Wolf and Coyote Predator Management Solutions Discussion

[hunterbear]

*WOLF HUNTING STRATEGY AND TIPS*

Why Should You Hunt Wolves? "Who Are The Real Killers?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVY3gjr4oHs&t=600s

"Wolves, A Fresh Kill, What To Do"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dDRq4eK76M

Wolf Hunting Gear and Basic Strategy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGPwiXZDZcg

KEHA is hosting a predator hunt for Region 4 Jan 1st to Feb 28, hopefully they can knock back the wolf population and give the ungulates a chance to grow again. As a great hunter once said, "One less dog in the field is one more buck in the bush!"

Would love to see some discussion here about predator hunting, general predator hunting techniques and strategy, solutions and ideas on how to manage public image, etc.

If you are thinking of joining the hunt, good luck!

https://form.jotform.com/213358423490051 (https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fform.jotform.com%2F213358423 490051%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0uCdedUDioUDjXbRAT2Z20D4Rm6A pOxxuK5HlcPJxqSfE6wd4xRxW2o80&h=AT216zJJErKeBs8DRzYWuy3AeqoJmp3vzVPgzWVS6peuDAd3 WDMCAbFTxdnvfINN8g32r91HvsOrQmEWm5yTG7L7j1lMNQlkkO nFElBeOA3Fa3PeqgaImlhSrbA2rLD3Gc98Cu1R1Q&__tn__=-UK-R&c[0]=AT2liOe6fP5TnqmnlI46qDyvIB2kPC6s3ul2f2kGHxsn5BjSl ASzIuhKzsGFrtl84NIF2FUiz--ZfqHnUw4QF0ob-j-NXVWi7xCg9pCrLeWZb2edGwSqZNYK6Q7lqrv6s8CktLpV4uJFg 7eWfDYojhCJStAmjLBWjDI0U2BHQv3X1A)

https://scontent.fyyc2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/263445754_569981464366830_8123313028334638749_n.jp g?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=TJCxjGLi8K4AX8K0N0g&_nc_ht=scontent.fyyc2-1.fna&oh=ef89d5c6ad3977826206a2edb57830bd&oe=61AF70E6

[Livewire322]

This ought to go over well once it hits the news.

For the record, I’m all for predator reduction. We just don’t do ourselves any favours with these sorts of events.

[Fella]

Advertising this where any Tom Dick or Harry can see it is a bad idea

[hunterbear]

They posted it this morning to their facebook page. Since I posted this, they took it off of the public page and it's on the members only page now. It is a sad state that conversation attempts have to cave to the angry mob of idiots who know nothing about hunting or conservation.

[Livewire322]

They posted it this morning to their facebook page. Since I posted this, they took it off of the public page and it's on the members only page now. It is a sad state that conversation attempts have to cave to the angry mob of idiots who know nothing about hunting or conservation.
I don’t like it being relegated to the shadows either, makes it seem dirty and wrong, but there’s no way around it. Taking the mob head on will result in a loss for our side.

[tigrr]

How would I donate but not participate?

[hunterbear]

How would I donate but not participate?


You can donate directly on their website or buy a membership.

https://www.keha.ca/

[tigrr]

Thank you.

[Imdone]

Thank you to all that participate or donate to the cause. Good luck to you all . Our UNGULATES need your help.

Government certainly isnt doing enough of anything, so Thanks agin to all Predator hunters.

[walks with deer]

Hmm me thinks we need more of this.

[Fella]

Well congrats guys, Raincoast has gotten wind of this contest

[hunterbear]

Well congrats guys, Raincoast has gotten wind of this contest


Who gives a shit? They have no data to back up their fraudulent claims, they only whine and complain and take money from bleeding heart PETA members. I'm sure they will use this as a drive to get more money from stupid people.

Are you going to not go hunting because some uninformed hippies are mad at you?

[Livewire322]

Who gives a shit? They have no data to back up their fraudulent claims, they only whine and complain and take money from bleeding heart PETA members. I'm sure they will use this as a drive to get more money from stupid people.

Are you going to not go hunting because some uninformed hippies are mad at you?

I give a shit. I’d rather not give them more material to use as fundraising material.

I highly doubt these predator hunting competitions do much, if anything, to motivate hunters who would otherwise not predator hunt to do so.

[LBM]

I give a shit. I’d rather not give them more material to use as fundraising material.

I highly doubt these predator hunting competitions do much, if anything, to motivate hunters who would otherwise not predator hunt to do so.

I do as well and dont think this does the hunting community any good.
One thing i find weird and may not be the case here is that when some one like the OP puts something like this up and has such a low post count
people are usally jumping all over them. You no like there trying to get hunters to make them selves look worse. Again this may not be the case
here but just a thought.

[hunterbear]

I give a shit. I’d rather not give them more material to use as fundraising material.

I highly doubt these predator hunting competitions do much, if anything, to motivate hunters who would otherwise not predator hunt to do so.
I would never have gotten off my ass if not for it. Every guy I talk to says they know they should, but don't want to because you can't eat wolf. What's missing is motivation, same with every deer hunter I talk to. Nobody wants to spend their time in the winter out there shooting wolves, they just wanna punch their deer tag in the fall and forget about the problem. Blame raincoast, blame suzuki, and silently watch the ungulates get decimated.


I do as well and dont think this does the hunting community any good.
One thing i find weird and may not be the case here is that when some one like the OP puts something like this up and has such a low post count
people are usally jumping all over them. You no like there trying to get hunters to make them selves look worse. Again this may not be the case
here but just a thought.

Nope, some people here do a good enough job on their own of making hunting look bad they don't need me. I'm a newer hunter in BC (two seasons) so I came here looking for advice. After seeing the predator competition on facebook it made me decide I wanna actually get out this year and do my part. I post about it here and instantly I get shit on for trying to promote what most hunters know is a much needed conservation effort. I watched Steve Isdahl's video about the relationship between logging, snowmobile trails, and wolf predation of ungulates. That was part of what interested me in predator hunting in the first place because I feel it's my duty as a hunter and conservationist to hold my nose and shoot some dogs even though the idea isn't super palatable. Here is a link to the aforementioned video it's one of the best explanations I have ever heard of the ungulate/canine problem, its causes, and what is needed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjqIFPxzBn4

You wanna kill hunting? Step 1: Cuck to the politically correct crowd, let them keep you from publicly telling the truth that is needed to save our beautiful game animals. Cut out your own tongue to appease people who openly hate you and hate the tradition of hunting. Step 2: Shit on any young person who shows an interest in action oriented conservation solutions.

I have more respect for raincoast than I do for do-nothing complainers who discourage predator control because they are afraid of being called names. At least raincoast gets paid to let wolves destroy our ungulate populations, you lot seem happy to do it for free.

[northof49]

Dumb idea, dumb post. Just get out and do it. No need for unwanted publicity. Some will never learn

[Livewire322]

I would never have gotten off my ass if not for it. Every guy I talk to says they know they should, but don't want to because you can't eat wolf. What's missing is motivation, same with every deer hunter I talk to. Nobody wants to spend their time in the winter out there shooting wolves, they just wanna punch their deer tag in the fall and forget about the problem. Blame raincoast, blame suzuki, and silently watch the ungulates get decimated.



Nope, some people here do a good enough job on their own of making hunting look bad they don't need me. I'm a newer hunter in BC (two seasons) so I came here looking for advice. After seeing the predator competition on facebook it made me decide I wanna actually get out this year and do my part. I post about it here and instantly I get shit on for trying to promote what most hunters know is a much needed conservation effort. I watched Steve Isdahl's video about the relationship between logging, snowmobile trails, and wolf predation of ungulates. That was part of what interested me in predator hunting in the first place because I feel it's my duty as a hunter and conservationist to hold my nose and shoot some dogs even though the idea isn't super palatable. Here is a link to the aforementioned video it's one of the best explanations I have ever heard of the ungulate/canine problem, its causes, and what is needed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjqIFPxzBn4

You wanna kill hunting? Step 1: Cuck to the politically correct crowd, let them keep you from publicly telling the truth that is needed to save our beautiful game animals. Cut out your own tongue to appease people who openly hate you and hate the tradition of hunting. Step 2: Shit on any young person who shows an interest in action oriented conservation solutions.

I have more respect for raincoast than I do for do-nothing complainers who discourage predator control because they are afraid of being called names. At least raincoast gets paid to let wolves destroy our ungulate populations, you lot seem happy to do it for free.

Woah now. Who’s shit on you in this thread? I went back and re-read each post and don’t see anyone taking digs at you - the idea of a predator competition on the other hand… Friendly advice: you think you’ve been shit on, perhaps internet forums aren’t the place for you. (Save for the one above my post that said the post is dumb…)

Some of us have seen this movie before, it ends in bad publicity for the hunting crowd and bolstered support for Raincoast. Period.
We have ample season to go out and get coyotes, wolves, cougars, and bears (all are problematic for ungulates - their impact was summarized in the Region 5 closure thread), rocking the boat is only going to get things shut down sooner.
If you want to effect change in a positive way, gather a group of five buddies, buy a couple cases of beer or a bottle of the preferred poison, and say first guy back here with a wolf or three coyotes gets to take the spoils home. You’d do far more and you’d avoid the bad press.

[northof49]

^^^this exactly…like it or not managing social perception is everything these days.

[XxFTNxX]

New hunter here, looking for any intel on predator hunting MU 2-12 (Powell River) Looking for info on Wolf, Coyote, Bobcat etc.

Regards

FTN

[Livewire322]

New hunter here, looking for any intel on predator hunting MU 2-12 (Powell River) Looking for info on Wolf, Coyote, Bobcat etc.

Regards

FTN

If you don’t have one already, buy a predator call.

Generically:
Hit the local FSR and look for tracks wolf tracks. Set yourself up in a blind and call near where when you found the tracks.
If you know an area that typically holds deer/elk, start looking there. Chances are you’ll see predator tracks (based on my experiences with wolves in region 3).

[Swamp mule]

I would not doubt that Kelly Carson will have taken a screen shot of this and informed all other anti organizations. We think that they are not infiltrated this site? Wrong, she is a member of this site and so she is taking information and pictures from this site to post in other anti sites.

