BCWF Webinar "When does selective hunting lead to evolutionary change and what (if a"

[Rob Chipman]

The next webinar in BCWF's Conservation Webinar Series, and the first of 2022 will happen January 18 at 6:00.

Dr. Marco Festa-Bianchet will present on whether hunting can exert selective pressure on a species, and what, if anything, should be done.

Dr. Festa-Bianchet has presented at BCWF AGMs in the past and this presentation is sure to be informative and perhaps provocative.


You can register for the Zoom webinar here: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/7816394175992/WN_SieR5jYmS2imzsf7ctLh4A

Like post webinars, there will be a chance to ask questions.

[Walking Buffalo]

Be very careful when dealing with this researcher.

Do NOT trust his science or data. It does not stand up to true scrutiny.

There is no question where his bias lies.
There is a very strong desire within his group of colleagues to eliminate the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation in favor of Compassionate Conservation.


"We" spent a huge amount of time, money and resources in Alberta fighting Festa-Bianchet and his students to prevent the adoption of his faulty science to our wildlife management.

Seems he has tucked tail and is focusing on B.C as more fertile grounds to advance his personal desires to virtually eliminate hunting.

[Rackmastr]

X2. So many people in BC don't seem to have followed what happened in Alberta and some of the research that was done that essentially disproves his agenda-driven narrative.

[Rob Chipman]

Be very careful when dealing with this researcher.

Do NOT trust his science or data. It does not stand up to true scrutiny.

There is no question where his bias lies.
There is a very strong desire within his group of colleagues to eliminate the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation in favor of Compassionate Conservation.


"We" spent a huge amount of time, money and resources in Alberta fighting Festa-Bianchet and his students to prevent the adoption of his faulty science to our wildlife management.

Seems he has tucked tail and is focusing on B.C as more fertile grounds to advance his personal desires to virtually eliminate hunting.

As I wrote...."perhaps provocative".

Which is also why I've posted it here. I think we should always be careful when dealing with *any* researcher.

More information shared means more opportunity to critique information.

You can't critique the info if you don't hear the info and if you can't ask questions. This webinar allows anyone to register, hear the info and critique it by asking questions.

However....rules cut both ways. If transparency, questions and critique is appropriate for the good doctor it's also appropriate for anyone disagreeing with him.

I'm curious to know, at minimum, 4 things:

1) who the "we" is who spent a bunch of time and energy fighting Festa-Bianchet's perspective;
2) where is the counter science or other sort of information to show that Festa-Bianchet's science is faulty;
3) Where is the evidence that he and his colleagues want to replace the NAMWC with compassion conservation (sidebar - does anyone think we follow the NAWCM here in BC? That'd be a fun convo, because I love the NAMWC, but I *do not* think we follow it here);
4) Who are the colleagues in question?

That seems like pretty important information to me. I'm not asking that Rackmastr or Walking Buffalo spill the beans here on this forum (feel free to do so if you like, but both of you seem pretty informed and intelligent so maybe a hunting forum bun toss isn't the best way to get those important answers out), but I'm a great believer in following the true information (or as close to it as you can get) to wherever it leads and then reaching the conclusion.

WB may be right that Dr. Festa-Bianchet has some sort of personal agenda.

BCWF's agenda is to share information widely and allow members and non-members to absorb it, evaluate it and respond to it. This is not a one-off webinar, as you all realize, but just another in the series. There were many that came before, and there will be many more that come after.

Register here: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/7816394175992/WN_SieR5jYmS2imzsf7ctLh4A

Please prepare your questions and share any and all evidence for your perspective (I really want to hear both sides. The first time I heard the idea that hunters can exert evolutionary pressure that results in [smaller horns/smaller antlers/smaller whatever], which was a few years ago now, I knew it would be explosive (probably more explosive than the claim that hatcheries were a net negative and its time to replace them - try laying that on a club that has run a hatchery for decades! :-) )

[Rackmastr]

Wild Sheep Foundation Alberta put a lot of work and dealt a lot with Marco's genetic harm theory. I believe there was research funded in Wyoming that essentially debunked a lot of his theories. I'd have to do a bit more digging.

There is some good conversations out there, but reach out to the Alberta wild sheep community and I'm sure you can get a TON of answers about your questions. I'm not in Alberta anymore nor the person to speak on it.

Some good reading here as well:

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=278301

[Rob Chipman]

Wild Sheep Foundation Alberta put a lot of work and dealt a lot with Marco's genetic harm theory. I believe there was research funded in Wyoming that essentially debunked a lot of his theories. I'd have to do a bit more digging.

There is some good conversations out there, but reach out to the Alberta wild sheep community and I'm sure you can get a TON of answers about your questions. I'm not in Alberta anymore nor the person to speak on it.

Some good reading here as well:

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=278301

Thanks for the link. I'll look into it.

I don't have the bandwidth to reach out to Alberta sheep guys. I'd love to, but only 24 hours in the day, which is why I want to crowdsource any of this. Doesn't have to be you. Anyone with solid info can share.

Again, thanks for the link.

[Rackmastr]

I don't have the bandwidth to reach out to Alberta sheep guys. I'd love to, but only 24 hours in the day, which is why I want to crowdsource any of this. Doesn't have to be you. Anyone with solid info can share.


Likely wont find it here. My post was for those who wish to take the time to be informed, thats where I'd start. Literally the time it took you to write that reply could be spent reaching out to someone on the WSFAB board and getting it first hand, but at least people who want to dig can have a good starting point there.

[Rackmastr]

https://www.outdoorcanada.ca/why-hunters-are-butting-heads-with-alberta-over-bighorns/

[Rob Chipman]

Likely wont find it here. My post was for those who wish to take the time to be informed, thats where I'd start. Literally the time it took you to write that reply could be spent reaching out to someone on the WSFAB board and getting it first hand, but at least people who want to dig can have a good starting point there.

There's two links to studies there, though. Read the 7 pages of posts. Will look at the studies after. Thanks for the link in your subsequent post as well.

Anyway, I know next to nothing about sheep so I'm not going to weigh in. Still at the bottom of that learning curve.

[Rackmastr]

Yep 10-4. Hopefully there's some good points brought up on the webinar. His motives seem pretty clear to me and intetesting that he's started working on BC after his attempts in Alberta didn't grow roots.

[Imdone]

BC is easy pickings. FNs demanding and getting most everything they ask for, and the growing Antis from mostly greater Vancouver having more say than the remote residents, prime example the G Bear �� closure and it's mistruths. Based again on emotion rather than science.
Bottom line, hunters are doomed, unless your FN.

[Imdone]

Cats, Sheep and Goat next in the Antis agendas. Followed by the rest.

[Walking Buffalo]

Rob,

I had my eyes and ears on Bianchet years before he approached the Alberta government sounding an alarm that hunting was absolutely responsible for cause a harmful genetic selection in Bighorn sheep.

When the government started to listen to him, I made Alberta's hunting organizations aware of my concerns including educating most of them as to why this person and his research was so dangerous to hunting, and scientifically void of factual conclusions. I spent many hours a day for several years on this fight. One of my hardest tasks was uniting the boards and membership of the AFGA, WSFAb, and APOS in a united front while bringing in scientists and funding to review Bianchet's data and conclusions, and produce independent research.

In the end, "We" (the Alberta Hunting interest groups) won.
Bianchet and his genetic harm gang lost and have now taken their anti-hunting compassionate wildlife management endeavor to B.C.

I still have much of this history (research papers, letters, proposals) on old hard-drives.
It will take some work for me to get up to speed, and more to educate those desiring to learn this history, but it can be done.

The current WSFAb is pretty much void of anyone that was involved in this fight.
I doubt that they could help very much.

[HappyJack]

So if he is trouble why is the BCWF giving him a forum to spread his bs? Enlighten me please. It sounds like Alberta had a real battle to counter his science.

[Walking Buffalo]

Wild Sheep Foundation Alberta put a lot of work and dealt a lot with Marco's genetic harm theory. I believe there was research funded in Wyoming that essentially debunked a lot of his theories. I'd have to do a bit more digging.

There is some good conversations out there, but reach out to the Alberta wild sheep community and I'm sure you can get a TON of answers about your questions. I'm not in Alberta anymore nor the person to speak on it.

Some good reading here as well:

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=278301


A flashback for sure.... though the real debate was several years before this thread.


