BCWF Position on Cancellation of Trophy Grizzly Bear Hunt

[bcmulie]

I'm sure many (all?) of you have seen the recent NDP announcement that the trophy grizzly bear hunt will be closed effective November of this year. This will mean that hunters can no longer remove the head, hide and paws when they harvest a grizzly bear. Does anyone know whether or not the BCWF has issued a press release or position statement on this proposed closure? I've looked, but haven't been able to locate anything. As a longtime member of the BCWF, I would expect the BCWF to be very active on this issue in opposing the proposed closure. If we can't remove the "trophy" parts from a bear, I expect the next restrictions will be on removing horns and antlers from other animals that we take. Thanks to anyone who can point me in the right direction.

bcmulie

[Mr Conservation]

Copied from a BCWF e-mail that was sent out:



The BCWF Response to Provincial Government Announcement to End Grizzly Trophy Hunt

https://bcwf.thankyou4caring.org/image/member-updates/resized-Grizzly-Bear.jpg
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 (https://bcwf.thankyou4caring.org/page.redir?target=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leg.bc.ca%2flea rn-about-us%2fmembers&srcid=24145&srctid=1&erid=5723620&trid=8fe6211b-54a9-4db7-8a88-52f86aefc2a5)
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 (https://bcwf.thankyou4caring.org/page.redir?target=http%3a%2f%2fvancouversun.com%2f news%2flocal-news%2fb-c-grizzly-hunter-calls-new-provincial-ban-wasteful-hurtful-to-local-economies&srcid=24145&srctid=1&erid=5723620&trid=8fe6211b-54a9-4db7-8a88-52f86aefc2a5).

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.


Mr. Conservation

[huntaholic]

Ok!So where are the teeth? We're teetering on the edge here. What direction is the Fed going. Are we going after the NDP? Why haven't we used the MOU that was signed as a stepping point to drive a message from all hunters that we won't stand for this!?We've all seen the Raincoast initiative,are we content to sit back and let them steer the policy? Would somebody please post the Times Colonist article from last week.It gives a very clear direction as to what could be next!! Scary shit! It seems that the statement the BCWF issued is what I would have expected them to say after the cancelation announcement .BUT ! What's happening today ?This is a far greater issue than allocation was and yet silence ! Has there been a backdoor deal? If ever there was a time for all of us as a user group to stand united this would be it, or be prepared to kiss your children and grandchildrens opportunities away.In my mind everything else should be taking a back seat to this . There is a far bigger picture here!OUR FUTURE AS HUNTERS IS IN JEOPARDY

[bcmulie]

Here's the Times Colonist article, huntaholic:

Comment: Wildlife-management reform is long overdueTIMES COLONIST
AUGUST 11, 2017 08:17 AM







http://www.timescolonist.com/gmg/img/icons/social/header-email.png

http://www.timescolonist.com/gmg/img/icons/social/print.png







The underpinnings of contemporary wildlife management are political and ideological, largely at the expense of wildlife for the presumed benefit of people.
Unsurprisingly, wildlife management in British Columbia is marked by an outdated mindset that primarily views wild animals as a “resource” to be exploited by recreational hunting or as troublesome creatures that need to be killed because their existence conflicts with human endeavours. Saddled by a myopic adherence to the debunked and inaptly named North American model of wildlife conservation, wildlife policy in B.C. is mired in a philosophically and structurally faulty approach.
Simply, wildlife policies are focused on consumption and control, rather than conservation.
As ethicist Michael Nelson and wildlife ecologists John Vucetich, Paul C. Paquet and Joseph Bump note in their critique, North American Model: What’s Flawed, What’s Missing, What’s Needed, the model’s primary tenet, i.e. recreational hunting being central to wildlife conservation, is based upon an inadequate account of history and an inadequate ethic.


