Interested in your comments on a new private members bill I table today

[AJWeaver]

All available here:

http://www.andrewweavermla.ca/2015/11/17/hunting/

Text on Introduction of Bill:

"A. Weaver: It’s my pleasure to introduce this bill — which, if enacted, would remove the minister’s ability to designate and exempt classes of applicants from having to enter lotteries or other methods of random selection when seeking limited-entry hunt permits. If enacted, these amendments would require all hunters to enter draws for their limited-entry hunt permits, regardless of resident, non-resident or non-resident alien designation, as is done in other jurisdictions.


As it currently stands, local hunters have to enter a lottery if they want to harvest an animal managed under the limited-entry hunt system, but out-of-province hunters can simply buy a permit for the same species and management unit area. Foreign hunters coming to B.C. already enjoy cheaper permits and greater allocation percentages than nearly every other jurisdiction in North America. It’s clearly unfair that they can buy their way into limited-entry hunts year after year, when British Columbians are left entering lotteries in the hopes of being granted the opportunity to harvest a public good in their home province.


The limited-entry hunt system is an important management and conservation tool. Its designation through the lottery system should be implemented across the board, mirroring other jurisdictions that require non-resident hunters to enter limited-entry hunt lotteries. Like every state in America, this legislation envisions a separate draw for local and out-of-province allocations.


I look forward to second reading of this bill. I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House."

Text of Bill is below:



THE WILDLIFE ACT [RSBC 1996] Chapter 488. The Act is amended by:

Section 16 of the Act is amended by striking out sections 16 (1) (b.1) and 16 (3)

Limited entry hunting authorization
16 (1) The minister, by regulation, may
(a) limit hunting for a species of wildlife in an area of British Columbia,
(b) provide for limited entry hunting authorizations to be issued by means of a lottery or other method of random selection among applicants,
(b.1) provide for exceptions that the minister considers appropriate to the random selection among applicants in conducting a lottery or other method of random selection among applicants under paragraph (b), and

(c) do other things necessary for the purposes of this section.
(2) An application fee collected under a lottery or other method referred to in subsection (1) must be paid into the general fund of the consolidated revenue fund.
(3) In making regulations under subsection (1), the minister may define classes of applicants and make different regulations for different classes of applicants.

[The Hermit]

Andrew... Seems to me that 16(2) ought to be changed to require that the fees collected go specifically to habitat and wildlife management rather than general revenue. Hunters of all stripes want to know that our money is actually supporting habitat and wildlife management not being spent on a bridge in Victoria or advertising for the Liberals!

[Downwind]

Well I can hear the GOABC screaming from here if this goes through.

[Downwind]

Andrew... Seems to me that 16(2) ought to be changed to require that the fees collected go specifically to habitat and wildlife management rather than general revenue. Hunters of all stripes want to know that our money is actually supporting habitat and wildlife management not being spent on a bridge in Victoria or advertising for the Liberals!

I agree. Actually all monies from all hunting licenses and tags collected should go directly back to wildlife management. Work on that Andrew as that is a major concern of hunters, funding management

[The Hermit]

As an aside Andrew, it would be great if you would seek input prior to introducing bills like this in the Legislature.

[Bugle M In]

Andrew... Seems to me that 16(2) ought to be changed to require that the fees collected go specifically to habitat and wildlife management rather than general revenue. Hunters of all stripes want to know that our money is actually supporting habitat and wildlife management not being spent on a bridge in Victoria or advertising for the Liberals!
x2...all monies go to a fund for habitat rehabilitation, CO's enforcement and wildlife protection etc.
"Not" into General Revenue....not 1 cent.

[Rob Chipman]

I support the change you're asking for and I appreciate your efforts.

I think that there is a natural alliance between hunters and some supporters of the Green Party who are anti-hunting. I don't think those anti-hunters necessarily see the confluence of interests, and to be fair I think that hunters may not tell our story as effectively as we should.

LEH is a good management tool. It's not used for situations where there are too many hunters and too few animals. I may be overly sensitive, but if you use the latter phrasing it begs the question: why are you hunting them at all if there are too few? Management is about more than numbers.

That said, I applaud your efforts. I think you can get hunter support for some of your initiatives, but you should be aware that you will be viewed with some suspicion as a "green decoy". You'll have to demonstrate to a lot of people that you are not one.

[ACE]

Andrew... Seems to me that 16(2) ought to be changed to require that the fees collected go specifically to habitat and wildlife management rather than general revenue. Hunters of all stripes want to know that our money is actually supporting habitat and wildlife management not being spent on a bridge in Victoria or advertising for the Liberals!

Agree with this proposal ..... and have the paperwork/numbers public information.

[Wagonmaster]

I'm not sure what "separate draw for local and out of province allocations" means. Will guide outfitters still have the same number of tags with the only change being that out of province hunters have to enter a draw to get one? Will the number of tags available for residents increase and will their odds of being successful increase? Please illustrate an example with numbers so we can get some clarification.

[guest]

Make the foreigners also enter a draw ........ On much much less odds then residents. Then they hire a guide.

much similar to many of the States to our south.

BC demands met first like a 90-10 split across the board ....... Not this 40 % to GOS

[wingmaster]

it looks good but my one concern would be that for already low odds hunts such as vancouver island roosevelt elk Leh , hunts that already have ridiculously long waitlists for non residents, is that if all non residents are pooled in with residents than our odds would go down making the almost impossible even further unlikely for that once in a lifetime draw. I agree that the funding should go towards back to the wildlife,

there are far too few CO's out there with non enough funding to make their presence felt out in the bush

[KodiakHntr]

I don't think you understand how the system works.

A non resident of BC can't simply "buy a $250 moose licence" and go hunting. Nor are they competing with resident hunters for the same LEH. They buy an allotted animal (if they are successful in their hunt) from a guide outfitters quota area for several thousand dollars.

The way I read your bill it could potentially have the impact of non residents competing with resident hunters for an LEH authorization.

It doesn't speak to the allocation issue at all. GO will still have animals allocated to them, and can sell hunts to foreign hunters. Foreign hunters at this time do not compete for LEH authorizations.

How much research did you do before tabling a bill and wasting tax payer monies?

[Mulehahn]

I personally don't like to proposal. It does nothing to address the allocation issue and, to me, creates nothing but undue hardship with G/Os. There will still be a limit on the number of animals that can be harvested in an area. I personally do not care if the same hunter comes back year after year, or it's different people winning and LEH every year; it does nothing to change how many animals we are residents are able to harvest.

Further, from what I understand our Guides/Outfitter setup is quite different than in the USA. Here they pay to have exclusive rights to guide in a certain area and its accompanying quota. In the many states there is no such thing. A person enters into an LEH they then decide on a guide. How is it going to change anything if a foreign hunter wins the LEH and then has to use to use the guide who owns the area it falls? All it does is not give people as much notice.

I have nothing against guides, they can do some good and having exclusive rights to areas and known bag limits provides stability. My only issue is the percentage of the allocation they receive and the ability to ignore limits with little to know consequence. Make G/O shares 10-15 percent and if the go over they are fined heavily. Putting them on the set number of tags a G/O owns on LEH accomplishes nothing but a more confusing system.

[Bugle M In]

My thought differs...
If a species of animal is under LEH, than there should be "No" tags or allocation given to Foreign Hunters.
Now wouldn't that be people working together to improve all the wildlife numbers.
Why should I run the chance of applying for an LEH, and run the chance of never getting it, and yet, some
Foreigner can just "flash the cash" and get a tag???
There are a lot of species that are not under LEH, under GOS, and the GO's can have that to entertain their clients with.

[Barracuda]

don't forget residents can also flash the cash to get the permit if they choose . personally I dont think its a great bill but it might fool some people into thinking you are actually for hunting and for hunters . There are so many more things that could be put into a bill to make it a good workable bill instead of a superficial feel good bill.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Thank you for your efforts, Mr Weaver. I think I understand what your intentions are with this bill; however, I think the only way LEH would work for non residents would be to remove the requirements for them to have to hire a guide. Limiting the non resident LEH applicants without opening it up to a much larger population base would essentially make no difference with what they have today. Only the people who could afford these hunts would apply and the odds would be easy to draw.

Most of the US states only make 10% (or even less) available to non residents and some do not make it a requirement to hire a guide. If a person does want to hire a guide, the option is there. Also, there are multiple guides available to hire as the guiding system is different than BC. Here G/Os buy the exclusive rights to guide an area. As a result the costs of going on a guided hunt in BC are much greater.

If the direction you want to go with this is where I think it is, it would be a very large undertaking and would have to include buying back guiding territories and reworking the entire system. Many of us don't disagree with wanting to change the system here in BC but your approach would just be the tip of the iceberg.

Would a new system like you are suggesting be more fair to residents? Yes.

Could a new system of non resident LEH generate more revenue directly for the province? Considering that we have some very desirable species to hunt in BC, I would certainly agree.

[Omenator]

I don't want to get in a situation where the LEH odds skyrocket. Only those with a BC resident hunter number should be allowed to buy LEH tickets. System is workable as-is, it's the allocation ratios that are favoring the guide outfitters that most residents want changed.

[J_T]

I agree with The Hermit. When introducing legislative change it is incumbent upon you to consult with the primary stakeholder.

I also do feel at first glance this does shift the allocation issue. It will be interesting to see where this leads.

Perhaps connect with The Hermit - who lives in the Victoria area - to consult on the impacts and implementation of this potential legislative change.

[Monashee]

I support Mr.Weaver's bill as it stands. Thanks for your efforts to support BC resident hunters Mr.Weaver .

[Ry151]

Not a fan personally. Don't want leh odds to rise. The current system works but the G/O allocation is to high. Also a fan of the idea if and area is on leh there should be no G/O in that area.
All money from licenses should go back to conservation and more co's

[Whonnock Boy]

The Hermit only speaks for one man, where as the federation speaks for us all.



Perhaps connect with The Hermit - who lives in the Victoria area - to consult on the impacts and implementation of this potential legislative change.

[Fisher-Dude]

I too am most concerned with the allocation splits, and that's not addressed in this bill whatsoever.

I believe the bill fails to explain the ramifications of status Indians, who are exempted by the Minister under b.1 and 3 from being beholden to the LEH draw. The way you've worded it, that loss of Ministerial exemption would be unconstitutional and the bill would be tossed on those grounds.

A Weaver: "By eliminating the minister’s discretion to make separate rules for each group, this bill requires ALL hunters to enter a lottery for their LEH tags, as is done in other jurisdictions."


ALL hunters? What about status Indians?

[The Hermit]

Dr. Weaver, did you consult with the BCWF, GOABC, WSSBC, UBBC, BCTA, Ministry officials, or any First Nations groups on the merits of this bill? I ask because it seems that this bill has come out of the blue. Is the underlying driver simply a way to poke at the Liberals? I certainly don't mind that in and of itself and look forward to participating in giving them a full on beating at the polls in 2017. However, IMHO the bill has a number of failings and therefore lacks merit. And it looks a lot like a thorn being jammed into the side of the guiding industry...

Be that as it may, I personally believe that most resident hunters support a viable guiding industry in BC - so long as the allocation splits are fair and reasonable. As you know, this remains to be my personal position, and speaking as its past president, it has also been that of the UBBC. It is evident that the majority of resident hunters do not believe that the current splits are fair or reasonable and any assistance in ameliorating that problem is most welcome!

As others have said: adding another layer of complexity to the LEH process and the distribution of non-resident tags will do nothing to correct the allocation issue; any funds derived from the sale of LEH applications will not sufficiently offset the cost of running the lottery (even when the Gov ever gets the long awaited LEH on-line application implemented); it will make life difficult for the guiding industry; and generally be another public row that the anti-hunting lobby will use to stick another wedge between hunters.

If your goal is to renovate the entire wildlife management system including allocation and the LEH then I'd suggest that there are better ways to go about it. That would be a great discussion to have here and with the stakeholder groups. I'd respectfully suggest that you start by getting together with the Director of Wildlife Branch, the Chief Conservation Officer, and a few key Ministry scientists to ask what they are struggling with in the current system and perhaps work toward solving some of their currently mandated problems. They are a knowledgeable group of dedicated public servants with decades of experience and unassailable credentials that have been at the mercy political whim and expediency for far too long... they could use an ally! They could also use a lot more in their operating budgets, hence my earlier suggestion to amend your bill to focus on Section 16 (2).

Realistically, the GREENS might better focus near term efforts on winning the next election or even being the official opposition to the Conservatives in a minority situation, and then the discussion would have real meaning and be a very worthwhile investment of everyone's time. Feel free to call if you would like to chat.

Yours in Conservation,

[Spy]

The Hermit only speaks for one man, where as the federation speaks for us all.
Thats such a low blow statement have you ever sat down and spoken to Bill & **** the Federation they dont speak for me and many other BC hunters!

[The Hermit]

LOL He is correct I only speak for myself. No offense taken.

[Whonnock Boy]

LOL He is correct I only speak for myself. No offense taken.

I'm glad you were not offended. It seems these days, anything I say online, someone takes offense to it, as you see here..... lol


Thats such a low blow statement have you ever sat down and spoken to Bill & **** the Federation they dont speak for me and many other BC hunters!

I don't think it was. You know, the federation can speak for you. All you have to do is engage yourself. You may not see eye to eye with some, but you will certainly have a stronger voice if you speak it with them, rather than here. May I ask, what did they do to piss you off now?

As for the Mr. Weavers bill, I have no time to wrap my head around it now, but I do appreciate Mr. Weavers effort to help resident hunters. Let's keep that in mind.

[AJWeaver]

Andrew... Seems to me that 16(2) ought to be changed to require that the fees collected go specifically to habitat and wildlife management rather than general revenue. Hunters of all stripes want to know that our money is actually supporting habitat and wildlife management not being spent on a bridge in Victoria or advertising for the Liberals!
Indeed. I agree.

[AJWeaver]

As an aside Andrew, it would be great if you would seek input prior to introducing bills like this in the Legislature.

FYI Hermit, I did consult prior to introducing this with a number of groups. These include resident hunters in my constituency and elsewhere, along with a number of people in groups that represent both hunters and environmentalists. We also looked at what was done in other jurisdictions across North America (frankly we are a bit of a rogue jurisdiction in BC). I did not consult with GOABC as I know they would not support this. I am trying to ensure that the rights of BC residents are put front and centre.

[AJWeaver]

I don't think you understand how the system works.

A non resident of BC can't simply "buy a $250 moose licence" and go hunting. Nor are they competing with resident hunters for the same LEH. They buy an allotted animal (if they are successful in their hunt) from a guide outfitters quota area for several thousand dollars.

The way I read your bill it could potentially have the impact of non residents competing with resident hunters for an LEH authorization.

It doesn't speak to the allocation issue at all. GO will still have animals allocated to them, and can sell hunts to foreign hunters. Foreign hunters at this time do not compete for LEH authorizations.

How much research did you do before tabling a bill and wasting tax payer monies?

Hello KodiakHntr, this legislation would require non resident hunters to compete amongst themselves (not with residents) in a separate pool as is done in most other jurisdictions in North America.

[boxhitch]

A separate pool ? For the same quota that is allocated to them now ?

So this would only affect the NR hunters that are supposedly waiting in line for a hunt and give them a chance at a draw instead of just being the first in line to book with a g/o.
Hunts that don't have a lineup would still have the same NR hunters applying and getting their permit as the draw would be under-subscribed and have odds of less than 1:1.

Please explain again the purpose or intent of this new draw process. If it is only to cause hardship and extra paper work for NR hunters and g/o's , whats the point ?
If it is to favour those that are standing in line waiting for a hunt opening , whats the point ? As it is now , if a NR hunter wants a certain hunt for a certain species , he just shops around to find an available hunt opportunity somewhere in the province and books that hunt. If there are NR hunters waiting inline for a specific hunt for a specific area or g/o , as it stands now , they just bide their time and book for the next year available.

Not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.
Did you really consult with stakeholders that are qualified to comment on something so complex ?

[J_T]

The Hermit only speaks for one man, where as the federation speaks for us all. I understand your need. My message was based on simplicity and not intended as a slight toward anyone. Consultation should be carried out, Hermit lives in AJWeaver's area, he's articulate and comfortable in whiteboard strategic thinking sessions. Knowing his background I believe Hermit would be prepared to take a broad view, look forward and ask good/tough questions. My comment was not intended to dismiss any organization. However, to your point, based on my extensive consultation experience, when we consult organizations, we are really only hearing, one persons opinion. Sometimes stepping away from traditional consultation roots can lead to credible results. Apologies if I offended.

[Fisher-Dude]

FYI Hermit, I did consult prior to introducing this with a number of groups. These include resident hunters in my constituency and elsewhere, along with a number of people in groups that represent both hunters and environmentalists. We also looked at what was done in other jurisdictions across North America (frankly we are a bit of a rogue jurisdiction in BC). I did not consult with GOABC as I know they would not support this. I am trying to ensure that the rights of BC residents are put front and centre.

Environmentalists? Which ones? What is their level of knowledge and expertise on the LEH process and hunting issues in this province as compared to that of the BCWF and other hunting groups?

Perhaps you've tipped your hand and this is driven by groups like Raincoast that are looking to end our grizzly hunt that is on LEH. By complicating the process for non-residents, are you hoping to discourage the hunting of grizzly bears by NRs? Would (a perceived) lessened demand make a case for ending the hunt?

You'll find, as Hermit as mentioned above, that the majority of resident hunters are not interested in an end to the guiding industry, nor are they in favour of ending the grizzly hunt. Resident hunters are concerned with allocation splits that are equitable, and not in an anti-hunting or anti-guiding agenda.

[Ride Red]

Environmentalists? Which ones? What is their level of knowledge and expertise on the LEH process and hunting issues in this province as compared to that of the BCWF and other hunting groups?

Perhaps you've tipped your hand and this is driven by groups like Raincoast that are looking to end our grizzly hunt that is on LEH. By complicating the process for non-residents, are you hoping to discourage the hunting of grizzly bears by NRs? Would (a perceived) lessened demand make a case for ending the hunt?

You'll find, as Hermit as mentioned above, that the majority of resident hunters are not interested in an end to the guiding industry, nor are they in favour of ending the grizzly hunt. Resident hunters are concerned with allocation splits that are equitable, and not in an anti-hunting or anti-guiding agenda.


