Outfitters in Resident Only Areas

[GoatGuy]

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/p111.jpg

[GoatGuy]

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/p28.jpg

[GoatGuy]

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/p35.jpg

[GoatGuy]

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/p42.jpg

[fowl language]

if this is not enough to get all of you off your ass and write the minister or go see your mla then I give up.in case you do not understand ,WE ARE SCREWED. GET OFF YOUR ASS and do something or we will lose it all.....dale

[bridger]

Wow! time to kick over the tables and shoot out the lights. If this doesn't convince resident hunters that outfitters don't give a damn about resident priority I can't imagine what it will take.

[bc traper]

This was brought up in a recent trappers meeting The trappers there were also opposed to these permits I think it will be brought up at the convention later this month

[Everett]

You know I think its high time the BCWF took a hard line with GOABC. My own opinion its time they start lobbying government to end non resident hunting in BC. Let the outfitters keep the territories and quotas but no non resident hunting in BC this is what the BCWF needs to do because what they have been doing to protect our rights so far sucks.

[scallywag]

Isnt this just for predators only. I know it is a foot in the door for outfitters. Atleast something is beig done to try to manage the wolf populations

[scallywag]

Isnt this just for predators only. I know it is a foot in the door for outfitters. Atleast something is beig done to try to manage the wolf populations
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[coach]

Isnt this just for predators only. I know it is a foot in the door for outfitters. Atleast something is beig done to try to manage the wolf populations

Are mule deer predators in your world? Maybe you should read the letter again..

[358mag]

if this is not enough to get all of you off your ass and write the minister or go see your mla then I give up.in case you do not understand ,WE ARE SCREWED. GET OFF YOUR ASS and do something or we will lose it all.....dale
Or get off your ass and start hunting bears, wolfs , cougars if the resident aren't hunting them well good on the GO for stepping up to the plate and taking a out a few pred's .
Fire up the popcorn machine

[Clint_S]

Yep this has got to be stopped and quick. Predators now, trophy elk, grizzly you name it next.
What's the point of having a guiding territory if the whole province is yours.
Personally I like my predator hunting a lot and don't want to have to compete with some foreigner being spoon fed a trophy lion or bear by a guide in my back yard!
Caribou recovery. What a joke. There are no caribou in my MU and doubt there ever was or will be. Frickin politicians.
Is there any formal movement to oppose this or should we just try to get as many individuals to write the "honorable" Steve Thomson as possible?

[Clint_S]

Here's the contact page.

http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/ministries/forests-lands-and-natural-resource-operations/biography/for.html

[300rum700]

An outfitter in region 5 recently lost all his b permits, mainly cougar tags not sure about the rest, maybe the data is a little dated.

[horshur]

Jessie the news report out was the Caribou did pretty good this winter....luck? BS?

[GoatGuy]

An outfitter in region 5 recently lost all his b permits, mainly cougar tags not sure about the rest, maybe the data is a little dated.

This is data from permits issued in 2013/14 season.

It has been indicated that there is a management concern due to outfitter over-harvest in resident only areas. One would hope that the permits would be cancelled, particularly the mule deer buck permit in resident only areas.

[GoatGuy]

Jessie the news report out was the Caribou did pretty good this winter....luck? BS?

Depends on the population.

For another thread.

[horshur]

Depends on the population.

For another thread.

pretty sure they were referring to region 4 in the report......

[cassiarkid]

Only ungulates taken were on private land, so that really has no bearing on the resident hunter as they would not be allowed to hunt on private land unless they received permission. What about Region 8 it mentions it but doesn't say anything about it?

[GoatGuy]

Or get off your ass and start hunting bears, wolfs , cougars if the resident aren't hunting them well good on the GO for stepping up to the plate and taking a out a few pred's .
Fire up the popcorn machine

I doubt harvesting bobcats in 4-22 is going to help the deer population or reduce the pred population - neither is a mule deer buck tag in a resident only area.

If government was interested in reducing predator populations in resident only areas the bag limits would be increased, cheap tags, or a cougar/bear tag with every deer tag - that isn't the case. The government doesn't actually care about managing predator populations.

This is a handout, plain and simple. Residents were never aware of these permits until recently and it has been indicated direction to make animals available to outfitters in resident only areas is coming out of Victoria - the world of backdoor deals.

Wonder how happy the folks would be in the WK would be if 30% of the grizz, moose, goat and elk went to an outfitter who didn't even own an area.

[GoatGuy]

Only ungulates taken were on private land, so that really has no bearing on the resident hunter as they would not be allowed to hunt on private land unless they received permission. What about Region 8 it mentions it but doesn't say anything about it?

An outfitter is issued a mule deer buck tag in a resident only area where mule deer are eating a farmer's hay bales with the rational that it is to disturb wildlife populations.

You would be hard pressed to find a respected wildlife manager anywhere in the world who would encourage harvesting ONE buck/bull to solve agriculture conflicts. In fact, all of the managers across the province have had a good chuckle about this handout as it has nothing to do with agricultural conflict. If the objective was to reduce the conflict antlerless tags would have been issued OR a kill permit would have been issued.

Now, a kill permit would be for a doe - of course there's no money it that for the landowner and the meat must be forfeited. What this means is the landowner and guide-outfitter get no MONEY so instead a 70(1)B permit was issued for a buck so everyone could collect a paycheck from a public resource in a resident only area.

This isn't about not allowing residents on private land to disturb deer. This is about giving people a handout.


Region 8 is for bear tags in the North Okanagan I believe.

[Confused]

An outfitter is issued a mule deer buck tag in a resident only area where mule deer are eating a farmer's hay bales with the rational that it is to disturb wildlife populations.

You would be hard pressed to find a respected wildlife manager anywhere in the world who would encourage harvesting ONE buck/bull to solve agriculture conflicts. In fact, all of the managers across the province have had a good chuckle about this handout as it has nothing to do with agricultural conflict. If the objective was to reduce the conflict antlerless tags would have been issued OR a kill permit would have been issued.

Now, a kill permit would be for a doe - of course there's no money it that for the landowner and the meat must be forfeited. What this means is the landowner and guide-outfitter get no MONEY so instead a 70(1)B permit was issued for a buck so everyone could collect a paycheck from a public resource in a resident only area.

This isn't about not allowing residents on private land to disturb deer. This is about giving people a handout.


Region 8 is for bear tags in the North Okanagan I believe.

What is a "resident only area", just looked through the regs and cant seem to find reference to them and that non residents arent allowed to hunt them??????

[Timbow]

The perks of having someone in high places. How did this leaked out? Baffles me why resident hunters would attend GO annual banquet's looking for handouts.

[GoatGuy]

What is a "resident only area", just looked through the regs and cant seem to find reference to them and that non residents arent allowed to hunt them??????
Resident only areas are areas that have been set aside for high resident use to help balance out allocations. They are also known as untenured or vacant areas.

[358mag]

An outfitter is issued a mule deer buck tag in a resident only area where mule deer are eating a farmer's hay bales with the rational that it is to disturb wildlife populations.

You would be hard pressed to find a respected wildlife manager anywhere in the world who would encourage harvesting ONE buck/bull to solve agriculture conflicts. In fact, all of the managers across the province have had a good chuckle about this handout as it has nothing to do with agricultural conflict. If the objective was to reduce the conflict antlerless tags would have been issued OR a kill permit would have been issued.

Now, a kill permit would be for a doe - of course there's no money it that for the landowner and the meat must be forfeited. What this means is the landowner and guide-outfitter get no MONEY so instead a 70(1)B permit was issued for a buck so everyone could collect a paycheck from a public resource in a resident only area.

This isn't about not allowing residents on private land to disturb deer. This is about giving people a handout.


Region 8 is for bear tags in the North Okanagan I believe.
Was that mule deer tag issued in Region 8 ?? and if so who was the outfitter -guide ??

[GoatGuy]

Was that mule deer tag issued in Region 8 ?? and if so who was the outfitter -guide ??

Mule deer was Region 5.

[one-shot-wonder]

Mule deer was Region 5.

Big surprise....Roger Stewart is a dooshbag!

[cassiarkid]

I get your point, well played!

[bearvalley]

An outfitter is issued a mule deer buck tag in a resident only area where mule deer are eating a farmer's hay bales with the rational that it is to disturb wildlife populations.

You would be hard pressed to find a respected wildlife manager anywhere in the world who would encourage harvesting ONE buck/bull to solve agriculture conflicts. In fact, all of the managers across the province have had a good chuckle about this handout as it has nothing to do with agricultural conflict. If the objective was to reduce the conflict antlerless tags would have been issued OR a kill permit would have been issued.

Now, a kill permit would be for a doe - of course there's no money it that for the landowner and the meat must be forfeited. What this means is the landowner and guide-outfitter get no MONEY so instead a 70(1)B permit was issued for a buck so everyone could collect a paycheck from a public resource in a resident only area.

This isn't about not allowing residents on private land to disturb deer. This is about giving people a handout.


Region 8 is for bear tags in the North Okanagan I believe.

You are right. Killing a buck will not solve a agriculture/wildlife problem but if the landowner and the outfitter can work out a monetary deal for the privilege of hunting on private land some of the pain of loss of hay/forage is compensated for. There is no handout here for the landowner as any token amount that might come from an outfitter is far short of what some producers are having in crop losses to feed the publics wildlife. At one time Jeff Morgan was advocating a program similar to Colorados " Ranching for Wildlife". This would have eliminated the outfitter as the landowner would have been given wildlife tags/permits to do what he liked with. He could sell, give or throw away. Under this scenario resident access would have been granted on the private land as well. All around everyone would win.

[one-shot-wonder]

The perks of having someone in high places. How did this leaked out? Baffles me why resident hunters would attend GO annual banquet's looking for handouts.

Keep pushing the back door deals......one day the apathy of residents in this province will give! Just about the same time GO's will be needing them most. The elected officials/politicians will drop the Non-resident program the second they start to really feel heat from the ballot holders. Be careful what you wish for....

[GoatGuy]

You are right. Killing a buck will not solve a agriculture/wildlife problem but if the landowner and the outfitter can work out a monetary deal for the privilege of hunting on private land some of the pain of loss of hay/forage is compensated for. There is no handout here for the landowner as any token amount that might come from an outfitter is far short of what some producers are having in crop losses to feed the publics wildlife. At one time Jeff Morgan was advocating a program similar to Colorados " Ranching for Wildlife". This would have eliminated the outfitter as the landowner would have been given wildlife tags/permits to do what he liked with. He could sell, give or throw away. Under this scenario resident access would have been granted on the private land as well. All around everyone would win.

We are being told there is an agricultural conflict problem. Giving an outfitter a mule deer buck tag in a resident only area does not solve that problem. If the farmer's problem is crop loss then the conflict should be reduced. Handouts do not solve this problem.

There are a thousand alternative solutions that could be exercised besides the one chosen.

This isn't a complicated issue.

[bearvalley]

We are being told there is an agricultural conflict problem. Giving an outfitter a mule deer buck tag in a resident only area does not solve that problem. If the farmer's problem is crop loss then the conflict should be reduced. Handouts do not solve this problem.

There are a thousand alternative solutions that could be exercised besides the one chosen.

This isn't a complicated issue.

The solutions not as easy as you think. When you're working with wildlife managers, landowners, outfitters, FN's, does that are on LEH and a wildcard un- hunt able elk population you have a real challenge. I'll see that you have a seat at the table so you can enlighten us on the simple fix.
Seeing as how the un-allocated guiding area( or resident only area) is checker boarded with agricultural land ( in Region 5) I don't see where it's a big issue if a landowner works with an outfitter on private deeded land to harvest a buck deer. Not on lease or crown range. Just privately owned land.
But then we could go the route of a major doe deer and cow elk reduction program in agriculture conflict areas. To be done by FN's on private landowners property under the guidance of our Provincial wildlife managers.The time to do this would be April/May when deer/elk have migrated to ranchers hayfields to get the first spring grass they can find. That would be a solution to the problem but a bitter pill for resident hunters. Wildlife personal have suggested this being done. So what's worse... a rancher and an outfitter letting 1 or 2 bucks generate some revenue in exchange for the landowners loss of feed......or 25 doe deer and 10 cow elk going home in the back of half a dozen pickups weekend after weekend.

[GoatGuy]

The solutions not as easy as you think. When you're working with wildlife managers, landowners, outfitters, FN's, does that are on LEH and a wildcard un- hunt able elk population you have a real challenge. I'll see that you have a seat at the table so you can enlighten us on the simple fix.
Seeing as how the un-allocated guiding area( or resident only area) is checker boarded with agricultural land ( in Region 5) I don't see where it's a big issue if a landowner works with an outfitter on private deeded land to harvest a buck deer. Not on lease or crown range. Just privately owned land.
But then we could go the route of a major doe deer and cow elk reduction program in agriculture conflict areas. To be done by FN's on private landowners property under the guidance of our Provincial wildlife managers.The time to do this would be April/May when deer/elk have migrated to ranchers hayfields to get the first spring grass they can find. That would be a solution to the problem but a bitter pill for resident hunters. Wildlife personal have suggested this being done. So what's worse... a rancher and an outfitter letting 1 or 2 bucks generate some revenue in exchange for the landowners loss of feed......or 25 doe deer and 10 cow elk going home in the back of half a dozen pickups weekend after weekend.

Do you really want to get in to this recognizing you've contradicted yourself at least 4 times in this post alone?

You are inferring these deer populations are too high and farmers are suffering loses, but you are justifying compensation through backdoor deals outside of policy which has nothing to do with managing deer populations. For some reason I thought farmers received compensation for depredation? Secondly, I also though wildlife was a public resource - I wasn't aware it was owned by a farmer or guide-outfitter, particularly one who never paid for the right to access that resource.

You are inferring there are too many deer, and that these deer would never be accessed by resident hunters and that they live exclusively on private land, but in the next sentence you suggest that a cull would be wildly upsetting to resident hunters. If these deer are un-hunted why would they care if the deer are culled? Why would it matter to anyone if no one could ever hunt them?

You are inferring that migratory deer/elk should be reduced, but before that you state that the area is all agricultural land. So, which is it? Are they migratory or homesteaders? If they are migratory, sorry, no the province generally doesn't have culls for migratory populations? Secondly, last time we all heard the migratory mule deer in the cariboo had been devastated and widespread change was required to manage the harvest. That was in 2010 and now there are too many migratory deer? Which is it?

You are inferring resident hunters cannot access this property with an LEH which is the CHOICE of the landowner. You are also inferring the outfitter is the only person in the world who can access that property - not the public's problem to solve. There is nothing stopping the landowner from charging resident hunters to access the property to hunt 'big bucks' or allowing them on his property with an LEH. There are several landowners and ranches in the cariboo which allow resident hunters on their land to reduce depredation (in the real context, not the fiction created by those involved). Same goes for the Peace and oddly enough these people all still manage to make a living.

As it is not part of the area, you missed the fact that the outfitter never paid the province to operate in that area. So the outfitter got a break and the taxpayer got ripped off as the owner of the resource. That is called a free ride. Generally speaking the public does not look upon free riders in a positive light. Everybody should pay their way.


The interesting part about this is it was for one landowner and one outfitter in the entire region. It really makes you wonder what makes this situation so special.

Anyways, this all comes back to the fact the outfitter and landowner wanted to make an easy buck off of a public resource. It isn't about damages, disturbance, depredation, it's about a handout. Staff tried to cover it up as a management hunt to reduce agricultural conflict when it was a handout - no surprise in Region 5. I would imagine that outfitter will be happy to give up a moose tag in exchange for the mule deer handout - right? I'm sure this will be cancelled as the entire thing wreaks of backdoor deals and lack of support through policy.

Interestingly enough, it seems some the outfitters in Region 5 are ticked off because the guys being given 70(1)B permits have been over-harvesting resident only areas. It is nice to see some outfitters who have a conservation ethic ingrained in them. Oppositely, it says something about the complete lack of ethics associated with some of the permits holders when outfitters are concerned with wildlife populations in resident only areas. Shows a genuine disregard for wildlife conservation. I am surprised you aren't concerned about how this has been managed and the people who are apparently over-harvesting wildlife populations and impacting residents in resident only areas. You can be certain if the shoe was on the other foot, and resident hunters were over-harvesting wildlife populations there would be a pile of squawking going on from the outfitter in the area. Or if an outfitter caught someone else guiding in their area.


Feel free to rationalize how bobcat tags, cougar or black bear in resident only area have anything to do with something other than a handout and a free ride as well.


This is a joke. Outfitters pay for the right to exclusive rights to guide non-residents in their area, not in a resident only area or someone else's area. They don't get to reach into someone else's pocket and pull wildlife out of it when they've never paid for that right.

I am surprised you aren't concerned with this as the lack of conservation ethic reflects poorly on hunters and even more so on the industry and secondly because you keep telling us we're all supposed to get along. The best way to make more money is to work for it, not to take it out of your buddies wallet.

[bearvalley]

Like I said before GG a seat can be saved for you at the table when wildlife/agriculture conflicts in Region 5 are being discussed. You might learn something and I'm sure we will from you.
As to migratory wildlife that's exactly what I meant... From the surrounding area straight to the nearest hayfeild.
As to compensation for crop loss... It's highly inadequate for the damage some ranchers are getting.
Even if a hand full of LEH tags are given for doe deer what's the solution for the habituated elk in Region 5 that at this time are untouchable.
Did I endorse bobcats, cougars or bear being hunted in non allocated areas? No, not at all. Anyways I will leave this with you to twist as you see fit.

[Alpine Addict]

Or get off your ass and start hunting bears, wolfs , cougars if the resident aren't hunting them well good on the GO for stepping up to the plate and taking a out a few pred's .
Fire up the popcorn machine

We'll said.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

"As it is not part of the area, you missed the fact that the outfitter never paid the province to operate in that area. So the outfitter got a break and the taxpayer got ripped off as the owner of the resource. That is called a free ride. Generally speaking the public does not look upon free riders in a positive light. Everybody should pay their way."

The outfitter pays for the permit $150, the hunter pays for a license$180 tag $125 and then a royalty is payed for the deer again $125. You need to get all the facts straight before you start spouting off.
That heard about that permit and it was given to an outfitter who only has moose in his area and wanted to take hunters on his own land where he has a deer problem. This money would never of came to the province if it wasn't for that permit.

There is a reason why some ranchers don't let residents hunt on their land. Shot up irragation pipes for one, a main reason why the local ranchers quite allowing residents to hunt on their land around here.

[BULLNUTTS]

I can understand all the reasons landowners have with "general public" entering their lands as I have experienced it myself both as a hunter and as landowner.However I can also recall great areas such as southern alberta 30 yrs ago when you could access most of the forest reserve back country and hunt leases[with permitions],-now amost alllll that lands is tied up in deals with GO's restricting any public access to private,leased or crossing to gain access to crown lands and reserves behind.The point with "selling" wild game harvest by land owners to GO,s is that the game being sold belongs to the crown and all residents whether its private land or not- otherwise lets just start game farms and put up the high fences.If there is a problem with crop damage and insurance claims due to that, Perhaps then have a registered resident hunters program that landowners can access to have numbers reduced with gov aproval on the numbers to be taken,not just setting up a private hunting area with a GO.The facts are what they are and history of the way things will progress are proven.It should'nt be allowed to be just about the money,as it is now,but instead proper management of our game[which we dont have now]and yes for residents first.I love BC and the vast oppertunities we have but those are being hacked and chopped and slashed at every turn it seems.I agree with trying to gain control but also somehow with the offering positive solutions of obvious benifits as I think little else will stop the aquiring of "free money" within our current lack of total game managment system we now have.

[GoatGuy]

"As it is not part of the area, you missed the fact that the outfitter never paid the province to operate in that area. So the outfitter got a break and the taxpayer got ripped off as the owner of the resource. That is called a free ride. Generally speaking the public does not look upon free riders in a positive light. Everybody should pay their way."

The outfitter pays for the permit $150, the hunter pays for a license$180 tag $125 and then a royalty is payed for the deer again $125. You need to get all the facts straight before you start spouting off.
That heard about that permit and it was given to an outfitter who only has moose in his area and wanted to take hunters on his own land where he has a deer problem. This money would never of came to the province if it wasn't for that permit.

There is a reason why some ranchers don't let residents hunt on their land. Shot up irragation pipes for one, a main reason why the local ranchers quite allowing residents to hunt on their land around here.

The whole point of buying an outfit in BC is to have exclusive rights to guide non-residents in that area. You have the right to operate in that area. If you haven't bought a territory you are free riding.

It is just like buying a house - after you purchase it, you own it and it gives you the right to live in it. Just paying for the electricity and water bill does not give you the right to live in it - that would be a handout or a subsidy. If the person who owned the house didn't know you were living in it and you didn't ask that would certainly make it worse. $150 for a permit, or $150,000 for an outfit - there is a not so subtle difference.

One buck on private land is solving/helping/preventing a "deer problem?" That is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. This isn't about deer, it's about making a $ of a public resource through a backdoor deal. This is a handout - people making a living off something they didn't pay for and don't own. 70(1)B permits were built so that outfitters could help acheive management outcomes for predators ONCE all regulatory changes had been attempted for residents in resident only areas. You seem to be under the impression wildlife is somehow owned by a rancher or an outfitter who has not purchased the right to guide in that area - I hate to break it to you, that isn't how it works.

Try to rationalize it however you want. The outfitter hasn't bought the tenure, doesn't own the right to operate in that area, and is earning a subsidized living off the taxpayer of BC - the same goes for the rancher. This is a handout which isn't supported by policy or tenure rights. Generally speaking the public doesn't like it when people receive benefit from something they never paid for.

Shooting a mule deer buck to manage agricultural conflict - good one.

[Foxton Gundogs]

There's an old saying. "We can hang together or we can hang separately" The time has come as resident hunters to hang together, be you bow, road, pack in, spot and stock, blind or what ever type of hunter. If you treasure your cultural and hereditary right to hunt and fish and enjoy the great out doors then DO NOT post in this thread. Instead take 1/2 the energy that it takes to post and write a well worded letter to your MLA, the minister in charge and the Premier voicing your strong opposition to this highly prejudicial act, and demand resident hunters be given equal representation and an advocate be appointed immediately to loby and look out for our rights as hunters and taxpaying voters of this province. The GOs have no where near our numbers, what they do is have better organization and it's time to put an end to that. Do it NOW protect your rights or there will nothing left to fight for.
https://www.leg.bc.ca/mla/3-1-7.htm

[bearvalley]

"As it is not part of the area, you missed the fact that the outfitter never paid the province to operate in that area. So the outfitter got a break and the taxpayer got ripped off as the owner of the resource. That is called a free ride. Generally speaking the public does not look upon free riders in a positive light. Everybody should pay their way."

The outfitter pays for the permit $150, the hunter pays for a license$180 tag $125 and then a royalty is payed for the deer again $125. You need to get all the facts straight before you start spouting off.
That heard about that permit and it was given to an outfitter who only has moose in his area and wanted to take hunters on his own land where he has a deer problem. This money would never of came to the province if it wasn't for that permit.

