Non-resident allocation too high

[lange1212]

In the Skeena FLNRO staff is gearing up to further restrict resident moose hunters, claiming that they are at or slightly exceeding their allocated harvest in some areas of Skeena. The data the Ministry is using to determine this harvest is crude and questionable at best, being open to manipulation and bias.
Due to these proposed restrictions FLNRO also plans to add a host of hindering barriers again exclusively on resident hunters in Skeena North.Their argument is that by reducing opportunity in the south they feel there will be increased pressure in the north.
At the heart of the issue is that non-residents have been allocated 25% of the moose allocation in the Skeena, and way too high for this meat and potato species that are of high utilization and demand by residents.
Ministry staff have been advised that this is not a conservation concern, nor a harvest issue on the resident side, but 100% an allocation issue whereby the non-resident share has been set way too high, and in need of correction first and foremost.
This allocation issue (adjustment) was brought up through stakeholder consultation, but Ministry staff refused to allow that discussion to occur. The only conversation they want to have is the addition of restrictions on resident moose hunters in the Skeena.
Long and short as residents we should absolutely not accept any increased restriction hindering our harvest opportunities, tradition,culture, and access to hunt for food, all while non-residents and the GO’s that cater to them remain unaffected. Before any increased restrictions are considered on residents, the non-resident allocation must go to 10%. If after that there’s still a resident harvest concern, then and only then should further restriction(s)be considered on residents through proper consultation.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Horgan and Weaver said they supported BC's resident hunters in the last allocation battle.
Where are they now??

[lange1212]

Great question!

Every resident hunting family should be writing and or emailing Horgan, Weaver, and Donaldson, asking for an answer to it.

[f350ps]

Slow down there Lange, you better see what FD has to say, after all he was front and center in the allocation dispute and got some concessions after all! According to him," it's time to move forward"! :) K

[MichelD]

Horgan and Weaver said they supported BC's resident hunters in the last allocation battle.
Where are they now??

The new government was sworn in 9 days ago.

Write the government, write the Environment Minister. Mount a campaign. Get active.

[Piperdown]

Horgan and Weaver said they supported BC's resident hunters in the last allocation battle.
Where are they now??

Bending each other over a barrel

[Wild one]

This is strictly my opinion and observation as a resident of southern region 6.

Personally I do not see the issue being resident or non resident regulated harvest. At least in my corner of the region myself and many others have noticed a huge change in moose numbers.

Regulated harvest is restricted to bulls only yet where have all the cows gone?

This is well beyond an allocation issue in my opinion. Why waste effort on complaining about who has the larger % of bull harvest when that is having little impact on the big picture?

I know local resident hunters have actually complained about the GOS wanting it shutdown. The common compliant I here is all the out of towners coming to kill moose. The evil lower mainlanders who just take lol. But yet I hear over and over success rates and sightings are way down by everyone not just locals. Yet many locals scream they want it LEH only to keep the out of towners from killing all the moose. I think many forget there is no priority for locals in BCs LEH system lol

All this pissing match between locals, out of towners, and GO's pointing fingers who is taking more bulls is a waste of time.

You want opertunity don't look at the regulated harvest its low impact. Look at what is impacting overall population. Its a lack of overall moose numbers not just Bulls.

Maybe rather than putting in efforts fighting those involved in the regulated harvest of bulls focuse on the issues effecting overall moose numbers. Predation, unregulated harvest, and habitat issues is what is truly a problem.

changing the % of the allocation or going straight LEH vs GOS solves nothing. These battles are an epic waste of time.

Again I ask where are the cow moose ? It's not regulated harvest impacting them

This is my opinion and observations from my corner of 6

I listen to the locals all complain and heard all the finger pointing. Getting to the point I want to just yell at people WAKE THE HELL UP.

There is my rant from this pissed off region 6 hunter

[Buck]

Letters sent and i disagree with the above post i will never accept a 25% non resident allocation as the new normal even if there is a moose behind every tree.

[Gateholio]

This is strictly my opinion and observation as a resident of southern region 6.

Personally I do not see the issue being resident or non resident regulated harvest. At least in my corner of the region myself and many others have noticed a huge change in moose numbers.

Regulated harvest is restricted to bulls only yet where have all the cows gone?

This is well beyond an allocation issue in my opinion. Why waste effort on complaining about who has the larger % of bull harvest when that is having little impact on the big picture?

I know local resident hunters have actually complained about the GOS wanting it shutdown. The common compliant I here is all the out of towners coming to kill moose. The evil lower mainlanders who just take lol. But yet I hear over and over success rates and sightings are way down by everyone not just locals. Yet many locals scream they want it LEH only to keep the out of towners from killing all the moose. I think many forget there is no priority for locals in BCs LEH system lol

All this pissing match between locals, out of towners, and GO's pointing fingers who is taking more bulls is a waste of time.

You want opertunity don't look at the regulated harvest its low impact. Look at what is impacting overall population. Its a lack of overall moose numbers not just Bulls.

Maybe rather than putting in efforts fighting those involved in the regulated harvest of bulls focuse on the issues effecting overall moose numbers. Predation, unregulated harvest, and habitat issues is what is truly a problem.

changing the % of the allocation or going straight LEH vs GOS solves nothing. These battles are an epic waste of time.

Again I ask where are the cow moose ? It's not regulated harvest impacting them

This is my opinion and observations from my corner of 6

I listen to the locals all complain and heard all the finger pointing. Getting to the point I want to just yell at people WAKE THE HELL UP.

There is my rant from this pissed off region 6 hunter

Surprising they don't understand that a GOS actually favours local hunters. A LEH favours nobody but simple math will tell you that the area that has the most hunters applying for the LEH will get the most draws. So 1000 lower mainlanders and 100 locals apply for 10 tags, 9 tags will go to the lower mainlanders and 1 to locals.

[Wild one]

Letters sent and i disagree with the above post i will never accept a 25% non resident allocation as the new normal even if there is a moose behind every tree.


Dont support 25% either

putting forth effort to fight over scraps when there is way bigger issues is my problem. Like I said I hear all the complaining about numbers being way down but people would rather complian about who hunts or how the bull harvest is managed.

I personally have chose not to even hunt these moose but that is a personal call I don't expect others to follow.

As long as the hunting community keeps complaining about % and ignoring bigger issues nothing improves wildlife looses. In the end what does % of harvest when populations are lower than they should be

but what do I know

And BC resident hunters wonder why things are a mess

[Wild one]

Surprising they don't understand that a GOS actually favours local hunters. A LEH favours nobody but simple math will tell you that the area that has the most hunters applying for the LEH will get the most draws. So 1000 lower mainlanders and 100 locals apply for 10 tags, 9 tags will go to the lower mainlanders and 1 to locals.

You are correct and have made this point many times

This adds to my frustrations with how resident hunters are choosing to deal with the issues in southern 6.

[VFX_man]

If you don't mind -- am asking for a clarification on the definition of a "resident/non-resident" hunter.

I'm a BC resident that lives and works in Vancouver, but own a place in Kamloops (for retirement). I hunt in zones 2/3/8. But most hunting is in 3 and 8 where my friends live or own property and I spend time.

cheers, VFX

[Wild one]

If you don't mind -- am asking for a clarification on the definition of a "resident" hunter.

I'm a BC resident that lives and works in Vancouver, but own a place in Kamloops (for retirement). I hunt in zones 2/3/8. But most hunting is in 3 and 8 where my friends live or own property and I spend time.

cheers, VFX

Resident hunter is any hunter who is a resident of BC

[Dannybuoy]

Dont support 25% either

putting forth effort to fight over scraps when there is way bigger issues is my problem. Like I said I hear all the complaining about numbers being way down but people would rather complian about who hunts or how the bull harvest is managed.

I personally have chose not to even hunt these moose but that is a personal call I don't expect others to follow.

As long as the hunting community keeps complaining about % and ignoring bigger issues nothing improves wildlife looses. In the end what does % of harvest when populations are lower than they should be

but what do I know

And BC resident hunters wonder why things are a mess
If things are the same in 6 as they are in 3,4, and 8 where I have hunted then I agree ...
#1 control/regulate the natives
#2 every thing else

But what do I know ....

[Whonnock Boy]

Awesome.......


