bowhunting/BCWF

[bcfarmer]

I put this here so it wouldn't get lost in the Politics and Debates. This is done at the request of our BCWF club rep.

This should dispell any "rumours"
The Archery Resolution was put forth at the recent BCWF Convention by the Keremeos, Cawston Sportsman Association. The short version is that the resolution was defeated. That does not mean that the request or intent is defeated. This is what was suggested and this is what we are going to do.
The resolution was defeated because it was against the Constitution of the BCWF in that a committee is to be appointed by the President.
The K.C.S.A. is going to prepare a "package" and have it approved at our club level. This "package" will then go to the Region where it will get passed. (our Region passed the original resolution). This "package" will then go to a Directors meeting of the Federation, and hopefully, at that time initiate the processes that were requested in our original resolution.
We feel that as we were the originators of the original request via resolution, it is only appropriate that the K.C.S.A. take the lead role in continuing the pursuit of this initiative. If anyone has anything that they wish to submit in support of this program, they can e mail it to sasquatch@nethop.net and it will be included as part of our package that will be submitted to the Federation.
In closing, I must say that there was considerable support around the room for this idea, and as was discussed many times at the Federation convention, recruitment is of the utmost importance. Those with foresight obviously see the benefits that can be received by not just the hunting fraternity, but the BCWF as an organization, as well. If you are opposed to this initiative, all I can say is, please try and look at the big picture and recognize that those that hunt with a bow are not the enemy. P.S. I am not a bowhunter. I just want to support hunting!.

[tracker]

Archery Resolution :confused::confused:

more detail's please :neutral:

[bcfarmer]

This was a bowhunting resolution put forth by the KCSA , that the BCWF form a bowhunting committee, to be a strong and unwavering advocate for bowhunting, hunting, and conservation in BC.

This would have been in the resolution package that all member clubs received and hopefully went over before the convention.http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

bcf

[aggiehunter]

What rumours? Is someone saying the BCWF does not support bowhunters and bowonly seasons? If they don't they can have back my card!!!!!

[bcfarmer]

What rumours? Is someone saying the BCWF does not support bowhunters and bowonly seasons? If they don't they can have back my card!!!!!

Sorry Aggiehunter, I hate to pick on you, but this is exactly why this thread was started.

People not taking the time to read the resolution and make an informed decision based on the info in the resolution. (The resolutions were distributed to all member clubs before the convention)

If your going to "give your card back" based on a rumor or perceived rumor, well IMHO thats pertty febile.

Fact..a resolution was put forth by the KCSA for the BCWF to form a provincial bowhunting committee.
Fact..this cannot be done through a resulution, it has to be done through the president.

All that is happening here is an effort to inform people that the intent is not dead on the table but that it has to go through a different channel.

bcf

[The Hermit]

I was at the meeting too and felt that there is a glimmer of hope that the new president just might strike a bowhunting committee. I am not clear what the executive's concept of just what the mandate of the committee would be, but they certainly got the message that:
A) bowhunters do not feel well represented as a distinct "society" by the BCWF ;-)
B) the bowhunting fraternity does not seek to take anything away from the rifle hunters but that we seek additional bowhunting seasons and territory
C) that there are probably more bowhunters and archers in the various bowhunting and archery associations than there are in the BCWF. And that recruitment into the BCWF would be easy pickings if we saw REAL support in the effort to expand opportunity;
D) that the barriers to youth recruitment are far less for bowhunting and that bowhunters and archers have a LOT of young people involved in the sport.

I didn't get the vibe that people at the convention were "against" us but rather they were simply not well informed about our interests and plans. We need to do a much better job in helping BCWF grassroots membership understand our objectives.

Get out to your local fish and game / rod and gun clubs and do a little talk on the UBBC's aims and objectives and get their support asking your execs to write a letter to Mel Arnold who is the new President of the BCWF.

[fowl language]

i was at the annual convention and found out the they didnt want a bunch of sub groups or committees,i believe thier policy is to address all out door activites as they are related.to show a strong united front. we had a long discussion about this after the meetings and came to the conclusion.that we would try to obtain the bow hunters wishes by combining their requests along with other requests in our region.i feel that we need to put aside our specialization for the good of outdoor activities by all.we need as much support as possible,this is why we are striving to bring back some of the clubs that left the fed.by realizing our mistakes and making them right....fowl

[Onesock]

Aggiehunter- You are correct in that the BCWF does not support any special weapon season. If the BCWF deemes the bow season/area unsafe for the use of rifles they may be OK to give the area/season to the bow hunters. Saying this though the BCWF would rather have all bow only seasons as GOS.

[bcfarmer]

after rereading the posts this am. I guess I should let people know that the bottom part of the original post in the different font is in fact a letter written for here and the UBBC website by our BCWF club rep. Sorry if I personally was misrepresenting myself.

Onesock, I'm not sure what your trying to say. Are you for or against an initiative to try and form a bowhunting committee?

bcf

[Mr. Dean]

I was at the meeting too and felt that there is a glimmer of hope that the new president just might strike a bowhunting committee. I am not clear what the executive's concept of just what the mandate of the committee would be, but they certainly got the message that:
A) bowhunters do not feel well represented as a distinct "society" by the BCWF ;-)
B) the bowhunting fraternity does not seek to take anything away from the rifle hunters but that we seek additional bowhunting seasons and territory
C) that there are probably more bowhunters and archers in the various bowhunting and archery associations than there are in the BCWF. And that recruitment into the BCWF would be easy pickings if we saw REAL support in the effort to expand opportunity;
D) that the barriers to youth recruitment are far less for bowhunting and that bowhunters and archers have a LOT of young people involved in the sport.

I didn't get the vibe that people at the convention were "against" us but rather they were simply not well informed about our interests and plans. We need to do a much better job in helping BCWF grassroots membership understand our objectives.

Get out to your local fish and game / rod and gun clubs and do a little talk on the UBBC's aims and objectives and get their support asking your execs to write a letter to Mel Arnold who is the new President of the BCWF.



Observation:
Hunters are hunters. Any person that hunts, SHOULD be a member of the BCWF for that sole reason alone, no matter the type of gear preferenced. As a member, I would extend open arms to ANY fellow hunter but I can't support distinctions.

All for one and one for all!!!


Maybe I'm misunderstanding something; Is there a group/club willing to endorse BCWF membership only IF certain demands/requests are met???
Some of the 'clauses' in Hermits post nerve me a little....

[TPK]

While some saw a wee glimmer of hope that this would fly (the politics of who and how the committee would be formed aside) ... from what I saw and the people I talked to .. it's not going to pass. The general feeling is that no one wins when we split into specialist groups and I doubt the BCWF would create such a specific committee. If they did, the line would form with other groups wanting specific representation. In-fighting and animosity would abound.

There is nothing stopping the existing Bow Clubs from continuing to speak in a united voice and lobby for the specifics they want on their own. I also believe that if Bow hunters or Bow clubs were unfairly targeted by new or changing regulations that would mean a loss of hunting opportunity, access, etc, that the BCWF would indeed support them and fight onside with them. That's why I don't feel that the BCWF should have a Bow Committee, your rights are already being represented as are rifle hunters etc.

[Mr. Dean]

While some saw a wee glimmer of hope that this would fly (the politics of who and how the committee would be formed aside) ... from what I saw and the people I talked to .. it's not going to pass. The general feeling is that no one wins when we split into specialist groups and I doubt the BCWF would create such a specific committee. If they did, the line would form with other groups wanting specific representation. In-fighting and animosity would abound.

There is nothing stopping the existing Bow Clubs from continuing to speak in a united voice and lobby for the specifics they want on their own. I also believe that if Bow hunters or Bow clubs were unfairly targeted by new or changing regulations that would mean a loss of hunting opportunity, access, etc, that the BCWF would indeed support them and fight onside with them. That's why I don't feel that the BCWF should have a Bow Committee, your rights are already being represented as are rifle hunters etc.
My reasoning as well.
IMO this would only lead to a division of hunters and wouldn't promote unity.

As a collective, how would such a proposition be productive?

[Onesock]

BCF- I would like nothing better than the BCWF having a bowhunting committee. This would unite the bowhunters and rifle hunters under one cause. Right now most bowhunters think the BCWF should read BCRH or BC Rifle Hunters. The birth of this bowhunting committee in the BCWF would breath new life into a hunting organization that desperatley needs it.

[tracker]

There is a bow hunting committee in Quebec ,maybe they have some good information for you bcfarmer on how they SEPARATE a committee from there organization :eek:

[GoatGuy]

BCF- I would like nothing better than the BCWF having a bowhunting committee. This would unite the bowhunters and rifle hunters under one cause. Right now most bowhunters think the BCWF should read BCRH or BC Rifle Hunters. The birth of this bowhunting committee in the BCWF would breath new life into a hunting organization that desperatley needs it.

'Most' are only the people you know.

Most of the people I know who are bowhunters are members of the BCWF and support the BCWF and don't support other groups.


Neither one of us know 'most' bowhunters.


Please don't get carried away.

[Onesock]

Well GG I have been in the bowhunting thing for a little over 20 years now. I have bowhunted over most of BC I think I know more bowhunters than you. I don't have any stats to prove that.... Maybe the MOST you know are more than the MOST I know. You have been a bowhunter for how long?

[Onesock]

Mr Dean. And there is no division now between bowhunters and others? That is why there are 3 major bowhunting organizations in BC. All hunters would be much better served if there was one organization that supported bowhunters and rifle hunters.

[GoatGuy]

Well GG I have been in the bowhunting thing for a little over 20 years now. I have bowhunted over most of BC I think I know more bowhunters than you. I don't have any stats to prove that.... Maybe the MOST you know are more than the MOST I know. You have been a bowhunter for how long?

Doesn't matter how long either one of us have been bowhunting.

If there are 12,000 hunters who check of the bow box on their licenses ever year "most" would constitute atleast 6,001.

I'm quite certain you don't know 6,001+ bowhunters so saying "most" would be a gross over-exaggeration.

You may know a couple dozen or even a couple hundred like-minded bowhunters but to say they make up "most" of the population or are even somewhat representative of the population is quite frankly wrong.

"The bowhunters I know" would be a better way to express yourself.

Most people who have hunted for 20 years don't know most hunters.

[BCrams]

Mr Dean. And there is no division now between bowhunters and others? That is why there are 3 major bowhunting organizations in BC. All hunters would be much better served if there was one organization that supported bowhunters and rifle hunters.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the BCWF support all hunters, regardless of method?

bow hunter = hunter
rifle hunter = hunter
crossbow hunter = hunter
muzzle loader hunter = hunter

I see all of the above as one hunting group and the BCWF acts on behalf of all of the people above.

[BCrams]

Well GG I have been in the bowhunting thing for a little over 20 years now. I have bowhunted over most of BC I think I know more bowhunters than you. I don't have any stats to prove that.... Maybe the MOST you know are more than the MOST I know. You have been a bowhunter for how long?

I bow hunt and all the bow hunters I know do not share the same view as you. ;)

[TPK]

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the BCWF support all hunters, regardless of method?

bow hunter = hunter
rifle hunter = hunter
crossbow hunter = hunter
muzzle loader hunter = hunter

I see all of the above as one hunting group and the BCWF acts on behalf of all of the people above.

Yes, and that's my point in not wanting a specific "Bow Hunting Committee" in the BCWF. You can petition and bring forward "Bow specific" issues to the MOE or whom ever you want as a Bow Hunter or a Bow Hunting organization now, you don't need a BCWF Bow Committee to do that. For example ... 1000 signatures on a petition is 1000 signatures on a petition, whether they are gathered as a BCWF sub-committee or done on your own or through your club, it really makes no difference.

[Bowzone_Mikey]

I been following this thread since its inception ....

Now .. I am a true blue bow hunter ... and as far as bunhunters advocacy is concerned I am all for it ..... But .....

I dont see the point of a special commitee in the BCWF when allready I understand the UBBC and the BCWF work hand in hand ...

I fail to see how having a Bowhunting commitee on the BCWF will put another Bowhunting seat at the governmental round table when the UBBC should allready have one ..as should a Muzzleloaders advocate group...etc.... the only thing I can see coming from haveing a Bowhunting commitee in the BCWF is possibly a fight within the organization ...between the bow hunting chair and the president (if the president at the time is extremly pro rifle ....or pro muzzle etc.... )

In fact i dont want see any sub commitees in the BCWF based upon weapon of choice as it will be the demise of the organisation.
Keep it as it is ... an umbrella group for Hunting advocate in general in British Columbia.

[sealevel]

BCF- I would like nothing better than the BCWF having a bowhunting committee. This would unite the bowhunters and rifle hunters under one cause. Right now most bowhunters think the BCWF should read BCRH or BC Rifle Hunters. The birth of this bowhunting committee in the BCWF would breath new life into a hunting organization that desperatley needs it.
Now i havn`t been bow hunting for 20 years but i know a lot of bowhunters and non of them think that way. Bow hunters i know support BCWF as i do .

[The Hermit]

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the BCWF support all hunters, regardless of method?

bow hunter = hunter
rifle hunter = hunter
crossbow hunter = hunter
muzzle loader hunter = hunter

I see all of the above as one hunting group and the BCWF acts on behalf of all of the people above.

I agree that the BCFW represents hunters in general on issues like access, conservation, education, lobbying against gun registration, gravel extraction, research, recruitment in general, wilderness watch, fishery issues etc. I think they do a good job on these vital programs and in addressing issues. I am the VP of a BCWF member club with 1400 members and am supportive of the aims of the BCWF.

However, the BCWF does not seem to get that bow hunting presents an opportunity for expanded seasons at times and locations where game populations would not support a rifle season, (bow hunter success is typically so low as to have negligible impact whereas use of rifles would put the herds at risk or worse). We do not wish to take any time afield away from rifle hunters. Since they don't get THAT they FAIL to adequately represent bowhunting opportunities on PHRAAC.

Also, the BCWF does not seem to get that they could have a huge increase in membership if they did embrace the notion that bowhunting opportunities should be increased. There are LOTS of bowhunters that might well join-up as individual members, and or join BCWF affiliated fish and game clubs if they felt better represented.

The BCWF seems to understand that the implementation of LEH, antler restrictions, (lost opportunity), increased license fees, and gun registration red tape, were the main causes of a drastic reduction in hunter numbers over the last decade. Therefore, I am mystified that the BCWF membership and apparently the executive fail to grasp that bowhunting represents huge potential to increase hunter recruitment through significantly increased opportunity.

Closely related to the above point is the reality that archery attracts a lot of youth into target shooting. Further recruiting them into the hunting ranks would be far less onorus than trying to recruit them into rifle hunting with their parents support... due to reduced red tape money and hassle, don't need a PAL, negative social judgments etc.

The reason the UBBC, TBBC and BC Archery associations want a bowhunting committee as part of the BCWF is that we would like to work collectively within the larger hunting fraternity because together we would have a louder voice when advocating with MOE for the above principles and objectives. We want to work closely within the BCWF to support increased hunting opportunity,and hunter recruitment especially youth recruitment in the area of our subject matter expertise.

If the BCWF declines the request of a number of their member clubs and at least one BCWF Region that has already made their wishes known by way of tabling a motion to strike a bowhunting committee, then I think that the executive policy decision is divisive and disrespectful.

To be honest, I was blown away that the motion was dismissed summarily by a past president who said that, to paraphrase, "the delegates shouldn't supersede the power of the president to strike committees and he sees fit." More so that no one challenged that statement!

I guess I was operating under the misguided assumption that the executive ought to take some direction from the membership and their delegates. If the executive simply disregard the wishes of the membership to put the issue to a vote on the AGM floor and then thereafter choose not to strike the committee then I would loose a lot of faith in their moral right to lead!

It is at that point, with genuine disappointment that the bowhunting fraternity through the UBBC, TBBC, and BC Archery Association will continue our support of the broader bowhunting fraternity as the primary voice for bowhunting in BC.

Bill Tozer
Vice President VFGPA
Vice President UBBC

[Gateholio]

Should the BCWF have separate committees for all disciplines?

Rile
bow
muzzle loader
spin casting
fly fishing
trolling

etc?

[The Hermit]

It is my understanding that the BCWF does have a special weapons committee (read black powder)

If there is a group of members with a special interest and expertise, whose intentions are to support the aims of the organization in the area of increased hunting opportunity and recruitment by collecting data and information, compiling research, and creating cogent argument and recommendations that the BCWF can take forward to the MOE then yes!

[Bigbear]

If the BCWF is so Picky about it then Leave It be and Let Bow Hunters Speak for Bow hunters. Join the UBBC For a Voice. The More the Better.

[aggiehunter]

Back to the beginning, BC Farmer, you were the one that started the thread about rumours and that is what I was trying to get at. What rumours, who is saying what, I have heard none and yet we have a whole debate based on your opening statement. I truly hope the BCWF adopts the idea of a bowcommittee, its really a no brainer. But don't start fear mongering about rumours if we don't have any. Let the thing run its course. Thank you and keep us informed please.

[Mr. Dean]

Mr Dean. And there is no division now between bowhunters and others? That is why there are 3 major bowhunting organizations in BC. All hunters would be much better served if there was one organization that supported bowhunters and rifle hunters.

Agreed - A united federation of hunters WOULD ring loud and serve the hunter better.


Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the BCWF support all hunters, regardless of method?

bow hunter = hunter
rifle hunter = hunter
crossbow hunter = hunter
muzzle loader hunter = hunter

I see all of the above as one hunting group and the BCWF acts on behalf of all of the people above.

All for one and 1 for all!! (said earlier)


Should the BCWF have separate committees for all disciplines?

Rile
bow
muzzle loader
spin casting
fly fishing
trolling

etc?

My point exactly. Where would it end. (complicated) - Gate's, you forgot Road Hunters and Pack Hunters.
All of these groups offer/contribute something specific/unique.

Again, where would it end???


If the BCWF is so Picky about it then Leave It be and Let Bow Hunters Speak for Bow hunters. Join the UBBC For a Voice. The More the Better.

That's nice... I support several organizations, but the Fed gets their dues 1st. As a hunter, we ALL should make this priority 1!

It doesn't matter what a person uses, we are all in the same boat (tree-stand). How a hunter can't justify the necessity of becoming a member, mystifies me. Bow or no bow...

I'll say it again; I can see the good natured intent, but can't get past that this could also be the last nail in the coffin and the demise of the BCWF.

[6616]

It is my understanding that the BCWF does have a special weapons committee (read black powder)

If there is a group of members with a special interest and expertise, whose intentions are to support the aims of the organization in the area of increased hunting opportunity and recruitment by collecting data and information, compiling research, and creating cogent argument and recommendations that the BCWF can take forward to the MOE then yes!

Incorrest, the BCWF does not have a special weapons committee.

[6616]

BCF- I would like nothing better than the BCWF having a bowhunting committee. This would unite the bowhunters and rifle hunters under one cause. Right now most bowhunters think the BCWF should read BCRH or BC Rifle Hunters. The birth of this bowhunting committee in the BCWF would breath new life into a hunting organization that desperatley needs it.

That organization looked pretty healthy to me last weekend in Salmon Arm.

[bcfarmer]

Back to the beginning, BC Farmer, you were the one that started the thread about rumours and that is what I was trying to get at. What rumours, who is saying what, I have heard none and yet we have a whole debate based on your opening statement. I truly hope the BCWF adopts the idea of a bowcommittee, its really a no brainer. But don't start fear mongering about rumours if we don't have any. Let the thing run its course. Thank you and keep us informed please.

aggiehunter,..if you go back and read my posts you will discover that I started this thread based on my club bcwf rep who was at the convention.The part in different font was written by him.

I'm sure that most people here can figure out what the rumors were...(the committee idea is dead, its not going to happen, yada,yada,yada)
so based on some of the responses here, I don't beleive it was fear mongering.Having said that, there are some valid points on both sides (also stated this on another website)and hopefully through debate we can all find some common ground and work together.

The BCWF is rumored to be a good ole boys club, while the UBBC is rumored to be an elitest club. If we all get past this crap, maybe we can find common ground and effectively represent the majority of hunters in BC.

bcf


lol...I hunt with a crossbow so I am caught in the middle...lol:tongue:

[The Hermit]

Agreed - A united federation of hunters WOULD ring loud and serve the hunter better.



All for one and 1 for all!! (said earlier)



My point exactly. Where would it end. (complicated) - Gate's, you forgot Road Hunters and Pack Hunters.
All of these groups offer/contribute something specific/unique.

Again, where would it end???



That's nice... I support several organizations, but the Fed gets their dues 1st. As a hunter, we ALL should make this priority 1!

It doesn't matter what a person uses, we are all in the same boat (tree-stand). How a hunter can't justify the necessity of becoming a member, mystifies me. Bow or no bow...

I'll say it again; I can see the good natured intent, but can't get past that this could also be the last nail in the coffin and the demise of the BCWF.

Did you read my post? I think I made comment on each of your fears!

[GoatGuy]

However, the BCWF does not seem to get that bow hunting presents an opportunity for expanded seasons at times and locations where game populations would not support a rifle season, (bow hunter success is typically so low as to have negligible impact whereas use of rifles would put the herds at risk or worse). We do not wish to take any time afield away from rifle hunters. Since they don't get THAT they FAIL to adequately represent bowhunting opportunities on PHRAAC.

You should flesh this out first and identify these opportunities.

That would probably help a lot of people understand and make a decision on this concept.

I'd really like to hear it.

[GoatGuy]

lol...I hunt with a crossbow so I am caught in the middle...lol:tongue:


Don't be so sure. :wink:

[aggiehunter]

Yes your are right Farmer. The UBBC is not going to support a firearms committee within its ranks, it never professed to support all types of hunting though and was very explicit on its duties to help the bowhunting community. This was born out of necessity. I've never heard anyone say the UBBC was elitist either. Oh well if you didn't have a place like this to spread "stuff" around what would we all do??

[Mr. Dean]

Did you read my post? I think I made comment on each of your fears! Yes, I did. But didn't see much that made me feel more comfortable.
And please; refrain from using the term "fear" when addressing what I perceive to be concerns. Word play does little for credibility and respect. ;-)


I agree that the BCFW represents hunters in general on issues like access, conservation, education, lobbying against gun registration, gravel extraction, research, recruitment in general, wilderness watch, fishery issues etc. I think they do a good job on these vital programs and in addressing issues. I am the VP of a BCWF member club with 1400 members and am supportive of the aims of the BCWF.

These are the very reasons why I'm a member. I'm not a member because I hunt w/ a gun, I'm a member because I believe in conservation and further believe that conservation works hand in hand, with hunting.

When the Fed goes to bat on political issues, they go in there with sleeves rolled up, for the goodness of sustaining all that hunt.

However, the BCWF does not seem to get that bow hunting presents an opportunity for expanded seasons at times and locations where game populations would not support a rifle season, (bow hunter success is typically so low as to have negligible impact whereas use of rifles would put the herds at risk or worse). We do not wish to take any time afield away from rifle hunters. Since they don't get THAT they FAIL to adequately represent bowhunting opportunities on PHRAAC.

I DO get "that".
Shouldn't this be enough reason to "rally up" the BH's and encourage membership?

Also, the BCWF does not seem to get that they could have a huge increase in membership if they did embrace the notion that bowhunting opportunities should be increased. There are LOTS of bowhunters that might well join-up as individual members, and or join BCWF affiliated fish and game clubs if they felt better represented.

Better represented???
I see things as being equal----> The term hunter (which the Fed. lobbies for) encompasses ALL that hunt... Yet you feel (seemingly) left at the curb - "That", I don't get.

The BCWF seems to understand that the implementation of LEH, antler restrictions, (lost opportunity), increased license fees, and gun registration red tape, were the main causes of a drastic reduction in hunter numbers over the last decade. Therefore, I am mystified that the BCWF membership and apparently the executive fail to grasp that bowhunting represents huge potential to increase hunter recruitment through significantly increased opportunity.

This also tells me that seasoned hunters of the 'day' didn't run out and buy a bow or encourage the youth of the 'day', to buy one either. IMO we would be better served promoting CORE too our youth.

Hunting opprotunity is already "there". It's called GOS - that's open for all hunters.

Closely related to the above point is the reality that archery attracts a lot of youth into target shooting. Further recruiting them into the hunting ranks would be far less onorus than trying to recruit them into rifle hunting with their parents support... due to reduced red tape money and hassle, don't need a PAL, negative social judgments etc.

Disagree.
IMO it's the negative social impacts on hunting that's affecting enrollment. Hence my expelling of the promotion of CORE...

The reason the UBBC, TBBC and BC Archery associations want a bowhunting committee as part of the BCWF is that we would like to work collectively within the larger hunting fraternity because together we would have a louder voice when advocating with MOE for the above principles and objectives. We want to work closely within the BCWF to support increased hunting opportunity,and hunter recruitment especially youth recruitment in the area of our subject matter expertise.

When I hear; collectively,,, fraternity,,, work closely,,, support, I also think of one united stand,,, one club working as a unit. Not a club with an umbrella that's formed up of, 2, 5, or 8 different classes of the same thing (hunters). As hunters, our goals are common and therefore should be treated as such, via what should be a common representitive ie; The BCWF.

