National Indigenous Day BCWF Reconciliation Dialogue

[180grainer]

Thanks for telling me what motivates me. I was previously unaware that my goal was to get a chair to "watch" the proceedings. (Where are you getting your intel, btw? I'd take your source off the payroll because he's feeding you bullshit Well, when the Government doesn't care if you show up or not, it kind of means you're not required.

Wait, are you suggesting BCWF think outside the box by becoming...some sort of conservative action group?Of course not. What I am suggesting is due to the biased way the MSM portrays hunting and hunters, you may have more luck communicating or advertising to the general public through a medium that doesn't consider you a duffus right out of the gate. That BCWF should make "conservatism" one of it's goals? Drop the crack pipe and back away from the chalupa. BCWF cannot become a conservative political action committee Again, not the suggestion. It's about being given an honest opportunity to put your voice out there. You'll get that with the media outlets I mentioned before you'll get it with the Communist Broadcasting Network We'd be in contravention of all sorts of laws and we'd incur a huge financial expense.

Why would we do that?You do that to communicate directly with the general public. You want to communicate to them they are also losing valuable opportunities and resources for themselves and their children. The BCWF focuses on the narrow interest of hunting and fishing opportunities. But that's a small fraction of what's being given away. The BCWF needs to seek out and collaborate with like minded stakeholders I mean, one reason we'd do that it because the membership, in discussions with itself over a Zoom call about how to address the challenges of T&R sent a clear message saying that they wanted the BCWF to change it's purposes from a conservation organization into a conservative PAC, or because they sent a message saying we need to pursue *conservation* through conservative political action or something.

The problem, of course, is that you've been saying even having that conversation between BCWF members is somehow completely wrong. I don't think I've said that.

Or are you saying BCWF should become a conservative political organization because....that's what you'd like to see Again, I'm saying the BCWF needs to align itself with like minded organizations, most of which you'll find will be conservative in nature If so, hey, register, send in the questions, give the feedback. Again, you need to be a BCWF member, so if you're not, join a BCWF club or become a direct member and then explain to the other members how your plan works. If it's a good plan I'm sure you'll get support.




If BCWF stays....wher If you stay in these negotiations. You can not claim the game is rigged and then show up everyday and play. It would be part of a larger agenda in bringing information to the general public they're getting screwed. In that place where it talks to it's members and asks for bottom up feedback? Where it tells the government that we're not happy with what it's doing or how it's doing it? I'd stop talking to government to be completely honest.

You remember what it is that you're objecting to on this thread, right? You're objecting to BCWF making use of the interwebs and Zoom to have a conversation with the BCWF president, and Indigenous consultant and the membership to find out what we do about reconciliation and all the challenges that are presented by it Yea, no that's not what I'm objecting too. I'm objecting to participating in a process that has a predetermined outcome and by participating, giving that outcome legitimacy. Hey, if you and the vast majority of members think the process is legitimate, fair enough. Who am I. But if you know all you're doing is showing up at the table to be told what the adults have decided, it's time to abandon the process and take the grievances directly to the people, (hopefully with some solid alliances of other entities and individuals who understand they are getting screwed too.

I think maybe you've lost the plot and confused who plays what roles. If I'm wrong please explain, and make the dots really easy to connect. I somehow doubt that Ezra Levant wants to hear about habitat preservation or predator control No, but he might be interested in the huge track of land and all it's resources that just went to .003% of the population while the Turd is spending our money like a drunken sailor and the global economy appears on life support. and I doubt he'll help us on that score, but if you can clear my confusion up I'd appreciate it.

.................................................. .................................................. ..

[wildcatter]

So....now that you know I don't like George Soros can we get back to talking about what BCWF membership wants BCWF to do in regard to T&R in order to achieve BCWF's stated conservation goals? Or are we moving on to the impact of BLM and CRT on moose populations in Region 6?

I wish you guys good luck, but don't expect favourable outcome for us.
You can call me defeatist, pessimistic or whatever, I'm far from that, I am a realist.

The Tsilqot'in example is what we will be facing all over the province.
More areas closed for us to enter, hunt, fish or go mushroom picking.

[180grainer]

More areas closed for us to enter, hunt, fish or go mushroom picking.

Which why it's so important to make a formal declaration now that the process is illegitimate. It's racially motivated and disenfranchises the vast majority of British Columbians by placing a disproportionate amount of land and resources into the hands of a very very small percentage of the population. It's too late to complain once the store has been sold.

[wildcatter]

Which why it's so important to make a formal declaration now that the process is illegitimate. It's racially motivated and disenfranchises the vast majority of British Columbians by placing a disproportionate amount of land and resources into the hands of a very very small percentage of the population. It's too late to complain once the store has been sold.

Us hunters are small fish, but think about mining/exploration and other industries, literally talking in the billions.
Why are they not taking steps to stop this BS? (If they do I have no knowledge of)
For sure it's racially motivated, but they smell huge money and that is their major motivation.

[Rob Chipman]

K, lots of stuff to go through.

First off Rob, please don't take my post as a personal attack against you.

I don't. I doubt that we really disagree on much and I think that will become clear the more we drill down into it.

What i was getting at, was the rules and regulations set out by those we elect every 4 years will have no force or effect in these new sovereign territories that are being created....the wildlife and land base will be at the mercy of whatever level of protections the band decides. May be fine....or may be a disaster

You're 100% correct. A great degree of power will be transferred from the province to individual nations. That will happen through negotiations, as it going on with Tahltan, or through the court and then negotiations, as happened with Tsilhqot'in. AS you know, if you want to hunt in Tsilhqot'in Nation Declared Title Lands you need to do so under 2 legal frameworks - that of the province and that of the TNG. Right now I don't think the TNG will allow non-Indigenous people and perhaps not even non-Tsilhqo'tin to hunt in the TNDTL. We know that the TNG does prohibit non-Indigenous hunters from hunting in TNDTL even if the non-Indigenous hunters are in full compliance with provincial law. They may very well blockade roads to hunters trying to access Tsilhqot'in traditional territory that is non-TNDTL lands, and that the province will not aid non-INdigenous hunters to get past those blockades. The province says so in it's LEH notices and elsewhere.

So, you're correct. The future is not only coming, it's here, and it's radically different form what we're used to.

Will it be fine? Will it be a disaster? It's tough to predict the future. Here's what we know so far: there are hard feelings that divide the nations and non-Indigenous hunters and anglers and that hurts access. On the other hand, the nations are leading the way on predator management.

perhaps you can explain to me why its ok for Mr Day to talk proudly about all the blood spilt by his people, but I need to somehow be held to account for the for things the crown did, that I had no hand in?

Great question because it focuses on two emotions many are feeling. My answer is that your question is being asked of the wrong guy, but that I think I can share some insights. I recognize that a lot of people these days self-censor, and that is doing largely out of fear, and I also recognize that a lot of people ask "Why am I to blame for something done by people long dead to other people long dead and why should I feel guilty when I didn't do it?"

I'm a free speech absolutist and I think you can say whatever the hell you like. I'm the last guy to tell you to shut up unless you become repetitive, boring and annoying. Otherwise, flap your gums. No harm, no foul.

And yet I self-censor.

How do I square that circle? Here's how. Maybe it works for you. If someone tells you to pipe down because you're uninformed, ignorant, repetitive, suffering from Kruger-Dunning effect, completely unreasonable, insensitive, being counter -productive or any other reasonable objection, I'd say self-censor. Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt, right?

If you're asking a reasonable question or making a reasonable observation? Speak up.

If someone says "You can't say that" I simply respond "In my culture we value free speech and the sharing of perspectives, because talk is better than war and when my people repress speech it leads to somebody getting killed. Going back as far as King John and Runymede and the Magna Carta the history of my people has been to get the boot of the king off our neck, and we've had to use violence. We are good at it. So, if you really want to try to force me to shut up you better realize what the stakes are, 'cause at the end of the day I'll drop the gloves and we'll see who likes it more. Personally, I come from a long line of people who didn't like the food, weather and boss at home, so we got into leaky boats, sailed to other places that looked cooler, and moved right in and took over. We've got pretty good win-loss record. Anyway, your choice. Talk or fight."


Asking why it's ok for some people to do the same thing that other people can't do is a reasonable question. I think it is ok and I encourage you to do it.

As for why you should feel guilty for something that you didn't do, my answer is: you shouldn't, and I'm not asking you to.

There are people who will say that you're complicit in the ongoing oppression of Indigenous people in this country, and there is some truth to that, but I'm not sure you can control politicians as much as people think (who am I kidding? I don't think we control politicians at all unless we find a pressure point). That said, your role (and mine) in the ongoing, systematic, state sponsored legally sanctioned oppression of Indigenous people is fairly small in relation to what was done in the past and in relation to the good we can do bringing that to an end.

We can look backwards and play the blame and shame game, but it's not going to get us to a better place. What I think we need to do, rather than blame and shame, is look at the truth part of truth and reconciliation, admit that there was a lot of bad stuff that happened and figure out a way to make it right that works for everyone.

Blaming and shaming living people does not work and I reject it. I don't believe in collective guilt and I do not believe it is just to visit the sins of the father unto the son. Not into it, don't like it, won't do it. We all walk our own path, are responsible for what we've done and must make our own amends.

