Apparently CO'S shouldn't hunt as that affects their work ethic

[Ltbullken]

Don't expect Minister Heyman to come out to the CO's defense either as he is an anti.

[Gateholio]

The big picture angle on this is an attempt to convince the masses that hunting is incompatible with conservation. With an added spin that this was some well guarded secret so there was something sinister about it.

[rimfire]

Andrew Weaver of the Greens, Alex Dutton of the BC Liberals, and, err...some no name from the NDP square off in a debate...




Talk about a lack of class. Can't even get a name plate for himself, let along tape it on straight. Typical NDP though - "It's not my job" mentality infects that party from top to bottom.

And show up in something other than a plaid shirt and jeans for a televised debate, okay?

We can't get these pricks out of office soon enough, people.

Why spend money on a seat that they know they are going to lose? That is likely their thought process. Doesn't make it right, though.

[wideopenthrottle]

The big picture angle on this is an attempt to convince the masses that hunting is incompatible with conservation. With an added spin that this was some well guarded secret so there was something sinister about it.

its this exactly....they are trying to separate what we know to be inseparable....being a hunter means being a conservationist...if you are not a conservationist you are no true hunter more likely what we call a poacher or criminal...I was actually a bit surprised to see that CO's were not 90+ percent hunters.....On the other hand though, how many of us actually have a job that we also do as a hobbie....maybe most CO's were hunters but no longer spend their free time hunting (like the auto mechanic that drives a beater car or the contractor whos house is in desperate need of repairs)

[Foxton Gundogs]

Province paper today has an article regarding CO’s applying for hunting licenses which Bryce Casavant says is a conflict of interesting!

Conflict of interest????? What about the fact that the MOE fired his ass, now he writes criticism and gets it's published. Now that IS a conflict of interest.

[IronNoggin]

....maybe most CO's were hunters but no longer spend their free time hunting (like the auto mechanic that drives a beater car or the contractor whos house is in desperate need of repairs)

When I went to collect my secondary edumucation, I had yet to make up my mind - CO or Wildlife Biologist.
So, took all the relevant courses to promote each.
Couple years in, my main Fish Prof came to me, and handed me a 30 person list.
All graduates, All CO's or Wildlife. With phone numbers.
He did so with the suggestion I call each, and collect their thoughts on which way to go...
I did.

Of the lot, 28 were hunters previously.
Of the CO's, all but two suggested they had "No Time" to do that any more, as that was their busiest time of the year.
The Wildlife Biologists were pretty much the same ratio.
Of the 28, four figured they still were happy with the time they got to hunt.

I changed my Major to Fisheries Biology & Management the very next day.
Minors in Wildlife Biology & management, and 4 years of Law simply to understand that better.
No looking back, and damn happy I decided the direction I did.
For you see... I HUNT!

Nothing but Respect for those that carry the Badge and The Job.
As for me, although I did the job for a short spell, I was (and am) FAR to greedy of my hunting time to ever have considered that as a full time occupation.

Conflict of interest????? What about the fact that the MOE fired his ass, now he writes criticism and gets it's published. Now that IS a conflict of interest.

BINGO!
FAILS at the job. FAILS at politics.
Now aspires to be a journalist?
Now THAT right there is a joke, I don't care who you are!

Cheers,
Nog

[Foxton Gundogs]

Those who can DO, those who can't Write about it and criticize those who can and DO and do a pi$$ poor job of that as well.

[Taylor329]

I wrote a little about my feelings on this, and will be posting it to my instagram/facebook, etc.. I took a few inspirations from the posts on this thread, so thank you to those with intelligent things to say, you should recognize where I used it. I'll leave this up for a day before I post, so if anyone sees anything they think should change, or maybe I'm wrong on, please tell me. Criticism is very welcomed, as I'm not good at lengthy write-ups generally and don't do this often.



