It's official, AFGA supports the ban on Spear Hunting.

[Rio56]

Originally Posted by 3blade

Advice on how to recover an animal, which is the ultimate goal. We have to be very careful about over sterilizing what we do as well, because that can lead to the exact problem we have in the bowmar case

it's also an event of a wounded animal .. do we need this ... now .. maybe I don't see this as most of you .. I do believe its time to get under the radar so to speak and stop the publicity that's possibly offensive to the general public .. common sense

[3blade]

Originally Posted by Rio56

it's also an event of a wounded animal .. do we need this ... now .. maybe I don't see this as most of you .. I do believe its time to get under the radar so to speak and stop the publicity that's possibly offensive to the general public .. common sense

It is, but it's not different than the thousands of pages discussing the same. Words typed on a page don't do much. there's no video, no pics. I think you have a very valid point regarding images, we need to clean them up and think things through.

[Full Curl Earl]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

When the ABA president first leaked to me his intention to propose banning spears and atlatls because "it is too difficult for me" and "people might complain", I called and discussed the concern with executives from each Alberta big game hunting stakeholder group.

EVERY one understood that this is NOT just about spears/atlatls, but about drawing a line of where and when to draw a line in defence of hunting. The consensus was that we needed to define and regulate a legal spear/atlatl, and that while few may be using these tools, the right thing to do would be to SUPPORT this traditional method of hunting.

One underlying factor in consideration by all was whether or not there was sufficient support within the hunting community to bother with expending the energy required to keep spears/atlatls legal. Why bother, who cares?

The general and large negative reaction to the AFGA's new position/ recent public comments demonstrates that we DO CARE and will BOTHER to stand up for our community. I believe that Wayne was mistaken to take the stance that this is not the line where the AFGA will support those in a legal but minority activity.

It is GREAT to hear so many express kind concern that "WE" need to stand up for those who are legally pursuing our passion. The AFGA needs to hear that they are wrong in calculating this issue to be unworthy of their support.


Please note the sig line I have used for the last couple of years.

Alberta Fish and Wildlife Outdoor Recreation Policy -

"to identify very rare, scarce or special forms of fish and wildlife outdoor recreation opportunities and to ensure that access to these opportunities continues to be available to all Albertans."


This is current Alberta F&W POLICY!

Protecting the right for the use of legal tools should have been a top priority for both F&W and the AFGA! If F&W and the AFGA will not stand up for us on this issue, there is little reason to believe they will support us when the next round of social media outrage is unleashed.

So the ABA, and now the AFGA are formally not in support of Spears and Atlatls, so who were the remaining Big Game Stakeholders that offered support, as you state you called them ALL.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by chuck

I think you are completely out of touch with reality. If there was no feeling in hunting then I would suggest no one would do it. Why do you do it? Purely as a utilitarian way to obtain food? Yea right.

I hunt for food, plain and simple. I don't spend thousands of dollars doing it because that would defeat the purpose. I'm not sure why someone would have a hard time believing that. After all, didn't hunting start out that way and eventually evolve into a recreational activity from that?

I understand why people challenge themselves to hunt the buck with the biggest antlers or chose to hunt with a bow rather than a rifle which is much easier, and I have no issues with that whatsoever. Now a days I don't have the time to commit to things like that. I don't know how many times that I've filled my supplemental antlerless tags and made tag soup from my general tag because my priority was to put meat in the freezer first and then hunt antlers for the rest of the season if I have the time to do it.

If you don't understand that then I would suggest that it is you who is out of touch with reality, not everyone is a recreational hunter.

I never said that there was no feeling in hunting, where did you get that from? I will say this though, I think that the fella in the video was way over the top dramatically and IMO was playing to the camera in order to make a good video. But that's what sells and what some people want to see. As a hunter I think that what he did took incredible skill just to sneak up on the bear let alone taking it with a spear. For me, his reaction was way over the top and he would have acted differently if not on camera. Have you or anyone that you've ever hunted with ever reacted in a similar fashion? Not to say that it doesn't happen but I've never seen it in all of my years hunting.

