Breaking news ... Grizzly bear hunt demise

[Red_Mist]

There's a slippery slope that follows when you try to fracture the hunting community. It's a world wide fraternity and at every level I can relate to someone about hunting no matter what part of the world they live in and hunt. This constant back and forth about "trophy" or "selective" hunting really gets us nowhere. Its completely subjective and only propagates the agenda of anti hunters. I certainly agree that our interests need to be aligned. That said it's in the messaging, so each organization can make their own statement. There is a pecking order or at least there should for access to opportunity particularly when conservation is a concern. Always in Canada, FN will be at the top of that, next should be resident hunters and non residents after that. In the context of a grizzly bear hunt there is no need to make any changes other then meat retention to align it with the black bear requirements. The hunt is sustainable. What the NDP have proposed is egregiously wrong. Those who supported the NDP need to hold them accountable and not simply be dismissive about it. Suggesting it would have happened anyways is a lie. Reality is the NDP are responsible for these changes.

[srupp]

There are a number of research groups that do collect grizzly data in various ways (hair traps and fecal analysis), but these are usually limited in scale and scope because field research is a huge expense!
Having hunters involved in the collection of data useable for analysis is key to fill in some of the holes identified by previous reviews and studies.

The NDP not announcing any additional research initiatives or increased funneling of licensing fees to research and management of wildlife clearly demonstrates that this was a "cheap" (in all senses of the word) political ploy.

Thank you jassmine. .articulate educated response...

We must agree that working along side Goabc" is essential neither group desires grizzly hunting ended.both groups want there to be sheep on the mountain, elk on the hills grizzlies outside horgans tent.the guides future depends on this sustainable wildlife stewardship. As does each resident hunter that follows the allocation process, the selection process of only harvesting mature male bears.this IS part of wildlife management by the educated professional biogists implemented in the field by hunters who funded the biologists, government programs and then paid for the attempt to help the wildlife, by not shooting females, or young bears or familly units..but the selected age, sex needed for management..this helps this species in the wild.
We can achieve far more together than by looking at our differences..it is in the best interest of grizzlies to follow sound management.
I am extremely worried about native special interest groups, wilderness groups who want to prove their agenda..
100 % percent of humans with a certainty that ate dill pickles in 1805 are now DEAD" lol does this certainty truly show dill pickles are 100% lethal to mankind? No it shows we are all mortal..but the studies don't lie..lol
Do not alienate any hunting groups..including GOABC" WE are all about saving wildlife and habitat..and by educating and demonstrating this passion compassion we will prevail..we are united in our common goal for many reasons. .and gains those with an agenda to slowly eliminate all hunting not because they don't like it..because they ARNT educated on what is best for wildlife and why hunters are wildlife best friend..they meanwhile have been sucked in by special interest groups $$$$ and have done nothing at all for wildlife.
Srupp

[OutdoorDave]

Pemby_mess:

"I'd point out that is not just common ground with all hunters, but with hunters' mortal enemy as well: Raincoast and such."

I think Shane Mahoney has done a really good job of pointing out exactly that: the animal lover who doesn't want to see a hunter kill something isn't necessarily an enemy of the hunter, because the two share an awful lot of common interests (clean air, clean water, a healthy natural environment, lots of wildlife, etc). We need to work to make sure each side sees that, but of course, we've got to start with seeing it ourselves.

Speaking of Raincoast, if we look at them as opposition, do we have anything going on remotely similar as this: https://www.raincoast.org/projects/wolves/wolf-mgmt/ ?

These guys are good at their jobs.

I think the common ground is mostly in rhetoric and in reality, a healthy environment is actually low on their list of priorities.

The first priority of groups like Raincoast is financial self interest. Hence their fixation on charismatic megafauna. You won't find the Salamander Society as an example. The second priority with these people is virtue signalling and the resultant ego boost. It's nice to think you're a hero for saving a cuddly Grizzly Bear. Understanding the science behind it is a completely different matter and few make that effort.

How many of these people do you see going around spending their weekends actually improving the environment or doing things to that end, versus activism and lobbying somebody else to do the work? In contrast I see hunters and the outdoor community doing a lot of real world on the ground stuff.

I don't disagree with you that pointing out the common ground can still serve a purpose because worst case, you just expose them for their true motives.

Sorry to be cynical, but that's my experience.

[Wild one]

Here you are yourself, playing the blame game.

Maybe we are not winning battles because we are associated with "trophy hunting", and "wealthy foreign trophy hunters". Don't shoot the messenger, that's just a reason that I see from a general public standpoint.

Like it or not the way the NDP went about it there is little doubt they are paying attention to the stance resident hunters took. They know if resident hunters stand against the new grizz regs the meat only resident hunter can now be questioned

It may sound like blame to you but it is only showing how we make an approach can be exploited by govt later.

The difference bettween me and you I carry no love or hate for BCWF or GOABC and just look at the overall issue without trying to defend either.

I will just call it how I see it

[Rob Chipman]

"The first priority of groups like Raincoast is financial self interest."

I'd really like to figure out how to prove that. They're more than ready to write off caribou in order to save wolves...I suspect that's because wolves earn more money than caribou. It's a nut that would be good to crack.

