McCowans Hunting Territories Sales Pitch, Allocation Policy

[Wild Images]

http://www.mccowans.com/

Look under BC listings and see how many ads for the Kooteneys have the new allocation policy in them as part of the sales pitch !

[The Dawg]

Yup- thats a loophole the Government is AWARE of.

Morris told me himself he knew of it.

[Bugle M In]

March 26 - 28 th would be a great day for an uproar in front of the building where they are having a GOABC show???!!!

[1899]

This whole process has been really disheartening.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

If that doesn't make it obvious about the GO's making a pile of headway over he new policy(unlike that Thomson says), then I don't know what does.

[40incher]

The Turnagain territory for sale, at 1.7 million, speaks volumes of how screwed up things are!

A 750 square-mile area, just 25 miles by 30 miles in size, with a 7 ram yearly quota. Given a 60%/40% allocation split means the resident share is over 10 rams per year. So I guess the AAH for that territory would be 17 rams per year??

Thank God for the bureaucrats and politicians protecting our resident priority!

[1899]

How much does a GO pay initially for a territory that is, up to that point unallocated?

[BimmerBob]

Well, all of the hunting territories listed for sale (or sale pending) add up to $7,515,500 and if all BC Resident Hunters (100,000 or so) were to contribute $100 to a BC Resident Hunting Club they could all be purchased for asking price leaving almost $2.5 Million left over to manage the properties. I would be interested in something like that, it would preserve these territories for resident hunters in perpetuity. Anyone else in? If we could only get 1/5th of the total or 20,000 BC hunters to join it would mean only $500 each to set this up, give it a few years and there would be no more headaches from the GOABC...

[Apolonius]

I made the same suggestion before.I am all for it.As owners we could even have options like a timeshare.I wish BCWF could do that.If rainforest(?) society did it ,why not us????

[yama49]

Well, all of the hunting territories listed for sale (or sale pending) add up to $7,515,500 and if all BC Resident Hunters (100,000 or so) were to contribute $100 to a BC Resident Hunting Club they could all be purchased for asking price leaving almost $2.5 Million left over to manage the properties. I would be interested in something like that, it would preserve these territories for resident hunters in perpetuity. Anyone else in? If we could only get 1/5th of the total or 20,000 BC hunters to join it would mean only $500 each to set this up, give it a few years and there would be no more headaches from the GOABC...


I was thinking about that before.. Is there still the don't use it, lose it, for allocations?

[BimmerBob]

Good point Apolonius, I wonder if BCWF could do it, or assist in the forming of a sub-group society where we could raise funds for the purchase of hunting territories that would become part of the societal benefit? I don't know much about the formation of an official group but am hoping some here may...

[BimmerBob]

I was thinking about that before.. Is there still the don't use it, lose it, for allocations?

Even if there was, we could assign all member related harvests in each of the areas to the licenses to keep the allocation numbers, but say the allocations to the hunting territories are "use it or lose it", if they were lost, would they not just go to resident hunters anyway?

Anybody interested in forming an informal working group to research this sort of thing?

My apologizes to the OP for the hijack of his thread, if there is enough interest maybe we can start a separate thread to get it going...

[Chango]

Better screen-grab and document those sales pitches before they get changed.

[Kudu]

Well, all of the hunting territories listed for sale (or sale pending) add up to $7,515,500 and if all BC Resident Hunters (100,000 or so) were to contribute $100 to a BC Resident Hunting Club they could all be purchased for asking price leaving almost $2.5 Million left over to manage the properties. I would be interested in something like that, it would preserve these territories for resident hunters in perpetuity. Anyone else in? If we could only get 1/5th of the total or 20,000 BC hunters to join it would mean only $500 each to set this up, give it a few years and there would be no more headaches from the GOABC...

That's the way to beat them, buy them out!

oh wait!!! - where have we seen this model before? ducks unlimited come to mind perhaps....:-P

[1899]

Well, all of the hunting territories listed for sale (or sale pending) add up to $7,515,500 and if all BC Resident Hunters (100,000 or so) were to contribute $100 to a BC Resident Hunting Club they could all be purchased for asking price leaving almost $2.5 Million left over to manage the properties. I would be interested in something like that, it would preserve these territories for resident hunters in perpetuity. Anyone else in? If we could only get 1/5th of the total or 20,000 BC hunters to join it would mean only $500 each to set this up, give it a few years and there would be no more headaches from the GOABC...

Why buy them now when the prices are so high due to increased/high allocations?

[The Dawg]

Better screen-grab and document those sales pitches before they get changed.


Way ahead ;)

[BimmerBob]

Why buy them now when the prices are so high due to increased/high allocations?

