Wildlife Management in BC - an Organized Mess

[huntingfamily]

Thoughts?

https://www.facebook.com/201062806590836/posts/4011022902261455/

[adriaticum]

Wildlife management is just bickering over depleted resources caused by human overpopulation.

[IronNoggin]

Regardless of the entirely unenlightened response directly above, I largely concur with the author's position:

Wildlife management in B.C. - An organized mess

British Columbia is unique in terms of the range of our ecosystems and biodiversity. B.C. could also be considered North America’s melting pot in terms of how our environment is organized and the diversity of wildlife that use it.

B.C. is where the north (cool) meets the south (warm), east (prairies) meets west (mountains), wet (coastal) meets interior (dry), low (sea level) meets high (alpine), with everything in between.

We also have the unfortunate reality that the Supreme Court of Canada decided that human population numbers equate to political representation. B.C., like most of the world, sees our cities growing faster than rural areas, resulting in political representation increasing in urban areas and declining in rural areas. As most “good” politicians tend to do, they support decisions and budgets favouring their urban ridings, leaving fewer and fewer scraps for what is required to manage sparsely populated rural areas.

As I wrote in Part 2 (https://www.alaskahighwaynews.ca/opinion/columnists/evan-saugstad-wildlife-management-in-b-c-politics-rule-1.24274004), we also have the centralization of government and their statutory decision making powers being slowly transferred from a diverse B.C. into a single building in Victoria where everyone is encouraged to think and act the same.

Taken together, these factors lead to an inadequate understanding of what is required to effectively manage the 90% of B.C.’s landmass that is considered rural, and outside of our population centres in southwestern B.C. An insufficient budget to fund the ministries that regulate our rural landscapes and lack of understanding by our elected representatives leads to the current mismanagement we now experience.
Countering this is the call by many organizations that we need to follow the science and get back to managing things for the betterment of our critters and not just for what is political expedient for our masters.

I agree, but… Whose science do we follow?

Our biologist world is just as mixed up as our political world.

Don’t believe this? Then pick one issue relating to wildlife management, go online and try to make sense of the dozens of differing views by biologists, at least from those who call themselves biologists, experts, or scientists.
Hard to pick whose science to follow.

Unfortunately, this mishmash of so-called expert or knowledgeable biologists is not going away anytime soon.
Biologists that lived their lives looking after our critters are mostly gone from our wildlife management branch (retired), and are now being replaced by a new generation who believe we need to do things differently.
Decisions like killing moose to see if that works to increase caribou, or create another park to see if that works, or only focus on endangered species (orca, caribou) thinking they are more important than other species populations (i.e., moose, mule deer), have now become the norm.

Most of B.C.’s biologists receive their education in B.C.’s three big universities: SFU, UBC, and UVic. In years past this was not an issue as students were trained by instructors who knew and understood what they were teaching.

Today’s biologists get much of their training from political activists masquerading as professors. Activist instructors who detest the rural B.C. we currently have with active forestry, mining, ranching, gas and oil development, and pipelines.

They now preach to our children, their students, that all this must stop if B.C. is going to maintain our biological diversity. They also teach that it is not a biologist’s job to figure out how to balance human needs with those of our critters.

This new type of employee they create is now populating our ministries and becoming our natural resource decision makers.

Combine the political decisions to not fund or provide the resources required for proper management with biologists more interested in shutting things down rather than managing, and then throw in the mess we call land claims, which others will call “rightful ownership.”

Not hard to figure out why not much managing is occurring, other than the 'shut’er down' or 'stop what you are doing' mentality.

Also, not hard to figure out why we see large parts of B.C. being barricaded to hunters and fishers when the prevailing beliefs are that there are insufficient resources to meet local needs, never mind everyone else’s. When we believe government is not looking after what we currently have, need, or cherish, those that can will begin to protest and protect what they deem as theirs, irrespective of government.

We also see the politically active ENGO organizations working double-time lobbying that B.C. must stop what we are doing. Hence the 'all or nothing' solutions they espouse, which are meant to divide those of us who care, as their intent is not to have a diverse rural economy that uses our natural resources wisely.

Their intent is to have a playground to visit where consumptive users of our environment are absent.

The reality is we need to meet on some type of common ground and convince government to be there with us.

In some places we will need to protect and conserve more, in others, focus on the values that support our communities.

As the old saying goes: Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

I just hope that does not apply to our great province.

https://www.alaskahighwaynews.ca/opinion/columnists/evan-saugstad-wildlife-management-in-b-c-an-organized-mess-1.24277339

[358mag]

Nog so very true .

The reality is we need to meet on some type of common ground and convince government to be there with us.
In some places we will need to protect and conserve more, in others, focus on the values that support our communities.

As the old saying goes: Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

I just hope that does not apply to our great province.

