National Indigenous Day BCWF Reconciliation Dialogue [Archive]

Rob Chipman

06-10-2021, 11:20 AM

A lot of people are curious and concerned about what reconciliation will look like when it comes to hunting, angling, access and conservation.

This Zoom conversation is open to BCWF members and will be a sort of a town hall conversation between BCWF President Chuck Zuckerman and Indigenous Relations consultant Solomon Reece.

I'm pretty sure we'll do more than one of these sorts of Zoom conversations because this is complex stuff and a lot of people will have lots of questions.

We'd like a big turnout and we'd like lots of questions. We'd like the questions as early as possible because, given that this is complex stuff, somewhat new and constantly evolving we want to be prepared with good answers and good follow up questions.

Here's the registration link (thanks for catching that Iron Noggin):

https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/6016233645419/WN_BtElZBleSAu2sHdDEoRuRA (https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/6016233645419/WN_BtElZBleSAu2sHdDEoRuRA)

After you register send your questions to kimberly.kelly@bcwf.bc.ca She wants them by noon on June 12, so that's only a couple days. If you miss that deadline you can always hit me up and I'll try to work them in.

https://ci6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/lf1IgAgIcJiA6Y8CAVSh5_74wLWOYf5BDsRmWsiKkg3Ivputrv skxE7BKsMtdQJpgsc5iOazaQ000WTTXkAfmuo9mItTcH3p1ifl uRwsoTOMjF3qmSen-9iu3XOBZeBKHi-EJKcypcI7vq2VBFJaEn48TRj1v4gj_AUbUCzHD7RWz-l5r_IewQ8Til4agMsSWeSPkQ=s0-d-e1-ft#https://prodsabbximgmn001blkbrdo.blob.core.windows.net/emailimages/images/13929/1814710/f9ecfd13-6056-4a7d-b380-c410663b36ab.png
BCWF Indigenous Peoples and Reconciliation Dialogue
On June 21, National Indigenous Peoples Day, BCWF will host a virtual town hall to support an open dialogue for a proactive and collaborative discussion on topics such as:

Mutual interest in conservation and predator control
Shared concerns about habitat loss and degradation
Interpretation and roll out of UNDRIP (https://bbox.blackbaudhosting.com/webforms/linkredirect?srcid=31849792&srctid=1&erid=1997315204&trid=27ad1df6-4c45-483d-8b12-a368834230a1&linkid=251949068&isbbox=1&pid=0) legislation in B.C. and the
Success and challenge of BCWF's Indigenous Relations portfolio

We are seeking questions to be posed to the panel. Please submit your questions to kimberly.kelly@bcwf.bc.ca by June 12th at 12 p.m. Advance webinar registration is required.
Please note that the webinar will be recorded and made available on YouTube as well as shared with all registrants.

adriaticum

06-10-2021, 11:22 AM

Be careful of what you ask for, you might just get it!

Rob Chipman

06-10-2021, 11:38 AM

^^^^ :-)

Believe me, we thought about that, but given that the future is coming regardless of what we do we figured we better just fire it up and deal with it.

The truth is always friendly, right? It might not be convenient, but it's better than trying to respond to a challenge without accurate information.

That applies to getting true info about the Indigenous side of the issue, but also accurate info about what BCWF members are thinking, feeling and wondering about as we go forward.

BCWF needs to have working relations with Indigenous peoples, but we also need to pursue BCWF member goals, so we really need to have these conversations.

Register.

Send in questions.

If you aren't a BCWF member join a BCWF club (you can join mine - North Shore Fish and Game, and get BCWF membership) or join as a direct member. Let us know your thoughts, concerns, goals and questions.

adriaticum

06-10-2021, 12:12 PM

I just heard on CKNW that some people are calling for cancellation of Canada Day in lieu of residential school victims.
Then Mike Smyth quoted a chief of some band who said it should not be cancelled, but that Canada should come together and have a dialog about the past.
Maybe there is hope.

wildcatter

06-10-2021, 12:37 PM

Rob Chipman

06-10-2021, 12:49 PM

The range of solutions runs from complete assimilation of First Nations to complete exodus of non-Indigenous people after they've given back all the land and paid the back rent.

There are lots of pretty reasonable positions in between. Register, submit the questions and we'll address them.

IronNoggin

06-10-2021, 01:04 PM

.... Register, submit the questions and we'll address them.

Might want to submit a link where we can register at methinks...

Nog

AllDay

06-10-2021, 01:15 PM

We are all human beings. The sooner we can put aside the bullshit and talk to one another as fellow human beings, the sooner we will make progress. At least thats my view... I do not know shit though.

Rob Chipman

06-10-2021, 01:52 PM

Might want to submit a link where we can register at methinks...

Nog

Good call.

Registration link is probably not available yet but I'll see about getting that cleared up today or tomorrow.

You can contact Kimberly Kelly at kimberly.kelly@bcwf.bc.ca (kimberly.kelly@bcwf.bc.ca) or me at rob@robchipman.net with questions.

For that matter, just ask the questions here and I'll collect them.

Registration link will be forthcoming.

We want lots of feedback from members. Being aligned with members will be critical to establishing good Indigenous relations between BCWF and FNs, and we need to have good working relationships simply because FNs exert a great deal of influence over what we all like doing.

Harvest the Land

06-10-2021, 02:07 PM

Fantastic idea BCWF and Rob! Its so much better to engage, rather than just stick our heads in the sand and take the "wait and see what happens" approach. Lets be proactive.

One question I would like to ask is: "How come most (or all) First Nations communities in BC do not report their harvest numbers, particularly for Moose, but for all species they harvest year round? And would they be open to the idea of starting to keep track of harvest statistics in each of their communities, and provide those stats to the Fish & Wildlife Branch so that they can incorporate those numbers with the rest of the province's harvest statistics?"

Also, Rob did you get a chance to look into the question I asked about whether the BCWF got a response from the Auditor General about grazing leases from a few years ago?

wildcatter

06-10-2021, 02:22 PM

Rob Chipman

06-10-2021, 02:33 PM

One question I would like to ask is: "How come most (or all) First Nations communities in BC do not report their harvest numbers, particularly for Moose, but for all species they harvest year round? And would they be open to the idea of starting to keep track of harvest statistics in each of their communities, and provide those stats to the Fish & Wildlife Branch so that they can incorporate those numbers with the rest of the province's harvest statistics?"

This is a very provocative topic and there are a lot of facets to it. It can absolutely enrage some FN people (and I'm talking about people we collaborate or want to collaborate with).

Any big fan of science based conservation who believes that if you don't count it you won't be able to manage it will ask the obvious question: why not count harvest if everyone is onside with managing wildlife?

Something to consider is that it's really tough to slice conservation off of the bigger reconciliation question. What makes 100% sense to good faith non-Indigenous conservation actors can trigger a lot of suspicions and distrust on the FN side. Factor in history as well as a fairly common FN value that the fish or wildlife is either theirs by ownership or by Indigenous right and that what we think of as a competent governing body (the province) has no business having that information (in other words, it's a pretty significant worldview clash).

I've been given some stern talking to's on that subject! :-)

We'll put it on the list.

Also, Rob did you get a chance to look into the question I asked about whether the BCWF got a response from the Auditor General about grazing leases from a few years ago?

I did, but I forget where it went. I'll chase it down now. If you don't hear back from me, yank my chain.

Rob Chipman

06-10-2021, 02:48 PM

You are asking too much, they will never comply!
They probably will say it's not your business whitey.

No and yes.

It's pretty common to hear "It's none of your business" but the idea that they will never comply (understanding that we'd probably get rid of "comply" and replace it with "collaborate", because who the **** enjoys complying at the best of time?) is probably wrong.

If non-Indigenous hunters and anglers prove that they're preserving and enhancing habitat and managing predators as well as acknowledging, at a minimum, those Indigenous rights that are already recognized in Canadian law there is a chance that we'll get some collaboration on that score.

It'd probably also help if non-Indigenous hunters and anglers didn't minimize or dismiss aspects of events like the discovery of the 215 in Kamloops.

I know we've all got opinions on things like tearing down statues, but if you're asking a group of people for a favour it's helpful if you haven't been dismissing their concerns on other issues. It's the old flies with honey vs vinegar dynamic. (In other words, hunters and anglers really need to pick which fights we want to win. If pulling the head off an Edgerton Ryerson statue and throwing it into the canal got me Indigenous harvest numbers I'd tie the truck to the old ******* myself.

Greenthumbed

06-10-2021, 02:52 PM

Rob
Will there be a link on the BCWF website and/or Facebook page to the virtual town hall meeting that we can put on our local club’s social media outlets?

Rob Chipman

06-10-2021, 02:56 PM

^^^^^^

I don't know every place that the link will be but I've asked the comms staff for the registration link and I'll make sure it gets circulated and it will absolutely be posted here.

wildcatter

06-10-2021, 03:30 PM

No and yes.

It's pretty common to hear "It's none of your business" but the idea that they will never comply (understanding that we'd probably get rid of "comply" and replace it with "collaborate", because who the **** enjoys complying at the best of time?) is probably wrong.

If non-Indigenous hunters and anglers prove that they're preserving and enhancing habitat and managing predators as well as acknowledging, at a minimum, those Indigenous rights that are already recognized in Canadian law there is a chance that we'll get some collaboration on that score.

It'd probably also help if non-Indigenous hunters and anglers didn't minimize or dismiss aspects of events like the discovery of the 215 in Kamloops.

I know we've all got opinions on things like tearing down statues, but if you're asking a group of people for a favour it's helpful if you haven't been dismissing their concerns on other issues. It's the old flies with honey vs vinegar dynamic. (In other words, hunters and anglers really need to pick which fights we want to win. If pulling the head off an Edgerton Ryerson statue and throwing it into the canal got me Indigenous harvest numbers I'd tie the truck to the old ******* myself.

Well, as you know we see things differently, you are an apologist, I am not.
But anyway you slice it, call it collaboration, it's just means the same and they will laught at you.
They want everything they ask for, but we can't ask when it comes to issues of land, hunting, natural resources, etc.
The radicals will muzzle any reasonable people in their ranks, there are some for sure but they won't matter.

I'm sure you seen it in the news that they want to own the Trans Mountain pipeline, but how, will they pay for it, or is it a
good idea them being the sole owners-operators, when already so much money spent or wasted on it at the taxpayers expense?

Let's just leave the still unproven 215 number out of this, because that will further complicate things.
There are many on here asking valid questions about that and nobody can pass a judgement till it's all discovered beyound any doubt.

Ganso

06-10-2021, 04:57 PM

That's my biggest concern for the future of (non-Indigenous) hunting in this province. The entire province is claimed by one nation or another as their traditional territory. And if they have title to land they may not allow non-Indigenous hunters or even hunters from other tribes into that land. In fact, you wouldn't be allowed to transport firearms through or even enter the territory at all without their consent.

Whether the traditional territory claims are simply accepted at face value or whether they end up with smaller title territories that's a lot of public land that will now be private.

http://www.bcrobyn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/map2.jpg

Rob Chipman

06-10-2021, 05:40 PM

Rob Chipman

06-10-2021, 05:42 PM

Here is the link to register:

https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/6016233645419/WN_BtElZBleSAu2sHdDEoRuRA

I tried it and it worked for me. Please let me know if there are any issues.

Rob Chipman

06-10-2021, 05:51 PM

... if they have title to land they may not allow non-Indigenous hunters or even hunters from other tribes into that land. In fact, you wouldn't be allowed to transport firearms through or even enter the territory at all without their consent.

That is the current state of affairs in Tsilhqot'in Nation Declared Title Lands. Check your LEH notices if you submitted a draw for that are or areas accessed by road through that area. You cannot hunt or travel through their territory to hunt without their permission. All completely legal and brought to you by a bunch of white politicians, judges and lawyers.

Register and submit questions. If you're not a BCWF member join a BCWF club or become a direct member.

180grainer

06-10-2021, 07:55 PM

I'm not into having a "National Day" for any race and I don't feel any different about the Indians. One day. National Human Day. One day in which we recognize man's inhumanity to man and that all human beings are the same.

wildcatter

06-10-2021, 08:51 PM

Wildcatter:

You're correct, we see things differently. You think I'm an apologist and that you're not. You've probably got that inverted, in fact - from where I sit you look like you're trying to run interference for a Catholic Church and a government of sleazy politicians who are being accused of what, for those two groups, is some pretty run of the mill ****ery. I mean, no offence, but am I the only guy here who knows multiple jokes about Catholic priests and child abuse?

Tell me how I'm wrong on these two things:

1) BCWF and most hunting/angling conservationists need to preserve and enhance fish and wildlife populations and maintain access to them. We don't need to worry about who's right and wrong about Kamloops, and we don't need to protect politicians who buy pipelines, and we don't need to worry about what BLM said, or what statue got torn down or who said what on the radio/social media/newspaper. We didn't cause those things, we don't control them and they aren't going to help us get more sheep on the mountain. We need to pick our battles, and we need to pick a battle that we have an outside chance of winning. (That's your cue - show me how I wrong on that).

2) To accomplish #1 BCWF and most hunting/angling conservationists need to have an effective working relationship with FNs because FNs exert a significant amount of influence over what we do. If FNs express sensitivity over anything and we just dismiss it as unproven or unreasonable I think it's reasonable to assume that FNs will be even less inclined to speak with us, let alone collaborate. You can't make a deal with someone if you start by saying "Why are you such a friggin' cry-baby? You've got nothing to cry about". That's a really poor sales presentation. (Again, tell me how I'm wrong about that).

You can't leave the 215 out. You're delusional if you think that you can. This is confirmation, not news. There will be more. The longer you question the validity of the pain that FNs are expressing over this the longer you're not going to get along with them.

I can only speculate why you want to resist admitting that it's not a good thing to kidnap kids, deliver them into the hands of strangers and occasionally bury them in unmarked graves. Nobody needs to prove murder. It's already bad enough. If that had happened to one of my family members I'd bear a grudge, and I'd be right to do it. Wouldn't you? I know you're upset about how the world is changing, but getting mad at me for responding to the change won't solve your anger.

Bottom line: BCWF and all hunter/angler conservationists need to deal with the challenge posed by the political and social power that Indigenous people have. We can choose to celebrate or hate the fact that FNs have this power, but have it they do and we live in the real world. We can't figure out how to do it effectively (because we need member direction, buy in and support) without having the conversation. That's what this is about. Register, submit questions, attend.

The alternative is not acceptable.

Rob,

I am not trying to run any interference, it was the political elite (mostly British) at the time who decided on the program they implemented.
The different churches (not just the Catholics) were tasked with running it so why they get picked on all the time?
And for sure they did a poor job at that, but we don't know if there were other choices, remember child mortality was very high back then
and conditions were bad on the reserves.

I was brought up as a Catholic, me and my brother had to go to church every Sunday, I was even an altar boy for a while,
but I never heard or experienced such horrible acts, the priests and nuns were all decent people.
Is it a Canadian, or North American trait, what happened here and why?

I'm all for preserving fish and wildlife and access to, but the way I see it and the way things are going, the battle is already lost.
The FN are not crybabies, they are way past that, they are now DEMANDING everything and because the lawyers, not just white
but native, are on the take and that includes the spineless politicians, all siding with them.
Of course the implementation of UNDRIP is their ace in the hole.

You talk of murder, can you show me an absolute proof?
I am not celebrating FN's discriminatory power as I'm sure many of my fellow hunters feel the same way.
And don't tell me we are not getting discriminated against.

Just how is that such a small percentage of the population wield so much power over the rest?

RugDoctor

06-10-2021, 09:17 PM

Terrible things happened, and some individuals were responsible, and should be held to account. Every other aspect of the indian industry has been manufactured and kept alive for greed and power. Period.

Harvest the Land

06-10-2021, 10:01 PM

Every other aspect of the indian industry has been manufactured and kept alive for greed and power. Period.

Care to elaborate on what the "indian industry" is?

180grainer

06-10-2021, 10:21 PM

Care to elaborate on what the "indian industry" is?
I think it's all laid out in the Federal Indian Act.

Harvest the Land

06-11-2021, 06:05 AM

I think it's all laid out in the Federal Indian Act.

Care to elaborate on that? BTW that Act needs to be scrapped entirely - so much has changed since 1876.

Good to see you survived purgatory 180

IronNoggin

06-11-2021, 11:22 AM

Here is the link to register:

https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/6016233645419/WN_BtElZBleSAu2sHdDEoRuRA

I tried it and it worked for me. Please let me know if there are any issues.

Easy Peasy.

See you there...
Nog

REMINGTON JIM

06-11-2021, 12:00 PM

[QUOTE=Harvest the Land;2260038]Care to elaborate on that? BTW that Act needs to be scrapped entirely - so much has changed since 1876.

Exactly ! the whole thing is a Phucking thing is a MESS ! Need a whole new ACT ! NOW ! :mad: RJ

Shermanator

06-11-2021, 04:52 PM

Care to elaborate on that? BTW that Act needs to be scrapped entirely - so much has changed since 1876.

Good to see you survived purgatory 180

I'm guessing that what many people think (and no, not just us whiteys!) is that throwing money at the problem hasn't worked and never will. I believe the statistic I read said we've (the taxpayers)
spent 4.2 trillion dollars since 1946 for reconciliation, don't think its working! Our hunting/fishing rights
are continually being held hostage and it isn't all about reconciliation, how the hell does $10,000 per child possibly
make up what they were put through! Everyone has to find some middle ground on this, but I can see that with the lack
of kahoonas in the Provincial AND Federal government, that's never going to happen....

Rob Chipman

06-11-2021, 05:23 PM

So, here's the updated announcement with the registration link. June 21, at 7:00, for one hour.

It'll be a conversation between Chuck Zuckerman, BCWF president, and Solomon Reece, an Indigenous consultant.

We have already received some good questions. At this point we'll be addressing how hunters and anglers can coexist with Indigenous peoples as reconciliation, co-management of wildlife and land claims/sovereignty evolves, what First Nations can/might do to reassure supporters of truth and reconciliation that hunters and anglers will not be shut out from access and opportunity, what management and co-management might look like, how Indigenous groups and non-Indigenous groups can align on things like predator control and habitat, what UNDRIP/DRIPA may have in store and the challenges and success that BCWF has experienced in the realm of Indigenous Relations.

We need more questions as soon as possible because this is all brand new territory for us. We want to be able to prepare some useful answers. Please submit them to Kimberly Kelly by 12:00 noon on the 12th at kimberly.kelly@bcwf.bc.ca.

If you're late you can send them direct to me at rob@robchipman.net or by message through HBC.

If you think of a question during the event it will go into the chat function. The chat function will be visible only to BCWF staff so you don't need to worry about self-censoring. Feel free to ask the toughest question you can. WE may not have a good answer on the 21st, but we really want to hear clearly what the membership is concerned about.

The Zoom conversation will be recorded, just as the previous BCWF webinars have been.

Registration link: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/6016233645419/WN_BtElZBleSAu2sHdDEoRuRA

https://us02web.zoom.us/w_p/89656543180/6700bb2b-fd59-4002-945c-e341a595d54e.png
Webinar Registration

Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fus02web.zoom.us%2Fwebin ar%2Fregister%2F6016233645419%2FWN_BtElZBleSAu2sHd DEoRuRA&description=Welcome!%20You%20are%20invited%20to%20 join%20a%20webinar%3A%20National%20Indigenous%20Pe oples%20Day.%20After%20registering%2C%20you%20will %20receive%20a%20confirmation%20email%20about%20jo ining%20the%20webinar.) Twitter (http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=National%20Indigenous%20Peoples%20Day&url=https%3A%2F%2Fus02web.zoom.us%2Fwebinar%2Fregi ster%2F6016233645419%2FWN_BtElZBleSAu2sHdDEoRuRA%3 Ft%3D1623372067174) LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fus02web.zoom.us%2Fwebinar%2Fregi ster%2F6016233645419%2FWN_BtElZBleSAu2sHdDEoRuRA%3 Ft%3D1623372067174) Microsoft (Outlook)

Topic
National Indigenous Peoples Day

Description
On June 21, National Indigenous Peoples Day, BCWF will host a virtual town hall to support an open dialogue for a proactive and collaborative discussion on topics such as
mutual interest in conservation and predator control, shared concerns about habitat loss and degradation, interpretation and roll out of UNDRIP legislation in B.C., and the success and challenge of BCWF’s Indigenous Relations portfolio.

Advance registration is required and the session will be recorded.

Panelists:
- Chuck Zuckerman, President, B.C. Wildlife Federation
- Solomon Reece, CEO Indigecorp & BCWF Indigenous Relations Consultant

Time
Jun 21, 2021 07:00 PM in Pacific Time (US and Canada)

Rob Chipman

06-11-2021, 06:29 PM

Thanks for the response. Theres some good stuff there and I'm glad you engage. I'm not trying to argue with you. You are communicating clearly what some people are thinking, even if I think you're going to move off your current position once you think it through a bit. I know you think you and I see things very differently, which is true, but I think that's because I've been looking at this longer, and more closely. Please take my comments with that in mind.

Rob,

I am not trying to run any interference, it was the political elite (mostly British) at the time who decided on the program they implemented.
The different churches (not just the Catholics) were tasked with running it so why they get picked on all the time?
And for sure they did a poor job at that, but we don't know if there were other choices, remember child mortality was very high back then
and conditions were bad on the reserves.

You are correct that the political elite made the past policy decisions. That's still going on today, both at the Federal and at the Provincial level. If you go back to Confederation then you are correct - most of the elite was British, but not exclusively so. Quebecois politicians played a role as well. However, the first 2 PMs were Scottish. The order is a bit screwy as Sir John A. was re-elected as 3rd PM, but the 4th was Canadian born (from Quebec) and the 5th was from Nova Scotia, as was the 6th. The 7th, Wilfred Laurier, was a Quebecer (and the PM to whom BC First Nations petitioned in Kamloops over land claims well over 100 years ago, so this isn't exactly new). Number 8 was also born in Nova Scotia. The 9th came from Ontario, as did the 11th - the 10th came from New Brunswick. The 12th was from Quebec while 13 and 14 were from Ontario. Number 15 is Pierre Trudeau, who was elected 9 years before the Kamloops school closed and who oversaw plenty of other residential schools.

Trudeau is modern times. Probably a majority of guys on this forum remember him, and (going out on a limb here) most don't remember him fondly. So, yes, political elites made decision in the past, they make them now, and I'm not responsible for most of their **** ups. Neither are you.

Yes, churches were tasked with implementing parts of that policy. We don't disagree on that, nor on what the policy consisted of. You may not like the bluntness, but if I'm wrong in any point of fact, let me know. The policy consisted, in part, of having armed men kidnap kids from their families and turn them over to strangers who kept them imprisoned. Now we all know that some of the policy makers had good intentions. We also know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so we can't pretend we're surprised when good intentions turn horrible.

