PDA

View Full Version : BC NDP on Grizzly Bear Trophy Hunt Ban- Questions Answered



BCWF
12-18-2016, 07:47 AM
BC NDP on Grizzly Bear Trophy Hunt Ban


The BC New Democrats recently released their position on the British Columbia Grizzly Bear hunt; a number of questions arose from our membership regarding that release.


Here are the BC New Democrat Party’s answers to questions about the details of their proposed ban submitted by the BCWF to John Horgan, Leader, New Democrat Official Opposition.


QUESTION: Under the new proposed policy would residents of B.C. have opportunity under the LEH system to continue to harvest Grizzly bears?


• Yes. This is not about being opposed to hunting. This is about being opposed to the grizzly bear trophy hunt and only the grizzly bear trophy hunt.

• B.C. hunters will continue to have the opportunity under the LEH system to harvest grizzly bear utilizing the entire bear. We will ensure we use science-based decisions to determine the numbers of LEH tags allowed in various areas. If there aren't enough bears there won’t be a hunt and vice versa.


QUESTION: Under the new proposed policy would non-residents of B.C. continue to have opportunity to harvest Grizzly bears?


• Yes. We are not proposing changes to any hunting regulations except as they relate to the grizzly bear trophy hunt.

• That said, the 2015 changes to allocations for resident/non-resident by the liberal government were wrong. We stood with hunters in 2015 when the government took away hunting rights from British Columbians to give more to foreign hunters. Resident hunters make a significant contribution to B.C.’s rural economy and way of life, hunting to feed their families with B.C. game and contribute to wildlife conservation activities.


BCWF: Under the new proposed policy would the NDP commit to manage the Grizzly bear harvest using the best available science?


• Yes. The government has been cutting boots on the ground and scientific research on wildlife for 15 years, so there’s considerable dispute about the actual animal population numbers. We agree with the BC Wildlife Federation who point out that a failure to adequately fund biodiversity conservation is one of the biggest challenges B.C. faces.

• We need funding for research into grizzly bear and other animal populations. Ministry staff needs stable and ongoing research funding to know if their population numbers are reliable. These concerns are reflected in the recent review of the grizzly bear management system released by MoF and FLNRO:

• Resources dedicated to grizzly bear harvest management are inadequate. Additional funding to improve population inventory, monitoring, data handling, and analysis is needed.

• Resources should be provided in a predictable manner to facilitate management needs and research requirements.

• The NDP tabled a bill last spring, the Sustainable Wildlife Management Act, to provide new and alternative funding, give wildlife and habitat a priority, and engage all hunting and wildlife groups to work collaboratively toward short and long term plans for fisheries, wildlife and habitat. The government rejected our bill.

http://bcndpcaucus.ca/news/new-democrats-show-leadership-conservation-fish-wildlife/
___________________________________

BgBlkDg
12-18-2016, 08:21 AM
This, seems contradictory to me as the point about non-residents being still allowed to hunt Grizzlies does not jibe with the "ban" on "trophy hunting" these bears.......what other type of hunting for them IS there for non-residents except a "trophy hunt"??????

I very strongly support FAR more restrictive policies on "non-resident alien" hunting and angling in BC as the available game and fish are not sufficient for we citizens. I want other CANADIANS to have opportunities here as in "accompanied" sheep hunts, rather than seeing rich Yankees killing OUR game.

I also DO NOT support mandatory meat removal for bears as this is nonsense.

tuner
12-18-2016, 08:28 AM
I'll gladly donate my delicious grizzly meat to the provincial NDP convention, so that John Horgan and co. Can savour
the fruits of their labour, while standing in their moral high ground. Bon Apetit!!!

Bear Chaser
12-18-2016, 08:59 AM
Only a complete and total idiot would vote for the NDP to be the champion of hunters rights and science based conservation.

Bonz
12-18-2016, 09:14 AM
more reasearch...lol
gov only been doing research for 15 years? realy? or does he mean only grizzly, its says all wildlife, confusing facts again?
i dont buy any of that, side stepped alot of the crap hes already commented about

Bonz
12-18-2016, 09:18 AM
how do non res hunt them when they cant take the meat home to their country because of the gov`s own stupid paper work hustle and rules, to make money and deny you anyways.
wheres the responce to leaving the fur/skull for even us? was said before that will be left in the bush and only remove meat.

RiverBear
12-18-2016, 09:18 AM
I've been apply for grizz draws for the past few years. My question is (just Kidding) how does a guy get one of these trophy hunt tags, are the bears in these areas that much better

325
12-18-2016, 09:39 AM
Only a complete and total idiot would vote for the NDP to be the champion of hunters rights and science based conservation.

Absolutely correct. The NDP will betray BC hunters once elected, guaranteed.

KodiakHntr
12-18-2016, 09:41 AM
how do non res hunt them when they cant take the meat home to their country because of the gov`s own stupid paper work hustle and rules, to make money and deny you anyways.
wheres the responce to leaving the fur/skull for even us? was said before that will be left in the bush and only remove meat.

That is exactly the point. This way they look like they are trying to work with us, but they are removing opportunities for hunters. "Of course you can hunt a grizz, but you have to take out the meat. Oh? You can't take the meat home? Guess you can't hunt then can you......"

Bonz
12-18-2016, 09:46 AM
he keeps talking they will use science based facts...but he isnt doing that now, what makes anyone think he will use real facts once ellected, i dont see him use the science now to say their is an issue and it needs to stop. hes repeated the antihunter info and they dont have anything to back that, they cant even back the so called 90% of cdn want grizzly shut down..ive yet to see that stat published or where it came from even, but yet people buy it, and have for years...same stat to. resold each year like its new...lol

and again. we have nobody that will expose all the lies from our side lol

warnniklz
12-18-2016, 10:52 AM
I don't understand. The want to ban tropjy grizzly bear hunting... but there's still a grizzly bear hunt? Then just repeating that they need to base it on science...