One of the biggest issues - problems we as hunters have is that we cant get along. Every club - member has there own little agenda . Just go to any regulation- allocations meeting and you will see it first hand . Until we as hunters- sportsman can get our shit together were just pissing into the wind .

[Mulehahn]

My biggest problem is that the ones in the city, in the metropolitan areas do not think they are consumptive users. Go to any provincial park where hunting is banned but mountain biking, off trail hiking and camping is common, or where back country skiing or heli skiing is common. The amount of habitat destruction is much more rampant and disgusting than any of my hunting areas. One need to look no further than the C/V coming areas to find huge areas covered in garbage and fecal matter. It isn't the hunters that are doing that.

[xlcc]

Just like the ban on grizzly hunting in BC.That was done for political reasons,not the scientific facts that were presented.Just lip service and to please the greenies.
The USA has a lot more population than Canada but they manage their wildlife resources.In BC it is gut pile management..Look at all the LEH tags let out.Not for the manageing but the sale of LEH permits to line govt. coffers.
BC could do much better but there has to be proper funding to maintain the resource and keep the politics out and use the science.

[Weatherby Fan]

Just like the ban on grizzly hunting in BC.That was done for political reasons,not the scientific facts that were presented.Just lip service and to please the greenies.
The USA has a lot more population than Canada but they manage their wildlife resources.In BC it is gut pile management..Look at all the LEH tags let out.Not for the manageing but the sale of LEH permits to line govt. coffers.
BC could do much better but there has to be proper funding to maintain the resource and keep the politics out and use the science.

I don’t condone what Horgan did with the Grizzly Bear Hunt.....not one F-ing bit......but I said for years prior that they better make the Hunters take all edible portions of the Grizzly out or you’re just giving the Anti’s ammo, never mind the public’s dim view of Trophy Hunting

I took alot of heat over my position on that very subject.

[LBM]

I don’t condone what Horgan did with the Grizzly Bear Hunt.....not one F-ing bit......but I said for years prior that they better make the Hunters take all edible portions of the Grizzly out or you’re just giving the Anti’s ammo, never mind the public’s dim view of Trophy Hunting

I took alot of heat over my position on that very subject.

Have a read of the article in Hakai magazine, your thoughts may be doing more damage.

[huntingfamily]

Here is link to the article...
https://www.hakaimagazine.com/news/trophy-hunters-could-threaten-the-social-acceptability-of-hunting/

[Weatherby Fan]

Have a read of the article in Hakai magazine, your thoughts may be doing more damage.

Yes of course that line of thinking is way off base........

[Rob Chipman]

I like Mr. Saugstad's writing, and appreciate that he's taken the time, but both he and Pynn are not doing the best that they could and are ignoring significant issues.

To the OPs question, my thoughts are that Saugstad on this one hammered a lot of bios unfairly and inaccurately, and then, almost as a second thought, trained his gun for a random shot on the real problems.

[gcreek]

I like Mr. Saugstad's writing, and appreciate that he's taken the time, but both he and Pynn are not doing the best that they could and are ignoring significant issues.

To the OPs question, my thoughts are that Saugstad on this one hammered a lot of bios unfairly and inaccurately, and then, almost as a second thought, trained his gun for a random shot on the real problems.

Regardless of Evan’s lifetime achievements, he has also spent a lifetime in the bush, growing up in the Bella Coola Valley at a time when problem grizzlies were dealt with immediately and finally. I think he has a right to say what he does about how the new age of bios have different ideas than really does wildlife any favours. But what the heck, my living a lifetime in the bush and observing first hand the Province’s mismanagement means nothing to an expert like yourself either!

[Piperdown]

Regardless of Evan’s lifetime achievements, he has also spent a lifetime in the bush, growing up in the Bella Coola Valley at a time when problem grizzlies were dealt with immediately and finally. I think he has a right to say what he does about how the new age of bios have different ideas than really does wildlife any favours. But what the heck, my living a lifetime in the bush and observing first hand the Province’s mismanagement means nothing to an expert like yourself either!

Hi GC, i do hope this winter is not hard on your cattle, hopefully the wolf management program brought in last year has helped your situation out somewhat. It must be so frustrating dealing with the same thing year after year. How is your hip doing, you running laps around the ranch yet :)

[Rob Chipman]

GCreek

Suck'er back there a notch.

I didn't question anyone's right to express an opinion, nor dismiss anyone's expertise, including yours (although I'm wondering how well you can read, 'cause there weren't that many words in my post and you completely f'd them up!) .

Mr. Saugstad made some observations about BC bios that I don't think are supportable. The bios that I run into do not all come from UVic or UBC, a lot of them live in and enjoy rural BC, a lot of them hunt and I have heard them stress that we can't do proper wildlife management by focusing on one species. You can actually check where these people come from and get their education, and I think he's strayed just a little from the most accurate report on that.

