Rebeka Breder trying to ban Wolf an Bear hunting

[Ohwildwon]

Animal rights lawyer Rebeka Breder is trying to ban your

Spring Bear hunt today on CKNW at 11am.

On her Twitter feed, I read that her end goal is to

ban ALL HUNTING

[Arctic Lake]

Have a mass phone in from us Hunters if they open up the phone lines . I think if you phone in they may do a pre screen so not sure what tactic to use . Sorry I will be working .
Arctic Lake

[adriaticum]

I guess there was some sort of a debate between her and Jesse Zeman.

[gcreek]

I guess there was some sort of a debate between her and Jesse Zeman.

That will be like fighting fire with more dead wood.

[adriaticum]

That will be like fighting fire with more dead wood.


I don't know what your beef is with Zeman, but he is completely in the public eye and his opinions, proposals and ideas are too.
They can be found easily.
I have not found anything by him that would make your characterizations ring true to me.

On the other hand, I don't know that you have public presense and that your opinions are published somewhere so I can't really learn what your ideas are.
We all have disagreements about how we would go about doing things, but usually those who show up run the show.

Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to how Zeman has contributed to loss of hunting opportunities?
Otherwise your constant jabs get a little stale.

[GGB]

Just listened. They had no time for callers. Rebeka sounded unhinged and Jesse was very even keeled and stuck to the facts. I think he represented hunters well

[WetLeopard]

I agree. The early end probably allowed Rebeka to save face, she was starting to go off the deep end.
I thought Jesse did a great job of sticking to the facts and maintaining composure. I like to think I'm a fairly calm individual, but some of the claims Rebeka was making had the blood pressure skyrocketing pretty quickly. It's easy to see how the primary anti-hunting tactic is raw emotion.

[GGB]

I wanted someone to ask her how she felt about people eating meat in general. I think we would have heard that her ultimate goal would be to have us all be vegans. The whole hunting thing is just the thin edge of the wedge for these people.

[Ride Red]

She’s another anti using false information to further her/their agenda. Here’s another article of her rant posted below; https://www.burnabynow.com/opinion/opinion-anti-hunting-letter-filled-with-illogical-framing-3127840

[Citori54]

Just listened. They had no time for callers. Rebeka sounded unhinged and Jesse was very even keeled and stuck to the facts. I think he represented hunters well

Exactly what my wife and I thought when we listened. She is a real nut bar and was shrill and constantly interrupting with pretty outrageous claims. I hope the average person listening feels the same. Jesse did a good job.

[Jagermeister]

I don't know what your beef is with Zeman, but he is completely in the public eye and his opinions, proposals and ideas are too.
They can be found easily.
I have not found anything by him that would make your characterizations ring true to me.

On the other hand, I don't know that you have public presense and that your opinions are published somewhere so I can't really learn what your ideas are.
We all have disagreements about how we would go about doing things, but usually those who show up run the show.

Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to how Zeman has contributed to loss of hunting opportunities?
Otherwise your constant jabs get a little stale.
Atta boy! Call him out. Have him tell us how he opposed the Chilcotin Nation "land grab". How he lead the private landowners within that territory in opposition.

[simonvancouver]

I don't know what your beef is with Zeman, but he is completely in the public eye and his opinions, proposals and ideas are too.
They can be found easily.
I have not found anything by him that would make your characterizations ring true to me.

On the other hand, I don't know that you have public presense and that your opinions are published somewhere so I can't really learn what your ideas are.
We all have disagreements about how we would go about doing things, but usually those who show up run the show.

Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to how Zeman has contributed to loss of hunting opportunities?
Otherwise your constant jabs get a little stale.

If more hunters responded to claims like him I feel we would be in a better place. IMHO Zeman does a good job for us, and long may it continue.

[gcreek]

I don't know what your beef is with Zeman, but he is completely in the public eye and his opinions, proposals and ideas are too.
They can be found easily.
I have not found anything by him that would make your characterizations ring true to me.

On the other hand, I don't know that you have public presense and that your opinions are published somewhere so I can't really learn what your ideas are.
We all have disagreements about how we would go about doing things, but usually those who show up run the show.

Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to how Zeman has contributed to loss of hunting opportunities?
Otherwise your constant jabs get a little stale.

If you are too blind to see the path your Beloved Fed is leading its lambs to slaughter on then it is not worth the effort trying to open your eyes.

You know, sometimes people are put in places of influence because they are worthless anywhere else. I could care less what others think of me personally, that is far from the issue.
Before you go and pat your pet on the head again, let’s revisit his and BCFW’s non role in speaking up for the grizzly hunt. If you think that is worth his $500 a day income then keep sending your donations in. I will spend my time, effort and dollars trying to make wildlife.

[gcreek]

Just listened. They had no time for callers. Rebeka sounded unhinged and Jesse was very even keeled and stuck to the facts. I think he represented hunters well

Of course there was no time for callers, it is a Global radio station and a few hunters and outdoors people speaking up would not have fit the agenda. I did try to listen in but could not access the station for whatever reason.

[adriaticum]

If you are too blind to see the path your Beloved Fed is leading its lambs to slaughter on then it is not worth the effort trying to open your eyes.

You know, sometimes people are put in places of influence because they are worthless anywhere else. I could care less what others think of me personally, that is far from the issue.
Before you go and pat your pet on the head again, let’s revisit his and BCFW’s non role in speaking up for the grizzly hunt. If you think that is worth his $500 a day income then keep sending your donations in. I will spend my time, effort and dollars trying to make wildlife.


I'm not saying that BCWF is without fault, or that everything they do is what I'd do.
But they are the closest thing to representation we have. Closest thing to association, industry group.
If you know what I mean.
They are the one organization that is called when some political body wants to know what hunters think.

I would agree that BCWF was a non-combatant in the grizzly hunt issue. Sometimes people, in this case falsley, believe that they have to give up something to get something.
But in this game we are the only ones giving. For 50 years or more.
Gun owners and hunters in BC should not be giving an inch.
The only inch we should be giving is heart piercing steel.
I've taken heat about my opinions on this issue from some very high profile hunting personalities. But it hasn't changed my mind.

But that's not a valid reason to dismiss BCWF.
It's a valid reason to make it better.
Your constant dick swinging at Zeman is not productive.
It helps nobody. It just shows that you have no valid arguments. No valid ideas.
Especially when most people know Zeman's public stand.
And he is the one who government and media ask about hunting.
Not you and me.

You should care what people think of you, if you live among people.
But maybe it's life in isolation up there in the boonies, that makes you think you shouldn't.

It's about ****ing time that we learn to work with those who we don't agree without exclusion.
This ****ing social media is making imbeciles of this generation.

Grizzly hunt is not dead. It will return.
British Columians don't always elect idiots. Just most of the time.

[gcreek]

http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/blob:http://www.huntingbc.ca/38465966-d5f2-4ae0-9895-57b35cc680dehttp://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/blob:http://www.huntingbc.ca/0e434af8-afef-45a2-bf50-8a329c29510e

[Salty]

If more hunters responded to claims like him I feel we would be in a better place. IMHO Zeman does a good job for us, and long may it continue.

I agree 100%

[elimsprint]

http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/blob:http://www.huntingbc.ca/38465966-d5f2-4ae0-9895-57b35cc680dehttp://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/blob:http://www.huntingbc.ca/0e434af8-afef-45a2-bf50-8a329c29510e

#16 was a great post, most intelligent from you yet.

[Ridgehunter604]

That rebuttal in the Burnaby now was very well written and worth the read. Let’s hope others read it as well

[tigrr]

Science showed that letting the big boars live killed more baby bears than anything. It actually shrunk the numbers.
But emotion sells. That's what the anti hunters use.
Rebeka is a waste of oxygen.

[stoneramhunter]

Im not convinced and don’t believe that grizzly hunting will make a return. But if that does occur there is no way that the World would look at it as anything but a Trophy Hunt (which it is) if once again hunters are not required to take out the meat. Killing a bear and leaving the carcass just rubs the world the wrong way and I happen to agree. Alaska has seen the writing on the wall and rumour has it that they are looking at implementing you shoot a grizz you pack out the meat. I agree with such a regulation for more than one reason.

[Ron.C]

Im not convinced and don’t believe that grizzly hunting will make a return. But if that does occur there is no way that the World would look at it as anything but a Trophy Hunt (which it is) if once again hunters are not required to take out the meat. Killing a bear and leaving the carcass just rubs the world the wrong way and I happen to agree. Alaska has seen the writing on the wall and rumour has it that they are looking at implementing you shoot a grizz you pack out the meat. I agree with such a regulation for more than one reason.

have to agree with you stoneramhunter. I came to the same conclusion after years of engaging non hunters (not anti hunters) in my Victoria workplace by sharing tasty treats like Bear pepperoni/jerky/burgers. ( great icebreaker to discuss hunting) ....

Can't recall how many times I heard " hunting isn't really for me but I don't have a problem with it as long as you eat what you shoot....." And I often heard non hunters opposition to the Grizzly hunt as it was clearly a trophy hunt where meat retention was not required.

Like many things these days, I believe the vast majority of people are pretty much ambivalent and want to just go about their lives. But it's all to easy to polarise people like this on a particular issue like "trophy hunting" .

In regards to wolf hunting, it needs to be pitched as a predator management issue. And in BC, we need to manage predators because we (humans) are responsible habitat for loss and other wildlife mismanagement shortcomings. Would be nice if nature could be left alone to balance itself but we've created perfect wolf hunting territories from one end of the province to the other and the ungulates are paying the price for it. So we either control one species or watch several be decimated.

Also, look at the negative publicity predator hunting got a couple years back when a club advertised a "wolf wacking " contest. Bad publicity and I can assume very easy for anti's to use for their own gain.

We as hunters need to be smarter than this and can do better.

[LBM]

Im not convinced and don’t believe that grizzly hunting will make a return. But if that does occur there is no way that the World would look at it as anything but a Trophy Hunt (which it is) if once again hunters are not required to take out the meat. Killing a bear and leaving the carcass just rubs the world the wrong way and I happen to agree. Alaska has seen the writing on the wall and rumour has it that they are looking at implementing you shoot a grizz you pack out the meat. I agree with such a regulation for more than one reason.

Did you hunt grizzly when they were open, if so did you shoot one.

[MOOSE MILK]

Back in the 50"s and early 60"s gun clubs asked hunters to be careful as to what pictures we took of the game we killed. It can be very disturbing to animal lovers to see an arrow sticking out of the side of a deer and it running away to die some where in the bush.

We were warned that this would disturb a lot of people and they may try to have hunting banned.
Today almost everyone is taking videos/pictures of the KILL SHOT and great gaping exit wounds their most destructive bullet makes and posting them on line.
They even post the poor shot that wounds the critter and takes another 3 of 4 shots to put it out of it's misery.
No wonder there are so many people against hunting when they see the carnage. It even makes me feel bad when I watch some of the stuff posted on you-tub.
Hunters should be a little more sensitive with the pictures and videos taken on hunts.
MM

[HarryToolips]

Just listened. They had no time for callers. Rebeka sounded unhinged and Jesse was very even keeled and stuck to the facts. I think he represented hunters well
Glad to hear he represented us well...I worked so was not able to listen...I've met Jesse a couple times and he seems to be a well spoken individual who truly cares about hunting...

[Steeleco]

Debate amongst ourselves is good, but lets not lower ourselves to the level the Lawyers was heading down. It's funny how a person gets shit from the masses for a job non of them are willing to take over? I've met Jesse a couple of times, very professional. Knowing what little I do about the man, I KNOW hes' not doing the job for $$$

[IronNoggin]

I'm just going to leave this here:


https://bcwf.bc.ca/the-mike-smyth-show-jesse-zeman-rebeka-breder-discuss-bear-and-other-predator-species-hunting-in-b-c/


Have a listen, and make up your own mind just who was rational and on point for our side...