I don’t usually rant about things, but stuff like this really gets me fired up. This will be a long read, and I’m not even sure where to start with this front page story by The Province...
As the time goes by, I see that more news headlines are being populated by something related to hunting. Even though our news outlets are supposed to be unbiased and neutral, I have not read an article or story recently that isn’t tainted with an anti-hunting agenda. I worry for the future state of our wildlife, and of our hunting heritage if this continues. I worry what kind of natural world is being left for my daughter, and all of her young cousins. The general non-hunting public are constantly being fed false information through social media and news outlets about wildlife management, and are being led by their emotions rather than sensibility and scientific data. We have already seen our new provincial government (The NDP), use wildlife as an emotional and political tool to further themselves in the public eye with the recent ban on Grizzly Bear hunting, all the while completely disregarding any hard facts or science. And now the very Conservation Officers that uphold the laws that protect, and responsibly manage our wild lands and animals, are being thrown under the bus. The reason?... Some of them are hunters. Go figure that someone who loves being outdoors would want to follow a career path that ties them to the outdoors, right? The same way that someone who loves cars would be be a mechanic, or anything else in the auto industry.

A freedom of information request was performed to find out how many Conservation Officers in B.C. are also hunters. Bryce Casavant, the ex-Conservation Officer involved in obtaining these documents stated on his twitter, “This is about the govts duty to assist FOI applicants & the responsibility to conduct an adequate search. This is not an anti-hunting agenda.” These documents show that 75 out of 106 uniformed officers have hunting records (70%), 48 of them purchased a hunting license last year. Oh, and they of course have to throw in that 4 of them applied for a limited entry grizzly bear tag, but were unsuccessful, like that stat even matters to this story at all? Again, grabbing an animal that provokes strong emotional responses, and dangling it out there for people when it has no real reason to be put forth. “Casavant argues that the high number of hunters in the [Conservation Officer] service, are evidence of a bias that fuels a kill-rather-than-conserve mentality… He believes department policies along with the large numbers of CO’s who hunt result in the government not being “truly interested” in solving wildlife conservation issues: “Their recruitment is targeting those that want to hunt and kill for work.”.

So let me get this straight… The CO’s that are also coincidentally hunters, aren’t in this field so they can work in the outdoors they are passionate about, uphold the law, and in turn protect the wild lands and animals of this province, they just want to get paid to kill? This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. It’s like saying a Firefighter chose his career because they enjoy campfires, or the fireplace in their own home, and they just want to get paid to play with fire. Casavant is an ex-CO, so he should know more than anyone that dealing with problem wildlife is only a small portion of what the job entails. From Wikipedia: “British Columbia Conservation Officer Service is responsible for protecting the environment and natural resources in British Columbia. Conservation Officers are peace officers, armed, and enforce 6 federal statutes and 25 provincial statutes, including the Species at Risk Act, Liquor Control and Licensing Act, Wildlife Act and Environmental Management Act.”. Sounds like there’s more to being an officer of the law than killing, eh?

In response to these comments by Casavant, communications officer David Karn released a written statement on behalf of the Ministry of Environmental and Climate Change Strategy, saying “part of the evaluation process for prospective employees includes ensuring values align with the role of a CO. A desire to protect B.C.’s environment, and fish and wildlife resources, is essential.”. With all the effort that was taken to find out how hunters work as a CO, and the time it took Larry Pynn to write this article, you think they would do a quick search on the gov’t website and find out that it’s actually a REQUIREMENT to have your provincial hunter safety certification to be hired as a CO. Knowing that it’s a requirement, would this article even matter? Does it really warrant a front page story? Frankly I’m surprised that there aren’t more CO’s with hunting licenses! I can only assume that the above requirement is fairly new, and some senior officers may have been grandfathered into this program, which would explain the 30% of officers without licenses.

This article is written under the guise of being a story about citizens struggling against the government to obtain documents that they feel should be available under the Freedom of Information Act, when it’s really an attempt to convince the masses that hunting is incompatible with conservation. Despite what Bryce Casavant says, this is blatantly anti-hunting. These officers work in direct correlation with hunters and anglers every day, so wouldn’t it make sense for them to know the process inside and out to do their job more effectively? I for one feel much better that there are hunters and anglers employed to enforce the regulations of hunting and angling, it just makes sense. If I were to have someone teach me how to play a musical instrument, I would much rather take the person who enjoys to play that instrument in their off-time, and not someone who is doing it to pay the bills.

