2022 hunting/trapping regulation proposal

[sjhawes]

Relatively new to this site and not sure if this has already been posted. Below is a link to proposed regulations for 2022. By logging in with your bceid you can vote as opposed, in favor, or neutral. Submissions close on Jan. 23/22 from what I understand.

https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/ahte/hunting

[huntingfamily]

Thanks for sharing

[Fallkniven]

Thanks, just voted.

[tylerduce]

Thanks for sharing.

[marcus44]

thanks for sharing it reminded me to update my resident credentials

[balian]

Thanks, is it just me or you cant see the comments even after you have voted? Last year I remember I was able to read them after voting.

[silveragent]

Interesting one about air rifles


Advancements in air rifle technology have resulted in increased interest in hunting with air rifles, and the public has started to ask questions about their legality. Modern air rifles are much more powerful and advanced than they were 20 years ago, many of them have sufficient power to classify them federally as firearms, and people require a firearms licence to possess or acquire them.
A .35 caliber or greater air rifle is considered powerful enough to humanely dispatch most big game species (the smaller variety) at short range (i.e., within 50 yards), they are comparable to traditional center fire rifles that are currently allowed for hunting big game.
While there are air rifles on the market (i.e., .45 caliber or greater) that are potentially adequate to hunt larger bodies big game species (moose, elk, bison, or caribou), it is being proposed to prohibit the use of all air rifles to hunt these larger bodied species due to their large body size.

[Harvest the Land]

Holy cow lots of comments to make. Thanks for sharing

[180grainer]

Relatively new to this site and not sure if this has already been posted. Below is a link to proposed regulations for 2022. By logging in with your bceid you can vote as opposed, in favor, or neutral. Submissions close on Jan. 23/22 from what I understand.

https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/ahte/hunting
Wow, they want to ban wireless trail cams.

[tylerduce]

Wow, they want to ban wireless trail cams.


I can understand a ban on wireless cams during hunting season, but year round makes little sense.

[180grainer]

So, they want compulsory reporting for all "species"!!!!! WTF. And, out of concerns by the FN community; who don't report a ****ing thing. But all species? That's draconian.

Everyone should be looking at these changes. Lots of whacked stuff unless I'm misunderstanding what they want. Trappers have to have each body and hide checked? Like, every one? That's nuts.

[180grainer]

Where's the BCWF on this? Why haven't they alerted the members to these changes? Some look pretty awful.

[rageous]

Where's the BCWF on this? Why haven't they alerted the members to these changes? Some look pretty awful.

That’s a very good point. They have a seat at the table.

[180grainer]

That’s a very good point. They have a seat at the table.
I think I misread the trapping requirement. But compulsory reporting of all species? Anyways. Seems like the screw always tightens. Never loosens.

[Arctic Lake]

Maybe Rob Chipman can comment on BCWF position
Arctic Lake

[Dirty]

Follow my logic on this. They want compulsory inspection on all species. They also want a law against tampering with horns. So you are telling me they can’t tell the difference between a sharpie line and annuli so we are going to inspect everything. :) Compulsory inspection. I put that sh*t on everything.

[adriaticum]

It's starting to look a lot like Europe.
Smaller hunting areas, less species, more paperwork, less animals.
Yep, seen it before.
It's inevitable.

[Bugle M In]

It's starting to look a lot like Europe.
Smaller hunting areas, less species, more paperwork, less animals.
Yep, seen it before.
It's inevitable.
Yup, I have always said that if you wonder what it will be like to live here in BC, especially the LM, you only need to look at
many cities and countries in Europe and then just calculate 30 to 50 years from now.
We are headed into a very small circle.
Its why i don't like the more and more LEH or the more and More shorter seasons and the ever more closed areas.
I understand we have wildlife shortages and something needs to be done.
But you could remove hunting right now and they still will disappear.
Addressing all the real factors is what is needed, but has never happened and doubt it ever will.
Really sad.

[Bugle M In]

Relatively new to this site and not sure if this has already been posted. Below is a link to proposed regulations for 2022. By logging in with your bceid you can vote as opposed, in favor, or neutral. Submissions close on Jan. 23/22 from what I understand.

https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/ahte/hunting

Thanks or the heads up, everyone needs to go to the link and apply themselves.
cheers

[Bugle M In]

I can understand a ban on wireless cams during hunting season, but year round makes little sense.


Wow, they want to ban wireless trail cams.

When you guys talk "wired", you are talking about satellite cams correct??
(Never considered them "wired" is all, but rather wireless but sending a signal)

As for the cams on batteries, just waiting till you physically walk up and check them, I think that is a bit ridiculous to have them
gone.

[180grainer]

When you guys talk "wired", you are talking about satellite cams correct??
(Never considered them "wired" is all, but rather wireless but sending a signal)

As for the cams on batteries, just waiting till you physically walk up and check them, I think that is a bit ridiculous to have them
gone.
You'll have to have a read. I think they mean actual trail cams guys use on this site about post stuff up. But then again, I didn't even think about using a satellite to check them.

[Rob Chipman]

Maybe Rob Chipman can comment on BCWF position
Arctic Lake


My understanding is that these are are still "proposed".

BCWF doesn't have a definite BoD approved position on a lot of them.

Which one(s) are you particularly concerned with?

I sit on the Provincial Hunting and Trapping Advisory Table, PHTAT, and these proposals come up over the course of several meetings and get a lot of discussion. In my experience that's required because often the COs are looking at a problem from a very different perspective than the non-government guys at the table.

Wording can also be confusing -

180:

For trapping its my understanding is that its not compulsory reporting for all species. It's removing the requirement for the carcass as well as the pelt for species needing CI, so it's a relaxation of the requirement. I'll pay more attention next meeting, but if I recall correctly its a relaxation of the current rule. (that's in reference to 2022-0-02)

For 2022-0-05 I also don't think its' compulsory inspecting of all species. I think its reporting more data for the species that already have compulsory inspection.

For 2022-0-06 I think its the same. No additional species are going to compulsory reporting, but the species that already require it will (proposed) require more data submitted.


BTW, this kind of feedback is very helpful. Feel free to send more of it direct to me at rob@robchipman.net. It'll give me more to beak off about at PHTAT.

What other things are you guys concerned about and what are you thinking?

[180grainer]

When you guys talk "wired", you are talking about satellite cams correct??
(Never considered them "wired" is all, but rather wireless but sending a signal)

As for the cams on batteries, just waiting till you physically walk up and check them, I think that is a bit ridiculous to have them
gone.
this is how it's written.

Proposed Regulations:
Ban the use of wireless trail cameras for the purpose of hunting year-round in Region 1:


A person commits an offence where the person uses a wireless trail camera for the purpose of hunting from August 1 to December 10 in Regions 2, 3, 4, 5 (other than MUs 5-7 to 5-9), 6 (other than Haida Gwaii, MUs 6-12 and 6-13), 7A, 7B, and 8.
A person commits an offence where the person uses a wireless trail camera for the purpose of hunting year-round in Region 1 and Management Units 5-7 to 5-9 , 6-12 and 6-13.




Rationale:
Prior to 2020, there was no regulation with respect to prohibiting real-time wireless cameras during hunting seasons. Given technological advancements, expanding cellular coverage and affordability, real-time wireless cameras were deemed unlawful to use from August 1 to December 10, due to principles of ethical hunting. This duration primarily captures the bulk of hunting seasons in the province, including the hunting of ungulates. It has been proposed that, in the West Coast region (Vancouver Island, Haida Gwaii, and portions of the coastal mainland), the prohibition on wireless trail cameras for the purpose of hunting apply year-round.

[bcsteve]

The key word is “real time wireless camera”. They are referring to trail cam with a SIM card and cellular plan that send real time updates to your cell phone. Not the cameras that you have to physically go to your trail cam and pull the SD card to view the pics.

[Aaron600]

The key word is “real time wireless camera”. They are referring to trail cam with a SIM card and cellular plan that send real time updates to your cell phone. Not the cameras that you have to physically go to your trail cam and pull the SD card to view the pics.

Your 100% correct. I phoned a C/O about this. Regular trail cams that just take a battery/sim are fine. Nothing with antenna's or even the capability to send images remotely.

[Bigdoggdon]

Man, that's gonna take some work to pick through. I guess I'll have at it later.

[DarekG]

Regarding compulsory inspection...



The proposed amendments are responsive to previous requests from First Nations to improve the information about wildlife harvest activities that may be occurring within territories. Better information will also support the implementation of government-government agreements and ongoing improvements to our shared stewardship of wildlife with Nations and wildlife management decision making. Collectively this work contributes to the province’s commitment to improved wildlife stewardship and habitat conservation and advancing reconciliation.


So is it really science based if only half of the hunting demographic is reporting their harvest and FN are exempt from these regulations? Seems entirely political, but I'm sure there are some on this forum that will have an essay on hand to tell me it's actually good for us second-class hunters.

[Bugle M In]

The key word is “real time wireless camera”. They are referring to trail cam with a SIM card and cellular plan that send real time updates to your cell phone. Not the cameras that you have to physically go to your trail cam and pull the SD card to view the pics.
Yes, that is what I understood as well, so i was confused to hear the terminology of "wired"?
Starting to wonder if some were hard wiring from cam to house!!!lol.
I knew the SIM card and the wired cable up to the satellite transponder for real time was illegal

I know of one being found this season that got turned into the CO's.
And my understanding is, in order to activate such a camera, you have to register it.
Also doesn't help when your face is still on the SIM cards as well when you set them up!!

Those cams are fine being banned, imo.
The battery ones and physically walking in to retrieve the pics should be allowed.
Don't really see the harm in that.
I used one and i don't use bait, I just wanted to see what the area was like after the hunting stops thru winter and spring.

[WetLeopard]

Only additional information to be collected on species already requiring compulsory inspection/reporting. So a much smaller change than what the title on its own would lead some to believe.

[caddisguy]

The compulsory inspection stuff looks like it's just asking for more things in the CI for the already mandatory CI, while in other proposals introduce some CI for species in some MU's?

I still have to make time to read it all through, but man I wish we had this showing a couple years back when they banned spear hunting (or any big game hunting without a bow or gun)

[N¡ck]

Regarding compulsory inspection...



So is it really science based if only half of the hunting demographic is reporting their harvest and FN are exempt from these regulations? Seems entirely political, but I'm sure there are some on this forum that will have an essay on hand to tell me it's actually good for us second-class hunters.

�� I second that comment.

[Bugle M In]

Regarding compulsory inspection...



So is it really science based if only half of the hunting demographic is reporting their harvest and FN are exempt from these regulations? Seems entirely political, but I'm sure there are some on this forum that will have an essay on hand to tell me it's actually good for us second-class hunters.
Yes, I just came across that "Compulsory Reporting" for all ungulates as very hypocritical and a slippery slope.
I am fine with reporting of all game taken, but it has to be reported by all that hunt.
Not just Resident Hunters to Appease FN concerns.
There are plenty of Resident Hunters that have FN Harvest Concerns as well.
As much as it is good for the inventory of ungulate harvest, it only benefits the FN as to what we are harvest.
What good is reporting if only some of what is harvested is reported.
There is "No Science" in that, or #'s that can be used to benefit wildlife.
Only used by FN to explain why game is missing, while they continue to fly well below the radar.

Garbage #'s in, garbage stats out.
Baking a cake is a science, but you need all the ingredients and all the accurate amounts!!!!

[BULLNUTTS]

I have to agree with the many who live for conservation and love our wildlife and want true sustainable harvests when it comes to our fish and wildlife. Respect and being respectful of cultural rights is one thing- Proper and truthful Stewardship is another. Just because one has ''the right'' doesn't make it right. What I speak of are things such as- Harvesting spawning stocks of threatened species, the harvests of winter Herds of moose, Pit lamping game, and just ignoring all impacts of overhunting and rules of fair chase period. Traditional and heritage are not these things and most certainly not proper honest stewardship. FN Absolutely must be brought to task to make this ANYTHING work. With only half the pieces you have no puzzle. All one has is a very rough... Guess ?? At best. This covers the complete and all plans of conservation and management and stewardship. Akin to trying to raise chickens with a fox living in the henhouse. The FN numbers simply must be counted- because they Do count and are of the utmost's importance for success in honest true stewardship.
Next,Rob- Sir I failed see any notice of control of the grey wolves going seemingly unchecked. Packs of strong numbers ,usually 9-12, most everywhere. Is there a plan in place and something being done? Thx in advance,These are very very challenging issues all.

[Harvest the Land]

Yes, that is what I understood as well, so i was confused to hear the terminology of "wired"?
Starting to wonder if some were hard wiring from cam to house!!!lol.
I knew the SIM card and the wired cable up to the satellite transponder for real time was illegal

I know of one being found this season that got turned into the CO's.
And my understanding is, in order to activate such a camera, you have to register it.
Also doesn't help when your face is still on the SIM cards as well when you set them up!!

Those cams are fine being banned, imo.
The battery ones and physically walking in to retrieve the pics should be allowed.
Don't really see the harm in that.
I used one and i don't use bait, I just wanted to see what the area was like after the hunting stops thru winter and spring.

Care to elaborate on why you are "fine with them being banned"?

Listen to what we're all talking about here - placing more restrictons/rules/bans on our fellow hunters. How could anyone be in favour of doing such a thing?

Every couple of years we think of more rules and regulations to place on ourselves, why?

This is how our govt treats society at large - how can we come up with new taxtes and rules on citizens every year? Which rights can we take away from people this year?

Do you really think its a good idea to take away more rights from people? Who in their right mind advocates for such a thing?

[BULLNUTTS]

Care to elaborate on why you are "fine with them being banned"?

Listen to what we're all talking about here - placing more restrictons/rules/bans on our fellow hunters. How could anyone be in favour of doing such a thing?

Every couple of years we think of more rules and regulations to place on ourselves, why?

This is how our govt treats society at large - how can we come up with new taxtes and rules on citizens every year? Which rights can we take away from people this year?

Do you really think its a good idea to take away more rights from people? Who in their right mind advocates for such a thing?

Two thumbs up button!! Next will be banned from actually following or tracking an animal at all.

[N¡ck]

Care to elaborate on why you are "fine with them being banned"?

Listen to what we're all talking about here - placing more restrictons/rules/bans on our fellow hunters. How could anyone be in favour of doing such a thing?

Every couple of years we think of more rules and regulations to place on ourselves, why?

This is how our govt treats society at large - how can we come up with new taxtes and rules on citizens every year? Which rights can we take away from people this year?

Do you really think its a good idea to take away more rights from people? Who in their right mind advocates for such a thing?
Why not allow drones, infrared, satellites, etc..then? Whats the difference? Cameras are one thing but cell cams is going a bit to far. It's not really hunting anymore.

[fishhunt]

For the compulsory inspection items listed below from Rob, I read it as Rob did to mean just more data for existing compulsory inspections, not that there will be compulsory inspections for everything going forward. You'd have to triple the amount of CO's to handle that volume.

Per Rob..."For 2022-0-05 I also don't think its' compulsory inspecting of all species. I think its reporting more data for the species that already have compulsory inspection.

For 2022-0-06 I think its the same. No additional species are going to compulsory reporting, but the species that already require it will (proposed) require more data submitted."

Also, they wouldn't have "2022-05-02 Removal of Compulsory Inspection for Moose" if they were proposing compulsory inspection of all species province wide.

[whitlers]

For the compulsory inspection items listed below from Rob, I read it as Rob did to mean just more data for existing compulsory inspections, not that there will be compulsory inspections for everything going forward. You'd have to triple the amount of CO's to handle that volume.

Per Rob..."For 2022-0-05 I also don't think its' compulsory inspecting of all species. I think its reporting more data for the species that already have compulsory inspection.

For 2022-0-06 I think its the same. No additional species are going to compulsory reporting, but the species that already require it will (proposed) require more data submitted."

I agree. Read it again guys. It sounds like extra reporting requirements for existing CI's.

As for CI's in general. The guy I dealt with a few years back after a bull moose harvest was an absolute joke. I don't know how this guy got qualified.

I also agree that FN should have to report aswell but we all know thats not going to happen.

[Dannybuoy]

My understanding is that these are are still "proposed".

BCWF doesn't have a definite BoD approved position on a lot of them.

Which one(s) are you particularly concerned with?

I sit on the Provincial Hunting and Trapping Advisory Table, PHTAT, and these proposals come up over the course of several meetings and get a lot of discussion. In my experience that's required because often the COs are looking at a problem from a very different perspective than the non-government guys at the table.

Wording can also be confusing -

180:

For trapping its my understanding is that its not compulsory reporting for all species. It's removing the requirement for the carcass as well as the pelt for species needing CI, so it's a relaxation of the requirement. I'll pay more attention next meeting, but if I recall correctly its a relaxation of the current rule. (that's in reference to 2022-0-02)

For 2022-0-05 I also don't think its' compulsory inspecting of all species. I think its reporting more data for the species that already have compulsory inspection.

For 2022-0-06 I think its the same. No additional species are going to compulsory reporting, but the species that already require it will (proposed) require more data submitted.


BTW, this kind of feedback is very helpful. Feel free to send more of it direct to me at rob@robchipman.net. It'll give me more to beak off about at PHTAT.

What other things are you guys concerned about and what are you thinking?
Actually Rob , they have already implemented compulsory reporting for this trapping season .
If a report is not submitted the licensed trapper will be unable to apply for or obtain a licence, permit or limited entry hunting authorization.Trappers may also be charged with an offence if a trapping report has not been received by July 31st following the previous trapping licence year.

[Harvest the Land]

Why not allow drones, infrared, satellites, etc..then? Whats the difference? Cameras are one thing but cell cams is going a bit to far. It's not really hunting anymore.

Are drones currently allowed? No they aren't, so we aren't talking about taking away more hunter rights by banning drones. Big difference.

Cell cams are allowed currently. You may find this hard to believe but I (nor any hunter I know) have never shot an animal in front of a cell cam.

We're talking about taking away MORE hunter rights because animal rights organizations like the Vancouver Humane Society can't stand our pastime and they have sympathizers in govt.

What is it with people like you who seem to get their rocks off by wanting to take away other people's rights?

"Govern me harder Daddy"

[Livewire322]

Are drones currently allowed? No they aren't, so we aren't talking about taking away more hunter rights by banning drones. Big difference.

Cell cams are allowed currently…

You’re wrong. Cellular capable trail cameras are not legal for hunting use in BC between August 1 and December 10 - see page 15 of the synopsis.

I suspect the parallel that Nick was driving at is that drones and IR were all legal a few years ago. They only just appeared under the “It’s unlawful” section of the synopsis recently.

[Harvest the Land]

You’re wrong. Cellular capable trail cameras are not legal for hunting use in BC between August 1 and December 10 - see page 15 of the synopsis.

I suspect the parallel that Nick was driving at is that drones and IR were all legal a few years ago. They only just appeared under the “It’s unlawful” section of the synopsis recently.

Sure I should have specified that they're not legal during the fall seasons (thanks to the Vancouver Humane Society and other communist hunters who love to take other hunters rights away).

This proposal is to ban them altogether year round in reg 1. And it would only be a matter of time if communist/authoritarian hunters and animal rights groups get their way, before they get banned year round altogether for the entire province.

How anyone can advocate in favour of stripping away bit by bit what little hunting rights we have left is beyond me. You folks who are in favour of this BS are betraying your fellow hunters. Period

[J_T]

Yeah, trail cameras are the most important reg proposal to think about. Not.

When I look at the regs and what and where I hunt, there is very little that impacts my hunt. I admit my confusion any time there is a reduction in a bow season. The harvest never equates to doom and gloom and the need to remove the season. In Region 4, the BOS is sometimes the most viable hunting opportunity and experience. With greater than 50% of residents to R4 using archery tackle, it seems the hunting community knows what a viable hunt is.

As Rob mentioned, he/we sit at the Provincial table and these come up. As he mentioned, it is often the CO's who want to refine a reg, to prevent a misunderstanding, or non-compliant activity. So who does the hunter blame for that? Other hunters.

I'm currently taking a big picture approach. With the T4W and "The Forum" (Indigenous reps) initiatives, increased budget allocations, 'the process' is not about creating or modifying hunting opportunity right now. It's about setting up a framework to be successful. That includes indigenous involvement, data collection, landscape planning, habitat management, modifications to forest practices.

There is a ton of work being done (by very few). I'm not going to defend the process, but I'll stay involved and I hope, during the next regulation cycle, we can develop some meaningful new and creative regulations that align to a paradigm shift in forest management.
It's a lot of work with only a handful of people doing it.

Moving forward, data collection is critical to making informed decisions. I support increased harvest reporting. For all users of the resource.

We continue at Province to talk about 'dynamic paradigm shifts' in our habitat and forest sectors. Well, we need some dynamic shifts in what we hunt, what we use to hunt, where we hunt and most of all, 'when' we hunt.

Jump ahead a couple of years, if Government want to show they are making progress on the wildlife initiative (and evidence of large budgets well spent), they are going to (next reg cycle) need to improve hunting opportunity as a result of the successful implementation of new forest practices and agreements with Indigenous groups.

Working on the long game and precise timing. Who knows....

[caddisguy]

I read over the trailcam proposal again. They do give a clear definition:

"wireless camera" means a camera that obtains an image by means of a remote or infrared sensor and that is capable of sending an image remotely to an electronic device. [note, the definition is not proposed to change]."

So this is all pretty clear. Use of cellular cams for hunting purposes August 1 to Dec 10 has been "unlawful" for at least a couple of years now. For Region 1, the proposal is to extend this to be year round.

The "rationale" isn't much of a rationale though... it says:

"It has been proposed that, in the West Coast region (Vancouver Island, Haida Gwaii, and portions of the coastal mainland), the prohibition on wireless trail cameras for the purpose of hunting apply year-round"

Doesn't really say why. I suspect maybe so that it covers spring bear season? Come to think of it, I didn't actually realise that currently one could technically use cellular trailcams for bear hunting :D

[Harvest the Land]

Yeah, trail cameras are the most important reg proposal to think about. Not..

With all due respect, I never said this was the most pressing issue. And you're missing my point.

Bugle brought up an example of one of the proposals that he was in favor of - banning cell cams year round. He could have chosen any proposal that proposed to take away hunter rights and I would have asked him why he was in favor of taking away that right.

This whole exercise is all about deciding what hunting rights are they going to take away this cycle and every 2 years. I agree with you in saying that it's got nothing to do with improving wildlife populations and habitat. But can you explain how banning cell cams is "setting up a framework to be successful " ?

I get why animal rights groups want to take our rights away. But for the life of me, i will never understand why hunters also want to pile on and take away other hunters rights. Why do we like to eat our own?

[Rob Chipman]

The "rationale" isn't much of a rationale though... Doesn't really say why.

One thing to consider is this: a lot of the COS perspective comes through the lens of "simpler enforcement". Remember, it's an over-tasked and under-resourced group. They need to do more with less year after year.

I'm not saying that's the explanation here (I'll try to look into it) but it is s common theme.

Here's an example (and I'm paraphrasing and not speaking for the COS directly, but I've heard this theme more than once and it makes sense):
E-bikes are not permitted in lots of areas because the COS calls them "motorized". Lots of bike fans say "It's complex. Some e-bikes could be thought of as motorized, and other can't be, especially when you get deep into the cycling community weeds, and so before the COS decides, incorrectly, that e-bikes are always "motorized" they need to spend more time and effort getting up to speed on the ins and outs of bikes, and climate change, and bike lanes and......"

At which point the COS says something along the lines of "Yeah, we actually aren't tasked with sorting out bike inside baseball. Defining e-bikes as motorized vehicles makes it easier for us to do more with less in an efficient manner. Sound fair? Great, moving on...."

There are drawbacks to that approach, obviously, but I think part of the problem is, without a doubt, over-tasked, under-resourced.

[Livewire322]

With all due respect, I never said this was the most pressing issue. And you're missing my point.

Bugle brought up an example of one of the proposals that he was in favor of - banning cell cams year round. He could have chosen any proposal that proposed to take away hunter rights and I would have asked him why he was in favor of taking away that right.

This whole exercise is all about deciding what hunting rights are they going to take away this cycle and every 2 years. I agree with you in saying that it's got nothing to do with improving wildlife populations and habitat. But can you explain how banning cell cams is "setting up a framework to be successful " ?

I get why animal rights groups want to take our rights away. But for the life of me, i will never understand why hunters also want to pile on and take away other hunters rights. Why do we like to eat our own?

Each man is entitled to his opinions, you don’t have to like it.
You’ve written your bit multiple times and made your point that hunters shouldn’t restrict other hunters - the question is: what are YOU doing about it?
Are you just kvetching on this forum, or are you spending some of your free time writing in to the ministry and you MLA voicing your opinions

I don’t agree with pit lamping - one could argue this means that I am for restricting hunter rights (ignoring the fact that it’s been illegal for eons). After all, why not allow people to use whatever they want to their advantage, right?

[Rob Chipman]

So is it really science based if only half of the hunting demographic is reporting their harvest and FN are exempt from these regulations? Seems entirely political,...

There's a ton of politics in it.

The question of how does science crunch accurate numbers when they don't start with accurate numbers is a big obstacle that we have to get over. It gets a ton of pushback and is a real sore point with some. It's going to be very tough to solve.

A common response I've heard is: don't worry about who takes what, just make more. There's some value to that approach, but there are a ton of drawbacks.

[RyoTHC]

Anyone heard of death by a thousand cuts ? Every year they will make it more difficult and more expensive until only the rich fancy folks hunt and everyone else is eating their shit lab grown meat.

[Rob Chipman]

Next,Rob- Sir I failed see any notice of control of the grey wolves going seemingly unchecked. Packs of strong numbers ,usually 9-12, most everywhere. Is there a plan in place and something being done? Thx in advance,These are very very challenging issues all.


As far as I understand it the government supports their current wolf cull program (in aid of caribou recovery) despite facing a lot of pushback from voters, with roughly a 60/40 split against according to EngageBC, with most of the opposition from southern BC(which is more than the LML - don't forget VanIsle and the Koots).

I don't think there is any appetite among the government or a majority of the voting population for any sort of predator management aside from resident hunting. I'm not sure how to change that appetite, but as Andrew Brietbart observed "Politics is downstream from culture" and as a BC Liberal party operative told me "Culture eats policy for breakfast".

We really need a cultural shift in this province if we're going to manage wildlife scientifically (or in any fashion close to the NAMWC).

[Rob Chipman]

Actually Rob , they have already implemented compulsory reporting for this trapping season .
If a report is not submitted the licensed trapper will be unable to apply for or obtain a licence, permit or limited entry hunting authorization.Trappers may also be charged with an offence if a trapping report has not been received by July 31st following the previous trapping licence year.


Thanks for that Dannybuoy. I'll put it on my list and get a better understanding of it.

[Harvest the Land]

I've literally written dozens of letters to my MLA's and the Ministry over the years. If you want me to forward them to you I'd be happy to do so. The reality is my current MLA couldn't care less. I also donate $100 a month to BCWF and $100 to Habitat Conservation Fund and smaller monthly donations to various other wildlife advocacy groups. When I'm semi retired and have more free time I plan on running to be a director on the board of some of these organizations.

Pit lamping is illegal, therefore it's not a right that we have that is being proposed to be taken away.

Let's focus on the matter at hand - we're talking about current rights that we have that are being proposed to be taken away. Having other hunters agreeing with such proposals isn't helping to advance hunter rights, nor is it doing anything to improve wildlife populations and habitat


Each man is entitled to his opinions, you don’t have to like it.
You’ve written your bit multiple times and made your point that hunters shouldn’t restrict other hunters - the question is: what are YOU doing about it?
Are you just kvetching on this forum, or are you spending some of your free time writing in to the ministry and you MLA voicing your opinions

I don’t agree with pit lamping - one could argue this means that I am for restricting hunter rights (ignoring the fact that it’s been illegal for eons). After all, why not allow people to use whatever they want to their advantage, right?

[Livewire322]

BTW, this kind of feedback is very helpful. Feel free to send more of it direct to me at rob@robchipman.net. It'll give me more to beak off about at PHTAT.

What other things are you guys concerned about and what are you thinking?

I’m concerned about the proposal to close the Squamish river valley to target shooting.
This is an issue that I’m torn on, I’ve had bad experiences with people shooting all night up there and shooting in unsafe directions, but I also know it didn’t become an issue until after they closed Sylvester Rd (aka: little Iraq). My concern is that the proposed regulation is the nuclear option and will only serve to push asshats further afield. Rather than putting up signs outlining the problem and enforcing existing rules (safe backstop, etc.), or putting a shooting restriction for certain time periods (during the summer when traffic up there is at its peak), they are proposing to just quash it altogether. I get it, limited resources make for tough calls, but this is only kicking the can down the road.

Further, if they want to make regulations based off of people’s concerns, why stop with shooting? I’ve got plenty to complain about with respect to the folks who ‘recreate’ in that valley: getting shit faced, lighting off fireworks mid summer, parking vehicles on the riverbanks and sandbars, driving like idiots because they are uncomfortable being on a back road, camping on the FSR leaving room for only one direction of travel, people just stopping in the middle of the road to take pictures. I’ve spent quite a bit of time up there and not once have I seen any efforts to enforce good behaviour.

Also, say you’re up there hunting for few days and you miss an animal on day one - naturally a guy would want to check his zero, which he wouldn’t be allowed to do so easily if this proposal passes. I know the response will be ‘if a tree falls and no one witnesses it, did it really happen?’ But, still, there has to be a better way than just jumping straight to the nuclear option.

[wideopenthrottle]

the one I like is for mandatory reporting of all big game animals killed...if it was done on line as a part of applying for the next years tags it would give the science guys more concrete data rather than extrapolated data from random hunter harvest surveys...I don't see any logical argument to not report every gig game animal killed by hunters...using the argument about the lack of reporting by unregulated hunters does not change the fact that it would be better more accurate data than is currently collected...that real data would be useful to add strength to the scientific recommendations...I think most of us are conservationists as well as hunters

[Livewire322]

I've literally written dozens of letters to my MLA's and the Ministry over the years. If you want me to forward them to you I'd be happy to do so. The reality is my current MLA couldn't care less. I also donate $100 a month to BCWF and $100 to Habitat Conservation Fund and smaller monthly donations to various other wildlife advocacy groups. When I'm semi retired and have more free time I plan on running to be a director on the board of some of these organizations.

Pit lamping is illegal, therefore it's not a right that we have that is being proposed to be taken away.

Let's focus on the matter at hand - we're talking about current rights that we have that are being proposed to be taken away. Having other hunters agreeing with such proposals isn't helping to advance hunter rights, nor is it doing anything to improve wildlife populations and habitat
Right on, you’re doing better than most!

But you’re either missing or ignoring the point I was making on pit lamping. Folks are entitled to their opinions, controversial or not. We don’t have to like it, but we sure do have to put up with it.

[Dannybuoy]

Thanks for that Dannybuoy. I'll put it on my list and get a better understanding of it.
Not saying it's a bad or good thing ? Wait and see what comes of it I guess They are also offering to pay for carcasses this year for some studies . ( Marten , otter , mink )

[Bugle M In]

Care to elaborate on why you are "fine with them being banned"?

Listen to what we're all talking about here - placing more restrictons/rules/bans on our fellow hunters. How could anyone be in favour of doing such a thing?

Every couple of years we think of more rules and regulations to place on ourselves, why?

This is how our govt treats society at large - how can we come up with new taxtes and rules on citizens every year? Which rights can we take away from people this year?

Do you really think its a good idea to take away more rights from people? Who in their right mind advocates for such a thing?
Yes, I will eloborate, as it is really simple!
It does not stop you from going hunting!!!
Not at all.
All they are being used for (during hunting) is whather a hunter decides to get of his/her ass to go out.
In other words, "oh well, nothing from the cam showing up on my Cell" so I will stay home"!!

The regulation does NOT stop you from hunting or LIMIT your hunting.

LEH, CLOSURES do!

IS it the biggest issue we are facing....nope!
Is it about regulating advancements in technology ..... absof'n lutely.
there, I have elaborated.
You can still go hunt!!!

[Bugle M In]

As far as the Full On Compulsory Reporting.
I am fine with it, and i am even fine with the Harvest Cards and if you don't fill them out, you don't get a tag next season, imo.
As far as both are concerned however:
You can lie on the Harvest Card, so it is based on a Honor System.
And Physically reporting/inspecting your harvest, but being allowed the time to do so (which i agree with as i don't want to be
forced to immediately run into some town and hope someone has time as often they don't when you need them to be!),
allows someone to drive home and then what!!??????
If i wasn't checked at a game check, and I make it all the way home, who the hell is going to know.
Its not like I need a plug for elk/moose/deer antlers anyways!

What's the difference than between the harvest card and the actual inspection, other than a few more answers.

As for the FN requesting this, I am offended by that.
Why can they point fingers at RH when they haven't taken the time to do it themselves first.
I certainly always look at my own actions before assessing others.
Just because the FN are asking, doesnt make it right!
And even if I do follow suite, what difference will it make, as it is garbage numbers.

Example, around Cache Cr, I talked to several FN members in 1 season.
1 had taken 2 MD, the next 4 MD and another said 20MD.
On top of that, its in the same area as the 1 FN fellow who was charged with "selling game meat"! and I think got off?
And a fellow I know who grew up in Barriere, his best friend was FN, and 1 season that fellow took 30 ungulates of all species,
and was sick of it himself, because he was literally presented a grocery list by close relatives and friends from within the Band.
So, what is the point of us "only" reporting?
And even if we do get them to report, what do you do with the ones that still refuse to, and are now days "above the law"???

We are a long way off from that!
FN should start first, as childish as that sounds!

LASTLY....
How about the MINISTRY actually do some work!!
How about COMPULSARY COUNTING!!!!????????????????????????
On a yearly or Bi-yearly basis province wide!!???
That will give you more ACCURATE NUMBERS!

[BULLNUTTS]

Why not allow drones, infrared, satellites, etc..then? Whats the difference? Cameras are one thing but cell cams is going a bit to far. It's not really hunting anymore.

I'd have to disagree . Take hunting whitetail bucks for instance. You can pile all the gadgets, gear, techniques and technologies till ya simply cannot carry any more and one thing remains the same- when the boots hit the dirt , whitetail still fast and smart as always. No gadgets ever yet can beat those noses, eyes n ears mounted on fastest getaway that ever got up n got gone!! Want that buck??? You gonna have to Hunt him period. Further- I know personally of big Ol' Whitie bucks that live local ,dieing of old ages. Folks have tried EVERYTHING sparring No expense's (as these are truly some dream bucks) including every spy cam ever made, but to no avail- Still have to hunt him and catch him. These bucks already live being hunted day n night All year long by Any and all methods imaginable by humans, more than that they are surviving coyote, wolf and cougar that thrive throughout the areas. Your saying '' some gadgets Gonna get em'' Really??? Not buyin that braa, I've hunted to long and bought to much snake oil LOL

[Harvest the Land]

Yes, I will eloborate, as it is really simple!
It does not stop you from going hunting!!!
Not at all.
All they are being used for (during hunting) is whather a hunter decides to get of his/her ass to go out.
In other words, "oh well, nothing from the cam showing up on my Cell" so I will stay home"!!

The regulation does NOT stop you from hunting or LIMIT your hunting.

LEH, CLOSURES do!

IS it the biggest issue we are facing....nope!
Is it about regulating advancements in technology ..... absof'n lutely.
there, I have elaborated.
You can still go hunt!!!

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

We already can't use them during the fall seasons which is when overwhelming majority of hunters go hunting. So your argument falls apart in that regard.

So then why do you have a problem with hunters using them in the off seasons? Seems to me they're a less invasive way to scout as you physically don't have to disturb the animals.

How is banning them year round going to improve wildlife populations and habitat? It's going to do nothing in that regard.

So then why do you favor taking hunters rights away? Just for the sake of it?

[huntcoop]

You won't have to worry about your silly little trail cams if the FN's get their way, hunting will cease to exist for all non-Indian.

The proposed changes for Moose hunting in Region 6 are very scary. Until the FN provide their hunter harvest numbers this is ridiculous. How can government biologists conduct studies of moose numbers with less than half the information!

"Various First Nations across Northern BC have concerns regarding availability of moose to meet their aboriginal rights and have requested changes to moose hunting regulations to accommodate these rights."

ARE YOU SERIOUS, the Bios and government officials must demand to see their harvest numbers. This is utterly disgusting.

[HappyJack]

Harvest numbers don't really tell you much, even if all hunters reported, how many were killed by wolves bears cougars starvation old age train kills hit by cars....the whine for harvest numbers is a joke.

[huntcoop]

Harvest numbers don't really tell you much, even if all hunters reported, how many were killed by wolves bears cougars starvation old age train kills hit by cars....the whine for harvest numbers is a joke.

You're obviously part of the whining FN group.

[Bugle M In]

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

We already can't use them during the fall seasons which is when overwhelming majority of hunters go hunting. So your argument falls apart in that regard.

So then why do you have a problem with hunters using them in the off seasons? Seems to me they're a less invasive way to scout as you physically don't have to disturb the animals.

How is banning them year round going to improve wildlife populations and habitat? It's going to do nothing in that regard.

So then why do you favor taking hunters rights away? Just for the sake of it?
What right did you lose in regards to getting outside and placing boots on the ground and actually physically hunting???
None!
I guess Fair Chase is just a bunch of BS we like to use when it appeases us in use of an argument against others.
Those devices benefit Researchers and CO's for wildlife.
No benefit for wildlife in using them.
Just puts them more at risk for use in poaching, imo.

Again, I love the loss of direction folks have when it comes to the state of ungulate pops that are imploding.
You can have the best elk hunter, with all the fancy gear, even drones and if there is no game in the area, he will still shoot
a big fat 0.

Time for some to recognize the difference between actually losing something of real importance than something that has little
to do with hunting.
Worry about getting game pops up.
Your success rate will increase more with better game #'s in a valley then fiddling with you phone.

Fair chase is something people need to consider.
Its hunting, not killing.

[Bugle M In]

The Full on Compulsory Reporting appears to me to be a way to appease other users Questions, then it actually has to do with
producing larger game pops.
Benefits the FN and Anti's to use against hunters to whine why ungulates are missing.
Dont see any value in how it will create more game.

Get out and count what we have, not assume what some are taking from whatever amount we don't even know what we have!!!

Like "how much did the thief make off with"????
"I don't know, maybe 50$$, but i am not sure because I don't know how much I had stashed away"???
"And how about the other guy you also saw running away with money"??
"How much did he take"???
"I don't know, he didn't say!!!"

Perfect Science, and great rationale.
Lets appease the FN's questions!

[HappyJack]

You're obviously part of the whining FN group.

Funny you say that because both sides have been clamouring for the same nonsense. I'll say it again, hunter harvest number are pretty much useless data.

We need to actually get counts done on an annual basis, we don't need to know how many animals were taken by hunters unless we are just collecting more fodder to have used against us.

[Harvest the Land]

What right did you lose in regards to getting outside and placing boots on the ground and actually physically hunting???
None!
I guess Fair Chase is just a bunch of BS we like to use when it appeases us in use of an argument against others.
Those devices benefit Researchers and CO's for wildlife.
No benefit for wildlife in using them.
Just puts them more at risk for use in poaching, imo.

Again, I love the loss of direction folks have when it comes to the state of ungulate pops that are imploding.
You can have the best elk hunter, with all the fancy gear, even drones and if there is no game in the area, he will still shoot
a big fat 0.