Slow down there Lange, you better see what FD has to say, after all he was front and center in the allocation dispute and got some concessions after all! According to him," it's time to move forward"! :) K

Agreed. Non-residents needs their reigns pulled in, however, I do agree with wild one. There are fewer moose up there, at least this is just the water cooler talk from a few locals, my father in laws observations over the 40 years of him hunting up there, and my own observations over the last 10 years.




In the Skeena FLNRO staff is gearing up to further restrict resident moose hunters, claiming that they are at or slightly exceeding their allocated harvest in some areas of Skeena. The data the Ministry is using to determine this harvest is crude and questionable at best, being open to manipulation and bias.
Due to these proposed restrictions FLNRO also plans to add a host of hindering barriers again exclusively on resident hunters in Skeena North.Their argument is that by reducing opportunity in the south they feel there will be increased pressure in the north.
At the heart of the issue is that non-residents have been allocated 25% of the moose allocation in the Skeena, and way too high for this meat and potato species that are of high utilization and demand by residents.
Ministry staff have been advised that this is not a conservation concern, nor a harvest issue on the resident side, but 100% an allocation issue whereby the non-resident share has been set way too high, and in need of correction first and foremost.
This allocation issue (adjustment) was brought up through stakeholder consultation, but Ministry staff refused to allow that discussion to occur. The only conversation they want to have is the addition of restrictions on resident moose hunters in the Skeena.
Long and short as residents we should absolutely not accept any increased restriction hindering our harvest opportunities, tradition,culture, and access to hunt for food, all while non-residents and the GO’s that cater to them remain unaffected. Before any increased restrictions are considered on residents, the non-resident allocation must go to 10%. If after that there’s still a resident harvest concern, then and only then should further restriction(s)be considered on residents through proper consultation.

I believe you have some very valid points. Nice rant. ;)


This is strictly my opinion and observation as a resident of southern region 6.

Personally I do not see the issue being resident or non resident regulated harvest. At least in my corner of the region myself and many others have noticed a huge change in moose numbers.

Regulated harvest is restricted to bulls only yet where have all the cows gone?

This is well beyond an allocation issue in my opinion. Why waste effort on complaining about who has the larger % of bull harvest when that is having little impact on the big picture?

I know local resident hunters have actually complained about the GOS wanting it shutdown. The common compliant I here is all the out of towners coming to kill moose. The evil lower mainlanders who just take lol. But yet I hear over and over success rates and sightings are way down by everyone not just locals. Yet many locals scream they want it LEH only to keep the out of towners from killing all the moose. I think many forget there is no priority for locals in BCs LEH system lol

All this pissing match between locals, out of towners, and GO's pointing fingers who is taking more bulls is a waste of time.

You want opertunity don't look at the regulated harvest its low impact. Look at what is impacting overall population. Its a lack of overall moose numbers not just Bulls.

Maybe rather than putting in efforts fighting those involved in the regulated harvest of bulls focuse on the issues effecting overall moose numbers. Predation, unregulated harvest, and habitat issues is what is truly a problem.

changing the % of the allocation or going straight LEH vs GOS solves nothing. These battles are an epic waste of time.

Again I ask where are the cow moose ? It's not regulated harvest impacting them

This is my opinion and observations from my corner of 6

I listen to the locals all complain and heard all the finger pointing. Getting to the point I want to just yell at people WAKE THE HELL UP.

There is my rant from this pissed off region 6 hunter

[Red_Mist]

If things are the same in 6 as they are in 3,4, and 8 where I have hunted then I agree ...
#1 control/regulate the natives
#2 every thing else

But what do I know ....

If region 6 is anything like region 5, we will not have any progress with game populations until #1 is addressed.

[HarryToolips]

If things are the same in 6 as they are in 3,4, and 8 where I have hunted then I agree ...
#1 control/regulate the natives
#2 every thing else

But what do I know ....
Here's the guy who has the nads to say it....it's their unregulated harvest of females that is the biggest problem, and we should be writing Horgan to address this main issue...but yes we should also say that 25% non resident allocation is bull crap..

[btridge]

Here's the guy who has the nads to say it....it's their unregulated harvest of females that is the biggest problem, and we should be writing Horgan to address this main issue...but yes we should also say that 25% non resident allocation is bull crap..

We need to be letting our MLA as well as Horgan know that the allocation issue is far from over as far as resident hunters are concerned. The unregulated harvest as well as the allocation issue are just two separate spokes to the problem, as well as habitat, predators, and access to name a few. All of these issues need to be addressed and having a point of view on one issue does not preclude us from having a point of view on the other issues as some seem to imply around the allocation BS the liberals forced on us.

[Fisher-Dude]

In the Skeena FLNRO staff is gearing up to further restrict resident moose hunters, claiming that they are at or slightly exceeding their allocated harvest in some areas of Skeena. The data the Ministry is using to determine this harvest is crude and questionable at best, being open to manipulation and bias.
Due to these proposed restrictions FLNRO also plans to add a host of hindering barriers again exclusively on resident hunters in Skeena North.Their argument is that by reducing opportunity in the south they feel there will be increased pressure in the north.
At the heart of the issue is that non-residents have been allocated 25% of the moose allocation in the Skeena, and way too high for this meat and potato species that are of high utilization and demand by residents.
Ministry staff have been advised that this is not a conservation concern, nor a harvest issue on the resident side, but 100% an allocation issue whereby the non-resident share has been set way too high, and in need of correction first and foremost.
This allocation issue (adjustment) was brought up through stakeholder consultation, but Ministry staff refused to allow that discussion to occur. The only conversation they want to have is the addition of restrictions on resident moose hunters in the Skeena.
Long and short as residents we should absolutely not accept any increased restriction hindering our harvest opportunities, tradition,culture, and access to hunt for food, all while non-residents and the GO’s that cater to them remain unaffected. Before any increased restrictions are considered on residents, the non-resident allocation must go to 10%. If after that there’s still a resident harvest concern, then and only then should further restriction(s)be considered on residents through proper consultation.



Sounds like staff under the NDP's direction are going to cut resident allocation even worse than under Christy!

Stinking NDP. I just knew this was going to happen.

[Whonnock Boy]

It's funny what sounds people hear, because what I heard was, people were making deals on behalf of resident hunters that would make our heads spin. Now, is either comment said by both of us true? Who knows, cuz we're just flapping gums here.
Sounds like staff under the NDP's direction are going to cut resident allocation even worse than under Christy!

Stinking NDP. I just knew this was going to happen.

[HarryToolips]

We need to be letting our MLA as well as Horgan know that the allocation issue is far from over as far as resident hunters are concerned. The unregulated harvest as well as the allocation issue are just two separate spokes to the problem, as well as habitat, predators, and access to name a few. All of these issues need to be addressed and having a point of view on one issue does not preclude us from having a point of view on the other issues as some seem to imply around the allocation BS the liberals forced on us.
I agree.........

[HappyJack]

Dont support 25% either

putting forth effort to fight over scraps when there is way bigger issues is my problem. Like I said I hear all the complaining about numbers being way down but people would rather complian about who hunts or how the bull harvest is managed.

I personally have chose not to even hunt these moose but that is a personal call I don't expect others to follow.

As long as the hunting community keeps complaining about % and ignoring bigger issues nothing improves wildlife looses. In the end what does % of harvest when populations are lower than they should be

but what do I know

And BC resident hunters wonder why things are a mess

I do the same and leave the moose alone, with the exception of any MU where they are getting 25% of the allocation, why should we leave the bull moose alone so their clients can shoot them instead of us. BTW guided hunters should be restricted to 10 point or better, no shooting cows and spike forks either!! And charge them if they exceed their annual allocation.

[Wild one]

I do the same and leave the moose alone, with the exception of any MU where they are getting 25% of the allocation, why should we leave the bull moose alone so their clients can shoot them instead of us. BTW guided hunters should be restricted to 10 point or better, no shooting cows and spike forks either!! And charge them if they exceed their annual allocation.

Your call and legally can even if it's out of spite

So you got screwed by the allocation split like the rest of us but it's a stupid reason to not give a crap about the moose numbers

Rather than be butt hurt think

[HappyJack]

Your call and legally can even if it's out of spite

So you got screwed by the allocation split like the rest of us but it's a stupid reason to not give a crap about the moose numbers

Rather than be butt hurt think

Who's butt hurt?? I see no reason to 'conserve' so the guides have more moose to sell, that just doesn't make sense, unless you've been sucked into thinking they give a rats patooee about resident hunter opportunity.

