Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

[Rob Chipman]

I apologize if I sound preachy. That ain't the intent. I want to figure out a way to win.

One thing I've learned about this subject is that it's too big and complex to address in one thread. There are just too many questions that need to be answered and too many realities to be recognized before we start making any progress. That includes defining who "we" are and what "progress" looks like.

One question to be asked and answered honestly by all people is: what comes first - hunting or conservation? The fact that we hunters value the activity highly isn't very important. Hunters are a minority of the population, we're more valuable to antis as a target than we are to the vast majority of non-hunters, and so if we concentrate on making this about us (that is, hunters vs. everyone else) we're going to have a hard time of it. On the other hand, conservation contributes to successful hunting, and conservation appeals to many non-hunters (something that anti-hunting organizations understand and exploit effectively). So, ask yourself (and remember your answer) what comes first? Hunting or conservation (For me it's conservation).

Whichever way you answer another question appears: do you want to engage and fight anti-hunters and anti-hunter organizations, or do you want to ignore them and take a different approach? If you believe that a minority of people hunt, and that a minority of people are committed anti-hunters, but that the majority of voters are ambivalent and will support whatever makes the most sense and isn't offensive, you'll recognize that the opinion of the big majority in the middle is the prize. They likely won't go fight for your right to hunt, but they may fight for conservation and tolerate hunting to some degree. (You can find fault with this non-hunting majority in the middle if you like, but pointing out their faults and all the things that they don't understand likely won't win you a lot of friends).




Does the BCWF do anything to benefit hunters? It does, but it does so in terms of conservation, not in terms of fighting for hunters rights. I say this as BCWF member, not a BCWF apologist or spokesperson. They do actual conservation work, but they do not, for example, lobby for predator suppression in order to provide hunters more game.


"The Grizzly hunt was closed down because of a supposed poll that indicated 90% of British Columbians didn't support the hunt. I disagreed with that for a number of reasons. First, the poll was designed, (from my understanding) to make a decision on meat retention. Secondly, the methodology behind the poll was flawed. You could vote if you weren't even from BC, (perhaps Europe or Asia) and you could vote as many times as you liked. The poll was also sponsored by three Anti-hunting or Eco-tourist organizations. This made me phuking furious".

With all due respect, you're not paying close enough attention. The hunt was closed down because it paid off politically. The poll was window dressing. Shooting majestic grizzly bears that play with their cute cubs is a hard sell in this world. We all know that, but some of us don't seem to want to admit it. Facts don't matter a lot in this world. We're divided into tribes. Politicians know that.

Grizzly viewing is commercialization of wildlife, and not necessarily benign, but it sounds sweet as hell to the less informed.

Combine "I'm saving grizzlies" with "And I'm creating good paying tourist businesses that generate way more money than guide outfitting" and put that in opposition to "I make money shooting cute bears" and I think we all know who wins the popularity contest. Given how close the last popularity contest was you can appreciate why it worked out like it did.

BTW, throw in "Also, FNs think of grizzlies as special" and it won't matter if informed people say "Um, not all FNS, and it sounds like you're redwashing this whole thing". You've already lost the sale by siding with the guys who shoot cute grizzlies.

Can the BCWF counter full time paid professionals? Clearly they cannot. It's not because they aren't trying, and it's not because they don't want to. They can't do it because they don't have the horsepower. Can an al Queda guerilla approach work? A bunch of individuals all over trying to influence the general public on a day to day basis with a tailored message? It couldn't hurt.

"I say, whatever our concern, whether low mule deer habitat, the Grizzly closure, dwindling Caribou numbers, we take the argument to the voter."

By all means. I agree with you. But by saying what you've said are you saying that for you conservation comes first and hunting second? It's important that you be clear on that.

The voter doesn't want more deer so that you can shoot them. Joe Rogan had a podcast recently with Rinella and Rinella mentioned a friend of his studying what the non-hunting voter considered convincing and non-convincing about hunting. We need to know what the non-hunting voter cares about. Don't assume they even care about what you care about. They don't. If they did they'd be out hunting with you, and they aren't. Non-hunters care about meat hunting. They don't care about tradition. They don't care about populations control. They care about hunter motivation. They don't care if a grizzly eats a human or bear mother and baby.