Nog

[Kos]

^^^^^^^The bear talk starts at around the 35 minute mark

[adriaticum]

Bear is a food species that just happens to be a predator.

[adriaticum]

https://globalnews.ca/bc/program/the-mike-smyth-show/

[ursus]

Ron C and Stone Ram hunter are bang on. Was having this exact conversation with my wife last night about how predators should be called a management hunt and yes Edible portions of all bears should be legally required to be taken. We also “Must” get away from the term “Trophy Hunting” or even the term what a Trophy! We are Selective hunters; not Trophy Hunters. Trophy hunters just sounds bad to the antis. We all need to be smarter how we brand hunting for future generations! It is a must!

[Liptugger]

Good post, totally agree

[northernguy]

"Selective Hunters"

I like it! Not spin...just a more accurate description of how folks hunt. I'm going start using that term if ya don't mind.

[horshur]

All your arguments fall flat in today's political corrrect climate. It does not matter. You are not going to change the social licence of the urban live like rat's crowd they have no ability to look beyond their own walls. Appealing to the masses we too murder the truth by not being genuine and telling lies. Who is best at sniffing a lie? (A liar. Our only hope is science and the progressives have it by the throat right now.

[gcreek]

#16 was a great post, most intelligent from you yet.I take it you do not have anything intelligent to add at all.

[cuervosail]

I agree. That's a great suggestion.

[horshur]

Hunters are not "Woke" Hunting as recreation is white patriarchy .

[adriaticum]

nobody can take our right to put food on the table and to do the killing and the butchering ourselves

[horshur]

nobody can take our right to put food on the table and to do the killing and the butchering ourselves

Oh yes they can.

[f350ps]

All your arguments fall flat in today's political corrrect climate. It does not matter. You are not going to change the social licence of the urban live like rat's crowd they have no ability to look beyond their own walls. Appealing to the masses we too murder the truth by not being genuine and telling lies. Who is best at sniffing a lie? (A liar. Our only hope is science and the progressives have it by the throat right now.
Bang on, the latte sippers are and will kill us, only by numbers! And those numbers are votes unfortunately! K

[f350ps]

I listened to that debate and if I didn’t hunt I would say Jesse got his ass hand to him, especially when she mentioned the trophy awards by BCWF he just continued the same shit he said five times! What surprised me was the part about how he defended the population numbers by using an estimate by the complaints of problem bears, WTF? Great science!! K

[HighCountryBC]

Tuned in yesterday. Once again, Jesse was a great representative for the hunting community. If we had more people like him working for us, we would be miles ahead of where we are now. Instead, some people like take shots from the cheap seats while they contribute absolutely nothing.

[horshur]

Do a google search. "Trophy hunting and Patriarchy " read some of the articles. Educate yourselves.

[Iltasyuko]

Oh yes they can.

this ^^ and horshur’s #34 post are the reality of today’s world. Wish it wasn’t so, but these posts are spot on.

[adriaticum]

lol, you sound like a born again feminist and you are believing it,horshur

[f350ps]

lol, you sound like a born again feminist and you are believing it,horshur
You sound like you’re living in 1973! K

[Ohwildwon]

I listened to that debate and if I didn’t hunt I would say Jesse got his ass hand to him, especially when she mentioned the trophy awards by BCWF he just continued the same shit he said five times! What surprised me was the part about how he defended the population numbers by using an estimate by the complaints of problem bears, WTF? Great science!! K

I some what agree.

A bit of a learning curve though?

Trying to handle an unhinged hysterical

anti hunter lawyer is going to take some

practise...

Hopefully has more positive hunting narratives in his pocket next time!

[j270wsm]

I personally thought he sounded like the kid in elementary school who only come back was “ I know you are but what am I “. He could have referenced the North American wildlife model or biologists when responding to questions about safe allowable harvest numbers or how game populations are estimated.

[LBM]

I listened to that debate and if I didn’t hunt I would say Jesse got his ass hand to him, especially when she mentioned the trophy awards by BCWF he just continued the same shit he said five times! What surprised me was the part about how he defended the population numbers by using an estimate by the complaints of problem bears, WTF? Great science!! K

Ya I would agree almost like dodging the questions, kept repeating what he had all ready said.

[Redthies]

[QUOTE=adriaticum;2234054]This ****ing social media is making imbeciles of this generation.[QUOTE]


Truer words were never spoken!

[horshur]

You are debating with someone who believes animals are sentient beings and by definition we as hunters are exploiting them. "Truth" Remember she comes from a place of virtue(anti exploitation ) We cannot hold that position. You can only corner them in thier own dichotomies. You are arguing with someone who holds a totaly different world view. They are hypocrites too, shine a light on that. "Sentient" is a social construct not unlike God is it not?

[puddlejumper]

I personally thought he sounded like the kid in elementary school who only come back was “ I know you are but what am I “. He could have referenced the North American wildlife model or biologists when responding to questions about safe allowable harvest numbers or how game populations are estimated.

Wholly shit I though I had seen everything, but I am to be corrected again. j270wsm, it will be you, LBM, Jager and others that will bellyaching on this forum in a few years wondering why you aren't hunting wolves and bears and you will be blaming Jesse for not doing enough. You don't think the lawyer will be monitoring this site to discredit any spokesperson that has the resources to defend a sustainable hunt for food and the protection of ungulates, and here are you donkeys just adding to the argument for the ban.

Jesse did a fantastic job of sticking to the facts and data, in a volatile situation, where there is no rationalization with the other side due to their emotional connection to the subject matter, you stick to the facts, if you have to keep repeating those facts then so be it, but don't waver.

I cannot believe half the shit that is spewed out on this forum. There are some real intelligent people then there are those that just don't get it.

[adriaticum]

You sound like you’re living in 1973! K

Close, I live in 1984

[HighCountryBC]

Wholly shit I though I had seen everything, but I am to be corrected again. j270wsm, it will be you, LBM, Jager and others that will bellyaching on this forum in a few years wondering why you aren't hunting wolves and bears and you will be blaming Jesse for not doing enough. You don't think the lawyer will be monitoring this site to discredit any spokesperson that has the resources to defend a sustainable hunt for food and the protection of ungulates, and here are you donkeys just adding to the argument for the ban.

Jesse did a fantastic job of sticking to the facts and data, in a volatile situation, where there is no rationalization with the other side due to their emotional connection to the subject matter, you stick to the facts, if you have to keep repeating those facts then so be it, but don't waver.

I cannot believe half the shit that is spewed out on this forum. There are some real intelligent people then there are those that just don't get it.

It's always the people who contribute the least, that have the most to say. We see it time and time again with the same posters in threads like these.

I agree, Jesse did a fantastic job and Rebeka basically conceded at the end when she said "at the end of the day the numbers don't really matter."

[Jamesonm]

I don't think there's anything I love more than hunting. The wilderness; the respect for the quarry; learning about the animal in an intimate way; harvesting meat not from a giant kill farm (not pumped full of junk).

Even my mother-in-law doesn't like hunting but eats meat all the time. People just don't get it and are so far remove from where their food comes from it's ridiculous.

!!PRO HUNTING!!

[adriaticum]

You are debating with someone who believes animals are sentient beings and by definition we as hunters are exploiting them. "Truth" Remember she comes from a place of virtue(anti exploitation ) We cannot hold that position. You can only corner them in thier own dichotomies. You are arguing with someone who holds a totaly different world view. They are hypocrites too, shine a light on that. "Sentient" is a social construct not unlike God is it not?

I do understand what you are saying.

Animals are sentient beings.
So what?
Do you think cheetas really care that gazelles are sentient beings?
Maybe we should stop cheetas from eating gazelles. Catch them all and feed them all grass, so they learn the benefits of vegeterian diet.
Why do grizzlies eat elk calfs when they are sentient?
Do you think I am going to get into a debate with someone about this?

Do you think nature really cares that "eaters" don't care that "eatees" are sentient, caring, family oriented animals?
Are cheetas exploiting gazelles?
Are orcas exploiting salmon?

My point is this. We have invented so many bullshit terms like sport hunting, trophy hunting etc. I don't know who invented these terms but I don't like them.
And we are digging ourselves into a deeper hole by using these super duper stupid terms. I can't persuade most people that these terms are destroying our hunting heritage.

We hunt for food and food only.
If we don't hunt for food, we hunt to protect the food source.
We hunt because we are diy-ers in procurement of food.
Just like you try to change the oil on your truck as much as possible, we try to procure our own food as much as possible.

The only thing that can prevent me from hunting is a scientific consensus that it's not sustainable due to over hunting.

The days of the "English hunting model" are long over. The reason people don't hunt in many places in the world is because they have hunted everything to extinction pretty much.
But this is not the case in BC and we need to fight to preserve that. And be careful that we don't overharvest our wild game.

Nobody questions first nations why they hunt and all these anti-hunting groups who want everyone to stop hunting want to allow first nations to continue to hunt because for them it's "sustenance" hunt.
You don't see anti-hunting groups going on reserve and protesting first nations hunts.
For us it's also a sustenance hunt.

I agree with f350ps that Jesse's performance was not that good, it seems that he was busy with something else during the interview. His breething was not normal.
It is very difficult to get your point across in radio interviews. He wasn't prepared I think.
We don't hunt to enjoy the outdoors. That argument can be defeated by an 12 year old.
You can enjoy the outdoors without something getting killed.
There are many ways to enjoy the outdoors.
Enjoyment of the outdoors is a side effect and a reason we enjoy going hunting and fishing againg and again even if we don't bring anything home.
We hunt to eat organic, non spoiled, food as much as possible.
The way nature intended it.

I think just having this discussion on the radio is a defeat for hunters and fishermen.
That woman, however dumb and uneducated, won that just by having the discussion.
The words don't matter because most people don't understand them anyway.

[Arctic Lake]

On the above note we could argue that man in general has been hunting since the beginning , just the same as the FN !
Arctic Lake

[Rob Chipman]

It's a tough discussion to have because anti-hunters (as opposed to non-hunters) are often pretty irrational and like to move the goals posts. That saying "you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't come to by reason" applies.



Jesse did pretty well in that interview. He wasn't in complete control of who said what and when, and I would assume he was expecting a more rational opponent, but I think we did fail a little bit on the science side of black bear populations, and we can do better. I think he made the points about following science and what BC hunters' motivations really are, so that's a positive.

Still, I'm chalking that interview up as a win. First, he did a better job than I could of and second, Rebeka Breder didn't help her cause much with her statements.

(Sidebar - the same week that the wolf trapping SM brouhaha and this radio interview hit the news there were also multiple news stories about cougars strolling through the residential streets of Coquitlam, killing pets and following teenagers. My latest understanding its that COs dispatched one juvenile cougar and are looking for the mother. Latte sipping people were on Global News saying it's unacceptable that people can't walk their dogs in the backyard without living in fear of a cougar attack. None of us on this forum celebrate wildlife death that comes from urban/wildlife conflicts, but it's pretty clear that some people in the 604 aren't looking at things through rose coloured glasses, and that news does get air time, and it's always good when real life makes the news).


But the issue is also complex because hunters haven't talked it through enough on our own side. We're still at a stage where we don't agree on a lot of basic things, and we need to work through them and come up with some solid responses.

Are animals sentient?

Is it ok to kill sentient beings?

Why do we hunt?

Why do we call it "sport hunting"?

Where did that term, and trophy hunting, and recreational hunting, come from?

Are they appropriate terms to use today or have they been completely weaponized?

Who is our target audience for these things?

We want to follow science, but does that mean there is enough science?

If there isn't enough science, isn't that a problem itself?