There is a reason why some ranchers don't let residents hunt on their land. Shot up irragation pipes for one, a main reason why the local ranchers quite allowing residents to hunt on their land around here.

That's a pretty simple fix on how a land owner with a agriculture/wildlife issue can receive compensation without having a hand in the Provincial/Federal cookie jar. In the case of the mule deer where the landowner and outfitter is under the same hat it is a winning situation. Compensation for wildlife damage was created and not a nickel out of the tax payers pocket. I didn't want to go into the specifics and no GG, I did not get the mule deer permit.
While we are on the topic of agriculture/ wildlife conflict issues the floor is open for anyone's thoughts on how to deal with the elk issue in Region 5. Sure was interesting to watch the wildlife crew net gun and collar elk last week. It went to prove how habituated and unwild these elk have become. One cow elk was netted in the middle of my hayfield and while the crew landed the helicopter and put on the collar the rest of her buddies continued eating hay with my string of pack horses appr 250 yards away.
And no GG, there is very little compensation paid to producers for wildlife damage. You pay a annual premium to be on the Crop Insurance Program which covers standing crop loss to ungulates. This works on a crop yield yearly average therefor as wildlife numbers go up and crop loss increases the ranchers production yield average goes down until eventually he receives less than his premium paid. There is no compensation paid for wildlife that eats hay on the feed ground with livestock. In my case: $2700 premium paid...$2770 check received from crop insurance/ wildlife damage. A $70 windfall doesn't go to far when your feeding elk and deer every day. You can bet your A$$ GG that if and when there is ever an open season on elk in Region 5 that I will be asking for a permit to hunt one right along side with the guys that draw an LEH, my outfitter neighbour and the FN's hunters. Seeing as to how it has been acknowledged in Region 5 that I'm one of 3 producers that has been majorly affected by these habituated elk I think I've paid for and earned the right for one of these permits while yours is handed to you if you get lucky in an LEH draw. In the case of the Mule deer permit I would have to say that Rodger Stewart and his crew have maybe started to think of solutions out of the box. As for cougars, bears and wolves I could care less who hunts them in a non tenured guide area. As the Region 5 "resident only"area runs from 100 mile to north of Quesnel taking in the majority of the areas residential and agricultural holdings I would think that any predator reduction here would be a bonus other than in the case of cougars that can be over harvested as they are concentrated in the wildlife wintering grounds.
It's no wonder ranchers, outfitters and BCWF ( resident hunters) are always grabbing for each other's throats when they get caught up in one sided misinformed interpretations.

[horshur]

instead of writing a letter half cocked I would suggest getting both sides first....

what bearvalley illuded to happens and it does not benefit residents.....local couple here have at times 120 mulies in their fields they opening allow hunting but you all know from Goats ranting's buck hunting does not effect populations there is no practical way for them to deal with the numbers..couple this with being near a residential area a she cougar supplements her deer diet with housecats taken off the back porch when she tires of them back across the road...it is actually a public safety issue and so the only logical recourse is to do what bearvalley suggest and have first nations shoot Does until the numbers are acceptable....

to me resident hunters are indebted to many larger landholders for they supplement wildlife populations.....we have better hunting because of ranchers....

[LBM]

Some interesting stuff here. First I am against these permits being issued how it was done and am only talking of the region 4 stuff.
Although don't agree with it, you cant really throw the blame on the guide outfitter. IMO the main cause of this is the residents and groups that supported the caribou recovery program, and keep bring predators up as the problem. The whole thing seems to be a waste of money that could have been used better else where. If Im reading it right it says residents an GO generally indicated that we should target the harvest of predator populations in this region. As already stated residents already do hunt the cats and bears in the area . From what I have heard of the limited studys in the areas the cougar population is not as high as many are saying any way or a large part of the problem. The wolf numbers were not as high as indicated from what I have heard either. Nobody to blame but yourselves, the GO just took advantage of an opportunity that you provided for them.

[GoatGuy]

That's a pretty simple fix on how a land owner with a agriculture/wildlife issue can receive compensation without having a hand in the Provincial/Federal cookie jar. In the case of the mule deer where the landowner and outfitter is under the same hat it is a winning situation. Compensation for wildlife damage was created and not a nickel out of the tax payers pocket. I didn't want to go into the specifics and no GG, I did not get the mule deer permit.
While we are on the topic of agriculture/ wildlife conflict issues the floor is open for anyone's thoughts on how to deal with the elk issue in Region 5. Sure was interesting to watch the wildlife crew net gun and collar elk last week. It went to prove how habituated and unwild these elk have become. One cow elk was netted in the middle of my hayfield and while the crew landed the helicopter and put on the collar the rest of her buddies continued eating hay with my string of pack horses appr 250 yards away.
And no GG, there is very little compensation paid to producers for wildlife damage. You pay a annual premium to be on the Crop Insurance Program which covers standing crop loss to ungulates. This works on a crop yield yearly average therefor as wildlife numbers go up and crop loss increases the ranchers production yield average goes down until eventually he receives less than his premium paid. There is no compensation paid for wildlife that eats hay on the feed ground with livestock. In my case: $2700 premium paid...$2770 check received from crop insurance/ wildlife damage. A $70 windfall doesn't go to far when your feeding elk and deer every day. You can bet your A$$ GG that if and when there is ever an open season on elk in Region 5 that I will be asking for a permit to hunt one right along side with the guys that draw an LEH, my outfitter neighbour and the FN's hunters. Seeing as to how it has been acknowledged in Region 5 that I'm one of 3 producers that has been majorly affected by these habituated elk I think I've paid for and earned the right for one of these permits while yours is handed to you if you get lucky in an LEH draw. In the case of the Mule deer permit I would have to say that maybe Rodger Stewart and his crew have maybe started to think of solutions out of the box. As for cougars, bears and wolves I could care less who hunts them in a non allocated guide area. As the Region 5 resident only area runs from 100 mile to north of Quesnel taking in the majority of the areas residential and agricultural holdings I would think that any predator reduction here would be a bonus other than in the case of cougars that can be over harvested as they are concentrated in the wildlife wintering grounds.
It's no wonder ranchers, outfitters and BCWF ( resident hunters) are always grabbing for each other's throats when they get caught up in one sided misinformed interpretations.

In this case the outfitter/landowner actually has his hand in three cookie jars. Federal, provincial and resident hunters without paying. Too funny, it's never enough, and it's all about money.

If these permits had any form of legitimacy everyone would have known about it, but they all went through the backdoor. No one other than the outfitters who received the handout and ministry staff knew about them. I'm sure that was done with intent. Same way quota used to be handed out in that region - all through the backdoor.

I would imagine if government decided to take one of your grizz tags and give them to a resident hunter you would expect them to notify you of that right? Or is it ok to simply take wildlife from someone else?

Especially like the bobcat permit - because bobcats are a limiting predator on ungulate populations. In the case of cougars, the science shows the target should be females and young toms if you are trying to limit and manage the populations - quite certain those are not the animals being targeted. It is all about big toms, even the collared ones like the outfitter in kimberley shot after being told not to shoot it. So again, it's simply another handout that will do nothing for ungulate populations - but everything to line someone's pockets who never paid to access that resource.

The same goes for bears. Fail to understand how shooting a couple of old boars does anything to increase ungulate populations - only thing it does is gives another handout for someone who never paid to access that resource. Oddly enough no one ever tried to increase resident harvest in resident only areas. Instead they just handed out tags to a couple outfitters so they could make a quick buck. This is all about money - has nothing to do with wildlife, conservation or managing predators.

Funny how you try to rationalize it when there is no support for what you're suggesting in science. If it isn't about science, conservation, research that leaves us with................. MONEY!

Hate to break it to you but feeding wildlife does not mean you own it. There are thousands of solutions to agricultural conflict which don't entail backdoor deals and trying to reach into someone else's wallet. If you work in an open and transparent manner you'll come to a much better outcome rather than to go through the back door - most people frown upon that approach. You refer to the provincial agricultural program which was disbanded - you should do your homework and find out who and why that program was sandbagged.

I'm sure these permits will be stopped. Looks like somebody opened the closest and the skeletons are falling out. Reflects extremely poorly on those involved - no one likes backdoor deals.

Definitely some interesting perspectives here. Always interested how people rationalize and justify living off of backdoor deals, handouts and resources which they've never paid to access. Unconscionable in my opinion, but there are always people who are willing to make it the easy away and take advantage of others as much as they possibly can. With friends like that who needs enemies.

[GoatGuy]

instead of writing a letter half cocked I would suggest getting both sides first....

what bearvalley illuded to happens and it does not benefit residents.....local couple here have at times 120 mulies in their fields they opening allow hunting but you all know from Goats ranting's buck hunting does not effect populations there is no practical way for them to deal with the numbers..couple this with being near a residential area a she cougar supplements her deer diet with housecats taken off the back porch when she tires of them back across the road...it is actually a public safety issue and so the only logical recourse is to do what bearvalley suggest and have first nations shoot Does until the numbers are acceptable....

to me resident hunters are indebted to many larger landholders for they supplement wildlife populations.....we have better hunting because of ranchers....

There was a provincial program for agricultural conflict a few years ago that was sandbagged.

There are solutions to this problem that occur all over North America that are good for wildlife, hunters and ranchers.

None of them entail backdoor deals.

[GoatGuy]

Some interesting stuff here. First I am against these permits being issued how it was done and am only talking of the region 4 stuff.
Although don't agree with it, you cant really throw the blame on the guide outfitter. IMO the main cause of this is the residents and groups that supported the caribou recovery program, and keep bring predators up as the problem. The whole thing seems to be a waste of money that could have been used better else where. If Im reading it right it says residents an GO generally indicated that we should target the harvest of predator populations in this region. As already stated residents already do hunt the cats and bears in the area . From what I have heard of the limited studys in the areas the cougar population is not as high as many are saying any way or a large part of the problem. The wolf numbers were not as high as indicated from what I have heard either. Nobody to blame but yourselves, the GO just took advantage of an opportunity that you provided for them.

There were permits in Region 4 were issued outside of the caribou recovery zone.

If the objective was to increase cougar harvest in caribou recovery zones the bag limit would have been increased to two, as was asked by the West Kootenay Outdoorsmen every year for the past 15 years. Those requests were turned down.

This is a handout for outfitters - it is all about money. Staff even acknowledge that.

[LBM]

There were permits in Region 4 were issued outside of the caribou recovery zone.

If the objective was to increase cougar harvest in caribou recovery zones the bag limit would have been increased to two, as was asked by the West Kootenay Outdoorsmen every year for the past 15 years. Those requests were turned down.

This is a handout for outfitters - it is all about money. Staff even acknowledge that.

Not sure if the papers you posted mean each individual permit, if so there was 4 in the caribou recovery zone and 2 in other for cougar in region 4.
With a quick look at the harvest data it shows that the residents harvest was higher in 6 of the 8 MUs mentioned in your paper other then 2 which were 4-18 and 4-30.
I think there was a couple guys saying good for the outfitters for hunting the predators if the residents wont well these numbers kind of contradict that showing that the residents
are hunting these areas.
It would be interesting to see what the reasoning for the permits in 4-22 was and what outfitter they went to and if the others in the recovery zone all went to the same outfitter.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

instead of writing a letter half cocked I would suggest getting both sides first....

what bearvalley illuded to happens and it does not benefit residents.....local couple here have at times 120 mulies in their fields they opening allow hunting but you all know from Goats ranting's buck hunting does not effect populations there is no practical way for them to deal with the numbers..couple this with being near a residential area a she cougar supplements her deer diet with housecats taken off the back porch when she tires of them back across the road...it is actually a public safety issue and so the only logical recourse is to do what bearvalley suggest and have first nations shoot Does until the numbers are acceptable....

to me resident hunters are indebted to many larger landholders for they supplement wildlife populations.....we have better hunting because of ranchers....

Well said Horshur

[bridger]

Well said Horshur

Cut it anyway you like it still stinks. Backdoor deals are backdoor deals. This is a new low from the goabc and a couple of user friendly regional managers.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Cut it anyway you like it still stinks. Backdoor deals are backdoor deals. This is a new low from the goabc and a couple of user friendly regional managers.

Bridger, I have no idea what you are talking about. These permits have been around for a long time atleast 10 years perhaps more. In far out places like where I live these permits are great for predator management. To far for most residents to go for black bear and wolves and no where to stay for the cougar hunters in the winter. I am the only guy around here that actively pursues cougar, lynx wolves and bears. Mamgement of preds are must if we want good ungulate hunting. You of all people realize that. The muledeer permit was a strange one, but I have had heard that it won't happen again.

[bridger]

[QUOTE=chilcotin hillbilly;1484647]Bridger, I have no idea what you are talking about. These permits have been around for a long time atleast 10 years perhaps more. In far out places like where I live these permits are great for predator management. To far for most residents to go for black bear and wolves and no where to stay for the cougar hunters in the winter. I am the only guy around here that actively pursues cougar, lynx wolves and bears. Mamgement of preds are must if we want good ungulate hunting. You of all people realize that. The muledeer permit was a strange one, but I have had heard that it won't

That could be true, but the trouble with back door deals is that you never know where they are going to lead and are open to abuse. If there are legitimate concerns then go through the front door it is much easier for all concerned. A lot of the bad relations between residents and outfitters over the years have been spawned by back room deals with a couple of regional managers.

[GoatGuy]

Bridger, I have no idea what you are talking about. These permits have been around for a long time atleast 10 years perhaps more. In far out places like where I live these permits are great for predator management. To far for most residents to go for black bear and wolves and no where to stay for the cougar hunters in the winter. I am the only guy around here that actively pursues cougar, lynx wolves and bears. Mamgement of preds are must if we want good ungulate hunting. You of all people realize that. The muledeer permit was a strange one, but I have had heard that it won't happen again.

To see a response in ungulate populations you have to harvest a minimum of 70% of the wolf population every year.

To see a response in ungulate populations you have to harvest a minimum of 15-20% of black bears - particularly young animals and especially sows. Not the old boars that are guided.

To see a response in ungulate populations you have to harvest a minimum of about 20% of females and significantly more than that of males. The target should be on females and young toms - not mature toms.

Lynx are not a limiting factor for ungulates.


If the objective was to reduce predator populations people would get free black bear tags and cougar tags with their deer tags so they could shoot them during the regular hunting season the same as they have done in Washington state. That isn't happening: why? It is abundantly clear this isn't about reducing predator populations for ungulates.

Bottom line is IF you aren't achieving these kinds of harvest rates where you hunt you aren't doing anything for ungulates. You actually will not see any response in the ungulate populations. So this has nothing to do with good ungulate hunting.

If you aren't doing anything for ungulates you are doing something for MONEY.

Please refrain from the BS.

[cassiarkid]

I have to hand it to everybody that has posted, usually it ends up people bashing each other, but so far we have some great discussions, koodoo's to everyone!

[LBM]

Bridger, I have no idea what you are talking about. These permits have been around for a long time atleast 10 years perhaps more. In far out places like where I live these permits are great for predator management. To far for most residents to go for black bear and wolves and no where to stay for the cougar hunters in the winter. I am the only guy around here that actively pursues cougar, lynx wolves and bears. Mamgement of preds are must if we want good ungulate hunting. You of all people realize that. The muledeer permit was a strange one, but I have had heard that it won't happen again.
This is a bit off topic and does hurt to agree with GG on something but as he says please refrain from the BS.
For you to talk about the management of predators for good ungulate hunting is quite funny with what you post on other sites.
You have attacked people on this site and others for the size and sex of the cats they have shot. You then post that the regional manager asked you this past year to thin out cats for management of the population was a concern . You had clients that were willing to take a female but you could never find a mature female that was with out kittens.
So then a male comes along that you suspect is killing kittens so you decide to take it out yourself and harvest it. IMO that is contradicting what you say about management. I realize as an outfitter the animals are a dollar figure to you but to say these permits are great for predator management is a joke and a misuse weather given freely or through back door dealings IMO.

[Confused]

Resident only areas are areas that have been set aside for high resident use to help balance out allocations. They are also known as untenured or vacant areas.


As far as I can see there is no such thing as a "resident hunting only area" , there is nothing in the regulations or act that says this. There might be areas that don't have a tenured guide , but non residents can certainly hunt those, i.e. thru PTA or small game licenses. To call them as such I think has more to do with stirring the pot than anything else. Those permits have been around for probably 30 years...someone kills 1 mule deer on one and now the sky is falling???

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Really GG where do you get you facts, I actually get out and hunt all the mentioned critters. With a 6-8 wolves shot or trapped each year and a couple other locals doing the same we have noticed an increase in deer the past 3 years and a few more moose each year as well.
The fawn survival rate has more then doubled here since a few some huge old boars black bears were taken out of the valley bottom.
Cougars are a different story and some females need to be taken your right. Unfortunately too many female cougars are killed without checking first for kitten. I never have any problem taking young toms as they tend to move areas between 2 and 3 years old. Taking dominate toms do have an effect on populations as some will kill every kitten in his range if given the chance.

The difference between the biologists and myself is I am actually out there 250 plus days ayear. What i witness might only be localized but it is atleast accurate compared to the modeling the biologists use.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

As far as I can see there is no such thing as a "resident hunting only area" , there is nothing in the regulations or act that says this. There might be areas that don't have a tenured guide , but non residents can certainly hunt those, i.e. thru PTA or small game licenses. To call them as such I think has more to do with stirring the pot than anything else. Those permits have been around for probably 30 years...someone kills 1 mule deer on one and now the sky is falling???

Great point, Confused

[Snowpatrol]

Another fine GG outfitter bash session. Excellent.

As soon as he figures out that outfitters raise more money toward conservation than any resident hunters will ever raise.. The better off this site will be.

GG.. You apparently don't hunt to many Bobcats.. As I have personally picked up a number of dead muley buck off of a bobcat kill. So to say bobcat don't kill deer you are miss informed. These permits that are so bad... Do you realize that outfitters also pay ranchers within their designated areas ??? Its called a trespass fee.. Within area or not.. It isn't going to change your life any. Great stats from your desk tho.. As soon as you put all your energy into working with the outfitters instead of working against them and the biologists the better the sport is going to be for all of us.... but you'll never get that.. Sounds like you are either jealous that you aren't an outfitter or have the hate on for one of them in this wonderful province we are able to hunt in...

[GoatGuy]

Another fine GG outfitter bash session. Excellent.

As soon as he figures out that outfitters raise more money toward conservation than any resident hunters will ever raise.. The better off this site will be.

GG.. You apparently don't hunt to many Bobcats.. As I have personally picked up a number of dead muley buck off of a bobcat kill. So to say bobcat don't kill deer you are miss informed. These permits that are so bad... Do you realize that outfitters also pay ranchers within their designated areas ??? Its called a trespass fee.. Within area or not.. It isn't going to change your life any. Great stats from your desk tho.. As soon as you put all your energy into working with the outfitters instead of working against them and the biologists the better the sport is going to be for all of us.... but you'll never get that.. Sounds like you are either jealous that you aren't an outfitter or have the hate on for one of them in this wonderful province we are able to hunt in...

Just because an ungulate is killed by a bobcat does not mean bobcats are a limiting factor. Ungulates can fall cliffs and die - that does not mean cliffs are a limiting factor. The objective through predator management for prey is to see a response in prey populations. You will not see that by removing bobcats or lynx.

No issues with outfitters hunting in the areas they paid for exclusive rights to.

Not too keen on people getting handouts from a public resource that they haven't paid for and are not supposed to get according to policy or their allocation. Not a big fan of backdoor deals.

For example, if an outfitter was supposed to get 30% of the AAH for sheep in an area and that meant two rams annually I totally support that. However, if that outfitter got three in one year when he was supposed to get two and that extra came out of resident hunters pocket I wouldn't support that. Never been a big fan of people who are more than happy to reach into someone else's pocket after a handshake. That integrity thing.

Same with if all outfitters were supposed to get 30% of the AAH I wouldn't be supportive of one outfitter getting 50% and taking 20% out of residents pockets. That isn't fair to the other outfitters or residents.


The rationalization about bobcats is interesting, but unfortunately not supported by science or any wildlife manager. They all think this is a joke.


Worry about your share of wildlife and quit trying to take it from residents.

[GoatGuy]

Really GG where do you get you facts, I actually get out and hunt all the mentioned critters. With a 6-8 wolves shot or trapped each year and a couple other locals doing the same we have noticed an increase in deer the past 3 years and a few more moose each year as well.
The fawn survival rate has more then doubled here since a few some huge old boars black bears were taken out of the valley bottom.
Cougars are a different story and some females need to be taken your right. Unfortunately too many female cougars are killed without checking first for kitten. I never have any problem taking young toms as they tend to move areas between 2 and 3 years old. Taking dominate toms do have an effect on populations as some will kill every kitten in his range if given the chance.

The difference between the biologists and myself is I am actually out there 250 plus days ayear. What i witness might only be localized but it is atleast accurate compared to the modeling the biologists use.

You've illustrated my point.

The difference between biologists and yourself is the biologists are able to GPS collar cougars, bears, deer, elk, moose and sheep and are able to go out and fly the populations, check changes in recruitment and establish minimum thresholds at which a functional response in ungulate populations occur due to predator control.

Predator management for moose, elk, and deer have all occured controlling bear, cougar and wolf populations. Hundreds of collars, millions of dollars and thousands of hours of effort. The results are all conclusive.

This is pretty basic stuff from a wildlife management perspective. If you aren't achieving those thresholds you aren't doing anything. Harvesting a couple old boars isn't a game changer for ungulate populations - sorry.

[GoatGuy]

This is a bit off topic and does hurt to agree with GG on something but as he says please refrain from the BS.
For you to talk about the management of predators for good ungulate hunting is quite funny with what you post on other sites.
You have attacked people on this site and others for the size and sex of the cats they have shot. You then post that the regional manager asked you this past year to thin out cats for management of the population was a concern . You had clients that were willing to take a female but you could never find a mature female that was with out kittens.
So then a male comes along that you suspect is killing kittens so you decide to take it out yourself and harvest it. IMO that is contradicting what you say about management. I realize as an outfitter the animals are a dollar figure to you but to say these permits are great for predator management is a joke and a misuse weather given freely or through back door dealings IMO.

This is pretty typical with self-rationalization - not surprising. People tell themselves something enough times and it becomes reality. Always find it funny when guys who talk about ungulate populations but bag on everyone else for harvesting females and young toms when those are the ones that should be harvested.

This is about money, not management.

[TexasWalker]

GG you can't reason with stubborn old guys that base their opinion only on what they have witnessed,science be damned.

It's no different than antler point restrictions for mule deer.

