Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 131

Thread: WSSBC - Large Carnivore ban

  1. #111
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ladner bc
    Posts
    242

    Re: WSSBC - Large Carnivore ban

    Every Hunter should preach and say they only hunt for Sustenance, its my right to have organic meat to feed my family.^^^^^^

    This is it in a nut shell

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Duncan
    Posts
    2,829

    Re: WSSBC - Large Carnivore ban

    To all my detractors, the key is to read it critically. You are so willing to disregard the message because of the messenger. But the message gives key information on how to control the narrative. First it does not matter how wildlife “should” be managed. These are becoming political decisions. Science and facts have very little relevance in political discourse these days. Public perception is everything, you are seriously fooling yourself if you think differently. Therefor all hunting regulation will be subject to social license. The paper shows population percentages of hunters... we are vastly out numbered and are not much of a voting block that needs to be appealed to by any politician. The paper demonstrates the effectiveness of hunter reaction to regulation changes pissing, moaning, shouting are not effective responses. Neither will appeals to science. We have a tremendous amount of public approval for hunting for food. If we want to keep hunting larger carnivores then we must change the narrative from trophy to meat. This could be easy with black bear, much harder with wolf and cougar. I think we could all take lessons from Steve Rinella and show the food we get off of all our kills rather than focus on the size of racks, paws, horns, teeth etc. Assume antis are reading our forums, which they are... and act accordingly. Get this narrative to the public at large so we can change the narrative from trophy to sustainable meat harvests that benefit local ecosystems. Then back that up with science!

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: WSSBC - Large Carnivore ban

    Quote Originally Posted by brian View Post
    To all my detractors, the key is to read it critically. You are so willing to disregard the message because of the messenger.
    I think the conflict here is that you're suggesting reading the paper in isolation and then making a judgement.

    Every activity that we undertake in society requires social license. What Raincoast did was take the concept of social license to operate, innovate it into a new phrase, "social license to hunt", then they posited a problem ("hunters don't have social license") that wasn't a real thing (was the government actually considering restricting hunting in BC at this time in response to a wide public outcry?), then they suggested a solution (cut the unpopular minority out of the herd, hunters!), then the academic paper was picked up in the media (because that always happens, right?) leading to multiple media instances of....manufactured public outcry.

    Perhaps I'm a crazy Alex Jonesy kind of QAnon conspiracy nut.

    Or maybe your detractors are telling you to look at the larger picture.

    Just a thought.

    It is a Raincoast theme that while science is great, it can't inform the public on what the social decisions a society has to make are. Typically, that's where Raincoast steps in with a helpful suggestion about what the moral and ethical way to behave is. The funny part (and i't probably a complete coincidence) is that Raincoast usually suggests that you stop liking things that they don't like.
    Last edited by Rob Chipman; 04-02-2021 at 07:27 PM.
    Rob Chipman
    "The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Lower Mainland
    Posts
    270

    Re: WSSBC - Large Carnivore ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Weatherby Fan View Post
    Thats the thing about hunting, there should be no such thing as "Trophy Hunting" as every hunt is for food, ( the trophy is in the eye of the beholder regardless if its a 30" buck or a doe you're still eating it )

    and I say it again and again this is one of the main reasons we lost the Grizzly Bear Hunt as we never had a leg to stand on because the hunters and guide/outfitters insisted that Grizzly meat was unfit for consumption and never wanted to take the meat out.....so in turn its deemed a "Trophy Hunt" by the tree huggers....

    man I got trashed on here many times for saying they need to change that designation for the Grizzly hunt where all edible portions must be taken out before we loose the hunt, I hate to say I told you so we all know how the GB hunt ended !!!

    Every Hunter should preach and say they only hunt for Sustenance, its my right to have organic meat to feed my family.
    I agree with you there Don, I was more so using the term in the context it was put in the paper put forth by Darimont/Raincoast and the seperation/segregation they try to use in it.

