Behind the glass hunting podcast? BHA?

[ElectricDyck]

Anybody listen to ep 35? Do you only kill what you eat? Do hunters need to pick there battles and give up on predator hunting in this anti hunting climate? Does BHA have an official stance on predator hunting?

I have shot a coyote and didnt eat it.

[adriaticum]

You need to go to church and repent.
Or whatever bullshit it's called.

[adriaticum]

I listened to the podcast last night and I have some issues with it for sure. Lumping Chris Darimont into the hunting community is a stretch. Late onset hunter, another bs. Darimont choked on few direct questios that were put forward to him. For example how he would manage wolves.
He is not a hunter, he is an imposter.
Public social license? Why does public most of whom have no link or interest in hunting have to issue me a license to hunt?
Darimont clearly doesn't hunt wolves and therefore he believes no one should. Garbage attitude.
He kept referring to data, but no data was given. Either of them.
Alltogether wishy washy.
The only good thing said there was that if there was only one elk left that he would stop hunting them.
All I care about is science and evidence in the field.
We must have good science and good data.

[pg83]

I'm not going to get into any of the background noise on this and just focus on what I heard during the podcast.


- Complete lack of preparation on the host's part. Haven't listened to any of his other stuff so can't comment any further.
- Lack of willingness to engage the guest in a hugely important conversation on the host's part. To the point that I am left questioning the host's intentions.
- Host giggling throughout the interview while knowingly being lied to. Again, I just don't get it.

I would have turned it off within 5 minutes because of the lack of professionalism but stayed the duration because I wanted to hear what was being said by the guest.

To the many people who do know a thing or two about conservation in this province and dedicate incredible amounts of their time and resources to it, and I will lump myself into this, this was seen as a massive slap in the face and really just made the host look like a complete fool. Hopefully, most of the hunting community sees this for what it is and gives it the minimal amount of attention it deserves.

To the followers of this podcast, many of whom are newer hunters, I can only hope that they are looking at other information as well and can put the pieces together to realize what's really going on and see this episode for what it is, a steaming pile of shit.


I am not opposed to listening to Chris Darimont on a podcast, but whoever is on the other side of that conversation better know what they are doing and better be doing it for something bigger than their ego.

[Arctic Lake]

Geeeezzzz. I can’t see myself eating coyote or wolf or cats for that matter . If I harvest any of the mentioned species your welcome to the meat .
Arctic Lake

[300rum700]

The guest was a condescending asshole and the host was a spineless cuck.

[whitlers]

A few of these 'Hunting' podcasts have the same kind of mentality. Some have justified the grizzly hunt ban for the reason that we don't use the meat. It is frustrating that this kind of thinking is being spread around within our community and outside of it via these podcasts.

[adriaticum]

A few of these 'Hunting' podcasts have the same kind of mentality. Some have justified the grizzly hunt ban for the reason that we don't use the meat. It is frustrating that this kind of thinking is being spread around within our community and outside of it via these podcasts.

Unfortunately this guy Chris Pryn is also involved at high level with some projects around the province.
He seems to get air time.

[charlie_horse]

I do not understand this podcast. It was embarrassing. For such an important topic he was enormously unprepared. It seemed in fact zero preparation. I dont know what his intents were because he clearly isn't an anti hunter but it seemed to me that he just wanted to hear his own voice and/or get followers. He did hunting as a whole an extreme disservice if it was the best of times. I still can't wrap my head around it. Had so many opportunities to call darimont out on his BS and lies and narrative and was just completely asleep at the switch or completely not knowledgeable on the topics he was on about.

I know its small things, but ive unfollowed on all his platforms and will not be renewing with BHA if he has a role with it. Its my opinion others do the same. I have half a mind to phone seek outside and vortex to b!tch about his sponsorship.

The hunting community just can't catch a break from itself.

[Rob Chipman]

Chris Darimont and the Raincoast Machine are tricky guys to deal with. I've talked to Chris several times. I like him, but like many of you, I think he and Raincoast are a complex challenge. There is more going on than they will allow. I'm not sure if that's because they're not very self-aware or because they're really clear on what the mission is and how what they say in public impacts the achievement of the mission.

I also know that an outraged aggressive reponse to Raincoast seems to play to their strengths. They like it.

I know the host, Chris Pryn a bit. Criticism of the podcast is warranted, I think, but I wouldn't be too quick to cast Chris Pryn into the darkness and say "you're dead to me!" Probably better to give him rational (not emotional) input and challenge him to re-address this issue.

A lot of us see a long term anti-hunting social engineering campaign on the part of Raincoast. I certainly do, despite Raincoast's claims to the contrary (which I frankly don't find convincing).

Sometimes our response to that is to immediately say "We're in a fight" and to respond. We've seen that recently and there is a good place for that.

However....not everyone likes to see a fight and they don't all like lots of overt aggression. It's possible that our drive to get 50,000 signatories between two letter writing campaigns is...under-achieiving as a result of this. That is what it is, and like I say, sometimes a fight is exactly what's called for (I've got 3 big brothers, so a little friendly violence makes me feel a bit warm and fuzzy).

But...maybe rather than hammering Chris Pryn real hard it might be better to educate him a bit and encourage him to raise the level of the convo. Podcast fans have seen that happen with Ben O'Brian's podcast and I'm are we can all name a few others that didn't exactly hit all the notes we would have liked.

Just a thought.

[adriaticum]

Chris Darimont and the Raincoast Machine are tricky guys to deal with. I've talked to Chris several times. I like him, but like many of you, I think he and Raincoast are a complex challenge. There is more going on than they will allow. I'm not sure if that's because they're not very self-aware or because they're really clear on what the mission is and how what they say in public impacts the achievement of the mission.

I also know that an outraged aggressive reponse to Raincoast seems to play to their strengths. They like it.

I know the host, Chris Pryn a bit. Criticism of the podcast is warranted, I think, but I wouldn't be too quick to cast Chris Pryn into the darkness and say "you're dead to me!" Probably better to give him rational (not emotional) input and challenge him to re-address this issue.

A lot of us see a long term anti-hunting social engineering campaign on the part of Raincoast. I certainly do, despite Raincoast's claims to the contrary (which I frankly don't find convincing).

Sometimes our response to that is to immediately say "We're in a fight" and to respond. We've seen that recently and there is a good place for that.

However....not everyone likes to see a fight and they don't all like lots of overt aggression. It's possible that our drive to get 50,000 signatories between two letter writing campaigns is...under-achieiving as a result of this. That is what it is, and like I say, sometimes a fight is exactly what's called for (I've got 3 big brothers, so a little friendly violence makes me feel a bit warm and fuzzy).

But...maybe rather than hammering Chris Pryn real hard it might be better to educate him a bit and encourage him to raise the level of the convo. Podcast fans have seen that happen with Ben O'Brian's podcast and I'm are we can all name a few others that didn't exactly hit all the notes we would have liked.

Just a thought.


Darimont used are good physcological strategy to disarm the Australian.
He declared at the start "I am a hunter". That automatically would throw most people off course and they would adapt a more relaxed posture.
Everything Raincoast publishes is framed in anti hunting/thropy hunting/ killing fashion.
All the studies they do are done to support their anti hunting agenda.
They create an agenda, then they do research to support the agenda.
Now they have invented "Social License to Hunt".
We don't need a social license to hunt.
We need data.

Raincoast has obiously found audience with the BCWF, which Darimont is openly hostile to.

[Greenthumbed]

I know Chris Pryn. I met him at the WSSBC Spences Bridge Sheep count a few years ago. He’s a good guy. We have kept in contact since. He’s a passionate hunter and a conservationist. He devotes his time mentoring new hunters.
I have not listened to his podcast. I don’t have much time for podcasts anymore. Doesn’t sound like he was at his best on this one, but I know that Chris is not the bad guy in this story. He’s a hunter, he’s one of us and he is fighting the good fight. Maybe he didn’t win this one, but I’m sure he’s not giving up on his passion.

[Cabled]

I also know Chris Pryn fairly well, I can say he is a great guy. Did he rush to be the first guy to have Dairmont on his podcast, kinda seems like it. I will say I was disappointed when he said he wasn’t seeing the threat to hunting, at some point in the podcast Dairmont mentions “we’ve been at this for 25 years, we aren’t going away, hunters need to pick their hill to die on” I would like to hear if he sees the threat now? Also I think it’s important to realize Raincoast would like nothing more to divide the hunting community as much as possible.
I think hunters need to come together on this “hill”, they are not going to stop at predators.

[adriaticum]

he may be good, but is he smart? the problem is every tom dick and harry want to have a podcast . not all are beneficial.

[adriaticum]

what is happening is raincoast, first nations and their allies are working to get the "colonizers" off the land. that takes many forms. stop hunting, land claims, buying guiding territories, etc. only goverments and first nations can profit from the land. its time to force first nations to pay all taxes we pay.

[Rob Chipman]

Adriaticum:

I think you se what Raincoast is doing and how they do it pretty clearly.

I'm a bit confused by your statement "Raincoast has obiously found audience with the BCWF, which Darimont is openly hostile to." What do you mean by that? I'm not looking for a fight, I'm just wondering how you reach that conclusion.