As you can see Rob, while Bianchet was claiming that Alberta had to change its 4/5 rule to a full curl general season , that full curl would solve the hunting induced genetic harm problem, he was claiming that B.C. had to go from a full curl general season and very limited LEH because of hunter induced genetic harm....

A snake is a snake, whether in Alberta or B.C.

HengeveldJWM11.pdf (usherbrooke.ca) (http://marco.recherche.usherbrooke.ca/pdffiles/HengeveldJWM11.pdf)

[bearvalley]

So if he is trouble why is the BCWF giving him a forum to spread his bs? Enlighten me please. It sounds like Alberta had a real battle to counter his science.

Sure would be a good way to screw over outfitters if you could get the full curl rule thrown out and ditch LEH’s or if an LEH season comes into play carry on with over authorizations.
There’s probably more than one snake at play here.

[horshur]

Zeman retweets him regularly...

[Deaddog]

Zeman retweets him regularly...
Maybe hidden agenda by the new fed executive director?

[Harvest the Land]

This is a fascinating thread. When I used to have a twitter account I used to follow Jesse and that's how I learned who Bianchet was. Never quite understood why he was such a fan of the guy. He sure didn't seem to be very hunter friendly.

Thanks for the background info WB and Rackmaster

[bearvalley]

Too bad the BCWF hadn’t scheduled a joint webinar with Marco Festa-Blanchet and our sheep and goat specialist Bill Jex.
It would be interesting to hear Bills take on Blanchets theory and if he feels it’s a concern in BC to only shoot full curls.

[Walking Buffalo]

Zeman retweets him regularly...

I spoke with Jesse back when this was hot in Alberta.
He lost any respect when he answered that he didn't care about the validity of the science regarding Bianchet and sheep, the reason B.C. went to full curl for bighorns ( Genetic harm with Coltman taking the scientific spotlight, which he has since recanted).

"Dr. Marco Festa-Bianchet will present on whether hunting can exert selective pressure on a species, and what, if anything, should be done."

Thus strikes me as laughable.
His whole career this century has been focused on pronouncing current hunting models, and especially "trophy" hunting as conclusively harmful to the species and ecosystem.
Tip toeing into the BCWF.
Compassionate Conservation. learn what it is.

[Rob Chipman]

A flashback for sure.... though the real debate was several years before this thread.


As you can see Rob, while Bianchet was claiming that Alberta had to change its 4/5 rule to a full curl general season , that full curl would solve the hunting induced genetic harm problem, he was claiming that B.C. had to go from a full curl general season and very limited LEH because of hunter induced genetic harm....

A snake is a snake, whether in Alberta or B.C.

HengeveldJWM11.pdf (usherbrooke.ca) (http://marco.recherche.usherbrooke.ca/pdffiles/HengeveldJWM11.pdf)

Yeah, I bet its a flashback - I saw lots of your tracks in that forum!

I'm not sure I see the whole pic yet. I'm still at the stage of it could make sense, but there seem to be a lot of recommendations based on "This may work..." rather than "Let's do a control group here and a test group there", plus I'm still new to a lot of sheep terms and basic sheep knowledge.

[Rob Chipman]

So if he is trouble why is the BCWF giving him a forum to spread his bs? Enlighten me please. It sounds like Alberta had a real battle to counter his science.

Some people think that the solution to information they disagree with is to suppress the information and the speaker.

Some people think the solution to information they don't agree with is more information. I think a quick look out the living rom window or a short time watching the news will tell you which way is best.

[Rob Chipman]

Sure would be a good way to screw over outfitters if you could get the full curl rule thrown out and ditch LEH’s or if an LEH season comes into play carry on with over authorizations.
There’s probably more than one snake at play here.

You should expand on who the snakes are, what they're planning and who changes LEH rules. I'll wager it'll be a funny story :-)

[Rob Chipman]

Too bad the BCWF hadn’t scheduled a joint webinar with Marco Festa-Blanchet and our sheep and goat specialist Bill Jex.
It would be interesting to hear Bills take on Blanchets theory and if he feels it’s a concern in BC to only shoot full curls.

Duly noted. We've got 13 out so far and don't plan on stopping.

For anyone wanting to hear a little Bill Jex WSS has an hour and a half talk with him from last summer : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWJA2ZFKz_w

Lotta good stuff on WSS's YouTube channel if anyone wants some free knowledge.

[bearvalley]

You should expand on who the snakes are, what they're planning and who changes LEH rules. I'll wager it'll be a funny story :-)

Not my style Robbie Boy.
That said you might not get the giggles you’re expecting.

[Walking Buffalo]

Some people think that the solution to information they disagree with is to suppress the information and the speaker.

Some people think the solution to information they don't agree with is more information. I think a quick look out the living rom window or a short time watching the news will tell you which way is best.

Who's idea was it to give Biachet a platform and megaphone at the BCWF?

[Walking Buffalo]

Yeah, I bet its a flashback - I saw lots of your tracks in that forum!

I'm not sure I see the whole pic yet. I'm still at the stage of it could make sense, but there seem to be a lot of recommendations based on "This may work..." rather than "Let's do a control group here and a test group there", plus I'm still new to a lot of sheep terms and basic sheep knowledge.

What could make sense?

Don't be naïve.
I mean this with sincerity, as most do not see the big picture here.
Bianchet is looking for B.C to be the control group.
His desire is for Compassionate Conservation to be applied globally.


I have spent thousands of hours in this battle.
I have shown many people the proof that allowed them to understand the truth, if they were willing to invest a little themselves.
This is much too large and important to be dealt with on a forum or in a short video chat question period.
It is very easy to contact me.

This can is full, and they are not worms inside.
Be very careful when opening.

[Rob Chipman]

What could make sense?

Don't be naïve.


I probably expressed it poorly. It's not an endorsement of anything (aside from the most basic premise) that Dr. Festa-Bianchet is saying. It's a comment on my current state of understanding this argument.

For example, if someone says "If you only shoot 4 pt mule deer you'll end up with a bunch of 3 pt mule deer because points are genetic and if you remove 4 pt genes you won't get 4 pts" I say "Hmm. That *could* make sense. What's the argument?"

Same thing is someone says "Rams that get big early, before they spread their genes, don't get to spread their genes, and that means smaller rams" I say "Hmm. That *could* make sense. What's the argument?"

I haven't looked at the argument deeply enough yet, so the failing is mine. But, as in all things, until I look at the information I am, by definition, uninformed. That applies to everyone.

The fact that you say you've spent a lot of time looking at the argument and find a lot of flaws? That's one of the first steps for me to get a better understanding of the argument. And let's face an obvious fact: if I didn't post this webinar, and you didn't respond, and I didn't bring up control group, I would never have heard you say "BC is his control group", so this is absolutely worthwhile.

I don't know where you stand on the free speech issue (and it's very complex and a rabbit hole) but I'm a believer that letting a wide audience hear something results in a small part of that audience potentially being very critical of critical of the something that is heard (and in a positive, informed way). Yes, a 1 1/2 hour presentation with 30 minutes for questions will not put the issue to bed, but the benefits of it are, without question, worth it.

In this short thread, before the webinar has even started, we've raised at least three very important issues.

That's why the "Don't let Joe Rogan spread misinformation about vaccines" argument is doomed to fail.

We're both easy to contact and we should both share information....widely. You and me knowing conclusively what's wrong with the world doesn't fix the world. We need a bunch of people to fix even the smallest problem. Neither of us have the bandwidth to do it without everyone else.

[Rob Chipman]

Not my style Robbie Boy.
That said you might not get the giggles you’re expecting.

Oh, I know your style! That's why I poked you :-)

[bearvalley]

Who's idea was it to give Biachet a platform and megaphone at the BCWF?


That shouldn’t be a hard question for Rob to answer ….if he’s granted permission to speak.



What could make sense?

Don't be naïve.
I mean this with sincerity, as most do not see the big picture here.
Bianchet is looking for B.C to be the control group.
His desire is for Compassionate Conservation to be applied globally.


I have spent thousands of hours in this battle.
I have shown many people the proof that allowed them to understand the truth, if they were willing to invest a little themselves.
This is much too large and important to be dealt with on a forum or in a short video chat question period.
It is very easy to contact me.

This can is full, and they are not worms inside.
Be very careful when opening.

