BCWF- Grizzly Statement

[BCWF]

For Immediate Release -*November 24, 2016

Surrey, B.C.*Today party leader John Horgan announced a New Democrat government will ban the trophy hunting of grizzly bears in British Columbia.*

The ban would not affect first nations' treaty rights. The NDP propose to work with First Nations on a government to government basis to implement this ban and manage their objectives.

Key points of the proposed NDP provincial ban:*

the ban will not affect people who hunt for food
a provincial ban is long overdue to stop the needless killing of grizzly bears for sport
grizzly viewing creates more jobs and brings in about 10 times more revenue than grizzly hunting**
*

The BCWF Response

President of the BC Wildlife Federation, Jim Glaicar, represents 50,000 members and more than 100 hundred individual clubs operating in 10*regions of the province.

Glaicar said, "The BCWF supports science based wildlife management for all species, including grizzly bears, throughout the province of B.C. *As an organization the BCWF stands with the majority of B.C. residents in our ongoing support for hunting for sustenance."

The BCWF recognizes the value of all users on the landscape and is committed to working with stakeholders to ensure the long term sustainability of our fish, wildlife and habitat.

The BCWF expects to see increased investment in wildlife and landscape management for bears and other species. It is critically important to the overall health of fish, wildlife and their habitats to ensure adequate funding is in place for wildlife inventories, harvest monitoring and other supporting services.
*
In addition, the BCWF supports access to our resources by all British Columbians.**************
*
The BCWF encourages governments to continue to implement recommendations made in the*Scientific Review of*Grizzly*Bear Harvest Management System in British Columbia*by an expert panel consisting of*Mark S. Boyce and*Andrew E. Derocher, of the Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton and*David L. Garshelis, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota in 2016.*


The BCWF agrees with the review that deteriorating habitat conditions are the biggest threat to long term*grizzly*bear sustainability.

We concur there is an urgent need for improved wildlife management planning to set population and habitat objectives at the*Grizzly*Bear Population Unit level, as well as increased research and monitoring, particularly on human bear conflict management in rural and urban interfaces including*transportation*corridors.

The review recommends better joint planning between government ministries such as the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and the Ministry of Environment to address the increasing pressures of expanding resource extraction and the associated road development and use that lead cumulative impacts on the landscape which jeopardizes the longer-term status of the species. *

The report also recommends monitoring of habitat including forage for bear, including salmon and berries that affect the productivity of bear habitats.

The BCWF continues to recommend that the Province dedicate all hunting licence and surcharge revenue to wildlife management. Further, government should be collecting rent and dedicating a portion of it to fish and wildlife conservation.**

Activities such as ecotourism, wildlife viewing, mining, heli-skiing, oil and gas, and logging should all contribute to natural resource conservation.*
**

For more information, contact:

Alan Martin, Director of Strategic Initiatives, BC Wildlife Federation @ (250) 480-9694 or* alan.martin1710@gmail.com

Jesse Zeman, Resident Priority Program Manager, BC Wildlife Federation @ (250) 878-3799 or jessezeman@gmail.com*

[srupp]

Hmm Horvath just stated even if hunting grizzlies for food..HEADS, SKULLS..CLAWS..PAWS would be regulated to REMAIN in the field..

Hmmm mutilate the head,, paws..not how we treat moose, deer, elk, black bear..we remove cougars lynx..bobcat no need to leave claws heads paws in field

Anyone seriously wanting a grizzly..i am prepared to share 30 plus grizzly experience with anyone that would like some suggestions..before it gets closed down for any reason..

Hmm Indians can do anything they want still..only none native..Hmmm

So how many grizzlies hunt can outfitters sell..you must take out 500 pounds + of meat..and your trophy won't have head..skull nor paws or claws..ya the NDP mutant grizzly trophy..not sellable..

Any questions regarding g bears please pm me.
Srupp

[Wild one]

Well putting down the bow and picking up the rifle this spring. Draw odds are low so tag should be no issue

[Caribou_lou]

I could be wrong. I think what the NDP said is that if the meat is left than so should the Head and Claws. Confirming their plan that if the hunt is still open (if they are to be voted in) it won't be as a trophy hunt.

I wasnt giving them all my attention though. Was scouting on google maps at the same time. Haha

[souwester]

Only bright spot of what was on global tv is that Ian Mcallister looked like he had been on a 3 day fentanyl bender and disapproved of NDP.Pretty interesting.
Good for you Srupp.

