Game Alocation

[Apolonius]

Just got my BC Outdoors magazine and finished the article about game allocation.A very good read ,an eye opener.How wildlife managers play with numbers and how guide outfitters are stealing game from the resident hunter.I hope many of you read it and follow up with the suggestions.

[Amphibious]

I hear guides eat babies too. and puppies.

[Fisher-Dude]

It's rather sad how many hits LEH threads get while a thread about WHY we're on LEH instead of GOS gets ignored.

[bearvalley]

Better if we just have a free for all. Whack em and stack em.

[Elkaholic]

I have always been of the opinion that the guide/outfitters will get whatever they want and we will take the scraps. The whole policy is crap, the whole thing. I may not know a better way but the system in place now sure favours a certain user group more than others.

[Kudu]

It's rather sad how many hits LEH threads get while a thread about WHY we're on LEH instead of GOS gets ignored.

Exactly!

Some folks just can't see shit for porridge........


I know a guide - (works up north for a big group) - this year their sheep allocation is 35 ($40.000 a head) - throw in a couple of dozen moose, goat and elk tags - not bad for three months trouble and toil.

[albravo2]

Anybody that has ever run his own business knows it ain't as easy as it looks from the outside. 35 sheep at $40k per sure sounds like easy money but I'm willing to bet that they work hard for anything they get to keep.

Friends of mine run a fishing lodge and they work very hard for what I would call a reasonable living.

Farmings easy too, right? Just plant that stuff and come back a few months later to take it to the bank.

[Kudu]

Anybody that has ever run his own business knows it ain't as easy as it looks from the outside. 35 sheep at $40k per sure sounds like easy money but I'm willing to bet that they work hard for anything they get to keep.

Friends of mine run a fishing lodge and they work very hard for what I would call a reasonable living.

Farmings easy too, right? Just plant that stuff and come back a few months later to take it to the bank.

I have owned and run businesses on three different continents - trust me - I know what it takes.

If the lodges / outfitters where not making money - do you really think that they would be in the business?

How much does a lodge or hunting concession fetch on the open market? If the owners / shareholders are not doubling their investments every three to five years then they really are in the wrong business quite frankly.

The bit that I find interesting - I a "resident hunter / fisherman" can follow my guide mate around and shoot at the same animals (if I have a tag or LEH ) he is charging his clients a fortune for, and there is bugger all he can do about it - same goes for fishing - nothing's stops me following a river guide around - pulling up next to him and putting his sturgeon hole into my GPS or his salmon marks for that matter.

I'm sure this happens all the time - yet these guys still find a way to make money - you have to give credit to them - one or two maybe a dozen competitors makes for a healthy business environment - but a couple of thousand resident hunters / fisherman is a completely different scenario.

This is the kind of stuff they need to immerse budding MBA students into - it really is an interesting case for big business.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Thanks for the tip. I'll make sure I pick up a copy today.
I suspect we might know the author.


SSS

[OutWest]

Thanks for the tip. I'll make sure I pick up a copy today.
I suspect we might know the author.


SSS

Always a good read.

[chickenfarmer]

outfitters can not have something the resident hunters do not. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. The outfitter does have time and should know his concession better than most.

[Caribou_lou]

Resident priority seems to be pushed aside when it comes to the allocation policy.

[604redneck]

I hear guides eat babies too. and puppies.
We do actually

[Fisher-Dude]

Hopefully people take the time and read the article before they form a coffee shop opinion. When the figures show that foreigners have increased moose harvest by 85% during the same period that residents have decreased moose harvest in the same region (R4) by 56%, you might want to sit up and pay attention to it.

[Argali]

Not doubting that one outfit may have 35 Stone allocations but it seems very high. The govt site states that the average annual guide quota 2007-11 was 112 total. I would think that if a single outfit receives a third of the quota there would be an uprising.
The quotas given should be public information.Does anyone have them?

[Apolonius]

The writer seemed very knowledgeable.He aded a couple of websites at the end.He also mentioned that NOT all outfitters agree with what a few are doing.Do read the article and make up your minds.That the resident harvest is down is not news to anyone.But manipulation of numbers by regional managers and behind closed doors decisions it was news to me.I like to believe if you are there to manage our wildlife,you should be fair.

[1899]

Better if we just have a free for all. Whack em and stack em.

I was just at Takla Lake and some fellows came by looking for some "pop". One fellow figured they would go out "and get a nice young moose". He "got 3 already this year", but he was going to get another one "for some of them really soft steaks from a young moose".

So yeah, there is kind of a free for all as it is...

[bearvalley]

Just to separate the shit from the porridge ... No Outfitter in northern BC has a yearly harvest of 35 rams. If the outfitter has an allocation of 35 rams it's probably over 5 years. That will give him an annual quota of 7 rams. Doesn't sound nearly as dramatic when you take into fact that a lot of these rams harvested by outfitters are dug out of places that are tough to access by the average resident hunter. A big part of a guide/client hunt is a quality wilderness experience.. Some outfitters try to beat the resident hunters to every easy to get legal ram but a lot would rather go to where they are not tripping over other hunters. Just my 2 bits to add to the good guy/bad guy saga.

[bridger]

Not doubting that one outfit may have 35 Stone allocations but it seems very high. The govt site states that the average annual guide quota 2007-11 was 112 total. I would think that if a single outfit receives a third of the quota there would be an uprising.
The quotas given should be public information.Does anyone have them?

I agree! i would be very surprised if one outfitter has a sheep quota of 35 rams. Highest I can remember is 22 and that was light years ago. Quota's are public information and for years were made available. The new regional manager in 7b won't release them.

[2chodi]

In 2012 the largest stone sheep quota in 7B was 19 (resulted from the combination of two original areas) and the next biggest 17, also a combination of two areas. The third biggest was 15. These numbers may have varied somewhat, but no big changes have been made.

[GoatGuy]

This allocation issue isn't one about all guide-outfitters, or the guide-outfitting industry as a whole.

There are a pile that support the current policy, that are concerned with moving forward, and are not/have not been a part of this effort to overthrow the policy which was signed off in 2007. There are people that are generally happy with the way things are going in terms of allocations and can truly see the big picture - they want to work to increase wildlife populations so everyone has an increase in allocation.

There are however a few, which have been very loud and proactive in getting the policy thrown out, changed, marginalized at the expense of other members of the outfitting industry and resident hunters. There have been dozens of quota appeals to this effect since 2010, trying to take wildlife away from resident hunters. Unfortunately, these outfitters are the ones who were given 'special consideration' over the years (inflated population estimates, over-harvest, one-offs), and want to continue with that way of operating. You can't blame them for wanting to continue that, but at the same time we cannot give one-offs and compromise wildlife populations - that isn't fair to wildlife, resident hunters or other outfitters who are treated unfairly because someone else got extra.

Unfortunately, the practice of taking animals out of resident only areas or other populations and giving them to guide-outfitters in quota in their territory continues to this day.

[bridger]

Time to kick over the tables and shoot out the lights!!!

[Moose Guide]

I have always been of the opinion that the guide/outfitters will get whatever they want and we will take the scraps. The whole policy is crap, the whole thing. I may not know a better way but the system in place now sure favours a certain user group more than others.

The outfitter I used to work for got 3 tags a year while residents got 30!!!! He sure is getting the lion share! In 7 years I never saw a resident hunter either!

[tuner]

reading the allocation article in bc outdoors was a sobering experience.if species numbers are at a level where they cannot sustain a GOS or LEH season for resident hunters, then the only fair and moral thing to do, is shut the whole thing down ,regardless of economic factors.allocations should never be handed out to GOABC at the expense of resident hunters. it's highly hypocritical of public servants to take a provincial resource,deny residents access to it, while redirecting that resourse to a group who contributes a fraction of tax dollars,that resident taxpayers do to the provincial coffers.

[Argali]

I think if you try to argue the allocation issue from an tax/economic point of view in favour of residents, you will lose. Residents earn their money in B.C., are taxed in B.C., and will spend the majority of their money in B.C. - and this will happen whether they hunt or not. The only thing that changes is if they hunt is where and how the money is spent. No new money is generated. Hunting affects only how money that is already here is distributed through expenditures, except perhaps for those hunters that decide to vacation or hunt abroad if they couldn't hunt in B.C.

On the other hand, when foreign hunters come in, they bring new money to the country and economy - and a lot of if compared to resident hunter expenditures. If you look at it from a strictly economic point o view, it would be more beneficial to have 40,000 foreign hunters and zero resident hunters. If resident hunters weren't so obsessive and didn't have guns, that could happen!

There are few resources in B.C. where residents have such a favourable advantage compared to foreigners. If you want some nice Doug fir timbers, you will be bidding against Japanese. Same thing with raw logs and any lumber. You want to go skiing on Crown Land at any resort, you pay whatever price they want to charge - no cut rate for being a resident. You want some coal from Elkford? No problem but you pay the same as the Chinese. BC Hydro charges residents competitive rates for electricity generated from flooded Crown Land.

But ... foreign hunters will pay $35K for a Stone hunt while residents can by a tag for $60 and have a hunt for a price as low as a couple tanks of fuel and food. Some chip in $3K for a flight or a packer. That makes no financial sense, and from a purely economic viewpoint, it would be legitimate for the govt and people of B.C. to demand that wildlife resources be sold to the highest bidder and not distributed to residents at an absurdly high discount.

Thus, I would not dwell on economics when discussing the allocation issue.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

I agree! i would be very surprised if one outfitter has a sheep quota of 35 rams. Highest I can remember is 22 and that was light years ago. Quota's are public information and for years were made available. The new regional manager in 7b won't release them.


In 2012 the largest stone sheep quota in 7B was 19 (resulted from the combination of two original areas) and the next biggest 17, also a combination of two areas. The third biggest was 15. These numbers may have varied somewhat, but no big changes have been made.


Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't region 6 still on the 'Skeena Formula' when it comes to sheep quotas?? eg ...If 'x' percentage of their harevested rams are 8 plus years of age then their quotas increase no matter if they have enough rams in their area to fill their quotas. This can result in completely over-inflated quotas that really have no meaning except in the sale of territories....and of course their over-zealous protection of rams from resident hunters.

SSS

[albravo2]

^well said.

[Airedale]

I would disagree with Argali.
The economic benefits/spin offs from Guided hunts should not be assumed and need to be examined closely...esp when extra quotas are requested.
There are many outfits so there are many different situations so there will be differences.
But, as an example, last year I came across a Guides camp. Very friendly people, shared a beer.
But the guide and cook were from the Maritimes. The 2nd guide and wrangler were from AB.
They arrive in BC and head into the bush. Get paid and head home. Economic benefit to BC...not great.
Clients mostly drove to camp area from US...some with campers/RVs. Economic benefit to BC....not great.
The Outfitter gets the bulk of the cost of the hunt. Does he live full time in BC or head for Arizona post season?
How much of the money is used to repay the often substantial loan used to buy the territory?
At what interest rate? Does the loan holder live in BC? ... or spend the interest money in BC?

A proper "economic benefits to BC" study of the industry might be worth the time and cost.

And put me down with those that find political interference in quota allocation to be deplorable.
And hats off to BC Outdoors for having the guts to print the article.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

I would disagree with Argali.
The economic benefits/spin offs from Guided hunts should not be assumed and need to be examined closely...esp when extra quotas are requested.
There are many outfits so there are many different situations so there will be differences.
But, as an example, last year I came across a Guides camp. Very friendly people, shared a beer.
But the guide and cook were from the Maritimes. The 2nd guide and wrangler were from AB.
They arrive in BC and head into the bush. Get paid and head home. Economic benefit to BC...not great.
Clients mostly drove to camp area from US...some with campers/RVs. Economic benefit to BC....not great.
The Outfitter gets the bulk of the cost of the hunt. Does he live full time in BC or head for Arizona post season?
How much of the money is used to repay the often substantial loan used to buy the territory?
At what interest rate? Does the loan holder live in BC? ... or spend the interest money in BC?

A proper "economic benefits to BC" study of the industry might be worth the time and cost.

And put me down with those that find political interference in quota allocation to be deplorable.
And hats off to BC Outdoors for having the guts to print the article.

Well said and welcome to HBC!!

SSS

[Bro 300]

Well, I guess if we are looking at allocation for BC as a whole. I have been putting in for elk in region 1 for 25 - 30 yrs. (can't remember how long exactly) with no success. Yet the outfitter at the North end of the island is allotted 2 tags for a 3 year period. As I understand it LEH's are for BC residents. I am sure that these clients hunting these elk are not from Canada, never mind BC.
How the hell does that work?

[GoatGuy]

I think if you try to argue the allocation issue from an tax/economic point of view in favour of residents, you will lose. Residents earn their money in B.C., are taxed in B.C., and will spend the majority of their money in B.C. - and this will happen whether they hunt or not. The only thing that changes is if they hunt is where and how the money is spent. No new money is generated. Hunting affects only how money that is already here is distributed through expenditures, except perhaps for those hunters that decide to vacation or hunt abroad if they couldn't hunt in B.C.

On the other hand, when foreign hunters come in, they bring new money to the country and economy - and a lot of if compared to resident hunter expenditures. If you look at it from a strictly economic point o view, it would be more beneficial to have 40,000 foreign hunters and zero resident hunters. If resident hunters weren't so obsessive and didn't have guns, that could happen!

There are few resources in B.C. where residents have such a favourable advantage compared to foreigners. If you want some nice Doug fir timbers, you will be bidding against Japanese. Same thing with raw logs and any lumber. You want to go skiing on Crown Land at any resort, you pay whatever price they want to charge - no cut rate for being a resident. You want some coal from Elkford? No problem but you pay the same as the Chinese. BC Hydro charges residents competitive rates for electricity generated from flooded Crown Land.

But ... foreign hunters will pay $35K for a Stone hunt while residents can by a tag for $60 and have a hunt for a price as low as a couple tanks of fuel and food. Some chip in $3K for a flight or a packer. That makes no financial sense, and from a purely economic viewpoint, it would be legitimate for the govt and people of B.C. to demand that wildlife resources be sold to the highest bidder and not distributed to residents at an absurdly high discount.

Thus, I would not dwell on economics when discussing the allocation issue.

Economic efficiency assumes maximum benefit to society as a whole. Considering the current system and format of wildlife managemenet/habitat protection/parks land is heavily subsidized in BC we don't actually maximize benefit. Because wildlife related areas (parks and protected areas) as well as recreation values, and wildlife management is paid at least in part through various parts of the government the net result is a reverse transfer of income. All people of British Columbia, whether they live in luxury or at the poverty line contribute taxes which subsidizes 'wildlife' and 'wildlife areas' in BC. Wildlife is in effect a public resource, which was intended to maximize benefit for British Columbians' - maximum social benefit does not necessarily mean selling to the high bidder, particularly when that opportunity is being subsidized by people who are far less fortunate.

Social surplus for resident hunters can be measured through willingness to pay and contingent valuation style methods. There are also user fees surcharges which need to be brought in to the context of management and explored through the lens of maximizing social benefit yet again.

While the common grasp of economics might not seem good for the resident versus non-resident argument, natural resource economists might have a difference result and certainly a different approach.

[Argali]

Airdayle, that is absolutely true that not all of the money spent on guided hunts stays in B.C., just as with any other business. However, the amount that stays could be readily increased by requiring residency for outfitters and employees, if that was the objective.

However, my point is that selling low priced tags for GOS or LEH seasons to residents is not a good way to generate revenue from a scarce resource that requires allocations. However, I think most residents like the GOS seasons and like low tag prices. If you make the debate about money, inevitably the low tag prices and GOS or even LEH resident seasons will disappear in favour of other schemes/allocations that could generate much higher revenue from the same resource. It would be better for residents to make the debate more about fairness, opportunity, tradition, etc. and less about money.

[bearvalley]

So the allocation share issue goes on and on. The outfitters put cash back into the BC economy. The resident hunter does his part to keep the province afloat. The taxpayer supports the publics wildlife. He gets more than I got...... Is the Allocation Policy really going to mean anything when outfitters and resident hunters have to go to the local band office to see who hunts? If resident hunters and outfitters don't pull together the day will come where we will all be sitting around watching Wild TV and reminiscing about the hunting opportunities and GOS we used to have......

[GoatGuy]

So the allocation share issue goes on and on. The outfitters put cash back into the BC economy. The resident hunter does his part to keep the province afloat. The taxpayer supports the publics wildlife. He gets more than I got...... Is the Allocation Policy really going to mean anything when outfitters and resident hunters have to go to the local band office to see who hunts? If resident hunters and outfitters don't pull together the day will come where we will all be sitting around watching Wild TV and reminiscing about the hunting opportunities and GOS we used to have......

Hahaha, very true.

7 years after sign-off still all kinds of shenanigans on the go and it continues to this day. The attempts to circumvent and manipulate policy, and go to the environmental appeal board wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax payer dollars to get some more, will likely continue until government finally puts it foot down and puts an end to the backdoor bs. Unfortunately, it appears there are a few people still interested in taking something away instead of making more. Nice to see there is also a growing contingent which is distancing itself from these attempts and is proactively moving forward with wildlife related issues.

Heartwarming that there are more and more people who are not trying to gain more wildlife through allocation, and instead are interested in working for wildlife. As stated, it certainly isn't a blanket on the industry, more a couple patches that are making the industry look bad.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

I think if you try to argue the allocation issue from an tax/economic point of view in favour of residents, you will lose. Residents earn their money in B.C., are taxed in B.C., and will spend the majority of their money in B.C. - and this will happen whether they hunt or not. The only thing that changes is if they hunt is where and how the money is spent. No new money is generated. Hunting affects only how money that is already here is distributed through expenditures, except perhaps for those hunters that decide to vacation or hunt abroad if they couldn't hunt in B.C.

On the other hand, when foreign hunters come in, they bring new money to the country and economy - and a lot of if compared to resident hunter expenditures. If you look at it from a strictly economic point o view, it would be more beneficial to have 40,000 foreign hunters and zero resident hunters. If resident hunters weren't so obsessive and didn't have guns, that could happen!

There are few resources in B.C. where residents have such a favourable advantage compared to foreigners. If you want some nice Doug fir timbers, you will be bidding against Japanese. Same thing with raw logs and any lumber. You want to go skiing on Crown Land at any resort, you pay whatever price they want to charge - no cut rate for being a resident. You want some coal from Elkford? No problem but you pay the same as the Chinese. BC Hydro charges residents competitive rates for electricity generated from flooded Crown Land.

But ... foreign hunters will pay $35K for a Stone hunt while residents can by a tag for $60 and have a hunt for a price as low as a couple tanks of fuel and food. Some chip in $3K for a flight or a packer. That makes no financial sense, and from a purely economic viewpoint, it would be legitimate for the govt and people of B.C. to demand that wildlife resources be sold to the highest bidder and not distributed to residents at an absurdly high discount.

Thus, I would not dwell on economics when discussing the allocation issue.

Very well put!
I would be careful before believing everything you read in that article. There is a lost of BS, twisted facts and information written. The author is doing his best to burn bridges between the BCWF and the GOABC and the MOE. He is not doing the resident hunters any favors by acting this way.

[1899]

Well said and welcome to HBC!!

SSS

I agree - and welcome, although it is Airedale's first post, he has been lurking for over 3 years!

A fair number of outfitters are not even Canadian. The one I know is German and he usually brings in a German helper. There are some American owners too.

[bridger]

Very well put!
I would be careful before believing everything you read in that article. There is a lost of BS, twisted facts and information written. The author is doing his best to burn bridges between the BCWF and the GOABC and the MOE. He is not doing the resident hunters any favors by acting this way.

i think when the Goabc told government it's membership would not support government efforts to increase resident hunter numbers a couple of years ago the bridge started burning. It really got going when the Goabc said at the same time that in order to sustain the guiding industry resident sheep hunters had to go on leh. Then there was the trophy hunting only plank in their presentation to government. I completely agree that we need to work together, but remember it wasn't the BCWF that derailed the allocation policy. In my view that derailment needs to be reconstructed and backroom deals need to end so we can move forward as a hunting fraternity. I look forward to thst day!

