guide allotment numbers public info??

[guest]

One of the Biologists I have spoke to in depth on the conversation of nanny harvest is tough to identify for hunters, if they close the nannies completely, some are harvested, it then goes to court and the judge throws the case out just because of the tough ID. That said, harvesting nannies should be avoided at all cost, in a lot of cases they are the leads for the groups, they are in charge, not the billies one would expect. They lead the juveniles to summer and winter range. Watch big groups out of rut time and you too will see. Shooting a lead or senior nanny can be detrimental to smaller groups exposing them to much more danger then normal. This all said, demand for goats by residents is growing ........ And non resident allocation should be decreasing, not increasing.
The mud keeps flowing from the Government and their political management method rather then science. Quite sickening to see.

[Fisher-Dude]

Lots of studies out there that say shooting nannies is not good for the population.

I have spoken to a bio about this and the response I was given was the reason it is allowed is the difficulty many have telling the difference between billies and nannies. This could have just been this bio's opinion but it is the reason I was given.

It depends on the individual population as to what degree of female harvest it will withstand and still be sustainable.

Since goat harvest is strictly monitored and reported, managers have excellent data to make decisions on harvest levels. If more females are harvested than is deemed sustainable, AAH is adjusted.

The issue here is a guide outfitter saying lazy resident hunters shoot all the nannies, but harvest stats from compulsory inspection indicate that guides are killing basically just as many nannies as residents.

Giving a guy an audience who is spewing bullshit like we've just seen is counter-productive to learning about what makes good wildlife management and what we can do about it.

[bearvalley]

Since goat harvest is strictly monitored and reported, managers have excellent data to make decisions on harvest levels. If more females are harvested than is deemed sustainable, AAH is adjusted.

Giving a guy an audience who is spewing bullshit like we've just seen is counter-productive to learning about what makes good wildlife management and what we can do about it.


Isnt this the protocol for all species and what the "Real" wildlife managers base their decisions on?

How can you recognize bullshit when you're floating in it?
FD you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. It's because of players from both sides that had your mindset that the Minister finally made a decision, right or wrong. I hope you can put as much effort in the future with wildlife management moving forward as you have at mouthing off on this forum.
IMHO

[Wild one]

It depends on the individual population as to what degree of female harvest it will withstand and still be sustainable.

Since goat harvest is strictly monitored and reported, managers have excellent data to make decisions on harvest levels. If more females are harvested than is deemed sustainable, AAH is adjusted.

The issue here is a guide outfitter saying lazy resident hunters shoot all the nannies, but harvest stats from compulsory inspection indicate that guides are killing basically just as many nannies as residents.

Giving a guy an audience who is spewing bullshit like we've just seen is counter-productive to learning about what makes good wildlife management and what we can do about it.


So really both sides should try to avoid nannie harvest regardless if they are resident or GO when it comes to a management stand point.

This is all that really matters in the end.

[bearvalley]

So really both sides should try to avoid nannie harvest regardless if they are resident or GO when it comes to a management stand point.

This is all that really matters in the end.

That is exactly the case. The same holds true for a slight over run on quota or LEH harvest, there should be no penalty for either. Total abuse of allocated share is another story.

[Whonnock Boy]

Yes, that is what matters but, the first step to recovery is admitting you are part of the problem, and not just a minor component of it, in fact, a major one.

So really both sides should try to avoid nannie harvest regardless if they are resident or GO when it comes to a management stand point.

This is all that really matters in the end.

[bridger]

Isnt this his the protocol for all species and what the "Real" wildlife managers base their decisions on?

How can you recognize bullshit when you're floating in it?
FD you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. It's because of players from both sides that had your mindset that the Minister finally made a decision, right or wrong. I hope you can put as much effort in the future with wildlife management moving forward as you have at mouthing off on this forum.


IMHO


Some of what you say us valid but I point out that the minister did not make a decision based on the mindset of both sides. This decision is coming from the goabc lobby. We had an agreement in place. The goabc jumped ship and bought its way to the front of the line. This isn't just about a few small outfitters getting one or two moose. This is a push to change the direction of wildlife management towards commercial interests. This little spat over two or three moose is a smokescreen. It's just phase one.

[srupp]

Thanks for the detailed explanation I will get throight it yet today.
Appreciate the time and effort.
Steven

[Fisher-Dude]

That is exactly the case. The same holds true for a slight over run on quota or LEH harvest, there should be no penalty for either. Total abuse of allocated share is another story.


So if I get a moose LEH, and see two moose together, I should be allowed to shoot both because one more moose is just a slight overrun of quota? 'Cause that's what an outfitter is allowed to do with his quota, thanks to Thomson's OiC Gift.

Just wondering if that's cool with you.

[The Dawg]

So if I get a moose LEH, and see two moose together, I should be allowed to shoot both because one more moose is just a slight overrun of quota? 'Cause that's what an outfitter is allowed to do with his quota, thanks to Thomson's OiC Gift.

Just wondering if that's cool with you.


No- that would be complete abuse of the allocations.

But if your membership is up to date, you're all good.

[bridger]

The real unfairness in quota over run is that it allows sheep outfitters to target specific rams found late in the season after their quotas are filled. Especially tough on hunts where residents are on leh. Outfitter sees a big ram calls a good old boy in Texas. Says he's found a big ram. Texas flies up shoots ram in a couple of days goes home. Not much of an experience, but trophy hunting at its finest. Meantime resident leh tag holder left out. Quota over runs are absolutely unnecessary for guides to make a living. Simply manipulating the political system.

[one-shot-wonder]

This whole issue is easy to understand if you look past the smokescreen Ellis and the premeire are throwing up. The exact numbers of animals is not as important as is the direction of the overall plan the goabc is putting together. Go back to the economic viability plan that Ellis presented on 2009 and that he is still presenting.

The goabc is asking government to change to the benefit of g/o's the way in which wildlife and hunting seasons are managed. These changes really impact resident hunters.

1) manage all species for trophy hunting. No regulations that support meat hunting by residents

2) no support for regulations that will increase resident hunter numbers at the expense of quality hunting experiences (trophy hunting). Which means no moving leh hunts to GOS something that was in the 2007 allocation policy.

3) no open seasons for residents if guides are on quota. ( no resident priority. All resident sheep hunters on leh)

This is a longterm plan by the Goabc to keep residents on leh, put all resident sheep hunters on leh, and to further reduce resident hunter numbers by reducing opportunities.

Chilicotin Hillbilly talked earlier on this thread that residents weren't taking enough goats so the bio increased the non resident share. Part of the plan. Keep resident harvest low with leh. Increase g/o share He also complained about residents taking nannies (non trophies in the eyes of g/o's) sheep guides are always complaining residents shoot under 8 year old rams. ( not a trophy if not over eight years old) too many sows in the grizzly harvest. The list goes on.

I know a lot of the smaller outfitters are having a tough time with moose numbers down, but giving them more quota isn't going to solve their problems.. 25% of f/a is still f/a. The small outfitters are not driving the goabc bus. They have been thrown under it as well.

The real issue here is that government has virtually abandoned wildlife management and the Goabc is supporting that direction by crying poor and asking for increased quota instead of proper management.

Some of the key issues in the allocation policy of 2007:

Were reasonable percentages, movement away from leh(to be used only as a last resort) and that we would work together to change the direction of management.

These ingredients were arrived at to ensure the sustainability of the guiding industry, maintain and create more opportunities for residents, and really benefit the resource. By charting it's own course the Goabc has basically abandoned any pre text of co-operation.

As a resident hunter I feel really threatened by back room deals that are really political payback and the direction I see my hunting future going. My considerable experience in allocation issues tells me this push by the Goabc will continue until the three objectives are met. This campaign won't stop at the Thomson Decision.

This summary sums what this thread is actually about..... never mind the minutia talking about nanny harvest or R5 moose quota.

[GoatGuy]

Allocation policy? Residents have 78% outfitters have 22% what's the problem? But if you look in some areas say for leh, residents hunters have 50 goats in 5 years outfitters have 1. Another area in three regions in outfitters area residents have close to 400 leh moose the outfitter only has 7 moose. So please explain to me how outfitters have all the game that their shooting. But here's a kicker, out of residents harvest.... for grizzlies the harvest rate is 40 to 50% is female and same with goats. But outfitters run about 5 to 7% but we both lose quota how is that fair, it should come out of resident quota not outfitter because guides spent the time to judge the animal why should our quota be affected? That's why we should have the d-linking harvest policy. Why should I lose being able to feed my family because other people are careless or Impatient. Like really... are we all for hunting? Some are residents some are outfitters but we are all looking to look after everything so are kids or grand kids can hunt or outfit. You may think it all looks bad, loosing cow quotas and calf season. But in the long run it will benefit us all. Don't we not have enough trouble with Sierra Club and the likes to be fighting amongst are selves..... like really maybe it's time to grow up.


Resident hunters harvest 40-50% sows and nannies??

And outfitters run about 4-7% on sows and nannies??

Please show the data.

Knight167, second time asking the same question. I see you've been on here numerous times since the question was asked.

Show the data.

[bridger]

Knight167 I would still like an explanation why BC guides need such large allocation shares as compared to other jurisdictions? Not picking at a sore point, but I think that explanation is paramount to understanding this whole mess.

[Island Redneck]

Can anyone tell me who was at the table representing resident hunters at the re- allocation meetings with the GOABC and the MOE. also how many meetings did they have before the new allocations were announced.

[burger]

Knight167 I would still like an explanation why BC guides need such large allocation shares as compared to other jurisdictions? Not picking at a sore point, but I think that explanation is paramount to understanding this whole mess.


I think there gonna plea the 5th....

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Does that mean no cow moose, no cow elk, no doe mule deer? No meat hunting for residents. If wildlife managers don't want nannies harvested for conservation concerns let them make the call.

Your attitude is typical of a trophy hunting only platform. Sounds like Ellis talking.

You are typically missing the point in this entire issue. That being!

We need to get politics and personal agendas the hell out of wildlife management. And no I don't believe guide outfitters are qualified to manage wildlife. Nor do I believe most of them are concerned about anything other than their bottom line. Bighorn off quota sorta tells it all!

You seem to be an exception so how about dealing with the real issue for a change! You need more moose on the landscape not more from the residents harvest share. Deal with that issue and leave residents harvest share alone.

Work with us, quit beating a dead horse. Increased quota means nothing. Doubling the moose population? Priceless!

You nailed it with that last sentence. I have always felt youth hunters and seniors should have first crack at all antlerless deer, moose and elk.

I do my part for increasing ungulates in my neck of the woods but i will never see any extra tags from the all the work I put in. I do it for the wildlife and for all the hunters.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

It depends on the individual population as to what degree of female harvest it will withstand and still be sustainable.

Since goat harvest is strictly monitored and reported, managers have excellent data to make decisions on harvest levels. If more females are harvested than is deemed sustainable, AAH is adjusted.

The issue here is a guide outfitter saying lazy resident hunters shoot all the nannies, but harvest stats from compulsory inspection indicate that guides are killing basically just as many nannies as residents.

Giving a guy an audience who is spewing bullshit like we've just seen is counter-productive to learning about what makes good wildlife management and what we can do about it.

I discussed nanny harvest with our biologist a couple weeks back. He claims there are a lot of nannies being passed off as billies yet they have no way to prove it being as you only need to bring in the skull for inspection.

[coach]

CH - are you saying the inspectors can't tell the difference?

[Fisher-Dude]

I discussed nanny harvest with our biologist a couple weeks back. He claims there are a lot of nannies being passed off as billies yet they have no way to prove it being as you only need to bring in the skull for inspection.

That sounds like something guys who buy off politicians would do. Not seeing much that shows any honesty nor integrity in those people.

On the flip side, the every day hunters I know wouldn't be the type to lie about their harvest, as their link to an adjustment to AAH from nanny harvest isn't financially ¢on$equential for them.

Interesting. From this, if what CH says is true, one could surmise, rightly or wrongly, that non-resident harvest of nanny goats is possibly even higher than that of residents.

What an interesting turn of events. Thanks for the input CH.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

CH - are you saying the inspectors can't tell the difference?

Coach when they only have the horns to look at it becomes their word against the hunters. It appears to be a common problem. Having a regulation change of bringing in the hide would fix that problem. We have to do it for grizz and cougar why not goat.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

That sounds like something guys who buy off politicians would do. Not seeing much that shows any honesty nor integrity in those people.

On the flip side, the every day hunters I know wouldn't be the type to lie about their harvest, as their link to an adjustment to AAH from nanny harvest isn't financially ¢on$equential for them.

Interesting. From this, if what CH says is true, one could surmise, rightly or wrongly, that non-resident harvest of nanny goats is possibly even higher than that of residents.

What an interesting turn of events. Thanks for the input CH.

You really are an FD, what have you done lately for wildlife?

[Gateholio]

Let's try to play nice, people.

[The Dawg]

You really are an FD, what have you done lately for wildlife?


Well I know hes helping fight these allocations that take the wildlife away from RH.

But thats just my opinion....

[rgn5hunt]

Well I know hes helping fight these allocations that take the wildlife away from RH.

But thats just my opinion....
There is a news update on the goabc website. One thing it points out is the 2007 W A Policy was the main reason for hardships. I thought the Global economy was a big problem, it was never mentioned.

[Argali]

Knight167 I would still like an explanation why BC guides need such large allocation shares as compared to other jurisdictions? Not picking at a sore point, but I think that explanation is paramount to understanding this whole mess.

Interesting question to think about. Which other jurisdictions do you want to comparie and which animals?

If you look at the western states, they all have very limited numbers of sheep, goat and moose, with resident hunters far out-numbering the tags available. That they make any tags available to non-residents is surprising. Completely different scenario than BC where there are GOS seasons on sheep, goat, caribou, moose, elk, and grizzly LEH that are consistently undersubscribed. If you want to hunt goats in BC, you can apply for one of the popular LEH in the south, or head north if unsuccessful - but the opportunity to hunt is always there.

For elk and deer, many states provide abundant opportunites for non resident. Montana for example provides 17,000 elk-deer combos ($971) and 6600 deer combos ($575) for non-residents on a first-come basis. License buyer can hunt in any GOS season without guides. Revenues from these sales generate abut $20M a year for the F&W dept. Compare that with paltry revenues generated by BC residents and the approx 4500 nonresidents. So Montana, with a population of only 1M and a land mass much smaller than BC, hosts nearly 4 times as many non-resident hunters and generates much higher revenue just from their nonresidents.

Many of the other western states operate under similar models to Montana. Only when the number of animals available is greatly exceeded by resident hunters do you have allocation/quota/lottery/governor tag issues (eg. sheep, goat, moose. Or elk/mule deer in some of the more open fringe areas like New Mex, Arizona, Utah, Nevada.)

In general, I think the southern states provide ample non-resident hunting opportunity, and it is mostly simpler, cheaper, and generates more direct revenue for F&W than the B.C. guide - nonresident system.

The Yukon GO system is probably most similar to BC, particularly northern B.C, so it would be interesting to review their allocation numbers if available. The low resident population in Yukon will likely skew the numbers.

Alaska has about 100K resident hunters (similar to BC) and 15K nonresidents (about 3X more than BC). Since many of the nonresidents are DIY, the nonresident moose and caribou harvest is typically proportional or less than the residents (eg. about 91% of moose and 97% of caribou go to residents). Sheep are probably higher as more nonresidents will employ guide services for sheep. I dont have the number on sheep. If all the nonresidents were obligated to use a GO with exclusive areas (like the BC system), then costs would obivously increase, the number of nonresidents would drop - but the harvest would likely increase due to higher success ratio that hunters have when guided by professionals with exclusive guiding areas.

Based on observation of the US models, the B.C. GO model results in fewer nonresident hunters, lower F&W license revenues - but higher harvests due to increased success when using a guide. Higher harvests, in turn lead to competition for increased allocation, particularly in remote areas where guides may feel residents are under-utilizing their portion of the resource.

If it is all about generating revenue, then it would make more sense to scrap the GO system, allow more non-residents to hunt DIY in certain areas for certain animals with higher license/tag prices. GOs would operate unguided packing/transport/camp services available for both residents and non-residents on an equal footing, perhaps with some limitations on hunter numbers if popularity of such services surges beyond carrying capacity. Thus residents and nonresidents would compete equally in the field, but the nonresidents would provide a signficant increase of license/tag revenue, exceeding what residents can generate.

eg. you could limit the number of nonresidents to 10 to 15% of residents (say 15K) and charge them 15X for license/tags).

Obviously, about a dozen GOs with $40K Stone's are going barf on this model but with increasing resident demand for packing into remote areas, there is good business potential for well-run packing/camp outfits catering to both residents and nonresident. However, for the smaller GOs without $40K Stones, the current business model really isn't working that well, and it is more likely to get worse than better especially if moose populations continue to struggle. Probably easier and more stable revenue to provide a nice packing/camp setup for 10-12 resident LEH moose hunters than fight for allocations and then try to sell 1 or 2 nonresident moose hunts.

[Ambush]

As with most all models that have a potential for financial gain, one only has to follow the money.

"Joe" has a business. It has " stock" assets. You can sell the limited number of assets that you have and you can sell your business to only a certain type of buyer.

Now increase the amount of stock [at no cost to you] and open up the potential buyers market to anyone and you have vastly increased the saleable price of your business with no more investment from yourself.

This is is ALL about money!!!! And mostly for the elite that run the GOABC!

I feel sorry for you CH, but you're being robbed by your own, not by me or the rest of the resident hunters of BC.

And Srupp, your mind is being clouded by your Meds and your relationship to ONE GO.

The tables have turned and "....this is not going to end in a good place..." for the GOABC. Hard to have any sympathy for anyone who gets what they wished upon someone else.

[burger]

As with most all models that have a potential for financial gain, one only has to follow the money.

"Joe" has a business. It has " stock" assets. You can sell the limited number of assets that you have and you can sell your business to only a certain type of buyer.

Now increase the amount of stock [at no cost to you] and open up the potential buyers market to anyone and you have vastly increased the saleable price of your business with no more investment from yourself.

This is is ALL about money!!!! And mostly for the elite that run the GOABC!

I feel sorry for you CH, but you're being robbed by your own, not by me or the rest of the resident hunters of BC.

And Srupp, your mind is being clouded by your Meds and your relationship to ONE GO.

The tables have turned and "....this is not going to end in a good place..." for the GOABC. Hard to have any sympathy for anyone who gets what they wished upon someone else.


Ya never understood the rational. "Hey if you give us more allocations we will be able to, as our supposed mandate exclaims, help wildlife populations even though we have higher success rates therefore we will harvest a larger percentage"

Oh I see that makes sense!! NOT!!!!

I hear Jerry Maquire... SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!!!

[40incher]

Interesting question to think about. Which other jurisdictions do you want to comparie and which animals?

If you look at the western states, they all have very limited numbers of sheep, goat and moose, with resident hunters far out-numbering the tags available. That they make any tags available to non-residents is surprising. Completely different scenario than BC where there are GOS seasons on sheep, goat, caribou, moose, elk, and grizzly LEH that are consistently undersubscribed. If you want to hunt goats in BC, you can apply for one of the popular LEH in the south, or head north if unsuccessful - but the opportunity to hunt is always there.

For elk and deer, many states provide abundant opportunites for non resident. Montana for example provides 17,000 elk-deer combos ($971) and 6600 deer combos ($575) for non-residents on a first-come basis. License buyer can hunt in any GOS season without guides. Revenues from these sales generate abut $20M a year for the F&W dept. Compare that with paltry revenues generated by BC residents and the approx 4500 nonresidents. So Montana, with a population of only 1M and a land mass much smaller than BC, hosts nearly 4 times as many non-resident hunters and generates much higher revenue just from their nonresidents.

Many of the other western states operate under similar models to Montana. Only when the number of animals available is greatly exceeded by resident hunters do you have allocation/quota/lottery/governor tag issues (eg. sheep, goat, moose. Or elk/mule deer in some of the more open fringe areas like New Mex, Arizona, Utah, Nevada.)

In general, I think the southern states provide ample non-resident hunting opportunity, and it is mostly simpler, cheaper, and generates more direct revenue for F&W than the B.C. guide - nonresident system.

The Yukon GO system is probably most similar to BC, particularly northern B.C, so it would be interesting to review their allocation numbers if available. The low resident population in Yukon will likely skew the numbers.

Alaska has about 100K resident hunters (similar to BC) and 15K nonresidents (about 3X more than BC). Since many of the nonresidents are DIY, the nonresident moose and caribou harvest is typically proportional or less than the residents (eg. about 91% of moose and 97% of caribou go to residents). Sheep are probably higher as more nonresidents will employ guide services for sheep. I dont have the number on sheep. If all the nonresidents were obligated to use a GO with exclusive areas (like the BC system), then costs would obivously increase, the number of nonresidents would drop - but the harvest would likely increase due to higher success ratio that hunters have when guided by professionals with exclusive guiding areas.

Based on observation of the US models, the B.C. GO model results in fewer nonresident hunters, lower F&W license revenues - but higher harvests due to increased success when using a guide. Higher harvests, in turn lead to competition for increased allocation, particularly in remote areas where guides may feel residents are under-utilizing their portion of the resource.

If it is all about generating revenue, then it would make more sense to scrap the GO system, allow more non-residents to hunt DIY in certain areas for certain animals with higher license/tag prices. GOs would operate unguided packing/transport/camp services available for both residents and non-residents on an equal footing, perhaps with some limitations on hunter numbers if popularity of such services surges beyond carrying capacity. Thus residents and nonresidents would compete equally in the field, but the nonresidents would provide a signficant increase of license/tag revenue, exceeding what residents can generate.

eg. you could limit the number of nonresidents to 10 to 15% of residents (say 15K) and charge them 15X for license/tags).

Obviously, about a dozen GOs with $40K Stone's are going barf on this model but with increasing resident demand for packing into remote areas, there is good business potential for well-run packing/camp outfits catering to both residents and nonresident. However, for the smaller GOs without $40K Stones, the current business model really isn't working that well, and it is more likely to get worse than better especially if moose populations continue to struggle. Probably easier and more stable revenue to provide a nice packing/camp setup for 10-12 resident LEH moose hunters than fight for allocations and then try to sell 1 or 2 nonresident moose hunts.


