Legal poaching

[bearhunter338-06]

So guides and outfitters can legally poach

16.011 Despite section 16.01 (i), and without limiting section 60 (2) of the Act, a guide outfitter does not commit an offence if the guide outfitter has a quota assigned as a condition of his or her guide outfitter licence and allows his or her clients to kill game to the extent that the number killed exceeds the quota assigned to the guide outfitter.


WTF

[Whonnock Boy]

covered here. ;) http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?114649-Its-time-to-blow-this-up

[Ride Red]

Has this been put to social media yet?

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Once again you guys are not looking at all the facts.

Reality is if the outfitters success rate is 60% average and the final year he hits 80% and one more animal is killed over his quota then he losses an animal the next allocation period. If you look at his past success rates and it 100% and he is booking more hunts then he has animals on quota that is a different story.

[bearhunter338-06]

Once again you guys are not looking at all the facts.

Reality is if the outfitters success rate is 60% average and the final year he hits 80% and one more animal is killed over his quota then he losses an animal the next allocation period. If you look at his past success rates and it 100% and he is booking more hunts then he has animals on quota that is a different story.


So is it then OK for a resident hunter to take an extra moose. It is still poaching no matter what color icing you cover it with.

[bighornbob]

Reality is if the outfitters success rate is 60% average and the final year he hits 80% and one more animal is killed over his quota then he losses an animal the next allocation period. If you look at his past success rates and it 100% and he is booking more hunts then he has animals on quota that is a different story.

In reality and in the eyes of a lawyer, if the outfitter only has one sheep tag a year and kills two every year he is not breaking the law and nothing can be done to him???? How is that right?

BHB

[boilerroom]

Once again you guys are not looking at all the facts.

Reality is if the outfitters success rate is 60% average and the final year he hits 80% and one more animal is killed over his quota then he losses an animal the next allocation period. If you look at his past success rates and it 100% and he is booking more hunts then he has animals on quota that is a different story.

Awesome! Does that mean that I bought a mule deer tag last year and didn't get one, so now I can buy one for this year and harvest two?


didn't think so.....

[guest]

How flipping PATHETIC .......

Maybe the question should be " how illegal can we be, to keep it legal, can we get that in ink madam Premier? "

more re and more of this stuff needs to be made public, we need a media outlet with a score to settle.

The he general public have no idea how dark our elected representatives are being with these latest findings .

CT

[Chango]

How flipping PATHETIC .......

Maybe the question should be " how illegal can we be, to keep it legal, can we get that in ink madam Premier? "

more re and more of this stuff needs to be made public, we need a media outlet with a score to settle.

The he general public have no idea how dark our elected representatives are being with these latest findings .

CT


VICE Canada news would be a good one.

[Fisher-Dude]

Once again you guys are not looking at all the facts.

Reality is if the outfitters success rate is 60% average and the final year he hits 80% and one more animal is killed over his quota then he losses an animal the next allocation period. If you look at his past success rates and it 100% and he is booking more hunts then he has animals on quota that is a different story.


I haven't shot a moose since 2002. I guess I can pretend I'm an outfitter and shoot 13 of 'em in 2015. And maybe a couple more, 'cause Steve Thomson said there's no offence if I do.

Pathetic.

[Wrayzer]

I haven't shot a moose since 2002. I guess I can pretend I'm an outfitter and shoot 13 of 'em in 2015. And maybe a couple more, 'cause Steve Thomson said there's no offence if I do.

Pathetic.
If I shot my bag limit of deer then saw a buck of a life time I get to shoot it as long as next season I stay 1 deer under the bag limit. Hmmmmmmmm

[Ride Red]

I haven't shot a moose since 2002. I guess I can pretend I'm an outfitter and shoot 13 of 'em in 2015. And maybe a couple more, 'cause Steve Thomson said there's no offence if I do.

Pathetic.

Good one FD, I guess I'll take 5 this year. Sounds like someone else loves GOABC koolaid too, I wonder what flavour it is?

[todbartell]

I did shoot 13 moose in 2015 :mrgreen:

[Fisher-Dude]

I did shoot 13 moose in 2015 :mrgreen:


http://www.mutilus.com/galleries/2010_01/hardcore-gamer-loser-vigin-virginity-nerd-gaming-gamer-demotivational-poster-1234151474.jpg

[hunter1947]

Everyone is picking on the wrong people meaning the guides you need to condemn the wildlife branch for allowing this to happen ,,if you where given this opportunity to take a second animal I am sure you would say YES..

[Fisher-Dude]

Everyone is picking on the wrong people meaning the guides you need to condemn the wildlife branch for allowing this to happen ,,if you where given this opportunity to take a second animal I am sure you would say YES..


No I wouldn't. I believe in sustainability and conservation. I'm having a hard time seeing if GOABC shares my beliefs.

[Everett]

Everyone is picking on the wrong people meaning the guides you need to condemn the wildlife branch for allowing this to happen ,,if you where given this opportunity to take a second animal I am sure you would say YES..

Wayne give your head a shake the Guides are the ones pushing to restrict residents access to our wildlife they are the route cause. of the problem and unless they are eliminated they will continue to be a problem.

[LBM]

No I wouldn't. I believe in sustainability and conservation. I'm having a hard time seeing if GOABC shares my beliefs.

Yet you support the spike /fork moose season.

[Squire]

Is everyone so angry that they have lost their ability to reason?

The number of LEH authorizations awarded for a given species in a given area is based on the typical, historical success rate. If a particular population of moose can absorb 6 hunter kills and the typical success rate is 75% then 8 LEH authorizations are sent out. If a hunter kills the 7th moose in that year is he committing an offense? Should we have the MoE call the remaining hunters and tell them their hunt is over after the 6th moose is taken? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to just award two less LEH authorizations the next year? Isn't this why we have mandatory reporting?

The guide-outfitter is not shooting the animals himself. When he books hunters to go after his quota of 6 moose for example and he normally has a 75% hunter success rate he will book 8 hunters. He can only charge his fee based on success rate so he needs the full 8 hunters to make his season. If he had 99% success he would only book 6 hunters and he could charge more based on the anticipation of success. If his 7th hunter shoots the 6th moose does he then tell the remaining hunter who has taken his holidays, travelled a great distance and spent a lot of money, to stay in camp and catch the next ride out? Maybe it would be more reasonable to reduce the guide-outfitter's quota by one animal the following year if the 7th moose was taken. Maybe the discretion of the regional manager is designed to allow for these instances and to save heavier sanctions for habitual offenders.

Even GOS are allowed based on anticipated hunter success and total hunter participation relative to the population of game animals. Should the hunter who shot the one over the anticipated number of animals killed in a given year be charged with an offense?

If you want to answer that the guide-outfitter should only book 6 hunters if he has a quota of 6 animals then you must also believe that LEH should work the same way because it is all about conservation and not your hard-on for guides and the GOABC right?

Stick to the real issues if you don't want to dilute the credibility of resident hunters by going off the deep end about a non-issue. IMH(and apparently senile)O:-?

