Right on the nose!

[bridger]

BC Resident Hunters - Guardians of Our Most Precious Resourceby Contributed | Story: 133590 - Feb 22, 2015 / 5:00 am


3 (http://www.castanet.net/news/Letters/133590/BC-Resident-Hunters-Guardians-of-Our-Most-Precious-Resource#)



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

















Read More: Letters (http://www.castanet.net/news/Letters/)
Report a Typo (http://www.castanet.net/contactus/report_typo.php?story=133590)
SEND US YOU (http://www.castanet.net/contactus/news-tips.php)

[guest]

That about sums it up right there.

[IronNoggin]

EXCELLENT Three Thumbs Up!!! http://bigshotsbc.ca/images/smilies/Pozitive.gif http://bigshotsbc.ca/images/smilies/Pozitive.gif http://bigshotsbc.ca/images/smilies/Pozitive.gif

[twanger]

Can you say BINGO!!!!!!

[Mudzbogger]

Bang on http://bigshotsbc.ca/images/smilies/Pozitive.gif

[Dusty Roads]

That letter should be in the editorial section of every paper in BC!
perfectly written!

[Trigger95]

Well written, every point is clear, will be sharing where I can

[BimmerBob]

Nicely done Wade Llugs, very well written summary of the issues at hand. Hopefully it gets others thinking and responding to this mess created by the GOABC.

[bridger]

Well written, every point is clear, will be sharing where I can


It it is an excellent letter. I posted it to three Facebook pages.

[ajr5406]

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.


As someone new to hunting, im still getting my head around this issues and trying to see things objectively. Even if this is view from a business decision, with what is best for the economy of BC (which should only be part of the equation), the numbers are incredible. How can decisions like this be made to support such a small minority (despite their influence)?

As someone who hasnt event hunted yet, I have already spent hundreds of dollars IN BC, and will probably spend hundreds of dollars IN BC every season... Sure the non-res hunters will spend money, but a big chuck of the money they spend (airfares, travel, gear etc) will be spent out of BC.

Seems more and more ridiculous the more and more I learn....

[sheep.elk.moose fanatic]

Bada Bing awesome letter!

[bigdogeh]

Seems more and more ridiculous the more and more I learn....

it is ridiculous. it's also sad, but mostly it's completely immoral and a slap in the face to all residents, hunter and non hunter alike in BC....
the liberals better wake up in a hurry. I see them falling behind in the polls really quickly with some of the boneheaded decisions they seem to be making over and over again. time for some new blood to get rid of these "leaders" that have lost all touch with reality and the populous that pay their paychecks...

[kawdy]

Excellent !

[Seeker]

I think I am going to print this off and leave it in the staff room. Its a great, to the point and easy to comprehend letter that people who are not hunters can relate to. Well done Wade and thanks for posting Bridger. It helps to get re-motivated.

[bridger]

I think I am going to print this off and leave it in the staff room. Its a great, to the point and easy to comprehend letter that people who are not hunters can relate to. Well done Wade and thanks for posting Bridger. It helps to get re-motivated.


Good idea to pass it around. It's a great letter. I posted it on Minister Thomson's Facebook page. Be interesting to see how long it stays on there

[Whonnock Boy]

It is still there bridger. Left side in "Posts to Page".

Good idea to pass it around. It's a great letter. I posted it on Minister Thomson's Facebook page. Be interesting to see how long it stays on there

[Huevos]

3 (http://www.castanet.net/news/Letters/133590/BC-Resident-Hunters-Guardians-of-Our-Most-Precious-Resource#)





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.


While I appreciate the passion that has gone into this letter, and may not agree with the process in how we ended up with these numbers, I have to question some of the content.
I don't know a lot about the provinces history, but it seems to me that in 2001, there was a moratorium on G bear hunting imposed by the NDP which was lifted by the Liberal govt. I don't know if GOABC contributions had anything to do with that (Likely) but it seems to me that there may have been a connection. Did not resident hunters benefit from this as well? You could get your 90% and vote NDP, but 90% of nothing is still nothing. If you are looking to vote for a party that has you, as a hunter, at the top of your list, it might be time to look for an alternative between the two.

