Guide-outfitter quota appeal decision

[GoatGuy]

Latest decision. Guide-outfitter in region 5 versus the province.

Outfitter requested his quota be increased from 22 to 39 bull moose through regional averaging (counting moose outside his area).

Also that the 30% hardship rule was not applied correctly.

Environmental appeal board supported the province and the appeal was dismissed.


Final decision can be found

http://www.eab.gov.bc.ca/wildlife/2013wil029a.pdf

[GoatGuy]

Stewart Fraser versus the province

Outfitter argued quota should not be reduced because:
-inventory work that showed a decline in moose is not scientifically defensible - the moose population has not declined

-resident hunters are more likely to impact conservation due to the number of LEH authorizatins issued

-the outfitters quota and allocation was incorrectly applied

-guide-outfitter quota should be calculated based on regional level (counting moose outside area)

Appeal dismissed

http://www.eab.gov.bc.ca/wildlife/2013wil026a.pdf

[bridger]

Great news! Could never accept the principle of regional averaging. Glad to see the EAB rule against regional averaging.

[horshur]

Do you think you could run his business on 4 moose a year??? You cannot fault him the conservation issues that are directly impacting his ability to stay in business...he did not cause this mess did he?? Something wrong with fighting for you livelihood??? I guess he can sell out at a loss and go work up in the oil patch.....

[Fisher-Dude]

Do you think you could run his business on 4 moose a year??? You cannot fault him the conservation issues that are directly impacting his ability to stay in business...he did not cause this mess did he?? Something wrong with fighting for you livelihood??? I guess he can sell out at a loss and go work up in the oil patch.....

To me, it's more important that the moose in his area aren't over-harvested by his clients than whether he stays in business or not. By counting moose outside his area and increasing his quota based on moose he's not allowed to hunt, that allows him to kill far more moose than is sustainable in his area.

I guess I'm more concerned with conservation of moose, while you and the guide are more concerned about stuffing his jeans with US dollars. Different strokes for different folks.

[.300WSMImpact!]

Do you think you could run his business on 4 moose a year??? You cannot fault him the conservation issues that are directly impacting his ability to stay in business...he did not cause this mess did he?? Something wrong with fighting for you livelihood??? I guess he can sell out at a loss and go work up in the oil patch.....

I dont think you will get a lot of sympathy here, moose come first business should come after residents allocations

[adriaticum]

Do you think you could run his business on 4 moose a year??? You cannot fault him the conservation issues that are directly impacting his ability to stay in business...he did not cause this mess did he?? Something wrong with fighting for you livelihood??? I guess he can sell out at a loss and go work up in the oil patch.....

Frankly when someone starts depleting a resource because they want to run a business its time to shut them down.

[chris]

I must be missing something. I read that his qouta is 22 moose. If that'a per year he is making good money. Or is that distributed over 5 years? No sympathy though. I would rather get paid to hunt but I make more doing a job I don't like and spend all my free time doing what I do like. If moose numbers are down then everyone should should be affected

[Timbow]

Can't blame a guy for trying, especially when your livelihood is affected.

I find it interesting on how they justified their appeal in using 7a as the true estimate. The guy GG mentioned above is not a friend to the resident hunter. He was a strong voice in pushing for the muledeer closure in Region 5 during the rut, stating clients don't like to shot dink bucks and there is a shortage of 4x4 or better muledeer. I guess that 10 day shut during the rut for the muledeer could have helped in this case for him as he has an area for muledeer hunts. He is the reason why I will not attend their (GOABC) local banquet each year.

[HarryToolips]

Great news.......now the province has to work on habitat restoration....

[GoatGuy]

Do you think you could run his business on 4 moose a year??? You cannot fault him the conservation issues that are directly impacting his ability to stay in business...he did not cause this mess did he?? Something wrong with fighting for you livelihood??? I guess he can sell out at a loss and go work up in the oil patch.....