The point was that even with the high prices it would not take too much effort, if we all pulled together, to make something that would work on behalf of BC Resident Hunters. Something like this approach is the ONLY thing that will ensure a solution to the present mess as well as BC Resident Hunter opportunity.

[tuner]

Those asking prices sure raise questions about the claims of "economic hardship and viability" so often claimed by GOABC.

[Apolonius]

Another plus is anything else that comes for sale we can add to our inventory.And if we took the time to do it ,we could set the prices to our advantage.I am a little old for this but lets do it for the future.Young hunters ,there is your chance to own your future.Instead of some guy in Timbuktu.

[yama49]

Even if there was, we could assign all member related harvests in each of the areas to the licenses to keep the allocation numbers, but say the allocations to the hunting territories are "use it or lose it", if they were lost, would they not just go to resident hunters anyway?

Anybody interested in forming an informal working group to research this sort of thing?

My apologizes to the OP for the hijack of his thread, if there is enough interest maybe we can start a separate thread to get it going...

thanks for the clarification

[325]

I think there may be some merit to this idea, however, I have to say, it seems ridiculous to have to buy back wildlife that we already own.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

I think there may be some merit to this idea, however, I have to say, it seems ridiculous to have to buy back wildlife that we already own.

Plus buying the Lieberals sounds cheaper. Lol

[BimmerBob]

Plus buying the Lieberals sounds cheaper. Lol

Problem is, they won't stay bought! and the Naturally Dumb Party won't stay bought either... This would be the cheapest long term solution

[scallywag]

I'm in. Who do I send the check to. I would look at buying multiple shares in such an endeavour

[Ride Red]

As this shit storm continues and we succeed in our goal, these territories won't be worth nearly what they are asking, maybe even a fire sale. But, I'm all in to support a long term approach with the BCWF, whether it be to purchase or at least gain control back.

[Ride Red]

Plus buying the Lieberals sounds cheaper. Lol

Sad but true, but the way all these governments run now, we may have to be the highest bidder.

[flyboy]

I like this idea, any legal problems in moving forward? BCWF or RHPF?

[bigdogeh]

If we were to buy into these ideas, having to buy what we already own as a collective, and having to bribe the government to do it, we'd be no better than goabc scum, imo of course...
I think we're better to stay the course and keep the pressure on as we've been doing. if anything step it up if changes and i mean big changes aren't made in favour of the resident hunters...

[BimmerBob]

I'm in. Who do I send the check to. I would look at buying multiple shares in such an endeavour

Thanks for the enthusiasm! Got one volunteer to research the possibility and with Scallywag at least one purchaser committed, we are on a roll!

The more I think about this the more it looks like it will be the least expensive option. People are willing to spend $100's just to protest, with no guarantee of anything other than to get to vent!

[BimmerBob]

If we were to buy into these ideas, having to buy what we already own as a collective, and having to bribe the government to do it, we'd be no better than goabc scum, imo of course...
I think we're better to stay the course and keep the pressure on as we've been doing. if anything step it up if changes and i mean big changes aren't made in favour of the resident hunters...

Of course we would be better, we would be doing it out of selflessness rather than selfishness!

[Apolonius]

In their opinion we own nothing.The government owns it and they prove it when THEY allocate and reward their friends.And don't believe for a second WE are the government.If BCWF had/has a way to buy, then you will see more hunters coming onboard when they see the benefits.And if the governments change it does not matter.One way or the other we win.Why do you think others buy guide territories?Just think about it.Private hunting reserves.And is not getting any better.GOABC will always ask for more.For me i am getting old to see much benefit but our youth will.And they will be thankful.JMHO and 100$

[Seeker]

Here is a hypothetical, some can afford to buy in, others cannot, new residents will come that have not paid a dime. Those that pay feel they are entitled to that territory first, sort of an ownership. Where do the others get opportunities? What if populations decline and opportunities to hunt that area become incredibly difficult to acquire via LEH? Which stakeholders would have rights to the quota for that region? Would the tags that were assigned to the guiding territory simply be added to the LEH tags? Would the remaining GOABC and other non resident associations get more allocation tags because now the publicly owned territories animals would be considered resident allocation? Would we the owners develop a guiding mentality? Human greed is almost always a certainty, especially when resources are limited. Just a hypothetical.......this would open a whole new can of worms

[BuckNaked]

Where do i send my cheque?