It is great that BCWF members have given over 300,000 hours of volunteer work to the province. That is an awesome statistic. with 40,000 members, that works out to 7.5 hours per member. You have accomplished a lot. There really is power in numbers. I cannot speak for all outfitters, but can honestly say I have put in at least 7.5 hours this year as well. If all Guide outfitters were to match this contribution, we would have to give 1725 hours to support wildlife and environment. I would venture a guess that we far surpass this number collectively.

Has anyone considered the fact that non resident hunting has gone down, solely due to the fact that non resident hunting opportunity has been reduced by the same percentage? In the last 3 yrs, we have lost 30% of our non resident moose tags. I am not complaining, just stating that the reduction of non resident hunters is directly proportional to the loss of tags over the same period. Demand has not gone down, don't kid yourselves on this point. Your logic thinking that the world doesn't want to come hunt in this beautiful province is flawed on the most basic level. It has decreased with available tags to non residents, plain and simple.

Comparing revenue generated by hunting in this province will always be hard because it isn't cut and dry for what was spent on hunting on the resident end. Outfitters know what was purchased for hunting, and it gets used almost exclusively for hunting. Residents would be a bit harder to calculate as was mentioned. Was the truck bought for hunting? if so, what % was actually used for hunting in a year? Boat for hunting, and then conveniently used for fishing most of the summer? Travel Trailer that was used all summer and fall? Quad, that gets used all year on the farm? Depreciation all all this over its life? I am not an accountant, but it would be difficult to separate hunting out of year round use. Did you hunt 2 weeks or 2 months? each would factor into percentage of how much use was for hunting. Fortunately, as so many resident have said, it is not about the money. I would suspect, however, that the true amount spent is closer to the suggested numbers than the 20X number the author pulled out of his hat. Unless we should discount the surveys done to obtain these numbers.

I do agree that GOABC and the liberal govt, have grouped all hunting opportunities together to disguise the actual impact, kind of like saying BCWF have given 300,000 volunteer hours, instead of 7.5 hours per member. Comparing apples to apples doesn't always work in our favor, so both sides try to hide the harsh truths in statistic game.

"In all of north America" non resident hunters get 5-10% is false. Are we not included in north America? What about Alaska? Yukon? Quebec? Mexico?... Just sayin. How about "in many places", or "Most of North America"

Are my points valid? You decide. I just thought stating the other side of an equation to get some discussion going, instead of taking some random citizens word as gospel truth, is healthier. There is always more than one side to every story... and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

[primitive]

Huevos I hope you have your fire ******ant PPE on...your fixin to get flamed!

[Guller74]

3 (http://www.castanet.net/news/Letters/133590/BC-Resident-Hunters-Guardians-of-Our-Most-Precious-Resource#)



While I appreciate the passion that has gone into this letter, and may not agree with the process in how we ended up with these numbers, I have to question some of the content. Of course you do, this is part of the true fact-finding process...something that is so obviously lacking in other publications from GOABC and the Libs as well!

I don't know a lot about the provinces history, but it seems to me that in 2001, there was a moratorium on G bear hunting imposed by the NDP which was lifted by the Liberal govt. I don't know if GOABC contributions had anything to do with that (Likely) but it seems to me that there may have been a connection. Really? Do you have evidence of this or is this just your personal belief? I only ask because you have called the author's credibility into question for things he pointed out. Did not resident hunters benefit from this as well? You could get your 90% and vote NDP, but 90% of nothing is still nothing. If you are looking to vote for a party that has you, as a hunter, at the top of your list, it might be time to look for an alternative between the two. Agreed, know any middle-ground parties. Bottom line is this is a trust issue...when delegates from all stakeholders sides meet to discuss, agree on something, simply to have the government turn a blind eye to that process is simply unacceptable. Power is a gift not a weapon!