[Harvest the Land]

Haven't listened to this podcast but I do know just how much of a conflicted individual Darimont seems to be imo. I listened to him on the Hunting Collective last year and was vomiting inside my mouth as I was driving.

So it prompted me to engage him on Twitter in a very polite way, asking him why he's got no problem killing blacktails on the Island and Moose in the Interior, but hunting bears doesn't jive with his "values". I simply asked him why Bears seem to have more "value" to him than deer/moose? And how he came to the determination that its "ok" for him to kill ungulates, but it was a "sin" to kill predators. He instantly blocked me on Twitter (he's a total coward). So I looked up his email address on the UVic website and sent him a few lengthy emails asking him the same thing and still haven't gotten a response. He obviously doesn't have the courage to confront his fundamental flaws. Only the worst professors don't respond to legitimate criticisms.

Its guys like Chris Darimont who are trying to impose their "values" on the rest of us, that pose the most dangerous threat to our right to hunt predators. He dresses up as a hunter just to come off as though he's got street Cred; and to come across as though he's not actively trying to reduce hunters rights, because he's "one of us". He's full of shit and a total coward and a very conflicted individual. To think that he's a Professor of resource management & conservation, while indoctrinating all these Millennials about his "values" is scary as f_ck

[Would Rather Be Fishing]

I thought Darimont's line of arguing was very smart. "I am one of you. Come one, you are not really hunting predators for the meat, aren't you? It's more of an ego thing if we are being honest. The rest of the nations doesn't like you for doing it.... Is it really worth it? Think about it... Is it really worth the fight? Just pick your battle! Just give up, the 'resistance is not going away'. Just stop..."

Manipulative.... He would have made a great politician.... Well, I guess, in a way he is. I agree with many here that is is really a shame the host didn't pick up on it, provided him an audience and, in essence, supported him.

[adriaticum]

Adriaticum:

I think you se what Raincoast is doing and how they do it pretty clearly.

I'm a bit confused by your statement "Raincoast has obiously found audience with the BCWF, which Darimont is openly hostile to." What do you mean by that? I'm not looking for a fight, I'm just wondering how you reach that conclusion.


There was something I thought he said during the interview that made me think he was working with BCWF on something.
Am I out to lunch?
I may have to re-linsten to this podcast.

[adriaticum]

I agree with Harvest The Land, Darimont is an imposter. I am looking into his bio, but can't find anything other than his UVIC credentials and his wolf study.

[adriaticum]

Manipulative.... He would have made a great politician.... Well, I guess, in a way he is. I agree with many here that is is really a shame the host didn't pick up on it, provided him an audience and, in essence, supported him.

Maybe the aussie figured it out in the end. But by then he got one in the kiester

[Rob Chipman]

Adriaticum:

"Am I out to lunch?"

Maybe you misheard or misinterpreted something. No big deal. BCWF and Raincoast have participated with other groups on a Fraser River salmon habitat project, but both Chris Darimont and all the guys I know at BCWF (ie, Board of Directors and staff) are very clear on where we stand in relation to each other. Chris Darimont *has not* found a friendly audience with BCWF, and in fact the recent letter writing campaigns by both WSS and BCWF are pretty clear indications that both those organizations have a really clear idea of what Raincoast is about.

I think it's easy for me to say that. Chris Darimont recognizes it was well, I'm sure. Again, in case I haven't said it before, I know Chris Darimont slightly, and I've communicated with him a lot, and I kind of like him.

He's not on the same side of the issue as I am and I do not think he has a reasonable position that stands up to criticism, but I also don't think I'm ever going to change his mind or his motivations. I'd probably do better with Rebeka Breder ;-)

[Golddust]

Gave the podcast a listen - or at least a portion of it. Its clear that Chris came into it very under-educated on the topics particularly considering who he was talking with. Its a shame he did little to challenge Darimot and his naritive. The lack of debate and simply accepting Dairmont's statements turned it from a two person discussion to an hour of Dairmont speaking his mind while Chris sat on the side nodding his head.

I get it -Chris is trying to continue to grow his podcast and challenging guests isn't a very effective way of enticing other guests to come on BUT with that being said it was very frustrating to listen to and a shame that Dairmont presented so well while Chris just sat there. To be honest, I find it shocking that after editting he didn't realize how poor of a job he did of representing hunters and canned the episode. Either way whats done is done.

Maybe I'll practice what I preach and start a podcast where I have anti-hunting advocates on so we can have educated debates on their hurt feelings versus my facts - Dont forget to subscribe! :P

[adriaticum]

I listened to the podcast again, fully awake (first time I listened to it was while trying to fall asleep).
I have to first apologize to Rob and the BCWF, the organization that Darimont has the ear of is BC Hunters and Anglers, not BCWF.
Chris Pryn, is a chair on of BC Hunters and Anglers, not BCWF.

On second listen, without writing a whole essay Pryn did declare that his podcast is "not a debate, not an argument, not anything confrontational".
Perhaps we expected too much.
So he just gave an anti hunting organization a platform to slander hunters and paint them as blood thirsty killers with knives in their teeth looking for blood.

I would recommend Pryn go back to his roots on his podcast and talk about "pooping posture" and leave hunting and conservation to those who care and know.
Pryn is a lightweight who could be lead thirsty across the Nile and he wouldn't think to take a drink of water.

[Rob Chipman]

^^^ No apology required. Easy mistake, all cleared up, no harm no foul.

[dapesche]

Listened to it as well. It was very strange. Chris danced around the tough questions and just fed him softball pitches.

He spent a lot of time talking about nothing and also his inability to learn from his mistakes and screwed up two previous podcasts he tried to record. Due to these mixups he was able to do some reading and research on the topic which 100% not apparent.

He had an opportunity to have a respectable debate but he completely dropped the ball. If he is a hunter he should know how important a proper discussion is to us to understand the point of that ****ing waste of a paper he drafted up to appease his university and his hakai and rainforest funders.

The tone of that paper was arrogant and after listening to that bonehead talk it definitely matched his personality.

Chris ****ed up and should have showed his fellow hunters more respect. I really hope someone from BHA has a chat with him. It was tough to listen to him and I was left wondering why the hell his buddy connected them but didn't participate in the interview.

Just so much dumb

[ElectricDyck]

What is BHA s stance on prexator hunting? Or Trophy hunting for animals like sheep and goats?

[rageous]

Hey Chris Pryn...we can see you hiding under the sheets.

[RackStar]

Everyone wants their 30 seconds of fame and a couple grand in free gear from sponsors.

some people have no business representing bc resident hunters.

[dapesche]

Everyone wants their 30 seconds of fame and a couple grand in free gear from sponsors.

some people have no business representing bc resident hunters.

Bingo... 100% truth

[HighCountryBC]

Everyone wants their 30 seconds of fame and a couple grand in free gear from sponsors.

some people have no business representing bc resident hunters.

Bingo! Couldn't agree more.

[Would Rather Be Fishing]

The tone of that paper was arrogant and after listening to that bonehead talk it definitely matched his personality.


I am glad you said that. I actually read the paper and felt the same way about both the paper and himself in the interview. But sometimes I tend to take things the wrong way so thanks for the validation....

[Rob Chipman]

I've been thinking about this a bit.

I think we should recognize a few things. Chris Pryn does not owe anyone anything. He's not a representative for BC resident hunters, and never claimed to be. He wasn't representing BHA and explicitly pointed that out. He does have a podcast and an audience, and he has a record of working for conservation in BC.

He was unprepared for his interview, but it's not like he's giving Raincoast or Chris Darimont a platform that they wouldn't have already had. In fact, he gave Chris Darimont a platform to address a lot of resident hunters and share his honest viewpoints on hunting in BC.

How'd Mr. Darimont do? Did he make a good impression? Did he change anyone's mind? Did he do himself or Raincoast any favours?

Most important, did Chris Pryn give some people who had never actually heard Chris Darimont speak a really good introduction to who Raincoast and Chris Darimont are?

Did the podcast motivate some people to go run down the paper and read it?

I'd call the a win, as far as that goes.



What did Chris Pryn do that was so irritating? It's very clear that he offended the sensitivities of a lot of pretty well informed resident hunters. I'm not downplaying that. I'm saying that there are resident BC hunters who feel that a) we have a right to hunt and fish and that b) that right is partly recognized in statute law, c) can be traced back to prior to the Norman Conquest of England and d) that this right is under attack by some people.

All of that is true, but can we admit for a minute or two that not all BC resident hunters even understand it? I recall listening to another popular BC hunting podcast where the hosts repeatedly and forcefully said "BC resident hunters do not have a right to hunt or fish. It is a privilege". I don't think anyone on this forum lost their shit over that particular podcast.


I've heard many, many hunters express the same sentiment. It is, in point of fact, an incorrect sentiment, but it is still common.

So all Chris did was come to the conversation with a common, but uninformed opinion. He then raised a very important point that we should all learn from: he said that he had heard of this big bun toss over whether someone was coming for our rights to hunt, and it seemed very aggressive and it didn't make sense to him, so he wanted to find out what was going on.

This occurred at a time when WSS and BCWF had initiated a letter writing campaign that was, and I'm sure we'd all agree, if not "aggressive" then certainly passionate (and I support it, btw. I've signed and promoted both campaigns).