There's also the logical part - wildlife in this province is in really bad shape. It didn't get there overnight. It definitely isn't the fault of newly arrived bios because....they weren't here when it happened.


If the new bios weren't here when we started having problems who is to blame? If you're going to blame bios (who, again, are underfunded and constantly point out that their recommendations are ignored) and you can't blame the new ones then you have to bales the old ones.

I don't think you can blame it on the old bios for 2 reasons - they didn't make policy then any more than they do now, and, of course, you can't blame the old bios and say at the same time that they were great. On that score I think he's just bitching, and not making a solid argument. (Pretty mild critique, frankly. I'm sure both our wives give us harder times).

It ain't the bios, old or new, who caused our wildlife and fish problem. It's policy makers who don't fund them and don't listen to the bios but rather listen to the ENGOs and abandon science.


Now, if you want to disagree with me, excellent, but understand that I'm blaming politicians who make policy and the ENGOs and corporations who influence them, and you're blaming.....I guess the bios.


Here's the significant issue he's ignoring while he gets hunters to fight among themselves and blame the people who gather the data and do the science: Raincoast just dropped a paper based on a speculative idea that they came up with: the idea that hunters are losing the social license to hunt because of trophy hunting.

Get that first part straight. Raincoast is hypothesizing that there is a threat to hunters from hunters. There's no actual proof of that as far as I can see.

The next step is that Raincoast paints itself as a group that is concerned about this and so wants to study and circulate just how much trophy hunting is bad.....not for animals, not for sustainability, not for Indigenous relations, not for the environment....no, trophy hunting is bad for...hunters. (Thank God Raincoast is out there to save us from ourselves).

The next step is to massage the definition of trophy hunting to mean killing any of the larger predators.

The last step is to put the solution on the table: stop the hunting of any larger carnivore because.....the social license to hunt anything will be removed.

They imagine a problem, they present themselves as the saviour, they promote the solution. Media allies jump on the train.


The problem was never real.

You can use this tactic anytime. For example, say you knew of a land, far far away, and you didn't want grizzlies hunted there. You imagine a problem (grizzlies are going extinct) , you identify as the saviour, and you promote the solution that getting rid of trophy hunting will save grizzlies. We all saw that movie.

None of the G-bear ban, nor this next move against any large carnivore hunting, includes science.

It explicitly ignores and marginalizes science because it is an anti-scientific argument.

Science and scientists play no role in it.

The use of this tactic (which is pretty transparent once you see it) is a very significant threat to wildlife, reconciliations and, oh yeah, hunting. It's way more significant than any perceived problem that the underfunded and ignored wildlife bios in this province are all now graduates of some gender studies program.

Mr. Saugstad can write whatever he likes, about whatever he likes. I appreciate the fact that he sees a problem that we care about and that he writes about it. I hope he'll think about the part of the issue I raised because I think I'm onto something and I think it's a significant threat.

Take note that Raincoast is going to cite examples from all over, and allow that BC is not completely representative of everywhere, yadda yadda yadda blahdy blah blah, but there's only one place I know off where Raincoast influences policy: BC.

[boxhitch]

There's mismanagement, there's lack of management, then there is management as viewed from different prospective with different ideals
the truth is somewhere inside

[boxhitch]

Maybe its time for hunters to change the narrative on so called trophy hunting
Call it what it really is, for 99+% it is participation award to hang on the wall to remind themselves of a hunt

[adriaticum]

Maybe its time for hunters to change the narrative on so called trophy hunting
Call it what it really is, for 99+% it is participation award to hang on the wall to remind themselves of a hunt

Exactly.
There is no such thing as trophy hunting.
People hang animal heads, just like they hang pictures of their loved ones, places and times to remind themselves of that moment.

The only argument that hold traction with the public is "trophy hunting" of "endangered" animals.
If you want a hunt banned you just have to promote the narrative of that animal being endangered.
That's why these biologists always challenge the other side's biologists.
I don't think there is a hunter out there who would hunt something that's endangered and about to go extinct.
But anti-hunting groups promote the idea that this is exactly what we do.
People think mountain sheep are not edible and are hunted for their fur and horns.
I've had a friend who truly believed that.

[Bugle M In]

Look folks, this is how i see it, so take it for what its worth.

I have hunted for many years, and am extremely passionate about it.
But i dont get out as much as some do here nor do i hit the entire province on a yearly basis.
Recently, salt water fishing has become a passion for me, instead of just fly fishing mostly for rainbows on lakes.

I posted a while back about talking to a DFO Bio out of Merritt that works on salmon on the rivers in the area etc.