(Quote - AJ Weaver) These include resident hunters in my constituency and elsewhere, along with a number of people in groups that represent both hunters and environmentalists.

Yes, what is the underlying agenda? There wasn't any consultation on HBC either or at least a topic tabled for feedback. Sounds like another back door deal for Weaver to now drum up support for the greens and ?????. I don't appreciate anyone riding our backs to further themselves and realize in the end we've been douped. Until the BCWF and other groups are involved in such a major regulation change, this bill should be tossed into the recycling bin. Mr. Weaver, your a climate scientist, would you go to a mechanic to gather weather patterns?

[Edge]

I support this. without trying to "wordsmith". Giving me as a B.C. resident a better chance to win a LEH tag for example Elk here on VI versus foreigners buying their way in through GOS is better in my opinion. I get it GOS have been organized and vocal and active for many years and we as individuals have lost out. I hope this gets "some" back..thank you for your efforts.

[russm86]

I support this. without trying to "wordsmith". Giving me as a B.C. resident a better chance to win a LEH tag for example Elk here on VI versus foreigners buying their way in through GOS is better in my opinion. I get it GOS have been organized and vocal and active for many years and we as individuals have lost out. I hope this gets "some" back..thank you for your efforts.

There is nothing in this proposed bill that would offer you better odds in resident hunter LEHs as there is nothing changing the #s or %s of animals allocated to NR hunters... In my opinion this bill is basically pointless/useless and really doesn't do much of anything to help anyone...

[Fisher-Dude]

I support this. without trying to "wordsmith". Giving me as a B.C. resident a better chance to win a LEH tag for example Elk here on VI versus foreigners buying their way in through GOS is better in my opinion. I get it GOS have been organized and vocal and active for many years and we as individuals have lost out. I hope this gets "some" back..thank you for your efforts.

There's no change to allocation. There's not one more LEH tag available to resident hunters.

Still support it?

[Vladimir Poutine]

There's no change to allocation. There's not one more LEH tag available to resident hunters.

Still support it?

Pols of all stripes keep trying to re invent the wheel and it keeps coming out round.

What is it that is so hard to understand? It's about the opportunities and who should be considered first.

[AJWeaver]

Environmentalists? Which ones? What is their level of knowledge and expertise on the LEH process and hunting issues in this province as compared to that of the BCWF and other hunting groups?

Perhaps you've tipped your hand and this is driven by groups like Raincoast that are looking to end our grizzly hunt that is on LEH. By complicating the process for non-residents, are you hoping to discourage the hunting of grizzly bears by NRs? Would (a perceived) lessened demand make a case for ending the hunt?

You'll find, as Hermit as mentioned above, that the majority of resident hunters are not interested in an end to the guiding industry, nor are they in favour of ending the grizzly hunt. Resident hunters are concerned with allocation splits that are equitable, and not in an anti-hunting or anti-guiding agenda.

You seem to assume that I don't consider hunters as environmentalists. When I say "environmentalists" I include BCWF, for example.

Based on my experience with Raincoast and what I perceive to be their ideological approach to policy, I am not interested in consulting with them. I lost respect for that organization over their approach with respect to my "pack it out" legislation and their position on the "wolf cull" that does not tell people the whole truth. If the South Selkirk herd goes extinct, a significant fraction of old growth (protected now under Species at Risk Act because its caribou habitat) will be logged.

[AJWeaver]

There's no change to allocation. There's not one more LEH tag available to resident hunters.

Still support it?

The allocation is not done through legislation. It's done via regulation. I've said for some time I support a 90-10 allocation. But you change that in regulation.

[bearvalley]

It's debatable if Weaver is a fox in the henhouse or a taxi driver without a license.

As others have stated his proposed bill does nothing to offer better odds to BC resident hunters.

His last proposed bill on the GB issue did nothing to help the cause of BC resident hunters.

His last proposed bill on the GB issue did add fuel for the Anti hunter cause by drawing attention to the GB hunt giving the Anti groups a chance to suck $$$ from the sheep.

If Weaver really had the best interest of resident hunters and wildlife at heart he would work with stakeholders to draft a bill to grow wildlife populations in this province.
For a useful start how about a bill to " manage predators in such a way that stable ungulate populations are maintained".

I highly doubt we will ever see Weaver put forth a bill that really is for resident hunters or the good of wildlife.
I believe he is more agenda driven and if wedges can continue to be driven among the hunting supporters in BC...we will weaken.
JMOI.

[wideopenthrottle]

sorry if I skipped the last few comments that may have addressed this already but.....one potential (unintended?) consequence of this bill would be that the non-resident LEH quota issued would likely be more than the GO allocation that gets filled now by NR hunters...as in they would issue more than what they expect to be harvested to account for unsuccessful hunts..if that is the case then there is potential for more animals to be harvested than through the present system.....on the other side of the coin, if the number of NR LEH draws was the same as the number of animals allocated to GO's then it would open up opportunities for foreigners to pack the LEH system with applications that they do not intend to fill so the GO's would not get any hunters coming to fill the NR LEH draws

[Spy]

It's debatable if Weaver is a fox in the henhouse or a taxi driver without a license.

I suppose we can say the same about you !.





I highly doubt we will ever see Weaver put forth a bill that really is for resident hunters or the good of wildlife.
I believe he is more agenda driven and if wedges can continue to be driven among the hunting supporters in BC...we will weaken.
JMOI.

Coming from a guide outfitter I would take all you have to say with a pinch of salt! The GOABC is not at all agenda driven?

[Fisher-Dude]

It's debatable if Weaver is a fox in the henhouse or a taxi driver without a license.

As others have stated his proposed bill does nothing to offer better odds to BC resident hunters.

His last proposed bill on the GB issue did nothing to help the cause of BC resident hunters.

His last proposed bill on the GB issue did add fuel for the Anti hunter cause by drawing attention to the GB hunt giving the Anti groups a chance to suck $$$ from the sheep.

If Weaver really had the best interest of resident hunters and wildlife at heart he would work with stakeholders to draft a bill to grow wildlife populations in this province.
For a useful start how about a bill to " manage predators in such a way that stable ungulate populations are maintained".

I highly doubt we will ever see Weaver put forth a bill that really is for resident hunters or the good of wildlife.
I believe he is more agenda driven and if wedges can continue to be driven among the hunting supporters in BC...we will weaken.
JMOI.

My GO nemesis and I agree 100%. :p

That should tell everyone something.

[kebes]

Allocation splits need to be dealt with first. Until that's fixed most of the other stuff can wait.

[Bugle M In]

A "Manage Predator" Bill is needed first...totally agree.
A "All Monies" goes to Wildlife Conservation and Enforcing Bill is also needed, not General Revenue.

[Rackmastr]

My GO nemesis and I agree 100%. :p

That should tell everyone something.

Yep, bearvalley may be GO, but he hit the nail on the head with this one IMO as well.

[wideopenthrottle]

like I said, if he is a fox in the hen house his intent may be to open up the GO allocated game to being snatched up by anti hunters (via NR LEH) who don't intent to hunt at all...this obviously would hurt GO's big time as their number of clients would drop...do I make sense?

[Fisher-Dude]

like I said, if he is a fox in the hen house his intent may be to open up the GO allocated game to being snatched up by anti hunters (via NR LEH) who don't intent to hunt at all...this obviously would hurt GO's big time as their number of clients would drop...do I make sense?

What would happen then is that NR authorizations may be increased to compensate for unused, "anti-LEH" draws, with GO viability as the justification. Would that affect resident numbers to keep things conservative on an overall basis? Perhaps. Residents could then lose out even more than they already have.

The unintended consequences of LEH. Where have I heard that title before?

[VLD43]

Mr. Weaver
While your private membersbill may be well intentioned, its “Achilles Heel” is inclusion of Non ResidentHunters into the present LEH draw system. The only way this is possible,without effecting Resident Hunters allotment, is to claw back allotment fromGuide Outfitters, in order to create additional allotment for additional LEH.If you were to attempt to accomplish this, you just know the Guide Outfitterswould mount a fierce opposition to your bill. Without removing the requirement forNon Resident Hunters to be guided, your bill will change very little, ifanything. If you are truly onside with Resident Hunters, and want to make adifference, lobby strenuously for legislation, which limits GO’s allotment to 5or 10% of the annual allowable harvest. I wish you luck, as you have opened upa hornets nest with this one.

[tuner]

Whether you agree or disagree with mr. Weaver's political positions, or tabled bills, he should be shown some measure of gratitude for at least trying to address some of our grievances. He has been the only MLA that has actively engaged us on a number of issues,while others are happy to provide generic responses churned out by their political aides. The proposed bill as I see it doesn't address RH main point of contention which is the allocation splits,however, the intention of the bill does have merit,and is a good starting point going forward. Thanx for the effort mr. Weaver I for one appreciate your efforts on our behalf.

[wideopenthrottle]

yes kudos for engaging us hunters mr weaver

[wideopenthrottle]

What would happen then is that NR authorizations may be increased to compensate for unused, "anti-LEH" draws, with GO viability as the justification. Would that affect resident numbers to keep things conservative on an overall basis? Perhaps. Residents could then lose out even more than they already have.

The unintended consequences of LEH. Where have I heard that title before?

yes, if I get you right then it would be like post #41 (my first post on it) where extra leh tags would be issued to ensure the GO 's allocations were filled..it would mean either go's would go over quota or there would not be enough GO allocations to fill all the LEH NR hunters who need a guide

[Ride Red]

You seem to assume that I don't consider hunters as environmentalists. When I say "environmentalists" I include BCWF, for example.

Based on my experience with Raincoast and what I perceive to be their ideological approach to policy, I am not interested in consulting with them. I lost respect for that organization over their approach with respect to my "pack it out" legislation and their position on the "wolf cull" that does not tell people the whole truth. If the South Selkirk herd goes extinct, a significant fraction of old growth (protected now under Species at Risk Act because its caribou habitat) will be logged.

Am I wrong or is your major concern the old growth forest over everything else? Just a question.

[OutdoorDave]

It's debatable if Weaver is a fox in the henhouse or a taxi driver without a license.

The correct answer is fox in the henhouse. I know this from personal experience. I won't go into details, but the community needs to treat this guy with a very healthy level of skepticism.

I predict that by the time he leaves government he will have tarnished his reputation as a scientist. He's already done that in my mind, but in time, people will see the truth. I think he is positioning himself to be the next David Suzuki who came from an academic background but turned away from science to become an activist (his own words more or less).

[Spy]

The correct answer is fox in the henhouse. I know this from personal experience. I won't go into details, but the community needs to treat this guy with a very healthy level of skepticism.

I predict that by the time he leaves government he will have tarnished his reputation as a scientist. He's already done that in my mind, but in time, people will see the truth. I think he is positioning himself to be the next David Suzuki who came from an academic background but turned away from science to become an activist (his own words more or less).

Well Dr Weaver stood shoulder to shoulder with Resident Hunters at our Protest in Victoria, thats with the 1000 Hunters that bothered to show up! How quick we are to forget who stood with us! Were you there?

[steepNdeep]

Thank you for your efforts, Mr Weaver. I think I understand what your intentions are with this bill; however, I think the only way LEH would work for non residents would be to remove the requirements for them to have to hire a guide. Limiting the non resident LEH applicants without opening it up to a much larger population base would essentially make no difference with what they have today. Only the people who could afford these hunts would apply and the odds would be easy to draw.

Most of the US states only make 10% (or even less) available to non residents and some do not make it a requirement to hire a guide. If a person does want to hire a guide, the option is there. Also, there are multiple guides available to hire as the guiding system is different than BC. Here G/Os buy the exclusive rights to guide an area. As a result the costs of going on a guided hunt in BC are much greater.

If the direction you want to go with this is where I think it is, it would be a very large undertaking and would have to include buying back guiding territories and reworking the entire system. Many of us don't disagree with wanting to change the system here in BC but your approach would just be the tip of the iceberg.

Would a new system like you are suggesting be more fair to residents? Yes.

Could a new system of non resident LEH generate more revenue directly for the province? Considering that we have some very desirable species to hunt in BC, I would certainly agree.

Well thought out Brent.

I agree - thanks for your work Mr. Weaver. It's a step in the right direction. Did you solicit comments from the BC Wildlife Assoc' at all?

[Xenomorph]

Well Dr Weaver stood shoulder to shoulder with Resident Hunters at our Protest in Victoria, thats with the 1000 Hunters that bothered to show up! How quick we are to forget who stood with us! Were you there?


The correct answer is fox in the henhouse. I know this from personal experience. I won't go into details, but the community needs to treat this guy with a very healthy level of skepticism.

I predict that by the time he leaves government he will have tarnished his reputation as a scientist. He's already done that in my mind, but in time, people will see the truth. I think he is positioning himself to be the next David Suzuki who came from an academic background but turned away from science to become an activist (his own words more or less).



Stuff like this is what probably hurts the hunting community the most. The bickering and tit for tat idiotic attitude. He's the first one that drafted something, at least?!? Let me shed some light on the bill drafting process: someone drafts a bill, asks a community "OF SO WELL INTENTIONED AND LISTENING FOLKS" if it's OK, the "SO WELL INTENTIONED FOLKS" give their common sense feedback, bill gets updated, "WELL INTENTIONED FOLKS" read it again, give more feedback ....until the vast majority agree it's a well built, progressive, do good piece of legislation that is worth pursuing.

Stop acting like children and if you have something to say just speak up. We don't throw stones here, we listen... unless it's my wife talking.

[OutdoorDave]

Stuff like this is what probably hurts the hunting community the most. The bickering and tit for tat idiotic attitude. He's the first one that drafted something, at least?!? Let me shed some light on the bill drafting process: someone drafts a bill, asks a community "OF SO WELL INTENTIONED AND LISTENING FOLKS" if it's OK, the "SO WELL INTENTIONED FOLKS" give their common sense feedback, bill gets updated, "WELL INTENTIONED FOLKS" read it again, give more feedback ....until the vast majority agree it's a well built, progressive, do good piece of legislation that is worth pursuing.

Stop acting like children and if you have something to say just speak up. We don't throw stones here, we listen... unless it's my wife talking.

I haven't criticized the Bill. I simply answered a question from somebody who questioned whether or not Weaver might have a secondary agenda. I expressed my opinion on that and I urge that our community be cautious in this respect. That doesn't mean we can't work with him, support the Bill or help improve it. It does mean... trust but verify.

The truth of the matter is that the Green Party is not a party of science. The Party is loaded with ideologues. I urge people to read up them in more detail and become educated on many of the issues they push. When I first heard that Weaver was joining the Green Party I was happy to see it because I thought it would be opportunity for the Green Party to actually take a science based approach to the environment. But, ideology runs deep and one man can only do so much. Call it Stockholm Syndrome and whatever you like, but Weaver has had no impact on the people who make up that party. When you surround yourself with extremists, what does that say about you? A man is known by the company he keeps. Considering this and knowing what I know first hand, I am very sceptical of any Bill coming from them.

[Fisher-Dude]

The truth of the matter is that the Green Party is not a party of science. The Party is loaded with ideologues.


Their constant beating of the AGW drum is proof positive of your statement.

Take a myth, make money from it, run away laughing all the way to the bank.

There's a sucker born every minute, and the radical enviro-loonies count on it.

[wideopenthrottle]

had to look up what the AGW stood for.. oh ya..Anthropogenic Global Warming ...yep as previously noted 95% of the greenhouse effect comes from water vapour in the atmosphere ...the CO2 warming effect is much smaller and gets proportionally smaller as the level gets higher..ie it needs to double to get "X" effect then double again for the same effect/rise in temp.

[wideopenthrottle]

had to look up what the AGW stood for.. oh ya..Anthropogenic Global Warming ...yep as previously noted 95% of the greenhouse effect comes from water vapour in the atmosphere ...the CO2 warming effect is much smaller and gets proportionally smaller as the level gets higher..ie it needs to double to get "X" effect then double or triple again for the same effect/rise in temp.
http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/climate-change/123-anthropogenic-global-warming-theory

[OutdoorDave]

Their constant beating of the AGW drum is proof positive of your statement.

Take a myth, make money from it, run away laughing all the way to the bank.

There's a sucker born every minute, and the radical enviro-loonies count on it.

I believe in AGW. That's what the science shows.

The parts that many people leave out is the geological record of CO2 and temperature. The Earth is in a historically cool period and we never put the question of climate in that context, but should.

The temperature is going up statistically, but not at the rate that has been predicted and at this point pretty much every climate model has been proven wrong. We simply don't understand all the mechanisms of our climate. It's hardly a 'settled science', but the link of CO2 and warming pretty much has a scientific consensus. The original projects of up to 6 degrees warming are now completely unlikely. The projected warming that we do have is within the 'management zone' originally predicted by the IPCC.

I have a lot scepticism around the implications of climate change. We only seem able to subtract and never add. There are both negatives and positives to a warmer planet. If you're an ideologue, as the Green Party is, you only look at the negatives.

The ability of humans and wildlife to adapt is overblown in my view as well. One simply needs to look at the climate record for the last billion years to know that. Some might respond that the planet has never warmed as fast as it is now, but the record does show very fast warming and cooling. And yet, we have amazing biodiversity.

[AJWeaver]

(Quote - AJ Weaver) These include resident hunters in my constituency and elsewhere, along with a number of people in groups that represent both hunters and environmentalists.

Yes, what is the underlying agenda? There wasn't any consultation on HBC either or at least a topic tabled for feedback. Sounds like another back door deal for Weaver to now drum up support for the greens and ?????. I don't appreciate anyone riding our backs to further themselves and realize in the end we've been douped. Until the BCWF and other groups are involved in such a major regulation change, this bill should be tossed into the recycling bin. Mr. Weaver, your a climate scientist, would you go to a mechanic to gather weather patterns?

It's pretty hard to consult with people like you who make assumptions that aren't true. What do you think "groups that represent both hunters and environmentalists" are.

[AJWeaver]

Mr. Weaver
While your private membersbill may be well intentioned, its “Achilles Heel” is inclusion of Non ResidentHunters into the present LEH draw system. The only way this is possible,without effecting Resident Hunters allotment, is to claw back allotment fromGuide Outfitters, in order to create additional allotment for additional LEH.If you were to attempt to accomplish this, you just know the Guide Outfitterswould mount a fierce opposition to your bill. Without removing the requirement forNon Resident Hunters to be guided, your bill will change very little, ifanything. If you are truly onside with Resident Hunters, and want to make adifference, lobby strenuously for legislation, which limits GO’s allotment to 5or 10% of the annual allowable harvest. I wish you luck, as you have opened upa hornets nest with this one.

