bowhunting commite

[sealevel]

At a recent fg meeting Mel Arnald told me there was for sure going to be a bowhunting commitee within the BCWF .

[Mr. Dean]

At a recent fg meeting Mel Arnald told me there was for sure going to be a bowhunting commitee within the BCWF .

And...........................?

[Bow Walker]

Great. Maybe some pressing issues will be addressed - or at least discussed.

[The Hermit]

I just got off the phone with Mel Arnold and he informed me that after discussions with the past presidents he and the BCWF executive have decided not to form a bowhunting sub-committee to their wildlife committee. To paraphrase, the reasoning behind the decision was that: doing so would open the door to many other groups that might want the same privilege; that since some of the members of the various regional committees and indeed the wildlife committee itself are bowhunters that they can represent the interests of bowhunting; that bowhunters can have a voice by becoming active in the BCWF regional committees and that their ideas can be passed along to the wildlife committee and on to PHRAAC.

I thanked him very much for the time and consideration and appreciate his call to let me know.

So, now the UBBC, with the support of the TBBC and BCAA have a clear path ahead... our key mission remains - to represent increased hunting opportunity for all resident hunters in BC and in particular increased bow hunting opportunities. I would encourage anyone interested to contact your regional UBBC representative and get involved. http://www.ubbc.ca/forum/

[aggiehunter]

Great support at the AGM for the bowhunting committee according to the reps I have spoken too. It was defeated there due to a technicality and there was great enthusiasm that it would come about. How did that enthusiasm get killed by the good 'ol boys at the top I wonder? Oh well it's the bcwf's loss and it will show gov't they don't really want to help their own bowhunters.

[sealevel]

Well thats BCWFs loss . i had missed the last two meetings so i haven`t seen mel .

[aggiehunter]

Tom Ethier says you need endorsment of the BCWF to get things passed. The BCWF ignores requests for a bowhunting committee. Apathy still runs rampant and the BCWF wonders why there membership has dropped by 75%. The future looks excellant now for bowseasons and bowhunters without the BCWF. Too bad they didn't clue in hey!

[trapperdan2061]

Now was it that " they didn't clue in" or is it that hunters in general still haven't clued in???????

Every time a splinter group of hunters is formed it weakens the system, with so many Groups in the system how can we ever expect hunting and the enjoyment of sporting arms to continue to survive the ANTI'S

So many of us spend so much money and time supporting our select group that our message is never really heard in full force !!!!!!!

I have said this before on this site and I say it again......

EVERY HUNTER, TRAPPER, SPORTING ARMS, OR COLLECTOR (no mater which type he/she may be) NEEDS TO PUT THE FULL FORCE OF THEIR EFFORTS FINANCIAL, VOICE AND PHYSICAL BEHIND ONE AND ONLY ONE GROUP TO BE ABLE TO EFFECT CHANGE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As long as we keep splintering we make it easy for the ANTI'S to pick the battles and some day win the War.............................

[horshur]

Now was it that " they didn't clue in" or is it that hunters in general still haven't clued in???????

Every time a splinter group of hunters is formed it weakens the system, with so many Groups in the system how can we ever expect hunting and the enjoyment of sporting arms to continue to survive the ANTI'S

So many of us spend so much money and time supporting our select group that our message is never really heard in full force !!!!!!!

I have said this before on this site and I say it again......

EVERY HUNTER, TRAPPER, SPORTING ARMS, OR COLLECTOR (no mater which type he/she may be) NEEDS TO PUT THE FULL FORCE OF THEIR EFFORTS FINANCIAL, VOICE AND PHYSICAL BEHIND ONE AND ONLY ONE GROUP TO BE ABLE TO EFFECT CHANGE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As long as we keep splintering we make it easy for the ANTI'S to pick the battles and some day win the War.............................

sounds good but......there is a reason they have lost ...same as politics...do they actually represent there constituents or not???
give credit where it is do..and when not..don't.

effecting change for what?????? I argue with BCWF reps over a GOS for moose..they and there groups seem to be the major stumbling block to free up some hunting opportunities...they have not convinced me otherwise.

[J_T]

EVERY HUNTER, TRAPPER, SPORTING ARMS, OR COLLECTOR (no mater which type he/she may be) NEEDS TO PUT THE FULL FORCE OF THEIR EFFORTS FINANCIAL, VOICE AND PHYSICAL BEHIND ONE AND ONLY ONE GROUP TO BE ABLE TO EFFECT CHANGE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, this is correct and would be the ideal scenario. Much like politics, why do new groups arise? Should that one voice, not speak for its constituents?

Why did the Liberals take over the "Green File" from the NDP? Strategically they recognized the benefit in doing so. Is bowhunting a "green file" the Fed should have considered?

Bowhunting is on the rise, both in number and in opportunity. It varies across the province and opinions vary from region to region. But it is increasing in popularity and does provide an enhanced hunting experience.

Bowhunter or rifle hunter, we are all hunters.

[aggiehunter]

Very Valid point, well said.

[aggiehunter]

True words Trapper Dan.

[Tuffcity]

As long as we keep splintering ...

I disagree. In this case it's not splinter groups weakening the system but the problem of a long time group refusing to be forward thinking and recognize that by remaining static and exclusionary you drive potential allys away.

To be healthy and vibrant, every once in awhile you have open the doors and windows and let some fresh air in. The BCWF is a closed house and their myopic tunnel vision is slowly, but surely, dragging the credibility and effectiveness of that organization down.

Instead of acknowledging and recruiting new ideas and standing shoulder to shoulder with a group like the UBBC, the BCWF is forcing it to strike out on it's own. And it will be to the detriment of the BCWF somewhere down the road.

Hopefully, sooner rather than later, the light will come on at BCWF HQ and that they will realise that united, we really can stand.

RC

[Gateholio]

Great support at the AGM for the bowhunting committee according to the reps I have spoken too. It was defeated there due to a technicality and there was great enthusiasm that it would come about. How did that enthusiasm get killed by the good 'ol boys at the top I wonder? Oh well it's the bcwf's loss and it will show gov't they don't really want to help their own bowhunters.

IIRC it wasn't a "technicality" it was that they would have to break a bylaw in order to instate a bowhunting committee.


Just wondering something - Should the BCWF have hunting committees based on weapon choice? Separate committees for bow, rifle, shotgun, muzzleloader?

And should these committees compete with one another for hunting opportunities for hunters using that particular weapon?

[horshur]

IIRC it wasn't a "technicality" it was that they would have to break a bylaw in order to instate a bowhunting committee.


Just wondering something - Should the BCWF have hunting committees based on weapon choice? Separate committees for bow, rifle, shotgun, muzzleloader?

And should these committees compete with one another for hunting opportunities for hunters using that particular weapon?

Gate you must of been napping during sesame street....Comprimise.

[Gateholio]

Gate you must of been napping during sesame street....Comprimise.


Compromise?

People have been talking about unity. It may end up to be divisive having separate committees, due to weapon choice.

The question I've raised is a valid one.

[threedhunter]

just heard from our zone rep at bcwf. the main reason that a "bowhunting" committee was not struck as i heard it was that the bcwf represents ALL hunters in bc. not just gun, blackpowder or otherwise. yea you say there is a gun committee, that was put in place when c-64 was trying to be enacted to help either get rid of it or at least make it workable. is that committee still active?i can not say for sure, even though it remains in effect as a committee.please do not believe i support the decision that was made, just understand it as it was given as reasonable that bowhunting/bowhunters were included in all aspects of dealing with the moe.as i understand the vision of bcwf, they represent all of us , not just gun hunters,if we all desire to change TOOLS,ie;become bowhunters, well then having a seperate voice for bowhunters makes sense. as i see whats going on, a few guys that don't want to become members of any joint group, to become part of a louder voice , are trying to get attention by being a squeeky wheel,yet have nothing new to add except maybe a personal agenda/opinion as to how they think the scientists should give dates for what animals.as a bowhunter, for example, my opinion is that all gun hunters should have to hunt in november and december. all bowhunters should hunt in september and october.yup, key in on the rut, makin it easier for bowhunters.harder for gun hunters.but common sense dictates that hunting season is for ALL HUNTERS, not just bowhunters/ gun hunters.please read the bcwf vision statement and aims before condemning the new presidents carefully thought out answer to the bowhunting committee proposal.threedhunter:roll: just a thought, UNITED WE STAND ,DIVIDED WE CAN ONLY TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT WERE.

[mntbowhunter]

First of all how does a different commitee for bow hunters weaken the whole?? That makes no sense? Bowhunters are not against rifle hunters but just have a different choice of weapon. What difference does it make? So we would like to see more archery seasons? So what?? Second if any of you want to talk about "UNITY" Just ready every post on this site. Half the freakin time anything gets posted on here people who are ignorant about the subject post their thoughts anyway in a contentious way trying argue with people. If you want to talk about "UNITY" maybe try supporting all types of hunting as long as its legal and ethical instead of trying to cause a fight with your fellow hunters that you share the bush with. More methods of hunting gives more support to the whole. The people who just try and be contentious all the time on this site should log onto Jerryspringer.com instead and find someone to fight with there instead of fighting with you fellow hunters.

[threedhunter]

mtnbwhuntr, where do you stand on the bcwf decision?are you a bcwf member , maybe through your local club? just looking for more input. threedhunter8)

[GoatGuy]

Any movement should come from the entire or at least the majority of the BCWF membership.

The BCWF membership is driven by its members.

The place to encourage change is at convention and it should be done properly not haphazardly without proper research.

If you want some form of 'recognition' it has to come from the membership - to point fingers at one individual or the executive is immature and really shows a lack of understanding when it comes to an organization that is driven by its members.

All I hear is "it's _______ fault". Someone is going to have to buck up and go after this properly if they really want it - to date it would seem all they're looking for is a scape goat.

Further, as we go through the motions the purposely mis-quoted and out of context quotes and statistics, generalizations without any support and finger pointing at individuals that occurs on here, and is occurring on a regional and provincial level will continue to drive credibility further and further into the ground. And no, I'm not talking about credibility with the BCWF.

[horshur]

Compromise?

People have been talking about unity. It may end up to be divisive having separate committees, due to weapon choice.

The question I've raised is a valid one.

yes it is but....will they take down the whole church over the color of the curtains in the manse????

this issue is obviously very divisive. Is is worth it to stand there ground??

Imagine how it looks from the outside???

[mntbowhunter]

No threedhunter I am not a member of the bcwf but perhaps I should be. I am a member of a local archery club as well as the wild sheep society though. I will not coment on the decision of the BCWF because I dont know much about it and therefore feel my comment is not valid. As long as bow hunters are being represented I am happy. I dont nessessarily think we need our own comittee but it does seem like there are not enough archery seasons like I see in our two neighbor provinces to the east. The only thing I feel is it doesnt make sense to speak of "unity" and fighting against the anti hunting movement while slamming eachother because we hunt in a certain way or for different reasons. I put up a post in regards to trophy hunting and people come on there and tell me how trophy hunting is stupid and only for people with little dinks. That is un-called for. If someone puts up a post regarding guns should I go on there and reply " gun hunting is stupid use a bow"? NO! Because all hunters should support eachother. Does it matter if we meat hunt, trophy hunt or hunt with a bow or gun. I dont feel that archery seasons will take anything away from gun hunters. I just feel it will add more support and strengthen the whole by having more hunters period.

[Mr. Dean]

Listen to how it looks from the outside. It ain't pretty and that needs to be dealt with from the advocates of the bow committee. The concept needs to be sold and not force fed (lack of better words...). As obstacles rise, deal with them instead of slapping faces/placing blame.

Not so long ago I asked 2 pages of the same questions in a similar thread before someone started replying with integrity - Whom I may add was not in the 'immediate' conversations. This member actually got me *thinking* of some of the concepts simply because he took some time.


Just because a person doesn't understand a position taken, doesn't automatically make them an enemy. Supporters of this need alliances and for that to happen, proponents need to remain calm and level-headed, dig a little deeper and get more creative if something isn't working.


Just my observations.

[Tuffcity]

should these committees compete with one another for hunting opportunities for hunters using that particular weapon?

It shouldn’t be, and doesn’t have to be, about competing for or taking away season time to feed one group over the other. There are enough potential opportunities now that the two (firearms & bows) can run concurrently in many areas.

There is already a precedent for this type of co-operation (if we can call it that). Example: a couple of years ago I hunted a “any bull” moose bow season south of Vanderhoof that ran at the same time as the LEH any bull firearms season.

There are over 1200 antlerless LEH permits available in 5-14 yet no bow only doe season. I’d hazard a guess that not all 1200+ permits will be filled so what would be wrong with running an antlerless bow season along with the GOS buck only?

Those are just 2 examples of what could be done. With a dedicated committee within the BCWF opportunities could be explored more efficiently then just trying to bring these issues up as regional proposals to be filtered through to the wildlife committee.

From what I read in the BCWF reasons for not going ahead with a Bow hunting committee is that they still largely view it as an “us or them” position instead of a chance to actually work towards more opportunity for hunters. Telling bowhunters to work it through the system is a weak and convenient way out and doesn’t require actually disturbing the status quo.

People need to get their heads around the idea that one group doesn’t have to loose ground to expand opportunities. Once that happens maybe we can progressively move forward, increase hunting opportunities and actually stand as a united front.

RC

[Gateholio]

[

quote=Tuffcity;299020]

It shouldn’t be, and doesn’t have to be, about competing for or taking away season time to feed one group over the other. There are enough potential opportunities now that the two (firearms & bows) can run concurrently in many areas.

There is already a precedent for this type of co-operation (if we can call it that). Example: a couple of years ago I hunted a “any bull” moose bow season south of Vanderhoof that ran at the same time as the LEH any bull firearms season.

There are over 1200 antlerless LEH permits available in 5-14 yet no bow only doe season. I’d hazard a guess that not all 1200+ permits will be filled so what would be wrong with running an antlerless bow season along with the GOS buck only?

Those are just 2 examples of what could be done. With a dedicated committee within the BCWF opportunities could be explored more efficiently then just trying to bring these issues up as regional proposals to be filtered through to the wildlife committee.


Hypothetically- What happens when the flintlock committee of the BCWF says "Well, us flintlockers don't have any higher harvest than bow hunters, and there are more bow hunters, anyway, so why can't we have those seasons?






From what I read in the BCWF reasons for not going ahead with a Bow hunting committee is that they still largely view it as an “us or them” position instead of a chance to actually work towards more opportunity for hunters. Telling bowhunters to work it through the system is a weak and convenient way out and doesn’t require actually disturbing the status quo.


Shouldn't the playing field be level for everyone?

[Tuffcity]

Hypothetically- What happens when the flintlock committee of the BCWF says "Well, us flintlockers don't have any higher harvest than bow hunters, and there are more bow hunters, anyway, so why can't we have those seasons?


Realistically it's two groups. One's equipment goes "bang" and the other goes "twang". You can nit pick it to death and that's a large part of the unproductive rhetoric. Get this part figured out first.


Shouldn't the playing field be level for everyone?

Nice idea, but again the realism of gunpowder vs shaft is that one is far more efficient at reducing game populations than the other. The idea is to expand opportunity without adversely affecting game populations.

[Gateholio]

Realistically it's two groups. One's equipment goes "bang" and the other goes "twang". You can nit pick it to death and that's a large part of the unproductive rhetoric. Get this part figured out first.

That is an oversimplification. There are some out there that woudl like to have traditional ML seasons in areas that bowhunters would also like to have bow seasons, citing similar reasons (low harvest %, extra opportunity, etc)

And I can see these people saying "There is a bow committee, why not a ML committee" ....and they probably have a point.




Nice idea, but again the realism of gunpowder vs shaft is that one is far more efficient at reducing game populations than the other. The idea is to expand opportunity without adversely affecting game populations

The "level playing field" I reffered to was not to do with hunting, but forming of committees, in response to your post:


From what I read in the BCWF reasons for not going ahead with a Bow hunting committee is that they still largely view it as an “us or them” position instead of a chance to actually work towards more opportunity for hunters. Telling bowhunters to work it through the system is a weak and convenient way out and doesn’t require actually disturbing the status quo

[horshur]

Nice idea, but again the realism of gunpowder vs shaft is that one is far more efficient at reducing game populations than the other. The idea is to expand opportunity without adversely affecting game populations.


My good friend told me this year that he was just going to use the bowhunting opportunities in region 8 cause he has such poor luck with LEH.

least it's hunting.

[willyqbc]

Bowhunting has the unique ability to fill many niche opportunities where GOS opportunities CANNOT AND WILL NOT EVER EXIST due to concerns of overharvest and/or safety. The easiest examples of these niche hunts are mule deer on winter range and urban areas. Mule deer on winter range cannot withstand a GOS, the harvest would be too high. Urban areas cannot have a GOS due to obvious safety concerns. In my opinion, by not exploring these opportunities which are a natural fit for for archery tackle the BCWF is failing in its mandate to seek new hunting opportunity. Now i know there are many on here who will say that the BCWF supports hunting opportunity for "ALL" hunters not just a special interest group like bowhunters.....BUT....the fact of the matter is that each and every hunter in the province has the CHOICE to pick up a bow and learn how to use it so that they too can participate in the new opportunities. I am getting sick and tired of hearing about how new bow opportunities are "exclusionary"...they are only exclusionary if you CHOOSE not to do the work required to take advantage of them. Are areas that have "NO Vehicle access" exclusionary?? No, of course not...they just take a little work to take advantage of the opportunity.
If the BCWF were really working in the best interest of ALL hunters in the province they would be exploring every avenue for increasing hunter opportunity, not automatically excluding initiatives because they have the phrase "bow only" in them.

