BC Conservative leader calls for new system to allocate wildlife in B.C.

[GoatGuy]

BC Conservative leader calls for new system
to allocate wildlife in B.C.

Dan Brooks blames partisan interests for bad changes
to wildlife allocation policyKAMLOOPS - MARCH 3rd, 2015 - BC Conservative Party leader Dan Brooks is calling for a restructuring of the guide outfitting model in British Columbia in order to solve the decades-long conflict between resident hunters and commercial guide outfitters surrounding wildlife allocation.
"The outfitting model in British Columbia is broken, and taking allocation away from resident hunters to fix outfitting isn't a fair solution," said Brooks, a former professional outfitter himself who attended and spoke at a major rally Monday at the B.C. Legislature.
"It's time to restructure outfitting so that it works with resident hunters, not against them," said Brooks, who had been an outfitter for 14 years and whose family started guiding in B.C. in 1975.
"Since the beginning of the outfitting industry the model has been based on arbitrarily shifting and inflating quota amongst outfitters themselves, and then slowly ratcheting up outfitter share of allocations at the expense of resident hunters to fix outfitter disparity," he said, noting that political donations to the BC Liberal Party appear to have influenced the most recent changes.
"The BC Liberals are pandering to lobbyists and want voters and citizens to think this is just about 60 animals going to outfitters, but this is just the straw that broke the camel's back. This is about thousands of hunting opportunities lost to B.C. resident hunters over several decades. This is our hill to die on, resident hunters have had enough."
Brooks also offered sharp criticism of the other political parties for failing to understand the real problem. "The BC NDP have only criticism with no solutions and the BC Greens are fixated on grizzly bear hunting as though it had anything at all to do with the allocation problems. Only the BC Conservative Party is offering hunters a real solution to the wildlife allocation problem," he said.
Brooks is putting forward a five point common sense plan that will restructure outfitting to work with the resident hunting community.
1. Legislate allocation. The flexibility of policy has allowed lobbyists to put constant upward pressure on outfitter allocation resulting in the ratchetingeffect that created the current situation for resident hunters. Allocation needs to be legislated to fortify it against lobbyist tampering and constant fluctuations.
2. One allocation for all species for all regions. The practice of having different allocations for different species for different regions has created tremendous regional disparity in the outfitting industry reflective of long term regional lobbying success and not objective or impartial equality.
3. Close allocation loopholes. Several loopholes that allow outfitters to circumvent allocation limits need to be closed, including:
· Putting high value allocated species on General Open Season (GOS) so they are not subject to allocation limits.
· For species that are managed by both GOS and allocation for resident hunters, combining GOS with outfitter quota to artificially inflate outfitter allocation.
· Administrative guidelines that allow outfitters to overharvest allocation annually by up to 50%.
· Allowing outfitters to give or sell unused non-resident quota to resident hunters, thereby empowering outfitters to circumvent the Limited Entry Hunting (LEH) allocation in favor of wealth or nepotism.
4. End foreign ownership and foreign guides. Recent policy changes have allowed for foreign ownership of outfitter territories as well as foreign guides. These policies undermine the reason the outfitting industry was created in the first place - for the benefit of British Columbians.
5. Invest in greater conservation and wildlife management. The government must invest in conservation and wildlife management to reverse the decline of wildlife populations in British Columbia and grow more wildlife that will support a healthy outfitting industry alongside the resident hunting community.
"This issue is an excellent example of why B.C. needs more BC Conservatives in the Legislature - all of the other parties act and speak out of self-interest but the BC Conservatives are pledged to protect the public interest," said Brooks, who became leader in 2014 after running in the 2013 election in Nechako Lakes.
The BC Conservative Party is presently reviewing its policy platform and recruiting candidates with a goal of running a full slate of candidates in the next provincial election expected in 2017.



-30-
CONTACTS:
Dan Brooks
Leader, BC Conservative Party
250-944-0435 (tel:250-944-0435)

[Wild one]

This sounds like a man who has been listening to BC's resident hunters

I think he covered most of what we are looking for

[adriaticum]

Move in the right direction but none of these are game changers.

- Removing requirement to use guides for non-resident hunters.
- Having non-residents apply for LEH instead of guide outfits.

Game changers.

[Jagermeister]

Move in the right direction but none of these are game changers.

- Removing requirement to use guides for non-resident hunters.
- Having non-residents apply for LEH instead of guide outfits.

Game changers.
Dude, we're entering into the 8th year after the projected 2007 implementation and all that has changed in the interim. Just remember that 2017 is not that far away. Pick a day in May and have your man or woman ready.

[Everett]

Looks like Mr Brooks has been paying attention and realizes his only chance of sitting in Victoria is with the support of hunters. The one thing missing in his statement is 90/10

[adriaticum]

Dude, we're entering into the 8th year after the projected 2007 implementation and all that has changed in the interim. Just remember that 2017 is not that far away. Pick a day in May and have your man or woman ready.

I don't think I get what you are trying to say?

[bigwhiteys]

1. Legislate allocation. = Yes it needs to be legislated and final so we can all focus on what really matters. #5.

2. One allocation for all species for all regions. = Needs to be explained a little more?
3. Close allocation loopholes. = Yes.
4. End foreign ownership and foreign guides. = Foreign ownership, good riddance. Foreign guides... Not so sure. We allow foreigners to work in a huge variety of jobs in BC so I don't see how that is fair.
5. Invest in greater conservation and wildlife management. = Yes.

We may never agree on some issues but Dan makes a lot more sense to me than the NDP or Green Party.

[russm86]

Not saying I disagree with the guy, and we definitely need some changes in our favour, but he does have ulterior motives behind his actions/comments. He is/was a Guide/Outfitter and still owns a couple territories that he still manages just has other guys running them, so having an end to foreign ownership brings the prices of territories way down and eliminates competition. Not that I really have an particular issue with that either but just thought it should be known. FYI, he is NOT a member of GOABC. Also, he doesn't care for GOABC and strongly disagrees with most of their doings from what I understand.

[Whonnock Boy]

His explanation to me in Kelowna was this, or along these lines. Why should any one individual guide outfitter be allocated a larger percentage of a certain species, simply based on the species? Why should an outfitter who owns a territory that holds sheep, or grizzlies be allotted 40% of the animals, when an outfitter whose area only carries moose receive 20% of the allocated species? Why is one animal more valued than another? It is simply not fair to those outfitters that hold less valued species. An animal, is an animal.




2. One allocation for all species for all regions. = Needs to be explained a little more?

[bigwhiteys]

His explanation to me in Kelowna was this, or along these lines. Why should any one individual guide outfitter be allocated a larger percentage of a certain species, simply based on the species? Why should an outfitter who owns a territory that holds sheep, or grizzlies be allotted 40% of the animals, when an outfitter whose area only carries moose receive 20% of the allocated species? Why is one animal more valued than another? It is simply not fair to those outfitters that hold less valued species. An animal, is an animal.

The outfitters don't determine the price of the animals though... Much like a car dealer slaps a sticker price on a new truck it's just what they want. The market will decide what they are actually worth and pay or not. Moose is a highly sought after species for residents compared to sheep or grizzly.

[Whonnock Boy]

I guess I didn't explain that properly. It is not about the "market value", and I guess I will ask you this. Why don't all outfitters get 40% of the species allocated in their territories? Why is it different? A dead animal, is a dead animal is it not?


The outfitters don't determine the price of the animals though... Much like a car dealer slaps a sticker price on a new truck it's just what they want. The market will decide what they are actually worth and pay or not. Moose is a highly sought after species for residents compared to sheep or grizzly.

[Buck]

Mr brooks allocation #was 75/25 in kelowna

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Brooks said for 'us' to just pick one set of splits for all species.

[Down South]

I only hope Mr. Brooks can field a competent team in the next election, so we have the opportunity to kick Clark, Thomson and the rest the liberals asses out of power

[bridger]

[QUOTE=Whonnock Boy;1612981]I guess I didn't explain that properly. It is not about the "market value", and I guess I will ask you this. Why don't all outfitters get 40% of the species allocated in their territories? Why is it different? A dead animal, is a dead animal is it not

Species shares are for the most part allocated on their relative importance to both user groups. Moose are of great importance to residents so we get a higher portion. Sheep are hunted by fewer residents and have great economic value to industry so the industry share is higher than their share of moose etc.

[r106]

sounds good but theres a lot of grey areas there. The big one is, whats his opinion on a fair split?

[bridger]

sounds good but theres a lot of grey areas there. The big one is, whats his opinion on a fair split?


75/25 last time I talked with him

[Fisher-Dude]

sounds good but theres a lot of grey areas there. The big one is, whats his opinion on a fair split?


He has asked us to pick a fair split number. I like a politician that listens to the wishes of his constituents instead of unilaterally imposing his will like Mr Thomson has done.

[bridger]

Got an email from Dan Brooks this morning. He said that he would let the BCWF pick the split and work and develop a policy around it. As for him being an outfitter he doesn't hide the fact unlike other politicians.

[hardnocks]

lets hope the conseratives can get their act together for the next election.

[DBM]

At the rally he was the only guy I felt was actually trying to address some of our concerns. The rest of them haven't got a clue - seriously, did anybody show up to the rally because their main concern was the non-removal of grizzly meat?

[Wild one]

Got an email from Dan Brooks this morning. He said that he would let the BCWF pick the split and work and develop a policy around it. As for him being an outfitter he doesn't hide the fact unlike other politicians.

Being honest about it is a big plus

We can't say that about the libs who created this mess

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Here's a video clip from the Victoria rally...


http://youtu.be/gqJ1VM4jZ3A

[Everett]

Got an email from Dan Brooks this morning. He said that he would let the BCWF pick the split and work and develop a policy around it. As for him being an outfitter he doesn't hide the fact unlike other politicians.

Ok this guy really does want to get elected.

[Paulyman]

Ok this guy really does want to get elected.

90/10 with animals dispersed from all species and categories, not just the high valued ones.