Wild one
12-18-2016, 11:06 AM
NDP gets voted in here in BC it will be cheaper and easier to move away well they are in power lol

Even if they were great for hunting they are brutal for the economy. Can't hunt much if you can't afford to go

180grainer
12-18-2016, 07:45 PM
BC NDP on Grizzly Bear Trophy Hunt Ban


The BC New Democrats recently released their position on the British Columbia Grizzly Bear hunt; a number of questions arose from our membership regarding that release.


Here are the BC New Democrat Party’s answers to questions about the details of their proposed ban submitted by the BCWF to John Horgan, Leader, New Democrat Official Opposition.


QUESTION: Under the new proposed policy would residents of B.C. have opportunity under the LEH system to continue to harvest Grizzly bears?


• Yes. This is not about being opposed to hunting. This is about being opposed to the grizzly bear trophy hunt and only the grizzly bear trophy hunt. Hunting Grizzly is a trophy hunt. So by your definition you are opposed. However, Grizzly hunting is also a wildlife management strategy. How do you propose to offset the information that Grizzly hunting provides?

• B.C. hunters will continue to have the opportunity under the LEH system to harvest grizzly bear utilizing the entire bear. The bear hunt is a trophy hunt. Call it what it is. But it's also a invaluable wildlife management tool. Something the opponents of the hunt fail to acknowledge. Get over yourself. The hunt will never endanger the species. It is well regulated and monitored. Quit catering to the ill-informed and quit politicizing this issue. That's the best thing you could do at the moment. We will ensure we use science-based decisions to determine the numbers of LEH tags allowed in various areas. If there aren't enough bears there won’t be a hunt and vice versa. Have you done studies which extrapolate what the increase of Grizzly populations will have on other wildlife as well as other stakeholders, (hikers, campers) who use the environment. As an Apex animal, one would think that logically you would not want them over populating. How do you propose to keep populations in check with other wildlife in those areas where bears increase beyond what's sustainable?


QUESTION: Under the new proposed policy would non-residents of B.C. continue to have opportunity to harvest Grizzly bears?


• Yes. We are not proposing changes to any hunting regulations except as they relate to the grizzly bear trophy hunt. Are you willing to make the statement that you see hunting as a necessary and beneficial activity to proper wildlife management?

• That said, the 2015 changes to allocations for resident/non-resident by the liberal government were wrong. We stood with hunters in 2015 when the government took away hunting rights from British Columbians to give more to foreign hunters. Resident hunters make a significant contribution to B.C.’s rural economy and way of life, hunting to feed their families with B.C. game and contribute to wildlife conservation activities. You don't stand behind hunters. You criticized a sitting government. It's when you're in power that your true colors are revealed. Democracy is a scam, as you will show us, in that 51% of the population can ram their ideology down the throats of the other 49%. Your attempt at politicizing this issue is nothing more than that. Banking on the idea that most will vote for you because they don't understand the significance of the Grizzly hunt to managing the overall environment.


BCWF: Under the new proposed policy would the NDP commit to manage the Grizzly bear harvest using the best available science?


• Yes. The government has been cutting boots on the ground and scientific research on wildlife for 15 years, so there’s considerable dispute about the actual animal population numbers. We agree with the BC Wildlife Federation who point out that a failure to adequately fund biodiversity conservation is one of the biggest challenges B.C. faces.

• We need funding for research into grizzly bear and other animal populations. Ministry staff needs stable and ongoing research funding to know if their population numbers are reliable. These concerns are reflected in the recent review of the grizzly bear management system released by MoF and FLNRO: Are you willing to dedicate the money generated through the licensing of hunting and the LEH system for this purpose? The money is generated by this resource. How much are you willing to put back into it from this venue? Give us a number to hold you too.

• Resources dedicated to grizzly bear harvest management are inadequate. Additional funding to improve population inventory, monitoring, data handling, and analysis is needed. Are you willing to put the money generated through the Grizzly LEH and Grizzly licenses directly back into Grizzly management? Are you willing to contribute a percentage? What percentage? How much have you asked the eco-tourist fascists, who continually insist that the hunt and "their business" can't co-exist, are they willing to put forward from their bottom line towards assisting Grizzly management?

• Resources should be provided in a predictable manner to facilitate management needs and research requirements. Resources are provided in a predictable manner. They are consistently insufficient.

• The NDP tabled a bill last spring, the Sustainable Wildlife Management Act, to provide new and alternative funding, give wildlife and habitat a priority, and engage all hunting and wildlife groups to work collaboratively toward short and long term plans for fisheries, wildlife and habitat. The government rejected our bill. People don't trust you because you're socialists and you continually rob peter to pay paul. You, like other governments will not put the money into wildlife conservation because undoubtedly you have numerous other entitlement handouts that will make wildlife conservation a very distant consideration.

http://bcndpcaucus.ca/news/new-democrats-show-leadership-conservation-fish-wildlife/
___________________________________

.................................................. ..............................................

bearvalley
12-18-2016, 08:42 PM
The grizzly bear trophy hunt ban is nothing more than a ballot initiative put forth by the NDP.
This initiative is completely lacking as to the long term management of grizzlies in the future if the NDP is successful in pulling this off.

The harvest of a grizzly bear is part of wildlife management, whether we want to think so or not. We cannot leave one species un-hunted and left to themselves. Not even the "iconic" grizzly as some like to call them.

Heres a few points from a guy that guides non resident aliens, non resident Canadians and BC residents for grizzly bears. These are the hunters taking the rap for hunting grizzly bears for trophies.

Every grizzly taken by a client is a boost to other species of wildlife, whether the NDP or the uneducated public wants to beleive it or not. I've seen what a grizzly bear can do to a goat population or how they can lower the recruitment of moose and caribou calves. You can bet they like lanb chops and elk calves make a damn good snack as well.

In a lot of BC, grizzly hunts are under utilized by residents. Take a look at last years regulation change where a northern RM proposed to triple the number of LEH authorizations in a MU due to the abundance of grizzly bears.
My bet is that even with the increase the resident harvest will fall short of target. That's if we get to keep the hunt.

Right now BC is facing some tough wildlife management issues.
The major culprits are habitat degradation due to the removal of the protective canopy and the creation of unlimited access.
This combination has put unprecedented predation squarely onto wildlife. Both two legged predators and the four legged kind.
The "mystical" wolf is the most commonly blamed predator for wildlife declines and rightly so. The wolf does one hell of a job of killing animals but most don't get it that bears do even better at stopping wildlife recruitment, even if and when wolf numbers are put in check.