It wasn't just the Catholic Church that participated. Presbyterians, Anglicans and the United Church were involved. The latter three have apologized for their roles. The Catholic Church has not. The recent statement from the Pope commiserated with *Canadians* and was widely seen as tone deaf by Indigenous people. I think you're stretching things when you say the Catholic Church gets picked on all the time. Other groups (including the government policy makers, the RCMP, and wonder society) have been castigated. I mentioned that Pierre Trudeau has some explaining to do about this. There is currently a petition with 4700+ signatures calling for a statue of him in Vaughn Ontario to be removed. That's the father of the current PM. Are you surprised that JT is pointing as many fingers as he can at the Church? Of course he is. It's his way of saying "It was them, not my dad!"

When you say the Catholic Church in Kamloops did a bad job of executing the task that the government gave them you understand that you're either diminishing what they did or you're saying that they did a poor job of integrating First Nations into Canadian society, they did a middling job of keeping little kids confined, and they did a really bad job of accounting for kids who died (from whatever causes) in their care.

You have to go really far back in history to find a time when it was ok to take people's kids away, keep them away, not tell parents when their kids died, and not properly look after their dead bodies. We know that all those thing happened. No informed person disputes that. It was real and we've been talking about it for years.

Conditions were bad on reserves, especially through the 20th Century. They're still bad and we've known that as long as any of us on this forum have been alive. People who are informed about the history know that First Nations complained to the government about these problems well over 100 years ago in BC, at times when reserves were being cut down in size or extinguished completely.

Again, you can argue that all of this was done with the best of intentions. There's plenty of evidence in the participants own writings that would run counter to that argument, but you can try to make it. personally I'm satisfied with saying that the government, once again, ****ed up in a big way.

I was brought up as a Catholic, me and my brother had to go to church every Sunday, I was even an altar boy for a while,
but I never heard or experienced such horrible acts, the priests and nuns were all decent people.
Is it a Canadian, or North American trait, what happened here and why?

You see the difference, right? You went to Church every Sunday, with your brother. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to assume you also went with your parents, and that after church you went home. Now imagine that you didn't go with your parents, you didn't go home, you didn't see your parents on holidays, and that your brother died and was buried in an unmarked grave. Would you ask why the Catholic Church is always getting picked on, or would you curse it's name?

I'm all for preserving fish and wildlife and access to, but the way I see it and the way things are going, the battle is already lost.

Fair enough. Feel free to give up and let the world roll over you. (I don't actually believe that you've given up, but let's go with that). If all is lost as far as you're concerned, why don't you shut up and quit bitching? This cry baby approach of criticizing people who want to make a change is, quite frankly, annoying. There is no shortage of whiners in the world and you aren't making anything better by swelling their ranks.

What's more, if you think the battle is already lost what could anything that those of us trying to improve things do that would make losing the battle worse?

(Again, I don't think you really believe this. I think you're letting your frustration get the better of you. My solution is for you (not me) to reach between your legs. If you find anything down there remember what they're for and cowboy the **** up. I say that with love because I think you need to hear it).

Rob Chipman

06-11-2021, 06:30 PM

The FN are not crybabies, they are way past that, they are now DEMANDING everything and because the lawyers, not just white
but native, are on the take and that includes the spineless politicians, all siding with them.
Of course the implementation of UNDRIP is their ace in the hole.

They're demanding plenty, agreed, but that isn't because lawyers are on the take. The law is the law. It's on the FNs side in many, many instances. Their claims have been won in the Canadian legal system and been tested in the Supreme Court multiple times. Yes, they use lawyers. Yes, some of those lawyers are FNs. Yes, politicians side with what the law requires *usually after long legal battles that occur because the policiticans don't want to abide by the law*. You understand that many Indigenous people are very angry that the Canadian government is fighting Indigenous kids in court while JT makes pretty sounds with his cake hole (same MO as they do with veterans, FWIW).

You talk of murder, can you show me an absolute proof?

Perhaps bad writing on my part, perhaps bad reading on yours. I said "Nobody needs to prove murder. It's already bad enough." I'm not saying "We don't need to prove murder. We just have to make the accusation and then punish the people we think are guilty".

I'm saying "We don't need to prove murder. I can't see, for the life of me, how we ever could prove murder. Who cares? We don't need to. Kidnapping kids from their families, keeping them against their will and burying some of them in unmarked graves is bad enough". Do you actually disagree with that? Do you think the claim that the government had good intentions or that they might have died of the flu or that in the old days it was ok to forcefully remove kids from their families makes any of that ok? I can't believe that you really do. Remember you and your bro in Sunday school.

I am not celebrating FN's discriminatory power as I'm sure many of my fellow hunters feel the same way.
And don't tell me we are not getting discriminated against.

Just how is that such a small percentage of the population wield so much power over the rest?

Nobody is asking you to celebrate anything. You're a free man and can do whatever you want.

How does such a small percentage of the population wield so much power? Wow. It looks like you're not actually looking at the world outside your window. Do you still think this is an "us vs them" contest? Wake up brother. This isn't a racial contest. The number of non-Indigenous Canadians who support Indigenous rights and sovereignty, and who want to see truth and reconciliation vastly outnumbers the number of Indigenous people making those demands.

Go ahead and disagree, but explain this: how did UNDRIP sail though the legislature with absolutely no opposition from anyone? The answer is simple: its what the majority of Canadians want, even if they don't know what it will look like (see Jack Woodward's recent comments about BCer's not really understanding what's coming).

Again, thanks for playing. Your input is valuable because you put hard questions on the table.

If you want to help respond, there's room on the bus. If you just want to say that we've lost already (and if I'm wrong about you being a quitter) then pipe down.

180grainer

06-11-2021, 07:16 PM

wildcatter

06-11-2021, 07:28 PM

Rob,

Right, in recent history Pierre Trudeau could have done better, much better and our Sockboy puppet of course conveniently says nothing about "his" father.
However, we shouldn't be surprised that he is always talking in circles, never giving a straight answer whenever he is asked on a whole lot of issues.
Pointing fingers at the Church is just natural for him.
.
The Catholic Church has lost its way, so do the others and the current Pope is really more of an "antichrist" I think the last good Pope was John Paul II.
Yes I did go home after the Sunday church, but that was too recent history.

Back then when the schools started out, it had I suppose a good side and the bad side.
The bad side outweighed the good for sure, but I mean the kids knew they will get food every day, may not been the greatest, but it was food nevertheless, a roof over their head and some sort of order in their life, they were also getting basic education. Just like you said it may have started out with good intentions, but it went horribly wrong.

On the preservation of fish and wildlife, our hunting heritage I am hoping something positive will get done, I have not given up, certainly not rolling over.
I will do what little I can (may not be much) and don't worry I have enough between my legs, I can prove it to you.
When push comes to shove, let me borrow Pierre's words "just watch me" .
When it comes to chosing a side, don't expect me to betray my own race!

wildcatter

06-11-2021, 07:36 PM

180grainer

06-11-2021, 07:51 PM

wildcatter

06-11-2021, 09:52 PM

Didn't Whorgan just make a deal with the Taltan? How much land and resources were just given away while we all worry about wearing a mask. All of that is being done under UNDRIP. The Federal Liberals just endorsed or adopted some UN resolution on Indigenous peoples. Get it. Our Country is being run by the UN. I honestly believe that. Look where we are with COVID. Our Provincial and Federal Governments. They're all acting the same. That's not normal.

I've been saying that for the longest time.
The UN has no business meddling in any country's affaires.
But in Canada's case they pretty well dictate what our sockpuppet should be doing.

Let's face it the marxists are running this world.
General Patton said near the end of WWII "we should have went after communist Russia not Germany"
Soon after he died in an "accident"

Harvest the Land

06-12-2021, 06:33 AM

180grainer

06-12-2021, 10:36 AM

Ok, so now that you both have gotten that off your chests, can we get this thread back on track? More specifically, are either of you Wildcat or 180 grainer going to participate in this BCWF zoom dialogue with FN groups to discuss what the future entails and forge a path forward? Are you going to submit questions that you would like answers too?

Or are you just going to bitch and complain about how hard done by you guys are? Are you guys even members of the BCWF? And if not, then why the heck are you posting in this thread? If you want complain about FN's, then why not start another thread in the Open Chat section and you can complain to each other?

This thread is about asking questions about the future of hunting on FN territories and what thats going to look like. Its not about ranting against the UN or being derogatory towards FN - how is that helping the situation?
I'm going to bitch and complain. It's as productive as anything the BCWF has done with reversing the political dogma that will ensure "you" won't have access to this province in a short time. Appeasement has always been the strategy of the BCWF. And under that strategy, I've seen nothing but the slow erosion of our access to land, wildlife, and resources.

This thread is about asking questions concerning our access to FN territories and what that's going to look and like not a beef about the UN? It's hard to separate that out as it's the UN's objectives our politicians are following. UNDRIP is what Horgan is following and that's mandated by the UN. Agenda 2030 is real. It's not a conspiracy theory. Part of that agenda is to "remove" people from the land and concentrate them in urban centers under the guise of protecting the environment. What better way than to use strategies like UNDRIP to initiate that process. Where land is deemed the property of an extremely small percentage of the population which slowly removes everyone else.

What's happening here is predetermined. The Government is following a road map that doesn't include you. You're not negotiating anything with the FN or the Government. At least if you are, it'll be on your knees. It's time for a hard and angry NO, and give me my ****ing land back.

Rob Chipman

06-12-2021, 10:37 AM

When we talk about "the Law" being on the Indians side and we have to do X Y or Z because the court system will just screw us in the end anyways, I'm reminded of Sophie Scholl. Most of you don't know who she is and should research her. A court system that attempts to enforce ideology is doomed to repeat the atrocities it seeks to reconcile. Like the ****ing Indians weren't committing their own atrocities. I reference Sophie Scholl only as an example of how off course a systems courts can go. The law is ****ed and those that have cursed us with this abysmal attempt at reconciliation will see their reward in further violence and bloodshed. Just give it time. Our legal system has become an abomination to what is right and just in favor of what is ideological. **** the Indians and **** the court system. Look what's happening in the world right now. Look what's happening to Canada right now. We'll be on our own shortly. We'll sort it out then.

I should have added. The BCWF should not engage or be influenced by the political wind of the day. It should maintain the philosophy that the land and it's resources should be shared equally by all peoples within the Province in recognition that we all come from the land and have a common respect for it and interest in it. Working within the system just ensures a further slow erosion of your access to your legacy and right, (unless you're an Indian). Stop giving in. Stand your ground.

When we talk of the law being on the First Nations side we are not talking about an ideology being enforced unless it's the ideology that the Crown has the power to make rules but the Crown also has to abide by the rules it makes. Anything First Nations win in court in Canada in regard to rights or land title has overwhelmingly been traced back to the Crown, embodied by the government of the day, making law that is subsequently interpreted by the legal system and applied. That goes all the way back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and all sorts of the law has been tested multiple times since.

I am not requiring you to have faith in or agree with the Canadian system of law, nor be happy with how it works, but it is the system under which we all live, and under which most of us have lived all our lives. The law is not the government, and the law is not the First nations. Those two parties take advantage of the law.

UNDRIP is ideology. No question. The UN influences Canadian politics. No question. Some people don't like that (my old man decided it had gone wrong when they stopped him from doing actual peacekeeping on the Gaza Strip in '67, so opposition to the UN isn't new nor something that only you and Wildcatter worry about). However, some Canadians think the US is the best thing since self-lubricating you-know-what. And they get a say in how we do things.

Nobody in BCWF is asking that you like the fact on the ground that the UN exists and exerts influence on our lives. It's still a fact. Your approval is not mission critical.

I know who Sophie Scholl is. I'm not clear why a BCWF conversation with our members asking what members think about specific topics and what other topics, thoughts, fears or concerns the members have about the effect of truth and reconciliation will have on conservation, hunting, fishing and access to the resource equates with a peace activist who opposed Hitler. Who in this story, are the Nazis? Is that the First Nations, the Canadian government or the BCWF?

When you say the BCWF should not be influenced by the political wind of the day, are you saying we should ignore the effect of legislation that has a huge impact on how our members practice conservation, hunt, fish and access the lands and waters of BC?

And when you say "Stop giving in" and "Stand your ground", what, exactly would that look like?

For example, in the Tsilhqot'in Nation Declared Title Lands, what exactly should the BCWF do? Dismiss TNG law and BC law and pretend it isn't real? Or encourage BCWF members to break the law?

Or, where the government enters into a co-management agreement with the Tahltan Central Government, should we, what? Sue the government? Sue Tahltan? Wait, we can't sue, because the court system will screw us, at least according to you. Taht might be because we do not have the funds required to conduct a suit of that type, and then again, there's the little part about the government (the Crown) is allowed and indeed required, to negotiate with First Nations.

So I'm lost. I have no clue what you're suggesting. In the words of WIliam F. Buckly How does BCWF stand its ground and not give in? You're going to need to expand on the idea and provide some nuts and bolts steps.

I'm also confused how having a conversation about the ways that truth and reconciliation are affecting conservation, hunting, fishing and access to the great outdoors and finding out what BCWF members are thinking is somehow a bad thing. Can you explain how talking to members about what's happening in the real world is giving in?

Use small words and pretend I'm six years old. Walk me through.

Or....register for the townhall and submit your questions.

If you're not already a BCWF member you can join a BCWF club (mine is taking new members) or become a direct member.

Gr8 white hunter

06-12-2021, 10:52 AM

You can't have a future if you live in the past.Let that sink in.

Rob Chipman

06-12-2021, 10:54 AM

On the preservation of fish and wildlife, our hunting heritage I am hoping something positive will get done, I have not given up, certainly not rolling over.
I will do what little I can (may not be much) and don't worry I have enough between my legs, I can prove it to you.
When push comes to shove, let me borrow Pierre's words "just watch me" .
When it comes to chosing a side, don't expect me to betray my own race!

I know. That's why I said I didn't believe you were a quitter, and that's why I told you to sack up. I'm not bullshitting when I say I appreciate you putting these tough issues on the table. WE need to talk about them and in this day and age there are way too many people who self-censor.

I think you just need to think a lot of this stuff through, accept the facts and then, and only then, figure out the most effective response.

Now, I have to re-visit the race thing. Nobody is asking you to betray your own race. There's a reason for that. This isn't a race thing. It may look like it to you, but that's because you're not looking closely enough. The overwhelming majority of the people pushing for truth, reconciliation and the full recognition of Indigenous rights and title are not Indigenous people.

They're white.

The overwhelming majority of the government, both federal and provincial, is not Indigenous.

They're white.

You can pretend that fact doesn't exist, but when you do you are pretending.

Rob,

...Pierre Trudeau could have done better...The Catholic Church has lost its way...the current Pope is really more of an "antichrist"...when the schools started out...the bad side outweighed the good for sure,...it went horribly wrong.

They all could have done better, and I'm glad to see you admitting that it didn't work out. I think you can agree that you can't say in one breath that it went *horribly* wrong and then say *but at least they got 3 squares a day*. Nobody has ever argued that the point of the Indian Act or the Residential Schools was to stop Indigenous children from starving or dying of exposure. Think about you and your bro again. If the Mounties had taken you and he, by force and without permission, from your parents, dropped you off with a bunch of strangers, and things then went "horribly wrong" and your brother ended up in an unmarked grave, would you figure it was ok because you got three meals a day and a roof over your head?

Remember: there are Indigenous people fighting for what they want, today, through the courts, who were in that school. It's not ancient history. It's not recent history. It's the present.

Rob Chipman

06-12-2021, 10:54 AM

You can't have a future if you live in the past.Let that sink in.

You are so right.

180grainer

06-12-2021, 11:04 AM

IMPLEMENTING UNDRIP IN CANADACanada was one of four states that initially voted in opposition to UNDRIP. 7 Canada had significant "concerns with respect to the wording of the current text, including provisions on lands, territories and resources; on free, prior and informed consent when used as a veto; on self-government without recognition of the importance of negotiations; on intellectual property; on military issues; and on the need to achieve an appropriate balance between the rights and obligations of indigenous peoples, Member States and third parties." 8
Under the minority Conservative government in November 2010, Canada gave a qualified Statement of Support to UNDRIP. In 2016, following the election of Justin Trudeau's Liberal government, Canada announced its adoption of UNDRIP with no reservations or qualifications.9
Bill C-262In April 2016, Private Member's Bill C-262, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, 10 was introduced in the House of Commons. Bill C262 would have recognized UNDRIP "as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law."11 It would have required the Government of Canada, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, to take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the UNDRIP. 12 Bill C262 would have also required the Government of Canada, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, to develop and implement a national action plan to achieve the objectives of UNDRIP. 13
Bill C-262 received support from the federal Liberal government in November 2017.14 However, Bill C-262 died on the order paper before receiving royal assent.
Bill C-15Bill C-15 is very similar to Bill C-262. As with Bill C-262, Bill C-15 requires the Government of Canada, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, to "take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent" with UNDRIP. 15 In conjunction with the introduction of Bill C-15, a new federal website (https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/declaration/index.html) has been established to provide background on UNDRIP and to provide answers to key questions. Interestingly, the concept of free, prior and informed consent ("FPIC") is described as being about working together in partnership and respect and that it is not about having a veto over government decision-making.16
In his remarks during a press conference on December 3, 202, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, David Lametti, stated that consideration was given to UNDRIP in the drafting of the Impact Assessment Act17 ("IAA"), which came into force on August 28, 2019. The government's website also cites the IAA as an example of an action taken to support implementation of UNDRIP in Canada.
As with Bill C-262, Bill C-15 also requires the preparation and implementation of an action plan to achieve the objectives of UNDRIP.18 Unlike Bill C-262, Bill C-15 sets out what must be included in the action plan such as measures to address injustice and discrimination against Indigenous peoples, measures to promote mutual respect through human rights education, and accountability measures with respect to the implementation of UNDRIP.19 Clause 6(4) of Bill C-15 requires the action plan to be completed "as soon as practicable, but no later than three years after the day on which this section comes into force."20
Unlike Bill C-262, Bill C-15 contains a clause stating that its purpose is to:

affirm UNDIRP as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law, and
provide a framework for the Government of Canada's implementation of UNDRIP.21

Until Bill C-15 is passed into law, its provisions are not enforceable. It is expected that Bill C-15 will be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for detailed review early in 2021.
Stay tuned for further analysis of Bill C-15 and the implementation of UNDRIP in Canada.

180grainer

06-12-2021, 11:46 AM

If you're not already a BCWF member you can join a BCWF club (mine is taking new members) or become a direct member.
Thanks for the offer but no thanks. Like I said, a strategy of appeasement is no strategy at all. My opinion wasn't formed over night. It's been decades in the making. If you participate in this process, you give it legitimacy. It's not a legitimate process. Over time, it's designed to further remove you from the land until you and or your children have no claim to it at all. That's it's objective. All you're doing is fighting over the scraps that fall off the negotiation table. And once those negotiations are over, you starve to death.

Rob Chipman

06-12-2021, 11:58 AM

Thanks for the offer but no thanks. Like I said, a strategy of appeasement is no strategy at all. My opinion wasn't formed over night. It's been decades in the making. If you participate in this process, you give it legitimacy. It's not a legitimate process. Over time, it's designed to further remove you from the land until you and or your children have no claim to it at all. That's it's objective. All you're doing is fighting over the scraps that fall off the negotiation table. And once those negotiations are over, you starve to death.

OK, so how about my other offers? The one where I offer to let you explain who the Nazis are in this story, and what actual steps anyone should take to oppose these Nazis? Or how the BCWF is supposed to effectively achieve its stated goals if it doesn't talk to it's members about what's going on and what the members think and want to see?

If you have given this a lot of thought and you didn't reach your opinions overnight then surely you've got them ready for primetime.

How would you handle this challenge? Walk me through it and expand on "Don't give in".

I'm all ears.

Thanks for the info about UNDRIP and the federal bills. I think you know that I am aware of that, but a lot of people aren't. I think you also understand the I'm not a big fan of an unelected body of foreigners telling people around here what to do, but frankly, none of those people pay a ton of attention to me and they *never* ask for me to approve of their actions, just like they don't ask you.

But they still proceed, and they aren't going to stop, and we need to figure out a way to respond. I'm suggesting a frank and open conversation with like minded people as a starting point. How you perceive that an exchange of views between BCWF members is "appeasement" is beyond me.

What are you suggesting people do? Again, something specific.

Shermanator

06-12-2021, 12:25 PM

180grainer

06-12-2021, 12:30 PM

OK, so how about my other offers? The one where I offer to let you explain who the Nazis are in this story, and what actual steps anyone should take to oppose these Nazis? Or how the BCWF is supposed to effectively achieve its stated goals if it doesn't talk to it's members about what's going on and what the members think and want to see The use of Sophie Scholl was to demonstrate this idea that somehow our court system isn't this bastion of logic and reason and in fact can be weaponized against the people. It has nothing to do with Nazis. It has to do with recognizing the illegitimacy of the court when it enforces laws that will harm the vast majority of people due to, (in our case) some misplaced idea that indigenous people should be treated any different than the rest of us or should be given vast tracks of land in comparison to their population size. Legal is not necessarily right or moral. The people who hid Ann Frank were breaking the law. The people who killed Ann Frank were following it. Our legal system made the regrettable mistake in enacting laws which would see some benefit while others pay. All based on race. There's no going back from that.

If you have given this a lot of thought and you didn't reach your opinions overnight then surely you've got them ready for primetime.

How would you handle this challenge? Walk me through it and expand on "Don't give in".

I'm all ears Refusing to participate is simply that. And should be accompanied by a strong declaration that all of these processes that disenfranchise the majority of British Columbians from the land are not recognized by the BCWF as it seeks to preserve and enhance the land and resources for everyone. Perhaps you can tell us how you've prevented the long term loss of habitat access or wildlife in these circumstances. Every time I turn around I hear about another agreement which gives huge swaths of land and resources to the Indians. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Whorgan just gave a bunch of land to the Talthan; and so it goes. Everything the BCWF has done has not stopped the slow decline in our access to wildlife and resources.
Thanks for the info about UNDRIP and the federal bills. I think you know that I am aware of that, but a lot of people aren't. I think you also understand the I'm not a big fan of an unelected body of foreigners telling people around here what to do, but frankly, none of those people pay a ton of attention to me and they *never* ask for me to approve of their actions, just like they don't ask you.