The non-resident hunters would go into a separate pool from resident hunters. They would have to compete in a separate pool by themselves. I have always said I support a 90-10 allocation. But that is done through regulation not legislation. Here is how my two private members bills, together with allocation change, would work. I would:

1) Move towards a 90-10 allocation rapidly through regulation changes (Raincoast and Guide outfitters would oppose this)
2) Introduce Pack out legislation which would mean you have to bring meat back to your own domicile (aimed at foreign trophy hunters that give resident hunters a bad name )
3) Introduce LEH lottery for foreigners based on 90-10 allocation that is done through regulation. This means, as is the case for resident hunters now, just because you have money means you cant jump the queue.

I recognize that guide outfitters and raincoast would both hate these legislative changes. But as I have said consistently, I have spent a fair amount of time discussing key stakeholders on all of this (yes that includes BCWF). In my view three things need to be prioritized:

1) First Nation constitutional rights
2) Conservation of Wildlife and its habitat
3) Rights of British Columbia residents.

I recognize that some here will be all suspicious of my intentions and will not trust what I say simply because of the fact that I am now a politician. Anyone who knows me personally would know that I wouldn't put this stuff out there if I wasn't genuinely trying to make things better for resident British Columbians.

The reason why Raincoast would hate this legislation is that they want low resident allocation as their strategy is to buy up GO licenses and tear them up. GO obviously won't like this legislation.

[AJWeaver]

Am I wrong or is your major concern the old growth forest over everything else? Just a question.

My main concern is that we have to harvest timber and wildlife in a sustainable way. That is absolutely not happening in BC right now and there is no reason why it shouldn't be happening. Habitat protection is critical for wildlife sustainability.

[Fisher-Dude]

2) Introduce Pack out legislation which would mean you have to bring meat back to your own domicile (aimed at foreign trophy hunters that give resident hunters a bad name )


Clayton Stoner is a Canadian and BC boy - did his story help or hinder BC residents compared to Jimbob from Texas who shot his grizzly quietly and took the skull and cape home?

Are you going to require me to process coyote and skunk meat too?



I recognize that guide outfitters and raincoast would both hate these legislative changes. But as I have said consistently, I have spent a fair amount of time discussing key stakeholders on all of this (yes that includes BCWF). In my view three things need to be prioritized:

1) First Nation constitutional rights
2) Conservation of Wildlife and its habitat
3) Rights of British Columbia residents.



So you want to re-write the current hierarchy that puts conservation ahead of all needs, including FN needs? What you're proposing would allow FN to continue to kill when there is a serious conservation concern.

I don't think anyone, FN included, want that.

I don't think your "consultation" was anywhere near rigorous enough to protect BC's wildlife, which is what we want. I would be shocked if ANY of the groups mentioned as being consulted would agree to your proposal to forsake conservation for FN constitutional rights.

[AJWeaver]

The truth of the matter is that the Green Party is not a party of science. The Party is loaded with ideologues. I urge people to read up them in more detail and become educated on many of the issues they push. When I first heard that Weaver was joining the Green Party I was happy to see it because I thought it would be opportunity for the Green Party to actually take a science based approach to the environment. But, ideology runs deep and one man can only do so much. Call it Stockholm Syndrome and whatever you like, but Weaver has had no impact on the people who make up that party. When you surround yourself with extremists, what does that say about you? A man is known by the company he keeps. Considering this and knowing what I know first hand, I am very sceptical of any Bill coming from them.

Wow, these are vast sweeping statements that I take exception to. Have you actually seen my scientific background. The wikipedia page is pretty accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_J._Weaver

The BC Green Party is a different party from the Federal Green Party (much like the BC Liberals are different from the Federal Liberals). The people I have surrounded myself in my legislative office are outstanding researchers. My policy team in Victoria is probably second to none in Canada. Much of the civil service lives in my riding or retires to my riding. I have deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, directors, former politicians, ministers etc helping me with policy. If there is a BC Green member on this list you will have seen the quality of the recent policy survey we sent members.

Since the BC Greens elected an MLA we have dramatically increased our membership, our fundraising and we have a fantastic council. So yes indeed I have had an influence on people in the party. I have worked hard to bring up membership and I've lined up a team of outstanding candidates for 2017. When you see us start to roll out their names, I think you will find a few eyes open.

I recognize that there is a stereotype out there about what a BC Green is. And like all parties, the BC Greens have a small minority of members who have extreme views. The reason why I got into politics was because I was sick of the dichotomy between the BC Liberal Party (the party of big multinational corporations) and the BC NDP (the party of big unions). We don't have a third choice in BC. Neither unions nor corporations vote. People do. Yet I would argue that our interests are not being taken into account. Rather, we have government for the large corporate donors and opposition fighting for the large union donors.

[AJWeaver]

Clayton Stoner is a Canadian and BC boy - did his story help or hinder BC residents compared to Jimbob from Texas who shot his grizzly quietly and took the skull and cape home?

Are you going to require me to process coyote and skunk meat too?



So you want to re-write the current hierarchy that puts conservation ahead of all needs, including FN needs? What you're proposing would allow FN to continue to kill when there is a serious conservation concern.

I don't think anyone, FN included, want that.

I don't think your "consultation" was anywhere near rigorous enough to protect BC's wildlife, which is what we want. I would be shocked if ANY of the groups mentioned as being consulted would agree to your proposal to forsake conservation for FN constitutional rights.

Well I think you've shown your cards by praising Clayton Stoner: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/nhl-player-clayton-stoner-facing-five-charges-related-to-the-trophy-hunting-of-a-grizzly-bear-in-b-c
He was charged with "two counts of making a false statement to obtain a licence on May 22, 2013, as well as one count of hunting without a licence, one count of hunting wildlife out of season, and one count of unlawful possession of dead wildlife"

[Fisher-Dude]

Well I think you've shown your cards by praising Clayton Stoner: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/nhl-player-clayton-stoner-facing-five-charges-related-to-the-trophy-hunting-of-a-grizzly-bear-in-b-c
He was charged with "two counts of making a false statement to obtain a licence on May 22, 2013, as well as one count of hunting without a licence, one count of hunting wildlife out of season, and one count of unlawful possession of dead wildlife"

I didn't praise him whatsoever. I asked you if his actions as a person from BC did more to tarnish BC's hunters than a guided foreigner's actions that we didn't even hear about.

Stoner broke the rules and should be held accountable for his actions, just like anyone else who violates the Wildlife Act. I hate poachers.

Tell me more about your plan to put FN harvesting ahead of conservation. I'm quite interested on how you came to the determination that FN harvesting trumps conservation.

[AJWeaver]

Let me shed some light on the bill drafting process: someone drafts a bill, asks a community "OF SO WELL INTENTIONED AND LISTENING FOLKS" if it's OK, the "SO WELL INTENTIONED FOLKS" give their common sense feedback, bill gets updated, "WELL INTENTIONED FOLKS" read it again, give more feedback ....until the vast majority agree it's a well built, progressive, do good piece of legislation that is worth pursuing.

That's it exactly Xenomorph. The bill was read a first time on the last day of the session. I have nearly four months now before there is even time for second reading. That's assuming government allows it to go to second reading. What it does is clearly send government a policy statement which they may well choose to engage in. You clearly understand the process!

[Ride Red]

Well Dr Weaver stood shoulder to shoulder with Resident Hunters at our Protest in Victoria, thats with the 1000 Hunters that bothered to show up! How quick we are to forget who stood with us! Were you there?

As a matter of fact I was with my family at Kelowna and Victoria.

[OutdoorDave]

I recognize that there is a stereotype out there about what a BC Green is. And like all parties, the BC Greens have a small minority of members who have extreme views.

The stereotype exists for a reason. Small minority? You ever gone to a Green meeting? You ever meet the people knocking on doors? Seemingly not.

Of course you're going to say otherwise.


The reason why I got into politics was because I was sick of the dichotomy between the BC Liberal Party (the party of big multinational corporations) and the BC NDP (the party of big unions). We don't have a third choice in BC. Neither unions nor corporations vote. People do. Yet I would argue that our interests are not being taken into account. Rather, we have government for the large corporate donors and opposition fighting for the large union donors.

I am guessing you're looking to be the next David Suzuki. Two peas in a pod...

If you actually cared about the environmental and AGW, you would support Site C, LNG and would be a proponent of nuclear energy. Anybody with a modicum of common sense who has studied these issues knows this. But you live by the lie that a Provincial population of 4 million people or a country of 30 million can somehow transition to a renewable energy economy without consequence. You claim that we can transition to small scale hydro yet the environment movement have been the most vocal opponents of run of the river projects. While guys like you delay Site C, we buy our energy from coal plants in the US because we're no longer energy positive in BC. What a joke.

[Rob Chipman]

Ok then...

We've got a politician who is not in power consulting us and asking for feedback and I don;t think we're exactly handling it well.

First, does anyone remember Bill Bennett or Steve Thompson? I probably remember it incorrectly, but I think their request for our feedback sounded something like "F you".

Second, the chances of this legislation being adopted are, in my opinion, between slim and none. Mr. Weaver is not in the party in power.

Third, he's demonstrated to me that he'll learn from feedback and that he's science based more than ideologically based.

In short, I can't see that we have a lot of political friends, and he's offering us a hand of friendship and asking for input (even if that hand is not attached to a powerful arm).

A guy who forgot more than I'll ever know once told me that you can always get mean later. All he's asking for is feedback and input. Although he's running for leader of the BC Greens and trying to raise money he hasn't asked for any here. He hasn't asked for your vote. He hasn't asked for you to call your MLA.

It costs nothing to educate a guy who wants to listen. We need to bridge a gap with the wider public and do a better job of telling our story. Mr. Weaver could help us with that. Give him feedback, get some commitments from him and put him to the test. Judge him on what he does with our feedback rather than what you predict he'll do.

[Wentrot]

Ok then...

We've got a politician who is not in power consulting us and asking for feedback and I don;t think we're exactly handling it well.

First, does anyone remember Bill Bennett or Steve Thompson? I probably remember it incorrectly, but I think their request for our feedback sounded something like "F you".

Second, the chances of this legislation being adopted are, in my opinion, between slim and none. Mr. Weaver is not in the party in power.

Third, he's demonstrated to me that he'll learn from feedback and that he's science based more than ideologically based.

In short, I can't see that we have a lot of political friends, and he's offering us a hand of friendship and asking for input (even if that hand is not attached to a powerful arm).

A guy who forgot more than I'll ever know once told me that you can always get mean later. All he's asking for is feedback and input. Although he's running for leader of the BC Greens and trying to raise money he hasn't asked for any here. He hasn't asked for your vote. He hasn't asked for you to call your MLA.

It costs nothing to educate a guy who wants to listen. We need to bridge a gap with the wider public and do a better job of telling our story. Mr. Weaver could help us with that. Give him feedback, get some commitments from him and put him to the test. Judge him on what he does with our feedback rather than what you predict he'll do.

At least somebody here has a brain. Good post.

[RugDoctor]

I'm interested in a response to Fisher Duds comment regarding FN rights trumping conservation. How about it Mr. Weaver?

[Buck]

Ok then...

We've got a politician who is not in power consulting us and asking for feedback and I don;t think we're exactly handling it well.

First, does anyone remember Bill Bennett or Steve Thompson? I probably remember it incorrectly, but I think their request for our feedback sounded something like "F you".

Second, the chances of this legislation being adopted are, in my opinion, between slim and none. Mr. Weaver is not in the party in power.

Third, he's demonstrated to me that he'll learn from feedback and that he's science based more than ideologically based.

In short, I can't see that we have a lot of political friends, and he's offering us a hand of friendship and asking for input (even if that hand is not attached to a powerful arm).

A guy who forgot more than I'll ever know once told me that you can always get mean later. All he's asking for is feedback and input. Although he's running for leader of the BC Greens and trying to raise money he hasn't asked for any here. He hasn't asked for your vote. He hasn't asked for you to call your MLA.

It costs nothing to educate a guy who wants to listen. We need to bridge a gap with the wider public and do a better job of telling our story. Mr. Weaver could help us with that. Give him feedback, get some commitments from him and put him to the test. Judge him on what he does with our feedback rather than what you predict he'll do.

Excellent post

[TrickleCharger]

THE WILDLIFE ACT [RSBC 1996] Chapter 488. The Act is amended by:



Section 16 of the Act is amended by striking out sections 16 (1) (b.1) and 16 (3)


Limited entry hunting authorization
16 (1) The minister, by regulation, may
(a) limit hunting for a species of wildlife in an area of British Columbia,
(b) provide for limited entry hunting authorizations to be issued by means of a lottery or other method of random selection among applicants,
(b.1) provide for exceptions that the minister considers appropriate to the random selection among applicants in conducting a lottery or other method of random selection among applicants under paragraph (b), and


(c) do other things necessary for the purposes of this section.
(2) An application fee collected under a lottery or other method referred to in subsection (1) must be paid into the general fund of the consolidated revenue fund.
(3) In making regulations under subsection (1), the minister may define classes of applicants and make different regulations for different classes of applicants.

Wouldn't striking out 16 (3) prevent us from defining the non residents as a different class of applicants, which would then result in us all drawing from the same LEH pool?




The way in which the existing non resident authorizations are handed out isn't an issue for me or probably very many here. Our main issue is the resident vs non resident allocation, which I don't see these proposed changes having anything to do with and therefore really don't help.


In my view three things need to be prioritized:



1) First Nation constitutional rights
2) Conservation of Wildlife and its habitat
3) Rights of British Columbia residents.


I recognize that some here will be all suspicious of my intentions and will not trust what I say simply because of the fact that I am now a politician. Anyone who knows me personally would know that I wouldn't put this stuff out there if I wasn't genuinely trying to make things better for resident British Columbians.


Special treatment for First Nations does not "make things better for resident British Columbians" (other than maybe the FN's themselves, and that's debatable). An approach that is serious about conservation would support FN's following the same rules as everybody else. The reasons for this are obvious. What's happening now with regards to FN's harvest is unsustainable, unmanageable and just doesn't make sense.

[Ride Red]

It's pretty hard to consult with people like you who make assumptions that aren't true. What do you think "groups that represent both hunters and environmentalists" are.

People like me, now who's making assumptions. You're the one who has supposedly consulted everyone, but haven't come to the major hunting site of BC until after the fact looking for support. I'm still waiting for an answer regarding your agenda, but you're too busy skirting these questions.

[Bugle M In]

Ok then...

We've got a politician who is not in power consulting us and asking for feedback and I don;t think we're exactly handling it well.

First, does anyone remember Bill Bennett or Steve Thompson? I probably remember it incorrectly, but I think their request for our feedback sounded something like "F you".

Second, the chances of this legislation being adopted are, in my opinion, between slim and none. Mr. Weaver is not in the party in power.

Third, he's demonstrated to me that he'll learn from feedback and that he's science based more than ideologically based.

In short, I can't see that we have a lot of political friends, and he's offering us a hand of friendship and asking for input (even if that hand is not attached to a powerful arm).

A guy who forgot more than I'll ever know once told me that you can always get mean later. All he's asking for is feedback and input. Although he's running for leader of the BC Greens and trying to raise money he hasn't asked for any here. He hasn't asked for your vote. He hasn't asked for you to call your MLA.

It costs nothing to educate a guy who wants to listen. We need to bridge a gap with the wider public and do a better job of telling our story. Mr. Weaver could help us with that. Give him feedback, get some commitments from him and put him to the test. Judge him on what he does with our feedback rather than what you predict he'll do.

Excellent Post!...totally agree.
I think we all need to respect that at least we have someone who is giving "Us, a resident hunter" an ear.
That's more than I can say for most politicians.
We need not agree with Mr.Weaver, but please folks, respect each other, and maybe this will get some where.??
FN Situation is something that will not get fixed soon, let's just face that fact....although it should!, as the time
has come for everyone to stand together, and working together.
But there are other issues that could be rectified right now, or sooner than later.
Arguments, and heated debate does show passionate beliefs by many, and I am thankful people care.....
But, take the time to see that this might be an open door opportunity....please.

[hare_assassin]

Nice. Mr. Weaver's big take-away is; other than a few exceptions, the BC hunting community is aggressive, opinionated, combative, divisive, egotistical, narrowminded, and worst of all racist.

Well done.

Kudos to those few exceptions.

[Ride Red]

My main concern is that we have to harvest timber and wildlife in a sustainable way. That is absolutely not happening in BC right now and there is no reason why it shouldn't be happening. Habitat protection is critical for wildlife sustainability.

The major harvest increase in BC over the last 10 years has been pine beetle killed wood, something governments wouldn't deal with until it was too late. Reforestation of these areas needs to be first and foremost as this will create protected areas instead of the vast moon scape that we presently have. Closing off the majority of these spurs will also create a larger protected area for game as it will stop certain groups from going in and shooting every thing they see. These are two major items towards reinstating wildlife populations.

[Ride Red]

Not sure if this was posted or not.

http://www.andrewweavermla.ca/2015/11/05/trophy-hunt-british-columbia/

[IslandBC]

I support your efforts for sustaining hunting in BC but don't support this bill.

As it stands a none resident of BC must be accompanied by a licensed guide or a resident who holds a permit to accompany. My understanding is if a none resident wins an LEH to hunt whatever big species game a GO is not needed? Only a permit to accompany or whatever regulation changes may be if this bill is passed.

Correct me if I'm mis understood. To me this sounds like an effort to eliminate the need for a GO entirely.

[VLD43]

Mr Weaver
Thanks for your timely response, and for your considered responses to others questions. You make some good points and I wish you success with this bill. We need to start somewhere, and you are the first politician I have seen trying to stand strongly with Resident Hunters.