If the BCWF declines the request of a number of their member clubs and at least one BCWF Region that has already made their wishes known by way of tabling a motion to strike a bowhunting committee, then I think that the executive policy decision is divisive and disrespectful.

N/C

To be honest, I was blown away that the motion was dismissed summarily by a past president who said that, to paraphrase, "the delegates shouldn't supersede the power of the president to strike committees and he sees fit." More so that no one challenged that statement!

N/C

I guess I was operating under the misguided assumption that the executive ought to take some direction from the membership and their delegates. If the executive simply disregard the wishes of the membership to put the issue to a vote on the AGM floor and then thereafter choose not to strike the committee then I would loose a lot of faith in their moral right to lead!

N/C

It is at that point, with genuine disappointment that the bowhunting fraternity through the UBBC, TBBC, and BC Archery Association will continue our support of the broader bowhunting fraternity as the primary voice for bowhunting in BC.

Bill Tozer
Vice President VFGPA
Vice President UBBC

So in other words, you believe that if a ransom isn't met, these members are better served NOT supporting the fundementals of The BCWF?

If so, then "that" Sir, mystifies me.
Much of this resembles the province of Quebec wanting seperation and distinction clauses...

[bcfarmer]

Yes your are right Farmer. The UBBC is not going to support a firearms committee within its ranks, it never professed to support all types of hunting though and was very explicit on its duties to help the bowhunting community. This was born out of necessity. I've never heard anyone say the UBBC was elitist either. Oh well if you didn't have a place like this to spread "stuff" around what would we all do??

I probably should have said that the UBBC is rumored to have some elitist thinking members. If you've never heard that, then you haven't been around this website very long or your only reading what you want.

I'm not sure what the comment about spreading stuff is about!

It has been shown on here that the "rumors" were out there. Some of the explanations regarding the rumors or thought process if you will, have helped me and I'm sure others, with understanding what or why people are thinking the way they are. This is the reason for OPEN minded debate. Pointing fingers is a waist of time.

Personally, I would like to be in a room, listening, while Mr. Dean, TPK, The Hermit and a couple of others debate this, so that I can make an informed decision on whether a bowhunting committee within the BCWF is worthwhile or necessary.

bcf

[aggiehunter]

Farmer, I am not reading between the lines, I started at the beginning where you expoused about "the rumours". I didn't hear any until you started your post. As humans will they chime in to hear themselves. We should let the people in the know carry the torch and not add unneccessary fuel to the fire.

[bcfarmer]

Farmer, I am not reading between the lines, I started at the beginning where you expoused about "the rumours". I didn't hear any until you started your post. As humans will they chime in to hear themselves. We should let the people in the know carry the torch and not add unneccessary fuel to the fire.

well all I can say is I guess your not in the loop:wink:

I'm looking for objective info, so how about contributing your reasons why or why not a bowhunting committee within the BCWF!

[horshur]

They are hunters aren't they? ...give them a bloody commitee. What are you afraid they might be right???

[GoatGuy]

They are hunters aren't they? ...give them a bloody commitee. What are you afraid they might be right???

The BCWF doesn't really have 'special interest' committees.

The BCWF has land use, inland fisheries, tidal fisheries, wildlife, access, allocation, First Nations, etc., committees. Oppositely, the BCWF doesn't have spey fishers, fly fishers, bait fishers, gear fishers committees. I hope that makes sense.

They look at big picture stuff and support all users.

There's not much being right or wrong.

On top of that the BCWF is run by its membership and direction comes from the membership generally through resolutions which created policy and direction which comes at the annual general meeting. If I recall correctly the resolution in discussion was defeated by the membership. There are however several resolutions which are defeated for various purposes other than their 'intent' every year. The intent of this proposed committee is still unclear.

Having said that there are certain opportunities which are overlooked on a regular basis. It think it would fall under wildlife or land use, but I do believe there's room for someone to step up and tackle these opportunities. To clarify, these opportunities do not include taking opportunity away from other hunters.

Exactly what the intent of a bow committee is or what a bow committee would be or would do is still unclear. I think this needs to be clarified and examples illustrated before anyone passes judgment.

[The Hermit]

Yes, I did. But didn't see much that made me feel more comfortable.
And please; refrain from using the term "fear" when addressing what I perceive to be concerns. Word play does little for credibility and respect. ;-)

Respectfully then, call it what you will but your "concerns" are unfounded.

So in other words, you believe that if a ransom isn't met, these members are better served NOT supporting the fundementals of The BCWF?

If so, then "that" Sir, mystifies me.
Much of this resembles the province of Quebec wanting seperation and distinction clauses...

Interesting comparison indeed mon ami. As I understand the Quebec issue some of them want to separate, which is not the case here... we are trying to help the BCWF to better understand the benefits of promoting bowhunting opportunity and to encourage them to promote the increased hunting opportunity. See my post above for why this is a viable strategy.

BTW - There is nothing stopping you or any other licensed hunter from picking up a bow or crossbow and enjoying increased opportunity, longer seasons, and an added challenge... in fact we want to recruit more folks into the sport. If you want to give it a try come on over to the island and I'll take you bear hunting in May.

Ransom is your word (play) and was never implied in anything I wrote. As I said, we would be "disappointed" if the BCWF does not see value in forming a bowhunting committee and in that case we would have to continue on our own as the sole lobby for increased bowhunting opportunity and enhanced seasons. This does not imply that we would not also choose to continue membership in the various F&G clubs and thereby support the excellent work the BCWF does on those generic issues facing hunting and fishing.

So to all the nay sayers I ask... why not? For the life of me I don't understand why the BCWF would not want to embrace the concept and seek to encourage a dedicated group of hunters to further the aims of the BCWF on allocation, recruitment, and increased opportunity. The UBBC presents a sound conservationist argument for these shared values.

[The Hermit]

The BCWF doesn't really have 'special interest' committees.

The BCWF has land use, inland fisheries, tidal fisheries, wildlife, access, allocation, First Nations, etc., committees. Oppositely, the BCWF doesn't have spey fishers, fly fishers, bait fishers, gear fishers committees. I hope that makes sense.

They look at big picture stuff and support all users.

There's not much being right or wrong.

On top of that the BCWF is run by its membership and direction comes from the membership generally through resolutions which created policy and direction which comes at the annual general meeting. If I recall correctly the resolution in discussion was defeated by the membership. There are however several resolutions which are defeated for various purposes other than their 'intent' every year. The intent of this proposed committee is still unclear.

Respectfully the motion was not even debated on its relative merits... a past president stood on a point of order and claimed that it is the president's prerogative to form committees as he/she sees fit and that it would set a poor precedent for the membership to give binding direction to the executive! The vote was then called and the motion defeated without debate. So much for the executive taking direction, or the membership even having a voice from the floor.

Furthermore, the motion was submitted by the Keremeos/Cawston Sportsmen Association, and passed at the BCWF Regional 8 meeting on Dec 1, 2007. One would think that if a member club and an entire BCWF Region wanted this debated and decided by the membership at large the executive might be prepared to listen!!

Perhaps someone could post the submission here for broader reference and clarity. I don't want to type it all out so hopefully someone has an electronic version.

Having said that there are certain opportunities which are overlooked on a regular basis. It think it would fall under wildlife or land use, but I do believe there's room for someone to step up and tackle these opportunities. To clarify, these opportunities do not include taking opportunity away from other hunters.

Exactly what the intent of a bow committee is or what a bow committee would be or would do is still unclear. I think this needs to be clarified and examples illustrated before anyone passes judgment.

I hope that clarifies things a little...

[Mr. Dean]

Nothing I read, has me converted - I honestly mean no ill-respect in that; it's just the truth.
I think the Fed made a good call.

This is now on the road of a typical bow hunting thread. If I should see something that's NEW, I'll likely chime in.

In the meantime, play nice. :smile:


Hermit;
I noticed that you skimmed over several of my responses and others also. I'll assume that they weren't worthy of your time. For a person that seems SO passionate, I'd think that he would make the time.

[Onesock]

For the life of me I cannot understand why the BCWF is against procuring more hunting opportunity for BC residents. All new bow seasons will be outside the GOS and not suitable for firearms. Any new bow seasons are open to all individuals from British Columbia with the only stipulation that a bow and arrow is used for hunting. To me this falls into the description of what the BCWF does as hunting opportunity for all residents.

[The Hermit]

Nothing I read, has me converted - I honestly mean no ill-respect in that; it's just the truth.
I think the Fed made a good call.

This is now on the road of a typical bow hunting thread. If I should see something that's NEW, I'll likely chime in.

In the meantime, play nice. :smile:


Hermit;
I noticed that you skimmed over several of my responses and others also. I'll assume that they weren't worthy of your time. For a person that seems SO passionate, I'd think that he would make the time.

Yep its true I am not hear to engage in argument with someone that appears unwilling to be influenced. I won't be baited by your cynical dig "this is now on the road to a typical bow hunting thread" ... no point in that! I rescind my offer to take you on a bear hunt with archery tackle.

[aggiehunter]

FARMER, There absolutely should be a bowhunting committee as I said a no brainer.... so Why? get all these people worked up when the final answer has not been given. Theres that grinding of the rumour mill again. When the final NO is given then we will all know exactly what the BCWF does or does not stand for. They have so much to gain and yet so much to loose. Youth opportunities, 3D championships, more bow only seasons, more members, not to mention supporting present members.

[6616]

For the life of me I cannot understand why the BCWF is against procuring more hunting opportunity for BC residents. All new bow seasons will be outside the GOS and not suitable for firearms. Any new bow seasons are open to all individuals from British Columbia with the only stipulation that a bow and arrow is used for hunting. To me this falls into the description of what the BCWF does as hunting opportunity for all residents.

The BCWF is not against, and does support procuring more hunting opportunities for residents and will continue to do that with or without a bowhunting committee. To think the BCWF is against procuring more opportunities just because the bowhunting resolution was defeated is plain wrong. There is no reason to think that the current BCWF Wildlife Committee cannot, does not, or will not, do the same things that a bowhunting could do. Creating a bowhunting committee won't necissarily change anything. A bowhunting committee could only provide advice to the BCWF wildlife committee.

Even though I personally support a bowhunting committee, I don't see how a bowhunting committee will make a real difference in procuring more opportunity, since new opportunity nearly always arises at the regional level. A bowhunting committee at the Provincial level will not have input at regional advisory committee meetings. What might be better are regional bowhunting committees. I don't really see the big deal regarding this resolution.

The BCWF already has regional wildlife committees that are more than willing to listen to proposals for more opportunites regardless of weapon choice. Some regions already have bowhunting committees and these committees submit proposals to the BCWF regions for consideration and if they're passed at region they are taken to the regional advisory level by the BCWF regional willdife reps.

As I see it from where I sit in the organization, both the regional and the provincial advisory committees are looking for new opportunities and these include hunting of any type.

Region 4 will be considering several proposals put forth by the bowhunting orgs at the regional advisory committee meeting this Saturday in Creston.

[GoatGuy]

Respectfully the motion was not even debated on its relative merits... a past president stood on a point of order and claimed that it is the president's prerogative to form committees as he/she sees fit and that it would set a poor precedent for the membership to give binding direction to the executive! The vote was then called and the motion defeated without debate. So much for the executive taking direction, or the membership even having a voice from the floor.

There's always room for debate - it's up to the people who support the resolution to make it known. I'm sure you noticed that with some of the other resolutions. You've gotta have your ducks in a row and be prepared to support or go against the resolution. :wink:

I don't think it's fair to make a past president the target of discontent either. I think a little more research putting the resolution together would have been more successful. As you also noticed there are several intricacies that have to be put together - that's why resolutions should be well thought out. There were a couple resolutions that were passed by the regions that didn't even make it to convention because of the way they were put together. This is likely one that the resolutions committee should not have put through either.

There's always next year to put something together. Heck there have been resolutions brought forward from some regions year after year after year.



Furthermore, the motion was submitted by the Keremeos/Cawston Sportsmen Association, and passed at the BCWF Regional 8 meeting on Dec 1, 2007. One would think that if a member club and an entire BCWF Region wanted this debated and decided by the membership at large the executive might be prepared to listen!!

It was supported by the region to go to the convention to be voted on.

That does not mean the entire region thought it would be passed.

To have it show up on here and then people who don't know what transpired complain about the outcome when they didn't attend the convention or speak their minds on the resolution isn't the way things are run either. There are clearly a couple people who are very passionate about this - why weren't they there?

To tell you the truth with the comments, I'm starting to get the impression that it is a 'ransom type' idea when really on a half-hearted attempt has been made to get people onboard. The need to infect change falls on the people's shoulders who want it.

As I said before the BCWF is run by its membership - the vote needs to be 50+1. If you want something to go through educate people, getting them on board. You have to be prepared. If the resolution didn't turn out the way you wanted it to put something together again and send it in next year.




Perhaps someone could post the submission here for broader reference and clarity. I don't want to type it all out so hopefully someone has an electronic version.
I hope that clarifies things a little...


I've seen the submission - it doesn't put things into perspective the way it should and that's also likely part of the reason it didn't pass. Things need to be defined.

[Onesock]

6616- Just for your information the bowhunting seasons we now have in BC were fought and won for by bowhunting organizations outside of the BCWF. This to me is hunting opportunity for British Columbians that the BCWF wouldn't or couldn't have any part in. This is a loosing situation for the BCWF in my mind. It is time to change the BCWF constitution.

[TPK]

The BCWF already has regional wildlife committees that are more than willing to listen to proposals for more opportunites regardless of weapon choice. Some regions already have bowhunting committees and these committees submit proposals to the BCWF regions for consideration and if they're passed at region they are taken to the regional advisory level by the BCWF regional willdife reps.

Exactly. People , we are talking about the BC Wildlife Federation. They should not be setting up committees or giving "special" attention to any one special interst group. Simply put, the BCWF is about fair and honest representation for ALL of it's members. Creating a Bow Hunting committee simply does not fit into this ideology, it's giving preference, more resources (time and money) to one group over other groups and if you can't see how this will divide the Federation you have only to look at this thread to see what will happen. It has only been talked about and already we have people thinking they will drop out of the BCWF because they somehow feel they will not be adequtely represented without this committee.

There is currently nothing stopping Bow hunters from bringing their concerns forward to the BCWF or directly to the MOE. There does not need to be a BCWF special Bow Hunting committee in place for this to happen. The BCWF is not impeding Bow Hunters in any way shape or form and to try and say that by not creating this special interest committee they are, well that's just wrong.

Now, as to the defeat of the resolution itself. It was pointed out that the way this resolution for a committee was brought forward is not the way committees are setup in the BCWF, period. It was not a swing or slight to Bow hunters nor was it attacking the idea behind the request, simply the way it was brought forward wasn't correct and could not proceed. No one should be reading anything into the decision to defeat the motion.

Now, can someone tell me exactly what would be gained from a BCWF Bow Hunting committee that currently could NOT be acheived through your existing Bow clubs now? Seems to me that some people may be looking for an easy out. Instead of working with their club and members to get what they want, they want to be able to simply ask a Bow Hunting committee for it and then rest on their laurels while the committee does all the work for them.

The person that brought this reolution forward on behalf their Region is also (I believe) the person that seemingly was questioning the number of votes given to their Region. The thinking was that they should have more votes because of the number of members in their clubs. This does not give fair representation to Regions where there are a fraction of the number of members which is why that agenda will also fail. We can not have a single Region with a majority of votes or they will dominate all decisions. Fair Regional representation period.

[6616]

6616- Just for your information the bowhunting seasons we now have in BC were fought and won for by bowhunting organizations outside of the BCWF. This to me is hunting opportunity for British Columbians that the BCWF wouldn't or couldn't have any part in. This is a loosing situation for the BCWF in my mind. It is time to change the BCWF constitution.

I agree, the bowhunting seasons we have now were mostly suggested by bowhunting organizations, however, don't forget the BCWF did support them, otherwise who knows for sure if they would even exist today.

The BCWF policy that seems to bother bowhunters is probably the policy that states the BCWF will not support new hunts if they come at the cost (or replacement) of existing hunts (not exact wording). Don't forget that policy works both ways and protects existing bow seasons as much as it protects existing rifle seasons.

Additionally, this is not a consititutional issue, it's only policy, and policy can be changed by resolution at any convention.

http://bcwf.bc.ca/about/constitution.html

[bcfarmer]

Now, as to the defeat of the resolution itself. It was pointed out that the way this resolution for a committee was brought forward is not the way committees are setup in the BCWF, period. It was not a swing or slight to Bow hunters nor was it attacking the idea behind the request, simply the way it was brought forward wasn't correct and could not proceed. No one should be reading anything into the decision to defeat the motion.


this is exactly why this thread was started, to dispel and rumors about the decision to defeat the motion. There are other more appropriate avenues to take.



The person that brought this reolution forward on behalf their Region is also the person that seemingly was questioning the number of votes given to their Region.

TPK you have mistakenly mixed up two different people here. The person who brought this forward on behalf of their region had nothing to do with the other issue.





6616--- thankyou for a well thought out response and explanation.

bcf

[Gateholio]

If you can use the "red font" feature, you can use the "quote" feature properly. Here is how:



Quote the initial post.
Depete the [q ote] and [/q ote] s at the top and bottom of the post you are quoting.
Highlight the section you want to quote
hit the "quote" button, on the top left. Looks lieka little comic strop talking balloonIt will look like this:


Exactly. People , we are talking about the BC Wildlife Federation. They should not be setting up committees or giving "special" attention to any one special interst group. Simply put, the BCWF is about fair and honest representation for ALL of it's members. Creating a Bow Hunting committee simply does not fit into this ideology, it's giving preference, more resources (time and money) to one group over other groups and if you can't see how this will divide the Federation you have only to look at this thread to see what will happen. It has only been talked about and already we have people thinking they will drop out of the BCWF because they somehow feel they will not be adequtely represented without this committee.

Then you can make your comments and do it again:


Highlight the part you want to respond to
Hit the "quote" button

There is currently nothing stopping Bow hunters from bringing their concerns forward to the BCWF or directly to the MOE. There does not need to be a BCWF special Bow Hunting committee in place for this to happen. The BCWF is not impeding Bow Hunters in any way shape or form and to try and say that by not creating this special interest committee they are, well that's just wrong.

And so on and so forth....


Now, as to the defeat of the resolution itself. It was pointed out that the way this resolution for a committee was brought forward is not the way committees are setup in the BCWF, period. It was not a swing or slight to Bow hunters nor was it attacking the idea behind the request, simply the way it was brought forward wasn't correct and could not proceed. No one should be reading anything into the decision to defeat the motion.


If you don't delete the intitial quotes at the top and bottom of the post, you will end up with this:



Originally Posted by TPK http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=274139#post274139)



Now, as to the defeat of the resolution itself. It was pointed out that the way this resolution for a committee was brought forward is not the way committees are setup in the BCWF, period. It was not a swing or slight to Bow hunters nor was it attacking the idea behind the request, simply the way it was brought forward wasn't correct and could not proceed. No one should be reading anything into the decision to defeat the motion.


this is exactly why this thread was started, to dispel and rumors about the decision to defeat the motion. There are other more appropriate avenues to take.



The person that brought this reolution forward on behalf their Region is also the person that seemingly was questioning the number of votes given to their Region.

TPK you have mistakenly mixed up two different people here. The person who brought this forward on behalf of their region had nothing to do with the other issue.




And it's a pain to decipher who exactly is saying what...

Hope this helps, it makes things more readable.:smile:

[Mr. Dean]

Yep its true I am not hear to engage in argument with someone that appears unwilling to be influenced. I won't be baited by your cynical dig "this is now on the road to a typical bow hunting thread" ... no point in that! I rescind my offer to take you on a bear hunt with archery tackle.

- That's my point.... I AM willing,,, but your not selling.
- Not a bait. It's responses such as this that take it 'there'.


It mystifies me that just because some don't see eye too eye,,, they'll rescind on opportunities to meet, eye too eye.

I'm quite the opposite; casual differences intrigue me and I have demonstrated this SEVERAL times on various threads.... Hermit, if you're ever my way, I'd truly appreciate a chance to BS this over a beer or coffee. When it comes to IntraWeb issues, I strive to keep an open mind and not get personal - Perhaps I'm missing something due to Flat Screen Syndrome that a personal chat could cure, or maybe we're both just stubborn $hitheads that could never get along.

OR maybe there's something in between (???).

[Gateholio]

! I rescind my offer to take you on a bear hunt with archery tackle.

Awesome................:tongue:

[bcfarmer]

There's always room for debate - it's up to the people who support the resolution to make it known. I'm sure you noticed that with some of the other resolutions. You've gotta have your ducks in a row and be prepared to support or go against the resolution. :wink:

learning process we all have to go through.

I don't think it's fair to make a past president the target of discontent either. I think a little more research putting the resolution together would have been more successful. As you also noticed there are several intricacies that have to be put together - that's why resolutions should be well thought out. There were a couple resolutions that were passed by the regions that didn't even make it to convention because of the way they were put together. This is likely one that the resolutions committee should not have put through either.

we wish we had of been told earlier that the resolution couldn't be passed the way it was presented. It would have been withdrawn and the proper route taken.

There's always next year to put something together. Heck there have been resolutions brought forward from some regions year after year after year.



It was supported by the region to go to the convention to be voted on.

That does not mean the entire region thought it would be passed.

To have it show up on here and then people who don't know what transpired complain about the outcome when they didn't attend the convention or speak their minds on the resolution isn't the way things are run either. There are clearly a couple people who are very passionate about this - why weren't they there?

To tell you the truth with the comments, I'm starting to get the impression that it is a 'ransom type' idea when really on a half-hearted attempt has been made to get people onboard. The need to infect change falls on the people's shoulders who want it.

I can assure you that this was in no means a "ransom type" idea. As for the half-hearted attempt, maybe you could elaborate on an appropriate method to get people on board.
Or maybe getting people on board is not what we need. As 6616 has stated, there are other ways for bowhunters to be represented within the BCWF.

As I said before the BCWF is run by its membership - the vote needs to be 50+1. If you want something to go through educate people, getting them on board. You have to be prepared. If the resolution didn't turn out the way you wanted it to put something together again and send it in next year.





I've seen the submission - it doesn't put things into perspective the way it should and that's also likely part of the reason it didn't pass. Things need to be defined.

Being the educated and respected person you are, did you offer to help put the resolution into perspective at the time. Or are your comments based on "after the fact"


There are those of us within the BCWF that are still learning the do's and don't s . It is important that the educated people in the know pass on their experience , if at all possible before an issue gets out of hand.

Some might say that this thread was premature or an ulterior motive was being setup. That couldn't be further from the truth. If one sifts through the garbage posts and pays attention to the relevant ones, there is a lot of quality information here that has helped educate myself and hopefully others.

bcf

[bcfarmer]

FARMER, There absolutely should be a bowhunting committee as I said a no brainer.... so Why? get all these people worked up when the final answer has not been given. Theres that grinding of the rumour mill again. When the final NO is given (kinda creating your own rumors here aren't you!! )then we will all know exactly what the BCWF does or does not stand for. They have so much to gain and yet so much to loose. Youth opportunities, 3D championships, more bow only seasons, more members, not to mention supporting present members.

I think there have been some good reasons and alternative suggestions why this might or should be defeated. To state knowledge of what the BCWF does or doesn't stand for based on one issue is......well, you get the idea.

bcf

[bcfarmer]

If you can use the "red font" feature, you can use the "quote" feature properly. Here is how:


Quote the initial post.
Depete the [q ote] and [/q ote] s at the top and bottom of the post you are quoting.
Highlight the section you want to quote
hit the "quote" button, on the top left. Looks lieka little comic strop talking balloonIt will look like this:



Then you can make your comments and do it again:

Highlight the part you want to respond to
Hit the "quote" button

And so on and so forth....




If you don't delete the intitial quotes at the top and bottom of the post, you will end up with this:




And it's a pain to decipher who exactly is saying what...

Hope this helps, it makes things more readable.:smile:


sorry gate..still learning.

bcf

[Gateholio]

sorry gate..still learning.

bcf


It took me 3 years to figure out how to post a picture on a website...:cool:

The quote thing can get crazy- peopel using 3 different colours, etc..Hard to see who is talking!:eek::smile:

[threedhunter]

first things first, you want changes? get involved, don't sit on your puter key board and say 'i heard'or 'rumor has it'.if you are a member of the bcwf, get to the meetings, regional or agm, and talk with the people you put in place as your rep.if you want a bow comitteee , get involved, ask to be on it and be constructive , not destructive.we all really want the same thing, more gos/open seasons, opportunities to hunt. lets quit shooting ourselves in the feet and stay together as a "hunting group".not fight about your personal opinion or tool of choice.i got and still am involved, all i have seen so far is there seems to be division here as to what tool you use for your hunting choice.ALL HUNTERS NEED TO STICK TOGETHER OR WE WILL NOT HAVE ANY HUNTING IN THE FUTURE.sorry to highlight that statement but we have to realize there are peaple right now trying to take our hertage away from us , we have to unite and stay united to be a loud, strong voice for hunting in canada, not just bc.threedhunter.:eek:

[bcfarmer]

first things first, you want changes? get involved, don't sit on your puter key board and say 'i heard'or 'rumor has it'.if you are a mmber of the bcwf, get to trhe meetings, regional or agm, and talk with the peaple you put in place as you rep.if you want a bow comitteee , get involved, ask o be on it and be constructie , not destructve.we all really want the same thing, more gos/open seasons, opportunities to hunt. lets quit shooting ourselves in the feet and stay together as a "hunting group".not fight about your personl opinion or too of choice.i got and still am involved, all i have seen s far is there seems to be division here as to what tool you use for your hunting choice.ALL HUNTERS NEED TO STICK TOGETHER OR WE WILL NOT HAVE ANY HUNTING IN THE FUTURE.sorry to highlight that statement but we have to realize there are peaple right now trying to take our hertage away from us , we have to unite and stay united to be a loud strong voice for hunting in canada, not just bc.treedhunter.:eek:


couldn't agree more, and hopefully through debates like this, we can all have a better understanding.

bcf

[sealevel]

What is wrong with what we are doing now . BCWF has more then enough things to fight for and not enough money. We have the UBBC to fight for bowhunters why not keep it that way.