In a nutshell when asking him stuff and getting his thought, such as:
*they don't like hatcheries due to losing genetic diversity.
*reason for no retention is due to low salmon returns.
*not much to say on seal populations, but agrees they are not helping.
*as far as FN and nets across river, and stating that the big reason for the Skeena closure was FN related, not conservation reasons, well, he wont
say "anything".

Since then, i have taken interest in following up on his thoughts and rationale.

The truth i am finding:
* that hatcheries are great, to allow the sportsman to "retain" salmon!, BUT only 10% are getting clipped.
(So, if you want wild stocks to spawn, and don't want them caught, to keep genetic diversity, doesn't it makes sense to make sure as many hatchery
salmon as possible are being taken??? and i found out, no one is asking for more hatcheries, so disinformation there)
*As for seals, well, that's political, just like our wolves.
*As for FN and changing the nets to handheld or wheel and monitored 24/7, again, means political will to change the laws and for the Bio's to "speak up".

So, what am i getting at....it's obvious.
The Universities now do have people preaching a different tune, almost an Anti outdoorsman who wants to harvest food approach as problematic.
And a "feel sorry for the FN/reconciliation and it is their land only" philosophy.

Whats the solution:

It's rather simple but will take time.
Outdoorsman need to run in "Politics".
That also means to be a modern day politician, you better have a "Law Degree/be a Lawyer"
You need to become a "Biologist" and also more "CO's", both of whom hunt/fish.

If not, in the end, this province "will be MANAGED and GOVERNED BY ANTI's ONLY".
Only have to look at the Green Party, and they are making ground, albeit slow right now, but they are becoming bigger, not smaller.

We spend so much time here on Forums and in Clubs "DEBATING EACH OTHER", as to what should be done as far as rules and regulations.
It's a joke and we are just fooling ourselves.

The Anti's have use fighting them at every little avenue, and basically "sucker us" into "focusing on the little issues of today".
Basically holding little carrots in front of our face to challenge them on, expending our energy, all the while with their other hand, the one we aren't
watching, they are really "transforming the future" of hunting/fishing" into "NON EXISTENCE".

Because they are becoming the Bio's, the Lawyers, the Government.
They are getting to set the rules.
Not us.

You need power, in high places to have a voice.
Numbers alone do nothing!
Not unless its down right physical violence/war, and in the end, we just llok bad, like Trump supporters.

Have to get on the "Inside", fix from within, silently, and gain authority.
Sort of like a modern day "Hells Angel".

[stoneramhunter]

I am not anti hunting and have said for years that if you shoot it you pack the meat out. Grizzly hunting is a trophy hunt few if any ever pack the meat out. Around the world killing a bear and discarding the carcass in the woods leaves a bad impression . . Rumor has it that Alaska sees the writing on the wall and may make it mandatory to pack out the meat. something that should of been implemented here.

[Rob Chipman]

Bugle:

There are lots of darts that can be thrown at DFO and DFO staff.

But....you can't call them provincial bios. They're feds. Saugstad was talking about provincial bios.

According to the google machine there are 28 wildlife biologists working for the province. You can track where they were educated. I think Mr. Saugstad was wrong in his assertion that they are mostly educated at UBC, UVic or SFU. That's a question of fact, not opinion. The correct information can be independently verified.

There are lots of wildlife bios in BC who are not employed by the province but who do advise the province. I am much more familiar with them. The assertion about where they were educated is inaccurate, and the idea that they don't understand or appreciate rural BC is also inaccurate, and I know for a fact that many of them hunt.

The idea that the new generation is mistaken in thinking we have to do things differently is clearly the wrong conclusion. What we have been doing hasn't worked, which is why we're here. We need to do things differently. To suggest that we don't is just magical thinking.


There is no question that universities have changed their worldview over the past 5 decades. It's happened more in some faculties than in others. The argument that today's practising wildlife bios were tutored by profs who have masters degrees in gender studies and social equity, however, is a bit of a stretch, and while it generates debate and conflict it doesn't help us.

We have some big challenges:

1)Get the government to commit to using science to make wildlife and fish policy decisions (tough challenge, as we all know. Wildlife and fish policy must, by government mandate, start with reconciliation);
2) Make government commit to funding;
3) Make government policy making transparent, so that the last stage in decision making isn't the one it is now - you know, where it goes into a black box and comes out as something unrecognizable;
4) Not let anti-hunting ENGOs dominate and define what Social License to Hunt is, and who has it.


I think both Mr. Saugstad and you have failed to make the obvious connection between our current poor practices and wildlife bios. It ain't the bios who caused this, and they ain't the ones keeping it screwed. They're the ones being under-funded and ignored.

If I'm wrong it doesn't have to be a clash of opinions. This link connects anyone to the 28 wildlife bios employed by the province. The first person on the list is from Mr. Saugstad's neck of the woods. She was educated and did research in U of Rennes and of Lyon, in France, Trent in Ontario, U of Manitoba and U of Winnipeg. Anyone can do the same sleuthing to prove me or Mr. Saugstad wrong on a factual, rather than an opinion, basis.

