PDA

View Full Version : Ed George and the BCWF



The Hermit
03-22-2016, 07:21 PM
Just read Ed's post saying the court ruled in favor of the BCWF and see that at his request the thread was closed. After all the hubbub about this situation I am curious as heck to hear more about the reasons for the court's decision! He is asking for support at the ballot box but not sharing the details at this point seems counter-productive to his run.

Fisher-Dude
03-22-2016, 08:00 PM
Judge's reasons for his decisive ruling will be written later. He gave his decision via memorandum because time was of the essence in this case.

Sadly, we have lost a pile of money to legal fees, money that could have been spent on youth programs, education, conservation projects, resident priority - any number of things besides having to pay lawyers to defend a solid, legal, necessary decision by the BCWF BoD.

Real leaders take responsibility for their actions, admit they were wrong, and step aside with dignity.

The federation needs leadership from people who are educated about and sensitive to modern day organizational policies, who have strong supervisory experience, and who can represent us in a professional manner. This ain't 1960.

Weatherby Fan
03-22-2016, 08:19 PM
Judge's reasons for his decisive ruling will be written later. He gave his decision via memorandum because time was of the essence in this case.

Sadly, we have lost a pile of money to legal fees, money that could have been spent on youth programs, education, conservation projects, resident priority - any number of things besides having to pay lawyers to defend a solid, legal, necessary decision by the BCWF BoD.

Real leaders take responsibility for their actions, admit they were wrong, and step aside with dignity.

The federation needs leadership from people who are educated about and sensitive to modern day organizational policies, who have strong supervisory experience, and who can represent us in a professional manner. This ain't 1960.

I couldn't agree more.......

1899
03-22-2016, 08:27 PM
Ed, firstly, your Petition was "dismissed", not "set aside". When you say "set aside" it means that someone has already granted an order in your favor. That never happened - plain and simple, your Petition was dismissed. So you've wasted the BCWF's money on a court case, never spoke up ONCE about your friends' defamatory and abrasive comments towards the BOD - the very same BOD whose actions and conduct were UPHELD by a Supreme Court justice, you've been involved in trying to force the President of Region 2 to step down because he voted to suspend you and you have the audacity to run for the presidency? "Onward to bigger and better things" - are you serious? You think you can just shrug your shoulders and sweep this under the rug?

The actions of the BOD have been vindicated - your conduct was such that your suspension was upheld. You have wasted OUR conservation dollars. Your actions have caused discord and animosity within the organization. YOUR actions have been the basis of the fighting we have seen here and yet you claim to want to put the Fed "back on track"? Unbelievable. I can only imagine what we would be reading had the decision gone the other way.

In my view it would be a severe blow to the credibility of the BCWF if you were elected as...anything, quite frankly.

toshiba40
03-22-2016, 08:29 PM
HBC is not the place to make allegations. If you have evidence of illegal behavior, take it to the RCMP. If you have evidence of poor conduct from a BCWF leader, take it to the BOD.

HBC IS NOT THE PLACE FOR ALLEGATIONS

RiverOtter
03-22-2016, 08:45 PM
Wow, this thread disappears as quickly as I read it...... :lol:

This message will self destruct in 10 seconds...9...8....

yama49
03-22-2016, 09:13 PM
Ed, firstly, your Petition was "dismissed", not "set aside". When you say "set aside" it means that someone has already granted an order in your favor. That never happened - plain and simple, your Petition was dismissed. So you've wasted the BCWF's money on a court case, never spoke up ONCE about your friends' defamatory and abrasive comments towards the BOD - the very same BOD whose actions and conduct were UPHELD by a Supreme Court justice, you've been involved in trying to force the President of Region 2 to step down because he voted to suspend you and you have the audacity to run for the presidency? "Onward to bigger and better things" - are you serious? You think you can just shrug your shoulders and sweep this under the rug?

The actions of the BOD have been vindicated - your conduct was such that your suspension was upheld. You have wasted OUR conservation dollars. Your actions have caused discord and animosity within the organization. YOUR actions have been the basis of the fighting we have seen here and yet you claim to want to put the Fed "back on track"? Unbelievable. I can only imagine what we would be reading had the decision gone the other way.

In my view it would be a severe blow to the credibility of the BCWF if you were elected as...anything, quite frankly.


Well said, i agree.....

REMINGTON JIM
03-22-2016, 09:21 PM
Judge's reasons for his decisive ruling will be written later. He gave his decision via memorandum because time was of the essence in this case.

Sadly, we have lost a pile of money to legal fees, money that could have been spent on youth programs, education, conservation projects, resident priority - any number of things besides having to pay lawyers to defend a solid, legal, necessary decision by the BCWF BoD.

Real leaders take responsibility for their actions, admit they were wrong, and step aside with dignity.

The federation needs leadership from people who are educated about and sensitive to modern day organizational policies, who have strong supervisory experience, and who can represent us in a professional manner. This ain't 1960.

Fisher Dude is RIGHT again ! - and we dont need the likes of Ed George in the BCWF - thats jmo ! RJ

huntcoop
03-22-2016, 09:47 PM
Gotta support the BCWF.

Rhyno
03-23-2016, 06:08 AM
Judge's reasons for his decisive ruling will be written later. He gave his decision via memorandum because time was of the essence in this case.

Sadly, we have lost a pile of money to legal fees, money that could have been spent on youth programs, education, conservation projects, resident priority - any number of things besides having to pay lawyers to defend a solid, legal, necessary decision by the BCWF BoD.

Real leaders take responsibility for their actions, admit they were wrong, and step aside with dignity.

The federation needs leadership from people who are educated about and sensitive to modern day organizational policies, who have strong supervisory experience, and who can represent us in a professional manner. This ain't 1960.

Well said FD, you nailed it.

russm86
03-23-2016, 07:38 AM
Is it just me, or did it not seem like all the old threads made it sound like everyone was on Eds side? Everyone jump ship now or just decide to throw him under the bus? Sorry I'm not familiar with Ed and this whole issue other than what I've read here and the couple vague memos from the BCWF but it seems everyone has flipflopped or maybe just the ones that didn't like Ed before were keeping quiet and now that the court has decided they are speaking up and the supporters of Ed are keeping quiet? Or was there some more info brought to light in the court case that shocked everyone? What gives?

bearvalley
03-23-2016, 08:19 AM
Is it just me, or did it not seem like all the old threads made it sound like everyone was on Eds side? Everyone jump ship now or just decide to throw him under the bus? Sorry I'm not familiar with Ed and this whole issue other than what I've read here and the couple vague memos from the BCWF but it seems everyone has flipflopped or maybe just the ones that didn't like Ed before were keeping quiet and now that the court has decided they are speaking up and the supporters of Ed are keeping quiet? Or was there some more info brought to light in the court case that shocked everyone? What gives?

The same posters that defended the BoD decision to suspend Ed George are the same ones presently posting.
After what has taken place with the suspension, the legal dispute as to who was right or wrong, and the ruling in favor of the BCWF BoD...Ed George should be disallowed from running for office.
Will the BCWF be awarded costs when this is all wrapped up....I hope so.
The entire issue has been a waste of people's time, a waste of BCWF finances and has eroded the organization.

bridger
03-23-2016, 09:56 AM
The same posters that defended the BoD decision to suspend Ed George are the same ones presently posting.
After what has taken place with the suspension, the legal dispute as to who was right or wrong, and the ruling in favor of the BCWF BoD...Ed George should be disallowed from running for office.
Will the BCWF be awarded costs when this is all wrapped up....I hope so.
The entire issue has been a waste of people's time, a waste of BCWF finances and has eroded the organization.

pretty well sums it up!

Wentrot
03-23-2016, 10:07 AM
Is it just me, or did it not seem like all the old threads made it sound like everyone was on Eds side? Everyone jump ship now or just decide to throw him under the bus? Sorry I'm not familiar with Ed and this whole issue other than what I've read here and the couple vague memos from the BCWF but it seems everyone has flipflopped or maybe just the ones that didn't like Ed before were keeping quiet and now that the court has decided they are speaking up and the supporters of Ed are keeping quiet? Or was there some more info brought to light in the court case that shocked everyone? What gives?

The fan boys have always been here. There is no point in the back and forth banter-The court made a decision and I'll respect that. Every one of these threads has ended badly and I don't see this one being any different. I'm confident change for the better will come but it will unfortunately take some fairly significant "push".

adriaticum
03-23-2016, 10:14 AM
The whole thing stinks.

Ride Red
03-23-2016, 10:45 AM
Judge's reasons for his decisive ruling will be written later. He gave his decision via memorandum because time was of the essence in this case.

Sadly, we have lost a pile of money to legal fees, money that could have been spent on youth programs, education, conservation projects, resident priority - any number of things besides having to pay lawyers to defend a solid, legal, necessary decision by the BCWF BoD.

Real leaders take responsibility for their actions, admit they were wrong, and step aside with dignity.

The federation needs leadership from people who are educated about and sensitive to modern day organizational policies, who have strong supervisory experience, and who can represent us in a professional manner. This ain't 1960.

Well said.....


Is it just me, or did it not seem like all the old threads made it sound like everyone was on Eds side? Everyone jump ship now or just decide to throw him under the bus? Sorry I'm not familiar with Ed and this whole issue other than what I've read here and the couple vague memos from the BCWF but it seems everyone has flipflopped or maybe just the ones that didn't like Ed before were keeping quiet and now that the court has decided they are speaking up and the supporters of Ed are keeping quiet? Or was there some more info brought to light in the court case that shocked everyone? What gives?

I have to agree as I thought from previous postings that Ed was well liked; guessed wrong. Hopefully the BCWF can get back to business as usual and this will set a precedent to uphold their policies. As FD has said, this isn't 1960.

Fisher-Dude
03-23-2016, 11:52 AM
The fan boys have always been here. There is no point in the back and forth banter-The court made a decision and I'll respect that. Every one of these threads has ended badly and I don't see this one being any different. I'm confident change for the better will come but it will unfortunately take some fairly significant "push".

Hopefully, the BCWF appeals to you and you'll actually decide to join and become a member.

In the meantime, I'm sure the BCWF will continue to be member-driven and take suggestions from those who actually belong to the organization.

Whonnock Boy
03-23-2016, 11:55 AM
Those that truly put wildlife, habitat, conservation, and the overall well being of the federation ahead of personal agendas, remained, for the most part, silent.
Well said.....



I have to agree as I thought from previous postings that Ed was well liked; guessed wrong. Hopefully the BCWF can get back to business as usual and this will set a precedent to uphold their policies. As FD has said, this isn't 1960.

Salty
03-23-2016, 12:18 PM
Is it just me, or did it not seem like all the old threads made it sound like everyone was on Eds side? Everyone jump ship now or just decide to throw him under the bus? Sorry I'm not familiar with Ed and this whole issue other than what I've read here and the couple vague memos from the BCWF but it seems everyone has flipflopped or maybe just the ones that didn't like Ed before were keeping quiet and now that the court has decided they are speaking up and the supporters of Ed are keeping quiet? Or was there some more info brought to light in the court case that shocked everyone? What gives?

Well most of "us" didn't say much if anything about this until the courts had a look. If you go back to older threads there were a handful of Ed's supporters though that said a lot and posted many times about it. This whole thing has been very unfortunate for the fed, like, really unfortunate. I just hope now everyone can respect the ruling and move on and not continue to try to make political hay out of it.

Note- You can be a likeable and good person and still make mistakes and mistakes that in this day and age are deal breakers. JMO.

digger dogger
03-23-2016, 12:24 PM
Is this shit all about some raunchy e-mails???
BFD, theres worse shit in life. Way cheaper also!!!!

Salty
03-23-2016, 12:34 PM
What you or I think about raunchy emails is irrelevant digger. There's laws in place, Worksafe BC to start that disallow this kind of thing in the work place and they've been around quite a while and any leader needs to be squeaky clean as far as the law goes. It is what it is.

Apolonius
03-23-2016, 09:40 PM
It is nice to see the knives come out right away.Emails of this type have no place in a work place,although we do don't know the content.It was a firing offence?Maybe the Judge said it was legal for the BOD to fire him.Was it right?Did those emails do so much damage to the reputation of BCWF??Could it be solved nicely?I think so.Did the emails ,if that is the reason,damaged us, as hunters???This is the governing body that screwed up us with the allocation....this is firing offence!!!They should all hang their heads in shame.This are the same people that gave the podium to goabc in Victoria,that invited the minister that screwed up us,in Ernie...for a speech.They now make friends with the guides....good guides.And here their supporters spew vitriol non stop.You want to ban me ???Do it.But this is the truth.

houndogger
03-23-2016, 10:28 PM
It is nice to see the knives come out right away.Emails of this type have no place in a work place,although we do don't know the content.It was a firing offence?Maybe the Judge said it was legal for the BOD to fire him.Was it right?Did those emails do so much damage to the reputation of BCWF??Could it be solved nicely?I think so.Did the emails ,if that is the reason,damaged us, as hunters???This is the governing body that screwed up us with the allocation....this is firing offence!!!They should all hang their heads in shame.This are the same people that gave the podium to goabc in Victoria,that invited the minister that screwed up us,in Ernie...for a speech.They now make friends with the guides....good guides.And here their supporters spew vitriol non stop.You want to ban me ???Do it.But this is the truth.
Odd huh can hack one but don't dare hack the other.

Mulehahn
03-23-2016, 10:48 PM
Ed, firstly, your Petition was "dismissed", not "set aside". When you say "set aside" it means that someone has already granted an order in your favor. That never happened - plain and simple, your Petition was dismissed. So you've wasted the BCWF's money on a court case, never spoke up ONCE about your friends' defamatory and abrasive comments towards the BOD - the very same BOD whose actions and conduct were UPHELD by a Supreme Court justice, you've been involved in trying to force the President of Region 2 to step down because he voted to suspend you and you have the audacity to run for the presidency? "Onward to bigger and better things" - are you serious? You think you can just shrug your shoulders and sweep this under the rug?

The actions of the BOD have been vindicated - your conduct was such that your suspension was upheld. You have wasted OUR conservation dollars. Your actions have caused discord and animosity within the organization. YOUR actions have been the basis of the fighting we have seen here and yet you claim to want to put the Fed "back on track"? Unbelievable. I can only imagine what we would be reading had the decision gone the other way.

In my view it would be a severe blow to the credibility of the BCWF if you were elected as...anything, quite frankly.


I fully agree that Ed made a mistake, and has to face the repercussions. I am glad that it has finally been settled. Although I am looking forward to reading the judges reasoning. As I continue to believe that the Society Act clearly states you cannot "fire" a director of a society without following clearly established laws. The judge must of ruled that a suspension for the duration of the term was just that, a suspension and not a firing, or there are severe extenuating circumstances that no one else is privy to. This is reinforced by the fact Ed George is apparently running. If that was not the case, then no, money was not wasted as apparently laws and acts have no bearing on how a judge rules. It is a free for all.

However, 1899, unless I am missing something Ed is not the only one with concerns over the BOD and the President of Region 2. Everyone I know respects the right of the President of Region 2 to vote to suspend Ed. What is not acceptable is that he voted in a meeting of the Board of Directors (that is what was stated in the email I received from the BCWF). The only people allowed to vote at a BOD meeting is the BOD. Others are allowed as guests and such but they have no right to vote. If derogatory emails are enough to get one removed then what is an acceptable discipline for bypassing the clearly stated hierarchy and bylaws? How did an entire board allow a non-member to vote? If I am wrong then please let me know but I have read the email several times and cannot come to a different conclusion!

The BCWF has been great, and will be once a again. But as far as I am concerned a few of the current leaders (Ed included) have a long way to fall they unless are close to taking the BCWF with it.

REMINGTON JIM
03-23-2016, 10:52 PM
What you or I think about raunchy emails is irrelevant digger. There's laws in place, Worksafe BC to start that disallow this kind of thing in the work place and they've been around quite a while and any leader needs to be squeaky clean as far as the law goes. It is what it is.

Your RIGHT about that Salty and sometimes you need to really SORRY about what you did wrong and sincerly apologize for it - BUT if your arrogant and have a big ego your shit can make ya Smelly ! and people don't like Smelly ! jmo RJ

1899
03-23-2016, 11:17 PM
I fully agree that Ed made a mistake, and has to face the repercussions. I am glad that it has finally been settled. Although I am looking forward to reading the judges reasoning. As I continue to believe that the Society Act clearly states you cannot "fire" a director of a society without following clearly established laws. The judge must of ruled that a suspension for the duration of the term was just that, a suspension and not a firing, or there are severe extenuating circumstances that no one else is privy to. This is reinforced by the fact Ed George is apparently running. If that was not the case, then no, money was not wasted as apparently laws and acts have no bearing on how a judge rules. It is a free for all.

However, 1899, unless I am missing something Ed is not the only one with concerns over the BOD and the President of Region 2. Everyone I know respects the right of the President of Region 2 to vote to suspend Ed. What is not acceptable is that he voted in a meeting of the Board of Directors (that is what was stated in the email I received from the BCWF). The only people allowed to vote at a BOD meeting is the BOD. Others are allowed as guests and such but they have no right to vote. If derogatory emails are enough to get one removed then what is an acceptable discipline for bypassing the clearly stated hierarchy and bylaws? How did an entire board allow a non-member to vote? If I am wrong then please let me know but I have read the email several times and cannot come to a different conclusion!

The BCWF has been great, and will be once a again. But as far as I am concerned a few of the current leaders (Ed included) have a long way to fall they unless are close to taking the BCWF with it.


It's going to be exactly as I explained weeks ago - the judge has the discretion pursuant to Society Act, to validate actions that are in breach of the Act.

From reading the minutes of the meeting it stated:

“That a non-confidence vote against the President be voted on as he voted at the closed session of the BCWF board meeting for the suspension of Ed George which went against the wishes of the R2 BOARD.”


emphasis added.

This motion was seconded by one of Ed's vocal HBC advocates. Ed was present as a "guest". The president, rightfully so, refused to disclose how he voted, as it was a closed meeting. Then Ed told those in attendance how the president voted. I am pretty sure, although not certain, that how a person votes in a closed meeting is not to be disclosed.

Am I wrong about any of this stuff? I don't know whether he is allowed to vote or not. All I know is what I read in the minutes, which is quoted above.

coach
03-23-2016, 11:24 PM
They should all hang their heads in shame.This are the same people that gave the podium to goabc in Victoria

Apolonius - I'll explain this one more time and then I'm done here.. The decision to allow Scott Ellis to speak at the rally in Victoria was 100% MY DECISION and had nothing at all to to with the BCWF. A few days prior to the rally, Mr Ellis sent an email to my employer attempting to discredit me due to the fact I had publicly spoken out against the GOABC and their back door tactics leading up to the allocation policy announced by minister Thomson. I'm sure they thought my company - run by people who support tourism and business - would see fit to fire me and replace me with someone else. Unfortunately for Mr Ellis, I'm "kind of" at the top of my field. Fortunately for me, my employer understood the tactics of the GOABC and was familiar with how much the organization is willing to cross lines. As a result, I managed to avoid being fired from my position and was still able to MC the Victoria event.

As I prepared to take the podium in Victoria, I was alerted to the fact Mr Ellis and a few of his assosciates were hanging out at the back of the crowd in the lawns of the legislature. Instead of ignoring them, I decided to confront them - alone. Things got ugly for a few seconds but I stood my ground. Mr Ellis listened to what I had to say and then asked if I would give him a minute on the mic. It was a very tough decision. Did he really want the mic? Was there anything he could gain by speaking?

My decision to give him a minute to speak was based on my belief that he really didn't want the mic in the first place. I didn't believe there was anything he could say that would help his cause. Imo - I called his bluff and at the same time proved we weren't a bunch of "hair on fire radicals".

You can call me whatever you want for making that decision. But don't blame the BCWF. Mr George made it clear he wasn't happy my decision - so don't get angry with him or the BOD.

if you want to take your anger out on someone - blame me! Quite frankly - if you're gonna take your anger out on me, then it's time you put your own reputation on the line and stand up for what you believe in.

If if all you're gonna do is yap here on HBC and blame others then GFYS!

I haven't posted here for a while and don't expect to be back anytime soon. Hopefully my explanation can cool off some of the ill feelings toward the fed. As for Mr George - people need to look at the facts, the judges decision, the lack of remorse from Mr George and his posse, and make up their own mind as to who's right and wrong in all of this.

Weatherby Fan
03-23-2016, 11:30 PM
Thanks Coach.......been missing your posts.
WF

Marsh Hawk
03-24-2016, 12:21 AM
1899 I am the person who put the motion of non confidence of the floor of the Region 2 board meeting in February. This was based "on his inability to correctly represent the views of our Board of Directors". This text that I quote is directly from the written motion that I submitted to our Secretary. It may have been recorded slightly differently but this was my exact motion. This motion was passed by a majority of our board after the chair was challenged as he didn't want to allow the motion. Unfortunately he has chosen to disrespect the wishes of the majority of our board and continues to sit in the chair as President of Region 2.

To straighten something out, the Presidents of each Region of the BCWF sit on the Board of Directors so they are entitled to vote at the Board meetings. My concern is that our regional president conveys the wishes of the majority of our Region 2 Board when he represents our Region at the main Board of Directors meetings.

bcfarmer
03-24-2016, 08:26 AM
My concern is that our regional president conveys the wishes of the majority of our Region 2 Board when he represents our Region at the main Board of Directors meetings.

While not meaning to get in the middle of another Regions politics,
If any President, whether at the Club,Regional, or Provincial level fails to abide by the membership's wishes, they should step aside.
The BCWF prides and promotes itself on being a "bottom-up" organization. If you are given the privileged of leading then it is your responsibility to follow through with the members wishes.
BCF

Fisher-Dude
03-24-2016, 08:41 AM
1899 I am the person who put the motion of non confidence of the floor of the Region 2 board meeting in February. This was based "on his inability to correctly represent the views of our Board of Directors". This text that I quote is directly from the written motion that I submitted to our Secretary. It may have been recorded slightly differently but this was my exact motion. This motion was passed by a majority of our board after the chair was challenged as he didn't want to allow the motion. Unfortunately he has chosen to disrespect the wishes of the majority of our board and continues to sit in the chair as President of Region 2.

To straighten something out, the Presidents of each Region of the BCWF sit on the Board of Directors so they are entitled to vote at the Board meetings. My concern is that our regional president conveys the wishes of the majority of our Region 2 Board when he represents our Region at the main Board of Directors meetings.

Incorrect. The President of Region 2 represents the wishes of the membership of Region 2 when he sits at the BCWF BoD, not the wishes of a handful of regional board members.

That's the problem you guys have to figure out at your regional level: if you want to be a representative of the membership, you must put your personal biases aside and vote the will of the members, and not for your own personal wants.

If you are unable to do so, then you should remove yourself from the board and allow someone with the ability to represent the membership's wishes to take over.

That's where the "old boys' club" mentality takes over, and boards become cliques pushing personal agendas, and the membership of your region doesn't get represented.

Ed's your buddy, but if the membership wants him suspended, then it's your duty as a board member to represent the membership's wishes. Otherwise, if you're incapable of that, remove yourself from the conflict.

I don't think you understood that when you pushed your own agenda, Mark, and that makes you an ineffective board member.

You'll probably swing back, guns-a-blazin', but that's how boards work. You're there to represent the membership, not Mark and Dale and Ed. They are but 3 voices of about 10,000.

Fisher-Dude
03-24-2016, 09:00 AM
And, to add to the above, Ed's action of revealing to R2 how a person voted in a closed session of the BCWF BoD certainly is unbecoming of what I believe are the requirements to be leader of the federation, IMO.

Confidentiality of closed sessions is sacred. The BCWF needs people on the board who can be trusted to keep confidentiality covenants. If one of my employees revealed confidential information, I could fire him with cause.

From this, my own opinion is that I can't trust Ed to be president or a board member of the BCWF if he is willing to violate confidentiality rules.

bridger
03-24-2016, 10:18 AM
Let us not confuse the issue here. Mr George sent inappropriate emails to an employee. That is a big mistake whether they were innocent or not as it put the Fed in jeopardy. Mr George was asked to apologize, he refused to do so, Mr George was suspended by the BOD, Mr. George went to court, Mr George lost. Pretty straight forward.

I also refuse to believe Mr. George is the victim of a conspiracy to keep him from becoming president of the BCWF. His actions during and since the incident became public are not inspiring confidence in his leadership.

I have never met Mr. George, but prior to this incident had heard lots of good things about him. Unfortunately he made an error in judgement which we all do from time to time, but his actions after the error only compounded the situation. Ed's close friends are supporting him which is admirable I have done the same. But it is over! Let it go and let us all move forward together.

1899
03-24-2016, 10:25 AM
From this, my own opinion is that I can't trust Ed to be president or a board member of the BCWF if he is willing to violate confidentiality rules.

There is something more than the recent conduct and breach of confidentiality that really bothers me. Something that I have known for a while now but haven't mentioned because I wanted to stick to specific issues is that Ed and Dale have both been charged with Fisheries offences in the past. Ed ended up paying the fine and Dale was convicted and that conviction was upheld on appeal.

So maybe someone can tell me how it was possible for Ed to be a VP of the BCWF and Dale to be, and still be, a regional director. I find it unbelievable that people representing, at high levels, an organization dedicated to conservation can have such histories.

Ed, Dale, any comment?

1899
03-24-2016, 10:42 AM
But it is over! Let it go and let us all move forward together.

I, and I bet some others here too, knew about the decision well before Ed posted. Nobody said anything until he says he is now going to run for president. Look, I can't devote the amount of time required to run for such positions. I have a very full time job, wife and kids and I simply have to prioritize my time. My boy is only little for so long. I appreciate the people who do dedicate their time to the cause and, until two months ago I never gave much thought to the people themselves. But this whole Ed issue came to light and it has been very disheartening indeed.

We we need the right people running the show. I F-ING hate politics and I'd rather never think of these things ever again. I really, really don't like this kind of bickering and BS, but then I think of my boy. What is going to be left for him? Will we leave a broken, malfunctioning organization that has failed, or will we leave him the opportunities that we love and cherish. I don't want him to say, "dad you knew about these things, why didn't you do anything?"

I just can't see how we can effectively move forward with people like Ed at the helm. THAT is the reason I posted.

wideopenthrottle
03-24-2016, 10:54 AM
sniff sniff...is that the smell of someone's feet being "held to the fire"...the "old school" ways are gonna get ya in trouble these days...

on a brighter note, I have noticed that our sensitivity training at work has scaled back a little from "if you engage in risky behavior, you will be held accountable" to more of a "if you engage in risky behavior, don't do it in a way that makes someone else uncomfortable"....in other words you have to do something that actually offends someone instead of doing something that could be considered offensive...so an email I send home to my wife that contains "offensive" material can not be pulled out of the company database by an IT tech and used against me...it is some progress against the Political Correctness machine

Spy
03-24-2016, 11:05 AM
Did the employee who received the emails, respond to said emails? Did she send any emails back to Ed? If she did was she also disciplined ? Anyone seen the emails? Ed why don't you post the emails up so we can all see what this was about!


HBC IS NOT THE PLACE FOR ALLEGATIONS. TAKE THEM TO THE PROPER AITHORITIES

Gateholio
03-24-2016, 11:46 AM
Hopefully everyone understands now that HBC is not the place for allegations or innuendo about them. Those that can't understand that will be getting an HBC vacation. Thanks

kayjayess
03-24-2016, 12:26 PM
The incident you refer to was investigated by a committee of four past presidents, who gave recommendations to the president.


The HR committee was also involved and was satisfied with the outcome which was for him to accept responsibility for his actions immediately, apologize to the affected staff member (who had not made a complaint), and apologize to the executive.


He did as requested immediately.


Not sure what else you would be looking for.


I always thought we wanted people to be accountable for their actions?


It is unfortunate that Ed George could not have done the same in admitting his wrong doing.

Mulehahn
03-24-2016, 12:50 PM
And, to add to the above, Ed's action of revealing to R2 how a person voted in a closed session of the BCWF BoD certainly is unbecoming of what I believe are the requirements to be leader of the federation, IMO.

Confidentiality of closed sessions is sacred. The BCWF needs people on the board who can be trusted to keep confidentiality covenants. If one of my employees revealed confidential information, I could fire him with cause.

From this, my own opinion is that I can't trust Ed to be president or a board member of the BCWF if he is willing to violate confidentiality rules.

Just to clarify, I found out that the president of region 2 voted in a closed door meeting in an email directly from the BCWF. It had nothing to do with Ed or any one person. Straight from the general BCWF email account.

Fisher-Dude
03-24-2016, 01:40 PM
Just to clarify, I found out that the president of region 2 voted in a closed door meeting in an email directly from the BCWF. It had nothing to do with Ed or any one person. Straight from the general BCWF email account.

You didn't get any email revealing how Mr Milligan voted from the BCWF.

You got an email stating that Ed had been suspended by a vote from the BoD.



The notes from that R2 meeting tell who said what.



From R2 board meeting minutes:

Ed George who was present at the meeting confirmed, when asked by Dale Vidulich, that the president Phillip Milligan voted for his suspension in the closed meeting.

The president refused to accept the motion but it was debated under protest as the President said it was Main Board business and not R2 business.
Motion: Moved Dale Vidulich\Seconded David Oliver
“That the chair is challenged for not accepting the motion.”
Carried

Vote on main motion was taken.
For the motion: Josh McDonald, Brianna McDonald, Mark McDonald, David Oliver, Dale Vidulich, Robert Moynahan, and George Penner,
Against the motion: Jim Helsdon, Mel McIntosh, Allen McEwan, Larri Woodrow, Chris Schmidt, and Troy Halliday.
Abstaining: Chuck Zuckerman
Motion passed

Mark McDonald moved, Dale Vidulich seconded a motion of non-confidence in President Phillip Milligan. CARRIED.

Dale Vidulich demanded that the President reveal how he voted at the BCWF closed meeting re Ed George suspension. The request was rejected by the President on the grounds that it was a closed meeting. Ed George revealed the answer.

adriaticum
03-24-2016, 02:06 PM
This whole thing stinks.
Oops did I say that out loud..

REMINGTON JIM
03-24-2016, 04:48 PM
This whole thing stinks.
Oops did I say that out loud..

You mean SMELLY ! :( RJ

Mulehahn
03-24-2016, 05:09 PM
You didn't get any email revealing how Mr Milligan voted from the BCWF.

You got an email stating that Ed had been suspended by a vote from the BoD.



The notes from that R2 meeting tell who said what.



From R2 board meeting minutes:

Ed George who was present at the meeting confirmed, when asked by Dale Vidulich, that the president Phillip Milligan voted for his suspension in the closed meeting.

The president refused to accept the motion but it was debated under protest as the President said it was Main Board business and not R2 business.
Motion: Moved Dale Vidulich\Seconded David Oliver
“That the chair is challenged for not accepting the motion.”
Carried

Vote on main motion was taken.
For the motion: Josh McDonald, Brianna McDonald, Mark McDonald, David Oliver, Dale Vidulich, Robert Moynahan, and George Penner,
Against the motion: Jim Helsdon, Mel McIntosh, Allen McEwan, Larri Woodrow, Chris Schmidt, and Troy Halliday.
Abstaining: Chuck Zuckerman
Motion passed

Mark McDonald moved, Dale Vidulich seconded a motion of non-confidence in President Phillip Milligan. CARRIED.

Dale Vidulich demanded that the President reveal how he voted at the BCWF closed meeting re Ed George suspension. The request was rejected by the President on the grounds that it was a closed meeting. Ed George revealed the answer.

You are quoting from the minutes of a Region 2 meeting, not the email I am referring to. But lets take a look at those minutes since you posted them. The President of Region 2 is not a BCWF Director or a Member of the Executive, the only ones who allowed a truly free vote. All Regional presidents are beholden to the wishes of the Region they represent. The President of Region 2 was sent to the closed door meeting with a clear mandate from the Directors of his region (who he answers to and is supposed to represent) to vote against the Suspension of Ed George. Instead he voted in favour of it.

As has been stated, this whole things stinks. Apparently sending inappropriate emails is grounds for suspension, but violating the oath you take to represent those beneath you is applauded. There is no high ground in this battle, only a race to dig a big enough grave for all involved.

Spy
03-24-2016, 05:30 PM
[QUOTE=kayjayess;1765221]The incident you refer to was investigated by a committee of four past presidents, who gave recommendations to the president.


The HR committee was also involved and was satisfied with the outcome which was for him to accept responsibility for his actions immediately, apologize to the affected staff member (who had not made a complaint), and apologize to the executive.


He did as requested immediately.

Was Ed given the same option?

Whonnock Boy
03-24-2016, 05:35 PM
No, there was no mandate. There was only discussion concerning a conflict of interest. Again for clarity, there was no vote as to how the Region 2 president was supposed to vote in regards to Ed George's suspension. It is kind of hard to vote on something when you don't even know what the details of the case are, or at least most didn't, being all talks were behind closed doors, and were confidential discussions.


The President of Region 2 was sent to the closed door meeting with a clear mandate from the Directors of his region (who he answers to and is supposed to represent) to vote against the Suspension of Ed George. Instead he voted in favour of it.

Whonnock Boy
03-24-2016, 05:36 PM
Yes, Ed George was given the option. He refused.





He did as requested immediately.

Was Ed given the same option?

kayjayess
03-24-2016, 05:44 PM
[QUOTE=kayjayess;1765221]The incident you refer to was investigated by a committee of four past presidents, who gave recommendations to the president.


The HR committee was also involved and was satisfied with the outcome which was for him to accept responsibility for his actions immediately, apologize to the affected staff member (who had not made a complaint), and apologize to the executive.


He did as requested immediately.

Was Ed given the same option?

Mike,

I have been told by people that are involved with this that yes He was given that option. A simple apology and this would have all gone away. From what I have been told that his intransigence and reluctance to apologize is what elevated this situation.

I can't imagine the fed wanted things to blow up like this. Although I don't know that officially. Wildlife is suffering because of this event. And the fed has taken a hit too.

I just find it very sad that one ego can cause this kind of trouble.

You have been there bud. Sometimes you have to take it on the nose and go with what is right for the cause. You wouldn't let your ego stand in front of what is right. To me this issue is bigger than one person. But obviously those on the Ed George side feel differently. Personally I would have stepped aside if it were me with the board asking for my resignation

Mikey Rafiki
03-24-2016, 05:53 PM
2 things.

I agree that the Regional President is there to represent the wishes of the Region's members, not just the Regional Board members. What process would have confirmed that the wishes of the Board represented the wishes of the members? If there was a members meeting or vote that provided a mandate to the board then I could see a cause for concern for going against it.

Half of the Society Boards and companies I work with would not have leadership if everyone was held to this same politically corect standard. And I mean NO leadership as often nobody else is willing to step up and lead a not for profit organization. That would mean an immense amount of charitable work not taking place becuase of some emails. Not saying I condone it, just food for thought.

Spy
03-24-2016, 05:55 PM
[QUOTE=Spy;1765289]

Mike,

I have been told by people that are involved with this that yes He was given that option. A simple apology and this would have all gone away. From what I have been told that his intransigence and reluctance to apologize is what elevated this situation.

I can't imagine the fed wanted things to blow up like this. Although I don't know that officially. Wildlife is suffering because of this event. And the fed has taken a hit too.

I just find it very sad that one ego can cause this kind of trouble.