[GoatGuy]

As far as I can see there is no such thing as a "resident hunting only area" , there is nothing in the regulations or act that says this. There might be areas that don't have a tenured guide , but non residents can certainly hunt those, i.e. thru PTA or small game licenses. To call them as such I think has more to do with stirring the pot than anything else. Those permits have been around for probably 30 years...someone kills 1 mule deer on one and now the sky is falling???

Check the policy on 70(1)b permits and the history of unallocated areas.

[GoatGuy]

GG you can't reason with stubborn old guys that base their opinion only on what they have witnessed,science be damned.

It's no different than antler point restrictions for mule deer.

Hahaha, in this case it isn't about what someone witnessed or science, it's about trying to rationalize how someone got a tag for a resource they never paid for. Seems to be a recurring theme.

If predator populations were a concern for these individuals, they would be fighting to liberalize regulations for predators in these resident only areas, but they don't. They would be harvesting black bear sows in these resident only areas, but they don't. They would be harvesting young bears, but they don't. They would be harvesting young toms and females cougar and passing up the big toms, but they don't. They wouldn't be shooting big toms with GPS collars strapped to their neck after being told not to shoot them.

This is all about skimming the cream off the top. It has nothing to do with predator management or increasing ungulate populations and every biologist and researcher across North America will agree. This is a handout. period.

Money, money, money, money, money, money, money. That is what this is all about.

There is no other way to rationalize this.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

You go back to reading reports, GG, I will go hunting again.
The biologist don't have a clue on cougar populations in my area thats coming from the top. I have the reports also stating there are estimated 25 cougars in my MU, I can tell you there are almost that many kittens this year all between 6 months and 1 1/2 years old.
severl times seeing 9-10 different kitten tracks in a days hunt. That would mean with their best science they are almost off by 100%. Next season i should have a number of females to choose from that won't have kittens and plan on having clients take a few, strictly for management purposes.

[The Hermit]

I'm sure this stuff will be on the agenda and may indeed dominate the April 20 PHATT meeting. One of the problems the TEAM has is that we are consulted AFTER decisions are made so we are always hearing excuses and reasons why decisions were taken and why it would be so much work to undo decisions.

[bridger]

I'm sure this stuff will be on the agenda and may indeed dominate the April 20 PHATT meeting. One of the problems the TEAM has is that we are consulted AFTER decisions are made so we are always hearing excuses and reasons why decisions were taken and why it would be so much work to undo decisions.

sounds like nothing has changed! Lol

[GoatGuy]

You go back to reading reports, GG, I will go hunting again.
The biologist don't have a clue on cougar populations in my area thats coming from the top. I have the reports also stating there are estimated 25 cougars in my MU, I can tell you there are almost that many kittens this year all between 6 months and 1 1/2 years old.
severl times seeing 9-10 different kitten tracks in a days hunt. That would mean with their best science they are almost off by 100%. Next season i should have a number of females to choose from that won't have kittens and plan on having clients take a few, strictly for management purposes.
_____________________________________


Hahahaha, if you were in it for ungulate populations you'd be shooting females and young toms, but I'm guessing that every big tom that hits the tree gets shot. Could be why you're seeing so many kittens. The research is showing those are the ones you should be protecting if your objective is to manage cougars for increases in ungulate populations, particularly mule deer.

If you want to know about the functional response of ungulates from cougar predation there are plenty of researchers who have strapped hundreds of GPS collars to moose, mule deer and cougars.

Mark Hurley, Hugh Robinson, Hillary Cooley, Rob Wielgus are all easy people to find. Feel free to call them.

Here's an old one:

http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/4-Effects%20of%20WhiteTailed....pdf


Don't want to deflate your perception but a couple dozen GPS collars and a researcher checking kill sites and movements, doing inventory work provides more data in a month than a person who's "been out there all their life". It's a simple game of odds.


Still surprised you're trying to dress this up as doing resident hunters a favour and for ungulate populations in resident only areas. If the objective was to reduce predators for ungulates the outfitters involved would be taking a much different approach both in resident only areas and in their own areas. People would be looking to liberalize seasons, bag limits, and reduce license fees - NO ONE IS DOING THAT. Last time we dealt with trying to increase trapper harvest on black bears it was a huge issue and several outfitters were OPPOSED TO IT. If the objective was to reduce black bears there would have been overwhelming support for the trapping community - THERE WASN'T. If outfitters wanted to reduce predator populations in resident only areas they would have asked resident hunter reps - THEY DIDN'T.

This has been going on behind closed doors. I'm sure all those involved knew how this would turn out, that's why it was kept quiet for so long.

This is all about money. You can try to dress it up, but the arguments are so flawed and contradictory it's unbelievable. You won't find a respected biologist or researcher anyhwere in the world that will say you are increasing ungulate populations through a marginal harvest of toms and boars. You are cherry picking to make money.

Own it.

[markomoose]

A question for you Chilcotin Hillbilly?How often do wildlife biologist contact you?Do they value your opinion on game numbers?What you see in the field?Don't get your hackles up I agree with everything you stated!I'm just curious.

Mark

[TexasWalker]

A question for you Chilcotin Hillbilly?How often do wildlife biologist contact you?Do they value your opinion on game numbers?What you see in the field?Don't get your hackles up I agree with everything you stated!I'm just curious.

Mark

Bio's getting game numbers from a GO?

That's rich!!

[chilcotin hillbilly]

You need to get out from behind your desk GG, The word i used a few posts back was localized. I rarely get a chance to hunt out of my area anymore as I am to busy guiding.
I never said i effected the overall populations of ungulates but have noticed a difference in the local herds.

I don't believe I ever said i was hunting preds for the ungulates I am hunting predators because I love it. Any chump with a dog can catch lion they are the easiest animals to catch. Hunting for trophy class cougars is the challenge and of course it is what trophy hunters look for.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

A question for you Chilcotin Hillbilly?How often do wildlife biologist contact you?Do they value your opinion on game numbers?What you see in the field?Don't get your hackles up I agree with everything you stated!I'm just curious.

Mark

Just when i am in getting CI done on cats, 4 or 5 time a year.
They do seem to value opinions as there is no money for studies. Most questions are about cow and calf moose sitings, fawn survival and how many wolves I am seeing sign of.

[bridger]

Just when i am in getting CI done on cats, 4 or 5 time a year.
They do seem to value opinions as there is no money for studies. Most questions are about cow and calf moose sitings, fawn survival and how many wolves I am seeing sign of.

Biologists should give some creedence to field observations from experienced outfitters and resident hunters, but this thread isn't about that. It's about permits given out the back door to outfitters to guide in nonallocated areas, and the perception that it is being done to benefit resident hunters and ungulate populations. My experience tells me goat guy is right on when he says it's all about the money. You can put lipstick on a pig, but at the end of the day you still have a pig.

[longwalk]

I think outfitter/ landowner side deals are more common than we realize. Kilback in Region 8 seems to have a few going.

[Apolonius]

If it was up to the outfitters,there wouldn't be any resident hunting.As to the guy that said they give more to conservation than residents ….now thats funny.And goat guy,right on.Give it to them.The truth hurts.And i think ….they hate you now.

[Apolonius]

If it was up to the outfitters,there wouldn't be any resident hunting.As to the guy that said they give more to conservation than residents ….now thats funny.And goat guy,right on.Give it to them.The truth hurts.And i think ….they hate you now.

[bearvalley]

Biologists should give some creedence to field observations from experienced outfitters and resident hunters, but this thread isn't about that. It's about permits given out the back door to outfitters to guide in nonallocated areas, and the perception that it is being done to benefit resident hunters and ungulate populations. My experience tells me goat guy is right on when he says it's all about the money. You can put lipstick on a pig, but at the end of the day you still have a pig.

You're right. It's all about the money as Goat Guy stated numerous times. It's all about back door deals and another guys hand always in another's wallet. In the case of the Mule deer buck an Outfitter who was also the landowner suffering feed losses to ungulates, an opportunity was given to put some lost cash back in his pocket.
As to the other permits they should probably be looked at case by case, not just lumped as one. Chilcotin hillbillys permit to take a couple of old boars does more to increase wildlife population in his area than demanding another study that most likely will never get past the study phase.
I to would like to know where GG gets some of his information he tries to pass of as fact. I agree that education is a powerful tool, but misinformation is a dangerous one.
Getting back to the "MONEY" : Goat Guy, when and how are you going to pay "YOUR"portion of "MY"feed bill for "OUR"wildlife.
What end of the pig Bridger.... north or south?

[Clint_S]

Now it's lions/bears to save caribou (ha ha ha ha ha ha).
Next it's bull elk because landowners complain (equally stupid but the politicians bought the last one so why not).
Then it's grizz because numbers are up and harvest down (I know it's a stretch but if I grease the right palms it's a done deal).

$$$$$$$$$$$$

[bridger]

You're right. It's all about the money as Goat Guy stated numerous times. It's all about back door deals and another guys hand always in another's wallet. In the case of the Mule deer buck an Outfitter who was also the landowner suffering feed losses to ungulates, an opportunity was given to put some lost cash back in his pocket.
As to the other permits they should probably be looked at case by case, not just lumped as one. Chilcotin hillbillys permit to take a couple of old boars does more to increase wildlife population in his area than demanding another study that most likely will never get past the study phase.
I to would like to know where GG gets some of his information he tries to pass of as fact. I agree that education is a powerful tool, but misinformation is a dangerous one.
Getting back to the "MONEY" : Goat Guy, when and how are you going to pay "YOUR"portion of "MY"feed bill for "OUR"wildlife.
What end of the pig Bridger.... north or south?

depends on whether you are an outfitter or resident.

[GoatGuy]

You're right. It's all about the money as Goat Guy stated numerous times. It's all about back door deals and another guys hand always in another's wallet. In the case of the Mule deer buck an Outfitter who was also the landowner suffering feed losses to ungulates, an opportunity was given to put some lost cash back in his pocket.
As to the other permits they should probably be looked at case by case, not just lumped as one. Chilcotin hillbillys permit to take a couple of old boars does more to increase wildlife population in his area than demanding another study that most likely will never get past the study phase.
I to would like to know where GG gets some of his information he tries to pass of as fact. I agree that education is a powerful tool, but misinformation is a dangerous one.
Getting back to the "MONEY" : Goat Guy, when and how are you going to pay "YOUR"portion of "MY"feed bill for "OUR"wildlife.
What end of the pig Bridger.... north or south?

I can guarantee there is not a functional response in deer or moose by removing a couple of old boars from a bear population. Bear populations are regulated through female harvest, just like everything else.


I do find it funny that shooting a couple black bears is being sold as beneficial to resident hunters. I recall a couple years ago when the BC trappers association wanted to increase opportunities to harvest black bears it was opposed by a couple of southern outfitters. Yes, the same outfitters who have received permits to hunt black bears in resident only areas. And now you're going to tell me it's good for resident hunters????

Anyways, here are a couple of papers on bear control and effects of bear on moose. Plenty more if you want them. Alces is a great place for info:

T.W. KEEGAN, AND J.S. WHITMAN. 1990. Brown and
black bear predation on moose in southcentral Alaska.
Alces 26:1–8.

AND S.D. MILLER. 1990. Effects of reducing brown
bear density on moose calf survival in southcentral Alaska.
Alces 26:9–13.

1992. Bear predation on moose: a review of recent
North American studies and their management implications.
Alces (Supplement) 1:1–15.

BEEMAN, L.E., AND M.R. PELTON. 1980. Seasonal foods and
feeding ecology of black bears in the Smokey Mountains.
International Conference on Bear Research and Management
4:141–147.

Predation of
moose and caribou by radio-collared grizzly bears in east
central Alaska. Canadian Journal of Zoology 66:2492–

H. JOLICOEUR. 1987. Impact of wolf and black
bear removal on cow–calf ratio and moose density in
southwestern Quebec. Alces 23:61–87.

1986. Black bear predation on moose
calves in highly productive versus marginal moose habitats
on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Alces 22:139–153.

STEWART, R.R., E.H. KOWAL, R. BEAULIEU, AND T.W. ROCK.
1985. The impact of black bear removal on moose calf
survival in east-central Saskatchewan. Alces 21:403–418

In terms of compensation and dealing with agricultural conflict the are common solutions used that work for everyone - just has to be a will to make that happen. Going through the backdoor isn't the right approach.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Go a head a stir the put. never have I heard such BS. Not once have I heard an outfitter say we need to get rid of resident hunting. That will never happen and nor would we want it to happen. Most of us are residents hunters and are in the business because we love hunting and the outdoors.

[bearvalley]

I wish the elusive Goat Guy would put fingers to keyboard and enlighten the rest of us morons on the common solution for agriculture/wildlife issues. Or better yet, come up and share some of your personal knowledge. In the meantime any boar bears seen in late May/June that are hanging around where our ( yours and mine and the general publics to be clear) elk calve on my ranch will remain non hunted. In the right year the right boar can reduce the calf percentage here by 30-50%. So until you can share the better plan it looks like that and a FN's cull program are the options we are faced with.
Bridger, I would check out the direction of travel before I picked an end.

[bridger]

[QUOTE=chilcotin hillbilly;1484818]Go a head a stir the put. never have I heard such BS. Not once have I heard an outfitter say we need to get rid of resident hunting. That will never happen and nor would we want it to happen. Most of us are residents hunters and are in the business because we love hunting and the outdoors

In all the years I repped for the Bcwf I never heard an outfitter say we need to get rid of resident hunters. On the other hand heard lots about the need to reduce resident hunting opportunities, the need to reduce resident hunter numbers, never heard an outfitter say he or the goabc supported resident priority, had one well known outfitter tell me, every outfitter should have a couple of resident hunters and the list goes on. The Goabc has publicly stated they would not support any government initiatives designed to increase resident hunter numbers.

As far as stirring the pot you guys got caught with your fingers in the cookie jar on this one. Goat guy is right on the money and has provided lots of good data that supports the fallacy of back door deals. Personally I am not surprised at all the bullshit reasons given to support these permits. Have heard it all before!

[horshur]

Jessie I really think if you look at the stats for harvest that it will be mostly young Toms and some females just as you say...really what is the average age of harvested cat....my guess 3.5 years.

and the studies I have read suggested that it is young Toms tending to kill kits not old Toms.. I am sure you could cite sumthin contrary. I know in Knopffs study out of Alberta there is no listed mortality of Kits by Toms at all...though a Tom killed a female. I have yet to come across this and have seen evidence several times contrary to it....

the other deal with killing females......just a real good way of leaving orphan kits and there are those who know lot more then me suggest this is a surefire way to human/livestock conflicts of the orphaned kits who hang around mom a lot longer then most thought....

all this it mute point we cannot really hunt females by the current regulations...it is a crap shoot with better odds for the female to have kits then not...

[bearvalley]

Go a head a stir the put. never have I heard such BS. Not once have I heard an outfitter say we need to get rid of resident hunting. That will never happen and nor would we want it to happen. Most of us are residents hunters and are in the business because we love hunting and the outdoors.

Some don't get it that outfitters and ranchers are resident hunters as well with the same passion to hunt as any other poster on this forum. One day some of the political old school might pull their heads out of their butts long enough to see if we all pulled together that wildlife and hunting opportunities would be the winner. But I guess you have to be a part time pilot, a real estate salesman, plumber, doctor,mechanic or in any other job occupation other than outfitter or rancher to be a real resident hunter with knowledgable input on wildlife matters.

[GoatGuy]

I wish the elusive Goat Guy would put fingers to keyboard and enlighten the rest of us morons on the common solution for agriculture/wildlife issues. Or better yet, come up and share some of your personal knowledge. In the meantime any boar bears seen in late May/June that are hanging around where our ( yours and mine and the general publics to be clear) elk calve on my ranch will remain non hunted. In the right year the right boar can reduce the calf percentage here by 30-50%. So until you can share the better plan it looks like that and a FN's cull program are the options we are faced with.
Bridger, I would check out the direction of travel before I picked an end.
__________________________________________________ ______________

Conservation easements, agricultural tags, hunter drop boxes, mitigation tied to access, incentives tied to stewardship, more tax break related incentives, you name it there are a thousand options that are good for everyone that put everyone on the same page.

There are also options strictly for the ag sector including fencing, double electric fencing etc.

The first part is having everyone walking through the same door. These is pretty easy stuff to handle from an economics perspective.

[dime]

The GOABC is our enemy. They consistently lobby the government, spending thousands if not millions of dollars to limit resident hunter's rights while expanding their own interests. We need to oppose these attacks on our dwindling access as vigorously as possible. Look at the early GOS in region 5, completely shut down directly as a result of the lobby groups, this is becoming unacceptable. When will the resident hunters spend the money to protect their interests like the Americans and other outsiders buying up our heritage.
TAKE ACTION!
-Dime

[GoatGuy]

Jessie I really think if you look at the stats for harvest that it will be mostly young Toms and some females just as you say...really what is the average age of harvested cat....my guess 3.5 years.

and the studies I have read suggested that it is young Toms tending to kill kits not old Toms.. I am sure you could cite sumthin contrary. I know in Knopffs study out of Alberta there is no listed mortality of Kits by Toms at all...though a Tom killed a female. I have yet to come across this and have seen evidence several times contrary to it....

the other deal with killing females......just a real good way of leaving orphan kits and there are those who know lot more then me suggest this is a surefire way to human/livestock conflicts of the orphaned kits who hang around mom a lot longer then most thought....

all this it mute point we cannot really hunt females by the current regulations...it is a crap shoot with better odds for the female to have kits then not...

A good place to start:

http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/4-Effects%20of%20WhiteTailed....pdf

The columbia basin fish and wildlife trust has a bunch of stuff on their site as well from collared cats.

[horshur]

you are not even cherry picking......what is this a deflection???????

[GoatGuy]

Some don't get it that outfitters and ranchers are resident hunters as well with the same passion to hunt as any other poster on this forum. One day some of the political old school might pull their heads out of their butts long enough to see if we all pulled together that wildlife and hunting opportunities would be the winner. But I guess you have to be a part time pilot, a real estate salesman, plumber, doctor,mechanic or in any other job occupation other than outfitter or rancher to be a real resident hunter with knowledgable input on wildlife matters.

Hear it all the time, even from some of the posters on here.

Funny thing, when you put money together for inventory work and ask, they don't chip in. Even after the claim was "there's no moose left" - so you suck it up and pay for it out of pocket. When you have ecosystem restoration projects, they don't show up. When you put applications in for burns they won't give a letter of support. Proposals for mule deer research - NO SUPPORT.

Yes, that sounds like everyone is pulling together for wildlife, doesn't it? Don't want to broadbrush it as there are some GREAT outfitters out there, but they sure aren't the people taking handouts and backdoor deals. Or the people who won't support wildlife management and increased funding in BC. I'm sure you aren't aware of the complete lack of support for research, inventory and funding BUT that is the reality we're dealing with. There are some great guys, but unfortunately they either aren't being told what's going on or they aren't involved.


Now you're telling me a couple of cat tags and bear tags is going to help ungulates in resident only areas when the science and every researcher, biologist in North America says you're wrong. Oddly enough the science says we should be harvesting females if we're going to reduce predation on ungulates but that is not what is being shot. I would imagine IF predators were outfitters concern they would have approached resident hunter reps and ran this 70(1)b issue by them - THEY DIDN'T. And they'd also be trying to change the regulations to increase harvest - THEY AREN'T. It was a backdoor deal and it was done with intent - I'm sure everyone involved knew this would blow up if anyone ever found out. Well, look what happened.

Now, even had an outfitter say bobcats are a limiting factor for mule deer and that is how the tag was rationalized. Pretty soon it will be a 70(1)B for grizzly bears, because the outfitter knew which one was eating all the moose calves.

This is even better because a couple years ago we tried to increase bear harvest in resident only and outfitter areas with the BC Trappers Association and we were told in no uncertain terms NO. Too much competition!!!!!! WOW, really.

No you're trying to point the finger that we should all get along, instead of owning a handout when outfitters got a backdoor deal in resident only areas.

It's funny had an outfitter call last week, he's getting out of the business and he actually brought this issue up. Said he's sick and tired of the wannabees - it's all about killing and not about wildlife management anymore. The guys aren't hunters anymore were his exact words. Sure wish he and a couple other guys would step up and get involved, and get the ship righted. It really is unfortunate as there are a few people who are really leaving a huge black mark on the industry and on the realtionship - seems to be an ongoing issue.


To be very honest, most relationships don't last when a handshake is meaningless and there's a complete lack of integrity.

Can't count the number of times a deal has been struck through a handshake only to find out someone's gone behind your back and tried to change it right after.

Certainly surprised that this is going on, but at the same time not surprised.

[GoatGuy]

you are not even cherry picking......what is this a deflection???????

have a look at the stuff on the CBFW. There are quite a few papers out of Washington state.

[bearvalley]

Pretty easy stuff from an economics perspective as long as your names not on the bottom of the check Goat Guy. The more crap you throw out the more your lack of real knowledge on the issue shows. Like I said before you're welcome to sit at the table while the issue is discussed. I doubt you would have much constructive input as all your cure alls are possible future options that have kicked around at ag/wildlife conflict meetings. The key word is POSSIBLE and the big question is WHO WRITES THE CHECK.
I've already said I will raise no cattle here, just elk for everyone in BC. But who writes the check? We can go the high wire fence route. Who pays for that? Sure would be a good way to pass the problem off on my neighbours don't you think? There is more to solving this problem than spouted out information picked from Wickepedia or where ever you source it. Don't forget Goat Guy these are our wildlife( yours and mine) so technically you're on the hook for part of the bill.

[GoatGuy]

Pretty easy stuff from an economics perspective as long as your names not on the bottom of the check Goat Guy. The more crap you throw out the more your lack of real knowledge on the issue shows. Like I said before you're welcome to sit at the table while the issue is discussed. I doubt you would have much constructive input as all your cure alls are possible future options that have kicked around at ag/wildlife conflict meetings. The key word is POSSIBLE and the big question is WHO WRITES THE CHECK.
I've already said I will raise no cattle here, just elk for everyone in BC. But who writes the check? We can go the high wire fence route. Who pays for that? Sure would be a good way to pass the problem off on my neighbours don't you think? There is more to solving this problem than spouted out information picked from Wickepedia or where ever you source it. Don't forget Goat Guy these are our wildlife( yours and mine) so technically you're on the hook for part of the bill.

This is all sourced out of natural resource economics. Already wrote the paper on it.

First thing you should find out is why the provincial agricultural conflict committee was disbanded and follow the trail from there. Probably another issue nobody's telling you about. And no, I'm not going to spill the beans.

[Whonnock Boy]

Curious.... Wildlife conflict has been the nature of the beast with ranching since the start. Is it not taken into account when researching the viability of any given ranch? Is it not considered an operating cost? Why should any checks be dolled out for any of it? Why should I be subsidizing ranchers with my tax money? Put up a fence if you don't want any critters eating your feed. "part of the bill"???? You signed up, and you can surely sell out if wildlife is causing you to go belly up. Certainly do not make any back door deals with outfitters to bring their clients in to harvest trophy farmed deer or elk and call it management. What a crock.....