My point was not that I don't see the way they feel as being valid.....it was simply a statement that you have a group of people who feel wronged, and some existing laws and constitutional protections allow them to strike back at those they feel wronged them. Of course they are going to use whatever is at their disposal to strike back.......because they feel they have been wronged.

Fair enough. We'd all do that if we felt that we'd been wronged. Of course, the elephant in the room on this sentiment is: do you think Indigenous people were wronged or do you think they're making it up and whining? Personally, I think Indigenous people in Canada have a pretty strong case.

[Rob Chipman]

Again, it goes to my belief that some FN have no interest in coming to a collaborative solution with the rest of the population....they want the bully to be brought down....ALL the way down

Some do not want a collaborative solution. Some want to bully. Some want revenge.

That's understandable. It won't work, long term, but it's understandable.

Of course, baked into your statement is the idea that some First Nations do want to collaborate, don't want revenge and don't want to bully. Maybe they'll carry the day, maybe they won't, but if we want to influence the future in a way we're going to be happy with we ned to meet the people who want a relationship and we need to build a healthy one. There is no other real alternative.

This probably is the crux of the difference of opinion between us....you appear to believe that FN who come to the table to collaborate are doing it with the best of intentions. I on the other hand see it as a way for them to incrementally grab a little more, and a little more. I think we just differ on what we each believe the ultimate end game is.

As I said, I don't predict the future and I don't assume the intentions of other people, but you are quite mistaken about my beliefs. I've been in the fairly cut-throat real estate business in East Van and the LML for over three decades. I've dealt with people from every corner of the globe and negotiated millions and millions of dollars worth of transactions for probably over a thousand different individuals.

There's a great truth in that business: if both sides want to do the deal you can write it up on a cigarette paper, but if you're wise you're not going to assume motivations and you're not going to predict the future and you are going to write up an clear and enforceable contract *just in case you're not as good at predicting the future and reading people as you told yourself*.

I have no clue what anyone else's intentions are. Again, I trust, but I verify. The problem here is that BCWF doesn't get to sit at the negotiating table and doesn't have legal recourse to punish dishonest actors. Conclusion? Addressing T&R in a conservation, hunting, angling, habitat and access setting is not as easy as real estate.

I don't care. I'm tying into it.

This we absolutely agree on, and was basically what I was trying to say when i stated that this will all be decided by the courts regardless of what party is in power and regardless of how the general population feels.
The only way out that I can possibly see, and it would be a monumental task, with little chance of success.....would be to somehow get some similiar "rights" for non FN enshrined in our constitution....put everyone on a level playing field not by taking anything away from FN, but guaranteeing the same rights for the rest of the population as well.

I can't disagree. I can only say that neither I nor BCWF has the ability to mount a constitutional amendment process or engage in a long court battle. Personally, having walked the earth 6 decades, I don't have the time. I'd never see that come to fruition. However, you're right about what we know works. Not that I want to equate the BCWF with the NRA, but one reason why the 2nd A in the US is still strongly entrenched is because the NRA can and does go to the Supreme Court of the US.

JMO
Chris

I think you should lose the "J". There's no need to minimize the value of your opinion. We're in a greater danger from people who don't speak up than we are of getting hurt feelings by people who do. Your input is valuable to us all.

[IronNoggin]

There is Wisdom in your words Rob.

Cheers,
Nog

[Rob Chipman]

Well, when the Government doesn't care if you show up or not, it kind of means you're not required.

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.

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.

What I am suggesting is due to the biased way the MSM portrays hunting and hunters, you may have more luck communicating or advertising to the general public through a medium that doesn't consider you a duffus right out of the gate.

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. 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.

You do that to communicate directly with the general public.

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 one.

You want to communicate to them they are also losing valuable opportunities and resources for themselves and their children.

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. I mean, seriously, do you think the majority of BCWF members share your politics or want BCWF to promote your politics? 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.

The BCWF focuses on the narrow interest of hunting and fishing opportunities.

Well, um, yeah, duh, and no, you're incorrect. Anytime we focus narrowly on hunting and fishing opportunities we get kicked in the nuts. You may not recognize that, but it's a fact. We have influence because we focus on conservation and habitat first. 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.

you've been saying even having that conversation between BCWF members is somehow completely wrong. I don't think I've said that.

Fair enough. You have been quite critical of BCWF not doing what you want, 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 members.

Is it safe to say you do support the conversation and will be attending?

Again, I'm saying the BCWF needs to align itself with like minded organizations, most of which you'll find will be conservative in nature

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.

If you stay in these negotiations.

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) 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.

It would be part of a larger agenda in bringing information to the general public they're getting screwed.

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.

I'm objecting to participating in a process that has a predetermined outcome and by participating, giving that outcome legitimacy.

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.

No, but he might be interested in the huge track of land and all it's resources that just went to .003% of the population while the Turd is spending our money like a drunken sailor and the global economy appears on life support.

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.

[180grainer]

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.

............................................................ .

[Rob Chipman]

ok, i don't know your motivations. Fair enough. But i can judge what you write and form a conclusion.

Or you could just ask. That's probably faster.

maybe it's because they fear you doing exactly or similarly to what i've stated.

Anything is possible, but I kind of doubt that politicians are worried the the BCWF will suddenly become some sort of effective political opponent. I mean, if you were the NDP who would you be more afraid of? A non-profit that *might* become a hostile political action group or....the existing hostile political action group know as the BC Liberal Party? Going out on a limb here, I know, but, seriously....

i named three. Why'd you focus on rebel? Not only that. Those were just suggests.

Do I really have to go through all three to get you to agree that in this day and age if you line up with any of them there will be someone who calls you a white supremicist or a fascist or whatever? We both know that a) we live in extremely partisan times and b) the mainstream media, to which most of the voting public tunes in, will put up a balanced slate like, say, BCWF on one side, and, oh, I don't know, how abut a lawyer who loves animals and says "At the end of the day the numbers don't matter"?

You think that the outlets you named would be beneficial for BCWF. I disagree. That's still allowed, and should be respected and accepted. Each of us is only one voice. Get involved, submit the resolutions, convince the membership that your way is the way to go, and put it to a vote. It ain't rocket science.

prove it.

Really? Who are you now? My wife? Start using your real name and prove that you're a BCWF member and I'll take the time to enlighten you. Otherwise, when you say "Shit!" don't expect me to ask "what colour?".

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.

Good idea. Gotta ask: have you ever seen the ReasonTV video on how to get gun control in something like 3 easy steps? Nobody said it's against the law to "communicate" with the public. It's against various laws (including tax laws) for BCWF to engage in partisan politics, which is what you're advocating. However, if you think that's a worthwhile thing for BCWF to do (because I don't and I'm not going to spend time and energy on it)....get involved, submit the resolutions, convince the membership that your way is the way to go, and put it to a vote. It ain't rocket science. Maybe the membership will support you.

but you still maintain your effectual?

Yeah. Absolutely. One example is the influence we exerted at the start of the pandemic to get hunting and fishing declared essential. Not huge, and it certainly didn't stop the slow erosion of western civilization that you're worried about, but it was something concrete.

Like the caveat you alluded to earlier about not being able to speak directly to the public.

By "alluded' is it safe to assume you mean "something I didn't actually say and don't believe, but which you wish I had said and believed so your argument would hold water"? WE speak directly to the public. News flash: this is a public forum. You're the public. I'm speaking to you as a known director of BCWF on a sub-forum labelled "British Columbia Wildlife Federation".

Let's get something clear: no matter how much you wish other people would repeat your words, their indifference to doing so is not the same as bing muzzled. I understand you. I just don't agree with you. I don't think your ideas make strategic sense.

You've lost me here.

That must be a familiar feeling for you. Let me walk you through it. 1) BCWF is a conservation organization. That's no secret. 2) We are influential because we have a lot of members who are conservationists. 3) The vast majority of those members hunt and fish( I do both) 4) To continue to hunt and fish those hunter/angler/conservationists need access to the resource and they need fishing rods and guns 5) that means our prime goal is conservation, but to achieve that we need lots of members and those members have to be able to, among other things, have as easy access to and use of firearms as possible because 6) if all of us BCWF members lose the ability to hunt and fish, guess what? We aren't going to remain a conservation organization made up predominantly of hunters and anglers who need access to the resource and a way to kill stuff. Can you see the connection now?

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.

Great suggestion. The only problem is that if I raised it most members would say "Um, but, we do speak to the public". You're confusing "speaking to the public" with "Doing what 180 wants us to do".

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.

Did you read the announcement? UNDRIP is one of the stated topics. We've been talking about and brainstorming it a lot. In this event we want to share some thoughts and see what the wider membership thinks about it. But thanks for the suggestion. Great minds think alike.

your right again. I don't have a clue what you guys do.

That was obvious several pages back. We're not a PAC. We're not a government. We're not a nation. We're a member driven conservation organization. You can join and try to drive the organization in a directiontaht you think it should go.
Now, seeing as your plans are clearly important to you, and given that you've obviously given them a lot of thought, are you going to follow any of your own advice and do the things you recommend? Like I say, BCWF is accepting memberships and volunteers, or you can start your own organization (should catch on like fire if your ideas are popular), or (and this is clearly quite effective these days and very influential) start a podcast or YouTube channel. As you know, there are smart guys doing that everyday and they are kicking the shit out of mainstream media.

This has been fun, but do you have any new material?