[Wild one]

Who's butt hurt?? I see no reason to 'conserve' so the guides have more moose to sell, that just doesn't make sense, unless you've been sucked into thinking they give a rats patooee about resident hunter opportunity.


Nope don't think the GOABC is looking out for my priority but also smart enough to know many outfits don't fill there moose quota as well. Reality only a portion of BC offers quality hunts in real demand from non residents

Not worried about GO's shooting or selling a ton of moose hunts in the areas they effect residents. Pissed they got a higher % on hunts that are of little value to GO's well residents loose

My reason for conserving the moose is respect for the animals I hunt and preserving the hunt it self

when allocation is zero 25% means nothing

But revenge is worth it right

[HappyJack]

Nope don't think the GOABC is looking out for my priority but also smart enough to know many outfits don't fill there moose quota as well. Reality only a portion of BC offers quality hunts in real demand from non residents

Not worried about GO's shooting or selling a ton of moose hunts in the areas they effect residents. Pissed they got a higher % on hunts that are of little value to GO's well residents loose

My reason for conserving the moose is respect for the animals I hunt and preserving the hunt it self

when allocation is zero 25% means nothing

But revenge is worth it right

Each to their own I guess, I'll eat moose so long as the guides are getting allocations while residents are under LEH. I refuse to let a bull moose walk so some rich tourist can shoot it and fill the pockets of some guide.

[Fisher-Dude]

Each to their own I guess, I'll eat moose so long as the guides are getting allocations while residents are under LEH. I refuse to let a bull moose walk so some rich tourist can shoot it and fill the pockets of some guide.

The guide gets paid whether the client shoots the moose or not.

Your comment makes no sense.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

In the Skeena FLNRO staff is gearing up to further restrict resident moose hunters, claiming that they are at or slightly exceeding their allocated harvest in some areas of Skeena. The data the Ministry is using to determine this harvest is crude and questionable at best, being open to manipulation and bias.
Due to these proposed restrictions FLNRO also plans to add a host of hindering barriers again exclusively on resident hunters in Skeena North.Their argument is that by reducing opportunity in the south they feel there will be increased pressure in the north.
At the heart of the issue is that non-residents have been allocated 25% of the moose allocation in the Skeena, and way too high for this meat and potato species that are of high utilization and demand by residents.
Ministry staff have been advised that this is not a conservation concern, nor a harvest issue on the resident side, but 100% an allocation issue whereby the non-resident share has been set way too high, and in need of correction first and foremost.
This allocation issue (adjustment) was brought up through stakeholder consultation, but Ministry staff refused to allow that discussion to occur. The only conversation they want to have is the addition of restrictions on resident moose hunters in the Skeena.
Long and short as residents we should absolutely not accept any increased restriction hindering our harvest opportunities, tradition,culture, and access to hunt for food, all while non-residents and the GO’s that cater to them remain unaffected. Before any increased restrictions are considered on residents, the non-resident allocation must go to 10%. If after that there’s still a resident harvest concern, then and only then should further restriction(s)be considered on residents through proper consultation.

Perhaps you should put up all the facts before starting this all over again.
Many Region 6 outfitters lost a pile more quota this year well before the resident opportunity was looked at. You pick and choose what you want to say just to stir the pot.

[Wild one]

Perhaps you should put up all the facts before stating this all over again.
Many Region 6 outfitters lost a pile more quota this year well before the resident opportunity was looked at. You pick and choose what you want to say just to stir the pot.


This is is true ^^^

been cuts to both sides

[Fisher-Dude]

Impact of 2016 Allocation:

Residents lost 14 moose in the 5 year allocation to non-residents, 362 moose to first nations allocation, and 1,104 moose to annual allowable harvest cutbacks in region 6.

Residents have to decide whether they should put effort into 14, 362, or 1,104 moose and determine which area will yield the best return to residents.

[Red_Mist]

Impact of 2016 Allocation:

Residents lost 14 moose in the 5 year allocation to non-residents, 362 moose to first nations allocation, and 1,104 moose to annual allowable harvest cutbacks in region 6.

Residents have to decide whether they should put effort into 14, 362, or 1,104 moose and determine which area will yield the best return to residents.

seems like a valid point

[Wild one]

Impact of 2016 Allocation:

Residents lost 14 moose in the 5 year allocation to non-residents, 362 moose to first nations allocation, and 1,104 moose to annual allowable harvest cutbacks in region 6.

Residents have to decide whether they should put effort into 14, 362, or 1,104 moose and determine which area will yield the best return to residents.

Shh your making too much sense

Even I got to suck it up and give you credit sometimes FD

Oh but the the evil GO's ...lol

[lange1212]

Perhaps you should put up all the facts before starting this all over again.
Many Region 6 outfitters lost a pile more quota this year well before the resident opportunity was looked at. You pick and choose what you want to say just to stir the pot.

The facts.

Your correct the overall moose allocation was lowered in the Skeena so both side took a hit.

However before the new allocation numbers came out Minister Thomson increased the non-resident allocation in the Skeena knowing full well that there was a decline in the overall population. "fact"

So in the midst of decline in a population the gov't increased the non-resident allocation first to 25% "fact", on the flip side lowering the resident allocation on this high resident demand meat and potato species "fact".

Now the Ministry is telling residents that they are proposing increased restriction to curtail resident moose harvest in Skeena south "fact", are concerned that this will increase pressure in Skeena north so intend to also increase restrictions there as well, all exclusively on residents "fact". No increased harvest restrictions and or barriers being proposed for non residents, just residents "fact". So non-resident antler hunting takes priority over resident meat in the freezer opportunity "optics"

Ask yourselves why a government "Christy and gang" would increase the non-resident moose allocation in the midst of a population decline? Then claim they need to further restrict residents because their at or slightly exceeding their allocation "Fact".

Simply put non-resident allocation must be lowered to 10% before any restriction are considered on resident hunters, especially on ungulates!

[HappyJack]

The facts.

Your correct the overall moose allocation was lowered in the Skeena so both side took a hit.

However before the new allocation numbers came out Minister Thomson increased the non-resident allocation in the Skeena knowing full well that there was a decline in the overall population. "fact"

So in the midst of decline in a population the gov't increased the non-resident allocation first to 25% "fact", on the flip side lowering the resident allocation on this high resident demand meat and potato species "fact".

Now the Ministry is telling residents that they are proposing increased restriction to curtail resident moose harvest in Skeena south "fact", are concerned that this will increase pressure in Skeena north so intend to also increase restrictions there as well, all exclusively on residents "fact". No increased harvest restrictions and or barriers being proposed for non residents, just residents "fact". So non-resident antler hunting takes priority over resident meat in the freezer opportunity "optics"

Ask yourselves why a government "Christy and gang" would increase the non-resident moose allocation in the midst of a population decline? Then claim they need to further restrict residents because their at or slightly exceeding their allocation "Fact".

Simply put non-resident allocation must be lowered to 10% before any restriction are considered on resident hunters, especially on ungulates!

I always wondered why residents can be on LEH and the govt still gives allocations to the guides, and lots of them sometimes more than 25%??? Shouldn't the guides just guide hunters for animals that are open under GOS and let residents have priority for those leh tags?

[HappyJack]

The guide gets paid whether the client shoots the moose or not.

Your comment makes no sense.

Well the clients don't shoot a moose they don't come back, and they don't recommend the outfitter to others either. Whether the guides get paid or not makes no difference, fact is their success rate is far far higher as professional hunters than the average joe resident hunter.

[HarryToolips]

Impact of 2016 Allocation:

Residents lost 14 moose in the 5 year allocation to non-residents, 362 moose to first nations allocation, and 1,104 moose to annual allowable harvest cutbacks in region 6.

Residents have to decide whether they should put effort into 14, 362, or 1,104 moose and determine which area will yield the best return to residents.
Right, and what kind of effort are we talking about here?? Demand that the government start spending the increased funding that we've been granted on a wolf cull?? First Nations education to stop shooting cows and calves?? FSR deactivation??

[lange1212]

Impact of 2016 Allocation:

Residents lost 14 moose in the 5 year allocation to non-residents, 362 moose to first nations allocation, and 1,104 moose to annual allowable harvest cutbacks in region 6.

