BCWF- Regulations input wanted

[Walking Buffalo]

Interesting!, never realized that, and that's a scary fact!
Good point, should only be used to enter this "if you have a valid Hunters Number"!.
Didn't even consider that Anti's can get into this with opinions on hunting regs and having input.
Something else that needs to be on the "List of to do Changes" when we get some political party that will listen to the
rationale of this BCied versus hunter # registration to partake....IMO.

I appreciate the concern, but do have to disagree.

Wildlife is here for everyone, and everyone should have the opportunity for input.

Requiring proof of residency, grade of Citizenship (Treaty/non) and Hunter ID if applicable would suffice to establish the opinions of those responding from the local hunting community.


I've followed the growing trend of government online surveys being used for public consultation, and a serious flaw has always been an inability to distinguish if respondents are even from the jurisdiction, let alone hunters or have multiple "personalities"..... the data is generally invalid when these factors are included in an analysis.

[Bugle M In]

I appreciate the concern, but do have to disagree.

Wildlife is here for everyone, and everyone should have the opportunity for input.

Requiring proof of residency, grade of Citizenship (Treaty/non) and Hunter ID if applicable would suffice to establish the opinions of those responding from the local hunting community.


I've followed the growing trend of government online surveys being used for public consultation, and a serious flaw has always been an inability to distinguish if respondents are even from the jurisdiction, let alone hunters or have multiple "personalities"..... the data is generally invalid when these factors are included in an analysis.

That's fair, point taken.
Just don't know "what knowledge resident non hunter's" have to put in an opinion on "Hunting Regs".
Heck, I just stated previously that even I, a hunter, don't even have all the knowledge for each issue to those changes.
But a Resident Anti, can go on there, and wherever it shows either a reduction, or closure, or shortening of season..
is going to say "yes, fully support that".
That's my concern, thus my opinion that non hunter's should not be allowed to factor into hunting regs.
They should be able to have an opinion on areas that need to see some help concerning habitat, and which areas should be first........IF, we ever get the government to actually "start doing that"!!??????????????
Cheers

[J_T]

^^ The online consultation is a requirement. It serves as the "Public" consultation component. Perhaps the way to properly view the online proposals is: Government, working with the hunting community (GO's, Residents, Trappers, Houndsmen) have spent the past 2 years discussing wildlife trends and objectives. Of the objectives Government wishes to meet, these listed here as a part of the public review, are open for comment to ensure as Government moves forward with these proposals, they have not left out any user group, or interested person. No one, has been denied an opportunity to comment. Transparency. My one wish, is that people would need to make a statement about what sort of organization they are affiliated with when the submit responses.

[Bugle M In]

^^ The online consultation is a requirement. It serves as the "Public" consultation component. Perhaps the way to properly view the online proposals is: Government, working with the hunting community (GO's, Residents, Trappers, Houndsmen) have spent the past 2 years discussing wildlife trends and objectives. Of the objectives Government wishes to meet, these listed here as a part of the public review, are open for comment to ensure as Government moves forward with these proposals, they have not left out any user group, or interested person. No one, has been denied an opportunity to comment. Transparency. My one wish, is that people would need to make a statement about what sort of organization they are affiliated with when the submit responses.

Or at least say whether they actually have a Hunters # or some other Permit/License.
Just so there is actually documented transparency...imo
Just want to know ho are a part of the hunting community, and who is "other"

[b72471]

Moose Hunt Region 6: Once again the Govt is after the Resident Hunter and never addresses the full picture!! Reducing the open season by 4 days does not stop the hunting it simply HANDS THE GUIDE ANOTHER 4 DAYS of moose hunting. The GUIDES WILL LOVE THEM FOR THIS,(the guides shut down for the open season). I believe there is another way, November is a migration to the lower areas and moose use the right of ways and roads, hunter success is higher at this time, so shut down the moose season at the end of OCTOBER, (for the GUIDES, LEH and the other party) and yes shorten the general season by 2 days.
I think we could all live with that. I am a Resident hunter and have worked as an assistant guide in the past.

[finaddict]

That's fair, point taken.
Just don't know "what knowledge resident non hunter's" have to put in an opinion on "Hunting Regs".
Heck, I just stated previously that even I, a hunter, don't even have all the knowledge for each issue to those changes.
But a Resident Anti, can go on there, and wherever it shows either a reduction, or closure, or shortening of season..
is going to say "yes, fully support that".
That's my concern, thus my opinion that non hunter's should not be allowed to factor into hunting regs.
They should be able to have an opinion on areas that need to see some help concerning habitat, and which areas should be first........IF, we ever get the government to actually "start doing that"!!??????????????
Cheers

I think a hunting license should be a requirement to make any comments on hunting regulation changes.. Hunters are required to take a CORE course and PAY for a hunting license. These two facts alone should preclude anyone from making any comments unless they have been "trained" and have paid for that privilege. It does not stop the anti's from making statements, but it does require them to put the same amount of time and money investment into the comments as hunters have already put into the system.

[Fisher-Dude]

Antis are already organized and telling their members to create accounts and comment on proposed regs changes.

http://wildsight.ca/blog/2018/01/12/...ation-changes/

Don't think hunting is under extreme threat? Think again, especially if you're apt to be on the restriction bandwagon, just like the antis.

[HarryToolips]

I think a hunting license should be a requirement to make any comments on hunting regulation changes.. Hunters are required to take a CORE course and PAY for a hunting license. These two facts alone should preclude anyone from making any comments unless they have been "trained" and have paid for that privilege. It does not stop the anti's from making statements, but it does require them to put the same amount of time and money investment into the comments as hunters have already put into the system.

I agree....

[HarryToolips]

Imo it's BS that they want to shorten the GOS for 6 point bull elk in the WK to Oct 1 - 20.....only one MU they showed a lower bull:cow ratio, and the sample size was small, so wtf...reg 8 is still Sept 10 - Oct 20...

[Brez]

Two days left to get your opinions in!!