BCWF- Grizzly Statement

[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