Your Sheep Hunting Days Are Done!!

[40incher]

The word is out that MOE has just allocated almost two thirds of the 7B Stone's Sheep allocation for the next five years to guided non-resident hunters.

For the next five years the non-resident allocation in the Northeastern BC will be 570 rams, out of an Allowable Harvest of 900 or so. That averages out to 114 rams per year, but they are not restricted to that number as MOE is also allowing them a flexible guideline that says more can be taken in any given year as long as the five-year kill is 570. Sounds like a real conservation-minded plan to me.

Resident hunters are allocated only 67 rams per year (37%), out of an Annual Allowable Harvest of 181 rams for all of 7B. The fact that BC residents have historically harvested almost 50% of the sheep in past years obviously means nothing.

Considering that the longterm annual BC resident harvest averages over 100 rams, and was 85 rams in 2006, should be a clear indication where the new Allocation Policy will take resident hunters over the next few years.
We will be put on LEH and so few permits will be issued that we will not even harvest our tiny percentage.

The defenders of this new policy, that favors wealthy non-residents over taxpaying BC residents, should be proud of what they have done.

If you want to hunt Stone's Sheep in BC, and you aren't rich, I would suggest a call to your MLA to let 'em know how happy you are with the way they have allowed MOE to ignore our priority as resident hunters.

Those poor ol' blue rams are in for hell in 2007.

[Caveman]

What A Bunch Of Crap This Is. Figures Though. Go for the mighty dollar, SH*T on the people that put you in office.

[J_T]

Currently I don't hunt sheep. However

Consider that a resident can only take 67 rams in a year, where the GO can take any number of rams in a year, provided he doesn't exceed 570 in a 5 year period.

What percentage of rams does the resident take, if he takes 67 in the first year and the GO fills his 5 year quota in that first year?

If the GO takes 570 in the first year and the resident only takes his 67. What percent is that? Is it 10%?

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Stirring the usual pot are you 40"er???
Sounds like a press release by the Resident Hunter's Association, no doubt...............:roll:
SSS

[RiverOtter]

Link??????

RO

[StoneChaser]

I'd sure like to see an offical policy document before I jump to TOO many conclusions....but Damn, I've already made a couple calls to a few that are in a better position to know than I.

Unfortunately, I wouldn't put it past the BC Liberals... and worst of it is that I voted for them!

Gave us our grizzly back, but are taking our sheep...I sure hope this is misinformation!

Need more info...Link?

StoneChaser

[StoneChaser]

Stirring the usual pot are you 40"er???
Sounds liker a press release by the Resident Hunter's Association...............
SSS

I'm sure hoping this is the case!

[270WIN]

I sure hope this is misinformation too. were would such a person look for more info on this

[boxhitch]

Not really 'new' news, as a 40/60 split was in the table for Thinhorns, Caribou, and Goat.

[CHilko21]

I also really really hope this is a case of misinformation, cause otherwise I'm gonna be severely pissed off about this. Money talks, unfortunately, and can never seem to keep its loud mouth shut.

[willyqbc]

Resident hunters are allocated only 67 rams per year (37%), out of an Annual Allowable Harvest of 181 rams for all of 7B. The fact that BC residents have historically harvested almost 50% of the sheep in past years obviously means nothing.


I have to think there is some misinformation here...Allocation policy states we will have a minimum of 50% share on any category A species in a region

from the policy


STEP 4 – MINIMUM SHARES

4A) RESIDENT HUNTER MINIMUM SHARE

If, for any reason, the above steps lead to an allocation decision in which resident hunters are allocated
less than a 50% share of a category A species allocation in a region, the Director shall increase the
resident share of the AAH to 50% and decrease the guide outfitter share accordingly.

Chris

[Gateholio]

We need some official documentation on this before everyone goes off half cocked...

Wait for th eofficial stuff, and then if it is true, we need to blast our MLAs.

Just wait for the official word...

[TPK]

Seems that enough folks are hearing the same thing, I'm assuming it is correct.

[The Hermit]

As I understand it the G/O may only take a maximum of 25% of the five year allocation in any given year.

The policy does limit the G/O share to a max of 50%. Where did you get this information 40incher?

[Mr. Dean]

I thought I read something about three years of harvest in one year...

[Gateholio]

Here are some graphs I was sent to post:

http://usera.imagecave.com/chef/Vegas_199300211-copy.jpg

http://usera.imagecave.com/chef/Vegas_199300201-copy.jpg

http://usera.imagecave.com/chef/Vegas_199300192-copy.jpg

[wetcoasthunter]

Excuse my ignorance here guys, not too familiar with the sheep hunting. As resident hunters do you have to notify the ministry if you were successful? If not how can these numbers mean anything?

[bigwhiteys]

Wetcoaster,

If you shoot a ram it must go in for compulsory inspection and the horn will be plugged with an ID. It wasn't always this way but it is now.

Happy Hunting!
Carl

[40incher]

Unfortunately, this decision has in fact been made. Just phone MOE in Ft. St. John.

The promised 50% (and more recently 60%) minimums mean nothing, as everyone will see. As usual, resident hunters will get the short end.

MOE publicly stated that we should not worry because the starting point would be 75/25, leading the less jaded to think this new policy was OK. Then they said the allocation split for 2007 to 2012 would be 60/40 in favor of BC resident sheep hunters in 7B (not 40/60 as some would like us to believe), and 55/45 in Region 6.

So go ahead and call MOE, followed by your MLA.

[Mr. Dean]

So go ahead and call MOE, followed by your MLA.

Find your MLA using this: http://www.leg.bc.ca/mla/3-1-1.htm

[willyqbc]

being a B.C. policy and not a federal one, would not your local MP be the person to contact rather than the MLA?? ...hmm I better write to em both just to be sure.

Chris

[StoneChaser]

being a B.C. policy and not a federal one, would not your local MP be the person to contact rather than the MLA?? ...hmm I better write to em both just to be sure.

Chris

I think you're backwards on this one... MLA is Provincial...MP is Federal.

[willyqbc]

DOH!! I always screw that up....I know which guy is which just never remember which title goes with which guy!!:lol:

still gonna write to them both!!

Chris

[TPK]

Our problems are with the MOE, writing your MLA and MP are both great ways to go but I would also fire a note to the Honourable Barry Penner as he's top dog in the MOE. It's his show and his call on how things end up. He has pushed back hard and said he wants this thing settled yesterday, which means people are scrambling to get the deal done, they are not "looking" at the issue, just trying to get it off of their plate the quickest way possible. Not a great way to deal with this issue.

[Mr. Dean]

GET YOUR MINISTER OF THE ENVIOURMENT HERE!!!!!!

http://www.gov.bc.ca/bvprd/bc/content.do?brwId=%4020YUR%7C0YQtuW&navId=NAV_ID_province

[Sniper]

In my opinion the GO's should be bought out by the government and slowly phased out. Why do people keep voting in a government that has an ideology that places business interests ahead of the citizens virtualy 100% of the time?

