BCWF- News release- Groundbreaking MOU signed

[BCWF]

Nelson, B.C.

Five of the province’s leading conservation organizations have signed a historic Memorandum of Understanding in support of growing wildlife populations in British Columbia. The BC Wildlife Federation, Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia, Wild Sheep Society of British Columbia, Wildlife Stewardship Council and the B.C. Trappers Association came together to announce the MOU at the BCWF’s Annual General Meeting in Nelson on Saturday.

Concern about the on-going decline of wildlife including, moose, mule deer, elk, wild sheep and caribou brought the conservation organizations together for the sake of building and maintaining healthy wildlife populations for First Nations, B.C. residents, guide outfitters, trappers and the non-hunting public. The MOU follows the provincial government’s recent announcement that all hunting licence revenues will be re-invested to enhance wildlife management activities.

“This MOU is another mechanism to ensure the province invests in our wildlife”, said John Henderson, President of the Wildlife Stewardship Council.

Jim Glaicar, President of the 50,000 member BC Wildlife Federation said, "The collaborative efforts of our five organizations will help to ensure the province follows through on its commitment to enhance wildlife management."

Michael Schneider, President of the Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia said, "This is a great opportunity for our organizations to work together for the betterment of wildlife in the province."

“B.C.'s wild sheep populations have been declining for years", said Rodney Zeman, President of the Wild Sheep Society of BC. "This MOU will help to ensure we put and keep wild sheep on the mountain."

B.C. Trappers Association, President Brian Dack said, “We look forward to working with our conservation partners in support of growing more wildlife."

[Ride Red]

A great start; now to get everyone else on board.

[Fisher-Dude]

Bravo to the leaders of these organizations for coming together to fight for a single cause.

This MOU is the start of a new era for fish, wildlife, and habitat conservation in this province.

[HarryToolips]

This is very good news, great work guys.....so we're also going to be working hard to create healthy wildlife populations for not only ourselves, but for First Nations as well..so attention First Nations, where are you in this fight? Are you going to start to do your part for conservation??

[Fisher-Dude]

This is very good news, great work guys.....so we're also going to be working hard to create healthy wildlife populations for not only ourselves, but for First Nations as well..so attention First Nations, where are you in this fight? Are you going to start to do your part for conservation??

Wildlife Stewardship Council signed the MOU.

[Seeker]

This could very well be the turning point for wildlife in this province. Good work to the parties involved. A combined unified force with a common goal. Toolips, as FD has indicated, John Henderson is the leader of the Wildlife Stewardship Council (google it) and we heard from him at the convention as well. Although it won't be even to the standards a lot of people on this website want, the first nations want more wildlife and realize something needs to be done. We all need each other to be most effective. I learned a lot this past weekend and have a huge appreciation for the time and effort a lot of people from the federation put towards fish and wildlife. A lot of the effort takes years and is thankless. There was not a single one of these people in the room that did not stand up and recognize the significance of this coming together of people with a common goal. There will be set backs, but let's make this happen!

[HarryToolips]

^^^very good, I hope FN can work with us, instead of undoing all the good that we work hard to create...

[pg83]

I'm a little surprised with the lack of response to this news. It has the potential to be huge. I am hoping for the best and congratulate all parties on getting to this point. I look forward to what the future holds.

[Wild one]

This is something that has truly been needed all user groups working towards benefiting wildlife is huge

i hope this is a starting point for more possitive interaction between these groups

[chris]

Let's pretend for a minute that I'm just a simple electrician... Can anyone explain to me what this group will be doing or able to do in order to protect or increase wildlife populations? My simple brain interprets this to basically mean everyone agrees that we want more wildlife but we already agreed on that. It's great that these different groups agree on something but I don't see the benefit.

[Fella]

My uneducated guess is all groups will work with/pressure the government to commit more resources to wildlife and habitat

[guest]

Thumbs up all round on this ....... Good work, it's a start of hopefully long needed turn around. This and the funding model start, is the biggest news to Wildlife in BC for the past 30-40 years.

Cudos to all involved.

CT

[lange1212]

Let's pretend for a minute that I'm just a simple electrician... Can anyone explain to me what this group will be doing or able to do in order to protect or increase wildlife populations? My simple brain interprets this to basically mean everyone agrees that we want more wildlife but we already agreed on that. It's great that these different groups agree on something but I don't see the benefit.

Increased funding is required to better manage our revered wildlife resource "agreed". But I'm very skeptical of the underlining intent with some of the signatories on the MOU. I fear this is a classic example of "distract from the real issue" which is of tremendous importance to residents and has caused much harm and lost opportunity "WILDLIFE ALLOCATIONS". There's an optics that allocation concerns have been silenced and swept under the carpet and we've been blinded by this funding model MOU. I think everyone needs to ask themselves who truly benefits from this direction, and at a time when we have a government forming that understands and is sympathetic to resident issues like ALLOCATIONS.

