Breaking news ... Grizzly bear hunt demise

[rimfire]

I understand what your saying and know they threw the first stone

In my opinion it is easier to get the public to view their stance as slander if you focuse on proving how to to can co exist. So rather than attack them directly get loud about the facts of grizz hunting and discredit them rather than attack them directly

The goal should be to make them looked at as dishonest through the publics eyes so their propaganda will be ignored. This takes away their power more than attacking them directly. The greatest power right now is our silence on educating the public on grizz hunting.

Its easy to sway the public when all they hear is one side and right now that is our biggest issue. We are silent compared to those that oppose the hunt. The anti voice is heard probably more than 100-1

This guy gets it. People prefer to hear the positive, rather than the negative. Attack ads work but not as effectively as being the loudest person with proven facts. Think of the public perception difference if hunters were the 100 instead of the 1...

[S.W.A.T.]

True but the best strategy is proving how grizz hunting and viewing can both operate. This way govt can profit off of both

The have Co existed for years.

Given the fact a adult grizzly can have a habitat range of 400sq km 15,000 animals seems to be a good number.

[Wild one]

The have Co existed for years.

Given the fact a adult grizzly can have a habitat range of 400sq km 15,000 animals seems to be a good number.

You and I know this but it is the non hunting public that needs to be educated

[Iron Glove]

You and I know this but it is the non hunting public that needs to be educated

So, in the run up to the Provincial Election, how many of you took 2 hours out of your day to go to a viewing of the Grizzly "Trophy Hunt" video ?
It was presented in numerous locations throughout BC and was a great opportunity to express the opinion of hunters to the "non hunting public."
If not, why not ??

[Fisher-Dude]

Thanks, I'm sure he'll be happy with that.

If you weren't just making up your story, you would have had a native "friend" who knows all about sheltering.

It's as well known as the sun in the sky by native people.

You fell head first into that one.

[Rob Chipman]

S.W.A.T.:

Thanks for sharing that. It plays into the consumptive vs. non-consumptive user false dichotomy and we need to develop it. (hunters = consumptive users = bad, while photographers, hikers, bird watchers = non-consumptive users = good. False dichotomy because all of the users consume products from the natural world and nobody has blood free hands. The distinction only works if you draw an arbitrary line and say "shooting an animal is incorrect consumption, but wiping your butt with toilet paper from a clearcut is totally guilt free).

BTW, I took a look at the BC Conservation Foundation website, and jumped to the partners tab to confirm that Raincoast is indeed a partner with BCCF and helping with important conservation work. Imagine my surprise......

"As far as Hunting goes and Politics....

Decisions will be made ...depending on the party in power here in BC...depending on this:

a) either on "Money"...like helping small groups (like GOABC)= Liberals

b) "Emotion"....trying to do what people feel, and hoping to win their votes that way=NDP/Green

C) is not an option right now.....which is Science Based...Party=NONE....why....to scared to take it on and do what is
the best for the situation/s at hand."

The journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step. We need to start walking toward option C.

[Linksman313]

I understand what your saying and know they threw the first stone

In my opinion it is easier to get the public to view their stance as slander if you focuse on proving how to to can co exist. So rather than attack them directly get loud about the facts of grizz hunting and discredit them rather than attack them directly

The goal should be to make them looked at as dishonest through the publics eyes so their propaganda will be ignored. This takes away their power more than attacking them directly. The greatest power right now is our silence on educating the public on grizz hunting.

Its easy to sway the public when all they hear is one side and right now that is our biggest issue. We are silent compared to those that oppose the hunt. The anti voice is heard probably more than 100-1

I completely agree with your thoughts here Wild One, the issue I have been facing in my home town in the boundary, (which is fairly biased against hunting or guns by cultural standards and historically vegan - doukabour) is how to combat the almost constant coverage of the anti sentiment with facts on this Grizzly issue and many others we on this site hold in high concern. The second I open my mouth at town council meetings, open committee's or other gatherings I am met with rejection and labelled a killer almost immediately. Although I fight through (never one to back down from bullshit) and attempt to convey factual evidence contrary to the emotions being sent my way, I am almost always drowned out and relegated as another special interest group. We as hunters need to come up with a simple fact sheet that will strongly contradict the recent legislation from nature's perspective. Take this factual data and release it or push it out to the public. We know that to combat this latest and future incursions into our lifestyle and hobbies we have to be visible and get the message out, what would be your best idea in which to do this? What I am asking is for some advice and strategy to educate the uninformed masses who signed the stupid petition at the gas station just because it was there with a pen.
Frustrated
Links

[Bugle M In]

