Rebeka Breder trying to ban Wolf an Bear hunting

[horshur]

There is always room for improvement, my interpretation given the circumstances is that he did better than the wingnut promoting non-hunting, and speaking from experience, Jesse probably walked away and wondered why he didn't elaborate on the data. What he did do was point out that nuisance bears are one but one data set that is used to estimate populations of bears in addition to pointing out that data is collected from hunters and the Province data, so technically he did answer the question.

All the while Breder dismissed hunter data, provincial data and nuisance bear reports that all contribute to the estimate of bears in the Province and argued that hunters are a dying breed and that the public is opposed to trophy hunting. Well black bear hunting in my mind is not trophy hunting, yes people look for the largest animals and have those preserved for memories while enjoying the meat, but her interpretation is based on her emotions and ideologies and not based on science or data, she cannot argue that it is not a sustainable harvest. Lets tear her arguement apart with the facts. I challenge the BCWF to compile all the data that illustrates the estimates of the number of bears in this province.

Interesting fact, Rebeka Breder is a lawyer. Question is her role to uphold the law being compromised by her beliefs, as a lawyer is she falsely stating that she speaks on behalf of the public at large? Maybe she is breaching the code of ethics she swore to follow? Just a thought.

Go look at breders firm. Animal law.

[adriaticum]

Just to clarify, I said “honest and unapologetic”.

And I agree with most of what you say.

I think if we lean hard on a sustenance argument, it will further divide hunters and weaken our right to hunt. I say “right to hunt” because you’ll never convince an anti-hunting group that there is a need to hunt in this country.
I also don’t agree that “food is and should be the primary driver” to hunt. Why should that statement be accepted as a moral goal post when in reality it’s not true for a large portion of hunters. Don’t get me wrong I’ve been eating wild meat for a long time, but food supply has never been the primary driver or a lot of the hunters that I’ve known. I know a lot of long time hunters that give away a lot of their wild meat because it’s not an approved food source in their families. That’s reality. In my experience, the primary driver for most hunters is the experience of hunting itself, and what makes up that experience is different for everybody. Some people love hunting trips with friends/family and really aren’t concerned whether it produces meat or not. Why are we stuck on this false moral that hunting is only acceptable in order to feed ourselves? Why not make it mandatory to use the hides for clothing or fur rugs for a bed?
I still look at wildlife as a resource. I know guys that like to get lynx and beaver so they can have good quality winter mittens made. Their primary driver for targeting those animals doesn’t match “food is and should be the primary driver” but maybe their primary driver is just as valid. The statement doesn’t fit for all.

I am not trying to convince anti-hunting groups that there is a need to hunt.
That's not what we should be trying at all.
What we should be doing is making hunting an accepted social norm.
Like it was 50 years ago. We need to get into urban areas and into schools again.
Nothing has changed for hunters in 50 years. We still hunt, some animals are more plentiful, some less.
The only thing that has changed is perception.
And you have television, radio and now other forms of media to blame for that.
So that guys like Fred Eichler could make money by making hunters look like idiots.
I mean he is not an idiot, but he definitely behaves like one.
What has changed is that the odd ball now has the ability to show how dumb they are and everyone can see it.
Of course anti-hunting groups will be rallied by Fred Eichler.
We need less Fred Eichlers and more Steven Rinellas.
Steven Rinella is like Walt Disney to the hunting media, without the fairy tales.

The right to eat is more fundamental than any other right. Right to hunt, right to private property, right to free speech etc.
You won't convince me otherwise.

Hunters who give away all the meat because their families don't approve of it, should be hunting for themselves and eat it or shouldn't be hunting at all.

You need to understand why first nations have a license to hunt that is unquestioned and white european descendants don't.
When you do that, it will be clear to you.
Do first nations give away lots of meat? Yes
Do they only hunt for food? No.
But you won't find a Fred Eichler of aboriginal descent.

Hunters have done far more for wildlife in North America than any other group and yet they are always painted as the bad guys.
Why?
Ask Fred Eichler. lol, poor guy.
It's all about perception.
Why is that farmer who raises cattle and kills them for sale any different than a guy who goes out and kills an animal for his own consumption?
Perception again.
But really meat is meat regardless of where it comes.
Hunters and more honest and true in the way they obtain their food.
What's wrong with DIY food procurement?

Anti hunting groups have only 3 points they raise to score points, while we don't really say anything.
1. If we keep hunting we will push all the species to extinction. People need to understand that development and population growth is the primary driver for species decline. Not hunters.
2. People who hunt, hunt for trophies, claws, fur, heads, fangs etc.
3. People who hunt are bloodthirsty killers.

