Non-resident allocation too high

[Rob Chipman]

^^^^Tougher regulations "especially with declining populations" is pretty much what the idea of managing to zero is all about. It *looks* like a solution, but it's more like using a band-aid to treat leprosy.

[Whonnock Boy]

To start, wildlife holds little or no value to the majority of the population unless you are a guide outfitter, Safari operator, or poacher. Local aboriginal farmers would sooner see the wildlife gone than be competition for their livestock, or prey for the predators. The financial state of African aboriginals and First Nations does not even compare as it relates to helping them be fed. First Nations have numerous avenues other than guide outfitters to help fill their freezers. Anti poaching units are in part funded by non resident hunting. That's just off the top of my head.

Really.....fill me in.

[Whonnock Boy]

And land owners own the wildlife that inhabit their land, ours is owned by the crown on behalf of the people.

[HappyJack]

GOs are not mythical hunters with crazy high success rate they fail. I would even say there is many resident hunters that are local to areas that run higher success rates then GOs. Like I stated earlier I know for a fact there are GOs that don't fill thier moose allocations

The GO harvest is not that high especially in southern 6 and bull only

Your trying too hard to justify going after GOs.

You are also forgetting an important factor govt wants all user groups as they profit from them all. We are all pawns they want in play

Definitely not going after the guide outfitters with that scenario, they could still guide hunters for species that are NOT on LEH, like spike fork moose, black bear, wolf, mule deer, white tail deer, elk, well you get the idea. And this still provides opportunity for guided hunts!! What the idea does address is resident priority as resident hunters would get 'first dibs' until game populations had recovered enough to return to allocating some of those species to outfitters.

[HappyJack]

And land owners own the wildlife that inhabit their land, ours is owned by the crown on behalf of the people.

I suppose with some of the very large tracts of privately owned land in BC the owners of that land virtually own the game animals on the land as they are the only ones with access.

[HappyJack]

If hunter kills of bulls only affected populations, then you could recover a population with regulations. But that's not the case - hunter harvest of those moose doesn't affect the population at all. Declining harvest rates with tougher regulations is what got us to today, with a declining population. If hunter harvest made any difference, moose populations would be increasing with stricter regulations, not declining.

Annual allowable harvest only cares about the number of dead animals, not about who kills the animal or how long it takes them.

There's no shortage of breeding bulls in region 6, as the OP has told us we're well above target (30:100) with about 35:100 in our sex ratios. Sperm supply isn't a problem. Juvenile recruitment is the problem, and that's habitat and/or predation dependent with moose populations.

Tell that to people that complain about FNs not reporting their harvests, they sure think it hunter harvest makes a difference?

[40incher]

Pretty weak 40incher.
If you're going to take up that issue you better change your online alias to "sheep meat".
You would have more credibility.
LMAO

Hey there Guide Apologist,

If that's the best you have it is welcomed ... perhaps respond to the real points raised.

I have killed all of my rams for meat, they just need to be full curl by regulation ... two of them just happened to be over 40 inches?! What's your problem?

That comment alone probably pisses off the GO's that have infiltrated this forum. Any ram we kill is one less $40,000.00 plus hunt in their pea-brained minds.

My point was, and still is, quit calling it "trophy" hunting. We will all be better off. Hunting is not a mere sport, to be compared trivially with golf or beach volleyball, or whatever ... why don't the GO's get this simple concept??

That's probably a rhetorical question at this point, but I will reiterate it for you and others to contemplate.

[40incher]

People need to start looking at the whole picture with open eyes and mind

A big tip for resident hunters if you want govt to listen to you get it together. Stop pointing fingers and learn to conduct your self in a manner that is organized. It is a lot easier to get something accomplished if you can push an agenda that is benifical beyond your personal needs

fighting over small stuff going poor me makes us look like greedy children. Govt wants to reap the benefits of all user groups. All groups are merely pawns and are easier to manipulate one at a time. When we are investing our efforts fighting within the user groups it's easier for govt to let big issues slip as we are preoccupied fighting for scraps.

Right now resident hunters are not a respected voice and it's easy for govt to give a little lip service and brush us a side.

Want to see change see our weakness and admit to it.

Odds are most don't want to admit this or even see it. Takes more than numbers to have a strong voice

Hey There,

For one thing, I don't think you are really one of "us". When you say resident hunters are not respected I take that as a somewhat silly comment. One that comes from a GO mindset ... perhaps one that gains some income or benefit that compromises your view??

As I have stated, please don't confuse conservation with allocation. The GO's are the ones that demanded 25% to 40% of the pie as their minimums. Once you back off on that we will be happy to increase the pie size so your 10% actually means something!! Quite confusing the thread ... it's about allocation, not blaming the real "us" for all the world's problems. Us lowly resident hunters don't need to be lectured by the guide/status quo apologists.

[Wild one]

Not a GO never have been nor have I played one on TV

100% resident hunter

may not like what I have to say but I don't benifit from GO industry not one dime

[bearvalley]

Hey There,

For one thing, I don't think you are really one of "us". When you say resident hunters are not respected I take that as a somewhat silly comment. One that comes from a GO mindset ... perhaps one that gains some income or benefit that compromises your view??

As I have stated, please don't confuse conservation with allocation. The GO's are the ones that demanded 25% to 40% of the pie as their minimums. Once you back off on that we will be happy to increase the pie size so your 10% actually means something!! Quite confusing the thread ... it's about allocation, not blaming the real "us" for all the world's problems. Us lowly resident hunters don't need to be lectured by the guide/status quo apologists.

Hey There 40incher,
Is not a good portion of BC on a GOS for resident sheep?
Are any guided sheep for non residents on GOS？
Why don't you just tell it like it is.....You don't like the competition when you're out in the mountains looking for a 40" ram.
But I forgot....your not in it for the horns....you just want the 60 pounds of sheep meat for the freezer.
Maybe we should have any age ram hunts for "us" residents since "we" don't really care about horn size and want to distance "ourselves" from those lowly "Trophy" hunters.
Just to make sure that conservation is front and centre "us" lowly resident hunters should probably best adopt a policy of say.....2 oppurtunities for every sheep that the AAH says we can take.
That way we can be assured "we" are not over achieving "our" annual harvest.
Give it a rest "sheep meat" your case isn't about allocation and resident priority....it's about eliminating competition so you can dig up your next "Trophy" ram.