PDA

View Full Version : BCWF- Biodiversity Conservation Conversation!



BCWF
04-08-2016, 12:07 PM
The BCWF is looking for solutions to increase dwindling dollars for biodiversity conservation.

Habitat, fish and wildlife populations are in decline in many parts of B.C. due to a lack of funding. We need to reverse the trend.

It is important to note that it's hunters and anglers who pay for most of the current cost of management of the provincial fisheries and wildlife resources through license fees. In 2014 hunting license revenue was approximately $14.3 million - but only 30% of that was invested in support wildlife resources, the rest went back into general revenues.

Throughout its history and under various names, B.C.’s fish and wildlife management agency has been among the most understaffed and underfunded of any of the fish and wildlife agencies in North America.

We are experiencing declining moose, elk and mule deer in parts of BC; mountain caribou, Thompson steelhead, Kootenay lake kokanee and rainbow trout, and the Adams River sockeye are at all-time lows due to a long-term lack of investment in fish, wildlife and habitat.

The BC Wildlife Federation is calling for non-renewable resource extraction such as mining, and oil and gas to be required to have biodiversity compensation programs attached as a condition of the activity, and long-term public investment strategies to reflect the non-renewable nature of these resources.

Neither of these currently occurs.

The downstream impacts of these activities (cumulative effects) are particularly noticeable on wildlife populations in the northeast.

Another potential solution is a tax or surcharge on merchandise related to outdoor recreation which would be dedicated to conservation, similar to the mechanisms in the US which have been in place for over 70 years now. The BCWF recognizes any new fish, wildlife and habitat investment mechanism would require a majority of support from those affected.


This concept is in the preliminary stages of being explored at a national level by a number of conservation organizations including BCWF.


Here is some background on this possible funding concept from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters:

· As a result of funding pressures, budgets for departments and ministries that deal with natural resources have been constrained, resulting in core programs for fish and wildlife management being cut or severely reduced.

· In the U.S., funding provided to state agencies through two significant pieces of legislation (Pittman-Robertson Act, 1937 for wildlife and Dingell-Johnson, 1950 for fisheries) has resulted in billions of dollars being directed to these agencies through the levying of excise taxes on products used by anglers, hunters and others involved in outdoor pursuits.

http://www.fws.gov/news/ShowNews.cfm?ref=service-distributes-$1.1-billion-to-state-wildlife-agencies-to-support-&_ID=35495

In terms of resource management the sustainability of our watersheds and landscapes are fundamental.
We as an organization are not opposed to development but we need to see the benefits outweigh the risks and costs from an environmental, social and economic perspective, and that to the degree practical that the development impacts are avoided, mitigated, offset and compensated for


There are pros and cons to consider with this approach; however the idea of a similar approach in Canada could be explored.

As we are in the early stages of exploring a number of options for sustainable fish, wildlife and habitat funding in BC, BCWF would like to hear from you.

Join the conservation conversation – and lets shape the future of BC’s biodiversity together!

Cub Driver
04-08-2016, 12:45 PM
The management of fish, wildlife and habit needs be removed from FLINRO to put back with the Ministry of Environment. There needs to be a stand alone Minisrty for these issues that is not influenced by anything except what's best for fish, wildlife and habitat and the environment. FLINRO and other resource extraction ministries are advocates for development of resources, not for environmental issues. At the present time under the liberal government structure, Enviromental issues are only advice the the statutory decision maker of for the various ministries need to consider, but to stop poor practices. If this can be accomplished, funding will still be an issue and need to be addressed.

bridger
04-08-2016, 12:51 PM
Unfortunately government funding for fish and wildlife in our province has never been a priority regardless of which party was in power. It isn't do much that fish& wildlife resources weren't viewed as important, just that government has only do much money and the political realty is that other venues were given priority.

This initiative is long overdue in my view. I like the thought of other resource users providing funding for the loss of habitat resulting from their operations. BC HYDRO should be at the top of the list.

i also would like to see non consumptive users contribute funding to the resource this tax would bring. As an example the province gets direct and indirect funds when a grizzly bear is harvested, but no direct funds from grizzly bear viewers.

adriaticum
04-08-2016, 01:02 PM
Most important thing we can do is to ensure that money spent for conservation from all sources, in fact goes to conservation instead of in the general revenue.
Money needs to be separated from the rest of bull shit government spends money on.

Rob Chipman
04-09-2016, 11:34 AM
This is a move in the right direction and I'm happy to see it. The Pittman-Roberston Act has raised a ton of money which has been directed to wildlife....however....based on what I've heard from hunters in the US that revenue stream has to be jealously guarded. Politicians will try to divert it. There are ways to guard it, but they involve political allies.

There should be a standalone ministry for this, and it should not look at wildlife as a resource for government (meaning a revenue stream that can be used for other things). It should be a renewable, sustainable resource for every day BC residents.

A $14.3 million dollar budget for BC wildlife and bio-diversity is a start, but there could be more, so I support a directed tax on hunting and fishing gear, but not all outdoor gear. The reason is that if we were able to a) protect the current $14 million and b) add to it through a new tax, I don't want anti-hunting groups to have a claim on it. I would rather be able to tell hikers, mountain bikers, mushroom pickers, etc., that the funds raised by hunters go toward maintaining bio-diversity and access for everyone else. In this I disagree with Bridger, but that's tactical. I don't want an anti-hunter saying that a tax on his hiking boots supports wildlife just as much as the tax on my hunting gear. I want the moral advantage that comes with paying the bill.



Anyway, I'm really glad BCWF is moving in this direction and I recommend they keep the foot on the pedal.

Whonnock Boy
04-09-2016, 12:18 PM
I don't want an anti-hunter saying that a tax on his hiking boots supports wildlife just as much as the tax on my hunting gear. I want the moral advantage that comes with paying the bill.

Plenty of ways to skin that cat. What did they pay or do before, other than complain? Nothing. Who initiated the legislation for the funding/tax? Not them. Who continues to work with government and bios enhancing wildlife and habitat? Not them. Who volunteers countless hours to wildlife and conservation? Not them. Who actually utilizes the entire resource with feed back from all participants? Not them. Who has been doing all of this for decades? Not them. I say it's about time they started contributing. But..... I most certainly see your point, and can most certainly relate. ;)

J_T
04-12-2016, 06:08 AM
Different areas of the Province may have different catalysts for initiating conservation programs. In Region 4, (and likely in the Peace) the Columbia Basin F&W Compensation Program is one of the most effective tools to secure project funding.

Used to be the Rocky Mtn Elk foundation was also a good source for partnerships. Nature Trust, and Nature Conservancy are also potential partnerships. Guide Outfitters have partnered with resident hunters here in the past.

Bringing local wildlife groups together to spearhead and manage projects, local sources to finding initial funding, approaching CBFWCP, Rocky Mtn Trench Restoration planning and for partnership dollars. If I offer $1 and you offer $1 and we approach CBFWCP to match our $2...... .

Whether it's burning, thinning, planting or counting, the manpower will be local and hunters love to give back. Volunteers enjoy the work and in my experience this brings all hunters together for the one common primary goal. The difficulty is more recent Gov regulations that require various skills training for people onsite. This is a challenge that in many cases needs to be overcome.

boxhitch
04-12-2016, 06:28 AM
Here is another example if how it works in BC
This may only be a snippet of the overall 'plan' but

This is text from the Draft Provincial Framework for Moose Management in BC

Moose management levers (potential actions to assist with achievement of moose management objectives) for B.C.
1
Hunting Regulations
Authorized through Wildlife Act, supported by regulations and policy
2
First Nations Harvest
In the absence of a clear conservation concern, First Nations harvest will most likely be managed through agreements with First Nation governance bodies. Harvesting contrary to agreements may be enforced through the Wildlife Act.
3
Predator Management
Hunting and trapping of predators is authorized through Wildlife Act, although predator control to enhance ungulate hunting opportunities is not supported by current policy (“Control of Species Policy”)2
4
Access Management
Access restrictions authorized through Wildlife Act supported by regulations and policy, also general recreation closures through the Forest and Range Practices Act
5
Habitat Enhancement
Numerous Acts involved, limited authority under Wildlife Act
6
Environmental Assessment and Mitigation
Provincial government staff review land-use applications and can influence mitigation measures to benefit moose (e.g. moose habitat supply through Timber Supply Reviews).
- the draft itself is not complete and long overdue according to info on the gov't site , so therefore not possible to implement.
- the levers mentioned mostly all point to people management
- the mention of habitat management is brushed off as though not their responsibility

This all shows the trend to management being to maintain viable sustainable population ratios and the rest will take care of itself.
There is little mention of target population levels , habitat mapping , or landscape adjustments
All the money in the world won't help if the objective isn't clearly to make more wildlife.

boxhitch
04-12-2016, 06:29 AM
The figure of 30% of $14 million doesn't include the $millions that Gov't draws out of the HCTF fund which is also hunter/angler contributions

Rob Chipman
04-12-2016, 05:58 PM
"BCWF, instead of finding ways to help the Liberals take more of our money, why aren't you looking into why only 30% of the fees collected are being used where they should be?"

We should be doing both. We have a tradition in Canada of saying a tax is for something specific and then letting government use it for general revenue. We have to find a way to stop that with the money being collected now as well as any future taxes that are levied. From what I gather about some US political struggles, it can be very dangerous for a state politician to cross hunters. I don't think any BC politician is very worried about BC hunters. We should try to change that.

Current fees have to pay for government employees doing wildlife work (which isn't to say that all those costs are covered or that all the fees collected are used for that). Any new tax would have to go toward making new wildlife.

"All the money in the world won't help if the objective isn't clearly to make more wildlife."

Absolutely right. I think it's clear that government has a different objective from that of the majority of hunters. In a perfect world hunters would define the objective and government would implement it. We need to try to move closer to that scenario.

J_T
04-13-2016, 08:15 AM
I'm not sure why some think that revenue from one area (hunting/fishing licences) should be dedicated directly back to that operational area. It simply isn't how Gov is structured. Revenue in, through fees, licences, royalties all in to one pot. Expenses, budgeted and allocated through many different areas.

The argument - if one is to be made - is that a larger budget contribution should be allocated to key wildlife areas. Wildlife management is one, wildlife habitat is another.

As I mentioned earlier, forming alliances and partnerships to achieve wildlife habitat goals is an effective tool.

The Columbia Basin Trust is now taking applications for environmental grants. Applications up to $10,000, per application. Intake closes May 16th.

With a number of projects identified and planned/costed, applications to CBT and CBF&WCP could be made in abundance. Take that $10,000 and partner up, until you have sufficient money to carry out a project. Volunteer labour greatly reduces costs. This has worked very effectively in the past for a number of hunting organizations. I'd suggest there is potential for the future.

cbt.org/environment2016

Fisher-Dude
04-13-2016, 08:20 AM
BCWF, instead of finding ways to help the Liberals take more of our money, why aren't you looking into why only 30% of the fees collected are being used where they should be?

What do you think the BCWF has been doing?

And more importantly, what are you doing?

Mikey Rafiki
04-13-2016, 08:38 AM
We all know that hunting and fishing license revenue will always be used to top up other general budget expenses that are underfunded through general taxation. Like any revenue source, it's easier to increase fees than it is to sell a tax increase.

However, the amount of revenue from licenses can be used to support the argument that we deserve a bigger piece of the pie, and I assume that argument is being made.

There are other options to add additional levies to basic fees and licenses that can directly support fish and wildlife initiatives. I'd be happy to spend an extra $10 on a mule deer tag in Region 4 if it was directed towards enhancement projects in the Region. Similar to a local service area that local governments use to dedicate funds to a particular cause or area.

Finally, CBT is a huge resource in our area and the grants for all funding streams are often underutilized. It would be nice if Dinktown had a BCWF club.

GoatGuy
04-13-2016, 09:12 AM
100% of fisheries license revenue is dedicated to FFSBC.


Dedicating 100% of hunting licenses fees is very doable, BUT it won't be near enough money.

Time to think big picture folks.

GoatGuy
04-13-2016, 09:16 AM
Different areas of the Province may have different catalysts for initiating conservation programs. In Region 4, (and likely in the Peace) the Columbia Basin F&W Compensation Program is one of the most effective tools to secure project funding.

Used to be the Rocky Mtn Elk foundation was also a good source for partnerships. Nature Trust, and Nature Conservancy are also potential partnerships. Guide Outfitters have partnered with resident hunters here in the past.

Bringing local wildlife groups together to spearhead and manage projects, local sources to finding initial funding, approaching CBFWCP, Rocky Mtn Trench Restoration planning and for partnership dollars. If I offer $1 and you offer $1 and we approach CBFWCP to match our $2...... .

Whether it's burning, thinning, planting or counting, the manpower will be local and hunters love to give back. Volunteers enjoy the work and in my experience this brings all hunters together for the one common primary goal. The difficulty is more recent Gov regulations that require various skills training for people onsite. This is a challenge that in many cases needs to be overcome.
The FWCP have been used to monitor declining wildlife populations.

There has been very little done in terms of compensation to increase wildlife populations. Landscape level compensation would be in the form of habitat enhancement (thousands of HA) and predator management.

The program approach needs a revamp.

Eastbranch
04-13-2016, 09:17 AM
100% of fisheries license revenue is dedicated to FFSBC.


Dedicating 100% of hunting licenses fees is very doable, BUT it won't be near enough money.

Time to think big picture folks.
Yes but where does that money go? And where does it come from? A huge proportion comes from steelhead stamp dollars. Which then goes into stocking kokanee. We should be properly utilizing what we have first, then worrying about getting more.

GoatGuy
04-13-2016, 09:22 AM
Yes but where does that money go? And where does it come from? A huge proportion comes from steelhead stamp dollars. Which then goes into stocking kokanee. We should be properly utilizing what we have first, then worrying about getting more.

Hahaha, there's a steelhead thread going for you already.

We need hundreds of millions of dollars and that won't be covered under the user pay model.

Eastbranch
04-13-2016, 09:47 AM
Hahaha, there's a steelhead thread going for you already.

We need hundreds of millions of dollars and that won't be covered under the user pay model.
User pay works for every other group. The BCWF fails to succeed based on it's mentality, not it's user's willingness to cough up. I can name you a bunch of NGO's off the top of my head that have million dollar budgets funded almost entirely by user pay. DU, ASF, WRC, BHA, TU, TRCP, RMEF, WSF. I'm not arguing more money would be better. I'm just saying that when you look at how it's spent now, I'm suspect more money would change the prioritization of how it's allocated.

Eastbranch
04-13-2016, 09:50 AM
I'm a big fan of the acquisition model - buy land for habitat as a public trust. Leave it alone or remediate as needed, but just buy habitat. I would give you money for that.

J_T
04-13-2016, 10:35 AM
The FWCP have been used to monitor declining wildlife populations.

There has been very little done in terms of compensation to increase wildlife populations. Landscape level compensation would be in the form of habitat enhancement (thousands of HA) and predator management.

The program approach needs a revamp. Every program could use a revamp in the eyes of those who aren't using it effectively. I didn't think this thread was about programs, but rather about possible solutions to increase investment opportunities for the betterment of wildlife. The CBFWCP has been used very effectively in this area over the years. I'm not sure it needs a re-write, rather a champion to determine projects, estimate costs, gain commitment work collaboratively with stakeholders and submit applications. And then to carry out plans. As a voice of the BCWF, I have to assume you would agree that a diverse approach to gaining funding and support to carry out wildlife enhancement objectives is a continued move in the right direction.

boxhitch
04-13-2016, 04:13 PM
I can name you a bunch of NGO's off the top of my head that have million dollar budgets funded almost entirely by user pay. DU, ASF, WRC, BHA, TU, TRCP, RMEF, WSF. Those aren't user pay funds , those are voluntary donations. User pay is license and tags fees that a user has to pay to play, or as in the case of the Pittman-Robertson in the US , an added fee to the cost of the tools and equipment used to play.

boxhitch
04-13-2016, 04:35 PM
....... a diverse approach to gaining funding and support to carry out wildlife enhancement objectives is a continued move in the right direction.no one would argue with that. The conversation has to be about how
Allocation of funds that sportsman already pay would add some clarity. These funds should go toward special projects outside the core functions.

Gov't stating what are core functions that they should pay for internally without outside assistance would be good too.
Staffing and infrastructure are those core functions , but what about wildlife studies and inventories ? What should Gov't be paying for with the monies from all BC taxpayers ?
I don't agree with mflnro being able to draw from outside funds such as HCTF for basics like report completions or monitoring flights , or dealing with wildlife conflicts
Certain functions are to the benefit of all BCers and shouldn't need to be propped up by hunters and anglers.

horshur
04-13-2016, 05:12 PM
only issue I have is that sportsmen's dollars were used to pay for re introduction of grey wolves in the usa..thus diminishing hunter opportunity. Research the usa money raised by sportsmen has been used against sportsmen in more then a few states....

GoatGuy
04-13-2016, 07:42 PM
User pay works for every other group. The BCWF fails to succeed based on it's mentality, not it's user's willingness to cough up. I can name you a bunch of NGO's off the top of my head that have million dollar budgets funded almost entirely by user pay. DU, ASF, WRC, BHA, TU, TRCP, RMEF, WSF. I'm not arguing more money would be better. I'm just saying that when you look at how it's spent now, I'm suspect more money would change the prioritization of how it's allocated.

User pay is a model where the user (ie the hunter) pays to manage the resource.

The sum of $ which is paid by hunters (the user) is insufficient in BC, as it is all across North America.

In terms of 'coughing up' at an organization level, they all do that and they all recognize that isn't enough.

GoatGuy
04-13-2016, 07:46 PM
I'm a big fan of the acquisition model - buy land for habitat as a public trust. Leave it alone or remediate as needed, but just buy habitat. I would give you money for that.

Acquisitions are easy maintenance is hard and expensive.

Maintenance in the form of restoration is required in most parts of BC and the land conservation NGOs will all tell you buying land is no problem, maintaining it is tough. Having a National Park without fire in a fire maintained ecosystem turns into an invasive weed, invasive species platform in a matter of decades.

Relying on 'volunteered' money is additive, but still won't solve the problems. Several jurisdictions have tried 'one-offs' for conservation (ie tax return check offs, license plates) but they have failed to generate sufficient revenue for a measurable impact.

GoatGuy
04-13-2016, 08:10 PM
Every program could use a revamp in the eyes of those who aren't using it effectively. I didn't think this thread was about programs, but rather about possible solutions to increase investment opportunities for the betterment of wildlife. The CBFWCP has been used very effectively in this area over the years. I'm not sure it needs a re-write, rather a champion to determine projects, estimate costs, gain commitment work collaboratively with stakeholders and submit applications. And then to carry out plans. As a voice of the BCWF, I have to assume you would agree that a diverse approach to gaining funding and support to carry out wildlife enhancement objectives is a continued move in the right direction.

Objectives would be great............ particularly for an objective less program.

Effectiveness has different definitions. In my personal opinion an effective compensation program compensates for the losses to wildlife populations by pulling management levers in adjacent area which resulted in increased abundance. Levers are habitat enhancement through fire (thousands of hectares) and managing predators where it is shown to be a limiting factor due to winter range loss. While BCH has been great a pats on the back and wine and cheese parties the results are missing...... they have however done a good job spending COMPENSATION $s on wildlife INVENTORY. What that has to do with compensation is beyond my level of understanding.

There is way to much laundry attached to BCH and FWCP to type out on HBC. Maybe better in an article???

BTW the majority of the $ is set aside for projects, very little left or community based projects.

Mikey Rafiki
04-13-2016, 08:28 PM
Acquisitions are easy maintenance is hard and expensive.

Maintenance in the form of restoration is required in most parts of BC and the land conservation NGOs will all tell you buying land is no problem, maintaining it is tough. Having a National Park without fire in a fire maintained ecosystem turns into an invasive weed, invasive species platform in a matter of decades.

So convincing people to let things burn would be a decent option? I'm sure there's plenty of science to support it and the cost per ha would be a lot less than these tiny prescribed burns.

Are we just too developed to look at large scale prescribed burns even in undeveloped areas such as parks?

GoatGuy
04-13-2016, 08:35 PM
So convincing people to let things burn would be a decent option? I'm sure there's plenty of science to support it and the cost per ha would be a lot less than these tiny prescribed burns.

Are we just too developed to look at large scale prescribed burns even in undeveloped areas such as parks?

It's very doable, need money and support to do it. Costs more $ close to people is all but in the long run it will help keep things safer for home owners.

Can make wildlife like crazy if put in the right spot and done right.

Rob Chipman
04-13-2016, 09:23 PM
JT wrote:

"I'm not sure why some think that revenue from one area (hunting/fishing licences) should be dedicated directly back to that operational area. It simply isn't how Gov is structured. "

The reason why some people think that way is pretty simple, but it's based on personal philosophy. Thankfully we don't need to sort that one out. Suffice to say not all people share your view on government :-)

In this particular case we're talking about ways to increase revenue for wildlife. A dedicated tax won't solve all problems, but it will help.


A dedicated tax

-is easier to sell to people who don't want to pay more tax to a government that they do not have a great deal of faith in;
-allows for easier tracking of the revenue generation and expenditures;
-allows the payer of the tax to feel more direct responsibility for the results of the tax expenditures, and;
-confers a certain degree of skin in the game to the tax payers, which can translate into a bit of moral high ground.

When a fellow hunter asks why I want to give more money to lying cheatin' politicians (and we've already heard that) I can respond "Politicians aren't getting it. It has to go directly into wildlife enhancement". That may not be enough to convince him, but it moves in that direction.

If I get him on board I then have the opportunity to tell him "After one year, on your personal ammunition purchases alone, ***we*** raised $12.50 which ***we*** directed to the following projects". (Granted, $12.50 ain't buying a ton, but I'm basing that on a 10% tax on $125 of ammo per year bought by one guy).

Then, when someone on CBC comes on to say that the wolf cull or bear hunt or whatever is barbaric we get to say "You know, the guest says he cares about animals, implying that we don't, but last year BC hunters raised, through direct taxation on their hunting gear purchases, $xxxx that went directly into wildlife enhancement through the province. How much did the guest's organization invest?"

So, a dedicated tax is not a fix all solution, and it doesn't address all the needs of government, but it can be a useful tool for BC hunters.

J_T
04-14-2016, 01:41 PM
no one would argue with that. The conversation has to be about how
Allocation of funds that sportsman already pay would add some clarity. These funds should go toward special projects outside the core functions.

Gov't stating what are core functions that they should pay for internally without outside assistance would be good too.
Staffing and infrastructure are those core functions , but what about wildlife studies and inventories ? What should Gov't be paying for with the monies from all BC taxpayers ?
I don't agree with mflnro being able to draw from outside funds such as HCTF for basics like report completions or monitoring flights , or dealing with wildlife conflicts
Certain functions are to the benefit of all BCers and shouldn't need to be propped up by hunters and anglers.Yup, I get it. It’s a long process to create awareness for financial management change. What money is allocated to what activities? It relies on cabinet stability, political party longevity and capitalizing on key opportunities in the election cycle. I’m an active participant in influencing Governments to change, during an election mandate. It’s a long difficult process. And you can be so close to the objective and boom, an election changes everything. I’m not saying don’t go there, rather keep the expectations real.

Objectives would be great............ particularly for an objective less program.

Effectiveness has different definitions. In my personal opinion an effective compensation program compensates for the losses to wildlife populations by pulling management levers in adjacent area which resulted in increased abundance. Levers are habitat enhancement through fire (thousands of hectares) and managing predators where it is shown to be a limiting factor due to winter range loss. While BCH has been great a pats on the back and wine and cheese parties the results are missing...... they have however done a good job spending COMPENSATION $s on wildlife INVENTORY. What that has to do with compensation is beyond my level of understanding.

There is way to much laundry attached to BCH and FWCP to type out on HBC. Maybe better in an article???

BTW the majority of the $ is set aside for projects, very little left or community based projects. Effectiveness is real on the ground habitat enhancement. Working collaboratively with other like-minded groups is probably the most effective way to make it happen. I understand what you are saying. This is where having a sound strategy is important. Work with land management in the area and develop some sound plans. Real meaningful objectives. We did a lot of good work in the 90’s, thinning, planting, burns working with RMEF, and MOE, having a high level strategy and plan (agreed to by all parties). Using wildlife monitoring to support the plan.
Regarding your last comment, I can agree to a certain extent. I do feel in large part the grants are not effectively being used because there are groups not focused on habitat enhancement that are submitting the proposals. They’re focused on the easy work of wildlife monitoring. Controlling the information they can use against us. If a strong wildlife conservation group came forward, regularly, with a strategy of increasing carrying capacity and populations and submitted proposals linked to other land projects the patterns would shift to regular revenue to real on the ground wildlife management. My point is, I think the route to financial support for real on the ground work, is shorter through these CBF/CBFWCP and other type grants.
There is a lot of property acquisition ongoing right now with Nature Trust and Rob can always use a group willing to take on and develop operational management plans and carry out those plans. Leaving him to secure more land.



So convincing people to let things burn would be a decent option? I'm sure there's plenty of science to support it and the cost per ha would be a lot less than these tiny prescribed burns.

Are we just too developed to look at large scale prescribed burns even in undeveloped areas such as parks?I think we do. Most burn bosses in this area know they are not mandated to put the fire out. Rather to protect, life limb and property. There are some good burn examples in this area where a burn manager was able to steer the fire to the advantage of wildlife.


JT wrote:

"I'm not sure why some think that revenue from one area (hunting/fishing licences) should be dedicated directly back to that operational area. It simply isn't how Gov is structured. "

The reason why some people think that way is pretty simple, but it's based on personal philosophy. Thankfully we don't need to sort that one out. Suffice to say not all people share your view on government

In this particular case we're talking about ways to increase revenue for wildlife. A dedicated tax won't solve all problems, but it will help. To be clear. My apologies if I offended. My point was, similar to my reply to Boxhitch. At present, Government doesn’t operate that way. I didn’t see it as a personal view on Government. It’s what it is. To achieve a change, where licence fees received from hunting fishing licences are dedicated back to the program, is a long term goal, that takes a lot of resources/lobby. I don’t disagree with it, but I would caution that if the decision is that “only” the money from say, licences or HCTF is used for wildlife management and habitat enhancement, is it enough?



A dedicated tax
……..
So, a dedicated tax is not a fix all solution, and it doesn't address all the needs of government, but it can be a useful tool for BC hunters. I removed the majority of your supporting comments as I realized my response was just getting tooooo long. I hope I’m not taking your points out of context. I don’t disagree this has merit. Again, though, it takes a lot of work to lobby for that change and a lot of support to see it through. I believe regulatory change should not be as onerus as Government employees suggest it is, but when it’s legislative change that is required, the risk factor to uncertain outcomes increases. Just a thought. It feels like a long time and a lot of administrative process before dollars can be spent on the ground.
Apologies for the length….

Rob Chipman
04-15-2016, 05:15 PM
J_T

Nothing you said was offensive. No worries.