Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 12202122
Results 211 to 217 of 217

Thread: BCWF supports BAN on crossbow scopes

  1. #211
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Cedar B.C.
    Posts
    6,999

    Re: BCWF supports BAN on crossbow scopes

    Right on Nog, but then we should be used to being told it is a warm summer shower when we get peed on. I have done more for Region 2 than many of their current BOD but that Ides of March assassination of a long time Director/Past Pres. because he chose not to let this stay another BCWF secret well that capped it for me.
    "BORN TO HUNT"
    Foxton's Cuervo Gold "KEELA" Oct. 2004-June 2017. Always in my blind and my heart.

  2. #212
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Region 2
    Posts
    1,339

    Re: BCWF supports BAN on crossbow scopes

    Unless I am completely out to lunch (I could be since I wasn't in the room but have been heard a reasonable explanation of what went on) the title is at worst a half truth. Yes, the BCWF did suppory the ban... in so much that the members representing the BCWF on the Region 6 "Provincial Hunting and Trapping Advisory Team" voted in favour of the ban. It doesn't really matter what Provincial Body says its position is, or what Region 2 tried to pass. The only thing that matters is what the BCWF member in that boardroom said in regards to the Province's proposal; that is the defacto BCWF position and the only one that matters.

    There in lies the problem; from all information I can gather there was only one true dissenting voice and another one or two that didn't feel this matter concerned the body they represented. None of those voices came from the BCWF. I understand why, and don't lay any blame. But going forward, the BCWF has to decide if it wants to continue to act as the voice of resident hunters full stop, or act as a conservation group full stop. It is impossible to serve 2 masters. Then they must apply the rules to the representatives they send to represent them. If ones livelihood may possibly be directly affected by decisions that may be made by one side you should not be chosen to represent the other.
    I don't shoot innocent animals... Just the ones that look guilty!

  3. #213
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    110

    Re: BCWF supports BAN on crossbow scopes

    So i know of 4 people who got the bow leh in 6-04, as of this morning not 1 animal harvested and they all have pounded it hard

  4. #214
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    1,888

    Re: BCWF supports BAN on crossbow scopes

    Nog:

    "As I recall, the Region 2 consideration was not so much focused on scopes, but the outright banning of crossbow use in archery seasons overall."

    You could be right. I wasn't there and no resolution came to BCWF from Region 2, as I recall. As this thread demonstrates, Chuck Zuckerman, who probably was there, was explicit in his statement that BCWF did not support the ban. There is no actual indication that BCWF supported this ban, is there? I understand that there may or may not have been some sort of disagreement at the Region 2 Board, but nothing actually came from it aside from a director being suspended by his fellow directors, correct?

    I gotta say, if a resolution came from anyone to the BCWF suggesting that we ban crossbows outright it simply wouldn't gain any traction or be taken seriously.

    Foxton:

    "I have done more for Region 2 than many of their current BOD but that Ides of March assassination of a long time Director/Past Pres. because he chose not to let this stay another BCWF secret well that capped it for me."

    Thanks for your service, and I'm sorry you're not happy with the current state of affairs. I think you realize the the Region 2 Board does not share their minutes with the BCWF, nor do they share their plans or value positions aside from resolutions that they may or may not create and forward to the BCWF.

    You're probably also aware that the Region 2 Board is actually a completely independent society and not strictly speaking a creature of the BCWF aside from the fact that R2 Board members are also BCWF members.

    I wasn't at any of the R2 BoD meetings and so have no direct knowledge of what they discussed or didn't discuss, and I'm not aware of who was suspended or why, so I accept your relation of events.

    That still doesn't add up to BCWF supporting a ban on crossbow scopes or crossbows altogether, and it doesn't add up to "another BCWF secret". BCWF never supported a ban on crossbow scopes nor a ban on crossbows in general. The OP appears to have been wrong in his allegation.

    Mulehahn:



    "Yes, the BCWF did suppory the ban... in so much that the members representing the BCWF on the Region 6 "Provincial Hunting and Trapping Advisory Team" voted in favour of the ban. It doesn't really matter what Provincial Body says its position is, or what Region 2 tried to pass. The only thing that matters is what the BCWF member in that boardroom said in regards to the Province's proposal; that is the defacto BCWF position and the only one that matters."

    I've been at Provincial Hunting and Trapping Advisory Team (PHTAT) meetings. Participants sign a confidentiality agreement when they begin, which I of course did, so I can't talk too much about what was said or who voted on what or when, but my recollection of the meetings I attended don't correspond with what you're relating.

    Maybe what you heard occurred at an earlier meeting - I don't know.

    I do know this - there are a lot of people at the PHTAT table (Trappers Association, WSS, BCWF, etc, plus government employees).

    The non-government people advise only. They don't make the rules. The rules are made by government. The government can take or ignore advice. The non-government members do not vote to adopt a regulation or policy.

