CNBC’s Remington 700 Trigger Coverage A Clean Miss

By: Dave Petzal
Field and Stream
October 22, 2010
http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/hunting/2010/10/petzal-different-look-remington-model-700-trigger?cmpid=enews102210

Editor’s Note: In light of the recent controversial CNBC program that deemed Remington Model 700 rifles unsafe, we asked Rifles Editor and Gun Nut blogger David E. Petzal to view the broadcast and offer his thoughts in this extended post. Petzal, a 54-year shooter, NRA Certified Rifle Instructor, former Army Drill Sergeant, and one the country’s foremost gun authorities, had this to say:

On October 20, CNBC ran a program entitled “Remington Under Fire: A CNBC Investigation.” Claimed to be the result of 10 months’ of investigation by CNBC, it was narrated by a Senior Correspondent named Scott Cohn. The focus of the program was the trigger designed in the late 1940s for the Remington 721 (the predecessor to the 700) by Remington engineer Mike Walker. According to CNBC, the trigger was known to be defective almost from its inception; its design allegedly allows the rifle to be fired without the trigger being pulled. This has resulted, the program claimed, in thousands of complaints caused by accidental firings, as well as injuries and deaths.

Those are the bare bones. As I expected, “Remington Under Fire” was a hatchet job. The verdict is guilty from the get-go. No one from Remington would come on the program, nor would anyone from Cerberus, Remington’s parent company. This is not because they have something to hide, but because they know that if they appear on a program like this they will be made to look like liars or fools or both. If you’d like an example, consult any of the “documentaries” made by the lovely and talented Michael Moore.

Scott Cohn’s program exhibits an unsubtle mix of ignorance of the subject as well as serious journalistic deficiencies. First is the attitude toward guns as a whole. There were references to “safe” guns. Memo to Mr. Cohn: There is no such thing as a safe gun. Guns are inherently dangerous, and unless you handle them with care the results can be tragic. Everyone shown on the program who was killed or wounded by a 700 suffered because either they themselves or someone else pointed a 700 at them.

This is poignantly illustrated by the death of Gus Barber, a Montana boy who was shot by his mother Barbara in 2000. Mrs. Barber was unloading a 700 whose muzzle was pointed at a horse trailer. On the far side of the trailer was her son. The rifle went off; the bullet passed through the trailer; Gus Barber died. This was a terrible tragedy, and I am very sorry for the unbearable pain the Barbers suffered.

Rich Barber, Gus’ father, believes his son was killed because the rifle went off accidentally. In fact, Gus Barber died because a rifle was pointed at him. If the rifle had been pointed in a safe direction, all the Barbers would have gotten was a bad scare.

This kind of tragedy can happen to anyone, with any gun, if he or she ignores the prime directive of safe gun handling, put best by Jeff Cooper:

“Do not cover with the muzzle of a gun anything you do not wish to destroy.”

The CNBC program has a scene showing a Portland, Maine police sniper setting off a 700 by simply tapping the bolt. Incredibly, Mr. Cohn asks no questions at all about the rifle. Any journalist with even a modicum of gun knowledge would have dragged the department’s armorer on camera and asked this one simple question:

“Have you modified the trigger on this rifle?”

There is an interview with a West Coast range officer who states that 700s fire accidentally with such frequency that these incidents are called “Remington moments.” This is yet another example of more journalistic ignorance. If the rifles are so unreliable, why did Cohn not ask the gentlemen why they are allowed on the range?

In the course of the entire program, only one shooter is allowed camera time to say what a great gun the 700 is. One. There are 5 million Model 700s out there. Surely more than one person must like them. Could he possibly have found two people to say nice things?

It is mentioned that Remington has just been awarded a contract to build 3,000 more Model 700 sniper rifles, but that the Marines have had problems with accidental firing. I guess it was too much trouble to have someone explain that the 700 has been in continual service as a sniper rifle for more than 40 years, and that is has served with distinction under some of the most adverse conditions imaginable. Otherwise, why would the U.S. Government be buying 3,000 more? Are the Marines and the Army crazy?

Here’s what I can tell you about the Model 700 with the original, Walker-designed trigger (the new 700 trigger, the X-mark Pro, is a different design).

• I got my first 700, actually a Model 725, in .222, in 1960. There has never been a time since then when I have not owned at least one 700. I’ve never had an accidental firing with any of them, nor have I seen one, and we are talking hundreds of rifles and tens of thousands of rounds over 50 years.

• I’ve seen one 700 that should not have been handled. It was an ADL in 6mm that was made in the late 1960s. Its owner allowed a shooter who supposedly knew how to do so, to work on the trigger. He botched the job.

•And there we come to the crux of the matter. If the original 700 trigger has a fault, it is that it can be fooled with by anyone who has a small screwdriver. The adjustments are delicate, and if you don’t know how (or know enough) to keep sufficient engagement between the sear and the trigger connector, the rifle can slam fire, or fire when it’s dropped, or fire when the safety is flipped off. The same thing happens when you set the trigger pull lower than 3 pounds; it is not designed to function below that level, and there are some fools who love to take it down to 2 or 2 ½.

Right now I have an old 700 with a Walker trigger that has had over 5,000 rounds put through it with never a problem. But give me 5 minutes and a jeweler’s screwdriver and I can make it dangerous.

Enough. I eagerly await Mr. Cohn’s next program. I’m hoping it will be on why the public has so little confidence in news reporting.

*****************

BCWF ALERT

John B. Holdstock
BC Wildlife Federation

Kelowna, B.C.

http://www.bcwf.bc.ca/

AN ANALYSIS OF BILL C-580

BILL C-580: Fixing the gun registry, or fixing gun owners?

Bill C-580 was tabled on October 8, 2010 as a private members bill by NDP M.P. Charlie Angus to address potential fixes to the long gun registry. Its stated purpose was to “respect the concerns of rural Canadians while enhancing public safety.” It does not accomplish either purpose.

Let’s examine the goals in detail, along with other aspects of C-580 that the NDP have chosen not to publicize.

Providing a first-time exemption from criminal penalty for not registering a long-gun:

C-580 provides this exemption for “first time offenders” only if charged under Section 112 of the Firearms Act, a little used section that can already result in a fine for the offense of possession of a non-restricted firearm without a registration certificate. The usual charge laid by police is a Section 91 offense under the Criminal Code. Bill C-580 does NOT address Section 91 offenses.

Mandating the Auditor General to provide financial oversight of the registry:

Auditor General Sheila Fraser stated to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in May 2010 that she could not possibly conduct any financial audit for the next three years due to prior commitments. It is only a good idea if it is tied to a cost/benefit analysis. The Auditor General is not mandated to perform a cost/benefit analysis.

Protecting the privacy of gun owners’ identifying information:

C-580 permits any records of any individual to be released to any person, inside or outside Canada, “in the interests of public safety.” Bye, bye privacy. This maintains the shopping list for criminals.

Creating a legal guarantee to uphold Aboriginal treaty rights:

While C-580 states an offense under any of sections 90, 91, 93, 97, 101, 104 and 105 may have the effect of abrogating or derogating from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 may not be proceeded with, it places the onus upon the Defendant to prove his or her treaty rights were violated. This process will cost the Defendant tens of thousands of dollars to prove a violation. A decision favourable to the Defendant would almost certainly be appealed by the Crown. In net effect, there is little difference over what currently exists.

Establishing permanently free registration

Not quite. C-580 only eliminates the fees for Non-Restricted firearms. Owners of restricted and prohibited firearms will still be subject to an, as yet, undefined fee. This serves to create a two-tier system. Given the rest of the provisions in this bill one can assume this is deliberate. The fees for registering any firearm were eliminated in 2003 and registration has remained free since. These provisions in C-580 are a step backward, not forward. And remember, the Canadian taxpayer will end up stuck with the tab. Nothing is free.

Allowing military and police to share important information with the Canadian Firearms Program, including mental health concerns

This section should read “Requiring military and police…” It requires that Canadian military and police personnel must disclose whether they have ever served with the Canadian Forces or have ever served as a police officer. In doing so, all their service records become open to the Chief Firearms Officer without their consent. It is appalling that someone who has served Canada with honour should be subject to “criminal suspicion” because of their former occupation. This is precisely the issue that ordinary Canadians have bitterly complained about for so long. If, as C-580 implies, these individuals present a risk by virtue of their service to our country, perhaps we should be examining whether they should be given firearms in the first place? This section is offensive to those who serve and certainly does not indicate any “fix” of the long gun registry. On behalf of all gun owners, we are ashamed this made it to First Reading.

The following sections are not publicized in the NDP releases.

Ripping off widows and families

(2) Paragraph 112(2)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) a person who comes into possession of a firearm by operation of law and who, within 90 days or such longer period as may be granted by a chief firearms officer under subsection (2.1), lawfully disposes of it or obtains a registration certificate for it; or

This is the section of the Firearm Act that pertains to firearms placed in the possession of an Executor for the purposes of lawful distribution under the Inheritance Act. Currently, the sentence states the person has a “reasonable time” to fulfill their obligations under the two Acts. This current wording is appropriate. Larger collections may be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and require months (or years) to sell at fair market prices. Bill C-580 removes that option from an executor of an estate, forcing very valuable firearms to be sold off at bargain basement prices within a 90-day period. Literally, this section rips off widows and families by forcing the sale of valuable estate property. This grossly unfair.

Bill C-580 does allow for the extension of the 90-day period by permitting a single 90-day extension. In order to obtain that extension however, the widow must go, hat in hand, to the Chief Firearms Officer and be granted permission to extend. Simply put, another basic right subject to an arbitrary decision made by an appointed bureaucrat.

Gun bans – fasten your seat belt!

4. Section 117.15 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) The Governor in Council may make regulations requiring a manufacturer or importer to provide information for the purpose of establishing that the thing in question is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.

This section is a Canadianized version of the infamous British “Sporting use test” where all firearms are subject to bureaucratic interpretation as to what justifies a hunting or sporting firearm. This has been used to prohibit most of the firearms in Great Britain. It places enormous power in the hands of the bureaucracy to ban firearms. It is obvious that this is the intent of this section. Charlie Angus spoke of “closing the loopholes” in order to prohibit the popular Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, a common sporting and hunting firearm used by tens of thousands of Canadians. As the Mini-14 is no different than many other hunting rifles, this would be the start of wholesale confiscation.

Summary

It is very clear that this legislation does little or nothing to address the problems inherent with the long-gun registry of the Firearms Act. It is “smoke and mirrors” legislation which will certainly lead to further prohibitions of firearms, increased bureaucratic authority and more regulatory hoops firearms owners will have to jump through. Bill C-580 proves Canadian firearms owners cannot turn to the NDP party for relief from this oppressive legislation. Whether intentional or not, C-580 is proof positive: They just don’t get it.

The CSSA believes all responsible firearms owners should strive to ensure Bill C-580 never sees the light of day.
__________________________________

Canadian Institute for Legislative Action
“Defending Canada’s Heritage“

P. 905-571-2150    F. 905-436-7721

************************

BCWF ALERT

John B. Holdstock
BC Wildlife Federation

Kelowna, B.C.

http://www.bcwf.bc.ca/

The world is run by those who show up.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NDP’s Bill C-580 gives gun owners renewed energy for election fight

Sport shooters show disgust at feeble ploy to “fix” gun registry

(Vaughan ON – October 21, 2010) Private Members’ Bill C-580 tabled by NDP MP Charlie Angus earlier this month is ill-conceived and leaves firearms owners to conclude it is nothing more than a confiscation tool.

Bill C-580 is highly flawed legislation that tightens the screws on sport shooters by promoting gun bans, more bureaucracy and more red tape without contributing to public safety. The bill is designed to punish without cause sport shooters who enjoy Canada’s heritage activities, says Tony Bernardo, Executive Director of the Canadian Institute for Legislative Action.

“This bill was designed to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and it took Canadian sport shooters about two seconds to figure that out,” says Bernardo. “It’s the worst kind of insult to Canada’s two million firearms owners because it pretends to compensate for the shortcomings in the wasteful long-gun registry. Instead, it drives a stake deeper into the collective heart of the sport shooting industry.”

Angus’s attempt to market his bill to “respect the concerns of rural Canadians while enhancing public safety” is being ridiculed by gun owners. The bill merely espouses New Democratic Party anti-gun dogma and plays to Canadians who aren’t comfortable with guns in society.

“Bill C-580 tries to introduce a local version of Britain’s ‘sporting use test,’” explains Bernardo. “It allows a biased bureaucracy to define hunting and sporting firearms so it can prohibit firearms they don’t like from being imported into Canada. Angus admits he wants to close the loopholes on a common sporting and hunting rifle currently used by tens of thousands of Canadians. This is the slippery slope to wholesale confiscation.

“Angus has already angered gun owners by claiming that the fear of confiscation was created by paranoid conspiracy theorists,” adds Bernardo. “He obviously knows too little about the gun file to be creating legislation to run it. Sport shooters use virtually every type of firearm available for target shooting, so by definition they are all sporting guns.”

The NDP MP claims he consulted with interested parties prior to drafting the bill, but the bill show no evidence that it took place. He did not contact the Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA), which is Canada’s largest firearms association, or the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association, the industry body. Angus appears to have consulted only with anti-gun groups that don’t understand the value of heritage sports to millions of Canadians.

