PDA

View Full Version : What is the offical BCWF allocation policy



btridge
04-17-2015, 08:25 AM
Where does the BCWF stand on allocation NOW.

2chodi
04-17-2015, 08:39 AM
There is a BCWF board meeting next Thursday in Fernie. I know allocation and the RAHPF will be discussed.

Whonnock Boy
04-17-2015, 05:41 PM
The official stance has always been the 07 policy. The "marching orders" of 90/10 across the board have not, as of yet, been implemented. Will they ever? Your guess is as good as mine.


Where does the BCWF stand on allocation NOW.

I certainly hope so.


I know allocation and the RAHPF will be discussed.

randymac
05-07-2015, 11:50 AM
So do we have an official policy after the AGM that the BCWF is going to push for?
All I can seem to find is that if and when game populations increase the resident share is to increase. Isn't this tantamount to blessing Thompson's February decision?

Whonnock Boy
05-07-2015, 01:02 PM
As far as I know, it is being worked on, and you're not the first to raise this question.


So do we have an official policy after the AGM that the BCWF is going to push for?
All I can seem to find is that if and when game populations increase the resident share is to increase. Isn't this tantamount to blessing Thompson's February decision?

randymac
05-14-2015, 12:42 PM
are you speaking on behalf of the BCWF?
I can't find an official position as to what kind of allocation split they are supporting now.

We have learned a lot from other jurisdictions . We have rallied , had letter campaigns and we have taken a strong position at 90% to 10%. We have to stay the course at this time, if not there will be many bcwf members demoralized. There is no turning back at this stage.

The Dawg
05-14-2015, 01:35 PM
In a nutshell, this is whats being considered as an approach.

What we have now is not working, and the Government is not listening.

LEH IS going online next year- licensing too.

The BCWF IS moving forward with Resident Priority (a dedicated program with employees)- this is going to take a bit to get running properly but it IS a huge step for us.

These are the directions we are pushing to the Government

Wildlife is funded and managed consistent with the intent ofNAWCM
• Wildlife populations managed for abundance consistent withhabitat capability
• Resident hunter priority is attained
• Move to change supporting legislation/policy/procedure
• As wildlife populations increase allocated share for residenthunters increase
• Support current resolution
• Retiring small territories in areas of high resident use
• Increase minimum territory size
• Funding model is created by 2018
• Wildlife population recovery in areas where a >30%reduction in harvest/pop estimate in last 30 years by 2025
• As wildlife populations increase, resident proportionincreases
Retiring/amalgamating current territories



We realize we are not going to make everyone happy with this approach, but it's moving forward for the betterment of wildlife.

goinghunting
05-14-2015, 01:37 PM
In a nutshell, this is whats being considered as an approach.

What we have now is not working, and the Government is not listening.

LEH IS going online next year- licensing too.

The BCWF IS moving forward with Resident Priority (a dedicated program with employees)- this is going to take a bit to get running properly but it IS a huge step for us.

These are the directions we are pushing to the Government

Wildlife is funded and managed consistent with the intent ofNAWCM
• Wildlife populations managed for abundance consistent withhabitat capability
• Resident hunter priority is attained
• Move to change supporting legislation/policy/procedure
• As wildlife populations increase allocated share for residenthunters increase
• Support current resolution
• Retiring small territories in areas of high resident use
• Increase minimum territory size
• Funding model is created by 2018
• Wildlife population recovery in areas where a >30%reduction in harvest/pop estimate in last 30 years by 2025
• As wildlife populations increase, resident proportionincreases
Retiring/amalgamating current territories



We realize we are not going to make everyone happy with this approach, but it's moving forward for the betterment of wildlife.

Sure looks good to me, I hope some of it happens!

Whonnock Boy
05-14-2015, 07:33 PM
What if wildlife populations are already at carrying capacity? How can it increase if habitat will not support greater populations? Do we want more grizzlies in the Kootenay's? Sheep are already at historic levels in most regions. How will we ever get more than 60% if this is the case?

Is the "current resolution" the 90/10 - 75/25 "marching orders"?

If our current government agrees to all of these terms, can we trust that they will follow through? Not me....




• As wildlife populations increase allocated share for residenthunters increase

• Support current resolution

Ohwildwon
05-15-2015, 12:57 AM
[QUOTE=The Dawg;1640453]In a nutshell, this is whats being considered as an approach.

What we have now is not working, and the Government is not listening.

LEH IS going online next year- licensing too.

The BCWF IS moving forward with Resident Priority (a dedicated program with employees)- this is going to take a bit to get running properly but it IS a huge step for us.

These are the directions we are pushing to the Government

Wildlife is funded and managed consistent with the intent ofNAWCM
• Wildlife populations managed for abundance consistent withhabitat capability
• Resident hunter priority is attained
• Move to change supporting legislation/policy/procedure
• As wildlife populations increase allocated share for residenthunters increase
• Support current resolution
• Retiring small territories in areas of high resident use
• Increase minimum territory size
• Funding model is created by 2018
• Wildlife population recovery in areas where a >30%reduction in harvest/pop estimate in last 30 years by 2025
• As wildlife populations increase, resident proportionincreases
Retiring/amalgamating current territories



We realize we are not going to make everyone happy with this approach, but it's moving forward for the betterment of wildlife.[


Very interesting!

Perhaps posting this in Open Chat? Get more dialogue/feedback?

rgn5hunt
05-15-2015, 10:07 AM
All of the objectives look like good long term goals, except 1. The current resolution should not be supported, no resolution is better than a bad resolution!

Stone Sheep Steve
05-15-2015, 12:17 PM
What if wildlife populations are already at carrying capacity? How can it increase if habitat will not support greater populations? Do we want more grizzlies in the Kootenay's? Sheep are already at historic levels in most regions. How will we ever get more than 60% if this is the case?

Is the "current resolution" the 90/10 - 75/25 "marching orders"?

If our current government agrees to all of these terms, can we trust that they will follow through? Not me....

There are a lot of areas where sheep are not doing well at all. Ashnola(Crater may be closed in the near future), Fraser(Churn Creek), East Kootenays and the southern range of the East Slope in the Peace. All of these areas are well below historic levels.

Whonnock Boy
05-15-2015, 03:57 PM
Fair enough. I realize there are both good and bad populations however, that complicates my point even more. Are we to ask for higher percentages in some regions, while others are to remain at 40%? This can be said of all species under allocation. More of a rhetorical question than being directed at you specifically.


There are a lot of areas where sheep are not doing well at all. Ashnola(Crater may be closed in the near future), Fraser(Churn Creek), East Kootenays and the southern range of the East Slope in the Peace. All of these areas are well below historic levels.

