I'm Travis Bader and this is The
Silvercore Podcast.
Join me as I discuss matters related to
hunting, fishing, and outdoor pursuits with the
people in businesses that comprise the community.
If you're a new to Silvercore, be sure to
check out our website, www.Silvercore.ca where
you can learn more about courses, services, and
products that we offer as well as how you can
join The Silvercore Club, which includes 10 million
in North America wide liability insurance, to
ensure you are properly covered during your
outdoor adventures.
This episode, The Wild Sheep Society of British
Columbia has taken it upon themselves to step
up and be the change that they want to see when
it comes to protecting hunting rights in BC.
They are a small nonprofit organization
that it's carrying a heavy load.
And this episode is designed to help them get
their message out as well as to involve you, the
listener in an effort to crowd source solutions
as we move forward.
A quick reminder to check out the over $6,000
firefighter training package at the Training
Division in Texas, that The Silvercore
Club is giving away.
Check out our website for details.
We're live.
Today I'm speaking with Steve Hamilton and Greg
Rensmaag of The Wild Sheep Society of BC,
as well as The Talk is Sheep Podcast about
predator hunting and the social license to hunt.
Gentlemen, welcome to The Silvercore Podcast.
Thanks for having us.
So why don't you to provide a little bit of
background on this whole social license to hunt.
This is a new thing for me.
I been doing some research.
I'm learning about social license to operate and
what all of that entails.
How did this come about?
Do you want to take this one, Greg to that?
Sure.
Well, basically social license is exactly
what it sounds like.
What is socially acceptable in our times?
Uh, as we, as we've seen, there is a lot
of emotionally charged, uh, imagery out there,
whether or not it's regards to hunting,
fishing, or just anything in general.
We've all seen those commercials out there on
Christmas, where they've got the polar bears
and they're coming into the, the, the have a
Coca-Cola with the family and you're seeing the
Sharman bears and they're advertising toilet paper.
So they're essentially.
Putting the cute and cuddly on what is a
wild animal and their argument around that is
that, uh, the, these, these, these animals are
sent to you at beings.
They have families and they're, they're trying
to essentially demonize what is it, legal
and ethical practice managed by science.
And that social license means we need the voting
support to, to, to continue what we do.
And that's what they're going after right now.
Got it.
So thinking about social license, and I
think I've told this story before in The
Silvercore Podcast, but I can remember a number
of years ago and the corporation of Delta at
the time before it became a city of Delta went
and decided they did not want any other firearms
businesses in, in Delta.
And so they had a big meeting at the town hall
and I came in, armed with all my facts and
all my stack of papers.
And I started, they gave me a forum.
I started talking and about, I don't know,
five minutes into it.
One of the individuals stands up, says, Travis,
hold on a second.
Do you have much more of this?
Like I do.
Why he said, well, let me tell ya.
I, 100% agree with everything.
You're saying all the facts that
you're spitting out.
I agree with 100%, but here's the thing.
If we think that our constituents want us to
ban firearms businesses from Delta, then we
have to take a look at banning firearms
businesses from Delta.
And I was flabbergasted.
I think it was in my, I don't know it was,
uh, late twenties, mid, mid to late twenties.
And I never had that level of honesty from
a political type.
And I had no rebuttal to that.
I had none of the stats, none of the
numbers made any sense.
It was.
Do we feel that people may want us
to ban the firearms businesses in Delta?
And it sounds like the exact same thing
that's happening here.
That's exactly what it is.
And, uh, what, what people have now
realized is that when a politician is elected,
they're essentially their employee, right?
So the voters can dictate whether or
not they hire or fire.
So they do listen to the social license.
They do listen to the push and they have acted
on it before, which I imagine we'll get
into a bit later with the grizzly bear hunt.
That's right.
Yeah, well, we can, we can talk right now.
Sure.
The, the grizzly bear hunt, they
put a moratorium on hunting, grizzly bears
in British Columbia.
They said ban can't hunt grizzly bears in British
Columbia, but if I'm not mistaken, wasn't it
based on something that happened in Alaska, some
sort of social media outcry that happened
in Alaska, my right on.
There was a, uh, a poor taste video that was out
there of, uh, a bear not having the, the quickest.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Greg and I admin a couple of, uh, hunting websites.
And as soon as that got posted, we both
messaged each other and went, Oh, here we go.
It, uh, it, it did us no favors.
And, uh, yeah, it w this, it, it was
used to further in emotional agenda for
a scientific argument.
Um, and what it all boils down to is that social
license as hunters, uh, we, we strive to be the.
That the quickest, most, most ethical
kill for our, our, our, uh, quarry.
And when we see something like that, we know, well,
number one, it's what the hell are you doing?
Posting that on social media and two it's.
Oh, damn.
This is going to be used to further an agenda.
So when, when they did close the grizzly
bear hunt, it was on, it was on, uh, well,
I'll be straight lies.
Uh, they originally put out as their platform
that they were going to ban the trophy hunt
only, and they put it out to public input and
said, what that trophy hunt looks like is a meat
retention, which every hunter I ever talked
to was on board with to put it on par with black
bears and remove the hide in the head and which is
on part with black bears.
So, uh, vote, vote goes down.
They get in a.
The legal hunt for the Leh closes November 30th
and all of a sudden, December 17th, uh,
2017, just before the legislature, legislature
sat for Christmas, they went, the hunters closed.
So they yanked it out completely on us.
And that's what we're concerned about here
with the, uh, ActNow campaign is because
they've, they've got an inch and they're going
to go for the full mile.
So could you fill me in on the ActNow Campaign?
You want to take this Greg?
Yeah.
Yeah, definitely.
So just right now, there's organized efforts
by multiple groups to try to stop our privilege
to hunt the large carnivores and BC and
her, uh, specifically named are wolves, cougars
and black bears, uh, mountain sheep, and elk
have also been listed as trophy animals.
Is that kinda, that's how the grizzly bear hunt.
So that that's how the grizzly bear band
started was listing it as a trophy hunt.
So that puts all of them in jeopardy.
Um, we're just, we're looking for the hunting
community to kind of come together and stand up for
science-based wildlife management with us.
So, yeah.
And it's, as Greg said, it's about science-based
management, no hunter out there, uh, or
conservationists wants to see extirpation
or extinction of a species at all.
If science dictated that a hunt needed to be
closed due to numbers, we'd be going hell yeah,
we backed that 100% and a former minister of
FLNRO when the hunt was closed for the grizzly,
uh, Doug Donaldson said it wasn't about numbers.
It wasn't about science.