    Quote Originally Posted by brian View Post
    To all my detractors, the key is to read it critically. You are so willing to disregard the message because of the messenger. But the message gives key information on how to control the narrative. First it does not matter how wildlife “should” be managed. These are becoming political decisions. Science and facts have very little relevance in political discourse these days. Public perception is everything, you are seriously fooling yourself if you think differently. Therefor all hunting regulation will be subject to social license. The paper shows population percentages of hunters... we are vastly out numbered and are not much of a voting block that needs to be appealed to by any politician. The paper demonstrates the effectiveness of hunter reaction to regulation changes pissing, moaning, shouting are not effective responses. Neither will appeals to science. We have a tremendous amount of public approval for hunting for food. If we want to keep hunting larger carnivores then we must change the narrative from trophy to meat. This could be easy with black bear, much harder with wolf and cougar. I think we could all take lessons from Steve Rinella and show the food we get off of all our kills rather than focus on the size of racks, paws, horns, teeth etc. Assume antis are reading our forums, which they are... and act accordingly. Get this narrative to the public at large so we can change the narrative from trophy to sustainable meat harvests that benefit local ecosystems. Then back that up with science!
    I've read the paper atleast 25 times, I've printed and thrown it out at least 4 times, I currently have a copy sitting on my desk with a note pad highlighting specific lines used and biases pushed forth that clearly highlight agenda along with other articles, papers, and talks Chris Darimont speficially has done. He is a sick, conniving individual who will twist words to try and make people question everything... do you honestly believe Darimont is a hunter as he so claims to be? and if he is, what makes it okay in his mind to harvest certain species but not others? Pretty discriminatory if you want to look at it by logic that tends to be used by groups such as Raincoast.

    It would be pretty naïve to not take into consideration who is writing the paper and their resume as it sits, would it not? I feel like that must be taken into account as bias plays a massive part in a piece like this. You're taking this approach that as hunters we should just read this paper, bend over, and take it as they so feel they want to give it to us. The reality is the paper is an attack and a slap in the face of current Government employees... you know, the Biologists who spend every day working with wildlife and for that alone, we should be and they should be raising hell.

    I will agree with you on the front of public appeal to hunting for food. But how long is it before that changes to? I mean let's be real here, and they know it already to. When you break down the cost per pound of meat, it doesn't entirely make sense. Now let's take it a step further cause the general hunting community tends to stick to the "easier" to harvest species. IE. Deer, Moose, and Bear(Which I'll highlight as you forgot to, is an omnivore and not a carnivore as they so easily tried to put in the paper) let's go to sheep. You pointed out the idea of trophy in terms of racks, horns, and teeth... well as a Sheep Hunter, the goal is always to take the oldest most mature ram, characteristics of that are; horn growth, body size/stature, and sometimes a lack of teeth. We do this because biology and science tell us that in order to sustain a healthy herd, we should be targeting the most mature of the species. So, now lets take science out of the equation... no longer are we targeting the oldest ram's because social license says its wrong to target an animal that way, well what do you think is going to happen when we start taking the young 2 and 3 year old rams? What will happen to the herd? But hey, why not go a little further than that, since this is all based on social license and public opinion. I probably see 5 does to every buck I see(that's a moderate ratio). If we remove science and the need for wildlife management by it, now well public policy I'm sure will say why not harvest the easiest animal if its solely for food? Well that generally would be a doe? Disagree? Well what's going to happen then, when numerous does are being taken through out the province? Don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out... and don't forget, this is all happening while we can't harvest carnivores either... so wolves, bears(even though again as I noted its not a carnivore), cougars, etc will have management at all....

    Now, am I going to possibly an extreme here? Maybe. But at this point, I don't think any of that is outside of the realm of possibility when you talk about a social license, and to say we as hunters should just accept this paper and ideology of a social license, sorry but I'm not on board and I'll fight tooth and nail to protect a science based model and further, hunting. We as hunter's spend more time with these animals and I'd argue love these animals more than anyone else, and at the end of the day, we want what's best for them. So to wrap it up, tell the whole story, tell your' story, and do what you can to protect the very thing you love.

    PS. Sorry if I took that down a rabbit hole, but I've never been at a point like I have these last 6 weeks when it comes to being confused and trying to understand all of this as well as do what I can to take in all sorts of perspectives on the matter.
    Life begins where your comfort zone ends

    WSSBC Monarch; RMGA Life Member; 2% for Conservation Certified; WSF; BCWF

  5. #115
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Duncan
    Posts
    2,829

    Re: WSSBC - Large Carnivore ban

    You all bring up good points. I’m not saying read the paper and bend over. I am saying read the paper critically, (critically is the important word) and observe the tactics they are using. It gives us a road map to organize and fight back. Anybody who doesn’t believe social license doesn’t matter, we just lost the grizzly hunt because of it regardless of the work of wild life biologists. We lost the open bear hunts on Haida Gwaii because of it. Almost all political issues are pushed by small special interest groups that hope to manipulate the larger public by generating emotional responses. That is in essence what we are dealing with. Stats and science won’t matter when emotionally charged issues dominate them. Hunt what you will, but always connect it with a deeper meaning than a trophy hunt. Take the ammo away from the detractors. We can start doing this individually and as a hunting culture. Talk about bear sausage with every bear hunt. Talk caribou habitat with every wolf hunt. The more we focus on trophy aspects, the more we play into the hands of those who will destroy us in the court of public opinion. Will this sustain hunting long term? I have no idea, but I can see how culture is urbanizing and shifting away from the conventions of our forefathers. I personally think it is the best option going forward. I say this because I know a lot of city based left wing “granola crunchers” who are interested in hunting for food based on it being a sustainable healthy organic non factory farmed meat source. It’s a wedge issue for the left.

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,304

    Re: WSSBC - Large Carnivore ban

    Quote Originally Posted by brian View Post
    You all bring up good points. I’m not saying read the paper and bend over. I am saying read the paper critically, (critically is the important word) and observe the tactics they are using. It gives us a road map to organize and fight back. Anybody who doesn’t believe social license doesn’t matter, we just lost the grizzly hunt because of it regardless of the work of wild life biologists. We lost the open bear hunts on Haida Gwaii because of it. Almost all political issues are pushed by small special interest groups that hope to manipulate the larger public by generating emotional responses. That is in essence what we are dealing with. Stats and science won’t matter when emotionally charged issues dominate them. Hunt what you will, but always connect it with a deeper meaning than a trophy hunt. Take the ammo away from the detractors. We can start doing this individually and as a hunting culture. Talk about bear sausage with every bear hunt. Talk caribou habitat with every wolf hunt. The more we focus on trophy aspects, the more we play into the hands of those who will destroy us in the court of public opinion. Will this sustain hunting long term? I have no idea, but I can see how culture is urbanizing and shifting away from the conventions of our forefathers. I personally think it is the best option going forward. I say this because I know a lot of city based left wing “granola crunchers” who are interested in hunting for food based on it being a sustainable healthy organic non factory farmed meat source. It’s a wedge issue for the left.
    Good post. I think your logic is well reasoned. And as you say, the way we have been discussing things to this point isn't working. Continuing down the same path in future will generate a result none of the hunting community wants. Our two biggest enemies at this point are our response (not articulating a well thought out response) and social media (Facebook).

  7. #117
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Lowermainland
    Posts
    608

    Re: WSSBC - Large Carnivore ban

    Just entertaining a view I noticed that there is a mentioning of ciecle ... However no followup with the factual reprcucions ...ie "the ceicle effect" "social lisence my ass" the value of said wildlife is directly linked to people holding a substancial ammount of intrest .. Ever meet someone with goats ... Their not good for your orchard or yard but people like to keep them otherwise it would seem unlikely that we would allow them in our yards ... Now look at animals 110 x as large and tell me those ranchers who keep those game animals dont care for them the hard fact is trophy hunting does more financially for concervation than any "pro animal right" or "green" movment do I think your stuffing a sock in your pants by hunting a fenced in animal well I wont say but hundreds of acers is a big terrain and if you want to give 30+ thousand dollars almost directly to concervation ... Fill your boots .. As far as preds here in BC do what I do ... Take people. Out in the winter who dont often go find the doe and fawn tracks and show the dogs trailing them for kilometers .. Ask them what the story is based on what they see on the ground in the bush

  8. #118
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    138

    Re: WSSBC - Large Carnivore ban

    Regardless of what these tools succeed in changing, for me it will be SSS.
    WSSBC
    BCWF
    CCFR
    BHA

  9. #119
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Northern BC
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: WSSBC - Large Carnivore ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Weatherby Fan View Post
    Thats the thing about hunting, there should be no such thing as "Trophy Hunting" as every hunt is for food, ( the trophy is in the eye of the beholder regardless if its a 30" buck or a doe you're still eating it )

    and I say it again and again this is one of the main reasons we lost the Grizzly Bear Hunt as we never had a leg to stand on because the hunters and guide/outfitters insisted that Grizzly meat was unfit for consumption and never wanted to take the meat out.....so in turn its deemed a "Trophy Hunt" by the tree huggers....

    man I got trashed on here many times for saying they need to change that designation for the Grizzly hunt where all edible portions must be taken out before we loose the hunt, I hate to say I told you so we all know how the GB hunt ended !!!

    Every Hunter should preach and say they only hunt for Sustenance, its my right to have organic meat to feed my family.
    And I will say it again; you have to stop preaching this narrative. Hunting for food is NOT the only reason people hunt. It should not be the only acceptable reason to hunt. If you make the argument that "organic meat" is the only acceptable reason to hunt then that gets shot in the foot right quickly, because you CANNOT certify that an elk from the forest hasn't eaten something treated with a herbicide or pesticide. And if the only reason you hunt is for "organic meat" then the only way a person gets "organic meat" is from a farm where every single aspect an animals life is regulated and has a clearly documented chain of custody.

    I have said it before, and I will say it again, everyone has reasons to hunt, not all of them are about meat. The reason the grizzly hunt got shut down is because people don't like the idea of someone killing charismatic mega fauna. It wasn't because people don't like the idea of it not being eaten, it's because they have the emotional belief that it is morally wrong to kill an animal.
    The reason you and Jesse got trashed on here is because you (whether you understand this or not) directly contribute to the hunt being lost through tacit agreement.
    People with that view and speaking point give validity to that belief by saying "you know what, you are right. The only reason us HUNTERS think something should be killed is to be eaten and we agree with you".
    We all directly play into the demise of the hunt, by showing agreement with people who are reacting emotionally. You fuel that emotional thought and feed into the passion by saying that you AGREE with them, and you won't stand up against them. Any and all of the work that you have done, is negated the second you start agreeing with them and saying "yeah, you are right. That guys reasons to hunt aren't as good as MY reason to hunt, so I will agree with you and not stand against you. I will stand against people who share some of my beliefs instead, because I think you might win and I want you to like me and let me do MY stuff as long as I can". (And I type that full well knowing exactly how active you are in the WSSBC, and all fo the work and money you have contributed. I've even stood and talked with you in Kamloops about your donation rifles and work done)
    By agreeing with someone that the motivation behind hunting a grizzly was wrong (which is exactly what you are doing when you say 'yup, not taking meat bad, only hunt bear for meat'), you indicated that you agree with their emotional viewpoint, and gave them information and passion to push for the entire hunt to be closed. When you did that you in effect said "hey, yeah, you are right, grizzly hunters are a pretty small portion of the hunting community and we won't complain if you shut down the entire hunt, because their motivations to hunt bears is wrong and we don't like that either."

