Resident Hunters Association of BC

[superchase]

For those of you who hunt in BC I would recommend that you take a look at this association...they are becoming a strong voice for hunter in BC. This will benefit all hunters and the BC Gov't won't be able to do as they want and limiting the hunting opportunities in this province. The Ministry and the BCWF are just a bunch of buracrats and politicians that are killing this sport. Anyways...think about it.

[mark]

you got a link for us? ;-)

[huntwriter]

For those of you who hunt in BC I would recommend that you take a look at this association...they are becoming a strong voice for hunter in BC. This will benefit all hunters and the BC Gov't won't be able to do as they want and limiting the hunting opportunities in this province. The Ministry and the BCWF are just a bunch of buracrats and politicians that are killing this sport. Anyways...think about it.
I do not see any track records of their achievments? What did they do so far? No website either. Did they just start out? If so how can you know that they become a strong voice for the hunters and not just another quick money grab?

Maybe you should enlighten us a little more what this is all about. Like mission statement. How many members. Concrete plans and what they have done so far.

Thnaks.

[MB_Boy]

"Google" brings up nothing except for one item which when you click on the link there is nothing there???

[boonerbuck]

Too bad the Guide and Outfitters Ass were not that "well" organized. We wouldnt have to worry a bit.:razz:

[Foxer]

Who are these guys? Anyone heard of them or know anything?

[Gateholio]

I've never heard of them...no website?

At this point, they are wannabes, if anything.8)

[rollingrock]

BC Hunters Union (http://www.nonexist.com)

Gatehouse, President
Steeleco, VP, CFO
Foxer, VP, CTO
........
:):):)

[huntwriter]

BC Hunters Union (http://www.nonexist.com)

Gatehouse, President
Steeleco, VP, CFO
Foxer, VP, CTO
........
:):):)

What about me?

I can have a title too. Pleeeaaaseee.:mrgreen:

[rollingrock]

What about me?

I can have a title too. Pleeeaaaseee.:mrgreen:

oh, how about you're the "Chief Mediator" who's gonna be in charge of a bunch of smart asses who will be dealing with COs, cops and native people? :mrgreen:

[huntwriter]

oh, how about you're the "Chief Mediator" who's gonna be in charge of a bunch of smart asses who will be dealing with COs, cops and native people? :mrgreen:
That's no fun! I demand that I get a post that is fun, that gets me hunting a lot and others pay for it, like "Policy Field tester". I would go out and hunt to make sure the policies we make are working for us and serve our special interest.:mrgreen:

[superchase]

Hi guys, This organization is new, about a year with couple hundred members. They do not quite yet have a website but there mission statement can be found on mine. http://members.shaw.ca/fores (RHABC)and the fellows email address is steele@bulkley.net and his name is Mike. They are growing...hopefully they will have a strong voice for the hunters sooner than later. The nice thing with this organization is that they only deal with hunting issues and are not bogged down with all the rest of the cr*p.

[CanAm500]

I think this orginization may run into some of the copy right issues. FORES is basically taking the CORE abbreviation can changing it.

How much members does this orginization have? Or...How do you tell it is growning?

[huntwriter]

Hi guys, This organization is new, about a year with couple hundred members. They do not quite yet have a website but there mission statement can be found on mine. http://members.shaw.ca/fores (RHABC)and the fellows email address is steele@bulkley.net and his name is Mike. They are growing...hopefully they will have a strong voice for the hunters sooner than later. The nice thing with this organization is that they only deal with hunting issues and are not bogged down with all the rest of the cr*p.
Sounds good, but if this organization deals with hunting then it has to deal with a lot of "cr*p" as you put it too. Hunting and politics are married to each other. Sooner or later, if they want a strong voice, they have to enter the political arena and do so very smartly and not with; "Here I am and I demand."

Time will tell. More organizations are a good thing provided they are working for the hunters at large and not just for a special interest group witin hunting.

The first thing when I went to your website was, "Oh no. Not another Hunter Education Club." Haven't we enough of this sort already?

[Gateholio]

I'm not 100% sure I understand what the problem with the 'direction' CORE is going?

But I admit I have little contact wiht CORE since I took it long ago...:???:

[superchase]

Yes i do believe that politics play in hand but if you stick to one issue unlike some other organizations...you will accomplish alot more. as far as the core issue goes...lets be real, i have been a core examiner for 14 years and its gotten to the point where i ask myself why dont we just give the licenses to idividuals and forget the program. Youths have to hunt with an adult anyways til there 19 so as long as they get some firearm safety and know how to read the synopsis, the rest of the stuff is redundant.

[Gateholio]

Yes i do believe that politics play in hand but if you stick to one issue unlike some other organizations...you will accomplish alot more. as far as the core issue goes...lets be real, i have been a core examiner for 14 years and its gotten to the point where i ask myself why dont we just give the licenses to idividuals and forget the program. Youths have to hunt with an adult anyways til there 19 so as long as they get some firearm safety and know how to read the synopsis, the rest of the stuff is redundant.

COuld you expand on that a bit?

And what about new adult hutners?

:?:

[huntwriter]

Yes i do believe that politics play in hand but if you stick to one issue unlike some other organizations...you will accomplish alot more. as far as the core issue goes...lets be real, i have been a core examiner for 14 years and its gotten to the point where i ask myself why dont we just give the licenses to idividuals and forget the program. Youths have to hunt with an adult anyways til there 19 so as long as they get some firearm safety and know how to read the synopsis, the rest of the stuff is redundant.
That would be the happiest day in my life, after the day I got married, if they would get rid of all hunter education programs and make them voluntary. There should be a warning lable attached to it which says "This is a money Grab" :smile:

It's the biggest feel good scam right up there with the gun registry. It was a solution to a problem that never existed.

On this issue you have my vote 100%.

[CanAm500]

Yes i do believe that politics play in hand but if you stick to one issue unlike some other organizations...you will accomplish alot more. as far as the core issue goes...lets be real, i have been a core examiner for 14 years and its gotten to the point where i ask myself why dont we just give the licenses to idividuals and forget the program. Youths have to hunt with an adult anyways til there 19 so as long as they get some firearm safety and know how to read the synopsis, the rest of the stuff is redundant.

So are you saying that youths (like me) should not take the CORE trainning or the CFSC untill they are 18/19?

Mind you I have both.

[Elkhound]

My wife started her CORE last night. I will have to go over her material to see whats all in there.

[huntwriter]

My wife started her CORE last night. I will have to go over her material to see whats all in there.

Really not much that you could not put down to common sense. I had to do it when I came to B.C. I told them that I hunted all my life. I even showed them all the hunting licenses previously owned. Didn't work, "Your past experience don't count as education" I was told. So I sat trough the class bored stiff as can be, listening to the instructer rambling on about how to dress in cold weather, tell the difference between a deer and a elk, how important it is to study the hunting regulations, how to put a bandaid on your finger when you cut yourself, and so forth.

The only part of that education they should keep is the firearm safety education. The rest is an utter waist of time and money. Give you an example: Scouting, for me the most important part in hunting success, they spend five minutes on that. In my humble opinion CORE teaches absolutely nothing of value that could be remotely useful. All it does is to show you some issues. You actually can learn more reading a few hunting and survival magazines, or still better talk to a seasoned hunter for an afternoon.

The sad part of it all is that the gov. knows how useless CORE is, howlese would they have dumped a lot of the questions such as bird and fish identification plus a few other questions. I am told that in the very near future they will make it even simpler, speak easier, to make the test. Go figure why!

[Foxer]

I don't think core is useless. You'd be amazed how little some people know - and they don't know how little they know till they start to learn.

BUT - i do believe there should be some changes, like 'recognizing' previous experience elsewhere and such. And perhaps some COMPONENTS of it should be optional - a lot of people already know how to start a fire :)

[Foxer]

Gatehouse, President
Steeleco, VP, CFO
Foxer, VP, CTO
........


If THATS the group, i'd guess that the 'mediator' would be the guy who rationed ammo at the meetings so we didn't just shoot everyone who was annoying us. :)

[Steeleco]

Hello!!! who knew which rock I was hiding under????

Will have to do some more reading, but like was mentioned during the election, the more groups we have covering the same interest's, the more we are split as a group, many similar but different voices are not as loud as one unified LOUD voice!! Food for thought.

[CanAm500]

I don't think core is useless. You'd be amazed how little some people know - and they don't know how little they know till they start to learn.



Thats true. I learned alot from reading the CORE book aswell as the regs.:smile:

[Sniper]

I will donate a couple bucks to them and see what direction they want to go and what kind of momentum they pick up. This B.C. government without question views everything from he business idealogy perspective. Rather than giving the commercial interests an ever increasing share of the wildlife harvest allocation the commercial wildlife harvesting should be gradualy phased out and left to the residents and some mom and pop guide outfitters. This is a terrific resource hopefuly it is not going to be another case of trying to bring it back after it has been devastated by the selfish and greedy.

[huntwriter]

I will donate a couple bucks to them and see what direction they want to go and what kind of momentum they pick up. This B.C. government without question views everything from he business idealogy perspective. Rather than giving the commercial interests an ever increasing share of the wildlife harvest allocation the commercial wildlife harvesting should be gradualy phased out and left to the residents and some mom and pop guide outfitters.

How true, how true. To afford the outrages requirements and licensing fees required to become a guide or outfitter here you have to be a wealthy man or borrow heavily from the banks.

[Ltbullken]

I don't think core is useless. You'd be amazed how little some people know - and they don't know how little they know till they start to learn. :)

Indeed - there are the known knowns, the known unknowns and the really scary stuff is the unknown unknowns!:???: Some who would carry a gun don't known what they don't know which is say they need to know what they don't know - ya know?

Hence, CORE has a place. After that it's - "take your chances in the bush, city boy!":razz:

[Sikanni Stalker]

Really not much that you could not put down to common sense. I had to do it when I came to B.C. I told them that I hunted all my life. I even showed them all the hunting licenses previously owned. Didn't work, "Your past experience don't count as education" I was told.

My buddy came from Ontario a few years ago, he was in the same boat in Nanaimo. All he had to do was show his outdoor card from Ontario and they gave him his hunter number, and he was bear hunting in a few hours, fishing too!. This aggrevated me a little cause I thought I was transferring to Ontario and it looked like I was going to have to take everything all over again just to get the outdoor card and had to wait 6 months before I could begin......I guess it just depends on who you get at the counter that day.

[Freshtracks]

BC Hunters Union (http://www.nonexist.com)

Gatehouse, President
Steeleco, VP, CFO
Foxer, VP, CTO
........
:)
BCHunter started his own union and wants Gate as Pres. :shock: Hmmm I thinks me missed something here.:razz:

To a more serious note ... RHABC ... superchase ...give mean the contact and meeting local for the Lower Mainland chapter ... I'll attend and listen in ... heck I'lll even jump into a position to spread the word if it is at all legit and not a bunch of disgruntled grizzly scat.

Now the reason I seem skeptical about RHABC is a statement like "lets get rid of CORE, it's useless. Geez lets inform all the anti's we don't need to step up to the plate and police our own.

IMO ... anyone who suggests that CORE is useless needs to re-evaluate their thinking.

superchase/huntwriter care to elaborate with some ground breaking news where scrapping CORE is going to make hunting in BC better?

[Foxer]

Hence, CORE has a place. After that it's - "take your chances in the bush, city boy!":

Heh :)

Mind you - it's not the city boys that's the problem, if they get killed or et it's their own look out. The problem is watching out FOR 'em when they're in the woods and blasting away.

[huntwriter]

BCHunter started his own union and wants Gate as Pres. :shock: Hmmm I thinks me missed something here.:razz:

To a more serious note ... RHABC ... superchase ...give mean the contact and meeting local for the Lower Mainland chapter ... I'll attend and listen in ... heck I'lll even jump into a position to spread the word if it is at all legit and not a bunch of disgruntled grizzly scat.

Now the reason I seem skeptical about RHABC is a statement like "lets get rid of CORE, it's useless. Geez lets inform all the anti's we don't need to step up to the plate and police our own.

IMO ... anyone who suggests that CORE is useless needs to re-evaluate their thinking.

superchase/huntwriter care to elaborate with some ground breaking news where scrapping CORE is going to make hunting in BC better?
Hunter Education has not come about because there was a need for it. It came about purely as a feel good policy to apiece the unfounded critique from the animal rights. With the hunter education they thought that they had something where they could say; "Hey look at us we are educated hunters". The government at that time did not realize, and still dosn't, that the animal rights don't give a hoot, they want the hunting, eating meat and using animals in any which way whatsoever to stop no matter what. And at that they will not give up until such time that they either all locked up or run out of steam.