Just my opinion and food for thought

[Rob Chipman]

I'm not crazy about the MOU either. I think there are potentially more effective allies for the BCWF out in the big wide world. I'm not anti-guide by any means, but I think they have much more to gain from us than we have to gain from them. Just my opinion. I could be totally wrong.

Funding and objectives are required to accomplish anything. Social license is required to remove opposition. An acceptance of science as the proper tool for wildlife policy discharge rather than emotion (which allows for the politicization of wildlife) is critical.

[Whonnock Boy]

Some well thought out words here from both respondents.


Increased funding is required to better manage our revered wildlife resource "agreed". But I'm very skeptical of the underlining intent with some of the signatories on the MOU. I fear this is a classic example of "distract from the real issue" which is of tremendous importance to residents and has caused much harm and lost opportunity "WILDLIFE ALLOCATIONS". There's an optics that allocation concerns have been silenced and swept under the carpet and we've been blinded by this funding model MOU. I think everyone needs to ask themselves who truly benefits from this direction, and at a time when we have a government forming that understands and is sympathetic to resident issues like ALLOCATIONS.

Just my opinion and food for thought


I'm not crazy about the MOU either. I think there are potentially more effective allies for the BCWF out in the big wide world. I'm not anti-guide by any means, but I think they have much more to gain from us than we have to gain from them. Just my opinion. I could be totally wrong.

Funding and objectives are required to accomplish anything. Social license is required to remove opposition. An acceptance of science as the proper tool for wildlife policy discharge rather than emotion (which allows for the politicization of wildlife) is critical.

[40incher]

Increased funding is required to better manage our revered wildlife resource "agreed". But I'm very skeptical of the underlining intent with some of the signatories on the MOU. I fear this is a classic example of "distract from the real issue" which is of tremendous importance to residents and has caused much harm and lost opportunity "WILDLIFE ALLOCATIONS". There's an optics that allocation concerns have been silenced and swept under the carpet and we've been blinded by this funding model MOU. I think everyone needs to ask themselves who truly benefits from this direction, and at a time when we have a government forming that understands and is sympathetic to resident issues like ALLOCATIONS.

Just my opinion and food for thought


Might be nice to see what the exact wording of the MoU is?? It's a mystery to me!

I have made it as clear as possible that the allocation of wildlife hunting opportunities should have been front and center in the BCWF election platform ... instead we heard nothing but silence on the issue. That concerns me.

It also concerns me that the push for a vague "funding model" is going to solve the immediate, or long-term, problems for resident hunters. Time to kick some doors down on a new allocation model that gives resident hunters the 90% they deserve ... instead of the paltry 60% to 75% we had forced upon us by the Liberals.

No more "cap in hand" crap!

[emerson]

If we speak with one voice we have much more clout. Hopefully all involved are willing to swing a big stick uncomfortably hard at the politicians.

[lange1212]

40incher,

You bring up a very interesting point and ask has anyone seen or been able to review this now signed MOU, including members of the BCWF Board? I looked on line...and can't find it anywhere. Can someone post a copy of it or has this been agreed to in isolation and behind closed doors?

[bearvalley]

40incher,

You bring up a very interesting point and ask has anyone seen or been able to review this now signed MOU, including members of the BCWF Board? I looked on line...and can't find it anywhere. Can someone post a copy of it or has this been agreed to in isolation and behind closed doors?

Seeing as it was presented and signed at the BCWF AGM, I am sure the directors of the organization knew what was in the MOU.
One day more people will come to realize that mindsets like yours are detrimental to wildlife.
Guide bashing, FN's bashing, bashing fellow hunters and bitching that we need to enforce our rights to grab more of a declining resource has taken us down a backwards path.
All of us.

[lange1212]

Seeing as it was presented and signed at the BCWF AGM, I am sure the directors of the organization knew what was in the MOU.
One day more people will come to realize that mindsets like yours are detrimental to wildlife.
Guide bashing, FN's bashing, bashing fellow hunters and bitching that we need to enforce our rights to grab more of a declining resource has taken us down a backwards path.
All of us.

The question asked was has anyone seen and or been able to review this MOU, including the BCWF Board and that a copy of it be posted.

Your comments pertaining to guide bashing, FN's bashing, bashing fellow hunters...are not called for and in no way reflected in any of my comments here. This is 100% exclusive to you and your mind set and the administrator should take a close review of your comments as I believe they are outside of this sites conduct policy.

That said nice try with the "oh look a squirrel" tactic to distract from the real issue and concerns brought up in the previous posts "WILDLIFE ALLOCATION".

Residents and members expressing concern over wildlife allocation and the manner they have been handled by the past government is a very legitimate and defensible concern. It is those past wildlife allocation decisions that threaten our very access and to privatize of our common property rights in wildlife. Remember up to 40% of some of our wildlife has now allocated to non-residents. That means removed from resident public, hands off to resident public, means exclusive to "non-residents" and those that cater to them.