[srupp]

Hmmm the Timothy Treadwell hug a grizzly bear society needs a new leader...
Srupp

[OutdoorDave]

"The first priority of groups like Raincoast is financial self interest."

I'd really like to figure out how to prove that. They're more than ready to write off caribou in order to save wolves...I suspect that's because wolves earn more money than caribou. It's a nut that would be good to crack.

Financial records would speak volumes. What do they spend on admin, fundraising and lobbying versus habitat protection? Compare that to an organization like Ducks Unlimited.

Not that I would trust their numbers to begin with. As an example, the Greenpeace campaigners tell you that 100% of your donation goes to causes and that they have no overhead. When you ask them to reconcile that statement with how they get paid (easy to find their ads saying it's a paid job) and you get a blank stare back. After a bit of back and fourth, the answer becomes, I'll have to ask my boss.

I feel like the Conservatives were headed down a smart road with bringing in more rules around these kinds of organizations. If we have to put the number of calories on a bag of chips, they should have to disclose their financials and inform people when asking for donations.

All our politicians talk about openness and transparency, but they don't support it when it really matters.

[bearvalley]

Rob, what a lot of people don't realize or I truly believe some do not want it realized is that there is a percentage of guide outfitters that place the value of wildlife far beyond the pocket book.

Regional roundtables have been formed with the best interests of wildlife being the number one goal.
Health projects and species studies have been undertaken and funded by guides, local businesses and affiliated groups. These projects are for the betterment of wildlife and the benefit of all.

Lets face it, outfitters do have skin in the game and over harvest or over allocation is their enemy.
Some have figured that out and do not come close to filling their annual quota. This decision was not because of a lack of potential clients, instead it was to give the animals a break.
The end result of this over time will be a drop in quota or a relinquishment of allocation share...however you want to word it.
It's hard for some to get that this concept is happening, I believe some are worried as it goes completely against the propaganda they have been promoting.
Like I said self interest....the road has many paths.

I fully realize guides and resident hunters are percieved to be in direct competition.
In more than one way there are spin off benefits that some never sit down and think out.
Lets look at the scenario if outfitters are totally removed from the equation.

Who is going to be the boots on the ground?
A 2 week hunt every other year a thousand km from home doesn't count for a whole lot.

Most don't get it that a lot of outfitters run a predator reduction program thru hunting or trapping that in turn enhances wildlife and maintains a fairly stable, sustainable ungulate population for all users.
Will that effectively carry on and by whom?

How accessable would a lot of the back country be without the network of guides trails?
Sending a crew out for 2 weeks with power saws pre season doesn't come for free but it's part of the game.
Lets call that the outfitter funded provincial backcountry trail maintenance program.

Would bushplane charter companies be viable without outfitter business?

These are a few social benefits to others provided by the GO industry that seem to get overlooked.

This proposed rule change on the grizzly hunt is just the beginning of our loss of hunting privileges if we allow it to happen.
It would be damn interesting to know how far the anti hunting movement has worked it's way into groups we support and count on to back us.
The recreational hunting community and the ones that hunt for sustenance need to realize their common goal and throw the differences aside or we won't have to worry about any of this in the not so distant future.

[Pemby_mess]

I think the common ground is mostly in rhetoric and in reality, a healthy environment is actually low on their list of priorities.

The first priority of groups like Raincoast is financial self interest. Hence their fixation on charismatic megafauna. You won't find the Salamander Society as an example. The second priority with these people is virtue signalling and the resultant ego boost. It's nice to think you're a hero for saving a cuddly Grizzly Bear. Understanding the science behind it is a completely different matter and few make that effort.

How many of these people do you see going around spending their weekends actually improving the environment or doing things to that end, versus activism and lobbying somebody else to do the work? In contrast I see hunters and the outdoor community doing a lot of real world on the ground stuff.

I don't disagree with you that pointing out the common ground can still serve a purpose because worst case, you just expose them for their true motives.

Sorry to be cynical, but that's my experience.

That is cynical. So I should take up an adversarial position with everyone who's interests may not align perfectly with mine? I'm sorry, but nothing gets done that way. If you spend all your energy looking at what makes you different from someone, you're going to miss a lot of opportunities. There is a lot of people calling for hunters to get on the same page, and if that seems difficult, its because of exactly that same cynicism about one an other in the same group. If once you realize finding the similarities in the group is what makes it strong, why not extend that out to even stronger groups with similar interests.

As an organization, Raincoast does care about money, yes. If it didn't, it would be unable to carry out its mandate. Because it uses wildlife, and leverages rhetoric to fundraise doesn't mean that it is not carrying out that mandate. It's mandate is the goal. My point is, that energy can be used in the common interest rather than fighting about differences. People set aside differences all the time while trying to achieve a common goal. That's ultimately what becomes productive.

There's a new generation taking the reigns of power - That's an opportunity to reframe the discussion. Continue being increasingly defensive and divisive and everyone's going to find themselves with progressively smaller pieces of pie. I say it's time to round up as many people as possible and figure out how to make more pie.

[Pemby_mess]

As an adjunct to the statment above, a question that might be a fair one to ask, is What can these conservation organizations do for Hunters?; and conversely, what can hunters do for them?

I think the answers to those questions can already be found in this thread.