You have been there bud. Sometimes you have to take it on the nose and go with what is right for the cause. You wouldn't let your ego stand in front of what is right. To me this issue is bigger than one person. But obviously those on the Ed George side feel differently. Personally I would have stepped aside if it were me with the board asking for my resignation

If he was given the option to opologize and move on then, I have no sympathy for him and yes he waisted everyone's time and $$$$$ ! Thanks for clarifying that for me.

kayjayess
03-24-2016, 06:00 PM
Right on bud. That is my feeling too based on what I have been told.

Spy
03-24-2016, 06:30 PM
That bit of info would have been great a couple of months and threads back! Maybe I missed it???

Fisher-Dude
03-24-2016, 07:28 PM
You are quoting from the minutes of a Region 2 meeting, not the email I am referring to. But lets take a look at those minutes since you posted them. The President of Region 2 is not a BCWF Director or a Member of the Executive, the only ones who allowed a truly free vote.

Incorrect. The president of region 2 is a director of the BCWF.

8.2 Make Up of Board of Directors
The Board of Directors shall consist of the President, the immediate Past President, two VicePresidents,
Treasurer, and not less than three elected Directors. In addition, the President of each
Regional Wildlife Association of the Federation shall automatically become a Director of the
Federation upon his/her election as President of the Regional Wildlife Association and continue
until the next annual regional election.

Marsh Hawk
03-24-2016, 10:50 PM
FD, I assume your waiting for a reply so here goes. A few pages back you called me out by name as being an ineffective board member here in Region 2. Funny that you don't have the stones to identify yourself or where you are from (even by region). It only took a phone call or two to find out that you reside deep in the heart or Region 8. Yet you come on here and talk like you were sitting in on the Region 2 board meeting. It's easy to lurk in the dark corners of the internet and hide behind an avatar, isn't it? If you lived in Region 2, I'd gladly listen to what you have to say. But as you don't, and don't have all of the facts about what is happening here, please kindly BUTT OUT.

Now for a few facts. I spoke to Ed today to confirm a few things again. Ed, when confronted about the emails, DID NOT deny he had sent them, accepted responsibility for sending them and DID offer an apology for them. One would hope that this would have been the end of things. A simple letter of "Smarten Up" would have done the job. Unfortunately this course was not taken and has tainted Ed's reputation and caused many people to look at the BCWF in a very poor light. As to the fisheries charge from 2005 that some have alluded to, here are the facts about it. Ed caught and retained what he thought he had measured as a jack spring. When checked by fisheries, the spring was found to be 1 cm oversize. He was issued a ticket and paid it. He made a mistake and paid the price. In both cases he accepted responsibility for his actions.

Now on to Region 2. As I stated before, my concern is the inability of our president to convey the wishes of our Region 2 Board of Directors who were elected to represent our membership. Before the closed session where the vote was held to suspend Ed, our president was asked to recuse himself from that vote as he sits on the HR Committee which we felt put him in a conflict of interest. He refused and went on to vote to suspend Ed. This was not the wishes of the MAJORITY of our Board. He has been confrontational and chooses the direction he wants instead of consulting with our Board and conveying the wishes of the majority which is his job. This is why I put forward the motion of non confidence which was passed by a MAJORITY of our Board. Unfortunately he has chosen again to not heed the wishes of the majority and is still sitting in the chair. I've never before encountered a situation like this in my many years as a director or more recently as vice president. We need to get on with issues that are more important to our membership, but with the current conflict I'm not sure how.

Whonnock Boy
03-24-2016, 11:49 PM
One man's word against that of many. Who are we to believe?


DID offer an apology for them.

There was no vote on recusal.


our president was asked to recuse himself from that vote as he sits on the HR Committee which we felt put him in a conflict of interest.

There was no vote on how the president was to vote regarding Ed, even if the board did have the authority to do so. Does the board have that authority?



He refused and went on to vote to suspend Ed. This was not the wishes of the MAJORITY of our Board.

I should actually rescind the highlight comment. I should have stated, "at least the minority didn't", as I assume the majority of the board that voted in favor of the motion must have known enough about the confidential meetings and discussions to support the non-confidence vote. However, one could also assume that regardless of what they knew or didn't know, they possibly could have been playing politics to support Ed's case in attempt to further discredit the Provincial board. I honestly do not know which one it is, and I am hard pressed to think of any other reason for their actions. Any insight would be welcomed.


No, there was no mandate. There was only discussion concerning a conflict of interest. Again for clarity, there was no vote as to how the Region 2 president was supposed to vote in regards to Ed George's suspension. It is kind of hard to vote on something when you don't even know what the details of the case are, or at least most didn't, being all talks were behind closed doors, and were confidential discussions.

I must also ask, what was the count on the vote? Was it so close that the President of region two's vote would have changed the outcome?

1899
03-25-2016, 12:29 AM
edit - I'm actually done with this.

Man I tell you ignorance was bliss.

Marsh Hawk
03-25-2016, 12:53 AM
WB You know full well that our president wouldn't even entertain discussion on the request that he recuse himself. I have no agenda to discredit the provincial board. I want our region to get back on track as I stated previously. I was hoping that the non confidence motion I put forward would start us on this path. Instead we swirl into ????????? As far as Ed's word which you have questioned, I have known him for long enough that his word is good enough for me and lots of others. That is why there has been so many questions asked on this matter.

Fisher-Dude
03-25-2016, 07:17 AM
FD, I assume your waiting for a reply so here goes. A few pages back you called me out by name as being an ineffective board member here in Region 2. Funny that you don't have the stones to identify yourself or where you are from (even by region). It only took a phone call or two to find out that you reside deep in the heart or Region 8. Yet you come on here and talk like you were sitting in on the Region 2 board meeting. It's easy to lurk in the dark corners of the internet and hide behind an avatar, isn't it? If you lived in Region 2, I'd gladly listen to what you have to say. But as you don't, and don't have all of the facts about what is happening here, please kindly BUTT OUT.

Now for a few facts. I spoke to Ed today to confirm a few things again. Ed, when confronted about the emails, DID NOT deny he had sent them, accepted responsibility for sending them and DID offer an apology for them. One would hope that this would have been the end of things. A simple letter of "Smarten Up" would have done the job. Unfortunately this course was not taken and has tainted Ed's reputation and caused many people to look at the BCWF in a very poor light. As to the fisheries charge from 2005 that some have alluded to, here are the facts about it. Ed caught and retained what he thought he had measured as a jack spring. When checked by fisheries, the spring was found to be 1 cm oversize. He was issued a ticket and paid it. He made a mistake and paid the price. In both cases he accepted responsibility for his actions.

Now on to Region 2. As I stated before, my concern is the inability of our president to convey the wishes of our Region 2 Board of Directors who were elected to represent our membership. Before the closed session where the vote was held to suspend Ed, our president was asked to recuse himself from that vote as he sits on the HR Committee which we felt put him in a conflict of interest. He refused and went on to vote to suspend Ed. This was not the wishes of the MAJORITY of our Board. He has been confrontational and chooses the direction he wants instead of consulting with our Board and conveying the wishes of the majority which is his job. This is why I put forward the motion of non confidence which was passed by a MAJORITY of our Board. Unfortunately he has chosen again to not heed the wishes of the majority and is still sitting in the chair. I've never before encountered a situation like this in my many years as a director or more recently as vice president. We need to get on with issues that are more important to our membership, but with the current conflict I'm not sure how.


We've heard your (Ed's) version of events for months. That version of events was DISMISSED wholly by a Justice of the Supreme Court when he heard the FACTS of the case. The version of events from the many people in the BCWF (not just one) was upheld by the Supreme Court. I know who I believe.

The actions of your clique on the region 2 board is, IMO, deplorable. You are trying to justify acting on leaked, confidential information by the accused? Seriously?

You would put the whole of region 2, and by extension the BCWF, into upheaval and at great risk, on the word of a person who is violating not only his pledge of confidentiality (it is a LIE when you break that pledge, in case you were wondering), but has chosen to cause considerable expense to divert members' funds away from conservation projects?

My opinion is that I'm seeing one man's ego being held as more important than fish and wildlife - and that's how everyone I've talked to sees it.

My concern is for the future of a provincial conservation organization that has been thrown into quite a mess due to the actions of ONE PERSON.

It's maddening to see so much hard work by so many dedicated volunteers be put at risk because of ONE PERSON'S actions.

I applaud Phillip for taking the high road and doing what's right for fish and wildlife and the people at the BCWF. Phillip has extensive labour relations experience, is involved in the employees' advocacy committee, and recognized a harassment situation when he saw it.

Being second guessed and end run by a bunch that think sending sexual and racial emails to young ladies is no big deal? Well, that's the difference between the future of the BCWF and the past - educated people like Phillip that work for the common good, or the old boys' clubs of the past, IMO.

Ed George should not run for the presidency nor the board, IMO. He is, in my opinion, making a mockery of this whole situation and making light of the seriousness of what happened if he does. Violating labour and human rights law IS serious. FAR more serious than his conviction for fish poaching, in fact.

And I believe that he will face an onslaught of damnation from people at the AGM for his actions, both from his email fiasco to his dragging the organization into court and squandering the federation's money when he should have done the noble thing and stepped aside, in my opinion. His reputation, if that's his concern, will only suffer further, IMO, among his peers, and the reputation of the BCWF will suffer too.

All in my opinion, of course.

HollywoodHitman
03-25-2016, 07:28 AM
This entire thing is a gong show. Sounds like a major battle of egos and empires. Perhaps the entire fed needs an audit by an ethics commission. I am a relatively new hunter and new member...But this kind of infighting and nepotism, is precisely why more good people don't get involved....reminds me of conflicts in the sandbox as a pre-schooler.

bridger
03-25-2016, 07:40 AM
edit - I'm actually done with this.

Man I tell you ignorance was bliss.

I agree it's over! Time to put it to bed and move on!

digger dogger
03-25-2016, 07:46 AM
What you or I think about raunchy emails is irrelevant digger. There's laws in place, Worksafe BC to start that disallow this kind of thing in the work place and they've been around quite a while and any leader needs to be squeaky clean as far as the law goes. It is what it is.

I operate machinery, i didnt even know there are laws against forwarding nasty e-mails.
(i would be HR 's nightmare in an office type job. Lol
Then, if Ed broke a law he should have stepped da fak aside, or apologize.
He did neither, and wasted a shitload of time and donation $.
SAD, really

Jethro Bodine
03-25-2016, 02:34 PM
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Jethro Bodine
03-25-2016, 02:39 PM
I'm having a hard time processing why people are supporting not one, but 2 convicted poachers?This is factual, and not hearsay either.In a position of authority with an internationally known conservation organization, how is this allowed?Region 2 Past Presidenthttps://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1989/1989canlii231/1989canlii231.htmlCount # 1: between the 10th day of September, A.D. 1986, and the 11th day of September, A.D. 1986, at or near the District of North Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, did without lawful excuse have in their possession fish, to wit chinook and sockeye salmon, that were not lawfully caught under the authority of a commercial fishing licence being fish caught from the waters of the Sommas River and its tributaries or the waters of Alberni Inlet during the closed time for commercial fishing for salmon contrary to Section 4(4) of the British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations and did thereby commit an offence contrary to Section 61(1) of the Fisheries Act.Count # 2: between the 10th day of September, A.D. 1986, and the 11th day of September, A.D. 1986, at or near the District of North Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, did unlawfully have in their possession fish, to wit chinook and sockeye salmon, caught under the authority of an Indian food fish licence contrary to Section 27(4) of the British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations and did thereby commit an offence contrary to Section 61(1) of the Fisheries Act.Count # 3: between the 10th day of September, A.D. 1986 and the 11th day of September, A.D. 1986, at or near the District of Richmond, in the Province of British Columbia, did unlawfully sell fish, to wit salmon roe caught during the closed time for commercial fishing for salmon contrary to Section 4(5) of the British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations and did thereby commit an offence contrary to Section 61(1) of the Fisheries Act.15,000 lbs. of salmon, and 84 cases of roe.Illegally purchased, illegally sold.Then the suspended VPE15459-1 1 21-Aug-2005 SFR - 45(2) Catch and retain more than four salmon in a day Commit GEORGE, RICHARD Edmund McLeodAnd no- this is a separate conviction, and more than a 'salmon 1cm over length'So not only found guilty of a salmon '1cm over length', but also this one.As well as conduct unbecoming of someone in authority with the emails, and the disclosure of what happens behind closed sessions, as well as other confidential disclosures on here.How can anyone looking at this objectively , and with a clear conscience ,support this?

ACE
03-25-2016, 04:03 PM
I'm having a hard time processing why people are supporting not one, but 2 convicted poachers? This is factual, and not hearsay either. In a position of authority with an internationally known conservation organization, how is this allowed?
Region 2 Past President ... https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1989/1989canlii231/1989canlii231.html

1) Between the 10th day of September, A.D. 1986, and the 11th day of September, A.D. 1986, at or near the District of North Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, did without lawful excuse have in their possession fish, to wit Chinook and Sockeye salmon, that were not lawfully caught under the authority of a Commercial Fishing Licence being fish caught from the waters of the Sommas River and its tributaries or the waters of Alberni Inlet during the closed time for commercial fishing for salmon contrary to Section 4(4) of the British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations and did thereby commit an offence contrary to Section 61(1) of the Fisheries Act.

2) Between the 10th day of September, A.D. 1986, and the 11th day of September, A.D. 1986, at or near the District of North Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, did unlawfully have in their possession fish, to wit Chinook and Sockeye salmon, caught under the authority of an Indian Food Fish Licence contrary to Section 27(4) of the British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations and did thereby commit an offence contrary to Section 61(1) of the Fisheries Act.

3) Between the 10th day of September, A.D. 1986 and the 11th day of September, A.D. 1986, at or near the District of Richmond, in the Province of British Columbia, did unlawfully sell fish, to wit salmon roe caught during the closed time for commercial fishing for salmon contrary to Section 4(5) of the British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations and did thereby commit an offence contrary to Section 61(1) of the Fisheries Act.
15,000 lbs. of salmon, and 84 cases of roe. Illegally purchased, illegally sold. Then the suspended VPE15459-1 1 21-Aug-2005 SFR - 45(2) Catch and retain more than four salmon in a day.
Commit: GEORGE: Richard Edmund McLeod .... This is a separate conviction, and more than a 'salmon 1cm over length' So not only found guilty of a salmon '1cm over length', but also this one. As well as conduct unbecoming of someone in authority with the e-mails, and the disclosure of what happens behind closed sessions, as well as other confidential disclosures on here. How can anyone looking at this objectively and with a clear conscience, support this?

Good info Jethro Bodine .....
Thank you for posting, and welcome to HBC.

Mulehahn
03-25-2016, 07:20 PM
Yes Fisherdude, the Presidents of the Various regions are Directors in that they can vote in BOD meetings. That being said, they are supposed to directly represent the members of their region on the BOD. The reason, as I have had it explained to me, is when you have conflicting interests such as mule deer seasons in Region 5 and 3, moose in 6 and 7, or steelhead in 2 and 3. Each director is to represent their wishes for their specific region, as gained through direct contact with members and regional directors. They are not there to vote according to personal opinion but rather the opinion of the regional board. I think it is pretty clear, judging by the fact that two Region 2 Directors are on this site expressly stating that they opposed the suspension , and others I have heard from that agree, the Region 2 Board opposed the Suspension as it was presented. When Phillip went to the meeting with the BOD he went there with the full knowledge that group he was representing (remember he is not representing himself but Region 2) felt that a suspension for the duration of the term was not a suitable punishment for the offense.

I have known Phillip since I was a kid through his work his organization, and I have known Ed for over a decade. Both have done exemplary work for wildlife in this province. But if push came to shove, from my experience and what I have heard Ed has done far more than Phillip, more than almost anyone in Region 2, and more than most in this province. Does that excuse what he did, no! But seeing as how this is apparently coming down to a popularity contest perhaps some should do some research.

But that being said, I guess my opinion doesn't matter as I to am a poacher. You see, a couple of years ago I was fly fishing in a National Park. Had my proper license and everything, it was just after ice off and I was chironomid fishing. The problem arose because I keep all my chironomids in one fly box and when out on the lake I totally blanked in the no lead law. It just so happened that the colour they were hitting was the one I had tied with lead beads. Oops, got busted and paid my fine. It is really sad to know that because of this I am not eligible to work to preserve fish and wildlife. I guess I will tell my club, the one I spend a conservative 10 hours a week working for that I have to quit.

Whonnock Boy
03-25-2016, 07:30 PM
There is one thing I assume you are not understanding. All discussions regarding Ed George and the dismissal were confidential. No one knew, or was supposed to know any of the circumstances. How was the board supposed to make an informed decision, and relay its wishes, on something they knew nothing about?


Each director is to represent their wishes for their specific region, as gained through direct contact with members and regional directors. They are not there to vote according to personal opinion but rather the opinion of the regional board. I think it is pretty clear, judging by the fact that two Region 2 Directors are on this site expressly stating that they opposed the suspension , and others I have heard from that agree, the Region 2 Board opposed the Suspension as it was presented. When Phillip went to the meeting with the BOD he went there with the full knowledge that group he was representing (remember he is not representing himself but Region 2) felt that a suspension for the duration of the term was not a suitable punishment for the offense.

1899
03-25-2016, 07:33 PM
Mulehahn - catching and retaining over your limit of salmon, disputing the charge and then paying the fine before appearing in court is a bit different than your situation, no? What about buying/selling 15,000 lbs of salmon and +80 cases of roe? Are you suggesting that is the same as missing an obscure and little known regulation?

And about:

It is really sad to know that because of this I am not eligible to work to preserve fish and wildlife.

Nobody said that. But I think that the vast majority of objective people can agree that those with serious infractions are not suitable as directors and especially not as president, of an organization such as the BCWF.

bridger
03-25-2016, 08:03 PM
This thread is becoming personal and going nowhere.

Mulehan as I Have said before this situation arose I had never met Ed but had heard good things about him. Never the less his error in judgement and subsequent action has unfortunately led to things getting out of hand and dragging it on is not helping anyone least of all Ed.