In light of this mass shift in allocation residents today face a series of increased regulatory restriction being proposed in areas of our Province and will very likely be implemented in the next regulatory cycle starting 2018.

It is also important to note that no other jurisdiction in "North America" provides non-residents with such a high % of public wildlife. It is also important to note that this today is just policy. The saving grace here is this is not legislated and can be changed to better reflect and benefit residents of BC needs.

Oh look another squirrel (MOU) and have questioned if this is nothing more than a tactic to distract from a very important and critical issue to residents of BC "WILDLIFE ALLOCATION". I'm not opposed to the funding model idea, but am opposed if this is being done in isolation and behind closed doors, and in the process distracting from (throwing under the bus) the allocation issue which is of paramount importance to BCWF members and resident public.

I agree that funding is needed to better manage our revered wildlife, however the MOU in question appears to have been agreed to with out review of public and or BoD approval of some of the signatory groups. In other words has the appearance of being done in isolation and behind closed doors.

So I will bring up the question again can someone please post the MOU "the mystery document" in question that nobody has been able to access, review, and read.

Hey good try, but I'm not interested in chasing your squirrels! But will ask are you by chance a Guide Outfitter and member of the GOABC? No this is not a dig, just curious as to what your association to wildlife is.

[Fisher-Dude]

Seeing as it was presented and signed at the BCWF AGM, I am sure the directors of the organization knew what was in the MOU.
One day more people will come to realize that mindsets like yours are detrimental to wildlife.
Guide bashing, FN's bashing, bashing fellow hunters and bitching that we need to enforce our rights to grab more of a declining resource has taken us down a backwards path.
All of us.

Correct.

I was front and centre of the allocation dispute, and we got some concessions from the original policy in favour of resident hunters, and now have to move forward. We also got the commitment that any increases in allocation due to population increases would go to us.

Of course, now that the government has been taken over by the anti-hunting parties, we need more than ever to work together to both protect the rights we currently have, as well as try to increase our wildlife resources instead of squabble over declining resources.

We've got our work cut out for us, dealing with anti-hunters in government, a declining resource, and idiots in the hunting ranks who support anti-hunting political parties that threw us under the bus for urban votes.

Our job ahead has just doubled or tripled in scope. We need all the help we can get.

[Whonnock Boy]

Based on what I have been told to be factual, I wouldn't put any money on your statement. Lange has some valid concerns.
Seeing as it was presented and signed at the BCWF AGM, I am sure the directors of the organization knew what was in the MOU.


Hey, that's me, and it brightens my day to know that I am in your thoughts. ;)



We've got our work cut out for us, dealing with anti-hunters in government, a declining resource, and idiots in the hunting ranks who support anti-hunting political parties that threw us under the bus for urban votes.

[boxhitch]

The question asked was has anyone seen and or been able to review this MOU, including the BCWF Board and that a copy of it be posted.........So what were you told at the BCWF convention when you brought up the MOU during discussions ? Surely there must have been a response, especially when having command of the floor and proper decorum was being followed, no?

And then again, when you had the chance to aire your pov on the allocation issue, and your group of supporters had the mike again, what was the response from the delegates ?

Maybe share that so we can see what support you had for your arguments in front of an engaged audience instead of a handful of hbc regulars.
Thanks

[J_T]

I understand some people have that skeptical mind-set. Not a bad thing to be more wary. I'm more of an optimist myself. I've seen the MOU and I'm pasting the "Purpose" of it below.

Big picture, it isn't about wildlife allocation, it isn't about hunting regulation. It's about committing to work together to ensure the best opportunity for wildlife and wildlife populations in this province. That's all, very simple.

When there's more wildlife, and we have sound objectives and management plans, we can get into discussion on how to identify opportunity to meet objectives.

"The British Columbia Wildlife Federation, the Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia, the Wild Sheep Society of BC, the Wildlife Stewardship Council, the BC Trappers Association and the United Bowhunters of British Columbia agree to work together for the sake of building and maintaining healthy wildlife populations for First Nations, BC resident hunters, guide outfitters, trappers and the non-hunting public."

[Mulehahn]

So why isn't a copy of the MOU available to the public? If there is some legal reason then was therea copy made available to all BCWF Members prior to the AGM and I just missed it? I am not saying that it is a good or bad thing as I have no idea what it says. But I am saying that a document that claims to represent 10s of thousands of people in this province, maybe they should be able to see it for themselves!

[J_T]

So why isn't a copy of the MOU available to the public? If there is some legal reason then was therea copy made available to all BCWF Members prior to the AGM and I just missed it? I am not saying that it is a good or bad thing as I have no idea what it says. But I am saying that a document that claims to represent 10s of thousands of people in this province, maybe they should be able to see it for themselves!

Maybe the question is, what else do people think is in an MOU? It isn't the culmination of a negotiation. There are no terms, no side agreements. It's focused on one thing. Agreement, to put down the bullshit and work together, for wildlife. I posted the Purpose of the MOU above. The only parts I left out, where the effective date, and the signatures.

