GoatGuy
07-23-2014, 01:50 PM
http://www.eab.gov.bc.ca/wildlife/2013wil024a.pdf
Cutts vs Regional Manager
"The Appellant seeks an order from the Board increasing his quotas and five-year allocations for bighorn sheep and grizzly bear. "
"This appeal is one of 28 appeals filed by guide outfitters in three different regions against their 2013-2014 quota 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. In those appeals where there are similarities, the Panel has adopted some of the findings and language that has been used by this Panel in the reasons given in those other appeals. For example, see Findlay v. Deputy Regional Manager, Recreational Fisheries and Wildlife Program
(Thompson/Okanagan Region), (Decision No. 2013-WIL-033(a), April 24, 2014). In spite of any similarities, each appeal is and has been adjudicated on its own merit."
"[71]
In relation to the Appellant’s appeal, the BCWF notes that the guide outfitters’ share of the bighorn sheep and grizzly bear harvest in the Kootenay Region actually increased this allocation period when compared with
the 2007-2011 period. It states that the resident/non-resident split for bighorn sheep rams in the
2012-2016 allocation period is 68/32, a 2% increase for the guides over the
previous period. For grizzly bear, the resident/non-resident split is 74/26, a 3%
increase for guide outfitters from the previous allocation period."
"
Unfair division between residents and non-residents (guided hunters)
[87] In his written submissions, the Appellant further submits that the guide
outfitters have been unfairly singled out. He argues that the animals should be divided fairly between resident
hunters and guide outfitters."
"[89]
Based on the evidence and submissions before the Panel, the Panel finds thatthe Regional Manager calculated the Appellant’s 2013-2016 allocations and 2013-2014 quotas for bighorn sheep and grizzly bear on the basis of the information
before him. He applied the policies and procedures relevant to the situation (e.g.,substantial impact) where appropriate, and there is no basis to increase the Appellant’s quotas and allocations as requested."
Dismissed.
Cutts vs Regional Manager
"The Appellant seeks an order from the Board increasing his quotas and five-year allocations for bighorn sheep and grizzly bear. "
"This appeal is one of 28 appeals filed by guide outfitters in three different regions against their 2013-2014 quota 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. In those appeals where there are similarities, the Panel has adopted some of the findings and language that has been used by this Panel in the reasons given in those other appeals. For example, see Findlay v. Deputy Regional Manager, Recreational Fisheries and Wildlife Program
(Thompson/Okanagan Region), (Decision No. 2013-WIL-033(a), April 24, 2014). In spite of any similarities, each appeal is and has been adjudicated on its own merit."
"[71]
In relation to the Appellant’s appeal, the BCWF notes that the guide outfitters’ share of the bighorn sheep and grizzly bear harvest in the Kootenay Region actually increased this allocation period when compared with
the 2007-2011 period. It states that the resident/non-resident split for bighorn sheep rams in the
2012-2016 allocation period is 68/32, a 2% increase for the guides over the
previous period. For grizzly bear, the resident/non-resident split is 74/26, a 3%
increase for guide outfitters from the previous allocation period."
"
Unfair division between residents and non-residents (guided hunters)
[87] In his written submissions, the Appellant further submits that the guide
outfitters have been unfairly singled out. He argues that the animals should be divided fairly between resident
hunters and guide outfitters."
"[89]
Based on the evidence and submissions before the Panel, the Panel finds thatthe Regional Manager calculated the Appellant’s 2013-2016 allocations and 2013-2014 quotas for bighorn sheep and grizzly bear on the basis of the information
before him. He applied the policies and procedures relevant to the situation (e.g.,substantial impact) where appropriate, and there is no basis to increase the Appellant’s quotas and allocations as requested."
Dismissed.