Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 68

Thread: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,249

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    Quote Originally Posted by 338win mag View Post
    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.
    Last edited by 180grainer; 12-02-2018 at 11:09 PM.
    On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

    A gun in the hand is worth the entire police force on the phone.

    A cleaved head no longer plots. (Nordic Proverb)

    “Civil rights used to be about treating everyone the same. But today some people are so used to special treatment that equal treatment is considered to be discrimination.”
    Thomas Sowell

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,249

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    Quote Originally Posted by 2chodi View Post
    This document presents a supporting brief only. Is there an annual action brief which details
    what actions were taken by the BCWF in 2017 or 2018, either by themselves or with others, which aligns with the principles articulated in the supporting brief? It would be nice to see that if it exists.
    On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

    A gun in the hand is worth the entire police force on the phone.

    A cleaved head no longer plots. (Nordic Proverb)

    “Civil rights used to be about treating everyone the same. But today some people are so used to special treatment that equal treatment is considered to be discrimination.”
    Thomas Sowell

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    An Island in the Pacific
    Posts
    744

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    Recent media outlets have given coverage to issues not conducive to the hunting community. To make changes there must be a desire to do so. BCWF could use some time,money or trade, to educate the non hunters just what the hunting community contributes. Show with facts and information that harvesting animals is not a deranged past time. Education is very much required and I M O would be money and time very well spent.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    1,101

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    180:

    "With respect to the "are you a conservationist or a hunter" question. Don't fall for it."

    You misunderstand or I haven't communicated it well, but it's not an either/or false dilemma. First, I don't ask if you were one or the other. I asked which you were first. That's an important distinction. Why? Here's why:

    "They are synonymous and mean the exact same thing."

    To you and me, maybe. To everyone else who has a say? Not so much. Hunters are subject to the criticism that we only want to conserve what we want to kill. You can reduce that criticism to "hunters are only concerned about themselves and what's in it for them, and they want us non-hunters to help them get it".

    As you point out:

    "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."

    So, the reason you ask if you're a conservationist first or a hunter first is to address this manipulation which you have identified and which I agree exists. Hunters are stigmatized. That ain't news.

    As you also correctly observe:

    "When [FNs] 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..."

    Can you imagine if the public perceived hunters as conservationists first, and hunters second? We wouldn't be stigmatized and the public might just say "When hunters call for something it must be the right thing to do, after all, they're the stewards of the land". That would be an improvement on where we are today.


    "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. "

    Maybe I misread you. In your first post you said "The Grizzly hunt was closed down because of a supposed poll that indicated 90% of British Columbians didn't support the hunt." I think we both know that those polls are bullshit meant to give the government cover, and that they could be made valid with very little effort (restrict voting to BC residents, for example). Our miscommunication on that isn't a big deal either way. I think we both know what the govt. was up to.

    "...the BCWF should have hit the nuclear button..."

    Maybe. The thing is, who would have cared and what would the result have been? The BCWF is a good organization, but they aren't built for dropping the gloves with the rest of boys in this particular playground. Look at the opposition and what they bring to the table. The BCWF is outgunned in terms of staff, skills and money.

    In the US the NRA has fought very hard and very aggressively on one side of the gun debate. They are widely hated and demonized as a result, but they have a lot of money and a lot of weapons, and most important they are on the side of a constitutional right that is the next best thing to being written in stone. Anyone who figures they've got a "common sense gun regulation" is subject to a well financed NRA 2nd Amendment challenge.

    We don't live in the US and we don't have a constitutional right to hunt. It's pretty tough to ask the BCWF to act like the NRA without the BCWF having the tools. That leaves the option of the BCWF picking it's battles and using persuasion and influence.

    "We let them get away with it." We didn't "let" anyone do anything. They did it without our consent, and they'll keep doing it until we get in the game. It is entirely possible that the BCWF isn't the vehicle to get us completely in the game. I think the BCWF is a net positive, but we can certainly debate that in another forum/thread, whatever.

    "There are no consequences to phuking with the BCWF. That needs to change. " I kind of agree, although I don't think it needs to be BCWF specific. The strategic question remains: do you make hunters an NRA like group that is widely hated *and* feared? If so, how? A couple newspaper ads won't do it.

    Or do you make the public support a different group of real conservationists who honestly want to preserve a wild landscape for the public good? I think that's the more realistic way to go.

    "Most of what you say I'd agree with. Some points not so much. "

    Set out which you agree with and which you don't. We can make some progress that way.

    "But if it's everyone "just do the right thing"..." It's not. I've got a pretty precise plan of attack. It may need more components but the one's I've listed aren't random.