As as far as the regional president voting against the regions bod's wishes. You were not at the meeting and not privy to everything that went on at the Fed's board meeting some of which may have influenced your regions president. But in the end what effect did it do other than piss some of you guys off? Did his vote swing the decision? I suspect not.

Unfortunately Ed brought this situation upon himself and blaming anyone else is only stirring the pot and not bringing closure to anyone. I have had considerable experience on the board and have had to make some tough calls as well. I can tell you the guys on the executive and board didn't make this decision lightly and it has caused them all personal pain and some sleepless nights.

As as painful as has been for you guys that are personal friends with Ed and for the executive and board members alike it's over. Ask yourselves this; if Ed runs for president and is soundly defeated what then? More conspiracy theory?

We all need to put this to bed and bind the wounds!

steveo
03-25-2016, 08:20 PM
Mulehahn - catching and retaining over your limit of salmon, disputing the charge and then paying the fine before appearing in court is a bit different than your situation, no? What about buying/selling 15,000 lbs of salmon and +80 cases of roe? Are you suggesting that is the same as missing an obscure and little known regulation?

And about:


Nobody said that. But I think that the vast majority of objective people can agree that those with serious infractions are not suitable as directors and especially not as president, of an organization such as the BCWF. You may have some what of a point but if it wasn't important before, why is it important now. At this point it seems irrelevant and if Mr.George had won his case would it have even been mentioned?

Apolonius
03-26-2016, 07:58 AM
You may have some what of a point but if it wasn't important before, why is it important now. At this point it seems irrelevant and if Mr.George had won his case would it have even been mentioned?
Good question.But it seems to be alright for some people to focus on the "bad" things a person did and not the "good"he is done.When you are down you see who your friends are.
It makes it easier to justify their actions.They must be very good persons themselves,never done anything wrong....or they did not get caught???
I don't see anyone to put before his name..."reverent",holy,or his honour in this site.
Were i come from ,you don't step on someone that is down.Not much of an honour to that.
It says a lot about who you are.
And for sure i am not in their camp.Not that i justify Mr George's actions.
But i also don't approve of his treatment here,by some "saint's"....
Bad Karma to talk bad about people that are down and out.
And karma will come to you...eventually.

Fisher-Dude
03-27-2016, 08:52 AM
Were i come from ,you don't step on someone that is down.Not much of an honour to that.
It says a lot about who you are.


I would agree.

My thoughts are with the young lady who was sent these sexual and racial emails.

How "down" do you think she is, with the prospect of the sender of the emails being placed back into a position of authority over her?

This is her career, her livelihood that she depends on to provide for her family.

Have you stopped to think about her situation, and how she feels right now?

ruger#1
03-27-2016, 09:20 AM
Thanks Coach.......been missing your posts.
WF

X 2. Your the most level headed guy on this site. Don't leave because of a couple of gounch stains.

Mulehahn
03-27-2016, 03:32 PM
I will say this again for you FD, Bridger and all the others then I am done with this thread. I am not defending Ed. Just because I know him does not mean I believe he should be free to act as he pleases. He screwed up royally and has to face the consequences. But can anyone on here provide one example of BCWF dirty laundry (and no, this is certainly not the first) that was addressed by sending vague, disparaging remarks about a member to every individual, group, and past member in the province who has not had their email address removed? Has caused non involved regions to pull their support for the BOD? An instance in which a Regional president has gone against clear and concise directive from his directors? I have been a BCWF member for over 20 years and I cannot recall any similar event.

I do not believe Ed is fit to be president, but I also don't believe anyone involved in this is either.

bridger
03-27-2016, 03:45 PM
I will say this again for you FD, Bridger and all the others then I am done with this thread. I am not defending Ed. Just because I know him does not mean I believe he should be free to act as he pleases. He screwed up royally and has to face the consequences. But can anyone on here provide one example of BCWF dirty laundry (and no, this is certainly not the first) that was addressed by sending vague, disparaging remarks about a member to every individual, group, and past member in the province who has not had their email address removed? Has caused non involved regions to pull their support for the BOD? An instance in which a Regional president has gone against clear and concise directive from his directors? I have been a BCWF member for over 20 years and I cannot recall any similar event.

I do not believe Ed is fit to be president, but I also don't believe anyone involved in this is either.

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.

Whonnock Boy
03-27-2016, 04:22 PM
Region 1 pulling their support was unsubstantiated propaganda by Ed's supporters.

Has caused non involved regions to pull their support for the BOD?
Have you misunderstood what I have been saying? There was zero, none, nadda, zip, zilch in the form of "clear and concise directive from his directors". The directors that opposed the region 2 presidents involvement regarding Ed George had absolutely zero authority to influence the presidents involvement. Why you ask? Because none of us, and yes, that includes me, had any information on the closed session meetings. If I am wrong, then maybe it's time to lawyer up, waste more time, energy, and funding getting this straightened out so it can truly be put to bed.


An instance in which a Regional president has gone against clear and concise directive from his directors?

Mulehahn
03-27-2016, 10:01 PM
Region 1 pulling their support was unsubstantiated propaganda by Ed's supporters.

Have you misunderstood what I have been saying? There was zero, none, nadda, zip, zilch in the form of "clear and concise directive from his directors". The directors that opposed the region 2 presidents involvement regarding Ed George had absolutely zero authority to influence the presidents involvement. Why you ask? Because none of us, and yes, that includes me, had any information on the closed session meetings. If I am wrong, then maybe it's time to lawyer up, waste more time, energy, and funding getting this straightened out so it can truly be put to bed.

Guess I lied. I am back in. No need to lawyer up. The case has been settled. But I am confused. So you are saying that a closed door meeting was called by the BOD and no one new why. The BCWF expected its Executive to show up without any background information into the matter, what it concerned, or who was involved and decide the fate of a long time member and director without the time and opportunity to properly verify the information provided or anything? A decision that could have huge legal implications regardless the outcome! Or are you saying that the president if region 2 withheld the information from his directors even though the decisions that would come from the closed door meeting would have a direct impact on their ability to properly represent their members, their jobs, and attend vital committee meetings?

The way I see it, if as you claim not a single director in Region 2 knew about the meeting, or what it was about before it was held the BCWF BOD is either totally incompetent as such an important decision can not and should not be made so frivolously or it is corrupt in that unless you are one of the chosen ones you are just an ass in a seat without any say in what actually happens. The outcome is apparently palpable this time, but how many times do you want to spin the cylinder?

Whonnock Boy
03-27-2016, 10:54 PM
It was not my intention to confuse, mislead, or spin cylinders. I am doing my best to be sure the truth is told.

Everything regarding Ed George was supposed to be done in house, behind closed doors, with the utmost confidentiality. When I say we knew nothing about it, as in the region 2 board of directors, I meant we were not intimate with every detail, and we knew as much as anyone else from the talk on the forums, and the statement released by the Federation. We most certainly were not in a position to influence our regional president on how to vote during the proceedings at the provincial level. Our region 2 president was bound by confidentiality. He, nor anyone else was to divulge any of the information regarding Ed George. Did that happen? No. That is why a majority of directors from region 2 went on the offensive, attacking leadership. First the president was asked to recuse himself from the proceedings by certain region 2 directors, then the non-confidence vote after. Mr. George breached confidentiality when he let it be known that the region 2 president voted in favor of his suspension. I can only assume it was not the first time considering the reactions of his close friends at the regional level. Maybe they were acting on blind faith. I don't know....


Guess I lied. I am back in. No need to lawyer up. The case has been settled. But I am confused. So you are saying that a closed door meeting was called by the BOD and no one new why. The BCWF expected its Executive to show up without any background information into the matter, what it concerned, or who was involved and decide the fate of a long time member and director without the time and opportunity to properly verify the information provided or anything? A decision that could have huge legal implications regardless the outcome! Or are you saying that the president if region 2 withheld the information from his directors even though the decisions that would come from the closed door meeting would have a direct impact on their ability to properly represent their members, their jobs, and attend vital committee meetings?

The way I see it, if as you claim not a single director in Region 2 knew about the meeting, or what it was about before it was held the BCWF BOD is either totally incompetent as such an important decision can not and should not be made so frivolously or it is corrupt in that unless you are one of the chosen ones you are just an ass in a seat without any say in what actually happens. The outcome is apparently palpable this time, but how many times do you want to spin the cylinder?

Stresd
03-28-2016, 07:22 AM
Fair sized writeup in the Sun this morning

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/wildlife+federation+vice+president+suspended+highl y+offensive/11811949/story.html?__lsa=ba63-f194

Spy
03-28-2016, 09:30 AM
The federation gave George the option of voluntarily stepping down by Jan. 21, but he failed to do so, the BCWF legal submission states. The board met Jan. 22 and voted 12-5 in favour of suspending George for the rest of his elected term, ending April 23. He can run for re-election at the forthcoming annual general meeting.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/wildlife+federation+vice+president+suspended+highl y+offensive+emails/11811949/story.html#ixzz44DRAcNYQ
Mmmm I thought he was given the option to apologize & move on ! Maybe they forgot to mention that in the article.

Ferenc
03-28-2016, 01:10 PM
12 to 5.... Sounds like a done deal .

adriaticum
03-28-2016, 02:46 PM
It's clear their conduct was political in nature.
The woman involved in the email did not ask Ed to stop, nor did she file a complaint to her employer.
It was the Employer who somehow found the emails by either snooping or overlooking and then found an audience.
I guess he didn't realize they got him by the coconuts.
He should have moved on and not run for re-election.
I think too many birds are out of the cage.
It certainly did not have to end this way.

ACE
03-28-2016, 02:55 PM
What can be done in the future so that this fiasco isn't ever repeated ?
What kind safe-guards can be implemented now for the future of BCWF ?
I was a cheerleader for the BCWF, but those days are gone ..... I just can't justify supporting them now. They've pissed me off.

REMINGTON JIM
03-28-2016, 03:04 PM
ACE says I was a cheerleader for the BCWF, but those days are gone ..... I just can't justify supporting them now. They've pissed me off.[/QUOTE]

Kinda like the CANUCKS Hey ACE ! :wink: lol RJ

adriaticum
03-28-2016, 03:06 PM
What can be done in the future so that this fiasco isn't ever repeated ?
What kind safe-guards can be implemented now for the future of BCWF ?
I was a cheerleader for the BCWF, but those days are gone ..... I just can't justify supporting them now. They've pissed me off.

Well Ace, people are people and whenever you have groups of people exercising authority you will have politics involved.
Ed was obviously not aware that he was rubbing some people the wrong way and gave them ammunition.
But once he was caught he should have resigned and moved on. Not fight it. His "advisors" didn't do him any favours.
If he did that, this could have ended up without airing the dirty laundry publicly. Which I would have preferred.
But I don't think we can prevent people from playing politics.

olympia
03-30-2016, 06:56 PM
I hear thru the grapevine that's there's alot of dirty shyt going on in bcwf, no proof of any of it but some of these stories make me cringe IF true.

Fisher-Dude
03-30-2016, 09:08 PM
I hear thru the grapevine that's there's alot of dirty shyt going on in bcwf, no proof of any of it but some of these stories make me cringe IF true.

So what exactly was the point of and/or reason for your post?

houndogger
03-30-2016, 09:09 PM
I hear thru the grapevine that's there's alot of dirty shyt going on in bcwf, no proof of any of it but some of these stories make me cringe IF true.
It's cringe time.

REMINGTON JIM
03-30-2016, 09:28 PM
I hear thru the grapevine that's there's alot of dirty shyt going on in bcwf, no proof of any of it but some of these stories make me cringe IF true.

SO shyt spreader what did you exactly hear ? :confused: lol RJ

Gateholio
03-30-2016, 09:29 PM
I guess we have gone through the "facts" stage of the thread ( Judge upholding the BOD suspension of Ed George for inappropriate emails sent to staff) and moved into the "drama" stage of the thread (Conspiracy! Hidden Agenda! Corruption!)

DRAMA!!

REMINGTON JIM
03-30-2016, 09:31 PM
I guess we have gone through the "facts" stage of the thread ( Judge upholding the BOD suspension of Ed George for inappropriate emails sent to staff) and moved into the "drama" stage of the thread (Conspiracy! Hidden Agenda! Corruption!)

DRAMA!!


Maybe ! sounds like more shyt to come YET ! ;) RJ

walks with deer
03-30-2016, 09:43 PM
How many people have received or forwarded two girls one cup on a work email..

Jagermeister
03-30-2016, 10:00 PM
I fail to understand why this thread continues to flourish. A Supreme Court has rendered a decision and all parties are governed by that ruling. Nothing more discussed here will alter that decision so it's time to shut this down and move on.

RiverOtter
03-30-2016, 10:12 PM
Curious.....A supreme court rules in favour of letting a piece of shit like that Merrit child killer get an easy sentence and folks are outraged and curse the "system".......Yet in another instance, like the above, the supreme court is "God" and folks need not concern themselves with further details........

Just an observation.....carry on...

northernbc
03-30-2016, 11:48 PM
have been reading all these posts not in the know. but someone posted the two girls one cup stuff , now to me is that troublesome. you posted it. did mr George send that. I am trying to hash out the reality and bs. did he send that.

walks with deer
03-31-2016, 12:10 AM
I don't know what he sent you asked you've seen it..

I would never see something like that on personal email.
does every person who sent it deserve termination.

If your to be fired shouldn't it be for stealing or a real misconduct like real sexual harassment or not doing your job period..wtf.
If the coworker had a laugh who are we to judge.

northernbc
03-31-2016, 12:27 AM
you posted the the cup statement I have not seen it . did he post it or you full of it

steveo
03-31-2016, 02:06 AM
There are a few holes in the story that I would like to see filled before I would consider the matter closed. I am left scratching my head some what over the federations deafening silence on this matter and why they would not be doing damage control and reconnecting with the members and reassuring futures ones of their loyalties.

Down South
03-31-2016, 06:25 AM
I would really like to see the BCWF make a final statement on this and then just move on, this is getting old already

Mikey Rafiki
03-31-2016, 06:35 AM
I would really like to see the BCWF make a final statement on this and then just move on, this is getting old already

I agree. My renewal papers are waiting for some good old fashioned transparency and communication to the membership.

Keta1969
03-31-2016, 07:06 AM
Not sure what you want them to say. The BOD took action that some on here disagreed with but the supreme court backed up their actions. Why do they need to say anything else and if they did would probably be flamed for gloating. They were right, Ed was wrong. Get over it and give it a rest.

Piperdown
03-31-2016, 07:06 AM
I agree. My renewal papers are waiting for some good old fashioned transparency and communication to the membership.

x2 on that, i have not renewed and will not until i know wtf is/was going on!

Ambush
03-31-2016, 07:30 AM
I hear thru the grapevine that's there's alot of dirty shyt going on in bcwf, no proof of any of it but some of these stories make me cringe IF true.

This is exactly the type of cowardly, underhanded tactic that, IMO, ruins this site. Basicly character assassination by innuendo. Not an opinion, but an accusation with no prove or links to proof to substantiate the claims.

I could just as easily make a vague reference to Olympia about poaching. "Not saying it's true, just seems a bit fishy, just putting it out there ya' know". Is that fair game??

I don't know any of the people involved, but I can look up the names of all the people that Olympia just accused of "dirty shyt" He's not just accusing some nebulus "BoD". He is accusing individuals of wrong doing!

I quit posting hunting stories or pics, a while back, because of stupid comments. As have a number of others. Anonymity has certainly not made us better people.

But at least I have the answer to why "Lurkers" far outnumber active posters. Probably time to rejoin them.

Jagermeister
03-31-2016, 09:01 AM
Curious.....A supreme court rules in favour of letting a piece of shit like that Merrit child killer get an easy sentence and folks are outraged and curse the "system".......Yet in another instance, like the above, the supreme court is "God" and folks need not concern themselves with further details........

Just an observation.....carry on...Come on Dude, Ed George would bitchslap you for making that comparison.
This fracturing of the BCWF does no good for any of us. We have to put the bullshit aside and regain our credibility and have a strong representation. In the meantime, GOABC, First Nations and the government are sweeping us under the carpet. At the rate it's going, we are losing access to large tracts of land and the impropriety of some emails stymies us.

Mikey Rafiki
03-31-2016, 09:20 AM
Not sure what you want them to say. The BOD took action that some on here disagreed with but the supreme court backed up their actions. Why do they need to say anything else and if they did would probably be flamed for gloating. They were right, Ed was wrong. Get over it and give it a rest.

I don't have any feelings about who was right or wrong, just an impartial observer who is new to the BCWF.

A simple statement saying the court upheld their decision, which resulted from a difficult and unfortunate situation, and in the best interest of the members and the organization they want to move forward and keep improving, would make me and likely a lot of others feel more comfortable with the situation.

The alternative is keep quiet and let the casual observers and potential members make their own opinion about the BCWF based on things they read in the news and online...

REMINGTON JIM
03-31-2016, 09:25 AM
x2 on that, i have not renewed and will not until i know wtf is/was going on!

Not renewing is NOT helping anything ! :( WE all NEED the BCWF ! they have done a LOT of good over the years and will continue too - Just got to get things on TRACK again and MEMBERSHIP is important ! Please JOIN up if your not already a mem:wink:ber ! Thks !

Cheers RJ

huntcoop
03-31-2016, 09:38 AM
As RJ says, we ALL need to band together and fully support OUR voice, the BCWF.

ruger#1
03-31-2016, 09:47 AM
This is exactly the type of cowardly, underhanded tactic that, IMO, ruins this site. Basicly character assassination by innuendo. Not an opinion, but an accusation with no prove or links to proof to substantiate the claims.

I could just as easily make a vague reference to Olympia about poaching. "Not saying it's true, just seems a bit fishy, just putting it out there ya' know". Is that fair game??

I don't know any of the people involved, but I can look up the names of all the people that Olympia just accused of "dirty shyt" He's not just accusing some nebulus "BoD". He is accusing individuals of wrong doing!

I quit posting hunting stories or pics, a while back, because of stupid comments. As have a number of others. Anonymity has certainly not made us better people.

But at least I have the answer to why "Lurkers" far outnumber active posters. Probably time to rejoin them.

Ambush. You bring a lot of good to the site. Don't walk away and be a lurker.

Fisher-Dude
03-31-2016, 11:37 AM
I don't know what he sent you asked you've seen it..

I would never see something like that on personal email.
does every person who sent it deserve termination.

If your to be fired shouldn't it be for stealing or a real misconduct like real sexual harassment or not doing your job period..wtf.
If the coworker had a laugh who are we to judge.

Sending unsolicited emails of sexual content is sexual harassment.

Contacting the victim of your harassment after being told not to is continued sexual harassment, and could be considered intimidation and/or bullying.

olympia
03-31-2016, 11:39 AM
Edited by Gatehouse- Once again- HBC is NOT the place for allegations.

steveo
03-31-2016, 01:26 PM
Sending unsolicited emails of sexual content is sexual harassment.

Contacting the victim of your harassment after being told not to is continued sexual harassment, and could be considered intimidation and/or bullying.
I do agree that a position of authority can be intimidating and can provide pressure on an employee but at the end of the day an employee has to know the difference between right and wrong and execute those beliefs. I don't act reckless at work, if an action could cause harm to me, my co-worker or the public I do it a different way even if my boss tells me other wise. Is stealing or any other unacceptable behavior down played because your superior made you feel uncomfortable. If you embrace a system that would judge Mr.George in any wrong doing then you should embrace a system that would judge or help an employee having conflict with a superior such as a labour relations board or the BOD themselves.

1899
03-31-2016, 02:37 PM
If you embrace a system that would judge Mr.George in any wrong doing then you should embrace a system that would judge or help an employee having conflict with a superior such as a labour relations board or the BOD themselves.

It seems to me there is a system involved, and it is top down (no pun intended). Look at the BCWF's Response and you will see the requirements in the Code of Conduct & Ethics in the Director's Manual. That Code of Conduct includes a section on "Respect in the Workplace".

Additionally there is a Human Resource Manual that addresses "Harassment in the Workplace" and provides that the BCWF "believes in providing and maintaining a work environment in which all employees are free from workplace harassment, sexual harassment and discrimination. Such actions are not tolerated and, where possible, are to be redressed".

Now look at the above and consider what the employee told the BCWF on October 23, 2015 - "The employee advised that she was not a willing participant in the email correspondence. She had not invited these emails nor asked to be put on the petitioner's email distribution list. She did not want these emails and wished that the petitioner would take her off his list. The emails were unwanted and made her feel uncomfortable." When asked why she did not make a complaint "the employee said that she did not think it was appropriate for her to do so".

The Response goes on to say that "Directors of the BCWF generally have little or no interaction with BCWF employees. BCWF employees largely take their direction from management. The petitioner attended the BCWF office on a number of occasions. On these occasions the petitioner largely interacted with the female employee to whom he sent the emails. On one occasion he entered the employee's office with another Director and closed the door. The employee later expressed to BCWF management that this made her feel uncomfortable."


It goes on to say that the BCWF sent a letter to Ed asking him to cease and desist from his "misconduct" and to call the President. Ed did call the President on October 25 and "felt that he had done nothing wrong and refused to acknowledge that the emails were offensive and inappropriate. The petitioner accused the BCWF of engaging in a "witch hunt" initiated by the Director of Operations and threatened to involve legal counsel in the matter."

"On October 26 the petitioner called a past President of the BCWF to complain about the matter. The past President told the petitioner to stop sending emails, acknowledge that his actions were unacceptable and tell the BCWF that this would never happen again". (sounds downright reasonable to me)

On November 25th Ed's lawyer sent the BCWF a letter demanding that the "BCWF provide him with a full retraction and written apology."

It goes on quite a bit, but it seems clear that the BCWF were doing a thorough investigation. You must have some lenience when there is a power imbalance and really, the whole thing could have ended in October last year with a simple "Mea Culpa, it won't happen again" from Ed. Heck, everyone can make a mistake - it's how you deal with it that really counts. Speaking of that, still no apology from Ed to the BoD and membership.

By the way, words in quotations are quoted from the BCWF's Response.


On a closing note - I hope the "right" people from the BCWF are reading this - you are doing a dis-service to your membership by not putting out a brief statement on the issue. In my view it shows a lack of decisiveness and leadership. You owe it to the membership.

ACE
03-31-2016, 03:40 PM
On a closing note - I hope the 'right' people from the BCWF are reading this - you are doing a dis-service to your membership by not putting out a brief statement on the issue. In my view it shows a lack of decisiveness and leadership. You owe it to the membership.

Good post 1899 ..... ^
BCWF needs to make a public 'closing statement' on this affair. To think that the BCWF can move forward and attract new and enthusiastic members without officially 'ending' this fiasco publicly is just poor management.
BCWF ....... step up to the plate and clear the air. You will not move forward by remaining silent. You owe us.

olympia
03-31-2016, 03:44 PM
Edited by Gatehouse- Once again- HBC is NOT the place for allegations.

I asked to meet Ambush for a coffee as well in that post, you could have left that part up. Also there were no allegations actually, but your decision to erase my entire post speaks volumes. I take it this post won't stay up long either.

Gateholio
03-31-2016, 05:24 PM
I asked to meet Ambush for a coffee as well in that post, you could have left that part up. Also there were no allegations actually, but your decision to erase my entire post speaks volumes. I take it this post won't stay up long either.

I'm not your personal assistant, and I'm not going to go through your post line by line.

If you want your posts left alone don't post allegations, innuendo etc. Just like I said twice on this thread already.

RiverOtter
03-31-2016, 05:58 PM
Curious.....A supreme court rules in favour of letting a piece of shit like that Merrit child killer get an easy sentence and folks are outraged and curse the "system".......Yet in another instance, like the above, the supreme court is "God" and folks need not concern themselves with further details........

Just an observation.....carry on...


Come on Dude, Ed George would bitchslap you for making that comparison.
This fracturing of the BCWF does no good for any of us. We have to put the bullshit aside and regain our credibility and have a strong representation. In the meantime, GOABC, First Nations and the government are sweeping us under the carpet. At the rate it's going, we are losing access to large tracts of land and the impropriety of some emails stymies us.
I apologize if my post came across as a comparative to Ed, it definitely wasn't. I agree though, I could have found a better sample.

Another tid bit I'm curious about is this...Did the BCWF membership bank roll Ed's lawyer(s) too, or just the Feds?

Fisher-Dude
03-31-2016, 06:55 PM
Another tid bit I'm curious about is this...Did the BCWF membership bank roll Ed's lawyer(s) too, or just the Feds?


There would be no reason for the BCWF to pay the legal fees of someone taking THEM to court. Would you?

I'm hopeful that the BCWF will be awarded court costs from the petitioner, seeing as how Ed lost, and the whole thing was frivolous and an egregious waste of our conservation dollars anyways, in my opinion.

1899
03-31-2016, 07:33 PM
There would be no reason for the BCWF to pay the legal fees of someone taking THEM to court. Would you?

I'm hopeful that the BCWF will be awarded court costs from the petitioner, seeing as how Ed lost, and the whole thing was frivolous and an egregious waste of our conservation dollars anyways, in my opinion.

Costs generally only cover a portion of legal fees. Historically they were designed to roughly cover half. This fiasco will cost the BCWF $ in any event. Not to mention the intangible costs associated with such infighting. Much easier to destroy things than to build them up.

steveo
03-31-2016, 08:24 PM
I find this a bizarre course of events, membership money was spent on court costs to suspend a director for the remainder of his term only to potentially have him voted back in with the next set of elections, do I have that right. I am used to private sector where you get fired and are not dealt with again, lol. Hopefully the federation can find a good pace on a smooth road and not have to slow the whole organization down with these road bumps in the future. Regardless of lack of understanding of the federations politics I think it is still good value to support them with memberships. I also agree with 1899 that some communication is needed from the fed on this matter.

olympia
03-31-2016, 09:22 PM
I'm not your personal assistant, and I'm not going to go through your post line by line.

If you want your posts left alone don't post allegations, innuendo etc. Just like I said twice on this thread already.

So ur admitting you erased it without even knowing what it was about?

Gateholio
03-31-2016, 10:13 PM
So ur admitting you erased it without even knowing what it was about?

You don't get it.

I don't CARE what it's about. I don't CARE what you "heard."

This isn't the place for allegations and innuendo, and your post was full of it. That's what I care about.

huntcoop
03-31-2016, 10:17 PM
So ur admitting you erased it without even knowing what it was about?

Jesus man, get over it, you can only poke the bear a few times before you'll get bit.

olympia
04-01-2016, 12:52 AM
You don't get it.

I don't CARE what it's about. I don't CARE what you "heard."

This isn't the place for allegations and innuendo, and your post was full of it. That's what I care about.

Fair enough

Apolonius
04-01-2016, 06:19 AM
The Judge ruled on the termination and it is done.Reasons for the judgement will come later.
A judge rules on legalities not innuendos and "witch hunts".
The emails and all this back and forth mean at least there is a camp that is not satisfied.
The membership of BCWF deserves to know not "confidential"matters.
But matters that would affect leadership and direction,yes.
The biggest opponent here to ED George,a member here came slugging from the beginning.
He dispensed information and showed to be in the "in" of things.
A fierce opponent of Ed George for sure.Maybe a person that likes the truth and with no self interest.
A person that does not like the mistreatment/bullying of workers.Or maybe not.
If Ed George did all this things "confidentialliality" and emails he got what he deserves.
But he stood up and with his real name here he said he is running for President.
Like him or not he did the right thing.
Now if the person that lead the fight against him is "lets say"a member of BOD,did he break not laws but ethics?
If this person is running for President of the BCWF and uses a "handle" to attack his opponent...is that ethical???
Is this the place to fight for the leadership?
Would that be an ethical leader?
After all in his post he said ,BCWF is an ethical organization,protecting the young lady,from a bully.
So this is my question!!
Are you member of BOD?
Are you running for president?
Was all done because you are a "Knight" in shiny armour???
Or just pure self interest,that sees a chance and takes it to "dispose" your opponent.
Hiding behind a "handle" smacks of conflict.
If your intentions are pure,come out with your real name ,so the people you are going to represent see their new Leader!!!
I will personally support you.
Can't hide behind numbers!!!
You can start by "My name is....."....no numbers please.
END OF STORY
Sorry for the long post.

Fisher-Dude
04-01-2016, 08:34 AM
The Judge ruled on the termination and it is done.Reasons for the judgement will come later.
A judge rules on legalities not innuendos and "witch hunts".
The emails and all this back and forth mean at least there is a camp that is not satisfied.
The membership of BCWF deserves to know not "confidential"matters.
But matters that would affect leadership and direction,yes.
The biggest opponent here to ED George,a member here came slugging from the beginning.
He dispensed information and showed to be in the "in" of things.
A fierce opponent of Ed George for sure.Maybe a person that likes the truth and with no self interest.
A person that does not like the mistreatment/bullying of workers.Or maybe not.
If Ed George did all this things "confidentialliality" and emails he got what he deserves.
But he stood up and with his real name here he said he is running for President.
Like him or not he did the right thing.
Now if the person that lead the fight against him is "lets say"a member of BOD,did he break not laws but ethics?
If this person is running for President of the BCWF and uses a "handle" to attack his opponent...is that ethical???
Is this the place to fight for the leadership?
Would that be an ethical leader?
After all in his post he said ,BCWF is an ethical organization,protecting the young lady,from a bully.
So this is my question!!
Are you member of BOD?
Are you running for president?
Was all done because you are a "Knight" in shiny armour???
Or just pure self interest,that sees a chance and takes it to "dispose" your opponent.
Hiding behind a "handle" smacks of conflict.
If your intentions are pure,come out with your real name ,so the people you are going to represent see their new Leader!!!
I will personally support you.
Can't hide behind numbers!!!
You can start by "My name is....."....no numbers please.
END OF STORY
Sorry for the long post.

There is not one post in this thread from a member of the BCWF BoD. I can't speak for other people, but I know I'm not running for a board or executive position.

The BCWF BoD respects the confidentiality requirements of in-camera sessions.

Suspended vice-presidents, apparently not, according to the revealing of how people voted in closed sessions, as reported in the region 2 minutes.

The BCWF needs leadership from people who respect confidentiality rules. There's no room for loose lips on sensitive/confidential/personnel matters.

There's no respect from other stakeholders nor government for people that choose to blab about confidential matters, and there's a good chance that if a leader cannot be trusted by other stakeholders, he/she will NOT be invited to sit at the table.

bearvalley
04-01-2016, 08:43 AM
There is not one post in this thread from a member of the BCWF BoD. I can't speak for other people, but I know I'm not running for a board or executive position.

The BCWF BoD respects the confidentiality requirements of in-camera sessions.

Suspended vice-presidents, apparently not, according to the revealing of how people voted in closed sessions, as reported in the region 2 minutes.

The BCWF needs leadership from people who respect confidentiality rules. There's no room for loose lips on sensitive/confidential/personnel matters.

There's no respect from other stakeholders nor government for people that choose to blab about confidential matters, and there's a good chance that if a leader cannot be trusted by other stakeholders, he/she will NOT be invited to sit at the table.
X2 on this post

dwayne26
04-01-2016, 12:45 PM
I love this tread. I cant get any work done at work today. I can't wait till next response. I have names written down so I can keep track who has who's nose up who's bum.

olympia
04-01-2016, 01:14 PM
I love this tread. I cant get any work done at work today. I can't wait till next response. I have names written down so I can keep track who has who's nose up who's bum.

Well my friend. I had taken issue with gate erasing my post, he told me why and thats that. No one else needs to chime in seeing as gate seems like he can handle his own and he did.

GoatGuy
04-01-2016, 01:22 PM
People wonder why we have fish and wildlife populations in decline ........

dwayne26
04-01-2016, 01:28 PM
I understand "olympia". School yard antics.
This is a well viewed thread. I see there has been 10-15 people viewing this all day long. It has gained interest with a lot of the people I work with as well. And this is from people who are members but have never given any thought to how the BCWF is run or who any of these people are. I don't know if its good or bad for the BCWF? I haven't quite figured that out yet. I will keep "lurking" if that's okay.
Carry on.
Thanks

olympia
04-01-2016, 02:15 PM
I understand "olympia". School yard antics.
This is a well viewed thread. I see there has been 10-15 people viewing this all day long. It has gained interest with a lot of the people I work with as well. And this is from people who are members but have never given any thought to how the BCWF is run or who any of these people are. I don't know if its good or bad for the BCWF? I haven't quite figured that out yet. I will keep "lurking" if that's okay.
Carry on.
Thanks

Like the great Johnny cash sang"what's done in the dark will be brought to the light" if your gonna be a member of something year after year(like myself) you might as well pay attention to what's going on since it affects my hobby deeply. I plan on making this hobby my lifestyle when I'm financially ready. Right now I got a mortgage and 2 young cubs to take of, i plan on introducing them to hunting/fishing/camping soon. Kids that grow up in this lifestyle don't throw rocks off overpasses and hang out at skytrain stations getting fights lol. But back to BCWF, I was a member for the past 5 years but not this year. I want to be able to individually vote and not have a rep vote what he thinks the general population under wing feel.

1899
04-01-2016, 02:18 PM
People wonder why we have fish and wildlife populations in decline ........

LOL...now get back to work and make sure you are protecting my "rights".

Fisher-Dude
04-01-2016, 02:23 PM
I want to be able to individually vote and not have a rep vote what he thinks the general population under wing feel.

If you became a delegate, then you could vote at the AGM.

Typically, though, delegates are the ones who actually get involved in conservation projects and donate their time for the betterment of fish and wildlife, so perhaps that's not for you.

olympia
04-01-2016, 03:26 PM
If you became a delegate, then you could vote at the AGM.

Typically, though, delegates are the ones who actually get involved in conservation projects and donate their time for the betterment of fish and wildlife, so perhaps that's not for you.

I was told you were gonna show up, I'm surprised it took you this long, were you out volunteering your time? How would you know what's for me or not?

Gateholio
04-01-2016, 03:53 PM
I understand "olympia". School yard antics.
This is a well viewed thread. I see there has been 10-15 people viewing this all day long. It has gained interest with a lot of the people I work with as well. And this is from people who are members but have never given any thought to how the BCWF is run or who any of these people are. I don't know if its good or bad for the BCWF? I haven't quite figured that out yet. I will keep "lurking" if that's okay.
Carry on.
Thanks

I think the original issue was bad for the BCWF but this thread has many answers so that is a good thing.

The only opinion I ever gave on the topic was that I thought the BCWF erred by sending out a special email bulletin to all members. I felt that an announcement on their website or communication to all affiliated clubs may have been better as sending it to everyone inflamed the issue. In the interests of transparency a website/club announcement should suffice as anyone that cared had acces to the informstion.

While this progressed we initially were told by Ed's supporters that this was a witch hunt, political in nature and his mom read the emails so it was blown out of proportion. I don't know Ed personally but I was certainly aware of him and his good work, so initially I was angry that the BOD made a mountain out of a molehill and it was going to screw up the BCWF agsin. I didn't express this here, as experience has taught me to get all the facts from all sources before judgement, but I wasn't impressed.

When it became apparent it was going to court, I took a wait and see approach. New things had come to light but nothing conclusive for either side so let the court decide.

Now that the judge has ruled and we have many of the details, I'm appalled by the selfishness of Ed and maybe more so his supporters that encouraged him down this route. I'm not even that upset about the emails that spurred this fiasco. Ed is not of the E-Generation and may not have understood business email protocol. I know when email first appeared at my work there was a steep learning curve on what was appropriate and what wasn't, and every business and organization has had to adopt email policies. Ed may not have realized what he was doing was wrong.

