BCWF- Grizzly hunt cancelled- Statement

[BCWF]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/25396139_1607163506018360_4245335518695809165_n.pn g?oh=dc76009c072ae85f406df2358855190d&oe=5AB40959



Government Moves Goal Posts on Grizzly Hunting




For Immediate Release December 18, 2017

Using post-truth era consultative techniques the B.C. government has now decided to ban grizzly bear hunting to all but First Nations hunters.

Government had said it was only going to ban the “trophy hunting of grizzly bears”, but has now changed its mind, and is banning grizzly bear hunting.

The government’s change of heart is rationalized based on feedback from its consultative process where it asked what should be done with the “grizzly bear parts.”

“This is the most disingenuous approach to forming public policy I have ever seen during my career inside and outside government,” said BC Wildlife Federation President Harvey Andrusak. “Government was very clear with the BCWF, that this consultative process was solely about what to do with grizzly “trophy parts”, and that discussion about the hunt itself was not the issue. The government deceived us."

This approach raises warning flags about government’s ability to act in good-faith. The government set the goal posts, and chose not to consult on grizzly bear hunting, and then changed its mind after consultation. This approach is undemocratic and contrary to open and transparent process.

With regards to grizzly bear hunting the BCWF expects closing the hunt will result in increased human-bear confrontations and attacks in both the front and backcountry.

The taxpayer will be responsible to manage bears over the long-run which will reduce the social value of grizzly bears.

The BCWF’s expects government to manage wildlife based on science, and that consultation is open and transparent.

In this case none of the expectations have been met; this approach does not bode well for science in the future and raises the question of why the government has biologists on staff if science is no longer the basis for managing wildlife or fish?

The Auditor General’s report on grizzly bears pointed out that their status was impacted far more by habitat loss than from any effect of hunting.
While those opposed to grizzly bear hunting may rejoice it is a sad day when emotions trump science.

Many of our members feel betrayed.





For Further Information Contact:

BCWF President Harvey Andrusak
Email: handrusak@shaw.ca
Phone:250-551-3674 (tel:(250)%20551-3674)


BCWF Director of fish and wildlife restoration program Jesse Zeman
Email: jessezeman@gmail.com
Phone:250-878-3799 (tel:(250)%20551-3674)

BCWF Director of Strategic Initiatives Al Martin
Email: alan.martin1710@gmail.com
Phone:250-480-9694 (tel:(250)%20551-3674)


BCWF Communications
Tel: (604) 882-9988 ext. 231 (tel:(604)%20882-9988)
Cell: (604) 886-2614 (tel:(604)%20886-2614)
communications@bcwf.bc.ca

[Weatherby Fan]

Wow just wow, between Trudeau and the Provincial NDP-Greens we’re getting it from both ends.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Wow just wow, between Trudeau and the Provincial NDP-Greens we’re getting from both ends.

Gotta agree with this. Dark times for sure.

[ACE]

Hoping that the Horgan/Weaver 'treacherous duo' will wait until the Christmas season is over before terminating the employment of their/our bear biologists.
No need for 'science based' wildlife decisions anymore ....

[Taylor329]

Disappointed in this outcome, but I can't say I'm surprised...

[Wild one]

And just think boys and girls they are just getting started

[Salty]

Well said Harvey Andrusak I'm glad you pointed out the deceit in the manner this "review" et al was handled. You'd think we'd be progressive and use the best science available in this day and age on such an important issue, but apparently science means nothing this government.

[New Bow Hunter]

Tired of taking it dry.

[waistdeep]

NDP pissed off the Greens on Site C, and threw them a bone to stay friends...sad

and we voted them in

[ElectricDyck]

Should be of no surprise to anyone... anybody that supported NDP or voted for them is to blame... what have the NDP ever done well? Good for the Liberals sticking to their science-based management in this Facebook Twitter feel good political environment...

[dougan]

NDP pissed off the Greens on Site C, and threw them a bone to stay friends...sad

and we voted them in maybe you did but not me my friend

[Rackmastr]

and we voted them in

No, we didn't. We all voted for who we voted for. And I certainly did not vote for a coalition of the NDP and the Greens.

[limit time]

I don’t blame the NDP or Greens, I blame all you people that voted for them.

[limit time]

No, we didn't. We all voted for who we voted for. And I certainly did not vote for a coalition of the NDP and the Greens.

And I certainly didn’t vote for either of them.

[cpwrestler]

I'd like to see an access to information request for the emails. They claim 78% were opposed to hunting the bears, but how can they make that claim when that wasn't even the topic they were investigating?

[ElectricDyck]

No point in looking into anything..it was a forgone decision,they did it before, now they ve done it again, big surprise! Its just an easy way to please their voters and take the spot light off site c.

If people were properly educated on science based wild life management I bet hunting would have the approval of the majority. The rest of people are just not capable of reasoning and prefer to get the food at the store where no animals suffer and protest oil in their plastic kayaks lol

[Asco]

I wrote them a nice letter on the scientifically based merits of managing hunting and the problems with not managing the bears based on facts.

They sent me me a nice letter back. Then screwed us all dry this morning. Ouch.

[elknut]

As has been said ...The NDP have halted Grizzly bear hunting before and have done it again..It never was about Science...Its about Emotion..Hopefully if we ever get another Liberal Govt in BC we can reverse the no hunting and again go by science...250 bears are killed out of a population of 15000..That is 1.66 percent of the population being killed..All I have to say is we are in trouble with future Govts policies...Hunting could be really targeted down the road ..And that road is a short one........I HOPE NOT.!!!!....Dennis

[markomoose]

OK let us throw it back at the government and say any person who is mauled by a grizzly has the right to sue the government!!That Joe Foy ***hole gets way to much air time on T.V.Sorry completely pissed at the wingnuts running our Province!Never VOTED for them and never will.Destroy the place we call home every time.When will people learn??

[tuner]

If a government deems a species to fragile to withstand a hunt that science has for decades deemed sustainable,
then this same species should not be harrased and tormented in the name of commerce(ecotourism)
for the amusement of paying customers! If you can't hunt it, you shouldn't be able to harass it!

[Ourea]

I'd like to see an access to information request for the emails. They claim 78% were opposed to hunting the bears, but how can they make that claim when that wasn't even the topic they were investigating?

Do a survey on GB hunting at a Starbucks at Robson St vs one done in Fort Nelson.
Pretty much create the data you want.

Reality is that wildlife surveys by the left is only done in urban centers where the results and opinions are guaranteed to support their social and moral agenda.

[finaddict]

Do a survey on GB hunting at a Starbucks at Robson St vs one done in Fort Nelson.
Pretty much create the data you want.

Reality is that wildlife surveys by the left is only done in urban centers where the results and opinions are guaranteed to support their social and moral agenda.VERY well said

[Bugle M In]

Funny thing is...or not so funny...
Wonder how the "opposistion party" will respond to this in the Parliament????
Will they bash the NDP with questions...just like many have brought forward about the "validity" of those
emails questionares etc....or....
will the opposistion be "to afraid" to lose voters themselves???...and not question it?
(especially if the new format on voting succeeds)
Has the oppsisition come out with any "formal opinion themselves"???
(especially if the new format on voting succeeds)

Just like the pipeline debate here in BC....
"do most people know that we already have a pipeline running here...basically...the new one will run right alongside the old one"...
Has it been that bad??? it's been here for a very long time already.
Most people really have no clue, nor does the media help inform them to come to "their own" conclusion.
Like it was said....depends who you ask and where they live...

Any chance BCWF may want to "lower their membership fees"....just to help recruit more supporters...
(yes I know, I still feel we need a group that represents "resident hunters"...not just wildlife...but since there isn't
any really anything working out, and BCWF can't change the way they are "structured")
they still are the best we've got at this time....lets face it...they/we are all apart of the hunting fraternity.

[waistdeep]

My comment “WE” is solely based on the number of votes recorded by the voting population. And then some folks voted Green. Those two parties hold the cards, BC residents brought them to this place.

Serious bummer for my grandchildren. :(

[HarryToolips]

Do a survey on GB hunting at a Starbucks at Robson St vs one done in Fort Nelson.
Pretty much create the data you want.

Reality is that wildlife surveys by the left is only done in urban centers where the results and opinions are guaranteed to support their social and moral agenda.
Yup, they will always cater to the majority which are city slickers....good response btw BCWF..

[Stone Sheep Steve]

I'd like to see an access to information request for the emails. They claim 78% were opposed to hunting the bears, but how can they make that claim when that wasn't even the topic they were investigating?

I spent some time on the antis FB pages and they were pushing their followers hard to write letters.

My guess is the vast majority of responders don't live in BC, don't pay taxes in BC and don't vote in BC.

SSS

[Red_Mist]

That sounds like a forgein funded NGO influencing government policy ....

[Big Lew]

I was at the Protest on the Victoria Parliament grounds. Weaver stood up there and
implied he was sensitive to hunter's concerns and stood behind us...he's a very good
example why so many people don't trust politicians. I can't stand, and don't have any
respect for someone that will say anything to persuade voters to vote for them, especially
when they know full well they're either telling lies or have no intention of following through
with their commitments. In the old days such a two faced individual would be tarred, feathered,
and rode out on a rail!

[ElectricDyck]

All Weaver cares about is proportianal representation..without that he will never get enough votes to have any power....and if that does go through i dont think hunting will fair well....not that it matters anyway when we the politicians give our crown land away to non canadians who have more rights than the canadians..

[Walking Buffalo]

I'd like to see an access to information request for the emails. They claim 78% were opposed to hunting the bears, but how can they make that claim when that wasn't even the topic they were investigating?

There is a lot of power in having that information.

The gov is playing a social licence card. Being able to discredit their claims would be invaluable in influencing the vast majority of BC residents, those that don't really care one way or another if G Bears can be hunted.

I've played this same game in Alberta on another hunting issue. Having the data was the critical element in forcing the government's hand to back off.


A formal information request is not hard, but is best done by someone with experience in order to avoid the traps.

Will anyone follow through?

[Bugle M In]

Heyman better never come knock at my door next time around....
I will be left with no other option then to explain to the cops "I was defending myself in the name of self protection"!
Sure...they will ask "so, why did you have to do it"???
I just tell them....
I thought Heyman was back to "sodomize me again" and didn't want to get "F*****D in the Ass a 2nd time"!

[Wild one]

NDP pissed off the Greens on Site C, and threw them a bone to stay friends...sad

and we voted them in

Not me I am not taking blame for this

[David]

I wrote them a nice letter on the scientifically based merits of managing hunting and the problems with not managing the bears based on facts.

They sent me me a nice letter back. Then screwed us all dry this morning. Ouch.

Can you DM me the letter? I met with my MLA on Friday, and while I don't expect that she knew of the decision I am absolutely going to follow-up with her on how this sort of non-scientific decision making was exactly what I was talking about.

[Ride Red]

I’ve seen the anti groups on tv, why not any BCWF reps?

[bearvalley]

I’ve seen the anti groups on tv, why not any BCWF reps?

Camera shy....?

[Whonnock Boy]

That's kind of funny. While there is some merit in having a resident hunter representative speaking out on televised media, the last person who should be shedding a tear for the camera is Scott Ellis.


Camera shy....?

[bearvalley]

That's kind of funny. While there is some merit in having a resident hunter representative speaking out on televised media, the last person who should be shedding a tear for the camera is Scott Ellis.

You think Scott will be tearing up because we just lost the privilege to hunt them or because he can no longer eat one?

[Island Idiots]

Thanks BCWF for making a statement RE: Grizzly Hunt Cancelled.
Thanks to all who contact their MLA's and complain.

That's all well and good. What will have an impact is political action. Guides, their families, and hunters and their families, on the lawn of the leg, or at their MLA offices, but something involving speakers, and bodies, in their faces. The fight isn't for a return of the Grizzly hunt, the fight is for a return to accepted Wildlife Management practices and methodology, including SCIENCE, and not decision making using popular vote.

If every wildlife affiliate to BCWF, and every association, club, in this province and their members got organized, they could create a BIG scene at the Leg, and individual protests at MLA's offices. The Fed could stay within their mandate, and we could do the dirty work that needs doing. The challenge is that those affected by this poor decision and policy don't have a lot of experience being political activists.
Political activism is how we got here. The greens and the vegetarian tree huggers got their message out, we haven't yet.

[Ride Red]

Thanks BCWF for making a statement RE: Grizzly Hunt Cancelled.
Thanks to all who contact their MLA's and complain.

That's all well and good. What will have an impact is political action. Guides, their families, and hunters and their families, on the lawn of the leg, or at their MLA offices, but something involving speakers, and bodies, in their faces. The fight isn't for a return of the Grizzly hunt, the fight is for a return to accepted Wildlife Management practices and methodology, including SCIENCE, and not decision making using popular vote.

If every wildlife affiliate to BCWF, and every association, club, in this province and their members got organized, they could create a BIG scene at the Leg, and individual protests at MLA's offices. The Fed could stay within their mandate, and we could do the dirty work that needs doing. The challenge is that those affected by this poor decision and policy don't have a lot of experience being political activists.
Political activism is how we got here. The greens and the vegetarian tree huggers got their message out, we haven't yet.

We've had rallies at Victoria and Kelowna regarding allocation with only a very small portion of the hunting community showing up. The excuses were, too far to go, couldn't afford it, didn't want to take a day off ect. So from what I've seen so far, good luck getting enough people organized.

[huntcoop]

I'm just happy that the Grizz population has been saved and the Indians can still hunt them. Warms my heart that they can still kill them for food, social, or ceremonial purposes :roll:

[Whonnock Boy]

While my point is valid, yours is completely irrelevant.


You think Scott will be tearing up because we just lost the privilege to hunt them or because he can no longer eat one?

[bearvalley]

While my point is valid, yours is completely irrelevant.

Irrevelant or not, the bottom line is that the 2 man dictatorship that is currently running the Fed sold out the grizzly hunt.
I wonder what bone got promised to be thrown their way?
They should ask for a bigger chunk of meat to get left on it due to the entire hunt being cancelled instead of it going to meat only.

[limit time]

I’ve seen the anti groups on tv, why not any BCWF reps?
Not even a peep on wild TV ! ( yes I watch it)

[Rob Chipman]

Bearvalley wrote:

"the bottom line is that the 2 man dictatorship that is currently running the Fed sold out the grizzly hunt.
I wonder what bone got promised to be thrown their way?"

Strong charge, and without some back up it's an unseemly one. Like a lot of us on this forum, I'm involved in trying to improve conservation in BC and in doing so I think I'm in alignment with the BCWF. I'm concerned that a) I may be misreading the BCWF (especially if there is a 2 man dictatorship selling out things for some sort of quid pro quo) or b) that I'm not misreading the BCWF and people (read "you") are making unfair allegations.

1) Who are the 2 people who are dictators?


2) How was the hunt something for them to sell out? (I can't see the math on that, frankly, as I'm one of those who was pretty confident that the trophy ban would turn into a complete ban).

3) How do you think this bone that was promised works? Are you saying they didn't fight hard enough because they were bought off, or are you saying they were outplayed? (Two very different things).

[Whonnock Boy]

I no longer feel the need to defend the BCWF, however, I would wager that the current administration values democracy and respects their peers far more than their predecessors.

Edit: Interested in hearing the answers to Mr. Chipman's questions as well.
Edit 2: For what it's worth, Mr. Zeman did an interview for CTV yesterday.



Irrevelant or not, the bottom line is that the 2 man dictatorship that is currently running the Fed sold out the grizzly hunt.
I wonder what bone got promised to be thrown their way?
They should ask for a bigger chunk of meat to get left on it due to the entire hunt being cancelled instead of it going to meat only.

[coldbuc69]

British Columbians Support Ban on All Grizzly Bear HuntingOctober 3rd, 2017

https://insightswest.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PR-Image-Grizzly-Bear-614x279.jpgNine-in-ten welcome the provincial government’s decision to ban trophy hunting of grizzlies in the province.
Vancouver, BC – Three-in-four British Columbians believe no grizzly bears should be hunted in the province, a new poll by Insights West conducted in partnership with Lush Fresh Handmade Cosmetics and the Commercial Bear Viewing Association has found.
In the online survey of a representative provincial sample, 74% of British Columbians are in favour of banning all grizzly bear hunting in the province, while 19% are opposed.
The highest level of support for banning all hunting of grizzly bears in British Columbia is observed among women (78%), residents aged 35-to-54 (79%), Vancouver Islanders (81%), BC New Democratic Party (NDP) and BC Green Party voters in the 2017 provincial election (81% for each) and non-hunters (75%).
In addition, almost three-in-five self-described hunters (58%) are in favour of banning all grizzly bear hunting in British Columbia.
https://insightswest.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/TrophyHunt2017_Graphic.png (https://insightswest.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/TrophyHunt2017_Graphic.png)
The Government of British Columbia recently banned trophy hunting of grizzly bears in the province. This decision is backed by almost nine-in-ten British Columbians (88%), including 69% who “strongly” support it.
The survey was conducted at the end of August, two weeks after the government’s announcement. The decision allows a residential hunt to continue.
“Our polling (https://insightswest.com/news/british-columbians-and-albertans-condemn-trophy-hunting/) has shown that British Columbians have consistently been opposed to trophy hunting, so the level of support for the government’s decision is not surprising,” says Mario Canseco, Vice President, Public Affairs, at Insights West. “Still, with so many residents who believe grizzlies should not be hunted at all, there is definitely appetite for more action.”
“With such strong results from British Columbians, we believe that the government can go further and ban all hunting of grizzly bears across the province,” says Tricia Stevens, Charitable Giving Manager at Lush Cosmetics. “Scientists, bear viewing operators, conservationists and now even hunters are agreeing it’s time to protect this iconic species for once and for all.”
“The government has taken a good first step, but this poll reiterates the fact that the vast majority of British Columbians want to see an end to all hunting of grizzly bears, whether for trophies or meat,” says Julius Strauss of the Commercial Bear Viewing Association’s Political Committee and owner of Grizzly Bear Ranch. “It’s time to respect that wish. Some worry that such a ban will cost BC money, but the reality is that bear-viewing is worth far more to the province than grizzly hunting.”
Across the province, 11% of residents describe themselves as hunters. The animals that have been hunted the most are deer (65%), moose (51%) and elk (30%).
About Insights West:
Insights West is a progressive, Western-based, full-service marketing research company. It exists to serve the market with insights-driven research solutions and interpretive analysis through leading-edge tools, normative databases, and senior-level expertise across a broad range of public and private sector organizations. Insights West is based in Vancouver and Calgary.
About this Release:
Results are based on an online study conducted from August 27 to August 30, 2017, among 817 adult residents of British Columbia. The data has been statistically weighted according to Canadian census figures for age, gender and region in British Columbia. The margin of error—which measures sample variability—is +/- 3.5 percentage points, nineteen times out of twenty. View the detailed data tabulations (https://insightswest.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/TrophyHunt2017_Tables.pdf).
If this is the poll that Our NDP Government used, then the BCWF and Liberal Government need to be asking Questions. How is it that the views of 817 people be the views of the whole Province. The poll should only include people that live in Bear country in my opinion. Why should only Vancouver Island, NDP and Green Party views be counted.

