Non-resident allocation too high

[Rob Chipman]

OK, Bearvalley, I have to take these one at a time, and I need to emphasize that I'm being a bit of the Devil's Advocate. The back and forth over Chilcotin Hillbilly is a good example of why. A lot of guys who know him are vocal about liking him. I don't think he's making a huge killing based on getting a government subsidized quota. I also think he could probably survive great with an alternate business model and not really suffer a huge lifestyle or income change (although the fact is I don't know his details enough). Point being, it's much easier, I think, for a resident hunter who doesn't like GOs to accept Chilcotin Hillbilly as an ally. Obviously a local guy invested in BC not getting fat off the public tit. Other GOs? Maybe not so easy to accept. (And remember that part about Devil's Advocate - I'm not saying you're sucking the public tit)

So here goes with the first question:

I ask why a GO need a quota of a public resource. You say stability and product, and you make an analogy to TFLs.

The last shall be first. TFLs may be good, or they may be bad. I don't know enough to comment, but I know that during the upcoming NAFTA renegotiations we'll hear about how they are bad. If we all decide that they are bad then you don't want you're wagon hitched to them, because 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Also, TFLs and habitat destruction and special interests making big money from a public resource can all be wrapped up together by people who want to slam big lumber or, for that matter GOABC. I don't think that's hard to see.

Also, TFLs aren't the only way to run a logging industry (I'm not sure I actually like the alternatives I can imagine, but the fact remains, there are other models).

I recognize that there will always be some die-hard anti-GO people and you can't convince everyone, but if we're going to paddle the same boat the same way we need to minimize the internal fighting. So....I'm not too convinced by the TFL analogy.

Stability? There is no constant other than change. I've been in a business for the better part of 3 decades that's undergone huge changes. I have had to revise my business model many times. Some of the income sources I had when I started in the 80s simply no longer exist. Others haven't changed. The government has not only not helped me, but has made it tougher each and every year. If we start talking about the technological changes it's even crazier.

I'm not alone in that experience, so I'm not sure that the argument that GOs need quota of a public resource because of stability is really going to cut the mustard. I can spin it (if I want to be hard nosed) as "I need quota because I can't compete and I want easy money from my friends in politics". Again, I'm not saying that's you, or CH. I'm saying you need an effective answer to that to get more buy in from non-GOs.

Product? Pretty much a variation of the above. I've got one product, really, and it's me. My knowledge (skills and experience) and my integrity (my clients know their interests come before mine and that I hammer hard at achieving their interests). Nobody gives me a territory or a certain amount of product. Nobody has to use my service. I have to justify my price every time out of the chute.

Now, it would be nice if the government said that if you live in this part of town you have to list your house with me, but that just ain't gonna ever happen. It's even be nice if the government said that foreigners have to use an agent to buy a house, but that too ain't gonna happen. So...if the thinking is that a GO needs the government to give him product so that the GO can be in business because the GO can't figure out how to do it otherwise, the real key question is: why do we need a GO at all? It almost sounds as if the GO feels entitled to a business of his choice, and that the government should give it to him.... (Again, Devil's Advocate. People are thinking this, and I don't think you're addressing it well enough).

So here's a question: why can't a BC GO run his business like an Arizona GO? My understanding is that if I want to hunt in Arizona I need to enter a lottery and get a tag, and then I need to find a guide to guide me. The guide does not have the tag and the guide does not have the territory. Why can't you do your business under that system? Don't answer this question with a bunch of questions. Instead, give me concrete challenges that are unique to BC and addressed by the tenure and quota system. If you can convince me then I think we both know you'll have developed a pretty goddamned convincing answer for serious anti-GO guys among the RH crowd.

Again, I'm not attacking you, but I've heard this issues raised around campfires. I give zero you know whats about the answer, but the answer is important and valuable to you, regardless of what it is (as long as it's effective).

[bearvalley]

Rob, I'm kinda tired and grumpy tonight....not really in the mood to play make believe armchair hunting/wildlife expert.
I will get back to you tho.
I do have a suggestion and I'm serious....you want to come for a visit to a outfitting business.
Im sure we could both pick up some pointers.
Think about it.

[Whonnock Boy]

Perfect. You don't have a good reply so you'll bribe and smooze him with a visit to the outfitting business as if he's a Liberal MLA.

[bearvalley]

Perfect. You don't have a good reply so you'll bribe and smooze him with a visit to the outfitting business as if he's a Liberal MLA.

Troy, you can kiss my A**.
Like I said I'm tired and bitchy and will answer his questions.
The offers out to Chipman because he seems to me like a guy with enough sense to see 2 sides of a coin.
You, I wouldn't waste my time on.
Why don't you get off your butt and see if you can't apply yourself to do some good to ensure we can hunt in the future.

[Whonnock Boy]

Not the first guy to say either of those things. Means I'm saying what I think, and secondly, I've been doing plenty. Some people just don't agree with what I've been doing, or simply don't understand. People are learning though, albeit the hard way.

Troy, you can kiss my A**.
Why don't you get off your butt and see if you can't apply yourself to do some good to ensure we can hunt in the future.

[labguy]

OK, Bearvalley, I have to take these one at a time, and I need to emphasize that I'm being a bit of the Devil's Advocate. The back and forth over Chilcotin Hillbilly is a good example of why. A lot of guys who know him are vocal about liking him. I don't think he's making a huge killing based on getting a government subsidized quota. I also think he could probably survive great with an alternate business model and not really suffer a huge lifestyle or income change (although the fact is I don't know his details enough). Point being, it's much easier, I think, for a resident hunter who doesn't like GOs to accept Chilcotin Hillbilly as an ally. Obviously a local guy invested in BC not getting fat off the public tit. Other GOs? Maybe not so easy to accept. (And remember that part about Devil's Advocate - I'm not saying you're sucking the public tit)

So here goes with the first question:

I ask why a GO need a quota of a public resource. You say stability and product, and you make an analogy to TFLs.

The last shall be first. TFLs may be good, or they may be bad. I don't know enough to comment, but I know that during the upcoming NAFTA renegotiations we'll hear about how they are bad. If we all decide that they are bad then you don't want you're wagon hitched to them, because 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Also, TFLs and habitat destruction and special interests making big money from a public resource can all be wrapped up together by people who want to slam big lumber or, for that matter GOABC. I don't think that's hard to see.

Also, TFLs aren't the only way to run a logging industry (I'm not sure I actually like the alternatives I can imagine, but the fact remains, there are other models).

I recognize that there will always be some die-hard anti-GO people and you can't convince everyone, but if we're going to paddle the same boat the same way we need to minimize the internal fighting. So....I'm not too convinced by the TFL analogy.

Stability? There is no constant other than change. I've been in a business for the better part of 3 decades that's undergone huge changes. I have had to revise my business model many times. Some of the income sources I had when I started in the 80s simply no longer exist. Others haven't changed. The government has not only not helped me, but has made it tougher each and every year. If we start talking about the technological changes it's even crazier.

I'm not alone in that experience, so I'm not sure that the argument that GOs need quota of a public resource because of stability is really going to cut the mustard. I can spin it (if I want to be hard nosed) as "I need quota because I can't compete and I want easy money from my friends in politics". Again, I'm not saying that's you, or CH. I'm saying you need an effective answer to that to get more buy in from non-GOs.

Product? Pretty much a variation of the above. I've got one product, really, and it's me. My knowledge (skills and experience) and my integrity (my clients know their interests come before mine and that I hammer hard at achieving their interests). Nobody gives me a territory or a certain amount of product. Nobody has to use my service. I have to justify my price every time out of the chute.

Now, it would be nice if the government said that if you live in this part of town you have to list your house with me, but that just ain't gonna ever happen. It's even be nice if the government said that foreigners have to use an agent to buy a house, but that too ain't gonna happen. So...if the thinking is that a GO needs the government to give him product so that the GO can be in business because the GO can't figure out how to do it otherwise, the real key question is: why do we need a GO at all? It almost sounds as if the GO feels entitled to a business of his choice, and that the government should give it to him.... (Again, Devil's Advocate. People are thinking this, and I don't think you're addressing it well enough).

