Breaking news ... Grizzly bear hunt demise

[Whonnock Boy]

Another nail on the head but..... you're from the NDP LML, so your thoughts and comments hold zero weight.

There is an argument that all hunters, resident and foreign, must band together and must also band together with certain businesses in order to preserve our rights to hunt. Not everyone shares that argument, but it exists.

However, there is also a good (and obvious) argument to be made that trophy hunting rich Americans and lobbying efforts by groups like SCI are detrimental to resident hunters' fight to preserve hunting rights. Not everyone shares that argument, but it exists.

It's also worth differentiating a couple of goals that get conflated. Some of us want to preserve our rights to hunt, period. Others want a sustainable and diverse wild landscape and wildlife population with easy and democratic access for all users, including hunters.

The first is a sub-category of the second, but those who focus on the first will be much more easily marginalized and occasionally shown to be more of a special interest group than a public interest group.

Here's a quick example of what I mean:

If GOABC and SCI lobby against the new grizzly policy its very easy to paint them as a self-interested group that wants to promote business that satisfies the demand of foreign money with public BC resources. I think we can all see how an anti-hunting for profit group posing as a public interest group could pull that off. It's unbelievably easy to make that sale. Don't believe me? Look at the policy we're currently talking about. It's the political pay off that results from demonizing trophy hunting.

On the other hand, if a group of resident citizens can demonstrate that they work hard on conservation of all species (not just huntable ones), that they work to include non-hunters as well as hunters on access issues, that they have the backing of scientists, and that they do not have a profit motive involved its much harder to attack them. The same groups will try (they already are) and none of us are responding too effectively, but it's an easier defense to mount.

If we want to be united against a bigger, more important and more threatening opponent we need to be honest about the fact that not all of our interests align, and we need to decide where we want to compromise with each other. So far we're registering a big fail on that issue.

[Linksman313]

The issue with that change would be that it's far too easy for a hunter to then just say he's meat hunting when in fact he is purely trophy hunting. There is no easy change that can be made to avoid that.

And what do you think would stop a hunter from doing that with any other animal they hunt right now?

You mention you are a hunter yourself, right now what would stop you from shooting a older, stanky, rotten toothed but large antlered Mule deer, then leaving the smelly meat mess and taking the antlers or "trophy" home with you? Your argument is null.

[Wild one]

There is an argument that all hunters, resident and foreign, must band together and must also band together with certain businesses in order to preserve our rights to hunt. Not everyone shares that argument, but it exists.

However, there is also a good (and obvious) argument to be made that trophy hunting rich Americans and lobbying efforts by groups like SCI are detrimental to resident hunters' fight to preserve hunting rights. Not everyone shares that argument, but it exists.

It's also worth differentiating a couple of goals that get conflated. Some of us want to preserve our rights to hunt, period. Others want a sustainable and diverse wild landscape and wildlife population with easy and democratic access for all users, including hunters.

The first is a sub-category of the second, but those who focus on the first will be much more easily marginalized and occasionally shown to be more of a special interest group than a public interest group.

Here's a quick example of what I mean:

If GOABC and SCI lobby against the new grizzly policy its very easy to paint them as a self-interested group that wants to promote business that satisfies the demand of foreign money with public BC resources. I think we can all see how an anti-hunting for profit group posing as a public interest group could pull that off. It's unbelievably easy to make that sale. Don't believe me? Look at the policy we're currently talking about. It's the political pay off that results from demonizing trophy hunting.

On the other hand, if a group of resident citizens can demonstrate that they work hard on conservation of all species (not just huntable ones), that they work to include non-hunters as well as hunters on access issues, that they have the backing of scientists, and that they do not have a profit motive involved its much harder to attack them. The same groups will try (they already are) and none of us are responding too effectively, but it's an easier defense to mount.

If we want to be united against a bigger, more important and more threatening opponent we need to be honest about the fact that not all of our interests align, and we need to decide where we want to compromise with each other. So far we're registering a big fail on that issue.

There is truth that banding together has some conflicts amongst the hunting community but they are small on the larger scale of things

At this time residents on their own are winning no battles. So how is staying divided benifical?

I will stand and say it again if we want to admit it or not resident hunters helped give the NDP ground work for this law with our stance taken in the media against the GOABC

Time to wake up and get smarter about how resident hunters do things.

[Pemby_mess]

There is an argument that all hunters, resident and foreign, must band together and must also band together with certain businesses in order to preserve our rights to hunt. Not everyone shares that argument, but it exists.

