had no-trespass or sport fishing laws on their Anaat enforced by Hereditary Chiefs
since 2019, when salmon populations began declining rapidly. Their reasoning for this is that
“When you catch and release you are playing with fish. This breaks centuries-old traditional
Gitxsan law. We understand that catch and release will cause higher fatality” (Herb, Chief,
Gitanyow). Nevertheless, BC government continues to issue sport fishing licenses to anglers who
are unaware of Gitxsan First Nation’s laws, and campers continue to camp at BC Parks in
Gitxsan Territory to sport fish. As Mary (Chief, Glen Vowell) explained, “Sport fishermen are
banned from the Gitxsan Territory, and the Fishing and Angling Permits issued by the BC
government do not authorize trespass. Under Gitxsan law, fishing is not a sport.” This issue was
further stressed by Desiree (Elder, Kispiox), who stated: “Campers, archaeologists, parks
employees, and sport fishermen are daily trespassers that have little or no respect for Gitxsan
People or our Laxyip.” This finding illustrates tensions between Gitxsan First Nation and the BC
government, resulting from the province lacking awareness and knowledge of Gitxsan First
Nation laws regarding sport fishing, or knowing but neglecting to uphold these traditional laws.

125

Fifteen Gitxsan First Nation participants discussed the importance of bringing food to
meetings as a cultural tradition that influences relationship building with government. As
Annelise (Chief, Gitanyow) explained: “You should always just bring food to any meeting…
Because if you come out here, there's salmon for you.” Desiree (Elder, Kispiox) also reinforced
this point: “Always bring food when you meet us…we will always have a meal for you if we
invite you to a meeting. Reciprocity is so important. And just showing that you genuinely care
and appreciate meeting with us!” In many Northwestern First Nations, bringing food symbolizes
reciprocity and thoughtfulness. If you are a guest on their territory, you will receive traditional
food for your time and attendance and the same is expected in return.
3. Applications of TEK in BC Parks Planning and Operations Management and
Associated Challenges
In my interviews, I asked BC Parks planning and operations staff how they involved TEK
in their work and what challenges they faced incorporating it. In BC Parks, WSK has been the
norm for collecting baseline data and other information on ecosystems in parks. In recent years,
TEK has gained more interest within the agency; however, there is not yet any specific approach
for weaving it into their work. By reviewing how TEK and First Nations are currently being
included in park planning and operations management, and identifying the challenges to
integrating their TEK, a greater appreciation is gained for the intricacies involved in applying
TEK in park planning and management. Questions of territorial overlap and sensitive treaty
negotiations present many challenges to incorporating TEK in signage projects, renaming of
parks, and in park management plans generally. However, employees are coping with these
challenges as they arise and continue to do their best to integrate TEK and build relationships.

126

Eight BC Parks employees maintained that they are still learning how to use TEK in their
work. It is an important aspect of park planning and operations management, but, according to
Kenneth (Planning), BC Parks hasn’t “invested the time or the resources to really find a way to
bring that TEK into the system in a way that’s on par with WSK.” BC Parks has commitments to
engage with First Nations, but “it’s very ad hoc and there’s not the strong tools to do that yet”
(Kenneth, Planning). There are very different ways that TEK can be incorporated in both park
planning and operations management, and in what follows, I present the participants’
perspectives on this.
Applications of TEK in Park Planning
BC Parks employees apply TEK in park planning in a variety of ways. This can be
through fully involving First Nations in co-writing park management plans, integrating their
TEK into park management plans where First Nations deem it is appropriate to do so, codesigning the park planning process with First Nations, integrating TEK into background studies
(e.g., cultural heritage studies), jointly-led background studies, or documents that inform the
management direction and management objectives of a park, and through First Nations leading
or jointly-leading community meetings and public meetings (N. White, personal communication,
February 5, 2025). The BC Parks participants discussed several collaborative planning processes
where TEK is being integrated in the North Coast Skeena Region. Five BC Parks employees
discussed the application of TEK in Bishop Bay – Monkey Beach Conservancy management
plan, which is the most recent collaboratively developed management plan for the region. Bishop
Bay – Monkey Beach Conservancy management plan was co-written with Haisla First Nation,
Gitga’at First Nation, and Gitxaala First Nation. Collaborative First Nation partners, who have
Collaborative Management Agreements with BC Parks, are given the opportunity to provide

127

input for all of the content in park management plans. Most often, First Nations provide their
input on cultural value objectives, identification of areas for cultural zoning, and allowable use
tables in park management plan development (N. White, personal communication, January 29,
2025). However, every planning process is different, and it depends on the level of involvement
a First Nation desires. The development of park management plans is an iterative process and
there is ongoing engagement with First Nations as they work through the content of park
management plans together with BC Parks. Additionally, cultural information is often shared
informally with BC Parks planners on the ground during joint field visits (N. White, personal
communication, January 29, 2025).
Brianne (Planning), Stanley (Planning) and Kenneth (Planning) all explained that BC
Parks has a collaborative management board and a joint decision-making process with
Champagne and Aishihik First Nations for Tatshenshini-Alsek Park and for the Conservancies
located within their Territories. As Brianne (Planning) stated, “Champagne and Aishihik First
Nations, who have the majority of their Territories in Tatshenshini-Alsek Park, have a
Tatshenhini-Alsek Park Board where TEK is discussed and can be utilized in planning
processes.” Kenneth (Planning) noted that “In terms of applying TEK within a cultural heritage
study, we’ve done that in a management planning process with the Champagne and Aishihik
First Nations in Tatshenshini-Alsek Park, so that’s a component where a study has been
developed as part of an input into a planning process.” Planning processes involving TEK vary
greatly, as there is a high level of variability in BC Parks’ working relationships with First
Nations (Stanley, Planning).
Stanley (Planning) highlighted that BC Parks has a strong working relationship with
Nisga’a Lisims Government, where TEK is integrated into planning: “We have a very strong

128

working relationship with Nisga’a Lisims Government and joint decision-making processes that
involve TEK in Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park and other Conservancies and areas around it.
We have collaborative management frameworks for planning and operations.” Kenneth added
that “In Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park we have a pretty reasonably functioning board with
Nisga’a First Nation where they will share their stories and histories. This TEK is often applied
in documents, studies, or signage.” Additionally, relationships with Cheslatta First Nation, some
of the Carrier Nations, Tahltan First Nation, and Taku River Tlingit First Nation are also fairly
strong, due to “a stronger connection with these First Nations based upon some of our history
and historical connections from the older, longer-standing parks in their territories—one example
being Spatsizi Plateau Wilderness Park in Tahltan First Nation Territory, established in 1975”
(Stanley, Planning). Brianne (Planning) also discussed collaborative work involving TEK in
planning with Taku River Tlingit: “They have a Government-to-Government table I sit on that
was established under the Land Use Planning tables—the Wόoshtin Wudidaa —in 2011.” The
Taku River Tlingit’s work with BC Parks on Wόoshtin wudidaa Atlin Taku Land Use Plan in
2011 formulated “a collaborative management framework, as it was negotiated under a shared
decision-making framework for land use and wildlife management between the Taku River
Tlingit First Nation and the Province” (Stanley, Planning).
Stanley (Planning) and Isabelle (Planning) also noted that BC Parks has good
relationships with several First Nations on the coast, where strategic engagement agreements or
collaborative management agreements are in place and TEK is sometimes applied there in
planning. Where there are stronger relationships with First Nations, First Nations are coauthoring management plans and providing substantial background information and TEK to BC

129

Parks for consideration during the development of management plan objectives (N. White,
personal communication, January 3, 2025).
Theresa (Planning) shed light on some of her own experiences working with First
Nations and trying to incorporate TEK in park planning:
We all agreed that the first thing that would be done was…collecting the background
Western science… an ecosystem overview assessment would be collected by a
contractor, and it will be shared out to the Nations. Then they can weave in their TEK.
It’s just when we start treading into how many archaeological sites are there and the
history of that—that becomes extremely sensitive. Especially in a treaty negotiation
environment, where everyone is trying to assert that they have been somewhere the
longest, or it’s their cultural features.
Seven BC Parks participants expressed that the sensitive cultural information and TEK that First
Nations want to include in a park management plan are often not public facing; rather, this
information is usually contained within a background document (Isabelle, Planning). This means
that some of the information guiding management directives may not be available to the public
to ensure the privacy and interests of a First Nation. When I asked Stanley (Planning) about TEK
inclusion in background documents, he explained that:
…cultural zones are usually set aside and it’s up to the Nation if they want to disclose
that or why that area is culturally significant, and I know a lot of background documents
have information like TEK or cultural heritage and history that will or can be in
management plans. But [First Nations] don't want it open to the public because it's
sensitive information.

130

Four BC Parks participants told me that background documents ensure the protection of
culturally sensitive information and are often used in park management plans with First Nations
who are in treaty negotiations. While TEK is often incorporated into background documents to
avoid sharing this information publicly, the management direction and objectives for a park are
built on that information. A background document can be separate from a scientific study,
although the background document may incorporate that scientific information as needed.
Background studies can also include cultural heritage assessments—although this is difficult in
areas of territory overlap (N. White, personal communication, January 3, 2025). There are
multiple ongoing collaborative planning projects taking place at this time in the North Coast
Skeena Region, however, these cannot be mentioned with specificity due to territorial overlap
issues.
Applications of TEK in Park Operations Management
The BC Parks participants highlighted three primary ways through which they are
incorporating TEK into operations management: scientific studies; renaming parks; and creating
park signage. Six BC Parks employees discussed the application of TEK in scientific studies. For
example, Dennis (Operations) discussed BC Parks’ ongoing collaboration with Nuxalk First
Nation and the University of Victoria on grizzly bear research:
We collaborate with the Nations in programs and research such as for bear-viewing.
Bear-viewing is a great one that we are working on right now with the Nuxalk. We have
sort of this tri-party working group between the Nuxalk First Nation, BC Parks and the
University of Victoria around the grizzly bear study on the Atnarko River. Kate Field has
been working closely with us and the Chris Darimont lab for the past four years on
grizzly bear research, essentially looking at behavioural effects on grizzly bears from

131

recreational activities along the Atnarko River. So…that’s for the Nuxalk Nation and BC
Parks. And the research crew are working together with WSK and also trying to bring in
TEK into there to ensure everything being reviewed is reviewed in the TEK lens as well
to ensure that the knowledge is brought in.
Brianne (Planning) discussed how operations staff have integrated TEK into renaming parks and
park signage:
Boya Lake Park, which was renamed Tā Ch'ilā Park, it's on Highway 37 North, just
South of the Yukon border, and it's one of the major stops for camping along that area.
That site has been really cool to implement some TEK. We sat with an Elder who…
talked us through all the traditional names of the plants. He grew up in the park, so, we
were able to capture a lot of his stories about the history of the area, both like
ecologically and socially…and we were able to capture that with his permission, and it's
on signage up there with an audio component.
Six BC Parks participants discussed the signage implemented at Driftwood Canyon Provincial
Park as another example of integrating TEK in signage, where there is audio attached to a sign
that tells a Wet’suwet’en Elder’s story of the canyon in the Wet’suwet’en language.
Five BC Parks participants expressed that BC Parks also engages First Nations in
archaeological assessments. As Tammy (Operations) explained: “When we do cultural heritage
assessments, they are contracted in where it’s utilized. Sometimes requested by the First Nations.
Even on the contracting in, you have very technical expertise on your archaeological sites.”
Certain areas in the North Coast Skeena Region have known burial grounds where “there’s a
very high chance that you’re ‘gonna come across an artifact or evidence of previous use”
(Darlene, Operations). When there is risk of disturbing any artifacts or graves in culturally

132

significant areas, it is common for trained First Nations members to attend the archaeological
assessments and be present to ensure that there are no finds (Dennis, Operations). Additionally,
other ways TEK is applied in park operations management are through working with First Nation
Guardian Programs in place with First Nations to coordinate patrols and site visits, coordinating
site visits with other First Nation members, joint cultural projects funded through BC Parks
Licence Plate Program or the Indigenous Funding Envelope, and First Nations cultural camps
held in parks (N. White, personal communication, February 5, 2025).
Challenges to Applying TEK in Planning and Operations Management
Eight Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders stated that they would not want to share
information on cultural resources in their Territory with government or tourists. Spring (Elder,
Kispiox) noted that due her lack of trust in government agencies and the impacts of settler
colonialism on her community,
I would not feel safe sharing any information about our culturally important areas with
government employees… for fear they would use that information against us and take
advantage of the resources we rely on.
Four Chiefs and Elders explained that they would like to disclose some information on culturally
important sites to BC Parks to be able to increase the protection of certain areas for future
generations. Jerry (Chief, Gitanyow) explained that there are some fishing and harvesting sites in
the Territory that could benefit from BC Parks’ cultural zoning, “But we would not want to
attract tourists or visitors there…so this information would need to be kept private and away
from the public eye.” Hence, my discussions with Gitxsan First Nation participants further
stressed the importance of BC Parks background documents in park management planning.

133

Ten BC Parks participants noted that signage projects are not simple and there are many
intricacies involved with them. They involve having knowledge of territory overlaps, boundaries,
and being certain that the territory that they are going to be located acknowledges the correct
First Nation (Theresa, Planning). With much territorial overlap throughout the Northwest region,
it can be difficult to ascertain where exactly the lines are on maps delineating First Nations
territories. For example, Darlene (Operations) spoke of a time when BC Parks accidentally
placed a sign in the wrong location:
We had this sign out there and I remember one of the other House Chiefs, they got mad at
one of the Parks staff…I think they actually physically removed it like, ‘this doesn’t
belong here!’ And Parks was really clueless because we weren’t educated, and we
certainly didn’t know that it was on the wrong territory.
Once BC Parks became aware of the misplacement of the sign, they promptly relocated it to the
appropriate location (Darlene, Operations). This example demonstrates how a sign can be
perceived by First Nations as laying claim to a territory and how placing it in the incorrect
territory can cause unintended conflict between First Nations. Therefore, while it’s extremely
important to implement signage and showcase the stories and histories of First Nations, it is a
delicate issue as to where signs are located (or not). Kenneth (Planning) specified some other
issues with signage projects: “You find out that the artwork that they’ve selected is not from that
Nation, or it’s not the right symbol, or the right money wasn’t paid to have access to it.” With all
this in mind, it can be difficult to “do things right” (Brianne, Planning) in signage projects and
avoid issues with implementing TEK.
Six BC Parks participants discussed the importance of trust and transparency in gathering
TEK from communities. For example, Kenneth (Planning) said that: “a lot of it is knowing how

134

the data or information is going to be used. The trust that comes…there’s some reason of why
it’s being shared, and that it will be used appropriately.” Casey (Operations) also observed that:
“TEK and stories are really important and valuable to First Nations. So, there is a challenge of
using that information inappropriately by sharing it with other First Nations who might adopt the
story as their own.” Eleven Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders also spoke to the role of trust
in sharing information. In their interviews, Krystal (Chief, Gitwangak), Fred (Elder, Glen
Vowell), Sheila (Chief, Gitsegukla), and Herb (Chief, Gitanyow) all noted that trust is integral to
sharing TEK and cultural information. Sheila (Chief, Gitsegukla) explained that due to the lack
of trust that exists from historical mistreatment and cultural oppression by the province, sharing
of TEK only happens if there has been work done by government officials and agencies to
establish better relationships.
All 11 BC Parks participants noted that integrating TEK can become highly politicized
when First Nations are in the process of treaty negotiations. Many of the Northwestern First
Nations are now in the final stages of the BC Treaty Commission process. Having most First
Nations in the North working to finalize their treaties with the government presents difficulties
when trying to involve them and integrate their TEK in park management plans. According to
Geoff (Operations), some of the greatest barriers are territory-overlap issues: “Some Nations are
okay with the different overlaps and some Nations won’t even talk to each other and have
longstanding rivalry, and that makes it almost impossible to move forward working with them in
a management plan.” Theresa (Planning) iterated: “I can barely do any management planning
right now and that’s because there is a lot of treaty negotiations going on.” The tensions between
First Nations that result from overlapping territories and treaty negotiations pose serious
challenges for developing park management plans collaboratively.

135

Another finding that emerged from seven of the BC Parks transcripts was the problem of
multiple, disparate, engagement protocols and agreements for First Nations. Casey (Operations)
elaborated on this topic: “All of our engagement agreements with First Nations are different, and
we have many. That also makes it challenging to learn the proper protocols for engaging with
First Nations, when there is no one-size-fits-all approach.” As I discussed in Chapter One,
engagement agreements can come in many different forms. Some of the agreements that are
most commonly utilized by BC Parks employees are Collaborative Management Agreements,
Strategic Engagement Agreements, Reconciliation Agreements and Consultation Agreements.
Theresa (Planning) described the different engagement protocols and agreements she uses in
park planning when First Nation territories overlap: “If I have five different First Nations
overlapping in a protected area, I have to work out who my collaborative Nations are, who my
consultative Nations are, and then what level I’m engaging with for each one, then funding for
each one.” This finding demonstrates that the lack of a uniform approach for engaging First
Nations can present difficulty for employees tasked with identifying how to properly involve
them in park planning processes. While BC Parks’ various engagement agreements with
different First Nations can be challenging for employees to learn, follow, and deliver, I recognize
that a one-dimensional approach to working with Indigenous Peoples is not appropriate. This is
because each Indigenous community has its own values, priorities and interests in park
management plans. A uniform approach to engaging with Indigenous Peoples is unable to
appreciate or address the complexities of each Indigenous community. This is an important
finding that I return to in the following chapter.
Despite the complexities involved with integrating TEK, nine BC Parks participants
expressed excitement and optimism about the future possibilities for greater inclusion of

136

Indigenous Peoples and their TEK in their work. Nelly (Operations) stated: “Now it’s becoming
a little bit more of an open floor and a stage, there’s lots more ways for the communities and
Indigenous Governments to tap-in and be heard and see the outcomes that they are looking for.”
Brianne (Planning) explained: “[The future is] really exciting to think about…since working here
I've gone through two Park name changes and a number of the Parks that have been recently
developed are being developed with Conservancies and with the Indigenous name.” Dennis
(Operations) noted that “The Nations on the coast, they’re looking at the Park Act and joint
decision-making around the park legislation, and we’ve had conversations that go there too,
which is exciting!” All 11 BC Parks participants observed that the contemporary emphasis on
reconciliation and working with First Nations within the agency has increased pressure to
include them in park management in a variety of new ways. The political support for
reconciliation and involving Indigenous Peoples within government presents both a new chapter
and a learning curve for BC Parks.
4. Reconciliation and Self-determination in Park Planning and Operations
Management
In my interviews, I asked each BC Parks and Gitxsan First Nation participant how they
define reconciliation and what roles reconciliation and self-determination can play in park
management planning. Their responses tell me that reconciliation is difficult to clearly define,
measure and achieve. It is also defined in different ways by First Nations. Both participant
groups underlined the importance of meaningful engagement and territorial acknowledgements
for reconciliation. BC Parks participants recommended creating a checklist or directive summary
for reconciliation. They also suggested documenting the goals and priorities of specific First
Nations for other employees to access. Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders recommended co-

137

management approaches, and noted the importance of being kind, sincere, and respectful in
meetings. Gitxsan First Nation participants emphasized that maintaining communication and
relationships with First Nations communities is important for reconciliation. These findings help
to clarify the meaning of reconciliation for these participants and can inform how BC Parks
should engage in reconciliation with First Nations.
Gitxsan First Nation participants discussed self-determination as relating to more control
and governance over their Territory and having more power in park planning and operations
matters that concern them. Both participant groups referenced IPCAs as an important strategy for
asserting self-determination in parks. BC Parks employees indicated that they anticipate new
legislation and major policy changes in the coming years. These findings inform how selfdetermination is viewed by both Gitxsan First Nation members and BC Parks employees, and
how strategies to increase First Nations governance of their lands are being considered and
incorporated by BC Parks.
All 11 BC Parks and all 17 Gitxsan First Nation participants discussed territorial
acknowledgements as a strategy for working towards reconciliation. BC Parks participants
mostly discussed territory acknowledgements in terms of signage projects. Kenneth (Planning)
explained the process for implementing signage: “You get the House group, where it’s located,
then you get the language title holders, and it can be quite a process to do it right?! But it’s one
thing that we’re building a little bit of skill.” As discussed earlier, signage projects can be
complicated, but they are important as “it’s a way of representing some of their oral history and
their connection to the land base” (Darlene, Operations). Gitxsan First Nation Elders and Chiefs
expressed that territorial acknowledgements are one of the most important components of
reconciliatory work. As Roy (Chief, Gitanmaax) said:

138

All we want is acknowledgement, that's all. We just want a piece of metal out there on
the front of a trail or park, saying, look, tell the truth of this land. This land is Gitxsan
land. If it's something which came down to a specific claim, this was stolen by the federal
and provincial government, this was then settled, it is now open for everybody to enjoy.
Please respect our land, and that's it!
For Eddie (Elder, Gitanmaax), “Reconciliation is simply a matter of admitting where the
mistakes were made and owning up to it. Acknowledge our Territory, let us tell our story. And
that’s it.” Additionally, 14 Gitxsan First Nation members indicated that signage should be
written in their language. Gladys (Elder, Kispiox) claimed: “all signs in parks should incorporate
the Indigenous language. That is part of reconciliation. Here at Kispiox River, Swan Lake or
even over in Seven Sisters…those signs in those parks should all have both English for visitors
and Gitksenimx for us.” Sheila (Chief, Gitsegukla) offered an example that could be applied for
signage describing cultural artifacts: “Instead of ancient fridge, or cache…have it written in Sim
Algyax, or, more specifically, in Gitksenimx. Language is such a huge thing.” Wesley
(Gitwangak, Elder) stated that the best way to reach out to First Nations to incorporate TEK into
signage is to ask them:
If you were to put a sign up, what would you put up? And then leave it to the Nation. If
they don't get back to you, it's on them. But if somebody gets back and says, ‘Hey, here's
a 20-second history of it.’ Great!
Nine Gitxsan First Nation participants stated that BC Parks should ask First Nations’ land
departments and Chiefs what they would like in a territorial acknowledgement. There is always a
person that knows the history of the land and that is the best person to talk to in signage projects
(Danni, Chief, Gitwangak). The Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders expressed that all First

139

Nations have land departments and their “job is to study and know the history of the lands”
(Fred, Glen Vowell, Elder). Seven Gitxsan First Nation participants even suggested setting up
contracts with Elders for signage programs, where they could have employees go out with Elders
on a regular basis to identify culturally important areas for signage and discuss them.
All 11 BC Parks participants and 14 Gitxsan First Nation participants noted meaningful
engagement as being integral to meeting reconciliatory goals. Reconciliation was defined by 10
BC Parks participants as being reliant on collaboration, consistent communication, relationship
building, and partnerships. For example, Tammy (Operations) explained that “I would define
reconciliation as dependent on collaboration, ongoing engagement…making those relationships
and building partnerships in working together.” Dennis (Operations) claimed:
Reconciliation to me, is what I can do within the protected areas system and within the
framework that I operate in? How can I best support what the Nation is advocating for?
It’s working with the Nations, trying to figure out how to best work with the Nation on
their reconciliation goals. Whether that is supporting them through youth programs and
engagement or in management planning, joint decision-making, or, whatever that looks
like for the Nation.
Eight BC Parks participants also discussed reconciliation in terms of education, awareness of the
past, responsibility, and having respect for First Nations. As Casey (Operations) stated:
“Reconciliation is done by collaboratively through developing those [management] plans with
the Nations to bring forward TEK into the management and protection of that land-base through
a traditional lens. So, to me, that is honouring how it’s been managed in the past, educating
ourselves on that, and acknowledging our history too.” This finding illustrates the importance of

140

understanding and acknowledging the history of BC government with First Nations to move
forward in creating better relationships today.
Seven BC Parks employees stated that BC Parks’ collaborative arrangements with First
Nations are a good start in working towards reconciliation. Theresa (Planning) stated that in
collaborative arrangements, “BC Parks is sitting down at the table talking about special places
with the Nations. And we’re not just writing plans together, we’re going out on the land with
them, and they are telling us stories and sharing information.” The province has committed to
reconciliation in its policies; however, “the government is still trying to figure out…how we are
actually going to implement it” (Theresa, Planning). BC Parks is trying to “bring First Nations
into management plans and be partners with them, which has led to a better relationship with
many First Nations” (Casey, Operations). Six BC Parks participants discussed renaming place
names with Indigenous names and telling stories from two sides as a part of reconciliation. For
example, Stanley (Planning) observed that “Renaming parks with Indigenous names and telling
both stories is a way I’ve seen BC Parks do reconciliation…so, instead of telling only the
colonial story, they’re telling the story that First Nations want to be on the park signage.”
Kenneth (Planning) described the importance of reconciliation within the North Coast Skeena
Region:
It’s huge! It’s one of the key pieces to be a viable and relevant park agency, is to be fully
engaged in reconciliation and to have all levels…engaged in making that a key work
goal. I really like to think that that is a focus within our region. Have we clearly defined
the focus and all the goals that go along with that? I don’t think so, but the commitment
to having that is there.

