Welcome to True North Outdoor Hunting Forum - British Columbia and Beyond

It looks like you haven't created an account yet. Why not take a minute to register for your own free account now? As a member you get free access to all of our forums and posts plus the ability to post your own messages, communicate directly with other members and much more.

Register Log in

Class-action lawsuit over grizzly hunting ban

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Foxton Gundogs

Admin./,Cedar BC
Messages
12,921
Reaction score
4,002
Location
Cedar
true to some extent. we all want game to hunt, g/os also have $$ on the table and fight to protect their businesses
friendly when needed, but selfish at times also. would expect nothing more, follow the money they say
Well one thing is for sure if we don't work together there will be nothing left to fight over. We can argue allocation latter right now we need to fight this ban tooth and nail with every thing and every body we have.
 

Turnagain

Well-Known Member
Messages
204
Reaction score
392
Location
Interior BC
[QUOTE="sealevel,
turnigain i have read your posts enough to know you have your own agenda .[/QUOTE]

You’re right sealevel, I do have an agenda.
I want this province to have properly managed wildlife so we all have something for the future.
The past hasn’t worked....we need some changes and some of the obstacles need to disappear.
 

IronNoggin

Stone Cold
Messages
5,078
Reaction score
4,006
Location
Port Alberni
BCWF Response:

"Populism and the Ban on the Grizzly Hunt

Several questions have come up after the recent news of a guide outfitting company launching a class-action suit against B.C.’s ban on the grizzly bear hunt.

The BC Wildlife Federation will take no position on this matter because, as a conservation organization, the BCWF is not in the business of supporting court cases for guide-outfitters or any other industry that seeks compensation from the government. It is important to point out that this lawsuit will not affect the interests of resident hunters. It is simply about compensation for these guide-outfitters who represent a small population of hunters.

Nevertheless, the BCWF continues to be in full support of the re-opening of the grizzly bear hunt. The BCWF will continue to support science-based decision making, not populist-based decision making. The decision by the B.C. government to ban the regulated grizzly hunt to all but Indigenous hunters is a prime example of a populist-based decision.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines “populism” as: Political ideas and activities that are intended to get the support of ordinary people by giving them what they want. The ideas are often put forward in the absence of science or analysis of the long-term policy implications. The threshold for populism is often driven by “popular support” for an idea, not because it is rational, stable or in the best interests of the resource, but because it is politically popular and in the short term will garner political support.

The question is, do you want your government to make the popular decision, or the rational decision? The former is driven by the public opinion, the latter by rigorous analysis of the consequences in terms of what is in the best interests of the resource and the populace.



In B.C., 78 percent of the public, according to the government is against the hunting of grizzly bears. But a rigorous analysis was conducted by the B.C. Auditor General and the conclusion was that hunting was not seen as a threat to grizzly bear sustainability and was considered a minor factor within the issue of larger habitat management.

Prior to a final decision on grizzly bear hunting, government was left with two choices; leave the status quo or ban all licensed hunting of grizzly bears.

Populism won the day and now there is no hunt. First Nations can continue to hunt if they choose. The larger issue is this constitutionally protected right will be hollow when their fish and wildlife populations are gone. The right to gain economically from commercial uses of natural resources under the UN Declaration of Indigenous Peoples is also in question. First Nations have strong voices and can speak for themselves on how, where and why they want to engage in the grizzly bear debate.

As for what the BCWF is doing about the grizzly bear hunt ban, it is anticipated that some First Nations will initiate grizzly hunts as early as this spring, as they have the constitutional right to do so. This may well lead to some opportunity to re-open the discussion with government. If and when such opportunity arises, we will take the same stance as we did before – hunt based on science.
 

Foxton Gundogs

Admin./,Cedar BC
Messages
12,921
Reaction score
4,002
Location
Cedar
What a F-ing cop out that's all I have to say. Talk about A pure deflection to try and keep the rift open and shift the focus. This memo does less for the BC Resident Hunters ot Hunters in general than the lawsuit they attack. At least someone is doing something I wish as much could be said of the current executive of the BCWF. Hopefully the Next AGM will replace the milk toast representation we now have but as the saying goes "I'm from Missouri". As far as preference given to hunters based on race, religion or color all I can say is.