Time for some to recognize the difference between actually losing something of real importance than something that has little
to do with hunting.
Worry about getting game pops up.
Your success rate will increase more with better game #'s in a valley then fiddling with you phone.

Fair chase is something people need to consider.
Its hunting, not killing.

If we can't use them during hunting season, then how does your fair chase argument have any relevancy?

All this policy does is appease the Vancouver Humane Society. Period. It's got nothing to do with fair chase if we essentially can only use them during the off seasons.

You have no idea how much boots on the ground scouting I do (I don't own a quad or ebike). I like to go as deep as I can on foot - always

[Bugle M In]

You have a cell cam at spot A (say 4-02) for elk, and you have another cam at spot b (say 4-05 also for elk).
Nothing in this change of regulations stops you from going to either spot A or B once the season starts.
So, no, it does not restrict your hunting oppurtunity!

All it does, is it reduces the info you have in "making a decision on which spot to hunt"!
In other words, you might have your "success rate reduced".
Because now you no longer know which spot might be better.

It wont stop you from losing your right to hunt either spot, only possibly reduce your intel.

[Harvest the Land]

So by your logic, if I get a picture of an elk sent to me via cell cam on August 9th, that must mean that elk will still be there in front of that camera at the beginning of September, and therefore its not fair chase? Is it really that easy? You're not making any sense

I always check my non cellular trail cams up until the end of August on foot and those give me much better intel as to where the animals are, much closer to the beginning of the season, compared to if I got a cell cam pic at the beginning of August. Why aren't you making the same argument for getting rid of all cameras altogether?

It seems to me that you have some kind of fetish for taking away other people's rights and by wanting to do so, you are turning your back on your fellow hunters and I think its shameful.

This argument we're having over this trivial rule proposal just goes to show that the anti's are definitely having some success with their divide and conquer strategy

[TheObserver]

My first night using this site, Glad to see some guys get it! End game plan for the same people enforcing "covaids mandates/restrictions" have hunting on their chopping blocks.

This was meant to be a reply to RhyoTHC, learning how to use this site properly

[Livewire322]

What right did you lose in regards to getting outside and placing boots on the ground and actually physically hunting???
None!
I guess Fair Chase is just a bunch of BS we like to use when it appeases us in use of an argument against others.
Those devices benefit Researchers and CO's for wildlife.
No benefit for wildlife in using them.
Just puts them more at risk for use in poaching, imo.

Again, I love the loss of direction folks have when it comes to the state of ungulate pops that are imploding.
You can have the best elk hunter, with all the fancy gear, even drones and if there is no game in the area, he will still shoot
a big fat 0.

Time for some to recognize the difference between actually losing something of real importance than something that has little
to do with hunting.
Worry about getting game pops up.
Your success rate will increase more with better game #'s in a valley then fiddling with you phone.

Fair chase is something people need to consider.
Its hunting, not killing.
I think most people are far from capable of making the fair chase argument without falling into the category of ‘pot calling the kettle black’.
Do you use a rifle to hunt? How is using equipment that is capable of dealing death from a quarter mile away fair? Closest anyone these days is coming to fair chase is a stick bow…

[horshur]

I stopped with the hunter survey because they closed the Grizzly hunt....Why would you need data that you are not going to follow anyway. If social licence trumps science what is the point? In fact you may be giving them data they can twist and use against you...my guess by the proposal to fine those who do not file that I am not alone. I used to be diligent but why? What is the point? Definitely against that proposal!!!
If you want compliance how about acting on the data?

[horshur]

I think most people are far from capable of making the fair chase argument without falling into the category of ‘pot calling the kettle black’.
Do you use a rifle to hunt? How is using equipment that is capable of dealing death from a quarter mile away fair? Closest anyone these days is coming to fair chase is a stick bow…

With respect data shows that it is generally more humane/ quicker kill with centerfire. It is not about "fairness " but humane, pain free, alleviating suffering.

[Bugle M In]

That's why removing the scopes from Xbows was a bad proposal last time around.
Xbows don't fly all that far, compared to rifle, and the scopes allow folks to be more accurate, thus hopefully making a more
clean kill, a more precise shot.
Again, that was one of the more CO sided of the table proposal back then (but there was more to it).
The main rational behind closed doors were there were too many hunters being encountered with Xbows with string cocked in
the vehicle while hunting (already a big no no)
And then there was the poaching aspect that CO's were encountering because of Xbows, like people killing game inside city
limits or out of season and doing it silently.
Again, that was a proposal that had reasons (although it didnt make much sense to me), but in the end it was dropped.
Partly because of all the backlash, and probably partly because the benefits of the scopes in helping make cleaner kills
outweighed the infractions????

I am guessing the cell cam proposal is coming from the CO side of the table again?
(I have no knowledge of that being true or even 2nd hand news, but just making an assumption here)
I see why some who use them legally, with no ill intent all year only do so to acquire a bit more knowledge and intel to see
whether that area is seeing much activity of ungulates that they are in pursuit of, come hunting season.

But, I am guessing this technology offers some real poaching assistance as well.
Someone who poaches bear for gall bladders' for example.
Poacher can put out bait, pin up a cell cam, and go home and sit on the couch waiting for activity to ping their phone.
And with that, learn the bears habits and when they hit the bait, and make plans around it.
Instead of poachers spending many hours and days, they may now only need a couple of hours to be in and out.
Less time in the field, thus less chance of being caught and way more profitable.

Just remember folks, CO's are not there to hand out tickets and take people to court.
Their real intention is to protect wildlife.
To see that wildlife is taken/killed ethically and humanly as possible, and to stop animals from being killed illegally.
The tickets and fines are just the result of when people don't obey.

So, if CO's see that technology such as cell cams can be used to commit illegal activates, they are going to asses it.
So, we have to decide whether the limited benefits outweigh the illegal potential.
For me, it doesn't restrict me from hunting.
IT doesn't take anyone's hunting privilege's away.
Some will lose out on some "real time intel" before the season starts to let them know where to go hunting, but not stop them.
But if they were illegal all year round, then when a cell cam is discovered, there is no confusion to whether it is being used for
intel purposes or for illegal activity.

Its certainly a personal choice on how you look at it.

[Bugle M In]

So by your logic, if I get a picture of an elk sent to me via cell cam on August 9th, that must mean that elk will still be there in front of that camera at the beginning of September, and therefore its not fair chase? Is it really that easy? You're not making any sense

I always check my non cellular trail cams up until the end of August on foot and those give me much better intel as to where the animals are, much closer to the beginning of the season, compared to if I got a cell cam pic at the beginning of August. Why aren't you making the same argument for getting rid of all cameras altogether?

It seems to me that you have some kind of fetish for taking away other people's rights and by wanting to do so, you are turning your back on your fellow hunters and I think its shameful.

This argument we're having over this trivial rule proposal just goes to show that the anti's are definitely having some success with their divide and conquer strategy
Read the post above.
Some will use it to see what cell cam areas might be showing way more activity all year round compared to another.
So, one can use it to make a decision on where to go.
That isn't so much the big deal I think with the proposal.
I think it has more to do with the amount of illegal activity that this type of technology offers (again, read above post).
If that's the case, then it is much easier for CO's or any ethical hunter who comes across these cell cams to look at them as
being used for illegal activity.
CO's press a lot of charges over the course of a year.
Prosecution is much harder however.
Which of these cams are just folks wanting to learn more about the area they hunt, and which of them are being used for
poaching.???
How do you distinguish???
Remember, these are real time Cams.

So, if you cant hunt elk anyways (like you say you see a bull on Aug 9th and he most likely wont be around when season opens),
then "What is the big deal" by not having those cameras???
Then what are you worried about???
Why cant you use a regular cam, that you left there all season, and just check it when you get there to hunt??
The only difference is you lose your real time pictures.
But as you stated, the bull isnt around anyways.

So to me, it sounds like real time cell cams offer little benefit to ethical hunters.
But open a big door for poachers!
And which one in the tree is being used ethically, and which ones aren't???
How do you tell?
And the difference for the last time is, cell cams work in real time and obtain info instantly.

Makes full sense to me....no fetish there I am afraid.
Love to know where all those other fetishes are that you mention.
One thing is for certain, you certainly don't know me at all.

[boxhitch]

Harvest numbers don't really tell you much, even if all hunters reported, how many were killed by wolves bears cougars starvation old age train kills hit by cars....the whine for harvest numbers is a joke.agreed,
depends whether one wants regs to control hunters or for wildlife conservation
dead-side numbers only shows a success trend at best, nothing more

[Harvest the Land]

Read the post above.
Some will use it to see what cell cam areas might be showing way more activity all year round compared to another.
So, one can use it to make a decision on where to go.
That isn't so much the big deal I think with the proposal.
I think it has more to do with the amount of illegal activity that this type of technology offers (again, read above post).
If that's the case, then it is much easier for CO's or any ethical hunter who comes across these cell cams to look at them as
being used for illegal activity.
CO's press a lot of charges over the course of a year.
Prosecution is much harder however.
Which of these cams are just folks wanting to learn more about the area they hunt, and which of them are being used for
poaching.???
How do you distinguish???
Remember, these are real time Cams.

So, if you cant hunt elk anyways (like you say you see a bull on Aug 9th and he most likely wont be around when season opens),
then "What is the big deal" by not having those cameras???
Then what are you worried about???
Why cant you use a regular cam, that you left there all season, and just check it when you get there to hunt??
The only difference is you lose your real time pictures.
But as you stated, the bull isnt around anyways.

So to me, it sounds like real time cell cams offer little benefit to ethical hunters.
But open a big door for poachers!
And which one in the tree is being used ethically, and which ones aren't???
How do you tell?
And the difference for the last time is, cell cams work in real time and obtain info instantly.

Makes full sense to me....no fetish there I am afraid.
Love to know where all those other fetishes are that you mention.
One thing is for certain, you certainly don't know me at all.

Bugle, I can use non cellular cameras to show me where there's more animal activity all year round - doesn't matter if they're cell cams or not. Why are you having such a hard time understanding that reality? You should just make the argument that we should ban cameras altogether.

Why do you think its more "ethical" to be able to use non cellular cameras right up to the beginning of the season and right through the season to see where there's more animal activity; versus not being allowed to use cell cams at all during the season and only being able to use cell cams up until 3 weeks before the season opens? Where is the logic there?

You want to talk about ethics? Do you not think the stickbow guys think you're unethical for using a rifle and not stalking to within less than 30 yards and putting an arrow through an animal? Or for using a quad to access the backcountry? Get off your high horse! You've done one hell of a job at exposing yourself to be a giant virtue signaller.

Hunters are under attack from all sides and the last thing we need to do is keep eating our own. Agreeing to take away our ever-decreasing hunting rights is the last thing we need right now

[boxhitch]

With respect data shows that it is generally more humane/ quicker kill with centerfire. It is not about "fairness " but humane, pain free, alleviating suffering.funny how we humanize wildlife with things like emotion and feelings
when the true suffering of a wounded animal is felt more by the hunter than the query

[horshur]

funny how we humanize wildlife with things like emotion and feelings
when the true suffering of a wounded animal is felt more by the hunter than the query

No it isn't..the hunter suffers more then the gut shot animal? sorry but no. Have you never broke a arm or leg? The pain is the same for a buck. Consciousness and meaning of the suffering yes most likely just a human problem.

[tuner]

These proposals are always the same
They always propose reduced opportunities and choices, nothing else.

[Harvest the Land]

Interesting to see they're proposing to get rid of CI for Moose in Reg 5. Always thought part of the CI was to actually study the animals health and well being, not to only just to verify its sex and the fact that it was harvested and where. I'm all for it. So there's one example of where they're proposing to make our lives easier. Thanks government

[Bugle M In]

funny how we humanize wildlife with things like emotion and feelings
when the true suffering of a wounded animal is felt more by the hunter than the query
I disagree.
Yes, I feel bad when I have made a bad shot as I want it to be a clean kill.
But, I am fairly certain it hurts the animal as well.
They are just tougher than us is all.

[Rob Chipman]

The main rational behind closed doors were there were too many hunters being encountered with Xbows with string cocked in the vehicle while hunting (already a big no no)

That's interesting. I don't recall hearing that one at any advisory meetings I attended, but might have missed it.


I am guessing the cell cam proposal is coming from the CO side of the table again?

I think that's fair, but I think the rationale is ease of enforcement (which is a pretty common COS motivation, and, I think, a fair one. I think Harvest asked "What's the problem with having a cel enabled camera up just before the hunting season kicks off" (paraphrasing). I'll speculate for now and confirm later, but I *think* the answer will come back "If a hunter is caught on opening day with a cel enabled game cam in operation the hunter can argue "honest mistake/unavoidable occurrence" resulting in inability to get genuinely bad actors punished". Similar to the e-bike rule, wherein the COS said "We want a rule that is very clear to enforce and very difficult to argue against in court". From that POV a single blanket rule works really well. From other perspectives it seems heavy handed, but I don't think it's a conspiracy on the side of the COS or the Wildlife Branch to take away anyone's rights.


....if they were illegal all year round, then when a cell cam is discovered, there is no confusion to whether it is being used for
intel purposes or for illegal activity... That explanation sounds very much like the sort of thing the COS/Wildlife Branch regs guys tend to use.

[huntcoop]

Log on, vote and leave your concerns.

[Harvest the Land]

You won't have to worry about your silly little trail cams if the FN's get their way, hunting will cease to exist for all non-Indian.

The proposed changes for Moose hunting in Region 6 are very scary. Until the FN provide their hunter harvest numbers this is ridiculous. How can government biologists conduct studies of moose numbers with less than half the information!

"Various First Nations across Northern BC have concerns regarding availability of moose to meet their aboriginal rights and have requested changes to moose hunting regulations to accommodate these rights."

ARE YOU SERIOUS, the Bios and government officials must demand to see their harvest numbers. This is utterly disgusting.




Its interesting how they're concerned about the "waterbed effect" for moose/caribou in Reg 6 & 7, yet they aren't concerned about the waterbed effect for mule deer between Regions 3 & 5? What's the difference here? Don't the various FN's in Reg 3 & 5 have concerns about the availability of mule deer meat to meet their aboriginal rights too?

I'm with you on getting FN's to report their harvest statistics too. More data only leads to more accurate statistics/reporting imo. It astounds me that they aren't already doing this voluntarily. (I'm aware that they have reservations for doing so but not entirely aware of what exactly those reservations are)

[Rob Chipman]

Why do you think its more "ethical" to be able to use non cellular cameras right up to the beginning of the season and right through the season to see where there's more animal activity; versus not being allowed to use cell cams at all during the season and only being able to use cell cams up until 3 weeks before the season opens? Where is the logic there?

It's a fair question, right? Based on the pics I get on my trail cams and the timelines, it's pretty hard to argue that a cel enabled camera gives you a big advantage unless you set up a bunch of them in a small enough area during hunting season that you could park in one hidden spot but then quickly get over to whichever of your multiple cameras pinged you. I've definitely had animals hang around a camera for hours and hours, but there are days and days when none come by.

Maybe someone has a system that allows them to unethically exploit the tech outside of hunting seasons, but I think it's just ease of enforcement.

[Bugle M In]

Bugle, I can use non cellular cameras to show me where there's more animal activity all year round - doesn't matter if they're cell cams or not. Why are you having such a hard time understanding that reality? You should just make the argument that we should ban cameras altogether.

Why do you think its more "ethical" to be able to use non cellular cameras right up to the beginning of the season and right through the season to see where there's more animal activity; versus not being allowed to use cell cams at all during the season and only being able to use cell cams up until 3 weeks before the season opens? Where is the logic there?

You want to talk about ethics? Do you not think the stickbow guys think you're unethical for using a rifle and not stalking to within less than 30 yards and putting an arrow through an animal? Or for using a quad to access the backcountry? Get off your high horse! You've done one hell of a job at exposing yourself to be a giant virtue signaller.

Hunters are under attack from all sides and the last thing we need to do is keep eating our own. Agreeing to take away our ever-decreasing hunting rights is the last thing we need right now
I used a regular cam this past year.
I have no issue with cams in general.
But, the cell cams did come up in convo (several times in fact) a month ago while during last MD hunt.
Bio's are using them, CO use them, we heard that some Ranchers were starting to use them and even the FN are starting to use
them (to log vehicles driving up some roads), and as well the cam a group found that a hunter/s were using illegally.
Up until then, I hadn't even given the cell cams a seconds thought.

As for the proposal, it only states that the reason it was deemed illegal during the hunting season was for "ethical" reasons.
I wasnt on the round table for those discussions.
Personally, I can see why they were considered unethical, but thats me.
As for banning them all year, I would say yu need to call the Regional Manager in R1 to learn more as to reasons why.
I am just guessing it is for reasons I already posted.
I can see them being used to benefit poaching/poachers more than it benefits the hunters that use them just for entertainment
and some extra knowledge.
Thats just how I feel about it.

But again, it wont stop anyone from hunting.
Certainly doesn't make me an Anti.
I just started a thread not to long ago saying that R5 should be reopened from Nov10 - 20th and realign with R3.
That certainly isn't a statement made by an Anti.

And yes, I know there are members on HBC with cell cams and some have over the years been kind enough to share the pics
from those cell cams.
I know they aren't using them for illegal activity and just want to gain as much knowledge about the game they pursue by
seeing their habits and movements and cell cams make that easier.
I know those cams aren't cheap, and it would suck to have spent that money to only now render them useless.
Sadly, that quite often is the problem when new technology hits the market, as it takes several years for the Ministry to
react and decide.
Same happened with the E-Bikes.

I guess the real question is:
How much technology do you or anyone else need to go hunting.
That question will always come up.
There will be plenty of different opinions....always.
And there will always be decisions that have to be made.

[Rob Chipman]

It astounds me that they aren't already doing this voluntarily. (I'm aware that they have reservations for doing so but not entirely aware of what exactly those reservations are)

A common theme is that that there is a very significant lack of trust with the government (lotta that going around these days);

Another is higher level and relates to sovereignty and ownership of fish and wildlife (the NAMWC concept of wildlife being owned by everyone/no one and held as a public trust is not universal).

I think the second has more important implications, will be more divisive and harder to address.

[Harvest the Land]

A common theme is that that there is a very significant lack of trust with the government (lotta that going around these days);

Another is higher level and relates to sovereignty and ownership of fish and wildlife (the NAMWC concept of wildlife being owned by everyone/no one and held as a public trust is not universal).

I think the second has more important implications, will be more divisive and harder to address.

Gotcha. Ya I can absolutely agree with them on lack of trust in government aspect. Thanks for shedding some light

[Rob Chipman]

I guess the real question is:
How much technology do you or anyone else need to go hunting....And there will always be decisions that have to be made.


Respectfully disagree. The question of how much of anything do you *need* is always asked by someone who's either ok with something being taken away or actually wants it taken away.

The real question is: who *decides* what *I* need, and why does their opinion on what I need matter?

You'll never make everyone happy, but more transparency in the decision making process leads to more trust in the decision makers (assuming the transparency doesn't demonstrate that the decision makers are working you over).

Look at Harvest the Land's questions. Most of them boil down to "why?". Give him a good answer and show the math and he might change his mind and abandon his assumptions that it's an attempt to take away one of his rights.

[Harvest the Land]

I used a regular cam this past year.
I have no issue with cams in general.
But, the cell cams did come up in convo (several times in fact) a month ago while during last MD hunt.
Bio's are using them, CO use them, we heard that some Ranchers were starting to use them and even the FN are starting to use
them (to log vehicles driving up some roads), and as well the cam a group found that a hunter/s were using illegally.
Up until then, I hadn't even given the cell cams a seconds thought.