[BigfishCanada]

Squire your description makes sense to me,

[hunter1947]

Wayne give your head a shake the Guides are the ones pushing to restrict residents access to our wildlife they are the route cause. of the problem and unless they are eliminated they will continue to be a problem.


I won't give my head a shake I might loose more screws LOL I see your point Thanks ,wayne..

[Foxton Gundogs]

Once again you guys are not looking at all the facts.

Reality is if the outfitters success rate is 60% average and the final year he hits 80% and one more animal is killed over his quota then he losses an animal the next allocation period. If you look at his past success rates and it 100% and he is booking more hunts then he has animals on quota that is a different story.

So under that logic as resident hunter success rate is not 100% if I happen on 2 moose this year I should be able to shoot them both and not shoot one next year??? Or maybe still shoot one next year because I didn't get one the year before? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander as they say.

[Squire]

So under that logic as resident hunter success rate is not 100% if I happen on 2 moose this year I should be able to shoot them both and not shoot one next year??? Or maybe still shoot one next year because I didn't get one the year before? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander as they say.

Speaking of sauce, how much have you consumed? The 'logic' is that when hunters as a collective shoot more animals than anticipated by historical success rates, the total number of animals taken the following year must be reduced. A guide quota is also hunters as a collective. It has never been suggested that any individual take more than one animal. You are jumping to confusion.

[Fisher-Dude]

Yet you support the spike /fork moose season.

I support all seasons that are sustainable and science-based, like spike/fork seasons.

You, on the other hand, support closing things down and sipping beers with your outfitter friends.

Each to their own.

[Fisher-Dude]

Is everyone so angry that they have lost their ability to reason?

The number of LEH authorizations awarded for a given species in a given area is based on the typical, historical success rate. If a particular population of moose can absorb 6 hunter kills and the typical success rate is 75% then 8 LEH authorizations are sent out. If a hunter kills the 7th moose in that year is he committing an offense? Should we have the MoE call the remaining hunters and tell them their hunt is over after the 6th moose is taken? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to just award two less LEH authorizations the next year? Isn't this why we have mandatory reporting?

The guide-outfitter is not shooting the animals himself. When he books hunters to go after his quota of 6 moose for example and he normally has a 75% hunter success rate he will book 8 hunters. He can only charge his fee based on success rate so he needs the full 8 hunters to make his season. If he had 99% success he would only book 6 hunters and he could charge more based on the anticipation of success. If his 7th hunter shoots the 6th moose does he then tell the remaining hunter who has taken his holidays, travelled a great distance and spent a lot of money, to stay in camp and catch the next ride out? Maybe it would be more reasonable to reduce the guide-outfitter's quota by one animal the following year if the 7th moose was taken. Maybe the discretion of the regional manager is designed to allow for these instances and to save heavier sanctions for habitual offenders.

Even GOS are allowed based on anticipated hunter success and total hunter participation relative to the population of game animals. Should the hunter who shot the one over the anticipated number of animals killed in a given year be charged with an offense?

If you want to answer that the guide-outfitter should only book 6 hunters if he has a quota of 6 animals then you must also believe that LEH should work the same way because it is all about conservation and not your hard-on for guides and the GOABC right?

Stick to the real issues if you don't want to dilute the credibility of resident hunters by going off the deep end about a non-issue. IMH(and apparently senile)O:-?


That's exactly why non-residents should be put on a draw system and then hire a guide-outfitter if they're successful (or choose to hunt on their own if they so desire), or guide-outfitters should buy x number of tags and sell the hunts based on those tags.

[Paulyman]

That's exactly why non-residents should be put on a draw system and then hire a guide-outfitter if they're successful (or choose to hunt on their own if they so desire), or guide-outfitters should buy x number of tags and sell the hunts based on those tags.

Whonnock boy brought up a good point on our drive home from Kelowna. If the non residents in vast numbers could apply for these draws and they were billed for the cost of the draw and licence up front imagine the potential income that could be generated to dept of wildlife, instead of collecting fees from one hunter they could collect them from 20 potential hunters.

The system is broken, time to start from scratch and rebuild it.

[Foxton Gundogs]

Speaking of sauce, how much have you consumed? The 'logic' is that when hunters as a collective shoot more animals than anticipated by historical success rates, the total number of animals taken the following year must be reduced. A guide quota is also hunters as a collective. It has never been suggested that any individual take more than one animal. You are jumping to confusion.
Nice bear, but perhaps it should be back hibernating it's obvious the brain is still a little sleep muddled, sorry if the comparison was a little to deep.

[Squire]

That's exactly why non-residents should be put on a draw system and then hire a guide-outfitter if they're successful (or choose to hunt on their own if they so desire), or guide-outfitters should buy x number of tags and sell the hunts based on those tags.

In your hypothetical non-resident draw system would the number of authorizations equal the quota for a specific animal or would there be success factors considered? LEH considers participation relative to an historical success factor to determine the number of authorizations. Do we treat non-resident authorizations differently or do we go 1:1 for LEH as well?

[FirePower]

10% LEH directly to non-resident hunters, pay their money and take their chances the same as residents, if successful purchase their non-resident tag, Choose your guide, come to B.C. hunt. The guides with the high sucess rates will rise to the top same as any business. Clean clear cut and simple. And fair.

[1899]

Speaking of sauce, how much have you consumed? The 'logic' is that when hunters as a collective shoot more animals than anticipated by historical success rates, the total number of animals taken the following year must be reduced. A guide quota is also hunters as a collective. It has never been suggested that any individual take more than one animal. You are jumping to confusion.

Except that for residents the AAH will be reduced, whereas the GO quota MAY be reduced at the discretion of the powers that be. What do you think, historically has happened?

[Squire]

Squire, the simple fix is this, instead of saying the regional manager MAY reduce the quota subsequent to the overharvest, it should be MUST, thus the trickery from years past won't happen. Not saying that some flexibility cannot be built in,but the discression part needs to be removed, otherwise we (as history shows) will have certain goabc members exceeding the quota on a regular basis.

At least you are capable of grasping the reason for flexibility when it comes to guide outfitter quota and that it would never manifest itself into a scenario where one hunter shot two animals in a season.

I can offer a scenario where a mandatory subsequent reduction may not be necessary: An outfitter with a quota of 6 moose annually goes two consecutive years with 5 of his clients taking a moose and in the third year, although he was aiming for 6, 7 of his hunters are successful. He has still averaged less than his quota over three years and reason dictates that he is not abusing the system and as long as the populations remain sustainable there is no harm. Before stupidity shows its familiar face; I will add that in this scenario shooting all 30 moose allowed over five years in one season and none in the other four is not reasonable. The regional manager should be able to apply reason to his determinations.

I believe that the intent of this OIC wasn't to enable abuse of the system, but to right a bureaucratic wrong. If history shows that GOs are exceeding their annual quota on a regular and deliberate basis then they should face sanctions including losing their licences and the flexibility should be taken away.

The point I am trying to make on this topic is that there is no smoking gun here (yet).

[bearhunter338-06]

So a resident hunter is allowed 1 moose a year. I have not shot a moose in 6 years but have bought a tag every year, So when I get my next moose tag should be good for 7 moose.........