It is great that BCWF members have given over 300,000 hours of volunteer work to the province. That is an awesome statistic. with 40,000 members, that works out to 7.5 hours per member. You have accomplished a lot. There really is power in numbers. I cannot speak for all outfitters, but can honestly say I have put in at least 7.5 hours this year as well. If all Guide outfitters were to match this contribution, we would have to give 1725 hours to support wildlife and environment. I would venture a guess that we far surpass this number collectively. Ok, so let's use you logic. If this is how you'd like to analyze the numbers as far as contribution then we should apply similar math to the allocation (since we are all supplying the same contribution per capita to enhance wildlife, would it not be fair to suggest that 230 GOs vs. 40,000 members or 1725 hrs vs 300,000 equates into GO's getting 0.57 percent of the allocation? Hardly realistic, but perhaps you see how easy it is to skew data to one's advantage. If you want apples to apples comparisons to be made it needs to be made on all fronts and by a neutral evaluator. Garbage data in = garbage data out, bottom line!

Has anyone considered the fact that non resident hunting has gone down, solely due to the fact that non resident hunting opportunity has been reduced by the same percentage? Nope, because there is never a single reason or silver-bullet solution to any problem. To suggest otherwise is an indication that one does not understand business or the need to be versatile and adaptive to change. Hedging one's bets that there are no variables, that there will never be change is simply foolish and a recipe for failure. the last 3 yrs, we have lost 30% of our non resident moose tags. I am not complaining, just stating that the reduction of non resident hunters is directly proportional to the loss of tags over the same period. Demand has not gone down, don't kid yourselves on this point. Your logic thinking that the world doesn't want to come hunt in this beautiful province is flawed on the most basic level. Where does the author state this? I don't see it. He simply points out that GOs need to adapt to change, be innovative, find new solutions. Demand goes up and down and there are many factors. Your own GOABC reps have stated in published documents that the decline can also be attributed to a higher Canadian Dollar (up until recently). Now that the US Dollar has been on a steady increase, would the inverse not hold true then. Should you be expecting more foreign hunters this year? It has decreased with available tags to non residents, plain and simple.

Comparing revenue generated by hunting in this province will always be hard because it isn't cut and dry for what was spent on hunting on the resident end. Outfitters know what was purchased for hunting, and it gets used almost exclusively for hunting. Wow, pretty generalized statement! Every GO is the same then by your account? Residents would be a bit harder to calculate as was mentioned. Was the truck bought for hunting? if so, what % was actually used for hunting in a year? Boat for hunting, and then conveniently used for fishing most of the summer? Travel Trailer that was used all summer and fall? Quad, that gets used all year on the farm? Depreciation all all this over its life? I am not an accountant, but it would be difficult to separate hunting out of year round use. Wow, your summation is simply ridiculous here and hard to be objective. I know a lot of us would like to see the math behind the science when it comes to this stat. You've suggested that residents use their toys for other purposes beyond hunting and you are absolutely right. Does that mean that those dollars don't go into the Provinces coffers and generate jobs? Can you honestly state that all GOs solely use their toys for hunting, never for personal, never for other purposes? Are they buying new equipment every year...does that quad not last for several years? Does your boat sink every year? When the GOABC calculated their number did they consider depreciation, proper care and maintenance. Let's be honest, it's not hard to skew the numbers in one's favor which is why these numbers should be evaluated in tandem (non-resident/resident) by a third party not affiliated with either group to do an honest apples to apples comparison. Otherwise, once again, it's garbage in and garbage out, and we BC residents are being asked to accept it at face-value like a bunch of sheep. Did you hunt 2 weeks or 2 months? each would factor into percentage of how much use was for hunting. Easy enough to put into a spreadsheet...simple arithmetic my friend. Fortunately, as so many resident have said, it is not about the money. No it's certainly not, but the Libs and GOABC have used their stat in every media release and interview with absolutely no scrutiny or ability for the general public to review the derivation of numbers. I would suspect, however, that the true amount spent is closer to the suggested numbers than the 20X number the author pulled out of his hat. Unless we should discount the surveys done to obtain these numbers.

I do agree that GOABC and the liberal govt, have grouped all hunting opportunities together to disguise the actual impact, kind of like saying BCWF have given 300,000 volunteer hours, instead of 7.5 hours per member. Comparing apples to apples doesn't always work in our favor, so both sides try to hide the harsh truths in statistic game.