[Fisher-Dude]

Doesn't sound to me like a "management hunt."

[QUOTE]BC cougar hunts at Skinner Creek take place from December to the end of March and the hunt is seven full days. The Tatlayoko Lake area has the largest cougars in the world and boasts the number one Boone and Crockett cougar. The genetics continue, with world class BC cougars shot each year. The hunting pressure is very light as this is remote country with little road access and we are located 150 miles from the nearest city of Williams Lake, British Columbia.

[bearvalley]

Curious.... Wildlife conflict has been the nature of the beast with ranching since the start. Is it not taken into account when researching the viability of any given ranch? Is it not considered an operating cost? Why should any checks be dolled out for any of it? Why should I be subsidizing ranchers with my tax money? Put up a fence if you don't want any critters eating your feed. "part of the bill"???? You signed up, and you can surely sell out if wildlife is causing you to go belly up. Certainly do not make any back door deals with outfitters to bring their clients in to harvest trophy farmed deer or elk and call it management. What a crock.....

How about admittedly transplanted elk delivered thru one of GG's back door deals. My responsibility or yours?

[bearvalley]

Hear it all the time, even from some of the posters on here.

Funny thing, when you put money together for inventory work and ask, they don't chip in. Even after the claim was "there's no moose left" - so you suck it up and pay for it out of pocket. When you have ecosystem restoration projects, they don't show up. When you put applications in for burns they won't give a letter of support. Proposals for mule deer research - NO SUPPORT.

Yes, that sounds like everyone is pulling together for wildlife, doesn't it? Don't want to broadbrush it as there are some GREAT outfitters out there, but they sure aren't the people taking handouts and backdoor deals. Or the people who won't support wildlife management and increased funding in BC. I'm sure you aren't aware of the complete lack of support for research, inventory and funding BUT that is the reality we're dealing with. There are some great guys, but unfortunately they either aren't being told what's going on or they aren't involved.


Now you're telling me a couple of cat tags and bear tags is going to help ungulates in resident only areas when the science and every researcher, biologist in North America says you're wrong. Oddly enough the science says we should be harvesting females if we're going to reduce predation on ungulates but that is not what is being shot. I would imagine IF predators were outfitters concern they would have approached resident hunter reps and ran this 70(1)b issue by them - THEY DIDN'T. And they'd also be trying to change the regulations to increase harvest - THEY AREN'T. It was a backdoor deal and it was done with intent - I'm sure everyone involved knew this would blow up if anyone ever found out. Well, look what happened.

Now, even had an outfitter say bobcats are a limiting factor for mule deer and that is how the tag was rationalized. Pretty soon it will be a 70(1)B for grizzly bears, because the outfitter knew which one was eating all the moose calves.

This is even better because a couple years ago we tried to increase bear harvest in resident only and outfitter areas with the BC Trappers Association and we were told in no uncertain terms NO. Too much competition!!!!!! WOW, really.

No you're trying to point the finger that we should all get along, instead of owning a handout when outfitters got a backdoor deal in resident only areas.

It's funny had an outfitter call last week, he's getting out of the business and he actually brought this issue up. Said he's sick and tired of the wannabees - it's all about killing and not about wildlife management anymore. The guys aren't hunters anymore were his exact words. Sure wish he and a couple other guys would step up and get involved, and get the ship righted. It really is unfortunate as there are a few people who are really leaving a huge black mark on the industry and on the realtionship - seems to be an ongoing issue.


To be very honest, most relationships don't last when a handshake is meaningless and there's a complete lack of integrity.

Can't count the number of times a deal has been struck through a handshake only to find out someone's gone behind your back and tried to change it right after.

Certainly surprised that this is going on, but at the same time not surprised.

Goat Guy you either have selective reading skills or at the front of the pack when it comes to spinning BS.
The whole way thru this issue I have said that the Mule deer tag could be looked at as a token of compensation where the outfitter and the land owner were the same person. Big deal. He made a few bucks to cover his loss. If chilcotin hillbillys clients take a bear or two in an area with no resident demand what's the issue. He will keep a few moose calves or fawns alive. Nowhere did I support cat hunts in non tenured areas. One of my comments was in regards to cats congregating in winter range areas. Cougars would be pretty easy to over harvest in Region 5's non tenured area that encompasses the Fraser, Quesnel and Chilcotin River valley wintering areas. Cats are pretty easy to pick off in a deep snow year like this one. You put the spin on that.
Funny you mention your talk with an outfitter. Last week TPK and I had a phone visit. Part of the conversation was on the animosity between BCWF members, outfitters, ranchers and FN's. You are bang on. There are a few people leaving a black mark on the industry but on the same hand not all BCWK members are saints either.
As to the judgement call on a handshake GoatGuy it seems that usually the man that yells thief loudest has the stickiest fingers.

[bearvalley]

This is all sourced out of natural resource economics. Already wrote the paper on it.

First thing you should find out is why the provincial agricultural conflict committee was disbanded and follow the trail from there. Probably another issue nobody's telling you about. And no, I'm not going to spill the beans.

Funny you should mention the former provincial ag conflict committee. I dealt with that crew. You weren't there.

[GoatGuy]

Goat Guy you either have selective reading skills or at the front of the pack when it comes to spinning BS.
The whole way thru this issue I have said that the Mule deer tag could be looked at as a token of compensation where the outfitter and the land owner were the same person. Big deal. He made a few bucks to cover his loss. If chilcotin hillbillys clients take a bear or two in an area with no resident demand what's the issue. He will keep a few moose calves or fawns alive. Nowhere did I support cat hunts in non tenured areas. One of my comments was in regards to cats congregating in winter range areas. Cougars would be pretty easy to over harvest in Region 5's non tenured area that encompasses the Fraser, Quesnel and Chilcotin River valley wintering areas. Cats are pretty easy to pick off in a deep snow year like this one. You put the spin on that.
Funny you mention your talk with an outfitter. Last week TPK and I had a phone visit. Part of the conversation was on the animosity between BCWF members, outfitters, ranchers and FN's. You are bang on. There are a few people leaving a black mark on the industry but on the same hand not all BCWK members are saints either.
As to the judgement call on a handshake GoatGuy it seems that usually the man that yells thief loudest has the stickiest fingers.

Flip the argument around - if outfitter demand isn't there for moose, sheep, goats, grizzlies in some areas does that mean that allocation can be handed over to residents? Or that residents can over-harvest those areas?

Right, thought so. It's a one-way street.


Maybe you aren't in the loop or you're getting bad information. Can't say I've ever been into backdoor deals, handouts, personal favours or reneging on policy and regulatory issues after the meeting. As you can probably tell I have no issue telling people what I think and support. If you ever want to hear about the rumours that circle your environment feel free to ask - sounds like that's what is keeping the organization alive. Would be happy to clear up the rumours but unfortunately not allowed to speak to members. Guess everybody needs a pariah.

I definitely get the sense you aren't in the loop or that people are keeping you out of the loop. From here it looks like there are a bunch more skeletons ready to fall out of that closet.

[Snowpatrol]

"For example, if an outfitter was supposed to get 30% of the AAH for sheep in an area and that meant two rams annually I totally support that"

Oh so its now the sheep and not the mule deer that you have a problem with.. ??? Sounds like you just have a problem period with outfitters...

Not too keen on people getting handouts from a public resource that they haven't paid for and are not supposed to get according to policy or their allocation. Not a big fan of backdoor deals.

I don't see it as a hand out when they are paying a trespass fee to have access to private land in or out of their area.. Why don't you go offer the land owner $500-$800 to hunt a deer on his land.. ??


The rationalization about bobcats is interesting, but unfortunately not supported by science or any wildlife manager. They all think this is a joke

Well god damn it,.. Iy must not be true if it isn't supported by your science from a desk it must not be true... With 11,443 post on HBC it seems that all you do is post here and collect stats, that on some threads you say can't be accurate ,but on some you live by religiously by.. which side you want to pick ???

Worry about your share of wildlife and quit trying to take it from residents.

I'm not an outfitter.... I just get along with them... I know several of them that have taken money out of their pockets and have handed it to local trappers to help control wolf populations... What have you done lately except bitch about how bad they are ??

[bridger]

The issue here is not whether outfitters are good or bad. Personally I know many outfitters that are really great people and have a lot of respect for them. This issue is about back door deals between outfitters and some regional managers that are shrouded in secrecy. How can you expect residents to accept that? These unallocated ares are unallocated for a reason. Goat guy has a good point. If as an outfitter you don't use your quota let's give it to the resident side of the equation. We all know where that would go. There may be some legitamate grounds for giving out these permits, but so far I haven't heard any. As i said before the trouble with these secret back door deals is you never know where they are going next. Much easier to be up front and come through the front door.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Really Fisher Dude.
Advertising in business is important, and this statement is the truth. Not only does it sell hunts but but give prospective hunters an idea whats out there. It doesn't stop me from taking the right female if the hunter is willing. I tree lots of females over the season just to take a look and check age, condition and if she is or was nursing. When you are the only guy doing it you have to make the call which cats to take and its time to thin out a couple females. That being said they must be the right females.

[Snowpatrol]

This issue is about back door deals between outfitters and some regional managers that are shrouded in secrecy. Can you expect residents to accept that?

Well I don't expect them too.. I also don't expect other outfitters to except it... If its one outfitter that GG has a problem with... he shouldn't be hating them all... Deal with the individual... not a blanket that all outfitters are bad. Many of them are resident hunters as well and not only want to sell a hunt, but want to participate in his or her own resident hunting practices as well.. .. I understand that you and GG are buds.. but I wouldn't be to quick to jump to his defence at any given moment.... there are 2 side to every story.. and we're not going to solve the problem that he has with ALL outfitters.

[bridger]

This issue is about back door deals between outfitters and some regional managers that are shrouded in secrecy. Can you expect residents to accept that?

Well I don't expect them too.. I also don't expect other outfitters to except it... If its one outfitter that GG has a problem with... he shouldn't be hating them all... Deal with the individual... not a blanket that all outfitters are bad. Many of them are resident hunters as well and not only want to sell a hunt, but want to participate in his or her own resident hunting practices as well.. .. I understand that you and GG are buds.. but I wouldn't be to quick to jump to his defence at any given moment.... there are 2 side to every story.. and we're not going to solve the problem that he has with ALL outfitters.

Goat Guy is my friend for sure. He doesn't hate outfitters, like the rest if us at times he just gets tired of the bullshit. I have had years of experience dealing with the Goabc and support a viable guiding industry, but also know that when push comes to shove most outfitters have little respect for resident priority.

[bearvalley]

Goat Guy has a habit of lumping all outfitters or ranchers in the same heap. Pretty damaging to have a director of an organization that is supposed to be working for the good of ALL resident hunters that is that biased. Maybe the rest of the board should consider if the damage done by the continuous bashing tirades is outweighed by the good to wildlife and hunting opportunities he creates by stirring the pot. We all get tired of bullshit but some are masters of the art.

[bridger]

Goat Guy has a habit of lumping all outfitters or ranchers in the same heap. Pretty damaging to have a director of an organization that is supposed to be working for the good of ALL resident hunters that is that biased. Maybe the rest of the board should consider if the damage done by the continuous bashing tirades is outweighed by the good to wildlife and hunting opportunities he creates by stirring the pot. We all get tired of bullshit but some are masters of the art.

maybe you should lie down in a dark room with a cold cloth over your face until the feeling goes away!

Hasn't been goat guy or other bcwf board members going back on their word. Maybe the goabc should have a look at some of its members. Maybe outfitters like you should quit defending these permits and publicly state that as an outfitter you support resident priority! I won't hold my breath!

[fowl language]

I have sat at enough board meetings over the last while to tell you from my opinion that goat guy is if not our strongest resident hunter ally then in the top 5. he is a tireless young guy that is way too smart for his age and anyone that says he is full of bs. obviously does not know him and has a slanted idea of wildlife, and probably a guide outfitter. judging by the email string of the last 2 days this is going to be a huge topic for the bcwf and I hope the guide outfitters will rethink some of their greed....dale

[Wild one]

Not all outfitters are out to screw residents but with the whole outfitters are the enemy crap there is no reason for them to respect a residents rights. Keep pointing fingers at someone telling them they are the enemy they will become your enemy.

Yes, there is a portion that would screw anyone for a buck and you're only helping them gain support from their fellow outfitters by pissing off the good ones.

Keep driving a wedge between outfitters and residents you will keep having problems. Need to find away to reach mutually beneficial agreements instead of going it is all mine get lost.

Us residents lack the organization to even try and pick a fight with the gobc because we are too busy pissing off our own to get it together.

With the mentality of the hunting community it will be outfitter vs resident getting no results till the day I die.

As for the wildlife management part I am not even going to touch that BS

[bearvalley]

maybe you should lie down in a dark room with a cold cloth over your face until the feeling goes away!

Hasn't been goat guy or other bcwf board members going back on their word. Maybe the goabc should have a look at some of its members. Maybe outfitters like you should quit defending these permits and publicly state that as an outfitter you support resident priority! I won't hold my breath!

Don't need the dark room Bridger. Or the cold cloth. How about you?
You seem to have the same selective reading skills. Nowhere did I support all these permits. The reasoning behind a few of them being issued is probably viable. Not all.
Maybe you should push the resident opportunity issue. It would go farther than the more, more, more attitude. Not all outfitters are against resident hunters as some would like to portray.
Just to clear the air on rumours do you think residents should shoot 2 sheep a year and there should be a season on baby rams? Or is this just more bullshit that flew?

[Steeleco]

An outfitter is issued a mule deer buck tag in a resident only area where mule deer are eating a farmer's hay bales with the rational that it is to disturb wildlife populations.


And for this we have the BCWF passport program do we not?

A few years back, re recovered a dog with a tracking collar on it. Bone rack he was. We fed him and called the number on his collar. The owner came some 8 hours later. He told us he was guiding a client from Washington State on a 7'+ bear in the hills above Davis lake?? So has this been going on for some time, or was he good?

Letter to be sent to the Minister ASAP.

[Steeleco]

I have sat at enough board meetings over the last while to tell you from my opinion that goat guy is if not our strongest resident hunter ally then in the top 5. he is a tireless young guy that is way too smart for his age and anyone that says he is full of bs. obviously does not know him and has a slanted idea of wildlife, and probably a guide outfitter. judging by the email string of the last 2 days this is going to be a huge topic for the bcwf and I hope the guide outfitters will rethink some of their greed....dale

Sadly Dale there's far too many hunters in BC and likely other jurisdictions that take the attitude of "he'll take care of it" and thus do nothing. The turnout at the Sandman in Langley is a good example!

Even at my level of effort, sending a letter is better than doing nothing, Hell I've been know to copy, print and sign a better written note and mail it when needed. The pile on the desk is equal to the eyebrow raising!!

For those members that can't find the words to put on paper, do as I'm planning.

Go to the BCWF page, find the letter posted by the OP. Print
Write a cover page stating who you are and your wanting to be added to the list of BC hunters objecting to the attached letter.

Lick and stick in the mail!! Done!!

[Doublelung]

As a resident I'm done with guide greed. Lets start a petition and put pressure on the government. There's a lot more resident hunters then guides. We should have the power in numbers. So if a resident is required to apply for LEH then there's no way the guide should be able to have the tags. Simple there animals of BC and they belong to the resident of BC, so nobody should have the right to sell them, once resident requirements are filled guides should get some.

[Snowpatrol]

As a resident I'm done with guide greed. Lets start a petition and put pressure on the government. There's a lot more resident hunters then guides. We should have the power in numbers. So if a resident is required to apply for LEH then there's no way the guide should be able to have the tags. Simple there animals of BC and they belong to the resident of BC, so nobody should have the right to sell them, once resident requirements are filled guides should get some.

Thats the way it is now.. Any LEH animal out there, first goes to FN.. Then residents and then GO quota's are made up after that. TAking away the guide outfitter will do nothing for our sport except give anti hunter more to feed off.. Carry on.

[Steeleco]

I'm UN-able to find a printable copy of that letter GG, any tips?

[Weatherby Fan]

I have sat at enough board meetings over the last while to tell you from my opinion that goat guy is if not our strongest resident hunter ally then in the top 5. he is a tireless young guy that is way too smart for his age and anyone that says he is full of bs. obviously does not know him and has a slanted idea of wildlife, and probably a guide outfitter. judging by the email string of the last 2 days this is going to be a huge topic for the bcwf and I hope the guide outfitters will rethink some of their greed....dale

Hey Dale.....never met the man but I surely will buy the beer when I do,

Just from being a member of HBC I can tell you Goat Guy is nothing but an asset to HBC.ca, resident hunters in BC and mostly to outdoor conservation and sound wildlife management,
I'm willing to bet he has single handedly taught more hunters in BC about sound wildlife management than anyone or anybook, as he patiently and in a well spoken manner provides accurate information time and time again to members on here, one example that comes to mind is the many Mule Deer threads about area 4 and of there decline.

I don't recall any guide outfitters on here doing anything of this nature.

WF

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Hey Dale.....never met the man but I surely will buy the beer when I do,

Just from being a member of HBC I can tell you Goat Guy is nothing but an asset to HBC.ca, resident hunters in BC and mostly to outdoor conservation and sound wildlife management,
I'm willing to bet he has single handedly taught more hunters in BC about sound wildlife management than anyone or anybook, as he patiently and in a well spoken manner provides accurate information time and time again to members on here, one example that comes to mind is the many Mule Deer threads about area 4 and of there decline.

I don't recall any guide outfitters on here doing anything of this nature.

WF

Amen, WF!!

The time and energy that GG's donates is absolutely inspirational!

I'll make sure to buy him that beer for you(and me) next weekend!

SSS

[Wild one]

Sadly Dale there's far too many hunters in BC and likely other jurisdictions that take the attitude of "he'll take care of it" and thus do nothing. The turnout at the Sandman in Langley is a good example!

Even at my level of effort, sending a letter is better than doing nothing, Hell I've been know to copy, print and sign a better written note and mail it when needed. The pile on the desk is equal to the eyebrow raising!!

For those members that can't find the words to put on paper, do as I'm planning.

Go to the BCWF page, find the letter posted by the OP. Print
Write a cover page stating who you are and your wanting to be added to the list of BC hunters objecting to the attached letter.

Lick and stick in the mail!! Done!!


I will agree there is a portion that just hopes someone else will deal with there problems

There is also another large group that has lost faith in BC's hunting organization and does not agree with the same goals. The BCWF is looked at by some as nothing more than a good old boys club pushing their agenda that they believe is best for all hunters even if it screws a portion. These hunters will not show up to meetings or show support because they have no interest in pushing there views in an organization that does not support them. Some are only members because it comes with a range membership or the insurance that comes with it to get special areas license or atv coverage.

It is what it is but the truth of the matter is there are not as many supporting members compared to what is shown on paper.

I know the die hard BCWF members won't like this but there is a large portion of hunters out their like I mentioned above. If there was more support you would have larger turn outs.

But you cannot expect everyone to agree or have the same goals. The truth of the mater is hunters are a very divided group

I do agree that those who have an issue with something should do their part to stand up in hopes to change things

[Snowpatrol]

[QUOTE=Weatherby Fan;1485013]Hey Dale.....never met the man but I surely will buy the beer when I do,

Just from being a member of HBC I can tell you Goat Guy is nothing but an asset to HBC.ca, resident hunters in BC and mostly to outdoor conservation and sound wildlife management,
I'm willing to bet he has single handedly taught more hunters in BC about sound wildlife management than anyone or anybook, as he patiently and in a well spoken manner provides accurate information time and time again to members on here, one example that comes to mind is the many Mule Deer threads about area 4 and of there decline.

I don't recall any guide outfitters on here doing anything of this nature.

No.. all of GG's stats and numbers show that there isn't a problem with Muledeer pops in any region.. I've battled him on this before.. All muledeer herds are more healthy now than they ever have been with 20 bucks per 100 does all across the province.


Why would the outfitters come on these threads and offer experience and in field help with surveys.. They get stomped by him anytime they question or try to enlighten the all mighty stat man !!

[Weatherby Fan]

[QUOTE=Weatherby Fan;1485013]Hey Dale.....never met the man but I surely will buy the beer when I do,

Just from being a member of HBC I can tell you Goat Guy is nothing but an asset to HBC.ca, resident hunters in BC and mostly to outdoor conservation and sound wildlife management,
I'm willing to bet he has single handedly taught more hunters in BC about sound wildlife management than anyone or anybook, as he patiently and in a well spoken manner provides accurate information time and time again to members on here, one example that comes to mind is the many Mule Deer threads about area 4 and of there decline.

I don't recall any guide outfitters on here doing anything of this nature.

No.. all of GG's stats and numbers show that there isn't a problem with Muledeer pops in any region.. I've battled him on this before.. All muledeer herds are more healthy now than they ever have been with 20 bucks per 100 does all across the province.


Why would the outfitters come on these threads and offer experience and in field help with surveys.. They get stomped by him anytime they question or try to enlighten the all mighty stat man !!

I'm sorry to break it to you but I do read his posts and he has shared sub region numbers that were down and the reasoning why,and what has been needed to bring the buck doe ratios back inline or overall numbers of deer period, I don't recall him bashing anyone other than lack of funding for controlled burns to introduce more and better habitat for those animals.

[GoatGuy]

"For example, if an outfitter was supposed to get 30% of the AAH for sheep in an area and that meant two rams annually I totally support that"

Oh so its now the sheep and not the mule deer that you have a problem with.. ??? Sounds like you just have a problem period with outfitters...

Not too keen on people getting handouts from a public resource that they haven't paid for and are not supposed to get according to policy or their allocation. Not a big fan of backdoor deals.

I don't see it as a hand out when they are paying a trespass fee to have access to private land in or out of their area.. Why don't you go offer the land owner $500-$800 to hunt a deer on his land.. ??


The rationalization about bobcats is interesting, but unfortunately not supported by science or any wildlife manager. They all think this is a joke

Well god damn it,.. Iy must not be true if it isn't supported by your science from a desk it must not be true... With 11,443 post on HBC it seems that all you do is post here and collect stats, that on some threads you say can't be accurate ,but on some you live by religiously by.. which side you want to pick ???

Worry about your share of wildlife and quit trying to take it from residents.

I'm not an outfitter.... I just get along with them... I know several of them that have taken money out of their pockets and have handed it to local trappers to help control wolf populations... What have you done lately except bitch about how bad they are ??



This issue is about back door deals between outfitters and some regional managers that are shrouded in secrecy. Can you expect residents to accept that?

Well I don't expect them too.. I also don't expect other outfitters to except it... If its one outfitter that GG has a problem with... he shouldn't be hating them all... Deal with the individual... not a blanket that all outfitters are bad. Many of them are resident hunters as well and not only want to sell a hunt, but want to participate in his or her own resident hunting practices as well.. .. I understand that you and GG are buds.. but I wouldn't be to quick to jump to his defence at any given moment.... there are 2 side to every story.. and we're not going to solve the problem that he has with ALL outfitters.

