National Indigenous Day BCWF Reconciliation Dialogue

[Greenthumbed]

Good chat on this evening’s town hall meeting. Some good question were asked. Good answers too. Lots more conversation needs to be had to help BCWF navigate through this issue, though. Thanks to Rob , Solomon, Chuck and Kimberly.

[BydeIt]

While I appreciate the effort made by the panelists tonight, I came away from the call more disillusioned than ever. Pre-drafted answers to questions that focused on prose more than substance were offered by the panel. Hard questions were passed over in favour of softballs (ex: do FN have rights?) that were already addressed in the Zoom chat anyway.

The lack of disclosure on what is driving policy at the BCWF was also concerning. I learned more about that reading this thread than I did on the call. That’s a communications issue.

Finally, I found it very concerning to learn that the BCWF board awarded a high budget to the Indigenous Reconciliation team without transparency into what the money would be put towards. This was promoted as evidence that the board takes the indigenous file seriously. What it is, in fact, is a sign of poor governance that doesn’t think of itself as accountable to its membership.

BC resident hunters are being led down a road to hell by well-intentioned people.

[Rob Chipman]

While I appreciate the effort made by the panelists tonight, I came away from the call more disillusioned than ever. Pre-drafted answers to questions that focused on prose more than substance were offered by the panel. Hard questions were passed over in favour of softballs (ex: do FN have rights?) that were already addressed in the Zoom chat anyway.

The lack of disclosure on what is driving policy at the BCWF was also concerning. I learned more about that reading this thread than I did on the call. That’s a communications issue.

Finally, I found it very concerning to learn that the BCWF board awarded a high budget to the Indigenous Reconciliation team without transparency into what the money would be put towards. This was promoted as evidence that the board takes the indigenous file seriously. What it is, in fact, is a sign of poor governance that doesn’t think of itself as accountable to its membership.

BC resident hunters are being led down a road to hell by well-intentioned people.

Thanks for the feedback. You may be misreading the tea leaves. Just going out on a limb.

We announced the townhall June 10. We said the topics would be mutual interests on conservation and predator control, shared concerns on habitat, interpretation and roll out of UNDRIP, and success and challenges of the BCWF's Indigenous Relations portfolio.

We asked for questions to be submitted by June 12 and we started getting them the morning of June 11. The first questions we got we *not* on any of the items we proposed as topics, but rather 1) as a supporter of reconciliation what assurances do I get from FNs, and 2) why are you doing this on NIPD?

We did indeed read those two questions in the 11th and we figured out good answers to them. Guilty as charged. We prepared. Two direct questions for you on that Bydeit:

1 - were you ok with the answers to those two questions?
2- would you have preferred that we didn't use the time between the 11th and last night to prepare answers?


We continued to receive questions after the June 12 cut off date. Some were sent to me and I'm sure some were sent to others. Some of those questions did come up last night. We also received questions live. The easy question you reference (are Indigenous rights and preserving the environment up for debate?) came from the chat and so got answered. Want tougher questions? You can either submit them or tell other people to not ask easy questions, but BCWF said "Send in all questions and we will get to them".

Direct question #3 for you on this: which hard questions did we not address? Feel free to ask them here.

Hard questions were passed over in favour of softballs (ex: do FN have rights?) that were already addressed in the Zoom chat anyway.]

My understanding of the chat was that it was not visible to all participants. If you submitted a tough question that didn't make it to the panel but was answered in the chat or Q&A function, I think that either I answered it or perhaps one of the staff did. Either way, all questions submitted were recorded and we're going to answer them and circulate the answers to the membership, as we stated.

If you're a BCWF member you'll see that. If you're not a BCWF member you can, as I said, ask the tough questions right here.

The lack of disclosure on what is driving policy at the BCWF was also concerning.

Back up the truck. We currently have a Board approved but very outdated Indigenous Relations policy. We *do not* have an up to date version of it. There is no current policy that is being driven by anything. I think I made that clear last night when I talked about the Terms of Reference. The ToRs have been approved. Updated policy is still underway. You simply cannot conclude that we are not being transparent with what it driving policy when there is still no officially updated policy.

I think you're also missing the point of the townhall: it was to get input from BCWF members on this subject *so that we can determine what the membership wants us to do (ie, the membership's desires and concerns will drive the policy)*

That approach is the complete opposite of lack of transparency. We're transparently asking for input. You can do it through any BCWF rep (BoD member, directors, Regional presidents) or you can bring it up right here.

"I found it very concerning to learn that the BCWF board awarded a high budget to the Indigenous Reconciliation team without transparency into what the money would be put towards".

You're probably jumping to a conclusion that you wouldn't jump to if you had more info. The budget line item for the IR committee was approved in 2019, pre-Covid and pre-DRIPA, at a time when the Board knew we had to address Indigenous Relations, but nobody really knew what we'd be getting into. That budget line item (like all the committee budgets) was questioned and had to be justified. It was approved by 4 members of the executive, probably 8 directors (assuming we had the full slate, which I think we did) and 8 Regional presidents.

That's 20 people from all over the province and the organization, with a wide variety of skills and experience, tackling the problem of a speculative budget line item. They all agreed we needed to attack this issue. None of us could predict the future perfectly.