I'm sure there's more to add to that list, but I think it would be worthwhile for as many of us as possible to get on the same page on those questions. We're starting to get there (look at the recent post here about why we hunt as an example), but I think we need to keep talking about these issues and then get coherent, effective consensus answers. Motivation for hunting is just one example: there can be more than one motivation and we can still be on the same page if we reach a consensus that we hunt for....multiple good reasons.

[ACE]

I think just having this discussion on the radio is a defeat for hunters and fishermen.
That woman, however dumb and uneducated, won that just by having the discussion.
The words don't matter because most people don't understand them anyway.

^^ This is the basis of the never ending debate. She/anti doesn't have to be rational or logical. They have won the debate just because they show up. The Mike Smythe's love this kind of thing . . . . . and we collectively 'bite every time'.
The dumbest fish in the pond is the one with all the hooks in its mouth. That's us.
Good post adriaticum!

[adriaticum]

^ I can see why some might think the Jesse did better. He was calmer and Mike Smyth was supportive of him because he knows him better. Also his general demeanor is always good. He never loses his cool (at least what I know).
But Jesse's counter arguments were not good in my view.
For Radio interviews I always found it better to read my points from a previously prepared list than winging it.
Even if the host is supportive, you are always on the clock.

[umos]

Lot's of great critique here, and I agree with the sentiment that there were some stronger science-based counter arguments that weren't presented. But debating during an interview is tough. I am sure Jesse will be more prepared next time he is in this position, and he certainly did better than I would have.

But there was one point that went wholly unaddressed, that I think posed the greatest threat to societal views of hunting, and is why Rebecca left the interview smug. Her question regarding BCWF's awards for trophies, which obviously applies beyond BCWF. As Atriaticum and others have pointed out, we hunt for food, this is the biggest driver for most of us, and the public supports that. I liken this to growing a vegetable garden to feed your family, we just choose to harvest from wild systems., and most of us would stop (and maybe become gardeners) the second we felt that our hunting presented a threat to a population or its function within an ecosystem. It is harder to keep the focus on this, and hunters historic and current work and financing for conservation, when anti's can counter by pointing to our records and awards for largest x, y, z.

For most of the questions Jesse fielded, I think he handled them well or could see ways to bolster them with hindsight, but I don't have a good answer that would satisfy a non-hunter, non-anti for that last question.

[mod7rem]

I do understand what you are saying.

Animals are sentient beings.
So what?
Do you think cheetas really care that gazelles are sentient beings?
Maybe we should stop cheetas from eating gazelles. Catch them all and feed them all grass, so they learn the benefits of vegeterian diet.
Why do grizzlies eat elk calfs when they are sentient?
Do you think I am going to get into a debate with someone about this?

Do you think nature really cares that "eaters" don't care that "eatees" are sentient, caring, family oriented animals?
Are cheetas exploiting gazelles?
Are orcas exploiting salmon?

My point is this. We have invented so many bullshit terms like sport hunting, trophy hunting etc. I don't know who invented these terms but I don't like them.
And we are digging ourselves into a deeper hole by using these super duper stupid terms. I can't persuade most people that these terms are destroying our hunting heritage.

We hunt for food and food only.
If we don't hunt for food, we hunt to protect the food source.
We hunt because we are diy-ers in procurement of food.
Just like you try to change the oil on your truck as much as possible, we try to procure our own food as much as possible.

The only thing that can prevent me from hunting is a scientific consensus that it's not sustainable due to over hunting.

The days of the "English hunting model" are long over. The reason people don't hunt in many places in the world is because they have hunted everything to extinction pretty much.
But this is not the case in BC and we need to fight to preserve that. And be careful that we don't overharvest our wild game.

Nobody questions first nations why they hunt and all these anti-hunting groups who want everyone to stop hunting want to allow first nations to continue to hunt because for them it's "sustenance" hunt.
You don't see anti-hunting groups going on reserve and protesting first nations hunts.
For us it's also a sustenance hunt.

I agree with f350ps that Jesse's performance was not that good, it seems that he was busy with something else during the interview. His breething was not normal.
It is very difficult to get your point across in radio interviews. He wasn't prepared I think.
We don't hunt to enjoy the outdoors. That argument can be defeated by an 12 year old.
You can enjoy the outdoors without something getting killed.
There are many ways to enjoy the outdoors.
Enjoyment of the outdoors is a side effect and a reason we enjoy going hunting and fishing againg and again even if we don't bring anything home.
We hunt to eat organic, non spoiled, food as much as possible.
The way nature intended it.

I think just having this discussion on the radio is a defeat for hunters and fishermen.
That woman, however dumb and uneducated, won that just by having the discussion.
The words don't matter because most people don't understand them anyway.

In my opinion, this is not honest for most hunters. This is the spin that a 12 yr old could easily defeat.
I’ve said it in the past, defending hunting needs to be honest and unapologetic. As soon as we bracket hunting into a purely sustenance argument, it will make it that much easier to separate different hunting practices and defeat them one by one using our own argument against us. I don’t think people are stupid enough to believe and accept that all the things we do as hunters, are in the name of sustenance and I don’t ever use that argument to justify what I do. Think of all the time, effort and resources that most of us put into our hunting. For example, how would you justify traveling to different provinces and states to an anti hunter, as a need for sustenance.
The bulk of the people we need to justify this to, are people who eat meat but think that the life of a wild animal has a higher value than a domestic animal, and therefore should be left alone. They are uninformed/misinformed and find the idea of hunting unnecessary, distasteful and disturbing. I’ve heard this argument countless times in the past 20 years. We are never going to convince the extreme anti hunters of our right to hunt, so I think we better get those misinformed people in the middle on our side because they are a far bigger population.
Im not trying to offend anybody, but this is my opinion.

[mod7rem]

I just wanted to add that I’ve been hunting for a long time and in that time I’ve never had a conversation about hunting with a rabid anti hunter. I have had lots of conversations about hunting with those misinformed anti hunters in the middle. It doesn’t take much rational explanation and information about the hunting lifestyle to start changing their opinions.

[wideopenthrottle]

^^ This is the basis of the never ending debate. She/anti doesn't have to be rational or logical. They have won the debate just because they show up. The Mike Smythe's love this kind of thing . . . . . and we collectively 'bite every time'.
The dumbest fish in the pond is the one with all the hooks in its mouth. That's us.
Good post adriaticum!

perhaps reminding her how almost all the sentient beings that used to live in the forested land that was the most productive for wildlife are all dead so she can have her farmland...

this is how it needs to be framed …

it blows their mind when it is presented that hunters kill less wildlife (and in a sustainable way) than creating farmland did because everything down to soil bacteria has been eliminated in some cases...

[wideopenthrottle]

are soil bacteria sentient beings in her mind....heheheh

[bearvalley]

There’s a few key points that should be kept in mind;

- man has hunted for thousands of years.
- predators (competition or threat to life) have been thinned out by man for thousands of years.

Now let’s look at what’s going on, we’ve got an anti hunting enviro movement taking place that’s asking for the shutdown of predator hunting & trapping.
What will it do to the “Social License” of the anti hunting organization if they are successful in their closures of Apex predators and all species of wildlife are decimated due to their actions.
I would suggest that you study on what happens when so called “Predator Pits” are created through irresponsible or non existent wildlife management.
For wildlife management to exist all species must be included in the plan .....you cannot leave a handful out of the equation.
The anti group driving this campaign can’t be reasoned with.
The “motherships” are in it for the money and for the most part the followers are irrational.
The 80% of BC’s population that are neither pro of anti hunting are who we should be talking to and tell that if the support this anti movement their Social License towards the well being of wildlife will no longer exist.
We will gain more ground going that route than defending bear hunts because our families like double smoked bear hams.
We’ll just be told to go to the store and buy some pig.

[REMINGTON JIM]

Bear is a food species that just happens to be a predator.

YUP ! But so are Wolves - Coyotes - Cougars - Lynx- Bobcat - All of which are Legal to Harvest and do not require meat removal ! But i would only EAT the Cats myself - NO Dog meat for me ! RJ

[adriaticum]

In my opinion, this is not honest for most hunters. This is the spin that a 12 yr old could easily defeat.
I’ve said it in the past, defending hunting needs to be honest and unapologetic. As soon as we bracket hunting into a purely sustenance argument, it will make it that much easier to separate different hunting practices and defeat them one by one using our own argument against us. I don’t think people are stupid enough to believe and accept that all the things we do as hunters, are in the name of sustenance and I don’t ever use that argument to justify what I do. Think of all the time, effort and resources that most of us put into our hunting. For example, how would you justify traveling to different provinces and states to an anti hunter, as a need for sustenance.
The bulk of the people we need to justify this to, are people who eat meat but think that the life of a wild animal has a higher value than a domestic animal, and therefore should be left alone. They are uninformed/misinformed and find the idea of hunting unnecessary, distasteful and disturbing. I’ve heard this argument countless times in the past 20 years. We are never going to convince the extreme anti hunters of our right to hunt, so I think we better get those misinformed people in the middle on our side because they are a far bigger population.
Im not trying to offend anybody, but this is my opinion.


Being honest and appologetic is good, but it really doesn't matter.
You can't defeat agenda with honesty.
Most of the time you can't defeat agenda with reason and logic, but it is our best weapon.

I have to concede and say that I probably went too far by saying "food only".
I understand that there are other reasons like being outdoors, family, besting your best, one upping your next door neighbour, bringing meat to your cave woman etc.
Whatever it may be.
But food is and should be the primary driver.

Justifying why people travel to far away places to hunt is easy.
How do you justify some people paying top dollar for rare caviars, bluefin tuna sushi, kobe beef and other things most of us don't eat?
Why are these people legitimate in spending loads of money on some food that other people bring for them and guys who spend loads of money to go and get the food for themselves are not?
Why are people spending $78,000 on a bottle of whiskey?
Are they trophy drinking?

There is always an element of exotic, hard to get resources that some people can get to and most can't.
There is also always an element of "I have more money than you do" in everything in the world of humans, so in hunting as well.
Isn't that the human peacock's way of telling the peahens that they have brigther feathers?
Why should a guy be allowed to spend $10,000 on a steak that someone killed, butchered and prepared for him.
And a guy who goes and gets his own dinner can't?

Hunting for many people is profitable and cheaper than going to a store to buy meat. Not to mention healthier.
Except for us urban rats, most guys in the boonies can get a deer, bear or moose practically any time they drive an hour outside of town.

We need to shed the British colonial hunting heritage where only aristocrats were allowed to hunt.
Peasants were shot on the spot if they were caught hunting.
I suspect this is where "Trophy hunting" comes from.

Today you can't procure your own food because majority don't have the skill and forgot what that's about.
Tomorrow cooking will also be illegal because some obscure group won't have the skill.
For me personally, since I work with computers and machines all the time, hunting also keeps me human.

[madcalfe]

Lot's of great critique here, and I agree with the sentiment that there were some stronger science-based counter arguments that weren't presented. But debating during an interview is tough. I am sure Jesse will be more prepared next time he is in this position, and he certainly did better than I would have.

But there was one point that went wholly unaddressed, that I think posed the greatest threat to societal views of hunting, and is why Rebecca left the interview smug. Her question regarding BCWF's awards for trophies, which obviously applies beyond BCWF. As Atriaticum and others have pointed out, we hunt for food, this is the biggest driver for most of us, and the public supports that. I liken this to growing a vegetable garden to feed your family, we just choose to harvest from wild systems., and most of us would stop (and maybe become gardeners) the second we felt that our hunting presented a threat to a population or its function within an ecosystem. It is harder to keep the focus on this, and hunters historic and current work and financing for conservation, when anti's can counter by pointing to our records and awards for largest x, y, z.