141

From my interviews with BC Parks employees, it is evident that reconciliation is at the forefront
of BC Parks’ work. While no formal approach to reconciliation has been created by the agency,
the primary strategies for building relationships and partnerships with First Nations are
collaborative management agreements, renaming parks, and signage projects.
In my interviews with Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders, kindness, respect,
consideration, and sincerity were the most common terms used to describe reconciliation. Roy
(Chief, Gitanmaax) asserted that “Kindness and respect go a long way with Chiefs and Elders—
if you don’t show respect, you don’t get it in return.” Abigail (Chief, Gitsegukla) similarly
declared, “That’s what it comes down to…working with Indigenous Peoples and working on
reconciliation, it’s the humanity of the person rather than the political agenda. Show us your
humanity. Don’t tell us what to do, or what should be done. Show that you care about our
relationship.” The Gitxsan First Nation participants encouraged BC Parks employees to “go do
those small things. When you’re invited, attend the ceremonies, sit at the feasts, go to the fish
camps, experience and learn the culture…and respect it. That is all part of reconciliation.”
(Donald, Chief, Kispiox). Sixteen Gitxsan First Nation participants expressed the importance of
having ongoing communication with First Nations communities for reconciliation. Spring (Chief,
Kispiox) urged BC Parks employees to “If you want to do the work reconciliation requires, you
need to reach out to the communities, the Chiefs, the Wilps. Communication is so important!
Reach out, be curious, be sincere, be respectful and polite. Then, stay in contact with those
communities.” In Gitxsan First Nation culture, it is important to “walk slowly” (Abigail, Chief,
Gitsegukla) and be considerate of the time it takes to build relationships. It is also important to
respect one another in “all that you do and wherever you go, so you do not dirty your blanket”

142

(Herb, Gitanyow, Chief). Dirtying a blanket is a metaphor in Gitxsan First Nation teachings for
disrespecting someone.
Thirteen Gitxsan First Nation participants commented that reconciliation requires
increased engagement, meaningful discussions about the past, and co-management approaches
and opportunities. Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders had opinions similar to the BC Parks
participants in terms of collaboration, meaningful engagement, and telling both sides of the story
in signage projects; however, Gitxsan First Nation participants more frequently noted comanagement approaches as a key component of reconciliation. Fred (Elder, Glen Vowell) stated:
“It’s important they acknowledge our stories in reconciliation projects they do like signage…but
unless we have co-management of the parks, how we wish to manage our land is not being
incorporated. To me, that’s what’s necessary in reconciliation for parks.” Roy (Chief,
Gitanmaax) also spoke to this point: “Land back. Land back. Land back! They need to learn
more than collaboration, they need policy or legislation changed to allow for co-managed park
frameworks, beyond just seeking our knowledge and input.” These findings demonstrate that comanagement approaches are important to First Nations for increasing their control over
management of their Territories.
Eddie (Elder, Gitanmaax) explained that: “Collaboration, meaningful conversations,
building partnerships, coming out with our Elders, learning our culture and our stories—finding
common ground with our own day-to-day tasks on the Territory, that’s reconciliation, but it must
be defined by each Nation.” Just as each First Nation has its own cultural protocols, it also has its
own priorities and idea of what constitutes reconciliation. All 17 Gitxsan First Nation
participants and six BC Parks participants stressed the importance of discussing what
reconciliation means to each specific First Nation, by asking them “what kind of relationship

143

they would like to have [with the agency]” (Jerry, Chief, Gitanyow) and “how BC Parks can
achieve that in their work” (Tammy, Operations). Gladys (Elder, Kispiox) articulated “What is
DRIPA if it isn’t defined by Indigenous Peoples? No one is asking us ‘what do you want? What
rights do you want in managing this protected area?’” This finding demonstrates that it is
necessary for BC Parks employees to discuss with individual First Nations how they perceive
reconciliation and what their priorities are.
Five Gitxsan First Nation participants expressed a strong dislike for the term
reconciliation and stated they did not understand its meaning. Krystal (Chief, Gitwangak)
expressed her frustration with the term: “I think the government made up a fancy word to deflect
complaints and they use this word reconciliation over and over and over. I think it’s nonsense to
be honest.” Mia (Elder, Glen Vowell) conveyed anger with the lack of action by the province for
mending relationships with First Nations: “The government talks all about these catchwords or
buzzwords like reconciliation, DRIPA, their five-year Action Plan…Where is the action? It’s all
talk, no action. And action is what is needed to build relationships, not catch phrases and
tokenism.” This finding speaks to the need for BC Parks to increase their engagement with
communities and build relationships, as reconciliation must be exhibited through agency actions.
Five of the BC Parks participants expressed their desire for a working definition of
reconciliation with objectives or strategies to guide this in their work. Tammy (Operations)
recommended guiding materials for reconciliation: “I would prefer if we could create a working
definition with supporting elements to validate that kind of work. Even like a checklist or written
directive summary of sorts.” Having a collaborative document to guide the work of employees
would be helpful; however, this may not be feasible (Casey, Operations). Therefore, it may be
best to identify the priorities of First Nations on a case-by-case basis and then document their

144

priorities in a written summary to pass along this knowledge to other (and future) employees
engaging with the First Nation (Darlene, Operations). Theresa (Planning) noted that: “Often staff
will say: “How do I do reconciliation?” And there’s no checklist [laughs]—it’s all about the way
you treat people and how we bring them in and how we partner on things…And it takes time.”
These findings highlight the lack of formal guidelines or protocols available to BC Parks
employees in their work on reconciliation.
The Gitxsan First Nation participants discussed self-determination in parks as relating to
more control, agency, governance, and power in park planning and operations matters and
statutory decision-making concerning their Territory. As Mary (Chief, Glen Vowell) explained:
“We want more control over our land and waters; we want our own governments to have more
agency. More stake in parks, in the natural resources and park visitation decisions. We want to
feel like our opinions are considered.” Abigail (Chief, Gitsegukla) similarly said: “We want to be
equal decision-making partners and consulted with regularly on major decisions affecting our
harvesting sites, sustenance grounds, the Anaat and our fishing camps. We want future
generations to have this land for seven generations ahead.” Fifteen Chiefs and Elders explained
that self-determination is about giving the land back. It is about the land and resources in the
territory and giving it back to the First Nation. Desiree (Elder, Kispiox) underscored this in her
interview: “This is our land. It will always be our land. And we want it back.” This finding
underlines the need for park co-management and the desire of First Nations to have more agency
in the governance of their territories.
Self-determination and reconciliation were sometimes used interchangeably when
discussed by BC Parks participants. As Darlene (Operations) indicated: “I would say
reconciliation would be either co-management or seeing the management of some of these areas

145

go to First Nations. There should be self-determination in governing their respective landscapes.”
Eight BC Parks participants discussed the future of parkland ownership following treaty
settlements. As Brianne (Planning) explained: “There are conversations and policies being
developed that will hopefully speak to what happens with lands that are protected areas in treaty,
and how those are managed moving forward. And I think that's really exciting to think about!”
Theresa (Planning) clarified that: “We are not lined up for legislative changes at least for five
years. That’s really challenging because we have to navigate that while Nations are wanting to
do all sorts of interesting things in parks that have never been done.” Management partnerships
and collaborative planning processes are the main ways that BC Parks is adapting its
management planning structure to meet new reconciliatory expectations; nonetheless, final
management decisions can only be made by BC Parks (Kenneth, Planning). While First Nations
govern themselves, parks are still managed under the Park Act and currently the only decisionmaker is government (Theresa, Planning).
Seven BC Parks participants and six Gitxsan First Nation participants referenced IPCAs
when discussing self-determination in parks. IPCAs are protected areas legislated under the
jurisdiction and laws of individual Indigenous communities, governments and Nations to protect
their lands and waters (Finegan, 2018). IPCAs are a common way that Indigenous Peoples are
asserting their governance over protected areas. Herb (Chief, Gitanyow) discussed the Gitanyow
IPCA:
Our Nation established an IPCA right beside Hanna-Tintina Conservancy. We named it
Wilp Wii Litsxw Meziadin IPCA. There was much pressure on us to…protect that area to
ensure food security for our Nation who depend on the salmon. Our Territory has been
changing due to climate change and mineral exploration impacts, which has severely

146

affected the already struggling salmon populations. Salmon from the Meziadin watershed
are a staple in our communities as our main sustenance food and are culturally important.
When BC was taking too long to collaborate in protection of the area, we had to act.
BC Parks participants explained that IPCAs demonstrate how First Nations have been asserting
their self-determination and agency by establishing conservation areas in their territories. Nelly
(Operations) noted that “Sometimes things happen and roll out slowly within the government,
and Nations just want to use their own authority to see something protected, so they forge ahead
with an IPCA and their own management structures too.” IPCAs are being established as a
response to the time government can take to designate co-managed protected areas. Stanley
(Planning) stated: “from a self-determination standpoint, I can see why a Nation or Nations
would say: ‘well, you missed a lot! And we are going to proceed with a designation that we need
to see put into place.’” IPCAs offer an effective method for protecting natural areas with
Indigenous laws and governance.
Eight BC Parks participants underlined the likelihood of new legislation and major policy
changes in the coming years. Kenneth (Planning) explained that looking at new ways of
delivering park and protected area management in the future might include strategies of selfdetermination for First Nations: “I think we could be… looking at new ways of delivering
protected areas. If it’s funded, it might be with the Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas,
such as creating new designation tools for First Nations-run parks and protected areas.” Casey
(Operations) explained that “Things have been consistently changing, treaties are becoming
finalized, and [BC Parks] will be looking at making new policies and legislation in the coming
years to increase Indigenous collaboration, governance of parks and inclusion in management.”
Increasing Indigenous inclusion and expanding Indigenous governance are expected to be vital

147

drivers of impending changes within BC Parks. Meanwhile, during this period of much change,
new ideas and various challenges (Kwetásel’wet Wood, 2024), BC Parks employees can best use
their time to engage and collaborate with First Nations in new ways that build ever stronger
relationships.
Conclusion
The findings from my interviews with BC Parks North Coast Skeena Regional staff and
Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders provided new insights in the areas of park planning and
management, applications of TEK in parks, reconciliation, and self-determination. First, I found
that staff capacity, funding availability, budget timelines, policies, and training procedures all
structure and shape the inclusion of TEK in BC Parks’ planning and operations management.
There were calls for revisions to BC Parks training on consultation and First Nations culture and
history, and to build trust and improve relationships with First Nations. There is also a need for
regionally located Indigenous Relations staff to support and facilitate engagement with First
Nations. Second, the values and beliefs of employees regarding WSK and TEK, and the laws,
culture and traditions of First Nations, influence the application of TEK in park management
plans. Third, TEK is informally integrated into park planning processes through fully involving
First Nations in co-writing park management plans, integrating their TEK into park management
plans where First Nations deem it is appropriate to do so, co-designing the park planning process
with First Nations, integrating TEK into background studies (e.g., cultural heritage studies),
jointly-led background studies, or documents that inform the management direction and
management objectives of a park, and through First Nations leading or jointly-leading
community meetings and public meetings (N. White, personal communication, February 5,
2025). TEK is formally integrated into operations management through scientific studies,

148

renaming parks and in park signage. Other formal ways TEK is integrated in park planning and
operations management occurs through working with the First Nation Guardian Programs when
in place with First Nations to coordinate patrols and visits, First Nation cultural camps in parks,
joint cultural projects funded by BC Parks Licence Plate Program or Indigenous Funding
Envelope, joint park management boards (e.g., Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park and
Tatshenshini-Alsek Park), Collaborative Management Agreement meetings to discuss operations,
management and planning, and contracts to support direct operations of parks with First Nation
employees (e.g., Khutzeymateen Park and Tatshenshini-Alsek Park) (N. White, personal
communication, February 5, 2025). Nevertheless, employees must work with First Nations to
identify territorial overlaps and ongoing treaty negotiations, to avoid issues when implementing
TEK in their work. Fourth, territorial acknowledgements and co-management approaches are
both important actions for reconciliation. However, the reconciliatory goals of each First Nations
community are different, and employees should have discussions with First Nations to identify
what actions are needed to complete this work. Lastly, self-determination requires increased
control, agency and governance of First Nations territories. This can be best supported through
shared governance of parks and policies and programming which facilitate First Nations
participation in park planning and operations management. In the following chapter, these
findings are presented in relation to the literature and my two-eyed seeing theoretical lens.

149

Chapter Five: Discussion
This chapter takes the findings from my thematic analysis and places them into
conversation with previous research summarized in the literature review and my theoretical lens
of two-eyed seeing, which includes the key concepts of settler colonialism and decolonization.
My discussion is organized into four sections: park planning and operations management; TEK
inclusion; reconciliation; and self-determination. In each section, I expand on Chapter Four’s
findings to offer recommendations for BC Parks—particularly park planners and managers—in
their efforts to meaningfully include First Nations and their TEK in park planning and operations
management.
Park Planning and Operations Management
The findings from my study coincide with previous research that has identified funding,
timelines, guidelines, policies, programming, resources and hiring capacity as structural barriers
faced by park planners and operations managers working with First Nations (Cvitanovic et al.,
2016; Kadykalo et al., 2021; Lemieux et al., 2018; Spielmann & Unger, 2000). The BC Parks
participants observed a decline in research capacity within the agency since the year 2000. This
decline in research capacity is likely due to capacity issues more than funding availability, as the
BC Parks Licence Plate Program brings in millions of dollars every year, and BC Parks staff are
able to submit applications to this program for funding research and projects with First Nations
in their areas (N. White, personal communication, January 3, 2025). This finding aligns with
Kadykalo et al. (2021), who found that BC government staff had experienced a diminished
research capacity within their ministry/branch over the years. This underfunding is not unique to
parks agencies alone; within a broader political economy of neoliberal capitalism, there has been
a reduction in government spending since the late 1970s and early 1980s (Andrews & Silk,

150

2012). A neoliberal ideology aims at cutting expenditures on public goods in order to enhance
corporate profitability (Andrews & Silk, 2012).
The BC Parks participants stressed that current social and political factors, specifically,
reconciliation, climate change, and treaty negotiations, influence park planning and operations
management. This is not a surprising finding, as reconciliation, climate change, and treaty
negotiations are all at the forefront of BC’s current political agenda, therefore, they are valued
and prioritized in planning and management. These findings support Policansky’s (1988) study,
which revealed that resource management is influenced by economics, politics, values, beliefs,
and other factors. Cvitanovic et al. (2016) found that decision-makers are “typically focused on
day-to-day operations, and driven by… political, economic, and social drivers that reflect
broader societal issues” (p. 870). Hence, because the BC Parks employees indicated that
reconciliation with First Nations is considered an important social and political driver of their
work under the DRIPA legislation (2019), this can lend support for integrating TEK in park
management plans. Several other studies have found that values and beliefs influence
management planning decisions (Cook et al., 2010; Fabian et al., 2019; Kadykalo, 2021; Matzek
et al., 2014; Pullin et al., 2016). These studies also found that there is a lack of evidence-based
decision-making within natural resource agencies. However, my research did not support this
finding. Although BC Parks participants expressed having a diminished research capacity, they
highlighted that background studies, ecological assessments and cultural heritage assessments
support park planning processes and operations management and that a conservation specialist
provides ecological, scientific data to support decision-making within the region.
One insight garnered from my interviews with BC Parks operations management staff
was that BC Parks’ employees in Victoria, BC, who are disconnected from and unfamiliar with

151

the local context of the region, make operational budget decisions for the North Coast Skeena
Region. However, this issue was not discussed by planning staff and did not apply to park
planning. This finding of a centre shaping the periphery has been reported in studies on other
topics. For example, Hutton (1997), Martin (2013), and Vernon (2007) discuss how decisions are
made by Southern BC for Northern BC in BC’s forestry sector, despite the livelihoods and
economies of these two areas being vastly different. Hutton (1997) characterizes the power
struggles and conflict that result from this asymmetrical and dichotomous spatial decisionmaking framework as a “dominant, industrialized, and metropolitan ‘core’ [i.e., Vancouver and
Victoria]” (p. 69) exercising its power over the natural resources of “a vast, underdeveloped
‘periphery’ [Northern BC]” (p. 69). This asymmetry in decision-making is largely defined by the
metropole’s "command-and-control" (Martin, 2013, p. 112) functions over the periphery, where
Southern BC enjoys a privileged position as the primary decision-maker for the rest of the
province. The forestry sector in Northern BC has responded to its dependence and vulnerability
from the imbalanced power relationship by maintaining local control over forest products using
community forestry models and community-company relationships (Kathrin, 2019; Martin,
2008). Some BC Parks operations management staff explained that it would be ideal for the
regional operations teams to make their own decisions, as they are more familiar with the areas
being managed. Nevertheless, these findings suggest that if budgets for the area continue to be
made by headquarters office in Victoria, there must be further consideration of the diverse
context of working in Northwestern BC. Therefore, one recommendation would be that BC
Parks develop a shared decision-making process for creating operational budgets, which allows
regional operations employees to have their thoughts and opinions captured in budgetary
decisions for their areas. A second recommendation emerging from BC Parks participants

152

transcripts would be that BC Parks hire Indigenous Relations specialists within the regions, to
assist BC Parks regional planners and operations staff with consultation, engagement and
relationship-building with First Nations in their areas.
Since this research took place, BC Parks’ North Coast Skeena Region has reorganized to
amalgamate with Recreation Sites and Trails BC. The region has split into a Strategic
Priorities team, which is for both the North Coast Skeena region and the Omineca-Peace region,
and an Operations team, which includes all of the operational staff for both BC Parks and
Recreation Sites and Trails BC. The Operations team is still for the North Coast Skeena Region,
and there is an equivalent Operations team in the Omineca-Peace Region. The Planners and
Conservation Specialists are now in the Strategic Priorities team and there is a Senior Indigenous
Relations Advisor on that team. There is an additional Indigenous Relations Advisor assigned to
the Operations team (N. White, personal communication, February 12, 2025). These changes are
still underway and the Indigenous Relations positions are not yet up and running, so, it is unclear
whether the hiring of new Indigenous Relations staff will focus on policy or engagement and
consultation with First Nations (or both).
BC Parks’ employees also expressed a desire for more Indigenous representation both
within the North Coast Skeena region and throughout the agency. Previous literature has
identified socio-cultural factors, discrimination, and Whiteness as the primary reasons for the
lack of diversity in government parks (Scott & Lee, 2018; Den Hoed & Parks, 2008). Within
North America, parks have been portrayed as White spaces (Baldwin et al., 2011; Carlson &
Clapperton, 2012; Finney, 2014); and the history of colonization in North America has led to the
common understanding that exploring and visiting parks is a White activity (Braun, 2003). Floyd
and Stodolska (2014) claim that the differences in leisure activities and outdoor recreation

153

among ethnic groups stem from different cultural norms, value systems, and socialization
practices. In this way, socio-cultural factors both facilitate and constrain participation in different
recreation and leisure activities. Discrimination by other visitors is cited as the most common
form of mistreatment experienced by Black, Indigenous and other racialized people in parks,
which ranges from hostile stares to physical attacks (Sharaievska et al., 2014; Scott & Lee, 2018;
Stanfield McCrown, 2013; Floyd & Stoldolska, 2019). Racialized people have also expressed
that they have been the victims of discrimination from park employees (Fernandez & Witt,
2013).
Austin (1997) found in his study on Black people in national parks that Black people
often feel unwelcome, unsettled, out-of-place, and awkward in national parks and remain on their
guard. He explained that a ‘White racial frame’ makes it intimidating for Black, Indigenous and
other racialized people to participate in outdoor activities, especially in parks. Fernandez and
Witt (2013) note that park staff may be inattentive to the needs and interests of racialized people.
This overlaps with Freire’s (1985) argument that: “The dominant ideology which serves the
interests of the socially powerful [White settlers] makes the world opaque to us” (p. 18).
Similarly, Sara Ahmed (2017) argued that White spaces make non-White bodies feel
uncomfortable, exposed, visible, and different. She refers to the norms and rules of
institutionalized Whiteness as a “sea of whiteness” (Ahmed, 2017, p. 159) that restricts what
Black, Indigenous and other racialized people can perceive and do in those spaces. Put yet
another way, Edward Said (1991) articulated that the institutional discourses that structure and
maintain the dominant, Western ideology in White-settler society have impaired the ability to
think about the racialized, marginalized ‘other.’ These findings align with literature by leisure,
feminist and critical race scholars (Ahmed, 2017; Beames et al., 2019; Braun, 2003; Harrison,

154

2013; hooks, 2000; Mills, 2024). By drawing attention to Whiteness and White privilege, these
scholars have challenged normative ideas about a White racial identity as neutral, and they
instead recognize that Whiteness “operates as a force in actualizing and extending social
inequality through everyday modes of exclusion” (Harrison, 2013, p. 319). Taking stock of this
body of research and my discussions with BC Parks employees, I recommend that BC Parks hire
more Black, Indigenous and other racialized people(s) in the agency to increase the diversity of
their workforce and help facilitate work with Indigenous Peoples and First Nations.
Academic literature on park management has identified inadequate and rushed
consultation processes with Indigenous Peoples by park agencies in Canada (Johnston & Mason,
2020; Spielmann & Unger, 2000). BC Parks employees recommended improving consultative
training to meet the legislative changes set forth by DRIPA, which require more frequent and
meaningful engagement with Indigenous Peoples throughout the province. Section Three of
DRIPA (2019) mandates that the province must “take all measures necessary” to bring its “…
laws, policies and practices into alignment with the UN Declaration in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples.” This legislation necessitates that consultative training be
revised to provide employees with the tools and resources they need to consult with Indigenous
Peoples appropriately and effectively (United Nations, 2007).
Scholarship on settler colonialism tells us that government parks are stolen Indigenous
lands (Braun, 2002; Mason, 2014, 2021; Spence, 1999), and that the dispossession of these lands
has damaged Indigenous Peoples’ relationships to their territories (Tuck & Yang, 2012; Wolfe,
1999). The ability of Indigenous Peoples to preserve their connection to their territories is now
dependent on developing positive relationships with government agencies (Baldwin et al., 2011;
Erickson, 2020; Cruikshank, 2005; Lowan-Trudeau, 2021). Therefore, in responding to DRIPA

155

(2019) and calls for social justice by decolonial scholars (Smith, 2021; Tuck & Yang, 2016;
Tuck et al., 2014), government parks and their employees have an obligation to help support and
re-establish Indigenous Peoples’ relationships with their lands (Tebrakunna Country & Lee,
2019). I recommend that BC Parks update their training policies and programming to train
employees to have a more thorough understanding of how to facilitate the various regional
engagement agreements and consultation for statutory decision-making with First Nations, so
that employees are knowledgeable in these areas before meeting with First Nations. By revising
its consultation training, BC Parks can implement the legislative requirements of DRIPA (2019)
and “support the affirmation of, and develop relationships with, Indigenous governing bodies”
(Section 2).
Both participant groups expressed their desire for more Indigenous-led training
opportunities in First Nations territories. This finding aligns with McKeon (2012), who found
that Indigenous-led training and education are important for environmental practice because
Indigenous teachings are land-based, centred on a spiritual connection, and require care and
responsibility for relationships. She claimed that environmental education programs “…should
be designed and delivered with and by Indigenous peoples, using Indigenous worldview as
method and content” (p. 133). Two-eyed seeing theorists have stressed the importance of
learning from Indigenous teachings to better understand TEK, culture and history, as Indigenous
ways of knowing are best taught by Indigenous experts and Knowledge Holders (Arsenault et al.,
2018; Desmarchelier, 2016; Kapyrka & Dockstator, 2012; Nelson & Shilling, 2018; Sha, 2021).
Some BC Parks employees indicated that creating a mentorship program would be
beneficial to help retain information about First Nations in the agency after employees leave or
retire. Many other Canadian park agencies have implemented mentorship programs to prevent

156

the loss of information in their departments. For example, Parks Canada has a mentorship
program for its employees to engage in new areas of work and pass down information from
senior employees (Culverson, 2002); Alberta Parks has a mentorship program for new park
rangers (Alberta Parks, 2024); Ontario Parks has a mentorship program for parks personnel to
translate information from senior employees to new hires (Government of Ontario, 2024); and
Yukon Parks has a mentorship program to ensure that knowledge about locations, guides, and
sustainable tourism operations in their regions are passed down to its employees (De la Barre,
2009). Research has found that mentorship programs can be employed in park agencies to
increase the diversity of a workforce and the perception of inclusiveness in an organization
through purposeful recruitment, hiring, and training practices that foster a positive attitude
towards diversity (Allison & Hibbler, 2004; Ebron et al., 2011; Roberts & Outley, 2002). Hence,
a mentorship program could help support BC Parks with hiring more Black, Indigenous and
other racialized people. Mentoring can also help to communicate job-related skills and to ensure
positive and continued relationships with interested parties and Indigenous rightsholders (Riley
et al., 1998; Bedini al., 2000; Roberts & Outley, 2002). Several BC Parks participants noted that
the relationships senior employees have built with First Nations can be jeopardized and damaged
by having to ‘start over’ with newly hired staff. Establishing a mentorship program in BC Parks
could help ensure that the relationships employees have with First Nations are not lost in staff
turnovers.
Gitxsan First Nation members’ discussions of park operations management and
consultation focussed on increasing communication, building relationships, and improving BC
Parks’ understanding of their laws, culture and traditions. Literature on Indigenous involvement
in park management has outlined that cultural assimilation, colonialism, and a lack of trust in

157

government impact government employees’ work and relationships with First Nations (Cook,
2020; Wheeler et al., 2020). The results of my study supported these findings. Both participant
groups agreed that lack of trust is a major social barrier in park planning and operations
management where the relationship with a First Nation is poor or underdeveloped. Many Gitxsan
First Nation participants explained that sharing of TEK relies on trust, therefore, working
towards better relationships are necessary. Gitxsan First Nation participants explained that this is
best done through increasing cultural awareness within the agency and educating employees on
settler colonialism and Indigenous history. BC Parks employees explained that they have taken
part in informal training experiences on the topics of cultural sensitivity, cultural awareness,
cultural heritage information, colonialism, the residential school system, diversity and inclusion,
partner engagement, and First Nations’ perspectives. However, the employees explained that
only the cultural awareness workshops were mandatory. The TRC Calls to Action (2015a) and
the UN Declaration (2007) both specify that government agencies have a responsibility to
educate and train their employees about the history and impacts of residential schools, and
colonial history more generally. Additionally, decolonial scholars, Tuck and Gorlewski (2016)
argue that education on Indigenous culture and history should be integrated into the education
platforms of institutional spaces to dismantle settler colonialism. Rashkow (2014) highlights the
importance of place-based understandings of Indigenous history in parks. She explains that
understanding the history of colonialism in the place that one works and lives is integral to
changing attitudes and promoting actions to support Indigenous Peoples. Without understanding
the context of Indigenous lived experiences and colonialism, parks employees are unable to have
an improved understanding of the local impacts of colonization (Rashkow, 2014). A
recommendation derived from these findings is for BC Parks to implement more mandatory

158

training for employees on settler colonialism and Indigenous history that focusses on regionally
specific content and hire Indigenous Peoples within the regions to assist with this training.
Johnston and Mason (2020) and Spielmann and Unger (2000) both found that parks
employees have a limited understanding of Indigenous heritage and culture in the parks in which
they work. Additionally, Aquash’s (2013) study found that the Canadian public has remained
largely uninformed and unaware of Indigenous history due to the failure of contemporary
educational system practices and curriculum to “teach, explain, and acknowledge First Nation
realities” (p. 129). My conversations with BC Parks participants echoed these findings, further
supporting my recommendation for more mandatory training on Indigenous history. BC Parks’
employees noted both staff capacity and working across large geographic areas as limiting their
ability to learn the cultural history of the many parks they work in and manage. Due to the lack
of training in this area, employees indicated that they learn cultural history through their work
with First Nations and through cultural heritage assessments or archaeological studies in parks. A
recommendation that surfaces here concerns BC Parks’ cultural heritage assessments and
archaeological studies and the potential of these reports to be shared with staff to increase their
knowledge of First Nations history (if, of course, deemed permissible by the participating First
Nations). However, archaeological reports are protected by the Archaeological Branch, and
employees are often unable to share them with other staff members (N. White, personal
communication, January 3, 2025). It seems that further discussion between BC Parks, the
Archaeological Branch, and First Nations would be helpful is this respect. McCormack’s (2017)
archaeological work on the cultural use of Northeastern Alberta by Indigenous Peoples supports
this recommendation. She underlines that without utilizing archaeological investigations, which
can identify the traditional use of areas by First Nations, projects for development are often

159

approved based on incomplete information about Indigenous land use and meanings. She
explains that it is not only a failure to consult with First Nations that contributes to such errors,
but also a failure to employ archaeological investigations. Her study stresses the importance of
archaeological assessments in understanding First Nations history.
Previous literature on Indigenous perspectives has demonstrated that although each
Indigenous community has its own distinct cultural protocols, laws and traditions, overarching
ideas of reciprocity, kindness, and respect are shared among them (Bear, 2000; Cajete, 2004;
Castellano, 2000; Kimmerer, 2021; McKeon, 2012). BC Parks can work with First Nations in
more culturally appropriate and respectful ways by becoming educated on the individual cultural
protocols of First Nations. Gitxsan First Nation members emphasized the importance of parks
employees learning their laws, culture and history, advising that having this information will
help BC Parks improve engagement with their First Nation and communities. They stressed that
becoming culturally informed about each First Nation’s specific practices, and implementing
these in meetings as a sign of respect can help build relationships and trust with First Nations.
The Gitxsan First Nation participants discussed their tradition of bringing food to meetings, as
this symbolizes reciprocity and thoughtfulness. Gitxsan First Nation members also highlighted
two laws that impact their relationship with BC government—the ‘no trespass’ and ‘no sport
fishing’ laws. They explained that because BC government continues to issue fishing licenses
that allow recreational anglers to trespass into their Territory and sport fish in BC Parks, this
compromises their traditional fishing holes (Anaat).
First Nations sustenance harvesting activities, such as hunting, trapping, fishing, and
collecting medicinal plants, have long been a contested area in park management. Cultural use of
parks was prohibited from 1884 to 1951 (Mason, 2021). Binnema and Niemi (2006) and Mason

160

(2021) outline how the federal government enacted hunting and fishing policies in the 19th
century when parks were first created to restrict Indigenous Peoples onto reserves and ban
Indigenous use of parklands. Indigenous Peoples were excluded from parks in the interests of
game conservation, sport hunting, tourism, and assimilation policies, to ensure that national
parks could become “uninhabited wilderness” (Binnema & Niemi, 2006, p. 724) for tourists and
visitors.
Despite the development of Treaties, land claims, and Aboriginal rights and title across
Canada, which have guaranteed hunting and fishing rights for First Nations, many government
agencies still do not value or protect these rights. Consequently, conflict persists between
Indigenous Peoples and government officials over the Indigenous right to hunt and fish on
traditional lands (McKenna, 2021; Minke-Martin, 2020; The Canadian Press, 2024). For
example, Indigenous groups have recently criticized Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) for the
"gross mismanagement" of aquaculture in BC (CBC News, 2024). In 2021, Kekinusuqs,
president of Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, claimed DFO’s current fishing quotas only offer of
a minimal number of fish, “…they’re giving more fish to the sport fisherman, and to the other
commercial fishermen…even when there’s excess, they don’t think about giving it to the First
Nations—they give it to the other sectors. It just isn’t fair” (Auger, 2021). In 2024, the Heiltsuk
First Nation filed a lawsuit in BC Supreme Court against the Attorney General of Canada due to
the DFO’s 2022 management plan for Pacific herring on the central coast, which closed the First
Nation’s commercial fishery (The Canadian Press, 2024). It was only a few years ago that
Heiltsuk resolved a claim against the Government of Canada over similar issues (The Canadian
Press, 2024). Indigenous Foundations (2009) at the University of British Columbia claim that
Indigenous Peoples are not ‘stakeholders’ in fisheries—they have conducted their traditional

