PDA

View Full Version : Minister Thompson at the Fernie AGM



biggyun68
04-24-2015, 11:34 AM
Mr. Thompson just finished his speech and what a bunch of philibuster:
An offer to work towards a " Fresh water fisheries" approach but no process or financial commitment:
No answer for how can we trust you and will you invest all our licence fees into growing inventory.
Steve Thompson and his Ministry are like Seinfield: A show about nothing.

ACE
04-24-2015, 01:03 PM
Please keep up-dating the meetings if possible .....
Thanks ....
GG

The Dawg
04-24-2015, 01:47 PM
Same recycled speech we've heard before.

Stone Sheep Steve
04-24-2015, 01:59 PM
Someone should have simply stated "see you in 17!"

FirePower
04-24-2015, 10:58 PM
His even being there after what he has done to the resident hunters of this province is a total travesty. One might say "feeding the hand that bites you". I for one am very disappointed he would even be given a platform to spout his drivel.

fowl language
04-25-2015, 06:03 AM
april6, expect an announcement this afternoon for then. of course he would not do it before the convention, ,it was a back room meeting

Apolonius
04-25-2015, 09:47 AM
Invited or not ,never a bad idea to keep your enemies close by and ...(some?)relatives as far away as possible.Lol

biggyun68
04-25-2015, 09:55 AM
The speech was an insult in that it was a waste of time for us conference attendees: The time could have been spent better on topics that are more relevant for our community: Basket weaving vs. Women's 7 aside rugby (They are better than the men)

604ksmith
04-25-2015, 10:15 AM
Please don't tarnish Seinfeld with that metaphor. Seinfeld nearly raised me.

But yes I agree. A lot of words for little meaning.

E.V.B.H.
04-26-2015, 09:23 AM
Not only did he waste the first five minutes talking about bring rugby to Vancouver he is also not a very good public speaker. On top of it being a very empty speech he was ..uh..very...uh...hard...uh...to...listen to...uh...with all the...uh...uhs...

lange1212
04-26-2015, 01:33 PM
Too bad he did not speak with such vigor and interest about fish and wildlife issues and concern as he did about rugby. Really shows you where his priorities or lack there of truly are.

bridger
04-26-2015, 01:58 PM
I put a post on his Facebook page this morning asking how it went and if he mended any fences. No reply.

Spy
04-26-2015, 02:07 PM
Why did you all just not boo the idiot ? He might have got the message!

Apolonius
04-26-2015, 02:37 PM
I did question the invite to the podium for Ellis and i question that too,as many others.What was the reason for that?Did we get something out of it?Or just another chance for Thompson to rub it in?What kind of logic did the BCWF executive or whoever did the planning use to invite the one that screwed us so badly?Is the executive working for the members?I don't know about others but i am pissed off big time.If the people that betrayed the resident hunter are invited(head table???) to our functions to just make a fool out of us ,then i think the "planners" should quit.In my opinion they do not support the members or the RH cause.Volunteers or not ,they are not doing anything useful.If i was blindfolded and dropped in that AGM i would think it was a goabc function,what?.... not Cristy/Ellis(?).Time for BCWF to come in the clear,explain why it is following this pattern.And time for BCWF to grow some balls.And if i offended anyone.....it was intentional.I do support the Fed but it is time for answers and explanations.No excuses.

Mik
04-26-2015, 05:23 PM
yep, once again, we heard all about how he played rugby!! ....and no more changes to be made

Fisher-Dude
04-26-2015, 09:26 PM
I did question the invite to the podium for Ellis and i question that too,as many others.What was the reason for that?Did we get something out of it?Or just another chance for Thompson to rub it in?What kind of logic did the BCWF executive or whoever did the planning use to invite the one that screwed us so badly?Is the executive working for the members?I don't know about others but i am pissed off big time.If the people that betrayed the resident hunter are invited(head table???) to our functions to just make a fool out of us ,then i think the "planners" should quit.In my opinion they do not support the members or the RH cause.Volunteers or not ,they are not doing anything useful.If i was blindfolded and dropped in that AGM i would think it was a goabc function,what?.... not Cristy/Ellis(?).Time for BCWF to come in the clear,explain why it is following this pattern.And time for BCWF to grow some balls.And if i offended anyone.....it was intentional.I do support the Fed but it is time for answers and explanations.No excuses.

Were you at the convention?

Red arch
04-27-2015, 02:54 AM
yep, once again, we heard all about how he played rugby!! ....and no more changes to be made

Should have told him there is reason to believe he took to many hits to the head while he played....

biggyun68
04-27-2015, 06:33 AM
Were you at the convention?

Excellent question? Were you there and at the mike, on the convention floor, presenting this question?

Apolonius
04-27-2015, 07:04 AM
No i was not.Not everybody has the time or ability to attend events like that.And i believe 98% of the membership were not there.But we expected the leadership to represent our interest.You can give me the volunteer talk and all that.If i could i would do that.I would like to see a paper,or an announcement that shows the direction BCWF is taking.I would like to see what are the plans to fight this Allocation.Fighting here on HBC or other forums is at best ,stirring the pot.If I was the executive one thing i would say to Thompson and his government."We are 100,000 hunters representing over 200,000 votes+,and we will make it our mission that no one votes for you".And never give him an invite to insult us.And i don't want to hear again and again BCWF is not a political group.Become one!!!!You are dealing with the future of hunting here in BC!!!!And you will see how the membership rises.If we got only 50% of the hunters as members ,i don't see as success .I see it as a failure of 50%.And FD if you were there ,no offence but please outline some of the "successful" moves/plans BCWF laid right on the floor.And ,yes i would be the first to bow my head in shame and ask for forgiveness.By the way did you agree with giving the mike to Ellis or Thompson???I am the only one out of the members that asks this questions?????

Wild one
04-27-2015, 07:47 AM
Was Thompson ? on his numbers?

coach
04-27-2015, 08:27 AM
Apolonius - are you suggesting that Ellis was at the convention and given time to speak to the bcwf delegates?

Fisher-Dude
04-27-2015, 08:40 AM
No i was not.Not everybody has the time or ability to attend events like that.And i believe 98% of the membership were not there.But we expected the leadership to represent our interest.You can give me the volunteer talk and all that.If i could i would do that.I would like to see a paper,or an announcement that shows the direction BCWF is taking.I would like to see what are the plans to fight this Allocation.Fighting here on HBC or other forums is at best ,stirring the pot.If I was the executive one thing i would say to Thompson and his government."We are 100,000 hunters representing over 200,000 votes+,and we will make it our mission that no one votes for you".And never give him an invite to insult us.And i don't want to hear again and again BCWF is not a political group.Become one!!!!You are dealing with the future of hunting here in BC!!!!And you will see how the membership rises.If we got only 50% of the hunters as members ,i don't see as success .I see it as a failure of 50%.And FD if you were there ,no offence but please outline some of the "successful" moves/plans BCWF laid right on the floor.And ,yes i would be the first to bow my head in shame and ask for forgiveness.By the way did you agree with giving the mike to Ellis or Thompson???I am the only one out of the members that asks this questions?????

If you want to tell Thomson we're 200,000 votes strong, go to www.residentpriority.ca and work through them.

The BCWF is a conservation group, not a political activism group. If you want to support conservation, go to www.bcwf.bc.ca.

I agreed with giving Ellis the mic at the Victoria rally (totally unrelated to the BCWF as the rally was the result of work by a separate group of volunteer clubs and not the BCWF) because he was, in my opinion, looking to cry foul that he wouldn't be allowed to present his side. I felt that Coach called his bluff and made the right call. That's just how I perceived it, but Ellis' reaction indicated to me he wasn't expecting to get to the mic at all. Well played, Coach.

I agreed with giving Thomson the mic at convention, because the BCWF is a non-partisan conservation group. That's why the mic was also given to Robin Austin of the NDP and Dan Brooks of the BC Conservatives. The BCWF's best role is to allow people to give information to BCWF members (like all 3 did) and let the members decide what they think about it, just like any good democracy would. The BCWF shouldn't and doesn't tell people whom to vote for nor stifle information flow to its membership by cherry-picking political speakers at its convention.

If people want to belong to organizations that tell them how to think, how to vote, and filter information from their memberships, the BCWF isn't the organization that will do that for them. If people want to belong to a strong conservation group that works hard toward protecting and enhancing our outdoor resources, then I believe the BCWF is the place for them.

FirePower
04-27-2015, 09:01 AM
I agree with Mr. F. Dude in most respects. However I do think that 2 things were made clear. The first being Mr. Thomson has absolutely no intention of changing his stance on allocation. The second is that the BCWF is dedicated to staying the course on it's position not to become to openly involved in the battle, although as a non partisan group they do have the right to challenge policy yet not side with or oppose any political party. I was hoping for a firmer commitment to help battle the current policy. Like many others I hope for and look forward to the emergence of a more politically oriented, lobby type organization who will, work closely, yet separate from the BCWF to champion resident hunters rights against government and other disparaging forces.

coach
04-27-2015, 09:06 AM
Firepower - that does exist. Resident priority - also called the Political Action Alliance received a great deal of support, including significant financial contributions, and will become much more involved going forward. It is exactly what people have asked for and IMO, what is needed to take on a number of issues, including allocation.

mGudmund
04-27-2015, 09:11 AM
Well said.


If you want to tell Thomson we're 200,000 votes strong, go to www.residentpriority.ca (http://www.residentpriority.ca) and work through them.

The BCWF is a conservation group, not a political activism group. If you want to support conservation, go to www.bcwf.bc.ca (http://www.bcwf.bc.ca).

I agreed with giving Ellis the mic at the Victoria rally (totally unrelated to the BCWF as the rally was the result of work by a separate group of volunteer clubs and not the BCWF) because he was, in my opinion, looking to cry foul that he wouldn't be allowed to present his side. I felt that Coach called his bluff and made the right call. That's just how I perceived it, but Ellis' reaction indicated to me he wasn't expecting to get to the mic at all. Well played, Coach.

I agreed with giving Thomson the mic at convention, because the BCWF is a non-partisan conservation group. That's why the mic was also given to Robin Austin of the NDP and Dan Brooks of the BC Conservatives. The BCWF's best role is to allow people to give information to BCWF members (like all 3 did) and let the members decide what they think about it, just like any good democracy would. The BCWF shouldn't and doesn't tell people whom to vote for nor stifle information flow to its membership by cherry-picking political speakers at its convention.

If people want to belong to organizations that tell them how to think, how to vote, and filter information from their memberships, the BCWF isn't the organization that will do that for them. If people want to belong to a strong conservation group that works hard toward protecting and enhancing our outdoor resources, then I believe the BCWF is the place for them.

FirePower
04-27-2015, 10:09 AM
Firepower - that does exist. Resident priority - also called the Political Action Alliance received a great deal of support, including significant financial contributions, and will become much more involved going forward. It is exactly what people have asked for and IMO, what is needed to take on a number of issues, including allocation.


I look forward to this, hopefully they will become much more visible on the allocation front, we need more action on this and as you say a number of other issues as well but in my opinion allocation is top priority right now the perception from most stand points on that issue is that we have gone away.

The Dawg
04-27-2015, 10:48 AM
I look forward to this, hopefully they will become much more visible on the allocation front, we need more action on this and as you say a number of other issues as well but in my opinion allocation is top priority right now the perception from most stand points on that issue is that we have gone away.


Resident priority and the allocation is going to be at the forefront of the bcwf's direction moving forward.