“Casavant also said he believes the Conservation Officer Service is too closely tied to pro-hunting organizations such as the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. and B.C. Wildlife Federation, all of which sit on a wildlife regulation advisory committee that helps to establish hunting regulations.” This really takes the cake as far as stupidity. Wouldn’t we want the CO’s to have close ties to the very organizations that are establishing the rules and regulations surrounding hunting? Their job is literally to enforce those very regulations!! Conservation Officers are out in the field, boots on the ground every day, and I think it makes perfect sense that they would be closely communicating with regulation makers on what is going on in the wild. It’s like a police department having someone on the inside of a major criminal gang, they know what’s current, what’s happening, and what effect their actions are having. I can’t stay silent while stuff like this is published, claiming a “conflict of interest” to something that is literally required for the job.

Hopefully the public has the common sense to see that this article is bogus, and that the good name of the Conservation Officer Service doesn’t get unnecessarily sullied any further. I could go on for a while still, but I feel I’ve gotten my point across. Thanks for taking the time to read.

[mod7rem]

I wrote a little about my feelings on this, and will be posting it to my instagram/facebook, etc.. I took a few inspirations from the posts on this thread, so thank you to those with intelligent things to say, you should recognize where I used it. I'll leave this up for a day before I post, so if anyone sees anything they think should change, or maybe I'm wrong on, please tell me. Criticism is very welcomed, as I'm not good at lengthy write-ups generally and don't do this often.



I don’t usually rant about things, but stuff like this really gets me fired up. This will be a long read, and I’m not even sure where to start with this front page story by The Province...
As the time goes by, I see that more news headlines are being populated by something related to hunting. Even though our news outlets are supposed to be unbiased and neutral, I have not read an article or story recently that isn’t tainted with an anti-hunting agenda. I worry for the future state of our wildlife, and of our hunting heritage if this continues. I worry what kind of natural world is being left for my daughter, and all of her young cousins. The general non-hunting public are constantly being fed false information through social media and news outlets about wildlife management, and are being led by their emotions rather than sensibility and scientific data. We have already seen our new provincial government (The NDP), use wildlife as an emotional and political tool to further themselves in the public eye with the recent ban on Grizzly Bear hunting, all the while completely disregarding any hard facts or science. And now the very Conservation Officers that uphold the laws that protect, and responsibly manage our wild lands and animals, are being thrown under the bus. The reason?... Some of them are hunters. Go figure that someone who loves being outdoors would want to follow a career path that ties them to the outdoors, right? The same way that someone who loves cars would be be a mechanic, or anything else in the auto industry.

A freedom of information request was performed to find out how many Conservation Officers in B.C. are also hunters. Bryce Casavant, the ex-Conservation Officer involved in obtaining these documents stated on his twitter, “This is about the govts duty to assist FOI applicants & the responsibility to conduct an adequate search. This is not an anti-hunting agenda.” These documents show that 75 out of 106 uniformed officers have hunting records (70%), 48 of them purchased a hunting license last year. Oh, and they of course have to throw in that 4 of them applied for a limited entry grizzly bear tag, but were unsuccessful, like that stat even matters to this story at all? Again, grabbing an animal that provokes strong emotional responses, and dangling it out there for people when it has no real reason to be put forth. “Casavant argues that the high number of hunters in the [Conservation Officer] service, are evidence of a bias that fuels a kill-rather-than-conserve mentality… He believes department policies along with the large numbers of CO’s who hunt result in the government not being “truly interested” in solving wildlife conservation issues: “Their recruitment is targeting those that want to hunt and kill for work.”.

So let me get this straight… The CO’s that are also coincidentally hunters, aren’t in this field so they can work in the outdoors they are passionate about, uphold the law, and in turn protect the wild lands and animals of this province, they just want to get paid to kill? This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. It’s like saying a Firefighter chose his career because they enjoy campfires, or the fireplace in their own home, and they just want to get paid to play with fire. Casavant is an ex-CO, so he should know more than anyone that dealing with problem wildlife is only a small portion of what the job entails. From Wikipedia: “British Columbia Conservation Officer Service is responsible for protecting the environment and natural resources in British Columbia. Conservation Officers are peace officers, armed, and enforce 6 federal statutes and 25 provincial statutes, including the Species at Risk Act, Liquor Control and Licensing Act, Wildlife Act and Environmental Management Act.”. Sounds like there’s more to being an officer of the law than killing, eh?

