Why is the WKBGTA proposing a bag limit of 1 elk or 1 moose not both in BC

[Dannybuoy]

And how would the NDP support such a move and expenditure knowing that anti hunting and conservation groups fully endorsed their party. They won't bite the hand that fed them.

In regards to setting up an organization that the costs "would be astronomical".......what's your idea of astronomical?
Give me a number

1) this is one of the reasons why I give money to the BCWF to deal with the government of the day and probably why some wildlife are in such trouble ... ie cant deal with the wolves , natives , burning etc .
2) Obviously it would be millions and then more millions to do studies that have been done and done and done ...

If we know what the problems are ... predator control. habitat etc, then spend the money on that .... what makes you think a new organization is going to make any difference convincing the government of the day to do what is necessary ?

[Ourea]

1) this is one of the reasons why I give money to the BCWF to deal with the government of the day and probably why some wildlife are in such trouble ... ie cant deal with the wolves , natives , burning etc .
2) Obviously it would be millions and then more millions to do studies that have been done and done and done ...

If we know what the problems are ... predator control. habitat etc, then spend the money on that .... what makes you think a new organization is going to make any difference convincing the government of the day to do what is necessary ?

The message and plan has/is being delivered to very high levels.
The reception is strong.

Think of it more as a social and financial commitment to make all wildlife and habitat a priority in this province.... as it should be. That's an easy sell to both hunters and non hunters.
Second, table a funding model that is sustainable that all user groups can get behind.
Thirdly, and the tricky part.....propose and administrative arm that controls the purse that cannot be influenced by any particular user group.....in other words wildlife first...user groups second.

Sad part is there are user groups already trying to find ways to drive that bus.
The fighting in the sand box will never end....it's been proven over decades.
Remove control of the revenue from anyone in the sandbox and you have something everyone can get behind.

[Wild one]

1) this is one of the reasons why I give money to the BCWF to deal with the government of the day and probably why some wildlife are in such trouble ... ie cant deal with the wolves , natives , burning etc .
2) Obviously it would be millions and then more millions to do studies that have been done and done and done ...

If we know what the problems are ... predator control. habitat etc, then spend the money on that .... what makes you think a new organization is going to make any difference convincing the government of the day to do what is necessary ?

Where another orginization would be beneficial is if there soul purpose was to lobby and interact with govt

Right now in my opinion the BCWF is spread too thin to accomplish this effectively

With a govt like we have in place at this time A game is needed when bringing anything forward to achieve results

[bearvalley]

I’m just throwing this out but maybe holding wildlife in a public trust is a flawed system.
Looking at other jurisdictions, the ones with extremely successful wildlife programs have a combination of both public and private wildlife management.
If private landowners could buy into this concept the benefits to wildlife could be huge.
A lot of these landowners appreciate wildlife but at the same time large wildlife populations can become an economic burden to them therefor they do not encourage the growth of large numbers.
Turning a liability into an asset could have big returns for all.

[Ourea]

I’m just throwing this out but maybe holding wildlife in a public trust is a flawed system.
Looking at other jurisdictions, the ones with extremely successful wildlife programs have a combination of both public and private wildlife management.
If private landowners could buy into this concept the benefits to wildlife could be huge.
A lot of these landowners appreciate wildlife but at the same time large wildlife populations can become an economic burden to them therefor they do not encourage the growth of large numbers.
Turning a liability into an asset could have big returns for all.

Any new business plan is written in pencil, not pen.
Key is to sell the concept and then mine it down into the details.....like prioritizing projects and expenditures.

[bearvalley]

That’s the problem at present Ourea, there seems to be no plan....just an ask for funding.

[Ourea]

That’s the problem at present Ourea, there seems to be no plan....just an ask for funding.

I disagree.
Plan has been platformed.

[bearvalley]

There’s mixed messages on the entire issue, sorry Ourea....I’d like to see wildlife funded properly as much as you.

[Ourea]

There’s mixed messages on the entire issue, sorry Ourea....I’d like to see wildlife funded properly as much as you.

One issue is you have some user groups (who openly stated they would crush any funding model) now stepping up trying to drive the bus. Quite a switch, going from fighting it to trying to be perceived as championing it.

As I said to you before on the phone.....the only way this will work is if all parties support it.
The predictable infighting over control has already begun.....
Mix messaging?..... it's coming from those trying to get in a position of control.
I keep saying wildlife first.....some parties just can't get behind anything wildlife oriented unless they are at the wheel.

The message is clear BV.....it's those that are undermining it, their's your problem on messaging.

[bearvalley]

Ourea, I get it.
The problem is that no organization is behind the funding model unless it furthers their own personal goals.
In case you haven’t figured it out I’m not wet behind the ears when it comes to wildlife politics.