[BimmerBob]

I really don't understand the guide outfitters need to go over quota, EVER! Who cares what their success rate is, they book their allotment of hunters to their quota and if some booked hunters are not successful the resource wins. Do they not charge hunting parties that are not successful? What a freaking load of BS, I am sure their quota is based upon an estimated success rate and there is some expected allowance for hunters that are not successful, why do they think they have to KILL their entire quota, someone on the government side got snowed big time.

[Sitkaspruce]

The guide-outfitter is not shooting the animals himself. When he books hunters to go after his quota of 6 moose for example and he normally has a 75% hunter success rate he will book 8 hunters. He can only charge his fee based on success rate so he needs the full 8 hunters to make his season. If he had 99% success he would only book 6 hunters and he could charge more based on the anticipation of success. If his 7th hunter shoots the 6th moose does he then tell the remaining hunter who has taken his holidays, travelled a great distance and spent a lot of money, to stay in camp and catch the next ride out? Maybe it would be more reasonable to reduce the guide-outfitter's quota by one animal the following year if the 7th moose was taken. Maybe the discretion of the regional manager is designed to allow for these instances and to save heavier sanctions for habitual offenders.


Squire

I kno a few guides who double book to ensure they fill their quota and to show they have 100% success......they don't tell hunters that they are actually running 60%. It happens lots, it all about running through as many hunters as they can....and $$$ they can collect.

When they fill their quota, they do one of three things: tell the client that they had to cancel their hunt, and would offer a huge discount next year (most cannot take them up as they are blue collar works and have limited time to do these trips) so they just give them their deposit back, second option is to take them and show them some country, no moose seen and thanks, had great trip or they allow them to transfer the deposit to the next year and have them come up.

But they know their hunting success, their area and their animal populations......it is all about the $$$$ for most of them.....and for the most part, they look at residents like we look at ticks....

Here is the regulations as they are now

Conditions must be complied with
16.01 A person commits an offence where he fails to comply with a condition of or an instruction in
(a) a hunting licence,
(b) a species licence,
(c) a special area licence,
(d) a limited entry hunting authorization,
(e) an angling licence,
(f) a non-tidal classified waters angling licence,
(g) Repealed.
(h) a hunter number card,
(i) a guide outfitter licence,
(j) an assistant guide licence,
(k) a fur trader's licence,
(l) a trapping licence, or
(m) a transporter licence.
[en. B.C. Reg. 151/83, s. (c); am. B.C. Regs. 97/87, s. (a); 158/88; 17/89, s. 6; 125/89, s. 2; 157/92, s. 1; 220/2000, s. 7; 25/2005, s. 8.]

Exception – exceeding quota assigned to guide outfitter licence
[B]16.011 Despite section 16.01 (i), and without limiting section 60 (2) of the Act, a guide outfitter does not commit an offence if the guide outfitter has a quota assigned as a condition of his or her guide outfitter licence and allows his or her clients to kill game to the extent that the number killed exceeds the quota assigned to the guide outfitter.
[en. B.C. Reg. 138/2013, s. (d).]

Cheers

SS

[goatdancer]

In your hypothetical non-resident draw system would the number of authorizations equal the quota for a specific animal or would there be success factors considered? LEH considers participation relative to an historical success factor to determine the number of authorizations. Do we treat non-resident authorizations differently or do we go 1:1 for LEH as well?

It seems to work in places like Montana. Wouldn't take a rocket scientist to take a look at their system and adapt it to fit our purposes.

[Squire]

Squire

I kno a few guides who double book to ensure they fill their quota and to show they have 100% success......they don't tell hunters that they are actually running 60%. It happens lots, it all about running through as many hunters as they can....and $$$ they can collect.

When they fill their quota, they do one of three things: tell the client that they had to cancel their hunt, and would offer a huge discount next year (most cannot take them up as they are blue collar works and have limited time to do these trips) so they just give them their deposit back, second option is to take them and show them some country, no moose seen and thanks, had great trip or they allow them to transfer the deposit to the next year and have them come up.

But they know their hunting success, their area and their animal populations......it is all about the $$$$ for most of them.....and for the most part, they look at residents like we look at ticks....

Here is the regulations as they are now

Conditions must be complied with


16.01
A person commits an offence where he fails to comply with a condition of or an instruction in
(a) a hunting licence,
(b) a species licence,
(c) a special area licence,
(d) a limited entry hunting authorization,
(e) an angling licence,
(f) a non-tidal classified waters angling licence,
(g) Repealed.
(h) a hunter number card,
(i) a guide outfitter licence,
(j) an assistant guide licence,
(k) a fur trader's licence,
(l) a trapping licence, or
(m) a transporter licence.
[en. B.C. Reg. 151/83, s. (c); am. B.C. Regs. 97/87, s. (a); 158/88; 17/89, s. 6; 125/89, s. 2; 157/92, s. 1; 220/2000, s. 7; 25/2005, s. 8.]

Exception – exceeding quota assigned to guide outfitter licence


[B]16.011
Despite section 16.01 (i), and without limiting section 60 (2) of the Act, a guide outfitter does not commit an offence if the guide outfitter has a quota assigned as a condition of his or her guide outfitter licence and allows his or her clients to kill game to the extent that the number killed exceeds the quota assigned to the guide outfitter.
[en. B.C. Reg. 138/2013, s. (d).]

Cheers

SS



Sorry but I missed the point of your post addressed to me. If a guide outfitter double books and fills his quota his success rate is 50%. If all his clients kill an animal his success rate is 200% or twice his quota. You say the guides stop hunting when their quota is filled or they take their clients for a ride. What is the risk to animal numbers here? The scenario you present questions the guide outfitter's integrity and treatment of his client but doesn't have his clients killing more animals than his quota.

What was the purpose in reposting the sections of the act that I already posted? If guide outfitters are shown to have broadly exceeded their quotas as a result of the OIC then I will be the first to lobby for change. Otherwise it's a non-issue.

[flyboy]

Oh god how about just quit with all the complicated precents and stupid government policy writing and GOABC runaround pertaining to the above issue.


Simple- example, your 5 year quota is 5 moose a year for a 5 year total of 25. Get 5 or 500 clients a year I don't care, you only get 5 moose that year. Only 4 out of 5 clients get a moose that year, so you didn't fill your quote for the year, then to bad so sad unused is unused. Next year you get 5 new tags. THERE IS NO CARRY OVER OF UNUSED TAGS AND NO 25 MOOSE SHOT IN YEAR 5 IF YOU SAT AROUND DOING NOTHING FOR YEARS 1-4.

5 a year that's it, no carry over, no tricky tricky, add this moose , subtract hardship, add its, this way or that way. NO, 5 or less A YEAR DONE, SEE YOU NEXT YEAR.

Am I missing something? Seems cut and dry, NO?