[danbrooks]

Not saying I disagree with the guy, and we definitely need some changes in our favour, but he does have ulterior motives behind his actions/comments. He is/was a Guide/Outfitter and still owns a couple territories that he still manages just has other guys running them, so having an end to foreign ownership brings the prices of territories way down and eliminates competition. Not that I really have an particular issue with that either but just thought it should be known. FYI, he is NOT a member of GOABC. Also, he doesn't care for GOABC and strongly disagrees with most of their doings from what I understand.

I do still own my territory. It's a huge conflict of interest for me to suggest what the split should be. On the one hand, if I say it should be 80/20 people will say I am protecting my own interests. On the other hand if I say 90/10, well as you can read above I'm still the bad guy taking out my competition. That's exactly why I'm not picking the number. Let BCWF pick the number, I'm just advocating for changes to the system that are grossly unfair to resident hunters, and its time to get it set straight..

[Everett]

Just listened to the video and I am surprisingly impressed he doesn't sound like a politician which in my books is good. If he comes out in favour of 90/10 and I may just vote for him. He will just have to find viable candidates which has been the problem they have had in the past.

[danbrooks]

The rest of them haven't got a clue - seriously, did anybody show up to the rally because their main concern was the non-removal of grizzly meat?

So true, Andrew Weaver and the Greens are hijacking the allocation issue to push their anti grizzly hunting campaign. His proposed legislation does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to resolve the allocation issue. It's completely unrelated, but the media picked up on it and is running with it, and that's the story now, I've got an interview on the 180 on CBC this morning, and guess what, its not about allocation, its about trophy hunting. Sigh... We've got a lot more work to do...

[eric]

Well mister Brooks, If the Conservatives, can get their shit together for the next election you guys will get my vote.
A voice of reason from an Outfitter...
And a politician....WOW

[hardnocks]

yup get your shit together dan brooks

[Wild one]

Dan thank you for speaking for resident hunters on this issue and taking the time to listen.

You have my ear on how you are approaching this issue. If your party has it together when it comes to managing BC beyond hunting you will have my vote.

You maybe dragging this non voter to the polls and if so I will not be alone.

[DawsonCreedmoor]

An alternative to the liberals that isn't the NDP would be great! Here's to hoping you guys get it together in time for the next election.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

If the conservatives have caught your ear, I'm sure they could use our financial support. Campaigns aren't cheap and you can't get elected on a Kraft dinner budget.

[bigdogeh]

I was at the protest and listened to your speach Dan.
I was impressed and believe you to be concerned and passionate about what's going on. you seem to be able to see through the bs going on with the libs and GOABC. personally I think your a very fine person from what I've seen of you and heard from you. I may vote conservative provincially on your merits alone. It's federally where I have a problem, mostly with your leader but also with almost everything the federal conservatives have done under harpers leadership. but if i had to choose between the libs and conservs at this point i'd choose the conservs. I don't know if i'll ever vote liberal again. at this point I really don't think so....

[Stone Sheep Steve]

I was at the protest and listened to your speach Dan.
I was impressed and believe you to be concerned and passionate about what's going on. you seem to be able to see through the bs going on with the libs and GOABC. personally I think your a very fine person from what I've seen of you and heard from you. I may vote conservative provincially on your merits alone. It's federally where I have a problem, mostly with your leader but also with almost everything the federal conservatives have done under harpers leadership. but if i had to choose between the libs and conservs at this point i'd choose the conservs. I don't know if i'll ever vote liberal again. at this point I really don't think so....

Federal and provincial liberals and conservatives only share the name. Parties are completely separate.

[bigdogeh]

Federal and provincial liberals and conservatives only share the name. Parties are completely separate.
I thought that might be the case so thank you for that. Just made my decision a whole lot easier....

[LYKTOHUNT]

lets hope the conseratives can get their act together for the next election.
Yes, I cant imagine voting NDP and unless something changes a lot I will not go Liberal, we sure don't have much to pick from

[Wydtrak]

Why did none of that video clip make it on the news? He explained the problem and gave solutions in a 10 minute speech but not a single word made the news. Do they not have some obligation to report factual news? So sick of all the Bullsht being reported that has nothing to do with the allocation dispute. I saw Dan in FSJ and they will get my families vote!!

[Ranger95]

Dan Brooks - Conservative - now that makes sense!

good speech fella - you are talking the language 100000 hunters (voters) want to hear.

[bigdogeh]

Why did none of that video clip make it on the news? He explained the problem and gave solutions in a 10 minute speech but not a single word made the news. Do they not have some obligation to report factual news? So sick of all the Bullsht being reported that has nothing to do with the allocation dispute. I saw Dan in FSJ and they will get my families vote!!

I think every time one of the e-news sites pops up with a story on what's going on and has the 60 animals as it's main headline, someone should copy and paste this youtube url into the comments section. then people could get a real idea of what we're fighting for... maybe a few of the vids from the protest so people can get alot clearer message rather than just the 60 animals bullshit comment. I've saved the url's and will do that when I see an opportunity. this needs to get out there and these vids are gold.