And he admitted that it was populism and
the vote saying that is what was closing it.
And that's what we're up against again.
Uh, It's we, we owe it to wildlife to
manage it properly.
And where the disconnect a lot of people seem
to get, unfortunately is they say, let
nature balance itself.
And they, they forget.
And they remove themselves from being
a part of nature.
We have an impact as human beings, you live
in a house, you drive a vehicle, you'll walk
on a road, you ride a bicycle, no matter
what, you're having an impact on nature.
And we, we need to, to manage accordingly.
And that's what ActNow is about.
It's not just about hunting.
It's about seeing wildlife
managed properly.
I was speaking with Shane Mahoney recently,
and he's say, so you know who Shane is?
I think he was a keynote speaker at one of your
events a couple of years ago, actually.
And he says, you know, people will ask me.
How can you have these feelings and be a hunter?
How can you care for the wildlife like
this and be a hunter?
And he says, it's not a question of there
being a different set of rules for me as there
is for the wildlife.
That's the reality is, is I am one of them.
That's right.
And the idea of being of us humans being socially
removed from this whole, uh, from wildlife in
nature, I guess it's a nice altruistic
thought, but it's not in line with reality.
And that's what it's about.
Right.
That's where people forget that.
So you guys have a, it's not a petition.
No, but, but it's a, a form.
I filled this out.
What would you guys call it?
Yeah, an organized letter campaign.
Okay.
And this organized letter campaign can be found
on your own website.
That's right.
Uh, uh, www.wildsheepsociety.com
forward slash ActNow we've typed that
out so many times.
It's probably ingrained in my subconscious
and basically it's, it's 15 to 20
seconds of your time.
You click enter and the website
populates for you.
You've got to enter your name, first
name, last name, and your email address
and email address.
Isn't for us, it's for the elected
official to be able to respond to you.
We've had a couple of people say that they're
concerned about getting spam emails from us,
and that's not the case.
So your first name, last name, uh,
your email address.
So the elected official can contact you.
And then there's a dropdown where you
can put in the email address of your MLA.
So no matter who it is, you can put it in there.
And the cool thing is we've made it.
So anybody who stands with us that doesn't
necessarily live in British Columbia
can have a stance.
There's a not applicable email address.
So these emails will still go to a premier
Horgan, uh, minister of FLNRO, and a couple
others saying we stand with a science-based
wildlife management and that, and that's
the key there because it's, as I said, it's
not just about hunting.
It's about anybody who stands with sound
wildlife management, and wants to see
wildlife and perpetuity.
So whether or not you are a, a tourist that
comes up from the United States and just love
to see a moose on the landscape, or if you're
a wildlife photographer who enjoys seeing wild
sheep throughout spences bridge area, you can have
a stand in this as well.
And we need anybody who, uh, who, who wants to see
it in perpetuity to sign.
So right now, the big hue and cry is around wolves.
If I'm not mistaken, PR predominantly
about PR predator hunting, but wolves.
That's correct.
It's uh, it's the one that people can grab
onto easily because, uh, that they look like
your pet dog, right?
They're the same family, but you hear about it
all the time, right?
They're they're not is cute.
And cuddly is we'd love them to believe.
Right?
Do I've seen dozens of wolves on the landscape
and they're one of the most beautiful
animals out there.
And completely love and respect them.
They are the majestic beings that they're
portrayed to be, but I'm pretty sure anybody
out there that, uh, knows the reality, like
Greg will back up on this, but what makes
a wolf more important or more beautiful on
the landscape than say a caribou that we're
watching go extinct in certain population units
because of a predation.
So it's, they've, they've escalated wolves up
here because of the cute and cuddly factor
where I'm guessing.
And because it's a, it's a, it's something
easy to grab a hold of.
Sure.
You don't see the save the spiders
campaign, right?
Oh no.
My wife would kill me if I ever backed out.
Exactly.
So.
I understand that this letter writing
you've guys have made it so easy.
Just a couple of minutes, they put their
information in and we'll put links on our
website and we'll put links up on the YouTube
channel and through social media, what's
the traction been like?
I got, uh, as a 1:00 PM today we're at,
uh, 9,492 letters or people that signed up,
which equates to 47,460 letters that have been
sent to the different levels of government.
Okay.
And that's 9,000 out of 115,000 hunters.
Yeah.
Pretty, pretty dismal since we started this.
What?
February 25th at launch.
Yeah.
And one of the most concerning things I
guess, is that I know I have, and Greg has,
and a few others have.
Uh, faced pushback by the hunting community
themselves saying that they don't believe we're
under attack and we've got direct quotes and
people saying, well, we should have to get
a trapping licenses to, to hunt predators,
or we will never ever lose a black bear hunt.
And we just go, did you not see the
grizzly bear hunt?
They've got the inch, they're gonna take
the mile and they're going to chip away.
They're absolutely going to chip away because
on some of these pages, I've seen quotes from
anti, uh, organizations and their members say,
uh, nobody will hike for 14 days to get a goat
and bring out all 60, 70, 80 pounds of meat.
So you know where they're going with that?
Goats, goats, and sheep, because they're trophy.
Right.
And I could, I could show them a freezer
full of bear and deer and you name it.
And they're still going to look for holes
to punch in there.
And it's, as you said, hunters love wildlife.
We do not want to see it go extinct
or, or extirpated in any population unit.
And this is about so much more than, than hunting.
So is that, do you have a multi-pronged approach,
to a rebuttal, to the, uh, attack against see
the predator hunting?
Or is this a singular prong?
We're in phase two right now.
Uh, the idea is to, uh, in June, we're
going to take these physical letters and
present them to elected officials in Victoria.
How that's going to look with COVID restrictions.
We're not sure, but the idea is to take every
single letter, print it off and go, hopefully on
the back of a forklift and go, this is how
many people stood up to say it's time to listen
to the scientists.
So, um, Yeah, we do have a multistage,
a multi-pronged.
We started with the online campaign just
to kind of get the ball rolling out there.
And then we've now got ads on a Wild TV and
Sportsman Channel to get another market there.
Uh, we've got a couple other approaches where
we've got them into a physical letters into
mom and pop gun stores.
And we're looking at other ways to reach
people that are off of social media and, uh,
put, put letters in front of them that they can
actually sign themselves.
And as you said, we're in phase two, we have
a phase three that we're working on and,
uh, yeah, we're, we're going continue to, to
listen to feedback from, uh, concerned hunters,
anglers sport shooters, uh, than anybody who's
got a vested interest in seeing wildlife on the
landscape for how they think, uh, We could, uh,
potentially approach, uh, other people.
Yeah.
So when I getting ready to do this podcast,
I've actually done a fair bit of thinking
on the problem and I don't have a solution,
but I thought it would be an interesting
endeavor anyways, to discuss different
options and perhaps crowd source through
the different listeners.
And they can say, Hey, you've got a point
or you're totally off base, but maybe think
about this over here.
And in thinking about it, it seemed to me that the
best approach would be to come up with something
that wasn't secret that was out in the open.
And it's easy for everybody to kind of
get behind because I agree with you.
I have seen the creep, the creeping legislation.
I've seen the creep in anything that's
considered to be, um, socially reprehensible.
That's right.
I come from the firearms community.
And we've seen a few generations of socially
engineered people come through to equate the
firearm with being evil.
There's only see a campaign and say ban
Mercedes-Benz because they're getting all
these, these people are getting behind the
wheel and, and hurting people when they've
had a few drinks.
Yeah.
You, you don't see a vehicular manslaughter.
They don't turn around and say banned cube vans
because it, the inanimate object doesn't have the
social stigma that has been put on to firearms
in the, in the, uh, what you guys are dealing
with right now, as I look at it, it looks like
there is an individual.
Chris wrote a paper, was it 2018?
Yeah, it was a 2018 just after, yeah.
After the grizzly bear hunt, uh, that all
this really started to gain traction.
Okay.
But that paper really didn't see any traction
in, Oh, just recently.
That's right.
Yeah.
It's called social large carnivores and the
social license to hunt.
It ended up on a, uh, a site and it
was sent to me and I went Whoa, and had a
real good look at it.
And there were some trigger words in there
and, uh, I'll be the first one to say it.
He is very intelligent and very good
at what he does.
He's got a great crowd of people behind
him back in him.
Uh, you got Kyle Artelle, Paul Paquete and a
bunch of the other big wigs that they've got
some chops with them.
And, but the buzzwords I was noticing in there
were, were not just the wolfs and black bears
that they target and cougars, but they've
also thrown in there in veiled sort of hints
that big horn sheep and elk have trophy value.
So as we said that death by a thousand cuts,
well, if they, if they've named five animals and
we give them one, are we gonna go that, it,
is their argument going to be okay, well, if you
give us wolves, we'll leave the others alone.
Absolutely not because it's going to end up
being four more and then it'll be, well,
you give us one, we'll leave the other three.
And that's what we're being con con uh, uh,
proactive about because, uh, hunters for the
longest time have flown under the radar and
not been proactive.
We've been pretty reactive.
Like I know when I lived in the mainland and
you, you can probably vouch to this yourself,
Travis, when you uh, go out to your vehicle
to go to the range.
You, you, you look outside to make sure
is it okay to walk out with my, uh, firearm
in a case you, you check, who's watching
you, for the most part, for the most part.
Because I have heard horror stories about
people in, in, uh, Yaletown walking to
their, from their condo to their vehicle, with
their firearms, perfectly legal and getting taken
down at gunpoint because somebody saw them, uh,
doing something which is perfectly legal that
they didn't understand.
So hunters grown up hell not too long
ago, 30, 35 years ago.
It was commonplace to see, uh, in the mainland,
a deer strapped to the front of a car.
And you'd wave and somebody stopped
at a gas station.
You'd have pictures with it.
Now you do that and you end up on social media
as a murderer, right?
People want your license plate and you get death
threats and we're, we're being proactive
for, uh, for a change.
Right.
We're we know there's no legislation formally
right now, but we know the wheels are turning
and they've got the ear of government.
So we're trying to say, Hey, you know what, it's
our turn to speak up.
So yeah, it's that the paper came out in 2018
and, uh, they've sat on it for three years, but
we know what's coming.
So we're trying to try to beat them to the
punch, so to speak, you know, how many people
were really aware of that paper or of Chris
in general, prior to this, lots of people
were aware, Chris and, uh, his organization.
However, I don't think they were aware.
To the extent of influence they've had.
Uh, yeah, like I said, there he's been
around for awhile.
He's a professor at UVIC he's, uh, with his
organization there and yeah, he's, they, uh,
they have some swing, they've got some chops
with them, but yeah, the lots knew who he was,
but I don't think they understood the influence
that they've had.
Now, I don't know if you know who Dan Fritter is.
He's the owner of Calibre Magazine and
was talking with him about some issues
on the firearm side.
And he says, I'm not even going to
bother responding.
Everyone says, Dan, how come, how come
you don't write about it in your magazine?
Why don't you put this up on, on Facebook
or on your website?
He says, look at them, they have 300 followers.
I have whatever, X number, large
number more.
Why am I going to elevate their profile
by shining more light on them and allowing them
to use my platform in order to get further?
That's right.
I think that perhaps that is part of the
tactic that's currently being played right now
by, Chris, and the, in the organization there
and I haven't been using his last name and I
haven't gotten anyone in the organization.
That's up to you guys if you'd like to, but
I believe that's part of the tactic is to
try and piggyback.
Oh, absolutely.
It is.
They've got one hell of a following and I'm doing
the same thing you are.
We're not elevating them if anybody who knows
they know by listening.
Um, but yeah, they've, they've got one
hell of a following on social media.
Uh, you only have to look at a couple
of their petitions.
There's one.
What was it?
Three weeks ago Greg had had, it was just
about, it was just strictly centered
around wolves 500 and.
Yeah, it was like 504 or 503,000 already.
Yeah.
And that's just one of them.
And their Cougar one was what?
50 or 30 shooting for 50.
Yeah.
And that was on a, uh, just a social media post.
Just a social media post.
Right.
So they've, they've got traction and we're
trying to like, like I said, Greg and I admin a
bunch of different pages.
We got between us, probably 200,000
people we admin.
And whenever we post anything like
this, we try to be strategic and cross
out where it's from.
Who's posting it and we always make a disclaimer.
Don't engage them.
Don't give them any traction, but this
is what they're doing because hunters
it's, it's, it's a emotive, right.
It really, really is emotive and are privilege
to hunt is under attack.
And a lot of people don't take too well to that.
So they will use screenshots.
Uh, they will they'll bait you they're really,
really good at it.
A couple of years ago, I did, uh, before they,
before they, uh, uh, went full on with the grizzly
bear hunt ban, I did a, uh, interview for, I
believe it was CBC and, uh, the province, just
talking about grizzly hunting and I ended
up with death threats.
My family ended up with death threats.
And it was, if the shoe was on the other foot.
Imagine if a firearms owner did that, Travis,
if a firearms owner went to somebody and
said, we're going to kill you type thing.