As for the proposal, it only states that the reason it was deemed illegal during the hunting season was for "ethical" reasons.
I wasnt on the round table for those discussions.
Personally, I can see why they were considered unethical, but thats me.
As for banning them all year, I would say yu need to call the Regional Manager in R1 to learn more as to reasons why.
I am just guessing it is for reasons I already posted.
I can see them being used to benefit poaching/poachers more than it benefits the hunters that use them just for entertainment
and some extra knowledge.
Thats just how I feel about it.

But again, it wont stop anyone from hunting.
Certainly doesn't make me an Anti.
I just started a thread not to long ago saying that R5 should be reopened from Nov10 - 20th and realign with R3.
That certainly isn't a statement made by an Anti.

And yes, I know there are members on HBC with cell cams and some have over the years been kind enough to share the pics
from those cell cams.
I know they aren't using them for illegal activity and just want to gain as much knowledge about the game they pursue by
seeing their habits and movements and cell cams make that easier.
I know those cams aren't cheap, and it would suck to have spent that money to only now render them useless.
Sadly, that quite often is the problem when new technology hits the market, as it takes several years for the Ministry to
react and decide.
Same happened with the E-Bikes.

I guess the real question is:
How much technology do you or anyone else need to go hunting.
That question will always come up.
There will be plenty of different opinions....always.
And there will always be decisions that have to be made.

Fair enough Bugle. I respect your opinions and we'll have to just agree to disagree on whether not being able to use cell cams during the season is ethical or not. Its hard to argue against the fact that they're less invasive, as you don't have to physically go into animals territories and disturb them. And I think as time goes by, its only going to be more difficult for hunters to claim ignorance if they're caught with a cell cam in season - so don't really buy that argument. That being said I won't be surprised if all trail cams will be banned altogether sooner than later.

I share some of your concerns about the advancing technology in hunting. It seems like there are some issues that are "cut and dry" and are obviously not fair chase (drones etc). But there are other issues that aren't so cut and dry, and we'll continue to debate them in the coming years. But, we both know, these animal rights groups and government will only continue to take away more of our rights every 2 years. That's why I feel so strongly that as hunters we should not be advocating in favour of doing such things

[Harvest the Land]

Respectfully disagree. The question of how much of anything do you *need* is always asked by someone who's either ok with something being taken away or actually wants it taken away.

The real question is: who *decides* what *I* need, and why does their opinion on what I need matter?

You'll never make everyone happy, but more transparency in the decision making process leads to more trust in the decision makers (assuming the transparency doesn't demonstrate that the decision makers are working you over).

Look at Harvest the Land's questions. Most of them boil down to "why?". Give him a good answer and show the math and he might change his mind and abandon his assumptions that it's an attempt to take away one of his rights.

Good post Rob and you make a great point about the whole transparency aspect. Why can't the public watch these seemingly behind closed door meetings (via zoom/online) so we can see what is being discussed or proposed, and who exactly is sitting at the table and making the decisions at these meetings? Man that sure would shed some light on things

[Rob Chipman]

Good post Rob and you make a great point about the whole transparency aspect. Why can't the public watch these seemingly behind closed door meetings (via zoom/online) so we can see what is being discussed or proposed, and who exactly is sitting at the table and making the decisions at these meetings? Man that sure would shed some light on things

Three comments.

First, depends which tables, which closed door meetings and which tables you're talking about. The meetings that I attend are confidential because government fears transparency because transparency leads to conflict and conflict leads to a diminishment of power.

Second, significant decisions aren't made at any of the the meetings I attend. Certainly government actors at those meetings (and COS are a shining example of this) are very reasonable and will regularly take advice and change their tune on something (in other words, the advisory process *does have* value) but the big decisions are made in some black box somewhere. Different closed door meeting, different table, different people sitting around it.

Third, the decision making process is pretty Byzantine. There are statutory decision makers spread across the province who do not take straight line marching orders from on high. Even if you and I were able to make, for example, Katrine Conroy, decide something we like there's not certainty that the decision will be implemented. A great example is prescribed fire. Lots of support for it at a grass roots, non-government level, lots of support for it at higher levels of government and yet....somewhere in the bureaucracy a statutory decision maker says "Nope". To complicate that further you need to recognize that the "Nope" often appears to be "Absolutely! We just need one more little bit of information from you for this one last form....." (google "obedezco pero no cumplo" - there's a long history of this very effective tactic). m

[Harvest the Land]

Three comments.

First, depends which tables, which closed door meetings and which tables you're talking about. The meetings that I attend are confidential because government fears transparency because transparency leads to conflict and conflict leads to a diminishment of power.

Second, significant decisions aren't made at any of the the meetings I attend. Certainly government actors at those meetings (and COS are a shining example of this) are very reasonable and will regularly take advice and change their tune on something (in other words, the advisory process *does have* value) but the big decisions are made in some black box somewhere. Different closed door meeting, different table, different people sitting around it.

Third, the decision making process is pretty Byzantine. There are statutory decision makers spread across the province who do not take straight line marching orders from on high. Even if you and I were able to make, for example, Katrine Conroy, decide something we like there's not certainty that the decision will be implemented. A great example is prescribed fire. Lots of support for it at a grass roots, non-government level, lots of support for it at higher levels of government and yet....somewhere in the bureaucracy a statutory decision maker says "Nope". To complicate that further you need to recognize that the "Nope" often appears to be "Absolutely! We just need one more little bit of information from you for this one last form....." (google "obedezco pero no cumplo" - there's a long history of this very effective tactic). m

Good insights. At the very least I would be interested to watch the meetings you attend. I'm guessing those meetings comprise of various interest groups voicing their opinions on issues. I would like to see what the various interest groups opinions are on all these various fish/wildlife/foresty mgt etc. issues, and what they're asking the government to do (or not do).

I understand it goes a step beyond those meetings and into a black hole and who knows what the outcomes will ultimately be. But I think it would be very helpful if the general public could watch what the various interests groups are saying at the meetings you (BCWF) attend

[Bugle M In]

Respectfully disagree. The question of how much of anything do you *need* is always asked by someone who's either ok with something being taken away or actually wants it taken away.

The real question is: who *decides* what *I* need, and why does their opinion on what I need matter?

You'll never make everyone happy, but more transparency in the decision making process leads to more trust in the decision makers (assuming the transparency doesn't demonstrate that the decision makers are working you over).

Look at Harvest the Land's questions. Most of them boil down to "why?". Give him a good answer and show the math and he might change his mind and abandon his assumptions that it's an attempt to take away one of his rights.
I dont see your comment as disagreeing with me.
Your post just better describes what i was trying to say actually.
My point is the same as your post.

I know these things are a touchy subject.
I know folks like HtL are using them in the manner/spirit they were intended to be used for.
I see there concerns and why it pisses them off.
It is sad when technology that offers some practical good use, also then gets used by those with much more nefarious reasons.
I am fairly certain the COS has concerns about them being used for poaching.
But, as you state, people could get charged on opening day when they are in fact showing up to take them down, but those
users can avoid that by simply taking them down 1 week ahead of time, so i don't see that as a legitimate reason to ban them
for hunters year round.

Hunters vary in BC, and what they use to hunt and how they hunt.
Fair chase for some ends with anything beyond a bow and arrow.
For some, XBows are going to far.
While most feel rifle and scope is more than fair.
There is always going to be technology coming online that does benefit the hunter.
I doubt you will see any technology that benefits the ungulates:smile:
Ungulates still use there same 3 primary senses, sound/sight/smell.
That's never going to change for them.
Everyone needs to keep that in mind.

For me, a regular cam gives enough info to wet a persons interests or questions they have for an area they hunt or a looking for
answers about (thats why i used it this season for the first time).
A real time cam offers exactly the same info, but is that extra real time tidbit of info worth it more than the potential for them
to be used illegally.

Its the amount of "Illegal poaching Activity/Advantage" that real time cams offer that worry me the most.
Its never been about whether some hunters have a bit more knowledge before they head out.
I never have seen these real time cams as being a disadvantage to me because i don't use one but the other hunter does.
If anything folks, I live in the LM.
For me, real time cams would benefit me a lot.
I don't have the time/funds to drive 10 hours, for a day of scouting every month.
If anyone has an argument to keep them in operation, it would be me.
But, the potential for use in illegal activity is a strong concern for me as well.
Don't get me wrong, the poachers will use them regardless of ruling, but if banned, it is much easier for those that encounter them to know what action to take.
Tear them down, deliver to CO or RCMP.

But, i fully understand others that use them for fun, and how it will impact them, and i know it is unfortunate.
My opinion is "not" towards them and them having an advantage against me who does not use them.
Its the Illegal Poaching potential sadly.

[HappyJack]

Its interesting how they're concerned about the "waterbed effect" for moose/caribou in Reg 6 & 7, yet they aren't concerned about the waterbed effect for mule deer between Regions 3 & 5? What's the difference here? Don't the various FN's in Reg 3 & 5 have concerns about the availability of mule deer meat to meet their aboriginal rights too?

I'm with you on getting FN's to report their harvest statistics too. More data only leads to more accurate statistics/reporting imo. It astounds me that they aren't already doing this voluntarily. (I'm aware that they have reservations for doing so but not entirely aware of what exactly those reservations are)

Simple really, harvest stats are useless except for gathering data on success rates if you provide them with information that says you've taken 100 moose then they have a starting point to say you are taking too many vs your population.

[Bugle M In]

Simple really, harvest stats are useless except for gathering data on success rates if you provide them with information that says you've taken 100 moose then they have a starting point to say you are taking too many vs your population.
But even that has issues.
Example, I always buy a WT tag, but never spend anytime directly hunting them.
I buy the tag for that "by chance" moment that might I might encounter during my elk hunt. or during MD hunts.
So, I spend 0 days actually hunting them, but because my elk/MD hunts consist of 21 days in total, I have to write 21 days.
Not really a great way to calculate success rate based on days hunted, imo.

And, how do we know that too many Moose have been taken.
Seems like these days, we don't actually have a clue how many Moose/Elk/Deer we have because we do so little aerial counting
from my understanding.
Thus my comment that we make a proposal to the Ministry that they actually do a better job in the Counting department.
I could be wrong on that, but i think there are a lot of #'s being tossed around, for all sorts of reasons/factors that might
be so skewed that it equates to nothing, imo.
And again, only some people are taking the time to answer them, while other don't or don't need to.

How do we manage anything like that is beyond me???

[Bugle M In]

So, no proposal to have R5 reopen from Nov10 to 20, thus aligning itself with R3 yet again.
Which is a concern for me, considering all the talk I encountered last month by multiple user groups and the growing
concerns in a few of the R3 mu's bordering R5.

So, I guess the next time around, the chances of seeing more closer's in R3 are becoming more and more likely, imo.
So, I am hoping that discussion is brought to the table at some point in the future, and sooner than later.

[Rob Chipman]

At the very least I would be interested to watch the meetings you attend. I'm guessing those meetings comprise of various interest groups voicing their opinions on issues. I would like to see what the various interest groups opinions are on all these various fish/wildlife/foresty mgt etc. issues, and what they're asking the government to do (or not do).



There are various meetings on a pretty standard model. The Provincial Hunting and Trapping Advisory Table (PHTAT) has a parallel for Rec Sites and Trails BC called the Provincial Trails Advisory Board, for example. "Stakeholders" are invited based on their request and ability to be demonstrate that they are stakeholders. It's worth paying attention to the term "stakeholders" and understanding that it's a hierarchical term, as in "mere stakeholders". As we all understand, FNs are nations and so deal with the province on a government to government basis, not a stakeholder basis.

At PHTAT the people at the table are groups like WSS, BCWF, GOABC, BC Trappers, COS, government wildlife bios and wildlife branch admins, as well as non-governmental wildlife bios. Those meetings are confidential (for plenty of good reasons) but they are not secret. The general public includes Rebeka Breder and Pacific Wild. Do you want her having Zoom access to those meetings? That might be a bit counter-productive.

PHTAT is not exactly a case of interest groups asking the government for things. That happens, but it's more of an advisory discussion. COS say "We were thinking of doing this" and table attendees say "What, what? Did you think about this?" and the game is on. That gets dealt with and then we move to another agenda item like a development with the Minister's Wildlife Advisory Council and something that they're doing, and then we look at something that the FN Wildlife Forum may be doing, and then we talk about things like Forest and Range Practices or wildfire or timber harvesting or road deactivation. The real value, from everyone's POV, is that government gets a chance to hear what the peasants are thinking and the peasants get a chance to hear what the government is thinking. Valuable, but in no way a magic bullet for stuff.

Throw into the mix that the government engages people all across the spectrum and do so from platforms like EngageBC through to advisory tables that meet regularly throughout o things like Together for Wildlife.

In other words, lots of advising going on in lots of meetings by lots of groups, so if you just looked at PHTAT and thought "If only we saw what was going on behind closed doors...." well, there's a lot of closed doors going around and most of them don't make decisions.


Also, some actors in government continually employ (and love) a divide and conquer approach (some really don't like FNs and non-Indigenous talking directly to each other, for example) and it all gets worse.

So it's complex and nuanced, but if I concentrate on one aspect of your post let me edit your words just a bit: "I think it would be very helpful if [some people knew exactly] what the various interests groups are saying at the meetings you (BCWF) attend I agree and I think we can get there if we follow these steps:

1) Recognize what the battle space actually looks like;
2) Figure out your goal;Also, the general public includes Rebeka Breder and Pacific Wild. Do you want her having Zoom access to those meetings? That might be a bit counter-productive.
3) Figure out who else is aligned with your goal to one degree or another and recognize those people as allies;
4) Treat those people like allies;
5) Learn from our mistakes.


Most of us are not currently doing any of that real well. I mean, you and I just had a knock down drag out over what the battle space *should* look like vs what it *does* look like, right?

Concrete action that everyone on this thread can take, today? Look at the OP's link, review the info, ask questions, get clear on what's going on and take action. Action can be voting on the site, but it can also be contacting people in an organization you belong to, like BCWF, and asking that person to voice your concerns and report back. I can tell you that comments made on this thread are going to come up at the next PHTAT meeting. I can also tell you I will not immediately give a full and detailed written report of what was said because...the government made me sign a confidentiality agreement (see "Recognize what the battle space actually looks like" above!)

That leads into another very important concept. Whats the the goal, who's going to achieve it and how?

Is the primary goal preserving non-Indigenous hunting rights? Is it to preserve and enhance firearms rights? If so, someone should create or support some sort of organization to achieve those goal.

For BCWF the goal is the preservation and restoration of fish, wildlife and habitat as well as the contend access to all three for all BCers, present and future. Our membership consists primarily of hunters, anglers and shooters, and the access part addresses that very important characteristic of our membership. The first question when it comes to deciding if you want to support BCWF is a priority one, and in broad terms it is: do you put conservation ahead of hunting rights & firearms rights or any other issue that concerns you?

If that answer is "yes" then a lot of logical conclusions flows from it and BCWF is a good group to support with both your money and your time. The *goal* and the *who* questions are answered.

The *how* question continually evolves, and that means change, and change creates disagreement and resistance. We need to recognize, accept and navigate that disagreement and resistance. Conservation in this province started largely with F&G clubs over a century ago. They operated independently but largely in harmony with the organically emerging North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. A bunch of those clubs came together 70 years go to for the Fed, and the Fed has certifbnaly continued to change and evolve, but without question we are not as agile as we need to be in the current environment.

For BCWF to really leave a mark we need to change from an organization that government *likes to consult and get advice from* to an organization that government *needs to make happy*. We won't do that by being unreasonable, obviously, nor by forcing the government to make very tough binary decisions that are win/lose in nature, but we are going to need to make some significant changes in how we act in the battle space (because that's exactly what it is - a battle space with clear winners and losers).

If you're a BCWF member and the question is asked of you "Should we keep doing what we've always done because that's how we've always done it, or should we make smart change?" choose smart change.

For today? Make sure I understand what your concerns with the proposed reg changes are. We'll be having a PHTAT meeting in the New Year and I will bring up well defined concerns.

[Bugle M In]

^^^^^Thanks Rob.

[Rob Chipman]

I dont see your comment as disagreeing with me.
Your post just better describes what i was trying to say actually.
My point is the same as your post.




Fair enough. I think some F&W and hunting issues though, morph into bigger frustrations with how the world is evolving. A complaint about restricting trail cams is cited as another example of *them* taking away *our* rights and pretty soon we're talking Covid and T&R and Trump/Biden....

Look at firearms and the classic "Who needs a military style assault rifle that was designed specifically for the battlefield and to kill people?" question. It's not really an honest question about need, because if we answer "here's why we need what you dishonestly describe" the next statement will be "Well, I still don't agree you need it, so I want to ban it".


Change the "who" from an anti-firearm person to, say, Gateholio? His definition of what a lot of us "need" is going to be way less controversial. I'm pretty sure I'd trust him to make all the firearms decisions and I think most of the people on this forum would be quite happy with the result.

[HappyJack]

So, no proposal to have R5 reopen from Nov10 to 20, thus aligning itself with R3 yet again.
Which is a concern for me, considering all the talk I encountered last month by multiple user groups and the growing
concerns in a few of the R3 mu's bordering R5.

So, I guess the next time around, the chances of seeing more closer's in R3 are becoming more and more likely, imo.
So, I am hoping that discussion is brought to the table at some point in the future, and sooner than later.

You are more likely to get more deer closures in R3. Why no spike fork moose season in R5?

[Bugle M In]

You are more likely to get more deer closures in R3. Why no spike fork moose season in R5?
I know.
That's why cell cams being banned bother me way less than actual closures or actual hunting opportunity not being looked at.
Keep them or lose them, cell cams aren't the big item of concern, but it affects some so I get it, and now is the time to
share ones opinion on that matter.
But lets not lose focus on other items that have far greater impact for hunting and hunting opportunities.
Time to speak up about those as well.
If R5 counts don't differ from R3 (using the same methods), then it should be opened.
If R5 counts are down still, after 10 years, then its about time someone look into addressing the real issue causing it.
Because if it hasn't bounced back by now, then the rationale for the closure was never dependent upon hunters overharvesting.
But the closure certainly impacted hunters shifting to other locations which most likely will cause further closures elsewhere.

[boxhitch]

Or you 'groups' have a poor perception of the reality of wildlife status and hunting quality

[Bugle M In]

Or you 'groups' have a poor perception of the reality of wildlife status and hunting quality
Confused on you your post.
Could you elaborate more.

[BULLNUTTS]

I stopped with the hunter survey because they closed the Grizzly hunt....Why would you need data that you are not going to follow anyway. If social licence trumps science what is the point? In fact you may be giving them data they can twist and use against you...my guess by the proposal to fine those who do not file that I am not alone. I used to be diligent but why? What is the point? Definitely against that proposal!!!
If you want compliance how about acting on the data?

Strong points horshur indeed!! When yer right yer right period.

[HappyJack]

Why ban e bikes? Does anyone have a legit reason for that?

[huntcoop]

Simple really, harvest stats are useless except for gathering data on success rates if you provide them with information that says you've taken 100 moose then they have a starting point to say you are taking too many vs your population.

If the FN's reported what they REALLY killed then the government would see the true success rates. The FN's need to look in the mirror before pointing fingers as to why they think the numbers are declining.

[HappyJack]

If the FN's reported what they REALLY killed then the government would see the true success rates. The FN's need to look in the mirror before pointing fingers as to why they think the numbers are declining.

Success rates only tell you one thing....how many hunters were successful, nothing more. Numbers are declining because there are too many predators and too much habitat is being destroyed by spraying defoliants on everything and way too much back country access. There have been studies that show more moose are killed by trains than hunters each year, but how many more are killed by marauding packs of wolves?

[BULLNUTTS]

Rob this may be a bit off topic, however perhaps you know the answer. With all the talk now a days regards to FNs , '' Stewardship'' keeps coming up. In regards to fish and wildlife should there not be an educational program of some sort to be official steward other than skin color/or birthrights? Just seems stewardships suddenly appearing all over the places but never hear of real planning, mostly entitlements to it, as if no skills or knowledge needed. I understand the complicity of it because the ''Stewardship'' is comprised of much more than the fish and game. The habitat, land, minerals, forest and raw harvesting of the elements themselves is big business and big money which often becomes very political as well. Still I wonder about the original Q. Is there such programs in place?