[1899]

No political party has the keen ability to screw things up as well as the NDP. It's like they are born to lose.

[srupp]

Lol it was brought to my attention tonight that some newspaper spewing really bad views on grizzly hunting and us killers used a photo from this site..along with a fine photo of a dead Kwatna bear, and ME ..and R......

I'm a really bad man....lol..

Cheers
Notorious......

[bearvalley]

It's pretty sad when a political party uses management of a wildlife species as a vote collector.
If Mr Horgan really understood the GB issue he would realize he will be putting all GB populations at risk if he manages to achieve his goal.
If the GB hunt is shut down no one will really care how well the bears really do.
The drivers behind the anti movement will soon lose interest when their cash cow dries up.
Joe public never really cared....other than G bears make nice pictures.
To sum this up Mr Horgan might think he's on a winning move here.....the grizzly bear is definitely loosing.

[Bear Chaser]

Been saying the same thing myself bearvalley.
It's pretty sad how far things have come. In the last few years my hunting partner and I have both gone from the viewpoint that taking a grizzly was a special once in a lifetime experience to the other extreme which is kill every bear we legally can because there are so many of them that they are vermin.
It shouldn't take a PhD in wildlife management to realize what will happen to grizzlies when there is no longer any value to having them around outside the tourist photography areas.

[Rob Chipman]

"It's pretty sad when a political party uses management of a wildlife species as a vote collector."

That's the exact point. It's politicization of wildlife, and your conclusions about what happens when hunters are taken out of the mix seem correct to me.

"The drivers behind the anti movement will soon lose interest when their cash cow dries up." They may or may not lose interest in G-Bears, but I'd argue that wasn't their interest in the first place. Here's a question to ask yourself that will help clarify things (and I'm really only giving it to you in a new form - you've thought all around the edges of this already and may have already come to this realization).


Is social justice a destination, or is it a process?

If it's a destination we can solve the problem and arrive at the destination.

If it's a journey we just keep moving the goal posts. Today it's outlawing grizzly hunts. Tomorrow it's giving possession of the grizzly range and conduct of its future to FNs. Once that's done we move on to the next goal.

If social justice is a process you can lose interest in the immediate short term goal as soon as you reach it, and then just re-jig your sights to keep the cash rolling in.

[Wild one]

BCWF is our main voice for BC but if they want to hear it or not or any other hunter for that matter it is well over due to start looking at how to become a stronger voice for all hunting.

Start looking at how to bring all together which the BCWF has not acomplished yet. Really need to take a look into what hunters would like to see and why there is not more involved

Look at how to get hunters involved instead of increasing club numbers through tacking on BCFW with rod & gun club memberships ext

This is not ment to be a cheap shot but instead I see a real need for a stronger voice

[bearvalley]

Is social justice a destination, or is it a process?

If it's a destination we can solve the problem and arrive at the destination.

If it's a journey we just keep moving the goal posts. Today it's outlawing grizzly hunts. Tomorrow it's giving possession of the grizzly range and conduct of its future to FNs. Once that's done we move on to the next goal.

If social justice is a process you can lose interest in the immediate short term goal as soon as you reach it, and then just re-jig your sights to keep the cash rolling in.

In situations such as this it appears to be a process.
A process to collect either support, power or cash.

[Rob Chipman]

BV:

The key, as you see, is to recognize what the other side thinks it is. In this case our opponents think its a process, and they reject science and frame it as a moral question.

If banning the G-bear hunt is just a step along an ongoing process then trying to work out solution with the other side won't work. They aren't looking for a compromise that makes everyone happy. They're playing a longer game. That's what's happening here. The goal is power, with cash and support just helping them achieve power. The question becomes: who, exactly, are "they"?

A nice person who loves animals and therefore opposes the g-bear trophy hunt may not actually qualify as "they". That nice person may have an open mind and may be persuaded. It's important to not attack those people. We need allies. That's what social license has to mean to us: allies.

Wild One:

I think you're right. BCWF is a good vehicle for us, as far as I can see so far. The question for the BCWF is:what is our goal and can we have more than one and remain effective? Is our goal representing the interests of various clubs through the province, based on regions, outreach to youth, or conservation and maintenance of hunting rights/access?