Sure, it's a legal right for an outfitter to pay their $25 to appeal and blow a couple thousand dollars of taxpayers money. It's a free country.

One must recognize that the outfits in regions 4 and 5 were not intended to be standalone full-time businesses, at least according to the people who were involved in drawing the boundaries and creating them - and also the old retired outfitters who owned them. Most of the people who held certificates also ranched, farmed, logged or were involved in some other form of occupation.

The situation and questions above implies conservation comes secondary to a business (this has certainly happened), where the loss of wildlife is taken from resident hunters and certain guide-outfitters bear very little of the effect. Of course, any sane individual would agree conservation comes first and most outfitters do. So, on a personal level, I don't think I can agree that fighting for your livelihood when its outside the bounds of conservation is 'right'.

I also don't think it's right to access a resource you never paid for or to use someone else's share of the resource. But as stated it's a free country and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

[horshur]

Sure, it's a legal right for an outfitter to pay their $25 to appeal and blow a couple thousand dollars of taxpayers money. It's a free country.

One must recognize that the outfits in regions 4 and 5 were not intended to be standalone full-time businesses, at least according to the people who were involved in drawing the boundaries and creating them - and also the old retired outfitters who owned them. Most of the people who held certificates also ranched, farmed, logged or were involved in some other form of occupation.

The situation and questions above implies conservation comes secondary to a business (this has certainly happened), where the loss of wildlife is taken from resident hunters and certain guide-outfitters bear very little of the effect. Of course, any sane individual would agree conservation comes first and most outfitters do. So, on a personal level, I don't think I can agree that fighting for your livelihood when its outside the bounds of conservation is 'right'.

I also don't think it's right to access a resource you never paid for or to use someone else's share of the resource. But as stated it's a free country and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.



you know that prior to the current deal he had to kill his quota or lose it....and so managers under head orders set quota based on science and now there are no moose...the same science that set the quota a few short years ago insisting he kill it or lose it..so I think we can forgive the guide in thinking maybe the science is shit...

[Apolonius]

Great post GG.The resource of wildlife is owned by all of us, but sold by few.Hope it changes.

[bridger]

you know that prior to the current deal he had to kill his quota or lose it....and so managers under head orders set quota based on science and now there are no moose...the same science that set the quota a few short years ago insisting he kill it or lose it..so I think we can forgive the guide in thinking maybe the science is shit...

Do you know of an outfitter that actually lost quota because it wasn't filled?

[horshur]

Do you know of an outfitter that actually lost quota because it wasn't filled?

do you know of any real resident moose hunting opportunity that has been created in the last ten years??

[bridger]

do you know of any real resident moose hunting opportunity that has been created in the last ten years??


Not my question you said the outfitter had to use his quota or lose it. As a point of general information I asked if that had actually happened to any outfitters you knew. Has it?

[GoatGuy]

you know that prior to the current deal he had to kill his quota or lose it....and so managers under head orders set quota based on science and now there are no moose...the same science that set the quota a few short years ago insisting he kill it or lose it..so I think we can forgive the guide in thinking maybe the science is shit...

No, he didn't. The commercial interests wanted the utilization calculation, but then changed its mind, lobbied and received a change in policy for the utilization calculator. The outfitters in region 5 actually received an extra 2% increase in allocation due to the allocation calculator in this period. I believe it states that right in the appeal. I think the current allocation is around 23% IIRC - if you look through the history of region 5 moose, you will find guide-outfitters historically harvested approximately 5-7% of the total harvest. As population declines occurred, the outfitters share increased - particularly since the late 90s. Resident hunters took most of the hit when it came to conservation.

The moose decline, as you know, is due to calf/cow mortality, neither of which are killed through regulated hunting. Quota had nothing to do with the decline in this case.

You will find great inconsistencies in region 5 moose quota distribution. A lot of people who should have had a lot of moose in the past didn't have them, and others who should have had a few had many due to 'inconsistencies' in the way the regional manager handed quota out. There has been a significant reorganization of quota and allocation in Region 5 in recent years.