[Bugle M In]

The best way to describe our management system here in BC with all the issues at hand:

Its like having a multi dimension (3D) complex puzzle to have to put together, but we only have half the pieces.

Not to hard to figure out what the result will look like.

[Harvest the Land]

There are various meetings on a pretty standard model. The Provincial Hunting and Trapping Advisory Table (PHTAT) has a parallel for Rec Sites and Trails BC called the Provincial Trails Advisory Board, for example. "Stakeholders" are invited based on their request and ability to be demonstrate that they are stakeholders. It's worth paying attention to the term "stakeholders" and understanding that it's a hierarchical term, as in "mere stakeholders". As we all understand, FNs are nations and so deal with the province on a government to government basis, not a stakeholder basis.

At PHTAT the people at the table are groups like WSS, BCWF, GOABC, BC Trappers, COS, government wildlife bios and wildlife branch admins, as well as non-governmental wildlife bios. Those meetings are confidential (for plenty of good reasons) but they are not secret. The general public includes Rebeka Breder and Pacific Wild. Do you want her having Zoom access to those meetings? That might be a bit counter-productive.

PHTAT is not exactly a case of interest groups asking the government for things. That happens, but it's more of an advisory discussion. COS say "We were thinking of doing this" and table attendees say "What, what? Did you think about this?" and the game is on. That gets dealt with and then we move to another agenda item like a development with the Minister's Wildlife Advisory Council and something that they're doing, and then we look at something that the FN Wildlife Forum may be doing, and then we talk about things like Forest and Range Practices or wildfire or timber harvesting or road deactivation. The real value, from everyone's POV, is that government gets a chance to hear what the peasants are thinking and the peasants get a chance to hear what the government is thinking. Valuable, but in no way a magic bullet for stuff.

Throw into the mix that the government engages people all across the spectrum and do so from platforms like EngageBC through to advisory tables that meet regularly throughout o things like Together for Wildlife.

In other words, lots of advising going on in lots of meetings by lots of groups, so if you just looked at PHTAT and thought "If only we saw what was going on behind closed doors...." well, there's a lot of closed doors going around and most of them don't make decisions.


Also, some actors in government continually employ (and love) a divide and conquer approach (some really don't like FNs and non-Indigenous talking directly to each other, for example) and it all gets worse.

So it's complex and nuanced, but if I concentrate on one aspect of your post let me edit your words just a bit: "I think it would be very helpful if [some people knew exactly] what the various interests groups are saying at the meetings you (BCWF) attend I agree and I think we can get there if we follow these steps:

1) Recognize what the battle space actually looks like;
2) Figure out your goal;Also, the general public includes Rebeka Breder and Pacific Wild. Do you want her having Zoom access to those meetings? That might be a bit counter-productive.
3) Figure out who else is aligned with your goal to one degree or another and recognize those people as allies;
4) Treat those people like allies;
5) Learn from our mistakes.


Most of us are not currently doing any of that real well. I mean, you and I just had a knock down drag out over what the battle space *should* look like vs what it *does* look like, right?

Concrete action that everyone on this thread can take, today? Look at the OP's link, review the info, ask questions, get clear on what's going on and take action. Action can be voting on the site, but it can also be contacting people in an organization you belong to, like BCWF, and asking that person to voice your concerns and report back. I can tell you that comments made on this thread are going to come up at the next PHTAT meeting. I can also tell you I will not immediately give a full and detailed written report of what was said because...the government made me sign a confidentiality agreement (see "Recognize what the battle space actually looks like" above!)

That leads into another very important concept. Whats the the goal, who's going to achieve it and how?

Is the primary goal preserving non-Indigenous hunting rights? Is it to preserve and enhance firearms rights? If so, someone should create or support some sort of organization to achieve those goal.

For BCWF the goal is the preservation and restoration of fish, wildlife and habitat as well as the contend access to all three for all BCers, present and future. Our membership consists primarily of hunters, anglers and shooters, and the access part addresses that very important characteristic of our membership. The first question when it comes to deciding if you want to support BCWF is a priority one, and in broad terms it is: do you put conservation ahead of hunting rights & firearms rights or any other issue that concerns you?

If that answer is "yes" then a lot of logical conclusions flows from it and BCWF is a good group to support with both your money and your time. The *goal* and the *who* questions are answered.

The *how* question continually evolves, and that means change, and change creates disagreement and resistance. We need to recognize, accept and navigate that disagreement and resistance. Conservation in this province started largely with F&G clubs over a century ago. They operated independently but largely in harmony with the organically emerging North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. A bunch of those clubs came together 70 years go to for the Fed, and the Fed has certifbnaly continued to change and evolve, but without question we are not as agile as we need to be in the current environment.

For BCWF to really leave a mark we need to change from an organization that government *likes to consult and get advice from* to an organization that government *needs to make happy*. We won't do that by being unreasonable, obviously, nor by forcing the government to make very tough binary decisions that are win/lose in nature, but we are going to need to make some significant changes in how we act in the battle space (because that's exactly what it is - a battle space with clear winners and losers).

If you're a BCWF member and the question is asked of you "Should we keep doing what we've always done because that's how we've always done it, or should we make smart change?" choose smart change.

For today? Make sure I understand what your concerns with the proposed reg changes are. We'll be having a PHTAT meeting in the New Year and I will bring up well defined concerns.

Great explanation and thanks for taking the time to make it. Its helpful in terms trying to understand why you (or the BCWF if that's who you're speaking for) think those PHTAT meetings you referenced should remain closed to the general public - so anti hunting zealots like Breder can't see/hear what's being discussed. I guess I naively assumed that groups like Pacific Wild or Raincoast etc. actually sat in on those meeting you are referring too.

So now that I know that those folks don't sit in on those meetings, it makes me wonder if being "scared" of exposing those anti's to what's being discussed at those meetings should trump the rest of us outdoor enthusiasts (hunters specifically) from still being able to listen in and hear what's being discussed and who's saying what. I bet many of us would really like to know what the COS is concerned about and about what they want to ban or restrict next; so it wouldn't be as much of a shocker every 2 years. I get that these anti groups are friggin' formidable foes, but at the same time I do question if the most effective strategy to combat them is to fear them? To be scared of what they're going to hear at the expense of keeping what's being discussed at those meetings "hidden" from the general public and hunters or outdoor enthusiasts (who take an interest in this shit) seems counterproductive when I first think about it (maybe I need to give it more thought). Don't you think hunters would benefit a great deal by learning what's being discussed - by being informed? Can you give an example or two of what the pro hunting folks who participate in these meetings are afraid of the anti's hearing/learning about?

I hear where you're coming from, just wonder whether that's the right approach.

[Harvest the Land]

Success rates only tell you one thing....how many hunters were successful, nothing more. Numbers are declining because there are too many predators and too much habitat is being destroyed by spraying defoliants on everything and way too much back country access. There have been studies that show more moose are killed by trains than hunters each year, but how many more are killed by marauding packs of wolves?

I completely agree with many of the reasons you listed for why populations are declining. But I would also like to point out that learning that "one thing" of FN's success rates is better than "nothing"; which is the current situation. More harvest information the better because we all know there's a bunch of guessing going on right now. Sunlight is the best disinfectant

[HappyJack]

I completely agree with many of the reasons you listed for why populations are declining. But I would also like to point out that learning that "one thing" of FN's success rates is better than "nothing"; which is the current situation. More harvest information the better because we all know there's a bunch of guessing going on right now. Sunlight is the best disinfectant

More harvest information is really only more cannon fodder for the anti hunting crowd to use against us....remember how many grizzly bears we murdered every year? We could put online 100,000 moose tags sold each year, hunters harvested 1,555, that would be helpful so hunters could calculate their odds of success? We still would have no idea of the herd sizes unless we actually went out there and did a count, but I hear that is pretty difficult to do when all you focus on is creating more roadblocks for hunters.

[rageous]

Who comes up with these proposals?

[Harvest the Land]

More harvest information is really only more cannon fodder for the anti hunting crowd to use against us....remember how many grizzly bears we murdered every year? We could put online 100,000 moose tags sold each year, hunters harvested 1,555, that would be helpful so hunters could calculate their odds of success? We still would have no idea of the herd sizes unless we actually went out there and did a count, but I hear that is pretty difficult to do when all you focus on is creating more roadblocks for hunters.

Your argument is another example of hunters simply being afraid of the anti's. Wildlife Mgt should be based on science (with the most up to date and accurate data as possible to help make best decisions), not based on what the anti's might think. I know that's not always how it works in the real world unfortunately

Most if not all of these anti groups are REALLY sympathetic to FN issues, and almost always get behind whatever cause they believe FN's are pushing. One could therefore make a case that say if more FN's showed the anti's just how ingrained in their culture hunting is, in part, by publicising their harvest statistics so everyone can see just how many animals they actually harvest each year, it might make the anti's better understand just how important it is to not ban hunting - because the natives depend on it in order to survive. It might actually work to help the sport of hunting, particularly if FN's are able to demonstrate and validate their claims of being good stewards of the land (wildlife mgt specifically), especially if they demonstrate to the anti's sustainable hunting practices, where sure they may harvest a lot of animals, but if the populations are thriving or doing well, that could help to lessen the threat of having more hunting opportunities taken away from us by the most vocal anti lobby groups. It could help make the anti's better understand just how important the sport of hunting is for many people to survive, and that it can be done sustainably. Just throwing that idea out there.

And do you really think that continuing to manage wildlife populations, where a large segment of the hunting population (FN's) are essentially operating on a policy of willful blindness by not bothering to share their harvest statistics or any statistics on wildlife population dynamics, is the best approach?

[Harvest the Land]

Success rates only tell you one thing....how many hunters were successful, nothing more. Numbers are declining because there are too many predators and too much habitat is being destroyed by spraying defoliants on everything and way too much back country access. There have been studies that show more moose are killed by trains than hunters each year, but how many more are killed by marauding packs of wolves?

When I lived in PG, I knew a conductor who worked for BC Rail & CN Rail and he did the PG to Smithers route and back a few times a week, and his shifts were at night. I remember him telling me that they almost always would hit a moose during the trip, and almost always it was more like 2 or 3 (or more) per trip. This was in the late 90's early 2000's.

[Bugle M In]

When I lived in PG, I knew a conductor who worked for BC Rail & CN Rail and he did the PG to Smithers route and back a few times a week, and his shifts were at night. I remember him telling me that they almost always would hit a moose during the trip, and almost always it was more like 2 or 3 (or more) per trip. This was in the late 90's early 2000's.
I played golf a few times with a conductor (think CP) and he said the same thing.

[HappyJack]

Your argument is another example of hunters simply being afraid of the anti's. Wildlife Mgt should be based on science (with the most up to date and accurate data as possible to help make best decisions), not based on what the anti's might think. I know that's not always how it works in the real world unfortunately

Most if not all of these anti groups are REALLY sympathetic to FN issues, and almost always get behind whatever cause they believe FN's are pushing. One could therefore make a case that say if more FN's showed the anti's just how ingrained in their culture hunting is, in part, by publicising their harvest statistics so everyone can see just how many animals they actually harvest each year, it might make the anti's better understand just how important it is to not ban hunting - because the natives depend on it in order to survive. It might actually work to help the sport of hunting, particularly if FN's are able to demonstrate and validate their claims of being good stewards of the land (wildlife mgt specifically), especially if they demonstrate to the anti's sustainable hunting practices, where sure they may harvest a lot of animals, but if the populations are thriving or doing well, that could help to lessen the threat of having more hunting opportunities taken away from us by the most vocal anti lobby groups. It could help make the anti's better understand just how important the sport of hunting is for many people to survive, and that it can be done sustainably. Just throwing that idea out there.

And do you really think that continuing to manage wildlife populations, where a large segment of the hunting population (FN's) are essentially operating on a policy of willful blindness by not bothering to share their harvest statistics or any statistics on wildlife population dynamics, is the best approach?

Let me restate this for you 'harvest data is practically useless for wildlife management', adding FN stat to what we provide them with already wouldn't change that one iota. As for the anti's, they will never consider TROPHY hunters in the same manner as they do the noble Indian hunters. They will be ok with hunting for food, then they will ask how much meat do you really need, they have a fundamental gap in their intelligence to recognize that we don't all choose to be vegan.

[HappyJack]

I played golf a few times with a conductor (think CP) and he said the same thing.

That's because it's the truth, the deeper the snow the more moose they mow down.

[Harvest the Land]

Let me restate this for you 'harvest data is practically useless for wildlife management', adding FN stat to what we provide them with already wouldn't change that one iota. As for the anti's, they will never consider TROPHY hunters in the same manner as they do the noble Indian hunters. They will be ok with hunting for food, then they will ask how much meat do you really need, they have a fundamental gap in their intelligence to recognize that we don't all choose to be vegan.

I disagree with your assertion - harvest stats are not useless. You're not going to change my mind on that and I'm not going to change yours. Lets leave it at that.

I think we need to stop being so afraid of what the anti's might think - are we really a bunch of cowards? Its a paralyzing type of mentality to have.

You never answered my question, so let me restate it for you: Do you really think that continuing to manage our wildlife populations the way they're currently being managed is the best approach? And if not, then what is your solution to declining populations in various wildlife and fish species, and their shrinking high quality habitat? Just complaining about it is not the right answer fyi

[HappyJack]

I disagree with your assertion - harvest stats are not useless. You're not going to change my mind on that and I'm not going to change yours. Lets leave it at that.

I think we need to stop being so afraid of what the anti's might think - are we really a bunch of cowards? Its a paralyzing type of mentality to have.

You never answered my question, so let me restate it for you: Do you really think that continuing to manage our wildlife populations the way they're currently being managed is the best approach? And if not, then what is your solution to declining populations in various wildlife and fish species, and their shrinking high quality habitat? Just complaining about it is not the right answer fyi

I wouldn't call what they are doing now management, more like mis-management, so no I don't suppose it's the best approach, in my opinion. Declining fish and wildlife populations can't be dealt with by a sweeping action, each deserves it's own preview to see what can be done. It's obvious that predation is the first issue that is effecting ungulates, followed by habitat destruction [foremost spraying poisons] clear cutting and industrial development.

Step one should be the creation of a body to separate the politics from the management. A separate BC Wildlife Board, generously funded, with the driving members installed via democratic elections [not govt shill appointees]. And that body shouldn't have anyone with a pecuniary interest in any decisions being made. In fisheries, BC needs to get the feds out of our waters and have the DFO gone for a starter.

[Rob Chipman]

Why ban e bikes? Does anyone have a legit reason for that?

E-bikes were classified as "motorized vehicles". You can say that means they're banned, but you'd have to say "they also banned pick ups". Its worth looking at it that way because a lot of the pushback was "But e-bikes aren't motorized, or at least not all of them are, and some of them really aren't, and it's complex and not really fair that you just make a blanket ruling that e-bikes are motorized because that doesn't conform with the Motor Vehicle Act.....blahhdy blah blah", at which time the COS says "Yeah, right, got it. We're not actually too concerned about who thinks what about bikes. We're restricting access and using a tried and true tool (restricting motorized access) and we don't want COs on the ground having to navigate whether or not a particular brand, model and type of e-bike is motorized or not. We want a clear, simple, easy to enforce rule to control access to areas that biologists tell us get too much pressure"

So the legit reasons are a) too much pressure in a specific area and b) need a rule that's easy to understand and easy to enforce.

Does that make sense? (BTW, not my argument - just my understanding of the COS rationale).

[huntingfamily]

Data is everything in order to manage f&w populations. As stated before, without data how can government manage our resources?
Google Determining factors affecting moose population change in bc. This is a collared moose study conducted between Feb 2012 and April 2017.
On page 17 there is a pie chart showing moose causes of death.
The largest causes of death were
Predation 50%
Unlicensed hunting 15%
Apparent starvation 11%
In Appendix C on page 31 are the definitions of the moose mortalities.
This study will show what is causing moose population declines and could likely apply to moose and other ungulates elsewhere in BC.

[Rob Chipman]

Rob this may be a bit off topic, however perhaps you know the answer. With all the talk now a days regards to FNs , '' Stewardship'' keeps coming up. In regards to fish and wildlife should there not be an educational program of some sort to be official steward other than skin color/or birthrights? Just seems stewardships suddenly appearing all over the places but never hear of real planning, mostly entitlements to it, as if no skills or knowledge needed. I understand the complicity of it because the ''Stewardship'' is comprised of much more than the fish and game. The habitat, land, minerals, forest and raw harvesting of the elements themselves is big business and big money which often becomes very political as well. Still I wonder about the original Q. Is there such programs in place?


I agree that skin colour or birthrights do not always confer a special or superior knowledge or understanding of something. On the other hand, sometimes they do. We can find examples to support that in every walk of life.

I think that we see a dynamic in our cultures and societies where some bad things happen (doesn't matter what the bad thing is question is) and we react against that, but the needle often swings too far the other way before re-calibrating.

So, yes, there should be more education and as far as FNs go there has been and is currently a substantial amount of time, effort and money going into Indigenous wildlife stewardship or guardian programs. I've run into some of that, for example, with interchanges out in the mountains with Tahltan Wildlife Guardians (positive and impressive and I'd be very happy to see more of what I experienced).

I think that kind of education would be very valuable to non-Indigenous people as well.

A disproportionate part of *every* solution to the big problems we face is political and/or driven by money, though and that certainly applies to Indigenous stewardship just as it applies to, for example, Covid.

I think it will be very helpful to everyone concerned about fish, wildlife and habitat if we could understand and reconcile western science and Indigenous ecological knowledge. On the ground local knowledge is very valuable right? (And that comes with an obvious implication: does that knowledge depend on skin colour/ethnicity, or time on the ground watching nature unfold?)

[Rob Chipman]

So now that I know that those folks don't sit in on those meetings, it makes me wonder if being "scared" of exposing those anti's to what's being discussed at those meetings should trump the rest of us outdoor enthusiasts (hunters specifically) from still being able to listen in and hear what's being discussed and who's saying what. I bet many of us would really like to know what the COS is concerned about and about what they want to ban or restrict next; so it wouldn't be as much of a shocker every 2 years.....Don't you think hunters would benefit a great deal by learning what's being discussed - by being informed?

Well...I think that you're telling me you have two problems: trust issues and lack of intel. I think solving the second helps in solving the first, which is something we've been touching on.

My problem is that I've got a confidentiality agreement in place that's kind of a one size fits all thing and which, frankly, I didn't get too deep into when I signed it. I didn't care. They asked "Can you keep a secret?" and I said "Yeah, sure, let's get to work". Now that I'm looking at your lack of intel problem I need to figure out what intel I can gather in what places and then share with you so that you can start saying "OK, I'm a bit more trusting now that you're pulling the curtain back". I'll chase that down with the very competent guy who runs the PHTAT process.

So, yup, hunters would benefit from knowing more of the what and why, no question, and it would be a positive. We gotta figure out how to thread that needle and find the sweet spot.



I do question if the most effective strategy to combat them is to fear them?

I think this framing of "fearing" something is realistic. I don't *fear* bears in the woods. I recognize what they are and depending on when I'm in the woods, who I'm with and what I'm doing I behave differently. Summer time with a bunch of people? I see a bear I may well say "Hey bear!". Spring or fall? I don't give the bear that kind of intel. I bet you're the same.

And yet, if you or I are with a buddy and we're hunting that same bear? We figure out a way to give the buddy the intel - hand signal, soft grunt, stop moving, whatever.

That applies to anyone who is an obstacle to fish, wildlife and habitat conservation. I don't want to give them intel they don't need.


