In my experience, the regional government representatives are equally self-serving as the federal level.
I actually seem to agree with Aaron on this. It sounds good in theory for the power to be regional, but I think that when their decisions have an impact on other regions it needs to move up the scale. I'm pretty sure all states and provinces aren't fenced off so the wildlife actually can move between them, and many species, bears and wolves included, have very large ranges. It's wrong to let a particular town, district, or state decide what happens to wildlife that is shared by all (let alone the reach of their ecological contributions). Instead, it should be a consensus by all those that share the wildlife to preserve them for the future (the worst case is obviously killing them all, or somehow altering their behavior).
That said, the way the Canadian parliament is supposed to work on paper is that all regions elect their own representative so even at the federal level you're supposed to have a regional representative looking out for you. The problem is that they quickly figured out how to game the system and formed "parties" to essentially ally together to get their own self-interests met. No longer do they serve the people, but instead serve the parties. If we could dismantle the parties we could return to a system where we are all better taken care of, but of course those in power would never agree to that. It just goes to show that government is broken by design.