After the Smoke Clears

[325]

I am impressed by the energy and passion that so many resident hunters have put towards fighting the Thompson Allocation Policy. I hope that after this crisis is resolved, the hunting community can continue with this momentum to not only protect our hunting heritage, but also become more active in wildlife conservation. If we can show that we are a demographic not to be ignored, we can demand that conservation and effective wildlife management be a priority of any government in power.

[bridger]

Good point and well said.

[Daybreak]

This allocation scandal will exercise our abilities to come together and work as a team. Imagine putting this sort of effort into something a little more pleasurable and beneficial to environment or species themselves.

At this point we need to say focused. We will cross the next bridge once we get over this one.

[Ambush]

I believe we must word the "new agreement" very carefully.

The allocation should not be worded as "resident/outfitter" splits, but rather "resident/non-resident" splits.

That way the GOABC will not have a legislated and guaranteed strangle hold on non-resident hunting. Instead we will retain some control and bargaining power.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

I believe we must word the "new agreement" very carefully.

The allocation should not be worded as "resident/outfitter" splits, but rather "resident/non-resident" splits.

That way the GOABC will not have a legislated and guaranteed strangle hold on non-resident hunting. Instead we will retain some control and bargaining power.

Absolutely. Allowing outfitters to sell extra tags or to give tags to family and friends should never be able to happen.

SSS

[Ride Red]

I am impressed by the energy and passion that so many resident hunters have put towards fighting the Thompson Allocation Policy. I hope that after this crisis is resolved, the hunting community can continue with this momentum to not only protect our hunting heritage, but also become more active in wildlife conservation. If we can show that we are a demographic not to be ignored, we can demand that conservation and effective wildlife management be a priority of any government in power.

Exactly, plus our fishery needs support too.

[Walking Buffalo]

I believe we must word the "new agreement" very carefully.

The allocation should not be worded as "resident/outfitter" splits, but rather "resident/non-resident" splits.

That way the GOABC will not have a legislated and guaranteed strangle hold on non-resident hunting. Instead we will retain some control and bargaining power.

http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?70323-Poll-Would-you-support-NR-quot-Accompany-To-Hunt-quot-permits-for-BC-Sheep-Grizzly-Bear&highlight=draw





I am becoming hopeful that people are starting to see the light of the importance of maintaining the existance of non-outfitter non-resident hunters.

[Bugle M In]

After this policy BS is resolved, we, as resident hunters, should put a push onto the Government to use more of our already paid for annual tags to be put into more conservation projects (meaning, less money going back into General Revenues) and also some of that money also going put to a few more CO's or money for them to get back out in the field etc.

[4pointer91]

After this policy BS is resolved, we, as resident hunters, should put a push onto the Government to use more of our already paid for annual tags to be put into more conservation projects (meaning, less money going back into General Revenues) and also some of that money also going put to a few more CO's or money for them to get back out in the field etc.

Well said, this is very important moving forward!

[Wild one]

After this policy BS is resolved, we, as resident hunters, should put a push onto the Government to use more of our already paid for annual tags to be put into more conservation projects (meaning, less money going back into General Revenues) and also some of that money also going put to a few more CO's or money for them to get back out in the field etc.

100% agree

[bridger]

I believe we must word the "new agreement" very carefully.

The allocation should not be worded as "resident/outfitter" splits, but rather "resident/non-resident" splits.

That way the GOABC will not have a legislated and guaranteed strangle hold on non-resident hunting. Instead we will retain some control and bargaining power.


The way to break the Goabc stranglehold is to quit GIVING the allocation to them to sell to the highest bidder. Put non residents on LEH. Then let them find a guide. Much easier to adjust non resident LEH TAGS than quota. More money directly into the provincial coffers as well.

[Gamebuster]

The way to break the Goabc stranglehold is to quit GIVING the allocation to them to sell to the highest bidder. Put non residents on LEH. Then let them find a guide. Much easier to adjust non resident LEH TAGS than quota. More money directly into the provincial coffers as well.

I'm with you on that. Do you think it would ever be possible given the system we already live in?

[Buck]

No better time than now .The current system is broken and we are not going to give anymore.We need the next Government to be progressive on this issue ...it is time.The Goabc is a relic from a time long ago .Modern society will not accept a commercial for profit trophy hunting industry that caters to the privileged .

[Ambush]

The way to break the Goabc stranglehold is to quit GIVING the allocation to them to sell to the highest bidder. Put non residents on LEH. Then let them find a guide. Much easier to adjust non resident LEH TAGS than quota. More money directly into the provincial coffers as well.

Yes, that's exactly the option we would have. We just have to be sure the GOABC doesn't get their guaranteed existence legislated into law through sneaky wording or secret "addendum's".

[40incher]

The way to break the Goabc stranglehold is to quit GIVING the allocation to them to sell to the highest bidder. Put non residents on LEH. Then let them find a guide. Much easier to adjust non resident LEH TAGS than quota. More money directly into the provincial coffers as well.

I like that concept "Put non-residents on LEH. Then let them find a guide. Much easier to adjust non resident LEH TAGS than quota."

The guides might then quit comparing their "kill" allocation to our LEH "opportunity" restriction!! Quite the pathetic full-page lie in the Kelowna paper by the GOABC on January 30th.

Let the best guide win when the lucky non-resident LEH is drawn ... let them make plans for a $30,000.00 sheep hunt just prior to opening day ... then we'll see how the worm turns!

[Down South]

We need to push for acceptable allocation split and then have it legislated into law, then no more fighting

[Argali]

The way to break the Goabc stranglehold is to quit GIVING the allocation to them to sell to the highest bidder. Put non residents on LEH. Then let them find a guide. Much easier to adjust non resident LEH TAGS than quota. More money directly into the provincial coffers as well.

If this is just about money, then why not carry it one step further. Instead of putting non-residents on LEH, put their quota of tags on an online auction system with the tags going for a set minimum price (I would say at least cuadruple current prices) or to the highest bidder if people are willing to pay more for certain tags in certain areas. The non-residents could then hire a guide, a packer, or hunt on their own.

Instead of the current $620 for a sheep tag, no doubt some would pay $10,000 or more just for the tag and the right to hunt as they please. It would still be a lot cheaper for them than paying $35-40K to an outfitter, and the govt. would receive much more. I suspect provincial revenues derived from nonresident license and tag sale could easily be increased by a factor of 5 to 8 or more with such a system. With 4500 nonresidents billed an average of say $4000 each for tags and licenses, revenues on the order of $18M/year could be obtained. If those funds were earmarked directly for conservation/management/habitat it would be an easier pill for residents to swallow because that kind of money could generate some useful programs. The current revenues derived from resident and nonresident tags/licenses are far too low.

Under such a system, the annual quota of tags for non-residents could be modified annually to reflect rapid changes in wildlife population or management objectives. A 5 year quota system backed by strong political pressure and questionable science is simply not a good idea.

Current guides/outfitters would likely receive some short-term compensation for such a change in policy as it would reduce their business from essentially re-selling their quota of tags and the exclusive right for nonresidents to hunt in their area to something more like packers where they would receive funds for services rendered (should those services be requested). This would likely encourage the guides to become more hospitable with residents interested in contracting their services.