[goatdancer]

Sorry but I missed the point of your post addressed to me. If a guide outfitter double books and fills his quota his success rate is 50%. If all his clients kill an animal his success rate is 200% or twice his quota. You say the guides stop hunting when their quota is filled or they take their clients for a ride. What is the risk to animal numbers here? The scenario you present questions the guide outfitter's integrity and treatment of his client but doesn't have his clients killing more animals than his quota.

What was the purpose in reposting the sections of the act that I already posted? If guide outfitters are shown to have broadly exceeded their quotas as a result of the OIC then I will be the first to lobby for change. Otherwise it's a non-issue.

You are twisting numbers to try to justify your position. If a GO has a quota of say 10 and his clients kill 10 animals, his success rate is 100% because his quota was achieved. It doesn't matter how many clients he had to achieve this.
Whether the quotas are "broadly exceeded" or slightly exceeded is irrelevant. All that matters is that the quota was exceeded. Resident hunters don't get any leeway on exceeding quotas, why should GOs? The animals are just as dead.

[REMINGTON JIM]

Oh god how about just quit with all the complicated precents and stupid government policy writing and GOABC runaround pertaining to the above issue.


Simple- example, your 5 year quota is 5 moose a year for a 5 year total of 25. Get 5 or 500 clients a year I don't care, you only get 5 moose that year. Only 4 out of 5 clients get a moose that year, so you didn't fill your quote for the year, then to bad so sad unused is unused. Next year you get 5 new tags. THERE IS NO CARRY OVER OF UNUSED TAGS AND NO 25 MOOSE SHOT IN YEAR 5 IF YOU SAT AROUND DOING NOTHING FOR YEARS 1-4.

5 a year that's it, no carry over, no tricky tricky, add this moose , subtract hardship, add its, this way or that way. NO, 5 or less A YEAR DONE, SEE YOU NEXT YEAR.

Am I missing something? Seems cut and dry, NO?

Exactley :wink: i AGREE but i am sure someone (s) is going to enlighten us to why we are wrong in this belief ! LOL RJ

[Sitkaspruce]

You were saying that if their success is a certain %, the will book X # of hunters to try to maintain their success. I am pointing out that quite a few GO I knew would book up to twice the hunters to ensure the hit 100% success That way you can sell cheaper hunts to the blue collar hunters in the US, as most areas were meat hunt, non trophy areas, and to sell a moose hunt, you had to change something up, as everyone had moose in BC.

The thing is, hunters have no idea how many other hunters had been in the camp or were even hunting that year in the territory, a BS move, but they would do it. Also easier to do if you have different camps to hunt from.

And as for GO integrity and treatment of the hunter.....well that went out the window when the recession hit and the bottom line was making $$$. Very few GO had return clients as most were treated.....well just look at the complaints on the outfitter reviews. Lots of went for a drive and saw nothing hunts. But the GO still got their $5000 for the hunt.

Remember, all these so called GO were below a line that you could draw from FSJ to Terrace. Not the big outfits to the north. They usually did not come rube shoulders with he smaller GO at the smaller shows.

And I have no idea why I posted the regs, I twas supposed to be on another post......LOL

Cheers

SS

[Fisher-Dude]

In your hypothetical non-resident draw system would the number of authorizations equal the quota for a specific animal or would there be success factors considered? LEH considers participation relative to an historical success factor to determine the number of authorizations. Do we treat non-resident authorizations differently or do we go 1:1 for LEH as well?

Give 'em a success factor, why not? Given a bit of history, it can be tailored to reach quota the same way resi's do.

Certainly takes all the bullshit out of wildlife allocations, raises WAY more money for wildlife management than filling a German outfitter's pocket and those of his German guides, and allows the tourism industry to bloom with DIY foreign hunters who come here, camp, use hotels, buy gas and food, spend on LEH entries, etc, just like resident hunters do.

The way it is now, there's very little foreign money benefiting BC from the current foreign hunter business model.

[Squire]

You are twisting numbers to try to justify your position. If a GO has a quota of say 10 and his clients kill 10 animals, his success rate is 100% because his quota was achieved. It doesn't matter how many clients he had to achieve this.
Whether the quotas are "broadly exceeded" or slightly exceeded is irrelevant. All that matters is that the quota was exceeded. Resident hunters don't get any leeway on exceeding quotas, why should GOs? The animals are just as dead.

This is exactly where you are wrong. There is no quota for resident hunters under GOS or LEH. The 'quota' for resident hunters is just an estimate and gets adjusted periodically as needed. Resident hunters as a collective can exceed the expected number of animals killed in any given year. The OIC doesn't give the guide outfitters' clients this much leeway but it gives them some.

Each individual resident hunter can only take one animal as can a guided hunter - no exceptions. The variance applies only to the total harvest, not the amount of animals an individual can take.

[Squire]

You were saying that if their success is a certain %, the will book X # of hunters to try to maintain their success. I am pointing out that quite a few GO I knew would book up to twice the hunters to ensure the hit 100% success That way you can sell cheaper hunts to the blue collar hunters in the US, as most areas were meat hunt, non trophy areas, and to sell a moose hunt, you had to change something up, as everyone had moose in BC.

The thing is, hunters have no idea how many other hunters had been in the camp or were even hunting that year in the territory, a BS move, but they would do it. Also easier to do if you have different camps to hunt from.

And as for GO integrity and treatment of the hunter.....well that went out the window when the recession hit and the bottom line was making $$$. Very few GO had return clients as most were treated.....well just look at the complaints on the outfitter reviews. Lots of went for a drive and saw nothing hunts. But the GO still got their $5000 for the hunt.

Remember, all these so called GO were below a line that you could draw from FSJ to Terrace. Not the big outfits to the north. They usually did not come rube shoulders with he smaller GO at the smaller shows.

And I have no idea why I posted the regs, I twas supposed to be on another post......LOL

Cheers

SS

OK, I get what you're saying and I don't disagree. I am just pointing out why I'm not concerned with the OIC and why I don't jump to the conclusion that it amounts to 'Legal Poaching'. I am not defending any GO, just pointing out that there may be some unnecessary hysterics over the OIC.

[Squire]

Give 'em a success factor, why not? Given a bit of history, it can be tailored to reach quota the same way resi's do.

Certainly takes all the bullshit out of wildlife allocations, raises WAY more money for wildlife management than filling a German outfitter's pocket and those of his German guides, and allows the tourism industry to bloom with DIY foreign hunters who come here, camp, use hotels, buy gas and food, spend on LEH entries, etc, just like resident hunters do.

The way it is now, there's very little foreign money benefiting BC from the current foreign hunter business model.

I also don't disagree that too small of a portion of GO revenue stays in the province/country. And I agree that we could easily have a better system with allocations better reflecting the resident priority ideal.

I am not the enemy of the cause because I reflect on the issues before I get carried away.

[XMD70]

I'm having some trouble with this math. Let's say that the ministry evaluates an area and decides to issue 100 leh permits. Historically, this area has had a hunting success rate of 75%. In the past, the GO allocation was 10%. The expected harvest was 75 animals. Because the GO could double book, he always took his maximum number of animals (that would be 10). That means the resident hunters took 65 animals from their 90 leh tags (A 72% success rate). Now increase the GO allocation to 40%. The GO still takes his full allocation, now 40 animals. To achieve the 75 animal harvest for this area, resident hunters are limited to 35 animals. The total number of leh permits must be significantly reduced to resident hunters in order to meet the harvest quota. Has this already happened?

