Originally Posted by
lange1212
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.