For most of the questions Jesse fielded, I think he handled them well or could see ways to bolster them with hindsight, but I don't have a good answer that would satisfy a non-hunter, non-anti for that last question.

i dunno don't they do awards for nicest/ biggest vegetables grown to? how dare those vegans put those poor harmless veggies up for display like that.

[mod7rem]

Being honest and appologetic is good, but it really doesn't matter.
You can't defeat agenda with honesty.
Most of the time you can't defeat agenda with reason and logic, but it is our best weapon.

I have to concede and say that I probably went too far by saying "food only".
I understand that there are other reasons like being outdoors, family, besting your best, one upping your next door neighbour, bringing meat to your cave woman etc.
Whatever it may be.
But food is and should be the primary driver.

Justifying why people travel to far away places to hunt is easy.
How do you justify some people paying top dollar for rare caviars, bluefin tuna sushi, kobe beef and other things most of us don't eat?
Why are these people legitimate in spending loads of money on some food that other people bring for them and guys who spend loads of money to go and get the food for themselves are not?
Why are people spending $78,000 on a bottle of whiskey?
Are they trophy drinking?

There is always an element of exotic, hard to get resources that some people can get to and most can't.
There is also always an element of "I have more money than you do" in everything in the world of humans, so in hunting as well.
Isn't that the human peacock's way of telling the peahens that they have brigther feathers?
Why should a guy be allowed to spend $10,000 on a steak that someone killed, butchered and prepared for him.
And a guy who goes and gets his own dinner can't?

Hunting for many people is profitable and cheaper than going to a store to buy meat. Not to mention healthier.
Except for us urban rats, most guys in the boonies can get a deer, bear or moose practically any time they drive an hour outside of town.

We need to shed the British colonial hunting heritage where only aristocrats were allowed to hunt.
Peasants were shot on the spot if they were caught hunting.
I suspect this is where "Trophy hunting" comes from.

Today you can't procure your own food because majority don't have the skill and forgot what that's about.
Tomorrow cooking will also be illegal because some obscure group won't have the skill.
For me personally, since I work with computers and machines all the time, hunting also keeps me human.

Just to clarify, I said “honest and unapologetic”.

And I agree with most of what you say.

I think if we lean hard on a sustenance argument, it will further divide hunters and weaken our right to hunt. I say “right to hunt” because you’ll never convince an anti-hunting group that there is a need to hunt in this country.
I also don’t agree that “food is and should be the primary driver” to hunt. Why should that statement be accepted as a moral goal post when in reality it’s not true for a large portion of hunters. Don’t get me wrong I’ve been eating wild meat for a long time, but food supply has never been the primary driver or a lot of the hunters that I’ve known. I know a lot of long time hunters that give away a lot of their wild meat because it’s not an approved food source in their families. That’s reality. In my experience, the primary driver for most hunters is the experience of hunting itself, and what makes up that experience is different for everybody. Some people love hunting trips with friends/family and really aren’t concerned whether it produces meat or not. Why are we stuck on this false moral that hunting is only acceptable in order to feed ourselves? Why not make it mandatory to use the hides for clothing or fur rugs for a bed?
I still look at wildlife as a resource. I know guys that like to get lynx and beaver so they can have good quality winter mittens made. Their primary driver for targeting those animals doesn’t match “food is and should be the primary driver” but maybe their primary driver is just as valid. The statement doesn’t fit for all.

[mod7rem]

There’s a few key points that should be kept in mind;

- man has hunted for thousands of years.
- predators (competition or threat to life) have been thinned out by man for thousands of years.

Now let’s look at what’s going on, we’ve got an anti hunting enviro movement taking place that’s asking for the shutdown of predator hunting & trapping.
What will it do to the “Social License” of the anti hunting organization if they are successful in their closures of Apex predators and all species of wildlife are decimated due to their actions.
I would suggest that you study on what happens when so called “Predator Pits” are created through irresponsible or non existent wildlife management.
For wildlife management to exist all species must be included in the plan .....you cannot leave a handful out of the equation.
The anti group driving this campaign can’t be reasoned with.
The “motherships” are in it for the money and for the most part the followers are irrational.
The 80% of BC’s population that are neither pro of anti hunting are who we should be talking to and tell that if the support this anti movement their Social License towards the well being of wildlife will no longer exist.
We will gain more ground going that route than defending bear hunts because our families like double smoked bear hams.
We’ll just be told to go to the store and buy some pig.


I agree. And I think you said it more clearly than I did.

[Rob Chipman]

I think that when it comes to motivation we should recognize that there is a lot of disagreement among us because each of us has slightly different to way different motivations.

That's ok.

We don't have to pick one motivation.

If I tell my brother that I hunt to put food in the freezer he'll laugh me off as a loser and say I should get off my fat wallet and go tot he store. If I push him he'll say "BS. You don't hunt for food". He just won't buy it. In that case Bear Valley is right.

But....there is no question that venison diplomacy works. Both Meateater on the big stage and EatWild here locally have demonstrated that hunting for food is widely accepted as valid (and popular).

If I tell my old buddy the fire captain about predator pits? He's going to tune me out. He'll say "Nature used to work fine on it's own". I can explain how the world doesn't work like he thinks, but trust me, he won't buy it (He jokes about how I murder innocent bears that are just minding their own business).

Point being - we don't need to pick a single motivation. We probably do better with multiple motivations that are acceptable to that 80% in the middle.

[horshur]

Rob It is important to be honest about the membership no matter how offensive. Owning the reality. Stick to the truth the truth will set you free.
Personally my motivations have always been in flux. You can only paint me with a broad brush. Trophy, meat(sustenance) ,management, enjoyment, income ,social. At times obsessive other laissez faire.

[Asp]

I think that when it comes to motivation we should recognize that there is a lot of disagreement among us because each of us has slightly different to way different motivations.

That's ok.

We don't have to pick one motivation.

If I tell my brother that I hunt to put food in the freezer he'll laugh me off as a loser and say I should get off my fat wallet and go tot he store. If I push him he'll say "BS. You don't hunt for food". He just won't buy it. In that case Bear Valley is right.

But....there is no question that venison diplomacy works. Both Meateater on the big stage and EatWild here locally have demonstrated that hunting for food is widely accepted as valid (and popular).

If I tell my old buddy the fire captain about predator pits? He's going to tune me out. He'll say "Nature used to work fine on it's own". I can explain how the world doesn't work like he thinks, but trust me, he won't buy it (He jokes about how I murder innocent bears that are just minding their own business).

Point being - we don't need to pick a single motivation. We probably do better with multiple motivations that are acceptable to that 80% in the middle.

so you believe the approach you have presented is working to defend hunting for all? Residents, First Nations , outfitters?

[bearvalley]

Rob It is important to be honest about the membership no matter how offensive. Owning the reality. Stick to the truth the truth will set you free.
Personally my motivations have always been in flux. You can only paint me with a broad brush. Trophy, meat(sustenance) ,management, enjoyment, income ,social. At times obsessive other laissez faire.

Andy, I respect an honest man.

[Kos]

It’s incredibly tough to defend why we hunt when u have antis that don’t listen to a thing you say, I’ve been in a situation at school where a handful of kids were bashing the crap out of me I told em every reason you could think of, but not even a single budge from any of them, they stuck to the your pathetic, you disgust me, I hope you get shot, bullcrap

[j270wsm]

Wholly shit I though I had seen everything, but I am to be corrected again. j270wsm, it will be you, LBM, Jager and others that will bellyaching on this forum in a few years wondering why you aren't hunting wolves and bears and you will be blaming Jesse for not doing enough. You don't think the lawyer will be monitoring this site to discredit any spokesperson that has the resources to defend a sustainable hunt for food and the protection of ungulates, and here are you donkeys just adding to the argument for the ban.

Jesse did a fantastic job of sticking to the facts and data, in a volatile situation, where there is no rationalization with the other side due to their emotional connection to the subject matter, you stick to the facts, if you have to keep repeating those facts then so be it, but don't waver.

I cannot believe half the shit that is spewed out on this forum. There are some real intelligent people then there are those that just don't get it.

Pull your head out of your ass!!

Do i think that jessie had some good points.....yes. Do I want to admit that he didn’t do very well in the debate....NO. If people like myself aren’t allowed to express our interpretation of the debate then how do we learn from the debate? When it came to answering rebeka’s question about how the ministry came up with the estimated numbers of bears or the allowable harvest numbers......referencing complaints to co’s about nuisance bears was the worst answer he could have given. A simple reference to biologists and the scientifically proven study’s that they have used for 30,40,50yrs would have been the best option. I guarantee that any non hunter listening laughed when he referenced using nuisance bear calls as a way to estimate bear populations.

[umos]

That sucks Kos, those people sound like idiots and assholes. Good on you for trying to explain what your hunting is, but I would walk away, people like that aren’t worth it

[Kos]

That sucks Kos, those people sound like idiots and assholes. Good on you for trying to explain what your hunting is, but I would walk away, people like that aren’t worth it

it would suck because kids in the class would’ve talked about what they’re passionate about and what they love doing and I couldn’t talk about what I loved to do. Whatever I’m over those days, now I just talk about hunting when safe to do so lol.

[Redthies]

Kos- are your classmates all vegans? If not, just explain how factory farming works, show them a few pictures and that should shut them up about how “cruel” hunting is.

I showed a friend who is not a hunter (although he is not anti at all) the screenshot of the “health” app on my phone the day we took our two blacktail this fall. The thousands of feet of elevation and 18 kms walked were an eye opener for him. Especially when I mentioned that was after two similar days, on one of the two or three trips I do per year. I started to explain the cost of hunting in time off work, equipment etc and the price per pound of venison blew his mind. I think in a good way. He has a lot more respect for hunting now. As long as he tells two friends etc etc...

[j270wsm]

Kos....don’t hide who you are. Talk about hunting every chance you get. Just make sure to be as thoughtful/respectful as possible if your talking to someone who doesn’t hunt. You never know how they will respond to or interpret the conversation.

Quick story.....few yrs back I was finishing caping/cleaning an elk skull for a European mount. I had my truck backed in towards my garage using the tailgate as a work bench when I noticed a white mini van drive by. The lady driving was eye balling me as she passed, when she got to the stop sign( love on a corner lot ) she was completely sideways in her seat looking back at me. As she proceeded around the corner, I thought “ that was weird “ when out of know where, here comes Karen. walking up the road with 3 kids young in tow she rounds the corner and I see that shes locked on me. All I though was “ oh shit, this is going to get interesting “. Expecting this woman to freak out about me caping this skull in plain sight where her kids could see it. As she gets closer.....she asks if it’s ok if her kids see what I was doing......??? Wtf.......I was completely caught off guard. In the end she just wanted to expose her kids to real life. Her husband was the new pastor of the church by my house and their family had just moved to town. It was one of the most positive hunting conversation I’ve ever had.

[Kos]

Kos....don’t hide who you are. Talk about hunting every chance you get. Just make sure to be as thoughtful/respectful as possible if your talking to someone who doesn’t hunt. You never know how they will respond to or interpret the conversation.

Quick story.....few yrs back I was finishing caping/cleaning an elk skull for a European mount. I had my truck backed in towards my garage using the tailgate as a work bench when I noticed a white mini van drive by. The lady driving was eye balling me as she passed, when she got to the stop sign( love on a corner lot ) she was completely sideways in her seat looking back at me. As she proceeded around the corner, I thought “ that was weird “ when out of know where, here comes Karen. walking up the road with 3 kids young in tow she rounds the corner and I see that shes locked on me. All I though was “ oh shit, this is going to get interesting “. Expecting this woman to freak out about me caping this skull in plain sight where her kids could see it. As she gets closer.....she asks if it’s ok if her kids see what I was doing......??? Wtf.......I was completely caught off guard. In the end she just wanted to expose her kids to real life. Her husband was the new pastor of the church by my house and their family had just move to town. It was one of the most positive hunting conversation I’ve ever had.

Ah I don’t know anymore the lml is way to soft and I’d say 70% if not more of my highschool is anti hunting, teachers are vegans and animal activists huge number of girls are vegan or going vegan, I only know one friend of mine 3than here on hbc and my cousin out of 1200 kids in my school that hunt it’s pretty sad to think about, makes us feel like outcasts. Nothing to cry about tho just the way it is nowadays. And yeah that was definitely a cool story I thought I knew where it was going but it completely suprised me that she was ok with what u were doing and wanted her children to learn, atleast there’s still some people doing it right that don’t hunt but understand what it’s about.

[3than]

Ah I don’t know anymore the lml is way to soft and I’d say 70% if not more of my highschool is anti hunting, teachers are vegans and animal activists huge number of girls are vegan or going vegan, I only know one friend of mine 3than here on hbc and my cousin out of 1200 kids in my school that hunt it’s pretty sad to think about, makes us feel like outcasts. Nothing to cry about tho just the way it is nowadays. And yeah that was definitely a cool story I thought I knew where it was going but it completely suprised me that she was ok with what u were doing and wanted her children to learn, atleast there’s still some people doing it right that don’t hunt but understand what it’s about.

Ya its sad to think about. I've had one teacher in particular express how she was a vegan then went on to jokingly say "I had a kid who was a hunter last year if you hunt I will fail you haha". People just aren't educated about it anymore and when they do see "hunting" related topics its all the anti propaganda type topics. No one seems to be properly educated about hunting and what is involved with hunting. From what i have seen many people assume you just walk out shoot something and leave no one seems to understand what goes into it. I also believe from what I've seen teachers seem to spread and push there own opinions on students. I heard from a friend of mine that a vegan teacher told him eating an egg is equivalent to smoking 5 cigarettes. Stuff like that should not be happening period.

[mod7rem]

One of the sad realities is that a big portion of our population knows sweet f*ck all about Canadian wildlife. A friend and former work mate was a pretty outspoken anti-hunter when we first started working together. One thing I came to realize about him and most other moderate, uninformed anti hunters, is that he knew nothing about wildlife. Couldn’t identify anything, never saw any wildlife because he was uninterested and never thought to look for them. He just thought it was wrong that someone would purposely kill them. Wildlife have zero contribution in the lives of him and his wife, but that didn’t stop them from having strong opinions about it. Very common scenario and they make up a big portion of the population.

Didn’t take long working together before he changed his opinion. He still didn’t want anything to do with hunting but stopped with his ignorant attitudes towards it. Hunting to most people like him just brings up images of fat dudes dressed in camo, driving around in a truck, drinking beer and looking for something to kill. It’s unfortunate.

[adriaticum]

I don't have any anti hunters and vegans around me.
I don't know what it is they just do well around me.
I did know one once, but she readily cooked meat for the rest of us.

[adriaticum]

BCWF has this bad practice of holding their AGMs in places like Fernie, Prince George, instead of having them in downtown Vancouver smack in the middle of vegans.

[Piperdown]

Kos....don’t hide who you are. Talk about hunting every chance you get. Just make sure to be as thoughtful/respectful as possible if your talking to someone who doesn’t hunt. You never know how they will respond to or interpret the conversation.

Quick story.....few yrs back I was finishing caping/cleaning an elk skull for a European mount. I had my truck backed in towards my garage using the tailgate as a work bench when I noticed a white mini van drive by. The lady driving was eye balling me as she passed, when she got to the stop sign( love on a corner lot ) she was completely sideways in her seat looking back at me. As she proceeded around the corner, I thought “ that was weird “ when out of know where, here comes Karen. walking up the road with 3 kids young in tow she rounds the corner and I see that shes locked on me. All I though was “ oh shit, this is going to get interesting “. Expecting this woman to freak out about me caping this skull in plain sight where her kids could see it. As she gets closer.....she asks if it’s ok if her kids see what I was doing......??? Wtf.......I was completely caught off guard. In the end she just wanted to expose her kids to real life. Her husband was the new pastor of the church by my house and their family had just moved to town. It was one of the most positive hunting conversation I’ve ever had.

I too had a similar experience. Was grocery shopping and a couple of schrubs (dreadlocks) were shopping, vegan this vegan that, organic this and that. So they get in the line up behind me and as I am always into having a conversation I ask you are obviously vegan, yes was the reply. I ask by choice, yes again. So i say no fish chicken etc. and they say that is correct.

So my next question is what about hunting, they both state we chose the vegan lifestyle as it suited or way of life but if we were to ever eat meat we would hunt and fish for it as it would be the best way to get a lean organic source of protein, they didn't like the way the commercial meat was raised and processed. Dam near feel on the floor, I shook both their hands and told them this was the first ever response like that i have ever gotten. I wish others would have this view and let people decide what is best for themselves and not judge others.

[Redthies]

All I thought was “ oh shit, this is going to get interesting “. Expecting this woman to freak out about me caping this skull in plain sight where her kids could see it. It was one of the most positive hunting conversation I’ve ever had.


I hunt waterfowl down off the dike in Delta and on sunnier days (which suck for ducks, but are great for sitting out and enjoying the day) there are tons of people with kids on bikes etc in the same parking lot. I got “the look” from a mom unloading the pink tasseled bikes with the kids waiting. As they passed me getting kitted up to head out on the foreshore with the shotgun etc I expected her to make a nasty comment. Nope. She said “my kids and I are booked in to do our CORE in two weeks”. Lots of duck questions followed and I walked up to thedike with her where she met up with another woman and her kids who weren’t as keen on the situation, but after chatting with her friend and I for a few minutes, the second mom seemed to be a lot more positive towards hunting.

Of course some other moron called the police on us that day, and the two cops that drew the short straw had to wade out to us in knee deep water to investigate the “men with guns” spotted on the dike. The one cop said “I wish people would learn to read the giant signs that state hunting season is Sept to March”, and other than that, they were very professional and chill. I wouldn’t have been as happy to walk out into the freezing water in my shoes...

[Norwestalta]

Ron C and Stone Ram hunter are bang on. Was having this exact conversation with my wife last night about how predators should be called a management hunt and yes Edible portions of all bears should be legally required to be taken. We also “Must” get away from the term “Trophy Hunting” or even the term what a Trophy! We are Selective hunters; not Trophy Hunters. Trophy hunters just sounds bad to the antis. We all need to be smarter how we brand hunting for future generations! It is a must!

This I agree with. I'm unsure where the term "trophy hunting" came from? Selective hunting doesn't come with a stigma imo that trophy hunting comes with.

[puddlejumper]

Pull your head out of your ass!!

Do i think that jessie had some good points.....yes. Do I want to admit that he didn’t do very well in the debate....NO. If people like myself aren’t allowed to express our interpretation of the debate then how do we learn from the debate? When it came to answering rebeka’s question about how the ministry came up with the estimated numbers of bears or the allowable harvest numbers......referencing complaints to co’s about nuisance bears was the worst answer he could have given. A simple reference to biologists and the scientifically proven study’s that they have used for 30,40,50yrs would have been the best option. I guarantee that any non hunter listening laughed when he referenced using nuisance bear calls as a way to estimate bear populations.

There is always room for improvement, my interpretation given the circumstances is that he did better than the wingnut promoting non-hunting, and speaking from experience, Jesse probably walked away and wondered why he didn't elaborate on the data. What he did do was point out that nuisance bears are one but one data set that is used to estimate populations of bears in addition to pointing out that data is collected from hunters and the Province data, so technically he did answer the question.

All the while Breder dismissed hunter data, provincial data and nuisance bear reports that all contribute to the estimate of bears in the Province and argued that hunters are a dying breed and that the public is opposed to trophy hunting. Well black bear hunting in my mind is not trophy hunting, yes people look for the largest animals and have those preserved for memories while enjoying the meat, but her interpretation is based on her emotions and ideologies and not based on science or data, she cannot argue that it is not a sustainable harvest. Lets tear her arguement apart with the facts. I challenge the BCWF to compile all the data that illustrates the estimates of the number of bears in this province.

Interesting fact, Rebeka Breder is a lawyer. Question is her role to uphold the law being compromised by her beliefs, as a lawyer is she falsely stating that she speaks on behalf of the public at large? Maybe she is breaching the code of ethics she swore to follow? Just a thought.

[horshur]

There is always room for improvement, my interpretation given the circumstances is that he did better than the wingnut promoting non-hunting, and speaking from experience, Jesse probably walked away and wondered why he didn't elaborate on the data. What he did do was point out that nuisance bears are one but one data set that is used to estimate populations of bears in addition to pointing out that data is collected from hunters and the Province data, so technically he did answer the question.

All the while Breder dismissed hunter data, provincial data and nuisance bear reports that all contribute to the estimate of bears in the Province and argued that hunters are a dying breed and that the public is opposed to trophy hunting. Well black bear hunting in my mind is not trophy hunting, yes people look for the largest animals and have those preserved for memories while enjoying the meat, but her interpretation is based on her emotions and ideologies and not based on science or data, she cannot argue that it is not a sustainable harvest. Lets tear her arguement apart with the facts. I challenge the BCWF to compile all the data that illustrates the estimates of the number of bears in this province.

Interesting fact, Rebeka Breder is a lawyer. Question is her role to uphold the law being compromised by her beliefs, as a lawyer is she falsely stating that she speaks on behalf of the public at large? Maybe she is breaching the code of ethics she swore to follow? Just a thought.

Go look at breders firm. Animal law.

[adriaticum]

Just to clarify, I said “honest and unapologetic”.

And I agree with most of what you say.

I think if we lean hard on a sustenance argument, it will further divide hunters and weaken our right to hunt. I say “right to hunt” because you’ll never convince an anti-hunting group that there is a need to hunt in this country.
I also don’t agree that “food is and should be the primary driver” to hunt. Why should that statement be accepted as a moral goal post when in reality it’s not true for a large portion of hunters. Don’t get me wrong I’ve been eating wild meat for a long time, but food supply has never been the primary driver or a lot of the hunters that I’ve known. I know a lot of long time hunters that give away a lot of their wild meat because it’s not an approved food source in their families. That’s reality. In my experience, the primary driver for most hunters is the experience of hunting itself, and what makes up that experience is different for everybody. Some people love hunting trips with friends/family and really aren’t concerned whether it produces meat or not. Why are we stuck on this false moral that hunting is only acceptable in order to feed ourselves? Why not make it mandatory to use the hides for clothing or fur rugs for a bed?
I still look at wildlife as a resource. I know guys that like to get lynx and beaver so they can have good quality winter mittens made. Their primary driver for targeting those animals doesn’t match “food is and should be the primary driver” but maybe their primary driver is just as valid. The statement doesn’t fit for all.


I am not trying to convince anti-hunting groups that there is a need to hunt.
That's not what we should be trying at all.
What we should be doing is making hunting an accepted social norm.
Like it was 50 years ago. We need to get into urban areas and into schools again.
Nothing has changed for hunters in 50 years. We still hunt, some animals are more plentiful, some less.
The only thing that has changed is perception.
And you have television, radio and now other forms of media to blame for that.
So that guys like Fred Eichler could make money by making hunters look like idiots.
I mean he is not an idiot, but he definitely behaves like one.
What has changed is that the odd ball now has the ability to show how dumb they are and everyone can see it.
Of course anti-hunting groups will be rallied by Fred Eichler.
We need less Fred Eichlers and more Steven Rinellas.
Steven Rinella is like Walt Disney to the hunting media, without the fairy tales.

The right to eat is more fundamental than any other right. Right to hunt, right to private property, right to free speech etc.
You won't convince me otherwise.

Hunters who give away all the meat because their families don't approve of it, should be hunting for themselves and eat it or shouldn't be hunting at all.

You need to understand why first nations have a license to hunt that is unquestioned and white european descendants don't.
When you do that, it will be clear to you.
Do first nations give away lots of meat? Yes
Do they only hunt for food? No.
But you won't find a Fred Eichler of aboriginal descent.

Hunters have done far more for wildlife in North America than any other group and yet they are always painted as the bad guys.
Why?
Ask Fred Eichler. lol, poor guy.
It's all about perception.
Why is that farmer who raises cattle and kills them for sale any different than a guy who goes out and kills an animal for his own consumption?
Perception again.
But really meat is meat regardless of where it comes.
Hunters and more honest and true in the way they obtain their food.
What's wrong with DIY food procurement?

Anti hunting groups have only 3 points they raise to score points, while we don't really say anything.
1. If we keep hunting we will push all the species to extinction. People need to understand that development and population growth is the primary driver for species decline. Not hunters.
2. People who hunt, hunt for trophies, claws, fur, heads, fangs etc.
3. People who hunt are bloodthirsty killers.

We know these 3 points are bullshit and yet we provide no arguments to the contrary.

[The Hermit]

Blaming Jesse or any other individual is not only unhelpful but plain out wrong headed. Same goes for the BCWF, GOABC, WSSBC, BCTA, UBBC or any other conservation organization that was involved! I was at the table gentlemen and all of the above organizations worked (especially the GOABC) to influence the governments of the day to implement a regulation to bring the G-Bear meat out. The BCWF admittedly dragged their feet arguing that giving an inch would open the door to further socially driven policies and bans. Christy Clarke insisted we DO something or she would kill the hunt!

If you want to level the blame on an individual that person would be that lying scumbag Andrew Weaver, and the GREENS and NDP are the two organizations deserving of our wrath and a "never vote for those assholes again policy"!!

Although the BCWF's approach on the G-Bear hunt was hard-headed and problematic they absolutely fought the good fight with clear and positive intentions and in your best interests. Anyone that thinks otherwise needs to STFU until you learn a few more facts!

[adriaticum]

Blaming Jesse or any other individual is not only unhelpful but plain out wrong headed. Same goes for the BCWF, GOABC, WSSBC, BCTA, UBBC or any other conservation organization that was involved! I was at the table gentlemen and all of the above organizations worked (especially the GOABC) to influence the governments of the day to implement a regulation to bring the G-Bear meat out. The BCWF admittedly dragged their feet arguing that giving an inch would open the door to further socially driven policies and bans. Christy Clarke insisted we DO something or she would kill the hunt!

If you want to level the blame on an individual that person would be that lying scumbag Andrew Weaver, and the GREENS and NDP are the two organizations deserving of our wrath and a "never vote for those assholes again policy"!!

Although the BCWF's approach on the G-Bear hunt was hard-headed and problematic they absolutely fought the good fight with clear and positive intentions and in your best interests. Anyone that thinks otherwise needs to STFU until you learn a few more facts!


Thanks Hermit!
Weaver is a slippery little weasel.

[bearvalley]

I am not trying to convince anti-hunting groups that there is a need to hunt.
That's not what we should be trying at all.
What we should be doing is making hunting an accepted social norm.
Like it was 50 years ago. We need to get into urban areas and into schools again.
Nothing has changed for hunters in 50 years. We still hunt, some animals are more plentiful, some less.
The only thing that has changed is perception.
And you have television, radio and now other forms of media to blame for that.
So that guys like Fred Eichler could make money by making hunters look like idiots.
I mean he is not an idiot, but he definitely behaves like one.
What has changed is that the odd ball now has the ability to show how dumb they are and everyone can see it.
Of course anti-hunting groups will be rallied by Fred Eichler.
We need less Fred Eichlers and more Steven Rinellas.
Steven Rinella is like Walt Disney to the hunting media, without the fairy tales.

The right to eat is more fundamental than any other right. Right to hunt, right to private property, right to free speech etc.
You won't convince me otherwise.

Hunters who give away all the meat because their families don't approve of it, should be hunting for themselves and eat it or shouldn't be hunting at all.

You need to understand why first nations have a license to hunt that is unquestioned and white european descendants don't.
When you do that, it will be clear to you.
Do first nations give away lots of meat? Yes
Do they only hunt for food? No.
But you won't find a Fred Eichler of aboriginal descent.

Hunters have done far more for wildlife in North America than any other group and yet they are always painted as the bad guys.
Why?
Ask Fred Eichler. lol, poor guy.
It's all about perception.
Why is that farmer who raises cattle and kills them for sale any different than a guy who goes out and kills an animal for his own consumption?
Perception again.
But really meat is meat regardless of where it comes.
Hunters and more honest and true in the way they obtain their food.
What's wrong with DIY food procurement?

Anti hunting groups have only 3 points they raise to score points, while we don't really say anything.
1. If we keep hunting we will push all the species to extinction. People need to understand that development and population growth is the primary driver for species decline. Not hunters.
2. People who hunt, hunt for trophies, claws, fur, heads, fangs etc.
3. People who hunt are bloodthirsty killers.

We know these 3 points are bullshit and yet we provide no arguments to the contrary.

adriaticum, you’re really on the teamwork page.
What did Fred Eichler do....eat one of your kids...lol!
Rinella eating wolves & coyotes is a bit twisted as well.

You brought up 3 points antis use to score points.
Turn #1 back on them.
When they say “if we keep hunting we will push all species to extinction”...put it right back that “all species of wildlife cannot coexist without management....and that includes all species”

We aren’t going to win this round by saying we have the “right” to hunt or the “right” to eat wild meat.
This war will be won by sticking to the facts and standing out ground that the management of predators is a key component to solid wildlife management.
Hunting of predators is a piece in the puzzle.

[puddlejumper]

Go look at breders firm. Animal law.

Yes, Animal Law, now go and interpret the BC Legal Society Code of Conduct from the perspective of what she is doing with regards to upholding the law vs. her activism. Its a fine line.

[Would Rather Be Fishing]

What we should be doing is making hunting an accepted social norm.


THIS!!!!

Unfortunately, looking at for example most hunting facebook groups, we are headed in the opposite direction. I recently came across this guy who has a IG channel "blood origins"... forget his name but he was on the "Hunter Conservationist" podcast. While i am a bit put off by his first response to an IG reaction was asking me for money, I like his overall direction and approach. I wish more hunters would just put a little bit more thought into how they represent themselves publicly....

[Would Rather Be Fishing]

While I still have a hard time taking someone who openly admits to being an "animal lawyer" seriously, one has to give her that: She is the one getting air time and exposure!

[mod7rem]

I am not trying to convince anti-hunting groups that there is a need to hunt.
That's not what we should be trying at all.
What we should be doing is making hunting an accepted social norm.
Like it was 50 years ago. We need to get into urban areas and into schools again.
Nothing has changed for hunters in 50 years. We still hunt, some animals are more plentiful, some less.
The only thing that has changed is perception.
And you have television, radio and now other forms of media to blame for that.
So that guys like Fred Eichler could make money by making hunters look like idiots.
I mean he is not an idiot, but he definitely behaves like one.
What has changed is that the odd ball now has the ability to show how dumb they are and everyone can see it.
Of course anti-hunting groups will be rallied by Fred Eichler.
We need less Fred Eichlers and more Steven Rinellas.
Steven Rinella is like Walt Disney to the hunting media, without the fairy tales.

The right to eat is more fundamental than any other right. Right to hunt, right to private property, right to free speech etc.
You won't convince me otherwise.

Hunters who give away all the meat because their families don't approve of it, should be hunting for themselves and eat it or shouldn't be hunting at all.

You need to understand why first nations have a license to hunt that is unquestioned and white european descendants don't.
When you do that, it will be clear to you.
Do first nations give away lots of meat? Yes
Do they only hunt for food? No.
But you won't find a Fred Eichler of aboriginal descent.

Hunters have done far more for wildlife in North America than any other group and yet they are always painted as the bad guys.
Why?
Ask Fred Eichler. lol, poor guy.
It's all about perception.
Why is that farmer who raises cattle and kills them for sale any different than a guy who goes out and kills an animal for his own consumption?
Perception again.
But really meat is meat regardless of where it comes.
Hunters and more honest and true in the way they obtain their food.
What's wrong with DIY food procurement?

Anti hunting groups have only 3 points they raise to score points, while we don't really say anything.
1. If we keep hunting we will push all the species to extinction. People need to understand that development and population growth is the primary driver for species decline. Not hunters.
2. People who hunt, hunt for trophies, claws, fur, heads, fangs etc.
3. People who hunt are bloodthirsty killers.

We know these 3 points are bullshit and yet we provide no arguments to the contrary.


I agree with everything you have to say except when you say this:

“Hunters who give away all the meat because their families don't approve of it, should be hunting for themselves and eat it or shouldn't be hunting at all.”

This doesn’t represent the reality of hunting for everybody and it hasn’t in a long time. This is your belief and sounds like your primary reason for hunting. I want to support everyone’s reasons for hunting when we argue against the 3 main points anti hunting groups use that you have spelled out.

[adriaticum]

adriaticum, you’re really on the teamwork page.
What did Fred Eichler do....eat one of your kids...lol!
Rinella eating wolves & coyotes is a bit twisted as well.

You brought up 3 points antis use to score points.
Turn #1 back on them.
When they say “if we keep hunting we will push all species to extinction”...put it right back that “all species of wildlife cannot coexist without management....and that includes all species”

We aren’t going to win this round by saying we have the “right” to hunt or the “right” to eat wild meat.
This war will be won by sticking to the facts and standing out ground that the management of predators is a key component to solid wildlife management.
Hunting of predators is a piece in the puzzle.


Lol, no I don't have anything against the guy, but he just appears like such a bloody child in his videos it makes me squirm.
I agree with everything you said for sure.
Those are the main 3 that I found and they are easily turned around with presenting the truth. But we don't have a hell of a lot of right representation.
Antis are just lying to the public by twisting the truth and we keep just taking it.
We need to do better.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Blaming Jesse or any other individual is not only unhelpful but plain out wrong headed. Same goes for the BCWF, GOABC, WSSBC, BCTA, UBBC or any other conservation organization that was involved! I was at the table gentlemen and all of the above organizations worked (especially the GOABC) to influence the governments of the day to implement a regulation to bring the G-Bear meat out. The BCWF admittedly dragged their feet arguing that giving an inch would open the door to further socially driven policies and bans. Christy Clarke insisted we DO something or she would kill the hunt!

If you want to level the blame on an individual that person would be that lying scumbag Andrew Weaver, and the GREENS and NDP are the two organizations deserving of our wrath and a "never vote for those assholes again policy"!!

Although the BCWF's approach on the G-Bear hunt was hard-headed and problematic they absolutely fought the good fight with clear and positive intentions and in your best interests. Anyone that thinks otherwise needs to STFU until you learn a few more facts!

Thanks for that Bill!
Spot on.

SSS

[bearvalley]

Lol, no I don't have anything against the guy, but he just appears like such a bloody child in his videos it makes me squirm.
I agree with everything you said for sure.
Those are the main 3 that I found and they are easily turned around with presenting the truth. But we don't have a hell of a lot of right representation.
Antis are just lying to the public by twisting the truth and we keep just taking it.
We need to do better.

i just had to take a poke at you on the celebrities....I have a tough time paying much attention to any of them.
I give Fred credit, he’s like a kid on a hunt & maybe that’s an attitude too many of us don’t display.
Hell, the one guy I’d like to have in hunting camp is “Uncle Ted” Nugent.....and look at how many think he’s a nut job.
I think he’d be a riot.....maybe that makes me the whack job...lol!
On a good note....I believe something good is about to be launched!

[Rob Chipman]

horshur wrote: "It is important to be honest about the membership no matter how offensive."

I think that's 100% right. The truth may be uncomfortable, but it's always friendly.

"Trophy, meat(sustenance) ,management, enjoyment, income ,social. At times obsessive other laissez faire."

I think I'd describe my motivations a lot like yours. I'm planning an epic fall hunt now. I'd love to get some sort of cranker, but I haven't even decide what or where I want to go. Right now we're squarely in the "social" part of it as the crew plans our trip. Later in the process there are going to be different motivations becoming more important. And who are we kidding? If I end up seeing a nice tender 2 pt mule deer beside an absolute specimen you know, everything else being equal, I'm making a play for the cranker.


Asp asked:

"so you believe the approach you have presented is working to defend hunting for all? Residents, First Nations , outfitters?"

I don't think we have a really functional approach now. I think that's why we're talking about this. But, I think that recognizing that there are multiple motivations to hunt, and that 99.9% of them are good and honourable and not harmful in any significant way would serve the interests of all three groups you mention. Obviously there are some conflicts of interests between all three groups, but there is way more overlap. I think we can navigate those differences pretty easily (maybe "easily is the wrong word - it seems to me like one of those things that's simple, but not easy).


Puddlejumper said:

" I challenge the BCWF to compile all the data that illustrates the estimates of the number of bears in this province."

I think that's a good idea, and I'll pursue it. No promises on what it'll look like, as I'm not sure who has the data, or how much there is (big problem with following the science in BC? We're missing a lot of the science). I'll report back. Excellent idea.

[WetLeopard]

THIS!!!!

Unfortunately, looking at for example most hunting facebook groups, we are headed in the opposite direction. I recently came across this guy who has a IG channel "blood origins"... forget his name but he was on the "Hunter Conservationist" podcast. While i am a bit put off by his first response to an IG reaction was asking me for money, I like his overall direction and approach. I wish more hunters would just put a little bit more thought into how they represent themselves publicly....

Robbie Kroger was the guest's name. I haven't looked into much of his material yet, but was also intrigued by what he was saying on that episode. Interesting background as well being from South Africa and able to provide his take on trophy hunting.
On the same note, Mark Hall (host of The Hunter Conservationist) is guy I really enjoy listening too for his insight, and I think the hunting community only benefits from having voices like his in the public forum.

[Would Rather Be Fishing]

Robbie Kroger was the guest's name. I haven't looked into much of his material yet, but was also intrigued by what he was saying on that episode. Interesting background as well being from South Africa and able to provide his take on trophy hunting.
On the same note, Mark Hall (host of The Hunter Conservationist) is guy I really enjoy listening too for his insight, and I think the hunting community only benefits from having voices like his in the public forum.

Agree. Thoughtful, composed, educated. Not afraid of both addressing science based and more ethical/philosophical issues in a balanced way. We need more of that in the public eye

[Mark-R]

gave a quick listen for the lulz, had expectations of a typical SJW from RB, but man, UN-HINGED... REEEEEE!

We as hunters need to hit back harder on this trophy kill trope, and tell it like it is.
It's simply a hunter challenging himself to harvest a wiser older age class animal nearing end of life expectancy.
It's harder to do and requires more dedication with a bigger chance of ending with tag soup.
Reducing any antler or skull to just a "trophy" like a ribbon you get for participating is silly.
It's a memento of the work you put in, the memories of the adventure and an honoring of the animal that gave its life to feed you and your family for a year.

As hunters we're participants of the food chain, not spectators!

[LBM]

One of the sad realities is that a big portion of our population knows sweet f*ck all about Canadian wildlife. A friend and former work mate was a pretty outspoken anti-hunter when we first started working together. One thing I came to realize about him and most other moderate, uninformed anti hunters, is that he knew nothing about wildlife. Couldn’t identify anything, never saw any wildlife because he was uninterested and never thought to look for them. He just thought it was wrong that someone would purposely kill them. Wildlife have zero contribution in the lives of him and his wife, but that didn’t stop them from having strong opinions about it. Very common scenario and they make up a big portion of the population.

Didn’t take long working together before he changed his opinion. He still didn’t want anything to do with hunting but stopped with his ignorant attitudes towards it. Hunting to most people like him just brings up images of fat dudes dressed in camo, driving around in a truck, drinking beer and looking for something to kill. It’s unfortunate.

I agree with your first sentence, but its not just non-hunters its hunters as well. Many hunters know nothing or very little about wildlife, and its many of them that cause the problems.

[LBM]

Wholly shit I though I had seen everything, but I am to be corrected again. j270wsm, it will be you, LBM, Jager and others that will bellyaching on this forum in a few years wondering why you aren't hunting wolves and bears and you will be blaming Jesse for not doing enough. You don't think the lawyer will be monitoring this site to discredit any spokesperson that has the resources to defend a sustainable hunt for food and the protection of ungulates, and here are you donkeys just adding to the argument for the ban.

Jesse did a fantastic job of sticking to the facts and data, in a volatile situation, where there is no rationalization with the other side due to their emotional connection to the subject matter, you stick to the facts, if you have to keep repeating those facts then so be it, but don't waver.

I cannot believe half the shit that is spewed out on this forum. There are some real intelligent people then there are those that just don't get it.

HAHA dont worry wont be blaming Jesse there is enough other hunting and trapping organizations causing the lose of hunting opportunitys.
Facts and Data ya his wife likes smoked hams and COs get more calls when you can get dozens of calls about the same bear, pretty flawed way of determining a population.
It wont be non hunters that are the main factor in the lose of hunting opportunitys. You want to get non hunters on your side then hunters must show that the actually care about wildlife.

[tigrr]

I wish she would watch a few video's of wolves slashing the hind quarters on deer and moose and chase them till they become to weak from blood loss to run any more.
The other is bears ripping the stomachs of fawns and moose calves eating them alive.

[wideopenthrottle]

I have noticed a disturbing trend on wildlife shows that seems to cut away from all the savagery so as to not "offend" anyone...well it offends me that they are whitewashing the realities of nature to suit the Disney narrative...……..
I wish she would watch a few video's of wolves slashing the hind quarters on deer and moose and chase them till they become to weak from blood loss to run any more.
The other is bears ripping the stomachs of fawns and moose calves eating them alive.

[andrew5]

This is a great idea. PRince George and Fernie aren't home to the ignorant and uninformed populations blindly throwing their uninformed opinions into the ring and online.

why not host a BCWF open house in Vancouver, and invite any (reasonable) person who is on the fence or just generally opposed to hunting to come talk and learn?

I agree with the notion that it's the uninformed and ambiguous majority of the population that we need to connect with and educate. The radical anti hunting crowd that reads or contributes to sites like animaljustice.ca (for example), aren't going to change their dishonest opinions.

[adriaticum]

This is a great idea. PRince George and Fernie aren't home to the ignorant and uninformed populations blindly throwing their uninformed opinions into the ring and online.

why not host a BCWF open house in Vancouver, and invite any (reasonable) person who is on the fence or just generally opposed to hunting to come talk and learn?

I agree with the notion that it's the uninformed and ambiguous majority of the population that we need to connect with and educate. The radical anti hunting crowd that reads or contributes to sites like animaljustice.ca (for example), aren't going to change their dishonest opinions.

That's right. In Fernie they are just preaching to the choir.
Also BCWF has to organize public events available for everyone to attend where most people live.
And this is LML and south island.
Even at the risk of having some vegan protestors flashing their titties and bathing in red liquid.
You organize an event where 50K people show up and you bet you will attract media attention.
Instead of hiding in the boonies.
Lower maindland general population doesn't even know hunting exists.

[Would Rather Be Fishing]

Is there a link to a recording somewhere? i tried to find it but no success

[cuervosail]

Time for all to put up. No reason to shut up. Click on the damn link! Send the damn letter!

https://www.wildsheepsociety.com/actnow/

[Rob Chipman]

I wish she would watch a few video's of wolves slashing the hind quarters on deer and moose and chase them till they become to weak from blood loss to run any more.
The other is bears ripping the stomachs of fawns and moose calves eating them alive.


How about mortality studies that show a cow moose surviving the initial wolf attack, escaping, and later dying of infection? Kind of puts paid to "wolves only kill the old and weak, and they eat everything".

[Rob Chipman]

I think BCWF picks places like Fernie, Ft. St. John, Nelson, etc, because local clubs are critical to the success of the convention side of the AGM. LML clubs are really very weak compared to those outside the LML.

Pre-Covid I helped organize a few public BCWF events that were well attended, including ones right in downtown Vancouver where predator reduction was readily accepted. We really do need more shoulders to the wheel in the LML. If anyone in the 604 wants to do more, contact me.

[adriaticum]

I think BCWF picks places like Fernie, Ft. St. John, Nelson, etc, because local clubs are critical to the success of the convention side of the AGM. LML clubs are really very weak compared to those outside the LML.

Pre-Covid I helped organize a few public BCWF events that were well attended, including ones right in downtown Vancouver where predator reduction was readily accepted. We really do need more shoulders to the wheel in the LML. If anyone in the 604 wants to do more, contact me.

I've heard that before Rob. But if we don't have strong clubs on places where we have most members we have a problem that needs fixing.

[mod7rem]

I wish she would watch a few video's of wolves slashing the hind quarters on deer and moose and chase them till they become to weak from blood loss to run any more.
The other is bears ripping the stomachs of fawns and moose calves eating them alive.

I think that’s the wrong approach. That approach would be asking a lot of anti-hunters to change their emotionally driven opinions by trying to trigger a different emotional opinion in convincing them that wolves and bears are somehow evil, vicious killers. I personally don’t understand why anyone, especially hunters, would use that argument to support predator hunting. It’s one emotional opinion vs another emotional opinion.
Predators kill to survive plain and simple and life/death is harsh.

IMO Wildlife are resources and need to be managed to suit everyone’s uses. The hard part is convincing people that everyone’s uses are important and sustainable.

[LBM]

I think that’s the wrong approach. That approach would be asking a lot of anti-hunters to change their emotionally driven opinions by trying to trigger a different emotional opinion in convincing them that wolves and bears are somehow evil, vicious killers. I personally don’t understand why anyone, especially hunters, would use that argument to support predator hunting. It’s one emotional opinion vs another emotional opinion.
Predators kill to survive plain and simple and life/death is harsh.

IMO Wildlife are resources and need to be managed to suit everyone’s uses. The hard part is convincing people that everyone’s uses are important and sustainable.

..........Good post..........

[LBM]

How about mortality studies that show a cow moose surviving the initial wolf attack, escaping, and later dying of infection? Kind of puts paid to "wolves only kill the old and weak, and they eat everything".
see post 118
Does anybody every spend the time to actually talk to non-hunters yes some do not really no what goes on out there but many do and actually do a lot to help wildlife.
What you say isnt really a good example, what about how many animals are shot with guns/bows and get away to later die from infection.

[wideopenthrottle]

I prefer the analogies to farming (in my best trump impression "and I love farmers"...heheheh)…1) not hunting animals is akin to saying "if only we just left all the wheat in the field instead of harvesting it we would end up with a lot more wheat".....ummmmmm how is it even possible to think like that!!!!. 2) hunters and farmers realize the need for sustainability -just like hunters, a farmer knows it is in his/her interest to ensure working the farm does not deplete the soils and leave nothing for the future... 3) farming has resulted in the loss of way more animals and the destruction of many more ecosystems than any hunting has ever done...
I think that’s the wrong approach. That approach would be asking a lot of anti-hunters to change their emotionally driven opinions by trying to trigger a different emotional opinion in convincing them that wolves and bears are somehow evil, vicious killers. I personally don’t understand why anyone, especially hunters, would use that argument to support predator hunting. It’s one emotional opinion vs another emotional opinion.
Predators kill to survive plain and simple and life/death is harsh.

