i don't think i ever said that the government doesn't care if bcwf shows up. That's you creating a straw man.
What i said was that you don't know what my motivation is or what bcwf's motivation is. You assume you do, but you don't
ok, i don't know your motivations. Fair enough. But i can judge what you write and form a conclusion.
i've had and am having more meetings with mlas, mps, adms, fairly high level bureaucrats and ministers of both the federal and provincial governments. I just spent a half hour talking with one today. It's true that access is not the same as influence, but it's pretty hard to argue that these people would take time out of their very busy days to talk to us if they didn't care or if our input was not required
maybe it's because they fear you doing exactly or similarly to what i've stated. You're easy to control where you are. The last agreement with the talthan. What did the bcwf influence to the point where it changed the overall direction of the negotiations? Look at the political persuasion you're dealing with. Conservative, liberal, provincial, federal. They're all socialist political entities that will never stop giving away our legacy. To a large degree, white, elitist liberal, socialists. If there is a difference between them. It's the speed in which our heritage disappears. This is far bigger than hunting and fishing. These are the same politicians that won't take a stand when another statue representing our heritage is ripped down, or when blm decides to have a rally during a pandemic and applaud. You don't even know who your negotiating with.
you're right in identifying a major hurdle with the msm. You're wrong in recommending that bcwf damages a non-partisan brand by aligning in public with a very partisan and widely hated media outlet.
i named three. Why'd you focus on rebel? Not only that. Those were just suggests. that's just a stupid move, and i think you can see that. It would be much wiser for a surrogate to do that (we know that surrogates play a huge role in moving public opinion, and we know that surrogates are very valuable because they can get into nasty shit-splattering fights without splattering the mainstream organization).
Maybe there's a role for you there....
Meanwhile, bcwf does try, and is increasingly being successful, in changing how media deals with hunters/anglers/conservationists.
prove it.
you remember the question you're answering here, right? Why would we break the law and incur great financial cost. And your answer is "to communicate with the public"? You can have a do over on that onea
maybe you all need to change your status so it's "not against the law" to "communicate with the public". How'd that happen? Talk about a muzzle.
well, you certainly want to do that. I'd suggest a blog or a youtube channel. Bcwf kind of wants to do that, and always has, and says so in it's mission statement and values, but bcwf is nowhere near as narrowly focused as you are on the social-political aspect, not as committed to your narrow perspective
so wanting to stop the continuing erosion of our ability to wonder and take part in the vast wealth of this province, something i thought was enshrined in our charter, is a narrow focus? Guilty i guess. Got me there. i mean, seriously, do you think the majority of bcwf members share your politics or want bcwf to promote your politics
i'm asking you to stop participating and giving legitimacy to a process that ensures we lose. If wanting to stop the government from giving this province away to a class of people, any class of people, then i guess that's political and you got me again. if you do think that, you need to get out more and talk to more people. There is wide range of opinions and values out there a lot of opinions are starting to change too.
well, um, yeah, duh, and no, you're incorrect. Anytime we focus narrowly on hunting and fishing opportunities we get kicked in the nuts.
but you still maintain your effectual? you may not recognize that, but it's a fact. We have influence because we focus on conservation and habitat first
i seem to remember a conversation like this on another thread. This idea that you guys are now conservationists and not hunters. And that designation came with changing the mission statement and some caveats as to conduct of the organization. Like the caveat you alluded to earlier about not being able to speak directly to the public. Am i correct about that or do i have that wrong? our members understand this, and our members (including volunteer leadership which is no smarter than the membership) understand who we are: Primarily hunters and anglers and shooters who recognize the value of conservation but also know that people who hunt, fish and shoot need to be able to keep doing those things in order together any traction on conservation. It's a pretty simple equation
yea, so you're hunters and anglers but you also know that to hunt and fish you need to do what exactly? What are those things? You've lost me here.
fair enough. You have been quite critical of bcwf not doing what you want
, yea, got me again. you've been very clear that bcwf is doing the wrong thing and you've done that on a thread that started with bcwf announcing that it wants to talk with members about how to deal with the future that is reconciliation. Forgive me for concluding that you don't think we should be having this conversation with membersde
nope, not saying that at all. I would suggest part of the conversation be about why you can't speak to the public and if that was a worth while price to pay given what ever incentives are provided. And that you brainstorm around what other organizations are negatively effected by what the
government is doing under undrip and associated land claims to see if alliances can be made to make your position stronger.
Is it safe to say you do support the conversation and will be attending?
you'll be glad to know that we are aligned with some fairly conservative conservation organizations. You'll be sad to know (and probably angry) that we're also aligned with some non-conservative conservation organizations and we are not aligned with any non-conservation political groups. It is what it is. You can start a non-profit online in short order and very cheaply.
Bcwf is not in negotiations. Negotiations are conducted on a government to government level. Bcwf is not government. You're confusing us for a much more powerful entity at best we influence governments (federal, provincial and indigenous) i'll ask again. Tell us what you've done in the last two years or so? Like what was going to be taken away from me, and the bcwf stepped in and stopped it. because we relay the concerns of a lot of people who would otherwise be voiceless. Don't confuse us with something we're not and then complain that we don't do something we never tried to do.
your right again. I don't have a clue what you guys do.
that's your agenda. If you want bcwf to adopt it you need to convince bcwf's membership that your way is the way to go. I can put you in touch with the resolutions chair and you can make your case. If you're not already a member you can join and get the process started.
As i have said elsewhere, i don't pretend to know what the future holds. I strive to influence the outcomes so i don't get rolled over. I think you feel the same (otherwise you wouldn't recommend a different way of changing the outcomes) but we differ on how to approach it. What can i say? Nobody's toping you from following your own advice or from participating in bcwf governance to change bcwf"s strategy. I'll add that you haven't presented a plan that looks like it's got any good prospects of success as far as i'm concerned. I'm aware that we both feel the same way about each other's positions.
He might be. Someone should tell him about it in case he hasn't heard and isn't, you know, in the business of political news and doesn't have a investigative staff. You can contact him at:
rebel commander @therebel.media
anything you can do to have him help is appreciated.