We know these 3 points are bullshit and yet we provide no arguments to the contrary.

[The Hermit]

Blaming Jesse or any other individual is not only unhelpful but plain out wrong headed. Same goes for the BCWF, GOABC, WSSBC, BCTA, UBBC or any other conservation organization that was involved! I was at the table gentlemen and all of the above organizations worked (especially the GOABC) to influence the governments of the day to implement a regulation to bring the G-Bear meat out. The BCWF admittedly dragged their feet arguing that giving an inch would open the door to further socially driven policies and bans. Christy Clarke insisted we DO something or she would kill the hunt!

If you want to level the blame on an individual that person would be that lying scumbag Andrew Weaver, and the GREENS and NDP are the two organizations deserving of our wrath and a "never vote for those assholes again policy"!!

Although the BCWF's approach on the G-Bear hunt was hard-headed and problematic they absolutely fought the good fight with clear and positive intentions and in your best interests. Anyone that thinks otherwise needs to STFU until you learn a few more facts!

[adriaticum]

Blaming Jesse or any other individual is not only unhelpful but plain out wrong headed. Same goes for the BCWF, GOABC, WSSBC, BCTA, UBBC or any other conservation organization that was involved! I was at the table gentlemen and all of the above organizations worked (especially the GOABC) to influence the governments of the day to implement a regulation to bring the G-Bear meat out. The BCWF admittedly dragged their feet arguing that giving an inch would open the door to further socially driven policies and bans. Christy Clarke insisted we DO something or she would kill the hunt!

If you want to level the blame on an individual that person would be that lying scumbag Andrew Weaver, and the GREENS and NDP are the two organizations deserving of our wrath and a "never vote for those assholes again policy"!!

Although the BCWF's approach on the G-Bear hunt was hard-headed and problematic they absolutely fought the good fight with clear and positive intentions and in your best interests. Anyone that thinks otherwise needs to STFU until you learn a few more facts!

Thanks Hermit!
Weaver is a slippery little weasel.

[bearvalley]

I am not trying to convince anti-hunting groups that there is a need to hunt.
That's not what we should be trying at all.
What we should be doing is making hunting an accepted social norm.
Like it was 50 years ago. We need to get into urban areas and into schools again.
Nothing has changed for hunters in 50 years. We still hunt, some animals are more plentiful, some less.
The only thing that has changed is perception.
And you have television, radio and now other forms of media to blame for that.
So that guys like Fred Eichler could make money by making hunters look like idiots.
I mean he is not an idiot, but he definitely behaves like one.
What has changed is that the odd ball now has the ability to show how dumb they are and everyone can see it.
Of course anti-hunting groups will be rallied by Fred Eichler.
We need less Fred Eichlers and more Steven Rinellas.
Steven Rinella is like Walt Disney to the hunting media, without the fairy tales.

The right to eat is more fundamental than any other right. Right to hunt, right to private property, right to free speech etc.
You won't convince me otherwise.

Hunters who give away all the meat because their families don't approve of it, should be hunting for themselves and eat it or shouldn't be hunting at all.

You need to understand why first nations have a license to hunt that is unquestioned and white european descendants don't.
When you do that, it will be clear to you.
Do first nations give away lots of meat? Yes
Do they only hunt for food? No.
But you won't find a Fred Eichler of aboriginal descent.

Hunters have done far more for wildlife in North America than any other group and yet they are always painted as the bad guys.
Why?
Ask Fred Eichler. lol, poor guy.
It's all about perception.
Why is that farmer who raises cattle and kills them for sale any different than a guy who goes out and kills an animal for his own consumption?
Perception again.
But really meat is meat regardless of where it comes.
Hunters and more honest and true in the way they obtain their food.
What's wrong with DIY food procurement?

Anti hunting groups have only 3 points they raise to score points, while we don't really say anything.
1. If we keep hunting we will push all the species to extinction. People need to understand that development and population growth is the primary driver for species decline. Not hunters.
2. People who hunt, hunt for trophies, claws, fur, heads, fangs etc.
3. People who hunt are bloodthirsty killers.

We know these 3 points are bullshit and yet we provide no arguments to the contrary.

adriaticum, you’re really on the teamwork page.
What did Fred Eichler do....eat one of your kids...lol!
Rinella eating wolves & coyotes is a bit twisted as well.

You brought up 3 points antis use to score points.
Turn #1 back on them.
When they say “if we keep hunting we will push all species to extinction”...put it right back that “all species of wildlife cannot coexist without management....and that includes all species”

We aren’t going to win this round by saying we have the “right” to hunt or the “right” to eat wild meat.
This war will be won by sticking to the facts and standing out ground that the management of predators is a key component to solid wildlife management.
Hunting of predators is a piece in the puzzle.