Geez ... I dunno ... sounds like a "free-enterprise" model to me. The guides definitely want the BC "protectionist" model to continue on. The guides have basically been given a license to print money in BC ... but that wasn't good enough ... they had to get greedy. At least the big conglomerates, and the so-called family operations that thought they were "big".

I'm all for free enterprise ... let the good ones survive and the crappy ones disappear. Get more real revenue from non-residents flowing to the benefit of the province BC instead of into foreign bank accounts.

Let's also find a way to keep the smaller, low-impact, GO's in the game!

[bridger]

Interesting question to think about. Which other jurisdictions do you want to comparie and which animals?

If you look at the western states, they all have very limited numbers of sheep, goat and moose, with resident hunters far out-numbering the tags available. That they make any tags available to non-residents is surprising. Completely different scenario than BC where there are GOS seasons on sheep, goat, caribou, moose, elk, and grizzly LEH that are consistently undersubscribed. If you want to hunt goats in BC, you can apply for one of the popular LEH in the south, or head north if unsuccessful - but the opportunity to hunt is always there.

For elk and deer, many states provide abundant opportunites for non resident. Montana for example provides 17,000 elk-deer combos ($971) and 6600 deer combos ($575) for non-residents on a first-come basis. License buyer can hunt in any GOS season without guides. Revenues from these sales generate abut $20M a year for the F&W dept. Compare that with paltry revenues generated by BC residents and the approx 4500 nonresidents. So Montana, with a population of only 1M and a land mass much smaller than BC, hosts nearly 4 times as many non-resident hunters and generates much higher revenue just from their nonresidents.

Many of the other western states operate under similar models to Montana. Only when the number of animals available is greatly exceeded by resident hunters do you have allocation/quota/lottery/governor tag issues (eg. sheep, goat, moose. Or elk/mule deer in some of the more open fringe areas like New Mex, Arizona, Utah, Nevada.)

In general, I think the southern states provide ample non-resident hunting opportunity, and it is mostly simpler, cheaper, and generates more direct revenue for F&W than the B.C. guide - nonresident system.

The Yukon GO system is probably most similar to BC, particularly northern B.C, so it would be interesting to review their allocation numbers if available. The low resident population in Yukon will likely skew the numbers.

Alaska has about 100K resident hunters (similar to BC) and 15K nonresidents (about 3X more than BC). Since many of the nonresidents are DIY, the nonresident moose and caribou harvest is typically proportional or less than the residents (eg. about 91% of moose and 97% of caribou go to residents). Sheep are probably higher as more nonresidents will employ guide services for sheep. I dont have the number on sheep. If all the nonresidents were obligated to use a GO with exclusive areas (like the BC system), then costs would obivously increase, the number of nonresidents would drop - but the harvest would likely increase due to higher success ratio that hunters have when guided by professionals with exclusive guiding areas.

Based on observation of the US models, the B.C. GO model results in fewer nonresident hunters, lower F&W license revenues - but higher harvests due to increased success when using a guide. Higher harvests, in turn lead to competition for increased allocation, particularly in remote areas where guides may feel residents are under-utilizing their portion of the resource.

If it is all about generating revenue, then it would make more sense to scrap the GO system, allow more non-residents to hunt DIY in certain areas for certain animals with higher license/tag prices. GOs would operate unguided packing/transport/camp services available for both residents and non-residents on an equal footing, perhaps with some limitations on hunter numbers if popularity of such services surges beyond carrying capacity. Thus residents and nonresidents would compete equally in the field, but the nonresidents would provide a signficant increase of license/tag revenue, exceeding what residents can generate.

eg. you could limit the number of nonresidents to 10 to 15% of residents (say 15K) and charge them 15X for license/tags).

Obviously, about a dozen GOs with $40K Stone's are going barf on this model but with increasing resident demand for packing into remote areas, there is good business potential for well-run packing/camp outfits catering to both residents and nonresident. However, for the smaller GOs without $40K Stones, the current business model really isn't working that well, and it is more likely to get worse than better especially if moose populations continue to struggle. Probably easier and more stable revenue to provide a nice packing/camp setup for 10-12 resident LEH moose hunters than fight for allocations and then try to sell 1 or 2 nonresident moose hunts.


Great analogy! This was the point I was trying to draw out from the goabc. Wanted to see if anyone from the industry could understand or explain what most of us see that needs to be fixed.

Also agree we need to keep small BC outfitting families in the game.

[bandit]

I think the idea of a draw with high fees and preference points for non residents has some merit. Particularly if the fees were legislated to be spent on CO's, biologists and habitat. Instead the money from non residents gets frittered away to guides.

And to think the government and GOABC are saying increasing game populations should be everyone's goal. The solution is right under their nose and they can't even see it!!

[chilcotin hillbilly]

You do realize a moose tag runs $250 for a non resident and then a royalty is paid about the same if one is killed. A grizzly bear puts $2000 in the government pockets if one is killed, $1000 just for the tag. A resident tag for a grizz is what $75 the government is supposed to look after wildlife in the best interest of the residents, this does not necessarily mean resident hunters.

I think you will never see license and tag fees go directly to wildlife as long as we have to pay for all the other social programs the general public wants.
It is to bad this fight has split the hunting community as the fee structure and directed funds should be a targeted goal between outfitters and residents. This would provide long term funding for wildlife enhancement and conservation.

[bridger]

You do realize a moose tag runs $250 for a non resident and then a royalty is paid about the same if one is killed. A grizzly bear puts $2000 in the government pockets if one is killed, $1000 just for the tag. A resident tag for a grizz is what $75 the government is supposed to look after wildlife in the best interest of the residents, this does not necessarily mean resident hunters.

I think you will never see license and tag fees go directly to wildlife as long as we have to pay for all the other social programs the general public wants.
It is to bad this fight has split the hunting community as the fee structure and directed funds should be a targeted goal between outfitters and residents. This would provide long term funding for wildlife enhancement and conservation.

I am not one who usually beats a dead horse but the fee structure is a topic that needs closer examination. If non residents were put on leh and had to pay a non refundable application fee those fees would provide significant funding to be used for wildlife management. Non residents would still pay a license, tag, and royalty fee.

If the goabc can charge non residents $200 for the non resident hunting enhancement fund that raises $500/600 thousand annually why can't the government do the same. Those funds could go straight into management.

[tuner]

A stone sheep hunt that goes from $40 to $48k for a guided hunt,nets the government a paltry $250/ royalty fee on top of the license and tag.Thats not exactly a huge return for the most coveted trophy spicies in north America.

[Whonnock Boy]

If non residents were put on leh and had to pay a non refundable application fee those fees would provide significant funding to be used for wildlife management. Non residents would still pay a license, tag, and royalty fee.

If the goabc can charge non residents $200 for the non resident hunting enhancement fund that raises $500/600 thousand annually why can't the government do the same. Those funds could go straight into management.

I will add, I truly believe the license fees, and royalty rates could be increased significantly, and the common man that didn't have to pay 40K for a sheep hunt would gladly pay it for a do it yourself hunt. Lots of them!

[chilcotin hillbilly]

A stone sheep hunt that goes from $40 to $48k for a guided hunt,nets the government a paltry $250/ royalty fee on top of the license and tag.Thats not exactly a huge return for the most coveted trophy spicies in north America.

Your right it is not. 5% to the government would not be out of line. BUT only if it went to wildlife. would residents pay more if it went directly to wildlife? The key is where the money goes.

It is interesting to me is the fight over the amount of animals in question. These small amount is such a drop in a bucket compared to how many animals we could grow with a little work on road closures, vehicle elevation closures, deactivating of spur roads, mandatory reseeding of spur roads and landings for wildlife.
Willow cutting is a huge help in moose habitat enhancement, I saw how it helped out near Merritt in a spot I used to hunt.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Is there anyone actually getting $40 grand for a stone sheep, let alone $48000 if so who?

[bridger]

Is there anyone actually getting $40 grand for a stone sheep, let alone $48000 if so who?

Pick a number! I know one outfitter that got $100,000 for a big special order ram this fall. One g/o is at $60,000 for a special circumstance hunt.

[bridger]

Your right it is not. 5% to the government would not be out of line. BUT only if it went to wildlife. would residents pay more if it went directly to wildlife? The key is where the money goes.

It is interesting to me is the fight over the amount of animals in question. These small amount is such a drop in a bucket compared to how many animals we could grow with a little work on road closures, vehicle elevation closures, deactivating of spur roads, mandatory reseeding of spur roads and landings for wildlife.
Willow cutting is a huge help in moose habitat enhancement, I saw how it helped out near Merritt in a spot I used to hunt.

we agree on the direction we should be heading that is for certain. I don't how ever agree that it's just about a few animals. This is a scrap about the future of hunting in our province. It won't end with the Thomson Decision. It's just a Goabc shot across the bow and unfortunately I fear a lot of outfitters are on the boat with resident hunters. Maybe wrong on that but my experience tells me I am not.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Pick a number! I know one outfitter that got $100,000 for a big special order ram this fall. One g/o is at $60,000 for a special circumstance hunt.

Fact or want to be fact. Outfitters would not want that getting out if it was true, at least i wouldn't think. Definitely not not the norm. $30-35 is normal.

[tuner]

Is there anyone actually getting $40 grand for a stone sheep, let alone $48000 if so who?
I can't recall the outfitter,but $48k was the listed price for a stone sheep hunt, there was no time limit so if it took the whole season there was no additional charge,as well if unsuccessful there was an $8k credit for the following year if the hunter wanted to return.

[one-shot-wonder]

Chil Bill,

Whats a cali hunt go for in Reg 5 these days?

They are a high priced hunt in the thompson/Okanagan......

[The Dawg]

I know of one that goes for roughly $70k

[180grainer]

Pick a number! I know one outfitter that got $100,000 for a big special order ram this fall. One g/o is at $60,000 for a special circumstance hunt.
For a guy who can throw away $100,000 or even $60,000 on a sheep hunt, surely he/she can pay $5000.00 for the non-resident tag. Why would that be unreasonable? We're talking about two significantly different groups of people, (at least when it comes to what one can bare financially) when discussing resident vs non-resident hunters. Non resident hunter fee's should go directly into wildlife and habitat enhancement. After all, resident hunters can say they already do that through general revenue taxes. Although I'd like to see our tag costs go directly to W and H efforts too.

[EvanG]

Wild one,

This is hunting BC not Alberta where we bait bears.

There are more than a few guides that's use gut piles as bait, their stupid clients love telling the full story when they send the story into super slam

[bridger]

Fact or want to be fact. Outfitters would not want that getting out if it was true, at least i wouldn't think. Definitely not not the norm. $30-35 is normal.

Most don't post prices on their websites. Stone mtn is at $38,500 US funds of course so add another $7500.
thats one of the drivers in this issue. A few moose here or there is a smokescreen. Thomson Decision added another guaranteed 50 stones in 7b. Don't have to have a PHD too crunch those numbers.

[Argali]

There are more than a few guides that's use gut piles as bait, their stupid clients love telling the full story when they send the story into super slam
Yeah that's funny.
Or guides that publish photos of themselves with BC dall rams in the Yukon.

[tuner]

Is there anyone actually getting $40 grand for a stone sheep, let alone $48000 if so who?
Prophet Muskwa Outfitters has stone sheep hunt priced at $46500/ base price. Check out their site. Ashnola guide outfitters offers a Cali bighorn $50K and yes all rates are in US dollars.

[tuner]

Most don't post prices on their websites. Stone mtn is at $38,500 US funds of course so add another $7500.
thats one of the drivers in this issue. A few moose here or there is a smokescreen. Thomson Decision added another guaranteed 50 stones in 7b. Don't have to have a PHD too crunch those numbers.
I noticed that as well, a few years back most sites had an open rates list,now you have to call in for a quote.

[kawdy]

tuner,
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe those are US dollar figures they quote. Based on todays currency exchange rate that is over 58,000 CDN.

[The Dawg]

tuner,
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe those are US dollar figures they quote. Based on todays currency exchange rate that is over 58,000 CDN.

90% are in US funds, yes

[GoatGuy]

You do realize a moose tag runs $250 for a non resident and then a royalty is paid about the same if one is killed. A grizzly bear puts $2000 in the government pockets if one is killed, $1000 just for the tag. A resident tag for a grizz is what $75 the government is supposed to look after wildlife in the best interest of the residents, this does not necessarily mean resident hunters.

I think you will never see license and tag fees go directly to wildlife as long as we have to pay for all the other social programs the general public wants.
It is to bad this fight has split the hunting community as the fee structure and directed funds should be a targeted goal between outfitters and residents. This would provide long term funding for wildlife enhancement and conservation.

The non-hunting benefits to BC residents are not even a rounding error on a rounding error. That is the Schneider speech - ironically GOABC has been busy supporting legislation which is actually reducing those social benefits. You wouldn't find an economist in the province who would call the contribution "significant" or that the current model even scratches the surface of efficiency. The current model is heavily subsidized, and the tax breaks that have occured as well as licensing changes are just making it that much more regressive. If you want to maximize the benefits to British Columbians the first thing we would do is get rid of the exclusive territories, the second would be to get rid of the mandatory guide requirement. That would be the end of it. So go that route if you want, but that story doesn't end the way you think it does.

Never bothered to bring this up before but GOABC was asked to support the concept of a dedicated model. NO LETTER OF SUPPORT. Far too focused on 0.5 moose allocation and dodging radicals, then focusing on wildlife. The GOABC has not and cannot see the big picture - it is impossible for the organization and the players involved. That is why you are seeing some of the longest standing and most reputable outfitters in BC jumping ship.

This has not split the hunting community; this has split resident hunters and GOABC. The rest is collateral damage that is probably going to get worse.

You can keep blaming resident hunters or you can figure it out.

[Walksalot]

B.C. Mines Minister faces scrutiny over ties to guide-outfitting operationMARK HUME and JUSTINE HUNTER

VANCOUVER and VICTORIA * The Globe and Mail

PublishedThursday, Feb. 19 2015, 8:30 AM EST

Last updatedThursday, Feb. 19 2015, 8:30 AM EST

When Bill Bennett entered politics, he portrayed himself as “the voice of the hunter” in the B.C. Legislature.

But after 14 years, Mr. Bennett – now the province’s powerful Mines Minister – finds himself in conflict with hunters, and facing scrutiny over his ties to Height of the Rockies Adventure Co. Ltd., a guide outfitting operation that owes him $70,000 for a shareholder loan.

A long-simmering feud between British Columbia’s 97,000 resident hunters and 245 professional guide outfitters who cater to wealthy foreign clients exploded in December, when the government introduced changes that reallocated the share of wildlife, giving an increased share to guides.

Some of the changes could potentially raise the market value of guide-outfitting operations – among other things, by increasing wildlife allocations (letting guides sell more hunting trips) and by allowing corporations, not just individuals, to buy guiding territories. Regulations were also changed to eliminate penalties if guides exceed their yearly game quotas and to allow guide outfitters to extend the length of their tenures.

One of Mr. Bennett’s cabinet colleagues, Forests Minister Steve Thomson, acknowledged in an interview that Mr. Bennett injected himself into the debate, saying “he has a strong interest in the file.”

And in a leaked e-mail released by the NDP, Mr. Bennett himself wrote that he has “been intimately involved in the allocation file.”

Mr. Bennett has declared his shareholder loan in public documents he has filed annually with British Columbia’s Conflict of Interest Commissioner, documents all MLAs are required to file.

Government records also show Mr. Bennett has not recused himself from any cabinet discussions or legislative committees since 2009. That would include any discussions about the new hunt allocations.

British Columbia’s Conflict of Interest Act says cabinet ministers must “refrain at all times from attempting to influence” matters in which they have “a conflict of interest or an apparent conflict of interest.”

At cabinet meetings, the act notes, the cabinet minister must “disclose the general nature of the private interest and withdraw from the meeting without voting or participating in the discussion.”

In an interview, Mr. Bennett rejected any suggestion he is in a conflict of interest and said he cannot be accused of favouring the interests of guides over resident hunters.

“If anything, I have a bit of a bias towards the resident hunter,” he said.

Mr. Bennett said 12 investors – “a bunch of lawyers, doctors, dentists and professional hockey players” – founded Height of the Rockies Adventure in 1995. For $400,000 they bought a few “ramshackle” cabins and guiding rights in an area of soaring peaks in the Rocky Mountains near his riding in southeast B.C.

The company’s guiding territory is so rich in big game, it has twice been featured on U.S. television hunting shows.

In ads, it billed itself as the Serengeti of North America. The investors, who built a grand lodge set against a dramatic mountain backdrop, thought the big game and scenery would be a winning combination.

But 20 years after it was launched, the company has just sold at a major loss, according to Mr. Bennett, who grew up in a hunting family and who in one campaign ad featured a picture of a hunter with a dead grizzly bear.

Mr. Bennett said he sold his shares the year he was elected, in 2001, so he’d be free to engage in hunting issues in the legislature. But the $70,000 shareholder loan he made to the company remained outstanding

“I mean one of the reasons I was getting elected was to come to Victoria and be able to deal with hunting and fishing and outdoor issues, and I certainly didn’t want to be encumbered with some small, little business which I had no active involvement with and which never made a dime the whole time that I was in it,” he said. “I got those shares for nothing. I didn’t pay anything for them. They were issued when we formed the company in 1995. The money that’s owed to me … is called a shareholder loan. That was actually cash that I put in as a loan to the company. It’s very, very, very standard, conventional business practice.”

A filing with the corporate registry shows the company has 10,000 Class A shares worth nothing and 10,000 Class B shares valued at one cent each.

Height of the Rockies Guide Outfitters, a separate company that provided the guiding services, was recently sold and, a few weeks ago, Height of the Rockies Adventure changed its name to a numbered company. (Cranbrook dentist Chris Callen, who is listed as proprietor of Height of the Rockies Adventure, did not return calls.)

Mr. Bennett expects to get back $30,000 of the $70,000 loan. “As soon as I know I will disclose it to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner,” he said.

And he noted the sale will not bring him any profit. “We invested a lot. We being all the shareholders up to the time that I got out. They continued to invest after I left. I am told that the total investment in the business was around $1.2 million,” Mr. Bennett said. “I understand the purchase price is $400,000. So there’s a very significant loss that everyone who’s associated with this thing is going to incur.”

Mr. Bennett said he’s always been scrupulous about ensuring his ties to Height of the Rockies Adventure did not compromise his work at the legislature. He said he advised the Conflict of Interest Commissioner that he visited the lodge at times.

B.C.’s Conflict of Interest Commissioner, Paul Fraser, said he has not investigated Mr. Bennett’s files because there have been no complaints, and he could not say if Mr. Bennett has sought advice on the matter.

“The way our system works is, if I am consulted, it is on a confidential basis,” he said. “There shouldn’t be an inference drawn either way.”

Mr. Bennett was asked if he could see a possible conflict of interest in supporting policy changes that helped the guide outfitting sector, while at the same time being owed money by a guide outfitting company.

“Had I retained my shares in that company, even if I had put them in a blind trust, I would have been nervous about that and I probably would have felt it maybe wasn’t technically a conflict of interest, but it certainly could have been perceived that way,” he said. “My decision to get rid of those shares was based on my desire to be elected as an MLA from a rural riding and participate fully with all the issues … and in particular the outdoor issues.”

Shortly after the latest hunting regulations were announced, Mr. Bennett’s Facebook page filled with complaints from hunters. In one reply, he warned that things were “not going to end in a good place” for the B.C. Wildlife Federation if members continued to attack him and Mr. Thomson, whose ministry is responsible for hunting issues.

“Frankly Steve doesn’t need the votes to get elected and I’m not running again, so all the threats don’t mean shit to us,” he wrote.

He later apologizing for his remarks, saying he didn’t know the postings were public.

“Over my career I’ve, you know, I’ve been accused of a lot of things, but one thing I’ve never been accused of is being dishonest and it troubles me a lot,” Mr. Bennett said. “I consider this the most serious thing frankly that I’ve ever dealt with in my career. I could get mad and say stupid things or send an idiotic e-mail to somebody with profanity in it and that’s just, you know that’s just my personality and people accept that. But I’ve never, ever been accused of being anything but honest and up-front.”

[Paulyman]

B.C. Mines Minister faces scrutiny over ties to guide-outfitting operationMARK HUME and JUSTINE HUNTER

VANCOUVER and VICTORIA * The Globe and Mail

PublishedThursday, Feb. 19 2015, 8:30 AM EST

Last updatedThursday, Feb. 19 2015, 8:30 AM EST

When Bill Bennett entered politics, he portrayed himself as “the voice of the hunter” in the B.C. Legislature.

But after 14 years, Mr. Bennett – now the province’s powerful Mines Minister – finds himself in conflict with hunters, and facing scrutiny over his ties to Height of the Rockies Adventure Co. Ltd., a guide outfitting operation that owes him $70,000 for a shareholder loan.

A long-simmering feud between British Columbia’s 97,000 resident hunters and 245 professional guide outfitters who cater to wealthy foreign clients exploded in December, when the government introduced changes that reallocated the share of wildlife, giving an increased share to guides.

Some of the changes could potentially raise the market value of guide-outfitting operations – among other things, by increasing wildlife allocations (letting guides sell more hunting trips) and by allowing corporations, not just individuals, to buy guiding territories. Regulations were also changed to eliminate penalties if guides exceed their yearly game quotas and to allow guide outfitters to extend the length of their tenures.

One of Mr. Bennett’s cabinet colleagues, Forests Minister Steve Thomson, acknowledged in an interview that Mr. Bennett injected himself into the debate, saying “he has a strong interest in the file.”

And in a leaked e-mail released by the NDP, Mr. Bennett himself wrote that he has “been intimately involved in the allocation file.”

Mr. Bennett has declared his shareholder loan in public documents he has filed annually with British Columbia’s Conflict of Interest Commissioner, documents all MLAs are required to file.

Government records also show Mr. Bennett has not recused himself from any cabinet discussions or legislative committees since 2009. That would include any discussions about the new hunt allocations.

British Columbia’s Conflict of Interest Act says cabinet ministers must “refrain at all times from attempting to influence” matters in which they have “a conflict of interest or an apparent conflict of interest.”

At cabinet meetings, the act notes, the cabinet minister must “disclose the general nature of the private interest and withdraw from the meeting without voting or participating in the discussion.”

In an interview, Mr. Bennett rejected any suggestion he is in a conflict of interest and said he cannot be accused of favouring the interests of guides over resident hunters.

“If anything, I have a bit of a bias towards the resident hunter,” he said.

Mr. Bennett said 12 investors – “a bunch of lawyers, doctors, dentists and professional hockey players” – founded Height of the Rockies Adventure in 1995. For $400,000 they bought a few “ramshackle” cabins and guiding rights in an area of soaring peaks in the Rocky Mountains near his riding in southeast B.C.

The company’s guiding territory is so rich in big game, it has twice been featured on U.S. television hunting shows.

In ads, it billed itself as the Serengeti of North America. The investors, who built a grand lodge set against a dramatic mountain backdrop, thought the big game and scenery would be a winning combination.

But 20 years after it was launched, the company has just sold at a major loss, according to Mr. Bennett, who grew up in a hunting family and who in one campaign ad featured a picture of a hunter with a dead grizzly bear.

Mr. Bennett said he sold his shares the year he was elected, in 2001, so he’d be free to engage in hunting issues in the legislature. But the $70,000 shareholder loan he made to the company remained outstanding

“I mean one of the reasons I was getting elected was to come to Victoria and be able to deal with hunting and fishing and outdoor issues, and I certainly didn’t want to be encumbered with some small, little business which I had no active involvement with and which never made a dime the whole time that I was in it,” he said. “I got those shares for nothing. I didn’t pay anything for them. They were issued when we formed the company in 1995. The money that’s owed to me … is called a shareholder loan. That was actually cash that I put in as a loan to the company. It’s very, very, very standard, conventional business practice.”

A filing with the corporate registry shows the company has 10,000 Class A shares worth nothing and 10,000 Class B shares valued at one cent each.

Height of the Rockies Guide Outfitters, a separate company that provided the guiding services, was recently sold and, a few weeks ago, Height of the Rockies Adventure changed its name to a numbered company. (Cranbrook dentist Chris Callen, who is listed as proprietor of Height of the Rockies Adventure, did not return calls.)

Mr. Bennett expects to get back $30,000 of the $70,000 loan. “As soon as I know I will disclose it to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner,” he said.

And he noted the sale will not bring him any profit. “We invested a lot. We being all the shareholders up to the time that I got out. They continued to invest after I left. I am told that the total investment in the business was around $1.2 million,” Mr. Bennett said. “I understand the purchase price is $400,000. So there’s a very significant loss that everyone who’s associated with this thing is going to incur.”

Mr. Bennett said he’s always been scrupulous about ensuring his ties to Height of the Rockies Adventure did not compromise his work at the legislature. He said he advised the Conflict of Interest Commissioner that he visited the lodge at times.

B.C.’s Conflict of Interest Commissioner, Paul Fraser, said he has not investigated Mr. Bennett’s files because there have been no complaints, and he could not say if Mr. Bennett has sought advice on the matter.

“The way our system works is, if I am consulted, it is on a confidential basis,” he said. “There shouldn’t be an inference drawn either way.”

Mr. Bennett was asked if he could see a possible conflict of interest in supporting policy changes that helped the guide outfitting sector, while at the same time being owed money by a guide outfitting company.

“Had I retained my shares in that company, even if I had put them in a blind trust, I would have been nervous about that and I probably would have felt it maybe wasn’t technically a conflict of interest, but it certainly could have been perceived that way,” he said. “My decision to get rid of those shares was based on my desire to be elected as an MLA from a rural riding and participate fully with all the issues … and in particular the outdoor issues.”

Shortly after the latest hunting regulations were announced, Mr. Bennett’s Facebook page filled with complaints from hunters. In one reply, he warned that things were “not going to end in a good place” for the B.C. Wildlife Federation if members continued to attack him and Mr. Thomson, whose ministry is responsible for hunting issues.

“Frankly Steve doesn’t need the votes to get elected and I’m not running again, so all the threats don’t mean shit to us,” he wrote.

He later apologizing for his remarks, saying he didn’t know the postings were public.

“Over my career I’ve, you know, I’ve been accused of a lot of things, but one thing I’ve never been accused of is being dishonest and it troubles me a lot,” Mr. Bennett said. “I consider this the most serious thing frankly that I’ve ever dealt with in my career. I could get mad and say stupid things or send an idiotic e-mail to somebody with profanity in it and that’s just, you know that’s just my personality and people accept that. But I’ve never, ever been accused of being anything but honest and up-front.”




The problem for Mr Bennet is the fact that the money hasn't been repaid. Perhaps he wants the guiding company to be financially viable so he can recover his 30-70 thousand dollars, that's a lot of money to not have access to for such a long period.

[flyboy]

Very interesting to hear that there are actually some outfitters jumping ship from the USS GOABC MONEY TANKER. It sure would be nice if these ship jumpers would be willing to share some GOABC info.. Oh my can you imagine the goodies.. Anyone know these outfitters personally?????????????????????

[Fisher-Dude]

Burger,
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, 80/20 is pretty fair. That's the topic isn't it?



Case closed.


http://scontent-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/1175402_10151863936113000_975024870_n.jpg?oh=16170 cb9b93d23a10b49fa4a87196320&oe=55551671


Those are some nice moose sheds!

[guest]

In Bills case .... It's worth taking the 70 g loss when you figure the grossly over paid pension he will get for doing little for the residents. In it for nothing but himself as per usual, they love to listen to themselves even at the cost of neighbours, friends and the residents they represent.

Can an you say transparent ? This government and Bill have shown their true colours and are on their way out.

[j270wsm]

You do realize a moose tag runs $250 for a non resident and then a royalty is paid about the same if one is killed. A grizzly bear puts $2000 in the government pockets if one is killed, $1000 just for the tag. A resident tag for a grizz is what $75 the government is supposed to look after wildlife in the best interest of the residents, this does not necessarily mean resident hunters.

I think you will never see license and tag fees go directly to wildlife as long as we have to pay for all the other social programs the general public wants.
It is to bad this fight has split the hunting community as the fee structure and directed funds should be a targeted goal between outfitters and residents. This would provide long term funding for wildlife enhancement and conservation.


WOW, the government gets $2000 non res dollars for a grizzly tag. What about the thousands resident hunters spend on food, fuel and gear when they get a grizz tag

[chilcotin hillbilly]

WOW, the government gets $2000 non res dollars for a grizzly tag. What about the thousands resident hunters spend on food, fuel and gear when they get a grizz tag

Last time I checked the only direct dollars to the government would be the taxes paid on the goods and services and tag bought during a resident hunt .

It doesn't take any extra gear to hunt grizzly so really you need to write off the depreciation of all your gear over the 5, 10 or even 20 years divide it up between grizz hunting and the rest of the hunting you do and then you can get closer to the real number for residents expenditures on gear. Food and fuel is no different then what would be spent on nonresident hunt.

[j270wsm]

When I was drawn for grizz in 2010 I spent extra time at the shooting range. Which meant I spent a lot more on fuel and reloading supplies which means more money for the local economy and the government. Then i spent a ton of time driving around spotting for bears( more food and fuel bought ). after i got my bear i had a local taxidermist make a rug( again- buying fuel to drive the 1.5hrs to his shop ) Then there are the guys that go out and buy specific gear just for this specific hunt. This works out to way more for the local economy and government than the royalty fee.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Not even close, since most of the outfitters are BC residents the $20 000 left here is spent here as well. Your numbers don't come close to adding up. Nice try though. If the Money never enters BC (which I am strongly against) the government still pockets the license tags and royalties. Plus the taxes on expenditures. The local economic benefits doesn't differ if you are a resident or non resident.

[bridger]

WOW, the government gets $2000 non res dollars for a grizzly tag. What about the thousands resident hunters spend on food, fuel and gear when they get a grizz tag


The real question is what does the outfitter pay? Nothing is the answer. The hunter pays the tag, license, and royalty. Government gives the allocation to the outfitter. Taxpayer gets nothing in return. Outfitter gets $$$$. That is the real issue.

[argyle1]

I emailed my MLA John Rustad about our concern re: guide allotments, and I got back a form letter about highway kills and other game mortality factors. He is just trying to skirt the real issue, and looks on hunters as being to stupid to see what is going on. I emailed him back asking for numbers re: how many more tags of what species in what units.....no answer. He tried to say the the new numbers won't affect meat hunters, so I asked him if he meant moose, elk, goats, and sheep tag allotments wouldn't change.....still no answer. There's no way I can bring myself to vote ndp, so I hope we have a third choice

[rgn5hunt]

I emailed my MLA John Rustad about our concern re: guide allotments, and I got back a form letter about highway kills and other game mortality factors. He is just trying to skirt the real issue, and looks on hunters as being to stupid to see what is going on. I emailed him back asking for numbers re: how many more tags of what species in what units.....no answer. He tried to say the the new numbers won't affect meat hunters, so I asked him if he meant moose, elk, goats, and sheep tag allotments wouldn't change.....still no answer. There's no way I can bring myself to vote ndp, so I hope we have a third choice
I read Dan Brooks solution, and it was alarming.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

The real question is what does the outfitter pay? Nothing is the answer. The hunter pays the tag, license, and royalty. Government gives the allocation to the outfitter. Taxpayer gets nothing in return. Outfitter gets $$$$. That is the real issue.

We pay taxes so how is nothing the answer?

The question is how much does hunting an animal bring in to the government and the other non hunters of BC. The government is supposed to be looking after the residents of BC not just the resident hunters of BC.
Bringing in the most dollars to hunted animal ratio should be the job of the government, this i believe contributed to their allocation decision.

The argument that non resident hunters are only after heads and hides, is BS. There are more residents killing for the trophy then nonresidents, this argument is a dangerous road to take and to even bring into the conversation. A stupid statement like this is cannon fodder for the anti's, that type of trash talking need to stop.

[rgn5hunt]

Dan feels 70% res 20% non res and 10% to be dealt with locally. What that means is the 10% gets sucked up by registered lobbyists. One of the worst deals possible for the resident.

[bridger]

We pay taxes so how is nothing the answer?

The question is how much does hunting an animal bring in to the government and the other non hunters of BC. The government is supposed to be looking after the residents of BC not just the resident hunters of BC.
Bringing in the most dollars to hunted animal ratio should be the job of the government, this i believe contributed to their allocation decision.

The argument that non resident hunters are only after heads and hides, is BS. There are more residents killing for the trophy then nonresidents, this argument is a dangerous road to take and to even bring into the conversation. A stupid statement like this is cannon fodder for the anti's, that type of trash talking need to stop.

not to get into pissing contest but other industries that sell public resources pay for the resource. The guiding industry doesn't. Oil and gas companies for example pay big$$$& for exclusive drilling rights to a specific land base.. The province gets nothing when exclusive guiding rights to a specific area are sold. The government gives allocation to guides whether you pay taxes is not the issue. Every other business buys its "stock " guides don't. If this decision was really about maximizing money from non resident hunting there are certainly better models to follow than the one we are using.

We we always hear how much money the guiding industry brings into the province but never hear about the subsidies that flow to the outfitting industry. Be interesting to do the math.

[The Dawg]

not to get into pissing contest but other industries that sell public resources pay for the resource. The guiding industry doesn't. Oil and gas companies for example pay big$$$& for exclusive drilling rights to a specific land base.. The province gets nothing when exclusive guiding rights to a specific area are sold. The government gives allocation to guides whether you pay taxes is not the issue. Every other business buys its "stock " guides don't. If this decision was really about maximizing money from non resident hunting there are certainly better models to follow than the one we are using.

We we always hear how much money the guiding industry brings into the province but never hear about the subsidies that flow to the outfitting industry. Be interesting to do the math.


Nailed it.

They get inventory without paying for it in advance.

[tuner]

Not even close, since most of the outfitters are BC residents the $20 000 left here is spent here as well. Your numbers don't come close to adding up. Nice try though. If the Money never enters BC (which I am strongly against) the government still pockets the license tags and royalties. Plus the taxes on expenditures. The local economic benefits doesn't differ if you are a resident or non resident.
Really,4600 non residents hunters have the same economic impact as 100000+ Resident hunters on the BC economy? Even the most basic empirical evidence would suggest otherwise.Ask a small business owner in any number of small communities like say Princeton,who they rely on to help pay the bills after the summer season? The economic benefits from resident hunters is far more broadcast in scope,and more impactful than non resident contributions. The money spent on fuel,food, lodging etc. is a direct injection into the community, it's not a spin off.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

You are as smart as a hammer tuner.
Where did I say anywhere that there is more spin off economically from nonresidents. The per animal basis is what I am talking about, no one can make a case to dispute that.

Do you really think joe resident that doesn't hunt wouldn't rather have the large fees the nonresidents pay or the smaller amounts the residents pay. They would love it to continue to go directly into general revenue as apposed to going toward fish and wildlife. This fight is far more important to fix. This as this will generate far more animals increasing the AAH rapidly for all parties.

[GoatGuy]

We pay taxes so how is nothing the answer?

The question is how much does hunting an animal bring in to the government and the other non hunters of BC. The government is supposed to be looking after the residents of BC not just the resident hunters of BC.
Bringing in the most dollars to hunted animal ratio should be the job of the government, this i believe contributed to their allocation decision.

The argument that non resident hunters are only after heads and hides, is BS. There are more residents killing for the trophy then nonresidents, this argument is a dangerous road to take and to even bring into the conversation. A stupid statement like this is cannon fodder for the anti's, that type of trash talking need to stop.
Money into the government is trivial, not even a rounding error on a rounding error On a rounding error. More into the economy, while far more then the money into the government, is still a rounding error on a rounding error.

To put it into context, the company I work for creates more jobs and puts more money in one city in BC then the entire outfitting industry.


It also does not go out looking for subsidies from BCers, or look to steal inventory from neighbouring "businesses". That would be considered unethical.

[x-hare]

My Latest Reply Back From my North Vancouver Constituent Jane Thornthwaite MLA.


Resident hunters are given a higher priority than non-residents, however, this does not imply that resident demand must be fully satisfied before non-residents can be granted harvest opportunities. Instead, it means that the share that goes to residents is considerably greater than the share that goes to non-residents. By regionally tailoring the allocation decision, impacts on resident hunters are minimized. Resident hunters will continue to receive priority shares of the wildlife allocation, with a stable and predictable percentage.

After considering all the feedback received as a result of the December 10 decision on wildlife harvest allocations, Minister Thomson has made changes to seven of the 34 hunts:
o Roosevelt elk (bull elk and either sex elk) in Region 1 (Vancouver Island) moves from 80/20 to 85/15
o Moose in Region 3 (Thompson) and moves from 80/20 to 85/15
o Moose in Region 7A (Omineca) moves from 75/25 to 77/23
o Bison in Region 7B (Peace) moves from 80/20 to 82/18
o Bighorn Sheep in Region 4 (Kootenays) moves from General Open Season to 60/40
o Grizzly Bear in Region 4 (Kootenays) moves from 60/40 to 68/32

The resulting changes mean that the estimated number of animals transferred from resident hunters to guide outfitters is reduced from approximately 110 animals to approximately 60 animals. Minister Thomson has also committed to a review of the thinhorn sheep hunt and “either sex elk hunt” in agricultural portions of the Peace by Fall 2015.

Of the 45,700 animals harvested by resident hunters each year in B.C., only 3,729 – or 8 per cent – are on allocation.

More information is available here: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/harvest_alloc/docs/Wildlife-Allocation-Decision-2015-FAQ.pdf

Let me know if you need further information.


Nick Hosseinzadeh | Constituency Assistant
Jane Thornthwaite, MLA
North Vancouver – Seymour
#217-1233 Lynn Valley Road
North Vancouver, B.C.
P: 604.983.9852 | F: 604.983.9978
www.janethornthwaitemla.bc.ca (http://www.janethornthwaitemla.bc.ca/)

[tuner]

Please enlighten this bag of hammers with an accurate number of dollars from non resident hunters that went into government coffers, that's fee's collected by government in the form of non resident licenses, tags,and royaltys. I could be wrong ,but it would still be far less than what residents contributed for the same things even at a reduced rate.

[j270wsm]

Make all non res hunters apply for a leh, then there would be more money for wild life. I'm not against guide/outfitters, I'm just not in support of the gov bailing out a failing business when their already given their tags. As others have said, it would be different if the outfitter bought his tags

[bridger]

You are as smart as a hammer tuner.
Where did I say anywhere that there is more spin off economically from nonresidents. The per animal basis is what I am talking about, no one can make a case to dispute that.

Do you really think joe resident that doesn't hunt wouldn't rather have the large fees the nonresidents pay or the smaller amounts the residents pay. They would love it to continue to go directly into general revenue as apposed to going toward fish and wildlife. This fight is far more important to fix. This as this will generate far more animals increasing the AAH rapidly for all parties.

we we all agree that increasing the AAH makes far more sense than fighting over allocation shares. We also all agree that is was the Goabc that put residents in the corner with no choice but to defend themselves.

The economic facts are clear. Residents contribute twice as much net economic benefit to the province as do non residents, no question! No use beating that horse anymore. Also no question that the industry is heavily subsidized.

We need to quit arguing over those issues and concentrate on the real threat. That being the Goabc's drive to promote trophy hunting over meat hunting and keep residents on leh etc. That approach is not going to end well.

An interesting sideline to all this is the big time sheep outfitters who stand to make millions from the Goabc end run are silent. Sitting back while smaller outfitters are being thrown under the same bus as residents. Small outfitters are going to be the big losers when all is said and done. You might want to think about that and have a chat with your mla. Just sayin!

[Walksalot]

Not only do resident hunters contribute to the economy in their pursuit of outdoor activities many belong to volunteer organizations the like of Sporting Clubs and Search and Rescue to name only a couple. Factor that into the equation and all of a sudden the resident contribution starts to increase dramatically. If the government had to hire all the people to help with animal relocation, habitat enhancement and searching for and rescuing people in the outdoors it would cost the government a pile more money. I am sure no one wants to have the government to stand up and cheer for them but it sure would be nice to feel appreciated.

[ruger#1]

Not only do resident hunters contribute to the economy in their pursuit of outdoor activities many belong to volunteer organizations the like of Sporting Clubs and Search and Rescue to name only a couple. Factor that into the equation and all of a sudden the resident contribution starts to increase dramatically. If the government had to hire all the people to help with animal relocation, habitat enhancement and searching for and rescuing people in the outdoors it would cost the government a pile more money. I am sure no one wants to have the government to stand up and cheer for them but it sure would be nice to feel appreciated. Factor in that us hunters and fisherman contribute all year round since we live here. Nothing from foreigners. Our government dosn't get it.

[bridger]

Factor in that us hunters and fisherman contribute all year round since we live here. Nothing from foreigners. Our government dosn't get it.

Good point. Also noteworthy is the money we spend hunting at home doesn't go to Disney land, Arizona, Hawaii or other out of country destinations.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

I am not sure what you are getting at? Do you need a pat on the back for being a BC resident?

We live in the best province by far for hunting and fishing and better then any state as well by a long shot. We have more opportunity to hunt then any other jurisdiction.

Resident hunters in BC are the envy of every other hunter in North America or possibly the world. But you have it really tough, I couldn't imagine living anywhere else and I am sure you think the same.
If you don't the opportunities we have I guess you could move to a province or state where the split is 90-10.

[bridger]

I am not sure what you are getting at? Do you need a pat on the back for being a BC resident?

We live in the best province by far for hunting and fishing and better then any state as well by a long shot. We have more opportunity to hunt then any other jurisdiction.

Resident hunters in BC are the envy of every other hunter in North America or possibly the world. But you have it really tough, I couldn't imagine living anywhere else and I am sure you think the same.
If you don't the opportunities we have I guess you could move to a province or state where the split is 90-10.


Sheep split at 60/40 means leh! Not much too envy there!

[tuner]

Here are some numbers for you BillyBob: resident hunters(102,113) non resident hunters(4,491)Resident over the counter tags purchased last year: mule deer and whitetail combined(133,942)@$15/per. Moose(39,049)@$25/per. Elk(24,748)@$25. Black bear(21,836)@$20/per.These do not include cat tags,grizzly,bison,sheep etc.that residents also purchased.If you have a calculator you can easily add up the totals. An individual animal taken by a non resident may net the government more than one taken by a resident ,but as you can clearly see,residents shoulder the burden of cost by a large margin.If you dispute the above numbers just visit your associations website and see for yourself. The GOABC gets these animals for free to sell at a profit,and then insist that the paltry return the government receives for them, is of more value To BC,than ones taken by residents.The conversation always returns to the same topic every time a GOABC apologist has their arguments debunked,"we have to put this aside,get together and grow more wildlife ". You want to grow more wildlife,start by accepting a 90/10 split,the surplus will be emidiate,not much arguing there.As far as some guides being screwed by the policy,I believe some probably were,the GOABC main concern is for guides in region 7a/7b and guides in region 4 specificaly the far southeastern corner,the rest of you are expendable.

[Huevos]

resident moose= $32 for hunting license+ $25 tag= $57 - Non res moose= $180 license + $250 tag + $125 royalty = $555 = 973%, or 9.73 times more revenue
res grizzly= $32 license + $80 tag = $112 - non res grizzly= $180 license + $1030 + $1000 royalty = $2210 = 1973%, or 19.73 times more revenue
elk= same as moose
deer $32 + $15 = $47 - non res deer = $180 +$125 + $50 = $355 = 755%, or 7.75 times more revenue
Black bear $32 + $20 + $20 second tag = $72 - non res b bear = $180 + $180 + $180 second tag + $75 royalty + $75 royalty = $690 = 958 %, or 9.6 times more revenue
goat = $32 + $40 tag = $72 - non res goat = $180 + $350 tag + $150 royalty = $680 = 944%, or 9.4 times more revenue
sheep = $32 + $60 = $92 - non res sheep = $180 + $620 tag + $250 = $1050 = 1141%, or 11.4 times more revenue.
Apples to apples comparison on govt. revenue in case anyone was interested.