[limit time]

[QUOTE=horshur;1514689]Do you think you could run his business on 4 moose a year??? You cannot fault him the conservation issues that are directly impacting his ability to stay in business...he did not cause this mess did he?? Something wrong with fighting for you livelihood??? I guess he can sell out at a loss and go work up in the oil patch.....[/

[limit time]

you know that prior to the current deal he had to kill his quota or lose it....and so managers under head orders set quota based on science and now there are no moose...the same science that set the quota a few short years ago insisting he kill it or lose it..so I think we can forgive the guide in thinking maybe the science is shit...
...............

[Downwind]

Do you think you could run his business on 4 moose a year??? You cannot fault him the conservation issues that are directly impacting his ability to stay in business...he did not cause this mess did he?? Something wrong with fighting for you livelihood??? I guess he can sell out at a loss and go work up in the oil patch.....

Where did you learn math?


Cariboo Region (the “Regional Manager”), advised the Appellant of his moose
for the 2013-2014 licence year. He also advised the Appellant of his five-year
allocation (target harvest) in relation to moose. The Appellant was given a quo
10 animals for 2013-2014 and an allocation of 42 animals for the five-year period
of 2012-2016. However, since only four years were remaining in this allocation
period, the letter focused on the Appellant’s remaining four-year allocation (2013
2016), which he calculated as 34 animals. The Appellant appealed this decision to
the Board on the main ground that this is a significant reduction from previous
quotas and allocations.

34 moose over 4 years works out to 8 moose two years and 9 moose the other two. Throw in his allocations for bear on top of that. If he can't manage his business on that then that is his problem, not ours.

[one-shot-wonder]

Not piling on Andy, but don't you find it interesting the majority of appeals are coming from the same couple of regions.....furthermore once investigated they find the same regional managers working outside policy. I guess we have some regions that are resident friendly and some that are not, it's actually indicative of the regulations and that is the sad part.

[one-shot-wonder]

Can't blame a guy for trying, especially when your livelihood is affected.

I find it interesting on how they justified their appeal in using 7a as the true estimate. The guy GG mentioned above is not a friend to the resident hunter. He was a strong voice in pushing for the muledeer closure in Region 5 during the rut, stating clients don't like to shot dink bucks and there is a shortage of 4x4 or better muledeer. I guess that 10 day shut during the rut for the muledeer could have helped in this case for him as he has an area for muledeer hunts. He is the reason why I will not attend their (GOABC) local banquet each year.

I can blame him, get a real job the other half of the year.

Reg 5 MD season is a joke. Same old BS coming from Roger Stewarts desk!

[bearvalley]

Where did you learn math?



34 moose over 4 years works out to 8 moose two years and 9 moose the other two. Throw in his allocations for bear on top of that. If he can't manage his business on that then that is his problem, not ours.

Better re-read the posts. One of the appeals is on 4 moose per year. The second appeal posted is on two years of 8 moose and two of 9.

[The Hermit]

Is the appellant a member of the GOABC? I wonder what GOABC would say about appeals like this? Regardless, I'm surprised that anyone that is supposedly in touch with game populations in the region would be thick enough to misunderstand the effect of environmental factors and overkill of cows and calves on the population and blame science. The models will only work within expected parameters...

[r106]

Do you think you could run his business on 4 moose a year??? You cannot fault him the conservation issues that are directly impacting his ability to stay in business...he did not cause this mess did he?? Something wrong with fighting for you livelihood??? I guess he can sell out at a loss and go work up in the oil patch.....

I understand him fighting for more quota. But I'm glad they turned him down. When you have a business that runs on a resource that's declining in the region then his quota can't be upped. If anything it will have to go down. He is the last on the list ( and so they should be ) for utilizing the resource that belongs to British Columbians. Unfortunately that's the down side to running such a business. We share in the good times and the bad.

