RAINCOAST wants BLACK BEAR HUNTING BAN

[guest]

Well, these guys want it all. Now Director of Raincoast Chris Genovali has admitted that they wants to Ban ....... Black Bear Hunting .......... Wow!

Got to wonder how many of their collection of friends are meat eaters.

what a bunch of hypocrites !

[Wild one]

Old saying give an inch they will take a mile

The new laws with grizz hunting show them their wants are possible with present govt

Hunters and I mean all together need to push back in an organized manner or we will get screwed like never before

The in fighting amongst hunters needs to stop now writing is on the wall divided we are being rolled over no lube

[VFX_man]

A post from a couple of years ago. But still informative.

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-hunting-rights-should-not-be-taken-away-1.2105287

[604redneck]

I really hope this doesnt happen and that there are more bear attacks involving members or followers of raincoast. Bunch of useless ****s.

[Ltbullken]

Hunters better be ready to oppose steps to roll back hunting activity in BC. I am. We may need to get really noisy very soon.

[Wild one]

Hunters better be ready to oppose steps to roll back hunting activity in BC. I am. We may need to get really noisy very soon.

Yes and become more calculated in our approach not just blunder in mad

[scotty30-06]

So messed up....bear/human conflict just in gvrd is through the roof.....we need more bear tags not a ban

[rimfire]

So messed up....bear/human conflict just in gvrd is through the roof.....we need more bear tags not a ban

Its not even the tags in the GVRD as Region 2 has a general open season; people just need to start hunting bears again. A few of my friends won't touch them. Too scare of Trichinosis. I haven't shot one yet but always buy a tag just in case. Best sausage I have tasted has been bear sausage. Can't wait to try some out when we get one this fall or next spring!

[BigfishCanada]

Dude, they want even sport fishing banned, wake up i said this 10 years ago

[bearvalley]

Yes and become more calculated in our approach not just blunder in mad

We had better recruit some leadership.

[Whonnock Boy]

Leadership, or do you mean dictatorship?


We had better recruit some leadership.

[1/2 slam]

Hunters better be ready to oppose steps to roll back hunting activity in BC. I am. We may need to get really noisy very soon.

And we can start by not shopping at MEC. Follow the money. MEC supports Raincoast. I've been saying this for a long time. Have a look at the grants MEC gives out.There are a number of members here that are to stupid to figure that one out.

[TreeStandMan]

What gets me is the worthlessness of their "academic" work. If you want to see the kind of junk they publish check out "Why men trophy hunt (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5377034/)" in Biology Letters (a bottom tier open access journal). Apparently we're just "showing off": it's their opinion that targeting a big animal and passing over smaller ones has nothing to do with wanting to prolong the hunt, seeking a greater challenge, or selecting the oldest animal. The author (Chris Darimont) thinks we just want to look good on Instagram.

This is not a study, this is not science, at best it's poor social science. If Chris Darimont and Raincoast actually want to learn something about hunters, maybe they should talk to hunters. I'd be happy to tell them why I hunt and I'd be interested to hear why they seem to hate hunting, although I think I already know the answer. Maybe I'll write it up and submit it to Biology Letters for publication--they seem to be willing to pass off anyone's opinion as peer reviewed literature.

[bearvalley]

Leadership, or do you mean dictatorship?
You do have your personal problems and it's obvious.
Do you really think it was a dictatorship or was it really just that the fed had someone that could see the big picture. It seemed to me that while the BCWF was under "dictatorship" that stakeholders were moving ahead on common ground that benefitted all.
Since the "dictatorship" came to an end its become pretty damn obvious that the fed has gone back to the old mode of personal vendettas and taking up the rally cry on allocation.
It strikes me as being damn funny that several days after the grizzly bear announcement there has still not been a written statement regarding the Feds stance on the NDP's decision to make grizzlies a meat only hunt.
It doesn't take too many brain cells to figure out that with the grizzly rule change we just lost 2 or 3 times what allocation shifted.
Lost.......Troy......like in gone.

[Wild one]

Leadership, or do you mean dictatorship?

Driving a wedge accomplishes F all

Results are clear on how much gets accomplished divided

[Whonnock Boy]

Yes, it's all me.

Is this how it's going to be? Just like the NDP is getting blamed for the shit left behind by the Liberals, you are blaming the new administration at the BCWF for the shit left behind by your pal. You know who I'm talking about, the mouse who's whispering in your ear.

One guy mentions allocation, and it's a "rally cry" by the Fed?

Are you on the email mailing list? A statement was sent out yesterday.

How have we lost? The "GBR" hunt? The writing was on the wall for that one long before the election. Other than that, my brain cell count must be low.

Still waiting for you to answer Chipman's questions.
You do have your personal problems and it's obvious.
Do you really think it was a dictatorship or was it really just that the fed had someone that could see the big picture. It seemed to me that while the BCWF was under "dictatorship" that stakeholders were moving ahead on common ground that benefitted all.
Since the "dictatorship" came to an end its become pretty damn obvious that the fed has gone back to the old mode of personal vendettas and taking up the rally cry on allocation.
It strikes me as being damn funny that several days after the grizzly bear announcement there has still not been a written statement regarding the Feds stance on the NDP's decision to make grizzlies a meat only hunt.
It doesn't take too many brain cells to figure out that with the grizzly rule change we just lost 2 or 3 times what allocation shifted.
Lost.......Troy......like in gone.

[Whonnock Boy]

Uhhhh..... who is the one pointing fingers at the lack of leadership?
Driving a wedge accomplishes F all

Results are clear on how much gets accomplished divided

[Wild one]

Uhhhh..... who is the one pointing fingers at the lack of leadership?

Might be good for all organizations since the present seem to have issues and bad blood

I would say yes as hunters we lack unity and solid leadership overall

rather than keep trying to defend or blame anyone or any orginization it might be time to go the way hunters are presently dealing with things is failing

I got no love or hate for either orginization but I sure get screwed as a hunter by the BS between them


Lots of hunters are sick of the BS fighting and F all getting done

[Steeleco]

Not even 4 hours and shit is flying on HBC. Don't make me start banning people! You guys are fighting in the wrong direction. The enemy will win easily if we shoot ourselves first!

[chilcotin hillbilly]

the Raincoast people will not stop with balck bears either. They have no revenue coming in unless they have a cause.

[Surrey Boy]

the Raincoast people will not stop with balck bears either. They have no revenue coming in unless they have a cause.

That's exactly the dynamic at work. They need a cause to justify receiving donations. They'll never have the integrity to work themselves out of a job. Every organization functions this way.

[caddisguy]

And we can start by not shopping at MEC. Follow the money. MEC supports Raincoast. I've been saying this for a long time. Have a look at the grants MEC gives out.There are a number of members here that are to stupid to figure that one out.

I am careful not to support MEC now that I know better. I do have a MEC bag that makes me giggle a little when I pack bear meat in it. I might shop there if they stopped donating to anti groups.

[guest]

I won't purchase any thing from MEC ........ Spread the word, they are part and parcel of closing Hunting to us all.

[markomoose]

I know I didn't vote NDP!If you did you have done a diservice to all B.C. Hunters and outdoorsfolk!Horgan & Company are strickly for the masses not for us!!!

[bigwhiteys]

That's exactly the dynamic at work. They need a cause to justify receiving donations. They'll never have the integrity to work themselves out of a job. Every organization functions this way.

RainCoast execs are earning $80,000+ per year, lol... They won't let that gravy train come to a screeching halt.

[4 point]

The Liberals need a new leader sooner than later. The green/ndp thing could I hope blow up and we would have an election. The current government will do what the can for there supports, mainly lower mainland/island folks and the hell with the rest of us.

[180grainer]

RainCoast execs are earning $80,000+ per year, lol... They won't let that gravy train come to a screeching halt.
That's what needs to be advertised. People need to understand where their money is going. Was a big black eye for Green Peace that never really recovered from. Its the same with the eco tourists. They don't care so much about the bears as the ability to sell tickets to see them.

[Pemby_mess]

RainCoast execs are earning $80,000+ per year, lol... They won't let that gravy train come to a screeching halt.

gravy train? Lol - that's like 35 bucks an hour - there's rig hands that make a lot more than that. I agree that it's not bad money, but in comparison to equivalent work elsewhere, it's pretty tough to claim that they've got some kind of racket going.

[Pemby_mess]

That's what needs to be advertised. People need to understand where their money is going. Was a big black eye for Green Peace that never really recovered from. Its the same with the eco tourists. They don't care so much about the bears as the ability to sell tickets to see them.

you can make an equally valid claim toward anyone running any commercial operation. Should the people running non-profits work for free?

[Sitkaspruce]

gravy train? Lol - that's like 35 bucks an hour - there's rig hands that make a lot more than that. I agree that it's not bad money, but in comparison to equivalent work elsewhere, it's pretty tough to claim that they've got some kind of racket going.

The difference is that a rig hand actually WORKS for their $$$, where as these dumb asses just sit back and let the sheeple fill their pockets while spewing BS every once and while to the masses to make more $$$. Sheeple see as sheeple do and these eco freak NYMBY's just feed the sheeple enough BS to keep them miss informed and the $$$ rolling in. Have not met an a rig hand yet that works like these idiots do!!!

Cheers

SS

[Ride Red]

If it wasn't for monetary gain, none of these assholes would care about wildlife.

[IslandWanderer]

I know I didn't vote NDP!If you did you have done a diservice to all B.C. Hunters and outdoorsfolk!Horgan & Company are strickly for the masses not for us!!!

I've never encountered a group of folks who feel as sorry for themselves as the majority of crybabies on this site. Anger, violent comments, lashing-out; I've seen it all the last few days. I've seen some reasoned comments, but the vast majority seem to preach to the converted with the same mediocre arguments. Arguments that neither address the rationale behind this legislation, nor the fact that the larger community does indeed have the right to determine what is deemed acceptable behaviour within our province.

What I haven't seen are comments that demonstrate a willingness to build bridges with decision makers and the general public. Between the tantrums, conspiracy theories, and inability to respect the views of others, I seriously doubt that any solutions will be generated by the HBC crowd.

yawn...you guys are boring me.

[bigwhiteys]

gravy train? Lol - that's like 35 bucks an hour - there's rig hands that make a lot more than that. I agree that it's not bad money, but in comparison to equivalent work elsewhere, it's pretty tough to claim that they've got some kind of racket going.

You should probably read the financials in more detail as there is lots of information available on RainCoast. There are all kinds of jobs that make more than $80k a year, most of them actually have to work for it! RainCoast execs sit in a cushy office in Sidney BC and publish propaganda to negatively affect hunters, local or guided while collecting money from the sheeple for their cause of which appox .64 cents of every dollar ends up in their pockets as wages and compensation or consulting fees. The rest goes to office supplies, rent, uncategorised expenses, transportation and consulting fees. Not sure what, if anything is making it's way back to the bears aside from their original purchase of a guiding concession several years ago, which didn't really help any bears and it's my understanding that they fundraised separately for it's purchase.

Pacific Wild is another but Ian M. uses Tides Canada as a shield so the financials aren't public and he won't reveal any information regarding his salary or compensation (I've asked).

If either group (RainCoast/PacificWild) truly cared about the bears they'd probably contribute more of their revenue towards "education" instead they spend a lot on "wages" and "advertising" and "office expenses". They would also understand that these bears have economic value to both hunters and tourism (it's all tourism) and the more economic value the bears have, the more money and manpower could be available. I don't see hunters trying to shut down bear viewing operations.

MOST of the areas Grizzly Bears inhabit and are hunted in BC do not interfere with local bear viewing operations. The two industries should be able to co-exist and everybody including the bears win.

[scoutlt1]

I've never encountered a group of folks who feel as sorry for themselves as the majority of crybabies on this site. Anger, violent comments, lashing-out; I've seen it all the last few days. I've seen some reasoned comments, but the vast majority seem to preach to the converted with the same mediocre arguments. Arguments that neither address the rationale behind this legislation, nor the fact that the larger community does indeed have the right to determine what is deemed acceptable behaviour within our province.

What I haven't seen are comments that demonstrate a willingness to build bridges with decision makers and the general public. Between the tantrums, conspiracy theories, and inability to respect the views of others, I seriously doubt that any solutions will be generated by the HBC crowd.

yawn...you guys are boring me.

The feeling is mutual.....

[quadrakid]

In a very short time you will be seeing photos of Trophy Hunters killing our magnificent mountain sheep,just to mount the horns as a trophy. all bc residents will be against such barbarism. And most of these animals are being killed by foreigners!.Stop the Trophy hunting of mountain sheep. Give it a year.

[bigwhiteys]

In a very short time you will be seeing photos of Trophy Hunters killing our magnificent mountain sheep,just to mount the horns as a trophy. all bc residents will be against such barbarism. And most of these animals are being killed by foreigners!.Stop the Trophy hunting of mountain sheep. Give it a year.

I don't disagree they are on the list but they have too much momentum currently with bears, so they will shift to Black Bears, likely throw in lots of gratuitous photos of spirit bears too... Then it will be Wolves (it already is). Mountain Sheep aren't easy to "view" on tours, nor would it be "fun" for your average tourist, in my opinion!

[Ride Red]

I've never encountered a group of folks who feel as sorry for themselves as the majority of crybabies on this site. Anger, violent comments, lashing-out; I've seen it all the last few days. I've seen some reasoned comments, but the vast majority seem to preach to the converted with the same mediocre arguments. Arguments that neither address the rationale behind this legislation, nor the fact that the larger community does indeed have the right to determine what is deemed acceptable behaviour within our province.

What I haven't seen are comments that demonstrate a willingness to build bridges with decision makers and the general public. Between the tantrums, conspiracy theories, and inability to respect the views of others, I seriously doubt that any solutions will be generated by the HBC crowd.

yawn...you guys are boring me.

Some of us have been around long enough to have seen what an NDP government does for our economy in general, unlike you wet behind the ears little boys. One day you may grow up to understand what the rest of us are trying to tell you. Hopefully it's not too late.

[HarryToolips]

Not even 4 hours and shit is flying on HBC. Don't make me start banning people! You guys are fighting in the wrong direction. The enemy will win easily if we shoot ourselves first!
Exactly, let's work together.......is the BCWF going to issue a press release in response to this, considering the amount of resident hunters who support the BCWF???...and maybe we can get the other wildlife organizations that are hunter supported, even the GOABC, to all join and respond as one clear unified voice on the importance of pred hunting in BC..

[HarryToolips]

The Liberals need a new leader sooner than later. The green/ndp thing could I hope blow up and we would have an election. The current government will do what the can for there supports, mainly lower mainland/island folks and the hell with the rest of us.
When is the earliest that a re election could possibly occur??

[srupp]

I've never encountered a group of folks who feel as sorry for themselves as the majority of crybabies on this site. Anger, violent comments, lashing-out; I've seen it all the last few days. I've seen some reasoned comments, but the vast majority seem to preach to the converted with the same mediocre arguments. Arguments that neither address the rationale behind this legislation, nor the fact that the larger community does indeed have the right to determine what is deemed acceptable behaviour within our province.

What I haven't seen are comments that demonstrate a willingness to build bridges with decision makers and the general public. Between the tantrums, conspiracy theories, and inability to respect the views of others, I seriously doubt that any solutions will be generated by the HBC crowd.

yawn...you guys are boring me.

Hmm I'm glad you are bored..please avail yourself of this prime opportunity to leave..permenantly.
There are some knowlegable folks here..I have spent over 30 years amongst grizzlies the decision to pander to Vancouverites" who elected the temporary premier was not made based on science, nor the best for wildlife but to keep him in office..any day could be his last as elected by the south..the majority. .as in every place that holds grizzlies is not represented by his promises.
I have yet to see anything that you are a hunter, nor understand hunting ethics or wildlife management. .it's like trying to explain how, to start a IV to a 3 year old..you will never understand reason because you choose not to.
You have not added one positive constructive message on a hunting site filled with members who have demonstrated their ability to support wildlife. Exactly the mental..ity" of the city dwelling NDP supporters.few have ever done anything to help wildlife..and i doubt you have ever either.
Steven

[Pemby_mess]

The difference is that a rig hand actually WORKS for their $$$, where as these dumb asses just sit back and let the sheeple fill their pockets while spewing BS every once and while to the masses to make more $$$. Sheeple see as sheeple do and these eco freak NYMBY's just feed the sheeple enough BS to keep them miss informed and the $$$ rolling in. Have not met an a rig hand yet that works like these idiots do!!!

Cheers

SS

Try raising some money for something some time. Asking people for money day in and day out isn't a cakewalk by any means. I'd take time on the rigs any day if I wanted easy stress free money. (I've done both).




You should probably read the financials in more detail as there is lots of information available on RainCoast. There are all kinds of jobs that make more than $80k a year, most of them actually have to work for it! RainCoast execs sit in a cushy office in Sidney BC and publish propaganda to negatively affect hunters, local or guided while collecting money from the sheeple for their cause of which appox .64 cents of every dollar ends up in their pockets as wages and compensation or consulting fees. The rest goes to office supplies, rent, uncategorised expenses, transportation and consulting fees. Not sure what, if anything is making it's way back to the bears aside from their original purchase of a guiding concession several years ago, which didn't really help any bears and it's my understanding that they fundraised separately for it's purchase.

Pacific Wild is another but Ian M. uses Tides Canada as a shield so the financials aren't public and he won't reveal any information regarding his salary or compensation (I've asked).

If either group (RainCoast/PacificWild) truly cared about the bears they'd probably contribute more of their revenue towards "education" instead they spend a lot on "wages" and "advertising" and "office expenses". They would also understand that these bears have economic value to both hunters and tourism (it's all tourism) and the more economic value the bears have, the more money and manpower could be available. I don't see hunters trying to shut down bear viewing operations.

MOST of the areas Grizzly Bears inhabit and are hunted in BC do not interfere with local bear viewing operations. The two industries should be able to co-exist and everybody including the bears win.

OK, that's all plausible, I suppose. I still think its a big assumption to suggest they don't do any work. You might not agree with the type of work they do, but that's an other matter. From what I saw, courtesy of a recent poster, is that it's an organization with 6 people and a million in revenue. That's pretty small potatoes as any organization goes. Seem's like they're certainly effective enough with that revenue, if they can manage put such a bee in the collective bonnet of BC hunters.

Perhaps, they can teach hunter advocates something?

[bearvalley]

Exactly, let's work together.......is the BCWF going to issue a press release in response to this, considering the amount of resident hunters who support the BCWF???...and maybe we can get the other wildlife organizations that are hunter supported, even the GOABC, to all join and respond as one clear unified voice on the importance of pred hunting in BC..

The fed has put out a response....I'm surprised Goat Guy hasn't posted it for all on here to see.

[Pursuit]

Wow! Lots of opinions flying today. Although its not entirely constructive, it is nice to see the passion.

My first question would be to be to curly top - where did you see this posted about wanting to stop the black bear hunt? Always nice to see a link/direct quote to confirm.

2nd thought/point would be that although Raincoast does raise a lot of cash fundraising, the vast majority of their bank roll comes from a philanthropist under the title of the Tula Foundation. Let's just say their coin won't dry up anytime soon.

3rd - good luck if they try to stop black bear hunting (if true), or sheep, etc. Black bear hunting may not be the most popular avenue for hunters to cut a tag, but it would difficult to imagine the general population (and politicians) getting on board for a ban on black bear hunting. Alternatively, if anyone was surprised about this weeks decision (whether you agree or not) then maybe its time to crawl out from under that rock and check in with the pulse of the several million BC voters.

[guest]

On a Grizzly Bear pod cast wth CBC radio, Dr. Weaver, Raincoast, and BCWF Resident priority speaker J. Zeeman. Aug 15/17 22 minute mark approx.

Rep from Raincoast stated, it's in their agenda. To stop black Bear Hunting, if thus is the start, where will it end. Rats, squirrels, crows, Black tail deer, Sheep, Elk?

Time to be heard folks ....... For all you that sit speechless, and don't get involved in saving your heritage ..... It's about time you got off your back sides before many say, we told you so.

our traditions have never been so threatened as they are today.

[Whonnock Boy]

You sure are full of it today. One of the last guys you should be taking shots at is Jesse. Seriously, the last....

Good to see you finally made some comments in regards to guide outfitters and their contribution to trail building. Still hard for me to see a net benefit.


The fed has put out a response....I'm surprised Goat Guy hasn't posted it for all on here to see.

[Pursuit]

Thanks curly top. Will definitely have a listen. That's just crazy talk!

[Surrey Boy]

On a pod cast wth CBC radio, Dr. Weaver, Raincoast, and BCWF Resident priority speaker J. Zeeman.

Rep from Raincoast stated, it's in their agenda. To stop black Bear Hunting, if thus is the start, where will it end. Rats, squirrels, crows, Black tail deer, Sheep, Elk?

Time to be heard folks ....... For all you that sit speechless, and don't get involved in saving your heritage ..... It's about time you got off your back sides before many say, we told you so.

our traditions have never been so threatened as they are today.

It's been a long time coming with all this social liberalization. All of it helped us get here, everything served as a buffer to hold back social justice warriors from affecting us.

I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to support the alt-right, just to keep the greenies out of the spotlight.

[jassmine]

Biology Letters (a bottom tier open access journal).

Open access is a great thing and more journals should follow suit.
It is also ranked 17 out of the 84 commonly submitted to Biology journals.
Which is pretty fantastic as most academics rarely have the opportunity to published on the top 7 or 8

[f350ps]

Open access is a great thing and more journals should follow suit.
It is also ranked 17 out of the 84 commonly submitted to Biology journals.
Which is pretty fantastic as most academics rarely have the opportunity to published on the top 7 or 8
Bazzinga!!! Sheldon, is that you?? :) K

[bearvalley]

You sure are full of it today. One of the last guys you should be taking shots at is Jesse. Seriously, the last....

Good to see you finally made some comments in regards to guide outfitters and their contribution to trail building. Still hard for me to see a net benefit.

Give it a rest.
Out of curiosity....what have you personally done as a contribution to the betterment of habitat and wildlife.
Yapping off on the Internet or sitting on your ass while you chair a committee that demands more access to wildlife that is already suffering from too much access doesn't count for much in my eyes.
But what do I know.

[Pursuit]

[I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to support the alt-right, just to keep the greenies out of the spotlight. QUOTE from Surrey Boy]

Actually Surrey Boy, I can't think of any possible reason to support the alt-right and its worth making that very clear.