[Huevos]

This is a great idea! You all buy up the territories for sale making less available for non residents. Supply will go down, demand goes up. I will hold onto my territory and make loads of cash. Simple economics. If I pitch in, is that kind of like insider trading? Let me grab a sheep area first. That way when I'm the only one left, a stone sheep will be worth $250K ??? for a non resident tag. You all could give your tags to friends, or even trade them for tires.
Sorry guys, I got carried away. it really does sound almost viable at first, but seeker has a point. It would be very hard to mange fairly, and you know that somewhere along the line the government could take it away and put it up for bid again if it is not being used according to what it was set aside for. They would still want their cut and which resident is going to pay $1000 royalty when they shoot one of the grizzly quotas?

[Gateholio]

Here is a hypothetical, some can afford to buy in, others cannot, new residents will come that have not paid a dime. Those that pay feel they are entitled to that territory first, sort of an ownership. Where do the others get opportunities? What if populations decline and opportunities to hunt that area become incredibly difficult to acquire via LEH? Which stakeholders would have rights to the quota for that region? Would the tags that were assigned to the guiding territory simply be added to the LEH tags? Would the remaining GOABC and other non resident associations get more allocation tags because now the publicly owned territories animals would be considered resident allocation? Would we the owners develop a guiding mentality? Human greed is almost always a certainty, especially when resources are limited. Just a hypothetical.......this would open a whole new can of worms

Run your own LEH for shareholders ;)

[yama49]

Why does anyone have to hunt it, basically buying quota as bc residents so no one else can. As bimmer bob says if we dont use the quota, it goes back to the residents. Some cant help out as much, but some can help out more on the donation part. Always going b freeloaders in life, not much we can do about it. Wont take long if we could get 50% or more of residents to donate a 100- 200 a year. JMO

[BimmerBob]

This is a great idea! You all buy up the territories for sale making less available for non residents. Supply will go down, demand goes up. I will hold onto my territory and make loads of cash. Simple economics. If I pitch in, is that kind of like insider trading? Let me grab a sheep area first. That way when I'm the only one left, a stone sheep will be worth $250K ??? for a non resident tag. You all could give your tags to friends, or even trade them for tires.
Sorry guys, I got carried away. it really does sound almost viable at first, but seeker has a point. It would be very hard to mange fairly, and you know that somewhere along the line the government could take it away and put it up for bid again if it is not being used according to what it was set aside for. They would still want their cut and which resident is going to pay $1000 royalty when they shoot one of the grizzly quotas?

My understanding is that the royalty fee is for non-resident hunters so that would not be a significant deterrent. That amount of funding to the government from the "royalty" is so insignificant that if they hold a press conference they spend more so not sure the government would be a major hurdle to setting something workable out.

But thanks for the idea's/concerns, keep on brainstorming potential problems/issues so that the people that want to set this up will know how to set it up so that potential problems are addressed in the mechanics of the society/organization.

[BimmerBob]

This is a great idea! You all buy up the territories for sale making less available for non residents. Supply will go down, demand goes up. I will hold onto my territory and make loads of cash. Simple economics. If I pitch in, is that kind of like insider trading? Let me grab a sheep area first. That way when I'm the only one left, a stone sheep will be worth $250K ??? for a non resident tag. You all could give your tags to friends, or even trade them for tires.
Sorry guys, I got carried away. it really does sound almost viable at first, but seeker has a point. It would be very hard to mange fairly, and you know that somewhere along the line the government could take it away and put it up for bid again if it is not being used according to what it was set aside for. They would still want their cut and which resident is going to pay $1000 royalty when they shoot one of the grizzly quotas?

So, is this really the story that residents are not first? That Hunting Territory Quota's are REALLY first and actually do, as everyone except the GOABC has been saying, impact resident hunter opportunity... Amazing!

[604redneck]

I would also buy into this idea if it gets going ill put in 1000

[r106]

Cool idea. I would be interested but there are lots of small details to work out though

[Wentrot]

I would certainly pony up. Heck, who wouldn't!

[BimmerBob]

OK, we are getting enough support to move this to a separate thread. I will try to get something set up with the moderators so that those interested can have an out of the way place to chat and brainstorm.

[guest]

So does this mean " we can all shoot over allocation and not face legal action " like the others that own territory.?

Build a a big Resident ownership body ........ Where do I send my cash !

[Huevos]

My understanding is that the royalty fee is for non-resident hunters so that would not be a significant deterrent. That amount of funding to the government from the "royalty" is so insignificant that if they hold a press conference they spend more so not sure the government would be a major hurdle to setting something workable out.

But thanks for the idea's/concerns, keep on brainstorming potential problems/issues so that the people that want to set this up will know how to set it up so that potential problems are addressed in the mechanics of the society/organization.