[Fisher-Dude]

I'm just punting from the 20 yard line here, but Mulehahn, given his past posts and support of a guy whom I believe would have led the organization into continued bickering, is looking only to discredit people who have moved the BCWF forward in a positive direction.

MOUs are simple documents that say "We agree to work together on _________." That's it.

Some people are more focussed on searching for skeletons that don't exist, than working together to help fish and wildlife.

[Whonnock Boy]

And another shot that I believe is partially directed at myself, and who exactly is trying to discredit who here?


I'm just punting from the 20 yard line here, but Mulehahn, given his past posts and support of a guy whom I believe would have led the organization into continued bickering, is looking only to discredit people who have moved the BCWF forward in a positive direction.

MOUs are simple documents that say "We agree to work together on _________." That's it.

Some people are more focussed on searching for skeletons that don't exist, than working together to help fish and wildlife.

[Seeker]

I understand some people have that skeptical mind-set. Not a bad thing to be more wary. I'm more of an optimist myself. I've seen the MOU and I'm pasting the "Purpose" of it below.

Big picture, it isn't about wildlife allocation, it isn't about hunting regulation. It's about committing to work together to ensure the best opportunity for wildlife and wildlife populations in this province. That's all, very simple.

When there's more wildlife, and we have sound objectives and management plans, we can get into discussion on how to identify opportunity to meet objectives.

"The British Columbia Wildlife Federation, the Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia, the Wild Sheep Society of BC, the Wildlife Stewardship Council, the BC Trappers Association and the United Bowhunters of British Columbia agree to work together for the sake of building and maintaining healthy wildlife populations for First Nations, BC resident hunters, guide outfitters, trappers and the non-hunting public."

This is 100% the ticket. If we continue on the path we are following, there will be nothing left for anyone. We need to work together. Trust me, I have talked to local politicians that had to deal with the allocation issue and years later they are still licking their pelts. They will not attempt such a thing again without serious consideration. One good thing about "Horgable" taking power is that I am pretty sure the GOABC will not receive further allocations. Regardless, it is essential we fight for wildlife together as a bigger force and this MOU does just that. Maybe we should have had FD and WB sign it as well:wink: Now with the MOU we are part way there and we need a means to accomplish our goals. Although to most it appears vague, the funding model is essential. It will evolve as it is developed, but it must be separate from emotion driven government. There is a plan in place and with the right pressure I am confidant it will be accomplished and effective. I have become a lot more involved in the last few years simply because I was determined to ensure wildlife has a chance. The MOU is tailored in a similar way to the incredibly successful Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC and from what I have seen, this process has the best chance for wildlife in BC and for enabling British Columbians' access to wildlife for years to come. This change in direction has the potential to be a process that years from now, people look back and recognize as a significant step to improving wildlife management in BC.


I'm not crazy about the MOU either. I think there are potentially more effective allies for the BCWF out in the big wide world. I'm not anti-guide by any means, but I think they have much more to gain from us than we have to gain from them. Just my opinion. I could be totally wrong.

Funding and objectives are required to accomplish anything. Social license is required to remove opposition. An acceptance of science as the proper tool for wildlife policy discharge rather than emotion (which allows for the politicization of wildlife) is critical.

Care to elaborate on who is better to represent BC's wildlife than the 5 groups listed that have a vested interest and are directly involved with BC's wildlife on a daily basis? I can't think of any.


Might be nice to see what the exact wording of the MoU is?? It's a mystery to me!

I have made it as clear as possible that the allocation of wildlife hunting opportunities should have been front and center in the BCWF election platform ... instead we heard nothing but silence on the issue. That concerns me.

It also concerns me that the push for a vague "funding model" is going to solve the immediate, or long-term, problems for resident hunters. Time to kick some doors down on a new allocation model that gives resident hunters the 90% they deserve ... instead of the paltry 60% to 75% we had forced upon us by the Liberals.

No more "cap in hand" crap! If you don't like it, come out and help us all out. We don't always need to agree, but we are all fighting for the fish and wildlife. A larger combined effort will achieve better results.


If we speak with one voice we have much more clout. Hopefully all involved are willing to swing a big stick uncomfortably hard at the politicians.

Agreed! We as members may need to throw out a few reminders.

[Linksman313]

I'm just punting from the 20 yard line here, but Mulehahn, given his past posts and support of a guy whom I believe would have led the organization into continued bickering, is looking only to discredit people who have moved the BCWF forward in a positive direction.

MOUs are simple documents that say "We agree to work together on _________." That's it.

Some people are more focussed on searching for skeletons that don't exist, than working together to help fish and wildlife.


I understand some people have that skeptical mind-set. Not a bad thing to be more wary. I'm more of an optimist myself. I've seen the MOU and I'm pasting the "Purpose" of it below.

Big picture, it isn't about wildlife allocation, it isn't about hunting regulation. It's about committing to work together to ensure the best opportunity for wildlife and wildlife populations in this province. That's all, very simple.