Spy
05-15-2015, 04:44 PM
I dont understand how any of you after all the time and effort we all have put into fighting this are ok with 40% of the sheep? Resident hunters should be getting 90% of all game animals! No more of this 40% bullshit & pandering to the guides. If we are on LEH than no tags for guides. When did we all agree to give up ?????

rgn5hunt
05-15-2015, 05:08 PM
I agree with Spy. Too much effort has gone into this since Thomson sprung that horse crap on us. No resolution is better than that!

bigdogeh
05-15-2015, 05:15 PM
I agree also. I'll never be OK with a 40% split of any of our large game species. that is nothing more than privatization of a resource that belongs to the public. 90-10 or no resolution.

fowl language
05-15-2015, 07:28 PM
the resident priority program is aiming at 90/10 and 75/25. the guides will get no increase till these number are attained....fowl

Whonnock Boy
05-15-2015, 07:52 PM
What happens if game populations decrease after they have increased?


the resident priority program is aiming at 90/10 and 75/25. the guides will get no increase till these number are attained....fowl

Whonnock Boy
05-15-2015, 07:56 PM
As in, guides will never have an interest in growing more wildlife if, for the most part, their numbers are guaranteed forever......

btridge
05-16-2015, 03:40 AM
[QUOTE=The Dawg;1640453]In a nutshell, this is whats being considered as an approach.

What we have now is not working, and the Government is not listening.

LEH IS going online next year- licensing too.

The BCWF IS moving forward with Resident Priority (a dedicated program with employees)- this is going to take a bit to get running properly but it IS a huge step for us.

These are the directions we are pushing to the Government

Wildlife is funded and managed consistent with the intent ofNAWCM
• Wildlife populations managed for abundance consistent withhabitat capability
• Resident hunter priority is attained
• Move to change supporting legislation/policy/procedure
• As wildlife populations increase allocated share for residenthunters increase
• Support current resolution
• Retiring small territories in areas of high resident use
• Increase minimum territory size
• Funding model is created by 2018
• Wildlife population recovery in areas where a >30%reduction in harvest/pop estimate in last 30 years by 2025
• As wildlife populations increase, resident proportionincreases
Retiring/amalgamating current territories



We realize we are not going to make everyone happy with this approach, but it's moving forward for the betterment of wildlife.[


Very interesting!

Perhaps posting this in Open Chat? Get more dialogue/feedback?
What is the current resolution they want us to support?

rgn5hunt
05-16-2015, 10:35 AM
[QUOTE=Ohwildwon;1640647]
What is the current resolution they want us to support?
The current resolution they want us to support is the one we have been fighting and are still fighting, the December 2014 Steve Thomson W.A.Policy. If you can believe that.

Spy
05-16-2015, 10:47 AM
[QUOTE=btridge;1640902]
The current resolution they want us to support is the one we have been fighting and are still fighting, the December 2014 Steve Thomson W.A.Policy. If you can believe that.
We have had polls , flogged this horse to death & we still all agree that we want 90% / 10% so why is BCWF not fighting for this, or are they?

rgn5hunt
05-16-2015, 11:39 AM
[QUOTE=rgn5hunt;1640961]
We have had polls , flogged this horse to death & we still all agree that we want 90% / 10% so why is BCWF not fighting for this, or are they?
Since the AGM and the latest BC Outdoors magazine there has been a suggested plausible solution to the W.A . Policy by the President of the federation. It is all listed in posts in this thread but it includes accepting Thomson s splits . Example , Region 5 Moose accept 25% non res. 75% res. Where non res share is frozen at current number of allocation. Then the plan is to increase the moose population over the years . As the population grows so does our share. It seems to me this provides immediate certainty for outfitting to ensure viability. What do you think?

Spy
05-16-2015, 12:58 PM
[QUOTE=rgn5hunt;1640975][QUOTE=Spy;1640964]Since the AGM and the latest BC Outdoors magazine there has been a suggested plausible solution to the W.A . Policy by the President of the federation. It is all listed in posts in this thread but it includes accepting Thomson s splits . Example , Region 5 Moose accept 25% non res. 75% res. Where non res share is frozen at current number of allocation. Then the plan is to increase the moose population over the years . As the population grows so does our share. It seems to me this provides immediate certainty for outfitting to ensure viability. What do you think?I think it should be 100% resident, 0% non resident. When the moose population "grows" in the next couple years and it can sustain a non resident hunt give the guides 10% and us 90%. Im sure the GOaBC has a fund to look after the guide that will be effected, or the guide can hunt wolves, bears and deer! Resident hunters are already competing with the first nations for meat hunts like moose we should not be competing with foreigners as well. Its time to take a hard stance and fight for what is really ours! We pay stupidly high taxes to live here its time we start getting what we ask for! Anyway 2017 is coming ;-)

Whonnock Boy
05-16-2015, 01:05 PM
The problems are first agreeing to it, then trusting that govt. will follow through. Tom Ethier comes to mind......


[QUOTE=Spy;1640964]
What do you think?

rgn5hunt
05-16-2015, 02:44 PM
In the BC Outdoors magazine the president said that this plausible solution has been floated by resident hunting circles. I find that statement misleading. All the resident hunters and discussions that I have heard in the last few months never mentioned this plausible solution or anything remotely similar. I would believe the statement if it came from MOE and Politcians, but resident hunters? No way!

Ambush
05-16-2015, 02:47 PM
[QUOTE=Spy;1640964] It is all listed in posts in this thread but it includes accepting Thomson s splits . ....Example , Region 5 Moose accept 25% non res. 75% res....... What do you think?

I think that 25% would be the absolute most generous split for any species, as in sheep, goat and grizzly. Any other animal can be no more than 10% !!

If BCWF's suggestion includes accepting any animal on a 40% split, then I vehemently disagree!!

Can you please break down the "suggested" allocation by species in a short list? So we don't have to dig through this thread and then come up with wrong information anyway.

Whonnock Boy
05-16-2015, 04:14 PM
It's kind of amusing. The federation has been dragged down to the depths for so long dealing with politicians and those who should not be named, they can't help but speak in tongues, and ambiguous statements. :lol:

rgn5hunt
05-16-2015, 04:17 PM
[QUOTE=rgn5hunt;1640975]

I think that 25% would be the absolute most generous split for any species, as in sheep, goat and grizzly. Any other animal can be no more than 10% !!

If BCWF's suggestion includes accepting any animal on a 40% split, then I vehemently disagree!!

Can you please break down the "suggested" allocation by species in a short list? So we don't have to dig through this thread and then come up with wrong information anyway.
The way that the plausible allocation solution was suggested is to accept Steve Thomsons February resolution. Thomson introduced the policy in Dec as you know, then made minor changes in February after public rallies, so we are indeed talking about that as the plausible solution. So yes 40% non res for the species you mentioned.

