On Sunday, July 6, at about 4:30 p.m., Pique received a report of yet another cougar sighting in the Whistler area—the sixth in just three weeks.
As was the case with the previous five, the report didn’t come from an actual Conservation Officer, but a third party—in this case, the Resort Municipality of Whistler.
It contained just four lines, two of which have appeared nearly verbatim in every other cougar report of late.
“The Conservation Officer Service (COS) has shared a cougar sighting in the Tamarisk / Bayshores area,” the RMOW said, on behalf of the COS. “The COS reports they are continuing to monitor and assess cougar activity and will respond as necessary to ensure public safety.”
That was it. No specifics, no chance to ask follow-up questions directly—just a couple vague sentences dashed off by some unknown person, presumably the overworked Conservation Officer who attended the scene.
(Before we continue, it’s worth saying here that none of this is meant to demonize the BC COS, the hard job they’re doing with limited resources, or the difficult decisions they often have to make—it’s purely about transparency, effective communication, and by extension, proper resourcing from higher up.)
After Pique followed up with the Ministry of Environment, a couple more lines of info were provided.
“There was a cougar hanging around a bus stop and car park area in Whistler last night,” a spokesperson said.
“We cannot confirm if it’s the same cougar(s) behind the recent activity in Whistler. Not much we can add but wanted to give a heads up.”
Why that info wasn’t provided to the RMOW in the first place—or shared directly with media, for that matter—we can’t say.
But this type of bare-bones report has been the norm for some time. Pique has not received direct communication from an actual Conservation Officer in nearly two years, despite repeated requests to rectify that issue.
It wasn’t always this way. For the first nine years of my tenure at Pique, COs would email us directly, and be happy to discuss reports, answer follow-up questions, and provide public guidance. As both a news enjoyer and a journalist, I can tell you for a fact those stories were far better than what we’re now able to produce. I never considered the relationship to be strained, and always enjoyed talking with our local COs. But maybe they feel different.
Could it be that they took offence to some of Pique’s recent coverage? A Stefan Labbé cover feature that ran in July 2022, with the headline “A culture of killing?” perhaps? Or maybe it was the story Pique ran featuring a tourist’s first-hand perspective of an old, emaciated bear being killed in Whistler Village (a perspective we have never had before. Usually it’s just the COS’ version of things).
Maybe they just don’t like that we’ve stopped using their sanitized language (sorry, but bears are not “destroyed”—they are killed or euthanized).
Or maybe it is purely a matter of resources—it’s no secret local COs cover a vast territory, with more calls than officers to respond.
Whatever the reasoning, the fact of the matter is Pique no longer receives first-hand accounts from Conservation Officers themselves. The COS sends its reports to the RMOW, which then sends them on to media.
Asked for official comment, an RMOW communications official had this to say: “The RMOW is strongly supportive of the Conservation Officer Service and we will continue to share relevant information on their behalf in a timely manner within our working hours. As a BearSmart community, our role is primarily preventative, with our coordinators providing public education on proper co-existence with wildlife and supporting community-wide efforts to reduce conflict and keep both people and wildlife safe. We leave the work of wildlife management—and communicating that work—to the professionals within the COS and Ministry of Environment who hold that expertise.”
But the fact remains most of Pique’s information about wildlife encounters now comes second-hand through the RMOW.
It’s concerning for a few reasons—timeliness, accuracy and transparency chief among them—but sadly it’s not surprising, and the COS isn’t the only organization guilty of this kind of communication.
Under the current way of doing things, Pique can’t rely on getting accurate, timely information to you, the public—the ones who pay the COS’ salaries—in the manner you deserve. We can’t ask pertinent follow-up questions directly to the source, for example, but instead must go through Ministry of Environment communications officials, who have a habit of ignoring interview requests (and even certain questions asked by reporters) in favour of sending along the bare bullet points.
Take ‘em or leave ‘em.
Pique has requested on multiple occasions to have wildlife reports sent directly to media—and every time, we’ve been ignored or hand-waved away.
“Conservation Officers work closely with the RMOW through their wildlife alert program, which disseminates information on bears to the community, as necessary. In some incidents, depending on circumstances, signage will be installed advising people that a bear is in the area. Conservation Officers may also canvass area neighbourhoods,” a Ministry of Environment spokesperson said in response to Pique raising the issue last year, after a three-week delay in responding. This was after the COS sent a report of a bear in Creekside accessing homes to the RMOW, which then informed Pique. Our story on the bear had 500 views before the RMOW made the notice public.
“For example, with regards to the Creekside incident referenced, officers canvassed and connected with area residents for their awareness. If there is an urgent concern for public safety, the COS will immediately inform the public via its own social media channels and ensure this information is received by its municipality and law enforcement partners, as well as local media,” the Ministry spokesperson said in response.
“The COS is confident its current practices, which include regular communication with RMOW, are sufficient to inform the public of any bear activity. As noted, the COS can escalate the distribution of information, should a specific situation require it.”
But cutting off journalists from direct access—instituting another government middle-man, or maybe even two, who often ignores reporter questions, and declines to set up interviews or even acknowledge the request for one—is doing the public a disservice.
It allows the government and its officials to completely control the messaging, when it goes out, what it contains.
Again—none of this is to demonize Conservation Officers, and this problem is not at all exclusive to the COS. Every provincial ministry is guilty of ignoring interview requests and specific questions from local media in favour of canned talking points and sometimes useless bullet points.
But no matter the ministry, the public deserves better. The government will never agree with this take (can you believe it?) but more transparency—open and timely, warts and all—is always better than less, in the end.
Want to build public trust? Be transparent. It really is that simple.