There are a pile of great outfitters in BC - most of them are in fact. I still have a few friends who are outfitters, although they usually have a couple hard questions every once in a while due to rumours, and hunt with a retired outfitter just about every year. Admittedly, he is another old school outfitter who even to this day is the first guy to jump in his truck or donate his time and money when there's a sheep transplant, ER project or what have you. And he is also an individual who to this day is disgusted by the "head in to the regional managers office and ask for a handout" approach. So in that sense we're like-minded. Not keen on backdoor deals and handouts.

Unfortunately there are a few who are leaving a big black mark. These 70(1)b permits are another example of self-rationalization. The reaction on here alone demonstrates the intent and objective - it wasn't to operate in a transparent fashion and it wasn't for wildlife management. It was for money. The challenge is there's always people trying to make an extra buck around the margin, taking it from others instead of creating more wildlife. This is a major issue the good guys need to wrap their heads around as the lid to the cookie jar will slam shut one day or the jar will simply run out of cookies. There is a long list of one-offs and backdoor deals and it seems there are a few other skeletons that have become visible from this issue.

It's probably in the best interests of the good guys to straighten this out and separate the wheat from the chaff. Start working for wildlife instead of reaching into someone else's pocket whether that be residents or neighbouring outfitters.

None of this would ever have been an issue if people took their allocation and hunted in their area.

[Doublelung]

Thats the way it is now.. Any LEH animal out there, first goes to FN.. Then residents and then GO quota's are made up after that. TAking away the guide outfitter will do nothing for our sport except give anti hunter more to feed off.. Carry on.
Works in Saskatchewan, guides get nothing for LEH hunts. Unless there's a general open season guides get no tags. Don't see the anti's winning there.....

[Foxton Gundogs]

I will agree there is a portion that just hopes someone else will deal with there problems

There is also another large group that has lost faith in BC's hunting organization and does not agree with the same goals. The BCWF is looked at by some as nothing more than a good old boys club pushing their agenda that they believe is best for all hunters even if it screws a portion. These hunters will not show up to meetings or show support because they have no interest in pushing there views in an organization that does not support them. Some are only members because it comes with a range membership or the insurance that comes with it to get special areas license or atv coverage.

It is what it is but the truth of the matter is there are not as many supporting members compared to what is shown on paper.

I know the die hard BCWF members won't like this but there is a large portion of hunters out their like I mentioned above. If there was more support you would have larger turn outs.

But you cannot expect everyone to agree or have the same goals. The truth of the mater is hunters are a very divided group

I do agree that those who have an issue with something should do their part to stand up in hopes to change things

Care to elaborate with some instances and examples, am I missing something here?

[Snowpatrol]

[B]




There are a pile of great outfitters in BC - most of them are in fact. I still have a few friends who are outfitters, although they usually have a couple hard questions every once in a while due to rumours, and hunt with a retired outfitter just about every year. Admittedly, he is another old school outfitter who even to this day is the first guy to jump in his truck or donate his time and money when there's a sheep transplant, ER project or what have you. And he is also an individual who to this day is disgusted by the "head in to the regional managers office and ask for a handout" approach. So in that sense we're like-minded. Not keen on backdoor deals and handouts.

Unfortunately there are a few who are leaving a big black mark. These 70(1)b permits are another example of self-rationalization. The reaction on here alone demonstrates the intent and objective - it wasn't to operate in a transparent fashion and it wasn't for wildlife management. It was for money. The challenge is there's always people trying to make an extra buck around the margin, taking it from others instead of creating more wildlife. This is a major issue the good guys need to wrap their heads around as the lid to the cookie jar will slam shut one day or the jar will simply run out of cookies. There is a long list of one-offs and backdoor deals and it seems there are a few other skeletons that have become visible from this issue.

It's probably in the best interests of the good guys to straighten this out and separate the wheat from the chaff. Start working for wildlife instead of reaching into someone else's pocket whether that be residents or neighbouring outfitters.

None of this would ever have been an issue if people took their allocation and hunted in their area.

Wow... I think thats the most constructive thing I've ever heard from you !!!!!! I'll buy you a beer for that post alone... ! I just don't agree with the hand out part.. Like I said on an earlier post... Outfitters pay land owners for access... Not wildlife. You have a misconception of this... outfitters are not stealing these animals from the residents. Let me know where the 70(1)b permits are ??? Sounds like only region 5 and 4 have the problem.. There is a lot of unallocated area in region 3 that hasn't been toched by the permits and are not going to be... I'll personally go hunt in the permitted areas. They must be good... Then I'll be a resident.. taking hand outs from other residents !

[Snowpatrol]

Works in Saskatchewan, guides get nothing for LEH hunts. Unless there's a general open season guides get no tags. Don't see the anti's winning there.....

They also manage their game in a whole different way.. Comparing apple to..... well.... pigs

[Mr. Dean]

Read it all.

*If* these tags were issued for conservation purposes, why not just present it as such and ASK for my blessing?
And on that note, I call BS on pretty much all of this thread......

I think my beef is more to do with the asshat(s) that made the decision to grant the permits as I FULLY expect the GO's to lobby for what serves them best, on any given day of the week. GOABC is what it is.

[GoatGuy]

Wow... I think thats the most constructive thing I've ever heard from you !!!!!! I'll buy you a beer for that post alone... ! I just don't agree with the hand out part.. Like I said on an earlier post... Outfitters pay land owners for access... Not wildlife. You have a misconception of this... outfitters are not stealing these animals from the residents. Let me know where the 70(1)b permits are ??? Sounds like only region 5 and 4 have the problem.. There is a lot of unallocated area in region 3 that hasn't been toched by the permits and are not going to be... I'll personally go hunt in the permitted areas. They must be good... Then I'll be a resident.. taking hand outs from other residents !

First, wildlife is a public resource. It is not owned by a landowner or an outfitter. The public decided that these unallocated/resident only areas are set aside for resident hunters so that there is no competition and no fear of over-harvest by the commercial sector (we now have management concerns due to outfitter over-harvest in resident only areas). These unallocated areas are part of what rationalized outfitters getting such a big share of wildlife in the 70s and 80s. The public also decides policy and how allocation applies. The public does not except people to go outside of policy or people to marginalize the public trust - that is happening.

When outfitters purchase a territory they are buying exclusive rights to operate in that territory. Through policy the public interest decides what outfitters get for allocation and quota. The outfitters never paid to operate outside of that territory and according to the public they should not be operating outside of those boundaries unless it's through a sub-lease with another outfitter.

The 70(1)b permits were built for cases where predator management objectives were not being achieved once resident hunters opportunity had been maximized. That has not happened and there are no formal predator management objectives in most of these areas. And in many of these cases outfitters are infact taking wildlife away from residents. Region 4 has over 1/3 of all the cougar hunters in the province.

This is just like buying a house and then living in your neighbours - not the way the world works.

In economics we call it free-riding.

[GoatGuy]

They also manage their game in a whole different way.. Comparing apple to..... well.... pigs

Outfitters in BC have the best deal in North America. That is well established. They get the best share of wildlife and exclusive rights to guide non-residents.

Outfitters in Alberta get a few percent of the annual allocation, not 20,30 or 40. The same goes for pretty much all the states in the lower 48, where non-residents generally get 10% at the most and they are not required to hire a guide.

They have wolf culls in Alberta and will have a bear cull in the spring.

They are conducting wolf culls in the states.


Please lay off the bs, not interested in more fiction.

[boxhitch]

I'm with you Mr. Dean
The core problem is the issuance of permits in an unfair manner and certainly in a way against policy .
The rest is all smoke and mud intended to deflect from the problem.

Thanks GG for bring this into the open.

[Mr. Dean]

GOABC is a self-serving, political lobbying group.
No different than PETA, The West Coast Rain Forest Fakkers, and what-not.

Their one and only goal is to serve themselves and I respect their right to do so.
It just seems though, that when they and Government get together, the outcome mixture is like oil and water,,,,,, and it's GOOD for me/us.

It boggles my head, every stinking time it happens.


GOABC;
How about a letter of support on more liberal seasons and incentives, for the Average Joe Blow to get out there and help with conflicts?

Please?

And lets just do it out of common interest and not, I did this so what are you going to do for me, kinda shit.

[Wild one]

Care to elaborate with some instances and examples, am I missing something here?

Talk to enough hunters out there and you get different reasons and views. With the amount of different reasons people hunt and ways they do you will not have everyone on the same page no organization will make everyone happy. I would say a large portion see good in the BCWF as well but are turned off by the things they don't agree with.

A lot of the ones who just have a BCWF member ship do to a R&G membership or just to have insurance through the BCWF don't look into the organization or even care to learn about it. Easier to get a special areas license with a BCWF membership then the pain of doing it through house insurance.

Some just pay there dues because they are told they should be a member.

The common comments I hear from those who are not interested in supporting the BCWF

"group of meat hunter who just want the opportunity to shoot everything"
"Anti bowhunting"
"Anti trophy hunting"
"Put hunter opportunity above conservation"
"They are only willing to listen to long term active members"

Not saying the above comments are correct but it seems when it comes up these 5 categories are the most common.

Just like getting people to agree on how wildlife is managed you will never get everyone to agree and there will be different views.

The BCWF is never going to have every hunters support and they should not expect to.

Out of those that are BCWF members and don't show up to voice opinions the high % is those who have a membership just for perks/came with a range membership, someone told them they should be a member but don't know why, or they are just paying the dues to add some funding towards a small portion of the things they agree with when it comes to the BCWF.

It is tough for any organization to get active members

[Mr. Dean]

Wild one.

If that is the way it is, is it right to place blame on the organization?
Or the attitude of people not wanting to be involved and being active, members and non members, alike????


I'm not active FWIW and no, I don't agree with everything that comes my way but with no doubt, if I thought that for a second that the direction of the Fed was hurting me, I'd be in there and all up in their face about it, hitting them where it counts by casting a vote. Even if that vote didn't reflect an immediate change, it does get people thinking when there is enough of them.

Just saying. :smile:

[GoatGuy]

Talk to enough hunters out there and you get different reasons and views. With the amount of different reasons people hunt and ways they do you will not have everyone on the same page no organization will make everyone happy. I would say a large portion see good in the BCWF as well but are turned off by the things they don't agree with.

A lot of the ones who just have a BCWF member ship do to a R&G membership or just to have insurance through the BCWF don't look into the organization or even care to learn about it. Easier to get a special areas license with a BCWF membership then the pain of doing it through house insurance.

Some just pay there dues because they are told they should be a member.

The common comments I hear from those who are not interested in supporting the BCWF

"group of meat hunter who just want the opportunity to shoot everything"
"Anti bowhunting"
"Anti trophy hunting"
"Put hunter opportunity above conservation"
"They are only willing to listen to long term active members"

Not saying the above comments are correct but it seems when it comes up these 5 categories are the most common.

Just like getting people to agree on how wildlife is managed you will never get everyone to agree and there will be different views.

The BCWF is never going to have every hunters support and they should not expect to.

Out of those that are BCWF members and don't show up to voice opinions the high % is those who have a membership just for perks/came with a range membership, someone told them they should be a member but don't know why, or they are just paying the dues to add some funding towards a small portion of the things they agree with when it comes to the BCWF.

It is tough for any organization to get active members

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______
What you are saying is true and reflective of what some people think. It's a huge organization and it's hard to please anybody, nevermind everybody.

The biggest challenge is hunters in BC have spent a generation fighting over hunting regulations thinking that changing them will somehow save wildlife and that couldn't be further from the truth. There are still people suffering from that generational hangover who aren't interested in science-based wildlife management and would rather stick to their 'beliefs' and cause-based approach to wildlife management.

In terms of the comments it always depends on the person making them, and people have to consider the source. There are some legitimate gripes and some who go out of their way to create fiction.

If anyone has any questions/comments/concerns the best thing to do is get a hold of the president or committee chair if someone wants to know about the organization or the direction they have been provided by the membership. It truly is an organization run by the members. The people who represent the BCWF live and die by direction from the membership, resolutions, and motions even if they don't personally support them. That comes with the job.

[Doublelung]

They also manage their game in a whole different way.. Comparing apple to..... well.... pigs

We are both aloud our opinion, but I believe we should put it up to the people of the province to decide. I'm working on a slogan.
Should some rich foreigner with no ties to this province be able to shoot an animal that could be used to feed one of the many hunger BC families? Stop the explotation of BC wildlife that so many of us require to feed out families. BC families first!!
OR

Thousands of moose shot to feed ego's instead of BC families. Stop the slaughter by foreigners. BC wildlife first for BC families.

[Snowpatrol]

First, wildlife is a public resource. It is not owned by a landowner or an outfitter. The public decided that these unallocated/resident only areas are set aside for resident hunters so that there is no competition and no fear of over-harvest by the commercial sector (we now have management concerns due to outfitter over-harvest in resident only areas). These unallocated areas are part of what rationalized outfitters getting such a big share of wildlife in the 70s and 80s. The public also decides policy and how allocation applies. The public does not except people to go outside of policy or people to marginalize the public trust - that is happening.

When outfitters purchase a territory they are buying exclusive rights to operate in that territory. Through policy the public interest decides what outfitters get for allocation and quota. The outfitters never paid to operate outside of that territory and according to the public they should not be operating outside of those boundaries unless it's through a sub-lease with another outfitter.

The 70(1)b permits were built for cases where predator management objectives were not being achieved once resident hunters opportunity had been maximized. That has not happened and there are no formal predator management objectives in most of these areas. And in many of these cases outfitters are infact taking wildlife away from residents. Region 4 has over 1/3 of all the cougar hunters in the province.

This is just like buying a house and then living in your neighbours - not the way the world works.

In economics we call it free-riding.

So if I'm a guide or an outfitter... I can go into one of these so called "resident only hunting areas" with 10 of my buddies and shoot this sh&% out of the place doing way more damage to the population than actually taking 1 or 2 non-res hunters into the same area.. How is that taking more of an effect on populations.. I've seen resident hunting camps with 10 to 20 people in them with deer hang everywhere of limbs.. How is that not hurting an area as opposed to 1-2 non residents taking a deer. Not following your train of thought here... Maybe cause its a one way train.

[Wild one]

Wild one.

If that is the way it is, is it right to place blame on the organization?
Or the attitude of people not wanting to be involved and being active, members and non members, alike????


I'm not active FWIW and no, I don't agree with everything that comes my way but with no doubt, if I thought that for a second that the direction of the Fed was hurting me, I'd be in there and all up in their face about it, hitting them where it counts by casting a vote. Even if that vote didn't reflect an immediate change, it does get people thinking when there is enough of them.

Just saying. :smile:


Not blaming the organization at all they are following the agenda they believe is correct. I see the good in the BCWF even though I don't always agree.

It only came out because of the constant posts on this forum about lack of members showing up. Personally I see good in the BCWF but for me I have no interest in stepping up is an active member I have my reasons.

Just like most organization the BCWF lacks new blood in the higher levels in my opinion. This is a common problem in most organization and is hard to change as most are not willing to step up or disagree with those who have put in years of their personal time. They are not interested in arguing with the organization or wanting to offend someone who has invested a large amount of personal time.

Can't really expect someone to want to step up only to beat their head against a wall if there views are different.

Really this is not important in this thread as this is not the issue that is being addressed.

[Snowpatrol]

We are both aloud our opinion, but I believe we should put it up to the people of the province to decide. I'm working on a slogan.
Should some rich foreigner with no ties to this province be able to shoot an animal that could be used to feed one of the many hunger BC families? Stop the explotation of BC wildlife that so many of us require to feed out families. BC families first!!
OR

Thousands of moose shot to feed ego's instead of BC families. Stop the slaughter by foreigners. BC wildlife first for BC families.

And take billions of dollars out of our resources that is paid from non resident hunting through outfitters.. its called the NRHPF or HPF fees that every non res pays.

[GoatGuy]

There are management concerns in region 5 due to non-resident over-harvest in resident only areas. Outfitters are actually impacting resident hunters in RESIDENT ONLY AREAS. I can guarantee you outfitter harvest in Region 4 has effected resident hunters and it has also affected our ability to conduct wildlife research.

Of course, I'm not blanketing all outfitters, just the guys taking the handouts, utilizing a resource they haven't paid to access, never asked to access and over-harvesting resident only areas, and the guy who shot a collared cat.

You seem to have seen a lot, and have some opinions about who contributes what. The bobcat limiting deer populations was the most interesting. If you have any facts to support any of it please feel free. Not one to deal with a steady stream of fiction.


In any case, I believe these tags will be terminated in the future. This cookie jar is closing.

[GoatGuy]

And take billions of dollars out of our resources that is paid from non resident hunting through outfitters.. its called the NRHPF or HPF fees that every non res pays.

Please support your assertion about "billions of dollars" paid. How many dollars to HCTF, license fees and GDP. And compare to resident hunting.


The NRHPF has been used for politics.

[Wild one]

GG I don't know the true impact bobcat have on deer but they do target yearlings in there winter ranges. With the variety of prey animals a bobcat feeds on I would not expect it to be a large impact in my opinion.

It is common for trappers target bobcat in deer winter ranges because of it being a good area to find numbers of bobcat and big toms. In my opinion large toms definitely target deer winter ranges.

I have personally come across bobcat kills doing this.

Even with this I see no reason to give outfitters tags to target them in resident only areas

[Snowpatrol]

Please support your assertion about "billions of dollars" paid. How many dollars to HCTF, license fees and GDP. And compare to resident hunting.


The NRHPF has been used for politics.

I never once said that Bobcats impact the deer herd.. I said they kill more deer than you and your cronies think they do.. I've got plenty of photographic and video evidence to back it up.. You have no idea who I am.. But I'm not the one with views that is going to be the demise of hunting.... period. If you're trying to stop non res hunting in our province you and your kids and mine will not be able to hunt anywhere else in this world.. IE: Kansas.. Ask them how well it worked out for their residents, when they would not allow non residents in their state... Other states in the USA stopped allowing any Kansas resident to hunt in theirs... Keep it up ole ye mr. president. You have to sit back once in a while and open your views... This province isn't all about you and your hunting activities.. It everyones resource and hunting privileges that you are going to take away... Not just mr. bad a$$ outfitter.

[Fisher-Dude]

Keep driving a wedge between outfitters and residents you will keep having problems. Need to find away to reach mutually beneficial agreements instead of going it is all mine get lost.




I agree. That's why outfitters shouldn't be swinging back door deals, taking residents' animals from our allowable harvest to sell to their wealthy, foreign clients.

I haven't seen resident hunters trying to swing secret deals to deny outfitters of their AAH.

Until outfitters stop this kind of bullshit, we'll see them drive the wedge more and more firmly between us and them.

[burger]

So if I'm a guide or an outfitter... I can go into one of these so called "resident only hunting areas" with 10 of my buddies and shoot this sh&% out of the place doing way more damage to the population than actually taking 1 or 2 non-res hunters into the same area.. How is that taking more of an effect on populations.. I've seen resident hunting camps with 10 to 20 people in them with deer hang everywhere of limbs.. How is that not hurting an area as opposed to 1-2 non residents taking a deer. Not following your train of thought here... Maybe cause its a one way train.


Yes you can take your buddies with you if your residents. This seems pretty simple to me, A BUSINESS is going outside of their allowable business area and paying someone to be able to hunt animals that although they are on private land are not private animals. Seems sneaky to me. The landowner is not allowed to profit off of a product that is not his to sell. He can allow residents on his land for a fee as those residents can hunt the "resident only area" animals as we are allowed.

The outfitter can pay to be n the land but they are not allowed to harvest anything as it is a "resident only area".

Not sure how this is so grey for some??

[Wild one]

I agree. That's why outfitters shouldn't be swinging back door deals, taking residents' animals from our allowable harvest to sell to their wealthy, foreign clients.

I haven't seen resident hunters trying to swing secret deals to deny outfitters of their AAH.

Until outfitters stop this kind of bullshit, we'll see them drive the wedge more and more firmly between us and them.


Both sides are good at driving the wedge

Backdoor deal that is being done should be stopped I agree

[BiG Boar]

After wading through this thread there are a lot of fairly clear conclusions to make.

Outfitters want to justify making more money.

Residents caught them doing something sneaky.

Outfitters try and justify why they had to do what they did.

I don't know whos right and whos wrong here. But if it was all a little more transparent, this wouldn't have come up most likely.

[GoatGuy]

GG I don't know the true impact bobcat have on deer but they do target yearlings in there winter ranges. With the variety of prey animals a bobcat feeds on I would not expect it to be a large impact in my opinion.

It is common for trappers target bobcat in deer winter ranges because of it being a good area to find numbers of bobcat and big toms. In my opinion large toms definitely target deer winter ranges.

I have personally come across bobcat kills doing this.

Even with this I see no reason to give outfitters tags to target them in resident only areas

There have been deer studies conducted all across North America, particularly for mule deer. Bobcat mortality has never been cited as a limiting factor for mule deer populations. That is because it is not a significant source of mortality. What that means is if you wiped bobcats off the face of the earth you wouldn't have more deer or moose. Other predators would take over that role of killiing those ungulates and you would end up with the same prey populations.

The whole self-rationalization is: if I reduce predators (a couple bears, cougars or bobcats) there will be more deer and moose for you. That is plain and simply not the case. They've done predator reductions with cougars, coyotes, bears, wolves from the air with guns, on the ground with traps, 1080, cyanide, strychnine, houndsmen and the minimum thresholds that you need to reduce predator populations to in order to see MORE deer and moose are well established. These aren't being achieved.

There is no science to supportive any of these assertions. That is why this all comes down to money. Somebody's trying to pat you on the back and tell you what their doing is good for you when it isn't - it's all for them.

[Snowpatrol]

ya ya.. we're back to the deer population... a while back it was the sheep ( that there is no 70(1)b permits for.... before that it was deer again.. What is it... Are you worried about the outfitter taking a couple cats or big mature boars that apparently don't impact deer numbers...Because earlier in the thread it was the bad outfitters shooting a couple deer.. ? what is it... Who's pocket are they dipping into... Take a deer out of their own area and just pay the regular government fees.. Or give more money to the government and then pay the land owner to take a deer or 2.. Show me the numbers of how many deer were killed in this designated area by an outfitter that you have a problem with. How many are talking 2..3.. what.. Then tell me where it is.. I'll personally go down there.. Kill 3 or 4 female cougars (cause they are only the ones that kill deer in your mind) with some buddies and you'll gain back roughly around 150 deer (figuring a cat takes around a deer a week,i'll give you the benefit of less) that you're so worried about.. I'm personally willing to help ya out GG.

[Snowpatrol]

Also I'd like to see where these outfitter are over harvesting our muledeer population when they can hardly compete with the quality of bucks that we have over somewhere like Utah, Arizona, Idaho, etc.. Where are the numbers and actual proof of this

[Wild one]

There have been deer studies conducted all across North America, particularly for mule deer. Bobcat mortality has never been cited as a limiting factor for mule deer populations. That is because it is not a significant source of mortality. What that means is if you wiped bobcats off the face of the earth you wouldn't have more deer or moose. Other predators would take over that role of killiing those ungulates and you would end up with the same prey populations.