Maybe others that we do not suspect follow along with the Compassionate Conservation train of thought.
Rub shoulders long enough and some will rub off.

[Rob Chipman]

That shouldn’t be a hard question for Rob to answer ….if he’s granted permission to speak.




Maybe others that we do not suspect follow along with the Compassionate Conservation train of thought.
Rub shoulders long enough and some will rub off.


See! I know your style.

Are you assuming someone in BCWF controls who's allowed to say what? ****, don't give that guy my number. It might not end well for him.

And who is it who isn't being given permission to say anything? Are you referring to me? There's no way you mean me. I mean, I think anyone who's spent any time on this forum knows that if you take the cork outta my pie hole I'll generally be the last one left talking.

Expand on who you think is following along with the compassionate conservation train of thought. Show your math. If your answer is correct then we can solve that problem. If all you're going to do is suggest that there might be monsters under the bed? Wow.

If true, could be big. :-)

[bearvalley]

Rob, study up on genetics.
The ewe is a factor as well and in “viable, thriving” populations and she will be part of the genetic makeup of the next generation.

[Rob Chipman]

HengeveldJWM11.pdf (usherbrooke.ca) (http://marco.recherche.usherbrooke.ca/pdffiles/HengeveldJWM11.pdf)

Thanks for that link. Reading it now. There's some good math based info there (one big ram sired 1/3 of lambs one year, and another sired 1/4 of all lambs over 6 years) but a notable absence of math based info right after "Some rams get big by 4 and if they get taken out of the population..." which begs the question: in a long term study of a population did you record which rams got big young and how many got killed young?

Maybe that's in the paper later, but (especially in this day and age) what *isn't* reported is often a very important data point.

I say that to show you that I'm looking into this, but I think it would be cool if others who don't like Festa-Bianchet's science prepared some good questions for him. Tough questions can be very enlightening, especially if asked the right way.

[Rob Chipman]

Rob, study up on genetics.
The ewe is a factor as well and in “viable, thriving” populations and she will be part of the genetic makeup of the next generation.

Good pivot.

Anyway, getting back to the subject you raised.... is there actually someone at BCWF who controls what someone else says? Who's someone #1, and who's someone #2? Have you studied up on that? :-)

[bearvalley]

Good pivot.

Anyway, getting back to the subject you raised.... is there actually someone at BCWF who controls what someone else says? Who's someone #1, and who's someone #2? Have you studied up on that? :-)

Lol….no Rob, it seems you’re just the self elected spokesman for the Fed….the TCG and Chad Day as well as PHAAT …and any other topic that your blog savvy skills want to run away with.
Give my regards to the rest of the muppets!

[Rob Chipman]

See...caught you red-handed stirring the pot! :-)

Anyway, register for the webinar and ask the guy some tough questions. Nobody will get hurt.

[Rackmastr]

I probably expressed it poorly. It's not an endorsement of anything (aside from the most basic premise) that Dr. Festa-Bianchet is saying. It's a comment on my current state of understanding this argument.

For example, if someone says "If you only shoot 4 pt mule deer you'll end up with a bunch of 3 pt mule deer because points are genetic and if you remove 4 pt genes you won't get 4 pts" I say "Hmm. That *could* make sense. What's the argument?"

Same thing is someone says "Rams that get big early, before they spread their genes, don't get to spread their genes, and that means smaller rams" I say "Hmm. That *could* make sense. What's the argument?"

I haven't looked at the argument deeply enough yet, so the failing is mine. But, as in all things, until I look at the information I am, by definition, uninformed. That applies to everyone.

The fact that you say you've spent a lot of time looking at the argument and find a lot of flaws? That's one of the first steps for me to get a better understanding of the argument. And let's face an obvious fact: if I didn't post this webinar, and you didn't respond, and I didn't bring up control group, I would never have heard you say "BC is his control group", so this is absolutely worthwhile.

I don't know where you stand on the free speech issue (and it's very complex and a rabbit hole) but I'm a believer that letting a wide audience hear something results in a small part of that audience potentially being very critical of critical of the something that is heard (and in a positive, informed way). Yes, a 1 1/2 hour presentation with 30 minutes for questions will not put the issue to bed, but the benefits of it are, without question, worth it.

In this short thread, before the webinar has even started, we've raised at least three very important issues.

That's why the "Don't let Joe Rogan spread misinformation about vaccines" argument is doomed to fail.

We're both easy to contact and we should both share information....widely. You and me knowing conclusively what's wrong with the world doesn't fix the world. We need a bunch of people to fix even the smallest problem. Neither of us have the bandwidth to do it without everyone else.

There is something to be said about free speech no doubt. Also something to be said about giving someone a platform. Generally a conservation group who gives a platform to someone to present a topic has at least a general acceptance or belief in that person and the validity of what they are saying through the organizations platform. Quite simply, a platform isn't given by an organization who opposes that person's views (nor would anyone expect it)

Obviously some members who organized the presentation see value in what Marco is pushing. No judgment in that one bit as that's bound to be the case with a bunch of viewpoints), but the platform is not given to those at will just in the name of free speech. It's obviously acknowledged that some support his message and want it shared.

[Rob Chipman]

There is something to be said about free speech no doubt. Also something to be said about giving someone a platform. Generally a conservation group who gives a platform to someone to present a topic has at least a general acceptance or belief in that person and the validity of what they are saying through the organizations platform. Quite simply, a platform isn't given by an organization who opposes that person's views (nor would anyone expect it)

Obviously some members who organized the presentation see value in what Marco is pushing. No judgment in that one bit as that's bound to be the case with a bunch of viewpoints), but the platform is not given to those at will just in the name of free speech. It's obviously acknowledged that some support his message and want it shared.

Few points.

The Wild Sheep Foundation hosted the 7th World Mountain Ungulate Conference in Bozeman in 2019. Some of the speakers? Shane Mahoney, Val Geist....Marco Festa-Bianchet. Now I'm pretty sure that both Shane Mahoney and Val Geist (may he rest in peace) were not compassionate conservationists. If Festa-Bianchet *is* a compassionate conservationists, which viewpoint was WSF accepting or believing?

These webinars are organized by a group of people, the majority of them paid staff, and they're all tasked with getting interesting people who are willing to speak on conservation issues and draw an audience. They've got a bunch of people to commit to doing presentations, which is a very good accomplishment. Actually providing long term, recurring and topical content is a tough challenge. We've done them on wildfires, salmon, pinnipeds, cougars, CWD, road density, carnivore management, moose, forest practices, steelhead, etc. I am in a position at BCWF where I could object to this guest, as could other directors, but there is clearly value in having him speak, and the value does not reside in the message that he's pushing.

Nobody has said that Festa-Bianchet is getting a platform because BCWF is fighting for free speech. I see value in a controversial person being allowed to speak because I believe in free speech, not because I think the particular person's message has value and I want to support it. I trust the audience to make up it's own mind because I respect them and I believe that the et result will always be positive. I don't know who supports Marco Festa-Bianchet's message but I know a lot of people would want it shared simply because the believe more information is always good.

I raised the free speech aspect not because BCWF is a newly minted free speech crusader who's next webinar guest will be Dr. Jordan Peterson; I raised it to point out that the alternative is to deny the audience the ability to hear a guy like Festa-Bianchet because some people don't like what he says. That's a bad alternative for conservation because conservation is a field strewn with disagreement over the science and a lot of provocative subjects.

Here's some examples the value in what Festa-Bianchet is going to say (and I haven't even heard the presentation yet):

1) Is he actually a compassionate conservationist? Some say he is. It would be good to confirm that.
2) Is he attempting to change BC regs so that he gets a control group for a pet project of his, or is he asking a valid question that conservationists would like to see asked and answered?
3) Is he an anti-hunter?
4) If the answer to 1,2 & 3 are yes, who else agrees with him and how much influence do they have?

You see the point. That list could go on an on. Just ask Bill Burr about reasons and how many there are (if you haven't seen it, treat yourself. Don't tell anyone I laughed at it. They'll think I support wife beating! It's hilarious https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rksKvZoUCPQ)

[Rackmastr]

Fair points Rob. I guess I was likely in your spot years ago when I hadn't heard his comments as well as counter arguments and seen everything I've needed to see to come to my conclusions. I understand that's a different spot than many in BC so I don't see the value (because I've gone down the road already). Will be intetesting to see where our residents land after hearing the message and counter arguments.