[yama49]

resident moose= $32 for hunting license+ $25 tag= $57 - Non res moose= $180 license + $250 tag + $125 royalty = $555 = 973%, or 9.73 times more revenue
res grizzly= $32 license + $80 tag = $112 - non res grizzly= $180 license + $1030 + $1000 royalty = $2210 = 1973%, or 19.73 times more revenue
elk= same as moose
deer $32 + $15 = $47 - non res deer = $180 +$125 + $50 = $355 = 755%, or 7.75 times more revenue
Black bear $32 + $20 + $20 second tag = $72 - non res b bear = $180 + $180 + $180 second tag + $75 royalty + $75 royalty = $690 = 958 %, or 9.6 times more revenue
goat = $32 + $40 tag = $72 - non res goat = $180 + $350 tag + $150 royalty = $680 = 944%, or 9.4 times more revenue
sheep = $32 + $60 = $92 - non res sheep = $180 + $620 tag + $250 = $1050 = 1141%, or 11.4 times more revenue.
Apples to apples comparison on govt. revenue in case anyone was interested.
Nice try when theres 94% less non res hunters, ill take the lesser value but have 94% more business

[40incher]

We all agree that increasing the AAH makes far more sense than fighting over allocation shares. We also all agree that is was the Goabc that put residents in the corner with no choice but to defend themselves.

The economic facts are clear. Residents contribute twice as much net economic benefit to the province as do non residents, no question! No use beating that horse anymore. Also no question that the industry is heavily subsidized.

We need to quit arguing over those issues and concentrate on the real threat. That being the Goabc's drive to promote trophy hunting over meat hunting and keep residents on leh etc. That approach is not going to end well.

An interesting sideline to all this is the big time sheep outfitters who stand to make millions from the Goabc end run are silent. Sitting back while smaller outfitters are being thrown under the same bus as residents. Small outfitters are going to be the big losers when all is said and done. You might want to think about that and have a chat with your mla. Just sayin!


Once again, I have to agree with Bridger ... resident hunters are only reacting to an affront by the GOABC talking heads. What I don't understand is why the credible non-sheep-dependant outfitters (mom and pops, as it were) have not wised up??

Myself, Bridger and others have all said we support the smaller-sized outfitters because we view them much like we view ourselves ... we are in it for the lifestyle and the profound benefit it provides for our families and others BC residents and outfitters to go out and harvest animals for food and, in the case of outfitters financially, in a sustainable way! We have always viewed guide-outfitting as an honourable profession ... but that is not a statement that can be generally applied without caveats in this day and age any longer.

If the small GO businesses are not benefitting from December 10th then you should be saying this to your representatives in the GOABC. If you don't belong to the GOABC then speak up as an independent and as a disenfranchised business person.

Us resident hunters and GO's will get on the same page sometime?? down the road ... but the "real guides" need to speak up before that will ever happen ... not the "slipper skippers" as they call them in the commercial salmon, herring, halibut big-money fisheries!! Those would be the ones with a single-minded plan of short-term benefits for "me", at the expense of all others. If you need an clearer explanation I would be glad to comply.

[Huevos]

Make all non res hunters apply for a leh, then there would be more money for wild life. I'm not against guide/outfitters, I'm just not in support of the gov bailing out a failing business when their already given their tags. As others have said, it would be different if the outfitter bought his tags
I fail to see what LEH for non residents has to do with the amount of allocations that are assigned to them. If non residents go to an LEH system, the tags allocated to them will only be able to be used by non residents. Currently, a resident can still use an outfitter( if he were very rich and could afford to be in the presence of a professional hunter) but that would be gone if it went to LEh. L
ast I checked, all tags for every animal harvested by non residents was purchased from the government. Are you implying that Guide outfitters should have to pay for the tags as well as the client? I am pretty sure that the guide outfitter purchases a tenure, when he\she starts outfitting. With this investment comes the allocations assigned to them by the government. There are currently guide territories for sale, and you are welcome to purchase one if you would like.(might want to wait until the dust settles to see what the place will actually be worth when this calms down)

[Huevos]

Nice try when theres 94% less non res hunters, ill take the lesser value but have 94% more business
or have 100% of the sales. and it is closer to 96%. Just saying shows the difference in prices, and it should be that way. But those who say that the animals are given away are not taking into account that every one is purchased. It is a sale of wildlife, whether a resident or a non resident purchase it.

[tuner]

I fail to see what LEH for non residents has to do with the amount of allocations that are assigned to them. If non residents go to an LEH system, the tags allocated to them will only be able to be used by non residents. Currently, a resident can still use an outfitter( if he were very rich and could afford to be in the presence of a professional hunter) but that would be gone if it went to LEh. L
ast I checked, all tags for every animal harvested by non residents was purchased from the government. Are you implying that Guide outfitters should have to pay for the tags as well as the client? I am pretty sure that the guide outfitter purchases a tenure, when he\she starts outfitting. With this investment comes the allocations assigned to them by the government. There are currently guide territories for sale, and you are welcome to purchase one if you would like.(might want to wait until the dust settles to see what the place will actually be worth when this calms down)
Harry McGowan thinks the new policy is a good selling feature.

[yama49]

or have 100% of the sales. and it is closer to 96%. Just saying shows the difference in prices, and it should be that way. But those who say that the animals are given away are not taking into account that every one is purchased. It is a sale of wildlife, whether a resident or a non resident purchase it.


I agree on the sale of the tags, but not on overall money spent, that stays in bc.

[Huevos]

I agree on the sale of the tags, but not on overall money spent, that stays in bc.
About 90% of the money I get stays here in BC. I budget 10% for advertising, which I have to spend on shows, hotels, brochures, etc. that gets spent abroad, but the 90% stays in BC..... at least for me. Quads, maintenance, food, fuel, supplies and bills. Local mechanics, welders, laywers, accountants, bankers, and everyone in between sees the benefit of the money spent on hunts in my area. I realize this isn't always the case, but I would like to think it is for the majority of outfitters. Most of us are part of the communities where we guide. You are correct in stating that BC hunters spend more than non res hunters, and I hope this continues. It means there are more of us out there enjoying adventures. Residents are a major spender in the economy here, but we do a bit of spending as well. Any money that stays here is a bonus.

[Sitkaspruce]

resident moose= $32 for hunting license+ $25 tag= $57 - Non res moose= $180 license + $250 tag + $125 royalty = $555 = 973%, or 9.73 times more revenue
res grizzly= $32 license + $80 tag = $112 - non res grizzly= $180 license + $1030 + $1000 royalty = $2210 = 1973%, or 19.73 times more revenue
elk= same as moose
deer $32 + $15 = $47 - non res deer = $180 +$125 + $50 = $355 = 755%, or 7.75 times more revenue
Black bear $32 + $20 + $20 second tag = $72 - non res b bear = $180 + $180 + $180 second tag + $75 royalty + $75 royalty = $690 = 958 %, or 9.6 times more revenue
goat = $32 + $40 tag = $72 - non res goat = $180 + $350 tag + $150 royalty = $680 = 944%, or 9.4 times more revenue
sheep = $32 + $60 = $92 - non res sheep = $180 + $620 tag + $250 = $1050 = 1141%, or 11.4 times more revenue.
Apples to apples comparison on govt. revenue in case anyone was interested.

You forget the LEH application at $6+ for these same species.

Take the cow elk draw in the Peace.

(Rough number as I do not have the pages in front of me)

2000 tags, 3-1 odds - $6*2000=$12000*3=$36000, now if everyone bought a tag $25*2000=$50000, so that draw brings in Approx. $86000 to the gov (you could drop it by $10000 or even $15000 as some hunters will already have purchased the elk tag for the GOS)

Not sure about moose LEH applicants, but I have heard numbers of 30-40000 hunters apply, so you can do the math to see that lic and tags sold to NR hunter, plus royalties (which is only paid if the hunter is successful (around 80%??), so the GO keeps that if they go home empty as most just add that to their hunt cost....so a nice little bonus for them) would not even begin to reach the numbers that are generated by resident hunters, even before they head out for the hunt.

But to make it even easier, just take the BS LEH application $6 and mulitply it by say 90000 hunters.....generates way more that what the NR spends in Lic, tags and Royalties.......and that is if the RH buys only ONE LEH. Not too many do that.....

And that is another reason that the GOABC proposal for more animals in LEH is looking so good the Libs......more LEH means more $$$$ in the general revenue to help pay for more Tourist grants to the hard done by GO of BC....

We need to keep this in mind as I think it is one if the hidden agendas that the GOABC has been promoting behind closed doors.....More LEH is more $$$ for the gov and less of this pesky residents on MY ridge shooting MY sheep...a win win for the bed sharing partners.

Cheers

SS

[Seeker]

I am not sure what you are getting at? Do you need a pat on the back for being a BC resident?

We live in the best province by far for hunting and fishing and better then any state as well by a long shot. We have more opportunity to hunt then any other jurisdiction.

Resident hunters in BC are the envy of every other hunter in North America or possibly the world. But you have it really tough, I couldn't imagine living anywhere else and I am sure you think the same.
If you don't the opportunities we have I guess you could move to a province or state where the split is 90-10.


This is one of the points that continues to be asked but not answered. BC, residents are very aware we are lucky enough to live here, we know that.

We are the envy of "every other hunter in North America or possibly the world. But you have it really tough..."

I am sure that the guides in this province are also the

"envy of every other guide in North America or possibly the world. But you have it really tough..."

With a little checking, guides in this province can offer more species than almost any guide in the states and a much larger number of highly sought after trophy class animals. Now they want to take more from the resident, and "it's no big deal"

If outfitters in the rest of North America can survive on the 5-10% that is given to them, why should the guides in this province need more to survive? Especially when it takes away desired opportunities from the residents of this province?

[Huevos]

You forget the LEH application at $6+ for these same species.

Take the cow elk draw in the Peace.

(Rough number as I do not have the pages in front of me)

2000 tags, 3-1 odds - $6*2000=$12000*3=$36000, now if everyone bought a tag $25*2000=$50000, so that draw brings in Approx. $86000 to the gov (you could drop it by $10000 or even $15000 as some hunters will already have purchased the elk tag for the GOS)

Not sure about moose LEH applicants, but I have heard numbers of 30-40000 (tel:30-40000) hunters apply, so you can do the math to see that lic and tags sold to NR hunter, plus royalties (which is only paid if the hunter is successful (around 80%??), so the GO keeps that if they go home empty as most just add that to their hunt cost....so a nice little bonus for them) would not even begin to reach the numbers that are generated by resident hunters, even before they head out for the hunt.

But to make it even easier, just take the BS LEH application $6 and mulitply it by say 90000 hunters.....generates way more that what the NR spends in Lic, tags and Royalties.......and that is if the RH buys only ONE LEH. Not too many do that.....

And that is another reason that the GOABC proposal for more animals in LEH is looking so good the Libs......more LEH means more $$$$ in the general revenue to help pay for more Tourist grants to the hard done by GO of BC....

We need to keep this in mind as I think it is one if the hidden agendas that the GOABC has been promoting behind closed doors.....More LEH is more $$$ for the gov and less of this pesky residents on MY ridge shooting MY sheep...a win win for the bed sharing partners.

Cheers

SS
All good points. I hope I get the chance to shoot someone's sheep down the road. Got to balance the budget somehow? LNG doesn't seem to be working that well yet.

[bridger]

About 90% of the money I get stays here in BC. I budget 10% for advertising, which I have to spend on shows, hotels, brochures, etc. that gets spent abroad, but the 90% stays in BC..... at least for me. Quads, maintenance, food, fuel, supplies and bills. Local mechanics, welders, laywers, accountants, bankers, and everyone in between sees the benefit of the money spent on hunts in my area. I realize this isn't always the case, but I would like to think it is for the majority of outfitters. Most of us are part of the communities where we guide. You are correct in stating that BC hunters spend more than non res hunters, and I hope this continues. It means there are more of us out there enjoying adventures. Residents are a major spender in the economy here, but we do a bit of spending as well. Any money that stays here is a bonus.


You can't win the money argument, that should be evident by now. And this isn't really about how much money outfitters bring into the province anyway. That is just an excuse you guys throw up to justify your actions.

it's about outfitters making back room deals with government at the expense of resident hunters. It's about the Goabc lobbying government to promote trophy hunting over meat hunting for residents, it's about the Goabc asking government to promote leh for residents, it's about the Goabc pushing for province wide leh for resident sheep hunters.
One unfortunate result of this attitude is guys like me that have supported the concept of a viable guiding industry over the years no longer give a damn. That probably doesn't matter to you, but it really diverts time, energy, and money away from resource management and increasing the AAH.

Wouldn't the resource and the hunting community have been better off if the Goabc had used its influence to a better end? The big outfitters can prosper with present resource populations due to specie variety and the size of their areas. Smaller outfits will be back asking for larger shares in a couple of years. Your industry is in trouble from the inside and no allocation policy is going to fix that.

[Huevos]

You can't win the money argument, that should be evident by now. And this isn't really about how much money outfitters bring into the province anyway. That is just an excuse you guys throw up to justify your actions.

it's about outfitters making back room deals with government at the expense of resident hunters. It's about the Goabc lobbying government to promote trophy hunting over meat hunting for residents, it's about the Goabc asking government to promote leh for residents, it's about the Goabc pushing for province wide leh for resident sheep hunters.
One unfortunate result of this garbage is guys like me that have supported the concept of a viable guiding industry over the years no longer give a damn. That probably doesn't matter to you, but it really diverts time, energy, and money away from resource management and increasing the AAH.

Wouldn't the resource and the hunting community have been better off if the Goabc had used its influence to a better end? The big outfitters can prosper with present resource populations due to specie variety and the size of their areas. Smaller outfits will be back asking for larger shares in a couple of years. Your industry is in trouble from the inside and no allocation policy is going to fix that.
I agree with most of what you are saying. I never said my money mattered more than yours , I was just stating a simple truth that my money stays in the province too. There is no denying that fact. I agree that this fight isn't about money..... At least for residents. It is, on the other hand, completely about money. Concentrating on lining pockets, rather than concentrating on conservation has cost more than I would have been willing to gamble. Unfortunately, I have no say about the matter. I am insignificant and not a goabc member. I just have to ride it out and pick up the pieces when it is all over. I might even have to take a job away from a bc resident to make ends meet. Stealing animals, and now jobs too! Oh my.

[bridger]

I agree with most of what you are saying. I never said my money mattered more than yours , I was just stating a simple truth that my money stays in the province too. There is no denying that fact. I agree that this fight isn't about money..... At least for residents. It is, on the other hand, completely about money. Concentrating on lining pockets, rather than concentrating on conservation has cost more than I would have been willing to gamble. Unfortunately, I have no say about the matter. I am insignificant and not a goabc member. I just have to ride it out and pick up the pieces when it is all over. I might even have to take a job away from a bc resident to make ends meet. Stealing animals, and now jobs too! Oh my.

sorry if that happens but therein lies the problem. You do have a voice in the matter however and an mla

[Paulyman]

I agree with most of what you are saying. I never said my money mattered more than yours , I was just stating a simple truth that my money stays in the province too. There is no denying that fact. I agree that this fight isn't about money..... At least for residents. It is, on the other hand, completely about money. Concentrating on lining pockets, rather than concentrating on conservation has cost more than I would have been willing to gamble. Unfortunately, I have no say about the matter. I am insignificant and not a goabc member. I just have to ride it out and pick up the pieces when it is all over. I might even have to take a job away from a bc resident to make ends meet. Stealing animals, and now jobs too! Oh my.

Hunting is as important as my job, take my job and I won't care as I'll find another job and if you take that one I'll move on and find yet another.

Hunting is something that once it's been taken away it's gone. I can't go find another BC to hunt in, this is my home. I pay taxes here, I am raising my family here, why shouldn't I feel that the right to hunt is something I will be able to pass on to my son? as it is right now with the new allocation policy I cannot see our youth embracing hunting the way that our generation has and that is a discrace, it sickens me that the Goabc and the Liberals have banded together and ****ed up this province for our youth.

the guide Outfitters to reinvent their industry or close up shop, it's that simple. There are many ways they can provide plenty of income for their families. Eco tourism is the new big thing for the tourism industry, many outfitters could run sheep viewing Tours where they go backpacking for a few days and charge a premium for it.Dinosaurs went extinct for a reason, they couldn't adapt.

[Squirrelnuts]

Resident hunters in BC are the envy of every other hunter in North America or possibly the world. But you have it really tough,

Those "other hunters" might want to do some research. But, yeah, I guess we shouldn't complain about 15 year waits for the opportunity to hunt a moose in our own backyard. How small minded of us to be a bit miffed when fully 25% of our allocation is going to a handful of outfitters. I guess we could always just pony up the 10 grand (US, of course) to road hunt with a local guide. Seems fair to me.

[Paulyman]

Those "other hunters" might want to do some research. But, yeah, I guess we shouldn't complain about 15 year waits for the opportunity to hunt a moose in our own backyard. How small minded of us to be a bit miffed when fully 25% of our allocation is going to a handful of outfitters. I guess we could always just pony up the 10 grand (US, of course) to road hunt with a local guide. Seems fair to me.

Oh but just wait a minute, didn't you hear Scott Ellis on the radio? No biggie at all. If you don't get a draw and you want to hunt Moose, all you have to do is drive 20 hours north.

[bridger]

Oh but just wait a minute, didn't you hear Scott Ellis on the radio? No biggie at all. If you don't get a draw and you want to hunt Moose, all you have to do is drive 20 hours north.


Go north where two outfitters have 20% of the bison tags. Two outfitters that couldn't sell their old quotas, two outfitters that trade bison tags for goods and services in town. Two outfitters that hold 20% of the tags I have been waiting 23 years to draw. Didn't realize that I am the envy if every resident hunter in the free world.

[j270wsm]

I fail to see what LEH for non residents has to do with the amount of allocations that are assigned to them. If non residents go to an LEH system, the tags allocated to them will only be able to be used by non residents. Currently, a resident can still use an outfitter( if he were very rich and could afford to be in the presence of a professional hunter) but that would be gone if it went to LEh. L
ast I checked, all tags for every animal harvested by non residents was purchased from the government. Are you implying that Guide outfitters should have to pay for the tags as well as the client? I am pretty sure that the guide outfitter purchases a tenure, when he\she starts outfitting. With this investment comes the allocations assigned to them by the government. There are currently guide territories for sale, and you are welcome to purchase one if you would like.(might want to wait until the dust settles to see what the place will actually be worth when this calms down)


Non res hunters going to leh doesn't mean I can't use an outfitter! It means I have to either buy a GOS tag or have an leh tag. I don't care if the outfitter bought their tenure. Besides a few taxes what do outfitters pay for their tags?? Oh that's right.......nothing! Just because the outfitter bought tenure shouldnt mean they are handed the tags allocated to that area. I feel they should eliminate individual tenure ownership. Make non res hunters apply for leh then they choose which ever outfitter they want to guide them.

[Paulyman]

Go north where two outfitters have 20% of the bison tags. Two outfitters that couldn't sell their old quotas, two outfitters that trade bison tags for goods and services in town. Two outfitters that hold 20% of the tags I have been waiting 23 years to draw. Didn't realize that I am the envy if every resident hunter in the free world.
That specifically should be dealt with. Which managment unit?

[northernbc]

bridger and j270wsm have just put it down perfectly. for me it boils down to a broad scope problem, men and women went overseas and fought and died to protect our way of life and then these self fulfilling government people are willing to sell them out. really makes me mad.

[bigwhiteys]

many outfitters could run sheep viewing Tours where they go backpacking for a few days and charge a premium for it.

lol..... I'm sure there would be people lining up for those tours.

[Walking Buffalo]

We pay taxes so how is nothing the answer?

The question is how much does hunting an animal bring in to the government and the other non hunters of BC. The government is supposed to be looking after the residents of BC not just the resident hunters of BC.
Bringing in the most dollars to hunted animal ratio should be the job of the government, this i believe contributed to their allocation decision.

The argument that non resident hunters are only after heads and hides, is BS. There are more residents killing for the trophy then nonresidents, this argument is a dangerous road to take and to even bring into the conversation. A stupid statement like this is cannon fodder for the anti's, that type of trash talking need to stop.

"Bringing in the most dollars to hunted animal ratio should be the job of the government, this i believe contributed to their allocation decision. "


Absolutely NOT!

Its sad how GOABC promotes itself as a champion of the North America Model of Wildlife Management yet defies the pillars of the ideology.

Governments role is to manage wildlife in "trust" for it's citizens, not to maximize profit from wildlife.

Pay attention Residents. The encroachment of putting dollar values on individual animals is a goal of those looking to privatize the resource. Do not fall into this trap.

[Paulyman]

lol..... I'm sure there would be people lining up for those tours.
Ya, maybe we could try it out in some other continent like say Africa and give it a catchy name...hmmmm maybe safari? ;-)

[Wild one]

lol..... I'm sure there would be people lining up for those tours.

I don't see a big market for sheep tours either but that said there is a world wide market in adventure tourism.

There is options to expand the way outfitters can bring in $ but it will vary depending on location. There are some out there that do this already and it is smart.

Personally I don't see more tags solving economic issues with outfitters and some don't even use their present quotas. A big issue is the down turn in economy in many areas. Also in reality BC really only has a reputation as a hunting destination for certain species and even that can be location specific.

As much as many BC residents want to believe BC is the best hunting in Canada it really is not for a number of species. The truth is there are many species foreigners would rather hunt else where do to expense or quality of game/hunt.

Personally if I was an outfitter I would look at ways to expand what might business could offer

[Paulyman]

I don't see a big market for sheep tours either but that said there is a world wide market in adventure tourism.

There is options to expand the way outfitters can bring in $ but it will vary depending on location. There are some out there that do this already and it is smart.

Personally I don't see more tags solving economic issues with outfitters and some don't even use their present quotas. A big issue is the down turn in economy in many areas. Also in reality BC really only has a reputation as a hunting destination for certain species and even that can be location specific.

As much as many BC residents want to believe BC is the best hunting in Canada it really is not for a number of species. The truth is there are many species foreigners would rather hunt else where do to expense or quality of game/hunt.

Personally if I was an outfitter I would look at ways to expand what might business could offer
the simple fact that guide Outfitters don't offer these options shows their lack of stewardship. If they were that concerned about conservation they would be looking at ways to bring in money without having to actually kill the animal. I'm not suggesting they shouldn't have a living made off of guiding, it's just bringing people here to shoot animals when you know exactly where they are by the thousands just takes the sport out of it if you ask me and certainly doesn't scream conservation and stewardship.

[bigwhiteys]

Ya, maybe we could try it out in some other continent like say Africa and give it a catchy name...hmmmm maybe safari?

I can't see the sheep outfitters making sheep hiking/viewing tours very profitable with their current business model and the pricing of those hunts. Wildlife viewing safari, yes. Sheep hiking tour, I am not so sure.

[Buck]

"Bringing in the most dollars to hunted animal ratio should be the job of the government, this i believe contributed to their allocation decision. "


Absolutely NOT!

Its sad how GOABC promotes itself as a champion of the North America Model of Wildlife Management yet defies the pillars of the ideology.

Governments role is to manage wildlife in "trust" for it's citizens, not to maximize profit from wildlife.

Pay attention Residents. The encroachment of putting dollar values on individual animals is a goal of those looking to privatize the resource. Do not fall into this trap.

This guy Chilcolton hillbilly is so far into the public trough its sickening.Why don't you go to the Goabc and get them to subsidise you instead of the RH.Many of your buddys up North are making buckets of money get them to offset your losses till you guys can lobby the Libs to grow more wildlife.You're one hell of a flim flam man CH.You should be ashamed off yourself for coming here playing the sympathy card ...i took a loss therefore you must subsidise me.The Goabc had many years to work out a solution within the Organization with the original 2007 allocation but i guess the guys you think are your friends aren't and in the end threw you under the bus.
This all about privatizing wildlife don't be fooled.

[Sitkaspruce]

All good points. I hope I get the chance to shoot someone's sheep down the road. Got to balance the budget somehow? LNG doesn't seem to be working that well yet.

I thought you were a resident?? Would it not be every resident of BC's sheep?? Thats the problem with the GO's of today, they look at wildlife from a them or us attitude instead of a we.....we need to make it better for ALL.

The rest of what you said is way way over my head.........

Cheers

SS

[Paulyman]

I can't see the sheep outfitters making sheep hiking/viewing tours very profitable with their current business model and the pricing of those hunts. Wildlife viewing safari, yes. Sheep hiking tour, I am not so sure.
I probably should have been clearer, I was only using one example. Like you said wildlife viewing safaris could be an option and i think would generate a lot of income and keep them working year round instead of just hunting season.

[bigwhiteys]

Personally if I was an outfitter I would look at ways to expand what might business could offer

If you were an outfitter you'd really be an entrepreneur and if you didn't look at ways to expand and grow your business you'd be gone. This is something every entrepreneur understands. So on that front, yes I see the need to adapt their business model. When my family sold their outfit the intraweb wasn't even around. There was no "Google" and marketing new types of eco-adventures was difficult and something they didn't really understand how to do... They knew how to sell hunts. Nowadays if you have a good website and show up on the first page of Google for something like "BC Wildlife Viewing Tour" or "BC Bear Watching" or "BC Whale Watching" it can be like a license to print money.

[Paulyman]

If you were an outfitter you'd really be an entrepreneur and if you didn't look at ways to expand and grow your business you'd be gone. This is something every entrepreneur understands. So on that front, yes I see the need to adapt their business model. When my family sold their outfit the intraweb wasn't even around. There was no "Google" and marketing new types of eco-adventures was difficult and something they didn't really understand how to do... They knew how to sell hunts. Nowadays if you have a good website and show up on the first page of Google for something like "BC Wildlife Viewing Tour" or "BC Bear Watching" or "BC Whale Watching" it can be like a license to print money.

Exactly! Nowadays there simply is no excuse. If it wasn't for the liberals the goabc and it's flunkies may very well have been the next dinosaur.

[Wild one]

the simple fact that guide Outfitters don't offer these options shows their lack of stewardship. If they were that concerned about conservation they would be looking at ways to bring in money without having to actually kill the animal. I'm not suggesting they shouldn't have a living made off of guiding, it's just bringing people here to shoot animals when you know exactly where they are by the thousands just takes the sport out of it if you ask me and certainly doesn't scream conservation and stewardship.

I would not call a guided hunt a slam dunk with the animal waiting for you. Talk to guys who have done a good number of guided hunts and you will find often that is not the case. There is a good number of hunters that will come to BC and leave empty handed.

There is a big misconception about guided hunts on HBC in my opinion. There is no high fence hunts in BC and guides/clients deal with the same factors that can make or break a hunt as any other hunter.

A guided hunt in my opinion is no different from going out with a local with a good amount of time hunting the area. Yes, he knows the animals and the land but he cannot control what they do. As seen in another thread not all guides even have good knowledge of the area they are hunting.

[ruger#1]

It's a sad fact , That in Canada. The minority get their way. And the Majority get the shaft. It is time for a change. I'm not fed up with guides. I have a few that are friends. I'm fed up with who represents them. And so are my friend guides. I have always voted Liberal. That is going to change also.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

This guy Chilcolton hillbilly is so far into the public trough its sickening.Why don't you go to the Goabc and get them to subsidise you instead of the RH.Many of your buddys up North are making buckets of money get them to offset your losses till you guys can lobby the Libs to grow more wildlife.You're one hell of a flim flam man CH.You should be ashamed off yourself for coming here playing the sympathy card ...i took a loss therefore you must subsidise me.The Goabc had many years to work out a solution within the Organization with the original 2007 allocation but i guess the guys you think are your friends aren't and in the end threw you under the bus.
This all about privatizing wildlife don't be fooled.

Hey jerknut, I have never looked for sympathy from anyone. Especially not a piece of work like yourself.
I don't gain anything from this new allocation, not one animal over 5 years!
The 66% I lost in moose allocation happened 3 years ago. I never expected to gain anything back. I am one of the few region 5 outfitters that make a living at this business working 8 months a year hunting. The other 4 months swinging a hammer. Moose is such a small part of my business with 6 moose over 5 years quota.

[Sitkaspruce]

Ya, maybe we could try it out in some other continent like say Africa and give it a catchy name...hmmmm maybe safari? ;-)

That would not work.....those PITA resident hunters would tag along and find out the "secrete spots" that hold where all their animals hang out.

Nothing that could jeopardize their bottom line will work, even if it puts money in their pockets.

They would rather sit around, kind of like welfare, and hold out their hands, waiting for the government and RH will help them.

Too bad the guys who are NOT in the GOABC are not speaking up to who ever will listen; media, MLA's and anyone else who will listen about what is REALLY going on, instead of sitting off to the side and waiting to "pick up the pieces".......

Cheers

SS

[Wild one]

If you were an outfitter you'd really be an entrepreneur and if you didn't look at ways to expand and grow your business you'd be gone. This is something every entrepreneur understands. So on that front, yes I see the need to adapt their business model. When my family sold their outfit the intraweb wasn't even around. There was no "Google" and marketing new types of eco-adventures was difficult and something they didn't really understand how to do... They knew how to sell hunts. Nowadays if you have a good website and show up on the first page of Google for something like "BC Wildlife Viewing Tour" or "BC Bear Watching" or "BC Whale Watching" it can be like a license to print money.

Not saying it is easy or even in the minds of the old time outfitters

Just looking at the issue from a business stand point as I don't see a portion of the outfits in BC being able to rely on selling hunts alone tag increase or not.

[tuner]

The financial hardship guides faced after 07 were the result of the global economic crisis,and not as a result of decreased allocation. No one from the GOABC has acknowledged this fact, they used a slumping market as a pretext to lobby the government for increased allotments as a way of regaining back lost business.The irony of this is that they now have more of a commodity to sell to a decreasing customer base. When foreign hunter demand decreased the unused allotments should of been returned to RH,instead we are seeing the opposite happening,it makes no sense.

[Paulyman]

I would not call a guided hunt a slam dunk with the animal waiting for you. Talk to guys who have done a good number of guided hunts and you will find often that is not the case. There is a good number of hunters that will come to BC and leave empty handed.

There is a big misconception about guided hunts on HBC in my opinion. There is no high fence hunts in BC and guides/clients deal with the same factors that can make or break a hunt as any other hunter.

A guided hunt in my opinion is no different from going out with a local with a good amount of time hunting the area. Yes, he knows the animals and the land but he cannot control what they do. As seen in another thread not all guides even have good knowledge of the area they are hunting.
Ok, point taken.

[ruger#1]

I would not call a guided hunt a slam dunk with the animal waiting for you. Talk to guys who have done a good number of guided hunts and you will find often that is not the case. There is a good number of hunters that will come to BC and leave empty handed.

There is a big misconception about guided hunts on HBC in my opinion. There is no high fence hunts in BC and guides/clients deal with the same factors that can make or break a hunt as any other hunter.

A guided hunt in my opinion is no different from going out with a local with a good amount of time hunting the area. Yes, he knows the animals and the land but he cannot control what they do. As seen in another thread not all guides even have good knowledge of the area they are hunting. I agree. They are not a slam dunk. Been on a two week guided moose hunt. To only see wolves. Guides get paid regardless.

[bridger]

Hey jerknut, I have never looked for sympathy from anyone. Especially not a piece of work like yourself.
I don't gain anything from this new allocation, not one animal over 5 years!
The 66% I lost in moose allocation happened 3 years ago. I never expected to gain anything back. I am one of the few region 5 outfitters that make a living at this business working 8 months a year hunting. The other 4 months swinging a hammer. Moose is such a small part of my business with 6 moose over 5 years quota.


Not picking a fight here. Just wondering if any of the outfitters in your region offer some type of hunt package for residents that have a leh moose tag.

[Walking Buffalo]

A question for confirmation. ...

Can a BC resident hunt on an outfitter's allocation?

In Alberta, residents can not use outfitter allocation licences. This eliminates local trades of moose for tires...
Resident outfitters and guides are also excluded from using these allocations. This limits the buying of allocations for personal use.

This rule also supports and helps maintain the provincial 90/10 split by eliminating the argument that residents can access the outfitter's allocation.

[bridger]

Yes the quota can be used by residents. Don't think it happens much tho.

[Huevos]

That would not work.....those PITA resident hunters would tag along and find out the "secrete spots" that hold where all their animals hang out.

Nothing that could jeopardize their bottom line will work, even if it puts money in their pockets.

They would rather sit around, kind of like welfare, and hold out their hands, waiting for the government and RH will help them.

Too bad the guys who are NOT in the GOABC are not speaking up to who ever will listen; media, MLA's and anyone else who will listen about what is REALLY going on, instead of sitting off to the side and waiting to "pick up the pieces".......

Cheers

SS
Thanks for the jab SS. I'm just sitting here collecting welfare. Never worked a day in my life. Handouts only please. That's why I have two journeyman certificates and thought it would be nice to chase a dream. That's the definition of pure laziness. Politics wasn't in my ambitions when I signed on, and I have no intention to make it one now.

[Sitkaspruce]

Thanks for the jab SS. I'm just sitting here collecting welfare. Never worked a day in my life. Handouts only please. That's why I have two journeyman certificates and thought it would be nice to chase a dream. That's the definition of pure laziness. Politics wasn't in my ambitions when I signed on, and I have no intention to make it one now.

It was not a shot at you, but at the business itself.

You are one of the rare ones....I know quite a few GO's and guides (both hunting and fishing) that spend the OFF SEASON down south and have their buddies filling out the yes, yes, yes, no, yes (or that was the old way) of UI. Some fishing guides do work down south, but lots do not. Same as GO's.

But, as an outfitter, what are you doing to improve your business without taking more for the RH??

The ways of the old, where the dollar was 20% less, the economy was stable, blue collar workers were willing to pay reasonable $$$ for a hunt, lots of animals around and the GO's did more for wildlife are gone. Now, it is whoa is me, the only way we can survive is we need more animals (from the RH) to attract the limited number of hunters who are willing to pay the big bucks to hunt here in BC. The dollar is back in the shitter, so that takes care of the lost dollars, but how are going to attract the same blue collar workers when we have increased our prices 10-20%........that we will see this spring/fall.

Bet you we will see the GOABC back crying for more a year from now......

The sig line below is from the VP of the GOABC who says their business plan is good....so why do the GO's need more animals???

Cheers

SS

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Not picking a fight here. Just wondering if any of the outfitters in your region offer some type of hunt package for residents that have a leh moose tag.

Not that I know off, but I have suggested it to the few that have contacted. I did talk to one this year, using my tag is one price , put in for leh we can work out a better rate. the fact is I do all my own guiding so the times would have to be post rut to make sense to me.

[Huevos]

It was not a shot at you, but at the business itself.

You are one of the rare ones....I know quite a few GO's and guides (both hunting and fishing) that spend the OFF SEASON down south and have their buddies filling out the yes, yes, yes, no, yes (or that was the old way) of UI. Some fishing guides do work down south, but lots do not. Same as GO's.

But, as an outfitter, what are you doing to improve your business without taking more for the RH??

The ways of the old, where the dollar was 20% less, the economy was stable, blue collar workers were willing to pay reasonable $$$ for a hunt, lots of animals around and the GO's did more for wildlife are gone. Now, it is whoa is me, the only way we can survive is we need more animals (from the RH) to attract the limited number of hunters who are willing to pay the big bucks to hunt here in BC. The dollar is back in the shitter, so that takes care of the lost dollars, but how are going to attract the same blue collar workers when we have increased our prices 10-20%........that we will see this spring/fall.

Bet you we will see the GOABC back crying for more a year from now......

The sig line below is from the VP of the GOABC who says their business plan is good....so why do the GO's need more animals???

Cheers

SS
You pose a good question about business plans. Each area has different challenges. My area, for example, does not pose great wildlife viewing options in a heavily wooded area or cutblock. We do, however, have great fishing in the lakes. We are in the process of building a new lodge with facilities to cater to fisherman. (They are a bit more needy than the average hunter). We have also expanded into hound hunting to pick up some extra business,(don't tell the wife, but the real reason for hounds was a great excuse to extend the season for me.)
i collected UI once when I was at school. Got paid $2100 and had to pay $1800 back. Still trying to figure that one out.

[bridger]

You pose a good question about business plans. Each area has different challenges. My area, for example, does not pose great wildlife viewing options in a heavily wooded area or cutblock. We do, however, have great fishing in the lakes. We are in the process of building a new lodge with facilities to cater to fisherman. (They are a bit more needy than the average hunter). We have also expanded into hound hunting to pick up some extra business,(don't tell the wife, but the real reason for hounds was a great excuse to extend the season for me.)
i collected UI once when I was at school. Got paid $2100 and had to pay $1800 back. Still trying to figure that one out.
Hope it works out for you. New business ventures always a little risk, a little apprehension , lots of hardwork.

[Argali]

I am not sure what you are getting at? Do you need a pat on the back for being a BC resident?

We live in the best province by far for hunting and fishing and better then any state as well by a long shot. We have more opportunity to hunt then any other jurisdiction.

Resident hunters in BC are the envy of every other hunter in North America or possibly the world. But you have it really tough, I couldn't imagine living anywhere else and I am sure you think the same.
If you don't the opportunities we have I guess you could move to a province or state where the split is 90-10.

This statement is bang on and worth re-reading.

Nowhere in the world offers such varied and high quality resident hunting opportunities as B.C. If you have a BC resident hunting licence, you have won the lottery. Enjoy it.

[yama49]

This statement is bang on and worth re-reading.

Nowhere in the world offers such varied and high quality resident hunting opportunities as B.C. If you have a BC resident hunting licence, you have won the lottery. Enjoy it.

excat same can said about being a outfitter in bc

[bridger]

This statement is bang on and worth re-reading.

Nowhere in the world offers such varied and high quality resident hunting opportunities as B.C. If you have a BC resident hunting licence, you have won the lottery. Enjoy it.

Have enjoyed it immensely for almost 50 years. Want to pass those opportunities on

[lange1212]

This statement is bang on and worth re-reading.

Nowhere in the world offers such varied and high quality resident hunting opportunities as B.C. If you have a BC resident hunting licence, you have won the lottery. Enjoy it.

Not so if the GOABC and Thomson are successful at stealing 25% - 40% of publics "allocated wildlife" we will soon be the Province with the worst resident hunting opportunity anywhere. The reality is the GOABC is pushing to privatize wildlife based on greed and the BC resident public overall will not stand for it. That's the bottom line issue nice try with the smoke and mirrors!

[Paulyman]

This statement is bang on and worth re-reading.

Nowhere in the world offers such varied and high quality resident hunting opportunities as B.C. If you have a BC resident hunting licence, you have won the lottery. Enjoy it.

Scott Ellis, is that you? :-)

[Buck]

This statement is bang on and worth re-reading.

Nowhere in the world offers such varied and high quality non resident hunting opportunities as B.C. If you have a non resident hunting licence, you have won the lottery. Enjoy it.

Changed a few things for you .Unbelievable still think we are sleeping

[Argali]

Scott Ellis, is that you? :-)

Haha. Nope, not a guide and don't know any other than the guys on this site that have (bravely) identified themselves as such. In this case, CH made a valid statement.

BC resident hunters have it exceptionally good.

[coach]

Haha. Nope, not a guide and don't know any other than the guys on this site that have (bravely) identified themselves as such. In this case, CH made a valid statement.

BC resident hunters have it exceptionally good.

And this part of the statement was also valid?

"If you don't the opportunities we have I guess you could move to a province or state where the split is 90-10."

Sorry, I respect CH and BV for continuing to keep lines of communication going here and for the most part staying away from the BS tactics used by some GO's that seem to have disappeared - but being told that I I don't like the allocation policy imposed by Thomson I should just move? That's a bit over the line..

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Coach,
I think sitting on the other side of the provincial border would give people a whole new perspective. All my hunters that can't believe the seasons we have here. Many ask what the rules are for getting a resident license.
Do I agree with all of the thompson policy ? No I don't.Going from 18 to 6 moose over 5 years and not getting an ounce more, I have yet to see the benefit. Even with the jump in grizzly percentage it will not increase my quota?
This is the case for most every outfitter very few are gaining in allocation what we all gain is the certainty of a legislated spit.

[Paulyman]

Haha. Nope, not a guide and don't know any other than the guys on this site that have (bravely) identified themselves as such. In this case, CH made a valid statement.

BC resident hunters have it exceptionally good.

I do agree we have it good, you're right. but if you look at the trend over 30 years that has been changing and it's all been in the name of trophy class animals at the resident hunters expense. The goabc can push it's coexistence campaign all they want, but the truth is they do not want 102000 hunters out there shooting animals that could potentially cut into their bottom line. so although I agree with you that we do have It good, it is time to cut off the head of the snake before it gets too big. The goabc needs a little resident moderation and that's what's happening now.

[j270wsm]

Coach,
I think sitting on the other side of the provincial border would give people a whole new perspective. All my hunters that can't believe the seasons we have here. Many ask what the rules are for getting a resident license.
Do I agree with all of the thompson policy ? No I don't.Going from 18 to 6 moose over 5 years and not getting an ounce more, I have yet to see the benefit. Even with the jump in grizzly percentage it will not increase my quota?
This is the case for most every outfitter very few are gaining in allocation what we all gain is the certainty of a legislated spit.


So what happens if the outfitters, that were shafted, speak up?????? Go to the media and tell them the truth about how your being screwed!!!!!!! You said that your quota was reduced in 2012........so wouldn't helping us get back to the 2007 agreement be beneficial for your business?

[tuner]

CH couldn't the GOABC set up an escrow account or a stabilization program where everyone pays into and monies could be redistributed to outfitters that see decreases to allocation or other adverse economic situations?

[bridger]

Many of the quota reductions that occurred were not so much due the the 2007 splits but the removal of regional averaging as a system to determine quota levels A system that a couple of regional managers used to increase quota. Basically the used inflated moose population numbers to establish artificial quota's. They counted moose in unallocated areas and gave outfitters a percentage of those moose. Thereby creating an over harvest potential and artificial quotas.

When these non existent moose were removed from the equation quotas went down to levels supported by the actual number of moose in the guides area. Most of the outfitters appealed this decision but were turned down by the environmental appeal board.

Don't hear much about that from the Goabc. Just hear my quota was reduced.

[Ambush]

Coach,
I think sitting on the other side of the provincial border would give people a whole new perspective. All my hunters that can't believe the seasons we have here.

And if you talk to outfitters from south of the border, they can't believe the quota that BC guides get. You are the envy of the outfitting business in NA! Why do you think "foreigners" are buying BC territories? And, yes, outfitters with big ticket species are very anxious to get the extra allotment because it increases their business's paper value when they sell to those envious foreign buyers.

The "BC has it best" argument is valid for both sides. I may have unprecedented opportunity compared to my US counter parts, but so do BC outfitters.

Your well heeled and well connected executive is screwing you CH. You are just collateral damage to them on their way to financial security. When they are sold out and gone, you are left to rub elbows with us residents in the local coffee shops and on the street. Wouldn't it be better to be greeted with a smile and a "howdy" than a cold shoulder?

We can't usually pick our enemies, but we can chose our friends.

[burger]

Coach,
I think sitting on the other side of the provincial border would give people a whole new perspective. All my hunters that can't believe the seasons we have here. Many ask what the rules are for getting a resident license.
Do I agree with all of the thompson policy ? No I don't.Going from 18 to 6 moose over 5 years and not getting an ounce more, I have yet to see the benefit. Even with the jump in grizzly percentage it will not increase my quota?
This is the case for most every outfitter very few are gaining in allocation what we all gain is the certainty of a legislated spit.


With the huge decline in Moose Pop. In region 5( which I think you are in) why would you think you should be allocated any more moose? Why there is any GO allocations in a region completely on LEH is beyond me???

[bridger]

And if you talk to outfitters from south of the border, they can't believe the quota that BC guides get. You are the envy of the outfitting business in NA! Why do you think "foreigners" are buying BC territories? And, yes, outfitters with big ticket species are very anxious to get the extra allotment because it increases their business's paper value when they sell to those envious foreign buyers.

The "BC has it best" argument is valid for both sides. I may have unprecedented opportunity compared to my US counter parts, but so do BC outfitters.

Your well heeled and well connected executive is screwing you CH. You are just collateral damage to them on their way to financial security. When they are sold out and gone, you are left to rub elbows with us residents in the local coffee shops and on the street. Wouldn't it be better to be greeted with a smile and a "howdy" than a cold shoulder?

We can't usually pick our enemies, but we can chose our friends.


Pretty well puts a wrap on it!

[Fisher-Dude]

With the huge decline in Moose Pop. In region 5( which I think you are in) why would you think you should be allocated any more moose? Why there is any GO allocations in a region completely on LEH is beyond me???

Bingo! Moose population declines 70% and an outfitter blames the residents' share of allocation for a reduction in his quota.

Seems all these outfitters want to fight for a bigger share of a declining resource instead of putting something towards making more resources.

We asked the guides, to help with funding for a moose project. They basically basically told us to F.R.O. So we paid the full shot ourselves (BCWF clubs).

Don't drink the Kool-Aid, folks.

[Wild one]

This statement is bang on and worth re-reading.

Nowhere in the world offers such varied and high quality resident hunting opportunities as B.C. If you have a BC resident hunting licence, you have won the lottery. Enjoy it.

Some may not completely agree in my honest opinion it depends on where in BC you are located and how far are you willing to drive.

North of PG yes south not so much(have not hunted EK). In my opinion BC offers a lot of poor quality false opportunity for a lot of species. The way BC manages hunter and wildlife also needs change along with the GO industry in my opinion.

Verity BC has it hands down but it lacks in some areas and species along with the ways BC provides opportunity.

[Fisher-Dude]

We shouldn't be managing hunters. We should be managing wildlife.

Managing hunters has got us to where we are now - it's the cheap and ineffective way of saying we're "managing wildlife."

[Wild one]

We shouldn't be managing hunters. We should be managing wildlife.

Managing hunters has got us to where we are now - it's the cheap and ineffective way of saying we're "managing wildlife."

Yes, we manage hunter by point restriction and LEH almost exclusively BC. The over use of LEH is a reason why this allocation issue has such an impact. Better options out there to give opportunity.

Managing hunters is part of wildlife management sorry but a free for all no closed season no bag limit would not work either.

Hunters are part of it if not we would not have allocations and would not have the issue we do now.

But I know in your opinion hunters have no impact

Yes habitat and predators are part of it

[rgn5hunt]

Bingo! Moose population declines 70% and an outfitter blames the residents' share of allocation for a reduction in his quota.

Seems all these outfitters want to fight for a bigger share of a declining resource instead of putting something towards making more resources.

We asked GOABC, of which CH is a member, to help with funding for a moose project. GOABC basically told us to F.R.O. So we paid the full shot ourselves (BCWF clubs).

Don't drink the Kool-Aid, folks.
Since LEH began the resident moose harvest is down 48% in Region 5 in the same time frame the non resident harvest is down 3%.

[Fisher-Dude]

Yes, we manage hunter by point restriction and LEH almost exclusively BC. The over use of LEH is a reason why this allocation issue has such an impact.


Doesn't matter if allocated species are on GOS or LEH as far as being allocated or not.

GOS moose in region 8 are on allocation, for example. GOS sheep in region 4 are also on allocation.

Harvest is controlled through season length, curl restrictions, etc.

I think hunters have to get it through their heads that this is NOT just an LEH issue - it also affects general open seasons! Hunters could very well lose GOS seasons in order to shift quota over to guide outfitters!

[Fisher-Dude]

Since LEH began the resident moose harvest is down 48% in Region 5 in the same time frame the non resident harvest is down 3%.

Correct. The shift to non-residents/guide outfitters has been happening for a long time, solely at the expense of residents' opportunities.

Some people seem hell-bent on making everything bow only to say "residents have opportunity" - me, I want GOS seasons where residents truly have priority and an increasing resource so that we can meet the demands of the existing hunters and an increasing hunter base. If someone wants to bow hunt a moose, they can fill their boots during a general open season.

[Wild one]

Doesn't matter if allocated species are on GOS or LEH as far as being allocated or not.

GOS moose in region 8 are on allocation, for example. GOS sheep in region 4 are also on allocation.

Harvest is controlled through season length, curl restrictions, etc.

I think hunters have to get it through their heads that this is NOT just an LEH issue - it also affects general open seasons! Hunters could very well lose GOS seasons in order to shift quota over to guide outfitters!

Yes it can cause a shift to more LEH and limit the number of LEH available and this is an issue

But it has LESS impact to hunters in areas and for species that are GOS

If you want to see it or not we are seeing a larger impact from this do to how things are managed.

Worth fighting this split 100% but how GO's and resident hunters are managed needs to change in BC.

[coach]

Coach,
I think sitting on the other side of the provincial border would give people a whole new perspective. All my hunters that can't believe the seasons we have here. Many ask what the rules are for getting a resident license.
Do I agree with all of the thompson policy ? No I don't.Going from 18 to 6 moose over 5 years and not getting an ounce more, I have yet to see the benefit. Even with the jump in grizzly percentage it will not increase my quota?
This is the case for most every outfitter very few are gaining in allocation what we all gain is the certainty of a legislated spit.


CH - I grew up in the Cariboo. When I passed my CORE in the early 1980's "any bull" moose season went from September until November and there were almost double the number of hunters as there are today. GOABC lobbied to have GOS taken away. They also killed spike-fork season in region 5. Here we sit, 20 plus years later, with all moose hunting in Region 5 on LEH. Mule deer limits have dropped from 2 bucks to 1 and some GO's are pushing to have those put on LEH. Successive governments managing hunters instead of wildlife hasn't worked. With moose populations in the toilet, it's debatable whether non-residents should be harvesting ANY moose at all. What was once the Mecca for deer and moose hunting in this province is now a joke.

You have adapted your business model and by all accounts have capitalized on the opportunity to sell predator hunts. That's commendable, but when it comes to R5 moose there's a ton of work that needs to be done to help populations rebound. That's going to take a lot of effort between government, residents, GO's and First Nations. Thomson's Policy has done nothing to help that happen so the future in your area isn't looking bright. It's a sad state, that's for sure.

[Wild one]

Correct. The shift to non-residents/guide outfitters has been happening for a long time, solely at the expense of residents' opportunities.

Some people seem hell-bent on making everything bow only to say "residents have opportunity" - me, I want GOS seasons where residents truly have priority and an increasing resource so that we can meet the demands of the existing hunters and an increasing hunter base. If someone wants to bow hunt a moose, they can fill their boots during a general open season.

Yes those evil bowhunters lol

Look at region 6 and talk to the residents there with the great GOS/archery/LEH moose season they have where they have multiple opportunities to get to hunt their moose every year. Most use all 3 options and no stupid 2pt season.

GOS 2pt/LEH or an any bull GOS/archery/LEH it is easy to see which 1 gives a better opportunity to all. But odds are you would rather go with the first option to limit evil bowhunters

Lots of different options and like it or not special weapon season give opportunity and are utilized all across North America. Hunters utilize these seasons and many would rather adept to a new weapon and hunt every year than spend years waiting for LEH only. Both muzzleloader and archery are used for this successfully.

Used as options beyond LEH they give great opportunity. Point restrictions cause more to shy away then special weapon because as you preach most are meat hunters.

But hey keep pushing GOS and LEH only options and see where the future of hunting goes in BC. We are seeing some of the results now

[bridger]

Special weapons seasons are a soft form of limited entry used by wildlife managers across North America in jurisdictions that are small geographically to spread hunting pressure and keep as many options open. They should not be the first option.

The he real issue (I will say it again) in our province is the Goabc pushing government in a direction resident hunters won't accept. The diatribe coming out of the guiding industry is a smoke screen.

It would be nice if the Goabc used the millions of dollars they have raised with the non resident hunting preservation fund to a better end.

[rgn5hunt]

I support the 2 point GOS season and many want it in Region 5. The science behind it makes good sense, 1) it promotes the juvenile bulls with 3 points to become breeding bulls in the future. 2) studies have proven that there is a fairly high winter mortality on yearlings anyway. 3) it provides a gos season. I don't bow hunt yet but if there was a season for moose I would try.
Yes those evil bowhunters lol

Look at region 6 and talk to the residents there with the great GOS/archery/LEH moose season they have where they have multiple opportunities to get to hunt their moose every year. Most use all 3 options and no stupid 2pt season.

GOS 2pt/LEH or an any bull GOS/archery/LEH it is easy to see which 1 gives a better opportunity to all. But odds are you would rather go with the first option to limit evil bowhunters

Lots of different options and like it or not special weapon season give opportunity and are utilized all across North America. Hunters utilize these seasons and many would rather adept to a new weapon and hunt every year than spend years waiting for LEH only. Both muzzleloader and archery are used for this successfully.

Used as options beyond LEH they give great opportunity. Point restrictions cause more to shy away then special weapon because as you preach most are meat hunters.

But hey keep pushing GOS and LEH only options and see where the future of hunting goes in BC. We are seeing some of the results now

[Fisher-Dude]

Yes those evil bowhunters lol

Look at region 6 and talk to the residents there with the great GOS/archery/LEH moose season they have where they have multiple opportunities to get to hunt their moose every year. Most use all 3 options and no stupid 2pt season.

GOS 2pt/LEH or an any bull GOS/archery/LEH it is easy to see which 1 gives a better opportunity to all. But odds are you would rather go with the first option to limit evil bowhunters

Lots of different options and like it or not special weapon season give opportunity and are utilized all across North America. Hunters utilize these seasons and many would rather adept to a new weapon and hunt every year than spend years waiting for LEH only. Both muzzleloader and archery are used for this successfully.

Used as options beyond LEH they give great opportunity. Point restrictions cause more to shy away then special weapon because as you preach most are meat hunters.

But hey keep pushing GOS and LEH only options and see where the future of hunting goes in BC. We are seeing some of the results now


Bow season basically runs Sep 1 to Dec 20 where I live. I was the one who wrote the proposal to get it extended that late. Keep thinking what you will of me.

As I said, some want further restrictions on hunting a declining resource, while others are interested in increasing the resource for all. Switching GOS to special weapons seasons will not increase the resource.

What I've seen so far in this allocation debate by the self-professed bow hunting representatives is rolling over and accepting a lower allocation, with what I can only assume is a hope for resident hunters to be further restricted by special weapons seasons replacing GOS to limit harvest to meet lower allocation numbers.

I don't believe that's where we want to be going.

And I don't believe that everyone understands that GOS animals are also allocated animals in some cases, and seasons could be lost to accommodate foreign harvest.

[GoatGuy]

Stay on topic folks, it's about allocation

[280 77]

And if you talk to outfitters from south of the border, they can't believe the quota that BC guides get. You are the envy of the outfitting business in NA! Why do you think "foreigners" are buying BC territories? And, yes, outfitters with big ticket species are very anxious to get the extra allotment because it increases their business's paper value when they sell to those envious foreign buyers.

The "BC has it best" argument is valid for both sides. I may have unprecedented opportunity compared to my US counter parts, but so do BC outfitters.

Your well heeled and well connected executive is screwing you CH. You are just collateral damage to them on their way to financial security. When they are sold out and gone, you are left to rub elbows with us residents in the local coffee shops and on the street. Wouldn't it be better to be greeted with a smile and a "howdy" than a cold shoulder?

We can't usually pick our enemies, but we can chose our friends.
Very well said.

[280 77]

Bottom line is , that goabc is trying to increase the value of their holdings by taking opportunities away from the B.C. resident . They preach general open season and I believe they are lobbying to have those opportunities taken away . We need to make sure this rolling snowball is stopped and melted and the government that is allowing it to happen need to be held accountable . If they are not willing to reverse the course of their actions then we need to make sure we ( and everyone we know) remember this come election time .
Getting rid of the requirement for hiring a guide by non residents would help to get rid of the ASSociation that is trying to eliminate the resident hunter. I intend no disrespect for the old time b.c. guides that are not associated with goabc and i believe that eventually the cream will rise to the top in your industry and hopefully the good guys will do well.
Having the G/O's that don't agree with goabc tactics , support the resident hunter by writing to our government and informing the media would help greatly and would go a long way towards repairing a damaged relationship.
Keep up the good fight ladies and gentlemen.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Bingo! Moose population declines 70% and an outfitter blames the residents' share of allocation for a reduction in his quota.

Seems all these outfitters want to fight for a bigger share of a declining resource instead of putting something towards making more resources.

We asked GOABC, of which CH is a member, to help with funding for a moose project. GOABC basically told us to F.R.O. So we paid the full shot ourselves (BCWF clubs).

Don't drink the Kool-Aid, folks.

Where the residents asleep at the wheel when all these logging roads were punched in, all the trees logged off. Where was the BCWF when it came to closing roads, they still don't agree with killing the access. This is where voices from everyone makes a difference.
One outfitter in the Chilcotin doesn't have much of a say, when all the outfitters ask for road closures we are taking way resident opportunity.

What have you done for moose FD, that's what I thought.
I have killed 23 wolves in the past 4 years and contrary to what GG say you can definitely see the difference.With a small handful of people we killed 40 wolves within 30 minutes of my place last year, the moose are increasing in just a few years.

this is how you build wildlife, with the effort I put in killing wolves I think an extra moose or two to sell would be nice.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Many of the quota reductions that occurred were not so much due the the 2007 splits but the removal of regional averaging as a system to determine quota levels A system that a couple of regional managers used to increase quota. Basically the used inflated moose population numbers to establish artificial quota's. They counted moose in unallocated areas and gave outfitters a percentage of those moose. Thereby creating an over harvest potential and artificial quotas.

When these non existent moose were removed from the equation quotas went down to levels supported by the actual number of moose in the guides area. Most of the outfitters appealed this decision but were turned down by the environmental appeal board.

Don't hear much about that from the Goabc. Just hear my quota was reduced.

You can hear it from me then.
I have two huge vacant areas in 5-5, when taken out of my equation I lost a pile of moose.The problem i have with it is that 80% or more of all the moose shot on 5-5 are shot in my concession, not the adjoining outfitters, and not the vacant areas.
My area has the most access and the best habitat yet the vacant areas that contribute to the resident numbers are hardly being hunted. I wouldn't complain if the areas had sub units that would split up the hunters this would make the most sense.

Now vacant areas do not effect all outfitters in fact I would say less then 1/2 but in some cases like my own it made a huge difference.

[Fisher-Dude]

I have killed 23 wolves in the past 4 years and contrary to what GG say you can definitely see the difference.With a small handful of people we killed 40 wolves within 30 minutes of my place last year, the moose are increasing in just a few years.



And yet a guy kills a coyote on "your" concession and you rip him a new asshole for "taking money away from you" because you sell coyote hides.

Yeah, class act there Doug.

[bridger]

You can hear it from me then.
I have two huge vacant areas in 5-5, when taken out of my equation I lost a pile of moose.The problem i have with it is that 80% or more of all the moose shot on 5-5 are shot in my concession, not the adjoining outfitters, and not the vacant areas.
My area has the most access and the best habitat yet the vacant areas that contribute to the resident numbers are hardly being hunted. I wouldn't complain if the areas had sub units that would split up the hunters this would make the most sense.

Now vacant areas do not effect all outfitters in fact I would say less then 1/2 but in some cases like my own it made a huge difference.

I just don't understand how you can count moose that are not in your area and add them to your quota. Makes no sense to me. Sorry not trying to be difficult but can't see the logic.

[rgn5hunt]

You can hear it from me then.
I have two huge vacant areas in 5-5, when taken out of my equation I lost a pile of moose.The problem i have with it is that 80% or more of all the moose shot on 5-5 are shot in my concession, not the adjoining outfitters, and not the vacant areas.
My area has the most access and the best habitat yet the vacant areas that contribute to the resident numbers are hardly being hunted. I wouldn't complain if the areas had sub units that would split up the hunters this would make the most sense.

Now vacant areas do not effect all outfitters in fact I would say less then 1/2 but in some cases like my own it made a huge difference.

Its too bad the ministry could not make a swap. As roads and access are good in your area it could be traded to residents only, make it the vacant area. Then you get the lightly hunted area with less access, less residents and wilderness setting. Kicker is ya can't take your moose from the one you are in with you!

[rgn5hunt]

I just don't understand how you can count moose that are not in your area and add them to your quota. Makes no sense to me. Sorry not trying to be difficult but can't see the logic.Well Bridger,, there are 101,999 other dudes that are on the same page as you. I do not know how many regions have been manipulated as bad as Region 5 with Regional Managers and their "tools", however I did hear the East Kootenay may be as bad. Pure Bull Poop, the bottom line in Region 5 is residents are down 48% and non residents are down only 3% in about 16 years . I say no more gravy train from vacant areas total transparentcy

[one-shot-wonder]

Well Bridger,, there are 101,999 other dudes that are on the same page as you. I do not know how many regions have been manipulated as bad as Region 5 with Regional Managers and their "tools", however I did hear the East Kootenay may be as bad. Pure Bull Poop, the bottom line in Region 5 is residents are down 48% and non residents are down only 3% in about 16 years . I say no more gravy train from vacant areas total transparentcy

It has been well documented on here and other places that R5 is an absolute joke when it comes to wildlife management ( or should I say hunter management). By your handle it appears you live there......time to start hammering on your MLA about how shitty of a job Roger Stewart is doing!

[rgn5hunt]

It has been well documented on here and other places that R5 is an absolute joke when it comes to wildlife management ( or should I say hunter management). By your handle it appears you live there......time to start hammering on your MLA about how shitty of a job Roger Stewart is doing!
O.S.W. at this point I admit that we have brought 100 Mile into the fray because a few of us knew how close Christy, Steve Thomson and Donna B. are to our registered lobbyist friends. I hope there are residents from Williams Lake and Quesnel that come to the rally this Saturday because Region 5 needs to make some noise. It sickens me to think R. Stewart will ride through this mess without being exposed , he has not been kind to the general public.

[GoatGuy]

You can hear it from me then.
I have two huge vacant areas in 5-5, when taken out of my equation I lost a pile of moose.The problem i have with it is that 80% or more of all the moose shot on 5-5 are shot in my concession, not the adjoining outfitters, and not the vacant areas.
My area has the most access and the best habitat yet the vacant areas that contribute to the resident numbers are hardly being hunted. I wouldn't complain if the areas had sub units that would split up the hunters this would make the most sense.

Now vacant areas do not effect all outfitters in fact I would say less then 1/2 but in some cases like my own it made a huge difference.
So it was ok when you got moose that didn't exist in your area and shot them all in your area but it's not ok when resident hunters, who are managed at the MU level, harvest their moose in the MU?

makes perfect sense.

by the way I thought you bought your territory in 2009?

[rgn5hunt]

Hats off to the trappers an outfitters that kill wolves and others that can call them in or bait shoot them. If the two parties can work together and increase the populations of moose and other game its a win . Region 5 harvests close to 1000 moose (per year) now as compared to 1981 to 1998 at 2000 moose per year. If harvests could be restored to 2000 then stakeholders shares increase by the percentage. both groups win.

[Paulyman]

Interesting little read I found. All the guide territories in the attached files on this link.
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/hunting/non_resident/

Very first one I looked at, out of province mailing address.
http://www.ic.gc.ca/app/ccc/srch/nvgt.do?lang=eng&prtl=1&sbPrtl=&estblmntNo=234567139408&profile=cmpltPrfl&profileId=501&app=sold

[chilcotin hillbilly]

And yet a guy kills a coyote on "your" concession and you rip him a new asshole for "taking money away from you" because you sell coyote hides.

Yeah, class act there Doug.

FD you are a real ass clown. When and where would did i do that. You are a real piece of work. I have never ripped anyone a new one for shooting anything in my concession even the nanny goats.......but maybe i should have.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

I just don't understand how you can count moose that are not in your area and add them to your quota. Makes no sense to me. Sorry not trying to be difficult but can't see the logic.

who said add any to my quota, that hasn't happened. When they calculate populations the total land area is used to get the estimate. Splitting up the vacant areas in to sub regions makes the most sense.


I won't be getting any extra moose regardless what the outcome of the allocation policy. Spitting up the hunters so its not such gong show would be the idea. With my few tags I tend to do horse back hunts not road hunts for moose anyways.

[bridger]

who said add any to my quota, that hasn't happened. When they calculate populations the total land area is used to get the estimate. Splitting up the vacant areas in to sub regions makes the most sense.


I won't be getting any extra moose regardless what the outcome of the allocation policy. Spitting up the hunters so its not such gong show would be the idea. With my few tags I tend to do horse back hunts not road hunts for moose anyways.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in regions 4&5 did not the regional managers in the past use the regional averaging model to set quotas? The model where they counted moose in the untenured areas and increased quotas based on those populations instead of the actual moose numbers in the individual outfitters area.

Quotas are now based on moose numbers in the outfitters area and are adjusted to levels consistent with the splits negotiated in 2007. In actual fact the removal of the regional averaging model appears to have more effect on quotas than the negotiated splits.

My understanding is that the regional averaging model was not official government policy but the brainchild of a couple of regional managers that for whatever reason used it to set artificial quotas. This had a negative effect on leh authorizations.

That practice was good for the outfitter I guess, but still I wonder at the logic, not only from a common sense perspective, but also from a conservation point of view.

We know that many outfitters in region 5 appealed the reductions in quota and it is interesting to note that those appeals were dismissed. It would appear that is the sole motivation for the back room deal to increase allocated shares.

[GoatGuy]

Correct me if I am wrong, but in regions 4&5 did not the regional managers in the past use the regional averaging model to set quotas? The model where they counted moose in the untenured areas and increased quotas based on those populations instead of the actual moose numbers in the individual outfitters area.

Quotas are now based on moose numbers in the outfitters area and were adjusted to levels consistent with the splits negotiated in 2007. In actual fact the removal of the regional averaging model appears to have more effect on quotas than the negotiated splits.

My my understanding is that the regional averaging model was not official government policy but the brainchild of a couple of regional managers that for whatever reason used it to set artificial quotas. This had a negative effect on leh authorizations.

That practice was good for the outfitter I guess, but still I wonder at the logic, not only from a common sense perspective, but also from a conservation point of view.

Region 4, and 7a also used success fsctors on top of that increasing everyone's quota by 50-100% on top of regional averaging. So in some cases where the outfitter should have had 2 bears in 5 they ended up with 10!

region 5 used remote access factors were certain outfitters got extra tags due to low access. Of course resident hunters never got extra in high access areas. Region 7a did it as well. The manager in region 5 also gave the outfitters permits to take gear in on the road closures.

It gets worse then that too. Can't think of any word other than corrupt for the way things went.