The whole self-rationalization is: if I reduce predators (a couple bears, cougars or bobcats) there will be more deer and moose for you. That is plain and simply not the case. They've done predator reductions with cougars, coyotes, bears, wolves from the air with guns, on the ground with traps, 1080, cyanide, strychnine, houndsmen and the minimum thresholds that you need to reduce predator populations to in order to see MORE deer and moose are well established. These aren't being achieved.

There is no science to supportive any of these assertions. That is why this all comes down to money. Somebody's trying to pat you on the back and tell you what their doing is good for you when it isn't - it's all for them.


Was not expecting bobcat to effect deer numbers only know they defiling target deer. Between resident harvest and trapping it is easy to keep bobcat populations in check regardless.

I see no valid reasons to allow outfitters to target anything in resident only areas. They have guide territories for a reason and if the territory or quotas on it cannot provide them with enough opportunity they should not have purchased that territory.

[GoatGuy]

I never once said that Bobcats impact the deer herd.. I said they kill more deer than you and your cronies think they do.. I've got plenty of photographic and video evidence to back it up.. You have no idea who I am.. But I'm not the one with views that is going to be the demise of hunting.... period. If you're trying to stop non res hunting in our province you and your kids and mine will not be able to hunt anywhere else in this world.. IE: Kansas.. Ask them how well it worked out for their residents, when they would not allow non residents in their state... Other states in the USA stopped allowing any Kansas resident to hunt in theirs... Keep it up ole ye mr. president. You have to sit back once in a while and open your views... This province isn't all about you and your hunting activities.. It everyones resource and hunting privileges that you are going to take away... Not just mr. bad a$$ outfitter.

So that means you aren't willing to substantiate or support any of your arguments? Just make it up and throw it out there. You've done that a handful of times on this thread.

It's one thing when what you say is an unknown or can be argued, but when you claim something that is actually completely inconsistent with reality it demonstrates you are not concerned with making an informed decision or understanding an issue. It shows you have 'beliefs' about issues, which is fine- everyone's entitled, just don't try to pass them off as fact.

You can say "I believe the world is flat," just don't say "the world is flat" unless you actually have some evidence to support your claim.

[GoatGuy]

ya ya.. we're back to the deer population... a while back it was the sheep ( that there is no 70(1)b permits for.... before that it was deer again.. What is it... Are you worried about the outfitter taking a couple cats or big mature boars that apparently don't impact deer numbers...Because earlier in the thread it was the bad outfitters shooting a couple deer.. ? what is it... Who's pocket are they dipping into... Take a deer out of their own area and just pay the regular government fees.. Or give more money to the government and then pay the land owner to take a deer or 2.. Show me the numbers of how many deer were killed in this designated area by an outfitter that you have a problem with. How many are talking 2..3.. what.. Then tell me where it is.. I'll personally go down there.. Kill 3 or 4 female cougars (cause they are only the ones that kill deer in your mind) with some buddies and you'll gain back roughly around 150 deer (figuring a cat takes around a deer a week,i'll give you the benefit of less) that you're so worried about.. I'm personally willing to help ya out GG.

I'm not worried about saving a deer, I'm concerned with increasing deer populations.

If you don't understand how that works there is no sense in having this discussion. You are clearly a 'belief based' person when it comes to wildlife management and I'm sorry in that case I can't help you.

[GoatGuy]

Was not expecting bobcat to effect deer numbers only know they defiling target deer. Between resident harvest and trapping it is easy to keep bobcat populations in check regardless.

I see no valid reasons to allow outfitters to target anything in resident only areas. They have guide territories for a reason and if the territory or quotas on it cannot provide them with enough opportunity they should not have purchased that territory.

Yes, I think you get it - what I'm saying is keeping bobcat populations 'in check' makes no difference to deer. You can wipe them out or not hunt them - either way the other predators will make up the difference and you'll end up with the same deer population.

The hunting opportunity is just that - it's not one of those species where we can say we are managing predators for prey unless maybe it's for small prey species and even then I really have no idea.

Agreed, the resident only thing is a bit of a joke. I understand why some outfitters would want to make money off it if they could (even though I don't agree), just don't understand how they can try to explain how this is good for wildlife. Guess it's the BS factor. hahaha.

[GoatGuy]

Yes you can take your buddies with you if your residents. This seems pretty simple to me, A BUSINESS is going outside of their allowable business area and paying someone to be able to hunt animals that although they are on private land are not private animals. Seems sneaky to me. The landowner is not allowed to profit off of a product that is not his to sell. He can allow residents on his land for a fee as those residents can hunt the "resident only area" animals as we are allowed.

The outfitter can pay to be n the land but they are not allowed to harvest anything as it is a "resident only area".

Not sure how this is so grey for some??

"If you tell yourself something enough times you start to believe it, and then it becomes fact."

[Snowpatrol]

So that means you aren't willing to substantiate or support any of your arguments? Just make it up and throw it out there. You've done that a handful of times on this thread.

It's one thing when what you say is an unknown or can be argued, but when you claim something that is actually completely inconsistent with reality it demonstrates you are not concerned with making an informed decision or understanding an issue. It shows you have 'beliefs' about issues, which is fine- everyone's entitled, just don't try to pass them off as fact.

You can say "I believe the world is flat," just don't say "the world is flat" unless you actually have some evidence to support your claim.


Oh ya.. Thats the GG that we all know and love... Baffle us with bullshit.. I have no idea where you came up with this... If you're worried about deer populations you should have taken what I said a couple years ago and started back then.. instead of reacting to our drop in muledeer. Anyways.. Have a great day.

[GoatGuy]

Oh ya.. Thats the GG that we all know and love... Baffle us with bullshit.. I have no idea where you came up with this... If you're worried about deer populations you should have taken what I said a couple years ago and started back then.. instead of reacting to our drop in muledeer. Anyways.. Have a great day.

So that means you aren't going to support any of this with fact:

"As soon as he figures out that outfitters raise more money toward conservation than any resident hunters will ever raise.. The better off this site will be."

"TAking away the guide outfitter will do nothing for our sport except give anti hunter more to feed off"

"And take billions of dollars out of our resources that is paid from non resident hunting through outfitters"

I am curious if you will substantiate these these things. They are the easiest to find. There are numbers for this. I would guess they aren't consistent with your own beliefs.

It would be neat if the bank operated that way - "Hello, I'd like to withdraw 1 million beliefs today." "I have a couple million beliefs in the bank." "Believe me I make millions every year, you can lend me the money."

Hahaha, I get a real kick out of some of this stuff. The bank deals with real dollars, paychecks go in, bills come out.

That is reality - try it on.

[Snowpatrol]

I'm not worried about saving a deer, I'm concerned with increasing deer populations.

If you don't understand how that works there is no sense in having this discussion. You are clearly a 'belief based' person when it comes to wildlife management and I'm sorry in that case I can't help you.


I don't think so... you're worried about an outfitter taking 2... Me killing some cats for you down in your own hunting area will increase your deer population.. :-) toontown here I come.

[Snowpatrol]

So that means you aren't going to support any of this with fact:

"As soon as he figures out that outfitters raise more money toward conservation than any resident hunters will ever raise.. The better off this site will be."

"TAking away the guide outfitter will do nothing for our sport except give anti hunter more to feed off"

"And take billions of dollars out of our resources that is paid from non resident hunting through outfitters"

I am curious if you will substantiate these these things. They are the easiest to find. There are numbers for this. I would guess they aren't consistent with your own beliefs.

It would be neat if the bank operated that way - "Hello, I'd like to withdraw 1 million beliefs today." "I have a couple million beliefs in the bank." "Believe me I make millions every year, you can lend me the money."

Hahaha, I get a real kick out of some of this stuff. The bank deals with real dollars, paychecks go in, bills come out.

That is reality - try it on.

You still haven't answered half my questions.. Where is your so called facts that outfitters are over harvesting our deer numbers. ???????

[GoatGuy]

You still haven't answered half my questions.. Where is your so called facts that outfitters are over harvesting our deer numbers. ???????
Didn't say that anywhere. Reread.

[GoatGuy]

I don't think so... you're worried about an outfitter taking 2... Me killing some cats for you down in your own hunting area will increase your deer population.. :-) toontown here I come.
It might save a couple of deer it will not increase the deer population by a status ally significant amount.

if you don't get that I can't help you.

[Doublelung]

And take billions of dollars out of our resources that is paid from non resident hunting through outfitters.. its called the NRHPF or HPF fees that every non res pays.Government Revenues
Provincial
Guide Outfitter & Assist Guide Fees $0.14 million
Guide Royalties $0.41 million
Hunting Licences $0.68 million
Hunting Tags $1.47 million
Land Tenure, Park Use, etc. $2 million
Local Property Tax $0.2 million $



So this is directly from a study done for the government, I`m bad with math must you must be horrible!!! It would only take three hundred years to make it to the first billion you talk about. Let alone to make it to the billions you so seem to believe are made. Unless the guides are funneling money through the back door to the government I don't see how your billion has been reached or will be reached in my lifetime.

[Snowpatrol]

It might save a couple of deer it will not increase the deer population by a status ally significant amount.

if you don't get that I can't help you.

So you're saying that by saving 150-200 deer isn't going to increase your deer population... You are hilarious man.. Listen to yourself.. So you're saying that 150-200 deer aren't going to multiply way more deer in the up coming year as 150-200 less... lol ! Thats awesome.. I guess there is a stat for that too eh GG ?? I guess other cougars will just eat those 150-200 deer that yr anyways.. haha or maybe they will get killed by resident hunters.. or.. oh I know.. The 1 outfitter in the area will kill those 150-200 and their off spring.. you kill me man..

[Snowpatrol]

Provincial
Guide Outfitter & Assist Guide Fees $0.14 million
Guide Royalties $0.41 million
Hunting Licences $0.68 million
Hunting Tags $1.47 million
Land Tenure, Park Use, etc. $2 million
Local Property Tax $0.2 million $

Its simple numbers man... There are way more residents in this province then outfitters.. I could argue with you all week about this ... but it won't do anything.. cause you'll just twist some words around and make it what you want.. But we might as well chuck out the outfitters money and have it go to something else in the government.. cause the BCWF can do it all by themselves. You're looking at the small picture once again..

[Snowpatrol]

There are management concerns in region 5 due to non-resident over-harvest in resident only areas. Outfitters are actually impacting resident hunters in RESIDENT ONLY AREAS. I can guarantee you outfitter harvest in Region 4 has effected resident hunters and it has also affected our ability to conduct wildlife research.

Of course, I'm not blanketing all outfitters, just the guys taking the handouts, utilizing a resource they haven't paid to access, never asked to access and over-harvesting resident only areas, and the guy who shot a collared cat.

You seem to have seen a lot, and have some opinions about who contributes what. The bobcat limiting deer populations was the most interesting. If you have any facts to support any of it please feel free. Not one to deal with a steady stream of fiction.


In any case, I believe these tags will be terminated in the future. This cookie jar is closing.

Where have they over harvested ?????? Show me the numbers

[GoatGuy]

Where have they over harvested ?????? Show me the numbers

Region 5 cougars.

Branch has now said the harvest from outfitters has resulted in a management concern and the other outfitters have also expressed concern of over-harvest in resident only areas. hahahaha.

[GoatGuy]

Where have they over harvested ?????? Show me the numbers

And Region 4 is the most heavily used cat hunting spot in the province.

Don't want to get in to the numbers and reveal the individual outfitters involved as I'm certain that will result in a huge explosion in Cranbrook. Wouldn't want to have to do that.

Need to get rid of the backdoor deals and go about life.

[GoatGuy]

So you're saying that by saving 150-200 deer isn't going to increase your deer population... You are hilarious man.. Listen to yourself.. So you're saying that 150-200 deer aren't going to multiply way more deer in the up coming year as 150-200 less... lol ! Thats awesome.. I guess there is a stat for that too eh GG ?? I guess other cougars will just eat those 150-200 deer that yr anyways.. haha or maybe they will get killed by resident hunters.. or.. oh I know.. The 1 outfitter in the area will kill those 150-200 and their off spring.. you kill me man..

Those deer will end up being killed by other predators and that cougar will be replaced through a sink population the following year. They've done cougar reductions in the WK, Washington State, Idaho and utah. You have to remove about 20% of the females and even more males than that annually to see the deer population increase.

Same with wolves, if you aren't removing 70% of the population annually all you are doing is killing wolves, you aren't helping to increase ungulate populations.

It's like having a boat full of holes and plugging one of them thinking it will stop the leak. The other holes just push more water volume out and the ship still sinks.

Don't know how to make it any easier to understand - this is extremely basic stuff.

[GoatGuy]

Government Revenues
Provincial
Guide Outfitter & Assist Guide Fees $0.14 million
Guide Royalties $0.41 million
Hunting Licences $0.68 million
Hunting Tags $1.47 million
Land Tenure, Park Use, etc. $2 million
Local Property Tax $0.2 million $



So this is directly from a study done for the government, I`m bad with math must you must be horrible!!! It would only take three hundred years to make it to the first billion you talk about. Let alone to make it to the billions you so seem to believe are made. Unless the guides are funneling money through the back door to the government I don't see how your billion has been reached or will be reached in my lifetime.

Hahaha, there are stats for expenditures as well which will bump it up but not to 'billions'.

I was hoping he'd look up the numbers and lose the argument with himself, but clearly that isn't the case. Guess he'd rather make the claim and then refute the numbers. Shows how the thought process behind the other arguments go. Unfortunate really.

This is always the challenge when dealing with someone who tries to shape a numbers based argument to their beliefs. It doesn't matter what you say or do, they'll always tell you the world is flat even if they can't walk off the edge of it.

[GoatGuy]

Provincial
Guide Outfitter & Assist Guide Fees $0.14 million
Guide Royalties $0.41 million
Hunting Licences $0.68 million
Hunting Tags $1.47 million
Land Tenure, Park Use, etc. $2 million
Local Property Tax $0.2 million $

Its simple numbers man... There are way more residents in this province then outfitters.. I could argue with you all week about this ... but it won't do anything.. cause you'll just twist some words around and make it what you want.. But we might as well chuck out the outfitters money and have it go to something else in the government.. cause the BCWF can do it all by themselves. You're looking at the small picture once again..

These aren't words they are NUMBERS. Just like the ones that go into to your bank account. You can't go to the bank and say "i'd like to withdraw 1 million words today to buy a new home."

That isn't the way the real world works.

Sorry.

[Snowpatrol]

Hahaha, there are stats for expenditures as well which will bump it up but not to 'billions'.

I was hoping he'd look up the numbers and lose the argument with himself, but clearly that isn't the case. Guess he'd rather make the claim and then refute the numbers. Shows how the thought process behind the other arguments go. Unfortunate really.

This is always the challenge when dealing with someone who tries to shape a numbers based argument to their beliefs. It doesn't matter what you say or do, they'll always tell you the world is flat even if they can't walk off the edge of it.

And you are the king at that my friend

[OutWest]

Sounds like Snowpatrol needs to read a paper or two. Trying to pass beliefs off as fact and justifying back door deals. Awesome.

[Snowpatrol]

Sounds like Snowpatrol needs to read a paper or two. Trying to pass beliefs off as fact and justifying back door deals. Awesome.

Ya thanks for the helpful input there dude.. Time spent in the bush and field research is more valuable than pushing paper and making up number to support your beliefs,, all politicians do it. BCWF and the government admits that they don't have the resources to due extensive in field research and counts.. but they won't work with the people that do.... Its all good.. The animals will suffer in the long run... Outfitters preach numbers in their favour and so does the government and BCWF..

[burger]

Ya thanks for the helpful input there dude.. Time spent in the bush and field research is more valuable than pushing paper and making up number to support your beliefs,, all politicians do it. BCWF and the government admits that they don't have the resources to due extensive in field research and counts.. but they won't work with the people that do.... Its all good.. The animals will suffer in the long run... Outfitters preach numbers in their favour and so does the government and BCWF..

I really don't understand your hate for the facts....FACT there was regardless of whether the area could support it or not a GO hunting animals in a "resident only area". That contravenes the whole purpose of having a "res. only area".

It is irrelevant whether any of the animals potentially harvested made a difference to resident opportunity within this discussion. What is relevant however is that we all should not allow a BUSINESS to profit from what is essentially all our(residents) resource except where said GO has been allowed within his GO area or if special transparent arrangements have been made.

[Everett]

We are both aloud our opinion, but I believe we should put it up to the people of the province to decide. I'm working on a slogan.
Should some rich foreigner with no ties to this province be able to shoot an animal that could be used to feed one of the many hunger BC families? Stop the explotation of BC wildlife that so many of us require to feed out families. BC families first!!
OR

Thousands of moose shot to feed ego's instead of BC families. Stop the slaughter by foreigners. BC wildlife first for BC families.


Awesome I heartily agree why should residents be on LEH for Moose when some fat ass foreigner can just buy one. This needs to be the line BCWF takes with GOABC NO NON RESIDENT HUNTING IN BC PERIOD. Than the compromise will be no Outfitter hunting of any animal on LEH. Playing nice with GOABC has got the BCWF nowhere

[Snowpatrol]

Awesome I heartily agree why should residents be on LEH for Moose when some fat ass foreigner can just buy one. This needs to be the line BCWF takes with GOABC NO NON RESIDENT HUNTING IN BC PERIOD. Than the compromise will be no Outfitter hunting of any animal on LEH. Playing nice with GOABC has got the BCWF nowhere

Now that I find funny... If you want to end all hunting in BC I'd save giver sh&% ! Cause that is what will come out of it.... Got to ask you Everett.. Do you ever want to go hunting anywhere else in the world ??

[Fisher-Dude]

20 of 21 instances where predator reduction was tried resulted in no increase in mule deer numbers.

Snowpatrol isn't going to help our deer numbers whatsoever, despite his claims.

[Everett]

Hunting in BC will never end for residents but we can end it for non residents and if the GOABC keeps pissing residents off it will be soon.

[Snowpatrol]

Hunting in BC will never end for residents but we can end it for non residents and if the GOABC keeps pissing residents off it will be soon.

keep thinking that... But that will never happen either. all mighty one..

I never claimed to save all the deer in the province fisherdude,,, GG is the only one that can do that with his participation from his desk and his stats... lol

[Everett]

keep thinking that... But that will never happen either. all mighty one..

I never claimed to save all the deer in the province fisherdude,,, GG is the only one that can do that with his participation from his desk and his stats... lol

As an Outfitter apologist you miss the main point as do all your ilk your clients don't vote and miniscule amount of people who work in your industry are drop in the electoral bucket but hundred thousand hunters who buy licences and the hundred of thousands that sometimes buy licenses and there families are huge voting block. Than the fact that its pretty much impossible to win a majority government in BC with out rural representation means resident hunter are pretty much untouchable.

Now on the other hand if we go with Doublelungs slogans I think we can put a stake through the outfitting industries heart in no time.

Should some rich foreigner with no ties to this province be able to shoot an animal that could be used to feed one of the many hunger BC families? Stop the explotation of BC wildlife that so many of us require to feed out families. BC families first!!
OR

Thousands of moose shot to feed ego's instead of BC families. Stop the slaughter by foreigners. BC wildlife first for BC families

[Wild one]

Hunting in BC will never end for residents but we can end it for non residents and if the GOABC keeps pissing residents off it will be soon.

The truth is you will not end resident or guided hunts because they both bring $ into the economy. Outfitting brings in tourism $ to bc beyond what is spent on the hunt it self. Same as how residents add more $ to the economy then just tag/license sales.

You maybe able to change the species available to an outfitter, number of tag, even how outfitters are regulated but they will still be around.

Resident hunters will not make up for the loss of $ outfitting brings to BC so the govt is not going to cut out outfitters.

Now if both groups would stop wasting $ and effort trying to screw the other or defend them selves and put it into the game we both use all would benefit. Greed from both sides is not going to let this happen though

Standing up and fighting to keep outfitting honest is worth the effort but trying to abolish outfitting is a waste of effort

[Onesock]

Outfitters in resident only area sounds like rifle hunters in a bow only season,. Haha.

[Everett]

The truth is you will not end resident or guided hunts because they both bring $ into the economy. Outfitting brings in tourism $ to bc beyond what is spent on the hunt it self. Same as how residents add more $ to the economy then just tag/license sales.

You maybe able to change the species available to an outfitter, number of tag, even how outfitters are regulated but they will still be around.

Resident hunters will not make up for the loss of $ outfitting brings to BC so the govt is not going to cut out outfitters.

Now if both groups would stop wasting $ and effort trying to screw the other or defend them selves and put it into the game we both use all would benefit. Greed from both sides is not going to let this happen though

Standing up and fighting to keep outfitting honest is worth the effort but trying to abolish outfitting is a waste of effort

Its a proven fact that resident hunting is more profitable to the economy so when the guides quotes get transferred to residents it will be a wash and possibly a gain for government. Don't take me wrong I want to leave the outfitters industry I just want end non resident hunting the outfitters will just have to learn to cater to residents.

[Spy]

Now that I find funny... If you want to end all hunting in BC I'd save giver sh&% ! Cause that is what will come out of it.... Got to ask you Everett.. Do you ever want to go hunting anywhere else in the world ??

Just keep poking the hornets nest.. If you are the new voice for GO's, you are doing a lousy job. I was on the fence before you started posting your BS.. Im sure im not alone..

[GoatGuy]

The truth is you will not end resident or guided hunts because they both bring $ into the economy. Outfitting brings in tourism $ to bc beyond what is spent on the hunt it self. Same as how residents add more $ to the economy then just tag/license sales.

You maybe able to change the species available to an outfitter, number of tag, even how outfitters are regulated but they will still be around.

Resident hunters will not make up for the loss of $ outfitting brings to BC so the govt is not going to cut out outfitters.

Now if both groups would stop wasting $ and effort trying to screw the other or defend them selves and put it into the game we both use all would benefit. Greed from both sides is not going to let this happen though

Standing up and fighting to keep outfitting honest is worth the effort but trying to abolish outfitting is a waste of effort

I don't think anyone actually has an issue with non-resident hunters. They aren't the ones trying to take hunting opportunities and wildlife away from resident hunters. Most of them have no idea what's going on and the guys from the States all come from jurisdictions where non-residents get 10% of the allocation. Overall, I'm sure most of them support resident hunters in BC.

In the big picture it's a small fraction of outfitters looking to take wildlife away from residents or hunt in resident only areas instead of trying to make more wildlife. When you look at the history in a couple of regions you really get a good sense of who's been looking for and getting the backdoor deals. I you're the type to look for a handout I suppose it's natural to want to hang on to them.