[Mr. Dean]

What is wrong with what we are doing now . BCWF has more then enough things to fight for and not enough money. We have the UBBC to fight for bowhunters why not keep it that way. One organization representing all hunters WOULD have clout. That can't be denied.
But it would have to move as an entity of 1; not several.

[GoatGuy]

Being the educated and respected person you are, did you offer to help put the resolution into perspective at the time. Or are your comments based on "after the fact"

I wasn't involved in the creation of the resolution.

I didn't think about the part about policy and committees would have come up but somebody else did and it makes sense. That's kind of the way it goes. There are always good resolutions which are amended, defeated or withdrawn because everything wasn't put together properly. Kinda the way it goes when you get 140 people in a room with a working knowledge of the system.

I didn't think the brief communicated the intent or role and still don't but I don't need to be the antithesis of bowhunting anymore than I already am particularly when things aren't defined. Get tired of being the dartboard. :lol:



There are those of us within the BCWF that are still learning the do's and don't s . It is important that the educated people in the know pass on their experience , if at all possible before an issue gets out of hand.
bcf
We try to make a point of getting as many people in on a resolution as possible, past presidents, directors, resolution committee etc., Heck our club spent a bunch of time on one to get it straight and it too was amended (a good amendment mind you).:wink:

It's a learning process for us all.

[bcfarmer]

I didn't think the brief communicated the intent or role and still don't but I don't need to be the antithesis of bowhunting anymore than I already am particularly when things aren't defined. Get tired of being the dartboard. :lol:


I agree with you on this. An effort will be make to better communicate the role of the resolution and or the benefits of such a committee before the alternative route is taken.

The dartboard analogy while understandable and frustrating is always a side result of those who care and want to be directly involved. Just try to keep dodging the pointy end.(no pun intended to bowhunters:lol::lol:)

bcf

ps. I hope I did the quote thing right this time Gate

[aggiehunter]

Goatguy, So what was it "perspective" or "policy" that defeated the resolution? Section 6 6.1 (a) of the constitution kinda clears things up for me. Thanks for posting that whoever did. Threedhunter, very well put.

[The Hermit]

If you go back and read my posts you will see that in fact I understand the point of order and technically why the motion was defeated. Given that it was an "improper" motion it should have been withdrawn rather than be put to a vote. Language is important ... for example, in this post the word "defeated" has implied an unfortunate set of negative implications that may not be founded at the executive level.

Following the motion's "defeat" and during the "bouquets and beefs" session I stood and made a point of asking the new president to consider striking a bowhunting committee, and to give serious thought to the benefits to the BCWF in its efforts to attract new members, to identify potential new hunting opportunities, and to recruit youth.

Hopefully he and the executive will see the merits of this proposition and strike the committee. Once again, the bowhunting communities will be disappointed if he chooses not to do so.

It seems that some of you don't appreciate that together, the bowhunting associations AND the BCWF would potentially hold much more influence with the MOE on potential increased bowhunting opportunities. REMEMBER, we do not advocate taking a single day out of a GOS where populations support one... the increased opportunity would either be additional or in areas where specific species' numbers won't support a general open season.

So bottom line is, if the BCWF does not quickly form a bowhunting committee to look at incorporating into its recommendations a strategy to promote bowhunting as one of the ways the MOE could create new opportunity then the UBBC and affiliated organizations will have to carry on alone.

NOTE: I am certain that the current member clubs will continue to belong to and support the BCFW regardless of this request and decision of the president, and so they should! The BCWF is a vital player in representing the entire outdoors community on key issues that affect us all.

[huntwriter]

I hunt with bows
I hunt with crossbows
I hunt with rifles
I hunt with shotguns
I hunt with muzzleloaders

…because I can and because I am a HUNTER
I support the BCWF because they support HUNTERS.;-)

[The Hermit]

TPK wrote:

The person that brought this reolution forward on behalf their Region is also (I believe) the person that seemingly was questioning the number of votes given to their Region. The thinking was that they should have more votes because of the number of members in their clubs. This does not give fair representation to Regions where there are a fraction of the number of members which is why that agenda will also fail. We can not have a single Region with a majority of votes or they will dominate all decisions. Fair Regional representation period.

It was the Keremeos/Cawston Sportsmens Association that put the bowhunting motion forward as Passed at the BCFW Region 8's Meeting in December 07.

The representative of the Courtney and District Fish and Game Protective Association made a statement during the "boquets and beefs" session that next year they will be bringing a motion to change the constitution for representation by membership. This should be the subject of another thread as it is not germane to this topic. However, between their 2000+ members (many of whom are archers and bowhunters) and Victoria Fish and Game Protective Association's 1400 members, (many of whom are archers and bowhunters) we represent about a 1/4 of the entire BCWF membership. Is it fair that in total we only get 6 votes out of 140??? I think not!

I should also add that the resolution that was passed raising the BCWF dues by $5 over the next two years will cost our clubs in the neighborhood of an extra $20,000... If we don't get representative voting privileges maybe we should just pay the same dues as your club! After-all we are all just hunters! ;-)

[6616]

[quote=NOTE: I am certain that the current member clubs will continue to belong to and support the BCFW regardless of this request and decision of the president, and so they should! The BCWF is a vital player in representing the entire outdoors community on key issues that affect us all.[/quote]

Well said Bill

[Gateholio]

I
Following the motion's "defeat" and during the "bouquets and beefs" session I stood and made a point of asking the new president to consider striking a bowhunting committee, and to give serious thought to the benefits to the BCWF in its efforts to attract new members, to identify potential new hunting opportunities, and to recruit youth.

Hopefully he and the executive will see the merits of this proposition and strike the committee. Once again, the bowhunting communities will be disappointed if he chooses not to do so.

It seems that some of you don't appreciate that together, the bowhunting associations AND the BCWF would potentially hold much more influence with the MOE on potential increased bowhunting opportunities. REMEMBER, we do not advocate taking a single day out of a GOS where populations support one... the increased opportunity would either be additional or in areas where specific species' numbers won't support a general open season.

So bottom line is, if the BCWF does not quickly form a bowhunting committee to look at incorporating into its recommendations a strategy to promote bowhunting as one of the ways the MOE could create new opportunity then the UBBC and affiliated organizations will have to carry on alone.

NOTE: I am certain that the current member clubs will continue to belong to and support the BCFW regardless of this request and decision of the president, and so they should! The BCWF is a vital player in representing the entire outdoors community on key issues that affect us all.

As soon as the BCWF quickly forms a rifle, shotgun, muzzleloading , fly fishing, spin casting , trolling and flossing commitee, I will be 100% on board with a bowhunting commitee..:tongue:

[Gateholio]

TPK wrote:



The representative of the Courtney and District Fish and Game Protective Association made a statement during the "boquets and beefs" session that next year they will be bringing a motion to change the constitution for representation by membership. This should be the subject of another thread as it is not germane to this topic. However, between their 2000+ members (many of whom are archers and bowhunters) and Victoria Fish and Game Protective Association's 1400 members, (many of whom are archers and bowhunters) we represent about a 1/4 of the entire BCWF membership. Is it fair that in total we only get 6 votes out of 140??? I think not!

I should also add that the resolution that was passed raising the BCWF dues by $5 over the next two years will cost our clubs in the neighborhood of an extra $20,000... If we don't get representative voting privileges maybe we should just pay the same dues as your club! After-all we are all just hunters! ;-)

Sounds to me that you want to be Ontario and Quebec.......

:-|

[Mr. Dean]

Question:
If a region isn't able to sustain a viable GOS; wouldn't that region be better off left alone?

The way I see it, it could quickly become plagued w/ stick hunters... Old ones, all the new recruits, and guys that'll trade in a rifle just for extended opportunity. What then would the harvest #'s look like? How many areas would be candidate?? How would this impact the time-line of a return GOS??? What about the effect on LEH odds; surely the draws would suffer (less tags)???? Where/what will be wanted when (IF) it does return GOS????? Is this really a good thing for the critters that we're trying to protect?????? Would bow only regions replace LEH???????


TOO much grey matter IMO and no one willing to directly address concerns such as these. All I 'get' is; "trust us, it will be for the better"... Sorry Gentlemen. I've heard that before and it left a spunky flavour (puke, spit, choke).

PLEASE,,, sell me!
I'm waiting for some tid-bit of info that'll take the light, from dim too bright.

... Patiently, I may add.

[GoatGuy]

If you go back and read my posts you will see that in fact I understand the point of order and technically why the motion was defeated. Given that it was an "improper" motion it should have been withdrawn rather than be put to a vote. Language is important ... for example, in this post the word "defeated" has implied an unfortunate set of negative implications that may not be founded at the executive level.

You're probably right.



Following the motion's "defeat" and during the "bouquets and beefs" session I stood and made a point of asking the new president to consider striking a bowhunting committee, and to give serious thought to the benefits to the BCWF in its efforts to attract new members, to identify potential new hunting opportunities, and to recruit youth.

Those benefits need to be a little bit better defined, still. Recruiting youth isn't one of them.



REMEMBER, we do not advocate taking a single day out of a GOS where populations support one... the increased opportunity would either be additional or in areas where specific species' numbers won't support a general open season.


I don't think this will go over well with the hunter population, bowhunters included. By taking an area over you will have to limit the LEH authorizations to everyone else (entire hunter population) which will put more vertical pressure on the remaining draws. The result will be higher odds for everyone - the entire population. I don't think you'll find many people will support that and I believe a net loss of hunter opportunity will ensue.

I've heard this locally as well: "there wouldn't be a conservation concern if we had a GOS on moose." Probably not, but what would the harvest be? I know between my buddies we'd easily harvest 3 or 4 bulls every year. Across the region 30 or 40 bulls as a somewhat random number?

Somehow you'll have to justify to the entire hunter population why half of the AAH is being harvested by bow only, the avid hunters who have the time, money and energy to be able to participate in bowhunting and why the remainder of the population has to fight for what's left over. The result will be a doubling of the odds increasing the regional average from 20:1 to 40:1. Actually, the odds will likely be higher due to uncertainty from variable harvest.

I suppose essentially what you're saying is that some bowhunters believe they should have part of the resident allocation - I don't think that will go over very well. There is also nothing in the harvest policy and procedures for that and that will not be acknowledged by MoE, resident hunters or guide-outfitters.

This will put hunter recruitment and retention in the toilet in a place and time where we're trying to move in the other direction. Giving opportunity to the avid is in part what has gotten us to where we are today.

I believe there are several opportunities that should be pursued which currently aren't but taking animals away from the entire hunter population isn't the way to do it.

LEH is a standalone entity across the hunter population, doling out opportunity to the avid while taking opportunity away from the rest of the population isn't going to help R&R. Most jurisdictions lottery opportunity which acknowledge bow only are allocated on the same draw with the same odds as everyone else with only different dates, if you're so inclined, depending on the weapon of choice.

I would be thoroughly disappointed if this is what is being pursued and sold as a recruitment and retention tool.

[Onesock]

Bow only opportunity's are open to ALL British Columbian's. If most jurisdictions have LEH's for bow only on different dates than the rifle hunter's, where are BC's LEH's for bow's. Whereever there is an LEH for guns there should also be an opportunity for a bow only LEH. This is called hunter retention. You are retaining bow hunters who may otherwise quit because of no opportunity's to hunt with a bow.

[calvin L]

As a bow hunter for 14 years and a HUNTER for as long as I can remember I can cleary see that it is time for me to go golfing .


calvin L

[fowl language]

gatehouse, im glad you ammended your origin motion to include shotguns.otherwise i was going to have to make an ammendment to the resolution, im getting a headache......fowl

[6616]

Bow only opportunity's are open to ALL British Columbian's. If most jurisdictions have LEH's for bow only on different dates than the rifle hunter's, where are BC's LEH's for bow's. Whereever there is an LEH for guns there should also be an opportunity for a bow only LEH. This is called hunter retention. You are retaining bow hunters who may otherwise quit because of no opportunity's to hunt with a bow.


Bow only opportunities are open to all British Columbians, but most likely only the "avid" will participate, those being the experienced bowhunters who are probably the most avid of all hunters. Is this strategy good for hunter recruitment? As Jesse points out providing opportunities for the avid got us where we are today.

Retention is not really an huge issue in this case, the most avid hunters are not going to quit until they stick us in our final resting place. As BC hunters age, retention becomes much less of an issue than recruitment.

Moreover, is there really a need for a bow only LEH? In many cases where LEH is justified and already in place, hunter crowding should not be an issue due to the restricted participation rate, and there should be ample opportunity to hunt with a bow unmolested by rifle hunters. Many hunters in the East Kootenay hunt mountain goats with bows during the general LEH season and feel there is little or no need for a bow-only season because they never have to contend with large numbers of competitive rifle hunters anyway. Participation is so limited so there's really no competition at all between hunters.

[6616]

Bow only opportunity's are open to ALL British Columbian's. This is called hunter retention.

The Mount Assiniboine sheep hunt, the West Kootenay bull elk hunt, the Roosevelt elk hunts, the Phillips Creek and Ashnola sheep hunts, the bison hunts, etc, are open to all British Columbians but it's real stretch to call these hunts recruitment/retention tools.

[Mr. Dean]

Bow only opportunity's are open to ALL British Columbian's. If most jurisdictions have LEH's for bow only on different dates than the rifle hunter's, where are BC's LEH's for bow's. Whereever there is an LEH for guns there should also be an opportunity for a bow only LEH. This is called hunter retention. You are retaining bow hunters who may otherwise quit because of no opportunity's to hunt with a bow.

I not understanding this rationale.

LEH is open to all that hunt.
Why is it so important that it be changed to accomodate a bow only entry? The # of hunters trotting around would be limited, so success rates should still be favourable/less interferance with riflemen.

This causes hunters to pack it in????


Mystified.

[Mr. Dean]

The Mount Assiniboine sheep hunt, the West Kootenay bull elk hunt, the Roosevelt elk hunts, the Phillips Creek and Ashnola sheep hunts, the bison hunts, etc, are open to all British Columbians but it's real stretch to call these hunts recruitment/retention tools.

This is a problem inheirent of LEH. It effects ALL hunters... To create a 'new' system that'll restrict even more from participating (Bow Only Tags), is backwards.

[6616]

:
The representative of the Courtney and District Fish and Game Protective Association made a statement during the "boquets and beefs" session that next year they will be bringing a motion to change the constitution for representation by membership. This should be the subject of another thread as it is not germane to this topic. However, between their 2000+ members (many of whom are archers and bowhunters) and Victoria Fish and Game Protective Association's 1400 members, (many of whom are archers and bowhunters) we represent about a 1/4 of the entire BCWF membership. Is it fair that in total we only get 6 votes out of 140??? I think not.
;-)

So just a thought Bill, having six votes out of 140 how do you propose to get this resolution passed at convention?

In the first place, 2 clubs with 3400 members is far less than 1/4 of BCWF membership, but it's definitly true that the 5 or 6 of the largest clubs do make up a significant percentage of the membership.

If these 5 or 6 clubs had representation by membership and thus controlled the entire BCWF, what would that do to encourage the continued participation of the many small clubs?

Do you think a BCWF made up of 5 or 6 clubs would be as effective? Take a look at the executive, the committee chairs, and the work horses within the Fed, how many come from small clubs? Would the 5 or 6 biggest clubs be able to provide the resourses and manpower to run the BCWF up to the current standard?

I would support these large clubs getting an extra delegate, maybe even two, but direct representation by membership might be a fatal mistake.

Don't get me wrong Bill, those of us from the smaller clubs appreciate and will always value and recognize the significant and critical contribution made by a handful of large clubs (Victoria, Courtenay, Nanaimo, Coquitlam, Spruce City, etc).

[6616]

This is a problem inheirent of LEH. It effects ALL hunters... To create a 'new' system that'll restrict even more from participating (Bow Only Tags), is backwards.


Right on Dean.

[BCrams]

Bow only opportunity's are open to ALL British Columbian's. If most jurisdictions have LEH's for bow only on different dates than the rifle hunter's, where are BC's LEH's for bow's. Whereever there is an LEH for guns there should also be an opportunity for a bow only LEH. This is called hunter retention. You are retaining bow hunters who may otherwise quit because of no opportunity's to hunt with a bow.

I have mentioned this before regarding bow hunting in British Columbia.

I still fail to grasp what all the hype is you bowhunting clubs are making??

Bowhunters have the the longest possible season out of all hunters. Just because the season is a rifle season, doesn't mean you quit bowhunting?

[Gateholio]

IBowhunters have the the longest possible season out of all hunters. Just because the season is a rifle season, doesn't mean you quit bowhunting?

Apparently it is impossible to kill an animal wiht a bow, unless it is in a BOW ONLY season. It must be true, I read it on the intraweb:cool:

[aggiehunter]

It seemed odd at first that Goatguy left out the fact that the BCWF has a firearm committee when he listed all the committees. Now I no this was just an error and I personally wrote Paul Adams a letter asking why they had a firearm committe and not a bow committee. His exact words were "that they felt firearms and bows were equal" and that the "firearms committee was formed to help fight gun laws". In other words the firearms committee within the BCWF was formed to protect the interests and rights of the gun guys. So all Bow hunters want is fair and equitable treatment, and representation. Pretty simple stuff so untie your shorts.

[Onesock]

Mr Dean- How do you know bow LEH will restrict more hunters. Two or three bow LEH's would probably have more applications than a couple extra rifle LEH's. Everyone seems very afeared to try something new. Check out the LEH for bows on the Island and see what your odds are!

[GoatGuy]

It seemed odd at first that Goatguy left out the fact that the BCWF has a firearm committee when he listed all the committees. Now I no this was just an error and I personally wrote Paul Adams a letter asking why they had a firearm committe and not a bow committee. His exact words were "that they felt firearms and bows were equal" and that the "firearms committee was formed to help fight gun laws". In other words the firearms committee within the BCWF was formed to protect the interests and rights of the gun guys. So all Bow hunters want is fair and equitable treatment, and representation. Pretty simple stuff so untie your shorts.

It's there to fight Bill C-68. Gary Mauser used to head it up. It has nothing to do with hunting seasons.

[Gateholio]

It seemed odd at first that Goatguy left out the fact that the BCWF has a firearm committee when he listed all the committees. Now I no this was just an error and I personally wrote Paul Adams a letter asking why they had a firearm committe and not a bow committee. His exact words were "that they felt firearms and bows were equal" and that the "firearms committee was formed to help fight gun laws". In other words the firearms committee within the BCWF was formed to protect the interests and rights of the gun guys. So all Bow hunters want is fair and equitable treatment, and representation. Pretty simple stuff so untie your shorts.

There is no "Gun hunting" commitee.

I believe the "firearms committee" is (or was) about firearms, and firearms laws, not hunting.

A paralell would be a "Bow and Arrow Commitee" to help fight against laws that inhibit the ownership of bows. Do you think this is neccesary?

[aggiehunter]

Remember the good ol' days of the Rod and GUN club, alive and well... Wordsmithing at best. If someone is telling you that you cant' use a xbow in a bow season, if your broadhead is too small or poundage is to weak for a grouse, expanding broadheads suck or you need your hunter numbers on your arrows thats when we need the BCWF to be behind us and without us being bent over.

[Gateholio]

[quote=aggiehunter;274645]Remember the good ol' days of the Rod and GUN club, alive and well... Wordsmithing at best.

It's only "wordsmithing" if you choose to be delibrately obtuse.

The firearms commitee was formed to deal with gun control, not hunting tool control.




If someone is telling you that you cant' use a xbow in a bow season, if your broadhead is too small or poundage is to weak for a grouse, expanding broadheads suck or you need your hunter numbers on your arrows thats when we need the BCWF to be behind us and without us being bent over

This is a HUNTING issue. Not a "Bow Control" issue...

[GoatGuy]

If someone is telling you that you cant' use a xbow in a bow season, if your broadhead is too small or poundage is to weak for a grouse, expanding broadheads suck or you need your hunter numbers on your arrows thats when we need the BCWF to be behind us and without us being bent over.

You took the words right out of my mouth. That seems to be what some folks are pushing for - none of it is coming from the BCWF.

Garbage about mandatory hunter education, xbows shouldn't be allowed in bow only seasons, quad hunters interfering with hunts, roadhunters interferring with hunts and the latest and greatest banning expandable broadheads. :roll: I can tell you that this is not stuff BCWF is pursuing nor to my knowledge supporting even in the slightest.

Now a bow only allocation.

All great ideas if you're trying to put more holes into a sinking ship.

I'm tired of this mentality.

[GoatGuy]

Bow only opportunity's are open to ALL British Columbian's. If most jurisdictions have LEH's for bow only on different dates than the rifle hunter's, where are BC's LEH's for bow's. Whereever there is an LEH for guns there should also be an opportunity for a bow only LEH. This is called hunter retention. You are retaining bow hunters who may otherwise quit because of no opportunity's to hunt with a bow.

Other jurisdictions have LEH's that are full of hunters and only last 2 or 3 weekends for rifle generally and split with weekdays for bow. They don't have 3+ month long LEH's that very few people hunt in Regions that are almost as big as some states. They have crowding issues - we don't.



Exactly what measurable struggles do bowhunters face when they hunt in a general open season that rifle hunters don't face?

[aggiehunter]

Guess you just can't read my post can ya', to bad cause it points to exactly why we need the BCWF and a bowhunting committee. Some of those directives are actually coming from people in the Ministry, gee, let me think, just like gun control. WOW I'm amazed.

[Gateholio]

Guess you just can't read my post can ya', to bad cause it points to exactly why we need the BCWF and a bowhunting committee. Some of those directives are actually coming from people in the Ministry, gee, let me think, just like gun control. WOW I'm amazed.


I can read your post. It is your comparison of the firearms commitee to a bow hunting commitee that makes no sense.

You want to justify a bowhunting commitee by pointing out that there is a firearms commitee- But they are apples and oranges.

[Bowzone_Mikey]

Ok I admit ... this thread is running in circles ... but correct me if i am wrong ...are there not allready bow only advocations ...say around urban areas ...The prince rupert thing comes to mind readily ..... Bow only LEHs out in the boonies is assinine ...... what should be passed if someone has an Leh they should be able to fill it in bow season if they are a bowhunter. not having to wait untill reg season comes around .Ie if I have a mature bull tag I can harvest it during bow season instead of waiting untill GOS

[aggiehunter]

Bowzone, The new BCWF bowhunting committee "should" be able to help you with your ideas.

[GoatGuy]

Guess you just can't read my post can ya', to bad cause it points to exactly why we need the BCWF and a bowhunting committee. Some of those directives are actually coming from people in the Ministry, gee, let me think, just like gun control. WOW I'm amazed.

Some of those ideas are not coming from the ministry they're coming from bowhunters.

[aggiehunter]

I agree Goatguy, not unlike resolutions or ideas posed by gun hunters, that's why we need a bowhunting committee.

[Bowzone_Mikey]

Bowzone, The new BCWF bowhunting committee "should" be able to help you with your ideas.

well ... Isnt that why the UBBC was formed ... to Advocate Bowhunters interests???? and streamline the process as opposed to going through a Blanket organization

Please dont get me wrong I am not taking anything away from the BCWF ... But an org such as it would be spread so damn thin if it were take on all these "special" commitees and projects that seriously it would be detrimental to the BCWF and all its interested parties involved.

if you dont Believe me .. i have seen it first hand when i was involved with a crown land recreation advocatcy group. We put together sub commitees dealing with 4x4 issues, Quad issues, single track Motorized bike issues, human powered bike issues (Ie:Mountain bikes) Equestrian issues (horse back riders) etc.... and it literally tore itself apart ... we were all interested in using the crown land backcountry ... we are all recreationists .... I am seeing some erie similarities of the proposal above....

That is why I will fight tooth and nail to stop sub commitees being formed in an Org that by its charter is supposed to be on the side of all hunters/fisherman. and will fully endorse the idea of a separate org like the UBBC to work hand in hand with the BCWF on some issues.

Do you know why the province of Alberta has 2 months of bow only season before the general season in the majority of the province?

Because the Alberta Bowhunters Assoc. worked their asses off to lobby for those liberal seasons.