161

fisheries since time immemorial, and Indigenous harvesting practices have rights under Canadian
law. For thousands of years, Indigenous communities successfully managed the fishery without
the help of the Canadian state (Indigenous Foundations, 2009). Dr. Josh Reid, a University of
Washington historian and member of the Snohomish Tribe, states that when he sees disputes
over Indigenous fishing rights, he sees the legacies of settler colonialism (Braun, 2022).
All BC Parks in Gitxsan First Nation Territory allow visitors to fish, and some of the
parks allow hunting as well (i.e., Swan Lake Kispiox River Park; Babine River Corridor Park;
and Sustut Park). This is a source of conflict, as under Gitxsan First Nation’s Ayook (law),
visitors are prohibited from trespassing onto the Laxyip (Territory) without permission from the
appropriate Sim'ooget (Chief), and sport fishing in the Laxyip is illegal. These laws are in place
to protect their resources for future generations (Roy, Gitanmaax, Chief; Mia, Glen Vowell,
Chief). Gitxsan First Nation members hope to maintain healthy fish and wildlife populations in
their Territory to ensure the futurity of their lands, people and culture. However, BC Parks has
not recognized or supported Gitxsan First Nation’s law in their own regulations. For First
Nations, hunting and fishing rights can be seen as equivalent to human rights, as their cultural
sustenance practices are integral to their identity and culture (Simon, 2009). Nonetheless, when
fish and wildlife populations are threatened by non-Indigenous tourists, the First Nation’s ability
to sustain their cultural practices and steward their own resources is greatly impacted. While BC
Parks does not regulate fishing and hunting—as these activities are managed under the Ministry
of Water, Lands and Resource Stewardship’s Wildlife Act, and salmon are managed by DFO—
in consideration of these findings, I do recommend that BC Parks ban sport fishing as an
allowable activity within parks in Gitxsan First Nation Territory. For BC Parks and other
ministries and agencies in BC to meet the legislative requirements of DRIPA, there must be

162

greater appreciation for Indigenous laws and culture. Section Seven of DRIPA (2019) states that
the province must “enter into agreements with… Indigenous governments… to exercise statutory
decision-making authority together.” Therefore, Gitxsan First Nation’s laws should be respected
and applied alongside provincial laws and regulations in parks.
TEK Inclusion
Academic literature has shown that government agencies lack the appropriate resources,
tools and frameworks for working with Indigenous Peoples and integrating TEK (Cvitanovic et
al., 2016; Devin & Doberstein, 2004; Fabian et al., 2019; Houde, 2007; Lemieux et al., 2018;
Wheeler et al., 2020). BC Parks participants stated that the policies and engagement agreements
that guide their work with specific First Nations vary greatly, and that this discrepancy can pose
difficulty for working with First Nations, because of the learning required to understand and
follow the different engagement agreements and their corresponding approaches. This finding
resonates with Cook’s (2020) study on Parks Canada and Ontario Parks, which found that
government employees struggle to work with First Nations when there are inconsistent policies
and rules for engagement. Logic might yield a simple solution: agencies should have a consistent
approach in rules and policies for working with Indigenous Peoples. However, while it might
seem helpful for BC Parks employees to have standard policies and guidelines for working with
First Nations, each First Nation has its own distinct laws, culture, history, language, and
priorities for park management plans (Moore, 2020; Shaw, 2012; Spielmann & Unger, 2000;
Wildcat & Voth, 2023). Thus, having a single approach for engagement may not be appropriate.
Indigenous Peoples in BC are “heterogeneous, vast and diverse” (Rebonne, 2024, p. 64).
Rebonne (2024) argues in her master’s thesis on Indigenous engagement and partnership in
Canada that Indigenous communities must be treated as individuals because their histories and

163

cultures are unique. She claims that as “…a best practice towards decolonization and
reconciliation, organizations can ask Indigenous communities what they need help with or how
they can support them, with no strings attached” (p. 64). BC Parks North Coast Skeena Region
works with a wide variety of unique First Nations. For this reason, a one-size-fits-all approach
cannot properly address the intricacy of each Indigenous community. While I do believe that
having different engagement agreements for each individual First Nation is appropriate, these
engagement agreements should be designed in conversation with Indigenous communities to
reflect their preferred approach to engagement and individual priorities in park planning and
management. Furthermore, BC Parks employees must have in-depth, focussed training on each
engagement agreement to make sure that employees have a thorough understanding of them
before they are prepared to utilize and follow these agreements in meetings with First Nations.
Previous research has found that TEK is used less than WSK in park planning and
management, and structural and cultural barriers impede the use of TEK (Kadykalo et al., 2021;
Lemieux et al., 2018). BC Parks participants associated WSK with neutrality, as the normative
knowledge system, and a ‘neutral place to start’ (Theresa, Planning Team) in park planning.
They underlined that WSK is the primary knowledge system for informed decision-making, and
TEK is included when it is agreed upon at the ‘community level’ (Casey, Operations) and when
it isn’t too contentious, sensitive, or subjective. If TEK is agreed upon at the community level, or
by a group of Chiefs and Elders, it is more likely to be utilized, as it is considered more reliable.
The employees also emphasized that TEK has more utility when WSK confirms it. My findings
concur with Houde’s (2007) work, which found that TEK is more valuable for park managers
when WSK supports and complements it. These findings demonstrate that WSK is used as a
basis for considering whether TEK is adopted into park management planning. By using WSK to

164

evaluate TEK, park managers fail to appreciate “other” (Said, 1991) ways of knowing and
incorporate new and important ideas into park management plans. In environmental science and
protected area management, TEK is often othered and seen as less reliable compared to WSK.
This assumption upholds colonialist ideas, reinforces inequalities in society and prevents the
integration of different ways of knowing into scientific discourse and park management
planning. Using Western thought as the ideal, or archetype, for rationality devalues and unfairly
represents knowledge from other places and cultures.
Many scholars have criticized the neutrality and objectivity of WSK. For example, Dusek
(2006) argues that scientific theories or ‘facts’ are simply “collective representations” (p. 165)
that develop in group structures as “social processes of consensus and knowledge dissemination”
(p. 174). WSK is commonly thought of as universal, rational and superior when compared with
non-Western or Indigenous Knowledges, which are assumed to be primitive, local, irrational and
inferior (Dusek, 2006). Those who proclaim the universality of science adhere to the idea that
scientific laws (e.g. laws of thermodynamics, E = mc², etc.) are logically, spatially, temporally
and geographically applicable, and infer that other forms of knowledge cannot provide this
degree of certainty in their application. However, WSK is not universal or superior in its
rationality, and WSK is not applicable in a non-Western context (Dusek, 2006). The professed
confidence in and widespread affirmation of Western science’s superiority, the universal
agreement on the applications of WSK, and its far-reaching use in laboratory and field settings
around the world, has caused it to become a sort of widespread local knowledge (Dusek, 2006).
However, being a branch of knowledge native to Western society, it is like any other local
knowledge and is not certain to be any more true or reliable than other knowledge systems (ElHani & Souza de Ferreira Bandeira, 2008). Scientific knowledge has proven to be mutable and

165

fallible (Wesselius, 2014). This can be verified when looking at claims to Truth that science has
declared in the past, such as: expanding Earth theory (disproven by plate tectonics) (Kragh &
Kragh, 2016), Einstein’s static universe (cosmology, disproved by Hubble’s relation between
redshift and distance) (Krauss, 2015), planet Vulcan (Baum & Sheehan, 2013), luminiferous
aether (disproven by diffraction and Einstein’s theory of special relativity) (Rubik & Jabs, 2018),
Fleischmann-Pons nuclear fusion (Tcvetkov, 2022), phrenology (Lyons, 1998), etc.
Feminist scholars Scott (1991), Rosaldo (1980), and Haraway (1988) also criticized the
neutrality of WSK. These scholars argue that no knowledge system is complete or completely
‘true,’ explaining that an appreciation for cross-cultural understandings is necessary to better
understand the world. Haraway (1988) refers to this cross-cultural understanding as “situated
knowledges” (p. 581). She argues for knowledges of location, positioning and situating,
“...where partiality and not universality is the condition of being heard to make rational
knowledge claims” (p. 589). While these authors take different approaches, they all assert that
knowledge and experience is subjective, and that this subjectivity should be endorsed when
documenting history and science. Considering the literature outlined above, I recommend that
BC Parks employees appreciate and value TEK in the same way that they do WSK. BC Parks
employees should be open to other ways of knowing to further integrate TEK into their work.
BC Parks North Coast Skeena Region has a small staff, and employees must span their
resources over a vast landscape. Cvitanovic et al. (2016) showed that cultural differences
between TEK and WSK, timeframes, insufficient resources, poor guidelines, policies and
program planning, and geographic isolation of Indigenous communities all contributed to the
lack of TEK in park management. Cook (2020) found that in any protected area, there can be up
to eight parks assigned to a single planner covering vast areas of isolated communities. These

166

findings were reflected in my interviews, wherein BC Parks employees claimed that a single
planner is often working on five or six park management plans at a time in vast, isolated areas,
with various Indigenous communities that require the use of several different engagement
agreements. The employees explained that their ability to integrate TEK is influenced by staff
and funding capacity, as these limit the ability of staff to build relationships and trust within
communities. In the interviews, employees noted that park management plans can take up to 11
years to develop and that there is a lack of training and resources for utilizing TEK in park
management plans.
Both participant groups expressed that a great deal of TEK has been lost within many
communities, due to settler colonialism and the residential school system. This depletion of
communities’ TEK constitutes yet another impediment to its access and inclusion in park
planning and operations management. This finding aligns with Anishinaabe lawyer and
decolonial scholar, LaPorte’s (2023) research on the impacts of colonization and genocide on
TEK. LaPorte (2023) explains that settler colonial violence intentionally sought out to
systematically destroy Indigenous Knowledges. She states that Indigenous ways of knowing and
being were viewed by settlers as “inferior, savage, primitive, or uncivilized,” (p. 220) and notes
that in many spaces these ideas remain prevalent today. Settler colonial policies have resulted in:
“distrust; historical trauma; loss of language, culture, and tradition; loss of generations; loss of
land; and loss of traditional food” (Laporte, 2023, p. 216). Moreover, LaPorte (2023) found that
TEK is lost and fragmented in communities due to the ongoing efforts of colonial governments
to eradicate Indigenous Peoples. Thus, the continuance of TEK despite being continually under
threat is a direct result of the resilience of community members who have resisted the impacts of
genocide (LaPorte, 2023). Laporte (2023) stresses that TEK should not be used if actions

167

towards decolonization are absent, as it is the shared responsibility of settlers to address the
impact of settler-violence on Indigenous communities.
BC Parks planning staff stated that TEK is informally applied in park planning through
the full involvement of First Nations in co-writing park management plans, integrating their TEK
into park management plans where First Nations deem it is appropriate to do so, co-designing the
park planning process with First Nations, integrating TEK into background studies (e.g., cultural
heritage studies), jointly-led background studies, or documents that inform the management
direction and management objectives of a park, and through First Nations leading or jointlyleading community meetings and public meetings (N. White, personal communication, February
5, 2025). Park management plans are often collaboratively written with First Nations and TEK is
threaded throughout these documents as well as any other supporting documents for the
management plan. BC Parks operations staff explained that scientific studies, park names, and
park signage were the three primary ways in which TEK had been formally included in park
operations. Other formal ways TEK is integrated in park planning and operations management
occurs through working with the First Nation Guardian Programs when in place with First
Nations to coordinate patrols and visits, First Nation cultural camps in parks, joint cultural
projects funded by BC Parks Licence Plate Program or Indigenous Funding Envelope, joint park
management boards (e.g., Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park and Tatshenshini-Alsek Park),
Collaborative Management Agreement meetings to discuss operations, management and
planning, and contracts to support direct operations of parks with First Nation employees (e.g.,
Khutzeymateen Park and Tatshenshini-Alsek Park (N. White, personal communication, February
5, 2025). Nevertheless, even these positive, inclusive efforts can be problematic. Employees

168

identified issues around territorial overlap and sensitive treaty negotiations that hinder the
incorporation of TEK in signage, parks names and park management plans.
In Northwestern BC, many First Nations territories are overlapping, and it can be difficult
to ascertain where exactly the borders are on First Nations maps. BC Parks staff have access to
spatial data to identify where exactly First Nation-identified consultative areas are located,
however, First Nations often have their own maps, with different levels of governance within
their First Nation’s defined boundaries. For example, a First Nation may have one map at the
hereditary level of governance, and another map at the First Nation Council, community, or band
level of governance, with discrepancies regarding territory boundaries and overlap (Donald,
Kipiox). Additionally, a First Nation may have ongoing territorial disputes with another,
bordering or overlapping First Nation. This fact alone can cause serious complications. Although
it is extremely important to implement signage and showcase the stories, histories, and languages
of First Nations, even signage placement and artwork can become a delicate and incendiary
matter. Theresa (Planning) explained: “if there are disputes about territory due to asserted
overlaps, the signage projects can become a serious point of contention. Making a territorial
acknowledgement can be very difficult and may have to be generalized to avoid causing
offence.” As I highlighted in my findings, placing a sign on the wrong First Nation’s territory
can signify laying claim to a territory and cause unintended conflict and damaged relationships.
A recommendation arising from these findings is that thorough consultations be undertaken with
Chiefs and Elders of First Nations and their bordering First Nations in the early stages of signage
projects, in order to ensure consensus and obviate potential disputes over design, content and
placement of signs. This recommendation is supported by Beck’s (2021) work on land
acknowledgements and park interpretation. He states that signage projects with First Nations are

169

a collaborative process which should involve consulting with all local Indigenous communities
that have “ties to the land” (p. 35), to avoid inaccurate and offensive messages in signs. He
explains that collaboration with First Nations in signage projects provides an excellent
opportunity for relationship building and learning for Parks employees, which can instill a
commitment to further action. The UN Declaration (2007) demands that “governments
acknowledge First Nations land” (p. 3), however, this must be done appropriately and
respectfully. Two-eyed seeing theorists have identified signage projects as a powerful tool for
improving government and public understandings about Indigenous culture, history and
worldviews (Bartlett et al., 2012; Whiting et al., 2018; Moorman et al., 2021).
Another insight I gained from this research is that most First Nations in Northwestern BC
are in the final stages of the BC Treaty Commission process. This endeavour to finalize treaties
brings with it its own set of challenges, with respect to involving these First Nations in
integrating their TEK in park management plans. BC Parks employees explained that some First
Nations have longstanding rivalries and have no desire to work with government until they have
completed their treaties and resolved their territorial overlaps. They also noted that the areas
where they work will often have five or six overlapping First Nations territories. In these
complex cases of territorial overlap, uncertainty, and contention, BC Parks employees claimed
they are unable to complete management plans. Unfortunately, until land claims and treaties
have been finalized, there is little BC Parks can do in these situations aside from taking available
opportunities to collaborate with First Nations and continuing to address their priorities and
interests in park management plans, navigating these challenges the best they can.
Several of the Gitxsan First Nation participants noted that they would not want to share
their TEK with BC Parks. Therefore, it is important to discuss the ethical implications and

170

responsibilities of government agencies when TEK is shared or withheld. If the Indigenous
Peoples in a community do not want to share their TEK, this must be respected. If TEK is
shared, there are a set of ethical responsibilities related to the inclusion, representation, storage,
and management of TEK data. First, TEK must only be included by government agencies in the
ways which are considered to be appropriate by the Indigenous Peoples and communities that are
disclosing their TEK. Drawing on the work of Smith (2021) and Wilson (2008), government
agencies have an ethical obligation to maintain respect, responsibility, reciprocity, and
relationships with Indigenous Peoples disclosing their TEK. Additionally, Harris and Wasilewski
(2004) explain that the four “R’s’ of Indigeneity” should be adopted when utilizing TEK:
relationship is the kinship obligation; responsibility is the community obligation; reciprocity is
the cyclical obligation; and redistribution is the sharing obligation. Other scholarship has
underlined the importance of ongoing community engagement with Northern and Indigenous
communities sharing their TEK (Hayward et al., 2021, 2021b; Mashford-Pringle & Pavagadhi,
2020; Mead et al., 1994; Tondu et al., 2014). The Assembly of First Nations (2016) provides a
valuable guide for how TEK should be incorporated, stored, managed, and shared. Another
valuable resource is the First Nations Information Governance Centre’s course on Ownership,
Control, Access, and Possession (OCAP Principles). I recommend for government employees
incorporating TEK to review the Assembly of First Nations (2016) ethics guide on TEK and take
the First Nations Information Governance Centre’s OCAP course. The OCAP course outlines
ethical criteria relating to how Indigenous information such as TEK must be “collected, stored,
interpreted, protected, used and shared” (First Nations Information Governance Centre, 2022,
para. 3). I also recommend that when working with Indigenous communities, as well as when

171

TEK is included, that a respectful and reciprocal relationship and ongoing communication is
maintained.
Reconciliation
A central finding from my project was that reconciliation is difficult to define, measure
and achieve. It is also defined differently by each First Nation. Gitxsan First Nation members
expressed that each Indigenous community has different interpretations and values regarding
what reconciliation in parks means to them. These findings complement the work of Finegan
(2018) and Corntassel (2009), who both argued that definitions of reconciliation vary, as
reconciliation is grounded in community-based forms of justice. These authors found that
reconciliation must entail meaningful, community-centred, and community-driven healing
processes. BC Parks participants indicated that although the TRC Calls to Action (2015a) and
DRIPA (2019) are adopted into agency policy, no formal approach to reconciliation exists,
which makes it difficult to measure and achieve. To provide more direction in meeting
reconciliatory goals, the BC Parks participants recommended creating a checklist or directive
summary for reconciliation and documenting the principles and priorities outlined by First
Nations for achieving reconciliation. This would entail BC Parks representatives meeting with
First Nations in their respective areas for the purpose of clarifying how they define reconciliation
and how they envision working together toward reconciliation, then documenting this
information to share with other employees.
Gitxsan First Nation members and BC Parks employees both stressed the importance of
meaningful engagement and territorial acknowledgements for working towards reconciliation.
The TRC Calls to Action (2015a) commemoration principle 79 demands that government
institutions acknowledge and include the cultural history of First Nations. Therefore, BC Parks

172

should continue to work with First Nations to showcase Indigenous history in signage when and
where it is possible and appropriate. Garcia Chumash’s “Guide to Indigenous Land and
Territorial Acknowledgements For Cultural Institutions” (2018) defines land acknowledgements
as recognizing “the Indigenous peoples who have been dispossessed from the homelands and
territories upon which an institution was built and currently occupies and operates in” (p.1). She
notes that this can be complex for First Nations because they may no longer have ancestral ties to
government lands that they used to reside in due to “dispossession and displacement through
colonization” (Garcia Chumash, 2018, p. 2). Finegan (2018) claims land acknowledgements are
most meaningful when they name the relevant Indigenous communities, recognize their
continued presence and “explicitly state the problematic nature of the park’s creation” (p. 15).
Beck (2021) provides an example of a land acknowledgement from the Whitney Museum of
American Art which contains these elements:
The Whitney Museum of American Art acknowledges its building at 99 Gansevoort
Street [New York City] is built on unceded Indigenous lands, specifically the territory of
the Lenape. As a museum of American art, the Whitney recognizes the continual
displacement of Native people by the United States and is committed to working to
dismantle the ongoing effects of this colonial legacy. (p.2)
LaPorte (2023) claims that land acknowledgments only “occasionally acknowledge the historical
atrocities that occur, and almost always abrogate responsibility or complicity. They are rarely
accompanied by an action. More specifically, land acknowledgments fail to give land back” (p.
217). I will discuss the Land Back movement later in this chapter, however, LaPorte’s (2023)
decolonial critique of land acknowledgements highlights the importance of dismantling settler
colonialism. Lonetree (2012) explains that decolonizing and indigenizing parks “lies in

173

transforming these sites of colonial harm into sites of healing, and restoring community wellbeing” (p. 25). Thus, a starting point for such reconciliation is working with First Nations on
creating land acknowledgements (Beck, 2021). I recommend that BC Parks implement territorial
acknowledgements that follow this structure of naming the Indigenous communities, recognizing
their continued presence, and stating the problematic nature of the park’s establishment. BC
Parks must collaborate with Indigenous communities in sign development, and the wording of
each sign will vary (and may change over time, so arranging a follow-up process after sign
implementation is important). Nevertheless, this structure of naming provides meaningful
recognition of the First Nation and the harms of land dispossession.
Scholarship on reconciliation in protected areas has stressed the significance of
acknowledging colonial history in mobilizing social justice and working towards reconciliation
with First Nations (Finegan, 2018; Nagy, 2012; Sandlos, 2014; Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernandez,
2013). The TRC (2015b) defined reconciliation as establishing a mutually respectful relationship
with First Nations, noting that this involves “…awareness of the past, acknowledgement of the
harm that has been inflicted, atonement for the causes, and action to change behavior” (pp. 6-7).
Both participant groups agreed that BC Parks employees must be educated in colonial history
and have difficult and meaningful discussions about this history with First Nations to facilitate an
informed awareness of the past and responsibility for the future. It is fundamentally important to
understand how the past has affected the contemporary lived experiences of community
members. Dennis (Operations Management) illustrated this well in his interview:
You go to a stewardship office and you’re going to sit down with the Nation, and you’re
going to be flooded with the absolute wall of atrocities that have been done to the Nation.

174

And you’re the White person with a government uniform, and you’re going to have to be
able to sit there and work through that and take that responsibility on now.
These findings accord with the work of Corntassel and Holder (2008), who explain that states
must be accountable for the past wrongdoings and that governments often fall short of offering
“meaningful avenues for rectifying ongoing injustices centred on land dispossession and selfdetermination” (p. 466). This is likely because government employees do not fully understand
the past and present trauma experienced by Indigenous communities.
Another important piece of reconciliation is that it must go beyond tokenism, or “hollow,
symbolic gestures” (Corntassel & Holder, 2008, p. 467). To put it briefly, tokenism is the
practice of doing something at a minimal, symbolic level to mitigate criticism and give the
appearance that people are being treated fairly. Government can exhibit tokenism when they
consider that merely attending consultation meetings satisfies their reconciliatory obligations,
however, simply showing up to consult and being there is not a sincere or active effort towards
reconciliation and does not neutralize a history of wrongs (Corntassel & Holder, 2008). Rigby
(2001), the Director of the Centre for Peace and Reconciliation Studies, refers to these symbolic
gestures of tokenism as “cheap reconciliation” (p. 142). He argues that decolonization and
restitution are paramount to reconciliation and needed to transform relations with Indigenous
communities in “the way justice requires” (p. 64). Furthermore, my finding of the importance of
understanding how the past affects the contemporary moment is supported by Finegan (2018),
Snelgrove et al. (2014), and Tuck and Yang (2012), who asserted that due to the connections
between land, sovereignty, and cultural retention, it is crucial to have difficult conversations and
work through trauma to achieve reconciliation. Some BC Parks participants recommended that
BC Parks develop formal training for BC Parks employees about the trauma of Indigenous

175

communities to become better educated on how to communicate and work with First Nations that
express their intergenerational trauma.
A possible path to reconciliation within parks entails normalizing Indigenous presence
(back) on the landscape by hosting Indigenous events or programs (Rebonne, 2024). Examples
of this are hosting cultural and traditional activities in parks or creating spaces or developing
infrastructure “for Indigenous people to connect or be themselves” (Rebonne, 2024, p. 62).
Creating space and culturally appropriate opportunities for Indigenous Peoples, especially
Indigenous youth, is a way to contribute to reconciliation, decolonization and self-determination
efforts (Sutherland, 2021).
A large body of literature has studied the legacy of conservation policies, particularly the
establishment of parks, that have contributed to the displacement of Indigenous Peoples in
Canada (Binnema and Niema, 2006; Mason, 2014; Moola & Roth, 2019; Spence, 1999; Stevens,
2014; West et al., 2006). This literature highlights how conservation policies removed
Indigenous Peoples from their homelands and forced them onto reserves for the creation of parks
and criminalized the cultural and sustenance activities of First Nations within parks (Stevens &
De Lacy, 1997; West et al., 2006). Six Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs and Elders reflected on the
repression of their cultural practices in parks and their inability to maintain connections to the
land that they once lived on because of park creation and restrictive management policies. The
Gitxsan First Nation participants recounted that they had never been contacted by BC Parks’
employees or involved in any of BC Parks programs or projects, and several Chiefs and Elders
asserted that their ongoing exclusion in park management is a historical extension of these
colonial policies. These findings illustrate the need for BC Parks employees to increase their
outreach and engagement with Indigenous communities and build more relationships with First

176

Nations in their areas, as reconciliation must be demonstrated through action (Corntassel, 2009;
Finegan, 2018; Lonetree, 2012; National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, University of
Manitoba, 2024).
Gitxsan First Nation participants explained that maintaining communication and building
relationships with First Nations communities are essential for reconciliation. They also stressed
the importance of being kind, sincere, and respectful in meetings. Gitxsan Chiefs and Elders
recommended that BC Parks form more partnerships and use more co-management approaches
in parks within their Territory to address unequal power relations and achieve reconciliation. BC
Parks employees also emphasized partnerships, collaboration, and co-management approaches
with First Nations as important strategies for reconciliation. A recommendation that can be
drawn from these findings for BC Parks is to work with First Nations at the community level and
to create flexible co-management arrangements in parks that work within the interests and
capacity of each community.
These findings contrast with the literature which has found that co-management
approaches are not a strategy for reconciliation in parks due to their inability to integrate
indigeneity into park governance (Berkes, 2009; Finegan, 2018; Langdon et al., 2010; Nadasdy,
1999). Berkes’ (2009) research on cases of co-management over 20 years indicated that comanagement fails to “look beyond government, toward public-private-civil society partnerships,
as a way of dealing with the shortcomings of a single agency, top-down management” (p. 1692).
Langdon and colleagues (2010) case study on co-management of parks with Indigenous Peoples
in Parks Canada explained that in top-down processes for co-management by agencies,
governments still hold the final authority for park management decisions. Hence, Langdon et al.
(2010) claim that this approach does not always lead to partnership, and it is not the best way to

177

address issues cultivated by the eviction of sovereign Indigenous Peoples from their homelands.
Finegan’s (2018) study analyzed reconciliation policies in Canada, Australia, and the United
States to develop recommendations for achieving Indigenous reconciliation in protected areas.
For Finnegan (2018), co-management “is not a vehicle for Indigenous Peoples to reclaim
authority over their traditional territories, nor does it identify truth, acknowledge harm, or
provide restorative justice” (p. 11). Further, he argues that co-management co-opts Indigenous
Peoples into “existing settler-dominated government structures and processes” (p. 11).
Nadasdy’s (1999) study on the politics and power of TEK inclusion in resource and
environmental management illustrates that because resource managers, rather than Indigenous
Peoples, will be using the integrated TEK, the “project of knowledge integration actually serves
to concentrate power in administrative centres, rather than in the hands of Aboriginal people” (p.
1). Lastly, Swerdfager and Armitage’s (2023) study on co-management in Canadian fisheries and
marine contexts explains that successful co-management in Canada has remained “the exception
rather than the rule, and especially so in jurisdictions not covered by a comprehensive land
claims agreement” (p. 1). The authors note that several institutional conditions can impede
broader adoption of co-management approaches in Canada: antiquated and incomplete legislative
arrangements; a co-management policy which fails to address Indigenous Peoples’ expectations
for co-governance; an absence of knowledge co-production systems and two-eyed seeing
frameworks for decision-making; and financial and human resource capacity limitations
(Swerdfager and Armitage, 2023).
Considering the arguments of these authors, BC Parks should be mindful about the
inclusion of TEK and the top-down power dynamics which are sustained in co-management
structures. One reason why participants in my study may have preferred co-management

178

approaches is due to the lack of capacity of both BC Parks and Gitxsan First Nation to establish
other arrangements. However, co-management approaches have also been supported in literature
on two-eyed seeing. Aikenhead and Michell (2011) argue that Indigenous and Western
knowledge systems can be combined through co-management to meet a challenge or task at
hand.
Parks Canada (2023) created a guide for Indigenous leadership in park management
planning to inform and support “Indigenous governments as they engage with Parks Canada’s
management planning process in its current form” (p. 1). This document outlines their
collaborative approach to management planning, and it details various opportunities for
Indigenous involvement in the park management planning process. Parks Canada created this
guide to help facilitate the “shift away from colonial conservation strategies, and towards models
and practices rooted in Indigenous knowledge systems, designed in accordance with Indigenous
law, and developed through relationships forged in ethical space” (p. 1). The document was
developed in recognition of their commitment to reconciliation and in adherence to the federal
government’s UNDRIP Act (2021). I recommend that BC Parks develop a similar guide for First
Nations, to better support Indigenous self-determination and leadership in park planning and
management. Developing a guide that outlines BC Parks management planning process, and
information on collaborative and co-management opportunities with First Nations, will make
these opportunities for collaboration more accessible to First Nations.
Another approach to reconciliation and supporting Indigenous self-determination over
lands is IPCAs. Townsend and Roth (2023) contend that IPCAs can be pathways for
reconciliation if governments support IPCAs “in ways that are consistent with the
recommendations of Indigenous leaders” (p. 1). This requires dismantling the barriers arising

179

from settler institutions and knowledge systems which impede IPCA establishment and
Indigenous stewardship. They explain that if governments support IPCAs, Indigenous and
decolonial futures can be advanced.
Self-determination
Gitxsan Chiefs and Elders and BC Parks employees agreed that First Nations should have
more agency in governing parks within their respective territories. BC Parks participants often
used self-determination and reconciliation interchangeably, and this was because the employees
viewed increasing Indigenous self-determination as a key component of reconciliation. When
discussing self-determination, BC Parks participants claimed that they would like to see more comanagement frameworks in parks or have the ownership and management of some areas to be
given (back) to First Nations. As many First Nations in the Northwest are nearing completion of
their treaties with the BC Treaty Commission, and parks are subject to treaty negotiations, there
were several BC Parks employees who indicated that they anticipate upcoming changes in
legislation regarding park governance. They referred to these changes as pertaining to increasing
Indigenous inclusion and expanding Indigenous governance over parklands. This is also evident
in the ‘without prejudice’ statements found in BC Parks documents regarding future treaty
negotiations. For example, the North Coast LRMP outlines that: “Products from the North Coast
LRMP are without prejudice to First Nations and the Province with respect to land and resource
management issues in future Treaty negotiations” (British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable
Resource Management, 2005, p. 22). The further inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in park
management planning and the possibility of returning the governance of parks to First Nations
denotes a progressive way forward in support of Indigenous self-determination. It is likely that
these changes will be seen as treaties are finalized in the coming years.