Whonnock Boy
05-16-2015, 04:26 PM
That is kind of misleading. They are not supporting the current policy, from what I can tell, they are supporting the "resolution" of 90/10 - 75/25, in the long run. But, like I say, it will be very confusing considering wildlife populations. They are better off either sticking to their guns, or agreeing to a claw back allocation policy. Yearly, let's say we get 1% back until we are at the "marching orders". But wtf do I know.....


[QUOTE=Ambush;1641012]
So yes 40% non res for the species you mentioned.

rgn5hunt
05-16-2015, 05:06 PM
Okay to clarify I am referring to bc outdoors president s report. Here is what I am reading, the potential solution is based on 3 basic factors. Factor 1 explains low ungulate populations. Factor 2, says guide outfitters would keep the wildlife allocation percentage s from the 2015 decision. As ungulate populations increase resident share is increased until a 90% 10% split is reached. I don't see or read bears , sheep, goats percentage s have been changed . So it leads me to believe, it is exactly how Thomson prescribed the percentage s in February. Factor 3 is predator management. So in theory way off in the future ungulates reach 90% 10% and the sheep, bear , goats ect reach 75% 25%. This is certainty and financial viability for outfitters. It means and another 15 years of the same old compromise for residents. Sure does seem like Tom Ethier s handy work!

Whonnock Boy
05-16-2015, 05:24 PM
Long and short of it is, we're phucked. :|

Ambush
05-16-2015, 05:54 PM
Not acceptable to me. Period.

How about everybody work together and when there is more wildlife then their 10% means enough animals to create that "stability" they want??

They get ten percent. Ten percent of a larger population equates to more animals to sell.

Why do residents have to wait until there are more before increasing their share??

I'm getting angry all over again!!

Whonnock Boy
05-16-2015, 06:23 PM
Agreed.... I don't blame you.


Not acceptable to me. Period.

How about everybody work together and when there is more wildlife then their 10% means enough animals to create that "stability" they want??

They get ten percent. Ten percent of a larger population equates to more animals to sell.

Why do residents have to wait until there are more before increasing their share??

I'm getting angry all over again!!

btridge
05-16-2015, 06:51 PM
I think it's time to start replacing the BCWF leadership if this is the policy the current leadership is putting forth as OUR POLICY.

Down South
05-16-2015, 07:20 PM
I think that maybe the BCWF should put out an online referendum and ask the members what direction we should be taking

bigdogeh
05-16-2015, 07:32 PM
I think that maybe the BCWF should put out an online referendum and ask the members what direction we should be taking


I second that...

f350ps
05-16-2015, 09:37 PM
I'm thinkin that with your BCWF membership you get a card, a window decal and a jar of Vaseline! K

bigdogeh
05-16-2015, 10:17 PM
I'm thinkin that with your BCWF membership you get a card, a window decal and a jar of Vaseline! K

that sounds like the Thompson resident hunter membership.

rgn5hunt
05-17-2015, 01:48 AM
I think that maybe the BCWF should put out an online referendum and ask the members what direction we should be taking
I third that. I also Immediately wrote Bcwf and president to show disapproval.

Wild one
05-17-2015, 08:16 AM
What a mess but also not surprised

Spy
05-17-2015, 09:56 AM
BCWF will be losing members if they dont get their shit together, this is starting to play out just the way the guides and the Libs wanted! All the work we put in has not helped! What a waste of time & money! BCWF is not my voice they have failed Resident Hunters !

boxhitch
05-17-2015, 11:33 AM
btridge , Down South , bigdogeh , f350ps , you guys had a rep at the convention didn't you ?
This was all laid out at Fernie , 200+ delegates in the room , and surprisingly not much for fireworks then so it breezed by unchallenged. THATS what the membership gets
Barking at the bus that has already left doesn't get much done. Next time be on the bus.

Spy
05-17-2015, 12:28 PM
btridge , Down South , bigdogeh , f350ps , you guys had a rep at the convention didn't you ? This was all laid out at Fernie , 200+ delegates in the room , and surprisingly not much for fireworks then so it breezed by unchallenged. THATS what the membership getsBarking at the bus that has already left doesn't get much done. Next time be on the bus.There wont be another bus its slowly starting to set in that we lost this battle ! No fault of the many that stood up to fight I blame the people we trusted to fight for us! Our "voice" what a joke ! :-(

Whonnock Boy
05-17-2015, 12:35 PM
Considering Jesse Zeman's presentation was the first time in which the club reps heard it, how do you expect the general membership to chime in, if the reps need to return and convey the message? When are we supposed to speak up? The "dont bitch if you dont show" attitude is pretty lame.
btridge , Down South , bigdogeh , f350ps , you guys had a rep at the convention didn't you ?
This was all laid out at Fernie , 200+ delegates in the room , and surprisingly not much for fireworks then so it breezed by unchallenged. THATS what the membership gets
Barking at the bus that has already left doesn't get much done. Next time be on the bus.

bearvalley
05-17-2015, 01:19 PM
In defence of Jesse and some of the BCWF executive I believe they are starting to look at the big picture and moving forward. The old push and shove battle from both sides was going nowhere. In this latest shit storm we all lost face and credibility.
It seems some believe that just because they're a BC resident it's thier entitlement to go shoot a moose or some other species of big game. If and when they ever realize that hunting is a privilege and not a right they may get my point.

rgn5hunt
05-17-2015, 01:32 PM
Up to this point in time the concept has been referred to as , an approach, a plausible solution, an idea and a potential solution. In the article I read it said the potential solution is being floated. That means to me it's something that the membership is being introduced to, a trial balloon.Most of the membership has never heard of it until BC Outdoors was printed so as far as I am concerned it should be wide open for criticism and discussions. So far the response from membership has been extremely critical of the possible solution.

Spy
05-17-2015, 02:31 PM
In defence of Jesse and some of the BCWF executive I believe they are starting to look at the big picture and moving forward. The old push and shove battle from both sides was going nowhere. In this latest shit storm we all lost face and credibility.
It seems some believe that just because they're a BC resident it's thier entitlement to go shoot a moose or some other species of big game. If and when they ever realize that hunting is a privilege and not a right they may get my point.

