Non-resident allocation too high

[bearvalley]

Yikes.... Showing all sorts of animosity this morning. Insults and degrading comments is all you can come up with when people don't see things the way you do?

I dont believe non-resident allocation should be so high, and I question if sleeping with "trophy" hunters is the best way to gain support from the non hunting population of our province. Beliefs and questions, not entitlement and bitching.

C'mon man. You really think this is solely about the right to take? Let's keep it out of the ditch shall we....

I'm keeping it out of the ditch Troy and I'm throwing out a different side of the equation than you and Langegger.
But then what do l know from being around the people in the north.....probably only a fraction of what you have for knowledge.
And yes the word is "entitlement".....a few will continue to want more of their so called "opportunity" until all is gone.

[Whonnock Boy]

It's ironic that you call residents wanting more allocation as entitled. What do you call guides wanting more? Greedy?

I'm keeping it out of the ditch Troy and I'm throwing out a different side of the equation than you and Langegger.
But then what do l know from being around the people in the north.....probably only a fraction of what you have for knowledge.
And yes the word is "entitlement".....a few will continue to want more of their so called "opportunity" until all is gone.

[bearvalley]

Yes, a NR may pay more for a single hunt, however if you look at the gear, supplies, ATV's, trucks, wall tents, fuel, lodging, cameras, firearms,............each resident hunter possesses, and there's 100,000 of them, it far outweighs the financial contribution to local businesses and economy. So your economic argument when compared to what residents contribute is weak, and supported by independent economic reports.

If your working off the same independent economic reports that I've seen the non resident 5% of BC's hunters generates around a third of the cash put into the economy due to hunting activities.
Knowing what the cash flow is to run an outfitting business I will guarantee that if a resident hunter incurred the costs that an outfitter does per hunter all "meat and potato" groceries would come from Save On.

[bearvalley]

It's ironic that you call residents wanting more allocation as entitled. What do you call guides wanting more? Greedy?

Study the historical numbers Troy.
Then think about the traditional past of the northern part of Region 6.
I believe outfitters have operated up there for over 100 years in one form or another.
Many of those same GO businesses are owned and operated by multi generation FN families.
Ask around up north at who is being looked at as being greedy.

[40incher]

Resident hunters deserve 90% of the licensed moose hunt ... that's a no brainer. I think the apologists for status quo should mind their own selfish business.

Confusing the issue with conservation is as old as the hills. There is no new information that suggests our South-Skeena GOS for residents of B.C. is an issue. The bull:cow ratio is still 35:100. There is a lot of fear mongering going on ... as usual when one gets to close to the truth like Lange has.

Time for the guides to realize they made a huge error in judgment when they turned on B.C. residents when they got the Liberal culls to lock in their 40% and 25% maximums as their minimums.

What goes around comes around!

[Buck]

Resident hunters deserve 90% of the licensed moose hunt ... that's a no brainer. I think the apologists for status quo should mind their own selfish business.

Confusing the issue with conservation is as old as the hills. There is no new information that suggests our South-Skeena GOS for residents of B.C. is an issue. The bull:cow ratio is still 35:100. There is a lot of fear mongering going on ... as usual when one gets to close to the truth like Lange has.

Time for the guides to realize they made a huge error in judgment when they turned on B.C. residents when they got the Liberal culls to lock in their 40% and 25% maximums as their minimums.

What goes around comes around!

Excellant post time time for residents to put pressure on government to reduce non resident guota.

[HappyJack]

Your right there are many mom and pop operations that are mindful of residents, work with them in a respectful manner, and in good faith. However there are also those that are the opposite.

There's a place for a GO'ing industry in BC, my opinion and some will disagree. However that industry must not be allowed to operate at the expense of resident opportunity (allocation) to subsidize it. Which is exactly what's occurring.

The issue at hand is the % of allocated species that's been provided to non-residents. It's way too high and as a result caused much harm to resident opportunity and stifled local community economic benefits, of which resident hunters contribute far more than non-residents. Yes, a NR may pay more for a single hunt, however if you look at the gear, supplies, ATV's, trucks, wall tents, fuel, lodging, cameras, firearms,............each resident hunter possesses, and there's 100,000 of them, it far outweighs the financial contribution to local businesses and economy. So your economic argument when compared to what residents contribute is weak, and supported by independent economic reports.

Moose being a meat and potato species comment not gaining me any fans? For residents and FN's that exactly what it is. Of course a trophy hunter, non-resident, and or GO may place greater value in antler size. Absolutely not the case with resident moose hunters. If I'm wrong here I hope people reading this post will confirm or reject my claim. I think my comment is credible, true, and the opinion of most resident moose hunters out there, and why its such a high demand and utilization species. Folks let's hear your opinion.

I have to agree with you. The allocation of 25 to 40% is just too high to be graciously given to the outfitters. Considering that this gross inequity can be corrected fairly quick I suggest the govt do so and then we can get on with the business of rebuilding habitat and game numbers.

[boxhitch]

Maybe its time to put up or shut up
There have been lots of suggestions about BCrhs and their sentiments but only parroted by a few voices.
Maybe its time to leave the Fed behind and build an activist group, start a website and a FB page, rally the troops
The lineup at the door or lack of it will really show where the issues lies. Stirring the pot by chirping here on HBC won't get anywhere.
He!! even start a petition on change.org, anything to get the ball rolling............or let it go flat

[btridge]

I was sure he would have your support and that of a few others....the support of the entitlement crowd.
To some it's not about the wildlife...it's merely about the right to take.
And they will continue to take until it's gone.
Funny, the ones carrying on the allocation bitch are the same clowns that questioned the BCWF signing an MOU with other user groups to move forward in the sustainable management of wildlife.
Whats your agenda?

BV, I have listened to what you have to say on many theads on the allocation subject. It is clearer that you have taken up the mantra of the outfitters in that the allocation battle has been decided and it's time to move on and address the "REAL" problem, the declining wildlife numbers.
The problem with your way of looking at this fight, the allocation battle was settled and agreed to in 2007, and then the ENTITLED OUTFITTERS reopened it in the back rooms with a less than honest liberal government. The outfitters argued they needed and were entitled to a larger percentage of the declining wildlife population, and through back room deals , got it.
For you to refer to Resident hunters as the " entitlement crowd", is like saying Trudeas politics are right of Harpers.

[Whonnock Boy]

Things change. To start, public sentiment, wildlife populations and habitat. What I am defending here is the common mans ability to partake in an activity that everyone, regardless or ethnicity or financial stature, should have equal rights to enjoy. The fact that we have any of the highly sought after species being sold to foreigners for profit, moose, Kamloops sheep and island elk for example, instead of residents having priority with go's utilizing excess, is simply unacceptable to me.

By all means, call it greed, call it chirping or bitching. That's not going to change the overall perception of trophy hunting. That's your bed to fix, and hopping on the backs of resident hunters, in the name of wildlife populations, is just another lobbying ploy by your leaders to get what you want. Sure, working together towards a common goal is great and all, but let's not spoon while doing it, at least that's my thoughts on it. But don't worry, the weight my words carry are very light, if in fact they ever did carry much. Calling out illegal and unethical behaviour within our circles tends to get a person on the shit list.

Study the historical numbers Troy.
Then think about the traditional past of the northern part of Region 6.
I believe outfitters have operated up there for over 100 years in one form or another.
Many of those same GO businesses are owned and operated by multi generation FN families.
Ask around up north at who is being looked at as being greedy.