    What you're relating may be true (that there was only one truly dissenting voice and a couple who weren't convinced that the issue concerned their groups) but if there was only one dissenting voice wouldn't you think the regulation would have actually come to pass? Again, it may also have occurred at a meeting that I didn't attend, because your relation of events doesn't correspond with my memory of any PHTAT meetings I've attended.

    I think I can also share that nobody from BCWF Region 2 BoD was at any of the PHTAT meetings when this proposal was discussed, and I certainly never received any communication from R2 regarding the proposed ban prior to attending PHTAT meetings.

    In fact, Chuck Zuckerman's comments about BCWF not opposing technology that ensures a cleaner kill, providing fair chase ethics are still observed, seems more in tune with what I recall (Chuck was not at the PHTAT meetings either, so don't roast him). When I say "providing fair chase ethics are still observed" compare a guy with a 425 fps crossbow with a scope to the completley automated longe range sniper rifles that were indeed banned by the COS - Hard to argue that a guy with a crossbow shooting 425 FPS and 40-80 yards isn't fair chase when rifle hunters often shoot 300 yds.

    All that said, you make a good point when you say "The only thing that matters is what the BCWF member in that boardroom said in regards to the Province's proposal; that is the defacto BCWF position and the only one that matters." Again, my recollection of what occurred doesn't correspond with what you relate, and that could be a result of it happening at an earlier meeting or it could be a result of it never happening at all, but your point is correct and I will undertake to keep that in mind in all future PHTAT meetings.


    "BCWF has to decide if it wants to continue to act as the voice of resident hunters full stop, or act as a conservation group full stop."

    There isn't necessarily a conflict, as most hunters are also conservationists. Conservation is clearly BCWF's prime concern, as clearly stated on our website and in all kinds of published materials, but you'll note two recent actions taken by BCWF - one was to lobby for hunting and fishing to be declared essential services during the pandemic (that benefits hunters) and our legal work on access restrictions erected by First Nations during this and past hunting seasons.

    The essential services ruling benefits all hunters, whether BCWF members or not.

    The injunctions, strictly speaking, may only be enforeceable for BCWF members, but the message they send to the rest of the world are beneficial to all BC residents who want to maintain access to crown land. Remember that the very concept of "crown land" is now up for grabs (if you aren't aware that many people now deny that crown land even exists, you need to catch up).

    Anyone unhappy with what BCWF is doing should realize that it's a volunteer organization that faces way more challenges than it can currently address effectively. We are a conservation organization first and foremost, but most of our members are hunters and anglers, and we try to promote their interests and achieve their goals. We've done a pretty good job of that, I think.

    I will tell you, given the developments on the Indigenous relations front and the cost of litigation, get ready to grab your wallets and support a BCWF legal war chest, because injunctions run about $60k a pop, and often only apply to one geographic location.

    There has long been talk of a group dedicated strictly to representing BC hunter rights. I hope someone fly's at creating one. I'd likely join it.
    Rob Chipman
    "The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey
    "Grown men do not need leaders" - also Ed Abbey

  5. #215
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Region 2
    Posts
    1,339

    Re: BCWF supports BAN on crossbow scopes

    Thanks. I may have worded it wrong. I understand that these meetings are in no way binding, but I was under the impression that the government was seeking input from the groups present on how on what regulation changes to proceed with and seek feed back from the general public before being implenented. No, no vote is held but as a rule if almost every group opposes it, it goes back to the drawing board. I have not attended a phtat meeting but have attended several similar meetings regarding fishing that were probably similar. Everyone gets a chance to express their thoughts and if the majority think its is a bad idea then it probably is and is scrapped; never to be propsed to the public. No, it is not a formal vote and some things can be taken out of of context (has happened to me, a flippant remark I made and thought nothing of resulted in a significant season change once) but from what I can gather a BCWF representative at the meeting was in full support of this rule. But as you say it doesn't matter, the government can do as it pleases. Instead of taking away scopes they made it LEH.

    And as far as the BCWF, and what it is doing.. I support them. As an organization. I do donate my time and money. Think every hunter should as they are seem to be the only voice the Province will listen to. The battles that lie ahead will be huge. That is why I want so badly for the BCWF to get itself back together. A new group just doesn't have time. Just not sure it will.
    I don't shoot innocent animals... Just the ones that look guilty!

  6. #216
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Pemberton BC
    Posts
    1,513

    Re: BCWF supports BAN on crossbow scopes

    Any point to keep this thread open? Better convince me quick.....
    Knowledgeable shooters agree- The 375 Ruger is the NEW KING of all 375 caliber cartridges. ALL HAIL THE NEW KING!

  7. #217
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    1,888

    Re: BCWF supports BAN on crossbow scopes

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

Posting Permissions

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