Originally Posted by
KodiakHntr
Just noticed this one now VLD, sorry. If the government closed down NE BC to resident hunters and went guides only? Personally, and this is just my personal take on that, it wouldn't stop me from hunting. It would likely change up the gear I used to much lower dollar value equipment, and I wouldn't worry about seasons or bag limits or meat retention. I would be purely hunting for backstraps with gear I could walk away from without a second thought. But that's just me.
As to mines in the Yukon, or oil wells in Alberta, no idea. I don't live there, I don't work there. I know how abandoned wells are dealt with here in BC though, and it isn't exactly public taxpayer monies that go into that.
And to speak to your argument about "they generate more money per animal etc", my point previous to that was simply that the province does benefit from tax revenue generated by the DLCC by having paying guests stay and fish, it just doesn't have individual members of the public benefit recreationally from the province holding title to that land.
The one underlying aspect to this entire thread, and this entire legal battle, is that the implications of any decision that is made are far reaching and will have unintended consequences to people. The only thing I am fairly certain of is that no matter how it goes, it will cost taxpayers money. Whether it is a little bit of money, or a lot of money remains to be seen, but it will cost every resident of the province money.