BCWF Webinar "When does selective hunting lead to evolutionary change and what (if a"

[Deaddog]

what’s truly sad is not recognizing guys like bear valley work to keep animals on the land every day. He has personally, out of his pocket gave resident hunter organizations in excess of one hundred and twenty thousand dollars in the last six years! Yet he is anti resident hunting? Perhaps while your on your high fed horse you might want to ask how much the current executive fed director has taken OUT OF residents hunters pockets with his large daily rate? Some people give some take. Makes you wonder what the agenda of some is. ?

Bearvalley, as I have stated before, it is crystal clear you hate the fed and especially Jesse Zeeman.
We get it.

The examples are endless of you hijacking threads with the apparent objective to bash and attack those within the hunting community that you perceive as a threat or in any way challenge your business model. Fair enough.

You are obsessed with bashing the Fed every chance you get. Got it.
Loud and clear.

This is a community bound together over our passion of hunting BC.
This is not a platform to endlessly bash those that are trying to make a difference in fish and wildlife as you perceive them as a threat ( in my opinion ) to your business model.

Bashing resident hunters and organizations will get you no where other than drive that wedge deeper.

Sad man

[Walking Buffalo]

i can't see how it would be. I know that most of the guys i know at bcwf are not in favour of leh seasons for sheep, and i know they're pro-hunting and not believers in compassionate conservation, and i have a pretty good understanding of how we create content. I understand that you're concerned that something fishy *might* be going on, but i have absolutely no fears about that. I'm just trying to get more people to get more engaged and this webinar is shaping up to do exactly that.

Good to hear. I confirm that none of the volunteers and none of the staff that i know are compassionate conservationists.



"do you know why the wsf let bianchet speak?

Do you think they let him in not knowing what he has done in an attempt to eliminate hunting, and were not prepared before inviting him?"

i have no idea. Thats' why i was asking. I would *assume* that the wsf is in favour of hunting big rams. The idea was floated that inviting festa-bianchet was proof of something untoward. If bcwf is guilty in that way then doesn't it stand to reason that wsf would also be guilty in the same way?




Sure, fair enough, but keep in mind: If a guy wants to stealthily try to get me to reduce hunting opportunity by convincing me that it will deliver more trophy rams then that guy is wasting his time (and my understanding is that that's kind of the thrust of festa-bianchet's argument - taking out the rams with the biggest horns results in rams with smaller horns, and frankly, i've got bigger concerns than horn size).

If he's trying to trick me into becoming and anti-hunter? Jesus, it's not like there's a shortage of those guys. Hasn't worked so far, and i doubt it will in the future. Is it critical to me helping to preserve and enhance fish, wildlife, habitat and access to it that i understand some prof's pet theory? Probably not. I find it really, really hard to believe that festa-bianchet is any sort of serious threat to the things i am most concerned about, and i find it really, really hard to believe that he's going to make bcwf board members support less hunting opportunity in order to get bigger horns or indulge an academic. Off the top of my head i'd say (and i know i'm going out on a limb here) that the evolution of indigenous rights and the impact of dripa deserves way, way more attention.

It is important to know who and why Bianchet was invited.
Speakers should be vetted. I'm sure he was.
Someone at the BCWF decided that having Bianchet speak was worthwhile.
Why?
To ignore these questions is to purposefully wear blinders.
When reps wear blinders, they also blind their membership.


In the case of the WSF inviting Bianchet, this was done to allow him to defend his science in the face of opposing science in regards to his conviction and aggressive tactics to have the Alberta bighorn management plan thrown out and replaced with a more compassionate plan, his firm assertion that hunting was absolutely causing genetic changes to bighorn sheep.
The WSF recognized that Bianchet's science was flawed, and dangerous to both sheep management and to hunting in whole.
The WSF knew who he was, an opponent that needed to be stood up to. The WSF was prepared to do so before he was invited to speak.

This is NOT about horn size. That is just the angle being played by Bianchet.
This is about a worldwide push to greatly reduce hunting as a management tool and the introduction of Compassionate Conservation into government policy and legislation.

Well, Bianchet was somehow able to get the podium, which suggest some at the BCWF think he deserves to be heard.
Is this fishy? I don't know, and as you admitted, neither do you.
If you don't care to find out, so be it.
I suggest to other BCWF members that they do.


Do Indigenous rights deserve more attention? Certainly.
What are you going to do when Bianchet teams up with Indigenous leaders?
The claim of hunting induced genetic harm is ripe for Indigenous support as a way to further dismantle current hunting management policy.
You will still have to battle the Genetic harm gang.
Ignoring this threat will hurt regulated hunting in B.C.

[Rob Chipman]

It is important to know who and why Bianchet was invited.
Speakers should be vetted. I'm sure he was.
Someone at the BCWF decided that having Bianchet speak was worthwhile.
Why?

