It's another bullshit catch phrase like public/private partnership designed to make the public pay for everything and someone else to benefit. Like recycling etc...
It's another bullshit catch phrase like public/private partnership designed to make the public pay for everything and someone else to benefit. Like recycling etc...
1. Human over population
2. Government burden and overreach
J_T stated what co-management should look like in the perfect world.
At present, in BC co-management doesn’t exist although frameworks are in place for it to start happening.
It does seem the phrase is on the tip of most politicians and bureaucrats tongue but I’m not sure if they understand the meaning of the term.
Popcorn & whiskey it is!
Nothing, has worked out in ANY aspect of environmental management in BC/Canada, since the "Viking Era" and there are several historical reasons why. I have work to do on my gunroom right now as we have company coming and my old lady is about to go on the "warpath", so, Ihave no time until next week, but, I will post further to my points here then........cheers, D.
For co-management to work it has to be accepted by all parties the right of the others to exist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVNNhzkJ-UU&feature=related
Egotistical, Self Centered, Son of a Bitch Killer that Doesn't Play Well With Others.
Guess he got to Know me
The current trend of "co-management" is "yep no worries, you guys go ahead, put up your illegal gates across public roads and we'll turn a blind eye"
Said co-management has nothing to do with conservation. It's about eliminating access to the backcountry for outdoor users and phasing out hunting in general.
They don't want "taking away those poor hunters firearms" to be an excuse on the next gun ban either.
It's a divide and conquer approach and playing the long game for a long time. It's not just about hunting.
I can see you are trying. When I read some of the threads, this one, the 'is the BCWF "Woke"' thread, I really understand just how many hunters simply don't get 'it'. I'm surprised.
If 'hunters' on here don't agree with 'collaboration', if they wish to be positional, that really hasn't worked for the past 50 plus years. So, what is it hunters want? To be able to drive up a road? Or to have wildlife populations that are on the rise?
New representative groups are forming in hopes of representing residents interests. They do hope to represent hunters, as so many on here are demanding. Each of these groups then becomes a part of the solution and the path to success is NOT positional statements. It just isn't.
There are more groups talking, there are more groups leading, there is progress being made. Depending on each person's objective.
Is this, huntingbc site, just a bitch fest? Or are people really hoping to achieve some idea of where 'they' can pitch in and help?
There is lots of room to help. Stop complaining and blaming others for 'your' situation.
Curious, what is the context behind this question and the roads spoken of?
Are these "roads" going to be completely ripped up and trees planted, to help wildlife populations, to try and make the landscape as it once was? Or will these roads stay fully intact and maintained, with gates being locked where only indians, resource extraction employees and companies and other special entries will be permitted to be beyond the gate in their vehicles as much as they please, while everyone else is supposed to just sit and watch?
Not trying to be belligerent or argumentative, genuinely curious to the context of the question.
And what do so many hunters not "get" when they see political propaganda that has nothing to do with wildlife, being promoted by the bcwf and in turn calling them out for what they are pandering, which quite literally happens to be propaganda and language that is all oh so familiar these days
Last edited by TheObserver; 05-31-2023 at 12:30 PM.