"And we do that not by writing letters to communicate with the politicians, but by using the media".

vs

"Making our case to the people".

Those might be two different things. Consider the story of Donald Trump. The media hates him. He hijacks the media (he calls CNN "fake news" and CNN runs the footage for him) and he bypasses the media (he has made Twitter his direct conduit to his supporters and his opponents). Love him or hate him, he made his case to the people and that's proven by his win. He also proves that the media doesn't win for you (remember the media said Hillary was the clear winner up until the final vote tally, and then the media changed the story to say that the Russians won, not Trump). (You could successfully argue that Trump uses the media, but not the way the media thinks it's supposed to be used).

"And we're going to have to pay because when they call and interview the BCWF, it's not the same as advertising".

You're correct. Nothing worth having comes free. Again, however, who's the "we" in this equation?


"For a well articulated position outlining the fraud that took place to close the Grizzly hunt, I would have donated......and I'm a cheap phuker. And if the major papers are too expensive. There are literally hundreds of smaller local new outlets".

Again, no offense, but that sounds a lot like "I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today", and that's a big part of the problem. Anti-hunting thought influencing groups have financially sound business models. Anti-hunting individuals are committed to giving a lot of free labour. Hunters? Well, we're losing that battle. Enough said.



"We have dwindling Caribou herds. We're concerned about Mule deer numbers. We're concerned about how the Grizzly bear hunt was cut. We're concerned about predation. We're concerned about a whole host of things. Pick one. Any one".


They sound like different things to me. We don't hunt the most threatened caribou. So, are we putting conservation first?

We hunt mule deer. Are we saving them so we can shoot them? Non-hunting voters don't care. Are we saving them for conservation reasons? We better make that clear.

We're concerned about how the grizzly hunt was shut down? Why? Because they didn't listen to us or because it's bad conservation policy? The reason you're mad makes a difference if you're trying to convince non-hunters.


"Develop an advertisement articulating our concerns"

First, make it clear what your concerns are.

"Tell us how much.......and ask for it. And put our concerns in front of the people......and not the politicians. Politicians have gotten us no where. All they are concerned about is votes. Well, the people are the votes. Those are the people we need to talk too."

You are absolutely correct.

So, where do we go? What can you do?

Here are some suggestions:

1) get clear on whether this is about hunting (ie, about you getting what you want) or conservation (about the public good that benefits everyone long term);
2) get clear that you have to pay, either in cash, labour or both, and then grab your wallet, put on your work boots or both (and I know lots of folks are already doing this, but not enough of us and not in a focused enough way);
3) get ready to learn some scripts so that you aren't saying the first thing that comes into your mind - we need to make a sale to the public, and words matter;
4) get ready to change your behaviour a bit. Pictures of you smiling with a dead animal on social media means one thing to me because I understand it, but it means something completely different to my buddy's wife, who is kind of put off by what she thinks is someone celebrating killing;
5) get on Twitter and Facebook and refrain from being overly combative or aggressive to people who disagree with you. Don't say "I'm kind of old and don't do social media"; that's like going to war today and saying "I'm kind of old and I don't do automatic weapons. I prefer spears";
6) compare notes with people who are trying to move the needle in concrete ways;
7) when anti-hunters try to exclude us, make the circle bigger and include more people. Include hikers, mountain bikers, horse people, commercial fishermen, foodies, sustainability and permaculture freaks, FNs, urban people, women.....everybody.

Just my thoughts. Thanks for bringing it up, 180.

I'll be trying to put on more educational events aimed at conservation here in the LML. I'm trying to rope in non-hunting thought influencers and media. It costs money and requires help. I'm easy to find.

[180grainer]

I apologize if I sound preachy. That ain't the intent. I want to figure out a way to win.

One thing I've learned about this subject is that it's too big and complex to address in one thread. There are just too many questions that need to be answered and too many realities to be recognized before we start making any progress. That includes defining who "we" are and what "progress" looks like.