“This bill wants to take away the guns that belong to good, law-abiding people who put safety first,” he continues. “All we’re asking is leave us alone because responsible firearms owners are not the problem – go after the criminals instead. Does Angus even care that firearms have been an integral part of Olympic sports since 1896? Over 50 medals are awarded now for rifle, shotgun and handgun shooting. Why don’t the opposition parties get it?”

Bernardo is also communications director of the CSSA. He predicts that Angus and the other opposition members of Parliament who flip-flopped on their support for Bill C-391 to scrap the registry will have a rough ride in the next federal election.

“The CSSA and many wildlife federations will remind voters loud and clear that they were abandoned in their time of need,” says Bernardo. “The tabling of Bill C-580 is twisting the knife for gun owners. If Angus introduced this bill as a last-ditch effort to placate his constituents and other rural Canadians, he should be advised that he did just the opposite. He has given responsible gun owners a renewed reason to fight. For that, we thank him.”

-30-

******************

BCWF ALERT

John B. Holdstock
BC Wildlife Federation

Kelowna, B.C.

http://www.bcwf.bc.ca/

The world is run by those who show up.

This would be an opportune time to write to your local MP as well as the Premier’s office and tell them that it is time to stand up to these anti-hunting, anti-use activists and tell them that they cannot make the rules for resource use in British Columbia.

******************

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The “Sport” That Should Be Banned

Growing International Network Calls on B.C. Government to End the “Sport” That it Does Not Want people to Know About — The Trophy Hunt of Bears in the Great Bear Rainforest.
VANCOUVER, BC, February 16, 2010, –/WORLD-WIRE/–

In less than two months, the B.C. government plans to open the trophy hunt of bears in the internationally celebrated Great Bear Rainforest. Trophy hunters will be allowed to gun down vulnerable grizzlies and black bears as they emerge from hibernation.

A growing international network consisting of First Nations, conservation, animal protection and tourism groups — representing more than 15 million members and constituents from over 40 countries — is calling on the government to ban the trophy hunt for ethical, cultural, conservation and economic reasons.

“This is not a sport, it is a senseless slaughter,” said Art Sterritt, Executive Director of Coastal First Nations. “The trophy hunt goes against every moral teaching that we carry and is disrespectful to our culture and values.”

“When one looks at the diversity of groups calling for action, from First Nations and wildlife viewing businesses to some of the world’s leading conservation and animal welfare organisations, it is clear that the time has come to end this anachronistic blood sport.” said Ian McAllister, Executive Director of BC-based Pacific Wild. “With the 2010 Olympic games in town, the eyes of the world are on BC’s environmental practices, and this trophy hunt is tarnishing our reputation.”

“The international condemnation of this trophy hunt will continue to build until the bears in the Great Bear Rainforest are protected,” said Rebecca Aldworth, Executive Director of Humane Society International/Canada. “British Columbia residents and the world community stand united in their opposition to the cruel and needless trophy hunting of bears.”

“British Columbia should be celebrating our wildlife heritage, not killing it for sport or for a senseless trophy,” said Dean Wyatt, owner of Knight Inlet Lodge and a Director of the Commercial Bear Viewing Association. Our businesses depend on healthy bear populations and a positive international reputation.”

For More Information:

Rebecca Aldworth,
Executive Director,
Humane Society International
Canada phone: (514)575-6797
raldworth@humanesociety.org

Ian McAllister,
Executive Director,
Pacific Wild
phone:(250)957-2480
ian@pacificwild.org

Art Sterritt,
Executive Director of Coastal First Nations
phone: (604)868-9110

Dean Wyatt,
Coastal Bear Viewing Association,
phone (250)203-0353

Background:
- The Great Bear Rainforest, located on the BC central and north coast, contains the largest tracts of intact old growth temperate rainforest on earth.

- Each spring and fall season, the government of British Columbia allows trophy hunters, both local and foreign, to kill bears in the Great Bear Rainforest.

- A 2009 Ipsos Reid poll shows that 79 percent of British Columbians oppose the trophy hunting of bears.

- Of the 430 grizzlies killed in 2007 in BC, 87 percent were killed by trophy hunters. Approximately 300 BC grizzly bears are killed annually.

- Bear viewing is far more lucrative than bear hunting in BC. One bear viewing lodge in Knight inlet alone generates more revenue than the entire combined grizzly bear hunting industry.