[bearvalley]

i think when the Goabc told government it's membership would not support government efforts to increase resident hunter numbers a couple of years ago the bridge started burning. It really got going when the Goabc said at the same time that in order to sustain the guiding industry resident sheep hunters had to go on leh. Then there was the trophy hunting only plank in their presentation to government. I completely agree that we need to work together, but remember it wasn't the BCWF that derailed the allocation policy. In my view that derailment needs to be reconstructed and backroom deals need to end so we can move forward as a hunting fraternity. I look forward to thst day!

The way it's going with sheep in BC, LEH or a 1 ram in X amount of years season is on the horizon. With the known access to sheep and more hunters looking for a ram the quantity and quality is going to go down hill. Add in a lack of predator control and limited sheep habitat restoration and I don't think our provinces sheep population can sustain a GOS as we have in some areas to much longer. Thin out some predators and burn a few mountains and a GOS might be viable a little longer. Let's face it if by chance every BC resident sheep hunter decided to hit the mountains hard Aug 1st of this year the 2015 season will be pretty grim. I don't like waiting to get an LEH draw any more than the next guy but I do not think we should expect to shoot a ram every year just because we can. Sheep are in a class of their own and that's why the difference of opinion on their management. They're not rabbits, but you know that.

[one-shot-wonder]

Very well put!
I would be careful before believing everything you read in that article. There is a lost of BS, twisted facts and information written. The author is doing his best to burn bridges between the BCWF and the GOABC and the MOE. He is not doing the resident hunters any favors by acting this way.

Can you help us by pointing out the twisted facts.....standing by

[Ricky Bobby]

Very well put!
I would be careful before believing everything you read in that article. There is a lost of BS, twisted facts and information written. The author is doing his best to burn bridges between the BCWF and the GOABC and the MOE. He is not doing the resident hunters any favors by acting this way.


I just read the article, would love to see an argument from the other side. Would be very interested to see what facts are mis represented.

[bridger]

[QUOTE=bearvalley;1514311]The way it's going with sheep in BC, LEH or a 1 ram in X amount of years season is on the horizon. With the known access to sheep and more hunters looking for a ram the quantity and quality is going to go down hill. Add in a lack of predator control and limited sheep habitat restoration and I don't think our provinces sheep population can sustain a GOS as we have in some areas to much longer. Thin out some predators and burn a few mountains and a GOS might be viable a little longer. Let's face it if by chance every BC resident sheep hunter decided to hit the mountains hard Aug 1st of this year the 2015 season will be pretty grim. I don't like waiting to get an LEH draw any more than the next guy but I do not think we should expect to shoot a ram every year just because we can. Sheep are in a class of their own and that's why the difference of opinion on their management. They're not rabbits, but you know that.

I know few if any resident sheep hunters that expect to kill a ram every year. The resident sheep hunters that kill a ram every year you can count on one hand and not use all your fingers. What resident hunters want is opportunity. I am of the opinion that leh is not an option unless we are talking a very small allowable harvest. There are other more equitable solutions. Over the years I have never heard the Goabc suggest a reduction in non resident sheep harvest as a management option. Nor have I ever heard the Goabc talk about limiting non residents to one stone ram in a lifetime. Why is that? Answer: sheep aren't rabbits they are $$$ but you know that!

[bearvalley]

Bridger, the whole world spins on $$$$. They come and they go. It's the same in any business.
When you look at the sheep situation in a GOS MU, the one that has to stay within his allocated
guidelines is the outfitter. He operates on a quota, the rest of us residents go buy a tag over the
counter and go hunt. An over harvest of the resident share will hurt a sheep population for years.
I never said we need to go to 1 sheep in a lifetime, but at one time Region 7 had a pretty good
system in place or maybe LEH is the answer. All I know is we can't keep rooting at the trough like
a herd of pigs.

[boxhitch]

Sheep in reg 7 must be doing alright if the reg. manager can take them off the schedule list , and out of the allocation policy to manage as he sees fit.
As for the increase in hunter numbers , there has not been a huge jump in numbers killed , there are only so many full curl rams out there. IF there are areas that have a localized concern , one would think the success or lack of would move hunters out , but thats not the case. The areas keep producing legal rams , enough to fit someones idea of quality.
Overall sheep numbers maybe down from an artificially created high in the 80's , but it should be clear now that level of influence will not be sustained again . . Most sheep populations are trundling along just fine , like the moose elk and caribou.

[bridger]

I am not really interested in opening old points of contention, but let's be clear on a couple of things.

I know that the opportunity for a resident to buy a tag and go sheep hunting bugs most outfitters to no end. Been in more of those discussions than I can remember. As a resident sheep hunter I have always been thankful for the opportunities afforded me and other residents by our province. Do I support non resident sheep hunting in our province? Absolutely! Do I support a viable guiding industry? Absolutely!

I am just not in the least bit interested in relinquishing anymore hunting opportunities to subsidize the bottom line of international hunting companies. Our province offers harvest shares to non residents that are the envy of every other jurisdictions in North America. Perhaps you outfitters should roll a smoke and count your blessings as well.

As far as the outfitter having to harvest within his quota remember there is a reason outfitters were placed on quota.
It's called $$$ but we all know that!

[Fisher-Dude]

Very well put!
I would be careful before believing everything you read in that article. There is a lost of BS, twisted facts and information written. The author is doing his best to burn bridges between the BCWF and the GOABC and the MOE. He is not doing the resident hunters any favors by acting this way.

The article has nothing whatsoever to do with the BCWF. In fact, the term "BCWF" does not even appear in the text.

It is the result of the author's investigation into the backroom dealings between guide-outfitters and ministry personnel. And the results of that investigation reflect poorly on the guide-outfitters, ministry personnel, and politicians involved in these shenanigans.

You'll also note, if you even bothered to read it, that the author exonerates and praises the GOs and bios who haven't been involved in the backdoor handouts.

[Fisher-Dude]

Airdayle, that is absolutely true that not all of the money spent on guided hunts stays in B.C., just as with any other business. However, the amount that stays could be readily increased by requiring residency for outfitters and employees, if that was the objective.

However, my point is that selling low priced tags for GOS or LEH seasons to residents is not a good way to generate revenue from a scarce resource that requires allocations. However, I think most residents like the GOS seasons and like low tag prices. If you make the debate about money, inevitably the low tag prices and GOS or even LEH resident seasons will disappear in favour of other schemes/allocations that could generate much higher revenue from the same resource. It would be better for residents to make the debate more about fairness, opportunity, tradition, etc. and less about money.


So what you're saying is that the $230,000,000 annual contribution by BC resident hunters is worthless.

And you've discounted studies that show increasing prices of the pursuit has a direct effect in lowering that contribution rather than increasing it.

Alrighty then. Be damned the facts and use rhetoric instead.

http://peachlandsportsmen.com/declininghunters.pdf


The author has found an aging resident hunter population with high turnover and low

recruitment. In 1981, hunter numbers reached an all time high of 174,088 followed by four consecutive years of precipitous decline resulting in an overall decline of 25%. Hunters are sensitive to price and costs related to hunting - demand is elastic. During these five years there were several significant, compounding factors including a major recession, a significant increase in the costs of species and basic hunting licenses and privatization of the mandatory hunter
education program.




4.3 RQ1 What is the effect of changes in costs related to licensing on residenthunting demand?

With a provincial decline of 14.2%, 1982 is the year of the most significant decline in residenthunter numbers (See Figure

2.1). This decline occurred in all nine regions of the province and aprecipitous decline continued until 1985. From 1981-1985 total hunter numbers declined by 25% (BC MOE, 2005b). This 5 year period corresponds to a massive recession, much more significant than the rest of Canada (BC Stats, 1998 ). The year of the greatest decline, 1982,corresponds with three provincial wide events: an 8% decline in the economy during the midst ofa recession, a 70% increase in costs of basic resident licenses and a doubling of all specieslicenses except for deer (Thornton, 2006, p.1). In 1982 there was no significant emigration by the working population or the retired population (BC Stats, 1998, p.2).According to Appendix 13, 54% of respondents in the hunter survey indicated the cost of hunting licenses and tags are somewhat or extremely discouraging.This suggests that resident hunting may be sensitive to increases in costs relating to licensing and
declines of disposable income.

[GoatGuy]

Very well put!
I would be careful before believing everything you read in that article. There is a lost of BS, twisted facts and information written. The author is doing his best to burn bridges between the BCWF and the GOABC and the MOE. He is not doing the resident hunters any favors by acting this way.

So, fill us in - show how things have worked since 1991. Show where the "BS, twisted facts and information written" are.

I doubt this is a BCWF, GOABC and MOE problem. It's a problem with success factors, regional averaging, inflated population estimates and a desire to continue with this approach. Old dealings which were never consistent with sustainability or policy. One-offs and manipulation of policy documents. If you support these types of 'tools' and the over-allocation and over-harvest that ensues, that is your prerogative. I highly doubt GOABC as a group does and certainly MOE does not - - neither does the environmental appeal board, yet the appeals to request these tools continue to roll in wasting wildlife managers time defending appeals instead of trying to create more wildlife. My guess would be most of the outfitters across the province never knew how bad it was in region 4 - neither did residents, or MOE. I think you will find very little support across the province amongst MOE, resident hunters or the majority of guide-outfitters for the continuation of these tools and the backdoor approach. Surely you must know that there have been a pile of outfitters negatively affected across the province by the shenanigans in region 4 - people who should have gotten an increase in quota and allocation but didn't because of the political interference in the policy which propped some people up and brought others down. You must also know there are still animals being cherry-picked out of unallocated areas, or taken from other outfits and given to a select few outfitters despite being contrary to policy and policy direction. And this happens ONLY in region 4.