Residents have to decide whether they should put effort into 14, 362, or 1,104 moose and determine which area will yield the best return to residents.

FD I appreciate your comments but you and I share a differing view here.

For example you indicate a 1,104 moose allocation to be shared between residents and non-residents. Doing the math on that total allocation using 25% equates to non-resident getting 276 moose, however if we use 10% it equates to 110.

Therefore:
276 - 110 = 166 moose (lost resident opportunity) that's the harsh reality, not 14.

Best return on effort in my opinion is to shift the 166 moose from non-residents to residents (problem solved). This of course in combination with working towards building the overall population so both sectors % go further.

So in retrospect why I argue that non-residents must be lowered to 10% of the allocation first and foremost before residents are restricted.

[Fisher-Dude]

FD I appreciate your comments but you and I share a differing view here.

For example you indicate a 1,104 moose allocation to be shared between residents and non-residents. Doing the math on that total allocation using 25% equates to non-resident getting 276 moose, however if we use 10% it equates to 110.

Therefore:
276 - 110 = 166 moose (lost resident opportunity) that's the harsh reality, not 14.

Best return on effort in my opinion is to shift the 166 moose from non-residents to residents (problem solved). This of course in combination with working towards building the overall population so both sectors % go further.

So in retrospect why I argue that non-residents must be lowered to 10% of the allocation first and foremost before residents are restricted.

No, you don't have your facts straight.

Residents lost 1,104 moose on AAH decreases. That's not "shared" with anyone, it's a straight reduction of harvest due to lower moose populations.

Non-residents lost 375 moose to the same AAH cut. Again, no other user group gets those moose.

NRs also lost 123 moose to first nations. Only gain for NRs was the 14 moose from residents due to the allocation recalculation.

I don't think you understand the difference between allocation and annual allowable harvest.

[lange1212]

No, you don't have your facts straight.

Residents lost 1,104 moose on AAH decreases. That's not "shared" with anyone, it's a straight reduction of harvest due to lower moose populations.

Non-residents lost 375 moose to the same AAH cut. Again, no other user group gets those moose.

NRs also lost 123 moose to first nations. Only gain for NRs was the 14 moose from residents due to the allocation recalculation.

I don't think you understand the difference between allocation and annual allowable harvest.

I'm just using the # you posted without explanation as an example.

I understand what allocation and AAH is. The AAH is calculated based on population estimates from which railway mortality (where applicable) and FN FSC harvest are subtracted. The remainder is what is divided (allocated) between residents and non residents.

The point is from my perspective resident lost opportunity to non-residents and is greater that 14, when one considers 25% vs. 10%.

You appear to have a Ministry moose data spread sheet, please post.

[Fisher-Dude]

Straight from the BCWF's website.

http://bcwf.net/images/stories/ResidentPriorityProgram/Allocation%20impact%20assessment%20tables_dec22-1.pdf

[lange1212]

Straight from the BCWF's website.

http://bcwf.net/images/stories/ResidentPriorityProgram/Allocation%20impact%20assessment%20tables_dec22-1.pdf

Thanks FD, did not know this was on the BCWF website.

Using the data provided by FD, and applying it to Skeena moose allocation for 2017-21. Non-residents received 1,054, and residents 3162, for atotal allocation of 4216 over the 5 year period.

1,054 is based off of 25 % of the total allocation of 4216 that has been provided to non-residents, would be 421.6 if 10% was to be applied.

Therefore:
1,054 – 422 = 632 lost resident moose opportunity over the 2017-21 period as a result of non-residents being at 25% instead of 10% oft he Skeena moose allocation, based on the information provided.

[Fisher-Dude]

Thanks FD, did not know this was on the BCWF website.

Using the data provided by FD, and applying it to Skeena moose allocation for 2017-21. Non-residents received 1,054, and residents 3162, for atotal allocation of 4216 over the 5 year period.

1,054 is based off of 25 % of the total allocation of 4216 that has been provided to non-residents, would be 421.6 if 10% was to be applied.

Therefore:
1,054 – 422 = 632 lost resident moose opportunity over the 2017-21 period as a result of non-residents being at 25% instead of 10% oft he Skeena moose allocation, based on the information provided.

Lost implies that we had it in the first place.

We didn't have 90% of the Skeena moose allocation. From the numbers in the 12-16 period, we also had 75% of moose allocation (4614/6180 = 75%).

So the allocation didn't change at all. The 14 moose is nothing more than a rounding issue on the calculation.

The biggest loss we had was to a massive AAH reduction that applied to both residents and non-residents. The second biggest loss was to a shift to FN harvest from both residents and non-residents, in their proportional shares.

I think we'd all like to have a 90/10 split, but that doesn't change moose populations nor does it solve anything for resident hunters as the AAH keeps getting cut and cut and cut.

Until we do something about predators and habitat, we'll just be squabbling over 75% or 90% of a declining moose population. And we'll be squabbling over hunting regulations, which keep restricting us more and more while populations decline further, solving nothing.

Time to put energy and effort and political pressure on funding to restore our moose, rather than waste it on fighting in the trenches for a handful of moose that will disappear next time AAH is lowered.

[lange1212]

Time to put energy and effort and political pressure on funding to restore our moose, rather than waste it on fighting in the trenches for a handful of moose that will disappear next time AAH is lowered.

The primary intent of the "agreed to" 2007 allocation policy was to do just as you point out. Have a fair policy agreed to by stakeholders, and supported by government. A policy that set clear direction for decision makers in regards to wildlife allocation being non-negotiable, open and transparent, and "consistently" use by Ministry staff. Following such a policy gov't was to slam the door in the face of any of those stakeholder groups who tried to solicit change "behind closed doors"............... From here we were to move on and focus our effort, and work in collaboration for the best interest of our revered wildlife. Who's truly responsible for this falling flat on it's face?

Had all the stakeholder groups that agreed to the 2007 Wildlife Allocation Policy acted in good faith, and stood by its intent, and direction, including the previous gov't. We would not be having this discussion now and would be focused on building more wildlife.

Instead like bandits in the night a group pulled all the benefits out of the 2007 allocation policy, and when it came time for resident benefits to come into play, acted in bad faith rejecting it, and lobbying gov't behind closed doors to change it. But you know that you were front and center after all.

I'm 100% with you on increased funding and a concentrated effort to improve wildlife populations and habitat. That said resident priority over non-residents needs to be respected, and allocation returned that was wrongfully taken from them. Non-residents holding up to 40% of BC wildlife allocation is unacceptable, and will not been forgotten or marginalized.

Residents are passionate about this issue and will continue to fight to better entrench their common property interest in wildlife over and above that of non-residents. Simply put for high demand and utilization species like moose resident should be at 90% of the allocation as agreed to by the 2007 policy, not the current 75% as you point out.

[dbergen69]

This is strictly my opinion and observation as a resident of southern region 6.

Personally I do not see the issue being resident or non resident regulated harvest. At least in my corner of the region myself and many others have noticed a huge change in moose numbers.

Regulated harvest is restricted to bulls only yet where have all the cows gone?

This is well beyond an allocation issue in my opinion. Why waste effort on complaining about who has the larger % of bull harvest when that is having little impact on the big picture?

I know local resident hunters have actually complained about the GOS wanting it shutdown. The common compliant I here is all the out of towners coming to kill moose. The evil lower mainlanders who just take lol. But yet I hear over and over success rates and sightings are way down by everyone not just locals. Yet many locals scream they want it LEH only to keep the out of towners from killing all the moose. I think many forget there is no priority for locals in BCs LEH system lol

All this pissing match between locals, out of towners, and GO's pointing fingers who is taking more bulls is a waste of time.

You want opertunity don't look at the regulated harvest its low impact. Look at what is impacting overall population. Its a lack of overall moose numbers not just Bulls.

Maybe rather than putting in efforts fighting those involved in the regulated harvest of bulls focuse on the issues effecting overall moose numbers. Predation, unregulated harvest, and habitat issues is what is truly a problem.

changing the % of the allocation or going straight LEH vs GOS solves nothing. These battles are an epic waste of time.

Again I ask where are the cow moose ? It's not regulated harvest impacting them

This is my opinion and observations from my corner of 6

I listen to the locals all complain and heard all the finger pointing. Getting to the point I want to just yell at people WAKE THE HELL UP.