[000buck]

I believe that we are miss understanding the term quota in this case. I may be wrong but i believe the quota referred to in this case would be for example, that the G/O must harvest X number of black bears from a territory but does not commit an offence if he allows more than the designated number to be taken. It may be something to do with the other two regs noted in the one in question here. I do however love posting that little tid bit around on F/B

[XMD70]

I see in the Leh synopsis that there are 100 tags available in a certain area. I know that the GO will get 40% of the leh tags for that area. Does that mean there are only 60 tags available for resident hunters, or have the GO tags already been accounted for?

[Whonnock Boy]

Number of LEH's in the synopsis, is the number of draws given to resident hunters. If there was a quota of 100 animals, we would get 75, go gets 25. If we were to get 100 draws, the guide gets his 31 or whatever that works out to.


I see in the Leh synopsis that there are 100 tags available in a certain area. I know that the GO will get 40% of the leh tags for that area. Does that mean there are only 60 tags available for resident hunters, or have the GO tags already been accounted for?

[Bighorn hunter]

Number of LEH's in the synopsis, is the number of draws given to resident hunters. If there was a quota of 100 animals, we would get 75, go gets 25. If we were to get 100 draws, the guide gets his 31 or whatever that works out to.

My understanding of how the aah and leh works is a bit different. The way it was explained to me was this. If it is decided that there are a 100 animals for harvest the go gets his 25% since history shows his average is 100% he gets 25 tags. Residents for argument and math ease average 50% success so are awarded 150 tags. Giving 150 residents the opportunity to harvest an animal. If we go over the 75 animals then the biologists will decide what will be in the aha the following year.

As for the op and the go's as long as history shows them not abusing the system I don't see a smoking gun here. Not sure how it all works for the go's but I know with grizzlies they are given x number of tags over a 3 or five year period then tag # adjusted if necessary

i guess what I am trying to say is that the biologist are giving residents the chance to go over our aah as well with no impending poaching charge.

[Sitkaspruce]

I took the whole thing, the old regs, the OIC, the new regs and handed them off to a good friends who is a genius at reading and understanding legislation, especially Wildlife legislation (he is a retired 25 year vet of the CO service), to get his take on it.

The way I read it, is the took away the offence section of the licence (16.01(i)) and now put the whole thing in the regional managers hands, under section 60 (2), who MAY reduce or change the GO quota if they exceed it. Section 61, give the RM the right to hold a meeting about any changes to the guides licence, quota etc.
It all smells of stinky stuff.....

Cheers

SS

[Squire]

I'm having some trouble with this math. Let's say that the ministry evaluates an area and decides to issue 100 leh permits. Historically, this area has had a hunting success rate of 75%. In the past, the GO allocation was 10%. The expected harvest was 75 animals. Because the GO could double book, he always took his maximum number of animals (that would be 10). That means the resident hunters took 65 animals from their 90 leh tags (A 72% success rate). Now increase the GO allocation to 40%. The GO still takes his full allocation, now 40 animals. To achieve the 75 animal harvest for this area, resident hunters are limited to 35 animals. The total number of leh permits must be significantly reduced to resident hunters in order to meet the harvest quota. Has this already happened?

The only thing wrong with your math is that the GOs would get 40% of the expected 75 animal harvest not the LEH permits. The GOs would get their percentage of the total kill the biologists determined was sustainable. If the determination was 100 animals and the GOs got 10% or 10 animals then 90 would go to LEH. At a 75% success rate 120 LEH authorizations would be issued for these 90 animals. This opens the door for resident hunters to legally overharvest.

It doesn't matter what the actual numbers are, your example of the shift to GO allocation, although exaggerated by applying it to the number of authorizations instead of the number of animals, is the reason to get up in arms. The OIC is not.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Exactley :wink: i AGREE but i am sure someone (s) is going to enlighten us to why we are wrong in this belief ! LOL RJ

You are right RJ someone will fill you in.

The guides allocation is no different the the residents.There is a AAH which is given to residents this can be over harvested are the guys that kill the moose last poachers?

If this happens there will be less leh given out.this to is left in the hands of the regional manager. He is supposed to give both resident and guides the best opportunity to shoot their allocated animals.there are formulas for both parties.

[guest]

Still works out 40% OF ALL GRIZZLY BEAR ....... Then down from there ........ Nothing but greed and hobnobbing a chosen few in this province.

Will the government run to the aid of for example Hot Tub business's , ma and pop sporting good stores, Joes welding and sheet metal, any other retail outlet, any business other then GO and rescue them ....... NOT .......

THIS STINKS OF shady deals with the government and GO right in the thick of it.

The economy has sunk since 2008, affecting every business across the Province ........ Suck it up and push on! Get another job, YOU CHOOSE YOUR PROFESSION, Not every GO is going to make hay like others, but the BIG BRASS sure think they deserve more of what is yours and mine !

CT

[chilcotin hillbilly]

I see in the Leh synopsis that there are 100 tags available in a certain area. I know that the GO will get 40% of the leh tags for that area. Does that mean there are only 60 tags available for resident hunters, or have the GO tags already been accounted for?

Not even close.
In my MU there are 38 leh tags given out last year.
I get on a 1 year average 1.2 moose area, does the math work for you now.
People are being mislead to believe outfitters get 25% of the number of leh tags given out. that is the furthest from the truth.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

My understanding of how the aah and leh works is a bit different. The way it was explained to me was this. If it is decided that there are a 100 animals for harvest the go gets his 25% since history shows his average is 100% he gets 25 tags. Residents for argument and math ease average 50% success so are awarded 150 tags. Giving 150 residents the opportunity to harvest an animal. If we go over the 75 animals then the biologists will decide what will be in the aha the following year.

As for the op and the go's as long as history shows them not abusing the system I don't see a smoking gun here. Not sure how it all works for the go's but I know with grizzlies they are given x number of tags over a 3 or five year period then tag # adjusted if necessary

i guess what I am trying to say is that the biologist are giving residents the chance to go over our aah as well with no impending poaching charge.


Well said.

[guest]

40 PERCENT IF ALL GRIZZLY BEAR ........ And as it turns out GO 's will soon be able to harvest up to 40 percent of Sheep too, where does it end .

Its 4 to 5000 opportunities LOST TO RESIDENT HUNTERS AND FAMILIES JUST TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY ...... WHICH TURNS INTO MORE MONEY TO STAY IN BC ....... Not foreign owners and guides from out of province

[goatdancer]

This is exactly where you are wrong. There is no quota for resident hunters under GOS or LEH. The 'quota' for resident hunters is just an estimate and gets adjusted periodically as needed. Resident hunters as a collective can exceed the expected number of animals killed in any given year. The OIC doesn't give the guide outfitters' clients this much leeway but it gives them some.

Each individual resident hunter can only take one animal as can a guided hunter - no exceptions. The variance applies only to the total harvest, not the amount of animals an individual can take.

For a resident hunter, the "quota" is the bag limit.

[XMD70]

I think I understand. Let's pick an area that currently gives the GO 10% of the LEH tags. There are 100 tags total. Biologists have seen an average of 75 animals harvested each year from those 100 tags, and they wish to maintain that harvest rate. Because the GO's harvest rate is 100% for the tags they are issued, they take 10 animals. To keep the harvest total at 75 animals, the Resident Hunter (RH) group takes 65 animals, a harvest rate of 72%. The constants here will be the percentage breakdowns for GO's and RH's, and for the number of animals harvested. Now let's increase the GO allotment to 40%. They will now take 40 animals, leaving 60% for the RH's. 72% success rate for the RH's yields a harvest of 43 animals, for a total harvest of 83 animals. That's too many. To bring the harvest total back to 75 while keeping the percentage breakdown the same, we need to reduce the number of LEH tags available to 90. That's 36 for the GO and 54 for the RH. Of these, the GO will harvest 36 animals (at 100% rate), and the RH'S will harvest 39 animals (at 72% rate), bringing the total to 75 animals harvested. The difference is, the GO will harvest 26 more animals than when he had 10% of the LEH's (an increase of 260%), and the RH's will lose 26 animals from their collective harvest, a decrease of 40%. Of course, with only 60 LEH tags now available to RH's instead of the 90 tags they had before, the odds against being drawn for one of those tags have increased by a full 33%. If the odds previously were 1 in 6, they are now one in 9. How's my math?

[Fisher-Dude]

OK, I get what you're saying and I don't disagree. I am just pointing out why I'm not concerned with the OIC and why I don't jump to the conclusion that it amounts to 'Legal Poaching'. I am not defending any GO, just pointing out that there may be some unnecessary hysterics over the OIC.


The system of allocation and quota has been basically the same for several years, percentages notwithstanding.

Pray tell, why was an OIC suddenly needed in 2013 for outfitters to shoot over their quota with impunity, when the allocation/quota system had been in place with overage/underage of harvest for several years prior? If the system didn't change, why did the law change?

That's the kicker. That's what stinks. That's what you're missing.

[Philcott]

To me a big difference is the resident hunter is out there on his own and if he shoots a moose he doesn't have a running tally with the other RH's hunting in that area. The GO, on the other hand is in complete control of the number of animals taken on his allocation. In other words I can shoot a moose and not know the allocation limit has been reached but I question how often that would happen in a guided situation.

[Spy]

Listen to what Ian Jessop on C-fax has to say on the 47min mark in the pod cast https://soundcloud.com/ian-jessop-cfax/february-4-2pm?in=ian-jessop-cfax/sets/ian-jessop. The tables are turning ;-)

[Philcott]

Was good until about the 55.00 minute mark then it took a side turn.

[lange1212]

As per the 2007 Harvest Allocation Policy "Administrative Guide Lines" were a function of it. AG's at the Regional Managers discretion could be applied to the guide license allowing up to a 30% over harvest of the annual quota, but would not allow for and over harvest of the 5 year allocation. This was put in place primarily to allow GO's to over book and provide a huge opportunity to achieve their allocated share a the end of the day.

This was of great concern to many representatives at the table when the HAP was being negotiated as resident's had no tools in policy to be applied to better allow them to achieve their allocated harvests. At the end of the day the GOABC and Ministry agreed that "hindering barriers to resident harvest" would be identified, and appropriate changes made to remove those barriers. LEH was one of those barriers and was identified as being applied outside its intent in many cases. That being to limit resident hunters when a conservation concern is present. Although LEH is justifiable and supported in some areas throughout the province, there are many LEH hunts that are not and should go to GOS.


I suspect the wildlife act comment that is being referred to in this thread is related to the application of those AG's. The truly upsetting aspect of this is AG's are applied to GO's and is a function of policy, however the function of policy that is to review hindering barriers to resident harvest is grossly lacking throughout the Province. Worse is the GOABC unjustly and successfully lobbies government to increase restrictions on resident hunters for no other reason than to hinder their harvest success, and reduce resident hunter participation. Simply put the GOABC supports the policy when it functions as a benefit to their interest, then switch caps saying they don't support policy when it supports resident hunter priority and interests.


As a result the GOABC is now viewed as a group that bargains in bad faith, can't be trusted to follow through on negotiated agreements, and has the reputation of lobbying government $$$$ to change the very policy they agreed to when functions of it don't 100% support their trophy hunting, kill for profit, catering to foreigners, at the expense of BC residents agenda.

The 2007 policy was the best policy for GO's in North America now vitiated by their greed and arrogance. I suspect that there will come a day when the guiding industry and GOABC members (if they exist in the future) will wish they just acted in good faith and stuck with the 2007 HAP as it was agreed to, and implemented fully as originally intended.

The GOABC and their kill trophy for profit industry is sinking fast, the fragile social license they had now shattered, and I can see the "anti trophy and anti kill for profit" aligning with resident hunters reflecting that this is no longer socially acceptable. Keep it up GOABC I appreciate your efforts, soon 100% of the allocation will go to resident hunters to fill their freezers, kill for profit trophy hunting will be gone, and your clients will be packing a camera. How will that work for your industry and viability? But that just my opinion.

[Whonnock Boy]

Yes, BHH is correct with his explanation.


My understanding of how the aah and leh works is a bit different. The way it was explained to me was this. If it is decided that there are a 100 animals for harvest the go gets his 25% since history shows his average is 100% he gets 25 tags. Residents for argument and math ease average 50% success so are awarded 150 tags. Giving 150 residents the opportunity to harvest an animal.

Sorry, I didn't explain that the way I meant. A little late in the evening. :)


I see in the Leh synopsis that there are 100 tags available in a certain area. I know that the GO will get 40% of the leh tags for that area. Does that mean there are only 60 tags available for resident hunters, or have the GO tags already been accounted for?

I should have said this....


The number of LEH's in the synopsis, is the number of draws given to resident hunters to reach our quota. The GO's quota has nothing to do with the number of authorizations available in the LEH synopsis.

[Squire]

I think I understand. Let's pick an area that currently gives the GO 10% of the LEH tags. There are 100 tags total. Biologists have seen an average of 75 animals harvested each year from those 100 tags, and they wish to maintain that harvest rate. Because the GO's harvest rate is 100% for the tags they are issued, they take 10 animals. To keep the harvest total at 75 animals, the Resident Hunter (RH) group takes 65 animals, a harvest rate of 72%. The constants here will be the percentage breakdowns for GO's and RH's, and for the number of animals harvested. Now let's increase the GO allotment to 40%. They will now take 40 animals, leaving 60% for the RH's. 72% success rate for the RH's yields a harvest of 43 animals, for a total harvest of 83 animals. That's too many. To bring the harvest total back to 75 while keeping the percentage breakdown the same, we need to reduce the number of LEH tags available to 90. That's 36 for the GO and 54 for the RH. Of these, the GO will harvest 36 animals (at 100% rate), and the RH'S will harvest 39 animals (at 72% rate), bringing the total to 75 animals harvested. The difference is, the GO will harvest 26 more animals than when he had 10% of the LEH's (an increase of 260%), and the RH's will lose 26 animals from their collective harvest, a decrease of 40%. Of course, with only 60 LEH tags now available to RH's instead of the 90 tags they had before, the odds against being drawn for one of those tags have increased by a full 33%. If the odds previously were 1 in 6, they are now one in 9. How's my math?

GOs get their percentage of the Allowable Annual Harvest or AAH not of the LEH tags. AAH is determined at 75 animals annually, 7.5 for GOs at 10%, 67.5 for RHs at 90%, at 75% success rate there are 90 LEH authorizations issued.

[Squire]

The system of allocation and quota has been basically the same for several years, percentages notwithstanding.

Pray tell, why was an OIC suddenly needed in 2013 for outfitters to shoot over their quota with impunity, when the allocation/quota system had been in place with overage/underage of harvest for several years prior? If the system didn't change, why did the law change?

That's the kicker. That's what stinks. That's what you're missing.

I'm not actually missing anything and there is no impunity, simply discretion on the part of the regional manager. The tools are still there to reduce quota or revoke licences. The timing is suspicious but if no abuse has resulted from the changes there has been no harm.

[XMD70]

So, the GO allocation for each WMU is based on a percentage of anticipated total harvest. I assume that information is gathered from harvest questionnaires submitted by Resident Hunters (RH) and the assumption that the GO's harvested 100% of their allotment the previous season. The harvest success rate for RH's for each species in each WMU must be tracked and recorded for this to work, although I have never figured out how to access that data. That success rate may vary anywhere from 0 to 100%, however I read in someone's response that it is generally assumed to be about 50%. (I would argue that advancing technology such as Google earth, quads, trail cameras, etc., as well as changing hunter demographics, have led to a better than 50% success rate for RH's) That's what determines the number of LEH tags available for any given species for any given WMU. Now, if we increase the allotment given to the GO's from 10 to 40% of the total, and at the same time we pay heed to the effect of the Order in Council that allows GO clients to exceed the quota without penalty. what happens?

[Squire]

So, the GO allocation for each WMU is based on a percentage of anticipated total harvest. I assume that information is gathered from harvest questionnaires submitted by Resident Hunters (RH) and the assumption that the GO's harvested 100% of their allotment the previous season. The harvest success rate for RH's for each species in each WMU must be tracked and recorded for this to work, although I have never figured out how to access that data. That success rate may vary anywhere from 0 to 100%, however I read in someone's response that it is generally assumed to be about 50%. (I would argue that advancing technology such as Google earth, quads, trail cameras, etc., as well as changing hunter demographics, have led to a better than 50% success rate for RH's) That's what determines the number of LEH tags available for any given species for any given WMU. Now, if we increase the allotment given to the GO's from 10 to 40% of the total, and at the same time we pay heed to the effect of the Order in Council that allows GO clients to exceed the quota without penalty. what happens?

The OIC specifies that the GO does not commit an offense (as in a crime), it also states that the regional manger may penalize the GO if in his discretion it is appropriate.

[Grumpa Joe]

The OIC intent is indefensible. We all know that the regional managers are under-funded and under staffed, seems to be the theme with this government. To add a further level of responsibility to his workload, from an act that was fine before, makes no sense.

The argument that the GO may not achieve their quota so they should be allowed to make up for it in future seasons is a total departure from their "stewards of conservation" claim. Maybe the reason that they didn't fill their quota was that the number of animals in that region are down and need some time to recover. Makes no sense that the following year when there is an "extra" animal seen that they should be able to kill it. The population is then not recovering but rather falling back into the state it was in when they didn't find enough to fill their quota. It's a never ending cycle. Just because it is there doesn't mean you take all you can. This flies in the face of their business though where they are paid to succeed. If they don't take every animal that they can, achieve a lower success rate, eventually they will lose clients and therefore money. According to them the reason for having the Allocation Policy changed is because they are in financial distress and subsequently they are going to do all they can to maximize revenue. Now because of the OIC they have an even greater opportunity to increase their harvested animals by over hunting. Leaving it up to the overworked, under funded and out match Regional Manager to make rulings after the fact. How then is this a model for conservation?

Unless you have a vested interest in the Guide Outfitters industry you can't support this as it flies in the face of conservation and sustainable hunting. If you have no intention of using it then why lobby for it?

When there are concerns that the population of animals in a Region are diminished resident hunters are controlled through the hunting regs. changing/reducing or eliminating GOS or by offering fewer LEH tags. This clause that has been added effectively shifts more animals to GOs from RHs.

[.264winmag]

Also know that say a GO does not fill all tags, and I have first hand reports of this for stone sheep in northern BC from a paying client, that the quota for the GO will be lowered 3 years later. So guess what happens? Joe blow from Mexico, or a buddy of a guide etc. gets to go on a super cheap stone hunt. So even if it's a 'poor' season for sheep numbers or why the GO wants all sheep harvested or they're quota will be lowered. Doesn't seem like the best way for conservation, they're all about the money. More hunts will be booked than sheep tags available to help ensure all tags are filled. Hunters are positioned and basically set up for failure if number of tags are getting low. Even in that instance however it seems penalties for going over quota seems potentially insignificant?
I've heard it the same thing is going on for VI elk.
I hate to say it but for as many sheep,tags as these GO are allotted it wouldn't break my heart to see it go to LEH or one every three years etc. for Stones'. PROVIDING the GO outfitter took a huge cut in the # of tags, which we know probably wouldn't be lowered enough. The quality of rams would definitely go up though.
Also fill out the resident LEH hunter success questionnaire because excess animals not harvested might just be getting handed over to the GO.

[Fisher-Dude]

The timing is suspicious but if no abuse has resulted from the changes there has been no harm.


Let's legalize murder. No one has been killed yet, so there's no harm in doing so.

[lange1212]

"Unless you have a vested interest in the Guide Outfitters industry you can't support this as it flies in the face of conservation and sustainable hunting. If you have no intention of using it then why lobby for it?"

Privatization and control of an otherwise public common property wildlife resource! make no mistake that's the agenda.

Their hiding behind viability, economics, blah blah blah... The reality is that the move afoot is to privatize and steal our wildlife and heritage away from the resident public. Shame on you Christy and Steve for supporting such an action that reflects breach of public trust!

[Squire]

Unless you have a vested interest in the Guide Outfitters industry you can't support this as it flies in the face of conservation and sustainable hunting. If you have no intention of using it then why lobby for it?

When there are concerns that the population of animals in a Region are diminished resident hunters are controlled through the hunting regs. changing/reducing or eliminating GOS or by offering fewer LEH tags. This clause that has been added effectively shifts more animals to GOs from RHs.

There are two possibilities here:

1) The OIC was passed to allow some flexibility with GO's quota on a year-to-year basis within his five-year AAH as long as his actions were reasonable. As the regional manager maintained the ability to impose penalties such as reductions in annual quota or more serious measures if deemed necessary; the intent was to avoid turning someone trying their best to maintain a quality experience for their clients and a consistent annual revenue stream for their business, into a criminal.