Overall, guess is, per the usual, you have no idea what you're talking about and, as always, are busy making things up without any data, science, fact or the smallest piece of knowledge about the history of allocations in region 4 or the inflated population estimates and over-harvest. Either that or you condone inflated population estimates and trying to continuously take wildlife away from other outfitters and resident hunters after a policy has been signed off.

Both of those approaches start and end in a pretty ignorant place - really has no place when it comes to wildlife conservation, sustainability or wildlife allocations.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

As usual GG, you are a piece of work. I will let this sort itself out behind closed doors, as the process was intended.
BCWF is not doing nobody any favors. You will need the help from the GOABC when it comes to accessing FN land in the future. This is a much bigger problem then fighting over a few % of allocation.

[GoatGuy]

So, what you are saying is no fact, no knowledge, no data.... again.

Glad we sorted that out.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

You know GG, you remind me of the mouthy tool on the other team who never dropped his gloves. Like I said, you should have kept your thoughts to yourself, and let the process play out.

[Fisher-Dude]

As usual GG, you are a piece of work. I will let this sort itself out behind closed doors, as the process was intended.
BCWF is not doing nobody any favors. You will need the help from the GOABC when it comes to accessing FN land in the future. This is a much bigger problem then fighting over a few % of allocation.

You'll need to tell me where the BCWF is mentioned in the article. I sure as hell can't find it.

[GoatGuy]

You know GG, you remind me of the mouthy tool on the other team who never dropped his gloves. Like I said, you should have kept your thoughts to yourself, and let the process play out.

What process are you referring to? You've mentioned closed doors as well. Is this more of the behind the scenes hijack through politics? Coming up on 30 years of that, let's keep it up? One-offs, handouts, change policy for a few when it affects many?

You can question whether what goes on is right or wrong, or take the ostrich approach. You can be willfully blind to the world around you or put your thinking cap on. There are a pile of outfitters who have no time for the shenanigans in region 4. No one should get a special deal, success factors, regional averaging, inflated quota or this bs about getting a permit to hunt outside of your area. Clearly you don't agree with the concept of conservation, sustainability and fairness amongst outfitters. That is ok, you are entitled to your beliefs. There are many people in the world who believe they should get one-offs and special deals that aren't consistent with what everybody else gets. There are those who have a sense of entitlement every day of the week. Just recognize neither government, conservationists, resident hunters or a pile of outfitters agree with those beliefs.

There are always two approaches to issues like these. One is the bully approach right out of the gates, the other is the informed decision making through data approach. You seem to be very fond of the bully approach, it's your "go to" mechanism - unfortunately, that doesn't lead to good decision making, even if it helps you feel good. It will be difficult to ever engage in a quality discussion if you have no interest in knowing the facts, wildlife conservation or fairness amongst all outfitters.

[Ricky Bobby]

You know GG, you remind me of the mouthy tool on the other team who never dropped his gloves. Like I said, you should have kept your thoughts to yourself, and let the process play out.

Ignore GG, I am trying to sort through the shit, I know his stance, I know what he says. you have said its mis represented, I want to hear both sides. What facts are left out? What was lied about?

[one-shot-wonder]

Can you help us by pointing out the twisted facts.....standing by

Still standing by.....

[bridger]

I think if you try to argue the allocation issue from an tax/economic point of view in favour of residents, you will lose. Residents earn their money in B.C., are taxed in B.C., and will spend the majority of their money in B.C. - and this will happen whether they hunt or not. The only thing that changes is if they hunt is where and how the money is spent. No new money is generated. Hunting affects only how money that is already here is distributed through expenditures, except perhaps for those hunters that decide to vacation or hunt abroad if they couldn't hunt in B.C.

On the other hand, when foreign hunters come in, they bring new money to the country and economy - and a lot of if compared to resident hunter expenditures. If you look at it from a strictly economic point o view, it would be more beneficial to have 40,000 foreign hunters and zero resident hunters. If resident hunters weren't so obsessive and didn't have guns, that could happen!

There are few resources in B.C. where residents have such a favourable advantage compared to foreigners. If you want some nice Doug fir timbers, you will be bidding against Japanese. Same thing with raw logs and any lumber. You want to go skiing on Crown Land at any resort, you pay whatever price they want to charge - no cut rate for being a resident. You want some coal from Elkford? No problem but you pay the same as the Chinese. BC Hydro charges residents competitive rates for electricity generated from flooded Crown Land.

But ... foreign hunters will pay $35K for a Stone hunt while residents can by a tag for $60 and have a hunt for a price as low as a couple tanks of fuel and food. Some chip in $3K for a flight or a packer. That makes no financial sense, and from a purely economic viewpoint, it would be legitimate for the govt and people of B.C. to demand that wildlife resources be sold to the highest bidder and not distributed to residents at an absurdly high discount.

Thus, I would not dwell on economics when discussing the allocation issue.


if you want to maximize income from tags you can start by discontinuing the subsidy given the guiding industry.

[bridger]

You know GG, you remind me of the mouthy tool on the other team who never dropped his gloves. Like I said, you should have kept your thoughts to yourself, and let the process play out.

The truth hurts sometimes CB!

[fowl language]

can anyone out there tell me what other province or state has a guaranteed percentage of the annual allowable harvest given to the guide outfitters? i would like to know....fowl

[GoatGuy]

can anyone out there tell me what other province or state has a guaranteed percentage of the annual allowable harvest given to the guide outfitters? i would like to know....fowl

Just about all the states.

Usually somewhere between 10-20% of the allowable harvest.

Arizona maximum 10%
Colorado 20% max
Montana 10%
Nevada sheep 10%, 5% other species
Utah 10%

As a couple examples. Recognize in the states outfitters typically do not have exclusive rights to guide non-residents or tenure.

[Walking Buffalo]

can anyone out there tell me what other province or state has a guaranteed percentage of the annual allowable harvest given to the guide outfitters? i would like to know....fowl

In Alberta the Outfitters receive up to 10% of the Allowable Harvest allocation, 20% for Bighorn Sheep.

Non-Residents hunting under the Hunter Host program are counted towards the Resident Allocation.


Unlike in BC, Outfitters in Alberta are given a set number of licences they can sell based on a ratio of Allowable Harvest and their reported success ratios.

Allocations are based on a Species Management Area (a combination of Wildlife management units, WMU), but are valid in only one specific WMU. So we get the same Regional averaging problem. Outfitters here very often get much more than their 10% in a WMU due to regional averaging.

Another worthwhile note, In Alberta the outfitter licences Not sold count as unfilled which lowers the success ratio, thus increasing the number of licences issued.
Some Outfitters report success rates as low as 1% for some species in particular WMUs! You can imagine how this ends up really screwing with the number of licences they receive.

Wherever you are, despite Policy agreements and various restrictions, there are always some interesting techniques used when back room negotiations with the government are standard practice....

[LBM]

So, fill us in - show how things have worked since 1991. Show where the "BS, twisted facts and information written" are.

I doubt this is a BCWF, GOABC and MOE problem. It's a problem with success factors, regional averaging, inflated population estimates and a desire to continue with this approach. Old dealings which were never consistent with sustainability or policy. One-offs and manipulation of policy documents. If you support these types of 'tools' and the over-allocation and over-harvest that ensues, that is your prerogative. I highly doubt GOABC as a group does and certainly MOE does not - - neither does the environmental appeal board, yet the appeals to request these tools continue to roll in wasting wildlife managers time defending appeals instead of trying to create more wildlife. My guess would be most of the outfitters across the province never knew how bad it was in region 4 - neither did residents, or MOE. I think you will find very little support across the province amongst MOE, resident hunters or the majority of guide-outfitters for the continuation of these tools and the backdoor approach. Surely you must know that there have been a pile of outfitters negatively affected across the province by the shenanigans in region 4 - people who should have gotten an increase in quota and allocation but didn't because of the political interference in the policy which propped some people up and brought others down. You must also know there are still animals being cherry-picked out of unallocated areas, or taken from other outfits and given to a select few outfitters despite being contrary to policy and policy direction. And this happens ONLY in region 4.

Overall, guess is, per the usual, you have no idea what you're talking about and, as always, are busy making things up without any data, science, fact or the smallest piece of knowledge about the history of allocations in region 4 or the inflated population estimates and over-harvest. Either that or you condone inflated population estimates and trying to continuously take wildlife away from other outfitters and resident hunters after a policy has been signed off.

Both of those approaches start and end in a pretty ignorant place - really has no place when it comes to wildlife conservation, sustainability or wildlife allocations.

I do not get this magazine but will see if its in the book store next time in town but was wondering if some one could tell me who the author of the article is and if it mentions the names or outfitters that are doing the deals or causing the problems specificly the ones in region 4 which you have brought upagain.

[Ricky Bobby]

Jesse Zeman (also wrote a good piece on LEH in the same issue) is the author, no names just numbers although specific area were mention so somebody in the know could likely figure out names.. Would be nice if the author was on here and could validate his source of information. I am curious about the counter points, would love to see what GOABC and outfitters say. Chilcotin, you have been asked to back up your claims, I for one look forward to seeing the counter point.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

unlike Jesse," who I believe is on here as the anointed one" I will just keep my mouth shut for now and let this process play out.

[f350ps]

Jesse Zeman (also wrote a good piece on LEH in the same issue) is the author, no names just numbers although specific area were mention so somebody in the know could likely figure out names.. Would be nice if the author was on here and could validate his source of information. I am curious about the counter points, would love to see what GOABC and outfitters say. Chilcotin, you have been asked to back up your claims, I for one look forward to seeing the counter point.
Ya, I read that piece also, I don't know what makes this dude so knowledgeable, he kind of gets my Goat that Guy! :) K

[Ricky Bobby]

unlike Jesse," who I believe is on here as the anointed one" I will just keep my mouth shut for now and let this process play out.

Uh... Seriously? That's a prett chicken shit response. You are a GO yes? You have info yes? Put it up. Right about now I am thinking unless you can defend your statement of mis representation/lies/BCWF anti GOABC pretty much anything you say is questionable at best complete bullshit at worst.