As for meat removal on bears...its total horse shit. A bear is a predator, the same as a wolf or wolverine. They should be managed as a predator. The fur should be utilized, the meat should be left up to the discretion of the hunter as to if it is packed out of the bush for human consumption or left to be utilized by scavenging wildlife.
No one is shooting grizzly bears strictly as table fare and I will personally deliver the rankest smelling, tough old grizzly carcass to any clown that tells me they like the taste of grizzly meat.

It's absolutely pathetic when a political party uses a species of wildlife as a vote gathering ploy.
I hope the BCWF has the backbone to stand up and put forth that message....loud and clear.

Fisher-Dude
12-18-2016, 11:09 PM
It's odd that NDP candidates are contradicting Horgan.

Well, no, it's not odd at all. The candidate isn't trying to bullshit hunters until after the election.



NDP pledge to end grizzly hunt brings debate out of hibernation

By Ezra Black

In 2008, Elk Valley hunter Mario Rocca shot a grizzly bear.

It was the culmination of over two decades of effort. Permits to hunt grizzlies are hard to come by and that year only one was issued for the Elk Valley.

In next May’s provincial election, hunters like Rocca could be setting their sights on New Democrat John Horgan who has promised to end B.C.’s grizzly bear hunt if his party forms the next government.

They’ll be armed with votes and not rifles.

“I know a lot more about bears than the leader of the NDP. I don’t know if he’s ever seen a grizzly bear in the wild,” said Rocca, a past-president of the Fernie Rod and Gun Club. “He’s not a hunter. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to wildlife. He’s governed by emotion, not science. From the hunters’ perspective things are being managed. We’re not going to run out of grizzly bears.”

In 2000, the NDP banned the grizzly hunt. In 2001, the Liberals were elected and ended the ban.

Tom Shypitka, the Liberal candidate for East Kootenay, said the New Democrats lost several rural seats in 2001 in part because of their stance on grizzly bear hunting. He said their decision to go for another ban betrays an urban bias.

“My reaction to the NDP's announcement was astonishment and disappointment,” he said. “They have rural members. They went through this in 2001. They have to know there are enough bears to hunt and that rural people believe in hunting. The only explanation for their decision to ban something that is supported in rural B.C. is that they have written off rural B.C. They must remember. Obviously they don't care about rural seats.”

Shypitka accused the NDP of making “a wildlife management decision on the basis of emotion, politics and urban bias.”

“Wildlife management decisions should be made on the basis of what the science supports,” he said. “If there are enough bears in a unit to support a hunt, a hunt is allowed. If there are insufficient bears to support a hunt, no hunt is allowed. That is how wildlife should be managed.”

Further left on the political spectrum, Randal Macnair, the NDP’s candidate for East Kootenay, said he’s “always supported science-based wildlife management,” but that the Liberals have got it all wrong.

“I understand why a ban has been proposed,” he said. “It is in large part a result of the appalling mismanagement of wildlife and habitat by the BC Liberals.”

Macnair said that while the Liberals have been touting their environmental management system, the fact remains that grizzly bear populations in the East Kootenay are in trouble.

“Grizzly bears used to roam from Manitoba to Mexico all across western North America,” he said. “B.C. is now their last stronghold and they are no longer living in some areas in the southern portion of our province including the Rocky Mountain Trench. A BC NDP government will work to bring everyone together to protect this special, iconic animal.”

Horgan’s announcement is dividing politicians and hunters but recently published studies suggest the real losers in the Elk Valley are bears.

Corinne Hoetmer, project coordinator for The South Rockies Grizzly Bear Project in the Elk Valley, said that while hunting accounts for a number of grizzly bear deaths a much larger number are killed in other human-bear conflicts.

The South Rockies Grizzly Bear Project is a long term, ongoing population inventory of grizzly bears lead by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations in the Kootenay Region.

Hoetmer said the Elk Valley has become an ecological trap for grizzly bears. The animals are drawn to the valley because of food and are then killed by humans.

“More grizzlies die from non-hunting related causes in this area than anywhere else in B.C.,” she said.

Citing a paper published by Mowatt and Lamb on the population of grizzly bears in the Southern Rockies and Flathead, Hoetmer said the South Rockies grizzly bear population declined by 40 per cent between 2006 and 2014. This decline was most likely due to a decade of poor foraging in combination with an increase in human-caused mortality.

There were 116 grizzly bear mortalities recorded in the South Rockies and 44 in the Flathead during this period.

Of the human-caused mortalities in the South Rockies, 38 per cent were hunter kills, 25 per cent were for animal control and other similar reasons, 28 per cent occurred on highways and railways and 8 per cent were illegal. In the Flathead, 91 per cent of recorded kills were by hunters and 9 per cent were control kills.

“This non-hunting mortality is much more difficult to mitigate than the regulatory changes involved with mitigating mortality due to hunting,” said Hoetmer.

Joe Caravetta, an inspector with the B.C. Conservation Service's Kootenay-Boundary region, explained the number of grizzly bears hunted in the Elk Valley varies from year to year depending on population estimates.

“There are bears shot in self-defense, there are bears that are shot for protection of property, there are bears killed on the highway and there are bears killed by railways,” he said. “After taking those things into consideration we decide on what the population can handle.”

The Wildlife Act requires certain parts of an animal to be packed out of the bush once it’s been shot. While a hunter may choose to pack out its hide, paws or head, there is no requirement to pack out a grizzly bear’s meat, he said.

Grizzly bear meat is not generally eaten because it can carry the parasite that causes trichinosis, said Caravetta. The number of grizzly hunting permits issued in the Elk Valley is small. From 2013 to 2015, only one was given out.

“It’s probably the most intensely managed hunt in the province,” he said. “It’s the highest profile.”

Calling the practice “primarily a trophy hunt,” Wildsight, a Kootenay-based environmental group, has come out in favour of the ban.