Since the video came out I have had several non-hunting friends ask me for my opinion about it because they were genuinely interested. You have to realize that they only have their own imaginations to rely on. One person figured that animals immediately drop dead as soon as they are hit and found it highly unusual that the bear would go 50 metres before expiring. Another believed what was written that the bear suffered all night before being recovered. Knowing what I know about hunting, if the bear only went 50 metres it was dead in a matter of seconds.

Talk with non-hunters. I think that you will find that many are okay with hunting for food but not okay with hunting for sport or trophy hunting. I understand their perspective and I don't consider them anti hunting. They are merely moderates, somewhere in between. IMO, backing spear hunting could potentially sway them and turn them into anti's and that wouldn't be good. What side do you think they'd chose in a battle to keep spear hunting legal? Vegans/anti's will always be against all forms of hunting but do we need these moderates joining forces with them? I think that may be part of what the thought process was for the AFGA.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Full Curl Earl

So the ABA, and now the AFGA are formally not in support of Spears and Atlatls, so who were the remaining Big Game Stakeholders that offered support, as you state you called them ALL.

I have answered this for you before.

For everyone else.


The ABA withdrew their proposal to ban these tools when there was little support from stakeholders (2013). Subsequently F&W proposed redefining legal weapons. ABA verbally stated that they would support consideration to define a legal spear/atlatl.

I have NOT seen a current statement from the ABA that expresses they are opposed to keeping spears/atlatls illegal.



From the May 2014 AGMAG minutes. (my notes in red.)

2:00 – Spear Atlatl presentation – Robert Edwards.

3. ALLOWABLE HUNTING METHODS – ESRD
• Discussion of atlatl/spear use and data by Robert Edwards
• Alberta and New Brunswick are the only jurisdictions in Canada that allow all equipment, both by virtue that there is no definition of allowable equipment. 5 states in the US allow. (Incorrect)
• HFT, DWF, APOS, WEF, WSF, AFGA, and TWS supports a regulation that defines big game hunting equipment as is written in this proposal. Additions (e.g. atlatl) supported if future standards are met.
• ABA will solicit feedback from membership. (Gave verbal support to have spears/atlatls defined)
• TWS would like to see principles stated by which one must prove adherence to in order to be added to the list of permissible equipment.
• SCI, AAMDC, ABP abstains.
------------


BTW, to answer an earlier question you asked.

The reason you were never asked for your opinion by AFGA re. spears/atlatls is because they have been a LEGAL weapon since the creation of Alberta 111 years ago, from before the AFGA even existed. For almost 105 years one lobbied the AFGA to take the position requesting they oppose the use of these tools, until the ABA did so, unsuccessfully, and now successfully with the International Humane Society's ( the largest antihunting organization in the world) campaign.


Who would have guessed that all those opposed to spearhunting simply had to get the Humane Society on board....

It is a good thing this will appease them.
Now there is no way the Humane Society would dare demand any more restrictions on hunting....

[3blade]

WB, how do we go about building the wall to prevent further restrictions?

Going on about what did or didn't happen, the ABA, etc, none of it matters now. Public opinion was formed by a stupid video and an anti hunting British hack. We can't go back to the GOA and say hold on, let's just put some definitions in place. Yes, that's what should have happened, but that opportunity has past. Spear hunting is lost. Dear leader made that clear. You can reopen that after the next election. My concern is what is left of our opportunities, and what might happen between now and then.

What we do have is the opportunity to make sure it doesn't happen again. How do we get F&W to release the draft of the new wildlife regulation, so we can address any issues and have input before it becomes law/gets shoved up our collective rear?

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

I think that what it comes down to for a lot of non-hunters is that many people are okay with hunting for food but not okay with hunting for fun. Even if that fella stated that he was going to eat the bear, was that the primary reason for choosing to hunt with a spear? I think not, and people are undoubtedly upset at what they perceive as thrill killing. I don't think that it is in our best interests to have the general public perceiving us as a bunch of thrill killers and it is better to distance ourselves from it. That's pretty much why I have no issue with the AFGA's position.

So you don't have anything against the ABA anymore?

LC

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

So you don't have anything against the ABA anymore?

LC

Given the change in the situation I would say that they were correct with this one. I personally don't think that the ABA's reasoning to lobby for the ban of spears and atlatls had anything do to with the optics for hunters though, it was always about protectionism of traditional archery in AB......much the same as their lobbying against the inclusion of crossbows.