There is my rant from this pissed off region 6 hunter
Very well said. I also disagree with with the allocation but the fundamental issue is population. If we continue to agree about the allocation and don't fix the population we will soon be arguing over who gets the biggest share of nothing.

[bearvalley]

The primary intent of the "agreed to" 2007 allocation policy was to just as you point out. Have a fair policy agreed to by stakeholders, and supported by government. A policy that set clear direction for decision makers in regards to wildlife allocation being non-negotiable, open and transparent, and "consistently" use by Ministry staff. Following such a policy gov't was to slam the door in the face of any of those stakeholder groups who tried to solicit change "behind closed doors"............... From here we were to move on and focus our effort, and work in collaboration for the best interest of our revered wildlife. Who's truly responsible for this falling flat on it's face?

Had all the stakeholder groups that agreed to the 2007 Wildlife Allocation Policy acted in good faith, and stood by its intent, and direction, including the previous gov't. We would not be having this discussion now and would be focused on building more wildlife.

Instead like bandits in the night a group pulled all the benefits out of the 2007 allocation policy, and when it came time for resident benefits to come into play, acted in bad faith rejecting it, and lobbying gov't behind closed doors to change it. But you know that you were front and center after all.

I'm 100% with you on increased funding and a concentrated effort to improve wildlife populations and habitat. That said resident priority over non-residents needs to be respected, and allocation returned that was wrongfully taken from them. Non-residents holding up to 40% of BC wildlife allocation is unacceptable, and will not been forgotten or marginalized.

Residents are passionate about this issue and will continue to fight to better entrench their common property interest in wildlife over and above that of non-residents. Simply put for high demand and utilization species like moose resident should be at 90% of the allocation as agreed to by the 2007 policy, not the current 75% as you point out.
Langegger, there are a lot of residents in the northern part of Region 6 that do not agree with your line of thought.
Outfitting is looked at favorably as an industry that puts back into the local economy.
Your comments on moose being a " meat and potato " species isn't gaining you many fans. .
Some in the north might even suggest you shop for your groceries at Save On....

[Whonnock Boy]

Awesome. Being shunned by the locals for speaking out for what one believes in. This type of mentality is all too common in our circles, and I can completely relate.

Lange, you have my support. It's a good thing that these decisions are provincial, and not decided upon by a few residents in the northern part of region 6.
Langegger, there are a lot of residents in the northern part of Region 6 that do not agree with your line of thought.
Outfitting is looked at favorably as an industry that puts back into the local economy.
Your comments on moose being a " meat and potato " species isn't gaining you many fans. .
Some in the north might even suggest you shop for your groceries at Save On....

[guest]

Sound off on our Newly elected politicians that are responsible for managing the resource......... Build habitat, use sound science, enforcement, reporting of accountability in harvest numbers by all groups .......... Manage properly for a sound future ........ Make ALL users responsible.

CT

[bearvalley]

Awesome. Being shunned by the locals for speaking out for what one believes in. This type of mentality is all too common in our circles, and I can completely relate.

Lange, you have my support. It's a good thing that these decisions are provincial, and not decided upon by a few residents in the northern part of region 6.
I was sure he would have your support and that of a few others....the support of the entitlement crowd.
To some it's not about the wildlife...it's merely about the right to take.
And they will continue to take until it's gone.
Funny, the ones carrying on the allocation bitch are the same clowns that questioned the BCWF signing an MOU with other user groups to move forward in the sustainable management of wildlife.
Whats your agenda?

[lange1212]

Langegger, there are a lot of residents in the northern part of Region 6 that do not agree with your line of thought.
Outfitting is looked at favorably as an industry that puts back into the local economy.
Your comments on moose being a " meat and potato " species isn't gaining you many fans. .
Some in the north might even suggest you shop for your groceries at Save On....

Your right there are many mom and pop operations that are mindful of residents, work with them in a respectful manner, and in good faith. However there are also those that are the opposite.

There's a place for a GO'ing industry in BC, my opinion and some will disagree. However that industry must not be allowed to operate at the expense of resident opportunity (allocation) to subsidize it. Which is exactly what's occurring.

The issue at hand is the % of allocated species that's been provided to non-residents. It's way too high and as a result caused much harm to resident opportunity and stifled local community economic benefits, of which resident hunters contribute far more than non-residents. Yes, a NR may pay more for a single hunt, however if you look at the gear, supplies, ATV's, trucks, wall tents, fuel, lodging, cameras, firearms,............each resident hunter possesses, and there's 100,000 of them, it far outweighs the financial contribution to local businesses and economy. So your economic argument when compared to what residents contribute is weak, and supported by independent economic reports.

Moose being a meat and potato species comment not gaining me any fans? For residents and FN's that exactly what it is. Of course a trophy hunter, non-resident, and or GO may place greater value in antler size. Absolutely not the case with resident moose hunters. If I'm wrong here I hope people reading this post will confirm or reject my claim. I think my comment is credible, true, and the opinion of most resident moose hunters out there, and why its such a high demand and utilization species. Folks let's hear your opinion.

[Whonnock Boy]

Yikes.... Showing all sorts of animosity this morning. Insults and degrading comments is all you can come up with when people don't see things the way you do?

I dont believe non-resident allocation should be so high, and I question if sleeping with "trophy" hunters is the best way to gain support from the non hunting population of our province. Beliefs and questions, not entitlement and bitching.

C'mon man. You really think this is solely about the right to take? Let's keep it out of the ditch shall we....




I was sure he would have your support and that of a few others....the support of the entitlement crowd.
To some it's not about the wildlife...it's merely about the right to take.
And they will continue to take until it's gone.
Funny, the ones carrying on the allocation bitch are the same clowns that questioned the BCWF signing an MOU with other user groups to move forward in the sustainable management of wildlife.
Whats your agenda?

[bearvalley]

Yikes.... Showing all sorts of animosity this morning. Insults and degrading comments is all you can come up with when people don't see things the way you do?

I dont believe non-resident allocation should be so high, and I question if sleeping with "trophy" hunters is the best way to gain support from the non hunting population of our province. Beliefs and questions, not entitlement and bitching.

C'mon man. You really think this is solely about the right to take? Let's keep it out of the ditch shall we....

I'm keeping it out of the ditch Troy and I'm throwing out a different side of the equation than you and Langegger.
But then what do l know from being around the people in the north.....probably only a fraction of what you have for knowledge.
And yes the word is "entitlement".....a few will continue to want more of their so called "opportunity" until all is gone.

[Whonnock Boy]

It's ironic that you call residents wanting more allocation as entitled. What do you call guides wanting more? Greedy?
I'm keeping it out of the ditch Troy and I'm throwing out a different side of the equation than you and Langegger.
But then what do l know from being around the people in the north.....probably only a fraction of what you have for knowledge.
And yes the word is "entitlement".....a few will continue to want more of their so called "opportunity" until all is gone.

[bearvalley]

Yes, a NR may pay more for a single hunt, however if you look at the gear, supplies, ATV's, trucks, wall tents, fuel, lodging, cameras, firearms,............each resident hunter possesses, and there's 100,000 of them, it far outweighs the financial contribution to local businesses and economy. So your economic argument when compared to what residents contribute is weak, and supported by independent economic reports.


If your working off the same independent economic reports that I've seen the non resident 5% of BC's hunters generates around a third of the cash put into the economy due to hunting activities.
Knowing what the cash flow is to run an outfitting business I will guarantee that if a resident hunter incurred the costs that an outfitter does per hunter all "meat and potato" groceries would come from Save On.

[bearvalley]

It's ironic that you call residents wanting more allocation as entitled. What do you call guides wanting more? Greedy?
Study the historical numbers Troy.
Then think about the traditional past of the northern part of Region 6.
I believe outfitters have operated up there for over 100 years in one form or another.
Many of those same GO businesses are owned and operated by multi generation FN families.
Ask around up north at who is being looked at as being greedy.

[40incher]

Resident hunters deserve 90% of the licensed moose hunt ... that's a no brainer. I think the apologists for status quo should mind their own selfish business.

Confusing the issue with conservation is as old as the hills. There is no new information that suggests our South-Skeena GOS for residents of B.C. is an issue. The bull:cow ratio is still 35:100. There is a lot of fear mongering going on ... as usual when one gets to close to the truth like Lange has.

