BCWF- Regulations input wanted

[BCWF]

https://news.gov.bc.ca/Content/Images/default-og-meta-image-1.jpg


Have Your Say

Proposed hunting, trapping, motor vehicle restriction and firearms restriction regulation changes for 2018 to 2020 are now online and available for public review and feedback.

The opportunity for public comment ends Jan. 19, 2018.

https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2017FLNR0373-002078

[David]

Can someone (either a BCWF representative or other person) point me to something that actually defines/explains the meaning behind these quotes from the regulation change rationale:

"...as a commitment to First Nations’ harvest opportunity, in line with the hierarchy of harvest prioritization for culturally significant big-game species, such as moose"

and

"This change is considered an interim measure to support local First Nations’ harvest opportunity and to ..."

My concerns are based on the ideal of science-based wildlife management, but I don't want to go off if it turns out I am misinterpreting the rationale.
1) If there is harvest prioritization, at what harvest level is that prioritization deemed to have reached a satisfactory level? Do we know how many of what species/sex First Nations harvest?

2) If a First Nations is entitled to harvest ANY moose of ANY sex/age at ANY time how does shortening a season affect their harvest opportunity?

Anecdotally I have seen a significant decrease in Moose populations in 7B over the past 10 years, at the same time I have seen hunters move elsewhere in response to the lack of game. My concern is that the way the rationale is worded, if I were to re-phrase it in lay-mans terms it would be:
"We want to make sure there are enough Moose for Natives"
Again, I don't necessarily have an issue with this SO LONG AS we have a definition of what the word "enough" means and we know how many Moose First Nations are harvesting. I don't see either of those questions answered.

[Bugle M In]

I second that....what does it mean???

[guest]

Well put David.

Accountability by ALL would be a good start ........ Mandatory reporting by ALL

[Everett]

Well that is a depressing read looks like the natives a GO's are out to restrict resident hunters even farther.

[stan]

leave the month of any buck with guns slaughter and remove the late archery season ?? How’s that gonna help rebuild mule deer populations? Bizarre .region 8 muley s are doomed

[stan]

Whoever came up with this should go for a walk on some Okanagan winter range and have a look

[palmer]

Not sure why we are changing the West Kootenay Elk season due to one MU with low numbers. 4-15 is poor Elk habitat at best. We will just see more hunters crammed into less days.

[Bugle M In]

Not sure why we are changing the West Kootenay Elk season due to one MU with low numbers. 4-15 is poor Elk habitat at best. We will just see more hunters crammed into less days.

Yup....that would be my suspicion on what will happen.

[BCWF]

Make sure to get your voice heard on these potential changes!

Share the link to your club and networks.

[Steeleco]

Are there to be town hall meetings like the recent road show? Would be nice to voice concerns in person and not from behind a keyboard

[J_T]

Are there to be town hall meetings like the recent road show? Would be nice to voice concerns in person and not from behind a keyboard I doubt it. These recommendations that are now open for comment are the culmination of 2 years of discussion and presentation. You should have been informed along the way by your organization representatives. For the most part, the point hunters/conservationists are trying to make right now, is changes to the regulation are socially driven, and by and large we are not supportive of many proposed changes. The regulatory amendment process is currently a 2 year process. A lot of garbage proposals come in and get discussed. To be clear, it is entirely Government who are the decision makers on what stays, what moves on, what gets dropped from the table discussion. In the end, it is Government again that are the decision makers about which proposals go forward. The online consultation process simply allows decision makers the ability to say x% of respondents support this. If in fact the numbers do support a proposal. If the respondents don't support a proposal, Government is still going to go ahead with the change and in their statement, they'll just leave out the part about support.

[Bugle M In]

So JT, are you saying...."it doesn't matter if we go to this site, and place our opinions"???
Is it just a waste of time???
I have always wondered about that?

[J_T]

^^ No, I'm not entirely saying that. Perhaps I'm saying I'm sorry I spoke up. I've spent an enjoyable month away from here...

I think it's important to respond and I take the time and would encourage everyone to. However I think hunters need to understand the intention. The online component of consultation is really a final confirmation of what Government intends to do.

Perhaps with recent events I'm more skeptical about what Government's intentions really are. It's a socially driven decision process now. And there is a lot of uncertainty.

I do know that most hunters have a high level of apathy and if there are 100,000 hunters in BC, there is probably less than 2000 that will provide comment. Whereas the environmental community and anti hunting movement will provide exponentially more comments if it suits their agenda. Hunters should not be thinking "one voice" and "one organization" will speak for them. That's a cop out. Step up and be heard.

Take a look at how the anti hunting movement has been successful. I've said this before. Many groups, small in number, are heard more loudly, than one group speaking for many.

[finaddict]

Just went in and made a couple comments. I see that you need a BCied, but do not need a hunter registration number. Does this not allow anti-hunting groups to go in and flood the remarks with anything they want to support all restrictions? Should people who are not hunters be allowed to comment on changes that only affect hunters? Interesting the way this could be construed as a form of social manipulation of hunting regulations.