But they still proceed, and they aren't going to stop, and we need to figure out a way to respond. I'm suggesting a frank and open conversation with like minded people as a starting point. How you perceive that an exchange of views between BCWF members is "appeasement" is beyond me It was during the Grizzly debate I believe. I could be wrong. But negotiations were taking place between the FN and Government over wildlife and resources and the BCWF wasn't even invited. They weren't invited because the Government knows you're insignificant. Maybe list a number of victories the BCWF has had in reversing the decisions to give land and resources to the FN. Hey, maybe I'm wrong.

What are you suggesting people do? Again, something specific Vote PPC :) Look, I don't claim to have answers. What I do claim, is that your answers and strategies don't work and there's a documented history of that. IF I could suggest one thing, it would be to enact an aggressive communication campaign to the general public about what's happening to "their province". But, the BCWF is notorious at not communicating with the general public let alone their membership about the issues of concern to them, (don't want to upset anyone right?). I have suggested it many times to start campaigning aggressively to the general public that they are actually loosing access to this province and it's resources. Its not just anglers and hunters. Its everyone. There are legitimate concerns that come with implementing laws which benefit a small identifiable group of people over the rest of the population. Shit like that can turn ugly on a dime. Our country is going to hit the skids here pretty soon economically where lots of people are going to be looking for their next meal and not see it. What do you think will happen to these agreements when that happens? What do you think people are going to do when they understand Johnny Two Trees just whacked a nice moose while they're standing in a bread line up? Its going to get ****ing ugly.
.................................................. .....................

180grainer

06-12-2021, 07:17 PM

Listen to this lady. The topic is related. A lot of similarities in what she says and the tactics of the BCWF up and until now. Stop playing the game. Align with other groups who share you concerns, and start communicating what's happening. Again. The topic is unrelated. The strategy should be the same. https://www.bitchute.com/video/c0SRc9mAObTS/

Rob Chipman

06-12-2021, 08:25 PM

180

Ok, thanks for the clarification. It makes more sense now.

That said, I think you might over-estimate the power of the BCWF. Negotiations between BC, Canada and First Nations are conducted at a government to government or, depending on your viewpoint, a nation to nation basis. Provincial MLAs generally don't even get their calls to FNs returned. BCWF is not a government, and that's why we aren't involved in negotiations. You know who else isn't? Anyone who isn't the government of Canada, a provincial government or a First Nation. Those are the rules they play by. I'm surprised that you think BCWF has the power to authorize or forbid settlements that sovereign elected governments (BC & Canada) get into. What makes you think BCWF has the power to demand it?

You recommend more communication. This Zoom conversation is exactly that, and I've ben very clear about it: it's a chance for members to pose questions and give input on how BCWF is going to address the challenge. You can't complain that we should do that and then complain when we do it.

You want BCWF to tell the general public that the government is giving away the province? Register. Put that forward.

Gotta ask, though: do you expect widespread support? The government in power just delayed old growth logging on part of the Island for 2 years when 2 FNs asked them to. When UNDRIP came into the leg the Libs backed it 100%. The last survey I saw, from 2016 if I recall, is 40 something % supportive of T&R and mid 30s % less positive (not even against). 5 years later I think the pros are probably a bigger percentage -4 years of Trump and Trump Derangement Syndrome has polarized everyone a bit more than we were in 2016.

I don't disagree with you that treating one group of people differently from others ends badly. Again, gotta ask: haven't we been doing that for a couple centuries? Don't we have proof that doing it doesn't end well? You can't argue that First Nations were treated like everyone else because the facts are that they were not. Recognizing that does not make me a fan of John Horgan or Justin Trudeau. It just makes me a guy who recognizes the facts.

You are mistaken about the grizzly hunt ban. Remember, it happened in stages and remember, only select First Nations were consulted (which is why Tahltan signed the deal yesterday, no doubt. Chad Day wants to hunt grizzlies and with co-management he's going to be doing it). The ban was not something negotiated between the NDP and FNs. It was a divisive electoral tactic that they even got the Linberals to agree to do if they were elected. It had nothing to do with BCWF giving in (again, exactly how much power do you think we have?).

As for having no influence, BCWF does in fact meet with government. Sometimes I'm the guy who does the meeting. Government listens politely. Then they do what they want to do. There's room in those meetings for you if you'd like to volunteer, show up and be a team player. You can always start your own organization as well. If you can't/don't want to....register for the Zoom convo and throw your input in.

I think, however, that we both know what your beef is: you don't like the way the world is changing, you fear what's coming, and you don't think you can control it. Guess what? Your position is understandable and pretty common. I share a lot of it myself. The difference is that you seem to think that if only people did the vague things that you recommend (but which you can't lay out in any kind of how to instruction) things are going to change. I don't share that opinion. I need concrete, achievable steps.

I don't need a guarantee of success.

The promise of loss through inaction is enough for me.

browningboy

06-13-2021, 07:49 AM

REMINGTON JIM

06-13-2021, 08:49 AM

all you NDP-ers on HERE ! You can Thank Horgan :cry: when you have NO place FREE ! to HUNT or FISH because the indians own and run it ALL ! :mad: RJ

Rob Chipman

06-13-2021, 01:14 PM

It will sure bite people in the ass down the road, the politicians think they are doing this great service by giving away chunks of land and “This should quiet them down”, however they will come back for more and more, then less and less tax revenue from our resource sectors?
we can all discuss this access issue and how to deal with it but I can assure you the Indians have a poker face going on, place nice now then later after all transitions are solidified they will tell you to pound sand! It will be no surprise to me, it’s just a shame.

I think you're right in that I'm not sure that things like less tax revenue from resource sectors has been thought through. I'm not confident that government ever has a long term nuts and bolts vision, and without be unduly partisan I just don't expect the NDP to really look at how our society can generate enough funds to pay for all the stuff we want.

One thing that we need to address (and some of the questions we've received are moving in this direction): how do we address the possibility that the change that is coming will not turn into non-Indigenous people being told to pound sand?

That's a challenge all of us face at some point in our lives in our personal relations and business. A simple example is buying a house. If you're doing that in the LML you're easily entering into a million dollar plus deal where you negotiate with someone on both an adversarial and collaborative basis (The seller wants the best price and terms for the seller while the buyer wants the best price and terms for the buyer - adversarial, but the seller wants out of the house and the buyer wants in - collaborative).

There is lots of room for people to get screwed, but that's handled by getting multiple contractual promises back and forth with some pretty serious penalties for not performing the promises.

The buyer and the seller usually have two professional agents representing them, and those agents not only look out for the buyer and seller's best interests, but also guide them through to a successful transaction. The option of just not buying of selling (that is, just remaining inactive and not addressing whatever challenges the buyer and seller have) isn't an option. If you're getting divorced, or have to move for work, or someone dies or has kids means you have to do something. Getting to the future is required and unavoidable. We're all in the same position regarding truth and reconciliation.

Both buying/selling RE and T&R can be a win-lose journey, which is fine if you're the winner but sucks if you're the loser. Win-lose is often what emerges from an adversarial relationship. If you want it to be win-win you need to collaborate, but you can't just pretend we live in a world of rainbows and unicorn farts. You need enforceable commitments. A good agent gets buyers and sellers there, and if the agent isn't good there is a way to punish them and collect damages.

(Yeah, I know, a lot of people don't like real estate agents and have horror stories. Stick with me on this for a bit).

Right now we don't have anything approaching that with truth and reconciliation. The missing part are the agents who represent each party faithfully. That role *should* be filled by the government. So far they haven't really done it.

I don't know how we're going to get to a point where the feds, the province and the nations, as governments who deal with each other on a G2G basis and consider everyone else mere stakeholders instead act as agents/representatives of their clients. I think we can argue that First Nations are doing that much better than our elected representatives.

There will not be lasting reconciliation, however, if some parties get what they want and then tell everyone else to pound sand. We've seen how that unfolds already. It's fair to say that in BC the First Nations were told "pound sand" in the 1800s-1900s. Look where it got us. There's also a lesson there. I know some guys on this forum think that we'll be in some sort of armed conflict in the short term future. That might occur, but, it tool FNs in this province 150 years to get to the point where the province, for example, agreed to co-management of wildlife with the Tahltan.

If *we* don't do something there's a very good chance that we'll see changes that make our heads explode (as Jack Woodward observed earlier this year) and the dust won't settle during our lifetimes.

It's really important that we have this talk and plan for the future. We (and all our kids) are going to spend the rest of our lives there.

IronNoggin

06-13-2021, 01:42 PM

... It's really important that we have this talk and plan for the future. We (and all our kids) are going to spend the rest of our lives there.

Exactly!! https://www.tnof.ca/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/Pozitive.gif

And all the pissing, moaning, whining and expounding on reasons while one will not participate WILL leave those that do so (and us btw) in the dust. Choose your poison most carefully.

Nog

RugDoctor

06-13-2021, 02:49 PM

Funny…every time I read/hear, “We have to work with them”….something new is given away….land, money, rights…something. Keep this “working with them” up, and you’ll end up with nothing sooner than if you start to work against them.

willyqbc

06-13-2021, 04:52 PM

There will not be lasting reconciliation, however, if some parties get what they want and then tell everyone else to pound sand.

Ask yourself Rob, in all honesty....do you REALLY think the FN of this country want some sort of "partnership" with whitey??? And if you do somehow believe that....what possible evidence could you be basing that on??? The only partnership they want from us, is when they want something paid for. It is extremely clear that the FN are going after every last scrap that the courts will award them. Compromise, and partnership/sharing with whitey....is NOT on the agenda.

Total control of vast tracts of land WILL be awarded to FN all over B.C., we will have no say on anything, including wildlife management or things like environmetal protections placed on industry.

You rightly point out that examples of the "atrocities" committed against these people, cannot be seperated from the conversation. Absolutely fair that these events be put in the public eye to judge. But why are the atrocities FN committed against each other and white settlers not fair game to be talked about? Quick example, i was talking with a FN gentleman one day who was working with my father. He was telling me about his people and some of their history in the region. He told me a story from their history about some young hunters from a neighboring territory who dared to cross into their territory to hunt. They were caught by some of the young men from his band and once their origins were determined, they were executed. He then, full of pride, explained how all the warriors of his tribe made the journey to the neighbors territory and killed every single member of that band....men, women, children. He did not specify when this genocide occured.
I'm sick and tired of the narrative that the evil white man is the only group of people who have committed these types of crimes against humanity. The fact of the matter is throughout history, a myriad of races, religions and govts have been unspeakably shitty to other people.

I don't know what the answer to all this is, Trudeau senior really sunk us when he "enshrined" FN rights in our constitution. It doesn't exactly leave the courts much wiggle room. What I do know, is there is a group of people who feel horribly wronged. They are being told by the courts that they have a legal right to complete control of at least a portion of the land base. What in your experience tells you that in this scenario, that the FN "want" to negotiate a damn thing?? My sense of the situation is that all the "reconciliation" and "negotiations" are a simple PR move to try and make the general voting public "think" they have any control over this situation....when the reality is that the courts will decide it all, regardless of what gov't is in place, and regardless of what the general public thinks.

i'm sure this post will be interpreted as the rantings of an evil, racist, uncaring colonizer, but thats the problem with all these discussions today....if your not following the liberal left narrative, you're not welcome in the discussion. Truly free and open discussion is DEAD in this country, on a myriad of topics.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but exasperation will do that to ya.

JMO
Chris

180grainer

06-13-2021, 06:33 PM

I think a very strong statement by the BCWF that they are becoming increasingly concerned about the disenfranchisement of all British Columbians given the scope and meaning these land claims have taken. Giving huge swaths of land and associated wealth to an extremely small percentage of the population is on its face, re-tarted. The fact that race is clearly a trump card that can only be played by one party during these negotiations, brings the legitimacy of the entire process into disrepute. Agreements made while one party is held in a state of duress can not stand, and all of these agreements should be voided.

wildcatter

06-13-2021, 06:50 PM

I think a strong statement by the BCWF that they are becoming increasingly concerned about the disenfranchisement of all British Columbians given the scope and meaning these land claims have taken. Giving huge swaths of land to an extremely small percentage of the population is on its face, re-tarted. The fact that race is clearly a trump card that can only be played by one party during these negotiations, brings the legitimacy of the entire process into disrepute. Agreements made while one party is held in a state of duress can not stand, and all of these agreements should be voided.

"The fact that race is clearly a trump card that can only be played by one party during these negotiations"
That's right there!

I might add, the race card that is used against some people, those same people can not use the race card against other people.
Funny how that works;)

RyoTHC

06-13-2021, 06:57 PM

The squeaky wheel gets the grease then the oil then the lube then quits spitting.

Rob Chipman

06-13-2021, 07:01 PM

Ask yourself Rob, in all honesty....do you REALLY think the FN of this country want some sort of "partnership" with whitey??? And if you do somehow believe that....what possible evidence could you be basing that on??? The only partnership they want from us, is when they want something paid for. It is extremely clear that the FN are going after every last scrap that the courts will award them. Compromise, and partnership/sharing with whitey....is NOT on the agenda.

Total control of vast tracts of land WILL be awarded to FN all over B.C., we will have no say on anything, including wildlife management or things like environmetal protections placed on industry.

You rightly point out that examples of the "atrocities" committed against these people, cannot be seperated from the conversation. Absolutely fair that these events be put in the public eye to judge. But why are the atrocities FN committed against each other and white settlers not fair game to be talked about? Quick example, i was talking with a FN gentleman one day who was working with my father. He was telling me about his people and some of their history in the region. He told me a story from their history about some young hunters from a neighboring territory who dared to cross into their territory to hunt. They were caught by some of the young men from his band and once their origins were determined, they were executed. He then, full of pride, explained how all the warriors of his tribe made the journey to the neighbors territory and killed every single member of that band....men, women, children. He did not specify when this genocide occured.
I'm sick and tired of the narrative that the evil white man is the only group of people who have committed these types of crimes against humanity. The fact of the matter is throughout history, a myriad of races, religions and govts have been unspeakably shitty to other people.

I don't know what the answer to all this is, Trudeau senior really sunk us when he "enshrined" FN rights in our constitution. It doesn't exactly leave the courts much wiggle room. What I do know, is there is a group of people who feel horribly wronged. They are being told by the courts that they have a legal right to complete control of at least a portion of the land base. What in your experience tells you that in this scenario, that the FN "want" to negotiate a damn thing?? My sense of the situation is that all the "reconciliation" and "negotiations" are a simple PR move to try and make the general voting public "think" they have any control over this situation....when the reality is that the courts will decide it all, regardless of what gov't is in place, and regardless of what the general public thinks.

i'm sure this post will be interpreted as the rantings of an evil, racist, uncaring colonizer, but thats the problem with all these discussions today....if your not following the liberal left narrative, you're not welcome in the discussion. Truly free and open discussion is DEAD in this country, on a myriad of topics.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but exasperation will do that to ya.

JMO
Chris

In all honesty, Willy, I know better than to predict the future.

I also know better than to think of every First Nations person in the country as one monolith that all agrees on exactly what they want, and that all want the same thing.

I don't expect a partnership based on race and I don't expect that for two reasons. If we divide the country into only two categories we can certainly say there are Indigenous people in one category, but we can't say that the other category is one race and that it's the white race. I'm not sure where you live, but where I live there are an awful lot of people who aren't white.

There's also that part of me that doesn't identify as "whitey". I'm also pretty sure that nobody gives me any special privilege because I'm white. I know, I'm playing with fire because a lot of people will say "You've got white privilege and you've just committed a micro-aggression. Whatever. I don't identify as whitey and I don't govern my actions based on my skin colour. I've lived in a lot of places and health with every description of person and I don't see the point of defining myself as a special race nor aligning myself with other people because of my race.

Certain degrees of governance controls over vast tracts of land will likely occur. That's safe to say because....it's already occurred in the Tsilhqot'in Nation Declared Title Lands. You probably know thais, but the BC government offered the TNG a chance to get 2%-3% of their traditional territory through the treaty process. TNG said thanks, but no thanks, and took them Canada to court (that would be "whitey's court system"). TNG won, and now exercise control over 20% of their traditional territory and have made it plain that they'll keep pushing for 100%. Safe to say that the success of the TNG has and will continue to encourage other First Nations to go that route.

As for vast tracts of land being "awarded", I'm not sure if you mean "awarded" by the court, or "awarded" by some generous virtue signalling politician or something in between those two. It's important to remember that according to whitey's court and legal system those vast tracts of land were never actually ceded to the Crown. You and I may not like that fact, and we may regret that people long dead didn't do a better job of whatever the f*&k they were doing, but it is what it is. The reason this thread is happening is because the land, according to "whitey" was never properly alienated from the First Nations. Don't shoot me - I'm just telling you what the facts are that we have to deal with.

As far as not having any say over wildlife management or environmental protections placed on resource extraction.....wait, what?

I'm pretty sure none of us has much say over that right now. Did I miss something? Did the NDP and Liberals all agree before the election that saw Christie Clark bounced the the G-Bear hunt was coming to a close? (Answer: yes). Did they consult with "whitey" or debate it in the leg? (Answer: no). Did the Feds ask whitey if they should buy a pipeline, or shut other ones down? (Answer: no). Do the feds ask whitey when they should open or close salmon fishing? (Answer: no).

Again, I don't know what world you live in, but here in Canada you get a once every few years chance to choose between a few different political parties and once that's over we learn, once again, that the government got elected (again) and that they're going o do whatever the hell they can get away with. Do they do things differently where you live? Do they ask your opinion about cutting old growth forest or what they negotiate for habitat protection or who they allow to co-manage what parts of the province?

They sure as hell don't do that in BC. If you want politicians to do what you want you better either want the same things they do or you have to apply pressure to make their lives difficult. (And if I'm wrong on those facts, please straighten me out. I'd love to live in a perfect world where John Horgan and JT had me on speed dial so that I could review and approve their plans).

But why are the atrocities FN committed against each other and white settlers not fair game to be talked about?

Talk about them all you want. I'm the last guy stopping you. Chad Day of the Tahltan talks proudly of how the Tahltan fought and spilled tons of blood to keep their territory. Lots of FNs do the same.

The fact of the matter is throughout history, a myriad of races, religions and govts have been unspeakably shitty to other people.

Absolutely true. The difference in Canada (and this is unique as far as I know to Canda and perhaps Australia and NZ) is that we have an unbroken legal tradition and it includes the concept of "the honour of the Crown". That's a problem for your viewpoint, because it says that whitey's boss, that German king in England and his Parliament full of Englishmen who couldn't find BC on a map if they tried made a law and gave it the force of the Crown. They said that the First Nations had pre-existing title to the land and certain rights. They never defined the stuff very well (not much has changed - take a gander at UNDRIP and DRIPA. Pretty short on actual definitions).

However, long story short, what the Royal Proclamation of 1763 means, when joined with the concept of "the honour of the Crown" is that you don't get to say "Hey, it's happened everywhere so it should be no different here".

You can say that just across the line in Washington State, for example. You can't say it here until after we win the revolution and get rid of the Crown. I'm not sure that's happening soon, and I'm really sure BCWF isn't going to be leading the charge on that one.

Rob Chipman

06-13-2021, 07:02 PM

What I do know, is there is a group of people who feel horribly wronged.

In all honesty, do you think their feeling about that is valid? They were here. European monarchs sent people came and claim the land that First Nations lived on. In Canada the European monarch agreed that the First Nations were here first and had title and that only the Crown could alienate it from the First Nations (take a gander at the Declaration of Independence - people at the time understood what the King was doing and cited it as a reason to revolt). As a couple centuries unfolded the First nations got a sort of a raw deal and the Crown, repeatedly, and to be forced to live up to it's obligations (and they're still being forced). They have been kidnapped by force and separated from their families. They've been subject to special laws because of their race. They have worse life outcomes on many, many measures than average Canadian citizens.

They are being told by the courts that they have a legal right to complete control of at least a portion of the land base.

Not quite. They're being told by the courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, what the judges in each court have determined that the law says. I'm not asking that you like those judges or their decisions, but the Courts aren't going to First Nations and advising them on stuff. The FNs hire lawyers and pursue their claims in the Canadian legal system (again, that's "whitey's" court, not an Indigenous court).

It used to be illegal in Canada for First Nations to hire lawyers to pursue their rights, and it used to be illegal for them to raise funds to do the same thing. That's one of the reason it took them so long to win in whitey's court system. It used to be illegal for them to try.

What in your experience tells you that in this scenario, that the FN "want" to negotiate a damn thing??

A couple things. First, there are already FNs negotiating and collaborating on some things. Second, there are many areas where the interests of FNs and non-Indigenous hunters, anglers and conservationists align (anywhere we protect habitat or do predator control there's a really good chance that FNs are involved and a pretty good chance that they're leading the efforts). Third, most FNs don't have the capacity to do everything they need or want to do. Many Indigenous people point this out.

....the reality is that the courts will decide it all, regardless of what gov't is in place, and regardless of what the general public thinks.

Um, it has always been that way whenever things can't be sorted out or negotiated without resorting to legal remedy, and that's a good thing. Would you rather that legal interpretations change with popular opinion or with whatever government is in power? WE have tried really hard to avoid that in any system based on British Constitutional law, and it is a way better approach than say....Mexico, Russia, China. Personally, I'lll take it even if I don't like all the decisions.

i'm sure this post will be interpreted as the rantings of an evil, racist, uncaring colonizer, but thats the problem with all these discussions today....if your not following the liberal left narrative, you're not welcome in the discussion. Truly free and open discussion is DEAD in this country, on a myriad of topics.

It isn't interpreted that way by me. What I read from you were expressions of exasperation because you live in a country that has historically had some pretty good examples of stupid leadership. As I sometimes say "We aren't a 1st World country, but we identify as one". FFS, we can't get clean water to First Nations who live in a country that has freshwater coming out of it's ass.

You've also never heard me say "You can't talk about that". I'm a free speech absolutist and I'm *inviting people to talk*! You may *feel* like you are being silenced, but take that complaint to someone who's doing it. I'm actually inviting you to register, submit questions and give feedback.......

.....assuming you're a BCWF member. If you're not, join a BCWF club (again, mine will let you join) or become a direct member. (Little secret: we're not going to check your ID when you submit a question or register).

Now...how about you being honest: is there any politician who has a) a chance of getting into power anywhere in Canada who will b) not follow the direction of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Constitution as far as truth and Reconciliation goes? (Translation: do you honestly think the cavalry is coming to save you or do you understand that you need to do this yourself, here and now, with whatever tools you've got?)

180grainer

06-13-2021, 07:06 PM

Rob, I do admire your responses. Don't agree with you necessarily. But at least you take the time to read someone else's post and then the time to respond. Kudos.

REMINGTON JIM

06-13-2021, 07:09 PM

wildcatter

06-13-2021, 08:19 PM

I know. That's why I said I didn't believe you were a quitter, and that's why I told you to sack up. I'm not bullshitting when I say I appreciate you putting these tough issues on the table. WE need to talk about them and in this day and age there are way too many people who self-censor.