[bearvalley]

See...caught you red-handed stirring the pot! :-)

Anyway, register for the webinar and ask the guy some tough questions. Nobody will get hurt.

Robbie, you might call it stirring the pot….others might look at it as pouring water down the hole and watching the rats pop up.
Been registered for a while….wouldn’t want to miss it.

[Walking Buffalo]

Who's idea was it to give Biachet a platform and megaphone at the BCWF?

A lot of chirping but no answer.

This is a simple question that does not need more than a couple of words to answer.
And it is damn important.
Rob, your work around "answer" reminds me of the Federal question period.



Thanks for that link. Reading it now. There's some good math based info there (one big ram sired 1/3 of lambs one year, and another sired 1/4 of all lambs over 6 years) but a notable absence of math based info right after "Some rams get big by 4 and if they get taken out of the population..." which begs the question: in a long term study of a population did you record which rams got big young and how many got killed young?

Maybe that's in the paper later, but (especially in this day and age) what *isn't* reported is often a very important data point.

I say that to show you that I'm looking into this, but I think it would be cool if others who don't like Festa-Bianchet's science prepared some good questions for him. Tough questions can be very enlightening, especially if asked the right way.


The point in providing this link lay with the comment I included.
Bianchet was full out stating that his proposal for reduced hunting in Alberta would solve his "scientifically proven" problem,
all the while claiming that his solution for Alberta was actually a "scientifically proven" problem in B.C and thus proposed even further hunting restrictions.

There is no need to open the door to a con artist.
It is much better to keep them out.

But now that someone has let him in, you have to deal with getting him out.
Thus you are now asking for people to step up, use their time and resources to help.
A much harder task than just not letting the con in.

Again, who invited BIanchet to speak?
Please don't waste more time explaining why, I didn't ask why.

[Rob Chipman]

A lot of chirping but no answer.

This is a simple question that does not need more than a couple of words to answer.
And it is damn important.
Rob, your work around "answer" reminds me of the Federal question period.





The point in providing this link lay with the comment I included.
Bianchet was full out stating that his proposal for reduced hunting in Alberta would solve his "scientifically proven" problem,
all the while claiming that his solution for Alberta was actually a "scientifically proven" problem in B.C and thus proposed even further hunting restrictions.

There is no need to open the door to a con artist.
It is much better to keep them out.

But now that someone has let him in, you have to deal with getting him out.
Thus you are now asking for people to step up, use their time and resources to help.
A much harder task than just not letting the con in.

Again, who invited BIanchet to speak?
Please don't waste more time explaining why, I didn't ask why.

OK, let me re-phrase. I don't know who picked him because I don't think it's one individual who picks these speakers. There are multiple people involved in putting the webinar series together and there has been turnover among that team. Question back at you, since I'm detecting an implication: are you saying that picking Festa-Bianchet to speak means that there is some single individual or group of individuals at BCWF who are fans of compassionate conservation?

Does that also go for Wild Sheep Foundation? They let him speak as well.



I'm still reading the paper. If that paper states that "full out stating that his proposal for reduced hunting in Alberta would solve his "scientifically proven" problem,
all the while claiming that his solution for Alberta was actually a "scientifically proven" problem in B.C and thus proposed even further hunting restrictions" I'll look for it. I might need your help on it because I'm not 100% clear what you're saying aside from the part where you think he's sucking and blowing at the same time.

[Rob Chipman]

Robbie, you might call it stirring the pot….others might look at it as pouring water down the hole and watching the rats pop up.
Been registered for a while….wouldn’t want to miss it.


You are stirring the pot, which is both fine and fun and something we've both been charged and convicted of many times. No big deal. It is usually pretty fun when you do it.

If you're pouring water down a hole and you do, indeed, get rats to pop out, that's a good thing, right? Make sure you identify who they are and remember: without pics it didn't happen.

[bearvalley]

You are stirring the pot, which is both fine and fun and something we've both been charged and convicted of many times. No big deal. It is usually pretty fun when you do it.

If you're pouring water down a hole and you do, indeed, get rats to pop out, that's a good thing, right? Make sure you identify who they are and remember: without pics it didn't happen.

Robbie, I’m fully aware how that game plays…..and you’re right, without pics it didn’t happen.
Stay dry and watch out for cameras.

[Rob Chipman]

Stay dry and watch out for cameras.


See, I told you it's usually pretty fun when you do it! :-)

[Rob Chipman]

And btw - clean out your inbox! I want to yank your chain directly!

[bearvalley]

And btw - clean out your inbox! I want to yank your chain directly!
You know my phone #

[Ourea]

Bearvalley, as I have stated before, it is crystal clear you hate the fed and especially Jesse Zeeman.
We get it.

The examples are endless of you hijacking threads with the apparent objective to bash and attack those within the hunting community that you perceive as a threat or in any way challenge your business model. Fair enough.

You are obsessed with bashing the Fed every chance you get. Got it.
Loud and clear.

This is a community bound together over our passion of hunting BC.
This is not a platform to endlessly bash those that are trying to make a difference in fish and wildlife as you perceive them as a threat ( in my opinion ) to your business model.

Bashing resident hunters and organizations will get you no where other than drive that wedge deeper.

Sad man

[Imdone]

Bearvalley, as I have stated before, it is crystal clear you hate the fed and especially Jesse Zeeman.
We get it.

The examples are endless of you hijacking threads with the apparent objective to bash and attack those within the hunting community that you perceive as a threat or in any way challenge your business model. Fair enough.

You are obsessed with bashing the Fed every chance you get. Got it.
Loud and clear.

This is a community bound together over our passion of hunting BC.
This is not a platform to endlessly bash those that are trying to make a difference in fish and wildlife as you perceive them as a threat ( in my opinion ) to your business model.

Bashing resident hunters and organizations will get you no where other than drive that wedge deeper.

Sad man

Well said, still has his gonch, or is it panties in a knot from 2014 and the allocation fiasco. Some boys never grow up.

Some look for the greater good, some never will and remain self centered.

Sad.

[bearvalley]

Bearvalley, as I have stated before, it is crystal clear you hate the fed and especially Jesse Zeeman.
We get it.

The examples are endless of you hijacking threads with the apparent objective to bash and attack those within the hunting community that you perceive as a threat or in any way challenge your business model. Fair enough.

You are obsessed with bashing the Fed every chance you get. Got it.
Loud and clear.

This is a community bound together over our passion of hunting BC.
This is not a platform to endlessly bash those that are trying to make a difference in fish and wildlife as you perceive them as a threat ( in my opinion ) to your business model.

Bashing resident hunters and organizations will get you no where other than drive that wedge deeper.

Sad man

Ourea, you’ve kinda jumped a little over board my friend…..hate is a pretty harsh term.
I do believe others have picked up on this thread and there could be an underlying issue.
Go ahead and stir the pot….I’m not biting.
I completely support resident hunting organizations …..but the catch is the organization needs to have the back of hunters.
There’s a difference.
Your group seems a little watered down.

[bearvalley]

Sure would be a good way to screw over outfitters if you could get the full curl rule thrown out and ditch LEH’s or if an LEH season comes into play carry on with over authorizations.
There’s probably more than one snake at play here.


Too bad the BCWF hadn’t scheduled a joint webinar with Marco Festa-Blanchet and our sheep and goat specialist Bill Jex.
It would be interesting to hear Bills take on Blanchets theory and if he feels it’s a concern in BC to only shoot full curls.


Not my style Robbie Boy.
That said you might not get the giggles you’re expecting.


That shouldn’t be a hard question for Rob to answer ….if he’s granted permission to speak.




Maybe others that we do not suspect follow along with the Compassionate Conservation train of thought.
Rub shoulders long enough and some will rub off.


Rob, study up on genetics.
The ewe is a factor as well and in “viable, thriving” populations and she will be part of the genetic makeup of the next generation.


Lol….no Rob, it seems you’re just the self elected spokesman for the Fed….the TCG and Chad Day as well as PHAAT …and any other topic that your blog savvy skills want to run away with.
Give my regards to the rest of the muppets!


Robbie, you might call it stirring the pot….others might look at it as pouring water down the hole and watching the rats pop up.
Been registered for a while….wouldn’t want to miss it.