One question to be asked and answered honestly by all people is: what comes first - hunting or conservation? The fact that we hunters value the activity highly isn't very important. Hunters are a minority of the population, we're more valuable to antis as a target than we are to the vast majority of non-hunters, and so if we concentrate on making this about us (that is, hunters vs. everyone else) we're going to have a hard time of it. On the other hand, conservation contributes to successful hunting, and conservation appeals to many non-hunters (something that anti-hunting organizations understand and exploit effectively). So, ask yourself (and remember your answer) what comes first? Hunting or conservation (For me it's conservation).

So I spent sometime responding to Rob's comments last night. Unfortunately when I was done, the combination of his post and my response was too big and it wouldn't post. So I'll do it in bits.

With respect to the "are you a conservationist or a hunter" question. Don't fall for it. Not that I'm suggesting Mr. Chipman is doing something nefarious, but because the question presents a false dilemma. They are synonymous and mean the exact same thing. The FN and their supporters have done a wonderful job in manipulating public perception in this regard and in my opinion, the FN have become the useful idiots of the Eco-Tourist and Environmentalist movements. The FN have been held out as the quintessential hunter/conservationist group. When they call for a ban, it's in the eyes of the public that "it must be the right thing to do, after all they are stewards of the land and have been for hundreds of years". When they go out and hunt with out regulation or over sight, again, "it must be the right thing to do as they are stewards of the land and have been for hundreds of years". It has been so well marketed that no one "but a racist" would question the advancement of weaponry, the advancement in mobility, the advancement in agriculture and availability of food, the inability to properly manage the wildlife etc.

I was quite surprised to hear the BCWF has made one a priority over the other. And more importantly, one at the expense of the other. It maybe that this very decision has led to their increasing ineffectiveness in the eyes of hunters. The idea that conserving the mountain caribou so that perhaps one day you may hunt them or your children will, is now seen as bad. When did that happen? Ask any non-hunter if they like buying wild Sockeye at the store and then ask them if they'd support measures to ensure that continued supply. Of course they would agree but that wouldn't be seen as hypocritical. So why is it for us to suggest that "yes, part of the reason I volunteer my time or money to enhance a species is that I or my kids may hunt them in the future? When did this become bad? Particularly when you can point to numerous examples like the one I have, where we as humans do this all the time. The anti's did this over decades of marketing to the public and as Mr. Chipman has demonstrated, it's been so effective that we regurgitate it to ourselves as hunters as a legitimate concern.

One of the goals of the BCWF should be to restore what is rightfully ours. The public's perception of the fact that conservation and hunting are inseparable. It is a symbiotic relationship with each benefiting the other.

[338win mag]

So I spent sometime responding to Rob's comments last night. Unfortunately when I was done, the combination of his post and my response was too big and it wouldn't post. So I'll do it in bits.

With respect to the "are you a conservationist or a hunter" question. Don't fall for it. Not that I'm suggesting Mr. Chipman is doing something nefarious, but because the question presents a false dilemma. They are synonymous and mean the exact same thing. The FN and their supporters have done a wonderful job in manipulating public perception in this regard and in my opinion, the FN have become the useful idiots of the Eco-Tourist and Environmentalist movements. The FN have been held out as the quintessential hunter/conservationist group. When they call for a ban, it's in the eyes of the public that "it must be the right thing to do, after all they are stewards of the land and have been for hundreds of years". When they go out and hunt with out regulation or over sight, again, "it must be the right thing to do as they are stewards of the land and have been for hundreds of years". It has been so well marketed that no one "but a racist" would question the advancement of weaponry, the advancement in mobility, the advancement in agriculture and availability of food, the inability to properly manage the wildlife etc.

One of the goals of the BCWF should be to restore what is rightfully ours. The public's perception of the fact that conservation and hunting are inseparable. It is a symbiotic relationship with each benefiting the other.

I was quite surprised to hear the BCWF has made one a priority over the other. And more importantly, one at the expense of the other. It maybe that this very decision has led to the increasingly ineffectiveness in the eyes of hunters. The idea that conserving the mountain caribou so that perhaps one day you may hunt them or your children will, is now seen as bad. When did that happen? Ask any non-hunter if they like buying wild Sockeye at the store and then ask them if they'd support measures to ensure that continued supply. Of course they would agree but that wouldn't be seen as hypocritical. So why is it for us to suggest that "yes, part of the reason I volunteer my time or money to enhance a species is that I or my kids may hunt them in the future? When did this become bad? Particularly when you can point to numerous examples like the one I have, where we as humans do this all the time. The anti's did this over decades of marketing to the public and as Mr. Chipman has demonstrated, it's been so effective that we regurgitate it to ourselves as hunters as a legitimate concern.