I agree, it is unfortunate as it's been going on since the 60s from what I can tell and looking around at the current issues and the skeletons that are falling out of the closet nothing has changed. The allocation policy was signed in 2005 and the backroom deals where in progress before the ink even dried. Unfortunately the guys at the table have long since moved on. Live and learn.

There are however a few bright lights across the province. Seems to be a few more people getting involved and willing to get on board with wildlife management. Couple of guys in the north and the folks from the island and coast who seem to see the big picture so there is hope.

[horshur]

As an Outfitter apologist you miss the main point as do all your ilk your clients don't vote and miniscule amount of people who work in your industry are drop in the electoral bucket but hundred thousand hunters who buy licences and the hundred of thousands that sometimes buy licenses and there families are huge voting block. Than the fact that its pretty much impossible to win a majority government in BC with out rural representation means resident hunter are pretty much untouchable.

Now on the other hand if we go with Doublelungs slogans I think we can put a stake through the outfitting industries heart in no time.

Should some rich foreigner with no ties to this province be able to shoot an animal that could be used to feed one of the many hunger BC families? Stop the explotation of BC wildlife that so many of us require to feed out families. BC families first!!
OR

Thousands of moose shot to feed ego's instead of BC families. Stop the slaughter by foreigners. BC wildlife first for BC families



the meat goes to BC families.....none of the European hunters can ship meat but certainly some US hunters do at great cost but mostly the meat is shared out to the guides as well GOABC has a program to donate meat to the less fortunate.....

When I have guided the clients have made a point of being sure I took the meat......this is standard way of doing business guided hunts are trophy hunts the resident guide can and do bring home the meat....so my family has had good Canadian moose several seasons now...It is a Value added opportunity for residents.

For me I get to go Moose hunting every year in an area I never could afford anyway anyhow with usually good company(Not always LOL) good food good memories I come home with a quarter or more of good moose meat my client a set of antlers...

anyway I wanted to set the record straight on that ..........

[markomoose]

Holy cow got more education on this post than I did in high school?

[horshur]

Region 5 cougars.

Branch has now said the harvest from outfitters has resulted in a management concern and the other outfitters have also expressed concern of over-harvest in resident only areas. hahahaha.

but the resident hunters wanted a two cat limit??????

[GoatGuy]

but the resident hunters wanted a two cat limit??????

Not in Region 5.

In Region 4W the request has been made for 15 years and told no. Robinson's work should cougar predation on mule deer due to wt density was what was holding the population down.

Meanwhile we have found out 70(1)B permits have been issued across the entire WK region.


Oh the irony.

[horshur]

There are management concerns in region 5 due to non-resident over-harvest in resident only areas. Outfitters are actually impacting resident hunters in RESIDENT ONLY AREAS. I can guarantee you outfitter harvest in Region 4 has effected resident hunters and it has also affected our ability to conduct wildlife research.

Of course, I'm not blanketing all outfitters, just the guys taking the handouts, utilizing a resource they haven't paid to access, never asked to access and over-harvesting resident only areas, and the guy who shot a collared cat.

You seem to have seen a lot, and have some opinions about who contributes what. The bobcat limiting deer populations was the most interesting. If you have any facts to support any of it please feel free. Not one to deal with a steady stream of fiction.


In any case, I believe these tags will be terminated in the future. This cookie jar is closing.

I think the problem is who wrote the permits????? I don't know the story or the history or why but somebody should have just said no and they didn't......I don't like the guide bashing don't think it serves any usefull end .the guides can ask all they want so could residents this is a government level problem..the government boys are the pros that we pay to do the right thing....

it is like kids they are gonna ask for another cookie.... get shit if they take the cookie without permission but if they ask and I say okay and they end up fat or somthin that is my fault...kids are gonna ask..parents say no...Government needs to say no or at least have a good reason.......this issue isn't a guide problem it is a parent problem...

[Foxton Gundogs]

These aren't words they are NUMBERS. Just like the ones that go into to your bank account. You can't go to the bank and say "i'd like to withdraw 1 million words today to buy a new home."

That isn't the way the real world works.

Sorry.

Don't worry GG it will feel good when you finally stop lol

http://blinkutopia.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/bangheadonwall.jpg

[GoatGuy]

I think the problem is who wrote the permits????? I don't know the story or the history or why but somebody should have just said no and they didn't......I don't like the guide bashing don't think it serves any usefull end .the guides can ask all they want so could residents this is a government level problem..the government boys are the pros that we pay to do the right thing....

it is like kids they are gonna ask for another cookie.... get shit if they take the cookie without permission but if they ask and I say okay and they end up fat or somthin that is my fault...kids are gonna ask..parents say no...Government needs to say no or at least have a good reason.......this issue isn't a guide problem it is a parent problem...

Funny thing is the direction is now coming from the top to help mitigate for the allocation policy.

It goes well above government employees.

[bridger]

I am not interested in getting in a pissing contest with guide outfitters and i know that goat guy isn't either, but the fact remains that some guides have gotten permits to guide in resident only areas. This didn't happen by accident.

It is all well and good to say that this is a government problem and the government can just say no! Sorry but it doesn't work that way. This is a political decision and political decisions are not based on reason, logic, or fairness. They are based on power perceived or real. If these permits are being given as mitigation for the allocation policy by Victoria the issue is much more serious. It means that the Goabc is involved in the lobbying efforts. I think the pig is getting lipstick on both ends on this one and it isn't being applied by resident hunters.

[Mulie-Stalker]

Doesn't surprise me that an outfitter near Nelson BC would take a handout from the Government with regards to bears and cats. Really no different then those useless bums sitting on Baker Street, capable of making it, but always looking for a free ride.

Good job GG, we as resident hunters have needed someone like you to stand-up for our rights. Also to Bridger, great job!

[chilcotin hillbilly]

We are both aloud our opinion, but I believe we should put it up to the people of the province to decide. I'm working on a slogan.
Should some rich foreigner with no ties to this province be able to shoot an animal that could be used to feed one of the many hunger BC families? Stop the explotation of BC wildlife that so many of us require to feed out families. BC families first!!
OR

Thousands of moose shot to feed ego's instead of BC families. Stop the slaughter by foreigners. BC wildlife first for BC families.

that is one of the dumbest things I have heard in a while. All that meat that is left by foreign hunters is used by BC families. If families are hunger it is cheaper to by a side of beef then kill a moose in almost every case.
If a foreigner kills a moose with tags, license and royalties he is contributing over $500.00 to general revenue to help house and feed those with their hands out.

[bridger]

that is one of the dumbest things I have heard in a while. All that meat that is left by foreign hunters is used by BC families. If families are hunger it is cheaper to by a side of beef then kill a moose in almost every case.
If a foreigner kills a moose with tags, license and royalties he is contributing over $500.00 to general revenue to help house and feed those with their hands out.


Back door deals between guides and government shrouded in secrecy tend to piss people off and we are seeing more anger as this thread continues. So a non resident pays $500 in fee's to hunt moose that's great, but not what this thread and the subsequent resident anger is about. It's about guides making back door deals with government and just not about these permits, there are lot's of other examples. The goabc is always saying we have to work together, then continue to back door us. Believe me, Goat Guy and the rest of the Fed rep's have better things to do, than deal with these issues, but it just never ends. You guys are the ones making the back room deals, want to get along and work together on more important issues, then stop doing it. Really simple solution

[bearvalley]

As an Outfitter apologist you miss the main point as do all your ilk your clients don't vote and miniscule amount of people who work in your industry are drop in the electoral bucket but hundred thousand hunters who buy licences and the hundred of thousands that sometimes buy licenses and there families are huge voting block. Than the fact that its pretty much impossible to win a majority government in BC with out rural representation means resident hunter are pretty much untouchable.

Now on the other hand if we go with Doublelungs slogans I think we can put a stake through the outfitting industries heart in no time.

Should some rich foreigner with no ties to this province be able to shoot an animal that could be used to feed one of the many hunger BC families? Stop the explotation of BC wildlife that so many of us require to feed out families. BC families first!!
OR

Thousands of moose shot to feed ego's instead of BC families. Stop the slaughter by foreigners. BC wildlife first for BC families


Everett , here's something from the past. Remember when a handfull uf roads in Region 6 were blockaded a couple of years back and all you "foreigner" resident hunters were denied access to your wildlife. Maybe it was just coincidence but the area outfitters carried on with business as normal. Charter planes flew and hunters came and went with no hassle. Maybe this was because the FN's people in the area appreciated the " moose shot to feed egos" that was brought to them to divide among their elders or anyone else needing meat. Maybe it was because the outfitters in the north treat these people with respect and recognize their traditional values. Maybe it was just coincidence. If you think resident hunters are " pretty much untouchable" you are absolutely stunned. So go ahead and carry the torch. Stuff a stake in the guiding industries heart. I would bet with you that there will still be a guiding industry in a large part of this province while you and the King of ToonTown are lining up to shoot the last bobcat or deer in the "resident ONLY" area. That's if you "foreigners"are allowed to hunt at all.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Sorry Bridger,
Being a fairly new outfitter this 70 (1) b permit was not a secret to anyone. 6 years before I was issued one I knew they existed why and how come the BCWF did not know of them. I wasn't even guiding at that time. I am not sure how this was a back door deal.
I have heard at the regional meetings that cats are no longer part of the permits -------unless there is a lack of resident harvest and a need for some preditor control. Then an only then will a permit be given out with a quota attached to it.
This so called over harvest from what i undertand was do to outfitters being told it was a one time deal and they became a little greedy, as well good snow conditions actually played a huge part in this years harvest. 90% of hound guys can't catch cougar , lynx or bobcats with out snow that includes outfitters as well. Good conditions could really be the deciding factor. If the big cats were hammered it may help the Muledeer populations....... oh yah that doesn't actually work that way just ask GG.

I know i will continue applying for the permits for bear and wolf and hope I can hunt cougar as well but do just fine if I don't get it. You have to remember very few bears get killed in these areas by hunters maybe one or two a year and less for cougar. I still believe areas like this are what the permits were ment for, but i can only speak for what i have seen myself.

[6616]

Everett , here's something from the past. Remember when a handfull uf roads in Region 6 were blockaded a couple of years back and all you "foreigner" resident hunters were denied access to your wildlife. Maybe it was just coincidence but the area outfitters carried on with business as normal. Charter planes flew and hunters came and went with no hassle. Maybe this was because the FN's people in the area appreciated the " moose shot to feed egos" that was brought to them to divide among their elders or anyone else needing meat. Maybe it was because the outfitters in the north treat these people with respect and recognize their traditional values. Maybe it was just coincidence. If you think resident hunters are " pretty much untouchable" you are absolutely stunned. So go ahead and carry the torch. Stuff a stake in the guiding industries heart. I would bet with you that there will still be a guiding industry in a large part of this province while you and the King of ToonTown are lining up to shoot the last bobcat or deer in the "resident ONLY" area. That's if you "foreigners"are allowed to hunt at all.

No, I think it was because that outfit where the roads were blockaded was owned by a Thaltan chief.

[bearvalley]

Back door deals between guides and government shrouded in secrecy tend to piss people off and we are seeing more anger as this thread continues. So a non resident pays $500 in fee's to hunt moose that's great, but not what this thread and the subsequent resident anger is about. It's about guides making back door deals with government and just not about these permits, there are lot's of other examples. The goabc is always saying we have to work together, then continue to back door us. Believe me, Goat Guy and the rest of the Fed rep's have better things to do, than deal with these issues, but it just never ends. You guys are the ones making the back room deals, want to get along and work together on more important issues, then stop doing it. Really simple solution
Bridger, don't be so bitter. Not all outfitters are shit. They don't all make back door deals. Some are actually pretty up front if you took the blinders off long enough to look. I must have missed something but I didn't think this thread was about allocation policy either. Get a grip man. Maybe it's time GOABC and the BCWF get some new faces at the table before the old grudge packers open up a lot bigger can of worms than they ever imagined. You guys follow your Goat Guy like a flock. I don't know where he finds some of the crap he spouts. One of his better lines in this thread had something to do with predator reduction does not help grow wildlife. OK. Bring some in on the ark. The best way to end diarrhea is to stop feeding it so the Goat can carry on dragging out papers on this issue and have at her. I'm not saying the BCWF does not have its good merits and good reps but there are some personal vendettas from the past. Totally non productive.

[bearvalley]

No, I think it was because that outfit where the roads were blockaded was owned by a Thaltan chief.
Wrong answer. Rick was the outfitter for the band owned territory. Not the only outfit up there.

[GoatGuy]

Bridger, don't be so bitter. Not all outfitters are shit. They don't all make back door deals. Some are actually pretty up front if you took the blinders off long enough to look. I must have missed something but I didn't think this thread was about allocation policy either. Get a grip man. Maybe it's time GOABC and the BCWF get some new faces at the table before the old grudge packers open up a lot bigger can of worms than they ever imagined. You guys follow your Goat Guy like a flock. I don't know where he finds some of the crap he spouts. One of his better lines in this thread had something to do with predator reduction does not help grow wildlife. OK. Bring some in on the ark. The best way to end diarrhea is to stop feeding it so the Goat can carry on dragging out papers on this issue and have at her. I'm not saying the BCWF does not have its good merits and good reps but there are some personal vendettas from the past. Totally non productive.

This is usually the way it goes:

1) You don't understand
2) This is good for you
3) Bullying
4) We should all get along
5) Personal attacks

It took a while longer than the other threads, but you've made it there. Usually you go right to 5.


The first thing that should have happened is the outfitters who got tags should have asked residents if they could hunt in resident only areas. If the shoe were on the other foot outfitters would be screaming. If the ministry ever decided to give resident hunters a couple of outfitter tags you can bet there would be a pile of squawking. It is interesting that you don't think this is a two way street and have managed to rationalize it. Even if it's from a fairness amongst outfitter perspective - why should one get receive benefit when someone else doesn't?

At this point the best thing to do is own it, deal with it and fix it. The first thing that should have been acknlowdged was yes this is for MONEY. Don't try to play it off as a "good for you, good for me" deal or "I'm doing this for moose". That isn't the reason why and it isn't supported by science. The second thing is: how do we fix it. The reaction to date shows two things: the folks involved knew this wasn't consistent with policy and wouldn't go over well with residents. That is why it was shrouded in secrecy, and that is also why a bunch of them will be pulled and the baggage that will follow.

Alternatively you can continue to run through the top 5 countdown and repeat.


If you believe things are tough here, this is a speck of dust as compared to what will happen in Region 4. You have absolutely no idea how passionate the residents are there about wildlife, and particularly cat hunting. There are a few huge mistakes that have been made there. As the skeletons drop out of the closet this will only get worse. Again, not an issue created by resident hunters - this is one they found out about after being intentionally kept out of the loop.


I've never singled any of the outfitters out, or lumped them all together. The names of the outfitters have not been released. There are some people who took advantage of a situation and tried to fly under the radar - the worst thing you can do is try to rationalize it. Your reaction makes it seem that much worse and will turn people off. The personal attacks aren't going to win you any awards either.


Finally, this is not an issue created by resident hunters or their reps - this is an issue people who knew about the permits and received them are going to have to wear. For some the smell will linger for a long time. Hopefully they'll try a different approach than the tact you've taken because all that will do is tick people off even more.

That is some friendly advice. If you want to continue with the personal attacks feel free.

[GoatGuy]

Chilcotin Hillbilly, I never indicated predator control didn't work. I indicated how much of the population had to be removed to see an increase in the prey population. I think I've now repeated myself 7 or 8 times on this issue.

If you believe by harvesting one or two cats, especially old toms, is doing something for deer then that is your choice.

Just know there are a handful of big studies where everything was collared that have tried to do that and they've all found that what you are saying is completely incorrect.

It really is that simple.

[bearvalley]

Goat Guy while you're pointing out that I have reached point 5( personal attacks) read back trough your posts, past and present threads. You don't mind who you slam or knock as long you think you can get out your message. The sad thing is not all of us are sheep.
You want me to go down the 5 point list:
1- I do understand. As much as anyone that participated in this thread.
2- I had no permit. No gain. Don't like to hunt in town. So no real good to me.
3- You may call it bullying but no one with any backbone is going to sit back while his occupation and lifestyle is
being knocked down . Outfitting or ranching.
4- I do believe we should get along. As I said before wildlife and hunting opportunities would be the winner.
5- Personal attacks. I guess Goat Guy the answer to that is give back what you receive. I never was to good at tucking my tail between my legs and hiding my head under my paws.

I acknowledge this is not an issue created by resident hunters or their reps. It's a management issue. But on the same hand it is highly unlikely to be a spin of off allocation policy mitigation. How can it be if these permits have been issued for 30 years. That pre dates any allocation policy talks by a long, long time. Also just to stand corrected if I'm wrong, were these "resident only areas" at one time not called non tenured guide outfitter areas (or something along those lines). A question I have is if I ask my cousin or friend from Ontario or Alberta over to hunt in one of these resident only areas on a " Permit to Accompany".... do I get the go ahead from resident hunters, the BCWF(that does not represent all resident hunters or do I get permission from the Provincial/Regional Wildlife staff.
Think about that for a moment.
Some friendly advice back. There are 2 sides to a coin.

[hunter1947]

Notch another one up for the guide outfitter they seam to run the wildlife management what they want they get we are the residence people that live in BC why don't we have a
vote on what has been implemented ???.

I would understand if the management gave the ok to shoot only wolves and thin out a few cats,,,,,, predators are the main reason for the decline of prey the foot work I put on
when out in the wild I saw 10 mule deer carcases 3 WT deer that where killed by cats this week in one area that I hunted for sheds that day I see the kills do management see them
I say not..

If the management would get away from there desks and get out there in nature put some leg work on they would see for them self's just how bad it is out there for predators yes

its another blow to us the residence management implemented rules that is not going to help the recruitment of out game animals..

Whats wrong with our management ??? O I Know whats wrong the management is run by outfitters ..

What I would like to see is that we as residence hunters have the rights to vote on new rules that the management implements we a hunters know what is best for the long term
not whats best for aliens or outfitters..

[Snowpatrol]

Its a proven fact that resident hunting is more profitable to the economy so when the guides quotes get transferred to residents it will be a wash and possibly a gain for government. Don't take me wrong I want to leave the outfitters industry I just want end non resident hunting the outfitters will just have to learn to cater to residents.

That will never happen... Its people like you that will kill our sport. Guide outfitters don't take residents for a reason.... It's like putting your favourite hunting spot with detailed directions on this web site.. Why would they want to tell residents all their good spots.. Most residents are lucky to hunt 12 weekends out of the year.. ( if they hit every weekend in lets say the deer season) Outfitter are out there almost everyday during that season.. Who is going to be more efficient ?? Why would they show residents that so they can take all their buddies in to the same secret spot.. If you're any kind of hunter you'll figure this out.

[Snowpatrol]

Just keep poking the hornets nest.. If you are the new voice for GO's, you are doing a lousy job. I was on the fence before you started posting your BS.. Im sure im not alone..

As stated many times.... I'm not an outfitter ! I'm not the voice of any outfitter ! Have I guided many non resident hunters.. yup. you bet ! You should give it a shot. it might open up your eyes a little and you'll be able to make your own opinions from being in the bush lots instead of taking stats and skewed numbers from the BCWF. Blown out of proportion a lot of the time. Like outfitters are over harvesting deer in resident only areas.. Its quite clear that GG has an issue with certain outfitters.. But that should be delt with on a one on one with those individuals. Instead he attacks all outfitters.. good or bad. I'm not apposed to dealing with the situation.. However... I do have a problem with the way it is presented.

I don't think anyone actually has an issue with non-resident hunters.

Really......?? I think you should reread a couple posts back... He clearly says that he is trying to do in all non-res hunting and outfitters !!! Death to the sport.. I don't really care how mush $ they do bring in.. I know its not as much as the residents through licences and tags.. but if it were me and it was my business I'd rather have some $ to help the cause over none of it.

[frenchbar]

time for a group hug ....

[bridger]

[/B]
That will never happen... Its people like you that will kill our sport. Guide outfitters don't take residents for a reason.... It's like putting your favourite hunting spot with detailed directions on this web site.. Why would they want to tell residents all their good spots.. Most residents are lucky to hunt 12 weekends out of the year.. ( if they hit every weekend in lets say the deer season) Outfitter are out there almost everyday during that season.. Who is going to be more efficient ?? Why would they show residents that so they can take all their buddies in to the same secret spot.. If you're any kind of hunter you'll figure this out.


you know i have heard that " we can't take residents because they will come back with their friends" song before. I wonder if those concerns are real or merely a perception? Have you actually taken resident hunters and have that happen or do you just assume that is what will happen?

I have discussed this with outfitters over the years and it usually comes down to price. The non resident is forced by law to hire an outfitter and therefore ends up paying more. You know what? I think most rational thinking people can understand an outfitters concern over his/her bottom line. It is just all the bs that goes with it that gets tiring.

These permits in my mind are a good example. This is more about outfitters increasing their bottom line than it is about conservation or benefitting resident hunters. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but when it is automatically the "go to" solution it becomes unfair and unacceptable. I will say this one more time. Together we need to concentrate on what's best for the resource and move forward, so in the future how about coming through the front door?

[hunter1947]

What going to happen with this new implementation is there will be more conflicts between residence and guide outfitters no guide outfitters can stay in there own territories we don't need them expanding into other areas in order to take more game from us the residential hunters.

[Weatherby Fan]

you know i have heard that " we can't take residents because they will come back with their friends" song before. I wonder if those concerns are real or merely a perception? Have you actually taken resident hunters and have that happen or do you just assume that is what will happen?

I have discussed this with outfitters over the years and it usually comes down to price. The non resident is forced by law to hire an outfitter and therefore ends up paying more. You know what? I think most rational thinking people can understand an outfitters concern over his/her bottom line. It is just all the bs that goes with it that gets tiring.

These permits in my mind are a good example. This is more about outfitters increasing their bottom line than it is about conservation or benefitting resident hunters. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but when it is automatically the "go to" solution it becomes unfair and unacceptable. I will say this one more time. Together we need to concentrate on what's best for the resource and move forward, so in the future how about coming through the front door?

Well said Bridger, trouble is when it comes to where money is involved, the greed is to great and the ethics get swept under the rug and even worse than that conservation takes a back seat to making money, not just to point a finger at the Outfitters that are taking advantage of this slimy situation, who are the low life's issuing these permits and what kickbacks are they getting as I'm sure they're not doing this out of the goodness of the heart.

[2radd]

Sure doesn't feel the interest of resident hunters are represented by the bureaucrats signing off on this. Better representation of residents seems to be the solution. Someone spoke of poking a hornets nest as far as I'm concerned the hornets nest needs to be swatted out of the tree.

[Snowpatrol]

Well said Bridger, trouble is when it comes to where money is involved, the greed is to great and the ethics get swept under the rug and even worse than that conservation takes a back seat to making money, not just to point a finger at the Outfitters that are taking advantage of this slimy situation, who are the low life's issuing these permits and what kickbacks are they getting as I'm sure they're not doing this out of the goodness of the heart.

