How about a Goverment sponsored Fish and wildlife Eforum?

[horshur]

"Discussion amongst hunters about hunting regulations is a good thing, but as someone said in an earler post, telling "each other" what we think is not really good enough if you want to facilitate any changes. For example when the Kootenay Region posted their regulation proposals on the web site did you respond?"

Like what was posted it is clear that many have a voice but most of it is getting lost in the translation......I am not ashamed to admit that I have never responded because I am unsure how to in proper form and the fact is couldn't tell you where to go to respond and because I live in region 3 rather than 4 do not even know whether I should or not. Most of us are not comfortable with Government format.Did we learn in public school how to respond to a government proposal? No!

We don't know the rules or how to play the game!!!!!

Anyway.....I propose that if Government is serious about hearing a public voice they should get with the times. Just look at the blogs they are usurping regular media dominance and it is without a doubt a Eforum like HuntBC could be an avenue for communication two ways anyway as always it is done in the states and a quick search found me this example...
Mississippi state fish and wildlife.
http://www.mdwfp.com/forums/default.asp?CAT_ID=1


What do you guys think???????

[horshur]

Just take note they have over 5000 members on that board!!!!

[loki]

What do you guys think???????So I'm kind of lost here. Are you saying we need a cool site like huntingbc.ca to go talk about hunting with other hunters, then organize our efforts towards bettering a certain cause, because I think we already got that (*looks around*) :tongue:. Or did you just get into the egg nog really early, it's 9:20am in BC man, but I'm sure 5:00pm somewhere 8-).


Just take note they have over 5000 members on that board!!!!Might help that they have been in operation (according to their copyright) since 2000, and have the population basis in their area of at least double ours. But on a good note, this forum is more than half way there, in half the time ;). Member base doesn't really matter anyways, it's always quality that keeps 'em coming back.

I'm with horshur on this one, yay huntingbc.ca!

No really, what was this thread about? :confused:

[horshur]

The post is about this.....did you respond? I didn't and niether did most. I sure had an oppinion though


Discussion amongst hunters about hunting regulations is a good thing, but as someone said in an earler post, telling "each other" what we think is not really good enough if you want to facilitate any changes. For example when the Kootenay Region posted their regulation proposals on the web site did you respond?

It was reported at the last Kootenay Wildlife Harvest Advisory Committee (KWHAC) meeting that the Ministry got just over 60 responses regarding the proposal for a short GOS on three point bull elk, and the majority were against the proposal. As a result this proposal is dead in the water.
I don't believe for a minute that this is truely representative of what the majority of hunters really want, but it's what the Ministry heard so it's what they're going to do..!
This is the type of proposal could be critical for retention and recruitment.

It doesn't take any longer to post a response on a Ministry web site than it does to post a response on this web page, yet there were many more posts to this thread than there were responses to the Ministry.
To some extent the success of the retention/recruitment stratgey will depend on how active we are in making our beliefs know to the right people at the right time and in the right place.

Note the Region 7B proposals are still open for public comment.

[horshur]

Check this one fully moderated deer biology forum somthin about buck doe ratios this is where the bios could communicate don't you think?

http://www.mdwfp.com/forums/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=10

[Fisher-Dude]

The government had the proposal comments online. All you had to do was type in your comments and submit, or print it off and fax or mail it in. We posted the link here for anyone who was interested, and BCWF/club members received notice of it in the November 2007 Newsletter (you ARE a BCWF member, aren't you?).

Anyone who posts on here shouldn't be worried about filling out the comment forms - if you can type a post on here, you can fill out one of those forms.

[loki]

Oh, well in that case yes I have an opinion and no I didn't voice it. Was there a link to a ministry web site given? Tried going through 14 pages and it all became a blur.

Or I guess that would be the point of this thread then? Well then my thought is we have a lovely avenue to collect opinions here, it's just that so few of us are motivated enough to really go through the process it takes to truly get them heard.

To my knowledge the reason that the government doesn't run many sites collect an overall opinion is because of software called "bots" that are made with the intent of swaying a poll, spamming a opinion board, mass emailing, etc. Basically if they were to set it up on the net it takes one anti to write a piece of code and make it look like millions of different people responding.


fax or mail it in

This still holds the most merit due to (not solely) reasons such as listed above. Also I've been told that fax and real mail look better as you took the time to do it, while email so is fast it doesn't really look like you care enough to take the time out of your day.

Good idea though. I'd say step one is organizing through avenues such as here. From there we can lead an organized voice and hopefully get things worked out for the better. It does take motivation though, about the same amount that it takes to write a letter to your MLA, and how many of us do that anymore? *puts up hand*

[Marc]

You'd be surprised at how many government employees belong to or watch this forum board.

We have the BCWF to voice our concerns to but very few of us use it. By starting another government website in my opinion we're only diluting ourselves.