In the past these things had lots of overlap, and none of them are bad. Going forward there may need to be some adjustments and re-focusing simply because the challenges we face are becoming more pronounced.

We recently saw a big bun fight over a long term volunteer not being treated well when he made a mistake. We can't waste resources on that sort of stuff.

It also seems to me that we have clubs that don't see value in the BCWF. We need to decide if we want to provide value to these clubs so that we retain them as an income source, or if we want to adjust the business model.

To be successful we need a clear goal, a plan to achieve it, and funding to make that possible.

[adriaticum]

Good post Rob Chipman.

All the F&G clubs should be members of the BCWF.
Both F&G clubs and BCWF are not doing enough to communicate policies, needs, directions, strategy and long term goals to all British Columbians. Not just members.
They should build an organizational structure in the BCWF that includes all clubs and use the clubs as an executive, promoter and informer.
Clubs should be representatives of the BCWF. Much like Parliament.
But you can't blame them.
Even fisheries and hatcheries are not organized. Everyone is doing their own thing more or less. Lots of fragmentation.

[Rob Chipman]

Don't get me wrong, Adriaticum. I don't disagree with your statement except I don't think it's workable.

A F&G club consists of it's members. If they don't see value in belonging to the BCWF they won't remain members. I think that's what happened with the PoCo club, for example. I think there are other examples of local F&G clubs not abiding by funding formulas (and I'm sure there's more than two sides to those stories), but the basic problem remains: if the customer doesn't see value the customer doesn't buy, and we don't get the funds we need (and by "we" I mean BCWF with a clear understanding that I'm nothing more than a member).

Second, F&G clubs may or may not be effective executives, promoters and informers. When they are, great, but when they are not, well, we lose again.

Here's a quick example: If you are a realtor in Vancouver and you want access to the MLS you need to belong to the Real Estate Board. It used to be that you had a direct membership, and could be a member or not. Companies also had to be members.

You can see the problem. An individual realtor could work for a company that was a member and thereby avoid paying membership dues themselves.

The Board changed the rules so that if a company was a member all it's sales agents had to be members, and the company was responsible for collecting and remitting the fees. Problem solved....because access to the MLS was critical to success for agents. The customer (the agent) got value from the real estate board. At the same time the customer (the company) got value from the agent (commission income). the two together made it easy for the Board to just simplify the process and increase it's revenue.

With F&G clubs, at least in the Lower Mainland, the value to the customer (the member) is largely access to a shooting range. The value to the club from BCWF is, aside from insurance for it's members, not clear to me. Many Lower Mainland F&G members are shooters first, and hunters later, if ever. If BCWF ruled that every member of a F&G club had to be a member of BCWF, and that the F&G club had to collect $100 from each member and remit it to the BCWF, BCWF would lose a ton of members. Shooters who aren't hunters don't see the benefit. There is no hammer for the BCWF to enforce membership in the way that the real estate board can enforce membership on 99% of realtors.

[adriaticum]

I agree that we have to make a distinction between shooting clubs and F&G clubs.
Shooting clubs typically don't see any value in BCWF membership.

But F&G clubs should be all about F&G.
I would really like to see F&G clubs be more involved with BCWF and find away to create a community around them.
They should have liquor licenses and be able to sell beer and spirits. Imagine how my people would be coming out on a Friday night to have dinner and a drink there while at the same time get informed about what's happening with the BCWF.
They should have regular weekly activities where people could gather and communicate. Shooting range is not that activity.
F&G clubs should be a lot of things.
Pubs, Movie Theaters, Banquet Halls etc.
Some of the clubs are doing some of the things.
But they can't be only about F&G because people's lives are 99.5% not about F&G and yet we have to build a community if we want to be organized, informed and stick together.
In Europe, F&G clubs are much more than just about F&G and shooting.
They are place of gathering and conversation.

[Rob Chipman]

The trick is to figure out how to make clubs raise more funds. I'm no expert, but, listening to guys at the RMEF, they say they get a huge bump from everyday folks holding game dinners, etc.

You are correct that when you build community you build strength.

[bearvalley]

Wild One:

I think you're right. BCWF is a good vehicle for us, as far as I can see so far. The question for the BCWF is:what is our goal and can we have more than one and remain effective? Is our goal representing the interests of various clubs through the province, based on regions, outreach to youth, or conservation and maintenance of hunting rights/access?