180

A common statement made by Gitxsan First Nation participants was “we want our land
back.” The Land Back movement is an Indigenous-led movement that advocates for the return of
Indigenous lands to Indigenous Peoples. It is about restoring Indigenous sovereignty and
stewardship over their ancestral lands and recognizing historical injustices (Kepkiewicz, 2020).
The term “Land Back” originated with Indigenous artists and was popularized by social media
and memes (Dhillon, 2020). This movement has been ongoing for decades but has gained
momentum in recent years. In 2018, the movement received much attention and momentum after
Aaron Tailfeathers, a member of the Kainai Tribe of the Blackfeet Confederacy of Canada, wrote
Land Back in his Instagram post (Bender, 2022). In response, #LandBack rapidly became a
hashtag on clothes, beadwork, and other art (Dhillon, 2020). In August 2020, the advocacy
group, NDN Collective, launched landback.org with a LandBack Manifesto entitled “The
Reclamation of Everything Stolen from the Original Peoples” (NDN Collective, 2020), which
was followed by a campaign launch on Indigenous Peoples Day (i.e., a National holiday that
takes place on October 14 in the United States and June 21 in Canada). The NDN Manifesto
(2020) is a “meta political, organizing, and narrative framework for which Indigenous Peoples
work toward collective liberation” (p.1) and it encompasses Indigenous land, language,
ceremony, food, education, health, governance, medicine, and kinship relations. These
developments in the Land Back movement brought the movement back into the public eye,
challenging the Canadian state and private property regimes to give land back to First Nations
(Kepkiewicz, 2020; DeLancey, 2023).
In DeLancey’s (2023) research on decolonizing the evaluation of Indigenous land-based
programs, she writes from a settler perspective on what we can learn from the Land Back
movement. She claims that the Land Back movement calls for the relinquishing of settler

181

colonial control over lands and the recognition of Indigenous sovereignty by “returning land and
restoring Indigenous decision-making” (p. 179) on Indigenous lands. She states that the
decolonization that is demanded by the Land Back movement necessitates that governments stop
requiring Indigenous Peoples’ programs to demonstrate their validity through the constructs of
WSK (DeLancey, 2023). This relates back to my earlier discussion on evaluating TEK based on
WSK, and how this operates to devalue and discredit the rationality of TEK—which reinforces
and endures the ongoing violence against Indigenous Peoples and their Knowledges. Scholars
have also discussed how Land Back movements and increased representation on a landscape
creates space for decolonization (Coulthard & Simpson, 2016; Ermine, 2007). In a recent case of
the Land Back movement that is taking place within the North Coast Skeena Region,
Wet’suwet’en First Nation land defenders have been seen in the media with Land Back signs
protesting the Coastal GasLink (CGL) pipeline (Bellrichard & Barrera, 2020). Coastal GasLink’s
pipeline is currently being constructed through Wet’suwet’en Territory, despite opposition from
some Chiefs who claim that they never consented to the pipeline (Amnesty International, 2024).
I received varied responses from Gitxsan First Nation participants about how to increase
self-determination and foster reconciliation. While some Gitxsan First Nation community
members noted co-management agreements as the best way forward, others stressed territorial
acknowledgements and Indigenous programs, and some wanted their land back. It is important to
underscore the diversity of perspectives within one First Nation. Hence, circling back to my
earlier discussion on engagement agreements, a one-dimensional, uniform approach by BC Parks
to engaging with Indigenous Peoples or to increasing Indigenous self-determination and
mobilizing reconciliation, is unable to capture the complexity of perspectives within one
Indigenous territory. Community-level engagement is crucial to accurately understand and

182

document the varied interests of each First Nation community. It is also necessary to facilitate
the community-based forms of justice that decolonization requires.
BC Parks participants explained that BC Parks programs for Indigenous inclusion aim to
increase First Nations’ autonomy over the land-base and in park decision-making. The
Indigenous Guardian Shared Compliance and Enforcement Program is a good example of this,
wherein First Nations are developing the program to manage important components of their
culture (e.g., culturally significant areas, wildlife, marine habitat, etc.). As discussed in Chapter
Four, this program trains and employs First Nation members to obtain and exercise the same
legal authorities as BC Parks Rangers (British Columbia, 2022), which increases their power and
control in governing and regulating activities within their territories. More programs such as this
one would be beneficial for increasing Indigenous self-determination. Parks Canada also offers
an Indigenous Guardian and Watchman program to support Indigenous land management and
stewardship of their Territories (Parks Canada, 2024). This program provides training and career
opportunities for Indigenous Peoples to work as equal partners with government to protect and
manage land and resources. Reed and colleagues (2021) conducted a systematic review of peerreviewed literature on Indigenous guardian and watchmen programs in Australia, Canada,
Aotearoa-New Zealand, and the United States. They explored whether guardian approaches are
representative of Indigenous approaches to environmental governance. They found that guardian
programs do support Indigenous governance, as they can empower indigenous resistance to
reconstitute power relationships. Several studies have used two-eyed seeing to analyze the role of
Indigenous land guardians in monitoring fish, wildlife and resources on a landscape (Popp et al.,
2020; Thompson et al., 2019; Tran et al., 2020). These studies all found that Indigenous guardian
programs utilize TEK to create cohesive solutions in resource management and provide a

183

positive opportunity for relationship building and community-level participation in monitoring
and management.
Both participant groups identified IPCAs as an important strategy for asserting selfdetermination in parks. Previous literature has described IPCAs as opportunities for “Indigenous
Peoples to reclaim stewardship of their territories, create space for Indigenous resurgence and
cultural revitalization, and transform approaches to protected areas in Canada” (Papadopoulos,
2021, p. vii). This new land designation, which is often implemented by Indigenous Peoples that
act as the sole governing bodies but can also be created in partnership with provincial or federal
government agencies, is a growing mechanism for asserting self-determination and ownership
over Indigenous lands. IPCAs are managed and governed by the values, laws and culture of
Indigenous Peoples and function to protect the lands within Indigenous territories and ensure the
futurity of Indigenous land and culture. In their research on the Wanachis-hilth-hoo-is Tribal
Park (Meares Island), Murray and Burrows (2017) found that IPCAs can have economic benefits
for Indigenous communities that implement user fees for tourists and fishing/hunting guides that
visit their park. IPCAs can also provide jobs in Indigenous communities by employing
Indigenous Peoples to conduct their own outfitting and tours within the designated area.
Community members can employ their land departments to monitor, regulate and oversee
fisheries, wildlife, and vegetation within the protected area and manage biodiversity across the
landscape (Tran et al., 2020).
An IPCA in Gitxsan First Nation Territory that was highlighted in many of my interviews
with Chiefs and Elders is the Wilp Wii Litsxw Meziadin IPCA, which was designated by
Gitanyow First Nation in 2021 adjacent to Hanna-Tintina Conservancy. When Gitxsan First
Nation noticed that salmon populations in BC Parks Hanna-Tintina Conservancy were declining

184

and exploration activities in Strohn Creek and Meziadin Lake were increasing—an area not
protected under the original management plan—the Hereditary Chiefs decided to designate the
region an IPCA (Simmons, 2021). After waiting over five years for support from the provincial
government in the face of their declining salmon stock, the Gitanyow independently forged
ahead with new protections under traditional law and custom for 54,000 hectares of land and
water, which were threatened by mining projects (Simmons, 2021). In 2023, Gitanyow created a
park management plan for the IPCA (Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs and Hlimoo Sustainable
Solutions, 2023). They are also developing partnerships with Gitanyow and Wilp-led businesses
and have plans to build culturally significant infrastructure, including a long house building to
host visitors and a climate monitoring centre (Make Way, 2024). BC Parks participants
expressed that they expect more IPCAs to be created over the coming years in the Northwest
region. IPCAs are a new form of conservation tool, and each IPCA is unique, however, IPCAs
are not necessarily the same as a BC ‘Park’. Some of the IPCAs being established by First
Nations may eventually be designated under provincial legislation (possibly the Park Act), but it
is Ministry of Water, Lands and Natural Resource Stewardship that undertakes the land use
planning processes with First Nations and works out the designation tool rather than BC Parks.
I recommend that BC Parks support First Nations with their IPCA designations in the
ways that they can until IPCAs become recognized by the province, by working or partnering
with them to build relationships. Once IPCAs receive official recognition from the province (and
possible designation under the Ministry of Water, Lands and Natural Resource Stewardship’s
Park Act), I recommend providing official recognition of IPCAs in maps, brochures, and
resources for visitors and tourists to access online or in person. These publicly available
materials should also outline the allowable activities and regulations in IPCAs, as well as the

185

laws, culture, history and protocols on First Nations lands. Providing these resources for tourists
and visitors would increase the public’s awareness of Indigenous laws and culture and would
help build government-to-government relationships with First Nations by supporting their selfdetermination and ensuring the preservation of their lands, culture, laws, and way of life.
Conclusion
This chapter analyzed my findings in relation to the literature and my two-eyed seeing
theoretical lens. I found that settler colonialism, the residential school system, and assimilation
policies have resulted in First Nation’s lack of trust in the province. This lack of trust, as well as
treaty negotiations, overlapping territories, and multiple engagement agreements between the
Province and First Nations, complicate the inclusion of TEK in park planning and operations
management. The current political climate’s focus on reconciliation, climate change, and treaty
negotiations lend support for the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and their TEK in park planning
and operations management. I heard from BC Parks participants that the North Coast Skeena
Region is limited in capacity, and operational budgets for the North Coast Skeena Region are set
by employees in Southern BC. BC Parks’ employees called for an Indigenous Relations
specialist, with familiarity of the areas they work in, to be located within their regions to advise
planning and operations staff on consultation, engagement, and relationship-building with First
Nations. From Gitxsan First Nation participants, I heard that every First Nation community
interprets reconciliation differently and has its own reconciliatory goals and that Indigenous selfdetermination requires increased control, agency, and governance of First Nations territories.
Lastly, BC Parks participants anticipate upcoming legislative changes to better support
Indigenous self-determination.

186

Overall, my transcripts revealed the need for a clear approach to TEK inclusion that is
adaptable to individual First Nations’ priorities, that can function with limited resources, and that
fosters relationship-building. While TEK is community specific and only applies within the
location it originates from, it must be supported as valid knowledge by parks personnel and
braided with WSK into new paradigms for park management.

187

Chapter Six: Conclusion
I remember learning about the removal of Indigenous Peoples from their homes and
territories for the creation of parks in Canada during my undergraduate degree. When I reflect on
my notes from that day during my park management class at the University of Alberta, I am
fuelled with the same frustration that compelled me to embark on this thesis project. During that
class, an Indigenous speaker and Elder gave her testimony of forced relocation from her
traditional territory to a reserve for the creation of a government park. At that time, in 2016, I
was working for a municipal government’s parks department managing vegetation and wildlife
within city limits. I was shocked to realize that I had already worked two years for parks without
knowing this history—the history of settler colonialism in government parks and the cultural
construction of wilderness.
My conclusion seeks to accomplish four things: (1) revisit the main arguments and
recommendations; (2) illustrate the practical and theoretical significance of the work; (3) reflect
upon my personal trajectory throughout the project; and (4) outline some of the limitations of the
project and suggest future research directions.
The Main Arguments and Recommendations
This research project explored how TEK can be meaningfully integrated into BC Parks
planning and management. My central argument was that the inclusion of TEK is necessary to
improve park management and to address the larger social and environmental issues in society. It
is my belief that if we are to contend successfully with the environmental problems which
threaten us—global climate change, loss of biodiversity, marine degradation, etc.—the inclusion
of TEK in current environmental management systems is not merely a prudent undertaking, it is
essential (Eckert et al., 2020; McGregor, 2004). By researching this topic, I was able to delineate

188

new possibilities for park planning and management. My recommendations were devised to
address relations of power, problematic policies, and socio-political factors that often limit the
inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge, and it is my hope that they will help promote reconciliation
and self-determination.
Several recommendations emerged from the analysis of the transcripts. The first of which
is establishing a shared decision-making process for operational budgets between regional
employees and employees in Victoria for regional park operations decisions. It is important that
the employees who are making operations decisions for parks within different regions have
familiarity with and knowledge of the parks that their operational decisions will impact.
Additionally, Indigenous Relations staff should be hired within BC Parks regional offices, with
localized knowledge about the First Nations that they are advising on, to better assist regional
staff in their work on engagement, consultation, and relationship-building with First Nations.
Another is for BC Parks to hire more Indigenous and other racialized peoples throughout the
agency. Alongside this, it would be beneficial for BC Parks to revise its consultation training to
meet modern legislation (i.e., DRIPA and UN Declaration) and to provide employees with an
understanding of all the engagement agreements and processes that they will use for working
with and consulting First Nations. Participants expressed a need for more mandatory training on
settler colonialism and Indigenous history in parks facilitated by local Indigenous Peoples.
Developing a mentorship program would help to prevent the loss of information about First
Nations and parks over time from staff changes. Also, creating a guiding document for First
Nations to access that outlines information on opportunities for collaboration and comanagement with First Nations in parks would make this information more accessible and help
support work with First Nations.

189

I recommend that cultural heritage assessments and archaeological studies in parks result
in reports for employees to read and review. BC Parks employees should become educated on
individual First Nations’ cultures, histories, laws and protocols before working with them, to be
knowledgeable in these areas before formal meetings commence. First Nations’ laws should be
recognized and respected together with provincial laws and regulations in parks. To promote and
facilitate TEK inclusion, BC Parks employees should value and appreciate TEK in the same
ways that they do WSK in park planning and operations management. They should also remain
open-minded to other ways of knowing. In signage projects, BC Parks employees need to consult
with Chiefs and Elders in First Nations and bordering First Nations to ensure signs are mounted
in the correct place and provide the correct information. A similar process should be used for
park names and any other information displayed about a First Nation. I recommend that BC
Parks employees work with First Nations at the community level to identify their interests and
priorities in park management and for reconciliation in parks, then document this information for
other employees. Despite the challenges of treaty negotiations and territory overlaps in parks, BC
Parks employees should increase their work with First Nations and build relationships with them
in the best ways that they can. Territory acknowledgements need to be developed in consultation
with Chiefs and Elders of a First Nation and should outline the name of the community, their
ongoing presence on the landscape, and the problematic nature of the park’s establishment. More
programs such as the Indigenous Guardian Shared Compliance and Enforcement Program should
be implemented by BC Parks, to support Indigenous self-determination and increase Indigenous
governance of parks in their territories. Lastly, IPCAs should be formally recognized by the
Province of BC.

190

Significance of the Study
In terms of its practical significance, this research has the potential to benefit Gitxsan
First Nation and BC Parks. It provides findings that encourage the inclusion of TEK in BC Parks
planning and operations management. BC Parks and other park agencies can utilize the
recommendations outlined in this chapter to overcome barriers to Indigenous involvement and
advance the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and their TEK in planning and operations
management. I developed presentations for BC Parks and Gitxsan First Nation summarizing my
findings, as well as a final report for the participants to review. My interviews with Gitxsan First
Nation Chiefs and Elders and BC Parks employees provided this study with empirical evidence
to inform strategies for the inclusion of TEK in park planning and operations management—
strategies that centre Indigenous Peoples’ interests and Knowledge. Gitxsan First Nation
members had opportunities to discuss how BC Parks can improve consultation and have a greater
appreciation for their culture, interests, goals, and objectives in future planning and current
operations management. Both participant groups were provided with opportunities to discuss
how they define reconciliation and reflect on the role of reconciliation and self-determination in
park management. Few studies have aimed to reveal how reconciliation and self-determination
can be mobilized and achieved in park planning and management. This study makes a novel
contribution to the literature by providing information for park planners and managers on how to
support Indigenous Peoples in mobilizing self-determination and achieving more reconciliatory
goals.
As discussed in Chapter One, progress towards reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples
requires political support. One of the conditions that made my research possible was the current
administration’s (the BC New Democratic Party) support for reconciliation policies during the

191

early 2020s. This administration has made significant progress in advancing reconciliation by
responding to the TRC’s Calls to Action (2015a) and enacting DRIPA (2019). Nevertheless,
considerable back-peddling was seen by opposition parties in the lead-up to the 2024 election,
who gained popular support by spreading fear and misinformation regarding DRIPA and
proposed amendments to the Land Act (Kwetásel’wet Wood, 2024; West Moberly First Nation,
2024). In light of these developments in the political environment, this project may be harder to
fulfill in the coming years, and BC Parks employees may have been less inclined to participate in
my study. This stresses the importance of my research project in the contemporary moment and I
hope that research in this area continues to explore reconciliation and decolonization in
government institutions.
With respect to its scholarly significance, this project adds to ongoing discussions about
the barriers to the uptake of Indigenous Knowledges and TEK in park planning and operations
management. Academic literature on TEK inclusion in provincial park planning and
management is lacking, as is research concerning the impacts and implications of social, political
and historical relations of power that frame the inequality of Indigenous Peoples in park planning
and management. Previous research on TEK in park planning and management has not studied
BC Parks North Coast Skeena Region or included Indigenous perspectives. The earlier studies
have also not focussed on exploring the role of reconciliation and self-determination in park
planning and operations management. Responding to the calls of Cook (2020), Kadykalo et al.
(2021), and Lemieux et al. (2018) for further research on this topic, this work contributes
empirical evidence to ongoing academic discussions regarding Indigenous inclusion, TEK,
reconciliation, and self-determination in park management. It also responds to the federal

192

government’s TRC Calls to Action (2015a) and BC’s DRIPA (2019) by addressing the legacies
and current realities of settler colonialism in government institutions.
With respect to its theoretical significance, this project adds to scholarship about
community-based research with Indigenous Peoples and two-eyed seeing. My community-based
research approach and case study methodology allowed for a focussed, contextualized
exploration and analysis of the topic in a particular location. I was able to build relationships
within the communities I was studying and work with Gitxsan First Nation and BC Parks to
design a project that would benefit both participant groups. Two-eyed seeing was a useful theory
for weaving together the perspectives of local Indigenous communities and BC Parks employees
in the Northwest region. Two-eyed seeing allowed me to bring together two knowledge systems
side-by-side and accord both perspectives appreciation (Kadykalo et al., 2021). Using two-eyed
seeing theory in combination with the concepts of settler colonialism and decolonization further
strengthened my commitments to the First Nation. This approach impelled me to better
understand the harms and traumas experienced by communities and increased my resolve to
fashion a project that would help empower Indigenous Peoples, advance their self-determination
and promote reconciliation generally.
One of my project’s significant methodological contributions is its Research Agreement
and Data-sharing Protocol (Appendix B), which formally outlines my commitments to Gitxsan
First Nation in formal legalese. The Research Agreement and Data-sharing Protocol helped to
guide the research process and minimize any concerns that the First Nation had regarding their
participation. I gifted my Research Agreement template to Gitxsan First Nation, so that they can
use it for creating legally binding research agreements with other researchers in the future.
Gitxsan First Nation granted me permission to share my Research Agreement template with the

193

University of Northern British Columbia and other student researchers to support their work with
Indigenous Peoples. I gave my Research Agreement and Data-sharing Protocol to Secwépemc
scholar, Penina Harding, to make available for other researchers at the University of Northern
British Columbia’s First Nations Centre and Office of Indigenous Initiatives. Research
Agreements with Indigenous governments are scarcely available and difficult to locate
(especially agreements written by an Indigenous lawyer in clear and precise legalese), therefore,
this is a significant contribution for future graduate students who want to pursue research with an
Indigenous government.
In terms of methods, this project also has value for demonstrating how inductive and
deductive approaches to coding can be applied together to complement each other in qualitative
research. Employing both coding approaches in thematic analysis provided me with a valuable
toolkit to code according to my research questions and theory, while also coding to reveal
findings in the data that were not obvious to me. Inductive, data-driven, line-by-line coding
illuminated various themes in my analysis that I had not anticipated, confirming for me that
inductive coding is valuable in letting ‘the data speak for itself’ (Thornberg & Charmaz, 2014).
This could prove useful for future graduate students to refer to in choosing methods for thematic
analysis.
Reflection on my Personal Trajectory
I have learned valuable lessons in this research project that have contributed to my
personal growth as a scholar. First, Indigenous research must be conducted for and with the
communities being studied, and not on or about the communities (Smith, 2021). Second,
building relationships with partners in community-based research takes time, and working with
government partners requires many meetings, especially in the early phases of the research.

194

Third, community-based research with government partners requires that the researcher commit
to upholding their responsibilities and demonstrate this through respect, collaboration, and
reciprocity in building and maintaining relationships (Harris & Wasilewski, 2004). Fourth,
remaining accountable and open to different ideas and suggestions for improvement by partners
is necessary for building trust and establishing good rapport. Lastly, the trust, transparency and
other fundaments of good relationships with research partners and participants can only be
maintained through ongoing, respectful communication.
This thesis provides another example of working with a First Nation and a provincial
government in research and the process of building relationships and trust with two government
partners. By conducting community-based research that incorporated the ideas of Gitxsan First
Nation and BC Parks into the research design, I learned fundamental aspects of working in
partnership with two governments in a graduate research project. It was instructive and gratifying
for me to learn and practice the necessary responsibilities, perspectives and behaviours that
succeeded in fostering these fruitful relationships. The project required a vigilant commitment to
always demonstrate respect for my partners while maintaining ongoing, open communications. I
practiced truly listening to them, asking questions and seeking their feedback wherever their
expertise could provide answers and augment my understandings of the current realities or
historical context of Northwestern BC. Gitxsan First Nation and BC Parks provided constructive
feedback throughout the research process, which helped clarify what would be beneficial and
important to them in the investigation of my topic.
When working with an Indigenous government, it is important to first understand the
multi-faceted and systemic racism that has afflicted Indigenous Peoples in settler colonial
society. The cumulative, oppressive burden of this long-sanctioned racism has resulted in multi-

195

generational trauma; and it is necessary to understand this trauma prior to engaging in research
activities involving Indigenous Peoples (McGuire-Adams, 2020). Therefore, I did much reading
on Indigenous research paradigms and how to develop my skills in performing such research. I
read academic literature and various books on Gitxsan First Nation history, laws and culture to
become familiar with the areas I was studying. Gitxsan First Nation friends and mentors helped
to facilitate a thorough understanding of Gitxsan First Nation cultural protocols and a basic
understanding of the Gitxsan language (i.e., Sim AIgyax language family, referred to as
Gitxsanimx/Gitksenimx), and this greatly enhanced my meetings with community members. I
also actively engaged in researcher reflexivity, documenting my thoughts, ideas, and insights in a
research diary (Nadin & Cassell, 2006) to reflect on my role and responsibilities as a White
researcher working in partnership with a First Nation and a government park agency. As Johnson
et al. (2006) stress, reflexivity is a central component to research with Indigenous Peoples. We
must be self-conscious about who we are, why we ask the questions that we do, and what our
prior relationships might be to our objects of study. The authors write: “openness to others
depends on a certain confidence about where we stand” (p. 24). I was self-consciously attuned to
the privileging of partial perspectives and situated knowledges (Haraway, 1988) throughout my
study, as consciousness of our own partiality is an essential part of the dialogue with the other
(Johnson et al., 2006). This self-aware consideration helped me to recognize how my own
subjectivity and positionality might influence the research. Reflecting on my own middle-class,
White privilege helped me maintain humility and self-awareness throughout the project.
Limitations and Future Directions
My research was a case study that was limited in its size and scope by working with one
First Nation and one specific region of BC Parks. I believe that broadening my research to

196

include more regions with their Indigenous governments, communities and Parks offices, would
have proved beneficial; gathering more data from a larger and more diverse sample can advance
or affect the quality of insights and perspectives (Baker & Edwards, 2017). Interviewing more
planning staff from BC Parks and Indigenous Peoples who had been involved in recent
collaborative planning processes with BC Parks would have informed findings and
recommendations that were less focussed on consultation for statutory decision-making and
operations, and more focussed on planning processes. The complexities and nuances of other
Indigenous cultures, protocols, beliefs, values, priorities and ideas were not captured in this
study; however, focussing on one First Nation, the Gitxsan First Nation, permitted a detailed
analysis of multiple communities within the First Nation, and engendered a strong relationship
between the First Nation government and myself.
Although I established good relationships with Gitxsan First Nation government,
community members and BC Parks North Coast Skeena Region employees, I nevertheless
remained an ‘outsider’ (Smith, 2021; Merton, 1972) in this project, as I am neither Indigenous
nor a BC Parks employee, and I was not born in Northwestern BC. Trust and relationships were
slow to develop with Gitxsan First Nation government employees, community members, and BC
Parks employees; however, I was patient and respectful, and demonstrated that my intent in this
project was in good faith. During the research process, Gitxsan First Nation and BC Parks had
other ongoing priorities which led to Gitxsan First Nation members and BC Parks staff having
limited time to meet and discuss the research. As the project progressed, time also became a
limiting factor for participants’ review of interview transcripts and for the review of thesis
chapters by government representatives. I respected their time constraints and allowed extended
time frames to receive their feedback and input (e.g., I allowed one month for participants to

197

review their interview transcripts). Using email for this process proved valuable, as it permitted
flexibility for participants to view and respond to my questions and requests on their own
schedules.
In retrospect, I believe that asking more questions regarding current and previous
planning processes and cultural use of parks would have benefitted my study. It would have been
interesting to ask Gitxsan First Nation members how BC Parks can improve their access to
culturally important areas and how they would like to see this managed and regulated. Another
area where more insight could have been gained concerns the role of IPCAs in selfdetermination. I did not ask specific questions regarding IPCAs, although these were frequently
highlighted by both participant groups as an important pathway toward self-determination in
protected areas on Indigenous Territories. As I’ve discussed earlier, BC Parks employees
identified the ongoing development of treaties and existing territorial overlaps as significant
barriers to Indigenous and TEK inclusion in park planning and management. It might have been
revealing to find out how Gitxsan First Nation members view the BC Treaty Commission
process and how it influences their relationships with BC Parks and other agencies; however, the
Gitxsan First Nation participants did not speak in detail about this matter, and I did not
specifically question them about it. I also would have liked to ask them how territorial overlaps
with other First Nations might affect their negotiations and work with the province.
Due to the limited scope of any master’s research project, several topics are not included
in this research, including knowledge co-production, knowledge exchange, social-ecological
systems, adaptive management, collaborative stewardship, protected area management
effectiveness (PAME) assessment tools, and Indigenous environmental monitoring, which are all
areas that could advance literature on this topic and understandings of TEK inclusion in park

198

planning and management. Through my research design and research questions, I chose to focus
on Indigenous-settler relations, the lived experiences of Gitxsan First Nation members and BC
Parks staff in Northwestern BC, and the just and appropriate inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and
their Knowledges in park management. This is because I wanted to understand how BC Parks
staff were incorporating Indigenous Peoples and their TEK in park planning and operations
management and identify the barriers to TEK inclusion. I also wanted to investigate how colonial
structures and discourses might operate to exclude Indigenous Peoples in park management.
Lastly, I was interested in the role of reconciliation and self-determination in park planning and
management.
I have several suggestions for future research directions. First, future research on this
topic should explore the perspectives of other Indigenous Peoples and park agencies in different
areas across Canada to identify best practices in the equitable, sustainable planning and
management of parks, while also helping to fulfil the goals of Truth and Reconciliation. By
collecting more data on how reconciliation and self-determination are understood and realized by
other park agencies and Indigenous Peoples, future work on this topic can investigate new areas
for Indigenous collaboration and inclusion in park management. Second, I suggest using
Indigenous methodologies, feminist methodologies, visual methodologies, photovoice
methodologies, case studies, qualitative longitudinal research, participatory action research, and
ethnographies as frameworks for analysis in future work. In terms of methods, I believe that
surveys, interviews, focus groups, participatory workshops, participatory mapping exercises, and
photo elicitation techniques could all be beneficial for gathering data on the lived experiences of
park employees and Indigenous Peoples and facilitating knowledge exchange and co-production
on the topics of park planning and management, TEK inclusion, reconciliation and self-

199

determination. Third, future research on this topic should focus on the role of IPCAs and park
agency policies and programs in fostering self-determination. A fourth area requiring future
research is Indigenous access to cultural sites within parks and park visitor activities which
compromise cultural use of parks. Finally, research on the recognition and implementation of
Indigenous laws in parks is lacking, and this is a significant gap that should be explored in future
studies.
Next Projects
My master’s research provided me with the necessary skills to work in partnership with
government agencies, Indigenous Peoples, and communities. I am excited for my doctoral
research—I recently began a Ph.D. in Forest and Conservation Sciences at the University of
Montana—and other future projects, as I have become a more interdisciplinary and reflexive
scholar because of my master’s project. This thesis has further broadened my diverse research
background and helped to shape in me a unique perspective that views social justice,
community-based research, decolonization, and Indigenous collaboration as central to my work.

