Handgun Hunting Support
- Thread starter SIGP2101
- Start date
Foxer said:
Why is it, that you are insisting so much that this has to be a fair fight? If we cheat a little bit and achieve our goal would you feel ashamed of that kind of achievement or would you be happy to have one more right to enjoy.
After all did Gov. run any kind of referendum when they decided not to let us HGH?
Last edited:
Well Foxer, I don't knwo what to tell you- except that the world is run by those that show up.
There has never- to my knowledge- been a hunting regulation changed in BC, where all hunters were asked ot submit a vote. Instead, it happens just as I described it.
A resolution is proposed, the clubs send thier delegates, the delegates vote, the resolution is passed and the BCWF pressures government.
Everyone that is a member has an equal opportunity to express thier opinions if they woudl like to, but the majority are not interested enough to actually get out and do something, so if thier views arent' heard, it is only thier own fault.
So, no- not every person is every club was consulted. They never are, that just isn't the way it works. Your points regarding that are moot.
I agree that the best way to attack the issue may be in a province that doesn't disallow handguns, but the fact of the matter is that the BCWF passed a resolution that handguns should be legal to hunt wiht in BC, which indicates support.
There has never- to my knowledge- been a hunting regulation changed in BC, where all hunters were asked ot submit a vote. Instead, it happens just as I described it.
A resolution is proposed, the clubs send thier delegates, the delegates vote, the resolution is passed and the BCWF pressures government.
Everyone that is a member has an equal opportunity to express thier opinions if they woudl like to, but the majority are not interested enough to actually get out and do something, so if thier views arent' heard, it is only thier own fault.
So, no- not every person is every club was consulted. They never are, that just isn't the way it works. Your points regarding that are moot.
I agree that the best way to attack the issue may be in a province that doesn't disallow handguns, but the fact of the matter is that the BCWF passed a resolution that handguns should be legal to hunt wiht in BC, which indicates support.
Well - initially it was posted as slightly stronger evidence than that. I think it's quite obvious that to one degree or another there is SOME support for it.
Well lets look at the figures here for starters. Fully 12 percent and change either said they would never support it or are on the fence, which means they have concerns that must be addressed one way or another before they would support it. And this is probably THE MOST fertile ground for supporters there is. Heck, anyone not supporting it was essentially called 'anti-gun'.
As i mentioned earlier, this isn't my first time looking at it. I've spoken to quite a few hunters, and members of the bcwf, and even a couple of gov't folk about the subject.
Now - talking to 50 or 60 people is hardly enough of a base for saying positively one way or another about how people feel. ESPECIALLY when you ask 'how do you think other guys you know would feel' or 'what have you heard others say'- now you're really getting a little speculative. But it does give a sense of the feeling out there.
There has never been a province wide poll that would be realistic in giving a clear picture of sentiment, and i doubt we'd want to see one before there had been some kind of debate (people would be more apt to see the negative rather than the positive and it would likely be non-positive for us over time).
However, having actually pursued the matter i have some idea of what the gov't is thinking, and what hunters are thinking. Especially the 'non-gun-nut' hunter, remember the majority of hunters are not fierce gunnutz - they have guns to hunt, they don't hunt to have guns. They own maybe a couple of rifles and a shotgun or two, some of which are 'handmedowns'. Less than half our hunters even belong to a gun range.
I would guess based on my discussions that 1) - Only MAYBE 20 - 30 percent of hunters feel strongly about it one way or another. And of that, it's close to an even split between those who think it's good and those who think it's horrible. (there are a surprising number who hate handguns period, even for target shooting).
Of the rest - most are 'not sure' or haven't thought about it, but lean towards the 'maybe we shouldn't, i'd have to think about it' side. Most could see SOME circumstance where it wouldn't be horrible, like the 22 for grouse thing, but most have grave reservations about abuses and problems for handgun use in general.
The gov't on the other hand has a much more simple attitude - "this won't do anything GOOD for us, and has the potential to do something BAD for us if there's a problem'. They are NOT eager at all to see the rules change.
The BCWF does not seem to feel there is any pressing desire to see this either. They'll poke at it a little, but they know there's not a depth of support there at all to make it worth putting any real energy into. Especially with the feds veto'ing the concept.
I believe if the question was put to hunters in general today "do you think we should allow the use of handguns in hunting big game in bc without restriction" it would come back 'no' as an easy victory. If you asked "do you think we should allow the use of handguns in hunting with significant restrictions to prevent abuse or problems" i think you'd be looking at best at a 50/50 split. Could go either way. If you were to ask "should people be allowed to carry 22 cal pistols for use on small game and varmints" you're more likey to get a win, maybe 60 percent and change.