The goal for both campaigns was 25,000. BCWF is just over 6,000. I heard that WSS is around 7,500.

I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but those results are underwhelming. That is no slight on guys like Steve Hamilton or Glen Rensmaag and others at WSS, or the people at BCWF. Those guys are working super, super hard and making a difference.

But you have to ask: why, with a little over 100,000 licensed hunters in BC, in the face of what seems like a real threat, and with a lot of volunteers working overtime, do we only get a 15% buy in?

If we were running this like a business and found that our target market wasn't picking up on our message we might, just might, wonder if the message sounded a bit off to the target market.

In fact, it would be a no-brainer to ask that question and it would be naive, immature and irresponsible to *not* ask the question. And we'd ask that question not to hammer WSS or BCWF and scream that those organizations are so incompetent that they have no business representing BC resident hunters. We'd ask the question for the same reason we try to figure out what the airplane crashed - we'd ask it so that we can become more effective.

Chris Pryn is, without a doubt, a real hunter and a real conservationist. We all know that.

He demonstrated that not all hunters in BC understand that hunting and fishing are actual rights (yes, they are subject to regulation, and no, they are not the same as Indigenous rights, but they are still rights).

He also demonstrated that not all hunters see the threat that other hunters see, and he demonstrated, quite clearly, that some BC hunters are unaware of the sensibilities of many other BC hunters.


Scream at him. Lose your shit. Demonize his motives (as if you actually know what they are). What do you think you're going to accomplish with that? It's somewhere between zero and sweet **** all. Chris Darimont is a charter member of the Raincoast Machine. He doesn't need Chris Pryn to give him a voice. Raincoast knows how to set a goal, write a paper to support it, get it into the media and give it oxygen. Jerking Chris Pryn's chain won't hurt Raincoast at all.

I think a better idea is to extract the positives and build on them. I think it's clear that not all BC resident hunters see the world the same way. We should be asking why. Do we have a bad, paranoid story, or are we just not telling it very effectively? Maybe, just maybe, it might be worth getting Chris Pryn to re-visit this issue and use his platform to address the criticisms that he's received.

Kinda tough to make that sale when you start with "So, you want 15 minutes of fame, free stuff, plus, you're also a ****ing idiot".

As for where BHA stands on predator hunting, a quick Google of "backcountry hunters and anglers bear hunting" returns results like "BHA opposes proposed California ban on black bear hunting" through to "Georgia chapter of BHA is holding a bear hunting pint night". I know lots of guys in BHA here in the Lower Mainland. They're legit hunters like everyone else here on this forum and yes, they hunt predators.

[Greenthumbed]

Well said, Rob.

[adriaticum]

Rob, you can't make a chocolate bar out of a piece of shit
He cringed when you launched a campaign to counter Darimont's latest bullshit campaign.

[rageous]

I wonder if he seen this thread?...

[Jagermeister]

Geeeezzzz. I can’t see myself eating coyote or wolf or cats for that matter . If I harvest any of the mentioned species your welcome to the meat .
Arctic Lake
At least try it once. And try beaver tool. Split tails don't count.
Down in the southern states, they eat poosum, squirrel, raccoon.
Over in India, there is a common practice of burning the fields after a harverst. Generally, they try to start the fires along all flanks do it burns totward the middle . As the fires rage over the field, the folks follow the burn picking up the rats that have been nice scorched. They peel off the skin and strip the flesh from the skeleton until it is bare of flesh and then dicard the skeleton along with the entrails.
Seriouslly, go to a fish & game banquet, pretty sure they will have it on the plate or in the pot for you to try the various animals that are harvested primarily for their hides.

[Jagermeister]

Darimont used are good phycological strategy to disarm the Australian.
He declared at the start "I am a hunter". That automatically would throw most people off course and they would adapt a more relaxed posture.
Everything Raincoast publishes is framed in anti hunting/trophy hunting/ killing fashion.
All the studies they do are done to support their anti hunting agenda.
They create an agenda, then they do research to support the agenda.
Now they have invented "Social License to Hunt".
We don't need a social license to hunt. (Well said my friend, well said!)
We need data.

Raincoast has obviously found audience with the BCWF, which Darimont is openly hostile to.
I am a hunter: Therefore I am (one of you).
The BCWF has also endorsed the BC Cattleman's Association.
Maybe BCWF has taken the philosophy, Keep your friends close; Keep your enemies closer. Not sure if the Fed has kissed and made up with the guides and out fitters.
For me, when it comes to cozying up to an organization, if that organization is not 100% in the same room, then I do not want any part of it.

[Harvest the Land]

You betcha. Don't kid yourselves, Chris Darimont is a Wolf in Sheep's clothing. He represents the ultimate threat to resident hunters in BC (particularly to predator hunters, which we all should be if we're all conservationists here). He's a conflicted individual and he's scary as f_ck and his views need to be challenged at every opportunity

[Would Rather Be Fishing]

Hmmm as mostly the case, you have given me food for thought. That's why I appreciate your posts....



The goal for both campaigns was 25,000. BCWF is just over 6,000. I heard that WSS is around 7,500.

I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but those results are underwhelming. [...]

But you have to ask: why, with a little over 100,000 licensed hunters in BC, in the face of what seems like a real threat, and with a lot of volunteers working overtime, do we only get a 15% buy in?

If we were running this like a business and found that our target market wasn't picking up on our message we might, just might, wonder if the message sounded a bit off to the target market.


This is definitely something to ponder....

[Supermanskye]

Well Said Rob

[adriaticum]

I wonder if he seen this thread?...

Probably not, he doesn't care.
He did say in his podcast that he knows he will get flack for it and he didn't care.

So maybe it's all ElectricDyck's fault for introducing this podcast to a wider audience :mrgreen:

[whitlers]

I just listened to 1/3rd before I had to shut it off.
The amount of utter bullshit comming out of that Chris D's mouth and Pryns lack of knowledge or willingness to engage and clarify some issues. Made my head hurt.

I will say he did start the podcast by explaining what was inevitably going to happen but why.

Maybe I missed the point and I can see what Rob was saying but still. Damn man. That shit was weak.

[Rob Chipman]

I am a hunter: Therefore I am (one of you).
The BCWF has also endorsed the BC Cattleman's Association.
Maybe BCWF has taken the philosophy, Keep your friends close; Keep your enemies closer. Not sure if the Fed has kissed and made up with the guides and out fitters.
For me, when it comes to cozying up to an organization, if that organization is not 100% in the same room, then I do not want any part of it.


As Adriaticum explained, when he wrote "Raincoast has obviously found an audience with BCWF, which Darimont is openly hostile to" he (Adriaticum) misheard what the host and Darimont were saying. In fact, Adriacticum conflated "BHA" with "BCWF".

That said, Chris Pryn, the host, was explicit in saying he wasn't representing BHA or speaking for BHA.

It's important to make this stuff clear. The non-Indigenous resident hunter team makes a few too many intellectual leaps and quickly follows up with a condemnation of a group that is helpful. I don't know why we do that aside from a lack of discipline. Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a legit conservation organization made up primarily, but not exclusively, of hunters and anglers.....exactly like WSS is (see recent videos by Greg Rensmaag where he points this out). Pryn made a mistake. Blame him, and blame him wisely and constructively. DOn't tar the whole BHA organization and don't make a simple error and tar BCWF, which was not even involved in that podcast.

When you say "The BCWF has *endorsed* the BC Cattleman's Association" I think you're either going to far or you know something I do not know. What BCWF has done is refrain from pissing in the cattleman's pocket because ranchers exert a significant amount of control over what non-Indigenous hunters and anglers do and over conservation in general. That's not *endorsing* anyone or thinking of them as the enemy. It's more like not shooting ourselves in the foot.

The idea that non-Indigenous resident hunters should not "cozy up to any organization that is not 100% in the same room" is a problem if you don't define "cozy up" or "same room". If we're too strict with our definitions we're going to end up becoming a smaller and less significant group.

I hate to be the one breaking the news to you, but we're already largely small and insignificant. We don't need more of that. We need the opposite.

If you don't want to work with a guy who has demonstrated that he's a hunter and a conservationist because he made a mistake? That does not sound like a smart move. We're out-gunned, out-resourced, out-funded and have a substantial list of other handicaps. We can't win this on our own.

Are First Nations organizations like the Tsilhqot'in 100% in the room with us? Probably not. If we don't cozy up to them and figure it out how are we going to access LEHs that require transit through their territory? We gonna call a mountie and see if he'll help? Good ****ing luck with that.

[adriaticum]

That said, Chris Pryn, the host, was explicit in saying he wasn't representing BHA or speaking for BHA.



You can't be a part of an organization, mention that you are a part that organization and not speak for them.

It's very much like "Know your limit, play within it" advertising bullshit.
It's just to limit liability.

If you are a part of an organization everything you say represents that organization.
Believe it.

No, I wouldn't blame the whole BHA because of the words of one person.
That's just plain wrong.

But if Pryn every becomes part of the leadership of the BHA, I know what to expect.
Perhaps he will learn by then.

[Rob Chipman]

"You can't be a part of an organization, mention that you are a part that organization and not speak for them."

That's true, but its a lesson that everyone has to learn. Before you learn it you *think* you can say "I'm not speaking on behalf of the organization; I'm only speaking for myself".