Defend your statement or it's worthless.

[Ricky Bobby]

Ya, I read that piece also, I don't know what makes this dude so knowledgeable, he kind of gets my Goat that Guy! :) K

Ok.... So I am a little slow on the uptake it's all coming clear.

[1899]

Why do we allow foreign ownership of guide territories?

[markomoose]

Why do we allow foreign ownership of guide territories?
They have the cash most of us don't!

[one-shot-wonder]

Uh... Seriously? That's a prett chicken shit response. You are a GO yes? You have info yes? Put it up. Right about now I am thinking unless you can defend your statement of mis representation/lies/BCWF anti GOABC pretty much anything you say is questionable at best complete bullshit at worst.

Defend your statement or it's worthless.

I was standing by awaiting a response....now I am sitting.

[Fisher-Dude]

unlike Jesse," who I believe is on here as the anointed one" I will just keep my mouth shut for now and let this process play out.


Still wondering where the BCWF is mentioned in the article. Can you help us out with that, since that was your contention?

[chilcotin hillbilly]

the article is written from the BCWF perspective by a BCWF member. The author has over stepped boundries when is it comes to talking about stuff that is supposed to stay in the board room until the policy is hashed out and agreed apon. Until the allocation policy is done and sign. I won't comment. Chicken shit not, smart yes, I probably said to much already and should let the author live or die by his words. We will talk shop when this is all cleared up.

[GoatGuy]

the article is written from the BCWF perspective by a BCWF member. The author has over stepped boundries when is it comes to talking about stuff that is supposed to stay in the board room until the policy is hashed out and agreed apon. Until the allocation policy is done and sign. I won't comment. Chicken shit not, smart yes, I probably said to much already and should let the author live or die by his words. We will talk shop when this is all cleared up.

Which policy is hashed out and agreed upon?

Which policy is done and signed?

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Read it again Hemmingway!

[bridger]

the article is written from the BCWF perspective by a BCWF member. The author has over stepped boundries when is it comes to talking about stuff that is supposed to stay in the board room until the policy is hashed out and agreed apon. Until the allocation policy is done and sign. I won't comment. Chicken shit not, smart yes, I probably said to much already and should let the author live or die by his words. We will talk shop when this is all cleared up.

Any idea when at will be? Sounds like more behind closed doors bullshit to me!

[Fisher-Dude]

the article is written from the BCWF perspective by a BCWF member. The author has over stepped boundries when is it comes to talking about stuff that is supposed to stay in the board room until the policy is hashed out and agreed apon. Until the allocation policy is done and sign. I won't comment. Chicken shit not, smart yes, I probably said to much already and should let the author live or die by his words. We will talk shop when this is all cleared up.

There may be a BCWF or GOABC member who writes a letter or article about abortion. That doesn't mean the BCWF or GOABC has any position on abortion or shares his thoughts.

The article is factual, well-researched, and is written by an individual. It was not written by the BCWF.

Some people just seem sore that their secret deals on a publicly-owned resource have been brought to the forefront.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

When The BCWF and the GOABC are in negotiations we send our elected directors to do our bidding.....do we not. What goes on in those meetings are confidential until the process is complete and then the membership on both sides gets filled in. The publishing of and article in a magazine is not kocur (I thought you may like that fisher-dude.)Not in these meetings or any important business meeting.
Until I hear names and places from both regional managers and outfitters involved in these so called backdoor deals they didn't happen.

[GoatGuy]

When The BCWF and the GOABC are in negotiations we send our elected directors to do our bidding.....do we not. What goes on in those meetings are confidential until the process is complete and then the membership on both sides gets filled in. The publishing of and article in a magazine is not kocur (I thought you may like that fisher-dude.)Not in these meetings or any important business meeting.
Until I hear names and places from both regional managers and outfitters involved in these so called backdoor deals they didn't happen.

Which confidential process and meetings are you referring to? If it's confidential, are you one of the directors that does the bidding? If not, how do you know about it - seeing as its confidential? Does the article refer to those meetings? Does the article use data from those meetings? Does the article talk about what's happening in those meetings? Does it use meeting minutes? Or is it a summary of wildlife allocations and a forecast of what will happen based on the past?

How did this confidential process start and why? What about the Trumpy report where government burned hundreds of thousands of dollars, the dozens of environmental appeals filed in Regions 3,4,5? The waste of taxpayers dollars and managers time. Or the process before that, and the one before that?

How do these process get initiated if they are entirely confidential? Who initiates these processes and why? Who intiated the 'confidential process' you refer to? Or is that 'confidential' as well?

Given this 'policy' was agreed to and signed in 2007 how is it that these 'processes' continue to happen? You would think that in all these confidential processes a public sign-off would be the end of 'confidentiality' - no?? Why do you think government continues to burn all of staff time and budget on wildlife allocations?

I find all this very interesting. How is it that protection and use of a public resource, owned by British Columbians, all happens 'confidentially'? Sounds like third world problems in a first world country. Nobody's allowed to know or talk about what happens to a resource people cherish. Too funny.

Interesting approach - works well in Russia, figured North America was above that, but wouldn't know because of all the confidentiality. Reminds me of the mob.

Anyways, you've said you know, you've been there, the data in the article is fiction so put it out there - tell us all what is fiction, and why. Or maybe it's all confidential, in which case you've already over-stepped your bounds.

[fowl language]

I have a question for all the guide outfitters out there. was it not agreed upon in 2007 that a agreement of allocation would be set in 2012.if so why was this not honoured by those that agreed upon it.....fowl

[bridger]

I have a question for all the guide outfitters out there. was it not agreed upon in 2007 that a agreement of allocation would be set in 2012.if so why was this not honoured by those that agreed upon it.....fowl

good question dale, unfortunately no one seems to want to answer it.

[Apolonius]

A little question GG and Bridger ,is it possible the outfitters are working in the back rooms for a deal with the Natives after the ruling?Haven't heard anything from them in the land claim thread.They kind, (CH) said we should work together on this one,meaning BCWF,and i agree it would be a good thing.Do you see a nice little plan to get rid of the resident?Are we (BCWF) in or out of the loop?

[Ridge-Runner]

This information was in need of transparency for a long time and all consumptive users need to have an understanding of these past decisions and backdoor deals. As stated before, the majority of both the outfitters and resident hunters hold conservation and a sense of equality. Sadly most outfitters and resident hunters are unaware and of these backdoor dealings and imaginative incentives to increase quota for certain individuals. These malfeasance have short changed some of the outfitters and all resident hunters for years. Bringing this issue into the public eye will hopefully bring this process forward as all parties will hopefully have a full understanding of how this process was implemented and a understanding of the shortfalls and one-sided biases that were applied. All of us should put some effort into understanding how the function of the allocation process works and how it can be developed and improved to avoid these issues in the future. It's our responsibility to the resource.

These issues are also going to be an eye opener for many outfitters as well as resident hunters as the quota numbers were not fairly distributed evenly within the outfitting community either. I would predict that there is going to be more internal fracturing within the GOABC over this very issue.

As for the hillbilly it's obvious you are an outfitter. Please educate yourself on these issues, it's very clear you don't have a clue. I understand you feel the GOABC and the allocation process has your best interest at heart and it may or it may not. If the allocation process hasn't benefitted you, you might be surprised yourself with what your neighbour gained at others expense .......I would say there is going to be fireworks in the East Kootenays as both sides become more educated on these matters.

Regards, RR

[chilcotin hillbilly]

As it sits right now, half of 5-5, most of 5-4 is now private land and is to be treated as such. About 80% of my animals are taken from this FN area. Most of these animals are predators but it does not make a difference, I need to get permission to hunt this year. All residents are in the same boat, no hunting in this area with out permission from the band. You think the allocation is the big issue! You have got to be nuts if you do!

As far as back door deals, I don't know of any and it seems no one from the BCWF has any solid proof of any either, If you do, Jesse, send me a PM with the details I would like to know, but they need to be facts! I have no problem calling any one out face to face whether it be outfitters or resident hunters.

[steveo]

I have no doubt some heads will roll internally between the many outfitters if some unfair deals come to light. From my knowledge of the outfitters on Vancouver Island they were also disappointed how the GOABC was representing them so they splintered off and made there own association centered around Vancouver Island. I have realized from this example that the GOABC is an association just like any other with internal bickering about self serving gains and individual agendas.

[markomoose]

I agree with Chilcotin Hillbilly!This gentleman and his family put everything he's got into running a viable business that the Supreme Court just handed out to the area's FN'S.Do you people think that;s going to make it easier to run that business?Hell No!He could in all reality lose the majority of his guiding territory making it next to impossible to make a living at something I'm sure the guy loves!You can see that in his pics & video clips!Game Allocation is not a big issue in his eyes as he stated.Take your living and way of life away and see how you feel?My two cents! Mark

[bearvalley]

I agree with Chilcotin hillbilly. The Chilcotin land claim ruling is going to make the entire allocation process insignificant as more FN's bands jump on the wagon.

[GoatGuy]

I have no doubt some heads will roll internally between the many outfitters if some unfair deals come to light. From my knowledge of the outfitters on Vancouver Island they were also disappointed how the GOABC was representing them so they splintered off and made there own association centered around Vancouver Island. I have realized from this example that the GOABC is an association just like any other with internal bickering about self serving gains and individual agendas.

Vancouver Island and the south coast split off from GOABC as they were shafted by the changes made to the policy through politics after the policy was signed off.

The VI and SC outfitters support the policy and resident hunters. They have stated many times they want the policy implemented as it was agreed to and to move on with life.

[Wild one]

Also agree with Chilcotin Hillbilly

Resident hunters who want to focus on fighting Outfitting better keep lube handy because in the end it will be anti's, politics, and land claims that take resident hunters from behind

Sit down with a few Outfitters over a beer and a plate of slow roasted baby and you will find most are not racking in the $ and killing a ton of animals. You will find profit margins are lower than you expect and booking hunts for a lot of species in BC is not that easy. Most outfitters have a second form of income and only a portion are truly profitable.

Yes, some are scum but the same can be said for resident hunters. Most are just trying to make some $ doing what they enjoy for part of the year and are just average hunters.

Working with them I see beneficial and keeping the sleazy ones honest is important. That said the more resident hunters keep making them out to be the enemy the less guides and outfitters are going to care about residents.

[Walking Buffalo]

I agree with Chilcotin hillbilly. The Chilcotin land claim ruling is going to make the entire allocation process insignificant as more FN's bands jump on the wagon.

Not to diminish the potential impact of this new decision, but this is a different topic with completely different rules. Access to Wildlife on First Nations Land has to be dealt with separately from the Allocation Policy as there will be little relation or control by the Province as the Wildlife will now be managed under First Nations and Federal Law. While this is new ground in regards to potential Title Land, the is a strong likelihood that these lands will become analogous to Indian Reserves within Canada and thus under Federal, not Provincial control. I suspect that existing Federal law within the Indian Act will have to be used for a First Nation to receive any monies or issue hunting licences to Non-treaty people for hunting wildlife on their land, and for export of this wildlife from those lands.


If the Wildlife within large tracts of land come under First Nations control, then the importance of the Allocation Policy only increases due to the smaller pie still under control by the Provincial government.

[Darksith]

I need to get permission to hunt this year. All residents are in the same boat, no hunting in this area with out permission from the band. You think the allocation is the big issue! You have got to be nuts if you do!
have you received official word that you must be granted permission? I think this has moved awfully fast and I don't think anyone has really figured out what the SC's decision really means.

[GoatGuy]

Also agree with Chilcotin Hillbilly

Resident hunters who want to focus on fighting Outfitting better keep lube handy because in the end it will be anti's, politics, and land claims that take resident hunters from behind

Sit down with a few Outfitters over a beer and a plate of slow roasted baby and you will find most are not racking in the $ and killing a ton of animals. You will find profit margins are lower than you expect and booking hunts for a lot of species in BC is not that easy. Most outfitters have a second form of income and only a portion are truly profitable.

Yes, some are scum but the same can be said for resident hunters. Most are just trying to make some $ doing what they enjoy for part of the year and are just average hunters.

Working with them I see beneficial and keeping the sleazy ones honest is important. That said the more resident hunters keep making them out to be the enemy the less guides and outfitters are going to care about residents.

There are some outfitters who are forever trying to have their allocation changed through politics, taking wildlife away from residents and other outfitters. It certainly isn't resident hunters focusing on fighting with outfitters - I doubt any of this would exist if there were a few who thought they were entitled to dip in to others wildlife.

There are some great outfitters, just a matter of having them stand up and focus on making more wildlife, instead of allowing a few to sandbag wildlife allocations through politics.

[GoatGuy]

Chilcotin Hillbilly,

Recognize you won't answer questions, but here is an easy one for your benefit.

Sheep population estimate 60
Harvest rate 2.5%
Outfitter share 33%

You can do the math, and indicate what the 5 year outfitter allocation and the annual quota should be for this sheep population.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

have you received official word that you must be granted permission? I think this has moved awfully fast and I don't think anyone has really figured out what the SC's decision really means.

As far as the law reads, access laws apply the same as private property. They don't own any of the animals just the right to access. At this point it looks like hunting license and tags still go to the government but natural resources such as grass for grazing rights, stumpage from logging and such will now be paid in to the band. There is a lot to figure out, but without permission there are a few outfitters really affected for this season, shutting some down completely.it will affect a lot more residents with LEH and deer hunts planned.

[Walking Buffalo]

As far as the law reads, access laws apply the same as private property. They don't own any of the animals just the right to access. At this point it looks like hunting license and tags still go to the government but natural resources such as grass for grazing rights, stumpage from logging and such will now be paid in to the band. There is a lot to figure out, but without permission there are a few outfitters really affected for this season, shutting some down completely.it will affect a lot more residents with LEH and deer hunts planned.


What law are you referring to?

I would be concerned that aboriginal Title may remove these lands from provincial control, just like Indian Reservation aboriginal lands. Then Federal law and specifically the Indian Act will come into play. While they are likely to be short term arrangements regarding access and licencing, the bigger questions and answers regarding this court decision have yet to be tackled.

[Ricky Bobby]

Hmm, honestly CH, it seems like the approach your taking is to distract me (and other residents) saying allocation is not an issue, let's work together all the while screwing residents on allocation.

kinda like being screwed from behind while they dangle a carrot in your face.

Screwing is fun, carrots are nice but somehow in the package of delivery I don't like it.??

[boxhitch]

the bigger questions and answers regarding this court decision have yet to be tackled.No kidding. None of the entities are prepared for the consultation and gov't-to-gov't process that is coming up soon . Until the powers set the ground rules , lack of process will be crippling to the province and country.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

What law are you referring to?

I would be concerned that aboriginal Title may remove these lands from provincial control, just like Indian Reservation aboriginal lands. Then Federal law and specifically the Indian Act will come into play. While they are likely to be short term arrangements regarding access and licencing, the bigger questions and answers regarding this court decision have yet to be tackled.

The way this ruling was described at our last meeting was the band now controls all access. I should have said " As far as the ruling reads, access laws apply the same as private property." There is no "law" that I know of, just the ruling giving land title to the first nations. The difference is they are not able to sell the land like we can just the natural resources that come from the land. If I read it right the animals are still owned by the crown as the animals are migratory in nature. I would believe these lands will fall under Federal laws and now become bigger reservations. The way it is going we may all be looking for a place to hunt pretty soon.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Hmm, honestly CH, it seems like the approach your taking is to distract me (and other residents) saying allocation is not an issue, let's work together all the while screwing residents on allocation.

kinda like being screwed from behind while they dangle a carrot in your face.

Screwing is fun, carrots are nice but somehow in the package of delivery I don't like it.??

Really Ricky Bobby, you think the FN issue is not a whole lot bigger then the allocation policy! you must have more then a carrot up your ....... no where did I say allocation was not an issue for both sides it is just not as big as one.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

No kidding. None of the entities are prepared for the consultation and gov't-to-gov't process that is coming up soon . Until the powers set the ground rules , lack of process will be crippling to the province and country.

Your right boxhitch
Without temporary access and agreements the province could come to a stand still in short order.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

I am not sure of the point you are try to get across, which outfitter does this relate to and what is his quota?Math is the easy part so what should the answer be according to you? I am pretty sure you would like the answer to be .75 over 5 years.

[GoatGuy]

I am not sure of the point you are try to get across, which outfitter does this relate to and what is his quota?Math is the easy part so what should the answer be according to you? I am pretty sure you would like the answer to be .75 over 5 years.

It refers to a sheep population.

The estimate is 60
The harvest rate is 2.5%
The outfitter share is 33%.

How many animals is the outfitter allowed to harvest over 5 years?

What is the outfitters annual quota for that 5 year period?

You figure out the answer.

[Ricky Bobby]

Really Ricky Bobby, you think the FN issue is not a whole lot bigger then the allocation policy! you must have more then a carrot up your ....... no where did I say allocation was not an issue for both sides it is just not as big as one.


Never said aid it wasn't an issue, but gettig corn holed without consent (allocation) is still an issue. Hard to work with someone when they are constantly sticking it to you from behind.

[Ricky Bobby]

And maybe I am wrong, still waiting for you to back up your statement.

[GoatGuy]

Chilcotin Hillibilly,

third time:

It refers to a sheep population.

The estimate is 60
The harvest rate is 2.5%
The outfitter share is 33%.

How many animals is the outfitter allowed to harvest over 5 years?

What is the outfitters annual quota for that 5 year period?

You figure out the answer.

[Darksith]

The way this ruling was described at our last meeting was the band now controls all access. I should have said " As far as the ruling reads, access laws apply the same as private property." There is no "law" that I know of, just the ruling giving land title to the first nations. The difference is they are not able to sell the land like we can just the natural resources that come from the land. If I read it right the animals are still owned by the crown as the animals are migratory in nature. I would believe these lands will fall under Federal laws and now become bigger reservations. The way it is going we may all be looking for a place to hunt pretty soon.

is that a GOABC meeting? Personally if it were me I would continue as normal. The courts make rulings, but that doesn't make it law, and until law is formed from what the courts say I would carry on as normal. Until the band has been given official title according to the law I don't see a change. IF we don't stand up and challenge this on some sort of level then we are just sticking our head in the sand. They lost their first attempt at this, argued on a different set of grounds on attempt #2, that doesn't mean that a 3rd challenge under different grounds wouldn't at the very least force the band to buy you out if they want to limit your access. Also whos to say they don't simply give you the green light? I know the trapper in the halfway valley is allowed to cross native land at his discretion...even if he chooses not too.

[Walking Buffalo]

Sorry for the continued derail GG, but I have not seen this mentioned on HBC and feel it should come to light so that Residents can get the ball rolling on maintaining access to these new Titled Native lands.




The way this ruling was described at our last meeting was the band now controls all access. I should have said " As far as the ruling reads, access laws apply the same as private property." There is no "law" that I know of, just the ruling giving land title to the first nations. The difference is they are not able to sell the land like we can just the natural resources that come from the land. If I read it right the animals are still owned by the crown as the animals are migratory in nature. I would believe these lands will fall under Federal laws and now become bigger reservations. The way it is going we may all be looking for a place to hunt pretty soon.


You might want to ask the GOABC individuals making these claims to get a second opinion. This is a whole new ball game, Provincial rules don't apply.

Wildlife on Native Lands are out of both the Provincial and Federal management jurisdiction. Wildlife on Native lands is under the full control of that Nation. The Canadian Wildlife Act attempts to maintain some control of Wildlife, but has been repetitively unsuccessful in the courts. Migratory or even Endangered species classifications is irrelevant when cases fall before the courts.