We knew UNDRIP legislation was coming, and we knew we'd very likely be running into blockades. Blockades and UNDRIP equals lawyers

We knew we'd have to have a travel budget.

Aside from that we didn't know where we'd spend money.

To call that bad governance, I think, requires a bit more proof. Do you know, for example, how much was budgeted, whether it was too much or too little or how it was spent and on what? You probably need to know those kinds of things before the driveby smear of "bad governance proved!"

As for being accountable to the membership, um....again the whole point of this conversation was to engage the membership and get their feedback. If you are a BCWF member and want to know how much has been spent on IR and what it's been spent on, contact me directly. The idea that we aren't accountable is laughable and not supported by any evidence. As always, if you think BCWF needs to do better on accountability we are always looking to deepen our bench. You can join and volunteer for the IR Committee this afternoon, bang on the accountability drum to your heart's content and make us even more accountable than we currently are

BC resident hunters are being led down a road to hell by well-intentioned people.

BCWF is currently asking for direction on IR issues from it's membership. Describing that as BCWF "leading BC resident hunters do a road to hell" demonstrates, I think, that you're not tracking the conversation. We made it clear last night (and we've made it clear repeatedly in many instances) that BCWF is pursuing it's stated goals as written down in our constitution, bylaws and web page, but wants specific input from members about what they're concernedd about and how they want us to execute on IR policy. Let's be clear: if the membership speaks loud and claear that they want BCWF to stop consulting government, to stop collaborating with First Nations on current programs, reject and oppose truth and reconciliation completely and deal with the future by heading to the courts, guess what? That's what we're going to do.

Of course, we need to hear that message (we have not heard it), or an alternate message. Eitehr way, we do what the members tell us they want us to do.

The only way in which we're leading membership on the IR file is to lead membership to a place where we can share information with them and ask for direction from them which we did last night. Another direct question (#4, in case you intend to justofy your position): is that a bad approach? Telling members what we've learned and asking them for input and direction?

To be fair, I may be misreading you, so two more direct questions: 5- what destination do you think BCWF is going? 6- What would the alternative destination be?


OK, I've broken your chops a bit, but all in good fun. I really do think you weren't paying attention to what the stated goal of the event was. Making the claim that we aren't being transparent on the 12th page of a thread that is begging people to attend and ask questions is...I think the word we're all looking for is "adorable".

That said, BCWF wants more input on how to deal with truth and reconciliation (becaues it's clearly coming and it clearly will affect what we all do). We want that from members because we work for members, but input from non-members is also very valuable and we want that too. If you're not a member I'm not going to walk through the finances with you, but I do appreciate other input.

If you have hard questions, ask them. If you have suggestions, make them. If you want to drive the train even more, volunteer.

Conclusion: right now we don't have appropriate policy so there is no policy being driven aside from our publicly stated purposes, our finances are well governed, we did prepare answers for questions that we recieved early, all questions will be addressed in time and both questions and answers will be circulated to members (as clearly stated last night), we will follow this event up with some polling of members, and we will be holding more of these townhalls (in the interest of transparency) in the future.

[BydeIt]

Hi Rob,

1 - were you ok with the answers to those two questions?
2- would you have preferred that we didn't use the time between the 11th and last night to prepare answers?

1) Sure, the answers were fine. Not sure what NIPD is short hand for but in any event I have no issue with the responses to the question other than they seem rehearsed and would have been better presented in a pre-print format instead of a live Q&A session.

2) While I have no issue with the first 2 questions specifically, I would also think that a live Q&A roundtable would be better suited to a real-time format, so yes I think the session would have been more dynamic and constructive if responses had not been rehearsed.

Want tougher questions? You can either submit them or tell other people to not ask easy questions, but BCWF said "Send in all questions and we will get to them".

There were questions last night posted to the chat that were not answered. While I'm sure you are willing to answer them, and I wouldn't accuse you of intentionally avoiding them, answering hard questions for which there is no rehearsed answer is really what a live Q&A is about in my mind.

Direct question #3 for you on this: which hard questions did we not address? Feel free to ask them here.

The panel decided not to answer a question that poked at the possibility that the BCWF needs FN more than the other way around, and given this, why doesn't the BCWF put as much effort into aligning with other groups when interests diverge with FN. Your answer is welcome here Rob, but the panel missed an opportunity to address it in a convincing way last night.

Re: my comment on lack of transparency into what is driving policy, we likely have different interpretations of the same set of facts. I would think that a thesis which would drive policy would be in place prior to policy drafting, which in turn would be in place prior to the board committing large amounts of membership fees to an initiative focused on the FN file. This is crucial for me - the cart is being put before the horse here, and it costs money. Re: your mention of Terms of Reference, I admit this was lost on me and I didn't understand it.

I think you're also missing the point of the townhall: it was to get input from BCWF members on this subject *so that we can determine what the membership wants us to do (ie, the membership's desires and concerns will drive the policy)

I haven't tried to suggest anything on what the point was or wasn't. I think it's great the BCWF is trying to get feedback to shape policy. Unfortunately if this was the true aim of the panel last night, all I heard were answers to questions (i.e. no solicitation of feedback from the audience), and some answers waxed on rhetoric and flowery ideas too much for a 1 hour event.

we are always looking to deepen our bench.