I think you just need to think a lot of this stuff through, accept the facts and then, and only then, figure out the most effective response.

Now, I have to re-visit the race thing. Nobody is asking you to betray your own race. There's a reason for that. This isn't a race thing. It may look like it to you, but that's because you're not looking closely enough. The overwhelming majority of the people pushing for truth, reconciliation and the full recognition of Indigenous rights and title are not Indigenous people.

They're white.

The overwhelming majority of the government, both federal and provincial, is not Indigenous.

They're white.

You can pretend that fact doesn't exist, but when you do you are pretending.

They all could have done better, and I'm glad to see you admitting that it didn't work out. I think you can agree that you can't say in one breath that it went *horribly* wrong and then say *but at least they got 3 squares a day*. Nobody has ever argued that the point of the Indian Act or the Residential Schools was to stop Indigenous children from starving or dying of exposure. Think about you and your bro again. If the Mounties had taken you and he, by force and without permission, from your parents, dropped you off with a bunch of strangers, and things then went "horribly wrong" and your brother ended up in an unmarked grave, would you figure it was ok because you got three meals a day and a roof over your head?

Remember: there are Indigenous people fighting for what they want, today, through the courts, who were in that school. It's not ancient history. It's not recent history. It's the present.

Rob, I think this is to some degree is a race thing, we whites are accused of all sorts of things, be we can't accuse anyone else.
And the whites who are pushing for reconciliation and caterint to every whishes of the natives, are naive or don't know what they are getting into.
The lawyers always will be there on all sides, just like bankers finance both sides of a war.

Otherwise I agree with 180 on most of the things he said.

By the way the UN, UNDRIP, WEF is not an ideology, it's a road map if you will, it has been planned a long time and they are carrying it out.
Just think about Agenda 2030, Wildlands Project and a whole host of other programs.
I wonder what's your opinion of George Soros and his support of many organizations, programs, NGOs?

saan man

06-13-2021, 08:35 PM

Thank you Rob Chipman/BCWF for the dialogue and important facts you've mentioned throughout this thread. The Zoom session seems like it would be an interesting listen and looks like a step in the right direction in understanding the issues, and dare I say, Reconciliation.
Again, I see/read from a small few that are still living in the past and want to continue as the "founding fathers" did and probably will always feel unhappy of the ways things are now and the changes, both legal and moral, that are happening.

As I'm not a BCWF member, on principle, I won't register for the Zoom session but if the intention is for a better relationship with First Nations gov'ts and peoples, then good luck. As for me, I'll be doing what I do everyday...practicing my Indigenaity singing, drumming, and celebrating life ...or maybe just putter around and tend my garden instead. (...cause we all don't sing and drum)��

Thanks for reading
SM

180grainer

06-13-2021, 08:48 PM

I'll say this again to see if anyone picks up on it. The Supreme Court and the Charter have made it impossible to negotiate fairly. The negotiations take place with the "explicit" understanding one side will win regardless. It's only by how much. On it's face, it's ****ing stupid to negotiate. You take it to the Supreme Court and you let them eat this mess, (err excuse me. You shove this mess down their throat. They make the ****ing decision,they take the ****ing heat). At some point. It becomes the right of the people to say "**** off". Our democracy is everyone you see every day driving in their car alone with a ****ing mask on. It's a fallacy. They're raping our Province and no one is paying attention. How many in ICU today?

Rob Chipman

06-13-2021, 09:07 PM

180:

BCWF isn't in much of a position to negotiate anything. There's no sense pretending we are. Negotiations take place government to government, and as you have probably discerned, I don't have much faith in out government and don't think it represents us as well as it could. This event is to talk with BCWF members to see how we should respond to the challenge that you outline.
Saan man:

We're not being too strict on registration. We want feedback from members because that's who we represent, but you are free to watch and listen. No problem.

Wildcatter:

Fitting race into this is tricky. It clearly circulates around race and legislated racism (which we have had for well over a century). On the other hand, the divide is not along racial lines and I don't think you can assume that white people line up together, so in that sense its not a racial dispute with two races opposed to each other. Additionally, there are a lot of non-white, non-Indigenous people in Canada and especially in BC. Chinese and Sikhs, just to name two groups, have been here what? 150 years at least.

I think George Soros is a dick. I don't think I can spend much time worrying about him though. If NGOs that he funds are doing good things, great. He has a track record of wanting to use his wealth to screw things up. A girl I went to school with about 100 years ago worked for him for years....advocating for gun control. So, yeah, I think he's a dick.

180grainer

06-13-2021, 09:19 PM

wildcatter

06-13-2021, 10:53 PM

Which is why you need to stop doing what you're doing and think outside the box. They don't care about the BCWF cause the BCWF is too concerned about hurting feelings or being offered a chair so they can "watch" the negotiations. **** these dirt bags. There's lots of Conservative news outlets you could communicate with to articulate your concerns. Rebel News, True North, The Post Millennial. Hey man. Conservatism is starting to pick up. But it aint coming from our Status Quo politicians. Break out of the mold. Walk away from what they are doing. If you stay, it provides legitimacy. It's not a legitimate process. It's a forced process with no recourse for the major population.

Well, that kinda sums it up.

wildcatter

06-13-2021, 10:56 PM

Rob Chipman

06-14-2021, 10:00 AM

..... cause the BCWF is too concerned about hurting feelings or being offered a chair so they can "watch" the negotiations. **** these dirt bags.

Thanks for telling me what motivates me. I was previously unaware that my goal was to get a chair to "watch" the proceedings. (Where are you getting your intel, btw? I'd take your source off the payroll because he's feeding you bullshit :-) )

There's lots of Conservative news outlets you could communicate with to articulate your concerns. Rebel News, True North, The Post Millennial. Hey man. Conservatism is starting to pick up. But it aint coming from our Status Quo politicians. Break out of the mold. Walk away from what they are doing.

Wait, are you suggesting BCWF think outside the box by becoming...some sort of conservative action group? That BCWF should make "conservatism" one of it's goals? Drop the crack pipe and back away from the chalupa. BCWF cannot become a conservative political action committee. We'd be in contravention of all sorts of laws and we'd incur a huge financial expense.

Why would we do that? I mean, one reason we'd do that it because the membership, in discussions with itself over a Zoom call about how to address the challenges of T&R sent a clear message saying that they wanted the BCWF to change it's purposes from a conservation organization into a conservative PAC, or because they sent a message saying we need to pursue *conservation* through conservative political action or something.

The problem, of course, is that you've been saying even having that conversation between BCWF members is somehow completely wrong.

Or are you saying BCWF should become a conservative political organization because....that's what you'd like to see? If so, hey, register, send in the questions, give the feedback. Again, you need to be a BCWF member, so if you're not, join a BCWF club or become a direct member and then explain to the other members how your plan works. If it's a good plan I'm sure you'll get support.

If you stay, it provides legitimacy. It's not a legitimate process. It's a forced process with no recourse for the major population.

If BCWF stays....where? In that place where it talks to it's members and asks for bottom up feedback? Where it tells the government that we're not happy with what it's doing or how it's doing it?

You remember what it is that you're objecting to on this thread, right? You're objecting to BCWF making use of the interwebs and Zoom to have a conversation with the BCWF president, and Indigenous consultant and the membership to find out what we do about reconciliation and all the challenges that are presented by it.

I think maybe you've lost the plot and confused who plays what roles. If I'm wrong please explain, and make the dots really easy to connect. I somehow doubt that Ezra Levant wants to hear about habitat preservation or predator control, and I doubt he'll help us on that score, but if you can clear my confusion up I'd appreciate it.

Rob Chipman

06-14-2021, 10:02 AM

Agree George Soros is a Major Dick!
He's got his dirty hands in everything, (besides gun control) that has a chance to cause mayhem , division, turmoil, breakdown of society, etc.

So....now that you know I don't like George Soros can we get back to talking about what BCWF membership wants BCWF to do in regard to T&R in order to achieve BCWF's stated conservation goals? Or are we moving on to the impact of BLM and CRT on moose populations in Region 6? :-)

180grainer

06-14-2021, 10:29 AM

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Rob Chipman

06-14-2021, 11:37 AM

180:

Thanks for the Rebel News video about questions that remain unanswered about Kamloops. Unbelievable stuff.

There should probably be a conversation about that.

Somewhere.

With groups that have influence over that and who are focused on addressing the events at the Kamloops Residential School. (Maybe you could find some people or an organization that fits that description).

Meanwhile, as far as BCWF and this even goes, we're talking about things like:

Mutual interest in conservation and predator control
Shared concerns about habitat loss and degradation
Interpretation and roll out of UNDRIP (https://bbox.blackbaudhosting.com/webforms/linkredirect?srcid=31849792&srctid=1&erid=1997315204&trid=27ad1df6-4c45-483d-8b12-a368834230a1&linkid=251949068&isbbox=1&pid=0) legislation in B.C. and the
Success and challenge of BCWF's Indigenous Relations portfolio

Now, I don't see the history of the Kamloops Residential School on that list. Can you explain how you looked at that list of subjects and somehow deduced that we'd be arguing about what happened at the school?

180grainer

06-14-2021, 11:45 AM

Rob Chipman

06-14-2021, 12:44 PM

No need to remove it. Just explain how it's relevant to what we're talking about.

I'll note that Rebel uses the term "kidnapped" kids. Does that mean Ezra isn't conservative... :-)

adriaticum

06-14-2021, 12:54 PM

Generalizing can only hurt reconciliation.
People need to be very careful of generalizations.
Painting an entire culture with the brush of certain individuals is always harmful and helpful to governments to drive a wedge between people.
Politcians always look for wedges to exploit to creat unrest.
These same politicians who were driving the extinction of aboriginal cultures will turn around and drive extinction of European cultures if it suits them.

180grainer

06-14-2021, 01:03 PM

These same politicians who were driving the extinction of aboriginal cultures will turn around and drive extinction of European cultures if it suits them.
But, but, but,.....wouldn't that be a conspiracy theory? :)

adriaticum

06-14-2021, 01:09 PM

But, but, but,.....wouldn't that be a conspiracy theory? :)

No, not a conspiracy.
Truth. Experience.

willyqbc

06-14-2021, 04:59 PM

First off Rob, please don't take my post as a personal attack against you. I don't agree with you on some points of view, but I absolutely respect your willingness to stand up for what you believe is the right way to deal with the situation we find ourselves in. I will try and respond to a few of your rebuttals

As far as not having any say over wildlife management or environmental protections placed on resource extraction.....wait, what?

I'm pretty sure none of us has much say over that right now. Did I miss something? Did the NDP and Liberals all agree before the election that saw Christie Clark bounced the the G-Bear hunt was coming to a close? (Answer: yes). Did they consult with "whitey" or debate it in the leg? (Answer: no). Did the Feds ask whitey if they should buy a pipeline, or shut other ones down? (Answer: no). Do the feds ask whitey when they should open or close salmon fishing? (Answer: no).

Again, I don't know what world you live in, but here in Canada you get a once every few years chance to choose between a few different political parties and once that's over we learn, once again, that the government got elected (again) and that they're going o do whatever the hell they can get away with. Do they do things differently where you live? Do they ask your opinion about cutting old growth forest or what they negotiate for habitat protection or who they allow to co-manage what parts of the province?

What i was getting at, was the rules and regulations set out by those we elect every 4 years will have no force or effect in these new sovereign territories that are being created....the wildlife and land base will be at the mercy of whatever level of protections the band decides. May be fine....or may be a disaster

Talk about them all you want. I'm the last guy stopping you. Chad Day of the Tahltan talks proudly of how the Tahltan fought and spilled tons of blood to keep their territory. Lots of FNs do the same.

perhaps you can explain to me why its ok for Mr Day to talk proudly about all the blood spilt by his people, but I need to somehow be held to account for the for things the crown did, that I had no hand in?

In all honesty, do you think their feeling about that is valid?

My point was not that I don't see the way they feel as being valid.....it was simply a statement that you have a group of people who feel wronged, and some existing laws and constitutional protections allow them to strike back at those they feel wronged them. Of course they are going to use whatever is at their disposal to strike back.......because they feel they have been wronged. Again, it goes to my belief that some FN have no interest in coming to a collaborative solution with the rest of the population....they want the bully to be brought down....ALL the way down

A couple things. First, there are already FNs negotiating and collaborating on some things. Second, there are many areas where the interests of FNs and non-Indigenous hunters, anglers and conservationists align (anywhere we protect habitat or do predator control there's a really good chance that FNs are involved and a pretty good chance that they're leading the efforts). Third, most FNs don't have the capacity to do everything they need or want to do. Many Indigenous people point this out.

This probably is the crux of the difference of opinion between us....you appear to believe that FN who come to the table to collaborate are doing it with the best of intentions. I on the other hand see it as a way for them to incrementally grab a little more, and a little more. I think we just differ on what we each believe the ultimate end game is.

Now...how about you being honest: is there any politician who has a) a chance of getting into power anywhere in Canada who will b) not follow the direction of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Constitution as far as truth and Reconciliation goes? (Translation: do you honestly think the cavalry is coming to save you or do you understand that you need to do this yourself, here and now, with whatever tools you've got?)

This we absolutely agree on, and was basically what I was trying to say when i stated that this will all be decided by the courts regardless of what party is in power and regardless of how the general population feels.
The only way out that I can possibly see, and it would be a monumental task, with little chance of success.....would be to somehow get some similiar "rights" for non FN enshrined in our constitution....put everyone on a level playing field not by taking anything away from FN, but guaranteeing the same rights for the rest of the population as well.

JMO
Chris

180grainer

06-14-2021, 06:49 PM

Thanks for telling me what motivates me. I was previously unaware that my goal was to get a chair to "watch" the proceedings. (Where are you getting your intel, btw? I'd take your source off the payroll because he's feeding you bullshit :-) Well, when the Government doesn't care if you show up or not, it kind of means you're not required.

Wait, are you suggesting BCWF think outside the box by becoming...some sort of conservative action group?Of course not. What I am suggesting is due to the biased way the MSM portrays hunting and hunters, you may have more luck communicating or advertising to the general public through a medium that doesn't consider you a duffus right out of the gate. That BCWF should make "conservatism" one of it's goals? Drop the crack pipe and back away from the chalupa. BCWF cannot become a conservative political action committee Again, not the suggestion. It's about being given an honest opportunity to put your voice out there. You'll get that with the media outlets I mentioned before you'll get it with the Communist Broadcasting Network We'd be in contravention of all sorts of laws and we'd incur a huge financial expense.

Why would we do that?You do that to communicate directly with the general public. You want to communicate to them they are also losing valuable opportunities and resources for themselves and their children. The BCWF focuses on the narrow interest of hunting and fishing opportunities. But that's a small fraction of what's being given away. The BCWF needs to seek out and collaborate with like minded stakeholders I mean, one reason we'd do that it because the membership, in discussions with itself over a Zoom call about how to address the challenges of T&R sent a clear message saying that they wanted the BCWF to change it's purposes from a conservation organization into a conservative PAC, or because they sent a message saying we need to pursue *conservation* through conservative political action or something.

The problem, of course, is that you've been saying even having that conversation between BCWF members is somehow completely wrong. I don't think I've said that.

Or are you saying BCWF should become a conservative political organization because....that's what you'd like to see Again, I'm saying the BCWF needs to align itself with like minded organizations, most of which you'll find will be conservative in nature If so, hey, register, send in the questions, give the feedback. Again, you need to be a BCWF member, so if you're not, join a BCWF club or become a direct member and then explain to the other members how your plan works. If it's a good plan I'm sure you'll get support.

If BCWF stays....wher If you stay in these negotiations. You can not claim the game is rigged and then show up everyday and play. It would be part of a larger agenda in bringing information to the general public they're getting screwed. In that place where it talks to it's members and asks for bottom up feedback? Where it tells the government that we're not happy with what it's doing or how it's doing it? I'd stop talking to government to be completely honest.

You remember what it is that you're objecting to on this thread, right? You're objecting to BCWF making use of the interwebs and Zoom to have a conversation with the BCWF president, and Indigenous consultant and the membership to find out what we do about reconciliation and all the challenges that are presented by it Yea, no that's not what I'm objecting too. I'm objecting to participating in a process that has a predetermined outcome and by participating, giving that outcome legitimacy. Hey, if you and the vast majority of members think the process is legitimate, fair enough. Who am I. But if you know all you're doing is showing up at the table to be told what the adults have decided, it's time to abandon the process and take the grievances directly to the people, (hopefully with some solid alliances of other entities and individuals who understand they are getting screwed too.

I think maybe you've lost the plot and confused who plays what roles. If I'm wrong please explain, and make the dots really easy to connect. I somehow doubt that Ezra Levant wants to hear about habitat preservation or predator control No, but he might be interested in the huge track of land and all it's resources that just went to .003% of the population while the Turd is spending our money like a drunken sailor and the global economy appears on life support. and I doubt he'll help us on that score, but if you can clear my confusion up I'd appreciate it.
.................................................. .................................................. ..

wildcatter

06-14-2021, 08:36 PM

So....now that you know I don't like George Soros can we get back to talking about what BCWF membership wants BCWF to do in regard to T&R in order to achieve BCWF's stated conservation goals? Or are we moving on to the impact of BLM and CRT on moose populations in Region 6? :-)

I wish you guys good luck, but don't expect favourable outcome for us.
You can call me defeatist, pessimistic or whatever, I'm far from that, I am a realist.;)

The Tsilqot'in example is what we will be facing all over the province.
More areas closed for us to enter, hunt, fish or go mushroom picking.

180grainer

06-14-2021, 08:55 PM

More areas closed for us to enter, hunt, fish or go mushroom picking.
Which why it's so important to make a formal declaration now that the process is illegitimate. It's racially motivated and disenfranchises the vast majority of British Columbians by placing a disproportionate amount of land and resources into the hands of a very very small percentage of the population. It's too late to complain once the store has been sold.

wildcatter

06-14-2021, 10:59 PM

Which why it's so important to make a formal declaration now that the process is illegitimate. It's racially motivated and disenfranchises the vast majority of British Columbians by placing a disproportionate amount of land and resources into the hands of a very very small percentage of the population. It's too late to complain once the store has been sold.

Us hunters are small fish, but think about mining/exploration and other industries, literally talking in the billions.
Why are they not taking steps to stop this BS? (If they do I have no knowledge of)
For sure it's racially motivated, but they smell huge money and that is their major motivation.

Rob Chipman

06-15-2021, 01:19 PM

K, lots of stuff to go through.

First off Rob, please don't take my post as a personal attack against you.

I don't. I doubt that we really disagree on much and I think that will become clear the more we drill down into it.

What i was getting at, was the rules and regulations set out by those we elect every 4 years will have no force or effect in these new sovereign territories that are being created....the wildlife and land base will be at the mercy of whatever level of protections the band decides. May be fine....or may be a disaster

You're 100% correct. A great degree of power will be transferred from the province to individual nations. That will happen through negotiations, as it going on with Tahltan, or through the court and then negotiations, as happened with Tsilhqot'in. AS you know, if you want to hunt in Tsilhqot'in Nation Declared Title Lands you need to do so under 2 legal frameworks - that of the province and that of the TNG. Right now I don't think the TNG will allow non-Indigenous people and perhaps not even non-Tsilhqo'tin to hunt in the TNDTL. We know that the TNG does prohibit non-Indigenous hunters from hunting in TNDTL even if the non-Indigenous hunters are in full compliance with provincial law. They may very well blockade roads to hunters trying to access Tsilhqot'in traditional territory that is non-TNDTL lands, and that the province will not aid non-INdigenous hunters to get past those blockades. The province says so in it's LEH notices and elsewhere.

So, you're correct. The future is not only coming, it's here, and it's radically different form what we're used to.

Will it be fine? Will it be a disaster? It's tough to predict the future. Here's what we know so far: there are hard feelings that divide the nations and non-Indigenous hunters and anglers and that hurts access. On the other hand, the nations are leading the way on predator management.

perhaps you can explain to me why its ok for Mr Day to talk proudly about all the blood spilt by his people, but I need to somehow be held to account for the for things the crown did, that I had no hand in?

Great question because it focuses on two emotions many are feeling. My answer is that your question is being asked of the wrong guy, but that I think I can share some insights. I recognize that a lot of people these days self-censor, and that is doing largely out of fear, and I also recognize that a lot of people ask "Why am I to blame for something done by people long dead to other people long dead and why should I feel guilty when I didn't do it?"

I'm a free speech absolutist and I think you can say whatever the hell you like. I'm the last guy to tell you to shut up unless you become repetitive, boring and annoying. Otherwise, flap your gums. No harm, no foul.

And yet I self-censor.

How do I square that circle? Here's how. Maybe it works for you. If someone tells you to pipe down because you're uninformed, ignorant, repetitive, suffering from Kruger-Dunning effect, completely unreasonable, insensitive, being counter -productive or any other reasonable objection, I'd say self-censor. Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt, right?

If you're asking a reasonable question or making a reasonable observation? Speak up.

If someone says "You can't say that" I simply respond "In my culture we value free speech and the sharing of perspectives, because talk is better than war and when my people repress speech it leads to somebody getting killed. Going back as far as King John and Runymede and the Magna Carta the history of my people has been to get the boot of the king off our neck, and we've had to use violence. We are good at it. So, if you really want to try to force me to shut up you better realize what the stakes are, 'cause at the end of the day I'll drop the gloves and we'll see who likes it more. Personally, I come from a long line of people who didn't like the food, weather and boss at home, so we got into leaky boats, sailed to other places that looked cooler, and moved right in and took over. We've got pretty good win-loss record. Anyway, your choice. Talk or fight."

Asking why it's ok for some people to do the same thing that other people can't do is a reasonable question. I think it is ok and I encourage you to do it.

As for why you should feel guilty for something that you didn't do, my answer is: you shouldn't, and I'm not asking you to.

There are people who will say that you're complicit in the ongoing oppression of Indigenous people in this country, and there is some truth to that, but I'm not sure you can control politicians as much as people think (who am I kidding? I don't think we control politicians at all unless we find a pressure point). That said, your role (and mine) in the ongoing, systematic, state sponsored legally sanctioned oppression of Indigenous people is fairly small in relation to what was done in the past and in relation to the good we can do bringing that to an end.

We can look backwards and play the blame and shame game, but it's not going to get us to a better place. What I think we need to do, rather than blame and shame, is look at the truth part of truth and reconciliation, admit that there was a lot of bad stuff that happened and figure out a way to make it right that works for everyone.

Blaming and shaming living people does not work and I reject it. I don't believe in collective guilt and I do not believe it is just to visit the sins of the father unto the son. Not into it, don't like it, won't do it. We all walk our own path, are responsible for what we've done and must make our own amends.