I do not support any organization that lobbies for one form of hunting or fishing over another so, no, I would never endorse the ABA or TU.

[HunterDave]

Walkin Buffalo, I would like to know more about the Humane Society International (same org that you referred to?). Before I start chasing my tail looking for something that isn't there I figured that I'd just ask you. Is HSI opposed to all hunting or just trophy hunting?

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by 3blade

WB, how do we go about building the wall to prevent further restrictions?

Going on about what did or didn't happen, the ABA, etc, none of it matters now. Public opinion was formed by a stupid video and an anti hunting British hack. We can't go back to the GOA and say hold on, let's just put some definitions in place. Yes, that's what should have happened, but that opportunity has past. Spear hunting is lost. Dear leader made that clear. You can reopen that after the next election. My concern is what is left of our opportunities, and what might happen between now and then.

What we do have is the opportunity to make sure it doesn't happen again. How do we get F&W to release the draft of the new wildlife regulation, so we can address any issues and have input before it becomes law/gets shoved up our collective rear?

I disagree that knowledge of the past process is moot. It is VERY important for determining how to go forward, be it regarding spears or any other issue. These details show that public consultation and involvement helped guide hunting regulations decision, that the decisions were NOT left to the government and a few inside consultants.


Knowing how things worked in the past is really important know,
as we have entered into a new "Dark Age" of wildlife and hunting management in Alberta.

The stakeholder driven AGMAG group is now dead. Lack of efficiency appears to be the reasoning from F&W. In other words, the gov. was stopped in forcing it's desires on several issues, and had a fit in dealing with the hunting public actually knowing what it is planning to do, and having a process to influence the outcome.

In AGMAGs place we now have something called AGPAC (Alberta Game Policy Advisory Committee). It has been functioning for nearly a year with several meetings and working groups advancing with future policy and regulations options, and not one single item is available for public purview. Selected consultants will vote on whether anything will ever be available to stakeholder membership review, other than in a singular public release and comment period after draft documents have been finalized.

This efficient new system has reduced public input and consultation to the very minimum required by law. Some consultants are leery of the new system, others seem to be supportive of the removal of public knowledge of their workings and inability to provide input.

How do we move forward?

I think we need for the stakeholders executive to define their alignment. Are they here to represent their membership, with consultation and approval, or are they here to get things done as they desire through private meetings and directives.
We need for our representatives to understand that it is Unacceptable for the Premier to dictate hunting regulations based on her whims.

Calling out the AFGA for switching off their official support on an item by a single person's directive is fair and appropriate. They need to know that this action by the president was wrong and unacceptable.

Withdrawing from the AFGA is one option. Perhaps a better option is staying with or joining the AFGA and making your vote count.

[Rio56]

I wish we had the answers .. turning into a mess ...

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Given the change in the situation I would say that they were correct with this one. I personally don't think that the ABA's reasoning to lobby for the ban of spears and atlatls had anything do to with the optics for hunters though, it was always about protectionism of traditional archery in AB......much the same as their lobbying against the inclusion of crossbows.

I do not support any organization that lobbies for one form of hunting or fishing over another so, no, I would never endorse the ABA or TU.

Your presumption is incorrect. They don't lobby for "one over another", they are a voice to represent bow hunters...coexisting with other hunters, many of us hunt with guns and crossbow and trad bows. Many AFGA directives could be construed as not having Bowhunters interests in mind.

LC

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Your presumption is incorrect. They don't lobby for "one over another", they are a voice to represent bow hunters...coexisting with other hunters, many of us hunt with guns and crossbow and trad bows. Many AFGA directives could be construed as not having Bowhunters interests in mind.

LC

If you say so.

[Unregistered user]

Given that so few people will ever hunt with a spear it seems ridiculous to ban it or even to make an issue of it. It's just the silly season for the news media.

[Speckle55]

By the By-laws any members may by resolution request a special meeting by getting so many members signing ..to direct the executive of said club on a position that the members so desire

time too take a stand and if any of those stake holders vote that way hold them accountable .. some of them are not accountable too any one just hand picked


Hold your executive accountable and direct them

Do some back room politics find out where your MLA stands on this and hold them accountable

get some statements out to media that we want that policy F & W has up-held

Food for Thought

David

[Full Curl Earl]

Are you just dull, or obtuse? I have answered this for you before.