Can you give an example or two of what the pro hunting folks who participate in these meetings are afraid of the anti's hearing/learning about?

How about a discussion indicating that the government wants to expand a wolf cull? Nobody's *afraid* that someone will hear about it, but everybody *understands* that the someone in question will get to work countering the expansion as soon as they hear about it.

Why give them that intel? It certainly isn't my job to help Pacific Wild raise funds. If your argument is "You need to tell PacWild so that you can tell me" I'd say "Nope. We'll figure out a better way to get you intel without giving it to them. If they want it they can get it themselves".

[Bugle M In]

E-bikes were classified as "motorized vehicles". You can say that means they're banned, but you'd have to say "they also banned pick ups". Its worth looking at it that way because a lot of the pushback was "But e-bikes aren't motorized, or at least not all of them are, and some of them really aren't, and it's complex and not really fair that you just make a blanket ruling that e-bikes are motorized because that doesn't conform with the Motor Vehicle Act.....blahhdy blah blah", at which time the COS says "Yeah, right, got it. We're not actually too concerned about who thinks what about bikes. We're restricting access and using a tried and true tool (restricting motorized access) and we don't want COs on the ground having to navigate whether or not a particular brand, model and type of e-bike is motorized or not. We want a clear, simple, easy to enforce rule to control access to areas that biologists tell us get too much pressure"

So the legit reasons are a) too much pressure in a specific area and b) need a rule that's easy to understand and easy to enforce.

Does that make sense? (BTW, not my argument - just my understanding of the COS rationale).
Most people should have known that they would be deemed illegal to use in MVR hunting areas.
Obviously there was an argument for a "grey area", but it has a motor, and that should have been enough to know better.

the sad part there was, the technology was out for several years, even discussed multiple times on HBC, but it took several years
for the Ministry to act and put it on paper.
And there certainly were CO's with varying opinions on their legalities.
And that never helps.

As far as the ruling, because I did write several times about it to get proper clarification on it.
Was that MVR were put into place to protect certain areas for having to much easy access pressure.
And E-Bikes would intervene into the "Spirit" of why the MVR's were put into affect in the first place.

The Parks reacted faster, as they saw the increasing use of E-Bikes and how it could effect the trails and how much
heavier (the damage) they would be impacted.

But hey, you can still use them where there is no MVR.
And its a great way to hunt.

[Rob Chipman]

One could therefore make a case that say if more FN's showed the anti's just how ingrained in their culture hunting is...It might actually work to help the sport of hunting...



One could make that case, and some people have and still are actually trying to make a similar case.




But, and I'm just going out on a limb here....if *you* were an Indigenous person and you read some of the comments made, regularly, on this forum, would you be motivated to help sport hunters?

For example, if you were an Indigenous person with a family member in the graveyard in Kamloops and you read posts on this forum questioning whether the graves even have human remains in them, would you cross the street to help the guys making those comments?

You know me - reputation for being arrogant and abrasive, right? I know that if I were an Indigenous person with a relative in that graveyard and somebody said made the kind of comments that we see all over this forum and then someone said "Hey random Indigenous guy, we could really team up and accomplish something here" I'd probably respond with "Whaddaya mean "we", white man?"

That's really the 600 lb gorilla in the room. How do you tell a group of people that their complaints are not valid and that they need to get back to doing what you want them to do? Hunters need to work through that challenge. Indigenous people are not really the enemy here.


...a large segment of the hunting population (FN's) are essentially operating on a policy of willful blindness by not bothering to share their harvest statistics or any statistics on wildlife population dynamics...

I'm not sure Indigenous wildlife stewards are operating on a policy of willful blindness. Do not be confused about this. There are many very qualified and educated Indigenous people working in fish, wildlife and habitat stewardship and many of them have formal Western scientific education that informs their approaches. I've talked to them - face to face and belly to belly, and they are the real deal. They are doing some cutting edge stuff that I think you'd be supportive of.

I don't want to re-ignite another argument, but look at your position on where the different pieces of law, history and socio-economic-political values line up regarding Indigenous people. You maintain that they have been conquered and have no title, and you're also a bit frustrated that they don't share their stats with you.

It might not be a case of people being willfully blind and not bothering to inform you. I might be that they just are't really that into you and that you're sometimes giving them reason to be that way.

It's not hard to find Indigenous people alive and well and working in conservation today that were in residential schools and did not enjoy the experience. We all know you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

[Rob Chipman]

Step one should be the creation of a body to separate the politics from the management. A separate BC Wildlife Board, generously funded, with the driving members installed via democratic elections [not govt shill appointees].

Absolutely right. An independent agency agency with a dedicated funding stream.

[Bugle M In]

Rob,

I guess the reason why every time these proposals come out, its because it affects us RH more than anyone else, as you know.
RH are always the group "bending" to try and make things better.
And most times, its RH that sees the issues out there, and are the ones who have to deal with how poor things are and
want to make it better.

But the truth is, there are so many other players that cause these impacts, and many can argue, their impacts create more
damage, thus declines, then us RH could ever do.
We are looked at as the big issue, because people directly see us picking the cherries off the cherry tree (so to speak).
But, every year we have less and less to pick, because others are poisoning the soil around the tree.

When do we go from putting so much effort into regulating us.
To bending the arm of the Ministry and get out there and start putting some effort into actual work?

They want more info from us, but we all know that info is mostly useless, because we only have some of the info needed.
And as I stated, they don't really use it to do any real work anyways, other than tightening Regs for RH.
Just about everyone on HBC and the province, in regards to RH want to help, don't mind submitting info.
But, as you surely see, more and more of us are starting to say F' IT!!!
Not doing it anymore.
And maybe rightfully so!!???

I mentioned the "big puzzle" that we have in front of us, but only half the pieces.
A big reason why is because some of the players are still missing from the table to "accept the lions share of the responsibility"
for causing these issue.
And others, like the FN, have a lot of say on what "we can do" (so it seems now).
But, it certainly doesn't appear that they spend much time helping put the puzzle together with us.
Quite often, it appears they are off playing "Texas Holdem" with the government.

They say a lot, they want a lot, they offer no money it seems, and very little effort in wanting to contribute info or
changing their ways.

Honestly, the system is totally F'd.
You and JT are much better people than most, (I have to say that.
I doubt I could sit at that table, and keep my wits about me, because I doubt I could.
I get the emails asking me to join, but I don't because I know me.

Heads up to the Ministry....
Keep asking RH to supply info, and not change others approaches, then I suspect you will lose many RH altogether from
doing so in the future.
Time for someone else to bend!!!
Time for the Ministry to go out and actually do some Counting!!
Time to cough up some big Cash, that goes directly into Projects, not thru some special interest groups first.
The branch is already cracked in regards to RH bending, and its about to snap off completely I think.

[Rob Chipman]

When do we go from putting so much effort into regulating us....They want more info from us, but we all know that info is mostly useless, because we only have some of the info needed.
And as I stated, they don't really use it to do any real work anyways, other than tightening Regs for RH.



There's a lot of "we" and "they" in there, but I'm not sure who we're referring to. I know, at one level it seems obvious, but in reality? Simple example: the Wildlife Branch is part of FLNRORD. So is BC Timber Sales.

That's 2 very different players with 2 very different goals...in one ministry. So when you ask "When do we bend the arm of the Ministry" which arm? And is there someone else trying to bend that and other arms? Or is someone else being another arm harder than we can?

Also, who's the "we" in "When do *we* go from putting effort into regulating us"? I'm not putting any effort into regulating us when I go to a PHTAT meeting. I'm not advocating for more regulation of hunters, anywhere, period, unless science and good fish, wildlife and habitat management dictates it.

I'm not really asking you to lay out who the us and them is in every instance, but we do need to mover away from the assumption that there are just two sides to our challenge. This is like trying to survive and thrive as a small armed militia in the Middle East - lot of players, lot of goals, lot of strange bedfellows.


they don't really use it to do any real work anyways, other than tightening Regs for RH....Time for the Ministry to go out and actually do some Counting!! That's probably unfair. Again, not sure who the "they" is, but there are people in government who do actual work on the ground inventorying animals, culling predators, etc. Government bios do actually count lots of animals. The problem is that they aren't funded well enough.

Tightening regs for RH is not the reason anyone I know of gets up in the morning. It doesn't dominate the PHTAT agenda nor the MWAC agendas.

Also, I think we (all of us) should start talking about whether we all agree on reg tightening or not. Do we do it because we think its the best solution and it works really well, or do we do it because we're under-resourced, over-tasked and we don't have many other levers that we can pull (I think its the latter and no, don't ask me to define the "we" in that statement! :-) ) I'll go further: reg tightening is a critical component of managing to zero. It doesn't often (if ever) make more animals, and it sure doesn't make more habitat or meaningfully intervene in a messed up predator/prey balance.



others, like the FN, have a lot of say on what "we can do" (so it seems now)....they offer no money it seems, and very little effort in wanting to contribute info or changing their ways.

If the "they" in this case are Indigenous people I think you have to consider some viewpoints that are held by a lot of people (Indigenous and non-Indigenous).


Have a lot of say on what "we" can do? Indigenous people absolutely do have a lot of say in what *people* can do. They win that power in court, according to Canadian law, or in negotiation with government that recognizes that the Indigenous people will, eventually, win most of what they're going after in the courts. We've got to stop wishing that wasn't the case.

Offer no money? According to the federal Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, they had their land *stolen* from them, right? That ain't me saying it. That's a Minister of the Crown. I think you can imagine that there are some people in this country who think that Indigenous people have already offered plenty of money or it's equivalent. I'm sure you've heard (and if you haven't , please enjoy!) the proposed solution to T&R and decolonization: give the land back, pay the back rent, then leave.

Change their ways? It's worth recognizing that Indigenous people have been in this province since before humans made it to the British Isles. They survived and thrived and are still here, even after running smack dab into a more technologically and populous culture that sort of steamrolled them. They are proud of surviving, and justifiably so. Their culture and their ways helped them do so. Why would they change? Would you? Probably not, right?


Heads up to the Ministry....
Keep asking RH to supply info, and not change others approaches, then I suspect you will lose many RH altogether from
doing so in the future.

Be careful what you ask for. Do you think BC Timber Sales cares about RH for example? Its a big ministry, in an even bigger government, and last time I checked licensed hunters were about 100,000 out of a population of about 5,000,000 - about 2% of the population. FNs are about double that. There are more gay people than hunters. Resident hunters are not mission critical to the operation of BC. Neither is wildlife or fish or habitat.



Time to cough up some big Cash, that goes directly into Projects, not thru some special interest groups first.

You're right on the cash and we've been calling for that for years. "Special interest" groups? Proceed with caution. Resident hunters are a special interest group. Guide outfitters are a special interest group. First Nations are not a special interest group. They are something very different, whether some of us like it or not. RH are not going to change that.

On the other hand, there's one line item in the budget that has been increased and which can benefit wildlife, and you know exactly which one it is. The Indigenous one. It might be wise to ride those coat-tails if possible, and then thank FNs for letting us do so.

All of the above is meant to get you to see one perspective: Resident hunters are very much like a tiny tribe of people trying to survive in the middle of the Syrian civil war. We're out-gunned and out-resourced. There are foreign interests and corporate interests operating right on top of us with little or no regard for us or for our concerns. We are not, currently, in the position to demand anything. We are building alliances (the wildlife coalition, for example) but we need to do more of that and we really, really need to figure out what victory looks like and who else wants to get to the same place, because we cannot do it alone and we cannot do it if we aren't clear on what we're facing (lack of resources and lack of widespread will to see change).

[HappyJack]

E-bikes were classified as "motorized vehicles". You can say that means they're banned, but you'd have to say "they also banned pick ups". Its worth looking at it that way because a lot of the pushback was "But e-bikes aren't motorized, or at least not all of them are, and some of them really aren't, and it's complex and not really fair that you just make a blanket ruling that e-bikes are motorized because that doesn't conform with the Motor Vehicle Act.....blahhdy blah blah", at which time the COS says "Yeah, right, got it. We're not actually too concerned about who thinks what about bikes. We're restricting access and using a tried and true tool (restricting motorized access) and we don't want COs on the ground having to navigate whether or not a particular brand, model and type of e-bike is motorized or not. We want a clear, simple, easy to enforce rule to control access to areas that biologists tell us get too much pressure"

So the legit reasons are a) too much pressure in a specific area and b) need a rule that's easy to understand and easy to enforce.

Does that make sense? (BTW, not my argument - just my understanding of the COS rationale).

Makes sense in a motor vehicle restricted area, but not in the areas where they lumped them in with atv/utv closures, which by the way make little sense when they allow jeeps and tricked out toyotas to drive all over the place.

[2chodi]

Where's the BCWF on this? Why haven't they alerted the members to these changes? Some look pretty awful.

This was put out in the BCWF member update on December 9, 2021. If you are a member and did not get it, you need to make sure you have provided your email address to the BCWF assuming you want the updates.

https://bcwf.bc.ca/engage-now-in-hunting-regulation-proposals-for-2022-2024/?bblinkid=256332481&bbemailid=35790049&bbejrid=-2106053830

[Sportspal]

One could make that case, and some people have and still are actually trying to make a similar case.




But, and I'm just going out on a limb here....if *you* were an Indigenous person and you read some of the comments made, regularly, on this forum, would you be motivated to help sport hunters?

For example, if you were an Indigenous person with a family member in the graveyard in Kamloops and you read posts on this forum questioning whether the graves even have human remains in them, would you cross the street to help the guys making those comments?



Think an old book said " A Man will be known by his works?" Don't think that statement just had a religious meaning...

Should cause everyone to pause when discussing issues of concern that are hyper emotionally charged... or is just plain stupid to talk about on a public forum. Like the stupid covid thread so many guys on here persist on having after what two years? At this point is it not just counterproductive FFS?

Data is a tricky thing that seems to have a seeping permanence. Alot of stuff you think you deleted is not deleted...it can be cached and screenshot. Some of you may be proud of what you said which really reveals something. Somethings are best said behind closed doors especially about certain peoples/groups. Has anyone not seen that with cancel culture? Sure stand your ground on some beliefs. But don't make mockery of pain you haven't felt that's just stupid.

I mean does anyone really think those problems are trivial? I think they might think the same of us with this discussion we are all having. You can say its a two way street, and it is, but somebody has to take the high road here and maybe not slandering people who want a lot of things we want is a good start!?!?!?

You never know when you need a friend you once didn't like. And maybe if we all didn't act like entitled ass-holes all the time maybe, just maybe, this friend you/we didn't like will tolerate all the unending bitching and give us a hand in a common cause.

It appears to me alliances are needed. I personally want to get a better deal for hunting rights than what the nordic countries got.

Good points Rob.

[BULLNUTTS]

Many many good points in this thread, but more than that, the awareness of the vastness of difference in opinions on issues. It's one of the things That I appreciate about this site. Always something new to learn, always more one can do to become a better more understanding sportsman. Being a good listener and trying to become better educated to adapting to circumstances (which are skills in themselves ) is a constant exercise here and is a good thing. My thx and appreciation to all giving their two bits.

[Bugle M In]

*They*, when mentioned, meant many of the users groups.
Those outside the hunting arena.
From Forestry to Mining to Ranching to Tourism.
Sometimes *They" included the FN.
But if I meant the FN directly/only, then I said FN.

But, for the most part, I meant the Government and the Ministry.
Never really the Bios and never the COS.
Although I think, 1 or 2 Regional Managers haven't helped either.

As for the Full on Compulsory Reporting, good luck I think.
If people are trying to get home, they aint going to be pleased to have to sit around and wait.
And if they do get home, then what???
Who is going to know.

As for the Harvest Cards.
The other day a fellow, with Metis standing, got a questionnaire.
He said he was throwing it in the garbage and that *they* can go F themselves.
As *they* don't do anything for him, or us he felt.
I guess *they* he was referring to could have been anybody as well I suppose.
But I am smart enough to know who he meant.
Seems like I run into more and more people who feel hunting and wildlife has gone down the shitter.
More and more of them are throwing their questionnaires down the shitter as well.
I guess when things are expected from folks time and time again, and they dont see much in return, they get a little tired of it.

As for *being careful*.
I was always told that as kid.
One day I realized being careful took away too much fun.
But more importantly:
Always being careful never gets you very far in life.

I have always followed the rules, and done what was expected.
But there comes a time when you have to assess it, over the course of years.
Just like with the Salmon.
I see lots of good people coming up with good solutions etc. to get things back on track.
You would think that would be enough.
But it hasn't been so far.

I look at this thread, and there are those that think it will get better etc, and I used to as well and tow the party line so to speak.
But I can also see the other side, those that think its all just more BS at this stage of the game as always.
After some of the discussions with different groups at my last hunt.
I certainly think it is going to slide even further downhill for RH.
And I doubt there is anything anyone on here, regardless of which side of the fence you are on is going to make a difference.

[Bugle M In]

Makes sense in a motor vehicle restricted area, but not in the areas where they lumped them in with atv/utv closures, which by the way make little sense when they allow jeeps and tricked out toyotas to drive all over the place.
Bingo, at least someone caught that blooper!
I thought the same thing!
Makes no sense, but it made sense to someone who had power of the pen that day!

[Rob Chipman]

*They*, when mentioned, meant many of the users groups.



I get it. Where I'm going is that we have to recognize that we don't face a monolithic opponent. There are individuals in the government bureaucracy that are working at cross purposes to each other. Some of them are our allies, some are not. Same with FNs.


I was always told that as kid.
One day I realized being careful took away too much fun.
But more importantly:
Always being careful never gets you very far in life.


Fair enough, but I'm not saying *always* be careful. I'm referring to two specific things: A lot of funding flows through First Nations. Be careful about appearing to call First Nations "stakeholders". It may be fun for you but it won't move the ball forward on fish, wildlife and habitat. Second, reflect on why the Ministry of Forests cares about resident hunters. When I suggest that there are some on the government bureaucracy that would like to punt fish, wildlife and habitat management to First Nations and wash their hands of the whole thing I'm not sharing my personal conspiracy theory with you.


I certainly think it is going to slide even further downhill for RH.
And I doubt there is anything anyone on here, regardless of which side of the fence you are on is going to make a difference.


Resident hunting will, indeed, be very severely restricted in the future if we do not a) figure out how RH will make an accommodation with Indigenous people b) make alliances with people that we hold things in common with and c) make it clear to government that they must respond to our concerns and demonstrate to them how they can do so.

The choice is ours. Wave the white flag or get to work.

[Harvest the Land]

Good posts Rob.

Ok, lets take Chad Day as an example. He seems to be a good young FN leader for the Tahltan, and he's definitely stepped up the work in terms of setting up a whole department dedicated to wildlife mgt in their territory. I don't think he's afraid of the Provincial govt at all, particularly given the fact that he's not adhering to the province's Grizz hunt ban. He knows the Provincial Gov't will essentially just bow to whatever he and his people desire and that the courts will back him up. So why then would he and his people still have reservations about sharing harvest statistics with the Provincial Government, given the fact that he knows he can (and is) basically doing what he wants in terms of wildlife mgt in their territory, in spite of whatever rules the provincial government has placed on the rest of us? How would sharing harvest stats negatively impact his people in any way?

Also, could you elaborate on what you mean when you say resident hunters need to figure out how to make an accommodation with Indigenous people? What accommodations are you referring too?

[Bugle M In]

I agree with Ministry of Forest Punting it to FN.
As far as the FN issues, I am not so certain it will work out.
I get it would be a great relation to "work together" and we would get a lot further.
Not so sure the "big picture" will be painted the way you imagine however. (I will keep my reservations, and, no, no pun intended)
I know some are trying to work with FN in adapting to different ways to harvest targeted salmon, like Chum without impacting
Steelhead etc.
But, that adapting does not seem to be taking shape.
When I see that starting to develop (meaning nets out of water), Then I might start to believe.
OR, if things are so critical by FN standards, that areas need to be "fully closed" and they themselves also agree in writing and
by prosecution, to stay out, then I know we are starting to work together.
Just like our politicians, there is always lots of talk, but never the walk.