As an avid bowhunter I would like to see more than 9 days of a Bow season

[Stone Sheep Steve]

So what are the hunter's numbers like in Alberta?? Rising? Declining? Holding steady??

SSS

[6616]

Some of those ideas are not coming from the ministry they're coming from bowhunters.

Here's an example:
- restrict ATV use to 1 hour after daylight.
- disallow mechanical broadheads.
- introduce weight restrictions for hunting arrows.

The above proposals to the Kootenay Wildlife Harvest Advisory Committee jointly submitted by: "UBBC, BCAA, and TBBC".

Ain't life a b_t_h!

Want a copy of the documentation,,,, PM me!

[J_T]

Here's an example:
- restrict ATV use to 1 hour after daylight.
- disallow mechanical broadheads.
- introduce weight restrictions for hunting arrows.

The above proposals to the Kootenay Wildlife Harvest Advisory Committee jointly submitted by: "UBBC, BCAA, and TBBC".

Ain't life a b_t_h!

Want a copy of the documentation,,,, PM me!I'm away for three weeks and I come home to this circus. Andy, those recommendations have been submitted to the Government biologist. No one else. That you have a copy suggests a first order of business tomorrow. I'd prefer you don't send those out. They would be taken completely out of context and lead to discussions that just aren't warranted. I take responsibility for coordinating that document and if anyone wants to discuss I am open to conversation on the topic.

As you have a copy, you might take note of the many very good recommendations that might have an opportunity for discussion.

Bowhunters accept the responsibility to address wounding. All hunters wound. At least we are not afraid to put difficult issues on the table for discussion. And that is what those are. Discussion items.

As I'm sure you are well aware, not one of those items is a Regional decision item. It would have to be presented at the Provincial level.

As I read through this myriad of posts and filter out the nonsense, it seems to me the bowhunting community is attempting to find a way to be heard and find a way to work with the BCWF. Most common sense posts on here are by hunters who remain BCWF members.

If there is a level of dissention in the ranks, does it not warrant a need for some understanding and discussion?

[6616]

That you have a copy suggests a first order of business tomorrow.

You sent them out Jim..! If I remember correctly you CCed the entire committee when you submitted them.

[J_T]

Thanks Andy.

I sent out two versions. The first, (March 17th) to Garth and 3 members of the bowhunting community (local, UBBC, BCAA). The second, (March 27th) I sent to Dave and Garth and my alternate.

[greybark]

:sad: Regards to Bowhunting attitudes in the BCWF , they have not changed in the past Thirty years . Then the Chilliwack F&G Club was asked to submit resolutions to the annual BCWF convention . I a new and eager bowhunter asked the club to sumit and back a bowhunting resolution I had drawn up . Two things happened . Firstly I had to wait until the supressed laughter and strange looks died down . Then a member (a so called friend) stood up and stated that " I was no different then them" and warrented no special season .
;-) Several years later during the "Firearms Control Debate" these same members pointedly asked me to attend their PR meeting with "Guest speakers et all " . They had my support even though I had not touched a firearm in thirty years .
:lol: Then later at another of their "firearm " rallys I had a disscussion with several of them in attence and found the same anti-bowhunting attitude prevailed even though I was supporting them . I THEN TOLD THEM IF THEIR FIREARMS WOULD AS THEY FEARED BE TAKEN AWAY THEN THIS FINE CLUB WOULD BE A GREAT ARCHERY CLUB . After all these years I remained a BCWF member as I felt it was better to critise from with-in then on the side lines .Now I remain a member only for the archery range and the youngsters involved in archery .
:-( Right now it would take very little to cancel my club and BCWF membership of over close to 50 years . Like J_T stated this has been one long circus and I am reluctant to even post about any more .

PS , The so called friend that spoke against the bow hunting resolution is now a enthusiastic Bowhunter .

[aggiehunter]

So Goatguy the FIREARMS committee was set up to fight Bill C68 so Grandma could keep her .25 acp.? She's one hell of a hunter. Keep tryin!

[aggiehunter]

Further to that 666 who gives a rats patootie where those ideas came from, good or bad we need the BCWF to look at them and decide if they have merit or not. After all they (we) ARE the voice of hunters in BC.

[willyqbc]

I continue to have an increasingly difficult time understanding those who oppose any bow only opportunities and i think the BCWF is really missing the boat on this issue. The BCWF is "supposed" to be representing all hunters correct?? If so, why would they take a "no special seasons" stance??? What is a "special season" if it is not another opportunity for hunters of this province to get out and hunt. Now i know there are many among you out there in cyberspace saying "well sure its its a new opportunity but it's excluding me because I'm not a bowhunter".........well last i looked there was no requirements other than the ability to pull 40#'s that is keeping you from picking up a bow and taking advantage of these extended seasons which are open to EVERY hunter in the province. The bow seasons only exclude you because you CHOOSE not to buy a bow and do the work neccesary to get proficient with it. I agree the BCWF represents us all on the large scale issues, .....BUT, when it comes to looking at regional issues concerning LEH, Bag limits, seasons etc, they are really missing out because they do not actively persue an opportunity unless it can be had as a GUN opportunity....why not??... i thought they were here to represent ALL hunters???

Bow only seasons DO NOT exclude any hunters of this province....by CHOOSING not to hunt with a bow you exclude yourself from these seasons. A lot of you folks seem to expect that every new opportunity must cater to your weapon of choice yet you get pissed off if another group dares to ask that a new opportunity cater to their weapon of choice...pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

Just my opinion
Chris

P.S. on the topic of archery LEH, it could actually be beneficial to both rifle and bowhunter to transfer some of the LEH from the general pool to an archery only pool. I have spoken to Gov't reps about this so I will show you how it can be a win/win for everyone

lets say we started with an allocation of 100 bull moose tags for region X-13 and 1000 hunters putting in for them

...given a 30% success rate the ministry will authorize 300 LEH tags

Odds for the rifle hunter drawing a tag 33%

Now lets say we set aside 5 animals as archery only, given the success rates the ministry will now allocate 35 archery tags to go along with the remaining 285 general tags

so lets say that 70 people put in for the archery tags leaving 930
putting in for the general tags

archery tag odds of drawing 50%
general tags odds of drawing 31%

total people hunting bull moose on General only LEH - 300

total people hunting bull moose on mixed general/archery tags
system-320

total cost to increase hunter opportunity by 20 people is that the odds on general tags will be lowered by 2%

[Mr. Dean]

Mr Dean- How do you know bow LEH will restrict more hunters. Two or three bow LEH's would probably have more applications than a couple extra rifle LEH's. Everyone seems very afeared to try something new. Check out the LEH for bows on the Island and see what your odds are!

The tag's would have to come from somewhere. I highly doubt that new(additional) ones would be generated or that outfitters would donate them.

Now:
10 Tags - Open to all hunters.

Futuristic 3 special draws:
10 tags - Except 3 are now devoted for bow only.
That leaves 7 tags for the rest of the hunters.... You think a 30% cut in 'general' allocation will encourage entries?


FWIW, I don't know... I'm just a regular Joe-Blow Shmuck that has concerns and puts them out there. A person that doesn't accept "Trust me", as an acceptable response, and is 'mystified' that these clubs feel wronged, mistreated, unfairly represented, when a organization that represents hunters, DOES offer fair and unprejudiced representation for ALL it's members (IMO).

In no way am I trying to be arrogant. I'm just trying to get grasp of a cloudy picture. When I hear someone wanting special access to a publicly held resource, I hears alarm bells - Especially when they cry FOUL!,,, when it wasn't granted.

Tis all. :smile:
I is hear in search of knowledge...


Greybark;
If ever came the day that pointy sticks became suspect of becoming outlawed, I would offer all and everything possible to defeat it. I do understand your sentiments. I remember riflemen not wanting to show support when handgun laws got chopped because it didn't concern 'them'...However, these are two very different arenas. One that of hunting, and the other being gear restrictions.

[Gateholio]

So Goatguy the FIREARMS committee was set up to fight Bill C68 so Grandma could keep her .25 acp.? She's one hell of a hunter. Keep tryin!


Why shouldn't grandma keep her 25 ACP? Illogical "gun control" laws effect us all.

[Fisher-Dude]

Here's an example:
- restrict ATV use to 1 hour after daylight.
- disallow mechanical broadheads.
- introduce weight restrictions for hunting arrows.

The above proposals to the Kootenay Wildlife Harvest Advisory Committee jointly submitted by: "UBBC, BCAA, and TBBC".

Ain't life a b_t_h!

Want a copy of the documentation,,,, PM me!

We should restrict bow hunting to one hour after daylight so that I can ride my quad during that first hour without fear of getting a heavyweight mechanical broadhead stuck thru my tire. Sounds stupid? Yep, just like any proposal to further restrict any hunter in any way.

Why do some groups feel that restrictions that will kill off hunter numbers for a short term personal gain is a good thing? It's as foolish as it gets, IMO. :-?

[Mr. Dean]

Bow only seasons DO NOT exclude any hunters of this province....by CHOOSING not to hunt with a bow you exclude yourself from these seasons. A lot of you folks seem to expect that every new opportunity must cater to your weapon of choice yet you get pissed off if another group dares to ask that a new opportunity cater to their weapon of choice...pretty hypocritical if you ask me.


This leaves the impression that GOS just isn't good enough for people who openly CHOOSE an alternate method of hunting.

I hunt with a moderate powered rifle with iron sights; should I expect special seasons and draws also... Of course not, because it's MY choice to go afield equiped so.

Remember, it's the bow clubs advocating change on long held regulation/policy. Labeling them as the one's not wanting to 'convert'. doesn't look very good. This won't gain many friendships IMO.


P.S. on the topic of archery LEH, it could actually be beneficial to both rifle and bowhunter to transfer some of the LEH from the general pool to an archery only pool. I have spoken to Gov't reps about this so I will show you how it can be a win/win for everyone

lets say we started with an allocation of 100 bull moose tags for region X-13 and 1000 hunters putting in for them

...given a 30% success rate the ministry will authorize 300 LEH tags

Odds for the rifle hunter drawing a tag 33%

Now lets say we set aside 5 animals as archery only, given the success rates the ministry will now allocate 35 archery tags to go along with the remaining 285 general tags

so lets say that 70 people put in for the archery tags leaving 930
putting in for the general tags

archery tag odds of drawing 50%
general tags odds of drawing 31%

total people hunting bull moose on General only LEH - 300

total people hunting bull moose on mixed general/archery tags
system-320

total cost to increase hunter opportunity by 20 people is that the odds on general tags will be lowered by 2%


Check your #'s you start out w/ 100 tags that somehow increases to 320

[The Hermit]

I continue to have an increasingly difficult time understanding those who oppose any bow only opportunities and i think the BCWF is really missing the boat on this issue. The BCWF is "supposed" to be representing all hunters correct?? If so, why would they take a "no special seasons" stance??? What is a "special season" if it is not another opportunity for hunters of this province to get out and hunt. Now i know there are many among you out there in cyberspace saying "well sure its its a new opportunity but it's excluding me because I'm not a bowhunter".........well last i looked there was no requirements other than the ability to pull 40#'s that is keeping you from picking up a bow and taking advantage of these extended seasons which are open to EVERY hunter in the province. The bow seasons only exclude you because you CHOOSE not to buy a bow and do the work neccesary to get proficient with it. I agree the BCWF represents us all on the large scale issues, .....BUT, when it comes to looking at regional issues concerning LEH, Bag limits, seasons etc, they are really missing out because they do not actively persue an opportunity unless it can be had as a GUN opportunity....why not??... i thought they were here to represent ALL hunters???

Bow only seasons DO NOT exclude any hunters of this province....by CHOOSING not to hunt with a bow you exclude yourself from these seasons. A lot of you folks seem to expect that every new opportunity must cater to your weapon of choice yet you get pissed off if another group dares to ask that a new opportunity cater to their weapon of choice...pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

Just my opinion
Chris

P.S. on the topic of archery LEH, it could actually be beneficial to both rifle and bowhunter to transfer some of the LEH from the general pool to an archery only pool. I have spoken to Gov't reps about this so I will show you how it can be a win/win for everyone

lets say we started with an allocation of 100 bull moose tags for region X-13 and 1000 hunters putting in for them

...given a 30% success rate the ministry will authorize 300 LEH tags

Odds for the rifle hunter drawing a tag 33%

Now lets say we set aside 5 animals as archery only, given the success rates the ministry will now allocate 35 archery tags to go along with the remaining 285 general tags

so lets say that 70 people put in for the archery tags leaving 930
putting in for the general tags

archery tag odds of drawing 50%
general tags odds of drawing 31%

total people hunting bull moose on General only LEH - 300

total people hunting bull moose on mixed general/archery tags
system-320

total cost to increase hunter opportunity by 20 people is that the odds on general tags will be lowered by 2%

Word:!: Thanks

[willyqbc]

Sorry Mr. Dean, typo...it should have read that we start with 100 bulls allocated, not 100 tags. If you're not aware, the ministry authorizes the number of tags on success rates, right now for moose that is 3 tags authorized for every 1 bull allocated and for an archery LEH my local bio led me to believe it would be more in the area of 7 tags for every one bull allocated...that is how we get to 320

Sorry for the confusion!:grin:
Chris

[Gateholio]

]
I continue to have an increasingly difficult time understanding those who oppose any bow only opportunities and i think the BCWF is really missing the boat on this issue. The BCWF is "supposed" to be representing all hunters correct?? If so, why would they take a "no special seasons" stance???


I'm not a BCWF rep, but no one is opposing bow only seasons-the issue is BOWS over anything else....and I htink the reason the BCWF doesn't take "special season" stances is that EVERYONE would want thier day in the sun-like I said- shotgunners, fly fishers etc



B
ow only seasons DO NOT exclude any hunters of this province....by CHOOSING not to hunt with a bow you exclude yourself from these seasons. A lot of you folks seem to expect that every new opportunity must cater to your weapon of choice yet you get pissed off if another group dares to ask that a new opportunity cater to their weapon of choice...pretty hypocritical if you ask me.


I don't see any gun hunters demanding that a season be laid aside for them- because of weapon of choice, or in other words "special treament" I DO see bowhunterrs demanding a season be put out for them.


Just my opinion
Chris

[6616]

The BCWF is "supposed" to be representing all hunters correct?? If so, why would they take a "no special seasons" stance???

I just don't see why this keeps popping up, it's completelly wrong. How many times have we said that the BCWF does "not" have a "no special seasons" stance. The BCWF policy does not support removing hunting opportunities from one group to give to another, that's all...!

We support any new hunting opportunity for any type of weapon as long as it's additive and does not represent a loss of opportunities for other hunters. We support and utilize all the current archery seasons and never have opposed them.

I realize the youth hunts between Sept 1st and 9th are a sensitive issue, but the BCWF priority at this time is for recruitment (youth). Many in the BCWF support the TBBC youth proposal, it's the government that is holding that back, not the BCWF. I'm sure we would welcome youth tags and all the opportunities that would allow us to open up.

[The Hermit]

I don't think anyone is saying that the BCFW is opposed to bowhunting per se but the past has shown that the BCWF has not been "for" bowhunting in as much as they haven't been willing to strike a committee to research, review, and consider arguments that bowhunting represents opportunities to provide more days in the field for any hunter willing to pick up a bow, facilitate hunter recruitment, and potentially increase their own membership. All of the above without endangering wildlife populations and without taking anything away from gun hunters. As a result these options are not represented at PHRAAC... UBBC does not have a seat at that table and must therefore lobby separately. Seems like a no brainer to me!

If the president strikes a committee and the committee comes back with recommendations that the BCWF are not willing to support then they can decline to act. By simply claiming they represent all hunters without input from informed participants they presume to know everything about bowhunting and the value we can bring to the organization. THAT stance is arrogant and disrespectful, and some would say acts as a defacto pro-gun hunter clique.

I had the same beef with MOE last year whilst coming up with the new allocation policy and plans. They failed to canvas the broader hunting community by only taking input from the BCWF. They failed to realize that the FED's membership is a grossly overestimated number which only represents about a 1/4 of all the hunters. How many members of the Member F&G clubs are fishers and restricted firearms owners only??? My guess is a at least half... so the membership number of hunters is somewhere around 15,000 individuals out of the 85,000 hunters in the province! In my discussions with the Ministry folks they readily accepted that they should have reached out to the broader hunting community and we talked about strategies to enable that to happen in the future.

[The Hermit]

Here is another perspective on how well the BCWF did or did not represent ALL hunters in the province. http://rhabc.org/news.php?NewsID=5

[J_T]

I don't think anyone is saying that the BCFW is opposed to bowhunting per se but the past has shown that the BCWF has not been "for" bowhunting in as much as they haven't been willing to strike a committee to research, review, and consider arguments that bowhunting represents opportunities to provide more days in the field for any hunter willing to pick up a bow, facilitate hunter recruitment, and potentially increase their own membership. All of the above without endangering wildlife populations and without taking anything away from gun hunters. As a result these options are not represented at PHRAAC... UBBC does not have a seat at that table and must therefore lobby separately. Seems like a no brainer to me!

If the president strikes a committee and the committee comes back with recommendations that the BCWF are not willing to support then they can decline to act. By simply claiming they represent all hunters without input from informed participants they presume to know everything about bowhunting and the value we can bring to the organization. THAT stance is arrogant and disrespectful, and some would say acts as a defacto pro-gun hunter clique.
Nicely said.

Your comment about a lack of understanding/respect at PHRAAC is primarily the issue. The bowhunting community is becoming more accepted and more ingrained in regional decision making. Interesting that that representation largely (not exclusively) occurs outside of the BCWF. However, we (collective we) have been challenged to suggest how a BCWF "Bowhunting committee" might work. The UBBC accept that the BCWF does a great job, by and large at PHRAAC on behalf of hunters on most issues.

By working collaboratively with the UBBC, TBBC, BCAA and many other archery organizations it would be my expectation that the Bowhunting committee of the BCWF would be able to provide a higher level of understanding, knowledge and commitment to presenting Provincial issues, important to bowhunting at PHRAAC.

At present, a bowhunting organization (IE UBBC) may raise regional issues to the regional table, but there is little respect to have those issues raised with a sufficient level of intelligence at PHRAAC.



Quote:
Originally Posted by 6616 http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=274725#post274725)
Here's an example:
- restrict ATV use to 1 hour after daylight.
- disallow mechanical broadheads.
- introduce weight restrictions for hunting arrows.

The above proposals to the Kootenay Wildlife Harvest Advisory Committee jointly submitted by: "UBBC, BCAA, and TBBC".

Ain't life a b_t_h!

Want a copy of the documentation,,,, PM me!

We should restrict bow hunting to one hour after daylight so that I can ride my quad during that first hour without fear of getting a heavyweight mechanical broadhead stuck thru my tire. Sounds stupid? Yep, just like any proposal to further restrict any hunter in any way.

Why do some groups feel that restrictions that will kill off hunter numbers for a short term personal gain is a good thing? It's as foolish as it gets, IMO. :???:
FD, you do like to stir. Which is exactly why the simple comment was taken out of context. To expand on that. It is most likely that ATV access (largely not a hunting issue) will be addressed through access management planning. Not hunting. However, bowhunters in a bow only season are working to enhance that experience. The ATV restriction proposal is for Zone X only and only during the first 9 days of September.

Contrary to how the BCWF are operating, I have consulted with all of the members that I represent at that meeting and whether I agree with their proposal or not, when that proposal makes it out of a meeting with a high level of agreement, then I will present that proposal and make good on the debate.

Willqbc. As always, well thought out and well said.

Mr Dean. I might not be reading your response clearly. Please correct me if I'm in error. However, I believe you make an assumption that bow harvests through days afield are equal to the number of harvests by rifle in the same period of time.

What Willqbc is saying, (please correct me if I'm off point Willy) due to the lower success rate with a bow (the more days afield required to harvest) we can put more LEH tags out there, increase hunter participation, circulate disposable/discretionary/recreational dollars for the economy etc, becase we can issue more LEH permits.

[6616]

Here is another perspective on how well the BCWF did or did not represent ALL hunters in the province. http://rhabc.org/news.php?NewsID=5

That prospective is opinion only, anyone who studies the old vrs the new allocation policies will see it's a win-win for resident hunters.

[6616]

By working collaboratively with the UBBC, TBBC, BCAA and many other archery organizations it would be my expectation that the Bowhunting committee of the BCWF would be able to provide a higher level of understanding, knowledge and commitment to presenting Provincial issues, important to bowhunting at PHRAAC.

My expectation too. There are pros and cons as pointed out for the committee and this is the pro.

[6616]

Contrary to how the BCWF are operating, I have consulted with all of the members that I represent at that meeting and whether I agree with their proposal or not, when that proposal makes it out of a meeting with a high level of agreement, then I will present that proposal and make good on the debate.

How are you so sure that is so contrary to how the BCWF works? Are you involved? Are you taking for granted that the BCWF does not consult with it's members, or what are you really insinuating here?

Our proposals are initiated at the club level, then all clubs have a chance to vet and discuss the entire proposal list at the club level. Then finally, the proposal list is finalized at region by a majority club vote, and we have always been open to direct members coming to regional meetings and providing their input if they wish.

This is very cumbersome process with 9 clubs and 2100 members, everyone is not always happy, give us a break, we're only human too. Be advised that I am also aware of at least two archery clubs in the EK that do not support the three proposals I previously listed, were they consulted, was their input considered ???? At least one of them claims they were not consulted until after the proposal list was submitted. At least one of them asked the BCWF to oppose these three proposals (even though they're not a BCWF club) because they felt their input was not being heard or considered by the the UBBC. It's not a perfect world. you can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time!

[6616]

That you have a copy suggests a first order of business tomorrow.

Due to weather conditions up here this AM I will not be in attendence at the meeting today. I can tell you I rec'd this proposal list three times from three differerent sources.

[J_T]

Sorry you won't be at the meeting Andy, your influence will be missed as you are a logical thinker and open minded.


How are you so sure that is so contrary to how the BCWF works? Are you involved? Are you taking for granted that the BCWF does not consult with it's members, or what are you really insinuating here?

Our proposals are initiated at the club level, then all clubs have a chance to vet and discuss the entire proposal list at the club level. Then finally, the proposal list is finalized at region by a majority club vote, and we have always been open to direct members coming to regional meetings and providing their input if they wish.

This is very cumbersome process with 9 clubs and 2100 members, everyone is not always happy, give us a break, we're only human too. Be advised that I am also aware of at least two archery clubs in the EK that do not support the three proposals I previously listed, were they consulted, was their input considered ???? At least one of them claims they were not consulted until after the proposal list was submitted. At least one of them asked the BCWF to oppose these three proposals (even though they're not a BCWF club) because they felt their input was not being heard or considered by the the UBBC. It's not a perfect world. you can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time!
My comment with respect to "contrary" is an assumption on my part. Yes. It is based completely with respect to comments on this thread. That if there are members who feel stongly, one way, and they are carefully expressing them, should those views and opinions not be considered? I appreciate the magnitude of the consultation task.

The two archery clubs you mention, I believe have signed off on that proposal. It is not always possible to wait for the timing of the collective whole in order to proceed. My first submission to Garth, was a draft. I wanted his comments/feedback and I needed to kickstart the internal consultation process with the archery community. Which is exactly what it did. My second submission is an acceptable version to the Regional Bowhunting groups that chose to participate and the provincial groups who may have members that wish to hunt in Region 4.

I completely agree, that it is a very difficult process to lead, or be involved and not enough appreciation is given to those who give so much. It is important to move forward and that means making decisions. I respect that not all decisions will go my/our way. I/we just want to ensure we have the opportunity for input.

Andy, I would like to personally thank you for the work you do. It goes far beyond the hunting community and you contribute greatly to my way of life. Thank you.

(so much easier in person)

[willyqbc]

the issue is BOWS over anything else

no Gate, the issue is the opposition to "bow only" when nothing else is going to be allowed. The bigger issue here is TRUST. The gun hunters simply do not trust the bowhunters when they say they are not trying to take anything away but rather are looking for new opportunities. The perception seems to be that us evil bowhunters will get our foot in the door then start trying to take away what is yours.....thats simply not the case.


I don't see any gun hunters demanding that a season be laid aside for them- because of weapon of choice, or in other words "special treament" I DO see bowhunterrs demanding a season be put out for them.


The UBBC has not targeted a single existing "gun" opportunity, trying to take it over. We have tried to defend the quality of the existing bow seasons by opposing the youth rifle hunt in favour of a youth bow hunt followed by a youth rifle hunt, and we have tried to find new opportunities where none currently exist. For example, my current top priority is to get the december bow season here opened up to either sex for mule deer....would the ministry even consider doing this under a "general" season...not a chance, they will NEVER open a "winter range" hunt to rifles for bucks here let alone for either sex, yet it is very possible that due to the lower success rates and the low impact of the bow only season they very well might open it to a bow only opportunity like they have done in most of the rest of the province.
...........so are we demanding that a season be set aside for "US"?? or are we trying to open a new opportunity that is an option for EVERY hunter in the province if they choose to use the weapon required??


How many times have we said that the BCWF does "not" have a "no special seasons" stance.

