There is a report on a B.C. based hunting site that the Guide-Outfitters Ass'n of B.C. is attempting to gain control over even resident hunting here and is lobbying the Provincial government to only allow non-guided residents to hunt on private property. Since B.C. is largely public land and the majority of the GOs are merely fronts for foreign ownership of B.C.'s guiding industry, this means that foreign hunters will have greater access to B.C. game than residents will. Does anyone have any REAL information on this???

Comments, suggestions, general bullshit????

Could you post the web address? I would like to see for myself.
Thanks,

quote:

Originally posted by kutenay:
There is a report on a B.C. based hunting site that the Guide-Outfitters Ass'n of B.C. is attempting to gain control over even resident hunting here and is lobbying the Provincial government to only allow non-guided residents to hunt on private property. Since B.C. is largely public land and the majority of the GOs are merely fronts for foreign ownership of B.C.'s guiding industry, this means that foreign hunters will have greater access to B.C. game than residents will. Does anyone have any REAL information on this???

Comments, suggestions, general bullshit????

Kutes

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I believe the GOABC is trying to eliminate non resident hunting from Private Property. This in an effort to head off the Game Ranches and problems they bring.

It would also be good for resident hunters, although that is a side benenfit, as it might open up some of the big ranches to residents instead of keeping them only for the Guides in the areas.

Just my understanding and it may be incorrect.

My understanding is the same as Mickey's. If that is not the case, however, I'd sure like to know!

Cheers,
Canuck

Holy crap.

Each time I see something like this I want to just do it. I mean, make the move out west and live my dream before it is too late to do "do-it-yourself" wilderness hunts.

I have no other comments etc. but will say that the case that Mickey and Canuck outlined seems the most probable.

Cheers,
CL

The BC Guides & Outfitters Association are planning to ask for EXCLUSIVE rights to hunt on the crown lands in their permitted area. As the various guiding territories cover almost all crown land in BC this in effect will push resident hunters onto private land.

They are also asking for all un-filled LEH tags for animals such as moose and grizz to be taken out of the resident hunters' pool the following year and be added to the guides' quotas where they will remain forever.

They also have demanded that resident hunter bag limits be reduced in several regions, not in the name of conservation, but rather to increase the odds their clients will meet up with a "book" animal.

They also want to police themselves and set their own allocation limits based on their own observations.

How much of this is just posturing by the Guides and Outfitters remains to be seen. (They meet with the MOE in December to lay out their case) I am worried though as the way the provincial liberal government has been chanting the mantra of privatization here in BC the last few years and handing everything they can over to the private sector this is a very real threat.

quote:

Originally posted by Cariboo:
The BC Guides & Outfitters Association are planning to ask for EXCLUSIVE rights to hunt on the crown lands in their permitted area. As the various guiding territories cover almost all crown land in BC this in effect will push resident hunters onto private land.

They are also asking for all un-filled LEH tags for animals such as moose and grizz to be taken out of the resident hunters' pool the following year and be added to the guides' quotas where they will remain forever.

They also have demanded that resident hunter bag limits be reduced in several regions, not in the name of conservation, but rather to increase the odds their clients will meet up with a "book" animal.

They also want to police themselves and set their own allocation limits based on their own observations.

How much of this is just posturing by the Guides and Outfitters remains to be seen. (They meet with the MOE in December to lay out their case) I am worried though as the way the provincial liberal government has been chanting the mantra of privatization here in BC the last few years and handing everything they can over to the private sector this is a very real threat.

If this is correct it is BS. And I'm a non-resident. I don't see how this could possibly happen.

I am pretty sure they are trying to make sure that no High Fence Hunting gets into BC. One way is to make sure there are very few customers, thus prohibiting non residents.

My family is involved in two GO operations. One member is in the GOABC the other is not. That is where my info comes from. I have also known Dale Drown for about 10 years but that doesn't help me know why something is happening.

quote:

Originally posted by Mickey1:
I am pretty sure they are trying to make sure that no High Fence Hunting gets into BC.

The guide-outfitters assocoiation does not give two shits about high fence hunts or game ranching. They only want to maximize profits with minimal investment while utilizing a public asset. Their recent victory over the packers in this province has only served to give them more courage to atempt a bigger bite out of the pie.
What they are asking for now seems far-fetched, and it is, but it is the old trick of asking for more than what you really want in order to "accept" what you really wanted in the first place.

