BHA interview-cue the haters!

[3blade]

Originally Posted by sjd

I think you misread the 4 bullets here. The first bullet refers to aboriginal treaty rights the next 3 bullets clearly refer to non aboriginal hunting.

I think cat is dead on, and we all know which group gets to hunt in provincial and national parks that Y2Y is manipulating into existence

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by 3blade

I think cat is dead on, and we all know which group gets to hunt in provincial and national parks that Y2Y is manipulating into existence

It's all there in the first paragraph. Didn't need to do anymore reading then that. Y2y doesn't nor will it ever have any support from me.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by sjd

I think you misread the 4 bullets here. The first bullet refers to aboriginal treaty rights the next 3 bullets clearly refer to non aboriginal hunting.

You don't see those points for what they are. They do not at all imply that hunting is a right, but rather a tool that should only be used as needed.

Don't fall for their trap in the form of BHA.

[3blade]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

It's all there in the first paragraph. Didn't need to do anymore reading then that. Y2y doesn't nor will it ever have any support from me.

Exactly.

So here's the question: does BHA belong in alberta? I don't know the answer. I've seen them do good work in the states, and yet we have a very serious conflict of interest going on with the Y2Y angle. Don Meredith is involved, and also was in that AO thread I linked earlier, so at least one prominent member has knowledge of the backstory. IMO we absolutely cannot have a partnership that involves any individual or group that argued for cancelling the grizzly hunt.

I'm going to try to get the evening off and go to the edmonton pub night, would be good to have a big turnout and some lively debate

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by sjd

I think you misread the 4 bullets here. The first bullet refers to aboriginal treaty rights the next 3 bullets clearly refer to non aboriginal hunting.

I am not sure what you are referring to that I read or who wrote what because I never linked anything
Cat

[purgatory.sv]

The original post indicated 5 podcasts?

No link was given,but it did give information to get the information?

[alta270]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

The main concern I have heard and read is that the policy recognizes indigenous hunting trapping and fishing rights only and does not mention non indigenous peoples' rights
Cat

The trouble is, that indigenous peoples do have rights under the constitution, treaties and the Supreme Court decisions. Those of us who are non-native only have privileges to be consumptive users of wildlife and fish. As such, I'm not sure how their points could have been rewritten in any way.

Do you?

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by alta270

The trouble is, that indigenous peoples do have rights under the constitution, treaties and the Supreme Court decisions. Those of us who are non-native only have privileges to be consumptive users of wildlife and fish. As such, I'm not sure how their points could have been rewritten in any way.

Do you?

Their points are not the law, so the least they could have done was said "we support the right to hunt for all who wish to partake".

[HIGHLANDER HUNTING]

Originally Posted by purgatory.sv

The original post indicated 5 podcasts?

No link was given,but it did give information to get the information?

Sorry, thought we did.
It's called Highlander Hunting Podcast.
Searchable on iTunes and Google Play.
Or just go to:
highlanderhunting.podbean.com

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by alta270

The trouble is, that indigenous peoples do have rights under the constitution, treaties and the Supreme Court decisions. Those of us who are non-native only have privileges to be consumptive users of wildlife and fish. As such, I'm not sure how their points could have been rewritten in any way.

Do you?

I used the wrong term,I SHOULD have said "non indigenous hunting , trapping and fishing privileges".
Cat

[HIGHLANDER HUNTING]

Guys, so myself and Mike from the podcast attended the BHA CALGARY pub night last night. It was fine.
In my opinion, the group is a lot less threatening in real life. Was just about 15 people sitting around having a few beers. The first round was on the house in fact!
My takeaway from it was, it's a group of people who want to help out with conservation and access issues in Alberta. There didn't seem to be any agenda being pushed down from the mother ship sort to speak. Some bullet points of things discussed:
It's a small group but they do have a seat at the stakeholder table now.

They're going to get involved down south to help out with the pronghorn fencing changes. So physical boots on the ground volunteer work.

Grazing lease access was brought up. Sounds like they may be looking into those issues.

Changes are coming to the porcupine hills, they're a stakeholder in those discussions.

It was a loud pub and some of us had a real hard time hearing everything being said. So I may have missed some things.

Anyhow, I would encourage anyone to attend one of their pub nights. Like I said earlier, they're just a group of people who want to help. Seems fairly democratic.

Just my 2 cents.
As for the podcast episode 5. I don't think me and Mike gave them a free pass at all.
Still waiting for some hate mail.

