UBBC Bowhunter Survey

[The Hermit]

THIS SURVEY IS FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA'S RESIDENT BOWHUNTERS!

The United Bowhunters of BC have designed and posted a survey to gather information about bowhunters and bowhunting in BC. We will compile and analyze the results and use the aggrigated numbers to better serve our members.

The survey is anonymous and no identifying information will be published in any form. You may only complete it once, and again please do not complete it if you are not a bowhunter living in British Columbia.

PLEASE TAKE ABOUT TEN MINUTES AND COMPLETE THE SURVEY FOUND AT:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=cwGjc909b5d_2f_2be_2b_2fgFOxUA_3d_3d


Thanks

[mark]

That survey is flawed, section 7, quos 4 and 6 need amending! Yes I left comments!

[Ron.C]

Thanks Bill,

survey completed

[PGK]

My added comment at the end:

3. Hunting with firearms, under any circumstances, should not be allowed during Bow Only seasons?

This question is poorly phrased an inflammatory. From this question I gather that the UBBC is trying to remove youth only seasons from overlap with bow seasons. With this I COMPLETELY disagree. The UBBC and its members should not concern themselves with issues of youth hunting, because a few dozen youth hunters in the bush during the first week of september is no excuse to complain about overlap!!

[BCrams]

My added comment at the end:

3. Hunting with firearms, under any circumstances, should not be allowed during Bow Only seasons?

This question is poorly phrased an inflammatory. From this question I gather that the UBBC is trying to remove youth only seasons from overlap with bow seasons.

X 2 ........

[Gateholio]

Rather than hijack the thread, WHy not just complete the survey 'as is" and answer that you disagree with them? I assume you can disagree?

[GoatGuy]

Leading questions and throwing it out the window research combined with snowball sampling.


Too bad.

[J_T]

My added comment at the end:

3. Hunting with firearms, under any circumstances, should not be allowed during Bow Only seasons?

This question is poorly phrased an inflammatory. From this question I gather that the UBBC is trying to remove youth only seasons from overlap with bow seasons. With this I COMPLETELY disagree. The UBBC and its members should not concern themselves with issues of youth hunting, because a few dozen youth hunters in the bush during the first week of september is no excuse to complain about overlap!!
The UBBC is not trying to remove youth only seasons that presently overlap or exist in a bow only season. I agree with your last statement.

[BCrams]

In laymans terms for those who don't know what snowball sampling is:

- strong biases are the norm

For example: the questions involved are geared towards only the 'bow hunting community' and and the recruitment to the sampling are typically only their own bow hunting friends and so on (hence snowball effect)..... and subsequent biases.

[J_T]

Leading questions and throwing it out the window research combined with snowball sampling.


Too bad. Couldn't afford to hire you to get the language right.
It is a start to understanding a particular group. Bowhunters have been accused of NOT doing something (even by you). To do something, is better than to do nothing at all.

Gatehouse is right. Everyone will have their own opinion. I look forward to them stepping up and assisting in the future. Fill out the form. Let's see where it leads.

[PGK]

X 2 ........

You keep agreeing with me and people are going to start wondering :-)

[Ron.C]

My added comment at the end:

3. Hunting with firearms, under any circumstances, should not be allowed during Bow Only seasons?

This question is poorly phrased an inflammatory. From this question I gather that the UBBC is trying to remove youth only seasons from overlap with bow seasons. With this I COMPLETELY disagree. The UBBC and its members should not concern themselves with issues of youth hunting, because a few dozen youth hunters in the bush during the first week of september is no excuse to complain about overlap!!

did the survey not give 3 options to answer????

1. Yes, you agree
2. No, you don't
3. You somewhat agree

It's just a survey to try and obtain some information and personal opinions. Of course the questions are geared toward the bowhunting community. After all, the UBBC are bowhunters :eek:

But don't think all bowhunters are united in the idea that overlapping seasons like the youth rifle seasons should be ended. That's not the case

[PGK]

Rather than hijack the thread, WHy not just complete the survey 'as is" and answer that you disagree with them? I assume you can disagree?

Yes you can disagree.
I was pointing out to the UBBC members on the board that I am not in favour with this question, as well as a few others which were leading, obviously pointed at eliciting the replies they wished to hear, and poorly designed. Not everyone is going to see the results of the survey, I was merely providing my feedback to UBBC members of the board publicly. Which I believe is my perogative to do.

[PGK]

did the survey not give 3 options to answer????

1. Yes, you agree
2. No, you don't
3. You somewhat agree

It's just a survey to try and obtain some information and personal opinions. Of course the questions are geared toward the bowhunting community. After all, the UBBC are bowhunters :eek:

But don't think all bowhunters are united in the idea that overlapping seasons like the youth rifle seasons should be ended. That's not the case

I answered that I completely disagree with the statement. I believe youth seasons should be allowed to overlap bow seasons where they exist.

[Ron.C]

I answered that I completely disagree with the statement. I believe youth seasons should be allowed to overlap bow seasons where they exist.


As did I.

[The Hermit]

As did I.

As did I. The question is not leading. It is quite simple and hopefully when the survey results are in this question can be put to bed among the bowhunting community once and for all. Similarly with the question about cross bows. We aren't avoiding the issues here on the contrary we are seeking input.

I hope that ONLY those who bowhunt complete the survey. Of course the results are going to be offered from that context. If the UBBC doesn't know what bowhunters think it can't advocate on their behalf. We have been accuse of not gathering the thoughts and opinions of our members and the broader bowhunting community in the past and this is an attempt to rectify that concern.

I invite anyone here to post the survey to any hunting website in the province to gather as many responses as possible from bowhunters.

[Onesock]

I don't think the survey will give you the results you are looking for as you have no idea who has filled it out. The survey should be sent out to only the hunters that checked the bowhunters box on their 2008 hunting licence.

[The Hermit]

I don't think the survey will give you the results you are looking for as you have no idea who has filled it out. The survey should be sent out to only the hunters that checked the bowhunters box on their 2008 hunting licence.

Well that is true , dishonest twits could pretend to be a bowhunter and bias the result. I have no doubt some will do just that too but lets let it run its course and see what comes.

If the MOE had a bow license or tag and actually tracked those names then perhaps we could have the Ministry do the survey directly! That would be awesome but don't hold yer breath!

[The Hermit]

Crap - In the Hunter Education Section Question #6 should have included an option to say that thiings are okay the way they are now. I've revised the survey but not sure if those that have already answered can go back to make that selection. Damn - sorry guys.

[The Hermit]

Done. Now to get back to crankin' out some reloads.;)

Ha! Yep just took my new to me Model Seven in for bedding, trigger work, and lapping of new Talleys! :lol: Mailed off my app to upgrade my PAL to include Restricted today!

[Bowzone_Mikey]

during Bow season , Youth can Bow hunt ...
Perhaps my neck is too red to see past the end of my nose ...but i still fail to see the need for a youth only season ... If you are gonna take a kid out ...take a kid out ..why does it only need to be between this date and that date ..extend the general season to include the current youth dates, the kid is licenced for anterless anyway ...
alot of jurisdictions have no overlap in GOS and Archery only seasons simply because of the safety factor .... (dont take the wrong way and before ya'll git yer panties in a bunch I will explain) Its been documented that some "hunters" will shoot at a sound or bush movement (basically shoot first ask questions later ...) Its been known to happen (no body can deny that fact) I think it was in 2006 maybe 2005 some guy was packing a decoy in Alberta (wearing blaze at the time I might add, which is not required, granted it was a Hi Vis vest so the sides werent totally visible) out to his tree stand on crown land NW of Calgary and was shot for his efforts by a New Hunter in the side abdomen(he was packing a Comman-doe under his arm . the New hunter made a stament to the police that he was excited to see a deer and shot it (with a 30-06 at 125 yrds)

that there is the very reason why i stated that I somewhat Agree with the "pointed question" ...had the shooter been an "expirianced" hunter that did that I wouldve said strongly agree.

[GoatGuy]

Couldn't afford to hire you to get the language right.
It is a start to understanding a particular group. Bowhunters have been accused of NOT doing something (even by you). To do something, is better than to do nothing at all.

Gatehouse is right. Everyone will have their own opinion. I look forward to them stepping up and assisting in the future. Fill out the form. Let's see where it leads.

You'd be surprised at what you'd get. I've also said that I'd volunteer and help out (same with a few other things that have been a source of debate).

I'm just as interested as anybody else in this stuff.

Good to see the effort, just the execution and results that will be fraught with error. No sense in getting into the semantics of it.

[The Hermit]

I have changed the collector settings to allow people to go back into the survey to change responses... this should enable people to return and alter their response to those questionable questions! Thanks

[J_T]

Yes you can disagree.
I was pointing out to the UBBC members on the board that I am not in favour with this question, as well as a few others which were leading, obviously pointed at eliciting the replies they wished to hear, and poorly designed. Not everyone is going to see the results of the survey, I was merely providing my feedback to UBBC members of the board publicly. Which I believe is my perogative to do.PGK, appreciate your input. I don't think we are attempting to use leading questions as a way of controlling the answer, but rather as Hermit has said, using questions that put the issue right there in front of you.

To be clear, we don't have any premonition about what we want, or any predetermined idea of where we are going to take this. We simply want to start gathering information. Hey, it might not be the last survey we do. Perhaps this will allow us to break future issues down for a more complete discussion/survey.

[Fisher-Dude]

during Bow season , Youth can Bow hunt ...
Perhaps my neck is too red to see past the end of my nose ...but i still fail to see the need for a youth only season ... If you are gonna take a kid out ...take a kid out ..why does it only need to be between this date and that date ..extend the general season to include the current youth dates, the kid is licenced for anterless anyway ...
alot of jurisdictions have no overlap in GOS and Archery only seasons simply because of the safety factor .... (dont take the wrong way and before ya'll git yer panties in a bunch I will explain) Its been documented that some "hunters" will shoot at a sound or bush movement (basically shoot first ask questions later ...) Its been known to happen (no body can deny that fact) I think it was in 2006 maybe 2005 some guy was packing a decoy in Alberta (wearing blaze at the time I might add, which is not required, granted it was a Hi Vis vest so the sides werent totally visible) out to his tree stand on crown land NW of Calgary and was shot for his efforts by a New Hunter in the side abdomen(he was packing a Comman-doe under his arm . the New hunter made a stament to the police that he was excited to see a deer and shot it (with a 30-06 at 125 yrds)

that there is the very reason why i stated that I somewhat Agree with the "pointed question" ...had the shooter been an "expirianced" hunter that did that I wouldve said strongly agree.

Bullshit on the safety factor. In fact, I call double bullshit. The guy who did the shooting could do it in any season, bow only, bow/gun concurrent, muzzleloader only, rifle only, etc. The safety factor is equivalent in any season and not related to any season specifically. What if that eager beaver had stuck the guy with a broadhead - maybe they should ban bows during bow season, following your rationale?

Sounds like you wrote the leading questions to get the answer you've been promoting on here Mikey.

[6616]

You keep agreeing with me and people are going to start wondering :-)

you guys live in the same city don't you...?????

[Bowzone_Mikey]

Bullshit on the safety factor. In fact, I call double bullshit. The guy who did the shooting could do it in any season, bow only, bow/gun concurrent, muzzleloader only, rifle only, etc. The safety factor is equivalent in any season and not related to any season specifically. What if that eager beaver had stuck the guy with a broadhead - maybe they should ban bows during bow season, following your rationale?

Sounds like you wrote the leading questions to get the answer you've been promoting on here Mikey.

Pull your head out of your ass long enough to open your eyes and while you are at it unbunch your panties would ya ... you sound pretty defensive for a guy that advocates all styles of hunting.

I simply stated that many jurisdictions have no archery only / general open season overlap ... I gave the rational that many of jurisdictions use (mostly american jurisdictions by the way)... and infact I gave an example of an incident that actually happend that backed up that rational that happend relitivly recently and fairly close to us (I only remeber it because it happend 30 minutes from house in Cochrane Ab at the time (happend in the South Ghost Forest reserve just off the forestry trunk road near south Cow lake... and I recall that clearly because that spring a Bible thumper at the cow lake bible camp was attacked by a Grizz near the same spot and the running joke was there was no lions to feed)

[houndogger]

Thanks for that Bill. Did her last night.

[huntwriter]

Crap - In the Hunter Education Section Question #6 should have included an option to say that thiings are okay the way they are now. I've revised the survey but not sure if those that have already answered can go back to make that selection. Damn - sorry guys.

That's what I missed too and so I wrote in the comment section of the survey.
“The hunter education program that is in place now is more then adequate. Adding a mandatory bowhunter education program would be utterly counterproductive to bowhunter recruitment.”

I also added something to the effect that more suburban areas should be opened up for bowhunting only. Archery has proven in many jurisdictions to be the perfect wildlife management tool in suburban areas.

Onesock, I hope my opinion counts, because I amonly a 60% of the time bowhunter.;)

[huntwriter]

during Bow season , Youth can Bow hunt ...
Perhaps my neck is too red to see past the end of my nose ...but i still fail to see the need for a youth only season ... If you are gonna take a kid out ...take a kid out ..why does it only need to be between this date and that date ..extend the general season to include the current youth dates, the kid is licenced for anterless anyway ...
alot of jurisdictions have no overlap in GOS and Archery only seasons simply because of the safety factor .... (dont take the wrong way and before ya'll git yer panties in a bunch I will explain) Its been documented that some "hunters" will shoot at a sound or bush movement (basically shoot first ask questions later ...) Its been known to happen (no body can deny that fact) I think it was in 2006 maybe 2005 some guy was packing a decoy in Alberta (wearing blaze at the time I might add, which is not required, granted it was a Hi Vis vest so the sides werent totally visible) out to his tree stand on crown land NW of Calgary and was shot for his efforts by a New Hunter in the side abdomen(he was packing a Comman-doe under his arm . the New hunter made a stament to the police that he was excited to see a deer and shot it (with a 30-06 at 125 yrds)

that there is the very reason why i stated that I somewhat Agree with the "pointed question" ...had the shooter been an "expirianced" hunter that did that I wouldve said strongly agree.

Bowzone_Mikey looking at the hunter accident statistics I see that almost as many hunters get shot at by bows as by firearms. However, these incidents are such a small number, if memory serves me correctly less then 1% of the overall hunter accident statistic. While safety certainly is an important issue I don’t think it is necessarily wise to keep harping on about it and give the government stupid ideas in the process. A certain amount of danger is involved in everything we do and it cannot be eliminated no matter how hard we try or what regulations we impose.

As a side note: It's not always the inexperienced hunter that can’t identify the target. Some years ago I got shot at (still have the scare on the neck to prove it) on the way to my treestand by another bowhunter. The distance was less then 30 yards and the shooter was a bowhunter education instructor of a reputable organization.

[Onesock]

:smile:If you got the bowhunting box on your hunting licence checked off then I guess you would be a bowhunter! Right? I still don't know how the government decides how many bowhunters there are in BC because as far as I know they have no way to track the numbers. Until the gov'y comes up with some way to track bowhunters I guess we will have to take your word for it.

[4blade]

i am a hunter ,who chooses to pursue his game with a bow ,and am not sure who decided the UBBC speaks for all bowhunters in this province.we must remain hunters first ,weapon choice second or the sport will fall to the antis

[huntwriter]

i am a hunter ,who chooses to pursue his game with a bow ,and am not sure who decided the UBBC speaks for all bowhunters in this province.we must remain hunters first ,weapon choice second or the sport will fall to the antis

That is exactly what I keep saying too. First and foremost we're hunters the rest should be secondary.

[The Hermit]

That is exactly what I keep saying too. First and foremost we're hunters the rest should be secondary.

As far as I know, nobody has implied anything different. Don't over analyze and make it confusing, its pretty simple really... as hunters that choose to use a bow, some feel that the UBBC nor any other organization can make confident recommendations regarding wildlife allocations without knowing how many of us there are and what our average success rates are. Makes perfect sense to me. It hasn't got anything to do with putting one group ahead of the other... that is just petty BS and a red herring. The MOE folks that I talk to know this and think it is time to get the basic numbers clearly defined so they can make better decisions!

[J_T]

i am a hunter ,who chooses to pursue his game with a bow ,and am not sure who decided the UBBC speaks for all bowhunters in this province.we must remain hunters first ,weapon choice second or the sport will fall to the antis I agree with your comment we are hunters first. I believe most hunters choosing to hunt with a bow at some point would also agree. The UBBC doesn't speak for all bowhunters. (Although, two Ministers have indicated it so) The UBBC is working on understanding issues important to bowhunting and working with other hunting groups and Government toward a set of common objectives. More hunting opportunity, conservation, increased hunter numbers, recruitment and retention. Bowhunting has a role to play in adding value to the system. We are not attempting to take anything away from anyone.

Why do we have Trapper organizations, Guide/Outfitter organizations, Houndsmen? Bowhunting is no different. If we work together, it does not take away from the system to have various organizations advocating for their specific endeavour.

The UBBC advocates for bowhunting, if you are a bowhunter I'm sure you have benefitted from their efforts.

[huntwriter]

As far as I know, nobody has implied anything different. Don't over analyze and make it confusing, its pretty simple really... as hunters that choose to use a bow, some feel that the UBBC nor any other organization can make confident recommendations regarding wildlife allocations without knowing how many of us there are and what our average success rates are. Makes perfect sense to me. It hasn't got anything to do with putting one group ahead of the other... that is just petty BS and a red herring. The MOE folks that I talk to know this and think it is time to get the basic numbers clearly defined so they can make better decisions!

I am not analyzing anything. I made a comment that's all, perhaps a slight jab at a certain member implying that only bowhunters should be able to fill out that survey. If you know me at all and following my posts or are familiar with my work for hunters in this province and North America you should realize by now that I am the least one to engage in petty little squabbling. If I would have thought for one minute that what your club tries to do is useless I wouldn’t have spent ten minutes filling out the survey, but I did.;) Lighten up a bit.

[Onesock]

Huntwriter 1) It is a BOWHUNTING survey therfore only bowhunters should fill it out. Not that hard to understand!
2) You mention to Mikey that someone shot at you with a bow from within 30 yards and it was a mistake. Ever think it wasn't a mistake? Can't see someone not being able to identfy a deer at 25 yards! Was your case documented?

[OOBuck]

Huntwriter 1) It is a BOWHUNTING survey therfore only bowhunters should fill it out. Not that hard to understand!
2) You mention to Mikey that someone shot at you with a bow from within 30 yards and it was a mistake. Ever think it wasn't a mistake? Can't see someone not being able to identfy a deer at 25 yards! Was your case documented?

What if you hunt with a crossbow?

[Ron.C]

Huntwriter 1) It is a BOWHUNTING survey therfore only bowhunters should fill it out. Not that hard to understand!



I do agree with Onesock on this point. Even if you rifle hunt as well a bowhunt, that's ok because you still gain the honest perspective from a guy/gal that does bowhunt in one form or another even if it only for a few days a year. Guys/Gals that just rifle hunt and don't bowhunt in any of its forms don't offer much to this survey "in my opinion". Their opinions are soley based from a gun hunters perspective.
Perhaps a seperate survey needs to be put out to gain the opinions/perspective and general mindset of the average rifle only hunter with respect to some of these issues?

Either way, I think this survey is a step in the right direction. Its' good to see people being pro-active and trying to retrive this type of informantion so it can be put to a useful purpose.

[Onesock]

:wink:00Buck- Do you feel like you are not bowhunting when you use a x-bow? I think you should fill out the survey.

[huntwriter]

Huntwriter 1) It is a BOWHUNTING survey therfore only bowhunters should fill it out. Not that hard to understand!
2) You mention to Mikey that someone shot at you with a bow from within 30 yards and it was a mistake. Ever think it wasn't a mistake? Can't see someone not being able to identfy a deer at 25 yards! Was your case documented?

What constitutes a bowhunter in your opinion?


A hunter using 100% of the time a bow and what about crossbow?
Is a hunter using a bow 60% or less of the time a bow a bowhunter too or just a hunter and shoulden't have any say about issues that concern bowhunting. In a survey like the one the UBBC is doing I find it rather important that you get as many bowhunters participating in it as possible. If you only want the opinion of die hard bowhunters then I can tell you right now it will not make any impact whatsoever because die hard bowhunters represent a very small part of the overall hunting population. Even you should realize that the more voices you get for bowhunting, regardless of the degree of bowhunter status, the better it is for bowhunting.

Therefore it makes sense to include part time bowhunters too to get A. a fair representation of bowhunters and B. more voices.

You may not know this. Although I am not a full time bowhunter it is my favorite style of hunting and I have done over the years more for bowhunting then many avid bowhunters I know and probably more then some on here too.


As for you question if a report has been made. Yes I made a report to the Sheriff and the guy is not hunting anymore and he isn’t a bowhunter education instructor anymore. I don’t know what you try to imply with that quote: “Ever think it wasn't a mistake?” and frankly I don’t care either. But if you like I can show you the scare for $30 dollars.:mrgreen:

[6616]

In my many discussions over the years within the BCWF ranks I've found that the most valid points and most useful suggestions come from the hunters who use both bows and guns to hunt big game (all around hunters) (perhaps a better term would be "well rounded" hunters).

They are the persons who appear to have the most understanding and clearest picture of the two often opposing viewpoints. Because of this it also appears they seem to be able to come up with the best solution oriented compromises, and seem to see more clearly if there really is an problem or just a preceived problem. As we all know, we don't need to look for solutions until we know we have a legitimate problem.

Dedicated bow-hunters or rifle-only hunters are often very biased and do not have a clear and fair understanding of the opposing hunters situation.

A very useful survey would be one polling all-around, or overlap, hunters.

[GoatGuy]

I simply stated that many jurisdictions have no archery only / general open season overlap ... I gave the rational that many of jurisdictions use (mostly american jurisdictions by the way)... and infact I gave an example of an incident that actually happend that backed up that rational that happend relitivly recently and fairly close to us (I only remeber it because it happend 30 minutes from house in Cochrane Ab at the time (happend in the South Ghost Forest reserve just off the forestry trunk road near south Cow lake... and I recall that clearly because that spring a Bible thumper at the cow lake bible camp was attacked by a Grizz near the same spot and the running joke was there was no lions to feed)


Most of it had to do with hunter crowding. States seem to be moving more and more to "pick a weapon and season" due to little access to huntable land and a pile of hunters. It's a bit different when you have a state that's 1/2 the size of BC with close to 1 million hunters.:roll: In most rifle and bow seasons in the state you could see multiple hunters in one day on public land. Such is not the case in BC.

If we were worried we'd have blaze orange regs, however we don't have a safety problem and thus no blaze orange requirement no seasons where you 'have to pick a weapon' and therefore your season.

Your example is merely window dressing that really has nothing to do with bow/rifle as the person with the decoy in hand could have just as well been a rifle hunter. No different than a person in a treestand.

The weapon in hand makes no difference unless you have some intention of shooting back.

It would be better if we tried had discussions that were supported by fact.


Society gave up witch hunting a long time ago. It may time that hunters do so as well.

[aggiehunter]

Being a well rounded hunter has nothing to do with your choice of hunting equipment.

[huntwriter]

Most of it had to do with hunter crowding. States seem to be moving more and more to "pick a weapon and season" due to little access to huntable land and a pile of hunters. It's a bit different when you have a state that's 1/2 the size of BC with close to 1 million hunters.:roll: In most rifle and bow seasons in the state you could see multiple hunters in one day on public land. Such is not the case in BC.

If we were worried we'd have blaze orange regs, however we don't have a safety problem and thus no blaze orange requirement no seasons where you 'have to pick a weapon' and therefore your season.


That’s exactly the point I tried to make many times here on similar discussions. I hunt a lot in America and yes we do almost trample on each other’s feet. Having several hunters sitting within eyesight of each other in treestands is normal and that’s the reason why in America they have different seasons for each weapon type. Heck, when we see 50 cars parked at the side of the road on a 2000-acre parcel of land we say, “Oh, look not that many hunters out today.”

Here in BC we have so much wilderness that hunters easily can go out of each other’s way. I exclusively bowhunted two years ago, and likely will do it again this year, and I never felt that rifle hunters diminish my bowhunting opportunity. We have so much room to spread out that there is enough for everyone plus room to spare.

[Onesock]

Well I would think that if you bowhunt at all you should be filling out the survey. Does the heading not say BC RESIDENT BOWHUNTER SURVEY. No time lines or number of hunts are mentioned anywhere. Like I said before, if the box on your license says "bowhunter" you should probably be filling it out. If you hunted with a bow and didn't check the bowhunter box you were breaking the law. X-bows are legal archery tackle in BC, of course x-bow hunters should fill out the survey. I am questioning the reasoning behind some of these questions. Seeing on how I didn't write the survey I probably shouldn't be answering your questions. I am only using common sense.

[huntwriter]

Being a well rounded hunter has nothing to do with your choice of hunting equipment.

I got what 6616 meant.:-D

[huntwriter]

Well I would think that if you bowhunt at all you should be filling out the survey. Does the heading not say BC RESIDENT BOWHUNTER SURVEY. No time lines or number of hunts are mentioned anywhere. Like I said before, if the box on your license says "bowhunter" you should probably be filling it out. If you hunted with a bow and didn't check the bowhunter box you were breaking the law. X-bows are legal archery tackle in BC, of course x-bow hunters should fill out the survey. I am questioning the reasoning behind some of these questions. Seeing on how I didn't write the survey I probably shouldn't be answering your questions. I am only using common sense.
You and I must have different licenses because I can’t find a box anywhere that says “Bowhunter” or anything to that effect. So I guess I have an universal hunting license that's good for all weapons.:mrgreen: Really, I looked several times and there is nothing on it about bowhunting, and I am not blind either.

You’re correct about what it says on the survey. But in a previous post you made a comment about “only bowhunters”, knowing your stance on what you regard bowhunting from many previous discussions on this forum I just wanted your opinion on what you regard as a bowhunter. You gave me that answer and I thank you. I see clearly now :wink:

[6616]

Being a well rounded hunter has nothing to do with your choice of hunting equipment.

True, but a person who hunts with both bows and rifles is very aware of the difference and the different needs and style of both. They can usually see the other sides point of view very easily.

[J_T]

True, but a person who hunts with both bows and rifles is very aware of the difference and the different needs and style of both. They can usually see the other sides point of view very easily. I agree. Which is why the UBBC seek regional and executive people that "currently" hunt with both weapons. I have spent most of my life hunting with a rifle. Only the past 14 years hunting with a bow. I still hunt with rifle hunters and I haven't forgotten. To advocate for bowhunting, does not mean I don't respect or have forgotten the rifle perspective. Most bowhunters did start with a rifle or shotgun at some point. Not trying to pick a fight or hijack this thread here Andy, but many rifle only enthusiasts have not bowhunted and from time to time I find make fairly wild statements.

Huntwriter, to answer your question. We define bowhunter as someone who "at some point" hunts with a bow or has hunted with a bow. For all your literary skills I would have thought you picked that up.

[Onesock]

Huntwriter- When you purchase your license there is a box to be filled out if you are going to bowhunt. I strongly suggest you go to the first place that sells hunting licenses and check this out this AM. You have been breaking the law if you did not get the bowhunters box on your licecse filled out!!! Don't take my word for it, go to a retailer in your area and ask the question.

[OOBuck]

Here's my take on the survey, by taking it your empowering a association with a voice (how??? UBBC,,, "we have "X" number of bowhunters that this or that" They can use this as a voice to back their causes).

Personally I don't support the UBBC as I have read some of their forums and don't like their way of thinking, also seem like a very small actual group from BC, lot of members selling Viaga and other interesting stuff though. Everyone might want to do the same prior to filling out any survey and giving power to such a voice..

just my two cents

[Ron.C]

Here's my take on the survey, by taking it your empowering a association with a voice (how??? UBBC,,, "we have "X" number of bowhunters that this or that" They can use this as a voice to back their causes).

Personally I don't support the UBBC as I have read some of their forums and don't like their way of thinking, also seem like a very small actual group from BC, lot of members selling Viaga and other interesting stuff though. Everyone might want to do the same prior to filling out any survey and giving power to such a voice..

just my two cents


Ya, they are a small group, but these numbers will grow. If you want to have input, it's as simple as writing and email or a letter. Change starts from within.

[OOBuck]

Ya, they are a small group, but these numbers will grow. If you want to have input, it's as simple as writing and email or a letter. Change starts from within.

Its the things they are trying to change I'm not interested in or do I support..

[Ron.C]

Its the things they are trying to change I'm not interested in or do I support..


What things?

[OOBuck]

What things?

From what I have read in the forums of its members....

[Ron.C]

OOBuck,

you need to read what the UBBC's principles are

http://www.ubbc.ca/about/guiding_principles.htm

Just becuause some members of UBBC differ in opinion in some of it's forums, does not mean the the UBBC changes it's founding prinicples.

I don't know how any bowhunter in BC can read the principles in the link above and think they will not somehow benefit from the legwork put in by the UBBC?

[huntwriter]

... lot of members selling Viaga and other interesting stuff though...

Off topic but nonetheless important. Whoever is in charge of controlling the UBBC forum should urgently take the time and have a real good cleanout in the member section. More then half of the members are spamming with links to porn websites of the most disgusting outgrowth like incest and child abuse. Next to that, links to Viagra and Escort websites look harmless.

Most folks interested in an organization gather first information, chances that even government officials stop by at times are a possibility too. It sure doesn’t look good for the reputation of an organization that seems not overly concerned whose signing up membership and to what websites they link.

Not bitching here, just well intended advice to improve your public reputation from someone who cares.;)

[GoatGuy]

OOBuck,

you need to read what the UBBC's principles are

http://www.ubbc.ca/about/guiding_principles.htm

Just becuause some members of UBBC differ in opinion in some of it's forums, does not mean the the UBBC changes it's founding prinicples.

I don't know how any bowhunter in BC can read the principles in the link above and think they will not somehow benefit from the legwork put in by the UBBC?

Probably best to start a new thread on this one. I feel a hijack coming.

[The Hermit]

Its the things they are trying to change I'm not interested in or do I support..

Scott - Please be specific? What is the UBBC seeking that you do not support? If you answer the survey the UBBC can hear your voice and take into account a broader range of opinion than just a handful of keeners.

The survey gives you opportunity to express your opinions, thoughts, and wishes. All bowhuntes in BC's opinions are being sought with the survey not just members of the UBBC. The UBBC has no intention of claiming that everyone who completes the survey is a member in any discussions with the any other group or government. We certainly will state the data as collected eg As of this moment...

N = 118
Males = 117
Females = 1
Average Age = 37 (Mode) 31.7% aged between 40-49
84.4% Hunt with Mixed Weapons
72.5% hunt with a compound
11.9% hunt with crossbows
8 crazy buggers hunt grizzy with a bow!!! - They are my heros!!

And if you don't think the UBBC supports your interests as a bowhunter please tell us who does... btw - that is one of the survey questions!!

Fill it out ya big shit disturber! LOL

[6616]

The government needs an organized voice to turn to to gather input and to discuss issues with. It's true the UBBC might not have the majority of bowhunters as members, but they are quickly becoming the go-to voice for government on strictly bow-hunting related issues. Similar to the BCWF, they do not have the majority of hunters as members either, but they are the largest and oldest hunter based conservation org in BC so it's natually the BCWF the government turns to for input.

The above will never change, the government cannot go to 200 rod and gun and archery clubs, or to 86,000 individual hunters, and hope to get any kind of consistant or meaningful input. So it follows that if one is not satisfied with UBBC or BCWF representation, the onus is on that individual to get involved with those organizations and provide his/her input into their positions on issues.

The biggest and most important point is that the UBBC and BCWF have to work together on issues relating to hunting, gathering, land use, habitat, etc. The competitive thing in seeking special hunting opportunities has to be less conspicuous.

The BCWF has a very good network of clubs, regions, regional committees, provincial board and provincial committee and open lines of comunications between all levels, through which to gather input from it's members to ensure the positions it takes are consistant with the needs of hunters in general. They have in the area of 500 volunteers working at levels above the club level in various capacities and on various committees. The UBBC simply does not have the membership base for such an elaborate network, bit I would hope they have some type of mechanism to gather input from the grass-roots level, because if it's only a few guys at the top forming positions on issues they run a significant risk of alienatiing many hunters and eventually falling into oblivion. A poll like this may fill a small niche in that info gathering system, but the results can hardly be considered firm data.

[GoatGuy]

The above will never change, the government cannot go to 200 rod and gun and archery clubs, or to 86,000 individual hunters, and hope to get any kind of consistant or meaningful input.

They can go to 86,000 individual hunters. I think this is where things will end up. Current consultation is far too clumsy and binding. Wildlife management has become a social problem and wildlife managers are training in biology not psychology.

Most of them feel frustrated with their 'clientel' daily. Everybody's looking to steal a bigger piece of an every shrinking pie and they fail to see the big picture.

I think there would be some benefits for conservation based groups as well. Instead of worrying about the politics they could get more involved in conservation related activities. That's a big part of what makes the bond between society and nature. Put back into what you take out of it.

[The Hermit]

The government needs an organized voice to turn to to gather input and to discuss issues with. It's true the UBBC might not have the majority of bowhunters as members, but they are quickly becoming the go-to voice for government on strictly bow-hunting related issues. Similar to the BCWF, they do not have the majority of hunters as members either, but they are the largest and oldest hunter based conservation org in BC so it's natually the BCWF the government turns to for input.

The above will never change, the government cannot go to 200 rod and gun and archery clubs, or to 86,000 individual hunters, and hope to get any kind of consistant or meaningful input. So it follows that if one is not satisfied with UBBC or BCWF representation, the onus is on that individual to get involved with those organizations and provide his/her input into their positions on issues.

The biggest and most important point is that the UBBC and BCWF have to work together on issues relating to hunting, gathering, land use, habitat, etc. The competitive thing in seeking special hunting opportunities has to be less conspicuous.

The BCWF has a very good network of clubs, regions, regional committees, provincial board and provincial committee and open lines of comunications between all levels, through which to gather input from it's members to ensure the positions it takes are consistant with the needs of hunters in general. They have in the area of 500 volunteers working at levels above the club level in various capacities and on various committees. The UBBC simply does not have the membership base for such an elaborate network, bit I would hope they have some type of mechanism to gather input from the grass-roots level, because if it's only a few guys at the top forming positions on issues they run a significant risk of alienatiing many hunters and eventually falling into oblivion. A poll like this may fill a small niche in that info gathering system, but the results can hardly be considered firm data.

Well I think I know what you mean... but the data are the data. Its the interpretation and conclusions drawn from the sample that will have to be taken in context.

[GoatGuy]

Well I think I know what you mean... but the data are the data. Its the interpretation and conclusions drawn from the sample that will have to be taken in context.

When will the results be available?

[The Hermit]

We will collect responses for three weeks, I anticipate taking a week or so to compile and analyze the data. I hope to have the time to write it up and post the results within a couple weeks. So look for it around the end of March.

[OOBuck]

Scott - Please be specific? What is the UBBC seeking that you do not support? If you answer the survey the UBBC can hear your voice and take into account a broader range of opinion than just a handful of keeners.

The survey gives you opportunity to express your opinions, thoughts, and wishes. All bowhuntes in BC's opinions are being sought with the survey not just members of the UBBC. The UBBC has no intention of claiming that everyone who completes the survey is a member in any discussions with the any other group or government. We certainly will state the data as collected eg As of this moment...

N = 118
Males = 117
Females = 1
Average Age = 37 (Mode) 31.7% aged between 40-49
84.4% Hunt with Mixed Weapons
72.5% hunt with a compound
11.9% hunt with crossbows
8 crazy buggers hunt grizzy with a bow!!! - They are my heros!!

And if you don't think the UBBC supports your interests as a bowhunter please tell us who does... btw - that is one of the survey questions!!

Fill it out ya big shit disturber! LOL

As a bowhunter I don't feel I need any special interest group looking after me, and after reading some posts on the UBBC's web site I can say I have come to this conclusion, for instance,,, Crossbows use or limiting the use of them, Mandatory course for bowhunters also there was actually a letter whining to the MOE that the UBBC wasn't included in a meeting.

It's all fine to have your point of views but when members start posting them on the internet the executive better put them in their place or pull the post as it reflex the entire group. Again I would say that the survey more empowers the UBBC by allowing them to use the information to their advantage. Can I make it any clearer Hermy??

[aggiehunter]

Onesock, I don't believe it is an offence to bowhunt and not have had the box ticked off on the counterfoil of the licence. There is no mandatory licencing for bowhunters in BC and judging by the misinformed bowhunters due to the retailers there could be many, many more bowhunters than we think. Time for a licence. Another can of worms and the real bowhunters will argue against it, again.

[aggiehunter]

OO Buck, Hey I realize your a redneck but your talking on a website chat forum just like the rest of us, so remember that's what it is, even on the UBBC site. A place where people can voice their opinions without persecution. GOATGUY, I agree with you on the biology vs pshycology. How frustrating for a bio to see all the opinions hit his desk and have professed bowhunters vote against a bow opportunity, must be confusing to say the least. Leave the study and book readers to do the grunt work and let the biogist do the decision making.

[The Hermit]

... Again I would say that the survey more empowers the UBBC by allowing them to use the information to their advantage. Can I make it any clearer Hermy??

Oh no it seems perfectly clear that you don't want to know what others' opinions really are. Individuals, including you, are welcome to air your opinions and beliefs here, on the UBBC site, or anywhere you like - just as are the members of the UBBC. I for one am not in favor of censorship!

[GoatGuy]

As a bowhunter I don't feel I need any special interest group looking after me, and after reading some posts on the UBBC's web site I can say I have come to this conclusion, for instance,,, Crossbows use or limiting the use of them, Mandatory course for bowhunters also there was actually a letter whining to the MOE that the UBBC wasn't included in a meeting.

It's all fine to have your point of views but when members start posting them on the internet the executive better put them in their place or pull the post as it reflex the entire group. Again I would say that the survey more empowers the UBBC by allowing them to use the information to their advantage. Can I make it any clearer Hermy??

Data can't be 'used' to anyone's advantage or empower anyone really. It's there and if you understand it and the methodology you know what it means.

Usually when it's misinterpreted it's because somebody's bending the results around to their way of thinking. That's fairly common and easily discredited.

I wouldn't be too worried 00buck about the information being used to anyone's advantage. It is what it is and if someone's trying to bend it, it will be fairly apparent.

[GoatGuy]

OO Buck, Hey I realize your a redneck but your talking on a website chat forum just like the rest of us, so remember that's what it is, even on the UBBC site. A place where people can voice their opinions without persecution. GOATGUY, I agree with you on the biology vs pshycology. How frustrating for a bio to see all the opinions hit his desk and have professed bowhunters vote against a bow opportunity, must be confusing to say the least. Leave the study and book readers to do the grunt work and let the biogist do the decision making.

Not confusing, frustrating.

Suffice it to say, the campfire chat is going back to the campfire. There's no room for it in wildlife management.

The rest you won't understand.

[OOBuck]

Oh no it seems perfectly clear that you don't want to know what others' opinions really are. Individuals, including you, are welcome to air your opinions and beliefs here, on the UBBC site, or anywhere you like - just as are the members of the UBBC. I for one am not in favor of censorship!

That funny I was told by you directly that yourself & the president asked one of your members to keep a little more low key, no censorship huh.. Smells like BULL $HIT!!!! Time to eat crow;-)

[Onesock]

Scott. If you are refering to my stand on x-bows, you know how I feel. I am sure that 100 different people will have 100 different opinions on various differnt topics. It is My opinion. Get over it!!! Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. I have mine you have yours. Life goes on.

[The Hermit]

That funny I was told by you directly that yourself & the president asked one of your members to keep a little more low key, no censorship huh.. Smells like BULL $HIT!!!! Time to eat crow;-)

A hahahahaha and you told me directly that you have already filled out the survey ya tard!! Tit for Tat!

No one was told they couldn't post their views but it become obvious, your own reaction is the case in point, that when current or former executives of an association voice their personal opinion on controversial topics like the crossbow, mandatory education and or additional licensing, some people (like you) mistakenly believe that the "organization" holds that view. So yeah a couple folks were asked to tone down the rhetoric because it became problematic for the organization which in fact supports crossbows as legal archery equipment!

For example you know that I personally don't have any issues with hunting with crossbows, that I own one, and am considering becoming a crossbow distributor! Does that mean that if the majority of bowhunters clearly oppose them that as the VP of UBBC I would say "screw that - the UBBC supports crossbows"? Give us a break and a little more credit than that please!!

[OOBuck]

Scott. If you are refering to my stand on x-bows, you know how I feel. I am sure that 100 different people will have 100 different opinions on various differnt topics. It is My opinion. Get over it!!! Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. I have mine you have yours. Life goes on.

No I'm just trying to pi$$ on the hermits cornflakes... :lol: Did you notice he started calling names!! LOL

[GoatGuy]

, that when current or former executives of an association voice their personal opinion on controversial topics like the crossbow, mandatory education and or additional licensing, some people (like you) mistakenly believe that the "organization" holds that view.

Maybe differentiate what is personal opinion and what are organizational views then. Ie., mandatory education, additional licensing.

[OOBuck]

Maybe differentiate what is personal opinion and what are organizational views then. Ie., mandatory education, additional licensing.


Here here!!!

[The Hermit]

Don't make me search all the posts to point out all the times where that has already been done... you guys are stirring an old pot.

[aggiehunter]

Goatguy, I fully understand how it works. You read a book and then you tell us about it.... now back to not being persecuted on a CHAT LINE.

[GoatGuy]

Don't make me search all the posts to point out all the times where that has already been done... you guys are stirring an old pot.

It hasn't been done, but whatever blows your hair back.

[GoatGuy]

Goatguy, I fully understand how it works. You read a book and then you tell us about it.... now back to not being persecuted on a CHAT LINE.

I could read a book on how and why a sightability model works and explain it to you, you'd say you fully understand how it works, and follow it up with "I don't believe you". Hahahahahahahaha.

This one's all in good fun.

[aggiehunter]

Goatguy, I guess some people might understand that a sightability factor on a healthy goat herd in Alberta really doesn't work on a declining herd in the Similkameen. But alas the book learned still use it...more confusion. Oh wait, theres another goat hiding behind that bush. Another topic for another internet chat line. Same some persecution for the others hey!

[GoatGuy]

Goatguy, I guess some people might understand that a sightability factor on a healthy goat herd in Alberta really doesn't work on a declining herd in the Similkameen. But alas the book learned still use it...more confusion. Oh wait, theres another goat hiding behind that bush. Another topic for another internet chat line. Same some persecution for the others hey!

I'm doing my darnedest to refrain from my typical reply.

Goats aren't doing that well in Alberta. They've only been open to LEH for the past 7 years - prior to that they were closed for 12 or 13 years. Currently there are only 5-6 tags annually across the entire Province. Odds are around 500:1.

We don't use Cote's model out of Caw Ridge (no goat hunting) and he also acknowledges their model doesn't even work across Alberta. We don't use their stuff here.

The correction used in reg 8 was low and they didn't uses Kim's correction - actually ignored it and the current direction is that management should be based on minimum estimates not on corrected estimates.

Kim's collared and reflown goats in the EK and WK several times to get an idea of sightability in different habitat. In the books, on the ground, in the air. Done a heck of a good job and spent a pile of time on it. Published, well respected - heck of a good guy.

Pretty good guy to sit down with and ask some questions.

Hope this helps.

[aggiehunter]

Goatguy, Reply away, don't worry about my feelings for goats sake, I'm old and weathered and been around so long my pack straps are worn thin. That's exactly what I meant, the goaty thing aint' workin in Alta, wont' work here. Until they start listening to the guys with the bobs on their boots worn off on the rocks and quit staring at the pages of a goddamn book like other guys we know. Now correct me if I'm wrong but this a bowhunting survey, gonna get that draw in Hedley again and kill that goat hiding behind every tree with my old recurve. Survey Says!!!!

[J_T]

I'm doing my darnedest to refrain from my typical reply.


Thanks for not...:smile: And it led to some better information and you and Aggie, almost agree. And it led to a bit of humour. Warmed my heart you two.

[Onesock]

Bowhunting survey.............about goats?

[Ron.C]

Bowhunting survey.............about goats?

I tried bowhunting for goats last year.

Can't say it turned out that well though

;)

[Bow Walker]

Jeez!! From a simple request to fill out a survey, this thread has gotten a life of its own. Lots of talk, lots of b.s., and certainly lots of differing opinions. But then, that's what the internet/ife is all aboutl, eh?

[Fisher-Dude]

So? Did Hermie's senility kick in and he lost the link to the survey? What's the result of your leading, one-sided questionnaire?

[quadrakid]

i tried to do this questionnaire but can,t finish it. they want me to say what my preferred weapon is, i like my gun and i like my bow.i don,t have a preferred weapon.

[J_T]

So? Did Hermie's senility kick in and he lost the link to the survey? What's the result of your leading, one-sided questionnaire?Is the search for information ever really over?

[Fisher-Dude]

Is the search for information ever really over?

This particular search was supposed to be over March 8, per Hermie. ;)

[The Hermit]

Sorry guys a combination of senility and being a lazy old fart has caught up with me. I'll get on it this week... Last I looked there were only 181 people that completed the survey. Your patience is appreciated.

[J_T]

This particular search was supposed to be over March 8, per Hermie. ;)And I'm not sure I agree with that. The URL should remain out there indefinitely as far as I'm concerned. This survey is not about HBC. Nothing wrong with collecting more information over time. And unless you are a member, I'm not sure the UBBC have a responsibility to provide you with the results. I'm not suggesting Hermit won't put the results up here, I'm just saying, I'd feel somewhat more willing to share if I didn't think I was going to get beat up. It always confuses me why there is a core group on here that don't mind challenging others, but don't intend to take a challenge well. I'm not trying to pick a fight. Just identifying who rules the school ground.

[Fisher-Dude]

And I'm not sure I agree with that. The URL should remain out there indefinitely as far as I'm concerned. This survey is not about HBC. Nothing wrong with collecting more information over time. And unless you are a member, I'm not sure the UBBC have a responsibility to provide you with the results. I'm not suggesting Hermit won't put the results up here, I'm just saying, I'd feel somewhat more willing to share if I didn't think I was going to get beat up. It always confuses me why there is a core group on here that don't mind challenging others, but don't intend to take a challenge well. I'm not trying to pick a fight. Just identifying who rules the school ground.

I'm sure the UBBC will share the results if they support their position. ;-)

[J_T]

I'm sure the UBBC will share the results if they support their position. ;-)What position? Add value to the hunt? Support Youth and recruitment? To be heard as a voice and have an opportunity to participate?

I would suggest, rather than a conspiracy, the survey/poll/questionaire is an attempt to gather information about hunters, about bowhunters and about its membership.

Sometimes leadership means doing things that aren't popular. Always good to know what is and what isn't popular.

The UBBC provides the bowhunter with an opportunity to participate as a legitimate stakeholder in hunting opportunity discussions directed by the Ministry of Environment.

The United Bowhunters of British Columbia is a bowhunting lobby group that works to represent all bowhunters in all areas of the province.

The UBBC wants to work with all bowhunters to ensure the bowhunter is represented across the province.

As the organization grows, the United Bowhunters of British Columbia is looking to assist and strengthen existing efforts in the province.
Through credibility and leadership, coordinating the voice of the bowhunter in BC.

[GoatGuy]

And unless you are a member, I'm not sure the UBBC have a responsibility to provide you with the results.

Yes the UBBC does and I'm sure there's no need to get in a pissing match over it.

I'm sure you were planning on sharing it/making it available to the public somehow.

Anyways, continue on. ;)

[J_T]

Yes the UBBC does and I'm sure there's no need to get in a pissing match over it.

I'm sure you were planning on sharing it/making it available to the public somehow.

Anyways, continue on. ;)I'm sure we will provide a summary. My point in this is simple. Over the time I have sat in on this site, I have seen many hunters - who hunt with a bow - come on here and offer their opinion. It is an internet chat site after all. They are swarmed with the negative bowhunting core on here and eventually they either leave or stay on in silence. The aggressive rule.

There is more than one way to add value to the system. It is important to understand your group. The most important lesson to take away from the survey is the knowledge that most bowhunters don't use the internet (181 responses). Need to find another way to reach out.

[GoatGuy]

I'm sure we will provide a summary. My point in this is simple. Over the time I have sat in on this site, I have seen many hunters - who hunt with a bow - come on here and offer their opinion. It is an internet chat site after all. They are swarmed with the negative bowhunting core on here and eventually they either leave or stay on in silence. The aggressive rule.

Negative bowhunting core? Very interesting. Most people on here don't see what happens behind the scenes and what's presented, to other groups or something like, say, PHRAAC. They also don't see the emails that get circulated.

Opinion becomes fact when it comes from an organization. ;-) And you don't make friends when facts (opinions) aren't correct or are set up to blindside others. That isn't restricted to any one group.


There is more than one way to add value to the system. It is important to understand your group. The most important lesson to take away from the survey is the knowledge that most bowhunters don't use the internet (181 responses). Need to find another way to reach out.

As long as we're all learning. That was predictable and there's no way to establish a population either.

Maybe randomly survey the UBBC membership. Then you could get a representative sample of your membership. Like I said if you're going to do something I'm more than willing to help if it's going to be done right. Whether or not I personally 'like' the results of a proper survey, it's still a proper survey, right? Then there's no disagreeing with it. :D

[Onesock]

Just wondering why FD is so interested in what the UBBC does? I don't think he is a member. I don't see the BCWF offfering out their information to anti-rifle hunters now do I. If you want to know what goes on within an organization a peron should become a memeber of that organization!!!

[igojuone]

This survey seems to me more directed to the crossbow/traditional bow( you know the one made of compound metals and manufactured on an assembly line in some factory in an industrial park of your nearest large city) we are hunters you are not, chest beating traditionalist. If you really want to be the better person should you not be required to carve you own bow and arrow out of wood with a sharpened stone and make a arrowhead of the same while wearing buckskin and moccasins?

[J_T]

This survey seems to me more directed to the crossbow/traditional bow( you know the one made of compound metals and manufactured on an assembly line in some factory in an industrial park of your nearest large city) we are hunters you are not, chest beating traditionalist. If you really want to be the better person should you not be required to carve you own bow and arrow out of wood with a sharpened stone and make a arrowhead of the same while wearing buckskin and moccasins? Ok, I'm confused. You came to that conclusion how? Not trying to agitate, but it seems a big leap here.

[bighornbob]

I took the survey last night and there is a flaw with one of the questions.

The one that asked about the Bowhunter Course. It read something like "If you have taken the Bowhunter safety course would you reccomend it to (2 options) a New Bowhunter and Expereinced Bowhunter (yes or no choices).

As I have not taken the course I cant comment on would I reccommend it, so I left it blank. The survey would not let me proceed until I answered the question, so I anwsered "no" even though I have not taken the course.

BHB

[igojuone]

The survey asks if crossbow hunting should be allowed for able--bodied persons during the bow only hunt? Why would you even broach the subject if?
You are creating a difference where there is no difference. It would seem to me that the only reason to ask is to find out if there is support for a change to allow only traditional bow hunters to use this shoulder season. Like they are the only ones who use skill in hunting.

[J_T]

I took the survey last night and there is a flaw with one of the questions.

The one that asked about the Bowhunter Course. It read something like "If you have taken the Bowhunter safety course would you reccomend it to (2 options) a New Bowhunter and Expereinced Bowhunter (yes or no choices).

As I have not taken the course I cant comment on would I reccommend it, so I left it blank. The survey would not let me proceed until I answered the question, so I anwsered "no" even though I have not taken the course.

BHBThanks. Yes, we are aware of this. If you remove the "if you have taken it" one could assume that all education is beneficial. But we realize it wasn't perfect.

[J_T]

The survey asks if crossbow hunting should be allowed for able--bodied persons during the bow only hunt? Why would you even broach the subject if?
You are creating a difference where there is no difference. It would seem to me that the only reason to ask is to find out if there is support for a change to allow only traditional bow hunters to use this shoulder season. Like they are the only ones who use skill in hunting.On the contrary, we want to put this issue to rest. It is a constant topic of debate. I'd prefer to put it behind us. The UBBC support all forms of legal archery in BC. We want our members to know the majority of members/bowhunters support them too. Our reasoning was to give those that remain silent on the subject an opportunity to comment without persecution. A bit different than this site perhaps.

Please don't "read" answers into the questions.

[greybark]

:p OK Hermit , Wrap it up as we are in the " Pickin Flyshit Out of Pepper " phase .
Cheers

[Fisher-Dude]

Just wondering why FD is so interested in what the UBBC does? I don't think he is a member. I don't see the BCWF offfering out their information to anti-rifle hunters now do I. If you want to know what goes on within an organization a peron should become a memeber of that organization!!!

Anti-rifle? Who said I'm anti-bow? I'll question any group (shotgunners, muzzeloaders, rifle, barbless hook advocates, etc) when I think they may be BSing the public. Don't flatter yourself - I don't pay special attention to anyone. ;-)

PS - how the heck do you know that I haven't already joined the UBBC? :shock::biggrin:

[bruin]

Did the survey, thanks for posting

[Onesock]

How could the UBBC be BSing anyone? No one knows the results of the questionaire. I can get the list of UBBC members with a key stroke if I wanted FisureLube and I would bet yu are not on it!! Why is it that BCWF advocates always think the worst of peoples good intentions. As Goatboy always states"you don't know what is going on behind closed doors". And bowhunters should believe what goes on behind your closed doors.HA

[J_T]

Let's work together.

My hope, is that whatever we want to call this collection process, provides additional information that can be used positively, in a collaborative way to add value to hunting opportunity. The UBBC is not attempting to lobby another hunter's opportunity away.

[Fisher-Dude]

Let's work together.

My hope, is that whatever we want to call this collection process, provides additional information that can be used positively, in a collaborative way to add value to hunting opportunity. The UBBC is not attempting to lobby another hunter's opportunity away.

Tell Ern that. He's hell bent on opposing some positive deer season changes proposed in region 8 - seasons that give EVERYONE more opportunity, be they bowhunters or rifle hunters. And, he's opposing them in the name of your bowhunting organizations. His opposition is based purely on principle (he didn't get bow only, so he's opposing everyone's extra opportunity), and not on the science and harvest data used to formulate these proposals. Kinda like the child who breaks his toys so no one else can use them.

JT, as Pres, it's up to you to tune him in. If as you say you're not attempting to lobby another (EVERY in this case!) hunter's opportunity away, then you better tell your Region 8 FHAC representative to tow the party line and stop acting like a frikken bratty child.

[Onesock]

What are these positive changes in Region 8? I would like to hear about them.

[Fisher-Dude]

What are these positive changes in Region 8? I would like to hear about them.

Mule deer: extend 4 point buck season to Nov 15 from Nov 10. Move youth from Nov 11 - 18 to Nov 16 - 24. Bow only any buck Nov 25 - Dec 10. Harmonize any buck season with region 3 to Oct 1 - 31 (was Oct 1 - 20) to reduce enforcement problems.

WT deer: return to two buck limit, as it was before late 90s die off. Extend GOS to Nov 30 from Nov 24. Extend bow only either sex to Dec 1 - 20 (was Nov 25 - Dec 10) to harmonize with region 4 WT season and reduce enforcement problems, and provide longer bow season and SNOW to hunt them in!

Bow hunters get extra 10 days to hunt WT. Bow hunters get 2 buck WT limit. Bow hunters get extra 5 days to hunt 4 pt mule deer. Bow hunters get extra 11 days of any buck mule deer.

Why someone would oppose extra bow opportunity like that, with record high deer numbers?

[J_T]

JT, as Pres, it's up to you to tune him in. If as you say you're not attempting to lobby another (EVERY in this case!) hunter's opportunity away, then you better tell your Region 8 FHAC representative to tow the party line and stop acting like a frikken bratty child. Who tunes you in?:lol: Regardless of your relationship with Ern I have a ton of respect for the guy. Perhaps your mis-reading him. Perhaps the reason he's opposed is that he has a conservation concern. Are you actually listening to him, or are you simply opposed regardless of what is being said?

I'm not really looking for an answer here right now, just posing the question. He and his family have a long long standing history of working for wildlife and working for youth in the area. I would hope that alone would earn your respect and your understanding ear. Just because he doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean he's wrong or your right.

When I'm at odds with someone, it means I'm not understanding of their perspective, which means I need to spend time with them to do just that. Perhaps you should ask him to go fishing. He's a hell of a fly fisherman.

If you want to scream and yell at each other, I'm sure everyone will remain at odds.

On this site, I believe, he is entitled as a hunter to speak his mind.

As for change, it takes time. And within the hunting community population dynamics and forest ingrowth occur a lot faster than mind set change.

[PGK]

Who tunes you in?:lol: Regardless of your relationship with Ern I have a ton of respect for the guy. Perhaps your mis-reading him. Perhaps the reason he's opposed is that he has a conservation concern. Are you actually listening to him, or are you simply opposed regardless of what is being said?

I'm not really looking for an answer here right now, just posing the question. He and his family have a long long standing history of working for wildlife and working for youth in the area. I would hope that alone would earn your respect and your understanding ear. Just because he doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean he's wrong or your right.

When I'm at odds with someone, it means I'm not understanding of their perspective, which means I need to spend time with them to do just that. Perhaps you should ask him to go fishing. He's a hell of a fly fisherman.

If you want to scream and yell at each other, I'm sure everyone will remain at odds.

On this site, I believe, he is entitled as a hunter to speak his mind.

As for change, it takes time. And within the hunting community population dynamics and forest ingrowth occur a lot faster than mind set change.

You da man JT! Keep it up! :-D

[Fisher-Dude]

Who tunes you in?:lol: Regardless of your relationship with Ern I have a ton of respect for the guy. Perhaps your mis-reading him. Perhaps the reason he's opposed is that he has a conservation concern. Are you actually listening to him, or are you simply opposed regardless of what is being said?

I'm not really looking for an answer here right now, just posing the question. He and his family have a long long standing history of working for wildlife and working for youth in the area. I would hope that alone would earn your respect and your understanding ear. Just because he doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean he's wrong or your right.

When I'm at odds with someone, it means I'm not understanding of their perspective, which means I need to spend time with them to do just that. Perhaps you should ask him to go fishing. He's a hell of a fly fisherman.

If you want to scream and yell at each other, I'm sure everyone will remain at odds.

On this site, I believe, he is entitled as a hunter to speak his mind.

As for change, it takes time. And within the hunting community population dynamics and forest ingrowth occur a lot faster than mind set change.

There is NO conservation concern. That's a fact, and a fact that Ern knows. However, he will likely try to play that card. It's a me me me thing with him, and you bloody well know it. We had twice the hunters and way longer/unrestricted seasons before...now we have MORE deer, MORE restrictions, and fewer hunters! We have all the data to support the changes - and let's face it, the changes are just a few days!

We have new inventory, harvest data, and hunter effort data, all of which supports these changes. We have the full support of the CO Service too. The regional biologist said "Well that just makes sense". Region 8 of the BCWF passed all the resolutions. Yet, Ern is going to oppose it on principle because he wanted bow only Nov 11 - Dec 10, no one else in the bush, no youth, no one but Ern. If he can't get what HE wants, well screw the rest of you. Tell me again WHO needs to work together? The guy can't even stand a kid shooting a F'ing GROUSE with a 22!

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





Group: Members
Posts: 272
Joined: Jan. 2006
http://tbbc.kics.bc.ca/iB_html2/non-cgi/Skin/SKIN-5/PostIcons/icon0.gifPosted: Nov. 05 2008,10:33http://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=901;p=3)Just so you know we did attempt to have an early bowonly grouse season but that was shot down in flames. Now here is a catch .22. We could ask for the grouse season to open for everyone in the early bowonly season but do we want more guns going off during that time. I agree that the late bow season for grouse was more of bone thrown to us than anything.

[J_T]

There is NO conservation concern. That's a fact, and a fact that Ern knows. However, he will likely try to play that card. It's a me me me thing with him, and you bloody well know it. We had twice the hunters and way longer/unrestricted seasons before...now we have MORE deer, MORE restrictions, and fewer hunters! We have all the data to support the changes - and let's face it, the changes are just a few days!

We have new inventory, harvest data, and hunter effort data, all of which supports these changes. We have the full support of the CO Service too. The regional biologist said "Well that just makes sense". Region 8 of the BCWF passed all the resolutions. Yet, Ern is going to oppose it on principle because he wanted bow only Nov 11 - Dec 10, no one else in the bush, no youth, no one but Ern. If he can't get what HE wants, well screw the rest of you. Tell me again WHO needs to work together? The guy can't even stand a kid shooting a F'ing GROUSE with a 22!

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





Group: Members
Posts: 272
Joined: Jan. 2006
http://tbbc.kics.bc.ca/iB_html2/non-cgi/Skin/SKIN-5/PostIcons/icon0.gifPosted: Nov. 05 2008,10:33http://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=901;p=3)Just so you know we did attempt to have an early bowonly grouse season but that was shot down in flames. Now here is a catch .22. We could ask for the grouse season to open for everyone in the early bowonly season but do we want more guns going off during that time. I agree that the late bow season for grouse was more of bone thrown to us than anything.

Oyyy! you cause me stress. If everyone is in favour of this accept the bowhunting rep, then why is this an issue? Seems to me it moves forward. Or are the TOR such that full consensus has to be reached? I'm confused why you take this so personally. Who's the "we" in "we have all the data"? The committee? You? Or your corner? Seems a bit like an us versus them. Working from opposing corners?

I feel your passion here, (good stuff) but is your passion partnered with your assumptions of another man, getting in the way? Your language in so many of your posts suggests you are all about passing judgement. Perhaps you are not doing your part to ensure a collaborative approach. A good Governance model has someone asking tough often opposing questions. "Opposition"

It's the Government that dictate what happens. Not hunters. Hunters are given an opportunity for their input. I would suggest that having a different view, an opposing view is good for the decision making process. I value the opportunity Government provides me to have input. I hope we all do. I do not judge Government for the decisions it makes. Should I go through all of your posts and pull out your judgements?

If you are always assuming presentation is being made for one person's benefit, then you are not listening to the discussion. I would ask you to probe deeper and clarify the issues, the interests. You are free to close your mind and pass judgement anytime, but to get benefit you must self manage and listen.

Your first statement above about his opposition, I hear this as a conservation concern. Not one man wanting something for himself. This isn't a card game. Regarding your copy paste of a statement. Please understand, without context, it's simply a summary statement and holds little value. And copying more is not going to add value. I wish you'd stop that habit.

The bow only season is separate of an archery opportunity. Bow only is important to adding value to the hunt in BC, providing an opportunity to hunters where a conservation concern may be real. Bow only is important as it provides the opportunity for a unique set of circumstances to pursue animals with a bow. Archery opportunity is an opportunity that can be held concurrent with a rifle opportunity.

[Fisher-Dude]

Full consensus is needed. Our game managers can't stand dissention. It's easier to say "no" than it is to listen to a rant from an uninformed participant. I've seen it many times, and so have you. These are good changes for everyone, but run the risk of failure because someone wants something for themselves only. It's akin to the G/Os telling you that all elk should be on LEH in your backyard JT.

[Onesock]

I thought mule deer numbers in BC were down from what they used to be. As a matter of fact I thought mule deer were in peril a few years ago. Moving the GOS to the 15th of Nov would certainly put a few more big bucks on the ground. I don't know if that would hurt the numbers but add a bad winter to it and there could be a conservation concern. What do the stats and numbers say about out next bad winter and winter kill?

[J_T]

Full consensus is needed. Our game managers can't stand dissention. It's easier to say "no" than it is to listen to a rant from an uninformed participant. I've seen it many times, and so have you. These are good changes for everyone, but run the risk of failure because someone wants something for themselves only. It's akin to the G/Os telling you that all elk should be on LEH in your backyard JT.what you need then is change to your Terms of Reference. Government should make and own the decisions.

[Fisher-Dude]

I thought mule deer numbers in BC were down from what they used to be. As a matter of fact I thought mule deer were in peril a few years ago. Moving the GOS to the 15th of Nov would certainly put a few more big bucks on the ground. I don't know if that would hurt the numbers but add a bad winter to it and there could be a conservation concern. What do the stats and numbers say about out next bad winter and winter kill?

That a bad winter WILL kill off lots of deer as we're near carrying capacity. They should be at 65 - 70% of CC, not 95 - 110%. I guess Ern would rather see piles of carcasses in the spring instead of meat on families' tables.

Explain how twice the number of mule deer hunters, with longer seasons and no point restrictions, hunted a smaller deer population for decades with no conservation concern, and how 5 days with 4 point will make any difference?

[Fisher-Dude]

what you need then is change to your Terms of Reference. Government should make and own the decisions.

Cop out. Tell Ern to stay home from FHAC then, if that's what you believe should be done.

[Onesock]

Well actually there is way more access to the back country now than there was 20 years ago, way more. More logging roads, better equipment(quads), better 4X4 pickups, equals a more efficient hunter. Not to mention the guys that can shoot 4-500 yards now.Would you not agree? Probably not!!!

[Fisher-Dude]

Well actually there is way more access to the back country now than there was 20 years ago, way more. More logging roads, better equipment(quads), better 4X4 pickups, equals a more efficient hunter. Not to mention the guys that can shoot 4-500 yards now.Would you not agree? Probably not!!!

Doesn't matter. We're only killing 50% of the animals we did 20 years ago. They could kill 50% more with their 308s and leaf spring suspensions in their 4x4s. If you have areas that pose a true conservation concern with access, then put access restrictions on quads and trucks, but don't put a blanket harvest restriction on entire regions where there is no conservation concern.

[GoatGuy]

what you need then is change to your Terms of Reference. Government should make and own the decisions.
JT,
To be very honest that's the way things are headed. Too many opinions on how to harvest wildlife and which shouldn't be harvested, not when and where. Time for wildlife managers to start managing wildlife instead of people and personalities.

[The Hermit]

JT,
To be very honest that's the way things are headed. Too many opinions on how to harvest wildlife and which shouldn't be harvested, not when and where. Time for wildlife managers to start managing wildlife instead of people and personalities.

Agreed. However, my concern is that political interference by strong anti-gun and anti-hunting lobby groups and first nations interests will continue to hold more sway with Governments than the best efforts of their own science based wildlife managers.

Having met and shared hunting camp with Ernie on a couple of occasions I find it extremely difficult to believe that he would behave in the way that FD accused him on this thread. I will ping Ernie and ask him to respond to the wildlife management arguments, not the personalities on here, and offer his personal opinion on the matter. He may choose to be non-responsive and behave as my mother drilled into me "keep my mouth shut if I don't have anything nice to say about someone".

It would be better if everyone toned down the rhetoric on here and started to work together, differences of opinions and all.

[GoatGuy]

Agreed. However, my concern is that political interference by strong anti-gun and anti-hunting lobby groups and first nations interests will continue to hold more sway with Governments than the best efforts of their own science based wildlife managers.

Yep and hunter advisory groups never helped us with that either. Resident hunters need to go political. They need to write their MLAs, MPs and their local newspaper. That's it.

I've seen how this machine works a couple times and all I've learned is wildlife management is completely and totally driven by politics. It's really no different than reading these threads. There's always somebody out to hijack an idea not because it doesn't make sense biologically, but because it doesn't fit their agenda and as resident hunters we've lost every single time since the very early 80s.

Time to shift the focus.

[GoatGuy]

Having met and shared hunting camp with Ernie on a couple of occasions I find it extremely difficult to believe that he would behave in the way that FD accused him on this thread. I will ping Ernie and ask him to respond to the wildlife management arguments, not the personalities on here, and offer his personal opinion on the matter. He may choose to be non-responsive and behave as my mother drilled into me "keep my mouth shut if I don't have anything nice to say about someone".

It would be better if everyone toned down the rhetoric on here and started to work together, differences of opinions and all.


As for this I've been hijacked twice now via email, deliberately both times when he knew what was going on and pretended he didn't. I'm at the point now where I really don't care - some people chose to live that life.

Everybody needs a nickname - guess mine's the bagman.

[The Hermit]

Yep and hunter advisory groups never helped us with that either. Resident hunters need to go political. They need to write their MLAs, MPs and their local newspaper. That's it.

I've seen how this machine works a couple times and all I've learned is wildlife management is completely and totally driven by politics. It's really no different than reading these threads. There's always somebody out to hijack an idea not because it doesn't make sense biologically, but because it doesn't fit their agenda and as resident hunters we've lost every single time since the very early 80s.

Time to shift the focus.

Yes I agree. I think that the folks IN the MOE try to listen and accommodate various interests (BCWF, local F&Gs, UBBC etc) in the context of science based practice but their political masters are driven only by image and votes. I fear the worst...

[The Hermit]

As for this I've been hijacked twice now via email, deliberately both times when he knew what was going on and pretended he didn't. I'm at the point now where I really don't care - some people chose to live that life.

Everybody needs a nickname - guess mine's the bagman.

Not sure what you mean here Jesse... feel free to post cause I'd like to have it specific rather than veiled accusations. It would be impossible to defend oneself from that kind of thing.

[huntwriter]

Agreed. However, my concern is that political interference by strong anti-gun and anti-hunting lobby groups and first nations interests will continue to hold more sway with Governments than the best efforts of their own science based wildlife managers.

That is true and why do you, or anybody else, think that the anti-hunting lobby is strong? I'll tell you why. Because they stick together like glue, regardless of any differences they might have between different organizations. When the issue is about banning hunting they’re best friends and that makes them strong and convincing.

Hunters on the other hand are like a bunch of school kids squabbling about petty little issues that when you look at the bigger picture really make no difference. This thread, among many others, is a good example. I have talked many times to wildlife managers and CO’s and most tell me that they are sick and tired of listening to us carrying on like jealous teenagers, or to quote a CO I spoke to recently.

“Each time without fail when we ask hunters for input we get an avalanche of comments from hunters that use the oportunity to badmouth others. How can we go to the government with stuff like that? How does that make us look? We need serious input from hunters not b...s... There are simply not enough of us to do the job so we should be able to relay on hunters for information but that seems to be impossible with all that senseless animosity going on among different fractions and each only looking out for their own interest and to hell with everybody else atidude.”

I have often said and will say it again. Hunters are their worst own enemy. If hunting ever should become a thing of the past - we're closer to that then many think - it will be because of the hunters. Not the animal rights and anti-hunters. If hunters do not learn quickly to stick tgether and get along like mature adults, and get politically active it will all be over in our lifetime.

I am done with my rant and back to work. I have meet deadlines by tomorrow. :smile:

[J_T]

As for this I've been hijacked twice now via email, deliberately both times when he knew what was going on and pretended he didn't. I'm at the point now where I really don't care - some people chose to live that life.

Everybody needs a nickname - guess mine's the bagman.As with Hermit, I'm not certain of what you are referring. As an example though, the GOS WTD proposal. If I was sitting on a regional advisory committee and this had not crossed our/my regional agenda but I heard or received an email of it then I would be confused as to the process. (Don't topics/proposals move from Region to Province?) In this case it appears the GOS WTD proposal is being presented at the Provincial level and will come to Region subsequently. This goes somewhat against current process. I do, understand it. If Province dictates the order of what, and regions provide input into how and when. But it is, a diversion from the current process and would come as a surprise.

I could be completely off base here. Just an example of what I have experienced. And for the most part, managing expectation of user groups is required and important.

[J_T]

That is true and why do you, or anybody else, think that the anti-hunting lobby is strong? I'll tell you why. Because they stick together like glue, regardless of any differences they might have between different organizations. When the issue is about banning hunting they’re best friends and that makes them strong and convincing.

Hunters on the other hand are like a bunch of school kids squabbling about petty little issues that when you look at the bigger picture really make no difference. This thread, among many others, is a good example. I have talked many times to wildlife managers and CO’s and most tell me that they are sick and tired of listening to us carrying on like jealous teenagers, or to quote a CO I spoke to recently.

“Each time without fail when we ask hunters for input we get an avalanche of comments from hunters that use the oportunity to badmouth others. How can we go to the government with stuff like that? How does that make us look? We need serious input from hunters not b...s... There are simply not enough of us to do the job so we should be able to relay on hunters for information but that seems to be impossible with all that senseless animosity going on among different fractions and each only looking out for their own interest and to hell with everybody else atidude.”

I have often said and will say it again. Hunters are their worst own enemy. If hunting ever should become a thing of the past - we're closer to that then many think - it will be because of the hunters. Not the animal rights and anti-hunters. If hunters do not learn quickly to stick tgether and get along like mature adults, and get politically active it will all be over in our lifetime.

I am done with my rant and back to work. I have meet deadlines by tomorrow. :smile:
There are two issues here.
1) The environmental movement are fractured up the ying yang with personal agendas. Micro management agendas at it's best. It is the plethora of groups that gains them respect. They have feet on the ground in every site specific case. What they also have, is critical support from Provincial or International groups. So having multiple hunter user groups could be an advantage.

2) These environmental groups work to respect each other and the self serving agendas each has. They are less likely to pass judgement because each effort is aimed at the greater good of their movement. And this is missing within the hunting community. Any additional hunting opportunity should be viewed as supporting the overall objective. But all too often it is the us versus them scenario. Although as an optimist I believe it is possible.

When hunters are asked for their comments and input, we/Government/whoever need to manage expectation. Just because we are given an opportunity to contribute doesn't mean our idea is the one going forward. In this case there is less distress with Government decisions.

Government need to be the ones making decisions.

One last comment. Sticking together does not mean adhering to one single approach or train of thought. Sticking together starts with respect.

[huntwriter]

There are two issues here.
1) The environmental movement are fractured up the ying yang with personal agendas. Micro management agendas at it's best. It is the plethora of groups that gains them respect. They have feet on the ground in every site specific case. What they also have, is critical support from Provincial or International groups. So having multiple hunter user groups could be an advantage.

2) These environmental groups work to respect each other and the self serving agendas each has. They are less likely to pass judgement because each effort is aimed at the greater good of their movement. And this is missing within the hunting community. Any additional hunting opportunity should be viewed as supporting the overall objective. But all too often it is the us versus them scenario. Although as an optimist I believe it is possible.

When hunters are asked for their comments and input, we/Government/whoever need to manage expectation. Just because we are given an opportunity to contribute doesn't mean our idea is the one going forward. In this case there is less distress with Government decisions.

Government need to be the ones making decisions.

One last comment. Sticking together does not mean adhering to one single approach or train of thought. Sticking together starts with respect.

Basically you say the same I did.

The antis stick together where it matters to them and we do not. Hunters for the most part are more concerned with their interest rather than with the greater good for all (the big picture).

[GoatGuy]

Yes I agree. I think that the folks IN the MOE try to listen and accommodate various interests (BCWF, local F&Gs, UBBC etc) in the context of science based practice but their political masters are driven only by image and votes. I fear the worst...

Often managers don't listen and in most cases the context is not science based (that's the problem). Often it isn't reflective of the greater hunter population and is sometimes, not always, self-serving identification.

Often it drives the managers crazier than it does the stakeholders because it ain't about science, it's about 'me'.

[GoatGuy]

Not sure what you mean here Jesse... feel free to post cause I'd like to have it specific rather than veiled accusations. It would be impossible to defend oneself from that kind of thing.

I don't usually post emails here. There's nothing 'veiled'. The emails are in his outbox as well.

[GoatGuy]

As with Hermit, I'm not certain of what you are referring. As an example though, the GOS WTD proposal. If I was sitting on a regional advisory committee and this had not crossed our/my regional agenda but I heard or received an email of it then I would be confused as to the process. (Don't topics/proposals move from Region to Province?) In this case it appears the GOS WTD proposal is being presented at the Provincial level and will come to Region subsequently. This goes somewhat against current process. I do, understand it. If Province dictates the order of what, and regions provide input into how and when. But it is, a diversion from the current process and would come as a surprise.

I could be completely off base here. Just an example of what I have experienced. And for the most part, managing expectation of user groups is required and important.

As an example how about if it had been discussed at your 2008 HAC meeting and someone emailed you about it shortly thereafter, and then you fired out an email the following year stating you knew nothing about it. Not to mention 'consulting' your group by asking a handful of people and not trying to educate anyone. That's a start.


Harvest management policies and procedures are directed out of Victoria, not out of regions for very good reason. Topics/proposals flow in both directions. Just like the ag stuff and hunter recruitment and retention, primitive weapons policy etc. If we left that to the round table nothing would ever get done and it would all be based in heresay, not facts.

If we would have asked hunters/guides in regions to do up a hunter recruitment and retention strategy we would have ended up with a heaping mound of garbage that would have had nothing to do with hunter recruitment and retention just like our regulations have nothing to do with wildlife management.

It does not go against the current process as nothing has happened. There will always be 'consultation' however there's no sense consulting when things have not been finalized and research is not complete.

Personally I believe wildlife management should be based in science not in round-table garbage. It's too easy to have some loud mouth shoot off at a meeting unless you have the facts. It's all about education and currently there's none in the HAC setup and the stakeholder's/representatives who show up don't want to be educated for the most part. Most of them seem to be under the impression that they live at the center of the universe and that everybody else's needs revolve around them. They want to show up shoot their mouth off and go home, only to repeat the process 12 months later. I'm not pointing the finger at you, this happens from everybody who shows up. The HAC concept has been a complete failure unless it's for something that people have a shared interest in (IE K. GB).

It's really a waste of time, money and energy. There's no sense sitting down to hear the same thing you've been hearing for the past 25 years from the same people unless people are learning and moving forward. You're better asking all hunters across the province or in the region and then managing wildlife according to their expectations and telling the HAC members to get their asses outside and do some work for wildlife instead.

[J_T]

Harvest management policies and procedures are directed out of Victoria, not out of regions for very good reason. Topics/proposals flow in both directions. Just like the ag stuff and hunter recruitment and retention, primitive weapons policy etc. If we left that to the round table nothing would ever get done and it would all be based in heresay, not facts.




It does not go against the current process as nothing has happened. There will always be 'consultation' however there's no sense consulting when things have not been finalized and research is not complete.


We do agree here. I believe the roll of one who sits on the HAC's is to advise, based on perspective and other influences. It is Government who must set the agenda for discussion and it is Government who must make the decision. Not the advisory groups. There is too much opportunity for personality influence. (See WK LEH elk)

I also recognize with respect to your last comment that consultation within and outside of the HAC will be carried out. But on a 'how to implement basis' not on a 'what if' basis. I'm very fine with that. Make a decision based on a set of guiding principles and work to implement a solution.



Personally I believe wildlife management should be based in science not in round-table garbage.

I'm not pointing the finger at you, this happens from everybody who shows up. The HAC concept has been a complete failure unless it's for something that people have a shared interest in (IE K. GB).


I'm not sure the HAC (at least from my perspective) is a complete failure. I really feel that through our Kootenay group (as a minimum outcome), we keep our user group informed and through that we manage expectation of the outcome. We create awareness for a number of wildlife initiatives, carry over counts, restoration, population studies etc. I do believe we add value to the system. I don't feel we as hunters have an innate responsibility to come to a meeting arms loaded with research to defend a pre-determined outcome. We must be respectful, flexible and open-minded through an investigative process. Members of the HAC, should make others on the committee aware of issues (not in an inflammatory way) and Government should consider those issues and possible solutions as they continue down the path toward a decision.


It's really a waste of time, money and energy. There's no sense sitting down to hear the same thing you've been hearing for the past 25 years from the same people unless people are learning and moving forward. You're better asking all hunters across the province or in the region and then managing wildlife according to their expectations and telling the HAC members to get their asses outside and do some work for wildlife instead.[/ I think it's asses outside working that wind up bringing us inside around a table. We earn respect first and are considered to have a valued opinion. Which comes first? 6616 working for wildlife? Or 6616 working for hunting opportunity?

I believe the HAC process is not a waste of time. The committment by Government may be a concern for financial resources. I always come away from our meeting feeling better about a lot of things and with a better understanding of how other hunters are thinking. That works to keep hunters united, and Government - if nothing else - can share in the responsibility to ensure hunters have every opportunity to respect each other and understand each other. It helps in their decision making process.

[J_T]

Basically you say the same I did.

The antis stick together where it matters to them and we do not. Hunters for the most part are more concerned with their interest rather than with the greater good for all (the big picture).

I might have said what you were thinking, but I didn't think I said what you said.

[GoatGuy]

I'm not sure the HAC (at least from my perspective) is a complete failure. I really feel that through our Kootenay group (as a minimum outcome), we keep our user group informed and through that we manage expectation of the outcome. We create awareness for a number of wildlife initiatives, carry over counts, restoration, population studies etc. I do believe we add value to the system. I don't feel we as hunters have an innate responsibility to come to a meeting arms loaded with research to defend a pre-determined outcome. We must be respectful, flexible and open-minded through an investigative process. Members of the HAC, should make others on the committee aware of issues (not in an inflammatory way) and Government should consider those issues and possible solutions as they continue down the path toward a decision.

I don't think anyone should be going to a meeting with a pre-determined outcome. Suggestion should be well researched - that's how we come up with good decisions, instead of poor decisions like we've been doing. And yes, in my opinion, it has been a failure. There are 14,000 elk wintering in the trench and the habitat has been trashed. You've got wt deer and elk like crazy, very few cattle on the range and nobody wants to shoot them. The HAC should be saying "habitat comes back way slower or doesn't come back at all. We should be managing our deer and elk, lets deal with this problem." As a whole that's not happening.

Everybody's worried about 'their season' and it isn't helping hunters, habitat or wildlife. Infact it has been detrimental to all 3.



I think it's asses outside working that wind up bringing us inside around a table. We earn respect first and are considered to have a valued opinion. Which comes first? 6616 working for wildlife? Or 6616 working for hunting opportunity?

I believe the HAC process is not a waste of time. The committment by Government may be a concern for financial resources. I always come away from our meeting feeling better about a lot of things and with a better understanding of how other hunters are thinking. That works to keep hunters united, and Government - if nothing else - can share in the responsibility to ensure hunters have every opportunity to respect each other and understand each other. It helps in their decision making process.

The commitment is not a financial concern. It's the fact that we've handed wildlife management over to hunters and it's blown up in our face. I'm glad you feel better, but it hasn't helped wildlife, habitat, or resident hunters across the province one iota. I'm not saying it's your fault or the fault of the committee members, it's just a fact when you ask everybody with a personal agenda to show up to a meeting and ask them what they want.

There are better ways to do this. Removing the 'me' out of it and ask the we and then tie that in with managing wildlife populations instead of hunters and everybody will be a whole lot happier. If everybody on the HAC spent their time dealing with habitat, instead of their season, we'd all be far better off.

Create a bigger pie, instead of worrying about how you're going to slice the little pie up.

Good for wildlife, animals and hunters. Makes life easy......................

[J_T]

I don't think anyone should be going to a meeting with a pre-determined outcome. Suggestion should be well researched - that's how we come up with good decisions, instead of poor decisions like we've been doing. And yes, in my opinion, it has been a failure. There are 14,000 elk wintering in the trench and the habitat has been trashed. You've got wt deer and elk like crazy, very few cattle on the range and nobody wants to shoot them. The HAC should be saying "habitat comes back way slower or doesn't come back at all. We should be managing our deer and elk, lets deal with this problem." As a whole that's not happening.

Everybody's worried about 'their season' and it isn't helping hunters, habitat or wildlife. Infact it has been detrimental to all 3.




The commitment is not a financial concern. It's the fact that we've handed wildlife management over to hunters and it's blown up in our face. I'm glad you feel better, but it hasn't helped wildlife, habitat, or resident hunters across the province one iota. I'm not saying it's your fault or the fault of the committee members, it's just a fact when you ask everybody with a personal agenda to show up to a meeting and ask them what they want.

There are better ways to do this. Removing the 'me' out of it and ask the we and then tie that in with managing wildlife populations instead of hunters and everybody will be a whole lot happier. If everybody on the HAC spent their time dealing with habitat, instead of their season, we'd all be far better off.

Create a bigger pie, instead of worrying about how you're going to slice the little pie up.

Good for wildlife, animals and hunters. Makes life easy......................

I'm not sure you completely understood what I was saying. The power of the internet. :eek: I have never seen it as slicing up the pie. I don't actually think the other members do either. It's about managing the entire pie through a variety of methods. i.e.: Accomplishing resident harvest requirements with conservation in mind while maintaining perspective on the overall objective. Perhaps making the pie larger because we are flexible in our solutions.

I'm not sure we show up with a "personal" agenda, but rather through our experiences and the people/groups we are connected to, we provide a needed perspective.

[GoatGuy]

Perhaps making the pie larger because we are flexible in our solutions.

With all the writing - that's my point! ;)

Life becomes a lot easier when you got good habitat and productive animals. That's a 'fun' problem to deal with.

[The Hermit]

As usual J_T and GoatGuy are really on the same friggin page yet they still don't see it! http://www.members.shaw.ca/btozer/icon_wall.gif LOL

[Maverick7]

My added comment at the end:

3. Hunting with firearms, under any circumstances, should not be allowed during Bow Only seasons?

This question is poorly phrased an inflammatory. From this question I gather that the UBBC is trying to remove youth only seasons from overlap with bow seasons. With this I COMPLETELY disagree. The UBBC and its members should not concern themselves with issues of youth hunting, because a few dozen youth hunters in the bush during the first week of september is no excuse to complain about overlap!!

i dont agree. i personally dont often trust youth hunters. not to say they are all dangerous but a BOW ONLY season should be a BOW ONLy season right?

[pappy]

If you hunt your a hunter, it doesn't matter what you use. I hunt with a bow sometimes and a gun for othertimes. For those of us who only pick up a bow, your asking for more of a challenge. Don't complain when its too hard of a hunt and other hunters with their guns have ruined their chances. If there was a "united slingshot hunters of B.C." would they complain about the hunters with bows and there unfair advantages?

[greybark]

As usual J_T and GoatGuy are really on the same friggin page yet they still don't see it! http://www.members.shaw.ca/btozer/icon_wall.gif LOL

:confused: Perhaps the same person with a "Split Personnality Disorder" :-D:-D

[6616]

I'm not sure you completely understood what I was saying. The power of the internet. :eek: I have never seen it as slicing up the pie. I don't actually think the other members do either. It's about managing the entire pie through a variety of methods. i.e.: Accomplishing resident harvest requirements with conservation in mind while maintaining perspective on the overall objective. Perhaps making the pie larger because we are flexible in our solutions.

I'm not sure we show up with a "personal" agenda, but rather through our experiences and the people/groups we are connected to, we provide a needed perspective.

I can't help but wonder if the committees aren't almost taking the ability away from pro managers to correctly do their job. Can pro managers (biologists) follow their own conclusions based on biological data and go against the positions of a committee of laypersons? How many of Garth's proposals have been shot down since 2007? Of course being laypersons in the field of wildlife management we should accept that Garth wouldn't even make a proposal if he felt it wasn't sustainable, but more often then not laypersons on the committee won't accept that and oppose a proposal because "they think" it's not sustainable. What makes us think "we" can or should manage the pie...??? Why do we hire sharp biologists like Garth,,,, to ignore them..? I agree with GG, we've turned wildlife management over to hunters, often ignoring professional opinions.

Re: Personal agendas, what about the GOABC...?

[J_T]

I can't help but wonder if the committees aren't almost taking the ability away from pro managers to correctly do their job. Can pro managers (biologists) follow their own conclusions based on biological data and go against the positions of a committee of laypersons? How many of Garth's proposals have been shot down since 2007? Of course being laypersons in the field of wildlife management we should accept that Garth wouldn't even make a proposal if he felt it wasn't sustainable, but more often then not laypersons on the committee won't accept that and oppose a proposal because "they think" it's not sustainable. What makes us think "we" can or should manage the pie...??? Why do we hire sharp biologists like Garth,,,, to ignore them..? I agree with GG, we've turned wildlife management over to hunters, often ignoring professional opinions.

Re: Personal agendas, what about the GOABC...? I think for the most part the GOABC reps on reg 4 are quite reasonable. They present their views but don't kick up a fuss (at the regional level) when a decision goes in a direction they don't want.

My concern is the amount of change to proposals that occurs after it leaves region. And this is where the biggest impact to Garth's ideas and decisions comes in. It must be very defeating for him. I think the regional consultation process is required, but I'm concerned about its effectiveness. Seems the lobby effort within Victoria has more power. And I'm not sure it should have any.

In terms of science based decisions, Garth is very effective in presenting reasons why we can have a discussion on something and I think most of us accept his information. There are those like yourself that provide good data to support his information. Once he provides the science behind a decision it's our responsibility to have fair discussion on the social side of how we implement something. And to identify the opportunities.

We'll never really get away from hunters wanting to be biologists Andy but I think most on the reg 4 committee respect Garth, Dave, Tara and know their role is to discuss opportunities and present their perspective rather than beat something down.

Now the WK elk, well, that's just a different matter all together....

[6616]

I think for the most part the GOABC reps on reg 4 are quite reasonable. They present their views but don't kick up a fuss (at the regional level) when a decision goes in a direction they don't want.

My concern is the amount of change to proposals that occurs after it leaves region. And this is where the biggest impact to Garth's ideas and decisions comes in. It must be very defeating for him. I think the regional consultation process is required, but I'm concerned about its effectiveness. Seems the lobby effort within Victoria has more power. And I'm not sure it should have any.

In terms of science based decisions, Garth is very effective in presenting reasons why we can have a discussion on something and I think most of us accept his information. There are those like yourself that provide good data to support his information. Once he provides the science behind a decision it's our responsibility to have fair discussion on the social side of how we implement something. And to identify the opportunities.

We'll never really get away from hunters wanting to be biologists Andy but I think most on the reg 4 committee respect Garth, Dave, Tara and know their role is to discuss opportunities and present their perspective rather than beat something down.

Now the WK elk, well, that's just a different matter all together....

You would be really surprized at some of the comments we get from some of our members and even clubs. Many people swear up and down that the proposals are not sustainable (how do they know). Many people reiterated the disaster/slaughter theories. Many people claim sound science is being trumped by recruitment/retention. Many people are very angry when their input is not follwed by MOE and they then claim the whole process is a sham.

Thankfully most of the time these comments are in the minority, but the fact remains in my mind anyway that public consultation should only deal with the social decisions and the biological decisions should be left to the biologists. Quality vrs quantity management is for example a social decision and I have more patience with the people promoting trophy management (because that's a legitimate social decision) than I do with uneducated lay-persons who claim Garth's proposals are unsustainable or that he's putting scientific management aside to support recruitment/retention.

Re personal agendas and lobbying whether it's done in Victoria or Cranbrook/Nelson, there's lots of it going on behind closed doors away from the meetings and not being shared with the committee. GOABC is very quiet at the meetings because they don't use the meetings as the main venue to provide their input. Not that I really blame them or find it unexpected, commercial interests always have more to lose or gain and thus put more effort into their lobby efforts. One example is the way the season dates were established for the R4 spike/fork moose season.

[GoatGuy]

I think for the most part the GOABC reps on reg 4 are quite reasonable. They present their views but don't kick up a fuss (at the regional level) when a decision goes in a direction they don't want.

My concern is the amount of change to proposals that occurs after it leaves region. And this is where the biggest impact to Garth's ideas and decisions comes in. It must be very defeating for him. I think the regional consultation process is required, but I'm concerned about its effectiveness. Seems the lobby effort within Victoria has more power. And I'm not sure it should have any.

In terms of science based decisions, Garth is very effective in presenting reasons why we can have a discussion on something and I think most of us accept his information. There are those like yourself that provide good data to support his information. Once he provides the science behind a decision it's our responsibility to have fair discussion on the social side of how we implement something. And to identify the opportunities.

We'll never really get away from hunters wanting to be biologists Andy but I think most on the reg 4 committee respect Garth, Dave, Tara and know their role is to discuss opportunities and present their perspective rather than beat something down.

Now the WK elk, well, that's just a different matter all together....

What happens at some meetings and what happens behind closed doors are two completely and totally different things. Same with the flawed consultation system.

[J_T]

Guys, don't think I'm naive. I get it. I completely understand why the GOABC don't raise issue at our meetings. They sit in primarily to hear our perspective. They know they are more effective in Victoria through political channels. Not much different than residents. GOABC also have the effect of PHRAAC. From my experience, they overwhelm residents there.

I'm going to put my effort into the regional process because that's what we're asked to do and the opportunity we're given. Yup, sounds idealistic. Why not buy in to the process dictated by Government management and lead by example? Make it work. Sure, I call Victoria from time to time. Mostly to ensure they aren't bowing to political pressure from disgruntled hunting groups.

GG I've seen the work behind closed doors. There seems to be a tendency to say one thing and let you believe another, and then do something completely different. Can't say it earns my respect.

[GoatGuy]

Guys, don't think I'm naive. I get it. I completely understand why the GOABC don't raise issue at our meetings. They sit in primarily to hear our perspective. They know they are more effective in Victoria through political channels. Not much different than residents. GOABC also have the effect of PHRAAC. From my experience, they overwhelm residents there.

I'm going to put my effort into the regional process because that's what we're asked to do and the opportunity we're given. Yup, sounds idealistic. Why not buy in to the process dictated by Government management and lead by example? Make it work. Sure, I call Victoria from time to time. Mostly to ensure they aren't bowing to political pressure from disgruntled hunting groups.

GG I've seen the work behind closed doors. There seems to be a tendency to say one thing and let you believe another, and then do something completely different. Can't say it earns my respect.

You can't make a process that is fundamentally flawed, work. There will be changes to the public consultation system.

As far as the rest of it, it's really not worth getting into. You're seeing a fraction of what goes on in public, never mind in private - that's regional and provincial. Anyways.