[puddlejumper]

Go look at breders firm. Animal law.

Yes, Animal Law, now go and interpret the BC Legal Society Code of Conduct from the perspective of what she is doing with regards to upholding the law vs. her activism. Its a fine line.

[Would Rather Be Fishing]

What we should be doing is making hunting an accepted social norm.

THIS!!!!

Unfortunately, looking at for example most hunting facebook groups, we are headed in the opposite direction. I recently came across this guy who has a IG channel "blood origins"... forget his name but he was on the "Hunter Conservationist" podcast. While i am a bit put off by his first response to an IG reaction was asking me for money, I like his overall direction and approach. I wish more hunters would just put a little bit more thought into how they represent themselves publicly....

[Would Rather Be Fishing]

While I still have a hard time taking someone who openly admits to being an "animal lawyer" seriously, one has to give her that: She is the one getting air time and exposure!

[mod7rem]

I am not trying to convince anti-hunting groups that there is a need to hunt.
That's not what we should be trying at all.
What we should be doing is making hunting an accepted social norm.
Like it was 50 years ago. We need to get into urban areas and into schools again.
Nothing has changed for hunters in 50 years. We still hunt, some animals are more plentiful, some less.
The only thing that has changed is perception.
And you have television, radio and now other forms of media to blame for that.
So that guys like Fred Eichler could make money by making hunters look like idiots.
I mean he is not an idiot, but he definitely behaves like one.
What has changed is that the odd ball now has the ability to show how dumb they are and everyone can see it.
Of course anti-hunting groups will be rallied by Fred Eichler.
We need less Fred Eichlers and more Steven Rinellas.
Steven Rinella is like Walt Disney to the hunting media, without the fairy tales.

The right to eat is more fundamental than any other right. Right to hunt, right to private property, right to free speech etc.
You won't convince me otherwise.

Hunters who give away all the meat because their families don't approve of it, should be hunting for themselves and eat it or shouldn't be hunting at all.

You need to understand why first nations have a license to hunt that is unquestioned and white european descendants don't.
When you do that, it will be clear to you.
Do first nations give away lots of meat? Yes
Do they only hunt for food? No.
But you won't find a Fred Eichler of aboriginal descent.

Hunters have done far more for wildlife in North America than any other group and yet they are always painted as the bad guys.
Why?
Ask Fred Eichler. lol, poor guy.
It's all about perception.
Why is that farmer who raises cattle and kills them for sale any different than a guy who goes out and kills an animal for his own consumption?
Perception again.
But really meat is meat regardless of where it comes.
Hunters and more honest and true in the way they obtain their food.
What's wrong with DIY food procurement?

Anti hunting groups have only 3 points they raise to score points, while we don't really say anything.
1. If we keep hunting we will push all the species to extinction. People need to understand that development and population growth is the primary driver for species decline. Not hunters.
2. People who hunt, hunt for trophies, claws, fur, heads, fangs etc.
3. People who hunt are bloodthirsty killers.

We know these 3 points are bullshit and yet we provide no arguments to the contrary.

I agree with everything you have to say except when you say this:

“Hunters who give away all the meat because their families don't approve of it, should be hunting for themselves and eat it or shouldn't be hunting at all.”

This doesn’t represent the reality of hunting for everybody and it hasn’t in a long time. This is your belief and sounds like your primary reason for hunting. I want to support everyone’s reasons for hunting when we argue against the 3 main points anti hunting groups use that you have spelled out.

[adriaticum]

adriaticum, you’re really on the teamwork page.
What did Fred Eichler do....eat one of your kids...lol!
Rinella eating wolves & coyotes is a bit twisted as well.

You brought up 3 points antis use to score points.
Turn #1 back on them.
When they say “if we keep hunting we will push all species to extinction”...put it right back that “all species of wildlife cannot coexist without management....and that includes all species”

We aren’t going to win this round by saying we have the “right” to hunt or the “right” to eat wild meat.
This war will be won by sticking to the facts and standing out ground that the management of predators is a key component to solid wildlife management.
Hunting of predators is a piece in the puzzle.

Lol, no I don't have anything against the guy, but he just appears like such a bloody child in his videos it makes me squirm.
I agree with everything you said for sure.
Those are the main 3 that I found and they are easily turned around with presenting the truth. But we don't have a hell of a lot of right representation.
Antis are just lying to the public by twisting the truth and we keep just taking it.
We need to do better.