Largely ignoring the biology and intrinsic value of all species, the model reinforces the narrow idea that nature is a commodity — a “resource” — owned and used by humans in pursuit of personal interests. This “management” perspective draws its support from — and sustains — the view that humans exist outside of nature, and that other species, apart from their utility for humans, are of little importance in the larger scheme of things. Human dominion and domination over nature are deemed to be the natural order.
Predominantly driven by a recreational hunting agenda, the North American model is informed largely by values, attitudes and atavistic beliefs entrenched in the self-serving fallacy that killing wild animals for sport and control is essential to wildlife conservation.
As explained in the critique, the model relies on a misinterpretation of history in which recreational hunting is disproportionately, and inaccurately, seen as the driver of North American wildlife conservation, while downplaying the contributions of monumental figures such as John Muir and Aldo Leopold, who pioneered broad-based approaches to conservation without focusing on hunting as its primary tool.
The province’s recent proposal to privatize wildlife management illustrates the pernicious effect of the North American model on the mindset of government bureaucrats and politicians. In the run-up to the election, the B.C. Liberals announced plans to implement an extra-governmental agency that would be controlled by recreational hunting groups.
This perverse scheme is the culmination of decades of undue influence by the recreational hunting lobby on the B.C. government; it was also inevitable under the model, where science and ethics are ignored in favour of self-perpetuating myth and anecdote.
With its philosophical roots in the model, the grizzly-bear hunt is an egregious and persistent example of how B.C. wildlife management fails to address ecological, economic and ethical considerations. Using the province’s kill data to determine if B.C.’s grizzly management meets its own objectives, Raincoast Conservation Foundation scientists have found that total kills commonly exceed limits determined by provincial policy. Financial analyses have shown that grizzlies are worth far more alive than dead, and poll after poll indicates a clear majority of British Columbians have judged the recreational hunting of these large carnivores an abhorrent activity.
Considering centuries of human privilege over the needs of the environment, what we need to manage is not wildlife but ourselves. Recognizing that many human activities have damaging effects on biodiversity and ecological communities, what should wildlife management in B.C. look like?
Briefly, Raincoast envisions a compassionate conservation policy based on management for wildlife, as opposed to management of wildlife — a policy that takes into account the health and well-being of individuals and populations. Furthermore, we envision substantially more consideration given to maintaining the integrity of ecological systems upon which species depend.
Although species might continue to exist and suffer long after natural ecological relationships have been altered or destroyed, such impoverished conditions are not sustainable and do not typify healthy environments. Finally, wildlife management needs to emerge from the shadows and adopt practices in keeping with modern science, as well as principles regarding the ethical treatment of animals.
Without a significant shift in how we relate to and interact with wildlife, future generations will look back with stunned dismay at how our society could be so divorced from reality and morality. The hopeful news in B.C. is that with a new government there is the opportunity for positive change and a much more ecologically and ethically informed approach to wildlife management.
Chris Genovali is executive director of Raincoast Conservation Foundation. Large-carnivore expert Paul C. Paquet is Raincoast’s senior scientist.

[IronNoggin]

Let's just have a little look at the drivel written by Raincoast Exec Director Genovali (non scientist that he is)...

The basis of his entire focus is founded upon his claim that the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is "myopic, has been widely debunked and is inaptly named" and further "is based upon an inadequate account of history and an inadequate ethic."

Nothing could be much further from the truth (like that ever bothered anyone of this ilk?).

The North American Wildlife Conservation Model was established by Teddy Roosevelt and a handful of others (largely hunters btw) who recognized that many species of wildlife were rapidly disappearing. So, they set out to initially establish hunting regulations and conservation groups to protect habitat. What followed was the development of one of the most widely recognized successes world wide in terms of conserving both habitat and the wildlife populations they support. In fact, many aspects of this model have been successfully applied in rather far flung regions world wide. So much for insufficient history. So much for being widely debunked. So much for an inappropriate name. and so much for being "myopic" in any sense of the word.

Today, this Model is based upon what is termed the Seven Sisters for Conservation:

#1 – Wildlife is Held in the Public Trust
In North America, natural resources and wildlife on public lands are managed by government agencies to ensure that current and future generations always have wildlife and wild places to enjoy.

#2 – Prohibition on Commerce of Dead Wildlife
Commercial hunting and the sale of wildlife is prohibited to ensure the sustainability of wildlife populations.

#3 – Democratic Rule of Law
Hunting and fishing laws are created through the public process where everyone has the opportunity and responsibility to develop systems of wildlife conservation and use.

#4 – Hunting Opportunity for All
Every citizen has an opportunity, under the law, to hunt and fish in the United States and Canada.

#5 – Non-Frivolous Use
In North America, individuals may legally kill certain wild animals under strict guidelines for food and fur, self-defense and property protection. Laws restrict against the casual killing of wildlife merely for antlers, horns or feathers.