I don't know how many times I have to say this but here ya go again... Are these permits for Predators ???? According to GG the outfitters are over harvesting deer and moose and sheep on these permits... Predators ?? or not ?? He is the king of saying something and then when he gets called on it. he never answers the question.. he should because he knows everything there is to know about wildlife.. Just ask him. Are they for Predators only ??? Cause if they are.. I just wrote in another post.... Go raise some dogs of your own.. go get snow machines, skimmers, trucks, collars, tracking telemetry, etc, etc, etc..... See how much $ you make guiding cat hunts during the winter !! I encourage you to do it... Its is for the love of hunting with hounds.. This is not a line your own pockets on "resident areas"

Very few residents hunt cats... unless you live in the east koots. A few year back the females were on a very tight quota.. 10 I do believe ! (GG will tell us if I'm wrong.) I personally know resident hunters that went out with their pals and shot 5 females to shut the season down, so the outfitters couldn't finish their hunts that they had booked... Now its those same resident hunters that are bitching about the sheep and the muledeer population. weird. (but again that doesn't help populatioins) Its funny that everytime out cat hunting when I run into resident hunters they tell me to kill everyone I tree to help the deer population,..?? weird

[Kudu]

Awesome I heartily agree why should residents be on LEH for Moose when some fat ass foreigner can just buy one.



That says it all - why should BC residents loose out to the money grabbers?

The government needs to ban non resident "trophy hunting" - that simple!

(Ps! Sold to the public correctly - There are millions of non hunters who will back this - by voting for it. :-D)

[Snowpatrol]

That says it all - why should BC residents loose out to the money grabbers?

The government needs to ban non resident "trophy hunting" - that simple!

(Ps! Sold to the public correctly - There are millions of non hunters who will back this - by voting for it. :-D)

You must like to go to Africa and hunt by the looks of your signature... Wouldn't it be great if they said "BC doesn't allow us to hunt in its province, so anyone from BC can't hunt here... Great mentality in that post.

[Weatherby Fan]

I don't know how many times I have to say this but here ya go again... Are these permits for Predators ???? According to GG the outfitters are over harvesting deer and moose and sheep on these permits... Predators ?? or not ?? He is the king of saying something and then when he gets called on it. he never answers the question.. he should because he knows everything there is to know about wildlife.. Just ask him. Are they for Predators only ??? Cause if they are.. I just wrote in another post.... Go raise some dogs of your own.. go get snow machines, skimmers, trucks, collars, tracking telemetry, etc, etc, etc..... See how much $ you make guiding cat hunts during the winter !! I encourage you to do it... Its is for the love of hunting with hounds.. This is not a line your own pockets on "resident areas"

Very few residents hunt cats... unless you live in the east koots. A few year back the females were on a very tight quota.. 10 I do believe ! (GG will tell us if I'm wrong.) I personally know resident hunters that went out with their pals and shot 5 females to shut the season down, so the outfitters couldn't finish their hunts that they had booked... Now its those same resident hunters that are bitching about the sheep and the muledeer population. weird. (but again that doesn't help populatioins) Its funny that everytime out cat hunting when I run into resident hunters they tell me to kill everyone I tree to help the deer population,..?? weird

It matters not what animals are involved it's the fact that these type of back door deals go on period.
What part of this don't you get ?

[Snowpatrol]

[QUOTE=GoatGuy;1485420]Chilcotin Hillbilly, I never indicated predator control didn't work. I indicated how much of the population had to be removed to see an increase in the prey population. I think I've now repeated myself 7 or 8 times on this issue.

If you believe by harvesting one or two cats, especially old toms, is doing something for deer then that is your choice.

Just know there are a handful of big studies where everything was collared that have tried to do that and they've all found that what you are saying is completely incorrect.

It really is that simple.[/QUOTE

Hahaha.. Ya you have. So unless you hit your magic number it will do absolutely nothing ??? ya ok. Remove ones self from his desk and you'll figure it out. Numbers numbers numbers.. thats all you got GG

[Kudu]

You must like to go to Africa and hunt by the looks of your signature... Wouldn't it be great if they said "BC doesn't allow us to hunt in its province, so anyone from BC can't hunt here... Great mentality in that post.


I own property in Africa with my own animals living on it - my residency is still valid! As is my BC residency - (try figure that one out genius!)

Have you ever been to Africa by any chance?

Now what were you saying about mentality again?


It's high time that this government banned all non resident trophy hunting - simple really!

[GoatGuy]

Goat Guy while you're pointing out that I have reached point 5( personal attacks) read back trough your posts, past and present threads. You don't mind who you slam or knock as long you think you can get out your message. The sad thing is not all of us are sheep.
You want me to go down the 5 point list:
1- I do understand. As much as anyone that participated in this thread.
2- I had no permit. No gain. Don't like to hunt in town. So no real good to me.
3- You may call it bullying but no one with any backbone is going to sit back while his occupation and lifestyle is
being knocked down . Outfitting or ranching.
4- I do believe we should get along. As I said before wildlife and hunting opportunities would be the winner.
5- Personal attacks. I guess Goat Guy the answer to that is give back what you receive. I never was to good at tucking my tail between my legs and hiding my head under my paws.

I acknowledge this is not an issue created by resident hunters or their reps. It's a management issue. But on the same hand it is highly unlikely to be a spin of off allocation policy mitigation. How can it be if these permits have been issued for 30 years. That pre dates any allocation policy talks by a long, long time. Also just to stand corrected if I'm wrong, were these "resident only areas" at one time not called non tenured guide outfitter areas (or something along those lines). A question I have is if I ask my cousin or friend from Ontario or Alberta over to hunt in one of these resident only areas on a " Permit to Accompany".... do I get the go ahead from resident hunters, the BCWF(that does not represent all resident hunters or do I get permission from the Provincial/Regional Wildlife staff.
Think about that for a moment.
Some friendly advice back. There are 2 sides to a coin.

That is the direction out of Victoria now.

This is a discreet choice - yours to make.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Interesting sitting here and seeing how each of us, all resident hunters have different concerns.

Some of us stiill harping on the one permit for private land muledeer given to one outfitter.

Others are concerned about over harvest that took place in region 5. The over harvest was on cougar not deer. According to GG the cougars will be back next year (so don't worry) and in my opinion ( which I believe is right) a lot more deer will have survives the winter, increasing deer populations in that area.

Others on here just can't deal with the fact that outfitters are here to stay, the first tourism in BC and an important part of our heritage. Others seem to have a hate on for everything in life because .......... who knows !

There are a few that seem to think as long as the predators are getting shot continue on, whether it is guides or residents it doesn't mattter.

As far as i know I am the only evil outfitter on this thread, a couple ranchers, some assistant guides many resident hunters and at least one, but i am thinking more like 3 BCWF boys. i would like to think I am one of the outfitters that meet the good guy standard and I have taken resident hunters out, even for deer. I do happen to take them to places that are tough to get to and I pick and chose which residents I take for obvious reasons.

Will I apply for the 70(1)b permits again. Sure i will, they will continue giving them out for bear and wolves and cougar in certain cases. Deer are done no more of that, I am sure the regional manager is still crying about signing that one off.

[Snowpatrol]

It matters not what animals are involved it's the fact that these type of back door deals go on period.
What part of this don't you get ?


I can ask you the same question man... They weren't all that back door as I knew about them along with alot of guys I hunt with knew about them.. Ya wow.. quite the secret ! If its not about the animals why are we here. ?? GG has made it clear that the problem is outfitters over harvesting the animals in these areas.. first he had a problem with outfitters taking deer off private land... until I called him on it.. now he hasn't mentioned deer again..?? He mention sheep in this thread on the same permits... until I called him on it.. Now he has never mentioned sheep again.?? Keep going back to the back door approach cause thats all he's got to go to in this thread...But as stated before, many resident knew about this so called back door deal. !! He is an extremist ! If you have an extremist fighting on either end... their vote is kicked out from the people that are rational in the middle.

[Mulie-Stalker]

Not sure if any outfitters have thought about trying to keep the peace with residents in non-resident hunting areas or there own guide outfitting areas ! Social Media can be quite a bitch! Obviously word travels very fast these days, I would be willing to loose a couple of great elk and mule deer spots, help out some of my fellow resident hunters that are in the kootenays or anywhere in BC that want to kill a big bull or nice mule deer, I'll be first to give info up just to F-Up a guide...should start with Crawford Bay..... We should start with a new thread soon, called hunting in guide areas, anyone that has been screwed over by a guide can post a little knowledge of that specific guides area to help resident hunters go into that area and harvest what some foreigner would take from us.....my 2 bits

[Snowpatrol]

I own property in Africa with my own animals living on it - my residency is still valid! As is my BC residency - (try figure that one out genius!)

Have you ever been to Africa by any chance?

Now what were you saying about mentality again?



It's high time that this government banned all non resident trophy hunting - simple really!

I guess you're a NON RESIDENT then... Oh and refrain from the personal attacks.. GG will get you banned unless you're on his side of the fence.. You should know all about fences as you hunt within high ones in Africa. Wow.. what talent !

[horshur]

20 of 21 instances where predator reduction was tried resulted in no increase in mule deer numbers.

Snowpatrol isn't going to help our deer numbers whatsoever, despite his claims.

just read a bit Goat is going to contradict you pretty quik...sumthin about a two cat limit

[The Hermit]

Here is the thing, the GOABC has a paid full time Executive Director and the dollars to hire well paid lobbyists to pursue their primary mission which is focused on gaining advantages and opportunity for their members. Clearly they do a great job.

Whereas, the BCWF is a huge CONSERVATION organization that is controlled by volunteers trying to accomplish a very broad mandate. Yes they too have paid staff and yes they do their best to represent the interests of all resident hunters in the context of that broader mission but I would argue that the organization doesn't spend nearly the time or money that the GOABC does on allocations and professional lobbying! I'm not intending to bash the BCWF, they simply can't be on top of every environmental, fisheries, wildlife, habitat, development, and access issue all the time - an impossible task.

Perhaps the BCWF needs to adapt a different approach and hive off the allocation committee and form a new organization totally committed and paid to focus on allocations and wildlife management issues? Someone, and not long time buddies of Tom Either and company, needs to get into the faces of the elected officials and hit the press hard with facts and figures. I'd pay dues and do fund raisers for that organization and expect the BCWF to throw lots of money and resources at it too.

So GoatGuy - how about naming names here... who issued the permits under who's direction? Getting people to scream at their MLAs and writing letters is one thing, pin pointing the wrong do'ers in those letters will have a much much bigger impact. Any letters in reply could be used as fodder in the press too.

I wasn't going to attend the BCWF AGM next weekend but I'm sorely tempted to go now just for the show! However caution would be required... I figure the frothing of mouths, spitting of bile, and screaming, bitching, and whining will require attendees to wear ear and eye protection. I pity the poor Ministry wildlife managers that are brave enough to attend this year! :mrgreen:

[2radd]

More successful residents in guided hunting areas would be good for economics of the community. Would probably deal with predator problems as well. This idea is already been put into motion. The time for extremist is now sitting on the fence is just gonna give you a sore ass.

[Kudu]

I guess you're a NON RESIDENT then... Oh and refrain from the personal attacks.. GG will get you banned unless you're on his side of the fence.. You should know all about fences as you hunt within high ones in Africa. Wow.. what talent !


Can't you read either - what part of "Im a BC resident as well" - can't you understand? (should have it was beyond you - eh - just could not figure it out then!! :mrgreen:)

High fences? - have you been on my property? Is all of Africa high fenced - Mwa ha ha ha ha ha (Jezuzz that's got be a shed load of wire)



Man - I really hope you are the exception amongst the BC Guides - or are you just really trying hard today!

[bearvalley]

An Outfitting business operates on a bottom line the same as any other. It's definitely not a get rich quick plan. Most outfitters are in the game because of their passion to hunt, by themselves or with another person. How else can you hunt for 2 1/2 or 3 months straight unless your pockets are real deep. There are a few that see just the almighty dollar and their track record speaks for them. As far as clients go, resident clients are welcome. A client is a client. Really is a licensed guide/outfitter unaffordable to a resident hunter. In some cases no, but in others yes. When you factor in the necessary equipment to have a good hunt and the higher success rate in some situations the right outfitter can be a bargain.

[Kudu]

An Outfitting business operates on a bottom line the same as any other. It's definitely not a get rich quick plan. Most outfitters are in the game because of their passion to hunt, by themselves or with another person. How else can you hunt for 2 1/2 or 3 months straight unless your pockets are real deep. There are a few that see just the almighty dollar and their track record speaks for them. As far as clients go, resident clients are welcome. A client is a client. Really is a licensed guide/outfitter unaffordable to a resident hunter. In some cases no, but in others yes. When you factor in the necessary equipment to have a good hunt and the higher success rate in some situations the right outfitter can be a bargain.


Oh my - now I really have heard it all!

[Fisher-Dude]

Perhaps the BCWF needs to adapt a different approach and hive off the allocation committee and form a new organization totally committed and paid to focus on allocations and wildlife management issues? Someone, and not long time buddies of Tom Either and company, needs to get into the faces of the elected officials and hit the press hard with facts and figures. I'd pay dues and do fund raisers for that organization and expect the BCWF to throw lots of money and resources at it too.




BCWF can't put more than 10% into lobbying efforts, as they would lose charitable status. GOABC can spend what they want.

CRA guidelines:


We usually consider substantially all to mean 90% or more. Any charity using at least this amount of its various resources for charitable work can be assured that we will not revoke its registration on the basis that it is not devoting enough of its resources to charitable activities. Therefore, as a general rule, we consider a charity that devotes no more than 10% of its total resources a year to political activities to be operating within the substantially all provision.

[The Hermit]

Good point Pat and it underlines my point - the BCWF for lots of reasons can't do it effectively! Whereas a new business, call it "Resident Hunting Inc" could be formed and take donations from anyone... wanna be the accountant?

[Fisher-Dude]

Good point Pat and it underlines my point - the BCWF for lots of reasons can't do it effectively! Whereas a new business, call it "Resident Hunting Inc" could be formed and take donations from anyone... wanna be the accountant?

What do I know about accounting? Debits on the left, credits on the right.

Is GOABC still charging the $750 US "non-resident surcharge" on every hunt to build their anti-resident hunter warchest?

[bearvalley]

That is the direction out of Victoria now.

This is a discreet choice - yours to make.
OK Goat Guy. I have made my discreet choice. I am asking your permission as you are a BC resident and a director of the BCWF if I (another BC resident) can take my cousin from Alberta on a Mule deer hunt in Region 5-2 on a Permit to Accompany in the fall of 2014? If you give me approval, is your approval valid? I think you missed the object of my question.

[Apolonius]

No matter what everyone is looking for their own interest.GO for themselves as it is all money to them.Resident hunters for more opportunity as it means more food on the table.Residents harvest for themselves what belongs to all….and outfitters sell ….what again belongs to all.More for the resident,less for them.Like the hermit said they have a war chest and all the lobbyists to work for them,to get what they want.In any convention they have you can see all the politicos from all stripes for the freebies.At the convention of BCWF/WSSBC what you see?Goat Guy is doing what most of us are too lazy or "busy" to do.Thanks GG.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

What do I know about accounting? Debits on the left, credits on the right.

Is GOABC still charging the $750 US "non-resident surcharge" on every hunt to build their anti-resident hunter warchest?

Shows how much you know. Another outfitter hater spouting of facts he has no clue about. The HPF is $200, where do you get your "facts" from.

[Snowpatrol]

Can't you read either - what part of "Im a BC resident as well" - can't you understand? (should have it was beyond you - eh - just could not figure it out then!! :mrgreen:)

High fences? - have you been on my property? Is all of Africa high fenced - Mwa ha ha ha ha ha (Jezuzz that's got be a shed load of wire)



Man - I really hope you are the exception amongst the BC Guides - or are you just really trying hard today!


I'll be sure to let the CO's in on this, and make sure you're spending the required amount of time each year in BC to keep your BC resident hunting license ! They really like that one !

[Foxton Gundogs]

I own property in Africa with my own animals living on it - my residency is still valid! As is my BC residency - (try figure that one out genius!)

Have you ever been to Africa by any chance?

Now what were you saying about mentality again?


It's high time that this government banned all non resident trophy hunting - simple really!

Give it up Mike.

http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n499/FoxtonGundogs/HBC%20Crap/2da95d13-23bc-4fb0-8da0-c548e65f0438.jpg (http://s1136.photobucket.com/user/FoxtonGundogs/media/HBC%20Crap/2da95d13-23bc-4fb0-8da0-c548e65f0438.jpg.html)

[Foxton Gundogs]

I'll be sure to let the CO's in on this, and make sure you're spending the required amount of time each year in BC to keep your BC resident hunting license ! They really like that one !

You just do that, you may as well trot your putting your mouth in gear before you wake your brain up approach out for the COs to see as well. You obviously don't have a clue about the man so why would you go making false aqusations, but wait why should that be any different than anything else you have posted on here.

[Fisher-Dude]

Shows how much you know. Another outfitter hater spouting of facts he has no clue about. The HPF is $200, where do you get your "facts" from.

It was $500, was to go to $750, so has the rapidly-dwindling GOABC membership scaled back now because it was getting too expensive?

[Fisher-Dude]

I'll be sure to let the CO's in on this, and make sure you're spending the required amount of time each year in BC to keep your BC resident hunting license ! They really like that one !

Go for it. While you're at it, and I know you are a fair man, be sure to ask them to check into the activities of BC's best-known outfitter who travels the globe filming hunts for WildTV. Someone on here calculated him to be ineligible to make any application for anything under the Act a while back, including buying a hunting license and applying for LEH. Better make sure that calculation is up to date for famous outfitters, too.

[Kudu]

Give it up Mike.

http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n499/FoxtonGundogs/HBC%20Crap/2da95d13-23bc-4fb0-8da0-c548e65f0438.jpg (http://s1136.photobucket.com/user/FoxtonGundogs/media/HBC%20Crap/2da95d13-23bc-4fb0-8da0-c548e65f0438.jpg.html)


Yep - Jim you are right - something's are just not fixable!

[chilcotin hillbilly]

It was $500, was to go to $750, so has the rapidly-dwindling GOABC membership scaled back now because it was getting too expensive?

Your proving your ignorance once again. The GOABC portion was $150/ hunter and then regions had there own which varied, i believe no more then $50/ hunter.

This year in 2014 it is all lumped together at an even $200 , so once again where did you get your facts!

[Fisher-Dude]

So you don't deny that you help raise close to $1,000,000 a year to spend on lobbying to take quota away from resident hunters.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

So you don't deny that you help raise close to $1,000,000 a year to spend on lobbying to take quota away from resident hunters.

Once again where do you get your numbers. i have been to every meeting and have never heard such a thing. You once again are proving you are an idiot. Any moneys collected goes not to the "so called war chest to fight the nasty BCWF" but to preserve hunting in this province and the territorries. Who is waging the war on the anti hunting campains? The GOABC and non resident hunters are footing the bill for the most part.
You need to sit back and give your head a good shake maybe that will get you thinking straight.

[bearvalley]

Sorry to tell some of you guys but the most damage done to the BCWF is by some of its own members.

[Mulie-Stalker]

Go for it. While you're at it, and I know you are a fair man, be sure to ask them to check into the activities of BC's best-known outfitter who travels the globe filming hunts for WildTV. Someone on here calculated him to be ineligible to make any application for anything under the Act a while back, including buying a hunting license and applying for LEH. Better make sure that calculation is up to date for famous outfitters, too.

Hahaha, this sounds like a shifty outfitter....weird!

[bearvalley]

Go for it. While you're at it, and I know you are a fair man, be sure to ask them to check into the activities of BC's best-known outfitter who travels the globe filming hunts for WildTV. Someone on here calculated him to be ineligible to make any application for anything under the Act a while back, including buying a hunting license and applying for LEH. Better make sure that calculation is up to date for famous outfitters, too.

Now we turn it into a Shockey smear. Fill his boots as to showing the public what hunters believe in.
I'm still waiting for Goat Guy and the BCWF, resident hunter union to give approval for my Permit to Accompany hunt in Region 5, MU 2. Will it be legal? Or should I just go apply for one from the Regional Manager the same as those Outfitters did? Or maybe we should say that non tenured guide areas/resident only areas should be resident only. No Permits to Outfitters and No Permits to Accompany in these areas. Is there really a difference?

[Ambush]

IMO if BC didn't have a strong Guide lobby, we wouldn't be having a G bear hunt debate right now. There wouldn't be a hunt.

Like it or not we are both hitched to the same wagon. Some won't pull their weight and some will eat more than their fair share, but that's up to both sides to weed out the takers and slackers. It's also up to us as individuals to expose greed and up to groups to discipline the offenders. That's how trust is built.

Three scenarios:

My neighbour asks if he can borrow a shovel. "Yes of course".

My neighbour borrows my shovel when I'm not home. When I get home he tells me he did and say's "hope that's ok"? " Yes of course, you're a good neighbour".

My neighbour borrows my shovel when I'm not home, doesn't tell me and just hope's I don't find out.

Same wear and tear on the shovel, same chance of the handle getting broken, but which scenario seems more to your liking.

[Rackmastr]

Which neighbour are we talking about Ambush? :twisted:

[Ambush]

Which neighbour are we talking about Ambush? :twisted:

Good neighbours and bad neighbours. Happily, there are more good than bad.

[bearvalley]

Simply put and understood Ambush. No one like to have what's theirs taken. In the case of the Outfitter permits it's obvious they have been granted for years as well as the issuing of Permits to Accompany. At the discretion of Wildlife Branch staff if they feel the permit is valid and justified. These people are paid to do this job and will never keep everyone happy. I would be curious as to how many hunts took place under a Permit to Accompany in these sacred resident only zones. I would think as a resident hunter myself that there is no obligation on my part to ask GG or the BCWF for any type of Permit to hunt in this province. The BCWF is the voice of its members not the voice of all resident hunters and this kind of a biased campaign is what keeps people from joining.

[Spy]

I tell you that underhanded back door deals are going to be your downfall.. Thats what this thread is about, nothing else.
We are fed up with this BS. Instead of trying to justify it you should be asking the GOABC WTF!
Everyone involved should be fired or fined.. Who are these GO's ? Post there names up im sure you know who they are.. What I cant understand is how all the other guiding outfitters, stood by and let this happen? You either condone it or you dont. I have nothing against guides and believe we are all stronger together & need to get on if we want to survive.
Transparency is key though & name calling is driving us apart..

[Snowpatrol]

So you don't deny that you help raise close to $1,000,000 a year to spend on lobbying to take quota away from resident hunters.

Hey Dude.. Why don't we all focus on trying to take quotas away from the FN.. This is a WAYYYY bigger problem then the minuscule quotas of the GO's. GO's aren't trying to take away resident quotas ?? Your misconception again... as well as all the other brass of BCWF on here.