You're right, I should participate. Hopefully will be able to carve out the time to do so meaningfully at some point. But I'd probably start with the perspective that funds would be better spent elsewhere than an IR committee. I feel we likely have divergent views on whether reconciliation should be part of the BCWF mandate.

The only way in which we're leading membership on the IR file is to lead membership to a place where we can share information with them and ask for direction from them which we did last night. Another direct question (#4, in case you intend to justofy your position): is that a bad approach? Telling members what we've learned and asking them for input and direction?

No it is a great approach Rob, but to be fair, the Q&A panel was not explicitly billed as a session in which the BCWF was looking for direction from its membership. 1) Nothing in the email made this obvious to my reading. 2) Non-BCWF members were invited (a unique way to go about getting membership feedback, for sure). 3) It was a Q&A session that was highly moderated with rehearsed (sometimes sentimental) answers, and at no time did the panel solicit the opinion of the audience.

If the BCWF is looking for feedback, that's great. Last night's event was not aimed at that goal.

5- what destination do you think BCWF is going?

The BCWF approach seems rational at a time that is very frightening for BC Hunters, but ultimately it will lead us to a spot where the representation may as well not have existed. I see an increasingly powerful FN against the backdrop of a misinformed population that will not understand the full costs of reconciliation until much later in the game. The BCWF appears to be headed in the same direction as that misinformed population (although I am sure it is much more informed at the same time).

This may sound harsh, but please understand I don't think you or anyone else is intentionally mishandling this file. Clearly I saw committed people that care on the panel.

6- What would the alternative destination be?

It's easy to armchair quarterback these situations, but I would stop spending money on the IR file. Stop spending money on injunctions because as you point out, we don't have the political capital to get a return on that investment. Start lobbying to anyone who will listen I understand nobody likes the NDP, but keep banging on their doors. Raise awareness of the general public as to what the full consequences are of aboriginal title. Highlight cases of land claims that involve fee simple ownership.

Keep working with FN on wetlands. Align with ecotourism industry to stop unnecessary developments of forests. Find a friend in whoever agrees with you, but don't commit to pandering to a group that has no incentive to stay partnered with you after they have what they want.

I really do think you weren't paying attention to what the stated goal of the event was. Making the claim that we aren't being transparent on the 12th page of a thread that is begging people to attend and ask questions is...I think the word we're all looking for is "adorable".

Here's the email I received, which ostensibly explains that "stated goal" of the event:

Dear B.C. Wildlife Federation Member,
On June 21, National Indigenous Peoples Day, B.C. Wildlife Federation (BCWF) will host a virtual town hall at 7 p.m. PDT to support an open dialogue for a proactive and collaborative discussion on topics such as:

• mutual interest in conservation and predator control
• shared concerns about habitat loss and degradation
• interpretation and roll out of UNDRIP legislation in B.C., and the
• success and challenge of BCWF's Indigenous Relations portfolio.

Attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions to the panel on the topics above.
Panelists:

• Chuck Zuckerman, President, BCWF
• Solomon Reece, CEO Indigecorp & BCWF Indigenous Relations Advisor
• Rob Chipman, Chair, BCWF Indigenous Relations Committee

To register, please click here. Advance registration is required and the session will be recorded.
Respectfully,
The BCWF Indigenous Relations Committee

It isn’t clear to me from this email that the goal of the event was to get feedback to inform policy, and the entire character of the event suggested that this was not an objective.

Rob, you are clearly a committed individual and the BCWF needs people like you if it hopes to represent such a diverse groups as resident hunters. I applaud your drive on this. I just think as far as getting somewhere productive, last night was a scratch.

[Rob Chipman]

Thanks for answering, Bydeit.

I get that you were expecting a live Q&A. The event was never conceived as such. There are reasons for that which I'll touch on later.

The first two questions were the first two we received, they came from a member and they went to the top of the list and got answered. I'm glad you were happy with he answers. That's a win. To clarify, nobody is asking anyone if they are ok with the questions. The questions came from a member so they qualify to be asked. That's transparency in action. Ask a question and it will get answered.

You didn't answer question #2. You complained about "pre-drafted answers" so I asked if we should not have read the questions that came in and try to prepare good answers for them. If you're going to complain about something I do you gotta expect I'll take your complaints seriously until you indicate some sort of satisfaction, you indicate that the complaint wasn't serious, or we simply agree to disagree. In this case you seem to be saying the answers were ok. My question was: don't you think we should prepare answers for questions we receive from members?

There were questions last night posted to the chat that were not answered.

Correct. We chalked up a win in that we got more questions than we could deal with in the allotted time. As was stated clearly and repeatedly, we're going to answer all questions and circulate the answers to membership.

answering hard questions for which there is no rehearsed answer is really what a live Q&A is about in my mind.

You're not wrong about what a live Q&A is, but nobody said this event was a live Q&A. I have repeatedly said it was about getting feedback from members. I think, just maybe, you were making an assumption, and while it's an understandable assumption, it was incorrect. FWIW, we will likely incorporate some of the more traditional live Q&A features in future ones, but I'll address that later.

The panel decided not to answer a question that poked at the possibility that the BCWF needs FN more than the other way around, and given this, why doesn't the BCWF put as much effort into aligning with other groups when interests diverge with FN.