[Bugle M In]

I don't want to see GO's gone, although I feel some Regions in BC should not have GO's at all, while other parts of
BC are very well suited to having GO's...IMO.
What most people are upset with is the "New Allocation Policy".
And that being said, I don't think LEH Tags should be obtained by Non Residents, thus GO's.
This would force the Government to start taking the right steps in helping Wildlife (Big Game) flourish
in BC, as there would be pressure from not not Resident Hunters, but GO's and Non Residents for the Ministry
to do a better job.
And the only way to do a better job, is to spend money.
And that money should come from the people buying all these tags, and going into tht fund entirely, not just
a small percentage, as is the case now, while the rest goes to General Revenue.
Get a bill thru that changes "where" this money goes is a great 1st start.
Changing the recent Allocation back to 10% is another great start.
Predator Control Policy, a really great start, and is of high priority in my opinion...don't sleep on this one.
More funding to hire more CO's, and the money so they can actually get out and patrol.
And than there is the touchy situation of FN's.
We need to know exactly how many animals, and of what species and gender are they in fact taking each year.
This is a big problem also in managing this natural resource...it can't just be the "wild west" no longer.
Too many stakeholders now, and all the cards need to be on the table.
And than there is the Winter Range Loss due to development, and no new areas for winter ranges are being made.
Another big problem.

What everyone is failing to see is, that if we don't get the Wildlife Population Healthy, and as stable as possible,
we won't need to worry about LEH or GO's or FN or Hunting, there won't be enough left out there to hunt.
Money is needed foremost, and directed in the right areas.
Paper with just words on it don't equate to much in helping the real issues that Wildlife and it users are facing in
BC right now.
If you want to make a difference, than there is the plan of attack...IMO.

[TrickleCharger]

Nice. Mr. Weaver's big take-away is; other than a few exceptions, the BC hunting community is aggressive, opinionated, combative, divisive, egotistical, narrowminded, and worst of all racist.

Well done.

Kudos to those few exceptions.

Wow, are you saying that simply questioning the First Nations harvest makes someone racist? It's a pretty big piece of the puzzle when talking about conservation. It's unfortunate that fear of being labeled "racist" keeps it off the table.

[The Hermit]

Great post Rob.

This evening I attended a small policy-building meeting with Dan Brooks, leader of the BC Conservatives. He too is listening and has the advantage of actually understanding what it means to be a hunter, a guide, and a small business person. He didn't once pretend to know more, have all the answers, be better informed, or be smarter than anyone in the room. I asked him a couple very difficult questions and was impressed with his candor and personal answers. He doesn't have the charisma, preppy looks, and air of entitlement of Justin Trudeau but he does strike me as a straightforward, thoughtful, and competent man which are probably the qualities that a leader ought to have when trying to build a grass-roots party.

If you are; sick of the Liberals licking the boots of big business, sick of the NDP giving the unions a free ride, and concerned about the Greens policies around firearms and trophy hunting, then I urge you to check out the BC Conservatives and get involved now in building a party that stands for the people of BC! Its important... only 18 months until we go to the polls!!

BTW - Dan does frequent this forum. It would be great if he weighed in on Dr. Weaver's latest bill.

[danbrooks]

The bill is a dud if the intent is to fix allocation issue. If non-residents go into an LEH system, it doesn't change how many tags they get through allocation. 20 moose tags through outfitter quota = 20 moose tags through LEH. And the end result is pretty much the same, because outfitter territories are gigantic geographically and often cover entire WMUs, and the non-resident would have no choice but to use that outfitter once they draw, so what's the point?

ANDREW WEAVER IF YOU WANT TO FIX ALLOCATION HOW ABOUT LEGISLATING ONE ALLOCATION PERCENTAGE FOR NON-RESIDENTS FOR ALL SPECIES!!! That's the BC Conservative position, and that's the only way to fix the root of the problem. It's pragmatic and there's nothing left or right or ideological about it. It's a practical fix to a decades old problem. Think about it. I'd be happy to work with you on it Andrew, because you're barking up the wrong tree with your misled legislation.

[Spy]

The bill is a dud if the intent is to fix allocation issue. If non-residents go into an LEH system, it doesn't change how many tags they get through allocation. 20 moose tags through outfitter quota = 20 moose tags through LEH. And the end result is pretty much the same, because outfitter territories are gigantic geographically and often cover entire WMUs, and the non-resident would have no choice but to use that outfitter once they draw, so what's the point?

ANDREW WEAVER IF YOU WANT TO FIX ALLOCATION HOW ABOUT LEGISLATING ONE ALLOCATION PERCENTAGE FOR NON-RESIDENTS FOR ALL SPECIES!!! That's the BC Conservative position, and that's the only way to fix the root of the problem. It's pragmatic and there's nothing left or right or ideological about it. It's a practical fix to a decades old problem. Think about it. I'd be happy to work with you on it Andrew, because you're barking up the wrong tree with your misled legislation.
I like the sounds of you two working together ;-) So glad to see you both care enough to come and discuss this with hunters on HBC. Thanks for the effort :-)

[Spy]

I don't want to see GO's gone, although I feel some Regions in BC should not have GO's at all, while other parts of
BC are very well suited to having GO's...IMO.
What most people are upset with is the "New Allocation Policy".
And that being said, I don't think LEH Tags should be obtained by Non Residents, thus GO's.
This would force the Government to start taking the right steps in helping Wildlife (Big Game) flourish
in BC, as there would be pressure from not not Resident Hunters, but GO's and Non Residents for the Ministry
to do a better job.
And the only way to do a better job, is to spend money.
And that money should come from the people buying all these tags, and going into tht fund entirely, not just
a small percentage, as is the case now, while the rest goes to General Revenue.
Get a bill thru that changes "where" this money goes is a great 1st start.
Changing the recent Allocation back to 10% is another great start.
Predator Control Policy, a really great start, and is of high priority in my opinion...don't sleep on this one.
More funding to hire more CO's, and the money so they can actually get out and patrol.
And than there is the touchy situation of FN's.
We need to know exactly how many animals, and of what species and gender are they in fact taking each year.
This is a big problem also in managing this natural resource...it can't just be the "wild west" no longer.
Too many stakeholders now, and all the cards need to be on the table.
And than there is the Winter Range Loss due to development, and no new areas for winter ranges are being made.
Another big problem.

What everyone is failing to see is, that if we don't get the Wildlife Population Healthy, and as stable as possible,
we won't need to worry about LEH or GO's or FN or Hunting, there won't be enough left out there to hunt.
Money is needed foremost, and directed in the right areas.
Paper with just words on it don't equate to much in helping the real issues that Wildlife and it users are facing in
BC right now.
If you want to make a difference, than there is the plan of attack...IMO.
Best post I think you got it all covered ;-) thanks

[mpotzold]

The bill is a dud if the intent is to fix allocation issue. If non-residents go into an LEH system, it doesn't change how many tags they get through allocation. 20 moose tags through outfitter quota = 20 moose tags through LEH. And the end result is pretty much the same, because outfitter territories are gigantic geographically and often cover entire WMUs, and the non-resident would have no choice but to use that outfitter once they draw, so what's the point?

ANDREW WEAVER IF YOU WANT TO FIX ALLOCATION HOW ABOUT LEGISLATING ONE ALLOCATION PERCENTAGE FOR NON-RESIDENTS FOR ALL SPECIES!!! That's the BC Conservative position, and that's the only way to fix the root of the problem. It's pragmatic and there's nothing left or right or ideological about it. It's a practical fix to a decades old problem. Think about it. I'd be happy to work with you on it Andrew, because you're barking up the wrong tree with your misled legislation.


Didn’t want to chime in but had to once reading your input-the way I also see it.

The proposed Bill should be withdrawn before the Second Reading. It serves no purpose. A waste of time & energy.
Don’t see any benefits to resident hunters if the Bill is passed. It would be the demise of the Guiding industry. Only a matter of time before the requirement for a non-resident(Can.or alien) hunter to be guided by a Guide outfitter or with one having a Permit to Accompany will be dropped.
We are vehemently against the unsupervised non-resident hunting for the obvious reasons.

I started hunting in BC when LEHs were unheard of, when there were 2x as many hunters,the seasons were much longer & more game was available & the success rate was considerably higher.

Then came the LEH & before we know it LEH will be the norm.:icon_frow So what went wrong?
One can blame it on poor management, not enough CO’s, too many predators, easier access, uncontrolled & unreported year round day or night harvesting by the protected ones & so on & so on.

Proper management using proper tools can bring back game in demand to sustainable levels & slowly but surely bring in the GOS just like the old times.

BTW Dan. All the best to your endeavours to be the next Premier of BC. :smile:

[Rackmastr]

We are vehemently against the unsupervised non-resident hunting for the obvious reasons.


Not every resident hunter is vehemently against unsupervised non-resident hunting. I, for one, support non-resident opportunity in BC without a guide/outfitter/host in the same way that it works in several jurisdictions for several species. Anyways, just an opinion to be added or an observation if you will.

[Fisher-Dude]

The bill is a dud if the intent is to fix allocation issue. If non-residents go into an LEH system, it doesn't change how many tags they get through allocation. 20 moose tags through outfitter quota = 20 moose tags through LEH. And the end result is pretty much the same, because outfitter territories are gigantic geographically and often cover entire WMUs, and the non-resident would have no choice but to use that outfitter once they draw, so what's the point?

ANDREW WEAVER IF YOU WANT TO FIX ALLOCATION HOW ABOUT LEGISLATING ONE ALLOCATION PERCENTAGE FOR NON-RESIDENTS FOR ALL SPECIES!!! That's the BC Conservative position, and that's the only way to fix the root of the problem. It's pragmatic and there's nothing left or right or ideological about it. It's a practical fix to a decades old problem. Think about it. I'd be happy to work with you on it Andrew, because you're barking up the wrong tree with your misled legislation.

Agreed. I want our energy spent fixing the allocation rule.

I don't think it's going to accomplish anything for resident hunters nor will it get any support from any other party. So why spend our precious energy, time, and money on it?

I also see NR LEH resulting in NRs hunting in unallocated, resident only areas. Not too sure we want that, do we?

[Jelvis]

Good idea if the government could get more revenue by allowing leh lottery for all tags for animals in BC that need to be on leh -- Make non resident hunters apply thru the lottery system for tags on leh. General open season would still be in harmony with leh numbers by the bio's studies in MU's.
But when a person hunts with a professional BC guide service they go with the guides allotment not by lottery. This way the guide can operate with their allotment and plan accordingly. A guide would need to make plans for hunts and know the years budgeting etc. Know who and when and what about allotment and clients not limited to a lottery system.
Jel -- Let's be real and let all users have a fair and friendly chance to hunt BC. while paying for a chance of luck on an leh lottery but have the guides use wildlife management allotments for their clients - we all need to help one and other in BC

[wideopenthrottle]

The major harvest increase in BC over the last 10 years has been pine beetle killed wood, something governments wouldn't deal with until it was too late. Reforestation of these areas needs to be first and foremost as this will create protected areas instead of the vast moon scape that we presently have. Closing off the majority of these spurs will also create a larger protected area for game as it will stop certain groups from going in and shooting every thing they see. These are two major items towards reinstating wildlife populations.

excellent observations and suggestions

[BgBlkDg]

Not every resident hunter is vehemently against unsupervised non-resident hunting. I, for one, support non-resident opportunity in BC without a guide/outfitter/host in the same way that it works in several jurisdictions for several species. Anyways, just an opinion to be added or an observation if you will.

I doubt that more than perhaps 5% of we BC hunters would agree with this. I can see some benefits to a *hunter host* programme similar to that in Alberta, but, NRs hunting here on their own......never, wont fly and would be a major mistake.

[tuner]

Politician comes on here asking for feedback on a potential bill proposal, suddenly, an opposing politician appears out of nowhere, trashes his proposal, and promptly disappears again. Life continues as it did previously.

[Rackmastr]

I doubt that more than perhaps 5% of we BC hunters would agree with this. I can see some benefits to a *hunter host* programme similar to that in Alberta, but, NRs hunting here on their own......never, wont fly and would be a major mistake.

I guess some would prefer a GO industry that continues to push against Hunter hosting or NR's hunting on their own in BC. Fair enough. I know you've been vocal about any NR hunting regardless, but my view is different (even if I'm only one of 5% I'm happy to be there) that I'd prefer to have options without requiring a GO. We already have a "Hunter Host" program similar to AB...its the PTA and works well.

There are several jurisdictions across Canada and the USA that allow it, and it makes for hunters being able to enjoy the hunts without the services of a GO and still target different species throughout NA. Again, just my view and don't expect everyone to agree with it.

[coach]

I guess some would prefer a GO industry that continues to push against Hunter hosting or NR's hunting on their own in BC. Fair enough. I know you've been vocal about any NR hunting regardless, but my view is different (even if I'm only one of 5% I'm happy to be there) that I'd prefer to have options without requiring a GO. We already have a "Hunter Host" program similar to AB...its the PTA and works well.

There are several jurisdictions across Canada and the USA that allow it, and it makes for hunters being able to enjoy the hunts without the services of a GO and still target different species throughout NA. Again, just my view and don't expect everyone to agree with it.

Chalk me up as one who agrees with your view, RM.

90/10 splits. No more exclusive guide territories. Non resident LEH with all money going back into the resource (beginning with more money for CO service)..

Mr Weaver, I think you are onto a pretty good concept here - things just need more tweaking. Thanks for supporting resident hunters and for conversing with us here on HBC. I think a conversation between you and Mr Brooks would be good one as well.

Great pic - BTW.. :smile: Let me know if you'd like more images for your articles.

- Coach

[Rob Chipman]

I'm glad to see Dan Brooks here on the site, and glad to hear that he's willing to work with Andrew Weaver. (You might get more cooperation, though, Dan, if you don't blend your offer to work together with a justification that criticizes the other side and implies that you're correct).

There's a good case to be made that Andrew Weaver is a green decoy. By green decoy I mean someone who looks like they're helping hunters but in reality is promoting an anti-hunter cause. Here's the good case: he wants to restrict non-resident hunter opportunity (claiming that it's good for resident hunters) but at the same time, to other audiences, he's plumping to end the "trophy" hunt.

That's Andrew's problem, and not anyone else's. While many on this site may not be aware of the term "green decoy", most everyone recognizes that they exist. Again, it's Andrew's problem, and if he wants to demonstrate that he is actually working for BC resident hunters. I'm pretty sure that prior to this thread he wasn't even aware that the concept of a green decoy existed.

Here's the great thing about this: if Andrew cannot prove that he is not a green decoy then we learn, collectively and conclusively, that he is a bullshitter. If he demonstrates that he is actually working for BC resident hunters then we learn, (obviously), that he is working for BC resident hunters. That's what's called a win-win for us. Mr. Weaver can lose, but we win either way. All we have to do is give him good feedback, help educate him and then watch what he does.

I'm glad to see Dan Brooks on the forum as well, and I'm happy to hear that he is willing to work with Mr. Weaver.

I'd also observe that, as far as I can see, Mr. Brooks has some guide/outfitting interests. I'd like that to be confirmed so that if I'm incorrect that can be clarified. If he is making money off non-resident hunters there is a good argument to be made that he has an interest in maintaining the status quo, and that he too is a green decoy, but in this case the green refers to dollars, not the environment. That needs to be out in the open.

We've got a lot of issues that we need to deal with. I disagree with some people that allocation has to be fixed first, although I think it does need to be fixed.

We also need to come to grips with First Nations' harvest. It's not going to stop, but it needs to be counted.

And although guide-outfitters exist and have a business model right now, I think there is an argument to be made that they are subsidized in a fashion that most other small businesses are not. That has to stop.

Last (at least for now), when I mention "green decoy" it implies that green concerns are not also hunter concerns. That's as wrong headed as using a phrase like "environmentalists and hunters". Hunters are, by and large, green. We are also, by and large, environmentalists. Our biggest problem with the majority of anti-hunters is that anti-hunters love animals and don't want them to suffer (as, by and large, we also love animals and don't want to see them suffer), but most anti-hunters are ignoring science and logic and giving free range to their emotions.

We need allies. Animal lovers who want to preserve existing landscapes and promote sustainability, even if they are uninformed, are our natural allies. We need to start educating them, not attacking them. They outnumber us, and there is no question that in the fullness of time the NDP will attain power, and whatever else they do, if we have not made alliances their natural supporters will ensure that resident hunters suffer.

We can argue that as a result we need the Liberals rather than the NDP, or vice versa, but that misses the point. As it stands now neither of them are our friends. The obvious conclusion is that we need more friends. Mr. Weaver and Mr. Brooks could start helping fill that bill.

[AJWeaver]

The bill is a dud if the intent is to fix allocation issue. If non-residents go into an LEH system, it doesn't change how many tags they get through allocation. 20 moose tags through outfitter quota = 20 moose tags through LEH. And the end result is pretty much the same, because outfitter territories are gigantic geographically and often cover entire WMUs, and the non-resident would have no choice but to use that outfitter once they draw, so what's the point?

ANDREW WEAVER IF YOU WANT TO FIX ALLOCATION HOW ABOUT LEGISLATING ONE ALLOCATION PERCENTAGE FOR NON-RESIDENTS FOR ALL SPECIES!!! That's the BC Conservative position, and that's the only way to fix the root of the problem. It's pragmatic and there's nothing left or right or ideological about it. It's a practical fix to a decades old problem. Think about it. I'd be happy to work with you on it Andrew, because you're barking up the wrong tree with your misled legislation.

Hello Dan, i suspect you have not read earlier posts on this thread. You don't "legislate" an allocation change. That can be done tomorrow through regulation. Below I repeat what I said earlier so you can see how this all works:

The non-resident hunters would go into a separate pool from resident hunters. They would have to compete in a separate pool by themselves. I have always said I support a 90-10 allocation. But that is done through regulation not legislation. Here is how my two private members bills, together with allocation change, would work. I would:

1) Move towards a 90-10 allocation rapidly through regulation changes (Raincoast and Guide outfitters would oppose this)
2) Introduce Pack out legislation which would mean you have to bring meat back to your own domicile (aimed at foreign trophy hunters that give resident hunters a bad name )
3) Introduce LEH lottery for foreigners based on 90-10 allocation that is done through regulation. This means, as is the case for resident hunters now, just because you have money doesn't means you can jump the queue.

I think there are a lot of people on this thread who think I am trying to only deal with the allocation issue. I am trying to deal with three separate issues:

1) Allocation --> regulation
2) Foreigners jumping to front of line avoiding LEH --> present bill
3) Public opposition to trophy hunting --> pack out meat legislation to domicile for foreigners; add Grizzly to pack out for BC residents

What do you propose Dan? Criticism is easy. But I am looking for constructive criticism and feedback which includes alternative ideas. I don't have all the idea but I the three points above have come from extensive consultation with many.