Well I would suggest that if that is the case the BCWF should spread that message to all its regional representatives. I am friends with and currently working well together with the regional BCWF president here and have been told by him that they cannot support any "special" seasons other than for youth/seniors/new hunters etc. So what am I supposed to assume from that statement?? To me it seems pretty clear that the BCWF will support a "special" season as long as it is a GUN opportunity. We have both agreed that on the bigger issue such as the allocation policy etc we will work togehter for the good of all, but that when it comes down to regional issues such as seasons etc we will just have to agree to disagree. So as you see from my perspective it is fairly clear that the BCWF does indeed have a "no special seasons" stance when when it comes to bowhunting.

Just my opinion
Chris

[Gateholio]

no Gate, the issue is the opposition to "bow only" when nothing else is going to be allowed. The bigger issue here is TRUST. The gun hunters simply do not trust the bowhunters when they say they are not trying to take anything away but rather are looking for new opportunities. The perception seems to be that us evil bowhunters will get our foot in the door then start trying to take away what is yours.....thats simply not the case.

I've never seen that or heard that...I've never heard "them darn bowhunters, once they get a bow season they will want it all!!"





For example, my
current top priority is to get the december bow season here opened up to either sex for mule deer....would the ministry even consider doing this under a "general" season...not a chance, they will NEVER open a "winter range" hunt to rifles for bucks here let alone for either sex, yet it is very possible that due to the lower success rates and the low impact of the bow only season they very well might open it to a bow only opportunity like they have done in most of the rest of the province.
...........so are we demanding that a season be set aside for "US"?? or are we trying to open a new opportunity that is an option for EVERY hunter in the province if they choose to use the weapon required??

yes, and yes. it's both. Nothing wrong with it, but it is both.

[willyqbc]

I've never seen that or heard that...I've never heard "them darn bowhunters, once they get a bow season they will want it all!!"


While it may not be voiced as such you have to admit Gate...there seems to be a fear of letting the bowhunters get their "foot in the door", and the emotions obviously run pretty high in regards to this issue. If people aren't afraid that this might effect them, then why all the high emotion?? If people truly believed that the bowhunting advocates will do nothing but help to open new opportunities that CANNOT exist in a general season....why is everyone so worked up over the issue???

Chris

[Mr. Dean]

Nicely said.

Mr Dean. I might not be reading your response clearly. Please correct me if I'm in error. However, I believe you make an assumption that bow harvests through days afield are equal to the number of harvests by rifle in the same period of time.



No. But increasing bow hunters in any type of bow only season, will lead to higher harvests. This will have a negitive outcome for the riflemen. The way things are NOW, hunters have choice as to the method/type of hunt they wish to pursue.

My point is that NO matter how you slice up the pie, there will be a lesser amount of allocations for the 'gun' season. The overwhelming # of hunters are rifle shooters and the appeal of leh is doom and gloom. I believe it to be an error of judgement if we altered the LEH or GOS for bow seasons. I think we could very well lose more than what we could gain (hunters).

I can see the 'spirit' of Onesocks post on moose tags. It is good. But to 'force' a rifleman to adopt a bow, in order to maintain (or even gain) his odds, should be SERIOUSLY considered.

IF hunter recruitment and retention is the honest intent, creating a division amoungst members will surely lead to a disaterous outcome, be it GOS or LEH. IMO time and efforts would be better served, looking elsewhere for solutions to the problem (R&R).

[BCrams]

Can one of you radical bowhunters lay out on here the proposed changes or bow only hunts you want to see??

Lets hear them and rationalize how / why it is good implement these changes.

What more can be really done??? Considering the longest possible hunting season where you can hunt with a bow exists already.

[Mr. Dean]

[quote]While it may not be voiced as such you have to admit Gate...there seems to be a fear of letting the bowhunters get their "foot in the door",

Not at all (speaking for myself).




and the emotions obviously run pretty high in regards to this issue. If people aren't afraid that this might effect them, then why all the high emotion?? If people truly believed that the bowhunting advocates will do nothing but help to open new opportunities that CANNOT exist in a general season....why is everyone so worked up over the issue???

Chris


... It demonstrates unity when pursuing common goals IF members stand shoulder to shoulder. IMO we should be advocating the COMMON expansion of GOS, not specialized GOS w/ the tude of ; "You want it, then change your style and learn to hunt with a bow".

It's reminicent of having a religious sect knocking on the door and wanting a moment of your time...

[huntwriter]

I have read all the arguments here pro and contra. I agree with Mr. Dean, there is plenty room in this province to accommodate all hunters without slicing and dicing up the GOS and LEH even more to suit bowhunters. As a bowhunter I have yet to get into a situation were I feel limited in my options because of rifle hunters. As I said before there is plenty room to spread out and go out of each others way. It's a fact that the vast majority of hunters in this province are rifle hunters. With that said it only makes sense that the majority gets a little more than the minority. Personally I don’t think that longer bow seasons or exclusive bow seasons that would “force” rifle hunters to change over to bowhunting would be beneficial to the hunter recruitment and hunter retention.

As for the BCWF, they are not favoring one over the other. The federation is here for ALL hunters regardless of what equipment they use. Personally I find that a good policy, rather than fragmenting, speaking on behalf of bowhunters and then on behalf of rifle hunters, because it keeps the focus on hunting and not on different interest groups when addressing issues in the government.

I feel that the BCWF represents me and my interest equally well as a bowhunter and rifle hunter. Because they represent hunters period. Isn’t that at the end of the day what it is all about?

[Mr. Dean]

I have read all the arguments here pro and contra. I agree with Mr. Dean, there is plenty room in this province to accommodate all hunters without slicing and dicing up the GOS and LEH even more to suit bowhunters. As a bowhunter I have yet to get into a situation were I feel limited in my options because of rifle hunters. As I said before there is plenty room to spread out and go out of each others way. It's a fact that the vast majority of hunters in this province are rifle hunters. With that said it only makes sense that the majority gets a little more than the minority. Personally I don’t think that longer bow seasons or exclusive bow seasons that would “force” rifle hunters to change over to bowhunting would be beneficial to the hunter recruitment and hunter retention.

As for the BCWF, they are not favoring one over the other. The federation is here for ALL hunters regardless of what equipment they use. Personally I find that a good policy, rather than fragmenting, speaking on behalf of bowhunters and then on behalf of rifle hunters, because it keeps the focus on hunting and not on different interest groups when addressing issues in the government.

I feel that the BCWF represents me and my interest equally well as a bowhunter and rifle hunter. Because they represent hunters period. Isn’t that at the end of the day what it is all about?

As things are of now, nobody is getting anything less. GOS is open to all that wish to participate. There isn't a bias... Well maybe some, when it comes to the bow only hunts that are in place now.


huntwriter's reflections are what I hear from the BH's I know....

[aggiehunter]

There is no bias towards bowhunters as anyone can shoot a bow. The only bias comes from misunderstanding. That's why we need a BCWF bowhunting committee with good (not radical) bowhunters to provide information to the uninformed about the choice of weapon.

[huntwriter]

That's why we need a BCWF bowhunting committee with good (not radical) bowhunters to provide information to the uninformed about the choice of weapon.

did you just say radical bowhunters?:lol: Do you think they exist.:D Surely not here!!!:D

[Gateholio]

While it may not be voiced as such you have to admit Gate...there seems to be a fear of letting the bowhunters get their "foot in the door", and the emotions obviously run pretty high in regards to this issue. If people aren't afraid that this might effect them, then why all the high emotion?? If people truly believed that the bowhunting advocates will do nothing but help to open new opportunities that CANNOT exist in a general season....why is everyone so worked up over the issue???

Chris

Rather than a fear of getting thier foot in the door, I think it is more questioning why one discipline needs a specific commitee, while others do not have that.

[aggiehunter]

Theres a firearm committee to protect the interests and rights of the gun owners, who just happen to hunt with guns. All we asking is for the same treatment. I would invite huntwriter to attend a regulations meeting which is predominately run by the BCWF. Sit in and attempt to get even a simple, non-confrontational, barely consumptive, biologically sound bowseason for some critter. If your moving to Merritt I believe Kamloops could be a good place to start. See if you have the same attitude after trying to implement a new season.

[Gateholio]

Theres a firearm committee to protect the interests and rights of the gun owners, who just happen to hunt with guns. All we asking is for the same treatment. .

Apples and oranges.....there is no "firearms hunting" commitee...

[6616]

Theres a firearm committee to protect the interests and rights of the gun owners, who just happen to hunt with guns. All we asking is for the same treatment.

You'll get it too if bow and arrow (knives, spears, etc) ownership ever come under attack like gun ownership and shooting ranges constantly are threatened by Federal legislation. We'll deal with it if and when the need arises.

There are no hunting or fishing committees of any kind that are weapons, tackle, or species specific. There is a Wildlife committee that deals with hunting of all types, and inland and salt water fisheries committees to deal with MOE and FOC respectively for management of all freshwater and saltwater species.

No sheep committee, no steelhead committee, no elk committee, no Tyee committee, no flyfishers committee, no muzzle loader committee, etc. We had a sheep committee once, we also had a steelhead committee once, we found them divisive and rolled them into the wildlife and fisheries committees, things have worked much smoother since.

Again I repeat, BCWF policy is in support of any season (special or otherwise) that is additive and does not remove opportunities from other disciplines. That policy protects existing bow seasons as well as rifle seasons.

[BCrams]

Can one of you bowhunter members or president / vice pres or those in the know lay out on here the proposed changes or bow only hunts you want to see??

Lets hear them and rationalize how / why it is good implement these changes.

What more can be really done??? Considering the longest possible hunting season where you can hunt with a bow exists already.

I am still awaiting an answer.

[willyqbc]

IMO we should be advocating the COMMON expansion of GOS, not specialized GOS w/ the tude of ; "You want it, then change your style and learn to hunt with a bow".


OK...in a perfect world it would be possible that every new hunting opportunity was available for the COMMON expansion of the GOS, but that is not viable for a number of reasons, partly due to the conservation aspect, but mainly because the ministry simply will not allow it to happen.

As an example lets look at a hypothetical situation......lets pretend for a moment that the current december archery season for mule deer bucks in region 5 does not exist. Along comes the UBBC rep at an allocation meeting and proposes a bow only season for muleys in december......"WHOA NOW"!!!! says the BCWF rep...."if theres enough deer for there to be a bow season, then there's enough to open it up to GOS. Heres where the regional BIO chimes in and says..."NO WAY....mule deer on winter range are much too vulnerable to sustain a GOS in this time period. In addition to overharvest the deer need to some time without the pressure of a GOS to build some reserves for the winter....the low impact/low harvest of a bow only season is a sustainable alternative"

so we have an example where there is the possibility of a new hunting opportunity....BUT.... the ministry is NEVER......EVER going to allow a GOS in that time period, citing conservation concerns as the justification. So.... we KNOW that there is no possible chance of expanding the GOS there. They are however open to a bow only season (we know this because it has common precedent throughout the province) so, we are faced with two options

1. we go with a bow only late season
2. we have no new opportuntiy for anyone in this time period

which option makes more sense to a group that is trying to expand hunting opportunities for the resident hunter???? Seems like a no brainer to me.



Can one of you radical bowhunters lay out on here the proposed changes or bow only hunts you want to see??


BCRAMS i have been in on the region 5 allocation meeting for the last two years representing the UBBC. The two resolutions I have put forward were

1. Change the December archery season for mule deer from "bucks" to "either sex".
We know this region is above carrying capacity and has too high a buck to doe ratio currently. Will this season change fix the buck/doe ratio...nope, but it will open a new opportunity with very little impact on the deer herd.

2. Add an archery only bull moose season to mirror the current season in region 6.
Region 6 is able to maintain a moose opportunity that includes LEH, GOS, and Bow only seasons with no apperant problems. We believe that the moose population in region 5 easily rivals region 6 and can easily support this archery opportunity with no reduction of the current LEH harvest.

proposal 1 was tabled due to the moratorium on new archery opportunities while the Govy fleshed out its new bowhunting policy.

proposal 2 was quickly dismissed by the ministry who stated that "due to concerns over levels of harvest by the natives there would be NO new moose opportunity considered at this time" (their words not mine)

So there you go, those were the two main items I have pushed for over the past couple years here in region 5.

Chris

[The Hermit]

Although UBBC does not have a seat at PHRAAC our contacts in the MOE are generally far more open to looking at options than you might think. It seems odd to me that we actually feel more support from the Gov. than we do from our fellow hunters.

BCrams - Good point. I think it would be a good idea to post them up for discussion as they are developed by the proposed new BCWF bowhunting committee. In that forum we put everything on the table and work together toward a common and shared set of acceptable recommendations.

As it is with religious argument, I suspect that no amount of data or logical argument will serve to calm the concerns of those HBC'ers who are stuck in fear based positions. This is not the forum I would choose to work out the details...

It strikes me that the main sticking point here seems to be philosophical.
Before any accord can be reached both those wanting change and those wanting to keep things the same need to back away from the rhetoric, get on the same side of the table and look at all the options and come up with solutions that both sides can support.

As it is now the BCWF and some of those on this thread would prefer to be hard on each other rather than hard on the problems and look for a balanced and equitable position that would benefit everyone, including the Government.

I hesitate to post up the recommendations until I feel there is a reasonable chance that they will be received and considered in the framework they were designed and offered. When people here take snippets of information out of context the genuine intent can be easily skewed to make even Mahatma Ghandi look like a radical terrorist! LOL So yes there are trust issues on both sides of the fence.

[aggiehunter]

6616, Expanding and protecting our (yours) bow opportunities comes under protection of our present and future rights, plain and simple. Futher to that as I have explained before and will do AGAIN some types of equipment are under attack and I don't give a shit by who, it's the BCWF who will protect us from this thank you very much.

[huntwriter]

Theres a firearm committee to protect the interests and rights of the gun owners, who just happen to hunt with guns. All we asking is for the same treatment. I would invite huntwriter to attend a regulations meeting which is predominately run by the BCWF. Sit in and attempt to get even a simple, non-confrontational, barely consumptive, biologically sound bowseason for some critter. If your moving to Merritt I believe Kamloops could be a good place to start. See if you have the same attitude after trying to implement a new season.

I have sat in many government committees, albeit not about hunting, at best such a process is slow going and at worst it is frustrating. One thing I have learned is, while the squeaky wheel gets the grease, attitudes seldom work in favor.

Getting things changed is often a long time commitment, keeping at it tackling the issue from different angles. Lobbying the right people and get them on our boat is very important when dealing with governments.

Once we have moved and the dust settles a bit I definitely will get more involved in the hunting community. The past two to three years have been so busy with professional and family issues that I barely had time to think let alone to get deeply involved in anything to do with hunting.

[aggiehunter]

Huntwriter, It is virtually impossible to tell someones attitude from these posts. The written word cannot speak for what a person is really trying to express unless it is in person. I too have had the same frustrations in presenting a simple bow hunting resolution which had 1)no biological impact 2)took nothing away from the GOS or Gun Hunters 3) made complete sense. These new and exciting seasons were often defeated by BCWF members who 1) had little or no knowledge of what bowhunting or bowhunters needed 2) felt it an infringement on their seasons which they felt should be catered to for rifles 3) were jaded by jealousies which were unfounded and undemonstrable. THIS IS WHY WE NEED A BOWHUNTING COMMITTEE WITHIN OUR BCWF.

[huntwriter]

Aggiehunter when I wrote “…attitudes seldom work in favor.” I did not imply that anyone here displays an attitude. If you got that impression I am sorry and apologize.

I have no knowledge of the topic currently discussed in the BCWF about a bowhunting committee it is for me therefore difficult to make any recommendations, if that is what you’re looking for or given any meaningful input on the discussion. All I am saying is that for me personally I feel that I am represented well by the BCWF.

I am willing to get involved and would appreciate if sometime in the future a few of us could sit together an figure out in a meaningful discusion how to saddle and ride that horse to the finishline.

[GoatGuy]

While all this discussion has been informative I think in the long run the hunting population is going to be bound by provincial policy.

The special weapons policy and procedures has been completed and it will dictate when, where and why there should be bow seasons.

Without a doubt the policy will state that bow only seasons will not take opportunity away from hunters. I believe however one "sees" their side, this 'concept' is acceptable.

While it's nice to discuss why the BCWF should have a bow committee, at the end of the day hands will be tied in policy and the policy will dictate opportunity. If bowhunting opportunities are threatened, especially bow only areas, you will find the BCWF the first one to step up to the plate for hunters.

In my opinion the best way to create additional opportunity will be to create it in rural or the rural/urban interface. There are thousands of farms across the province that due to safety issues cannot allow anything other than a bow only season. I believe this presents an immense opportunity and have been working on such opportunities and will continue to for hunters. These are ungulate populations that are currently un-hunted and will generate exponential opportunity to hunters of the entire province. This is standard practice is most other jurisdictions and is the reason why bowhunting opportunities exist in many areas. This will also mediate the apparent 'disturbance' caused by rifles.

After the policy I believe, if bowhunters currently outside the BCWF chose to work within the BCWF on hunter opportunity it will be within the wildlife committee as members who fight for hunter opportunity. That is currently what goes on - the BCWF works for hunter opportunity. If that opportunity needs to be bow only, shotgun only or what have you, it will be supported and pursued.

This policy should put to the finger pointing to bed on bow only seasons and will hopefully also help put people on the same page and demonstrate that we need to worry about hunter opportunity. Whether or not that happens and is realized, time will tell.

[aggiehunter]

Goatguy, IF the policy states that if bow seasons take opportunity away from hunters then the policy is FLAWED. Bowhunters are hunters and this statement in itself is an INSULT. You write many words but only a few like this stand out.

[GoatGuy]

Goatguy, IF the policy states that if bow seasons take opportunity away from hunters then the policy is FLAWED. Bowhunters are hunters and this statement in itself is an INSULT. You write many words but only a few like this stand out.

Sorry, insert rifle hunters in there if you find that more palatable.;)

[Mr. Dean]

Hermit;
If dealing with concerns from people that oppose or don't understand what you're selling, frustrates you.... Don't expect very many sales. 'Losing it' the way you did and using ones words of concerns in an insulting fashion, doesn't advance anything - This isn't a statement of insult, but rather of awareness.


WillyQ;
That hypo of yours IS interesting. What is the proccess in place NOW (BCWF), that could make this printed in the pages of the hypo reg's?

[The Hermit]

Hermit;
If dealing with concerns from people that oppose or don't understand what you're selling, frustrates you.... Don't expect very many sales. 'Losing it' the way you did and using ones words of concerns in an insulting fashion, doesn't advance anything - This isn't a statement of insult, but rather of awareness.


WillyQ;
That hypo of yours IS interesting. What is the proccess in place NOW (BCWF), that could make this printed in the pages of the hypo reg's?

Huh? I'm not frustrated, well not about this thread anyway, and I certainly haven't lost it? Not sure what you mean by "words of concerns in an insulting fashion..." ?

[J_T]

The special weapons policy and procedures has been completed and it will dictate when, where and why there should be bow seasons.

Without a doubt the policy will state that bow only seasons will not take opportunity away from hunters. I believe however one "sees" their side, this 'concept' is acceptable.

While it's nice to discuss why the BCWF should have a bow committee, at the end of the day hands will be tied in policy and the policy will dictate opportunity. If bowhunting opportunities are threatened, especially bow only areas, you will find the BCWF the first one to step up to the plate for hunters.
Jesse would you be able to provide some clarity here for us? Bowhunters initiated a first draft of this document, the BCWF asked for an opportunity to review it and I was under the impression we had just concluded that. At which point the new P&P was to be sent to the Regional biologists for discussion/input and following that it would be again reviewed and finally ratified at PHRAAC. Yet you're suggesting its complete?

Regarding your comment on interface areas. While I agree with micro-management it is not something that regional wildlife (advisory groups) are striving for. They are currently adhering to the Simplification and Harmonization of the Synopsis as the objective. Just my observation.

[willyqbc]

That hypo of yours IS interesting. What is the proccess in place NOW (BCWF), that could make this printed in the pages of the hypo reg's?

Mr Dean, I can only speak to the meetings I have attended here in Region 5, But I would assume it is the same throughout the province. The wildlife advisory committees are just that ADVISORY only. But the ministry IS looking for consensus on issues from all the groups attending, those groups are

1. BCWF - 2 reps
2. Guide/Outfitters - 2 reps
3. UBBC - 1 rep
4. Cattlemans assoc. - 1 rep
5. trappers - 1 rep
6. Resident hunters representative - 1 rep (appointed by ministry)
7. Conservation officers - as many as want to attend
8. the ministry - usually all regional office staff including bio's, regional manager etc.
9. First NAtions - hard to say, there representation is sporadic at best

So lets look at the hypothetical situation again and see what would need to happen to get it into the regs

1. UBBC makes the proposal
2. ministry bio would usually speak to the proposal initially to address if there would be any conservation concerns
3. discussion ensues giving all parties an opportunity to get clarification and then declare if they would support/not support the proposal.
4. If we come to some sort of consensus (which almost never happens ;-)), and the ministry has no issues it will be moved on to Victoria for final approval.

It is important to note that consensus does not gaurauntee a proposal will get through Victoria, nor does not having consensus mean it will not become part of the regs.....as stated earlier it is only an advcisory committee. However, the BCWF reps and the G/O reps opinions do carry some weight, and if the BCWF reps shoot down your proposal it is likely going nowhere. The ministry does (supposedly) take into consideration where the criticism of a proposal is coming from....ie. if the trappers are against our hypothetical proposal the ministry will likely give that very little consideration due to the fact that it would have little to no impact on the trappers interests. Likewise they recognize that the residents and the G/O's will generally be at odds and take that into consideration when forwarding their reccomendations to Victoria.
So lets say by some miracle we get consensus for our hypothetical situation and the regional staff sends it down to Victoria giving it their full support. It still guarauntees nothing because the ministry may still decline for some mysterious unknown reason but often citing FN interests being opposed to it.
So there it is as I have seen it, none of us can actually force Victoria to do anything no matter how much support we have for it, but they will (supposedly) take the level of support into consideration:roll:

Chris

[6616]

6616, Expanding and protecting our (yours) bow opportunities comes under protection of our present and future rights, plain and simple. Futher to that as I have explained before and will do AGAIN some types of equipment are under attack and I don't give a shit by who, it's the BCWF who will protect us from this thank you very much.

I don't disagree with you, I'm just attempting to explain why the fact that the BCWF has a firearms committee is not justification for having a bowhunting committee, the two are different animals altogether.

The BCWF Firearms Committee deals with gun legislation, shooting ranges and competitive shooting,,,,hunting regulations and hunting opportunities of any kind are not within their mandate.

The BCWF Wildlife Committee has the mandate to deal with hunting and hunting opportunity including bowhunting or any other typre of hunting opportunity. I do not oppose a BCWF bowhunting committee as a sub-committee of the wildlife committee to provide advice to the main committee regarding bowhunting issues and proposals.

[GoatGuy]

Jesse would you be able to provide some clarity here for us? Bowhunters initiated a first draft of this document, the BCWF asked for an opportunity to review it and I was under the impression we had just concluded that. At which point the new P&P was to be sent to the Regional biologists for discussion/input and following that it would be again reviewed and finally ratified at PHRAAC. Yet you're suggesting its complete?

It's coming out to regions this week, and before you get all twisted up no, I haven't seen it. :mrgreen: And I'm sure there will be plenty of time to get have your crack at it. The fundamental principle, however, will exist and the policy will give the guidelines for implementation of any potential bow only seasons. It will probably be something similar to what we have. It will likely go along the lines of "youth and special weapon seasons will be encouraged, but not given priority over rifle seasons." The point of my post is to illustrate that it won't be up to the BCWF or the UBBC to implement bow only seasons.

You're going to find it much more beneficial to all hunters working for hunter opportunity.





Regarding your comment on interface areas. While I agree with micro-management it is not something that regional wildlife (advisory groups) are striving for. They are currently adhering to the Simplification and Harmonization of the Synopsis as the objective. Just my observation.


It isn't micro-management, it's opportunity that is passed by every single day as people burn $60 worth of gas to get to their 'secret spot'. And yes, this 'micro-management' is happening in the ag pilot projects in regions 4, 7B and more to come - ag conflicts and seasons will be part of regulations. There are multiple benefits to this. As well, this is exactly what happens in the states, which seem to be quoted so often, usually out of context. These are ideal opportunities that will allow people to hunt with limited time and have been found to be the single most utilized bowhunts in the states. Satisfaction has been found to be high in these hunts. This will eliminate 'youth gun hunters' and other 'gun hunters', 'quads' and whatever else causes some heartache.

'They', 'us' and 'them' don't exist. The regions would have no problems with this at all and have opened things up for this sort of opportunity without batting an eye (4-06, 07 comes to mind) to address ag conflicts. I suppose if you want it done, you do it. Don't look for the MoE or 'advisory' groups to do this for you.

[GoatGuy]

It still guarauntees nothing because the ministry may still decline for some mysterious unknown reason but often citing FN interests being opposed to it.


There's nothing mysterious about that.