This is one of the most astute posts I have read on this site, ever...... regarding perception of FN.....the anti's and globalists have laid this perception on their lap, they didn't do anything to make it what it is, it was done for them. I have said the same thing on here before.
I am still confused however....what would you like an organization to do to represent hunters better??
gain "social license" from who, the general public who will then do what, support hunting, quite bothering hunters? what?
In speaking with my MLA not to long ago the words wishy washy and flipflop come to mind, and these problems we face are alot bigger than at the provincial level.

[180grainer]

I am still confused however....what would you like an organization to do to represent hunters better??
gain "social license" from who, the general public who will then do what, support hunting, quite bothering hunters? what?

"One of the goals of the BCWF should be to restore what is rightfully ours. The public's perception of the fact that conservation and hunting are inseparable. It is a symbiotic relationship with each benefiting the other."

Changing the public's perception of hunting and its relation to conservation. By doing so, you take the political gain out of using hunting as a tool to get elected, (and it's always used at our expense and results in bad decision making). With increased voter awareness, you'd get funds re-directed back into proper game management. You'd get more CO's out there and you get more funds for research. Changing people's perceptions is all about consistently communicating your position.

[180grainer]

With all due respect, you're not paying close enough attention. The hunt was closed down because it paid off politically. The poll was window dressing. Shooting majestic grizzly bears that play with their cute cubs is a hard sell in this world. We all know that, but some of us don't seem to want to admit it. Facts don't matter a lot in this world. We're divided into tribes. Politicians know that.

I'm really not sure why you'd think I didn't consider the closure of the Grizzly hunt as political and a viewed means of getting votes. Be that as it may, my point was, the evidence was there for anyone to see how the poll was conducted and who sponsored it. Because it appeared that fraud was so evident, the BCWF should have hit the nuclear button and spent the money to strategically place ads with their position about the poll coupled with what the data actually suggested. Most people today have no idea they were lied to. We let them get away with it. Most likely because the BCWF is trying to play a political game and thinking they'll hurt their ability down the road to get something else. Where did that get them? Was there not some big land use meeting with the Feds, the Province, FN and some Antis recently? No BCWF. That's where it got them. The Government clearly sees them as ineffectual "to them"!!!!!!! There are no consequences to phuking with the BCWF. That needs to change.

[180grainer]

Here are some suggestions:

1) get clear on whether this is about hunting (ie, about you getting what you want) or conservation (about the public good that benefits everyone long term);
2) get clear that you have to pay, either in cash, labour or both, and then grab your wallet, put on your work boots or both (and I know lots of folks are already doing this, but not enough of us and not in a focused enough way);
3) get ready to learn some scripts so that you aren't saying the first thing that comes into your mind - we need to make a sale to the public, and words matter;
4) get ready to change your behaviour a bit. Pictures of you smiling with a dead animal on social media means one thing to me because I understand it, but it means something completely different to my buddy's wife, who is kind of put off by what she thinks is someone celebrating killing;
5) get on Twitter and Facebook and refrain from being overly combative or aggressive to people who disagree with you. Don't say "I'm kind of old and don't do social media"; that's like going to war today and saying "I'm kind of old and I don't do automatic weapons. I prefer spears";
6) compare notes with people who are trying to move the needle in concrete ways;
7) when anti-hunters try to exclude us, make the circle bigger and include more people. Include hikers, mountain bikers, horse people, commercial fishermen, foodies, sustainability and permaculture freaks, FNs, urban people, women.....everybody.

Just my thoughts.

Ok, so these are my thoughts. Most of what you say I'd agree with. Some points not so much. But the long and the short of it is, "we all have to do our part". I agree. But if it's everyone "just do the right thing" you've negated one major component. There's no leadership. Sure, we could just agree right here and now that what you've written is what we should do. But the results would be exactly what we have. Why would they be different? The BCWF has operated in a leadership role for decades. That's what we're talking about here. Not my behavior or yours. That comes after we get good leadership and the organization re-aligns itself with its share holders.