Robbie, I’m fully aware how that game plays…..and you’re right, without pics it didn’t happen.
Stay dry and watch out for cameras.


You know my phone #

Ourea….must be guilt by association got you but where does Jesse Zeman come into play?

[Walking Buffalo]

OK, let me re-phrase. I don't know who picked him because I don't think it's one individual who picks these speakers. There are multiple people involved in putting the webinar series together and there has been turnover among that team. Question back at you, since I'm detecting an implication: are you saying that picking Festa-Bianchet to speak means that there is some single individual or group of individuals at BCWF who are fans of compassionate conservation?

Does that also go for Wild Sheep Foundation? They let him speak as well.



I'm still reading the paper. If that paper states that "full out stating that his proposal for reduced hunting in Alberta would solve his "scientifically proven" problem,
all the while claiming that his solution for Alberta was actually a "scientifically proven" problem in B.C and thus proposed even further hunting restrictions" I'll look for it. I might need your help on it because I'm not 100% clear what you're saying aside from the part where you think he's sucking and blowing at the same time.

I simply asked who invited him.
As you don't know, it may become important that you find out.
I have no idea if other BCWF personnel are pro Compassionate Conservation.
This is another important question to be asked and answered.

Do you know why the WSF let Bianchet speak?
Do you think they let him in not knowing what he has done in an attempt to eliminate hunting, and were not prepared Before inviting him?


This paper is but one coefficient in a long equation.
Prepare to do a lot more reading if you truly want to understand.

[Ourea]

Well....Maybe start with stop bashing resident advocacy groups and individuals

You claim to support resident hunting groups yet venomously attack some.

To be clear. i have no affiliation to any (group).

Again, always undermining and sniping at the Fed every chance you get.

Mr Chipman was putting some information out (albeit some may perceive it as somewhat controversial)....
Then you show up and hamstring yet another thread

[Rob Chipman]

You know my phone #

Actually I don't. New phone or never saved it or who knows what. No biggie.

[Rob Chipman]

I completely support resident hunting organizations …..but the catch is the organization needs to have the back of hunters.



BCWF is a conservation organization that is member driven. The overwhelming majority of our members are hunters and anglers, but we are not a hunting organization. This isn't new. It's been stated many, many times.

Our goals are fish, wildlife, habitat and access to it. Because a lot of our members are hunters (a lot) we also get involved in firearms issues, but that doesn't make us a gun advocacy group.

It's s subtle but important difference.

[bearvalley]

Sure would be a good way to screw over outfitters if you could get the full curl rule thrown out and ditch LEH’s or if an LEH season comes into play carry on with over authorizations.
There’s probably more than one snake at play here.


Too bad the BCWF hadn’t scheduled a joint webinar with Marco Festa-Blanchet and our sheep and goat specialist Bill Jex.
It would be interesting to hear Bills take on Blanchets theory and if he feels it’s a concern in BC to only shoot full curls.


Not my style Robbie Boy.
That said you might not get the giggles you’re expecting.


That shouldn’t be a hard question for Rob to answer ….if he’s granted permission to speak.




Maybe others that we do not suspect follow along with the Compassionate Conservation train of thought.
Rub shoulders long enough and some will rub off.


Rob, study up on genetics.
The ewe is a factor as well and in “viable, thriving” populations and she will be part of the genetic makeup of the next generation.


Lol….no Rob, it seems you’re just the self elected spokesman for the Fed….the TCG and Chad Day as well as PHAAT …and any other topic that your blog savvy skills want to run away with.
Give my regards to the rest of the muppets!


Robbie, you might call it stirring the pot….others might look at it as pouring water down the hole and watching the rats pop up.
Been registered for a while….wouldn’t want to miss it.


Robbie, I’m fully aware how that game plays…..and you’re right, without pics it didn’t happen.
Stay dry and watch out for cameras.


Well....Maybe start with stop bashing resident advocacy groups and individuals

You claim to support resident hunting groups yet venomously attack some.

To be clear. i have no affiliation to any (group).

Again, always undermining and sniping at the Fed every chance you get.

Mr Chipman was putting some information out (albeit some may perceive it as somewhat controversial)....
Then you show up and hamstring yet another thread

Ourea, there’s a difference between supporting resident hunters and supporting “resident hunting groups”.
Not all groups are worthy of complete support even tho in part they are to be supported.
I bet you aren’t in complete support of “Together for Wildlife” or “The Ministers Advisory Council” …..at least that’s my guess from past posts of yours regarding FN’s and especially your personal attacks in the past on Grand Chief Stewart Phillips.
If you want to call a kettle black you’d best be clean yourself.
I realize some don’t want to hear other than what the mainstream wants out but there’s a bigger picture and you trying to make this into an Outfitter versus resident or I’m picking on Jesse deal is utter BS.
Im watching us lose hunting opportunities…..are you good with that?
Stir the pot….if you want a list of BC resident hunters that will cover my back I’ll provide it.
But I’m gonna want your list in return.

[Rob Chipman]

I simply asked who invited him.
As you don't know, it may become important that you find out.

I can't see how it would be. I know that most of the guys I know at BCWF are not in favour of LEH seasons for sheep, and I know they're pro-hunting and not believers in compassionate conservation, and I have a pretty good understanding of how we create content. I understand that you're concerned that something fishy *might* be going on, but I have absolutely no fears about that. I'm just trying to get more people to get more engaged and this webinar is shaping up to do exactly that.


I have no idea if other BCWF personnel are pro Compassionate Conservation. Good to hear. I confirm that none of the volunteers and none of the staff that I know are compassionate conservationists.



Do you know why the WSF let Bianchet speak?

Do you think they let him in not knowing what he has done in an attempt to eliminate hunting, and were not prepared Before inviting him? I have no idea. Thats' why I was asking. I would *assume* that the WSF is in favour of hunting big rams. The idea was floated that inviting Festa-Bianchet was proof of something untoward. If BCWF is guilty in that way then doesn't it stand to reason that WSF would also be guilty in the same way?



This paper is but one coefficient in a long equation.
Prepare to do a lot more reading if you truly want to understand.

Sure, fair enough, but keep in mind: if a guy wants to stealthily try to get me to reduce hunting opportunity by convincing me that it will deliver more trophy rams then that guy is wasting his time (and my understanding is that that's kind of the thrust of Festa-Bianchet's argument - taking out the rams with the biggest horns results in rams with smaller horns, and frankly, I've got bigger concerns than horn size).

If he's trying to trick me into becoming and anti-hunter? Jesus, it's not like there's a shortage of those guys. Hasn't worked so far, and I doubt it will in the future. Is it critical to me helping to preserve and enhance fish, wildlife, habitat and access to it that I understand some prof's pet theory? Probably not. I find it really, really hard to believe that Festa-Bianchet is any sort of serious threat to the things I am most concerned about, and I find it really, really hard to believe that he's going to make BCWF Board members support less hunting opportunity in order to get bigger horns or indulge an academic. Off the top of my head I'd say (and I know I'm going out on a limb here) that the evolution of Indigenous rights and the impact of DRIPA deserves way, way more attention.

[Rob Chipman]

an Outfitter versus resident

I'll confirm that the directors of BCWF are not really into another fight with guide/outfitters. There are certainly resident hunters who are BCWF members who still hate guides (you see them on this forum) but it's pretty clear we need to all work together. One of my favourite BCWF directors is a guide-outfitter as well and he provides some pretty good insight into that world.

[horshur]

6 pages of actual hunting/wildlife related topic. WTF!!!

[Deaddog]

what’s truly sad is not recognizing guys like bear valley work to keep animals on the land every day. He has personally, out of his pocket gave resident hunter organizations in excess of one hundred and twenty thousand dollars in the last six years! Yet he is anti resident hunting? Perhaps while your on your high fed horse you might want to ask how much the current executive fed director has taken OUT OF residents hunters pockets with his large daily rate? Some people give some take. Makes you wonder what the agenda of some is. ?


Bearvalley, as I have stated before, it is crystal clear you hate the fed and especially Jesse Zeeman.
We get it.

The examples are endless of you hijacking threads with the apparent objective to bash and attack those within the hunting community that you perceive as a threat or in any way challenge your business model. Fair enough.

You are obsessed with bashing the Fed every chance you get. Got it.
Loud and clear.