When there's more wildlife, and we have sound objectives and management plans, we can get into discussion on how to identify opportunity to meet objectives.

"The British Columbia Wildlife Federation, the Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia, the Wild Sheep Society of BC, the Wildlife Stewardship Council, the BC Trappers Association and the United Bowhunters of British Columbia agree to work together for the sake of building and maintaining healthy wildlife populations for First Nations, BC resident hunters, guide outfitters, trappers and the non-hunting public."

“Coming together is the beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success.”
― Henry Ford (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/203714.Henry_Ford)

I think this is the message FD and JT are trying to get across folks, we needed a starting point, we got one. From now on those parties who signed on the dotted line can no longer hide in the "I didn't know/realize/wasn't invited" shadows anymore. Once the ball really gets rolling in committee or summit when one party steps out of line or fumbles a commitment, at least there is a signed document to hold their feet to the fire, you signed it with full knowledge and intent, so now do something about it. The fact that the Stewardship council attended and signed is a huge move forward IMO.
L!nks

[bearvalley]

The question asked was has anyone seen and or been able to review this MOU, including the BCWF Board and that a copy of it be posted.

Your comments pertaining to guide bashing, FN's bashing, bashing fellow hunters...are not called for and in no way reflected in any of my comments here. This is 100% exclusive to you and your mind set and the administrator should take a close review of your comments as I believe they are outside of this sites conduct policy.

That said nice try with the "oh look a squirrel" tactic to distract from the real issue and concerns brought up in the previous posts "WILDLIFE ALLOCATION".

Residents and members expressing concern over wildlife allocation and the manner they have been handled by the past government is a very legitimate and defensible concern. It is those past wildlife allocation decisions that threaten our very access and to privatize of our common property rights in wildlife. Remember up to 40% of some of our wildlife has now allocated to non-residents. That means removed from resident public, hands off to resident public, means exclusive to "non-residents" and those that cater to them.

In light of this mass shift in allocation residents today face a series of increased regulatory restriction being proposed in areas of our Province and will very likely be implemented in the next regulatory cycle starting 2018.

It is also important to note that no other jurisdiction in "North America" provides non-residents with such a high % of public wildlife. It is also important to note that this today is just policy. The saving grace here is this is not legislated and can be changed to better reflect and benefit residents of BC needs.

Oh look another squirrel (MOU) and have questioned if this is nothing more than a tactic to distract from a very important and critical issue to residents of BC "WILDLIFE ALLOCATION". I'm not opposed to the funding model idea, but am opposed if this is being done in isolation and behind closed doors, and in the process distracting from (throwing under the bus) the allocation issue which is of paramount importance to BCWF members and resident public.

I agree that funding is needed to better manage our revered wildlife, however the MOU in question appears to have been agreed to with out review of public and or BoD approval of some of the signatory groups. In other words has the appearance of being done in isolation and behind closed doors.

So I will bring up the question again can someone please post the MOU "the mystery document" in question that nobody has been able to access, review, and read.

Hey good try, but I'm not interested in chasing your squirrels! But will ask are you by chance a Guide Outfitter and member of the GOABC? No this is not a dig, just curious as to what your association to wildlife is.
Langegger, you know you have access to that MOU.
If anyone is throwing out squirrels you're as guilty as they come.
It blows me away that someone that is in a position like you to help a movement go forward for the good of wildlife would question the integrity of that MOU and try to place question upon the integrity of the signatories.
Many of the members of this forum know I'm an outfitter and that I also completely support resident hunters.
The old way of doing things did not work so let's move on with something productive.

[bearvalley]

I'm not crazy about the MOU either. I think there are potentially more effective allies for the BCWF out in the big wide world. I'm not anti-guide by any means, but I think they have much more to gain from us than we have to gain from them. Just my opinion. I could be totally wrong.

Funding and objectives are required to accomplish anything. Social license is required to remove opposition. An acceptance of science as the proper tool for wildlife policy discharge rather than emotion (which allows for the politicization of wildlife) is critical.
Rob, your statement here is a disappointment.
If the groups that signed that MOU can not work together on a plan that is to benefit wildlife who can.
Maybe you can throw out who you think can do a better job and still maintain hunting as we know it in the plan.

[Mulehahn]

Maybe the question is, what else do people think is in an MOU? It isn't the culmination of a negotiation. There are no terms, no side agreements. It's focused on one thing. Agreement, to put down the bullshit and work together, for wildlife. I posted the Purpose of the MOU above. The only parts I left out, where the effective date, and the signatures.

I am pretty sure I know what an MOU is, but just to be sure I will provide a defintion:

memorandum of understanding (MOU): a nonbinding agreement between two or more parties outlining the terms and details of an understanding, including each parties' requirements and responsibilities.

So in short, yes a MOU does include terms and details, including outlining what the requirements and responsibilities of those signing are. If whatever the groups involved in doesn't then I don't know what was signed, but it wasn't an MOU. The easy way to clear this up is to post a copy of the document that was signed. I don't see the need for secrecy. If there is a legitimate need to keep it under wraps, than post that!

Fisherdude, I fail to see how asking for what an Agreement signed on my behalf says is an attempt hinder wildlife recovery! Can you explain? As for what I want, I will send you a PM as it is unrelated to this thread!

EDIT: I support the Idea of an MOU in principle but that means nothing without details!

[J_T]

^^ Hey Mulehahn, I'm not trying to be obnoxious. I came on here, saw people wanting to know the content of the document, so I posted it. I have a digital copy. I've posted everything there is to it on here. As I said, it is very specific. To agree, to work together, for wildlife. If what you are looking for is an image of it, I don't have an image, and I don't post images on here. I'm not sure I see it as my document to share. Perhaps send me a PM with any questions you might have.

[Mulehahn]

It appears it is one of those rare occasions that I put my foot in my mouth. Though I still have some concerns about what is going on in this province on numerous fronts, I should not of called out J_T as I did and I apologize.

[J_T]

It appears it is one of those rare occasions that I put my foot in my mouth. Though I still have some concerns about what is going on in this province on numerous fronts, I should not of called out J_T as I did and I apologize.Hey, no worries. FD has provided me the opportunity to develop thick skin.

[Rob Chipman]

Seeker:
You asked:

"Care to elaborate on who is better to represent BC's wildlife than the 5 groups listed that have a vested interest and are directly involved with BC's wildlife on a daily basis? I can't think of any".

Fair point. Saying I'm not crazy about the MOU and that I think there are more effective allies is kind of lazy and not too precise. I'm mostly concerned about partnering with GOABC and my comments about them not bringing as much to the table as I might like relates strictly to them.

Here's my thinking: they don't have a great profile with the non-hunting public because they are closely associated with rich Americans who shoot animals for trophies, and they don't have a great profile with a lot of resident hunters because of allocation.

Who would be better allies? I don't have that answer yet, but I'd like to get as many groups as possible that are currently not pushing the same wheel as us in the same direction that we're pushing it. Those would be people who currently oppose, to one degree or another, the rights of hunters to access the landscape and practice our ancient rights. Many of those people like clean air, clean water, wild animals and wild landscapes, but don't understand how much they have in common with hunters. I think it's critical that these people be brought to the same side of the table as us.


I've run into people who are doing conservation work right now who want nothing to do with BCWF - they see it BCWF in various degrees of negative light. I'd like to reconcile with these people as well. To do that we need to continue to rid BCWF of some of it's dysfunction while continuing to build on the positive things we've accomplished.

BearValley:

Don't be too disappointed. If I'm wrong about GOABC and my assessment of their value all that's required is to demonstrate to me the error of my ways.

Working together isn't always a great way to get something done. That's no surprise to you. You've seen the poster in the mechanic's shop:

Shop rates:

$100/hour
If you watch:
$125/hour
If you help:
$200/hour

I'm not crazy about GOABC because I'm not convinced they're a net benefit. That's merely my opinion. I could be 100% wrong. We've had the conversation before. We could have it again, but unless you've got new information I can't see why we would give a group of people exclusive access to territory and animals under the current system. It's a system that strikes me as out-dated and as one that doesn't maximize value to the majority. Again, just my opinion.


All of that said, I think the BCWF has a lot of potential, I'm happy to help it, and I think we're doing a lot that's right. We do need to make some changes. You build the wall one brick at a time, but you need an idea of what the finished product will look like.

[J_T]

^^Rob. I dont see this as, about the potential of the Fed. Its about the potential of conservation, for so many -often at odds - groups to come together with a single objective, to find ways to create more wildlife. Lets keep hunting and hunting regulation and even allocation out of it for now. There are many groups that can get behind a single objective of more and balanced wildlife numbers. Groups that are focused on invasive plant species. Lets work with them. The ranching community. Lets work together and enhance the transitional and grazing range and negotiate to get some of the high fences around winter range down. If we 'must' have winter feeding lets do it right, and include ranchers. Even the more moderate environmental groups can align to an objective of conservation. Lets start talking to them and show our origins as conservationists.

[Fisher-Dude]

If anyone came away from Jesse's presentation thinking that allocation and regulation will make more wildlife, they must have dozed off long before it started.

As Jim says, forget about allocation and regulation. Because neither of those two will make more animals on the mountain.

Time to burn some shit and kill some weeds and shoot some wolves. Those will make more wildlife. And we can keep hunting while we do it.

[Rob Chipman]

J_T:

I think we probably agree about 99.96% (that's an approximation :-) )

When I mention other groups that we can make allies with I'm thinking like you. And when I say BCWF has a lot of potential it's completely a function of the goal of conservation. The question of whether the BCWF is the vehicle to accomplish the goals we want accomplished often comes up, and I don't think it's been answered conclusively - when I say it's got lots of potential it's because I think it can be the vehicle to preserve and enhance wildlife, wild landscapes, and access to both.