The reason you can't say that is because some members of the audience won't accept it. It's a very counter-productive in a lot of respects, and I'm not sure what purpose it serves.

"But if Pryn every becomes part of the leadership of the BHA, I know what to expect.
Perhaps he will learn by then."

If you think he can learn and you think he *might* become an influential leader, wouldn't it make sense to enlighten him?

"he doesn't care." I'm 60/40 that you're wrong on that. I've had a very brief chat with him.


Whitlers:

"Damn man. That shit was weak." Yeah, hunnerd percent. It's one of those things where the guy may be trying his best, but you have to explain to him that, sadly, his best wasn't even in the ballpark of cutting it.

[adriaticum]

I don't think Pryn had any malintent, he is probably just young and naive.
We have far bigger hills to climb.

[ElectricDyck]

One thing is sure the tactics used by raincoast are smart and are working, I already hear there slogans in other hunters mouths..." I only shoot what I eat", "I'm not a trophy hunter, Im a meat hunter" These 2 slogans will be used to discontinue all predator hunting and then sheep, goats and black bear.....how do you fight back against it?

Personally I don't like to see things suffer but to say the killing is the worst part is a lie. I either like killing things or I would hire somebody to do it for me like everyone else that eats does, its way cheaper.... I enjoy trophy hunting for goats and sheep and if the meat was un edible I would still do it. I enjoy looking at a large mature animal mounted on my wall. I think to play "their" game is a losing battle, the general public will see that we are lieing.... the battle for the "Trophy Hunter" and "Meat Hunter" divide seems to be lost. Now hunters lie and identify as "meat" hunters only and and then the argument can be made that predator hunting is "trophy" hunting.. Its not a far stretch to to argue that sheep and goats are not a "meat" animal...and so it goes.

All this is being said with hindsight of what has already happened and is happening. 5 years ago I wouldn't have guessed we as hunters would be where we are now but now I fear there is no stopping it, we have been painted into a corner by ourselves..hiding away our sport like a guilty pleasure and calling it ethical to do so. An ambassador of hunting with a podcast that whatever they might say to the contrary represent their sport and their organizations seem to not understand or communicate or defend hunting explaining for example that a cougar isn't chased by dogs for hours, the dogs chase the scent, the cougars perception of the chase is usually brief and he runs up a tree...and publicly admit they agree with 90% of a paper written by an organization whose goal is to stop hunting...so much money in environmentalism and anti hunting it makes me wonder who is legit and who is not..

[adriaticum]

What rubs me the wrong way far more than Chris Pryn, is the fact that CO's are used to eliminate problem animals.
They killed 3 cougars in Coquitlam because they killed dogs.
This should never be done by a CO.
It should be done by a hunting group, specially licensed to eliminate urban problem predators.
This really rubs me the wrong way.

We need to make this a priority to bring this awareness to the public.
COs are no more skilled than good hunters.

[KodiakHntr]

That said, Chris Pryn, the host, was explicit in saying he wasn't representing BHA or speaking for BHA.

It's important to make this stuff clear. The non-Indigenous resident hunter team makes a few too many intellectual leaps and quickly follows up with a condemnation of a group that is helpful. I don't know why we do that aside from a lack of discipline. Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a legit conservation organization made up primarily, but not exclusively, of hunters and anglers.....exactly like WSS is (see recent videos by Greg Rensmaag where he points this out). Pryn made a mistake. Blame him, and blame him wisely and constructively. DOn't tar the whole BHA organization and don't make a simple error and tar BCWF, which was not even involved in that podcast.



And that is fine to state that. HOWEVER, one thing to keep in mind in this day and age is that people are terminated from jobs all across North America for being on their social media platform and saying or doing something that is deemed to reflect poorly on the company they are employed by. Almost daily there are examples of this were people are terminated for simply making a tiktok or instagram post and a piece of advertising merchandise is visible in the background or worn and their message doesn't reflect the views of their employer.

Everything a person does online be it a podcast, facebook post, anything, can be deemed to be representative of your employer. And actions have consequences, the only thing BHA can do to downplay the damage that Pryn did on his podcast is to publicly renounce his membership and issue a public statement. Otherwise what they are indicating is that they don't take issue with his representation and by not publicly renouncing it then by default they agree.

This is a different world now, in the era of social media people have to be cognizant of potential repercussions on things they say; you can't say "I am a member of xxx but I don't speak for xxx but here is my take on it" and not have people hear only "I'm a member of xxx and this is what we think".

That said, I haven't listened to the podcast nor do I have any interest in listening, nor do I have any interest in BHA or Pryn. On this issue however, I agree with Adriaticum, barring a formal statement from BHA, Pryn's views have to be taken as acceptable by BHA.

[KodiakHntr]

"You can't be a part of an organization, mention that you are a part that organization and not speak for them."

That's true, but its a lesson that everyone has to learn. Before you learn it you *think* you can say "I'm not speaking on behalf of the organization; I'm only speaking for myself".



Rob, for the love of god, please, learn how to use the little quote feature. Its right there in the bottom right hand corner of each post. It won't hurt to click on it. Honest.


One thing is sure the tactics used by raincoast are smart and are working, I already hear there slogans in other hunters mouths..." I only shoot what I eat", "I'm not a trophy hunter, Im a meat hunter" These 2 slogans will be used to discontinue all predator hunting and then sheep, goats and black bear.....how do you fight back against it?

Personally I don't like to see things suffer but to say the killing is the worst part is a lie. I either like killing things or I would hire somebody to do it for me like everyone else that eats does, its way cheaper.... I enjoy trophy hunting for goats and sheep and if the meat was un edible I would still do it. I enjoy looking at a large mature animal mounted on my wall. I think to play "their" game is a losing battle, the general public will see that we are lieing.... the battle for the "Trophy Hunter" and "Meat Hunter" divide seems to be lost. Now hunters lie and identify as "meat" hunters only and and then the argument can be made that predator hunting is "trophy" hunting.. Its not a far stretch to to argue that sheep and goats are not a "meat" animal...and so it goes.



Well said. With elk (and to a lessor extent moose) for a short period of in the season I am a focused on big bulls, but for the vast majority of the season I am prepared to kill any legal animal that walks in front of me for meat. Everything else is hunted for the memories and the experience.

[porthunter]

Been following this thread thinking about chiming in or not. First off, for anyone whos even eluded to it, if you think that you need to align 100% with some ones views in order to work together, wake up, we are never going to 100% agree on everything, this seems to come up on other threads from time to time a bit. With that being said, I do think some of the more educated hunters in certain spaces need to spend more time with the "easily influenced" folks coming into this space.

For the purpose of the post, I'll use their last names to speak to different posts since they both share the same first name and that could be confusing.

It's no bullshit that the BHA has brought in a large number of "new city" hunters to the space...is that a good thing? I go back and forth a lot. When you try to tell someone to fight for something when they don't actually understand the exact things/value's they're fighting for, it can get dangerous and the slope is very slippery. I'll leave my views on the BHA out of this, as I go back and forth in my head quite a bit. It has been noted that the night before this podcast was done, supposedly there was a call to discuss it amongst some of the BHA members/directors(just what I heard, not from Pryn)

I'll start with my personal background experience with Pryn, and he's always been super nice to me even helping me(along with a couple other solid dudes) get back to Vancouver after turning my truck on its roof.

Next, I'll note that I have spoken with Pryn and we had a phone call to chat about this, amongst some other things Friday.

As I told him, there is nothing wrong with bringing on someone who opposes the views of hunters to a podcast in a hunting space. With that being said, who hosts the podcast is extremely important and that is where Pryn failed. By calling the paper "Fantastic" in an essence he is agreeing with the very context of the paper, even in saying he agreed with 98% of it.

Darimont is an extremely smart conniving individual and if you don't think so, well I'll let you think for yourself, there's lots of things you can find online that he's been a part of. On the topic of Darimont, I have zero confidence this man is a hunter by any nature and simply uses that as some sort of pawn, I'll continue to stick by that unless someone can prove otherwise. AND if he is, what makes it okay to kill deer and moose, but not bears and cougars? Isn't that in a sense some what discriminatory? Isn't saying its wrong to kill some species but not others, somewhat an attack on some ones values as a hunter? Am I maybe being a little over the top? Possibly, but if you break down the ideology....

Listening to the podcast, there is many of points where what Darimont was stating should have been questioned or further investigated, at one point, and this is what disgusts me the most, Darimont literally says; "This really just was an exercise in activism and advocacy against hunting." Minute 26 if you don't believe me.

Moving on, wolf hunting and management. There was a great opportunity to exploit Darimont here. Raincoast and other organizations on wolf hunting is to protect them from endangerment as a species. Yet, Darimont specifically notes, that as hunters, we CAN'T kill enough wolves to have an impact so the idea of management by hunting alone isn't accurate, to which he has a point that directly contradicts the organizations fight? and to his point, aerial culling and trapping measure are also added to hunting so that the species can somewhat be managed as a whole. Food for thought, we maybe can still use this as Pryn didn't when he could have.