Rob, I'd like to comment on this even though it's addressed to Wild One.
The BCWF is an organization that means well for all outdoor activities. The BCWF is a broad based group made up of 50,000 or so paid up members with a wide range of beliefs. Only a portion of those members are hunters but we are led to beleive they all are.
In fact, I will guarantee that there are anti hunters within the ranks.
The BCWF president and myself have discussed this more than once.
Going forward we need an organization that represents our traditional and cultural rights to hunt. This group needs to represent the FN hunter, the resident hunter and the guided hunters. We need to pull all hunters to the table with our differences set aside and go to work on wildlife management and the security of our privilege to hunt.
It's going to be tough.
There are individuals within the BCWF that do not want to see this happen.
There are some hard feelings that have been created within the resident hunting community and the GO industry.
FN people are tired of being called poachers because they exercise their constitutional right to hunt.
This division needs to come to an end.
There are anti hunting groups that thrive on our weakness because it allows them the opportunity to make money.
And then we have the politicians and the bureaucrats.
This is the group that does not want to see the kind of unity I have suggested that we need.
If we ever had a strong, united group that spoke up for hunters and wildlife this group would actually have to listen and do their job.
So to summarize, the BCWF is not strong enough to represent us going forward on hunting issues.
We need an organization that speaks for all hunters equally.
That organization has to have the long term goal of sustainable wildlife not just be driven by the goal of executing their personal rights.

[GoatGuy]

Rob, I'd like to comment on this even though it's addressed to Wild One.
The BCWF is an organization that means well for all outdoor activities. The BCWF is a broad based group made up of 50,000 or so paid up members with a wide range of beliefs. Only a portion of those members are hunters but we are led to beleive they all are.
In fact, I will guarantee that there are anti hunters within the ranks.
The BCWF president and myself have discussed this more than once.
Going forward we need an organization that represents our traditional and cultural rights to hunt. This group needs to represent the FN hunter, the resident hunter and the guided hunters. We need to pull all hunters to the table with our differences set aside and go to work on wildlife management and the security of our privilege to hunt.
It's going to be tough.
There are individuals within the BCWF that do not want to see this happen.
There are some hard feelings that have been created within the resident hunting community and the GO industry.
FN people are tired of being called poachers because they exercise their constitutional right to hunt.
This division needs to come to an end.
There are anti hunting groups that thrive on our weakness because it allows them the opportunity to make money.
And then we have the politicians and the bureaucrats.
This is the group that does not want to see the kind of unity I have suggested that we need.
If we ever had a strong, united group that spoke up for hunters and wildlife this group would actually have to listen and do their job.
So to summarize, the BCWF is not strong enough to represent us going forward on hunting issues.
We need an organization that speaks for all hunters equally.
That organization has to have the long term goal of sustainable wildlife not just be driven by the goal of executing their personal rights.

The concept sounds good.

For the wildlife management realm things work well when there's trust, accountability, integrity and a focus on science-based management. When one or more of those are missing, not so much.

The exclusive/unilateral/predatory approach diverts time, energy and resources away from important matters. The days of spending 98% of time on 2% of the problem are over.

[Wild one]

Rob, I'd like to comment on this even though it's addressed to Wild One.
The BCWF is an organization that means well for all outdoor activities. The BCWF is a broad based group made up of 50,000 or so paid up members with a wide range of beliefs. Only a portion of those members are hunters but we are led to beleive they all are.
In fact, I will guarantee that there are anti hunters within the ranks.
The BCWF president and myself have discussed this more than once.
Going forward we need an organization that represents our traditional and cultural rights to hunt. This group needs to represent the FN hunter, the resident hunter and the guided hunters. We need to pull all hunters to the table with our differences set aside and go to work on wildlife management and the security of our privilege to hunt.
It's going to be tough.
There are individuals within the BCWF that do not want to see this happen.
There are some hard feelings that have been created within the resident hunting community and the GO industry.
FN people are tired of being called poachers because they exercise their constitutional right to hunt.
This division needs to come to an end.
There are anti hunting groups that thrive on our weakness because it allows them the opportunity to make money.
And then we have the politicians and the bureaucrats.
This is the group that does not want to see the kind of unity I have suggested that we need.
If we ever had a strong, united group that spoke up for hunters and wildlife this group would actually have to listen and do their job.
So to summarize, the BCWF is not strong enough to represent us going forward on hunting issues.
We need an organization that speaks for all hunters equally.
That organization has to have the long term goal of sustainable wildlife not just be driven by the goal of executing their personal rights.


