(1) What new information or knowledge did you learn from this presentation?

I was previously unaware that subalpine fur comprised approximately 40% of a moose’s diet, as indicated by Dr. Rea’s moose pellet study. While I was aware that our forestry economy relies largely on pine and spruce species, the significant reduction of moose populations in north central BC are more clear given the discrepancy between what they need to survive and how we mange forests. This presentation also gave me the perception that many false arguments still exist about the impact of forestry on moose, for example, that cut blocks and pest management/pesticide operations mimic natural forest fire impacts.

(2) Are there particular aspects of the presentation you enjoyed or intrigued you and are there others that you think could have been improved (style and content)?

I particularly enjoyed Dr. Rea’s use of interactive examples and explanations, for example bringing in vegetation examples and his white board explanation of cottonwood trees and the impacts of pesticides on their growth and development. Additionally, I was pleasantly surprised to see Dr. Rea speak to his positionality throughout the presentation, alluding to his past experience in the forestry industry, and his experience as a missionary. Finally, his use of the Lorax metaphor was consistent throughout the presentation, offering humour and a relatable way to frame his points and slides.

If anything, I would have appreciated the presentation to close with more emphasis on why, given direction from the Chief Forester and scientific understanding of moose habitat and population health, forestry practices are not being changed accordingly. I think speaking to the gap between knowledge and practice would help students understand the political and legislative realities and challenges of natural resource management.

(3) Are there components of the research that would be applicable or relevant to your own Master’s research (methodology, dataset used, philosophies, implications to society)?

My research is quite different than that of Dr. Rea in that it is qualitative, community based, and tired to issues of Aboriginal rights, self-determination, and policy transfer. However, both of our fields are intricately tied to their political and legislative contexts, and there is room for us to make practical management recommendations. Dr. Rea’s comments on his positionality, and their impact on his work, is one piece that applies to my research. Although I am required to go more in depth, he did offer an example on how to integrate positionality into a presentation in a concise and approachable way.

(4) How well did the speaker respond to questions and is there a question you would have asked given the opportunity?

In my opinion, Dr. Rea responded to some questions, such as the impact of pesticides on vegetation, very well, and other questions, such as that about tree retention mediocrely. Given that the topic of moose habitat and population health is linked to so many factors, I think Dr. Rea was responsible in acknowledging when a question fell outside of his area of expertise.

Give the opportunity, I would ask 1) has Dr. Rea collaborated with the MFLNRORD on any of their ongoing moose studies, and 2) how, in Dr. Rea’s opinion, can the Province work with forestry licensees to implement the Chief Forester’s direction and other objectives related to moose (i.e. does it need to be legislated, or can they be voluntary)?