Things were voted on by the board in order to achieve this.

Once all details are hammered out, you'll see a big change in how this is done.

Change has to start at a club level- join your local club, make your voice heard and then move it up to the bcwf board.

FirePower
04-27-2015, 11:01 AM
Resident priority and the allocation is going to be at the forefront of the bcwf's direction moving forward.

Things were voted on by the board in order to achieve this.

Once all details are hammered out, you'll see a big change in how this is done.

Change has to start at a club level- join your local club, make your voice heard and then move it up to the bcwf board.

First Mr. Dawg I am very involved so now we have that out of the way, I know of the changes of which you speak, unfortunately they are not aimed at the immediate kettle of fish we find ourselves swimming in, but for the future, a future that for some of us seems far away. I am not knocking the efforts of the BCWF, they are what they are. I merely stated we need a more politically involved organization to spearhead our fight at a government level. As Mr. Coach said we have the foundation of that and if it takes root and the BCWF can work separately yet in conjunction with them, we may have the one, two punch we now need.

The Dawg
04-27-2015, 11:14 AM
Resident priority and the allocation is going to be at the forefront of the bcwf's direction moving forward.

Things were voted on by the board in order to achieve this.

Once all details are hammered out, you'll see a big change in how this is done.

Change has to start at a club level- join your local club, make your voice heard and then move it up to the bcwf board.

First Mr. Dawg I am very involved so now we have that out of the way, I know of the changes of which you speak, unfortunately they are not aimed at the immediate kettle of fish we find ourselves swimming in, but for the future, a future that for some of us seems far away. I am not knocking the efforts of the BCWF, they are what they are. I merely stated we need a more politically involved organization to spearhead our fight at a government level. As Mr. Coach said we have the foundation of that and if it takes root and the BCWF can work separately yet in conjunction with them, we may have the one, two punch we now need.


This is what I am referring to and what was voted on to move forward.

It already has roots- we just have to get behind it more, and allow it to grow.

Apolonius
04-27-2015, 05:54 PM
No Coach, just being sarcastic,about the whole thing.As for the different angles things are presented here it is ok.Personally i see that this allocation it is done with ,and we will just move on.The allocation is one of many things goabc/guides have done over the years to RH,and we did nothing.I am older now and not many years left hunting.But i feel sorry for the young and future generations.As for the BCWF ,i will always be a member.I just disagree with the "passive" attitude.I am more in line ,"i don't invite enemies to my functions".Especialy the ones that talk to me/us RH like we are idiots,lie after lie.I am not a forgiving person Coach.....forgiveness, upstairs to the Lord.Just a pissed off RH.

Deaddog
04-27-2015, 06:22 PM
bcwf can be political, the organization cannot be partisian, it was voted to move forward with the next steps in developing a bcwf resident priority program that can be political in nature, organize rallys, editorials etc, . in addition a well laid out plan was presented to the delegates on the next step in dealing with wildlife populations and the distribution of harvestable surpluses in the future.

in addition the wildlife society model that bcwf has promoted for two years has passed the core review and now has a former adm hired by govt to look at the next steps in implementing the society. This is another step in ensuring the proper revenue stream is provided to wildlife. The model will be similiar in setup to freshwater fisheries!! this society will be a legacy for generations to come and will serve wildlife well in the future.

one-shot-wonder
04-27-2015, 06:53 PM
I look forward to the resident priority program happening soon and for many years to come. Minister Thomson's speech proves the Liberals do not value the residents of BC or Fish and Wildlife and will continue to erode the resource and our heritage we have shared for decades as long as they are in power.

Something tells me resident hunters of BC will be seen in a different light from now on......

Down South
04-28-2015, 06:49 AM
I am curious to know if Thomson was questions were asked on any of his decisions

The Dawg
04-28-2015, 10:13 AM
I am curious to know if Thomson was questions were asked on any of his decisions

Yup he was.

He stuck to the speech