I would say we are on the same page but right now it appears BCFW is our only voice. I see it as we need either the BCWF works on improving there orginization to better represent hunters or another orginization needs to be created.

Since the BCWF is part way there already it would be easier to get them to step up rather than creat another orginization from scratch

I am willing to give the BCWF a chance

[Mulehahn]

I will address the issue of the ban first. First Nations are one of the key promoters of the ban, if one were to watch the news and read the sights BC First Nations are completely different than those in Alberta, Washington, Montana, the Yukon and Alaska as they do not kill grizzlies as they are too sacred. If that is the case they should lead by example and be the first to sign an agreement to never hunt a grizzly again! The reality is quite different of course. They only reason they support the ban is because it will allow them to kill as many grizzlies as they want while CHARGING people to view them. They get to have their cake and eat it to. Until conservation is based on science instead of race problems will only get worse, much much worse. For all sides.

Regarding the BCWF, it could be the group to lead. It just doesn't want to be. In my opinion many on the BCWF leadership are more concerned about not being wrong (or having their wrong doings discovered) than about doing what is right. I firmly believe that the BCWF could be a force by the 2021 election. But to do that they have to do a few things. First, they should call a full and complete audit from the regional levels up. The audit should be completed in time for the 2018 AGM. That would give 2 years to restructure. Not a lot of time but it has a solid foundation so it wouldn't require that much. They should also do better at self promoting and more selective. For example, a booth at the Merrit Music Festival is a waste a as it is the wrong crowd/attitude. Yet the BCWF does significant work in the are. Promote with in the town and you will draw locals who actually care for less cost. They also need to be more forthcoming with its members. There seems to be a notion that they work in a vacuum and that all the rumours are contained. I can assure you they are not, they only get worse.

[bearvalley]

The concept sounds good.

For the wildlife management realm things work well when there's trust, accountability, integrity and a focus on science-based management. When one or more of those are missing, not so much.

The exclusive/unilateral/predatory approach diverts time, energy and resources away from important matters. The days of spending 98% of time on 2% of the problem are over.

Exactly Jesse, and don't forget that applies to all parties actions when it comes to accountability.
Right now there is no unblemished team.
Neither mine, yours, theirs or ours.
I would suggest you think about that.

[GoatGuy]

Exactly Jesse, and don't forget that applies to all parties actions when it comes to accountability.
Right now there is no unblemished team.
Neither mine, yours, theirs or ours.
I would suggest you think about that.


Personally, never seen teams. A group of loosely organized individuals, or well organized agendas.

As said, best to invest in the relationships that provide a return lol. Time is precious.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Exactly Jesse, and don't forget that applies to all parties actions when it comes to accountability.
Right now there is no unblemished team.
Neither mine, yours, theirs or ours.
I would suggest you think about that.

Where do the Talhtan stand on this issue...since they have several hands in the GO industry and have no problem hunting grizzly bears??

[Bonz]

I will address the issue of the ban first. First Nations are one of the key promoters of the ban, if one were to watch the news and read the sights BC First Nations are completely different than those in Alberta, Washington, Montana, the Yukon and Alaska as they do not kill grizzlies as they are too sacred. If that is the case they should lead by example and be the first to sign an agreement to never hunt a grizzly again! The reality is quite different of course. They only reason they support the ban is because it will allow them to kill as many grizzlies as they want while CHARGING people to view them. They get to have their cake and eat it to. Until conservation is based on science instead of race problems will only get worse, much much worse. For all sides.

Regarding the BCWF, it could be the group to lead. It just doesn't want to be. In my opinion many on the BCWF leadership are more concerned about not being wrong (or having their wrong doings discovered) than about doing what is right. I firmly believe that the BCWF could be a force by the 2021 election. But to do that they have to do a few things. First, they should call a full and complete audit from the regional levels up. The audit should be completed in time for the 2018 AGM. That would give 2 years to restructure. Not a lot of time but it has a solid foundation so it wouldn't require that much. They should also do better at self promoting and more selective. For example, a booth at the Merrit Music Festival is a waste a as it is the wrong crowd/attitude. Yet the BCWF does significant work in the are. Promote with in the town and you will draw locals who actually care for less cost. They also need to be more forthcoming with its members. There seems to be a notion that they work in a vacuum and that all the rumours are contained. I can assure you they are not, they only get worse.

glad someone else see`s that music thing as silly. nothing to do with our activities at all.
ya i get it was for donations. but im sure it cost something to be there.

