Sick of NDP attack ads

[steven lloyd]

We acquired our hunting license last year but still need to purchase a firearm (already have PAL) before we can fill our deep freeze. I do not agree with trophy hunting at all. If you are not hunting for groceries than leave the animals alone.

I don’t hunt either (consider trophy hunting as closely akin to murder for sport) and I would normally completely agree with this statement above. However, working closely with a number of First Nations communities up north I can see the importance of hunting not only for sustenance, but for providing for the family by outfitting and guiding. Al makes a point worth considering:

Most of the controversy around LEH hunting is NOT from joe hunter out to bag his local venison provisions to “feed” his family it is more to do with big game trophy hunting. The complaint is that those guide hunters who actually earn a living by hunting professionally are usually paid by foreign hunters. For those who are not lucky enough to win a license out of the LEH draw it angers them that those hunters from outside of BC have any standing in the process courtesy of professional BC based hunting guide outfitters. Bottom line if you are a hunting professional who earns a living from hunting you have some certainty from the current government. Obviously there are only so many tags to go around and some people resent this arrangement. If you are a hunting guide outfitter trying to feed your family financially you are happy with this arrangement; and if you are an unlucky hunter who did not win an LEH you think it is unfair.

[Glacier]

I wonder if any candidates are running for Direct Democracy, that's who I'd vote for.

The problem with direct democracy is that is the majority imposes their will on the minorities.

[usquebaugh]

You overlook that the NDP restrictions were actually outright bans in some cases. That did not go over well with the hunting community. Most of the controversy around LEH hunting is NOT from joe hunter out to bag his local venison provisions to “feed” his family it is more to do with big game trophy hunting.

The complaint is that those guide hunters who actually earn a living by hunting professionally are usually paid by foreign hunters. For those who are not lucky enough to win a license out of the LEH draw it angers them that those hunters from outside of BC have any standing in the process courtesy of professional BC based hunting guide outfitters.

Bottom line if you are a hunting professional who earns a living from hunting you have some certainty from the current government. Obviously there are only so many tags to go around and some people resent this arrangement. If you are a hunting guide outfitter trying to feed your family financially you are happy with this arrangement; and if you are an unlucky hunter who did not win an LEH you think it is unfair.

Reminds me of the banking system in a way. If you are a commercial customer the banks often provide a special teller where there is a seldom a lineup; yet for the regular non commercial customers you wait in line until your turn. This issue really depends on what side of the fence you are sitting on.

Keep in mind the people who actually win an LEH draw are never the one’s complaining; it is always the sore losers who did not win that do. Pretty much how many things work in life.

And to answer your question, no I am not a hunter; just a person who knows hunters on both sides of the fence on this issue and can see points in favor from both perspectives. And you are correct people can always see things very accurately from their own perspective and often think that things should work in a manner that better suits themselves. As I don’t hunt I can see things from both sides on this issue..

I am only aware of the moratorium on hunting grizzly. What other animals were on the ban list? Also, I think that the moratorium, while it lasted, helped improve the population numbers of the grizzly, and I am wondering if that is the case for the other species on the list. As for guide-outfitters needing ot make a living for their families, I agree with that as well, but I do not think that it should be weighted so heavily in their favour. Also, guide-outfitters should be fined, if they don't harvest the meat and either use it themselves, or give it to someone else! Such waste is something that I find despicable.

By the way, I don't think that trophy hunters should be allowed to shoot grizzly, mountain lion, or any other animal that isn't readily used as a food source (and, yes, some people do eat these animals, but most shoot them, so that they can mount their heads on their wall). Perhaps the government should find a way to link up hunters who didn't get a tag with these guide-outfitters, and arrange some way for the would-be hunter to pay some fee to harvest the meat for him/herself?

As for your comment that, "Most of the controversy around LEH hunting is NOT from joe hunter out to bag his local venison provisions to “feed” his family it is more to do with big game trophy hunting," here's where I posted some letters to the editor on this topic.

[usquebaugh]

I wonder if any candidates are running for Direct Democracy, that's who I'd vote for.

The problem with direct democracy is that is the majority imposes their will on the minorities.

You mean we wouldn't have a Conservative minority government? Sweet!

I see your argument, though, which is why I agree with Thomas Jefferson:

Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

[steven lloyd]

I wonder if any candidates are running for Direct Democracy, that's who I'd vote for.

The problem with direct democracy is that is the majority imposes their will on the minorities.

You mean we wouldn't have a Conservative minority government? Sweet!

I see your argument, though, which is why I agree with Thomas Jefferson:

Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

I too believe oppression by the majority is something to be feared.

[NAB]

I wonder if any candidates are running for Direct Democracy, that's who I'd vote for.

The problem with direct democracy is that is the majority imposes their will on the minorities.

You mean we wouldn't have a Conservative minority government? Sweet!

I see your argument, though, which is why I agree with Thomas Jefferson:

Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

I too believe oppression by the majority is something to be feared.