“It is clear that hunting has a significant impact on grizzly bear populations in the region,” said John Bergenske, Wildsight’s conservation director. “Eliminating the hunt should significantly increase grizzly bear survival. Grizzly bears are very slow reproducers, so loss of any females in a population can significantly impact the long-term health of a population.”

Bonz
12-19-2016, 08:29 AM
one thing on the meat removal to. do we not use that carrying capacity idea to regulate the numbers. i know theirs more to it than just that, but it is one of the main sciences.
so if were using science, can someone show me in that carrying capacity where it says it will only work if we remove the meat and ate it? isnt it about just removing the animal? killing it. the food is our pay in a way for doing gov work that would happen regardless. we see it with the deer or wolf culls..they get it either way, but costs are way higher if they do it.
ive said that to a few anti`s in discission, seems to shut them up. they arent used to that one and dont have their scripted responce to it

Bonz
12-19-2016, 08:32 AM
i been watching his facebook page for him to release that first info from him, seems he`s avoided bragging about that one on there. wonder why he hides it. its obviously said diff than first statements so he avoiding his own tree hugger type from jumping on him to? he sure isnt very consistant at the answers on same questiions

Rob Chipman
12-20-2016, 01:17 PM
Bearvalley:

You bring up a lot of good points. I don't think the public is ready to hear some of them yet, and I've never seen "Well, they better bloody well listen and wise up" work as a good sales tool :-)

I think that we need to start changing the perception of hunting, conservation, wildlife and wild places, and I think we need to do that with a long term plan.

"It's absolutely pathetic when a political party uses a species of wildlife as a vote gathering ploy."

I think that's one of the first messages to get out. So far I've heard the Green Party and the NDP say they believe that science is the proper tool for the discharge of wildlife management. I think Andrew Weaver has actually committed to that (witness his support for predator control), but I'm not sure the rest of his party believes it. I suspect the NDP is just paying lip service to the idea.

I don't know where the Liberals stand on it (if anyone does, please get me details).

Regardless, I think the hunting community should, over the long term, define what is meant by science and then keep hammering the message.


"I hope the BCWF has the backbone to stand up and put forth that message....loud and clear."

I don't think it's a question of backbone, but I also don't have the knowledge on that to make a fair judgement. I also don't think we need to backbone to pick a fight with anyone in order to demonstrate how big and brassy our nuts are. I think we need to backbone to commit to a long term project of educating ourselves (look how often hunters disagree on management and science) and, more important, the 80% of voters who don't care all that much one way or another about hunting.

I'm going to try to make some concrete progress on this at the Region 2 Board of Directors of the BCWF by suggesting a year long policy of getting our message out to the hunting community, and through our community leverage that message to as many non-hunters as possible. That may not be the vehicle, but we'll see. We've got less than 6 months to the election, and those 6 months will be prime time for discussion.


We have a lot of personality conflicts in our community, but we also have an awful lot of expertise and knowledge. We need to put that where the people are, and that means Youtube, Facebook and Twitter. If I type "grizzly bear" into the search bar of my Facebook page I get 8 results immediately. 2 of them reference stopping the BC grizzly hunt. None of the other 6 results provide a counter point to these.

If you've only got one guy selling an idea in a marketplace of ideas, and that idea is stopping a grizzly hunt on moral grounds, he's the guy who's going to make the sale. We can't win a game that we don't even play. We need to start playing. The grizzly hunt is just a battle. As we should recognize from all our talks on this forum about mule deer, whitetail, moose, FNs, predator control, habitat and, above all else, a plan and a funding model, the war is going to last a lot longer.

As I said, I'm going to see if the Region 2 Board of the BCWF is interested in this, and I'll report back. If they are we'll need help, and if they aren't....I'll need help.

Piperdown
12-21-2016, 08:02 AM
The day you start managing anything based on heart and not science is the day we are all screwed. Funny when you have a rat problem at these homeless camps for example when they move out they exterminate them all. When you have nice little pet bunnies running all over the place you hug and save them, both rodents. Two different results!!!!

Bonz
12-21-2016, 08:34 AM
The day you start managing anything based on heart and not science is the day we are all screwed. Funny when you have a rat problem at these homeless camps for example when they move out they exterminate them all. When you have nice little pet bunnies running all over the place you hug and save them, both rodents. Two different results!!!!


but if the media shows the rats being killed it will be way doff reaction. already saw other day on news. some report about rats and they all wanted to save them to

yesterday on the news and the guide that interfeared with the whale and deer in water. they want to save the endangered whale and cry. but were ok he interfeared to help the deer that was about to be eaten. they have no clue about what their even trying to save.

bearvalley
12-21-2016, 08:42 AM
The day you start managing anything based on heart and not science is the day we are all screwed. Funny when you have a rat problem at these homeless camps for example when they move out they exterminate them all. When you have nice little pet bunnies running all over the place you hug and save them, both rodents. Two different results!!!!
Isn't that the truth!
Its ironic that the "mystical wolf" and the "iconic grizzly bear" have been lifted to an almost sacred level by a percentage of the public that has very little or no true knowledge of these animals in the wild.
The ones that work around and observe these two species on a regular basis recognize they cannot be put at a 100% protected level.
This group, for the most part, deeply respect these apex predators.
They also understand what will happen if these 2 controversial animals are left on their own.

Rookie Hunter
01-10-2017, 11:22 PM
...We have a lot of personality conflicts in our community, but we also have an awful lot of expertise and knowledge. We need to put that where the people are, and that means Youtube, Facebook and Twitter. If I type "grizzly bear" into the search bar of my Facebook page I get 8 results immediately. 2 of them reference stopping the BC grizzly hunt. None of the other 6 results provide a counter point to these.

If you've only got one guy selling an idea in a marketplace of ideas, and that idea is stopping a grizzly hunt on moral grounds, he's the guy who's going to make the sale. We can't win a game that we don't even play. We need to start playing. The grizzly hunt is just a battle. As we should recognize from all our talks on this forum about mule deer, whitetail, moose, FNs, predator control, habitat and, above all else, a plan and a funding model, the war is going to last a lot longer...

Great points.