[hunterbear]

You guys are a bunch of cowards. Imagine caring what a bunch of hippies who have never even seen a wolf think, let alone being afraid of them. I'd be willing to bet that all these guys complaining and saying that this is a bad idea have never shot a wolf in their lives. Prove me wrong.
https://scontent.fyyc2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/62551011_910730839272774_4262560960297828352_n.jpg ?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=Xegk8AQZAS0AX8bdlWd&_nc_ht=scontent.fyyc2-1.fna&oh=1973c6c23f44ea3f6a79ab4fcad39715&oe=61D5C248

[Steeleco]

I would not doubt that Kelly Carson will have taken a screen shot of this and informed all other anti organizations. We think that they are not infiltrated this site? Wrong, she is a member of this site and so she is taking information and pictures from this site to post in other anti sites.

Provide me a nick name or IP address and she wont be. There are NO members on here that don't have a legitimate IP address.
It is sad that whats needed can't be done out in the open without fear of backlash. But I don't have a reason to close this thread at this point.

[Livewire322]

You guys are a bunch of cowards. Imagine caring what a bunch of hippies who have never even seen a wolf think, let alone being afraid of them. I'd be willing to bet that all these guys complaining and saying that this is a bad idea have never shot a wolf in their lives. Prove me wrong.


Your heart is in the right place. Good luck to you.
I just hope that you and the other goons who think these publicly advertised derbies are a good idea don’t **** things up for the rest of us.

[JagrM]

Who gives a shit? They have no data to back up their fraudulent claims, they only whine and complain and take money from bleeding heart PETA members. I'm sure they will use this as a drive to get more money from stupid people.

you going to not go hunting because some uninformed hippies are mad at you?

I doubt anyone gives a shit what “hippies” think of them and I agree that they are uniformed but the “war” on hunting is fought with public perception. The antis aren’t “hippies” they’re lawyers and well educated Canadians like you and I and need to be taken seriously. There’s just over 5,000,000 people living in BC. In 2020 the hunter numbers were 107,000. Now there probably about the same number of anti hunters as there are hunters to that I don’t have any statistics. This battle is waged and won in the hearts of the general public who are indifferent and uneducated about hunting. The average person isn’t going to enter the conversation until they are provoked/invited. Raincoast and the other animal rights groups trying to take our privilege away are great at inviting this demographic of people who are not in the fight and pulling them to their side of the proverbial fence. They have the easy sell in my opinion. It’s much easier to sell saving an animals life than taking an animals life. Now everyone here knows that that doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of what’s happening in the woods each and everytime we go out hunting, be it predators or ungulates or any type of game bird. We as hunters need to think of ourselves as more of a family than a community and cut this 2 sides of the coin arguing. We all want the same thing and even if we don’t like it we have to play the game according to the publics rules because they don’t understand our language. Secondly we as a family need to really step up in educating people on what we really are doing and step up when we are called upon. Take the “Act Now” campaign the WSSBC gathered 50,000 letters. Now I can’t find the post but I believe raincoast brought 300,000 letters not long after. Again we all need to stand together and play the game and educate the public of what we do and encourage our friends and family who understand what we are doing to take action instead of standing silent. Hunting is a privilege, not a right and it can be taken away should the public see fit.
Believe me when I say it kills me to say that.

[CAC]

Interesting direction this thread has taken. A sign of the times, self censoring. If there is no other voice than the antis then the general public will think that is the norm. My position is never self censor, don't do their work for them. But do have a solid well thought out message specifically on political subjects and understand where the opposition is going to attack and have a response ready.

[LBM]

Interesting direction this thread has taken. A sign of the times, self censoring. If there is no other voice than the antis then the general public will think that is the norm. My position is never self censor, don't do their work for them. But do have a solid well thought out message specifically on political subjects and understand where the opposition is going to attack and have a response ready.

Or dont give them something to attack.

[CAC]

Kind of goes against my point "If there is no other voice than the antis then the general public will think that is the norm.". When you don't speak or express an opposing idea then you are letting the Overton window shift.

[Rob Chipman]

You guys are a bunch of cowards. Imagine caring what a bunch of hippies who have never even seen a wolf think, let alone being afraid of them. I'd be willing to bet that all these guys complaining and saying that this is a bad idea have never shot a wolf in their lives. Prove me wrong.



Hunterbear:

You're new, I get it. Let me lay it out nice and slow for you.

What you're trying to do isn't going to accomplish what you think it will.

The potentially negative consequences are real.

A lot of guys on this forum could write a thousand page explanation of how many ways you're on the wrong track, but we don't need to. One example will do the trick.

The grizzly bear hunt was politicized on a completely unscientific basis. Anti-hunting and pro-animal rights activists from around the globe signed online petitions and donated to groups here in BC that lobbied all parties in government to ban the hunt. The politicians sniffed the wind and all of them agreed that the hunt had to go. All they needed to do was determine who'd be in power when they banned the hunt and how far they'd go.

I spoke with an NDP operative at the time and explained, heatedly, that the science proved that the grizzly hunt was sustainable. Guess what he told me?

Nothing about how ranchers or farmers are knowledgeable about stuff.

Nothing about how hunters are all cowards.

Nothing about how hippies are dumb shits.

Nothing like that.

He told me "Yeah, I get it. The science says we *can* hunt grizzlies, but the science doesn't say we *have* to hunt grizzlies, so, since the dumb shit hippies have outmanoeuvred you really smart and knowledgeable hunters, all of the decision makers in this province have done the math and concluded that you hunters are going to be the ones taking one for the team. We're banning the G-bear hunt. Go cry somewhere else."

You can beat the drum all day long about who's smart, who's stupid, and who's a chickenshit. That doesn't move the needle one iota.

But if you give someone like Rebeka Breder ammunition that she can use (and you're in the midst of doing that) she'll take it to court. She's done that before, and she's been effective. Whether you like or respect her position is irrelevant - your opinion (sorry to break this to you) doesn't really matter much.

Rebeka Breder's opinion? It matters. She's smart, she's motivated, and when she hits she's demonstrated that she leaves a mark.

She is merely one example.

We are effective against her and people who think like her when we get them in public and present them with facts. That's the place where we want to give them lots and lots of oxygen.

We are not effective against her and people who think like her when we promote things like this contest.

Again, you don't need to like what I just told you, but that's how this world works.

Remember Rinella's observation: hunters may all be in the same boat, but we've got some hunters chopping holes in the boat. Right now we've got a bunch of guys on this forum looking at you asking "Why are you chopping holes in the boat?" and you're replying "What? You afraid of some stupid hippies?"

Remember what the Gambler said: If you're gonna play the game, boy, you gotta learn to play it right.

So wake the **** up, ok?

[CAC]

You could flip that comment on it's head as well.

Remember Rinella's observation: hunters may all be in the same boat, but we've got some hunters chopping holes in the boat. Right now we've got a bunch of guys on this forum looking at you asking "Why are you chopping holes in the boat?" and you're replying "We're afraid of some stupid hippies!"

You do have some good insight to the politics, but I don't think we are talking about the same thing there.

To doesn't seem to be a mountain issue, but a mole hill issue. Do we worry about fishing derbies?

I don't think the answer is try to hide under the radar as long as you can and go out with less than a whimper.

This thread has deviated into a broader topic than the OP intended I suspect. A good conversation for sure, but perhaps should be moved to it's own thread?

[Rob Chipman]

Fishing derbies that target and kill the biggest fish are, indeed, emerging as a problem. You may not have heard it yet, but it's going to be a thing. Covid restricted the North Van District Fire Fighter's Derby to a virtual event with no weigh in and everyone getting a prize. While one old school camp said "That's not even a derby!" another camp said "That's the way to go. We shouldn't be celebrating the killing of big salmon at this stage of the game". That's an argument between guys dragging a lot of hardware through the water. It's going to become a more widely known debate. Like catch and release, in case you weren't aware of that problem ;-) (I kid you not).

A law suit brought by a smart lawyer who used BC law against BC wildlife bios put the brakes on wolf culls. That actually happened.

That same lawyer wants to stop black bear hunting (I'm pretty sure she actually wants to outlaw death and legalize unicorns). A contest act says "We need to kill predators because they're killing the animals that we would prefer were killed by us" (look at KEHA's site - it's very easy to use their language to make that point) helps people like Breder. In her radio interview with Jesse Zeman the *only* punch she effectively landed was when she said "You call yourself a conservation organization but your website celebrates trophies". She was up against a very skilled opponent when she said that, which is why that's the only punch that an unbiased observer would have recognized. She lost on every other score.

There was no need to even allow her that opportunity. It was an unforced error.

You're right: there are a few themes floating around. The OP and some others are frustrated with the current state of public discourse on everything. I get it. We have some government bodies replacing the term "woman" with "birthing people". The list goes on and on.

I'm not suggesting that hunting conservationists who are informed by science as well as local on the ground knowledge stay under the radar.

I'm suggesting that we fight the fight effectively. Predator killing contests don't help. If this announcement was out on the same week that we were discussing wolf culls to save ungulates Rebeka Breder would have had two unforced errors - website celebration of trophies as well as a predator killing contest.

FWIW, Rebeka Breder, while effective, is clearly emotionally driven and easy to out manoeuvre. Raincoast? A helluva a lot tougher. It does not help to give them more ammo to use against us.

[IronNoggin]

I want to personally thank Rob for his insightful posts on this matter.

Well Done Sir! https://www.tnof.ca/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/Pozitive.gif

Cheers,
Matt

[pro 111]

I say we quit ****ing hiding from all the shit we love to do. **** the greenies and there opinions. Blow the wolf kill wide open . debate the truths. Re open the grizzly bear hunt and fight for what we all love to do. not roll over like a bunch of ****ing panzies and hide in a corner . Hunting is a way of life in BC and Canada wether your black brown yellow or white. Bring on the wolf culls. Manage the predators to create more ungulates. simple. nothing to be ashamed of . Dont bother hiding it. Blow it wide open and fight for scientific managemeant of wildlife. End of story.
You wanna kill big fish. giver. enhance some more. BC is about catching big fish. you wanna blast trap snare wolves to protect moose deer elk etc. blast the living shit out of them. were all being way to nice and diplomatic. where is it actually getting us.. ****ing nowhere.

[hunterbear]

To the guy who said hunting is a privilege... you have already given up the right to hunt, whether you realize it or not.

Hunting is a right from God. In contract with that right man was given a responsibility to steward the animals of the earth, which is why better men than you or I set up a fish and wildlife branch to protect and steward those animals in accordance with that sanctified covenant. We have all agreed that part of the responsibility is a fair and balanced system for deciding who, where, and how much wildlife should be harvested to keep the balance and ensure the continued existence of that sacred right. I respect that system wholeheartedly, and know that it only works when most everyone follows the rules and when the people entrusted to that authority honor and revere their obligation as sacrosanct. As long as the government is fair, as long as it is acting in the best interests of it's people, as long as the fish and wildlife branch is using your license and tag fees to conserve wildlife and ensure the tradition of hunting remains present for your children and your children's children, then you have a duty under God to obey the rules set out by that authority.

