Bc backcountry hunter angler assoc.

[J_T]

I'm with you.
I hate to see certain groups "alienated" as well, and would never support that either.
It has to be an organization that stands for "all hunters".
Some modifications to where atv hunters can go, or when bow is allowed before rifle, I am good with.
After that, were "together" united.
Not, this is the only way a hunter can be attitude.

And yes, in regards to Pemby, the anti's have one goal when it comes to hunting and hunters,
and that is "ban hunting".
It is "one initiative" that antis "all stand behind"!!
Thus they are effective being united and getting things banned, ie, GBear.

I apologize for the hijack and it is not my intention to single you out. I do want to use this as an example of what a lot of people think. Many believe (for their own reasons which I will respect) that hunter's ultimately require, one voice. And most often, with one objective.

In the same breath, we talk about how and why the non and anti hunting movements have been successful.
What we have learned from the non hunting community is that they seem to be plentiful, there are so many organizations for this or for that. The perpsective is, they are behind every tree, every animal, every stream, in attempts to protect it. But a non.org who supports saving fish, can find common ground with an savetrees.org too. And then when it comes to Government engagement, and being heard through the media there is a perception of so many unique organizations that are 'standing' together for something fabricated or something real, it gets attention.

Hunters must learn from this strategy. Not all hunters are conservationists, not all conservationists are hunters, but there is common ground in the love of 'something'. Make a choice. Wildlife. Hunters all have a unique perspective, what they hunt, where they hunt, how they hunt, where they live, how they see themselves relative to nature. This separates one group from the next.

What hunters must do, is work together. That doesn't mean they must agree. And when Government engages the electorate for input on 'something' more groups, will generate more airtime and not be perceived as 'one vote'.

I'm a member of multiple organizations. Why? I want to understand the unique perspective of, the BCWF, the BCAA, BCTA, TBBC, UBBC, BC BHA. and I look for common ground. Is there an opportunity to listen to one group and work with that idea, with another. When it comes time to stand together, these groups already know 'each other' or rather, I am familiar with people in each of these groups. I can understand a defensive structure or an offensive strategy, as we work to 'make more wildlife', or consider regulatory change, or stand our ground in a manner that environmental groups may not see as offensive.

So I'm a strong proponent for multiple hunting organizations, each with a statement, a message, a vision, a spokesperson and most importantly, a seat at the table. More hunters around any table is not a bad thing. And I sit on Provincial committees, and I'm finding friendships in these groupings of diverse people. And I'm learning from each of them and they are learning from me, and together, we find that place, were good decisions can be made.

[Jordan f.]

If there's 15 groups sitting around the table with the BC gov... I'd rather have 10 that support the RH in one way or another (even if they don't all agree on every single issue), then 1 group trying to fight off 14 anti's...

[Wild one]

If there's 15 groups sitting around the table with the BC gov... I'd rather have 10 that support the RH in one way or another (even if they don't all agree on every single issue), then 1 group trying to fight off 14 anti's...

Bringing a group to the table that is potentially backed by anti’s and helps divide the different hunter groups this does not strengthen hunters at all.

Been talking to hunters in Alberta about BHA and they basically say you guys are a bunch of traitors and odds are the reason you’re on the BC forum is a lot of Alberta hunters are not very welcoming to the BHA

Basically the more I dig the more reasons I see for hunters to avoid trusting the BHA and should tell them to pound sand

[Jordan f.]

Some like us, some don't. That's life. I believe in what we are doing. But I won't high jack/ bring drama to the BC thread anymore. Feel free to email us for any questions you want an official response too.

P.S I'm on here because I grew up in BC. I also stopped posting on AO long before BHA. Have you seen how much fighting goes on there?

[Wild one]

Never really looked at that forum but they all have fighting

[Jordan f.]