[Fisher-Dude]

http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=16833

Pay special attention to the second line of Goat Guy's post: "Get it filled out and send it in. Don't count on somebody else filling it out for you."

[horshur]

The government had the proposal comments online. All you had to do was type in your comments and submit, or print it off and fax or mail it in. We posted the link here for anyone who was interested, and BCWF/club members received notice of it in the November 2007 Newsletter (you ARE a BCWF member, aren't you?).

Anyone who posts on here shouldn't be worried about filling out the comment forms - if you can type a post on here, you can fill out one of those forms.

I've never been able to find my way around on there and then hit on a link and I'm stuck on some adope reader document that is not very dialup friendly.

And no I am not a member of BCWF

[Fisher-Dude]

And no I am not a member of BCWF

Is $40 too much money to spend to support the organization that fights every day for your right to hunt, fish, carry firearms, and have access to the outdoors, and push for your kids' opportunities to do the same? Or don't their views match yours?

The comment form that you return was in Word.

[horshur]

Is $40 too much money to spend to support the organization that fights every day for your right to hunt, fish, carry firearms, and have access to the outdoors, and push for your kids' opportunities to do the same? Or don't their views match yours?

The comment form that you return was in Word.

It's not that $40 that is to much it is the legion of $40 for every other association. My membership fee budget is only so high.

[Mr. Dean]

It's not that $40 that is to much it is the legion of $40 for every other association. My membership fee budget is only so high.

IMO the 1st $40 that you spend SHOULD be for a BCWF membership. They are the people that gov plays ball with.

[horshur]

Fish I went and looked at it and here is the deal there is no side to side comparison I would have to print out the proposals and if Goat hadn't of posted them proposals I would have to download the propsals on a PDF also if Goat had not posted the link I would have no clue regarding them.
Also I have no personal knowledge of anything regarding these proposals ie Game numbers, harvest stats, ect.....they are probably on the website somewhere but.....I don't even know if I should have an oppinion.
I think you may be allot more comfortable regarding forms and such given your profession but I am not. Read....barely fill out a paper check.
I will tell you Jessie sent me out those new allocation proposals and I did not even know what I was looking at or for:oops: might as well be Greek to me.

[horshur]

IMO the 1st $40 that you spend SHOULD be for a BCWF membership. They are the people that gov plays ball with.

We are priviliged to watch two friends dieing of Cancer this season and one will leave 3 special needs adopted children without a Mom....:frown:

[GoatGuy]

Sounds like a good idea though as you say, Horshur, many people don't have the access or sometimes the abilities to use this forum of communication. With the age of today's hunting population this further weakens the concept and increases the susceptibility towards the younger crowd.

Furthermore, I believe this type of medium would succumb to the vocal minority and the discussion would revolve around 'what I want'. 'What I want' hasn't worked real well in the past and has been demonstrated time and time again once we move to a 'trophy' style season it's right up there near impossible to change back.

Personally, I'd like to see conservation goals set, met, opportunity maximized followed by success. Then there isn't any discussion - regs are set according to the rules, not because a couple guys picked up a BGA or a Big Bucks mag and see a couple B&C animals and believe that firstly antler restrictions will actually help them harvest a big animal and secondly because they've been hunting for 20+ years they should be entitled to a book animal.

You see it on this site all the time.

This concept of regs would focus both residents and g/os on making more animals, spending more time on conservation related activities and at the end of the day a much more cohesive hunting group. Today hunters are fragmented and everyone's looking to make their piece of the pie bigger instead of making a bigger pie.

That's my take on it. :biggrin:

[Gateholio]

I will tell you Jessie sent me out those new allocation proposals and I did not even know what I was looking at or for:oops: might as well be Greek to me.

That in itself is very valuable feedback. I doubt you are the only one that gets confused while poring over government documents. Feedback that states the information must be available in a easy to understand format is probbaly very important.

I read lots of reports, pore over figures all the time, but some gov't stuff I have to go over 3x to understand!!:mrgreen:

[6616]

"Also I have no personal knowledge of anything regarding these proposals ie Game numbers, harvest stats, ect.....they are probably on the website somewhere but.....I don't even know if I should have an oppinion" (quote - Horshur)

I don't think we need to know a whole bunch of this scientific stuff or be professional bios in order to respond. We're not being asked if these are sustainable proposals. I think it's fairly safe to assume that the WLB wouldn't be putting proposals on the web site unless they felt pretty strongly that they were sustainable, at least I hope like H___ I can have that level of confidence in them

They're not asking us if a 10 day 3pt bull elk GOS will decimate the EK elk population, they're asking us if we want to maximize harvest at some cost to trophy potential.

They're mainly asking us social question; whether we want trophy vrs meat hunts (maximum utilization or quality), whether we support the agriculture industry enough to reduce depredating populations of wildlife, whether we will support hunting of females of the species, etc, these are social questions, not scientific questions. Politicians used to decide these isues, this is a much better system IMO.