[alta270]

Originally Posted by HIGHLANDER HUNTING

Guys, so myself and Mike from the podcast attended the BHA CALGARY pub night last night. It was fine.
In my opinion, the group is a lot less threatening in real life. Was just about 15 people sitting around having a few beers. The first round was on the house in fact!
My takeaway from it was, it's a group of people who want to help out with conservation and access issues in Alberta. There didn't seem to be any agenda being pushed down from the mother ship sort to speak. Some bullet points of things discussed:
It's a small group but they do have a seat at the stakeholder table now.

They're going to get involved down south to help out with the pronghorn fencing changes. So physical boots on the ground volunteer work.

Grazing lease access was brought up. Sounds like they may be looking into those issues.

Changes are coming to the porcupine hills, they're a stakeholder in those discussions.

It was a loud pub and some of us had a real hard time hearing everything being said. So I may have missed some things.

Anyhow, I would encourage anyone to attend one of their pub nights. Like I said earlier, they're just a group of people who want to help. Seems fairly democratic.

Just my 2 cents.
As for the podcast episode 5. I don't think me and Mike gave them a free pass at all.
Still waiting for some hate mail.

Thanks for the update report. Too many people see a boogey men behind every tree, and sometimes, as Freud said, a cigar is only a cigar.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by alta270

I hear a lot of concern and angst with the Y2Y initiative, but no one has outlined why. I looked at their hunting and fishing policy, and I see no issues with it.

https://y2y.net/about-us/policies/y2...chterm=HUNTING

Can someone advise why this is a problem?

The problem is that in practice, Y2Y has always fought for preservation projects that decrease hunting, never the other way around.

They offer no active lobbying effort to maintain or expand hunting, but do attempt to have laws rewritten to eliminate hunting for everyone except aboriginal peoples.

Can you see the problem now?

------


Back to BHA, my opinion of the group is rather neutral except for the concern of the association with Y2Y.

As I noted, other BHA chapters have received significant funding from private interests for the purpose of supporting the Y2Y initiative....

I wonder if the Alberta BHA is even aware of this?



The new update from the beer night suggests that these guys are tackling concerns already being worked on by the AFGA.

Has the BHA approached AFGA to partner on these issues?




I am always happy to hear of people willing to physically get into the game of promoting wildlife and hunting.... while concerned that their efforts may actually be hindrance to the effectiveness of a united front.

If the BHA will not or cannot form alliances with the current Hunting stakeholder groups then their existence will most likely produce negative effect for hunting....

[alta270]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

The problem is that in practice, Y2Y has always fought for preservation projects that decrease hunting, never the other way around.

They offer no active lobbying effort to maintain or expand hunting, but do attempt to have laws rewritten to eliminate hunting for everyone except aboriginal peoples.

Can you see the problem now?

If that is in fact the case, yes, I would be concerned. Can you reference where this has happened?

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by alta270

If that is in fact the case, yes, I would be concerned. Can you reference where this has happened?

Stop gargling....

If you had done any research on Y2Y then I wouldn't have to reference the initiatives that led to elimination or reduction of hunting by non-aboriginal peoples.

In other words, do some research before spouting off in support of an anti-huntinging group when others are telling you to open your eyes.

Look up Y2Y led preservation efforts and evaluate how hunting was impacted.
The truth will be obvious.

[alta270]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Stop gargling....

If you had done any research on Y2Y then I wouldn't have to reference the initiatives that led to elimination or reduction of hunting by non-aboriginal peoples.

In other words, do some research before spouting off in support of an anti-huntinging group when others are telling you to open your eyes.

Look up Y2Y led preservation efforts and evaluate how hunting was impacted.
The truth will be obvious.

You made the assertion, and when asked for details, you tell me "google it". Do you have such details? I truly would be interested in knowing, but I am not about to spend 1/2 hour digging through links that may or may not reveal the details that you already are aware of.

So, please, advise of those situations at least.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by alta270

You made the assertion, and when asked for details, you tell me "google it". Do you have such details? I truly would be interested in knowing, but I am not about to spend 1/2 hour digging through links that may or may not reveal the details that you already are aware of.

So, please, advise of those situations at least.

I think you need to stop looking for specifics and try to see the big picture. Y2Y is not hunter freedom friendly.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by HIGHLANDER HUNTING

Guys, so myself and Mike from the podcast attended the BHA CALGARY pub night last night. It was fine.
In my opinion, the group is a lot less threatening in real life. Was just about 15 people sitting around having a few beers. The first round was on the house in fact!
My takeaway from it was, it's a group of people who want to help out with conservation and access issues in Alberta. There didn't seem to be any agenda being pushed down from the mother ship sort to speak. Some bullet points of things discussed:
It's a small group but they do have a seat at the stakeholder table now.

They're going to get involved down south to help out with the pronghorn fencing changes. So physical boots on the ground volunteer work.

Grazing lease access was brought up. Sounds like they may be looking into those issues.

Changes are coming to the porcupine hills, they're a stakeholder in those discussions.

It was a loud pub and some of us had a real hard time hearing everything being said. So I may have missed some things.

Anyhow, I would encourage anyone to attend one of their pub nights. Like I said earlier, they're just a group of people who want to help. Seems fairly democratic.

Just my 2 cents.
As for the podcast episode 5. I don't think me and Mike gave them a free pass at all.
Still waiting for some hate mail.

Of course they aren't threatening in real life, what a stupid thing to state.

What changes are coming to the porcupines? No OHVs?

[HIGHLANDER HUNTING]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

The problem is that in practice, Y2Y has always fought for preservation projects that decrease hunting, never the other way around.

They offer no active lobbying effort to maintain or expand hunting, but do attempt to have laws rewritten to eliminate hunting for everyone except aboriginal peoples.

Can you see the problem now?

------


Back to BHA, my opinion of the group is rather neutral except for the concern of the association with Y2Y.

As I noted, other BHA chapters have received significant funding from private interests for the purpose of supporting the Y2Y initiative....

I wonder if the Alberta BHA is even aware of this?



The new update from the beer night suggests that these guys are tackling concerns already being worked on by the AFGA.

Has the BHA approached AFGA to partner on these issues?




I am always happy to hear of people willing to physically get into the game of promoting wildlife and hunting.... while concerned that their efforts may actually be hindrance to the effectiveness of a united front.

If the BHA will not or cannot form alliances with the current Hunting stakeholder groups then their existence will most likely produce negative effect for hunting....

I believe what was said last night in regards to working with AFGA was that AB BHA is willing to work with AFGA where it makes sense to do so. Also, it was mentioned by one of the board members that they really don't want to be in conflict with AFGA and wanted people to not say disparraging things about AFGA on social media when speaking about BHA.

So from what i can tell, they really are willing to work with AFGA.

Just reporting what I heard last night.

Also, Y2Y was brought up but it was in the context of people misunderstanding the Y2Y stance on hunting issues. Personally I know pretty much nothing about Y2Y. Other than the main thing about a wildlife corridor from yellowstone to yukon.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by alta270

You made the assertion, and when asked for details, you tell me "google it". Do you have such details? I truly would be interested in knowing, but I am not about to spend 1/2 hour digging through links that may or may not reveal the details that you already are aware of.

So, please, advise of those situations at least.

In other words, you're a sheep.

If you won't take time to educate yourself, I consider it pointless to guide you any further.


Your tag line is a joke, right?

[matt1984]

Originally Posted by alta270

I hear a lot of concern and angst with the Y2Y initiative, but no one has outlined why. I looked at their hunting and fishing policy, and I see no issues with it.

https://y2y.net/about-us/policies/y2...chterm=HUNTING

Can someone advise why this is a problem?

Here's a quote from Stephen Legault, program director for Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y)

"The main thing that kills grizzly bears in Alberta is access, and anytime we’re reducing access to core grizzly bear habitat, we’re making progress.”

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by HIGHLANDER HUNTING

I believe what was said last night in regards to working with AFGA was that AB BHA is willing to work with AFGA where it makes sense to do so. Also, it was mentioned by one of the board members that they really don't want to be in conflict with AFGA and wanted people to not say disparraging things about AFGA on social media when speaking about BHA.

So from what i can tell, they really are willing to work with AFGA.

Just reporting what I heard last night.

Also, Y2Y was brought up but it was in the context of people misunderstanding the Y2Y stance on hunting issues. Personally I know pretty much nothing about Y2Y. Other than the main thing about a wildlife corridor from yellowstone to yukon.

This is really concerning, in a negative light for BHA.

BHA is committed to promoting the creation of a National and Provincial Park system where the elimination or reduction of non-aboriginal hunting is part of the plan.

And this supposed to be a PRO-hunting group?

It sounds like these members of BHA have decided to take the path that is already paved.

They probably won't understand what that means....

[alta270]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

In other words, you're a sheep.