[Gateholio]

In my opinion the GO's should be bought out by the government and slowly phased out. Why do people keep voting in a government that has an ideology that places business interests ahead of the citizens virtualy 100% of the time?

Well, I don't think that woudl happen, since they are viable businesses that are a source of revenue.

The reason they get voted in is because they are far better than the alternative.:lol:

[StoneChaser]

Just got off the phone with MOE in FT St John:

For the next 5 year plan:

-Non Resident sheep quota has been reduced from 137 Sheep (2006 Quota) to 112 Sheep (for the next 5 years - basically 18% reduction) of which they'll harvest ~70% (Last year they killed 96 of their 137 rams).

Using historical harvest numbers, this equates to 63% of the quota (remember they'll likely only kill 70% of that 63% though).

-Resident hunters are EXPECTED to harvest the remaining rams, but ARE NOT governed by a quota (regardless of what CI #'s indicate).

So....I was assured that LEH is NOT in the cards for Stone's (at least for the next 5 years) in Region 7B, nor is any type of "quota" for residents...basically things will remain as they were (Still 1 in 3 yrs).

Fair or not... it has been approved, and we're stuck with it (for the next 5 years)

I'll still write my letters to whomever will listen, as I strongly believe these sheep belong to the residents of BC first and foremost, and we should have the VAST majority of the opportunity.

Don't for one second believe that just because they're not LEH that we're not getting the short end of the stick.

This year when you head out for sheep and watch over a band of rams with no legal mature sheep, remember that 96 rams left BC last year... rams that would have been 1 year older for you and I to selectively pick over this year!

StoneChaser

[ruttinbuck]

Letters sent to both Kamloops MLA and MOE
RB

[Maxx]

Just got off the phone with MOE in FT St John:

For the next 5 year plan:

-Non Resident sheep quota has been reduced from 137 Sheep (2006 Quota) to 112 Sheep (for the next 5 years - basically 18% reduction) of which they'll harvest ~70% (Last year they killed 96 of their 137 rams).

Using historical harvest numbers, this equates to 63% of the quota (remember they'll likely only kill 70% of that 63% though).

-Resident hunters are EXPECTED to harvest the remaining rams, but ARE NOT governed by a quota (regardless of what CI #'s indicate).

So....I was assured that LEH is NOT in the cards for Stone's (at least for the next 5 years) in Region 7B, nor is any type of "quota" for residents...basically things will remain as they were (Still 1 in 3 yrs).

Fair or not... it has been approved, and we're stuck with it (for the next 5 years)

I'll still write my letters to whomever will listen, as I strongly believe these sheep belong to the residents of BC first and foremost, and we should have the VAST majority of the opportunity.

Don't for one second believe that just because they're not LEH that we're not getting the short end of the stick.

This year when you head out for sheep and watch over a band of rams with no legal mature sheep, remember that 96 rams left BC last year... rams that would have been 1 year older for you and I to selectively pick over this year!

StoneChaser


Thanks for the info, well stated,

Obviously the GO's know of these new changes, as people like Gundahoo have raised the Stone hunt prices to 35,000 US for the coming season.

[boxhitch]

Thanks for the info, well stated,

Obviously the GO's know of these new changes, as people like Gundahoo have raised the Stone hunt prices to 35,000 US for the coming season.
??? Why that ?? Has he had quota reduced ? If he is not booked for 2007 already, raising price won't help. Others are still cheaper, for 2007. ??

[Maxx]

if he just updated his pricelist, I would think that he is not booked. If I understood correctly, he is being reduced 18%?

[40incher]

So....I was assured that LEH is NOT in the cards for Stone's (at least for the next 5 years) in Region 7B, nor is any type of "quota" for residents...basically things will remain as they were (Still 1 in 3 yrs).

Fair or not... it has been approved, and we're stuck with it (for the next 5 years)

I'll still write my letters to whomever will listen, as I strongly believe these sheep belong to the residents of BC first and foremost, and we should have the VAST majority of the opportunity.

Don't for one second believe that just because they're not LEH that we're not getting the short end of the stick.

This year when you head out for sheep and watch over a band of rams with no legal mature sheep, remember that 96 rams left BC last year... rams that would have been 1 year older for you and I to selectively pick over this year!

StoneChaser[/quote]


MOE's story changes with the wind.

While I would like to believe that residents will not go on LEH in the next five years, it is predictible that will in fact happen as a result of the "new" Allocation Policy being rammed through.

The bottom line is that the Annual Allowable Harvest (AAH) has been set at a finite number of rams, of which the non-resident interests get 63%. Resident sheep allocation in 7B is the remainder, no matter how MOE spins it around. We are on a de facto quota of less than 70 rams, and we have taken an average of 104 over the last 13 years/an average of 80 over the past 5 years.

When the annual kill goes over the AAH, there will be only one group that can be reduced over the next five-year period. This new policy is all about certainty for non-residents, who can still kill a ram every year.

This severely flawed policy needs to be reversed, nothing less.

[brno375]

Keep writing letters, but phone the regional biologist and find out where the residents are not making their allocation. Come Aug/Sept, go there and harvest a ram. In five years, the biologists will look at the numbers and reallocate.

Play the game to your advantage.

[willyqbc]

it seems to me that the skills involved in hunting sheep are not being passed on so the number of sheep hunters is dwindling and our allocation will go with it. Sheep hunters are widely known to be the most covert secretive hunters around when it comes to their "spots"! Now in all fairness to them that knowledge is the hardest won information to be found in hunting in B.C. but I wonder if the time has come for the experienced sheep hunters of the province to open the doors to a new sheep hunter in the interest of protecting our resident allocations? If more folks had the skills to hunt the mountains, or the knowledge of areas to even attempt it, would we not be better off in protecting our allocations?
I myself don't have the skill set, nor am I presently in the kind of physical shape I feel it would take to do a sheep hunt but I'm sure there are lots of folks out there that would love to do it but just lack the knowledge to participate and if we let a generation go by without "paying it forward" so to speak we could be in even worse shape down the road.

just my opinion
Chris

[boxhitch]

The skills required for hunting a sheep are no different than those required for deer, bear, or anything else.
- find suitable habitat
- determine presence of suitable legal objective
- approach said objective to within range of implement used and ability of user
- pull the pin, then cut your tag
The difference being that sheep are not an everyday occurrence to most people, so the hunt is not practiced much or by many.
The locations, approaches, means of travel are the things that are coveted, mostly because of the personal effort and outlay of hard earned dollars that is involved.

[willyqbc]

points taken boxhitch, but the question then becomes....how do we get more residents out there participating?

Chris

[todbartell]

maybe the government can donate float planes and jet boats for free use to BC Residents :lol: that will help

[BCLongshot]

What the HELL is going on !!!

[boxhitch]

points taken boxhitch, but the question then becomes....how do we get more residents out there participating?

Chris
As long as Stone's are on a GOS hunt, the participation will ebb and flow with the times. As long as resi's have disposable income to spend, some will choose to go sheep hunting. It costs more than most other hunting and requires more physical effort, because of the remote locations.
But that is also what keeps the experience what it is now, wild and uncrowded. Thats a good thing.

