Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 68

Thread: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Away from people!
    Posts
    396

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    ^^^ I think you hit on an important point there. I would assume there are restrictions to what political activities a charity can undertake versus a lobbyist organization...

    We're up against lobbyists.

    I don't expect, nor really wish the Fed to lobby...it's dirty work.

    So maybe it's time for a hunting lobby group? I'd support it...and still keep my membership in the Fed because they do good work.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    17,156

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    Quote Originally Posted by northernguy View Post
    ^^^ I think you hit on an important point there. I would assume there are restrictions to what political activities a charity can undertake versus a lobbyist organization...

    We're up against lobbyists.

    I don't expect, nor really wish the Fed to lobby...it's dirty work.

    So maybe it's time for a hunting lobby group? I'd support it...and still keep my membership in the Fed because they do good work.
    The BCWF is "a Lobbyist group". Its represented itself as that since its inception. In my opinion, its simply lost its effectiveness as such.
    Last edited by 180grainer; 11-29-2018 at 10:51 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

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Vancouver Island
    Posts
    1,576

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    Quote Originally Posted by 180grainer View Post
    The BCWF is "a Lobbyist group". Its represented itself as that since its inception. In my opinion, its simply lost its effectiveness as such.
    I belong to the Fed. I've never considered it a lobby group for hunters but do consider them an organisation funded by hunters, fishermen and other outdoor users promoting conservation,education and putting boots on the ground in that regard. I don't expect them to speak for me. Do we need a group to speak for us and would I support one? Absolutely, and it sounds like something is coming together in that regard mostly about showing hunters in a positive light. Some good points and comments above.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    17,156

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    Quote Originally Posted by Keta1969 View Post
    I belong to the Fed. I've never considered it a lobby group for hunters .
    They are of, for, and by hunters and anglers. They are the quintessential definition of a lobbyist group whether you considered them one or not. Again, the question is about communicating our position to voters and is our Lobbyist doing what we pay them for. It's a corporate contemplation as well as a share holder one.
    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

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    1,888

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    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.
    Rob Chipman
    "The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey
    "Grown men do not need leaders" - also Ed Abbey

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    region 3
    Posts
    3,290

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    The enemy of resident hunters have deep pockets and support globally, resident hunters dont. They get involved politically and infiltrate government and lobby them from advantages positions within government and it didn't happen overnight, some of those paid lobbyists are on this site.
    They have advertisments on tv and are buying land and making it off limits to hunters.

    Seems clear that hunters have very little representation in the province, but if they did....what would you want that representation to do??

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    955

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    I agree with much of what Rob Chipman expresses above. In order to retain hunting we need to reach outside of the hunting community and access that large middle of indifferent voters who neither hunt nor oppose hunting. The general public is broadly ignorant of how hunting contributes to conservation and the provincial economy. The below stats from 2013 (dated, I know) provide as sense of what every BCer should know about how hunting contributes to this province in a direct and meaningful way:


    • Hunting and angling licenses bring in about $12 million a year to government coffers.
    • About $2.5 million of that is targeted to conservation programs
    • Hunting-friendly organizations such as the BCWF and Ducks Unlimited actively promote wildlife conservation, participate in wildlife counts and research, lobby to protect sensitive habitat, and take on restoration and wildlife recovery projects at little or no expense to taxpayers.
    • BCWF members donate about 300,000 volunteer hours a year to environmental stewardship in B.C.


    The Suzuki-lke organizations that abound in this province have been more successful in raising their +ve public profile than the BCWF/hunters have been. While issues like the grizzly hunt are emotional and not hard to raise public support for, these groups generally seem to focus on issues that appeal to all BCers/Canadians/foreigners. Broad environmental initiatives against salmon farming, or pipelines or (insert cause here) raise awareness and, importantly, bring in funds. Those funds can then be purposed for slamming hunting and pursuing other hobby horse agenda items on the side. While the BCWF also has its broader issues in terms of wetlands conservation and salmon etc, it is still primarily identified as a hunting organization. Is Raincoast regarded as first and foremost an anti-hunting group or an environmental campaigner of which anti-hunting is just a part? If the latter, they can appeal to that broad constituency - the non-hunting majority - that sees merit in their environmental positions but is less concerned by their anti-hunting orientation. Perhaps that is where the BCWF needs to go in terms of messaging, taking the position that, while our roots are in hunting, our initiatives benefit everyone.



  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Kamloops Country just south of Heaven
    Posts
    23,994

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    BCWF Rocks as above, gotta love the idea and concept for all hunters to take note and don't gloat, support financially thru participation across this nation

    Jeldo -- The poet -- he wrote it --> gotta go noooo rahhh

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    N. Okanagan
    Posts
    14,182

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    There are several public venues where hunters could contribute to bringing knowledge to the naive public
    Outdoor shows and the like are attended by The Fed but generally as a fundraising lottery ticket sale, the 'hunting is okay' message is weak

    Apparently the BCWF booth at the Armstrong IPE this year reached out with some good info, and was well received

    I feel there is no need to ram an idea home to anyone, just get the message out showing hunting is okay and sustainable, and inform the fence sitters
    Never say whoa in the middle of a mud hole

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    N. Okanagan
    Posts
    14,182

    Re: Change in philosophy and a change in tactics

    HBCer that draw comparisons to the US usually get attacked but there is a good lesson to be learned in how they deal with information
    Go to most any sportsmans or outdoor show and there is a State sponsored and manned booth set up with literature, presentations and hand-on educational aids pertaining to outdoors and wildlife
    Kids have access to bones, models, furs and hides, etc so they can learn about the wildlife and outdoors in a way that is no longer offered in the general school curriculum

    Locally the Allan Brooks Nature Center does a good job of presenting educational information and programs and their mobile Nature Trailer is a star attraction

    BCWF could build a similar presentation platform showing that hunting and angling are okay and sustainable and can possibly be used in a constructive manner to benefit wildlife, and the public would be better informed
    Never say whoa in the middle of a mud hole

Posting Permissions

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