I'm not sure who you thought you may have "Explained" this to prior, but it was not me. Your name calling is a fine example why uniting hunters is so difficult. My responses have been aimed at learning the evolution of how we arrived where we are now with this mess, as well as offering the insight of someone who lives and breathes our hunting heritage. I've not professed to be an expert on the issue or become angered by differing opinions.
You've again damaged your credibility sir.

[HoytCRX32]

The second the AFGA president jumped on the "spear" issue over the "video" issue he ceded to the antis. He should have come out against such an "over-the-top" video and then reminded the public that it was a legal hunt with a legal weapon. The video was what got everyone upset...he should have kept their focus on that...would have probably resonated better for hunters and non-hunters alike.
As I stated earlier, hunting show hosts have got to take the lead on this as younger hunters are influenced greatly by what they see and perceive as appropriate on television.

[beaver hunter]

Originally Posted by lefty-canuck

so when a rifle hunter posts an inappropriate reaction to hunting an animal....do they stand behind him?

What about a black powder hunter?

What about a crossbow hunter?

What about a compound bowhunter?

What about a traditional bowhunter?

I feel that all tools should have a published minimum requirement (like many already do) to be deemed a legal hunting tool.

I think we can agree in the case of the speared bear that the bear was taken ethically (hunter possessed the skills) and clean (bear died quickly as a result of the spear).

So take the tool out of the equation, and take the emotional response out of the reaction and the depiction video of the hunt and what do you end up with.

A hunter who legally and ethical took a bear, recovered it in a timely fashion when it was safe to do so....the rest is open to opinion. So now implement some minimum standards and you have a hunter who legally and ethically took a bear in a timely fashion when it was safe to do so with an approved tool.

I disagree with the afga in supporting a ban...i think this could have been an opportunity to educate people on hunting and that we want to have a set of guidelines for all tools used in hunting. I think that would be the appropriate response. These are my personal thoughts only.

Lc

x 1000

[Rage.0]

I will not budge and neither should you. The anti's will move on to their next victim, forgetting their last. Leaving us to clean up the mess.

I've said this before, and I will say it again. We are our own worst enemy, ALL hunters, regardless of weapon we use, our age, location, hunting methods and so on and so forth must stick together. Without unifying we jeopardize our lifestyle as a whole, pick your side, pick your weapon, pick your stance. Sooner or later the anti's will come knocking on your door, shoving "public opinion" down your throat. I'll be there to back you up, I should hope you do the same for me.

Until then I'll just wait for my Cold Steel Spear to arrive and start practicing.

[SLH]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

Already illegal in Europe, considered "inhumane".

Grizz

http://www.europeanbowhunting.org/index.php/nations

[IceDemeter]

While this issue definitely impacts all individual hunters, I haven't seen anything about what the outfitters associations are doing in response. Their income is definitely at risk with any additional restrictions, and they do bring enough tourism dollars to the table to be taken seriously. I know that years ago the NDP in Manitoba stated that they were getting rid of the spring bear season and making baiting illegal - and that was quietly and successfully fought by the lodges and outfitters association.

I couldn't see any official statements online from an outfitters association here about their position on this issue, so I'm really hoping that they are quietly doing what they need to do in working with the government to set up appropriate guidelines and avoid knee-jerk blanket restrictions.

[Rio56]

Originally Posted by IceDemeter

While this issue definitely impacts all individual hunters, I haven't seen anything about what the outfitters associations are doing in response. Their income is definitely at risk with any additional restrictions, and they do bring enough tourism dollars to the table to be taken seriously. I know that years ago the NDP in Manitoba stated that they were getting rid of the spring bear season and making baiting illegal - and that was quietly and successfully fought by the lodges and outfitters association.

I couldn't see any official statements online from an outfitters association here about their position on this issue, so I'm really hoping that they are quietly doing what they need to do in working with the government to set up appropriate guidelines and avoid knee-jerk blanket restrictions.

good point I almost forgot ..wasn't this a guided non-resident alien hunt ... they should be trying to patch things ..