2) The OIC was passed to allow GOs to exceed their quota every year without penalty and to take these additional animals from RH opportunities; the intent was for the government to pay back the GOs for their political contributions.

Reason dictates that to choose 2) over 1), in the two years since it was passed the data must indicate that GOs have consistently abused this OIC and taken more than their quota of animals without any penalty or reductions imposed by the regional manager.

Reason also dictates that before RHs took this to the media they must have obtained this damning data. Otherwise a tough battle just got a lot tougher. Credibility is hard won and easily lost.

[Grumpa Joe]

There are two possibilities here:

1) The OIC was passed to allow some flexibility with GO's quota on a year-to-year basis within his five-year AAH as long as his actions were reasonable. As the regional manager maintained the ability to impose penalties such as reductions in annual quota or more serious measures if deemed necessary; the intent was to avoid turning someone trying their best to maintain a quality experience for their clients and a consistent annual revenue stream for their business, into a criminal.

2) The OIC was passed to allow GOs to exceed their quota every year without penalty and to take these additional animals from RH opportunities; the intent was for the government to pay back the GOs for their political contributions.

Reason dictates that to choose 2) over 1), in the two years since it was passed the data must indicate that GOs have consistently abused this OIC and taken more than their quota of animals without any penalty or reductions imposed by the regional manager.

Reason also dictates that before RHs took this to the media they must have obtained this damning data. Otherwise a tough battle just got a lot tougher. Credibility is hard won and easily lost.


Not sure exactly what "consistently" would mean in this case but whether they did it once or a hundred times it's irrelevant with respect to their assertion that they are "stewards of conservation".

The long and the short of it is that businesses are in business to make money and given any opportunity to do so will use it to their greatest advantage. This is in direct conflict with conservation unless that increase in harvest allotment is appropriated from somewhere else. No matter how they couch their argument, for their numbers to increase Resident Hunters numbers need to equally decrease.

If a business is operating under a model that is unprofitable they need to realign their strategies and in this case they want to be doing it at the expense of the 102.000 Resident Hunters through allocation and over harvesting. There are many examples of businesses going under for failure to adjust to changing conditions as well as examples of businesses and industries that understood the necessity to change and did so successfully. The BC wine industry is a shining example of this.

Sorry, with all due respect the defense of the OIC and change in allocation numbers just doesn't hold water and the GOABC has NO credibility right now with their tactics and lack of evidentiary support to justify their actions.

[REMINGTON JIM]

Let's legalize murder. No one has been killed yet, so there's no harm in doing so.

YUP makes just as much SENSE as the rest of it all ! :icon_frow RJ

[FirePower]

Squire, apt choice of a screen name,
squire:
ˈskwī(ə)r/,
noun, a man of high social standing who owns and lives on an estate in a rural area, especially the chief landowner in such an area,
synonyms:



landowner (https://www.google.ca/search?biw=1093&bih=496&q=define+landowner&sa=X&ei=XQDVVITpAoauogTHj4L4Bw&ved=0CB4Q_SowAA), landholder (https://www.google.ca/search?biw=1093&bih=496&q=define+landholder&sa=X&ei=XQDVVITpAoauogTHj4L4Bw&ved=0CB8Q_SowAA), landlord (https://www.google.ca/search?biw=1093&bih=496&q=define+landlord&sa=X&ei=XQDVVITpAoauogTHj4L4Bw&ved=0CCAQ_SowAA), lord of the manor, country gentleman (https://www.google.ca/search?biw=1093&bih=496&q=define+country+gentleman&sa=X&ei=XQDVVITpAoauogTHj4L4Bw&ved=0CCEQ_SowAA) "the squire of the village"

You know the fellow who has all the game on his estate and will not allow the commoners to hunt. Perhaps you would be better served by hanging out with your guide/outfitter friends instead of fraternizing with the 'unwashed masses' here.

[Fisher-Dude]

Also know that say a GO does not fill all tags, and I have first hand reports of this for stone sheep in northern BC from a paying client, that the quota for the GO will be lowered 3 years later. So guess what happens? Joe blow from Mexico, or a buddy of a guide etc. gets to go on a super cheap stone hunt. So even if it's a 'poor' season for sheep numbers or why the GO wants all sheep harvested or they're quota will be lowered. Doesn't seem like the best way for conservation, they're all about the money. More hunts will be booked than sheep tags available to help ensure all tags are filled. Hunters are positioned and basically set up for failure if number of tags are getting low. Even in that instance however it seems penalties for going over quota seems potentially insignificant?



That scenario of use it or lose it has been discontinued under the new policy.



I hate to say it but for as many sheep,tags as these GO are allotted it wouldn't break my heart to see it go to LEH or one every three years etc. for Stones'. PROVIDING the GO outfitter took a huge cut in the # of tags, which we know probably wouldn't be lowered enough. The quality of rams would definitely go up though.
Also fill out the resident LEH hunter success questionnaire because excess animals not harvested might just be getting handed over to the GO.


There's no conservation concern at this point that would require residents to go back to 1 in 3 or on LEH. Most certainly, the GOABC wants us back on that in order to hinder resident hunters and kick us off the mountains, but that's simply social management and not science-based conservation. To me, a banana ram and a 10 year old full curl have equal quality as animals. YMMV.

[Squire]

Squire, apt choice of a screen name,
squire:
ˈskwī(ə)r/,
noun, a man of high social standing who owns and lives on an estate in a rural area, especially the chief landowner in such an area,
synonyms:



landowner (https://www.google.ca/search?biw=1093&bih=496&q=define+landowner&sa=X&ei=XQDVVITpAoauogTHj4L4Bw&ved=0CB4Q_SowAA), landholder (https://www.google.ca/search?biw=1093&bih=496&q=define+landholder&sa=X&ei=XQDVVITpAoauogTHj4L4Bw&ved=0CB8Q_SowAA), landlord (https://www.google.ca/search?biw=1093&bih=496&q=define+landlord&sa=X&ei=XQDVVITpAoauogTHj4L4Bw&ved=0CCAQ_SowAA), lord of the manor, country gentleman (https://www.google.ca/search?biw=1093&bih=496&q=define+country+gentleman&sa=X&ei=XQDVVITpAoauogTHj4L4Bw&ved=0CCEQ_SowAA) "the squire of the village"

You know the fellow who has all the game on his estate and will not allow the commoners to hunt. Perhaps you would be better served by hanging out with your guide/outfitter friends instead of fraternizing with the 'unwashed masses' here.









It's a nickname from childhood because it rhymes with my last name but now I realize that a more childish origin is possible. I have no GO friends or associates and I am disappointed in the new allocation policy. Saying that, I am also disappointed in the unsophisticated approach to the issue by many posters on HBC. As a resident hunter, you unfortunately represent me as well and I posted with the hope of tempering some of the runaway anger with objective reflection. Alas, for the most part I have failed. As they say on the 'Dragon's Den', "I'm out".