[Walking Buffalo]

"In addition, almost three-in-five self-described hunters (58%) are in favour of banning all grizzly bear hunting in British Columbia."


This is the latest trend in social media/polling strategy.

Pretend to be part of the group you are trying to dictate to.

Kind of like we see on HBC. ;)

[The Hermit]

So BearValley tell us about your organization... didn't you guys split off from GOABC and join forces with the coastal FN's and agree to the ban?

[Whonnock Boy]

No, I don't know who you are speaking of. I could assume but...

Again, I no longer feel the need to defend the BCWF.


Rob, is trading the G-bear hunt worth possibly getting some form of funding model and the allocation issue reopened?


Troy, you know exactly whom I’m talking about, we’ll leave it at that due to the fact that some within the BCWF are prone to lawsuits.
I think every member of the Fed should be questioning exactly what the hell went on within that organization.
No member based body goes thru executive and staff like they have done.
Is everyone that walked out the BCWF door to be tainted as toxic...or is the problem still in the room?

[bearvalley]

So BearValley tell us about your organization... didn't you guys split off from GOABC and join forces with the coastal FN's and agree to the ban?
No the WSC did not agree to the ban.

[huntaholic]

On a side note. We are our own worst enemy. Extremely weak govt pole response did not help our situation at all. The infighting within our own resident hunting community shows everyone how weak we truly are. Let's not even talk about guide vs resident issues. Until we start working together 100% on issues like this we will continue to take these kinds of hits.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

"In addition, almost three-in-five self-described hunters (58%) are in favour of banning all grizzly bear hunting in British Columbia."


This is the latest trend in social media/polling strategy.

Pretend to be part of the group you are trying to dictate to.

Kind of like we see on HBC. ;)





That's what Trump would call a 'fake poll'.

Ambush conducted one on here a couple years ago and ~96% of respondents supported the hunt.
The Dawg conducted a similar poll on the BC hunting and fishing page on FB and the results were 98% support.

No no one has been able to find a single hunter that was polled on the Insights West poll. That's why we doubted their results....and for good reason.

SSS

[Islander30]

We've had rallies at Victoria and Kelowna regarding allocation with only a very small portion of the hunting community showing up. The excuses were, too far to go, couldn't afford it, didn't want to take a day off ect. So from what I've seen so far, good luck getting enough people organized.

Aren't socia media campains more of a powerfull tool today anyways.....the so called enviromentilist and antis, a lot of them dont work and can camp out for however long it takes....pruductive members of society with families and mortgages may be able to fight better from their homes through the internet than they can on the lawn of the legislature

Wouldnt bombarding social media with educational campaigns and skewed poles of our own that asked questions like " would you support a return of grizzly hunts in certain areas if it was made law that all parts of the grizzly must be used(meaning skull and hide be kept by hunter) and the meat be proccessed and if not wanted by the hunter then be given to charities who help feed victims of abuse or to the SPCA to feed the starving abonded pets that are dying every day ! Then send the poles out to mostly hunters and they can self proclaim to be non-hunters....then post the results all over social media ....fight fire with fire....I don't really know though ? Its all new to me, Im a relativly new hunter myself and just trying to figure how I can help save this right for my son as well

[Rob Chipman]

"Rob, is trading the G-bear hunt worth possibly getting some form of funding model and the allocation issue reopened?"

I'd say no, for a whole raft of reasons. However, I'm not sure that the BCWF had a G-bear hunt to trade, and I'm not sure the current government is going to give any sort of funding model. I don't know enough to comment intelligently about re-opening the allocation issue.

If I understand you correctly you seem to think that the BCWF has a lot of pull. I can't see that they do. They're an organization struggling to get their act together, for starters. They've got a great history, they've got a good membership list, they've got some good hard assets on the ground and they've undoubtedly got some good people working inside the organization, but....


They have a very difficult time influencing the general public. You can certainly throw rocks at Jesse if you like. I won't. He answers the bell and I think he's done some great work. However, if you compare BCWF to groups like the Grizzly Bear Foundation, Raincoast, Dogwood, etc, you'll have to agree that BCWF misses a hell of a good game. I don't think you can blame that on Jesse. Still, the BCWF has to either up it's game as far as influencing public opinion goes or we need another group to step up and do it.

They have a tough time defining themselves in public and are instead defined by the opposition as the advocates for hunters rather than as the voice of conservation in BC(I don't think the BCWF thinks of itself as an advocate for hunters - maybe I'm wrong).

In other words, I'm getting a feeling from you that the GreeNDP somehow needed BCWF to play ball to cancel the hunt. That seems delusional to me. Killing the hunt cements some votes in some very close ridings in a province where no party was able to win a clear victory. It's low hanging, low cost fruit that's just too easy to pick. I mean, seriously, if the NDP listened intently to the BCWF and took it's input into consideration do you think they'd get Fisher-Dude's vote nest time out? The math looks really simple to me.

As a result I have a hard time thinking the BCWF sold anyone out, because I don't think they had anything to sell. If your argument is based on the suspicion that they went along to go along and will get a funding model and the allocation issue re-opened my reaction is to ask: are you a betting man? 'Cause the last thing this government is going to do is fund conservation, and I'll bet you a substantial sum that I'm right.

If the 2 man dictatorship is Jesse and Al Martin, as some indicate, I have to ask: what about the rest of the directors? Are you saying that they're rolling over? If so I expect you to realize that you're condemning them as much as you are the two dictators (and from that POV it doesn't mater who the two dictators are).

I've spoken briefly to Harvey Andrusak - I had lunch with him - and he strikes me as a very good man. I don't think he deserves much criticism. Same with Jesse. I know him and think he's a solid man. I don't know Al Martin at all aside from a brief chat at one of the Townhalls.

Anyway, I think we agree that we need science, funding and social license. I think we also need to figure out if we're going to try to fight over hunter's rights (good luck with that) or if we're going to start talking about being conservationists and proving that hunting is critical to conservation.

You may not be aware, but there's talk on Twitter tonight that the G-Bear hunt put ZERO dollars back into conservation.

Try countering that effectively, because it has legs.

[GoatGuy]

They made ZERO attempts to change the minds of the politicians who made these decisions. A couple meetings with low level beaurocrats. Nice Effort!

Hi Mike,

I will quickly reply to this part of your post.

Specifically on the grizzly hunt issue I met with 3 Ministers, 5 opposition MLAs, and had other BCWF supporters meet with the Premier and a couple others meet their MLAs. Also had meetings with senior political staff and high level bureaucrats across other Ministries. The grizzly bear hunt was on the list each time - we were told each time the hunt would continue. Obviously we were lied to.

On a side note, I haven't seen any of your letters to your MLA (saw a pile from other hunters), results of your meetings, letters to the editor, didn't see you at grizzly foundation and doubt you've done any interviews. If you feel like fielding a few death threats I will be sure to send the emails I have received your way.

Personally not a big fan of liars, or people making assumptions about what others are doing, whether it's about grizzly bear hunting or otherwise. If you want to know what others are doing you can usually find something on google.

I just quickly checked your name for news or your contribution and oddly enough it didn't turn up once.

As for the rest of it, not interested in commenting on legal and ethical issues - best left for lawyers.

[eric]

Just goes to show, can't believe everything ya hear.^^^^^..
Thanks Goatguy...

[bearvalley]

Just goes to show, can't believe everything ya hear.^^^^^..


You sure can’t.

[GoatGuy]

I see bearvalley has posted on this thread a number of times as well. Blocked him on here this spring so can't see what he's writing (enough children to deal with already).

Also checked his name and grizzly bear hunting on google:

https://www.google.ca/search?ei=2qg9Wvf0NYXGjwPtsKGIAg&q=mike+gilson+grizzly+bear+hunting&oq=mike+gilson+grizzly+bear+hunting&gs_l=psy-ab.3...144981519.144986125.0.144986345.32.26.0.1.1 .0.258.2594.9j9j3.21.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..10.20.2379...0j0i67k1j0i131i67k1j0i131k1j0i10k 1j0i22i30k1j33i21k1j33i160k1.0.OXC-31DiKtk

No surprise, didn't find anything about grizzly bear hunting, hunting, other than selling hunts.


Also google his name and wildlife management:

https://www.google.ca/search?biw=1366&bih=662&ei=7-A_WqCtLZDIjwOPqYeACQ&q=mike+gilson+wildlife+management&oq=mike+gilson+wildlife+management&gs_l=psy-ab.3...13554.16958.0.17104.33.26.0.0.0.0.151.2498. 16j10.26.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..10.22.2188...0j35i39k1j0i22i30k1j33i21k1j33i16 0k1.0.K_kTG_9U2lg

Turned up one hit on complaints about elk on his land. I recall an article about wolf predation on his cattle at one point but it didn't turn up.


Seems to be a trend on HBC with people posting and making inferences about what everyone else is doing or not doing. Interesting part is they don't appear to be doing anything themselves.