[bridger]

Region 4, and 7a also used success fsctors on top of that increasing everyone's quota by 50-100% on top of regional averaging. So in some cases where the outfitter should have had 2 bears in 5 they ended up with 10!

region 5 used remote access factors were certain outfitters got extra tags due to low access. Of course resident hunters never got extra in high access areas. Region 7a did it as well. The manager in region 5 also gave the outfitters permits to take gear in on the road closures.

It gets worse then that too. Can't think of any word other than corrupt for the way things went.



Administration of the guiding industry has always been a dogs breakfast. Equal parts b/s and politics. We really need to rethink how we manage non resident hunters not just the allocation policy.

[2chodi]

Region 4, and 7a also used success fsctors on top of that increasing everyone's quota by 50-100% on top of regional averaging. So in some cases where the outfitter should have had 2 bears in 5 they ended up with 10!



How did "success factors" work?

[Fisher-Dude]

FD you are a real ass clown. When and where would did i do that. You are a real piece of work. I have never ripped anyone a new one for shooting anything in my concession even the nanny goats.......but maybe i should have.

Must have been a different person who guides on your concession in the Cariboo then. :roll:

I'm sure some will believe you, just like they believed your 25% grizzly bear story, and your "residents shoot all those nannies" story. You're even floating the nanny story again, even after being proven wrong.

[bridger]

How did "success factors" work?


The more moose you killed. The more quota you got! Lol

[tangozulu]

Did you know that goat is a once In a lifetime draw in Alberta? By your reasoning, we should close the doors to all non resident Canadians to a species that we can purchase an over the counter tag for each year in BC. Close the door to all friends and family that is a non resident? Seems short sighted and selfish. What constitutes rare?
Non residents can hunt elk, moose, and mule deer in Saskatchewan. I met a guy this week selling hunts at a show,


I think they are pretty fair as they sit. We aren't trying to take anything away from residents, but we have to make a living to. Without us who patrols wildlife? We are out there 365 days a year.Our conservation officers don't have the resources. We do alot for wildlife and hunters throughout the world.

Silly comment.
Of 6 out of Atlin outfits only 1 lives here more than a few months a year.

[Huevos]

Silly comment.
Of 6 out of Atlin outfits only 1 lives here more than a few months a year.

I guess I missed the point here. Or maybe the two quotes have absolutely nothing to do with each other? So in your mind, what constitutes rare in your neck of the woods? Which animals should be unavailable for non resident harvest near Atlin? I am guessing it is a lot different than somewhere down south.
As for the other quote..... Not touching that one with a ten foot pole. I actually do live in my area and would say I am able to observe a lot on the trapline and because opportunity affords me to be out more, but the only thing that I feel that I actively do more for wildlife than the other conservation minded residents here is helping control predators. I do more of that simply due to the fact that I am always out here, I am always looking, and it is a rare occasion when my rifle is not with me. Oh ya, the trapline helps too. As for patrolling... When is the last time you were pulled over by an outfitter? Or a CO for that matter? Wildlife is underfunded for sure, but I have yet to feel the need to report a resident hunter. Most of us follow the regulations. Sure I see the odd camp trash left, but I will continue to pick it up just like 90% of you guys would.

[j270wsm]

For me a rare specie that non res shouldn't hunt in region 4-23 would be grizz. Every year there are incidental kills( cars, trains, hunters defending themselves) that threaten to close our season. 2010 there were 2 leh bears shot( one by myself) and 2 shot by guides( all 4 were bores) then one was poached, a few got hit by trains, cars and defensively killed. So our grizz leh hunting was closed until spring of 2014, when a study came out that said there was way more bears than they realized. Iirc they figured around 200 bears and study showed closer to 600. During the grizz closure I seen anywhere between 20-35 grizz every spring while looking for black bears.

So why allow non-res hunters to participate in hunting an animal/season that is continuously under threat of being closed due to uncontrollable incidents?

[tuner]

For me a rare specie that non res shouldn't hunt in region 4-23 would be grizz. Every year there are incidental kills( cars, trains, hunters defending themselves) that threaten to close our season. 2010 there were 2 leh bears shot( one by myself) and 2 shot by guides( all 4 were bores) then one was poached, a few got hit by trains, cars and defensively killed. So our grizz leh hunting was closed until spring of 2014, when a study came out that said there was way more bears than they realized. Iirc they figured around 200 bears and study showed closer to 600. During the grizz closure I seen anywhere between 20-35 grizz every spring while looking for black bears.

So why allow non-res hunters to participate in hunting an animal/season that is continuously under threat of being closed due to uncontrollable incidents?
Because they are one of the most lucrative spicies the guides in the region have to offer.Your concerns take a back seat to commercial interests. It sounds cynical,but it's a sad fact.

[j270wsm]

That was my point.....question was more rhetorical. The outfitters web page doesn't say what the cost of grizz and sheep are.....? Guess there too scared to let people know how much the tags are worth. 10day moose hunt is $9000US........ Pretty steep to shoot a 45-50" bull

[bridger]

I guess I missed the point here. Or maybe the two quotes have absolutely nothing to do with each other? So in your mind, what constitutes rare in your neck of the woods? Which animals should be unavailable for non resident harvest near Atlin? I am guessing it is a lot different than somewhere down south.
As for the other quote..... Not touching that one with a ten foot pole. I actually do live in my area and would say I am able to observe a lot on the trapline and because opportunity affords me to be out more, but the only thing that I feel that I actively do more for wildlife than the other conservation minded residents here is helping control predators. I do more of that simply due to the fact that I am always out here, I am always looking, and it is a rare occasion when my rifle is not with me. Oh ya, the trapline helps too. As for patrolling... When is the last time you were pulled over by an outfitter? Or a CO for that matter? Wildlife is underfunded for sure, but I have yet to feel the need to report a resident hunter. Most of us follow the regulations. Sure I see the odd camp trash left, but I will continue to pick it up just like 90% of you guys would.


Nice too see that you do the hands on stuff that helps out. The old time outfitters in the peace did a lot of that hands on stuff, predator control in the winter and burning in the spring with or without the proper permits. The results were pretty outstanding. Sad to say the new breed spend a lot less time in their areas and given the present level of beaucracy old time outfitting is really a thing of the past.

I remember the times when we would spend all day arguing over allocation issues in a meeting and spend most of the night sharing a bottle (or two) talking about chasin Rams. Sadly those days too have passed. No longer neighbours

Not a negative comment just a sign of the times.

[tuner]

That was my point.....question was more rhetorical. The outfitters web page doesn't say what the cost of grizz and sheep are.....? Guess there too scared to let people know how much the tags are worth. 10day moose hunt is $9000US........ Pretty steep to shoot a 45-50" bull
A sheep in region 4 will run up to $50K US,a grizzly will be at $20/$25k U.S. These kind of rates attract only a very well heeled clientele.

[Ambush]

....... old time outfitting is really a thing of the past. ...........Not a negative comment just a sign of the times.

Jack O'Conner is either flipping over and over or just sadly shedding a quiet tear.

[tuner]

Nice too see that you do the hands on stuff that helps out. The old time outfitters in the peace did a lot of that hands on stuff, predator control in the winter and burning in the spring with or without the proper permits. The results were pretty outstanding. Sad to say the new breed spend a lot less time in their areas and given the present level of beaucracy old time outfitting is really a thing of the past.

I remember the times when we would spend all day arguing over allocation issues in a meeting and spend most of the night sharing a bottle (or two) talking about chasin Rams. Sadly those days too have passed. No longer neighbours

Not a negative comment just a sign of the times.
Do you think the relationship between RH and the GOABC is damaged beyond repair,Bridger? If so,what do you think will happen in a new landscape of "us and them"? Are there issues that could be better addressed with both parties at the table or do they pursue the same goals independent of each other? Curious as to how you see things going forward.

[Fisher-Dude]

Do you think the relationship between RH and the GOABC is damaged beyond repair,Bridger? If so,what do you think will happen in a new landscape of "us and them"? Are there issues that could be better addressed with both parties at the table or do they pursue the same goals independent of each other? Curious as to how you see things going forward.


I think the relationship between residents and GOABC is indeed damaged beyond repair.

I think the relationship between residents and many guide outfitters can move forward on many common interests.

I think that once GOABC is dismantled and eliminated as the "voice" of the commercial industry, hunters (residents and most guide outfitters) can get along just fine.

I think it's up to individual guide outfitters to choose the path they want to go down. I would wager that many are really upset to see the divide rapidly widening due to the actions of GOABC on this allocation issue.

Time will tell.

[bridger]

Do you think the relationship between RH and the GOABC is damaged beyond repair,Bridger? If so,what do you think will happen in a new landscape of "us and them"? Are there issues that could be better addressed with both parties at the table or do they pursue the same goals independent of each other? Curious as to how you see things going forward.



The GOABC and the guiding industry in general seems to be polarizing into two groups. One group consists of BC family owned outfitting business'; the other consisting of large outfits owned or controlled by an increasining number of non resident and foreign owners.

These larger outfits have more of a corporate foot print than the family run operations. They see outfitting more a business venture than a lifestyle. Why else would a guy from Alberta or Montana buy an area in BC and not move here?

The old time outfitters were part of our social fabric, they were always around, coached minor hockey, etc. much like the smaller family operations today. Compare that to today's corporate owner. They spend less time in their areas, many don't live here, and contribute very little to BC economy or life style.

Having said that I also know that many of the large outfitts are still owned and operated by BC families and it has been my good fortune to know and deal with them over the years. But the big outfits are moving into the corporate world as a matter of natural progression. When sheep and other specie hunts sell for the dollars they do now outfitting becomes big business and big business is all about bottom line. Not saying it's good or bad just reality.

The big outfits call the Goabc tune and it wouldn't surprise me to see the Goabc implode. The outfitters on Vancouver Island have already split and it would be no surprise if other smaller family operations follow suit.

As as a resident hunter I am agreeable to sacrifice some hunting opportunities to support smaller BC family operations; corporations especially those with foreign ownership not so much.

As as to the future I think with the present attitude of the Goabc a sit down at the table would be of little value. The Goabc feels they are in the drivers seat and have the ear of government. That is why it is important that as residents we continue to tell government we won't accept the Thomson Decision.

If the Thomson Decision sticks I doubt the Goabc extends an olive branch. We are in a confrontation with an industry with one agenda that will be decided by political will. We need a good turnout in Victoria.

[tuner]

Cheers, thanx for the reply.The end of the local family component and the move towards a corporate model,seems to be the GOABC goal,and it's already having repercussions on everyone involved.

[The Dawg]

Cheers, thanx for the reply.The end of the local family component and the move towards a corporate model,seems to be the GOABC goal,and it's already having repercussions on everyone involved.

Yup- they are screaming "Family owned, traditions etc', yet they appear to want to be a big business model.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Must have been a different person who guides on your concession in the Cariboo then. :roll:

I'm sure some will believe you, just like they believed your 25% grizzly bear story, and your "residents shoot all those nannies" story. You're even floating the nanny story again, even after being proven wrong.


Are you flipping kidding me? You are such a lying piece of S---, I have offered for residents to stay here and use my blinds and bait station. You are a complete ass clown. Hiding behind your computer.

[bridger]

Are you flipping kidding me? You are such a lying piece of S---, I have offered for residents to stay here and use my blinds and bait station. You are a complete ass clown. Hiding behind your computer.


LOL strong message to follow!

[guest]

What happened to " being respectful " guess it doesn't work both ways ....... As B Bennett knows full well.

[bridger]

It wouldn't come as a surprise that if in the next few years the majority of the major outfitting areas will be foreign owned. BC Government now makes it possible for a corporation to hold the license another sign that the small bc family areas are on the way out. Corporations will come in and buy two or three small areas and combine them into one. Small outfitting businesses will go the same route as mom and pop hamburger stands. What our future hunters will face will a much different guiding industry. Theme song will be "show me the money"

[guest]

Or another theme song they will sing then " cry me a river "

I'm sick of the resident guides that do know there is NOTHING GOOD in this allocation for residents for not speaking up for their grand kids and the future of hunting in BC . How shallow. Very very selfish, all for now, grab while ya BOYZ cause your time is numbered attitude. Sick !

The G/Os wanting this new Allocation and Government have taken the poor relationship with residents and guides and made it a whole lot more troublesome and worse then it has ever been. Should be an interesting next couple years . CT

[Fisher-Dude]

Are you flipping kidding me? You are such a lying piece of S---, I have offered for residents to stay here and use my blinds and bait station. You are a complete ass clown. Hiding behind your computer.


Obviously, the guy who told us about this incident just made it up for something to do. I apologize, he must have just had a mad-on at you.

That doesn't mean your assertions about grizzly harvest and nanny harvest aren't pure BS, though, as proven by the CI reports for region 5. ;)

[Huevos]

I think the relationship between residents and GOABC is indeed damaged beyond repair.

I think the relationship between residents and many guide outfitters can move forward on many common interests.

I think that once GOABC is dismantled and eliminated as the "voice" of the commercial industry, hunters (residents and most guide outfitters) can get along just fine.

I think it's up to individual guide outfitters to choose the path they want to go down. I would wager that many are really upset to see the divide rapidly widening due to the actions of GOABC on this allocation issue.

Time will tell.

Dismantling and eliminating GOABC as the voice of Guide Outfitters would be like trying to dismantle and eliminate BCWF as voice of resident hunters. These two associations are intertwined so deep in govt. they have been trusted to regulate both hunters and guides. BCWF is responsible for resident hunter education and testing with CORE, and as of last week, I now have to pay GOABC for all my assistant guides to take an exam and be certified. It is cheaper for me in the long run, but it shows where the government has put its trust to regulate these programs. I don't think getting rid of GOABC is a viable option here.... rather a reorganization from within would be more believable.

You are correct in thinking that each individual needs to choose which way to go. I, personally am still trying to wrap my head around the whole issue. I moved here chasing a dream a couple of years back, so missed everything leading up to this whole mess. It is difficult for me to say where we should go, because I am still trying to figure out where we started. I will tell you this though, for the most part, "emotion" has kicked "reason" out of drivers seat on both sides and we are heading down the mountain out of control.
The one thing I can see is that this is a massive drain of resources on both sides. Obviously we aren't quite where we need to be yet, but focusing on a number, or a percentage based solely because that is what the neighbors set for their goals isn't the answer either. This province is the envy of many outfitters, and hunters alike I smile everytime I think of what new species I am going to target this next year. If there was a way to refocus our efforts on both sides on conservation, we could continue to be that province where everyone wants to be like. How to do that at this point, is beyond me.... Mediation perhaps?

[Paulyman]

Dismantling and eliminating GOABC as the voice of Guide Outfitters would be like trying to dismantle and eliminate BCWF as voice of resident hunters. These two associations are intertwined so deep in govt. they have been trusted to regulate both hunters and guides. BCWF is responsible for resident hunter education and testing with CORE, and as of last week, I now have to pay GOABC for all my assistant guides to take an exam and be certified. It is cheaper for me in the long run, but it shows where the government has put its trust to regulate these programs. I don't think getting rid of GOABC is a viable option here.... rather a reorganization from within would be more believable.

You are correct in thinking that each individual needs to choose which way to go. I, personally am still trying to wrap my head around the whole issue. I moved here chasing a dream a couple of years back, so missed everything leading up to this whole mess. It is difficult for me to say where we should go, because I am still trying to figure out where we started. I will tell you this though, for the most part, "emotion" has kicked "reason" out of drivers seat on both sides and we are heading down the mountain out of control.
The one thing I can see is that this is a massive drain of resources on both sides. Obviously we aren't quite where we need to be yet, but focusing on a number, or a percentage based solely because that is what the neighbors set for their goals isn't the answer either. This province is the envy of many outfitters, and hunters alike I smile everytime I think of what new species I am going to target this next year. If there was a way to refocus our efforts on both sides on conservation, we could continue to be that province where everyone wants to be like. How to do that at this point, is beyond me.... Mediation perhaps?

Mediation is what I think will work, but by who? I think this idea is a fantastic idea.

[guest]

Dismantling and eliminating GOABC as the voice of Guide Outfitters would be like trying to dismantle and eliminate BCWF as voice of resident hunters. These two associations are intertwined so deep in govt. they have been trusted to regulate both hunters and guides. BCWF is responsible for resident hunter education and testing with CORE, and as of last week, I now have to pay GOABC for all my assistant guides to take an exam and be certified. It is cheaper for me in the long run, but it shows where the government has put its trust to regulate these programs. I don't think getting rid of GOABC is a viable option here.... rather a reorganization from within would be more believable.

You are correct in thinking that each individual needs to choose which way to go. I, personally am still trying to wrap my head around the whole issue. I moved here chasing a dream a couple of years back, so missed everything leading up to this whole mess. It is difficult for me to say where we should go, because I am still trying to figure out where we started. I will tell you this though, for the most part, "emotion" has kicked "reason" out of drivers seat on both sides and we are heading down the mountain out of control.
The one thing I can see is that this is a massive drain of resources on both sides. Obviously we aren't quite where we need to be yet, but focusing on a number, or a percentage based solely because that is what the neighbors set for their goals isn't the answer either. This province is the envy of many outfitters, and hunters alike I smile everytime I think of what new species I am going to target this next year. If there was a way to refocus our efforts on both sides on conservation, we could continue to be that province where everyone wants to be like. How to do that at this point, is beyond me.... Mediation perhaps?

Well, if ya put in as a resident for a Grizz, Rosie or Bison draw, this may NEVER happen in your lifetime with the BROKEN LEH system and catering to Non residents. Stand up and grow a pair and tell your G O Association you want to live with your neighbors, you want to see a future in hunting for your grand kids, you want warranted opportunity as a RESIDENT. Not Screwing people over is a good start.

Or ya can always Pay one of your own guide buddies 25,000 for a Rosie, after all another BC guide just paid over 350,000 for a Mulie down south ...... But I forgot, your all hurting for money.

Stand up to your own and get rid of the chosen few at the Top, other wise your driving your truck off the cliff.

[bigdogeh]

I'm with curly top on this one...

[Whonnock Boy]

390,000 USD, or almost half of a million Canadian dollars.


after all another BC guide just paid over 350,000 for a Mulie down south ......

[bridger]

Dismantling and eliminating GOABC as the voice of Guide Outfitters would be like trying to dismantle and eliminate BCWF as voice of resident hunters. These two associations are intertwined so deep in govt. they have been trusted to regulate both hunters and guides. BCWF is responsible for resident hunter education and testing with CORE, and as of last week, I now have to pay GOABC for all my assistant guides to take an exam and be certified. It is cheaper for me in the long run, but it shows where the government has put its trust to regulate these programs. I don't think getting rid of GOABC is a viable option here.... rather a reorganization from within would be more believable.

You are correct in thinking that each individual needs to choose which way to go. I, personally am still trying to wrap my head around the whole issue. I moved here chasing a dream a couple of years back, so missed everything leading up to this whole mess. It is difficult for me to say where we should go, because I am still trying to figure out where we started. I will tell you this though, for the most part, "emotion" has kicked "reason" out of drivers seat on both sides and we are heading down the mountain out of control.
The one thing I can see is that this is a massive drain of resources on both sides. Obviously we aren't quite where we need to be yet, but focusing on a number, or a percentage based solely because that is what the neighbors set for their goals isn't the answer either. This province is the envy of many outfitters, and hunters alike I smile everytime I think of what new species I am going to target this next year. If there was a way to refocus our efforts on both sides on conservation, we could continue to be that province where everyone wants to be like. How to do that at this point, is beyond me.... Mediation perhaps?


I guess figuring out how this mess started depends on which side of the fence you are on. For me I can trace it back to when territories became tenured, not allocated.. I knew a lot of the old time outfitters and saw a real change in their thinking once they were tenured. The guiding areas became " my country " and the sheep became "my sheep". Not that they were selfish people they weren't. It's just that with tenure came the natural feeling of ownership. As time went on and the areas increased in value that feeling became more entrenched.

Where we are going is anyone's guess, but my money is the number of areas will shrink as more corporations with foreign ownership buy small areas and amalgamate them and start big time hunting consortiums. The economics just don't seem to be there to continue as we are.

we really need to get this allocation issue behind us and move on. We need to take decision making out of the hands of regional managers that are constantly bombarded by both sides. We need to create more wildlife not more confrontation, but from where I sit that won't happen with the present attitude of the guiding industry. As an outfitter you probably think the opposite. Time and politics will tell.

[Sitkaspruce]

Dismantling and eliminating GOABC as the voice of Guide Outfitters would be like trying to dismantle and eliminate BCWF as voice of resident hunters. These two associations are intertwined so deep in govt. they have been trusted to regulate both hunters and guides. BCWF is responsible for resident hunter education and testing with CORE, and as of last week, I now have to pay GOABC for all my assistant guides to take an exam and be certified. It is cheaper for me in the long run, but it shows where the government has put its trust to regulate these programs. I don't think getting rid of GOABC is a viable option here.... rather a reorganization from within would be more believable.

You are correct in thinking that each individual needs to choose which way to go. I, personally am still trying to wrap my head around the whole issue. I moved here chasing a dream a couple of years back, so missed everything leading up to this whole mess. It is difficult for me to say where we should go, because I am still trying to figure out where we started. I will tell you this though, for the most part, "emotion" has kicked "reason" out of drivers seat on both sides and we are heading down the mountain out of control.
The one thing I can see is that this is a massive drain of resources on both sides. Obviously we aren't quite where we need to be yet, but focusing on a number, or a percentage based solely because that is what the neighbors set for their goals isn't the answer either. This province is the envy of many outfitters, and hunters alike I smile everytime I think of what new species I am going to target this next year. If there was a way to refocus our efforts on both sides on conservation, we could continue to be that province where everyone wants to be like. How to do that at this point, is beyond me.... Mediation perhaps?

Interesting post!!

So let me ask you this.....

"What do you think is fair for a split for allocation in percentages??"

You think that we cannot go to 90/10, so what would you like to see. What species do you have to hunt?? Any GOS or all LEH area??

The GOABC would NEVER allow them to go the mediator.....too much money invested in the BS the have been spewing in the Gov's ear.

How much are they charging you for the guides test?? And what is the purpose of the test??