Discrediting the fact that hunters and others in support of science based management thinking of we are in a fight and that idea is under attack, really bothered me. As I talked with Pryn about, I felt it was a bit of a slap in the face on the campaigns being run in the province and by a lot of good people. To say this isn't an attack on Science Based Wildlife Management is wrong, break the paper down line by line and read between them... It's pretty clear. If that still doesn't sell you on it, resort back to 2017... I'd hope everyone knows exactly what I'm referring to.

Darimont refers to trophy hunting as if its very complex... only so because by giving it a general meaning and not being able to describe it in one way, it further play's to his motives. He can't actually describe what it means to hunt for trophy because he doesn't understand the term itself. He only knows that when the words Trophy and Hunting are in the same sentence, it creates reaction in the non/anti hunting groups and he love's it.

As hunters, we need to stop with this, we only hunt for food, eat wild, kill to eat mentality. It's bullshit. Is it a part of why we hunt? 100%. Is it the only reason? No. I dare someone to argue. We hunt because we love the pursuit, we love the adventure, we love the thrill of a stalk, and because for a lot of us, we enjoy the challenge. If we didn't enjoy the challenge, we wouldn't do it. The food we bring home is only a by product of why we hunt and what comes of that act. Instead of hiding from this, we need to normalize it. Whether it's your first spike buck you've spent 2 years trying to harvest or a 12 year old ram, it's every bit about the work we put in and challenges we face on the way to that, as it is about the meals we consume after the fact. We hunt wolves because its PART of the management, not the only form of Wolf management, along with other species. To further that, if the only reason we hunted was for food, well guess what species we would all probably only hunt... BEARS. Cause I don't personally think there is an easier animal to harvest than a bear in our province.

One more thing that bothered me about the podcast, and continues to bother me the more I hear it... "Adult Onset Hunter". Enough with that bullshit, we are all hunters, with values and traditions. When we started hunting should have no impact on what we refer to ourselves or others in the hunting space. Pryn made a point about noticing that "AOH" tend to go to the extreme for conservation. As someone who grew up with a .22 alongside my father as far back as I can remember and today do as much as I can as well as contribute what I can to hunting, that didn't sit well with me and I'd be lying if it didn't cause a bit of anger.

But for the sad part, if there's one thing I've been most upset about the week since this podcast dropped, its the division and friction its caused. In a time where we can't afford to be in fighting. Does Pryn deserve some backlash? I'm not going to argue that, he made a mistake and we all pay for our mistakes. I was taught when you play with fire, don't get upset when you get burnt. I think Pryn realizes that now. From a hunting space perspective it's justified, he did hunters no good with that podcast. Whether you feel it will have a negative impact, well time will tell. I should also mention that when I spoke with Pryn Friday morning, he mentioned only 4 people(myself included) had reached out to him to have a chat about it. So while its fine to criticize him for what his actions may or may not have done, and how he failed as a podcast host. I think it is fair that anyone who want's to make a personal insult on the dude, just be willing to say that same thing directly to him(not saying anyone wouldn't) or maybe shoot him a message? Not sure but I've seen some pretty wild shit this last week.

I could go on and on but there's my outside perspective on the podcast. Decent idea, terrible execution. Do with that what you want, I'm not advocating or defending anyone. I've personally been a rollercoaster of feelings as I listen back to it multiple times over this past week.

[Would Rather Be Fishing]

This should never be done by a CO.
It should be done by a hunting group, specially licensed to eliminate urban problem predators.


I get what you are saying, but... given the backlash the COs are facing from the same public they are trying to protect... would you want to expose yourself to that? You are a better man than me: I am reading the comments and think to myself.. "Ok cougar.... have at her.... lets see where this 'learning to live peacefully together' goes"

[adriaticum]

Great analysis porthunter,
Darimont acknowledges that "trophy hunter" has many meanings and it means different things to different people, but he never describes that in his papers.
And he always uses it in the context he knows will rile up public emotions.

Here is UVic's description of Darimont:

"Darimont is an interdisciplinary conservation scientist and the Raincoast Chair of Applied Conservation Science.
At a global level, his work focuses on the unique ecology of "human predators"
, or hunters and fishers
, with novel insight into the causes and consequences of humanity’s distinct predatory behaviour."

This is cut and pasted from Uvic

[adriaticum]

I get what you are saying, but... given the backlash the COs are facing from the same public they are trying to protect... would you want to expose yourself to that? You are a better man than me: I am reading the comments and think to myself.. "Ok cougar.... have at her.... lets see where this 'learning to live peacefully together' goes"


Yes, I would. And if nobody wants to expose themseves to it, then let the dogs die.
Maybe if more dogs and small children died as a result of predator attacks, somebody would raise a question
"Why don't we eliminate these threats?"
"Who can we call for help?"

I would rather that anti hunting activist face that mother whose child was killed and that dude whose dog was killed by a cougar and say "Don't kill them, we are on their land".
Let the anti hunting activists tell it to them.
They would be quickly silenced.

The problem is that the further we are from the matter, the less understanding and respect we have for it.
This cancer is showing itself in everything.
Farming, meat production, argiculture.
The further you are from blueberry bushes the less you understand what it takes to grow them.
The further you are from apple orchards the less you understand that all your fruit picking in this ****ed up country is being done by temporary slaves imported from south america.
There is a reason why the new generation is always calling on government to resolve all their problems.
And the further screwed up we are.

[Rob Chipman]

ElectricDyck:

"I think to play "their" game is a losing battle" I think you're right. A lot of the argument is "I don't like what you like so let me construct a trap, especially surrounding my definition of your motivation". I need to try to run it down but Randy Newberg had a podcast with a guy who really addressed the motivation critique very effectively. He was so good I can't even paraphrase it, but I'll try to find it.


KodiakHntr:

"HOWEVER, one thing to keep in mind in this day and age is that people are terminated from jobs all across North America for being on their social media platform and saying or doing something that is deemed to reflect poorly on the company they are employed by"

That's true, it's wrong, and I don't support it. I employ people and I wouldn't do terminate them on that basis. You wanna live in a bullshit society then put up with bullshit behaviour. I'm not signing on to that one.


"only thing BHA can do to downplay the damage that Pryn did on his podcast is to publicly renounce his membership and issue a public statement."

A public statement might be ok, depending on what they said, but if they removed his membership for that podcast I'd send mine in and castigate the leadership publicly. It's a chickenshit way to behave and grown men shouldn't support it.

[KodiakHntr]

KodiakHntr:

"HOWEVER, one thing to keep in mind in this day and age is that people are terminated from jobs all across North America for being on their social media platform and saying or doing something that is deemed to reflect poorly on the company they are employed by"

That's true, it's wrong, and I don't support it. I employ people and I wouldn't do terminate them on that basis. You wanna live in a bullshit society then put up with bullshit behaviour. I'm not signing on to that one.


"only thing BHA can do to downplay the damage that Pryn did on his podcast is to publicly renounce his membership and issue a public statement."

A public statement might be ok, depending on what they said, but if they removed his membership for that podcast I'd send mine in and castigate the leadership publicly. It's a chickenshit way to behave and grown men shouldn't support it.

I didn't say I supported it, all I said is that in the day of social media they have to have a response or it will be seen as being in agreement.

Don't like it, don't want to support it, well, two words for you...

"You people".

[dapesche]

well this thread should be locked up. It's just another divisive topic.

In general, I think we can all agree is that:
- Chris did not understand the importance of that interview and completely dropped the ball, and that
- Darimont was given an inch that should only have been given to him by someone who was taking the interview seriously and was completely prepared with some sort of objective for the discussion.


lock it up and let's move on.

[ElectricDyck]

Lock it up and move on to what? Back to conservation projects that don't address the fact we won't be allowed to hunt?

[Rob Chipman]

I didn't say I supported it, .


Fair enough. My misread. Sorry for the over-reaction. :-)



Port hunter - good post, good points.

[joshbazz]

...One more thing that bothered me about the podcast, and continues to bother me the more I hear it... "Adult Onset Hunter". Enough with that bullshit...

Good points here, just didn’t fully understand the problem with AOH - and I write this with respect.

I just started hunting a few years ago, still yet to bag my first big game - going to try to make it happen with a Bruin this spring. But I wear the AOH moniker with pride as I see it as an awakening of an adult getting connected with their primal reward systems, which leads to new adventures in the outdoors. As an AOH it also means my experience is nil, and I accept that and am very open to learn. I’m a web designer by profession, and spend a ton of time researching and obsessing over different hunting related topics, from ballistics to game behaviour.

What I think would be extremely valuable, and what I would volunteer service for, is a database of easy to find data that helps support hunter/conservation stances from the hunter perspective, that would help newbies like myself keep informed on topics that we can help share with our non-hunter friends.

I find the more I tell people in my circle that I started hunting, more people (male and female) are interested in getting their core and pal. I feel the more people that we encourage to either become hunters or support hunting is only going to help all hunters in the future to combat anti-hunting agendas.

[porthunter]

Good points here, just didn’t fully understand the problem with AOH - and I write this with respect.

I just started hunting a few years ago, still yet to bag my first big game - going to try to make it happen with a Bruin this spring. But I wear the AOH moniker with pride as I see it as an awakening of an adult getting connected with their primal reward systems, which leads to new adventures in the outdoors. As an AOH it also means my experience is nil, and I accept that and am very open to learn. I’m a web designer by profession, and spend a ton of time researching and obsessing over different hunting related topics, from ballistics to game behaviour.