At this time, there just is no strong base of support that will create the political will necessary to effect change. So - there you go. Only those who particularly like handguns are actually 'pushing' for it, and they are by far and away the minority in the hunting community. Most hunters haven't even shot a handgun.
Could you name one where the majority of hunters DIDN'T support it?
You're talking about a big change here. You're not talking about allowing more than 2 rounds for sluggun hunting. And as word gets out (and it always does) there will be pressure from the anti-hunting groups. The gov't will be concerned about potential political backlash.
The world isn't just run by those who show up. The world is won by those who show up and play the game. As you say - 300 delegates less one strongly support it - end result, one letter to the gov't, that doesn't even get a response.
At that rate you should have handgun hunting firmly in place by, oh, round about the turn of the NEXT century.
See - this right there shows a lack of understanding about both what i was saying and how things get done.
No - it's not moot. It is THE point. The point being - the bcwf resolution does not indicate the level of support in the hunting community at all. It just indicates the level of support amongst delegates - who were not elected, who were not operating on a mandate, and who had not consulted the members in any kind of meaningful fashion other than perhaps general discussion with a few.
If you want to win, you need support from the community. Your argument seems to be that you don't. Well, good luck with that.
I don't think that we woudl see widespread opposition from hunters at all. Oh sure, there are going to be a few guys that grumble about "goddamn pistoleros" and actually, they may be MANY of those guys.
But those guys arent' the ones that are going to make change. They may object to it, but they aren't going to be a strong, vocal group opposing handgun hunting.
Most of the hunters woudl say "oh yeah? Legalize it? Oh well..I don't have a handgun, so I won't bother, but go ahead and good luck to you."
Most people only object strongly when somethign is taken away form them. Try taking away thier moose tags and see what happens- they will be crawling out of the woodwork. Tell them that somene else is going ot be able to hunt at the same time they are, but using a less efficient weapon, and they will probably shrug.
I haven't heard any rumblings of opposition form any BCWF members after the resolution was passed, so maybe a small dedicated group, workign wiht the BCWF, woudl proabbly have a very good chance of turnign this into a priority. It will be interesting to see if there is any more development at the upcoming convention.
But those guys arent' the ones that are going to make change. They may object to it, but they aren't going to be a strong, vocal group opposing handgun hunting.
Most of the hunters woudl say "oh yeah? Legalize it? Oh well..I don't have a handgun, so I won't bother, but go ahead and good luck to you."
Most people only object strongly when somethign is taken away form them. Try taking away thier moose tags and see what happens- they will be crawling out of the woodwork. Tell them that somene else is going ot be able to hunt at the same time they are, but using a less efficient weapon, and they will probably shrug.
I haven't heard any rumblings of opposition form any BCWF members after the resolution was passed, so maybe a small dedicated group, workign wiht the BCWF, woudl proabbly have a very good chance of turnign this into a priority. It will be interesting to see if there is any more development at the upcoming convention.
The problem is they're not going to be strong supporters either. And that's what you need.
The gov't already issues moose tags. Changing the number up or down is something that's already going to happen, so it's easier to influence.
The gov't does NOT support handgun hunting. Provincially or federally. You're talking about significant change. It will take a strong effort to get first the province to change, (the easiest of the two) then the feds.
As the fight consumes more time and resources, if people are saying to their reps 'why are you wasting time on this?' or are demanding more energy be spent in other areas, it'll flounder.
Think i'm wrong? Most gun owners would agree that the 12.x guys should be allowed to take their gear to the range. But most don't really care. You seen any changes to that despite a pretty significant lobby effort by the gun orgs?
Without support, the politicos' wont' want to 'take the risk' of doing something new, and the wildlife orgs will be leery about dedicating significant resources to it.
Foxer said:
Actually, it is you that appears to lack the understanding about how thigs happen.
How do you know who was consulted? Are you even a BCWF member? In our club anyone that is interested in the resolutions gets together at a meeting, we go over the resolutions and decide how we want our delegates to vote. This is a similar process followed by all clubs. The delegates are mostly elected by thier clubs in director/executive roles. They do not necessarily get to vote the way they want to, they vote the way thier club directs them to.
If members don't wish to participate, that is thier business, but the opportunity to consult is there, always.
You are pretty adept at twisting words, aren't you?
I never said that support is not needed. I dsaid that changes take place without everybodys input.
Everyone who wants to participate has an opportunity to do so, the majority won't bother, and therefore the decision making will take place by those that do show up. That is just the way it works- for everything.
Sigh. You just admitted a few posts ago that there is no general polling of the membership.
Remember this?:
and
And
So the whole point is still entirely valid.
Hey - if you want to stick your head in the sand, or change things you've previously said, then by all means go ahead. All it will mean is you will fail. And frankly, considering everything that's not something i'm going to lose sleep over.