 
Last edited:

Foxton Gundogs

Admin./,Cedar BC
Messages
12,921
Reaction score
4,002
Location
Cedar
I will qualify my above opinion. What I find especially offensive is the last paragraph

As for what the BCWF is doing about the grizzly bear hunt ban, it is anticipated that some First Nations will initiate grizzly hunts as early as this spring, as they have the constitutional right to do so. This may well lead to some opportunity to re-open the discussion with government. If and when such opportunity arises, we will take the same stance as we did before – hunt based on science.

Would someone please tell me how this double talk addresses the first part of the paragraph which appears in bold print. It says what the Indians may do but does nothing to answer the question "what is the BCWF doing". They will not give a concrete answer as to why they have all but deserted the hunters and shooters who make up the majority of the membership. They beat the drum of being a conservation organization NOT a Hunters organization. But wait, in their own history printed below they say that the origins of the BCWF were with Fish and GAME Clubs who are and always have been Hunters Organizations their roots are deep and hunters are those roots.

The first convention formed the "Sportsmen's Council" whose role was to assist the B.C. Game Commission in managing the fish and wildlife resource for all people of the British Columbia. The Council's first incorporation was in 1951. In 1956, the name was changed to the B.C. Federation of Fish and Game Clubs and a new constitution was adopted. In 1958 and again in 1965, the B.C. Federation of Fish and Game Clubs applied for recognition as a charitable organization.


Sometime along the way they (the executive in ensuing years) slowly started to allow the roots to erode. They have slowly but surely deserted their base and found new support with the likes of Raincoast. This has been akin to a frog placed in water and slowly heated till it boils to death and the frog never knows it is happening.
I challenge the BCWF and it affiliate clubs to prove their support in the direction THEY have chosen. Remove the mandatory requirement to pay for a BCWF membership with our local Rod and Gun dues. Give members the choice of voluntarily buying stand alone memberships and see what happens to the membership numbers. Let hunters decide if they want to be pressed into membership in Raincost partner or not. If memberships do not significantly drop then I will admit I am wrong. The provincial fih and game clubs can then take the percentage of our dues and unite to provide their membership with the insurance which is the only thing that hunters are currently getting from the Fed.
The proof will be in the pudding so to speak.
 

Big Lew

This IS My Life
Messages
7,345
Reaction score
2,872
Location
Mission B.C.
I will qualify my above opinion. What I find especially offensive is the last paragraph

As for what the BCWF is doing about the grizzly bear hunt ban, it is anticipated that some First Nations will initiate grizzly hunts as early as this spring, as they have the constitutional right to do so. This may well lead to some opportunity to re-open the discussion with government. If and when such opportunity arises, we will take the same stance as we did before – hunt based on science.

Would someone please tell me how this double talk addresses the first part of the paragraph which appears in bold print. It says what the Indians may do but does nothing to answer the question "what is the BCWF doing". They will not give a concrete answer as to why they have all but deserted the hunters and shooters who make up the majority of the membership. They beat the drum of being a conservation organization NOT a Hunters organization. But wait, in their own history printed below they say that the origins of the BCWF were with Fish and GAME Clubs who are and always have been Hunters Organizations their roots are deep and hunters are those roots.

The first convention formed the "Sportsmen's Council" whose role was to assist the B.C. Game Commission in managing the fish and wildlife resource for all people of the British Columbia. The Council's first incorporation was in 1951. In 1956, the name was changed to the B.C. Federation of Fish and Game Clubs and a new constitution was adopted. In 1958 and again in 1965, the B.C. Federation of Fish and Game Clubs applied for recognition as a charitable organization.

Sometime along the way they (the executive in ensuing years) slowly started to allow the roots to erode. They have slowly but surely deserted their base and found new support with the likes of Raincoast. This has been akin to a frog placed in water and slowly heated till it boils to death and the frog never knows it is happening.
I challenge the BCWF and it affiliate clubs to prove their support in the direction THEY have chosen. Remove the mandatory requirement to pay for a BCWF membership with our local Rod and Gun dues. Give members the choice of voluntarily buying stand alone memberships and see what happens to the membership numbers. Let hunters decide if they want to be pressed into membership in Raincost partner or not. If memberships do not significantly drop then I will admit I am wrong. The provincial fih and game clubs can then take the percentage of our dues and unite to provide their membership with the insurance which is the only thing that hunters are currently getting from the Fed.
The proof will be in the pudding so to speak.
So totally agree with you JIm...so totally agree! As is said, "S--t or get off the pot" Either be with and for us, or let us go out own way.
 

Foxton Gundogs

Admin./,Cedar BC
Messages
12,921
Reaction score
4,002
Location
Cedar
To paraphrase ONJ, "If you're for us let us know, if you're not we gotta go":Good Post:
 
Last edited:

Foxton Gundogs

Admin./,Cedar BC
Messages
12,921
Reaction score
4,002
Location
Cedar
More double talk from Andrusak. I am not even sure how to reply to this BS and deflection. When the last big problem with the BCWF was hot and heavy this site submitted a bunch of honest questions to the then acting pres. Andrusak who all but refused to answer any of them and those he would answer he would only do so if our representatives would sign a gag order before being allowed into the meeting and yes we have written proof of his stance. He says 65% of members agreed with the path the Fed is taking. My question is that 65% of the membership OR (more likely) 65% of responding members. We have exchanged one horrible executive for one equally as bad in other ways.
BCWF, stop hiding behind "Charitable Status", quit budding up to the Antis, quit ignoring your base that was the foundation of the BCWF and stand up for our rights as hunters, shooters and firearm owners or admit that you have sold out to political correctness, and corporate donations. Make your membership stand alone not forced by our membership to local ROD and GUN clubs and lets see what the number of supporters truly are. I would love to see the next executive Grow a pair and stand up for it's base membership. Hopeful but not optimistic.

Good morning Mr. Fox.

Facts are difficult to deny and the facts suggest you are not very informed as evidenced in your questions dated yesterday. The change over a year ago in BCWF leadership had little to do with outside influence----I can assure you of that and I don’t wish to dig up the past. I have delivered on my promise to clean up our office and stabilize the organization. If it makes you any happier I can advise I will not be running for President next May.

The grizzly bear ban was decided before the provincial election and regardless of what we said or did the government had decided on this issue. With respect to access a major breakthrough on locked gates on Vancouver Island was achieved last year thanks to the Victoria F&G club. This is huge considering various clubs/BCWF have been trying for over two decades to gain access. The club has negotiated an electronic key for BCWF members that allows BCWF members to enter the gated road. There was a full page article in a recent BC Outdoors about this. You have to remember this is private land (most of west side of VI is private land and the owners (Timber West and others) have a legal right to gate their private land. Our access committee is currently working for a second gate to be accessible to our members.

There is no partnership with Raincoast---we only asked them for their verbal support on our Heart of the Fraser issue and this has nothing to do with hunting. I find it hypocritical of you for mention Herrling Island that is located in your backyard. I have yet to hear any voice from Region 2 (except for your regional president) on support for the Heart of the Fraser. If you are as concerned about fish habitat as any conservationist should be then why haven’t I heard from you or other region 2 members? We are nearing success on this initiative thanks to many influential people & many direct members with conservation foremost in their minds.

Our recent membership survey indicated that over 65% stated we were doing either a very good job or a good job---and less than 10% said we were doing a poor job. You are clearly in the 10% category.

Rather than simply criticize what we are doing—or not doing---how about putting forth some positive ideas to move forward with?

H. Andrusak
BCWF

President
 

Big Lew

This IS My Life
Messages
7,345
Reaction score
2,872
Location
Mission B.C.
More double talk from Andrusak. I am not even sure how to reply to this BS and deflection. When the last big problem with the BCWF was hot and heavy this site submitted a bunch of honest questions to the then acting pres. Andrusak who all but refused to answer any of them and those he would answer he would only do so if our representatives would sign a gag order before being allowed into the meeting and yes we have written proof of his stance. He says 65% of members agreed with the path the Fed is taking. My question is that 65% of the membership OR (more likely) 65% of responding members. We have exchanged one horrible executive for one equally as bad in other ways.
BCWF, stop hiding behind "Charitable Status", quit budding up to the Antis, quit ignoring your base that was the foundation of the BCWF and stand up for our rights as hunters, shooters and firearm owners or admit that you have sold out to political correctness, and corporate donations. Make your membership stand alone not forced by our membership to local ROD and GUN clubs and lets see what the number of supporters truly are. I would love to see the next executive Grow a pair and stand up for it's base membership. Hopeful but not optimistic.

Good morning Mr. Fox.

Facts are difficult to deny and the facts suggest you are not very informed as evidenced in your questions dated yesterday. The change over a year ago in BCWF leadership had little to do with outside influence----I can assure you of that and I don’t wish to dig up the past. I have delivered on my promise to clean up our office and stabilize the organization. If it makes you any happier I can advise I will not be running for President next May.

The grizzly bear ban was decided before the provincial election and regardless of what we said or did the government had decided on this issue. With respect to access a major breakthrough on locked gates on Vancouver Island was achieved last year thanks to the Victoria F&G club. This is huge considering various clubs/BCWF have been trying for over two decades to gain access. The club has negotiated an electronic key for BCWF members that allows BCWF members to enter the gated road. There was a full page article in a recent BC Outdoors about this. You have to remember this is private land (most of west side of VI is private land and the owners (Timber West and others) have a legal right to gate their private land. Our access committee is currently working for a second gate to be accessible to our members.

There is no partnership with Raincoast---we only asked them for their verbal support on our Heart of the Fraser issue and this has nothing to do with hunting. I find it hypocritical of you for mention Herrling Island that is located in your backyard. I have yet to hear any voice from Region 2 (except for your regional president) on support for the Heart of the Fraser. If you are as concerned about fish habitat as any conservationist should be then why haven’t I heard from you or other region 2 members? We are nearing success on this initiative thanks to many influential people & many direct members with conservation foremost in their minds.

Our recent membership survey indicated that over 65% stated we were doing either a very good job or a good job---and less than 10% said we were doing a poor job. You are clearly in the 10% category.

Rather than simply criticize what we are doing—or not doing---how about putting forth some positive ideas to move forward with?

H. Andrusak
BCWF

President
Maybe I am missing something but all I read is a standard genaric reply simpler to ones I have received from the government... and no mention of the serious hunting and firearm concerns.
 

Foxton Gundogs

Admin./,Cedar BC
Messages
12,921
Reaction score
4,002
Location
Cedar
Maybe I am missing something but all I read is a standard genaric reply simpler to ones I have received from the government... and no mention of the serious hunting and firearm concerns.
Bing Bing Bing Give the man a Cigar. You got it buddy. You miss nothing. Perhaps a thread where members here can respond to the standard, BCWF go to answer, which makes up the final sentence of the.

"Rather than simply criticize what we are doing—or not doing---how about putting forth some positive ideas to move forward with?"

Not that I would expect anymore cooperation than the last time we tried to get answers from then "acting president" Harvey Andrusak. But at least we can say we respondended to his request.
On a personal not I find it very suspicious that they will not support the guide's actions to try to hold the Government accountable for the emotion based ban on the g-bear hunt but have no trouble asking the ANTI HUNTING organization Raincoast for their support.


 
Last edited:

Turnagain

Well-Known Member
Messages
204
Reaction score
392
Location
Interior BC
Jim, nothing will change at the next election of the BCWF even if Andrusak steps out.
There are a couple of paid guns within that organization that are steering the bus with the current executive and they were there with the former executive that some seem to hold in dislike.
The BCWF will not crawl out of the slime pot it’s in until the door is slamming them on the butt cheeks as well.
Some of us are involved to a degree in provincial wildlife politics....there are a couple of faces that have been identified as non productive players.
Their mission is to create conflict and division....nothing more.
In the meantime they’ve given their anti buddies a good boost.
 

IronNoggin

Stone Cold
Messages
5,078
Reaction score
4,006
Location
Port Alberni
“I think, generally, most people care about wildlife and, in this particular instance, the outfitting community has the ability to sue for damages, the resident hunting community does not. So if we had a choice, I’m not speaking for Ron, but if we had a choice and if you were to ask him, I would bet my house that he would pick opening the hunt again and proper wildlife management over having to sue the Government for damages.”

https://www.energeticcity.ca/2019/01/guide-outfitters-association-of-bc-speaks-about-bear-ban-lawsuit/

Regardless of what he would pick, the suit is designed specifically to demand "compensation"
NOT reinstating the hunt.
Period. Full Stop.

Now should consideration be given to reinstatement as a consequence of the suit, great.
If it doesn't, the "involvement" of the vast majority of hunters will simply be to contribute to the tax coffers used to pay the compensation.

I fully agree something must be done.
Not certain if this is the right something or not.
Ramifications either way, win or lose.
And those ramifications will effect ALL hunters in the province for the foreseeable future...

Nervous on this one...
Nog
 

REMINGTON JIM

Rem M700 XCR 11 375 H&H Shooter
Messages
5,148
Reaction score
170
Location
Reg 3 Kammy
Im totally ALL in for the G Bear hunt to come back to BC for Resident Hunters and GOs too ! But NO compensation PAYED to anyone ! RJ
 

gcreek

Beware of fat cooks and solictors for beer money!
Messages
221
Reaction score
352
Location
West Chilcotin
Im totally ALL in for the G Bear hunt to come back to BC for Resident Hunters and GOs too ! But NO compensation PAYED to anyone ! RJ
C'mon Jim, others who lose employment get reimbursed by UI or welfare. What is different about this?
 

gcreek

Beware of fat cooks and solictors for beer money!
Messages
221
Reaction score
352
Location
West Chilcotin
“I think, generally, most people care about wildlife and, in this particular instance, the outfitting community has the ability to sue for damages, the resident hunting community does not. So if we had a choice, I’m not speaking for Ron, but if we had a choice and if you were to ask him, I would bet my house that he would pick opening the hunt again and proper wildlife management over having to sue the Government for damages.”

https://www.energeticcity.ca/2019/01/guide-outfitters-association-of-bc-speaks-about-bear-ban-lawsuit/

Regardless of what he would pick, the suit is designed specifically to demand "compensation"
NOT reinstating the hunt.
Period. Full Stop.

Now should consideration be given to reinstatement as a consequence of the suit, great.
If it doesn't, the "involvement" of the vast majority of hunters will simply be to contribute to the tax coffers used to pay the compensation.

I fully agree something must be done.
Not certain if this is the right something or not.
Ramifications either way, win or lose.
And those ramifications will effect ALL hunters in the province for the foreseeable future...

Nervous on this one...
Nog
In all due respect Matt, for a fellow that advertises himself as a hunting guide on public media, you sure don't support them well.
 

IronNoggin

Stone Cold
Messages
5,078
Reaction score
4,006
Location
Port Alberni
In all due respect Matt, for a fellow that advertises himself as a hunting guide on public media, you sure don't support them well.
Pretty much an ex-guide at this point, and never did do that in BC except plying the salt chuck.
Still have many Buddies that do, and some here too.
And while I do support them, there are times I have to question doing so unilaterally...

That said, you are missing my concerns here.

Walking Buffalo perhaps said it best on another Forum (and yeah, I asked before using...):

"When dealing with lawsuits, one needs to consider implications of the decision, whether for or against.

Everyone here seems to be missing potential implications to ALL hunters that may result from this case.

What happens if they Lose?

As it appears their case is being argued that the government should have used existing wildlife management policy to determine the threshold for allowing this species to be hunted, and that "social licence" should not be used....

If the case is lost, this could strengthen governments legal ability to base future decisions regarding hunting to be based purely on international Social licence.

A future dubious poll approves of eliminating all predator hunting, done.
Another poll approves of eliminating all ungulate hunting, done.
All at no cost other than an internet poll.

What may happens if they Win?

Again, as the lawsuit appears to only be asking for financial compensation, the implications could give legal precedent that will have adverse effects to ALL hunters.

The courts may still decide that the government has the right to close hunting based on Social licence opinion, and all is required is to pay off the outfitters.
No ground to re-open a hunt has been gained. ALL hunters lose except for those outfitters that get payed off to end hunting.

Or the court could decide that the government has to follow existing wildlife management policy....
And still offer no compensation to the outfitters.
And still keep the hunt closed as their was no request to have the hunt reinstated.
At least this decision would give energy to re-opening the hunt, having ruled against the social licence principle.

As explained above, there are great concerns whether the case is lost, or won.

How much damage would a "win" do to the pillars of Wildlife being an entity that no one "Owns", that is managed in trust by the government for all people?

Will a win for $ erode the North American model of Wildlife management?
Will governments will just have to pay $ to a few people to end hunting?

Or it may make them realize they just have to pay $ to end hunting.
No big deal when it is not your money.
The anti-hunting base would love this opportunity.

The concerns of this case go FAR beyond any consideration of bandwagons and praise, for or against Outfitters.


Legal cases have legal consequences.

Bringing Money into the case is the problem.

The lawsuit should be limited to suing to have the hunt reinstated, and that's all.
"

And that, right there, is what has me very much concerned for the way this is playing out...
No inference involved as to my support (or lack thereof) to Outfitters nor Guides.
Really.

Cheers,
Nog
 

gcreek

Beware of fat cooks and solictors for beer money!
Messages
221
Reaction score
352
Location
West Chilcotin
Pretty much an ex-guide at this point, and never did do that in BC except plying the salt chuck.
Still have many Buddies that do, and some here too.
And while I do support them, there are times I have to question doing so unilaterally...

That said, you are missing my concerns here.

Walking Buffalo perhaps said it best on another Forum (and yeah, I asked before using...):

"When dealing with lawsuits, one needs to consider implications of the decision, whether for or against.

Everyone here seems to be missing potential implications to ALL hunters that may result from this case.

What happens if they Lose?

As it appears their case is being argued that the government should have used existing wildlife management policy to determine the threshold for allowing this species to be hunted, and that "social licence" should not be used....

If the case is lost, this could strengthen governments legal ability to base future decisions regarding hunting to be based purely on international Social licence.

A future dubious poll approves of eliminating all predator hunting, done.
Another poll approves of eliminating all ungulate hunting, done.
All at no cost other than an internet poll.


What may happens if they Win?

Again, as the lawsuit appears to only be asking for financial compensation, the implications could give legal precedent that will have adverse effects to ALL hunters.

The courts may still decide that the government has the right to close hunting based on Social licence opinion, and all is required is to pay off the outfitters.
No ground to re-open a hunt has been gained. ALL hunters lose except for those outfitters that get payed off to end hunting.


Or the court could decide that the government has to follow existing wildlife management policy....
And still offer no compensation to the outfitters.
And still keep the hunt closed as their was no request to have the hunt reinstated.
At least this decision would give energy to re-opening the hunt, having ruled against the social licence principle.


As explained above, there are great concerns whether the case is lost, or won.

How much damage would a "win" do to the pillars of Wildlife being an entity that no one "Owns", that is managed in trust by the government for all people?

Will a win for $ erode the North American model of Wildlife management?
Will governments will just have to pay $ to a few people to end hunting?


Or it may make them realize they just have to pay $ to end hunting.
No big deal when it is not your money.
The anti-hunting base would love this opportunity.


The concerns of this case go FAR beyond any consideration of bandwagons and praise, for or against Outfitters.

Legal cases have legal consequences.

Bringing Money into the case is the problem.

The lawsuit should be limited to suing to have the hunt reinstated, and that's all. "

And that, right there, is what has me very much concerned for the way this is playing out...
No inference involved as to my support (or lack thereof) to Outfitters nor Guides.
Really.

Cheers,
Nog
Thank you.
 

IronNoggin

Stone Cold
Messages
5,078
Reaction score
4,006
Location
Port Alberni
Wildlife First™
FIGHT FOR THE HUNT: Q-and-As

When was the class action filed?
•The class action was filed December 19, 2018.

Who filed the class action?
•Ron Fleming, owner of Love Bros & Lee, a 45-year guide outfitting company outside Smithers, BC, and longtime member of GOABC, initiated the class action proceedings in BC Supreme Court.

Why is this class action happening?
•In 2017, the Government of BC implemented a complete ban on grizzly bear hunting based on emotion instead of science.
•A settlement will bring financial relief to the guide outfitters who have and will continue to see substantial losses to their businesses or livelihoods because of the government’s arbitrary action.
•It is disappointing that small businesses have no choice but to bring a lawsuit against the government.

What is the next step?
•The first big milestone of a class action is to achieve certification. In this step the court decides whether the lawsuit should proceed to a class action. Once certification is successful, notice will be given to potential members of the class.
•We expect to reach this milestone by April 2019.

Who will be included in the class?
•As we understand it at this time, all outfitters who were issued quota in 2017 will automatically be included in the class. Those who do not wish to be part of the class action must opt out and thereafter take no part in the proceeding.

How long does a class action take?
•It can take anywhere from two to three years to complete a class action.

Can Ron sue to re-open the grizzly bear hunt?
•No. Businesses may only sue for damages. This is also why resident hunters do not have a legal option.
•The remedies sought are: damages for negligent misrepresentation; damages for misfeasance in public office; special damages; and, punitive damages.

What was wrong with the government’s action?
•The complete ban on hunting does nothing to address the very real and legitimate threat of habitat loss, which was confirmed in a recent Auditor General’s report.•Grizzly bear hunting in BC has been highly controlled and regulated since 1976. Harvesting less than 2% of the total grizzly population annually helps prevent population swings and maintain a reliable, healthy balance.

What is GOABC’s position?
•GOABC is disappointed that the Government of BC implemented a complete ban on grizzly bear hunting, ignoring the environmental evidence and putting at risk the livelihoods of outfitters.
•GOABC regrets the need for a lawsuit, but supports our members taking an action they feel is necessary to protect their businesses and families from financial hardship.

Is GOABC taking a position on the government’s transition fund offer?
•No. Individual guide outfitters should do whatever they think is appropriate for their circumstances. GOABC will not advise our members on what action they should or should not take. Supporting our members, however, is our mission and, as such, we will keep members informed about options available, including the class action and our work attempting to reach a better deal with the government.

Can an outfitter accept the government’s transition offer and also participate in the class action?
•Those who have decided to accept government’s transition offer by February 1st, 2019 must sign government’s release letter and will therefore no longer be eligible to participate in the class action.

Will the outcome of this class action set Canadian case law?
•Yes, this case is filed with the BC Supreme Court and will set Canadian case law.

What can supporters of grizzly bear hunting do if they want to get involved?
•Hunters and businesses across BC connected to guide outfitting are encouraged to contact their local MLA to voice their concern. •Make a contribution to Ron’s legal defence fund via lovebroslee@bulkley.net or direct deposit to the account #02160-1001718.

https://huntersforbc.ca/images/Grizzly-Docs/Fight_for_the_Hunt_-_Q_and_As.pdf

Can anyone enlighten regarding "the government's transition offer" to outfitters effected by the Grizzly Bear hunt closure ??

Wondering...
Nog
 

IronNoggin

Stone Cold
Messages
5,078
Reaction score
4,006
Location
Port Alberni
Got something of an answer... From one directly involved:



So each year we receive a quota letter outlining what our yearly quota is based on our 5 year maximum quota.

So in 2017 I had a quota of 2 grizzly in my northern concession, my southern concession is owned by an American Corporation even though I hold the Guide/Outfitters license so they will fight as a separate entity.

So my compensation offer is based off those 2 bears for just that one season. In essence $15,500 maximum per bear on quota ($31,000 max )

This was the first year (2017) of our new 5 year quotas, so even the guys with the lowest quota in the province of 1 bear in 5 years, would be included because they had 1 bear on quota in 2017. The highest quota I know of was 26 bears in 5 years, so that outfit would have had 5 or 6 bears on quota for the first year (2017)

The class action lawsuit is based on your 5 year quota, so far more accurate as to what each Outfitter will be eligible to receive, if we win that is.

And yes Matt, share away. I don’t believe it was meant to be kept a secret from our end.


Cheers,
Nog
 

KH4

Well-Known Member
Messages
466
Reaction score
327
Location
Kootenays
So, I'm just trying to frame this out a bit, as I have not a lot of knowledge of the operations.

Small outfits probably had 1 or 2 quotas for the 17/18 year?... an they're being compensated up to $15k for each. So even a small outfit would get $15-30k.? Would a small outfit with only 1-2 quotas rid their entire business on 1-2 bear tags? Would they book more hunts than tags, banking on unsuccessful hunts? Cancel if quota reached in first two hunts?

I large outfit would have a larger 5 year quota, but probably 5-6 bears in 17/18, so they would get up to $+90k? Again, would a large outfitter bank their whole business on bear hunts?

It takes 5 years to pivot your business in a province with the most big game species in all of north america?

The original releases made it sound like there was no compensation, obviously not true, just looking for more compensation over the entire 5 year quota?

Are their other programs that compensate small business when laws/regulations are changed? Kind of sounds generous to me, I wonder why it seemed like may GOs were relatively quiet, this GO wants more $?

I'm whole heatedly against the gov't decision to politicize and cancel the gbear hunt on a non-scientific basis.
 

Turnagain

Well-Known Member
Messages
204
Reaction score
392
Location
Interior BC
What’s not being paid attention to here is that the $15,500 payout is an offered transition fee for an outfitter to look at other business alternatives than actually hunting a grizzly.
Also it says ...the maximum amount MAY be lower based on administration costs and quota numbers.
Nobody...other than maybe the guy with 1 grizzly bear per year is going to get $15,500 for each bear they had on quota for that timeframe.
Accepting this buyout would be recognizing the end of the hunt with no real dollar value attached.
Screw the NDP/Greens....when this class action takes in more participants I’ll be in Ron Fleming’s corner working to get the BC grizzly bear hunt reinstated.
Too bad all BC resident hunters and their representive groups can’t get on board to support a move that could ultimately bring the hunt back for all of us.
 
Last edited:

Foxton Gundogs

Admin./,Cedar BC
Messages
12,921
Reaction score
4,002
Location
Cedar
I've been part of the them and us movement, it got us nowhere, strength in numbers we can argue out the nuances after we shove the G-bear ban and other problems up the governments


I do think though that it would help if the GOABC would come out and state that they want to partner with the Resident Hunters in battling the NDGs instead of letting old wounds caused by old executives fester.
 

Turnagain

Well-Known Member
Messages
204
Reaction score
392
Location
Interior BC
I do think though that it would help if the GOABC would come out and state that they want to partner with the Resident Hunters in battling the NDGs instead of letting old wounds caused by old executives fester.
Jim, speaking for myself I have no problem partnering and working with resident hunters.
I am one.
As for working with the group that tells us that they are the “voice of BC resident hunters”....I draw the line....to an extent.
That group, for the most part is made up of some very solid individuals that are sincere people volunteering their time for the betterment of the wildlife issues in this province.
That said, the same group has a handful of individuals within the ranks that are manipulating the organization and using it to push their own personal vendettas.
Some of us can not and will not work with them in the future.
The same can be said for the guides side I’m sure.
 
Last edited:

KH4

Well-Known Member
Messages
466
Reaction score
327
Location
Kootenays
Just to confirm, Ron Fleming's law suit is not about the re-instatement of the hunt, it's for compensation after ending it... as above:

"•A settlement will bring financial relief to the guide outfitters who have and will continue to see substantial losses to their businesses or livelihoods because of the government’s arbitrary action. "

I see how the lines get quickly blurred between suing for the hunt versus suing for more compensation.

The current government will not pay out for this and then turnaround and reinstate the hunt. So as long as the current regime is in power and no law suit is successful in over turning, there's not hunt. The Liberals may not even touch this issue as it was such a vote getter for the NDP, why would they alienate that crowd by looking at the hunt again? It's all about votes, and we're only 3% of the population....

The longer there's no hunt, the harder it will be to reinstate. Look at the US, they've exceeded the recovery populations, yet courts and leaf lickers are doing their best to stop the hunt. It's all uphill from here.
 
Last edited:

Turnagain

Well-Known Member
Messages
204
Reaction score
392
Location
Interior BC
Just to confirm, Ron Fleming's law suit is not about the re-instatement of the hunt, it's for compensation after ending it... as above:

"•A settlement will bring financial relief to the guide outfitters who have and will continue to see substantial losses to their businesses or livelihoods because of the government’s arbitrary action. "

I see how the lines get quickly blurred between suing for the hunt versus suing for more compensation.

The current government will not pay out for this and then turnaround and reinstate the hunt. So as long as the current regime is in power and no law suit is successful in over turning, there's not hunt. The Liberals may not even touch this issue as it was such a vote getter for the NDP, why would they alienate that crowd by looking at the hunt again? It's all about votes, and we're only 3% of the population....

The longer there's no hunt, the harder it will be to reinstate. Look at the US, they've exceeded the recovery populations, yet courts and leaf lickers are doing their best to stop the hunt. It's all uphill from here.
I’m not going to argue with you KH4 as I fully realize Fleming’s lawsuit is for compensation....do you really think anyone could sue to have the hunt reopened.
It’s the start of the process.
There are other players that will be stepping up as this moves along and what’s being discussed as the strategy in getting the hunt reopened will not be fully posted on here.
I will say it could get real interesting.
Something to think about tho is one of the biggest grizzly quotas in BC was held by a FN owned guiding company that has a treaty in place.
The government may have overreached by shutting them down.
Several other outfitters are FN’s and these families have been in the guiding business for multiple generations.
They are backing the lawsuit and saying the hunt needs reopened.
Not everyone is a defeatist in this issue.
 

Round Boy

Can't keep a beat.
Messages
1,592
Reaction score
431
Location
In the Gar.
I think any angst anyone brings to the table over the loss of the G bear hunt is a good thing. It may have consequences for RH I don't know, but really, at least someone is getting in governments face. When decisions are made the way this one was, there has to be pain, or they will continue to operate this way. Decisions based on popularity will lead us to ruin.

I hope it creates a scandal. I hope it keeps some government official up at nite. If anything, this law suit will hopefully create some publicity and who knows maybe it will provide an opportunity for RHunters to voice their opinion too?
 

KH4

Well-Known Member
Messages
466
Reaction score
327
Location
Kootenays
Don't get defeatist realist and mixed up, I never made any personal comments directed at any individuals on this thread, I'd expect the same respect back.

It is 100% true that the Ministry did not follow their own policy. The policy is set out as a guideline. Whether or not the Ministry is legally bound to adhere the policy is a matter to be decided by a court challenge. If secret plan above is being developed for said challenge, then great!

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-policy-legislation/fish-and-wildlife-policy/4-7_-_hunting_trapping_and_angling_regulation_setting_and_stakeholder_engagement.pdf
 
Top Bottom