Never really looked at that forum but they all have fighting

It makes HBC look like a "safe space" hahaha

[Wild one]

It makes HBC look like a "safe space" hahaha

Every forums the same make yourself a target you deal with fighting

It’s a matter of conflicting views

[TexasWalker]

A BCBHA spokesperson was posting about a movie night on the hunting bc Facebook page.
A few guys started questioning him about what the BCBHA has actually done for B.C. wildlife and he got all offended and deleted his post.

[Bugle M In]

I apologize for the hijack and it is not my intention to single you out. I do want to use this as an example of what a lot of people think. Many believe (for their own reasons which I will respect) that hunter's ultimately require, one voice. And most often, with one objective.

In the same breath, we talk about how and why the non and anti hunting movements have been successful.
What we have learned from the non hunting community is that they seem to be plentiful, there are so many organizations for this or for that. The perpsective is, they are behind every tree, every animal, every stream, in attempts to protect it. But a non.org who supports saving fish, can find common ground with an savetrees.org too. And then when it comes to Government engagement, and being heard through the media there is a perception of so many unique organizations that are 'standing' together for something fabricated or something real, it gets attention.

Hunters must learn from this strategy. Not all hunters are conservationists, not all conservationists are hunters, but there is common ground in the love of 'something'. Make a choice. Wildlife. Hunters all have a unique perspective, what they hunt, where they hunt, how they hunt, where they live, how they see themselves relative to nature. This separates one group from the next.

What hunters must do, is work together. That doesn't mean they must agree. And when Government engages the electorate for input on 'something' more groups, will generate more airtime and not be perceived as 'one vote'.

I'm a member of multiple organizations. Why? I want to understand the unique perspective of, the BCWF, the BCAA, BCTA, TBBC, UBBC, BC BHA. and I look for common ground. Is there an opportunity to listen to one group and work with that idea, with another. When it comes time to stand together, these groups already know 'each other' or rather, I am familiar with people in each of these groups. I can understand a defensive structure or an offensive strategy, as we work to 'make more wildlife', or consider regulatory change, or stand our ground in a manner that environmental groups may not see as offensive.

So I'm a strong proponent for multiple hunting organizations, each with a statement, a message, a vision, a spokesperson and most importantly, a seat at the table. More hunters around any table is not a bad thing. And I sit on Provincial committees, and I'm finding friendships in these groupings of diverse people. And I'm learning from each of them and they are learning from me, and together, we find that place, were good decisions can be made.

JT,
Firstly, I don't worry about being singled out (after all, its a forum, and I have made statement of my own opinion, and anyone can debate that, so feel free)
I know who you are, and the organizations you are a part of etc.
I know your at the table with a lot of groups.
I agree, it is always a good idea to hear everyone.
That's why I have no issue with folks like Pemby. posting conficting views or just playing devils advocate.
It's important to be informed.
But, here's the truth in my opinion.
If I want to get stuff done in my life, I find I am better off if I "do it myself", as I am always disappointed by the results when I hire someone else to "do the work".
I know your at a lot of tables listening in.
But, to frank, that's all that happening.
Just a lot of talk.
I sure am not seeing any results, and some of the direction I m seeing (like reestablishing EK elk #'s, but at a much lower # going forward etc), is down right disappointing.

I have dealt in Strata issues for years.
We used to have a council of 7 or more members.
Lots of talk, nothing got done, an more problems kept arising/falling apart.
Now, I have the minimum needed on Council, and S*** is "getting fixed"!!

I am a hunter first and foremost.
I believe you need to know everything about everyone who has a difference of opinion and direction.
But I believe to get it done, you have to "do it yourself".
Hunters are here to hunt, (for all the reasons you already know for), but they also want to ensure
these species around forever, to hunt, to photograph, to enjoy for everyone.
In the end, hunters want to make better.
Others want to make some things better, but at the expense of others, like hunters.
I appreciate all your knowledge and time you spend, and your a gem on the site with what you relate to others about what's happened here and there.
But, I ask:
"what is really getting fixed these days"????in the "big picture"?