#6 – International Resources
Wildlife and fish migrate freely across boundaries between states, provinces and countries. Working together, the United States and Canada jointly coordinate wildlife and habitat management strategies. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 demonstrates this cooperation between countries to protect wildlife. The Act made it illegal to capture or kill migratory birds, except as allowed by specific hunting regulations.

#7 – Scientific Management
Sound science is essential to managing and sustaining North America’s wildlife and habitats. For example, researchers put radio collars on elk to track the animals’ movements to determine where elk give birth and how they react to motor vehicles on forest roads.

Raincoast and their ilk may really only find direct fault with numbers 3 and 4 due to the fact they include sustainable use within the guiding principles. They of course will not openly admit that, instead preferring to toss the entire system out as somehow being flawed. What they purport to support in contrast however, directly opposes several of the other principles, including most notably Scientific Management which they would merrily trade for emotion-based "management" in a heartbeat if they so could.

So, as we can see, the very foundation of what Raincoast is driving for is based upon misrepresentation of fact (often alternatively termed LIES).

More information regarding the North American Wildlife Management Model can be found here:
http://wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/North-American-model-of-Wildlife-Conservation.pdf

What follows is another attack - this time upon the proposed funding and government removed model of wildlife management within BC. In this attack, they start off by stating that "the B.C. Liberals announced plans to implement an extra-governmental agency that would be controlled by recreational hunting groups.".

Another complete falsehood.
When the model was proposed it was clearly identified that a neutral third party of qualified individuals would form the administration.
That group would operate independent of Gov and user groups/stakeholders.
This type of model ensures that no organization can influence or be prioritized in the decision making processes (including leftist NGO's).

The only beneficiary under the proposal is wildlife, they are the sole priority.
Simply put, wildlife is the winner, not special interest of any ilk.

Yet somehow Raincoast views such a development as "perverse" and one wherein "science and ethics are ignored in favour of self-perpetuating myth and anecdote."

Huh? Can anyone be more obvious in their attempts at misdirection (aka LYING)??

What follows is an idealist suggestion of just how Raincoast would see wildlife management occur in British Columbia.
Basically, it may as well have been directly cut and pasted from PETA's playbook.
Yes, it IS that far removed from reality. http://bigshotsbc.ca/images/smilies/rolleyes.png

So I do have a suggestion for them, and that centers on their own stated desire that "wildlife management needs to emerge from the shadows and adopt practices in keeping with modern science". That model already exists. Plans are still hopefully underway to make it so, despite the spin, outright lying, and employing of non-contextual arguments to suggest otherwise. And, I also suggest we leave the matter of emotion, ethics and self-centered "morality" to the likes of PETA, HSUS and other such notably rabid organizations where they rightfully belong.

We MUST get organized, and FAST folks!
The number and strength of our emboldened enemies grows daily... http://bigshotsbc.ca/images/smilies/disgust.png

Worried!
Nog

[IronNoggin]

Latest Circular from BCWF:

Future of Hunting and Fishing at Risk

https://bcwf.thankyou4caring.org/image/grizzly-bear.jpg
Last week in a hyper-political decision government decided it was going to close grizzly bear hunting in the Great Bear Rainforest and outside the area grizzly bear hunting would continue, but hunters could not possess the hide, head, nor paws of the bear, something government has defined as “trophy parts”. The government has also said this is only for grizzly bears and does not apply to other species. But it’s not really about grizzly bear “trophy hunting”, it’s about hunting.
The BC Wildlife Federation has responded saying this approach is wasteful and inconsistent with the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. Read the BCWF response HERE (https://bcwf.thankyou4caring.org/page.redir?target=http%3a%2f%2fbcwf.net%2f&srcid=24264&srctid=1&erid=5755920&trid=0bda4159-b855-416f-a924-6580e930d073)
While there are points and counter points to grizzly bear hunting, what conservationists should bear in mind is that so-called conservation organizations which were only opposed to the “trophy hunting of grizzly bears” have now publically stated they will start to focus on eliminating black bear hunting. And if government continues to listen to them you can expect hunting bans on all predator species, followed by species such as sheep, goats and finally deer, moose and elk.
The BCWF’s Jesse Zeman was a panel guest, along with the Raincoast Conservation Foundation’s Chris Genovali on the grizzly hunt, which you can listen to CBC Almanac HERE (https://bcwf.thankyou4caring.org/page.redir?target=http%3a%2f%2fwww.cbc.ca%2flisten %2fshows%2fbc-almanac%2fepisode%2f13706405&srcid=24264&srctid=1&erid=5755920&trid=0bda4159-b855-416f-a924-6580e930d073)
If you hunt and fish you should be concerned. The consistent application of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model has been abandoned for one species and others will follow. First Nations continue to have a constitutional right to hunt for food, social and ceremonial purposes. It will be indigenous people who decide what happens in their traditional territories.
The government has announced a consultation period, which is simply a temperature check of the public response to this change. If you want to continue to hunt and fish the best thing you can do is write, email, and meet with your MLA. Write the premier, the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations as well as the party leaders for the Green and Liberal Party. Find your MLA HERE (https://bcwf.thankyou4caring.org/page.redir?target=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leg.bc.ca%2flea rn-about-us%2fmembers&srcid=24264&srctid=1&erid=5755920&trid=0bda4159-b855-416f-a924-6580e930d073)
Your message does not need to be technical. All you need to convey how important conservation, fishing and hunting are to you, and future generations. Be clear on what your position is around hunting and fishing, particularly as it relates to the North American Wildlife Conservation Model.
If people who hunt and fish do not stand up for conservation or future generations you will see your rights continue to erode.

[bearvalley]

The latest release from the BCWF is interesting, especially the part "First Nations continue to have a constitutional right to hunt for food, social and ceremonial purposes. It will be indigenous people who decide what happens in their traditional territories".
Sounds to me like one of the fed reps was paying attention....maybe yesterday.
What we need to keep in mind here is that the NDP delivered on a party platform promise that was strictly emotion based.
They threw all science out the door along with hunters.
If this suggested policy on Grizzlies is allowed to carry thru other species will fall....just like dominoes.
Horgan and Donaldson along with all local MLA's need to have it explained that no species of wildlife will be thrown away on an emotion/political supporter based whim.
The one wild card we are packing right now is that not all FN's think the same as the coastal ones and government is probably about to get told to go pound sand on the new grizzly proposal.

[Lionhill]

It would be great to have some talking points about the Grizzly bear hunt to share with non hunters.

How many bears vs harvested? Real world numbers, not estimates.

If the bears were not harvested (shot by rifle or bow), what is the natural attrition on senior bears (assuming hunters are going after bigger, older bears)?

How much foreign money comes to BC for the bear hunt, and stays with Government for (conservation) purposes to protect the resource?

How much of a loss financially to BC will this cost? I know that there is some BS stat that says bear watching brings 10X the fees that hunting does, but I just can't believe that - when you hear what some bear hunts cost the US hunters.

It would be great to have this info sooner than later.

Thanks

[bcmulie]

Thanks Mr. Conservation and IronNoggin - good info.

[Darksith]

It would be great to have some talking points about the Grizzly bear hunt to share with non hunters.

How many bears vs harvested? Real world numbers, not estimates.

If the bears were not harvested (shot by rifle or bow), what is the natural attrition on senior bears (assuming hunters are going after bigger, older bears)?

How much foreign money comes to BC for the bear hunt, and stays with Government for (conservation) purposes to protect the resource?

How much of a loss financially to BC will this cost? I know that there is some BS stat that says bear watching brings 10X the fees that hunting does, but I just can't believe that - when you hear what some bear hunts cost the US hunters.

It would be great to have this info sooner than later.

Thanks

There are on average 250 bears killed annually by hunters. 80 from guides and 170 from resident hunters. We do not have numbers of FN harvest because they don't have to manditory report...
Around 40-70 are killed annually by trains, cars and conservation officers
Harvest rates remain constant over the past 30 years when comparing number of males harvested vs number of females harvested. This is a very good indicator of the health of the population because: As bears age, and more males are targeted, then eventually there should be less mature male bears, which should lead to more elderly female bears being harvested. This does not happen though, more male bears continue to be harvested which means that their numbers relative to harvest rates are in balance and the population is at the very least holding steady.
Grizzly bear hunting generates around $2.5M-3M annually between resident and non resident hunters. It is hard to determine the actual amount generated from resident hunters as only successfull hunts are recorded anywhere.

[bearvalley]

There are on average 250 bears killed annually by hunters. 80 from guides and 170 from resident hunters. We do not have numbers of FN harvest because they don't have to manditory report...
Around 40-70 are killed annually by trains, cars and conservation officers
Harvest rates remain constant over the past 30 years when comparing number of males harvested vs number of females harvested. This is a very good indicator of the health of the population because: As bears age, and more males are targeted, then eventually there should be less mature male bears, which should lead to more elderly female bears being harvested. This does not happen though, more male bears continue to be harvested which means that their numbers relative to harvest rates are in balance and the population is at the very least holding steady.
Grizzly bear hunting generates around $2.5M-3M annually between resident and non resident hunters. It is hard to determine the actual amount generated from resident hunters as only successfull hunts are recorded anywhere.
Good info Darksith.
One note to keep in mind is that over the approximate time frame that you are using for your harvest stats the grizzly bear population in BC has gone from an estimated 6,600 to 16,000.
This shows the hunt is more than sustainable.

[Lionhill]

So how much will be lost in BC revenue by American hunters cancelling their hunt. How many less BC'ers will not hunt bears, and not buy tags, and not put in for LEH? What will be the $ loss?

I read that a non-resident alien hunting license is $180, and the Grizzly Tag is $1030 per year. How much is the average guided hunt? Are there any special fees to hunt in Grizzly rich areas?

Thanks for the beginning info. Darksith - are you a BCWF rep?

[Darksith]

Good info Darksith.
One note to keep in mind is that over the approximate time frame that you are using for your harvest stats the grizzly bear population in BC has gone from an estimated 6,600 to 16,000.
This shows the hunt is more than sustainable.

where is that fact stated? I would love to see it...would destroy a guy that I am arguing with

[Darksith]

So how much will be lost in BC revenue by American hunters cancelling their hunt. How many less BC'ers will not hunt bears, and not buy tags, and not put in for LEH? What will be the $ loss?

I read that a non-resident alien hunting license is $180, and the Grizzly Tag is $1030 per year. How much is the average guided hunt? Are there any special fees to hunt in Grizzly rich areas?

Thanks for the beginning info. Darksith - are you a BCWF rep?

no just a passionate hunter that loves to get into battles over stupid stuff like the cancelling of the grizz hunt. So I end up doing a lot of reading and researching

[Nailknot85]

where is that fact stated? I would love to see it...would destroy a guy that I am arguing with

This is most likely the source of those numbers: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/docs/Grizzly_Bear_Pop_Est_Report_Final_2012.pdf

[Darksith]

This is most likely the source of those numbers: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/docs/Grizzly_Bear_Pop_Est_Report_Final_2012.pdf

it says right in the report that because estimation techniques evolved and improved, thus they change does not reflect a trend in population size...anyway I would love some hard data that shows how the bear population has recovered and is growing...

[Ltbullken]

Someone has go to be advocating for hunters in this process. We need to take a stand against encroachment on our rights and rural values. This is the opening salvo in the anti-hunting battle and it's just going to get worse unless hunters tell the government there will be active political opposition to the government. Who's in with me?! C'mon fellow hunters let's get angry about this!

[Ltbullken]

So how much will be lost in BC revenue by American hunters cancelling their hunt. How many less BC'ers will not hunt bears, and not buy tags, and not put in for LEH? What will be the $ loss?

I read that a non-resident alien hunting license is $180, and the Grizzly Tag is $1030 per year. How much is the average guided hunt? Are there any special fees to hunt in Grizzly rich areas?

Thanks for the beginning info. Darksith - are you a BCWF rep?

All a loss to the conservation fund.

[Darksith]

Someone has go to be advocating for hunters in this process. We need to take a stand against encroachment on our rights and rural values. This is the opening salvo in the anti-hunting battle and it's just going to get worse unless hunters tell the government there will be active political opposition to the government. Who's in with me?! C'mon fellow hunters let's get angry about this!

Ive already written our premiere to tell him I can not support a party that limits use of any animal parts.

[northof49]

Ive already written our premiere to tell him I can not support a party that limits use of any animal parts.

Likely better off to write the opposition (Libs) declaring your support if when elected they will agree to restore the right to use the hide and base all wildlife management decicions on science rather than emotions.

[tuffcityhunter]

Would it also not hurt to perhaps add something in such as i will not support a party that acts on emotions ignores hards facts and treats certain ethnic groups with different rights. If most of us (hopefully) are sending letters and emails I feel like we should also be fighting for our rights as non FN hunters at the same time. Let it be known, overwhelm them with letters and noise.

[Onesock]

Nobody has asked how much the guide outfitters are going to be paid for the loss of the grizzly tags. The tags just can't be pulled without compensation to the guide for loss of revenue.

[Opinionated Ol Phart]

Would it also not hurt to perhaps add something in such as i will not support a party that acts on emotions ignores hards facts and treats certain ethnic groups with different rights. If most of us (hopefully) are sending letters and emails I feel like we should also be fighting for our rights as non FN hunters at the same time. Let it be known, overwhelm them with letters and noise.

Unfortunately ALL political parties react to emotion vs science. Its called getting re-elected. And if the polls are to be believed, and I have no reason to NOT believe them, then we as hunters will have pretty thin opportunities in coming years, and for an increasing number of species. Remember the short lived controversy when we were ordered to stop using lead shot for waterfowl? At that time I was a member of Sapperton F&G, which had a number of ardent duck hunters. They got riled up that anything but lead shot would ruin the barrels or even explode them. But I remember one old timer getting and addressing the club..... "This is a battle we cant win guys. A few more pictures of swans and geese that cant hold their heads up because of lead poisoning on the TV news and lead shot is DONE !" In a similar way , this applies to the griz hunt. IMO we lost this battle when the name "Great Bear Rain Forest" was used by the envios and local Natives. The news media picked this up and all of a sudden there were all sorts of cute kermode bears rebranded as "spirit bears" showing up on the 6 o'clock news. ( for the record the most kermodies I have seen have been at the Terrace dump!! ) So-- Great Bear Rain Forest- Spirits bears, then ..OMG -- we forgot grizzly's !!!!! Lets get them included and spin it so that the average highrise dweller in Vancouver and Surrey ( who has never , EVER seen a griz in the wild) will believe that they are endangered and are just big Disney cuddly creatures that just eat grass and berries. In a masterful campaign a few groups with media savvy have achieved that. But we, as hunters , are responsible to a degree-- Pics of a hunter with a dead bear across his lap do not help the situation. Share with your friends and fellow hunters only before they come after the black bear hunt too . And DONT post pics of 20 dead coyotes in the back of a pick-up truck... Its just ammunition that will be used against us. ( this from an old guys that has stopped hunting two years ago except with crossbow at 20 yds because he has s#itty eyesight )
So I guess the question is " Do you roll over and take it and see more hunts restricted or stopped? " Frankly-- I have seen the writing on the wall, and do not have a good feeling about what the future for hunting holds. It will take a quantum shift in the public's attitude , and that will take many resources. Who is up for the challenge ???

[Rob Chipman]

"Unfortunately ALL political parties react to emotion vs science. Its called getting re-elected." Bang friggin' on.

And that observation is the reason we need to build social license. Sounds like kumbayah jargon, but it's true.

If we're represented as people who just want to kill innocent animals because we're weak, sociopathic and have small penises we are going to lose.

If we are recognized as conservationists who harvest sustainable meat with a smaller carbon footprint than the average person and who protect the wild landscape and it's plant and animal inhabitants? We might have a chance.


"It will take a quantum shift in the public's attitude , and that will take many resources. Who is up for the challenge ???" Again, you've nailed what it will take and you ask the important question.

[Bugle M In]

Unfortunately ALL political parties react to emotion vs science. Its called getting re-elected. And if the polls are to be believed, and I have no reason to NOT believe them, then we as hunters will have pretty thin opportunities in coming years, and for an increasing number of species. Remember the short lived controversy when we were ordered to stop using lead shot for waterfowl? At that time I was a member of Sapperton F&G, which had a number of ardent duck hunters. They got riled up that anything but lead shot would ruin the barrels or even explode them. But I remember one old timer getting and addressing the club..... "This is a battle we cant win guys. A few more pictures of swans and geese that cant hold their heads up because of lead poisoning on the TV news and lead shot is DONE !" In a similar way , this applies to the griz hunt. IMO we lost this battle when the name "Great Bear Rain Forest" was used by the envios and local Natives. The news media picked this up and all of a sudden there were all sorts of cute kermode bears rebranded as "spirit bears" showing up on the 6 o'clock news. ( for the record the most kermodies I have seen have been at the Terrace dump!! ) So-- Great Bear Rain Forest- Spirits bears, then ..OMG -- we forgot grizzly's !!!!! Lets get them included and spin it so that the average highrise dweller in Vancouver and Surrey ( who has never , EVER seen a griz in the wild) will believe that they are endangered and are just big Disney cuddly creatures that just eat grass and berries. In a masterful campaign a few groups with media savvy have achieved that. But we, as hunters , are responsible to a degree-- Pics of a hunter with a dead bear across his lap do not help the situation. Share with your friends and fellow hunters only before they come after the black bear hunt too . And DONT post pics of 20 dead coyotes in the back of a pick-up truck... Its just ammunition that will be used against us. ( this from an old guys that has stopped hunting two years ago except with crossbow at 20 yds because he has s#itty eyesight )
So I guess the question is " Do you roll over and take it and see more hunts restricted or stopped? " Frankly-- I have seen the writing on the wall, and do not have a good feeling about what the future for hunting holds. It will take a quantum shift in the public's attitude , and that will take many resources. Who is up for the challenge ???

Agree with everything you just said there.....even the challenge part.

[Bugle M In]

"Unfortunately ALL political parties react to emotion vs science. Its called getting re-elected." Bang friggin' on.

And that observation is the reason we need to build social license. Sounds like kumbayah jargon, but it's true.

If we're represented as people who just want to kill innocent animals because we're weak, sociopathic and have small penises we are going to lose.

If we are recognized as conservationists who harvest sustainable meat with a smaller carbon footprint than the average person and who protect the wild landscape and it's plant and animal inhabitants? We might have a chance.


"It will take a quantum shift in the public's attitude , and that will take many resources. Who is up for the challenge ???" Again, you've nailed what it will take and you ask the important question.

People's attitude is hard to change.
Example, I have a neighbor who eats meat....but....absolutely hates hunting.....why....
because those animals (the ones we hunt), in her mind, are "free animals"!
That cows, chickens and pigs, are grown for humans....???!!!
I know, it doesn't make sense, and no matter how I try to get her to look at it differently, and don't forget, I am not talking to a Vegan or vegetarian, but a BC voter, and yet, it is impossible to get her to change her opinion.
Trying to change many peoples point of view is in my opinion, going to be an impossible task.
The only thing that we had as resident hunters, was that there were some political officials upholding our rights to hunt,
even if some of them had some "personal gains" in that department.
And now, you throw in Social Media, something that didn't exist back in the day, and videos out there of "hunts gone wrong" or carcasses left whole and to rot, just missing heads and hides....well....how do you correct that.
Social Media, just bombards people daily...all day...24/7.
it's all emotion based...but it works real well....
Honestly, what kind of "challenge" can we create????
How do you get someone like my neighbor to change?
Honestly, the only people that may listen and could help the most are "the politicians"....
We need them on "our side".....
And that is not going so well either anymore....

[gcreek]

Nearly a month now and no more discussion on this important issue.

Guess a lot more naughty bears will become shot.

[Trailblazer]

Is it just me?

or did we just roll over on loosing the grizzly hunt?

[bearvalley]

Is it just me?

or did we just roll over on loosing the grizzly hunt?

Let’s put it this way.....if any form of a grizzly hunt is salvaged out of this mess it will not be due to the efforts of the BCWF.

[Salty]

Let’s put it this way.....if any form of a grizzly hunt is salvaged out of this mess it will not be due to the efforts of the BCWF.

Still bashing away with your wrecking ball eh? If you actually care about the issue try getting on board and doing something instead of just trolling and lobbing unsubstantiated insults, it will be much more productive.

[Salty]

Nearly a month now and no more discussion on this important issue.

Guess a lot more naughty bears will become shot.

There's lots of discussion and at meaningful discourse going on at levels that may actually accomplish something. But its done where it matters and might accomplish something, which unfortunately isn't here.

[bearvalley]

Still bashing away with your wrecking ball eh? If you actually care about the issue try getting on board and doing something instead of just trolling and lobbing unsubstantiated insults, it will be much more productive.
Salty, I’m probably a little more in the loop on this issue than most.
Like I said before, if the grizzly hunt is salvaged it will be due to other efforts other than those of the BCWF.
That statement is not meant to be a wrecking ball..::it’s merely the truth.