That authority is for the most part honorable. There are many good men and women who work tirelessly in service of that trust for which we should be grateful, but you would have to be blind to not see that they are slipping a bit. Caving to illogical fanatics and banning the grizzly hunt was the first obvious stumble. I have no intent to break laws or poach grizzly, but I recognize that the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources have taken a step outside of their bounds and begun to eschew the responsibility which we have entrusted to them. Banning the wolf hunt would be an egregious neglect of their responsibility to steward game populations and to me would be the first sign that the Ministry has become unfit to fulfill the purpose for which it was created.

The question to ask yourself is: what do you do if that authority becomes incompetent and unjust, or worse yet actively seeks to destroy the stewarded balance between man and animal? What would happen if they ignore that responsibility and allow whole species of animals to be extirpated. Would you take up that responsibility yourself, or would you let it fall into decay? The caribou are already gone, are you going to let the elk or blacktail be next? More than you fear politicians and activists, you should fear not fulfilling that responsibility.

In light of the current situation of disappearing ungulate habitat and increased predator access to dwindling populations of prey animals; it is clear that if we let these fanatics bully us into languishing our stewardship responsibility then those beautiful game animals will be gone and you will then see the real consequences of breaking that sacred contract. Without responsible stewardship there can be no right to hunt, that relationship is as clear as day. If you give up that responsibility, if you cave in to fanatics who want to interfere and destroy that sacred balance, then yes... you have absolutely given up your right to hunt.

I don't care how much they hate me, I don't care how loud they scream and hiss and spit. I will never give up that responsibility and I will never stop speaking the truth. I do not fear being unpopular, and I do not fear moronic politicians. I know that unjust laws are rarely followed and I trust the intelligence and discretion of the Conservation Officers that I have met because they are hunters themselves who care more about conservation than most people here. Do you really think a CO would arrest you for "illegal predator control" during a season where even he saw more wolves than deer? I don't see it, not at all. If the truth is on your side, you have no need to fear liars. They will only win if they can convince you to be afraid of speaking the truth. Not me. I'm not doing it. I'm never giving up. I'm never shutting up, and neither should you.

[hunterbear]

If a moderator could change the thread title to "Wolf and Coyote Predator Management Solutions Discussion" that would be much appreciated. This thread has become less about the KEHA event and more about the general discussion of predator management and public perception. That title would better reflect what is being discussed.

*I have added some videos on wolf hunting to the first post. I will update it regularly if anyone has other good info please post it here and I will put it there.*

[Steeleco]

If a moderator could change the thread title to "Wolf and Coyote Predator Management Solutions Discussion"

Done.............

[bearvalley]

Rob Chipman….do you think the narrative needs to change from an anti/pro predator standoff to the hunting community promoting pro prey?
It seems everyone wants to kill or hug something with fangs & claws but no one is being very effective at putting out the message as to how hard prey populations are crashing and why.
Sure, there’s a bit of attention directed at caribou but that’s a flash in the pan.
We all hear the climate change and habitat message but the stats on predator population increases and densities seem to be as hushed up as some want the promotion of wolf & coyote contests to be.
What’re your thoughts Rob?

[Bubbacanuck]

Rob - thanks for taking the time to share. I think your posts shed a lot of light on a very delicate topic. I see both sides of the topic but one thing I do know, as hunters we need to stand together or we will fail in this fight to keep hunting alive and well in BC.

[DarekG]

The time for sensitivity is over.

It's hard to care what people think of you, your hobbies, your politics, etc, have been shit on your entire life with it only ever escalating. I used to take the honorable and respectable route but I can't be bothered. My mental health and blood pressure should not be affected by some mouth breathing up-speaking moron 500 kilometers away telling me whats going on in my back yard. I hate this politically correct society with a burning passion. Thanks to the internet and social media all of the brainless ideas farted out of metropolitan areas now have far too much reach.

There is no compromise with antis and hippies, F*ck'em.






Ask me how I really feel. :lol:

[Jack Russell]

The time for sensitivity is over.

It's hard to care what people think of you, your hobbies, your politics, etc, have been shit on your entire life with it only ever escalating. I used to take the honorable and respectable route but I can't be bothered. My mental health and blood pressure should not be affected by some mouth breathing up-speaking moron 500 kilometers away telling me whats going on in my back yard. I hate this politically correct society with a burning passion. Thanks to the internet and social media all of the brainless ideas farted out of metropolitan areas now have far too much reach.

There is no compromise with antis and hippies, F*ck'em.




Ask me how I really feel. :lol:

You are not alone. Thx !!

[LBM]

To the guy who said hunting is a privilege... you have already given up the right to hunt, whether you realize it or not.

Hunting is a right from God. In contract with that right man was given a responsibility to steward the animals of the earth, which is why better men than you or I set up a fish and wildlife branch to protect and steward those animals in accordance with that sanctified covenant. We have all agreed that part of the responsibility is a fair and balanced system for deciding who, where, and how much wildlife should be harvested to keep the balance and ensure the continued existence of that sacred right. I respect that system wholeheartedly, and know that it only works when most everyone follows the rules and when the people entrusted to that authority honor and revere their obligation as sacrosanct. As long as the government is fair, as long as it is acting in the best interests of it's people, as long as the fish and wildlife branch is using your license and tag fees to conserve wildlife and ensure the tradition of hunting remains present for your children and your children's children, then you have a duty under God to obey the rules set out by that authority.

That authority is for the most part honorable. There are many good men and women who work tirelessly in service of that trust for which we should be grateful, but you would have to be blind to not see that they are slipping a bit. Caving to illogical fanatics and banning the grizzly hunt was the first obvious stumble. I have no intent to break laws or poach grizzly, but I recognize that the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources have taken a step outside of their bounds and begun to eschew the responsibility which we have entrusted to them. Banning the wolf hunt would be an egregious neglect of their responsibility to steward game populations and to me would be the first sign that the Ministry has become unfit to fulfill the purpose for which it was created.

The question to ask yourself is: what do you do if that authority becomes incompetent and unjust, or worse yet actively seeks to destroy the stewarded balance between man and animal? What would happen if they ignore that responsibility and allow whole species of animals to be extirpated. Would you take up that responsibility yourself, or would you let it fall into decay? The caribou are already gone, are you going to let the elk or blacktail be next? More than you fear politicians and activists, you should fear not fulfilling that responsibility.

In light of the current situation of disappearing ungulate habitat and increased predator access to dwindling populations of prey animals; it is clear that if we let these fanatics bully us into languishing our stewardship responsibility then those beautiful game animals will be gone and you will then see the real consequences of breaking that sacred contract. Without responsible stewardship there can be no right to hunt, that relationship is as clear as day. If you give up that responsibility, if you cave in to fanatics who want to interfere and destroy that sacred balance, then yes... you have absolutely given up your right to hunt.

I don't care how much they hate me, I don't care how loud they scream and hiss and spit. I will never give up that responsibility and I will never stop speaking the truth. I do not fear being unpopular, and I do not fear moronic politicians. I know that unjust laws are rarely followed and I trust the intelligence and discretion of the Conservation Officers that I have met because they are hunters themselves who care more about conservation than most people here. Do you really think a CO would arrest you for "illegal predator control" during a season where even he saw more wolves than deer? I don't see it, not at all. If the truth is on your side, you have no need to fear liars. They will only win if they can convince you to be afraid of speaking the truth. Not me. I'm not doing it. I'm never giving up. I'm never shutting up, and neither should you.

Although COs dont really arrest you but i would hope they would charge anyone with doing illegal predator control, doesnt matter if wolf, deer, duck , gopher, fish etc if being taken or killed illegally the person should be charged.
So where are these areas where one sees more wolves then deer.

[hunterbear]

Although COs dont really arrest you but i would hope they would charge anyone with doing illegal predator control, doesnt matter if wolf, deer, duck , gopher, fish etc if being taken or killed illegally the person should be charged.
So where are these areas where one sees more wolves then deer.


You missed the point completely. I'm asking what happens if a similar circus of politics that lead to banning grizzly hunting led to the worst case scenario that everyone here seems to be afraid of ie: Raincoast & friends lobby and get all predator hunting banned outright (wolf coyote and cougar). Obviously you could say goodbye to elk and blacktail deer hunting within the decade if that ban stayed in place. Ungulates would be decimated even more than they already are. And yes, if you went out looking for elk or blacktail within a few years of such a ban, you would likely see more wolf sign than ungulate sign most places. I am asking in that "hypothetical situation" of such a ban, that everyone here is convinced will somehow happen if we take on the "bad optics" of promoting predator derbies, how do you think the CO's and the rest of the Fish and Wildlife agency would react?

Would they double down despite dwindling ungulate numbers and impose harsher penalities on farmers, ranchers, trappers and hunters who have had enough, know what needs to be done and decide to shoot any wolf that comes into their backyard to hell with the damn politicians?

Or do you have faith that they would reverse course, reinstate predator hunting and open aggressive bag limits in an attempt to restore balance and save ungulate populations?

I am trying to understand exactly what you guys are afraid of, and why? What is the hypothetical horror show outcome that makes you so afraid of promoting these derbies, that you would do Raincoast's work for them and tell your own Rod & Gun clubs, conservation groups like KEHA, and anyone else who would put up prizes for the guy who whacks the most wolves that they should not hold these kinds of events, and that you won't support them when they are doing the best they damn can to try and get a lid on the out of control predator population? What is the logic behind you wanting to hide predator hunting in the shadows and not promote it, when it is the single most important issue facing out ungulate populations today?

If any one of you can give me a solid logical answer to this question, then I am open to change my mind completely. I just don't understand what you are afraid of?

[Rob Chipman]

I am trying to understand exactly what you guys are afraid of, and why?


Here's a starting point to understanding: stop assuming people are afraid of something because they don't endorse your approach to solving a problem. Then start listening to why they want to go another way. Instead of hearing fear in their voices you might hear "this is how we win".


Bearvalley - good question. Let me get back to you.

[hunterbear]

Here's a starting point to understanding: stop assuming people are afraid of something because they don't endorse your approach to solving a problem. Then start listening to why they want to go another way. Instead of hearing fear in their voices you might hear "this is how we win".


Bearvalley - good question. Let me get back to you.

You are pretending that I don't understand your argument. I do. You clearly stated them already:


Hunterbear:

...

The grizzly bear hunt was politicized on a completely unscientific basis. Anti-hunting and pro-animal rights activists from around the globe signed online petitions and donated to groups here in BC that lobbied all parties in government to ban the hunt. The politicians sniffed the wind and all of them agreed that the hunt had to go. All they needed to do was determine who'd be in power when they banned the hunt and how far they'd go.

I spoke with an NDP operative at the time and explained, heatedly, that the science proved that the grizzly hunt was sustainable. Guess what he told me?

...

He told me "Yeah, I get it. The science says we *can* hunt grizzlies, but the science doesn't say we *have* to hunt grizzlies, so, since the dumb shit hippies have outmanoeuvred you really smart and knowledgeable hunters, all of the decision makers in this province have done the math and concluded that you hunters are going to be the ones taking one for the team. We're banning the G-bear hunt. Go cry somewhere else."

You can beat the drum all day long about who's smart, who's stupid, and who's a chickenshit. That doesn't move the needle one iota.

But if you give someone like Rebeka Breder ammunition that she can use (and you're in the midst of doing that) she'll take it to court. She's done that before, and she's been effective. Whether you like or respect her position is irrelevant - your opinion (sorry to break this to you) doesn't really matter much.

Rebeka Breder's opinion? It matters. She's smart, she's motivated, and when she hits she's demonstrated that she leaves a mark.

She is merely one example.

We are effective against her and people who think like her when we get them in public and present them with facts. That's the place where we want to give them lots and lots of oxygen.

We are not effective against her and people who think like her when we promote things like this contest.

Again, you don't need to like what I just told you, but that's how this world works.

...



There is not way in a million years, given the current state of deforestation of ungulate habitat, what we KNOW about wolf hunting patterns, the correlation between those hunting patterns and winter alpine access via snowmobile and logging roads, that anyone could make a sound argument that we don't *have* to hunt wolves. Unless the other lawyer is a drooling idiot with a room temperature IQ, there is no way you could make that argument scientifically. It isn't possible.

You are happy to act like you have all the answers, but your logic doesn't check out, and you are still evading the question. Do you REALLY believe that Fish and Wildlife would outright ban predator hunting, and why do you believe that? If your answer is "they got a smart lawyer lady" then sorry no you are just irrationally afraid.

I'm not hearing any "this is how we win" from you because you have not offered up a single alternative so far. Rob it seems like you have a lot of criticism from the passenger seat but when someone asks you to drive you've got nothing but vague platitudes. What is this better plan that you keep talking about but not revealing? I'm on the edge of my seat.

No? Nothing? Ok great I'll go shoot some wolves and maybe donate some prizes to KEHA to encourage others to do the same. Thanks for your input, Rob.

[Rob Chipman]

You are pretending that I don't understand your argument. I do.


Hunterbear-

I don't think you do understand what I or a lot of others here are saying.

We're saying "There are two things that you should avoid doing: 1) Don't present hunters in an unsympathetic light just because you're pissed off at the state of the world - it's not helpful for fish, wildlife, habitat, hunters or anglers and 2) don't give motivated and capable opponents of fish, wildlife, habitat, hunters or anglers more motivation and more ammunition to do the kind of damage that they've demonstrated that they can deliver - it's not helpful for fish, wildlife, habitat, hunters or anglers".

That's the argument. Start to end. If you want to argue against it, argue against that.

I don't think anyone is arguing that predator control isn't required.




There is not way in a million years.....that anyone could make a sound argument that we don't *have* to hunt wolves....there is no way you could make that argument scientifically. It isn't possible.

She made the argument, but she didn't use science. She used an expanded reading of the law and she put the brakes on a scientifically informed wolf control program. That happened. You can't pretend that it didn't. It's having an impact.


The grizzly hunt was banned for political reasons. Science played no part in it. Nobody, to the best of my knowledge, ever made an argument that we "don't *have* to hunt" grizzlies.

They made a non-scientific and often misleading multi-point argument;
1) that hunting grizzlies was cruel and barbaric;
2) that photo tourism is better for the economy than hunting;
3) that grizzly bears are facing extinction, and;
4) that g-bears had special spiritual significance to First Nations;
5) that the g-bear hunt was purely a trophy hunt.

There was nothing scientific about their arguments. Nothing. (The idea that science has the final word on provincial decision making is simply not supported by little things history or facts).

The grizzly hunt was banned. That's proof of concept. Let's see if someone could scale that argument.

1) that hunting [wolves/big horn sheep/black bears/cougars] is cruel and barbaric;
2) that photo tourism is better for the economy than hunting;
3) that [wolves/big horn sheep/black bears/cougars] are facing extinction, and;
4) that [wolves/big horn sheep/black bears/cougars] have special spiritual significance to First Nations;
5) that [wolves/big horn sheep/black bears/cougars] hunt are purely trophy hunts.

Does anyone here in this forum, regardless of how frustrated you are with the state of the world in general, *not think* that there are groups that can, and indeed have already, tried making a variation of that argument? (Here's a hint, Hunterbear - Raincoast has already started).

What about if we added a 6th point:

6) So called "sports" hunters are holding contests in which they award each other prizes for killing wolves. That's right! They kill highly social animals with clearly strong family structures *for fun*!"

We know that predator killing contests are events that some anti-hunting groups love to see.




Do you REALLY believe that Fish and Wildlife would outright ban predator hunting, and why do you believe that?

You've got your decision makers mixed up, but do I really believe that there will be an outright ban on predator hunting?

No. I don't think there will be an outright ban, all at once, on all predator hunting. Any restrictions or bans will be incremental.

We've already seen that here in BC, haven't we? Like, you're seeing the same things that the rest of us are, correct?

We're absolutely seen that pattern in other jurisdictions as well, right? Like, you are aware of that, right?

Google "black bear hunting Haida Gwaii".

There is a historical trend of predator hunts being banned in BC.

There is an even stronger trend of advocacy to ban these hunts.

So, no, I don't think there will be an outright ban, but the danger of incremental bans is very real, it's powered by emotion, and we've seen the results already.

Why would you believe that won't continue? Do you accept that it has actually happened in the past?

Does recognizing that political arguments don't depend on science, but rather depend much more on emotion make me irrationally afraid?

Does recognizing that legal arguments don't depend on science, but rather depend much more on how actual written law is interpreted make me irrationally afraid?



I'm not hearing any "this is how we win" from you because you have not offered up a single alternative ... you've got nothing but vague platitudes. What is this better plan that you keep talking about but not revealing? .

Don't get offended, but you're clearly new to this. There is not some "secret" plan that I'm not revealing. It's not vague. It's not a platitude. It's something that everyone who pays attention to this issue for any length of time eventually recognizes. You're going to get there yourself. The only question is whether you do it sooner or later, and how much kicking and screaming you do before you get there.

Here are the assumptions that the plan is based on:

-Politicians drive the decision making. They do that based on how many votes and/or dollars the divisions will deliver;
-hunters are a very small constituency, are not particularly politically active - traditionally we use the figure of 10% of the population or voting population;
-anti-hunting advocates are, in contrast to hunters, very accomplished in doing advocacy, are very committed and are very politically active - again, traditionally we say these guys are about 10% of the population or voting population;
-uninformed and/or undecided urban voters can be very influential, especially in key strategic urban ridings, but also in rural ridings (like the ones you find in the Kootenays or the Island - just saying') and we traditionally say they make up the missing 80% of the population or voting population;
-those uninformed and/or undecided voters, both in urban settings as well as rural ones, can probably be swayed enough to make a difference in how *politicians read the tea leaves*;
-therefore, changing how uninformed and/or undecided think about things like conservation or, say, firearms legislation, is likely to be more productive than throwing gas on the argument between hunters and anti-hunters will.

Those are the assumptions.

Here are the facts.

- About 2 million people in BC vote;

- Politicians want as many of those votes as they can get, and will say whatever needs to be said in order to get them;

- There are about 100,000 licensed hunters in BC - if all of those hunters vote that's about 5% of voters. Nowhere near 10%, even if we pretend all hunters vote, and that they all vote on the basis of fish, wildlife, habitat and access (nobody believes that happens);

- There are about 5 million people in BC. Hunters are about 2% of the population. Again, nowhere near 10%;

- There is no count of anti-hunter numbers, but, Raincoast's Facebook page has about 20,000 followers and Pacific Wild's has over 60,000. Both of those organizations raise way more money through donations than any hunter conservation group currently does. It's probably safe to say that antis outnumber and out work hunters (I am aware of the irony, in that you *are clearly* trying to do positive work to improve conservation). Anyway, count them at 10%;

-Groups like Raincoast and Pacific Wild use both science (Raincoast creates science - you know that, right?) and law (and I'm pretty sure they get some discounted legal work).

Here's the plan:

-Since hunters and anglers are a serious minority of voters (probably less than 5%) while antis are very likely a larger percentage of the voting base, but undecided and/or uninformed voters overwhelm both hunters and anti-hunters, the smart thing to do is to inform and educate the undecided and/or uninformed voting bloc;

-It's also important to speak to MLAs, in person, and make sure they understand who we are, how many of us there are, how committed we are, and what we want. A lot of us recognized, prior to the election that flipped the government from the Liberals to the NDP, that our elected officials were not doing what we wanted *because they weren't really aware of who were are and what we care about*;

-It important to fight the battles that deliver the most effective results while avoiding those that do not move our ball forward.

....continued

[Rob Chipman]

.....

What are a couple concrete examples of that plan in action?

-The grizzly hunt was banned, in part, as a result of online input and petitions sent to the government, often by anti-hunters from outside BC. We've worked hard to make government aware of that and there has been a change. Government is aware that anti hunting orgs have online support worldwide, but that those supporters are *not* BC voters.

Proof of this is the recent EngageBC survey about wolf control in BC. This program was promoted on this forum. The breakdown was about 60/40 against wolf control. The majority of the opposition is centered in the LML, but, significantly, there is plenty of wolf control opposition across southern BC.

The improvement is that the government is tracking where input comes from better now than they used to, which helps us. The split between anti-wolf control and pro-wolf control has also improved. This is significant.

- There is currently a documentary that focuses on mule deer being promoted on Telus TV. It is a science based story that exposes undecided and/or uninformed non-hunting voters to the threats facing BC wildlife *without* pissing them off or threatening them. It features hunters in a positive light. Again, significant.

- First Nations are not monolithic, and not all of them oppose predator control. In fact, many support it. Most voters in BC look favourably on First Nations desires. Some First Nations are trying to normalize the idea of predator control and some of us are trying to amplify that message. This is significant. The idea that anti-hunting organizations engage in red-washing or colonial thinking is damaging to them in the eyes of the general public.

-Media shapes the stories that the undecided and/or uninformed consume. Some of us have spent time and energy improving the relation between hunters/anglers/conservationists and the media, which results in a more positive media message being presented to the uninformed and/or undecided voter. Whether it's a call in show with Mike Smythe on CKNW or positive references to groups like BCWF in media that traditionally referenced us in negative terms, this is significant.


The list goes on and there are lots of aspects that can be examined, but the plan is not new and it's not my invention. It's a continent wide plan that an awful lot of smart people have come top with.

And btw? The people doing this work are not in the passenger seat.

So, here's the summary:

-We are in a fight and we are currently losing, even if we are losing at a slower pace than we used to;

- We have survived, and that's critical, significant and positive;

- We have limited resources and need to fight smart. We need to approach this as a guerrilla fight rather than open warfare because *we are outnumbered and outgunned*;

- We need to increase the number of people fighting on our side, and those people need to be in what's called a DAO - distributed autonomous organization. That's where people like you and I do our own things as we see fit....but we compliment each other and from time to time organize and work explicitly together while at the same time not putting obstacles in front of each other.

*Publicly promoting* a wolf hunting contest (as opposed to just going and shooting wolves on the down low) at a time when 60% of respondents to the BC government *don't* support predator control is really kind of like stirring up a big hornet's nest because you're pissed off.

Or, more accurately, it's like grabbing hot coals with your bare hands to throw at anti-hunters. You *might* hurt them, but you'll definitely burn yourself. That's what people are objecting to. Not shooting wolves. Promoting a wolf shooting contest and burning people who are very clearly *not* sitting in the passenger seat.

[Rob Chipman]

Rob Chipman….do you think the narrative needs to change from an anti/pro predator standoff to the hunting community promoting pro prey?
It seems everyone wants to kill or hug something with fangs & claws but no one is being very effective at putting out the message as to how hard prey populations are crashing and why.
Sure, there’s a bit of attention directed at caribou but that’s a flash in the pan.
We all hear the climate change and habitat message but the stats on predator population increases and densities seem to be as hushed up as some want the promotion of wolf & coyote contests to be.
What’re your thoughts Rob?


I think you raise a really good issue, but I think you should change the subject matter of the conversation even more. Rather than make it anti or pro predator on the one hand to pro-prey on the other (which has a pretty pro-hunting under-current, and so doesn't interest a lot of people) change it to pro-functioning ecosystem or anti-functioning ecosystem.

There is a combination of reasons I'm saying that.

First, I ran into a Greenpeace campaign organizer while mule deer hunting this year. I asked "How do your GP colleagues react to you hunting mule deer?" Answer? "I tell them about intact ecosystems and how the cycle of life and food web naturally function, and that humans have been predators forever. It doesn't always convince the European colleagues, but the North American ones accept it quite happily".

Second, I recently saw a Raincoast webinar dealing with hyper-abundance of blacktail deer on the Gulf Islands due to the eradication of 4 legged predators and the reduction of 2 legged predators. The environmental damage done by the deer was easily demonstrated by a non-hunting plant scientist as well as a non-hunting environmental economist. The proposed solution (and it's underway right now) is increased Indigenous hunting of the deer to reduce numbers while feeding people with free range organic meat. This was promoted and presented by....Raincoast. Hunters intervention in nature and killing animals to restore a functioning ecosystem.

Think about that.

Two groups that many on this forum would consider "enemies" of hunters actually accepting and supporting hunting as something ranging from a natural and good pursuit to an effective management tool. It's not perfect, but it's an improvement. You're well aware of the back of the napkin math that says there's 10% pro-hunting vs 10% antis who will never change their minds, but apparently there are some whose minds can be changed if they're approached in the right manner.

Looking at it another way, whenever there is a disagreement and you want to increase the number of people who agree with you it makes sense to address the people who don't agree with you on everything but who might not completely disagree with you and may even agree with you on some things.

Find out what it is about your position that they object to, and whenever possible, remove those objections. At the same time, identify and amplify those things where there is shared agreement. Tailor the message.

You could say "Smoke a pack a day" and see how many minds you change.

Or you could say "Resource extraction, road density, climate change and a whole host of other cumulative effects have created a situation where functioning ecosystems are under extreme threat. When you see a news a story about a highway being washed out by floods and mudslides or about extreme forest fires that destroy human habitat you need to realize that these things also do huge damage to fish, wildlife and habitat.

Human activity the benefits everyone, even you, sipping a latte at Starbucks in downtown Oak Bay, is driving everything from mule deer to salmon into extinction. It's a really complex issue, but we need to take a lot of actions and we need a lot of funding and and we need to do it right now.

So, do you support human intervention in nature, informed by science, to restore functioning ecosystems that have been trashed by all of us? Or do you just want to see everything go extinct?"

Most people are going to go with "human intervention informed by science" rather than "Screw fish, wildlife and habitat."

Ask them to sign a petition that asks for more funding for fish, wildlife and habitat and then get a good inventory of predators and prey. Don't immediately ask for wolf culls. Normalize the idea that human intervention in nature is required *not to manage nature* but to remediate the negative effects of human activity.

You've probably heard a lot of people say "Why do you have to manage wildlife? If we left it alone it would be fine". We both know that's a completely uniformed position because humans simply won't leave nature alone. Take the objection to intervening in nature away and amplify the agreed upon desire for functioning natural ecosystems.

That's where I'd go. Look at election results riding by riding and target low hanging fruit.

Those are my thoughts.

[tylerduce]

Woah now. Who’s shit on you in this thread? I went back and re-read each post and don’t see anyone taking digs at you - the idea of a predator competition on the other hand… Friendly advice: you think you’ve been shit on, perhaps internet forums aren’t the place for you. (Save for the one above my post that said the post is dumb…)

Some of us have seen this movie before, it ends in bad publicity for the hunting crowd and bolstered support for Raincoast. Period.
We have ample season to go out and get coyotes, wolves, cougars, and bears (all are problematic for ungulates - their impact was summarized in the Region 5 closure thread), rocking the boat is only going to get things shut down sooner.
If you want to effect change in a positive way, gather a group of five buddies, buy a couple cases of beer or a bottle of the preferred poison, and say first guy back here with a wolf or three coyotes gets to take the spoils home. You’d do far more and you’d avoid the bad press.


Very well put.

You can be right about the need for predator hunting. But you can be right and also have the entire public motivated to vote away your hunting rights. Don't believe me? I'm a law student and have an influential animal law professor who would like to end hunting altogether in BC, even for large ungulates. And you know what? This professor is kind, friendly, and someone I would consider a good person. The point is that there are many average everyday good people who find these types of events unpalatable.

Tact, nuance, moderation, intelligence, wisdom.

Its just like defensive driving. You might be right and have the right away. But you can also be dead right.

[bearvalley]

I think you raise a really good issue, but I think you should change the subject matter of the conversation even more. Rather than make it anti or pro predator on the one hand to pro-prey on the other (which has a pretty pro-hunting under-current, and so doesn't interest a lot of people) change it to pro-functioning ecosystem or anti-functioning ecosystem.

There is a combination of reasons I'm saying that.

First, I ran into a Greenpeace campaign organizer while mule deer hunting this year. I asked "How do your GP colleagues react to you hunting mule deer?" Answer? "I tell them about intact ecosystems and how the cycle of life and food web naturally function, and that humans have been predators forever. It doesn't always convince the European colleagues, but the North American ones accept it quite happily".

Second, I recently saw a Raincoast webinar dealing with hyper-abundance of blacktail deer on the Gulf Islands due to the eradication of 4 legged predators and the reduction of 2 legged predators. The environmental damage done by the deer was easily demonstrated by a non-hunting plant scientist as well as a non-hunting environmental economist. The proposed solution (and it's underway right now) is increased Indigenous hunting of the deer to reduce numbers while feeding people with free range organic meat. This was promoted and presented by....Raincoast. Hunters intervention in nature and killing animals to restore a functioning ecosystem.

Think about that.

Two groups that many on this forum would consider "enemies" of hunters actually accepting and supporting hunting as something ranging from a natural and good pursuit to an effective management tool. It's not perfect, but it's an improvement. You're well aware of the back of the napkin math that says there's 10% pro-hunting vs 10% antis who will never change their minds, but apparently there are some whose minds can be changed if they're approached in the right manner.

Looking at it another way, whenever there is a disagreement and you want to increase the number of people who agree with you it makes sense to address the people who don't agree with you on everything but who might not completely disagree with you and may even agree with you on some things.

Find out what it is about your position that they object to, and whenever possible, remove those objections. At the same time, identify and amplify those things where there is shared agreement. Tailor the message.

You could say "Smoke a pack a day" and see how many minds you change.

Or you could say "Resource extraction, road density, climate change and a whole host of other cumulative effects have created a situation where functioning ecosystems are under extreme threat. When you see a news a story about a highway being washed out by floods and mudslides or about extreme forest fires that destroy human habitat you need to realize that these things also do huge damage to fish, wildlife and habitat.

Human activity the benefits everyone, even you, sipping a latte at Starbucks in downtown Oak Bay, is driving everything from mule deer to salmon into extinction. It's a really complex issue, but we need to take a lot of actions and we need a lot of funding and and we need to do it right now.

So, do you support human intervention in nature, informed by science, to restore functioning ecosystems that have been trashed by all of us? Or do you just want to see everything go extinct?"

Most people are going to go with "human intervention informed by science" rather than "Screw fish, wildlife and habitat."

Ask them to sign a petition that asks for more funding for fish, wildlife and habitat and then get a good inventory of predators and prey. Don't immediately ask for wolf culls. Normalize the idea that human intervention in nature is required *not to manage nature* but to remediate the negative effects of human activity.

You've probably heard a lot of people say "Why do you have to manage wildlife? If we left it alone it would be fine". We both know that's a completely uniformed position because humans simply won't leave nature alone. Take the objection to intervening in nature away and amplify the agreed upon desire for functioning natural ecosystems.

That's where I'd go. Look at election results riding by riding and target low hanging fruit.

Those are my thoughts.


Rob, that reads like a script from a true politician.

I agree with a lot of what your saying and wholeheartedly embrace the healthy, well being ecosystem concept as well as being guided by science.

The only thing is….science isn’t being followed and not all ecosystems suck.

