Non-resident allocation too high

[Taylor329]

If we could put together 1/10th of the energy everybody is spending here debating, arguing, and alienating each other, and put that towards actually writing our government or doing something to create real change or awareness... We might not be doing too bad. We're all in this together, are we not? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a healthy discussion and debate. There comes a point however, when less talking, and more action is needed.

Here's a good example of someone who is taking matters seriously, and is actively looking for ways they can help create change.
http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showth...ay-hunter-help
Kudos to you, Golddust!

[lange1212]

If we could put together 1/10th of the energy everybody is spending here debating, arguing, and alienating each other, and put that towards actually writing our government or doing something to create real change or awareness... We might not be doing too bad. We're all in this together, are we not? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a healthy discussion and debate. There comes a point however, when less talking, and more action is needed.

Well said,

Letter has been sent and I would add that residents concerned with wildlife allocations for non-residents being set too high also make a point of meeting with their MLA's.

[souwester]

I find it baffling that a BCWF director starts threads like this.
If you want to educate people why not include some links to relevant documents supporting your opinions ? why not open your argument with some positive allocation solution ideas that a resident could relate to?
So is your opinion on allocation the official BCWF stance at the moment ?

[bearvalley]

Well said,

Letter has been sent and I would add that residents concerned with wildlife allocations for non-residents being set too high also make a point of meeting with their MLA's.

Langegger, you don't get it.
What has been your contribution towards making more hunting oppurtunities.
Writing bitch letters to MLA's to get a bigger share of a dwindling resource does not count for squat.
I hope you can make it to the northern Region 6 Roundtable meetings.
Im pretty sure your insight will be a great contribution to the group.

[HappyJack]

Langegger, you don't get it.
What has been your contribution towards making more hunting oppurtunities.
Writing bitch letters to MLA's to get a bigger share of a dwindling resource does not count for squat.
I hope you can make it to the northern Region 6 Roundtable meetings.
Im pretty sure your insight will be a great contribution to the group.

That is how you like to frame it, some would say it's more like attempting to get an equitable share. Anyway there are 2 separate issues, first is the matter of allocation distribution, second is conservation and habitat restoration. You'll notice the GOs like to try and tie those two issues together.

[lange1212]

The differance between me and guys like you and Langegger is that I get the big picture.
The "entitlement crowd" only wants to blame the decline in hunting oppurtunities on GO's, FN's hunting, loss of habitat and predation.
NEVER DO THEY ADMIT THEY MIGHT BE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Gilson, as a partner in a GO'ing business your self proclamation of getting the big picture is questionable. Although I do admire your tenacity and effort to distract from the allocation issue at hand that's harming residents, trying to confuse the issue by posting your rhetoric and attacks?

The big picture is a host of issues that residents clearly get and see viewing the many posts. Yes, building more wildlife, habitat, and increased funding are a big part of that, and was the overriding principle behind the establishment of the 2007 Wildlife Allocation Policy (review post #43). I again ask who was the group responsible for that falling flat on its face, only to focus on shifting a greater portion of resident allocation to non-residents?

Funny how that works from the GO's perspective, building more wildlife was of low priority and gaining increase non-resident allocation % was the top of the list. Now that GO's successfully lobbied gov't and set at 25% and 40% minimum share wildlife guarantees (unheard of in any North American jurisdiction) GO's like yourself try to distract from this harsh reality and injustice, knowing this is only policy and can change with the stroke of a pen.

This post was started to discuss wildlife allocation and a series of increased restrictions proposed on residents because of it. If you wish to discuss wildlife funding, habitat,... all credible topics please start another post and stop trying to change the topic of this one.

Your "entitlement" comment and many others you've posted on this forum clearly paint the picture of who those are that feel that way, take a look in the mirror with your counterparts, and reflect on your own quote "NEVER DO THEY ADMIT THEY MIGHT BE PART OF THE PROBLEM".

Our wildlife is public common property to be shared, not privatized to cater exclusively to the rich and influential! With current non-resident allocations guaranteed at 25% - 40% (pending on species), removed right out of the hands of public and into the hands of private enterprise. Is that the big picture you see Gilson, possibly further expansion on those %. If that's your big picture idea residents will make every effort to prevent it from getting painted so that our wildlife can be enjoyed by future generation of average working class British Columbians. If from your perspective this is considered "entitlement", then I guess your right, and will continue to fight for resident priority, resident access, resident opportunity, building more wildlife for all users, habitat protection, improved funding....

My personal opinion.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Lange,
Do you really think you are helping wildlife by trying to drive a wedge between hunters? It is more important to work together to grow wildlife TOGETHER, united as hunters. GOS are an outfitters dream, we as hunters can only hope the province can return to such great game numbers.
Time to move on and grow wildlife, ask yourself, what I have done lately to help wildlife grow. Splitting the hunting community does not count.

[bearvalley]

Langegger, you don't have a clue what my personal beliefs are on the allocation issue.
Never once have you ever stopped to think that not all outfitters over book their quota....believe me when I say if that was my style of doing things it could easily be done.
There are a lot of GO's in Region 6 North that live by this policy and fully realize that one day their quota will be adjusted accordingly.

I gaureentee I get the big picture, many other outfitters do as well as many resident hunters and non hunters.
You, I'm not so sure about.

Sorry to say it Langegger but the local community where I operate has recognized that northern wildlife populations cannot sustain more and more of the increasing pressure.
It's been recognized that enforcement is lacking therefor regulations (point restrictions) have been asked to be aligned to ensure moose are coming from where they are supposed to be from.
The local community has recognized that many moose are going out under the radar (no CI's) therefor they have asked that all moose up there be inspected.

Theres a problem Langegger when 10 LEH authorizations are handed out to kill 1 moose.
The problem becomes real obvious when on the ground hunter checks start to see tha roughly 50% of the hunters have a moose.

These are observations and concerns of locals, both FN locals and non FN's.

I hate to piss in your cornflakes but Dease looks at outfitting as a part of the community, the economy and a local tradition.
The "entitlement crowd" are looked at like the fox in the hen house.

[lange1212]

Lange,
Do you really think you are helping wildlife by trying to drive a wedge between hunters? It is more important to work together to grow wildlife TOGETHER, united as hunters. GOS are an outfitters dream, we as hunters can only hope the province can return to such great game numbers.
Time to move on and grow wildlife, ask yourself, what I have done lately to help wildlife grow. Splitting the hunting community does not count.

Normally I would agree and support your comment. However, ask where was it back in 2007 and beyond when the BC commercial hunting industry split the hunting community by acting in bad faith and reneging on the 2007 wildlife allocation policy they agreed to.

Their priority then was clearly to lobby gov't and shift a greater % of resident allocation to non-residents against policy agreements, and splitting the hunting community was of NO concern to many GO's to meet this objective. Now that residents are questioning wildlife allocation decisions between residents and non-residents put in place by the past gov't this is?

[Whonnock Boy]

I think some believe that habitat and wildlife would be better off if resident hunters and guide outfitters were not "in this together" in the way that the "trophy" hunting industry is weighing us down in our efforts. I am quite certain that there are other user groups and stakeholders that would allow us to be looked upon with a more favourable light if we were partnered with them. Public opinion holds a lot of weight these days, and the outfitting industry is severely tainted. Resident hunters are bringing far more to the table than guide outfitters, then throw in the allocation percentages, and it would seem that we are getting the short end of a very long stick regardless of what shape our animal populations are in. All this of course is in my humble opinion.