[bearvalley]

Where do the Talhtan stand on this issue...since they have several hands in the GO industry and have no problem hunting grizzly bears??

Direct the question to the Tahltans, Brent.
I don't speak for them.
Their members that are outfitters have no issue in hunting grizzly bears.

[Bonz]

what ive read from that groups statement is if your non native or dont live there, beat it. for any animals.
they call it trespassing on their land more than an animal thing

"The group is calling for hunters that do not live in the territory to respect this situation."

"All members of the public that do not receive permission may be stopped, particularly non-Tahltan hunters, from trespassing on Tahltan reserve lands and using the road."

"The road in question has been identified by the Tahltan as in trespass as they claim it is not a public road. This means the Province has no tenure for the road."

[Rob Chipman]

"So to summarize, the BCWF is not strong enough to represent us going forward on hunting issues.
We need an organization that speaks for all hunters equally".

The question of whether the BCWF is the right vehicle to do what we want is a fair one. The answer depends on several issues. It's worth examining those issues because the BCWF has a lot going for it.

First, it has a fairly large membership, as you point out, but it also has a lot of organizational infrastructure. That's nothing to sneeze at. Creating that from scratch wouldn't be easy.

Second, we need to come together to decide 1) who we are and 2) what our goals are. You're suggesting an organization that represents FN hunters, non-FN resident hunters, and guided hunters in order to preserve our privilege/right to hunt. I'm not sure I'm 100% with you on that, so there's a concrete example of what I mean when I say who are "we" and what do we want.

Third, if we come together and decide who we are and what we want we need to test if the BCWF is the vehicle.

What I'd like to see is a body that can persuade the government as well as a significant portion of the population that we need to manage wildlife according to the North American Conservation Model, with the twin goals of protecting and enhancing our traditional right to hunt as well as maintaining and enhancing diverse and sustainable wildlife populations and landscapes.

What that would look like is a government that explicitly commits to scientific management of wildlife, and that holds wildlife as a public trust, not as a resource to generate revenue. When someone argues that we have to stop a grizzly hunt because its not moral, and because FNs regard the grizzly a certain way, and because the g-bear hunt is a proxy for something else, the public conversation would pit the two against each other: science vs. a political agenda. We've seen that in the climate change fight, and while both sides can be said to be pursuing an agenda there's no question that the role of science is well respected. When it comes to wildlife in BC we actually have people arguing that science is not the appropriate method for conservation decisions. This has to stop.

We would also see an honest accounting of the economic benefits of hunting, from the money spent on it to the value of the sustainable harvest, in conjunction with honest discussions about where our food comes from. Right now the economic benefits that are discussed and accepted are the benefits that accrue to a small group of (and I use the term generously) "stakeholders". This has to stop. There is only one valid stakeholder - the public. Everyone else claiming that label is merely a special interest group. Wildlife and the landscape belongs to all of us, regardless off race, wealth, gender or politics.

We would also see a recognition that man has been a hunter for 100s of thousands of years. While not every person in our long history has hunted, we all evolved as hunters and hunting is in our DNA.

There are more examples of practical applications of the NACM, protecting and enhancing our right to hunt, and protection and enhancement of a sustainable landscape with a healthy and diverse wildlife population, but I'll leave that for now.

We can argue with each other (and by each other in this sense I mean all British Columbians) over who will hold the levers of power and what they will then do with them. That's not the way to go. A better route is to harness the communication power of the internet (whether the educational power of youtube or the opinion influencing power of social media) as well as the crowd-sourcing power that we see today (whether to raise money or labour) and use that to change the culture so that we don't argue about things from a low information basis ("I support the g-bear trophy hunt ban because g-bears are endangered and trophy hunting is barbaric" to "All of us in this province manage wildlife so well that everyone who wants to, not just rich people who can pay, can see grizzlies, elk, moose and whatever, and everyone who wants to can hunt and fill their freezers with healthy, organic free range sustainable meat").