Signatories of ad campaign: For ad download go to: www.pacificwild.org (Ad in Vancouver Sun today, Feb 16 pgA13)

Pacific Wild
Humane Society International/Canada
Humane Society of the United States
Humane Society
Wildlife Land Trust
Coastal First Nations
Greenpeace
Sierra Club BC
Western Canada Wilderness Committee
David Suzuki Foundation
The Spirit Bear Youth Coalition
Valhalla Wilderness Society
Bears Matter
Forest Ethics
Animal Rights Sweden
Freedom for Animals – Croatia
Brigitte Bardot Foundation – France
Franz Weber Foundation – Switzerland
Global Action in the Interest of Animals (GAIA) – Belgium
Fundacion para la Adopcion, Apadrinamiento y Defensa de los Animales (FAADA) – Spain
Four Paws (International)
Respect for Animals – UK
Commercial Bear Viewing Association of British Columbia
Robin Wood Canopy

*******************
BCWF ALERT

February 19, 2010

Open Letter to all British Columbia MLAs:

Recently representatives for BC Wildlife Federation (BCWF) met collectively with Ministers George Abbott, Barry Penner and Bill Bennett. BCWF had submitted a brief for their review which highlighted our members’ concerns with regard to the direction this government is taking generally in resolving many First Nations issues. This letter is a summary of those concerns and expresses the need for more balance in adjusting First Nations’ demands to the needs of all other citizens of the province.

We also appeal to you personally to become informed of matters that are now of critical importance to many British Columbians.

The courts, in a general fashion, usually accompanied by directions to negotiate balanced solutions, are defining aboriginal rights. These decisions are then loosely interpreted by the government and increasingly being applied to Crown Lands across the province. We should note, however, that these decisions are usually applied away from the eyes of the urban media.

It appears to BC Wildlife Federation that aboriginal rights only come from court decisions which may be the explanation why First Nations are constantly using the litigation option. Our government, on the other hand, seems to shun initiating this course of action. We fail to understand this apprehension on the part of government in light of the fact that most court decisions clarify First Nations rights and also for the most part, recognize and provide protection for the rights of all Canadians.

Access to lands and resources is becoming increasingly difficult for industry and the citizens of the province. For industry, it appears a patchwork has emerged of putting investment into resources where First Nations are favoured at a price. There is no faith in policies seen as constantly evolving and applied on a piecemeal basis. For the average citizen, there are no options. They have no input to the negotiations so that government understands their values; they have no funds to compensate First Nations for access to recreate and they have no ability to suggest compatible solutions to complex issues of land and resource use.

In all of these scenarios, the average citizen of the province is excluded and, because of the “Lets Make a Deal” mindset, solutions are imposed that have no chance of benefiting the province or, sadly, First Nations.

We would remind all that the premise government put on the requirement for treaty negotiations was to develop and create “certainty.” The facts are that certainty on aboriginal rights comes only from court decisions. The current government course provides no certainty for either party and promotes a never-ending negotiations process even after final agreements are signed.

For government, reconciliation agreements are being struck that transfer shared decision making and revenues directly to First Nations. These revenues are part and parcel of the social fabric of the province. They pay for health programs, educational programs, highway building and other functions of government. We urge you to understand and determine the increasing long-term impacts that the loss of these revenues will have on the maintenance and support of the programs on which all British Columbians depend sustainability is critical for the future of our province.

To what extent is the authority of the Crown being compromised in shared decision making agreements? Does “shared decision making” now confer a high level of recognition which invites conflict if not clarification in a high level legal challenge? Our legal advice is that the “shared decision” process in fact provides a veto for First Nations on any proposal to utilize public natural resources.

Indeed, is the province not avoiding resolution of provincial jurisdiction over public lands and resources by failing to get on with its appeal of the William decision?

Ultimately, as an elected MLA, you are part of government, accountable to your constituents and their questions and must be answerable not just to those constituents but to future generations of British Columbians.

In terms of the direction this government is taking regarding dialogue with First Nations for protocols, agreements and treaties, any opportunity for public involvement has been scrapped subsequent to the 2002 referendum. The development of government to government negotiations has unfortunately distanced the public who pay for all this process. We urge you to question the wisdom of supporting this exercise in alienation, not just in terms of individual political ends, but rather as a matter of conscience in being responsible for the social landscape and future opportunities for all British Columbians.

We request you consider and appreciate that all sectors and citizens of this province deserve the same level of consultation as is currently given to First Nations surrounding land use decisions. We further request you actively bring suggestions forward with your colleagues in government that can include the public in some meaningful way in the development of agreements with First Nations.

Specifically, with respect to land use, BCWF is keenly interested in the decision making process that impacts our members’ access to fish and wildlife resources. The management of these resources has been traditionally based on science. Increasingly, it appears decisions are being made on political grounds that would give in to demands by First Nations for exclusive opportunities. Complaints by First Nations of infringement, not of any right but on an ability to harvest, seemingly need no basis in data or fact. Evidence of not harvesting sufficient to their (First Nations’) needs doesn’t appear necessary for our Ministry to propose restrictions on residents completely devoid of conservation reasoning. We urge you to consider the risks to our fish and wildlife resource if management decisions are made for reasons of appeasing groups rather than on a scientific basis. We respectfully request your support when we bring these inconsistencies forward to our appropriate Ministers.

In closing, we wish to remind you that BC Wildlife Federation currently represents and enjoys the support of over 37,000 members throughout the province. These members are citizens who are outdoors people who recreate, hunt and fish often as family units. We draw to your attention that recreational fishing in this province generates in excess of $1.5 Billion for our economy each year. Angling also generates 17,400 jobs in this province every year. Hunting generates something in the order of another $500 Million and upwards of another 2,000 jobs.

Recreational angling in this province generates annually $115 Million to the provincial treasury and a further $170 Million to the federal treasury. Hunting contributes an additional $40 Million provincially and $50+ Million federally.

Access to lands and our fish and wildlife resources is important to these citizens as are all public resources to other British Columbians.

We respectfully urge you to consider the points we have raised here. The future of all British Columbians is very much a vision that must be analyzed by you personally in terms of a balance that assures ample opportunities for all.

Yours in conservation,

Mel Arnold, President
BC Wildlife Federation

The Daily News
Prince Rupert
February 18, 2010

A local notice in the newspaper placed by the BC Wildlife Federation may have broken what little potential there was for an agreement between B.C.’s Coastal First Nations and the BCWF.

The notice questions First Nations in Prince Rupert on whether they are aware of representation on their behalf by an ad hoc group named Coastal First Nations, a body that is advocating for the end of trophy hunting of bears on the coast.

Art Sterrit, head of Coastal First Nations, told the Daily News – after seeing the open letter for the first time – that this would be likely to severe any relationship developed between First Nations and the BCWF.

“We thought we were coming to an understanding and eventually an agreement over sustenance hunting with the BCWF. So, now I find out they have tried to undermine the political autonomy of First Nations along the coast. It won’t be tolerated – though I am not surprised,” said Sterrit.

In the BCWF notice, which is signed by BCWF president Mel Arnold, questions are raised over who appointed the group and what gave them the right to represent the communities. They also wanted to know if local First Nations have been properly consulted by the CFN, and whether CFN had the right to restrict future generations of First Nations from hunting.

“Ordinarily we would not get involved in the business of First Nations people or their relationships with the BC Government; however in this case an effort is being made by the consortium to virtually eliminate residents’ long and established cultural right to hunt.”

The intent of the letter, said BCWF Skeena regional representative Ken Franzen, is to fight fire with fire.

A massive ad was purchased in the Vancouver Sun signed by an international network consisting of First Nations, conservation, animal protection and tourism groups – representing more than 15 million members and constituents from over 40 countries – calling on the government to ban the trophy hunt for ethical, cultural, conservation and economic  reasons.

The campaign – which includes the Coastal Bear Viewing Association, Pacific Wild and the Humane Society of B.C. – is hoping that world attention on the Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver will result in eyes turned towards their cause.

“We have no choice but to respond,” commented Franzen. “We have hunted bears for a long time in this country and its not like we have a conservation concern. That would be different.”

Sterrit, however, is not amused.

“Our attempts at a relationship with the BCWF are finished,” proclaimed Sterrit.

“[First Nations] teach our children not to make fun of animals  - we teach them that.”

It has been brought to the attention of BC Wildlife Federation that a number of Coastal First Nation Bands have formed a consortium going by the name of “Coastal First Nations”. See www.coastalfirstnations.ca for more information. Does this Coastal First Nations group represent all First Nations members along the entire Coast? Ordinarily we would not get involved in the business of First Nations people or their relationship with the BC Government; however in this case an effort is being made by the consortium to virtually eliminate residents’ long and established cultural right to hunt.

It is troubling to us that after speaking to numerous First Nations people living in Prince Rupert, no one was aware of the consortium or their efforts to end bear hunting on the North and Central Coast. In addition, none of the First Nations people we spoke with were opposed to bear hunting if it is done in a sustainable manner. In fact, some of the people we spoke with either hunted bears or had a family member who hunted bears.

The intent of this letter is to encourage you to ask a number of questions.

Have you been properly consulted by those who claim to represent your interest? It is our belief that First Nations people living on the North and Central Coast hunted bears traditionally for food, clothing and tool-making material. What right do those who claim to represent you have to restrict future generations of First Nations people from hunting bear?

Residents in British Columbia and Canada have a long history of hunting and trapping for fur and for meat. It is a part of our heritage and our culture stemming back to the early days of the Hudson’s Bay Company and before.

For the benefit of those that don’t know, we wish to explain how the Ministry of Environment establishes the annual allowable harvest of bears and how the hunts are managed.

The Ministry of Environment conducts random surveys along with identifying the different types of habitats available for bears. A population is established for each bear population area. There is a harvest percentage provided for each population unit. Hunting only occurs where the population can sustain a harvest over time. Hunting for bears can occur in either the spring or fall. Black bears are estimated at 120,000 to 160,000 animals in the province. White or blue coloured phases of black bears are not hunted.

Grizzly bears, because of their population numbers (approximately 16,000), are only hunted through Limited Entry Hunting for residents or quota system for non-residents. The current licensed harvest rate is approximately 2% of the population. Natural population recruitment is typically 6% – 8%.

There is a scientific, peer reviewed, Grizzly Bear Harvest Management Policy that guides all grizzly bear hunting opportunity. This strategy was developed by independent scientists not working for the Ministry. It has many special safeguards including vast no hunting areas to ensure that grizzly bears will not be over hunted as conservation is always the first priority.

It has been expressed by the “Coastal First Nations” consortium that they have an interest in pursuing commercialized bear viewing. Members of BC Wildlife Federation have concerns about this unregulated activity. We believe that all wild animals should remain wild and not become habituated or dependant on humans to live. Habituation means that an animal loses its instinct to avoid humans and no longer acts in a natural way or looses its ability to forage naturally. We have always commented that commercial bear viewing can occur but should not cause the habituation of any animals. The habituation of bears leads to their inevitable demise. For example, a habituated bear who wanders into a schoolyard because it has become accustomed to human interaction, or looks for easy food, becomes a public safety issue and will be destroyed and disposed of at the expense of the taxpayers of this province.

BCWF looks for positive solutions where there is a tolerance for each other’s views and opportunities. All hunters need to respect each other’s needs and continue to promote sustainable hunting. Commercial bear viewing needs to be properly regulated to avoid habituation and conflict with others. Those who choose not to hunt need to respect the cultural and traditional importance to those who do.

Yours in conservation,

Mel Arnold, President
BC Wildlife Federation
Unit 101 – 3060 Norland Avenue
Burnaby, BC V5B 3A6
Telephone: 604-291-9990 Fax: 604-291-9933
Toll Free: 1-888-881 BCWF (2293)
officeinfo@bcwf.bc.ca www.bcwf.bc.ca

The auctioning of a Mountain Sheep tag and a Roosevelt Elk tag at this year’s Wild Sheep Foundation convention has been canceled.

The Special Draw for BC Residents for Mountain Sheep and Roosevelt Elk hunts has also been canceled for this year.  However, the two successful applicants from the 2009 draw will be able to hunt in the fall of 2010 for Mountain Sheep and Roosevelt Elk.

All Special Draw applications should not be sold by any Service BC or Vendor. If a person has purchased these applications they can apply for a refund through the Fish and Wildlife Branch.

The Fish and Wildlife Branch will work with the Stakeholder Associations over the course of the next year to see if differences can be resolved and these hunts reinstated.

************

BCWF ALERT
John B. Holdstock
BC Wildlife Federation
Kelowna, B.C

December 29, 2009

Mr. Ralph Archibald
Environmental Stewardship Division
Ministry of Environment
Box 9339 Stn. Prov. Gov’t.
Victoria B.C. V8W 9M1

Re – Klappan River Road Blockade and Subsequent Proposed Wildlife Management Changes.

Dear Ralph,

The Northwest Fish and Wildlife Conservation Association membership (The Regional Branch of the B.C. Wildlife Federation), wish to express their extreme disgust and frustration towards the illegal road blockade on the Klappan River Road that occurred in September of this year.

Government and the two policing agencies responsible for enforcing the law failed to protect legal rights, opportunities, property and safety of many citizens. The illegal behavior of certain Tahltan Band Members and lack of punishment for their illegal behavior now demonstrates to First Nations people that breaking the law leads to successful campaigning that discriminates and unjustly hinders other law abiding citizens of British Columbia .