[Red_Mist]

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the vast majority of funds for Raincoast come from foreigners. Thus foreigners influencing BC political policy.

[Whonnock Boy]

Some believe my contributions are minimal, while others have witnessed myself work a great amount directed at a cause that I believe is most necessary. The problem is, some are of the belief that my work is unnecessary as it is not directly related to conservation and wildlife. In general terms, I'm doing what I believe needs to be done to get things back on track.

You are mistaken. I am no longer the access chair for the provincial board. I resigned shortly after the AGM. For what it's worth, I never made any demands for more access, and I was and still am very cognizant of the termendous amount access available to resident hunters, especially ORV access. No doubt it's a huge issue that demands a great deal of thought.

What do you know? Not much apparently.


Give it a rest.
Out of curiosity....what have you personally done as a contribution to the betterment of habitat and wildlife.
Yapping off on the Internet or sitting on your ass while you chair a committee that demands more access to wildlife that is already suffering from too much access doesn't count for much in my eyes.
But what do I know.

[Surrey Boy]

Actually Surrey Boy, I can't think of any possible reason to support the alt-right and its worth making that very clear.

Compromising alliances are often made. Solidarity sure helps the Left, we ought to give it a thought.

How bad can it be to consider it?

Coastal First Nations got the grizzly hunt restricted. Why not play them against white nationalists, which leaves hunters unharassed? It makes us look wholesome while they destroy each other. I think it's smart politics.

[Wolfdown]

I've never encountered a group of folks who feel as sorry for themselves as the majority of crybabies on this site. Anger, violent comments, lashing-out; I've seen it all the last few days. I've seen some reasoned comments, but the vast majority seem to preach to the converted with the same mediocre arguments. Arguments that neither address the rationale behind this legislation, nor the fact that the larger community does indeed have the right to determine what is deemed acceptable behaviour within our province.

What I haven't seen are comments that demonstrate a willingness to build bridges with decision makers and the general public. Between the tantrums, conspiracy theories, and inability to respect the views of others, I seriously doubt that any solutions will be generated by the HBC crowd.

yawn...you guys are boring me. Well said!

[338win mag]

I've never encountered a group of folks who feel as sorry for themselves as the majority of crybabies on this site. Anger, violent comments, lashing-out; I've seen it all the last few days. I've seen some reasoned comments, but the vast majority seem to preach to the converted with the same mediocre arguments.Arguments that neither address the rationale behind this legislation, nor the fact that the larger community does indeed have the right to determine what is deemed acceptable behaviour within our province.

What I haven't seen are comments that demonstrate a willingness to build bridges with decision makers and the general public. Between the tantrums, conspiracy theories, and inability to respect the views of others, I seriously doubt that any solutions will be generated by the HBC crowd.

yawn...you guys are boring me.
I doubt you are bored and you have indeed laid your plans deep, I call that guile, or full of guile, attacking a law abiding, peaceful group of sportsman and traditionalists who are frankly, innocent of any wrong doing.
What do you expect? you are bringing it.
You expect reasonable comments? You cant reason with the unreasonable desires of the majority of people, many are remote from the reality of the hunting community at large, where are your concessions and bridge building?

With your logic...."Nor the fact that the larger community does indeed have the right to determine what is acceptable behaviour within our province." would/could mean we in BC would pay no taxes, there would be no section 35 rights for the rights bearing communities within our province. Therefore these rights are protected by our vary constitution because the dominant people of this province dont like any of these things, a dream come true for one group to dominate another, thats not how it works.

[Piperdown]

Why do you people even respond to Island Moron and Wolfdown, it is wasted time you will never get back. I would however like to see all of their hunting pics, i am sure they are awesome

[Pemby_mess]

It's been a long time coming with all this social liberalization. All of it helped us get here, everything served as a buffer to hold back social justice warriors from affecting us.

I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to support the alt-right, just to keep the greenies out of the spotlight.

And make it even easier to demonize hunters? Divide the hunting community even further?

The antidote to an extremist political movement is not an equal and opposite extreme position. Hunters need apolitical representation. Here people are bemoaning a policy that seems to have no basis in reality but for it's political convenience. Yet you want to align yourself with an equally silly, ignorant ideology under the pretense of supporting common sense?

[bearvalley]

Some believe my contributions are minimal, while others have witnessed myself work a great amount directed at a cause that I believe is most necessary. The problem is, some are of the belief that my work is unnecessary as it is not directly related to conservation and wildlife. In general terms, I'm doing what I believe needs to be done to get things back on track.

You are mistaken. I am no longer the access chair for the provincial board. I resigned shortly after the AGM. For what it's worth, I never made any demands for more access, and I was and still am very cognizant of the termendous amount access available to resident hunters, especially ORV access. No doubt it's a huge issue that demands a great deal of thought.

What do you know? Not much apparently.
I can pretty much imagine what you think your "necessary cause" is.
But then what do I know.....not much.

[Surrey Boy]

And make it even easier to demonize hunters? Divide the hunting community even further?

The antidote to an extremist political movement is not an equal and opposite extreme position. Hunters need apolitical representation. Here people are bemoaning a policy that seems to have no basis in reality but for it's political convenience. Yet you want to align yourself with an equally silly, ignorant ideology under the pretense of supporting common sense?

We can't support it as Hunters, it needs to be done covertly, or at least dissociatively. Hence the need to have a different group antagonizing our enemies (Indians, environmentalists).

There is no such thing as apolitical representation in the political sphere. Asking for something from politicians is political by nature, there's no way around it.

Silly, ignorant ideologies make great pawns or red herrings or petards or covering fire or weaponized autism or however you prefer to see it. I say we need one on our side (but without actually associating or identifying with us).

[bearvalley]

RainCoast execs are earning $80,000+ per year, lol... They won't let that gravy train come to a screeching halt.Just out of curiosity I wonder what some of the Feds key staffers are pulling out of our funds each year. I hope there aren't any real surprises....maybe just theyre just getting their expenses covered and donating their time for the betterment of wildlife. Interesting thought........

[BCHunterFSJ]

So what is the BCWF take on all this????
Have they issued any kind of response on these bear issues?

[TreeStandMan]

Open access is a great thing and more journals should follow suit.
It is also ranked 17 out of the 84 commonly submitted to Biology journals.
Which is pretty fantastic as most academics rarely have the opportunity to published on the top 7 or 8

Yes, I understand how academic publishing works, and yes, open access is often (not always) a very good thing. Biology Letters, however, is not a high quality journal. I'm not sure about the source for your ranking (maybe Web of Science, which I don't have access to), but SCImago shows Biology Letters has less than 3 citations per document over two years, its number of cited documents is falling and the number of uncited documents is rising, and its total number of cites has declined yearly over the last three years. Its H index is 83, which is hard to benchmark without comparing it to other journals with similar publication histories, but this seems low to me given this journal has been publishing since 2005.

Despite this, the most important fact remains: much of the material that Raincoast has published is bad science, with questionable data sets, small sample sizes, and ridiculous methodology. There's selection bias everywhere with inadequacies passed off as "preliminary research." These are folks who disagree with hunting, full stop, and their questionable scholarship is essentially an exercise in public relations. I'm not an expert in biology or wildlife management, but one of my graduate degrees is in information science, and I know how to evaluate academic information, and calling it poor research is a compliment, because as with this most recent article, it's not even science, just opinion.

A large part of the problem is that, because of systematic under funding, we don't have good science here, although I think "Scientific Review of Grizzly Bear Harvest Management System in British Columbia (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/management-issues/docs/grizzly-bear-harvest-management-2016.pdf)" was pretty good. It's hard to turn that stuff out though, while Raincoast's style of article can be turned out way easier. What we need is some proper data, funding for research, a reaffirmation of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation--a model which Raincoast rejects--despite that it's responsible for us having wildlife today.

[bearvalley]

So what is the BCWF take on all this????
Have they issued any kind of response on these bear issues?
They issued one.
Its funny that it hasn't been posted on here.

[Wild one]

So what is the BCWF take on all this????
Have they issued any kind of response on these bear issues?

With the recent issues being brought forth with the grizz hunt and now this attempt at impacting black bear hunting they might be a little overwhelmed and need a little time to respond

I have faith there will be some form of response from the BCWF but it takes a little time to put a solid response together. For this reason as hunters we got to have some faith and give the BCWF a little time.

Myself I would respect a solid offence that takes a little time over a fast slapped together one full of holes

[Whonnock Boy]

Call up the guide that's running the show at the office and ask him why?
They issued one.
Its funny that it hasn't been posted on here.

[bearvalley]

Call up the guide that's running the show at the office and ask him why?
Haha....here we go with your personal issues.
Goat Guys been logged in here since the NDP made the call....why doesn't he tell us why?
Or maybe you....since you seem to want to be second in command.
I've read the response and have a question....if and when a hunter kills a grizzly and packs out the head, hide and paws (as the BCWF statement says should be done).....does the hunter get to keep the head, hide and paws?
Or is the hunter packing out 150 lbs to be handed over for scientific evaluation, etc, etc....and forfeit the right to keep the head, hide and paws.

[Wild one]

I really hope it's a well thought out response and hope to see it soon

[IronNoggin]

So what is the BCWF take on all this????
Have they issued any kind of response on these bear issues?

BCWF Response:

RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT TO END GRIZZLY TROPHY HUNT

The provincial government announced today that they will end grizzly bear trophy hunting throughout the province and stop all hunting of grizzlies in the Great Bear Rainforest.

The BC Wildlife Federation supports sustainable hunting in British Columbia under conditions consistent with the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. One of the tenets of the model is non-frivolous use, which allows hunting under only strict guidelines for food, and fur. This tenet prohibits the killing of wildlife merely for antlers, horns, or feathers.

The BC Wildlife Federation has and continues to support changes to the Wildlife Act which would require all edible portions of grizzly bears are used. In Europe, brown bear meat is considered quality table fare. Grizzly bear diet is similar to that of black bears; black bears have long been considered quality table fare in BC.

President of the BCWF Harvey Andrusak said, “It is positive that the government is maintaining the hunt for meat. We will represent our members’ interests as the government consults us on the practical details of this ban.“

Media is reporting that the province has said they will forbid a hunter from possessing the paws, head, and hide of a grizzly.This is inconsistent with conditions in the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. Leaving the hide and skull undermines the collection of scientific data used to manage grizzly bears. Currently those parts are used to age and sex the animals harvested, providing critical data to scientists which is the basis for any decisions about grizzly harvest.

The BCWF believes that we should be using as much of any wildlife taken as possible and will be advocating with government to maintain the interests of our members. Hunting is a very small part of grizzly bear mortality.

The BC Wildlife Federation will continue to support recovery efforts for grizzly bears in areas where populations are under threat and to advocate for increased funding and science for wildlife management in BC.


My first question would be to be to curly top - where did you see this posted about wanting to stop the black bear hunt? Always nice to see a link/direct quote to confirm.

Raincoat's Executive Director Chris Genovali agreed that banning black bear hunting is already on their agenda. He actually expresses disappointment black bear hunting was not banned in their mythical forest at the same time as the grizzly was.