First, why is it important to know who invited Festa-Bianchet and why? You kind of have to make that argument in a convincing fashion before people will share your concerns. I'm sure that you recognize that there is a bit of an appearance of some sort of witch hunt/purity test going on. That appearance may be completely without merit, but you should make your case a little better, because I'm not the only one detecting it. You seem to be making a federal case out of an hour and a half webinar.

As I've said, I don't know who invited him, I believe it's a team decision, and I'm not actually too concerned. I can't be the only one seeing two possible answers to the why question. One is that Festa-Bianchet is some sort of anti-hunting compassionate conservationist. The other reason, which depends on the first being true, is that its not only wrong to invite him to speak, but that someone at the BCWF is working against the interests of BCWF members, hunters or whoever.

I don't think you've been too clear on making you case. Maybe I missed to, so how about confirming whether I'm reading you correctly: do you think Festa-Bianchet is anti-hunting and a compassionate conservationist?

To ignore these questions is to purposefully wear blinders.
When reps wear blinders, they also blind their membership.

Actually, I haven't ignored your questions. I just haven't given you the answers you seem to want. Again, I don't know who invited him (just as I don't know who invited Dr. Lori Daniels to the last event) and I don't know why he was invited, but I think it was a team decision and I think it was made because he has subject matter that is of interest to hunting conservationists. Those are answers, you've had them three times now. I also pointed out that I now of no compassionate conservationists at BCWF, either in the staff nor among directors.

If I've missed answering any other question, please re-state it.

In the case of the WSF inviting Bianchet, this was done to allow him to defend his science in the face of opposing science in regards to his conviction and aggressive tactics to have the Alberta bighorn management plan thrown out and replaced with a more compassionate plan, his firm assertion that hunting was absolutely causing genetic changes to bighorn sheep.
The WSF recognized that Bianchet's science was flawed, and dangerous to both sheep management and to hunting in whole.
The WSF knew who he was, an opponent that needed to be stood up to. The WSF was prepared to do so before he was invited to speak.

OK, I can accept that possibility. Three obvious questions: 1) if it's ok for WSF to do what they did, why is not wrong for BCWF to do the same thing? 2) can you tell me who at WSF made that decision so I can confirm why they did it? Their input would be pretty valuable to me as a director and I think that second question falls under the category of "A question that I should be asking and getting an answer to". 3) If Festa-Bianchet is an opponent to not only WSF, but also BCWF, why wouldn't an opportunity to stand up to his flawed and dangerous science work for BCWF just as it did for WSF? There's a whiff of a double standard in the air.

This is NOT about horn size. That is just the angle being played by Bianchet.
This is about a worldwide push to greatly reduce hunting as a management tool and the introduction of Compassionate Conservation into government policy and legislation.

You might be right. Do you have any evidence - published papers, transcripts of any talks, blog posts, facebook posts, tweets....anything, that has Festa-Bianchet saying he is a compassionate conservationist or that he wants to reduce hunting as a management tool?

Well, Bianchet was somehow able to get the podium, which suggest some at the BCWF think he deserves to be heard.

Asked and answered a few times, including your description of WSF's motivation for letting him talk. If it's good enough for WSF I'm willing to let the guy talk and let the listeners decide for themselves.

Is this fishy? I don't know, and as you admitted, neither do you.

So now you've got me struggling with three things at once. One - is it fishy? You admit that you don't know. Two- if neither you nor I know if it's fishy, why would either of us care? Why not just let it play out, look at the evidence and then decide? Three - if you *now* that Festa-Bianchet is an anti-hunting compassionate conservationist, why don't you share the evidence?

Do Indigenous rights deserve more attention? Certainly.

You missed the point on that. I wasn't asking if Indigenous rights deserve more attention.

I said "...the evolution of Indigenous rights and the impact of DRIPA deserves way, way more attention." What needs attention from BCWF is not Indigenous rights themselves (that's a way bigger picture and not part of BCWF's mission) but how the evolution of those rights and legislation that recognizes and gives them force of law will affect hunting and conservation. It's a subtle, but pretty important difference. I'm not asking you to support or oppose Indigenous rights and I give zero ****s what your personal opinion on them is. Im asking you to realize that the impact that the recognition of Indigenous rights, as they evolve and gain the force of law, will have on hunting and conservation is light years more important than the opinions of a wildlife scientist, regardless of what those opinions may be.

What are you going to do when Bianchet teams up with Indigenous leaders?

What will I do if a hypothetical event that scares you happens at some point in the future with results that you seem to think are clearly bad but have not actually demonstrated to be bad?

Um, I guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. I can't for the life of me, no matter how hard I try, think that the opinions of one wildlife bio are anywhere near as significant as the opinions of, oh, say the Federal Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations (the guy who says "We have to face that we stole the land"), or the opinion of the provincial Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation (his ministry is implementing DRIPA - not sure if you read the draft plan) or, for that matter, the way a judge like the Right Honourable Madam Justice Burke reaches a conclusion about the law.