Hello;
This reminds of a few years ago, when we had a representative of the B.C Outfitters association put on a talk at he Olds College, looking for financial support in a legal case involving some outfitter, who had trashed an anti hunter film crews' camp and equipment. Someone in the audience pointed out that the Outfitters would not let Residents hunt in their territories and that was the end of that.
Grizz

It really sucks that I can't buy a moose license and hunt with my buddy in MacKenzie, but I can get laid in Vancouver with no problems.

So I guess this would not be a good time to mention that just a few months ago,I posted a thread titled "when nobody comes"It was directed toward the strength of the western outfitter,and where would it go from here..It was pretty much burried because at the time it just kept fellow countymen from other provinces away..Well you defend,nurture a little monster,you'll eventually get one that will eat what should be his master

quote:

IS MY AVATAR OK ??

Yes. It's a fit.

DB

Aint I just a peach

I was hoping that Cariboo would see this and respond as he and a few of his "buds' on his site, along with the other B.C. based site seem to be the guys most aware of current developments on this vital issue. I am totally opposed to ANY restrictions on ANY resident hunting that will benefit the GOABC; this organization represents foreigners who own guide-outfitter territories in MY province and this is NOT acceptable to me.

Cariboo is 110% correct here, IMO, the GOABC is doing everything they can to take over B.C. hunting for their own profit and this will essentially end resident hunting. For those who think that the Campbell ( or any other) Government will not do this, just look at the ripoff of B.C.'s forest resources by foreign owned corporations, or, the disaster of The Columbia River Treaty for examples of government perfidy, past and present.

I support the elimination of ANY special quotas for Guide-Outfitters, they should be required to participate in an annual LEH style draw for any surplus game not wanted by residents. Any game now on LEH should be reserved for B.C. hunters only and if this means some rich foreigner can't shoot his "Grand Slam", too friggin' bad!

I also support the elimination of any and all special hunting rights for Aboriginals as this is/has been abused greatly. The Indians are too pampered now and need a dose of reality; if, they become violent, that is what we have an army for. In short, B.C. hunting for B.C.'ers first and no special rights among B.C.'ers. Gawd, imagine REAL game management and social fairness in B.C.....

Kutes

I agree with most of your points and I will give an example so some may understand the level of resentment towards non res hunters.

First, as a resident of the US I am a non res hunter in BC.

I have a home in Central BC in a decent Moose area. There is a very nice Bull, 45-50", that hangs out in a swamp between me and my neighbors. We have both seen it numerous times while cutting wood, fishing and looking around.

He cannot shoot this Bull because he does not have LEH rights on his own ranch. I can pay the local Outfitter money for a guided hunt and shoot the bull if I wanted. As could my neighbor. Why should he have to do this to hunt his own property, or mine, which he has my permission to do anytime he wants.

The local Outfitter, who is a good guy and a full time resident of the area, would probably love to know where the animal is so he could take a client there.

I think that some sort of plan to allow residents to hunt in their own area without LEH draws, or to give them preferance points, should be worked out.

Not all Outfitters are foreigners. Not all, or even most, outfitters belong to the GOABC. There are many Canadian Outfitters that make their living guiding hunters, fishermen and tourist in the summer.

If their is a problem it is with the hidden ownership of the areas. This should be strengthened and enforced. Guide Territories should be given on a bid basis for 10 year periods and not bought and sold at the whim of the owner. This would allow investment to be recouped, end Foreign Investment and would encourage better relations with residents.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mickey1:
Kutes







He cannot shoot this Bull because he does not have LEH rights on his own ranch. I can pay the local Outfitter money for a guided hunt and shoot the bull if I wanted. As could my neighbor. Why should he have to do this to hunt his own property, or mine, which he has my permission to do anytime he wants.

QUOTE]

He can only hunt you or your neighbors private property with your permission even if he does have a valid tag. You can tell him where the moose is but he cannot take it unless you give him permission.

I've been following the BCWF opposition to what the GOABC is proposing. Cariboo has it right.

Foreign guides are getting too greedy here. A resident packer and outfitter I know in the Prophet River drainage has had problems with the American owned guiding outfit farther up the river in the past. Chasing off sheep with their plane as the residents are doing a stalk, turn their backs in an emergency.

One year a local crashed his plane near the guide camp and they wouldn’t fly him to the front of the river where he could get transportation off the strip quite a few people use. He them walked the 20kms down stream through bush to the packer's camp who immediately horsed him 2 hours to a tiny airstrip where he then flew him out to the airstrip on the hiway with his own plane all out of his own pocket.

Residents first. Theses guides are greedy and spiteful to their hosts. They can fuck off with the rest of the lot.

Go get 'em, Boiler! We need more of this type of patriotism in our country!!! I get tired of hearing how "good" for the economy it is to sell off our rare game animals to wealthy foreign hunters and have the foreigners in the hunting industry cream off the profits. Canada for Canadians and residents rights first!!!!

I bumped into a friend of mine over the weekend that is a long time active member of the BCWF regional exec. He confirmed that there is indeed a proposal in by the GOABC for outfitters to take control of all hunting on crown land. He didn't know much of the detail (or couldn't say), but he said that it is a file receiving A LOT of attention by the BCWF exec at the moment (and rightly so).

You can bet I'll find a way to make the time to help fight this battle. I'll be starting with my MLA this afternoon.

Canuck

Holy Shit I can't believe the GOABC would even try something like that. What is BC coming to !
I wonder when something like that will show up in the Yukon ?

Alfonz

GOABC is doing a bait and switch, if all this is accurate.

They want something, so they ask for ALOT and then 'compromise' with something less.

I ahve a couple of friends that are outfitters- They are all "Canadian owned and operated."

I'd like to see a review of how much $$$ comes in to the the outfitters and where this money goes..

Always FOLLOW THE MONEY.

I also ask:

if all unitng on Crown Land became "guide only" how many of us would just hutn anyway?

I know I would. I'd ignore the rules, and hunt anyways..

And I bet most of the BC hunters would do the same.

The problem wiht that is that game populations would decline, becasue if you are going to be a crminal, then you may as well go all the way...

.

I think that the GOABC has far more clout than many people realize and they are very well funded by foreign interests to control hunting in B.C. We have seen so much of our heritage taken over by foreigners that a sell out by the Campbell government would not surprise me in the least.

Many of the vehicle restrictions which militate against the average, resident hunter are proposed, endorsed and then kept in place by the Guide-Outfitters. For example, the wealthy Lancaster-Fontana outfit in the Elk Valley and Abruzzi Cr. as well as some others in the Kootenays. BCGOA members can use the wilderness parks the people like me fought for decades for to profit from wealthy foreigners killing OUR game, while residents cannot hunt there due to lack of horse transport.

Aboriginals can "guide" foreigners to monster Dall's Sheep in OUR national parks such as Kluane, while Canadians cannopt hunt there. I could go on, but, I think that my point is made and the injustice of the current situation is intolerable. Canada for Canadians!!!!

.

quote:

Many of the vehicle restrictions which militate against the average, resident hunter are proposed, endorsed and then kept in place by the Guide-Outfitters. For example, the wealthy Lancaster-Fontana outfit in the Elk Valley and Abruzzi Cr. as well as some others in the Kootenays. BCGOA members can use the wilderness parks the people like me fought for decades for to profit from wealthy foreigners killing OUR game, while residents cannot hunt there due to lack of horse transport.

Kutenay, I agree with your other two paragraphs in your post above, but the one I have quoted is a load of bullshit. I honestly can't believe you typed it.

Don't tell me you are one of those types that looks at a gate or a deactivated road and says "Now I can't hunt here!".

Who says Outfitters are the only ones that can use horses?

Is there a "No Trespassing" sign on the road???

How the heck did you and your ancestors hunt these places before the roads were constructed and ATVs were invented? I'll tell you...the same way I do today. On foot or on horse. I mostly do the former, since I don't own horses myself or have the wherewithal to do so at the moment.

Specifically with regard to your comment about Lancaster-Fontana, I can tell you that I have hunted every drainage and every basin that exists in Fontana's Elk Valley Bighorn Outfitters territory. And never once on a horse. And FWIW, they may be doing well but they are not foreign owned.

While access closures do tip the scales in favor of those with horses, which does benefit outfitters (so they tend to support them for their own purposes rather than for conservation reasons), the purpose of those closures is to reduce the vulnerability of the game...not to become elite backpacking or horse hunting areas. I have sat on many of these access management planning processes. I generally fall in the middle...you need various levels of access to accomodate all users and to conserve the resources.

Over 90% of the East Kootenays is open access. Guys with 4x4s and ATVs have at thier disposal the VAST majority of the area. Forgetting the original conservation oriented purpose of the access closures for a moment, most of them can also be justified on a recreational basis. Those people that enjoy the solitude of a wilderness hunting experience should have a place to go too....without having to pack up for two weeks and spend a couple grand on a bush plane into the northern rockies somewhere.

Kutenay, your comments surprise me. One one hand you are obviously against resource development and on the other hand you seem to be against the access closures that protect the values you cherish on the first hand.

Maybe you are the stereotypical babyboomer type we have around here? You know, the ones that lobbied for the access restrictions while they were young enough to hunt them on foot, but are now in their mid to late 50's and want to open the areas up again now that they feel they are too old or out of shape to hike into them anymore. And to top it off, they are not satisfied with only being able to drive or quad into 90% of the landbase...they have to have it ALL. Hypocritical and selfish.

Your gadflying has worked again.

Cheers,
Canuck

Canuck, you know so much more than I do about who I am, what I think and what I have done that it is simply amazing; I am aghast at your perceptive abilities. Once again, you "cherry-pick" in order to show your personal biases as fact, but, this time you exceeded all of your previous HORSESHIT.

I am NOT a "Babyboomer", I am older than that. I do NOT advocate opening up ANY restricted areas, in fact, I have lobbied the "Moose & Goose" for MORE vehicle non-entry areas both when I was on the B.C.W.F. L.M. executive and throughout my adult life. How dare you refer to me as "stereotypical", I was sitting on volunteer committees concerned with environmental issues before you were born and your comments betray your vaunted ...good nature...

As it happens, I do not have horses and I just returned from a five day BACKPACK hunt at home in the Kootenays. We will see if you are backpacking in your 60th year as I do. My entire point here is that RESIDENT hunters, including native born B.C. descendants of pioneers, like you and I, legal immigrants like Alf, Aboriginals and naturalized Canadian citizens MUST ALL have equal access rights to hunting and that MUST take precedence over foreign hunters and Guide-Outfitters, foreign-owned or not.

I did NOT say that Lancaster-Fontana was foreign owned, for fuck sakes, do you actually think I am stupid enough to make a false statement about something I care about as passionately as I do this issue? You need to read a bit more carefully, young fella, before you are quite so ready to sound off.

I respect the fact that you are an R.P.F., but, you are NOT the only knowledgable person on these issues that posts here. You might also realize that the game is "owned" by ALL B.C.'ers and snide little comments about ...informed opinion... are exactly what motivates the eco-extremists to the detriment of we hunters.

If, my being a gadfly brings about a greater level of discussion of this issue among B.C. hunters who participate in this forum, well, I consider that to be a beneficial situation and if you don't like it, that's unfortunate. As to wanting it ALL, that is actually the attitude of the corporate land-rapers, I just want to conserve and wisely use it all.....it's my birthright.

As to being against resource development, what gives you this idea; the fact that I dare to question the almighty voice of the corporate "managers" who always have both the public's and the environment's best interests at heart? I have seen some stupid remarks on this forum, but, that is about as foolish as believing a politician's promises. I WORKED in resource based industries for most of my life and I SAW what really happened and still is happening.

No offence, Canuck, you are basically a nice young guy and I appreciate your service as moderator here; but, you gotta stop smokin' that shit!

Kutenay,

I am not particularly pleased (with myself)... I have just wasted over an hour and half trying to respond to you.

I wrote up a long reply and in the act of copying/pasting one last comment, I hit reply on the thread and it over-wrote my response in the reply window with the copied text. All my thoughtful comments gone.

So, I thought, that was too good to waste...I will re-type it. After 45 more minutes I was about to finish, and while copying over the last comment AGAIN (which happened to be your comment about me being a dope-smoker - which, for the record, I resent), I did the EXACT same f*cking thing and lost it all.

That marks the first and second time I have ever done that. None to proud of doing it a second time, either. Makes it tough to be pissed off at the computer.

It is past my bedtime so I will have to try again tomorrow.

Grrrr...

Cheers,
Canuck

Where did I call you a dope-smoker?????? I did not use that term, I simply made an old "babyboomer" joke that we decrepit, quad driver, guys in our mid-to-late fifties used to use to lighten up a conversation and it can/could refer to a number of things, not merely drugs.

Double-entendre can be most confusing and this is my way of dealing with the interpersonal aggression that it causes.Anyway, this is becoming a "dead horse", IMHO and I am inclined to get on with re-packing for my next hunt.

BTW, I have never so much as sat on a quad, I hate the fucking things and would love to ban them from hunting. But, since most people cannot keep horses for hunting, they will continue as the most popular means of transport for "hunters", although I will never own or use one.

This still does not make it acceptable for any access restrictions that make it difficult for average resident hunters to get into a given area when this makes it easier for a G/O to take foreigners to areas where there is little resident hunting pressure. The game belongs to us and any regulation that gives even a slight advantage to G/Os and their wealthy, foreign clients is MOOSEPOOP!

That's it for me, I have too much to do, so, give me hell 'cause we old "Babyboomers" and wilderness advocates are responsible for just about everything wrong with current society and thus deserve frequent correction and harsh admonition. Must be all those "flashbacks", eh?

quote:

Where did I call you a dope-smoker??????

C'mon Kutenay. You said I should stop smoking that shit. What else would that mean?

To be completely sincere, I made a point of responding to that particular comment, despite knowing what you meant by it, because you yourself tend to be VERY sensitive about comments of that nature (not regarding drugs specifically, but any potentially snide remarks that may reflect on your character or your family history).

You also insulted my intelligence a number of times, AND stated that a bunch of my previous comments were HORSESHIT...thought I should at least react to the dope-smoking comment!

Its really too bad that you didn't get to read my previous two attempts at responding to you. I am sure you would have appreciated them (it, really, since it was basically the same both times!).

I'll try to touch on some of the high points anyway. I know I won't do nearly as good a job of it today though...I am at work and in a big rush!

Before I do that, though, one minor extraneous point. My father turned 59 this year. He calls his generation the "babyboomers", although he hardly fits the "stereotype" either. I really don't know what the cutoff is for that generation, though, and have just taken his word for it.

OK, first and most important. Give me SOME fricken credit, will ya! I have been on this site for a LONG time...since about early 1998. I have obviously seen most of your 800 plus posts. I have a pretty good idea what you are about. I also know enough about the same types of things as you (hunting, backpacking, shooting, rifles, etc etc) to know that you know your shit. And I've read what you've shared about your past hunts, experiences, etc, etc. I know you backpack, and I know you are not one of the "mechanized crowd".

I guess my tactic wasn't real clear. I assumed that you'd give me the same credit for intelligence/perception as I have given you and would pick up on what I meant as you read it.

I guess I did "cherrypick", but I agreed with your other comments...why wouldn't I only address the one point I disagreed with?

And I was trying, tounge-in-cheek, to follow your MO, which I have witnessed a number of times....that is, going off half-cocked in the effort to make a strong point, and at the same time making false (or potentially false!) assumptions about the people you are responding to. Now I normally don't do that kind of thing, but I was feeling cheeky and was motivated by one particular comment you made....

quote:

while residents cannot hunt there due to lack of horse transport.

I STRONGLY disagree with this comment. Yes, GO's support area closures for the wrong reasons (personal or commercial gain). Yes, the closures do keep a lot of non-horse powered residents from hunting in those areas. BUT, it isn't as simple as that. MANY residents cherish the opportunity those closures provide. There are fewer and fewer places were ANYONE, whether residents or GOs, can go on a multiday horse packing trip and not hear the drone of engines or get passed by a quad.

So from a recreational standpoint, I posit that these closures benefit residents as much as GO's!

The mechanized contingent amongst us have the bulk of the landbase to do their thing on. Having some non-mechanized areas is a great thing.

If I were a selfish man, I would lobby for these areas to be "Foot Access Only". Then the wilderness values would be conserved AND I could compete on an even basis with the GO's (and so could all the other residents that can walk). But the reality is, we'd be restricting ALL horse hunters for the sole purpose of sticking it to the GO's and as a result the horse hunting residents would be restricted unnecessarily when they aren't causing the problem.

My bottom line is this....a certain amount of access closures are necessary for the dual purpose of wildlife conservation and balanced recreational opportunity. No residents are restricted from accessing these areas on foot, mt bike, horse, etc (ie. they are not NO TRESPASSING, GO exclusive areas). Its a personal choice whether they are willing to work that hard to hunt or recreate in that area. The fact that some GO's benefit from this commercially is unfortunate.

I really did a much better job explaining my POV last nite! I will continue this discussion with you anytime, as it is a topic near and dear to MY heart. I think I pretty much fall near the middle of the road on this, between the hardcore mechanized guys that want access everywhere, and the staunch "preservationist" types that want it all closed up. I also believe in RESIDENTS FIRST. I don't imagine that you and I are far apart in the big picture.

Now, on to a few other points that I just can't let slide. In the interest of time and clarity (eg. point/counterpoint) my responses will unfortunately be in the format of "quote and comment"....

quote:

How dare you refer to me as "stereotypical",

Again, it was tongue in cheek, and I never actually said you were. It was a question for you to address. I figured you'd quite easily see my tactic, and know where I was going with that. I thought I made it so absurd that everyone would see it. I'd have to be a REAL dumbass not to recognize that you are NOT the stereotype. I am actually quite disappointed that you decided I was!

quote:

I was sitting on volunteer committees concerned with environmental issues before you were born.....We will see if you are backpacking in your 60th year as I do.... you are NOT the only knowledgable person on these issues that posts here

What exactly is the purpose of comments like these? You like to refer to me as young, and you frequently comment on your formidable experience, etc. Are you trying to trump me with your age? Are you trying to take away from the credibility of my argument, or belittle me personally? I have respectfully disagreed with you a few times now, but I don't recall ever belittling the credibility of your opinion.

quote:

My entire point here is that RESIDENT hunters, including native born B.C. descendants of pioneers, like you and I, legal immigrants like Alf, Aboriginals and naturalized Canadian citizens MUST ALL have equal access rights to hunting and that MUST take precedence over foreign hunters and Guide-Outfitters, foreign-owned or not.

That is EXACTLY how I feel too. The only thing I disagreed with was the specific example (access restrictions) that you used.

quote:

I did NOT say that Lancaster-Fontana was foreign owned, for fuck sakes,

I never said or implied that you did. In re-reading my post I see how it could look that way though. I only added that comment at the end, in defence of Fontana. I didn't always agree with Bobby, particularly the way he treated residents in his territory, but overall I think Elk Valley Bighorn Outfitters (and thier business partners, the Lancasters) are some of the "good guys" in the industry. I can go into greater depth on that if you want.

quote:

You need to read a bit more carefully, young fella, before you are quite so ready to sound off.

I got a good chuckle out of that one. The pot calling the kettle black. Good stuff.

quote:

snide little comments about ...informed opinion...

I honestly have no idea where that one comes from. My points in the past about informed opinion were simply that you aren't the only one that has one! It'd be nice if you'd respect the fact that sometimes I ALSO have one, so that we could debate openly from that basis. SNIDE, though? Did you choose that word because of my age, or maybe because you seem to think I am a "sniveling PC punk"?

quote:

As to wanting it ALL, that is actually the attitude of the corporate land-rapers, I just want to conserve and wisely use it all.....it's my birthright.

Mine too. For the record, you and I want the same thing. I just don't have the opinion that all forest companies and industrial foresters are "land-rapers". There are still some dinosaurs out there, for sure, but they are on their way out too.

In the posts I lost, I wrote at length about my motivation as a forester...wanting to change the industry after the sympathetic management of the '80s, etc. Wish I had the time to try and repeat it. I think you would have appreciated it.

quote:

the fact that I dare to question the almighty voice of the corporate "managers"

Not sure where this comes from either. Question away. We all have to, in order to keep balance. Where did I imply that you shouldn't question?????? What did I say that deserved the remark about "I have seen some stupid remarks on this forum, but, that is about as foolish as believing a politician's promises"????

About all I suggested (in the other thread) was that you keep an open mind, as things ARE changing. But by all means, PLEASE question away! Keep those corporate managers on their toes. You may find that actual questions work better than accusations, but I respond to them too, just not in as pleasant of a mood.

quote:

thus deserve frequent correction and harsh admonition

I don't see where that applies in the context of our recent discussions. I just spoke up when I had a different opinion on the issues, and said my piece about what I percieved to be a pretty harsh admonition of another member. I don't think "frequent correction" applies...as I mentioned above, I have been here a long time, definitely the whole time you've been posting here, and how many times have we disagreed? I also didn't think I was being harsh. Direct maybe, but not as harsh as I have become accustomed to reading from you. I'd expect you above all to be receptive to direct communication.

Well, thats it for now. Have fun with your packing...its the next best thing to already being on the trip! If you are ever back in the Kootenays with a spare moment, I'd be happy to buy you a coffee, or share a campfire for that matter.

If you read my posts as carefully as I've read yours, you'd realize that your parting comment in your last post was unnecessary. It implies we are more different that we probably are....for instance, I am sure I am every bit the wilderness advocate you are. We should compare notes sometime.

Cheers,
Canuck

quote:

I am NOT a "Babyboomer", I am older than that.

Kutenay,

I had to look up babyboomer, just to see if I had misunderstood. I always understood the "baby boom" to be the huge number of babies born following WW II.

Well, it seems the common definition of a babyboomer is anyone born between '46 and '64. That obviously includes my father and you.

What I also found interesting is that there are a few articles on all the babyboomers that are turning 59 this year. Here's one...

quote:

59ers Lead The Way



by Terry Cochran

During the California "gold rush" of 1849, the leading edge explorers were called the 49ers. Today, as the leading edge Baby Boomers reach their 59th birthdays, they are called the 59ers. With the "silver rush" of their hair and the silver linings of their experiences, they are leading the way into yet another new era.

I remember when 59 was "old." Hard work, poor diet, too much smoking and drinking, and many other factors contibuted to someone who was "almost 60" feeling like he or she was approaching the end of the road.

Today, however, all that has changed. Fewer and fewer people still perform physical labor. Many are quite conscious of taking care of their health. And there is often an expectation that folks can be contributing members of society well into their 70's or even their 80's.

When I was younger, many agreed with entertainer Jack Benny's idea of saying he was 39 years old, whenever asked about his age. My father-in-law, for example, claimed to be 39 for more than 20 years. Today, though, it has been said that "59 is the new 39."

There is a sense that folks at 59 now are simply entering that next new phase of their lives. Baby Boomers have a history of reinventing themselves over and over agian. Their parents may have had a single career -- or even a single employer! -- for their entire working lives. But that's sure no longer the case.

On the one hand, companies are using downsizing, rightsizing, or other euphemisms in getting rid of employees by the thousands. And on the other, there are new opportunities, new knowledge, even whole new industries popping up constantly -- see the internet, for example. With all of that, Boomers have become much more comfortable at adapting to change.

Yes, we all must deal with physical changes, as they occur. Modern solutions, however, can help to keep these changes from making you feel old and infirm:


Vision: Old-timers' bifocals have been replaced with stylish transition lenses
Hearing: Tinnitus and other hearing issues can be combatted with tiny devices now
Dental: Implants are beginning to replace dentures as the preferred solution
Joints: Nutritional supplements can often deal with common aches and pains
Wrinkles: My inbox delivers new solutions to me every day for skin care issues
Sexual health: Likewise, old Bob Dole commercials have been replaced with many alternatives
Hot flashes: Various pills and creams can also help with that "personal summer" and its many "heat waves"
The age of 59 used to be viewed as the beginnning of the end. Now perhaps it is simply the end of the beginning. 59ers can continue to lead the way into new advances in health care, housing, and lifestyle changes. And whether you are 59 today or already a bit older -- but still not "acting your age" -- or even a youngster of 55 or so who just wants to brag about being a leader, you can join me in proclaiming the 59er world view.

Boomers have a history of attacking problems, instead of just accepting them. And with the disposable income and education levels common today, that trend will certainly continue as we encounter the traditional problems of aging.

Anyway, no offence was intended by calling you a babyboomer. Its just a name. I am apparently a Gen-Xer.

Cheers,
Canuck

Are you guys done yet?