If you won't take time to educate yourself, I consider it pointless to guide you any further.


Your tag line is a joke, right?

Which one of these links would you suggest one follows? So far anything I have seen in them is others, like you, making assertions, but not showing any actual reference to an anti-hunting position by Y2Y.

You are very sure that is the case, so, once again, please provide me with some meat so I can look into it. Assertions are nothing without citations, and you can name call all you want, but that just says more about you than me.

https://www.google.com/search?q=y2y+...hrome&ie=UTF-8

[CF8889]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

In other words, you're a sheep.

If you won't take time to educate yourself, I consider it pointless to guide you any further.


Your tag line is a joke, right?

Your refusal to to provide cases that prove your comments and dodging it by calling him a "sheep" has me intregued. What cases do you know. Aside from the grizzlie bear hunt (one situation.. but you speak of many) where have they fought to illimiate hunting. Your "I know, but I'm not gonna tell you" is the usual response from someone who doesn't actually know what they are talking about.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by alta270

Which one of these links would you suggest one follows? So far anything I have seen in them is others, like you, making assertions, but not showing any actual reference to an anti-hunting position by Y2Y.

You are very sure that is the case, so, once again, please provide me with some meat so I can look into it. Assertions are nothing without citations, and you can name call all you want, but that just says more about you than me.

https://www.google.com/search?q=y2y+...hrome&ie=UTF-8

I already gave you directions.

Don't limit yourself to propaganda, educate yourself.

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Stop gargling....

If you had done any research on Y2Y then I wouldn't have to reference the initiatives that led to elimination or reduction of hunting by non-aboriginal peoples.

In other words, do some research before spouting off in support of an anti-huntinging group when others are telling you to open your eyes.

Look up Y2Y led preservation efforts and evaluate how hunting was impacted.
The truth will be obvious.

[oiler_nation]

Welcome to AOF, where wanting people to substantiate and defend a position makes you a "sheep".

[alta270]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

I already gave you directions.

Don't limit yourself to propaganda, educate yourself.

In other words, you're going to keep attempting to denigrate me, but not actually provide any back up to YOUR assertions. YOU made the claim, it is not our job to substantiate it... it is yours.

So, once again, please provide substantiation to your claims.

[dmcbride]

Y2Y is not good for hunters.


http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/technology/story/1.2834241

"One of the largest projects is the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, or Y2Y. It attempts to create “wildlife corridors” between the Yukon and Yellowstone (including Canada’s Banff and Jasper National Parks).

The corridors form a continuous 3,200 km-long area so animals sharing the land with people have a way to migrate, breed and feed, among other things, without having to navigate human constructs such as highways and housing developments.

“Wild animals like bears, cougars, wolves, elk and lynx need breeding grounds where they mate, they need places where they can rear their young, they need different habitats at different times of year,” explains Karsten Heuer, president of Y2Y.

Karsten Heuer
Karsten Heuer, president of the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, is helping to create “wildlife corridors” in a continuous, 3,200 km-long area so animals sharing areas with people have a way to migrate, breed and feed. (Anik See)

“What wildlife corridors do is connect all these habitat patches or islands that an animal needs to fulfill all parts of its life cycle," Heuer says. "Roads, farm lines, hunting zones, towns - all of those things fragment large blocks of habitat into smaller and smaller islands, and once those connections between those islands are lost, then the animals may not be able to meet all their needs on those islands and that's how things go extinct.”

[Albertadiver]

Anything that even tolerates Y2Y won't get my support. A wolf in sheep's clothing best describes them in my opinion.

Formed this opinion on the last 5 or 6 years of reading up on them. While I don't keep links to every article I've ever read on them, I've formed a solid opinion for myself personally.

[kujoseto]

Originally Posted by alta270

In other words, you're going to keep attempting to denigrate me, but not actually provide any back up to YOUR assertions. YOU made the claim, it is not our job to substantiate it... it is yours.

So, once again, please provide substantiation to your claims.

You haven't substantiated your glowing praise of BHA.
How about this:
defend your point by finding evidence (not just persuasive opinion from the questionable organization) to prove walking buffalo wrong
You have shown you're not interested in proving him right by doing your own Google search. Which to be clear, isn't research. If there is anyone here who has an informed opinion on these matters, it's walking buffalo. You resist buying in to his opinion but in doing so are aligning with the opinion of the BHA group. Either way you'd be taking sides without looking into things for yourself. He's simply suggesting if you did look further, it would quickly become obvious to you where Y2Y stands.