At 22:15 of this broadcast: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/popup/audio/listen.html?autoPlay=true&clipIds=&mediaIds=1025285699579&U=%5Bobject%20Object%5D&contentarea=news&subsection1=regions&subsection2=britishcolumbia&subsection3=bcalmanac&contenttype=audio

Nog

[jassmine]

Yes, I understand how academic publishing works, and yes, open access is often (not always) a very good thing. Biology Letters, however, is not a high quality journal. I'm not sure about the source for your ranking (maybe Web of Science, which I don't have access to), but SCImago shows Biology Letters has less than 3 citations per document over two years, its number of cited documents is falling and the number of uncited documents is rising, and its total number of cites has declined yearly over the last three years. Its H index is 83, which is hard to benchmark without comparing it to other journals with similar publication histories, but this seems low to me given this journal has been publishing since 2005.

In what scenario is open access not a good?
In the world of biology which I am in (conservation/ecology/evolution), Biology Letters is a very good journal.
By Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report it is ranked 17 out of 84 in "Biology".
I'm not sure you are aware of the Impact Factors for journal ecologist or wildlife biologist typically publish in but a 3.33 (Biology Letters 5 year score) year average is pretty darn good.

The journals Conservation Biology (4.3) and American Naturalist (4.7), the pre-eminent journals in this field only receive roughly one extra citation. Noone that I know at my stage (+/- 5 years) has published in journals above this, with very few having made it into a journal of this impact. The only person that actually has made it in our department to a bigger journal "Science" was actually some work done by SFU folk on wildlife management.
Artelle, K. A., Reynolds, J. D., Paquet, P. C., & Darimont, C. T. (2014). When Science-Based Management Isn't. Science, 343(6177), 1311-1311.


Though you might take it as defending their group, I'm just laying out the facts about the field of ecology. Below is some data from an older study on Ecology Journalshttps://s17.postimg.org/kbq1u7xyn/hindex_impact_factor.png

[GoatGuy]

Haha....here we go with your personal issues.
Goat Guys been logged in here since the NDP made the call....why doesn't he tell us why?
Or maybe you....since you seem to want to be second in command.
I've read the response and have a question....if and when a hunter kills a grizzly and packs out the head, hide and paws (as the BCWF statement says should be done).....does the hunter get to keep the head, hide and paws?
Or is the hunter packing out 150 lbs to be handed over for scientific evaluation, etc, etc....and forfeit the right to keep the head, hide and paws.

Busy working. Lots of folks/orgs working on this issue and a number of other issues across the province and in Victoria. A number of people coming to the forefront and getting engaged - all positive stuff.

Check in here on occasion, but seems like there are still folks intent on fighting with each other instead of trying to drive change. Feel free to post whatever you want from BCWF - you're more than capable of copying and pasting or pasting a link to radio/news etc. And feel free to criticize, it's your right.

Despite the fact it appears to be popular, never been much for sitting in the stands throwing beer at the ice. Learning not to waste time on that type.

Didn't expect you to revert back, but it seems like a trend .... oh well, continue on.

[Whonnock Boy]

Social media is not my job for the BCWF, nor do I wish to step on any toes in relation to that job, or any other. Oddly enough, it's not Goatguy's job either. He's the manager of the Resident Priority program and his plate is full. Social media is the office, and the office is headed by Brenton Froehlich, and the state of the office is a reflection of both him and your other friend that resigned not too long ago. You need to ask them what's going on or has gone on. Ultimately, Mr. Froehlich will have the answers for you.

Second in command? Don't think so.....

Ask the NDP as they are the only ones that have any inkling what the new legislation will entail.



Haha....here we go with your personal issues.
Goat Guys been logged in here since the NDP made the call....why doesn't he tell us why?
Or maybe you....since you seem to want to be second in command.
I've read the response and have a question....if and when a hunter kills a grizzly and packs out the head, hide and paws (as the BCWF statement says should be done).....does the hunter get to keep the head, hide and paws?
Or is the hunter packing out 150 lbs to be handed over for scientific evaluation, etc, etc....and forfeit the right to keep the head, hide and paws.

[jassmine]

A large part of the problem is that, because of systematic under funding, we don't have good science here, although I think "Scientific Review of Grizzly Bear Harvest Management System in British Columbia (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/management-issues/docs/grizzly-bear-harvest-management-2016.pdf)" was pretty good.

You highlight this as being pretty good despite it not being published in a journal (which I agree it is!) but let's look at the last few journals Mark Boyce has published in.
(Also not denigrating Mark as I know him from our Canadian Section of The Wildlife Society meetings at CSEE, just demonstrating a point)

Journal - Impact Factor

Ecology and Society - 2.77
Ursus - 0.971
Forest Ecology and Management - 2.826
Environmental reviews - 3.196
Plos One - 2.86 (highlight of my career so far but wasn't near the first author)
Ecosphere - 2.287

If anything I think in almost all of these circumstances I would prefer to have published in Biology letters (save for Plos One).

[Wild one]

I would say the BCWF response touched base on some good points and is a good start. I hope they continue to push back in favour of grizz hunting.

I do hope that a more in depth push towards why the hunter should be able to keep and utilize all of the bear personally. I just don't trust the govts response unless all loopholes are closed. NDP has shown they are trying to be sneaky about how they are willing to go about impacting grizz hunting.

We are not dealing with a party even remotely in our favour on this hunt so they should be approached like your dealing with the devil. Cover all bases and leave no holes that can be exploited

[bearvalley]

Didn't expect you to revert back, but it seems like a trend .... oh well, continue on.

It looks to me like reverting back is a problem in more camps than one.
Just for your information Jesse, my beliefs haven't changed.

[guest]

I am grateful to the BCWF, their stand on this particular issue and am thankful to be a supporter of theirs. There is no other organization this province that comes any where close to doing what the BCWF has done in the past for wildlife and conservation. That said, are the best organization for us resident hunters that are trying to keep our tradition and heritage alive. There is strength in numbers folks, be heard as our passion of hunting, providing, choosing healthy alternatives, thriving wildlife, is forever being threatened. And this past decision by the ND Greens, and special interests group are picking away, at our rights as conservationists and hunters. Taking away, little by little, they are trying to shut us down. Black Bear next, sheep, elk, goat, moose in the sights. Be heard, get involved, put up or shut up.
Thanks BCWF for your representation and stand on this issue.
CT

[TreeStandMan]

In what scenario is open access not a good?
When those journals are preditory. See Beall's list (http://beallslist.weebly.com/).


In the world of biology which I am in (conservation/ecology/evolution), Biology Letters is a very good journal.
By Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report it is ranked 17 out of 84 in "Biology".
I'm not sure you are aware of the Impact Factors for journal ecologist or wildlife biologist typically publish in but a 3.33 (Biology Letters 5 year score) year average is pretty darn good.

I'm not in the biology field, and I haven't looked into how Thomson Reuters constructs their list, but I won't concede that an average of three citations per document over 2 years a good journal makes. Ultimately it's about reputation, so if people in your field have good feelings about it, fine, but the objective data based on citation data is unimpressive..

This is all a distraction, though: the point is that Raincoast rejects the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, a system with a proven track record, and their publication history shows that for them science is secondary to anti-hunting PR. The article in Biology Letters, "Hunting for Status: Men trophy hunt as a signal they can absorb the costs," which Raincoast themselves characterize as "Scientific literature," is in my opinion garbage. I'd be interested to know what your assessment of this article is. I'd also be interested to know your feelings about the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation .

[Wild one]

I would hope a defence against this attack on black bear hunting is being put together

After how the QCI black bear hunt is now managed hunters cannot assume black bear hunting is safe

[bearvalley]

IronNoggin, thanks for posting the BCWF's response....I did notice it's not the same as the email sent to members.....even tho similar.
The question that still needs to be answered is.....IS THE BCWF IN SUPPORT OF THE HUNTER RETAINING POSSESION OF THE HEAD, HIDE AND PAWS OF A GRIZZLY.
Or is the BCWF supporting the meat only hunt and expecting the hunter to pack out the hide, head and paws and then FORFIET POSSESION OF THE HEAD, HIDE AND PAWS TO THE CROWN for the collection of scientific data.
Jesse for $500 a day you should be able to spare some of your precious time to provide your membership with some straight up answers.

[IronNoggin]

IronNoggin, thanks for posting the BCWF's response....I did notice it's not the same as the email sent to members.....even tho similar.

That version was collected from their Facebook response when it first came out. Since (I believe) they have made another, which albeit similar, is somewhat more defining...

From their own web page:

The BCWF Response to Provincial Government Announcement to End Grizzly Trophy Hunt
https://bcwf.thankyou4caring.org/view.image?Id=1746
The provincial government has announced they will end grizzly bear trophy hunting throughout the province and stop all hunting of grizzlies in the Great Bear Rainforest after November 2017.

Hunting grizzlies for meat outside the Great Bear Rainforest is not included in the ban, but the government has said they will forbid a meat hunter from possessing the paws, head, and hide of a grizzly. This announcement is inconsistent with the North American Wildlife Conservation Model, which stipulates harvested wildlife should be used for legitimate purposes, including retrieving the fur and meat where usable. Requiring hunters or anglers to throw useable portions of their harvest away is wasteful and inconsistent with sustainable use.

Harvey Andrusak, President of the BCWF said, “The province must maintain a science-based hunt to determine if there is a sustainable harvest which includes the opportunity for hunters to utilize all portions of any animal or fish harvested. We cannot be managing fish and wildlife on a one-off basis. All wildlife management must be consistent with science-based recommendations.”

Biological data obtained from the hide and skull provides critical data to scientists. BCWF staff and executive met with government representatives yesterday to stress the importance of making sure experts maintain the opportunity to obtain valuable data from any animal harvested. The government has said they will meet with First Nations and all affected groups in the fall and the federation will be continuing to stand up strongly for science-based management of all wildlife species.

The BCWF supports a regional roundtable approach, with specific conservation measures and social considerations discussed with residents, First Nations, commercial and recreational sector representatives before wildlife management policy is changed or adopted.

We need your help! To be effective, members need to speak with their MLAs to educate them about this issue and stress the importance of maintaining hunting practices that do not waste any part of any animal taken. Find your MLA here.
(http://www.leg.bc.ca/learn-about-us/members)
BCWF Resident Priority Program manager Jesse Zeman participated in a panel discussion on CBC Almanac at noon on August 15, 2017, stressing these points and advocating for adequate funding for wildlife management in BC.

President of the BCWF- affiliated Spruce City Wildlife Association Steve Hamilton was featured in this story in the Vancouver Sun (http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/b-c-grizzly-hunter-calls-new-provincial-ban-wasteful-hurtful-to-local-economies).

The BC Wildlife Federation will continue to support recovery efforts for grizzly bears in areas where populations are under threat and to advocate for increased funding and science for wildlife management in BC.

http://www.bcwf.net/
.........................................

While I would never pretend to answer for Jesse, I do believe you can find the answer to your question in this quote from the latter press release:

... the government has said they will forbid a meat hunter from possessing the paws, head, and hide of a grizzly. This announcement is inconsistent with the North American Wildlife Conservation Model, which stipulates harvested wildlife should be used for legitimate purposes, including retrieving the fur and meat where usable. Requiring hunters or anglers to throw useable portions of their harvest away is wasteful and inconsistent with sustainable use.

Harvey Andrusak, President of the BCWF said, “The province must maintain a science-based hunt to determine if there is a sustainable harvest which includes the opportunity for hunters to utilize all portions of any animal or fish harvested.

Cheers,
Nog

[bearvalley]

I completely get it IronNoggin, but the quote you refer to is much too vague.

To quote more...."Leaving the hide and skull undermines the collection of scientific data used to manage grizzly bears. Currently those parts are used to age and sex the animals harvested, providing critical data to scientists which is the basis for any decisions about grizzly harvest".

I get this loud and clear as we've been doing it for years.

My questions are DOES THE BCWF SUPPORT THE RETENTION OF THE HIDE, HEAD AND PAWS BY THE HUNTER?

OR DOES THE BCWF SUPPORT THE HEAD, HIDE AND PAWS BEING FORFIETED TO THE CROWN SOLELY FOR THE COLLECTION OF SCIENTIFIC DATA.

The questions aren't to hard to answer.

[Whonnock Boy]

Send your question to the office, to the people that are employed to answer these types of questions.
I completely get it IronNoggin, but the quote you refer to is much too vague.

To quote more...."Leaving the hide and skull undermines the collection of scientific data used to manage grizzly bears. Currently those parts are used to age and sex the animals harvested, providing critical data to scientists which is the basis for any decisions about grizzly harvest".

I get this loud and clear as we've been doing it for years.

My questions are DOES THE BCWF SUPPORT THE RETENTION OF THE HIDE, HEAD AND PAWS BY THE HUNTER?

OR DOES THE BCWF SUPPORT THE HEAD, HIDE AND PAWS BEING FORFIETED TO THE CROWN SOLELY FOR THE COLLECTION OF SCIENTIFIC DATA.

The questions aren't to hard to answer.

[bearvalley]

Send your question to the office, to the people that are employed to answer these types of questions.

I would think the manager of the resident priority program could clarify to us the BCWF's stance on if hunters should retain the head, hide and paws or just hand them over.
Then again it's not a real big issue if 170 resident grizzly hunts turn into a handful of grizzly steak hunts.

[jassmine]

This is all a distraction, though:

Well you are the one who initially brought it up and continue to complain about the quality of a journal that an article was published in. You disagree with the something in the particular article (methodology? analysis? interpretation?) without providing any real basis on why you disagree with it's publication.



I'm not in the biology field, and I haven't looked into how Thomson Reuters constructs their list, but I won't concede that an average of three citations per document over 2 years a good journal makes.

So how many citations per 2 years makes it a good journal? What is your cut-off and how did you get there? Despite saying that you are not in biology you remain pretty adamant that Biology Letters is not a good journal. This would in fact mean that someone who you agreed does fairly good research (Mark Boyce) has published his latest research in some even less impressive journals :



Journal - Impact Factor

Ecology and Society - 2.77
Ursus - 0.971
Forest Ecology and Management - 2.826
Environmental reviews - 3.196
Plos One - 2.86 (highlight of my career so far but wasn't near the first author)
Ecosphere - 2.287


Are these journals in the same low quality class as Biology Letters?

[Xenomorph]

I'm liking what Weaver is saying, BCWF not being included in the talks before making a populist move. Listening to the podcast as it goes.

[IronNoggin]

I'm liking what Weaver is saying, BCWF not being included in the talks before making a populist move. Listening to the podcast as it goes.

I'll "like" it a hell of a lot more should he Man Up and vote against this ludicrousness! :roll:

Cheers,
Nog

[ACE]

I'll 'like' it a hell of a lot more should he Man Up and vote against this ludicrousness! :roll:

For an educated man ...... maybe he's not all that smart ?
Weaver is a disappointment for sure ...

[Xenomorph]

I'll "like" it a hell of a lot more should he Man Up and vote against this ludicrousness! :roll:

Cheers,
Nog


I sure hope so.

Oh, Gene from Surrey saying he's one of the few people in the city eating bear ...I so doubt it.

[TreeStandMan]

You disagree with the something in the particular article (methodology? analysis? interpretation?) without providing any real basis on why you disagree.

Not true, I've mentioned several weaknesses of this paper, however methodology and analysis are indeed a problem here. It seems to be starting from the premise that hunters are egotistical killers of happy woodland creatures. This is a cultural / moral argument, one I'm willing to discuss, but Raincoast dishonestly dresses this moral argument up as science. Again, Raincoast is the one characterizing this as scientific on their website, so it deserves to be judged as such. So, first of all this shoddy paper is based on other shoddy papers: Darimont cites himself three times, an excellent way to hack impact factor, by the way, and a practice that a good editorial board would weed out. Second, there are factual errors: carnivores are not inedible, as he claims. Third, and most important, his hypothesis that "costly signalling model to explain[s] any big-game hunting" isn't ever tested, is barely observational, and entirely unempirical. Put another way: his sample population is full of straw men. Science is based on empirical evidence, not conjecture informed by motivated reasoning.

But i'm still wondering about the question I asked earlier:

I'd be interested to know what your assessment of this article is. I'd also be interested to know your feelings about the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. I'm happy to continue this conversation after you address this, other than that I don't see what's to be gained.

[jassmine]

Not true, I've mentioned several weaknesses of this paper, however methodology and analysis are indeed a problem here.

Well I'm not quite sure that you completely understand the paper or read it properly. If you did you would understand that it is not a research article.
There is no methodology or analysis section in the paper. It's not an research paper, it's an opinion letter submission and is indicated as such by the journal.

Not sure how they are dressing this up as science? There are a number of papers regarding costly signalling and they use the relevant references to demonstrate this:
Bliege Bird R, Smith E, Bird, DW . 2001 The hunting handicap: costly signaling in human foraging strategies.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 50, 9–19.
Smith EA, Bliege Bird R, Bird DW . 2003 The benefits of costly signaling: Meriam turtle hunters. Behav. Ecol. 14,116–126.
Bliege Bird R, Smith EA . 2005 Signaling theory, strategic interaction, and symbolic capital. Curr. Anthropol. 46,221–248.
Hawkes K, Bliege, Bird R . 2002 Showing-off, handicap signaling, and the evolution of men's work. Evol. Anthropol. 11, 58–67.

[jassmine]

Darimont cites himself three times, an excellent way to hack impact factor, by the way, and a practice that a good editorial board would weed out.

Are you never allowed to cite yourself in a journal article? I didn't realize that was a new rule. How many times are you allowed to cite yourself before it is too much?

Can you tell us more about the lack of quality of the Editorial Board for a Opinion Letter? Do most articles get reviewed by the entire editorial board? Aren't reviewers, the section editor and review editor the only people likely to see the journal prior to it being approved? I doubt the entire Editorial Board reviews any article.

https://s17.postimg.org/8k6rx5sq7/Opinion_piece.png

[S.W.A.T.]

Dude, they want even sport fishing banned, wake up i said this 10 years ago

Over my dead body will I stop fishing. I don't mind not going to areas that are closed due to low returns, that I respect. But closing something all together because of something greenies don't understand I will never due. Mark my words as it stands there will be a lot of grizzlies just left dead in the bush over the next year because of what has taken place

[TreeStandMan]

Jassmine: Raincoast themselves call this "scientific literature." Obviously it's an opinion piece. The discrepancy is the problem.

And throwing references you didn't read at me proves nothing. Typing a few words into a database doesn't make a lit review. Just because different articles use the same phrase or theory doesn't make it them equally valid. You say I don't understand, but you haven't given us your opinion of the article in question. If I'm wrong and this paper is worthwhile, why is it worthwhile? You seem to be unwilling to give us your assessment of this paper. Why is that?

[jassmine]

I'm not in the biology field, and I haven't looked into how Thomson Reuters constructs their list, but I won't concede that an average of three citations per document over 2 years a good journal makes.


I'm not in the biology field, and I haven't looked into how Thomson Reuters constructs their list, but I won't concede that an average of three citations per document over 2 years a good journal makes.

I also suppose that this article is of low quality and only got published because of low editorial standards because the Journal of Wildlife Management has a lower impact factor (1.7) than Biology Letters and even less citations over two years (~1.9)

Mclellan, B. N., Mowat, G., Hamilton, T., & Hatter, I. (2017). Sustainability of the grizzly bear hunt in British Columbia, Canada. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 81(2), 218-229.
Although more population density, trend, and vital rate measurements would be beneficial, the hypothesis that the grizzly bear hunt has been unsustainable was not supported by our investigation of available information.

That's a shame that this research is of too low quality to be accepted...

I never once defended Raincoast's position or article, I disagreed with your assertion that Biology Letters was not a worthwhile high quality journal, which I believe it is.

[jassmine]

Obviously it's an opinion piece.

Well if you knew it was an opinion/journal letter I'm confused as to why you were looking for Methodology and Analysis:


Not true, I've mentioned several weaknesses of this paper, however methodology and analysis are indeed a problem here.

Or why you were anticipating some sort of model testing:


Third, and most important, his hypothesis that "costly signalling model to explain[s] any big-game hunting" isn't ever tested, is barely observational, and entirely unempirical.

But I'm sure you will have an answer!

[TreeStandMan]

Jassmine: I'm not looking for Methodology and Analysis sections, but I'd like to see the authors of the paper go through the intellectual exercise of have a valid methodology and good analysis. As I've said a number of times now, on their website Raincoast calls this opinion "scientific literature," so what I'm asking of them is not unfair.

(And there is no specific rule about not citing yourself, but it is also an easy way to inflate your H index, and can be used cynically to give the appearance of increased impact. This is one reason bibliometrics are being superseded by altmetrics.)

I'm pretty sure that by now my feelings about Raincoast are clear, but if not let me lay it out: Raincoast is morally opposed to hunting and publish questionable material to support this predefined premise to advance their position culturally. They have stated that they disagree with the North American Model of Conservation, a model that I happen to think works extremely well when implemented properly. Do you disagree with any of this?

[IronNoggin]

... If I'm wrong and this paper is worthwhile, why is it worthwhile? You seem to be unwilling to give us your assessment of this paper. Why is that?

GET ON WITH IT GAL!

It is a simple request. Please, for once, quit your characteristic misdirection, and directly answer the question at hand.

Thanks,
Nog

[Beachcomber]

Dude, they want even sport fishing banned, wake up i said this 10 years ago

Is that really the case? I ask because they appear to count among their donors/supporters at least two sport fishing lodges (Nimmo Bay, King Pacific) and Patagonia who make fishing gear. No doubt there are a number among their membership that do oppose sport fishing but not convinced this is an institutional perspective given the presence of these names(https://www.raincoast.org/sponsors/). Turkeys don't normally vote for Christmas.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Its not even the tags in the GVRD as Region 2 has a general open season; people just need to start hunting bears again. A few of my friends won't touch them. Too scare of Trichinosis. I haven't shot one yet but always buy a tag just in case. Best sausage I have tasted has been bear sausage. Can't wait to try some out when we get one this fall or next spring!

Do your friends eat pork or fresh salmon??

[jassmine]

Jassmine: I'm not looking for Methodology and Analysis sections, but I'd like to see the authors of the paper go through the intellectual exercise of have a valid methodology and good analysis. As I've said a number of times now, on their website Raincoast calls this opinion "scientific literature," so what I'm asking of them is not unfair.

Well it certainly seemed that you are looking for it despite saying you are not (but then saying that is what you are asking for and it's not unfair).
So which is it?

In case you didn't see my other post, the article was an opinion piece looking at signalling as an evolutionary reason for the drive of hunting or fishing. In case you have not read any scientific journals lately (or biological science journals), almost all of them accept various types of submissions (brief communications, correspondence, insight/review/perspectives, etc.). Depending on whether they are peer-reviewed or not, dictates how you would classify them on a academic C.V. Of the categories that Raincoast has on their websites, it would indeed fall into the category of Published Scientific Literature, because it was a piece of scientific work (postulating evolutionary reasons for trophy hunting or fishing) published in a scientific journal.



(And there is no specific rule about not citing yourself, but it is also an easy way to inflate your H index, and can be used cynically to give the appearance of increased impact. This is one reason bibliometrics are being superseded by altmetrics.)


In case you forgot, you were the one who initially brought up the point that Biology Letters is definitely not a high quality journal because of the low numbers of citations, and I disagreed.



I'm not in the biology field, and I haven't looked into how Thomson Reuters constructs their list, but I won't concede that an average of three citations per document over 2 years a good journal makes.

Because if this in fact were the case then this article surely must be even less valid due to lower citation per document over 2 years in this particular journal.
Mclellan, B. N., Mowat, G., Hamilton, T., & Hatter, I. (2017). Sustainability of the grizzly bear hunt in British Columbia, Canada. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 81(2), 218-229.

Thereby making their conclusion not as significant or valid??

Although more population density, trend, and vital rate measurements would be beneficial, the hypothesis that the grizzly bear hunt has been unsustainable was not supported by our investigation of available information.

[jassmine]

It is a simple request. Please, for once, quit your characteristic misdirection, and directly answer the question at hand.



Feel free to also ask him to answer all the questions or refute the points that I made then.
Also there is no misdirection, I was simply responding to his comment that Biology Letters was not a good quality scientific journal. All my comments since then have focused on this fact.
I never once mentioned anything about the conservation models or supported Raincoast, the interjection of that question is the real misdirection, take the time to go back and read and please show me otherwise.

[TreeStandMan]

Jasmine: I've addressed your points, you may not accept my response, but it doesn't really matter. The thrust of my argument was always about Raincoast and the quality of their work, the ranking of one journal is a distraction and tangential to the important discussion

Frankly, Nog's suggestion is correct: this is a thread about Raincoast, which you refuse to discuss, not a discussion about bibliometrics, a topic that you seem to know nothing about. You are a biologist, you say, so enough obfuscation: let's hear what you have to say about Raincoast.

[Rob Chipman]

That is a terrible article.

"First, inedible species, like carnivores..." Right. As we know, and as prestigious scientific journals will attest, you can't eat a carnivore.

"Second, evidence for show-off behaviour appears clear. Trophy hunters commonly pose for photographs..." And, as we all know, being able to show off in a picture is the prime motivation for doing, well, everything.


"We speculate that such behaviour, counter to expected gender norms..." Get that man a job at Google. So that he can be fired. Then put him on social media so that he can crucified.

Jasmine, I'm no scientist and I give zero ****s about how scientific journals are ranked. However, the article is bullshit and it does the journal no credit to publish hit pieces like that. Why do *people* trophy hunt? Maybe ask them. It's not like they don't explain it.

[Surrey Boy]

Great to see the value of higher education on HBC.

[Wild one]

Plain and simple there is no population concern regarding black bear in BC and there is no black bear population concern in the area they want to close black bear hunting.

So no valid reason science wise to close the area to black bear hunting. Jasmine I think even you can agree there is no threat to the black bear population in this area

As for the eating of black bear well no doubt a lot of hunters eat black bear myself included. All those I personally know that don't eat black bear don't hunt them

Really BC has the highest black bear population in Canada(if I remember correctly BC has close to 1/4 of Canada's black bear population)

Now I got to take a break to flip my black bear dinner sausages

[TreeStandMan]

Great to see the value of higher education on HBC.

Actual question: is this sarcasm?

I hope not, because higher education teaches critical thinking, and critical thinking is always useful.

[Wild one]

Actual question: is this sarcasm?

I hope not, because higher education teaches critical thinking, and critical thinking is always useful.

I would say there are mixed reviews on that some with higher education are very intelligent others lack any original thought but can regurgitate others findings or opinions.

Education level is not always the best way to judge intellagance

[TreeStandMan]

I would say there are mixed reviews on that some with higher education are very intelligent others lack any original thought but can regurgitate others findings or opinions.

Education level is not always the best way to judge intellagance

Ha! Good point.

I'd say that education does not equal intelligence, for sure. Also, even though higher education teaches critical thinking, it doesn't mean every one's a good student.

[Surrey Boy]

Actual question: is this sarcasm?

I hope not, because higher education teaches critical thinking, and critical thinking is always useful.

That was sarcastic.

Critical thought isn't exclusive to academia, and public education is in qualitative decline.

Ethics are also in decline, apparently.

[Fisher-Dude]

Ha! Good point.

I'd say that education does not equal intelligence, for sure. Also, even though higher education teaches critical thinking, it doesn't mean every one's a good student.

Someone always graduates at the bottom of the class.

Those are the people who paste scientific journal reference lists on HBC.

[REMINGTON JIM]

Someone always graduates at the bottom of the class.

Those are the people who paste scientific journal reference lists on HBC.

LMFFAO ! now WHO might you be referring too Patty ? :shock: :razz: RJ

[jassmine]

The thrust of my argument was always about Raincoast and the quality of their work, the ranking of one journal is a distraction and tangential to the important discussion
not a discussion about bibliometrics, a topic that you seem to know nothing about.

Really?


What gets me is the worthlessness of their "academic" work. If you want to see the kind of junk they publish check out "Why men trophy hunt (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5377034/)" in Biology Letters (a bottom tier open access journal).....
Maybe I'll write it up and submit it to Biology Letters for publication--they seem to be willing to pass off anyone's opinion as peer reviewed literature.


Yes, I understand how academic publishing works, and yes, open access is often (not always) a very good thing. Biology Letters, however, is not a high quality journal. I'm not sure about the source for your ranking (maybe Web of Science, which I don't have access to), but SCImago shows Biology Letters has less than 3 citations per document over two years, its number of cited documents is falling and the number of uncited documents is rising, and its total number of cites has declined yearly over the last three years. Its H index is 83, which is hard to benchmark without comparing it to other journals with similar publication histories, but this seems low to me given this journal has been publishing since 2005.




I'm not in the biology field, and I haven't looked into how Thomson Reuters constructs their list, but I won't concede that an average of three citations per document over 2 years a good journal makes. Ultimately it's about reputation, so if people in your field have good feelings about it, fine, but the objective data based on citation data is unimpressive..




(And there is no specific rule about not citing yourself, but it is also an easy way to inflate your H index, and can be used cynically to give the appearance of increased impact. This is one reason bibliometrics are being superseded by altmetrics.)


Well it does certainly seem as though you were the one who initially brought up the topic and continued to talk about the topic once I disagreed with your statement that Biology Letters is a low quality journal. However it's higher in quality (by measures you chose, ex. citations per 2 years) to some of the journals that pretty important papers have came out of, such as:

Mclellan, B. N., Mowat, G., Hamilton, T., & Hatter, I. (2017). Sustainability of the grizzly bear hunt in British Columbia, Canada. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 81(2), 218-229.

But maybe their conclusions are incorrect because you do not deem journals like Biology Letters or those worse (i.e. Wildlife Management) as high enough quality.

But do tell me the element I don't seem to understand? Go ahead please.

[180grainer]

That was sarcastic.

Critical thought isn't exclusive to academia, and public education is in qualitative decline.

It's only in decline if you don't see it as indoctrination. It's why Jassmine doesn't articulate her position well in her own words and relies on posting multiple references to support her general statements. Our universities have become socialist cesspools of narrow minded positions that can't tolerate a difference of opinion.

[Surrey Boy]

It's only in decline if you don't see it as indoctrination. It's why Jassmine doesn't articulate her position well in her own words and relies on posting multiple references to support her general statements. Our universities have become socialist cesspools of narrow minded positions that can't tolerate a difference of opinion.

You can tell universities are feminized by how they win arguments by simply being able to argue longer than anyone can keep refuting them. Nagging their way to victory!

[Kill-da-wabbit]

You can tell universities are feminized by how they win arguments by simply being able to argue longer than anyone can keep refuting them. Nagging their way to victory!

Bwwaaahaha hahaha haa LMAOFF!

[Piperdown]

LMFFAO ! now WHO might you be referring too Patty ? :shock: :razz: RJ

RJ you ole shit disturber :mrgreen:, I love it :)

[TreeStandMan]

Jasmine: I've been trying to move the discussion away from the the issue of the quality of Biology Letters for many posts now. If you want a course in bibliometrics, please go and take one. In the meantime why won't you engage on the substantive issue—the quality of this paper and Raincoast themselves?

Please go back and see my bolded questions that you refuse to touch. You're obfuscating. Why is that?

[Ourea]

Jassmine, I am sure I am not the only one that cant help but notice you have a very skewed agenda with your time and efforts on HBC.

The spirit of HBC is for outdoor minded people to share experience(s), pass on knowledge, support and help others with our sport.
You do not tick any of these boxes as you have none of the above as it relates to hunting and time in the field.
I doubt you even hunt to be all honest.

Zero street cred sister.

If and when your actions and attitude reflect that of an outdoors person, that you support wildlife thru being an active member in clubs and organizations, or working behind the scenes.....well, you will only continue to be an annoyance on this site with absolutely ZERO credibility or respect.

[jassmine]

Please go back and see my bolded questions that you refuse to touch. You're obfuscating. Why is that?

Because you refused to address any of the points I've made, and are now switching the subject/pivoting so that you don't have to defend your opinion that Biology Letters is a bad journal despite it ranking higher than journals where important research is being used and promoted (ex. Journal of Wildlife Management).

So why should I answer a question that has nothing to do with the point you made or my disagreement with. I shouldn't, except for the fact that you hope that it can allow you to paint me in light of some anti-hunter somehow and switch the topic.

You keep on mentioning bibliometrics (in a form of a insult or misrepresenting what I'm saying), but again it is you that initially brought up the subject not me.


If you want a course in bibliometrics, please go and take one.?
previous posts:


Biology Letters (a bottom tier open access journal).....
Maybe I'll write it up and submit it to Biology Letters for publication--they seem to be willing to pass off anyone's opinion as peer reviewed literature.


Biology Letters, however, is not a high quality journal. I'm not sure about the source for your ranking (maybe Web of Science, which I don't have access to), but SCImago shows Biology Letters has less than 3 citations per document over two years, its number of cited documents is falling and the number of uncited documents is rising, and its total number of cites has declined yearly over the last three years. Its H index is 83, which is hard to benchmark without comparing it to other journals with similar publication histories, but this seems low to me given this journal has been publishing since 2005.




I'm not in the biology field, and I haven't looked into how Thomson Reuters constructs their list, but I won't concede that an average of three citations per document over 2 years a good journal makes. Ultimately it's about reputation, so if people in your field have good feelings about it, fine, but the objective data based on citation data is unimpressive..




(And there is no specific rule about not citing yourself, but it is also an easy way to inflate your H index, and can be used cynically to give the appearance of increased impact. This is one reason bibliometrics are being superseded by altmetrics.)


So definitely not me that brought it up or continues to use it to insult or demean me.


J, not a discussion about bibliometrics, a topic that you seem to know nothing about. Y

I was simply demonstrating that your belief of Biology Letters being a poor journal based on the metric you chose was not supported or if it was would invalidate important research, for example studies that show the Grizzly hunt is not unsustainable (Mclellan, Journal of Wildlife Management).

