Jump to content

David Broadland

David Broadland
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 


Focus Magazine Nov/Dec 2016

Sept/Oct 2016.2

Past Editions in PDF format


Focus Magazine July/August 2016

Focus Magazine Jan/Feb 2017

Focus Magazine March/April 2017


Local Lens

Focus Magazine May/June 2017

Focus Magazine July/August2017

Focus Magazine Sept/Oct 2017

Focus Magazine Nov/Dec 2017

Focus Magazine Jan/Feb 2018

Focus Magazine March/April 2018

Focus Magazine May/June 2018

Focus Magazine July/August 2018

Focus Magazine Sept/Oct 2018

Focus Magazine Nov/Dec 2018

Focus Magazine Jan/Feb 2019

Focus Magazine March/April 2019

Focus Magazine May/June 2019

Focus Magazine July/August 2019

Focus Magazine Sept/Oct 2019

Focus Magazine Nov/Dec 2019

Focus Magazine Jan/Feb 2020

Focus Magazine March-April 2020

COVID-19 Pandemic

Navigating through pandemonium

Informed Comment








Development and architecture



Controversial developments







Report Comments posted by David Broadland

  1. 1 hour ago, Guest Just the facts said:

    A very emotionally charged article with some very focused editing.

    Fact 1: You need a trappers licence to set snares. Hunters and all other are prohibited from this practice.

    Fact 2: You need a government issued trap line, permission from a trap line holder, permission from a conservation biologist or permission from a land owner to set traps.

    Fact 3: There is no proof except from the words of a naturalist, not a scientist, that Ms. Jadresko took more than two wolves we see in her photos.

    Fact 4: There are no press releases of charges being laid in regards to the trespass of law that the above three conditions that have been claimed in the article.

    Fact 5: Hunting and Trapping are highly regulated by Provincially and Federally employed biologists who are accountable to their associations and the people of BC. None have actually been approached not quoted in this article.

    Fact 6: Ms. Jadresko has so far done nothing that can be approved to be illegal, immoral or unsafe. There is no mention of that in this article in fact the hyperbole suggests heavily otherwise.

    Taking into account these facts (or absence of them) Fact 7: This article is not a good source of information on the true facts of this matter>

    I miss impartial journalism

    First, your facts 1-2 are true, but nothing in the story is contradicted by these two facts.

    Second, regarding your fact 3, Jadresko made repeated public statements that her "goal" was "full pack removal" of the wolf pack. Those statements were made concurrently with photographs showing two dead wolves. Your recounting of the "facts" of the story overlooks this fact. You would have us ignore this fact, I take it. But we took Ms Jadresko at her word, and we have seen no evidence yet that she did not follow through with what she said she was going to do. After publication of the story she relayed to us, through a spokesperson, that she did not kill the remaining members of the pack. She says she has video evidence that the remaining pack "is alive and well." Thus we have opposing video evidence, only one of which has been made public.

    Third, regarding your fact 5, the pertinent Provincial regulations regarding trapping and/or hunting wolves is clearly stated in the story. There was no need to consult with "Provincially or Federally employed biologists," about these publicly available regulations. Government biologists, in any case, would never have been made available for a comment to a reporter in such a circumstance.

    Fourth, there is no allegation of illegality in the story. The reporter quoted Sam Webb: "Sadly, Jadresko apparently killed the wolves legally and there is outrage in Sooke and surrounding communities and concern about the future of other packs, Webb said." 

    You assert that it is a "fact" that Jadresko did nothing "immoral." This is the nub of the issue. Some people in the Sooke community would agree with your "fact," others would disagree. Like your other facts, there's not much in your analysis that everyone would fully agree is a useful "fact."



  • Create New...