Hmmmm, interesting questions being raised here... why does a democratic governmental system based on the will of the majority automatically get interpreted by some as oppression? Seems to me they are two distinctly separate things. It is relevant of course, because so many attacks and related ads seem to play to that misconception. At issue really is the definition of "reasonable" from the TJ quote? ...for what may be considered reasonable by one might be considered unreasonable by another.

Nab

[usquebaugh]

At issue really is the definition of "reasonable" from the TJ quote? ...for what may be considered reasonable by one might be considered unreasonable by another.

Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Actually, I think the most important word in this particular Thomas Jefferson quote is "equal." So (and I know I've used this example before!) if heterosexuals are allowed to get married, then in order to have equal rights, homosexual marriages must be allowed by the state.

[NAB]

At issue really is the definition of "reasonable" from the TJ quote? ...for what may be considered reasonable by one might be considered unreasonable by another.

Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Actually, I think the most important word in this particular Thomas Jefferson quote is "equal." So (and I know I've used this example before!) if heterosexuals are allowed to get married, then in order to have equal rights, homosexual marriages must be allowed by the state.

And so they are, put in place by democratic majority will (or at least a duly elected majority government ), hence the concept of "reasonable" has prevailed.

[JLives]

First, I don't think humans rights issues should be up for a vote. Anything going against The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Bill of Rights would fall under that.

Outside of that, with Direct Democracy, the people decide what's important and vote on what the issues actually are. The highest voted issues are taken to the next level of discussion and deciding what our options are for a solution. The top X number of solutions are selected and voted on by the people. This can be done on a Federal, Provincial and Municipal level although I think municipal would be the way to start while people get a feel for the system. As we see from the prevalance of vote in reality shows, people love a good vote lol. Especially if they don't have to leave their house to do it. The politicians would be there to execute the will of the people who will feel the immediate consequences of their votes and I beleive will make us think about issues a little more thouroughly.

[usquebaugh]

First, I don't think humans rights issues should be up for a vote. Anything going against The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Bill of Rights would fall under that.

Outside of that, with Direct Democracy, the people decide what's important and vote on what the issues actually are. The highest voted issues are taken to the next level of discussion and deciding what our options are for a solution. The top X number of solutions are selected and voted on by the people. This can be done on a Federal, Provincial and Municipal level although I think municipal would be the way to start while people get a feel for the system. As we see from the prevalance of vote in reality shows, people love a good vote lol. Especially if they don't have to leave their house to do it. The politicians would be there to execute the will of the people who will feel the immediate consequences of their votes and I beleive will make us think about issues a little more thouroughly.

In that case, I would also support Direct Democracy!

[Captain Awesome]

Outside of that, with Direct Democracy, the people decide what's important and vote on what the issues actually are. The highest voted issues are taken to the next level of discussion and deciding what our options are for a solution. The top X number of solutions are selected and voted on by the people.

Just like it's been pointed out - the majority will dominate. Only issues that are important to majority will be dealt with. On top of that we all know that sometimes issues on everyone's mind are not the most important ones. And anyone in minority can say goodbye to their rights to be heard.

[JLives]

Isn't Democracy supposed to be majority rule? Is that not how our current system works? Removing human rights from the equation what is wrong with majority rule for things like where to put roads, our taxation levels, environmental policy, crime? What do you by "minority rights"? Is the minority not a different group of people for each independent issue?

Politicians are currently not held accountable for garbage decisions. It would be different if we were able to feel the consequences of our decisions in an immediate fashion and have the power to change them. People may take the running of our communities a little more seriously.

[steven lloyd]

... with Direct Democracy, the people decide what's important and vote on what the issues actually are.

This would work well with a highly educated and informed electorate capable of critical thought This doesn't, however, describe the majority of voters in this province or country (probably not even this continent). The move towards a participatory democratic systems is already underway in some Eurpean social democratic countries. It would be a great thing for us to work toward (with the Charter of Rights as a safeguard like you have pointed out), however, we first need to address the lack of collective (ie. overall average) level of intelligence of the electorate. IMHO.

[steven lloyd]

Just like it's been pointed out - the majority will dominate. Only issues that are important to majority will be dealt with. On top of that we all know that sometimes issues on everyone's mind are not the most important ones. And anyone in minority can say goodbye to their rights to be heard.

That is currently true.

[Captain Awesome]

Isn't Democracy supposed to be majority rule? Is that not how our current system works? Removing human rights from the equation what is wrong with majority rule for things like where to put roads, our taxation levels, environmental policy, crime?

Well, say we introduce your system on provincial level. What part of our province will get most attention then? Lower Mainland. Just because close to half of BC population lives there. Isn't that something we're trying to prevent and are upset about currently? And if we do it on country level, we'll be all about Ontario. So, what's the point of having your system?

And another thing. You're saying the new system would act on issues that are most important to population. Are you sure that most important issues that people have actually are THAT important? In that case our city council would be addressing the rabbit problems before addressing homelessness issue. How about those tough decisions that make or break leaders? Decisions can be widely unpopular but they're good for the country.

Anyway. Direct Democracy sounds like a good idea on paper. But I really don't see it working in the real world with real people. May be there's more to it, but I'm only judging on how you've described it.