We recently had Jesse Zeman on the podcast awhile back, and soon Dr Adam Ford from UBC (soon to be released). We are hoping to use the podcast as a platform to educate listeners (and ourselves) on current issues and potential solutions. Any suggestions you all have in terms of topics, guests etc. please let us know per our links below. Would love to help in anyway we can!

Darksith
01-17-2017, 09:59 PM
Why aren't we as hunters, conservationists and generally speaking lovers of the outdoors getting behind the NDP in regards to their response? Im sure we can all agree that the liberals have in part been responsible for the moose population decline, stealing the money we put in to the system rather than reinvesting it to protect, manage and monitor our wildlife populations that we rely on to do what we love.

I fully support taking the term "Trophy" away from the antis by making all meat be removed. Does this not help our cause?

Bonz
01-18-2017, 05:51 AM
their not trying to shut down the "term" they want it all shut down. funny when asked on any other hunting or details to his proposal, he runs the other way, or on his page, he removes the questions and blocks people.
already been 2 versions to his story on that hunt, doesn`t seem to want to clarify much. nor doe the green guy that was on here looking to buy votes to.

you gonna leave the rug and skull and only take the meat as he wants?

Darksith
01-18-2017, 01:23 PM
you gonna leave the rug and skull and only take the meat as he wants?

where do you read that?

Bonz
01-18-2017, 05:32 PM
where do you read that?

thats what he wants. actualy has put out 2 diff statements on this..

40incher
01-19-2017, 09:00 PM
Why aren't we as hunters, conservationists and generally speaking lovers of the outdoors getting behind the NDP in regards to their response? Im sure we can all agree that the liberals have in part been responsible for the moose population decline, stealing the money we put in to the system rather than reinvesting it to protect, manage and monitor our wildlife populations that we rely on to do what we love.

I fully support taking the term "Trophy" away from the antis by making all meat be removed. Does this not help our cause?


I agree with this statement.

The NDP has taken a position that basically supports hunting but takes the "trophy" out of it. If the guides want to still cling to the "trophy" terminology that's their choice. Not wise in my estimation. But then again, they are now a short term advocacy group for $$$$. That's why many of the real guides have distanced themselves from their once-respected organization.

Most of the newer guides I know don't even hunt, they just make money off of the "trophy" hunt. It's a much different world from when the guides were real hunters at heart!

Time to take "trophy" out of how anyone describes hunting.

Bonz
01-20-2017, 09:50 AM
should remove all money value to all game, same for fish, you want them. go buy a rod n reel and catch one. sorry commercial guys, way to much waste, for profit and the animal/fish are the ones loosing everytime

Fisher-Dude
01-20-2017, 10:16 AM
If you think government ignores fish and wildlife now, just wait until you take the monetary value aspect away.

Politicians respond to money and votes, nothing else, and that is irrespective of party.

Bonz
01-20-2017, 10:25 AM
oh i know it would be a massive blow to their incomes, but i feel its the biggest issue in our fish and game....always wondered what happens to all them over priced fillets in safeway they dont sell, must be boatloads of them that end up in garbage...or where do they go?
and then aybe as hunters we need to step up and pay into it a bit more to get what we want, or not lose what we have at least, for me, needs to pay direct though. no offence, but to many inbetween taking their cut as most places do, in the end they see pennies of money from us

Rob Chipman
01-20-2017, 10:54 AM
Darksith & 40 Incher:

"Why aren't we as hunters, conservationists and generally speaking lovers of the outdoors getting behind the NDP in regards to their response?"

The NDP are using the grizz hunt as a vote getter in the short term. Hunters, conservationists and lovers of the outdoors should get behind the NDP *if* they want the NDP to win the election, but not because they think the NDP is going to help our community with wildlife, hunting and conservation issues.

Trophy hunting is a smoke screen. It's a vague term that doesn't stand up to reasonable critique. You cannot base good legislation on it. You can use it to get votes.

This doesn't mean I'm saying "vote Liberal!". Your points about what the Libs have done or allowed to occur are correct.


What hunters, conservationists and generally speaking lovers of the outdoors need is not someone who says "we'll let you keep a small hunt as long as you vote for us and remove the emotionally charged "trophy hunting" aspect of it.

We need someone who says "I will commit to an over-arching wildlife conservation objective that will survive changes in government and I will create a funding model to sustain it".

If neither main party will do that we need to work them both over.

Bonz
01-20-2017, 11:01 AM
will trophy hunt soon include trapping for fur? to many holes in the idea

Pemby_mess
01-20-2017, 11:20 AM
If you think government ignores fish and wildlife now, just wait until you take the monetary value aspect away.

Politicians respond to money and votes, nothing else, and that is irrespective of party.

I think ( I hope) what Bonz is saying, is when you make wildlife into an economic commodity, or a line item on a balance sheet, it will be used to exhaustion.When there is a dollar value assigned on a per animal basis, you tend to get a bit of a backwards rationalization going to justify continued exploitation of the resource contrary to conservation goals.

We've been through the same thing with BC parks and other land set aside for conservation. The Liberals seem ideologically bent on making it a user -pay, self-funding system with nothing coming out of general revenue to support it. The problem with that is, if it leads to a lower value of the park system itself, people stop utilizing it and all sorts of economic consequences start to unfold. Economic research has suggested that for every dollar invested in the parks, the economy generates $10 in response.

I think that for BC, well maintained, accessible, natural spaces with healthy wildlife populations are an integral part of the brand. Certainly for tourism, but I think it's a large part of what drives many of our economic sectors. Therefore if we assign individual values to individual wildlife species, to benefit small special interests, we risk subtracting all the economic activity generated from the idea of the land being wild.

So Bonz, I don't think is making the argument that the economics surrounding wildlife isn't important, just that there is more to the equation than it is often framed. What seems like a line item that doesn't generate revenue, often pays large ongoing dividends in not so straightforward ways when one looks at the big picture.

Pemby_mess
01-20-2017, 11:29 AM
We need someone who says "I will commit to an over-arching wildlife conservation objective that will survive changes in government and I will create a funding model to sustain it".

If neither main party will do that we need to work them both over.

I think that is reason enough to work with anyone involved in politics regardless of affiliation. Hunter's interests really need to be represented in a non-partisan way. That involves finding common ground with other stakeholders, rather than staking turf and defending it.