How would that be taken by the general public?
You'd be front and center of every news network.
Exactly.
Got it.
Exactly.
So, and this organization, they
did kind of talk about the caribou numbers.
Didn't they?
And essentially didn't they say, who cares?
They did.
They did great point.
I'm glad you brought that up because they,
they did say essentially who cares, they're gone.
Just leave them alone, let them go.
They don't, they're not going to make
it, let them go.
And as I said, why are wolves more important
than the caribou, right?
I, I don't get that.
As a conservationist, you want to see them all.
So, as I spent some time trying to think
about this and I'm looking at it, I'm
trying to decompile it.
And I think you guys, well, I'm fairly certain
you, your organization and you guys are correct
in so much as saying, they're looking at
this, but they have an ulterior motive, they'd
like to go further.
And when you talk about some veiled language,
it doesn't sound very veiled to me, it's
pretty plainly written.
And I think anybody with a benefit of hindsight
would turn around and look at it and say,
yeah, they're talking about it back in 2018.
They're talking about it further.
So essentially it sounds like hunters
have been trying to fight an emotional
ban and emotional response, and they're
trying to use science.
How has that been working out?
It's it's, it's a tough one.
It's a tough one because we're consumptive
users, right.
We go into the back country, uh, for the
experience and to try and harvest an animal.
And the ultimate goal is to put something
in your freezer.
And we know as hunters that it's, it's
managed by the best available science
there is out there.
So for the, they use it to, uh, uh, they, they
use emotion to try and portray us as murderers.
So we go, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
We're not murderers.
This is managed by science and we don't,
if we push back with emotion, it's,
it's a tough battle.
Like I'll be straight, it's a tough battle.
So we try and say, it's a, so it's a
scientifically managed hunt, but here is
our connection to it.
It's about that there's uh, there's 160,000
black bears estimated in British Columbia, a
quarter of all the bears in North America reside
here in British Columbia.
That's a great argument to counteract, well
they're cute and cuddly and uh, there's,
there's not enough of them because they do,
you see it everywhere.
Wolves are endangered, black bears are
endangered, cougars are endangered.
And if we can counteract with a little bit
of science and then throw in the emotion
of that connection, it's, it's hopefully
going to go a long way.
So, one thing that I was thinking about
was what if you don't counteract with the
science, the science is very, very important.
Have the science as a basis for something
that you can rely upon and he can hold up.
But what if it isn't done from a scientific
perspective and by it, I mean, what if the, uh,
rebuttal isn't done from a scientific perspective?
And what I'm thinking is essentially we're
in a losing situation, the battle that's being
fought is an we're in an untenable position.
You cannot defend when the argument has already
been framed in such a way that hunting is
bad, firearms are bad.
I mean, to the non hunter, is a person
that you have to get this information
right front of.
Maybe instead of trying to hold all the science
out and say, but look at, look at the numbers over
here and look how the science and the one side
said that the grizzly bears would all be
wiped out at this rate.
And that didn't really work out the way that
they figured, uh, the science that the hunters
have been accumulating is actually good.
Sure.
What if instead, you take a look at reframing
the argument and in a way that essentially
makes the motive of the other side, very clear.
I mean, like if we were to strip down what the
end goal is from this paper in this point and
predator hunting, what if we take that to the
absolute and degree and start identifying.
What animals should be harvested and what
animals shouldn't.
I bet ya.
As you push it down, they would turn around
and say, well, I don't think any animals
should be harvested.
I think as you push them further and further in
that conversation, it would just come down
to, I don't necessarily think hunt hunting is
an inalienable, right.
Even though in the paper, they do say for
an indigenous group.
Yes.
That's your inalienable.
Right.
But for everybody else, no, we'll play nice on
this side, but the other side, you know, we, we
want some support and you took a look at it
for the extremist, uh, essentially emotional
terrorism that it is.
I think it'd be harder for people
to get behind that.
And in the day and age of, uh, anti-bullying
being out in the forefront, the tactics
and the way that it's being portrayed, I
mean, hunters aren't, blood-thirsty savages.
But there is that idea out there that a hunter
has a firearm, a firearm is violent, firearm
causes things to die.
So in the approach of taking a look at the
other side of their argument and really
fleshing out what they're looking at, a two-fold
solution, I was thinking anyways, was to separate
the hunter from the argument and what I say
that, because if you and bear hold with me,
cause I don't have a completely figured out,
but I have some thoughts on it, but you're never
going to get all the hunters to play nice.
They're going to have people that say,
well, I'm, I'm only a small game hunter.
I'm only a bird hunter or I'm only a,
whatever it might be.
So why bother trying to get it all to the
hunters on the same page as it goes forward, when
they throw a picture up of somebody doing
something that's either illegal or maybe this
in very poor taste, all hunters wear that.
So what if you separate the hunter from there?
So if somebody does do that, that's the
drunk driver, not all drivers drive drunk,
not all people who get drunk drive, but there
is a, there is a very logical separation there.
So if you take a look at the actual, uh, end
goal of what the other side is trying to do,
and then painted it in such a way that shows
it for what it is.
I have a few more thoughts on that,
but I've been talking for a bit.
So I'm going to let you get to let you,
uh, jump in here.
Uh, one of the issues with that, um, you
know, everybody's getting painted with
that broad brush.
So they gave him, if you look in the mainstream
media, if there's a poacher out there and you
know, a hundred percent convicted poacher,
the mainstream media, majority of them will
still call them a hunter.
Right.
And it's, well, you're not a hunter,
you're a poacher, it's illegal activities.
Most of us don't do that.
There's those, every, every activity
has got a bad egg.
Right.
So we always seem to get painted with
that brush and then.
You cant escape it.
No, no, you can't for sure.
It's the same thing with the way they,
they say trophy hunt.
And if you ask a non hunter, what a trophy
hunt is, it's somebody who goes out there
and shoots the biggest animal they can and only
takes the antlers or the horns or the hide.
And we tell them, no, that's a poacher and
we're trying to, they demonize the word trophy.
And, uh, there's been studies out there that
even when you break it down into a selective
hunter, which we prefer to use, where somebody
goes out there and they target the biggest
animal possible to get, uh, the reward of
that, the trophy parts, whether or not it's the
antlers or the hide, the, they break it down.
And I believe it was less than 4% of hunters
identify as a quote unquote trophy hunter.
So we're, we're trying to, uh, to delineate
and show the separation between what a trophy
hunter is under their definition versus what
is under our definition.
And I think that's where a lot of the
disconnect lay.