[jassmine]

It is you that seems not to know what something is about.
You were hoping to see an analysis and results section in a paper that was an opinion piece published in Biology Letters.


Not true, I've mentioned several weaknesses of this paper, however methodology and analysis are indeed a problem here....

Third, and most important, his hypothesis that "costly signalling model to explain[s] any big-game hunting" isn't ever tested, is barely observational, and entirely unempirical. Put another way: his sample population is full of straw men. Science is based on empirical evidence, not conjecture informed by motivated reasoning.


You clearly did not correctly read the paper or you were not able to understand it, because there was no methodology or analysis section as it was a perspective piece indicated by the journal to be an opinion paper. There was no sample population, or hypothesis testing.


Jassmine: I'm not looking for Methodology and Analysis sections, but I'd like to see the authors of the paper go through the intellectual exercise of have a valid methodology and good analysis. As I've said a number of times now, on their website Raincoast calls this opinion "scientific literature," so what I'm asking of them is not unfair.


So clearly it was you that had a problem understanding the issue at hand, because you believe the methodology and analysis were problems, when in fact there was no analysis or methodology section in the paper at all because it was a perspective piece, a fact which you seem to have missed.

[Piperdown]

Must be slow hunting on tinder these days :mrgreen:

[jassmine]

Jassmine, I am sure I am not the only one that cant help but notice you have a very skewed agenda with your time and efforts on HBC.


So what is my agenda??

[Ride Red]

You can tell universities are feminized by how they win arguments by simply being able to argue longer than anyone can keep refuting them. Nagging their way to victory!

Now that's funny!!!

[Wild one]

Jasmine

since this thread is about wanting black bear closed in the great bear rainforest I will ask only a few things

1) Is there a black bear population concern in this area?

2) Is there a black bear population concern in BC?

3) Is there a science based reason to close the hunting of black bear in this area?

4) Would you personally support the proposal of closing black bear in the great bear rainforest? If so why?

[Ourea]

So what is my agenda??

You tell us.

Sorry, but your presence here has TROLL written all over it.
You are on a hunting site yet you don't participate in the actual sport.
Again, ZERO credibility.

[Rob Chipman]

Jassmine:

If your complaint is that someone is not giving this particular journal the requisite respect it deserves based on rankings created by, ummm, somebody, let me suggest that you aren't seeing the forest for the trees.

"defend your opinion that Biology Letters is a bad journal despite it ranking higher than journals where important research is being used and promoted (ex. Journal of Wildlife Management)".


"in a paper that was an opinion piece published in Biology Letters"

"there was no methodology or analysis section as it was a perspective piece indicated by the journal to be an opinion paper."

Science isn't about opinion or morals. While scientific journals are free to publish opinion pieces, let's remember that everyone has opinions, and most opinions aren't that valuable. The opinion ins the paper referenced is a really poorly thought out one and it's clearly trying to push an agenda that can't stand up to serious critique.

Why waste time describing a publication that publishes foolish opinions as a serious and highly ranked publication? You're just shining more light on a contemporary problem.

Do you think the opinion piece makes any valid points? If so, what are they?

[jassmine]

Jasmine

since this thread is about wanting black bear closed in the great bear rainforest I will ask only a few things

1) Is there a black bear population concern in this area?

2) Is there a black bear population concern in BC?

3) Is there a science based reason to close the hunting of black bear in this area?

4) Would you personally support the proposal of closing black bear in the great bear rainforest? If so why?

Nope not that I know of.

[jassmine]

You tell us.

Meaning, you accuse me of having an agenda, but have no ability to articulate what that might potentially be...
Right?

[jassmine]

Jassmine:

If your complaint is that someone is not giving this particular journal the requisite respect it deserves based on rankings created by, ummm, somebody, let me suggest that you aren't seeing the forest for the trees.

The citations cut off was introduced by TreeStandMan, who indicated that it was a low quality journal. Much of the data that gets published regarding the sustainability of the grizzly hunt or management of different game species are published in journals with rankings and scores much lower than Biology Letters. All I was pointing out was the fact that just because he disagreed with the paper, he also attempted to portrayed the journal as low quality, which if you ask any biologist, it isn't.

[jassmine]

Science isn't about opinion or morals. While scientific journals are free to publish opinion pieces, let's remember that everyone has opinions, and most opinions aren't that valuable. The opinion ins the paper referenced is a really poorly thought out one and it's clearly trying to push an agenda that can't stand up to serious critique.


Well it has stood up to critique because no one has yet to publish an argument to counter their proposition of costly signalling being a evolutionary cause for the desire to trophy hunt. If you really believe it is so poorly thought out, why don't you submit a response to the journal (they would certainly welcome it, as would I and many others here).

But calling the journal low quality simply because you don't agree with a opinion/perspective piece is non-sense. Every major scientific journal has opinion and perspective sections where they invite and review opinions (often controversial ones) of researchers in particular fields.

Why I waste my time describing the publication as serious and highly ranked is... because it is quite highly ranked and respected as a biology journal.

Some pretty major papers have came out of this journal ex:

White, C. R., Phillips, N. F., & Seymour, R. S. (2006). The scaling and temperature dependence of vertebrate metabolism. Biology Letters, 2(1), 125-127.

Keith, D. A., Akçakaya, H. R., Thuiller, W., Midgley, G. F., Pearson, R. G., Phillips, S. J., ... & Rebelo, T. G. (2008). Predicting extinction risks under climate change: coupling stochastic population models with dynamic bioclimatic habitat models. Biology letters, 4(5), 560-563.

Cavalier-Smith, T. (2009). Kingdoms Protozoa and Chromista and the eozoan root of the eukaryotic tree. Biology letters, rsbl20090948.

Isler, K., & Van Schaik, C. P. (2006). Metabolic costs of brain size evolution. Biology Letters, 2(4), 557-560.

Alaux, C., Ducloz, F., Crauser, D., & Le Conte, Y. (2010). Diet effects on honeybee immunocompetence. Biology letters, rsbl20090986.

[Whonnock Boy]

I don't know why people continue to take the bait. There is no doubt that "Jassmine" has an agenda, and while working on that she/he is gathering more intelligence on how to defeat those that support bear hunting here in BC. If I didn't know any better, I would say she is aligned with the likes of Kyle Artelle or Skye Augustine, staunch anti hunting, grizzly bear activists. But what do I know....

[Ourea]

Meaning, you accuse me of having an agenda, but have no ability to articulate what that might potentially be...
Right?

I use my considerable resources and abilities making a difference in life and for wildlife, things that count.
You certainly do not qualify.

I accuse you of nothing Jassmine, just stating the obvious.
I learned a long time ago not to get mad at a midget for being short.
You are a liability and a waste of time on this site.

While you waste time with your endless copy and paste that has absolutely ZERO impact on anything, others will enjoy our sport and contribute to wildlife thru their efforts.

Go buy a pr of boots, throw on a pack, shoot a gun, spend some time in the remote backcountry, kill and eat a god given delicious animal.
Share those experiences, help youth hunters, preserve our sport, be active in the hunting community.
Until then....... piss off.
The sooner you exit this site the better.

[Surrey Boy]

Meaning, you accuse me of having an agenda, but have no ability to articulate what that might potentially be...
Right?

If there's no agenda, what are you trying to accomplish here?

Everyone has an agenda.

[jassmine]

If there's no agenda, what are you trying to accomplish here?


Just pointing out that you can disagree with the conclusions of the Darimont article in Biology Letters, but stating that Biology Letters is a poor journal hence the articles published therein are poor is faulty. If that is your position, then articles that support sustainable hunting can also be invalidated because they are often in journal of even less "quality" or "renown".

[northernguy]

Wait. 1069 posts on a hunting forum from someone who doesn't hunt?:neutral:

[IslandBC]

Wait. 1069 posts on a hunting forum from someone who doesn't hunt?:neutral:
Bingo .....

[Ourea]

Wait. 1069 posts on a hunting forum from someone who doesn't hunt?:neutral:

Yup, just a Mole trolling.

[wildcatter]

Leadership, or do you mean dictatorship?

Are you F***n serious?

[Whonnock Boy]

Totally.......


Are you F***n serious?

[jassmine]

she/he is gathering more intelligence on how to defeat those that support bear hunting here in BC.

When did I ever say anything in support of the bear hunting ban?
Please show me the evidence of me being anti beat hunt please?

[Squamch]

If everyone put the trolls on ignore, they would eventually go away.

[TreeStandMan]

When did I ever say anything in support of the bear hunting ban?
Please show me the evidence of me being anti beat hunt please?

You haven't ventured an opinion, despite being asked explocitly for it several times. You use the same argumentative strategy as antis when you slip direct questions and hammer on one point where you feel you have traction, despite a lack of understanding. Sure, that's not direct evidence that you're anti hunting, but it is suspicious.

But now's your chance: give us your opinion of the Article in question, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, and tell us the about some of your past hunts?

[REMINGTON JIM]

So what is my agenda??

Somewhat like Weavers was to Use and Abuse the HBC Hunter -Fisherman ! LOL :tongue: jmo RJ

[jassmine]

You use the same argumentative strategy .... Sure, that's not direct evidence that you're anti hunting, but it is suspicious.

But now's your chance: give us your opinion of the Article in question, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, and tell us the about some of your past hunts?

Oh the same argument technique, meaning actually talking about the subject that I was commenting on (i.e. Biology Letters), and not trying to distract from that by asking wide open questions and interrogation? I certainly don't do that you are correct. And if that is what suffices for evidence that I'm an anti-hunter somehow (despite never having a single posts that denigrated any hunt), well I'm certainly dubious to your ability to judge the value of particular science journals or scientific evidence, because that is weak.


... in Biology Letters (a bottom tier open access journal).

Maybe I'll write it up and submit it to Biology Letters for publication--they seem to be willing to pass off anyone's opinion as peer reviewed literature.


Biology Letters, however, is not a high quality journal. I'm not sure about the source for your ranking (maybe Web of Science, which I don't have access to), but SCImago shows Biology Letters has less than 3 citations per document over two years, its number of cited documents is falling and the number of uncited documents is rising, and its total number of cites has declined yearly over the last three years. Its H index is 83, which is hard to benchmark without comparing it to other journals with similar publication histories, but this seems low to me given this journal has been publishing since 2005.





This is all a distraction,

The only thing that is a distraction, is your pivoting towards attacking me after I demonstrated evidence that Biology Letters is a fairly good journal, and lots of the evidence supporting sustainability of various hunts is published in journals of much lower quality. So by accusing the paper of having no value based on the fact that you believe Biology Letters is subpar, you are basically saying that a vast majority of the literature on hunting sustainability also have no value.
A conclusion I would never make.

[jassmine]

You haven't ventured an opinion, despite being asked explocitly for it several times.

Go back and look at Post #127 and you can see a pretty "explocit" [sic] answer.

[jassmine]

But now's your chance: give us your opinion of the Article in question, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, and tell us the about some of your past hunts?

Again great distraction and way to get out of the only point I was debating:


Because you refused to address any of the points I've made, and are now switching the subject/pivoting so that you don't have to defend your opinion that Biology Letters is a bad journal despite it ranking higher than journals where important research is being used and promoted (ex. Journal of Wildlife Management).