The next time a representative from a political party comes in good faith to ask questions of the community, I hope the more reasonable members here can make some room for dialogue with them. Dr. Weaver coming on to HBC, even if it's just to touch base and get a sense of the climate for votes, is akin to him coming into a rod and gun club, or BCWF meeting. I doubt, anything he said would have been met with the same consternation if he was engaging people in person and asking for their input.

Bonz
01-20-2017, 11:54 AM
my point to that was while watching a boone and crocket video on the history of hunting. they went back to the beaver and fur trae days, when animals almost all got taken out and extinct...they went on to talk about the laws coming to be in place and that they had to remove the value to the fur or game taken to stop the wild wild west of killing them all for profits. they claimed things changed when this happened. they came back in numbers.
now we go against that theory that actualy worked from what i saw, to a guide industry and other for commercial purposes, right back to our old ways of being about profit.

if they continue, that area needs to kickj back...directly to...our game and conservation. and not just general revenue garbage that we have no clue what its actualy spent on.
im about as tight as you can be finacialy being on a dissability, but id still be willing to save up and pay a way higher fee for my basic licences to hunt...if, and only if, 100% went to our cause....say a 100 dollar a year basic licence fee? id pay that still.
i also feel the money now donated to some groups that say they are for us and our cause. keep most for heir own operating costs, and i get that their is a cost. but like most. of every 1 dollar, gov sees maybe a dime?. and we arent seeing what we ask for are we?. but we give to them...or some do anyways. why? for the job they have? how bout a fund set up that gives 100% to or fight.
personaly i see alot say they care, an will do about anything to help the cause. but wont volunteer time. all have a need to take a wage from monies meant for diff reasons

Bonz
01-20-2017, 11:56 AM
I think that is reason enough to work with anyone involved in politics regardless of affiliation. Hunter's interests really need to be represented in a non-partisan way. That involves finding common ground with other stakeholders, rather than staking turf and defending it.

The next time a representative from a political party comes in good faith to ask questions of the community, I hope the more reasonable members here can make some room for dialogue with them. Dr. Weaver coming on to HBC, even if it's just to touch base and get a sense of the climate for votes, is akin to him coming into a rod and gun club, or BCWF meeting. I doubt, anything he said would have been met with the same consternation if he was engaging people in person and asking for their input.

100% agree with that idea of in person meeting with him, or others. vs doing that on here. heck i was even a bit guilty of ripping into him. and in person, he cant walk away from answering as ive seen them all do here and elsewhere so far when asked key important concerns to ellaborate.

Rob Chipman
01-20-2017, 12:36 PM
"I think that is reason enough to work with anyone involved in politics regardless of affiliation. Hunter's interests really need to be represented in a non-partisan way. That involves finding common ground with other stakeholders, rather than staking turf and defending it."

That's a very clear way of putting it. If we commit to one party we win when they win and we lose when they lose.

Notice that environmentalists avoid doing that. Prior to an election they will pick a favorite, but they will get the favorite to commit to a position and then hold their feet to the fire. We've seen that with the relationship between anti-pipeline environmentalists and JT. They may not have voted for Harper, but they've made it clear from the beginning that the Liberals can't take their votes for granted.

Bonz
01-20-2017, 12:47 PM
so seems from majority of views from posts i see we need that group to represent us in this..again, as usual. and it never seems to go further than these forum disscusions
no offence to some of the current groups formed. im not seeing what we all seem to be saying that needs to be done. nice youth programs or other to get more involved in our passion. but is realy about it, other than a letter here or there sent in.

Rob Chipman
01-20-2017, 01:07 PM
Fisher-Dude is right that politicians respond to dollar and vote pressures, but Pemby-mess raises an important point about the money. If we require wildlife, conservation and the wild landscape to pay their own way the result will be that they'll be out competed by other uses.

For example, if we justify salmon by their economic impact it's not hard to see corporate concerns contributing to the extermination of salmon (we can the dam the Fraser, dredge the mouth of it and go crazy with fish farms).

If we exterminate mountain caribou, mule deer and spotted owls we can log their habitat.

We need to concentrate on the vote aspect of Fisher-Dude's equation (while remaining aware of the dollar aspect). We can't expect that wilderness, conservation and hunting will generate as much revenue as some other corporate endeavours, but we also can't ignore money and expect to get a free ride.

Pemby_mess
01-20-2017, 01:20 PM
"I think that is reason enough to work with anyone involved in politics regardless of affiliation. Hunter's interests really need to be represented in a non-partisan way. That involves finding common ground with other stakeholders, rather than staking turf and defending it."

That's a very clear way of putting it. If we commit to one party we win when they win and we lose when they lose.

Notice that environmentalists avoid doing that. Prior to an election they will pick a favorite, but they will get the favorite to commit to a position and then hold their feet to the fire. We've seen that with the relationship between anti-pipeline environmentalists and JT. They may not have voted for Harper, but they've made it clear from the beginning that the Liberals can't take their votes for granted.

So I think, given what you've said above, If fish and wildlife groups can find a cohesive non-partisan political voice - we can take the stance that fish and wildlife values are non-negotiable no matter who is in power. Look at the NRA down in the states for an example of what this looks like.

I'm not sure that is what environmental groups do, in terms of picking a side - but they have a much bigger demographic. On every political platform there is at least one tick box for environmental issues in the top-ten. That will never be the case for issues directly relevant to private, resident hunters and fishers. Environmentalists are natural partners for hunters and fishers. They have a loud, extreme minority to their segment, but it doesn't resonate with the population and therefore doesn't have to result in any political power - The last thing hunters should do is allow that small extremely vocal movement to own the environmental movement as a whole. As one big group we should be inseparably aligned on our common ground (Habitat values, access, usage, etc) and avoid infighting as much as possible in the limited areas where our interests or personal opinions may diverge.

Pemby_mess
01-20-2017, 01:36 PM
Fisher-Dude is right that politicians respond to dollar and vote pressures, but Pemby-mess raises an important point about the money. If we require wildlife, conservation and the wild landscape to pay their own way the result will be that they'll be out competed by other uses.