"In all of north America" non resident hunters get 5-10% is false. Are we not included in north America? What about Alaska? Yukon? Quebec? Mexico?... Just sayin. How about "in many places", or "Most of North America"

Are my points valid? You decide. I just thought stating the other side of an equation to get some discussion going, instead of taking some random citizens word as gospel truth, is healthier. "Random Citizen"? It is nice how you just trivialized a BC Resident Hunter with a slip of the tongue. Perhaps this author is just really passionate and telling things from his perspective. When I read the letter I formed my own opinion and it gave me insights into another's thoughts. Isn't that what these forums are for? You are entitled to your opinion as well. There is always more than one side to every story... and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.Agreed, let's get those folks in the room together and we might all get somewhere. Until then, I will fight the good fight and push to put meat in my freezer and every BC resident hunter's freezer before I support selling it off to the rich!
Comments in bold italics above.

[Whonnock Boy]

Thanks for that. It was fantastic.



Comments in bold italics above.

[Huevos]

this is part of the true fact-finding process...something that is so obviously lacking in other publications from GOABC and the Libs as well!
I will agree with this statement. These other groups are definitely skilled at obscuring the details and sugar coating the pill.

I don't know if GOABC contributions had anything to do with that (Likely) but it seems to me that there may have been a connection. Really? Do you have evidence of this or is this just your personal belief? I only ask because you have called the author's credibility into question for things he pointed out.
What part of I don't know didn't you understand? should I use smaller words? If I had evidence of this statement, do you think I would write "I don't know"? I never questioned the authors credibility, just stating my opinion that residents have also benefited directly or indirectly from lobbyists. It is a personal belief, nothing more.
Ok, so let's use you logic. If this is how you'd like to analyze the numbers as far as contribution then we should apply similar math to the allocation (since we are all supplying the same contribution per capita to enhance wildlife, would it not be fair to suggest that 230 GOs vs. 40,000 members or 1725 hrs vs 300,000 equates into GO's getting 0.57 percent of the allocation? Hardly realistic, but perhaps you see how easy it is to skew data to one's advantage. If you want apples to apples comparisons to be made it needs to be made on all fronts and by a neutral evaluator. Garbage data in = garbage data out, bottom line!
Just stating the fact that 7.5 hours average is not a huge amount of effort individually. Combined though, it makes a huge impact, and I am grateful for the effort. Of those members, how many do you think are assistant guides, outfitters, and their family members? I am sure there are many.

Where does the author state this? I don't see it. He simply points out that GOs need to adapt to change, be innovative, find new solutions. Demand goes up and down and there are many factors. Your own GOABC reps have stated in published documents that the decline can also be attributed to a higher Canadian Dollar (up until recently). Now that the US Dollar has been on a steady increase, would the inverse not hold true then. Should you be expecting more foreign hunters this year?
The US dollar has come up in value, and that should increase non resident demand. It doesn't change the fact that there are fewer hunting opportunities available to non resident hunters today than there was a few years ago. We have booked every moose hunt that I have available this year, but 30% less tags available mean 30% less moose hunters, no matter how well the US economy is doing. Could I take more hunters this year, yes. I have said no to more than a handful of foreign hunters this year. If an area goes on LEH, does this decrease the amount of hunters in an area? Of course it does, but did it decrease the demand for tags in that area? No. The same holds true for non resident tags. Decrease in tags = decrease in hunters.

You've suggested that residents use their toys for other purposes beyond hunting and you are absolutely right. Does that mean that those dollars don't go into the Provinces coffers and generate jobs? Can you honestly state that all GOs solely use their toys for hunting, never for personal, never for other purposes? Maybe you should read the first line of the paragraph you are commenting on. I simply stated that it would be hard to separate out what revenue was actually generated by resident hunting. It's not like anyone keeps an actual log of this like we do in a work truck. I never suggested that it didn't benefit the economy to use these things for other purposes, but can you attribute this as hunting revenue to the economy? GO's use their equipment for other things as well, but I don't ride a dozen quads at once.

I never meant any disrespect with the random citizen comment. After all, isn't that what I am as well? Just a random citizen on a forum, discussing wildlife issues that mean a lot to me. As I said in my opening statement, I admire the passion that was put into the letter. Thank you for letting me share my opinion, and I welcome yours as well. Keep up the fight, lets get some animal #'s back up so we can fill everyones freezer, and still have some surplus for me to sell off to the rich, or more likely, an average joe that saved for 3 or 4 years to finally get a chance at a moose after 20 yrs of unsuccessful draws in his own state.

[40incher]

Has anyone considered the fact that non resident hunting has gone down, solely due to the fact that non resident hunting opportunity has been reduced by the same percentage? In the last 3 yrs, we have lost 30% of our non resident moose tags. I am not complaining, just stating that the reduction of non resident hunters is directly proportional to the loss of tags over the same period. Demand has not gone down, don't kid yourselves on this point. Your logic thinking that the world doesn't want to come hunt in this beautiful province is flawed on the most basic level. It has decreased with available tags to non residents, plain and simple.


Wow ... how anyone can spew out such garbage is beyond belief!!

As one who knows this issue as a resident hunter with way too many years of history observing harvest levels and guided moose quota in the Skeena Region I know bullshit when I see it.

The weak U.S. economy since the stock market crash in 2008 is well-proven to be the reason why the not-so-rich-anymore American hunters don't come North for guided moose hunts like they once did. It has absolutely nothing to do with reduced quota. Guided moose quota in South Skeena was increased by well over 20% from historical kill levels after the 2007 policy was adopted. Even though the guides can't even kill their inflated quotas they will see another 8% increase due to the December 10, 2014 decree by your buddies in government.

Despite a guided allocation of 207 bull moose the harvest data show the non-resident kill to be less than 150 bulls per year on average in recent years. Even an egghead should be able to do the math on that one?

The only guides to lose quota and become non-viable were the smaller operators who were robbed by the larger outfits in an internal "negotiation" between the guides themselves. Kind of reminds me of how cannibals did their business.

[Huevos]

Wow ... how anyone can spew out such garbage is beyond belief!!

As one who knows this issue as a resident hunter with way too many years of history observing harvest levels and guided moose quota in the Skeena Region I know bullshit when I see it.

The weak U.S. economy since the stock market crash in 2008 is well-proven to be the reason why the not-so-rich-anymore American hunters don't come North for guided moose hunts like they once did. It has absolutely nothing to do with reduced quota. Guided moose quota in South Skeena was increased by well over 20% from historical kill levels after the 2007 policy was adopted. Even though the guides can't even kill their inflated quotas they will see another 8% increase due to the December 10, 2014 decree by your buddies in government.

Despite a guided allocation of 207 bull moose the harvest data show the non-resident kill to be less than 150 bulls per year on average in recent years. Even an egghead should be able to do the math on that one?

The only guides to lose quota and become non-viable were the smaller operators who were robbed by the larger outfits in an internal "negotiation" between the guides themselves. Kind of reminds me of how cannibals did their business.

Just speaking from my limited experience in our area. Are moose in the Skeena on LEH? Skeena is a rather large area no? Looks like there is GOS for moose in the Skeena Aug 20th to Oct 31. What does it matter if guides don't kill their quota in the Skeena if you can hunt moose on GOS? How does this affect resident opportunity? If you can't get it done in two and a half months, maybe you should consider hiring an egghead guide, or getting a buddy that can actually hunt. Which area has 207 bulls per year, or is that a 5 year quota? Is this same area quoted in an LEH area?
There are no internal negotiations about moose quota between outfitters. It is based on area calculations and nothing more. If you have a small area, you get less tags. Large outfits have more tags because they have more area, not because they are better negotiators. That was the old days when the regional manager could shift quotas around a bit, but no more.

[bridger]

Huevos. I assume from your attitude you are an outfitter or at the very best a resident hunter that has good intentions but not well informed.

This fight has nothing to do with monies spent by non resident hunters in our province. It has nothing to do with 42 animals. In fact it has little to do with allocation at all.

This is is about the Goabc leading government in a direction that will change the culture of hunting from the wonderful tradition of hunting and gathering to put meat on the table to hunting for profit by a guiding industry in which control is moving to international corporate ownership. Corporate ownership is running the Goabc and is asking government to manage wildlife for trophy hunting at the expense of the time honoured tradition of food gathering. It's that simple and as they say it's a matter of public record you can look it up. So if you are an outfitter do us all a favor and quit with the b/s. If you are a well intentioned resident hunter please take the time to get acquainted with the real issues and channel your energy in a more meaniful direction.

[scoutlt1]

Huevos. I assume from your attitude you are an outfitter or at the very best a resident hunter that has good intentions but not well informed.

This fight has nothing to do with monies spent by non resident hunters in our province. It has nothing to do with 42 animals. In fact it has little to do with allocation at all.

This is is about the Goabc leading government in a direction that will change the culture of hunting from the wonderful tradition of hunting and gathering to put meat on the table to hunting for profit by a guiding industry in which ownership is to international corporate ownership. Corporate ownership is running the Goabc and is asking government to manage wildlife for trophy hunting at the expense of the time honoured tradition of food gathering. It's that simple and as they say it's a matter of public record you can look it up. So if you are an outfitter do us all a favor and quit with the b/s. If you are a well intentioned resident hunter please take the time to get acquainted with the real issues and put channel your energy in a more meanigful direction.


Bang on...

[kush]

thumbs up.

[Huevos]

Huevos. I assume from your attitude you are an outfitter or at the very best a resident hunter that has good intentions but not well informed.

This fight has nothing to do with monies spent by non resident hunters in our province. It has nothing to do with 42 animals. In fact it has little to do with allocation at all.

This is is about the Goabc leading government in a direction that will change the culture of hunting from the wonderful tradition of hunting and gathering to put meat on the table to hunting for profit by a guiding industry in which control is moving to international corporate ownership. Corporate ownership is running the Goabc and is asking government to manage wildlife for trophy hunting at the expense of the time honoured tradition of food gathering. It's that simple and as they say it's a matter of public record you can look it up. So if you are an outfitter do us all a favor and quit with the b/s. If you are a well intentioned resident hunter please take the time to get acquainted with the real issues and channel your energy in a more meaniful direction.
I am an outfitter, and I am also a resident hunter, and I am fairly new to the province, which would put me in the uninformed category compared to a lot of you. What b\s are you talking about? I lost 30% of our moose quota the year I started outfitting, and from my limited experience, I assumed this was the reason for non resident hunting #s decreasing. I guess my conclusion was premature, and I should have extensively researched every detail before I posted. would you like a one sided conversation? OK. How about an apology? I am sorry I was confused. Please accept my apologies for my ignorance.


Nice sheep by the way. I bet that was also taken in pursuit of meat gathering and had nothing to do with trophy value. Probably never hunted a Grizzly bear either? or fished in a catch and release lake or stream? Don't pretend that meat is the only reason residents hunt because you know that is simply not true!

[Whonnock Boy]

To the best of my knowledge, he is an outfitter, and purchased his territory off of Dan Brooks. Don't know if he is being coached, or all by his lonesome. You be the judge.....


So if you are an outfitter do us all a favor and quit with the b/s.

[bridger]

I am an outfitter, and I am also a resident hunter, and I am fairly new to the province, which would put me in the uninformed category compared to a lot of you. What b\s are you talking about? I lost 30% of our moose quota the year I started outfitting, and from my limited experience, I assumed this was the reason for non resident hunting #s decreasing. I guess my conclusion was premature, and I should have extensively researched every detail before I posted. would you like a one sided conversation? OK. How about an apology? I am sorry I was confused. Please accept my apologies for my ignorance.


Nice sheep by the way. I bet that was also taken in pursuit of meat gathering and had nothing to do with trophy value. Probably never hunted a Grizzly bear either? or fished in a catch and release lake or stream? Don't pretend that meat is the only reason residents hunt because you know that is simply not true!

the big reduction in moose quotas had very little to do with the negotiated shares. Many moose quotas were based on artificial moose populations by a couple of regional managers. When that practice was stopped quotas were adjusted to levels based on moose numbers in the guides areas. Several outfits changed hands before the adjustment. Unfortunately artificial quotas generate artificial market value. Sounds like you should have spent more time gathering facts before becoming a bc outfitter. dont really want a one sided conversation just one that sticks to the facts.

Give you credit though. At best you are an outfitter that made a commitment to our province. So you can't be all bad. Just sayin

[coyotebc]

The only thing that I would add is that why limit resident hunter contributions to the BCWF
Resident hunters also volunteer and support projects financially through many other groups such as Ducks Unlimited

[Sitkaspruce]

Huevos

Did you own your territory prior to the 2007 allocation and the crash of 2008-2010??