[J_T]

I would just like to step in and ask, with Mr Weaver and Mr Brooks both on here, and both obviously prepared to have a discussion "in our presence", may we as resident hunters, show the respect that is due and listen, more than shout and when we contribute, do so with the utmost respect.

I would think, good questions, presented in a respectful manner will assist both Mr Weaver and Mr Brooks to align their thinking, with our contribution, with the best possible outcome.

I don't see them as vying for our votes, but rather trying to wade through the muck and help resident hunters. Let's let them do that. Thanks.

[TrickleCharger]

Mr Weaver, could you explain how changing the non resident allocation to a LEH system benefits residents? It's clear why the other two issues you just mentioned are important, but why this?

[Ride Red]

Hello Dan, i suspect you have not read earlier posts on this thread. You don't "legislate" an allocation change. That can be done tomorrow through regulation. Below I repeat what I said earlier so you can see how this all works:

The non-resident hunters would go into a separate pool from resident hunters. They would have to compete in a separate pool by themselves. I have always said I support a 90-10 allocation. But that is done through regulation not legislation. Here is how my two private members bills, together with allocation change, would work. I would:

1) Move towards a 90-10 allocation rapidly through regulation changes (Raincoast and Guide outfitters would oppose this)
2) Introduce Pack out legislation which would mean you have to bring meat back to your own domicile (aimed at foreign trophy hunters that give resident hunters a bad name )
3) Introduce LEH lottery for foreigners based on 90-10 allocation that is done through regulation. This means, as is the case for resident hunters now, just because you have money doesn't means you can jump the queue.

I think there are a lot of people on this thread who think I am trying to only deal with the allocation issue. I am trying to deal with three separate issues:

1) Allocation --> regulation
2) Foreigners jumping to front of line avoiding LEH --> present bill
3) Public opposition to trophy hunting --> pack out meat legislation to domicile for foreigners; add Grizzly to pack out for BC residents

What do you propose Dan? Criticism is easy. But I am looking for constructive criticism and feedback which includes alternative ideas. I don't have all the idea but I the three points above have come from extensive consultation with many.

4. Habitats restored. Eg: Reforestation and deactivated spur roads.
5. Science based wildlife management restored.
6. Predator control.
7. Prescribed burns to restore grasslands.
8. Complete game inventory of all animals taken within the year by all resident and NR hunters.

[AJWeaver]

Mr Weaver, could you explain how changing the non resident allocation to a LEH system benefits residents? It's clear why the other two issues you just mentioned are important, but why this?

It means you can't queue jump by bypassing LEH for residents by going through a GO. Means that you can't buy your way out of the lottery.

[AJWeaver]

4. Habitats restored. Eg: Reforestation and deactivated spur roads.
5. Science based wildlife management restored.
6. Predator control.
7. Prescribed burns to restore grasslands.
8. Complete game inventory of all animals taken within the year by all resident and NR hunters.

I agree with each and every one of these (4,5,6,8). One would need to ensure FN hunt is also included in 8. I don't know enough about 7) --> please educate me. I do have some concerns about artificial suppression of natural forest fires if that is what you mean.

[guest]

4. Habitats restored. Eg: Reforestation and deactivated spur roads.
5. Science based wildlife management restored.
6. Predator control.
7. Prescribed burns to restore grasslands.
8. Complete game inventory of all animals taken within the year by all resident and NR hunters.

I like your contribution .......... specially the total accountability of ALL animals taken by F N people ........

PLUS THIS ........

9. 90 / 10 Split Across the board ........... allocation

[TrickleCharger]

It means you can't queue jump by bypassing LEH for residents by going through a GO. Means that you can't buy your way out of the lottery.

Why is this an issue? The bought tag comes from the non resident allocation anyway, and it will be one less guy to compete with in the main draw. The bought tag isn't taken from the resident pool so the residents aren't losing anything. I don't see how this change would benefit residents. Seems to me there's either a hidden agenda here or it's just missing the point.

[wideopenthrottle]

Why is this an issue? The bought tag comes from the non resident allocation anyway, and it will be one less guy to compete with in the main draw. The bought tag isn't taken from the resident pool so the residents aren't losing anything. I don't see how this change would benefit residents. Seems to me there's either a hidden agenda here or it's just missing the point.

The thing I see potentially happening on this point is that instead of guides having a relatively set number of clients (based on their known allocation) they would now be at the discretion of the LEH lottery winners to fill the tag..ie there could potentially be LEH winners that do not go hunting at all..there would be nothing forcing a winner to go get their animal so the guide outfitters would demand more LEH than their allocation to increase the chances of getting a customer...how many extra clients can a GO book over their allotment now?
They would not be able to book anything too far in advance cuz it becomes a last minute booking after the LEH results finally come out so it does seem like a very bad thing for GO's which generally means they are gonna get less animals therefore more for residents if this is the case....if they are able to lobby for change in the system so they get their LEH done much sooner (maybe a year in advance) then it creates difficulty managing game...the system right now gives NR hunters the ability to "bid up" the value of a guided hunt a bit so that guides are perhaps getting more money than if they were worried about filling their quota/getting enough customers..ie if a NR wants to hunt he can book a year or two ahead and the GO's get more predictability...it is obviously a complicated issue

if for example, a anti hunter was to go on a guided hunt the animal they didn't shoot would still be part of the guides quota but in the LEH system if all the (for arguments sake) LEH winners were anti hunters there would be no work for guides cuz the anti's would be able to block the hunts from happening

[danbrooks]

Andrew, you fail to understand how the outfitting industry works here in BC. BC outfitters have defined geographic boundaries that they and only they can guide within. It is an exclusive right connected their Outfitting Territory Certificate, which by the way are now 25 year terms so this isn't going away any time soon. This model for outfitting is radically different than almost all other jurisdictions in North America, where outfitters have mobility and often overlap, and their clients put in for LEH draws and several outfitters can compete for the same clients in the same area. In addition, in those jurisdictions where non-residents put in for draws, they also do not have to hire an outfitter. In BC, non-residents are required by law (with the exception of close family permits to accompany) to hire an outfitter. Trying to introduce LEH into our system of defined boundaries, exclusive territory monopolies, and a legal requirement to hire an outfitter, is simply impractical and will never work.

There is one major flaw in such a proposal as well. And that is that foreign anti-hunters could put in for such draws in massive numbers and campaigns that would easily overwhelm the real hunters and then anti-hunters would simply not use the tags thereby destroying the outfitting industry entirely. And if that's your agenda here, then its a good idea.

[Xenomorph]

There is one major flaw in such a proposal as well. And that is that foreign anti-hunters could put in for such draws in massive numbers and campaigns that would easily overwhelm the real hunters and then anti-hunters would simply not use the tags thereby destroying the outfitting industry entirely. And if that's your agenda here, then its a good idea.

Now that's the lightbulb moment for the day. I had not thought about that aspect of the proposed legislation.

Think we should keep it simple and focus on
-properly attributing funds for conservation
-making sure the 90-10 distribution is properly respected
-figure out a way to improve GO access, not remove and destroy completely
-and a good count of FN harvest I think is also essential for any efforts or regulations/conservation efforts

I think nobody would have such an issue with the NR hunters by-passing the resident hunters on certain species, IF the proper 90-10 ratio was respected.

[danbrooks]

Mr. Weaver, let me be frank with you, I can't understand how you think you are helping the hunting industry with these proposals of non-resident LEH and packing out grizzly meat. They won't accomplish any change whatsoever to allocation. Do you really think trophy hunters won't come to BC if they have to take their meat home? They paid $25,000 to hunt a grizzly and you don't think they'll pay a couple hundred extra bucks to deal with meat? It won't change a thing, and there are still 40% of grizzly bears killed by non-residents. And LEH for non-residents still doesn't change the allocation percentage.

Yes you can regulate a 90/10, but it can and should be legislated to end the abuse of the flexibility of policy at the whims of lobbyists. You've missed the mark, where hunters are looking for leadership to champion their cause in the legislature you are proposing all the wrong fixes. It's hard to escape the conclusion Mr. Weaver that you are attempting to appeal to hunters on the allocation issue, but your solutions suit your own anti-hunting agenda and not the interests of a strong hunting industry here in BC. Hunters aren't fooled, but you're welcome to keep trying. Maybe sooner or later you will get it right. And if you do, I will support you 100%.

[northernbc]

people are posting that the fn hunt needs to be counted come on give your head a shake they will never report their kill numbers. that is why I say no special fn privelage this is a massive can of worms with major implications on animal populations.

[Xenomorph]

people are posting that the fn hunt needs to be counted come on give your head a shake they will never report their kill numbers. that is why I say no special fn privelage this is a massive can of worms with major implications on animal populations.

I'm looking for the solution, not for a fight. I'm looking for ensuring sustainability for the future of all nations, not for a personal interest. Because let's put it this way: if we don't get to a common ground with this and the situation deteriorates, where do we go then, a lawsuit to the FN bands for the reckless use of a common resource?

Seriously though, I'm looking for a solution to benefit what we all care the most for: conservation, perpetuation of the hunting culture and resource. I just wish someone would step up and have the proverbial "balls" and do it like it should be done.

[Bugle M In]

people are posting that the fn hunt needs to be counted come on give your head a shake they will never report their kill numbers. that is why I say no special fn privelage this is a massive can of worms with major implications on animal populations.
Absolutely!...It would be hard to rely on their counts, as there are "0" guidelines on when and where to hunt for them,
and "0" enforcement because of it.
We allow them all the concessions now to build big projects, to be self sustain (ie Tsawwassen Band), and yet the
"my ancestry" takes precedence over what should be fair and right for all, especially the wildlife.
The biggest problem is....no one will know how much wildlife is taken under the FN's situation, as it stands now.
Than add in all the other stuff I already said previously.
I hope that both Mr Weaver and Mr Brooks understand fully, that there are some big problems right now.
And that they all be addressed accordingly, otherwise they are just band aid solutions...IMO

[Seeker]

This is exactly what I was referring to in your other thread Dan. The 90-10 Allocation split will severly impact a lot of guides, you know this, yet you push on. You obviously know the guide outfitting system is the route of all the problems for the outfitters, not the allocation splits. The 90-10 split will make residents happy at the cost to significant number of guide outfitters. A lot of residents won't care about a "few" outfitters, but most of us do not want an end to the industry. Unless the skies open and the waters part, I will not believe a conservative government will be calling the shots next term. So what do we do with what we have or most likely will have. We all know the guide outfitters are not going anywhere soon, so.......we need to find a solution to make us all a little more happy.

What will make us all more happy? More animals for all of us to harvest. That is where we need to focus our attention.

Hunter numbers are growing. There is a social push to search for healthier unaltered nutritional sources and I strongly believe that is part of the reason we are seeing increases in hunter numbers. I can only see the hunting community gaining more acceptance as we go forward providing we can educate people accordingly so we are portrayed as a non-barbaric, ethical entity that can exist in todays society.

Mr. Weaver, I am struggling to find any substance in your proposed bill. I do not see any gain, for any party, that makes me want to support it. Maybe as this discussion develops further, insights will arise that make me reconsider. The benefit of discussion. Again thanks for the discussion.

The guide outfitting industry needs to be revamped or we need to change our focus.

[northernbc]

xenomorph I absolutely do not want to fight we need to be united, but getting a fn count is to me something that will never happen. that is why I will say again no special fn treatment

[Bugle M In]

The more all the groups play by the same rules, meaning:
Resident hunters, GO's, Non Residents and FN,
The more we stay united! and can work for a solution for all.
The longer we have "Special Interests" or "Special Treatment", the longer
the problematic situation will continue, as everyone will have separate perspectives.
And that usually equates to limited or "0" solutions...no one wins, and things such as wildlife is
declining, while we sit around and squabble for a piece of each other's pie.

[The Hermit]

Andrew, you fail to understand how the outfitting industry works here in BC. BC outfitters have defined geographic boundaries that they and only they can guide within. It is an exclusive right connected their Outfitting Territory Certificate, which by the way are now 25 year terms so this isn't going away any time soon. This model for outfitting is radically different than almost all other jurisdictions in North America, where outfitters have mobility and often overlap, and their clients put in for LEH draws and several outfitters can compete for the same clients in the same area. In addition, in those jurisdictions where non-residents put in for draws, they also do not have to hire an outfitter. In BC, non-residents are required by law (with the exception of close family permits to accompany) to hire an outfitter. Trying to introduce LEH into our system of defined boundaries, exclusive territory monopolies, and a legal requirement to hire an outfitter, is simply impractical and will never work.

There is one major flaw in such a proposal as well. And that is that foreign anti-hunters could put in for such draws in massive numbers and campaigns that would easily overwhelm the real hunters and then anti-hunters would simply not use the tags thereby destroying the outfitting industry entirely. And if that's your agenda here, then its a good idea.


Mr. Weaver, let me be frank with you, I can't understand how you think you are helping the hunting industry with these proposals of non-resident LEH and packing out grizzly meat. They won't accomplish any change whatsoever to allocation. Do you really think trophy hunters won't come to BC if they have to take their meat home? They paid $25,000 to hunt a grizzly and you don't think they'll pay a couple hundred extra bucks to deal with meat? It won't change a thing, and there are still 40% of grizzly bears killed by non-residents. And LEH for non-residents still doesn't change the allocation percentage.

Yes you can regulate a 90/10, but it can and should be legislated to end the abuse of the flexibility of policy at the whims of lobbyists. You've missed the mark, where hunters are looking for leadership to champion their cause in the legislature you are proposing all the wrong fixes. It's hard to escape the conclusion Mr. Weaver that you are attempting to appeal to hunters on the allocation issue, but your solutions suit your own anti-hunting agenda and not the interests of a strong hunting industry here in BC. Hunters aren't fooled, but you're welcome to keep trying. Maybe sooner or later you will get it right. And if you do, I will support you 100%.


^^^ Yep, what he said! ^^^

To be fair to Dr. Weaver I believe he starts these things with good intentions but is purposefully being led astray by the very people he has trusted as confidants, strategists, and consultants. His private member's bill regarding the removal of grizzly meat is a good example of this... For over a year all parties at the PHATAT table except the BCWF agreed that the edible portions of grizzly and cougar meat should be removed for consumption in order to deflect some of the anti-hunting rhetoric. Then, after the dreaded Thompson/Bennett allocation policy was introduced the BCWF suddenly changed their minds and worked with Dr Weaver to cook up his private members bill. The bill is designed to be a thorn for the GOABC by not just requiring the meat to be brought out for consumption but worded so that it must be taken to the HUNTER's home. Therefore foreign hunters would have to consider that when deciding where to hunt. Again it is an attack on the guiding industry plain and simple with the unintended consequence that if this bill was adopted BC's food banks would be denied thousands of pounds of good protein. At this point in time however, having received fair comment and critical feedback he still thinks it is a good idea and continues to promote it. Go figure...

Similarly with this new private member's bill it appears that the entire point is to cripple the guiding industry, confound the public, resulting in the possibly unintended consequence of pitting the hunting fraternity against one another again. Maybe I have trust issues... but I don't think it does ANYTHING to deal with the allocation issue.

[Xenomorph]

xenomorph I absolutely do not want to fight we need to be united, but getting a fn count is to me something that will never happen. that is why I will say again no special fn treatment


The more all the groups play by the same rules, meaning:
Resident hunters, GO's, Non Residents and FN,
The more we stay united! and can work for a solution for all.
The longer we have "Special Interests" or "Special Treatment", the longer
the problematic situation will continue, as everyone will have separate perspectives.
And that usually equates to limited or "0" solutions...no one wins, and things such as wildlife is
declining, while we sit around and squabble for a piece of each other's pie.

I agree wholeheartedly with both of you. Now lets find the person willing to walk the walk, not just talk.

[AJWeaver]

Mr. Weaver, let me be frank with you, I can't understand how you think you are helping the hunting industry with these proposals of non-resident LEH and packing out grizzly meat. They won't accomplish any change whatsoever to allocation. Do you really think trophy hunters won't come to BC if they have to take their meat home? They paid $25,000 to hunt a grizzly and you don't think they'll pay a couple hundred extra bucks to deal with meat? It won't change a thing, and there are still 40% of grizzly bears killed by non-residents. And LEH for non-residents still doesn't change the allocation percentage.

Yes you can regulate a 90/10, but it can and should be legislated to end the abuse of the flexibility of policy at the whims of lobbyists. You've missed the mark, where hunters are looking for leadership to champion their cause in the legislature you are proposing all the wrong fixes. It's hard to escape the conclusion Mr. Weaver that you are attempting to appeal to hunters on the allocation issue, but your solutions suit your own anti-hunting agenda and not the interests of a strong hunting industry here in BC. Hunters aren't fooled, but you're welcome to keep trying. Maybe sooner or later you will get it right. And if you do, I will support you 100%.

I don't want to get into a squabble with you Dan but I asked you what you are proposing. Yet you offer nothing. I'm not sure you understand the difference between legislation and regulation or what goes in one versus the other. Resorting to ad hominem accusations of me being anti-hunting (which is incorrect) hardly helps us advance good policy.

I've spoken with people in BCWF and elsewhere. I know that GOABC very much dislike the proposals as they put the rights of resident hunters front and centre. I have always been pro resident hunting and pro conservation and I would argue that they go hand in hand.

On a different note, someone questioned a foreign LEH pool being hijacked by people to stop hunting. That would not happen. It's exactly the same as today. It would be relatively easy for people to saturate the resident LEH process, get the tickets and then tear them up. The government would simply respond by issuing more tickets.

My challenge to you Dan is to put forth legislation that you believe in. Then make it public so that you can tell all British Columbians what you believe in. I reiterate that criticism is easy. But constructive ideas are not as you have to stand up and defend them. Please let us have your ideas publicly.

[Ride Red]

I agree with each and every one of these (4,5,6,8). One would need to ensure FN hunt is also included in 8. I don't know enough about 7) --> please educate me. I do have some concerns about artificial suppression of natural forest fires if that is what you mean.

Andrew,

Here's some good information for you to read regarding prescribed burns.

http://bcwildfire.ca/prevention/prescribedfire/

[Ride Red]

Andrew, you fail to understand how the outfitting industry works here in BC. BC outfitters have defined geographic boundaries that they and only they can guide within. It is an exclusive right connected their Outfitting Territory Certificate, which by the way are now 25 year terms so this isn't going away any time soon. This model for outfitting is radically different than almost all other jurisdictions in North America, where outfitters have mobility and often overlap, and their clients put in for LEH draws and several outfitters can compete for the same clients in the same area. In addition, in those jurisdictions where non-residents put in for draws, they also do not have to hire an outfitter. In BC, non-residents are required by law (with the exception of close family permits to accompany) to hire an outfitter. Trying to introduce LEH into our system of defined boundaries, exclusive territory monopolies, and a legal requirement to hire an outfitter, is simply impractical and will never work.