[bigwhiteys]

So true, Andrew Weaver and the Greens are hijacking the allocation issue to push their anti grizzly hunting campaign. His proposed legislation does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to resolve the allocation issue. It's completely unrelated, but the media picked up on it and is running with it, and that's the story now, I've got an interview on the 180 on CBC this morning, and guess what, its not about allocation, its about trophy hunting. Sigh... We've got a lot more work to do...

Thank you Dan! Glad to see you say that.

[HD95]

I was at the rally on Monday and listened to Dan. I can say that I am cautiously optimistic about Dan and his approach. Dan, assemble a team and lets take a good run at the Liberals in 2017.

[Salty]

danbrooks add me to the list of people at the rally that heard a lot of common ground with what you said there. I have to admit I hadn't even heard of you before that, sorry I don't pay attention to politics as much as I should. I'll be watching you and the BC conservative party closely in the next while I know you have a long long way to go but I'm in this for the long haul. Near future I'm glad that you see that resident hunters are getting hosed and are willing to help fight for our rights. Good luck to you.

[mikeman20]

Move in the right direction but none of these are game changers.

- Removing requirement to use guides for non-resident hunters.
- Having non-residents apply for LEH instead of guide outfits.

Game changers.

I don't think a single LEH system is a good idea. What happens when 5 million Americans put in draws?

The LEH odds will be 1/100,000

[guest]

I too thought Dan took a great step forward for BC residents and it was good to see some fire in person.

Want to to win an election Mr. Brooks ?

I look forward to you continuing to support residents on this Allocation issue, and to get your party in line with the BCNurses Union in support of Nurse shortages , the IWA and the Lumber industry, the BC Teachers Federation as well, as through education, students and parents alike can learn the facts of hunting as families , it's heritage, and conservation of fish and wildlife. It's health advantages over store purchased meat, fish and poultry. Bring in an optional CORE program to secondary level education throughout the province.

Something else Dan could take on for VOTES with great support is the Fish Farm industry .... Do something about the expansion ... Stop the killing of our native fish runs ........ Be rid of these terrible decisions that are doing more harm to our fish and wildlife, environment ....... All brought to you by the Liberal Government ........ In my opinion ya know..... All good things .......

see ya in 2017 Dan ...... Go for it, your gaining support !

CT

[Salty]

Uh curly I don't think you're going to find too many conservative parties anywhere aligning with unions. Just sayin...
JMO but I think we should focus on the issue at hand.

[guest]

Uh curly I don't think you're going to find too many conservative parties anywhere aligning with unions. Just sayin...
JMO but I think we should focus on the issue at hand.

truth be known any thing is better then this present Liberal party in my opinion lol :)) as they have sure put the screws to nurses and teachers etc ...... In my opinion

[Vladimir Poutine]

Why did none of that video clip make it on the news? He explained the problem and gave solutions in a 10 minute speech but not a single word made the news. Do they not have some obligation to report factual news? So sick of all the Bullsht being reported that has nothing to do with the allocation dispute. I saw Dan in FSJ and they will get my families vote!!

The reason no video of Mr Brooks wasn't presented is that the Lame Stream Media has many connections to the Liberals. They simply can't and won't print a discouraging word.

--Times Colonist writer Les Leyne's son worked for the Liberal Caucus, then the Liberal Party and now for spin merchants/lobbyists Hill and Knowlton

- Former CBC Bureau Chief Stephen Smart's wife Rebecca Smart was Christy Clark's Deputy Press Sec.

Corus Radio (CKNW) Political broadcaster Sean Leslie's wife Lisa is a Communications Director for the BC Liberal Government

- Black Press political writer Tom Fletcher is married to Kate Trotter, a Public Affairs Officer for the BC Liberal Government.

It's got to be hard to get another point of view when the so called "reporters" are sleeping with those that should be reported upon.

[bridger]

I don't think a single LEH system is a good idea. What happens when 5 million Americans put in draws?

The LEH odds will be 1/100,000

would have to be a separate draw for non residents same as un the states.

[bigdogeh]

I don't think a single LEH system is a good idea. What happens when 5 million Americans put in draws?

The LEH odds will be 1/100,000

It wouldn't be a single LEH system.
It would be a 90/10 split still. 90% of the LEH tags to residents and 10% LEH tags to the non residents. a much better, fairer system then handing out tags to GO's that then in turn give them out to friends and family, trade for tires, etc.... the non residents could then choose a GO for their hunt. that could be mandatory. this would be the fairest approach, but GOABC is far from fair. they're so far up the gov's *ss it's sickening and you know that isn't going to happen. not with the libs in power anyways.

[Apolonius]

Very impressed with Dan Brooks.....darn i got to donate again.Good posting.

[Salty]

It wouldn't be a single LEH system.
It would be a 90/10 split still. 90% of the LEH tags to residents and 10% LEH tags to the non residents. a much better, fairer system then handing out tags to GO's that then in turn give them out to friends and family, trade for tires, etc.... the non residents could then choose a GO for their hunt. that could be mandatory. this would be the fairest approach, but GOABC is far from fair. they're so far up the gov's *ss it's sickening and you know that isn't going to happen. not with the libs in power anyways.