I didn't see that question (at least not how you've framed it) but we'll answer it. My answer would be:

-I don't see the BCWF as "needing" First Nations, but we doing need good working relations with First Nations. First Nations exist, they have rights and they exert a great deal of influence on what BCWF does. I don't think we can ignore that. It's also clear that the government is not willing to spend much time, energy or money on the goals that BCWF needs to accomplish. Given those two facts (by all means, dispute them if you disagree that they are, indeed, the two of the dominant facts on the ground driving Indigenous Relations at BCWF) we need to respond.

As for aligning with other groups when BCWF's interests diverge from those of FNs, I think you're ignoring a rather large recent development as well as simplifying things. First, BCWF was instrumental in putting together a fairly substantial coalition of conservation groups recently. You may have heard of it. BCWF is, indeed, putting a lot of effort into aligning with other groups. Now, in terms of interests diverging, can you expand? Which interests are you thinking of? I'm sure access is one of them, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. What are some other examples where you think the interests of First Nations are both monolithic and diverge from the interests of BCWF. I'm not trying to trap you. It's important to get a clear consensus among members about what BCWF's interest are (I think we can all admit that a consensus on that is not currently as strong as it could be, hence the call for feedback).

Re: my comment on lack of transparency into what is driving policy, we likely have different interpretations of the same set of facts. I would think that a thesis which would drive policy would be in place prior to policy drafting, which in turn would be in place prior to the board committing large amounts of membership fees to an initiative focused on the FN file. This is crucial for me - the cart is being put before the horse here, and it costs money. Re: your mention of Terms of Reference, I admit this was lost on me and I didn't understand it.

We do have different interpretations. There is a thesis that drives the *IR Committee* - its that BCWF needs to come to grips with the challenge that is Truth and Reconciliation (that need is obvious and we all agree on it, right? Like, we all understand that First Nations exert a huge amount of influence on everything that BCWF does and BCWF needs to respond wisely to that challenge of coming and unavoidable change, right?)

So, with the slight revision that the thesis drives the IR Committee rather than policy, a thesis does already exist.

In terms of actual official, Board approved policy, I've already told you that official Board approved policy does exist. It was put together by previous volunteers and it was quite extensive. They did some great work. However, it is now hopelessly outdated and needs to be updated substantially. This is not because BCWF volunteers failed at their task in the past. It's because the facts on the ground have changed. One example is the issue of being involved in negotiations. Existing policy states:
"Third parties must be involved in the process of negotiations. The Federal and Provincial Governments, as the principles representing all public interests, must ensure that nongovernment organizations have an active window of opportunity in negotiations."

That's a great sentiment. Sadly, both First Nations and government has explicitly rejected it. They deal on a government to government or nation to nation basis. They have labelled "third parties" as "stakeholders". BCWF can (and if membership demands it BCWF will) continue to demand something that is not going to happen and which angers some people and groups that we want to collaborate with, or BCWF could update the policy. (I've been looking for feedback on that particular clause, along with others, and I'm interested in yours. Which should we do? Stick with the old, despite the fact that it's a demand that we've been told won't be met and which angers some participants, or update it?)

In other words, you're assuming that we're drafting policy because we never had one. We're not. We're updating existing policy, and we're doing it through the existing process. Updating existing policy takes time and, yes, some money. There was, in fact, a policy in place when the Board committed funds (during a pretty transparent budgeting process) to the job.

Terms of Reference exist for every committee and they come into play before policy is created. We updated the ToRs, got them approved and are now updating policy. That's how the BCWF is governed and has been for a long time. I think you see this as a cart before the horse thing because you think we're inventing something new that didn't already exist. That is not the case. So, old ToRs and policy were in place before the Board committed to supporting the work in 2019, and again in 2020 and 2021 (2019 was a commitment for the 2020 budget year). The horse was before the cart, in point of fact.

It's also important to understand that what is budgeted is not the same as what is spent. When we first talked about budget we envisioned an awful lot of money being burnt up in legal opinions. We have, at least so far, been pretty thrifty on that score (although it has been our biggest expense). Obvious question: should we not get legal advice on a file that is dominated by legal disputes and contests? How would that even work?

I haven't tried to suggest anything on what the point was or wasn't.

Au contraire mon frere. You've suggested repeatedly that it was supposed to be a live Q&A. That was pretty apparent in your first post, where you also argued we lacked transparency. Those are fairly serious, and unsubstantiated charges, which is fine providing you're amenable to pushback (and you've demonstrated that you are, so it's all good).

if this was the true aim of the panel last night, all I heard were answers to questions (i.e. no solicitation of feedback from the audience),

There's no "if" involved. I've made it clear on this thread, repeatedly, over ten days, that the goal is feedback from members. Committee members (specifically Mike Fowler from Region 5) expressed great concern that we ask for feedback and that failure to ask for feedback from members would lead us down the road to Hell. He is 100% right. We not only solicited and accepted feedback from the audience in real time, we solicited it before the event on multiple platforms.

And guess what? We got more feedback than we could handle in a little more than an hour on Zoom. I don't think it's reasonable to say "You got questions from membership, which you answered, but there was no feedback" - we're looking for feedback on the bigger issue of how BCWF addresses Indigenous Relations, not feedback on how Chuck or I field questions. Our ability to answer questions is neither here nor there when you look at the bigger, and more important picture.