For example, if we justify salmon by their economic impact it's not hard to see corporate concerns contributing to the extermination of salmon (we can the dam the Fraser, dredge the mouth of it and go crazy with fish farms).


If we exterminate mountain caribou, mule deer and spotted owls we can log their habitat.

We need to concentrate on the vote aspect of Fisher-Dude's equation (while remaining aware of the dollar aspect). We can't expect that wilderness, conservation and hunting will generate as much revenue as some other corporate endeavours, but we also can't ignore money and expect to get a free ride.

Mostly agree, but I think we should spend some focus talking about what the indirect economic contributions are in having wild open spaces, with well protected wildlife and a plethora of recreation opportunities to go a long with it. I'm not including hunting in there specifically, but it is indeed important for the province to include it as a "unique value proposition" as the world gets more crowded, more degraded, and people seek higher attainment.

MEC is an organization with 300M annual revenue, just from the parks essentially. Look at the whole micro economy that it has spun off its inertia along the way. That isn't going to be reflected in the provinces balance sheet directly but I assure you, it matters. Let's go even more indirect - how much of BC's real estate value is because you can be in Wilderness 1\2 hour from your doorstep, in a world renowned metropolis, catch salmon outside the mall at park royal, and get a shot to hunt (or even just see, take a photo of, etc) a grizzly bear for a once in a lifetime experience.

I think If we look at the province like a business, Its really important to see the big picture of what makes us work. That goes beyond little trivial issues and provincial budget line items.

Rob Chipman
01-20-2017, 03:02 PM
"I think we should spend some focus talking about what the indirect economic contributions are in having wild open spaces, with well protected wildlife and a plethora of recreation opportunities to go a long with it."

Absolutely. All I'm saying is that if we *only* measure the value in dollars the day will come when another activity creates more dollar value. There's lots of examples of this and it's currently creating a big problem with public lands in the US.

Running the province like a business doesn't mean everyone benefits, and it doesn't mean we preserve something long term. Defining what the big picture is and how it works is a subjective exercise.

You and I probably agree on the value of the things you cite, but as we build more and more towers and buildings in Vancouver that block out the previously free to all people views of the mountains and oceans and transfer ownership of those views to the purchasers of the new real estate I think you can see that if we only measure the value in dollars we'll end up regretting it.

Pemby_mess
01-20-2017, 03:28 PM
"I think we should spend some focus talking about what the indirect economic contributions are in having wild open spaces, with well protected wildlife and a plethora of recreation opportunities to go a long with it."

Absolutely. All I'm saying is that if we *only* measure the value in dollars the day will come when another activity creates more dollar value. There's lots of examples of this and it's currently creating a big problem with public lands in the US.

Running the province like a business doesn't mean everyone benefits, and it doesn't mean we preserve something long term. Defining what the big picture is and how it works is a subjective exercise.

You and I probably agree on the value of the things you cite, but as we build more and more towers and buildings in Vancouver that block out the previously free to all people views of the mountains and oceans and transfer ownership of those views to the purchasers of the new real estate I think you can see that if we only measure the value in dollars we'll end up regretting it.

Yeah for sure, I understand that completely.

And I agree that when we start talking about values, it's certainly subjective. I recognize that my values as a tourism operator and recreational hunter are not often going to mesh with that of more powerful monied interests such as an oil company. But I do think the values of one industry should be given more scrutiny if they inherently infringe or eclipse the values of an other, and weighted accordingly. That sounds simple, but its not often done to the extent it should be.

I think having a clear, reasonable voice that speaks in ways the political majorities can understand, in a politically neutral fashion, is important to having our interests advanced. Unfortunately, that may produce a situation where our interests as hunters infringe on the values of others and we will have to take positions accordingly like perhaps giving up so ground to advance something else more important. Ultimately I believe this will be more successful than pushing political agendas, picking sides and viciously defending ground that doesn't really matter in the grand scope. Meat retrieval with GB comes to mind as I write this.

Rob Chipman
01-20-2017, 07:22 PM
"But I do think the values of one industry should be given more scrutiny if they inherently infringe or eclipse the values of an other, and weighted accordingly." They should. But, who scrutinizes them? Often not the government, because they abdicate a role as referee in return for some other benefits.

"Unfortunately, that may produce a situation where our interests as hunters infringe on the values of others and we will have to take positions accordingly like perhaps giving up so ground to advance something else more important."

Fair enough, though, right? I have the right to do anything I want....until it conflicts with the rights of other to do what they want, and then we above to work it out.

Simple and timely example: grizzlies provide some businesses and some communities with monetary benefits through viewing, and there are people who want to pay for the experience. We can't shoot the grizzlies they look at if they're going to keep looking at them. Maybe we agree to not hunt grizzlies in those areas, and instead hunt them in areas that bear viewers don't utilize. Bear hunters give a bit, bear viewers give a bit. Both sides get what they need, even if they don't get everything they want.

Is meat retrieval an interest that hunters can give up because it infringes on the values of others? Maybe, if we're being completely pragmatic. But let's be clear that we're doing something that has no intrinsic value just to satisfy the emotional values of someone who hasn't really thought the issue through (leaving grizzly meat to rot in the bush is really not a waste, and if you argue that it is you'll end up tying yourself in knots). As a hunting community we can agree to do it, but we really have to evaluate why we're doing it and what we're getting in return. (FWIW, I don't oppose meat retrieval, but I recognize that the only real argument I can make to someone who opposes meat retrieval is "Just do it to shut those other guys up").

All that said, we're going to have to find a lot of places where we can compromise, but we're also going to have to figure out how to communicate our message better so that we can compromise less while pissing off fewer people.

Pemby_mess
01-20-2017, 09:07 PM
Yes all good points Rob. I think with the meat retrieval thing, although I understand that it really doesn't go to waste, I think the point has already been made, that it serves to take away the concept of "trophy" as it relates to bears and as used by the activists that want it shut down completely; irrespective of the primary motivations behind a bear harvest. I'll concede that forcing meat retrieval will likely produce actual waste in that many hunters that continue to pursue grizzlies will possibly end up throwing it into the landfill in which it truly will be wasted.