I think it's a lot more likely you're adept at trying to defend a really weak argument and get upset when you get caught out.
You claim the 'world is run by those who show up'. And you have strongly suggested that unless people actually complain, (as they might with a moose tag reduction) you'll be able to win.
I simply pointed out that's not the case here. You need active support, indifference won't cut it.
Here's the bottom line - you're making a crap argument that has had little thought go into it because you started with an answer and are now trying to work back to a question. And when you get caught out in it, you become a little pissed off and try to change the argument and the direction of it. Then you claim i'm 'twisting' it. I'm not - i'm pointing exactly to what you've said and my stance has been exactly the same.
This is simple. There is no widespread support apparent in the hunting community, the bcwf resolution is NOT indicative of whether or not hunters will support the idea, and you NEED support to muster the political will that is necessary to make a change of this magnitude on the provincial AND federal levels.
That is the truth. You can dance and bull your way around it to your hearts content if you like, but at the end of the day it's as simple as that. Anything else is just deluding yourself to make you feel better about your chances.
That is the reality of the situation. Any SERIOUS effort to bring in handgun hunting will need to address that reality. If anything, we learned this lesson in the original fight against c-68, where the indifference of hunters and gun owners meant that the vocal minority fighting it stood no chance at all.
Denying that there's a 'support issue' gets you nowhere. If you ever get serious about it, you'll ask yourself and seek to answer the following two questions:
1) - what can be done to significantly increase the level of active support for the concept amongst rank and file hunters,
and
2) - where should we focus that active support to gain the best results.
Anything else is like peeing yourself in dark pants - it may give you a warm feeling but at the end of the day, no one really notices.
LOL - well i really wasn't sure.
Wasn't trying to nit pick, thought you meant something else. The reason this has to be a fair fight is because it's not an insignificant change.
You don't have to 'fight fair' if you want to change something that is already expected to change, or there are provisions to change. For example, adding a 'bow only' season is much easier because the gov't already addresses changes to seasons every year and there's no actual change to the law. And you're dealing with one level of gov't.
In this case however, you're looking at some fundimental changes to the rules, and you're talking about a very contentious issue. the gov't has to think 'what will the public say'. THEN they'd have to draft new laws that cover the use of handguns. And they'd have to justify to SOMEONE why they spent all this time and risked public outcry for something the feds won't even allow to begin with.
THEN - once you've got all that done, you have to go after the FEDERAL level. And you're into a whole new batch of problems - you can bet the left wing beurocracy that makes up the gov't machine is going to HATE this idea. They'll fight it tooth and nail.
So what you're talking about is a long, hard fight that will require a great deal of effort and support (and probably in more than one province) to pull it off. That means money, time and resources that won't go to other issues.
You need the active support of members to tell the various orgs involved to 'keep going' - that its worth it and they should keep allocating the resources to do it. Otherwise - members will start to question why other things are not getting the attention they need.
There's just no way to 'sneak' this one thru. So it's going to have to be something close to a 'fair fight' as you say.
Foxer said:LOL - well i really wasn't sure.
The reason this has to be a fair fight is because it's not an insignificant change.
You don't have to 'fight fair' if you want to change something that is already expected to change, or there are provisions to change. For example, adding a 'bow only' season is much easier because the gov't already addresses changes to seasons every year and there's no actual change to the law. And you're dealing with one level of gov't.
In this case however, you're looking at some fundimental changes to the rules, and you're talking about a very contentious issue. the gov't has to think 'what will the public say'. THEN they'd have to draft new laws that cover the use of handguns. And they'd have to justify to SOMEONE why they spent all this time and risked public outcry for something the feds won't even allow to begin with.
THEN - once you've got all that done, you have to go after the FEDERAL level. And you're into a whole new batch of problems - you can bet the left wing beurocracy that makes up the gov't machine is going to HATE this idea. They'll fight it tooth and nail.
So what you're talking about is a long, hard fight that will require a great deal of effort and support (and probably in more than one province) to pull it off. That means money, time and resources that won't go to other issues.
You need the active support of members to tell the various orgs involved to 'keep going' - that its worth it and they should keep allocating the resources to do it. Otherwise - members will start to question why other things are not getting the attention they need.
There's just no way to 'sneak' this one thru. So it's going to have to be something close to a 'fair fight' as you say.
Fair enough and good answer Foxer, but you missed my point completely.
My point is that in fair fight we do not stand a chance. We are too much divided over the issue + there is enormous discrepancy between us, and government in terms of power, and resources like you pointed out already. Therefore it cannot be a fair fight to begin with. We can’t afford frontal attack on wide front but more likely guerilla attacks here and there. Somebody suggested spearheading on provincial level first but I do not have clear picture what would be the best course of action for Ontario. We are pretty much in catch 22 situation here. Although I think it makes sense.