If you aren't up on it review the Tsilhqot'in Nation v.British Columbia 2007 BCSC 1700 decision. That'll get you pointed in the right direction

There's no conservation concern with having a GOS on moose in region 5 regardless of weapon.

[J_T]

Jesse, I didn't expect to "get all twisted up". I was looking for information. Collaboration if you will. Yes, I'm passionate. Bowhunters and Government have been working on that bowhunting P&P for sometime and your comment (that it was complete) surprised me. That's all. My expectation was as you have clarified, that it is coming out to Regions in the very near future.



'They', 'us' and 'them' don't exist. The regions would have no problems with this at all and have opened things up for this sort of opportunity without batting an eye (4-06, 07 comes to mind) to address ag conflicts. I suppose if you want it done, you do it. Don't look for the MoE or 'advisory' groups to do this for you.
Your right, there is no "they". I could have said Wildlife Advisory committee, but I used that in the previous sentence and thought therefore that it was implied "they". A fault of the English language.

I agree the "Zone X" management is site specific management and more of it (and opportunity) is possible. However regional wildlife groups are maintaining a focus to harmonize and simplify. I heard it yesterday.

Please don't imply I'm not willing to work for something. Or others aren't willing to work. I know those posting logical thought on this thread, yourself, 6616, Hermit, SSSter, Willyqbc are working their tails off (many while they manage life on the family and carreer front). On one front, just to earn respect. They have mine.

[GoatGuy]

I agree the "Zone X" management is site specific management and more of it (and opportunity) is possible. However regional wildlife groups are maintaining a focus to harmonize and simplify. I heard it yesterday.

So were we - then we were told that we're managing two MUs and one road closure for 'special reasons'. I'm happy today!!!!!!!:eek:

The MoE's very supportive of opening addressing ag conflicts and I really think this is a golden opportunity to help put more people afield with extremely liberal seasons without additional conflict, real or perceived. These are unhunted populations that given the habitat we could probably hunt 12 months a year if we wanted to.



Please don't imply I'm not willing to work for something. Or others aren't willing to work. I know those posting logical thought on this thread, yourself, 6616, Hermit, SSSter, Willyqbc are working their tails off (many while they manage life on the family and carreer front). On one front, just to earn respect. They have mine.

:lol:.....
rodger - I was actually referring to myself.

[Mr. Dean]

Huh? I'm not frustrated, well not about this thread anyway, and I certainly haven't lost it? Not sure what you mean by "words of concerns in an insulting fashion..." ?

1000 pardons and a "I'm sorry" then........ The beer/coffee offer is still on the table.



Mr Dean, I can only speak to the meetings I have attended here in Region 5, But I would assume it is the same throughout the province. The wildlife advisory committees are just that ADVISORY only. But the ministry IS looking for consensus on issues from all the groups attending, those groups are

1. BCWF - 2 reps
2. Guide/Outfitters - 2 reps
3. UBBC - 1 rep
4. Cattlemans assoc. - 1 rep
5. trappers - 1 rep
6. Resident hunters representative - 1 rep (appointed by ministry)
7. Conservation officers - as many as want to attend
8. the ministry - usually all regional office staff including bio's, regional manager etc.
9. First NAtions - hard to say, there representation is sporadic at best

So lets look at the hypothetical situation again and see what would need to happen to get it into the regs

1. UBBC makes the proposal
2. ministry bio would usually speak to the proposal initially to address if there would be any conservation concerns
3. discussion ensues giving all parties an opportunity to get clarification and then declare if they would support/not support the proposal.
4. If we come to some sort of consensus (which almost never happens ;-)), and the ministry has no issues it will be moved on to Victoria for final approval.

It is important to note that consensus does not gaurauntee a proposal will get through Victoria, nor does not having consensus mean it will not become part of the regs.....as stated earlier it is only an advcisory committee. However, the BCWF reps and the G/O reps opinions do carry some weight, and if the BCWF reps shoot down your proposal it is likely going nowhere. The ministry does (supposedly) take into consideration where the criticism of a proposal is coming from....ie. if the trappers are against our hypothetical proposal the ministry will likely give that very little consideration due to the fact that it would have little to no impact on the trappers interests. Likewise they recognize that the residents and the G/O's will generally be at odds and take that into consideration when forwarding their reccomendations to Victoria.
So lets say by some miracle we get consensus for our hypothetical situation and the regional staff sends it down to Victoria giving it their full support. It still guarauntees nothing because the ministry may still decline for some mysterious unknown reason but often citing FN interests being opposed to it.
So there it is as I have seen it, none of us can actually force Victoria to do anything no matter how much support we have for it, but they will (supposedly) take the level of support into consideration:roll:

Chris

So, if ideas and proposals already go before the BCWF, and they don't give it the 'nod'; what then becomes of the proposal? Does the Fed offer support in working out the kinks??

Or does everybody just gets pisssed off and goes home?

[6616]

So, if ideas and proposals already go before the BCWF, and they don't give it the 'nod'; what then becomes of the proposal? Does the Fed offer support in working out the kinks???

At the KWHAC table almost all proposals that are rejected by any party are further discussed as to what compromises could make them workable.

[willyqbc]

Or does everybody just gets pisssed off and goes home?

There definately has been a fair amount of that, particularly between the BCWF and GOABC.

But to answer your question if a proposal is forwarded and discussed and it becomes clear that their will be no consensus whoever runs the meeting generally moves on saying something like "thank you all for your input on this issue, we will take it under advisement":rolleyes:

Chris

[6616]

Jesse would you be able to provide some clarity here for us? Bowhunters initiated a first draft of this document, the BCWF asked for an opportunity to review it and I was under the impression we had just concluded that. At which point the new P&P was to be sent to the Regional biologists for discussion/input and following that it would be again reviewed and finally ratified at PHRAAC.

The BCWF Wildlife Committee reviewed the current standing special weapons policy back in January and provided comments to MOE at that time. We did not review or comment on the bowhunters draft. We will review the final MOE draft after the regions look at it but I expect, before the next PHRAAC meeting.

[J_T]

Quote:
Originally Posted by J_T http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=275356#post275356)
I agree the "Zone X" management is site specific management and more of it (and opportunity) is possible. However regional wildlife groups are maintaining a focus to harmonize and simplify. I heard it yesterday.

So were we - then we were told that we're managing two MUs and one road closure for 'special reasons'. I'm happy today!!!!!!!:eek:

The MoE's very supportive of opening addressing ag conflicts and I really think this is a golden opportunity to help put more people afield with extremely liberal seasons without additional conflict, real or perceived. These are unhunted populations that given the habitat we could probably hunt 12 months a year if we wanted to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by J_T http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=275356#post275356)
Please don't imply I'm not willing to work for something. Or others aren't willing to work. I know those posting logical thought on this thread, yourself, 6616, Hermit, SSSter, Willyqbc are working their tails off (many while they manage life on the family and carreer front). On one front, just to earn respect. They have mine.

:lol:.....
rodger - I was actually referring to myself.
I think we just came back and finally touched on common ground. Onward and forward. The objective of site specific or MU specific solutions is a longer more arduous process. But we can't lose sight of the objective.


The BCWF Wildlife Committee reviewed the current standing special weapons policy back in January and provided comments to MOE at that time. We did not review or comment on the bowhunters draft. We will review the final MOE draft after the regions look at it but I expect, before the next PHRAAC meeting. Yes, my understanding as well.

Just to summarize my thoughts. We are starting to work together, but that cooperation can only move forward through respect. The Management of Zone X in Reg 4 is providing us a lot of insight to the possibilities. Possibilities that may rekindle a broken hunting spirit in many who have lost their way.

I'm optimistic, under the intention of a revisited and potentially revised policy on bowhunting, everyone will "know the rules" and work within them. Collectively and as far as I'm concerned here in Reg 4 we have an opportunity to have a very positive impact. I'd like to feel that my thoughts of region 4 are the same as those felt in every region.

At yesterday's wildlife meeting for Reg 4, there were some very creative discussions had and most sides GOABC, BCWF, UBBC/TBBC, Trappers appeared on the same side in many of the discussions.

[Mr. Dean]

So, if ideas and proposals already go before the BCWF, and they don't give it the 'nod'; what then becomes of the proposal? Does the Fed offer support in working out the kinks??

Or does everybody just gets pisssed off and goes home?
---------------------------------------------------------------



At the [quote]KWHAC table almost all proposals that are rejected by any party are further discussed as to what compromises could make them workable
Thanks, I assumed so.



[quote]There definately has been a fair amount of that, particularly between the BCWF and GOABC

I can just picture it. :shock:




But to answer your question if a proposal is forwarded and discussed and it becomes clear that their will be no consensus whoever runs the meeting generally moves on saying something like "thank you all for your input on this issue, we will take it under advisement":rolleyes:

Chris


I can also understand an organization not wanting to be a part of something, if that something goes against their fundamentals and policy.


Lets go back to your post claiming MOE's reluctance of re-introducing GOS... Wouldn't you feel that it's in the better interest of all hunters that that very problem be turned around, or is it a lost cause IYO and thus the idea of creating bow only zones?

My feeling is that IF this issue (rt. gos) could be resolved, it would better the R&R issues because of its appeal to a broader audience than that of a bow only zone.

[willyqbc]

Lets go back to your post claiming MOE's reluctance of re-introducing GOS... Wouldn't you feel that it's in the better interest of all hunters that that very problem be turned around, or is it a lost cause IYO and thus the idea of creating bow only zones?


Again, I can only speak to what I have been a part of here in region 5. As of right now the reintroduction of General seasons of any kind is out of the question (according to the ministry). As an actual example that came up in a meeting.....deer population here is over carrying capacity.....signifigantly over, buck to doe ratios are lower than they should be. So....a BCWF rep suggests a GOS on mule deer does (1 week if I recall). The ministry folks did not even wait for discussion on the suggestion but rather stated emphatically that would be no consideration of ANY new GOS's in this region for the foreseeable future. Now i don't want to turn this thread in another direction so I will just say that when questioned (by myself) as to why they wouldn't consider any new GOS's the response, his answer had to do with First Nations hunting. So you ask if i think it is a lost cause??? Well, unless something changes in the way the gov't deals with the FN's then yeah right now in region 5 I do see it as something of a lost cause persuing GOS's. That being said I think we still need to keep lobbying for them and please understand as the regional rep for the UBBC, I have fully supported all the GOS proposals (that didn't have a consertvation concern) put forth by the BCWF in this region.


My feeling is that IF this issue (rt. gos) could be resolved, it would better the R&R issues because of its appeal to a broader audience than that of a bow only zone.

I do agree that more GOS would be helpful in the recruitment and retention aspect and I am not trying to stand in the way of more open seasons...as i said above, I have supported many initiatives in that regard. However, when it is clear that the GOS opportunity is not there and will not be there anytime soon, then I don't think that we just give up on new opportunities, we just need to find a way to tap into that opportunity....often a bow only season will get you into an opportunity that would remain closed to a GOS. You can easily see this with all the late winter range bow only deer seasons throughout the province.

as always Just my opinion
Chris

[6616]

when it is clear that the GOS opportunity is not there and will not be there anytime soon, then I don't think that we just give up on new opportunities, we just need to find a way to tap into that opportunity....often a bow only season will get you into an opportunity that would remain closed to a GOS. You can easily see this with all the late winter range bow only deer seasons throughout the province.

as always Just my opinion
Chris

Willie, if the deer ar over carrying capacity, the buck/doe ratio is poor, and a GOS on antlerless deer is out of the question for various social reasons, why not just increase LEH opportunities for antlerless deer. In a case like this it sounds like a lot of does need killing to correct the carrying capacity situation. Do you think a bow-only season can accomplish that objective? What's wrong with a generous LEH season to correct the carrying capacity issue, followed by a lengthy bow-only season just to provide that extra opportunity.

I suppose the same social issues that prevent a GOS might come into play regarding an increase for LEH for antlerless deer, but the alternative if they are over carrying capacity might be a major winter kill, so those deer will be lost anyway, so preventing that deer havest will probably be counter-productive to the deer herd and the habitat in the long-term.

This is a deer management issue really, and quite likely not an issue that a BCWF bowhunting committee could impact. What do you think?

[Onesock]

Willy/6616-Great discussion in the last two posts. This is what we have to do to work together. 6616-very positve thinking, good idea.

[GoatGuy]

Willie, if the deer ar over carrying capacity, the buck/doe ratio is poor, and a GOS on antlerless deer is out of the question for various social reasons, why not just increase LEH opportunities for antlerless deer. In a case like this it sounds like a lot of does need killing to correct the carrying capacity situation. Do you think a bow-only season can accomplish that objective? What's wrong with a generous LEH season to correct the carrying capacity issue, followed by a lengthy bow-only season just to provide that extra opportunity.

I suppose the same social issues that prevent a GOS might come into play regarding an increase for LEH for antlerless deer, but the alternative if they are over carrying capacity might be a major winter kill, so those deer will be lost anyway, so preventing that deer havest will probably be counter-productive to the deer herd and the habitat in the long-term.

This is a deer management issue really, and quite likely not an issue that a BCWF bowhunting committee could impact. What do you think?

Welcome to politics - they want to correct the buck:doe ratio in Region 5 when firstly there isn't a problem with the buck:doe ratio and second they won't shoot any does to bring things back in line.

Now's the time for change.

[6616]

Welcome to politics - they want to correct the buck:doe ratio in Region 5 when firstly there isn't a problem with the buck:doe ratio and second they won't shoot any does to bring things back in line.

Now's the time for change.

You're right of course, the region 5 deer issue has been hashed over extensively already, all the above measures have already been sugggested, and MOE already said "NO". Good deer management is not necessarily always the driving force even if it should be.

[Mr. Dean]

Would the 'vision' of created bow-zones (Archery clubs perspective) be that of a stepping stone, of the eventual return of GOS (any weapon) in that area?

AND;

If MoE is that reluctant and we push the trend of bow only hunting, could this not be another nail in the coffin for rifle shooters - Meaning another way of government restricting/limiting need for firearms thus becoming more fuel for gun control.


I being a shooting enthusiast for more than 3/4's of my life has seen some pretty crafty legislature... Enough that when I hear terms such as paranoid and fears, I can't help but wonder if much thought has been given, too this valid concern.

I'm a young person when it comes to gun control (43) but the division amongst shooters of handguns and rifles IS distinct. Even in this day and age of rifle registry, we still see rifle only shooters willing to ban handguns, if it meant keeping their rifles.

Hence my sketchiness to adopt any path that could yield the "lesser needs" of a firearm.

[Mr. Dean]

You're right of course, the region 5 deer issue has been hashed over extensively already, all the above measures have already been sugggested, and MOE already said "NO". Good deer management is not necessarily always the driving force even if it should be.

I'd love to hear what the 'force' is.... But that would likely steer this thread off track.

[GoatGuy]

Good wildlife management is not necessarily always the driving force even if it should be.


Let's start with that.

[6616]

Hence my sketchiness to adopt any path that could yield the "lesser needs" of a firearm.

I'm in no way suggesting a bow-only zone. We don't need bow-only zones except maybe in urban interface areas, etc. In fact if the deer are over carrying capacity a bow-only zone could be counter-productive as it would be very difficult to shoot enough deer in a bow-only zone to correct the problem.

However, a bow-only antlerless season following the rifle antlerless LEH would add extra opportunity, while the rifle LEH would provide the means to get the population down to within carrying capacity.

Due to the low success ratio and subsequent low harvest rates, there are lots of opportunities for late bow seasons in several areas of BC on several different species, that would create extra opportunity and not create any conservation concerns or loss of hunting opportunities for rifle hunters.

One issue to consider that arose once in the Kootenay's is with bracketting the rifle season with bow only seasons both before and after the general season. Rifle seasons need to be flexible to react to population trends, so the late bow season dates also need to be flexible as well, and there was some bowhunter frustration exhibited in the Kootenay's when adjustments were made to the timing of the late bow season. The problem is that bow seasons don't result in a high enough harvest to control population densities so the major adjustments need to be made to the rifle season and that impacts the late bow seasons.

Are these the types of items a BCWF bowhunting committee would be discussing? (just trying to keep the thread somewhat on topic)

[willyqbc]

Would the 'vision' of created bow-zones (Archery clubs perspective) be that of a stepping stone, of the eventual return of GOS (any weapon) in that area?


As 6616 said the bow only "zones" would be "urban" opportunities with no chance of ever becoming a rifle opportunity due toi obvious safety concerns. But to try and asnwer what i think is the spirit of the question you ask.....
Let me start by saying that even though I am a bowhunting advocate i am a hunter first and a bowhunter second. I have nothing against gun hunting, in fact I use mine every year (GASP!!!) in addition to my bowhunting. So lets use another hypothetical to illustrate how i would approach your "stepping stone" question.
I grew up in the cariboo and spent many years with bull moose available as a GOS with no LEH needed. Under that system I was able to persue moose in my neck of the woods every year. Along comes LEH and now I have had that opportunity (in my area of choice) twice in ten years. So lets say we lobbied for and got a 2 week archery only season for bull moose here that didn't cost us in the LEH allocations....whoopee!!! It is a hunt with low success rates but at least those who choose to could go out and try for moose. Ok, so thats going on for 5 years when suddenly at the allocation meeting it is revealed that the moose population is such that we can reopen a 2 week any bull general season and the ministry wants to put it where the existing archery only season is....would i support such a move???? Absolutely i would and would immediately lobby to reinstate another 2 week archery opportunity at some other point in the season. For me it is all about increasing opportunity by whatever means we can, not hemming myself into the idea that an opportunity must be "for all" or we won't support it. Right now I see the most realistic chance to gain hunting opportunity lying in the low success/low impact hunts...in other words bowhunting! Where the problem seems to pop up is when you have people who see bowhunters getting seemingly "premium" opportunities and they want that opportunity for themselves, but they don't seem to realize that the opportunity would not and cannot exist in a general season format. Can you imagine what would happen if they opened the any elk, any whitetail, any bearded turkey season in the kootenays to include all weapons:shock:.....there is no way it would be possible for obvious conservation reasons, but because it was lobbied for as a bowseason there is now a wonderful hunting opportunity there for any and all who choose to take advantage of it.

The BCWF will lobby hard for the GOS opportunities and the UBBC will lobby for the seasons that cannot be considered for GOS.....I see no conflict here and no reason the two organizations cannot compliment each other rather than be tripping over each other.

Just my opinion
Chris

P.S. oh, for the record I do not support the idea of replacing a group like the UBBC by incorperating a "bowhunting committee" within the BCWF.....it would be much simpler for the two groups to just respect each other and work collaboratively but remain seperate entities.

[GoatGuy]

So lets say we lobbied for and got a 2 week archery only season for bull moose here that didn't cost us in the LEH allocations....whoopee!!! It is a hunt with low success rates but at least those who choose to could go out and try for moose.

If only it worked that way - it doesn't.

You're dealing with a finite number of animals and a finite allocation. Opening a bow GOS would bring the LEH allocation down.

[willyqbc]

If only it worked that way - it doesn't.

You're dealing with a finite number of animals and a finite allocation. Opening a bow GOS would bring the LEH allocation down.

And us ever getting our GOS for bull moose back is nothing but a pipe dream, but thats the great thing about hypothetical situations for the sake of discussion...they don't have to be a reflection of reality as it is, but can be reality how you'd like it to be.;-)

But if we want to go strictly with things the way they are.....how little impact on the LEH does it take for an archery season to make sense?? Lets say we have have 1000 moose allocated so therefore approx 3000 tags issued. If the ministry estimates that an archery season will account for 50 moose (a loss of 150 LEH authorizations) but 300 hunters take part..... is it worth it in the big picture?? We have created a situation where anyone who chooses to can participate with only a 5% reduction in LEH authorizations. And if the participation is low the quota will shift back to LEH until a balance for the region is found. This type of scenario WILL put more hunters in the field chasing moose...region 6 is a great example of this. So, i would suggest that those who would close their mind to even discussing possibilities like this one perhaps don't really have whats "good of all hunters" in mind....why wouldn't we look at ideas that will put more hunters in the field???

Just my opinion
Chris

[Smokepole]

I wouldn't point at region 6 as an example of archery seasons getting more moose hunters out in the field. Sure the numbers of hunters who are now ticking off the bowhunting box on their licenses went up. So it looks like the bowhunting fraternity is the fastest growing sector of the hunting community, but mostly these are the same guys who hunt in the GOS with their 338s and 30-06s. All they really want is more time in the field to increase their chances of success. I know, I am one of them. I can't speak for all of them but I'm sure alot of them would give up all the archery only seasons for just one more weekend of GOS, I know I would in a hearbeat.
The main problem with 'archery only seasons' is with the word 'only'. It's a word traditionally used to keep some people out; members only, men only, women only, adults only...,

[Mr. Dean]

[QUOTE]I'm in no way suggesting a bow-only zone. We don't need bow-only zones except maybe in urban interface areas, etc. In fact if the deer are over carrying capacity a bow-only zone could be counter-productive as it would be very difficult to shoot enough deer in a bow-only zone to correct the problem.

Understood and agree.


However, a bow-only antlerless season following the rifle antlerless LEH would add extra opportunity, while the rifle LEH would provide the means to get the population down to within carrying capacity.


Due to the low success ratio and subsequent low harvest rates, there are lots of opportunities for late bow seasons in several areas of BC on several different species, that would create extra opportunity and not create any conservation concerns or loss of hunting opportunities for rifle hunters.

One issue to consider that arose once in the Kootenay's is with bracketting the rifle season with bow only seasons both before and after the general season. Rifle seasons need to be flexible to react to population trends, so the late bow season dates also need to be flexible as well, and there was some bowhunter frustration exhibited in the Kootenay's when adjustments were made to the timing of the late bow season. The problem is that bow seasons don't result in a high enough harvest to control population densities so the major adjustments need to be made to the rifle season and that impacts the late bow seasons.

Not so sure if any of this would be a significant recruitment tool... ALL the guy's that I know that pack a bow, are veteran hunters that seek to extend their season. All are primarily 'gunners' and the bow is just a bonus.

Not that there's anything wrong with that; just offering a perspective




Are these the types of items a BCWF bowhunting committee would be discussing? (just trying to keep the thread somewhat on topic)

[Mr. Dean]

I wouldn't point at region 6 as an example of archery seasons getting more moose hunters out in the field. Sure the numbers of hunters who are now ticking off the bowhunting box on their licenses went up. So it looks like the bowhunting fraternity is the fastest growing sector of the hunting community, but mostly these are the same guys who hunt in the GOS with their 338s and 30-06s. All they really want is more time in the field to increase their chances of success. I know, I am one of them. I can't speak for all of them but I'm sure alot of them would give up all the archery only seasons for just one more weekend of GOS, I know I would in a hearbeat.
The main problem with 'archery only seasons' is with the word 'only'. It's a word traditionally used to keep some people out; members only, men only, women only, adults only...,

Yeah.... like he says.

[Mr. Dean]

As 6616 said the bow only "zones" would be "urban" opportunities with no chance of ever becoming a rifle opportunity due toi obvious safety concerns. But to try and asnwer what i think is the spirit of the question you ask.....
Let me start by saying that even though I am a bowhunting advocate i am a hunter first and a bowhunter second. I have nothing against gun hunting, in fact I use mine every year (GASP!!!) in addition to my bowhunting. So lets use another hypothetical to illustrate how i would approach your "stepping stone" question.
I grew up in the cariboo and spent many years with bull moose available as a GOS with no LEH needed. Under that system I was able to persue moose in my neck of the woods every year. Along comes LEH and now I have had that opportunity (in my area of choice) twice in ten years. So lets say we lobbied for and got a 2 week archery only season for bull moose here that didn't cost us in the LEH allocations....whoopee!!! It is a hunt with low success rates but at least those who choose to could go out and try for moose. Ok, so thats going on for 5 years when suddenly at the allocation meeting it is revealed that the moose population is such that we can reopen a 2 week any bull general season and the ministry wants to put it where the existing archery only season is....would i support such a move???? Absolutely i would and would immediately lobby to reinstate another 2 week archery opportunity at some other point in the season. For me it is all about increasing opportunity by whatever means we can, not hemming myself into the idea that an opportunity must be "for all" or we won't support it. Right now I see the most realistic chance to gain hunting opportunity lying in the low success/low impact hunts...in other words bowhunting! Where the problem seems to pop up is when you have people who see bowhunters getting seemingly "premium" opportunities and they want that opportunity for themselves, but they don't seem to realize that the opportunity would not and cannot exist in a general season format. Can you imagine what would happen if they opened the any elk, any whitetail, any bearded turkey season in the kootenays to include all weapons:shock:.....there is no way it would be possible for obvious conservation reasons, but because it was lobbied for as a bowseason there is now a wonderful hunting opportunity there for any and all who choose to take advantage of it.

The BCWF will lobby hard for the GOS opportunities and the UBBC will lobby for the seasons that cannot be considered for GOS.....I see no conflict here and no reason the two organizations cannot compliment each other rather than be tripping over each other.

Just my opinion
Chris

P.S. oh, for the record I do not support the idea of replacing a group like the UBBC by incorperating a "bowhunting committee" within the BCWF.....it would be much simpler for the two groups to just respect each other and work collaboratively but remain seperate entities.