Time for the guides to realize they made a huge error in judgment when they turned on B.C. residents when they got the Liberal culls to lock in their 40% and 25% maximums as their minimums.

What goes around comes around!

[Buck]

Resident hunters deserve 90% of the licensed moose hunt ... that's a no brainer. I think the apologists for status quo should mind their own selfish business.

Confusing the issue with conservation is as old as the hills. There is no new information that suggests our South-Skeena GOS for residents of B.C. is an issue. The bull:cow ratio is still 35:100. There is a lot of fear mongering going on ... as usual when one gets to close to the truth like Lange has.

Time for the guides to realize they made a huge error in judgment when they turned on B.C. residents when they got the Liberal culls to lock in their 40% and 25% maximums as their minimums.

What goes around comes around!


Excellant post time time for residents to put pressure on government to reduce non resident guota.

[HappyJack]

Your right there are many mom and pop operations that are mindful of residents, work with them in a respectful manner, and in good faith. However there are also those that are the opposite.

There's a place for a GO'ing industry in BC, my opinion and some will disagree. However that industry must not be allowed to operate at the expense of resident opportunity (allocation) to subsidize it. Which is exactly what's occurring.

The issue at hand is the % of allocated species that's been provided to non-residents. It's way too high and as a result caused much harm to resident opportunity and stifled local community economic benefits, of which resident hunters contribute far more than non-residents. Yes, a NR may pay more for a single hunt, however if you look at the gear, supplies, ATV's, trucks, wall tents, fuel, lodging, cameras, firearms,............each resident hunter possesses, and there's 100,000 of them, it far outweighs the financial contribution to local businesses and economy. So your economic argument when compared to what residents contribute is weak, and supported by independent economic reports.

Moose being a meat and potato species comment not gaining me any fans? For residents and FN's that exactly what it is. Of course a trophy hunter, non-resident, and or GO may place greater value in antler size. Absolutely not the case with resident moose hunters. If I'm wrong here I hope people reading this post will confirm or reject my claim. I think my comment is credible, true, and the opinion of most resident moose hunters out there, and why its such a high demand and utilization species. Folks let's hear your opinion.

I have to agree with you. The allocation of 25 to 40% is just too high to be graciously given to the outfitters. Considering that this gross inequity can be corrected fairly quick I suggest the govt do so and then we can get on with the business of rebuilding habitat and game numbers.

[boxhitch]

Maybe its time to put up or shut up
There have been lots of suggestions about BCrhs and their sentiments but only parroted by a few voices.
Maybe its time to leave the Fed behind and build an activist group, start a website and a FB page, rally the troops
The lineup at the door or lack of it will really show where the issues lies. Stirring the pot by chirping here on HBC won't get anywhere.
He!! even start a petition on change.org, anything to get the ball rolling............or let it go flat

[btridge]

I was sure he would have your support and that of a few others....the support of the entitlement crowd.
To some it's not about the wildlife...it's merely about the right to take.
And they will continue to take until it's gone.
Funny, the ones carrying on the allocation bitch are the same clowns that questioned the BCWF signing an MOU with other user groups to move forward in the sustainable management of wildlife.
Whats your agenda?
BV, I have listened to what you have to say on many theads on the allocation subject. It is clearer that you have taken up the mantra of the outfitters in that the allocation battle has been decided and it's time to move on and address the "REAL" problem, the declining wildlife numbers.
The problem with your way of looking at this fight, the allocation battle was settled and agreed to in 2007, and then the ENTITLED OUTFITTERS reopened it in the back rooms with a less than honest liberal government. The outfitters argued they needed and were entitled to a larger percentage of the declining wildlife population, and through back room deals , got it.
For you to refer to Resident hunters as the " entitlement crowd", is like saying Trudeas politics are right of Harpers.

[Whonnock Boy]

Things change. To start, public sentiment, wildlife populations and habitat. What I am defending here is the common mans ability to partake in an activity that everyone, regardless or ethnicity or financial stature, should have equal rights to enjoy. The fact that we have any of the highly sought after species being sold to foreigners for profit, moose, Kamloops sheep and island elk for example, instead of residents having priority with go's utilizing excess, is simply unacceptable to me.

By all means, call it greed, call it chirping or bitching. That's not going to change the overall perception of trophy hunting. That's your bed to fix, and hopping on the backs of resident hunters, in the name of wildlife populations, is just another lobbying ploy by your leaders to get what you want. Sure, working together towards a common goal is great and all, but let's not spoon while doing it, at least that's my thoughts on it. But don't worry, the weight my words carry are very light, if in fact they ever did carry much. Calling out illegal and unethical behaviour within our circles tends to get a person on the shit list.


Study the historical numbers Troy.
Then think about the traditional past of the northern part of Region 6.
I believe outfitters have operated up there for over 100 years in one form or another.
Many of those same GO businesses are owned and operated by multi generation FN families.
Ask around up north at who is being looked at as being greedy.

[bearvalley]

BV, I have listened to what you have to say on many theads on the allocation subject. It is clearer that you have taken up the mantra of the outfitters in that the allocation battle has been decided and it's time to move on and address the "REAL" problem, the declining wildlife numbers.
The problem with your way of looking at this fight, the allocation battle was settled and agreed to in 2007, and then the ENTITLED OUTFITTERS reopened it in the back rooms with a less than honest liberal government. The outfitters argued they needed and were entitled to a larger percentage of the declining wildlife population, and through back room deals , got it.
For you to refer to Resident hunters as the " entitlement crowd", is like saying Trudeas politics are right of Harpers.

Let's be clear on one thing btridge ....in no way am I referring to all resident hunters as the "entitlement crowd".
When I refer to the "entitlement crowd" the label is reserved for a select group of individuals that really don't give a shit about wildlife values.
Their only concern is to get all they can with no competition under the pretence they are out harvesting a cheap source of food for their empty gut.
Maybe these same guys should take a hard look at what they are doing to allocated wildlife populations.
Remember btridge when an outfitter gets quota on an allocated species his limit is set.
How about in the case of LEH authorizations.....do you see room for a wreck when LEH "tickets" are handed out at a ratio of 100 plus for every animal targeted for the resident share of the AAH.
With the lack of enforcement we have in this province no one knows if the resident harvest is under achieved, met or exceeded.
Im a resident hunter and a guide as I've said before.
I also want the right to hunt in my backyard as much as any other fellow hunter in BC.
The differance between me and guys like you and Langegger is that I get the big picture.
The "entitlement crowd" only wants to blame the decline in hunting oppurtunities on GO's, FN's hunting, loss of habitat and predation.
NEVER DO THEY ADMIT THEY MIGHT BE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

[HappyJack]

That's why the guides want all big game under the LEH....because they aren't part of the problem? I suspect we haven't heard the end of that idea yet.

[Whonnock Boy]

I'm glad you explained yourself. Now I know that I mistakenly lumped myself into your "entitlement crowd".

The "entitlement crowd" only wants to blame the decline in hunting oppurtunities on GO's, FN's hunting, loss of habitat and predation.

[j270wsm]

Maybe its time to put up or shut up
There have been lots of suggestions about BCrhs and their sentiments but only parroted by a few voices.
Maybe its time to leave the Fed behind and build an activist group, start a website and a FB page, rally the troops
The lineup at the door or lack of it will really show where the issues lies. Stirring the pot by chirping here on HBC won't get anywhere.
He!! even start a petition on change.org, anything to get the ball rolling............or let it go flat

im sure I'll get roasted by some for this comment.........If our new goverment( I didn't vote ndp ) actually goes after " trophy hunting ", I really hope they go after non residents taking their trophy out of the country with out retaining the meat. And no I don't agree with the meat being donated to food banks/shelters.........

[bearvalley]

That's why the guides want all big game under the LEH....because they aren't part of the problem? I suspect we haven't heard the end of that idea yet.
Actually Happy Jack the perfect scenario is all GOS with abundant wildlife populations to support that.

[bearvalley]

im sure I'll get roasted by some for this comment.........If our new goverment( I didn't vote ndp ) actually goes after " trophy hunting ", I really hope they go after non residents taking their trophy out of the country with out retaining the meat. And no I don't agree with the meat being donated to food banks/shelters.........
It can be done but is it really different than sharing amongst friends or hunting partners.
In my case the meat that does not go home with the client due to logistic difficulties is donated to the local FN band.
They appreciate the donation.
One thing that needs to be remembered is that another animal will be harvested to replace the one that will no longer be donated.