So we do use the, the emotional side of things
with, uh, 1Campfire where we try and show
what a hunter has in common with a non hunter,
because it's, it's so much more then the kill.
It's about going out and enjoying the back
country and time with family and friends.
And I've always said that the most successful
hunts I've ever been on, I've never even
pulled the trigger that because I come back with
nothing but memories, hunters, or hikers, we're
boaters, we're mountain climbers, we're skiers.
We're we're we're we, we love fishing.
You name it.
There's so much more to the entire package
and that's one of the, uh, the things
we try and show.
It's not just a, uh, a blood sport.
And that's another thing you see quite constantly
is, uh, there is no limits on anything.
That you're looking to go what, it's not like
you turn a corner and all of a sudden there's
15 deers standing there and you get out and
you mow them down with your scary AR 15 right?
And it's, it doesn't happen.
I, I live in Prince George and I get moose
in my front yard and bears in my front
yard, constantly.
But it's not as easy as that because
it's about so much more than the hunt.
So much more than the kill that the hunt is
the process, right?
And there's so much more we're chasing
than animals.
So 1Campfire, that's something that Wild
Sheep's Society has supported.
And is that it.
It is Wild Sheep Society.
It is a campaign by The Wild Sheep Society.
Yes.
Okay.
And it's been about two years now, I believe
it's been running for.
Just over.
Yes.
And do you guys have metrics, uh, do you
hold metrics and do you, uh, have, uh,
measuring system for, uh, measuring the efficacy
of the 1Campfire.
No.
Specifically, it's about getting the message out
to as many non-hunters as we can with a, a soft
core hunting message.
Uh it's.
As I said to show that connection that we shared
that's about more than pulling the trigger.
So it's, you'll see some posts, we'll have a
bit more veiled hunting nuances in there.
Some we'll be talking about the hiking and that
the tie in with hunting.
Uh, we have, uh, tasty Tuesdays, which shows,
uh, wild game usage, uh, wildlife, Wednesdays
highlight wildlife and successes hunters have
had with rebuilding populations, like in
the 1930s, uh, they figured turkeys were
going to go extinct.
There was less than 30,000 across,
uh, North America.
And now there's over 7 million.
It's it's, it's crazy that the positive
impact hunting has had on the landscape.
And that's what we try and show with 1Campfire
that it's about so much more than the kill.
Mm.
So, and, and that definitely shows one
side, I think with COVID that there is a
huge push for people to want to learn about
self sustainability.
Yes.
Self-sufficiency a lot of people want to get into
nature and they want to learn about hunting and
hunters share an intimate relationship with nature.
That non-hunters would have a very difficult
time understanding.
I mean, the amount of preparation of learning,
the land of learning, the animal of learning,
how to care for the game, eat afterwards
and processing it.
And it's so much more than just the
pulling of the trigger that happens in a
fraction of a second.
That's right.
And I think that 1campfire does a
great job of showing those other things.
I'm wondering if there's a possible way that
somebody perhaps much smarter than myself
can take the, uh, take the conversation.
And I see 1Campfire as a prong of showing what,
uh, uh, hunters do.
And I see the general trend towards food as
being a huge driver for people to be interested
in, in wild foraging, fishing and hunting.
But is there a way to essentially separate,
not even have that trophy argument because
trophy hunting by whose definition, obviously
there's, there's going to be definitions
and those definitions can get twisted.
So what do we just take trophy rate out of it?
Take a look at the hunter aspect.
We'll look at this guy, he poached
all those animals.
Well, he's not a hunter.
Of course he's not a hunter, but
the non-hunters don't see that.
Take the hunting aspect out of it.
And maybe go for my perspective of.
Why is it this organization wants to
see the caribou die?
I mean, if I ask a person a question, well, do you
still beat your wife?
How do you answer that, right?
Well, no.
Okay.
So you stopped, right?
Well, yeah, so?
So you're a wife beater?
Got it.
I mean, essentially that's a position that
hunters are currently in.
And so talking about trophy hunting and
talking about defending these different hunting
practices, in my opinion, is a losing battle.
And maybe that will form the science side.
That'll back up an argument, but a more
offensive approach.
And it's not coming out and calling names or,
or, or anything like this or the death threats
that you are receiving, but it's really
systematically drilling down into the other side
and taking a look at what the end goal is.
And if the science supports that,
Hey, guess what?
They're going to have a bunch of hunters that
that'll get in behind it.
But if they're actively saying that science
doesn't support it, who wants to be labeled as an
eco terrorist or, I mean, essentially irrational,
irrational individual.
And my way of thinking goes that that's sort
of the approach that needs to be taken.
A way to maybe hire a PR company to reframe
what is actually happening into something
that is palatable and understandable by the
general public and maybe hire a law firm because
I did in my research notice that the other
side seems to be doing both of those things
with great success.
Pro problem is we do have great PR people in our
wings with Wild Sheep.
Uh, however, the problem is is we, we
don't have the pocket books like them.
We'll be blunt, right?
We're we're volunteer run.
We have what Greg two paid employees.
Yep.
Two paid employees and 1100 members.
Yeah.
And we, our money's not as, not as, not there
But 115,000 hunters.
Yeah.
Exactly.
We, we can't get, uh, we can't get 10,000 hunters
to sign up, to protect the, the privilege
to hunt right now.
As you said, hunters, can't come together
to, uh, to agree on what's the best firearm
for using in a season.
You still see people.
Well, no, I'm a bow hunter, well,
I'm a rifle hunter.
Well, I'm a shotgun hunter.
Well, how dare you shoot that two point buck?
Well, it was legal, but you should hold out and
wait for a mature buck.
Get rid of the doe season.
There's a wolf call on right now.
Well, don't shoot anything you can't eat.
I can keep going on and on and on and on.
And hunter, hunters can be are, are our
own worst enemies.
And, uh, dude, you nailed it was saying
we have a PR problem.
We've we've, uh, we've known that for years
and it it's tough to.
To take a narrative back from the masses
that has been so well executed against us.
And especially when you're facing
organizations that have got seemingly endless
pocketbooks and a lawyers on retainer.
Mhmm.
Well, I look at on the firearm side, there's a
ongoing court challenge at the moment for the OIC
firearms prohibition that came out and firearms
owners said, I know what we're going to do.
We're going to get a petition, bill E-2341,
and we're going to get people sign this.
And what are we going to ask for?
Democratic process.
Yes.
We want the government to at least debate
the banning of certain firearms or
not before passing it through, that's
all we're asking for.
This petition got the largest number
of signatures of any e-pe- I don't know if
it's any petition, but definitely any e-petition
in Canadian history.
And the result of that was.
Eh.
That's it.
Yep.
Oh, thanks guys.
Next.
And I have to wonder, the same approach if,
if hunters and a lot of hunters will not, uh,
put themselves in the same boat as the people
fighting on E-2341 or the OIC firearms prohibition
because they say I'm a waterfowl hunter,
it doesn't affect me.
And maybe it does, right.
But with the, the current trend that's
happening, that you're going to see in the news.
There's a lot of people that are certain
to pick up and say, hold on a second.
If they can ban firearms to ordering counsel,
just without any debate, what would happen to
my other pro personal property that I own?
And the firearms um, advocacy, advocacy
groups have been working very hard to find a
relationship between that and something that the
general public can get behind and understand.
That's right.
And for hunters in British Columbia, I think
a process of divorcing the hunters from the
actual conversation completely and take
a look at something that the general
public can get behind as a, uh, something
that makes sense.
Well, hold on a second, if they ban predator
hunting based off of social license to operate
or social license to hunt, which the social
license to operate really speaks for a group of
individuals, but not all of the individuals.
And it's usually the most vociferous group
that's going to say, Hey, w we, we hold the
moral high ground, right?
And then the rest of the people say, I
could care less right.
I'm not a hunter, hey, sounds good.
That's a nice looking wolf over there.
Yep.
So if, if hunters are able to reframe exactly
what it is that the other side is trying to say,
in a factual way and really point out, uh,
what that is and why, and make it applicable.
I think it would be a heck of a lot easier.
Yeah, totally get it.
I, when it comes to e-petitions, I was
the one behind 2576, the democratic process
that had 60,000 and I got the, uh, the,
the pushback of, eh.
And essentially that's, what's, that's, what's
happening to us right now is hunters, right?
We can have the loudest voice online in our own
little community, but if we can't get that
social license out there in the non-hunters,
because if you want to break it down, uh, uh,
demographically, what we're, we have 5 million
people in BC give or take, and we got 115,000.
And if you take away even half that are against
large carnivore hunting, we're down to 50,000 and
we're, we're, we're this much of the population.
And we know that we don't hold the votes.
Even if every single hunter signed, we
don't hold the votes.
We need that swing of the 80% on the fence.
We need to show them that we're not the bad
guys that we truly care about wildlife, right.
And that's, that's the uphill battle
we've been facing.
Like I said, 30, 40 years ago, it was
commonplace to see deer on the hood of a car.
You do that now and ho boy.
But showing them that we're not the bad guys
is defensive again.
That's right.
Is there an offensive approach?
And maybe like I say, maybe a listener
will come in and play offense of something
that's clear and easily looked at by any side
and will stand on its own, on its own merits.
Not something that has to be talked
about secretly in the background and not, not
some mud mud-slinging campaign, but.
It seems to me that a proper offensive approach
. Definitely needs to be, be like a pivot
And that's where it gets tough.
Uh, we we've had people say, uh, w there's been
some great graphics that have circulated in
the hunting community of this is what a wolf
really is like where you've got a cow moose
standing in a puddle with their a little
calf and there's six or seven wolves around it
showing . That, well, they're not all magical
mystical beings that ride rainbows, right as
they're portrayed they're they're wild animals.
We know that it's just, how can you show the
non-hunting public, the truth behind
these mystical beings?
There's there's another great one that circulates
in the hunting community of a polar bear.
Greg knows the one that I'm talking about,
where it's a committed infanticide, where
it's holding the head of a two month, three
month old cub, because it's just killed.
It's common.
It wants to, that's right.
Because it just killed the Cub because it
wants to breed mom again and send her
into an estrous cycle.
Problem becomes is how do we put the real
reality of nature out there without almost
being offensive, right?
It's a, it's an ugly battle.
Maybe it's not so much a reality of nature, but
maybe the reality of the argument that's being
used against hunters and the reality of the other
side, if all of a sudden the other, the people who
would look to ban hunting based on the fact that
it doesn't hold the moral high ground are shown to
be essentially terrorists and their approach.
Let's get, let, let's get everybody together.
Let's stage whatever photos we can, let's
get as much social outcry, right.
Let's make death threats.
And if that picture is painted.
And we just, I mean.
We've, we've I know I personally have, and
Greg has as well, we've got pages of death
threats of screenshots that we've had against,
uh, hunters and anglers and sport shooters.
And we've, we've shipped them to the media.
We, I had one local media person that had
the balls a couple of years ago to cover it.
And it didn't go anywhere beyond that.
Well, are the police agencies will generally
say, unless you feel a direct threat,
we can't act on it.
Well, that person lives in England.
They're just venting, block them.
So it's, it's tough.
And it's, I, yeah, it's just, uh, almost feel
like we're spinning our wheels when it comes to
how we show that we're, we're not as bad and
there's, there's a, uh, a YouTube video out there
that I got to find again, it's a Paul Watson.
From Greenpeace and he's in an interview
kind of off the cuff with somebody and it
goes back, Oh, this must be mid eighties.
And he says something to the effect of when
we want to raise money, we'll, we'll go after
wolves or bears because they're the ones
people will grab onto.
And we can turn this into a money making
campaign, something like that gets out there.
But the problem is, is getting the
mainstream media to run with it without,
uh, without any spin.
We've, uh, we've had some we've, we've had
some great media coverage out there and you read,
you read, you read.
You're like, all right, all right.
Holy crap, they did it.
And then they spun it into something that it
really truly wasn't.
So I don't know, Greg, what are your thoughts
on, uh, how something like that could be done?
Like I said, Greg and I admin pages where
there's probably 200,000 people . Between us.
So we see, we see it in the hunter community.
The one that, uh, with Travis, you've
been from the lower mainland as well.
The, the cougars and poco right now.
Sure.
And you know, conservation officers
have put down a couple of those cougars and
the backlash that they've gotten on
social media, they're getting death threats.
And, you know, people are upset that they're
killing the cougars that are coming into
their neighborhoods, stalking their children,
killing their pets, but they're monsters for
protecting the people.
So where, where do we grasp the emotional
ground to, to take these take on the anti hunters?
You know, they're so upset about being
protected from cougars.
Like w there, we're monsters for putting down
a problem animal in your neighborhood, in your
backyard, that's taken a puppy off a leash while
someone's walking it.
Like you can't, you can't argue with those people
and, and then if you do.
What would mama bear do if, if it was coming
after her cubs, I mean, we are a part of the
whole natural process and we have stuck our finger
in the dish of water and we cannot expect
not to see ripples.
Yep.
Nailed it.
