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