As for the pen to paper surveys and questionnaires, what of it.
ITs just that, paper with numbers on it and not accurate and how some have figured out a formula to make sense of it is
beyond me.
So, now lets take it a step further, and show up in person.

When in fact the real solutions will take a proper funding model by all user groups, and there are many and I forgot to mention
municipalities and all the development they allow on WR etc
And action needs to be taken on many fronts, not what I write on paper anymore!

My distain, well there is plenty of scenarios I have had to encounter of many years of hunting.
Conflicts and stupidity.

Best example I've got when it comes to Regs and proposals was with EK elk.
Yes, they needed to reduce the Cow LEH, but they went a step further and went 6pt.
But nobody addressed the Pred issues.
They allowed laxing of Forestry practices and a gung hoe mentality.
And in the end, addressed Ranchers concerns over everything else and put in Zone X.
On top of that, they put developments in on WR where you could see some elk.
(well, at least they were kind enough to place the work "elk" in the new complexes name!!)
And the result, well, there is less elk in the Trench then ever before.
Should I go about the Heli tours while your trying to hunt sheep or goat, and you think you got a plan in place, and then
suddenly the heli comes by and drops off a bunch of tourist on top for some photos.
Or the MVR me and many other contend with, but the granola crunchers can drive right by you (where you have just pushed uphill
for 2 hours) so that they can start their climb on a trailhead, and if they don't like your lifestyle, they honk their horns thru the
valley in an attempt to ruin your hunt, and then late in the evening they do it again on the way out.
Or how about those that buy a small parcel of land, then convince their political friends to give them a 1000 year lease so that
they can operate a mtn biking/cross country ski resort and then limit the hunting because "hey, you might shoot their clients".
So, out you go.
Or, your banned from going into an area due to the sensitivity that a fire has brought, but Tonto in the Bronco drives right on thru.
Sorry if I don't see the Traditional" in that.

There is a long way to go before many RH "believe" in anything anymore.
IMO.

[Bugle M In]

As far as the E-Bikes.
Its one thing to have made a ruling on them being "motorized", which needed to happen.
But when did the conversation happen to group E-Bikes with ATV/ORV?
I sure would have liked to have discussed that one on here.

[Rob Chipman]

Good posts Rob.

Ok, lets take Chad Day as an example. I don't think he's afraid of the Provincial govt at all, particularly given the fact that he's not adhering to the province's Grizz hunt ban.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say Chad Day is not adhering to the province's G-Bear hunting ban. That ban does not apply to Indigenous peoples exercising their constitutional rights. I'm not aware of Chad Day contravening the province's ban in any way. My understanding is that he's suggested exploring legal work arounds that would absolutely appear to some as violating the spirit of the ban, but I don't think you can represent what he or the Tahltan have done so far as "not adhering" to the ban.

Do you have some intel that indicates something contrary to that?


a whole department dedicated to wildlife mgt in their territory So have other nations. A lot of them are doing cutting edge conservation work, are more effective than the government, and are doing predator control. (What's not to like?)



He knows the Provincial Gov't will essentially just bow to whatever he and his people desire and that the courts will back him up.

I don't want to sound like a pedantic dickhead (I know, that's hard for me :-) ) but...won't the provincial government just *bow* to all of us if....the courts back us up? Isn't that just....following the law? What's the alternative for the government? Do they just disobey the law of the land? The Tahltan have a very strong position both legally and socially. The government recognizes that and responds accordingly. There's really no "bowing" or being "afraid" involved. Everyone is just reading the cards on the table and making the appropriate bets. A provincial government can remove or amend a hunting regulation easily. They can't just legislate away rights, especially treaty or constitutional rights.

And we've touched on this before, but framing things as win/lose, scared/courageous, bowing/standing up, feeling white guilt/being proud of your own culture is neither accurate nor effective. They're all red herrings.



So why then would he and his people still have reservations about sharing harvest statistics with the Provincial Government, given the fact that he knows he can (and is) basically doing what he wants in terms of wildlife mgt in their territory, in spite of whatever rules the provincial government has placed on the rest of us?

Short answer? Ask Chad Day or his people if they do, indeed, have reservations about sharing data. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Maybe they are sharing that data. They are one (essentially) sovereign nation, even if we can make a very strong argument that they are not an *independent* nation and do not speak for the balance of the nations or Indigenous individuals in BC.

Longer answer? It's purely speculative answer on my part. I think we can all agree that Indigenous people have been mistreated but he whole experience of contact. Governments restricted their movements, tried to destroy their culture, way of life and governance systems. Government took away First Nations' children without consent and without due legal process. Government did not abide by written agreements with FNs (as in, there is a whole field of law currently in action called "specific claims" that involves the government settling up with FNs for what are essentially government breaches of contract). To imply a politically incorrect phrase, there's a long history in BC of the white man speaking with forked tongue.

Government also tracks Indigenous people and, based on the info they gather, determine whether the Indigenous person qualifies as an Indian (in the legal sense) and then uses that to determine what rights will be recognized by the government in regards to that individual. Government *does not* do that for non-Indigenous people.

Harvest data for wildlife may seem like a sensible and innocuous thing for FNs to share with government, but it's a slippery slope that soon leads to some significant monetary issues (who gets how many salmon?)

So, at its basic level, two things emerge: there is a very reasonable lack of trust among many FNs and Indigenous individuals in regard to the government, and there is a very sensible recognition that information is power. Put yourself in the same general position: if you distrusted someone would you be completely transparent with that person?

There is also the issue of capacity. If you've listened to Chad Day at length you'll know that he often says (and I'm paraphrasing, not quoting) "Tahltan have about 4,000 members (regardless of how many the government says are Indians according tot he Indian Act or not). About 1/4 of them live in the territory, which is larger than Portugal. We cannot do everything that has to be done." That's the reasoning he employs to argue that predator control in the territory should not be downloaded solely onto the Tahltan Nation in accordance with Aboriginal harvest rights. He argues that it's unfair and ineffective.



How would sharing harvest stats negatively impact his people in any way?

Wrong question.

How would sharing harvest stats help the Tahltan or any First Nation? There may be a good answer to that question, but I haven't heard it very often. Keep in mind that "good answer" is defined as one that appeals to the Tahltan or other First Nations, not one that appeals to you or me.

[QUOTE=Harvest the Land;2307744]Also, could you elaborate on what you mean when you say resident hunters need to figure out how to make an accommodation with Indigenous people? What accommodations are you referring too?{/QUOTE]


Holy trick question leading me into a minefield Batman!

What are your thoughts on the truth part of truth and reconciliation? Should we pursue it in good faith? Should, we get to a place where Indigenous and non-Indigenous people agree on the truth of how contact unfolded? Right now you and I don't even agree on that, right? Are you willing to consider changing your mind about whether Indigenous people were conquered or not? That can probably be filed under the heading if "accommodation".

What are your thoughts about the "reconciliation" part of T&R? Does the term mean anything concrete to you? Do you have any appreciation of how some/many Indigenous people think about it? Do you care?

What about decolonization? Recognition of rights and title? Inter-generational trauma? Rule of law?

These are all issues that clearly matter to a lot of Indigenous people. They've mattered to them for a very long time. In some instances they can be traced back through a quick Google search to over 100 years ago.

Non-Indigenous people? They generally have not given a shit about those issues until very, very recently. Giving consideration to the things that matter to Indigenous people could reasonable be filed under "accommodation".

Let's face facts. Even raising the things I've just raised will lead some people on this forum to conclude that I'm some sort of radical New World Order globalist lover of the UN.

What I'm really doing, of course, is saying "If you want someone to help you with something, its' good to have them like you, at least a little bit, and certainly not see you as an enemy" but go back to earlier threads on this subject and see the kind of pushback that's appeared.

Look at other threads that don't deal explicitly with cooperation between Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people for conservation. Trudeau gives away $40 billion and people here shoot the Indian. Go figure. Won't vote for Ellis Ross because he's native, don't believe that there are human remains in the graves, think that they were recently discovered, think that rights and title are ridiculous.

That's not very accommodating.

Again, the list goes on, but here's the really obvious ones, that is, the very subject matter - harvest stats:

How about accommodating a hesitancy on the part of a non-Western culture to not absolutely accept the importance of collecting and sharing wildlife harvest data?

How about not demanding an explanation of why Indigenous people feel the way they feel?

How about demonstrating that the Indigenous perspective on sharing information and trust has been recognized and accepted as valid?

How about recognizing that when non-Indigenous people talk about their right to hunt there are some Indigenous people who are offended by the casual usage of the term "right" because for them, the fight to have rights recognized has been long and hard and they'd like some recognition off what they've been through?

Again, I appreciate that some of this is not going to be well received by everyone reading it. Still, Indigenous people have law and a lot of socio-political strength on their side, regardless of whether anyone thinks that's right or wrong. They have the potential to throw a lot of weight around. They don't always have the capacity. Resident hunters are not going to stop that. There are too few of us, we are largely uncommitted, largely lack focus and largely don't want to see change.

Of course, I'm not the expert or the boss. Much of what I've said here is opinion and I could be 100% wrong.

[Rob Chipman]

Bugle -

Here's are two things to recognize:

Nobody making decisions or exercising power requires you to believe or cooperate.

Resident hunters are not mission critical to logging, agriculture, tourism and real estate development.

Getting RHs frorm the position of "need to consult with them in order to check the box and get cover" to "must get them onside with government policy or there will be hell to pay" is a big part of our solution.


If more of us recognized that RHs need a stronger position, require many, many allies, and need to change how we're perceived would be good.

I recommend building a bigger and better team, embracing change, coming to terms with Fns and identifying what you have in common with them and for the love of Mike stop using language that many, many people would consider racist.

[Harvest the Land]

Rob, obviously you feel pretty strongly about these issues - I like your passion! I also like to learn - keep it coming man

I should clarify that FN's (Tahltan specifically in this example) were still allowed to hunt for food/ceremonial etc reasons, but sport hunting Grizz was banned in the entire province, including in their territory, where they (guides) harvested about 100 bears per year in the "sport hunting sense" from their territory - isn't that why they joined the Guide Outfitters law suit against the Province in 2018? And after the ban came into effect, hunting Grizz for sport was no longer allowed anywhere in this province (correct me where I'm wrong)

Last year Chad Day's govt paid all Tahltan $1000 per Grizz they harvested (as well as $500 black bears and wolves), and he did it under the guise that they must use the animal they harvest "properly" and "culturally". Does this policy seem like a traditional way of FN's exercising their rights to culturally hunt for food/ceremonial, when they're paying folks to go hunt them? An argument could be made that this policy violated the province's Grizz hunt ban or the "spirit" of it.

[HappyJack]

Good for them, being good stewards of the land and reducing predator numbers in a culturally appropriate manner. IMHO

[HappyJack]

""Government also tracks Indigenous people and, based on the info they gather, determine whether the Indigenous person qualifies as an Indian (in the legal sense) and then uses that to determine what rights will be recognized by the government in regards to that individual. Government *does not* do that for non-Indigenous people.""

Interesting, where can we find more information on this? I'd enjoy a look in my personnel file??

[Harvest the Land]

""Government also tracks Indigenous people and, based on the info they gather, determine whether the Indigenous person qualifies as an Indian (in the legal sense) and then uses that to determine what rights will be recognized by the government in regards to that individual. Government *does not* do that for non-Indigenous people.""
Interesting, where can we find more information on this? I'd enjoy a look in my personnel file??

Ya I don't agree with that statement either, but for different reasons though, because our Provincial government is doing exactly this with vaccine passports

[ElectricDyck]

I stopped with the hunter survey because they closed the Grizzly hunt....Why would you need data that you are not going to follow anyway. If social licence trumps science what is the point? In fact you may be giving them data they can twist and use against you...my guess by the proposal to fine those who do not file that I am not alone. I used to be diligent but why? What is the point? Definitely against that proposal!!!
If you want compliance how about acting on the data?

I did the same..seemed like a waste of time once I realized the inevitable way things were going..

[Rob Chipman]

An argument could be made that this policy violated the province's Grizz hunt ban or the "spirit" of it.

You can make all kinds of arguments about what violates the spirit of a law, and as I've indicated, Chad Day has suggested doing exactly that. Nobody that I'm aware of thinks that he or the TCG has violated the law. I want be clear - I'm not trying to argue with you, just make sure we were using the same set of facts and that you didn't have news I wasn't aware of. TCG has paid members to kill predators (black bears and wolves in addition to grizzly) and Chad Day has suggested that Indigenous people could create a business model that involves charging non-Indigenous people to accompany Indigenous hunters on a grizzly hunt.

Chad Day has also highlighted the need to manage predators as informed by science and Indigenous knowledge and would like to normalize the idea in the wider public, so that's a good thing.

[Rob Chipman]

""Government also tracks Indigenous people and, based on the info they gather, determine whether the Indigenous person qualifies as an Indian (in the legal sense) and then uses that to determine what rights will be recognized by the government in regards to that individual. Government *does not* do that for non-Indigenous people.""

Interesting, where can we find more information on this? I'd enjoy a look in my personnel file??

"What is Indian status
Indian status is the legal status of a person who is registered as an Indian under the Indian Act (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-5/index.html).
Under the Indian Act, status Indians, also known as registered Indians, may be eligible for a range of benefits, rights, programs and services offered by the federal and provincial or territorial governments.
If you think you might be eligible for Indian status and are ready to apply, start by consulting the eligibility requirements under Are you eligible to apply (https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1462808207464/1572460627149#s1). You may also wish to research your family history (http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/genealogy/Pages/introduction.aspx) to help determine which application form you need to fill out. This will save time in the processing of your application.
If you are registered as a status Indian under the Indian Act, your name will be added to the Indian Register.
What might you be eligible for as a status Indian


To find out more about the benefits and rights that may be available to you as a status Indian, visit Benefits and rights for Indigenous peoples (https://www.canada.ca/en/services/indigenous-peoples/benefits-and-rights-for-indigenous-peoples.html).
To find out more about programs and services that may be available to you as a status Indian, visit Indigenous peoples (https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1461766373625/1461766394598).

What is the Indian Register
The Indian Register is the official record identifying persons registered as status Indians under the Indian Act. According to section 5 of the Indian Act (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-5/section-5.html), Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) is responsible for maintaining the Register.
Registered Indians, also known as status Indians, have certain rights and benefits not available to non-status Indians, Métis, Inuit or other Canadians. These rights and benefits include on-reserve housing, education and exemptions from federal, provincial and territorial taxes in specific situations.
If Métis or Inuit
There is no federal register within ISC for Métis (https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100014427/1535467913043) or Inuit (https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100014187/1100100014191). If you self-identify as Métis, you may register as a member of your local Métis organization. If you are Inuit, you may already be a member of a land claim agreement.
To be included on the Indian Register, you must have successfully applied for Indian status and be eligible under the provisions of the Indian Act, as determined by the Indian Registrar.
Who is the Indian Registrar
The Indian Registrar is the only authority under the Indian Act who can determine a person's eligibility for Indian status. The Indian Registrar is an ISC employee in charge of the Indian Register and the band lists that are maintained at ISC."


All of this comes from the feds and can be found here: https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1100100032463/1572459644986

It's more complex than that, obviously, but the basic idea is that the Feds can't operate the Indian Act without defining who qualifies as an Indian, which means that they have to track Indigenous people and figure out who is status and who is not status. There is a fear (and I don't know how reasonable it is because I haven't dived deeply into it) that by by tracking descent (blood quantum) all status Indians will eventually be erased.

It is kind of interesting that the Canadian government tracks family trees to determine which laws apply to which people. It's also interesting that a government employee makes the decision about who someone may or may not be. I wouldn't want them to do that to me. Its not exactly one land, one law, is it?

[HappyJack]

Ah, the Indian registry, here I thought there was something new out there. Blood quantum is a thing in the usa, not so much here. The feds had C-31 which erased rights to be registered based on blood quantum [generational] but that has been struck down in court. The courts also ruled that Metis are now considered 'Indians under the Act", so it seems odd that they haven't expanded their record keeping.

[Bugle M In]

Well, I will leave it with this:

If the Rational for full on compulsory inspection is in part to appease FN etc.
Then that's fine.
BUT, before i do that, I want them to remove all nets from the rivers.
My rationale being you cant use nets to target specific species of fish without killing everything else in its path.
(and yes, I know that's a Fed thing, but it should be a BC law)
Besides, being forced to bring in everything we harvest isn't going to grow more game.
All it does it take more money out of a system that "has no money" to begin with.

[Rob Chipman]

Ah, the Indian registry, here I thought there was something new out there. Blood quantum is a thing in the usa, not so much here. The feds had C-31 which erased rights to be registered based on blood quantum [generational] but that has been struck down in court. The courts also ruled that Metis are now considered 'Indians under the Act", so it seems odd that they haven't expanded their record keeping.


I'm sure they'll get there, right? It's already been decided that rights evolve, and the draft plan for DRIP anticipates multiple legal orders and rights based distinctions.

For the blood quantum thing I've heard (I think) Thomas King talk about it being a long term problem for First Nations here in Canada, but like I say, I haven't done a deep dive. It doesn't surprise me that it's more of an issue in the US.

[Rob Chipman]

Well, I will leave it with this:

If the Rational for full on compulsory inspection is in part to appease FN etc.



I don't think appeasing First Nations is any part of the rationale to expand data collection on the compulsory inspections. I don't recall that being any part of the discussion. I think the Wildlife Branch just wants more data. I will confirm.

[Bugle M In]

I don't think appeasing First Nations is any part of the rationale to expand data collection on the compulsory inspections. I don't recall that being any part of the discussion. I think the Wildlife Branch just wants more data. I will confirm.
Let me speed that up for you, no need to look as it is right there:

Rationale:
This regulation change is being proposed to collect further information that will aid in the stewardship of wildlife in the province, and the management of licensed hunting opportunity.
The proposed amendments are responsive to previous requests from First Nations to improve the information about wildlife harvest activities that may be occurring within territories.

[Bugle M In]

Rob, one other thing, and you dont need to take the time to keep responding to me, as I know your heart/mind is in the
right place and your doing your best under very hard circumstances and certainly changing times.

Just remember, that FN related issues aren't just occurring in the hunting arena.
Even in the hunting arena, some RH never have to deal with FN issues inside their hunts.
Meanwhile, others do.
I quite Merritt after one night, camped by power lines and spotted a group of MD with a big buck, but it was too dark.
Thought I had a good starting point for very early the next morning.
But 2 hours after dark, a truck with spotlights drives by and you guessed, shots from where I had seen the buck.
It's all a matter of interaction and outcomes for some.

This place is a hunting forum, but many on here like myself also fish.
And again, some never have an issue, like lake fishing in general, but if you river fish, you will have a different "hardened" view.
Some are losing the businesses.
Hard to watch things go extinct and stay calm about it.

My buddy had ropes all thru his props and leg of his boat last summer.
FN were drooping dozens of crab traps and sinking the floats a foot below water so no one would know.
He had seen them, but wasn't sure what was up until he had issues.

And recently, I had discussions with FN, who aren't happy with just the MVC in the recent fires.
But want full on hunting closures.
They say the wildlife is scarce (of course it is, you just had fires), but I also can see some of their concerns as well.
My issue, they want the closure to impact me, but not them.

Again, I was brought up that if you are going to tell others what to do, you sure as hell better be following the same rules.
I will listen, and even go along with things, but only if it is a 2 way street.
One ways eventually lead to "dead ends".

[J_T]

My apologies for being offline and leaving Rob in the lurch to respond to most of the discussion here.

I've read through the comments and I would like to offer the following.