In response to these comments by Casavant, communications officer David Karn released a written statement on behalf of the Ministry of Environmental and Climate Change Strategy, saying “part of the evaluation process for prospective employees includes ensuring values align with the role of a CO. A desire to protect B.C.’s environment, and fish and wildlife resources, is essential.”. With all the effort that was taken to find out how hunters work as a CO, and the time it took Larry Pynn to write this article, you think they would do a quick search on the gov’t website and find out that it’s actually a REQUIREMENT to have your provincial hunter safety certification to be hired as a CO. Knowing that it’s a requirement, would this article even matter? Does it really warrant a front page story? Frankly I’m surprised that there aren’t more CO’s with hunting licenses! I can only assume that the above requirement is fairly new, and some senior officers may have been grandfathered into this program, which would explain the 30% of officers without licenses.

This article is written under the guise of being a story about citizens struggling against the government to obtain documents that they feel should be available under the Freedom of Information Act, when it’s really an attempt to convince the masses that hunting is incompatible with conservation. Despite what Bryce Casavant says, this is blatantly anti-hunting. These officers work in direct correlation with hunters and anglers every day, so wouldn’t it make sense for them to know the process inside and out to do their job more effectively? I for one feel much better that there are hunters and anglers employed to enforce the regulations of hunting and angling, it just makes sense. If I were to have someone teach me how to play a musical instrument, I would much rather take the person who enjoys to play that instrument in their off-time, and not someone who is doing it to pay the bills.

“Casavant also said he believes the Conservation Officer Service is too closely tied to pro-hunting organizations such as the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. and B.C. Wildlife Federation, all of which sit on a wildlife regulation advisory committee that helps to establish hunting regulations.” This really takes the cake as far as stupidity. Wouldn’t we want the CO’s to have close ties to the very organizations that are establishing the rules and regulations surrounding hunting? Their job is literally to enforce those very regulations!! Conservation Officers are out in the field, boots on the ground every day, and I think it makes perfect sense that they would be closely communicating with regulation makers on what is going on in the wild. It’s like a police department having someone on the inside of a major criminal gang, they know what’s current, what’s happening, and what effect their actions are having. I can’t stay silent while stuff like this is published, claiming a “conflict of interest” to something that is literally required for the job.

Hopefully the public has the common sense to see that this article is bogus, and that the good name of the Conservation Officer Service doesn’t get unnecessarily sullied any further. I could go on for a while still, but I feel I’ve gotten my point across. Thanks for taking the time to read.

I think this is a very good write up, thanks for putting it together, but the comparison to a "police department with someone on the inside of a major criminal gang" just doesnt sound right to me. Maybe I'm reading or interpreting it wrong, but for me it doesn't work. It reads like you're comparing the regulation makers to a major criminal gang.

[whitlers]

I wrote a little about my feelings on this, and will be posting it to my instagram/facebook, etc.. I took a few inspirations from the posts on this thread, so thank you to those with intelligent things to say, you should recognize where I used it. I'll leave this up for a day before I post, so if anyone sees anything they think should change, or maybe I'm wrong on, please tell me. Criticism is very welcomed, as I'm not good at lengthy write-ups generally and don't do this often.



I don’t usually rant about things, but stuff like this really gets me fired up. This will be a long read, and I’m not even sure where to start with this front page story by The Province...
As the time goes by, I see that more news headlines are being populated by something related to hunting. Even though our news outlets are supposed to be unbiased and neutral, I have not read an article or story recently that isn’t tainted with an anti-hunting agenda. I worry for the future state of our wildlife, and of our hunting heritage if this continues. I worry what kind of natural world is being left for my daughter, and all of her young cousins. The general non-hunting public are constantly being fed false information through social media and news outlets about wildlife management, and are being led by their emotions rather than sensibility and scientific data. We have already seen our new provincial government (The NDP), use wildlife as an emotional and political tool to further themselves in the public eye with the recent ban on Grizzly Bear hunting, all the while completely disregarding any hard facts or science. And now the very Conservation Officers that uphold the laws that protect, and responsibly manage our wild lands and animals, are being thrown under the bus. The reason?... Some of them are hunters. Go figure that someone who loves being outdoors would want to follow a career path that ties them to the outdoors, right? The same way that someone who loves cars would be be a mechanic, or anything else in the auto industry.