Just my opinion
Chris

[bighornbob]

If the bowhunters get a committee then I want a committee for hunters that dont have a 4X4 or ATV.

With all the deactivated roads and roads not being kept up there is less and less places to go. Also after the first snowfall its is real tough to get out and about. Also with the price of gas going up, more hunters will be getting rid of their 4X4's and getting smaller 2 wheel drive trucks. I would like to see more seasons or areas specifiaclly set aside for guys that dont have a 4X4 or ATV.

BHB

[boxhitch]

GG, clear some PMs maybe ??

[GoatGuy]

GG, clear some PMs maybe ??

done..................

[Gateholio]

It may be useful to re visit why no bow committee was formed at the last BCWF AGM.

[threedhunter]

as a new bcwf member who happened to attend the agm, what i learned was that the fed has an agenda to get as much opportunity as possible for hunters, no matter what TOOL you CHOOSE TO USE.they are not exclusory to any one or tool.all i see is peaple here say that the fed only hears gun hunters.jfyi, the moe sets seasons and tools used, they make decisions , apparently based on who thier boss is. we had a very excellent presentation by a pilot who has done a lot of research into his thesis.his concern was that the moe doesn't want to let any more opportunities happen. he stressed that if no conservation issue exists , why not have a season. we all heard biologists from ek say that they wanted more opportunities for us , thier boss however had a breaks on approach and did/would not believe the info as presented.sounds kinda hinky when the fed is pushing for all/any opportunity and the province sez , we make the decisions, present them to our boss , he takes them to the legislature for approval.guess what, if a member in the legislature is a leaflicker, no approval, no opportunity.it seems like, in the end , that the fed is not doing what we want them to do.WRONG , they have to go through channels, just like everyone else, however, they should have the support of all the hunters and fishermen in the province,as it is we find ourselves looking at the apparent lack of going foward with what appears to be a solution, to us, then sit back and criticize the fed for not doing anything.that indicates to me at least that a lot of us have a very high pedastal to stand on.again please do not think i defend the fed, until you actively partiipate in the workings of the fed, at least get some info as to how everything works.i believed tat the fed could get us more hunting opportunities just by approaching the moe, not so.it sems the ministry has a very long , complicated set of prerequisites to satisfy before anything can be done.there are a lot of these steps that are going forward ,they just take a lot longer than we would like.common sense sez if you want to see changes, get involved, its easy to look in and say, nothins bein done, i aint gonna be a member of that cauz they dont do nothin.you want a say? get involved at your regional level,even the head level, then come here and tell us how little is being done for us.might get prety quiet here .threedhunter.:smile:

[Elkaholic]

as a new bcwf member who happened to attend the agm, what i learned was that the fed has an agenda to get as much opportunity as possible for hunters, no matter what TOOL you CHOOSE TO USE.they are not exclusory to any one or tool.all i see is peaple here say that the fed only hears gun hunters.jfyi, the moe sets seasons and tools used, they make decisions , apparently based on who thier boss is. we had a very excellent presentation by a pilot who has done a lot of research into his thesis.his concern was that the moe doesn't want to let any more opportunities happen. he stressed that if no conservation issue exists , why not have a season. we all heard biologists from ek say that they wanted more opportunities for us , thier boss however had a breaks on approach and did/would not believe the info as presented.sounds kinda hinky when the fed is pushing for all/any opportunity and the province sez , we make the decisions, present them to our boss , he takes them to the legislature for approval.guess what, if a member in the legislature is a leaflicker, no approval, no opportunity.it seems like, in the end , that the fed is not doing what we want them to do.WRONG , they have to go through channels, just like everyone else, however, they should have the support of all the hunters and fishermen in the province,as it is we find ourselves looking at the apparent lack of going foward with what appears to be a solution, to us, then sit back and criticize the fed for not doing anything.that indicates to me at least that a lot of us have a very high pedastal to stand on.again please do not think i defend the fed, until you actively partiipate in the workings of the fed, at least get some info as to how everything works.i believed tat the fed could get us more hunting opportunities just by approaching the moe, not so.it sems the ministry has a very long , complicated set of prerequisites to satisfy before anything can be done.there are a lot of these steps that are going forward ,they just take a lot longer than we would like.common sense sez if you want to see changes, get involved, its easy to look in and say, nothins bein done, i aint gonna be a member of that cauz they dont do nothin.you want a say? get involved at your regional level,even the head level, then come here and tell us how little is being done for us.might get prety quiet here .threedhunter.:smile:

My eyes are bleeding after trying to read this wall of text.

[Gateholio]

Paragraphs...They aren't new, but they are cool...:razz:

[Fisher-Dude]

If the bowhunters get a committee then I want a committee for hunters that dont have a 4X4 or ATV.

With all the deactivated roads and roads not being kept up there is less and less places to go. Also after the first snowfall its is real tough to get out and about. Also with the price of gas going up, more hunters will be getting rid of their 4X4's and getting smaller 2 wheel drive trucks. I would like to see more seasons or areas specifiaclly set aside for guys that dont have a 4X4 or ATV.

BHB

I want a road hunting committee. As a guy with a 4x4 (or 3 :redface: ) and a quad, I want to see opportunites opened up so that I can drive around and shoot game close to the road, preferably when there aren't any bow hunters or 2wd spinnout hunters in the bush scaring the game away. :rolleyes:

[threedhunter]

sorry guys about no paragraphs. i am a basic puter user also not good marks in english through school.ie;paragraphs were notmy strong point.:-(

[GoatGuy]

If the BCWF were really working in the best interest of ALL hunters in the province they would be exploring every avenue for increasing hunter opportunity, not automatically excluding initiatives because they have the phrase "bow only" in them.


How do you know the BCWF isn't exploring these opportunities?

You couldn't be any more wrong.

Just because it wasn't written on the internet or said in Cranbrook doesn't mean it isn't happening.

I'm pretty sure most of the people here are just looking to make the BCWF the bad guy after putting 5 minutes of less than half-hearted effort into this concept. Never did the research, never did the homework, never showed up and supported it, or talked to other clubs or regions. Did about 1% of the work that one needs to do to get something through and guess what? It failed - shocking I know.

Really, what do you expect? You talk about how the BCWF's missing out and on and on, they should be doing this and they should be doing that. If you want something you have to support it and be a part of it - none of that happened and most of the people who are doing the complaining weren't even at the convention. It's tough to realize change when a person is parked behind a computer yelling from the other side of the province without a microphone.

A lot of the push for this is coming from people who aren't even involved in the BCWF. None of them have been involved at the committee or region level for anything related to hunting or wildlife. And to top it all off it's the BCWF's fault - suppose it's always far easier to blame others particularly when nothing more than a half-hearted attempt has been made.

After hearing about some folks blaming a past-president because the resolution didn't go through I was dumbfounded. Can't believe they'd have the nerve to talk about calling out a guy who's donated more time, energy, and money protecting their rights than anyone else in the province for the past 10 years. All the while resting on their laurels throwing stones.

We certainly have our song and dance on here regularly but after hearing that I can tell you integrity's at an all time low and it's certainly reflected in this thread. Between that and a goat bow only as a recruitment season I think I've now heard it all.

If you guys want organizational change do it properly.

Half-hazard effort will never get you close to the results you want - it will however set you up for failure.

[Fisher-Dude]

Let's remember that any increase to a GOS that creates opportunities for all hunters, is indeed a new or enhanced bow opportunity too. Let's also remember that bow hunters have the longest seasons of ANY hunters in this province.

[willyqbc]

How do you know the BCWF isn't exploring these opportunities?


In my dealings with my local BCWF president it was made clear that while the BCWF will not attempt to block bow initiatives if they make sense, neither will they put forth archery proposals on their own....so if not for groups like the UBBC putting forth the initiatives...who would????


I'm pretty sure most of the people here are just looking to make the BCWF the bad guy after putting 5 minutes of less than half-hearted effort into this concept. Never did the research, never did the homework, never showed up and supported it, or talked to other clubs or regions. Did about 1% of the work that one needs to do to get something through and guess what? It failed - shocking I know.


easy to say in your position GG, for most of us this isn't our full time job, we put in the amount of time and effort we can afford to. Myself, i have a full time job and a young family, I sacrifice as much time, money (my own) and energy as I feel I can to trying to do my part. Do not presume to look down upon my efforts because your situation allows for MUCH more time to devote to this.


A lot of the push for this is coming from people who aren't even involved in the BCWF. None of them have been involved at the committee or region level for anything related to hunting or wildlife.


If you guys want organizational change do it properly.


You seem to think the only way things will change is if we as bowhunting advocates get involved with the BCWF and change it from within. Well I can tell you that there are many people who believe that there is another way to get our voice heard, and in fact we are getting our voices heard. In 4 short years we have gone from obscurity to sitting on regional advisory committees, advising the gov't on provincial level policies etc.
Sounds to me like the change is allready happening. Locally here in region 5 the UBBC and the BCWF work seperately, yet in the spirit of cooperation for mutual gain when it is needed....the Fed seeks opportunities, the UBBC seeks opportunities and we support each other when it makes sense for each of us....how in the world that can construed as dividing hunters is beyond me.

Still just my opinion
Chris

[threedhunter]

willqbc, i was a member of ubbc a couple of years ago.never heard a thing , wasn't contacted for info, never had an address for info to be obtained from, yet you still took my money and so far all i see is a duplication of representation.
currently our regs do not list many seperate bow only seasons, those that are listed are extra opportunities for everyone to use.if they choose to use archery gear.
that said, we here in the okanagan have a lot of deer on private property all year that could be harvested.no we do not have a bow zone in bc, we also don't have a concentration of animals and peaple in close proxiity to each other that at this time requires a special area.
as i understand ubbc , that is on the agenda, to exclude other tools from being used in certain areas.the bowzone in alta exists because of property/domestic animal concerns.should bc follow in those footsteps?
really i can not say.they have their own policies to deal with right now.
if access is the ral issue then its up to the individual to solve. being a member of bcwf often gets you better access because of insurance.jm2cw.

[Onesock]

Threedhunter. Who do YOU think fought for and obtained 99%of the bow only opportunities in British Columbia? And actually there is a bow only area in BC. It was fought for and won by the Vancouver Island Bowhunters.

[GoatGuy]

In my dealings with my local BCWF president it was made clear that while the BCWF will not attempt to block bow initiatives if they make sense, neither will they put forth archery proposals on their own....so if not for groups like the UBBC putting forth the initiatives...who would????



easy to say in your position GG, for most of us this isn't our full time job, we put in the amount of time and effort we can afford to. Myself, i have a full time job and a young family, I sacrifice as much time, money (my own) and energy as I feel I can to trying to do my part. Do not presume to look down upon my efforts because your situation allows for MUCH more time to devote to this.





You seem to think the only way things will change is if we as bowhunting advocates get involved with the BCWF and change it from within. Well I can tell you that there are many people who believe that there is another way to get our voice heard, and in fact we are getting our voices heard. In 4 short years we have gone from obscurity to sitting on regional advisory committees, advising the gov't on provincial level policies etc.
Sounds to me like the change is allready happening. Locally here in region 5 the UBBC and the BCWF work seperately, yet in the spirit of cooperation for mutual gain when it is needed....the Fed seeks opportunities, the UBBC seeks opportunities and we support each other when it makes sense for each of us....how in the world that can construed as dividing hunters is beyond me.

Still just my opinion
Chris

I'm not saying you're a bad person because you have other duties. :roll: All I'm saying is you're complaining about what you aren't getting from the BCWF when you haven't put nearly enough effort in. (BTW 99% of my time is volunteer time too :wink:).

The only way to make change within the BCWF is to get involved. It's like you want to be a card carrying NDPer and change the Liberal party. Until there's some true effort that's properly supported put in for change nothing will happen. The BCWF is driven by its membership - a couple of emails and letters that are vague and rampant with skewed quotes aren't going to drive organizational change. You guys don't seem to understand that. This entire thread is like complaining about not winning the lottery and never buying a ticket - it makes no sense. What's transpired to date meets mediocrity head-on and the finger's being pointed at the BCWF.

You guys are blaming people for change that isn't happening when you haven't put forth the effort required to make change. I hope that makes sense.

Yes you can certainly work down other avenues but don't complain when a half-hearted attempt doesn't produce the results you want and don't blame the BCWF. You will find the same results with all other stakeholders and decision making processes. Advising and complaining are two very different things.

Nothing is easy when it comes to hunters and hunting, especially organizational and social change.

If you want it bad enough you'll make change. Otherwise, well, you know.

I think most of you guys are more than able to make a positive contribution but you're gonna be thoroughly disappointed with everything if this is the way you go about it.

[Tuffcity]

You guys are blaming people for change that isn't happening when you haven't put forth the effort required to make change.

Interesting comment.

So when a group comes to the table with constructive ideas but a slightly different approach and is rebuffed, it's their fault that change isn't happening. Then they're told to basically buy a ticket and stand in line (get a membership and work your way, eventually, into a position where you'll be listened to).

People ARE trying to get involved and
some true effort IS being put in.

It shouldn't be a kindly grandfatherly figure tut-tutting an insolent child type relationship but a peer to peer exchange of ideas and mutual support. BCWF essentially showed the UBBC the door and said come in through the basement entrance... that's were all the domestic help needs to arrive.

RC





http://www.psidea.org/images/BangHeadHere.gif

[threedhunter]

onesock, i can only acquiesse about the island bow only zone,i agree then you had the right peaples attention.
today you may find a different attitude at that table from the moe.
i mean no disrespect for the very hard work put in then, however a new "guard"is in place with a new agenda.the bcwf is trying to adapt , modify and get more season time for all of us. i will say again that the moe sets seasons , types, and tools, maybe even close to what was or needs to be.
advisory groups were held this spring.how much was taken into hand and used?ony time will tell.we were told it can be a long process as everything has to go to legislature to be approved.as to willyqbc, i do not have issue with the direction ubbc is going, just can't seem to recognize the difference/division between hunters and tool choice making a difference unless the reasoning is actually to get special areas opened that now are closed to hunting all together.may have not recieved that info.threedhunter.

[sealevel]

threedhunter i have a bit of a problem with the ubbc myself . I recrueted a lot of people and would have signed up a lot more. But volenteers should be treated with some respect.

[Avalanche123]

I have not joined the UBBC either as I am unsure about it all. That said, I am starting to hear abit more about them. (Too bad their website isn't more active...).

I am also not a member of the BCWF either as it seems to me they do not appear particularly interested in bow hunting and see it more as competition. (My opinion). Now granted I do not have a whole lot to go on but from what little I have heard and talked to their members about, they certainly don't share the same views I do about bow hunting.

I found it interesting that somone pointed out that bow hunting is not exclusive at all....the majority of people have the choice to use any weapon they want.

I do like the way Alberta designates their opportunites and from what I have seen, there certainly doesn't seem to be the same competitive relationship between the two groups as seems to exist here in BC. There are certainly way more bowhunters in Alberta than compared to BC.

By choice I hunt exclusively with a bow now however I still have my various guns around. I am not restricted by any regulatory designation but more so by personal choice.

[The Hermit]

It may be useful to re visit why no bow committee was formed at the last BCWF AGM.

Okay for review once again... the facts and conclusions.

One of the BCWF Fish and Game Clubs passed a motion to put forward a proposal that the BCWF Region put a resolution forward at the BCWF AGM to form a bowhunting committee. The Regional BCWF executive considered this and passed the motion at the BCWF Regional level and subsequently put the motion forward for consideration at the AGM. The resolutions committee approved the motion for publication and consideration at the AGM.

At the AGM one of the past presidents rightly stood and on a point of order informed the floor, that the BCWF bylaws prohibit the delegates at the AGM to direct the President to create any committees... that the President and the President alone is to make the decision on the formation of committees.

Parenthetically, I personally find it interesting that the same organization that GoatGuy righteously declares is "driven by its members" should retain a bylaw that disallows a motion that was properly brought forward from a local club, approved by the BCWF Regional Executive, and approved for publication publication and consideration by the resolution committee.

Also parenthetically, that is substantially the same layered process the BCWF is now telling the bowhunting community that we should use to have our interests heard and considered at the provincial level. Forgive us if after many years of trying to work within and cooperatively with the BCWF we are a little skeptical.

Technically and properly at that point the motion should have been simply withdrawn but unfortunately the Chair for some reason decided to call a vote on the motion which was then voted down - big surprise. So in effect the convention delegates never debated the motion on its merits at all. No discussion on the motion took place other than the procedural issue and yet the minutes will show that the motion was voted on and defeated.

At that time, I then stood as the VP and delegate from the Victoria Fish and Game Protective Association (with the fore-knowledge and approval of our executive to support the motion) and formally requested that the BCWF President consider the formation of a bowhunting committee, or sub-committee to the wildlife committee be formed.