200

References
Absolon, K. E. (2022). Kaandossiwin: How we come to know: Indigenous re-search
methodologies. Fernwood Publishing.
Abu, R., Reed, M. G., & Jardine, T. D. (2019). Using two-eyed seeing to bridge Western science
and Indigenous knowledge systems and understand long-term change in the
Saskatchewan River Delta, Canada. International Journal of Water Resources
Development.
Adler, E. S., & Clark, R. (2011). An invitation to social research: How it’s done. Wadsworth,
Cengage Learning.
Adu, P. (2019). A step-by-step guide to qualitative data coding. Routledge.
Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific
knowledge. Development and change, 26(3), 413-439.
Ahmed, S. (2017). Living a feminist life. Duke University Press.
Aikenhead G, Michell H. (2011). Bridging cultures; indigenous and scientific ways of knowing
nature. Pearson Canada Inc.
Alberta Parks. (2024). Park ranger mentorship program.
https://mydocs.wfd.alberta.ca/media/zculbvzt/jr62238_park-ranger-team-lead_jd.pdf
Allison, M. T., & Hibbler, D. K. (2004). Organizational barriers to inclusion: Perspectives from
the recreation professional. Leisure Sciences, 26(3), 261-280.
Amnesty International. (2024). Respect Indigenous rights on Wet’suwet’en Territory.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/petition/respect-indigenous-rights-on-wetsuweten-territory/
Anderson, G. (1993). Fundamentals of educational research. Falmer Press.

201

Aquash, M. (2013). First Nations in Canada: Decolonization and self-determination. Education,
19(2), 120-137. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1263281
Archibald, M. M., Ambagtsheer, R. C., Casey, M. G., & Lawless, M. (2019). Using zoom
videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: perceptions and experiences of
researchers and participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18,
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919874596
Arksey, H., & Knight, P. T. (1999). Achieving a successful interview. In Interviewing for social
scientists (pp. 89-109). Sage Publications.
Aronson, J. (1995). A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. The qualitative report, 2(1), 1-3.
Arsenault, R., Diver, S., McGregor, D., Witham, A., & Bourassa, C. (2018). Shifting the
framework of Canadian water governance through Indigenous research methods:
Acknowledging the past with an eye on the future. Water, 10(1), 49.
Assembly of First Nations. (2016). First Nations Ethics Guide on Research and Aboriginal
Traditional Knowledge.
https://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/fn_ethics_guide_on_research_and_atk.pdf
Assembly of First Nations Environmental Stewardship Unit. (2009, March). Ethics in First
Nation Research. https://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/rp-research_ethics_final.pdf
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative
research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385-405.
Auger, O. (2021, August 16). Coastal First Nations in B.C. demand DFO respect their right to
fish. APTN National News. https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/coastal-first-nationsin-b-c-demand-dfo-respect-their-right-to-fish/

202

Austen, I. (2021). How thousands of Indigenous children vanished in Canada. New York
Times, 7.
Austin, R. (1997). Not just for the fun of it: Governmental restraints on black leisure, social
inequality, and the privatization of public space. S. Cal. L. Rev., 71, 667.
Baker, S., & Edwards, R. (2017). How many qualitative interviews is enough? Expert voices and
early career reflections on sampling and cases in qualitative research. National Centre for
Research Methods Review Paper.
Baldwin, A., Cameron., L, & Kobayashi, A. (2011). Introduction: Where is the Great White
North? Spatializing history, historicizing whiteness. In A. Baldwin, L. Cameron, & A.
Kobayashi (Eds.), Rethinking the Great White North: race, nature, and the historical
geographies of whiteness in Canada (pp 1-15). UBC Press.
Ban, N.C., Frid A., Reid M., Edgar B., Shaw D., and Siwallace P. (2018). Incorporate
Indigenous perspectives for impactful research and effective management. Nature
Ecology & Evolution, 2(11): 1680–1683.
Bartlett, C. (2017, August 23). Two-Eyed Seeing, a presentation for: Dominique Blanchard, new
Assistant Deputy Minister (Public and Indigenous Affairs and Ministerial Services
Branch within Environment and Climate Change Canada/Government of Canada)
[PowerPoint Slides].
http://www.integrativescience.ca/uploads/files/TwoEyedSeeing_ECC%20Canada_2017.p
df
Bartlett, C., Marshall, M., & Marshall, A. (2012). Two-eyed seeing and other lessons learned
within a co-learning journey of bringing together indigenous and mainstream knowledges
and ways of knowing. Journal of environmental studies and sciences, 2, 331-340

203

Baum, R. P., & Sheehan, W. (2013). In search of planet Vulcan: The ghost In Newton’s
clockwork universe. Springer.
Baxter, J. (2021). Case studies in qualitative research. In I. Hay & M. Cope (Eds.), Qualitative
research methods in human geography (5th ed.) (pp. 109-124). Oxford University Press.
Baxter, J., & Eyles, J. (1997). Evaluating qualitative research in social geography: establishing
‘rigour’in interview analysis. Transactions of the Institute of British geographers, 22(4),
505-525.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13, 544-559.
BC Forest Service. (2007). Atlas of Resource Values in the Gitxsan Watersheds.
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/dss/external/!publish/web/Gitxsan_Wshed_Atlas/
Babine_Oct_07.pdf
BC Parks. (n.d.). Summary of protected area designations and allowable activities.
https://nrs.objectstore.gov.bc.ca/kuwyyf/summary_of_pa_designations_activities_33db19
a9c5.pdf
BC Parks. (2007, July). Management direction statement for Anderson Flats Provincial Park.
https://nrs.objectstore.gov.bc.ca/kuwyyf/anderson_flats_pk_mds_20070712_751bb6e203
.pdf
BC Parks. (2012). Zoning framework. https://bcparks.ca/planning/docs/zoning-framework.pdf
BC Parks. (2013). Strategic management planning policy.
https://nrs.objectstore.gov.bc.ca/kuwyyf/mp_strategic_policy_9115649002.pdf
BC Parks. (2016). Protected area management planning process manual.
https://nrs.objectstore.gov.bc.ca/kuwyyf/management_planning_manual_415d24c1ed.pdf

204

BC Parks. (2021). BC Parks contacts, conditions and restrictions.
https://portalext.nrs.gov.bc.ca/documents/processed_files/Park+Contacts+Conditions+an
d+Restrictions+2021-01-18.pdf
BC Parks. (2022, January). License plate program five-year report.
https://nrs.objectstore.gov.bc.ca/kuwyyf/bc_parks_licence_plate_program_5_year_report
_fy_2017_2021_ee7a40986c.pdf
BC Parks. (2023a). Management planning process.
https://bcparks.ca/about/management-plans/planning-process/#for-more-information
BC Parks. (2023b). Licence Plate Program Annual Report.
https://nrs.objectstore.gov.bc.ca/kuwyyf/licence_plate_program_annual_report_2021_20
22_f55df0cd43.pdf
BC Parks. (2024c). Licence Plate Program Annual Report.
https://nrs.objectstore.gov.bc.ca/kuwyyf/bc_parks_lpp_annual_report_2022_23_v1_10d9
09554f.pdf
BC Parks. (2024a, June 5). Strategic engagement agreements.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/
consulting-with-first-nations/first-nations-negotiations/strategic-engagement-agreements
BC Parks. (2024b, July 9). Reconciliation and other agreements.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/
consulting-with-first-nations/first-nations-negotiations/reconciliation-other-agreements
BC Parks. (2025). Buy a BC Parks licence plate. https://bcparks.ca/get-involved/buy-licenceplate/

205

BC Parks Future Strategy. (2016, November). Protecting our legacy together. BC Parks’ future
strategy: Securing our natural legacy through innovation, sustainability and partnership.
https://bcparks.ca/future/docs/BC-Parks-Future-Strategy.pdf
BC Parks Skeena District. (2000a, September). Management direction statement for Babine
River Corridor Provincial Park.
https://nrs.objectstore.gov.bc.ca/kuwyyf/babine_river_corridor_pk_mds_20000901_58b9
65ea47.pdf
BC Parks Skeena District. (2000b, July). Management direction statement for Ross Lake
Provincial Park.
https://nrs.objectstore.gov.bc.ca/kuwyyf/ross_lake_pk_mds_20000717_8fa7021d7b.pdf
BC Parks Skeena District. (2000c, September). Management direction statement for Bulkley
Junction Provincial Park.
https://nrs.objectstore.gov.bc.ca/kuwyyf/bulkley_junction_pk_mds_20000901_f4fc931c6
1.pdf
BC Parks Skeena District. (2000d, July). Management direction statement for Seeley Lake
Provincial Park.
https://nrs.objectstore.gov.bc.ca/kuwyyf/seeley_lake_pk_mds_20000706_1f4964590c.pd
f
BC Parks Skeena District. (2000e, September). Management direction statement for Kitwanga
Mountain Provincial Park.
https://nrs.objectstore.gov.bc.ca/kuwyyf/kitwanga_mountain_pk_mds_20000901_0f7b74
58c0.pdf

206

BC Parks Skeena Region. (2003a, March). Management direction statement for Swan Lake
Kispiox River Provincial Park Extension.
https://nrs.objectstore.gov.bc.ca/kuwyyf/swan_lake_kispiox_river_pk_mds_20030301_0
6a97e1333.pdf
BC Parks Skeena Region. (2003b, November). Management direction statement for Sustut
Provincial Park and Sustut Protected Area.
https://nrs.objectstore.gov.bc.ca/kuwyyf/sustut_pk_pa_mds_20031101_909f39bbaf.pdf
BC Parks Skeena Region. (2003c, November). Management direction statement for Damdochax
Protected Area.
https://nrs.objectstore.gov.bc.ca/kuwyyf/damdochax_pa_mds_20031101_60b9fd980d.pdf
BC Parks Skeena Region. (2003d, February). Management direction statement for Seven Sisters
Provincial Park and Protected Area.
https://nrs.objectstore.gov.bc.ca/kuwyyf/seven_sisters_pk_pa_mp_20030404_0461e8d02
3.pdf
BC Treaty Commission. (2023). Why Treaties?. https://bctreaty.ca/negotiations/why-treaties/
Beames, S., Mackie, C., & Atencio, M. (2019). Adventure and society. Palgrave MacMillan.
Bear, L. L. (2000). Jagged worldviews colliding. Reclaiming Indigenous voice and vision, 77,
85-108.
Beausoleil, D., Munkittrick, K., Dubé, M. G., & Wyatt, F. (2021). Essential components and
pathways for developing Indigenous community‐based monitoring: Examples from the
Canadian oil sands region. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management.
Beck, L. (2021). This land is their land: Land acknowledgements and beyond. Legacy
Magazine, 32(2), 34-38.

207

Bedini, L. A., Stone, C. F., & Phoenix, T. L. (2000). Increasing diversity among students in
recreation, parks, and leisure studies curricula: A case study. SCHOLE: A Journal of
Leisure Studies and Recreation Education, 15(1), 47-62.
Bellrichard, C. & Barrera, J. (2020, February 5). What you need to know about the Coastal
GasLink conflict. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/wet-suwet-encoastal-gaslink-pipeline-1.5448363
Bender, A. (2022, January 21). The LandBack movement is decolonizing Indigenous land across
the Americas. People’s World. https://peoplesworld.org/article/the-landback-movementis-decolonizing-indigenous-land-across-the-americas/
Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging
organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 16921702.
Berkes, F., Berkes, M. K., & Fast, H. (2007). Collaborative integrated management in Canada's
north: The role of local and traditional knowledge and community-based
monitoring. Coastal Management, 35(1), 143-162.
Berkes, F., Feit, H. A., & Turner, N. J. (2000). The Canadian Arctic: A case study of traditional
ecological knowledge and its role in wildlife management. Human Ecology, 28(3), 391410. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007091324095
Berkes, F., & Turner, N. J. (2006). Knowledge, learning and the evolution of conservation
practice for social–ecological system resilience. Environmental Conservation, 33(4),
288–300. https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689290600303X

208

Binnema, T. T., & Niemi, M. (2006). ‘let the line be drawn now’: Wilderness, Conservation, and
the Exclusion of Aboriginal People from Banff National Park in Canada. Environmental
History, 11(4), 724-750.
Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: a tool to
enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation?. Qualitative Health
Research, 26(13), 1802-1811.
Bizumic, B., & Duckitt, J. (2012). What is and is not ethnocentrism? A conceptual analysis and
political implications. Political Psychology, 33(6), 887-909.
Braun, A. (2022, March 9). A 30-year-long fishing dispute fizzles out. Hakai Magazine.
https://hakaimagazine.com/news/a-30-year-long-fishing-dispute-fizzles-out/
Braun, B. (2002). Colonialism’s afterlife: Vision and visuality on the Northwest Coast. Cultural
Geographies, 9, 202-247. https://tinyurl.com/yj8qvxvp
Braun, B. (2003). 5.‘‘On the Raggedy Edge of Risk’’ Articulations of Race and Nature After
Biology. In Race, nature, and the politics of difference (pp. 175-203). Duke University
Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A.
T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in
psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and
biological (pp. 57–71). American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage Publications.

209

British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. (2020). Skeena Region.
https://www.env.gov.bc.ca/skeena/index.html
British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Parks. (2023, July 25). Nuxalk, Kitasoo Xai’xais
guardians appointed with park ranger authority.
https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2023ENV0050-001210
British Columbia Ministry of Forest, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural
Development. (2020). Northeast roundtable: Land and Resource Management Plan
update. https://nestakeholderroundtable.ca/app/uploads/sites/573/2020/04/LRMP-ProjectUpdate-2020_Apr_16.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. (2005, January). North coast
land and resource management plan: Final recommendations.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/naturalresource-use/land-water-use/crown-land/land-use-plans-and-objectives/skeena-region/
northcoast-lrmp/lrmp_final_recommendations.pdf
British Columbia Sessional Papers. (1887). Report of conferences between the provincial
government and Indian delegates from Fort Simpson and Naas River. Victoria (BC):
Printed by Richard Wolfenden, Government Printer at the G.P.O., James' Bay.
Brown, L. A., & Strega, S. (2015). Research as resistance: Revisiting critical, indigenous, and
anti-oppressive approaches (2nd ed.). Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Brouwer, N. L. (2024). Niinwi-Kiinwa-Kiinwi: The Path to Reconcialtion, Decolonization and
Pursuing Etuaptmumk (Two-Eyed Seeing) Pedagogy in a Faith-based Organization.
Bruce, K. (2023). Reconciliation and renewed relationships in the co-management of National
Parks [Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University].

210

Bruchac, M. (2014). Indigenous knowledge and traditional knowledge. Encyclopedia of global
archaeology, 10(171), 3814-3824.
Cajete, G. (1994). Look to the mountain: An ecology of indigenous education. Kivaki Press, 585
E. 31st St., Durango, CO 81301.
Cajete, G. (2004). Philosophy of native science. American Indian Thought, 45-57.
Cajete, G. A. (2013). Exploring American Indian epistemologies: Perspectives toward the
development of a contemporary Indigenous pedagogy. EL DIÁLOGO DE SABERES, 41.
Cajete, G. A. (2021). Relational philosophy: The stars are our relatives. In Distributed
Perception (pp. 17-30). Routledge.
Calder et al. v. Attorney-General of British Columbia, 1973 SCR 313. https://scccsc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/5113/index.do
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. (2018, December). TriCouncil Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans.
https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/documents/tcps2-2018-en-interactive-final.pdf
Carlson, E. (2017). Anti-colonial methodologies and practices for settler colonial studies. Settler
Colonial Studies, 7(4), 496-517.
Carlson, K. T., & Clapperton, J. (2012). Introduction. Special places and protected spaces:
Historical and global perspectives on non-national parks in Canada and
abroad. Environment and History, 18(4), 475-496.
Carter, C., Lapum, J., Lavallée, L., Schindel Martin, L., Restoule, J. P. (2017). Urban First
Nations men: Narratives of positive identity and implications for culturally safe care.
Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 28, 445–454. doi:10.1177/1043659616659348

211

Castellano, M. B. (2000). Updating Aboriginal Traditions of Knowledge. In G. Dei, B. Hall, &
D. Rosenberg (Eds.), Indigenous Knowledges in Global Contexts. (pp. 23-24). University
of Toronto Press.
CBC News. (2024, February 13). First Nations group criticizes federal fisheries department.
CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/wild-salmon-alliancefisheries-departmentcriticism-1.7114426#:~:text=An%20Indigenous%2Dled%20group%20is,its%20regulator
y%20and%20promotional%20responsibilities.
Chapman, J. M., & Schott, S. (2020). Knowledge coevolution: generating new understanding
through bridging and strengthening distinct knowledge systems and empowering local
knowledge holders. Sustainability Science 15, 931–943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625020-00781-2
Chenail, R. J. (2012). Conducting qualitative data analysis: Reading line-by-line, but analyzing
by meaningful qualitative units. Qualitative Report, 17(1), 266-269.
Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E.-H. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative
content analysis: Similarities and differences. Qualitative Report, 19(32).
https://seercenter.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/41/2017/02/Cho-and-Lee-2014Reducing-Confusion.pdf
Clayton, D. (2000). On the colonial genealogy of George Vancouver’s chart of the North West
Coast of North America. Ecumene, 7(4): 371–401.
Coffey, A. J., & Atkinson, P.A. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary
research strategies. SAGE Publications.

212

Coleman, A. G. (1996). The unbearable whiteness of skiing. Pacific Historical Review, 65(4),
583-614.
Collins, C. (2018). What is white privilege, really. Teaching Tolerance, 60, 39-41.
Connelly, L. M., & Peltzer, J. N. (2016). Underdeveloped themes in qualitative research:
Relationship with interviews and analysis. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 30(1), 52–57.
Constitution Act, (1982). https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-12.html
Cook, D. (2020). Beyond a mapping exercise: Inclusion of Aboriginal traditional ecological
knowledge in parks and protected areas management. [Master’s thesis, Wilfrid Laurier
University].
Cook, C. N., Hockings, M., & Carter, R. W. (2010). Conservation in the dark? The information
used to support management decisions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(4),
181–186. https://doi. org/10.1890/090020
Cope, M. (2021) Organizing, coding, and analyzing qualitative data. In I. Hay & M. Cope (Eds.),
Qualitative research methods in human geography (5th ed.) (pp. 355-375). Oxford
University Press.
Corcoran, P. (2018). John Locke on native right, colonial possession, and the concept of vacuum
domicilium. The European Legacy, 23(3), 225-250.
Corntassel, J. (2009). Indigenous storytelling, truth-telling, and community approaches to
reconciliation. ESC: English Studies in Canada, 35(1), 137-159.
Corntassel, J., & Holder, C. (2008). Who’s sorry now? Government apologies, truth
commissions, and Indigenous self-determination in Australia, Canada, Guatemala, and
Peru. Human Rights Review, 9, 465-489.

213

Cotterhill, P. (1992). Interviewing women: Issues of friendship, vulnerability, and power.
Women’s Studies International Forum, 15(5-6), 593-606.
Coulthard, G., & Simpson, L. B. (2016). Grounded normativity / place-based Solidarity.
American Quarterly, 68(2), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1353/aq.2016.0038
Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. F. (1992). A template approach to text analysis: developing and
using codebooks. SAGE Publications.
Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (2022). Doing qualitative research. SAGE Publications.
Craft, A. (2016). Giving and receiving life from Anishinaabe nibi inaakonigewin (our water law)
research. In Methodological challenges in nature-culture and environmental history
research (pp. 125-139). Routledge.
Craft, A., McGregor, D., Seymour-Hourie, R., & Chiblow, S. (2021). Decolonizing Anishinaabe
nibi inaakonigewin and gikendaasowin research: Reinscribing Anishinaabe approaches to
law and knowledge. In Decolonizing Law (pp. 17-33). Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Critical Legal Thinking. (2017). Michel Foucault: Discourse.
https://criticallegalthinking.com/2017/11/17/michel-foucault-discourse/
Cruikshank, J. (2005). Part 3: Scientific research in sentient places. Do glaciers listen? Local
knowledge, colonial encounters, and social imagination (pp. 221-259). University of
British Columbia Press.
Culverson, D. (2002). Exploring organizational commitment following radical change A case
study within the Parks Canada Agency [Master's thesis, University of Waterloo].

214

Cunningham, N., & Carmichael, T. (2017, June). Sampling, interviewing and coding: Lessons
from a constructivist grounded theory study. In European Conference on Research
Methodology for Business and Management Studies (pp. 78-85). Academic Conferences
International Limited.
Cvitanovic C., McDonald J., & Hobday A. J. (2016). From science to action: Principles for
undertaking environmental research that enables knowledge exchange and evidencebased decision-making. Journal of Environmental Management. 183(Pt 3):864-874. doi:
10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.038
Davies, J., Hill, R., Walsh, F. J., Sandford, M., Smyth, D., & Holmes, M. C. (2013). Innovation
in management plans for community conserved areas: Experiences from Australian
Indigenous protected areas. Ecology and Society, 18(2).
Dearden, P., & Bennett, N. (2016). The Role of Aboriginal Peoples in Protected Areas. In P.
Dearden, R. Rollins, & M. D. Needham (Eds.), Parks and protected areas in Canada (4th
ed., pp. 357–390). Oxford University Press.
Dearden P. and R. Rollins (Eds.). (2009). Parks and protected areas in Canada (3rd ed.). Oxford
University Press.
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, SBC 2019, c 44.
https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/19044
DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2011). Developing and Using a
Codebook for the Analysis of Interview. Field Methods, 23(2), 136-155.
De la Barre, S. (2009). Place identity, guides, and sustainable tourism in Canada's Yukon
Territory [Doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta].

215

DeLancey, D. (2023). Decolonizing evaluation of indigenous land-based programs: A settler
perspective on what we can learn from the LANDBACK movement. Journal of
MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 19(44), 172-182.
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 SCR 1010.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1569/index.do
Den Hoed, D., & Parks, K. C. A. (2008, May). Unpacking the privilege knapsack: creating park
experiences that foster social diversity. In Canada Parks for Tomorrow Conference.
Desmarchelier, R. (2016). Whose knowledge?: Science education, Indigenous knowledges and
teacher praxis [Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Queensland].
Devin, S., & Doberstein, B. (2004). Traditional ecological knowledge in parks management: A
Canadian perspective. Environments, 32(1), 47-70.
Dhillon, N. (2020). From occupation to decolonization: Art, media, and film in contemporary
social movements [Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo].
Dul, J., & Hak, T. (2008). Case study methodology in business research. Routledge.
Dunn, K. (2021). Engaging interviews. In I. Hay & M. Cope (Eds.), Qualitative research
methods in human geography (5th ed.) (pp. 148-185). Oxford University Press.
Dusek, V. (2006). Philosophy of technology: An introduction (Vol. 90). Oxford: Blackwell.
Eagle, K. (2021, August 10). The history of Canada’s residential school system. Galt Museum
and Archives. https://www.galtmuseum.com/articles/history-of-canadas-residentialschool-system#:~:text=St.,Indigenous%20Peoples%20into%20Canadian%20society.
Ebneyamini, S., & Sadeghi Moghadam, M. R. (2018). Toward developing a framework for
conducting case study research. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918817954

216

Ebron, C., Sims, C., & Yang, H. W. (2011). Profiles and perceptions of workplace diversity
among park and recreation professionals'. LARNet-The Cyber Journal of Applied Leisure
and Recreation Research, 13(1).
Eckert, L. E., Claxton, N. X., Owens, C., Johnston, A., Ban, N. C., Moola, F., & Darimont, C. T.
(2020). Indigenous knowledge and federal environmental assessments in Canada:
applying past lessons to the 2019 impact assessment act. Facets, 5(1), 67-90.
Egberg Thyme, K., Wiberg, B., Lundman, B., & Graneheim, U. H. (2013). Qualitative content
analysis in art psychotherapy research: Concepts, procedures, and measures to reveal the
latent meaning in pictures and the words attached to the pictures. The Arts in
Psychotherapy, 40(1), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2012.11.007
Eisenberg, C. (2015). Diversifying ecology: Bridging Western science and traditional ecological
knowledge. Journal of Ecological Anthropology, 19(1), 23-34.
El-Hani, C. N., & Souza de Ferreira Bandeira, F. P. (2008). Valuing indigenous knowledge: to
call it “science” will not help. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 751-779.
Epp, E. (2018). The Legacy of Residential Schools in the Northwest Territories: The Nunavut
Court of Appeal Decision in Fontaine v. Canada. Education & Law Journal, 28(1), 131137.
Erickson, B. (2003). The colonial climbs of Mount Trudeau: Thinking masculinity through the
homosocial. TOPIA: Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies, 9, 67-82.
Erickson, B. (2020). Witness, adventure, and the competing discourses of the north. In B. Wilson
& B. Millington (Eds.), Sport and the environment (pp. 67-83). Emerald Publishing
Limited.

217

Erlingsson, C., & Brysiewicz, P. (2013). Orientation among multiple truths: An introduction to
qualitative research. African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 3(2), 92–99.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2012.04.005
Ermine, W. (2007). The ethical space of engagement. Indigenous Law Journal, 6, 193–203.
https://iportal.usask.ca/record/25251
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and
purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4.
Esmail, B. A., & Geneletti, D. (2018). Multi-criteria decision analysis for nature conservation: A
review of 20 years of applications. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 42-53.
Fabian, Y., Bollmann, K., Brang, P., Heiri, C., Olschewski, R., Rigling, A., Stofer, S., &
Holderegger, R. (2019). How to close the science- practice gap in nature conservation?
Information sources used by practitioners. Biological Conservation, 235, 93–101.
https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.04.011
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid
approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92.
Fernandez, M., & Witt, P. A. (2013). Attracting Hispanics to an African American recreation
center: Examining attitudes and historical factors. Journal of Leisure Research, 45(4),
423-444.
Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving Integration in Mixed Methods
Designs: Principles and Practices. Health Services Research, 48(6pt2), 2134–2156.

218

Finegan, C. (2018). Reflection, acknowledgement, and justice: A framework for Indigenousprotected area reconciliation. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 9(3).
https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/iipj/vol9/iss3/3 DOI: 10.18584/iipj.2018.9.3.3
Finney, C. (2014). Black faces, white spaces: Reimagining the relationship of African Americans
to the great outdoors. UNC Press Books.
First Nations Information Governance Centre. (2022). OCAP and Information Governance.
https://fnigc.ca/what-we-do/ocap-and-information-governance/
Fitzsimmons, A. (2020). Indigenous and Parks Canada Agency perspectives on the management
of Gulf Islands National Park Reserve. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Victoria].
Flowers, R. (2015). Refusal to forgive: Indigenous women's love and rage. Decolonization:
Indigeneity, Education & Society, 4(2).
Floyd, M. F., & Stodolska, M. (2014). Theoretical frameworks in leisure research on race and
ethnicity. In Race, ethnicity, and leisure (pp. 9-20). Human Kinetics Publishers Inc.
Floyd, M. F., & Stodolska, M. (2019). Scholarship on race and ethnicity: Assessing contributions
to leisure theory and practice. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 37(1).
Folke, C. (2004). Traditional knowledge in social–ecological systems. Ecology and society, 9(3).
Fonteyn, M. E., Vettese, M., Lancaster, D. R., & Bauer-Wu, S. (2008). Developing a codebook
to guide content analysis of expressive writing transcripts. Applied Nursing
Research, 21(3), 165-168.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Random House Inc. (Original
work published 1975).
Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and punish: The birth of a prison. Penguin.

