Non-resident allocation too high

[Whonnock Boy]

Yes. The odds on the elk draw I believe are 65% better. On the Kamloops sheep, they would be close to the same. For any given moose draw, it depends on the actual draw. Regardless, it's just smoke and mirrors.

As as for the Kayak comment, are you referring to my sons kayak that I posted on Facebook? What is the relevance? Is there a point?

Did you read what I said?..odds of getting drawn..not opportunities.

[Rob Chipman]

Horshur:

Fair point, especially given the thread title is "allocation too high". I should clarify - I don't want to reduce GOs allocation so that I can get it. That's slicing up and fighting over a decreasing pie, or as Jesse says "managing to zero". That's pointless game.

I want to change public perceptions about management of and access to wild landscapes and wildlife, and I want to do that through persuasion rather than by competing for the levers of political power. The end game is more and better habitat and more wildlife (and not just game, but all wildlife) in a long term sustainable system. I want the policy decisions to be science based. I want a funding model and I want social license for wildlife management as well as hunting. I want lots of access for non-hunters as well.

Right now, as a province, we have no declared goals and no funding model. Wildlife is politicized and monetized (killing grizzlies for trophies - bad, restricting access to them so that bear viewing companies can virtue signal while earning revenue? Good. Crashing moose populations? Who cares?). We need to change that. I think hunters are the people who will do it, especially if we hammer on the NACM and set a goal, get a funding model and change the public perception of who we are and what we do.

There have been lots of enemies made over this fight and there is a lot of bad blood. We need to move past it. We aren't going to move past (I don't think) until GOs can explain convincingly why they have the same interests as resident hunters. Bearvalley has tried to do that and I give him credit for it. I just don't think he's doing a good enough job. My evidence is this thread, but you've seen it elsewhere. There are still RHs who think GOs shouldn't be allies with us.

There are other groups and large parts of the population that don't look fondly on GOs either, and that's something that has to be addressed and changed (not to make me happy, but for us to make progress toward where we need to be).

The GOs want to be allies with us. We need allies but we don't need allies that hurt us. We need to resolve this and come to see eye to eye and understand why we should be allies or we have to split. The world comes at you fast, as we all know. A nice grip and grin photo op with Christy Clarke may have seemed like a great idea a year or two ago. Now? Not so much (hence "political but not partisan"). Anti Christy Clarke groups came out swinging over a $60k donation made by the Safari Club to GOABC. They made lots of headlines. We need to solve this and GOs need to help.

But your original point is well taken: we don't win if all we do is fight with GOs over a dwindling resource.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Horshur:

Fair point, especially given the thread title is "allocation too high". I should clarify - I don't want to reduce GOs allocation so that I can get it. That's slicing up and fighting over a decreasing pie, or as Jesse says "managing to zero". That's pointless game.

I want to change public perceptions about management of and access to wild landscapes and wildlife, and I want to do that through persuasion rather than by competing for the levers of political power. The end game is more and better habitat and more wildlife (and not just game, but all wildlife) in a long term sustainable system. I want the policy decisions to be science based. I want a funding model and I want social license for wildlife management as well as hunting. I want lots of access for non-hunters as well.

Right now, as a province, we have no declared goals and no funding model. Wildlife is politicized and monetized (killing grizzlies for trophies - bad, restricting access to them so that bear viewing companies can virtue signal while earning revenue? Good. Crashing moose populations? Who cares?). We need to change that. I think hunters are the people who will do it, especially if we hammer on the NACM and set a goal, get a funding model and change the public perception of who we are and what we do.

There have been lots of enemies made over this fight and there is a lot of bad blood. We need to move past it. We aren't going to move past (I don't think) until GOs can explain convincingly why they have the same interests as resident hunters. Bearvalley has tried to do that and I give him credit for it. I just don't think he's doing a good enough job. My evidence is this thread, but you've seen it elsewhere. There are still RHs who think GOs shouldn't be allies with us.

There are other groups and large parts of the population that don't look fondly on GOs either, and that's something that has to be addressed and changed (not to make me happy, but for us to make progress toward where we need to be).