[Rob Chipman]

But I'd probably start with the perspective that funds would be better spent elsewhere than an IR committee. I feel we likely have divergent views on whether reconciliation should be part of the BCWF mandate.

That's good and valuable feedback. Let's clarify a couple things.

Reconciliation is not, as far as I know, part of BCWF's mandate. We referenced our mandate during the conversation, and that mandate is described and defined in our constitution, by-laws and website (ie, the website describes, while the constitution and bylaws define *and* describe). I'm pretty sure reconciliation isn't there. We may well have divergent views on whehterer reconciliation should be part of BCWF's mandate. I have no clue what your viewpoint on it is, so you can share that and we'll see if you're disagreeing with me or if you're disagreeing with a voice in your head.

Truth and reconciliation (news flash - it's worth considering why "truth" is part of the issue and why it's both included and dropped depending on who's talking) as a process that we're all going through is a fact. As far as I know there are very few people who can explain what T&R will look like. I think that the majority of the population doesn't even understand the basics (feel free to disagree - I'm all about open, transparent dialogue). My position is that T&R are concepts taht every individual needs to process to their own satisfaction. It is in no way the place of the BCWF do dictate how T&R unfold for individuals.

The "IR" stands for "Indigenous Relations" . You know very well how I take apart language. There's a reason why it's not called the "IRR" Committee (even if some individuals sometimes misspell it). The second "R" is not BCWF's business. That isn't because reconciliation (as well as truth) aren't important. It's because T&R is not something that can be imposed on society from above by a group off self-indentified social crusaders who think they know how the world needs to be organized.

Do you disagree with that? Are you saying reconciliation should be part of BCWF's mandate? If so, fly at 'er. Develop the resolution, bring it forward to an AGM and get the required changes done. Again, personally, I think enough people are already working on that, and I think BCWF should stick to it's declared purposes and mandates, but that's just me. I'm sure that if we do, indeed, disagree over this issue, you'll have other BCWF members who want to see reconciliation as part of our mandate (if you were watching the chat you'll know that on the access issue there are BCWF members who consider lots of Crown land to actually be Indigenous territory that *belongs to First Nations* , not the province or Canada. Maybe you're in that part pot BCWF's membership. (Thanks for raising the issue. I think a question addressing that will turn up in the polling we're going to do).

Now that we've cleared up that BCWF doesn't have reconciliation in the mandate (at least at present, but you can change that, as I outlined) and that the "R" in "IR" means "Relations" would you please lay out why BCWF *should not* spend money on Indigenous Relations, given that First Nations influence everything, not only that BCWF does, but everything that gets done in the province. Did you read the Ministers mandate letters? Every one I saw, and all the subsequent developments, are driven by the province's commitment to look at everything through the lens of reconciliation.

How does BCWF accomplish it's goals without spending money on Indigenous Relations? Do we just pretend that reality isn't, you know....reality?

If the BCWF is looking for feedback, that's great. Last night's event was not aimed at that goal.

The event was aimed at getting feedback. It was not billed as a live Q&A. I personally communicated this widely. It was the goal. We got lots of feedback, we're still getting it and we will ask for and receive more. You can certainly criticize me for getting communications out the door that were not as clear as you'd like. Guilty as charged. Not likely to change on that. I'm a huge fan of Seth Godin's dictum of "Ship it!".

Non-BCWF members were invited because a) a lot of people look at us and what we do, so if you're into being transparent it makes sense to simply say "You're invited. We're taking feedback from members, but we have nothing to hide, so feel free to attend (I said exactly taht earlier on this thread) 2) we have allied and aligned groups like WSS, BHA and others, so we invite them as well 3) it did not appear possible to us to restrict attendance to only BCWF members, especially once we took the decision to publicly promote the event on social media platforms and last, and probably most important, there are a lot of hunters and anglers who are not BCWF members but who are not shy about sharing feelings and questions that we're pretty confident BCWF members share. We need that information (some might call that information "Feedback").



I see an increasingly powerful FN against the backdrop of a misinformed population that will not understand the full costs of reconciliation until much later in the game.

I see an increasingly powerful FN against the backdrop of a misinformed population that will not understand the full costs of reconciliation until much later in the game.

It's clear that we agree that First Nations are extremely powerful and getting more powerful all the time. I have tried to make it clear that this fact is what requires BCWF to respond, and we do that through the IR Committee.

It's clear that we also agree that many people do not understand what the full costs of T&R will be. I've referenced that repeatedly, most commonly when citing the comments of Jack Woodward. Perhaps you missed that, perhaps I didn't say it clearly enough, but when Jack Woodward said earlier this year that BC residents won't recognize the province in the near future I nodded my head in agreement and told people on this forum that Jack Woodward, love him or hate him, is a guy to pay attention to. That guy is in the First Nations law Hall of Fame. He knows what he's talking about.

It's also clear that we agree that there is a ton of disinformation and ignorance of the facts on the ground. No question. That fact is constantly reinforced as events hit the news cycle.

The BCWF appears to be headed in the same direction as that misinformed population (although I am sure it is much more informed at the same time).

Please expand. I constantly run into assumptions about this issue, and most of them strike me as completely wrong-headed. Where BCWF is heading is the future, not a particular direction. We do not have a destination set, but rather have a goal: accomplishing our enduring purposes as sset out and desired in the constitution, bylaws, website and publications.