219

Freire, P. (1985). Reading the world and reading the word: An interview with Paulo
Freire. Language arts, 62(1), 15-21.
Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity
conservation. AMBIO-STOCKHOLM-, 22, 151-151.
Garcia Chumash, F. (2018) Guide to Indigenous land and territorial acknowledgements for
cultural institutions. New York University. https://landacknowledgements.org/landacknowledgement-guide/
Gayton, D. V. (2008). Impacts of climate change on British Columbia's biodiversity: a literature
review. Journal of Ecosystems and Management, 9(2).
Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for?. American political science
review, 98(2), 341-354.
Gibson, C., & Maru, Y. T. (2020). Knowledge in the making: How Indigenous knowledge and
Western science can work together for sustainable fisheries management. Ecology and
Society, 25(3), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11982-250301
Gitanyow Hereditary Cheifs, & Hlimoo Sustainable Solutions. (2023, August). Wilp Wii Litsxw:
Meziadin Indigenous protected area management plan.
https://www.gitanyowchiefs.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Meziadin-IPAManagement-Plan-Aug-2023.pdf
Gitxsan Huwilp Government. (2021a). The Traditional Gitxsan Laxyip (Territory).
https://gitxsan.ca/the-gitxsan-laxyip-territory/
Gitxsan Huwilp Government. (2021b). Stand with your Simgiigyet. https://gitxsan.ca/stand-withyour-simgiigyet/

220

Gordon, H. S. J. (2023, November). 5 things to know about Indigenous Knowledge when
working with Indigenous children, youth, and families [Technical Report]. Child Trends:
https://doi.org/10.56417/3504n5609v
Gottesfeld, L. M. J. (1994). Conservation, territory, and traditional beliefs: An analysis of
Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en subsistence, Northwest British Columbia, Canada. Human
Ecology, 22(4), 443-465.
Government of British Columbia. (2005). The New Relationship.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consultingwith-first-nations/agreements/other-docs/new_relationship_accord.pdf
Government of British Columbia. (2010). British Columbia Indian Treaties in historical
perspective. https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100028952/1564583850270
Government of British Columbia. (2022a). Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act
Action Plan. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/government/ministries-organizations/
ministries/indigenous-relations-reconciliation/declaration_act_action_plan.pdf
Government of British Columbia. (2022b, June 2). Indigenous guardians pilot program first of
its kind in B.C. https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2022ENV0035-000863
Government of British Columbia. (2024a). History of Treaties in B.C.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/
consulting-with-first-nations/first-nations-negotiations/about-first-nations-treatyprocess/history-of-treaties-in-bc
Government of British Columbia. (2024b). Kitselas Treaty and Kitsumkalum Treaty
negotiations. https://engage.gov.bc.ca/govtogetherbc/engagement/kitselas-andkitsumkalum-treaty-negotiations/

221

Government of British Columbia. (2024c). Incremental Treaty agreements.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/
consulting-with-first-nations/first-nations-negotiations/incremental-treaty-agreements
Government of British Columbia. (2024d). Forest consultation and revenue sharing agreements.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/
consulting-with-first-nations/first-nations-negotiations/forest-consultation-and-revenuesharing-agreements
Government of British Columbia. (2024e). Strategic engagement agreements.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/
consulting-with-first-nations/first-nations-negotiations/strategic-engagement-agreements
Government of British Columbia. (2024f). Economic and community development agreements.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/
consulting-with-first-nations/first-nations-negotiations/economic-and-communitydevelopment-agreements
Government of British Columbia. (2024g). First Nations clean energy business fund revenuesharing agreements. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resourcestewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/first-nations-negotiations/first-nations-cleanenergy-business-fund-revenue-sharing-agreements
Government of British Columbia. (2024h). Reconciliation and other agreements.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/
consulting-with-first-nations/first-nations-negotiations/reconciliation-other-agreements
Government of British Columbia. (2024i). Atmospheric benefit agreements.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/

222

consulting-with-first-nations/first-nations-negotiations/atmospheric-benefit-sharingagreements
Government of British Columbia. (2024j). Natural gas benefits agreements.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/
consulting-with-first-nations/first-nations-negotiations/natural-gas-pipeline-benefitsagreements
Government of Canada. (2022). Summaries of pre-1975 Treaties. https://www.rcaanccirnac.gc.ca/eng/1370362690208/1544619449449
Government of Canada. (2023). The Numbered Treaties (1871-1921). https://www.rcaanccirnac.gc.ca/eng/1360948213124/1544620003549
Government of Canada. (2024). K’ómoks First Nation, Canada, and British Columbia take
important step to advance reconciliation by initialling the draft K’ómoks Treaty.
https://www.canada.ca/en/crown-indigenous-relations-northern-affairs/news/2024/07/
komoks-first-nation-canada-and-british-columbia-take-important-step-to-advancereconciliation-by-initialling-the-draft-komoks-treaty.html
Government of Canada. (2025). Aboriginal and Treaty rights information system. https://sidaitatris.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/SIDAIT-GEO-ATRIS/index-eng.html
Government of Ontario. (2024). Careers: Student and new professionals public service
mentoring. https://www.ontario.ca/page/careers-student-and-new-professionals
Gray, L. M., Wong-Wylie, G., Rempel, G. R., & Cook, K. (2020). Expanding qualitative
research interviewing strategies: Zoom video communications. The Qualitative
Report, 25(5), 1292-1301.

223

Grimwood, B. S. (2021). On not knowing: COVID-19 and decolonizing leisure research. Leisure
Sciences, 43(1-2), 17-23.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Validity and reliability (credibility and
dependability) in qualitative research and data analysis. Applied thematic analysis, 79,
106.
Gummesson, E. (1991). Qualitative methods in management research. California: Sage
Publication, pp. 83-156.
Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73. https://scccsc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2189/index.do
Hanrahan, M. (2016). Making Indigenous culture the foundation of Indigenous governance
today: The Mi'kmaq rights initiative of Nova Scotia, Canada. Native American and
Indigenous Studies, 3(1), 75-95.
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of
Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
Harding, R. (2006). Historical representations of aboriginal people in the Canadian news
media. Discourse & Society 17(2), 205-235.
Harding, S. (2004). A socially relevant philosophy of science? Resources from standpoint
theory's controversiality. Hypatia 19(1), 25-47.
Hargrove, M. D. (2009). Mapping the “social field of whiteness”: White racism as habitus in the
city where history lives. Transforming Anthropology, 17(2), 93-104.
Harris, C. (2002). Native lands and livelihoods in British Columbia. Historical Geography, 30,
15-32.

224

Harris, H. (1997). Remembering 10,000 years of history: The origins and migrations of the
Gitksan. In G. Nicholas, & T. Andrews (Eds.), At the crossroads: Archaeology and First
Peoples in Canada (pp. 190-197). Archaeology Press.
Harris, L. D., & Wasilewski, J. (2004). Indigeneity, an alternative worldview: Four R's
(relationship, responsibility, reciprocity, redistribution) vs. two P's (power and profit).
Sharing the journey towards conscious evolution. Systems Research and Behavioral
Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems
Research, 21(5), 489-503.
Harrison, A. K. (2013). Black skiing, everyday racism, and the racial spatiality of
whiteness. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 37(4), 315-339.
Hartley, J. (1994). Case studies in organizational research. In C. Cassell, & G. Symon (Eds.),
Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research (pp. 208-229). Sage Publications.
Hatch, M. (2016). Indigenous sea gardens and marine conservation: A case study of the Coast
Salish peoples of British Columbia. Ecological Applications, 26(7), 2241-2256.
Hay, I., & Cope, M. (Eds.). (2021). Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography (5th
Edition). Oxford University Press.
Hayward, A., Sjoblom, E., Sinclair, S., & Cidro, J. (2021). A new era of Indigenous research:
Community-based Indigenous research ethics protocols in Canada. Journal of Empirical
Research on Human Research Ethics, 15562646211023705.
Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Marconi, V. C. (2017). Code saturation versus meaning
saturation: how many interviews are enough?. Qualitative health research, 27(4), 591608.

225

Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington F., Dudley, N., Courrau, P., Valentine, P.
(2006). Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for assessing management effectiveness
of protected areas (2nd ed.). IUCN.
Hodkinson, P., & Hodkinson, H. (2001, December). The strengths and limitations of case study
research [Paper presentation]. In learning and skills development agency conference at
Cambridge. 1(1), pp. 1-14. Cambridge, England.
http://education.exeter.ac.uk/tlc/docs/publications/LE_PH_PUB_05.12.01.doc
hooks, b. (1992). Loving Blackness as political resistance. In Black looks: Race and
representation (pp. 1-8). South End Press.
hooks, b. (2000). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Pluto Press.
Houde, N. (2007). The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: challenges and
opportunities for Canadian co-management arrangements. Ecology and Society, 12(2).
http://www.jstor.org/stable/26267900
How, A. (2017). Critical theory. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Howlett, M. (2021). Looking at the ‘field’ through a Zoom lens: Methodological reflections on
conducting online research during a global pandemic. Qualitative Research, 1-16,
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120985691
Huwilp Gitxsan Government. (2019, March). Gald’m Mahlasxw.
https://gitxsan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Gitxsan_MarchNewsletter_2019.pdf
Hudson-Rodd, N. (1998). Nineteenth century Canada: indigenous place of dis-ease. Health &
Place, 4(1), 55-66.
Huntington, H. P., & Wenzel, G. W. (2016). Indigenous knowledge and fisheries science in
Canada’s Arctic. Arctic, 69(2), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic4634

226

Hutton, T. A. (1997). The Innisian core-periphery revisited: Vancouver's changing relationships
with British Columbia's staple economy. BC Studies: The British Columbian Quarterly,
(113), 69-100.
Indian Act, R. S. C., c. 43 (1894). https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/aancinac/R5-158-2-1978-eng.pdf
Indigenous Foundations. (2009). Aboriginal fisheries in British Columbia. First Nations and
Indigenous Studies Program, University of British Columbia.
Indigenous Peoples Resources. (2020). First Nations of British Columbia.
https://indigenouspeoplesresources.com/collections/first-nations-maps/products/canadafirst-nations-peoples-of-british-columbia-map
Indulska, M., Hovorka, D. S., & Recker, J. (2012). Quantitative approaches to content analysis:
Identifying conceptual drift across publication outlets. European Journal of Information
Systems, 21(1), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.37
Iwama, M., Marshall, M., Marshall, A., & Bartlett, C. (2009). Two- eyed seeing and the
language of healing in community-based research. Canadian Journal of Native Education,
32(2), 3–23.
Jackson, T., & Curry, J. (2002). Regional development and land use planning in rural British
Columbia: Peace in the woods?. Regional Studies, 36(4), 439-443.
Jain, N. (2021). Survey versus interviews: Comparing data collection tools for exploratory
research. The Qualitative Report, 26(2), 541-554.
Johnson, L. M. (2000). “A place that's good,” Gitksan landscape perception and
ethnoecology. Human Ecology, 28(2), 301-325.
Johnson, R. (2006). The practice of cultural studies. SAGE.

227

Johnson, T. P. (2014). Snowball sampling: introduction. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference
Online.
Johnston, J. & Mason, C. (2020). Paths to realizing reconciliation: Indigenous consultation in
Jasper National Park. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 11(4), 1-27.
Johnston, J. W., & Mason, C. W. (2021). Rethinking representation: Shifting from a Eurocentric
lens to Indigenous methods of sharing knowledge in Jasper National Park,
Canada. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 39(3), 1-19.
Kaarbo, J., Beasley, R. K. (1999). A practical guide to the comparative case study method in
political psychology. Political Psychology, 20, 369–391.
Kadykalo, A. N., Cooke, S. J., & Young, N. (2021). The role of western-based scientific,
Indigenous and local knowledge in wildlife management and conservation. People and
Nature. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10194
Kapyrka, J., & Dockstator, M. (2012). Indigenous knowledges and western knowledges in
environmental education: Acknowledging the tensions for the benefits of a" two-worlds"
approach. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education (CJEE), 17, 97-112.
Kathrin, B. (2019). Collaborative governance in the making: Implementation of a new forest
management regime in an old-growth conflict region of British Columbia, Canada. Land
use policy, 86, 43-53.
Keenan, R. (2017). Managing fisheries through traditional knowledge: The case of the Mi'kmaq
in Unama'ki. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 24(2), 154-163.
Kelly, A. B. (2015). The crumbling fortress: territory, access, and subjectivity production in
Waza National Park, Northern Cameroon. Antipode, 47(3), 730-747.

228

Kepkiewicz, L. (2020). Whose land? Complicating settler understandings of land in
Canada. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 19(1), 245-269.
Kimmerer, R, K. (2021, May). Earth Day Keynote with Robin Wall Kimmerer. California State
University, Monterey Bay.
Kirsch, G. (2005). Friendship, friendliness, and feminist fieldwork. Signs, 30(4), 2163-2172.
Kluttz, J., Walker, J., & Walter, P. (2020). Unsettling allyship, unlearning and learning towards
decolonising solidarity. Studies in the Education of Adults, 52(1), 49-66.
Knudsen, Line V.; Laplante-Levesque, Ariane; Jones, Lesley; Preminger, Jill E.; Nielsen, Claus;
Lunner, Thomas; Hickson, Louise; Naylor, Graham & Kramer, Sophia E. (2012).
Conducting qualitative research in audiology: A tutorial. International Journal of
Audiology, 51(2), 83-92.
Kovach, M. (2015). Emerging from the margins: Indigenous methodologies. In L. Brown & S.
Strega (Eds.), Research as resistance: Revisiting critical, Indigenous, and antioppressive approaches (2nd ed.) (pp. 43-64). Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Kovach, M. (2021). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts.
University of Toronto Press.
Kragh, H., & Kragh, H. (2016). The Expanding Earth. Varying Gravity: Dirac’s Legacy in
Cosmology and Geophysics, 59-112.
Krauss, L. M. (2015). What Einstein got wrong. Scientific American, 313(3), 50-55.
Kwetásel’wet Wood, S. (2024, July 29). ‘The risk is really high’: B.C. ministers backtrack on
reconciliation initiative amid mounting political backlash. The Narwhal.
https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-election-ndp-reconciliation-backlash/

229

Langdon, S., Prosper, R., & Gagnon, N. (2010, January). Two paths one direction: Parks Canada
and Aboriginal peoples working together. In The George Wright Forum (Vol. 27, No. 2,
pp. 222-233). George Wright Society.
LaPorte, C. B. (2023). Truth-Telling: Understanding historical and ongoing impacts to
Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). In Oceans and Society (pp. 209-227).
Routledge.
Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Bill 41. (2019). Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples Act. https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislationdebates-proceedings/41st-parliament/4th-session/bills/third-reading/gov41-3
Lemieux, C., Groulx, M., Bocking, S., & Beechey T. (2018). Evidence-based decision-making in
Canada’s protected areas organizations: Implications for management effectiveness.
FACETS 3: 392–414. doi:10.1139/facets-2017-0107
Leverington, F., Hockings, M., & Costa, K. L. (2008). Management effectiveness evaluation in
protected areas: a global study. University of Brisbane, Australia: World Commission on
Protected Areas.
Lonetree, A. (2012). Decolonizing museums: Representing Native America in national and tribal
museums. University of North Carolina Press.
Lowan-Trudeau, G. (2021). Mapping (as) resistance: Decolonizing ↔ Indigenizing journalistic
cartography. Media+Environment, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/001c.19057
Lucchesi, A. H. E. (2018). “Indians don't make maps”: Indigenous cartographic traditions and
innovations. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 42(3), 11-26.
Ludwig, D., & Poliseli, L. (2018). Relating traditional and academic ecological knowledge:
mechanistic and holistic epistemologies across cultures. Biology & Philosophy, 33, 1-19.

230

Lyons, S. (1998). Science or pseudoscience: Phrenology as a cautionary tale for evolutionary
psychology. Perspectives in biology and medicine, 41(4), 491-503.
MacDonald, D. B., & Hudson, G. (2012). The genocide question and Indian residential schools
in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science
politique, 45(2), 427-449.
MacQueen, K., E. McLellan, K. Kay, and B. Milstein. (1998). Codebook development for teambased qualitative analysis. Cultural Anthropology Methods, 10, 31–36.
MacQueen, K. M., McLellan-Lemal, E., Bartholow, K., & Milstein, B. (2008). Team-based
codebook development: Structure, process, and agreement. Handbook for Team-based
Qualitative Research, 119, 119-135.
Mair, C. (2022). Through the Mackenzie basin: An account of the signing of Treaty No. 8 and
the scrip commission, 1899 (Vol. 6). University of Alberta.
Make Way. (2024). Impact story: How Gitanyow is asserting their vision for their land with a
new Indigenous Protected Area. https://makeway.org/impact-story/how-gitanyow-isasserting-their-vision-for-their-land-with-a-new-indigenous-protected-area/
#:~:text=The%20changes%20to%20the%20land,restoration%2C%20having%20access%
20to%20salmon.
Marhefka, S., Lockhart, E., & Turner, D. (2020). Achieve research continuity during social
distancing by rapidly implementing individual and group videoconferencing with
participants: key considerations, best practices, and protocols. AIDS and Behavior, 24(7),
1983-1989.
Marsh, T. N., Cote-Meek, S., Young, N. L., Najavits, L. M., Toulouse, P. (2016). Indigenous
healing and seeking safety: A blended implementation project for intergenerational

231

trauma and substance use disorders. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 7.
doi:10.18584/iipj.2016.7.2.3
Martin, A. G. (2008, August 3). Importance of place: addressing community-company
relationships within the global economy [Conference paper]. Western Division Canadian
Association of Geographers, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, United
States. https://cedar.wwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=wdcag
Martin, A. G. (2013). Community-company relationships in forest-dependent communities in
northern BC: Assessing the local, sectoral, and theoretical implications [Doctoral
dissertation, University of Northern British Columbia].
Martin, D. (2012). Two-Eyed Seeing: A framework for understanding Indigenous and nonIndigenous approaches to Indigenous health research. Canadian Journal of Nursing
Research, 44, 20–42.
Martin, D., Redford, K., & Keefe, M. (2016). Indigenous knowledge and ecological monitoring
in the Northern Rockies: Incorporating local and traditional knowledge into wildlife
management. Environmental Management, 57(5), 1034-1045.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0712-x
Martin, D. E., Thompson, S., Ballard, M., & Linton, J. (2017). Two-Eyed Seeing in Research
and its Absence in Policy. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 8(4), 1-25.
Mashford-Pringle, A., & Pavagadhi, K. (2020). Using OCAP and IQ as frameworks to address a
history of trauma in Indigenous health research. AMA Journal of Ethics, 22(10), 868-873.
Mason, C. W. (2014). The repression of Indigenous subsistence practices in Rocky Mountains
Park. In Spirits of the Rockies: Reasserting an Indigenous presence in Banff National

232

Park (pp. 49-76). University of Toronto Press.
https://wizard.unbc.ca/record=b2067685~S3
Mason, C. (2021). Chapter 5: Colonial encounters, conservation, and sport hunting in Banff
National Park. In C. Adams (Ed.), Sport and recreation in Canadian history (pp. 76-99).
Human Kinetics Publishers.
Matzek, V., Covino, J., Funk, J. L., & Saunders, M. (2014). Closing the knowing-doing gap in
invasive plant management: accessibility and interdisciplinarity of scientific research.
Conservation Letters, 7(3), 208–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12042
McCormack, P. A. (2017). Walking the land: Aboriginal trails, cultural landscapes, and
archaeological studies for impact assessment. Archaeologies, 13, 110-135.
McGregor, D. (2004). Coming full circle: Indigenous knowledge, environment, and our
future. American Indian Quarterly, 28(3/4), 385-410.
McGuire-Adams, T. (2020). Indigenous feminist theory and embodied settler
colonialism. Indigenous Feminist Gikendaasowin (Knowledge) Decolonization through
Physical Activity, 31-44.
McIntosh, P. (1989). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Peace and Freedom.
McKenna, C. (2021, April 20). Nuu-chah-nulth leaders celebrate legal victory for commercial
fishing rights. IndigiNews. https://indiginews.com/vancouver-island/nuu-chah-nulthleaders-celebrate-legal-victory-for-commercial-fishing-rights
McKeon, M. (2012). Two-eyed seeing into environmental education: Revealing its “natural”
readiness to Indigenize. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 17, 131-147.

233

McMillan, L. J., & Prosper, K. (2016). Remobilizing netukulimk: indigenous cultural and
spiritual connections with resource stewardship and fisheries management in Atlantic
Canada. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 26, 629-647.
Mead, A., Awa, N., & Porou, N. (1994). Misappropriation of indigenous knowledge: The next
wave of colonisation. Otago Bioethics Report, 3(1), 4-7.
Meletis, Z. A., & Campbell, L. M. (2007). Call it consumption! Re‐conceptualizing ecotourism
as consumption and consumptive. Geography Compass, 1(4), 850-870.
Merton, R. K. (1972). Insiders and outsiders: A chapter in the sociology of
knowledge. American journal of sociology, 78(1), 9-47.
Miller, P. (2019). Domination and power (Vol. 41). Routledge.
Mills, J. E. (2024). The adventure gap: Changing the face of the outdoors. Mountaineers Books.
Minke-Martin, V. (2020, October 23). The long, expensive fight for First Nation’s fishing rights.
Hakai Magazine. https://hakaimagazine.com/news/the-long-expensive-fight-for-firstnations-fishing-rights/
Minton, S. J. (2019). Residential Schools and Indigenous Peoples. Routledge.
Mohanty, C. (1984). Under Western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses.
Boundary 2, 12(3), 338-358.
Monmonier, M. (2006). From Squaw Tit to Whorehouse Meadow: How Maps Name, Claim, and
Inflame. University of Chicago Press.
Moola, F., Page, D., Connolly, M., & Coulter, L. (2007). Waiting for the Ark: The biodiversity
crisis in British Columbia, Canada, and the need for a strong endangered species
law. Biodiversity, 8(1), 3-11.

234

Moola, F., & Roth, R. (2019). Moving beyond colonial conservation models: Indigenous
protected and conserved areas offer hope for biodiversity and advancing reconciliation in
the Canadian boreal forest1. Environmental Reviews, 27(2), 200-201.
Moore, M. (2020). Decolonizing park management: A framework for the co-management of
national parks and protected areas. [Master’s thesis, Simon Fraser University].
Moorman, L., Evanovitch, J., & Muliaina, T. (2021). Envisioning indigenized geography: a twoeyed seeing approach. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 45(2), 201-220.
Murray, G., & Burrows, D. (2017). Understanding power in Indigenous Protected Areas: The
case of the Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Parks. Human Ecology, 45(6), 763-772.
Murray, G., & King, L. (2012). First Nations values in protected area governance: Tla-o-qui-aht
tribal parks and Pacific Rim National Park Reserve. Human Ecology, 40(3), 385-395.
Nadasdy, P. (1999). The politics of TEK: Power and the" integration" of knowledge. Arctic
Anthropology, 1-18.
Nadin, S., & Cassell, C. (2006). The use of a research diary as a tool for reflexive practice: Some
reflections from management research. Qualitative Research in Accounting &
Management, 3(3), 208-217.
Nagy, R. (2012). Truth, reconciliation and settler denial: Specifying the Canada–South Africa
analogy. Human Rights Review, 13, 349-367.
Natcher, D. C., & Hickey, C. G. (2009). Putting the land back in wildlife management:
Indigenous knowledge and the role of co-management in northern Canada. Human
Organization, 68(3), 292-301. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.68.3.d667700748r52677
National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, University of Manitoba. (2024).
ReconciliACTION plans. https://nctr.ca/reconciliaction-plans/

235

NDN Collective. (2020). LandBack manifesto. https://landback.org/manifesto/
Needham, J. L., Beazley, K. F., & Papuga, V. P. (2020). Accessing local tacit knowledge as a
means of knowledge co-production for effective wildlife corridor planning in the
Chignecto Isthmus, Canada. Land, 9(9), 332.
Nelson, M. K., & Shilling, D. (Eds.). (2018). Traditional ecological knowledge: Learning from
Indigenous practices for environmental sustainability. Cambridge University Press.
Neu, D., & Therrien, R. (2003). Accounting for genocide: Canada's bureaucratic assault on
Aboriginal people. Zed books.
Nind, M., Meckin, R., & Coverdale, A. (2021). Changing Research Practices: Undertaking social
research in the context of Covid-19.
Noor, K.B.M. (2008). Case study: A strategic research methodology. American Journal of
Applied Sciences, 5(11), 1602-1604.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to
meet the trustworthiness criteria. International journal of qualitative methods, 16(1),
1609406917733847.
O’Reilly, K. (2009). Key concepts in ethnography. Sage.
Papadopoulos, A. (2021). Exploring governance mechanisms and Mi'kmaw values and
aspirations for Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs) in Nova Scotia.
[Master’s thesis: Dalhousie University].
Parks Canada. (2023, January). Parks Canada management planning: A guide for Indigenous
Leadership. https://ipcaknowledgebasket.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Parks-CanadaGuide-Final-January-2023.pdf

236

Parks Canada. (2024). Guardian and Watchmen programs.
https://parks.canada.ca/culture/autochtones-indigenous/gardiens-guardians
Parrotta, J. A., Wildburger, C., & Mansourian, S. (2012). Understanding relationships between
forests and biodiversity: The role of traditional knowledge. In S. Mansourian, J. A.
Parrotta, & C. Wildburger (Eds.), Forests and trees for the future: Traditional knowledge
and community-based conservation (pp. 23–42). Earthscan.
Peltier, C. (2018). An application of two-eyed seeing: Indigenous research methods with
participatory action research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1),
1609406918812346.
Peter, T. D. (2007). Land use planning in British Columbia: an evaluation of the Lillooet land
and resource management plan. [Master’s thesis, Simon Fraser University].
Plumwood, V. (2003). “Decolonizing relationships with nature.” In W. M. Adams & M.
Mulligan (Eds.), Decolonizing nature: Strategies for conservation in a post-colonial era
(pp. 51– 78). London: Earthscan.
Policansky, D. (1998). Science and decision-making for water resources. Ecological
Applications, 8(3), 610-618. https://doi.org/10.2307/2641253
Popp, J. N., Priadka, P., & Kozmik, C. (2019). The rise of moose co-management and integration
of Indigenous knowledge. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 24(2), 159-167.
Popp, J. N., Priadka, P., Young, M., Koch, K., & Morgan, J. (2020). Indigenous Guardianship
and moose monitoring: weaving Indigenous and Western ways of knowing. Human–
Wildlife Interactions, 14(2), 17.
Pullin, A., Frampton, G., Jongman, R., Kohl, C., Livoreil, B., Lux, A., Pataki, G., Petrokofsky,
G., Podhora, A., Saarikoski, H., Santamaria, L., Schindler, S., Sousa-Pinto, I.,

237

Vandewalle, M., & Wittmer, H. (2016). Selecting appropriate methods of knowledge
synthesis to inform biodiversity policy. Biodiversity and Conservation, 25(7), 1285–
1300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1131-9
Punch, K. (2005). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches (2nd
ed.). Sage Publications.
Puwar, N. (1997). Reflections on interviewing women MPs. Sociological Research Online, 2(1).
QSR International Pty Ltd. (2023). NVivo (released March 2023, Version 14).
https://lumivero.com/products/nvivo/
R. v. Guerin, 1984 SCR 335. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2495/index.do
R v. Sappier; R. v. Gray, 2006 SCC 54.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2329/index.do
R. v. Sparrow, 1990 SCR 1075. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/609/index.do
Rashid, Y., Rashid, A., Warraich, M. A., Sabir, S. S., & Waseem, A. (2019). Case study method:
A step-by-step guide for business researchers. International journal of qualitative
methods, 18, 1609406919862424.
Rashkow, E. D. (2014). Idealizing inhabited wilderness: a revision to the history of indigenous
peoples and national parks. History compass, 12(10), 818-832.
Rayne, A. et al. (2020). Centring Indigenous knowledge systems to re‐imagine conservation
translocations. People and Nature, 2(3), 512– 526.
Rebonne, R. (2024). “This Land was Your Land” Indigenous Engagement and Partnership in
the Canadian Outdoor Recreational Landscape (Master's thesis, UiT Norges arktiske
universitet).