    "There's no leadership." vs "The BCWF has operated in a leadership role for decades."

    Like I've said, I think the BCWF is a net positive. I'll add that they are not satisfactory leaders at this time. They're trying, no doubt, but you can't argue that they're effective. I say that with respect and gratitude for what they have accomplished, but they aren't built for what we need done.

    "....organization re-aligns itself with its share holders. " Fair point, but looking over various threads I think you and I will agree: the "shareholders" (not an accurate term, but whatever) aren't aligned themselves. Are you a hunter first, a conservationist first, a shooter first, or do you want to be all 3 equally and task the BCWF with serving three masters that can often be in conflict with each 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. "

    See, I think we actually agree. The public doesn't see hunters as conservationists. Many of them see us as angry old white guys who like to shoot animals, and many think we're downright psychopathic murderers. We need that changed. I think we just disagree on who is going to get that done effectively.

    I don't think the BCWF is the group to do it, at least not on their own. They're outgunned and outnumbered and out pocket-booked. A complimentary organization or two wouldn't hurt. We know that "Protect Furbearers and "End All Trophy Hunting" don't hurt Raincoast or the Suzuki Foundation. BCWF doesn't have to be alone.

    But...before you start a new organization you need to know what it's going to try to do....which take us back to the original question: what do we want?
    Rob Chipman
    "The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,249

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Chipman View Post
    180:

    "With respect to the "are you a conservationist or a hunter" question. Don't fall for it."

    You misunderstand or I haven't communicated it well, but it's not an either/or false dilemma. First, I don't ask if you were one or the other. I asked which you were first. That's an important distinction. Why? Here's why:

    "They are synonymous and mean the exact same thing."

    To you and me, maybe. To everyone else who has a say? Not so much. Hunters are subject to the criticism that we only want to conserve what we want to kill. You can reduce that criticism to "hunters are only concerned about themselves and what's in it for them, and they want us non-hunters to help them get it".

    As you point out:

    "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."

    So, the reason you ask if you're a conservationist first or a hunter first is to address this manipulation which you have identified and which I agree exists. Hunters are stigmatized. That ain't news.

    As you also correctly observe:

    "When [FNs] 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..."

    Can you imagine if the public perceived hunters as conservationists first, and hunters second? We wouldn't be stigmatized and the public might just say "When hunters call for something it must be the right thing to do, after all, they're the stewards of the land". That would be an improvement on where we are today.


    "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. "

    Maybe I misread you. In your first post you said "The Grizzly hunt was closed down because of a supposed poll that indicated 90% of British Columbians didn't support the hunt." I think we both know that those polls are bullshit meant to give the government cover, and that they could be made valid with very little effort (restrict voting to BC residents, for example). Our miscommunication on that isn't a big deal either way. I think we both know what the govt. was up to.

    "...the BCWF should have hit the nuclear button..."

    Maybe. The thing is, who would have cared and what would the result have been? The BCWF is a good organization, but they aren't built for dropping the gloves with the rest of boys in this particular playground. Look at the opposition and what they bring to the table. The BCWF is outgunned in terms of staff, skills and money.

    In the US the NRA has fought very hard and very aggressively on one side of the gun debate. They are widely hated and demonized as a result, but they have a lot of money and a lot of weapons, and most important they are on the side of a constitutional right that is the next best thing to being written in stone. Anyone who figures they've got a "common sense gun regulation" is subject to a well financed NRA 2nd Amendment challenge.

    We don't live in the US and we don't have a constitutional right to hunt. It's pretty tough to ask the BCWF to act like the NRA without the BCWF having the tools. That leaves the option of the BCWF picking it's battles and using persuasion and influence.

    "We let them get away with it." We didn't "let" anyone do anything. They did it without our consent, and they'll keep doing it until we get in the game. It is entirely possible that the BCWF isn't the vehicle to get us completely in the game. I think the BCWF is a net positive, but we can certainly debate that in another forum/thread, whatever.

    "There are no consequences to phuking with the BCWF. That needs to change. " I kind of agree, although I don't think it needs to be BCWF specific. The strategic question remains: do you make hunters an NRA like group that is widely hated *and* feared? If so, how? A couple newspaper ads won't do it.

    Or do you make the public support a different group of real conservationists who honestly want to preserve a wild landscape for the public good? I think that's the more realistic way to go.

    "Most of what you say I'd agree with. Some points not so much. "

    Set out which you agree with and which you don't. We can make some progress that way.

    "But if it's everyone "just do the right thing"..." It's not. I've got a pretty precise plan of attack. It may need more components but the one's I've listed aren't random.

    "There's no leadership." vs "The BCWF has operated in a leadership role for decades."

    Like I've said, I think the BCWF is a net positive. I'll add that they are not satisfactory leaders at this time. They're trying, no doubt, but you can't argue that they're effective. I say that with respect and gratitude for what they have accomplished, but they aren't built for what we need done.

    "....organization re-aligns itself with its share holders. " Fair point, but looking over various threads I think you and I will agree: the "shareholders" (not an accurate term, but whatever) aren't aligned themselves. Are you a hunter first, a conservationist first, a shooter first, or do you want to be all 3 equally and task the BCWF with serving three masters that can often be in conflict with each 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. "

    See, I think we actually agree. The public doesn't see hunters as conservationists. Many of them see us as angry old white guys who like to shoot animals, and many think we're downright psychopathic murderers. We need that changed. I think we just disagree on who is going to get that done effectively.

    I don't think the BCWF is the group to do it, at least not on their own. They're outgunned and outnumbered and out pocket-booked. A complimentary organization or two wouldn't hurt. We know that "Protect Furbearers and "End All Trophy Hunting" don't hurt Raincoast or the Suzuki Foundation. BCWF doesn't have to be alone.

    But...before you start a new organization you need to know what it's going to try to do....which take us back to the original question: what do we want?
    I haven't responded to this. It's like responding to War and Peace. Why don't you ask a question or pose one idea? I'm not proposing to have answers here. I'm trying to start a debate.....one idea at a time........Lets start with that even if you think I've violated my own premise. So, in response......What?
    On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

    A gun in the hand is worth the entire police force on the phone.

    A cleaved head no longer plots. (Nordic Proverb)

    “Civil rights used to be about treating everyone the same. But today some people are so used to special treatment that equal treatment is considered to be discrimination.”
    Thomas Sowell

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    1,101

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    OK, here's the first thing we can talk about (and by "we" I mean all of us, not just you and me):

    Both wildlife and hunting are under pressure - some would say attack. How do we fix this? I'm suggesting there are 2 ways. One is to focus on what hunters want for hunting. The other is to focus on conservation. The question becomes which do you think is the more effective way of achieving whatever goal it is that you want to achieve?

    To answer that you're going to have to ask yourself what your goal or goals are.

    But, it's not a choice of hunter *or* conservationist. Even if you separate the two the goals of each newly divided identity overlap a ton, so it's a choice between which you identify as *first*, or which goal you want to pursue *first*.

    It's an important distinction, because both routes can easily go to different destinations, and both routes have different chances of success.

    BTW, there are 4 distinct questions in the prior post. Throw out an answer to them and let's see if they lead us somewhere.
    Rob Chipman
    "The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Golden
    Posts
    347

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    I personally don't think that the hunter and conservationist come hand in hand. I think an individual can be both and many of us hunters are conservationists, but it is definitely not a given. Not by a long shot. To be a true conservationist one has to make a concerted sacrifice of time, effort and/or money to try and make a positive impact on the wellbeing of fish and wildlife. I don't see all hunters making these sacrifices. One can't be a conservationist and also be self serving. For the most part a conservationists efforts are not for our own benefit. It is for future generations of both wildlife and humans that a conservationist directs his energy.
    Hunting has an image problem. Conservation does not. If hunters want to preserve their right to hunt they need to roll their sleeves up and become real conservationist. Not just by buying a hunting licence but by making sacrifices and putting forth an effort for the resource. This is what direction I see BCWF is headed in. By being a leader in conservation, backed by hunters and fisherman they are promoting hunters and fisherman's rights by improving their image. This is why hunters should not be turning their backs on the BCWF, but instead throwing their weight behind it. It's good for a hunters image to be supporting the largest and oldest conservation organization in BC.
    I don't know if this makes any sense to the rest of you, but it's what I've being thinking about for some time.
    "A true conservationist is a man who knows that the world is not given by his fathers, but borrowed from his children." John James Audubon

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,141

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    Don’t think you grasp the mental illness...step up and embrace the insanity..saving game animals so you can kill them later.
    Explain that too a blue haired bitty.
    Thomas Sowell said: “Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.”

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,141

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    You want a change in philosophy...expose the hypocrisy of the anti sentiment.
    the idea that you can be “nice” “good” “virtuous “ enough to quell their tortured minds. They are how they are because they wish to be virtuous themselves...it is a game people play..self delusion...they are not virtuous.
    Thomas Sowell said: “Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.”

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,141

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    Wolves are not conservationists...but they get a pass.
    Thomas Sowell said: “Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.”

Posting Permissions

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