[btridge]

Let's be clear on one thing btridge ....in no way am I referring to all resident hunters as the "entitlement crowd".
When I refer to the "entitlement crowd" the label is reserved for a select group of individuals that really don't give a shit about wildlife values.
Their only concern is to get all they can with no competition under the pretence they are out harvesting a cheap source of food for their empty gut.
Maybe these same guys should take a hard look at what they are doing to allocated wildlife populations.
Remember btridge when an outfitter gets quota on an allocated species his limit is set.
How about in the case of LEH authorizations.....do you see room for a wreck when LEH "tickets" are handed out at a ratio of 100 plus for every animal targeted for the resident share of the AAH.
With the lack of enforcement we have in this province no one knows if the resident harvest is under achieved, met or exceeded.
Im a resident hunter and a guide as I've said before.
I also want the right to hunt in my backyard as much as any other fellow hunter in BC.
The differance between me and guys like you and Langegger is that I get the big picture.
The "entitlement crowd" only wants to blame the decline in hunting oppurtunities on GO's, FN's hunting, loss of habitat and predation.
NEVER DO THEY ADMIT THEY MIGHT BE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
Let's be clear on one thing Bearvalley.... in no way am I referring to all guide outfitters when I refer to the " entitled guide outfitters", when I use that label it refers to those greedy outfitters that did the back room deal with the less than truthful liberal government with NO concern about resident hunters or the wildlife....their concern was their bottom line.
I do agree that when the quota is set for the outfitters it is a set limit, however, this also means you can sell that hunt until the animal is killed where as with the LEH, it is for one hunter to have an opportunity to hunt , NOT the same thing at all. I also beleive that there is a simple solution to control harvest numbers more accurately if the government has the balls to do it....have mandatory reporting of every game animal harvested by EVERY user group in BC and use real numbers not estimates to establish the AAH.
The differance between guys like me and guys like you is that WE DO see the big picture, not just one guided by the bottom line as the " entitled guide outfitters" seem to be driven by.
I will continue to advocate for wildlife as well as fight the absurd allocation put in place by the liberals.
NEVER DO I HEAR THE "ENTITLED GUIDE OUTFITTERS" ADMIT THEY MIGHT BE A PART OF THE PROBLEM.

[j270wsm]

It can be done but is it really different than sharing amongst friends or hunting partners.
In my case the meat that does not go home with the client due to logistic difficulties is donated to the local FN band.
They appreciate the donation.
One thing that needs to be remembered is that another animal will be harvested to replace the one that will no longer be donated.

Residents are required to remove all edible portions. I use as much of my harvested meat as possible. I share some meat with my parents and sisters and the odd friend that asks if I have any wild meat.

Personally....I see no reason that non residents aren't required to take the meat home. If they cant take the meat home then they shouldn't be allowed to harvest the animal.

[Whonnock Boy]

It's a lot easier for them to justify their existence when holding hands with First Nations and resident hunters. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like we are being used.
Residents are required to remove all edible portions. I use as much of my harvested meat as possible. I share some meat with my parents and sisters and the odd friend that asks if I have any wild meat.

Personally....I see no reason that non residents aren't required to take the meat home. If they cant take the meat home then they shouldn't be allowed to harvest the animal.

[40incher]

It's a lot easier for them to justify their existence when holding hands with First Nations and resident hunters. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like we are being used.


Now that hits the nail on the proverbial head.

Market hunting was banned a long time ago, "trophy" hunting is not far behind ... I think the good ol'boys should take their 10% happily, and quit using us lowly resident hunters to gain acceptance for their self-described "trophy" hunts for the elite. Very poor terminology at this point!

Hunting selectively is a personal choice that is defensible ... "trophy" hunting is not. It's time to stop giving the anti's a cheap and easy target.

[HappyJack]

Actually Happy Jack the perfect scenario is all GOS with abundant wildlife populations to support that.

Seriously? So that would be like the mule deer hunting in region 5...the guides pushed for antler restrictions so they could have more big deer to sell, still a GOS with restrictions on resident hunters. Are the guided hunters restricted to shooting 4 point or better? They should be perhaps.

[bearvalley]

Seriously? So that would be like the mule deer hunting in region 5...the guides pushed for antler restrictions so they could have more big deer to sell, still a GOS with restrictions on resident hunters. Are the guided hunters restricted to shooting 4 point or better? They should be perhaps.

You should read what's posted before you babble.
Like I said...the perfect scenario is all GOS with abundant wildlife populations to support that.
Regulations apply to all hunters equally.
Once upon a time......we had lots of big game, we had more true wilderness areas, we had less motorized access, we had some predator management, we had more FN people hunting to feed their families, we had more resident hunters and we had more guided hunters in this province.
Whats changed from the past to present.
Do you really think that the 5% of the recreational hunters in this province that is guided is to blame for the lack of opportunity that is out there for residents.
Remember Happy Jack, the 5% of the recreational hunters that is guided harvests roughly 2% of the big game taken in BC.
I don't think BC's wildlife problems are the cause of present day GO's.....who would you blame if they were gone.

[bearvalley]

Residents are required to remove all edible portions. I use as much of my harvested meat as possible. I share some meat with my parents and sisters and the odd friend that asks if I have any wild meat.

Personally....I see no reason that non residents aren't required to take the meat home. If they cant take the meat home then they shouldn't be allowed to harvest the animal.

j270wsm, all hunters are required to remove all edible portions of meat.
An outfitter faces a much harsher penalty if he is charged with meat wastage than if a resident hunter gets the same charge.
I will bet you that more meat from wildlife goes to waste in the hands of ill prepared or inexperienced resident hunters than by guides.
Sometimes the logistics of getting all the meat home for a client is impossible.
These same problems are faced by Canadian hunters that hunt in other countries.
The BC guy that goes on his lifetime dream hunt to Africa doesn't come home with all his meat loaded on an airplane.

[bearvalley]

Hunting selectively is a personal choice that is defensible ... "trophy" hunting is not. It's time to stop giving the anti's a cheap and easy target.

Pretty weak 40incher.
If you're going to take up that issue you better change your online alias to "sheep meat".
You would have more credibility.
LMAO

[Whonnock Boy]

Apples and oranges on numerous levels.

The BC guy that goes on his lifetime dream hunt to Africa doesn't come home with all his meat loaded on an airplane.

[bearvalley]

Apples and oranges on numerous levels.
Really.....fill me in.

[j270wsm]

j270wsm, all hunters are required to remove all edible portions of meat.
An outfitter faces a much harsher penalty if he is charged with meat wastage than if a resident hunter gets the same charge.
I will bet you that more meat from wildlife goes to waste in the hands of ill prepared or inexperienced resident hunters than by guides.
Sometimes the logistics of getting all the meat home for a client is impossible.
These same problems are faced by Canadian hunters that hunt in other countries.
The BC guy that goes on his lifetime dream hunt to Africa doesn't come home with all his meat loaded on an airplane.

You could be right about ill prepared/inexperienced hunters wasting meat, but I don't care if a non resident hunter can't get the meat home due to regulations at the boarders.........no meat retention = no hunting for non residents. As for hunters not bringing the meat home from Africa, that's not something I know a lot about but I'm pretty sure their government isnt giving the natives a cheque/housing/tax breaks, etc, every month or trying to eliminate " so called trophy hunting ". I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure a lot of the locals( not sure what to call them ) in Africa depend on the money/meat from trophy hunting. Comparing our system to theirs isn't even close to comparing apples to oranges.

[Wild one]

Example upon example in this thread on why hunters in BC get F all accomplished

[Fisher-Dude]

Example upon example in this thread on why hunters in BC get F all accomplished

Pretty much sums it up.

[Wild one]

That's why the guides want all big game under the LEH....because they aren't part of the problem? I suspect we haven't heard the end of that idea yet.