What I think would be extremely valuable, and what I would volunteer service for, is a database of easy to find data that helps support hunter/conservation stances from the hunter perspective, that would help newbies like myself keep informed on topics that we can help share with our non-hunter friends.

I find the more I tell people in my circle that I started hunting, more people (male and female) are interested in getting their core and pal. I feel the more people that we encourage to either become hunters or support hunting is only going to help all hunters in the future to combat anti-hunting agendas.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to knock people becoming hunters at a later age, I was simply referring to the label. Much like “meat hunter, trophy hunter, etc... I feel like these labels only cause further unnecessary segregation, that’s all.

In terms of a central location for conservation and on going database of that sort... that would be tough and I don’t know how you’d even begin to tackle that one.

[KodiakHntr]

Good points here, just didn’t fully understand the problem with AOH - and I write this with respect.

I just started hunting a few years ago, still yet to bag my first big game - going to try to make it happen with a Bruin this spring. But I wear the AOH moniker with pride as I see it as an awakening of an adult getting connected with their primal reward systems, which leads to new adventures in the outdoors. As an AOH it also means my experience is nil, and I accept that and am very open to learn. I’m a web designer by profession, and spend a ton of time researching and obsessing over different hunting related topics, from ballistics to game behaviour.

What I think would be extremely valuable, and what I would volunteer service for, is a database of easy to find data that helps support hunter/conservation stances from the hunter perspective, that would help newbies like myself keep informed on topics that we can help share with our non-hunter friends.

I find the more I tell people in my circle that I started hunting, more people (male and female) are interested in getting their core and pal. I feel the more people that we encourage to either become hunters or support hunting is only going to help all hunters in the future to combat anti-hunting agendas.

So much respect for all the guys that are getting into it without growing up in it. I can't imagine the learning curve that you face trying to get started.

[whitlers]

I identify as a TOH 'Teenage onset hunter' at least thats when I started.;)

[KBC]

I’ve called myself an adult onset hunter because it’s nicer than saying sh!tty hunter. This stuff is hard enough to figure out when you don’t have anyone to take you out and teach you. I still suck and got another kick in the balls last season when I didn’t get anything after finally getting my first deer 6 years in the year before. I must be a sucker for punishment haha.

Now I need to worry about offending the good hunters because they don’t like a term that might describe me in a somewhat non sh!tty way?

Im not going to say I haven’t been offered help but some of the things that have gone down to either keep me from hunting with more experienced guys or cut trips short with other guys are nuts. I can’t decide if they are hilarious or depressing. Probably a bit of both...

you guys can fack off. I’m an adult onset hunter. I might also be an idiot so take that for what it’s worth.

[porthunter]

I’ve called myself an adult onset hunter because it’s nicer than saying sh!tty hunter. This stuff is hard enough to figure out when you don’t have anyone to take you out and teach you. I still suck and got another kick in the balls last season when I didn’t get anything after finally getting my first deer 6 years in the year before. I must be a sucker for punishment haha.

Now I need to worry about offending the good hunters because they don’t like a term that might describe me in a somewhat non sh!tty way?

Im not going to say I haven’t been offered help but some of the things that have gone down to either keep me from hunting with more experienced guys or cut trips short with other guys are nuts. I can’t decide if they are hilarious or depressing. Probably a bit of both...

you guys can fack off. I’m an adult onset hunter. I might also be an idiot so take that for what it’s worth.

Again, I’m simply saying that in a time of in fighting and pressure from anti hunting fronts, I don’t think it’s good to segregate ourselves. We are all hunters, some of us started younger others later, when you started is not important. I’ve been hunting my whole life, I don’t think I’m a good hunter, and to be honest don’t know what a good hunter is. As hunters we are always learning, whether that be from experiences in the field or podcasts. I just think it’s important for the betterment and future of hunting we don’t lump ourselves into segregated groups. That is all, maybe I’m wrong. Like I said in my first point, not everyone’s going to agree 100% of the time and I’m good with that.

[ElectricDyck]

I was an "adult onset hunter" lol, started at age 30..that term makes it sound like a sickness like early onset dementia...good marketing for sure..

[Numenor604]

I have enjoyed this thread thoroughly. But cmon guys, give the mountain athlete a break..

[joshbazz]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to knock people becoming hunters at a later age, I was simply referring to the label. Much like “meat hunter, trophy hunter, etc... I feel like these labels only cause further unnecessary segregation, that’s all.

I hear you, and agree about not causing further segregation. I believe I read that Ryan Lampers (StHealthyHunter) coined the term "adult onset hunter" years back, and from my perspective it is a positive term that gives some identity to those of us who are trying, with much effort and little to no success to become a "real" hunter. Kinda like a junior to senior thing. But from another perspective I can see how that term along with "ethical hunter", "meat hunter" and others can be deemed unnecessary, and possibly be used negatively.


....In terms of a central location for conservation and on going database of that sort... that would be tough and I don’t know how you’d even begin to tackle that one.
I think it would be super valuable, and I think... I'm going to try to tackle it. I'd appreciate input from all who care to assist - I'll start a new thread...


So much respect for all the guys that are getting into it without growing up in it. I can't imagine the learning curve that you face trying to get started.
The payoff of just getting out there makes it worth it. I can't imagine how rewarding my first big game animal harvest will be :)


I identify as a TOH 'Teenage onset hunter' at least thats when I started.;)
Right on!


I’ve called myself an adult onset hunter because it’s nicer than saying sh!tty hunter. ... LOL - I feel similar sometimes! Tons of mistakes I look back on.... I'm learning 3 years in that patience is one of our greatest tools....


...We are all hunters, some of us started younger others later, when you started is not important... I can't find much to argue with here, solid points. I guess as a new hunter a little bit of imposter syndrome creeps in if I use the term "hunter", even though I hunt, have harvested some small game (just no big yet).

I 100% agree that we need to be united as much as possible so that big issues can be tackled.


I was an "adult onset hunter" lol, started at age 30..that term makes it sound like a sickness like early onset dementia...good marketing for sure..
This is one of the things I heard before that deters some from digging the AOH term, because it sounds like they are "afflicted" with something like you stated. I couldn't agree more!!! It has made me WAY more obsessive than I can remember being.... or ignites a passion I haven't felt since my younger years, say like the first time I really got into learning to play a music instrument. First it was listening to albums (kids remember those?) end to end then practicing 10 hours a day, then buying all the music magazines (rags), then hangin with my music buddies to talk about concerts, gear, who or what's the best this and that.... then buying, testing, selling – GEAR!.... LOL SO many similarities.

But yeah, as an adult onset hunter I've definitely been AFFLICTED with the passion of hunting.

[porthunter]

I hear you, and agree about not causing further segregation. I believe I read that Ryan Lampers (StHealthyHunter) coined the term "adult onset hunter" years back, and from my perspective it is a positive term that gives some identity to those of us who are trying, with much effort and little to no success to become a "real" hunter. Kinda like a junior to senior thing. But from another perspective I can see how that term along with "ethical hunter", "meat hunter" and others can be deemed unnecessary, and possibly be used negatively.


I think it would be super valuable, and I think... I'm going to try to tackle it. I'd appreciate input from all who care to assist - I'll start a new thread...



I can't find much to argue with here, solid points. I guess as a new hunter a little bit of imposter syndrome creeps in if I use the term "hunter", even though I hunt, have harvested some small game (just no big yet).

I 100% agree that we need to be united as much as possible so that big issues can be tackled.




If you're out there, investing time, boot rubber, and learning.. you're a real hunter in my opinion. What you harvest doesn't always tell the whole story and there's no reason to feel like an imposter if you're out there putting in the work.

The amount of work you put in prior to that harvest, will only make the moment it happens that much better for you. Like you said and its one thing I go back to... Patience is key.

[Rob Chipman]

What I think would be extremely valuable, and what I would volunteer service for, is a database of easy to find data that helps support hunter/conservation stances from the hunter perspective, that would help newbies like myself keep informed on topics that we can help share with our non-hunter friends.

Do you mean like an online knowledge centre?

[joshbazz]

Do you mean like an online knowledge centre?

Something like that. Basically a resource for people, like myself, who don’t really know how to communicate to non-hunters in our circle the importance of predator hunting, and the data that backs it up.

It could be a repository of essays about specific controversial (at least to the non-hunting public) topics that include links to scientific papers, or other credible online publications that support the hunter/conservation side of the argument.

One thing I noticed from what little I heard from the podcast (still have to finish) is the referring of social license, or something like that. Unfortunately that is all too real, case in point with the grizzly ban. The fact of this reality means as hunters we need to be ready to adjust to that tactic, and knowledge is the best weapon.

[markathome]

Something like that. Basically a resource for people, like myself, who don’t really know how to communicate to non-hunters in our circle the importance of predator hunting, and the data that backs it up.

It could be a repository of essays about specific controversial (at least to the non-hunting public) topics that include links to scientific papers, or other credible online publications that support the hunter/conservation side of the argument.

One thing I noticed from what little I heard from the podcast (still have to finish) is the referring of social license, or something like that. Unfortunately that is all too real, case in point with the grizzly ban. The fact of this reality means as hunters we need to be ready to adjust to that tactic, and knowledge is the best weapon.