If we move from bios working directly for the province and look at, say, the ones working on things like SIMDeer, (everyone on this forum had the chance to see the 2 recent SIMDeer update webinars and the bios working on them) what do you find? U of Florida, U of Montana, U of Idaho, UBC Okanagan, and....two bios who clearly like rural BC, one of whom, Sam Foster, grew up in Salmon Arm. They work with Dr. Adam Ford, who, again, doesn't fit the description put forward by Mr. Saugstad. Clayton Lamb? The guy who argued publicly during the g-bear hunt ban debate that the science proved conclusively that there was no scientific basis for banning the hunt? UBC, yes, but also U of Alberta and U of Montana.


I've spent time talking to and listening to all of these guys. They do not fit the description put forth by Mr. Saugstad.

Now, is this a big deal? Not really. I'm glad Mr. Saugstad is writing on this topic, and rather than concentrate on what he gets wrong I think it's important to celebrate what he gets right (ENGOS and government are to blame). I do not have a big problem with him or his opinions. I'd just like him to focus a bit more. That would be helpful.

It's also important not to argue among ourselves about whether we line up behind him or behind someone else. That's just an argument where we fight among ourselves. That's no good, doesn't work and has to stop. It may be enjoyable to complain that the good old days were way better than today and that today's kids just don't get it, but its a waste of time.


Here's the link to check the BC Government wildlife bios: https://dir.gov.bc.ca/gtds.cgi?esearch=&for=people&attribute=title&searchString=Wildlife+Biologist&organizationCode=NRO

[Sitkaspruce]

Rob

Not to get into an argument about Wildlife Bio's, but in my 30 years working with, around and in the vicinity of said bio's, I have seen a lot change.

the old days of doing wildlife management really changed when the Liberals came into power in the early 2000's and that change is still here today. The old days, management of wildlife was done by regions with deportment heads and a regional manager. They managed the bio's, the budget and what to focus on, and they listened and worked with local R&G clubs, land use plans, local stakeholders and others to develop plans for the region. Now days, everything is run out of Victoria, with the local bios and section heads providing information when requested and following orders. And whats in Victoria? Politicians and all the lobby groups who think they know what is best for the province, along others who don't understand how to manage wildlife and especially don't know the region and the land that the wildlife live on. It's the same way with forestry, mining, agriculture and even oil and gas.

The other big difference is that the most of the new Professionals who are in charge of our resources are changing; the new breed is much more comfortable doing statistics, computer models and following books than heading out in -25 for a day of telemetry. It the new way of doing resource management in BC. No different in Forestry and other resource industries in BC.

I am not saying that all professionals are like this and a lot of the old breed along with some of the new are doing a great job with one hand tied behind their back. But Victoria interference is strong and until those ties are snipped, we will see the same old processes repeated.

Victoria controls the purse strings, the direction that resources are managed and who has a say in what is going on.

Cheers

SS

[2chodi]

Rob

Not to get into an argument about Wildlife Bio's, but in my 30 years working with, around and in the vicinity of said bio's, I have seen a lot change.



Actually, the statutory decision makers are still in region — about the only thing that was shifted to Victoria was responsibility for allocation, with regional advice.

Many in the higher natural resource positions in region are foresters, so when budgets are minuscule, wildlife takes the hit. We have little support for core work like inventory in the NE. Little support for prescribed fire. The NE has many staff vacancies in the wildlife section, even at senior levels. One of our bios, assigned mostly to caribou recovery has been out capturing and collaring caribou, wolves and big horn sheep over the last few weeks.

The big issue is the shift to regulating from on-the-ground actions that really make a difference. Talk to your MLAs.

[gcreek]

Hey Rob, who writes your paycheques?

[gcreek]

Hi GC, i do hope this winter is not hard on your cattle, hopefully the wolf management program brought in last year has helped your situation out somewhat. It must be so frustrating dealing with the same thing year after year. How is your hip doing, you running laps around the ranch yet :)


It has been mostly mild but for this last week although long. A foot of snow on Oct. 20 followed by 3 inches of rain flooded our winter range and a couple weeks later 16 inches of heavy, wet snow fell. We are now at nearly four feet accumulated, not very easy on moose and caribou.
The counting crews were here a couple weeks ago and counted same areas the do annually, hearing they saw way more moose than they have been. Not sure where they came from because we haven’t grown that many in the last year.
Wolf cull 2020 did have a positive outcome for moose and caribou calf survival. This needs doing province wide and someone needs to thin the bear population drastically yet.
Our losses to predators including mitigation costs topped a million dollars this year since we started keeping track in 2003. I would hazard to guess if the decision makers involve in wildlife mismanagement sustained these types of losses personally there might be a completely different mindset from Victoria.