I completely agree with your thoughts here Wild One, the issue I have been facing in my home town in the boundary, (which is fairly biased against hunting or guns by cultural standards and historically vegan - doukabour) is how to combat the almost constant coverage of the anti sentiment with facts on this Grizzly issue and many others we on this site hold in high concern. The second I open my mouth at town council meetings, open committee's or other gatherings I am met with rejection and labelled a killer almost immediately. Although I fight through (never one to back down from bullshit) and attempt to convey factual evidence contrary to the emotions being sent my way, I am almost always drowned out and relegated as another special interest group. We as hunters need to come up with a simple fact sheet that will strongly contradict the recent legislation from nature's perspective. Take this factual data and release it or push it out to the public. We know that to combat this latest and future incursions into our lifestyle and hobbies we have to be visible and get the message out, what would be your best idea in which to do this? What I am asking is for some advice and strategy to educate the uninformed masses who signed the stupid petition at the gas station just because it was there with a pen.
Frustrated
Links

I hear your frustration, and a solution is even harder I fear.
The Anti's just have to post up pics of hunters beside their kill, with huge smiles and guns in hand, and that is
more than enough to enrage the main stream folks, because it makes it look like a blood sport only.
Rarely do we see photo campaigns of hunters packing out the meat, or sharing a family meal with what was
"harvested".
No matter how we show it, to many, it just looks like "death" by the hands of humans, and in turn, is causing a
global decline of animals on the planet etc.
You'll never convince Vegans, as they will never convince me...but....they are able to pull at the "heartstrings" of the
mostly common urban city folks, who never grew up in an "outdoor environment"
Times have changed to....many people enjoy the outdoors ie. cycling hiking photography.
To them, they see us take an animal, and it means (to them), one less animal for them to see or enjoy.
They only see the now, and that the now, will save the future.
But we know that isn't correct....
If we don't have people working towards enhancing the habitat, or, transplanting animals, that in fact, there will be a decline in the future.
Have you ever asked one of them during a debate " what or when did any of them ever apply efforts to restore habitat"?
and I don't mean thru "logging protests", but actual, get out there, build a new winter range or pond sanctuary etc.

It doesn't look good for sure.
I do know some city people "who do get it"....meaning going out hunting/fishing to have an opportunity to put some
different, more natural food on the table....but are there enough of them out there??

Seeing an animal die, bleeding and wriggling away, is never an easy thing for anybody...if it is easy...you lack
empathy in your life...and it is this that people see or should I say feel, that they can't help but feel like being anti-hunting.

It's their emotions that have them making their decisions....not their brain.
So, if emotion, not brains, makes the decisions....then we somehow have to draw on their emotions, to show that hunting, when applied properly, is a good thing to be a part of.

Hard to think how that can happen however....someone more intelligent than I...

[Wild one]

So, in the run up to the Provincial Election, how many of you took 2 hours out of your day to go to a viewing of the Grizzly "Trophy Hunt" video ?
It was presented in numerous locations throughout BC and was a great opportunity to express the opinion of hunters to the "non hunting public."
If not, why not ??

Never heard of any showing near me but I am west of PG

I have how ever talked to those opposed or on the fence about the grizz hunt for many year and had many rethink their stance

[Wild one]

I completely agree with your thoughts here Wild One, the issue I have been facing in my home town in the boundary, (which is fairly biased against hunting or guns by cultural standards and historically vegan - doukabour) is how to combat the almost constant coverage of the anti sentiment with facts on this Grizzly issue and many others we on this site hold in high concern. The second I open my mouth at town council meetings, open committee's or other gatherings I am met with rejection and labelled a killer almost immediately. Although I fight through (never one to back down from bullshit) and attempt to convey factual evidence contrary to the emotions being sent my way, I am almost always drowned out and relegated as another special interest group. We as hunters need to come up with a simple fact sheet that will strongly contradict the recent legislation from nature's perspective. Take this factual data and release it or push it out to the public. We know that to combat this latest and future incursions into our lifestyle and hobbies we have to be visible and get the message out, what would be your best idea in which to do this? What I am asking is for some advice and strategy to educate the uninformed masses who signed the stupid petition at the gas station just because it was there with a pen.
Frustrated
Links

The issue is we as hunters let them gain ground early thinking we were safe with science on our side. Now in many areas it is going to be an up hill battle to regain lot ground with the public.

I personally talked to many about the grizz hunt one on one even when I live in the lower mainland. Many times I need to pull out hunting regs just to prove that it is against the law to shoot sows with Cubs. Many can be reached if you stay calm and be respectful when talking asking them ? In return. But there are those people that there is no hope

unfortanatly to educate the public now is going to take a lot of time and $ we don't have. But for starter all hunters should educate them selves on the hunt and speak up one on one when they can. The key is be respectful and don't demand they change their views instead give them the info and ask their opinion. The more evidence you have that you are speaking the truth the better