"PHTAT"
In response to the openness and transparency of the Provincial Hunting, Trapping Advisory Team (PHTAT). We are in the process of developing a website. The link is here.

https://www.bchuntingtrappingadvisory.ca/about-us/ A cautionary note, this site is under development and not complete, nor aligned with the ideas that many of us want on that site. It does provide the list of PHTAT members.

Additionally, I agree with Rob, that at PHTAT and at any of the many group meetings I sit at, I am not advocating for one user group. I believe we all have a responsibility to keep wildlife at the forefront of our decisions. We work together to provide various perspectives of user groups that provide value to the ultimate decision made by Government.

Our objective is sound wildlife management, huntable populations of wildlife and a variety of hunting opportunities that support an increasing trend in hunter numbers.
FYI HBC has three members that I know of on PHTAT, myself, Rob and 2chodi. We also sit on a variety of other committees and work to provide consistency to our common objectives.

"Science and Data"
Regarding science and data to support decision:
While the province is trending toward science supported decisions, it will take time before we have the science and data to fully rely on that for decisions. Combined with the trends over the past 30 years, where Government form decisions based on emotional and social pressure we are actively working to prevent that going forward.
We need budget allocation to spend on data collection. Our current message to Government? Show us the money. Provide us the money and we'll collaborate on how it is spent.

Data also includes, harvest data (Compulsory Reporting), hunter licence data. Please continue to respond to your harvest questionnaire.

"Harvest Trends"
With a lack of solid inventory for hunted wildlife populations, Government biologists sometimes form decisions based on harvest data 'trends'. IE for whitetail, the biologists believe if the buck harvest is trending down, the whitetail population must be trending down.
We can all agree there are flaws in that decision approach. IE, hunter days afield to harvest said animal may go up (because hunters are hard core and willing to work harder for their kill). This creates a risk that the general population of the species may be dropping more drastically than a harvest 'trend' shows. Because hunters will work harder and harder to take their animal and this props up 'alleged' population estimates.
Until we have 'data' we likely won't see a change. No matter how hard we all lobby regional biologists.

"First Nation Harvest"
First Nations have participation on the PHTAT. I am encouraged they are advocating for more control and monitoring on FN harvest. Hopefully we get to a point were they are completely transparent with harvest numbers. That is the objective and I personally am seeing agreement from FN, that they do need to record harvests. However, full implementation of FN harvests into our decision process may take time.

"Budgets"
The Together for Wildlife" (T4W) is being implemented in Regions. The Ministers Wildlife Advisory Council is active and making recommendations to Government. As we discuss and determine how, where and on what, the budget should be spent (on the ground), creating habitat, managing road reclamation, collecting inventory on wildlife, developing wildlife management plans, we can and will spend any money the Government makes available.

While we have PHTAT and MWAC and the T4W, we also have "First Nation T4W Forum" referred to as, "The Forum". The initiatives of these groups are to combine historical knowledge of landscape management, harvest management and work together to learn from traditional knowledge, which can support our collective knowledge and lead to better wildlife management.

"Dynamic Shifts"
The MWAC, in collaboration with many stakeholder groups have made recommendation to Government that a dynamic shift in forest and landscape management along with objective setting (agreeing to values of the land) is required. As hunters, we need to be open to dynamic shifts in how we utilize our opportunities to hunt and what future hunting opportunities might look like. I am not involved in these sessions thinking that hunting opportunity is going to dwindle into a story to be told about the time when we could hunt. I am involved because I believe this is a good initiative, to care about wildlife and to use hunting as a component of management of wildlife.

"Big picture"
Looking back and looking forward, these 'tables' have been participating in a major undertaking to create a framework for success. While it has been frustrating at times, I believe we are moving in the right direction.
Success in:



Implementation of budgets and regional resources
Data collection (expanded biological, social and economic data and information)
Wildlife Research
Habitat work and priorities
Regional wildlife tables
Stakeholder involvement
Land Use decisions (including road density and access)
Inclusion of Citizen science


Until we create plans and have objectives and data, it is hard to shift and make decisions based on inventory, objectives and plans. We must all understand the complexity to having good data, to support good decisions. Patience.

[Bugle M In]

I don't know how the harvest questionnaires are actually computed, but there are certainly flaws, in my mind.

As I said, I have a WT tag that rides in my wallet, because WT are available to hunt where i go target elk.
Same for the MD, there are a few WT there, so, the WT tag is there as well.
But again, my focus in MD.

For me, the WT tag is just a maybe opportunity tag, but i usually always pass up legal WT.

The WT tag ends up with more days hunted, then do my elk or MD questioners.
Yet, in all honesty, I spend 0 time targeting them.
And usually ends up saying 0 taken for years.

I no longer calculate MD during my elk hunt, because, well, they just aren't there anymore.

So, I don't know how anyone makes sense of my card?
And I certainly don't know how cards like mine help improve anything.
If anything, it just distorts the flawed system.
Again, just my opinion.
And again, I don't know how they calculate anything from it.
The only question are out of the 3 that is accurate, is probably my elk tag.
Even my MD tag seems distorted in my mind, because i might spend 14 days, take 0 but could have easily taken 1 each year,
but passed up on.

the only thing that makes sense to me, is if someone says 1 or 0.
At least you know how many were harvested.
But then again, do we know how many there are out there to begin with?

[Bugle M In]

Sometimes I just feel like people inside the ministry are just looking for more paper work.
Maybe they got audited and have been made aware they have too many employees, and not enough paper work to warrant
as much staff as they have right now, so time to produce more work.
I don't think that is the case, but I just don't see how much of this has helped over the years.

I certainly can be patient, as I ain't going anywhere, so don't really have a choice in that anyways.
Hard to stand by however, when we all know most of the work needed to help has to take place out in the field,
not in the office at this point.

[Harvest the Land]

My apologies for being offline and leaving Rob in the lurch to respond to most of the discussion here.

I've read through the comments and I would like to offer the following.

"PHTAT"
In response to the openness and transparency of the Provincial Hunting, Trapping Advisory Team (PHTAT). We are in the process of developing a website. The link is here.

https://www.bchuntingtrappingadvisory.ca/about-us/ A cautionary note, this site is under development and not complete, nor aligned with the ideas that many of us want on that site. It does provide the list of PHTAT members.

Additionally, I agree with Rob, that at PHTAT and at any of the many group meetings I sit at, I am not advocating for one user group. I believe we all have a responsibility to keep wildlife at the forefront of our decisions. We work together to provide various perspectives of user groups that provide value to the ultimate decision made by Government.

Our objective is sound wildlife management, huntable populations of wildlife and a variety of hunting opportunities that support an increasing trend in hunter numbers.
FYI HBC has three members that I know of on PHTAT, myself, Rob and 2chodi. We also sit on a variety of other committees and work to provide consistency to our common objectives.

"Science and Data"
Regarding science and data to support decision:
While the province is trending toward science supported decisions, it will take time before we have the science and data to fully rely on that for decisions. Combined with the trends over the past 30 years, where Government form decisions based on emotional and social pressure we are actively working to prevent that going forward.
We need budget allocation to spend on data collection. Our current message to Government? Show us the money. Provide us the money and we'll collaborate on how it is spent.

Data also includes, harvest data (Compulsory Reporting), hunter licence data. Please continue to respond to your harvest questionnaire.

"Harvest Trends"
With a lack of solid inventory for hunted wildlife populations, Government biologists sometimes form decisions based on harvest data 'trends'. IE for whitetail, the biologists believe if the buck harvest is trending down, the whitetail population must be trending down.
We can all agree there are flaws in that decision approach. IE, hunter days afield to harvest said animal may go up (because hunters are hard core and willing to work harder for their kill). This creates a risk that the general population of the species may be dropping more drastically than a harvest 'trend' shows. Because hunters will work harder and harder to take their animal and this props up 'alleged' population estimates.
Until we have 'data' we likely won't see a change. No matter how hard we all lobby regional biologists.

"First Nation Harvest"
First Nations have participation on the PHTAT. I am encouraged they are advocating for more control and monitoring on FN harvest. Hopefully we get to a point were they are completely transparent with harvest numbers. That is the objective and I personally am seeing agreement from FN, that they do need to record harvests. However, full implementation of FN harvests into our decision process may take time.

"Budgets"
The Together for Wildlife" (T4W) is being implemented in Regions. The Ministers Wildlife Advisory Council is active and making recommendations to Government. As we discuss and determine how, where and on what, the budget should be spent (on the ground), creating habitat, managing road reclamation, collecting inventory on wildlife, developing wildlife management plans, we can and will spend any money the Government makes available.

While we have PHTAT and MWAC and the T4W, we also have "First Nation T4W Forum" referred to as, "The Forum". The initiatives of these groups are to combine historical knowledge of landscape management, harvest management and work together to learn from traditional knowledge, which can support our collective knowledge and lead to better wildlife management.

"Dynamic Shifts"
The MWAC, in collaboration with many stakeholder groups have made recommendation to Government that a dynamic shift in forest and landscape management along with objective setting (agreeing to values of the land) is required. As hunters, we need to be open to dynamic shifts in how we utilize our opportunities to hunt and what future hunting opportunities might look like. I am not involved in these sessions thinking that hunting opportunity is going to dwindle into a story to be told about the time when we could hunt. I am involved because I believe this is a good initiative, to care about wildlife and to use hunting as a component of management of wildlife.

"Big picture"
Looking back and looking forward, these 'tables' have been participating in a major undertaking to create a framework for success. While it has been frustrating at times, I believe we are moving in the right direction.
Success in:



Implementation of budgets and regional resources
Data collection (expanded biological, social and economic data and information)
Wildlife Research
Habitat work and priorities
Regional wildlife tables
Stakeholder involvement
Land Use decisions (including road density and access)
Inclusion of Citizen science


Until we create plans and have objectives and data, it is hard to shift and make decisions based on inventory, objectives and plans. We must all understand the complexity to having good data, to support good decisions. Patience.

Great post JT. Very enlightening and thanks for taking the time to write it

[300weatherby]

there are a pile of new rules and it is getting harder and harder to hunt/fish in this province every year. it seem like there is a big push from the first nations on all ends of the hunter/fisherman but no tracking for what they do.it seems to me if you want a good idea of what is being harvested out there all should take part to be fair to all including the animals/fish.i want to be able to do this and for my kids as well.i not against native rights at all but how can they track anything with out the whole picture.i have native friends and they see many abuse the right. i've seen truck loads of fish laid out in the sun to rot more than ounce in my life.know of deer being pit lamped in closed season and sold for money and they were caught on camera by the game department with no charges or even a hey this is not right from there own nation.then on the other hand i have a native friend who hunts for elders and teaches the young who don't have anyone to teach them .the meat is all utilized and the hunt is done with pride and respect for the animal in fair chase .good and bad on all sides i know.i'm not one to go on a forum and voice out but my point is if you want a healthy population of wild life the whole picture needs to be looked at .sounds simple but the politics is bad here i fear there will never be a balance .from a guy who hope's for the best so all can enjoy the great opportunities this country has.

[Squamch]

Why ban e bikes? Does anyone have a legit reason for that?

They aren't fully banned, electric motorcycles and electric mopeds are banned in motor vehicle closed areas, because....they are motor vehicles.

[Rob Chipman]

My apologies for being offline and leaving Rob in the lurch to respond to most of the discussion here.

I've read through the comments and I would like to offer the following.

"PHTAT"
In response to the openness and transparency of the Provincial Hunting, Trapping Advisory Team (PHTAT). We are in the process of developing a website. The link is here.

https://www.bchuntingtrappingadvisory.ca/about-us/ A cautionary note, this site is under development and not complete, nor aligned with the ideas that many of us want on that site. It does provide the list of PHTAT members.

Additionally, I agree with Rob, that at PHTAT and at any of the many group meetings I sit at, I am not advocating for one user group. I believe we all have a responsibility to keep wildlife at the forefront of our decisions. We work together to provide various perspectives of user groups that provide value to the ultimate decision made by Government.

Our objective is sound wildlife management, huntable populations of wildlife and a variety of hunting opportunities that support an increasing trend in hunter numbers.
FYI HBC has three members that I know of on PHTAT, myself, Rob and 2chodi. We also sit on a variety of other committees and work to provide consistency to our common objectives.

"Science and Data"
Regarding science and data to support decision:
While the province is trending toward science supported decisions, it will take time before we have the science and data to fully rely on that for decisions. Combined with the trends over the past 30 years, where Government form decisions based on emotional and social pressure we are actively working to prevent that going forward.
We need budget allocation to spend on data collection. Our current message to Government? Show us the money. Provide us the money and we'll collaborate on how it is spent.

Data also includes, harvest data (Compulsory Reporting), hunter licence data. Please continue to respond to your harvest questionnaire.

"Harvest Trends"
With a lack of solid inventory for hunted wildlife populations, Government biologists sometimes form decisions based on harvest data 'trends'. IE for whitetail, the biologists believe if the buck harvest is trending down, the whitetail population must be trending down.
We can all agree there are flaws in that decision approach. IE, hunter days afield to harvest said animal may go up (because hunters are hard core and willing to work harder for their kill). This creates a risk that the general population of the species may be dropping more drastically than a harvest 'trend' shows. Because hunters will work harder and harder to take their animal and this props up 'alleged' population estimates.
Until we have 'data' we likely won't see a change. No matter how hard we all lobby regional biologists.

"First Nation Harvest"
First Nations have participation on the PHTAT. I am encouraged they are advocating for more control and monitoring on FN harvest. Hopefully we get to a point were they are completely transparent with harvest numbers. That is the objective and I personally am seeing agreement from FN, that they do need to record harvests. However, full implementation of FN harvests into our decision process may take time.

"Budgets"
The Together for Wildlife" (T4W) is being implemented in Regions. The Ministers Wildlife Advisory Council is active and making recommendations to Government. As we discuss and determine how, where and on what, the budget should be spent (on the ground), creating habitat, managing road reclamation, collecting inventory on wildlife, developing wildlife management plans, we can and will spend any money the Government makes available.

While we have PHTAT and MWAC and the T4W, we also have "First Nation T4W Forum" referred to as, "The Forum". The initiatives of these groups are to combine historical knowledge of landscape management, harvest management and work together to learn from traditional knowledge, which can support our collective knowledge and lead to better wildlife management.

"Dynamic Shifts"
The MWAC, in collaboration with many stakeholder groups have made recommendation to Government that a dynamic shift in forest and landscape management along with objective setting (agreeing to values of the land) is required. As hunters, we need to be open to dynamic shifts in how we utilize our opportunities to hunt and what future hunting opportunities might look like. I am not involved in these sessions thinking that hunting opportunity is going to dwindle into a story to be told about the time when we could hunt. I am involved because I believe this is a good initiative, to care about wildlife and to use hunting as a component of management of wildlife.

"Big picture"
Looking back and looking forward, these 'tables' have been participating in a major undertaking to create a framework for success. While it has been frustrating at times, I believe we are moving in the right direction.
Success in:



Implementation of budgets and regional resources
Data collection (expanded biological, social and economic data and information)
Wildlife Research
Habitat work and priorities
Regional wildlife tables
Stakeholder involvement
Land Use decisions (including road density and access)
Inclusion of Citizen science


Until we create plans and have objectives and data, it is hard to shift and make decisions based on inventory, objectives and plans. We must all understand the complexity to having good data, to support good decisions. Patience.


Thanks Jim - your perspective on this really fills out the picture. Merry Christmas!

[Harvest the Land]

Round Canada Podcast - Ep 30 Changes to BC Hunting and Trapping Regs with Gerry Paille (BCWF)

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly90aGVodW50ZXJjb25zZXJ2YXRpb25pc3QubGlic3 luLmNvbS9yc3M/episode/YWRkOTY2MTItNzViYi00MWY1LThiMjEtZjM5NTM2N2QwMGFj?h l=en-CA&ved=2ahUKEwj2xKXn_v_0AhVvFjQIHeayBowQjrkEegQIDhAF&ep=6 (https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly90aGVodW50ZXJjb25zZXJ2YXRpb25pc3QubGlic3 luLmNvbS9yc3M/episode/YWRkOTY2MTItNzViYi00MWY1LThiMjEtZjM5NTM2N2QwMGFj?h l=en-CA&ved=2ahUKEwj2xKXn_v_0AhVvFjQIHeayBowQjrkEegQIDhAF&ep=6)

[HappyJack]

They aren't fully banned, electric motorcycles and electric mopeds are banned in motor vehicle closed areas, because....they are motor vehicles.

Well that is definitely stating the obvious. I was actually thinking about them being lumped in with atv/orv for the morning closures and the seasonal closures like in 5-13. Someone would reasonably think there is a reason behind that ban, perhaps they disturb bow hunters? or? Doesn't make much sense to have closures for atv/orv and e-bikes while fellows can run everywhere with jacked jeeps and datsun trucks?

[HappyJack]

I don't know how the harvest questionnaires are actually computed, but there are certainly flaws, in my mind.

As I said, I have a WT tag that rides in my wallet, because WT are available to hunt where i go target elk.
Same for the MD, there are a few WT there, so, the WT tag is there as well.
But again, my focus in MD.

For me, the WT tag is just a maybe opportunity tag, but i usually always pass up legal WT.

The WT tag ends up with more days hunted, then do my elk or MD questioners.
Yet, in all honesty, I spend 0 time targeting them.
And usually ends up saying 0 taken for years.

I no longer calculate MD during my elk hunt, because, well, they just aren't there anymore.

So, I don't know how anyone makes sense of my card?
And I certainly don't know how cards like mine help improve anything.
If anything, it just distorts the flawed system.
Again, just my opinion.
And again, I don't know how they calculate anything from it.
The only question are out of the 3 that is accurate, is probably my elk tag.
Even my MD tag seems distorted in my mind, because i might spend 14 days, take 0 but could have easily taken 1 each year,
but passed up on.

the only thing that makes sense to me, is if someone says 1 or 0.
At least you know how many were harvested.
But then again, do we know how many there are out there to begin with?

Well put, the data they are collecting is completely flawed, and to think they use those numbers to set our seasons and annual allowable harvests is sad.

[BCHunterTV]

I know right now theres people working on getting Metis their Chapter 35 Rights in the Historic Metis area in Northern BC. MEtis are listed as Indians and have Chapter 35 Rights.

if you want more info and to be part of the discussions let me know via PM.

[BCHunterTV]

BC Coalition of Red River Metis Harvesters


Dear fellow Harvesters,


Are you a Red River Metis rights holder in BC? Would you like to once and for all have your rights recognized? For your information, your collective rights are protected and enshrined within the Canadian Constitution Sec 35. Those rights are now recognized and affirmed with the addition of subsequent and lengthy court cases, which can be supplied if requested. The time has come in BC to invoke those inherent rights! However, it will take cooperation and support from you the grassroots Metis people in BC.


The BC Coalition of Red River Metis Harvester’s is inviting you to belong to our newly formed and grassroots-driven harvester’s group. The Coalition of Harvesters was created to “preserve, protect, and advance” the Metis peoples' inherent rights in BC. Those rights must be extended from our natural homelands to have fair and acceptable access to hunt, fish, trap and gather unencumbered. These rights have not been advanced in BC. However, those same rights are now being put into practice in other provinces.*


Our rights are a collective right of law. To date, no Metis organization in BC has made any substantial or constructive advancements. It simply has not been a priority. That being said we will be actively seeking negotiations with both the Federal Government and the current BC Government. Make no mistake, this is not an easy task but we now have the law and the Canadian Constitution on our side as we go through this most important process. And we need your help and support collectively.*


We are asking for and developing a list of Metis harvesters that want to practice their inherent right to sustenance in BC. Even if you belong to a registered Metis organization it will be important for you to be registered with this newly formed group of rights-based harvesters.*


Please respond with a letter of support to: rrmetisbc@gmail.com


Please forward this letter to every Metis person you know.



Spokesperson, Dan LaFrance