Guess it's part of life online. Always easier to sit in the bleachers and throw beer at the people trying to drive change then it is to get involved.

[GoatGuy]

One closing note.

Hunting, hunters and wildlife need help in a huge way.

This has been a long time coming.

There are going to be people who complain about what everyone else is doing, lament about the past, and do nothing; there will be people who get involved, meet with their MLAs, write letters to the editor, to the politicians and engage the public.

One of those people will help the cause, the other will hurt it.

[Wild one]

Simply put NO ONE has achieved results on protecting this hunt

So it does not matter who’s on record talking and getting no results or who is not.

Right now all failed not matter how much back patting is going on

Another that seems to be forgotten not everyone’s efforts are public knowledge. So unless you are following someone around every hour of the day you can’t speak about what one does


Sitting around bragging who put in more failed effort accomplishs nothing. Good intentions are great but they mean nothing without results

[bearvalley]

I see bearvalley has posted on this thread a number of times as well. Blocked him on here this spring so can't see what he's writing (enough children to deal with already).

Also checked his name and grizzly bear hunting on google:

https://www.google.ca/search?ei=2qg9Wvf0NYXGjwPtsKGIAg&q=mike+gilson+grizzly+bear+hunting&oq=mike+gilson+grizzly+bear+hunting&gs_l=psy-ab.3...144981519.144986125.0.144986345.32.26.0.1.1 .0.258.2594.9j9j3.21.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..10.20.2379...0j0i67k1j0i131i67k1j0i131k1j0i10k 1j0i22i30k1j33i21k1j33i160k1.0.OXC-31DiKtk

No surprise, didn't find anything about grizzly bear hunting, hunting, other than selling hunts.


Also google his name and wildlife management:

https://www.google.ca/search?biw=1366&bih=662&ei=7-A_WqCtLZDIjwOPqYeACQ&q=mike+gilson+wildlife+management&oq=mike+gilson+wildlife+management&gs_l=psy-ab.3...13554.16958.0.17104.33.26.0.0.0.0.151.2498. 16j10.26.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..10.22.2188...0j35i39k1j0i22i30k1j33i21k1j33i16 0k1.0.K_kTG_9U2lg

Turned up one hit on complaints about elk on his land. I recall an article about wolf predation on his cattle at one point but it didn't turn up.


Seems to be a trend on HBC with people posting and making inferences about what everyone else is doing or not doing. Interesting part is they don't appear to be doing anything themselves.


Guess it's part of life online. Always easier to sit in the bleachers and throw beer at the people trying to drive change then it is to get involved.

Good one Jesse.....LMAO, you are a prize!

Seems to me you’re pretty hung up on being an internet Rockstar....some of us don’t lean that way.

Maybe I should take it up a notch and start listing your family friends, personal bureaucratical connections and buddies along with some of the other crap you’ve pulled off in the line of back door deals....or maybe that’s better to be taken up the ladder.

You’re cut and paste technique has been real effective tho hasn’t it.

Like you’ve been told before.....no balls no results.
You know where that line came from.

You may have your personal fan club at present....so carry on stoking your ego......you’re a well paid cut & paste poster boy at $500 bucks a day.....and no I don’t want your job.

[bearvalley]

One closing note.

Hunting, hunters and wildlife need help in a huge way.

This has been a long time coming.

There are going to be people who complain about what everyone else is doing, lament about the past, and do nothing; there will be people who get involved, meet with their MLAs, write letters to the editor, to the politicians and engage the public.

One of those people will help the cause, the other will hurt it.

On a closing note hunting, hunters and wildlife is in a sink hole.

As this downward spiral has proceeded due to neglect of the resource caused by the distraction of constant infighting...be it the allocation issue and guides or the BCWF blowup and replacement of almost the entire executive and staff.....it seems a common denominator or two continues to linger in the background.

It seems to me that maybe there is a problem.........and it’s been at the table or at the back door providing input thru out this entire mess....is there an agenda......I’m wondering.

By the way Goat Guy, I’ve spoken to MLA’s and ministers on the grizzly ban and hunting issues, it’s been voiced that the resident hunter voice put forth by the Fed was weak to the point of almost non existent.
The next conversation with them will be a discussion on back room deals and the request for that meeting has been made.
Face it wildlife management is going to a new era.....your choice if you want to carry on pretending your the wildlife saint or if you want to work together.
You’ve been recognized....both on and off the internet.

[Rotorwash]

That's a good statement. I feel this is just the beginning though. Cougar wolf and black bear will be next.

Something needs needs to be done. Maybe the forming of another provincial party. Or some sort of veto power given to a group like the bcwf that can limit dangerous decisions that these clowns make. I don't see this pattern changing much like I don't see the pattern of disarming our population changing.

[Gateholio]

One closing note.

Hunting, hunters and wildlife need help in a huge way.

This has been a long time coming.

There are going to be people who complain about what everyone else is doing, lament about the past, and do nothing; there will be people who get involved, meet with their MLAs, write letters to the editor, to the politicians and engage the public.

One of those people will help the cause, the other will hurt it.


Another clear post, with no drama....wow, could we be getting somewhere?

[338win mag]

Good one Jesse.....LMAO, you are a prize!

Seems to me you’re pretty hung up on being an internet Rockstar....some of us don’t lean that way.

Maybe I should take it up a notch and start listing your family friends, personal bureaucratical connections and buddies along with some of the other crap you’ve pulled off in the line of back door deals....or maybe that’s better to be taken up the ladder.

You’re cut and paste technique has been real effective tho hasn’t it.

Like you’ve been told before.....no balls no results.
You know where that line came from.

You may have your personal fan club at present....so carry on stoking your ego......you’re a well paid cut & paste poster boy at $500 bucks a day.....and no I don’t want your job.

I'm confident in goatguy making 500 a day, and for the work these days thats not alot of money and this isn't the first time its been spoke of, my confidence is going down if someone in his position makes 200 a day.

[bearvalley]

I'm confident in goatguy making 500 a day, and for the work these days thats not alot of money and this isn't the first time its been spoke of, my confidence is going down if someone in his position makes 200 a day.

Im glad you’re confident in contributing to feed the division of both wildlife stakeholder organizations and the BCWF, the organization that is so sacred to many on here.
Have a Merry Christmas....I’m not gonna spoil my day thinking about Goat.

[BgBlkDg]

As a resident, conservationist (volunteer) of some 56 years, former worker in resource management and BC-born citizen, I consider myself a "stakeholder" and MUCH more so than some foreigner who can afford to buy and "own" a GO concession or any other aspect of BC's resources.

So, I do not see the BCWF, as being in any sense "separate" from "wildlife stakeholder organizations" and consider the current president to be the best in many years. I knew Harvey, well in Nelson, while he was with BCF&W, he is as ornery as I am and you are, Mike, but, sincere and honest.

I had many an animated beer parlour discussion with him and staff members concerning divers issues back then and was/am glad to see him where he can do some real good.

So, Merry Christmas, ya sassy young fella, I always enjoy your comments! :)

[Wild one]

As a resident, conservationist (volunteer) of some 56 years, former worker in resource management and BC-born citizen, I consider myself a "stakeholder" and MUCH more so than some foreigner who can afford to buy and "own" a GO concession or any other aspect of BC's resources.

So, I do not see the BCWF, as being in any sense "separate" from "wildlife stakeholder organizations" and consider the current president to be the best in many years. I knew Harvey, well in Nelson, while he was with BCF&W, he is as ornery as I am and you are, Mike, but, sincere and honest.

I had many an animated beer parlour discussion with him and staff members concerning divers issues back then and was/am glad to see him where he can do some real good.

So, Merry Christmas, ya sassy young fella, I always enjoy your comments! :)


Appreciate the time you have volunteered over the years but the path we have been on is not achieving results

The attitude of RH against GOs has done nothing for wildlife or RHs so why continue wasting effort on fighting nothing?

I know your as stubborn as I am so won’t spend much effort trying to change your views

Will only say maybe it’s time to consider that the effort in battles that never end could be a lot more useful focused on other issues. But I know you will only change your mind if you choose

[Gateholio]

I'm confident in goatguy making 500 a day, and for the work these days thats not alot of money and this isn't the first time its been spoke of, my confidence is going down if someone in his position makes 200 a day.

There is a long history of volunteerism within both F&G and Pro Firearms organizations, and volunteer work is absolutely required. However the reliance on volunteers can also be crippling.

Every other organization involved has paid representatives, and it's great that Canadian hunters and shooters are finally figuring out that having paid representatives is a successful plan. Look at how effective the NRA in the USA is. Thier reps job is the NRA, and they work at furthering thier interests. Like you say- get the right people, pay them fairly and move forward with confidence.

Attempting to portray this as a negative thing seems to be grasping at straws.

[338win mag]

Im glad you’re confident in contributing to feed the division of both wildlife stakeholder organizations and the BCWF, the organization that is so sacred to many on here.
Have a Merry Christmas....I’m not gonna spoil my day thinking about Goat.
This doesn't sound unifying^^^^

After some reading from other threads I think there is already cozy relationships developed between FN and the guiding industry, am I understanding this right? also I'm wondering how resident hunters fit into this relationship.
I'm also wondering how these differing entities with self serving ideologies are going to benefit one another?
I understand everyone wants more animals on the ground, but to what end?
Just trying to make an informed decision.