P.S.
Did you really change who side you are on?
How about answering #582.
Last edited:
Foxer said:Sigh. You just admitted a few posts ago that there is no general polling of the membership.
Remember this?:
Again you try to twist things Foxer. Those ccomments are in response to your incorrect assumption that the delegates opporate independently from membership. Good try though.
Ha Ha ha..All I can htink about wiht this comment is your strong position that 2" of barrel was going to render a handgun useless, and your inability to admit you were wrong.....
My argument is the same, I have just been attempting to clarify to *you* how the process works, since you appear to lack that knowledge.
Not indicitive? Because you say so?
At the very least it is far more indicitive than gitrduns poll of 4 people, which started this discussion.
The purpose of the resolution was to remove any obstacles if someone wanted to pursue handgun hunting, especialy at the federal level, so the feds coudl not say "Well, you can't hunt in BC wiht handguns anyway"
It's a resolution, passed less than a year ago, and it hasn't been a priority, so litlte has been done. If and when some people want to get the ball rolling, it is my opinion that resolution and the letters sent to gv't sets a precedent that the BCWF will most likely support advances to further handgun hunting.
Last edited:
And this is the type of info we need to get a good look at things.
These, the other 70% are the ones we have to work with. Trying to sway that portion of the 30% who are dead set against it would be a waste of time. The fence-sitters could go either way with a bit of reasoning and education. And you know what the strongest sales tactic is? A steadfast resolution from guys that want to make it a reality. The salesman that doubts his own product will go hungry.
This goes without saying. It also goes without saying that the effort for the government to go the other way would be much, much easier. Look how easy it was going to be for the liberals to take our handguns. So are we just going to sit and wait, or are we going to push back harder?
Is there some reason why I couldn't shoot grouse with something bigger?
You might get the same concerns brought forward with the 22 scenario, as with bigger guns. "how do we know that you will only shoot grouse with a 22? How do we know you won't try to drop a deer with it? What about all the wounded grouse? Heck, that's even a smaller target than a deer. Much harder to hit....." The replies to this line of thinking could just as easily be applied to bigger guns. I just hate the thought of sitting around doing nothing, wiating for something to go against us, rather than trying to make something happen for us. That's why I have been asking around a bit as posted in the "no #####ing" thread. And so far my findings are not quite as pessimistic as yours. Perhaps a less regionalistic outlook is required. I don't know.
If you really think we might have a chance at the 22 for grouse thing then I am all for it. All I ask is that the larger game with a handgun doesn't get shoved too far back on the burner.
Wow, this thread is still going strong ... even though there only seems to be a few participants. I was trying to catch up but fogged over once again and just jumped to the end few pages.
I agree with Gatehouse as that's how our R+G club works. We get information from BCWF and others with regards to what's coming down the pipe, or, as in this case, what we want to push back up the pipe. We vote on what direction we want to go, majority rules, and that's the position we move forward with. The BCWF President for our region is presented with our "voted on" decision (or request) and asked to present that on our behalf.
Now, not every member shows up to our meetings and I believe that was along the lines of what Gatehouse was indicating with his comment regarding the world is run by those that show up (I think). So our club presents a position based on the majority of votes that were present at the time the question was asked. Now as Foxeer is indicating, that isn't always representative of what the majority of the club's members feel, but as they didn't show up to vote, their vote wasn't counted. So a club could be presenting a position that doesn't really have a majority of it's people backing it. ... I think that was Foxers point. ... now if I could only remember my point .... Oh ya, hand gun hunting , I want it !!
I agree with Gatehouse as that's how our R+G club works. We get information from BCWF and others with regards to what's coming down the pipe, or, as in this case, what we want to push back up the pipe. We vote on what direction we want to go, majority rules, and that's the position we move forward with. The BCWF President for our region is presented with our "voted on" decision (or request) and asked to present that on our behalf.
Now, not every member shows up to our meetings and I believe that was along the lines of what Gatehouse was indicating with his comment regarding the world is run by those that show up (I think). So our club presents a position based on the majority of votes that were present at the time the question was asked. Now as Foxeer is indicating, that isn't always representative of what the majority of the club's members feel, but as they didn't show up to vote, their vote wasn't counted. So a club could be presenting a position that doesn't really have a majority of it's people backing it. ... I think that was Foxers point. ... now if I could only remember my point .... Oh ya, hand gun hunting , I want it !!
Johnn Peterson
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Chemainus B.C.
Anyone posting on this thread that really gives you a warm fuzzy feeling with the display of his high degree of tact and interpersonal skills.TPK said:
Last edited:
- Location
- Hillbilly shack in the boonies
LOL, I will go one better 