My concern about GOABC is that they might hurt us more than they help us. However, I do not have the market cornered on intelligence or accurate future predictions, so that remains nothing more than a personal opinion. The relationship could work out just fine.

I'm a convert to the belief that we need specific goals, we need funding, we need widespread social support, and we need to be informed by science. I'm probably missing a few things, but those four get me close to the bull's eye, I think.

[souwester]

Lange1212 I got 100 bucks that says NDP does nothing but take opportunities away from us if you are into a friendly bet? You pick the time frame 1 year ? two years? hopefully they are gone by then.
Any one who ACTUALLY hunts big game in this province should see that this MOU is the future.
Whoever was involved with this started a good thing hopefully more progress can be made.
you guys that want to continue arguing allocation are going to be alone at the table soon ... good luck.

carry on.

[Buck]

Resident hunters need to assert to the powers that be that anything above the 10% threshold of allocation for the guide outfitting business will not be tolerated.I would have nothing to do with any collaboration involving the GOABC the have no honor and no integrity.Now is the time to strike against the allocation debacle hold the government accountable to the promises they made to garner the votes to have the libs thrown out.This MOU is only to the GOABC's advantage as an attempt to normalize the preposterous allocation theft that has occurred.
The general public hold the guide outfitting business in contempt we should distance ourselves from them they are not needed as we move to wildlife recovery.

[Oldblackdog]

Biologists ask B.C. government to reconsider wildlife agency funded by huntersPublished on: July 17, 2017 | Last Updated: July 17, 2017 4:18 PM PDT



http://wpmedia.vancouversun.com/2017/07/bc-grizzly-hunters-jpg.jpg?quality=55&strip=all&w=840&h=630&crop=1Undated photo of grizzly bear hunt in British Columbia. PROVINCE
Dozens of wildlife groups are speaking out against the creation of a new provincial agency dedicated to wildlife management, saying the B.C. government prioritized the views of hunters over scientists.
Announced by the Liberal government before the start of the election campaign, the stand-alone agency was to be formed (https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2017FLNR0037-000783) in the fall with $5 million in government funds. In following years, it would be supported by hunting licence revenue of up to $10 million annually.
The use of hunting revenue to support wildlife stewardship was met with enthusiastic approval from hunting groups like the B.C. Wildlife Federation and the Guide Outfitters Association, both of which were quoted (https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2017FLNR0037-000783) in a government press release issued in March.
But the announcement came as a complete shock to dozens of other conservation groups that don’t have a stake in the wildlife harvest, said Pamela Zevit, director with the Association of Professional Biology.
“We heard about it in the media,” Zevit said Friday. “We’re not saying there shouldn’t be a new agency, but we’re concerned about who is deciding what it will look like. It is important that modern science guides wildlife management decisions.”
Earlier this week, the association fired off a letter to premier-designate John Horgan and Green party leader Andrew Weaver, asking for a seat at the table.
But other groups have gone further, asking the new government to halt plans for the agency all together.
In a letter (http://www.bcnature.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Management-proposal-Press-Release.pdf) supported by 17 organizations and businesses, B.C. Nature president Alan Burger asked the government to review its wildlife management strategy, adding “there is an urgent need … to look beyond consumptive use of wildlife and put the priority on managing for healthy and functioning ecosystems.”
Another letter (http://www.vws.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Open-Letter-June27-2017.pdf), this one signed by 23 wildlife groups, including the SPCA and the Wilderness Committee, urged the new government to increase wildlife management staff and funding for government ministries rather than creating a separate agency.
The letter cites a radio interview given by Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett in the days following the announcement, in which he said the government was afraid to manage wolves and grizzly bears because of the politics involved. Conservation groups say hunting groups are even more ill-suited to the task.
The letter also expressed concern an independent agency could be influenced by donations and funding from outside groups.
“If the fees for hunting licences were to go directly to a non-government agency that decides hunting quotas, the agency can then increase its own funding, staff and salaries by selling more hunting tags,” says the letter.
“This would induce managers to turn a blind eye to the scientific facts governing wildlife populations, and the focus would be on increasing the numbers of game animals, rather than on ecosystem health.”
While the government pledged to continue to dedicate $2.6 million each year to the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation for its conservation projects, scientists are also concerned that work on species at risk could become secondary to animals that can be hunted.
The NDP said it was unable to comment before its new cabinet has been sworn in.
gluymes@postmedia.com
twitter.com/glendaluymes (http://twitter.com/glendaluymes)
Related

[Whonnock Boy]

People should have full disclosure when people such as yourself make comments such as these.



you guys that want to continue arguing allocation are going to be alone at the table soon ... good luck.

carry on.