The way things are going I'd go one step further and consider removing the requirement of hiring a GO. If a foreigner gets a draw out of the 10% allocation they can choose to hire a guide or not. Many other jurisdictions don't have a law that you must hire a guide this is not radical thinking.

[bridger]

The way things are going I'd go one step further and consider removing the requirement of hiring a GO. If a foreigner gets a draw out of the 10% allocation they can choose to hire a guide or not. Many other jurisdictions don't have a law that you must hire a guide this is not radical thinking.

Great minds think alike as they say. Lots of areas that non residents could easily get by without an outfitter. Extremely remote areas guides might still be needed, for access as much as anything, but province wide guide law is now redundant

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Great minds think alike as they say. Lots of areas that non residents could easily get by without an outfitter. Extremely remote areas guides might still be needed, for access as much as anything, but province wide guide law is now redundant

Right. But it also would be expected that these draws might be once in a lifetime so hiring a guide(for those who could afford it) would be a reasonable option. Of course, since the clients already have the tag, the price of the hunts would be expected to be much lower. For the working guy who draws the tag, it can be done without a guide if the guy is capable.

As most have said, we don't want to see the industry go away. Just would like to see them reinvented.

[adriaticum]

I don't think a single LEH system is a good idea. What happens when 5 million Americans put in draws?

The LEH odds will be 1/100,000

Its a great idea.
You apply the allocated number of tags to non residents and they don't affect residents' odds.

[Foxton Gundogs]

The way things are going I'd go one step further and consider removing the requirement of hiring a GO. If a foreigner gets a draw out of the 10% allocation they can choose to hire a guide or not. Many other jurisdictions don't have a law that you must hire a guide this is not radical thinking.

Nothing wrong with a lot of the guides, they are being led around by their executive. A Non Resident draw would give the guides who are being held down by GOABC and its idea of allocation a chance to rise to the top by their customer service guiding ability and work ethic. The mandatory use of a guide is no big deal once allocation is gone.

[Foxton Gundogs]

I don't think a single LEH system is a good idea. What happens when 5 million Americans put in draws?

The LEH odds will be 1/100,000

It wouldn't effect us one little bit. If say for the sake of argument there are 100 moose available in area 5-2A the Non residents would get 10 animals in their draw we would get 90. The number of Non residents applying for the 10 would only effect THEIR draw. The number of residents putting in for the 90 would be the only thing to effect OURS. plain and simple.

[Wild one]

In my opinion focusing on a fair split first is more important. If non residents are on LEH or not is of little importance if we don't have a fair split.

My self I couldn't care less if non residents are on LEH or not. At this time they must use a guide either way and it will not have any effect on resident opportunity. If a GO is given an allocation of 5 animals that number does not change LEH for non resident or not.

The only way this will provide any benefit is if the $ generated from this LEH went towards wildlife only not into general revenue. Shifting the $ generated by tag/license sales from both residents and non residents a like towards wildlife should be fought for over putting non residents on LEH.

Without directing where the funds generated from a non resident LEH go it no more than just trying to stick it to GO/non residents.

[bigdogeh]

In my opinion focusing on a fair split first is more important. If non residents are on LEH or not is of little importance if we don't have a fair split.

90-10 sounds pretty fair to me.


My self I couldn't care less if non residents are on LEH or not. At this time they must use a guide either way and it will not have any effect on resident opportunity. If a GO is given an allocation of 5 animals that number does not change LEH for non resident or not.

key words you used are "AT this time" "it will not have an effect on resident opportunity."
what happens when more and more areas go from GOS to LEH? this has always been the trend. the residents lose animals and the GO's animals increase. if residents and non residents we're on LEH (90-10) there would still be an equitable split no matter what circumstances arise. one group would not tend to gain while the other loses. this is why we are fighting the huge percentages of allocation given to the GO's and non residents. they have everything to gain and the residents have everything to lose. if the province were to shutdown GOS completely (which I'm sure GOABC would love once the huge allocation percentages were written in stone through legislation,) you will have .3% of the hunting population, many of those from out of country or backed by foreign interests and money, basically owning anywhere from 25% to 40% (depending on species) of our wildlife.
kinda sounds like PRIVATIZATION of a resource to me. of a resource that belongs equitably to all british columbians, those that pay taxes here and have a vested interest in the conservation of OUR wildlife resource.


The only way this will provide any benefit is if the $ generated from this LEH went towards wildlife only not into general revenue. Shifting the $ generated by tag/license sales from both residents and non residents a like towards wildlife should be fought for over putting non residents on LEH.

I think we'd all love to see that.
it does come across that you sound like a GO since you don't seem to like the idea of non residents going to an LEH system. maybe i'm wrong but that's the impression I get. if so I can understand that you may personally like to have the control of the permits/tags rather than have a third party send out permits/tags to the lucky person who was able to actually "win the lotto" like most residents do. unfortunately we've all seen the corruption spawned from this. GO's trading tags for tires, etc...., giving tags to friends and family, etc. going to an all LEH system for non residents would take the corruption factor out of the equation.
if you or GO's don't like the LEH for non residents idea, the % (percentages) of allocation are too rich and need to come down. especially if they are going to be legislated.