Hip is good, I am pretty much back to full work days.

Was voted in as President of Cariboo Cattlemens Asso. yesterday so will be busy with that as well. You may be sure that predators were high on my mandate.

[Rob Chipman]

Gcreek asked: "Hey Rob, who writes your paycheques?"

I do. I've been writing my own and several other peoples' paycheques since the 80s.

What's the point of your question? I'm not sure I can see where you're going with it.

[gcreek]

Gcreek asked: "Hey Rob, who writes your paycheques?"

I do. I've been writing my own and several other peoples' paycheques since the 80s.

What's the point of your question? I'm not sure I can see where you're going with it.

No need to go further, thanks for honest answer.

[Rob Chipman]

There's a need to go further. Why would you ask question like that? Who did you think wrote my paycheques?

[Bugle M In]

Rob,

I guess it wasnt my best post and think my message got lost.
Truth is, i dont give a shit about Bio's anymore and "what they have to say"
The fellow you mentioned in the OP, well ironically another member (not so frequent on here) also sent me a link on him "joining their ranks".
In his case, it sounds like he likes the guy.

And this sums up why i am slowly spending less time on HBC.
Again, we have someone with opinions, and others that disagree with it.
Thats fine, nothing new on HBC, thats for sure.
But there is a common theme going on:
Hunters arguing with other hunters!!
No wonder it is going to shit in BC.
Arguing this Reg or that one or this should be banned...blah blah blah.

I have said this before, if hunting Regs and Restrictions, imposed on us generally thru the recommendations of Bios would be of benefit, we should
have some of the best hunting in NA!
In the early 60's it was a page with hours of when to hunt and what was open and when it closed, and thats it.....period!
Now its a bible and online changes on the fly, and we are more F****d now than back then!

Why!!!????
Because Hunting isnt the main contributor to the decline in populations.
Never has been and never will be!!
So go on everyone, Micro manage the shit out of it, while the wheels sink deeper into the mud.
Argue amongst yourself, that this should be leh or that should be closed or that shouldnt be allowed.
In the end, things are getting more restricted, limited or closed.
And each time that happens, hunters are forced to congregate in smaller and smaller and tighter groups, until that area becomes over run and closed.
(best example was R5 closed for 10 days now to see R3 being hammered and the effects are starting to show in some MU's)

Yes, we have some good Bios and yes, we have some that i think are Anti's in the group.
I have also seen some dumb shot like the no scope xbow suggestion.
(they couldn't even be truthful as to why they wanted it and said it was for moose management, utter bs if one was at the table as it was a CO's
recommendation because of so many xbow infractions up there and yes, they needed to address the declines in Moose in the area, but again,
wasnt due to hunting if you ask me anyways)

There is so much BS as of late, and there is tons of studies already done, just gaining dust.
Fine, the recent MD study is great, because we have altered the habitat thru logging so much in 20 years that it would be stupid to go off of any
old studies where an area has been so turned upside down. and not manage it differently now.

But, what is going to get done...sweet F*** ALL!

There is no money for CO's.
And there is no money to improve habitat, or not much.
So, what's left, to mange thru restrictions and closures.
So who cares what they say anymore, they are only given one option to manage.
We should only be concerned with if we have any Bios' amongst the ranks that are ANTI's.
As i can see they would love to manage thru restriction and even more closures.
Those are the ones we need to bring to the spotlight and get out.

They cant manage the resource sectors or whatever else is destroying habitat, and they can influence political hot potatoes like a wolf cull.
Why, because that part all comes from the Political spectrum of input.

Look at the salmon.
Too afraid to make FN use Traditioanl means instead of nets.
Also, many Bios' are against hatcheries due to losing genetic diversity, which fine, i wont argue that, but what is the solution.
Quite simple actually, "clip all hatchery salmon in BC...100%"
And why isnt it happening?
Because the Feds (the political side) wont cough up 4 to 6 million to purchase 4 to 6 mobile clipping units (yes, they are a million a piece i am told).

The solutions are already on paper, we dont need the Bios other then to oversee implementation and monitoring at this point if you ask me, so F' em.
We are missing people in Politics (preferably with law degrees...sadly but we have FN issues as well) "who are passionate" about hunting and wildlife
and most importantly CONSERVATION!
How many are out there in BC that fit that bill.
How many of them actually sit on a portfolio high up in the ranks of these Parties or could???
And ones in the past had "special interests", quite often with the GO's and benefitting on a private manner.

My point is this, imagine what the USA would be like today, had they not had Roosevelt, a very strong presence of an individual that made sure he
got things done no matter what, and yes, was a passionate hunter and conservationist.

That other member that doesn't frequent much on hbc, well he is busy trying to start up a chapter for hunters, another hunting group.
I wish him luck.
But, the fact is, its just one group that will end up disagreeing with another group on some sort of hunting issue related to regs.
Hunters fighting hunters, on issues that wont make a difference because the root issue isnt inside or due to hunting.
So good luck whether your in the group or alliance or another group like BCWF.

Unless you get folks in POLITICS that are passionate about hunting, wildlife and conservation, its a downward spiral.
We need money pumped in, and we need other factors, outside of hunting to be addressed and regulated, not hunting.
So ya, i could care less about this Bio or that one these days nor get into more this side of the fence or that one on HBC Threads

Get yourself or your kids into politics if hunting is your or their passion if you still want it in the future.

[Rob Chipman]

Bugle:

Don't worry about it pal!

There are two types of disagreement on this forum/subject.

One is over interpretations or solutions or facts. You and I have those and we do it on a semi-regular basis. It's actually a good exercise and I don't take any offence and hope you don't either. I think it moves us closer to a synthesis of ideas and values that we can work with.

The other type of disagreement is a little different. That's the one where someone questions your motives and implies that you're somehow not honest or above board or uninformed. It's disrespectful and drives the tone of the conversation south.

You don't do that.

I think, actually, with the social license to hunt BS coming up that a lot of the posts are really good quality and in the first category. We seem to be trying to figure out the best response through consensus, and that's good. We aren't going to get there overnight, but we'll get there.


To a few of your other points:

"Look at the salmon.
Too afraid to make FN use Traditioanl means instead of nets."

"Our side of the ledger" (if I can use that term) need to do some work on ourselves when it comes to Indigenous Relations. In case that sounds unfair I'll point out that Chad Day has said exactly the same thing about FNs (see the Cutbanks Conversations podcast with him).

We can't "make" FN use traditional nets. It's got nothing to do with being "afraid", even if government people do send out a vibe that they're terrified. Indigenous rights are real, legal things. "We" can't pretend that simply electing a guy who's got the balls to make Indigenous people do something is a workable solution. "We" tried putting Indigenous people on reserves, putting them in residential schools to advance assimilation and "we" destroyed a lot of their culture, all by force.

What happened? "They" survived that ordeal, didn't go anywhere, maintained their identity, increased their populations and.....took "us" through "our" court system and won. (I'm putting "we" and "they" in quotes because we need to move past an us vs them dynamic).

Bottom line? We need to reconcile because of our centuries old legal system. It's not a case of uninformed socialist latte sippers in downtown Vancouver making popular demands like the social license to hunt issue. Indigenous people have Supreme Court of Canada tested rights. That said, traditional, sustainable ways to fish are becoming more visible as a solution.

"we dont need the Bios other then to oversee implementation and monitoring at this point if you ask me, so F' em."

We already did F'em. They are so underfunded they can't count anything. There is no monitoring to really speak of, and implementation? Same story. You need money to buy whisky and cigarettes, and we aren't giving them any. Funding, all on its own, is a huge problem. Call your MLA and tell them they need to pay. Refer to Jesse's numbers. If you don't have them, contact me.



Hatcheries are a challenge right now. Watch the film "Artifishal" for an anti-hatchery viewpoint. Then talk to the guys in your club who have been doing volunteer hatchery work.....forever. In other words I don't know the solution either, but we'll get there.

"My point is this, imagine what the USA would be like today, had they not had Roosevelt..." I tell politicians his story *every* *single* *time*. You and I are on the same page there.

"he is busy trying to start up a chapter for hunters, another hunting group.
I wish him luck."

Me too. He should start a hunter's rights group. There is an argument going back to Magna Carta to prove we have those rights. BCWF is not a hunter's rights group. It's a conservation organization that has a big membership that overwhelmingly consists of hunters. That's an important distinction.

Hunters inform what BCWF does, but that's informing BCWF on conservation issues. Hunter rights? That really should be a different, but complementary group that concentrates on that. Example: who's better on guns? BCWF or CCFR? Who's better on hunter informed conservation? BCWF or CCFR? Two different jobs, two different groups doing them. Add a third group for hunters rights and I'll say "Hey, send me the application so I can join". We need it.


Anyhow, I enjoy your input. Take 'er easy.

[Bugle M In]

Yup,

I feel sorry for the pro-hunting Bio's for sure.
There is no funding, either to monitor properly, or to make the changes needed (generally habitat and habitat use related).
If there are any Anti Bio's in the works, those are the ones that are more than happy to throw on more restrictions etc to stop hunting.
(those Bio's should be pointed out on this site for sure so we all know)
There are lots of good ones, but, they have nothing to work with other than Regs, and thats the sad part and why we are getting grouped tighter and
tighter out in the field.
It's the debating whether it should be 4pt or if this should be leh or off the table battles that irk me the most and generally are between hunters.
We just arent organized and many fail to see the pressure from the outside, and that th Antis all have "1 GOAL", to ban hunting.
Thats an easy agenda to stay focused on whereas us hunters look at so many different issues inside the hunting/wildlife spectrum.
And its that spectrum, basically like a collidescope, dispersing us to go off in so many different directions amongst ourselves.
No focus and we fail to see what is really happening.