But it is things like this that get resident hunters pissed off at the outfitters. It's no secret that #'s are down and are LEH #'s are down in that region also so he needs to accept it, simple as that. Hopefully his business can stay afloat though.

[Fisher-Dude]

Too bad the hundreds of thousands of dollars that appeals have cost us comes directly from the Wildlife Branch's budget.

Wouldn't it be better if we had used that money to enhance moose populations instead of spending it defending decisions about how many of our moose fat, rich Yanks can kill?

[bearvalley]

Too bad the hundreds of thousands of dollars that appeals have cost us comes directly from the Wildlife Branch's budget.

Wouldn't it be better if we had used that money to enhance moose populations instead of spending it defending decisions about how many of our moose moose fat, rich Yanks can kill?

It is hilarious the amount of scrutiny and criticism BC's outfitting industry gets. Constantly looked at as the big,bad wolf by the resident hunting fraternity. A lot of the critics really don't any knowledge on outfitting, only what gossip they have picked up from some "well informed person". The bottom line is...Bullshit does not buy whiskey.
As to the hundreds of thousands off provincial dollars spent on appeals... I would tend to think that amount of money is a drop in the bucket compared to the provincial money pissed away bickering with the BCTF or the GEU, of which many of BC's money conscious resident hunters are members. But that's different. They are defending their livelihood. If some more of the anti-outfitters took the time to actually meet a few outfitters they would find most are residents of Canada. Residents of BC and resident hunters. If the same anti-outfitters ever got a chance to met some of the non resident hunters they would find the majority are no different than us. The fat,rich Yank stereotype is just more BS.

[GoatGuy]

Unfortunately, the hundreds of thousands of dollars come out of the wildlife branch's budget, which is usually in the single digit millions. When wildlife managers spend close to a month of their time on quota appeals, emails, minister briefings, data retrieval, 70(1)b permits, and getting yelled at by individuals who want something special, that is not an efficient use of time. Managers should be spending their time on wildlife management - the money going towards wildlife allocation and time towards quota appeal could be spent on habitat enhancement and wildlife inventory. $1 million dollars would make up half of our inventory budget some years - we could use that $ in a huge way. Fisher-dude has a point, which is probably the focal point to this issue.

Where do you want to spend you money and resources?

1) Creating a proper wildlife program in BC, making more wildlife and focusing in on issues like habitat enhancement, predator management so everyone can benefit.


2) Or, on appealing quota, increasing allocations through politics, and getting one-offs while the resource dwindles.


At some point number 2 is going to leave you in a precarious spot as there won't be anything more to one-off as there will be no resource. The ship seems to be pointed in that direction - doesn't it?


I agree, most outfitters are great people. There are probably 230-240 outfitters in the province and maybe 40 which are constantly appealing quota, and looking for something no one else in the province gets. Most of the outfitters in the province do not support success factors, regional averaging, or one-offs. And in fact many outfitters have been negatively impacted by the allocation shenanigans and one-offs created over the past 5 years. How is that fair?????

There are some people that want to live within the rules AND focus on making more wildlife. Unfortunately, the folks who want to work for wildlife are not steering the ship, and as a result they are unable to steer the ship in a manner which focuses on making more wildlife. As a result the politicians are spending and directing the wildlife branch's time towards wildlife allocations instead of the big picture - they've been doing that in BC since 2002 in a huge way, where allocations is the single biggest file the branch deals with despite being signed off 7 years ago.

There is some light at the end of the tunnel. I get the sense there are more and more people focusing on the big picture who want nothing to do with wildlife allocations and want to work for wildlife. They have no interest in changing the rules of the game constantly, and would rather work towards a brighter future for wildlife in BC.

[houndogger]

To me, it's more important that the moose in his area aren't over-harvested by his clients than whether he stays in business or not. By counting moose outside his area and increasing his quota based on moose he's not allowed to hunt, that allows him to kill far more moose than is sustainable in his area.

I guess I'm more concerned with conservation of moose, while you and the guide are more concerned about stuffing his jeans with US dollars. Different strokes for different folks.
I thought hunting don't make dent in population? Lol

[.300WSMImpact!]

It is hilarious the amount of scrutiny and criticism BC's outfitting industry gets. Constantly looked at as the big,bad wolf by the resident hunting fraternity. A lot of the critics really don't any knowledge on outfitting, only what gossip they have picked up from some "well informed person". The bottom line is...Bullshit does not buy whiskey.
As to the hundreds of thousands off provincial dollars spent on appeals... I would tend to think that amount of money is a drop in the bucket compared to the provincial money pissed away bickering with the BCTF or the GEU, of which many of BC's money conscious resident hunters are members. But that's different. They are defending their livelihood. If some more of the anti-outfitters took the time to actually meet a few outfitters they would find most are residents of Canada. Residents of BC and resident hunters. If the same anti-outfitters ever got a chance to met some of the non resident hunters they would find the majority are no different than us. The fat,rich Yank stereotype is just more BS.

I think most of us "guide outfit haters" have given chances to these outfits, but have had negative run ins with them in the bush, heck my grandfather was an outfitter and I always thought that's what I would do one day, but after meeting outfitters, and more than one, outfitters have shown me that they don't care about resident hunters, and would like to see resident hunters with less opportunity only so they can make more and more money, but all that being said I am open to one day a change in guides thought on resident hunters and also a change in resident hunters towards guides all and all we need to work together for our future because if we don't we all are set to lose what we love

[Downwind]

Better re-read the posts. One of the appeals is on 4 moose per year. The second appeal posted is on two years of 8 moose and two of 9.

My apologies. Didn't see 4 per year but did see 5. Either way he still lots of opps for bears, deer. I'm sure moose isn't the only species he guides clients for.

[bearvalley]

[QUOTE=.300WSMImpact!, but all that being said I am open to one day a change in guides thought on resident hunters and also a change in resident hunters towards guides all and all we need to work together for our future because if we don't we all are set to lose what we love[/QUOTE]

Good statement. That being said it's pretty hard to expect the two sides to pull together as long as all outfitters keep getting lumped into the same class. It'll only keep pushing guys that are willing to work towards a resolve away. Face it, if you go by GG's numbers that 40 out of 230-240 are the problem it's a pretty generalized grouping to call down guide outfitters as a whole. 15% of the members in any group are probable scabs,even the resident hunter group of which I am a member.

[bridger]

I agree BV! perhaps a first step could be the GOABC officially supporting the allocation policy and cut these guys doing the back room deals loose. Not trying to twist the knife just a suggestion that I think would go a long ways in building a bridge.

[GoatGuy]

Bearvalley, that is very true, there are some great people out there and there seems to be more and more all the time. There are a pile of people who have no interest in success factors, regional averaging or one-offs. Equity amongst all stakeholders and between outfitters is the way it should be.

Unfortunately it`s like two ships that are hooked together. If one pulls back the other pulls back. If both want to move forward both of the skippers have to ensure their crew is not pulling back.

There are a few individuals who are making it really tough for a lot of people. That is probably why you are seeing so much fragmentation.

[Piperdown]

I believe this is the same guide who was charging only a couple of hundred bucks to friends for bull moose tags the last couple years because his American clients had dried up and he wanted to use his quota!!!!!

[horshur]

I believe this is the same guide who was charging only a couple of hundred bucks to friends for bull moose tags the last couple years because his American clients had dried up and he wanted to use his quota!!!!!

he had to use his quota!!! use it or lose it....that was the policy.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

he had to use his quota!!! use it or lose it....that was the policy.
Your right, horshur. I was told the same thing that year. 4 moose hunters all in tight on bulls all SH!T the bed. 0 for four that season. hard to believe! Success rate should not be part of the equation. I have had hunters pass on good bulls and go home empty.