[bearvalley]

This doesn't sound unifying^^^^

After some reading from other threads I think there is already cozy relationships developed between FN and the guiding industry, am I understanding this right? also I'm wondering how resident hunters fit into this relationship.
I'm also wondering how these differing entities with self serving ideologies are going to benefit one another?
I understand everyone wants more animals on the ground, but to what end?
Just trying to make an informed decision.

Some FN’s are working with like minded others to move out of the ditch on wildlife issues.
Some guides are FN’s.
I don’t know that I would call it “developing a cozy relationship” just because a group of people can identify problems and try to put co-effort into fixing them.
Resident hunter representation is part of the solution seeking team in the groups I’m involved in.....the only difference is that the BCWF has been recognized as representing only a portion of resident hunters, therefor they are not the only resident hunter voice being listened to.
The old BCWF mantra of “maximum oppurtunity for resident hunters” has contributed greatly to collapsed wildlife, even if some want to carry on with the old speil that hunting doesn’t lower wildlife populations. Maybe it doesn’t on its own but it contributes to the downward spiral if other negatives come into play as well.
More animals on the landscape is a benifit to all, whether you eat them or look at them....that’s the part I think everyone gets.
As to the self serving ideologies benefitting one another......I don’t have all the answers but I do know some of the crap pulled off in past has been straight divisive manipulation....everyone should be pissed off....resident hunters, guides and FN’s alike.

[bearvalley]

Im glad you’re confident in contributing to feed the division of both wildlife stakeholder organizations and the BCWF, the organization that is so sacred to many on here.
Have a Merry Christmas....I’m not gonna spoil my day thinking about Goat.


As a resident, conservationist (volunteer) of some 56 years, former worker in resource management and BC-born citizen, I consider myself a "stakeholder" and MUCH more so than some foreigner who can afford to buy and "own" a GO concession or any other aspect of BC's resources.

So, I do not see the BCWF, as being in any sense "separate" from "wildlife stakeholder organizations" and consider the current president to be the best in many years. I knew Harvey, well in Nelson, while he was with BCF&W, he is as ornery as I am and you are, Mike, but, sincere and honest.

I had many an animated beer parlour discussion with him and staff members concerning divers issues back then and was/am glad to see him where he can do some real good.

So, Merry Christmas, ya sassy young fella, I always enjoy your comments! :)

Dewey, I should have been clearer in my post.
It was meant to point out the division, chaos and drama created within the BCWF over the last few years.
Im sure Harvey means well and is probably a hell of a good guy.....but that said I don’t believe he’s driving the bus.
I hope he can right the ship....I’ve said all along that there is a purpose and place for the BCWF.

[BigfishCanada]

I am afraid that 2018 is a new ERA and we need a new kind of leader running the show, and not only a science team under the leadership but a marketing sales team is KEY. We need to sell the value of residential hunting/fishing or we will loose to the lying cheating Suzuki Antis. They are marketing a plan and all i have seen are egos representing us and as a result we are loosing. Things need to change, and working with all GLOBAL organizations will only help our message. I am tired of the idiotic responses we have been doing for the past decade and it needs to change or say good night.

[Wild one]

I am afraid that 2018 is a new ERA and we need a new kind of leader running the show, and not only a science team under the leadership but a marketing sales team is KEY. We need to sell the value of residential hunting/fishing or we will loose to the lying cheating Suzuki Antis. They are marketing a plan and all i have seen are egos representing us and as a result we are loosing. Things need to change, and working with all GLOBAL organizations will only help our message. I am tired of the idiotic responses we have been doing for the past decade and it needs to change or say good night.

Marketing is not the word I would use but instead educating the general public so they can hear more then just the anti side

I also agree BC hunters need to start embracing the global hunting organizations. They are there to protect hunters rights and opportunity for all hunters. I have seen trash talk against SCI on this forum but reality is they have done a lot for hunters on a global level and have more backing/funding in the big picture of hunting. Antis are supported on a global level BC hunters should be doing the same

This does not mean you can’t support your local organization

[bearvalley]

SCI & the WSF are huge supporters of both our hunting heritage and healthy wildlife.
It was pretty pathetic when SCI took a trashing on here for their efforts in maintaining the grizzly hunt.
The uneducated, misinformed Hunter is our own worst enemy.
Psuedohunters.....maybe?

[325]

SCI & the WSF are huge supporters of both our hunting heritage and healthy wildlife.
It was pretty pathetic when SCI took a trashing on here for their efforts in maintaining the grizzly hunt.
The uneducated, misinformed Hunter is our own worst enemy.
Psuedohunters.....maybe?

Definitely a few pseudohunters here

[Ourea]

Bearvalley, what I find ironic is a very outspoken outfitter stated repeatedly how he would "crush any attempt at a funding model"for wildlife. He is bright enough to see that his political influence would be lost under the proposed model.

He is now spinning it saying it has been his goal for over a decade and trying to partner with FN to make sure he(they) are in the front seat of the bus. Always playing the cards with no moral compass.

I find this type of flipcoat behavior very concerning.
I would never partner with anyone or organization that only puts their interests first, and at any cost.

[horshur]

Gotta agree with this. Dark times for sure.

The Witch is gone...how's that working for you all? Organized hunter group cuts of their nose to spite its face.

[Lionhill]

From this "so-called" poll by InSights West.

About this Release:
Results are based on an online study conducted from August 27 to August 30, 2017, among 817 adult residents of British Columbia. The data has been statistically weighted according to Canadian census figures for age, gender and region in British Columbia. The margin of error—which measures sample variability—is +/- 3.5 percentage points, nineteen times out of twenty. View the detailed data tabulations (https://insightswest.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/TrophyHunt2017_Tables.pdf).
For further information, please contact:
Tricia Stevens
Charitable Giving and Ethical Campaigns Manager, Lush Fresh Handmade Cosmetics
604-418-4787
tricia@lush.com
Julius Strauss
Political Committee, Commercial Bear Viewing Association
250-505-4166
julius@grizzlybearranch.ca
Mario Canseco
Vice President, Public Affairs, Insights West
778-929-0490
mariocanseco@insightswest.com

POLL taken when 98% of active people were outside enjoying summer, 918 respondents, for which the poll does not state how random the calls were - meaning that the phone list may have been supplied by the poll buyer. Lastly, look at the contacts via the "Commercial Bear Viewing Association" - which seems to be a freshly minted org - just for this purpose.

from whois:


Domain name: bearviewing.ca
Domain status: registered
Creation date: 2003/01/11
Expiry date: 2020/01/11
Updated date: 2016/06/28
DNSSEC: Unsigned

Registrar:
Name: Go Daddy Domains Canada, Inc
Number: 2316042

Name servers:
ns1.khamiahosting.com
ns2.khamiahosting.com
ns3.khamiahosting.com
ns4.khamiahosting.com

% WHOIS look-up made at 2017-12-26 20:01:23 (GMT)
%
% Use of CIRA's WHOIS service is governed by the Terms of Use in its Legal
% Notice, available at http://www.cira.ca/legal-notice/?lang=en
%
% (c) 2017 Canadian Internet Registration Authority, (http://www.cira.ca/)






Popular



bearviewing.cc
$29.99


BUY SELECTED





Lifestyles and Relationships



No Results Found





Marketing and Sales



bearviewing.direct
$29.99



bearviewing.market
$29.99



bearviewing.social
$29.99


BUY SELECTED




Trades and Construction



bearviewing.contractors
$29.99



bearviewing.construction
$29.99


BUY SELECTED




Media and Music



bearviewing.graphics
$19.99



bearviewing.hiphop
$19.99



bearviewing.photography
$19.99



bearviewing.pics
$19.99



bearviewing.guitars
$29.99



bearviewing.photo
$29.99



bearviewing.band
$19.99


BUY SELECTED




Businesses



bearviewing.management
$19.99



bearviewing.company
$19.99



bearviewing.associates
$29.99



bearviewing.holdings
$37.99



bearviewing.enterprises
$29.99



bearviewing.limited
$29.99


BUY SELECTED






Filters



Popular



Arts and Culture



Audio and Video



Businesses



Colors



Computers and Internet



Descriptive



Educational and Academic



Financial and Banking



Food and Drink



Fun and Unique



Geographic



Health and Fitness



Lifestyles and Relationships



Marketing and Sales



Media and Music



Organizations



Personal



Products



Professional



Real Estate



Services



Shopping



Sports and Hobbies



Trades and Construction



Travel and Tourism

[bearvalley]

Bearvalley, what I find ironic is a very outspoken outfitter stated repeatedly how he would "crush any attempt at a funding model"for wildlife. He is bright enough to see that his political influence would be lost under the proposed model.

He is now spinning it saying it has been his goal for over a decade and trying to partner with FN to make sure he(they) are in the front seat of the bus. Always playing the cards with no moral compass.

I find this type of flipcoat behavior very concerning.
I would never partner with anyone or organization that only puts their interests first, and at any cost.

Dave, never once did I say I would attempt to crush any form of funding model for wildlife.
Sorry bud but I call BS.
I do not support your framework as it’s a hand over to the antis.
Keep it straight.
As for your FN’s rhetoric....carry on.
Wish the Goat my best on your next call to him, he’s gonna need it.

[Ourea]

Dave, never once did I say I would attempt to crush any form of funding model for wildlife.
Sorry bud but I call BS.
I do not support your framework as it’s a hand over to the antis.
Keep it straight.
As for your FN’s rhetoric....carry on.
Wish the Goat my best on your next call to him, he’s gonna need it.

My comment was not directed at you.
You shouldn't have taken it as such, not how I roll.
Think you know me better than that.

I am a pick up the phone kinda guy as you are aware.

My position is wildlife first, agendas second.
I will never stray from that position.

[bearvalley]

My comment was not directed at you.
You shouldn't have taken it as such, not how I roll.
Think you know me better than that.

I am a pick up the phone kinda guy as you are aware.

My position is wildlife first, agendas second.
I will never stray from that position.

Agreed Dave, I think you mean well but are a bit misdirected.

I also know who you were pointing fingers at.

Ask the Goat who I offended last spring when my wife and I chose to have a beer with Jesse and Wilf instead of whom I believe you have singled out as an outspoken outfitter.

The choice was poor on my behalf....even poorer now that the Goats told me I’ve been on his ignore list.

Seems to me most everyone’s on his ignore list...even those who he supposedly works for.

A man on a mission.

[Ourea]

Agreed Dave, I think you mean well but are a bit misdirected.

I also know who you were pointing fingers at.

Ask the Goat who I offended last spring when my wife and I chose to have a beer with Jesse and Wilf instead of whom I believe you have singled out as an outspoken outfitter.

The choice was poor on my behalf....even poorer now that the Goats told me I’ve been on his ignore list.

Seems to me most everyone’s on his ignore list...even those who he supposedly works for.

A man on a mission.

My compass is not pointed or influenced by anyone.
I think and act on behalf of myself.
I cut my own trail and do not follow someone else's for the most part.

My opinions are formed by engaging individuals that are experts in their field.
The next phase is knowing who the players are and can help implement positive change that are not agenda driven.

You and I can disagree at times but I will never disrespect you as WE are partners in wildlife going forward.

[338win mag]

Some FN’s are working with like minded others to move out of the ditch on wildlife issues.
Some guides are FN’s.
I don’t know that I would call it “developing a cozy relationship” just because a group of people can identify problems and try to put co-effort into fixing them.
Resident hunter representation is part of the solution seeking team in the groups I’m involved in.....the only difference is that the BCWF has been recognized as representing only a portion of resident hunters, therefor they are not the only resident hunter voice being listened to.
The old BCWF mantra of “maximum oppurtunity for resident hunters” has contributed greatly to collapsed wildlife, even if some want to carry on with the old speil that hunting doesn’t lower wildlife populations. Maybe it doesn’t on its own but it contributes to the downward spiral if other negatives come into play as well.
More animals on the landscape is a benifit to all, whether you eat them or look at them....that’s the part I think everyone gets.
As to the self serving ideologies benefitting one another......I don’t have all the answers but I do know some of the crap pulled off in past has been straight divisive manipulation....everyone should be pissed off....resident hunters, guides and FN’s alike.
I think its fair to say that the BCWF represents those hunters not represented by any other entity, including the ones you are eluding to.
How are resident hunters represented through the groups which you are referring to?

[bearvalley]

I think its fair to say that the BCWF represents those hunters not represented by any other entity, including the ones you are eluding to.
How are resident hunters represented through the groups which you are referring to?

Individuals that function using their own minds tend to be more productive than organization members that have been programmed what to echo.

[scoutlt1]

Has anyone at the BCWF (or anyone else for that matter), given some consideration to taking this to the EAB?

[scoutlt1]

I'm actually quite surprised that the GOABC hasn't done so.

They publicly state that there is likely "irreparable" harm to their members based on this legislation, which is, scientifically indefensible.

This in itself is enough to file with the Environmental Appeal Board.

[scoutlt1]

Just a bit of light reading from a few years ago...

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/management-issues/docs/grizzly_bear_faq.pdf

[Deer_Slayer]

Scary thing is that the NDP Yukon gov't is now looking at the grizzly hunt in the Yukon. The leftist anti hunting, anti everything that is associated with conservative views is being attacked.

[Deer_Slayer]

wow..reading this thread is not encouraging. As a regular ole resident hunter I am shocked to read this squabbling shyte amongst hunters and no sign of unity. That grizzly hunting ban was introduced without so much as a whimper in the media. This ban is outrageous and we should be furious about it. 1st of all the NDP did NOT win the election. 2nd this ban was implemented on emotional grounds and NOT scientific grounds..which has been openly admitted. 3rd it cannot be legal to abruptly cancel a season for no legitimate reason, costing outfitters, guides and hunters major economic loss. A tiny group of miscreants has made major impact on our rights and nothing has been done about it!

[Deer_Slayer]

good question...has anyone given any consideration to doing anything?

[HarryToolips]

^^^how do you suggest starting the fight against their decision??

[scoutlt1]

So if I'm on glue, just say so. Absolutely no offense taken.
I have a number years of "environmental" experience, but none that directly involves wildlife as it relates to hunting (and more specifically guiding). See below for Wildlife Act section 101 (1) and (2) as they relate to the Environmental Management Act.
Lots of smarter and many more informed out there. Am I reading this wrong, or are there not people affected by the Gov't decision (one that is, based on their own admission, not based on science, but merely on a government's perception on what is "socially acceptable") regarding the Grizzly bear hunt? Guides, those that have applied for Grizzly LEH, trappers.....
Seems like something that can, and should be forwarded to the EAB. Unless of course, I am missing something very obvious. If I am, just let me know, and I will simply kick back and have another beer. :)

Reasons for and notice of decisions
101 (1) The regional manager or the director, as applicable, must give written reasons for a decision that affects
(a) a licence, permit, registration of a trapline or guiding territory certificate held by a person, or
(b) an application by a person for anything referred to in paragraph (a).

(2) Notice of a decision referred to in subsection (1) or (1.1) must be given to the affected person.

101.1 (1) The affected person referred to in section 101 (2) may appeal the decision to the Environmental Appeal Board continued under the Environmental Management Act (http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/03053_00).

[Ourea]

wow..reading this thread is not encouraging. As a regular ole resident hunter I am shocked to read this squabbling shyte amongst hunters and no sign of unity. That grizzly hunting ban was introduced without so much as a whimper in the media. This ban is outrageous and we should be furious about it. 1st of all the NDP did NOT win the election. 2nd this ban was implemented on emotional grounds and NOT scientific grounds..which has been openly admitted. 3rd it cannot be legal to abruptly cancel a season for no legitimate reason, costing outfitters, guides and hunters major economic loss. A tiny group of miscreants has made major impact on our rights and nothing has been done about it!


Welcome to politics chief.

[HappyJack]

wow..reading this thread is not encouraging. As a regular ole resident hunter I am shocked to read this squabbling shyte amongst hunters and no sign of unity. That grizzly hunting ban was introduced without so much as a whimper in the media. This ban is outrageous and we should be furious about it. 1st of all the NDP did NOT win the election. 2nd this ban was implemented on emotional grounds and NOT scientific grounds..which has been openly admitted. 3rd it cannot be legal to abruptly cancel a season for no legitimate reason, costing outfitters, guides and hunters major economic loss. A tiny group of miscreants has made major impact on our rights and nothing has been done about it!

Doesn't matter if they didn't win the election, they made a sweetheart deal with the Greens and viola BC Libs sit on the sidelines. Might be a good thing if you consider they [libs] were going to put everything on LEH for resident hunters. At least that is what our local outfitter told us they were pushing for, and it sure looked like the libs were doing their bidding to me.

[mpotzold]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/25396139_1607163506018360_4245335518695809165_n.pn g?oh=dc76009c072ae85f406df2358855190d&oe=5AB40959



Government Moves Goal Posts on Grizzly Hunting




For Immediate Release December 18, 2017

Using post-truth era consultative techniques the B.C. government has now decided to ban grizzly bear hunting to all but First Nations hunters.

Government had said it was only going to ban the “trophy hunting of grizzly bears”, but has now changed its mind, and is banning grizzly bear hunting.

The government’s change of heart is rationalized based on feedback from its consultative process where it asked what should be done with the “grizzly bear parts.”

“This is the most disingenuous approach to forming public policy I have ever seen during my career inside and outside government,” said BC Wildlife Federation President Harvey Andrusak. “Government was very clear with the BCWF, that this consultative process was solely about what to do with grizzly “trophy parts”, and that discussion about the hunt itself was not the issue. The government deceived us.":roll:

This approach raises warning flags about government’s ability to act in good-faith. The government set the goal posts, and chose not to consult on grizzly bear hunting, and then changed its mind after consultation. This approach is undemocratic and contrary to open and transparent process.

With regards to grizzly bear hunting the BCWF expects closing the hunt will result in increased human-bear confrontations and attacks in both the front and backcountry.

The taxpayer will be responsible to manage bears over the long-run which will reduce the social value of grizzly bears.

The BCWF’s expects government to manage wildlife based on science, and that consultation is open and transparent.

In this case none of the expectations have been met; this approach does not bode well for science in the future and raises the question of why the government has biologists on staff if science is no longer the basis for managing wildlife or fish?

The Auditor General’s report on grizzly bears pointed out that their status was impacted far more by habitat loss than from any effect of hunting.
While those opposed to grizzly bear hunting may rejoice it is a sad day when emotions trump science.

Many of our members feel betrayed.





Fully disagree!


Doesn’t take a genius to figure what the future motives of the NDP were re: grizzly hunt. It was simply a continuation of the 3 year ban imposed in 2001.
Remember the three-year moratorium on hunting grizzly which came into effect on Feb. 8, 2001 announced by Ujjal Dosanjh .
The Liberals repealed it on July 16, 2001 after decimating the NDP in an election winning 77 out of 79 seats & resuming the fall hunt!