That being said, If the public is giving bear hunters an out, by forcing two options: meat retrieval or complete closure of the opportunity, the choice is quite clear pragmatically. Caving here, gives all hunters stronger ground to stand on in other areas of debate. The ideal is that we use all parts of the animals we take, and the closer we stick to that, the more the general public can identify with and support our other positions.

In terms of the bear viewing conflict, it objectively looks quite silly not to make room for the activity by closing down a few high density bear refuges for it to take place unencumbered by hunting. The areas in which it is viable commercially are small coastal inlets. I don't think working with, rather than against the stakeholders there is going to significantly effect hunting opportunities in the negative, but it has the potential to win allies if the effort is put forward properly and with consideration for all involved. The political risk is small, while the potential benefits high.

bearvalley
01-20-2017, 11:37 PM
Rob Chipman & Pemby-mess....good points put forth by both of you.

Like I've said before the grizzly hunt is sustainable and the hunt is a useful component in wildlife management.
Not province wide but there are regions were the grizzly has been identified as a major contributor to the reduction in ungulate species.

Enough of that...there's pages and pages on here as to the merits of the bear hunt and if it's right or wrong to leave the meat, etc, etc.....
The same with the debate on term "trophy hunt"....its been worn out by misconception and the classification of hunters.
In the words of Fred Bear.." a hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be".

I beleive we need to put forth a message as to why we hunt and what we are putting back for our privil to hunt.

A lot of hunters today are out there for the experience of being in the wilderness and the chance to hunt as they have dreamt of hunting for years.

Some never pull the trigger...they are satisfied to have had an opportunity and passed on it.
To quote Bear again..." if you consider an unsuccessful hunt to be a waste of time, then the true meaning of the chase eludes you all together."

These are true sportsmen and also the first to be derogatorily labeled "trophy hunters."

On grizzly hunting versus viewing, I tend to agree that there are areas on the coast where the grizzly hunt should be dropped in favor of the bear viewing industry.
The high value bear viewing areas in BC are limited and in some localities bear viewing is economically viable.
Not everywhere.

We know that the real players in the grizzly bear tug of war is not the entire public.
We've got the resident hunters and guides in one corner...Raincoast and the rest of the bear viewing industry in the other.
The mainstream anti hunting groups are tagging along to suck up cash and the uneducated public is being used as pawns.
Politicions are playing the field for votes.

If we are going to hammer out a workable deal with the bear viewing industry.....say we give them part of the coastal resident LEH hunt ( Raincoast already owns a chunk of the non resident allocation )....what do we want in return.

We better have a plan before the deck of cards comes out or we are going to be stuck with an empty hand.

Whonnock Boy
01-20-2017, 11:50 PM
Great discussion.

Funding.... Funding that can be invested into fish, wildlife, and habitat in other areas of the Province to grow wildlife, including Grizzly bears. Encourage Black Bear harvest, and offset their population with Grizzly Bears. Wildlife and habitat wins, and in turn, everyone does. IMO...


....what do we want in return.

We better have a plan before the deck of cards comes out or we are going to be stuck with an empty hand.

Bonz
01-21-2017, 08:39 AM
the anti use that trophy term to get away from the actual science behind a hunt purpose of carrying capacity. if we use science as our main backer, and we have that ive been reading, then nowhere in that science does it mention anything about this being about food.

ive actual shown that to a few general public on diff news articles, and it actualy woke them up to some truth. then id go to explain about culls. and the massive cost to that person, or other general tax payers. and when i say that same science is use for human populations to, they sorta take a diff view of it. its something they can relate a bit more to, since thats more to do with their lives in a city.
so i basicly say this will be done, no matter what people think or shut down. it will either be by us at our cost, and our payment to do the gov work is our meat, or, the gov will do this, and it will cost way more and you pay.

303savage
02-01-2017, 09:31 PM
• Yes. This is not about being opposed to hunting. This is about being opposed to the grizzly bear trophy hunt and only the grizzly bear trophy hunt.

What other reason is there to hunt grizzly bear? People don't hunt them to eat them do they?

kevan
02-01-2017, 09:53 PM
Absolutely correct. The NDP will betray BC hunters once elected, guaranteed.

The NDP will also betray the BC residents when they are elected.

Whonnock Boy
02-01-2017, 11:07 PM
A sad fact of life is all politicians lie, cheat, and steal in the name of progress. There's only one guy on the planet who is currently fulfilling his campaign promises, and that's Trump. Who'da thunk??? Eventually though, he too will cross the line, if he hasn't already.


The NDP will also betray the BC residents when they are elected.

1899
02-01-2017, 11:54 PM
What other reason is there to hunt grizzly bear? People don't hunt them to eat them do they?

Yes, they do. The government of the Yukon has an excellent publication out called Bear Bacon and Boot Grease, or something like that. My friend from Whitehorse says a root/berry eating grizzly is excellent table fare - just like a black bear.

Rookie Hunter
02-04-2017, 06:06 PM
You guys are nailing it. Education and funding are key. Education for hunters that are struggling to find the truth through the BS; and the non-hunting environmentalists who don't understand that hunters are their 'natural partners' against politicians and corporations that would rather damage BC habitat/wildlife than miss out on an opportunity. Education for those caught up in the buzzwords like "trophy hunting".

Also agree that conservation should be approached in a non-partisan way, driven by science and sustainability.

Funding is required. Why don't our license dollars go directly to Conservation like fishing licenses do? Can we talk about increasing license fees for the sake of sustainability? $15 seems awful cheap for a Deer, $25 for an Elk? I say increase by 100% (most folks are spending $1000-10000 on optics. I'm sure we can all take a hit on the license fees with the caveat that the $ go to conservation directly). How about a wildlife tax on all firearm and bow purchases? This is where the compromise from us, as hunters, comes in. Some US states have already done this, and I believe Idaho hunters are pushing for increased license fees as well.

Final note, as hunters we all have a responsibility to treat each other, the land, the animals and non-hunters with respect. This is how we turn chairs around and start conversations. We are new to hunting (2-3 years), and have learned that most hunters do this and take pride in it. But there are many that don't, and they can ruin it for everyone.