So why should I answer a question that has nothing to do with the point you made or my disagreement with. I shouldn't, except for the fact that you hope that it can allow you to paint me in light of some anti-hunter somehow and switch the topic.

[jassmine]

I use my considerable resources and abilities making a difference in life and for wildlife, things that count.
I accuse you of nothing Jassmine, just stating the obvious.


That certainly sounds like an accusation as does this:


Yup, just a Mole trolling.

And this implying that I don't hunt:



While you waste time with your endless copy and paste that has absolutely ZERO impact on anything, others will enjoy our sport and contribute to wildlife thru their efforts.


And this:


You tell us.
You are on a hunting site yet you don't participate in the actual sport.


But thank you for taking your considerable resources and ability and personally accusing me of some agenda that you have no evidence to support and instead resort to personal attacks :


Jassmine, I am sure I am not the only one that cant help but notice you have a very skewed agenda with your time and efforts on HBC.


You tell us.


And I'm sorry that you believe my making a point about the quality of a scientific journal is of no value. I thought the tide was turning with more people supporting more accuracy in their science or statements regarding science, but you have simply atacked me for making a point about my disagreement about the quality of a scientific journal. But if you agree with TreeStandMan that Biology Letters is a low quality journal, and journals with metrics lower are as bad if not worst (ex. Journal of Wildlife Biology), I'm sorry I couldn't convince you otherwise since many of the best hunting management journal articles are in journals with lower metrics than Biology Letters.

[northernguy]

So wait Jassmine...you don't hunt? Is that correct?

[jassmine]

So wait Jassmine...you don't hunt? Is that correct?

I hunt tons, it's just baseless accusations. I'm cleaning the rimfire I use for rabbits as we speak.
I've even posted questions regarding looking for places to bring my dog for rabbit hunting, and searches for quick deer day hunts near the metro area.

But because I don't agree with every particular statement someone makes, I guess I'm an anti-hunter and detriment to the site according to some people. Despite the fact that I was simply telling them in the Biology community, Biology Letters is a good journal to be published in.

[northernguy]

Thanks for clarifying the fact that you hunt.

The subsequent information you provided was not relevant to my question, but point taken.

Thank you for your response.

[Ourea]

That certainly sounds like an accusation as does this:



And this implying that I don't hunt:



And this:



But thank you for taking your considerable resources and ability and personally accusing me of some agenda that you have no evidence to support and instead resort to personal attacks :




And I'm sorry that you believe my making a point about the quality of a scientific journal is of no value. I thought the tide was turning with more people supporting more accuracy in their science or statements regarding science, but you have simply atacked me for making a point about my disagreement about the quality of a scientific journal. But if you agree with TreeStandMan that Biology Letters is a low quality journal, and journals with metrics lower are as bad if not worst (ex. Journal of Wildlife Biology), I'm sorry I couldn't convince you otherwise since many of the best hunting management journal articles are in journals with lower metrics than Biology Letters.

I make no reference to your journal position, could care less.
I made a direct statement ......you are waste of time and a liability to this site.
I, and many others I'm sure, stand behind that statement.

Here's the thirty thousand foot view Jassmine....
Wildlife and habitat are headed south with no accepted plan of action, political will, or funding.
You continue to play ping pong with members down in the minutiae thinking your opinion is of value and will change the thinking of others.
You remind me of my sister in-law......never shuts up, can't make an attempted point and move on.

What boots do you wear or prefer?
What kind of pack do you sport?
Sleeping bag?
Tent?
Bed mat?
Knife?
Favorite wild game to eat and recipe?
Best hunting experience?
Farthest you have packed game out?
Favorite area to hunt and why?
Favorite species of game to hunt?
What outdoor lifestyle clubs or organizations do you actively support?
Who do you hunt with?
What is your weapon of choice.
Do you support the current funding model for wildlife that has been platformed?

I can go on and on and on.

You go on spending 99.99999% of your energy on the .00001% that will make no difference in the grand scheme of things.

As stated before, you are liability on HBC

[jassmine]

You go on spending 99.99999% of your energy on the .00001% that will make no difference in the grand scheme of things.

As stated before, you are liability on HBC

I'm terribly sorry that you don't think the evaluation of scientific journals, where the scientific basis for wildlife management gets published, is of importance.
I disagree and believe science based decision making is of the utmost importance. Ensuring science is at the forefront and ensuring a proper understanding of the science is the reason I conduct science.

[Whonnock Boy]

My comment is just an intuitive overall feeling I get from the total sum of your posts. Tell us your name, and I'm sure the accusations will cease. My name is Troy Halliday.....
When did I ever say anything in support of the bear hunting ban?
Please show me the evidence of me being anti beat hunt please?

[Ourea]

I'm terribly sorry that you don't think the evaluation of scientific journals, where the scientific basis for wildlife management gets published, is of importance.
I disagree and believe science based decision making is of the utmost importance. Ensuring science is at the forefront and ensuring a proper understanding of the science is the reason I conduct science.

I never stated that science based decision making isn't of importance.
To the contrary...the proposed funding model would want all decisions and project funding to be science based and by highly qualified individuals.
Arguing in the weeds over trivial details only serves your self interest of debate.

Wait, maybe you are my sister in-law!?

[Piperdown]

Well this has gone in the shitter, Ourea, i love your posts. Ole Jassy reminds me of a environmental engineer i had the displeasure of training in my field as an environmental consultant. He had a answer for everything, had never accomplished anything in his life except a 5 yr degree. He was telling me how he had negotiated a wage package for 90 days, 6 months, 1 year all with big increases. I said Knob (real name was Rob but after half an hr of working with him i gave him the name knob) if i was you i would concentrate on making the 90 days, long story short he didn't make the 90 days. A month later i run into another consulting firm and ole Knob comes out of the van, i say to the guys how is Knob making out, they start to laugh at the name and tell me he isn't. He didn't make his 90 days there either and to this day has worked in the patch as a first aid attendant. Nothing pisses me off more than having to listen to someone who tells you how smart they are and haven't pissed a drop in the real world, now back to the subject at hand, oh and Hi Troy, your buddy Mike :mrgreen:

[Kill-da-wabbit]

Conservation officer service statistics for 2017:
Black bears killed by CO's to end of July - 256 (approx 8000 calls)
"Killed by other" - 57
We still have autumn on the way...

If they want lower the number of bears killed, start with education and habitat reclamation.

[Ourea]

Well this has gone in the shitter, Ourea, i love your posts. Ole Jassy reminds me of a environmental engineer i had the displeasure of training in my field as an environmental consultant. He had a answer for everything, had never accomplished anything in his life except a 5 yr degree. He was telling me how he had negotiated a wage package for 90 days, 6 months, 1 year all with big increases. I said Knob (real name was Rob but after half an hr of working with him i gave him the name knob) if i was you i would concentrate on making the 90 days, long story short he didn't make the 90 days. A month later i run into another consulting firm and ole Knob comes out of the van, i say to the guys how is Knob making out, they start to laugh at the name and tell me he isn't. He didn't make his 90 days there either and to this day has worked in the patch as a first aid attendant. Nothing pisses me off more than having to listen to someone who tells you how smart they are and haven't pissed a drop in the real world, now back to the subject at hand, oh and Hi Troy, your buddy Mike :mrgreen:

I learned in life and in business, there are two types of people......talkers and doers.
The talkers never shut up long enough to get anything of importance done as they endlessly discuss useless trivia and are always trying to justify their opinions and perspective.
Meanwhile, the doers are too busy getting shit done to waste any time listening to them.

I also learned that when you throw the keys to the shop to those that sound like they know better than everyone else....well..... they don'y have a clue how to run it, they are dead in the water.

[1/2 slam]

Time to put her on the ignore list. Like Jelvis (although he can be mildly entertaing once in a while) she's a complete waste of time

[northernguy]

So

...We now return you to our regular programming. "Raincoast wants Black Bear Ban".

That was one long intermission...errrr...interruption...or what ever the heck that was!!??

In the spirit of "returning to our regular programming", I for one believe that Raincoast will try to stop hunting and fishing and what ever else offends them, one topic at a time...death by a million small cuts.

[jassmine]

I never stated that science based decision making isn't of importance.
To the contrary...the proposed funding model would want all decisions and project funding to be science based and by highly qualified individuals.


Well it certainly sounds as though you don't care about science all that much. Because you're quite eager to engage in ad hominem attacks against me simply because I disagreed with a members assertion that a particular scientific journal was of low quality.



Arguing in the weeds over trivial details only serves your self interest of debate.
You go on spending 99.99999% of your energy on the .00001% that will make no difference in the grand scheme of things.


Again, I'm sorry that you don't feel like the discussion of scientific article publication is of importance. But I disagree and believe that researchers should do their all to ensure that their research reaches the necessary stakeholders and is open access with transparent methodology. The selection of journals is pivotal to these goals.


I learned in life and in business, there are two types of people......talkers and doers.
The talkers never shut up long enough to get anything of importance done as they endlessly discuss useless trivia and are always trying to justify their opinions and perspective.

The vast majority of science is minutia (data transformations, statistical modeling, distribution selection, table and graph formatting), those are indeed the boring parts of science, but necessary for it to be conducted properly. If you think all scientist are talkers and don't do anything of importance, again I have to disagree and think that those interested at all levels (undergraduate research assistants, graduate students, technicians and PIs) work pretty darn hard with most sacrificing the opportunity to do other jobs, and actually get paid, because they enjoy science and their topic of study.

[Ourea]

So

...We now return you to our regular programming. "Raincoast wants Black Bear Ban".

That was one long intermission...errrr...interruption...or what ever the heck that was!!??

In the spirit of "returning to our regular programming", I for one believe that Raincoast will try to stop hunting and fishing and what ever else offends them, one topic at a time...death by a million small cuts.

More antis are on this site these days pretending to be conservation minded hunters.
Some members are ignorant enough to give them time they simply do not deserve.

When you have a mole on threads like these they need to know when to simply piss off.

[northernguy]

...aaannnnd...we're "off the air (rails)"...again.

We'll return to our regular program, "Raincoast Wants Black Bear Ban" shortly....we hope:roll:.

[northernguy]

More antis are on this site these days pretending to be conservation minded hunters.
Some members are ignorant enough to give them time they simply do not deserve.

When you have a mole on threads like these they need to know when to simply piss off.

Yep.

I'm not real bright by any means...but even I know when the crowd is giving me the subtle message that I'm not wanted...happens to me lots:smile:

[jassmine]

More antis are on this site these days pretending to be conservation minded hunters.

Still waiting for any proof at all of your accusation. So far you've just accused me of being interested in the details of science (which I am, sorry?).


I use my considerable resources and abilities making a difference in life and for wildlife, things that count.


But thank you for using your considerable resources and abilities to disparage me for being interested in science, all the while providing no proof whatsoever for any of your accusations.

[Whonnock Boy]

What's your name Jassmine?

[jassmine]

What's your name Jassmine?

In what world do you think I would give my name:

#1 On the internet in an open forum
#2 To people that are actively belittling and disparaging me because I didn't agree with another member's perspective of a scientific journal
#3 Because said people attacking and denigrating me are demanding it
#4 After being threated/plea bargained/blackmailed to give my name to end the accusations


Tell us your name, and I'm sure the accusations will cease.

???

[Steeleco]

Once again a thread meant to enlighten the masses has been hijacked by a few. And now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!