[bobtodrick]

Part of the issue may be on what we expect of AFGA.
It isn't a hunter/shooter lobby group...it is a wildlife conservation society. Whilst its membership is primarily made up of hunters and fishers they may just feel that this is not their battle.
There focus may just be that if videos such as this keep surfacing that public opinion may swing completely against hunting. I think (and until I actually talk to someone who speaks for the organization it is only my opinion) they may feel that this is not a battle worth the possible consequences.
I'm willing to bet there are no more than a handful of spear hunters in the province. To 'sacrifice' those few...and keep more of the general (voting) public to become anti-hunting may be the right decision.

[CBintheNorth]

Originally Posted by bobtodrick

Part of the issue may be on what we expect of AFGA.
It isn't a hunter/shooter lobby group...it is a wildlife conservation society. Whilst its membership is primarily made up of hunters and fishers they may just feel that this is not their battle.
There focus may just be that if videos such as this keep surfacing that public opinion may swing completely against hunting. I think (and until I actually talk to someone who speaks for the organization it is only my opinion) they may feel that this is not a battle worth the possible consequences.
I'm willing to bet there are no more than a handful of spear hunters in the province. To 'sacrifice' those few...and keep more of the general (voting) public to become anti-hunting may be the right decision.

Interesting concept.
So if 4 of us go rifle hunting and see a grizzly bear 300 yrds away charging, my reaction should be to take your rifle away and push you to the ground...
Then the other 2 and I will be safe for sure, right?

The man did nothing wrong other than be a dork and show a bunch of unnecessary gore online.
Focus on and condemn the wrong, and support the rest. Simple.

[HoytCRX32]

One thing for sure, if black bear harvests decline due to a) ban on baiting or b) ban on certain types of hunting, we'll be up to our you-know-whats in black bears.

[Wiz]

Originally Posted by diamond k

I read the letter last night and thought it was well written and I am in agreement with statement. I agree that is a slippery slope when we start banning certain forms of hunting but we also need to realize that the optics we present will determine the future of our sport.

Well said

[Stinky Buffalo]

Originally Posted by HoytCRX32

One thing for sure, if black bear harvests decline due to a) ban on baiting or b) ban on certain types of hunting, we'll be up to our you-know-whats in black bears.

I believe you are correct.

[AB2506]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Walkin Buffalo, I would like to know more about the Humane Society International (same org that you referred to?). Before I start chasing my tail looking for something that isn't there I figured that I'd just ask you. Is HSI opposed to all hunting or just trophy hunting?

http://www.humanewatch.org/youre-a-s...s-youre-vegan/

ANY animal use.

[Okotokian]

It is unlawful to
1.set out, use or employ any of the following items for the purpose of hunting big game:
•ammunition of less than .23 calibre,
•ammunition that contains non-expanding bullets,
•an auto-loading firearm that has the capacity to hold more than 5 cartridges in the magazine,
•a shotgun having a gauge of .410 or less,
•a shotgun in a bird sanctuary,
•bait, except as permitted for the hunting of black bears (click here for more information on Black Bear baiting),
•an arrow other than an authorized arrow (click here for more information on bowhunting),
•a bow other than an authorized bow (click here for more information on bowhunting),
•a muzzle-loading firearm of less than .44 calibre,
•a rifle or shotgun in WMUs 212, 248 or 410 (persons hunting under the authority of a Strathcona White-tailed Deer Licence, a Foothills Deer Licence, or an Antlerless Moose Special Licence in Strathcona County may hunt with a bow and arrow, cross-bow, muzzle loader or shotgun),
•a trap,
•a cross-bow and arrow that is not authorized (click here to view Hunting with a Cross-bow)


We have lived with the above for years with little concern. The government adds spears (a weapon only a very small number of us have ever used or contemplated using) to the list and suddenly the sky is falling and the antis have won. A bit of an over reaction.

I DO agree with those that say this change should be addressed as all other changes are normally introduced (or should be), through study, consultation, etc.

[bobtodrick]

Originally Posted by CBintheNorth

Interesting concept.
So if 4 of us go rifle hunting and see a grizzly bear 300 yrds away charging, my reaction should be to take your rifle away and push you to the ground...
Then the other 2 and I will be safe for sure, right?

The man did nothing wrong other than be a dork and show a bunch of unnecessary gore online.
Focus on and condemn the wrong, and support the rest. Simple.

Wow...not often you see such a stupid analogy...