"I would believe these lands will fall under Federal laws" - This is the point I was suggesting is a likely outcome. Under Federal Law, any paid access/licencing for hunting by non-treaty people on Aboriginal Land requires a Wildlife Management Plan and approved First Nation By-Laws. For an outfitter to make an access deal to Native land without an approved Management plan and Nation By-laws would be against current Federal law.

I hope Outfitters are not trying to make paid access arrangements that are likely illegal.






is that a GOABC meeting? Personally if it were me I would continue as normal. The courts make rulings, but that doesn't make it law, and until law is formed from what the courts say I would carry on as normal. Until the band has been given official title according to the law I don't see a change. IF we don't stand up and challenge this on some sort of level then we are just sticking our head in the sand. They lost their first attempt at this, argued on a different set of grounds on attempt #2, that doesn't mean that a 3rd challenge under different grounds wouldn't at the very least force the band to buy you out if they want to limit your access. Also whos to say they don't simply give you the green light? I know the trapper in the halfway valley is allowed to cross native land at his discretion...even if he chooses not too.


You can guarantee that other resource users are not going to just lay down and say goodbye to their current access.

Without a doubt, unless the Nation has an approved Wildlife Management Plan, carry on. They can say "Sorry, no access.", but at the moment they cannot say "Sure, Come on in, that will be $1000.".



In my view, the Allocation Policy becomes MUCH more important under the new future with this Native court decision. If is one thing to split up a pie big enough for 100,000 people in an area the current size of B.C, quite another when the same 100,000 people are confined to an area less than half that.


I remember thinking about this day during my university time in the late eighties. No one seemed to grasp what I was concerned with. Well, Here we go.... :icon_frow

[bearvalley]

[QUOTE=Walking Buffalo;1515563]Sorry for the continued derail GG, but I have not seen this mentioned on HBC and feel it should come to light so that Residents can get the ball rolling on maintaining access to these new Titled Native lands.
You might want to ask the GOABC individuals making these claims to get a second opinion. This is a whole new ball game, Provincial rules don't apply.
Wildlife on Native Lands are out of both the Provincial and Federal management jurisdiction. Wildlife on Native lands is under the full control of that Nation. The Canadian Wildlife Act attempts to maintain some control of Wildlife, but has been repetitively unsuccessful in the courts. Migratory or even Endangered species classifications is irrelevant when cases fall before the courts.
"I would believe these lands will fall under Federal laws" - This is the point I was suggesting is a likely outcome. Under Federal Law, any paid access/licencing for hunting by non-treaty people on Aboriginal Land requires a Wildlife Management Plan and approved First Nation By-Laws. For an outfitter to make an access deal to Native land without an approved Management plan and Nation By-laws would be against current Federal law.
I hope Outfitters are not trying to make paid access arrangements that are likely illegal
In my view, the Allocation Policy becomes MUCH more important under the new future with this Native court decision. If is one thing to split up a pie big enough for 100,000 people in an area the current size of B.C, quite another when the same 100,000 people are confined to an area less than half that.





What you are saying makes sense in a way but I tend to disagree with the validity of the statement that the Allocation Policy becomes MUCH more important under the new future with this Supreme Court ruling in the natives favour.
When you take a look at BC's land claims and the overlapping FN territorial boundaries the piece of pie gets pretty slim. Now remove private property and parks and the pie gets real thin. Under this scenario all the Allocation Policy will serve to do is divide the crumbs.
Who is granted access will be the key in the direction this is headed. We all need to remember the moose closure a few years ago and who was there to help the access closures stick. EVERY BC HUNTER had better sit down and think about this one. It is very likely some non FNs will carry on with the tradition of hunting and some won't.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

That's a strange question, GG. According to the biologists here in region 5 they won't even open a LEH goat season in an area which holds more then 100 goats. 60 sheep seems rather low to have a season on them if you go by regions 5 thinking. If the ministry feels it is a hunt able population why only 2.5% harvest rate?
Please explain!

[chilcotin hillbilly]

From the government website.
Important NoticeTo all BC resident hunters who may be planning to hunt in Management Units 5-04 and 5-05:Your ability to exercise hunting privileges in these management units may be affected by a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding the Tsilhqot'in Nation: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14246/index.doThe Province is currently analyzing the decision.
If you applied for a Limited Entry Hunting (LEH) Authorization for moose, mountain goat, or antlerless mule deer in Management Units (MUs) 5-04 or 5-05, you will not be able to retrieve LEH draw results for these MUs at this time. However, you will be notified separately at a later date and in writing of the draw results for these species in MUs 5-04 and 5-05. Unfortunately, we are currently unable to indicate when you can expect to receive your notification, but we will endeavour to notify you as soon as possible.
Notices related to how the decision may impact General Open Season and other hunting activities within MUs 5-04 and 5-05 will be posted on the Fish and Wildlife website homepage as soon as possible.

[GoatGuy]

Chilcotin Hillbilly,

Fourth time now.

It refers to a sheep population.

The estimate is 60
The harvest rate is 2.5%
The outfitter share is 33%.

How many animals is the outfitter allowed to harvest over 5 years?

What is the outfitters annual quota for that 5 year period?

You figure out the answer.

[1899]

Chilcotin hillbilly - you keep bringing up the issue with natives, and that is a valid issue. You keep saying how residents and GOABC need to work together to deal with the native problem, and that is true too. But the partnership you propose between GOABC and residents won't happen because residents perceive, rightly or wrongly, that they are getting the sh!tty end of the deal as it is.

If I may be so bold as to speak for others, why would the residents want to work for the interests of the GOABC when the latter seems to have put the screws to residents? It is a matter of trust.

[GoatGuy]

For the folks replying to Chilcotin Hillbilly, I'm sure you will figure it out or have figured it out - he's on the typical approach. Make a snide remark or ask for some data, then change the subject. Talk the big talk about conservation, then avoid the issue. Won't reply to questions, but will question everyone else. Will accuse people of making things up, but will not support with data. Will state it's all about sustainability, but will not back that up or ask real questions about why people are trying to change things that were agreed to years ago.

There are two threads on FN land claims going on yet he has chosen this thread to post on. Got to ask the question: why?

This common argument is "there are way bigger things then allocations" and that will be the 'word of the day'. Heard that word hundreds of times.

As we've seen time and time again, that happens while people are busy working behind the scenes trying to take wildlife away from residents and other guide-outfitters. This thread is no different.

He has made a number of accusations, comments about data, and remarks about allocations but has failed on every single occurence to support any of those accusations with the slightest piece of fact. He failed to reply to the same question asked by 7 or 8 people, all the while continuing to hijack and divert.

He is trying to play everyone on here like a fiddle and it's working. It is a typical tactic - you can expect more of it.

Don't pay attention to the hand you can see, it's the one you don't see you should be worried about.

[GoatGuy]

Chilcotin Hillbilly,

Fourth time now.

It refers to a sheep population.

The estimate is 60
The harvest rate is 2.5%
The outfitter share is 33%.

How many animals is the outfitter allowed to harvest over 5 years?

What is the outfitters annual quota for that 5 year period?

You figure out the answer.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

that's great you can count, Do you really think simple math is that tough, you don't need a hand with it do you. Is it a homework assignment?

Crunch #'s, accuse the outfitters of back door deals and then you go and write an article that will most likely sabotage the whole allocation committee process, just so you can beat your chest a while.
This pissing matched started a while back when you told me to check out science, you then posted a bunch of links to irrelevant studies on cougar and black bear . None of those studies had little relevance to my area, and you still claim they are more accurate then boots on the ground. You go back and sit behind your desk and finish your homework, I am sure your mom can help you.

[Ricky Bobby]

Don't pay attention to the hand you can see, it's the one you don't see you should be worried about.


Cause that's the hand that's spanking out ass as he takes us from behind. Might be petty, might be short sighted but the loss of 80% of his animals doesn't bother me. Not sympathetic for someone who seems bent on slight of hand distraction.


but I am open minded for the umpteenth time back up your statement.

Also Ch goats aren't sheep. Maybe you need to revisit CORE?

[GoatGuy]

that's great you can count, Do you really think simple math is that tough, you don't need a hand with it do you. Is it a homework assignment?

Crunch #'s, accuse the outfitters of back door deals and then you go and write an article that will most likely sabotage the whole allocation committee process, just so you can beat your chest a while.
This pissing matched started a while back when you told me to check out science, you then posted a bunch of links to irrelevant studies on cougar and black bear . None of those studies had little relevance to my area, and you still claim they are more accurate then boots on the ground. You go back and sit behind your desk and finish your homework, I am sure your mom can help you.

Really, that is why you ask questions, then change the subject, make accusations and cannot support them? Claim someone is making things up but offer zero evidence to the contrary?

Are we back to confidential meetings now? Which allocation process are you referring to? The one in 2002, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013? Which one? Is there one going on right now? When will it end? Or are you referring to some of the processes that are going on in regions where outfitters are being given wildlife that does not physically exist in their area? How about a couple extra goats out of the neighbouring area - out of a separate population?

Or are we talking about the process where a policy was signed off, a handshake happened, and certain outfitters were out within days banging the political drum to have it re-opened? Or the process where some guide-outfitters didn't get their full allocation because certain outfitters got more than they were supposed to - where some outfitters were short-changed because others got extra? Or the part where we had inflated population estimates? Or the part where some guys got way more than they should have and others didn't get what they should have? Or the part where we had over-harvest?

Out of all of those, which process are you referring to, because there has been a process in place in British Columbia since 2002, and every single time some outfitters have gone behind residents and all the other outfitters who support the policy's back. Not to mention the processes in place in regions prior, and since that period.


You are either listening to everything you are being told and not questioning any of it, or you are pretending to be ignorant and are more than happy to sacrifice conservation, sustainability and fairness. Either way, the rhetoric and quips where you make accusations without a single ounce of evidence to back it up, make it almost impossible to give you a shred of credibility. You either don't care about wildlife or don't care to know what has gone on, how it happened and who received the benefit when they should not have.


Now for the fifth time:

It refers to a sheep population.