There’s been a blanket narrative put forth that habitat (ecosystem) degradation is the driving force behind ungulate (prey) population crashes.
BS.

Sure, habitat loss is an issue in places, but there are still broad landscapes with completely healthy, viable habitat and the same decline in (prey) ungulate species is taking place.

If it isn’t habitat we can go down the climate change rabbit hole….but I don’t think that’s the route to pursue either.
What do you think?

Then again Rob, maybe, just maybe these fang & clawed creatures that no one really wants to talk about are what’s tipped the scale.

Maybe the next time you run across a Raincoast deer hunter on a 604 island start a discussion on what happens to a caribou herd that’s living with wolf population densities of 24 per 1000 sq km.

That’s only 4 times the recommended # to co-exist a with stable population of caribou.
8 times the number of wolves if your trying to grow a herd.

Do you think human interaction needs to take a more proactive instead of reactive approach when it comes to wildlife management?
Or should we just continue managing to zero?

I’m going to stick with caribou….that’s the hot management topic these days.
How long do you think a blind eye should be turned to excessive wolf numbers such as I mentioned above when further science shows calf recruitment in the mid teens per 100 cows and a yearling count of 2/100.
Rob, that is next to 0 for recruitment.
10 years or so and that herd of caribou are gone as we’ve seen happen time after time with declining caribou populations in BC.

I agree with you that the term “ smoke a pack a day” is in poor taste and usually thrown out there by someone who has a slim chance of ever smoking 1 wolf let alone taking out a complete pack….in a lifetime let alone in a day.

We’re in interesting times Rob and it’s not improving.
What’s lacking is accountability.
No one is seeing to it the science is followed.

[webley]

Well said bearvalley hit the nail right on the head. Steve!

[Rob Chipman]

Rob, that reads like a script from a true politician.



The only thing is….science isn’t being followed and not all ecosystems suck.

There’s been a blanket narrative put forth that habitat (ecosystem) degradation is the driving force behind ungulate (prey) population crashes.
BS.

You're not the only one saying that. It came up at a break out group with there MWAC from someone in the Koots pointing out exactly that. I've also heard it on other areas. Habitat is clearly very important, but it's not the only issue. Further, habitat doesn't get repaired in one day.



Then again Rob, maybe, just maybe these fang & clawed creatures that no one really wants to talk about are what’s tipped the scale.

I don't think you're wrong. I'm pretty sure a lot of us know abut the Val Geist story of predator pits leading to wildlife deserts. It makes sense to me.



Maybe the next time you run across a Raincoast deer hunter on a 604 island start a discussion....

You're either missing the point or I explained it wrong. None of us needs to convince the Raincoast people of anything. When Chris Darimont asked me if I thought Raincoast was a threat to my hunting I laughed out loud. There are way bigger threats than Raincoast. They can believe what they want to believe *forever*. Doesn't matter. They are a minority of voters and even if they and their supporters outnumber us it doesn't matter - all we need to do is get enough people in the middle, who are undecided/uninformed/don't care to choose our story. I mentioned Raincoast because if you can get them to accept that hunters can play a role in restoring a functioning ecosystem (and that has been done so there is proof off concept) you can get anyone to accept it, including that big fat middle of the electorate that is undecided/uninformed/doesn't care.

BTW? There are probably more hunters in the 604 than there are in the 250, and the Islands I was referring to is in....the 250. As are a lot of NDP ridings, but who's counting and why? Both parties supporters the grizzly ban and the current government actually wants to keep shooting wolves from the air. The 60% who opposed that on EngageBC are, in the majority, from *southern* BC. Southern BC does not equal the Lower Mainland.



Do you think human interaction needs to take a more proactive instead of reactive approach when it comes to wildlife management?
Or should we just continue managing to zero?

Absolutely to question one, absolutely not to question 2. Let's move on to the bigger question, which is the one I though you were asking ion the original post: how do we get the uninformed/undecided/don't care to become informed, decided and caring, and making the right choice? 100,000 hunters, majority of whom are not sure engaged, in a province with 2 million voters. It's clear we need help influencing the decision makers (ie, people who monitor who's voting for whom and on what basis).



How long do you think a blind eye should be turned to excessive wolf numbers.....

You're not actually asking that question are you? The government wants to keep shooting wolves from the air and I think most of us accept that doing that (along with a bunch of other things) has led to progress. They had to put the brakes on because someone who said, in public and in reference to the caribou issue "At the end of the day numbers don't matter" as she argued that killing wolves was wrong, took the government to court using an arcane little bit of law. You may not like what she thinks, and may believe that she doesn't understand anything and shouldn't be listened to, but....she is able to land a punch and leave a mark.


What’s lacking is accountability.
No one is seeing to it the science is followed.

Again, I think we're on the same page. We have made progress with the government taking wildlife more seriously, they've loosened the purse strings a bit, and they are definitely trying to support and engage Indigenous peoples in fixing things, but we've still got a long way to go.

Here's a question for you: is co-management and inclusion of Indigenous people in fish, wildlife and habitat a good thing, full stop? Or is it a way in which the government can punt the ball and make the problem someone else's and make the someone else the bad guy?

Like you said, interesting times.

Back to hunting contests to reduce predator numbers because sCiEnCE! If anyone googles "wolf hunting contest" it'll likely take you back to 2018 and 2019. Clubs tried them. Result? Apparently we still have wolves, so the contests weren't a magic bullet. We definitely got some bad press. There was a least one online petition with signatories from across the globe numbering...125,000 (it'd be cool if we knew that the guys promoting a wolf shooting contest spent that effort getting people to visit EngageBC on wolf culls to flip the 60/40 against to 60/40 for).

As mentioned earlier, the government (after some "advice") has started looking at where opposition to their policies comes from, but I think we can reasonably agree that shooting wolves is one thing while banging the drum about having a wolf killing contest with prizes is something very different.

[bearvalley]

Rob Chipman….this has been a worthy conversation and yes you and I do agree for the most part on wildlife issues.
I just tend to state what I’m thinking a little quicker and blunter.
If you’ve got a mouthful of shit, you might as well call it shit….not try to say it’s chocolate.

Wolf whacking contests are ineffective as far as dropping wolf populations.
They’re bad publicity if advertised to the public.
Kind of like pissing in the wind and throwing gas on the fire at the same time.

That said, I’d never discourage a hunter from legally harvesting a predator.
That hunter does not have to hang his head in shame for taking that predator either.

On co-management and inclusion of Indigenous people in fish, wildlife and habitat being a good thing, full stop?
It can be good if input to the process is put on the table, and all interested stakeholders fairly represented.
You’ve nailed it with it being a way for government to punt the ball if only government is at the table to represent non-indigenous stakeholders and fail to do so.
That’s why the stakeholder round table concept works best but that route will also fail if the decision making process is cluttered up with too many conflicting interests.
Too many cooks at the stove and the grubs gonna get burnt.

What’s your thoughts on co-management Rob?
Do you think the Wildlife Coalition table will gain traction or just be more fluff?
How about “Together for Wildlife”…..same question…is that group a progressive move or fluff?
Is the Ministers Advisory Board going to advise the Minister, and the Minister abide by their recommendations ….or is that just more fluff and the powers that be just carry on making vote grabbing decisions.
The politics of wildlife decision making has sure got cluttered since the days of GOABC and BCWF boys duking it out and having a drink together later.
What’s changed that Rob?

[Rob Chipman]

Wolf whacking contests are ineffective as far as dropping wolf populations.
They’re bad publicity if advertised to the public.
Kind of like pissing in the wind and throwing gas on the fire at the same time.

That said, I’d never discourage a hunter from legally harvesting a predator.
That hunter does not have to hang his head in shame for taking that predator either.




Exactly. Hunnerd percent.


What’s your thoughts on co-management Rob?


My thoughts are that co-management is coming and it may quickly lose the "co" portion. I don't think that has as much to do with wildlife as some may think. Remember when I said you're onto something but should look at an even bigger picture? Same thing here.

Look at the bigger picture. You can't have a federal Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations like Marc Miller say that the land was stolen and its time to give it back and think that co-management is about wildlife. It's not. It's about Indigenous sovereignty, full stop. (Don't like that? Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just telling you what they man said. Here's the link: https://youtu.be/f3g0eP6r_pM)

The interesting question, for me, is whether complete management of fish, wildlife and habitat by Indigenous governments will have room to permit non-Indigenous people to participate in accessing, preserving and restoring fish, wildlife or habitat. We already see some Indigenous government restricting non-Indigenous access to hunt (and in some senses that is a reasonable development, all things considered) and the provincial government has accepted it. You cannot hunt Tsilhqot'in Nation Declared Title Lands if the TNG doesn't allow you to, whether you have a BC hunting licence, tag and/or LEH. Again, you cannot give a group of people self-government and then tell them what to do. (And, again, don't shoot the messenger. If someone holds the opinion that laws and the Supreme Court don't matter, great. I disagree and the facts on the ground support my read of things).




Do you think the Wildlife Coalition table will gain traction or just be more fluff?



By "Wildlife Coalition" are you referring to the coalition of non-government organizations including Backcountry Hunters and Anglers British Columbia, BC Federation of Fly Fishers, BC Fishing Tourism Association, BC Trappers Association, B.C. Wildlife Federation, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society – BC Chapter, Fraser Valley Angling Guides Association, Fraser Valley Salmon Society, Georgia Strait Alliance, Commercial Bear Viewing Association of BC, Coast to Cascades Grizzly Bear Initiative, British Columbia Federation of Drift Fishers, Ducks Unlimited Canada, Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia, Outdoor Recreation Council of BC, Hunters for BC – SCI, The Steelhead Society of BC, Traditional Bowhunters British Columbia, United Bowhunters, Watershed Watch Salmon Society, Wild Sheep Society of British Columbia, Wilderness Tourism Association of BC, Wildsight, Wildlife Stewardship Council, Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative and others?

If so, yes, I think it will gain traction, has gained traction and will not be fluff, but I also have to ask: what do you mean by "traction"?

Are you asking if the SCI chapter in BC will see eye to eye with the Commercial Bear Viewing Association and successfully bring back the grizzly hunt? I kind of doubt that will happen.

Are you asking if some old school resident hunters will support the coalitions efforts when they see that Y2Y is involved? I kind of doubt that will happen.

What the coalition has already accomplished (and this is significant) is that that people who share some common values but also hold some opposing views have essentially said "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". (Anyone who wants to quickly post "I'd never work with [fill in the group of your choice] because they're [fill in your personal pet peeve] should re-consider. Only fundamentalist puritan ideologues who do not want to win adopt that kind of position.