Again, is the BCWF the vehicle? I don't know. However, I will point out (and I'm not making any value judgements on anyone's politics - I'm just providing data): as early as 2009 Steve Bannon identified a problem that had to be solved, and he identified several obstacles to the solution. The first one he identified was the Republican Party. He said he had to either break it or take it over. If you don't know who Steve Bannon is, he's the rebel outside the box thinker who appears on stage with President elect Trump, unshaven, and without a tie. In less than a decade he's gone from an outsider with a goal and a plan to achieve it to being the guy behind the guy (which is probably why he's accused of everything short of being a child pornographer).

I'm not saying the BCWF has to be either broken or taken over. But clearly it's possible to re-focus it to make it more effective. I don't know enough of its members to say, but I wouldn't be surprised if many of them were in fact very supportive of making the sort of change I'm talking about. After all, who doesn't like clean air, clean water, wildlife, wild landscapes, and access to all four things?

[bearvalley]

Rob, I cannot disagree with what you are saying.

[adriaticum]

This is a pretty limp statement from the federation.
That's all I'm going to say about that.

[Rob Chipman]

^^^^There is room for improvement and focus.

An example of harnessing YouTube for educational purposes can be found in Randy Newberg's series on public land transfer in the US. For those who are not aware, the transfer of US federally owned lands in the West to the individual states is a big issue, and it puts many hunters in a tough position in that it seems that if they vote for Democrats they'll lose their guns, and if they vote for Republicans they'll lose access to the hunting landscape. The fear is that if federally owned lands are transferred to the state governments the state governments will a) restrict access to them and b) end up selling them to private interests. There are lots of competing narratives, and lots of competing interests. For those who support the transfer of land from the Feds to the states there is a really simple drum to bang: everyone hates the federal government, the federal government can't do anything right, and the feds in Washington shouldn't be telling us out here what to do. And, of course, hunters are divided on the issue, and hunters are not building the alliances with other user groups that could be very beneficial to everyone.



It's easy to see the parallels: we have political parties opposed to each other, but none of them are clearly on the side of hunters. Vote for the NDP because you don't like what the Liberals did with GOABC and quota and you get anti-hunters in power. Vote for the Liberals and you get the G-bear hunt (maybe) but you get commercialization of wildlife. Vote for the Greens? At best you get a voice in opposition.

Access? We know that the G-bear hunt is a proxy for control over the wild landscapes that we enjoy. I understand that FNs have constitutional rights, and what's more, I understand that FNs have a legitimate claim to control over their lives (meaning we need to reconcile the cultural conflict that has been occurring in North America since non-aboriginals arrived here - that's jut reality) but we've seen a trend to FNs acquiring the power to deny other citizens access to the landscape. That won't affect just hunters. There are private interests involved.

Competing narratives? We've got them in spades, and many of them are misleading, but really, really sexy. Many don't stand up to any serious criticism ("I'm ok with hunting for meat, but this whole trophy hunting thing is just wrong!")

We have HBC members who make pretty good videos and post them on YouTube. On the other hand we have (unless I'm missing something) the BCWF issuing press releases that are, in the words of some, "limp".

Again, I could be wrong, but when I search Youtube for "BCWF" I find a wrestling organization. If I search "BC Wildlife Federation" I find a channel with three videos over 5 years.

I think we have an opportunity to exploit.

Here's a link to Newberg's 16 video series on his issue. We can learn from his example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvFqQuubnyI

(Don't get me wrong - we've scratched the surface - look at one of the BCWF videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yheQk-I8tbU)

[Wild one]

Biggest ? Is would the BCWF be willing to consider making changes to become a stronger voice for hunter

[180grainer]

Would have preferred a reference by the BCWF that they are "not" in favor of politicizing wildlife issues such as the Grizzly hunt. After all, that's what this is. The NDP are looking to capitalize on the naive views of the non-hunting urban population that the hunt is not sustainable or that it interferes with the Eco-tourist interests. Both of these suggestions from what I've read are false . The Grizzly hunt should remain or not based on scientific monitoring and evidence on how the hunt impacts the overall population and its sustainability, period.

[DarekG]

Maybe the NDP should work with the First Nations on this (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?132985-Indigenous-hunter-s-Facebook-posts-draw-criticism&p=1851930#post1851930) instead.