The population estimate is 60
The harvest rate is 2.5%
The outfitter share is 33%.

How many animals is the outfitter allowed to harvest over 5 years?

What is the outfitters annual quota for that 5 year period?

You figure out the answer.



To dangle a carrot I will then show you what the quota was for that 5 year period and what the harvest was once you figure out what the sustainable 5 year harvest was, the outfitter quota and allocation should have been.

[GoatGuy]

Chilcoting Hillbilly,

Sixth time now.

It refers to a sheep population.

The estimate is 60
The harvest rate is 2.5%
The outfitter share is 33%.

How many animals is the outfitter allowed to harvest over 5 years?

What is the outfitters annual quota for that 5 year period?

[Walking Buffalo]

It's pretty obvious CH won't play, but I would like to see where this example goes....


"It refers to a sheep population.

The estimate is 60
The harvest rate is 2.5%
The outfitter share is 33%.

How many animals is the outfitter allowed to harvest over 5 years?

What is the outfitters annual quota for that 5 year period? "


Assuming Harvest Rate equals the Total Allowable Harvest.... ?


60x0.025 = 1.5 Rams/year Total Allowable Harvest

1.5x5= 7.5 Rams/5year Total Allowable Harvest

7.5x0.33 = 2.5 Rams Outfitter Allowable harvest/5years

Outfitter Annual Quota= 0.5 Rams


Correct?
What is the Outfitter Success Rate?
Are there quota transfers to this allocation from the regional population?

[GoatGuy]

Correct, other than the annual quota.

Simplified as much as possible it should go like this:

Population estimate = 60
Annual allowable harvest = harvest rate of 2.5% * 60= 1.5 animals annually
Annual allowable harvest * 5 year allocation period = 1.5 * 5 = 7.5 animals for resident hunters and outfitters combined
7.5 * 33% outfitter share = outfitter share = 2.5 sheep over 5 years
Annual quota using administrative guideline of 30% of 5 year allocation = 30% * 2.5 = 0.75 or round up to 1 per year, but no more than 2.5 or even round up to 3 if you want over 5 years


What happened

Using success factors, regional averaging, administrative guidelines inconsistent with policy and inflated population estimate we end up with

5 year guide-outfitter allowable harvest of 17 - more than double the total allowable harvest for everyone

Guide-outfitter harvest for 5 year period of 9


In this case the outfitter harvest was 120% of the total harvest - greater than both the resident and outfitter allowable harvest combined. Outfitter harvest was 3 and 1/2 times the share of the harvest for this population. Sure, we can accomodate a little bit of deviation, but 3 1/2 times seems a bit excessive.


The new harvest rate for sheep in BC is now 3%, even then the guide-outfitter harvest was 100% of the entire allowable harvest. That means in this population there was not an animal available for resident hunters to harvest. Apparently that is what was called resident priority in region 4.


I must admit questioning some of the residents complaining about the lack of legal rams in region 4 in the past. After seeing this it is no surprise that there isn't anything legal left on the mountain.


This example IS what has been going on in region 4 and why it is such a mess. People will say "it doesn't affect residents or conservation" or "residents don't put enough effort in to sheep hunting" but the reality of the situation is it can and does. These types of issues are also why outfitters in other parts of the province are getting the shaft.

I'm not interested in the personal stuff and identifying individual outfitters - this needs to be fixed so it doesn't happen again.

I hope CH starts to question what is going on in the rest of the province. This needs to be fixed and it certainly won't happen if everyone takes the ostrich approach and no one takes the time to bother to understand what has happened and why we can't continue to let it go on.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

See I knew you could do it GG. That was my point all along, this is the information which important the Regional Manager should loose his job. I knew if i waited long enough someone would help you on the math.

[GoatGuy]

Firing people will not solve that problem.

The system is broken.

[Eastbranch]

Holllay Jesse between this thread and the Tsilhqot'in decision you must be figuring to move to Saskatchewan :mrgreen: Easier flying too!

[GoatGuy]

Guess in the long-run it won't matter because there will be next to nothing to hunt or society will realize due to intentionally lobbied for and created policy, 'hunters' are unable to manage wildlife in a manner that is consistent with social objectives and will ultimately take the reigns. There has been so much garbage swept under the rug on wildlife conservation and allocations that it is FULL (or there is nothing there if you ask the cleaner).

You can tell by the response that the level of caring is extremely low and self-justification rules the day. "I went in and told the regional manager I was gonna go out of business so I got an inflated quota - you must fire the regional manager." "It isn't my fault if I got more then I should have - it's the regional manager." Narcissism at its finest.

Really need some of the folks who are concerned with wildlife conservation and equity amongst stakeholders to step up to the plate.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Its interesting GG. The Regional manager is there to follow the rules. 3.5 times an outfitters quota is not even close to being acceptable in anyone's books, GOABC or BCWF. So who is to blame. One outfitter and one Regional manager period! Over harvest can happen any given year with residents as well, so don't pretend this doesn't happen, good weather, new roads, a better group or two of hunters then the norm, you name it over harvest can happen in any given year. Is this outfitter a GOABC member? If so PM me the name and specifics, I would love to bring this up. Unlike most people on this site I make my living hunting, mostly predators but still hunting, I have met some great people from HBC and meet up with them for a coffee and sometimes even a hunt.
This allocation working group should not have turned this into a he said she said and left the room pissed off. Now it looks like the decision is not going to be up to the GOABC and the BCWF the Ministry will do the decision making for us. Its time to get this settled and move on to the bigger picture.....maintaining ours right to hunt and fish province wide.

[1899]

Its time to get this settled and move on to the bigger picture.....maintaining ours right to hunt and fish province wide.

I believe we don't have a "right" hunt and fish, it is a privilege.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

I believe we don't have a "right" hunt and fish, it is a privilege.

Call it what you want it is worth fighting for. At least to me it is.

[GoatGuy]

Its interesting GG. The Regional manager is there to follow the rules. 3.5 times an outfitters quota is not even close to being acceptable in anyone's books, GOABC or BCWF. So who is to blame. One outfitter and one Regional manager period! Over harvest can happen any given year with residents as well, so don't pretend this doesn't happen, good weather, new roads, a better group or two of hunters then the norm, you name it over harvest can happen in any given year. Is this outfitter a GOABC member? If so PM me the name and specifics, I would love to bring this up. Unlike most people on this site I make my living hunting, mostly predators but still hunting, I have met some great people from HBC and meet up with them for a coffee and sometimes even a hunt.
This allocation working group should not have turned this into a he said she said and left the room pissed off. Now it looks like the decision is not going to be up to the GOABC and the BCWF the Ministry will do the decision making for us. Its time to get this settled and move on to the bigger picture.....maintaining ours right to hunt and fish province wide.

The allocation period happens over 5 years. Some years it's well above 20% of the 5 year harvest, sometimes it's below so long as it's close over 5 years - that is the objective. People get their share of wildlife in their territory, not out of their neighbours', or some far off population. The objective is not to allow people to over-harvest one population and harvest nothing out of another.

Not interested in targeting individuals. These are the sorts of things that have happened in region 4 - this is not the only case of this kind of harvest happening. This is not one regional manager and one outfitter - this has also happened in other regions. The way things were done are a serious problem - a problem that needs to be fixed from the very start of the process, not the end of it.

I'm sure you've heard that the way things happen in region 4 aren't a problem. Nobody wants to talk about it, no one should know about it, just sweep it under the rug. This is not a process or an organizational issue. These are the types of things where data has been requested for years - it was too hard to get, impossible to find, there's nothing there, we don't need it and at the end of the day it was never provided - for what are now extremely obvious reasons. There are other regions where this kind of stuff occurred and has never seen the light of day. There are still to this day people who are getting wildlife from unallocated areas and other outfitter territories.

Need a long-term fix, that's transparent, puts wildlife first and treats everyone fairly and equally. No one-offs, no backdoor deals, just a cookie-cutter model that fits and applies equally for everyone so there aren't any 'special people'.

Agree with you on the last point - that should have happened 7 years ago. Unfortunately, it seems some people don't want it to.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

When the resident hunting areas were taken out of the equation this really hurt my allocation. The problem being, the two vacant areas adjoining mine have large land mass but few moose. The population estimate model was taken over a huge area. This created a problem when most of the moose harvested come off my guide concession ( i suspect it around 80%) and very few come off the "resident areas" as there are not many there to hunt. The LEH should have these three areas broken into a,b c spreading out the hunters.
If the Ministry really believes this estimate by the sq/km are accurate then making it fair for the outfitter should be taken into consideration. I now only have 8 moose over 5 years and may be reduced further. With this few moose on quota I have to sell predator hunts to make a living. Nothing wrong with that but with me being one of the few BC residents that has taken the plunge without foreign money, and still making payments on my guide concession, between the FN situation and the BCWF on their outfitter hunt the future for my family might be selling out for pennies on the dollar and heading out. Something that does not really appeal to me.

[2radd]

The bottom fell out of mineral exploration couple years back you expect the Province of British Columbia to pay me to run a business that isn't feasible? I don't I'll go ahead and take care of my self and not ask for special treatment. You are not a unique and beautiful snow flake. It's tough all over.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

The bottom fell out of mineral exploration couple years back you expect the Province of British Columbia to pay me to run a business that isn't feasible? I don't I'll go ahead and take care of my self and not ask for special treatment. You are not a unique and beautiful snow flake. It's tough all over.


Never said I was jackass, I have been self employed since i was 21, you don't need to lecture me on taking care of ones family. Never a day on EI, or hand outs of any kind and proud of it.

[2radd]

Never said I was jackass, I have been self employed since i was 21, you don't need to lecture me on taking care of ones family. Never a day on EI, or hand outs of any kind and proud of it.

All I can say is keep talking. All you do is insulate the points I support.You sound like a only child.

[2radd]

Never said I was jackass, I have been self employed since i was 21, you don't need to lecture me on taking care of ones family. Never a day on EI, or hand outs of any kind and proud of it.

By the what your proud off is how we all should act so good on you for serious.