The GOs want to be allies with us. We need allies but we don't need allies that hurt us. We need to resolve this and come to see eye to eye and understand why we should be allies or we have to split. The world comes at you fast, as we all know. A nice grip and grin photo op with Christy Clarke may have seemed like a great idea a year or two ago. Now? Not so much (hence "political but not partisan"). Anti Christy Clarke groups came out swinging over a $60k donation made by the Safari Club to GOABC. They made lots of headlines. We need to solve this and GOs need to help.

But your original point is well taken: we don't win if all we do is fight with GOs over a dwindling resource.

Rob you nailed it. We need more wildlife on the ground, period. The only way we can make enough noise is together. The MOU that was signed in June is one step in the right direction to putting wildlife 1st and getting more game on the ground.
The fight never started until the population started tanking.

I know there are a lot of guides that are happy to sitting at the same table working on the same goal. The ministry for years has told me that coming to the table with FN , residents and GO we stand a far better chance in getting through to the top brass.

We have to start somewhere.

[Fisher-Dude]

Some people are dumb enough to think that 500:1 odds is a better situation than 1000:1 odds, when in fact you'd have to live an average of 500+ years to have an even chance to be drawn in the first place.

No wonder the NDP got votes with those people living among us.

The only thing that helps hunters have a realistically better chance of getting that animal is increasing annual allowable harvest. And that comes from growing animal populations, not from thinking a 1 in 500 chance of drawing a tag is something to strive for.

The 59 animals shifted in the allocation policy, over 105,000 resident hunters, at a harvest success rate of 25%, is a 0.2% increase in tags available, and if we consider 167,000 LEH applications were sent in last year, the percentage gets even more minuscule.

Yeah, might be way easier to grow 59 animals in this province than to continue managing to zero and fighting for scraps along the way, eh?

[Wild one]

People just need to stop thinking with emotion about getting revenge in hopes of getting a slight increase in allocation %

Start using our heads towards population enchantment in hopes to increase overall allocation available

[Whonnock Boy]

FD.... I guess this comment was once again directed at me. Strange though, I thought you had put me on ignore.

Regardless, you're blowing hot air that doesn't need to be blown. We all get it. We need to grow more animals. Thanks for your insight. And if it's of any consolation, I much prefer the odds at 500:1, than at 1000:1, unless you think the the kamloops sheep populations can multiply by 10 times for better odds at a 100:1. How about 20 times for 50:1? Can they, or are you arguing just for the sake of arguing because you don't like what I have done in regards to the BCWF? Get over it.....

You should tell us what the game plan is when we do get more wildlife on the ground. Are the guide outfitters going to return allocation to resident hunters because they now have too much? Willingly? Without asking? Without a fight?

As I said earlier, this is just a discussion. Nobody is writing resolutions or rallying the troops to hit the steps of the legislature. When that starts to happen, maybe then you can tie those panties of yours in a knot....

Some people are dumb enough to think that 500:1 odds is a better situation than 1000:1 odds, when in fact you'd have to live an average of 500+ years to have an even chance to be drawn in the first place.

No wonder the NDP got votes with those people living among us.

The only thing that helps hunters have a realistically better chance of getting that animal is increasing annual allowable harvest. And that comes from growing animal populations, not from thinking a 1 in 500 chance of drawing a tag is something to strive for.

The 59 animals shifted in the allocation policy, over 105,000 resident hunters, at a harvest success rate of 25%, is a 0.2% increase in tags available, and if we consider 167,000 LEH applications were sent in last year, the percentage gets even more minuscule.

Yeah, might be way easier to grow 59 animals in this province than to continue managing to zero and fighting for scraps along the way, eh?

[Rob Chipman]

"The only thing that helps hunters have a realistically better chance of getting that animal is increasing annual allowable harvest."

While true, I think that statement needs re-framing. We need more animals on the mountain, but that really should mean a diverse and sustainable wild landscape, and it shouldn't be motivated primarily by our desire to have more animals to hunt.

I'm not even crunching the numbers you guys are throwing around because it's immaterial who's math is right. Most of us recognize that dividing a shrinking pie isn't the path to Nirvana. That kind of applies not only to animal populations and allowable harvest, but also social license.

If we keep throwing darts at people we should be allied with we're dividing up the social license pie. Now, that pie isn't shrinking, but we really do need to own the majority of it. Vegan animal lovers who live in Kits, vote NDP and think conservation's biggest challenge is the stigma attached to trans grizzlies may seem stupid to some of us, but we need their support. Anyone who thinks that we'll increase support by telling those people how stupid they are for not understanding things doesn't understand humans. We need to stop.

We need specific management goals, we need a plan to achieve them, we need scientific management, we need a funding model and we need social license. We need to keep our eyes on that prize and anything that doesn't contribute to that needs to be abandoned. We've seen the progress made by people working in that direction and we need to build on it.

Is allocation a good deal and should we expend energy on it? Only so much as it helps or hinders us from achieving our goal. In my opinion (and I could be totally wrong) the GOs need to explain clearly to everyone who's unhappy with them how they contribute to those goals. The biggest challenge, obviously, is how they contribute to us getting social license. Right now they're perceived by some as the guys who help rich Americans shoot charismatic mega fauna for money, not as conservationists who protect a public resource. They're also perceived by some as guys who lobby and donate to a corrupt government for special access to public resources. (By the way - BCWF is not perceived by the mainstream as a conservation organization, but as an organization that represents hunters. Does everyone see the problem with that?)

As I see it GOs are presenting us with a choice: go with the GOs and oppose the people who perceive things differently than we like (and call them for instance, stupid NDP voters) or make the GOs prove that they're helping us convert a significant portion of our opponents into either neutrals or allies.

[Whonnock Boy]

Jesus, you're smart..... Your time would be better served at the provincial level.

"The only thing that helps hunters have a realistically better chance of getting that animal is increasing annual allowable harvest."

While true, I think that statement needs re-framing. We need more animals on the mountain, but that really should mean a diverse and sustainable wild landscape, and it shouldn't be motivated primarily by our desire to have more animals to hunt.

I'm not even crunching the numbers you guys are throwing around because it's immaterial who's math is right. Most of us recognize that dividing a shrinking pie isn't the path to Nirvana. That kind of applies not only to animal populations and allowable harvest, but also social license.

If we keep throwing darts at people we should be allied with we're dividing up the social license pie. Now, that pie isn't shrinking, but we really do need to own the majority of it. Vegan animal lovers who live in Kits, vote NDP and think conservation's biggest challenge is the stigma attached to trans grizzlies may seem stupid to some of us, but we need their support. Anyone who thinks that we'll increase support by telling those people how stupid they are for not understanding things doesn't understand humans. We need to stop.

We need specific management goals, we need a plan to achieve them, we need scientific management, we need a funding model and we need social license. We need to keep our eyes on that prize and anything that doesn't contribute to that needs to be abandoned. We've seen the progress made by people working in that direction and we need to build on it.

Is allocation a good deal and should we expend energy on it? Only so much as it helps or hinders us from achieving our goal. In my opinion (and I could be totally wrong) the GOs need to explain clearly to everyone who's unhappy with them how they contribute to those goals. The biggest challenge, obviously, is how they contribute to us getting social license. Right now they're perceived by some as the guys who help rich Americans shoot charismatic mega fauna for money, not as conservationists who protect a public resource. They're also perceived by some as guys who lobby and donate to a corrupt government for special access to public resources. (By the way - BCWF is not perceived by the mainstream as a conservation organization, but as an organization that represents hunters. Does everyone see the problem with that?)

As I see it GOs are presenting us with a choice: go with the GOs and oppose the people who perceive things differently than we like (and call them for instance, stupid NDP voters) or make the GOs prove that they're helping us convert a significant portion of our opponents into either neutrals or allies.

[HarryToolips]

Well said once again Rob.......

[HappyJack]

http://www.mccowans.com/content/hunt...-prince-george

Here is an outfitting territory for sale.

I see 10 COW moose in their allocation, what is up with that? They must really be getting some trophies from them? IMHO that is 10 moose tags that could be given back to resident hunters.