Extremely well said!


One more point from moi.

I could have been drawing a line of extended bow seasons in leh only areas, happening. References were made ealier...
The AP has working mandates that'll "remove barriers" if hunters aren't successful in meeting their target harvests. Barriers that include leh itself - Muddling up such an area with an extended bow season, IMO is not a step in the right direction. I would perceive this as an additional barrier.

I agree also that if proponents would show their "meat and patatoes", this would be a HELL of a lot easier...

[Fisher-Dude]

If GOS were reinstated in areas that were put on LEH years ago, as there is no longer any conservation concern, it is certain that the ranks of "bow hunters" checking that little box on their licences would drop dramatically. That's because such a high number of said box-checkers do so only because their traditional GOS seasons have been shortened and restricted with antler regs and LEH. It's to the point where they have taken up a bow to get in on the extended bow only seasons because there isn't sufficient opportunity given with the existing seasons. When our game managers finally pop their heads from their collective butts and reinstate GOS opportunities, we'll see a glut of bows for sale. IMO.

[The Hermit]

If GOS were reinstated in areas that were put on LEH years ago, as there is no longer any conservation concern, it is certain that the ranks of "bow hunters" checking that little box on their licences would drop dramatically. That's because such a high number of said box-checkers do so only because their traditional GOS seasons have been shortened and restricted with antler regs and LEH. It's to the point where they have taken up a bow to get in on the extended bow only seasons because there isn't sufficient opportunity given with the existing seasons. When our game managers finally pop their heads from their collective butts and reinstate GOS opportunities, we'll see a glut of bows for sale. IMO.

Don't be so sure... its infectious! I've been hunting for about forty years with a rifle and have always thought highly of the guys that were successful with a bow because it seemed obvious that they were highly skilled and dedicated. I can respect that. For me, and I suspect at least some other newer recruits are getting into bowhunting for the added challenge not just the extended season. Its the old saw... a rifle hunter sees a deer at a 100 yards and the "hunt" is over, where the bowhunter sees the same deer at 100 yards and the "hunt" has just begun.

There is also a certain esthetic associated with traditional gear that kind of takes me a step closer to ancient times, a connection with the past. Call me a romantic but when I was a kid tagging along with my dad in the bush toting that first bow, I often felt a sense of awe that "I might be the first person that ever stepped on this spot". When I kill an animal I get a definite spiritual connection, a connection with man's place in nature. For me being immersed in an activity that has gone on forever and that certain sense of intimate connection is definitely enhanced when I'm bow hunting. I'm hooked!

Don't get me wrong I still LOVE my guns, just bought a Marlin Stainless Guide Gun in 45.70 and loading up some rounds for a bear I know... I still rifle hunt but more and more I am out there with the stick and string! Like John Lennon said in the song Imagine... "and I'm not the only one, I hope some day you'll join me, and the world will be as one". ;):D

[Mr. Dean]

I hear ya Hermie!.
I get that same feeling tromping through the forest also while hunting. I have big respect for bow hunters and in a way, I mirror their path when hunting with iron sights. Although I'll admit, 200yrds, my hunt has only begun... At 100, it's pretty much over. Whereas if I had my high power w/ glass; 500 gits me excited and 350 is game time.

I strive to make kills with the animal not knowing my presence and having fear as its last memory. The bow thing still looks daunting for where I'm 'at' with my hunting abilities. I can see one coming though, somewhere down the road.

[6616]

[quote=6616;275694]
Not so sure if any of this would be a significant recruitment tool... ALL the guy's that I know that pack a bow, are veteran hunters that seek to extend their season. All are primarily 'gunners' and the bow is just a bonus.


I believe also that bowhunting has limited potential as a recruitment tool, it's just too difficult for beginners, but if it has any potential at all we might as well use it, as long as doing so doesn't negativelly impact the more useful recruitment seasons. Bowhunting is probably more useful as a retention tool for experienced veteran hunters.

I believe recruitment is extremelly important, I'm not as concerned about retention, as nothing is going to stop us old nimrods from dying off anyway.

[Onesock]

6616-Actually I know quite a few guys that had almost given up hunting what with all the LEH crap and gun registration. The bow seemed to breathe new life into these fellows and are now passionate hunters once again. We don't want to loose any hunters,if we can help it.

[6616]

6616-Actually I know quite a few guys that had almost given up hunting what with all the LEH crap and gun registration. The bow seemed to breathe new life into these fellows and are now passionate hunters once again. We don't want to loose any hunters,if we can help it.

I agree, it's useful for retention, less so for recruitment, but there's still possibilities.

[loki]

6616-Actually I know quite a few guys that had almost given up hunting what with all the LEH crap and gun registration. The bow seemed to breathe new life into these fellows and are now passionate hunters once again. We don't want to loose any hunters,if we can help it.

I find this funny comming from you as I bet that wouldn't be the same story should we insert the word "crossbow" in there. I'd tend to better believe your concerns about hunter recruitment and retention should you have a better view on all forms of archery tackle.

IMO the BCWF is fine as it is, sub committees would only dilute the resources available to it. Really the best solution if you wanted to have a "bow only" committee would be to merge your current organization resources with that of the BCWF, so in other words donate the entire treasury of the TBBC, and that would only entitle you to a specific amount of representatives (2 for example) so as to not overload the BCWF with archers. This would give the BCWF the resources necessary to lobby for archery seasons, but not too many votes from archery rep's that may attempt to move areas more heavily towards archery. I bet that once you realize that you have to give up your organization and the funds it uses to lobby to get a seperate committee you'll stop the whining.

Seriously folks this debate is going in circles, I can damn near predict the next four pages;

Aggiehunter "but the BCWF has a rifles commity."

Onesock "hunter recruitment and retention, people will quit if you don't give them better bow opportunities."

Everyone else "the BCWF supports all forms of hunting, and seperate organizations lobby for the rights of their group".

Seems like we have cabin fever here folks, ya'll should go bag a bear with your desired tackle.

Don't forget, it's in-fighting and a divided community that hurts hunting in general. We all love hunting, we all choose to hunt with different methods, but it doesn't make any one better or worse than the other. Someone call me back over here if this discussion stops going in circles...

[willyqbc]

Seriously folks this debate is going in circles, I can damn near predict the next four pages;


sometimes folks need to go round and round each other over and over to really start to understand where the other is coming from8)


but mostly these are the same guys who hunt in the GOS with their 338s and 30-06s. All they really want is more time in the field to increase their chances of success.

you say that like its a bad thing.....this is exactly what I have been talking about!!:D Extending opportunity wherever and whenever we can!! Hunt the GOS and if you don't get your bull try again in the archery season!! Sounds good to me!


The main problem with 'archery only seasons' is with the word 'only'. It's a word traditionally used to keep some people out; members only, men only, women only, adults only...,

The difference to me, is your examples have nothing to do with choice, if you're a woman and the sign says men only you cannot very well choose to be a man. However, you can choose to learn to use a bow to take advantage of the seasons available. Are waterfowl seasons exclusionary?? To participate I would have to go out and buy a shotgun and then learn how to be proficient with it..... probably about the same time and money outlay as buying a bow and learning to shoot it. There are GOS's in some areas of the province that require horses/riverboats or fly-ins to get to...are these opportunities exclusionary to anyone who doesn't have horses or a riverboat??? Point is maybe everyone cannot/will not take advangtage of every new opportunity, but at least if the opportunity is out there they will have the choice.

Just my opinion
Chris

[Fisher-Dude]

6616-Actually I know quite a few guys that had almost given up hunting what with all the LEH crap and gun registration. The bow seemed to breathe new life into these fellows and are now passionate hunters once again. We don't want to loose any hunters,if we can help it.


I find this funny comming from you as I bet that wouldn't be the same story should we insert the word "crossbow" in there. I'd tend to better believe your concerns about hunter recruitment and retention should you have a better view on all forms of archery tackle.

I just CAN'T wait for a straight answer to this paradox! ;-)

[The Hermit]

And I'll be happy to read Loki's posts when he/she has anything to contribute rather than being one of those wtih the "but we've always done it this way" attitude. The kind of guys that take pot shots at people that are trying to make a difference are not helpful!

[Mr. Dean]

And I'll be happy to read Loki's posts when he/she has anything to contribute rather than being one of those wtih the "but we've always done it this way" kind of guys that take pot shots at people that are trying to make a difference!

Whew.... Glad we got that cleared up.

[GoatGuy]

Can you imagine what would happen if they opened the any elk, any whitetail, any bearded turkey season in the kootenays to include all weapons:shock:.....there is no way it would be possible for obvious conservation reasons

Everything but the any elk season could easily be a long GOS with any weapon without a conservation concern.;)

[GoatGuy]

But if we want to go strictly with things the way they are.....how little impact on the LEH does it take for an archery season to make sense?? Lets say we have have 1000 moose allocated so therefore approx 3000 tags issued. If the ministry estimates that an archery season will account for 50 moose (a loss of 150 LEH authorizations) but 300 hunters take part..... is it worth it in the big picture?? We have created a situation where anyone who chooses to can participate with only a 5% reduction in LEH authorizations. And if the participation is low the quota will shift back to LEH until a balance for the region is found. This type of scenario WILL put more hunters in the field chasing moose...region 6 is a great example of this. So, i would suggest that those who would close their mind to even discussing possibilities like this one perhaps don't really have whats "good of all hunters" in mind....why wouldn't we look at ideas that will put more hunters in the field??? Just my opinion
Chris

You have overlooked two major considerations, >50 moose will be harvested of that there's no doubt. You'll also find an increase in non-res harvest ~ traditionally in bow seasons non-residents are quite successful and you'll find the animals harvested come out of the AAH and then the resulting split. So net loss will be significantly higher. Also, you need to look at who is going to be participating.

Are these the same people who are going to be applying for those LEH opportunities, you betcha. So for most who participate we've let avid people double up on opportunity. I'm also quite certain even the bowhunting purists also apply for LEH opportunities.

We could have a 350" bull only season 8 months/year and create far more opportunity. There would be thousands of hunters who would participate and several days afield. We haven't restricted anyone from going hunting..... or have we?

The big question is: who are these hunters? Are they the hunters we've alienated through regulations, the hunters we've killed off? Or are they the exact same hunters we've been giving opportunity out for the past 25 years while we neglect the majority of hunters. These are the same hunters who aren't nearly as hard on the resource as the avid.

If everyone was like you and me we wouldn't be able to sustain many hunters. The people we want are the people who only hunt a couple days/year, maybe harvest an animal, maybe not.

We are constantly looking at securing opportunity for ourselves, but we don't look at the big picture.

Opportunity is a very loose word and you need to think about who is going to use that opportunity. With bow only seasons that opportunity isn't for the people we're losing or the people we've kicked out of hunting. It isn't a recruitment tool and retention is minimal. I'm sure you know plenty of people that have re-kindled the fire and that's great - however, why is that all the sudden happening? We've had bow only season for quite some time. Demographics will play a role in that as we've seen a marginal increase in the older ages in the past couple of years - likely cow/calf elk seasons have a lot to do with this.

Suggesting that restricting the weapon of choice is opportunity that will create recruitment and increase retention isn't quite correct.

One thing I've always wondered: Why hasn't there been a push for a bow only black bear season?

[GoatGuy]

6616-Actually I know quite a few guys that had almost given up hunting what with all the LEH crap and gun registration. The bow seemed to breathe new life into these fellows and are now passionate hunters once again. We don't want to loose any hunters,if we can help it.

When did you notice all these people becoming passionate hunters once again? What's the timeframe?

How many people is quite a few guys?

[bolson]

I have read thru these posts on this subject with some interest. This is not a new argument and I have personally gone thru this before. I have been bowhunting for 29 years. I first bowhunted in Washington State as there were no bowhunting seasons in BC. I applied for and got the first archery only season in 8-15 near Grand Forks BC. The bowhunters of Region 4 have led the way in lobbying for archery seasons in BC. At one time we stated in writing that if an archery only season was to conflict with a rifle season then we would not pursue the archery season. We tried to work with the local wildlife Association and actually became an associate club with that group which is affiliated with the BCWF. I sat on A Special Weapons Committee that was struck up by the BCWF. This committee worked for a year and came up with a good policy that addressed the concerns of all the stake holders. When submitted to the exec of the BCWF it was edited to the point where it was a useless document. I do not believe that that the BCWF will endorse any kind of special weapons seasons in BC. I have been told in the past by the exec of this organization that they cannot support any method of hunting over another and I understand this. But what I cannot understand is when a group of bowhunters puts forward a proposal for an archery only season with social, economic and biological data to support such a season why this group would oppose this season. This has happened over and over again. So much for co-operation.
I really do not know why anyone wants this BCWF Bowhunting Committee in the first place. It will be a small group that will be promoting something that the majority of the members of the BCWF do not understand. We have bowhunting groups to look after our interests. There is a lot more to bowhunting than most non archers know. It is almost a lifestyle. I not only take my bow out in the hunting season but I shoot at least once a week all year long. I use it as a way to spend time with my 21 year old son on a regular basis. It is a social thing that allows me to be around and participate in the sport of archery with likeminded people. This brings about good discussion on hunting and wildlife management on an ongoing basis not just once a month a meeting where only a few members show up. Bowhunting has taught me patience and how to be a better hunter.
As I see it the reasons for this move are: a lot of people have become disenchanted with the BCWF and the membership has declined. Bowhunting is becoming more popular either because more hunters want a challenge, extended opportunity or because they have watched it on TV and the BCWF would like to sign them up. I also believe the BCWF wants to control all the hunting in BC. As far as recruitment goes the cost of getting a CORE certificate is one problem. I think the BCWF should subsidize this in some way. Now let’s go with the “we are all hunters” thing. I am a bowhunter. I do not hunt with firearms. If I go with this argument what do I get out of it.(I am being selfish here) I support hunters that do not support me so I may end up not being able to hunt. Don’t tell me I can still go out in a GOS. Mixed weapon seasons don’t work and there is tons of data out there to support this. Speaking of data I wish anyone who is following this post will do some research to get an understanding of how the rest of the jurisdictions in North America approach these problems. We are not the first group of hunters to have them. Look at their hunting regs and see how things can be done. I see most people working off of emotion (me included) and not being as objective as we should
This post comes from my experiences and is my opinion of the situation. You don’t have to agree with me and if you guys can work it out more power to you but it looks as if it is going down the same path as before. In 29 years nothing has changed, think about it.

[Onesock]

This is for all the seasoned BCWF members here that refuse to look at changes in the BCWF constituition. Hunter numbers in BC are DOWN. Membership in the BCWF is DOWN. More and more people are becoming disheartened with the BCWF. The BCWF was/is a good organization. I know that special seasons are not endorsed by the BCWF. The BCWF has to embrace new ideas because the ideas that had merit 20 years ago are no longer valid. If the BCWF does not change its way of thinking and keeps holding onto the past it will end up like the dinosaur. This is called evolution.
Years ago no one ever thought about long gun registration, LEH's for moose or anythiing called the internet. Things change, and so should the BCWF.
There are alot of people out there with great ideas and who would be willing to work within the BCWF but the attitudes of a handful of BCWF members are standing in the way of progress. And you notice I said a handful as there are quite a number of progressive thinking BCWF members.
I agree this post is going nowhere fast!

[The Hermit]

... Don’t tell me I can still go out in a GOS. Mixed weapon seasons don’t work and there is tons of data out there to support this. Speaking of data I wish anyone who is following this post will do some research to get an understanding of how the rest of the jurisdictions in North America approach these problems. We are not the first group of hunters to have them. Look at their hunting regs and see how things can be done.

Thanks for your post. If you have a bit of time I would really appreciate it if you could post up a few links to those articles, research, regulations, that you mention. I would be keen to read and learn form the efforts, mistakes, and successes of those that have been through this condundrum. Thanks in advance.

[Fisher-Dude]

As far as recruitment goes the cost of getting a CORE certificate is one problem. I think the BCWF should subsidize this in some way.

Yet some on here whine about spending $40 to join the BCWF. Where's the subsidy money going to come from? Perhaps Victoria who has called for 20,000 new hunters should ante up instead of a non-profit organization?



Now let’s go with the “we are all hunters” thing. I am a bowhunter. I do not hunt with firearms. If I go with this argument what do I get out of it.(I am being selfish here) I support hunters that do not support me so I may end up not being able to hunt. Don’t tell me I can still go out in a GOS. Mixed weapon seasons don’t work and there is tons of data out there to support this. Speaking of data I wish anyone who is following this post will do some research to get an understanding of how the rest of the jurisdictions in North America approach these problems. We are not the first group of hunters to have them. Look at their hunting regs and see how things can be done.

Mixed weapon seasons don't work? So, in all the years you have been hunting, you've never heard of (nor personally done) a bow kill in a GOS? Why do bow only supporters on this site tell us that bow hunting is the fastest growing fraternity in BC then, where we have mixed seasons? Seems contradictory to me, as I highly doubt that we'd have a fast growing fraternity if mixed seasons "don't work". Maybe they don't work for you because you don't want other hunters in the bush when you are hunting. Classic, yet exclusionary and detrimental to the future of our sport.

Other jurisdictions have much different hunting conditions than we have in BC. They are riddled with private land where primitive weapons may be the best choice for safety reasons. To chop up BC's opportunities where this clearly is not the case is cutting off our nose to spite our face, and totally unnecessary. Learn to hunt, and you'll have success with whatever weapon you choose in BC in a GOS.

[Gateholio]

We should start a poll

Have you ever killed an animal with a bow, in a GOS?

Hell, I'm a crappy hunter, rarely use a bow, and even I've done that...;-)

[J_T]

And once again, with those last couple of posts, the bowhunting community is bullied into submission and the status quo will reign on.

Perhaps we should have a poll, have you ever posted something stupid? Not sure it would get us anywhere.

It seems to me, there is some logical thought going on here. There are users that would like to see some cooperation, develop relationships and respect. I'm quite certain we are not that far apart. Bowhunters, by and large (my observation only) in this sequence of posts, have opened up, have expressed a willingness to work together and provided information and perspective. Yet, what I feel from "the other side" is a constant push back. I find it confusing.

While we manage wildlife, we must also consider managing opportunity for user groups. How many don't want to have to worry about 6 point elk? How many do want that 6 point. Seems to be two separate user groups there.

There is a way to provide all users with what they want. Bowhunting or rifle, 6 point versus spike, doe versus buck versus 4pt. To maintain heard population dynamics, to manage the land, to manage conflict.

[Gateholio]

Perhaps we should have a poll, have you ever posted something stupid? Not sure it would get us anywhere.

.


Make stupid claims, you may get stupid responses....

[Smokepole]

The difference to me, is your examples have nothing to do with choice, if you're a woman and the sign says men only you cannot very well choose to be a man. However, you can choose to learn to use a bow to take advantage of the seasons available. Are waterfowl seasons exclusionary?? To participate I would have to go out and buy a shotgun and then learn how to be proficient with it..... probably about the same time and money outlay as buying a bow and learning to shoot it. There are GOS's in some areas of the province that require horses/riverboats or fly-ins to get to...are these opportunities exclusionary to anyone who doesn't have horses or a riverboat??? Point is maybe everyone cannot/will not take advangtage of every new opportunity, but at least if the opportunity is out there they will have the choice.

Just my opinion
Chris[/quote]





Do you really believe that everyone who can shoot a gun can also learn to use a bow? Some pretty young kids are great shots with a rifle but could hardly be expected to pull back a bow of sufficient weight to kill a big game animal. What about people with disabilities? Do they have the same choice.

[TPK]

And once again, with those last couple of posts, the bowhunting community is bullied into submission and the status quo will reign on.

That would only be the case if you give up. Just because some people are against a BCWF Bow Committee does not mean they are against Bow hunters or that you have no hope to ever change anything. Please keep in mind that the BCWF is not the only choice you have to voice any concerns you have as a bow hunter. Just because something doesn't fly with the BCWF doesn't mean it is inherently a bad idea or that it can't (or shouldn't) be done through other avenues.

So, for those that would still like to see a BCWF Bow Committee, can I ask once again the question ... what is it that only the BCWF can do for you that no one other club or organization can do? I ask because there seems to be this "If not the BCWF, then nothing" attitude when it simply isn't the case. If the BCWF isn't doing what you want, why can you not take your concerns to another more receptive organization? Don't just stop because the BCWF may not be on board.

[J_T]

what is it that only the BCWF can do for you that no one other club or organization can do? Respect. Respect for our ideas, respect for the fact that we believe, we have passion. We aren't asking it of other organizations. Respect for the fact we are looking for something just a little different.

I don't think we're giving up. Keep in mind, many of "us" are BCWF members. We would like to know that our vision can be respected "within our own organization".

What can a bowhunting committee do? Well, if the fracture between bowhunters and other/rifle hunters has been going on as long as BOLSON suggests, then perhaps what this committee really does is attempt to heal some old wounds. A bowhunting committee could work with other bowhunting organizations and keep the BOD more informed.

[willyqbc]

Do you really believe that everyone who can shoot a gun can also learn to use a bow?

yes i do......it is amazing how many people we have taken on who thought that shooting a bow was some kind of voodoo majic that only a select few could master. going from never touching a bow we can have them shooting shooting decent groups at 20 yards in a single afternoon. In fact we have yet to have a single person come to us with the desire to shoot that we were not able to help become proficient...men, women, old folks, kids...you name it, heck we have taught kids as young as 3 and seniors as old as 90 how to shoot......so yes I firmly do believe anyone can learn.


Some pretty young kids are great shots with a rifle but could hardly be expected to pull back a bow of sufficient weight to kill a big game animal. What about people with disabilities? Do they have the same choice.

For those not physically strong enough to draw the required 40 pounds a crossbow is a great option.
As far as those with disabilities there are plenty of folks with disabilities that would prevent them from shooting a rifle, so i don't see the relevance of that particular argument.???

just my opinion
Chris

[willyqbc]

You have overlooked two major considerations, >50 moose will be harvested of that there's no doubt. You'll also find an increase in non-res harvest ~ traditionally in bow seasons non-residents are quite successful and you'll find the animals harvested come out of the AAH and then the resulting split. So net loss will be significantly higher. Also, you need to look at who is going to be participating.

Are these the same people who are going to be applying for those LEH opportunities, you betcha. So for most who participate we've let avid people double up on opportunity. I'm also quite certain even the bowhunting purists also apply for LEH opportunities.

We could have a 350" bull only season 8 months/year and create far more opportunity. There would be thousands of hunters who would participate and several days afield. We haven't restricted anyone from going hunting..... or have we?

The big question is: who are these hunters? Are they the hunters we've alienated through regulations, the hunters we've killed off? Or are they the exact same hunters we've been giving opportunity out for the past 25 years while we neglect the majority of hunters. These are the same hunters who aren't nearly as hard on the resource as the avid.

If everyone was like you and me we wouldn't be able to sustain many hunters. The people we want are the people who only hunt a couple days/year, maybe harvest an animal, maybe not.

We are constantly looking at securing opportunity for ourselves, but we don't look at the big picture.

Opportunity is a very loose word and you need to think about who is going to use that opportunity. With bow only seasons that opportunity isn't for the people we're losing or the people we've kicked out of hunting. It isn't a recruitment tool and retention is minimal. I'm sure you know plenty of people that have re-kindled the fire and that's great - however, why is that all the sudden happening? We've had bow only season for quite some time. Demographics will play a role in that as we've seen a marginal increase in the older ages in the past couple of years - likely cow/calf elk seasons have a lot to do with this.

Suggesting that restricting the weapon of choice is opportunity that will create recruitment and increase retention isn't quite correct.

One thing I've always wondered: Why hasn't there been a push for a bow only black bear season

As always Goatguy you get me thinking outside the box!!:smile:

I will admit that I had not considered the NON-res participation in my scenario. I am assuming you are talking about hunts offered by G/O's who are not on quota?? However, it seems to me that level of harvest would increase even more with an extended GOS taking even more of a toll on the resident hunters AAH.

You state that we have catered to the "avid hunter" for 25 years while neglecting the "majority of hunters" (hunt only a couple days a year). I'm not sure i agree with that in all cases across the province but just for arguments sake lets say you are right....I would enjoy hearing YOUR personal opinion on how to correct this and move forward to bigger and better hunting opportunities in the BIG PICTURE. I know you are familiar with the gov't framework that needs to be considered here, including the Native issues as they relate to hunting...so within that context what direction do YOU think this province needs to go to ensure plenty of hunting opportunities for my son and daughter??

Chris

[6616]

This is for all the seasoned BCWF members here that refuse to look at changes in the BCWF constituition.

http://bcwf.bc.ca/about/constitution.html

Please quote for us which section you would like to see changed.

[Onesock]

6616-Thanks very much for the copy of the constitution. I guess there is nothing in there which states the BCWF cannot/will not support special weapon seasons. Where does it state the BCWF cannot/will not support any special weapons seasons as we have been told many times. Has this been done by resolution and if so when was the resolution passed?

[6616]

6616-Thanks very much for the copy of the constitution. I guess there is nothing in there which states the BCWF cannot/will not support special weapon seasons. Where does it state the BCWF cannot/will not support any special weapons seasons as we have been told many times. Has this been done by resolution and if so when was the resolution passed?