I think the focus should be more on maintaining populations to a level that supports a GOS for those residents that choose to go. As long as the critters are there, I don't have a problem with sharing with non-residents, BUT The numbers have to be available to suggest a good chance of a harvest, and that the GOS remains for anyone to choose to go whenever.

Population numbers are down, from the (suggested artificial) high of the '80s when predator control was active. All of the reasons are not obvious.

The problem with the G/O's having the larger portion of Allocated harvest is they may be able to influence Gov't, for their own protection. They are a strong voice, with a dedicated lobbiest.

[40incher]

The recent decision to over-restrict and outlaw "packing" operations, which benefited resident hunters in harvesting sheep, is tied to the recent events.

Packers distributed resident hunters throughout the sheep range, at a tiny fraction of the cost of a guide-outfitter. This upset commercial hunting interests and residents who want to see exclusive access so as to protect "their" hunting area from the outsiders.

So let's see what we have lost in two short years. Our access has been severely limited, our allocation is now 37% until 2012, and as soon as we overharvest our allocation we will be put on LEH. Once on LEH we will never see GOS again, as their are rumblings out there now in our great province's "scientific" community decrying the fate of our apparently now endangered Stone's Sheep.

Can it get any worse?

Only if good people do nothing.

[kutenay]

I think that much of this is tied to WHO OWNS the Guide-Outfitting companies and THAT is where to bring pressure. For example, "Canadian Mountain Outfitters" is OWNED by an American, Brian Martin, who has been CONVICTED of offences under the Wildlife Act, here in B.C., yet, he is still allowed to both own this outfit AND hold a B.C. Guide's Licence....WHY do we REWARD lawbreakers???

There are others who live in Montana, for example, who OWN B.C. Guide-Outfitter's companies AND operate in some of the finest territories in this Province. These people often actively seek to limit resident's access to and harvest on OUR land and of OUR game, especially Stone's Sheep.

My attitude is very simple, ONLY native-born Canadians who are year-around B.C. taxpaying residents should be allowed to operate as G/Os and hold ANY form of Guide's Licnece. If, there cannot be at least a 30 day GOS for a given species in any area or if LEH is needed for conservation, then NO non-resident hunting can be allowed, period.

I favour a complete B.C. government buy-out of ALL G-O holdings by ANY foreigner and then a systematic over-haul of the entire situation. IF, NO B.C. person WANTS a given area to operate it as a G/O, fine, it becomes a "resident-only" hunting region, maybe with SOME aboriginal input, forever. B.C. and Canada ARE NOT storehouses of resources for wealthy foreigners and WE OWN these resources and must utilize them to OUR benefit!

[WoodOx]

Although I do agree with several of the point in this thread, please keep in mind how much Canadian wealth is spent on ownership of land in foreign countries.

American's likely own more in Canada, but we own an aweful lot abroad as well. This is a good thing, globalization increases total worldwide wealth.

I absolutly think it absurd and disgraceful that an American convicted under our wildlife act could own a guide outfitting area. Is there a story behind this, like maybe its his investment dollars paid into a Canadian's pocket who owns it?

[WoodOx]

Your right kuet - unless his website is deceiving as well.
http://www.canadianmtnoutfitters.com/

Says he owns it right on it...now to find his territory - anyone from some scouting and hunting in a new area this year? ;) ;)

[boxhitch]

Your right kuet -
Please don't encourage him.

[dana]

Koot,
Thus far I've left you alone on this site but I might just have to change that. Your anti-american crap certainly gets old, much like your backpacking forest service days rants. Maybe I should copy and paste what you just wrote and put it up on some of the yanky sites your frequent just to stir it up some eh?

[boxhitch]

The recent decision to over-restrict and outlaw "packing" operations, which benefited resident hunters in harvesting sheep, is tied to the recent events.

Packers distributed resident hunters throughout the sheep range, at a tiny fraction of the cost of a guide-outfitter. This upset commercial hunting interests and residents who want to see exclusive access so as to protect "their" hunting area from the outsiders.
.
I don't agree with the restrictions put on packing/transporting, as it puts a lid on free enterprise.
However, I don't know of any area that has lost its accessibility, due to the changes. Choice of transport, maybe,
Another thread was started, asking if anyone had hired a packer/transporter. No respondents.
We need a new thread, listing lost opportunities.

[Gamebuster]

The recent decision to over-restrict and outlaw "packing" operations, which benefited resident hunters in harvesting sheep, is tied to the recent events.

Packers distributed resident hunters throughout the sheep range, at a tiny fraction of the cost of a guide-outfitter. This upset commercial hunting interests and residents who want to see exclusive access so as to protect "their" hunting area from the outsiders.

So let's see what we have lost in two short years. Our access has been severely limited, our allocation is now 37% until 2012, and as soon as we overharvest our allocation we will be put on LEH. Once on LEH we will never see GOS again, as their are rumblings out there now in our great province's "scientific" community decrying the fate of our apparently now endangered Stone's Sheep.

Can it get any worse?

Only if good people do nothing.

Whats this 37% horseshit????? I thought the new policy stated residents couldn't go below a minimum 60% allocation for sheep unless the MoE determines resis couldn't meet that allocation. With the harvest data presented here, it seems that resis could meet 60% or better of 112 animals...:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Gateholio]

Kutes, do you have proof of this?

[QUOTE]I think that much of this is tied to WHO OWNS the Guide-Outfitting companies and THAT is where to bring pressure. For example, "Canadian Mountain Outfitters" is OWNED by an American, Brian Martin, who has been CONVICTED of offences under the Wildlife Act, here in B.C., yet, he is still allowed to both own this outfit AND hold a B.C. Guide's Licence....WHY do we REWARD lawbreakers??/QUOTE]

I just dont' want the site to be put in a position of slander if its based on hearsay....

Thanks

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Whats this 37% horseshit????? I thought the new policy stated residents couldn't go below a minimum 60% allocation for sheep unless the MoE determines resis couldn't meet that allocation. With the harvest data presented here, it seems that resis could meet 60% or better of 112 animals...:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Reg 6 and 7B are not included in with the rest of the provinces' minimums for resident hunters.


"There will, however, continue to be exceptions. These exceptions - grizzly bears in Region 1, caribou in Region 6 (North), and thinhorn sheep in Regions 6 and 7B - will continue to be allocated below the minimum percentages during the five year implementation phase, ending in 2012. We will work with the BCWF and GOABC during the transition period to address outstanding issues with these hunts. "

SSS

[kutenay]

Gatehouse. I suggest that you call the Conservation Officer in the region concerned; he told me on the phone that Brian Martin WAS convicted of offences involving residency requirements in mid-summer, 2005, and this is very easy to check. I think that a call to the M.O.E. in Smithers, Fort St. John or Victoria will verify what I have posted here.

I do not lie and do not attempt to cause trouble, however, I DO believe in residents first and conservation; I AM a British Columbian, born and bred and see it as my duty to do what I can to protect OUR rights in OUR land. While some may differ in their opinions as to the methods of protecting OUR resources, I hope that HBC allows for a factually based, non-defamatory discussion of issues such as this, but, that is up to you and Marc, of course.

I have sent you a PM with further info. on this so that you can check if you wish.

[Fisher-Dude]

I have a few questions from the AP. Maybe 40 incher can give me the RHABC's view on this.

What was the past quota/allocation for 7B stone sheep? Was it higher or lower than it is now?

How does that relate to the relative importance score for residents in 7B, and also, what is the relative importance score for guide-outfitters in 7B?

Also, wouldn't this be governed from Vol 4 sec 7 subsec 01.10:

3.) committing to the creation and maintenance of a regulatory framework that maximizes resident hunting success, enjoyment, and participation

6.) ensuring that when restrictions on harvest are necessary, non-resident opportunity is limited before resident opportunity

It seems to me that 3.) and 6.) should be overriding factors?

TIA

[RiverOtter]

Koot,
Thus far I've left you alone on this site but I might just have to change that. Your anti-american crap certainly gets old, much like your backpacking forest service days rants. Maybe I should copy and paste what you just wrote and put it up on some of the yanky sites your frequent just to stir it up some eh?

The copy/paste idea is pretty much your style as seen by the threads you start/respond to hear and your bragging of stirring chit on other hunting sites.

RO

Edited to add:
Brian Martens buddy tried to defend him(On an American site where this issue came up before), concerning the charges, by stating that Brian and the B.C. gov't had a different view on "residency". He isn't even familiar with B.C. hunting laws and he still owns an outfit here.

[kutenay]

To clarify this for Gatehouse and anyone interested, the C.O. I spoke with told me last year that Martin had been convicted of a breach of residency regulations as they affect G/Os here in B.C. This was, IIRC, in Kamloops court in June, 2005 and the C.O. is Kevin Wyatt who was/is at Smithers.

He did not give me further details and I have no other info. on this; I also realize that there is a divergence of opinion concerning G/Os and other aspects of hunting here in B.C. However, I think that we should control OUR land, OUR resources and OUR use thereof and ANY foreign use should be at OUR discretion. How can the average resident compete with wealthy foreign hunters when the system is strongly influenced by foreign money, that's my concern?

I think that IF we B.C. resident hunters do not come together on this issue, we WILL LOSE our hunting and much faster than many seem to realize. I do not want to get into side issues of ...globalization..., etc. as this just seems to lead to interpersonal slagging about who votes for whom AND it separates us along political lines, which cannot help resident hunters, IMO.

I was just discussing this type of thing with a young, Canadian G/O who I am probably going to book a hunt with, next year. He is the type of G/O I believe SHOULD be in the business here, but, too often, big foreign $$$$$ makes it impossible for young Canucks to get into this industry.....to me, that's just wrong on many levels.

[Gateholio]

Kutes

Thanks for the PM.

Although I am waiting for a few specifics, it appears that he indeed was convicted of some sort of licencing charge. (non resident/resident lic)

Dana/River Otter

Keep the personal stuff off the forums, please.

[Elkhound]

Thanks for looking in to this Gate. Saved me a phone call this morning

[MattB]

To clarify this for Gatehouse and anyone interested, the C.O. I spoke with told me last year that Martin had been convicted of a breach of residency regulations as they affect G/Os here in B.C. This was, IIRC, in Kamloops court in June, 2005 and the C.O. is Kevin Wyatt who was/is at Smithers.

He did not give me further details and I have no other info. on this; I also realize that there is a divergence of opinion concerning G/Os and other aspects of hunting here in B.C. However, I think that we should control OUR land, OUR resources and OUR use thereof and ANY foreign use should be at OUR discretion. How can the average resident compete with wealthy foreign hunters when the system is strongly influenced by foreign money, that's my concern?

I think that IF we B.C. resident hunters do not come together on this issue, we WILL LOSE our hunting and much faster than many seem to realize. I do not want to get into side issues of ...globalization..., etc. as this just seems to lead to interpersonal slagging about who votes for whom AND it separates us along political lines, which cannot help resident hunters, IMO.

I was just discussing this type of thing with a young, Canadian G/O who I am probably going to book a hunt with, next year. He is the type of G/O I believe SHOULD be in the business here, but, too often, big foreign $$$$$ makes it impossible for young Canucks to get into this industry.....to me, that's just wrong on many levels.

Gotta agree with you there! Some outfits are run by people born and raised in this Province. However, many are not. Take for instance the Olmsteads who made there money through Real Estate down in California (I believe?). They then came up here and now own Prophet/Muskwa, A QCI outfit, and 2 in the Yk. I think there should be some sort of restriction put in place that reserves our hunting territories for Canadian Residents. That will at least enable the non-wealthy Canadian a chance at owning an outfit one day, rather than some rich american coming in and buying a bunch of them!

[Tinney]

Reg 6 and 7B are not included in with the rest of the provinces' minimums for resident hunters.



"There will, however, continue to be exceptions. These exceptions - grizzly bears in Region 1...

Sorry....that's not computing in my somewhat educated mind.....

What I believe this comes down to, is management of the species, not the hunters, they have a harvest demand to be met, I think it's safe to say by the graphs that Gatehouse put up that the residents (on average) harvest a lot less sheep than the non-residents. Therefore, you allocate more tags to where you will get the most results. Allocating more tags to residents may not get the sheep shot.....whereas allocating the tags to non-residents will. Just my $.02 ???

[Gateholio]

From what I understand, the previous allocation for sheep was 23/77% (Res/Non Res)

So these new numbers seem to be a step in the rigth direction...

As well as it appears that outfitters willl be be required to manage thier quotas somewhat differently- No more shooting higher than thie rannual quota in "good" years, using next year(s) quota in advance.

It seems to me things may be looking better in the future.8-)

[RiverOtter]

Sorry....that's not computing in my somewhat educated mind.....

What I believe this comes down to, is management of the species, not the hunters, they have a harvest demand to be met, I think it's safe to say by the graphs that Gatehouse put up that the residents (on average) harvest a lot less sheep than the non-residents. Therefore, you allocate more tags to where you will get the most results. Allocating more tags to residents may not get the sheep shot.....whereas allocating the tags to non-residents will. Just my $.02 ???

So your suggesting that more sheep leaving B.C. for the U.S./other countries, is a good idea, even though little of that money will benefit conservation(Or anything else in B.C., for that matter).

The tune I've been hearing is that the Stones sheep numbers are declining. Bringing in more foreign hunters is not the answer to that problem. If residents are bordering on LEH, then no way in Hell should large numbers of authorizations be ear marked for foreigners. If there is a quota that needs to be met, it would be predators of sheep.

RO

[steepNdeep]

I think someone should start a petition. Work on a letter together and then get people to post their names and sign it. I think most people believe it's a good idea, but never get around to writing the letter. If all they have to do is read and sign it, I'm sure you'll get many more people on board. The internet makes it easy and efficient to distribute. Also, local clubs...

[Rackmastr]

Great thread....lots of great info. I see more and more of this happening in the future, especially over here in Alberta.

I also see the US ownership of outfits every day in my work. It happens a hell of a lot more in certain provinces, and its a semi-shady deal with most.