Without directing where the funds generated from a non resident LEH go it no more than just trying to stick it to GO/non residents.

this makes no sense at all. maybe it sticks it to the multimillionaire who has a weekend available and feels like shooting a griz or something. but it also opens up the door to someone from out of country or province to have a hunt of a lifetime that he may not be able to have or afford in any other way...

[REMINGTON JIM]

Just listened to Dan Brooks on the CBC - i think hes alright - prob not popular with GOABC right now - ;-) LOL also listened to some Idiot by the name of Andrew ? from the Green Party - not the brightest light in the group ! LOL :frown:
RJ

[BimmerBob]

I see folks talking about a "fair" split and IMO "fair" has absolutely nothing to do with it. The wildlife of British Columbia BELONGS first and foremost to BC Residents so when the needs of BC Residents are satisfied then we can think about satisfying the needs of others. Allowing foreign hunters into the mix prior to allowing every BC Resident a chance (and this does not mean an entry into an LEH Lottery) is akin to having guests satisfying themselves at your dinner table prior to taking care of your family and then having your family go hungry. It makes no sense whatsoever.

The Native (First Nations) population of this country understands this very well, why can't the rest of the population get it?

[Wild one]

90-10 sounds pretty fair to me.



key words you used are "AT this time" "it will not have an effect on resident opportunity."
what happens when more and more areas go from GOS to LEH? this has always been the trend. the residents lose animals and the GO's animals increase. if residents and non residents we're on LEH (90-10) there would still be an equitable split no matter what circumstances arise. one group would not tend to gain while the other loses. this is why we are fighting the huge percentages of allocation given to the GO's and non residents. they have everything to gain and the residents have everything to lose. if the province were to shutdown GOS completely (which I'm sure GOABC would love once the huge allocation percentages were written in stone through legislation,) you will have .3% of the hunting population, many of those from out of country or backed by foreign interests and money, basically owning anywhere from 25% to 40% (depending on species) of our wildlife.
kinda sounds like PRIVATIZATION of a resource to me. of a resource that belongs equitably to all british columbians, those that pay taxes here and have a vested interest in the conservation of OUR wildlife resource.



I think we'd all love to see that.
it does come across that you sound like a GO since you don't seem to like the idea of non residents going to an LEH system. maybe i'm wrong but that's the impression I get. if so I can understand that you may personally like to have the control of the permits/tags rather than have a third party send out permits/tags to the lucky person who was able to actually "win the lotto" like most residents do. unfortunately we've all seen the corruption spawned from this. GO's trading tags for tires, etc...., giving tags to friends and family, etc. going to an all LEH system for non residents would take the corruption factor out of the equation.
if you or GO's don't like the LEH for non residents idea, the % (percentages) of allocation are too rich and need to come down. especially if they are going to be legislated.



this makes no sense at all. maybe it sticks it to the multimillionaire who has a weekend available and feels like shooting a griz or something. but it also opens up the door to someone from out of country or province to have a hunt of a lifetime that he may not be able to have or afford in any other way...


Not a GO only a resident hunter that sees no point wasting effort into things that reap little to no benefit. I look at things that are beneficial to resident hunters/Wildlife instead of how to screw GO's

Putting non residents on LEH does not solve the issue of allocation % and does nothing to change it. So unless wildlife is benefiting from the $ it generates it is a waste of time in my opinion.

Putting them on LEH with the requirement of having to use a GO still in place does nothing to benefit the average man over the millionaire. Not going to change the cost of hiring the GO or the purchase of the tag or license only adds the fee for applying for the LEH.

90/10 is fair to me bring BC inline with the North American standard on allocation splits

If it was to generate $ towards wildlife I would be all for non resident LEH but right now $ generated by hunting goes to general revenue

[bigdogeh]

Not a GO only a resident hunter that sees no point wasting effort into things that reap little to no benefit. I look at things that are beneficial to resident hunters/Wildlife instead of how to screw GO's

I don't think anyone here wants to screw GO's. We just want a level playing field. can I go out and shoot over my bag limit? don't think so. can a GO or non resident hunter?
we also don't want to be in a situation in the future where .3% of the hunting population (much of it foreign owned and run) controls between 25 and 40% of the publics high value wildlife in OUR province. we're fighting for our sons and daughters, and their son's and daughters rights to be able to hunt and fish a public resource. not a privatized one.


Putting non residents on LEH does not solve the issue of allocation % and does nothing to change it. So unless wildlife is benefiting from the $ it generates it is a waste of time in my opinion.

I think it may solve the issue if the % are changed from what are the highest most generous in all of north (and probably south) america to what are more inline with north america. 5-10% nonresident, 95-90 resident.


Putting them on LEH with the requirement of having to use a GO still in place does nothing to benefit the average man over the millionaire. Not going to change the cost of hiring the GO or the purchase of the tag or license only adds the fee for applying for the LEH.

it does if you remove the requirement of having to use a GO, or it would make the system more competitive knowing that the hunter holds the tag, so the GO's would be competing for the spoils... kinda like how most competing companies act. they bid on projects. you know.... what the liberals "claim" they support.... fair competition.


90/10 is fair to me bring BC inline with the North American standard on allocation splits

glad we can agree on this. I think both you and I and most forum members agree this would go along way in fixing our present situation. wish the libs and GOABC would see it the same way. funny how money and greed can blind and corrupt.


If it was to generate $ towards wildlife I would be all for non resident LEH but right now $ generated by hunting goes to general revenue

which in turn goes to kickbacks to "associations" that return "donations" to the government in power.
the liberals have shown they're pretty good at this.

something they would be all over if it were another party holding the reins and pulling this crap...

[lange1212]

Quoted from Ministry policy:

"Resident Hunter Priority"

"It is the policy of the Ministry:

(3) creating and maintaining a regulatory frame work that maximizes resident hunters' success, enjoyment, and participation;
(4) developing and maintaining regulations that will benefit resident hunters' opportunity first;
(5) considering resident hunters' opportunity first when removing unnecessary barriers to achievement of harvest prior to reducing allocation;
(7) ensuring that when restrictions on harvest are necessary, guided hunters' opportunity is limited before resident hunters' opportunity."

How much do non-residents pay for LEH applications and resulting HCTF contributions? Zero $'s!
How many non-residents are turned away from hunting opportunities via LEH? Zero!
How does LEH represent resident opportunity first and reflect regulations benefiting residents? It doesn't
How many non residents are hindered by the LEH restriction? Zero!
Is non-resident opportunity and participation hindered by LEH? Nope!
How many years do non-residents have to wait on average to hunt an allocated species? Zero!
Does today's government actions represent, entrench, and prioritize resident priority as set out in the policy criteria presented. Nope!
How does removing the assistant guide license, associated fees, and HCTF contributions support wildlife and the public interest? It doesn't!
Has todays government acted with malice and in breach of public trust in representing resident hunters access, regulations, and the public interest through the current allocation direction? I think so!
and the list could go on..............

Does the LEH RESTRICTION that is specific to residents of BC only, provide a host of benefits to GO's and non-resident hunters, providing them with improved access, greater exclusivity, and is known to drive down resident hunter participation from the true owners of wildlife the "resident public", and is this an effort to remove resident hunting families as a competing interest to benefit GO's foreign trophy hunting clients? absolutely!

But that's only my opinion.

[Wild one]

So in basic terms putting non residents on LEH is only worth while if you can accomplish making a big list of changes.

This coming from someone who has experience dealing with the govt in regard to regulations out side of hunting. You are going to need a lot of time and some luck to get all those changes in place. Most often you will only see a fraction of what you ask for.

You will need to come up with examples on how this can be beneficial to BC not just resident hunters. How this system can be effectively run to keep GO's operating because this allocation policy came into place to try and bump up the industry.

You want GO's to bid like contractors there is a problem there as they can only operate within their territory. So you will also need to change the GO territory system. Now how are you going to manage the species that are not under quota for GO's?

This is only a start of the issues that will pop up and they will all need answers and makes it a very difficult process when you are asking for so many changes at once to make 1 goal work.

The other big issue you will face is there will be more than just resident hunters opinions taken into account you will be facing opposition from GO's at the same time and this will effect the changes you want. This often will lead to only a portion of your goals being met. Like it or not it is what it is when it is effecting 2 user groups.

Changes what might seem right and simple are often not viewed the same by all parties.

This is why I say it is a waste of time till you can direct where the $ goes that is generated from all forms of hunting first because that way if you only achieve part of your goal with trying to put non residents on LEH it is still beneficial. This should be addressed after the main issues are addressed

The issues of a 90/10 split, GO's being able to go over quota, and foreign ownership of GO territories is already a big chunk to bring to the table that is going to involve a lot more than just stomping your feet going this is what we want. Not saying stop here but resident hunters have a big bite to chew on right now lets focusing on the big issues is more important.

[bigdogeh]

ok, lets start with a 90/10 allocation split. just one change. probably solve just about everything. and would be fair to all parties all around. they can play all the games they seem to be good at playing. play all the games they want, but play them with their 10%. not our 90%.

we're not the ones who have made all the changes and have caused all this commotion. we're not the ones who have created all the smoke and mirrors. we would have lived up to the 2007 agreement and did. seems government was able to implement everything GOABC wanted changed fairly quickly. (behind closed doors and with no input from Resident Hunters)
one change shouldn't be too hard to implement for them. 90 -10.
and legislate it. end of story.

too hard to do?
yeah, cry me a river Thompson... see ya at the polls.

[j270wsm]

I've got an interview on the 180 on CBC this morning, and guess what, its not about allocation, its about trophy hunting. Sigh... We've got a lot more work to do...

Thats perfect......you could explain how the non resident hunters are all true trophy hunters that only want to put antlers on the wall and don't use the meat.