There are several major flaws with hunter education.
to start with "Education" is the wrong word to use. There is no way that they can educate hunters in a few evenings about such a broad aspect as hunting and conservation. All they can do is to give an idea of what it is about.
The hunter education forces false information on hunters. For example. In order to get the answer right you have to say that suicide is the number one cause of firearm death. This is a flase statement, in fact it is an outright lie. The number one cause of suicide death are overdosing on medication and drugs. The numer one cause of death caused by firearms are homicide. Yet you have to lie to get the asnwer right, because that is what the government whats to believe you based on flawed statistics with which they keep the anti-gun lobby happy.

Hunter education makes false claims that have been disproved time and time again by independent studies.

A. Hunter education has improved the ethics standart of hunters. False. Studies have shown that hunters always have had a higher moral and ethical standart than many other sports long before hunter education came about. Besides moral and ethics can not be taught at the age of 12 in a 24 hour something course. They can be highlighted but not taught. A different study altogether has proven that peopel at the age of 10 to 12 have more or less completed their moral and ethical adjustment and only will divert little from that stage onward.

B. Since the introduction of hunter education, hunting has become safer. False. Hunting, compared with other sports has always been one of the safest sports. As the accident statistics show very clearly. For the past 40+ years hunting related accident always have been around 2% and around 1% fatal accidents. Compare that to basketball with about 30% accident and 5% fatal accidents. Hunting always has been on the very bottom of the recreational accident list, at times even lower than tennis and ballroom dancing.

C. Sine the introduction of hunter education hunter accidents have been drastically reduced. False. What has drastically reduced is the number of hunters, in part because of hunter education but we come to that later. With the reduction of hunter numbers the accident reduced too. But as the above % number shows it is the same. That might be a reason why the hunter education uses not percent numbers but actual victim numbers to make make their false claim.

Hunter education has started out as a good idea but then politics got into it and the special interest groups and it became what it is today. A money grab that fails to produce the goods. That is not me saying this, that comes from the study that has been done on the matter. That same study concludes that mandatory hunter education is today the #1 reason why young and new hunters stay away from our sport. Further the study goes on to say that there are no difference in the behaviour and conduct and safety of hunters in American states where they have a mandatory hunter education program and states where they do not have such obligations.(I knew that even witout that study from my many hunting travels to different states in America) Thus many states In America are now considering to do either or both of two things.
A. stop funding for a program that fails to produce what it set out to do.
B. abolishing mandatory hunter education in order to attract more hunters.

Of course if you hear the various hunter education organizations then they will tell you very differently. But it is worth to bear in mind that the hunter education system has become a multi million dollar industry, employing thousands of people around the world making billions of dollars for which they do not have to pay taxes.

Now I am not, and never have been, for the abolition of hunter education. But I am against mandatory hunter education, always have been for all the above mentioned reason. Sadly hunter education has been a solution for a problem that never existed. For as long it is mandatory it will just be another hoop to jump trough to make it as difficult as possible for new and young hunters to join our ranks. It's one of the majore hurdles that stops people from becoming hunters. When I talk to young and new interested people about becoming a hunter they say. No thanks there is to much B.S to go trough just to kill a deer. Who can blame them.

[tmarschall]

Ok... maybe this would be more affective and get the job of education done. First time hunters purchase a "learner's" license where they have to hunt with an experienced hunter. Maybe require this for more than one year. The bush is the best classroom for sure. Maybe the new hunter could have a "field book" with tasks that need to be accomplished, something like a cub scout manual. The experienced hunter signs off when the new hunter shows proficiency or some level of knowledge. Food for thought... Tom

[oldtimer]

Very interesting concept Tom. I would be in favor of that.
Hunterwriter -- while I agree with most of what you say I can't verify your stats as you don't list where you got them from. It is very easy to throw stats out there but without a source they are just a bunch of numbers. Mike

[Fred]

That might eliminate a lot of old time hunters too Tom! :mrgreen: Fred

[huntwriter]

Ok... maybe this would be more affective and get the job of education done. First time hunters purchase a "learner's" license where they have to hunt with an experienced hunter. Maybe require this for more than one year. The bush is the best classroom for sure. Maybe the new hunter could have a "field book" with tasks that need to be accomplished, something like a cub scout manual. The experienced hunter signs off when the new hunter shows proficiency or some level of knowledge. Food for thought... Tom
That's an interesting idea. But given what politics is the guiding hunter would have to have an edcation too plus a mile long of serctificates and no doupt insurance too. Given todays paranoia I would not be surprised if such a hunter would have to have all sorts of background checks, after all his taking a young boy to the woods all alone. You can see it that would open a big can of worms forpoliticans to feed on.


You see that is exactly the problem with most very good ideas, hunting education was one too, once politics gets involved it becomes very complicated with a lot of red tape and torn completely apart. Education should not be mandatory period. In my opinion.

As Fred said that would eliminate a lot of older hunters too. I do not know or Fred knew that. But that is exactly what happend in New York when they made hunter education mandatory for all hunters. A lot of older hunters failed the, at the time very complicated, tests and then never re-took them again. They just gave up. What that state did to hunters was a crying shame. Luckily, since then New York trimmed the tests down to a bare minimum of 40 very simple questions from of over 200.

You know with all the recent hoopla of hunter education and having it shoved down our throats for so long, we keep forgetting that hunters did just fine a long time before we had hunter education come along. In fact I believe that many old hunters would laugh at us for the fuss we make about it all. And quit rightly so to.

[huntwriter]

Very interesting concept Tom. I would be in favor of that.
Hunterwriter -- while I agree with most of what you say I can't verify your stats as you don't list where you got them from. It is very easy to throw stats out there but without a source they are just a bunch of numbers. Mike

You can look up the accidents statistics on the website of the American National Safety Council or phone them toll free at 1-800-621-7615 exension 7307.

I have to look for the hunter study, it's somewhere in my files, as soon I have time and will let you know the source.

[superchase]

Hello Guys,
Boy did I stir up some issues...This is my take on the CORE program, Get rid of it for the youths under the age of 16, make it manditory for new adult hunters to be accompanied by an experienced hunter for at least 1 year. As it stands right now the CORE program is half ass. If you take a look at the Alberta CORE program it is very thourough and is 40 hours...big difference from ours. I think hunting experience should count towards something in BC if you are from another province. Like I mentioned earlier...there is only two important chapters, 1. firearm safety 2. hunting regulations. As far as the animal and bird id...you can purchase a field guide to north american mammals and birds. Has anyone looked at the CORE manual lately...terrible pictures. As an instructor...it is difficult to teach a section like first aid when this is not a first aid course. The first aid and ethics part of the manual is common sense so why have it. For those of you who dont know much about the CORE program...food for thought...the ministry was going to issue hunter numbers to bc residents as long as you have a valid firearms license, this was before the bcwf took the program over because the open learning agency that was running the program screwed it up...interesting eh? Boy, I could talk about this subject for hours...it is also very interesting that the CORE program is part of the school curriculum in the kootney's, there is a teacher who is also a instructor and approched the school board which approved the program. Again very interesting. I believe we have to get rid of the polilticians and buricrats and go back to the basics or roots of the program how it was 20 years ago. Anyways, think about it.

[huntwriter]

Hello Guys,
Boy did I stir up some issues...This is my take on the CORE program, Get rid of it for the youths under the age of 16, make it manditory for new adult hunters to be accompanied by an experienced hunter for at least 1 year. As it stands right now the CORE program is half ass. If you take a look at the Alberta CORE program it is very thourough and is 40 hours...big difference from ours. I think hunting experience should count towards something in BC if you are from another province. Like I mentioned earlier...there is only two important chapters, 1. firearm safety 2. hunting regulations. As far as the animal and bird id...you can purchase a field guide to north american mammals and birds. Has anyone looked at the CORE manual lately...terrible pictures. As an instructor...it is difficult to teach a section like first aid when this is not a first aid course. The first aid and ethics part of the manual is common sense so why have it. For those of you who dont know much about the CORE program...food for thought...the ministry was going to issue hunter numbers to bc residents as long as you have a valid firearms license, this was before the bcwf took the program over because the open learning agency that was running the program screwed it up...interesting eh? Boy, I could talk about this subject for hours...it is also very interesting that the CORE program is part of the school curriculum in the kootney's, there is a teacher who is also a instructor and approched the school board which approved the program. Again very interesting. I believe we have to get rid of the polilticians and buricrats and go back to the basics or roots of the program how it was 20 years ago. Anyways, think about it.
I agree with that completely. But not the bit with the new adult hunter having to have a "godfather" for a year. For the simple reason because I fear what politics would make the "godfather" do to become "eligible" or "priviledged".

When I learned to hunt I did so from my father, my uncles and their hunting buddies. Then I came to America and picked up bowhunting. Again I learned it from friends and fellow hunters. Neither of all this people ever had any certificates to prove that they are "entitled" to teach me. But boy did I learn a lot from them.

When I was still living in Illinois a few friends and I got together and "adopted" new and young hunters for one year as our hunting partners. We took them on our scouting trips and on hunting trips to show them the ropes of hunting. It worked great because it was not political. I am hopeful that perhaps in the future I can do something like that here in B.C.
The bottom line here is we do not need politics and "certified" educators, only the goodwill of veteran hunters as it always has been the tradition in our sport.

[tmarschall]

Huntwriter

That's an interesting idea. But given what politics is the guiding hunter would have to have an edcation too plus a mile long of serctificates and no doupt insurance too. Given todays paranoia I would not be surprised if such a hunter would have to have all sorts of background checks, after all his taking a young boy to the woods all alone. You can see it that would open a big can of worms forpoliticans to feed on.

You are so right, it was only offered as a suggestion. Dreamland would be... buy your license... go hunting... end of story. Thats how i got started, of course I had a license and carried a rifle around with dad in the field for several years before I ever shot anything.

[Foxer]

I gotta tell ya hunterwriter... i think you're wrong in this case with regards to accidents.

Now - you may be dead bang on in america, but i did a work up of stats some time ago (not sure where it is) and a rather in depth analysis of canadian stats.

Hunters saftey in canada came about from the clubs, and became manditory. But it addressed a real problem with increasing accidents in the feild. I can't prove this because there's no records kept in an easily accessed fashion but i SUSPECT it was due in part to immigration issues, where people simply weren't raised with the 'culture of guns' we were and were taking to the feild to hunt.

But - by the late sixties the number of accidents in canada had grown steadily for some time and was starting to get bad.

Shortly after hunters training was introduced as a 'manditory', that rate began to fall and has pretty much kept falling since (to a point - lets face it it can only go so low).

At this point in time hunting is one of the SAFEST sports out there. You are much more likely to be killed skiing.

Is it the training that does it? Its it the focus on saftey? Maybe it's that fathers and others constantly get 'refresher' training because they're helping their kids to learn.

But the fact is that the number of accidents per hunter each year did go down and has stayed there.

I think the course should be trimmed of the 'fluff' - make it a secondary non-manditory thing if they want for REAL newbies. But i think that looking at canadian statistics you'll find that there is a direct and noticable corollation between when training was introduced and the switch from rise in accidents to drop in accidents per hunter.

And the argument that hunters are trained HAS been usefull in the fight to keep our rights on more than one occasion. Which wouldnt' be a good enough reason to keep it on its own, but it IS a nice side benefit :)

[huntwriter]

Huntwriter


You are so right, it was only offered as a suggestion. Dreamland would be... buy your license... go hunting... end of story. Thats how i got started, of course I had a license and carried a rifle around with dad in the field for several years before I ever shot anything.

You said it. I am sure many older hunters, you and me included can recall that it worked very well back then too. I cannot recall that back then hunting was less safe as today or that there where more slobs then today.

Hunting became a political issue with the raise of the animal rights and the anti gun lobby. But rather then attacking them hunting organizations started to go on the defense, which always is a bad position to be in. With that they dreamed up all kinds of "feel good" schemes, like hunter education, code of ethics and fair chase pledges. which is all good and right if you can leave the politics out of it and if it not would be a cosmetic application to justify our existence and pupose.

I never felt in my life as a hunter that I have to justify and/or explain what I am doing and most certainly not proving it with a certficate to people who oppose my way of life with their political agenda. I much prefer to attack them on every corner and show off their one sided hypocrisy. My Fortunately my professional life has given me many opportunities and means to do just that in a very public way trough TV and other media. And it works too, once people hear both sides of an argument they tend to side with us and not with the anti crowd, provided you do not lower youself to the level of the antis and engage in mud slinging but rather be cool and state you case with facts.