My point was not that I don't see the way they feel as being valid.....it was simply a statement that you have a group of people who feel wronged, and some existing laws and constitutional protections allow them to strike back at those they feel wronged them. Of course they are going to use whatever is at their disposal to strike back.......because they feel they have been wronged.

Fair enough. We'd all do that if we felt that we'd been wronged. Of course, the elephant in the room on this sentiment is: do you think Indigenous people were wronged or do you think they're making it up and whining? Personally, I think Indigenous people in Canada have a pretty strong case.

Rob Chipman

06-15-2021, 01:21 PM

Again, it goes to my belief that some FN have no interest in coming to a collaborative solution with the rest of the population....they want the bully to be brought down....ALL the way down

Some do not want a collaborative solution. Some want to bully. Some want revenge.

That's understandable. It won't work, long term, but it's understandable.

Of course, baked into your statement is the idea that some First Nations do want to collaborate, don't want revenge and don't want to bully. Maybe they'll carry the day, maybe they won't, but if we want to influence the future in a way we're going to be happy with we ned to meet the people who want a relationship and we need to build a healthy one. There is no other real alternative.

This probably is the crux of the difference of opinion between us....you appear to believe that FN who come to the table to collaborate are doing it with the best of intentions. I on the other hand see it as a way for them to incrementally grab a little more, and a little more. I think we just differ on what we each believe the ultimate end game is.

As I said, I don't predict the future and I don't assume the intentions of other people, but you are quite mistaken about my beliefs. I've been in the fairly cut-throat real estate business in East Van and the LML for over three decades. I've dealt with people from every corner of the globe and negotiated millions and millions of dollars worth of transactions for probably over a thousand different individuals.

There's a great truth in that business: if both sides want to do the deal you can write it up on a cigarette paper, but if you're wise you're not going to assume motivations and you're not going to predict the future and you are going to write up an clear and enforceable contract *just in case you're not as good at predicting the future and reading people as you told yourself*.

I have no clue what anyone else's intentions are. Again, I trust, but I verify. The problem here is that BCWF doesn't get to sit at the negotiating table and doesn't have legal recourse to punish dishonest actors. Conclusion? Addressing T&R in a conservation, hunting, angling, habitat and access setting is not as easy as real estate.

I don't care. I'm tying into it.

This we absolutely agree on, and was basically what I was trying to say when i stated that this will all be decided by the courts regardless of what party is in power and regardless of how the general population feels.
The only way out that I can possibly see, and it would be a monumental task, with little chance of success.....would be to somehow get some similiar "rights" for non FN enshrined in our constitution....put everyone on a level playing field not by taking anything away from FN, but guaranteeing the same rights for the rest of the population as well.

I can't disagree. I can only say that neither I nor BCWF has the ability to mount a constitutional amendment process or engage in a long court battle. Personally, having walked the earth 6 decades, I don't have the time. I'd never see that come to fruition. However, you're right about what we know works. Not that I want to equate the BCWF with the NRA, but one reason why the 2nd A in the US is still strongly entrenched is because the NRA can and does go to the Supreme Court of the US.

JMO
Chris

I think you should lose the "J". There's no need to minimize the value of your opinion. We're in a greater danger from people who don't speak up than we are of getting hurt feelings by people who do. Your input is valuable to us all.

IronNoggin

06-15-2021, 01:58 PM

There is Wisdom in your words Rob.

Cheers,
Nog

Rob Chipman

06-15-2021, 02:02 PM

Well, when the Government doesn't care if you show up or not, it kind of means you're not required.

I don't think I ever said that the government doesn't care if BCWF shows up. That's you creating a straw man.

What I said was that you don't know what my motivation is or what BCWF's motivation is. You assume you do, but you don't.

I've had and am having more meetings with MLAs, MPs, ADMs, fairly high level bureaucrats and ministers of both the federal and provincial governments. I just spent a half hour talking with one today. It's true that access is not the same as influence, but it's pretty hard to argue that these people would take time out of their very busy days to talk to us if they didn't care or if our input was not required.

What I am suggesting is due to the biased way the MSM portrays hunting and hunters, you may have more luck communicating or advertising to the general public through a medium that doesn't consider you a duffus right out of the gate.

You're right in identifying a major hurdle with the MSM. You're wrong in recommending that BCWF damages a non-partisan brand by aligning in public with a very partisan and widely hated media outlet. That's just a stupid move, and I think you can see that. It would be much wiser for a surrogate to do that (we know that surrogates play a huge role in moving public opinion, and we know that surrogates are very valuable because they can get into nasty shit-splattering fights without splattering the mainstream organization).

Maybe there's a role for you there....

Meanwhile, BCWF does try, and is increasingly being successful, in changing how media deals with hunters/anglers/conservationists.

You do that to communicate directly with the general public. You remember the question you're answering here, right? Why would we break the law and incur great financial cost. And your answer is "To communicate with the public"? You can have a do over on that one.

You want to communicate to them they are also losing valuable opportunities and resources for themselves and their children. Well, you certainly want to do that. I'd suggest a blog or a YouTube channel. BCWF kind of wants to do that, and always has, and says so in it's mission statement and values, but BCWF is nowhere near as narrowly focused as you are on the social-political aspect, not as committed to your narrow perspective. I mean, seriously, do you think the majority of BCWF members share your politics or want BCWF to promote your politics? If you do think that, you need to get out more and talk to more people. There is wide range of opinions and values out there.

The BCWF focuses on the narrow interest of hunting and fishing opportunities.

Well, um, yeah, duh, and no, you're incorrect. Anytime we focus narrowly on hunting and fishing opportunities we get kicked in the nuts. You may not recognize that, but it's a fact. We have influence because we focus on conservation and habitat first. Our members understand this, and our members (including volunteer leadership which is no smarter than the membership) understand who we are: primarily hunters and anglers and shooters who recognize the value of conservation but also know that people who hunt, fish and shoot need to be able to keep doing those things in order together any traction on conservation. It's a pretty simple equation.

you've been saying even having that conversation between BCWF members is somehow completely wrong. I don't think I've said that.

Fair enough. You have been quite critical of BCWF not doing what you want, you've been very clear that BCWF is doing the wrong thing and you've done that on a thread that started with BCWF announcing that it wants to talk with members about how to deal with the future that is reconciliation. Forgive me for concluding that you don't think we should be having this conversation with members.

Is it safe to say you do support the conversation and will be attending? :-)

Again, I'm saying the BCWF needs to align itself with like minded organizations, most of which you'll find will be conservative in nature

You'll be glad to know that we are aligned with some fairly conservative conservation organizations. You'll be sad to know (and probably angry) that we're also aligned with some non-conservative conservation organizations and we are not aligned with any non-conservation political groups. It is what it is. You can start a non-profit online in short order and very cheaply.

If you stay in these negotiations.

BCWF is not in negotiations. Negotiations are conducted on a government to government level. BCWF is not government. You're confusing us for a much more powerful entity. At best we influence governments (federal, provincial and Indigenous) because we relay the concerns of a lot of people who would otherwise be voiceless. Don't confuse us with something we're not and then complain that we don't do something we never tried to do.

It would be part of a larger agenda in bringing information to the general public they're getting screwed.
That's your agenda. If you want BCWF to adopt it you need to convince BCWF's membership that your way is the way to go. I can put you in touch with the Resolutions Chair and you can make your case. If you're not already a member you can join and get the process started.

I'm objecting to participating in a process that has a predetermined outcome and by participating, giving that outcome legitimacy.

As I have said elsewhere, I don't pretend to know what the future holds. I strive to influence the outcomes so I don't get rolled over. I think you feel the same (otherwise you wouldn't recommend a different way of changing the outcomes) but we differ on how to approach it. What can I say? Nobody's toping you from following your own advice or from participating in BCWF governance to change BCWF"s strategy. I'll add that you haven't presented a plan that looks like it's got any good prospects of success as far as I'm concerned. I'm aware that we both feel the same way about each other's positions.

No, but he might be interested in the huge track of land and all it's resources that just went to .003% of the population while the Turd is spending our money like a drunken sailor and the global economy appears on life support.

He might be. Someone should tell him about it in case he hasn't heard and isn't, you know, in the business of political news and doesn't have a investigative staff. You can contact him at: Rebel Commander @TheRebel.media (https://rocketreach.co/therebel-media-profile_b55c5089f68e0b38)

Anything you can do to have him help is appreciated.

180grainer

06-15-2021, 03:59 PM

i don't think i ever said that the government doesn't care if bcwf shows up. That's you creating a straw man.

What i said was that you don't know what my motivation is or what bcwf's motivation is. You assume you do, but you don't ok, i don't know your motivations. Fair enough. But i can judge what you write and form a conclusion.

i've had and am having more meetings with mlas, mps, adms, fairly high level bureaucrats and ministers of both the federal and provincial governments. I just spent a half hour talking with one today. It's true that access is not the same as influence, but it's pretty hard to argue that these people would take time out of their very busy days to talk to us if they didn't care or if our input was not required maybe it's because they fear you doing exactly or similarly to what i've stated. You're easy to control where you are. The last agreement with the talthan. What did the bcwf influence to the point where it changed the overall direction of the negotiations? Look at the political persuasion you're dealing with. Conservative, liberal, provincial, federal. They're all socialist political entities that will never stop giving away our legacy. To a large degree, white, elitist liberal, socialists. If there is a difference between them. It's the speed in which our heritage disappears. This is far bigger than hunting and fishing. These are the same politicians that won't take a stand when another statue representing our heritage is ripped down, or when blm decides to have a rally during a pandemic and applaud. You don't even know who your negotiating with.

you're right in identifying a major hurdle with the msm. You're wrong in recommending that bcwf damages a non-partisan brand by aligning in public with a very partisan and widely hated media outlet.i named three. Why'd you focus on rebel? Not only that. Those were just suggests. that's just a stupid move, and i think you can see that. It would be much wiser for a surrogate to do that (we know that surrogates play a huge role in moving public opinion, and we know that surrogates are very valuable because they can get into nasty shit-splattering fights without splattering the mainstream organization).

Maybe there's a role for you there....

Meanwhile, bcwf does try, and is increasingly being successful, in changing how media deals with hunters/anglers/conservationists. prove it.

you remember the question you're answering here, right? Why would we break the law and incur great financial cost. And your answer is "to communicate with the public"? You can have a do over on that onea maybe you all need to change your status so it's "not against the law" to "communicate with the public". How'd that happen? Talk about a muzzle.

well, you certainly want to do that. I'd suggest a blog or a youtube channel. Bcwf kind of wants to do that, and always has, and says so in it's mission statement and values, but bcwf is nowhere near as narrowly focused as you are on the social-political aspect, not as committed to your narrow perspective so wanting to stop the continuing erosion of our ability to wonder and take part in the vast wealth of this province, something i thought was enshrined in our charter, is a narrow focus? Guilty i guess. Got me there. i mean, seriously, do you think the majority of bcwf members share your politics or want bcwf to promote your politics i'm asking you to stop participating and giving legitimacy to a process that ensures we lose. If wanting to stop the government from giving this province away to a class of people, any class of people, then i guess that's political and you got me again. if you do think that, you need to get out more and talk to more people. There is wide range of opinions and values out there a lot of opinions are starting to change too.
well, um, yeah, duh, and no, you're incorrect. Anytime we focus narrowly on hunting and fishing opportunities we get kicked in the nuts. but you still maintain your effectual? you may not recognize that, but it's a fact. We have influence because we focus on conservation and habitat first i seem to remember a conversation like this on another thread. This idea that you guys are now conservationists and not hunters. And that designation came with changing the mission statement and some caveats as to conduct of the organization. Like the caveat you alluded to earlier about not being able to speak directly to the public. Am i correct about that or do i have that wrong? our members understand this, and our members (including volunteer leadership which is no smarter than the membership) understand who we are: Primarily hunters and anglers and shooters who recognize the value of conservation but also know that people who hunt, fish and shoot need to be able to keep doing those things in order together any traction on conservation. It's a pretty simple equation yea, so you're hunters and anglers but you also know that to hunt and fish you need to do what exactly? What are those things? You've lost me here.

fair enough. You have been quite critical of bcwf not doing what you want, yea, got me again. you've been very clear that bcwf is doing the wrong thing and you've done that on a thread that started with bcwf announcing that it wants to talk with members about how to deal with the future that is reconciliation. Forgive me for concluding that you don't think we should be having this conversation with membersde nope, not saying that at all. I would suggest part of the conversation be about why you can't speak to the public and if that was a worth while price to pay given what ever incentives are provided. And that you brainstorm around what other organizations are negatively effected by what the government is doing under undrip and associated land claims to see if alliances can be made to make your position stronger.

Is it safe to say you do support the conversation and will be attending? :-)

you'll be glad to know that we are aligned with some fairly conservative conservation organizations. You'll be sad to know (and probably angry) that we're also aligned with some non-conservative conservation organizations and we are not aligned with any non-conservation political groups. It is what it is. You can start a non-profit online in short order and very cheaply.

Bcwf is not in negotiations. Negotiations are conducted on a government to government level. Bcwf is not government. You're confusing us for a much more powerful entity at best we influence governments (federal, provincial and indigenous) i'll ask again. Tell us what you've done in the last two years or so? Like what was going to be taken away from me, and the bcwf stepped in and stopped it. because we relay the concerns of a lot of people who would otherwise be voiceless. Don't confuse us with something we're not and then complain that we don't do something we never tried to do. your right again. I don't have a clue what you guys do.

that's your agenda. If you want bcwf to adopt it you need to convince bcwf's membership that your way is the way to go. I can put you in touch with the resolutions chair and you can make your case. If you're not already a member you can join and get the process started.

As i have said elsewhere, i don't pretend to know what the future holds. I strive to influence the outcomes so i don't get rolled over. I think you feel the same (otherwise you wouldn't recommend a different way of changing the outcomes) but we differ on how to approach it. What can i say? Nobody's toping you from following your own advice or from participating in bcwf governance to change bcwf"s strategy. I'll add that you haven't presented a plan that looks like it's got any good prospects of success as far as i'm concerned. I'm aware that we both feel the same way about each other's positions.

He might be. Someone should tell him about it in case he hasn't heard and isn't, you know, in the business of political news and doesn't have a investigative staff. You can contact him at: rebel commander @therebel.media (https://rocketreach.co/therebel-media-profile_b55c5089f68e0b38)

anything you can do to have him help is appreciated.

.................................................. ...........

Rob Chipman

06-15-2021, 04:40 PM

ok, i don't know your motivations. Fair enough. But i can judge what you write and form a conclusion.

Or you could just ask. That's probably faster.

maybe it's because they fear you doing exactly or similarly to what i've stated.

Anything is possible, but I kind of doubt that politicians are worried the the BCWF will suddenly become some sort of effective political opponent. I mean, if you were the NDP who would you be more afraid of? A non-profit that *might* become a hostile political action group or....the existing hostile political action group know as the BC Liberal Party? Going out on a limb here, I know, but, seriously....

i named three. Why'd you focus on rebel? Not only that. Those were just suggests. Do I really have to go through all three to get you to agree that in this day and age if you line up with any of them there will be someone who calls you a white supremicist or a fascist or whatever? We both know that a) we live in extremely partisan times and b) the mainstream media, to which most of the voting public tunes in, will put up a balanced slate like, say, BCWF on one side, and, oh, I don't know, how abut a lawyer who loves animals and says "At the end of the day the numbers don't matter"?

You think that the outlets you named would be beneficial for BCWF. I disagree. That's still allowed, and should be respected and accepted. Each of us is only one voice. Get involved, submit the resolutions, convince the membership that your way is the way to go, and put it to a vote. It ain't rocket science.

prove it. Really? Who are you now? My wife? Start using your real name and prove that you're a BCWF member and I'll take the time to enlighten you. Otherwise, when you say "Shit!" don't expect me to ask "what colour?".

maybe you all need to change your status so it's "not against the law" to "communicate with the public". How'd that happen? Talk about a muzzle. Good idea. Gotta ask: have you ever seen the ReasonTV video on how to get gun control in something like 3 easy steps? Nobody said it's against the law to "communicate" with the public. It's against various laws (including tax laws) for BCWF to engage in partisan politics, which is what you're advocating. However, if you think that's a worthwhile thing for BCWF to do (because I don't and I'm not going to spend time and energy on it)....get involved, submit the resolutions, convince the membership that your way is the way to go, and put it to a vote. It ain't rocket science. Maybe the membership will support you.

but you still maintain your effectual? Yeah. Absolutely. One example is the influence we exerted at the start of the pandemic to get hunting and fishing declared essential. Not huge, and it certainly didn't stop the slow erosion of western civilization that you're worried about, but it was something concrete.

Like the caveat you alluded to earlier about not being able to speak directly to the public. By "alluded' is it safe to assume you mean "something I didn't actually say and don't believe, but which you wish I had said and believed so your argument would hold water"? WE speak directly to the public. News flash: this is a public forum. You're the public. I'm speaking to you as a known director of BCWF on a sub-forum labelled "British Columbia Wildlife Federation".

Let's get something clear: no matter how much you wish other people would repeat your words, their indifference to doing so is not the same as bing muzzled. I understand you. I just don't agree with you. I don't think your ideas make strategic sense.

You've lost me here. That must be a familiar feeling for you. Let me walk you through it. 1) BCWF is a conservation organization. That's no secret. 2) We are influential because we have a lot of members who are conservationists. 3) The vast majority of those members hunt and fish( I do both) 4) To continue to hunt and fish those hunter/angler/conservationists need access to the resource and they need fishing rods and guns 5) that means our prime goal is conservation, but to achieve that we need lots of members and those members have to be able to, among other things, have as easy access to and use of firearms as possible because 6) if all of us BCWF members lose the ability to hunt and fish, guess what? We aren't going to remain a conservation organization made up predominantly of hunters and anglers who need access to the resource and a way to kill stuff. Can you see the connection now?

I would suggest part of the conversation be about why you can't speak to the public and if that was a worth while price to pay given what ever incentives are provided. Great suggestion. The only problem is that if I raised it most members would say "Um, but, we do speak to the public". You're confusing "speaking to the public" with "Doing what 180 wants us to do".

And that you brainstorm around what other organizations are negatively effected by what the government is doing under undrip and associated land claims to see if alliances can be made to make your position stronger. Did you read the announcement? UNDRIP is one of the stated topics. We've been talking about and brainstorming it a lot. In this event we want to share some thoughts and see what the wider membership thinks about it. But thanks for the suggestion. Great minds think alike.

your right again. I don't have a clue what you guys do. That was obvious several pages back. We're not a PAC. We're not a government. We're not a nation. We're a member driven conservation organization. You can join and try to drive the organization in a directiontaht you think it should go.
Now, seeing as your plans are clearly important to you, and given that you've obviously given them a lot of thought, are you going to follow any of your own advice and do the things you recommend? Like I say, BCWF is accepting memberships and volunteers, or you can start your own organization (should catch on like fire if your ideas are popular), or (and this is clearly quite effective these days and very influential) start a podcast or YouTube channel. As you know, there are smart guys doing that everyday and they are kicking the shit out of mainstream media.

This has been fun, but do you have any new material?

180grainer

06-15-2021, 05:10 PM

RugDoctor

06-15-2021, 05:33 PM

adriaticum

06-15-2021, 09:58 PM

180grainer

06-15-2021, 10:12 PM

Whiteys are starting to rumble
Excellent article by Vaughn Palmer

Vaughn Palmer: B.C.'s UNDRIP plan requires much broader consultation

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-b-c-s-undrip-plan-requires-much-broader-consultation
Wow, .....I am amazed that's in the Vancouver Sun. Hats off when required. And right out of the gate they call it what I've posted on the BCWF thread. The New Democrats have released the draft of an ambitious plan, setting out 79 goals they hope to fulfil over the next five years to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We don't have representative government any more. The agreements are predetermined. They're a sham. We are now Governed by the unelected Cabal at the UN. It couldn't be clearer.

wildcatter

06-15-2021, 10:45 PM

Wow, .....I am amazed that's in the Vancouver Sun. Hats off when required. And right out of the gate they call it what I've posted on the BCWF thread. The New Democrats have released the draft of an ambitious plan, setting out 79 goals they hope to fulfil over the next five years to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We don't have representative government any more. The agreements are predetermined. They're a shame. We are now Governed by the unelected Cabal at the UN. It couldn't be clearer.

We DO HAVE a repersentative government, they are just not representing us!:twisted:

REMINGTON JIM

06-16-2021, 07:08 AM

Rob Chipman

06-16-2021, 11:24 AM

My apologies. I'm not being very clear I guess. I think navigating your Treaties on the Angst of Conservatism in the Modern Era of Conservationism did it too me. You have tried to put words in my mouth and to suggest my motives are political. I'm not sure how yours aren't after blozating a bit about who you were having lunch with the other day. Because I suggested a couple of Conservative media outlets and that the BCWF seek to align themselves with more Conservative entities I'm now a Conservative zealot? Couldn't be that the vast majority of hunters and anglers are Conservative and that interest in joining with the BCWF might come from organizations which employ or are owned by such people? I didn't realize being associated with Conservatives was such a millstone around your neck. You kind of sound like a Socialist. Who's political? And another thing. You didn't answer the questions I put to you. You're more interested in making me look like I don't know what I'm talking about. You certainly have the energy to blather on so it's not out of disinterest or the need for a nap that my questions go unanswered. Anyways, I'm sure you'll get some money out of me in the future as every time I join a gun club, there you are.

Fair enough. What I'm getting from you is that BCWF shouldn't talk to government, shouldn't engage in collaboration with FNs, but should come out strongly and publicly against either a) reconciliation b) the leftward shift of our political environment or c) both.

It seems you want us to use conservative media outlets to do this.

That's what I'm getting from you. If that's wrong and you can explain what your goal is rather than how to get there maybe we'll understand each other better. So far it has kinda seemed like your complaint against BCWF falls into the "I can't drive to the store in my refrigerator" category- BCWF does not even look remotely to me like the vehicle you need for what you seem to want.

I didn't say you're a conservative zealot. I wouldn't care if you were.
I think your motives are political (which isn't bad) because what I understand you to want requires politics.
BCWF does political things too.

I don't think "being political" is a valid criticism of anyone when we're talking about how policy that will control people's behaviour is concerned. The whole conversation *is* political.

The problem isn't being political (which you have to do to get any kind of influence or power) but being political without getting tagged as partisan. Blow off regular media and use conservative media to criticize what the current government is doing on rights and title? That's pretty clearly partisan. Avoiding partisan status is why I brought up surrogates.

I don't want to put words in your mouth. We've both been doing that and I think its based on misunderstanding rather than any sort of malice.

Simple solution - just do what I do and quote where you think I put words in your mouth. If I was inaccurate or read you wrong I'll admit that. Unequivocal on that. There's no point in you and me sparring if we're not getting to some sort of truth in terms of how people are seeing what's coming.

You didn't answer the questions I put to you.

I thought I did. Send the ones you think I missed back andI'll try to be more clear. Right now I think our misalignment is simple: I think you have a lot of valid concerns but I don't think BCWF is the tool to address them, and it seems to me that you keep saying that BCWF is the tool to address those concerns and sol should completely re-tool and change strategy. I say "misalignment" rather than "disagreement" because I think we agree on a ton, and only disagree on the strategy.

Rob Chipman

06-16-2021, 11:46 AM

Imdone

06-16-2021, 11:48 AM

Rob Chipman

06-16-2021, 01:06 PM

Thanks Rob for your efforts and attempts at the table.
But I do feel for you in your position, and trying to reason and explain the why's, wheres and when with a number on this site is like trying to feed a soft cord through SOLID CONCRETE. Don't waste your time with them . Wow you have a lot of patience and class that many don't have, noted in several posts above.

Again thanks for your input.

Thanks for the kind words.

It's not a waste of time talking with anyone here. We want feedback. We're getting feedback. Good topics are being brought up.

I think I said this before: the danger isn't that someone tells us something that some people would think is offside or not relevant; the danger is that nobody expresses their concerns honestly.

Wildcatter, 180, WillyQC are all playing extremely valuable roles in this process.

Rob Chipman

06-16-2021, 01:08 PM

Back to the basics…..”work with FN” = “give up a little more to FN”….Every…..Single……Time. That’s the way it’s always been, is now, and will be until the political motivation based in the ability to steal tax dollars is removed.

BCWF isn't in the position to "give up a little more" or "refuse to give up a little more". I'm not saying your equation is wrong. I'm just pointing out that BCWF doesn't have any veto or negotiating power on what you're talking about. The best we can do is to try to influence events.

BigSlapper

06-16-2021, 10:39 PM

Hell of a good job Rob ... hell of a good job!

willyqbc

06-17-2021, 08:25 AM

Rob, even though we may not align on everything, it is clear that we have much more in common than we are at odds. I truly do respect what you are doing, and the fact that you are willing to have a truly OPEN dialogue. Its not often these days that I can express views like I did earlier without some red faced leftist pointing at me and screaming "racist!!!!", "colonizer!!!!". The idea that I should be a self flagellating apologist for the simple sin of being born a white male is not acceptable to me, nor is the idea that even though time has marched on we should make decisions at a governmental level based on laws/treaties etc originally created in the distant past. Times have changed, what is right and fair for ALL Canadians TODAY should take precedence over laws and treaties originally created when muskets, bow and arrow, and travel by horse and wagon were the norm.
If i truly felt the FN were wanting to "negotiate" for what would be for the best for ALL Canadians, FN included, I would be all for it......but thats not what I see. What I see is a very tiny percentage of our population that wants WAY more than any other citizen would ever be entitled to. In the past these bands, who truly had to live off the land, did NEED vast tracts of land to sustain their people. We all know this is no longer the case. anyone who thinks a FN who is awarded a vast tract of land, is going to suddenly shun the gas station, grocery store, walmart etc......is delusional. So.... the original INTENT of these treaties was to allow the FN enough RESOURCES to survive comfortably, along side the european settlers also having enough resources to survive comfortably. Why then, simply because generations have passed, should that INTENT be discarded in favour of "I want ALL the land we USED to need to survive comfortably".
The end game of the FN as I see it is to concentrate the resource wealth of this country down into their hands.....does 3% of the population holding 50% of the resources seem like its carrying out the original INTENT of the treaties? Doesn't seem like it to me....what would have happened 150 years ago if the FN would have said to the europeans...."sure, we'll sign a treaty...we get 50 buffalo and 100 salmon for every 1 buffalo and 10 salmon you can have from OUR land". Well i'll tell ya, like every other point in history, the stronger party would have wiped out the weaker and we'd not be in this position today.
The "I was here first" argument, DOES NOT HOLD WATER.....human history is just an unbroken lineage of one culture moving in and taking over another....all over the planet, and as far back as one cares to look.
I would fully support any solution that would support the ORIGINAL INTENT of these treaties....but what the FN of today wants....far surpasses that.

Respectfully
Chris

wildcatter

06-17-2021, 09:37 AM

Rob, even though we may not align on everything, it is clear that we have much more in common than we are at odds. I truly do respect what you are doing, and the fact that you are willing to have a truly OPEN dialogue. Its not often these days that I can express views like I did earlier without some red faced leftist pointing at me and screaming "racist!!!!", "colonizer!!!!". The idea that I should be a self flagellating apologist for the simple sin of being born a white male is not acceptable to me, nor is the idea that even though time has marched on we should make decisions at a governmental level based on laws/treaties etc originally created in the distant past. Times have changed, what is right and fair for ALL Canadians TODAY should take precedence over laws and treaties originally created when muskets, bow and arrow, and travel by horse and wagon were the norm.
If i truly felt the FN were wanting to "negotiate" for what would be for the best for ALL Canadians, FN included, I would be all for it......but thats not what I see. What I see is a very tiny percentage of our population that wants WAY more than any other citizen would ever be entitled to. In the past these bands, who truly had to live off the land, did NEED vast tracts of land to sustain their people. We all know this is no longer the case. anyone who thinks a FN who is awarded a vast tract of land, is going to suddenly shun the gas station, grocery store, walmart etc......is delusional. So.... the original INTENT of these treaties was to allow the FN enough RESOURCES to survive comfortably, along side the european settlers also having enough resources to survive comfortably. Why then, simply because generations have passed, should that INTENT be discarded in favour of "I want ALL the land we USED to need to survive comfortably".
The end game of the FN as I see it is to concentrate the resource wealth of this country down into their hands.....does 3% of the population holding 50% of the resources seem like its carrying out the original INTENT of the treaties? Doesn't seem like it to me....what would have happened 150 years ago if the FN would have said to the europeans...."sure, we'll sign a treaty...we get 50 buffalo and 100 salmon for every 1 buffalo and 10 salmon you can have from OUR land". Well i'll tell ya, like every other point in history, the stronger party would have wiped out the weaker and we'd not be in this position today.
The "I was here first" argument, DOES NOT HOLD WATER.....human history is just an unbroken lineage of one culture moving in and taking over another....all over the planet, and as far back as on cares to look.
I would fully support any solution that would support the ORIGINAL INTENT of these treaties....but what the FN of today wants....far surpasses that.

Respectfully
Chris

"Times have changed, what is right and fair for ALL Canadians TODAY should take precedence over laws
and treaties originally created when muskets, bow and arrow, and travel by horse and wagon were the norm."

Very well said Chris!
A lot of us, I should say most of us, feel the same way.

BULLNUTTS

06-17-2021, 10:07 AM

Some pretty deep stuff in this thread,almost need a lawyer to make a comment.
I have been fortunate enough to have grown up in times free enough to hunt n fish where ever you could get to with nobody saying you couldn't. It was freedom felt won by our forefathers whom won us our freedoms and rights for ALL on battlefields of the world. As youngster I served in old vet hospitals and care facilities serving drinks,snacks and books to veterans there.Grand tales of heroics and beloved comrades fallen, sacrificing their all for love of country. Now I'm just an old trout wanting to take a friend or maybe the young out for a fish and maybe put some meat on the table if lucky lol. To be honest, when hearing of lines in the sands, mine and yours,centuries old deals, pains and hurts,and talk of treasons and war......I try to be grateful and kind and be worthy of what is already in our hands. Grateful for a chance to be part of a country made of and by diversity of peoples regardless of creed,colour or beliefs -- Like it or not,accept it or not,We are Canadians. There's a pride in that 💘 worth defending.
The fish are biting and I'm late lol tight lines n good huntin folks

180grainer

06-17-2021, 10:19 AM

Biggest thing for people to get their heads around, is that these negotiations are not being held between our respective Governments and the FN. They're being controlled and directed by the UN. Trudeau was right when he said Canada was going to be the first "Post Nation State". Our Governments act as an intermediary between the FN and the UN in the implementation of the various agendas laid out by the UN. It's that simple. We have unelected, bureaucratic, Communist Criminals at the UN controlling the dismantling of Canada. Who's controlled our response to COVID? The WHO. Who's the WHO. A subsidiary of the UN. What's Canada's action plan on Climate Change other than a regurgitation of what the UN wants. What did Whorgan just announce? An ambitious plan to enact 79 goals out lined and articulated in UNDRIP, a utopic UN view benefitting the FN.

eric

06-17-2021, 11:24 AM

The times are changing, we can't get away from that fact.
What I would like to see, is a solution that comes from within BC, not some outside entity that really couldn't give a rats ass about what goes on in BC/Canada.

my .02 cents worth

Shermanator

06-18-2021, 01:37 PM

So today they tore down the statue of Sir John A McDonald, another piece of Canadian history. In the crowd were of course FN who instigated the entire event as Sir John was a perpetrator of residential schools and just the basic downfall of all FN people across Canada. Another piece of OUR history, gone. Be it good or bad, it is history and its remembering history that keeps us honest folks on the straight and narrow. History tells us of all the people that died during our World Wars to give us the freedom we have to day, but as we can see that is also being taken from us. At what point do we start getting back what we all worked so hard for?? At what point can we stop giving and getting nothing in return other than protests, road blockades and basic civil unrest. The word "reconciliation" has become a joke, a gag gone bad, a catchall word for our stupid governments both present and past to use to try and appease those that really don't give a ferrets ass about what happens to OUR country. And it is our country, not FN's, it's all of ours. When Whorgon comes on the news and thanks the FN's for allowing him to be on THEIR land to give his speech, he only adds fuel to their fire against the rest of Canadians. I personally don't care who was here first, where we are now is where we are, move on, move forward and do the best you can do. I'd like to see where FN's would be today if us whitey's and immigrants of color hadn't worked the land, built business's and formed this country. I'm not saying forget what happened 150 years ago but for shits sakes, look ahead and work for a better future. Its the same with the dirtbags in nearly every downtown these days, all want handouts and no responsibilities, sounds kinda familiar doesn't it! Those of us that were afforded a normal upbringing were told "if you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all", boy, were they wrong! Do I have a solution to the FN's problem? Of course not, my solutions would make me racist and have Indianafobia or something. Hey, many of us grew up around and with natives, but also with Japanese and Chinese kids. We never had a issue with them personally back then but I can tell you that all this BS they are putting us through is going to make more problems than it is going to solve. How would they like it if we started cutting down their Totem poles??? They seem to enjoy tearing down or defacing our history so how about that? That's where its going to end up if our governments don't do something concrete to solve this, and tossing multi millions of dollars at them year after year ain't gonna work. Like the street person, their hands will always be out for more, and more to them is more money and more land, absolute crap. Kind of a nothing rant but after seeing another statue torn down it got my dander up, again, and at my age dander is even becoming scarce!! Here's a quote from a FN's I can respect, Chief Louie of the Osoyoos band who gave a amazing speech to FN's people, hit the nail right on the head:
"Mr. Louie first rose to national attention a decade ago when he was featured in a Globe and Mail column in which he brusquely told an Alberta conference on aboriginal economic development: "My first rule for success is, 'Show up on time.' My No. 2 rule for success is, 'Follow Rule No. 1.'"

His blunt message reverberated throughout First Nations and beyond. "Our ancestors worked for a living," he told the conference, "so should you."

Greenthumbed

06-19-2021, 06:10 AM

Thanks to all that have posted on this thread to date. It has been very informative for me.
Rob, I appreciate your ability to break down your thoughts and points so that others like myself can understand where you are coming from. Your patience and dedication for engaging with others is a quality that not many have.
To all the others that have posted, I agree with a lot that is being said. As a white man, I’m fearing for myself and my children when I look at what reconciliation could mean for us and our rights to hunting, fishing and roaming.
Having said that, I think that this town hall meeting BCWF is hosting on June 21 is an important step in sorting out where we stand as a group. It is impossible know how to move forward if we don’t know where we are right now.
I’ll be at the meeting. I hope to see you all there.

Bugle M In

06-19-2021, 12:06 PM

Too many posts on here for me and i am too busy at this time to read them all.
I will just say this.

With the recent buried children, i feel that any of those people still alive and dealing with the trauma need help...big time!
That FN on the streets of Kammy when asked to describe the situation when he was there was truly heart breaking.
He, and many like them need lots of help.
And not only those that attended and our emotionally/mentally damaged, but those that our in direct contact with them will also
need support, because it isn't easy to deal with folks that have been damaged.
Its hard all around for those families.
So, i am good with money being applied to give help.

I am not in support of filling pockets/wallets with money.
My wife deals with veterans.
Ans many get a cheque for whatever claims they have, and some use it to continue the cycle of drug use or whatever hole they
have fallen into.
The money is there to "get help", not get rich!

And, my concern is some want to use issues like this from the past to get more for the future.
Like one band leader vbringing up that they cant sell their fish commercially.
That is not reconciliation!
That is using the term to get more than one deserves by playing the sympathy card!
Planet is too small for some groups to get "special status".
This was a big mistake.

What should of happen was to give money to get them to operate in the same system.
To employ them in the same system.
Companies should have been forced to hire them back years ago, in such sectors as forestry and way more money for them to
deal with addiction and trauma.
Giving someone a new house who doesn't have a job was ludacris.
Who in the hell can maintain a house when they have no income to keep it up??
And how can you hold on to a job when you have addiction or emotional/mental issues due to mistreatment?

Traditioanl rights is fine, but by traditional means.
Use a gill net, and you need to follow the same conservation rules!

And lastly, how many times do i have to say sorry???
I get in a fight with a friend, and if i make up and apologize, we carry on.
I am not expected to say sorry for the rest of my life
every time i see that friend in the future.

There has to be an agreement to when is reconciliation done.
When is sorry over!

Greenthumbed

06-21-2021, 08:43 PM

Good chat on this evening’s town hall meeting. Some good question were asked. Good answers too. Lots more conversation needs to be had to help BCWF navigate through this issue, though. Thanks to Rob , Solomon, Chuck and Kimberly.

BydeIt

06-21-2021, 11:41 PM

Rob Chipman

06-22-2021, 12:43 PM

While I appreciate the effort made by the panelists tonight, I came away from the call more disillusioned than ever. Pre-drafted answers to questions that focused on prose more than substance were offered by the panel. Hard questions were passed over in favour of softballs (ex: do FN have rights?) that were already addressed in the Zoom chat anyway.

The lack of disclosure on what is driving policy at the BCWF was also concerning. I learned more about that reading this thread than I did on the call. That’s a communications issue.

Finally, I found it very concerning to learn that the BCWF board awarded a high budget to the Indigenous Reconciliation team without transparency into what the money would be put towards. This was promoted as evidence that the board takes the indigenous file seriously. What it is, in fact, is a sign of poor governance that doesn’t think of itself as accountable to its membership.

BC resident hunters are being led down a road to hell by well-intentioned people.

Thanks for the feedback. You may be misreading the tea leaves. Just going out on a limb.

We announced the townhall June 10. We said the topics would be mutual interests on conservation and predator control, shared concerns on habitat, interpretation and roll out of UNDRIP, and success and challenges of the BCWF's Indigenous Relations portfolio.

We asked for questions to be submitted by June 12 and we started getting them the morning of June 11. The first questions we got we *not* on any of the items we proposed as topics, but rather 1) as a supporter of reconciliation what assurances do I get from FNs, and 2) why are you doing this on NIPD?

We did indeed read those two questions in the 11th and we figured out good answers to them. Guilty as charged. We prepared. Two direct questions for you on that Bydeit:

1 - were you ok with the answers to those two questions?
2- would you have preferred that we didn't use the time between the 11th and last night to prepare answers?

We continued to receive questions after the June 12 cut off date. Some were sent to me and I'm sure some were sent to others. Some of those questions did come up last night. We also received questions live. The easy question you reference (are Indigenous rights and preserving the environment up for debate?) came from the chat and so got answered. Want tougher questions? You can either submit them or tell other people to not ask easy questions, but BCWF said "Send in all questions and we will get to them".

Direct question #3 for you on this: which hard questions did we not address? Feel free to ask them here.

Hard questions were passed over in favour of softballs (ex: do FN have rights?) that were already addressed in the Zoom chat anyway.]

My understanding of the chat was that it was not visible to all participants. If you submitted a tough question that didn't make it to the panel but was answered in the chat or Q&A function, I think that either I answered it or perhaps one of the staff did. Either way, all questions submitted were recorded and we're going to answer them and circulate the answers to the membership, as we stated.

If you're a BCWF member you'll see that. If you're not a BCWF member you can, as I said, ask the tough questions right here.

The lack of disclosure on what is driving policy at the BCWF was also concerning.

Back up the truck. We currently have a Board approved but very outdated Indigenous Relations policy. We *do not* have an up to date version of it. There is no current policy that is being driven by anything. I think I made that clear last night when I talked about the Terms of Reference. The ToRs have been approved. Updated policy is still underway. You simply cannot conclude that we are not being transparent with what it driving policy when there is still no officially updated policy.

I think you're also missing the point of the townhall: it was to get input from BCWF members on this subject *so that we can determine what the membership wants us to do (ie, the membership's desires and concerns will drive the policy)*

That approach is the complete opposite of lack of transparency. We're transparently asking for input. You can do it through any BCWF rep (BoD member, directors, Regional presidents) or you can bring it up right here.

"I found it very concerning to learn that the BCWF board awarded a high budget to the Indigenous Reconciliation team without transparency into what the money would be put towards".

You're probably jumping to a conclusion that you wouldn't jump to if you had more info. The budget line item for the IR committee was approved in 2019, pre-Covid and pre-DRIPA, at a time when the Board knew we had to address Indigenous Relations, but nobody really knew what we'd be getting into. That budget line item (like all the committee budgets) was questioned and had to be justified. It was approved by 4 members of the executive, probably 8 directors (assuming we had the full slate, which I think we did) and 8 Regional presidents.

That's 20 people from all over the province and the organization, with a wide variety of skills and experience, tackling the problem of a speculative budget line item. They all agreed we needed to attack this issue. None of us could predict the future perfectly.

We knew UNDRIP legislation was coming, and we knew we'd very likely be running into blockades. Blockades and UNDRIP equals lawyers

We knew we'd have to have a travel budget.

Aside from that we didn't know where we'd spend money.

To call that bad governance, I think, requires a bit more proof. Do you know, for example, how much was budgeted, whether it was too much or too little or how it was spent and on what? You probably need to know those kinds of things before the driveby smear of "bad governance proved!"

As for being accountable to the membership, um....again the whole point of this conversation was to engage the membership and get their feedback. If you are a BCWF member and want to know how much has been spent on IR and what it's been spent on, contact me directly. The idea that we aren't accountable is laughable and not supported by any evidence. As always, if you think BCWF needs to do better on accountability we are always looking to deepen our bench. You can join and volunteer for the IR Committee this afternoon, bang on the accountability drum to your heart's content and make us even more accountable than we currently are :-)

BC resident hunters are being led down a road to hell by well-intentioned people.

BCWF is currently asking for direction on IR issues from it's membership. Describing that as BCWF "leading BC resident hunters do a road to hell" demonstrates, I think, that you're not tracking the conversation. We made it clear last night (and we've made it clear repeatedly in many instances) that BCWF is pursuing it's stated goals as written down in our constitution, bylaws and web page, but wants specific input from members about what they're concernedd about and how they want us to execute on IR policy. Let's be clear: if the membership speaks loud and claear that they want BCWF to stop consulting government, to stop collaborating with First Nations on current programs, reject and oppose truth and reconciliation completely and deal with the future by heading to the courts, guess what? That's what we're going to do.

Of course, we need to hear that message (we have not heard it), or an alternate message. Eitehr way, we do what the members tell us they want us to do.

The only way in which we're leading membership on the IR file is to lead membership to a place where we can share information with them and ask for direction from them which we did last night. Another direct question (#4, in case you intend to justofy your position): is that a bad approach? Telling members what we've learned and asking them for input and direction?

To be fair, I may be misreading you, so two more direct questions: 5- what destination do you think BCWF is going? 6- What would the alternative destination be?

OK, I've broken your chops a bit, but all in good fun. I really do think you weren't paying attention to what the stated goal of the event was. Making the claim that we aren't being transparent on the 12th page of a thread that is begging people to attend and ask questions is...I think the word we're all looking for is "adorable".

That said, BCWF wants more input on how to deal with truth and reconciliation (becaues it's clearly coming and it clearly will affect what we all do). We want that from members because we work for members, but input from non-members is also very valuable and we want that too. If you're not a member I'm not going to walk through the finances with you, but I do appreciate other input.

If you have hard questions, ask them. If you have suggestions, make them. If you want to drive the train even more, volunteer.

Conclusion: right now we don't have appropriate policy so there is no policy being driven aside from our publicly stated purposes, our finances are well governed, we did prepare answers for questions that we recieved early, all questions will be addressed in time and both questions and answers will be circulated to members (as clearly stated last night), we will follow this event up with some polling of members, and we will be holding more of these townhalls (in the interest of transparency) in the future.

BydeIt

06-22-2021, 11:11 PM

Hi Rob,

1 - were you ok with the answers to those two questions?
2- would you have preferred that we didn't use the time between the 11th and last night to prepare answers?

1) Sure, the answers were fine. Not sure what NIPD is short hand for but in any event I have no issue with the responses to the question other than they seem rehearsed and would have been better presented in a pre-print format instead of a live Q&A session.

2) While I have no issue with the first 2 questions specifically, I would also think that a live Q&A roundtable would be better suited to a real-time format, so yes I think the session would have been more dynamic and constructive if responses had not been rehearsed.

Want tougher questions? You can either submit them or tell other people to not ask easy questions, but BCWF said "Send in all questions and we will get to them".

There were questions last night posted to the chat that were not answered. While I'm sure you are willing to answer them, and I wouldn't accuse you of intentionally avoiding them, answering hard questions for which there is no rehearsed answer is really what a live Q&A is about in my mind.

Direct question #3 for you on this: which hard questions did we not address? Feel free to ask them here.

The panel decided not to answer a question that poked at the possibility that the BCWF needs FN more than the other way around, and given this, why doesn't the BCWF put as much effort into aligning with other groups when interests diverge with FN. Your answer is welcome here Rob, but the panel missed an opportunity to address it in a convincing way last night.

Re: my comment on lack of transparency into what is driving policy, we likely have different interpretations of the same set of facts. I would think that a thesis which would drive policy would be in place prior to policy drafting, which in turn would be in place prior to the board committing large amounts of membership fees to an initiative focused on the FN file. This is crucial for me - the cart is being put before the horse here, and it costs money. Re: your mention of Terms of Reference, I admit this was lost on me and I didn't understand it.