This is a community bound together over our passion of hunting BC.
This is not a platform to endlessly bash those that are trying to make a difference in fish and wildlife as you perceive them as a threat ( in my opinion ) to your business model.

Bashing resident hunters and organizations will get you no where other than drive that wedge deeper.

Sad man

[Walking Buffalo]

i can't see how it would be. I know that most of the guys i know at bcwf are not in favour of leh seasons for sheep, and i know they're pro-hunting and not believers in compassionate conservation, and i have a pretty good understanding of how we create content. I understand that you're concerned that something fishy *might* be going on, but i have absolutely no fears about that. I'm just trying to get more people to get more engaged and this webinar is shaping up to do exactly that.

Good to hear. I confirm that none of the volunteers and none of the staff that i know are compassionate conservationists.



"do you know why the wsf let bianchet speak?

Do you think they let him in not knowing what he has done in an attempt to eliminate hunting, and were not prepared before inviting him?"

i have no idea. Thats' why i was asking. I would *assume* that the wsf is in favour of hunting big rams. The idea was floated that inviting festa-bianchet was proof of something untoward. If bcwf is guilty in that way then doesn't it stand to reason that wsf would also be guilty in the same way?




Sure, fair enough, but keep in mind: If a guy wants to stealthily try to get me to reduce hunting opportunity by convincing me that it will deliver more trophy rams then that guy is wasting his time (and my understanding is that that's kind of the thrust of festa-bianchet's argument - taking out the rams with the biggest horns results in rams with smaller horns, and frankly, i've got bigger concerns than horn size).

If he's trying to trick me into becoming and anti-hunter? Jesus, it's not like there's a shortage of those guys. Hasn't worked so far, and i doubt it will in the future. Is it critical to me helping to preserve and enhance fish, wildlife, habitat and access to it that i understand some prof's pet theory? Probably not. I find it really, really hard to believe that festa-bianchet is any sort of serious threat to the things i am most concerned about, and i find it really, really hard to believe that he's going to make bcwf board members support less hunting opportunity in order to get bigger horns or indulge an academic. Off the top of my head i'd say (and i know i'm going out on a limb here) that the evolution of indigenous rights and the impact of dripa deserves way, way more attention.


It is important to know who and why Bianchet was invited.
Speakers should be vetted. I'm sure he was.
Someone at the BCWF decided that having Bianchet speak was worthwhile.
Why?
To ignore these questions is to purposefully wear blinders.
When reps wear blinders, they also blind their membership.


In the case of the WSF inviting Bianchet, this was done to allow him to defend his science in the face of opposing science in regards to his conviction and aggressive tactics to have the Alberta bighorn management plan thrown out and replaced with a more compassionate plan, his firm assertion that hunting was absolutely causing genetic changes to bighorn sheep.
The WSF recognized that Bianchet's science was flawed, and dangerous to both sheep management and to hunting in whole.
The WSF knew who he was, an opponent that needed to be stood up to. The WSF was prepared to do so before he was invited to speak.

This is NOT about horn size. That is just the angle being played by Bianchet.
This is about a worldwide push to greatly reduce hunting as a management tool and the introduction of Compassionate Conservation into government policy and legislation.

Well, Bianchet was somehow able to get the podium, which suggest some at the BCWF think he deserves to be heard.
Is this fishy? I don't know, and as you admitted, neither do you.
If you don't care to find out, so be it.
I suggest to other BCWF members that they do.


Do Indigenous rights deserve more attention? Certainly.
What are you going to do when Bianchet teams up with Indigenous leaders?
The claim of hunting induced genetic harm is ripe for Indigenous support as a way to further dismantle current hunting management policy.
You will still have to battle the Genetic harm gang.
Ignoring this threat will hurt regulated hunting in B.C.

[Rob Chipman]

It is important to know who and why Bianchet was invited.
Speakers should be vetted. I'm sure he was.
Someone at the BCWF decided that having Bianchet speak was worthwhile.
Why?



First, why is it important to know who invited Festa-Bianchet and why? You kind of have to make that argument in a convincing fashion before people will share your concerns. I'm sure that you recognize that there is a bit of an appearance of some sort of witch hunt/purity test going on. That appearance may be completely without merit, but you should make your case a little better, because I'm not the only one detecting it. You seem to be making a federal case out of an hour and a half webinar.

As I've said, I don't know who invited him, I believe it's a team decision, and I'm not actually too concerned. I can't be the only one seeing two possible answers to the why question. One is that Festa-Bianchet is some sort of anti-hunting compassionate conservationist. The other reason, which depends on the first being true, is that its not only wrong to invite him to speak, but that someone at the BCWF is working against the interests of BCWF members, hunters or whoever.

I don't think you've been too clear on making you case. Maybe I missed to, so how about confirming whether I'm reading you correctly: do you think Festa-Bianchet is anti-hunting and a compassionate conservationist?



To ignore these questions is to purposefully wear blinders.
When reps wear blinders, they also blind their membership.

Actually, I haven't ignored your questions. I just haven't given you the answers you seem to want. Again, I don't know who invited him (just as I don't know who invited Dr. Lori Daniels to the last event) and I don't know why he was invited, but I think it was a team decision and I think it was made because he has subject matter that is of interest to hunting conservationists. Those are answers, you've had them three times now. I also pointed out that I now of no compassionate conservationists at BCWF, either in the staff nor among directors.

If I've missed answering any other question, please re-state it.



In the case of the WSF inviting Bianchet, this was done to allow him to defend his science in the face of opposing science in regards to his conviction and aggressive tactics to have the Alberta bighorn management plan thrown out and replaced with a more compassionate plan, his firm assertion that hunting was absolutely causing genetic changes to bighorn sheep.
The WSF recognized that Bianchet's science was flawed, and dangerous to both sheep management and to hunting in whole.
The WSF knew who he was, an opponent that needed to be stood up to. The WSF was prepared to do so before he was invited to speak.


OK, I can accept that possibility. Three obvious questions: 1) if it's ok for WSF to do what they did, why is not wrong for BCWF to do the same thing? 2) can you tell me who at WSF made that decision so I can confirm why they did it? Their input would be pretty valuable to me as a director and I think that second question falls under the category of "A question that I should be asking and getting an answer to". 3) If Festa-Bianchet is an opponent to not only WSF, but also BCWF, why wouldn't an opportunity to stand up to his flawed and dangerous science work for BCWF just as it did for WSF? There's a whiff of a double standard in the air.




This is NOT about horn size. That is just the angle being played by Bianchet.
This is about a worldwide push to greatly reduce hunting as a management tool and the introduction of Compassionate Conservation into government policy and legislation.

You might be right. Do you have any evidence - published papers, transcripts of any talks, blog posts, facebook posts, tweets....anything, that has Festa-Bianchet saying he is a compassionate conservationist or that he wants to reduce hunting as a management tool?


Well, Bianchet was somehow able to get the podium, which suggest some at the BCWF think he deserves to be heard. Asked and answered a few times, including your description of WSF's motivation for letting him talk. If it's good enough for WSF I'm willing to let the guy talk and let the listeners decide for themselves.


Is this fishy? I don't know, and as you admitted, neither do you.

So now you've got me struggling with three things at once. One - is it fishy? You admit that you don't know. Two- if neither you nor I know if it's fishy, why would either of us care? Why not just let it play out, look at the evidence and then decide? Three - if you *now* that Festa-Bianchet is an anti-hunting compassionate conservationist, why don't you share the evidence?





Do Indigenous rights deserve more attention? Certainly.

You missed the point on that. I wasn't asking if Indigenous rights deserve more attention.

I said "...the evolution of Indigenous rights and the impact of DRIPA deserves way, way more attention." What needs attention from BCWF is not Indigenous rights themselves (that's a way bigger picture and not part of BCWF's mission) but how the evolution of those rights and legislation that recognizes and gives them force of law will affect hunting and conservation. It's a subtle, but pretty important difference. I'm not asking you to support or oppose Indigenous rights and I give zero ****s what your personal opinion on them is. Im asking you to realize that the impact that the recognition of Indigenous rights, as they evolve and gain the force of law, will have on hunting and conservation is light years more important than the opinions of a wildlife scientist, regardless of what those opinions may be.



What are you going to do when Bianchet teams up with Indigenous leaders?


What will I do if a hypothetical event that scares you happens at some point in the future with results that you seem to think are clearly bad but have not actually demonstrated to be bad?