Upsets me to think that Alberta Bighorns is only a matter of time until more of this stuff happens.....keep up the fight guys!!! I'm still plannin the move to BC one of these days with the dream of hunting Stones myself.....

[40incher]

There seems to be some confusion about whether we are gaining or losing ground with the "new" policy. To be clear,we are losing. Big time!

The "new" policy was signed off late last fall by MOE prior to any agreement by resident hunters, and since the sign-off the terminology and interpretation keeps changing to the detriment of resident hunters.

MOE is the one who devised the minimum shares for resident hunters of 50%, and later 60%, only later to make exceptions (in the last 3 weeks) for Region 6 and 7B sheep saying that they did not understand the status quo until recently?! Then the first decision comes down the pipe and we get 37%. I agree with one thing, they don't seem to get it.

The fact that resident minimums get thrown out the window, instead of the "hardship rule" which limits reducing non-resident quotas to a maximum of 20% in any five-year period, should tell everyone who the rewrite was designed to benefit. It will not benefit resident hunters.

The fact is that the old policy allowed non-resident quotas to be reduced every year, and there was no bottom end for them. Hence the rewrite.

All the good aspects of the old policy were ignored by MOE, and now they want us to believe it is in our best interests to agree to a watered-down version of what we already had in place.

The idea of a petition may be a good one, and we need government to get a clear public message that we as resident hunters and voters will not put up with our priority rights being squandered.

[kutenay]

One point here, it is that employees of the M.O.E., the Forest Service and/or ANY other branch of government do what they are TOLD to do, or, you lose your job. Most M.O.E. people probably do not like this any more than many of us do, however, they have kids, mortgages, car payments and credit cards, just like everyone else...........

I do not think that petitions or even e-mails really concern politicians, but, LETTERS from individuals DO as they seem to feel that, IF, Joe Ordinary takes the time to write a letter and post it, well, he might change his vote.

My major problem with this is that it seems impossible to get accurate info. on what is really happening, but, any reduction in B.C. OR our fellow Canadian's opportunities to harvest Stone's Sheep or whatever is NOT acceptable, IMO. How many OTHER jurisdictions allow what we do....damn few!

[wetcoasthunter]

What happened to the rumor the BCWF was gonna take all their complaints public and start playing hardball, have they issued any more statements as of late? The percieved inactivity is disconcerning.

Also, who do you think we should be targeting with our letters. I have sent letters to my MLA as well as the minister. That was about a month ago and I haven't gotten anything back. Suggestions?

[Mr. Dean]

I have sent letters to my MLA as well as the minister. That was about a month ago and I haven't gotten anything back. Suggestions?

Ditto.................

[kutenay]

I think that we need to realize that we are NOT going to change this quickly, easily or without a LOT of continual pressure placed upon the Premier and relevant Cabinet Ministers. "Bullsh*t walks, but, money talks" is the usual way B.C. resource issues are decided and we hunters have a relatively low public image/political impact in any case; the "gov't." CAN and probably WILL try to sell this policy to the non-hunting public by stressing that it is "good" for our economy....as usual.

So, write to your M.L.A. and the Premier and Minister concerned AND also to your local newspaper and the Vancouver Sun, Province and the Victoria Times-Colonist at the same time. STRESS your hunting heritage in terms of family food, values and outdoor skills; DO NOT respond to jerks who write back with derogatory comments about hunting/hunters....I KNOW, this ain't easy, but, we are small in number and need all the credibility we can get, a "redneck" approach just alienates potential supporters, IMHO.

I think that most people in B.C. support resident hunting, but, few support wealthy trophy collectors and foreign ownership of OUR resources; it takes time, dedication and self-discipline to deal with this, however, while hunters my age will not suffer unduly, you younger guys certainly will. BC sheep are highly sought after and those who profit by this will not backoff easily...it's up to us.

[TPK]

I haven't heard from the BCWF for a while .. I know they were waiting to hear back from the M.O.E. and that's the last I heard .. all I know is that at this point in time, many of the Regional Managers and Wilf are not pleased with the lack of movement on the part of the M.O.E. The biggest sticking point as I understand it is the initial starting point of 75% for the resident hunter and 25% for the nonresident hunter. That seems to be where the M.O.E. is stuck and unwilling to move ...

[Gamebuster]

How can we be at 37% allocation under GOS....if resis harvest on average 80 sheep per year in 7B whats to stop us from doing that or more for the next 5 years? At that pt it will probably go LEH if we are over our quota though...:-(

[6616]

Don't be overly alarmed because the allocation for Stone's sheep in Region 7B is 37/63 with a quota of 114 out of an AAH of 181. Last year the allocation was about 30/70 and the non-resident quota was 137 of the AAh of 181. That's what the old allocation policy did for us. At least under the new policy things are improving a little. I also agree the changes are not fast enough, but at least they're in a positive direction for residents.

Outfitters have traditionally never utilized their full quota and there's no reason to expect this year won't be the same, expect a harvest of about 70 to 80 rams on this new allocation. Also based on the past allocation residents have been overharvesting their share for a number of years, thus the 1 in 3 regulation. We should oppose LEH as long as the allocation is so out of whack.

Another point, the 20% "hardship rule" is not in the new allocation policy, it's only in the implementation plan which will end in 2012. Also it does not apply to the outfitters allocation share, it applies to the smallest allocation share, which in the case of Stone's sheep in 7B is the resident side. It refers to a maximum change of 20%, this could be a 20% increase or a 20% decrease. In the case of 7B the allocation change from 30% to 37% is a 20% increase for residents over last year, as per the implementation plan.

[Mr. Dean]

Outfitters have traditionally never utilized their full quota and there's no reason to expect this year won't be the same, expect a harvest of about 70 to 80 rams on this new allocation. Also based on the past allocation residents have been overharvesting their share for a number of years, thus the 1 in 3 regulation. We should oppose LEH as long as the allocation is so out of whack.



Another point, the 20% "hardship rule" is not in the new allocation policy, it's only in the implementation plan which will end in 2012. Also it does not apply to the outfitters allocation share, it applies to the smallest allocation share

If we residents are over havesting and the GO's arent making theirs; Why does this new policy NOT reflect the TRUE #'s


My answer for the above question IS because of the 20% 'hardship' clause. It's only reason for being, is to protect commercial interests, not the smallest allocations shareholders, as residents are in this case.



Again, no priority given w/ a 37% allocation...

[kutenay]

How can residents ...overharvest...OUR sheep? IF, there is greater resident demand than the AAH will satisfy, then NO non-resident hunting should be allowed.

Again, unless there is a regular minimum 30 day, GOS for ANY game that B.C. residents want to hunt, anywhere in this Province, I see NO justification for ANY non-resident hunting. Actually, I see no good reason for the 3-1 regulation, although one ram of each species is all I would ever take; foreign money talks too loudly in B.C. resource allocations and always has, it's time to end this.

[6616]

Don't get me wrong, I am not happy with 37% and I think that's very unfair, I just thought it needed to be pointed out that this is actually less quota for non-residents then they had last year, not more.