So here's a question: why can't a BC GO run his business like an Arizona GO? My understanding is that if I want to hunt in Arizona I need to enter a lottery and get a tag, and then I need to find a guide to guide me. The guide does not have the tag and the guide does not have the territory. Why can't you do your business under that system? Don't answer this question with a bunch of questions. Instead, give me concrete challenges that are unique to BC and addressed by the tenure and quota system. If you can convince me then I think we both know you'll have developed a pretty goddamned convincing answer for serious anti-GO guys among the RH crowd.

Again, I'm not attacking you, but I've heard this issues raised around campfires. I give zero you know whats about the answer, but the answer is important and valuable to you, regardless of what it is (as long as it's effective).

Very sensible, well thought out opinion. Why people in some industries feel it is their god given right to have the government "tweak" policy in their favor, at the expense of others, is beyond reasonable thought.

There is a myriad of businesses that don't make it because things change. If guide/outfitting isn't viable any more, change the business model, sell out or move on.

This is the reality most of the rest of us have to live with in the " real" world.

[Rob Chipman]

Bearvalley:

Address the question when you've got time and are ready. I'm not trying to win a debate with you. I'm trying to figure out if GOs and RHs have enough crossover interests to make it worthwhile working together. You've been good at jumping into this issue and I appreciate that, but I also think that you've been providing answers that work for you but don't convince the opposition. As you recognize, preaching to the choir is easy, but it doesn't build consensus in a divided environment.

What I'm hoping is that by hashing this out we either determine publicly that there is enough common interest to work together or we determine that we have competing interests. Either way it's a win for all of us.

Additionally, the idea of changing the business model *may* indicate that some GOs should be aligned with RHs, and some should not. We won't know until we talk it through.

I also appreciate that hard questions asked by me about how you make your living can be sharp and pointy - I'm trying to be as fair about that as I can.

I'm not an armchair wildlife expert and I'm not playing at it. I'm a believer in the NACM. I see it as the absolute best approach to our common goals. I've got a pretty good grasp of politics, history and business, however.

Whether I'm an armchair or real hunting expert is irrelevant and we should all recognize that. Hunting is an ancient right that we all possess, regardless of knowledge or skill. However, like all rights, we need other people to recognize them or we'll have a very hard time exercising them. You can bang the drum about how latte sipping Lower Mainlanders and urban people don't know what's really going on and they should learn some hard lessons, etc etc blah blah, but you know, in your heart of hearts, that if you've got a choice between selling bear viewing and FNs control over the landscape and access to it vs. trophy hunting rich Americans killing Jimmy the magnificent king of the forest, the former is and easy sell and the latter is a tough one. That's just the world we live in and one important aspect of our current challenge. People who vote and exercise control over how you live your life will paddle out to an oil tanker in plastic boats to protest. I don't need to tell you to let that sink in, because it's already old news. It is the world we live in and I, for one, am gong to deal with it. I'm really just inviting you to join me.

You saw the statement in the previous post: "Why people in some industries feel it is their god given right to have the government "tweak" policy in their favor, at the expense of others, is beyond reasonable thought". Its a fair and a common question and it doesn't just apply to GOs. Go watch "The Big Short". A lot of people are pissed at government giving any business a perceived deal. You need to address that effectively or you're going to stay trapped in the circular exercise that is telling Troy to kiss your ass and having him say "Heard it before".

It's time to move past that effectively.

[Mishka]

Thanks Rob for taking the time to put those thoughts out there. I think you're right on the money here.

[ACE]

Thank you Rob Chipman ....
Hopefully the bluster/thread de-railment is kept to a minimum ....

[horshur]

chip sit down with a calculator and do the math...I did some a few years ago just got people on here pissed. Look at what the average resident hunter will gain in odds to draw a tag if the guides allotment were to be eliminated. Your number will be a .005% better chance. Be sure that what you are fighting for is a real change cause the troops will riot when the truth comes home...too many won't sit down with a pencil and do a little math. They will insist that if joe outfitter didn't have so many tags I would be hunting. When joe looses the tags they still won't be hunting. Sorry call me selfish but I want to hunt. I am not shitting. Dealing with odds and probabilities is beyond most of your audience. People buy lottery tickets when there is a better chance a stranger off the street give them money. So is the fight worth it? To me no.
Way to many enemies made over this fight..Everyone has lost nobody has won.