Some Changes In The 2016 Hunting Trapping Regs

[hunter1947]

http://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/pub/ahte/

[Downwind]

Gave my opinions already. Most make sense, from my opinion, but one got a long written comment. It was the one stating resident allocation was going to be reduced because of new allocation policies. Here's your chance to get your opinions out there fellas!

[argyle1]

We still don't see anything about the general open moose season in area 6. Being the only open season in the province it gets hit incredibly hard, much harder than any other area of the province. Anyone who has hunted this area for a few years knows how the populaion has dwindled.

[Caribou_lou]

We still don't see anything about the general open moose season in area 6. Being the only open season in the province it gets hit incredibly hard, much harder than any other area of the province. Anyone who has hunted this area for a few years knows how the populaion has dwindled.

I would have to disagree. Saw 7 bulls archery season in 4 days and I harvested one in the open season. That isn't too bad if you ask me!

If numbers are down it most certainly isn't from over hunting. So why would they consider cutting our season back? That would solve absolutely nothing! Until there is predator management plan there will be no rise in moose.

[palmer]

We still don't see anything about the general open moose season in area 6. Being the only open season in the province it gets hit incredibly hard, much harder than any other area of the province. Anyone who has hunted this area for a few years knows how the populaion has dwindled.

I would think Region 7 Peace would be considered an open season as well...and is also hit very hard

[todbartell]

Nice to see the 7A Mule deer season proposal

[Omenator]

Gave my opinions already. Most make sense, from my opinion, but one got a long written comment. It was the one stating resident allocation was going to be reduced because of new allocation policies. Here's your chance to get your opinions out there fellas!
I didn't see this one, got a link?

[argyle1]

I would have to disagree. Saw 7 bulls archery season in 4 days and I harvested one in the open season. That isn't too bad if you ask me!

If numbers are down it most certainly isn't from over hunting. So why would they consider cutting our season back? That would solve absolutely nothing! Until there is predator management plan there will be no rise in moose.

Sorry region 6 is huge. Specifically 6-04, 05, 06, 08, and 09 populations are way down, as was the harvest this year

[Downwind]

I didn't see this one, got a link?

http://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/pub/ahte/hunting/amendment-range-authorizations-thinhorn-sheep-limited-entry-hunt-zones

Specifically states reason of changes to resident/non-resident allocation

[guest]

And there ya have it folks .... we RESIDENTS are being SCREWED with the Allocation deal to GO's and non residents !

This equals LESS opportunity for all us residents.

Get used to it, this Gov is in bed with its partners. Only the start of the BS !

[coach]

Amendment to the Range of Authorizations for Thinhorn Sheep Limited Entry Hunt Zones Submitted on November 30th 2015

Proposal Number:
2139


Status:
Proposed


Region:
Region 6 - Skeena


Regulation Type:
Limited Entry Hunting


Species:
Thinhorn Sheep


Closing Date:
Dec 31, 2015


Decision Statement:
Pending



Current Regulations:
The “Range of Authorizations” is a legislated minimum and maximum number of authorizations that may be provided for a specific Limited Entry Hunt. The Director of the Fish and Wildlife Branch is the law maker for determining the number of LEH authorizations available for each LEH hunt in the province and the final number must fall within the Range of Authorizations.
The current Ranges of Authorizations for these specific Skeena Thinhorn Sheep LEH Zones are as follows:


6-25D ranges from 25-100,
6-27A ranges from 25-100,
6-28 ranges from 25-100.




Proposed Regulations:
This proposal seeks to reduce the Range of Authorization for Thinhorn sheep Limited Entry Hunt in Zones 6-25D, 6-27A and 6-28 to one.
For each of these, it is requested that the Range of Authorization (ROA) be decreased to 1.



Rationale:
Recent population inventories, changes to Resident/Non-Resident allocations, increased participation rates, revised harvest rates and the 2013 Thinhorn Sheep Policy & Procedures direction, have resulted in a necessary reduction in the number of Limited Entry Hunting (LEH) authorizations being required for these specific LEH zones that are below the current minimum number of 25 authorizations. In order to ensure that overharvest and population level impacts do not result, increased flexibility in the ROAs is required.

