[QUOTE=Spy;1640964]Since the AGM and the latest BC Outdoors magazine there has been a suggested plausible solution to the W.A . Policy by the President of the federation. It is all listed in posts in this thread but it includes accepting Thomson s splits . Example , Region 5 Moose accept 25% non res. 75% res. Where non res share is frozen at current number of allocation. Then the plan is to increase the moose population over the years . As the population grows so does our share. It seems to me this provides immediate certainty for outfitting to ensure viability. What do you think?
[QUOTE=rgn5hunt;1640975][QUOTE=Spy;1640964]Since the AGM and the latest BC Outdoors magazine there has been a suggested plausible solution to the W.A . Policy by the President of the federation. It is all listed in posts in this thread but it includes accepting Thomson s splits . Example , Region 5 Moose accept 25% non res. 75% res. Where non res share is frozen at current number of allocation. Then the plan is to increase the moose population over the years . As the population grows so does our share. It seems to me this provides immediate certainty for outfitting to ensure viability. What do you think?I think it should be 100% resident, 0% non resident. When the moose population "grows" in the next couple years and it can sustain a non resident hunt give the guides 10% and us 90%. Im sure the GOaBC has a fund to look after the guide that will be effected, or the guide can hunt wolves, bears and deer! Resident hunters are already competing with the first nations for meat hunts like moose we should not be competing with foreigners as well. Its time to take a hard stance and fight for what is really ours! We pay stupidly high taxes to live here its time we start getting what we ask for! Anyway 2017 is coming
In the BC Outdoors magazine the president said that this plausible solution has been floated by resident hunting circles. I find that statement misleading. All the resident hunters and discussions that I have heard in the last few months never mentioned this plausible solution or anything remotely similar. I would believe the statement if it came from MOE and Politcians, but resident hunters? No way!
[QUOTE=rgn5hunt;1640975]I think that 25% would be the absolute most generous split for any species, as in sheep, goat and grizzly. Any other animal can be no more than 10% !!
If BCWF's suggestion includes accepting any animal on a 40% split, then I vehemently disagree!!
Can you please break down the "suggested" allocation by species in a short list? So we don't have to dig through this thread and then come up with wrong information anyway.
I harvest carrots. I kill animals.
It's kind of amusing. The federation has been dragged down to the depths for so long dealing with politicians and those who should not be named, they can't help but speak in tongues, and ambiguous statements.
The measure of a man is not how much power he has, it's how he wields it.
[QUOTE=Ambush;1641012]The way that the plausible allocation solution was suggested is to accept Steve Thomsons February resolution. Thomson introduced the policy in Dec as you know, then made minor changes in February after public rallies, so we are indeed talking about that as the plausible solution. So yes 40% non res for the species you mentioned.
That is kind of misleading. They are not supporting the current policy, from what I can tell, they are supporting the "resolution" of 90/10 - 75/25, in the long run. But, like I say, it will be very confusing considering wildlife populations. They are better off either sticking to their guns, or agreeing to a claw back allocation policy. Yearly, let's say we get 1% back until we are at the "marching orders". But wtf do I know.....
[QUOTE=rgn5hunt;1641023]
The measure of a man is not how much power he has, it's how he wields it.