    Read that again ,and really think about what it is you are doing by stating that the only acceptable reason to hunt an animal is for meat. And no matter on how you INTEND that to be understood, someone who is emotionally invested in having NO ONE kill a cute fuzzy animal for any reason sees that as an opportunity and agreement with their viewpoint.
    Don't get me wrong, I fully understand the motivations behind trying to partially agree and negotiate to retain some segment of something, but that is the wrong track to take. Give an inch, and they will take a mile. This is exactly why we will end up losing sheep hunting, elk hunting, cat hunting, wolf hunting. People agreeing with the emotionally charged and saying "yep, you are right. The only reason anyone should hunt is for meat". And THAT is a losing battle, and here is why:

    -NOBODY hunts a sheep for meat. If a person wants meat a whitetail doe is exponentially easier to access, hunt, and process. That is the lowest cost most widely accessible fastest renewing meat resource we have available, with the possible exception of rabbits.
    The meat off of a ram is secondary to the entire experience. Being out there, being in the mountains, the effort required to get into sheep country, being able to do and experience something that not everyone has the drive or capability of doing, that is what makes a sheep hunter. Sheep hunting feeds the soul, not the body. People hunt sheep (or cats, or grizzlies, or goats) for the experience. NO ONE looks in the freezer Friday evening and thinks to themselves "getting pretty bare in here... I better head out for a Stone in the morning to put some meat on the table".

    I think what a lot of people forget, or refuse to critically think about, is that dealing with people who are anti hunting is that you aren't dealing with anyone who is focused on rational thought. The fact that you hunt, or I hunt, does not have any impact on that person's life in any way, shape, or form other than my activities offends them emotionally. Think about that for a second. Something that I do, offends someone to the point that they feel it should be illegal, even though it doesn't affect their life at all. My activities have no impact on them living their life, other than they don't like it.
    Where else have we seen this played out? In recent history gay marriage has been illegal. Why? Because gays were actively trying to go around marrying straight folk against their will? Nope, because people didn't like the idea of other people doing something that they didn't want them to do.
    What do we see now? A very vocal minority that has forced everyone to recognize their rights as individuals. It was easy for emotionally charged people to make it look like there were only a few deviants and to make gay marriage illegal, because they were quiet and kept to themselves. Now that segment of the population that was formerly viewed as a tiny minority is loud and proud and people are very cognizant of the fact that it could be anyone out there that they know and it isn't persecuted anymore. (Or at least not to the extent that it was anyway).

    Porthunter isn't wrong in his stance or approach to social media. Everyone needs to come out of the closet about hunting. Make the general public realize that a LOT of people they know hunt. We see it here all the time "None of my neighbors know I hunt or own guns".
    Where I live it is assumed that EVERYONE owns guns, and everyone hunts. No one bats an eye at seeing antlers or legs sticking out of a pickup. We, and by we I mean people living in more urban areas, need to be more visible. Show people that it is the neighbor that they chat to while cutting the lawn or walking into their apartment building isn't some crazy meth cooking hillbilly who is likely to start a gunfight on the street when they see a demon sneaking up or someone who will kill their poodle just to watch it die because they were overcome with bloodlust.
    Hiding in the shadows isn't going to do anyone any favours any more.

    And I sincerely hope you don't take this as an attack on you or anything you have worked/are working for, but I sincerely hope that you read this and look introspectively at what you might be giving tacit approval to when you say things like "Every Hunter should preach and say they only hunt for Sustenance"

    And I have no doubt whatsoever that some folks are going to be offended by this entire post (although I'm betting it is likely going to be the "meat hunting is the only acceptable reason to hunt" crowd) and some folks are going to be nodding their heads, and some folks will be vocal in agreement.

    I'm going to end this post, with the statement that hunting to feed your body is not the only valid reason to hunt. It can be your reason, but it doesn't have to be MY reason. My reasons are varied, and personal. And all of my reasons are valid, to me. That doesn't make them less or more valid than your reasons, but I respect your reasons to hunt. Show me the same consideration please.
    Last edited by KodiakHntr; 04-03-2021 at 10:17 AM. Reason: Inflammatory when I read it again. Changed some words.


  10. #120
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,397

    Re: WSSBC - Large Carnivore ban

    I would have to agree with Kodiak. There were a few groups, podcasts and individuals who on their own right decided to play along with the social license bullshit last time around. Look where that got us..

    People hunt for many different reasons.
    WSSBC
    CCFR

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •