Comment!!!!now

[Jordan f.]

I think the summary looks pretty good. I believe we need to put conservation first, and bring first nations into that discussion. While they have a right to hunt in the constitution, the first nation communities can do better in ensuring overharvesting of females, or certain species does not happen. They could have their own tag system, which would probably mimic what they did traditionally as I believe they had "hunters" that answered to the chiefs. This would allow their rights are respected and also allow for proper management and conservation to happen.

I also do not believe that any group or organization that doesn't have an active stake in wildlife (so these anti groups) should have input. If you aren't in the tourism industry, a hunter, guide, or trapper, or resource extractor, you shouldn't have a say. Your input is completely biased and there is only one solution for you, the complete shutdown of everything. This is not productive and these groups should not have a voice at the table

My dad doesn't hunt or make money off of industries like Oil/Gas or forestry. He lives in BC, he pays taxes in BC, he hikes/camps/kayaks and enjoys the outdoors in BC..

You don't think he should get a say because he isn't shooting something or making money?

[Jordan f.]

Also the use of "biased" is odd... since you think large companies who make millions of dollars off the land should have a say...

[Bugle M In]

But did you have input when the process was open

Who are you asking?
I know I did.

[Kb3]

I commented as well and got the same response at j270wsn. Seems like the government in BC wants to censor honest statements. I just pointed out that natives are allowed to sell fish and meat that they catch or kill for money online and this may impact animal numbers and I got the same message. Its ridiculous when honest, common sense statements are controlled and censored by our government. By hey, we live in a "free" country right?

[Bugle M In]

I recall making a statement about "knowing/reporting what the FN harvest",
not saying I wanted them to have "more input".
So yes, I felt it was "censored" as well.

It's not in their mandate to correct the FN situation, at least not from most RH perspectives.
Reminds me a little bit about the MD survey.
Yes, they got the bag limit reduced (which was a none issue for me but others it was understably),
and we could all see where that survey was headed right from the get go, meaning more restrictions.
Odd thing is, many from what I gathered also wanted to see a "harmonization" of the seasons.
But for some reason, R5 was never looked at to re-align with R3.
And ever since, R3 takes quite a pounding for those 10 days by hunters, cause we all have to go somewhere.
Again, just another way to get what they want but make it look like we had an opinion that was listened to,
but I never feel like that from the results.

Interesting to see if they enact a "wolf cull" as was recommended???hmmmm (as Srupp would say)