Um, I guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. I can't for the life of me, no matter how hard I try, think that the opinions of one wildlife bio are anywhere near as significant as the opinions of, oh, say the Federal Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations (the guy who says "We have to face that we stole the land"), or the opinion of the provincial Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation (his ministry is implementing DRIPA - not sure if you read the draft plan) or, for that matter, the way a judge like the Right Honourable Madam Justice Burke reaches a conclusion about the law.

Those three people make decisions that actually leave a mark on our lives in a very real way. Paint Festa-Bianchet as the worst and most influential scientist possible. Kick David Suzuki off his perch and replace him who Festa-Bianchet. Then clone him 100 times and put him squarely behind Indigenous leaders. He still won't be as influential as the three people I just listed. He doesn't even make the top 100 list of serious threats to regulated hunting in BC.

Show me I'm wrong. Fly at 'er. It's win-win situation for you, me and all the forum readers, right? The truth is always, always friendly.

BTW, is teaming up with Indigenous leaders a bad thing that we should avoid? I now that's a sidebar, but I'd love to hear your thoughts. I'm under the impression that Indigenous leaders are a great way to get predators controlled, get prescribed burns to happen and get lots and lots of matching funding for things hunter-conservationists want done. Maybe I don't see the full picture.

Last point: are you by chance aware of the proposed UK trophy import ban?

[Dannybuoy]

Is this webinar going to be directed for the most part toward sheep ?

[IronNoggin]

... Again, always undermining and sniping at the Fed every chance you get.

Mr Chipman was putting some information out (albeit some may perceive it as somewhat controversial)....
Then you show up and hamstring yet another thread

Modus Operandii.
Damn tough to change your spots it would seem.


Well, Bianchet was somehow able to get the podium, which suggest some at the BCWF think he deserves to be heard.
Is this fishy? I don't know, and as you admitted, neither do you.
If you don't care to find out, so be it.
I suggest to other BCWF members that they do.

You can certainly put me in that camp...

I wasn't going to, but now will sign up and witness this event myself.
And I will most likely be forwarding a question or two...

Nog

[Rob Chipman]

Is this webinar going to be directed for the most part toward sheep ?

I think the subject matter of this one is sheep.

Good question, because the idea makes me wonder: does hunting exert evolutionary pressure on, say, mule deer antlers?

I just searched the googly machine to see what it said, and lo and behold, a MeatEater from December 2020 is asking the same sort of thing (https://www.themeateater.com/conservation/wildlife-management/does-hunting-make-animals-evolve-smaller-antlers-and-horns)

The author of that links to a research paper and one of the authors is Festa-Bianchet.

He has some multiple links in the article and at least one to a bighorn and hunting pressure/evolutionary change study (there's another, but it isn't loading for me) that says "In all, current harvest regimes in mist hunt areas do not appear to be reducing horn size in bighorn sheep".

As for deer he doesn't link to studies but he's got some pretty reasonable points to make. Good article. Anyone going to the BCWF webinar should probably give this one a gander (It's an article, not a scientific paper, but the article author was one of the authors on the scientific paper he links to, so probably a pretty good source).

[Rob Chipman]

I wasn't going to, but now will sign up and witness this event myself.
And I will most likely be forwarding a question or two...

Nog


That's kind of the reason why we promote these things. I'd recommend you sign up for all of them and either forward questions before hand or ask them during the event. We're being pretty transparent for a group that people are suggesting might be up to something fishy or might have rats hiding inside it somewhere, don't you think?

[Dannybuoy]

I think the subject matter of this one is sheep.

Good question, because the idea makes me wonder: does hunting exert evolutionary pressure on, say, mule deer antlers?

I just searched the googly machine to see what it said, and lo and behold, a MeatEater from December 2020 is asking the same sort of thing (https://www.themeateater.com/conservation/wildlife-management/does-hunting-make-animals-evolve-smaller-antlers-and-horns)

The author of that links to a research paper and one of the authors is Festa-Bianchet.

He has some multiple links in the article and at least one to a bighorn and hunting pressure/evolutionary change study (there's another, but it isn't loading for me) that says "In all, current harvest regimes in mist hunt areas do not appear to be reducing horn size in bighorn sheep".

As for deer he doesn't link to studies but he's got some pretty reasonable points to make. Good article. Anyone going to the BCWF webinar should probably give this one a gander (It's an article, not a scientific paper, but the article author was one of the authors on the scientific paper he links to, so probably a pretty good source).
Thanks , that's what I thought but it didn't hurt to ask

[horshur]

Chip..you were told the influence of Fiesta in Alberta and subsequent consequences...so obviously he has had some influence at the least in Alberta. NO?

[Jagermeister]

what’s truly sad is not recognizing guys like bear valley work to keep animals on the land every day. He has personally, out of his pocket gave resident hunter organizations in excess of one hundred and twenty thousand dollars in the last six years! Yet he is anti resident hunting? Perhaps while your on your high fed horse you might want to ask how much the current executive fed director has taken OUT OF residents hunters pockets with his large daily rate? Some people give some take. Makes you wonder what the agenda of some is. ?
I wonder how much of that went to the Nicola Valley in their law suit against Douglas Lake Cattle Company?
Another question. Dead dog, are you associated with the guides and outfitters in BC in any capacity? I ask the same of you Walking Buffalo?

[horshur]

Jag enlighten yourself. Nicola group used "Westcoast environment law" did they not? Go peruse the website check out the "Wokeness" look up there supporters and clients. Decide for yourself where the firms world view comes from and is that actualy congruent towards sportsmen.
There ideology is rooted in marxist philosophy. Compassionate Conservation is another branch of the same tree. Not a worldview that meshes well with hierarchical white guys exploiting the land and it's resources. This whole wokeness started in law ffs.

[Walking Buffalo]

I wonder how much of that went to the Nicola Valley in their law suit against Douglas Lake Cattle Company?
Another question. Dead dog, are you associated with the guides and outfitters in BC in any capacity? I ask the same of you Walking Buffalo?

No.
While I did live in B.C for a bunch of years, testing out Ourea's hunting and fishing holes,
I am an Albertan that has a background in wildlife management and ethology.

While I have been a member of AFGA and I am a life member of the WSFAb and the WSF, I purposefully remain strongly impendent from any particular organization to act and speak feely. The WSFAb did offer to hire me during the battle with Bianchet, which I turned down.

I have had no dealings with GOABC, I have caused APOS a few headaches on a few different issues.

[Walking Buffalo]

Chip..you were told the influence of Fiesta in Alberta and subsequent consequences...so obviously he has had some influence at the least in Alberta. NO?

Bianchet's main influence lies within the scientific realm, biologists and such...
Get a bunch of provincial biologists on board and away you go....
It only takes getting one senior staffer to "influence" many subordinates to agree... livelihoods are at stake.

Then if just one or two interest groups tag along, with or without membership knowledge or support, and policy change quickly gains momentum.

BCWF seems inclined to get the ball rolling, deciding to decide later whether or not to try and stop it.

[Rob Chipman]

Chip..you were told the influence of Fiesta in Alberta and subsequent consequences...so obviously he has had some influence at the least in Alberta. NO?


I was told that we'd flatten the curve in 14 days too.

What I *think* I was told about this topic was that Festa-Bianchet proposed changes in Alberta that were not adopted, that he has flawed science, that he's a compassionate conservationist and an anti-hunter who wants to limit hunting opportunity, that he shouldn't be platformed because allowing people to hear him will lead to bad things, that his plan is a good way to screw guide outfitters, that allowing him to speak is some sort of proof that someone or a group of someones at BCWF are some sort of green decoys....did I miss anything?

I was also told that there may or may not be something fishy going on, but that pretty much describes a regular Thursday :-)

I have no idea if or what influence he had in Alberta.

[horshur]

Good to hear you were listening

[Rob Chipman]

Good to hear you were listening

In terms of someone being an anti-hunter, I'm not sure of you're aware to the proposed trophy hunt import ban in the UK. The idea, obviously, is that trophy hunting is clearly bad, evil, not very good, and anything that can be done to eliminate must be embraced by all good people. Same old story. We've heard it a million times.

I know about it because I follow a bunch of wildlife bios on social media, and over the years I've become aware of a lot of UK wildlife bios/conservationists (I split them up because not all the people I follow are academics - some do non-academic conservation work).

It is a very different world over there, and a lot of the conservation and wildlife science that those guys do is in Africa. There are some epic online battles between anti-trophy hunting/animal rights activists, on the one side, and these wildlife bios/conservationists, on the other. Nothing new there, but you can imagine that the anti-TH/ARAs continually demonize the other side as pro-trophy hunting lobbyists who are only in it for the blood money. Pretty standard story, right?

Their proof is that the wildlife bios/conservationists point to science that shows that well regulated trophy hunting, informed by science, (surprise, surprise) is clearly and demonstrably a positive for wildlife and habitat. Again, it's the same logic that we run into here (that is, no logic at all, and no evidence at all).

The anti-TH/ARAs won't buy that argument and are completely in support of the proposed trophy import ban.

The wildlife bios/conservationists are very much opposed to the proposed ban because they recognize the benefits of hunting. They've created an open letter of opposition to the trophy import ban that an increasing number of scientists have signed, and the letter says things like:

"Contrary to the claims of some Western celebrities and animal rights campaigners, trophy hunting can and does deliver a variety of significant conservation and development benefits";

"Certainly, poorly managed trophy hunting can have harmful impacts, but it remains true that well-managed hunting has demonstrably improved the conservation status of multiple threatened species...";

"Indeed, where trophy hunting has been subjected to bans, wildlife has often suffered...";

"And sadly, the UK’s trophy import ban, as currently proposed, will do little or nothing to address these problems where they occur, targeting good and bad hunting operators alike, alienating those communities who generate revenues from well-managed sustainable hunting...";

"Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania and Zimbabwe are 4 of the 5 top-performing countries in the world for megafauna conservation and all use trophy hunting to support their success.";

"Across 8 leading hunting destination countries, hunting supports at least 53,400 jobs...";


These statements are endorsed by a wide range of wildlife bios, and while they deal with Africa more than they do with BC bighorns, they don't exactly indicate an opposition to well regulated, sustainable hunting that is informed by science. They don't seem anti-hunting at all.

Now, I don't have the latest version of the letter, but here's the kicker: Festa-Bianchet tweeted out that he had signed the letter opposing the import ban. So, yeah, he could be an anti-hunting compassionate conservationist (I haven't seen that evidence yet, aside from links to papers and forums) but he did just sign and promote an open letter that says regulated, sustainable hunting informed by science is a net positive and should not be suppressed.



This is the letter: https://iucnsuli.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/The-trophy-hunting-import-ban-needs-to-be-a-smart-ban.pdf

[horshur]

I cannot even pretend to be a scientist..too dumb. But it is clear that scientist are also waking up to some reality regarding current political climate and it's attack on actual science/truth.

[Rob Chipman]

I cannot even pretend to be a scientist..too dumb. But it is clear that scientist are also waking up to some reality regarding current political climate and it's attack on actual science/truth.


Yeah, same here.

When you watch UK scientists battle with nut bar ARAs/anti-TH guys the lines get really clearly drawn. Kinda like listening to Jesse Zeman and Rebeka Breder on CKNW - they're talking about saving caribou by shooting wolves and Breder sums it up by saying "at the end of the day the numbers don't matter". Friggin' classic emotion driven argument. Lotta that going around these days, and look where it's gotten us.

[IronNoggin]

6:00 pm TONIGHT Folks.

[Rob Chipman]

I did some more digging on Festa-Bianchet. One source was a recent podcast where he talked about mountain goats.


For an apparently anti-hunting compassionate conservationist he made some strange remarks. For example, he pointed out that while in many areas goats can't take a heavy harvest, in other places, including ones where they've been introduced and are really thriving, they're like white tails and can handle 14%-15% annual harvest.

He also described hunting goats as a great way to experience a really challenging mountain ungulate hunt that can be very rewarding.

I have never heard anti-hunting compassionate conservationists ever say that sort of thing. Usually they're kind of....anti-hunting. Maybe I'm missing something.

Tonight should be good. Get registered and show up, and keep your eyes open for the next one. Remember that you can find all the past webinars on BCWF's Youtube channel.

[Rob Chipman]

Just wrapped up. He started by showing pictures of him with animals he'd killed. He didn't strike me as an anti-hunter or a compassionate conservationist.

IronNoggin - you concur? Did he sound like an anti-hunter? Did he sound like a compassionate conservationist?

[bearvalley]

Just wrapped up. He started by showing pictures of him with animals he'd killed. He didn't strike me as an anti-hunter or a compassionate conservationist.

IronNoggin - you concur? Did he sound like an anti-hunter? Did he sound like a compassionate conservationist?

Listened to it as well.
I will concur that he did not come off as an anti hunter and had some interesting points.
Interestingly there’s a difference starting to be seen in Thinhorns between northeastern BC and the Skeena.
Listening to Fiesta-Bianchet talk, it’s not so much hunting as an over harvest of a limited population.

[Greenthumbed]

He didn’t seem like an anti to me. He said hunting was not the problem in BC. Disease and lack of decent habitat is the problem.

[IronNoggin]

... IronNoggin - you concur? Did he sound like an anti-hunter? Did he sound like a compassionate conservationist?

Wish I could answer...

Went to pick up a few things for dinner, and when I fired up the truck to head home the oil pressure dropped off to ZERO! :shock:
Certainly wasn't going to run it like that!
Towed to my Buddy's shop and we went to wrenching.
Lucky in that it turned out to be the sending unit and not the pump.
By the time that analysis was done and my Lady picked me up and headed home, the seminar was over.
Damn.

I'll have to wait for the You-Tube version.
Once I see that, I'll letcha know...

Cheers,
Nog

[high horse Hal]

Heard the podcast, similar message to that he gave at a convention in BC 10? years ago, with a few data point updates.
No, he's not anti- , and doesn't really draw conclusions, just states what was found in studies

Bottom line question is whether the continued change in genetics will lead to a point of reduced survival of the species
within a thousand years

[Rob Chipman]

Wish I could answer...

Went to pick up a few things for dinner, and when I fired up the truck to head home the oil pressure dropped off to ZERO! :shock:
Certainly wasn't going to run it like that!
Towed to my Buddy's shop and we went to wrenching.
Lucky in that it turned out to be the sending unit and not the pump.
By the time that analysis was done and my Lady picked me up and headed home, the seminar was over.
Damn.

I'll have to wait for the You-Tube version.
Once I see that, I'll letcha know...

Cheers,
Nog


That's a repetitive problem with that truck, no? (Maybe I'm misremembering).

Anyway, it's recorded. I think there's some interesting stuff there. Lot's of graphs that generally slow me down a bit. I have increasing respect for these bios who throw data points on all kinds of graph formats and highlight things of potential importance.

Next one is back to forestry, I think.

[IronNoggin]

That's a repetitive problem with that truck, no? (Maybe I'm misremembering).

Nope, that was a First for it.

Looking forward to watching. Let us know when it is up please...

Cheers,
Nog

[2chodi]

https://youtu.be/_MsfrriP7Z0



Looking forward to watching. Let us know when it is up please...

Cheers,
Nog

[adriaticum]

I didn't get any anti hunting sentiment.
What I understood is what some people have been saying about selective harvests on any species.
If you target the largest and most mature individuals, you get smaller offspring and you slowly reduce the quality and size of the herd.
I think this is true for any animal species.

[horshur]

Do not think it was ever said he was anti hunting..I think it was said his science is flawed. That if adopted would impact hunting opportunities.

[horshur]

Does not take much time to see his name alongside Chris Darimont( raincoast freak )

[adriaticum]

Do not think it was ever said he was anti hunting..I think it was said his science is flawed. That if adopted would impact hunting opportunities.



Anything other than free for all impacts hunting opportunities.
The truth is somewhere between free for all and a complete hunting ban.
The question is are we smart enough to know what is good for hunting and what's not.
Free for all is not good for hunting nor is the complete hunting ban.

[horshur]

https://i.postimg.cc/rdqbpNJq/Screenshot-20220119-205419-Chrome.jpg (https://postimg.cc/rdqbpNJq)

Notice the familiar language. "Exploitive"

[horshur]

The North American Wildlife Model is exploitive....

[high horse Hal]

exploitive isn't a bad word or situation
Conservation is actually a product of exploitation and sustainability

[adriaticum]

exploitation means usage
There is no equivalent word for usage