Exactly great.
And that's, that's the disconnect.
People they go, let nature balance itself
while we are in nature, wrap your head around
that we're part of nature and it might
make it easier, right?
Like that's, that's a way we could
possibly approach it.
Right.
Remember, we are a part of nature.
And as such, you do have an impact, right?
Whether, whether or not you're vegan,
pescatarian, vegetarian, or full on carnivore,
in order for us to live, something has to die.
Whether or not you do it by your own hand or
somebody else's hand you've you're, you're
killing something in order to have to
live on this planet.
And it's just as hunters, we, we choose to take
out the middleman right?
And, uh, we, we try to connect with our food
as much as possible.
And it's, yeah, it's about, it's about that
connection and trying to show it as much as
possible and not be offensive, but be real.
So, yeah, it's a tough battle and it's, uh,
there's, there's a couple of people out
there that have got similar sort of ideas.
Uh, Greg will know Robby uh, Robby Krueger.
He says that, uh, we were pushing a stone
uphill with our shoulder and it we're going
to continue to do it as people are pushing
the mud down the hill where it's still trying
to push it up right.
So it's tough.
It really is.
Yeah.
I think from the hunting perspective,
yes, definitely.
When you take a look at the Tahltan, and
they've said, grizzlies are out of control.
Yep.
We're going to have to start calling them.
You look at the paper that Chris wrote.
Oh, indigenous groups.
We just they've got an inalienable, right.
That's right.
If we take a look at this logic, how is it
that they have a right and non-indigenous
don't and at the indigenous have a right.
At what point does their social license to operate
expire, but you look at the, um, New Zealand
sharp, super suitors that are brought in on
my Haida Gwaii just to, to cull the animals.
All the, uh, uh, sitka is out there.
That's right.
You look at the amount of commercial fishing
that we do, larger grizzly bear population
that they're bringing fish out for them
to eat, because they say all these grizzly
bears are starving in certain areas.
Like at some point we have to put rules
and regulations in place that will affect
how we interact with nature, because we
are an apex predator.
That's right.
And, and, and we're a part of this, but by
completely turning a blind eye and shutting
down certain areas of the management, we're
too far into this game to be able to do that.
And we do need to take a scientific approach
to be able to manage this properly for
generations to come.
But the messaging and I, I agree a thousand
percent on the science, but the messaging
I think, has to be approached from an
emotional standpoint.
Yeah.
If you're having an emotional argument.
That's right.
Yeah.
I've, I've said in a conversations to our
committee that, uh, we're, we're, we've
got a scientific, uh, approach to an emotional
argument and it's, you can, uh, You can put it
in front of people that it's a scientifically
managed hunt.
Like it let's let's let's step back just a sec.
If we, we all saw the polls on the grizzly bear
hunt, do you support the grizzly bear trophy hunt?
Right?
That's how it was worded and imagine how it would
change if it said, do you support a science
based grizzly hunt?
I imagine you might not have had the 95%
against and a 5% for you might have had a 50 50.
So it's about, it's about showing that there's
a science involved in the hunting process.
So we still, we S we, we still have to show that
it's managed because as I said, there's,
there's people out there that believe it's
a free for all that.
There's no licenses, there's no seasons.
Uh, as soon as you hit hope, you can go
out and just blast anything you want.
And there's no meat requirements.
There's no age, age for hunting.
You can have your two year old out there
shooting, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
So we still need to incorporate some of the
scientific evidence.
I won't say it's an argument cause
it really isn't.
It's a scientific evidence that hunting
is managed by seasons and science, but
you're, you're correct.
We have to appeal to that emotional, that
emotional trigger with some people pardon the
power firearms pun.
Um, but in, in that's that that's the
aim of 1Campfire.
We, we try and show that science with the
emotion in there as well.
And yeah, if we had an unlimited budget, we'd
love to dump tens of thousands of dollars,
hundreds of thousands of dollars into retaining
a lawyer that could just say, you could go this
far, but you can't quite in, you know what I mean?
And, and push, push the way they do.
And, uh, yeah, it's, it's a tough argument
to win when are, uh, as they are going to say,
our ultimate goal is to kill something, right?
Cause that's, that's what they see
hunting as right.
We go out there to kill.
So it's tough.
What if the science is used to make an
emotional argument?
Like for example, take a look at the science
of what happens if the wolves abandons put
on and wolves can't be hunted anymore.
What happens to the caribou population?
Okay.
What happens to the population of other
animals in those areas?
And then a year later, what happens to that
thriving wolf community when there isn't
any food for them to be able to survive?
And then sort of look at it down the way
from a science-based approach and then use
the emotional argument.
Why would you want to see all of these wolves
starved to death?
Why would you want to see an entire population
of caribou eradicated?
Would you support that?
Why are you guys supporting that?
I dunno, maybe.
Yeah.
We've we've we tried similar, uh, approaches
like that, but it's, you'll see Chris and
his crew immediately re uh, rebut the science
that shows that they, we disagree with that
science and then all of a sudden their,
their crowd goes, Oh yeah, they're wrong.
We know that there's, uh, another article
coming out shortly with, uh, that
against Chris's paper.
They it's you'll have your, your pro hunting
with your pro hunting scientists on one side.
And you have your anti hunting scientists
on the other side, and they're forever
jousting and they're forever in a tug of war.
So th th th the, uh, the, the ugly part about
using science, uh, to base 100% of an argument
on is who science are you gonna lose?
Right.
Who science is best.
So, yeah, it's, it's, he says, you're putting
your shoulder into a rock and you're trying
to push it up Hill.
And as I said, we're never going to change
the mind of a hundred percent of the people,
but if we can change the mind out of one
out of 10, that person can change another.
And that person that can change another.
And we'll, we'll just keep pushing
the way we can.
And yeah, we we'd love to hear some ideas from,
uh, from listeners on what they feel is, uh,
is a realistic approach.
The one that we can put smart goals on and
stuff like that, right.
We, we need to be, we need to throw a wide
net, but we also need to dial it down to be
specific for the cause.
And the science, what was it?
Disraeli was supposed to have said there's lies,
damn lies and statistics.
Statistics, yep.
Um, okay.
Like I said, had some thoughts on it, had
an idea, definitely didn't have it
fully fleshed out.
Appreciate it.
And I mean, this is everyone's.
Oh, yeah.
Everyone's in everybody's interest to put
their heads together and think on it.
Absolutely it is because it's the same battles
affecting the firearms community right now.
You have your, your3Gun and your,
your IPSC and all that.
Right.