What happened afterwards is what I find appalling. That was the time to man up, apologize and do the right thing. Instead we got a court case, drama, deflection and division, much of it instigated by Ed's supporters. Wasteful and shameful.

So yeah, I think the thread does some good. It clearly shows the court supported the BOD.

Should the BCWF issue a closing statement? Maybe a one liner "The Courts upheld the BOD decision to suspend Ed George for sending unwanted sexually explicit emails to staff" would suffice. It seems to me that would just rub salt in Eds wounds, but whatever. The reality is that anyone that cares already knows the outcome.

Hunter Dog
04-01-2016, 06:50 PM
There is not one post in this thread from a member of the BCWF BoD. I can't speak for other people, but I know I'm not running for a board or executive position.

The BCWF BoD respects the confidentiality requirements of in-camera sessions.

Suspended vice-presidents, apparently not, according to the revealing of how people voted in closed sessions, as reported in the region 2 minutes.

The BCWF needs leadership from people who respect confidentiality rules. There's no room for loose lips on sensitive/confidential/personnel matters.

There's no respect from other stakeholders nor government for people that choose to blab about confidential matters, and there's a good chance that if a leader cannot be trusted by other stakeholders, he/she will NOT be invited to sit at the table.

Hell, after following all of this crap, I won't even run for membership! LOL After a fifteen year break from it I was sitting on the fence thinking I might join again...not! Both feet are firmly planted back on the ground. I'll just carry on doing what I do.

bridger
04-01-2016, 07:05 PM
Hell, after following all of this crap, I won't even run for membership! LOL After a fifteen year break from it I was sitting on the fence thinking I might join again...not! Both feet are firmly planted back on the ground. I'll just carry on doing what I do.

And that is?

Jagermeister
04-01-2016, 07:19 PM
Hell, after following all of this crap, I won't even run for membership! LOL After a fifteen year break from it I was sitting on the fence thinking I might join again...not! Both feet are firmly planted back on the ground. I'll just carry on doing what I do.
Just who the hell is going to represent you? GOABC? Or perhaps the Union of BC Indian Chiefs?
If this bullshit does not cease and desist, you won't have to consider it after the next 15 years. Because your opportunities will no longer exist as there will be no voice for the resident hunter/fisher.
And from what I understand now, there would be no way in hell I would vote for Ed George in any capacity in the BCWF were I a delegate.
You folks have to understand this. A singular voice means nothing. It's the flock that commands attention.
If Ed George had any balls, he would drop the ego, accept the ruling, apologize like a man and try to get the whole mess straightened out.

Hunter Dog
04-01-2016, 07:44 PM
I don't know Ed or anyone else on the board so I'm not going to say who is right or wrong or if there is a hidden agenda. If the Fed is going back to "business as usual" they haven't learned anything from all this. All I see is that because of this, sides have been chosen and there are now two "good ole boys clubs" fighting amongst themselves. And yes, I am allowed to have an opinion as well. I don't need the Feds permission to be conservationist or to participate in conservation projects; they don't have their fingers in all of them.

Gateholio
04-01-2016, 07:56 PM
I doubt there will be any "business as usual" anymore. Short term I expect an additional emphasis placed on email and sexual harassment policies.

SPEYMAN
04-01-2016, 08:21 PM
Question I have is, who complained? In what manner? Did the BOD proceed without a complainant?

Gateholio
04-01-2016, 08:41 PM
Question I have is, who complained? In what manner? Did the BOD proceed without a complainant?

In cases like these, it doesn't matter who complained or if there was no complaint. Once management (or in this case, the BOD) is made aware of the situation, it is incumbent upon them to investigate and take action. To be aware of the situation and not take action is opening them up to far more serious repercussions than a court case about a suspended director.

Apolonius
04-01-2016, 08:50 PM
Question I have is, who complained? In what manner? Did the BOD proceed without a complainant?
Some one put a link on a Vancouver Sun on this thread.You could get a bit of a glimpse,read twice.
Yes Goat Guy,people might wonder why we have less fish and wildlife,but we at least , don't have to wonder why we have less opportunity for the resident hunter.
This is what is "business as usual" in BCWF.
The same people that got us the recent allocation are still running BCWF and will be running it after the AGM too.
And trying to tell us all about "the good guides"....and new partnerships.
What is next????....BCWFGOs?...laughable.

180grainer
04-01-2016, 09:27 PM
In cases like these, it doesn't matter who complained or if there was no complaint. Once management (or in this case, the BOD) is made aware of the situation, it is incumbent upon them to investigate and take action. To be aware of the situation and not take action is opening them up to far more serious repercussions than a court case about a suspended director.
You're absolutely correct. But that's too simplistic in this case. I infer some of this but some of it was printed in the media. First, if George was sending these emails around on his own and no one was participating in it....he's done. And he would have been done a long time ago.....which leads to the inference that he's not the only one. I just read that even the victim herself admitted, (like they're on the server Honey) that she too was sending similar emails around. So ok, the victim is now admitting that she participated in the email exchange. If this is sexual harassment, it's significance just took a huge down turn with that disclosure.

So like Gates says, management must do something once the issue comes to light. Ok, what happened to the Mrs? She admitted she was doing it too. Who else was doing it? There were others. Of course she said she felt obligated, (pressured were her words) to send those emails. I'm sorry, in 1965 I'd have bought it. But this is 2016 and I don't. She is clearly participating in what is most likely a cultural misuse of the email system. She admitted it, he got caught doing it, (although he would have admitted it too if he was given the same opportunity as the Mrs. Once the investigation started......she got caught too but was allowed to claim she felt pressured and then did the ....."it's all him and I'm a victim thing). So there's the motivation... "to avoid punishment"....."I'm the victim" I felt I had to send those dirty inappropriate emails.......And there's the dagger to slit buddy's throat.....The days should be gone where a woman can participate over a period of time in sexually explicit emails or behavior and then be rolled out as the victim by? Maybe I could put it another way......maybe we should have equality between the sexes.

So the long and the short of it is, no one else was disciplined in which lots of other people could have been. The Victim was participating to some level clearly indicating acceptance. And buddy is dismissed, (on a first offense?) which is the most severe sanction in labor law......This was clearly a political decision and most likely carried out by people of exceptionally weak character who have vested their entire ego into the position and authority they hold at the BCWF and who most likely wanted this guy out....for their own reasons...not ours. No one was looking to do the "right" thing here from an ethical stand point. Or as Freud would say....there was significant compensating by the decision makers for inadequacies in other areas when the decision was made.......but of course this is all just a big guess on my part.....:)

Gateholio
04-01-2016, 10:56 PM
You're absolutely correct. But that's too simplistic in this case. I infer some of this but some of it was printed in the media. First, if George was sending these emails around on his own and no one was participating in it....he's done. And he would have been done a long time ago.....which leads to the inference that he's not the only one. I just read that even the victim herself admitted, (like they're on the server Honey) that she too was sending similar emails around. So ok, the victim is now admitting that she participated in the email exchange. If this is sexual harassment, it's significance just took a huge down turn with that disclosure.

So like Gates says, management must do something once the issue comes to light. Ok, what happened to the Mrs? She admitted she was doing it too. Who else was doing it? There were others. Of course she said she felt obligated, (pressured were her words) to send those emails. I'm sorry, in 1965 I'd have bought it. But this is 2016 and I don't. She is clearly participating in what is most likely a cultural misuse of the email system. She admitted it, he got caught doing it, (although he would have admitted it too if he was given the same opportunity as the Mrs. Once the investigation started......she got caught too but was allowed to claim she felt pressured and then did the ....."it's all him and I'm a victim thing). So there's the motivation... "to avoid punishment"....."I'm the victim" I felt I had to send those dirty inappropriate emails.......And there's the dagger to slit buddy's throat.....The days should be gone where a woman can participate over a period of time in sexually explicit emails or behavior and then be rolled out as the victim by? Maybe I could put it another way......maybe we should have equality between the sexes.

So the long and the short of it is, no one else was disciplined in which lots of other people could have been. The Victim was participating to some level clearly indicating acceptance. And buddy is dismissed, (on a first offense?) which is the most severe sanction in labor law......This was clearly a political decision and most likely carried out by people of exceptionally weak character who have vested their entire ego into the position and authority they hold at the BCWF and who most likely wanted this guy out....for their own reasons...not ours. No one was looking to do the "right" thing here from an ethical stand point........but of course this is just a guess on my part.....:)

Quote the theory...... :?

There's a few big holes in it. And some serious way out conspiracy theories, but that's often your way of looking at things.

You ignore the Employer/Employee relationship and responsibilities. You may not accept that an employee can feel pressured in 2016, but employees continue to be pressured into all sorts of things, some far more serious or dangerous than emails.

A few snips from the article to help explain

The federation’s court submission states that in August 2015 Johnson become aware of “highly inappropriate and offensive emails” that George had sent to at least two staffers — a man no longer with the federation and a woman — over at least a nine-month period.

When interviewed by the federation, the female employee said she was uncomfortable with the emails but did not ask for them to stop and did not file a complaint, the submission continues.
While denying it at first, the female employee eventually admitted she sent some of her own emails with sexual humour to George. “The employee agreed that this conduct was inappropriate and in breach of her duties and obligations,” the federation wrote, adding that her emails were not considered as serious as those sent by George.

She admitted she did wrong. Apparently Ed maintains he did nothing wrong. Admitting wrongdoing often can be the first step to avoiding more serious disciplinary action.



The employee indicated she “felt somewhat pressured to reciprocate” with the emails and that she grew increasingly uncomfortable with the correspondence and eventually ceased responding, the court document reads.


Employee stopped responding, another indicator that she wasn't fully on board with the emails.


Despite the woman’s participation, the federation still felt that George’s conduct was inappropriate, noting he held a high position in the federation and that the employee held a subordinate, middle-management position.

His actions constituted a “serious breach of his director duties and obligations” and warranted disciplinary action, the submission continues.


This is a very important part of the situation,and no doubt the court looked closely at it. Sexual harassment of subordinates is very serious.


George insisted he’d done nothing wrong and was the victim of “witch hunt,” the federation submission states. He sought a full written apology. He denied that the emails represented sexual harassment and blamed a lack of federation policy. He also ignored a federation directive not to contact the woman again.


Goes back to not admitting fault and how it can escalate disciplinary action.





The federation’s code of conduct and ethics requires directors to behave in an “honest and ethical” manner and to “demonstrate integrity” in their general conduct and to avoid any situation that could be perceived as “improper or unethical.” Directors are to exercise “respect and dignity in all workplace relationships,” and not to engage in “demeaning, offensive, harassing or discriminatory behaviour.



Here's where your 2016 comment actually comes into play. In 2016, who actually thinks it's legitimate to send sexual/racial/offensive emails through work channels? As I mentioned before, Ed may have not completely understood he was crossing a line, but once informed, that's when he should be giving apologies, not demanding them.

180grainer
04-01-2016, 11:05 PM
Quote the theory...... :?

There's a few big holes in it. And some serious way out conspiracy theories, but that's often your way of looking at things.

You ignore the Employer/Employee relationship and responsibilities. You may not accept that an employee can feel pressured in 2016, but employees continue to be pressured into all sorts of things, some far more serious or dangerous than emails.

A few snips from the article to help explain

The federation’s court submission states that in August 2015 Johnson become aware of “highly inappropriate and offensive emails” that George had sent to at least two staffers — a man no longer with the federation and a woman — over at least a nine-month period.

When interviewed by the federation, the female employee said she was uncomfortable with the emails but did not ask for them to stop and did not file a complaint, the submission continues.
While denying it at first, the female employee eventually admitted she sent some of her own emails with sexual humour to George. “The employee agreed that this conduct was inappropriate and in breach of her duties and obligations,” the federation wrote, adding that her emails were not considered as serious as those sent by George.She admitted she did wrong. Apparently Ed maintains he did nothing wrong. Admitting wrongdoing often can be the first step to avoiding more serious disciplinary action.



The employee indicated she “felt somewhat pressured to reciprocate” with the emails and that she grew increasingly uncomfortable with the correspondence and eventually ceased responding, the court document reads.


Employee stopped responding, another indicator that she wasn't fully on board with the emails.


Despite the woman’s participation, the federation still felt that George’s conduct was inappropriate, noting he held a high position in the federation and that the employee held a subordinate, middle-management position.

His actions constituted a “serious breach of his director duties and obligations” and warranted disciplinary action, the submission continues.


This is a very important part of the situation,and no doubt the court looked closely at it. Sexual harassment of subordinates is very serious.


George insisted he’d done nothing wrong and was the victim of “witch hunt,” the federation submission states. He sought a full written apology. He denied that the emails represented sexual harassment and blamed a lack of federation policy. He also ignored a federation directive not to contact the woman again.


Goes back to not admitting fault and how it can escalate disciplinary action.





The federation’s code of conduct and ethics requires directors to behave in an “honest and ethical” manner and to “demonstrate integrity” in their general conduct and to avoid any situation that could be perceived as “improper or unethical.” Directors are to exercise “respect and dignity in all workplace relationships,” and not to engage in “demeaning, offensive, harassing or discriminatory behaviour.



Here's where your 2016 comment actually comes into play. In 2016, who actually thinks it's legitimate to send sexual/racial/offensive emails through work channels? As I mentioned before, Ed may have not completely understood he was crossing a line, but once informed, that's when he should be giving apologies, not demanding them.






Are you going to send me to the cooler?....:) Look, I don't need to be quoted the law. It's human nature. If a woman is being sent inappropriate emails that are sexually explicit the normal course of action at best is to ignore them. In this day and age, it's to loudly complain about them. It is not "normal" to engage them reciprocally. That defies common sense and like I mentioned it also is very convenient in avoiding similar discipline for similar inappropriate behavior. After all, she was using the email system inappropriately too. That's got to be disconcerting to a decision maker doesn't it? I'm not suggesting his behavior wasn't wrong or inappropriate. It's the proportionality of discipline that makes everything suspect. Just ask yourself one question. Given what we know, was there a lesser form of punishment available? Of course there was. Particularly given the supposed victims behavior. He's sending inappropriate emails and she's responding to some of them....ever heard of intermittent reinforcement? Give me a break.

Fisher-Dude
04-01-2016, 11:15 PM
[/B]
[/I]Here's where your 2016 comment actually comes into play. In 2016, who actually thinks it's legitimate to send sexual/racial/offensive emails through work channels? As I mentioned before, Ed may have not completely understood he was crossing a line, but once informed, that's when he should be giving apologies, not demanding them.







To add to that, when told to cease and desist by a Past President, and not to contact the female staffer, he went against the directive and contacted her again, and then tried to call her yet again but she refused his phone call. (Para 33 and 36 of the BCWF's Response).

Gateholio
04-01-2016, 11:25 PM
Are you going to send me to the cooler?....:) Look, I don't need to be quoted the law. It's human nature. If a woman is being sent inappropriate emails that are sexually explicit the normal course of action at best is to ignore them. In this day and age, it's to loudly complain about them. It is not "normal" to engage them reciprocally. That defies common sense and like I mentioned it also is very convenient in avoiding similar discipline for similar inappropriate behavior. After all, she was using the email system inappropriately too. That's got to be disconcerting to a decision maker doesn't it? I'm not suggesting his behavior wasn't wrong or inappropriate. It's the proportionality of discipline that makes everything suspect.

The court doesn't agree with you.

You have NO WAY of knowing what was or was not going on in the staff members head with regard to the email. It's complete unfounded speculation on your part.

Again, she is his subordinate, and she admitted her fault. Ed did not, and actually demanded an apology from the BOD. The subordinate part is not a small thing, and everyone in 2016 knows that.

180grainer
04-01-2016, 11:26 PM
To add to that, when told to cease and desist by a Past President, and not to contact the female staffer, he went against the directive and contacted her again, and then tried to call her yet again but she refused his phone call. (Para 33 and 36 of the BCWF's Response).

Didn't know that. Where you pulling that out of FD?

Gateholio
04-01-2016, 11:30 PM
To add to that, when told to cease and desist by a Past President, and not to contact the female staffer, he went against the directive and contacted her again, and then tried to call her yet again but she refused his phone call. (Para 33 and 36 of the BCWF's Response).

That's in the article too.


. He also ignored a federation directive not to contact the woman again.

And 180, you wonder why he was the subject of higher discipline?

Inappropriate behaviour involving a subordinate
Did not admit fault
Contacted her after being told not to. This is also not a small thing.

180grainer
04-01-2016, 11:30 PM
The court doesn't agree with you.

You have NO WAY of knowing what was or was not going on in the staff members head with regard to the email. It's complete unfounded speculation on your part.

Again, she is his subordinate, and she admitted her fault. Ed did not, and actually demanded an apology from the BOD. The subordinate part is not a small thing, and everyone in 2016 knows that.
Refusing to acknowledge his actions is problematic. But the actions of the staff member have to be considered. It can't be "we can't know what she was thinking when she sent that email about anal sex" therefore we can't consider it.....I don't buy that at all. She's engaging the behavior she is now complaining about. And yes being a subordinate is an issue. But again, the normal behavior at best would be to ignore "not engage" the inappropriate behavior. If that behavior is positively engaged, it must be considered a significant factor. The thing that is significant is what FD posted about there being an explicit "NO". That is very significant.

Fisher-Dude
04-01-2016, 11:32 PM
Didn't know that. Where you pulling that out of FD?

I quoted the source. Court documents. $6 each. ;)

180grainer
04-01-2016, 11:38 PM
T

Inappropriate behaviour involving a subordinate
Did not admit fault
Contacted her after being told not to. This is also not a small thing.

Ok, if that's true then I'm done. No more argument from me....:)

The Hermit
04-02-2016, 07:43 PM
Some one put a link on a Vancouver Sun on this thread.You could get a bit of a glimpse,read twice.
Yes Goat Guy,people might wonder why we have less fish and wildlife,but we at least , don't have to wonder why we have less opportunity for the resident hunter.
This is what is "business as usual" in BCWF.
The same people that got us the recent allocation are still running BCWF and will be running it after the AGM too.
And trying to tell us all about "the good guides"....and new partnerships.
What is next????....BCWFGOs?...laughable.

I'm afraid you don't understand the process by which THE GOVERNMENT decided on what the allocations are to be. Having been fairly close to the process it is my humble opinion that the BCWF representatives did just about everything they could over the course of years to fight for a fair and reasonable split. To suggest otherwise belies ignorance of the process and/or someone with an axe to grind.

Apolonius
04-03-2016, 11:23 AM
Ignorance yes like most (99%) of the RH.Axe to grind?
Every time as residents get more LEH and less opportunity we get the axe to grind.
The liberals did not represent me,made a political decision.
They think the RH will forget come election time,or they will use the same scare tactic....NDP scary!!!
The guides did what they supposed to do.They won the most generous allocation anywhere in the universe.
You say BCWF did their best,your opinion.
Some people,including me think that when you get a result like that,something went very,very wrong.
Ofcourse you can say like most people say here....if you want results "get involved".
Well not every one has the ability or time to do that.
And this is the reason most stay out of the "involved" thing.
Not because they are indifferent or lazy.
Anyway it is an argument that it is done before and it will go on.
No easy solution.And no i don't have the solution,or pretend to do.
But like in hockey ,if this line did not do well....you change them.
Don't tell me "get involved,vote"....we are back to square one.

GoatGuy
04-03-2016, 11:50 AM
Ignorance yes like most (99%) of the RH.Axe to grind?
Every time as residents get more LEH and less opportunity we get the axe to grind.
The liberals did not represent me,made a political decision.
They think the RH will forget come election time,or they will use the same scare tactic....NDP scary!!!
The guides did what they supposed to do.They won the most generous allocation anywhere in the universe.
You say BCWF did their best,your opinion.
Some people,including me think that when you get a result like that,something went very,very wrong.
Ofcourse you can say like most people say here....if you want results "get involved".
Well not every one has the ability or time to do that.
And this is the reason most stay out of the "involved" thing.
Not because they are indifferent or lazy.
Anyway it is an argument that it is done before and it will go on.
No easy solution.And no i don't have the solution,or pretend to do.
But like in hockey ,if this line did not do well....you change them.
Don't tell me "get involved,vote"....we are back to square one.

The hockey analogy is a great one. Over the years of playing hockey had the pleasure of seeing parents/grandparents/fans/players/coaches getting thrown out of games, suspended from going to the rink or even charged because they were busy telling the refs/players/coaches how to do their job. Investigations, violence in the dressing room, parents/coaches chasing referees, coaches permanently banned from minor hockey. Most of them would have a hard time putting hockey equipment on yet were great at heckling from the stands. Better yet, the hacks who play house hockey until they are in their 60s, busy 'critiquing' everyone they've ever played with. Hahaha, brings back some memories, the guy who shows up with a team Canada jersey with a big C on for a game of pick-up who after 40 years of playing still struggles to skate backwards but is great at firing directions at the people skating circles around him. Puts a smile on my face.

All a person has to do is write their newspaper or write/meet their MLA once a month. That is all it takes. If MLAs received 100,000 letters a month on wildlife allocations or fish and wildlife management BC would be an entirely different province.

If a person doesn't have time for that then hunting/fishing/conservation cannot be that important to them.

Without a doubt everyone can find an hour every month to increase support for hunting, angling and conservation.

We are all responsible for the state of fish and wildlife in BC - we have done a poor job over the years of protecting one of the best places on earth for hunters/anglers. It will take a pile of people who care time to get it turned around.

Hockey games are won by the team, not by the guy on his couch yelling at the TV. Least that has been my experience.

olympia
04-03-2016, 11:56 AM
Clap clap clap...that hit the nail on the head goatdancer

steelslinger
04-03-2016, 12:20 PM
Ofcourse you can say like most people say here....if you want results "get involved".
Well not every one has the ability or time to do that.
And this is the reason most stay out of the "involved" thing.
Not because they are indifferent or lazy.
Anyway it is an argument that it is done before and it will go on.
No easy solution.And no i don't have the solution,or pretend to do.
But like in hockey ,if this line did not do well....you change them.
Don't tell me "get involved,vote"....we are back to square one.

perhaps instead of spending what appears to be hours daily on here you should spend some time volunteering? It's all about priorities... Time helping or time bitching. You seem to have Lots of time to bitch no time to help? Just an observation from a (relatively) uninvolved resident hunter.

labguy
04-03-2016, 04:33 PM
All a person has to do is write their newspaper or write/meet their MLA once a month. That is all it takes. If MLAs received 100,000 letters a month on wildlife allocations or fish and wildlife management BC would be an entirely different province.

If a person doesn't have time for that then hunting/fishing/conservation cannot be that important to them.

Without a doubt everyone can find an hour every month to increase support for hunting, angling and conservation.

We are all responsible for the state of fish and wildlife in BC - we have done a poor job over the years of protecting one of the best places on earth for hunters/anglers. It will take a pile of people who care time to get it turned around.

Hockey games are won by the team, not by the guy on his couch yelling at the TV. Least that has been my experience.


Best post in this entire thread.......

Weatherby Fan
04-03-2016, 04:44 PM
Best post in this entire thread.......

X2 what he said

ruger#1
04-03-2016, 04:50 PM
I will be glad when my BCWF membership runs out.

REMINGTON JIM
04-03-2016, 04:54 PM
I will be glad when my BCWF membership runs out.

Well thats really gonna HELP ! WTF ? :shock: RJ

ruger#1
04-03-2016, 04:55 PM
Hey come on. More money in my pocket when I need it.

REMINGTON JIM
04-03-2016, 04:57 PM
The hockey analogy is a great one. Over the years of playing hockey had the pleasure of seeing parents/grandparents/fans/players/coaches getting thrown out of games, suspended from going to the rink or even charged because they were busy telling the refs/players/coaches how to do their job. Investigations, violence in the dressing room, parents/coaches chasing referees, coaches permanently banned from minor hockey. Most of them would have a hard time putting hockey equipment on yet were great at heckling from the stands. Better yet, the hacks who play house hockey until they are in their 60s, busy 'critiquing' everyone they've ever played with. Hahaha, brings back some memories, the guy who shows up with a team Canada jersey with a big C on for a game of pick-up who after 40 years of playing still struggles to skate backwards but is great at firing directions at the people skating circles around him. Puts a smile on my face.

All a person has to do is write their newspaper or write/meet their MLA once a month. That is all it takes. If MLAs received 100,000 letters a month on wildlife allocations or fish and wildlife management BC would be an entirely different province.

If a person doesn't have time for that then hunting/fishing/conservation cannot be that important to them.

Without a doubt everyone can find an hour every month to increase support for hunting, angling and conservation.

We are all responsible for the state of fish and wildlife in BC - we have done a poor job over the years of protecting one of the best places on earth for hunters/anglers. It will take a pile of people who care time to get it turned around.

Hockey games are won by the team, not by the guy on his couch yelling at the TV. Least that has been my experience.

Right on GoatGuy ! theres no I in TEAM ! and I don't make a TEAM ! We need to get in this all togethere ! and we need a SOLID spokes TEAM - the BCWF ! :grin: jmo RJ

bridger
04-03-2016, 05:03 PM
I will be glad when my BCWF membership runs out.

Phone and cancel it first thing tomorrow morning. I will gladly refund your full years's membership personally. Just send me your address!

ruger#1
04-03-2016, 05:07 PM
Phone and cancel it first thing tomorrow morning. I will gladly refund your full years's membership personally. Just send me your address!

Thats nice of you. There are a lot more then just I.

bridger
04-03-2016, 05:13 PM
Thats nice of you. There are a lot more then just I.

good send me a list! Get rid of all you do nothing bitchers at once. Be money well spent!

Wentrot
04-03-2016, 05:15 PM
Thats nice of you. There are a lot more then just I.

X2.......had a conversation with a few people from work and they are all pulling the pin. A shame it's come to this.

Wentrot
04-03-2016, 05:17 PM
good send me a list! Get rid of all you do nothing bitchers at once. Be money well spent!

Settle down fan boy. I've volunteered in the past and I know others who have as well. Just because people don't like how the BCWF is operating doesn't make us all "do nothing bitchers"

Good grief.

REMINGTON JIM
04-03-2016, 05:21 PM
X2.......had a conversation with a few people from work and they are all pulling the pin. A shame it's come to this.

YES it IS a shame - BUT thats NOT gonna fix the problem and it will make a MUCH bigger problem if we do not have a Representing Organization ! Just need to get things tuned up ! Stay with the BCWF ! its what we have and really its a pretty good DEAL ! ;-) jmo

Cheers RJ

bridger
04-03-2016, 05:24 PM
X2.......had a conversation with a few people from work and they are all pulling the pin. A shame it's come to this.

See previous post! You guys just don't get it. Quitting and taking your ball and going home is an easy out. The only sad thing is that the guys that stand and deliver have to put up with you guys who cut and run when the going gets tough.

ruger#1
04-03-2016, 05:30 PM
good send me a list! Get rid of all you do nothing bitchers at once. Be money well spent!

Wow that's a good way to drum up business.

Whonnock Boy
04-03-2016, 05:33 PM
If they are getting their information from you, it's no wonder they are "pulling the pin". I suggest you and your friends contact the federation directly with your concerns, and see what comes of it. The upcoming AGM will be a major turning point for the BCWF. It will be up to you to decide if the direction taken, is what you and your friends wanted to see, or not.


X2.......had a conversation with a few people from work and they are all pulling the pin. A shame it's come to this.

Whonnock Boy
04-03-2016, 05:36 PM
What? You want him to beg you to stay, and hope that you like the volunteer work he does on your behalf? I can't say I blame him for his frustration, and attitude.



Wow that's a good way to drum up business.

ruger#1
04-03-2016, 05:39 PM
What? You want him to beg you to stay, and hope that you like the volunteer work he does on your behalf? I can't say I blame him for his frustration, and attitude. I will put my. Read my money where I want to. If you have a problem with that. Then that is your problem.

180grainer
04-03-2016, 05:41 PM
The BCWF has done a lot of good things for the hunting community of this province. Are they perfect.....no. But for those of you who say FBCWF, who else are you going to align with to preserve your hunting heritage? You're not doing it on your own.

One of the things that made me decide to quit arguing about this was the obvious fact that all of the information isn't available to do so in a constructive manner. I have a bit of a psychology bent in that I understand behavior modification more than the average person, and I'm a believer in the classical view that you never punish anyone unless you absolutely have too. Punishment is always a last resort. Why? Well look at this scenario. The alienation of Mr George who a lot of people on here said did a lot of good for the organization. The amount of money spent by the BCWF in going to court because Mr George thought he wasn't dealt with fairly. The destruction of relationships between people who all supported the BCWF generally but are now at odds with this particular situation. The psychological impact on the supposed victim, (She had to admit she was sending those types of emails too and she never complained in the first place). And people on this site who are claiming they're not going to renew their membership based on this, (and perhaps other things).

Think about all of that and then ask yourself. If someone had just gone to Mr George and said "stop it!!!!", (I'm being simplistic but you get my meaning hopefully) would it have resolved the issue? If you don't think so. Was there an other approach that could have preserved the dignity of not only Mr George, but the complainant too, and maintained the integrity of the organization. After all, people now know she was participating in the behavior too. Did anyone ask her what she wanted to have happen? I doubt it. And again, I'm writing this with not knowing all the details so I'm sure someone will chime in. The bottom line is. Look at the damage done because the people making the decisions didn't understand the long term consequences or consider other alternatives. Stopping the behavior and ensuring it didn't happen again is all that needed to be done here. That's it.

One final thing, and I want to answer Gates suggestion that I'm some type of conspiracy theorist. I'm not sure if this guy lives in a bubble or not, (I'm sure he doesn't cause he seems quite reasonable at other times) but I wonder if he hasn't heard of JianGhomeshi. Accused of sexual assault by three female witnesses. Three weeks ago the man walked. According to the Judge not only were none of the three witnesses believable, it was his opinion that there was also collusion between them in making that allegations against the man. In essences, a conspiracy. Even the Crown Prosecutor, a woman, said she had to sit there and watch each woman have their credibility denigrated under cross examination while not being able to do anything about. And yet she fully agreed with the Judges decision. Gates.....conspiracies happen buddy.....and they happen all the time.

olympia
04-03-2016, 06:37 PM
See previous post! You guys just don't get it. Quitting and taking your ball and going home is an easy out. The only sad thing is that the guys that stand and deliver have to put up with you guys who cut and run when the going gets tough.

You don't get it do you? Perhaps the wheels may in motion to start up a new "bcwf", I'm not saying that's what is happening. I'm just saying maybe there's more to the " bitchers". From what I been hearing people have had enough and want change, but since change isn't coming...well then "pick up your ball" and going to a new playground with new friends may be an option. I do not condone what Ed has done, it just seems weird the amount of energy and risks taken to take him down. Yeah he got punished for the emails and rightfully so...but it seems like "people" really really went out of their way to punish him but when he hit the ground they kicked him again and again and again.

180grainer
04-03-2016, 06:44 PM
You don't get it do you? Perhaps the wheels may in motion to start up a new "bcwf", I'm not saying that's what is happening. I'm just saying maybe there's more to the " bitchers". From what I been hearing people have had enough and want change, but since change isn't coming...well then "pick up your ball" and going to a new playground with new friends may be an option. I do not condone what Ed has done, it just seems weird the amount of energy and risks taken to take him down. Yeah he got punished for the emails and rightfully so...but it seems like "people" really really went out of their way to punish him but when he hit the ground they kicked him again and again and again.

People may have "really really" gone out of their way cause they didn't know what they were doing. Ever work for the Provincial Government?......oh never mind. There may have been some type of collusion going on. But Mr. George didn't help his cause either. Let it go.

goatdancer
04-03-2016, 07:01 PM
For all of you that say " F**** BCWF " , do you have a better alternative for resident fisherpeople and hunters? If not, then maybe you should consider what the outcome will be if the BCWF is gone. Who the hell do you think will be there to look after your interests?

REMINGTON JIM
04-03-2016, 07:08 PM
For all of you that say " F**** BCWF " , do you have a better alternative for resident fisherpeople and hunters? If not, then maybe you should consider what the outcome will be if the BCWF is gone. Who the hell do you think will be there to look after your interests?

Well PUT gd ! its easier to fix the small problems with the current BCWF then it is to try and start a NEW one By FAR ! Stay with the current BCWF and Feed GOOD input stuff NOT Negative ! jmo RJ

toshiba40
04-03-2016, 07:41 PM
You don't get it do you? Perhaps the wheels may in motion to start up a new "bcwf", I'm not saying that's what is happening. I'm just saying maybe there's more to the " bitchers". From what I been hearing people have had enough and want change, but since change isn't coming...well then "pick up your ball" and going to a new playground with new friends may be an option. I do not condone what Ed has done, it just seems weird the amount of energy and risks taken to take him down. Yeah he got punished for the emails and rightfully so...but it seems like "people" really really went out of their way to punish him but when he hit the ground they kicked him again and again and again.

You ask a very good question Olympia. There are actually two questions everyone, be they Mr. George supporters, detractors or some where in the middle need to ask themselves. Why have certain members of the BCWF Executive gone to so much trouble, effort and expense to discredit Mr. George when his offense was relatively minor in nature and when there was no complaint by the so-called victim, or anyone else, that would give reason to launch the tech investigation that discovered the emails, which by the way we're reciprocal. And perhaps the biggest question of all. Who stands to benefit from disparaging of Mr. George. These questions require no comment and the only answer to them should be the conclusion each and every individual comes to in their own mind.

180grainer
04-03-2016, 07:48 PM
You ask a very good question Olympia. There are actually two questions everyone, be they Mr. George supporters, detractors or some where in the middle need to ask themselves. Why have certain members of the BCWF Executive gone to so much trouble, effort and expense to discredit Mr. George when his offense was relatively minor in nature and when there was no complaint by the so-called victim, or anyone else, that would give reason to launch the tech investigation that discovered the emails, which by the way we're reciprocal. And perhaps the biggest question of all. Who stands to benefit from disparaging of Mr. George. These questions require no comment and the only answer to them should be the conclusion each and every individual comes to in their own mind.
I think what you and others need to do is join the BCWF. And if you think Mr George was dealt with unfairly.......vote the people out of their positions that made the decision.

Keta1969
04-03-2016, 07:53 PM
I think what you and others need to do is join the BCWF. And if you think Mr George was dealt with unfairly.......vote the people out of their positions that made the decision.

I agree completely with this post. Very easy to bitch and moan from the outside, change comes from within.