The true numbers are in the harvest reports, I've always maintained the allocation, quota assignment, and LEH spreadsheets are only paper with numbers on them and mean very little. The final harvest is what counts, the harvest reports are what we should be watching and complaining about if need be. In the East Kootenay, for example, the guides had a bull moose quota of 127 out of an AAH of 252, that's roughly half the AAh under quota and the numbers on paper make a lot of people mad. However, the final harvest for 2005 (the latest official report) was 228 bulls harvested, 187 by residents and 41 by non-residents. Resident s took 82% of the actual harvest, that's not too bad, and that's all I care about. How they build their spreadsheets and what numbers they insert is of little concern to me as long as the actual harvest stays at 80/20. The allocation in 2005 was 70/30 so why would we complain.

The Stone's sheep situation is similar, regardless of all those crazy quota numbers on spreadsheets the actual harvest has been about 45/55, no where near what the allocation percentages are, and they won't be this year either. The fact remains that we should be getting more of this harvest, the final allocation after the implementation period is over is supposed to be 60/40 I believe, so we might some day, although you can never be sure, since this Stone's sheep thing in 7B is such mess. I wonder why people would be sticking up for that old policy that allowed us to get into this kind of situation?

[6616]

Here is a cut/paste of the so called "hardship clause" directly from the allocation implementation plan. Note, this is "not" a clause of the proposed allocation document itself, only a section of the implementation plan. Note it pretains to increases and decreases to the smaller share of the allocation no matter which residency group it is. Also note that this applies only to the 2007 to 2011 allocation period and will no longer exist in 2012.

1. Transition to New Allocation Decision

The following procedure will only apply to the first allocation period (2007-2012):

To avoid undue hardship on one or the other residency group, the Director should not alter the smaller share of the existing allocation by more than 20% (increase or decrease).

For example, if the current allocation is 80% to the residents and 20% to the non-residents (80/20), and the results of Steps 1 through 3 in the Harvest Allocation Procedure suggest the allocation should be 60/40, the Director should set the allocation at 76/24 until the next allocation period begins in the 2012-13 hunting season.

Here is the harvest data for Stone's sheep in 7B:
2002: 88 res, 120 nr
2003: 70 res, 101 nr
2004: 80 res, 91 nr
2005: 81 res, 95 nr
2006: 85 res, 96 nr

This calculates to 45% for residents and 55% for non-residents. The AAH for most of this period was 177 and guide quota was 137. In 2006 they took 207 hunters out to harvest 96 rams. The allocation throughout most of this period was about 25% for residents and 75% for non-residents. As you can see the harvests do not match these percentages. Outfitters failed to use their quota and residents harvested more than 25%. Even though residents are harvesting more than their allocated percentage of the AAH, it would be very difficult for the Branch to justify LEH with such lop-sided allocations. This is a real mess isn't it? It's hard to imagine how things could get this far out of whack. The new allocation and quota is a step in the right direction even though it is a very small step.

By the way, as you may have gathered, in spite of what many members of this site are saying, I'm personally saying that the new proposed allocation policy is going to be better than the old one, much better in fact. I have sat on a regional allocation committee for many years and have had to deal with that crappy old policy which wasn't worth the paper it was written on, and I am also very familiar with the new proposed policy and the up-dates that have been made since the last draft came out which have been significant and highly favor the resident position. The only unfortunate thing is that this new policy will not be fully implemented until 2012.

[6616]

Here's a thought Kutenay, they are "our" sheep, but by "our" I mean not just the 80,000 hunters in BC, but all the 4.2 million people in BC. Don't you think it would be kind of presumptuous of just 80,000 of us to consider them our sheep when in fact they belong to all British Columbians. Do the 98.5% of British Columbians who do not hunt have anything to say in this, and if so do you think the majority of our citizens believe the sheep should be for the sole use of the 1.5% of us that hunt, or do you think it's possible that some of them may support the idea of creating economic benefit for the province through the guide-outfitting industry?

Should we put a poll in the Province and Sun saying that Stone's sheep can be sold to non-resident hunters for $25,000 to $35,000 USD each, and the revenue used to pay for health care, education, etc,,,,and that each Stone's sheep tag used by residents generates maybe $5000.00 CD tops, probably less,,,and then let the citizens decide what the allocation should be...? Would we ever dare take that chance?

[Mr. Dean]

By the way, as you may have gathered, in spite of what many members of this site are saying, I'm personally saying...

I hardly see words that are stamped out by an invisible person, something to be considered "personal"



I have sat on a regional allocation committee for many years and have had to deal with...

Is it to forward of me asking;

Who are you?
What was your capacity?
When did this take place?



I am also very familiar with the new proposed policy and the up-dates that have been made since the last draft came out which have been significant and highly favor the resident position.

Enlighten us. PLEASE!
What are these significant changes?



The only unfortunate thing is that this new policy will not be fully implemented until 2012.

My main 'head spins' are over the processes of how the policy works. IMO it is founded/based on un-sound data right from the start. Once the 'competition' for tags begin and the domino's start to fall; these #'s that were based on bad data only compound as the game unfolds.

Where things will be in 2012 remains to be seen. I'm predicting that sooner or later, hunting in BC is going to be an activity that only the well to do will be able to enjoy. And I feel that this policy is a seed for this to become true.

I patiently await to see the changes that you refer to AND to hear a voice from the BCWF in these matters. It's going to take a lot of fixing or a lot of selling, to get this policy to fly.

[kutenay]

6616, You are quite articulate, appear to be well-versed in the usual rhetoric of the Guide-Outfitting industry and "savvy" enough to very carefully co-opt what I actually said in order to promote the G.O.A.B.C's agenda. However, by obviously insinuating that I support some special "ownership" status for B.C. HUNTERS only, which I DID NOT post, you lose credibility here.

In order for your points to be valid in a discussion of allocation OR ownership, you must supply data which reflects the actual benefit to B.C. society as a whole that you imply non-res. Stone's killing provides. I suggest that the ACTUAL dollar value to US, not just the wealthy G/Os is minimal.This same ploy was used by foreign-owned resource companies to fight against wilderness preservation and other environmentally beneficial initiatives in the past; it didn't work then and it won't now.

The poll that you propose is a fine idea, I would suggest that the results would strongly advocate a TOTAL BAN on ALL non-resident hunting here in B.C., so, if you want to initiate this, feel free to do so as we residents will benefit thereby. I doubt that anyone CAN make a case for the continued killing of rare B.C. wildlife by foreign "trophy" hunters on ANY grounds, in the Vancouver media, but, it would be interesting to see the outcome of such a poll.

I must reiterate Mr. Dean's queries and ask, are YOU a B.C. resident, born and bred as I am, OR, are you a member/employee of the G.O.A.B.C. or a non-affiliated Guide-Outfitter? I do appreciate your courtesy and skillful epistolary techniques here and I respect your right to present your point of view; it is a pleasure to discuss a controversial topic with one who behaves as a gentleman when doing so.