There is one major flaw in such a proposal as well. And that is that foreign anti-hunters could put in for such draws in massive numbers and campaigns that would easily overwhelm the real hunters and then anti-hunters would simply not use the tags thereby destroying the outfitting industry entirely. And if that's your agenda here, then its a good idea.

I agree, we don't want to destroy the guiding industry, just bring it back into perspective. We definitely need all the allies for our sport working together, otherwise the anti's will shut down the sport we all love. Hopefully this collaborative effort is a step in the right direction to building a stronger unity among all hunters of BC. Ride Red.

[Xenomorph]

I agree, we don't want to destroy the guiding industry, just bring it back into perspective. We definitely need all the allies for our sport working together, otherwise the anti's will shut down the sport we all love. Hopefully this collaborative effort is a step in the right direction to building a stronger unity among all hunters of BC. Ride Red.

Can it be done to encompass all stakeholders? It would be a sterile effort if in all this the FN wouldn't be involved and invested 100% in the process. We share the same resource, could we share the same rules and responsibility?

[Fisher-Dude]

It means you can't queue jump by bypassing LEH for residents by going through a GO. Means that you can't buy your way out of the lottery.

You've said there would be separate "pools" for NR and RH LEH, somewhat similar to what there is for allocation right now. How does this affect RH if NR are still in a different "pool?"

Allocation splits are all that matters, as far as I'm concerned. How an NR gets his tag doesn't affect my chance to hunt, from what I can see. We can scream "It's not fair!" but that battle cry of the leftists falls on deaf ears for me.

[Ride Red]

Can it be done to encompass all stakeholders? It would be a sterile effort if in all this the FN wouldn't be involved and invested 100% in the process. We share the same resource, could we share the same rules and responsibility?

Tough question to ask, but I'm sure some FN would get on board if they new for a fact that this would be for the future betterment of wildlife sustainability. With saying this, I couldn't tell you what percentage that would be though. The government has allowed the FN a completely different set of rules than anyone else, so it would be extremely hard or very unlikely that these rules would get changed or followed if implemented. Laws need to be changed(and enforced) in BC to hold everyone accountable before all stakeholders will be on the same page.

[Rob Chipman]

Why, exactly, do we want to maintain the current guiding system (perhaps Mr. Brooks can answer that). I'm not saying I want it gone at this point. I'm just not clear, given the recent allocation fight and the actions of GOABC as I understand them, why we (resident hunters) want to maintain them and give them exclusive quotas and and access to public lands and wildlife? I don't understand why we wouldn't consider a complete overhaul of the system.

During the allocation fight I heard about the economic benefits from the guiding industry. I was underwhelmed. What did I miss?

As I see it allocation is a big issue. If corporations did not have exclusive land access agreements and quotas they'd be less powerful in terms of influencing government. Are there not jurisdictions in North America where non-resident hunters apply for LEH permits and then, when successful, book an outfitter? Do these outfitters not have to compete on price, service and quality like most other businesses? Is there something wrong with that?

If these systems exist elsewhere could we not copy the model and (God forbid) generate more income and have it earmarked directly for conservation? I don't have the details handy, but as I understand it there have been some pretty big auction wins for single sheep tags (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2013/feb/15/record-480k-bid-montana-bighorn-tag/) with the money often going completely to conservation efforts. The link I cite indicates two tags for BC sheep in the last two years selling for $525,000. I'm curious if that money went to general revenue or to an outfitter. I'd be very surprised (and pleased) if it went to sheep conservation.

Fisher Dude - raising money off rich foreigners and earmarking the funds for conservation is where I see a connection between NR and RH. Wildlife is a public asset that should be held in trust for all of us. We should maximize profit off it while maintaining/enhancing sustainability. I'm not sure how we can do it, but I think we should.

[J_T]

Im not sure I understand the logic of stating that all revenue from wildlife licencing should be returned through conservation efforts? That would suggest that revenue from mineral exploration or oil, gas, timber resources should be re-allocated into those crown resources. How do we support non revenue generating areas such as social services, health, education if we dont pool revenue into general revenue and develop budgets to meet demand.

[TrickleCharger]

You've said there would be separate "pools" for NR and RH LEH, somewhat similar to what there is for allocation right now. How does this affect RH if NR are still in a different "pool?"

Allocation splits are all that matters, as far as I'm concerned. How an NR gets his tag doesn't affect my chance to hunt, from what I can see. We can scream "It's not fair!" but that battle cry of the leftists falls on deaf ears for me.

Apparently it solves the problem of residents paying for guided hunts to bypass waiting for their own LEH. To me this is not much of a problem since they are buying it out of the NR pool and the RH pool is not affected.

Mr Weaver so far you have not been able to provide any other "benefit" of the proposed change and seem to be skirting the issue while dropping statements about how you supports BC hunters. You have literally used more text repeating that GOABC will not be pleased with the proposal than you have explaining how the proposal benefits residents. I get the impression you came here with something that will hurt GOABC expecting to make allies with the resident hunting community. Please correct me if I'm wrong by explaining exactly how this benefits us and what problems it solves.

[danbrooks]

Andrew,
I've posted the BC Conservative solution to the wildlife allocation problem on the forum now. You can see my solutions there. I believe my criticisms of your plan are legitimate, and deserve fair comment from yourself. How do you propose to implement an LEH system for non-residents given the legal requirement to hire the guide who owns a monopoly on the area the LEH would be issued in?

[coach]

Im not sure I understand the logic of stating that all revenue from wildlife licencing should be returned through conservation efforts? That would suggest that revenue from mineral exploration or oil, gas, timber resources should be re-allocated into those crown resources. How do we support non revenue generating areas such as social services, health, education if we dont pool revenue into general revenue and develop budgets to meet demand.

imcome tax, gas tax, sales tax... The model has already been put in to place in fishing. It's now time to do the same with hunting. I'd gladly pay much more for license and tags if I knew my money was helping the resource.

[Ride Red]

imcome tax, gas tax, sales tax... The model has already been put in to place in fishing. It's now time to do the same with hunting. I'd gladly pay much more for license and tags if I knew my money was helping the resource.

And not being exploited on the other end.

[coach]

And not being exploited on the other end.

Good point..

[houndogger]

All available here:

http://www.andrewweavermla.ca/2015/11/17/hunting/

Text on Introduction of Bill:

"A. Weaver: It’s my pleasure to introduce this bill — which, if enacted, would remove the minister’s ability to designate and exempt classes of applicants from having to enter lotteries or other methods of random selection when seeking limited-entry hunt permits. If enacted, these amendments would require all hunters to enter draws for their limited-entry hunt permits, regardless of resident, non-resident or non-resident alien designation, as is done in other jurisdictions.


As it currently stands, local hunters have to enter a lottery if they want to harvest an animal managed under the limited-entry hunt system, but out-of-province hunters can simply buy a permit for the same species and management unit area. Foreign hunters coming to B.C. already enjoy cheaper permits and greater allocation percentages than nearly every other jurisdiction in North America. It’s clearly unfair that they can buy their way into limited-entry hunts year after year, when British Columbians are left entering lotteries in the hopes of being granted the opportunity to harvest a public good in their home province.


The limited-entry hunt system is an important management and conservation tool. Its designation through the lottery system should be implemented across the board, mirroring other jurisdictions that require non-resident hunters to enter limited-entry hunt lotteries. Like every state in America, this legislation envisions a separate draw for local and out-of-province allocations.


I look forward to second reading of this bill. I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House."

Text of Bill is below:



THE WILDLIFE ACT [RSBC 1996] Chapter 488. The Act is amended by:

Section 16 of the Act is amended by striking out sections 16 (1) (b.1) and 16 (3)

Limited entry hunting authorization
16 (1) The minister, by regulation, may
(a) limit hunting for a species of wildlife in an area of British Columbia,
(b) provide for limited entry hunting authorizations to be issued by means of a lottery or other method of random selection among applicants,
(b.1) provide for exceptions that the minister considers appropriate to the random selection among applicants in conducting a lottery or other method of random selection among applicants under paragraph (b), and

(c) do other things necessary for the purposes of this section.
(2) An application fee collected under a lottery or other method referred to in subsection (1) must be paid into the general fund of the consolidated revenue fund.
(3) In making regulations under subsection (1), the minister may define classes of applicants and make different regulations for different classes of applicants.


This has goatguy written all over it! I hope one day some of you will understand what Jesse is about....

[Whonnock Boy]

Guiding = trophy hunting + money. Trophy hunting + money = poor public perception. Poor public perception = the ban of all "trophy species". Resident hunters + non-resident hunters = conservation. Conservation = good public perception.


We all know the guide outfitters are not going anywhere soon, so.......we need to find a solution to make us all a little more happy.



On another note, I for one would welcome the non-resident LEH. Yes, there is the fear of anti's entering the draw to "save the animals", but known calculations will negate any skewed results. It's the same with resident LEH. There are numerous jurisdictions throughout North America that I can hunt without the use of a guide, and the costly side effects. There is no reason we should not act in kind, giving the "common man" the opportunity to travel to our province, and enjoy what we have to offer. If they wish to utilize the services of a guide outfitter, by all means.

90/10 across the board is a no brainer. Grow more wildlife, and the guides will have more than they have now, even at the 90/10.

[tuner]

This has goatguy written all over it! I hope one day some of you will understand what Jesse is about....
Do have any evidence to support your assertion there Sherlock? Seems like a pretty large leap to make.

[The Dawg]

^^^ Yep, what he said! ^^^

To be fair to Dr. Weaver I believe he starts these things with good intentions is purposefully being led astray by the very people he has trusted as confidants, strategists, and consultants. His private member's bill regarding the removal of grizzly meat is a good example of this... For over a year all parties at the PHATAT table except the BCWF agreed that the edible portions of grizzly and cougar meat should be removed for consumption in order to deflect some of the anti-hunting rhetoric. Then, after the dreaded Thompson/Bennett allocation policy was introduced the BCWF suddenly changed their minds and worked with Dr Weaver to cook up his private members bill. The bill is designed to be a thorn for the GOABC by not just requiring the meat to be brought out for consumption but worded so that it must be taken to the HUNTER's home. Therefore foreign hunters would have to consider that when deciding where to hunt. Again it is an attack on the guiding industry plain and simple with the unintended consequence that if this bill was adopted BC's food banks would be denied thousands of pounds of good protein. At this point in time however, having received fair comment and critical feedback he still thinks it is a good idea and continues to promote it. Go figure...

Similarly with this new private member's bill it appears that the entire point is to cripple the guiding industry, confound the public, resulting in the possibly unintended consequence of pitting the hunting fraternity against one another again. Maybe I have trust issues... but I don't think it does ANYTHING to deal with the allocation issue.


The irony in that statement I've highlighted is actually kind of sad.

You started with us with good intentions, I don't doubt that at all.

And then you said 'I trust what Michael says'........

[Fisher-Dude]

...................................

[Fisher-Dude]

This has goatguy written all over it! I hope one day some of you will understand what Jesse is about....

Sounds libelous to me. Screen shot taken.

[Rob Chipman]

I just corresponded with an outfitter in Arizona, Jay Scott, who was recently on Rinella's podcast.

According to him, in Arizona guide/outfitters do not receive quota. You want to hunt there you enter a non-resident lottery. When you get a tag you contact an outfitter. The only other option is the auction tag, wherein you enter an auction for a tag that goes to the highest bidder (my understanding is that the funds from the auction go 100% to conservation).

Guides do not have any exclusive territory. They can take clients anywhere throughout the state.

Anyone can become a guide if they follow the regs. You do not have to purchase any hunting territory.

In other words, if you want to build a business based on exploitation of the publicly owned natural resource known as wildlife you do it on an equal footing with every other hunter. This, it seems to me, aligns the interests of the guiding business and the resident hunters much more closely than the BC system does.

[wideopenthrottle]

I just corresponded with an outfitter in Arizona, Jay Scott, who was recently on Rinella's podcast.

According to him, in Arizona guide/outfitters do not receive quota. You want to hunt there you enter a non-resident lottery. When you get a tag you contact an outfitter. The only other option is the auction tag, wherein you enter an auction for a tag that goes to the highest bidder (my understanding is that the funds from the auction go 100% to conservation).

Guides do not have any exclusive territory. They can take clients anywhere throughout the state.

Anyone can become a guide if they follow the regs. You do not have to purchase any hunting territory.

In other words, if you want to build a business based on exploitation of the publicly owned natural resource known as wildlife you do it on an equal footing with every other hunter. This, it seems to me, aligns the interests of the guiding business and the resident hunters much more closely than the BC system does.

not to defend guides or anything but our province dwarfs most states in size and access is way more limited so there are major logistics issues with trying to set up guiding services (horses , advance camps etc) to cover the whole province

[Rob Chipman]

Fair point, but it cuts both ways. Less competition, more space, more animals, way more wilderness experience.

My point is that we hear that we can't change the system that we have. I think we last heard it from a guy who is both in the business and in politics.

There are other models, and they do work. There is no requirement that the tax paying public of BC support a specific industry because the industry needs those benefits. The industry should be a net benefit to the people or the people should not be subsidizing it.

[Xenomorph]

Fair point, but it cuts both ways. Less competition, more space, more animals, way more wilderness experience.

My point is that we hear that we can't change the system that we have. I think we last heard it from a guy who is both in the business and in politics.

There are other models, and they do work. There is no requirement that the tax paying public of BC support a specific industry because the industry needs those benefits. The industry should be a net benefit to the people or the people should not be subsidizing it.

I'll be honest, I don't dislike the current GO system as much as some of the fellow hunters. What I do dislike is Corporations buying the guiding territories and transforming them into their own little playground. Family owned/built businesses are OK with me and as some have noted above, BC is not like other states. Some areas are only place accessible, or horses ...or both?

What we need to figure out is something that protects both our interests in a fair and mutually beneficial manner ...

[northernbc]

I wish I could highlight ,what rob said- the industry should be a net benefit or we should not be subsidising it. I 100% agree with that. am I missing something.

[guest]

THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS BROKEN !

Thats it ......... it needs a complete overhaul PERIOD.

[Confused]

Not sure why everyone is interested in what the postion of these two clowns is on the issue. The NDP is going to form the next government......I would be asking them.

[Rob Chipman]

Confused:

Excellent observation. Here's why I'm interested. We need all the friends we can get. We need to make sure that they are friends, however. If they are friends, even if they are not going to form government, they are useful. Andrew Weaver, in particular, appears to be a science driven person supportive of hunting. He's an influencer in the Green Party. The Green Party and its supporters would usually be seen (at least by many) as anti-hunting. In fact, we hunters have many common interests with Green Party supporters.

I care what Dan Brooks says for the same reasons. I'm curious if he is a friend of resident hunters or not. If he is, we need him, even though he is unlikely to form either government or opposition.

In short, we've got two guys in politics who may or may not be useful allies. We should find out where they really stand, test them on that, and then govern our actions accordingly.

None of that indicates that we should not also be talking to NDP operators. If they don't form the next government they will form the one after that.

[wideopenthrottle]

Not sure why everyone is interested in what the postion of these two clowns is on the issue. The NDP is going to form the next government......I would be asking them.

who would that be Spencer Chandra Herbert, Harry Bains, Gary Holman, or other?
http://www.bcndp.ca/team here is the caucus

[northernbc]

I do not think you need to call them clowns,you might not agree with them but to at least having them here and working on some type of action seems better than nothing. if all worked together we may have a chance. rather than dismissing them as clowns..

[wideopenthrottle]

maybe if we can figure out who the ndp rep is we can send them a note to come join this site/thread for some lively discussion (if they dare)

[The Hermit]

The irony in that statement I've highlighted is actually kind of sad.

You started with us with good intentions, I don't doubt that at all.

And then you said 'I trust what Michael says'........

Not clear on what you are trying to say? I don't see any irony in that statement at all. I started with who? to do what? Who is Michael? Huh? WTF you chewing on Dawg?

[Bugle M In]

I'll be honest, I don't dislike the current GO system as much as some of the fellow hunters. What I do dislike is Corporations buying the guiding territories and transforming them into their own little playground. Family owned/built businesses are OK with me and as some have noted above, BC is not like other states. Some areas are only place accessible, or horses ...or both?

What we need to figure out is something that protects both our interests in a fair and mutually beneficial manner ...

One problem,
Eco -Tourism is definetly not hunter friendly.
Where I hunt in the EK, there is a new family owned resort.
Hiking, mountain biking, cross country, horse riding etc etc.
Problem is, now they have signs up saying no hunting.
These signs were put up thru the ministry of tourism!!!
Now, a place where I was able to hunt...I no longer can.
I hunted there for 40 years...now I am the user group not allowed too, even though they didn't exist
15 years ago....!!!!!
At least with GO's....hunting doesn't get banned in that area.
Just something I want to point out for everybody when it come to the ever popular
ECO-TOURISM!!!!
If atleast the GO's would get onto that, they might be able to have business all year round,
and everyone user group wins.
And, than with the increased business for GO's, they will not need more than 90/10 allocation.
Maybe this should be on the Agenda to get GO's into a new enterprise along with hunting.?????
(can you see it, n old timer GO now giving up a horse and saddle for a KONA??)
When a person who is "anti hunter", sets up an ECO-Tourist site, they almost immediately do
everything in their power to close off hunting around their area!!!
This will continue to happen.
They hate hunters, but give the reason that their clients are not safe with us running around with rifles.
BS.

[Ride Red]

Not sure why everyone is interested in what the postion of these two clowns is on the issue. The NDP is going to form the next government......I would be asking them.

Your avatar says it all.