A freedom of information request was performed to find out how many Conservation Officers in B.C. are also hunters. Bryce Casavant, the ex-Conservation Officer involved in obtaining these documents stated on his twitter, “This is about the govts duty to assist FOI applicants & the responsibility to conduct an adequate search. This is not an anti-hunting agenda.” These documents show that 75 out of 106 uniformed officers have hunting records (70%), 48 of them purchased a hunting license last year. Oh, and they of course have to throw in that 4 of them applied for a limited entry grizzly bear tag, but were unsuccessful, like that stat even matters to this story at all? Again, grabbing an animal that provokes strong emotional responses, and dangling it out there for people when it has no real reason to be put forth. “Casavant argues that the high number of hunters in the [Conservation Officer] service, are evidence of a bias that fuels a kill-rather-than-conserve mentality… He believes department policies along with the large numbers of CO’s who hunt result in the government not being “truly interested” in solving wildlife conservation issues: “Their recruitment is targeting those that want to hunt and kill for work.”.

So let me get this straight… The CO’s that are also coincidentally hunters, aren’t in this field so they can work in the outdoors they are passionate about, uphold the law, and in turn protect the wild lands and animals of this province, they just want to get paid to kill? This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. It’s like saying a Firefighter chose his career because they enjoy campfires, or the fireplace in their own home, and they just want to get paid to play with fire. Casavant is an ex-CO, so he should know more than anyone that dealing with problem wildlife is only a small portion of what the job entails. From Wikipedia: “British Columbia Conservation Officer Service is responsible for protecting the environment and natural resources in British Columbia. Conservation Officers are peace officers, armed, and enforce 6 federal statutes and 25 provincial statutes, including the Species at Risk Act, Liquor Control and Licensing Act, Wildlife Act and Environmental Management Act.”. Sounds like there’s more to being an officer of the law than killing, eh?

In response to these comments by Casavant, communications officer David Karn released a written statement on behalf of the Ministry of Environmental and Climate Change Strategy, saying “part of the evaluation process for prospective employees includes ensuring values align with the role of a CO. A desire to protect B.C.’s environment, and fish and wildlife resources, is essential.”. With all the effort that was taken to find out how hunters work as a CO, and the time it took Larry Pynn to write this article, you think they would do a quick search on the gov’t website and find out that it’s actually a REQUIREMENT to have your provincial hunter safety certification to be hired as a CO. Knowing that it’s a requirement, would this article even matter? Does it really warrant a front page story? Frankly I’m surprised that there aren’t more CO’s with hunting licenses! I can only assume that the above requirement is fairly new, and some senior officers may have been grandfathered into this program, which would explain the 30% of officers without licenses.

This article is written under the guise of being a story about citizens struggling against the government to obtain documents that they feel should be available under the Freedom of Information Act, when it’s really an attempt to convince the masses that hunting is incompatible with conservation. Despite what Bryce Casavant says, this is blatantly anti-hunting. These officers work in direct correlation with hunters and anglers every day, so wouldn’t it make sense for them to know the process inside and out to do their job more effectively? I for one feel much better that there are hunters and anglers employed to enforce the regulations of hunting and angling, it just makes sense. If I were to have someone teach me how to play a musical instrument, I would much rather take the person who enjoys to play that instrument in their off-time, and not someone who is doing it to pay the bills.

“Casavant also said he believes the Conservation Officer Service is too closely tied to pro-hunting organizations such as the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. and B.C. Wildlife Federation, all of which sit on a wildlife regulation advisory committee that helps to establish hunting regulations.” This really takes the cake as far as stupidity. Wouldn’t we want the CO’s to have close ties to the very organizations that are establishing the rules and regulations surrounding hunting? Their job is literally to enforce those very regulations!! Conservation Officers are out in the field, boots on the ground every day, and I think it makes perfect sense that they would be closely communicating with regulation makers on what is going on in the wild. It’s like a police department having someone on the inside of a major criminal gang, they know what’s current, what’s happening, and what effect their actions are having. I can’t stay silent while stuff like this is published, claiming a “conflict of interest” to something that is literally required for the job.

Hopefully the public has the common sense to see that this article is bogus, and that the good name of the Conservation Officer Service doesn’t get unnecessarily sullied any further. I could go on for a while still, but I feel I’ve gotten my point across. Thanks for taking the time to read.

Well said! Couldn't agree more. This should be posted and shared on social medja for sure.