I worked as a guide thorough this time and I can tell you from first hand that the crash of the US economy is first and foremost the biggest reason why there was a reduction in hunter numbers. The biggest % of hunters (~75%) are blue collar workers from the US and they tightened their belts and stopped spending the extra $$$. Most of my clients were returners and even they stopped coming or the odd one spread their trips out over 3-4 years instead of every 2-3. They all told me it was because of the economy, their work slowed down, their "pension contribution" was reduced, the investments, which usually helped with the trips, was non-exsistant and yet their month medical and dental stayed the same or even went up. The economy and the dollar parity were the biggest factors, so lets face it, the allocation played a small part in the "whole circle" Yet the guides want us and the Gov to think the 2007 allocation is to blame for ALL their problems. Not the economy crash and the loss of 20% on the dollar......now they are looking to get the "60" animals back and the 20%+ again.....not bad timing.

The GOABC is feeding us all BS when it comes to allocation and the "whoa is me" because of the reduction of animals. There is so many animals that are not under quota with GOS that the reduction to true numbers affects only the smaller outfits south the the Terrace-FSJohn line, those above are not really affected by the allocation, yet they use the smaller outfits as pawns in their quest to get everyone on LEH.

It would be curious to see how many bear, deer, elk, moose and goat hunters actually were reduced due to the 2007 allocations these species are all on GOS/non-quota somewhere. My guess is the 2007 never really affected the hunters like the GOABC would like us to believe.

Cheers

SS

[Whonnock Boy]

Same thing happened in the the charter fishing industry, exactly.




I worked as a guide thorough this time and I can tell you from first hand that the crash of the US economy is first and foremost the biggest reason why there was a reduction in hunter numbers.

[40incher]

Just speaking from my limited experience in our area. Are moose in the Skeena on LEH? Skeena is a rather large area no? Looks like there is GOS for moose in the Skeena Aug 20th to Oct 31. What does it matter if guides don't kill their quota in the Skeena if you can hunt moose on GOS? How does this affect resident opportunity? If you can't get it done in two and a half months, maybe you should consider hiring an egghead guide, or getting a buddy that can actually hunt. Which area has 207 bulls per year, or is that a 5 year quota? Is this same area quoted in an LEH area?

There are no internal negotiations about moose quota between outfitters. It is based on area calculations and nothing more. If you have a small area, you get less tags. Large outfits have more tags because they have more area, not because they are better negotiators. That was the old days when the regional manager could shift quotas around a bit, but no more.


Considering that you are "new" to the B.C. situation I will respond to your queries ... despite your disregard for resident hunters that I would guess is based on poor advice you may have received from others in the guiding industry trying to cover their butts. There must be more than a bit of guilt associated with what transpired in the industry when the GOABC reps chose to "eat their own", as it were ... BTW, I strongly sympathize with the small GO's who were turned on during the negotiations prior to the 2007 protocol, and in the time shortly after when the "big" guides robbed the "small" guides. Also, BTW, if I was one of those guides that were negatively affected I would investigate how their quota's "became" based on new terminology pushed by the GOABC reps during the negotiations. This is how the quota robbery worked in South Skeena, and it can be exposed very easily.

South Skeena (Bulkley Valley-Lakes) moose regulations for BC resident hunters are a creative mix of 3 separate LEH restrictions, a 7-day GOS for any bull post rut, and 3 separate any-bull bow hunts (22 days in total) spaced between September 1st and November 20th. The guides in South Skeena (MU zones 6-04, 6-05, 6-06, 6-08 and 6-09) are on loose quota, which means they can kill their entire quota in even a small portion of their territory (that's another very concerning story for different time).

These moose-hunting regulations have worked very well over time, as proven by recent population surveys. Region 7B (North Peace) also has some innovative moose (non-total-LEH) regulations that have obviously worked as well over time for their situation. One size does not fit all when it comes to hunting, and we in Skeena recognize that very clearly.

To be clear, the 207 per year moose quota mentioned is specific to the area of South Skeena described. North Skeena is still GOS for residents and non-quota for guides on bull moose.

Bottom line, while you as a guide think you may have lost quota because of BC resident hunters, you should look at your own "industry" reps for the real truth!!