I was very pleased thereafter to have a sit down meeting with Mel, Ron Weibe (BCWF VP) Patti Ahonic (Exec Director) and others to talk about what the mandate, structure, and make-up of a sub-committee to the wildlife committee might look like. I stressed that our intention was not to take anything away from the GOS but rather to increase opportunity for any hunter willing to pick up a bow. We talked about how imortant the opportunity to work within the wildlife committee is to the archery associations in the province, and the value we bring to the table. We also talked about how the formation of a committee would be a huge incentive for the 1000 plus members of the province's various archery associations to join the BCWF. I made it clear that we have been genuinely trying to work with and within the BCWF in order to have our voices heard and that this would be a way to bring unity.

As is his perogative as the President of the BCWF, after discussion with the BCWF executive board members, past presidents, and others, Mel decided not to form any kind of bowhunting committee.

That is the long and the short of it.

I have a lot of time for Mel. I believe he will do a great job in his new role. I don't like his decision one bit but thats the way the cookie crumbled... I'm not whining, not crying foul, and am satisfied that he followed reasonable process in coming to the decision and I can live with it.

Having said that, as the VP of the UBBC I can tell you that Mel and I continue to keep the lines of communication open and that Jim turner (UBBC President) and I have every intention to forge a cooperative and trusting relationship between our separate organizations. We share many core beliefs and interests and can not afford to denigrate one another's values, intentions, efforts, and interests. The broader work in conservation, advocacy, fisheries, etc that the BCWF leads is invaluable and I would encourage each and everyone of you to get involved, join up, and contribute your time and money to the cause!

The UBBC and our supporting organizations will be continuing our efforts to TRULY represent bowhunting and bowhunters in this province. We will continue and expand our efforts regionally on MOE wildlife committees, continue to lobby the MOE for forward thinking bowhunting policies, continue to support youth and senior opportunity, continue to promote hunter safety, voluntary training; and continue to drive hunter recruitment up every possible avenue.

Given the history above and the recent decision not to include bowhunters directly we do not believe for a moment that leaving provincial representation of the above bowhunting values and interests up to the BCWF would be prudent at this time.

[Ambush]

If the comments made here by the majority, about bowhunters, is representative of the majority BCWF'ers, then I can well see why bowhunters might as well go on their own. Some real deep-seated hate here!

Dog in a Manger!! Couldn't find a better example of it if you tried.

[Gateholio]

Okay for review once again... the facts and conclusions.

One of the BCWF Fish and Game Clubs passed a motion to put forward a proposal that the BCWF Region put a resolution forward at the BCWF AGM to form a bowhunting committee. The Regional BCWF executive considered this and passed the motion at the BCWF Regional level and subsequently put the motion forward for consideration at the AGM. The resolutions committee approved the motion for publication and consideration at the AGM.

At the AGM one of the past presidents rightly stood and on a point of order informed the floor, that the BCWF bylaws prohibit the delegates at the AGM to direct the President to create any committees... that the President and the President alone is to make the decision on the formation of committees.

Parenthetically, I personally find it interesting that the same organization that GoatGuy righteously declares is "driven by its members" should retain a bylaw that disallows a motion that was properly brought forward from a local club, approved by the BCWF Regional Executive, and approved for publication publication and consideration by the resolution committee.

Also parenthetically, that is substantially the same layered process the BCWF is now telling the bowhunting community that we should use to have our interests heard and considered at the provincial level. Forgive us if after many years of trying to work within and cooperatively with the BCWF we are a little skeptical.

Technically and properly at that point the motion should have been simply withdrawn but unfortunately the Chair for some reason decided to call a vote on the motion which was then voted down - big surprise. So in effect the convention delegates never debated the motion on its merits at all. No discussion on the motion took place other than the procedural issue and yet the minutes will show that the motion was voted on and defeated.

At that time, I then stood as the VP and delegate from the Victoria Fish and Game Protective Association (with the fore-knowledge and approval of our executive to support the motion) and formally requested that the BCWF President consider the formation of a bowhunting committee, or sub-committee to the wildlife committee be formed.

I was very pleased thereafter to have a sit down meeting with Mel, Ron Weibe (BCWF VP) Patti Ahonic (Exec Director) and others to talk about what the mandate, structure, and make-up of a sub-committee to the wildlife committee might look like. I stressed that our intention was not to take anything away from the GOS but rather to increase opportunity for any hunter willing to pick up a bow. We talked about how imortant the opportunity to work within the wildlife committee is to the archery associations in the province, and the value we bring to the table. We also talked about how the formation of a committee would be a huge incentive for the 1000 plus members of the province's various archery associations to join the BCWF. I made it clear that we have been genuinely trying to work with and within the BCWF in order to have our voices heard and that this would be a way to bring unity.

As is his perogative as the President of the BCWF, after discussion with the BCWF executive board members, past presidents, and others, Mel decided not to form any kind of bowhunting committee.

That is the long and the short of it.

I have a lot of time for Mel. I believe he will do a great job in his new role. I don't like his decision one bit but thats the way the cookie crumbled... I'm not whining, not crying foul, and am satisfied that he followed reasonable process in coming to the decision and I can live with it.

Having said that, as the VP of the UBBC I can tell you that Mel and I continue to keep the lines of communication open and that Jim turner (UBBC President) and I have every intention to forge a cooperative and trusting relationship between our separate organizations. We share many core beliefs and interests and can not afford to denigrate one another's values, intentions, efforts, and interests. The broader work in conservation, advocacy, fisheries, etc that the BCWF leads is invaluable and I would encourage each and everyone of you to get involved, join up, and contribute your time and money to the cause!

The UBBC and our supporting organizations will be continuing our efforts to TRULY represent bowhunting and bowhunters in this province. We will continue and expand our efforts regionally on MOE wildlife committees, continue to lobby the MOE for forward thinking bowhunting policies, continue to support youth and senior opportunity, continue to promote hunter safety, voluntary training; and continue to drive hunter recruitment up every possible avenue.

Given the history above and the recent decision not to include bowhunters directly we do not believe for a moment that leaving provincial representation of the above bowhunting values and interests up to the BCWF would be prudent at this time.



So, a motion was made, the bylaws didn't allow for it, and somehow people here are holding the BCWF to blame...

Sounds as if a certain group didn't put enough work into it.

A group can't ignore a by-law, just for the sake of convenience. You must change said by-law, vote on it, and then move forward. Otherwise, what is the point of bylaws?

[Gateholio]

If the comments made here by the majority, about bowhunters, is representative of the majority BCWF'ers, then I can well see why bowhunters might as well go on their own. Some real deep-seated hate here!

Dog in a Manger!! Couldn't find a better example of it if you tried.

No hate, just a question of procedure.

[Mr. Dean]

If the comments made here by the majority, about bowhunters, is representative of the majority BCWF'ers, then I can well see why bowhunters might as well go on their own. Some real deep-seated hate here!

Dog in a Manger!! Couldn't find a better example of it if you tried.


I strongly disagree with that statement. Infact, this is precisely a great example of what makes Bow Hunters "smelly" to the noses of Gunners. It's only a breath away of using explatives and evokes the tude of a spoiled kid. This goes nowhere, FAST!

Bow hunters claim that they're not understood.
But do they understand their oppositions views?


Again, just MO. :smile:

[GoatGuy]

Interesting comment.

So when a group comes to the table with constructive ideas but a slightly different approach and is rebuffed, it's their fault that change isn't happening. Then they're told to basically buy a ticket and stand in line (get a membership and work your way, eventually, into a position where you'll be listened to).

People ARE trying to get involved and IS being put in.

It shouldn't be a kindly grandfatherly figure tut-tutting an insolent child type relationship but a peer to peer exchange of ideas and mutual support. BCWF essentially showed the UBBC the door and said come in through the basement entrance... that's were all the domestic help needs to arrive.

RC


This is not a UBBC, BCWF thing, never was.

This thread is about a bowhunting committee within the BCWF.

BCWF is driven by it's clubs and resulting membership not by other organizations. The resolution didn't fit into the process, nor should it for any organization but that doesn't mean change can't happen.

The way the resolution was dealt with was wrong for sure - it should have never made it to convention, course there would have been another scape goat. Doesn't mean people should be calling out a past president or complaining because they didn't take the time to do things right.

Once you understand that the BCWF is driven by it's membership you'll understand how to drive change. That's exactly what makes the BCWF so strong and why MoE like the organization. Everybody's included at convention, folks say their peace, bite the bullet and carry on.

Until you get to that point you're going to find yourself frustrated.

[The Hermit]

So, a motion was made, the bylaws didn't allow for it, and somehow people here are holding the BCWF to blame...

Sounds as if a certain group didn't put enough work into it.

A group can't ignore a by-law, just for the sake of convenience. You must change said by-law, vote on it, and then move forward. Otherwise, what is the point of bylaws?

Gate... strictly in regard to the resolution proposal that went forward, it wasn't an outside "group" per se. Please be clear that it was the grassroots membership at the BCWF club level, the BCWF Regional Executive, and the resolution committee that put it forward. They were all unaware of the fact that the president and not the membership that decides on formation of committees and btw who shall participate on those committees. So it wasn't like they were "ignoring" the by-law.

So accepting that, we (BCWF members) then followed the rules, and asked the president to form the committee. He declined. End of story.

All the BCWF member bowhunters wanted through this process was a formal way to insure that the wildlife committee directly heard our arguments, considered them in the broader context of the resident hunter's best interest. No one on the bowhunting side expected that full participation would mean that everything we might want would ultimately be part of the recommendations made to MOE.

As I understand it, within the BCWF, the rift and argument between bowhunters and the dominant rifle hunters has been ongoing for the past decade or more. I hoped that the formation of a sub-committee would foster better communication, mutual participation and healthy debate on contentious issues. Its a sad day.

[Ambush]

I strongly disagree with that statement. Infact, this is precisely a great example of what makes Bow Hunters "smelly" to the noses of Gunners. It's only a breath away of using explatives and evokes the tude of a spoiled kid. This goes nowhere, FAST!

Bow hunters claim that they're not understood.
But do they understand their oppositions views?


Again, just MO. :smile:

So you do think bowhunters "smell".http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

....and they ARE the opposition?

I used no invectives or derogatory remarks, called no one names and referred to no one as a spoiled child. I would say that your remarks were more personel and inflammatory.

" Dog in a Manger" A dog lays in a manger on the hay. He cannot eat the hay himself to satisfy his hunger so in spite he will not let the cow eat either.

A hunter cannot use his rifle where it would not be appropriate [saftey, over harvest etc..] so he does not want any one else to have an opportunity either. That's not equity, that's just selfishness.

If you count slingshots and home made bows, I've been hunting over fifty years. I have heard these debates in countless encounters. And it usually sifts out to "what do I get"

Just human nature, as after all, we are just human. [ not including David Suzuki]

[Kody94]

A group can't ignore a by-law, just for the sake of convenience. You must change said by-law, vote on it, and then move forward. Otherwise, what is the point of bylaws?

I think you are oversimplifying here Gates. As I see it, no-one was ignoring any by-laws. Hermit's summary above is very clear on how it all went down, with BCWF members (local, regional and otherwise) all working in good faith and within the system to an end. I don't think most involved were upset that it couldn't be addressed as a resolution...just frustrated that after it was determined to be the prerogative of the President, and the President only, that it was still denied.

[aggiehunter]

When bowhunters hear the argument that everyone will want a special committee it truly shows the intent of that hidden agenda. If you were to read the special weapons document you will see that the ministry is NOT to recommend blackpowder seasons. So my friends there are two types of hunting in our Province, Gun or Bow. The firearms committee was set up to fight gun registry and protect the rights of hunters to keep and use guns. The same thing could be said for the bow committee. When certain factions want xbows banned, poundage changed, seasons changed we could look to our BCWF bow committee. A committee set up with educated bowhunters looking after the interests of all bowhunters in B.C.. So there will be no "red flannel jacket" committee, "barnes bullet boys" committee and the list COULD go on right. Try and keep it real. Hermit said it exacly as it went down now lets carry on tring to convince the BCWF that a bow committee is the RIGHT thing to do.

[Kody94]

...now lets carry on tring to convince the BCWF that a bow committee is the RIGHT thing to do.

That is the "right" thing to do, and I am sure most everyone here can agree to that. If BCWF members that support a Bowhunting Committee (which I am sure includes bowhunters and non-bowhunters) "take their ball and go home" after a defeat this, it would definitely be a weak response. I understand many bowhunters feel this is one defeat after a string of many, but I see progress being made. This was probably the most organized effort that had been made on this front, and I am sure it can be improved. The next time might be successful.

Just my 2c,
4Ster

[Gateholio]

Gate... strictly in regard to the resolution proposal that went forward, it wasn't an outside "group" per se. Please be clear that it was the grassroots membership at the BCWF club level, the BCWF Regional Executive, and the resolution committee that put it forward. They were all unaware of the fact that the president and not the membership that decides on formation of committees and btw who shall participate on those committees. So it wasn't like they were "ignoring" the by-law.

So accepting that, we (BCWF members) then followed the rules, and asked the president to form the committee. He declined. End of story.

All the BCWF member bowhunters wanted through this process was a formal way to insure that the wildlife committee directly heard our arguments, considered them in the broader context of the resident hunter's best interest. No one on the bowhunting side expected that full participation would mean that everything we might want would ultimately be part of the recommendations made to MOE.

As I understand it, within the BCWF, the rift and argument between bowhunters and the dominant rifle hunters has been ongoing for the past decade or more. I hoped that the formation of a sub-committee would foster better communication, mutual participation and healthy debate on contentious issues. Its a sad day.

When I say "a group" I mean the BCWF. It can't ignore it's own rules. Some people here have been pointing fingers saying it was a "technicality" but that isn't really the case.

[Gateholio]

When bowhunters hear the argument that everyone will want a special committee it truly shows the intent of that hidden agenda. If you were to read the special weapons document you will see that the ministry is NOT to recommend blackpowder seasons. So my friends there are two types of hunting in our Province, Gun or Bow.

Presently that is the case. Doesnt' mean it can't change...However, there is a group of hunters that want a traditional ML season, in some areas that would also be of interest to bow hunters.

But the question remains- If the BCWF has a bow committee, should the BCWF also establish a GUN hunting committee, to further the opportunity of gun hunting?


(The "firearms" committee was a result of federal gun control laws, and was not about hunting)

[Avalanche123]

To quote "But the question remains- If the BCWF has a bow committee, should the BCWF also establish a GUN hunting committee, to further the opportunity of gun hunting?"

It is my impression that the BCWF already furthers hunting opportunities...?

To quote again "So there will be no "red flannel jacket" committee, "barnes bullet boys" committee and the list COULD go on right. Try and keep it real. Hermit said it exacly as it went down now lets carry on tring to convince the BCWF that a bow committee is the RIGHT thing to do"..

Well put.

[Mr. Dean]

So you do think bowhunters "smell".http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

....and they ARE the opposition?

I used no invectives or derogatory remarks, called no one names and referred to no one as a spoiled child. I would say that your remarks were more personel and inflammatory.

" Dog in a Manger" A dog lays in a manger on the hay. He cannot eat the hay himself to satisfy his hunger so in spite he will not let the cow eat either.

A hunter cannot use his rifle where it would not be appropriate [saftey, over harvest etc..] so he does not want any one else to have an opportunity either. That's not equity, that's just selfishness.

If you count slingshots and home made bows, I've been hunting over fifty years. I have heard these debates in countless encounters. And it usually sifts out to "what do I get"

Just human nature, as after all, we are just human. [ not including David Suzuki]

Please don't misunderstand me, I only used your post as an example and I could likely dig up thousands of others from "both sides", that would make things appear that yes, we are divided.

I'm of the firm belief that all hunters are hunters, bottom line. There shouldn't any "us" and/or "them", ie bow hunter/gun hunter.

I do see merit in some of the stuff I hear but I'm still on the side of the fence of believing that we don't need special committees within the Fed, to accomplish things. I understand the Fed's decision, especially when I see how most of these threads turn out; hence my saying that the sales pitch isn't working...

I'm extremely fond of the idea of opening up new opportunity for all hunters. The use of bows around rural areas that are now closed off, excites me. But do we need a sub subcommittee in order to lobby for the necessary changes? I don't think so. All we need is for someone to sell the idea.


Sorry ya took my remarks as a personal attack. That was FAR from my intentions.

[Mr. Dean]

... now lets carry on tring to convince the BCWF that a bow committee is the RIGHT thing to do"..


To do that, you need to sway the members opinions, not the directors.

[GoatGuy]

I think you are oversimplifying here Gates. As I see it, no-one was ignoring any by-laws. Hermit's summary above is very clear on how it all went down, with BCWF members (local, regional and otherwise) all working in good faith and within the system to an end.


This is mostly correct - most wanted to see it go to the membership for organizational direction.

Until such a time nobody knows what will happen and from what's happened to date some people have made the assumption that this would have been supported by the BCWF membership. Best left not putting words into people's mouths.



I don't think most involved were upset that it couldn't be addressed as a resolution...

That is not true.


just frustrated that after it was determined to be the prerogative of the President, and the President only, that it was still denied.

That's where the BCWF differs from other organizations- this is something that should be supported by the membership.

BCWF is a bottom up organization; it is not an organization where people simply make decisions without consulting the membership or getting direction from the membership. Some people struggle with that.

[GoatGuy]

When bowhunters hear the argument that everyone will want a special committee it truly shows the intent of that hidden agenda. If you were to read the special weapons document you will see that the ministry is NOT to recommend blackpowder seasons. So my friends there are two types of hunting in our Province, Gun or Bow.

That was never the case until now and there are several people who would want muzzleloader seasons within and outside the BCWF. Starting a lobby wouldn't be hard.

There is also a movement within the BCWF to start a handgun hunting season but there is no handgun committee.

There are also clubs who are strictly for turkey hunting but the BCWF does not have a turkey hunting committee.

The same can be said for a drift fisher committee and fly fisher committee. There are several people who want them and clubs specifically for them. But within the BCWF there is a saltwater and freshwater fishing committee.

There is also an ATV club within the BCWF but thre is no ATV committee, there is an access committee.

These committees all follow direction from the members.

Regardless of your take the direction should come from the membership.



The firearms committee was set up to fight gun registry and protect the rights of hunters to keep and use guns. The same thing could be said for the bow committee. When certain factions want xbows banned, poundage changed, seasons changed we could look to our BCWF bow committee.

The BCWF already does that on a daily basis. That's why there's still hunting in Todagain. The wildlife committee reviews everything put in by people who want xbows banned, poundage change, mandatory education and every other idea.

There are several members on the wildlife committee who are bowhunters (most I would say) and all wildlife committee members consulted their clubs and members during the special weapons policy rewrite.

Believe it or not all this stuff is performed through the wildlife committee.



it went down now lets carry on tring to convince the BCWF that a bow committee is the RIGHT thing to do.

Needs to come from the membership. To date people are putting targets up and throwing blame around. I think you're starting to get it.

[Fisher-Dude]

I have to think that the big push by the TBBC last year to get youth gun hunts banned if there were a bow season running concurrently has left a bitter taste in the mouths of those who are trying to boost youth hunter recruitment. Kicking kids out of a youth season so that TBBCers could hunt "unalarmed deer" really pi$$ed a LOT of folks off. Me included.

I think the current leadership of the TBBC is leaps and bounds ahead of the old guard and I'm looking forward to a more cooperative approach. Some members still push that agenda, as well as the agenda against other forms of archery equipment like crossbows...the new leadership will have some work to do in that regard to get harmony within the organization.

Did this have any bearing on the outcome at the BCWF AGM? I don't know.

[Kody94]

That is not true.


I was not there, so will defer to your direct experience. By the time it got to me, however, those that I know that were involved (which is probably a small subset of all those that were involved) seemed very accepting of the fact that due process had to be followed. They were also still very optimistic of a positive outcome.




That's where the BCWF differs from other organizations- this is something that should be supported by the membership.

BCWF is a bottom up organization; it is not an organization where people simply make decisions without consulting the membership or getting direction from the membership. Some people struggle with that.

I agree wholeheartedly. I have a sincere question though, and please excuse my ignorance....this decision was the Presidents to make, and he was not able to have the benefit of a membership vote on a resolution to base his decision on....so in this case, how exactly is he to gauge the will of the membership? I am not being a smartass, just trying to figure out exactly how the executive determines what the direction from the membership is and what the membership supports, so that efforts to garner "effective" support are channeled in the right direction, and so that those that do support various issues can be certain that the decision makers are aware of it.

Cheers,
4ster

[Avalanche123]

Goatguy (and others) ...you have certainly shed some light on a few areas of the BCWF that I was not clear about.

Interesting thread....!

[J_T]

I have to think that the big push by the TBBC last year to get youth gun hunts banned if there were a bow season running concurrently has left a bitter taste in the mouths of those who are trying to boost youth hunter recruitment. Kicking kids out of a youth season so that TBBCers could hunt "unalarmed deer" really pi$$ed a LOT of folks off. Me included.
FD, I'd like to respond to your comment above. I suppose it appeared that a certain faction of bowhunters were attempting to "kick" youth gun hunts out of a bow only season. But it actually wasn't the case. Yes, I'm sure you can find a short quip that suggests it was, but it wasn't the case. I have to say, the discussions on hbc, where really taken out of context.

Bowhunters have been pushing youth involvement and recruitment for a very long time. In fact, in the mid 90's, I wrote a document for the BCWF on how to get youth involved through summer programs (much like the Becoming an Outdoor Woman program). I digress.

Bowhunters were concerned first, that a short rifle youth opportunity was not going far enough to get young people involved, that we should be looking at opportunity that lasted the entire season. Second, that there were youth who had made conscious decisions to attempt a harvest with a bow, and a rifle youth hunt, within a bow only hunt, compromised the opportunity for an archery youth. Did it? I doubt it.

Bowhunters were concerned about the precedence of instituting a youth rifle opportunity within a bow only season. The question, "what's next?" comes to the forefront. At the early proposal stages, bowhunters where, in principle, opposed to the season choice. Not to creating opportunity for youth.

I'm not looking to start this debate again or fuel any negative thought to the discussion that is ongoing in this thread, but I did feel a need to provide some clarification to your comment.

[Fisher-Dude]

Jim, we all know what Ernie pushed on here in that regard. My point isn't the debate of concurrent seasons, it's the fact that I believe it put considerable distance between "us" and "them". The topic of disagreement could have been anything - I think the fact that it appeared to many to be a selfish, elitist attitude has driven a bit of a wedge between the two camps. Now you've had to step up and try and close the distance. It's not an enviable task. I hope you can git 'er done.

[J_T]

It's a good point about concurrent seasons. In the past it seemed to be such a road block to improvements. Now that we appear to be past the concept and are more accepting of concurrent seasons, I'm optimistic there is much to gain. Working together.

[GoatGuy]

I agree wholeheartedly. I have a sincere question though, and please excuse my ignorance....this decision was the Presidents to make, and he was not able to have the benefit of a membership vote on a resolution to base his decision on....so in this case, how exactly is he to gauge the will of the membership? I am not being a smartass, just trying to figure out exactly how the executive determines what the direction from the membership is and what the membership supports, so that efforts to garner "effective" support are channeled in the right direction, and so that those that do support various issues can be certain that the decision makers are aware of it.

Cheers,
4ster

I suppose the big issue is he can't gauge the will of the membership on this and that's a major problem. Nobody really knows - the gauge comes at convention.

Some are willing to state what they believe to be true on both sides of the coin, but that kind of decision making process doesn't meet the needs or demands of any organization. Accountability, integrity and transparency are usually thrown around loosely in todays society but within the BCWF anybody who goes ahead without the support of the membership is taking immense risk.

"Many" and "few" are words that are used to define a proportion or number from 1 to infinity - they vary from Vancouver to Hinton and without getting the nod of the membership one is speculating at best especially with a measurable population.

"Effective support" comes from the clubs and the entire membership. Change is driven by performing what can be termed due diligence. I suppose in the big scheme it's democracy - people who live in Canada are well versed with the alternatives.

The result of due diligence comes out at the convention through things such as the closed session and resolutions.

The alternatives are what can be termed as ineffective support and damaging support - they abound and are both easy to come by.

[The Hermit]

I suppose the big issue is he can't gauge the will of the membership on this and that's a major problem. Nobody really knows - the gauge comes at convention.

Some are willing to state what they believe to be true on both sides of the coin, but that kind of decision making process doesn't meet the needs or demands of any organization. Accountability, integrity and transparency are usually thrown around loosely in todays society but within the BCWF anybody who goes ahead without the support of the membership is taking immense risk.

"Many" and "few" are words that are used to define a proportion or number from 1 to infinity - they vary from Vancouver to Hinton and without getting the nod of the membership one is speculating at best especially with a measurable population.

"Effective support" comes from the clubs and the entire membership. Change is driven by performing what can be termed due diligence. I suppose in the big scheme it's democracy - people who live in Canada are well versed with the alternatives.

The result of due diligence comes out at the convention through things such as the closed session and resolutions.

The alternatives are what can be termed as ineffective support and damaging support - they abound and are both easy to come by.

So what is the process for changing a by-law and do you think it should be changed? I do...

We have a Catch 22... If the voting delegates on the convention floor can't debate the issue and pass or defeat a motion and subsequently instruct the board to take a particular action, or not, under the current by-law, and the president feels he can't legitimately gauge the wishes of a majority of the membership without that debate and vote then he is a lame duck.

Part of what Les Husband said to the delegates on the by-law issue was that he felt strongly that the by-law is a good one, that he didn't want to see the by-law eroded or changed because doing so would, to paraphrase... "effectively undermine the power of the president to lead the organization in what ever direction he/she desired, and that there is a long history of the past presidents having that privilege and authority."

Jesse, you say that the whole membership drives the decisions around direction of the BCWF... I think that is total bull shit! Any thinking person knows that organizations are driven by those that turn out, step up and get involved and that is typically a handful of people. The BCWF is no different than any other organization in that regard.

It seems to me that the sub-text of what you have been saying is that a few highly influential individuals, many of whom are past presidents and favored sons influenced the president to make the decision not to form the bowhunting sub-committee. How is THAT demonstrative of the will of the membership?

As I've said earlier, the initial motion came from the grass roots and had support of at least one club directly, its Regional BCWF executive, and yes it was also supported by the voting delegates from other member clubs namely the VFGPA, Courtney F&G and probably others. Our three clubs alone represent about 3800 grass root members of the BCWF! If the real BCWF membership is liberally 14,000 then our 3,800 or more represents 27% of the membership!

I'd be interested to know how the decision to form other committees were made? Seems to me if none of those committees were voted on then someone somewhere in the Federation made the decision. Not every thing needs the entire electorate to be decided... that is democracy.

Fact is he could have made the decision and formed the committee but I strongly suggest that you, and others dissuaded him from doing so because of your own biases. I have written to Mel asking him to clarify exactly what the reasoning went into his decision. He has promised to provide this in short order.

[Kody94]

As I've said earlier, the initial motion came from the grass roots and had support of at least one club directly, its Regional BCWF executive, and yes it was also supported by the voting delegates from other member clubs namely the VFGPA, Courtney F&G and probably others. Our three clubs alone represent about 3800 grass root members of the BCWF! If the real BCWF membership is liberally 14,000 then our 3,800 or more represents 27% of the membership!

Hermit, just FYI, the EKWA submitted a letter of support for the formation of the committee, and have created a regional Bowhunting Committee (which is the Alternative Weapons Committee renamed) in an effort to demonstrate some leadership by example on the issue. I am not sure how many BCWF members the EKWA represents, but I am sure its significant.

I am not familiar enough with the BCWF beyond the Kootenays to know what is going on or to even presume to point figures, etc. I am not even upset that the decision went the way it did. I just want to understand it, so that I can direct my energies in an effective manner if I do want to effect change (on this or anything else).

Goatguy, I appreciate your efforts in response to my questions. Much like Hermit above, I still do find the situation a little confusing. I am actually all for the President to have discretionary decision making power (much like all elected officials), but would hate for that to result in "paralysis by analysis" (for lack of a better way to put it), or inaction due to insufficient knowlege. I don't think the BCWF wants a referendum on every issue like this that comes up. :) In the absence of that though, as I mention above, I am still curious what it takes, for future reference.

I am happy to wait for Mel's rationale for his decision, and if its just that he "feels" that most of the membership does not support it, I am cool with that. Its his call. Then its up to the advocates of the proposal to convince him otherwise, and that's where the clarification of "how" comes into play. Would it be as simple as more letters from more clubs?

Cheers,
4Ster

[aggiehunter]

I have never heard of a group attempting to get a muzzie season. I am also not sure how they could justify a Jim Shockey special season pasting animals at 250 yards. However if the muzzle loaders want to hunt during the early and late bow season I am sure that a lot of the bcwf members will glady endorse it. Round and around we go. And by the way goatguy it was BCWF members wanting the bow committee, but it just couldnt be put by the GOB club could it.

[aggiehunter]

Fisher-Dude, Lets be honest here. Yes bowhunters were upset when the Youth season was proposed in the bowonly season. Not just TBBC members either. If at that time there would have been a BCWF Bow/Com with bowhunters at the helm that season would probably have looked more like the Youth Hunting package as proposed by the TBBC many years ago. There was absolutely NO effort to remove Youth in the last few years. The only effort was to make Youth more involved, not less. Some bowhunters had their hunts changed by the Youth rifle season but all in all we don't seem to see much effect. Is it working? Goatguy could probably put his fingers on the increase in junior licences? There has never been a push by the TBBC to remove Xbows so please stand corrected. How individuals post on HBC is their business but having said that here's another reason for a BCWF Bow/Comm. There was also a push by some BCWF clubs for a senior season during bowonly, it almost got by the Ok Region. Again another place for discussion with a BCWF Bow/Comm. Yes the new TBBC exec has it's work cut out for it. Not only to protect the sanctity of the remaining bowonly seasons but to convince the ministry of the validity of more bowhunting opportunities for all hunters.

[Fisher-Dude]

Fisher-Dude, Lets be honest here. Yes bowhunters were upset when the Youth season was proposed in the bowonly season. Not just TBBC members either. If at that time there would have been a BCWF Bow/Com with bowhunters at the helm that season would probably have looked more like the Youth Hunting package as proposed by the TBBC many years ago. There was absolutely NO effort to remove Youth in the last few years. The only effort was to make Youth more involved, not less. Some bowhunters had their hunts changed by the Youth rifle season but all in all we don't seem to see much effect. Is it working? Goatguy could probably put his fingers on the increase in junior licences? There has never been a push by the TBBC to remove Xbows so please stand corrected. How individuals post on HBC is their business but having said that here's another reason for a BCWF Bow/Comm. There was also a push by some BCWF clubs for a senior season during bowonly, it almost got by the Ok Region. Again another place for discussion with a BCWF Bow/Comm. Yes the new TBBC exec has it's work cut out for it. Not only to protect the sanctity of the remaining bowonly seasons but to convince the ministry of the validity of more bowhunting opportunities for all hunters.

Aggie, were you here to see the debate re: youth gun concurrent with bow? The youth tag proposal by the TBBC was geared to get kid gun hunters out of their own season to quiet the bush for bow hunters. Rainwater (you're related, right?) made a very strong stance against youth gun seasons interfering with his bow seasons. We had many posts from the TBBC forums pasted here that showed his true motives. When the region 8 late mule deer youth season was announced, Rainy's post was entitled "Screwed Again" on the TBBC forum, as he wanted to bow hunt that period instead of letting kids get their first deer with a gun. Let's call a spade a spade here.

Onesock has been repeatedly quoted as being anti-crossbow, and he's region 1's director. No push? Ask Kirk what he really wants...

[Kody94]

Onesock has been repeatedly quoted as being anti-crossbow, and he's region 1's director. No push? Ask Kirk what he really wants...

To be fair, there are other regional directors (like me for instance) that are equally NOT anti-crossbow. I have never seen a push. Members and directors are entitled to their own opinions (much like the BCWF :) ) and many discussions occur, but there has not been a "push" by the TBBC to ban x-bows from bow only seasons that I am aware of.

The TBBC Youth Package proposal is as old as the Youth Seasons themselves, if not older. I don't believe it was a reactionary measure to "get kid hunters out of their own seasons"...I saw the proposal as a win/win. More opportunity for all kids, potentially more effective at recruitment, and less chance of conflicts. Anyway, that's JMHO on it. I was not part of the discussions here previously, and there is clearly some hard feelings from whatever transpired. That is a shame, as being able to open-mindedly discuss options is critically important if we are ever going to get it right for all hunters, and personality conflicts are too petty to allow them to get in the way IMHO.

Cheers,
4ster

[Fisher-Dude]

More opportunity for all kids? Taking a rifle out of their hands during a youth season, restricting their choice of weapon, equals "more opportunity"? Get serious. It was a step backwards from what is currently available to kids. They can hunt with gun or bow during the youth season right now, and the proposal was to restrict them to bow only. Win (for bow only ESTABLISHED hunters) - lose (for KIDS wanting to shoot a deer with a gun).

[Kody94]

More opportunity for all kids? Taking a rifle out of their hands during a youth season, restricting their choice of weapon, equals "more opportunity"? Get serious. It was a step backwards from what is currently available to kids. They can hunt with gun or bow during the youth season right now, and the proposal was to restrict them to bow only. Win (for bow only ESTABLISHED hunters) - lose (for KIDS wanting to shoot a deer with a gun).

That's your opinion Dude, and I don't have any issue with you havin' it. No need to get 'pissy' with me because I might see it differently though. I am certainly not trying to re-open any old wounds or re-start the debate...I gather you guys have been around and 'round and 'round on it already.

Also note that I used the word "saw". No matter how I currently see the issue, its not one that I am willing to bother spending any more time on right now.

[aggiehunter]

Your absolutely right SSSSTR. The Youth hunting package as brought forward was well ahead of the present youth hunting seasons. It was the brainchild of the TBBC and they supported it along with Youth. And yes these are merely opinions from people on subjects, not the law. However when clubs are run on opinions ie. BCWF Bow/Comm then things go sideways. I personally allow for opinions and Onesock will never change his, let it go. And Fisher is correct that some people were upset over the Youth Trophy Mule Deer Season. Bowhunters had a request for a bowseason during that time well ahead of the new Youth Nov. 11-18 Mule Deer but the present bio. "in his opinion" thought there was a moritorium on bow seasons. So sometimes opinions are not ALWAYS good! As you I have seen (saw).

[Onesock]

Fisherdude, you are incorrect AGAIN. I am not the Region 1 director for the TBBC and have not been for some years now!!!! The TBBC is also like the BCWF in that the president of the time represents the views of the membership. Do not come down on Rainwater for the stance of the TBBC because he was speaking for the club. I really don't know how a bunch of guys with bows and arrows have managed to put such a fear into the BCWF? As for x-bows you are right. If it was my choice they would be hunting in the GOS and not the bow only season. But what the hell we have junior rifle hunters in there now so I guess you can't really call it bow only, can you. I think the jr. rifle season should have been put into the first 2 weeks of the GOS and kids with bows should have been hunting in the old bow only season!! Mind you the BCWF would have had to cough up 2 weeks of the precious 12 week long GOS for kids and we all know that ain't gonna happen.

[GoatGuy]

So what is the process for changing a by-law and do you think it should be changed? I do...

We have a Catch 22... If the voting delegates on the convention floor can't debate the issue and pass or defeat a motion and subsequently instruct the board to take a particular action, or not, under the current by-law, and the president feels he can't legitimately gauge the wishes of a majority of the membership without that debate and vote then he is a lame duck.

Part of what Les Husband said to the delegates on the by-law issue was that he felt strongly that the by-law is a good one, that he didn't want to see the by-law eroded or changed because doing so would, to paraphrase... "effectively undermine the power of the president to lead the organization in what ever direction he/she desired, and that there is a long history of the past presidents having that privilege and authority."

Jesse, you say that the whole membership drives the decisions around direction of the BCWF... I think that is total bull shit! Any thinking person knows that organizations are driven by those that turn out, step up and get involved and that is typically a handful of people. The BCWF is no different than any other organization in that regard.

It seems to me that the sub-text of what you have been saying is that a few highly influential individuals, many of whom are past presidents and favored sons influenced the president to make the decision not to form the bowhunting sub-committee. How is THAT demonstrative of the will of the membership?

As I've said earlier, the initial motion came from the grass roots and had support of at least one club directly, its Regional BCWF executive, and yes it was also supported by the voting delegates from other member clubs namely the VFGPA, Courtney F&G and probably others. Our three clubs alone represent about 3800 grass root members of the BCWF! If the real BCWF membership is liberally 14,000 then our 3,800 or more represents 27% of the membership!

I'd be interested to know how the decision to form other committees were made? Seems to me if none of those committees were voted on then someone somewhere in the Federation made the decision. Not every thing needs the entire electorate to be decided... that is democracy.

Fact is he could have made the decision and formed the committee but I strongly suggest that you, and others dissuaded him from doing so because of your own biases. I have written to Mel asking him to clarify exactly what the reasoning went into his decision. He has promised to provide this in short order.


We aren't talking about voting on a committee - we're talking about organizational support for a special weapon. Right now that does not exist. The BCWF looks after hunters and anglers. That's where you need change and how you might get it through the resolution process. After 9 pages of this you're still focusing on a committee when you should be focusing on ob and direction. I don't understand why that is so difficult to grasp.

Here's the readers digest version of what has transpired:
-Poor resolution that wasn't put together properly and really shouldn't have made it to convention
-Resolution was dismissed - forget about the vote, it's not important
-Big thing is poor resolution = no joy for anybody because there's no direction from the membership
-Request for a bow committee was made
-No true knowledge about how the organization feels about a bow committee

Brings us to today.

Also 27% of the membership is not driving the BCWF. Re-read the bylawys on voting and understand them. You should also note that when the resolution went forward at the regional level it was in support of letting this issue go to the membership to be decided - there's a big difference between that and wanting a bowhunting committee. I've always thought this issue should be discussed and decided by the membership. Don't start thinking about the resolution again - the resolution should likely have never made it to convention.

You need a proper resolution to actually have that discussion and decision come from the membership - I hope that makes sense. I've tried to say it 6 or 7 times but that's your solution.

The only committee that is formed outside of a general context is firearms and that's solely because of bill c-68. If there was ever someone with the intent of outlawing xbows you can be sure there would be a committee formed to fight that.

As for the rest of it, I figured I'd become the scape goat at some point. If you think my conversation and will is exercised through the BCWF you're absolutely wrong. I provide information and research to people and organizations who request it - until now that is actually far more often for people outside of the BCWF than inside. Strange I know, but it often seems that people in other jurisdictions and inside the ministry have questions on hunter related issues.

Until there's direction from the BCWF membership I don't think anybody should be making assumptions about what should be done.

And yes, I know, it's all my fault!:roll:

[GoatGuy]

I don't think the BCWF wants a referendum on every issue like this that comes up.


In this case I think it's extremely important.

To date the BCWF is not a 'special interest' group. There is no fly-fishing, drift fishing, gear fishing committee - there are freswather and saltwater committees. The discussion revolves around opportunity, access and conservation. It doesn't look at what one carries in their hand.

When it comes to the BCWF this really is a big deal.

[GoatGuy]

I have never heard of a group attempting to get a muzzie season.

Well, there are several people who want one. There have been numerous requests for these seasons over the years. There are also several people in clubs who want a handgun season.

You have much research to do - several other jurisdictions have muzzle loader seasons and they're growing.



I am also not sure how they could justify a Jim Shockey special season pasting animals at 250 yards. However if the muzzle loaders want to hunt during the early and late bow season I am sure that a lot of the bcwf members will glady endorse it. Round and around we go. And by the way goatguy it was BCWF members wanting the bow committee, but it just couldnt be put by the GOB club could it.

The BCWF membership has never given any direction on this. Not sure how you would know, or who you've talked to. How one can make these assumptions when they don't know that others want primitive weapons seasons.

Funny, BCWF members would gladly endorse a muzzle loader season concurrently during the early and late bow season and the BCWF members want a bow hunting committee.

I don't understand - seeing as you're so in touch: does the BCWF members then support a primitive weapons committee? According to you nobody wants a muzzle loader season, but the BCWF members want a muzzle loader/bow season to run concurrently.

This really doesn't make any sense. The writing style is however extremely familiar. Uninformed, generalized, and contradictory.

[Fisher-Dude]

So I see they've finally updated your website, Onesock, and you've been voted out. I stand corrected on that point. Last time I was browsing over there you were still listed for region 1.

Why you're against additional opportunity for other hunters is really confusing - don't you think there are enough animals to go around? It seems that there are very few bowhunters who think that those crazy gun-totin' kids in the youth season have affected bow season in any way. Maybe you need a new huntin' spot? :wink:

By the way, you were mentioned to me in a PM from a fellow bowhunter who praised your ability to get game with the bow - why you're worried about some kid out hunting with his dad ruining your fun therefore seems even stranger to me.

[The Hermit]

We aren't talking about voting on a committee - we're talking about organizational support for a special weapon.

No YOU might be but the rest of us are talking about increasing hunter opportunity!

Right now that does not exist. The BCWF looks after hunters and anglers. That's where you need change and how you might get it through the resolution process. After 9 pages of this you're still focusing on a committee when you should be focusing on ob and direction. I don't understand why that is so difficult to grasp.

http://www.members.shaw.ca/btozer/lightening.jpg

The BCWF looks after gun hunters and anglers and yes that is where we need change! What is ob and direction mean?

Here's the readers digest version of what has transpired:
-Poor resolution that wasn't put together properly and really shouldn't have made it to convention
Agreed that it shouldn't have gone to resolution.
-Resolution was dismissed - forget about the vote, it's not important
Okay forgotten, even though in the minutes it reads as though it was frickin voted down on its relative merits when it wasn't even debated... moving on.
-Big thing is poor resolution = no joy for anybody because there's no direction from the membership
What you don't seem to get is that no resolution about bowhunting committee or any other committee is open to resolution because of the by-laws. This is where the catch 22 is... can't find out what the membership thinks because can't be debated on the floor! Perhaps half of these pages are because you aren't paying attention?? <razzz>
-Request for a bow committee was made
Yep
-No true knowledge about how the organization feels about a bow committee
Depends man... you can't deny that the VFGPA, Courtney F&GPA, Keremeos/Cawston Sportsmen Association, and EKWA and its bowhunters that are members of BCWF, all support it! How about you do a little research and tell us what member clubs are against it??

Brings us to today.

Also 27% of the membership is not driving the BCWF. Re-read the bylawys on voting and understand them.
Oh I understand the number of votes by member organization... one of the reasons that Courtney is bringing a resolution representational voting. When 27+% of the membership speaks and can't even have the opportunity to debate the issue because of a by-law that empowers the president to do what ever he/she feels like... people tend to get a tad ornery!

You should also note that when the resolution went forward at the regional level it was in support of letting this issue go to the membership to be decided - there's a big difference between that and wanting a bowhunting committee.
See above, and tell us what forum the BCWF will use to open the discussion and debate the relative merits of opening up the wildlife committee to receiving direct input on? We welcomed the discussion but for all the reasons previously discussed that didn't happen.

PLEASE don't tell us to work through the regional level... we all know where that ends up don't we! The proposed sub-committee was to be structured such that every region would have a bowhunting advocate working on local committees and that the chair of those reps (me) would sit on the wildlife committee.

If you are so attuned to the way it really works why not show some leadership and tell us the process to achieve what we want? Why don’t you take us by the wing and walk us through it? The BCWF illuminati obviously knows there is dissatisfaction amongst the bowhunting community, why not address it instead of suppressing it?

I've always thought this issue should be discussed and decided by the membership. Don't start thinking about the resolution again - the resolution should likely have never made it to convention.
We all agreed on this point pages ago.

You need a proper resolution to actually have that discussion and decision come from the membership - I hope that makes sense. I've tried to say it 6 or 7 times but that's your solution.
I've tried to explain that NO SUCH RESOLUTION CAN be brought forward under the current by-laws. Damned if I am going wait till two years from now so we can have the discussion and then maybe take this to the floor in 2011!

The only committee that is formed outside of a general context is firearms and that's solely because of bill c-68. If there was ever someone with the intent of outlawing xbows you can be sure there would be a committee formed to fight that.
What "general context" are you talking about? BTW - you keep making a big deal about the crossbow thing... that is yesterday's news man, get over it! The official position of both the UBBC and the TBBC is that we support ALL forms of legal archery tackle.

As for the rest of it, I figured I'd become the scape goat at some point. If you think my conversation and will is exercised through the BCWF you're absolutely wrong. I provide information and research to people and organizations who request it - until now that is actually far more often for people outside of the BCWF than inside. Strange I know, but it often seems that people in other jurisdictions and inside the ministry have questions on hunter related issues.
So your shit don't stink either eh?

Until there's direction from the BCWF membership I don't think anybody should be making assumptions about what should be done.
Sigh... and the seasons they go round and round and the painted pony goes up and down...

And yes, I know, it's all my fault!:roll:
Dude get over yourself... after the drubbing you give out here to J_T and OneSock I assumed you could handle a little heat!

Until Mel gets back to us with the full explanation and reasons as to why he decided not to form a bow-hunting sub-committee I am done with this discussion. It is all moot in any regard since it is perfectly clear to most of us that the BCWF executive is not supportive of forming a bowhunting committee at this time. And as has been said before we are okay with the decision.

I know you don't like to hear this but whether you believe it to be true or not the bowhunting organizations in this province DO NOT feel well represented by the BCWF. Therefore, the UBBC will simply carry on in our efforts to be heard, and where possible will remain open to working with the BCWF and other conservation oriented associations.

[Onesock]

FD- You are full of mistakes aren't you. Wasn't voted out but stepped down from the position to take the VP role for a few years of which I have stepped down from also after 4 years.

[GoatGuy]

Hermit,

OB is organizational behaviour. Doing what you do I figured you'd pick up on that.

Firstly, you need a resolution that acknowledges special weapons, not a resolution for a committee.

From there it can be debated on the floor.

This really couldn't be any simpler. I hope this makes sense.

Never been much for holding a dudes hand but there you go.

[Gateholio]

People using personal attacks/derogatory language tends to make that person look childish.

[The Hermit]

Hermit,

OB is organizational behaviour. Doing what you do I figured you'd pick up on that.

Firstly, you need a resolution that acknowledges special weapons, not a resolution for a committee.

From there it can be debated on the floor.

This really couldn't be any simpler. I hope this makes sense.

Never been much for holding a dudes hand but there you go.


Here I thought OB was for Only Bowhunters!! :tongue: I would call the process more akin to Business Process Redesign (BPR) as Organizational Behavior (OB) tends to look more at efficiency, effectiveness, and efficacy of management styles. Need to change the by-law regardless.

I don't like the term "special" weapons as it creates the problematic us and them thinking. At the heart of this whole issue is that anyone with a hunting license can pick up a bow or crossbow and go hunting. Bow seasons that exist outside the GOS simply increase hunter opportunity, they do not take away from the GOS, LEH season, youth/senior season. So why wouldn't the BCWF want to embrace a passionate group of dedicated bowhunting conservationists to help consider when and where to recommend expanding bowhunting seasons?

BTW - you didn't say which clubs don't want to include bowhunters in the process???

Jesse - Straight up questions for you personally... are you in favor of bow only seasons outside the GOS? Are you in favor of Bow Only Zones?

[Avalanche123]

"Bow seasons that exist outside the GOS simply increase hunter opportunity, they do not take away from the GOS, LEH season, youth/senior season. So why wouldn't the BCWF want to embrace a passionate group of dedicated bowhunting conservationists to help consider when and where to recommend expanding bowhunting seasons?"

Hmmm good question Hermit.

I actually opened up the BCWF website and could find very little about this topic. For myself, this discussion has been informative.

[GoatGuy]

Here I thought OB was for Only Bowhunters!! :tongue: I would call the process more akin to Business Process Redesign (BPR) as Organizational Behavior (OB) tends to look more at efficiency, effectiveness, and efficacy of management styles. Need to change the by-law regardless.

OB, according to my understanding is about organizational efficiency and dynamics - I suppose management's a part of the execution but direction in a membership based organization comes from membership not management (F&W Branch, MoE, BCWF).

It seems to me all the time that is 'spent' on similar issues (see 10s of pages on black in for leh) is wasted. This is prevalent with anglers/hunters.

For some reason when people want change they don't want to take it to the membership or to hunters/anglers and want things 'their way' without support of the organization - they want it back-doored using words like 'many' and 'few'. "I don't believe those statistics" is my favorite when people don't agree with what's being presented - then support a proposal that has many and few with a measurable population. As a result there's a lot of time wasted with the same old issues when nobody's willing to put the time and effort into actually knowing the facts.

That's inefficient and something that everyone wastes far too much time dealing with instead of looking ahead and coming up with solutions that are based on fact.

It's kinda like dealing with a group of hunters.

When they show up at a meeting they don't want to know about populations, studies, or population growth, management etc., They want to tell you what they want in a hunting season. They base their assumptions on 3-5 days afield and generally want to eliminate as many hunters as possible from 'their' hunting area. There are so many examples of this it isn't even funny. That's the long and the short of it - doesn't matter where or how there's plenty of people looking out for themselves. This occurs all over North America.

There is a huge loss of time, and a loss of drive within any organization to come up with fact based results, all the while discussing what 'we want' instead of goals and expectations supported by an organizations, for an organization.

There's a bit of a paradigm shift, but I'm more for giving someone a goal Ie., hunter recruitment and retention as opposed to telling them "what I want" or to compromise for the "vocal minority". I realize that's a bit ideological.:mad:

Not saying that's what you support but those are the inefficiencies that folks involved with fish and wildlife deal with all the time. Same old issues all the time and nobody wants to go through the motions properly to deal with the issue and get on with it - that's how I feel this entire concept has gone and what it's all about. Really has nothing to do with BPR - in the long run this kind of stuff takes time and money away from productive work.


Fighting fires for a patch of timber instead of looking out for the forest which is becoming infected with pine beetle. Relevant?



I don't like the term "special" weapons as it creates the problematic us and them thinking. At the heart of this whole issue is that anyone with a hunting license can pick up a bow or crossbow and go hunting. Bow seasons that exist outside the GOS simply increase hunter opportunity, they do not take away from the GOS, LEH season, youth/senior season. So why wouldn't the BCWF want to embrace a passionate group of dedicated bowhunting conservationists to help consider when and where to recommend expanding bowhunting seasons?

It is what it is - at one point fly fishing only was a far less 'successful' form of angling and at the time that was why we have fly fishing only lakes - conservation. Today we still have fly fishing only lakes eventhough with the invent of chironomide fishing flyfishing is far more successful than dragging gear - but the yellers still want fly fishing only and they've got it. They cite "conservation" but that's bs even on the best of days. It's kinda like opposition to a youth hunt where there's currently no season and having adversity to it because "those dates should be for bowhunters". Weird, I know.

The them and us is something you seem to focus on, not something I think about when it comes to hunting opportunity or allocation. I only think about hunter opportunity in whatever shape or form that may be. That's a differentiating factor. You believe it's an us or them concept. I believe it's a hunter opportunity concept.

I don't think anybody would fight a season that increases opportunity without taking away from everybody else. Course a poorly thought out idea such as a moose bow only gos in the cariboo without anything thought to allocation or the rest of the hunters in the province doesn't accomplish that. Never consider that there's actually no conservation concern with having a GOS on moose there for all weapons. Doesn't know the background, never did the research. Again big picture stuff that's either unknown, ignored or disregarded for 'me'.

Nobody will argue against seasons that won't affect hunters but when the day that a goat bow only GOS is a recruitment season I'll have to quit hunting and take up knitting.

You're singling yourself out when you say "passionate bowhunting conservationists." I suppose I'm entitled to atleast one or two questions:
How does the UBBC, TBBC, BCAA know what their membership want?2. How do these organizations come up with reccomendations that are made at a regional and provincial level?





BTW - you didn't say which clubs don't want to include bowhunters in the process???

Nobody said clubs did/didn't want to include 'bowhunters in the process'. I know clubs that supported and don't support a bowhunting committee - there aren't any clubs that don't support bowhunters.

You're still focusing on a committee. Either way it doesn't matter until it's voted on. I wouldn't want to make assumptions about the BCWF membership and I also wouldn't want to put something forward that isn't supported with proper data. I suppose that's where people talk about 'art, few and many'.

Until it goes to a vote on supporting bow hunting it doesn't matter - it's all speculation. Of course, you're still focusing on a bow committee. In any case, I believe that a vote is what should move an organization, not words like 'many' and 'few' especially when apparently 'many' people (with 3 organizations to back them) believe that a goat bow only gos is a recruitment tool.



Jesse - Straight up questions for you personally... are you in favor of bow only seasons outside the GOS? Are you in favor of Bow Only Zones?


Yes and yes. I believe there are thousands of opportunities which could be exercised which were never pursued by the 'bowhunting organizations'. Until now urban hunting has only been a catch phrase and something that bowhunting organizations in BC have steered clear from, mostly because a complete and total lack of research and understanding of why and how bow seasons came about and are used. "It's different in BC" :eek: Apparently we get to use the stuff we like out of other jurisdictions and disregard the rest of it.

Somehow people sit around a campfire, come up with what they think should happen, don't consult their membership and decide what's right and what's wrong. That isn't the way things should work and that's what I'm most disappointed in and what I'm so fearful of.

Course I deal more with the science as opposed to the 'art'.

[J_T]

Jesse,

I'll do what I can to reply to your comments/questions. I doubt that I will completely understand your comments so my apologies if I misinterpret your thought/comment.


For some reason when people want change they don't want to take it to the membership or to hunters/anglers and want things 'their way' without support of the organization - they want it back-doored using words like 'many' and 'few'.

If I understand this to be a reflection of the attempt at a bowhunting committee, as you know the resolution was put together from within the BCWF in an attempt to be up front about the intention. The information was circulated and various groups (EKWA, Van Isle) were open with their support. No back door. Yes, it appears the creation of a committee should not have gone through the resolution route, this can be appreciated. Placed on the shoulders of the President for decision, I would submit the President did have a sense of membership position based on the EKWA letter of support, the resolution having passed the regional Okanagan body and the Vancouver Island group's open support of the proposal/request. It is behind us now. Let's learn from this and move on.


When they show up at a meeting they don't want to know about populations, studies, or population growth, management etc., They want to tell you what they want in a hunting season.

They aren't biologists, they are hunters. It has been said, those closest to nature, know what nature needs. Time afield makes hunters intelligent in many ways. A lifetime of hunting, a lifestyle of hunting, makes us wise. Working as volunteers on conservation projects as so many hunters give of their time. It is very difficult to have a passionate group pay attention to studies and science. Look at the difficulty you are having with bowhunters. But no one, should be looked down upon for their passion. Everyone should be respected, and treated with respect as we move forward.


Nobody will argue against seasons that won't affect hunters but when the day that a goat bow only GOS is a recruitment season I'll have to quit hunting and take up knitting.


We need to do some work on defining "won't affect hunters". Bowhunters make proposals outside of GOS on the basis they are adding to the potential to hunt, yet in some cases rifle enthusiasts see a kill outside of GOS as one less for them. This isn't an us versus them. I think we do agree this is about hunters.

I appreciate the analogy of the "goat bow only hunt" as a poor recruitment tool. A no brainer. But let's be clear that is not a proposal the bowhunters have made. Our proposal was to review the undersubscribed goat LEH's and consider opening them up to hunters. A combination of bow opportunities, rifles seasons and more LEH's. Creating any new opportunity will support recruitment.




How does the UBBC, TBBC, BCAA know what their membership want?2. How do these organizations come up with reccomendations that are made at a regional and provincial level?



For hunting recommendations the UBBC are the lead agency. The UBBC have representatives in most regions. Most regions also have a "Bowhunting Wildlife Rep" who sits on the regional wildlife advisory committees and these reps are UBBC members. It is the responsibility of the Regional Rep (different than the Wildlife Rep) to coordinate ideas and consultation meetings (working with the Wildlife Rep) amongst bowhunting groups. And I would add we are interested in extending bowhunting discussions to R&G, F&G orgs. (don't want to step on toes, just recognize that there are bowhunters everywhere, in every organization and their opinion and pespective is important)

The VP of Bowhunting for the BCAA and the TBBC are actively involved in the UBBC. Comments/ideas/communication is driven from the ground up and all ideas are considered valid. Regionally, ideas are captured and distributed (usually through email) for comment. The UBBC must operate efficiently and financial resources to support required efforts is very difficult to come by. Therefore most effort and communication occurs through email. The UBBC is a volunteer organization and those that do contribute, work hard. Regionally we operate in response to the wildlife advisory committee need and consult/discuss face to face when the regional group have submissions for voting/decision.

The UBBC is growing and much of what I say, can be challenged as I respect perhaps the UBBC have not had the resources to fulfill the dreams. But this will come in time. The UBBC is working to have a "Bowhunting Liaison" sit on the BCWF regional group. The East Kootenays (EKWA) have this now and we are interested in formalizing this in all regions pending the gracious opportunity that may be extended by regional BCWF groups.


Nobody said clubs did/didn't want to include 'bowhunters in the process'. I know clubs that supported and don't support a bowhunting committee - there aren't any clubs that don't support bowhunters.


In fact, there are many BCWF orgs that are empathetic to the bowhunter and would like to see more bowhunting opportunity. When we collectively use the term "support bowhunters" we need to clarify whether that simply means pro-choice within an existing GOS, or opportunities outside of GOS.

The current Regulation Synopsis indicate we have two seasons, GOS and LEH. I disagree. I think we have many seasons. Junior, Senior, Bow only, GOS and LEH. Let's build on all of them. As resident hunters, I feel we should expand on all of them.


Until it goes to a vote on supporting bow hunting it doesn't matter - it's all speculation. Of course, you're still focusing on a bow committee.

I don't think the bowhunting community is focused on a "committee" what we are focused on is working together. We felt a committee was a good first step. Call it what we want, but what we want, is to have respect, to respect other's choices and work together.


Until now urban hunting has only been a catch phrase and something that bowhunting organizations in BC have steered clear from, mostly because a complete and total lack of research and understanding of why and how bow seasons came about and are used.

Bowhunters are very interested in urban hunting. In fact it has been proposed at regional advisory groups. What we must work to manage is the risk of a negative occurance. What might look like a great opportunity to someone that is not fully informed (a 5 pt mulie off my deck) might lead to a horrible social image. I think animals in town, must cross the line from socially acceptable to nuissance and Government would be required to put their support behind an urban hunt before it adds value to the hunt.


Somehow people sit around a campfire, come up with what they think should happen, don't consult their membership and decide what's right and what's wrong.

In today's world, if someone has a good idea, it isn't hard to keep in touch. If someone wants to challenge an idea or find out what is going on, it isn't hard to do. It's a question of whether they care, before things start moving. Hunters are generally solitary animals.

Around the fire, we listen to loud music and talk about past marriages too, we listen to stories from Grandfathers, men who hunted back in the day. I love a good campfire. Men, being men, hunters being hunters, supporting one another. No bad ideas. Just some that aren't as well thought out. We aren't all scientists. Some of us are artists. My hope is that every campfire with a good idea will send it in.
That's why we need to work together.

[6616]

The UBBC is working to have a "Bowhunting Liaison" sit on the BCWF regional group. The East Kootenays (EKWA) have this now and we are interested in formalizing this in all regions pending the gracious opportunity that may be extended by regional BCWF groups.

I've been away for a week and haven't followed HBC or this thread but I've read the whole ten pages just now and I feel I must comment on your above statement Jim.

The EKWA expanded the regional bow hunting committee simply because it was under-staffed. We asked an intelligent, highly respected, well spoken individual to join the committee because we knew that person would bring the dedication, knowledge and thoughtfulness that was required. At the time most of the EKWA board didn't even know he was a UBBC regional rep and it wouldn't have mattered anyway since the important thing to us was that he brought the necessary skills, tools, and open-mindedness required for participation on that committee.

The fact that he is a UBBC regional rep and can act as a liasion to the UBBC is a significant bonus but was not the reason we recruited that particular person, it was simply because of what he was capable of bring to the committee. We did not purposely set out to create a liasion position to the UBBC and we do not consider that to be his primary role and I'm not so sure the EKWA would formalize that as his primary role. Frankly speaking I expect the EKWA board expects more out of him than that and as an active committee person in the EKWA we value his input into many topics, many of these completely unrelated to bowhunting.

Another important factor to the EKWA board was that this person is also a rifle hunter and thus is fully aware of and can see both sides of the issues that have the potential to be controversial. Long time bow-only hunters at times may not always have the ability to do this or understand how specific bowhunting proposals effect rifle hunting or the overall hunting situation.

Following this same line of thinking, we did write a letter to Mel supporting the concept of a BCWF bow hunting sub-committee, and if and when given the chance to discuss membership on this committee we would have likewise strongly recommended persons who participate regularily in both bow hunting and rifle hunting as they sometimes seem to be able to see the controversial sides of these issues (the big picture) much more clearly than a bow-only hunter might.

We would desire that committee to disregard the "we bowhunters want" concept and move towards the concept of what's good for hunting/recruitment/retention cumulatively which would natuarally include many bowhunting opportunities. For this reason we may not have supported UBBC executive persons to sit on this committee. We feel membership on "any" BCWF committee primarily requires loyalty to the BCWF and not any other organization.

So you see Jim/Bill/Kirk/etal, the EKWA supports a BCWF bowhunting sub-committee, but quite possibly not with the same vision or terms of reference that the UBBC might envision for that same committee. We support any hunting opportunity that is additive to hunting in general, or that enhances hunting in BC generically, but not opportunities that will come at a cost to existing opportunities or to potential recruitment and retention.

[J_T]

Thanks Andy,

I'm quite fine with your comments. One comment I did not make in my just previous post was that an objective of ours (UBBC) when bringing new individuals (in a working capacity) on board for the UBBC is that we are looking for individuals that use both rifle and bow and individuals that in most cases will be respected by the groups they interact with.

I agree in your assessment of the EKWA bowhunting rep. He will have the skill and ability to put the "me" behind him and look to all opportunities that will benefit hunting. He will also display an open mind in all situations. That is the essence of the UBBC.

For clarity, he is not a regional UBBC rep.

Our effort is not to fight for "me" only, as we are so often accused of, but to work hard for all of hunting. To respect all forms of hunting and to bring knowledge and understanding to the table that will benefit all hunting. We simply believe there is unexplored opportunity in using a bow.

My comment that this person is a "bowhunting liaison" is exactly what the UBBC require of this position. Someone who will work to assist bowhunters in respecting all forms of hunters, someone that will stand and provide information in both directions.

He is very capable, and we are all fortunate to have him contributing. He and I talked at length about the possible appointment by the EKWA and we clearly see the benefits of bringing him on board.

Call it what we like, but for my money, we should be looking at more of the same, and the UBBC hope to be able to work with other regions to bring this about in their regions too.

[GoatGuy]

If I understand this to be a reflection of the attempt at a bowhunting committee, as you know the resolution was put together from within the BCWF in an attempt to be up front about the intention. The information was circulated and various groups (EKWA, Van Isle) were open with their support. No back door. Yes, it appears the creation of a committee should not have gone through the resolution route, this can be appreciated. Placed on the shoulders of the President for decision, I would submit the President did have a sense of membership position based on the EKWA letter of support, the resolution having passed the regional Okanagan body and the Vancouver Island group's open support of the proposal/request. It is behind us now. Let's learn from this and move on.

There was nothing wrong with the resolution - an open transparent process that didn't go through due to a lack of diligence on several people's parts. I support going to the convention

Post resolution, not so much.

You guys don't seem to understand - something that changes the way the BCWF does business has to go to the membership. The entire membership - EKWA and Vancouver Island does not make up the BCWF membership. The Okanagan region passed it so that it could go to convention to be voted on by the membership, not because everyone supported it. There are over 130 clubs in the BCWF. And no, just because 27% of the membership wants something doesn't mean they're going to get it - you need 50+1. People involved in the BCWF know that and the people who don't get what they want realize it. That's what makes the organization so successful. Most people involved don't talk about jumping ship as soon as something doesn't go their way.

I suppose that's part of what you guys don't get - you believe that because some people support it, it must be true. That isn't the way business is done within the BCWF. The membership moves the organization and until such time as the membership speaks we don't know. You're making big assumptions on an organization that is driven by its membership.



They aren't biologists, they are hunters. It has been said, those closest to nature, know what nature needs. Time afield makes hunters intelligent in many ways. A lifetime of hunting, a lifestyle of hunting, makes us wise. Working as volunteers on conservation projects as so many hunters give of their time. It is very difficult to have a passionate group pay attention to studies and science. Look at the difficulty you are having with bowhunters. But no one, should be looked down upon for their passion. Everyone should be respected, and treated with respect as we move forward.

So long as what is being presented isn't mis-quoted or taken out of context I have no issues.



I appreciate the analogy of the "goat bow only hunt" as a poor recruitment tool. A no brainer. But let's be clear that is not a proposal the bowhunters have made. Our proposal was to review the undersubscribed goat LEH's and consider opening them up to hunters. A combination of bow opportunities, rifles seasons and more LEH's. Creating any new opportunity will support recruitment.

It doesn't matter what weapon and that isn't how it was presented.

Regardless, goats are not a recruitment species.

You're pulling at strings of intent without any fact supporting it. That's a major issue.




The VP of Bowhunting for the BCAA and the TBBC are actively involved in the UBBC. Comments/ideas/communication is driven from the ground up and all ideas are considered valid. Regionally, ideas are captured and distributed (usually through email) for comment. The UBBC must operate efficiently and financial resources to support required efforts is very difficult to come by. Therefore most effort and communication occurs through email. The UBBC is a volunteer organization and those that do contribute, work hard. Regionally we operate in response to the wildlife advisory committee need and consult/discuss face to face when the regional group have submissions for voting/decision.

I'll be sure to let the guys here know that. The people that I know who are actively involved in bowhunting recruitment and retention and 3D shooters have no idea what's going on and I know there are a few UBBC members here.

At one point the same thing could have been said about the Cranbrook archery club but I think that's been sorted out now.:redface:



The current Regulation Synopsis indicate we have two seasons, GOS and LEH. I disagree. I think we have many seasons. Junior, Senior, Bow only, GOS and LEH. Let's build on all of them. As resident hunters, I feel we should expand on all of them.

Firstly, we shouldn't have all those seasons. At this point there's no need to segregate junior and seniors. The reason they have been is so they can actually go hunting in a season where, as a newbie, they stand a relatively good chance of success. That's because we have a bunch of overly conservative seasons, which was due to a bad winter and for moose an over-harvest in the early 80s.

With the populations we have right now there's no reason we don't have antlerless GOS for deer, moose GOS, 3 pt elk across the southern half of the province and any elk seasons up north, no antler restrictions on mule deer other than in 7B. There is no reason other than politics and that certain groups don't support it.

Kinda like the impact an any wt deer season would have on bowhunters.:mad:

You're pointed off in a direction of more division and splitting up opportunity for each user group when we should be liberalizing it as a whole. Looking at making the slices of the pie bigger instead of starting off with the pie. Again big picture stuff.



I don't think the bowhunting community is focused on a "committee" what we are focused on is working together. We felt a committee was a good first step. Call it what we want, but what we want, is to have respect, to respect other's choices and work together.

Go about it the right way and you will get that.



Bowhunters are very interested in urban hunting. In fact it has been proposed at regional advisory groups. What we must work to manage is the risk of a negative occurance. What might look like a great opportunity to someone that is not fully informed (a 5 pt mulie off my deck) might lead to a horrible social image. I think animals in town, must cross the line from socially acceptable to nuissance and Government would be required to put their support behind an urban hunt before it adds value to the hunt.

This only came about in the last couple of months at one regional advisory group - wonder why?

You can't place it on the government - it's your responsibility to come up with a well researched and supported idea.



Around the fire, we listen to loud music and talk about past marriages too, we listen to stories from Grandfathers, men who hunted back in the day. I love a good campfire. Men, being men, hunters being hunters, supporting one another. No bad ideas. Just some that aren't as well thought out. We aren't all scientists. Some of us are artists. My hope is that every campfire with a good idea will send it in.
That's why we need to work together.

The problem solving process seems to be backwards. You adopt an idea and try to drum up parts of a report to support it. Instead of identifying a problem you're looking for a solution and that isn't the way decisions should be made. You need to evaluate and prioritize issues, pull them apart and come up with a decision that is properly supported. To date that has not happened. Solutions are a dime a dozen and the facts are supported by quotes taken out of context or information that isn't even a good guess.

When you support your ideas properly I might not always agree but I will respect what you're doing.

[Fisher-Dude]

Kinda like the impact an any wt deer season would have on bowhunters.:mad:


I had a campfire discussion about this issue the other night with some HBCers. Seems the proposal to get liberalization on wt does so that we could all hunt them, especially kids, has been opposed by the bow hunters, as some kid might kill a doe that a bow hunter has his eye on for the late season bow only hunt. Gimme a break! :mad:

[J_T]

I had a campfire discussion about this issue the other night with some HBCers. Seems the proposal to get liberalization on wt does so that we could all hunt them, especially kids, has been opposed by the bow hunters, as some kid might kill a doe that a bow hunter has his eye on for the late season bow only hunt. Gimme a break! :mad: I agree. Not trying to start a fight here.... but the story as it came to me was.... the Okanagan proposal for a GOS on wt does was put forward. At the meeting there was no bowhunting rep, and the regional biologist made a statement that bowhunters would likely not support the proposal. When the meeting minutes came out, the bowhunting rep in the area called the regional bio and his supervisor on a polite note and asked that comments assuming the position of others, not be captured in the minutes. This was subsequently agreed to.

I will say, that at the PHRAAC meeting, I did use the GOS Doe season as an example. If my intent has been misconstrued then the responsibility for that resides with the story teller for not paying attention. I was VERY clear at the time.

My point was, bowhunters have made a proposal for a full curl ram opportunity within the Sept 1 - 9 season and "if" there was opposition by rifle hunters that this would take away an opportunity for "them", then it must be considered that a doe Wt season might do the same for a late season bow only hunt. I did not imply that we did not support it. Just that we must respect both sides of that discussion. It becomes a question of what gives first?

In fact, provided there is no conservation concern why would we want to hold up this positive change. A reflection of sound management. I think in region 4 we'd like to see some stabilization of the bag limit between east and west too. Maybe this becomes the time/link to do that.

In many areas of the province does have not been pursued by a 3000fps projectile for some time. A GOS doe season will certainly make them more skittish and will likely impact late season bow only when we rely on their normally sedentary patterns, but so what, we deal with all kinds of impacts. Put a coyote into a mix of whities late season and we deal with that.

[GoatGuy]

I agree. Not trying to start a fight here.... but the story as it came to me was.... the Okanagan proposal for a GOS on wt does was put forward. At the meeting there was no bowhunting rep, and the regional biologist made a statement that bowhunters would likely not support the proposal. When the meeting minutes came out, the bowhunting rep in the area called the regional bio and his supervisor on a polite note and asked that comments assuming the position of others, not be captured in the minutes. This was subsequently agreed to.

Yes and that's all fine, regardless of the final outcome. I was actually the one who brought that issue up - I felt it was a bit out of line.

In region the bowhunting organization consulted their people and I think that's great, regardless of if support was or was not given. The point is they spoke to their people and talked about conservation. I was actually quite impressed especially as compared to other goings on, regardless of the outcome.

There was no discussion about 'taking away my hunting opportunity', at least not in what I received. That's the way to do business. Then the onus rests on the people who want change to make an effort to inform and educate. I like that.:p

I have to say I'm impressed with the optics of the situation and how it was handled within the region. Like I said I might not agree but I can respect how it was handled.



I will say, that at the PHRAAC meeting, I did use the GOS Doe season as an example. If my intent has been misconstrued then the responsibility for that resides with the story teller for not paying attention. I was VERY clear at the time.

My point was, bowhunters have made a proposal for a full curl ram opportunity within the Sept 1 - 9 season and "if" there was opposition by rifle hunters that this would take away an opportunity for "them", then it must be considered that a doe Wt season might do the same for a late season bow only hunt. I did not imply that we did not support it. Just that we must respect both sides of that discussion. It becomes a question of what gives first?

By pure coincidence it was the same hunt? I don't think so. It seems there's always 'coincidence' and it happens way too often. Something pops up on HBC and a couple weeks later I end up with an email about something new with a really nice conversation attached to it.:frown: There's overlap, using polls from HBC to support your argument, disregard other polls when they don't support your argument. You can't just present one side of the story when it suits you and disregard everything else up there - you don't even acknowledge other research that doesn't support your point. It's like all that is presented is the white side without consideration to the black side.

No discussion about allocated and un-allocated animals, the AAH or the distance or separation between demand of the two species.

I'm really lost for words on this one - especially considering the policy on special weapons and the pro-support for all forms of hunting. Ironically, this is one situation where bowhunters get a GOS and nobody else does.

Different when you think about it that way.



In fact, provided there is no conservation concern why would we want to hold up this positive change. A reflection of sound management. I think in region 4 we'd like to see some stabilization of the bag limit between east and west too. Maybe this becomes the time/link to do that.

In many areas of the province does have not been pursued by a 3000fps projectile for some time. A GOS doe season will certainly make them more skittish and will likely impact late season bow only when we rely on their normally sedentary patterns, but so what, we deal with all kinds of impacts. Put a coyote into a mix of whities late season and we deal with that.

I hear you agreeing and disagreeing all at the same time - perhaps somewhat conflicted?

I suppose time will only tell what will happen. Gonna be a long road to hoe. I hope you understand where I'm coming from and you can see my belief that organizations should be run for their people by their people. Part of the reason we have such a mess with anglers and hunters right now is because a couple people decided what they wanted by listening to the yellers and without doing any research. These are mistakes we continue to make.

I hope this thread has been beneficial - it certainly has been for me.;-)

[Avalanche123]

This thread has certainly been beneficial to me. What would be nice is to know what the background of these writers are there are some very interesting points brought fourth. Kinda like adding a face to a name...

That said, I respect the concept behind these forums as not everyone is comfortable laying out personal information.

Thanks for the informative discussions and various view points.....I guess that's what it is all about. :)

[Ambush]

It might be handy for a few guys here to just preface their post with "I HATE BOWHUNTERS!!". It would be just as effective and save alot of typing.

I'm one of those wierd guys that is compelled to read every post in a thread, and man it can get dizzying reading the same thing over and over.

[Gateholio]

It might be handy for a few guys here to just preface their post with "I HATE BOWHUNTERS!!". It would be just as effective and save alot of typing.
.

Funny thing is that most of the people on this thread are either bowhunters, use a bow on occasion, or have bow hunting companions. :razz:

[Ambush]

GH. Since you partially quoted me. Got time for a fairly lengthy post.

As you have likely guessed, I'm a bowhunter. I only bowhunt. But let me give a few examples to show what kind of a hunter I am.

Last December I went with three other people to the QCI for sitka. One hunter had never hunted big game. [..insert your joke about sitka/big game here..] I lent him my favourite rifle and he got two deer. Those three rifle hunters killed 12 deer, I killed one. We all had a great time!

This fall we have a shared moose hunt. I will carry a bow, them rifles. Do I feel "under gunned"? Not a bit. It's not a restriction to me, it's a choice.

Annual Churn creek deer camp is somewhere between 10-20 hunters. Two of us take only bows. Do we have less fun? Doesn't seem like it.

IMO: A person who only hunts with a bow is a bowhunter.

A person who also hunts with a rifle, but takes only a bow with him when he's bowhunting is a bowhunter.

A person who has a bow in his hand and a rifle on his shoulder is not a bowhunter. BUT, I personaly see nothing wrong with this method either; It's HIS tag, HIS hunt and HIS experience. It doesn't detract from mine.

Having said all this I will now make another few statements. Before I make a comment about a person, I take the time to read a lot of their posts using "find all posts by someguy " to better understand them.

I would say that FD resents any "bow only" anything. Period.

I would say that GG is a hard working guy, but has no interest in promoting anything pro bowhunting. I also don't fault him for that, it's not his interest. I do wish people would be clear and honest about their positions. It is your opinion and your entitled to it, just be up front.

Every year I send a sizable cash donation to the BCWF. They are a necessary force to claim our rights as citizens and voters. Numbers talk.
But, respectfully, I believe that leaving GG to look after my interests as a bowhunter is like leaving Kernel Saunders to baby sit my chickens.

Once the UBBC has given me some good answers to some direct questions I will likely join them also. I will still support The BCWF, but the UBBC will probably better represent and further MY particular interests.

Before any one disputes my view, please take the time to read many of the posts submited by FD and GG.

This same discussion has come up under many thread different names and I begin to wonder if it is a deliberate attempt by some at baiting.

Again, this is not an attack, just explaining that we definitely do look at things differently.

Anyway, hard to get down about it now with Sheep season only three weeks away. YIPPEEE!!!!

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Stringfling

From your posts it's pretty obvious that you feel that you don't require special seasons to be a successful bowhunter.
Am I wrong???

SSS

[Gateholio]

Before any one disputes my view, please take the time to read many of the posts submited by FD and GG.

!!!!


So you are saying that GG and FD hate bowhunters?

[Ambush]

SSS. You are correct, if I may add a " but". Animals quickly adapt their survival strategy to the affective range of their predators. So when the new regs come out, the first thing I do is underline all the "bow only" zones and seasons. Better not to have your sheep or trophy muley skidaddle for the next region at the first sight of you at two kilometers.

I wouldn't let GOS stop me from enjoying a hunt. 'Cause I gotta tell ya, I bet I get alot more days out of a tag then most good rifle hunters.

But to be honest, I would like to see more bow oppurtunities. Thats just our selfish human nature. Golfers want golf courses, dog walkers want parks, skiers want slopes, most hunters want to see Paul Watson get tore apart by seals and ate by wolves.

So far this year I have planned, first tens days of August for Stones, first ten days of September for elk and muleys, first week of october for QCI Sitka. In between I have to shoot a moose and get some Babine Lake sockeye for the smoke house. Am I hen pecked or what, eh?

[Ambush]

So you are saying that GG and FD hate bowhunters?


Emphaticaly and absolutely NO.!! . I am not saying that.

I said, I believe that FD resents anything that says "bow only".

I said, I believe GG is not going to promote " bow only".

I'm willing to be proved wrong and would be happy for it.

[Onesock]

Sounds like a good hen pecked to me!!!!!!

[GoatGuy]

Emphaticaly and absolutely NO.!! . I am not saying that.

I said, I believe that FD resents anything that says "bow only".

I said, I believe GG is not going to promote " bow only".

I'm willing to be proved wrong and would be happy for it.

Can't speak for FD but I've been working on an opportunity that will be bow only for close to a year. ;-) And I bowhunt too!:eek:

You just won't find me supporting anything that is not accurate, properly researched, portrayed or dispersed - that's all.

[Fisher-Dude]

I resent any established/long time hunter who says he'd like to ban youth seasons because it apparently scares his deer away. Other than that, I really like everybody. :grin:

[Ambush]

[quote=GoatGuy;301438] ;-) And I bowhunt too!:eek:

Which of my categories do you fit into?

Again, I would be happy to be proved wrong in my assesment. I'm old enough that I have developed the paitience to wait for results. I'm also old enough to know that I should be trying to better my position while I'm waiting. And as selfish as it sounds, I think the UBBC, at this time, will better represent my interests.

Now FD: Correct me if I am wrong. There was already a proposal for the bow only season before the youth season was proposed.
Would you still be calling down bowhunters if the ministry then gave the youth a chunk of alternate real estate that affected your hunting opportunities? I would rather have an honest answer that I dissagree with then something that sounds good.

If we can't ALL state our believes honestly then there can be no constructive dialoge.

I dislike name calling and threatening on computer screens. These are better left for face to face.

And some people just like to see a good fight and will do what they can to promote it. The clever ones do it while trying to sound pious and sincere. Bad character trait. And this comment is not directed at either GG or FD.

[Avalanche123]

" dislike name calling and threatening on computer screens. These are better left for face to face."

Neither actually accomplish anything. (I am sure you agree.)

[Fisher-Dude]

Now FD: Correct me if I am wrong. There was already a proposal for the bow only season before the youth season was proposed.
Would you still be calling down bowhunters if the ministry then gave the youth a chunk of alternate real estate that affected your hunting opportunities? I would rather have an honest answer that I dissagree with then something that sounds good.


Who cares who was first, or second, or tenth? Spoiled brats say they were first when a decision for the good of everyone goes against their personal wants. Kids already have the opportunity to gun or bow hunt during the regular season GOS, so what would be the point of shortening GOS and replacing it with youth season? It would be a net loss of hunting opportunity for GOS gun hunters AND bow hunters if we did.

We were able to give kids two additional opportunities to hunt a week+ earlier, and a week later, to extend their seasons. Bow hunters have the LONGEST season of ANY hunters, yet they put forward a resolution to ban kids from hunting when they were. You tell me how removing opportunity for bow and gun hunters, instead of creating two additional youth opportunities, would be the right thing for anybody???

BTW, the president of the UBBC has stated earlier in this thread that the youth season didn't affect archer's success in the bow season.

Answer this truthfully Stringfling: Are you in favour of banning youth hunts that run concurrently with bow seasons?

[Ambush]

FD: Since you didn't answer my questions, I don't feel compelled to answer yours. What you'd expect from a "spoiled brat" eh?

I am officialy done with this thread as it appears we are not covering any new ground.

Any one may PM me if they have anything to say to me in particular.

[boxhitch]

Animals quickly adapt their survival strategy to the affective range of their predators. So when the new regs come out, the first thing I do is underline all the "bow only" zones and seasons. Better not to have your sheep or trophy muley skidaddle for the next region at the first sight of you at two kilometers.
Maybe off topic, but do you care to explain ? This looks as though animals can judge what implement a hunter is using and the safety zone needed ?

[daycort]

I just read the thread from start to finish and am wondering why the arguement. To all bowhunters (an I am a bowhunter), shouldn't we choose an association that helps us best, and helps give us the most oppurtunty. To me BCWF does the best it can with the input it recieves from its members and then makes it recomondations to the MoE and Game Branch. If ya don't like what it is going on, then get invovled. If ya don't vote then ya can't bitch!!

As for special seasons, I don't think we need any special seasons in BC, except for are young hunters. The hunting ops in BC is mind blowing and different groups should not complian about some 10 year with a rifle taking away from their oppurtunity. I do take advantage of bow only seasons put it would not hurt my hunting season if they where not there.

[GoatGuy]

[quote=GoatGuy;301438] ;-) And I bowhunt too!:eek:

Which of my categories do you fit into?

Again, I would be happy to be proved wrong in my assesment. I'm old enough that I have developed the paitience to wait for results. I'm also old enough to know that I should be trying to better my position while I'm waiting. And as selfish as it sounds, I think the UBBC, at this time, will better represent my interests.


Type and season doesn't affect my decision as to the weapon I choose to use. Biggest drawback is a lack of spare time to practice. I'm far more efficient with a rifle and if I'm not confident I'll leave the bow at home. Otherwise I take it. I seem to have a couple days a week to shoot lately - depends on what I'm doing in my time that isn't 'spare'.

As for your assessment, everyone's entitled and seeing what you've seen on here it's one conclusion a person could come to. I suppose you only see what happens on HBC, not via other methods. I've always found it ironic that anything that happens in the BCWF that has to do with bow only or otherwise (allocation policy) a causal relationship is drawn and the accusations fly. I've been the focal point of some 'wonderful' emails that must have come out of thin air as the writers often suffer from memory loss when asked. The same can be said of bow decisions and criticism that applies to the F&W branch. Oppositely UBBC provincial and regional proposals have never been discussed publicly on this and most never make the UBBC/TBBC/BCAA forum even though this site (hbc) is at times 'quoted' as supporting some of the ideas presented. Although these proposals have been alluded to no one has ever come out and actually discussed what has gone on and why decisions are made. The decision making process aside, I guess I'm not sure whether it's fair to hold some people's feet to the fire and not others?

In any case life goes on and I have found this thread to be very beneficial. It's good to get both sides - internet forum and other methods from some of the folks. Out of all threads this is one that I will certainly remember.

I hope you find what you're looking for in your UBBC membership.

[willyqbc]

Fisher Dude.......the UBBC NEVER wanted to "remove" youth opportunity. We just have a youth proposal that we would like to "replace" the current youth seasons with. We believe it would give much greater opportunity for success to the youth of the province and still maintain archery only opportunities. In a nutshell it would allow a youth to shoot "any deer" in "any region" all season long with the only restriction being that you use a bow in the archery only seasons and whatever you want in the GOS. I have said it before and will say it again...The UBBC is not out to screw the youth to maintain the status quo in the archery only seasons, i would not be a part of any organization who didn't support the youth of the province....we just believe we have a better way to create opportunity for the youth of the province.

Chris

[bighornbob]

In a nutshell it would allow a youth to shoot "any deer" in "any region" all season long with the only restriction being that you use a bow in the archery only seasons and whatever you want in the GOS. Chris

Why not let the kids shoot whatever deer they see with whatever they want. If they want to use a bow the first ten days fine but if they want to shoot a gun in those first 10 days they can also???

BHB

[Fisher-Dude]

Fisher Dude.......the UBBC NEVER wanted to "remove" youth opportunity. We just have a youth proposal that we would like to "replace" the current youth seasons with. We believe it would give much greater opportunity for success to the youth of the province and still maintain archery only opportunities. In a nutshell it would allow a youth to shoot "any deer" in "any region" all season long with the only restriction being that you use a bow in the archery only seasons and whatever you want in the GOS. I have said it before and will say it again...The UBBC is not out to screw the youth to maintain the status quo in the archery only seasons, i would not be a part of any organization who didn't support the youth of the province....we just believe we have a better way to create opportunity for the youth of the province.

Chris

Chris, here is the current youth opportunity in reg 8 for mule deer:

Sep 1 - 9 they can hunt gun or bow
Sep 10 - Nov 10 they can hunt gun or bow
Nov 11 - 18 they can hunt gun or bow
Nov 25 - Dec 10 they can hunt bow

Under the UBBC proposal:

Sep 1 - 9 they can hunt bow
Sep 10 - Nov 10 they can hunt gun or bow
Nov 11 - 18 uncertain if they can hunt at all (UBBC wants this season for bow only too, but don't want the deer hunted at all if they can't hunt bow at that time - ask Kirk and Ernie about that)
Nov 25 - Dec 10 they can hunt bow

You call that a better opportunity for youths, taking away their options in youth seasons? Why is it so important to the UBBC to close a gun season (or two) for youths?

FYI:
Rainwater http://tbbc.kics.bc.ca/iB_html2/non-cgi/Skin/SKIN-5/images/mem_offline.gif





Group: Members
Posts: 248
Joined: Jan. 2006
http://tbbc.kics.bc.ca/iB_html2/non-cgi/Skin/SKIN-5/PostIcons/icon0.gifPosted: Mar. 27 2007,9:55http://tbbc.kics.bc.ca/iB_html2/non-cgi/Skin/SKIN-5/images/pb_quote.gif (http://tbbc.kics.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ib3-12/ikonboard.cgi?;act=Post;CODE=06;f=1;t=829;p=5)We are going to be asking our bio in April to not allow ANY regulation change that would impact a previously requested BOW OPPORTUNITY. Will keep you posted.

[Fisher-Dude]

From the UBBC site:

rainwater


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 88
Location: Keremeos
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 20074:58 pm Post subject: New Bow Regs



As you are all aware an abeyance (hold) has been put on all new bowhunting regulations/seasons changes until the new strategy is put in place for us guys. In region 8 the TBBC was asking for Mule Deer season to open on Nov. 11th right after the GOS instead of waiting until Nov. 25th. This is a biologically sound request and the request has been in place for 5 years. Now there is a request for a Youth rifle season from Nov. 11-18 which would if put in place shoot down our previous request. Do you guys feel it is out of line to request that this request (Youth Rifle) be put on hold until the abeyance is lifted on bowhunting changes? Just a question. Thanks
_________________
Fight for the right with a common sense approach.

rainwater


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 88
Location: Keremeos
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 20079:37 am Post subject:



No I'm not sorry to keep resurrecting this post. I just received a copy of the proposed regs and YES the Okanagan BCWF Region is really pushing a Youth Only Rifle hunt for Mule Deer during the Peak Rut from Nov. 11-18. This of course is under the disguise of Youth recruitment. If indeed this proposed hunt passes it will kill our request for the bowonly for Mule deer from Nov. 11-Dec.10. And of course the icing on the cake, next year if the new hunt happens it will give two days out of the 8 to hunt or one weekend, WOW they sure know how to encourage Youth participation don't they. Once again I hope our Region 8 UBBC rep will ask that this be canned until the abeyance on bowhunting regs be lifted.
_________________
Fight for the right with a common sense approach.

[BCrams]

Fisher Dude.......the UBBC NEVER wanted to "remove" youth opportunity. We just have a youth proposal that we would like to "replace" the current youth seasons with. We believe it would give much greater opportunity for success to the youth of the province and still maintain archery only opportunities. In a nutshell it would allow a youth to shoot "any deer" in "any region" all season long with the only restriction being that you use a bow in the archery only seasons and whatever you want in the GOS. I have said it before and will say it again...The UBBC is not out to screw the youth to maintain the status quo in the archery only seasons, i would not be a part of any organization who didn't support the youth of the province....we just believe we have a better way to create opportunity for the youth of the province.

Chris

Why not just let the youth use whatever they want instead of 'removing' opportunity by pushing them to use a 'bow only' for that period?

Youth using rifles will not hurt your success during the bow season.

It is abundantly clear the UBBC's proposals want to remove 'opportunity'.

I am a bow hunter and I do not support UBBC's proposals. Are you not going to listen to my voice and many other bow hunters who share the same view??

As a bow hunter, I fully support youth to use their weapon of choice which includes firearms during the bow only season. I do not wish to restrict youth to 'bow only'.

[J_T]

Just a slight mis-perception about the youth initiatives being promoted by the bowhunting community. FD, we are not attempting to take anything away from youth (regardless of what you copy). Specifically, were the current seasons allow for buck harvest only, our solution would be to allow youth to take any deer (perhaps only whitetail). So youth would not be restricted to the same as adults in the GOS or bow only seasons.

We see this as a significant increase in opportunity. Our proposal will also allow youth to get into the field quicker. IE with qualified supervision, but without CORE.


It is abundantly clear the UBBC's proposals want to remove 'opportunity'.

I am a bow hunter and I do not support UBBC's proposals. Are you not going to listen to my voice and many other bow hunters who share the same view??
BCR, I hope my above statement cleared up your first comment.

Regarding your second comment, Of course we want your voice, to hear your opinions. The UBBC is only as efficient as it's volunteer membership can provide for. Of course many strategies, processes, voices, slide through the cracks. But our intentions are honest. We are growing, learning and working hard.

I'm not certain of your location, so I am unable to provide you with contact information, however if you send me a PM, we can exchange emails and I can assure you, we are and will listen. Largely the bowhunting community is not anti-BCWF. Most of us are BCWF members.

Without resources/support/volunteer commitment, dreams remain dreams.

[Gateholio]

IMHO the best youth proposal is what BHB said- Any deer, any season, any weapon. Make it simple and let them get a deer...

[BCrams]

[quote=J_T;301827]Just a slight mis-perception about the youth initiatives being promoted by the bowhunting community. FD, we are not attempting to take anything away from youth (regardless of what you copy). Specifically, were the current seasons allow for buck harvest only, our solution would be to allow youth to take any deer (perhaps only whitetail). So youth would not be restricted to the same as adults in the GOS or bow only seasons.

We see this as a significant increase in opportunity. Our proposal will also allow youth to get into the field quicker. IE with qualified supervision, but without CORE.

BCR, I hope my above statement cleared up your first comment.

quote]

Not really.

Just to clarify:

You support any deer, any weapon during the bow season for youth instead of just a buck?

That would be a great initiative and I would move to support the same for any deer in the GOS as well!

[Fisher-Dude]

Rainwater http://tbbc.kics.bc.ca/iB_html2/non-cgi/Skin/SKIN-5/images/mem_offline.gif





Group: Members
Posts: 248
Joined: Jan. 2006
http://tbbc.kics.bc.ca/iB_html2/non-cgi/Skin/SKIN-5/PostIcons/icon0.gifPosted: April 06 2006,12:52http://tbbc.kics.bc.ca/iB_html2/non-cgi/Skin/SKIN-5/images/pb_quote.gif (http://tbbc.kics.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ib3-12/ikonboard.cgi?;act=Post;CODE=06;f=1;t=712;p=7)Dogw ood, Appreciate your comments but must respond. The heckling was quiet just like at the meetings I attend, just background noise really. I have not reallly had to many problems getting bowonly ideas passed at my club either so can't complain about them. It's getting them passed at the Regional level of the BCWF and as they seem to think they rule the roost the regional bio will not pass any. Out of 7 requests this year the only one he could come up with is the gun hunt for Youth during a BOWONLY season for Mule Deer. The resolution read exactly like this "that no intrusions to EXISTING bow only seasons be allowed". I am now gonna quite talkin about that resolution, it's overwith and time to move on. No we are not packing up our toys and going home, we're packing up our commons sense, legitmate concerns and going to Victoria, with or without the BCWF. Yes the new Youth Hunting Package will remove Youth from the early BOWONLY season, but it is a much better deal for them and us (and for the recruitment of Youth Bowhunters). I will fax you a copy of it if your interested. Post fax number on here.

[Onesock]

;)BCR- I happen to be BCWF member and have not had my voice listened to for ages. You win some , you loose some, get over it. The majority of ANY membership that is heard is listened to, I guess. Have you voiced your concerns to the UBBC personnaly or just on the HBC site? Shit I am starting to sound like GG.

[BCrams]

;)BCR- I happen to be BCWF member and have not had my voice listened to for ages. You win some , you loose some, get over it. The majority of ANY membership that is heard is listened to, I guess. Have you voiced your concerns to the UBBC personnaly or just on the HBC site? Shit I am starting to sound like GG.

You are a bow hunter.

Just a simple yes or no answer will suffice:

You made it clear you support youth.... so

Do you support youth to harvest any deer (doe or buck) with the weapon of their choice whether it be a bow, crossbow or firearm? There is no point in "limiting" youth to just "bows" when just as many may want to use a "firearm".

Yes or no?

[Onesock]

I support youth to harvest any deer (or whatever animal,elk,moose etc) with the appropriate weapon for that season.

[Fisher-Dude]

Define "appropriate".

[Onesock]

Bows in bow season, firearms or bows in GOS.

[Onesock]

Maybe I should also add I would like the kids that want to hunt with a bow to have the best possible chance to do so. Youth hunting with firearms in bow season have NOT affected my chance of harvesting an animal in bow only seasons.

[BCrams]

Bows in bow season, firearms or bows in GOS.

In other words - you want to remove youth opportunity by NOT allowing them to hunt with a rifle while the adults are using bows.

The kids who 'wish' to use the bow can do so.....as well as the kids who wish to use firearms. As you can clearly see - the support is there.

[J_T]

BCR, with all the respect, I am not interested in a pissing match. I/we (I believe) would like to focus on constructive discussion.

The youth proposal made by bowhunters, which I alluded to earlier, goes beyond, when a youth can harvest and with what weapon, it provides incentive and opportunity through a unique tag/licence process that also provides a mentor greater opportunity to take young people hunting. Providing a season is one thing, providing something that actually allows it to happen is another.

Bottom line, we all support youth. It's pretty hard to have this discussion on here rather than face to face. I would like to think we can all just friggin accept that everyone supports youth as our starting place in any discussion. I'm getting a bit frustrated at the push back and accusations.

I have said, from personal experience, I have not been negatively impacted by youth rifle seasons during my bow only hunt. FD will constantly remind me of that statement should I tip over and forget, But I stand by that statement. I speak for myself in that observation. On a broader scale, I do have concerns about the precident it might set and the lack of respect for bow only it might spirit on in the future.

We have been over the youth proposal before, we propose a unique system that allows a young person an opportunity to purchase a youth "package" in spring, that provides for a bear and turkey tag (where seasons exist) for a nominal fee. This would include their license as well. They would not be hunting off of Dad's tags. We propose a youth Fall package, that would provide a youth with a turkey tag, bear tag and deer tag (conservation and species dependant) any deer (Doe or Buck). In our proposal, they would not be hunting off of Dad's tags.

Provided we can have some meaningful discussion and develop some standards over what type of adult can act as a mentor to the young person, they would not be required to take their CORE. Our philosophy is much the same as the high school biology teacher, "get them into the experience, get them into the field". If their interest is peeked enough, CORE will follow.

There is still discussion to be had if this is to move forward. Provincially we (collective we) are making gains for youth and no one would deny these opportunities. If you ask my opinion, do we have to respect bow only, the answer is yes. It serves a very real purpose. There are lots of opportunities we can create around the weapons opportunities/seasons we have. If you ask me if I am firm on that position, not at all. I'm open to everything and I would hope all hunters (not just bowhunters) are. We would like to see opportunities for youth that extend all season.

As bowhunters (you included) we all bring a unique perspective to the discussion. Respect first, success will follow.

[horshur]

In other words - you want to remove youth opportunity by NOT allowing them to hunt with a rifle while the adults are using bows.

The kids who 'wish' to use the bow can do so.....as well as the kids who wish to use firearms. As you can clearly see - the support is there.

If you guys intend to provide youth seasons and then do not free up the rest I think you may be better off doing us all a favor and screwing off!!!!

cause to give and then take away when the said youth reaches a certain age borders on torture...I hope you all have thought of that.

what is the point to create or inspire a number of new hunters and then....let them wait years for LEH and suffer restrictive open seasons?

If you want some moose hunters you better damn will have some moose hunting!!!!!

[BCrams]

[quote=J_T;301991]BCR, with all the respect, I am not interested in a pissing match. I/we (I believe) would like to focus on constructive discussion.

The key to constructive discussions is to put the facts straight up on the table without sugar coating the real objectives.

I am very open to discussion, however when a simple question is stated, be blunt and answer straight up.

Example:

"UBBC / TBBC do not want youth to use firearms in a 'bow only' season and therefor have put together alternative ideas."

The youth proposal made by bowhunters, which I alluded to earlier, goes beyond, when a youth can harvest and with what weapon, it provides incentive and opportunity through a unique tag/licence process that also provides a mentor greater opportunity to take young people hunting. Providing a season is one thing, providing something that actually allows it to happen is another.

We should not limit youth. "when a youth can harvest and with what weapon" Allowing youth to choose the weapon of their choice from Sept. 1-9th provides more opportunity which will also extend into the GOS than having youth 'bow only' from Sept 1st to 9th.

Bottom line, we all support youth. It's pretty hard to have this discussion on here rather than face to face. I would like to think we can all just friggin accept that everyone supports youth as our starting place in any discussion. I'm getting a bit frustrated at the push back and accusations.

We all support it and I am sure you do also. A simple question: Do you support youth being able to use a firearm Sept 1-9th along with adults who are restricted to bow only and any youth who 'choose' to use a bow over firearm?

I have said, from personal experience, I have not been negatively impacted by youth rifle seasons during my bow only hunt. FD will constantly remind me of that statement should I tip over and forget, But I stand by that statement.

It doesn't affect me either and most other bow hunters I know and the poll clearly suggests it does not bother others as well!

The perfect foundation of 'support' for youth to hunt with what they wish.

I speak for myself in that observation. On a broader scale, I do have concerns about the precident it might set and the lack of respect for bow only it might spirit on in the future.

Now that is where 'you', 'myself' and 'others' will instil bow hunting with our kids. I plan to introduce both firearm and bow hunting to my kids. I have no worries whatsoever about any precident.

Those of us who own archery equipment are blessed with the most liberal of hunting seasons for a multitude of species and longer than those who hunt with rifles. Absolutly nothing to complain about!!


We have been over the youth proposal before, we propose a unique system that allows a young person an opportunity to purchase a youth "package" in spring, that provides for a bear and turkey tag (where seasons exist) for a nominal fee. This would include their license as well. They would not be hunting off of Dad's tags. We propose a youth Fall package, that would provide a youth with a turkey tag, bear tag and deer tag (conservation and species dependant) any deer (Doe or Buck). In our proposal, they would not be hunting off of Dad's tags.

I really like the idea of not hunting off Dad's tags. Those ideas can be simplified much more without a "package". ( we certainly do not need turkey 'tags' ). It would be easier to reduce licencing costs for youth for the licence book and tags (deer, bear, elk, moose or what have you).

However, a package rate with x number of tags and for different species cominations could work. For example, I don't hunt bear, so why would I want to pay for a package which includes a bear tag for my kids?

Provided we can have some meaningful discussion and develop some standards over what type of adult can act as a mentor to the young person, they would not be required to take their CORE. Our philosophy is much the same as the high school biology teacher, "get them into the experience, get them into the field". If their interest is peeked enough, CORE will follow.

I'm with you there!

If you ask my opinion, do we have to respect bow only, the answer is yes. It serves a very real purpose. There are lots of opportunities we can create around the weapons opportunities/seasons we have. If you ask me if I am firm on that position, not at all. I'm open to everything and I would hope all hunters (not just bowhunters) are. We would like to see opportunities for youth that extend all season.

So, you support youth hunting with any weapon of choice from Sept 1-9th? It is also a great opportunity to instil respect for those youth using firearms with those who bow hunt. Given the vastness of BC and hunting methods, I forsee very little conflict.

[Avalanche123]

"cause to give and then take away when the said youth reaches a certain age borders on torture...I hope you all have thought of that."

Hmmm I never even looked at it that way. I am not sure I would consider it torture however it is an interesting observation.

But if the youth are bow hunters, GOS is less restrictive.