I think you're also missing the point of the townhall: it was to get input from BCWF members on this subject *so that we can determine what the membership wants us to do (ie, the membership's desires and concerns will drive the policy)

I haven't tried to suggest anything on what the point was or wasn't. I think it's great the BCWF is trying to get feedback to shape policy. Unfortunately if this was the true aim of the panel last night, all I heard were answers to questions (i.e. no solicitation of feedback from the audience), and some answers waxed on rhetoric and flowery ideas too much for a 1 hour event.

we are always looking to deepen our bench.

You're right, I should participate. Hopefully will be able to carve out the time to do so meaningfully at some point. But I'd probably start with the perspective that funds would be better spent elsewhere than an IR committee. I feel we likely have divergent views on whether reconciliation should be part of the BCWF mandate.

The only way in which we're leading membership on the IR file is to lead membership to a place where we can share information with them and ask for direction from them which we did last night. Another direct question (#4, in case you intend to justofy your position): is that a bad approach? Telling members what we've learned and asking them for input and direction?

No it is a great approach Rob, but to be fair, the Q&A panel was not explicitly billed as a session in which the BCWF was looking for direction from its membership. 1) Nothing in the email made this obvious to my reading. 2) Non-BCWF members were invited (a unique way to go about getting membership feedback, for sure). 3) It was a Q&A session that was highly moderated with rehearsed (sometimes sentimental) answers, and at no time did the panel solicit the opinion of the audience.

If the BCWF is looking for feedback, that's great. Last night's event was not aimed at that goal.

5- what destination do you think BCWF is going?

The BCWF approach seems rational at a time that is very frightening for BC Hunters, but ultimately it will lead us to a spot where the representation may as well not have existed. I see an increasingly powerful FN against the backdrop of a misinformed population that will not understand the full costs of reconciliation until much later in the game. The BCWF appears to be headed in the same direction as that misinformed population (although I am sure it is much more informed at the same time).

This may sound harsh, but please understand I don't think you or anyone else is intentionally mishandling this file. Clearly I saw committed people that care on the panel.

6- What would the alternative destination be?

It's easy to armchair quarterback these situations, but I would stop spending money on the IR file. Stop spending money on injunctions because as you point out, we don't have the political capital to get a return on that investment. Start lobbying to anyone who will listen I understand nobody likes the NDP, but keep banging on their doors. Raise awareness of the general public as to what the full consequences are of aboriginal title. Highlight cases of land claims that involve fee simple ownership.

Keep working with FN on wetlands. Align with ecotourism industry to stop unnecessary developments of forests. Find a friend in whoever agrees with you, but don't commit to pandering to a group that has no incentive to stay partnered with you after they have what they want.

I really do think you weren't paying attention to what the stated goal of the event was. Making the claim that we aren't being transparent on the 12th page of a thread that is begging people to attend and ask questions is...I think the word we're all looking for is "adorable".

Here's the email I received, which ostensibly explains that "stated goal" of the event:

Dear B.C. Wildlife Federation Member,
On June 21, National Indigenous Peoples Day, B.C. Wildlife Federation (BCWF) will host a virtual town hall at 7 p.m. PDT to support an open dialogue for a proactive and collaborative discussion on topics such as:

mutual interest in conservation and predator control
shared concerns about habitat loss and degradation
interpretation and roll out of UNDRIP (https://eml-pcan01.app.blackbaud.net/intv2/j/9EB33094-615A-4B84-A230-47A919952484/r/9EB33094-615A-4B84-A230-47A919952484_30ccea45-cdec-47bc-9a22-e5a78fcfaa10/l/C03D873C-C151-411C-934C-D1B8C115CB44/c) legislation in B.C., and the
success and challenge of BCWF's Indigenous Relations portfolio.

Attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions to the panel on the topics above.
Panelists:

Chuck Zuckerman, President, BCWF
Solomon Reece, CEO Indigecorp & BCWF Indigenous Relations Advisor
Rob Chipman, Chair, BCWF Indigenous Relations Committee

To register, please click here (https://eml-pcan01.app.blackbaud.net/intv2/j/9EB33094-615A-4B84-A230-47A919952484/r/9EB33094-615A-4B84-A230-47A919952484_30ccea45-cdec-47bc-9a22-e5a78fcfaa10/l/5B68CF2E-0496-46C8-80A9-DBC098BA0B06/c). Advance registration is required and the session will be recorded.
Respectfully,
The BCWF Indigenous Relations Committee

It isn’t clear to me from this email that the goal of the event was to get feedback to inform policy, and the entire character of the event suggested that this was not an objective.

Rob, you are clearly a committed individual and the BCWF needs people like you if it hopes to represent such a diverse groups as resident hunters. I applaud your drive on this. I just think as far as getting somewhere productive, last night was a scratch.

Rob Chipman

06-23-2021, 01:00 PM

Thanks for answering, Bydeit.

I get that you were expecting a live Q&A. The event was never conceived as such. There are reasons for that which I'll touch on later.

The first two questions were the first two we received, they came from a member and they went to the top of the list and got answered. I'm glad you were happy with he answers. That's a win. To clarify, nobody is asking anyone if they are ok with the questions. The questions came from a member so they qualify to be asked. That's transparency in action. Ask a question and it will get answered.

You didn't answer question #2. You complained about "pre-drafted answers" so I asked if we should not have read the questions that came in and try to prepare good answers for them. If you're going to complain about something I do you gotta expect I'll take your complaints seriously until you indicate some sort of satisfaction, you indicate that the complaint wasn't serious, or we simply agree to disagree. In this case you seem to be saying the answers were ok. My question was: don't you think we should prepare answers for questions we receive from members?

There were questions last night posted to the chat that were not answered. Correct. We chalked up a win in that we got more questions than we could deal with in the allotted time. As was stated clearly and repeatedly, we're going to answer all questions and circulate the answers to membership.

answering hard questions for which there is no rehearsed answer is really what a live Q&A is about in my mind. You're not wrong about what a live Q&A is, but nobody said this event was a live Q&A. I have repeatedly said it was about getting feedback from members. I think, just maybe, you were making an assumption, and while it's an understandable assumption, it was incorrect. FWIW, we will likely incorporate some of the more traditional live Q&A features in future ones, but I'll address that later.

The panel decided not to answer a question that poked at the possibility that the BCWF needs FN more than the other way around, and given this, why doesn't the BCWF put as much effort into aligning with other groups when interests diverge with FN.

I didn't see that question (at least not how you've framed it) but we'll answer it. My answer would be:

-I don't see the BCWF as "needing" First Nations, but we doing need good working relations with First Nations. First Nations exist, they have rights and they exert a great deal of influence on what BCWF does. I don't think we can ignore that. It's also clear that the government is not willing to spend much time, energy or money on the goals that BCWF needs to accomplish. Given those two facts (by all means, dispute them if you disagree that they are, indeed, the two of the dominant facts on the ground driving Indigenous Relations at BCWF) we need to respond.

As for aligning with other groups when BCWF's interests diverge from those of FNs, I think you're ignoring a rather large recent development as well as simplifying things. First, BCWF was instrumental in putting together a fairly substantial coalition of conservation groups recently. You may have heard of it. BCWF is, indeed, putting a lot of effort into aligning with other groups. Now, in terms of interests diverging, can you expand? Which interests are you thinking of? I'm sure access is one of them, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. What are some other examples where you think the interests of First Nations are both monolithic and diverge from the interests of BCWF. I'm not trying to trap you. It's important to get a clear consensus among members about what BCWF's interest are (I think we can all admit that a consensus on that is not currently as strong as it could be, hence the call for feedback).

Re: my comment on lack of transparency into what is driving policy, we likely have different interpretations of the same set of facts. I would think that a thesis which would drive policy would be in place prior to policy drafting, which in turn would be in place prior to the board committing large amounts of membership fees to an initiative focused on the FN file. This is crucial for me - the cart is being put before the horse here, and it costs money. Re: your mention of Terms of Reference, I admit this was lost on me and I didn't understand it.

We do have different interpretations. There is a thesis that drives the *IR Committee* - its that BCWF needs to come to grips with the challenge that is Truth and Reconciliation (that need is obvious and we all agree on it, right? Like, we all understand that First Nations exert a huge amount of influence on everything that BCWF does and BCWF needs to respond wisely to that challenge of coming and unavoidable change, right?)

So, with the slight revision that the thesis drives the IR Committee rather than policy, a thesis does already exist.

In terms of actual official, Board approved policy, I've already told you that official Board approved policy does exist. It was put together by previous volunteers and it was quite extensive. They did some great work. However, it is now hopelessly outdated and needs to be updated substantially. This is not because BCWF volunteers failed at their task in the past. It's because the facts on the ground have changed. One example is the issue of being involved in negotiations. Existing policy states:
"Third parties must be involved in the process of negotiations. The Federal and Provincial Governments, as the principles representing all public interests, must ensure that nongovernment organizations have an active window of opportunity in negotiations."

That's a great sentiment. Sadly, both First Nations and government has explicitly rejected it. They deal on a government to government or nation to nation basis. They have labelled "third parties" as "stakeholders". BCWF can (and if membership demands it BCWF will) continue to demand something that is not going to happen and which angers some people and groups that we want to collaborate with, or BCWF could update the policy. (I've been looking for feedback on that particular clause, along with others, and I'm interested in yours. Which should we do? Stick with the old, despite the fact that it's a demand that we've been told won't be met and which angers some participants, or update it?)

In other words, you're assuming that we're drafting policy because we never had one. We're not. We're updating existing policy, and we're doing it through the existing process. Updating existing policy takes time and, yes, some money. There was, in fact, a policy in place when the Board committed funds (during a pretty transparent budgeting process) to the job.

Terms of Reference exist for every committee and they come into play before policy is created. We updated the ToRs, got them approved and are now updating policy. That's how the BCWF is governed and has been for a long time. I think you see this as a cart before the horse thing because you think we're inventing something new that didn't already exist. That is not the case. So, old ToRs and policy were in place before the Board committed to supporting the work in 2019, and again in 2020 and 2021 (2019 was a commitment for the 2020 budget year). The horse was before the cart, in point of fact.

It's also important to understand that what is budgeted is not the same as what is spent. When we first talked about budget we envisioned an awful lot of money being burnt up in legal opinions. We have, at least so far, been pretty thrifty on that score (although it has been our biggest expense). Obvious question: should we not get legal advice on a file that is dominated by legal disputes and contests? How would that even work?

I haven't tried to suggest anything on what the point was or wasn't. Au contraire mon frere. You've suggested repeatedly that it was supposed to be a live Q&A. That was pretty apparent in your first post, where you also argued we lacked transparency. Those are fairly serious, and unsubstantiated charges, which is fine providing you're amenable to pushback (and you've demonstrated that you are, so it's all good).

if this was the true aim of the panel last night, all I heard were answers to questions (i.e. no solicitation of feedback from the audience),

There's no "if" involved. I've made it clear on this thread, repeatedly, over ten days, that the goal is feedback from members. Committee members (specifically Mike Fowler from Region 5) expressed great concern that we ask for feedback and that failure to ask for feedback from members would lead us down the road to Hell. He is 100% right. We not only solicited and accepted feedback from the audience in real time, we solicited it before the event on multiple platforms.

And guess what? We got more feedback than we could handle in a little more than an hour on Zoom. I don't think it's reasonable to say "You got questions from membership, which you answered, but there was no feedback" - we're looking for feedback on the bigger issue of how BCWF addresses Indigenous Relations, not feedback on how Chuck or I field questions. Our ability to answer questions is neither here nor there when you look at the bigger, and more important picture.

Rob Chipman

06-23-2021, 01:04 PM

But I'd probably start with the perspective that funds would be better spent elsewhere than an IR committee. I feel we likely have divergent views on whether reconciliation should be part of the BCWF mandate.

That's good and valuable feedback. Let's clarify a couple things.

Reconciliation is not, as far as I know, part of BCWF's mandate. We referenced our mandate during the conversation, and that mandate is described and defined in our constitution, by-laws and website (ie, the website describes, while the constitution and bylaws define *and* describe). I'm pretty sure reconciliation isn't there. We may well have divergent views on whehterer reconciliation should be part of BCWF's mandate. I have no clue what your viewpoint on it is, so you can share that and we'll see if you're disagreeing with me or if you're disagreeing with a voice in your head.

Truth and reconciliation (news flash - it's worth considering why "truth" is part of the issue and why it's both included and dropped depending on who's talking) as a process that we're all going through is a fact. As far as I know there are very few people who can explain what T&R will look like. I think that the majority of the population doesn't even understand the basics (feel free to disagree - I'm all about open, transparent dialogue). My position is that T&R are concepts taht every individual needs to process to their own satisfaction. It is in no way the place of the BCWF do dictate how T&R unfold for individuals.

The "IR" stands for "Indigenous Relations" . You know very well how I take apart language. There's a reason why it's not called the "IRR" Committee (even if some individuals sometimes misspell it). The second "R" is not BCWF's business. That isn't because reconciliation (as well as truth) aren't important. It's because T&R is not something that can be imposed on society from above by a group off self-indentified social crusaders who think they know how the world needs to be organized.

Do you disagree with that? Are you saying reconciliation should be part of BCWF's mandate? If so, fly at 'er. Develop the resolution, bring it forward to an AGM and get the required changes done. Again, personally, I think enough people are already working on that, and I think BCWF should stick to it's declared purposes and mandates, but that's just me. I'm sure that if we do, indeed, disagree over this issue, you'll have other BCWF members who want to see reconciliation as part of our mandate (if you were watching the chat you'll know that on the access issue there are BCWF members who consider lots of Crown land to actually be Indigenous territory that *belongs to First Nations* , not the province or Canada. Maybe you're in that part pot BCWF's membership. (Thanks for raising the issue. I think a question addressing that will turn up in the polling we're going to do).

Now that we've cleared up that BCWF doesn't have reconciliation in the mandate (at least at present, but you can change that, as I outlined) and that the "R" in "IR" means "Relations" would you please lay out why BCWF *should not* spend money on Indigenous Relations, given that First Nations influence everything, not only that BCWF does, but everything that gets done in the province. Did you read the Ministers mandate letters? Every one I saw, and all the subsequent developments, are driven by the province's commitment to look at everything through the lens of reconciliation.

How does BCWF accomplish it's goals without spending money on Indigenous Relations? Do we just pretend that reality isn't, you know....reality?

If the BCWF is looking for feedback, that's great. Last night's event was not aimed at that goal.

The event was aimed at getting feedback. It was not billed as a live Q&A. I personally communicated this widely. It was the goal. We got lots of feedback, we're still getting it and we will ask for and receive more. You can certainly criticize me for getting communications out the door that were not as clear as you'd like. Guilty as charged. Not likely to change on that. I'm a huge fan of Seth Godin's dictum of "Ship it!".

Non-BCWF members were invited because a) a lot of people look at us and what we do, so if you're into being transparent it makes sense to simply say "You're invited. We're taking feedback from members, but we have nothing to hide, so feel free to attend (I said exactly taht earlier on this thread) 2) we have allied and aligned groups like WSS, BHA and others, so we invite them as well 3) it did not appear possible to us to restrict attendance to only BCWF members, especially once we took the decision to publicly promote the event on social media platforms and last, and probably most important, there are a lot of hunters and anglers who are not BCWF members but who are not shy about sharing feelings and questions that we're pretty confident BCWF members share. We need that information (some might call that information "Feedback").

I see an increasingly powerful FN against the backdrop of a misinformed population that will not understand the full costs of reconciliation until much later in the game.

I see an increasingly powerful FN against the backdrop of a misinformed population that will not understand the full costs of reconciliation until much later in the game.

It's clear that we agree that First Nations are extremely powerful and getting more powerful all the time. I have tried to make it clear that this fact is what requires BCWF to respond, and we do that through the IR Committee.

It's clear that we also agree that many people do not understand what the full costs of T&R will be. I've referenced that repeatedly, most commonly when citing the comments of Jack Woodward. Perhaps you missed that, perhaps I didn't say it clearly enough, but when Jack Woodward said earlier this year that BC residents won't recognize the province in the near future I nodded my head in agreement and told people on this forum that Jack Woodward, love him or hate him, is a guy to pay attention to. That guy is in the First Nations law Hall of Fame. He knows what he's talking about.

It's also clear that we agree that there is a ton of disinformation and ignorance of the facts on the ground. No question. That fact is constantly reinforced as events hit the news cycle.

The BCWF appears to be headed in the same direction as that misinformed population (although I am sure it is much more informed at the same time).

Please expand. I constantly run into assumptions about this issue, and most of them strike me as completely wrong-headed. Where BCWF is heading is the future, not a particular direction. We do not have a destination set, but rather have a goal: accomplishing our enduring purposes as sset out and desired in the constitution, bylaws, website and publications.

That said, a lot of what BCWF is dealing with at this stage is fear among members about what the future holds. We need to deal with those (very reasonable) fears before we can figure out how to effectively achieve BCWF"s stated goals. That's why I'm asking you to expand on your thoughts. IT is a big part of the nuts and bolts of this challenge.

You also raise the idea that there is a "misinformed population" that has some sort of direction and destination that they're going to, which implies that there is, perhaps, an informed population that exists in opposition to the uninformed population.

I think that's naive.

There are a lot of misinformed people across the board, and they disagree with each other largely on the basis of misinformation. Again, more talk is going to reduce the amount of misinformation that BCWF members are depending on and replace it with accurate information about why T&R is happening, what it means for BCWF and how BCWF will respond.

Rob Chipman

06-23-2021, 01:07 PM

I would stop spending money on the IR file. Stop spending money on injunctions because as you point out, we don't have the political capital to get a return on that investment. Start lobbying to anyone who will listen I understand nobody likes the NDP, but keep banging on their doors. Raise awareness of the general public as to what the full consequences are of aboriginal title. Highlight cases of land claims that involve fee simple ownership.

Again, you're making some unwarranted assumptions. A lot of people like the NDP. That is a fact and we can't ignore it. The proof is that John Horgan runs the province while the Liberals are trying to figure out who their leader is (and that the leader of the Greens is called "Sonia Last To Know" demonstrates that. I understand that many people don't like *accepting* that fact, but it's a fact nonetheless. I'll go further and speculate that the NDP have an outside chance of winning the next election as well unless the Libs do a good job of distancing themselves from Christie Clarke/Rich Coleman sort of baggage. Like T&R, the NDP, their worldview and their supporters are facts on the ground.

We do knock on NDP doors. We do it all the time. When I meet with them I tell them "You guys are all about reconciliation, as we know, but you're not going to get lasting reconciliation unless you have on the ground support. You can certainly *guide* the process from above, but you cannot *impose* it and expect it to last. A lot of people, especially among BCWF's membership, feel that their values and concerns are not being taken into account. This creates fears, resistance, aggression and black and white thinking. BCWF members believe that the government should be representing their interests when the government engages in government to government/nation to nation negotiations. The membership believes that First Nations consult with and represent Indigenous people, and so feel that the provincial and federal governments should do the same with non-Indigenous people. The government can't do that if the government doesn't consult early and often with BCWF. Help BCWF help the government achieve lasting reconciliation by taking the concerns and values of the BCWF membership seriously and by repersnteing the BCWF"s membership in the G2G/N2N negotiations that the government is engaged in".

If you have another angle to work that's better, please share it. I'm looking for more tools.

Raising awareness with the general public has been suggested before. There are some obvious challenges. First, what, exactly, is the message? What do we want to have BCWF's brand attached to and what do we not want it attached to? 180, for example, seems to feel that we should not engage with anyone who gives the current process any legitimacy and should start looking to align with partisans on the right who are engaged in a bigger fight (as in, bigger than BCWF's stated goals). Easy to recommend, very difficult to do. Second, where do we do this? We have social media channels that we 100% control we have a print media that we have partial control over, and we have allies in legacy and new media who sometimes say things we want said, but we do not control what media companies publish. Last, if you want to educate the general public about T&R and what it will mean, but you don't want to fund the IR Committee, how and who would do that work?

As for fee simple and Indigenous title, thanks for catching up. I raised that issue and pointed out that the conflict over fee simple in Tsihlqot'in Nation Declared Title Lands was publicly highlighted on BC provincial government websites long ago, and we've discussed it in various threads on this forum. It is not well known or understood, but it by no stretch of the imagination "news". That said, it is not one of the stated purposes of the BCWF to educate the public about the effect of T&R on fee simple title nor to take a public position on it. A group like ours cannot simply start doing things that are not part of it's stated purposes. If we do that to make you happy we'll have someone else complain that we're doing something that isn't part of our formal and legal mandate, and....they would be correct and we'd be in the wrong.

I think what you're looking for is a political action group of some sort. BCWF is not that animal.

Keep working with FN on wetlands. Align with ecotourism industry to stop unnecessary developments of forests. Find a friend in whoever agrees with you

We're doing all those things. The Commercial Bear Viewing Association is part of the new coalition, for example, with the thinking being "WE may disagree over whether we should shoot bears with a gun or a camera, but we agree that if we don't have bears neither of us is doing what we want to do".

....don't commit to pandering to a group that has no incentive to stay partnered with you after they have what they want.

Wait, what? Are you trying to say that asking membership how we should address the challenge of T&R or engaging with First Nations is "pandering"? I've stated clearly before that when, in the course of human events, one party wants to make a deal with another party, but that there is a degree of mistrust about whether the other party will deliver, we generally enter into a contract with penalties for non-performance. BCWF does not have that time honoured solution, so we need to figure out something else. I still don't know what that is (and neither do you), but I recognize that the lack of trust is an issue.

You'll remember the question that came from a member who said (and I paraphrase) "As a supporter of reconciliation how do I know I won't regret this?" First observation is that we have at least one member who supports reconciliation (I'm still not clear if you're with him or against him :-) ). Second observation is that there is a fear that we'll collaborate but end up unhappy with the results.

You'll remember the answer I gave: you're asking the wrong guy, because I can't provide assurances on behalf of First Nations, but its a reasonable and honest question and I will be raising it with First Nations that we engage with.

You also seem to think that we're entering into some sort of exchange partnerships with First Nations, where, for example, we do some work with them or for them in order to get a benefit from them in the future. That would be like the contractual relationships I was referring to.

We aren't actually doing that. There is no "We'll do this with or for you if you promise to do something in the future". I've spent a career and made a satisfactory amount of money for myself and a ton of money for other people by doing exactly that: entering into mutually beneficial contracts. I would love it if BCWF could pull that off with First Nations. You'd be stoked at the results I brought back.