Im calling for a total shut down of foreign trophy hunting in BC, see how you guides like that! 2017 is coming and you and the Liberals will be out the door. Its time to take this to a new level, time for Resident Hunters to regroup & fight this Bullshit,no more compromise, If it means joining forces with the Antis to shut down trophy hunting then so be it! You have left us no other options! This war has just begun 90% of the population would like to see you shut down! Whats that 200 + guides against the whole of BC good luck you greedy ****ers! BearValley your posts have once again struck a nerve & you can thank yourself for poking the hornets nest this time!

bearvalley
05-17-2015, 02:48 PM
Im calling for a total shut down of foreign trophy hunting in BC, see how you guides like that! 2017 is coming and you and the Liberals will be out the door. Its time to take this to a new level, time for Resident Hunters to regroup & fight this Bullshit,no more compromise, If it means joining forces with the Antis to shut down trophy hunting then so be it! You have left us no other options! This war has just begun 90% of the population would like to see you shut down! Whats that 200 + guides against the whole of BC good luck you greedy ****ers! BearValley your posts have once again struck a nerve & you can thank yourself for poking the hornets nest this time!
Spy, something leads me to think you are on the Anti team. You definitely do show your "all for me" mentality. One thing you should consider when you come off your island (if you really do live in Victoria) is that in some parts of this province you may be considered the non resident. Just something for you to think about IMO.

boxhitch
05-17-2015, 03:39 PM
Considering Jesse Zeman's presentation was the first time in which the club reps heard it, how do you expect the general membership to chime in, if the reps need to return and convey the message? When are we supposed to speak up? .If the subject had been discussed at the club level , the rep should have had a clear position and message to bring forward to the meetings . Pre warned is pre armed as they say.

The "dont bitch if you dont show" attitude is pretty lame Its all in the delivery.

rgn5hunt
05-17-2015, 03:53 PM
If the subject had been discussed at the club level , the rep should have had a clear position and message to bring forward to the meetings . Pre warned is pre armed as they say.
Its all in the delivery.
What if the subject information was not made available to the club level or its representative?

Spy
05-17-2015, 04:53 PM
Spy, something leads me to think you are on the Anti team. You definitely do show your "all for me" mentality. One thing you should consider when you come off your island (if you really do live in Victoria) is that in some parts of this province you may be considered the non resident. Just something for you to think about IMO.
Got that right anti guide ! Now Islanders are considered non residents? We know the guides already call us RC's (resident c.ck suckers!) Guides have always hated resident hunters because of the competition we pose in the field so they created LEH! So you can say the feeling is mutual! We will eventually win this fight :-)

Whonnock Boy
05-17-2015, 04:59 PM
If the subject had been discussed at the club level , the rep should have had a clear position and message to bring forward to the meetings . Pre warned is pre armed as they say.
Its all in the delivery.


What if the subject information was not made available to the club level or its representative?

It wasn't made available at the club level. No one knew what was going to be said at the AGM except for the executives, and "in" crowd.

The federation standpoint is still ambiguous. Are we marching, have we given in and hopeful that we can convince govt. to improve wildlife populations so we gain allocation, are we waiting for a big splash out of resident priority, or is it something else? Nobody knows......

I hate the fact that I have spoken with many people within the federation, and I do not know what I should, could, can, or want to say here, or anywhere on social media. Even with speaking with these people, I am still confused as to the direction we/they are taking, and I can only imagine it being worse for those further on the outside. This is a problem, and IMO support is being lost because of it.


In defence of Jesse and some of the BCWF executive I believe they are starting to look at the big picture and moving forward. The old push and shove battle from both sides was going nowhere. In this latest shit storm we all lost face and credibility.


Are you implying that the federation never put wildlife and habitat first? I think the go's lost face, and sadly, if the federation doesn't clarify, and publish its stance, it will too!

Rackmastr
05-17-2015, 05:02 PM
If it means joining forces with the Antis to shut down trophy hunting then so be it! You have left us no other options!

I'd say there are a TON of other options, joining forces in an effort to shut down 'trophy hunting' is a great start to ending hunting all together for everyone. Thats the exact tactic anti-hunting groups use and they would love nothing more than to have hunters battle eachother to the ground, tearing apart hunting from the inside.

A lot of other options out there, and hopefully people who wish to destroy hunting from the inside are minimal. I personally would rather fight to protect the grizzly bear hunt, sheep hunt, goat hunts, caribou hunts, etc, etc....because beleive me, when the attack aims at 'trophy hunting', thats what a person had better be prepared to give up very quickly.

If only people were as passionate about making more wildlife and sustaining that wildlife as they were about 'shutting things down' to suit their needs. IMO taking the 'anti hunting' battle to 'foreign hunting' is too narrow scoped and there are so many other options out there that support hunting and sustainability long-term.

Spy
05-17-2015, 05:19 PM
I'd say there are a TON of other options, joining forces in an effort to shut down 'trophy hunting' is a great start to ending hunting all together for everyone. Thats the exact tactic anti-hunting groups use and they would love nothing more than to have hunters battle eachother to the ground, tearing apart hunting from the inside.

A lot of other options out there, and hopefully people who wish to destroy hunting from the inside are minimal. I personally would rather fight to protect the grizzly bear hunt, sheep hunt, goat hunts, caribou hunts, etc, etc....because beleive me, when the attack aims at 'trophy hunting', thats what a person had better be prepared to give up very quickly.

If only people were as passionate about making more wildlife and sustaining that wildlife as they were about 'shutting things down' to suit their needs. IMO taking the 'anti hunting' battle to 'foreign hunting' is too narrow scoped and there are so many other options out there that support hunting and sustainability long-term.
So you are OK with giving 40% of the sheep to be sold on the open market how about 25% of moose? How is it going to "end hunting all together"? People have no problem with "meat hunting" and Resident Hunters, thier problems are with Trophy Hunters who are only after the rack or hide and could care less about the meat! 200 odd guides will be falling by the road side for that reason alone! Resident hunters are in a position now to distance ourselves from the guides before we get lumped together with them. Im not fighting for them anymore, after the shit they pulled! We used to be allies not anymore they made the split, & thank goodness it happened, you could call it a blessing in disguise ;-). If you have being following trophy hunting on social media you would see the hate people have for "trophy hunters" the writing is on the wall and that fight is coming for the guides! Pretty short sighted of them to have alienated their only allies, talk about shooting yourself in the foot! So I see it from a different angle. We Resident hunters will grow more game, for our fellow hunters as we are not the greedy ones!

Rackmastr
05-17-2015, 05:23 PM
So you are OK with giving 40% of the sheep to be sold on the open market how about 25% of moose? How is it going to "end hunting all together"? People have no problem with "meat hunting" and Resident Hunters, thier problems are with Trophy Hunters who are only after the rack or hide and could care less about the meat! 200 odd guides will be falling by the road side for that reason alone! Resident hunters are in a position now to distance ourselves from the guides before we get lumped together with them. Im not fighting for them anymore, after the shit they pulled! We used to be allies not anymore they made the split, & thank goodness it happened, you could call it a blessing in disguise ;-). If you have being following trophy hunting on social media you would see the hate people have for "trophy hunters" the writing is on the wall and that fight is coming for the guides! Pretty short sighted of them to have alienated their only allies, talk about shooting yourself in the foot! So I see it from a different angle. We Resident hunters will grow more game, for our fellow hunters as we are not the greedy ones!

No, I'm not okay with it in the slightest.

I just think that its naive to think that if you attack 'trophy hunting' you wont end up giving up grizzly hunting, sheep hunting, caribou hunting, etc and then the anti hunters will continue to attack your 'meat hunting' anyways. Really the definition of 'trophy hunting' and 'meat hunting' is so blurred even within the hunting community, let alone non-hunters and anti hunters. I just see a slippery slope is all.

Different approaches I guess....but you are right that the passion should be directed at growing more wildlife. I just want nothing to do with attacking other hunters personally or destroying hunting from the inside alongside anti hunters. Different strokes...

bearvalley
05-17-2015, 05:31 PM
Are you implying that the federation never put wildlife and habitat first? I think the go's lost face, and sadly, if the federation doesn't clarify, and publish its stance, it will too!
No, I'm not implying that the fed never put wildlife and habitat first. The same holds true for many GOs. Both sides were drug into a shit slinging duel that was fueled by a minority of each group. Both sides have lost face and as long as the infighting continues all hunters in this province are losing ground.

Whonnock Boy
05-17-2015, 05:39 PM
Who is the "minority" for the federation, and what shit were they slinging?


No, I'm not implying that the fed never put wildlife and habitat first. The same holds true for many GOs. Both sides were drug into a shit slinging duel that was fueled by a minority of each group. Both sides have lost face and as long as the infighting continues all hunters in this province are losing ground.

bearvalley
05-17-2015, 05:49 PM
Who is the "minority" for the federation, and what shit were they slinging?

Figure it out. You got time.

Spy
05-17-2015, 06:03 PM
No, I'm not okay with it in the slightest.

I just think that its naive to think that if you attack 'trophy hunting' you wont end up giving up grizzly hunting, sheep hunting, caribou hunting, etc and then the anti hunters will continue to attack your 'meat hunting' anyways. Really the definition of 'trophy hunting' and 'meat hunting' is so blurred even within the hunting community, let alone non-hunters and anti hunters. I just see a slippery slope is all.

Different approaches I guess....but you are right that the passion should be directed at growing more wildlife. I just want nothing to do with attacking other hunters personally or destroying hunting from the inside alongside anti hunters. Different strokes...
Actually Resident Hunter have done a great job in educating the public on hunting and even die hard vegans are accepting of our culture, as long as we use what we shoot. The GOABc knows the antis are coming for them and even have a fund set up to fight against them. Everyone knows the difference between Trophy hunting and meat hunting , nothing "blurred" there its black and white! The guides are the ones that are trying to blur it because they know they will need us when shit gets heavy & know we will fight hard! They want to confuse the public and us to think we are all under attack when its only trophy hunting & their PROFESSION that is under attack. Beware of the wolf in sheeps clothing guides are not our friends, they see us as their competition but want us as allies when the shit hits the fan! Growing more wildlife is the goal I agree.

bearvalley
05-17-2015, 06:04 PM
So you are OK with giving 40% of the sheep to be sold on the open market how about 25% of moose? How is it going to "end hunting all together"? People have no problem with "meat hunting" and Resident Hunters, thier problems are with Trophy Hunters who are only after the rack or hide and could care less about the meat! 200 odd guides will be falling by the road side for that reason alone! Resident hunters are in a position now to distance ourselves from the guides before we get lumped together with them. Im not fighting for them anymore, after the shit they pulled! We used to be allies not anymore they made the split, & thank goodness it happened, you could call it a blessing in disguise ;-). If you have being following trophy hunting on social media you would see the hate people have for "trophy hunters" the writing is on the wall and that fight is coming for the guides! Pretty short sighted of them to have alienated their only allies, talk about shooting yourself in the foot! So I see it from a different angle. We Resident hunters will grow more game, for our fellow hunters as we are not the greedy ones!
Spy, why don't you spell out how you define Trophy hunting as you call it and spell out where it happens in this province. Or can you?

Spy
05-17-2015, 06:05 PM
Figure it out. You got time.
Ha ha foot in mouth! You dont want to answer because you have just realised what the implications are so typical of you! lol the true colures revealed LOL !

Spy
05-17-2015, 06:07 PM
Spy, why don't you spell out how you define Trophy hunting as you call it and spell out where it happens in this province. Or can you?
Figure it out. You got the time. LOL

Rackmastr
05-17-2015, 06:10 PM
I travel to other provinces and countries to hunt, I have a room full of taxidermy in my basement including a lifesize grizz. I have a freezer full of meat and have shot several types of animals across this part of the world including fur bearers and chased large antlers and mature animals as well as animals to fill my freezer including does and cows.

Ask 100 people if I am a "trophy hunter" and you will not have consensus is my guess. That's all I'm saying.

I just cannot and won't support the anti hunting agenda myself in any way, shape or form.

Whonnock Boy
05-17-2015, 06:11 PM
I can only assume who you believe these people are, and only you can tell me who you think they are. Now, I know the "slinging" that some reps from the goabc have done, namely attack members here with lawsuits, attack fed members with the same, contacting peoples employers jeopardizing their careers, and have had media publish accusatory articles insinuating resident hunters pointed laser scoped rifles at a goabc member, stole another's vehicle, burned a guides cabin down, and slashed a goabc's vehicle tires. So, who are the fed members, and what shit have they slung?


Figure it out. You got time.

bearvalley
05-17-2015, 06:12 PM
Figure it out. You got the time. LOL
Your colours came through. Spy, the Anti hunter troll. Lol

Spy
05-17-2015, 06:24 PM
I travel to other provinces and countries to hunt, I have a room full of taxidermy in my basement including a lifesize grizz. I have a freezer full of meat and have shot several types of animals across this part of the world including fur bearers and chased large antlers and mature animals as well as animals to fill my freezer including does and cows.

Ask 100 people if I am a "trophy hunter" and you will not have consensus is my guess. That's all I'm saying.


I just cannot and won't support the anti hunting agenda myself in any way, shape or form.

Thats for you to figure out what you are & if you are ok with it, not me or anyone else ! Our fight as Resident Hunters is against the guides and what they are taking away from us ! The guides & trophy hunting will be on the chopping block in the near future. Resident hunters dont need to be included in the fight that is coming & im glad we have split from them it is truly a blessing and will bode us well ! I say throw them to the wolves like they have done to us!Greed will be their downfall. :-)

Spy
05-17-2015, 06:25 PM
Your colours came through. Spy, the Anti hunter troll. Lol
Jup you got me pinned LOL LOL LOL !

Rackmastr
05-17-2015, 06:33 PM
Thats for you to figure out what you are & if you are ok with it, not me or anyone else ! Our fight as Resident Hunters is against the guides and what they are taking away from us ! The guides & trophy hunting will be on the chopping block in the near future. Resident hunters dont need to be included in the fight that is coming & im glad we have split from them it is truly a blessing and will bode us well ! I say throw them to the wolves like they have done to us!Greed will be their downfall. :-)

I know where I stand as a hunter, you missed my point by a mile on that one.

If trophy hunting is 'on the block', then be prepared to lose a ton of opportunity for resident hunters, a ton of species to hunt, and then enjoy the battle once the anti's have got that part done and can move on to everything thats left over.

I'm not prepared for that nor willing to tear apart hunters like that and will take a different route. Sorry for the thread hijack. Thanks for the discussion.

bearvalley
05-17-2015, 07:00 PM
Thats for you to figure out what you are & if you are ok with it, not me or anyone else ! Our fight as Resident Hunters is against the guides and what they are taking away from us ! The guides & trophy hunting will be on the chopping block in the near future. Resident hunters dont need to be included in the fight that is coming & im glad we have split from them it is truly a blessing and will bode us well ! I say throw them to the wolves like they have done to us!Greed will be their downfall. :-)

You take the prize for going against all hunters. There is no such thing in this province at this time that is "Trophy hunting" as you want to call it for either non residents or residents. ALL edible portions of meat for ALL hunters has to be recovered unless exempted by regulation. Not to many hunters today are out harvesting game because they have to for existence. Most hunt for the tradition and lifestyle. Keep pushing the Trophy hunting agenda, it will bite us all in the ass.
Here's something for you to think about, does a moose rolled around in the mud, hung up in a tree for a week and turned into a rotten chunk of dog food by the time a hunter drags it home mean that the guy that shot is a Trophy hunter.
Under your buddy Weavers proposed bill, BC is going to have a lot of resident "Trophy hunters" created by the clause that edible portions of meat go " through " your place of residence before they go to a meat cutter.
I will guarantee in remote areas outfitters have more logistics in place to deal with this Bill if it does become reality. I doubt that it will.
Your narrow minded approach is undermining all hunters.

bearvalley
05-17-2015, 07:06 PM
The derail started when a GO gave some members of the BCWF credit for thinking for the future.

The Dawg
05-17-2015, 07:09 PM
You take the prize for going against all hunters. There is no such thing in this province at this time that is "Trophy hunting" as you want to call it for either non residents or residents. Keep pushing the Trophy hunting agenda, it will bite us all in the ass. .


Really? Well this is a direct quote ...from 'someone'...in a 'paper' they wrote.


Quality big game species

The management of big game must be conducted in a manner that grows trophy class animals and restricts provisions such as “spike-fork” seasons for immature bull moose.

btridge
05-17-2015, 07:10 PM
btridge , Down South , bigdogeh , f350ps , you guys had a rep at the convention didn't you ?
This was all laid out at Fernie , 200+ delegates in the room , and surprisingly not much for fireworks then so it breezed by unchallenged. THATS what the membership gets
Barking at the bus that has already left doesn't get much done. Next time be on the bus.
the club reps and BCWF are very aware of the feeling of resident hunters, to say that this policy is unchallenged is absurd. The leadership of BCWF is putting forward the agenda of the leadership, not the membership at large. every time I have had a discussion as to validity of GO's having 40% of ANY hunt, resident hunters, many of which are BCWF members say NO WAY! It's time to change the leadership at BCWF to support BCWF members at large.

Spy
05-17-2015, 07:46 PM
You take the prize for going against all hunters.How so? There is no such thing in this province at this time that is "Trophy hunting" as you want to call it for either non residents or residents.Bullshit ! ALL edible portions of meat for ALL hunters has to be recovered unless exempted by regulation.And then gifted to the guide who does what he wants with it! Not to many hunters today are out harvesting game because they have to for existence. Most hunt for the tradition and lifestyle. Keep pushing the Trophy hunting agenda, it will bite us all in the ass !More bullshit every hunter I know is out there to fill his/her freezer with meat you cant buy in the stores, & yes we enjoy the hunt and the lifestyle WTF!
Here's something for you to think about, does a moose rolled around in the mud, hung up in a tree for a week and turned into a rotten chunk of dog food by the time a hunter drags it home mean that the guy that shot is a Trophy hunter.????? WTF???
Under your buddy Weavers proposed bill, BC is going to have a lot of resident "Trophy hunters" created by the clause that edible portions of meat go " through " your place of residence before they go to a meat cutter. That bill not clause is meant for foreign trophy hunters not residents who already remove all edible portions!
I will guarantee in remote areas outfitters have more logistics in place to deal with this Bill if it does become reality. I doubt that it will.
Your narrow minded approach is undermining all hunters. Guides undermined hunting with their greed for more and threw Resident Hunters under the bus in doing so, which is par for the course, you never liked us anyway! Remember we are the RC's ;-)

bearvalley
05-17-2015, 08:17 PM
Really? Well this is a direct quote ...from 'someone'...in a 'paper' they wrote.


Quality big game species

The management of big game must be conducted in a manner that grows trophy class animals and restricts provisions such as “spike-fork” seasons for immature bull moose.
Quality big game species starts with healthy big game populations that can handle a harvest of any age class of bull and a GOS.
Of coarse some would rather blow them all over when they make spike fork. That's good for moose population expansion.

The Dawg
05-17-2015, 08:20 PM
Quality big game species starts with healthy big game populations that can handle a harvest of any age class of bull and a GOS.
Of coarse some would rather blow them all over when they make spike fork. That's good for moose population expansion.


People would rather fill the freezer with some quality spike fork meat....I hear 50" antlers, although worth 10k, take a hell of a lot of marinating to be edible.

Spy
05-17-2015, 08:35 PM
Quality big game species starts with healthy big game populations that can handle a harvest of any age class of bull and a GOS.
Of coarse some would rather blow them all over when they make spike fork. That's good for moose population expansion.
Than put your money where your mouth is and dont sell any moose hunts for the next five years! Sell your clients wolf and bear hunts and help the moose population ! You wont do that though because money means more to you than the animals!

bearvalley
05-17-2015, 08:42 PM
Spy, you better learn to read. Mr Weavers bill is to become part of the Wildlife Act of this province if it goes through.
The interpretation of how he worded it can be taken 2 ways. The edible portions either have to go to a persons normal dwelling place or through to a meat cutter or the owner or operator of a cold storage plant, unless exempted by regulation.
The key word is "or".
My point is if this is taken one way all edible portions of game meat must first go to your house before it goes to the meat cutter. This was Weavers intent of how to screw hunters over.
Taken in the other content it reads "or through to a meat cutter...."therefor there is no change to Section 35(2)(b) of the BC Wildlife Act.
The Wildlife Act pertains to both resident and non resident hunters as well, so take your choice if it passes.
I doubt it will.

bearvalley
05-17-2015, 08:44 PM
People would rather fill the freezer with some quality spike fork meat....I hear 50" antlers, although worth 10k, take a hell of a lot of marinating to be edible.
Depends on if you shoot them and in August or November.

The Dawg
05-17-2015, 08:45 PM
Spy, you better learn to read. Mr Weavers bill is to become part of the Wildlife Act of this province if it goes through.
The interpretation of how he worded it can be taken 2 ways. The edible portions either have to go to a persons normal dwelling place or through to a meat cutter or the owner or operator of a cold storage plant, unless exempted by regulation.
The key word is "or".
My point is if this is taken one way all edible portions of game meat must first go to your house before it goes to the meat cutter. This was Weavers intent of how to screw hunters over.
Taken in the other content it reads "or through to a meat cutter...."therefor there is no change to Section 35(2)(b) of the BC Wildlife Act.
The Wildlife Act pertains to both resident and non resident hunters as well, so take your choice if it passes.
I doubt it will.


So its like that Order in Council where the wording is the key, right?

bearvalley
05-17-2015, 08:48 PM
Than put your money where your mouth is and dont sell any moose hunts for the next five years! Sell your clients wolf and bear hunts and help the moose population ! You wont do that though because money means more to you than the animals!
Why? Moose are on GOS.

bearvalley
05-17-2015, 08:51 PM
So its like that Order in Council where the wording is the key, right?
How would you take it.
If you want to read it one way there's going to be a lot of inconvenienced residents turned into "Trophy hunters" due to meat wastage.

Spy
05-17-2015, 08:54 PM
No I had a long conversation with Dr weaver and he stands with Resident Hunters 110% Its only the guides that are spreading misinformation about him, I can smell the fear lol! The bill was and is meant for the guiding feternity and will force them and their clients to remove all edible portions. Nowhere in this bill are resident hunter mentioned or included! Nice try though! I have been on two grizz hunts and never have we left the edible portions so dont see a problem with the bill even if it included Resident hunters which it does not:-) !

Spy
05-17-2015, 08:57 PM
Why? Moose are on GOS.
Your point is ?????

The Dawg
05-17-2015, 09:02 PM
How would you take it.
If you want to read it one way there's going to be a lot of inconvenienced residents turned into "Trophy hunters" due to meat wastage.


So the wording is ok when it suits your agenda I see.

Got it.

Spy
05-17-2015, 09:12 PM
How would you take it.
If you want to read it one way there's going to be a lot of inconvenienced residents turned into "Trophy hunters" due to meat wastage.
More fear mongering with no evidence to back it up again!

bearvalley
05-17-2015, 09:23 PM
No I had a long conversation with Dr weaver and he stands with Resident Hunters 110% Its only the guides that are spreading misinformation about him, I can smell the fear lol! The bill was and is meant for the guiding feternity and will force them and their clients to remove all edible portions. Nowhere in this bill are resident hunter mentioned or included! Nice try though! I have been on two grizz hunts and never have we left the edible portions so dont see a problem with the bill even if it included Resident hunters which it does not:-) !
You are really simple. The Wildlife Act applies to all.
Really Spy, you should come clean and just tell us you're part of Weavers Anti hunting team.

Spy
05-17-2015, 09:31 PM
You are really simple. The Wildlife Act applies to all.
Really Spy, you should come clean and just tell us you're part of Weavers Anti hunting team.
Ha ha is that all you you got? You run out of lies or what Ha Ha ! Like I said most Resident Hunters take their meat anyway, its your clients who will have a problem with removing the meat!

bearvalley
05-17-2015, 09:32 PM
More fear mongering with no evidence to back it up again!
No fear mongering at all Spy.
Read the Bill amendment and understand it if you can.
If by some remote chance it goes through there will be a lot of spoiled meat by the time it goes from one end of this province to the other.
My bet is the Bill amendment won't fly.
But what do I know.

Spy
05-17-2015, 09:35 PM
No fear mongering at all Spy.
Read the Bill amendment and understand it if you can.
If by some remote chance it goes through there will be a lot of spoiled meat by the time it goes from one end of this province to the other.
My bet is the Bill amendment won't fly.
But what do I know.
That does not bother resident Hunters at all we always take out=r hard earned meat home! Its the guides that leave it to rot in the bush!

bearvalley
05-17-2015, 09:44 PM
Ha ha is that all you you got? You run out of lies or what Ha Ha ! Like I said most Resident Hunters take their meat anyway, its your clients who will have a problem with removing the meat!
Spy, can you wrap you're mind around the fact that the BC Wildlife Act applies to all. All edible meat is removed. The more crap you blow out the more it shows how little you know. Facts trump bullshit any day.
I'm getting a laugh out of how this thread has derailed. What started out as a "Trash the BCWF executive" took the usual twist and went Anti outfitter in a hurry. Lol

Spy
05-17-2015, 09:57 PM
What can we say you know how to spread the hate just keep typing! Remember that facts trump your bullshit lies you spread :-) Resident hunters are wise to your lies !

bearvalley
05-17-2015, 09:59 PM
That does not bother resident Hunters at all we always take out=r hard earned meat home! Its the guides that leave it to rot in the bush!
Would you like to bring up that topic with a few northern BC Conservation officers.
Most outfitters are better equipped to deal with the logistics of meat retrieval in the remote parts of BC than the majority of residents. It's not the personal ability that makes the difference but the fact that they are set up to get meat out of the bush. If we're both hunting with a quad strapped to our ass the footing is equal. Not my style of hunting, but each to his own. Lol

Spy
05-17-2015, 10:17 PM
Would you like to bring up that topic with a few northern BC Conservation officers.
Most outfitters are better equipped to deal with the logistics of meat retrieval in the remote parts of BC than the majority of residents. It's not the personal ability that makes the difference but the fact that they are set up to get meat out of the bush. If we're both hunting with a quad strapped to our ass the footing is equal. Not my style of hunting, but each to his own. Lol
So you bring out the edible portions of the G bears your clients shoot?

f350ps
05-17-2015, 10:32 PM
Wow, there's 25 mins of my life I won't get back and after reading all that I've come to the conclusion that we as RH's are pretty much f@cked!! K

bearvalley
05-17-2015, 10:36 PM
So you bring out the edible portions of the G bears your clients shoot?
I chewed a steak down tonight. Lol.
Don't forget GOABC brought up the proposal to make the retrieval of Grizzly meat a requirement going forward. Not your buddy Weaver. Until it is a regulation retrieval of G bears is optional. It'll be easier for me to pack out a G bear carcass with a string of pack ponies than a guy with a backpack. My bet is the size of edible portions of meat is going to get reduced with lead.
I bet there'll be a lineup of guys willing to share G bear meat with you. But then that's gifting or should I call it laundering.

Whonnock Boy
05-17-2015, 11:16 PM
I can only speak for myself but, I am not trash talking the fed exec. I may not agree with their proposals/press releases, but I am certainly not "trash"ing the exec.


What started out as a "Trash the BCWF executive"

Maybe you missed this, so I will quote it again.


Figure it out. You got time.


I can only assume who you believe these people are, and only you can tell me who you think they are. Now, I know the "slinging" that some reps from the goabc have done, namely attack members here with lawsuits, attack fed members with the same, contacting peoples employers jeopardizing their careers, and have had media publish accusatory articles insinuating resident hunters pointed laser scoped rifles at a goabc member, stole another's vehicle, burned a guides cabin down, and slashed a goabc's vehicle tires. So, who are the fed members, and what shit have they slung?

boxhitch
05-18-2015, 05:20 AM
Nice derail , the divergence tactic at work

Getting back to post#53 page 6 ,
http://huntingbc.ca/forum/images/shades_of_green/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by boxhitch http://huntingbc.ca/forum/images/shades_of_green/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=1641213#post1641213)

If the subject had been discussed at the club level , the rep should have had a clear position and message to bring forward to the meetings . Pre warned is pre armed as they say.
Its all in the delivery.

http://huntingbc.ca/forum/images/shades_of_green/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by rgn5hunt http://huntingbc.ca/forum/images/shades_of_green/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=1641215#post1641215)

What if the subject information was not made available to the club level or its representative?





It wasn't made available at the club level. No one knew what was going to be said at the AGM except for the executives, and "in" crowd.

The federation standpoint is still ambiguous. Are we marching, have we given in and hopeful that we can convince govt. to improve wildlife populations so we gain allocation, are we waiting for a big splash out of resident priority, or is it something else? Nobody knows......

I hate the fact that I have spoken with many people within the federation, and I do not know what I should, could, can, or want to say here, or anywhere on social media. Even with speaking with these people, I am still confused as to the direction we/they are taking, and I can only imagine it being worse for those further on the outside. This is a problem, and IMO support is being lost because of it. I should have been more clear. The 'subject' I was referring to was the whole allocation split battle. It was a hot topic before the Convention, lots of time for members and clubs to build a platform or position on what they wanted and have their delegates bring that forward.

You guys do know how the Fed works right ? The whole 'from the ground up' 'grass roots' thing ? Its a long time til the next convention.

btridge
05-18-2015, 06:27 AM
I started this thread on 04/17 to ask for clarity on the BCWF position on the allocation debate, NOT to bash the leadership. Going into the AGM, the position of the membership was made VERY clear to the BCWF leadership and by all indications by reading the BCWF website, they understood the outrage and agreed with the membership. Yet I can find no official position on the subject. The comment I made about maybe it's time for a change of the leadership comes from the fact that there appears to be no follow through from the current leadership. FOR anyone in the BCWF to say we should accept the current government policy on allocation is a betrayal to BC resident hunters....As for those of you that are trying hard to derail the intent of this thread....BUGGER OFF and start your own thread!

Fisher-Dude
05-18-2015, 09:04 AM
I started this thread on 04/17 to ask for clarity on the BCWF position on the allocation debate, NOT to bash the leadership. Going into the AGM, the position of the membership was made VERY clear to the BCWF leadership and by all indications by reading the BCWF website, they understood the outrage and agreed with the membership. Yet I can find no official position on the subject. The comment I made about maybe it's time for a change of the leadership comes from the fact that there appears to be no follow through from the current leadership. FOR anyone in the BCWF to say we should accept the current government policy on allocation is a betrayal to BC resident hunters....As for those of you that are trying hard to derail the intent of this thread....BUGGER OFF and start your own thread!

What was your role in bringing forward what you would like to see to the AGM?

Did you attend? If not, did you send a position statement with your club's delegates? If so, who were they, and what did they say at the AGM on your behalf that you feel hasn't been acted on?

If there was some "information gap," it would be best to bring it forward and make sure the exec is informed about it.

Ed George
05-18-2015, 09:59 AM
The official BCWF policy on allocation is the 90/10 and 75/25 split as set out in the resolution from last years convention. The reason you have not seen anything different is that that is the membership's directions to the leadership. As the resolution was voted on and accepted at convention it becomes the official policy and the only policy that the Board can or will follow.

What has been discussed is that the government is talking numbers and changing percentages to support the numbers while the BCWF is supporting only the pure percentages as per the resolution. What has been discussed is that if the numbers only are accepted as a base line and the percentages legislated as per the BCWF position, the guides are locked at the numbers they profess to need for viability until the animal populations recover and those numbers meet the percentages put forward by the BCWF membership, only then will the guides receive any additions to their numbers. The problem seen here is that with the numbers put forward by the guides to guarantee their viability there is no incentive to grow the populations, they get everything they need with the populations at all time lows.


The latest line trotted out by the government is that the wildlife in the province is owned by all British Columbians and they have an obligation to get the most money out of the allocations as is available for the province. What the have not factored into their equation is the foreign ownership of guide territories employing foreign guides that receive their pay either in foreign banks or in the form of wildlife harvested in lieu of pay does nothing for the provincial coffers.


Hunting for Health not Heads

btridge
05-18-2015, 02:12 PM
The official BCWF policy on allocation is the 90/10 and 75/25 split as set out in the resolution from last years convention. The reason you have not seen anything different is that that is the membership's directions to the leadership. As the resolution was voted on and accepted at convention it becomes the official policy and the only policy that the Board can or will follow.







Finally, an answer to the question I asked, thank you. This is the position as I understood it to be, and that I can support.

GoatGuy
05-18-2015, 03:49 PM
BCWF is still moving forward on this issue. Will continue to go after changes to wildlife management and allocations.


Government and GOABC will continue to do what they do. News should be out in June.............

Whonnock Boy
05-19-2015, 10:18 AM
Has this been announced anywhere other than here? If not, I would suggest mentioning it on the BCWF website. I believe it is of utmost importance to let everyone know that this was voted on, and passed, not just for moving forward but, maintaining and garnering more support for the federation.


The official BCWF policy on allocation is the 90/10 and 75/25 split as set out in the resolution from last years convention. The reason you have not seen anything different is that that is the membership's directions to the leadership. As the resolution was voted on and accepted at convention it becomes the official policy and the only policy that the Board can or will follow.