See post #53 in this thread.

[GoatGuy]

I will admit that I had not considered the NON-res participation in my scenario. I am assuming you are talking about hunts offered by G/O's who are not on quota?? However, it seems to me that level of harvest would increase even more with an extended GOS taking even more of a toll on the resident hunters AAH.

GOS means no quota but harvesting animals will affect the AAH should there be an LEH hunt in addition to the GOS. It depends on season type and weapon of choice. Ie., an immature bull moose season is composed almost entirely of resident participation and harvest - those are essentially animals residents harvest, consume and don't compete with non-res for. In other areas of LEH the allocation goes through the matrix and residents/non-res share it. Should the bull:cow ratio fall out of line it would be hoped that this would be retrieved through the LEH/allocated hunt as opposed to taking it out of a GOS (theoretically, maybe not in practice).

I have the Van Isl elk LEH to go off of on here and what happens in other jurisdictions with what are 'considered' trophy opportunities. When it comes to bow only opportunity non-res are generally more successful and when managing tightly allocated species there is significant risk, even more so than with 'firearms' for over-harvest due to the inconsistencies in participation, harvest and success rates of residents. The ups and the downs create significant risk which in part needs to be addressed and mediated - the risk is increased exponentially when it comes to bow hunting. You run into fail-safe regs. You also have to be mindful of the allocation policy and ensure utilization is being achieved.

Other areas to look at would be Todagain mountain stone's and Blunt mountain goats in the past. Residents aren't the ones harvesting the animals on a bow only GOS. So it impacts resident harvest on sheep (which are allocated) and as a result affects utilization. This in turn negatively affects the resident allocation for that species in that region. Again, something that can likely be mediated to a degree but with the sporadic nature of the harvest regulations become more fail-safe.

Now I'm sure there are bowhunters that want their own allocation - how they come to a figure on that is neither here nor there but one has to be mindful of the allocation policy and that risk that resident hunters are already exposed to and the wild fluctuations that may occur through a bow only allocated hunt and the impact it could have on the entire hunter population.

Back on topic, there are other things to look at in Region 5 - in Regions 3,4 and 8 the demand would be higher as a result of SCI and the 'shiras moose'.

Long and the short of it is there's a lot to look at and one needs to consider all factors when coming up with a solution. Just trying to point that out.



You state that we have catered to the "avid hunter" for 25 years while neglecting the "majority of hunters" (hunt only a couple days a year). I'm not sure i agree with that in all cases across the province but just for arguments sake lets say you are right

This isn't an opinion, it's the story of the hunter and I have proof!;-) Same with other jurisdictions. Essentially you lose the person who heads out a couple weekends a year, harvests very little - you also loose their kids. "Quality mule deer" opportunities in Alberta are a prime example. Now that their mule deer population is sufficiently out of control there are more tags out there and guess what? People are complaining about quality opportunity, shooting trophy bucks, seeing too many other hunters. Nobody considers that if you want to have hunting in the future you have to actually let people go hunting and that might mean seeing somebody else when you're afield. This is one social issue we need to tackle in BC - putting up restrictions on motorized vehicle use isn't the way we go about this particularly in a province where ~95% is crown land and remote access abounds.

So, we get rid of the meat hunters and keep the avid; from then on it's a race to the bottom. Look at all the hunting magazines and the lockdown of land in the US. This is a cultural shift that will negatively affect hunting with internally and externally as public perception of trophy hunting is denounced by the masses. The NACM is a joke in the US and it's getting that way in Canada. Everybody's trying to grow the biggest and the best so they can get their picture and story in a magazine. The result is lost opportunity and lost access to the resource - it's extremely short-sighted and has become the greatest threat to the future of hunting. Hunters killing hunters.

You'll find the people who show up and represent hunters are often the avid and sometimes represent their group, sometimes don't. It's a very convoluted process which is subject to inconsistencies.

The concept that anyone can take up bowhunting is the same as anyone can go and hunts 4 pts - in theory they can, but do they?

Why do we have 6 pt bull elk seasons if it isn't due to conservation? Why do we have 4 pt mule deer seasons if it isn't due to conservation?

Who are the people that pursue these opportunities? What is their background? How were they raised? What proportion of the hunting population do they make up? Do we want to encourage them? What kind of opportunity is the average hunter looking for? Are we meeting that expectation? Who bowhunts? Who would bowhunt? What would be their motivation if they were to take it up? What are they looking for in their hunting experience? How does that correlate to the hunting population at large? How does that impact other hunters?

These are all questions that need to be answered properly through research.



....I would enjoy hearing YOUR personal opinion on how to correct this and move forward to bigger and better hunting opportunities in the BIG PICTURE. I know you are familiar with the gov't framework that needs to be considered here, including the Native issues as they relate to hunting...so within that context what direction do YOU think this province needs to go to ensure plenty of hunting opportunities for my son and daughter??
Chris


This is actually relatively easy - start managing based on science and use wildlife population outcome models instead of stakeholder input models. That's where we have to go next. Regional advisory committee model isn't the way to go because you get uncle buck and uncle bull sitting at a table talking about wildlife management and what they "want to see for regulations" and how "opportunity" is managed. You hear "what I'd like to see" as opposed to what is going to meet wildlife management goals. The system is completely and totally backwards - we ask people what they want, and they invariably disagree, and we seldom consider the wildlife population until it's too late. Advisory committees should be there as warning flags to let biologists know what they're seeing, not telling biologists how to manage wildlife. That's issue number 1.


Part of the problem is the discussion we're having right now. Fragmentation of the resource. Biologists know the constraints of a population and they should be instituting regulations which reflect this while maximizing hunter participation and opportunity (perceived or real). Opportunity should be inclusive - maximizing yield from wildlife and from users. Access to the resource should be sustainable, easy, cheap and accessible to all users. It must also be acknowledged that regulations are driven for a quantity approach and that quality (experience or size of animal) in a province the size of BC has, is and will always be easy to find despite what the vocal minority says. It isn't up to the government to subsidize this experience for a few hunters at the expense of the majority. Also, ask the hunters of the province what they want and get out of hunting and manage regulations on that premise. Wildlife needs to be managed for all hunters across the province.


People need to start looking at what's good for the future of hunting, not what's good for them or for next fall.

[GoatGuy]

. Mixed weapon seasons don’t work and there is tons of data out there to support this.

Please feel free to send any and all papers on this.
I'm rather interested.

[J_T]

This is actually relatively easy - start managing based on science and use wildlife population outcome models instead of stakeholder input models. That's where we have to go next. Regional advisory committee model isn't the way to go because you get uncle buck and uncle bull sitting at a table talking about wildlife management and what they "want to see for regulations" and how "opportunity" is managed. You hear "what I'd like to see" as opposed to what is going to meet wildlife management goals. The system is completely and totally backwards - we ask people what they want, and they invariably disagree, and we seldom consider the wildlife population until it's too late. Advisory committees should be there as warning flags to let biologists know what they're seeing, not telling biologists how to manage wildlife. That's issue number 1.

Generally I agree with most of what you have said. With respect to the regional wildlife committee, I'm not sure the one I sit on operates on the 'me first' basis.

We first received a report on moose, to which the committee agreed to manage based on science, second we listened to the latest on elk, to which the committee asked of the biologist, "what would you recommend?". I believe we were all in agreement that we have been managing elk incorrectly. That management of 6 pt only becomes hard on your older bulls and doesn't do much to manage cows etc.

We learned there are approximately 14,000 elk in the trench, not 30,000. that the estimates range from:
40 bulls per 100 cows in some areas and 84 bulls per 100 cows in others,
29 calves per 100 cows in some areas and 66 per 100 in others.

That of 100 bulls, 32 are spikes, 54 are raghorns and 14 are mature bulls (5 and 6 pt).

With those sorts of numbers we agreed we should be hunting more of the population. Not just 6 pt bulls.

We also have an increased responsibility in the low front country ranching area.

We also have a responsibility to provide the diverse cross section of hunters with an opportunity. That means the senior, the junior, the trophy hunter, the guy that wants to quad, the guy that wants to hike into the back basin and the bowhunter.

And I believe the recommendations put forth provide a sound elk management and hunting opportunity plan of the full cross section of the elk, and provide an opportunity for all hunters. And I believe the intent will support Governments overall objectives, managing ranching conflict, recruitment/retention etc.

[Onesock]

6616- How did the policy to not support special weapon seasons come about. Was it through resolution? Just trying to figure out where the policy came from.Thanks

[BCrams]

Don’t tell me I can still go out in a GOS. Mixed weapon seasons don’t work and there is tons of data out there to support this.

Can you give me the source where this data is you speak of? I'd really like to see it. Perhaps the results are just hunters who switch back to their rifles during the GOS rather than continue using their bows? (like myself and people I know)

I disagree with you that mixed weapons seasons don't work. Many of my moose and several muley bucks I have taken with my rifle during the GOS were inside of 40 yards and always did leave me chuckling that I could have used my bow. So I don't buy that arguement at all.

Utilizing tree stands where you can take advantage of converging game trails, funnels/corridors, wetlands, mineral licks etc even during the GOS can be highly productive even with archery gear.

Now if you were to talk about road hunting and glassing cutblocks to 'spot and stalk' animals during a GOS, you may have somewhat of a valid arguement, in particular areas of higher hunter traffic on the roads.

[Bowzone_Mikey]

now that this thread has gone completely away from ...should the BCWF incorporate a bowhunting sub commitee...

I would really like to see this so called Data saying that mixed weapons dont work ... As I have Harvested many animals with my bow in general open season. Many places there is a rifle season for one specis while other specis is still bow only in AB ... south of Grand Praire come imeddiatly to mind when moose is open for rifle and Mule deer is still in bow only

Rams has a point re: cutblocks and road hunting ... however its real tough to do that with a bow even during bow only season ...

[6616]

We learned there are approximately 14,000 elk in the trench, not 30,000. that the estimates range from:

Be careful not to take this out of context, 30,000 was spoken of as an overall East Kootenay elk population, not the Trench population. Did anyone at the meeting ask Tara how 14,000 elk in the Trench equates to the overall East Kootenay population because the Trench estimate is "not" the entire East Kootenay elk population. 14,000 elk in the Trench probably "does" equate to 30,000 or more elk overall in the East Kootenay.

Previous Survey Results:
1992: 8950 elk in Trench, estimated 20,000 to 25,000 overall East Kootenay elk population. (36 to 44 % of elk wintering in Trench)

1997: 7750 elk in Trench, 16,500 overall East Kootenay elk population. (47% of elk wintering in Trench) (Note the 1997 survey was taken immediatelly following the winter die-off of 96/97)

2008: 14,000 elk in Trench, no attempt made to estimate overall elk population or the percentage wintering in the Trench.

Keep in mind the Trench population is normally 40 to 45 % of the overall EK population and essentially represents the low elevation front country where ag/wildlife conflict exists. This percentage may be higher today then it was in 1992 and 1997 because there may be a higher component of non-migratory elk today, but 14,000 still does not represent anywhere near the overall elk population.

Trench population estimates do not include the Elk Valley, the Flathead/Wigwam, any of the area north of Radium, the Findlay Basin, the Kootenay north of the White River confluence, nor any of the Trench tributaries except small areas around the valley entrances.

Overall, it was estimated in 2000 by Bob Forbes (2000 to 2004 Elk Management Plan) that at that time with an overall population estimate of 24,400, that there were probably about 4000 elk in the Elk Valley (lots more than that today) and about 5000 north of Radium (again more today).

The Elk Valley Bighorn Sheep survey was being taken at the same time as the Trench elk survey, and even thought these guys were not counting elk during this survey, the survey biologists reported seeing more elk than ever before, in fact they reported seeing elk in large numbers on bighorn winter range, even the high elevation ranges at Irwin Creek. This is a concern for anyone that recalls how elk almost over ran the China Wall sheep winter range in 1983 to 1985 and the serious impact this had on that particular sheep population.

[6616]

6616- How did the policy to not support special weapon seasons come about. Was it through resolution? Just trying to figure out where the policy came from.Thanks

This was a resolution passed in 1998 (Admin 4/98)



Administration 4/98
Hunting & Fishing Opportunities For Diverse Interests


Whereas, The BC Wildlife Federation represents many members with diverse interests; and,

Whereas, It is divisive to support any one interest group; and,

Whereas, The mandate of the BC Wildlife Federation is to improve hunting and fishing opportunities for all it’s members;

Therefore Be It Resolved that the BC Wildlife Federation support hunting and fishing opportunities for everyone and, except where safety is an issue, not support any one particular method of harvest, to the exclusion of other methods.

Submitted By

Alberni and District Sportsman Association
Passed at Region

Amended: “to the exclusion of other methods” added.

Disposition: Passed.

Following that resolution the board set up a special weapons committee to develop policy based on that resolution. I chaired that committee and Bruce Olson sat on the committee as well (see his earlier post in this thread). A policy statement was developed, but not entirely accepted by the board and the board thus modified it somewhat.

During the 1999 convention a resolution was brough forward (Admin 9/99) to rescind the 1998 resolution (Admin 4/98). This new resolution passed and thus the special weapons policy we had developed went down the tubes since it was based on that 1998 resolution.

No further attempt has been made to develop this policy since that time, so a written policy does not actually exist. So in the end, the BCWF just goes by the Ministry policy and procedures on special weapons which as you probably know is currently under review. I cannot attach this policy, the file size is too big, but I could sent it via e-mail if you want.

So we try to represent all hunters and not advocate for any special groups, and not to support any one method of hunting over another. We are not opposed to special weapons season beyond that which is stated in the Minstry policy. We have not opposed special weapons seasons put forth by regions unless we though it would come at a cost to other hunting opportunities, however there are varying regional attitudes that sometimes come into play. Thus, it's our overall position that special weapons seasons need to be additive opportunities, not just opportunities tranferred from one hunting group to another.

[Onesock]

Thanx very much 6616. And as you know the bow opportunity would be new opportunity and not affect existing seasons.
Once again thank you.
The BCWF has nothing in writing saying it won't or can't support special weapon seasons.

[GoatGuy]

We first received a report on moose, to which the committee agreed to manage based on science, second we listened to the latest on elk, to which the committee asked of the biologist, "what would you recommend?".

I've saw the report quite a while ago. Exactly my point - you should have an immature bull moose season right now - should have happened a couple years ago infact. This isn't happening because 'stakeholders' don't support it, politics and other garbage that has hindered biologists ability to properly manage wildlife. They won't support it for next year either, which is complete and total crap.

I'm sure, however, they (stakeholders) will support an increase in the AAH and that is not a solution that supports recruitment and retention - nor does it support maximum yield. If you look at regions 4 and 8 we aren't even harvesting any of the female component and you can bet the biologists would be if we weren't dealing with these groups.

They ask, "what would you recommend?" That's like having a doctor ask you what you want to do with your disease. The biologists need to present a couple of hard-hitting recommendations that firstly support conservation and secondly maximize recruitment and retention. These proposals need teeth and the biologists need to have the ability to act as an autonomous agent - the word advisory should be only that.



I believe we were all in agreement that we have been managing elk incorrectly. That management of 6 pt only becomes hard on your older bulls and doesn't do much to manage cows etc.

LEH doesn't do much to manage recruitment and retention or the elk population nor does the junior/senior/bow season - you have to actually harvest elk. That will be the tool that is used though, I'm sure.



We learned there are approximately 14,000 elk in the trench, not 30,000. that the estimates range from:
40 bulls per 100 cows in some areas and 84 bulls per 100 cows in others,
29 calves per 100 cows in some areas and 66 per 100 in others.

That of 100 bulls, 32 are spikes, 54 are raghorns and 14 are mature bulls (5 and 6 pt).

With those sorts of numbers we agreed we should be hunting more of the population. Not just 6 pt bulls.

I hope 6616's post straightened things out. I think the bull:cow ratios you citing are for moose btw. :-P

For elk, 14,000 is nowhere close to your pop estimate. The blocks that those numbers come from make up a fraction of the EK. The only reason you didn't get hard numbers on total population is because of the old models and flights that were conducted weren't done very well - this is also a recurring problem across the province. Besides that, just the elk in the trench puts you over MSY for the entire EK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This should have been opened right up in 2003. Now you're going to have to bring things down slowly due to predators and keep your fingers crossed you don't have a severe winter. And I can guarantee with the process we now have the solutions will be nowhere in line with what should happen.



We also have an increased responsibility in the low front country ranching area.

We also have a responsibility to provide the diverse cross section of hunters with an opportunity. That means the senior, the junior, the trophy hunter, the guy that wants to quad, the guy that wants to hike into the back basin and the bowhunter.

And I believe the recommendations put forth provide a sound elk management and hunting opportunity plan of the full cross section of the elk, and provide an opportunity for all hunters. And I believe the intent will support Governments overall objectives, managing ranching conflict, recruitment/retention etc.

We're going to be 7 years late before we get the kind of change we should have been doing only exacerbating the ups and downs that we're apparently supposed to be trying to smooth up.

You manage opportunity for the hunter population. There have always been and always will be miles, and miles, and miles of area for the trophy hunter and those who want to get off the roads in the EK to the point that resident hunters don't shoot any of their allocation particularly when it comes to goats and there's no one in the bush.

It's bizarre that the word 'quality opportunity' comes up all the time and managing distinct hunter groups when trophy hunters make up 2% of the population. Not to mention you don't see another boot track in the high country of region 8 or 4. Hell we haven't seen another hunter in the bush in Region 4 even in the rut in November - it's absolutely unbelievable. Don't even see anybody when sheep hunting. We shouldn't be subsidizing one opportunity at the expense of another, particularly when those who want quality opportunities aren't using the ones they have.

Don't feel like I'm picking on you, this is a provincial issue.

[Fisher-Dude]

It's bizarre that the word 'quality opportunity' comes up all the time and managing distinct hunter groups when trophy hunters make up 2% of the population. Not to mention you don't see another boot track in the high country of region 8 or 4. Hell we haven't seen another hunter in the bush in Region 4 even in the rut in November - it's absolutely unbelievable. Don't even see anybody when sheep hunting. We shouldn't be subsidizing one opportunity at the expense of another, particularly when those who want quality opportunities aren't using the ones they have.

Don't feel like I'm picking on you, this is a provincial issue.

I had 9 days last fall with the WHOLE top end of a huge valley to myself in the EK. Sat and BSed with a mountain biker one day, but saw NO other hunters up there.

On the last day, a beautiful blonde rode up to my stand on a horse - I thought I was halucinating, or maybe I died and went to heaven, 'til her husband and kids came around the corner! :frown: :grin:

It will take wholesale season changes to get hunters back out in the bush. Too bad all we can do is get crumbs tossed to us by game managers who are reacting to (perceived) opposition from hunting groups/Guides/FNs to more opportunity.

[J_T]

Be careful not to take this out of context, 30,000 was spoken of as an overall East Kootenay elk population, not the Trench population. Did anyone at the meeting ask Tara how 14,000 elk in the Trench equates to the overall East Kootenay population because the Trench estimate is "not" the entire East Kootenay elk population. 14,000 elk in the Trench probably "does" equate to 30,000 or more elk overall in the East Kootenay.
In part you are correct. I should have said, "study area" which is the lowland, from Radium to the US border, and includes parts of some major drainages. (Kootenay, St Mary's, Wigwam)

I did ask how it translates to overall populations. She said she had no idea. Asked if she would take a guess. Nope. She did say, 30,000 is not her number. Perhaps this isn't the right place Andy, but she also indicated she found no evidence to support Forbes estimates. Even the Raedeke report. She has no idea how they came up with those numbers. (and she discussed that in more detail) Currently she does feel we have more elk and I think that is the important observation.

I remember back when Forbes was coming up with those estimates. Some politicing media spin (not science) went on there I'm sure. I used to ride with him in those days.


I think the bull:cow ratios you citing are for moose btw. :razz:
Correct, my apologies, the bull to cow ratio for the elk inventory was 29:100 and the calf to cow ratio is estimated at 28:100 Of 100 bulls, 32 spikes, 54 raghorns, 14 mature (5pt and up) is correct.


For elk, 14,000 is nowhere close to your pop estimate. The blocks that those numbers come from make up a fraction of the EK. The only reason you didn't get hard numbers on total population is because of the old models and flights that were conducted weren't done very well - this is also a recurring problem across the province. Agree, I did say trench population and I should have said, "study area". But Tara did say to keep in mind, this elk inventory was carried out at a time when elk will be in the bottom/winter range areas. For those areas/drainages, there likely were not many elk remaining above the study area.


Exactly my point - you should have an immature bull moose season right now - should have happened a couple years ago infact. I shouldn't! "We" should. There is no I in this. It's not about me. (my attempt at humour) But you're right. We should, the timing is perfect.

[Mr. Dean]

now that this thread has gone completely away from ...should the BCWF incorporate a bowhunting sub commitee...

I would really like to see this so called Data saying that mixed weapons dont work ... As I have Harvested many animals with my bow in general open season. Many places there is a rifle season for one specis while other specis is still bow only in AB ... south of Grand Praire come imeddiatly to mind when moose is open for rifle and Mule deer is still in bow only

Rams has a point re: cutblocks and road hunting ... however its real tough to do that with a bow even during bow only season ...


I know of one person that I'd deem "hard core", when it comes to bow hunting. Every year, he and one other go out a take Elk and Whitetail in the GOS, using compounds.

He's a damn good hunter...

[6616]

Thanx very much 6616. And as you know the bow opportunity would be new opportunity and not affect existing seasons.
Once again thank you.
The BCWF has nothing in writing saying it won't or can't support special weapon seasons.

That is correct as far as I know.....at least if it has I cannotfind it.

[6616]

[quote=J_T;276951 this elk inventory was carried out at a time when elk will be in the bottom/winter range areas. For those areas/drainages, there likely were not many elk remaining above the study area. [/quote]

So Jim, you are almost saying that the current elk population is less than the overall estimate for 1997 (16,500).....??

Not many elk remaining above the study area, maybe,,,,, but what about the winter range areas outside the study area, what about the 6000 elk in the Columbia north of Radium, what about the 5000 to 7000 elk in the Elk Valley, what about the elk in the Upper Ram Creek and the Flathead, the Findlay Basin, the Upper Kootenay north of the White River confluence (where the study area ended). Lots of elk wintering along the Kootenay in the Park, even north of the Park in Boyce Meadows. Naturally Tara is not going to state an overall estimate because it would trigger massive reactions from the ranching community. If the elk in the study area are even half of the total of elk in the EK I'd be very surprized and this is based distribution determined in previous survey results, not gut instinct.

My personal guess on a different thread was 28,000, now I admit I was probably wrong, the actual population is probably higher that that.

Keep in mind that all previous comprehensive surveys were always taken at the exact same time of the season, the one and only time of year elk can be successfully surveyed, and found that about 40 to 45 % of the total elk herd winters in the Trench (current studt area). The 1992 and 1997 were comprehensive surveys, not just Bob Forbes' best guess, those surveys were in fact more comprehensive that the survey just taken.

[GoatGuy]

Agree, I did say trench population and I should have said, "study area". But Tara did say to keep in mind, this elk inventory was carried out at a time when elk will be in the bottom/winter range areas. For those areas/drainages, there likely were not many elk remaining above the study area.

That's not quite accurate - I've got a couple buddies who were either flying or spotting. There's a pile of elk on high alt winter range as well as well as up above sheep in a couple spots - more than either have even seen. They've both been involved since the early 80s. You'll notice the census does not include the elk valley and nothing north of Invermere. There's a lot of habitat missing here and a lot of winter range that was left out.

I think it's safe to say elk are over their social tolerance and that if a number was put out we'd all be in big trouble.



I shouldn't! "We" should. There is no I in this. It's not about me. (my attempt at humour) But you're right. We should, the timing is perfect.


rodg.

[J_T]

So Jim, you are almost saying that the current elk population is less than the overall estimate for 1997 (16,500).....??
No not at all Andy, I'm merely stating what she told us. I agree, there is a lot of EK that was not flown for the inventory. There are a lot of elk. And, concurring with your information on previous (1992 and 97) inventories there are logically more elk now than then. I think most hunter's personal observations support that as well.


That's not quite accurate - I've got a couple buddies who were either flying or spotting. There's a pile of elk on high alt winter range as well as well as up above sheep in a couple spots - more than either have even seen. They've both been involved since the early 80s. You'll notice the census does not include the elk valley and nothing north of Invermere. Merely stating the facts as to the 08 inventory and Tara's comments. As said above, I agree there are many areas that inventory was not taken. And yes, I agree the bottom line, is that there are likely more elk than the ranching community want, and perhaps as many elk as the land can carry. We need to hunt.


rodg Sorry?

[Onesock]

:pGG Just a couple of buddies that are flying. How many? How many elk are a "pile". These are questions you ask when someone makes a statement without exact figures. Sometimes a person has to rely on experience.

[GoatGuy]

Sorry?

rodger - understood.

[GoatGuy]

:pGG Just a couple of buddies that are flying. How many? How many elk are a "pile". These are questions you ask when someone makes a statement without exact figures. Sometimes a person has to rely on experience.


well put.......