[bearvalley]

Success rate should not be part of the equation. I have had hunters pass on good bulls and go home empty.

I agree with this. Hunters will go home empty because they were looking for that other bull or bear. The exception to having success rate not remaining part of the equation is in the case of a guide outfitting area being purchased by anti- hunting organizations. In this case it should be " USE IT OR LOOSE IT ". The problem would be in differentiating the territory holder that gets to keep un-used quota from the one that looses it back to the other allocation stakeholders.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Roger that bearvalley.

[f350ps]

I believe this is the same guide who was charging only a couple of hundred bucks to friends for bull moose tags the last couple years because his American clients had dried up and he wanted to use his quota!!!!!
Was this a guide in the Cariboo by any chance? K

[boxhitch]

he had to use his quota!!! use it or lose it....that was the policy.good thing these aren't adjusted based on a single year .

[GoatGuy]

I agree with this. Hunters will go home empty because they were looking for that other bull or bear. The exception to having success rate not remaining part of the equation is in the case of a guide outfitting area being purchased by anti- hunting organizations. In this case it should be " USE IT OR LOOSE IT ". The problem would be in differentiating the territory holder that gets to keep un-used quota from the one that looses it back to the other allocation stakeholders.
Must be a miscommunication somewhere - the industry wanted that.

It was also subsequently changed due to politics.

[bearvalley]

[QUOTE=GoatGuy;1516565]Must be a miscommunication somewhere - the industry wanted that.

It was also subsequently changed due to politics.[/QUOTE

Not all minds think alike. An outfitter should not be penalized for not using his quota due to a hunter not taking his "special bull" or hunter inability. What's missing is wildlife inventory. If all the allocated species are in abundance, so what if a couple of extras are not taken. If a few extra animals are left out of one of the stakeholders allocation it will only improve hunt quality in the next years. Why harvest something if it's not what you really want but the next person would be more than happy to take. Seems to me this would be a better mindset than everyone fighting over the last moose, or deer, or elk they can legally get under allocation policy rules.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

[QUOTE=GoatGuy;1516565]Must be a miscommunication somewhere - the industry wanted that.

It was also subsequently changed due to politics.[/QUOTE

Not all minds think alike. An outfitter should not be penalized for not using his quota due to a hunter not taking his "special bull" or hunter inability. What's missing is wildlife inventory. If all the allocated species are in abundance, so what if a couple of extras are not taken. If a few extra animals are left out of one of the stakeholders allocation it will only improve hunt quality in the next years. Why harvest something if it's not what you really want but the next person would be more than happy to take. Seems to me this would be a better mindset than everyone fighting over the last moose, or deer, or elk they can legally get under allocation policy rules.

I think everyone will agree that what's missing is proper inventory. Sure could use the missing money from license sales for timely inventories. That could resolve many issues of infighting not just between residents and g/o's but also amongst residents themselves.

SSS

[GoatGuy]

Must be a miscommunication somewhere - the industry wanted that.

It was also subsequently changed due to politics.

Not all minds think alike. An outfitter should not be penalized for not using his quota due to a hunter not taking his "special bull" or hunter inability. What's missing is wildlife inventory. If all the allocated species are in abundance, so what if a couple of extras are not taken. If a few extra animals are left out of one of the stakeholders allocation it will only improve hunt quality in the next years. Why harvest something if it's not what you really want but the next person would be more than happy to take. Seems to me this would be a better mindset than everyone fighting over the last moose, or deer, or elk they can legally get under allocation policy rules.

Don't disagree, just informing how it happened.

There are always consequence to these sorts of things.

[Fisher-Dude]

I think everyone will agree that what's missing is proper inventory. Sure could use the missing money from license sales for timely inventories. That could resolve many issues of infighting not just between residents and g/o's but also amongst residents themselves.

SSS

Too bad we waste so much money on quota appeals instead of investing it in inventories. We're fighting over the scraps that are left with money that should be used to make more.