[J_T]

Just went in and made a couple comments. I see that you need a BCied, but do not need a hunter registration number. Does this not allow anti-hunting groups to go in and flood the remarks with anything they want to support all restrictions? Should people who are not hunters be allowed to comment on changes that only affect hunters? Interesting the way this could be construed as a form of social manipulation of hunting regulations.
Totally. Thats what "Public" consultation in a socially driven decision making process is. Everyone gets an equal voice.

[Bugle M In]

^^ No, I'm not entirely saying that. Perhaps I'm saying I'm sorry I spoke up. I've spent an enjoyable month away from here...

I think it's important to respond and I take the time and would encourage everyone to. However I think hunters need to understand the intention. The online component of consultation is really a final confirmation of what Government intends to do.

Perhaps with recent events I'm more skeptical about what Government's intentions really are. It's a socially driven decision process now. And there is a lot of uncertainty.

I do know that most hunters have a high level of apathy and if there are 100,000 hunters in BC, there is probably less than 2000 that will provide comment. Whereas the environmental community and anti hunting movement will provide exponentially more comments if it suits their agenda. Hunters should not be thinking "one voice" and "one organization" will speak for them. That's a cop out. Step up and be heard.

Take a look at how the anti hunting movement has been successful. I've said this before. Many groups, small in number, are heard more loudly, than one group speaking for many.

Okay, got it.
I will take the time to respond.
Only problem is, I don't hunt all these specific Regions, or MU's, or for all these specific Species.
So, someone like me "doesn't really know" what is reasonable or stupid, when it pertains to some of these changes.
That's where I feel a little inadequate in providing support for other hunters that do know certain items on there.
Unlike one person, I never claim to know an entire region, every thing that going good or bad.
Would like to see some others chime in on some of the specifics, to get some insight.
Some I can definitely answer however.

[horshur]

Okay, got it.
I will take the time to respond.
Only problem is, I don't hunt all these specific Regions, or MU's, or for all these specific Species.
So, someone like me "doesn't really know" what is reasonable or stupid, when it pertains to some of these changes.
That's where I feel a little inadequate in providing support for other hunters that do know certain items on there.
Unlike one person, I never claim to know an entire region, every thing that going good or bad.
Would like to see some others chime in on some of the specifics, to get some insight.
Some I can definitely answer however.
Just comment on what you know and what will effect you...

[Piperdown]

You post his just now when it has been out for quite some time, get it together

[Bugle M In]

Just went in and made a couple comments. I see that you need a BCied, but do not need a hunter registration number. Does this not allow anti-hunting groups to go in and flood the remarks with anything they want to support all restrictions? Should people who are not hunters be allowed to comment on changes that only affect hunters? Interesting the way this could be construed as a form of social manipulation of hunting regulations.

Interesting!, never realized that, and that's a scary fact!
Good point, should only be used to enter this "if you have a valid Hunters Number"!.
Didn't even consider that Anti's can get into this with opinions on hunting regs and having input.
Something else that needs to be on the "List of to do Changes" when we get some political party that will listen to the
rationale of this BCied versus hunter # registration to partake....IMO.

[Walking Buffalo]

Interesting!, never realized that, and that's a scary fact!
Good point, should only be used to enter this "if you have a valid Hunters Number"!.
Didn't even consider that Anti's can get into this with opinions on hunting regs and having input.
Something else that needs to be on the "List of to do Changes" when we get some political party that will listen to the
rationale of this BCied versus hunter # registration to partake....IMO.

I appreciate the concern, but do have to disagree.

Wildlife is here for everyone, and everyone should have the opportunity for input.

Requiring proof of residency, grade of Citizenship (Treaty/non) and Hunter ID if applicable would suffice to establish the opinions of those responding from the local hunting community.


I've followed the growing trend of government online surveys being used for public consultation, and a serious flaw has always been an inability to distinguish if respondents are even from the jurisdiction, let alone hunters or have multiple "personalities"..... the data is generally invalid when these factors are included in an analysis.

[Bugle M In]

I appreciate the concern, but do have to disagree.

Wildlife is here for everyone, and everyone should have the opportunity for input.

Requiring proof of residency, grade of Citizenship (Treaty/non) and Hunter ID if applicable would suffice to establish the opinions of those responding from the local hunting community.


I've followed the growing trend of government online surveys being used for public consultation, and a serious flaw has always been an inability to distinguish if respondents are even from the jurisdiction, let alone hunters or have multiple "personalities"..... the data is generally invalid when these factors are included in an analysis.

That's fair, point taken.
Just don't know "what knowledge resident non hunter's" have to put in an opinion on "Hunting Regs".
Heck, I just stated previously that even I, a hunter, don't even have all the knowledge for each issue to those changes.
But a Resident Anti, can go on there, and wherever it shows either a reduction, or closure, or shortening of season..
is going to say "yes, fully support that".
That's my concern, thus my opinion that non hunter's should not be allowed to factor into hunting regs.
They should be able to have an opinion on areas that need to see some help concerning habitat, and which areas should be first........IF, we ever get the government to actually "start doing that"!!??????????????
Cheers

[J_T]

^^ The online consultation is a requirement. It serves as the "Public" consultation component. Perhaps the way to properly view the online proposals is: Government, working with the hunting community (GO's, Residents, Trappers, Houndsmen) have spent the past 2 years discussing wildlife trends and objectives. Of the objectives Government wishes to meet, these listed here as a part of the public review, are open for comment to ensure as Government moves forward with these proposals, they have not left out any user group, or interested person. No one, has been denied an opportunity to comment. Transparency. My one wish, is that people would need to make a statement about what sort of organization they are affiliated with when the submit responses.

[Bugle M In]

^^ The online consultation is a requirement. It serves as the "Public" consultation component. Perhaps the way to properly view the online proposals is: Government, working with the hunting community (GO's, Residents, Trappers, Houndsmen) have spent the past 2 years discussing wildlife trends and objectives. Of the objectives Government wishes to meet, these listed here as a part of the public review, are open for comment to ensure as Government moves forward with these proposals, they have not left out any user group, or interested person. No one, has been denied an opportunity to comment. Transparency. My one wish, is that people would need to make a statement about what sort of organization they are affiliated with when the submit responses.

Or at least say whether they actually have a Hunters # or some other Permit/License.
Just so there is actually documented transparency...imo
Just want to know ho are a part of the hunting community, and who is "other"

[b72471]

Moose Hunt Region 6: Once again the Govt is after the Resident Hunter and never addresses the full picture!! Reducing the open season by 4 days does not stop the hunting it simply HANDS THE GUIDE ANOTHER 4 DAYS of moose hunting. The GUIDES WILL LOVE THEM FOR THIS,(the guides shut down for the open season). I believe there is another way, November is a migration to the lower areas and moose use the right of ways and roads, hunter success is higher at this time, so shut down the moose season at the end of OCTOBER, (for the GUIDES, LEH and the other party) and yes shorten the general season by 2 days.
I think we could all live with that. I am a Resident hunter and have worked as an assistant guide in the past.

[finaddict]

That's fair, point taken.
Just don't know "what knowledge resident non hunter's" have to put in an opinion on "Hunting Regs".
Heck, I just stated previously that even I, a hunter, don't even have all the knowledge for each issue to those changes.
But a Resident Anti, can go on there, and wherever it shows either a reduction, or closure, or shortening of season..
is going to say "yes, fully support that".
That's my concern, thus my opinion that non hunter's should not be allowed to factor into hunting regs.
They should be able to have an opinion on areas that need to see some help concerning habitat, and which areas should be first........IF, we ever get the government to actually "start doing that"!!??????????????
CheersI think a hunting license should be a requirement to make any comments on hunting regulation changes.. Hunters are required to take a CORE course and PAY for a hunting license. These two facts alone should preclude anyone from making any comments unless they have been "trained" and have paid for that privilege. It does not stop the anti's from making statements, but it does require them to put the same amount of time and money investment into the comments as hunters have already put into the system.

[Fisher-Dude]

Antis are already organized and telling their members to create accounts and comment on proposed regs changes.

http://wildsight.ca/blog/2018/01/12/wolverines-lynx-and-trappers-in-closed-areas-speak-up-on-hunting-regulation-changes/

Don't think hunting is under extreme threat? Think again, especially if you're apt to be on the restriction bandwagon, just like the antis.

[HarryToolips]

I think a hunting license should be a requirement to make any comments on hunting regulation changes.. Hunters are required to take a CORE course and PAY for a hunting license. These two facts alone should preclude anyone from making any comments unless they have been "trained" and have paid for that privilege. It does not stop the anti's from making statements, but it does require them to put the same amount of time and money investment into the comments as hunters have already put into the system.
I agree....

[HarryToolips]

Imo it's BS that they want to shorten the GOS for 6 point bull elk in the WK to Oct 1 - 20.....only one MU they showed a lower bull:cow ratio, and the sample size was small, so wtf...reg 8 is still Sept 10 - Oct 20...

[Brez]

Two days left to get your opinions in!!

[Dredman]

Well said. To be heard in this time everyone needs to use a lot of words and be outraged while doing so

[guest]

Although MANY disagree with me on this, I think ........

A Mandatory Reporting of ALL game harvested across the board by Resident and non Resident hunters. ......
Including ....... ALL First Nations ......... Would do more to help put together the pieces of the puzzle that help the Wildlife Bios and Managers in better sustainability and accountability to all harvested wildlife .

If not ...... Just how can it do more harm.....