[Ride Red]

One problem,
Eco -Tourism is definetly not hunter friendly.
Where I hunt in the EK, there is a new family owned resort.
Hiking, mountain biking, cross country, horse riding etc etc.
Problem is, now they have signs up saying no hunting.
These signs were put up thru the ministry of tourism!!!
Now, a place where I was able to hunt...I no longer can.
I hunted there for 40 years...now I am the user group not allowed too, even though they didn't exist
15 years ago....!!!!!
At least with GO's....hunting doesn't get banned in that area.
Just something I want to point out for everybody when it come to the ever popular
ECO-TOURISM!!!!
If atleast the GO's would get onto that, they might be able to have business all year round,
and everyone user group wins.
And, than with the increased business for GO's, they will not need more than 90/10 allocation.
Maybe this should be on the Agenda to get GO's into a new enterprise along with hunting.?????
(can you see it, n old timer GO now giving up a horse and saddle for a KONA??)
When a person who is "anti hunter", sets up an ECO-Tourist site, they almost immediately do
everything in their power to close off hunting around their area!!!
This will continue to happen.
They hate hunters, but give the reason that their clients are not safe with us running around with rifles.
BS.

I'd be digging a little deeper into this. Do they own or have a lease on the area? Anyone can have signs made up.

[Bugle M In]

I'd be digging a little deeper into this. Do they own or have a lease on the area? Anyone can have signs made up.
no, trust me, I've spoken to the CO up there.
Like politics...it's not what you know...it's who you know.
They managed to make friends with someone/s nd have managed to have the Ministry of Tourism put up signs.
The signs are legitimate.
I posted because I want resident hunters to know what is potentially coming.
These are folks who purchased some land that was for sale.
And than set up lodges and cabins on "their private property".
That's all fine.
The problem started soon afterwards, when they expanded "their trails" outside of "their Property".
So, than first came the "no hunting signs" outside their property line...which, obviously, every hunter including
myself ignored!
Than, they managed to some how get cozy with someone in the tourism ministry.
Probably saying that their clientele was no longer safe from hunting along these trails, which also consist of many
old spur/logging roads etc.
Now the signs say no hunting with the ministry of tourism stamp on the signs...they are legit, and we taxpayers
paid for them.
This lodge boundaries now probably extend 3x their actual property parcel in size....and was some prime elk and deer
locations to hunt.
So...there you go.
The ever increasing Eco-tourism lodges/resorts that will also squeeze away hunting opportunity.
If it had been GO operated, than I don't foresee that being a problem for the future.
IT would also be a way which would allow GO's to benefit financially, and not cut into allocation #'s...IMO.
Go's would just need to re-educate themselves better on some of the other growing "user " trends in BC.
Go's and us hunters would benefit,...financially and hunting area privileges, and stop anti's from buying
everything up as it comes for sale and squeezing us out slowly.
Just a little piece of the puzzle perhaps.
GO's do have to make money.
This might be a direction that could be looked at for them.
Also, it may compel some of them not to blast away everything they see in the valley, just to keep financially above water.
(note: not saying all GO's do that, but we all know some who do)
Part of me would love to see GO"s a thing of the past...but...
If Resident hunters, GO's and yes..FN could all get on the same page.....
We will all have a "MUCH LARGER VOICE" in what happens to "OUR Heritage", and ensure it existence for many years to come.
And with a voice, that wants wildlife to flourish, even though we hunt them, Wildlife and Habitat will also "Win".

[northernbc]

that burns my ass not sure what I would do.

[LBM]

no, trust me, I've spoken to the CO up there.
Like politics...it's not what you know...it's who you know.
They managed to make friends with someone/s nd have managed to have the Ministry of Tourism put up signs.
The signs are legitimate.
I posted because I want resident hunters to know what is potentially coming.
These are folks who purchased some land that was for sale.
And than set up lodges and cabins on "their private property".
That's all fine.
The problem started soon afterwards, when they expanded "their trails" outside of "their Property".
So, than first came the "no hunting signs" outside their property line...which, obviously, every hunter including
myself ignored!
Than, they managed to some how get cozy with someone in the tourism ministry.
Probably saying that their clientele was no longer safe from hunting along these trails, which also consist of many
old spur/logging roads etc.
Now the signs say no hunting with the ministry of tourism stamp on the signs...they are legit, and we taxpayers
paid for them.
This lodge boundaries now probably extend 3x their actual property parcel in size....and was some prime elk and deer
locations to hunt.
So...there you go.
The ever increasing Eco-tourism lodges/resorts that will also squeeze away hunting opportunity.
If it had been GO operated, than I don't foresee that being a problem for the future.
IT would also be a way which would allow GO's to benefit financially, and not cut into allocation #'s...IMO.
Go's would just need to re-educate themselves better on some of the other growing "user " trends in BC.
Go's and us hunters would benefit,...financially and hunting area privileges, and stop anti's from buying
everything up as it comes for sale and squeezing us out slowly.
Just a little piece of the puzzle perhaps.
GO's do have to make money.
This might be a direction that could be looked at for them.
Also, it may compel some of them not to blast away everything they see in the valley, just to keep financially above water.
(note: not saying all GO's do that, but we all know some who do)
Part of me would love to see GO"s a thing of the past...but...
If Resident hunters, GO's and yes..FN could all get on the same page.....
We will all have a "MUCH LARGER VOICE" in what happens to "OUR Heritage", and ensure it existence for many years to come.
And with a voice, that wants wildlife to flourish, even though we hunt them, Wildlife and Habitat will also "Win".

If your talking about the piece at the cross/paliser junction your not quit right on all of it.

[bearvalley]

If Resident hunters, GO's and yes..FN could all get on the same page.....
We will all have a "MUCH LARGER VOICE" in what happens to "OUR Heritage", and ensure it existence for many years to come.
And with a voice, that wants wildlife to flourish, even though we hunt them, Wildlife and Habitat will also "Win".

It could be that's already starting to happen in part of BC.

[Deaddog]

This has goatguy written all over it! I hope one day some of you will understand what Jesse is about....


I fully understand what Goatguy is about, one of the best things that has happened to fish,wildlife, habitat and resident hunters in the last decade!! the guy is out there busting his back on a daily basis to work with ALL stakeholders in ensuring generations to come enjoy the resources of all this province. Houndogger, other than sit on this site and snipe at people what are you doing??? easy to criticize when you are not on the front lines..

[Fisher-Dude]

The NDP is going to form the next government

And then you woke up.

[AJWeaver]

I just corresponded with an outfitter in Arizona, Jay Scott, who was recently on Rinella's podcast.

According to him, in Arizona guide/outfitters do not receive quota. You want to hunt there you enter a non-resident lottery. When you get a tag you contact an outfitter. The only other option is the auction tag, wherein you enter an auction for a tag that goes to the highest bidder (my understanding is that the funds from the auction go 100% to conservation).

Guides do not have any exclusive territory. They can take clients anywhere throughout the state.

Anyone can become a guide if they follow the regs. You do not have to purchase any hunting territory.

In other words, if you want to build a business based on exploitation of the publicly owned natural resource known as wildlife you do it on an equal footing with every other hunter. This, it seems to me, aligns the interests of the guiding business and the resident hunters much more closely than the BC system does.

Exactly Rob, It's not like other jurisdictions aren't already doing this.

[Fisher-Dude]

Exactly Rob, It's not like other jurisdictions aren't already doing this.

So how, exactly, will this increase my chances of drawing a moose tag?

It won't.

Fix allocation.

[REMINGTON JIM]

Not sure why everyone is interested in what the postion of these two clowns is on the issue. The NDP is going to form the next government......I would be asking them.

LOL you are very Confused - the NDP party prob will NOT even be around for the NEXT election ! :lol: RJ

[houndogger]

Mr. Weaver are you supportive of hound hunting? Simple yes or no answer.

[Deaddog]

Mr. Weaver are you supportive of hound hunting? Simple yes or no answer.

More productive sniping. What don't you for once tell us what your efforts are accomplishing to make this a better province for all.

[trapperdan2061]

Works for me when I hunted in Pennsylvania and West Virginia I had to enter the draws for doe tags its only fair.

[AJWeaver]

Mr. Weaver are you supportive of hound hunting? Simple yes or no answer.

Sorry. I don't do Yes or No answers. Honestly, what's the difference between hound or non hound hunting if you are hunting for food? I don't see the difference..... educate me please if there is one.

[Barracuda]

so you don't support hunting unless its for food??

[Whonnock Boy]

Hunting is conservation, regardless if it's for food, or for control. To some, you may be showing some green color. Better choose your words wisely..... ;)


what's the difference between hound or non hound hunting if you are hunting for food?

[Drillbit]

so you don't support hunting unless its for food??

Yikes.

I hunt almost everyday in BC, and without an LEH, I don't get to hunt for food.

I hunt to protect food sources, livestock, crops, game animals, etc.

The day I get a moose or elk LEH, that's the day I'll get to hunt for food. So far, I've never been drawn. Been almost 20 years.

[houndogger]

More productive sniping. What don't you for once tell us what your efforts are accomplishing to make this a better province for all.
Mr Weaver appears to be anti trophy hunting by the wording of his bill which obviously includes all predators. If that is the position of bcwf as well then that should be made public.

[houndogger]

Sorry. I don't do Yes or No answers. Honestly, what's the difference between hound or non hound hunting if you are hunting for food? I don't see the difference..... educate me please if there is one.
Well there are dogs involved. Most of it is catch and release. Are you in favor of that way of hunting?

[Rob Chipman]

Fisher Dude:

"So how, exactly, will this increase my chances of drawing a moose tag?"

At this point I'm not advocating a particular system. I'm indicating that there are different models and we should look at them and see which is best for us. If the current one is best, so be it. I don't think it is.

How does it increase your chances of drawing a moose tag? It only does so in conjunction with other changes. I don't think there is a magic single bullet.

I agree with you that allocation has to change. I guess I disagree with you that allocation has to happen first. I think it could happen along with other changes. I don't think you can have exclusive guiding territories with long term licenses from the government without an accompanying quota (you could, but the exclusivity value gets pretty gutted). As a result I can see a system without exclusive territories and therefore without quota. That's two changes at once. I'm sure that if we think it through there are other changes that would be needed/logical (like, don't tell me that FN won't need to be consulted, 'cause they will).

All that said, here's how you get a better chance at a moose tag. Instead of a thousand tags being divided into two groups of 600 and 400, with the 400 being divided between 25 guys and the 600 divided between 10,000 guys, we take the same 1,000 and divide them into 900 resident hunter LEHs and 100 Non-resident hunter LEHs.

That is, obviously, allocation change. The question then becomes - do you fix allocation first (which is essentially trying to fix a system that I think is a bad system that isn't worth fixing) or do you create a new, better system that has more benefits than just a fixed allocation?

On another note I think it needs to be said (and this isn't fact, just my opinion based on reading between the lines) that Mr. Weaver is not a hunter, does not have a hunter's knowledge or sensibilities, and as a result is hitting some discordant notes among some of us (you ok with hunting with dogs? you only ok with hunting for meat? you against trophy hunting?).

I think that's to be expected coming from a non-hunter. It doesn't mean he doesn't support hunting or isn't sincere. It means he doesn't have years and years of experience, knowledge and, most important, hasn't had time to think all these things through.

You don't make peace with people who are already on your side. You don't convince people who already agree with you. You make peace and convince people who aren't on your side and who disagree with you, because the option is an all in win/lose. We've got too much to lose and should make efforts to control the outcomes through educating and convincing people who might tend to oppose us, our values and our activities (especially since so much of the opposition is based on misunderstanding, misinformation and downright low information conclusions).

I think it's pretty clear that Mr. Weaver doesn't like trophy hunting and thinks that it could be sacrificed for the greater good of hunters. Like it or not there is some cold hard political sense to that. It's way easier to sell hunting for meat than it is to sell trophy hunting.

It comes back, though, to the low information/misinformation challenge. SOmeone on this forum has a tagline that says "There's no such thing as trophy hunting".

Most of the guys on this forum understand that concept,even guys who may not agree 100% with it.


Most voters, on the other hand, would not even know where to start in comprehending that concept, and I'll wager that Mr. Weaver would need a bit of guidance through it the first time.

Rather than quizzing him on what he positions on the finer points of hunting are (given that he isn't a hunter at this point and doesn't have our collective knowledge or experience, even if he's very knowledgeable about other things), we should be educating him and telling him our story (which is a fantastic one, btw). Again, it's a win win for us. If we explain how this whole magnificent enterprise called hunting works he will either clearly come on side as an ally or we'll determine that he is an anti-science, pro-emoticon phony.

We're getting a chance to talk to the other side. We really can't lose.

[Spy]

Fisher Dude:

"So how, exactly, will this increase my chances of drawing a moose tag?"

At this point I'm not advocating a particular system. I'm indicating that there are different models and we should look at them and see which is best for us. If the current one is best, so be it. I don't think it is.

How does it increase your chances of drawing a moose tag? It only does so in conjunction with other changes. I don't think there is a magic single bullet.

I agree with you that allocation has to change. I guess I disagree with you that allocation has to happen first. I think it could happen along with other changes. I don't think you can have exclusive guiding territories with long term licenses from the government without an accompanying quota (you could, but the exclusivity value gets pretty gutted). As a result I can see a system without exclusive territories and therefore without quota. That's two changes at once. I'm sure that if we think it through there are other changes that would be needed/logical (like, don't tell me that FN won't need to be consulted, 'cause they will).

All that said, here's how you get a better chance at a moose tag. Instead of a thousand tags being divided into two groups of 600 and 400, with the 400 being divided between 25 guys and the 600 divided between 10,000 guys, we take the same 1,000 and divide them into 900 resident hunter LEHs and 100 Non-resident hunter LEHs.

That is, obviously, allocation change. The question then becomes - do you fix allocation first (which is essentially trying to fix a system that I think is a bad system that isn't worth fixing) or do you create a new, better system that has more benefits than just a fixed allocation?

On another note I think it needs to be said (and this isn't fact, just my opinion based on reading between the lines) that Mr. Weaver is not a hunter, does not have a hunter's knowledge or sensibilities, and as a result is hitting some discordant notes among some of us (you ok with hunting with dogs? you only ok with hunting for meat? you against trophy hunting?).

I think that's to be expected coming from a non-hunter. It doesn't mean he doesn't support hunting or isn't sincere. It means he doesn't have years and years of experience, knowledge and, most important, hasn't had time to think all these things through.

You don't make peace with people who are already on your side. You don't convince people who already agree with you. You make peace and convince people who aren't on your side and who disagree with you, because the option is an all in win/lose. We've got too much to lose and should make efforts to control the outcomes through educating and convincing people who might tend to oppose us, our values and our activities (especially since so much of the opposition is based on misunderstanding, misinformation and downright low information conclusions).

I think it's pretty clear that Mr. Weaver doesn't like trophy hunting and thinks that it could be sacrificed for the greater good of hunters. Like it or not there is some cold hard political sense to that. It's way easier to sell hunting for meat than it is to sell trophy hunting.

It comes back, though, to the low information/misinformation challenge. SOmeone on this forum has a tagline that says "There's no such thing as trophy hunting".

Most of the guys on this forum understand that concept,even guys who may not agree 100% with it.


Most voters, on the other hand, would not even know where to start in comprehending that concept, and I'll wager that Mr. Weaver would need a bit of guidance through it the first time.

Rather than quizzing him on what he positions on the finer points of hunting are (given that he isn't a hunter at this point and doesn't have our collective knowledge or experience, even if he's very knowledgeable about other things), we should be educating him and telling him our story (which is a fantastic one, btw). Again, it's a win win for us. If we explain how this whole magnificent enterprise called hunting works he will either clearly come on side as an ally or we'll determine that he is an anti-science, pro-emoticon phony.

We're getting a chance to talk to the other side. We really can't lose.
X2 good post,

[bearvalley]

All that said, here's how you get a better chance at a moose tag. Instead of a thousand tags being divided into two groups of 600 and 400, with the 400 being divided between 25 guys and the 600 divided between 10,000 guys, we take the same 1,000 and divide them into 900 resident hunter LEHs and 100 Non-resident hunter LEHs.

Unless I'm missing something you've just changed the allocation splits.
By the way I didn't realize any moose draws were set up on a 60/40 split basis.
An LEH tag is a piece of paper that is issued in many cases at 10X what the guide quota is in the same area.
90%+ of opportunities are granted to BC residents if they go on the hunt or not.
Is supporting Weavers bill that attempts to eliminate the GO industry going to make one more harvestable moose.

[kebes]

90%+ of opportunities are granted to BC residents if they go on the hunt or not.

Thanks for the laugh.

[bearvalley]

Shows what you know.
Study the LEH opportunities compared to issued quota.
Would you like to make me a monetary bet that I'm wrong?
Statements are better based on fact than BS.

[kebes]

The laugh was more at how outfitters seem to be great at using incredibly convenient truths while ignoring context. The sad part is I find you to be one of the most reasonable in the G.O community I've heard from.

[bearvalley]

We don't all ignore context. I've said before that we are dealing with a flat tire.
Fighting over who gets the bigger share of something that doesn't exist doesn't cure the problem.
A non resident LEH doesn't cure the problem.
Every species on a GOS free for all is no fix.
The problem is a shortage of wildlife.
How do game populations increase in a shift in allocation.
Allocation may need adjusted but we need to help grow game.
Some on here get it. Some never will.

[kebes]

I agree that a non-resident LEH doesn't fix the problem and I agree that shortage of wildlife is an issue in some cases. That doesn't mean allocation splits aren't important. Both issues need to be dealt with.

Saying 90% of opportunity goes to residents is ignoring context. Outfitters are much more efficient with opportunity. The question isn't so much opportunity as it is animals on the ground. That's how we compare ourselves to other jurisdictions, animals allocated not opportunity.

[bearvalley]

Saying 90% of opportunity goes to residents is ignoring context. Outfitters are much more efficient with opportunity. The question isn't so much opportunity as it is animals on the ground. That's how we compare ourselves to other jurisdictions, animals allocated not opportunity.

So if we're going to penalize efficiency should shitty hunters get enhanced LEH odds?
I don't think that will put any more animals on the ground.
Not all outfitters are efficient so I don't see the point in hindering someone that puts the time and effort into having better than average ability.

[kebes]

I think you're misunderstanding or ignoring the point. The end result is based off of animals on the ground period. I'm quite certain you know that. Residents usually can't put in the effort/time outfitters can so it takes more opportunities to work itself out.

And no, that won't put more animals on the ground, that doesn't mean the allocated splits aren't important. They're two fairly separate issues.

[bearvalley]

I think you're misunderstanding or ignoring the point. The end result is based off of animals on the ground period. I'm quite certain you know that. Residents usually can't put in the effort/time outfitters can so it takes more opportunities to work itself out.

And no, that won't put more animals on the ground, that doesn't mean the allocated splits aren't important. They're two fairly separate issues.
I probably get the point better than most.
Shutting down outfitters or handing out LEH tickets like they are confetti will put no more animals on the ground.
We need the ability and the effort needs to be put into rebuilding wildlife numbers. Once the numbers are there to support a GOS we won't have to fight over the non existent moose. Giving one side or the other more opportunity isn't the fix but some look at it only as they have the right to shoot the last moose standing.

[fowl language]

bear valley, as someone that I see as a reasonable person can you tell me how the guide outfitters view getting more ungulates for all to share. I have talked with a few guide,s and they are doing their share of ungulate enhancement by eliminating predatation, any thoughts as to your view?....

[Rob Chipman]

"Unless I'm missing something you've just changed the allocation splits.
By the way I didn't realize any moose draws were set up on a 60/40 split basis.
An LEH tag is a piece of paper that is issued in many cases at 10X what the guide quota is in the same area.
90%+ of opportunities are granted to BC residents if they go on the hunt or not.
Is supporting Weavers bill that attempts to eliminate the GO industry going to make one more harvestable moose."

You're not missing anything. If I were all powerful, and in the absence of a compelling argument to the contrary, I'd wipe away the existing guide-outfitter setup completely and replace it with something quite different. Which leads directly to:

What is the benefit of the current guide outfitter model to a) the public at large and b) the resident hunter in particular?

I gather you are in the business and so have more at stake than me. I'm not interested in bankrupting you or reducing the value of your property or investment. I realize that you have been playing by the rules, and that if I want to make a change you need to be treated equitably. With that said, if we were starting from scratch, today, why would you recommend we go with the present system?

Nobody, least of all me, said draws are made on a 60/40 basis. I was answering a hypothetical posed by Fisher-Dude. If you want to crunch numbers and rate benefits, believe me, I'm game, but I'm not sure it's a debate you'll win among this crowd.

THe relationship between the number of LEH tags awarded, their success rate, and what guides get is irrelevant to what this thread is really talking about, as far as I can see. If you think I'm wrong on that make your case.

I'm not sure Mr. Weaver's proposed bill will eliminate the GO business. First, it's a private member's bill that is unlikely to go anywhere in its present form. Second, I'm willing to bet the GOABC has more pull in government than he does. Third, as we know, there are guide/outfitting models that are different from the ones we have in BC, they work and they generate economic benefits to the participants in the business model as well as the general public.

Taking quota away from guide outfitters will be unlikely to create more moose for resident hunters. That's why I don't think allocation is the single issue. That doesn't mean it's not an issue, and that doesn't mean that the GO business model in BC can't be changed. As I said, in the absence of a compelling argument to the contrary (which you are free to make) I'd change it right now, and I'd do it in a way that was equitable to all concerned.

[kebes]

I probably get the point better than most.
Shutting down outfitters or handing out LEH tickets like they are confetti will put no more animals on the ground.
We need the ability and the effort needs to be put into rebuilding wildlife numbers. Once the numbers are there to support a GOS we won't have to fight over the non existent moose. Giving one side or the other more opportunity isn't the fix but some look at it only as they have the right to shoot the last moose standing.

And yet the GOABC wants as much LEH as possible. You'll have to forgive me for not believing you're in the majority of G.O's wanting plenty of animals with G.O.S (which I'm all for). The G.O's are the ones who lobbied for a bigger piece of the dwindling pie at the expense of resident opportunity.

[bearvalley]

bear valley, as someone that I see as a reasonable person can you tell me how the guide outfitters view getting more ungulates for all to share. I have talked with a few guide,s and they are doing their share of ungulate enhancement by eliminating predatation, any thoughts as to your view?....

Dale, ungulate enhancement is part of the equation to making more wildlife for all stakeholders. What is needed right now is a major wolf reduction program as well as bear management. Both G bears and blacks eat their share of meat and a lot of their predation is being put onto wolves. The anti bear hunting group (and some of them are hunters) had best decide if they want to deal with an over abundance of bears or have thriving populations of wildlife.

Some parts of this province is in desperate need of habitat restoration or enhancement. In some places only time will fix this problem, in others a well placed match will do the trick.

Some on here won't like to hear this but access is a huge problem. We have too much of it. Wildlife does not do well with a 4x4, quad or jet boat coming from all directions. Some areas need restrictions if not closures.

We need wildlife inventory as well as accountability from all stakeholders.
Lets use moose in northwestern BC for an example.
No one knows how many there are or how many are being harvested other than the GO portion.

There will be changes and sacrifices for all. Some are going to put into making changes that work and others are going to want to carry on in the old method of wanting more.

[BgBlkDg]

Access certainly IS a huge issue and so is the arrogance of most GOs, who seem to think they have some *special* status here in BC, even the foreigners.

IF, there are specific access restrictions imposed, there must be more restriction of GOs.. A GO has access due to having horses, which most residents cannot afford or have time to care for.

So, IF, vehicular access in a certain drainage is banned, then, at the very least, all GO access by horses, lamas, packgoats or mules must be banned so we residents have the opportunities before some foreigner with lots of $$$$. I also favour NO GO hunting where LEH regulations are in effect and certain other restrictions on GO operations.

[Deaddog]

Mr Weaver appears to be anti trophy hunting by the wording of his bill which obviously includes all predators. If that is the position of bcwf as well then that should be made public.

Question was directed at you as per usual you deflect and go on the attack. so again what do you do for fish, wildlife and habitat, or is your contribution to hide behind a keyboard and attack??

[houndogger]

Question was directed at you as per usual you deflect and go on the attack. so again what do you do for fish, wildlife and habitat, or is your contribution to hide behind a keyboard and attack??
I hunt preditors or trophy's as some seem to be pumping on here. Wasn't a attack at all just a simple question. Care to answer?

[bearvalley]

Access certainly IS a huge issue and so is the arrogance of most GOs, who seem to think they have some *special* status here in BC, even the foreigners.

IF, there are specific access restrictions imposed, there must be more restriction of GOs.. A GO has access due to having horses, which most residents cannot afford or have time to care for.

So, IF, vehicular access in a certain drainage is banned, then, at the very least, all GO access by horses, lamas, packgoats or mules must be banned so we residents have the opportunities before some foreigner with lots of $$$$. I also favour NO GO hunting where LEH regulations are in effect and certain other restrictions on GO operations.

Arrogance seems to be a "people" thing...not just an affliction of GOs.
If a "horse or mule ban" is necessary it should be for all but that would be a pretty dramatic transportation ban.
To say an outfitter has the advantage to access areas because he has time to care for and can afford horses is rather pathetic.
There's a lot of resident hunters that have horses and the knowledge and ability to use them .
The cost of buying and maintaining a small pack string is probably about the same as a jet boat.
As for your llamas and packgoats, they do not belong in the back country.

[BgBlkDg]

Really, some GO has the *authority* to decide what does/does not *belong in the backcountry*......

Sorry, laddie, but, your attitudes and those of most of your colleagues are rather dated and the majority of BC citizens and resident hunters are NOT on your side. In short, you and those like you will soon *be history* and it is your own fault, given your pathetic and arrogant beliefs and approach to resident rights.

BTW, I do not have an ATV, jet boat, Argo or any other such device and many citizens must live in Vancouver, etc. for professional reasons, where keeping horses and/or mules is a bit difficult.

As usual, when I encounter a GO here, I end up thinking that banning the whole non-res. alien trophy collecting is the best solution to this situation and then creating an interactive hosting programme so Canadians can hunt with each other in our various jurisdictions.

GO business hardship, cry me a river, its your own stupid fault.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Hello KodiakHntr, this legislation would require non resident hunters to compete amongst themselves (not with residents) in a separate pool as is done in most other jurisdictions in North America.

AJ you really don't get it.....not a clue. In the jurisdictions you where looking at the outfitters hold licenses to operate in huge areas(in a lot of cases the whole state) not concessions like in BC. You would have to revamp the whole outfitting industry in BC. You really need to do your homework before throwing out a somewhat carelessly written proposed bill.

[bearvalley]

Really, some GO has the *authority* to decide what does/does not *belong in the backcountry*......

Sorry, laddie, but, your attitudes and those of most of your colleagues are rather dated and the majority of BC citizens and resident hunters are NOT on your side. In short, you and those like you will soon *be history* and it is your own fault, given your pathetic and arrogant beliefs and approach to resident rights.

BTW, I do not have an ATV, jet boat, Argo or any other such device and many citizens must live in Vancouver, etc. for professional reasons, where keeping horses and/or mules is a bit difficult.

As usual, when I encounter a GO here, I end up thinking that banning the whole non-res. alien trophy collecting is the best solution to this situation and then creating an interactive hosting programme so Canadians can hunt with each other in our various jurisdictions.

GO business hardship, cry me a river, its your own stupid fault.

As usual your knowledge comes to the forefront.
Don't you think that maybe llamas and goats are possibly as big of an issue as having domestic sheep in the mountains.
As for soon *being history* I would bet with you l will still be outfitting when your old bones are resting in the corner of some room in your wheelchair.
We've already got your interactive hosting programme. They're called PTAs.
BgBlkDg, Kutenay, Devilbear or whatever you want to call yourself this week... Did you have a GO, a FN or a foreigner run off with an old girlfriend or just spend way to much time alone in your treehouse in the wilderness.
Youve got a lot of bitterness stuffed into one boisterous package.

[BgBlkDg]

IF, every GO was like you, Doug, none of this crap would be happening. it is due to your honesty, guts and wisdom that I still do support a viable GO industry in our beloved BC.

I wish you were Minister of whatever they now call the former MOE.

[BgBlkDg]

As usual your knowledge comes to the forefront.
Don't you think that maybe llamas and goats are possibly as big of an issue as having domestic sheep in the mountains.
As for soon *being history* I would bet with you l will still be outfitting when your old bones are resting in the corner of some room in your wheelchair.
We've already got your interactive hosting programme. They're called PTAs.
BgBlkDg, Kutenay, Devilbear or whatever you want to call yourself this week... Did you have a GO, a FN or a foreigner run off with an old girlfriend or just spend way to much time alone in your treehouse in the wilderness.
Youve got a lot of bitterness stuffed into one boisterous package.

My, my, how droll.

[bearvalley]

IF, every GO was like you, Doug, none of this crap would be happening. it is due to your honesty, guts and wisdom that I still do support a viable GO industry in our beloved BC.

I wish you were Minister of whatever they now call the former MOE.
I must have missed something.

Did Doug state something new?
Something different than what the Minister of FLNRO is saying?
Youre right, Dougs a stand up guy and has his problems. Last I heard all resident hunters were shut out of most of his guide territory and he didn't know if he'd be in business next year.
Any updates Doug?

[BgBlkDg]

Details, I would lobby by letter and personal calls for Doug and a few others.

You DO *miss* almost all of it, too bad, but, guys like you are the past.

[Fisher-Dude]

Anybody notice how a politician has successfully got the hunting fraternity fighting amongst itself again?

[bearvalley]

Anybody notice how a politician has successfully got the hunting fraternity fighting amongst itself again?
That's the personal agenda of some.
As long as the can keep stirring the pot and dividing ranks they can pick us off slowly.

[Rob Chipman]

Houndogger:

You bring up a very important point. Most non-hunters do not understand predator hunting or trophy hunting. They condemn it from a position of low information. I think that's another reason why we need to educate people who don't do what we do.

One of the tenets of the North American Conservation Model is that wildlife be managed through science. I think that's a very important and powerful point to make. I think we should get a commitment from Mr. Weaver (and for that matter anyone else) that science based management is the way that we all agree on. If he agrees on that commitment then it becomes easier to call bullshit on him if he renegs later.

Fisher-Dude:

He's not making hunters fight among themselves. We're far from a united group already, as the allocation dispute showed. All he's doing is turning the lights on so that we can see where we find ourselves. I think it's important to understand that while we may be in the same boat we don't have to ignore that some people might be chopping holes in the boat.

[KodiakHntr]

I think we should get a commitment from Mr. Weaver (and for that matter anyone else) that science based management is the way that we all agree on. If he agrees on that commitment then it becomes easier to call bullshit on him if he renegs later.



You should go read some of Weaver's stuff on his blog.
He already makes emotion based decisions on the bills he introduces. You won't get any science based commitments.

[Fisher-Dude]

You should go read some of Weaver's stuff on his blog.
He already makes emotion based decisions on the bills he introduces. You won't get any science based commitments.

He has called gbear hunters barbaric.

Emotions help get clicks on the "donate here" button I guess.

[BgBlkDg]

A nicely phrased analogy, but, we shall NEVER see wildlife managed scientifically here in BC in our lifetimes. The $$$$$$ issue and the *entitled* both racially for temporary corporate and political reasons and the GO issue will not allow that, sorry to say.

A genuinely *scientific* management policy would NOT engage in much, if any predator control and would stress allowing ecosystems to function with as little human interaction as possible, much the sort of approach promoted by the current "in" group of academic ecologists.

Management, will ALWAYS be a *social* construct before it is ever an empirically scientific one, as this entire thread demonstrates and THAT is much of our problem.

[BgBlkDg]

You should go read some of Weaver's stuff on his blog.
He already makes emotion based decisions on the bills he introduces. You won't get any science based commitments.

I have read his comments and years of other comments by most of the major figures of the Greens. I agree, Dave, and Pat, it is the same old bullshit in supposedly more acceptable form.

Check back to last spring when some of us finally got him to admit here that he favours stricter gun laws in urban milieus......I do NOT trust him and will never vote Green again.

[Spy]

So much for constructive criticism ! :-( instead of attacking help the man understand ! The Greens are going to get alot of votes might as well have them on our side and understand how shit works, instead of allienating them!

[Rob Chipman]

Don't get me wrong. I didn't say vote for Mr. Weaver or give him money. I have read some of his writings. I am aware of the "barbaric" comment.

There is a lot of hypocrisy on the anti-hunting side. That's not a surprise.

Here's the threat: government will either impose more restrictive legislation upon us (hunters) in order to pander to vocal opponents of hunting or ignore us in favour of their friends. If they pander to opponents of hunting they will might very well hit tacks with sledgehammers.

The solution, as I see it, is to get more allies. I think we do that by informing, educating and then questioning people who are currently not hunters. From the girl selling you coffee in the morning to the Premier, any of them are useful if they are on our side.

In terms of Mr. Weaver we should face a few facts.

He's asked us for input. Who else does that? Not too many. You could say Dan Brooks has, but I can't add to that list, so ti looks like we're at 2. Mr. Brooks doesn't have a government office yet. Mr. Weaver does.

Mr. Weaver is ignorant of many facets of hunting. That is clear. But he has approached us and I believe that since he's come to this forum he has learned some things and I believe he changed his tune on black bear hunting.

We do not need to convince people who already agree with us.

We do not need to make friends with people who we're already friends with.

Here's what I think we should do with Mr. Weaver:

Educate and inform him.

Ask him to clearly state his positions on things.

Take him to task on those positions when warranted and let him make his case.

It's a win-win for us. We either get a friend or positively identify a flake.

How can he help us? I for one would like an ally in government who can get information that would be useful to us as a community. Maybe this stuff is already easy to find, but I think an MLA in Victoria who's motivated to help us could be a great asset in this sense.

[Spy]

Don't get me wrong. I didn't say vote for Mr. Weaver or give him money. I have read some of his writings. I am aware of the "barbaric" comment.

There is a lot of hypocrisy on the anti-hunting side. That's not a surprise.

Here's the threat: government will either impose more restrictive legislation upon us (hunters) in order to pander to vocal opponents of hunting or ignore us in favour of their friends. If they pander to opponents of hunting they will might very well hit tacks with sledgehammers.

The solution, as I see it, is to get more allies. I think we do that by informing, educating and then questioning people who are currently not hunters. From the girl selling you coffee in the morning to the Premier, any of them are useful if they are on our side.

In terms of Mr. Weaver we should face a few facts.

He's asked us for input. Who else does that? Not too many. You could say Dan Brooks has, but I can't add to that list, so ti looks like we're at 2. Mr. Brooks doesn't have a government office yet. Mr. Weaver does.

Mr. Weaver is ignorant of many facets of hunting. That is clear. But he has approached us and I believe that since he's come to this forum he has learned some things and I believe he changed his tune on black bear hunting.

We do not need to convince people who already agree with us.

We do not need to make friends with people who we're already friends with.

Here's what I think we should do with Mr. Weaver:

Educate and inform him.

Ask him to clearly state his positions on things.

Take him to task on those positions when warranted and let him make his case.

It's a win-win for us. We either get a friend or positively identify a flake.

How can he help us? I for one would like an ally in government who can get information that would be useful to us as a community. Maybe this stuff is already easy to find, but I think an MLA in Victoria who's motivated to help us could be a great asset in this sense.
Ha ha you wanna put that in french as well, unfortunately some will never get it !

[Quince]

Seems good. Maybe time for natives who hunt off reserve land have to buy appropiate tags and enter leh as well for animals.

[BgBlkDg]

I posted earlier, just check Weavers comments concerning his stance on gun laws which some of us finally got him to admit here last spring. His final admissions will, IMHO, tell you all you need to know about his beliefs and what we can expect from him in real terms should we give him political support.

It is not a personal attack, at all, I simply find him to be in favour of highly restrictive and needless gun laws and he was quite evasive, at first, when I queried him on this. His comments are here for all to see.

[Rob Chipman]

BgBlkDG:

"what we can expect from him in real terms should we give him political support."

Like I said: "Don't get me wrong. I didn't say vote for Mr. Weaver or give him money."

On a different note, you bring up the difference between scientific management and social construct (""Management, will ALWAYS be a *social* construct before it is ever an empirically scientific one"). I think that's an excellent, but not well understood point. You should expand on that if you get a chance.

[Bugle M In]

So, I unplugged from this thread, s it started going sideways and downhill.
Did Mr Weaver draw up any new thought or direction for a "private members bill"??
Did Mr Weaver and the other politician come to some sort of agreement to tackle some of the issues that
we all stated?
Did we find out if the other politician has any connections to GO's, just so we know who he is.?
Sorry folks, I stopped reading, but am curious if anything is developing from this thread.

[Xenomorph]

Sorry folks, I stopped reading, but am curious if anything is developing from this thread.

Same here, I've seen a lot of finger pointing and mudslinging but what I'm truly hoping to see is a consensus and a proper common effort to improve the current status quo.