Government behavior and subsequent lack of action by policing agencies makes a mockery of the Canadian Justice System, now viewed by us as an internal attach on our Sovereignty!

At the Skeena Hunters Advisory Committee meeting held Dec. 12, 2009 in Smithers. Regional M.O.E. Manager Tom Bell revealed to the committee a joint proposal from M.O.E. staff and the Tahltan Band that would unjustly impact resident hunters of British Columbia. Reducing the hunting season for moose in Region 6-19 to 6-29 by 30 days, reducing the hunting season by 60 days in portions of 6-20 and putting the Stikine, Pitman and Chuckachida Rivers on L.E.H. for moose are management proposals that are neither scientifically or socially defensible.

It is our contention that the illusion of scarcity being promoted by certain members of the Tahltan Band is part of a propaganda smear campaign to deliberately discredit resident hunters.

It is also our contention and supported by M.O.E. Biologists that the moose populations in regions 6-19 thru 6-29 are robust and no infringement of Aboriginal hunting rights exists.

While we are prepared to enter into further discussion with your staff in Smithers regarding a game check station on the Klappan River Road it would be our expectation that the station would be run professionally and without prejudice and that all hunters including guided non-residents and F.N. be obliged to report their activity and success.

We are also prepared to discuss with your Smithers staff logistics and workability of a compulsory inspection center at or near Tatogga Lake Resort. Again we would expect all hunters including F.N. and non-residents to report their harvest.

Our members feel that they as resident hunters have been deliberately targeted with no mention of the harvest and impact of non-residents. We are aware that for many species in the area harvest is dominated by non-residents and not residents as touted by some.

Spatsizi, Stikine, Chuckachita, Pitman and Edziza areas are prime examples.

In closing I wish to point out that revising hunting regulations and then doing inventory work is completely backwards. There are no conservation concerns for moose anywhere in the area of concern but there is certainly an optics issue.

May we suggest running the game check station, doing inventory work and then come back to the table to see if management changes are required.

Yours in Conservation

Ken Franzen – Chair N.F.W.C.A.

c.c. Tom Ethier – Director Fish & Wildlife M.O.E.
Tom Bell Region 6 Manager M.O.E.
B.C. Wildlife Federation Membership

Castanet.net
December 4, 2009
http://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/51240/B-C-hunters-betrayed-by-government

Hunters and fishermen with B.C. residency feel they are being betrayed by their own government.

The B.C. Wildlife Federation’s Political Action Alliance is fighting what it feels is reverse discrimination in a battle with the Guide-Outfitters Association of B.C.

BCWF spokesman Rich Petersen says resident hunters are losing out to out-of-province hunters.

In some areas of the province, Petersen says hunting opportunities run 70-30 in favour of out-of-province hunters.

“B.C. resident hunters are losing a lot of hunting opportunities,” says Petersen.

“The chances of a local resident obtaining a hunting tag are slim to none.”

Petersen says the problem lies with both the provincial government and the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C.

He says there is a government policy, the Allocation Policy, which determines the percentage of hunting opportunities that go to residents and those that go to non-residents.

“Negotiations began in 2004 on a new policy. After two-and-a-half year of negotiations, it was adopted in 2007. It has not been implemented due to political pressure from GOABC.”

Petersen says the new guidelines were supposed to be implemented in 2010.

“Government has been asked to forestall implementation until 2017. In the meantime, government has been reluctant to follow the allocation policy, mostly at the regional level.”

According to Petersen, who was involved in negotiations, the B.C. Wildlife Federation was very fair in dealings with GOABC.

He says they agreed to a larger reserve for out-of-province hunters than any other jurisdiction in Western Canada or the Western United States.

For example, Petersen says in Region Six (Skeena/Smithers area), local residents are supposed to be harvesting a minimum of 60 per cent but are getting only 30 per cent.

“The government is supposed to remove the barriers that are affecting residents success. They have refused to do that, mainly through pressure from the guiding industry.”

Peterson claims the guiding industry charge every non-resident hunter $150 which goes directly into a GOABC fund which they use to lobby the government to protect non-resident hunting issues.

“They have been fairly effective with that. We are a volunteer organization. We don’t have that kind of money.”

There are, according to Petersen, about 5,000 non-resident hunters coming into the province every year.

Petersen says the BCWF has started its own fund in hopes of using that money to lobby the government as well.

“We are just trying to get priority for resident hunters back on track in the province.”

**********************
BCWF Political Action Alliance

http://bcwfpaa.wordpress.com/

The world is run by those who show up.