Those three people make decisions that actually leave a mark on our lives in a very real way. Paint Festa-Bianchet as the worst and most influential scientist possible. Kick David Suzuki off his perch and replace him who Festa-Bianchet. Then clone him 100 times and put him squarely behind Indigenous leaders. He still won't be as influential as the three people I just listed. He doesn't even make the top 100 list of serious threats to regulated hunting in BC.

Show me I'm wrong. Fly at 'er. It's win-win situation for you, me and all the forum readers, right? The truth is always, always friendly.

BTW, is teaming up with Indigenous leaders a bad thing that we should avoid? I now that's a sidebar, but I'd love to hear your thoughts. I'm under the impression that Indigenous leaders are a great way to get predators controlled, get prescribed burns to happen and get lots and lots of matching funding for things hunter-conservationists want done. Maybe I don't see the full picture.

Last point: are you by chance aware of the proposed UK trophy import ban?

[Dannybuoy]

Is this webinar going to be directed for the most part toward sheep ?

[IronNoggin]

... Again, always undermining and sniping at the Fed every chance you get.

Mr Chipman was putting some information out (albeit some may perceive it as somewhat controversial)....
Then you show up and hamstring yet another thread

Modus Operandii.
Damn tough to change your spots it would seem.

Well, Bianchet was somehow able to get the podium, which suggest some at the BCWF think he deserves to be heard.
Is this fishy? I don't know, and as you admitted, neither do you.
If you don't care to find out, so be it.
I suggest to other BCWF members that they do.

You can certainly put me in that camp...

I wasn't going to, but now will sign up and witness this event myself.
And I will most likely be forwarding a question or two...

Nog

[Rob Chipman]

Is this webinar going to be directed for the most part toward sheep ?

I think the subject matter of this one is sheep.

Good question, because the idea makes me wonder: does hunting exert evolutionary pressure on, say, mule deer antlers?

I just searched the googly machine to see what it said, and lo and behold, a MeatEater from December 2020 is asking the same sort of thing (https://www.themeateater.com/conserv...lers-and-horns)

The author of that links to a research paper and one of the authors is Festa-Bianchet.

He has some multiple links in the article and at least one to a bighorn and hunting pressure/evolutionary change study (there's another, but it isn't loading for me) that says "In all, current harvest regimes in mist hunt areas do not appear to be reducing horn size in bighorn sheep".

As for deer he doesn't link to studies but he's got some pretty reasonable points to make. Good article. Anyone going to the BCWF webinar should probably give this one a gander (It's an article, not a scientific paper, but the article author was one of the authors on the scientific paper he links to, so probably a pretty good source).

[Rob Chipman]

I wasn't going to, but now will sign up and witness this event myself.
And I will most likely be forwarding a question or two...

Nog

That's kind of the reason why we promote these things. I'd recommend you sign up for all of them and either forward questions before hand or ask them during the event. We're being pretty transparent for a group that people are suggesting might be up to something fishy or might have rats hiding inside it somewhere, don't you think?

[Dannybuoy]

I think the subject matter of this one is sheep.

Good question, because the idea makes me wonder: does hunting exert evolutionary pressure on, say, mule deer antlers?

I just searched the googly machine to see what it said, and lo and behold, a MeatEater from December 2020 is asking the same sort of thing (https://www.themeateater.com/conserv...lers-and-horns)

The author of that links to a research paper and one of the authors is Festa-Bianchet.

He has some multiple links in the article and at least one to a bighorn and hunting pressure/evolutionary change study (there's another, but it isn't loading for me) that says "In all, current harvest regimes in mist hunt areas do not appear to be reducing horn size in bighorn sheep".

As for deer he doesn't link to studies but he's got some pretty reasonable points to make. Good article. Anyone going to the BCWF webinar should probably give this one a gander (It's an article, not a scientific paper, but the article author was one of the authors on the scientific paper he links to, so probably a pretty good source).

Thanks , that's what I thought but it didn't hurt to ask

[horshur]

Chip..you were told the influence of Fiesta in Alberta and subsequent consequences...so obviously he has had some influence at the least in Alberta. NO?

[Jagermeister]

what’s truly sad is not recognizing guys like bear valley work to keep animals on the land every day. He has personally, out of his pocket gave resident hunter organizations in excess of one hundred and twenty thousand dollars in the last six years! Yet he is anti resident hunting? Perhaps while your on your high fed horse you might want to ask how much the current executive fed director has taken OUT OF residents hunters pockets with his large daily rate? Some people give some take. Makes you wonder what the agenda of some is. ?

I wonder how much of that went to the Nicola Valley in their law suit against Douglas Lake Cattle Company?
Another question. Dead dog, are you associated with the guides and outfitters in BC in any capacity? I ask the same of you Walking Buffalo?