Frankly, I doubt whether MOST B.C. citizens CARE about how much revenue accrues to government from non-resident hunting as I think that they are opposed to it in any case. The idea that the sums you mention have any relevance to the birthright of B.C. people to access and harvest OUR sheep, etc. is actually somewhat offensive and would, IMO, tend to alienate most people.

Is a rich American who can afford to pay $30,000 to kill a Stone's ram somehow more entitled to do so BECAUSE of this, OR, is my latest family member, a native-born sixth-generation B.C.'er whose ancestors pioneered here before Confederation entitled to this by birth?

I think that MOST people here would NOT support foreign hunting and the involvment foreign wealth would NOT alter their opinion. We REALLY need to find greater cooperation between ALL users of ALL our resources, IMO, as that WILL benefit all B.C.'ers. So, again, go for it with that poll, I really am interested in the outcome.

[Deaddog]

So I guess if we cannot support foreign hunting in bc..... that means we should only be able to hunt in bc.... not africa, alberta,alaska, mexico or anywhere else other than where we are considered locals???? I guess there goes my dream for a Marco Polo:lol:

[kutenay]

No, but, this is a very good point and certainly one that should be considered. I admit that I have zero interest in foreign hunting and am consequently not overly concerned about the implications of B.C. wildlife allocations on this, however, it is something that I need to think about as others may need to consider what we need to change here to ensure OUR heritage is not sold off.

Alberta, btw, is NOT ...foreign... and I would support and welcome a greater opportunity for other Canadians to hunt in each other's bailiwicks, BEFORE, any foreigner can harvest game here, even upland birds. I am a hardline Canadian nativist-nationalist and make no apologies for that.

[Deaddog]

wasn't looking for apology's, simply pointing out that sometimes we need to be careful what we are asking for!8-)

[Gateholio]

So I guess if we cannot support foreign hunting in bc..... that means we should only be able to hunt in bc.... not africa, alberta,alaska, mexico or anywhere else other than where we are considered locals???? I guess there goes my dream for a Marco Polo:lol:

While I would like to hunt Africa (and will in a few years) and I've hunted in Ontario and would certianly hunt Marc Polos if I had the money....

I respect whatever regulations the particualr country/province/state has regarding non residents. If you had to be a resident to hunt Kudu, and I relaly wanted to hutn Kudu, I'd move to Africa or be content wiht elk and moose.8-)

[kutenay]

Yes, I know, that is why I have not yet written articles for various media outlets, as I did for many years on conservation issues, that would bring this issue into wider public focus. I am concerned about accidently arrousing the "antis" and publication in the "Sun" or "Province" or, especially, the "Times-Communist" may well backfire on ALL hunters.

There are complex and inter-related issues here, but, we need to explore them and resolve them to the benefit of B.C. residents; hopefully forums like this will assit with that process. I do NOT trust the contemporary mass media where hunting/gun issues are concerned.......

[WoodOx]

I am a hardline Canadian nativist-nationalist

Thats not necessarily a bad thing, as it seems you DO understand both sidesof the argument in such that the economics of foreign investment perpetuated in BC through hunting activities does help our economy. Just as me hunting in Alberta/Sask every year helps theirs, and me going to africa next year will to have EXTERNAL effects to people besides the sole owner of the GO outfit.

I do infact think that 100% allocation should go to BC res in the case of "endangered" or "sensitive" species, and if stones sheep are moving in this direction (which, honestly it seems there is no proof there of), they should not be sold.

I may very well have this wrong, but cant canadian (non BC) residents, when hosted, hunt ALL open species? This seems weird when we cant do this in their provinces? a little inequality there as well...

Overall, I think the problem here is much speculation is going on. Maybe some of this will be discussed with the "Andy Ackerman, Ministry of Enviroment, Sulphur 8 Mile Stone's Sheep update and Region Seven (7) issues." Maybe Andy will discuss this allocation or clear it up, I dont know!?


good discussion boys
Deadog - When you plannin for Marco Polo? Me and pops are lookin at it for 2010...

[Deaddog]

Hoping to have the funds for 2012, slowly working on the wife and the savings account!:lol: :lol:

[WoodOx]

best of luck!
Since we talked last, have you decided on a sheep hunt? (not to ask you where, just curious if youve got one planned!)

[Deaddog]

you bet, booked in already for august for sheep and 21 days on the tuchodi for elk and whatever else... trying to talk my partners into packing my 60 moose from way back!!!:lol: :lol:

[WoodOx]

60" moose!?!?
Am still trying to organize my partners and what they want to do. Sheep hunt 100% for sure, whether it be w/ riverjet or a flyin really depends on the old boys knees lmao.

[Deaddog]

Ibuprofen and tylenol mix will fix the old knees up to get a fellow thru the hunt, hope things come together for you, are you going to be at the convention next weekend

[WoodOx]

Absolutley will be. I am goin on a sheep hunt even if ive got to go solo. Been lookin at a couple of Bighorn areas closer to my place, but am pretty sure this year will be stones. You headin down?

[Buck]

I support Kutenay on this topic.I also think if your planning a foreign hunt you have a responsibility to be aware of the how and a what cost to the community you get exclusive hunting oppurtunities.Just because its legal does't make it right.

[GoatGuy]

I am a hardline Canadian nativist-nationalist and make no apologies for that.


Really, you seemed more like a purveyor of the free market! :lol: :lol:


It sounds good when you read about that kind of philosophy, but then, when you look at Russia and Cuba I'm not so sure if I like the real application. Aside from the perturbed thought of 'democracy' (really group think in this case) it ain't far from Hitler's program!


While your hardline approach sounds good, and gets people wound up, it doesn't do any of us any good when the smoke clears and reality sets in.


Brush up on the current policy and the old policy, their application and distribution of animals, then give us an informed opinion. That is what this thread is really about.

[6616]

Kutenay, you're taking my question too literally, it was not a serious suggestion, just trying to stimulate some discussion on "what does the general public think?". I'm only suggesting that we hunters should not take for granted or assume ownership of BC's wildlife and that we need to be aware of what the general public will put up with. You may well be right regarding what the general opinion regarding non-resident trophy hunting would be, especially with grizzly bears.

[kutenay]

GG, I find your reference to Hitler highly offensive and I am not interested in discussing anything with anyone who uses such terminology. I HAVE a "German", surname, which has been in B.C. for 137 YEARS, my late father and all of his brothers were VOLUNTEER Canadian vets of WWII, they were BORN here.

As to informed opinions, my conservation activities began in 1960 and I have a right to whatever opinions I choose to express here, as long as they are within the rules of the forum. WHAT are YOUR "expert" qualifications to presume to question others whom you do not know?

I will refrain from saying more, in view of the forum rules.

[GoatGuy]

GG, I find your reference to Hitler highly offensive and I am not interested in discussing anything with anyone who uses such terminology. I HAVE a "German", surname, which has been in B.C. for 137 YEARS, my late father and all of his brothers were VOLUNTEER Canadian vets of WWII, they were BORN here.

As to informed opinions, my conservation activities began in 1960 and I have a right to whatever opinions I choose to express here, as long as they are within the rules of the forum. WHAT are YOUR "expert" qualifications to presume to question others whom you do not know?