IMO Wildlife are resources and need to be managed to suit everyone’s uses. The hard part is convincing people that everyone’s uses are important and sustainable.

[adriaticum]

We can dance until our balls fall off and play with science and emotions, marketing and politicking.
But when time comes on occasion, we have to show up and show teeth.

[wideopenthrottle]

as I mentioned above, the trick is to use their own statements to debate them...it would be nice to see when their heads are exploding because we are using their own line of "logic" against them....in addition to the points I mention above, another one I use is the wild meat is organic free range sustainably harvested food so unless you are gathering your fruits ands veg from the forest you are contributing to global deforestation which affects "carbon capture" and "global climate change"....follow that with "why are ruining my/our planet?"

[Ron.C]

in addition to the points I mention above, another one I use is the wild meat is organic free range sustainably harvested food

I use the same. It's a great way to bring out the hypocrite in anti hunting meat eaters.

I respect any person's right to chose the food they eat and where it comes from. And if that is abstaining from all meat products, so be it. But it's completely and 100% hypocritical for another meat eater to pass judgement on a hunter for choosing to feed themselves with wild game, in the case of this thread, call it black bear meat (which I love!)

It's all about personal choice. I can somewhat understand the non meat eaters position, but that is simple fact of choice based on their own personal preferences, ethics and values that they not eat meat, farmed or otherwise.

So how is exercising one of the most basic requirements of life (how we feed ourselves) not a choice by right? How is it different than having the legislated right to chose your religion? The federal governments recognised hunter heritage in 2014.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/annualstatutes/2014_26/page-1.html

It's my choice to feed myself and my family with as much free range organic natural wild meat as I can (hopefully a very tasty lean spring bear). And I think it's long past time governments recognise this choice.

[tomcat]

It's my choice to feed myself and my family with as much free range organic natural wild meat as I can (hopefully a very tasty lean spring bear). Or cougar.

[Ron.C]

Or cougar.

absolutely!!

[mod7rem]

I use the same. It's a great way to bring out the hypocrite in anti hunting meat eaters.

I respect any person's right to chose the food they eat and where it comes from. And if that is abstaining from all meat products, so be it. But it's completely and 100% hypocritical for another meat eater to pass judgement on a hunter for choosing to feed themselves with wild game, in the case of this thread, call it black bear meat (which I love!)

It's all about personal choice. I can somewhat understand the non meat eaters position, but that is simple fact of choice based on their own personal preferences, ethics and values that they not eat meat, farmed or otherwise.

So how is exercising one of the most basic requirements of life (how we feed ourselves) not a choice by right? How is it different than having the legislated right to chose your religion? The federal governments recognised hunter heritage in 2014.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/annualstatutes/2014_26/page-1.html

It's my choice to feed myself and my family with as much free range organic natural wild meat as I can (hopefully a very tasty lean spring bear). And I think it's long past time governments recognise this choice.

I agree and I like it,,,,, I like it a lot!!!

[Imdone]

Personally, a Huge Thank you for your part on the talk show to that Jesse fellow. Great job. You can sit at my campfire anytime.

He spoke very well and represents the opinions of thousands and thousands of BC hunters. Not all but most.

The Antis and wingnuts will never stop.

[Rob Chipman]

(hopefully a very tasty lean spring bear).

K, a little off topic/sidebar. I've only gotten fall bears, and am always pumped about the fat in particular. Your post makes me curious: if you had to choose do you prefer spring or fall bears?

[cuervosail]

Here's what I have just written to my MLA. It's based on a similar letter which has been floating around for a few days. I've made a few slight changes. Feel free .... no, I urge/challenge others to copy this and email it to your MLA. There are way too many keyboard warriors on here who don't have legitimate excuse not to.
------------------
Dear ____________

I am writing to you as a concerned citizen, conservationist, resident hunter and a constituent.

Once again, there is a concerted attack underway, primarily via social media, against hunting, specifically the hunting of ‘large carnivores’ in British Columbia. The species that have been highlighted are black bears, cougars and wolves. Outside the ‘large carnivore’ designation, bighorn sheep and elk have also been included in recent articles. All the species mentioned in the articles and documents submitted to the B.C. government are suggested to be ‘trophy hunted.’ However, black bears, cougars, bighorn sheep and elk are highly sought-after sources of protein and are currently NOT in danger of population declines by regulated hunting.

Also mentioned in recent attack articles are provincial wolf management and caribou enhancement programs. Both programs are proven science-based approaches that have had positive impacts on caribou populations. The success of these programs is summarized in this short article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/caribou-wolf-cull-1.4915683

The use of misinformation and ‘social licence’ decision-making are the same tactics used in 2017 that lead to the grizzly bear hunt closure in B.C. The closure of the grizzly bear hunt was due to social pressure, instead of scientific reasons. Minister Doug Donaldson said on the topic, “It is no longer socially acceptable to the vast majority of British Columbians to hunt grizzly bears.” However, the opinion of the “vast majority of British Columbians” proved to be 78% of only 4200 poll respondents, or less than 3300 residents of a province with a population of 5-million (0.06%).

I am against wildlife being used as a political pawn and I am firmly in support of science and evidence-based management of wildlife and their habitats.

B.C. has approximately 105,000 resident hunters. Proudly, I am one of those who spends several weeks each year in pursuit of wildlife in the great wilderness this province offers.

Ungulate populations have dropped to abnormally low levels in some parts of the province. Meanwhile, predator populations have exploded across the province as a whole. As an example, I point to the ongoing news items about cougars in the lower mainland, coyotes in Stanley Park and the regular summer conflicts involving black bears on the north shore and elsewhere in this region.

There are between 120,000 and 160,000 black bears in B.C. with a harvest rate of approximately 3% (3,600 to 4,800). This is well within internationally-accepted wildlife harvesting guidelines. To offer some perspective, in 1980 it was estimated that there were 35,000 to 90,000 black bears in B.C. and a targeted harvest rate of about 4,000 animals.

The government has been proactive in efforts to prevent further loss to ungulate species by allowing regulated hunting of predators. This should be allowed to continue. Predator (or ‘large carnivore’) hunting has been relied upon for generations, not only as a means of responsible wildlife management but also to generate revenue for wildlife conservation. Once again emotionally-driven campaigns are attempting to interfere, risking the loss of our social license to continue to hunt in B.C. and threatening to put further pressure, by allowing predator numbers to rise, on ungulate populations that are already in difficulty.

Hunters are the original and most passionate conservationists. As such, I and many other resident hunters are prepared to support wildlife management decisions such as hunting closures which, based on science, are deemed necessary. It is unacceptable for the government to rely on uninformed public opinion polls and emotionally-driven campaigns when making wildlife management decisions.

I expect the government to use science and evidence-based approaches when making decisions impacting wildlife management in B.C.

I look forward to receiving your response and indication of support of my concerns.

Yours in Conservation,

________________

[Imdone]

Great letter above, well said.

[Greenthumbed]

Very good letter, Cuervosail.

[Ohwildwon]

Excellent!

Maybe add a link with a bunch of stats of some sort?

[cuervosail]

Excellent!

Maybe add a link with a bunch of stats of some sort?


I encourage you to draft a letter and include whatever links you feel are appropriate. I have already sent mine. I am not going to re-do it.

[E-J Kooij]

Done!!! thanks so much for that.

[LBM]

Excellent!

Maybe add a link with a bunch of stats of some sort?

Yes if some proper stats etc are included i think is better. Cuervosail may be passionate about hunting but in his letter
I think there is some un truths and contradicts himself a bit, but every one has there own purpose for it.

[tylerduce]

Hello all,

I am a law student and hunter. Rebeka Breder is my professor for Animal Law. Needless to say her and I disagree on a few points, which is fine! I'll be writing a paper this fall on the north American model of conservation. In it I will discuss what our government does well that aligns with the conservation model and what it can improve on. I aim to be as fair and impartial to both sides as the data will allow me to be. If anyone is interested in reading the final work feel free to send me a message. The paper will be done just before Christmas.

Happy hunting

[Harvest the Land]

Hello all,

I am a law student and hunter. Rebeka Breder is my professor for Animal Law. Needless to say her and I disagree on a few points, which is fine! I'll be writing a paper this fall on the north American model of conservation. In it I will discuss what our government does well that aligns with the conservation model and what it can improve on. I aim to be as fair and impartial to both sides as the data will allow me to be. If anyone is interested in reading the final work feel free to send me a message. The paper will be done just before Christmas.

Happy hunting

Hi Tyler. Welcome to the site and good on you for choosing to write a paper on NAMWC. I know many of us were huge fans of Val Geist and like a lot of what NAMWC has done to allow us to continue hunting big game over the past 50 years. Please let me know once your paper is done, I would very much like to read it.

Cheers,
Jason

[Redthies]

Hello all,

I am a law student and hunter. Rebeka Breder is my professor for Animal Law. Needless to say her and I disagree on a few points!

Hopefully you wear some entertaining T-shirt’s to class now and then... Meateaters “Gnome roasting a Jackalope on a spit” comes to mind. It’s one of my favourites. But then, I’m a pot stirrer. My father got his law degree at UBC back in the early sixties. Hopefully your career is as long and honorable as his was.

[knothead]

Great letter C, copied, pasted and sent. Thank you.

[thompie505]

Hello all,

I am a law student and hunter. Rebeka Breder is my professor for Animal Law. Needless to say her and I disagree on a few points, which is fine! I'll be writing a paper this fall on the north American model of conservation. In it I will discuss what our government does well that aligns with the conservation model and what it can improve on. I aim to be as fair and impartial to both sides as the data will allow me to be. If anyone is interested in reading the final work feel free to send me a message. The paper will be done just before Christmas.

Happy hunting

I'd also like a copy!!

Thanks!

[gcreek]

Hello all,

I am a law student and hunter. Rebeka Breder is my professor for Animal Law. Needless to say her and I disagree on a few points, which is fine! I'll be writing a paper this fall on the north American model of conservation. In it I will discuss what our government does well that aligns with the conservation model and what it can improve on. I aim to be as fair and impartial to both sides as the data will allow me to be. If anyone is interested in reading the final work feel free to send me a message. The paper will be done just before Christmas.

Happy hunting

Please include me for sharing.

[Redthies]

Hello all,

I am a law student and hunter. Rebeka Breder is my professor for Animal Law. Needless to say her and I disagree on a few points, which is fine! I'll be writing a paper this fall on the north American model of conservation. In it I will discuss what our government does well that aligns with the conservation model and what it can improve on. I aim to be as fair and impartial to both sides as the data will allow me to be. If anyone is interested in reading the final work feel free to send me a message. The paper will be done just before Christmas.

Happy hunting

Can we see the “comments” she leaves on your paper too??

[wideopenthrottle]

as a kid who spent every summer camping down the lake and young boyscout guided by principals of conservation and sustainability I realized very early on in this debate is that there are 2 kinds of people....the ones that consider humans as an intrigal part of nature and the ones that separate us from nature.....the ones that consider humans as separate will never understand the need to feel connected to mother earth...they will never truly understand that deep need for the connection and the feeling of being part of our natural world...those of us that do consider humans as part of the natural world are àlso in 2 camp...those who were raised or indoctrinated to be part of nature and those that gained an appreciation without the raw experience of it....the indoctrinated often stumble to put such deep feelings into words...when in nature these people automatically become calmed by the feeling that all is right.... generally I find those who learn to appreciate that we are part of nature also benifit from being plugged in to mother earth but are more exillerated and excited by it....

[Redthies]

Well said WOT.