[Fisher-Dude]

http://i.imgflip.com/vb9qy.jpg




Amendment to the Range of Authorizations for Thinhorn Sheep Limited Entry Hunt Zones
Submitted on November 30th 2015
Proposal Number: 2139
Status: Proposed
Region:
Region 6 - Skeena
Regulation Type:
Limited Entry Hunting
Species: Thinhorn Sheep
Closing Date: Dec 31, 2015
Decision Statement:
Pending

Current Regulations:
The “Range of Authorizations” is a legislated minimum and maximum number of authorizations that may be provided for a specific Limited Entry Hunt. The Director of the Fish and Wildlife Branch is the law maker for determining the number of LEH authorizations available for each LEH hunt in the province and the final number must fall within the Range of Authorizations.

The current Ranges of Authorizations for these specific Skeena Thinhorn Sheep LEH Zones are as follows:

6-25D ranges from 25-100,
6-27A ranges from 25-100,
6-28 ranges from 25-100.
Proposed Regulations:
This proposal seeks to reduce the Range of Authorization for Thinhorn sheep Limited Entry Hunt in Zones 6-25D, 6-27A and 6-28 to one.

For each of these, it is requested that the Range of Authorization (ROA) be decreased to 1.

Rationale:
Recent population inventories, changes to Resident/Non-Resident allocations, increased participation rates, revised harvest rates and the 2013 Thinhorn Sheep Policy & Procedures direction, have resulted in a necessary reduction in the number of Limited Entry Hunting (LEH) authorizations being required for these specific LEH zones that are below the current minimum number of 25 authorizations. In order to ensure that overharvest and population level impacts do not result, increased flexibility in the ROAs is required.

[goinghunting]

Anyond have any incite on the thinhorn incisor teeth proposal? How would this work? Sure hope it doesnt mean you wont be able to kill broomed rams by counting rings. That sould be ashame.

[Ardent]

And there ya have it folks .... we RESIDENTS are being SCREWED with the Allocation deal to GO's and non residents !

This equals LESS opportunity for all us residents.

Get used to it, this Gov is in bed with its partners. Only the start of the BS !


Rationale:
Recent population inventories, changes to Resident/Non-Resident allocations, increased participation rates, revised harvest rates and the 2013 Thinhorn Sheep Policy & Procedures direction, have resulted in a necessary reduction in the number of Limited Entry Hunting (LEH) authorizations being required for these specific LEH zones that are below the current minimum number of 25 authorizations. In order to ensure that overharvest and population level impacts do not result, increased flexibility in the ROAs is required.

Seems there are a lot more reasons than protecting BC businesses, that's one of four reasons given.

[bearvalley]

The current Ranges of Authorizations for these specific Skeena Thinhorn Sheep LEH Zones are as follows:

6-25D ranges from 25-100,
6-27A ranges from 25-100,
6-28 ranges from 25-100.
Proposed Regulations:
This proposal seeks to reduce the Range of Authorization for Thinhorn sheep Limited Entry Hunt in Zones 6-25D, 6-27A and 6-28 to one.

For each of these, it is requested that the Range of Authorization (ROA) be decreased to 1.

Rationale:
Recent population inventories, changes to Resident/Non-Resident allocations, increased participation rates, revised harvest rates and the 2013 Thinhorn Sheep Policy & Procedures direction, have resulted in a necessary reduction in the number of Limited Entry Hunting (LEH) authorizations being required for these specific LEH zones that are below the current minimum number of 25 authorizations. In order to ensure that overharvest and population level impacts do not result, increased flexibility in the ROAs is required.

It makes sense if there is a concern over the amount of pressure put on a wildlife population ( in this case sheep) to go to a 1:1 LEH if warranted.
Even in areas without an active outfitter operating there will be times that a 1:1 LEH will be needed to ensure a stable population for some species.
LEH authorizations handed out at 25:1 or 100:1 leaves a lot of guesswork and can possibly cause a major annual over harvest that could take years to correct.
Of coarse it would be better if we could just carry on down the road of shooting what we want and bitch when it's all gone.

[Brno22F]

So what does this really mean?
Is the range of allocation being reduced to 1 as stated? Does this mean that there will be only 1 solitary LEH sheep draw in each of the zones mentioned?
Or is this unclear because the Director of F+W is reducing the range from the current 25(minimum) to 100(maximum) to a new allocation range of 1 (minimum) to some unknown number (maximum)?
I can tell you that if the LEH authorizations drop to 1 then the Guide outfitters allocation had better drop to 60% of 1.

[tuner]

It makes sense if there is a concern over the amount of pressure put on a wildlife population ( in this case sheep) to go to a 1:1 LEH if warranted.
Even in areas without an active outfitter operating there will be times that a 1:1 LEH will be needed to ensure a stable population for some species.
LEH authorizations handed out at 25:1 or 100:1 leaves a lot of guesswork and can possibly cause a major annual over harvest that could take years to correct.
Of coarse it would be better if we could just carry on down the road of shooting what we want and bitch when it's all gone.
A simple solution would be if residents have to be on LEH,no authorizations shall be provided to
GO's. Only fair.

[bearvalley]

A simple solution would be if residents have to be on LEH,no authorizations shall be provided to
GO's. Only fair.

Theres always a simple solution and in this case the resident Hunter harvest was obviously over achieved and the Director of Wildlife acknowledged a problem.

Remember that the GO harvest is the only one that is set in stone before the season starts and the Regional Manager knows what the maximum GO harvest can be.

When multiple LEH authorizations are issued for each targeted animal in the resident allocation the annual harvest number can become acrap shoot.

The achieved harvest for the year is unknown until all CIs are done at the end of the season.

In abundant populations if there is a resident over harvest the next years authorizations can be adjusted to compensate. It's a simple fix.

In low populations where an over harvest can do long term harm 1 authorization for each animal to be taken is a useful management tool.

The guides go under those rules. Thier quota number is set.

Only fair. To the sheep.

[kebes]

Theres always a simple solution and in this case the resident Hunter harvest was obviously over achieved and the Director of Wildlife acknowledged a problem.

Remember that the GO harvest is the only one that is set in stone before the season starts and the Regional Manager knows what the maximum GO harvest can be.

When multiple LEH authorizations are issued for each targeted animal in the resident allocation the annual harvest number can become acrap shoot.

The achieved harvest for the year is unknown until all CIs are done at the end of the season.

In abundant populations if there is a resident over harvest the next years authorizations can be adjusted to compensate. It's a simple fix.

In low populations where an over harvest can do long term harm 1 authorization for each animal to be taken is a useful management tool.

The guides go under those rules. Thier quota number is set.

Only fair. To the sheep.


But of course if guides over harvest it's no big deal right? Or at least according to the Liberals.

[2chodi]

Anyond have any incite on the thinhorn incisor teeth proposal? How would this work? Sure hope it doesnt mean you wont be able to kill broomed rams by counting rings. That sould be ashame.

I believe the intention is that a sheep would be aged using a tooth in cases where the age determination by annuli is questionable in determining if the sheep is legal or not by age.

[bearvalley]

But of course if guides over harvest it's no big deal right? Or at least according to the Liberals.
I don't think to many guides go over their quota.
But then you read that they do on HBC so it's got to be true.....right?

[bearvalley]

I believe the intention is that a sheep would be aged using a tooth in cases where the age determination by annuli is questionable in determining if the sheep is legal or not by age.

More than likely a tool to monitor if an overkill of one age class of rams is happening.
If an area is producing nothing but 6 and 7 year old "full curl" legal rams flags could arise as to there might be a shortage of mature 8+ year old rams and seasons and regulations might need to be adjusted.
JMO

[tuner]

Bearvalley, just how are guide quotas "set in stone" when our thieving government allows guides to exceed quota through "administrative guidelines"?

[kebes]

Bearvalley, just how are guide quotas "set in stone" when our thieving government allows guides to exceed quota through "administrative guidelines"?

Didn't you listen to the man? That clearly doesn't happen. ;)

[bearvalley]

Bearvalley, just how are guide quotas "set in stone" when our thieving government allows guides to exceed quota through "administrative guidelines"?

Works the same as over achievement on LEH authorizations only difference is if the GO goes over quota the RM may issue a penalty.
Like I said very few go over ... moreso many GOS actually under achieve their quotas. And contrary to the beliefs of many on here it's not because they can't book ... it's because some do have the best interest of a healthy big game population at mind.

[tuner]

Works the same as over achievement on LEH authorizations only difference is if the GO goes over quota the RM may issue a penalty.
Like I said very few go over ... moreso many GOS actually under achieve their quotas. And contrary to the beliefs of many on here it's not because they can't book ... it's because some do have the best interest of a healthy big game population at mind.
i had no idea the GOABC were such an altruistic organization, kind of like the Shriners, just utterly selfless.

[Ardent]

But of course if guides over harvest it's no big deal right? Or at least according to the Liberals.

Anything but, the outfitter quotas are set and no more than 1/3rd of the 5 year quota can be harvested in one year. For many outfitters, on flagship / cornerstone species this means as few as 1 per year, territory dependent. It can be even less, if for instance there's less than 5 in a 5 year allocation. That's extremely common on species like grizzly for instance, less than one a year. A good few get one allocation every five years.

[souwester]

Man why don't some of you guys pick a politician and start funding them, or start an organization and raise money and start buying out guide outfitters in key areas of the province.the whining is just brutal.Sorry to break it to you but its gonna take cash.
cheers

[bearvalley]

i had no idea the GOABC were such an altruistic organization, kind of like the Shriners, just utterly selfless.

I didn't know all GO's were GOABC.
On the other hand I don't believe everyone in the BCWF believes they have to shoot the last moose or deer or sheep standing.
How about you tuner?

[bridger]

It makes sense if there is a concern over the amount of pressure put on a wildlife population ( in this case sheep) to go to a 1:1 LEH if warranted.
Even in areas without an active outfitter operating there will be times that a 1:1 LEH will be needed to ensure a stable population for some species.
LEH authorizations handed out at 25:1 or 100:1 leaves a lot of guesswork and can possibly cause a major annual over harvest that could take years to correct.
Of coarse it would be better if we could just carry on down the road of shooting what we want and bitch when it's all gone.

Or we could have implemented the allocation policy negotiated in 2007, but wait that recognized resident priority! Can't have that now can we?

[bearvalley]

Or we could have implemented the allocation policy negotiated in 2007, but wait that recognized resident priority! Can't have that now can we?

Rich, would that have held off a 1;1 LEH.
i don't think so....it probably would have been implemented sooner.

[bridger]

Here is the rub. Let's say the outfitter has a quota of one. He can take as many hunters as necessary to harvest that ram. A 1:1 resident leh means only one resident hunter can hunt. If that hunter is unsuccessful no other resident opportunities are available for that hunt. Hence the non resident allocation is achieved the resident allocation is not. To restrict resident harvest opportunity and enhance non resident harvest is wrong! How about we say that the number of hunters an outfitter can take is equal to his quota and no administrative guidelines. So if you have three sheep tags you only take three hunters. No more revolving door.

[Salty]

Nailed it bridger. Big difference between LEH opportunities and quota.

[bearvalley]

Here is the rub. Let's say the outfitter has a quota of one. He can take as many hunters as necessary to harvest that ram. A 1:1 resident leh means only one resident hunter can hunt. If that hunter is unsuccessful no other resident opportunities are available for that hunt. Hence the non resident allocation is achieved the resident allocation is not. To restrict resident harvest opportunity and enhance non resident harvest is wrong! How about we say that the number of hunters an outfitter can take is equal to his quota and no administrative guidelines. So if you have three sheep tags you only take three hunters. No more revolving door.
Some...including myself would have no problem with that Rich.
Even though many would not like to believe it there are GO's that think it's complete BS to book over quota.
3 sheep tags = 3 sheep hunters...why knowingly take the 4th or 5th client on a trail ride.

[bridger]

Some...including myself would have no problem with that Rich.
Even though many would not like to believe it there are GO's that think it's complete BS to book over quota.
3 sheep tags = 3 sheep hunters...why knowingly take the 4th or 5th client on a trail ride.

I believe that, but as has been said before those outfitters need to speak up from the inside.

[bearvalley]

Nailed it bridger. Big difference between LEH opportunities and quota.

Aren't the majority of sheep areas on GOS for residents and under quota for all non residents/outfitters.

It would be surprising to know how many guide outfitters would buy into a reduction in quota if sheep were on LEH and managed for thriving sheep numbers.

It would probably be surprising to many when the 1:1 LEH tags were filled because the sheep were there.

And...NO, lm not pushing for LEH, just throwing out something to think about.

[tuner]

I didn't know all GO's were GOABC.
On the other hand I don't believe everyone in the BCWF believes they have to shoot the last moose or deer or sheep standing.
How about you tuner?
Most BCWF members I know would gladly forego a season or two if the result was improved spicies numbers,unlike GO's, we don't have a financial interest at stake, we just don't believe commercial interests should trump resident priority and more importantly conservation needs. Bearvalley you come across as an intelligent, honest and reasonable man in your posts, what I find somewhat insencire is your continuous efforts to distance yourself from the GOABC while at the same time vigorously defending their policies and tactics. You may not belong to the organization but benifit from their efforts, simply by being in the industry they represent, just as resident hunters who don't belong to the federation benifit from it's work, simple as that.

[Fisher-Dude]

[B]

Seems there are a lot more reasons than protecting BC businesses, that's one of four reasons given.




You're a guide outfitter and member of GOABC.

http://www.goabc.org/outfitters/380/wild-coast-outfitters.aspx

Isn't that why you are in favour of screwing residents out of hunting opportunities to satisfy increased GO quota?

[bridger]

The reality is guide outfitters were placed on sheep quotas for a reason. That reason had nothing to do with resident harvest. If guide outfitters hadn't been over harvesting in the first place they wouldn't be on quota. Now that they are they want resident harvest restricted. Leh is not an option for residents in my book never has been never will be as long as non residents take 50% of the AAH.

[tuner]

You're a guide outfitter and member of GOABC.

http://www.goabc.org/outfitters/380/wild-coast-outfitters.aspx

Isn't that why you are in favour of screwing residents out of hunting opportunities to satisfy increased GO quota?
SHOCKING!!!:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

[bearvalley]

Most BCWF members I know would gladly forego a season or two if the result was improved spicies numbers,unlike GO's, we don't have a financial interest at stake, we just don't believe commercial interests should trump resident priority and more importantly conservation needs. Bearvalley you come across as an intelligent, honest and reasonable man in your posts, what I find somewhat insencire is your continuous efforts to distance yourself from the GOABC while at the same time vigorously defending their policies and tactics. You may not belong to the organization but benifit from their efforts, simply by being in the industry they represent, just as resident hunters who don't belong to the federation benifit from it's work, simple as that.

I don't believe what we have been discussing with the 1:1 LEH issue has anything to do with the commercial interest trumping resident priority.

What the 1:1 will do is eliminate an over harvest that has happened or will.

Even without outfitters in the areas we are discussing a 1:1 LEH would be needed due to access and/or low sheep densitys.

As for benefitting from this regulation change....I don't.

As for defending GOABC....I don't ...but I will call BS when I see it being spread about GO industry in general.

As for the BCWF of which I'm a member .... I will defend it .... But not when it's out to "cut my throat".

[bridger]

The point being made about the 1:1 leh is that it is being implemented to accommodate the guide outfitters 40% harvest share. Plus 1:1 will more than likely result in no resident harvest. Basically we just lost a hunt.

[bearvalley]

The reality is guide outfitters were placed on sheep quotas for a reason. That reason had nothing to do with resident harvest. If guide outfitters hadn't been over harvesting in the first place they wouldn't be on quota. Now that they are they want resident harvest restricted. Leh is not an option for residents in my book never has been never will be as long as non residents take 50% of the AAH.

Sure glad I operate in a GOS/quota area!!!

If we can all get on the same page with keeping numbers stable or growing most will be happy.

We've got some major hurdles to get thru in rebuilding big game populations that are crashing.
Right now resident hunters are at 57% of the peak 30+ years ago.
Guided non resident hunters are a fraction of what they were.
I personally dont believe the FN harvest is what it was 30+ years ago.
Predators ...wolves, black and grizzly bears are at an all time high.
The amount of access in BC is unprecedented.
Everyone owns a GPS and there aren't many places you can't get to with a quad or jet boat.

In the meantime the old battle carries on about who gets more.......

[bearvalley]

The point being made about the 1:1 leh is that it is being implemented to accommodate the guide outfitters 40% harvest share. Plus 1:1 will more than likely result in no resident harvest. Basically we just lost a hunt.
My bet would be if you drew the tag Rich ....the sheep tag would be filled.
Why shouldn't the majority of the other recipients be able to do the same.

[dracb]

why should submitting a tooth change how one ages rams by horn annuli?

[Bugle M In]

Sure glad I operate in a GOS/quota area!!!

If we can all get on the same page with keeping numbers stable or growing most will be happy.

We've got some major hurdles to get thru in rebuilding big game populations that are crashing.
Right now resident hunters are at 57% of the peak 30+ years ago.
Guided non resident hunters are a fraction of what they were.
I personally dont believe the FN harvest is what it was 30+ years ago.
Predators ...wolves, black and grizzly bears are at an all time high.
The amount of access in BC is unprecedented.
Everyone owns a GPS and there aren't many places you can't get to with a quad or jet boat.

In the meantime the old battle carries on about who gets more.......

Just curious,
Is your thoughts on the FN harvest not being what it was 30 years ago mean....
Do you mean that they harvest more now or less?

[bearvalley]

Just curious,
Is your thoughts on the FN harvest not being what it was 30 years ago mean....
Do you mean that they harvest more now or less?

My personal belief is less at this time in most areas of BC.
Some of the bands are asking their members for an accounting.

[bridger]

Sure glad I operate in a GOS/quota area!!!

If we can all get on the same page with keeping numbers stable or growing most will be happy.

We've got some major hurdles to get thru in rebuilding big game populations that are crashing.
Right now resident hunters are at 57% of the peak 30+ years ago.
Guided non resident hunters are a fraction of what they were.
I personally dont believe the FN harvest is what it was 30+ years ago.
Predators ...wolves, black and grizzly bears are at an all time high.
The amount of access in BC is unprecedented.
Everyone owns a GPS and there aren't many places you can't get to with a quad or jet boat.

In the meantime the old battle carries on about who gets more.......


I agree with you 90% of the time, and agree we need to get onto bigger issues, but here's the rub with me and most resident hunters. We never had a say in the present allocation splits. You guys gained political favor with campaign dollars and made a back room deal to the sole benefit of the guiding industry. How can any outfitter possibly think residents are going to forget or forgive that? Want co operation on bigger issues deal with the bs allocation we are stuck with. These lost sheep hunting opportunities in region 6 will pale in comparison to what wil happen in 7b in a couple years.

[Wagonmaster]

On a lighter note and a positive one at that, I see that beaver is now open year round in Haida Gwai!:razz:

[bridger]

On a lighter note and a positive one at that, I see that beaver is now open year round in Haida Gwai!:razz:


Now that is a positive!

[Sylus]

Just to clarify, the proposed thinhorn regulation changes will reduce the potential number of LEH allocations from a range of 25-100 to maximum of 1 in the zones listed?

[Muliechaser]

My personal belief is less at this time in most areas of BC.
Some of the bands are asking their members for an accounting.

I think its trippled if anything for FN harvest . I know of 28 moose taken in a very small area this season . Not to mention that was probably over 75 % of the population in the area i am refering to . They have moved to hunting up in this area now as there are next to none in the area fn previously hunted . Even then over 20 were taken from the other area this year as well . Down from 45 last year . Also the elk harvest is WAY down in the other area . 30 or so last year 20 or so this year . Im not one to judge but it has to be regulated or there will be nothing left in a very short time .

[Brno22F]

Just to clarify, the proposed thinhorn regulation changes will reduce the potential number of LEH allocations from a range of 25-100 to maximum of 1 in the zones listed?
I asked the same question on page 2 of this thread.
The way the proposal for sheep is worded is unclear to me.
If you look at the proposal for moose in Zone 6-04 (below) It isn't about a 1:1 ratio as others have described in this thread but a REDUCTION TO A MINIMUM OF 1 AUTHORIZATION. The range of possible authorizations has a new minimum. See below
Range of Authorizations for Moose in MU 6-04 Submitted on November 30th 2015

Proposal Number:
2140


Status:
Proposed


Region:
Region 6 - Skeena


Regulation Type:
Limited Entry Hunting


Species:
Moose


Decision Statement:
Pending



Current Regulations:
The “Range of Authorizations” is a legislated minimum and maximum number of authorizations that may be provided for a specific Limited Entry Hunt. The Director of the Fish and Wildlife Branch is the law maker for determining the number of LEH authorizations available for each LEH hunt in the province and the final number must fall within the Range of Authorizations.
From the Limited Entry Hunting Regulation Synopsis 2015-2016 (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/hunting/resident/leh.html#Synopsis):
693 Smithers 6-04 Sept 10-Sept 24 Bull Moose 50-150
694 Smithers 6-04 Sept 25-Oct 19 Bull Moose 25-100
695 Smithers 6-04 Oct 27-Nov 15 Bull Moose 25-150



Proposed Regulations:
Amend the Range of Authorizations for bull moose LEH hunts in Management Unit 6-04.
693 Smithers 6-04 Sept 10-Sept 24 Bull Moose 1-150
694 Smithers 6-04 Sept 25-Oct 19 Bull Moose 1-100
695 Smithers 6-04 Oct 27-Nov 15 Bull Moose 1-150



Rationale:
In 2014 and 2015 calculations of the number of Limited Entry Hunts (LEH) authorizations based on the success rates over the previous five years has been less than the current Range of Authorizations (ROA) allows. Presently, we are restricted to providing no fewer than 25 or 50 LEH authorizations for MU 6-04 (see above). It is being proposed that the minimum number of authorizations for Moose in MU 6-04 should be reduced to one for all three LEH to allow for the appropriate number of authorizations to resident hunters.
The resident hunter harvest objective for MU 6-04 for 2015 is 169 moose (25% of the Bulkley Valley Lakes District population unit). The annual average General Open Season harvest by residents over the last five years was 141 moose. We estimate an additional eight animals are harvested during the bow season, leaving 20 moose available for harvest in the LEH seasons. With success rates ranging from 33 - 35% the calculated number of LEH authorizations was 17, 17, and 18 for the early, rut, and late hunts, respectively. By following the current ROA we estimate 17 more moose than allocated would be harvested by resident hunters. Changing the ROA will give the flexibility to adjust the LEH authorization numbers accordingly.



Additional Information:

[Fisher-Dude]

I think the bolded words tell the story. Thanks, Thomson.


Rationale:
In 2014 and 2015 calculations of the number of Limited Entry Hunts (LEH) authorizations based on the success rates over the previous five years has been less than the current Range of Authorizations (ROA) allows. Presently, we are restricted to providing no fewer than 25 or 50 LEH authorizations for MU 6-04 (see above). It is being proposed that the minimum number of authorizations for Moose in MU 6-04 should be reduced to one for all three LEH to allow for the appropriate number of authorizations to resident hunters.
The resident hunter harvest objective for MU 6-04 for 2015 is 169 moose (25% of the Bulkley Valley Lakes District population unit). The annual average General Open Season harvest by residents over the last five years was 141 moose. We estimate an additional eight animals are harvested during the bow season, leaving 20 moose available for harvest in the LEH seasons. With success rates ranging from 33 - 35% the calculated number of LEH authorizations was 17, 17, and 18 for the early, rut, and late hunts, respectively. By following the current ROA we estimate 17 more moose than allocated would be harvested by resident hunters. Changing the ROA will give the flexibility to adjust the LEH authorization numbers accordingly.

[Seeker]

Here is the rub. Let's say the outfitter has a quota of one. He can take as many hunters as necessary to harvest that ram. A 1:1 resident leh means only one resident hunter can hunt. If that hunter is unsuccessful no other resident opportunities are available for that hunt. Hence the non resident allocation is achieved the resident allocation is not. To restrict resident harvest opportunity and enhance non resident harvest is wrong! How about we say that the number of hunters an outfitter can take is equal to his quota and no administrative guidelines. So if you have three sheep tags you only take three hunters. No more revolving door.


Nailed it bridger. Big difference between LEH opportunities and quota.

Help me shed some light on things here. If we are to coexist with GOABC or the guiding industry, wouldn't allowing them to book as many clients as needed to harvest their quota be a way to help viability? Punish them if they go over quota, absolutely, but I think if they continue to over book in an attempt to make more money but do not deliver animals to their clients, their clientèle will dwindle as a reputation is developed that they are a guide that does not produce animals at a satisfactory level. They would be doing themselves a disservice if they sent away clients consistently unsuccessful. Yes more non-resident hunter opportunity would be possible, but this is something I would be willing to concede if allocation splits were more aligned with the industry norms. Going over quota is unacceptable and any discretionary decision making ability by the RM regarding that should be eliminated.

[boxhitch]

For moose , I get it the current ROA is too restrictive and they want to open it up to fit the current calculator


Bull Moose 50-150
Bull Moose 25-100
Bull Moose 25-150



Proposed Regulations:

Bull Moose 1-150
Bull Moose 1-100
Bull Moose 1-150

But for sheep, '1' is not much of a range, it is actually very finite. In the rationale there is no mention of population problems , herd demographic imbalances , or any other reason to think the horn curl regulation isn't enough to control the kill rate. Populations in the Yukon next to these areas are managed by a shorter horn reg and are doing just fine. No, there is more to this .
This proposal seeks to reduce the Range of Authorization for Thinhorn sheep Limited Entry Hunt in Zones 6-25D, 6-27A and 6-28 to one.

[boxhitch]

Anyond have any incite on the thinhorn incisor teeth proposal? How would this work? Sure hope it doesnt mean you wont be able to kill broomed rams by counting rings. That sould be ashame.No , you won't have to check the teeth before shooting :)
Aging the teeth may prove to give managers better true-age data on the killed sheep.

[boxhitch]

Opening the Wolverine season in 7 will see a considerable increase in kill rate imo. Lots of clients and lots of BC hunters pass opportunities now , but there are lots of itchy fingers out there. Some would forgo another species just to get a gulo gulo.

[markomoose]

All this interesting banter but know we have to look at our buddy" Ron at KLUECHESI LAKE." He's the dude in the canoe paddling with his elk on the front cover of the New Synopsis 2016-2017.We gotta look at his scruffy mug for the next 2 years.Anyone wanting autographed copies can forget it!He's insufferable!!

[one-shot-wonder]

Deadline is only 2 days away.....get those responses in!

[btridge]

anyone having problems signing in to the feedback site?

[one-shot-wonder]

nope....just provided lots of feedback!

[40incher]

anyone having problems signing in to the feedback site?


Yupp ... of course! That's the way FLNRO wants it. Put something out on November 30th and expect us poor folk to get back to them during the Christmas season ... they should all be fired. They are a joke.

Reply directly to the Victoria Office of MFLNRO (perhaps someone on this site knows who the Director of Wildlife is at this point in time and can forward the contact info). Their website is dysfunctional and always has been. That's the way they want it and they have gotten away with it so far.

Bottom line is that the Ministry of FLNRO is an anti-hunting organization at this point. Time to shut 'em down!

[Bugle M In]

anyone having problems signing in to the feedback site?

yup...I did....so I gave up...
I guess it accomplished what they wanted...meaning, they really don't want feedback.
Just like those Anti websites, where you can post response in their comments section, and if it
goes against their point of view, they delete your comment...!!!

[Cordillera]

Director is Dan Peterson. Dan.Peterson@gov.bc.ca. They always post changes late November because that is when they need to be in for decision by March. There was a proposal a few years ago to post changes earlier but that got shot down because people are still busy hunting in October and early November.