I will refrain from saying more, in view of the forum rules.

I'm sorry if you took it literally - it's an example of how your thoughts on how Canada should be run perpetuate themselves

Nativist-nationalist falls along the same line as those commented on above.

Nothing comes in, nothing goes out - keep it all to ourselves, no sharing and the application doesn't fall under democracy, it falls under group think ----- usually enthrowned by someone who's good at telling people what they want to hear. Unfortunately, reality's a whole nother world.

Back to the allocation policy.

I can email it to you if you want it.

[Deaddog]

augher, I will be at the convention, Kut, while I understand your position, I take a more global position, the world is here for all of us, we are all from somewhere else, yes my family has been here since the 1700's however that does not (IMO) give me any more "rights" to the animals than the fellow who has been here for a year or two, if that was the case the majority of us would not be hunting as the first nations would have the sole rights. (Not to go down that road,) however I believe that if someone is willing to pay the "trespass fee" they should be welcome to hunt, in my hunting experience I have never been "shut out" of hunting sheep or any other species when I wanted to. IMO DD

[kutenay]

I wonder, is your expertise on wildlife management equal to your skill with written English, I hope it is superior.

I think that you either are deliberately attempting to misrepresent what my position is in respect of Canada and our resources, for reasons of your own, or, you simply do not understand. I have NEVER stated ANYTHING that indicates that I support ...nothing comes in, nothing goes out..., this is just a complete distortion of what I HAVE said.

Perhaps you might think about your "sig line" in this context; I doubt that ...enthrowned...is a word in contemporary English. But, one simple question, are YOU a biologist and if so, where did you graduate from and when?

IF, you are a professional working with this allocation, or an "involved" participant, such as a Guide-Outfitter, why not make this clear so that everyone can understand YOUR perspective? IF, you are, as most of us, an interested participant in what, I agree, SHOULD be a democratic process; then, what makes your opinions any more valuable than mine, or anyone's here?

In any case, your reference to Hitler IS unacceptable to me and demonstrates a type of attitude that anyone who uses this type of slur should really think about. Debate is not "won" by such behaviour, however much you choose to indulge in it.

[kutenay]

6616, point taken and well made, it's a pleasure to read your posts.

DD, I understand your point, however, IF we Canadians choose to adopt an "open door" policy toward our lands, waters and resources, we WILL lose what we have left as many recent situations have demonstrated.

I do not think that international organizations will manage our heritage as well as we can; consider "Greenpeace" and what it has become. I simply belive that Canada should be Canadian first and foreigners must come second. How many Canucks want to hunt B.C., but, cannot afford the tariffs charged by often foreign-based G/Os?

[WoodOx]

Kuet although Goat does not need anyone to "back up" or act as reference, but he is an educated guy, has no stakes in GO operations, and of all members on this site constantly keeps up up to date with hunting/wildlife happens in municipal, provincial, and federal levels. Dont bother trying to disqualify his argument based on his education, as imo you are representing a hardline nationalist - and a nationalist IS in fact what he outlined, generally supportinga soverign state. By not allowing any harvest of BC animals by out of country residents would be nationalist in nature. Keep it civil - he wasnt calling you Hitler, only referring to Hitlers nationalist campaign - and furthermore I am SURE he didn tknow your last name has German descent.

[kutenay]

I am also ...an educated guy... and you really do NOT need to defend GG; he is quite capable of posting his own opinions. I actually am interested in how many of those involved here ARE professionals or involved as G/Os as this will tend to influence their opinions.

I can hardly be other than a Canadian nationalist, which has NOTHING to do with "National Socialism"; however, I have made my point concerning this and am not going to pursue it further.

I have been civil and you can be as well, or GATES with his PINK TUTU will appear and then we are in SERIOUS schitt......... :)

[WoodOx]

I havent studied economics for...3 years?... but pretty sure it was an extreme case of capitalism, not socialism? Cuba on the other hand... is socialist (and venezuela has somewhat recently jumped on the band wagog - GREAT for their tourism sector im SURE)

[GoatGuy]

I wonder, is your expertise on wildlife management equal to your skill with written English, I hope it is superior.

I think that you either are deliberately attempting to misrepresent what my position is in respect of Canada and our resources, for reasons of your own, or, you simply do not understand. I have NEVER stated ANYTHING that indicates that I support ...nothing comes in, nothing goes out..., this is just a complete distortion of what I HAVE said.

Perhaps you might think about your "sig line" in this context; I doubt that ...enthrowned...is a word in contemporary English. But, one simple question, are YOU a biologist and if so, where did you graduate from and when?

IF, you are a professional working with this allocation, or an "involved" participant, such as a Guide-Outfitter, why not make this clear so that everyone can understand YOUR perspective? IF, you are, as most of us, an interested participant in what, I agree, SHOULD be a democratic process; then, what makes your opinions any more valuable than mine, or anyone's here?

In any case, your reference to Hitler IS unacceptable to me and demonstrates a type of attitude that anyone who uses this type of slur should really think about. Debate is not "won" by such behaviour, however much you choose to indulge in it.

This thread has officially been hijacked- I'm partly to blame.:roll:

Kutenay, if you want to let everyone know how you think Canada should be run then start your own thread. :mad:


This is about the past and currently proposed allocation policy and what it has done to sheep and resident sheep hunters, particularly in 7B.

If you have questions about what's happened ask. If you'd like opinions relating to the proposed allocation policy ask. If you want to state your opinion on the proposed allocation policy and how it relates to sheep/resident hunters state it.

If you don't know about the policy or how its applied I can fire you a copy and you can make your own decision.

So far as having an upper level discussion on economic theory and its application start your own thread. Augaucher and I, and a couple others for that matter, could make a significant contribution!

Back to sheep and the allocation policy - - that is what is important.

[kutenay]

I agree and simply wanted to point out that some of what you posted was pretty irrelevant and not appropriate, especially your comment about Hitler. I did not initiate this thread and have no wish to hijack it, but, you did not initiate it, either, so, your "mod-like" comments are a bit specious, eh?

However, I have no animosity toward you and am happy to refrain from further inter-personal strife, it is not good for anyone here. so, I will not enquire further as to your academic or experiental qualifications as this is, while relevant, obviously discomfitting to you.

I DO think that my opinions in respect of resident/non-resident rights, etc. ARE germane to allocation and this is why I stated them. The problem here, as I see it, is that many residents really do not know what is happening and so cannot decide what they would support. I tend to strongly support the most conservative management style with regard to our resources as we do not always know what is truely best in the long term; that, to me, is what a nationalist policy is all about.

It is unfortunate that we cannot make our environmental decisions on an ecological basis; I used to argue this with several of my profs at Selkirk and S.f.U., however, the economic realities of human life DO influence such activities and we must then decide what level of this is acceptable to us. I have yet to see figures that convince me that an allocation of the larger share of these animals to the G/Os is in the best interests of B.C. residents, hence, my concern.

I will PM you my e-mail, thanks very much for your offer.