You know, you don't, uh, when you can't
even come together on, well, what's, this
can put you in a spot here what's better a
Glock or 1911, right.
Like, right, right.
Oh God, well, no, no, no, I like that.
I like that, right?
No, it's a firearm.
You take one away.
The other one's going to follow, right.
Right.
And that's, we're in the same sort of argument and
it's, it's, it's tough.
I don't know.
It's, it's tough.
I definitely think a reframe needs to happen
on the firearm side.
That always gets me.
You say Glock or 1911, but what's the difference
between a rifle, shotgun or a pistol other than
her size, your rifle is going to do much
more damage than your pistol is, but it's
a mental perception around firearms based
on media and based what's been put forward.
I think we're at a unique, we do have
a unique opportunity with COVID and with
the current state of affairs here, with the
way everyone's thinking about stockpiling and
some sufficiency to be able to have a more
receptive audience, people who might
otherwise say, what do I care about hunting to
hold, hold on a second.
Maybe I, maybe I want to have some animals
around here for my kids to be able to see.
And maybe that is a more sustainable way
of our livelihood.
So I think that might present
something as well.
I don't know.
It's a tough one to get out there to the big, uh,
the big picture, right?
When you can't get media to cover the good side
of what it is, right.
That they'll grab on to the negative
of the poachers.
Oh, he shot two moose.
Well, you know what, if you look at a hundred
thousand hunters, 98,000 of them are going to
condemn them for it.
Right.
But, you know, latch onto those, those two.
So it's tough.
Well, I'm going to put links up on our website
and on social media where people can learn more
about The wild Sheep Society, learn more
about how they can submit their letter in and be
involved with their MLA.
Uh, there, I was talking with Jenny Ly, she
was with Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.
Yes.
And, uh, she works on the social media side
and she mentioned that, you know, Hey, if you
got a small social media feed, you only have like
25 friends on there.
Don't think you can't make a difference, the
algorithm on social media is set up in such
a way that it wants to give you a wider
play to essentially draw you into the
social media structure.
So tell your story, right?
Maybe not the grip, maybe not the gripping
grins right, but tell the story about the
blisters on your feet.
Tell a story similar to what camp
1Campfire is doing.
And then there was, um, it was Jesse
Zeeman who was talking about, go see, meet
with your MLA, right?
Manage your social feed, uh, venison
diplomacy, share your meat with your neighbors.
And that's where Shane Mahoney says on The
Wild Harvest Initiative.
It's a, the, the food is the binding,
the end product, the end result of it.
Yep.
And finally be a mentor, take people out.
Yeah.
I got a buddy buddy of mine.
He and I actually went to kindergarten together.
And so we're going back 40 some odd years.
He lives in Delta, so I.
Right next door with us.
Oh yeah.
Yeah.
So, but three years ago I posted a picture
of a bear and I get a private message from him.
And usually it's.
So I post a picture of a bear and if I get a
message about it, it's why'd you do that, right?
And it gives me a chance.
It opens the door, but he approached me and he
says, so I've always been curious about hunting.
Right?
Outcome my claws, so to speak, see if I can
sink, sink them in.
We were in cadets together.
We did survival school, we did all the
fun stuff together.
We camp you name it, but we hadn't seen
each other, in person, in probably 25 years.
So I sent him a care package of bear.
And so that's three years ago, long story
short, this will be his third year of
COVID, uh, disappears or restrictions open
up of him coming up here hunting.
He's now got his CORE, he's taken three bears.
Uh, he's got, he's an IPSC shooter now,
he's got his PAL.
So that all it takes is that opening that door
for that conversation and reacting right.
He's written a story about his first hunt
with for 1Campfire, he shares his story.
He's got his neighbor now who's got his CORE, never
hunted, but opened that door with a go, go pound
on the door and here's some game meat and his,
uh, the neighbor's wife said, don't, you dare
bring bear over here.
Guess what?
Now it's a staple in their house.
So you open door to conversation.
And even if they're friends.
That's right.
Sorry, go ahead.
That's right.
Open up that conversation, right?
Open that door.
Uh, venison diplomacies you can't say it any
better than that, right?
You never know, uh, uh, who a hunter is, right?
They're not always what you think.
And that's one of the campaigns we
got going with.
I Hunt, right.
It's uh, for, for 1Campfire, it's called
I Hunt and it's meant to blow stereotypes
out of the water.
So check it out, check it out on our Facebook.
You'll see a pin post there and you watch it
and you'll go, Oh my God.
I had no idea that person was a hunter
and it may, it's meant to make you go, Hmm,
scratch your head and go.
I wonder if that person's a hunter, I wonder if
that person's a hunter and we've, uh, I actually
saw the first draft of our latest one that
I storyboarded today.
It's, I'm stoked for it.
It's going to have some huge outreach.
So we're, we're building, building outreach
that way as well.
So yeah, as you said, venison, diplomacy
get people out there.
That's a good idea.
You know, bring it out of the shadows.
And even if other people aren't interested in
getting into hunting, their friends and
family, their friends and family, we'll say,
Hey, this individual comports himself in
an admirable way.
I like how this person is and their daily
life and they happened to be a hunter.
I now know what a hunter, a good person.
And that's exactly what I, the I hunt campaign
for 1Campfire is about, it's about showing,
showing the closing, the closing line is
if I say I hunt, am I what you'd picture?
We're not as different as you may think it's
meant to make you go.
Hmm.
Interesting.
I had no idea.
An interesting endeavor.
Is there anything else we should talk about before
we start looking at we're . Wrapping up here?
What do you think, Greg?
But I think we've pretty much covered ActNow.
So, Oh yeah, yeah, no, uh, I appreciate
you reaching out to us and, uh, giving
us, uh, a sounding board, so to speak.
100%, I appreciate you listened to some of my
harebrained thoughts that I have while I
sit up late at night trying to think of
solutions for things, but hopefully somebody
else out there might say, you know what Travis,
you're kind of on the right track, but tweak
it or have a completely different idea.
And if they do have an idea, how do
they contact you?
You can email us at exec exec@wildsheepsociety.com
and put in the, the, the header, uh, Silvercore
Podcast or, or whatever expletive you want.
You're way off base.
Just feedback is great.
Yep.
Reach out to us on Facebook, Instagram,
you name it.
We're available, and we'd love to hear feedback
of where you think we need to go with this.
Any ideas?
Yep.
We're we're open for any ideas anybody's
got, we want to hear them because we're drums
like sometimes too.
Gentlemen, thank you very much for taking
the time to be on The Silvercore Podcast and
sharing this important information with our
Thanks again Travis.
Thanks Travis.