Region 4 outfitter quota appeal

[GoatGuy]

http://www.eab.gov.bc.ca/wildlife/2013wil019a_020a.pdf

Vince Cocciolo versus the Regional Manager


"The Appellant seeks an order from the Board increasing his quotas and allocations in accordance with the Ministry’s harvest allocation policies and procedures. In the alternative, he asks the Board to send the matter back to the Regional Manager with directions to properly follow the Ministry’s harvest allocation policies and procedures, and to increase his allocations and quotas accordingly." .........


"These appeals are two of 28 appeals filed by guide outfitters in three different regions against their 2013-2014 quotas and five

-year allocations. The appeals were all conducted by way of written submissions, and are the subject of separate decisions.

However, the Panel notes that the issues and arguments in each of the appeals have many similarities. For each of the appeals, some of the submissions from the parties are identical."..................


"Were it otherwise, respondents could be subjected to frivolous appeals and put to the expense and bother of defending an appeal without any indication that there was a flaw in the process or in the decision itself. Simply put, it is not enough to come to this Board with the mere complaint that the appellant does not like the decision that was made. ..."

"At this time the Panel, quite simply, has nothing to go on -it cannot determine whether the Appellant has a legitimate concern with the decisions or not. The Appellant provided no information, let alone evidence, to support his claim that the Regional Manager erred and/or to justify the remedy he sought....."

"The Panel can find no clear error in his calculations, or find any improper consideration that warrants a change in the Appellant’s quotas and five-year allocations. Nor can the Panel find, on its face, any legal flaw in the decisions or in his decision-making process that is sufficient to conclude that the Regional Manager should have made different decisions, or that the Panel should make different decisions.There is nothing to suggest that the Regional Manager’s decisions were unfair or unreasonable in the circumstances."

[Elkaholic]

Sorry to anybody that likes this guy, but the guy has an absolute trash reputation around here. SO this is not that hard to believe at all.

[Sitkaspruce]

More waste of F&W/Taxpayers dollars of BS allocation appeals. The GO should be held responsible for all costs in these appeals, especially when they provide no evidence other than the dribble they write on paper.

Cheers

SS

[Gateholio]

I wonder if someone should make a list of outfitters that waste resources with BS appeals. Would be a good heads up to have when someone asks for an outfitter reccomendation

[bridger]

In every other profession of which I am aware the cost of the appeal or disciplinary hearing is paid by the appellant. Why is it different for guide outfitters?

[BCrams]

What's the overall cost of all those appeals. Be good for everyone to see where wildlife money goes.

[Cordillera]

Costs 25 bucks to appeal to the Eab. Way too easy.

[BCrams]

I m aware it costs 25 bucks to initiate appeal. I want to know the cost to wildlife and hunters when time is spent dealing with these appeals from personnel and money that could otherwise be spent elsewhere.

[Fisher-Dude]

I wonder if someone should make a list of outfitters that waste resources with BS appeals. Would be a good heads up to have when someone asks for an outfitter reccomendation

Seems reasonable. There are lots of foreign hunters who share our concerns that fish and wildlife money be spent on fish and wildlife rather than on groundless BS appeals.

[one-shot-wonder]

As they say in Nam....."same same"

[Argali]

The weak point in the govt argument is the very first step in their calculation of the allocation:

"1a. Determine the 2013 population estimate for each species/class (e.g. bull moose) within each guide outfitter territory. These estimates are based on inventory data, anecdotal information, hunter success rates, etc."

If I was an outfitter (not), I would ask them to show me that inventory data for my territory, knowing full well that B.C. wildlife inventory data is sorely lacking with the exception of a few select areas and species. Hunter success rates in a heavily hunted area like 4-22 could be misleading if compared to provincial averages. So that leaves "anecdotal evidence" and "etc." to substantiate the population estimate which is the foundation of the allocation calculation.

Without having better inventory control on their population estimates (which by their own admission is step 1A of their allocation calculation), the govt. is in a vulnerable position for anyone that wants to appeal or debate the allocation whether they are outfitters, residents on GOS or LEH, natives, or landowners.

One good thing that may arise from the appeals is that the govt may realize it is cheaper to fund better inventory estimates than to defend somewhat suspect population estimates in court.

[Gateholio]

Seems reasonable. There are lots of foreign hunters who share our concerns that fish and wildlife money be spent on fish and wildlife rather than on groundless BS appeals.

Absolutely reasonable. Lots of us are on international forums. Prospective hunters should know if the outfitters they are looking at care about conservation and wildlife or they just want short term cash

[LBM]

Sorry to anybody that likes this guy, but the guy has an absolute trash reputation around here. SO this is not that hard to believe at all.

Ya have never heard anything good about him or his actions. It surprises me that he is allowed to have an outfitters license.
He is a good talker and I no a couple guys that fell for it and worked for him but it didn't last long and cant believe
what goes on in his camps or what he promised hunters.

So you have pointed out one now GG what about the others, this is not the one to do with the sheep permits you mentioned in another thread, is there a link to his appeal.

[markomoose]

Wheres Chilcotin Hillbilly?He's usually got an opinion or two on these matters!

[Everett]

This guy doesn't seem to be able to keep guides constantly advertising in the local paper.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

I don't know the outfitter, in fact i don't recognize his name even. Do I agree with the population estimate models, no I don't don't. there is not enough inventory counts happening to be accurate. Do I agree with the removing the fractional vacant areas out of the equation. No I don't! In my MU there are two large vacant areas which moose populations are taken out of my allocation equation. Do residents hunt moose in these areas, yes they do, they just don't kill many. Most of the moose in 5-5 are shot in my concession, I do think it would be fair that the fractional areas were different zones in the LEH draws such as MU 5-5 A, B ,C. This way it spreads out the hunters. Even though I do believe I have a case I didn't bother with filing an appeal. For me I don't like driving roads hunting moose anyways and I get tired of seeing residents driving back and forth all day waiting for the stupid ones to cross. I just have to put in more effort hunting different species to make up the difference.

[GoatGuy]

I m aware it costs 25 bucks to initiate appeal. I want to know the cost to wildlife and hunters when time is spent dealing with these appeals from personnel and money that could otherwise be spent elsewhere.

That is a good question - it would be nice to have an idea of the total costs. Unfortunately, it isn't something that anyone seems to want to monitor and evaluate.

[GoatGuy]

The weak point in the govt argument is the very first step in their calculation of the allocation:

"1a. Determine the 2013 population estimate for each species/class (e.g. bull moose) within each guide outfitter territory. These estimates are based on inventory data, anecdotal information, hunter success rates, etc."

If I was an outfitter (not), I would ask them to show me that inventory data for my territory, knowing full well that B.C. wildlife inventory data is sorely lacking with the exception of a few select areas and species. Hunter success rates in a heavily hunted area like 4-22 could be misleading if compared to provincial averages. So that leaves "anecdotal evidence" and "etc." to substantiate the population estimate which is the foundation of the allocation calculation.

Without having better inventory control on their population estimates (which by their own admission is step 1A of their allocation calculation), the govt. is in a vulnerable position for anyone that wants to appeal or debate the allocation whether they are outfitters, residents on GOS or LEH, natives, or landowners.

One good thing that may arise from the appeals is that the govt may realize it is cheaper to fund better inventory estimates than to defend somewhat suspect population estimates in court.

Region 4 probably has the best estimates in the province for various reasons (compensation program, ag conflict, mine money etc). Unfortunately, historical estimates is the best guess. Government should realize this, unfortunately politics has dictated a focus exclusively on wildlife allocations. Resident do not have the ability to appeal quota/allocation.

The appeal process was recommended to be altered in 2007 during the wildlife act review.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlifeactreview/discussion/discussionpaper_wildlifeact.pdf

"APPEALS


The Wildlife Act provides that any decision of a regional manager or director affecting a licence, permit, registration of a trap-line or guide outfitter's certificate, or an application for any of these, may be appealed to the Environmental Appeal Board (EAB). The most frequent appeals of Wildlife Actdecisions concern the following:

•individuals whose hunting and fishing privileges have been suspended because of Wildlife Actinfractions;

•guide outfitters wanting increased allocations of big game animals; and

•angling guides seeking increased rod day allocations.


The EAB reviews all notices to appeal Wildlife Act-related decisions to confirm that it has jurisdiction, that the appeal documentation is complete, and that the application fee of $25 is included. Over the past 5 years the number of Wildlife Actrelated appeals has been relatively constant at about 30 per year

and the time devoted by the EAB to oral and written hearings of these appeals has been relatively constant as well. The EAB must give the decision-maker full party status in the appeal on request. In practice the EAB presumes that the decision-maker is a party to the proceeding, even in the absence of a request. Once
accepted, the appeal may be handled through either a written or oral hearing process. There are requirements on parties to provide full information according to a defined schedule. This places a requirement on both the appellant and the Ministry decision-maker to provide thorough documentation in a timely manner. If the Ministry decision-maker declines to become a party, the decision-maker is still obliged to provide the record to the EAB (i.e. a copy of the file). A review of the outcome of EAB decisions in recent years suggests that appeals seeking increased allocations of big game animals to guide outfitters, seeking the reversal of Ministry decisions denying possession of dead animals such as raptors and predators, and seeking relief from the suspension of licence privileges are frequently unsuccessful. Despite this, appellants and Ministry staff must commit a significant amount of time and resources each year to these appeals. In an effort to make the appeal process more effective and cost-efficient, a number of changes could be made to ensure that appeals are meritorious. In addition, the EAB has recommended the increased use of negotiation and mediation as alternatives to the current resource-intensive appeal process.


Proposals for Change

•Remove the right to appeal certain Ministry decisions related to licenses, certificates and registrations that are frequently unsuccessful at the EAB.

•Limit appeals to a review of the principles of administrative law where decisions are science-based, such as harvest quota allocations. "


These recommendations, which were made by government to itself were never adopted or changed. Why? Good question! We continue to focus managers time and energy on quota appeals instead of focusing on managing, monitoring and increasing wildlife populations.

[GoatGuy]

Ya have never heard anything good about him or his actions. It surprises me that he is allowed to have an outfitters license.
He is a good talker and I no a couple guys that fell for it and worked for him but it didn't last long and cant believe
what goes on in his camps or what he promised hunters.

So you have pointed out one now GG what about the others, this is not the one to do with the sheep permits you mentioned in another thread, is there a link to his appeal.

That is the only decision EAB has released in region 4.

I doubt EAB will pick up on over-estimated populations as it wouldn't know they have been over-estimated or lumped in with other populations through regional averaging.

We will 'standby' and wait for more decisions to follow.

[boxhitch]

I for one am glad the Gov't doesn't waste their time and money on trying to count every animal each year , instead of using modeling and looking at herd structure. Use a safe enforceable regulation to target a segment of the population , and monitor male/female and female/offspring ratios , if those are healthy things take care of themselves. Hunt success ratios point to problems , but may localized not general .
Habitat mapping is far more important than counts imo.