That coalition needs to figure out a way to move from a "must be consulted" group of citizens (consultation is a box checking exercise, right?) to a "must approve of" group of citizens. That's going to involve all of us who accept that the enemy of my enemy is my friend really embracing truth, reconciliation and de-colonization (Again, don't shoot the messenger. If T&R and decolonization trigger someone, well, point out on the snowflake where the nasty man touched you).


How about “Together for Wildlife”…..same question…is that group a progressive move or fluff?

That's not quite "asked and answered" but it kind of is. You say "civil service" or "bureaucracy"; I say "Deep State"; someone else says "Oh, yeah, like that old show "Yes Minister!"

The government is spending a lot of money on the MWAC. MWAC is asking stakeholders for input and are doing actual engagement. Those are positive things.

On the other hand, the same guy who told me that since the science said we *could* hunt grizzlies but at the same time the science didn't say we *had to* hunt grizzlies, with the conclusion being that politicizing wildlife to outflank the opposition and play to the base and the middle in hotly contested ridings was not only smart politics but also completely ethical and wise has also said that protecting old growth costs jobs in risings that the NDP needs to win, so old growth won't be protected.

So what happens if, for example, MWAC advises FLNRORD (otherwise known as the Ministry of Logging) to halt old growth logging? Who wins? MWAC or the NDP operative? I'd say the Deep State does by saying "We all understand that solving the problem isn;'t the goal. Maintaining the problem and using it to make the government look indispensable is that goal". You can fill in the blanks. When it comes to votes and dollars and cents MWAC will probably be fluff.

On the other hand, you can't drive to the store in your refrigerator, but that doesn't mean your refrigerator is useless. MWAC is clearly useful.



The politics of wildlife decision making has sure got cluttered since the days of GOABC and BCWF boys duking it out and having a drink together later. [/COLOR]
What’s changed that Rob?

First, I wasn't aware that the GOABC and BCWF ever made wildlife decisions aside from fighting over scraps that the government allowed them to fight over. If I'm wrong, why the hell didn't both those groups fund management and avoid our current problem?

If I'm not wrong then nothing's changed aside from the fact that I can't see the odds of duking it out with Scott Ellis and I doubt he sees the odds of duking it out with me. GOABC is a trade organization and BCWF is a volunteer advocacy group. We have more in common than not. We try to influence decision makers, but we aren't and never have been decision makers. See my comment about moving from "must consult" to "must approve".

I think you understand as well as I do that if you can't be the actual decision maker you need to have the decision maker on your side. Hunter conservationists, whether resident hunters doing self guided hunts or guide outfitters making a dollar at it, need decision makers to listen to us. For that to happen we need more allies. The coalition that puts two trade organizations like GOABC and CBVA on the same side of the table is a good start. We now need to add non-hunting people who are currently uniformed, undecided or don't care beside GOABC and CBVA, looking across the table at government, saying "Do what we ask or find a new job".

Which speaks to what a wide man once observed: "Wolf whacking contests are ineffective...."

Are you tracking this, hunterbear? We're not saying we're scared of pissing of hippies. We're saying that votes and dollars trump a sacred covenant with the god of your understanding.

[bearvalley]

Exactly. Hunnerd percent.



My thoughts are that co-management is coming and it may quickly lose the "co" portion. I don't think that has as much to do with wildlife as some may think. Remember when I said you're onto something but should look at an even bigger picture? Same thing here.

Look at the bigger picture. You can't have a federal Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations like Marc Miller say that the land was stolen and its time to give it back and think that co-management is about wildlife. It's not. It's about Indigenous sovereignty, full stop. (Don't like that? Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just telling you what they man said. Here's the link: https://youtu.be/f3g0eP6r_pM)

The interesting question, for me, is whether complete management of fish, wildlife and habitat by Indigenous governments will have room to permit non-Indigenous people to participate in accessing, preserving and restoring fish, wildlife or habitat. We already see some Indigenous government restricting non-Indigenous access to hunt (and in some senses that is a reasonable development, all things considered) and the provincial government has accepted it. You cannot hunt Tsilhqot'in Nation Declared Title Lands if the TNG doesn't allow you to, whether you have a BC hunting licence, tag and/or LEH. Again, you cannot give a group of people self-government and then tell them what to do. (And, again, don't shoot the messenger. If someone holds the opinion that laws and the Supreme Court don't matter, great. I disagree and the facts on the ground support my read of things).






By "Wildlife Coalition" are you referring to the coalition of non-government organizations including Backcountry Hunters and Anglers British Columbia, BC Federation of Fly Fishers, BC Fishing Tourism Association, BC Trappers Association, B.C. Wildlife Federation, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society – BC Chapter, Fraser Valley Angling Guides Association, Fraser Valley Salmon Society, Georgia Strait Alliance, Commercial Bear Viewing Association of BC, Coast to Cascades Grizzly Bear Initiative, British Columbia Federation of Drift Fishers, Ducks Unlimited Canada, Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia, Outdoor Recreation Council of BC, Hunters for BC – SCI, The Steelhead Society of BC, Traditional Bowhunters British Columbia, United Bowhunters, Watershed Watch Salmon Society, Wild Sheep Society of British Columbia, Wilderness Tourism Association of BC, Wildsight, Wildlife Stewardship Council, Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative and others?

If so, yes, I think it will gain traction, has gained traction and will not be fluff, but I also have to ask: what do you mean by "traction"?

Are you asking if the SCI chapter in BC will see eye to eye with the Commercial Bear Viewing Association and successfully bring back the grizzly hunt? I kind of doubt that will happen.

Are you asking if some old school resident hunters will support the coalitions efforts when they see that Y2Y is involved? I kind of doubt that will happen.

What the coalition has already accomplished (and this is significant) is that that people who share some common values but also hold some opposing views have essentially said "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". (Anyone who wants to quickly post "I'd never work with [fill in the group of your choice] because they're [fill in your personal pet peeve] should re-consider. Only fundamentalist puritan ideologues who do not want to win adopt that kind of position.

That coalition needs to figure out a way to move from a "must be consulted" group of citizens (consultation is a box checking exercise, right?) to a "must approve of" group of citizens. That's going to involve all of us who accept that the enemy of my enemy is my friend really embracing truth, reconciliation and de-colonization (Again, don't shoot the messenger. If T&R and decolonization trigger someone, well, point out on the snowflake where the nasty man touched you).



That's not quite "asked and answered" but it kind of is. You say "civil service" or "bureaucracy"; I say "Deep State"; someone else says "Oh, yeah, like that old show "Yes Minister!"

The government is spending a lot of money on the MWAC. MWAC is asking stakeholders for input and are doing actual engagement. Those are positive things.

On the other hand, the same guy who told me that since the science said we *could* hunt grizzlies but at the same time the science didn't say we *had to* hunt grizzlies, with the conclusion being that politicizing wildlife to outflank the opposition and play to the base and the middle in hotly contested ridings was not only smart politics but also completely ethical and wise has also said that protecting old growth costs jobs in risings that the NDP needs to win, so old growth won't be protected.

So what happens if, for example, MWAC advises FLNRORD (otherwise known as the Ministry of Logging) to halt old growth logging? Who wins? MWAC or the NDP operative? I'd say the Deep State does by saying "We all understand that solving the problem isn;'t the goal. Maintaining the problem and using it to make the government look indispensable is that goal". You can fill in the blanks. When it comes to votes and dollars and cents MWAC will probably be fluff.

On the other hand, you can't drive to the store in your refrigerator, but that doesn't mean your refrigerator is useless. MWAC is clearly useful.




First, I wasn't aware that the GOABC and BCWF ever made wildlife decisions aside from fighting over scraps that the government allowed them to fight over. If I'm wrong, why the hell didn't both those groups fund management and avoid our current problem?

If I'm not wrong then nothing's changed aside from the fact that I can't see the odds of duking it out with Scott Ellis and I doubt he sees the odds of duking it out with me. GOABC is a trade organization and BCWF is a volunteer advocacy group. We have more in common than not. We try to influence decision makers, but we aren't and never have been decision makers. See my comment about moving from "must consult" to "must approve".

I think you understand as well as I do that if you can't be the actual decision maker you need to have the decision maker on your side. Hunter conservationists, whether resident hunters doing self guided hunts or guide outfitters making a dollar at it, need decision makers to listen to us. For that to happen we need more allies. The coalition that puts two trade organizations like GOABC and CBVA on the same side of the table is a good start. We now need to add non-hunting people who are currently uniformed, undecided or don't care beside GOABC and CBVA, looking across the table at government, saying "Do what we ask or find a new job".

Which speaks to what a wide man once observed: "Wolf whacking contests are ineffective...."

Are you tracking this, hunterbear? We're not saying we're scared of pissing of hippies. We're saying that votes and dollars trump a sacred covenant with the god of your understanding.

Rob, you know you’re preaching to the choir.
You’re a business man….and seem to get the new relationship with First Nations and government.
Here’s a question.
What would happen if more of the harvestable share of wildlife swung to the indigenous side of the equation?
Really, you hear no bickering that First Nations are constitutionally protected to have 50% of harvestable wildlife.
The scrap & drama always boils down to the licensed hunter harvest….we fight over who gets what and the anti hunters want to end it all.
Do you think if the licensed, guided segment of hunting was under some form of FN’s ownership (say a partnership)
that some of the politics being played out today would become null & void?
To some degree…..maybe?
Asking?

[Rob Chipman]

Rob, you know you’re preaching to the choir.

Absolutely, but it's good to let the pagans hear the sermon, right? We both know that! :-)




What would happen if more of the harvestable share of wildlife swung to the indigenous side of the equation?

Again, I think that's already happened in some areas, and I expect it to continue. I think that will be a function of self-government and I think Indigenous governments will decide, as they see fit, how that wildlife (and in some cases fish) will be exploited. We've seen Tahltan promote payment to members of the nation for bear and wolf harvest. I don't think anyone at the province tried to stop them. That story was promoted in the Narwhal, which has a pretty progressive, as well as urban, readership and I don't recall any outrage. Chad Day has also recommended Indigenous harvest of G-bears as an economic opportunity, and again, I haven't seen pushback.

I don't think it's a case of "harvestable share" swinging to the "Indigenous side of the equation" in other words. If a nation gets self government I think at least some Indigenous governments will likely say "Whaddaya mean "share" white man? Whaddaya mean "side of the equation"? This isn't so-called Canada or so-called BC. You're in Indian country now". Am I wrong about that? I think if you and I ever want to hunt caribou in the Itchas again we're going to need a green light from the Tsilhqot'in and the Lhoosk'uz Dene. I think the only role the province will play will be to decide whether we also need some BC government form to import the game back into BC :-)



Really, you hear no bickering that First Nations are constitutionally protected to have 50% of harvestable wildlife.

I was unaware that constitutionally recognized Indigenous rights say "50%". I'm certain that Indigenous rights, which we all now agree continually evolve (don't agree? take it up with the SCC or Marc Miller) don't say there's a 50% limit as defined by a government that has no jurisdiction on stolen land (again, Marc Miler's words, so don't anyone shoot the messenger).



The scrap & drama always boils down to the licensed hunter harvest….we fight over who gets what and the anti hunters want to end it all.

I'm not in that fight, actually. You may be. I'm not.


Do you think if the licensed, guided segment of hunting was under some form of FN’s ownership (say a partnership)
that some of the politics being played out today would become null & void?
To some degree…..maybe?
Asking?

Short answer? No.

Longer answer? Which politics? T&R and decolonization politics? That's not going to be null and void during our lifetimes. Self-government will lead to fish, wildlife and habitat management, subject only to capacity of the nations to do the work. There will be no need for any non-Indigenous partners unless the nations lack capacity. There may be an *opportunity* for partnerships, but unless the nations need help with capacity then it'll be opportunity, not need.

If you're referring to allocation politics between resident hunters and commercial hunting interests that involve fighting over a declining resource (as well as a shrinking land and water base) that tries to use government like we used to use mum to settle fights with our brothers? That ship has sailed, that fight is over and I doubt very much (correct me if Im wrong) that GOABC hasn't recognized that. I'm not saying GOABC has solved the problem, but I'm pretty sure that they've recognized that the problem has rapidly changed.

GOABC, like Raincoast, is not a significant threat to resident hunters. Politics between GOABC and resident hunters is, as a result, a non-issue. It's already null and void. My opinion only. I could be totally wrong.


Sidebar: new relationship with First Nations and government? There's actually not much new about the relationship. It's the same as it's always been. At the very bottom it's a disputational relationship about the land and who owns it. For a long time after contact non-Indigenous governments were under the impression that they called all the shots and had all the power (and for a long time they did). While the relationship hasn't changed the power imbalance has, so that is, indeed a change.

First Nations people will say, repeatedly, that they have and will outlast Canada. They've said it for a long, long time. It increasingly seems that they've been correct about that. Some non-indigenous people recognize that, and that is also a change (remember, these legal rulings were not made by Indigenous judicial bodies operating under the authority of Indigenous self-government. They were made by non-Indigenous judges applying non-Indigenous laws. We all have to accept that at least *some* non-Indigenous people recognize that Canada and BC are not the ultimate authority over Indigenous people. UNDRIP, DRIPA and the federal UNDRIP Act are real things.

Fish, wildlife, habitat and who gets to hunt are unbelievably small issues in comparison to that. It would be good (again, just my opinion, and I could be completely wrong) if all of us wrapped our heads around those facts. (Fish and Wildlife coalition? enemy of my enemy? That's what we need to be thinking about more, not who gets the biggest share of that last little slice of pie).

[bearvalley]

Rob, I honestly appreciate this conversation.

Like I said before, you’re preaching to the choir but it’s good to put this out to others, even if it’s gone a long ways from the pros and cons of wolf whacking contests.

It’s good to hear from someone that recognizes indigenous rights, and that their rights precede ours, even tho court often has to resolve these issues of title.
It was only a few short years ago that we had the Micks of the world, sawing their way thru roadblocks put in place by First Nations.

I fully get the concept of working together, enemy of my enemy, making more wildlife and on goes the story.
That said, this discussion on the new era of wildlife management has gone on for quite a few years.
There’s been a lot of smoke blown, not much wildlife’s been made.

If the statement “managing to zero” has any merit to it, BC is a prime example.

[Rob Chipman]

That said, this discussion on the new era of wildlife management has gone on for quite a few years.
There’s been a lot of smoke blown, not much wildlife’s been made.

If the statement “managing to zero” has any merit to it, BC is a prime example.

Very true. Who among us doesn't yearn for less talk and more concrete action? The only thing I can say is the old Lincoln quote - if I've got 6 hours to chop down a tree I'll spend he first 4 hours sharpening the axe"

Hopefully we've been doing some axe sharpening and it'll start paying off. I sure hope we haven't just been running our mouths and screwing the pooch. I'll add that the heat dome, the fires and the floods and washouts probably grabbed the attention of a lot of non-hunters and anglers, and we can use that as a force multiplier as well.

[WetLeopard]

Thumbs up to both of you for providing a great read and reiterating some really important points.

[gcreek]

The sad part to this conversation is that no one people, regardless of colour, race, religion or creed should have any more right over another. What happened in the past is past. The only reason this belief that we owe our neighbours something is that it is being perpetuated by those making huge dollars off it. Nothing more.

You guys just follow in step with what those who are getting rich from the idea though. Going to be a civil war before it is over IMO.
When it dawns on the general public and the natives that we are all being played like pawns I think there will be some surprise in most.

[webley]

The sad part to this conversation is that no one people, regardless of colour, race, religion or creed should have any more right over another. What happened in the past is past. The only reason this belief that we owe our neighbours something is that it is being perpetuated by those making huge dollars off it. Nothing more.

You guys just follow in step with what those who are getting rich from the idea though. Going to be a civil war before it is over IMO.
When it dawns on the general public and the natives that we are all being played like pawns I think there will be some surprise in most.
Well said.

[LBM]

The sad part to this conversation is that no one people, regardless of colour, race, religion or creed should have any more right over another. What happened in the past is past. The only reason this belief that we owe our neighbours something is that it is being perpetuated by those making huge dollars off it. Nothing more.

You guys just follow in step with what those who are getting rich from the idea though. Going to be a civil war before it is over IMO.
When it dawns on the general public and the natives that we are all being played like pawns I think there will be some surprise in most.

Does that mean ranchers /farmers should have no more rights over others as well.
I do agree with what happened in the past is the past part.

[gcreek]

Does that mean ranchers /farmers should have no more rights over others as well.
I do agree with what happened in the past is the past part.

Maybe you could put this in plain English and not cloaked in bs like most of your posts and explain what extra rights I have that I don’t pay for over yours.

[Ambush]

Wildlife "management" is a dead end, image tarnishing, pain in the ass, vote losing proposition for government and they'd love to be done with it all. Especially predator control!! The only time they like it is when cancelling some will gain them votes. Wolves and cougars are up next.

I said on here ten years ago that we would be buying our hunting and fishing privilege's from the natives bands, and I was scoffed at and derided as an idiot, because "we will never let that happen!". Well, we are one or two steps away. "Indigenous knowledge" must now be considered on every resource issue. You can't hunt grizzlies, yet the Tahltan can pay band members to shoot wolves, black and grizzly bears year round.

The government would love to hand this whole messy affair over to Indigenous control. That alone would be a vote rich election plank, handing control back to the Stewarts of the land. Every green and anti org going would fight and campaign for it, affectively campaigning for the party that advanced it. Citiots would love it in their naivety.

Let the coastal bands manage salmon. (big win for the federal government too). Let interior bands mange wildlife.

You just have to accept the fact that politicians (as a unit) don't give a shit about wildlife or your connection to it.

[Dannybuoy]

I guess the anti's got the message out for the survey .... 59% of respondents Against predator reduction.

[Bugle M In]

I guess the anti's got the message out for the survey .... 59% of respondents Against predator reduction.
Your right.
I wonder if the Ministry ever takes time to take a survey of those at the PHTAT table, and see what the vote is!!!
These surveys are nothing more than your politicians looking into what will get them "more votes".
These surveys are not introduced to fix wildlife issues.
If so, PHTAT would be the only survey needed.

[Rob Chipman]

I guess the anti's got the message out for the survey .... 59% of respondents Against predator reduction.

And the obvious flip side? Fans of science back management did not get the message out. That is something everyone here exercises control over, and it's something that we have a very bad record on.


Your right.
I wonder if the Ministry ever takes time to take a survey of those at the PHTAT table, and see what the vote is!!!
These surveys are nothing more than your politicians looking into what will get them "more votes".
These surveys are not introduced to fix wildlife issues.
If so, PHTAT would be the only survey needed.

The ministry knows very well what the opinions at PHTAT are.

Also, the government is very clear that they want to continue culling wolves to save caribou.

These surveys are used to gauge public opinion because public opinion is a gauge of what voters want. We saw that happen with the grizzly hunt. It was politicized and both parties decide to support the ban and ignore science.

There is a solution.

Make sure the message of science based fish, wildlife and habitat management, informed by Indigenous ecological knowledge gets accepted by hunters and anglers and then circulated with non-hunting and non-angling members of the public.

I understand that some readers of this forum are going to have a really tough time choking down the "informed by Indigenous ecological knowledge" part of that. Harvest the Land asked what kind of accommodation I recommend with First Nations in order to accomplish our goals (preserve and restore fish, wildlife and habitat in BC while ensuring access to it for all BCers).

That's one of the accomodations. Choke that phrase down, accept it, start repeating it, and get people you know who don't hunt or fish to but in as well. Then tell your politicians.

And support advocacy groups that are trying to change the conversation about fish, wildlife and habitat in BC or none of it will matter. Two links to check on what BCWF is saying:

Jesse Zeman, Executive Director of BCWF, on the Mike Smythe show:

https://omny.fm/shows/mike-smyth/full-show-winter-safety-cold-weather-driving-turke?t=27m (https://omny.fm/shows/mike-smyth/full-show-winter-safety-cold-weather-driving-turke?t=27m)

Jesse Zeman, Executive Director of the BCWF in the Vancouver Sun:

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/jesse-zeman-a-balanced-debate-about-conservation-is-welcome-preferably-before-more-species-face-extinction

To paraphrase Al Martin when he was the driving force behind BCWF's town halls during the G-bear debate in the run up to the 2017 election: your politicians don't do what you want because they don't even know you exist. You need to educate them and let them know how many of you there are.

We're making progress but we need more people pulling on the same rope and in the same direction.

[Rob Chipman]

And Merry Christmas to everyone on the forum, especially to the guys behind the scenes who kick it running! I appreciate it guys.

[mod7rem]

This thread is a great read. Helps me realize how complicated this topic is. Thanks everyone for taking the time.