Non-resident allocation too high

[HarryToolips]

We need to be letting our MLA as well as Horgan know that the allocation issue is far from over as far as resident hunters are concerned. The unregulated harvest as well as the allocation issue are just two separate spokes to the problem, as well as habitat, predators, and access to name a few. All of these issues need to be addressed and having a point of view on one issue does not preclude us from having a point of view on the other issues as some seem to imply around the allocation BS the liberals forced on us.

I agree.........

[HappyJack]

Dont support 25% either

putting forth effort to fight over scraps when there is way bigger issues is my problem. Like I said I hear all the complaining about numbers being way down but people would rather complian about who hunts or how the bull harvest is managed.

I personally have chose not to even hunt these moose but that is a personal call I don't expect others to follow.

As long as the hunting community keeps complaining about % and ignoring bigger issues nothing improves wildlife looses. In the end what does % of harvest when populations are lower than they should be

but what do I know

And BC resident hunters wonder why things are a mess

I do the same and leave the moose alone, with the exception of any MU where they are getting 25% of the allocation, why should we leave the bull moose alone so their clients can shoot them instead of us. BTW guided hunters should be restricted to 10 point or better, no shooting cows and spike forks either!! And charge them if they exceed their annual allocation.

[Wild one]

I do the same and leave the moose alone, with the exception of any MU where they are getting 25% of the allocation, why should we leave the bull moose alone so their clients can shoot them instead of us. BTW guided hunters should be restricted to 10 point or better, no shooting cows and spike forks either!! And charge them if they exceed their annual allocation.

Your call and legally can even if it's out of spite

So you got screwed by the allocation split like the rest of us but it's a stupid reason to not give a crap about the moose numbers

Rather than be butt hurt think

[HappyJack]

Your call and legally can even if it's out of spite

So you got screwed by the allocation split like the rest of us but it's a stupid reason to not give a crap about the moose numbers

Rather than be butt hurt think

Who's butt hurt?? I see no reason to 'conserve' so the guides have more moose to sell, that just doesn't make sense, unless you've been sucked into thinking they give a rats patooee about resident hunter opportunity.

[Wild one]

Who's butt hurt?? I see no reason to 'conserve' so the guides have more moose to sell, that just doesn't make sense, unless you've been sucked into thinking they give a rats patooee about resident hunter opportunity.

Nope don't think the GOABC is looking out for my priority but also smart enough to know many outfits don't fill there moose quota as well. Reality only a portion of BC offers quality hunts in real demand from non residents

Not worried about GO's shooting or selling a ton of moose hunts in the areas they effect residents. Pissed they got a higher % on hunts that are of little value to GO's well residents loose

My reason for conserving the moose is respect for the animals I hunt and preserving the hunt it self

when allocation is zero 25% means nothing

But revenge is worth it right

[HappyJack]

Nope don't think the GOABC is looking out for my priority but also smart enough to know many outfits don't fill there moose quota as well. Reality only a portion of BC offers quality hunts in real demand from non residents

Not worried about GO's shooting or selling a ton of moose hunts in the areas they effect residents. Pissed they got a higher % on hunts that are of little value to GO's well residents loose

My reason for conserving the moose is respect for the animals I hunt and preserving the hunt it self

when allocation is zero 25% means nothing

But revenge is worth it right

Each to their own I guess, I'll eat moose so long as the guides are getting allocations while residents are under LEH. I refuse to let a bull moose walk so some rich tourist can shoot it and fill the pockets of some guide.

[Fisher-Dude]

Each to their own I guess, I'll eat moose so long as the guides are getting allocations while residents are under LEH. I refuse to let a bull moose walk so some rich tourist can shoot it and fill the pockets of some guide.

The guide gets paid whether the client shoots the moose or not.

Your comment makes no sense.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

In the Skeena FLNRO staff is gearing up to further restrict resident moose hunters, claiming that they are at or slightly exceeding their allocated harvest in some areas of Skeena. The data the Ministry is using to determine this harvest is crude and questionable at best, being open to manipulation and bias.
Due to these proposed restrictions FLNRO also plans to add a host of hindering barriers again exclusively on resident hunters in Skeena North.Their argument is that by reducing opportunity in the south they feel there will be increased pressure in the north.
At the heart of the issue is that non-residents have been allocated 25% of the moose allocation in the Skeena, and way too high for this meat and potato species that are of high utilization and demand by residents.
Ministry staff have been advised that this is not a conservation concern, nor a harvest issue on the resident side, but 100% an allocation issue whereby the non-resident share has been set way too high, and in need of correction first and foremost.
This allocation issue (adjustment) was brought up through stakeholder consultation, but Ministry staff refused to allow that discussion to occur. The only conversation they want to have is the addition of restrictions on resident moose hunters in the Skeena.
Long and short as residents we should absolutely not accept any increased restriction hindering our harvest opportunities, tradition,culture, and access to hunt for food, all while non-residents and the GO’s that cater to them remain unaffected. Before any increased restrictions are considered on residents, the non-resident allocation must go to 10%. If after that there’s still a resident harvest concern, then and only then should further restriction(s)be considered on residents through proper consultation.

Perhaps you should put up all the facts before starting this all over again.
Many Region 6 outfitters lost a pile more quota this year well before the resident opportunity was looked at. You pick and choose what you want to say just to stir the pot.

[Wild one]

Perhaps you should put up all the facts before stating this all over again.
Many Region 6 outfitters lost a pile more quota this year well before the resident opportunity was looked at. You pick and choose what you want to say just to stir the pot.

This is is true ^^^

been cuts to both sides

[Fisher-Dude]

Impact of 2016 Allocation:

Residents lost 14 moose in the 5 year allocation to non-residents, 362 moose to first nations allocation, and 1,104 moose to annual allowable harvest cutbacks in region 6.

Residents have to decide whether they should put effort into 14, 362, or 1,104 moose and determine which area will yield the best return to residents.