First - huge shout out to Rob Chipman as the rock steady voice of reason and for taking the time to write articulate posts that kept conversation moving forward. This was a tough one, thanks Rob. Not to mention the incredible hard work Rob does at the BCWF - he's got a very challenging role with the organization, maybe the most, given today's political landscape.

Josh - all of the organizations discussed in this thread have exactly what you're looking for: easy to access clickable downloads of well written letters, access and links to data bases, etc etc etc. I've included the memberships for the BCWF, BHA and the WSSBC below - join one, or heck - all three. I bet Rob has.

Speaking from personal experience the BCBHA has an online portal where members can access resources such as BC wildlife spending inforgraphics, letters and pre-written communications for MLAs as well a step-by-step "how to engage one to one with politicians and influences..."

No need to re-invent the wheel here.

Another option is google search Jesse Zeeman BCWF and steal ALL of his ideas and work (trust me he wants you to) - he's put it all out there so you can intelligently and respectfully engage politicians, influencers or your neighbour.

https://www.backcountryhuntersbc.com/#svmDWU
https://bcwf.bc.ca/membership/
https://www.wildsheepsociety.com/join-the-wild-sheep-society-of-bc/#join

My only comment on the podcast is it has garnered the exact results that Dairmont targeted: hunters embroiled in energy depleting in-fighting. Think of all the time, typing and general ****ery that has gone into this thread? What if everyone had used the time to write their MLA and ask them out for a covid friendly coffee to talk about conservation and to tell your story about hunting and social license.

Here's the link to find your MLA: https://www.leg.bc.ca/learn-about-us/members

Need a pre-written letter? Email me and I'll get you one (mark_r@telus.net)

[HighCountryBC]

First - huge shout out to Rob Chipman as the rock steady voice of reason and for taking the time to write articulate posts that kept conversation moving forward. This was a tough one, thanks Rob. Not to mention the incredible hard work Rob does at the BCWF - he's got a very challenging role with the organization, maybe the most, given today's political landscape.

Josh - all of the organizations discussed in this thread have exactly what you're looking for: easy to access clickable downloads of well written letters, access and links to data bases, etc etc etc. I've included the memberships for the BCWF, BHA and the WSSBC below - join one, or heck - all three. I bet Rob has.

Speaking from personal experience the BCBHA has an online portal where members can access resources such as BC wildlife spending inforgraphics, letters and pre-written communications for MLAs as well a step-by-step "how to engage one to one with politicians and influences..."

No need to re-invent the wheel here.

Another option is google search Jesse Zeeman BCWF and steal ALL of his ideas and work (trust me he wants you to) - he's put it all out there so you can intelligently and respectfully engage politicians, influencers or your neighbour.

https://www.backcountryhuntersbc.com/#svmDWU
https://bcwf.bc.ca/membership/
https://www.wildsheepsociety.com/join-the-wild-sheep-society-of-bc/#join

My only comment on the podcast is it has garnered the exact results that Dairmont targeted: hunters embroiled in energy depleting in-fighting. Think of all the time, typing and general ****ery that has gone into this thread? What if everyone had used the time to write their MLA and ask them out for a covid friendly coffee to talk about conservation and to tell your story about hunting and social license.

Here's the link to find your MLA: https://www.leg.bc.ca/learn-about-us/members

Need a pre-written letter? Email me and I'll get you one (mark_r@telus.net)

Fantastic post, Mark. Hopefully everyone gives it a read and soaks it in.

And great point about Zeman. The hunting community in BC is very lucky to have him and others like him working so tirelessly on their behalf.

[whitlers]

Nothing wrong with discussing this topic. I know a few guys commenting here including myself that have reached out to their MLA's. The point here is that the host of this particular pod cast did a pis poor job advocating for resident hunters in BC. I think it is a fair criticism and I am sure he has learned from it. Nothing really more to say.

[ElectricDyck]

Rob Chipman's incite on this topic and others in other threads seems honest and makes sense, even if I don't like it..

Wasn't it Jesse Zeeman who started the whole "meat hunter" vs "trophy hunter" in his quota battle against the outfitters? We then lost the Grizzly hunt soon after....seems to me we need all hands on deck including GOABC if we want hunting to have "social license" to hunt in the future...

I'm still cautious of BHA as a whole, this podcast didn't help...when an organization is started by a lefty and receives large donations from companies that also donate to the Tides fund, my hackles go up..

All that being said I am very pessimistic that my kids will be able to hunt with even close to as much freedom as we did 5 years ago. You have only to read their school text books or listen to current events to realize things aren't going well for the sport of hunting.

[KodiakHntr]

Rob Chipman's incite on this topic and others in other threads seems honest and makes sense, even if I don't like it..

Wasn't it Jesse Zeeman who started the whole "meat hunter" vs "trophy hunter" in his quota battle against the outfitters? We then lost the Grizzly hunt soon after....seems to me we need all hands on deck including GOABC if we want hunting to have "social license" to hunt in the future...



I was thinking about that myself... I seem to recall a lot of comments and rumour about Zeeman working closely with Andrew Weaver around the grizzly hunt right up until it was shut down....

If anyone has any insight into that now might be a good time to discuss that. Jesse is a member here is he not?

[joshbazz]

...No need to re-invent the wheel here...

Thanks for that info Mark, I think I just might join all three. I joined BHA last year, but it just ran out a month or so ago.

And to clarify, I don't want to reinvent the wheel, I just want to point others to the wheel. My background is web, marketing, information technology. If there are resources on your websites, then I want to create a search optimized place for others to EASILY find them. I'm still breaking that down in my head, but I will be reaching out to plenty of the fine HBC folks on how and where to find specific information that helps communicate science based data/evidence that supports hunter/conservation interests.

I've heard the best way to deal with bad ideas is to introduce and argue better ideas. The more places we can spread better ideas online, the better for us all.

[Would Rather Be Fishing]

Speaking from personal experience the BCBHA has an online portal where members can access resources such as BC wildlife spending inforgraphics, letters and pre-written communications for MLAs as well a step-by-step "how to engage one to one with politicians and influences..."


Do you have a link? https://www.backcountryhuntersbc.com/#jKIbGM is a square-based site with no portal, link or login that I can see. Similar to https://www.backcountryhunters.ca/

I have been a member for over a year and never came across such info - and I did look!

[joshbazz]

I finally listened to the whole podcast, and can see now reason for the backlash, especially to Chris Darimont. What stood out for me was that he would try to come from an evidence based perspective only to give extremely biased remarks, especially when he called BS on the minds and hearts of Wolf, or predator hunters as if he knows the mind of any, or most of those hunters. I also noticed he would use the "there is little to no scientific evidence" argument to disprove a point he was making, yet did not provide any evidence to PROVE his point was correct.

I wouldn't be that hard on Chris P, he was dealing with technical difficulties, and simply trying to have a conversation - not a fight. And the truth is, there are many hunters that are like Chris Darimont, and they need to be educated so they don't support initiatives like the grizz hunt ban in the future.

I listened with an open mind, and at first I thought Chris Darimont sounded like a reasonable, educated person (not knowing him from Adam). However, as the interview unfolded, it became clear that he had an agenda that he was willfully trying to push. It was especially evident at points where he started stammering and avoiding some simple questions, when previously he seemed relaxed and conversational.

Just my two cents - from an objective listener

[Harvest the Land]

I hope someday in some public setting, someone will ask Darimont why he thinks its "ok" to kill ungulates, but its against his "values" to kill bears (has he ever tasted an interior bear)? Cause he sure as shit will just block you on Twitter if you ask him there, and definitely not reply to emailed questions. He's a conflicted individual and I think its crazy just how so many people want to hear what he has to say.

Make no mistake, he represents a clear and present danger to predator hunters in BC. Raincoast has a ton of fans permeating throughout the NDP and they've got a ton of $$ behind them. The harsh reality is that Hunters in BC are facing a multitude of threats from everywhere, like we never have before

[Rob Chipman]

Rob Chipman's incite on this topic and others in other threads seems honest and makes sense, even if I don't like it..

Wasn't it Jesse Zeeman who started the whole "meat hunter" vs "trophy hunter" in his quota battle against the outfitters? We then lost the Grizzly hunt soon after....seems to me we need all hands on deck including GOABC if we want hunting to have "social license" to hunt in the future...

I'm still cautious of BHA as a whole, this podcast didn't help...when an organization is started by a lefty and receives large donations from companies that also donate to the Tides fund, my hackles go up..

All that being said I am very pessimistic that my kids will be able to hunt with even close to as much freedom as we did 5 years ago. You have only to read their school text books or listen to current events to realize things aren't going well for the sport of hunting.

Thanks for the kind words (that also goes to you too, Mark).

You may not like some of the things I've said, but I try to be as clear sighted as possible. They say the truth is always friendly. That doesn't mean it's comfortable. It often isn't.

Regarding Jesse starting the whole "meat hunter" vs "trophy hunter" I don't know. I wasn't there, but it sounds very doubtful to me. I'm sure he'd like to see the term "trophy hunter" disappear, but that's not the same as trying to cut trophy hunters out of the herd. Consider what you just witnessed in real time: Raincoast dropped a paper that was designed to cut trophy hunters out of the herd. Their media allies picked it up and ran with it and made it a problem for the government. You heard Jesse oppose that in public abasing Rebecca Breder on CKNW, and he was deeply involved in getting the BCWF letter writing campaign up and running (as in, without him it may well not have hit the web as soon as fast as it did).