History repeating itself
G & M-Mr. Dosanjh announced the hunting ban after significant local pressure and an international advertising campaign by several environmental groups.
A group of 68 biologists have called for a moratorium until comprehensive population studies were completed. More than 100 tourism operators have also called for an end to the hunt. The most recent public-opinion poll, taken five years ago, showed 77 per cent of British Columbians wanted a ban.

[Fisher-Dude]

Doesn't matter if they didn't win the election, they made a sweetheart deal with the Greens and viola BC Libs sit on the sidelines. Might be a good thing if you consider they [libs] were going to put everything on LEH for resident hunters. At least that is what our local outfitter told us they were pushing for, and it sure looked like the libs were doing their bidding to me.

That's a factual inexactitude.

[bearvalley]

That's a factual inexactitude.

It’s easier to call a lie a lie!
Everyone will understand what you’re saying.

[bearvalley]

That's a factual inexactitude.

It’s easier to call a lie a lie!
Everyone will understand what you’re saying.

[wideopenthrottle]

Does anyone have a link to any news article that explicitly states that the outright ban on griz was initiated by Weaver and the greens as a trade off for site "C" rather than some reporter interpreting it that way...it seems to me that Weaver was more into changes that included meat retention than the NDP who already had a history of banning the griz hunt....

[Rob Chipman]

Weaver *said* he would support meat retention, and in many email exchanges with me he was very reasonable and accommodating. However, you need to leaven that dough a bit. His co-party members are clearly not big on hunting, and at the time that Andrew Weaver was being very reasonable with me I spoke directly with other people who had dealt with him in the past who indicated that he was not trustworthy in their experience.

Before anyone says "Well, I told you so, why did you ever listen to him and get tricked" try to remember that when dealing with people that you suspect you disagree with it can be helpful to have them commit to positions. Later, if they stick with their original statements you know you've got a solid person. If they change you know you've got what you suspected you might get, and you have the opportunity to call them on it.


The cost? All you need to die is ask some questions and remember the answers.

So, I for one do not have a link to any proof that killing the hunt was a trade off for Site C, but I'd submit that a simple read of politics renders such a deal unimportant. Killing the hunt pays lots of dividends to a party (and yes, I mean that in some circumstances the Liberals would have killed it just as fast). If you're a politician and something pays political dividends, you do it. The name of the game in politics is...power, not conservation or doing the right thing.

For Mr. Weaver there is one thing that he needs: more power. He is currently in flash in the pan territory. He got elected because Christy Clarke stunk and pissed off a lot of people and John Horgan isn't a real winner, so didn't inspire enough people. That gave the Greens a bit of room.

Next time Christy will not be here to piss people off. Horgan will be, with an increasingly long list of accomplishments that piss people off. Weaver can either develop as an inspiring leader (who wants to bet he can do that?), follow the path of Elizabeth May and be a perennial loser hang around, or....

...get proportional representation through, in which case he's set for the long run.

Anyone who's good at reading policy statements and who is concerned about conservation might take some time to review the proposed proportional rep system. I know Bill Tillman, long time NDP stalwart, opposes it. He sees fringe parties, not all of them pro-NDP, or "progressive" emerging. He fears far-right parties.

Is there room for a weird, single issue party? They've got them in Israel and they exercise significant power on certain issues. Food for thought.

[wideopenthrottle]

http://www.andrewweavermla.ca/2017/08/14/political-stunts-political-spin-confusing-tale-governments-inept-grizzly-bear-policy/

I did find this with google

BC Greens slam NDP proposal to end trophy hunting of grizzly bears



Local (http://www.news1130.com/category/local/)



by Martin MacMahon (http://www.news1130.com/author/martin-macmahon)
Posted Aug 15, 2017 11:29 am PST
Last Updated Aug 15, 2017 at 11:40 am PST

http://www.news1130.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/sites/9/2015/09/17/iStock_000010656016_Double-e1442507974878.jpg (iStock Photo)

http://www.news1130.com/wp-content/themes/samuel/images/green/caption-icon.png



Summary
http://www.news1130.com/wp-content/themes/samuel/images/green/share.png
Andrew Weaver says NDP plan won't please environmentalists nor hunters



Today the BC NDP claimed to set the stage for banning trophy hunting of grizzly bears in British Columbia. In what can only be described as a political stunt, the BC NDP announced that “effective Nov. 30, 2017, the British Columbia government will end grizzly bear trophy hunting throughout the province (https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2017FLNR0232-001442).” They further proclaimed “while the trophy hunt will end, hunting for meat will be allowed to continue.”
In response to their announcement I issued a statement, reproduced below.
As you will see, I am very supportive of the fact that the B.C. NDP are respecting the wishes of the Coastal First Nations by placing a moratorium on the hunting of grizzlies in the Great Bear Rainforest. Readers of this website will know that I called for this back in February, 2014 (http://www.andrewweavermla.ca/2014/02/15/trophy-killing-grizzly-bears/) (3 1/2 years ago). However, during the election campaign I pointed out that the B.C. NDP appeared to be trying to have their cake and eat it too when it came to the grizzly hunt. They told the hunting community one thing and the environmental community another.
Today’s announcement will not end grizzly bear hunting in B.C., as many environmental groups have advocated for.
In addition, this announcement will create a system in which not all of the animal will be harvested – resident hunters will no longer be allowed to possess the hair, head and hide of grizzlies. This will be viewed as wasteful by the resident hunting community.
Foreign hunters will still be able to shoot grizzlies in British Columbia, take a picture of themselves standing over the dead beast, and head back home without harvesting any of the animal.
What’s remarkable is that when I introduced legislation in the Spring of 2017 (http://www.andrewweavermla.ca/2017/03/06/standing-resident-hunters-foreign-trophy-hunters/) targeted at foreign trophy hunters the BC NDP did not support it. Now, they introduce a mishmash approach that makes little sense.
I’m not sure how this will appease the concerns of anyone. It appears to me that the NDP were trying to play to environmental voters in the election campaign without thinking through their policies. What we really need in BC is science-based approach to wildlife management, not a populist approach to species management.
Media ReleaseWeaver statement on government’s intention to end the grizzly bear trophy hunt
For immediate release
August 14, 2017
VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green caucus, responded to today’s news regarding grizzly bear hunting in British Columbia. Weaver has long advocated for action on this issue.
“I am encouraged that the B.C. NDP are respecting the wishes of the Coastal First Nations by placing a moratorium on the hunting of grizzlies in the Great Bear Rainforest,” says Weaver.
Weaver further cautions “During the election campaign I pointed out that the B.C. NDP appeared to be trying to have their cake and eat it too when it came to the grizzly hunt. They told the hunting community one thing and the environmental community another.”
Today’s announcement will not end grizzly bear hunting in B.C., as many environmental groups have advocated for.
In addition, this announcement will create a system in which not all of the animal will be harvested – resident hunters will no longer be allowed to possess the hair, head and hide of grizzlies. This will be viewed as wasteful by the resident hunting community.
In addition, foreign hunters will still be able to shoot grizzlies in British Columbia, take a picture of themselves standing over the dead beast, and head back home without harvesting any of the animal.
Weaver adds “I’m not sure how this will appease the concerns of anyone. It appears to me that the NDP were trying to play to environmental voters in the election campaign without thinking through their policies.
“What we really need in BC is science-based approach to wildlife management, not a populist approach to species management.
“B.C. is one of the last strongholds of grizzlies in North America. There are a range of issues that affect the health of grizzly bear populations. These include the effects of climate change on essential salmon and huckleberry stocks, as well as road kill rates and poaching incidents. We must focus on broader wildlife preservation if we are serious about conservation and the protection of grizzlies and other species in this province.
“B.C. and Alberta are the only provinces without Endangered Species legislation. I will work with the government to ensure the introduction of species at risk legislation is advanced in the near future,” says Weaver.

-30-

[Bear Chaser]

I read the above statements from one AWeaver to mean he wanted an outright ban in the first place due to his happiness with a moratorium on the hunt in the coastal forest where there was no conservation need proven in the first place.
Funny thing the about science based decision making he advocates is it cuts on both sides of an issue. No science based need for a cut to the hunt and he expressed glee about it? Hmm I wonder where his loyalties lie. Certainly not with hunters of any stripe.
Don’t be fooled people.
The GreeNDP are not here to support our activities. Banning the grizzly hunt is just the beginning of their chicanery.

[Fisher-Dude]

I told hunters on this site to watch Andrew Weaver in this news story, well before the election, and that voting for him was voting for the end of grizzly hunting in BC.

Hunters called me a fear monger and they defended Weaver as a friend of hunters.

Watch from 8:30 onward in the video if time is short.

https://globalnews.ca/video/1071028/trophy-hunting-vs-grizzly-bear-viewing

[Ride Red]

Weaver has always and will always have an agenda. Working with hunters will NEVER happen.

[huntwriter]

Hunters called me a fear monger and they defended Weaver as a friend of hunters.



The same here. When I told Green friendly hunters to be careful what they vote for I was told not to be so pessimistic. Sad to say "I told you so". Many hunters fell for Weaver and now they cry.

[Walking Buffalo]

Does anyone have a link to any news article that explicitly states that the outright ban on griz was initiated by Weaver and the greens as a trade off for site "C" rather than some reporter interpreting it that way...it seems to me that Weaver was more into changes that included meat retention than the NDP who already had a history of banning the griz hunt....


This article clearly shows Weaver's thoughts on allowing any bears to be killed.


A statement from the BC Green Party leader ( NDP and Green Alliance government) in explaining the reasoning for their new Grizzly Bear hunting ban.




"The government said in August it would ban “trophy hunting” of grizzly bears but still allow a “meat hunt,” meaning hunters could still bag a grizzly as long as they harvested the animal’s meat but not its head or hide.

Anti-hunting critics called it a loophole.

“A hunter could still take a photo with a dead bear,” Green party Leader Andrew Weaver pointed out. “In the Instagram age, that’s the most sought-after trophy.”"


https://www.pressreader.com/canada/edmonton-journal/20171222/281694025144743

[180grainer]

I told hunters on this site to watch Andrew Weaver in this news story, well before the election, and that voting for him was voting for the end of grizzly hunting in BC.

Hunters called me a fear monger and they defended Weaver as a friend of hunters.

Watch from 8:30 onward in the video if time is short.

https://globalnews.ca/video/1071028/trophy-hunting-vs-grizzly-bear-viewing

It was somewhat disgusting to listen to Weaver. One thing is for sure. If Mr Weaver gets any type of power, be prepared for him to ram his ideology/morality down your throat regardless of what the issue is or what facts or reality say about it. A true Socialist.

[303savage]

Using post-truth era consultative techniques the B.C. government has now decided to ban grizzly bear hunting to all but First Nations hunters.
If they are going Ban Grizzly hunting for all people, Not just us white people.

[HappyJack]

If they are going Ban Grizzly hunting for all people, Not just us white people.

All you need is about 500 pissed off grizzly hunters to stage a hunt all together....what they going to do throw you all in jail?? Sometimes instead of just making noise you have to take some action. Remember it's not a right if you don't exercise it.

[180grainer]

Can anyone confirm that the pole used to close down the Grizzly hunt was actually formulated by the David Suzuki Foundation?

[Rob Chipman]

If you're talking about the Insights West poll it was created by Insights West for the Commercial Bear Viewing Association and Lush Cosmetics. I communicated with Mario Canseco, the guy who *is* Insights West to talk about the discrepancy between the numbers of licensed hunters and who they termed as "self-identified hunters" who opposed the hunt as well as the person responsible for Lush's participation. I doubt that it was generated by the Suzuki Foundation. The Commercial Bear Viewing Assoc., Lush and Insights West don't need the Suzuki Foundation to put that poll together.

If you mean another poll then I don't know.

[180grainer]

If you're talking about the Insights West poll it was created by Insights West for the Commercial Bear Viewing Association and Lush Cosmetics. I communicated with Mario Canseco, the guy who *is* Insights West to talk about the discrepancy between the numbers of licensed hunters and who they termed as "self-identified hunters" who opposed the hunt as well as the person responsible for Lush's participation. I doubt that it was generated by the Suzuki Foundation. The Commercial Bear Viewing Assoc., Lush and Insights West don't need the Suzuki Foundation to put that poll together.

If you mean another poll then I don't know.
Nope, talking about that one. Lush Cosmetics? Really? Thanks.

[180grainer]

I've contacted Insights West and asked them to provide information concerning how many men in total and how many women were asked. Also the numbers of people from the lower mainland and Island vs everywhere else. If you look at the results, the % of women against the hunt swung the decision significantly. So, if they canvassed 100 women and only 50 men, (where women don't traditionally have an interest in hunting) then its something to suggest the vote was skewed. Not sure anything turns on this but when I was told a Cosmetic's company was involved with the pole it peeked my interest. There was also another company involved called Grizzlybearranch.com If Insights West is some impartial poling company, what's with these other two being involved in the poling? Grizzly Bear Ranch is an eco-tourism company from what I can tell.

[180grainer]

So there's a fourth party involved in the poling which is the Commercial Bear Viewing Association. Why am I smelling blood in the water? Reading Insight West's webpage, they're not an independent poling agency, (maybe some of you knew that but I didn't) they are essentially a gun for hire to run a pole that would concern your business. They claim no impartiality that I can see. So they conducted this pole which appears to have been financed by the Eco-tourism industry, with no government oversight, which then led to the Grizzly Bear closure. Anybody see anything wrong with this? The perception of a conflict of interest considering government acted "immediately" on the results seems something the public should know about.

[Buck]

So there's a fourth party involved in the poling which is the Commercial Bear Viewing Association. Why am I smelling blood in the water? Reading Insight West's webpage, they're not an independent poling agency, (maybe some of you knew that but I didn't) they are essentially a gun for hire to run a pole that would concern your business. They claim no impartiality that I can see. So they conducted this pole which appears to have been financed by the Eco-tourism industry, with no government oversight, which then led to the Grizzly Bear closure. Anybody see anything wrong with this? The perception of a conflict of interest considering government acted "immediately" on the results seems something the public should know about.

Thanks for the research good to know

[180grainer]

Can anyone provide a link to any information that shows any member of the NDP or Greens referencing this pole as being part of the deciding factor to close the Grizzly hunt down for good? Any information you can provide would be much appreciated.

This is the pole. I want to make sure this is the one we've heard was used. https://insightswest.com/news/british-columbians-support-ban-on-all-grizzly-bear-hunting/

[303savage]

prefer to get the food at the store where no animals suffer and protest oil in their plastic kayaks lol

The modern world can't function with out oil, I guess you wouldn't be to far off saying that oil makes the world go round.

[180grainer]

Thanks for the research good to know
If you could help with providing me any links that I'm looking for, that would be great. I'd like to kind of explain myself about what I'm going to do but I know people like Weaver visit this site. And that prick my friend, I would like to have as little forewarning as possible...:) I need direct references to the pole in question by any Green or NDP politician.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Supposedly It was the feedback that the govt asked for about their proposed meat only regulation that they based their cancellation of the hunt. That feedback was open to anyone with an email address (or addresses). You didn't have to be from BC, pay taxes in BC or vote in BC to participate.

The Insights west polls are garbage.

We conducted a poll here on HBC and 96% or hunters supported the grizzly hunt.

Similar polls recently conducted on the BC Hunting and fishing FB Page yielded a 98% support for the hunt. That poll was conducted twice within a year and yielded almost identical results. Participation was quite a bit higher on FB than here.

Those results are a far far cry from IW poll saying 58% of BC hunters opposed the hunt.

As I said....garbage.

SSS

[180grainer]

Supposedly It was the feedback that the govt asked for about their proposed meat only regulation that they based their cancellation of the hunt. That feedback was open to anyone with an email address (or addresses). You didn't have to be from BC, pay taxes in BC or vote in BC to participate.

SSS

Has the GOABC or the BCWF thought to ask the Government to demonstrate the pole consisted of only BC residents? They've repeatedly stated there's been a "societal" within BC on how the Grizzly hunt is seen and used this feedback as an example of that which led to the closure. Shouldn't we be asking for information demonstrating that only BC residents responded?

[180grainer]

Supposedly It was the feedback that the govt asked for about their proposed meat only regulation that they based their cancellation of the hunt. That feedback was open to anyone with an email address (or addresses). You didn't have to be from BC, pay taxes in BC or vote in BC to participate.

SSS
Can I as a member of the BCWF request that the BCWF immediately make a Freedom of Information Act Request asking the Government to disclose the names and residencies of all participants in that pole? That the government demonstrate that all reasonable measures were taken to ensure that only BC residents participated in that pole? Can a member of the BCWF respond to my question and indicate whether or not they are willing to do this on the member's behalf and disclose the findings to the entire membership?

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Can I as a member of the BCWF request that the BCWF immediately make a Freedom of Information Act Request asking the Government to disclose the names and residencies of all participants in that pole? That the government demonstrate that all reasonable measures were taken to ensure that only BC residents participated in that pole? Can a member of the BCWF respond to my question and indicate whether or not they are willing to do this on the member's behalf and disclose the findings to the entire membership?

If you sent in an email voicing your opinion on their proposed meat only hunt you would know that none of that info was required.

I spent a fair bit of time on the anti hunting Facebook pages and they had their followers send out a pile of letters.
On Fb you can see where most people are from.

If the Govt wanted the responses to be only from BC residents then they could have had us login with our BCEid numbers.
Of course, they knew this but didn't want that to happen.

Plus, they never asked for feedback on banning the hunt. They asked for feedback on a meat only
hunt.

This was a done deal as soon as the coalition was formed.

SSS

[180grainer]

If you sent in an email voicing your opinion on their proposed meat only hunt you would know that none of that info was required.

I spent a fair bit of time on the anti hunting Facebook pages and they had their followers send out a pile of letters.
On Fb you can see where most people are from.

If the Govt wanted the responses to be only from BC residents then they could have had us login with our BCEid numbers.
Of course, they knew this but didn't want that to happen.

Plus, they never asked for feedback on banning the hunt. They asked for feedback on a meat only
hunt.

This was a done deal as soon as the coalition was formed.

SSS
Thanks for the input SSS but I'd like a response from the BCWF. Both the NDP and Greens used this pole to justify a "societal" change in BC towards the trophy hunt. I didn't know some douce in Germany, or the UK or the US could vote in a pole that would affect BC legislation and I bet there's a lot of people in BC that didn't know this either. Maybe we should let the world vote in the next provincial election as well. This is fraud plain and simple and the people of BC should at least be made aware that their vote just became that much more meaningless under the Greens and NDP.