That said, a lot of what BCWF is dealing with at this stage is fear among members about what the future holds. We need to deal with those (very reasonable) fears before we can figure out how to effectively achieve BCWF"s stated goals. That's why I'm asking you to expand on your thoughts. IT is a big part of the nuts and bolts of this challenge.

You also raise the idea that there is a "misinformed population" that has some sort of direction and destination that they're going to, which implies that there is, perhaps, an informed population that exists in opposition to the uninformed population.

I think that's naive.

There are a lot of misinformed people across the board, and they disagree with each other largely on the basis of misinformation. Again, more talk is going to reduce the amount of misinformation that BCWF members are depending on and replace it with accurate information about why T&R is happening, what it means for BCWF and how BCWF will respond.

[Rob Chipman]

I would stop spending money on the IR file. Stop spending money on injunctions because as you point out, we don't have the political capital to get a return on that investment. Start lobbying to anyone who will listen I understand nobody likes the NDP, but keep banging on their doors. Raise awareness of the general public as to what the full consequences are of aboriginal title. Highlight cases of land claims that involve fee simple ownership.

Again, you're making some unwarranted assumptions. A lot of people like the NDP. That is a fact and we can't ignore it. The proof is that John Horgan runs the province while the Liberals are trying to figure out who their leader is (and that the leader of the Greens is called "Sonia Last To Know" demonstrates that. I understand that many people don't like *accepting* that fact, but it's a fact nonetheless. I'll go further and speculate that the NDP have an outside chance of winning the next election as well unless the Libs do a good job of distancing themselves from Christie Clarke/Rich Coleman sort of baggage. Like T&R, the NDP, their worldview and their supporters are facts on the ground.

We do knock on NDP doors. We do it all the time. When I meet with them I tell them "You guys are all about reconciliation, as we know, but you're not going to get lasting reconciliation unless you have on the ground support. You can certainly *guide* the process from above, but you cannot *impose* it and expect it to last. A lot of people, especially among BCWF's membership, feel that their values and concerns are not being taken into account. This creates fears, resistance, aggression and black and white thinking. BCWF members believe that the government should be representing their interests when the government engages in government to government/nation to nation negotiations. The membership believes that First Nations consult with and represent Indigenous people, and so feel that the provincial and federal governments should do the same with non-Indigenous people. The government can't do that if the government doesn't consult early and often with BCWF. Help BCWF help the government achieve lasting reconciliation by taking the concerns and values of the BCWF membership seriously and by repersnteing the BCWF"s membership in the G2G/N2N negotiations that the government is engaged in".

If you have another angle to work that's better, please share it. I'm looking for more tools.

Raising awareness with the general public has been suggested before. There are some obvious challenges. First, what, exactly, is the message? What do we want to have BCWF's brand attached to and what do we not want it attached to? 180, for example, seems to feel that we should not engage with anyone who gives the current process any legitimacy and should start looking to align with partisans on the right who are engaged in a bigger fight (as in, bigger than BCWF's stated goals). Easy to recommend, very difficult to do. Second, where do we do this? We have social media channels that we 100% control we have a print media that we have partial control over, and we have allies in legacy and new media who sometimes say things we want said, but we do not control what media companies publish. Last, if you want to educate the general public about T&R and what it will mean, but you don't want to fund the IR Committee, how and who would do that work?


As for fee simple and Indigenous title, thanks for catching up. I raised that issue and pointed out that the conflict over fee simple in Tsihlqot'in Nation Declared Title Lands was publicly highlighted on BC provincial government websites long ago, and we've discussed it in various threads on this forum. It is not well known or understood, but it by no stretch of the imagination "news". That said, it is not one of the stated purposes of the BCWF to educate the public about the effect of T&R on fee simple title nor to take a public position on it. A group like ours cannot simply start doing things that are not part of it's stated purposes. If we do that to make you happy we'll have someone else complain that we're doing something that isn't part of our formal and legal mandate, and....they would be correct and we'd be in the wrong.

I think what you're looking for is a political action group of some sort. BCWF is not that animal.

Keep working with FN on wetlands. Align with ecotourism industry to stop unnecessary developments of forests. Find a friend in whoever agrees with you

We're doing all those things. The Commercial Bear Viewing Association is part of the new coalition, for example, with the thinking being "WE may disagree over whether we should shoot bears with a gun or a camera, but we agree that if we don't have bears neither of us is doing what we want to do".

....don't commit to pandering to a group that has no incentive to stay partnered with you after they have what they want.

Wait, what? Are you trying to say that asking membership how we should address the challenge of T&R or engaging with First Nations is "pandering"? I've stated clearly before that when, in the course of human events, one party wants to make a deal with another party, but that there is a degree of mistrust about whether the other party will deliver, we generally enter into a contract with penalties for non-performance. BCWF does not have that time honoured solution, so we need to figure out something else. I still don't know what that is (and neither do you), but I recognize that the lack of trust is an issue.

You'll remember the question that came from a member who said (and I paraphrase) "As a supporter of reconciliation how do I know I won't regret this?" First observation is that we have at least one member who supports reconciliation (I'm still not clear if you're with him or against him ). Second observation is that there is a fear that we'll collaborate but end up unhappy with the results.

You'll remember the answer I gave: you're asking the wrong guy, because I can't provide assurances on behalf of First Nations, but its a reasonable and honest question and I will be raising it with First Nations that we engage with.

You also seem to think that we're entering into some sort of exchange partnerships with First Nations, where, for example, we do some work with them or for them in order to get a benefit from them in the future. That would be like the contractual relationships I was referring to.

We aren't actually doing that. There is no "We'll do this with or for you if you promise to do something in the future". I've spent a career and made a satisfactory amount of money for myself and a ton of money for other people by doing exactly that: entering into mutually beneficial contracts. I would love it if BCWF could pull that off with First Nations. You'd be stoked at the results I brought back.

Guess what? We aren't there yet, and I'm not even confident that we'll ever get there in any significant manner. I wish it were different. It ain't.

Here's the email I received, which ostensibly explains that "stated goal" of the event:....It isn’t clear to me from this email that the goal of the event was to get feedback to inform policy,

I can accept thaht you got a different message from taht email than the one I'm saying was sent. It's very valuable to hear that, and we'll discuss it going forward. I'll re-state that I was very clear, multiple times on this particular thread that feedback and input is exactly what we were looking for.

We got that input and feedback, we're continuing to get it and we will keep looking for it.

[Rob Chipman]

and the entire character of the event suggested that this was not an objective.

This is where we agree to disagree and evaluate whether it's worth fighting over. You assumed it would be a live Q&A. The organizers were not operating under that assumption. We stated up front that the event would be moderated, that we'd field questions and that questions we didn't get to would be dealt with and the answers circulated to members.

That was stated publicly and repeatedly.

Now, you assumed it would be a live Q&A (and we did, to be fair, incorporate some of that, because I never saw some of the questions I answered until they turned up during the event).

We planned it as a feedback session. You and I can disagree on that, but consider what did not happen:

Nobody from BCWF said "Listen up kids. This is how it's going to be, whether you like it or not. Your input is not necessary."

That third option didn't happen because it was a feedback event.

I just think as far as getting somewhere productive, last night was a scratch.

Again, agree to disagree. I'm very happy with the feedback we got. That dynamic became apparent with the first 2 question see received - they were very obvious questions that had not previously occurred to me (note they aren't in the email and that's because...they didn't occur to me or others).

They are great questions and issues and they came from a member. That might not matter so much in a live Q&A, but for a feedback event getting questions like that is a home run.

We got a ton of those. I think we made a ton of progress, and I think you're rushing to judgement from a very restricted point of view.

...represent such a diverse groups as resident hunters

I'm going to pick some fly shit out of the pepper. BCWF is a conservation organization, not a hunters rights organization. Our membership is primarily hunters and anglers, but they are conservationists who hunt and fish.

We represent them as *members*, not as *hunters*.

There is no requirement that a member hunt, not is there a requirement that they be a BC resident.

Some members do not hunt. It won't be lost on you that some BCWF members are black rifle shooters who never go into the woods.

BCWF's primary stated goals are conservation, wise use and access, but because we hunt and fish and shoot and use quads and need access to the land base and the resource we also advocate for those things, but anyone paying attention over the last (what, five-ten years?) understands taht there is a need for a BC Resident Hunters Advocacy Group. BCWF can do a bit of that, but we aren not geared up to do the complete job effectively.

They say nature abhors a vacuum but apparently BC Resident Hunters are fine with one in this particular instance, because nobody has tried to fill it and I've heard calls for it since back when Christy Clarke was still premier.



I told you off the top that we never planned this as a live Q&A, but rather as a moderated Q&A looking for input and feedback. We didn't get there without giving it thought.

Most Zoom webinars have a public chat function where everyone sees the questions and observations. We did not do that because:

-a lot of people sit back and silently watch what BCWF does;
-that includes anti-hunters;
-it includes unfriendly media with a history of attacking BCWF;
-it includes Indigenous groups, people and organizations that want to work with BCWF;
-it also includes Indigenous people, groups and organizations that hate BCWF.

We could not restrict attendance effectively. (If you know how to do that please share your expertise with the Liberal Party of BC. My old MLA, Jane Thornethwaite, arguably lost her pretty safe seat to my new MLA, Susie Chant of the NDP, as a result of a leaked and injudicious Zoom call).

We understood that there was a risk that an intemperate remark or question in the chat could very easily be misunderstood, even misrepresented as being the position of BCWF. This recognition of danger was echoed by multiple people not organizing the event, both within BCWF and from outside BCWF. That's one reason it wasn't a live Q&A in the sense that you assumed it would be. There are a to of hard feelings on all sides in this conversation and it makes sense to reduce the amount of hostility.

Additionally, this was not envisioned as a chance for people to get Chuck and I on how well we can answer pop quiz style questions. There's probably a time and place for that, but I'd say its for elections, not for the event we just had. If we were to determine that Chuck and I are complete failures at fielding questions in a live Q&A it would still not be the most effective way to get feedback from members on their concerns, questions and fears.



I thank you for playing along. I encourage you to expand your thoughts and keep asking questions. The input is valuable. At first the sparring can seem a bit personal, but I think we can both take it. I find it way more productive and educational than pussy footing around. It gets the meaty subjects on the table. Long answer and broken into a few posts, but I think your input deserves serious consideration.

[BydeIt]

Hi Rob,

This is spiraling into death by forum posts so while I like exploring different ideas in an effort to gain consensus, I'm only going to address a few key points.

• The event was, objectively, much more a live Q&A than it was a session for feedback. I challenge any neutral viewer to watch the YouTube video and suggest otherwise. Maybe it was supposed to be a feedback session, but it wasn't.
  
  Regardless, I fail to see how this point really matters, so I'll drop it.
• Call me foolish but I disagree with the idea that we know with certainty what is coming via transfers. Mr Woodward certainly has valid points but lots can change, especially if the public becomes disillusioned with the costs of reconciliation. History has shown that the legal system and its application is influenced by public opinion.
• Because of this disagreement, much of the thesis behind the IR committee doesn't resonate with me, and a lot of the initiatives surrounding it seem misguided to me as well. Smaller point, but policy should come before starting up a committee.
  
  With that said, this is the first explicit mention I've read of the thesis driving the BCWF on the FN file. This is no longer a mystery to me, so thank you.
• Rob, you've cited this thread as the messaging that was used to inform the audience that this was supposed to be a feedback session. Not everyone that attended (me included) read this thread prior to the meeting. I read the email. Clearly there's a difference between your messaging and that of the email the BCWF sent out. This is an example of what I meant by communication issues.
• You say that the BCWF is headed towards the future. That might be right, but it's not a future I'm excited about, and it is far from a certain future. Placing wildlife population control in the hands of a group that doesn't answer to the public, doesn't regulate based on wildlife population statistics, and doesn't guarantee access to back country is something I'm still willing to fight against.
• FYI - I saw all the questions asked in the chat function. If the goal was to mask that form the audience, then unfortunately that didn't pan out.

Thanks for engaging Rob, and good luck with your efforts.

[Rob Chipman]

Hi Rob,

This is spiraling into death by forum posts so while I like exploring different ideas in an effort to gain consensus, I'm only going to address a few key points.

Very fair.

• I fail to see how this point really matters, so I'll drop it.

I agree. Who's right in a minor disagreement between you and I on that doesn't matter. Your perception being different than mine does matter, of course, because you rightly point out that it's a comms fail if the receiver doesn't get the same message the sender tried to send. That's an important point so thanks for making it. Your other comments on comms failure are also valuable.

Call me foolish but I disagree with the idea that we know with certainty what is coming via transfers.

You're not foolish and I don't see our disagreement. I'm not saying we know for certain what the details will be. I think you and I both agree that the change will be big and that most people don't appreciate how big they will be. Lots can change and I don't know which way to will go aside from knowing lots will change.

That said....you can't drive through Tsilhqot'in Nation Declared Title Lands to exercise a BC government issued LEH if the TNG doesn't want you to, and the province backs....the TNG. How is that not a huge and concrete change that requires a response from the BCWF Board and committees on behalf of membership? Does anyone think there will not be more transfer of control of access and management from the province to First Nations as a result of T&R?

Pointed question: do you think we can ignore what the feds and province are doing regarding access to fish, wildlife and the land base and water? That may actually be a point of disagreement between us. I think we need to respond. What I'm hearing from you (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that we should not respond.

I'm not hearing that we need to respond, but that the response should be different (and if that is what you're saying, the obvious follow up is "OK, what should the response be, given the restrictions that BCWF operates under?"

Smaller point, but policy should come before starting up a committee.

So....kind of an obvious question, but did you miss that the policy that the committee follows has existed for years? We're updating existing policy, but the policy existed before the committee, so I'm not clear what you're disagreeing with.

Because of this disagreement,...

I still don't see the disagreement. We agree that the future is coming, we agree that a lot of the population doesn't really appreciate what the costs will be or who will bear them (fair to say BCWF members will bears some sort of cost) and we don't know what the details will be.

I'm suggesting that the thesis that BCWF needs to come to grips with the challenge that is Truth and Reconciliation is the appropriate one, because although we don't know what the details of the future will look like we know that that First Nations exert a huge amount of influence on everything that BCWF does, that they will continue to do so, and BCWF needs to respond wisely to that challenge of coming and unavoidable change.

It's recognition of the unknowns that drives our answers on UNDRIP (we don't have a position because the nature of UNDRIP's application is still very much unknown) and we don't know what assurances FNs can give on things like access because future control of the land base and management of wildlife is very much unknown.

Are you saying that figuring out a way to respond to the known unknowns doesn't resonate with you? I don't see a workable alternative. In fact, the only alternative I see is to pretend that T&R isn't happening. What am I missing? What's your suggested alternative to figuring out a way to respond?

You say that the BCWF is headed towards the future. That might be right, but it's not a future I'm excited about, and it is far from a certain future.

We're all headed toward the future whether we like it or not. It's never certain. That's part of the challenge. As for being excited about it, what makes you think I'm excited about trying to navigate between two fires in order to pursue conservation? What makes you think I'm excited about the potential negative outcomes for fish and wildlife conservation, habitat protection and enhancement, and access to the resource?


What will excite me is getting some traction that makes a positive impact on growing fish and wildlife populations, preserving habitat and maintaining access for all British Columbians.

The real question art the bottom of all of this, and the reason for the last Zoom convo (as well as future ones and the polling and whatnot) is to ask the question: given the future that we know is coming, and given the unknown character of that future, how should BCWF respond for the benefit of it's members?