Like they say: actions speak louder than words. If someone told you Jesse isn't on the side of hunters, look at what you've seen him actually do. The facts just don't support the allegation.

The other issue you raise, that of BHA being created by a lefty who receives donations from companies that also donate to Tides, raises an issue we're going to have to process. BHA was created to counter the privatization of public land in the US. Their slogan is "Public Land Owner". I don't know the BHA guys south of the line, but based on what I see online they are legit hunters. I do know BHA people here. Guess what? Legit hunters.

I did a quick search on Land Tawney being some sort of left-winger, and dug into determining whether, if he is a lefty, it's a bad thing. He has certainly been demonized by some, but it sounds like partisan politics, or conspiracy theory stuff, or even more interesting, a tactic used by anti-hunters or anti-public land guys to sandbag hunting groups (you get a job working for a politician who's opposed to BHA and you pose as a hard core, super right wing hunter, and seed the forums with reports that Land Tawney and BHA are George Soros proxies in order to sow division among your enemies).

Who knows where the truth lies? I do know this: guys like Steve Rinella and Randy Newberg say they support the Hunting and Fishing party, because when they look at the right (Republicans) and the left (Democrats) they find one party wants to take their public lands and the other party wants to take their guns. There's some wisdom in that observation. If you think hunting and conservation are right wing issues and that lefties are people that non-Indigenous hunters and anglers *must have no truck with* I think you're confused. Prior to Horgan getting in and banning the G-Bear hunt is was clear that the Liberals would chuck it under the bus as well if that's what it took to win.

We need to work through that. As I've pointed out in other threads, I work with two groups that get money from the Real Estate Foundation. The Real Estate Foundation has, in fact, given money to groups that also supported the G-Bear hunt ban. Should we reject money from the Real Estate Foundation on that score? That would seem counter-productive. We need fuel in the tank. If anyone wants to give us money to do what we need to do I say take it. I know people say "Oh, but it always comes with strings". That's not actually true in a significant sense.

[Rob Chipman]

I was thinking about that myself... I seem to recall a lot of comments and rumour about Zeeman working closely with Andrew Weaver around the grizzly hunt right up until it was shut down....

If anyone has any insight into that now might be a good time to discuss that. Jesse is a member here is he not?


Comments and rumours are hard to quantify.

What I do know is this:

-The NDP pledged to end the g-bear hunt in November of 2016.
-The BC Liberals pledged to kill the G-bear hunt in April of 2017.
-The NDP were elected in May 2017.
-They banned the G-bear "trophy" hunt in August of 2017.
-They banned the complete g-bear hunt in December of 2017.



But the writing was on the wall way, way earlier. We were talking about it on this forum, with Weaver, as early as 2014. Search the members list for AJWeaver. He was a member here and he posted here. Lots of discussion and lots of predictions made, including "They'll never ban it, at least not enough to make it stick. As soon as the Liberals get in they'll reverse the ban" through to "We better try to figure this out or we'll lose the whole thing".


There were three political parties involved - Libs, NDP and Weaver. Weaver supported a hunt, publicly, with meat retention. Some argued that maybe we should be strategic about it. A lot of people talked with Weaver about changes to the hunt for precisely this reason (search this forum - you'll see what I'm talking about).

Now we know who banned the hunt. That was John Horgan and the NDP. WE also know they lied about it because BCWF asked them explicit questions about the NDPs' plans prior to the election, and guess what? Surprise, surprise, they didn't do what they said they'd do.

But we also know the Liberals pledged to ban the int.

Google "NDP pledges to ban grizzly bear hunt", then google "BC Liberals pledge to ban grizzly bear hunt" and then google "Andrew Weaver pledges to ban grizzly bear hunt" or "Green Party pledges to ban grizzly bear hunt".

If you get the same results I do (you might not, 'cause Google is dishonest) you'll see a pretty consistent story from Weaver and the Greens: they supported a trophy hunt ban, but not a total ban.

OK, fine. Can you trust the guy as far as you can throw him? Maybe not.

But...he wasn't the one who banned the hunt, he only said he wanted to ban the trophy hunt, he has a long history of arguing that the hunt was ok if you removed the meat, and...maybe if we'd gotten that we could have lived with it.

If the Liberals had been elected and had implemented their pledge to end "trophy" hunting of g-bears in the Great Bear Rainforest, maybe we could have lived with it.

But it was the NDP who banned the whole shooting match.

How does a charge against Jesse "working closely with Andrew Weaver around the grizzly hunt right up until it was shut down...." even make sense? I repeat: Weaver didn't do it. Horgan did.

Like I say: rumours and comments. There are guys who clearly nurse a hate for him, but as I've pointed out, Jesse has shown in public where he stands and I've seen his work in private. You've all seen the results of his recent private work (and for that matter, he was instrumental in having hunting and fishing declared essential during the pandemic).

Jesse is/was a member here. He doesn't spend any time here anymore.

[KodiakHntr]

There were three political parties involved - Libs, NDP and Weaver. Weaver supported a hunt, publicly, with meat retention. Some argued that maybe we should be strategic about it. A lot of people talked with Weaver about changes to the hunt for precisely this reason (search this forum - you'll see what I'm talking about).
Oh I weren't guessing... Search any of Weavers posts, maybe you will notice a consistent theme there among people who posed direct questions to him that he never answered...


Now we know who banned the hunt. That was John Horgan and the NDP. WE also know they lied about it because BCWF asked them explicit questions about the NDPs' plans prior to the election, and guess what? Surprise, surprise, they didn't do what they said they'd do.
We also have some pretty interesting commentary that Weaver supported the NDP on their Site C decision in exchange for the grizzly hunt shut down. Lots of discussion here and on Weavers own site about that. If you go through Weavers own page there is a lot of anti-hunting rhetoric.



Google "NDP pledges to ban grizzly bear hunt", then google "BC Liberals pledge to ban grizzly bear hunt" and then google "Andrew Weaver pledges to ban grizzly bear hunt" or "Green Party pledges to ban grizzly bear hunt".

If you get the same results I do (you might not, 'cause Google is dishonest) you'll see a pretty consistent story from Weaver and the Greens: they supported a trophy hunt ban, but not a total ban.
Weaver was a snake who sucked people in and then used their words against us. You can WATCH it happen here if you go back through all his posts and follow the nutlickers who believed him.


OK, fine. Can you trust the guy as far as you can throw him? Maybe not.

But...he wasn't the one who banned the hunt, he only said he wanted to ban the trophy hunt, he has a long history of arguing that the hunt was ok if you removed the meat, and...maybe if we'd gotten that we could have lived with it.

If the Liberals had been elected and had implemented their pledge to end "trophy" hunting of g-bears in the Great Bear Rainforest, maybe we could have lived with it.

But it was the NDP who banned the whole shooting match.

How does a charge against Jesse "working closely with Andrew Weaver around the grizzly hunt right up until it was shut down...." even make sense? I repeat: Weaver didn't do it. Horgan did.

Like I say: rumours and comments. There are guys who clearly nurse a hate for him, but as I've pointed out, Jesse has shown in public where he stands and I've seen his work in private. You've all seen the results of his recent private work (and for that matter, he was instrumental in having hunting and fishing declared essential during the pandemic).

Jesse is/was a member here. He doesn't spend any time here anymore.

"Only wanted to ban....". Did you even read those words when you typed them out? Do you really believe that something that offends someone to the extent that they actively work to BAN it would stop at "oh, shucks, its ok if you eat it and don't keep the hide or claws or skull"? I clearly remember reading that exact discussion with Weaver here.

Maybe give this some thought: perhaps, just perhaps, Weaver used people under the guise of "only wanting to ban" and "let me help you" and used knowledge gained through that route to get to where he actually wanted to be....
Think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one Rob.

[Rob Chipman]

Kodiak:

I'm not trying to paint Weaver as a pro-hunter or as an all around awesome guy. I'm saying that the G-bear hunt ban was supported by all three parties, and that Weaver wasn't the one who caused the ban. The NDP did that, they initiated the idea (they'd done it before) and they made it a critical issue for the election (enough of an issue that the Liberals jumped aboard the train).

Trying to connect Jesse and Weaver and therefore somehow attach blame to Jesse for the G-bear hunt ban is....a stretch.

"We also have some pretty interesting commentary that Weaver supported the NDP on their Site C decision in exchange for the grizzly hunt shut down."

If you've got that evidence it would be good to share (publicly or privately) - not so that you can prove to me that you're telling the truth, but because it would be great to demonstrate how wildlife is politicized when it should be apolitical and driven by science. Anytime we can find a smoking gun to use against politicians it's a good thing.

[markathome]

Do you have a link? https://www.backcountryhuntersbc.com/#jKIbGM is a square-based site with no portal, link or login that I can see. Similar to https://www.backcountryhunters.ca/

I have been a member for over a year and never came across such info - and I did look!

Hey WRBF!

I'll chat with the membership folks and get back to you. DM me please, or better yet - email: mark_r@telus.net.

These files are on a community software platform called basecamp.

Cheers,