180grainer
04-03-2016, 08:03 PM
Only a true revelation of the facts would provide everyone with a better handle on what happened. Barring that, I suggest going with Occam's Razor, "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better". Conspiracy or incompetence.......I go with incompetence. Join the BCWF and vote the people out responsible.....

toshiba40
04-03-2016, 08:06 PM
I think what you and others need to do is join the BCWF. And if you think Mr George was dealt with unfairly.......vote the people out of their positions that made the decision.
You sir make the above statement based assumption you leave yourself open to being terribly wrong you have no idea if I am a member or not or how much I am involved

180grainer
04-03-2016, 08:11 PM
You sir make the above statement based assumption you leave yourself open to being terribly wrong you have no idea if I am a member or not or how much I am involved

Didn't make the comment based on the assumption you were a member.....(kind of think it now tho). Not even sure how you came to that conclusion given my comments......unless you're drinking....in which case I fully empathize with you cause I suffer the same affliction. Perhaps you and I should form a society or support group........I could bring the home made wine?.......

f350ps
04-03-2016, 08:18 PM
I'd really like to hear from some or any of the Ed supporters that have gone MIA, they were sure vocal before the judge ruled. There's always two sides to every story and sometimes more, I'd really like to hear their thoughts! Here's a shout out to the "3 F's", Foxton, Fowl or Mr. Firepower, what's your take on all this? K

180grainer
04-03-2016, 08:26 PM
I'd really like to hear from some or any of the Ed supporters that have gone MIA, they were sure vocal before the judge ruled. There's always two sides to every story and sometimes more, I'd really like to hear their thoughts! Here's a shout out to the "3 F's", Foxton, Fowl or Mr. Firepower, what's your take on all this? K
That's just inflammatory....why not let it go......? Just asking. Why do you need to hear from the people who stood up for him? Kind of commendable in a way in my opinion. He's your friend before the controversy.....he's your friend afterwards......kind of a kudo to those people in my mind.........For Christ sake, this guy didn't kill someone.........or do something else of equally disparaging conduct. Let it go ya douce.......

f350ps
04-03-2016, 08:35 PM
That's just inflammatory....why not let it go......? Just asking. Why do you need to hear from the people who stood up for him? Kind of commendable in a way in my opinion. He's your friend before the controversy.....he's your friend afterwards......kind of a kudo to those people in my mind.........For Christ sake, this guy didn't kill someone.........or do something else of equally disparaging conduct. Let it go ya douce.......
As I said, there's always two sides or more to a story! I'd like to hear the other side that's all! K

Fisher-Dude
04-03-2016, 08:36 PM
X2.......had a conversation with a few people from work and they are all pulling the pin. A shame it's come to this.

No you didn't.

bridger
04-03-2016, 08:39 PM
You don't get it do you? Perhaps the wheels may in motion to start up a new "bcwf", I'm not saying that's what is happening. I'm just saying maybe there's more to the " bitchers". From what I been hearing people have had enough and want change, but since change isn't coming...well then "pick up your ball" and going to a new playground with new friends may be an option. I do not condone what Ed has done, it just seems weird the amount of energy and risks taken to take him down. Yeah he got punished for the emails and rightfully so...but it seems like "people" really really went out of their way to punish him but when he hit the ground they kicked him again and again and again.

I get this! If you and others of the same opinion have some concrete evidence that this incident was politically motivated to keep Ed George from becoming our next president we would all like to see it and get to the bottom of it. But to withdraw support from the Fed based on unfounded rumour makes you and others with the same attutude part of the problem, not part of the solution.

The only concrete evidence we have is that the Court supported the BOD. Time to move on!

steveo
04-03-2016, 08:41 PM
I thought there are three sides to every story first party, second party and the truth.

Fisher-Dude
04-03-2016, 08:41 PM
You sir make the above statement based assumption you leave yourself open to being terribly wrong you have no idea if I am a member or not or how much I am involved

Hard for you to be involved when you live in Sudbury Ontario, dude. ;)

Gateholio
04-03-2016, 08:41 PM
You ask a very good question Olympia. There are actually two questions everyone, be they Mr. George supporters, detractors or some where in the middle need to ask themselves. Why have certain members of the BCWF Executive gone to so much trouble, effort and expense to discredit Mr. George when his offense was relatively minor in nature and when there was no complaint by the so-called victim, or anyone else, that would give reason to launch the tech investigation that discovered the emails, which by the way we're reciprocal. And perhaps the biggest question of all. Who stands to benefit from disparaging of Mr. George. These questions require no comment and the only answer to them should be the conclusion each and every individual comes to in their own mind.

My question would be the opposite. When confronted by his wrongdoing, why didn't Ed admit fault and save everyone from going down this route? Why did he go to so much effort and expense when he could have admitted fault and moved on? Where is your evidence of this "witch hunt?"

Clearly the judge found fault with his offense and didn't find it "minor"

180grainer
04-03-2016, 08:49 PM
Hard for you to be involved when you live in Sudbury Ontario, dude. ;)

Really? He's in Sudbury? You're the man FD........:)

Fisher-Dude
04-03-2016, 08:53 PM
Really? He's in Sudbury? You're the man FD........:)

;)

The intraweb makes it a small world eh?

Apolonius
04-03-2016, 08:55 PM
You can be a member all you want.
You can volunteer all you want.
You can change absolutely nothing!!!
It does not give you the right to vote,period.
I am a direct member.I buy two memberships every year.
BCWF is a great idea and i believe in that.Our only defence.
How it is run,is a different story.Like some peoples personal club.
Mr George was/is the sacrificial lamb, so some people can fulfill their personal ambitions.
Look how it started,who started that mess and after the AGM you will see how it ends.The starter will kiss the winner.
We might be sorry ,but there will be nothing we can do.
The game is called already.We all loose,Ed's supporters/bod supporters(?)/detractors/lurkers...
Unfortunately some people think we are all conspiracy theorists.
You don't want to hear my conspiracy theories.
The scary part is....my other post before ...about someone from bod posting here ...might be right....ha ha ha
But in the end something good might come out of it.
A complete restructuring of bcwf,with new blood and out with the old.
It looks like a North/South war?I hope hollywood is working a script.Lol
Long lives the King....how prophetic!!!!

180grainer
04-03-2016, 09:03 PM
You can be a member all you want.
You can volunteer all you want.
You can change absolutely nothing!!!
It does not give you the right to vote,period.
I am a direct member.I buy two memberships every year.
BCWF is a great idea and i believe in that.Our only defence.
How it is run,is a different story.Like some peoples personal club.
Mr George was/is the sacrificial lamb, so some people can fulfill their personal ambitions.
Look how it started,who started that mess and after the AGM you will see how it ends.The starter will kiss the winner.
We might be sorry ,but there will be nothing we can do.
The game is called already.We all loose,Ed's supporters/bod supporters(?)/detractors/lurkers...
Unfortunately some people think we are all conspiracy theorists.
You don't want to hear my conspiracy theories.
The scary part is....my other post before ...about someone from bod posting here ...might be right....ha ha ha
But in the end something good might come out of it.
A complete restructuring of bcwf,with new blood and out with the old.
It looks like a North/South war?I hope hollywood is working a script.Lol
Long lives the King....how prophetic!!!!
If you're a member, (as in having a membership) maybe you should move to being a member, (as in showing up). You seem to think there is something going on here. Show up, build alliances, and build a stronger BCWF.......

Apolonius
04-04-2016, 12:28 AM
You are right about the involvement.And yes i am a member.But i think BCWF has enough bitching on line from me,don't need it in person too.Time to focus on hunting for the new season.
Time to let go of this thread for me.
I am too small to bring any change,and my bitching does no good to anyone,especially BCWF.
I am not here to defend anyone,shouldn't also blame.They are big boys.
I will keep buying two direct members,membership.Thats my support .
Out.

biggyun68
04-04-2016, 08:21 AM
My question would be the opposite. When confronted by his wrongdoing, why didn't Ed admit fault and save everyone from going down this route? Why did he go to so much effort and expense when he could have admitted fault and moved on? Where is your evidence of this "witch hunt?"

Clearly the judge found fault with his offense and didn't find it "minor"


He did in writing and offered a non litigious solution: The Board rejected his offer because they wanted him to resign:
One thing everyone is not mentioning is that the judge did rule in Georges favour that he could still attend the AGM and run for President.

The evidence of a witch hunt is that how does a President who is not involved in managing the society get a private email from an employee who never had a complaint? Especially since the email was extracted from a private folder at special request by contracted IT specialist hired specifically to find said emails?
This is just dirty politics at its worst: And speaks to an organization that has lost its focus because of poor leadership: Unfortunately much too common in these types of boards.
The region 2 board has also gone south... Too many people that have egos instead of ideas:

john.b
04-04-2016, 08:25 AM
Ask and ye shall receive.... Foxton is on holiday right now and unable to log on. He has, however, texted me and asked to post this on his behalf

"Here is a simple question for everyone to ponder long and hard whether you are for Ed, against him or some place in between. Why has there been so much effort put into discrediting Ed for a relatively minor offence when others by other people (no names or events mentioned) have been swept under the rug or ignored. There is no need to reply this post just give it serious thought and draw your own conclusion" - Foxton


I'd really like to hear from some or any of the Ed supporters that have gone MIA, they were sure vocal before the judge ruled. There's always two sides to every story and sometimes more, I'd really like to hear their thoughts! Here's a shout out to the "3 F's", Foxton, Fowl or Mr. Firepower, what's your take on all this? K

biggyun68
04-04-2016, 08:34 AM
I heard from my friends on the Island that they had a very productive and good AGM on the week-end.

They all said proudly how a motion brought forth to kick Ed George, as a speaker, off of the agenda was resoundingly defeated: I am not sure on the numbers but something like 30-5.

Ed was there to speak of a program he helped initiate with First Nations communities that has been a success in building trust and partnership between our two communities:

This is just one in a long list of volunteer accomplishments Ed has done for our community in the 20 plus years he has been involved in volunteering.

This long resume and time served volunteering for our community is why Region 1 supported Ed at their AGM.

So my question is why is there so much hate for Ed?

Or rather who are the people with in BCWF who benefiting trying to take this man out?

Because the BCWF and Hunting/Fishing community as a whole is not!

Fisher-Dude
04-04-2016, 08:59 AM
Ed George took himself out by choosing to send racist, bigoted, and sexually charged emails to federation employees.

No one else pushed "send" on his computer.

No one else kept contacting a federation employee after being strictly told to leave her alone.

No one is benefiting from that.

ruger#1
04-04-2016, 09:12 AM
Ed George took himself out by choosing to send racist, bigoted, and sexually charged emails to federation employees.

No one else pushed "send" on his computer.

No one else kept contacting a federation employee after being strictly told to leave her alone.

No one is benefiting from that. Yes Pat. And anyone can use his computer. He could of been framed. But you have an agenda. So keep pissing away.

Fisher-Dude
04-04-2016, 09:13 AM
Ask and ye shall receive.... Foxton is on holiday right now and unable to log on. He has, however, texted me and asked to post this on his behalf

"Here is a simple question for everyone to ponder long and hard whether you are for Ed, against him or some place in between. Why has there been so much effort put into discrediting Ed for a relatively minor offence when others by other people (no names or events mentioned) have been swept under the rug or ignored. There is no need to reply this post just give it serious thought and draw your own conclusion" - Foxton


If sexual harassment and racism and bigotry are considered "minor offences," then I would suggest you have answered what is wrong with your group of "good old boys."

The BCWF needs leadership from people who are up to date on current organizational leadership practices, who know what the current laws are in regard to bullying and harassment, and who can effectively work within 2016's accepted social structure.

One need only look at the racial and cultural diversity among the BCWF's staff to see that there is no room for "good old boys" on the board who think that sexual, racial and bigoted jokes are no big deal.

Time for the "good old boys" to stop and consider the fear that must be in the minds of people who have careers at the BCWF office. Can you imagine what is going through the minds of people who depend on these careers to feed their families and pay the rent?

How on earth can someone who thinks it is okay to send racial and bigoted emails be expected to preside over a racially and culturally diverse workplace? It's not possible with a "white" workplace, and it's really not possible with a diverse workplace, in this day and age.

Give your heads a shake!



As to the second part of your Foxton email, Gatehouse will be along shortly to remind you for the umpteenth time that HBC is not the place for allegations.

Spy
04-04-2016, 09:39 AM
Now I seriously want to see the emails! Pat keeps on pushing "racist, bigoted, and sexually charged emails " Lets see them. Ed time to post them up enough is enough. Pat have you seen these emails ?

houndogger
04-04-2016, 09:53 AM
Now I seriously want to see the emails! Pat keeps on pushing "racist, bigoted, and sexually charged emails " Lets see them. Ed time to post them up enough is enough. Pat have you seen these emails ?
x2 would be interesting.

J_T
04-04-2016, 10:14 AM
Here's my issue. FD/Pat always defends the BCWF. I have no issue with that, in fact I applaud his dedication. But his style, bullying, misinformation and aggression, calling others down on here seems to be exactly what he's saying others should be aware of. That it's not acceptable. Yet he does it constantly. On here he seems to be one of the stronger spokespeople for the Fed.

I guess work and the internet are two different places. Yet, for me as one who pays attention, I see Pat and his approach on HBC, just like the Fed. Rather than pursue collaboration, it seems to be about alienation. It seems he says one thing, but his style/approach is completely another. And frankly, I see it as a poor reflection of the Fed.

Sorry guys, I know we've had this discussion many times and I keep saying the same thing. But it seems obvious to me.

My apologies for sidetracking the discussion on Ed.

houndogger
04-04-2016, 11:17 AM
Here's my issue. FD/Pat always defends the BCWF. I have no issue with that, in fact I applaud his dedication. But his style, bullying, misinformation and aggression, calling others down on here seems to be exactly what he's saying others should be aware of. That it's not acceptable. Yet he does it constantly. On here he seems to be one of the stronger spokespeople for the Fed.

I guess work and the internet are two different places. Yet, for me as one who pays attention, I see Pat and his approach on HBC, just like the Fed. Rather than pursue collaboration, it seems to be about alienation. It seems he says one thing, but his style/approach is completely another. And frankly, I see it as a poor reflection of the Fed.

Sorry guys, I know we've had this discussion many times and I keep saying the same thing. But it seems obvious to me.

My apologies for sidetracking the discussion on Ed.

Well said JT but only fd is allowed to name drop.

albravo2
04-04-2016, 11:19 AM
Here's my issue. FD/Pat always defends the BCWF. I have no issue with that, in fact I applaud his dedication. But his style, bullying, misinformation and aggression, calling others down on here seems to be exactly what he's saying others should be aware of. That it's not acceptable. Yet he does it constantly. On here he seems to be one of the stronger spokespeople for the Fed.

I guess work and the internet are two different places. Yet, for me as one who pays attention, I see Pat and his approach on HBC, just like the Fed. Rather than pursue collaboration, it seems to be about alienation. It seems he says one thing, but his style/approach is completely another. And frankly, I see it as a poor reflection of the Fed.

Sorry guys, I know we've had this discussion many times and I keep saying the same thing. But it seems obvious to me.

My apologies for sidetracking the discussion on Ed.

Well said.

The BCWF turned me off with the tactics and bullying leading up to the rally in Victoria. This debacle has reinforced that my impressions at that time were correct.

By many accounts, Ed was a good guy who worked hard for the cause. I'm certainly guilty of sharing politically incorrect emails so perhaps I'm biased but I can't shake the feeling that one of the good guys is being chased out.

What to do when the main organization representing hunters is alienating hunters? I don't want to cancel my membership and let the cards fall where they may, but I certainly don't have the inclination to volunteer and get covered in mud trying to reform the organization from within.

I'll have a membership again this year (comes with my range membership) and will watch as events unfold, but the sticker is coming off my truck until I have a better sense that the BCWF represents me in a way that I wish to be represented.

Fisher-Dude
04-04-2016, 11:33 AM
Here's my issue. FD/Pat always defends the BCWF. I have no issue with that, in fact I applaud his dedication. But his style, bullying, misinformation and aggression, calling others down on here seems to be exactly what he's saying others should be aware of. That it's not acceptable. Yet he does it constantly. On here he seems to be one of the stronger spokespeople for the Fed.

I guess work and the internet are two different places. Yet, for me as one who pays attention, I see Pat and his approach on HBC, just like the Fed. Rather than pursue collaboration, it seems to be about alienation. It seems he says one thing, but his style/approach is completely another. And frankly, I see it as a poor reflection of the Fed.

Sorry guys, I know we've had this discussion many times and I keep saying the same thing. But it seems obvious to me.

My apologies for sidetracking the discussion on Ed.



If I ever decide to run for president of the BCWF, I'll be sure to solicit YOUR comments on ME. But I'm not running for the BCWF BoD.

Until then, your post is nothing but a deflection from the topic, which is Ed George's sending sexual, racist, and bigoted emails to BCWF staff, and how that reflects on HIS suitability to become president of the fed.

A court of law has upheld his suspension on the grounds so determined by the BCWF BoD in relation to sexual, racist, and bigoted emails.

Are you concerned for the staff at the BCWF?

Steeleco
04-04-2016, 11:53 AM
That's a wrap!

Gateholio
04-04-2016, 12:00 PM
He did in writing and offered a non litigious solution: The Board rejected his offer because they wanted him to resign: One thing everyone is not mentioning is that the judge did rule in Georges favour that he could still attend the AGM and run for President.The evidence of a witch hunt is that how does a President who is not involved in managing the society get a private email from an employee who never had a complaint? Especially since the email was extracted from a private folder at special request by contracted IT specialist hired specifically to find said emails?This is just dirty politics at its worst: And speaks to an organization that has lost its focus because of poor leadership: Unfortunately much too common in these types of boards.The region 2 board has also gone south... Too many people that have egos instead of ideas: Damn right he should have resigned! Some people are trying to gloss over the seriousness of inappropriate emails. This kind of stuff has resulted in law suits, labor relations intervention, terminations and all sorts of other disciplinary actions. The appropriate action for Mr George should have been "I'm sorry, I didn't realize proper email ethics, I made a mistake. I'm going to resign at this point and run for election next time." Obviously the courts agreed that Ed should be suspended. From what you say about the emails, thete still isn't "witch hunt" grounds. Management was made aware of the emails and are obligated to investigate. It doesn't matter if no complaint was made. It is not uncommon in the workplace for no complaint to be made as employees often don't want to rock the boat. When a third party whistle blower informs management, they must act. Stop excusing poor behaviour and blaming the victim. Ed is not the wronged party here or the court would have overturned his suspension.

Gateholio
04-04-2016, 06:37 PM
It seems some people are upset because I got the last word....Steelco locked the thread at 11:53, while I was typing my response. I posted at 12:00. I didn't even realize the thread was locked until it was Reported complaining about it. And No, I'm not deleting it.