238

Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Fazey, I., Evely, A. C., & Kruijsen, J. H. (2014). Five principles for
the practice of knowledge exchange in environmental management. Journal of
Environmental Management, 146, 337-345.
Reid, A. J., Eckert, L. E., Lane, J., Young, N., Hinch, S. G., Darimont, C. T., Cooke, S. J., Ban,
N. C., & Marshall, A. (2021). “Two-Eyed Seeing”: An Indigenous framework to
transform fisheries research and management. Fish and Fisheries, 22(2), 243261. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12516
Reid-Hresko, J., & Warren, J. R. (2021). “A lot of what we ride is their land”: White settler
Canadian understandings of mountain biking, Indigeneity, and recreational
colonialism. Sociology of Sport Journal, 1, 1-10.
Reñosa, M. D. C., Mwamba, C., Meghani, A., West, N. S., Hariyani, S., Ddaaki, W., ... &
McMahon, S. (2021). Selfie consents, remote rapport, and Zoom debriefings: collecting
qualitative data amid a pandemic in four resource-constrained settings. BMJ global
health, 6(1), e004193.
Rigby, A. (2001). Justice and reconciliation: After the violence. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Riley, B., Skalko, T., McChesney, J., & Glascoff, M. (1998). Learn and serve: integrating
elements of social learning theory and cross cultural exposure in professional
preparation. SCHOLE: A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education, 13(1),
55-68.
Roberts, N. S., & Outley, C. (2002). Innovation and resourcefulness: Recruitment and retention
of a diverse staff for the 21st century. Parks & Recreation, 37(4), 39-47.
Rosaldo, M. Z. (1980). The use and abuse of anthropology: reflections on feminism and crosscultural understanding. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 5(3), 389-417

239

Rubik, B., & Jabs, H. (2018). Revisiting the aether in science. Cosmos and History: The Journal
of Natural and Social Philosophy, 14(2), 239-255.
Said, E. W. (1991). Identity, authority, and freedom: The potentate and the traveler. Transition,
(54), 4-18.
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications.
Sandlos, J. (2014). National parks in the Canadian North: Comanagement or colonialism
revisited? In S. Stevens (Ed.), Indigenous Peoples, national parks, and protected areas: A
new paradigm linking conservation, culture, and rights (pp. 133-149). University of
Arizona Press.
Schnarch, B. (2004). Ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) or self-determination
applied to research: A critical analysis of contemporary First Nations research and some
options for First Nations communities. International Journal of Indigenous Health, 1(1),
80-95.
Scott, J. (1991). The evidence of experience. Critical Inquiry, 17(4), 773-797.
Scott, D., & Lee, K. J. J. (2018, January). People of color and their constraints to national parks
visitation. In The George Wright Forum (Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 73-82). George Wright
Society.
Sha, J. (2021). Weaving Indigenous and Western ways of knowing in land and water
conservation: Synthesis & Recommendations towards effective, mutually respectful and
beneficial collaborations [Major project report, University of British Columbia].
Shackleton, S., Bezerra, J. C., Cockburn, J., Reed, M. G., & Abu, R. (2021). Interviews and
surveys. In The Routledge handbook of research methods for social-ecological
systems (pp. 107-118). Routledge.

240

Sharaievska, I., Stodolska, M., & Floyd, M. F. (2014). Discrimination in leisure contexts.
In Race, ethnicity, and leisure (pp. 177-190). Human Kinetics Publishers Inc.
Shaw, K. (2012). Creating/negotiating interstices: indigenous sovereignties. In Sovereign
Lives (pp. 165-187). Routledge.
Simmons, M. (2021, April 17). Saving the salmon: why the Gitanyow are creating a new
Indigenous Protected Area. The Narwhal. https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-salmon-gitanyowindigenous-protected-area/
Simon, S. (2009). Indigenous peoples and hunting rights. In E. P. Mendes & S. Srighanthan
(Eds.), Confronting discrimination and inequality in China: Chinese and Canadian
perspectives (pp. 405-418). University of Ottawa Press.
Simpson, L. R. (1999). The construction of traditional ecological knowledge, issues,
implications and insights. [Master’s thesis, University of Manitoba].
Simpson, L. (2001). Aboriginal peoples and knowledge: Decolonizing our processes. The
Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 21(1), 137-148.
Simpson, L. R. (2004). Anticolonial strategies for the recovery and maintenance of Indigenous
Knowledge. The American Indian Quarterly, 28(3), 373-384.
https://tinyurl.com/yz2zqcr5
Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples.
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Smyth, D., & Jaireth, H. (2012). Shared governance of protected areas: Recent
developments. National Environmental Law Review, (2), 55-63.

241

Snowden, A., & Martin, C. R. (2011). Concurrent analysis: Towards generalisable qualitative
research. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 20(19–20), 2868–2877.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03513.
Spence, M. D. (1999). Introduction: From common ground. In Dispossessing the wilderness:
Indian removal and the making of the National Parks (pp. 3-8). Oxford University Press.
https://wizard.unbc.ca/record=b2305839~S3
Spielmann, R., & Unger, M. (2000). Towards a model of co-management of provincial parks in
Ontario. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 2, 455-486.
Snelgrove, C., Dhamoon, R., & Corntassel, J. (2014). Unsettling settler colonialism: The
discourse and politics of settlers, and solidarity with Indigenous nations. Decolonization:
Indigeneity, Education & Society, 3(2).
Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.) (pp. 443-466), Sage Publications.
Stanley, G. F. (1950). The first Indian 'Reserves' in Canada. Revue d’histoire de l’Amérique
française, 4(2), 178-210.
Stevens, S. (Ed.). (2014). Indigenous peoples, national parks, and protected areas: a new
paradigm linking conservation, culture, and rights. University of Arizona Press.
Stevens, S., & De Lacy, T. (1997). Conservation through cultural survival. Island Press.
Stevenson, M. (2006). The role of traditional ecological knowledge in environmental
management: A case study of moose management in Ontario. Environmental Management,
37(4), 555-564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0153-2
Stevenson, M. L. (2013). Reflections on Negotiating Treaty Relationships under the BC Treaty
Process. Aboriginal Peoples and Forest Lands in Canada, 48.

242

Stoddart, M. C. (2012). Making meaning out of mountains: The political ecology of skiing. UBC
Press.
Supreme Court of Canada. (2025). Supreme court judgements: Guerin v. The Queen.
https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2495/index.do
Sutherland, J., & National Collaborating Centre for Indigenous Health. (2021). Indigenous
sports and recreation programs and partnerships across Canada: A literature review
and environmental scan. National Collaborating Centre for Indigenous Health.
Swerdfager, T., & Armitage, D. (2023). Co-management at a crossroads in Canada: issues,
opportunities, and emerging challenges in fisheries and marine contexts. Facets, 8, 1-10.
Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), 2004 SCC
74. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2190/index.do
Tatz, C. M. (2003). With intent to destroy: reflecting on genocide. Verso.
Tcvetkov, S. A. (2022). The presumption of pseudoscience. In defense of electrochemists Martin
Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, and cold fusion, of course!. Journal of Condensed Matter
Nuclear Science, 36(1), 395-407.
Tebrakunna Country, & Lee, E. (2019). ‘Reset the relationship’: decolonising government to
increase Indigenous benefit. cultural geographies, 26(4), 415-434.
Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C. M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., ... & Folke, C.
(2017). Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for
sustainability. Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 26, 17-25.
The Canadian Press. (2024, February 27). B.C. First Nation sues federal government over ban on
herring spawn fishery. CTV News. https://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-first-nation-sues-federalgovernment-over-ban-on-herring-spawn-fishery-1.6785757

243

The Indigenous Circle of Experts. (2018, March). The Indigenous Circle of Experts report and
recommendations: We rise together.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57e007452e69cf9a7af0a033/t/
5ab94aca6d2a7338ecb1d05e/1522092766605/PA234ICE_Report_2018_Mar_22_web.pdf
Thompson, K. L., Reece, N., Robinson, N., Fisher, H. J., Ban, N. C., & Picard, C. R. (2019).
“We monitor by living here”: community-driven actualization of a social-ecological
monitoring program based in the knowledge of Indigenous harvesters. Facets, 4(1), 293314.
Thornberg, R., & Charmaz, K. (2014). Grounded theory and theoretical coding. The SAGE
handbook of qualitative data analysis, 5(2014), 153-69.
Thorne, N., & Moss, M. (2022, April). Unmarked graves: Yet another legacy of Canada’s
residential school system: An Interview with Niki Thorne. In New American Studies
Journal: A Forum (Vol. 72).
Tondu, J. M. E., Balasubramaniam, A. M., Chavarie, L., Gantner, N., Knopp, J. A., Provencher,
J. F., ... & Simmons, D. (2014). Working with northern communities to build
collaborative research partnerships: perspectives from early career
researchers. Arctic, 67(3), 419-429.
Townsend, J. (2022). Indigenous and decolonial futurities: Indigenous protected and conserved
areas as potential pathways of reconciliation (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Guelph).

244

Townsend, J., & Roth, R. (2023). Indigenous and decolonial futures: Indigenous Protected and
Conserved Areas as potential pathways of reconciliation. Frontiers in Human
Dynamics, 5, 1286970.
Tran, T. C., Neasloss, D., Kitasoo/Xai’xais Stewardship Authority, Bhattacharyya, J., & Ban, N.
C. (2020). “Borders don’t protect areas, people do”: insights from the development of an
Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area in Kitasoo/Xai’xais Nation
Territory. FACETS, 5(1), 922-941.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015a). Truth and reconciliation commission
of Canada: Calls to action. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/british-columbians-ourgovernments/indigenous-people/aboriginal-peoples-documents/
calls_to_action_english2.pdf
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015b). Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for
the Future. Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of
Canada.
https://ehprnh2mwo3.exactdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Executive_Summary_En
glish_Web.pdf
Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia, 2014 SCR 257. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scccsc/en/item/14246/index.do
Tsosie, R. L., Grant, A. D., Harrington, J., Wu, K., Thomas, A., Chase, S., ... & Plenty
Sweetgrass-She Kills, R. (2022). The six Rs of Indigenous research. Tribal college
journal of American Indian higher education, 33(4).
Tuck, E., & Gaztambide-Fernández, R. A. (2013). Curriculum, replacement, and settler
futurity. Journal of curriculum theorizing, 29(1).

245

Tuck, E., & Gorlewski, J. (2016). Racist ordering, settler colonialism, and edTPA: A
participatory policy analysis. Educational Policy, 30(1), 197-217.
Tuck, E., McKenzie, M., & McCoy, K. (2014). Land education: Indigenous, post-colonial, and
decolonizing perspectives on place and environmental education research. Environmental
education research, 20(1), 1-23.
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity,
Education & Society, 1(1), 1-40.
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2016). What justice wants. Critical Ethnic Studies, 2(2), 1-15.
Turner, N. J., & Clifton, H. (2009a). “It's so different today”: Climate change and indigenous
lifeways in British Columbia, Canada. Global Environmental Change, 19(2), 180-190.
Turner, N. J., & Clifton, H. (2009b). "It’s so different from what we call our fish": Indigenous
knowledge and fisheries management in British Columbia. Ecology and Society, 14(1), 3.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02765-140103
Turner, N. J., Gregory, R., Brooks, C., & Failing, L. (2000). Integrating traditional ecological
knowledge and scientific forestry in British Columbia. Ecological Applications, 10(5),
1154–1163. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010
Turner, N., & Spalding, P. R. (2013). “We might go back to this”; drawing on the past to meet
the future in northwestern North American Indigenous communities. Ecology and
Society, 18(4).
United Nations. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/
19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf

246

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, S.C. 2021, c. 14.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/u-2.2/
University of British Columbia. (2009). Aboriginal fisheries in British Columbia.
https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/aboriginal_fisheries_in_british_columbia/
Vaismoradi, M., Jones, J., Turunen, H., & Snelgrove, S. (2016). Theme development in
qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Journal of Nursing Education and
Practice, 6(5).
Vaismoradi, M., & Snelgrove, S. (2019, January). Theme in Qualitative Content Analysis and
Thematic Analysis. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social
Research, 20(3).
Vernon, C. (2007). A political ecology of British Columbia's community forests. Capitalism
Nature Socialism, 18(4), 54-74.
Vizenor, G. (2014). Resistance in the Blood. In E. Tuck & K. W. Yang (Eds.) Youth Resistance
Research and Theories of Change (pp. 107–117). Routledge.
Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2021). The affordances of interview research on Zoom: New intimacies and
active listening. Communication, Culture & Critique, 14(2), 373-376.
Walters, S. (2007), "‘Case study’ or ‘ethnography’? Defining terms, making choices and
defending the worth of a case.” In G. Walford (Ed.), Methodological Developments in
Ethnography (Studies in Educational Ethnography, Vol. 12) (pp. 89-108), Emerald Group
Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1529-210X(06)12006-9
Wesselius, J. (2014). “A matter of bones and feathers, and wishful thinking”: Science and the
marginalization of religion. Toronto Journal of Theology, 30(2), 257-268.

247

West, P., Igoe, J., & Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected
areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol., 35, 251-277.
West Moberly First Nation. (2024, February 29). Press release: Paused land act amendments a
missed opportunity to implement UNDRIP [Press release]. https://westmo.org/wpcontent/uploads/2024/03/2024-02-29-Press-Release-West-Moberly-Paused-Land-ActAmendments-March-6-2024.pdf
Westwood, A. R., Otto, S. P., Mooers, A., Darimont, C., Hodges, K. E., Johnson, C., Starzomski,
B. M., Burton, C., Chan, K. M. A., Festa-Bianchet, M., Fluker, S., Gulati, S., Jacob, A.
L., Kraus, D., Martin, T. G., Palen, W. J., Reynolds, J. D., and Whitton, J. (2019).
Protecting biodiversity in British Columbia: Recommendations for developing species at
risk legislation. FACETS. 4(1): 136-160. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2018-0042
Wheeler, H., Danielsen, F., Fidel, M., Hausner, V. H., Horstkotte, T., Johnson, N., ... & Vronski,
N. (2020). The need for transformative changes in the use of Indigenous knowledge
along with science for environmental decision-making in the Arctic.
Whiting, C., Cavers, S., Bassendowski, S., & Petrucka, P. (2018). Using two-eyed seeing to
explore interagency collaboration. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 50(3), 133144.
Wildcat, M., & Voth, D. (2023). Indigenous relationality: definitions and methods. AlterNative:
An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 19(2), 475-483.
Wilk, P., Maltby, A., & Cooke, M. (2017). Residential schools and the effects on Indigenous
health and well-being in Canada—a scoping review. Public health reviews, 38, 1-23.
Willis, J. W., Jost, M., & Nilakanta, R. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive
and critical approaches. Sage Publications.

248

Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing.
Wolfe, P. (2006). Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native. Journal of Genocide
Research, 8(4), 387-409.
Wong, C., Ballegooyen, K., Ignace, L., Johnson, M. J., & Swanson, H. (2020). Towards
reconciliation: 10 Calls to Action to natural scientists working in Canada. Facets, 5(1),
769-783.
Wright, A. L., Gabel, C., Ballantyne, M., Jack, S. M., & Wahoush, O. (2019). Using two-eyed
seeing in research with indigenous people: an integrative review. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 18, 1-19.
Wright, P., Lazaruk, H., & Bjorgan, L., Gonzales, E., Thurston, E. (2017). Discussion Paper:
Evaluating Management Effectiveness.
https://pwright.opened.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/2927/2016/12/Wright_EvaluatingManagement-Effectiveness-NAP.pdf
Wyllie de Echeverria, V. R., & Thornton, T. F. (2019). Using traditional ecological knowledge to
understand and adapt to climate and biodiversity change on the Pacific coast of North
America. Ambio, 48(12), 1447–1469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01218-6
Yin, R.K. (1989). Case study research. Sage Publications.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Discovering the future of the case study method in evaluation research.
Evaluation Practice, 15, 283–290.
Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publications.
Yin, R.K. (2003). Application of case study research. (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

249

Yin, R. K. (2009). How to do better case studies. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), The SAGE
Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods (2nd ed.) (pp. 254–282). Sage
Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2011). Applications of case study research. Sage Publications.
Young, N., Corriveau, M., Nguyen, V. M., Cooke, S. J., & Hinch, S. G. (2016). How do
potential knowledge users evaluate new claims about a contested resource? Problems of
power and politics in knowledge exchange and mobilization. Journal of Environmental
Management, 184, 380-388.

250

Appendix A: Gitxsan First Nation Approval of Research Project and Research Activities

251

Appendix B: Research Agreement and Data-sharing Protocol with Gitxsan First Nation

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

Appendix C: BC Parks Approval of Research Project and Research Activities

267

Appendix D: Research Ethics Board Approvals

268

269

Appendix E: Gitxsan Research Information Letter and Participant Consent Form

Information Letter
Project Title: Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Northwestern BC Parks: A Framework for
Socially Responsible Environmental Planning and Management
Who is conducting the study?
The research is being conducted by a UNBC Natural Resources and Environmental Studies
graduate student, supervised by Dr. Jennifer Wigglesworth. This research will contribute to
Sophia’s Master’s thesis, and will therefore be part of a public document.
Graduate Student Researcher:
Sophia Graham (she/her)
MA Student – Natural Resources and Environmental Studies (Outdoor Recreation, Conservation
and Tourism)
University of Northern British Columbia
Lheidli T’enneh Territory
Prince George, BC, V2N 4Z9
grahams0@unbc.ca
T. 250-279-5210
Faculty Supervisor:
Jennifer Wigglesworth, Ph.D. (she/her)
Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Management
Ecosystem Science and Management Department
University of Northern British Columbia
Lheidli T’enneh Territory
jennifer.wigglesworth@unbc.ca
T. 250-960-5659
Who is funding the study?
The study is being funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada,
BC Recreation and Parks Association and Parks Canada. These funding agencies are not
imposing any restrictions on access to or disclosure of information.
Purpose of Project

270

The study will explore the role of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in BC Parks
management plan development within Northwestern British Columbia. The project has two
goals: 1) to identify historical and current socio-political barriers to the uptake of Indigenous
Knowledge in park planning and management, and 2) to help overcome these barriers in
developing a framework to integrate TEK that prioritizes reconciliation and self-determination in
park management plan development. This work responds to the federal government’s Truth and
Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action and British Columbia’s Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples Act.
Why are you being asked to take part in this study, and what would you be asked to do?
You are being asked to participate in the study because of your membership in Gitxsan First
Nation. Participating in this research project will involve an individual interview using Zoom
video conferencing platform.
I will conduct an individual interview with you using Zoom video conferencing platform to ask
you about: your thoughts on BC Parks and their park management planning and consultation
process; BC Parks historical and current inclusion or exclusion of your Nation in park
management planning; your thoughts on the role of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK),
oral history and other aspects of culture in park management planning; and the role of
reconciliation and self-determination in parks and park management. This interview should take
60 minutes and the transcript review will take approximately 60 minutes.
Research Ethics
Participation in this research project is entirely voluntary. You are able to withdraw from this
study at any time and you are free to not answer any questions that make you feel uncomfortable.
If you choose to withdraw from the study, any information you have provided up to that point
will also be withdrawn and securely destroyed. There are no consequences for withdrawing.
With your permission, I would like to audio record the individual Zoom interview to help with
transcribing, notetaking and to improve the accuracy of information. I do not need to record any
personal identifying information about you, and I will not be attributing specific comments by
name because pseudonyms will be used. However, I cannot guarantee that people will not be
able to identify you.
Anonymity and Confidentiality
UNBC’s Zoom license will be used for this study. Using UNBC’s Zoom license ensures
enhanced security features and meets provincial privacy review standards. Your individual
interview contributions will not be seen, or heard, by anyone but me and my supervisor. After
your interview, I will transcribe interviews verbatim and provide each person I interview with
the opportunity to review their interview and suggest additions or deletions to the transcript. The
information will be stored on a secure computer for the development of a thesis paper for the
completion of my degree. Upon completion, this thesis paper would be documented in the

271

UNBC Library Thesis Collection database. I may, thereafter, and only with participants’ consent,
publish portions of this paper. Once the data has been analyzed and published, all interview
recordings and any identifying information will be deleted.
Research Benefits and Risks
This study would benefit Gitxsan First Nation by exploring how to improve BC Parks
consultation with First Nations and learning how the government can take a more respectful and
inclusive approach towards Nation interests in park planning and management. Discussions with
Elders and Chiefs will provide this study with empirical evidence to inform a framework for
integrating TEK into BC Park management. This framework would aim to center First Nations
interests and knowledge in decision-making practices that concern their land and People.
I do not think there is anything in this study that could harm you. Some of the questions I ask
might upset you. Please let me know if you have concerns. You do not have to answer any
question if you do not want to. If, at any point in the study, you feel uncomfortable or upset and
wish to end your participation, please notify me immediately and your wishes will be respected.
If you were to withdraw from the study, I would remove all of your comments from the
interview transcript up until the time of the publication of results. I will also be prepared to
provide contact information about relevant local support services. The potential risk of the
individual interview is no greater than what you would experience in everyday conversations, as
the interview script will not include specific questions related to sensitive or personal issues;
however, it is possible, given the open nature of interview discussions, that you may raise
sensitive or personal issues. I have listed relevant support services on the last page of this
Information Letter.
Indigenous Data Management, Ownership and Research Agreement with Gitxsan First
Nation
The Principal Investigator is committed to adhering to Gitxsan Nation research protocols, the
Assembly of First Nations Ethics Guide on Research and Traditional Knowledge (2016), and the
First Nations Information Governance Centre’s Principles on Ownership, Control, Access and
Possession (OCAP Principles).
As outlined in the Principal Investigator’s Research Agreement with Gitxsan First Nation,
Gitxsan Nation will retain ownership of all Indigenous Data. Indigenous Data is defined in the
Research Agreement as: information and data collected from Gitxsan First Nation’s community
members in the course of the research. Indigenous Data includes Traditional Knowledge. I will
maintain a reciprocal and meaningful relationship with Gitxsan First Nation. Gitxsan Nation is
involved in determining the priorities and desired outcomes of the research project. I will seek
Gitxsan Huwilp Government’s guidance on how this project's findings will be shared and
delivered to the community and larger audiences. I will be transparent with the Nation
throughout the research process and protect Nation community interests, information and
privacy. I will collect, create, use, disclose, store and/or destroy Indigenous Data in the manner
set out in the Research Agreement with Gitxsan Nation and in accordance with the
requirements/approvals established by the University of Northern British Columbia Research

272

Ethics Board and the Tri-Council Policy (TCPS 2, 2018). The Principal Investigator wants to
recognize the contributions of interviewees and the Nation (when this is desired by them).
Therefore, an invitation for co-authorship of publications is extended to the Huwilp, Elders, and
Simogyet who share their knowledge in this Research Project. An invitation for co-authorship is
located at the bottom of the consent form.
Participant Agreement
If you agree to participate in the individual Zoom interview, please complete the informed
consent form at the end of this document.
Contact
If you would like further information on the research results, please contact myself, Sophia
Graham (grahams0@unbc.ca) or Jennifer Wigglesworth (jennifer.wigglesworth@unbc.ca). Our
names and telephone numbers are listed at the top of the first page of the Information Letter. A
copy of the research results will be provided to you upon your request.
Who can you contact if you have complaints or concerns about the study?
If you have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant and/or your
experiences while participating in this study, contact the UNBC Office of Research at 250-9606735 or by e-mail at reb@unbc.ca.
Study Results
To share the results of my research, I will produce a final report that will be distributed to each
participant. I will also prepare a conference presentation for the BC Protected Areas Research
Forum and BC Recreation and Parks Association Symposium. A full copy of the research results
will be provided to you upon your request.
________________________________________________________
Thank you!
Sophia Graham

273

Appended List of Services for Participants to Access
Gitxsan Health Society:
7700 Sik-e-dakh Rd.
Glen Vowell, BC
V0J 1Y0
Phone: 250-842-6876
Gitxsan Child and Family Services:
4215 Government St.
Hazelton, BC
V0K 1Y0
Phone: 250-842-2258

274

First Nations Health Authority:
501 – 100 Park Royal South
Coast Salish Territory
West Vancouver, BC
V7T 1A2
Phone: 604-693-6500
Toll-free: 1-866-913-0033
Email: info@fnha.ca
Professional Counselling Services:
Phone: 1-877-477-0775
The Crisis Prevention, Intervention, and Information Centre for Northern BC:
2700 Queensway #100
Prince George, BC
V2L 1N2
Northern British Columbia Crisis Line:
Phone: 250-563-1214
Toll-free: 1-888-562-1214
British Columbia Suicide Line:
Phone: 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-784-2433
KUU-US Crisis Line Society:
4589 Adelaide St.
Port Alberni, BC
V9Y 6N2
Phone: 250-723-4050
Toll-free: 1-800-588-8717
National Residential School Crisis Line:
Toll-free: 1-866-925-4419
Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ Crisis Line:
Toll-free: 1-844-413-6649
First Nations, Inuit and Métis Hope for Wellness Help Line:
Toll-free: 1-855-242-3310
Participant Consent and Withdrawal
Taking part in this study is entirely up to you. You have the right to refuse to participate in this
study or to end your participation at any time. You may choose to withdraw from the study
without giving a reason and without any negative impact. If you have already provided some
information, such as a partial interview, please inform me whether you want that contribution to
remain in the study or to be removed.

275

Any data and/or information you have provided for this project will be treated in the following
manner:








Your participation in the project in entirely voluntary and you are of legal age to provide
informed consent;
You are free to withdraw from the project at any time without disadvantage;
Personal identifying information from any notes will be destroyed at the conclusion of
the project or within two years;
I will not attach your name or any other obvious identifier to the information you
provide; There is no remuneration or compensation to be made for your participation, nor
will the information provided be used for any commercial purpose;
You understand that only me, the principal researcher, will have access to the information
provided and that it will be stored securely for two years and then destroyed;
Data/information that is collected will be used to develop a final report, workshop and
other presentations;
You agree that the interview will be audio recorded to improve the accuracy of
information.

CONSENT
I have read or been described the information presented in the Information Letter about the
project:
YES

NO

I have had the opportunity to ask questions about my involvement in this project and to receive
additional details I requested.
YES

NO

I understand that if I agree to participate in this project, I may withdraw from the project at any
time up until the report completion, with no consequences of any kind.
YES

NO

I have been given a copy of this form.
YES

NO

I understand that while the intent is to maintain confidentiality of participants by removing
participants’ identifying information the nature of participation in an interview with relatively
few participants means that anonymity cannot be guaranteed.
YES

NO

276

I agree to be recorded
YES

NO

Please provide an email address to review a copy of your transcript:
____________________________________
Please check here if you would like to receive a PDF copy of the final report:
____________________________________
Please check here if you would like to be a co-author on publications:
____________________________________
If you would like to be a co-author on publications, please provide the name you wish to be used
in publications here (this can be your name or hereditary/Chief name):
____________________________________
Signature:
Name of Participant (Printed):
Date:
________________________________________________________
Thank you!
Sophia Graham

277

Appendix F: BC Parks Research Information Letter and Participant Consent Form

Information Letter
Project Title: Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Northwestern BC Parks: A Framework for
Socially Responsible Environmental Planning and Management
Who is conducting the study?
The research is being conducted by a UNBC Natural Resources and Environmental Studies
graduate student, supervised by Dr. Jennifer Wigglesworth. This research will contribute to
Sophia’s Master’s thesis, and will therefore be part of a public document.
Graduate Student Researcher:
Sophia Graham (she/her)
MA Student – Natural Resources and Environmental Studies (Outdoor Recreation, Conservation
and Tourism)
University of Northern British Columbia
Lheidli T’enneh Territory
Prince George, BC, V2N 4Z9
grahams0@unbc.ca
T. 250-279-5210
Faculty Supervisor:
Jennifer Wigglesworth, Ph.D. (she/her)
Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Management
Ecosystem Science and Management Department
University of Northern British Columbia
Lheidli T’enneh Territory
jennifer.wigglesworth@unbc.ca
T. 250-960-5659
Who is funding the study?
The study is being funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada,
BC Recreation and Parks Association and Parks Canada. These funding agencies are not
imposing any restrictions on access to or disclosure of information.
Purpose of Project

278

The study will explore the role of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in BC Parks
management plan development within Northwestern British Columbia. The project has two
goals: 1) to identify historical and current socio-political barriers to the uptake of Indigenous
Knowledge in park planning and management, and 2) to help overcome these barriers in
developing a framework to integrate TEK that prioritizes reconciliation and self-determination in
park management plan development. This work responds to the federal government’s Truth and
Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action and British Columbia’s Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples Act.
Why are you being asked to take part in this study, and what would you be asked to do?
You are being asked to participate in the study because of your employment with BC Parks.
Participating in this research project will involve an individual interview using Zoom video
conferencing platform.
I will conduct an individual interview with you using Zoom video conferencing platform to ask
you about: your job at BC Parks; BC Parks policies and training for work with First Nations;
how your work involves or does not involve First Nations; your thoughts on Traditional
Ecological Knowledge (TEK), park management decision-making, and reconciliation in parks
and park management. This interview should take 60 minutes and the transcript review will take
approximately 60 minutes.
Research Ethics
Participation in this research project is entirely voluntary. You are able to withdraw from this
study at any time and you are free to not answer any questions that make you feel uncomfortable.
If you choose to withdraw from the study, any information you have provided up to that point
will also be withdrawn and securely destroyed. There are no consequences for withdrawing.
With your permission, I would like to audio record the individual Zoom interview to help with
transcribing, notetaking and to improve the accuracy of information. I do not need to record any
personal identifying information about you, and I will not be attributing specific comments by
name because pseudonyms will be used. However, I cannot guarantee that people will not be
able to identify you.
Anonymity and Confidentiality
UNBC’s Zoom license will be used for this study. Using UNBC’s Zoom license ensures
enhanced security features and meets provincial privacy review standards. Your individual
interview contributions will not be seen, or heard, by anyone but me and my supervisor. After
your interview, I will transcribe interviews verbatim and provide each person I interview with
the opportunity to review their interview and suggest additions or deletions to the transcript. The
information will be stored on a secure computer for the development of a thesis paper for the
completion of my degree. Upon completion, this thesis paper would be documented in the
UNBC Library Thesis Collection database. I may, thereafter, and only with participants’ consent,

279

publish portions of this paper. Once the data has been analyzed and published, all interview
recordings and any identifying information will be deleted.
Research Benefits and Risks
This study would benefit BC Parks employees by exploring consultation processes with First
Nations and inclusive approaches for involving First Nation interests in park management plan
development.
I do not think there is anything in this study that could harm you. Some of the questions I ask
might upset you. Please let me know if you have concerns. You do not have to answer any
question if you do not want to. If, at any point in the study, you feel uncomfortable or upset and
wish to end your participation, please notify me immediately and your wishes will be respected.
If you were to withdraw from the study, I would remove all of your comments from the
interview transcript up until the time of the publication of results. I will also be prepared to
provide contact information about relevant local support services. The potential risk of the
individual interview is no greater than what you would experience in everyday conversations, as
the interview script will not include specific questions related to sensitive or personal issues;
however, it is possible, given the open nature of interview discussions, that you may raise
sensitive or personal issues. I have listed relevant support services on the last page of this
Information Letter.
Participant Agreement
If you agree to participate in the individual Zoom interview, please complete the informed
consent form at the end of this document.
Contact
If you would like further information on the research results, please contact myself, Sophia
Graham (grahams0@unbc.ca) or Jennifer Wigglesworth (jennifer.wigglesworth@unbc.ca). Our
names and telephone numbers are listed at the top of the first page of the Information Letter. A
copy of the research results will be provided to you upon your request.
Who can you contact if you have complaints or concerns about the study?
If you have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant and/or your
experiences while participating in this study, contact the UNBC Office of Research at 250-9606735 or by e-mail at reb@unbc.ca.
Study Results
To share the results of my research, I will produce a final report that will be distributed to each
participant. I will also prepare a presentation for the BC Protected Areas Research Forum and
BC Recreation and Parks Association Symposium. A full copy of the research results will be
provided to you upon your request.