Cheers

SS

[GoatGuy]

Dismantling and eliminating GOABC as the voice of Guide Outfitters would be like trying to dismantle and eliminate BCWF as voice of resident hunters. These two associations are intertwined so deep in govt. they have been trusted to regulate both hunters and guides. BCWF is responsible for resident hunter education and testing with CORE, and as of last week, I now have to pay GOABC for all my assistant guides to take an exam and be certified. It is cheaper for me in the long run, but it shows where the government has put its trust to regulate these programs. I don't think getting rid of GOABC is a viable option here.... rather a reorganization from within would be more believable.

You are correct in thinking that each individual needs to choose which way to go. I, personally am still trying to wrap my head around the whole issue. I moved here chasing a dream a couple of years back, so missed everything leading up to this whole mess. It is difficult for me to say where we should go, because I am still trying to figure out where we started. I will tell you this though, for the most part, "emotion" has kicked "reason" out of drivers seat on both sides and we are heading down the mountain out of control.
The one thing I can see is that this is a massive drain of resources on both sides. Obviously we aren't quite where we need to be yet, but focusing on a number, or a percentage based solely because that is what the neighbors set for their goals isn't the answer either. This province is the envy of many outfitters, and hunters alike I smile everytime I think of what new species I am going to target this next year. If there was a way to refocus our efforts on both sides on conservation, we could continue to be that province where everyone wants to be like. How to do that at this point, is beyond me.... Mediation perhaps?

Not enough integrity in the room.

Integrity, accountability and equity are not words that work for government or GOABC.

The good news is there are still some great old school outfitters; they will be the ones to drive change for the industry and they are the only ones who could start to rebuild the industry's dwindling social license. You will also notice a pile of the are no longer members of GOABC.

[Huevos]

Interesting post!!

So let me ask you this.....

"What do you think is fair for a split for allocation in percentages??"

You think that we cannot go to 90/10, so what would you like to see. What species do you have to hunt?? Any GOS or all LEH area??

The GOABC would NEVER allow them to go the mediator.....too much money invested in the BS the have been spewing in the Gov's ear.

How much are they charging you for the guides test?? And what is the purpose of the test??

Cheers

SS
I honestly don't know where the split should be. I'm not against a 90/10 split, I just think there should be more factors involved than going off other state/provinces model. We should be the ones everyone else wants to model after. I also think that each species should be looked at individually in their respective locations. Resident demand should definitely be factored in there as well.

If the split lies somewhere around that 90/10 that is burned into everyone's brain, would residents be willing to allow for an incremental decrease so outfitters could adjust their business plan over a set time period?

as far as hunting for me, I put in for the draws, but am also willing to travel for GOS if I need. Goat with a bow I think is top on my list..... Caribou has also been in my dreams.

I think the test is $250 for 5 yrs. then a $50 renewal after that every 5. Testing for competence I guess. Seems easy enough though. Same purpose as core?

[GoatGuy]

I honestly don't know where the split should be. I'm not against a 90/10 split, I just think there should be more factors involved than going off other state/provinces model. We should be the ones everyone else wants to model after. I also think that each species should be looked at individually in their respective locations. Resident demand should definitely be factored in there as well.

If the split lies somewhere around that 90/10 that is burned into everyone's brain, would residents be willing to allow for an incremental decrease so outfitters could adjust their business plan over a set time period?

as far as hunting for me, I put in for the draws, but am also willing to travel for GOS if I need. Goat with a bow I think is top on my list..... Caribou has also been in my dreams.

I think the test is $250 for 5 yrs. then a $50 renewal after that every 5. Testing for competence I guess. Seems easy enough though. Same purpose as core?

There was an implementation from the 2007 policy, with full implementation in 2012.

Instead of 'adjusting' their business GOABC started adjusting the liberal party's bottom line.

As said integrity, accountability and integrity do not exist.

[Whonnock Boy]

I don't think you understand. It is "burned" into our brains because it is, based on the facts, what it should be, or less. With growing numbers of resident hunters, as well as aboriginal needs, our piece of the pie will be ever decreasing. GO's will always be the same. Not only that, I truly believe it should go to non-resident LEH. I am not only fighting for our children, but I am fighting for the resident hunter from all over the world, as hunting should be a right, not a privilege, and not just for the wealthy, and influential.




If the split lies somewhere around that 90/10 that is burned into everyone's brain,

[rgn5hunt]

I don't think you understand. It is "burned" into our brains because it is, based on the facts, what it should be, or less. With growing numbers of resident hunters, as well as aboriginal needs, our piece of the pie will be ever decreasing. GO's will always be the same. Not only that, I truly believe it should go to non-resident LEH. I am not only fighting for our children, but I am fighting for the resident hunter from all over the world, as hunting should be a right, not a privilege, and not just for the wealthy, and influential.
First comes conservation, then first nations then the residents get priority, after that non residents should get 5 or maybe 10% and if they book and sell all the allocations. Then they should go harvest some deer and black bears that Steve Thomson says are so abundant.

[Whonnock Boy]

You may have misunderstood what I said, but know, we are pretty much on the same page. :)


First comes conservation, then first nations then the residents get priority, after that non residents should get 5 or maybe 10% and if they book and sell all the allocations. Then they should go harvest some deer and black bears that Steve Thomson says are so abundant.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Obviously, the guy who told us about this incident just made it up for something to do. I apologize, he must have just had a mad-on at you.

That doesn't mean your assertions about grizzly harvest and nanny harvest aren't pure BS, though, as proven by the CI reports for region 5. ;)

I have talked to the biologist about the grizz,. It was not in Region 5 it was in the new opened up season. 5-5 5-6 his words 1 in 4 bears where shot by residents while grizzly was on open season.
Region 5 the bio said the goats harvest has dropped from approx 60 to 25 per year. His feeling is there are a lot of goats getting inspected that are nannies but reported as billies.
FD if you have all the answers just which MU s are the outfitters shooting nannies? It is sure not any guides in that I know of. I know what nannies came off my concession.

I am guessing "this person" has the wrong concession and outfitter. There are a lot of resident hunters, some from this site which I have helped out with info, housing meals.... not much pisses me off more then a BS attack on my credibility.

Once again, guys behind there computers, same guys who look into the stands when your goalie gets hit.

[J_T]

Not enough integrity in the room.

Integrity, accountability and equity are not words that work for government or GOABC.

The good news is there are still some great old school outfitters; they will be the ones to drive change for the industry and they are the only ones who could start to rebuild the industry's dwindling social license. You will also notice a pile of the are no longer members of GOABC.

I made it through this entire thread. Read everything. To be clear, that integrity comment (I agree with) applies to all parties.

I found this thread a good discussion and the catalyst to the degradation is predominantly FD's consistent put downs and accusations to every reply he made. Without his comments on this thread it would have been a better discussion.

FD, your constant badgering on people does not do your integrity or this discussion value.

[Fisher-Dude]

I made it through this entire thread. Read everything. To be clear, that integrity comment (I agree with) applies to all parties.

I found this thread a good discussion and the catalyst to the degradation is predominantly FD's consistent put downs and accusations to every reply he made. Without his comments on this thread it would have been a better discussion.

FD, your constant badgering on people does not do your integrity or this discussion value.

I don't care what a guy thinks who wants to see fewer hunters afield. You and I are working for two different things, so of course we're going to have polar opposite opinions.

[bassplayer]

If it was up to me i would run the guides allocation allotment like this.They first book all their hunts and then submit a documentation with proof of the hunts booked to receive the amount of allocations needed for those hunts. For example. He has 3 grizzly, 6 moose, 2 goat, and 4 sheep hunts booked by clients for the 2015 season. He submits his paperwork with proof of those hunts being booked and he receives and only receives 15 allocations for those species that have been booked for the 2015 season.

[btridge]

If it was up to me i would run the guides allocation allotment like this.They first book all their hunts and then submit a documentation with proof of the hunts booked to receive the amount of allocations needed for those hunts. For example. He has 3 grizzly, 6 moose, 2 goat, and 4 sheep hunts booked by clients for the 2015 season. He submits his paperwork with proof of those hunts being booked and he receives and only receives 15 allocations for those species that have been booked for the 2015 season.

So if he/she is a good salesman, they get more allocations? NOT a good idea!

[Fisher-Dude]

I have talked to the biologist about the grizz,. It was not in Region 5 it was in the new opened up season. 5-5 5-6 his words 1 in 4 bears where shot by residents while grizzly was on open season.
Region 5 the bio said the goats harvest has dropped from approx 60 to 25 per year. His feeling is there are a lot of goats getting inspected that are nannies but reported as billies.
FD if you have all the answers just which MU s are the outfitters shooting nannies? It is sure not any guides in that I know of. I know what nannies came off my concession.

I am guessing "this person" has the wrong concession and outfitter. There are a lot of resident hunters, some from this site which I have helped out with info, housing meals.... not much pisses me off more then a BS attack on my credibility.

Once again, guys behind there computers, same guys who look into the stands when your goalie gets hit.


In 5-5 and 5-6 from 1976 to 2000 (no season after 2000 by the looks of it), residents killed 26 g-bears and non-residents killed 21 g-bears.

In 5-5 and 5-6 from 1976 to 2012, residents killed 170 goats with 70 being nannies while non-residents killed 236 goats with 69 being nannies.

[bassplayer]

So if he/she is a good salesman, they get more allocations? NOT a good idea!
Now now. I didn't say i was a genius lol. I would just like to see some kind of control over the amount of allocations they get instead of them having a drawer full at the end of the season that some resident hunters could of used. Like i said. They would need absolute proof that those hunts are booked. I know what you're saying though that they can probably manipulate their booking numbers and BS themselves more allocations.

[J_T]

I don't care what a guy thinks who wants to see fewer hunters afield. You and I are working for two different things, so of course we're going to have polar opposite opinions.

As others have said, I'm not sure what you are talking about. You simply make stuff up. It does not do your credibility well. I think if we sat down and actually talked, you would see (I think) we are not working toward "two different things".

My comment was primarily on how you continue to minimize the input of others by putting them down, making stuff up and using derogatory language. All I'm suggesting, is if you really do care, reign it in a bit. Continue to add the value statistically that you can. You don't have to beat people up.

[bridger]

As others have said, I'm not sure what you are talking about. You simply make stuff up. It does not do your credibility well. I think if we sat down and actually talked, you would see (I think) we are not working toward "two different things".

My comment was primarily on how you continue to minimize the input of others by putting them down, making stuff up and using derogatory language. All I'm suggesting, is if you really do care, reign it in a bit. Continue to add the value statistically that you can. You don't have to beat people up.


This is is an emotional issue for sure, but as far as beating people up there are several ways to accomplish that. One way is by making campaign donations to your favourite premiere. So far not one statement from the Goabc or anyone involved with the industry has contrubted anything that would help end this fight. And unfortunate as it maybe it is a fight. It is also important to remember where it started. Just sayin

[J_T]

This is is an emotional issue for sure, but as far as beating people up there are several ways to accomplish that. One way is by making campaign donations to your favourite premiere. So far not one statement from the Goabc or anyone involved with the industry has contrubted anything that would help end this fight. And unfortunate as it maybe it is a fight. It is also important to remember where it started. Just sayin

Well I would agree, it is an emotional issue. We must also agree, no one person is right. While we want to jump to solutions, I don't think we've aired the underlying issues well enough to actually develop a solution. This thread was getting there. Everyone should have the opportunity to ask questions, present their perspective. Largely this thread was doing that.

I don't always know who's who when everyone is using a nic name on here. But, as I read through this long thread, and I see qualifying language such as, "I don't want to confrontational, but I want to understand your perspective better"... this is collaboration. Respectfully done.

When I see that in this conversation people are able to create a more clear separation between small outfitters and GOABC, and the word mediation comes up. I see a 're-framing' of the issues. Probing the details.

When I see statements, "we can all agree on..... "

It's only by peeling away the layers of bullshit that we get to a place of common ground. And we shouldn't try to predict what that is. We should just let the process of respectful discussion take us there.

Regardless of where it started, and I understand the fight or flight methodology. I'd prefer to build bridges and work toward a handshake.

[j270wsm]

In order for a bridge to be built, goabc needs to grow a pair and admitted they intentionally stabbed us in the back.
Thompson needs to give the residents of bc( not just hunters ) the rights to 90%+ of our wild life.

[bridger]

Well I would agree, it is an emotional issue. We must also agree, no one person is right. While we want to jump to solutions, I don't think we've aired the underlying issues well enough to actually develop a solution. This thread was getting there. Everyone should have the opportunity to ask questions, present their perspective. Largely this thread was doing that.

I don't always know who's who when everyone is using a nic name on here. But, as I read through this long thread, and I see qualifying language such as, "I don't want to confrontational, but I want to understand your perspective better"... this is collaboration. Respectfully done.

When I see that in this conversation people are able to create a more clear separation between small outfitters and GOABC, and the word mediation comes up. I see a 're-framing' of the issues. Probing the details.

When I see statements, "we can all agree on..... "

It's only by peeling away the layers of bullshit that we get to a place of common ground. And we shouldn't try to predict what that is. We should just let the process of respectful discussion take us there.

Regardless of where it started, and I understand the fight or flight methodology. I'd prefer to build bridges and work toward a handshake.


Fair comment for sure. In order to build bridges you need a partner. It in order to due business on a handshake you need integrity, both those requirements are missing from one side of this issue. I can tell you first hand you can't do business on a handshake with the Goabc. Been there done that! In my experience the only way your suggestion will work is if the bc families in the outfitting business take back control of the Goabc and come back to the table.

I doubt that that will happen. As far as dealing with the corporate mentality of the guiding industry with a handshake and a bridge. Let me know how that works out for you.

[Mudzbogger]

In 5-5 and 5-6 from 1976 to 2000 (no season after 2000 by the looks of it), residents killed 26 g-bears and non-residents killed 21 g-bears.

In 5-5 and 5-6 from 1976 to 2012, residents killed 170 goats with 70 being nannies while non-residents killed 236 goats with 69 being nannies.

Regardless of target and with all due respect CH, you refer a lot to the biologist for a lot of your information as well. The numbers from the reports reviewed by the biologists don't lie either. That said, while you may have an increased nannie harvest in your concession, the overall non-resident harvest of said animal fares no better, in fact given the RH numbers we have in comparison and the professional guide requirements, IMO I would say the G.O. point and shoot harvest is a lot worse.

[J_T]

In order for a bridge to be built, goabc needs to grow a pair and admitted they intentionally stabbed us in the back.
Thompson needs to give the residents of bc( not just hunters ) the rights to 90%+ of our wild life. Focusing on the important statement of position is important. 90/10 split is the positional starting point. It needs to be stated, and creating awareness to it, is what a lot of this discussion, protest has been doing over the past 2 1/2 months. It is important to know, it is a positional starting point. Not necessarily the end point. It might be, but in my experience not necessarily.



Fair comment for sure. In order to build bridges you need a partner. It in order to due business on a handshake you need integrity, both those requirements are missing from one side of this issue. I can tell you first hand you can't do business on a handshake with the Goabc. Been there done that! In my experience the only way your suggestion will work is if the bc families in the outfitting business take back control of the Goabc and come back to the table.

I doubt that that will happen. As far as dealing with the corporate mentality of the guiding industry with a handshake and a bridge. Let me know how that works out for you. I don't disagree that in order to work toward a solution one requires a willing participant. And integrity is critical. My reference to handshake was more a metaphor. We communicate to work toward a handshake. Escalation is:
Communicate
Handshake
Negotiate
Mediate
Arbitrate
Litigate.

The further you get from the handshake, the less in control of the outcome you are. I've always felt it's important to know that.

[bridger]

Focusing on the important statement of position is important. 90/10 split is the positional starting point. It needs to be stated, and creating awareness to it, is what a lot of this discussion, protest has been doing over the past 2 1/2 months. It is important to know, it is a positional starting point. Not necessarily the end point. It might be, but in my experience not necessarily.


I don't disagree that in order to work toward a solution one requires a willing participant. And integrity is critical. My reference to handshake was more a metaphor. We communicate to work toward a handshake. Escalation is:
Communicate
Handshake
Negotiate
Mediate
Arbitrate
Litigate.

The further you get from the handshake, the less in control of the outcome you are. I've always felt it's important to know that.


I agree, but please understand that point of view has gotten to where we are today. It is exactly ground breaking news We spent two and 1/2 years at the negotiating table, got an agreement in place, shook hands and promised undying love for one another. The honeymoon lasted less than two weeks and the Giabc went it's own way. This is going to be settled in the political arena as unfortunate as that is.

[J_T]

I agree, but please understand that point of view has gotten to where we are today. It is exactly ground breaking news We spent two and 1/2 years at the negotiating table, got an agreement in place, shook hands and promised undying love for one another. The honeymoon lasted less than two weeks and the Giabc went it's own way. This is going to be settled in the political arena as unfortunate as that is.
I don't want to derail this discussion. Please understand I too have some background in this. Have been involved at a variety of levels for almost 20 years. Lots of people have intimate background experience. Whether from within BCWF, as an independent, coordinating habitat work, working with residents and guides toward common goals (in different times). I consider myself aware and informed. It doesn't change, where we are. Are personalities and history, beyond distrust important in this discussion? Trust is earned, and important to go forward. I agree.

[bridger]

I don't want to derail this discussion. Please understand I too have some background in this. Have been involved at a variety of levels for almost 20 years. Lots of people have intimate background experience. Whether from within BCWF, as an independent, coordinating habitat work, working with residents and guides toward common goals (in different times). I consider myself aware and informed. It doesn't change, where we are. Are personalities and history, beyond distrust important in this discussion? Trust is earned, and important to go forward. I agree.

You should be talking to Scott Ellis.

[tuner]

90/10 splits should not be the starting point, it should be the end result.The GOABC has alienated RH to such a degree that most would not grieve the total abolishment of the guiding industry.The resentment this policy has created,will not be easily done away with.There is no need to mediate between RH (bcwf) and the GOABC, this is between bc residents and the government. The government will have to choose between the interest of the vast majority vs the interests of a very few, it seems pretty straight forward.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

In 5-5 and 5-6 from 1976 to 2000 (no season after 2000 by the looks of it), residents killed 26 g-bears and non-residents killed 21 g-bears.

In 5-5 and 5-6 from 1976 to 2012, residents killed 170 goats with 70 being nannies while non-residents killed 236 goats with 69 being nannies.

that is great information, thanks, I would love to get my hands on all that info for my area.

[Walksalot]

This my have already been posted.

BC Resident Hunters - Guardians of Our Most Precious Resource (http://www.castanet.net/news/Letters/133590/BC-Resident-Hunters-Guardians-of-Our-Most-Precious-Resource) by Contributed | Story: 133590 - Feb 22, 2015 / 5:00 am
I urge all BC residents to seek out and understand the real issues facing our great province and the privatization of our wildlife and the lands they live on. This is not the rant of a hunter, this is a plea to all those who care about our most precious resource to make a stand against the Liberal Government and the Guide Outfitters of BC (GOABC) and tell them that our wildlife is not for sale and never will be. Here are a few things you should know and I urge Castanet and all who doubt it to do their own research.
· Why is it that Mr. Thompson and Mr. Ellis time and time again state that these allocations are only a very small percentage of the “animals we currently hunt” or “total hunting opportunities”. Sure that’s fine if we all want to simply hunt deer, black bear and grouse. What they are leaving out is that it has large impacts to our opportunities to hunt other species such as moose, elk, sheep, goat, etc., where available opportunities are very limited and are only by lottery or a very expensive trip to the far north. Thompson and Ellis do this purposefully to dilute the issue…to give us the impression that the change is so minute it shouldn’t even be an issue.

· Thompson states that BC residents are still getting the priority. This is true and holds true even if the allocations were 51% resident to 49% non-resident. The use of the word “priority” in this case is grossly misused. In all of North America, the allocation to non-resident hunters is between 5%-10% maximum and yet, this latest policy change (and even the 2007 one referred) sees a proportionate for non-residents from 25-40% for many of these species noted. So in reality, we are fighting for much more than the 2007 allocations…we should be overhauling the whole system.

· There are over 100,000 resident hunters in BC (over 20% increase in the last decade) vs. 4,500 non-resident hunters (steadily declining over the last decade). Why then would be increase opportunities for non-residents and reduce them for residents…this logic is flawed on its most basic level. Furthermore, I think someone needs to take a closer look at the revenue projections identified for resident hunters vs. non-residents. To suggest that we only produce 2x that of non-residents is ludicrous and I suspect we are not comparing apples to apples. The article suggests that and I quote Mr. Ellis "They use airlines, buy food, buy supplies, bullets, eat in restaurants, stay in hotels. Outfitters employ staff, buy quads, pay taxes – these are local guys, and the money stays in the community." Are we applying the same expenses to residents who pay for flights, food, fuel, hotels, quads, trucks, travel trailers, boats, etc? If we are comparing like for like, I suspect that much like the 100,000 vs. 4,500 ratio (20x) I suspect the revenue introduced into the economy is 20 fold as well. Further, I’d like to know how many of the 230 guide outfitters are actually full-time residents of BC. I know the general BC public would be quite surprised.

· The BCWF and its members contribute over 300,000 volunteer hours to support our wildlife and the environments in which we live. I’d like to know how much the GOABC gives back and what value the government places on this. Additionally, a percentage of every licence and tag purchased goes directly towards wildlife management. 100,000 resident hunters contribute far more dollars to the cause then that 4,500 non-residents.

· Perhaps this is simply a change in the times. Guide Outfitters that understand their business and are outstanding at their craft will continue to survive. They will be innovators and be creative with opportunities to draw in business. Handouts are not the answer and never have been…especially when it is at the expense of the other. Mr. Ellis argues that guide outfitting has a long-standing tradition in our history but I can assure you…hunting for oneself and his/her family is as old as our time on this planet.

· Lastly, political campaign contributions are public record. I'd like Castanet to publish the contributions that GOABC, Mr. Ellis and other representatives of the GOABC provided to the Liberal Party during the last election. It is hundreds of thousands of dollars and all of it is public information if a reporter were so inclined to find the TRUTH. This from the same group who advocated that their members are going broke across the province.
The GOABC is also lobbying government to restrict access to resident hunters in certain areas but these same areas are allowed access by outfitters. There is far more to this story than the government wants you to know about and they trivialize it and us with their statements.
Money talks and I think you will see that GOABC and the Liberal Government have spoken loud and clear that our province's resources ARE for sale.
Wade Llugs - Resident BC Hunter

[bridger]

It has been posted before but it's such a great letter it's good to see it again.