[huntwriter]

I gotta tell ya hunterwriter... i think you're wrong in this case with regards to accidents.

Now - you may be dead bang on in america, but i did a work up of stats some time ago (not sure where it is) and a rather in depth analysis of canadian stats.

Hunters saftey in canada came about from the clubs, and became manditory. But it addressed a real problem with increasing accidents in the feild. I can't prove this because there's no records kept in an easily accessed fashion but i SUSPECT it was due in part to immigration issues, where people simply weren't raised with the 'culture of guns' we were and were taking to the feild to hunt.

But - by the late sixties the number of accidents in canada had grown steadily for some time and was starting to get bad.

Shortly after hunters training was introduced as a 'manditory', that rate began to fall and has pretty much kept falling since (to a point - lets face it it can only go so low).

At this point in time hunting is one of the SAFEST sports out there. You are much more likely to be killed skiing.

Is it the training that does it? Its it the focus on saftey? Maybe it's that fathers and others constantly get 'refresher' training because they're helping their kids to learn.

But the fact is that the number of accidents per hunter each year did go down and has stayed there.

I think the course should be trimmed of the 'fluff' - make it a secondary non-manditory thing if they want for REAL newbies. But i think that looking at canadian statistics you'll find that there is a direct and noticable corollation between when training was introduced and the switch from rise in accidents to drop in accidents per hunter.

And the argument that hunters are trained HAS been usefull in the fight to keep our rights on more than one occasion. Which wouldnt' be a good enough reason to keep it on its own, but it IS a nice side benefit :)
I find it very hard in Canada to optain any reliable data for public access. However, I have been told by an RCMP officer no less, that many accident statistics are faulty, becuase they are lumped together, i.e. hunter shooting accident, sport shooting accidents and domestic shooting accidents (including shooting accident by the RCMP involving the public). I have no proof of that but have to take the word of a high ranking RCMP officer for it.

In America, where I get most of my statistics, they are much more specfied. There are, to stick with the theme here, "Hunter related shooting accidents" and "Recreational shooting Sport accidents". If you wish they even will, for a fee of course, pick that one appart into different weapon types and places, i.e. did the accident happen in the woods or at home while cleaning the gun.

It is my believe that this are much more accurate statistics than the ones here in Canada. This believe is nurished not least by finding out that the number one suicide death cause in Canada is attributed to firearms which simply is a big lie. The number one cause is overdosing on legal and illegal drugs. When I found that out and confronted a CORE examiner about it, he said "I know, but that is what the government want's the firearm owners to believe and thus you have to give that answer in order to get the question in the CORE manual right." I rest my case.

I do also believe that we should keep a mandatory firearm safety training absolutely. That never was my point. But CORE can be scraped any time, the sooner the better as a mandatory course. By all means keep it as a voluntary course so hunters who feel the need can take it.

[Foxer]

I find it very hard in Canada to optain any reliable data for public access.

It is. And what there is can be very misleading. For example - there ARE stats online about hunting accidents... done out in 'incidents per 100,000 population!

Well what good is that? if there are fewer hunters and more people - even if the accident rate for hunters are the same it's STILL going to look like they're 'going down'.

Took me forever to get the stats.. i'm somewhat pissed i dont' have them here as i look for them...


However, I have been told by an RCMP officer no less, that many accident statistics are faulty, becuase they are lumped together, i.e. hunter shooting accident, sport shooting accidents and domestic shooting accidents (including shooting accident by the RCMP involving the public). I have no proof of that but have to take the word of a high ranking RCMP officer for it.

Depends on the source, but yeah they DO do that for some tables. "accidents" -- meaning ALL accidents of any kind. Even ones with criminal guns.


t is my believe that this are much more accurate statistics than the ones here in Canada.

I"m sure - but you can't compare america's with canada on an apples to apples basis. The best that shows is that it's been of highly questionable value in america. It would be like using their firearms crime rates down there and substituting it for canada.


This believe is nurished not least by finding out that the number one suicide death cause in Canada is attributed to firearms which simply is a big lie.

Well yeah!

You CAN find that right on the statcan site. I don't think we even come in at number 2. I believe poisioning from all sources (dope, car exhaust, etc) and hanging beat out guns. I'd have to look it up again to be sure.

Like i say - there's a lot of garbage that could be trimmed and the whole process should be free of political interference. but I think the training itself is still valuable.

Is the decline in hunter accidents a direct result of the saftey training? Or was it something else? Who knows. there is not enough data to say, and only a fool blindly accepts that just because two events take place at the same time that they're ipso facto related.

But i DO take it as some evidence that it played a role in the reduction of accidents. I think in some form or another it has value.

[Rainwater]

RHAC, Fledgling group (not wanabees Gatehouse) wanabeeing to protect Resident Hunters rights. BCWF just gave away 50% of the annual allowable cougar harvest in region 8 to non-residents. New VP of the BCWF is a life member of the GOABC, just a sidenote.

[superchase]

RHAC, Fledgling group (not wanabees Gatehouse) wanabeeing to protect Resident Hunters rights. BCWF just gave away 50% of the annual allowable cougar harvest in region 8 to non-residents. New VP of the BCWF is a life member of the GOABC, just a sidenote.


That's right Rainwater, he is a life member of the guide outfitters assoc. might be some sort of conflict of interest or an interest for profit...food for thought. Anyways, think about it.

[coaster]

RHAC dues, $5. for two years. Count me in, it's worth $5. just to get any info that they might come up with..

[Salty]

I disagree with making a new hunter be accompanyed by another licenced hunter in a learner's licence scenario. How the hell's a new person going to start out if they don't know any hunters? And who says the "hunter" they have to be with is worth much anyway?

Sometimes you have to look at the big picture I figure. I don't like a lot of things in our society. But you have to give a little to get a little in a functional democracy. I never took the CORE as I am just old enough to be grandfathered and was lucky enough to be raised around hunting. But looking at the big picture in this day and age, I'm OK with the CORE as it is. It adds credence to our sport in the minds of the uneducated masses and makes it possible for newbies to reasonably easily become hunters. :neutral:

[tmarschall]

Salty... you have a point. But, make it an option for the kid who can go out with his dad (or mom) for several years to learn, like we use to do it. Then the kid won't be scared off by some test. If someone doesn't trust anyone enough to go out with them, let them take the class and test.

[boxhitch]

I'm OK with the CORE as it is. It adds credence to our sport in the minds of the uneducated masses and makes it possible for newbies to reasonably easily become hunters
Salty - I'm with you on this. It may be true, the CORE content may need an overhaul, but the concept of having a new hunter entering the field, with the awareness of good practices, first aid, animal ident., basic rules, etc. is a very good thing. The CORE doesn't try to be a complete compilation of the knowledge needed to go afield, but it does show that certain issues have to be observed. The individual hunter will determine what further knowledge he should pursue to be more proficient. Hell, I knew enough about Ducks to get my card, but be dammed if it makes any difference to me what a Widgeon looks like now. Many 'born in the woods' residents find the CORE content 'useless' and 'just common sense', so why make such an issue of taking an 'easy' test ? Many of our new hunters may be 'fresh off the boat', and where should they get an intro to hunting in BC ? They certainly can't be counted on as having 'comon knowledge' now can they ? Basic hunter education should always be mandatory, but it must have suitable content.

As for the RHABC, they sound like a special interest group that wants to take a different tact, than existing groups such as BCWF, where it comes to dealing with the Gov of BC, with the hopes of being heard above the rest. Waitng to see their platform unfold.

[Freshtracks]

:mrgreen: Allot of interesting comments, info and opinions being post. Thnx for your insight huntwriter ... superchase now RHABC sounds like a fractured group that feels the BCWF doesn't represent them. Still awaiting that info regrading a LowerMainland contact /meeting. :neutral:

[superchase]

Hi there freshtracks, you can get in touch with Mike from RHABC from an earlier post that I put up with his email. I still say get rid of the requirements for core under the age of 16 and put in a mentor hunter program like they have in alberta. There is enough deer in the province to allocate say 50 special tags just for youths under 16 to be used in a mentoring program. For those who are examiners, last year the core program lost money...dont know why, so the bcwf says, I can show that it is sustainable. I just hate all of the hypocracy even from some examiners that complain about core...I would be the first one to step up to the plate and teach a free course for youths under 16 if the federation waives the 30 dollar admin. fee. Anyways, think about it.

[Salty]

Here's another scenario to ponder...

A good friend is about 30 and has never been a hunter. He is however extremely capable in the bush. I've been trying more moves than Guy LaFleur to get him to get licenced and CORE'd but he's not in to it. He won't go there. He distrusts government, doesn't like the requirements and is stuborn on this. As well, although a very bright guy he has difficulty with reading and taking tests.

He's been hunting with me over the last two years and just loves it. I call him my Sherpa :lol: Lil sucker can really boogy up and down the hills. Now in a perfect world I'm loan him a 30-30 and he'd have a deer tag and away we'd go. But here's a case where the CORE (and federal bs laws) are in the way. I'm sure with a little more training from me he could pass any practical test anyone would want to throw at him with flying colours. But paperwork, and government tests appear to be a stumbling block.

I'm not sure what the perfect solution is for all this. :?

[Foxer]

I'm not sure what the perfect solution is for all this.

I'd buy into 'accompanied' hunts not requiring core. A guy can get a 'license' with no core provided he's in the constant supervision of a licensed hunter, and his kills come off your bag limit.

We already have that for guns. They don't need a firearms license to shoot. It would be enough to get guys out there and into it, but not leave enough room for abuse to make it a 'loophole'. Maybe make it so that when he buys an 'accompany' license, it's good for whatever the guy he's with has tags for ( and comes off that guy's license for bag limit and tags cut) and a licensed hunter has to put his hunters number down on it (although he can hunt with anyone he wants who's licensed, not just that guy).

That will prevent one guy buying 50 accompany licenses in a year for different people, and yet makes it simple to get everyone out.

The goal would be to make it SO easy to get someone out hunting that anyone can do it, but enough of a pain in the ass that if they're serious about it they'll eventually want to get their own license and take the training. In the meantime they're hunting safely because someone who knows their stuff is watching them.

You know, the more i think about it the more i like that idea. Not a single more animal would be taken, it's coming off the other guy's tags. Yet - you wouldn't need a single minute in 'school' - you wouldnt' need a gun license or hunters training, you could just go with no 'barriers' at all. And if you like it - THEN you jump the hoops and prove you're safe to go on your own and get your own bag limit.

it would be awesome for kids - great for getting those 30 year olds into it - and the gov't would make a LOT of money in additional licensing fees without having a single additional animal harvested, so it should be an easy sell. And for something like 25 bucks or 30 bucks or something a guy can try it for a year.

Hmmmm. Maybe we should be putting that forward. An "accompanied" license, just for bc residents who wish to try hunting. There's no saftey issues, and no harvest issues.

Whaddaya guys think?

[huntwriter]

Here's another scenario to ponder...

A good friend is about 30 and has never been a hunter. He is however extremely capable in the bush. I've been trying more moves than Guy LaFleur to get him to get licenced and CORE'd but he's not in to it. He won't go there. He distrusts government, doesn't like the requirements and is stuborn on this. As well, although a very bright guy he has difficulty with reading and taking tests.

He's been hunting with me over the last two years and just loves it. I call him my Sherpa :lol: Lil sucker can really boogy up and down the hills. Now in a perfect world I'm loan him a 30-30 and he'd have a deer tag and away we'd go. But here's a case where the CORE (and federal bs laws) are in the way. I'm sure with a little more training from me he could pass any practical test anyone would want to throw at him with flying colours. But paperwork, and government tests appear to be a stumbling block.

I'm not sure what the perfect solution is for all this. :?
I hear you loud and clear, and it is exactly for the reasons you mention here why I am in favour of getting rid of mandatory hunter education. There are many people I speak to that feel the way your friend does.

In fact I have been thinking of reinveting an old custom my friends and I use to do in Illionois with great success.

The custom was to invite young and new hunters to spend one year with an experienced hunter. Each experienced hunter was "Godfather" to one new/young hunter. The "Godfather" would accompany the new/young hunter to the shooting range, scouting trips and hunting trips plus be there for him/her with any question he/she might have. That way they had an experienced hunting partner showing them all the ropes in the field. The best of all this was it dind't cost anything and was very effectieve because there was no politics and regulations involved, just goodwill.

There is no better feeling for me than sitting in a treestand next to a new/young hunter and watch him/her to harvest the first game animal after having spent one year showing them how it is done.

This type of education is the best there is and can't be beat by any hunter education programm.

[Elkhound]

This type of education is the best there is and can't be beat by any hunter education programm.

While I agree 100%, there is the problem of what type of hunter would be allowed to do this. I have one buddy who has been hunting since he was 12, taught by his dad and uncles, all nice guys. I have met them personally. But lets just say we have had disagreements on certain situations. The bad habits and unethical decisions he has been taught by these older hunters is awful. I certainly wouldn't want these guys teaching our young hunters what to do in the world of hunting

[Foxer]

There are many people I speak to that feel the way your friend does.

Yeah. And a lot of people who feel that way have no clue about the fact that they have no clue.

I'll tell you guys something, and maybe it'll highlight the point. I teach people how to use computers all the time.

There's nothing complex about using a computer. They're designed to be 'common sense'. You have your mouse. You have 'files' and 'folders'. Most commands are common between programs.. cut and paste is the same in virtually ALL windows programs.

Yet - i often find as i teach people i'll say things like 'Ok, create a file folder, and save your work in that". THey'll answer.. what's a file folder?

I can't believe it! - how is it possible that someone could not understand that basic concept? I had that figured out when i was still using commodore PET computers. But they don't get it!

It seems impossible to me. I simply cannot understand how anyone could be that 'dumb'.

But - you know what, it's not dumb. When you haven't been raised with something or made a study of it, even the MOST SIMPLE things can be utterly foreign.

What we think of as 'common sense' ISN'T. It just seems that way. We think that most people would use their 'common sense' hunting, and that this should be good enough. Well - it aint'. Not for a lot of people.

And how do you tell the difference between one guy and the other, unless you test 'em?

If you didn't grow up with hunting or guns, unless you've recieved instruction you're just not safe to go into the woods and i don't care if you hiked up mt everest before. Too many people would do stupid things just because it didn't occur to them to think about it. Heck - it STILL happens but at least now it's rare.

I'm all for tidying up the core and making getting into the sport better - but it's absolutey guaranteed 100 percent that if we just let people go into the woods with guns who've had zero training we're going to have a mess, and all it'll take is a few injuries to get the sport killed in bc for good.

If you know what you're doing, the test isn't hard. And you never have to take it again. If that's SUCH an impediment that you can't be bothered... chances are you're not taking the sport seriously enough anyway and really shouldn't be out in the woods alone hunting in the first place.

[Elkhound]

.

Yeah. And a lot of people who feel that way have no clue about the fact that they have no clue.


If you know what you're doing, the test isn't hard. And you never have to take it again. If that's SUCH an impediment that you can't be bothered... chances are you're not taking the sport seriously enough anyway and really shouldn't be out in the woods alone hunting in the first place.

I think these are the 2 most accurate statements I have read in a long time

[40incher]

The RHABC was formed two years ago to give the close to 75,000 independant resident hunters in this province a voice. Resident hunters are on the verge of losing their priority access to licensed hunting as a result of apathy and bureaucratic bumbling. The RHABC averted a major step backwards recently when the Association delayed the signing off of the new Allocation Policy, which seeks to remove our priority in hunting.





The following Press Release is an example of what the RHABC is prepared to do to protect resident hunters rights. There is a meeting lined up with Victoria MOE bureaucrats on April 12th, and a followup to that meeting will be provided shortly after. The Hunter's Association has some excellent ideas to increase BC resident participation and success, and are not afraid to get political to get our message across.





The RHABC has deliberately kept membership costs low to attract a broad cross-section of hunters, and hope to create enough interest in each Region to initiate independant associations in all of them to broaden the scope of the RHABC. The Association does not have their own website as yet, but rest assured that BC resident hunters rights will be at the forefront and will be strongly upheld.





Resident Hunter’s Association of BC

2624 Billeter Road, Smithers, British Columbia, Canada V0J 2N0 Ph: (250) 847-3001



PRESS RELEASE






(For Immediate Release)



“B.C.’s Resident Hunters Are Under Attack”




Smithers, British Columbia - March 10, 2006


The Resident Hunter’s Association of BC (RHABC), a registered Society representing this Province’s resident hunting interests, is calling on the Liberal government to intervene in a rewrite of the provincial Allocation Policy and Procedures (APP).


The longstanding Government Policy document, which sets out the procedures for managing and allocating hunting opportunities in the province, is being shelved in favour of a new one that abandons BC resident’s priority interests. The policy process was developed in secrecy, with only select resident and non-resident interests invited, and it appears that neither side is happy with how it has been handled. “ In a meeting with then Minister Bill Barisoff in April of 2005 the RHABC clearly let their concerns be known, and were promised the minutes of these secretive meetings ” stated Association Chairman Bill Zemenchik “ we were also assured by the Minister that his staff was now instructed to include our Hunter’s Association in all future process proceedings, but this did not come about. Despite further requests since this meeting from MLA Dennis MacKay, to follow through with these clear commitments, the bureaucratic process carried on without our membership’s advice and input ”.




Lobbying by the RHABC has delayed the signing off of the new Policy, scheduled for late January, 2006. “ BC resident hunter priority in allocation is a fundamental issue that must not be sacrificed ” demands Zemenchik of Smithers, BC “ and the government is heeding flawed advice if it really thinks this rewrite will benefit the province and its citizens, either socially or economically ”.


The existing APP document has been in place for decades and it entrenches BC resident priority, which means that this province’s hunters should always maintain a minimum 50% share of the licensed allocation and harvest of wildlife species. Under the new document, resident priority is gone and non-resident hunters are favoured by means of a complex methodology that transfers wildlife quota to the commercial sector based on the value of guided hunts to the industry. “ This flawed thinking even has many guide-outfitters upset as they see high-valued sheep hunts traded off for hunts of lesser non-resident demand for moose and deer ” says Zemenchik “ and the last draft of the document which resident hunters saw gave the non-resident hunters from the U.S. and Europe a minimum of 52% of the Stone Sheep allocation in the Skeena Region of BC, and 76% of the Mountain Goat in the Peace Region ”. Under the complicated and regionally inconsistent plan the non-resident minimums can only increase from these base amounts, while there appears to be no bottom end for resident hunters.

The fundamental issue of BC resident priority aside, the economic myth that non-resident hunters are more beneficial to the economy of the province than BC residents needs a closer look by the Liberal government. Recent estimates of this contribution, from the 2003 BC Statistics on Hunter Contributions, suggest 61% of all revenues derived from hunting activity are a result of resident hunters while 39% are from non-residents. These revenues may be as high as 170 million dollars annually from resident hunters alone.

The RHABC strongly recommends that our provincial government intervene now, ensuring that the existing APP, and the clearly stated concept of BC resident priority, are implemented and upheld for the future generations of hunters to come. ###





For any questions or for more information please contact:





RHABC Secretary, Mike O’Neill (250) 847-4166

or by e-mail: steele@bulkley.net





Thank you.

[huntwriter]

While I agree 100%, there is the problem of what type of hunter would be allowed to do this. I have one buddy who has been hunting since he was 12, taught by his dad and uncles, all nice guys. I have met them personally. But lets just say we have had disagreements on certain situations. The bad habits and unethical decisions he has been taught by these older hunters is awful. I certainly wouldn't want these guys teaching our young hunters what to do in the world of hunting
I am not talking about "allowing" a hunter to do this. Just bloddy well do it. I mean that's how it has been from the time humans crawled off the trees and we did very well with that system.

My personal experience is that hunters who are not very particular usually do not bother to volunteer as "Goodfather", in fact they find it very bothersome to have a "newby" hanging around their ankle and spoiling their fun.

Ethics are to me an absolute non issue, never has been, never will. The reason for this is that ethics are a very personal view. Look at every thread on this website where this issue comes up and you quickly will find that ethics variy from person to person. Very often you will find that, for example, one hunter finds it unethical to take bowshots longer than 30 yards, yet for another hunter 50 yards are ethical too and so it goes on. Ethics are nothing more than a personal opinion. Therefore ethics can not be regulated.

There always will be folks that do not play by the rules, regardless of any education. Even in Russia and China where they had the perfect ethical and moral society educated, organized and guided by experts on every single step of their lives from the very day they where born until they where carried off in the wooden box, they could not eradicate the bad apples and morrons, but by god they tried hard. To me it seems we concentrate way to much on single bad cases. Often I hear "But what if one hunters does ..." To hell with one bad hunter, let's concentrate what the majority of hunters do and we will find that by and large the hunters are very ethical and of high moral standing. I mean nobody goes "Oh there is one bad apple in the box, there should be stricter regulations to eliminate that." So why try to do that with hunting? Because we are scared of the onse who don't like us? So we want to give them the picture of the pretty boy that never puts a foot wrong? Is that all we have to put up as defense for our sport, by becoming more and more dictatorial and intolerant?

Yesterday I was on my other hunting forum TNDeer and there they hailed the efforts... successful efforts... made by hunters to silence an animal rights activist in the newspapers and onse more having defended heroically their sport. While everybody was gloating, my good friend and noted outdoor writer John Sloan butched in the conversation by saying. "Well done gentleman! But now start thinking about the upcoming fall deer hunting season and how we can attack the animal right activists using their tactics, instead of waiting for the first anti hunting letters and then respond in defense. If you keep defending you always will have the short and shity end of the stick in the hand. An old military strategy is that the attacker commands the battlefield while the defender is left to wait and react, thus he is likely to loose the battle."

That is exactly what we are doing, we defend our sport with ever more new scheems and madatory this and that and we are still loosing.

[Gateholio]

. New VP of the BCWF is a life member of the GOABC, just a sidenote.

Greg Sawchuck, new VP of the BCWF ran for VP last year and was defeated. He ran as president this year and was defeated. He stood for VP and was elected.

His GOABC membership was an issue in the elections.

[Elkhound]

I am also talking about kids who learn stupid habits from a dad or older hunter. Like, My buddy who thought going from one cut block to another was just fine with their rifles loaded in the truck. "Well it must be okay cause my dad does it and my dad is a good hunter" I have heard this answer too many times. Common sense says you are an idiot to travel with a loaded rifle. However, as a young hunter he never questioned he just did as "good old dad" did. If he was forced to take a program he would be taught to know this was a bad idea and would at least have others telling him so. It is stupid crap like that, that pisses me off.
Do I agree with how the course is run now, No. There is always room for improvement. But common sense to me and you may be not for others

[Foxer]

Ethics are to me an absolute non issue, never has been, never will.

Wait till some guy scopes you. Or you have a narrow miss from a 'sound' hunter. You may change your mind :)


There always will be folks that do not play by the rules, regardless of any education.

That's why we have cops and jails. If we have lawbreakers, deal with them.

We're always going to have murderers. You won't make that problem better by making it legal :) (the liberal party would be wiped out overnight! :) )

[Salty]

I'd buy into 'accompanied' hunts not requiring core. A guy can get a 'license' with no core provided he's in the constant supervision of a licensed hunter, and his kills come off your bag limit.


.........

You know, the more i think about it the more i like that idea. Not a single more animal would be taken, it's coming off the other guy's tags. Yet - you wouldn't need a single minute in 'school' - you wouldnt' need a gun license or hunters training, you could just go with no 'barriers' at all. And if you like it - THEN you jump the hoops and prove you're safe to go on your own and get your own bag limit.

...........

Whaddaya guys think?

Brilliant :smile: And doable I think.......

[huntwriter]

Wait till some guy scopes you. Or you have a narrow miss from a 'sound' hunter. You may change your mind :)
Unfortunatly I have been shot at by a bowhunter. The arrow came so close that it nicked the skin on my neck. I vividly remeber that he had a embroiderd patch on his jacket stating that he is a member of IHEA "Promoting Responsible Bowhunting trough Education". That membership and the education didn't stop him from cussing at me about why I had walk trough the woods and all the other excuses he had of why he thought I was a whitetail deer buck, at 35 yards no less.

The reason I remember so well is, because I tore that patch from his jacket right before I firmly wrapped his longbow around his head.:)

I have seen many hunters out in the woods with patches and, or stickers on their cars proclaiming hunter education and then they behaved like jerks. That much for mandatory education makes for better hunters.

Oh,In case someone wonders. I am nor carrying any grudges or missgivings. It's just another fact of life I have to deal with and do so very easy. That is the reson why I do not care about ethics, talking about it is for many very different then living by them. But that's life, hey deal with it.



That's why we have cops and jails. If we have lawbreakers, deal with them.

We're always going to have murderers. You won't make that problem better by making it legal :) (the liberal party would be wiped out overnight! :) )
That is the main problem we have today, and not only in hunting. It is not the lack of education we suffer from. It is the utter lack of being not held fully and inexcuseable accountable for our own actions. Look around you, everywhere you see crime victims coming out of courtrooms crying in distress while the criminal is lead away or set free with a smile on his face. There is something horribly wrong right there. But you bet your bottom dollar everytime somebody does something wrong we look to the government and ask for more and stricter regulations, hunting is a shining example here for that sort of behaviour.

When I grew up in Switzerland, wrongdoers where justifiably scared stiff for fear what the state would do to them. I guess in Canada was the same. We do not need more or stricter laws, education and regulation. We need to lobby the governments to use the laws that exist to be used as they are meant to be used and not as interpreted by moraly corrupt judges and lawyers.

It should be like. You do that and you will suffer the consequences to the point that you wish to be rather dead than alive. Instead what we see is this. A young driver is caught drunk on the steering weel. Quick let's make a new law so they all have to suffer for that one idiot, or let's make a thougher education course and spend a few million taxpayer dollars on it so it looks impresieve.

[Foxer]

Unfortunatly I have been shot at by a bowhunter. The arrow came so close that it nicked the skin on my neck.

You're kidding.

How the heck does a bowhunter get that close and not see his target?

What a moron.


I have seen many hunters out in the woods with patches and or stickers on their cars proclaiming hunter education and then they behaved like jerks

I've seen drunk drivers. But you know - when they do the education and put on road checks... drunk driving accidents go down. They may not stop, but they go down.

The fact that one moron doesn't get it doesn't mean that it has no benefit. Hopefully your 'friend' there got the message this time :)

I've also seen guys double check their firearms when they pick 'em up. And when they get into a car. So SOME people get it.

Like most things - it's not going to solve the worlds problems. But Would you like MORE people like your bow friend out there? Or fewer?


That is the reson why I do not care about ethics, talking about it is for many very different then living by them.

Many isn't all. Most people - the majority - will tend to do the right thing if they know what that is. Ohhh they may make mistakes. OR screw up. Or 'bend' the rules on occasion. But for the most part, they do the right thing.

The dolts are just more memorable :)


It is not the lack of education we suffer from. It is the utter lack of being not held fully and inexcuseable accountable for our own actions.

Yeah, well, you got me there no doubt. A rule without enforcement is no rule.


hunting is a shining example here for that sort of behaviour.

Naaaw. Not for the hunters anyway. We're pretty light on laws all things considered from a hunting point of view.

In fact - most people think there are MORE laws than there actually are. I've run into guys who think you can't have a loaded magazined detatched from the gun in the car. For years i thought it was illegal to bait deer, or put out a salt lick. Etc etc.

The only time WE have a 'problem' is when some dumb-twit non-hunter gets into the picture and freaks out about something that either never happened or was their responsibility in the first place. Like 'dog woman' up in pemberton a little ways back. (idiot.)

In general tho - i'd say your comment holds true in the rest of our society pretty good. If a dog bites someone, it's not 'get the owner', it's ban dogs.

[huntwriter]

You're kidding.

How the heck does a bowhunter get that close and not see his target?

What a moron.

My bad, I never asked him about that one. I was to busy wrapping the bow around his head.

But you know what I did not tell but now find funny (in hind sight) too.

He sat in my treestand when it happend and I was on my way to get to it. To do so I used an old deer trail that I blocked moths before so the deer had to come by my stand.

Well that's hunting on public land, or crown land as it is called here, for you. But he was worse of than me after I was done with him and I think somehow, that was the best education he had in a long time.:mrgreen:

[superchase]

food for thought...In BC it is not manditory that hunters wear hunter blaze orange. I know how you feel about being shot at with a bow, I was at the range and out in the field changing my target during a cease fire when some old fart decided to take a shot at his target with a .416...dumbass. A WWII vet to boot...what a dumbass. luckly I was off to one side walking back...he said he didnt even see me...dumbass. Anyways, think about it. For those of you who want see some funny videos about life, check out (www.thekidfrombrooklyn.com (http://www.thekidfrombrooklyn.com))

[Salty]

We need to lobby the governments to use the laws that exist to be used as they are meant to be used and not as interpreted by moraly corrupt judges and lawyers.


I don't follow you here. How are the laws that we have meant to be used? And how should current government know that? The system in Canada is for the government to create laws and the judicial system to test them to law and act on them.

From previous comments it appeared you don't trust government to create fair laws. Here you say you don't trust the morally currupt lawyers and judges to act on them. Who the hell should run this place my friend, you? :neutral:

[Foxer]

My bad, I never asked him about that one. I was to busy wrapping the bow around his head.

Well i guess we all get busy and forget things these days :) hehehe


that was the best education he had in a long time

I suspect you're right :) there's always some idiot out there who's gotta learn the hard way! hahaha!

[Foxer]

I don't follow you here. How are the laws that we have meant to be used?

I think he means that when the law says 5-10 years, it doesn't mean 5 every time, with double points for time served and instant parole after 3, so you might as well leave now. :)

[Foxer]

Not to mention "we know you're guilty of 11 offenses, but if you plea to the smallest of 'em we'll let you off for the other 10 to say thanks for saving us the workload."

[Freshtracks]

I think these are the 2 most accurate statements I have read in a long time

Diddo that ... well spoken Foxer.

[huntwriter]

I don't follow you here. How are the laws that we have meant to be used? And how should current government know that? The system in Canada is for the government to create laws and the judicial system to test them to law and act on them.

From previous comments it appeared you don't trust government to create fair laws. Here you say you don't trust the morally currupt lawyers and judges to act on them. Who the hell should run this place my friend, you? :neutral:

I trust the government to a dergree, nobody in his or her right mind trust fully a government. That is purly my opinion.

We have laws on the books that require an induvidual to be punished. Yet the courts and lawyers will find way to cirumvent such laws. Happnes every day in the courts that criminals walk free on some half assed excuse.

Let me give you an example. There was a guy in the Lower Mainland. That scum had a 10 year history of drinking and driving. He went in and out of court, never nothing much happen to him other than loosing his driving licence. He still drove around and the police keept arresting him, but each time, before the was dry on the police report he was out of jail on some techniality or a smart lawyer.

Finally he drove into a bunch of children, one of them he killed outright. Again in the court he goes, but he does not admit to killing the girl only to drink and drive witout a licence. He has been seen killing the girl. But somehow the courts felt that if he not admits to killing they could not do him for it. He is free and the tax payers pay for his reabilitation. The family is still in shock and never will see the child again. The father went together with a politican and began a campaign for thouger penalties and the application of the law as it stands. The remmoendation was turned down by then liberal government as to harsh.

You follow me now? What do you think will happen to Robert Picton? A shrink will tell the court that he suffers from some imaginary illness and that will het him free. Watch and see.

That is not application of the law that is interpretation and bending until it suits the criminal. Victims have no rights other than seeking grief theraphy by the same profession that got their tormentor of the hook.

[huntwriter]

food for thought...In BC it is not manditory that hunters wear hunter blaze orange. I know how you feel about being shot at with a bow, I was at the range and out in the field changing my target during a cease fire when some old fart decided to take a shot at his target with a .416...dumbass. A WWII vet to boot...what a dumbass. luckly I was off to one side walking back...he said he didnt even see me...dumbass. Anyways, think about it. For those of you who want see some funny videos about life, check out (www.thekidfrombrooklyn.com (http://www.thekidfrombrooklyn.com))
Uhh. Uh, "food for thought...In BC it is not manditory that hunters wear hunter blaze orange..." Let's not get there please, you give somebody ideas here.:-)

I do wear blaze orange hats and vest when hunting with a firearm. I aslo wear them in the bow hunting season on the way to my stand and from my stand. Yes burned child fears the fire. But I would not like to see this as a mandatory regulation.

In fact it is exactly what I try to explain here. Everytime something happens we ask for more and thougher regulation. Now governments being what they are just love it when people complain and ask for more laws. The sole purpose of politics is to make laws and control peoples life. The last thing I want to do therefore is to give them any reason to do so.

The simple true fact is that laws never ever prevented anything but they sure as hell have compromised the lives of the folks that live by the law. See firearm registry.

I repeat. We do not need new laws we need to enforce the ones we have and come down on offenders like a ton of bricks and not slap them on the wrist, only then things will change for the better. I am sure the guy who shot at me never will do that again, in fact we gave him so much hell for it he moved out of the area. If I would have taken him to court he would still be around and I most likely, given how courts work today, would be one that got blamed.

[Salty]

You follow me now?

Yup. As far as serious and violent crime goes I too think the spirit and intent of the law is usually watered down come sentencing time...

[huntwriter]

I think he means that when the law says 5-10 years, it doesn't mean 5 every time, with double points for time served and instant parole after 3, so you might as well leave now. :)
You right Foxer, you got it. If it says 5 - 10 years give them 10 and if he does as much as flinch bang another 5 years on top of it. And once he is in prison make them work hard so they earn their own keep and can repay every dollar they cost society. If they get fresh in prison bang another 5 years on top of that and send him up north to work his hind quarters off in a logging camp. No TV, no, Sauna, no visits, no phone calls and for god sake keep the shrinks out of the picture. Let them know that they are scum, not victims of society, and have to pay for what they did to the society dollar by dollar.

[huntwriter]

Yup. As far as serious and violent crime goes I too think the spirit and intent of the law is usually watered down come sentencing time...
I am glad I cleared that up.:mrgreen: Sometimes I get exited especially when it comes to puishment fits the crime.

In hunting its the same. The police catches a poacher. The first thing they wrong is that they call them in the news release statement a "hunter". Then depending how severe it is they give him a 500 dollar fine and if he really is unlucky the ban him from optaining a hunting licence.

That's good, but they do not confiscate his guns unless it is very severe. Just like the drunkard the poacher doesn't give a hairy you know what about the law. So what prevents him to take his gun and go about poaching. Take his guns away too for crying out loud.

[bcboy]

I am also talking about kids who learn stupid habits from a dad or older hunter. Like, My buddy who thought going from one cut block to another was just fine with their rifles loaded in the truck. "Well it must be okay cause my dad does it and my dad is a good hunter" I have heard this answer too many times. Common sense says you are an idiot to travel with a loaded rifle. However, as a young hunter he never questioned he just did as "good old dad" did. If he was forced to take a program he would be taught to know this was a bad idea and would at least have others telling him so. It is stupid crap like that, that pisses me off.
Do I agree with how the course is run now, No. There is always room for improvement. But common sense to me and you may be not for others

finally someone with a brain, please people take the freaking course.#1 ? I get asked is please take me hunting...it aint dad no more people. And i aint gonna train em but the course serves a purpose, it also shows how society has changed.

Aint perfect but if it aint broke dont fix it!!

If you dont like it try hunting in /sweden.!! Ya I been there my mom is Swedish..Its pretty tuff to get your tickect.

[superchase]

yup I think that is a good idea...more CO's and enforcement. It was the NDP that got rid of most of them in the beginning and the liberals are sure not doing anything about it either. Anyways, think about it.

[Foxer]

They're hiring more co's at the moment i believe.

[Steeleco]

Years back I tried to volunteer, much like the RCMP have ridealongs, but there was no program in place (still isn't) and undertsandably they don't want helpers when they have laid off pro's.

[huntwriter]

Years back I tried to volunteer, much like the RCMP have ridealongs, but there was no program in place (still isn't) and undertsandably they don't want helpers when they have laid off pro's.

That tells you something right there. It's sad really how little the gov. cares.

[GoatGuy]

Years back I tried to volunteer, much like the RCMP have ridealongs, but there was no program in place (still isn't) and undertsandably they don't want helpers when they have laid off pro's.

They do have guys who go along - call up your local CO and ask him if he/her wants a hand. While they do not have an official program they do take 'civilians' all the time. This also includes game checks. Several of our members go for ride-alongs and game checks. You don't get to pack a gun but it's a good experience and helps you understand a bit of the garbage these folks have to deal with.

[GoatGuy]

yup I think that is a good idea...more CO's and enforcement. It was the NDP that got rid of most of them in the beginning and the liberals are sure not doing anything about it either. Anyways, think about it.

There's 18 seasonals being trained right now. Also several COs are getting CO-OP students this summer.

[GoatGuy]

RHAC, Fledgling group (not wanabees Gatehouse) wanabeeing to protect Resident Hunters rights. BCWF just gave away 50% of the annual allowable cougar harvest in region 8 to non-residents.

So does that mean cougars are going to LEH in region 8 next year? Are residents going to lose on in some way? I don't think so.

Have you ever had a look at the harvest statistics for region 8? I HIGHLY DOUBT IT.

Do you know anything about the allocation process? Doubt it.

If you did, you'd know that since 1985 residents have averaged 35 cougars and outfitters have average 39 per year. So, infact, non-res have actually been harvesting 53% of the cougars in region. Also residents harvested 75 cougars 98, 61 in 99 and 83 in 2000. Removing the outliers non-resident harvest has been closer to 60/40.

Also, if you had any clue about how the allocation process goes you'd know that when we trade we get more back. By giving up a couple of cougars tags to outfitters especially when we don't fill them, we can actually get a couple of tags --- such as LEH Moose.

On top of all this is the fact that we haven't been meeting our AAH as a region. Cougars aren't on LEH for residents and the season's plenty long.

Course it sounds better when you throw out random statistics to make others look bad.

I'm all for resident hunter support, but if you wish to slander another support group you better have your ducks in a row first.

[GoatGuy]

Nice to read all these posts. I'll try to iron some of this stuff out for those who don't know and those who'd like to complain. Most of the stuff mentioned is already in the works through the BCWF and the province.

First, the published article makes the RHABC sound like the saviour. "Lobbying by the RHABC has delayed the signing off of the new Policy, scheduled for late January, 2006". Gimme a break. This organization isn't even at the table. The BS is getting thick around here.

FYI there are several teachers instructing CORE in the school system across the province-being an instructor you should know that.

CORE should be in place for ethics and safety reasons - it should not be voluntary. It doesn't need to be a course - should be able to challenge it. "Minimum accetable standards" should apply. It should also be cheap.

This is no different than getting a drivers license. It's great if you're father taught you how to handle a gun but if he was a moron the apple won't fall far from the tree. Also, what about those who don't have a mentor? Give 'em a gun and send 'em out in the bush?

As far as bad apples go you always get them.


Here are a couple of the proposed changes - - some of which will probably be instituted by this fall.

Minimum required age for CORE 18.
Minimum legal age to hunt alone 18.
New hunter license for any age similar to a youth license -- direct supervision etc.,
Youth licenses getting their own tags to hunt off of not their guardians.
Making CORE more affordable

A mentor program is also part of the program.

I appreciate the support for resident hunters but at a couple hundred members the RHABC isn't getting anybody's attention. By using misleading statistics and half-truths you're hurting your credibility more than helping. I hope in the future what you say and represent will be accurate.

[superchase]

Nice to read all these posts. I'll try to iron some of this stuff out for those who don't know and those who'd like to complain. Most of the stuff mentioned is already in the works through the BCWF and the province.

First, the published article makes the RHABC sound like the saviour. "Lobbying by the RHABC has delayed the signing off of the new Policy, scheduled for late January, 2006". Gimme a break. This organization isn't even at the table. The BS is getting thick around here.

FYI there are several teachers instructing CORE in the school system across the province-being an instructor you should know that.

CORE should be in place for ethics and safety reasons - it should not be voluntary. It doesn't need to be a course - should be able to challenge it. "Minimum accetable standards" should apply. It should also be cheap.

This is no different than getting a drivers license. It's great if you're father taught you how to handle a gun but if he was a moron the apple won't fall far from the tree. Also, what about those who don't have a mentor? Give 'em a gun and send 'em out in the bush?

As far as bad apples go you always get them.


Here are a couple of the proposed changes - - some of which will probably be instituted by this fall.

Minimum required age for CORE 18.
Minimum legal age to hunt alone 18.
New hunter license for any age similar to a youth license -- direct supervision etc.,
Youth licenses getting their own tags to hunt off of not their guardians.
Making CORE more affordable

A mentor program is also part of the program.

I appreciate the support for resident hunters but at a couple hundred members the RHABC isn't getting anybody's attention. By using misleading statistics and half-truths you're hurting your credibility more than helping. I hope in the future what you say and represent will be accurate.




If you would read some of your suggestions GoatGuy, you would realize that these suggestions were also made in the comments/posts written by other people. Core instructors are not instructors but examiners. There are no standards put in place therefore someone wanting to take the course will find a hugh difference from one core examiner to another. The sad truth is that you can buy your core under the table. I have been playing this political game for awhile and all I want is accountibility. You know what that is...it has been an election platform for most political parties but none of them follow thru with it. Why should discussions be limited to only one organization and the BC Govt. We should all be working together...I can tell you that it was Fores that forced the provincial govt to have an agreement put in place with the federation over the Core program and all we had was a handfull of members. Yes the Rhabc only has a couple hundred members for now...but in time like all organizations, will grow and organizations like the federation dont last forever. If an individual goes into the federation office and starts asking questions and requests to look at documents...you will find many doors slammed in your face. I have agreed and disagreed with people's comment on here...that's what democracy is all about, doesnt mean I wont talk with them because I disagree. Anyways, think about it.

[GoatGuy]

If you would read some of your suggestions GoatGuy, you would realize that these suggestions were also made in the comments/posts written by other people.

I did and I'm trying to inform you that you're re-inventing the wheel. If you were involved you'd know that these suggestions are already in the works and have been for a while. Instead of letting people rant on you would actually be able to tell them what's really going on instead pumping them up with some random alternative.



Core instructors are not instructors but examiners. There are no standards put in place therefore someone wanting to take the course will find a hugh difference from one core examiner to another. The sad truth is that you can buy your core under the table. I have been playing this political game for awhile and all I want is accountibility. You know what that is...it has been an election platform for most political parties but none of them follow thru with it.

Thanks for the refresher, that's nice.

CORE is being worked on too. Like I said, there are always bad apples and there have been more than a couple of CORE instructors busted and their students' hunter number card revoked due to this fact. CORE needs to be looked at and is under the microscope right now.




Why should discussions be limited to only one organization and the BC Govt.

Because the Federation represents the majority; they're about ALL resident hunters. Keeping access open, sticking up for resident priority and conservation. When they quote statistics they're true. When they publish articles they don't claim to be the saving grace of the resident hunter and they're willing to tackle tough issues.

Quite frankly, after reading what you've written I know the people in Victoria wouldn't want to talk to you because you don't represent the truth and you aren't in touch with what's going on. This is what I find most disturbing about your posts. Everybody has a gripe about the federation, myself included, BUT if you're going to complain atleast justify it TRUTHFULLY.



We should all be working together

I agree on this if we "all" were you'd actually be able to inform people of what's really going on instead of writing 10 pages of heresay and conjecture.



...I can tell you that it was Fores that forced the provincial govt to have an agreement put in place with the federation over the Core program and all we had was a handfull of members. Yes the Rhabc only has a couple hundred members for now...but in time like all organizations, will grow and organizations like the federation dont last forever.

Quality control is what forced the agreement. When you're teaching something that regards public safety the gov't will either take it in house or contract it out to one company. The only reason Fores would have been a driving force was because the gov't would be worried about safety and accountability. No different than having some random individual do drivers license tests.


Organizations don't last forever, but 50 years is a pretty damn long time. Tack on an extra 25 for the habitat conservation trust fund which was setup by a lot of the members of the BCWF and you have over 75 years of conservation, easily over $1B and billions and billions of volunteer hours.



If an individual goes into the federation office and starts asking questions and requests to look at documents...you will find many doors slammed in your face.

What documents do you want???????????????????????????? I'll get them for you. Sounds like a load of BS if you ask me.



I have agreed and disagreed with people's comment on here...that's what democracy is all about, doesnt mean I wont talk with them because I disagree. Anyways, think about it.

Yes but democracy is about representing the truth and what's actually going on. You and your cohort have made a couple posts that aren't relevant to what's actually going on and paints the federation in a bad light when you don't actually have a clue.

I suggest you check your statistics and build an valid argument. Then we can have a discussion and I'll probably agree with you on a lot of the stuff.

[Foxer]

Here are a couple of the proposed changes - - some of which will probably be instituted by this fall.

Minimum required age for CORE 18.
Minimum legal age to hunt alone 18.
New hunter license for any age similar to a youth license -- direct supervision etc.,
Youth licenses getting their own tags to hunt off of not their guardians.
Making CORE more affordable

A mentor program is also part of the program.

Are you kidding me? How sure are you that this stuff is actually being considered?

To be honest - it sounds like some FANTASTIC improvements, but the devils' in the details. For example....


New hunter license for any age similar to a youth license -- direct supervision etc.,

You mean WITHOUT taking CORE training!??

Personally - i think if that was done right it would eliminate the biggest impediment to getting new people into the sport that there is. If you can take someone out and show them how to hunt and let them 'try' it .. they'll be hooked. But just coming along as an observer doesn't have the same effect.

I'd like to hear more about what they're doing with that aspect of it.

[GoatGuy]

Are you kidding me? How sure are you that this stuff is actually being considered?

To be honest - it sounds like some FANTASTIC improvements, but the devils' in the details. For example....



You mean WITHOUT taking CORE training!??

Personally - i think if that was done right it would eliminate the biggest impediment to getting new people into the sport that there is. If you can take someone out and show them how to hunt and let them 'try' it .. they'll be hooked. But just coming along as an observer doesn't have the same effect.

I'd like to hear more about what they're doing with that aspect of it.

I'm sure because I'm involved with the BCWF and I know the MOE folks in Victoria. One of the MOE employees is figuring out how to help resident hunter numbers also. The ministry is really keen and on board --it's just a matter of making it happen.

The minimum age for CORE may be changed to 18 by this coming season.

The others probably won't happen til next year - - takes time ;-) .

The new hunter license will be no different than a youth license in the sense that they can hunt under direct supervision of their 'mentor' or 'supervisors' direction (so yes NO CORE). I gotta tell you these aren't "good recruits". 90% of the time if they haven't started hunting by 18 they won't stick with it for very long. It's really the youth that we want. This one hasn't been guaranteed by MOE but it's certainly on the table.

We'd like to get youth and new hunters their own quota also so they aren't taking a tag from their parents.

That's some of it.

[superchase]

Ok Goatguy, ask the federation to produce the expenditures on the Core program and ask why they are running a deficit. I have a financial outline that does show the program making a profit. Also, say it's for me, Eric Baldini...and see the reaction you get out of the exec. director.

Not once did Fores want to run the Core program for the gov't. All we wanted is accountibility. With all the documents I have...There is a saying...There is something rotten in Denmark. I can back everthing I have said with proof and documents...not to mention that others have agreed with me with some of the ideas and issues at hand.

As far as victoria goes, I do have an open line of communication with them. Statistics are very easily manipulated...so I dont hold much to stats, I am more interested at the accounting of any organization or company, I take it you were at the AGM this year...how much did the federation lose. Companies fire executives and management for losing money, there should be no reason for this. I have donated many hours helping the federation in the past so i do know what goes on there...what i have seen is that the federation has to much on their plate and the issues arent addressed throughly and its only when an outside organization regardless of who it is, puts them in the spotlight, is when things get accomplished.

I ask you, why is it that the alberta program is so successful? Another question, why is the position of core manager part time...and why is the federation paying an exec. director to deal with core, common sense would dictate that this would be part of the core managers job description.

You mention that things are being worked on with core...well what is it, you dont mention what it is. All of your replies states that it is being worked on...again i ask, what exactly.

You also didnt address what happens to individuals when they start asking the federation to many questions, one of the VP's from last year should know all about that ;-), wont mention any names. Anyways, think about it.

[Foxer]

I gotta tell you these aren't "good recruits".

Sure, they're not the ones we really want. We want to get 'em young.

But three things come to mind, and i've actually encountered all three circumstances in the last 2 years.

1- Man in his 20's, grandfather was a hunter, father was not (guess the 70's got to him :) ). Guy has been talking to his father and looking at old pictures, and wants to get in 'touch' with his roots and learn how to hunt. Grandfather doesn't live close enough to 'teach' him and is getting on in years, but the guy could go out and begin to learn with locals. He could then go hunt with his grandfather a bit. But right now - he needs to take the core before he does any of that. It's hard for him to find the time to do that, AND learn to shoot, AND go out on a few simple hunts.. and he finds the whole thing a little intimidating.

If we could offer to lend him a gun, teach him to shoot a bit, and take him out for a simple trip then it would GREATLY increase his chances of being able to go out with his grandfather later, or b) get into it himself after he sees it's not so hard and then teach HIS kids.

2- I'm teaching a young man of about 17 years of age to shoot, because his mom (single mom) thinks it'd be good for him to learn some disipline and the kid's interested in guns. He's reluctant to get into hunting tho, because he's not sure if he can 'kill' or if he can handle the blood and such. I don't pressure him in the slightest, but he hears me talk about hunting and some of the other guys and he begins to think maybe he wouldn't mind trying it out. I know the kid - i know he'll love it but i don't want to put any pressure on him at all, that's just a mistake. But - now that he wants to possibly try it, he's got to take his core. That's a lot of work for him and cost for his mother. So .. it hasn't happened.

This would help greatly to get him out and see what it's like. If he enjoys it, and i think he's ready, he can take the core.

3- Guy used to hunt as a kid, in another province. Stopped when he went to university. Now, he's older and he has kids of his own. Has no clue where his 'hunters' stuff went, and will have to retake the core (you can't just sign a declaration any more.). But he's thinking about taking the kids out in a year or two when his oldest is old enough, and is toying with getting back into it. We'd have a better chance if it were possible to say "hey, come on out with me this year, i'll show you the basics again and if you're into it you can take the core."

It just makes it easier. In all three cases, it's possible they will take their core and get into it anyway - but in each case it would be EASIER and more likely to get them into it with the 'new' rules than it would be without.

And yes - its' possible they won't stick with it for long. BUT - lets say out of that 90 percent who doesn't you mentioned, 10 percent do. Those people will likely teach their kids - and over time that can do a LOT to keep our numbers where they should be.

Lets face it - our numbers aren't falling like a stone or anything. As near as i can figure we 'lose' about 1 - 2 percent of hunters every year. So - to go from losing ground to gaining, all we really need to do is increase the number of new hunters getting into the sport by even 2 - 3 percent more than we're doing now. Every little bit helps in that regard. We don't need to grow by 20 thousand new hunters a year or anything :) we just need to add maybe 500 or 1000 more than we're doing now - and i think that this new licensing would really help to achieve that. Even if it gives us only 100 new hunters a year province wide, it's still good.

The side benefit is those hunters who DON'T stick with it will still probably be a lot more supportive of hunting. They'll likely speak out in favour of hunting if asked. We learned about that in the fight for firearms rights - lots of people that were taken to the range never got their licnese, but they sure had a better opinion of gun owners and guns than before they went. That helps us with public opinion tremendously.

[GoatGuy]

Ok Goatguy, ask the federation to produce the expenditures on the Core program and ask why they are running a deficit. I have a financial outline that does show the program making a profit. Also, say it's for me, Eric Baldini...and see the reaction you get out of the exec. director.

Not once did Fores want to run the Core program for the gov't. All we wanted is accountibility. With all the documents I have...There is a saying...There is something rotten in Denmark. I can back everthing I have said with proof and documents...not to mention that others have agreed with me with some of the ideas and issues at hand.

As far as victoria goes, I do have an open line of communication with them. Statistics are very easily manipulated...so I dont hold much to stats, I am more interested at the accounting of any organization or company, I take it you were at the AGM this year...how much did the federation lose. Companies fire executives and management for losing money, there should be no reason for this. I have donated many hours helping the federation in the past so i do know what goes on there...what i have seen is that the federation has to much on their plate and the issues arent addressed throughly and its only when an outside organization regardless of who it is, puts them in the spotlight, is when things get accomplished.

I ask you, why is it that the alberta program is so successful? Another question, why is the position of core manager part time...and why is the federation paying an exec. director to deal with core, common sense would dictate that this would be part of the core managers job description.

You mention that things are being worked on with core...well what is it, you dont mention what it is. All of your replies states that it is being worked on...again i ask, what exactly.

You also didnt address what happens to individuals when they start asking the federation to many questions, one of the VP's from last year should know all about that ;-), wont mention any names. Anyways, think about it.

I'm not sure if these are questions or rhetoric???????

I'm lost for most of your post and not sure exactly what you want (other than to start a fight)??? Some of it I don't understand.

I can ask for numbers on CORE. I don't know anything more about it. I usually leave accounting up to those with designations. Do you have your CA, CGA or CMA??? You may know more than I do, I'm not overly keen on it.

A couple of CORE issues/solutions coming from different places (including the ministry) are:

amalgamating CORE and PAL
making it cheaper for youth
finding more instructors in public education
focusing on safety and ethics (get rid of identification of birds etc.,)
making it available online/CD format FREE

Essentially streamlining it. Making it more affordable and easier to do; focusing only on firearms safety and hunting ethics. Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with it losing money as long as it isn't falling into the wrong hands (maybe that's what you're getting at).

I don't get too involved with exactly what Tony or Paul does, so I really can't tell you much more than that. It isn't my place to decide who does what and who works f-t and who works p-t. Sorry!:-(

As far as Alberta goes, they've got what we need - you obviously know that or you wouldn't have asked the question. It's something to work to. It's always easier to do this when everyone's pulling in the same direction ;-)

I don't know what the numbers are from the AGM. I know they raised $65K on Friday night, but nothing more than that.

So, I can't answer a lot of your rhetoric, sorry - it's over my head. I only got involved because your cohorts posts and some of your posts before weren't truthful. You were implying things that hadn't actually happened or things were being misrepresented.

I'm sure a lot of your concerns are valid, but these are things I don't know about. I've replied about what I know to be true that's it.

[superchase]

Well I cant believe it goatguy, we actually agree on the issues of streamlining the program :)

Lets just say that my job entails suspicious activities. :mrgreen:

And I am not looking to start an arguement but cant understand the reasoning for the federation to be close minded. If I were in charge of the federation, I would want to listen to all other organizations and what they had to say, you can let that be known to Mr. Toth and Mr. Adams 8) \
Anyways, think about it.

[GoatGuy]

Sure, they're not the ones we really want. We want to get 'em young.

But three things come to mind, and i've actually encountered all three circumstances in the last 2 years.

1- Man in his 20's, grandfather was a hunter, father was not (guess the 70's got to him :) ). Guy has been talking to his father and looking at old pictures, and wants to get in 'touch' with his roots and learn how to hunt. Grandfather doesn't live close enough to 'teach' him and is getting on in years, but the guy could go out and begin to learn with locals. He could then go hunt with his grandfather a bit. But right now - he needs to take the core before he does any of that. It's hard for him to find the time to do that, AND learn to shoot, AND go out on a few simple hunts.. and he finds the whole thing a little intimidating.

If we could offer to lend him a gun, teach him to shoot a bit, and take him out for a simple trip then it would GREATLY increase his chances of being able to go out with his grandfather later, or b) get into it himself after he sees it's not so hard and then teach HIS kids.

2- I'm teaching a young man of about 17 years of age to shoot, because his mom (single mom) thinks it'd be good for him to learn some disipline and the kid's interested in guns. He's reluctant to get into hunting tho, because he's not sure if he can 'kill' or if he can handle the blood and such. I don't pressure him in the slightest, but he hears me talk about hunting and some of the other guys and he begins to think maybe he wouldn't mind trying it out. I know the kid - i know he'll love it but i don't want to put any pressure on him at all, that's just a mistake. But - now that he wants to possibly try it, he's got to take his core. That's a lot of work for him and cost for his mother. So .. it hasn't happened.

This would help greatly to get him out and see what it's like. If he enjoys it, and i think he's ready, he can take the core.

3- Guy used to hunt as a kid, in another province. Stopped when he went to university. Now, he's older and he has kids of his own. Has no clue where his 'hunters' stuff went, and will have to retake the core (you can't just sign a declaration any more.). But he's thinking about taking the kids out in a year or two when his oldest is old enough, and is toying with getting back into it. We'd have a better chance if it were possible to say "hey, come on out with me this year, i'll show you the basics again and if you're into it you can take the core."

It just makes it easier. In all three cases, it's possible they will take their core and get into it anyway - but in each case it would be EASIER and more likely to get them into it with the 'new' rules than it would be without.

And yes - its' possible they won't stick with it for long. BUT - lets say out of that 90 percent who doesn't you mentioned, 10 percent do. Those people will likely teach their kids - and over time that can do a LOT to keep our numbers where they should be.

Lets face it - our numbers aren't falling like a stone or anything. As near as i can figure we 'lose' about 1 - 2 percent of hunters every year. So - to go from losing ground to gaining, all we really need to do is increase the number of new hunters getting into the sport by even 2 - 3 percent more than we're doing now. Every little bit helps in that regard. We don't need to grow by 20 thousand new hunters a year or anything :) we just need to add maybe 500 or 1000 more than we're doing now - and i think that this new licensing would really help to achieve that. Even if it gives us only 100 new hunters a year province wide, it's still good.

The side benefit is those hunters who DON'T stick with it will still probably be a lot more supportive of hunting. They'll likely speak out in favour of hunting if asked. We learned about that in the fight for firearms rights - lots of people that were taken to the range never got their licnese, but they sure had a better opinion of gun owners and guns than before they went. That helps us with public opinion tremendously.

Foxer, I agree with you. All in due time. You're preaching to the choir. :mrgreen:

We need to focus on kids first.

As far as your 17 year old friend goes hopefully you'll be able to take him out this year and he can hunt on your tags. How does that sound? :razz: Victoria's already given it the thumbs up; just need to make it happen. As you know things move slowly when it comes to rules and regulations so we need to stick with priorities and what is best.

Hunter numbers are falling like a rock. We lost 52% of our hunters from 1982-2004. That's a HUGE DEAL.

I think it was 178000 in 1982 and in 2004 we were at 84000. Now consider how much the population of the province has increased in that time.

On top of that hunters are getting WAY older because of a lack of recruitment. Mean age is close to 50. In another 5-10 years numbers are going to start falling even faster.

[Foxer]

As far as your 17 year old friend goes hopefully you'll be able to take him out this year and he can hunt on your tags.

That'd be fantastic. It'd be great to be able to take kids out and teach 'em without having to jump thru ALL the hoops.

Lotta single moms in vancouver who's kids don't have a dad to take 'em out. But if you could teach 'em up on a .22 and take 'em out for grouse and see how they do without making them jump thru the hoops, who knows how many we'd get taking an interest. Heck - even if they just have some fun and learn a little about the tradition, at least they won't grow up to be anti's.

[Salty]

This is great news GoatGuy. I like where we're heading. Getting the youth thing happening first is the best tactic I'm sure. Just don't forget the adults that want to give it a try too. There will be lots of folks that would give hunting a try with a 'mentor'. I can think of several nearby me. A lot of people grow up with out hunting but think they would like to try, but just don't get around to it in their youth. Good luck with this! 8)

[GoatGuy]

Ok Goatguy, ask the federation to produce the expenditures on the Core program and ask why they are running a deficit. I have a financial outline that does show the program making a profit. Also, say it's for me, Eric Baldini...and see the reaction you get out of the exec. director.


Please put this financial outline on paper - I'd like to see it for my own benefit.

[GoatGuy]

This is great news GoatGuy. I like where we're heading. Getting the youth thing happening first is the best tactic I'm sure. Just don't forget the adults that want to give it a try too. There will be lots of folks that would give hunting a try with a 'mentor'. I can think of several nearby me. A lot of people grow up with out hunting but think they would like to try, but just don't get around to it in their youth. Good luck with this! 8)

Glad to hear you like it!

[40incher]

Goatguy,

From one of your previous posts it is clear that you and those you defend feel threatened by the RHABC. You shouldn't be as the new organization will be nothing like what is in place now.

For one thing, GOABC members will not be able to hold office in the RHABC. The same goes for retired MOE bureuacrats with an unfulfilled mission to beaver around and promote as if it were the will of BC'ers. Those two situations might be construed by the average independant grassroots type as a conflict of interest and not in the best interests of BC's resident hunters.

As for your assertion that the RHABC is not being factual, read the press release again. The RHABC certainly was not part of the flawed Allocation Policy Process rewrite, and never claimed to be. If the RHABC were given a seat, as promised by then-Minister Barisoff, it never would have come to within days of being signed of by an MOE bureaucrat authorized by the Minister. Signed off with resident priority way on the back shelf.

The RHABC did, however, get the politicians to deep-six the signing off of the flawed document and to demand that MOE begin to consult openly on the issue. The meeting tomorrow in the community Smithers is proof of that. Kudos to MLA and RHABC member, Dennis MacKay, for that.

Resident hunters in this Province need a clear and unadulterated voice to speak out for them at this time. Our hunting is heading the way of the European system, greased by ineffectual representation and a powerful commercial lobby group serving its membership well. BC residents need the same strong representation for our hunters.

The RHABC will fight to the death for the priority rights of BC resident hunters. You can count on that.

To close, ask your friends and compatriots what they would have done if the new Policy had been signed off in late January as it stands today, with them as participants in its evolution (devolution might be a better term). Look for a real high bridge I would suspect. They were at the table, as it were. And while you're at it, ask them what's so wrong with the existing policy that firmly entrenches our priority as BC resident hunters?!

'til then the RHABC will keep up the good fight on Wednesday. Report to follow.

[GoatGuy]

40incher,

Now that I'm taking time to answer your questions and some of your 'comments' I would appreciate if you reply to mine.


Goatguy,
From one of your previous posts it is clear that you and those you defend feel threatened by the RHABC.
I don't feel 'threatened' - I don't believe that the BCWF is the end all, be all, but I KNOW that divided we stand to lose much more than we do to gain. I aknowledged several times that I have my gripes about what goes on BUT I don't see anyone else stepping in and actually doing something. My gripes are being tackled and I'm helping out in what capacity I can for resident hunters.

I also feel that from what I've read and what I know the RHABC and its members don't communicate the truth - this is what scares me most.



For one thing, GOABC members will not be able to hold office in the RHABC. . Valid argument and an issue within the members of the federation. You could certainly argue a conflict of interest. However, if one is effective and has the rights of resident hunters and general conservation I believe they are the right person. This brings me to the irony.

NONE of the posts relating to the RHABC has mentioned that Mr. O'Neill's wife, Terri O'Neill, is the BCWF President for the Skeena region and that she was at the convention a couple of weeks ago. A conflict of interest????? Please explain and rationalize.

Also, please tell us about Mr.O'Neill's history with the BCWF and what has happened in his past. While you're at it, tell us who the big supporters are and what their history with the BCWF was. I'll do you a favour and let you fill that part of the story in as I wouldn't want to twist what happened. Can you fill in the gaps? Don't include rhetoric or thoughts - lets stick to the facts here.

Furthermore, one would assume that if one was going to sit back and point fingers they'd want to

1) get on board
2) start their own organization BUT without trying to slander another organization without backing it up.



As for your assertion that the RHABC is not being factual, read the press release again. The RHABC certainly was not part of the flawed Allocation Policy Process rewrite, and never claimed to be. If the RHABC were given a seat, as promised by then-Minister Barisoff, it never would have come to within days of being signed of by an MOE bureaucrat authorized by the Minister. Signed off with resident priority way on the back shelf.
If you were/are remotely involved you'd certainly know that the BCWF never, ever signed off on the allocation policy and that thousands of hours have been spent by all interest groups. I realize it's tough to state facts when you're at a distance but it would bolster your argument.



The RHABC did, however, get the politicians to deep-six the signing off of the flawed document and to demand that MOE begin to consult openly on the issue. The meeting tomorrow in the community Smithers is proof of that. Kudos to MLA and RHABC member, Dennis MacKay, for that.
That is completely and totally wrong. There weren't any stakeholders who were happy with the allocation process including the guide outfitters - that is why it wasn't signed off. I have friends on both sides and in Victoria - no one is happy. That also comes straight from Victoria. (You should be thanking your MLA)



Lobbying by the RHABC has delayed the signing off of the new Policy, scheduled for late January, 2006.
This was out of your article and is the biggest farce I have yet to read. I find it funny how the RHABC "delayed" the sign off when they weren't even invited to the bargaining table. This is what scares me - an organization pretending they're high rollers and the saviours of resident hunters when they weren't even there.



To close, ask your friends and compatriots what they would have done if the new Policy had been signed off in late January as it stands today, with them as participants in its evolution (devolution might be a better term). .
Rhetoric - (watch how you use devolution ;-) wrong context devolution actually refers to decentralization of gov't control)



Look for a real high bridge I would suspect. They were at the table, as it were. And while you're at it, ask them what's so wrong with the existing policy that firmly entrenches our priority as BC resident hunters?!..
More rhetoric but I'll entertain a bit.

What's wrong with the current policy is that resident hunters have been getting the shaft for quite some time. Our "priority" has been eroded severely with several species and in several regions.

For example, since Grizzlies were opened back up the allocation policy has been a mess - close to 50/50 in many areas. What we need is not a piece of paper but something set in stone that is followed by all.

If you've read the proposed allocation policy we'd actually be getting more tags than we currently are in many areas - some would say a bonus. However we've lost of grip due in large part to regional biologists from what was traditionally a 70/30 minimum split.

What needs to be set out it a policy that is fair, aknowledges resident priority and cannot be changed/altered by regional biologists (think 7B).

After all of this is said and done I'm not opposed to the RHABC. I do wish it was all under one umbrella, but clearly that won't and can't happen. My interest in this is that things are truthful and represented properly. There are pages of comments in here that I feel I need to defend because I don't feel it's right to bash another organization or even a government without backing it up..

So long as things are put out the way it "really is" I have no problems. However, overstating your importance and position discriminates against others, not to mention is hard on your credibility. I've posted several questions here and throughout this thread - I hope they'll be answered.

[GoatGuy]

Ok, this is taking up way too much of my time when there are more valuable things I could/should be doing.

My understanding according to a friend in Victoria is that the meeting in Vanderhoof was for the MOE with one BCWF rep and one GOABC rep - nothing to do with the RHABC. The only reason there would be a RHABC representative is because he's the MLA - I've met him and he seems like a good guy and a straight shooter.

In any case, Paul Adams' door is open to all inquires from BCWF members in GOOD STANDING. Should you have any questions regarding core or anything else for that matter send them his way
paul@bcwf.bc.ca

CORE is currently on the verge of breaking even (yes I've seen the numbers) and there are several processes in the works right now to modify/improve CORE after receiving feedback from instructors and ministry employees.

I wish the RHABC good luck in the future fighting for resident hunters - that is, after all, what we should all be fighting for. Having said that I hope the RHABC goes about promoting their association in a much more ethical and truthful manner.

Here's to hunting.

[Sniper]

Hope RHABC gets a site up soon I would like to read a little more about this new organization and make a donation. I have to applaud RHABC for it's stance on not allowing GOABC people to become members I mean after all is this not letting the fox into the hen house? Sounds to me like RHABC is more like the type of organization I want to represent me and other BC hunters, rather than cow-towing to the government and GOABC we should be demanding a huge reduction or even the elimination of commercial wildlife killing.8)

[kutenay]

Why should there be ANY non-resident hunting in B.C. for ANY species that is not plentiful enough to support a generous open season/bag limit for B.C. residents first, then Canadian citizens who want to hunt here at a price that ordinary, working people can afford?

I am really tired of the GOABC having ANY voice in resource allocation; they exist to advance the financial interests of people who deliberately attempt to diminish the hunting opportunities of the B.C. people who OWN these animals and are an organization that is more questionable than the B.C.W.F., RHABC or even The Sierra Club and Western Canada Wilderness Committee.

I think that non-resident alien hunting is one of the biggest rip-offs of B.C. since the accursed Columbia River Treaty and I am in favour of a moratorium on it, perhaps a permanent ban.

[40incher]

Thanks for the good words Sniper. The RHABC are having their AGM next week and the website will be near the top of the agenda, right after the next steps of action on the Allocation Policy rewrite. Until then check out the FORES website as it has some of the RHABC info on it.

As for Goatguy's insinuatory diatribe it does not deserve a reply, other than my comment about him and the good'ol'boys feeling threatened obviously being a bit of an understatement.

The RHABC wants to work with all existing and willing organizations towards the goal of BC residents getting their fair share and their priority recognized. It is however time for a stand-alone and hunting-focussed organization to emerge as a strong voice for resident hunters, one that is not watered down by bureaucratic baggage and skeletons in the closet.

A brief update of the meeting yesterday is this: MOE still plans on pushing ahead for a signing off of the APP rewrite by this May. While the version we saw yesterday was somewhat improved, it is still a long way from being acceptable. Resident priority is mentioned and described, and the proposed minimums are 40% for BC residents and 10% for "commercial" operators. The use of the term commercial instead of "guide" is a concern as it supports the notion that Packers may be given allocation of animals in the future. This is also suggested by the definition of guides being that they have the sole rights to guide "non-resident hunters", that rightly should read "hunters". MOE refused to supply an electronic copy of the latest draft at the meeting, or after.

The RHABC will be opposing the rushed signing off, as too many questions remain unanswered. This is too important of an issue to be railroaded. MOE's excuse for the rush was that there was a deadline to meet?!

If you are an independant hunter, and value your lifestyle, you might want to make the Minister's Office and your Liberal MLA aware that you are not supportive of the secretive manner this process has evolved within. We need the whole draft APP to be released to the hunting public for their review and comments. This is how the RHABC got the sign-off put aside in the first place, and this is how we can again ensure BC hunters rights are fully considered.

Do not underestimate the power of your individual contact with the Minister or your MLA.

[huntwriter]

That'd be fantastic. It'd be great to be able to take kids out and teach 'em without having to jump thru ALL the hoops.

Lotta single moms in vancouver who's kids don't have a dad to take 'em out. But if you could teach 'em up on a .22 and take 'em out for grouse and see how they do without making them jump thru the hoops, who knows how many we'd get taking an interest. Heck - even if they just have some fun and learn a little about the tradition, at least they won't grow up to be anti's.
Funny, I have been saying just this all the time and got some stick for it too.;) Let the parents decide at what age they want to take chidren hunting, the younger the better. Let them shoot a small caliber rifle at the age 7 to 8 and take a simpliefied CORE course. If we really want to get new hunters we have to start at an age when children are most impressionable, which is at the age of 5 to 10. Why you think the anties shiften their efforts from high school students to kindergateners?

We sure have still a lot to learn about how to influence peoples and childrens minds and we might just as well learn from those who are against us because they are masters at influencing people with their lies trough clever advertising.

Instead we are busy to sort out different organizations politics and whose back to rub.

[Elkhound]

My wife is pro gun and hunting but she won't let my daughter shoot the .22 till she is 10.:-( I have not given up

[Salty]

As for Goatguy's insinuatory diatribe it does not deserve a reply

Bwaaaaahaa ha ha ha :lol: There's the pot calling the kettle black. You funny 'incher....

[huntwriter]

My wife is pro gun and hunting but she won't let my daughter shoot the .22 till she is 10.:-( I have not given up

Maybe she will let your taughter shoot a slingshot or a childrens play bow or let her go with you to the shooting range. But even if that is not possible you still can take your taughter out on a light scouting trip. That is what a relatieve of my wife does for some years now, ever since his taughter can walk. Now she is six years old and hell bent on the outdoors. Last fall when we butcherd his deer she watched me and asked a lot of questions about animal anatomy. It took me a long time to cut up the deer but it was a plessure to answer all her questions and see how interested she was. It's the beginning, the seed is sown.

[Elkhound]

Maybe she will let your taughter shoot a slingshot or a childrens play bow or let her go with you to the shooting range. But even if that is not possible you still can take your taughter out on a light scouting trip. That is what a relatieve of my wife does for some years now, ever since his taughter can walk. Now she is six years old and hell bent on the outdoors. Last fall when we butcherd his deer she watched me and asked a lot of questions about animal anatomy. It took me a long time to cut up the deer but it was a plessure to answer all her questions and see how interested she was. It's the beginning, the seed is sown.

No worries there, she is out there all the time with me. I did get her a sling shot and a toy bow, she is having fun.

[Rainwater]

Goatguy, You state that the BCWF rep will speak with member in good standing and good standing is hightlighted in Black. Do we have to tow the party line to talk to him?

[Gateholio]

Goatguy, You state that the BCWF rep will speak with member in good standing and good standing is hightlighted in Black. Do we have to tow the party line to talk to him?

In most organizations like the BCWF or your local club, the term "In good standing" is a neutral term used to describe a member that has his/her dues paid up, and has not been kicked out,, suspended or similar.

It does not mean that you must have the same opinion as everyone else.

[Sniper]

At least the MOE is calling the guide outfitters what they really are *commercial operators* I agree totaly with Kutenay there really shouldn't be any allocation to GOABC in any area where there is a limited entry season. In fact I think commercial wildlife killing should be phased out entirely, if the average hunter could see the B.S. that is going on in the back country I'm sure they would be very angry! Spotter planes circling mountain tops every evening spotting the big Rams for the next days hunt, salt blocks set out along trails, horse trails cut into every lick and grassy slope for miles in every direction and on and on. How the #### is any animal supposed to stay alive in an enviroment like that? Why would the MOE even consider giving any commercial operator(guide outfitter) any Roosevelt Elk tags on Vancouver Island when the odds of me getting an LEH tag are 150-1? Far as I'm concerned it should be goodbye mister chips for the guide outfitters! Maybe money talks and residents walk when you consider each Roosevelt Elk is worth $20,000 U.S.