More Internal Troubles...

[BgBlkDg]

Well, I am sorry to see Mike banned as I find him a useful and interesting member and contributor.

I also did not want the redoubtable "Willy442" banned, even though he slagged me personally for quite some time until we started to find common ground. I feel the same about "Dana" and he is hardly my best buddy, BUT, he knows a LOT about Mule Deer.

It's not my decision, I am not challenging the authority of the "mods", just stating my opinion and I suspect I am not alone.

[Foxton Gundogs]

As I see it, it is largely up to the local R&G clubs they CAN make the difference. Simple Restructure or we leave. The local clubs can not afford to go against their membership, nor can the Fed stand up to that kind of voting power from the affiliate clubs, plain and simple. That can take the BCWF in a whole new direction. That being said the local R&G members MUST show up and voice their displeasure to the local clubs, the world is run by those who show up.

[Wild one]

Why push an organization to represent you when they don’t want to support you?

Better off to put your $ behind those who want to support you instead or even start from scratch. It also needs to be clear they do not represent your interests as a hunter/shooter

[dana]

I totally understand Gatehouse is caught between a rock and a hard place. Anything negative said about the org brings threats of lawsuits. Allow only those who still support the org and you appear as one sided and unwilling to allow dialogue. How HBC handled the Resident Revolt during the Allocation Debacle was a free for all and allowed one group to bully anyone with an opposing view. It set HBC up for liable lawsuits. Interesting that those who ran the narritive then are the ones threatening the lawsuits now. I do see an easy out for Gatehouse. A sticky that says no talk about the BCWF for or against will be tolerated because it is just too divisive. Get rid of this special Org forum so you don't appear to be a sounding board for that Org and be done with it. Run HBC without the need of constant heavy moderation on this one troublesome topic. Easy peasy. The org's new direction goes directly against what this forum was set up to do. 'Issues dealing with Hunting opportunity' and 'promoting hunter recruitment' are no longer what this org is trying to do. Why have a conservation group that doesn't support these things on a hunting forum?

This forum is to pass on information to the public and BCWF Members about issues dealing with Hunting opportunity and Conservation. It's also to share the stories and projects that the BCWF put on every year to promote hunter recruitment and conservation.

[Gateholio]

Just to be clear, nobody is threatening lawsuits "right now" but in the past both individuals and GOABC have threatened legal action against HBC. The BCWF organization has never done so, though. We don't need more of that, and we don't need speculation, innuendo and allegations. If someone wants to create a "storyline" then they should do it on their own social media and have the balls to use specific names and make specific accusations and sign their own name to it.

The BCWF forum was never intended to be a Q&A or debate forum, it's purpose was as stated above- Passing on info.

[dana]

Each to their own. You are the one that complains about all the hard work it is to moderate on HBC. I guess you like all the drama.

[Jordan f.]

I'd vote to remove this forum. Either free speach or no speach. It's clearly not a productive place on HBC.

[Gateholio]

Each to their own. You are the one that complains about all the hard work it is to moderate on HBC. I guess you like all the drama.

Moderating HBC is pretty easy these days. There's only a few people that need constant attention.

[dana]

Moderating HBC is pretty easy these days. There's only a few people that need constant attention.

Like the one that is constantly whispering sweet nothings in your ear!

[Gateholio]

Guess that one went right over your head.....