[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.Originally Posted by Ohwildwon
Senior Member
[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.
HBC Addict
[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?
Senior Member
[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?
HBC Addict
[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
Born 2 Make U Think
The problems are first agreeing to it, then trusting that govt. will follow through. Tom Ethier comes to mind......
[QUOTE=rgn5hunt;1640975]
The measure of a man is not how much power he has, it's how he wields it.
Senior Member
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!
Putting Holes in Animals
[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.
I harvest carrots. I kill animals.
Born 2 Make U Think
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.
The measure of a man is not how much power he has, it's how he wields it.
Senior Member
[QUOTE=Ambush;1641012]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.
Born 2 Make U Think
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=rgn5hunt;1641023]
The measure of a man is not how much power he has, it's how he wields it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote