Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 68

Thread: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,252

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    Rob Chipman raises a number of good thought provoking points.... Consider this and re-read, let soak and evaluate.
    The modern day hunter/angler needs to have more than a simple reap rewards from the land, assume it will always be this way mentality that our fathers and grandfather's possess(ed) and sadly still continues today for some. I think the last handful of years our mindset is recognizing that BC is no longer like she once was... Hunters are slow to adapt, but I see a slow shift in the mentality of some. Unfortunately whether you like it or not, we need to work harder on the citizenship front, yes that means engagement... Everybody who wants to take from the land whether it be freezer filling, gathering photos/ video footage, trophies for your wall, what ever your case.... We need to come together and strategically be aligned.... Target the 80% of neutral, uneducated majority of our province Rob speaks of... Use whatever media, verbiage is required to break thru to the lay man, just consider your message before it goes out, consider your posts on FB, Twitter and on here.

    Lastly fracturing up the hunting community into a million pieces thru every different type of hunting known to man's own organization is not the answer. We need alignment among a few hunting organizations, note a few that are reputable and can work together to carry a common message that unites us as hunter/conservationists. Yes Rob I said it... Conservationists the old chicken-egg delimna, which came first. In my own personal case I was, or always have been a conservationist first and a hunter/angler spawned from this.
    Last edited by one-shot-wonder; 12-01-2018 at 12:05 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    In the bush near a lake
    Posts
    7,198

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    Hunters need to take time to research how an organization is going to represent them, what their main focus is, and to what level the organization is going to tackle hunting related issues.

    Many assume only to be disappointed. It’s my opinion that with times getting tougher in BC hunters are realizing they don’t have the kind of representation they assumed they did

    Ask your self how you as a hunter want to be represented and ask ?s to see if you are supporting the right group to represent your views/goals as a hunter don’t just follow the crowds

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    813

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics


  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Region 4
    Posts
    91

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    Some good points brought up. I skimmed some of the posts though so might have to go back and read through again. I am relatively new to BC and don't know too much about the BCWF. My question especially from what I have been reading recently is are they an organization that is for hunters or hunting? It sounds like they were largely started by hunters and many of the members are hunters. But are they for hunting? If they are not, it doesn't mean that they are useless or irrelevant as wildlife always matters regardless of if people are wanting to increase or protect wild places and wildlife to view it or hunt it (I like to do both and do not think they are mutually exclusive). If they are not for hunters than maybe we should look to an organization that is for hunting and hunters? I joined the Backcountry Hunters an Anglers (BHA) because they are very local to where I am. Here in BC it seems they are grassroots at this point but growing quickly. In the states they are much larger.

    What do others know of them or think about them as an organization?

    There were many great points brought up about the individual doing more with regards to lobbying government, and with the organizations targeting the public as well. I still don't always know what the best way to represent hunting is as I don't think it is valuable for only one reason such as the meat or the trophy. Its everything the meat, the trophy, they adventure, the feeling of accomplishment, the exercise, the scenery. And many photos represent all these things. I don't think photos of the dead animals should be seen as bad but there certainly are some people posting some pretty awful photos out there with regards to "respecting" the animal.

    As someone else said specific examples of how hunting has helped animal populations would be useful. Here we all know "if it pays, it stays" but I don't know if that is as easily understood by everyone.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    17,156

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Chipman View Post
    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.
    Last edited by 180grainer; 12-02-2018 at 12:39 PM.
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

    Collectivism is Slavery

    Support a Woman's right to arm herself.

    Jan 13th
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj9Pm8-tFuU

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    17,156

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Chipman View Post

    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.
    Last edited by 180grainer; 12-02-2018 at 09:32 PM.
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

    Collectivism is Slavery

    Support a Woman's right to arm herself.

    Jan 13th
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj9Pm8-tFuU

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    region 3
    Posts
    3,290

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    Quote Originally Posted by 180grainer View Post
    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.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,423

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    Blind ideological adherence to the so called “North American Model of Wildlife Management “
    It is well to try and journey ones road and to fight with the air.Man must die! At worst he can die a little sooner." (H Ryder Haggard)

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Kamloops
    Posts
    1,118

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    living in a bubble

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    17,156

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Chipman View Post
    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.
    Last edited by 180grainer; 12-02-2018 at 10:40 PM.
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

    Collectivism is Slavery

    Support a Woman's right to arm herself.

    Jan 13th
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj9Pm8-tFuU

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •