BCWF- News release- Groundbreaking MOU signed

[Fella]

My uneducated guess is all groups will work with/pressure the government to commit more resources to wildlife and habitat

[guest]

Thumbs up all round on this ....... Good work, it's a start of hopefully long needed turn around. This and the funding model start, is the biggest news to Wildlife in BC for the past 30-40 years.

Cudos to all involved.

CT

[lange1212]

Let's pretend for a minute that I'm just a simple electrician... Can anyone explain to me what this group will be doing or able to do in order to protect or increase wildlife populations? My simple brain interprets this to basically mean everyone agrees that we want more wildlife but we already agreed on that. It's great that these different groups agree on something but I don't see the benefit.

Increased funding is required to better manage our revered wildlife resource "agreed". But I'm very skeptical of the underlining intent with some of the signatories on the MOU. I fear this is a classic example of "distract from the real issue" which is of tremendous importance to residents and has caused much harm and lost opportunity "WILDLIFE ALLOCATIONS". There's an optics that allocation concerns have been silenced and swept under the carpet and we've been blinded by this funding model MOU. I think everyone needs to ask themselves who truly benefits from this direction, and at a time when we have a government forming that understands and is sympathetic to resident issues like ALLOCATIONS.

Just my opinion and food for thought

[Rob Chipman]

I'm not crazy about the MOU either. I think there are potentially more effective allies for the BCWF out in the big wide world. I'm not anti-guide by any means, but I think they have much more to gain from us than we have to gain from them. Just my opinion. I could be totally wrong.

Funding and objectives are required to accomplish anything. Social license is required to remove opposition. An acceptance of science as the proper tool for wildlife policy discharge rather than emotion (which allows for the politicization of wildlife) is critical.

[Whonnock Boy]

Some well thought out words here from both respondents.

Increased funding is required to better manage our revered wildlife resource "agreed". But I'm very skeptical of the underlining intent with some of the signatories on the MOU. I fear this is a classic example of "distract from the real issue" which is of tremendous importance to residents and has caused much harm and lost opportunity "WILDLIFE ALLOCATIONS". There's an optics that allocation concerns have been silenced and swept under the carpet and we've been blinded by this funding model MOU. I think everyone needs to ask themselves who truly benefits from this direction, and at a time when we have a government forming that understands and is sympathetic to resident issues like ALLOCATIONS.

Just my opinion and food for thought

I'm not crazy about the MOU either. I think there are potentially more effective allies for the BCWF out in the big wide world. I'm not anti-guide by any means, but I think they have much more to gain from us than we have to gain from them. Just my opinion. I could be totally wrong.

Funding and objectives are required to accomplish anything. Social license is required to remove opposition. An acceptance of science as the proper tool for wildlife policy discharge rather than emotion (which allows for the politicization of wildlife) is critical.

[40incher]

Increased funding is required to better manage our revered wildlife resource "agreed". But I'm very skeptical of the underlining intent with some of the signatories on the MOU. I fear this is a classic example of "distract from the real issue" which is of tremendous importance to residents and has caused much harm and lost opportunity "WILDLIFE ALLOCATIONS". There's an optics that allocation concerns have been silenced and swept under the carpet and we've been blinded by this funding model MOU. I think everyone needs to ask themselves who truly benefits from this direction, and at a time when we have a government forming that understands and is sympathetic to resident issues like ALLOCATIONS.

Just my opinion and food for thought

Might be nice to see what the exact wording of the MoU is?? It's a mystery to me!

I have made it as clear as possible that the allocation of wildlife hunting opportunities should have been front and center in the BCWF election platform ... instead we heard nothing but silence on the issue. That concerns me.

It also concerns me that the push for a vague "funding model" is going to solve the immediate, or long-term, problems for resident hunters. Time to kick some doors down on a new allocation model that gives resident hunters the 90% they deserve ... instead of the paltry 60% to 75% we had forced upon us by the Liberals.

No more "cap in hand" crap!

[emerson]

If we speak with one voice we have much more clout. Hopefully all involved are willing to swing a big stick uncomfortably hard at the politicians.

[lange1212]

40incher,

You bring up a very interesting point and ask has anyone seen or been able to review this now signed MOU, including members of the BCWF Board? I looked on line...and can't find it anywhere. Can someone post a copy of it or has this been agreed to in isolation and behind closed doors?

[bearvalley]

40incher,

You bring up a very interesting point and ask has anyone seen or been able to review this now signed MOU, including members of the BCWF Board? I looked on line...and can't find it anywhere. Can someone post a copy of it or has this been agreed to in isolation and behind closed doors?

Seeing as it was presented and signed at the BCWF AGM, I am sure the directors of the organization knew what was in the MOU.
One day more people will come to realize that mindsets like yours are detrimental to wildlife.
Guide bashing, FN's bashing, bashing fellow hunters and bitching that we need to enforce our rights to grab more of a declining resource has taken us down a backwards path.
All of us.

[lange1212]

Seeing as it was presented and signed at the BCWF AGM, I am sure the directors of the organization knew what was in the MOU.
One day more people will come to realize that mindsets like yours are detrimental to wildlife.
Guide bashing, FN's bashing, bashing fellow hunters and bitching that we need to enforce our rights to grab more of a declining resource has taken us down a backwards path.
All of us.

The question asked was has anyone seen and or been able to review this MOU, including the BCWF Board and that a copy of it be posted.

Your comments pertaining to guide bashing, FN's bashing, bashing fellow hunters...are not called for and in no way reflected in any of my comments here. This is 100% exclusive to you and your mind set and the administrator should take a close review of your comments as I believe they are outside of this sites conduct policy.

That said nice try with the "oh look a squirrel" tactic to distract from the real issue and concerns brought up in the previous posts "WILDLIFE ALLOCATION".

Residents and members expressing concern over wildlife allocation and the manner they have been handled by the past government is a very legitimate and defensible concern. It is those past wildlife allocation decisions that threaten our very access and to privatize of our common property rights in wildlife. Remember up to 40% of some of our wildlife has now allocated to non-residents. That means removed from resident public, hands off to resident public, means exclusive to "non-residents" and those that cater to them.

In light of this mass shift in allocation residents today face a series of increased regulatory restriction being proposed in areas of our Province and will very likely be implemented in the next regulatory cycle starting 2018.

It is also important to note that no other jurisdiction in "North America" provides non-residents with such a high % of public wildlife. It is also important to note that this today is just policy. The saving grace here is this is not legislated and can be changed to better reflect and benefit residents of BC needs.

Oh look another squirrel (MOU) and have questioned if this is nothing more than a tactic to distract from a very important and critical issue to residents of BC "WILDLIFE ALLOCATION". I'm not opposed to the funding model idea, but am opposed if this is being done in isolation and behind closed doors, and in the process distracting from (throwing under the bus) the allocation issue which is of paramount importance to BCWF members and resident public.

I agree that funding is needed to better manage our revered wildlife, however the MOU in question appears to have been agreed to with out review of public and or BoD approval of some of the signatory groups. In other words has the appearance of being done in isolation and behind closed doors.

So I will bring up the question again can someone please post the MOU "the mystery document" in question that nobody has been able to access, review, and read.

Hey good try, but I'm not interested in chasing your squirrels! But will ask are you by chance a Guide Outfitter and member of the GOABC? No this is not a dig, just curious as to what your association to wildlife is.