[goinghunting]

I like everything your saying Dan, but I want to see you state it very clearly that you support a 90/10 split. Then youve got my vote.

[bigdogeh]

I like everything your saying Dan, but I want to see you state it very clearly that you support a 90/10 split. Then youve got my vote.

I believe Dan is on record as coming out and saying he would be in favour of what the BCWF is in favour of or able to come to an agreement on. that way he wouldn't be in conflict of interest as being a GO or from a GO family himself.
that's good enough for me.

[goinghunting]

I believe Dan is on record as coming out and saying he would be in favour of what the BCWF is in favour of or able to come to an agreement on. that way he wouldn't be in conflict of interest as being a GO or from a GO family himself.
that's good enough for me.

Exactly my point, thats a huge conflict of interest and I'm not interested in supporting someone who is gonna bounce back and forth. I want to know exactly what side of the fence he is on? Even if his number isn't 90/10 I'd like to know exactly what it is!

[boxhitch]

Changes what might seem right and simple are often not viewed the same by all parties.

The issues of a 90/10 split, GO's being able to go over quota, and foreign ownership of GO territories is already a big chunk to bring to the table that is going to involve a lot more than just stomping your feet going this is what we want. Not saying stop here but resident hunters have a big bite to chew on right now lets focusing on the big issues is more important.Great post
To focus this smaller , once the split is locked down and in legislation , then the rules are clear and no one can play king and mess with them . All the other discussion about how each side uses their allocation can and will go on forever , but is nothing more than coffee shop chatter . I bet managers want nothing more than to get this into the books , it is a huge taxx on resources that needs to end . Once it is in the books , attempts at special deals will end.

[bigdogeh]

Great post
To focus this smaller , once the split is locked down and in legislation , then the rules are clear and no one can play king and mess with them . All the other discussion about how each side uses their allocation can and will go on forever , but is nothing more than coffee shop chatter . I bet managers want nothing more than to get this into the books , it is a huge taxx on resources that needs to end . Once it is in the books , attempts at special deals will end.

only problem is the numbers are much too rich. you have .3% of the hunting population, a large part of it foreign owned, owning and controlling between 20 and 40% of the high valued wildlife of BC. no one here has a problem with allocation and even putting it in stone through legislation. the problem lies in the huge amount of resources being given away. the percentage is much too high. and the 60 animals is a sick joke. sorry meant sick lie. it is a loss of 5,000 hunting opportunities. I could say it's a loss of 5,000 animals and my statement would have more credibility than thompsons lie.

[Buck]

Great post
To focus this smaller , once the split is locked down and in legislation , then the rules are clear and no one can play king and mess with them . All the other discussion about how each side uses their allocation can and will go on forever , but is nothing more than coffee shop chatter . I bet managers want nothing more than to get this into the books , it is a huge taxx on resources that needs to end . Once it is in the books , attempts at special deals will end.

Yea the numbers are locked then they get to lobby to decrease access increase Leh zones shorten seasons and on and on.

[boxhitch]

Yea the numbers are locked then they get to lobby to decrease access increase Leh zones shorten seasons and on and on.Those are real easy to defend as science will prove out what is necessary and what is sustainable. Moves toward conservation should be based on facts , social values will always weigh in from all sides of the table. But the default position on the split is entrenched , no BS.

[kootenaycarver]

Dan Brooks obviously got the attention of many, many BC resident hunters, as well as many non hunting BC residents. I liked what he had to say. Sure hope he is able to get a good team together. He made my choice on election day much easier.

[bigdogeh]

http://huntingbc.ca/forum/images/shades_of_green/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Buck http://huntingbc.ca/forum/images/shades_of_green/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=1614553#post1614553)
Yea the numbers are locked then they get to lobby to decrease access increase Leh zones shorten seasons and on and on.



Those are real easy to defend as science will prove out what is necessary and what is sustainable. Moves toward conservation should be based on facts , social values will always weigh in from all sides of the table. But the default position on the split is entrenched , no BS.


yes, those should be easy to defend with science, etc as you've mentioned... but so was the 2007 policy and look how they scoffed at that. i don't put one iota past these guys to see how low they'll sink to further their cause and fatten their checkbooks.

[Bugle M In]

Agree...this isn't about science, and won't matter in the end.
What this really is...is about the beginning of Privatization.
It's not that the guides and especially their client that are smarter, nor better than the rest of us ..etc etc.
This is about Elitists, with just "deeper pockets", than most of us.
This is about a natural resource, which we all as citizens of BC should be allowed to partake in.....First!
A Resource for the masses...
Not a bundle of money for the few who can afford it....




http://huntingbc.ca/forum/images/shades_of_green/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Buck http://huntingbc.ca/forum/images/shades_of_green/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=1614553#post1614553)
Yea the numbers are locked then they get to lobby to decrease access increase Leh zones shorten seasons and on and on.





yes, those should be easy to defend with science, etc as you've mentioned... but so was the 2007 policy and look how they scoffed at that. i don't put one iota past these guys to see how low they'll sink to further their cause and fatten their checkbooks.