It doesn't matter if you are resident or non resident. When you shoot an animal and use quota, there is a royalty. If I took my neighbour out for a moose, and he shoots one, it will cost me $125 for the royalty. Same with grizz, sheep, or any other animal under quota. There are forms you have to fill out for each hunter, including who guided them, their guide license #, etc. each will have to be accompanied by a guide. It would be poaching if you were unaccompanied. There will be other significant operations g cost involved no matter how you look at it.
If you go the other route and don't use the quota, it will be a long time before you see those animals return to residents. If the 90 10 split goes through, I would assume that the 10 % will never be returned to residents. No matter how you look at it, it will result in lost hunting opportunity, or it will cost significantly more to hunt than an LEH. Just my thoughts

[Down South]

I would certainly be in

I can't see how it would be a requirement to have a guide if we as a group bought some/all these areas as an owner and a resident why would we need a guide

[Apolonius]

Maybe we should ask and find out how does Rainforest society operates their guiding areas?Do they do the minimal harvest to keep the territory going?And if we did have an LEH for members only we can always have something coming in as income and attract more members,as they would see successful hunters coming out of there.Greed ?Yes but there are ways to control.It can't be more greed than goabc!!!But in my opinion only BCWF could do that as the structural organization excists.And being a non profit ,bingo.

[Gateholio]

I would certainly be in

I can't see how it would be a requirement to have a guide if we as a group bought some/all these areas as an owner and a resident why would we need a guide

I'm sure you could set up some figurehead outfitter and guide system. Heck it's being done right now anyway. ;)

[Piperdown]

We could just get a bobblehead and have it there as our resident guide

[Huevos]

I would certainly be in

I can't see how it would be a requirement to have a guide if we as a group bought some/all these areas as an owner and a resident why would we need a guide

i have to be accompanied by one of of my assistant guides if I want to shoot a moose in my area. If I don't have one, it would be poaching. Anytime quota is used, it has to be guided , regardless of residency status. If you don't want to take my word for it, ask a co. Same with royalties. If an animal is taken under quota, there will be a royalty charged. It's not an option. He go element will always take their cut.

[Huevos]

I'm sure you could set up some figurehead outfitter and guide system. Heck it's being done right now anyway. ;)
It must be contagious. Just thinking of getting into outfitting, and already thinking of ways to break the law. Nice.

[44inchStone]

Awsome Idea.
There would be alot of interest here but hard to regulate.

[bandit]

It doesn't matter if you are resident or non resident. When you shoot an animal and use quota, there is a royalty. If I took my neighbour out for a moose, and he shoots one, it will cost me $125 for the royalty. Same with grizz, sheep, or any other animal under quota. There are forms you have to fill out for each hunter, including who guided them, their guide license #, etc. each will have to be accompanied by a guide. It would be poaching if you were unaccompanied. There will be other significant operations g cost involved no matter how you look at it.


You might want to check the regs on that one buddy. Residents have been exempt from royalties since 2005

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/338_82/search/royalties%20AND%20CIVIX_DOCUMENT_ANCESTORS:reg9648 8?1#hit1

Section 1.06(3).

[Apolonius]

Does it matter to government how much an outfitter charges?Or if he/She gives unused tags to relatives?If not what stops the entity that holds our territories give a sheep hunt to a "successful" member on a lottery draw for a dollar?Or a moose draw for that matter?And at the same time as resident hunters ,not to have to fight with road "access"...etc???Some one should check and see how Pheasants For Ever and others do it in the states.I do realize there are different laws but it is the same concept.Keep access and resources public.Because one day we are not going to be aloud to "THEIR" areas for hunting or fishing.Security reasons,suspicious fires,vandalism..... etc.....all attributed to resident hunter!!!!

[Wild one]

The real issue here is the loop holes for outfitting territories and traplines are both advertised in his sales.

Outfitter territories should not be advertise attracting foreign ownership by using a resident as the license holder.

Traplines are not vacation properties yet are advertised as so.

This shows lack of enforcement

[Huevos]

You might want to check the regs on that one buddy. Residents have been exempt from royalties since 2005

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/338_82/search/royalties%20AND%20CIVIX_DOCUMENT_ANCESTORS:reg9648 8?1#hit1

Section 1.06(3).
I just learned something. I stand corrected.

[BimmerBob]

I have started an "official" thread on this here: http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?115009-BC-Hunters-Preservation-Trust-Society-Try-2

Thanks for all your ideas and enthusiasm, hopefully we can keep this going and do something lasting for our hunting heritage.

Bob

[btridge]

I just learned something. I stand corrected.

I think this is a common missunderstanding with GO's, when I was exploreing useing a outfitter, he insisted I would have to pay the royalty reguardless of what the regulations said. the hunt did not happen.