[J_T]

JT,

But, I ask:
"what is really getting fixed these days"????in the "big picture"?

Absolutely, that is the big question. Isn't it? How do we transform discussion and talk into action on the ground, and results. Believe me, there is a lot of frustration on that specific front.
We need to work towards activities on the ground that benefit wildlife. But, actions on the ground, require a plan, support, coordination, objectives and money.

My perspectives on the view: (apologies for the length, got away from me)
- Provincial activity,
- Regional activity
- Local activity
- My activity.

I don't think we belong to organizations wondering what that club is doing for me. We should be thinking, what can I do to help.

Again, I'm probably not the best person to respond to this, so what you get, is my optimistic view.

Provincially, the model for wildlife management is under a complete overall. The people of British Columbia made this an election issue. MLA's have made this an issue.
1) In the fall (201, wildlife biologists, academia, economists and industry got together for a workshop (by invitation only, but quite inclusive). Biologists were 'stating' that how we manage wildlife is going to change. And it will have an impact on Industry (primarily logging and mining practices), tourism, adventure tourism, so get ready.
2) in October Provincial staff laid out the objective in terms of funding. What their goals are. (1, 3 and 5yr ramp up to an annual allocation)
3) In December a Webinar was hosted over a 2 hour period to lay out a framework and objective for discussions. The culmination of the engagement process will be a provincial wildlife management plan by early 2020.
4) next week in Richmond almost all stakeholders (Industry, NGO's, Resident hunters, guides, trappers, tourism operators) have been asked to supply 1 representative to attend a workshop to discuss a number of topics targeting the great objective. What can we do. How do we transfer talk, to action on the ground. You can probably divide the attendees into a three or four very general groupings. Government of course, industry, hunters/trappers, tourism. If the focus is wildlife, then egos aside, my personal wants on the back burner. Let's work together.
5) prior to the Richmond workshop, the BCWF has organized a 1 day workshop to allow resident hunters, trappers, guides to discuss their opinions and ideas. This is very important, because once individual reps are in the workshop, they are divided into groups for discussions.

Each participant in the meetings this coming week has been asked to come with one creative and bright idea or demand about what they want.

Regionally,
1) hunting groups and organizations want integrated wildlife management plans. We want statements of commitment. We are working together to give the same message to Government and politicians.
2) Regional wildlife management plans have started in a number of regions on priority species
3) we want science (data, knowledge) to support decisions.
4) we need to address decision making. Federal legislation on species at risk and provincial legislation/regulation are not always a perfect fit. How can we be sure, that regional staff have the authority on decisions.
5) can we work with Government and convince local government that hunters matter, that hunters provide necessary knowledge of what is happening on the landscape. Building trusting relationships.
6) hunting groups are working together to carry out thinning projects getting involved with the Invasive species groups and directing/targeting/working together to do what they can. It's endless what can be done to help.

Individually
It may seem simple, but I offer it as an example, when I'm out, I identify not only wildlife, but road hazards, invasive plants, and every time I come out of the bush, I spend a few hours pulling and bagging invasive plants. A minimum of 500 metres each time is my objective. I measure those results. Get involved with any manner of habitat work. As smaller organizations, chip in $1000 to the Region 8 mule deer study. Better yet, go help. Help WSS with their winter habitat thinning programs. Carry over counts.

Hunters are very clear, we don't want sustainable populations we want more animals.
We want huntable populations. Let's call all hunting, management hunting. We hunt, to do our part to support wildlife management.
Hunters are very clear, they want measurable objectives, they expect adequate funding, and they expect Government to be accountable for results.

This thread started off on a discussion of BC BHA, I can assure you, the active participants in this group, are hunters/fishers, conservationists, they care about the hunt, they are active and have an objective of huntable wildlife populations.

If people are asking about them, then they must be creating waves, and if their catching air time, isn't that a good thing? Raising awareness.