When it comes to an example like the salmon, it shows how frustrating and simple a solution could be.
Get clipping machines here in BC and the sport could have a specific target catch season.
And most in the industry would be happy.
But again, that anti's just go on lately how bad hatcheries are and want them gone.
And some Bios buy into that in the DFO arena.
Which makes me bang my head against the wall because if they are clipped, then we know they are hatchery fish and we can harvest them, and
definitively know the ones that arent are wild.
But nope, no money from the Feds in an industry that makes tons of money for many folks trying to make a living.
Instead, closed or restricted size, and again, the same scenario as our wildlife in BC.

As for the FN, using say nets and showing that the use of them means they target all species in the river, not a specific catch.
Well, that's a matter of continuously spotlighting it in the media and public, like sturgeon being killed and dumped.
Only when its in front of everyone's faces will the majority call for change.
Right now, everyone, or most are to scared to say something.
Look at the mayor in Pouce, twittering about some not wanting a pipeline in the backyard due to environmental damage and yet their front yards
are a dump.
You end up being called a racist, but if it was you or I, being white, then your fair game!
Totally F'd ourselves in that arena now.

But, it all stems from the government and lack of action or funding.
Thats why i say we need those, that have that ability and love hunting to make a go for it in politics if you ever want to see it get bettr.
Right now, Antis are doing just that, so expect it to get worse, not better!
Thus the reason for a modern hells angel analogy.

Back in the day, when they rode their steel machines and wore their leathers and patches, they were easily identifiable as bad or the enemy.
Sort of like us when you have a rally and there are just a bunch of guys standing around wearing camo shirts and browning hats.
We are an easy target to look like the big bad killers.
I we want to make a change, a suite and tie and running in politics and getting somewhere from the "inside" is what will make the difference.
Expecting a politician who is an Anti and expecting them to listen to our concerns is extremely foolish.
We have to trade in the Camo, just like the Angels did, and "blend in" and get into where the real action happens.

I dot hate Bio's, not by a long shot, its just that they have no tools in regards to funding to make a difference.
And if your audience to make the change is a bunch of Anti politicians, then it wont happen.
Just more closures.

[Retiredguy]

The problems being experienced in British Columbia are not unique and other provinces are struggling with the same issues. The simple truth is that the fish and wildlife branches are barely getting enough money to function, with little money allocated for actual hands on in the field work. Wildlife management these days boils down to 'licensed hunter management' as licensed hunters are the only aspect of wildlife management they have some control over. The wildlife branch is not able to obtain all of the current information they need to properly manage all of the various species, as the money just isn't there. They also have no accurate wildlife harvest data for or any control over the 'unlicensed hunters' in the province. With out current numbers on the various game species and only harvest data for licensed hunters, proper wildlife management simply is not possible. So they carry on making their best guesses and micro manage the only thing they have any control over...licensed hunters.

The lack of current data also leaves the wildlife branch in a precarious position when confronted by anti-hunting groups, as it is difficult for them to claim that wildlife management is being based on current and reliable data. The anti's know this and use it to their advantage.

Things need to change and they need to change soon.

[Sitkaspruce]

https://www.alaskahighwaynews.ca/opinion/columnists/evan-saugstad-wildlife-management-in-b-c-managing-our-urban-not-so-wild-life-1.24286908

Go to the bottom of the article to read all 6 parts and start from the first issue.

Sums up a lot of all the pieces that keep get batting around. Good perspective.....from a flat earth view.

Cheers

SS

[Bugle M In]

We are just at a point where standing on the outside, holding signs or rallies or expressing concerns just isnt working and isnt going to work.
Just like Zeeman having to go onto radio to defend hunting against antis, its just effort wasted when there are more important stuff i am sure
he would like to be addressing etc.
Hunting is like what is happening with our gun laws, that basically a minor population owns guns or hunts.
The majority dont see our lifestyle and thus dont care.

Being on the outside asking someone to listen who probably doesnt care about our lifestyle or worst, is against our lifestyle, is what is occuring.
Have to be on the "inside".
To get someone to focus on wildlife matters and hunting.
Start getting funding directed into what needs to happen.
To look at other sectors that have the greatest effect on wildlife and habitat.

Until i see that happen, someone with their hands on the wheel and is in a position to do so, i will feel like it is all downhill from here.
Doesnt matter who and what we say standing on the outside.
No one is listening.