However, there is also a good (and obvious) argument to be made that trophy hunting rich Americans and lobbying efforts by groups like SCI are detrimental to resident hunters' fight to preserve hunting rights. Not everyone shares that argument, but it exists.

It's also worth differentiating a couple of goals that get conflated. Some of us want to preserve our rights to hunt, period. Others want a sustainable and diverse wild landscape and wildlife population with easy and democratic access for all users, including hunters.

The first is a sub-category of the second, but those who focus on the first will be much more easily marginalized and occasionally shown to be more of a special interest group than a public interest group.

Here's a quick example of what I mean:

If GOABC and SCI lobby against the new grizzly policy its very easy to paint them as a self-interested group that wants to promote business that satisfies the demand of foreign money with public BC resources. I think we can all see how an anti-hunting for profit group posing as a public interest group could pull that off. It's unbelievably easy to make that sale. Don't believe me? Look at the policy we're currently talking about. It's the political pay off that results from demonizing trophy hunting.

On the other hand, if a group of resident citizens can demonstrate that they work hard on conservation of all species (not just huntable ones), that they work to include non-hunters as well as hunters on access issues, that they have the backing of scientists, and that they do not have a profit motive involved its much harder to attack them. The same groups will try (they already are) and none of us are responding too effectively, but it's an easier defense to mount.

If we want to be united against a bigger, more important and more threatening opponent we need to be honest about the fact that not all of our interests align, and we need to decide where we want to compromise with each other. So far we're registering a big fail on that issue.

Wow, A thought process with military like discipline!

Unfortunate such an eloquent approach seems to be wasted here. You're telling people to compromise that simply don't know how. You should start a negotiation 101 thread Rob.

[Rob Chipman]

Bearvalley:

For an informed hunter there is only one reason to go on about the rights and wrongs of trophy hunting: its to inform low information individuals who have a sliver of an open mind.

The idea that trophy hunting is bad only works so long as you don't define what it is, don't specify where it's happening and don't explain why it's a problem. As soon as you try to do any of those three things the argument that trophy hunting is bad self-destructs. I think all informed hunters know that and I think most guys on this forum understand that's why I've been (unsuccessfully) baiting Wolfdown into trying to make his case.

At the same time (and this is what I think you keep trying to ignore) there is an actual difference in interests between many resident hunters and G/Os. Until that's resolved....it will remain unresolved.

FWIW, I think all informed hunters understand that FNs do not line up neatly along PC lines, and not just over grizzlies. WSC has made that plain, and we've seen the same thing in many resource discussions.

[Pemby_mess]

There is truth that banding together has some conflicts amongst the hunting community but they are small on the larger scale of things

At this time residents on their own are winning no battles. So how is staying divided benifical?

I will stand and say it again if we want to admit it or not resident hunters helped give the NDP ground work for this law with our stance taken in the media against the GOABC

Time to wake up and get smarter about how resident hunters do things.

So in the process of hunter unification, the group as a whole has to pick a public position that that they are going to put forward and fight for. Who decides what that position looks like. First step is building a consensus among the entire hunting community.

If people want to bully other hunters into accepting their extreme positions, it's going to fall apart every time you try to go public with it. It's false consensus and there will be dissent whenever the issues get discussed. Find a message that everybody can agree on, stick to that, fight for that, and it will be much more successful. Really if hunters can't find common ground nobody can. Calling other hunters out for being "antis" if they don't buy into everything you say, is a form of bullying and it doesn't accomplish anything. The advocacy needs to be non-partisan too btw, for much the same reasons.

[jassmine]

I figured there must be others that gathered info, your comment just adds to my doubts about the poster's allegation that "hunters are the only ones".
Again, not trying to diss the poster, just trying to get the facts.
We hunters are under attack from many sides, we need to be sure of our allegations.

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.

[Ride Red]

All follow?!? Please don't be naive.. and I'm not even including what the natives get up to.

Did I indicate natives in my post? Do natives follow government rules? The only naive person in this thread is yourself.

[Ride Red]

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.

I have to agree with on this one. Who would have thought!

[Ride Red]

The one thing that surprises me the most about this entire thread, is that none of you here are recognizing this guy for what he actually is... This isn't a hunter. This is someone who has taken a tip from Weaver, and come here to find information or ammunition or what-have-you to use against us. Period.

Wolfdown, since you are not a hunter, I will take a moment here to let you read something I wrote on this board a while back. It might help you understand (but likely won't) of why some of us hunt. To the rest of you who have seen this before, sorry for hanging it back up, but it seems to fit.

Read my post #507.