Guess what? We aren't there yet, and I'm not even confident that we'll ever get there in any significant manner. I wish it were different. It ain't.

Here's the email I received, which ostensibly explains that "stated goal" of the event:....It isn’t clear to me from this email that the goal of the event was to get feedback to inform policy,

I can accept thaht you got a different message from taht email than the one I'm saying was sent. It's very valuable to hear that, and we'll discuss it going forward. I'll re-state that I was very clear, multiple times on this particular thread that feedback and input is exactly what we were looking for.

We got that input and feedback, we're continuing to get it and we will keep looking for it.

Rob Chipman

06-23-2021, 01:07 PM

and the entire character of the event suggested that this was not an objective.

This is where we agree to disagree and evaluate whether it's worth fighting over. You assumed it would be a live Q&A. The organizers were not operating under that assumption. We stated up front that the event would be moderated, that we'd field questions and that questions we didn't get to would be dealt with and the answers circulated to members.

That was stated publicly and repeatedly.

Now, you assumed it would be a live Q&A (and we did, to be fair, incorporate some of that, because I never saw some of the questions I answered until they turned up during the event).

We planned it as a feedback session. You and I can disagree on that, but consider what did not happen:

Nobody from BCWF said "Listen up kids. This is how it's going to be, whether you like it or not. Your input is not necessary."

That third option didn't happen because it was a feedback event.

I just think as far as getting somewhere productive, last night was a scratch.

Again, agree to disagree. I'm very happy with the feedback we got. That dynamic became apparent with the first 2 question see received - they were very obvious questions that had not previously occurred to me (note they aren't in the email and that's because...they didn't occur to me or others).

They are great questions and issues and they came from a member. That might not matter so much in a live Q&A, but for a feedback event getting questions like that is a home run.

We got a ton of those. I think we made a ton of progress, and I think you're rushing to judgement from a very restricted point of view.

...represent such a diverse groups as resident hunters

I'm going to pick some fly shit out of the pepper. BCWF is a conservation organization, not a hunters rights organization. Our membership is primarily hunters and anglers, but they are conservationists who hunt and fish.

We represent them as *members*, not as *hunters*.

There is no requirement that a member hunt, not is there a requirement that they be a BC resident.

Some members do not hunt. It won't be lost on you that some BCWF members are black rifle shooters who never go into the woods.

BCWF's primary stated goals are conservation, wise use and access, but because we hunt and fish and shoot and use quads and need access to the land base and the resource we also advocate for those things, but anyone paying attention over the last (what, five-ten years?) understands taht there is a need for a BC Resident Hunters Advocacy Group. BCWF can do a bit of that, but we aren not geared up to do the complete job effectively.

They say nature abhors a vacuum but apparently BC Resident Hunters are fine with one in this particular instance, because nobody has tried to fill it and I've heard calls for it since back when Christy Clarke was still premier.

I told you off the top that we never planned this as a live Q&A, but rather as a moderated Q&A looking for input and feedback. We didn't get there without giving it thought.

Most Zoom webinars have a public chat function where everyone sees the questions and observations. We did not do that because:

-a lot of people sit back and silently watch what BCWF does;
-that includes anti-hunters;
-it includes unfriendly media with a history of attacking BCWF;
-it includes Indigenous groups, people and organizations that want to work with BCWF;
-it also includes Indigenous people, groups and organizations that hate BCWF.

We could not restrict attendance effectively. (If you know how to do that please share your expertise with the Liberal Party of BC. My old MLA, Jane Thornethwaite, arguably lost her pretty safe seat to my new MLA, Susie Chant of the NDP, as a result of a leaked and injudicious Zoom call).

We understood that there was a risk that an intemperate remark or question in the chat could very easily be misunderstood, even misrepresented as being the position of BCWF. This recognition of danger was echoed by multiple people not organizing the event, both within BCWF and from outside BCWF. That's one reason it wasn't a live Q&A in the sense that you assumed it would be. There are a to of hard feelings on all sides in this conversation and it makes sense to reduce the amount of hostility.

Additionally, this was not envisioned as a chance for people to get Chuck and I on how well we can answer pop quiz style questions. There's probably a time and place for that, but I'd say its for elections, not for the event we just had. If we were to determine that Chuck and I are complete failures at fielding questions in a live Q&A it would still not be the most effective way to get feedback from members on their concerns, questions and fears.

I thank you for playing along. I encourage you to expand your thoughts and keep asking questions. The input is valuable. At first the sparring can seem a bit personal, but I think we can both take it. I find it way more productive and educational than pussy footing around. It gets the meaty subjects on the table. Long answer and broken into a few posts, but I think your input deserves serious consideration.

BydeIt

06-23-2021, 08:51 PM

Hi Rob,

This is spiraling into death by forum posts so while I like exploring different ideas in an effort to gain consensus, I'm only going to address a few key points.

The event was, objectively, much more a live Q&A than it was a session for feedback. I challenge any neutral viewer to watch the YouTube video and suggest otherwise. Maybe it was supposed to be a feedback session, but it wasn't.

Regardless, I fail to see how this point really matters, so I'll drop it.
Call me foolish but I disagree with the idea that we know with certainty what is coming via transfers. Mr Woodward certainly has valid points but lots can change, especially if the public becomes disillusioned with the costs of reconciliation. History has shown that the legal system and its application is influenced by public opinion.
Because of this disagreement, much of the thesis behind the IR committee doesn't resonate with me, and a lot of the initiatives surrounding it seem misguided to me as well. Smaller point, but policy should come before starting up a committee.

With that said, this is the first explicit mention I've read of the thesis driving the BCWF on the FN file. This is no longer a mystery to me, so thank you.
Rob, you've cited this thread as the messaging that was used to inform the audience that this was supposed to be a feedback session. Not everyone that attended (me included) read this thread prior to the meeting. I read the email. Clearly there's a difference between your messaging and that of the email the BCWF sent out. This is an example of what I meant by communication issues.
You say that the BCWF is headed towards the future. That might be right, but it's not a future I'm excited about, and it is far from a certain future. Placing wildlife population control in the hands of a group that doesn't answer to the public, doesn't regulate based on wildlife population statistics, and doesn't guarantee access to back country is something I'm still willing to fight against.
FYI - I saw all the questions asked in the chat function. If the goal was to mask that form the audience, then unfortunately that didn't pan out.

Thanks for engaging Rob, and good luck with your efforts.

Rob Chipman

06-24-2021, 11:32 AM

Hi Rob,

This is spiraling into death by forum posts so while I like exploring different ideas in an effort to gain consensus, I'm only going to address a few key points.

Very fair.

I fail to see how this point really matters, so I'll drop it.

I agree. Who's right in a minor disagreement between you and I on that doesn't matter. Your perception being different than mine does matter, of course, because you rightly point out that it's a comms fail if the receiver doesn't get the same message the sender tried to send. That's an important point so thanks for making it. Your other comments on comms failure are also valuable.

Call me foolish but I disagree with the idea that we know with certainty what is coming via transfers.

You're not foolish and I don't see our disagreement. I'm not saying we know for certain what the details will be. I think you and I both agree that the change will be big and that most people don't appreciate how big they will be. Lots can change and I don't know which way to will go aside from knowing lots will change.

That said....you can't drive through Tsilhqot'in Nation Declared Title Lands to exercise a BC government issued LEH if the TNG doesn't want you to, and the province backs....the TNG. How is that not a huge and concrete change that requires a response from the BCWF Board and committees on behalf of membership? Does anyone think there will not be more transfer of control of access and management from the province to First Nations as a result of T&R?

Pointed question: do you think we can ignore what the feds and province are doing regarding access to fish, wildlife and the land base and water? That may actually be a point of disagreement between us. I think we need to respond. What I'm hearing from you (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that we should not respond.

I'm not hearing that we need to respond, but that the response should be different (and if that is what you're saying, the obvious follow up is "OK, what should the response be, given the restrictions that BCWF operates under?"

Smaller point, but policy should come before starting up a committee.

So....kind of an obvious question, but did you miss that the policy that the committee follows has existed for years? We're updating existing policy, but the policy existed before the committee, so I'm not clear what you're disagreeing with.

Because of this disagreement,...

I still don't see the disagreement. We agree that the future is coming, we agree that a lot of the population doesn't really appreciate what the costs will be or who will bear them (fair to say BCWF members will bears some sort of cost) and we don't know what the details will be.

I'm suggesting that the thesis that BCWF needs to come to grips with the challenge that is Truth and Reconciliation is the appropriate one, because although we don't know what the details of the future will look like we know that that First Nations exert a huge amount of influence on everything that BCWF does, that they will continue to do so, and BCWF needs to respond wisely to that challenge of coming and unavoidable change.

It's recognition of the unknowns that drives our answers on UNDRIP (we don't have a position because the nature of UNDRIP's application is still very much unknown) and we don't know what assurances FNs can give on things like access because future control of the land base and management of wildlife is very much unknown.

Are you saying that figuring out a way to respond to the known unknowns doesn't resonate with you? I don't see a workable alternative. In fact, the only alternative I see is to pretend that T&R isn't happening. What am I missing? What's your suggested alternative to figuring out a way to respond?

You say that the BCWF is headed towards the future. That might be right, but it's not a future I'm excited about, and it is far from a certain future.

We're all headed toward the future whether we like it or not. It's never certain. That's part of the challenge. As for being excited about it, what makes you think I'm excited about trying to navigate between two fires in order to pursue conservation? What makes you think I'm excited about the potential negative outcomes for fish and wildlife conservation, habitat protection and enhancement, and access to the resource?

What will excite me is getting some traction that makes a positive impact on growing fish and wildlife populations, preserving habitat and maintaining access for all British Columbians.

The real question art the bottom of all of this, and the reason for the last Zoom convo (as well as future ones and the polling and whatnot) is to ask the question: given the future that we know is coming, and given the unknown character of that future, how should BCWF respond for the benefit of it's members?

BydeIt

06-25-2021, 08:04 AM

Hi Rob,

Pointed question: do you think we can ignore what the feds and province are doing regarding access to fish, wildlife and the land base and water? That may actually be a point of disagreement between us. I think we need to respond. What I'm hearing from you (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that we should not respond.

I certainly think a response is necessary. I just feel that the approach in that response is misguided right now. I was hoping to learn more about it at the town hall (can we agree to call it that?). As I say, I walked away disheartened. The positive to come from that though is that I realized that I need to share these criticisms, and hopefully they are taken constructively. That's why I came here after the town hall, and thanks for engaging again.

the obvious follow up is "OK, what should the response be, given the restrictions that BCWF operates under?"

I'm not part of the BCWF management and I can't pretend to understand the details of the work, so I can only armchair quarterback this one (as per my June 22 post). Most of what I have to offer comes in the form of approach. Very broadly, I would conserve funds by withdrawing from expensive external consultants (Solomon is a nice guy but I don't think he will build bridges you can't build yourself when needed), and re-deploy them to public awareness campaigns.

Further discussion of this is an area of interest for me, and would certainly be something I'd like to talk about if I were ever a deeper part of the discussion on approach to these issues at the BCWF.

but did you miss that the policy that the committee follows has existed for years? We're updating existing policy, but the policy existed before the committee, so I'm not clear what you're disagreeing with.

No I was unaware of the policy, and that's a big reason why I attended the event. By your own admission though, the policy is outdated, and there is no appropriate replacement at this time, so in my mind there would not have been anything for the panel to credibly offer in terms of policy explanation at that town hall.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm not sensitive to FN issues, and recent news. My point is that this tragedy shouldn't be a pretext for concessions on wildlife management, nor should conservation be handed over as some sort of reconciliation offering.

Thanks again Rob,

Rob Chipman

06-25-2021, 11:04 AM

By your own admission though, the policy is outdated, and there is no appropriate replacement at this time, so in my mind there would not have been anything for the panel to credibly offer in terms of policy explanation at that town hall.

We agreed to disagree on this one, right? You are of the opinion that the townhall had one purpose, and I know for a fact that it had another.

If your opinion of what the organizers were trying to do is accurate then your criticism makes sense. If what the organizers actually say they were trying to do is accurate (which it is) then your criticism does not make sense. We were looking for questions, fears, concerns and other types of feedback and input. We were not ever attempting to explain policy. Everyone on the committee and on the Board knows that we are not at the explanation stage yet.

You see where I'm going, right? You cannot reasonably say we did a particular task the wrong way when we were never trying to do that task. You can criticize the quality of the communication, but you're kind of stretching when you claim that you know what we were actually thinking but that I don't. I was there, and I was very involved.

We can't explain policy when the policy is outdated and needs to be updated.

We can't create policy without knowing what the membership thinks.

We need to communicate with membership to obtain that knowledge.

Once we obtain that knowledge we can update a policy to be sent to the Board to go through the approval process.

Nobody is "admitting" that existing policy is outdated. When you use that term it sounds as if you've proven that someone has been doing something wrong. That's not what occurred between us. You said we should have policy before the committee does anything. I told you that we do have a policy and that it requires updating, ergo the townhall. Your assumption about the state of BCWF IR policy was incorrect. You've gotta take the L on that.

The word you're probably looking for is "recognized*. Everyone involved in BCWF governance, including guys who were instrumental in writing the existing policy, *recognized* that the existing policy is out of date. Now you've also *recognized* that policy both already exists and is outdated. You're not *admitting* anything. There was nothing particularly wrong with the existing policy. The problem is that the world changed (court cases, new precedents and rulings, plus government policies and goals) and the policy has not yet changed with it.

I was explaining to you that a) BCWF IR policy exists, therefore there is no "putting the cart before the horse" as you outlined and b) we need to update the policy and that requires feedback from the membership.

Solomon is a nice guy but I don't think he will build bridges you can't build yourself when needed

It's not Solomon's job to build bridges. Asking him to do that would be a mistake. We identified early in this process that the bridges cannot be between a BCWF retained consultant and First Nations, nor even between an individual within BCWF and First Nations, but must be between the organization and various First Nations. Solomon's job is to provide BCWF with some Indigenous perspective and some First Nations/government relations insights.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm not sensitive to FN issues, and recent news. My point is that this tragedy shouldn't be a pretext for concessions on wildlife management, nor should conservation be handed over as some sort of reconciliation offering.

I'm at a loss for why you're telling me that you're sensitive to First Nations issues, or any recent news.

I'm equally at a loss about why you're linking the news out of Kamloops to some sort of pretext that BCWF is using that information to make concessions on wildlife management or conservation. Like, are you under the impression that BCWF is conceding something? What, exactly, would that thing that we're conceding be?

What, aside from less than perfect communications that gave you an incorrect perception about the purpose if the townhall, do we actually disagree on? It's not the first time I've asked. It would be helpful to know because a) you're a BCWF member and b) we're looking for that kind of input to help us update policy and ensure it reflects what membership wants.

BydeIt

06-29-2021, 08:35 PM

Rob,

You asked:

but did you miss that the policy that the committee follows has existed for years? We're updating existing policy, but the policy existed before the committee, so I'm not clear what you're disagreeing with.

I answered

No I was unaware of the policy, and that's a big reason why I attended the event. By your own admission though, the policy is outdated, and there is no appropriate replacement at this time, so in my mind there would not have been anything for the panel to credibly offer in terms of policy explanation at that town hall.

Nowhere in here do I suggest what the townhall was for. I'm simply answering your question, and then explaining that I was hoping to gain insight into it by attending the townhall. Regardless of what it was meant for, it is legitimate for me to attend in the hopes of learning more about the thinking at BCWF.

Here's you:

Nobody is "admitting" that existing policy is outdated.

Here's you a few sentences later:

I told you that we do have a policy and that it requires updating,

I don't appreciate the difference between "outdated" and "requires updating". Please elaborate.

It's not Solomon's job to build bridges. Asking him to do that would be a mistake. We identified early in this process that the bridges cannot be between a BCWF retained consultant and First Nations, nor even between an individual within BCWF and First Nations, but must be between the organization and various First Nations. Solomon's job is to provide BCWF with some Indigenous perspective and some First Nations/government relations insights.

You asked me for my input. I maintain that this consultancy is not a wise use of limited BCWF resources. You could collect the indigenous perspective by direct outreach instead of paying someone to tell you. Feel free to continue to believe you are getting value here - I'm just sharing the perspective I've been asked for.

I'm at a loss for why you're telling me that you're sensitive to First Nations issues, or any recent news.

I'm equally at a loss about why you're linking the news out of Kamloops to some sort of pretext that BCWF is using that information to make concessions on wildlife management or conservation.

Here's you on a June 10 post on this thread:

Something to consider is that it's really tough to slice conservation off of the bigger reconciliation question.

You think, at a minimum, that reconciliation and conservation are related. This comment of yours was made in response to the suggestion that science-based conservation needs to be the rule of the land, regardless of FN objections to it. I believe that reconciliation should not deter the BCWF insistence on science-based conservation.

Perhaps your comment is only indicative of your own perspective, and not a reflection of the thinking at the BCWF. If that's the case feel free to clarify.

Thanks,

Rob Chipman

06-30-2021, 10:50 AM

Nowhere in here do I suggest what the townhall was for.

You kind of do:
The event was, objectively, much more a live Q&A than it was a session for feedback. That perception may be reasonable, but the conclusion is incorrect. We solicited and received a ton of feedback. We're working through 30+ questions from the membership.

The distinction I was making was between "admitting" and "recognized". "Admitting" can imply that the person doing the admitting had to be somehow forced to suddenly get honest about something. That didn't happen. BCWF *recognized* that we had outdated policy and we undertook to update it. We've been clear about this all along and I've said it to you repeatedly.

Here's why I've told you this repeatedly:

I would think that a thesis which would drive policy would be in place prior to policy drafting, which in turn would be in place prior to the board committing large amounts of membership fees to an initiative focused on the FN file. This is crucial for me - the cart is being put before the horse here,

The thesis is in place (BCWF needs to respond to the fact of Truth and Reconciliation, as well as the fact that First Nations exert a great deal of influence over the achievement of BCWF goals). The policy was in place prior to committing time, energy and funds to the initiative. The policy *is* outdated. That's the *current* policy, which is *currently* in place. We're working on updating the policy, and to do that we need membership input. The cart is not before the horse. You're mixed up on that.

I don't appreciate the difference between "outdated" and "requires updating". Please elaborate. There is no difference. AS explained above, I wasn't talking about outdated vs requires updating. I was contrasting admitted and recognized, and pointing out that the policy that you felt should be in place before anything else occurred is, in fact, in place.

You could collect the indigenous perspective by direct outreach instead of paying someone to tell you. and
It's easy to armchair quarterback these situations,

Direct outreach is very difficult. In fact, it is one of our biggest challenges. When you hear the phrases "G2G" or Nation to Nation" one of the things that goes along with that is "If you're not a government or a nation or you don't come with a significant amount of funding, we don't want to take your call". Not all First Nations people, groups or governments act that way, but many do. Ask your MLA if they get their calls returned. Mine don't. A lot of my calls are't taken or returned, and, as you have experienced, I don't quit.

However...if you have that skillset there is a place for you on our committee. The pay off to you is that you'll be providing valuable service to a great conservation organization, you'll help us move the needle on fish, wildlife, habitat and access, and....you'll be able to prove me wrong.

Thanks for the answer on why you're sensitive to FN issues. I was under the impression that you thought the subject was reconciliation writ large rather than how BCWF responds to it in order to achieve our goals.

You think, at a minimum, that reconciliation and conservation are related.

Absolutely, but it's critical that you understand why in order to support it. BCWF is trying to achieve conservation goals. One way to do that is to establish effective working relations with First Nations. It follows that collaborating with First Nations on conservation projects (many of which are not divisive) makes sense. Additionally, the government has a history of being hard to move when it comes to loosening purse strings. Most people recognize, however, that the government is a bit more generous when Indigenous peoples and groups are involved (they recognize it because it's a demonstrable fact). We don't have a lot of power over government. Our members (and you're one) are pretty slow to go button hole politicians. We need other pressure points. The government wants lasting reconciliation so we have two avenues: one is to collaborate with First Nations and use that to get government funding (yes, I know that government money is our money, but government doesn't always see it that way) and the second is to tell government that if they want lasting reconciliation they need buy in from, among others, BCWF membership (who currently feel ignored and dismissed). Last reconciliation requires that government consult with BCWF early and often so that we can tell the government what our members feel, fear and want.

(You see why getting feedback from members on what they feel, fear and want is so critical).

science-based conservation needs to be the rule of the land That is BCWF's stated position and we haven't considered abandoning it.

regardless of FN objections to it So, when the government commits to listening to First Nations on the value of Indigenous environmental knowledge (which they have done) and when fish, wildlife, habitat and fire scientists do the same, are you suggesting that BCWF take a completely independent position and oppose it or treat it as irrelevant? There's four clear reasons why that's a really bad idea. First, it will piss off people who exert a great deal of influence over what we do. Second, there is plenty of Indigenous knowledge that is worthwhile and valuable. Third (and this should matter to many BCWF members) there are many, many non-Indigenous people who spend lots of time on the land and have lots of knowledge that is very similar to Indigenous knowledge. Those people have been dismissed....forever. They complain about it on this forum....all the time. Because Indigenous knowledge has been recognized, guess what? There's a new, third player: non-Indigenous local knowledge.

The fourth really clear reason why we don't ignore FN objections to science is that there is no profit in it for us to do so. There is only loss. We're much better off reconciling the two bodies of knowledge as much as possible. Feel free to refute this.

I believe that reconciliation should not deter the BCWF insistence on science-based conservation.

Reconciliation does not deter BCWF from insisting on science based conservation. I think you might be wanting to place the stress on "insisting", however. Do you think Indigenous peoples reject science or science based management? They do not, whether on predator control or, for example, the SIMDeer project, which is science and has Indigenous participation (the list continues).

The other hot button issue is non-licensed harvest numbers. BCWF has broached that with First Nations. It's an extremely prickly subject, get's me reamed by Indigenous people fairly often, and it will take a lot of work, but the prickliness isn't based on an objection to science. It's based on mistrust of government.

These are not personal perspectives. What I've told you are the particulars of the problems we're dealing with.

If you have a more effective way to handle the challenge of achieving what BCWF has had as its aims and mandate (fish, wildlife, habitat, access, funding, science) come and join the committee.

I'm out until Sunday night. Your input is valuable because I think it clarifies that many of the membership might be fearing: that BCWF is changing from a conservation organization into something else (We're not. Our goals are what's in our constitution, bylaws, polices, etc. All of that is out in the open).

I think that there is also a misperception that BCWF can effectively demand that government or First Nations do much more than BCWF can actually do. We're a non-profit volunteer organization. We can only do what our members back us up on and what we have power to do.

Members have to tell us what they want, and then members have to commit to working for it (by talking to and writing to MLAs and MPS).