280

________________________________________________________
Thank you!
Sophia Graham

Appended List of Services for Participants to Access
The Crisis Prevention, Intervention, and Information Centre for Northern BC:
2700 Queensway #100
Prince George, BC
V2L 1N2
Northern British Columbia Crisis Line:
Phone: 250-563-1214
Toll-free: 1-888-562-1214
British Columbia Suicide Line:
Phone: 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-784-2433
The Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention Centre of BC:
Mental Health Support Line:
Toll-free: 310-6789 (no area code needed)
The Northern Health Authority:
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Programs by Community:
Accessible through the website: https://www.northernhealth.ca/services/mental-health-substanceuse/services-by-community

281

Participant Consent and Withdrawal
Taking part in this study is entirely up to you. You have the right to refuse to participate in this
study or to end your participation at any time. You may choose to withdraw from the study
without giving a reason and without any negative impact. If you have already provided some
information, such as a partial interview, please inform me whether you want that contribution to
remain in the study or to be removed.
Any data and/or information you have provided for this project will be treated in the following
manner:





Your participation in the project in entirely voluntary and you are of legal age to provide
informed consent;
You are free to withdraw from the project at any time without disadvantage;
Personal identifying information from any notes will be destroyed at the conclusion of
the project or within two years;
I will not attach your name or any other obvious identifier to the information you
provide; There is no remuneration or compensation to be made for your participation, nor
will the information provided be used for any commercial purpose;

282





You understand that only me, the principal researcher, will have access to the information
provided and that it will be stored securely for two years and then destroyed;
Data/information that is collected will be used to develop a final report, workshop and
other presentations;
You agree that the interview will be audio recorded to improve the accuracy of
information.

CONSENT
I have read or been described the information presented in the Information Letter about the
project:
YES

NO

I have had the opportunity to ask questions about my involvement in this project and to receive
additional details I requested.
YES

NO

I understand that if I agree to participate in this project, I may withdraw from the project at any
time up until the report completion, with no consequences of any kind.
YES

NO

I have been given a copy of this form.
YES

NO

I understand that while the intent is to maintain confidentiality of participants by removing
participants’ identifying information the nature of participation in an interview with relatively
few participants means that anonymity cannot be guaranteed.
YES

NO

I agree to be recorded
YES

NO

Please provide an email address to review a copy of your transcript:
____________________________________
Please check here if you would like to receive a PDF copy of the final report:

283

____________________________________
Signature:
Name of Participant (Printed):
Date:

______________________________________________________________________________
__
Thank you!
Sophia Graham

Appendix G: Interview Questions for BC Parks Staff
1. What are the roles and duties of your current position with BC Parks?
a) What decisions do you make within the parks you work in/plan/manage?

284

b) What other park agencies or BC Parks regions have you worked for? How do you find
working for the North Coast Skeena Region compares to these? What makes working for
the North Coast Skeena Region unique?
c) If you have not worked for other park agencies/BC Parks regions, how does working for
BC Parks compare with your previous work experiences? How do you find working in
the North compares with other work experiences you have had elsewhere? What makes
working in the North unique?
2. How might park management plan decisions be influenced by economic factors / financial
barriers?
a) How might park management plan decisions be influenced by the social climate?
(political factors)
b) How might your own experiences and values influence park management plan decisions?
Definitions provided:
Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) – Leanne Simpson (Anishinaabe scholar) refers to
all types of knowledge about the environment derived from relationships, experiences, storytelling, participating in ceremonies, the oral tradition, experimentation and observation, from the
Elders, children, or from teachers in the plant and animal worlds. TEK is ancestral knowledge
that is passed down orally through generations and is based on culture, history, spirituality,
subjectivity, empiricism and induction.
Western scientific knowledge (WSK) is a body of knowledge, associated with Western society,
that is purported to be based on reason, scientific laws, evidence, facts, universality, objectivity,
rationalism and deduction.
3. How does your work involve First Nations?
a) What role (if any) does Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), information or data
play in your work / decision-making for park management plans?
b) What role (if any) does Western scientific knowledge (WSK), information or data play in
your work / decision-making for park management plans?
4. What challenges do you face incorporating TEK into your work?
a) What are the struggles of getting TEK?
b) What are the struggles of implementing TEK in park planning or management?
5. What cultural training have you participated in regarding the use of use of TEK? (e.g.,
workshops)
a) What formal and/or informal training have you received regarding the history of parks
you work in/plan/manage?
b) What formal and/or informal training have you received regarding the First
Nations/cultural history of parks you work in/plan/manage?
c) What training have you received for collaborating with First Nations?
Definitions provided:

285

Reconciliation (TRC) is establishing and maintaining a mutually respectful relationship between
Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in Canada. For that to happen, there has to be awareness
of the past, acknowledgement of the harm that has been inflicted, atonement for the causes, and
action to change behavior.
Self-determination is defined as: a First Nation’s right to self-government of their lands,
territories and resources.
6. How would you define the role of reconciliation in your work/workplace?
a) What do you think is the role of reconciliation in park management planning/ plan
development?
b) What do you think is the role of self-determination in park management planning / plan
development?
7. The province recently adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Have
you seen any changes as a result of this? If so, can you elaborate upon this?
a) How has the province’s recent adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples Act changed your roles and duties within the department?
8. What changes would you recommend for further incorporating First Nations and their TEK in
park management plan development?
9. Is there anything we have not talked about yet that you would like to share?

Appendix H: Interview Questions for First Nations Chiefs and Elders
11.What do you think of BC Parks?
a) What does your family think of BC Parks? What does your Wilp/House or Clan think of
BC Parks?
b) How should your family’s knowledge and perspectives be included in BC Parks’
management plans?
286

2. How has your family and Wilp, Clan or Community been involved in BC Parks’ management
planning?
a) What factors might influence meaningful engagement with BC Parks?
b) What factors could improve meaningful engagement with BC Parks?
3. How would you describe your Wilp’s relationship with BC Parks?
a) How should your family’s culture and history be acknowledged in parks?
4. What do you think of BC Parks consultation process?
a) What works well, and/or what could be improved?
b) What advice would you give park staff to improve their work with First Nations?
Definition provided:
Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) refers to all types of knowledge about the
environment derived from relationships, experiences, story-telling, participating in ceremonies,
the oral tradition, experimentation and observation, from the Elders, children, or from teachers in
the plant and animal worlds. TEK is ancestral knowledge that is passed down orally through
generations and is based on culture, history, spirituality, subjectivity, empiricism and induction.
5. How can TEK, oral history, and other aspects of culture support park management plans?
a) What is the role of TEK in park management plans?
b) How should TEK be incorporated into park management plans?
c) How could TEK improve park management plans? Could you provide an example?
d) What would you like to see happen in terms of BC Parks consultation, planning and
management of parks in your Laxyip/Territory?
6. How would you define reconciliation?
a) How would you define reconciliation in terms of park planning and management in BC?
b) What steps are BC Parks taking, or could BC Parks be taking, to work towards
reconciliation with First Nations?
c) What do you think is the role of reconciliation in park planning and management?
Definition provided:
Reconciliation (TRC) [may not be needed] is establishing and maintaining a mutually respectful
relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in Canada. For that to happen, there
has to be awareness of the past, acknowledgement of the harm that has been inflicted, atonement
for the causes, and action to change behavior.
Self-determination is defined as: a First Nation’s right to self-government of their lands,
territories and resources.
7. What do you think is the role of self-determination in park planning and management?

287

a) How has your Nation’s relationship with BC Parks changed since their implementation of
reconciliation policies? (e.g., UNDRIP, DRIPA, TRC Calls to Action)
8. Is there anything we have not talked about yet that you would like to share?

Appendix I: Interview Preparation Material
Zoom Interview Protocol Form
1. Before Interview
Technology and Related Materials
 Download Zoom Video Communications software before
the interview

288

 Set up Zoom Video Communications software to minimise
technical difficulties during the interview
 We suggest calling a friend on Zoom prior to the interview,
using both audio and video, to familiarise yourself with the
software
o This will ensure your device does not have a
problem using the videoconference software
 Ensure good internet connection
 When possible, join from a wired connection to reduce
challenges with internet quality
 Use headphones/earbuds during the interview to protect
your privacy and ensure good audio
 15 minutes before start time, turn on computer and join the
video-call; apply and connect headset/earbuds; test both
audio and video
 Click on the Zoom Meeting link in your email or calendar
and the meeting will open
Environment
 Be in a private and quiet room with a locked door. If outside
distractions are a concern, put sign on outside of door
requesting quiet. Minimise other noises as much as possible
2. During Interview
Process—General
 Allow audio and video (unless you prefer audio only)
 Use headphones/earbuds
 Speak clearly and slowly

289

Appendix J: Codebook
Codebook: Code Categories and Definitions
The final group of codes that make up the complete codebook used for qualitative data analysis.
Codes were compiled and then exported from NVivo as a codebook.
Name

Description

Files

References

Application of TEK and
First Nations Inclusion

Refers to statements on how TEK is
currently being included and/or excluded by
BC Parks employees in park planning and
management. It will also include general
discussions about Nation engagement and
collaboration. This code will include current
approaches, strategies, practices, policies,
and procedures for including TEK in BC
Parks but will not include historical, social,
political, or economic discussions regarding
the use of TEK in BC Parks.

24

78

TEK Inclusion

This code is a child/sub-code of
“Application of TEK and First Nations
Inclusion.” It refers to statements about how
TEK is currently being included in park
planning and management.

9

22

Recommendations for
TEK and First Nations
Inclusion

This code is a child/sub-code of
“Application of TEK and First Nations
Inclusion.” It refers to recommendations for
the inclusion of TEK and First Nations in
BC Parks management planning. These
recommendations can come from First
Nations or BC Parks interviews.

20

56

Application of WSK

Refers to statements which discuss the
application of Western science in park
management planning or management plan
decisions. It is different from the application
of TEK and First Nations inclusion.
Examples of WSK application are
archaeological studies for parks/heritage
sites or wildlife/bird surveys to support and
inform decision-making in parks.

9

36

BC Parks Policy

Refers to statements regarding BC Parks
policy, procedures and guiding principles.
This does not include provincial laws like
DRIPA but does include BC Parks policies,

12

206

290

Name

Description

Files

References

procedures and guiding principles for
application and use of TEK and the
consultation process required by BC Parks
for consulting with First Nations (e.g.,
Strategic Engagement Agreements,
Reconciliation Agreements, Collaborative
Management Agreements, Consultation
Agreements, etc.).
BC Parks Statutory
Decision-making

This code is a child/sub-code of “BC Parks
Policy.” It refers to how BC Parks
employees make decisions, who makes what
decisions and the process of decisionmaking in park management planning. This
code is different from “Application of TEK”
and specifically pertains to discussions
regarding decision-making.

16

47

Indigenous Relations
Branch

This code is a child/sub-code of “BC Parks
Policy”. It refers to statements discussing
BC Parks Indigenous Relations
Branch/Division. This branch is based out of
Victoria. This code is not related to BC
Parks consultation or management planning
process, which are separate codes.

7

18

BC Parks Programs

This code is a child/sub-code of “BC Parks
Policy.” It refers to statements discussing the
various programs at BC Parks. For example,
BC Parks has a recreation program,
conservation program, Land Guardian
program, signage program, etc. This code is
different from WSK and TEK values or
beliefs.

13

22

Consultation

This code is a child/sub-code of “BC Parks
Policy.” It refers to the policies and
processes necessitated by BC Parks for
consultation procedures with First Nations.
It includes the engagement strategies that are
required by BC Parks and factors that
necessitate consultation (i.e., potential for
adverse effects and strength of Land
Claims). It is different from challenges to
incorporating TEK, although consultation
can be challenging, this is a different code. It
is also different from meaningful

23

119

291

Name

Description

Files

References

engagement.
Park Management
Planning Process

Refers to statements discussing the
management planning process that is used
by BC Parks planning team and
recommendations to improve it. This is
different from “BC Parks Employee Roles
and Duties,” as it refers specifically to the
management planning process and includes
suggestions made by employees who are not
a part of BC Parks planning team.

14

85

Background
Information

This is a child/sub-code of “Park
Management Planning Process.” It refers to
statements discussing background
information in park management plans
which is not available to the public but
serves park managers in their decisionmaking and anticipated governance of a
park.

6

10

Conservancies

This is a child/sub-code of “Management
Planning Process.” It refers to this specific
BC Parks park designation, which is
different from Class A, B, C Parks and
Ecological Reserves or Protected Areas.
This designation was created specifically for
areas with First Nations interests and to
protect cultural values of an area.

14

17

Cultural Zoning

This is a child/sub-code of “Management
Planning Process.” Cultural Zoning is part
of BC Parks Zoning framework.

8

19

Recommendations for
Improving Park
Management Planning
Process

This is a child/sub-code of “Management
Planning Process.” Refers to statements
outlining any recommendations to improve
the park management planning process. This
is different from Recommended Training
Procedures and Recommendations for TEK
and First Nations Inclusion. This code must
refer to recommendations specific to the
process of park management planning.

10

39

Refers to any statements discussing the
challenges to incorporating TEK and First
Nations inclusion. For example, this may be
competing interests, inconsistent

21

144

Challenges to
Incorporating TEK

292

Name

Description

Files

References

engagement protocols (i.e., different binding
agreements with First Nations), previous
experiences of racism or discrimination, and
staff capacity to work with First Nations and
consider their knowledges/perspectives. This
code does not refer to the application of
TEK or meaningful engagement or
recommendations for improvement.
Inconsistent Engagement This code is a child/sub-code of “Challenges
Protocols
to Incorporating TEK.” It refers to
statements regarding BC Parks inconsistent
engagement protocols/policies for engaging
with First Nations. This does not refer to BC
Parks training procedures regarding
engagement or consultation or employee
roles and duties.

7

33

Lack of Engagement

This is a child/sub-code of “Challenges to
Incorporating TEK.” Refers to statements
outlining the lack of engagement had by
First Nations with BC Parks. This code does
not include recommendations for including
TEK or Indigenous perspectives in the
future and is meant to identify statements
that indicate BC Parks lack of engagement
with a First Nation.

20

41

Overlapping Territory

Child/sub-code of “Challenges to
incorporating…” Refers to overlapping
Territory of First Nations which has not yet
been determined by court proceedings or the
BC Treaty Commission. This does not
include Territoryl/Land Acknowledgements
and is specific to the conflict/tension which
can arise from territorial overlap when
working with/engaging with BC Parks. This
code may include discussions of the BC
Treaty Commission Process but is different
from BC Parks policy.

8

21

Staff Retention and
Capacity

Child/sub-code of “Challenges…” Refers to
statements discussing the capacity of BC
Parks and First Nations to work together and
collaborate. Capacity relies on staffing
numbers and staff retention. Seasonal
employees and high employee turnover

16

49

293

Name

Description

Files

References

leads to a ‘revolving door’ of employees
which makes building relationships difficult.
This does not refer to BC Parks employee
roles and duties, policies, and refers
specifically to staffing levels of both BC
Parks and First Nations and capacity for
engagement.
Treaty Negotiations

Child/sub-code refers to discussions about
current and past Treaty negotiations with
Northwestern First Nations. This does not
include statements regarding “Overlapping
Territory,” as this is a different code which
indicates statements highlighting conflict or
tension regarding Territory which have not
yet been resolved in court/Treaty
negotiations. This code refers to Treaty
Negotiations themselves and more generally,
as well as finalizing a Treaty. This is
different from asserting self-determination.

12

18

Gitxsan Culture, Law,
Traditions

Refers to statements about Gitxsan culture,
law, practices, traditions, generational
knowledge, values, beliefs and storytelling.
The meanings of these statements are
constructed by Gitxsan cultural
background/teachings. This does not include
general statements about First Nations/
Indigenous Peoples culture, law, practices,
traditions, generational knowledge, values,
beliefs and storytelling more broadly, and is
specific to Gitxsan First Nation culture.

17

106

Social, Political and
Economic Factors

Refers to statements about historical and
current social, political, and economic
factors that influence the use of TEK in park
planning and management. This code
includes specific references to social,
political and economic factors impacting
TEK integration (according to the
subcategories of this code) but it does not
include general statements about
incorporating TEK or participants' values
and beliefs about TEK.

25

147

Current Economic

This code is a sub/child-code of “Influential
Factors.” It refers to statements about

10

10

294

Name

Description

Files

References

current economic factors that influence TEK
integration. For example, available funding
for a program or action, or new
developments in collaborating with First
Nations to develop economic opportunities
such as jobs. These factors may be related to
but are different from BC Parks decisionmaking.
Current Political

This code is a sub/child-code of “Influential
Factors.” It refers to statements about
current political factors that influence TEK
integration. For example, the political office
in parliament and how the NDP might be
affecting decisions in parks or how current
events have impacted the roles and duties of
employees. These factors may be related to
but are different from BC Parks decisionmaking and employee roles and duties.

20

43

Current Social

This code is a sub/child-code of “Influential
Factors.” It refers to statements about
current social factors that influence TEK
integration. For example, social pressures on
parks employees or the social climate which
underpins changing relationships with First
Nations. These factors may be related to but
are different from BC Parks decisionmaking and TEK and WSK values and
beliefs.

22

27

Historical Economic

This code is a sub/child-code of “Influential
Factors.” It refers to statements about
historical economic factors that influence
TEK integration. For example, previous
funding available for plans in parks, park
zoning or designation decisions which were
made in light of resource industries, or
opportunities that were designed in parks to
generate income in parks. These factors may
be related to but are different from BC Parks
decision-making.

11

12

Historical Political

This code is a sub/child-code of “Influential
Factors.” It refers to statements about
historical political factors that influence
TEK integration. For example, colonial laws

18

16

295

Name

Description

Files

References

and regulations that restricted and
undermined First Nations inclusion. Or, the
prior distribution of responsibilities under
different ministries. These factors may be
related to but are different from BC Parks
decision-making.
Historical Social

This code is a sub/child-code of “Influential
Factors.” It refers to statements about
historical social factors that influence TEK
integration. For example, social tensions
between Indigenous groups and government
and how First Nations were treated by the
government in previous engagement
opportunities. These factors may be related
to but are different from BC Parks decisionmaking and TEK and WSK values and
beliefs.

21

39

Meaningful Engagement

Refers to statements explaining how to
meaningfully engage with First Nations.
Such statements may include direction on
how to meet with/approach First Nations.
For example, statements outlining
reciprocity or being polite, respectful,
sincere, kind, and bringing food to meetings
would all fall under this larger code of
meaningful engagement. Statements
regarding BC Parks policies, protocols,
legislation, or discussions about
racist/discriminatory interactions are not
included here.

26

133

Engaging with Elders,
House Groups and
Chiefs

This is a child/sub-code of “Meaningful
Engagement.” It refers to statements about
engagement with Elders, House Groups
(Wilps), and Hereditary or Elected Chiefs.
This is different from the consultation
process required by BC Parks policy,
however, the information within this code
may inform this process and form
recommendations for inclusion.

17

52

Bring Food

This is a child/sub-code of “Meaningful
Engagement.” It refers to statements about
bringing food to meetings with Elders,
Chiefs or House Groups to acknowledge the

14

29

296

Name

Description

Files

References

time and resources of First Nations attending
a meeting. Bringing food is symbolic for
Indigenous values such as respect,
reciprocity, responsibility, and relationships.
Bringing food to a meeting is a sign of
respect and demonstrates the genuine
intention to meaningfully engage.
First Nation Priorities

This is a child/sub-code of “Meaningful
Engagement.” It refers to statements
regarding priorities of a First Nation. This
may refer to the priorities set forth by a First
Nation during engagement, consultation or
management planning. First Nation
priorities may include mapping of cultural
heritage sites, signage, Territorial
acknowledgement, or increased engagement,
however, they are not necessarily grouped
within any of these other codes and are
entirely dependent on the First Nation. Each
First Nation has its own priorities and will
be reflected as such.

18

21

Relationship Building

This is a child/sub-code of “Meaningful
Engagement.” It refers to statements
discussing relationship building. This is
related to Reconciliation and Consultation,
however, it may or may not be discussed in
terms of reconciliatory efforts and may
inform opportunities for improvement of
including First Nations and their
knowledges. In order for reconciliation and
better consultation/ Nation engagement to
take place, relationships must be
built/mended.

21

31

Refers to statements about reconciliation
and reconciliatory actions, practices,
policies, protocols, procedures and
recommendations. This does not include
discussions about self-determination or any
policy unrelated to reconciliation. The code
may appear in statements regarding politics,
society, or history but must specifically refer
to reconciliation.

27

37

This code is a child/sub-code of

19

28

Reconciliation

DRIPA

297

Name

Description

Files

References

“Reconciliation.” It refers to statements
discussing BC’s Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA). This code
must refer specifically to the DRIPA Act
own the Action Plan and how this legislation
has influenced or might influence park
management plans and park management
plan decisions.
Self-determination

Refers to statements about selfdetermination in park planning and
management. This must include discussions
relating to First Nations rights, title, selfgovernment, control or agency over lands
and waters in the Territory and will not
include discussions of reconciliation or comanagement.

24

55

This code is a child/sub-code of “Selfdetermination.” It refers to statements
discussing Indigenous Protected and
Conserved Areas (IPCAs). IPCAs are just
one of many strategies being adopted by
First Nations to exercise and assert more
agency, power and control over the lands,
waters and resources within their Territory.
This is not a parks designation or related to
BC Parks policy.

13

22

TEK and WSK Beliefs

Refers to statements of belief that BC Parks
participants have about WSK and TEK.
Beliefs are assumptions or generalizations
about WSK and TEK held to be true which
affect morals / values. A belief is an
acceptance that something is true, based off
a participants’ values, attitudes, personal
experiences, opinions and morals. These
beliefs can be positive or negative but the
code must be applied in terms of a belief
about WSK and TEK and not how they are
valued.

10

33

TEK and WSK Values

Refers to how BC Parks participants value
WSK and TEK. A value is how WSK and
TEK are viewed in terms of utility and
importance. These values can be positive or
negative, but the code must be applied in

11

39

IPCAs

298

Name

Description

Files

References

terms of how WSK and TEK are valued and
not applied for statements of belief about
WSK and TEK. Values relate to a
participant’s judgement of what’s important,
whereas a belief is an assumption or
generalization about importance based upon
opinion and morals.
Conservational and
Ecological Values

This code is a child/sub-code of “TEK and
WSK values.” It refers to statements
regarding conservational and ecological
values which denote the value of TEK or
WSK in BC Parks work. It is not associated
with recreational values or IPCAs. It is also
different from competing interests,
TEK/WSK beliefs and influential social,
political or economic factors.

16

19

Recreational Values

This code is a child/sub-code of “TEK and
WSK values.” It refers to recreational values
and push for these values emulated in the
examples of creating more trail systems or
recreational opportunities such as fishing or
hunting. It is not related to conservation or
ecological values or TEK and WSK beliefs.
It is also different from competing interests,
TEK/WSK beliefs and influential social,
political or economic factors.

6

10

Refers to statements about acknowledging
First Nations Territory and Land. This may
or may not be used in discussions of
signage, reconciliation, treaty negotiations
and self-determination, but does not include
BC Parks training or policy. May become a
child code for application of TEK or
Reconciliation.

24

61

Child/sub-code of “Territorial
Acknowledgement.” It refers to statements
regarding cultural heritage sites or culturally
significant artifacts and objects such as food
storage bins, petroglyphs or tree markings.
This is different from statements pertaining
to signage and mapping more broadly and
must outline specific places or items for
protection or how these might be protected

21

26

Territory
Acknowledgement

Cultural Heritage Sites

299

Name

Description

Files

References

as suggested by both BC Parks and First
Nations participants.
Signage

Refers to statements about: BC Parks
signage projects with First Nations,
consultation regarding signage projects, or
implementation of signage that indicates
information about First Nations. This does
not include other BC Parks signage which
does not involve First Nations. A territorial
acknowledgement may be included in
signage, however, “Territory
Acknowledgement” is a larger parent code
which is reserved for specific references to
Territorial Acknowledgements that may
include signage projects.

17

35

Training Procedures

Refers to statements regarding BC Parks
formal and informal training for employees
working with First Nations and
incorporating their TEK. It does not refer to
statements regarding any formal or informal
training that does not involve working with
First Nations. Training procedures are
different from education and do not refer to
BC Parks policies or employee roles and
duties, as training procedures are outlined by
the agency and not the employees
themselves.

22

91

Current Training
Procedures

Child/sub-code of “Training Procedures.” It
refers to statements regarding BC Parks
current and past formal and informal
training for employees working with First
Nations and incorporating their TEK. It does
not refer to statements regarding any formal
or informal training that does not involve
working with First Nations. It also does not
include future recommendations of
informal/formal training for employees
working with First Nations and
incorporating their TEK.

7

22

Recommended Training Child/sub-code. Refers to statements
Procedures
regarding future recommendations of formal
or informal training to improve BC Parks
work with First Nations and integration of

13

34

300

Name

Description

Files

References

their TEK. It does not refer to statements
regarding any formal or informal training
that does not involve working with First
Nations or current or past BC Parks training
practices. This may be referred to in
discussions of training employees on First
Nations cultural literacy, cultural heritage,
consultation, programming or partnerships.
Learning from
Coworkers
and Mentorship

This is a child/sub-code of “Training
Procedures.” Refers to statements made by
BC Parks employees that discuss learning
from their coworkers as a facet of employee
training and recommendations for seeking
mentorship and knowledge from coworkers
in the agency. This will be a sub-code/child
code to “Recommended Training
Procedures.” Mentorship programming is
emerging as a recommendation for
improving Indigenous involvement in BC
Parks management planning.

8

19

Self-learning

This is a child/sub-code of “Recommended
Training Procedures.” It refers to statements
discussing self-learning on the job rather
than any informal or formal training
procedures.

8

16

Unique Characteristics of
Working in North Coast
Skeena Region

Refers to statements describing what makes
working in the North Coast Skeena Region
unique compared to other BC Parks
Regions. This is different from “Employee
Roles and Duties” and is meant to draw out
information regarding the unique
circumstances of working in Northwestern
BC. These statements can provide necessary
information for developing practical
recommendations within the context of the
research area.

10

19

Employee Roles and
Duties

Refers to statements about the roles and
duties of the position of a BC Parks
participant. This includes what the role of

8

16

301

the worker is and their duties necessary
within this role as well as what their work
does and does not involve. Such statements
clarify the job description and duties of each
position at the employee level in BC Parks
North Coast Skeena Region and do not refer
to the laws, policies, regulations, or
procedures of the agency.

Other Cases of
Collaboration with First
Nations in BC Parks
Planning and Operations
Management

Refers to statements about current cases of
collaboration with other First Nations in BC
Parks North Coast Skeena Region in park
planning and operations management. This
was an additional code added to account for
current collaborative management planning
processes and operations that are occurring
within other First Nations Territories in the
North Coast Skeena Region.

5

10

302