[40incher]

Biologists ask B.C. government to reconsider wildlife agency funded by hunters

Published on: July 17, 2017 | Last Updated: July 17, 2017 4:18 PM PDT



http://wpmedia.vancouversun.com/2017/07/bc-grizzly-hunters-jpg.jpg?quality=55&strip=all&w=840&h=630&crop=1Undated photo of grizzly bear hunt in British Columbia. PROVINCE
Dozens of wildlife groups are speaking out against the creation of a new provincial agency dedicated to wildlife management, saying the B.C. government prioritized the views of hunters over scientists.
Announced by the Liberal government before the start of the election campaign, the stand-alone agency was to be formed (https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2017FLNR0037-000783) in the fall with $5 million in government funds. In following years, it would be supported by hunting licence revenue of up to $10 million annually.
The use of hunting revenue to support wildlife stewardship was met with enthusiastic approval from hunting groups like the B.C. Wildlife Federation and the Guide Outfitters Association, both of which were quoted (https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2017FLNR0037-000783) in a government press release issued in March.
But the announcement came as a complete shock to dozens of other conservation groups that don’t have a stake in the wildlife harvest, said Pamela Zevit, director with the Association of Professional Biology.
“We heard about it in the media,” Zevit said Friday. “We’re not saying there shouldn’t be a new agency, but we’re concerned about who is deciding what it will look like. It is important that modern science guides wildlife management decisions.”
Earlier this week, the association fired off a letter to premier-designate John Horgan and Green party leader Andrew Weaver, asking for a seat at the table.
But other groups have gone further, asking the new government to halt plans for the agency all together.
In a letter (http://www.bcnature.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Management-proposal-Press-Release.pdf) supported by 17 organizations and businesses, B.C. Nature president Alan Burger asked the government to review its wildlife management strategy, adding “there is an urgent need … to look beyond consumptive use of wildlife and put the priority on managing for healthy and functioning ecosystems.”
Another letter (http://www.vws.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Open-Letter-June27-2017.pdf), this one signed by 23 wildlife groups, including the SPCA and the Wilderness Committee, urged the new government to increase wildlife management staff and funding for government ministries rather than creating a separate agency.
The letter cites a radio interview given by Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett in the days following the announcement, in which he said the government was afraid to manage wolves and grizzly bears because of the politics involved. Conservation groups say hunting groups are even more ill-suited to the task.
The letter also expressed concern an independent agency could be influenced by donations and funding from outside groups.
“If the fees for hunting licences were to go directly to a non-government agency that decides hunting quotas, the agency can then increase its own funding, staff and salaries by selling more hunting tags,” says the letter.
“This would induce managers to turn a blind eye to the scientific facts governing wildlife populations, and the focus would be on increasing the numbers of game animals, rather than on ecosystem health.”
While the government pledged to continue to dedicate $2.6 million each year to the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation for its conservation projects, scientists are also concerned that work on species at risk could become secondary to animals that can be hunted.
The NDP said it was unable to comment before its new cabinet has been sworn in.
gluymes@postmedia.com
twitter.com/glendaluymes (http://twitter.com/glendaluymes)
Related




And the worm begins to turn ...

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

Beautiful photo and congrats on a great bear!

Some memorandum though? Gov't (nor anyone else who doesn't regularly pay money to one of the undersigned organizations on said memorandum) could give a rat's azz about what you agree on. I sincerely hope your organizations contribute greatly to this site on a financial level, or this couldn't be less as per news. If it does anything on any level ever, that would be fantastic. I surely won't hold hold my breath. Fact is, Mcgreggor v Mayweather is a more legitimate Boxing match than is a relevant announcement.

[bloody bellies]

great, let's put money into FN reserves for their wildlife, what exactly do FN do for crown land? how much money does FN give the government of BC for wild life management? If they give any, well it will just go back into their pockets for their reserves, unless I'm missing something.

[IronNoggin]

Biologists ask B.C. government to reconsider wildlife agency funded by hunters



Patterned loosely on the Freshwater Fisheries Society model, what has been proposed involves more groups than just hunters. As a consequence, those crying foul make one suspicious of their motives...

And a little looking into the matter suggests the Raincoast Foundation (an openly anti use, anti hunting collection of pseudo scientists) is largely leading the charge on the front opposed to this action. Amongst some of the bio types currently working directly for the gov or on a contractual basis (and fearful of cuts if the coin wanders away from the gov's control) they have found not only support, but an entity to hide / lurk behind while making their play.

Wildlife & wildlands in this Province are in trouble. A great deal of that trouble comes from the lack of funding, combined with the lack of political attention / focus. No government in BC has ever accomplished much substantially for these resources, and most in fact seem to think of them simply as a bank - to be sold and bartered off for political support / aspirations.

We are well overdue for an overhaul of the system. Getting management OUT of the greedy mitts of government is a major step forward. Ensuring adequate funding is in place (and again out of the hands of the gov) is another. Of course hunters & fishermen should be involved (alongside Proper Science) for they have a proven and vested interest in maintaining, actually increasing, the population and habitat levels out there.

Kind of shameful those voicing their opposition all things considered. Certainly does paint them with the same brush as those hiding directly behind them... http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/styles/default/xenforo/clear.png

Cheers,
Nog