Some might but a smart GO would not want this because they also get restricted through the allocation

If you do some research into GO territories when they have a species that the population that is strong within there territory they have no quota restriction. If resident hunters are restricted by LEH GO's will be restricted by quota

If residents are under GOS and the population of a species is really healthy GO's benifit from it way more than LEH only

Some GO's might overlook this and want LEH but I would place bets a portion at least are smart enough to see where they benifit from residents being under GOS

[Wild one]

People need to start looking at the whole picture with open eyes and mind

A big tip for resident hunters if you want govt to listen to you get it together. Stop pointing fingers and learn to conduct your self in a manner that is organized. It is a lot easier to get something accomplished if you can push an agenda that is benifical beyond your personal needs

fighting over small stuff going poor me makes us look like greedy children. Govt wants to reap the benefits of all user groups. All groups are merely pawns and are easier to manipulate one at a time. When we are investing our efforts fighting within the user groups it's easier for govt to let big issues slip as we are preoccupied fighting for scraps.

Right now resident hunters are not a respected voice and it's easy for govt to give a little lip service and brush us a side.

Want to see change see our weakness and admit to it.

Odds are most don't want to admit this or even see it. Takes more than numbers to have a strong voice

[Wild one]

Really in the case of this thread the true issue is resident hunters want to be able to hunt moose

So we can pick a fight with GOs and maybe see a slight temporary gain. But if moose numbers continue to drop we still loose opurtunities

or we focuse on increasing moose populations and focuse on what is effecting them in turn the population can withstand I higher harvest. Even at the present allocation split this equals more long term opurtunities

To myself kind of a no brainer

[brownmancheng]

Really in the case of this thread the true issue is resident hunters want to be able to hunt moose

So we can pick a fight with GOs and maybe see a slight temporary gain. But if moose numbers continue to drop we still loose opurtunities

or we focuse on increasing moose populations and focuse on what is effecting them in turn the population can withstand I higher harvest. Even at the present allocation split this equals more long term opurtunities

To myself kind of a no brainer


I am a no brainer resident hunter myself so please clarify this . I hear a lot from the other side saying focus on populations that will make more for all.

What most RH are saying it should be a 90/10 split

If it is currently 75/25 or more for some species. Population would have to increase by 20% for resident hunters to receive the same number of critters. How is my math.

That is a massive increase in populations. I think that argument is quite the deflection.

Before someone points to greed, of course we need to do something to help wildlife populations but it is a completely different subject than allocation.

[Wild one]

I am a no brainer resident hunter myself so please clarify this . I hear a lot from the other side saying focus on populations that will make more for all.

What most RH are saying it should be a 90/10 split

If it is currently 75/25 or more for some species. Population would have to increase by 20% for resident hunters to receive the same number of critters. How is my math.

That is a massive increase in populations. I think that argument is quite the deflection.

Before someone points to greed, of course we need to do something to help wildlife populations but it is a completely different subject than allocation.


When we are talking moose in BC many populations are declining so opurtunities will/are decreasing regardless of the allocation split

so fighting over a % of an allocation that will shrink as population declines does little in the aspect of resident hunters protecting or gaining opurtunities to hunt

yes it would take a large increase in population to regain present numbers lost. But we will see a greater lose not addressing populations as these affect the overall allowable harvest.

It's long term I look at and lose of overall allocation. A slight % increase to resident hunter allocation means nothing if the overall allocation shrinks

[brownmancheng]

Their only concern is ....... out harvesting a cheap source of food for their empty gut.
Maybe these same guys should take a hard look at what they are doing

hmmmmmm the nerve

[Fisher-Dude]

I am a no brainer resident hunter myself so please clarify this . I hear a lot from the other side saying focus on populations that will make more for all.

What most RH are saying it should be a 90/10 split

If it is currently 75/25 or more for some species. Population would have to increase by 20% for resident hunters to receive the same number of critters. How is my math.

That is a massive increase in populations. I think that argument is quite the deflection.

Before someone points to greed, of course we need to do something to help wildlife populations but it is a completely different subject than allocation.

Lots of ungulate populations can grow quickly with good habitat and predation in check.

Mule deer in BC have shown 15% annual increases in some regions. Whitetails can be much higher than that, with frequent twinning and some fawns breeding at 6 months of age in good conditions.

[HarryToolips]

So I'm guessing the NDP will not support an aerial shooting of wolves program??? That would be too bad, as I would think they could kill two birds with one stone, and shoot wolves while doing aerial moose counts at the same time?? And what's our resident hunter plan moving forward to start making more moose, are we all going to individually write the new premier, or what would be the best strategy??

[HappyJack]

When we are talking moose in BC many populations are declining so opurtunities will/are decreasing regardless of the allocation split

so fighting over a % of an allocation that will shrink as population declines does little in the aspect of resident hunters protecting or gaining opurtunities to hunt

yes it would take a large increase in population to regain present numbers lost. But we will see a greater lose not addressing populations as these affect the overall allowable harvest.

It's long term I look at and lose of overall allocation. A slight % increase to resident hunter allocation means nothing if the overall allocation shrinks

Here's an idea. In the case of any big game animal being under LEH the outfitters would get zero allocation. That would be an immediate and significant increase in resident opportunity, especially with declining populations. Its also important to note that success rates are much lower for resident hunters vs professionally guided hunters so survival rates of more prime breeding animals is more likely. Once the game populations have recovered, then and only then an allocation could be provided for outfitters.

[Wild one]

Here's an idea. In the case of any big game animal being under LEH the outfitters would get zero allocation. That would be an immediate and significant increase in resident opportunity, especially with declining populations. Its also important to note that success rates are much lower for resident hunters vs professionally guided hunters so survival rates of more prime breeding animals is more likely. Once the game populations have recovered, then and only then an allocation could be provided for outfitters.

GOs are not mythical hunters with crazy high success rate they fail. I would even say there is many resident hunters that are local to areas that run higher success rates then GOs. Like I stated earlier I know for a fact there are GOs that don't fill thier moose allocations

The GO harvest is not that high especially in southern 6 and bull only

Your trying too hard to justify going after GOs.

You are also forgetting an important factor govt wants all user groups as they profit from them all. We are all pawns they want in play

[Fisher-Dude]

Here's an idea. In the case of any big game animal being under LEH the outfitters would get zero allocation. That would be an immediate and significant increase in resident opportunity, especially with declining populations. Its also important to note that success rates are much lower for resident hunters vs professionally guided hunters so survival rates of more prime breeding animals is more likely. Once the game populations have recovered, then and only then an allocation could be provided for outfitters.

If hunter kills of bulls only affected populations, then you could recover a population with regulations. But that's not the case - hunter harvest of those moose doesn't affect the population at all. Declining harvest rates with tougher regulations is what got us to today, with a declining population. If hunter harvest made any difference, moose populations would be increasing with stricter regulations, not declining.

Annual allowable harvest only cares about the number of dead animals, not about who kills the animal or how long it takes them.

There's no shortage of breeding bulls in region 6, as the OP has told us we're well above target (30:100) with about 35:100 in our sex ratios. Sperm supply isn't a problem. Juvenile recruitment is the problem, and that's habitat and/or predation dependent with moose populations.

[Rob Chipman]

^^^^Tougher regulations "especially with declining populations" is pretty much what the idea of managing to zero is all about. It *looks* like a solution, but it's more like using a band-aid to treat leprosy.

[Whonnock Boy]

To start, wildlife holds little or no value to the majority of the population unless you are a guide outfitter, Safari operator, or poacher. Local aboriginal farmers would sooner see the wildlife gone than be competition for their livestock, or prey for the predators. The financial state of African aboriginals and First Nations does not even compare as it relates to helping them be fed. First Nations have numerous avenues other than guide outfitters to help fill their freezers. Anti poaching units are in part funded by non resident hunting. That's just off the top of my head.
Really.....fill me in.

[Whonnock Boy]

And land owners own the wildlife that inhabit their land, ours is owned by the crown on behalf of the people.

[HappyJack]

GOs are not mythical hunters with crazy high success rate they fail. I would even say there is many resident hunters that are local to areas that run higher success rates then GOs. Like I stated earlier I know for a fact there are GOs that don't fill thier moose allocations

The GO harvest is not that high especially in southern 6 and bull only

Your trying too hard to justify going after GOs.

You are also forgetting an important factor govt wants all user groups as they profit from them all. We are all pawns they want in play

Definitely not going after the guide outfitters with that scenario, they could still guide hunters for species that are NOT on LEH, like spike fork moose, black bear, wolf, mule deer, white tail deer, elk, well you get the idea. And this still provides opportunity for guided hunts!! What the idea does address is resident priority as resident hunters would get 'first dibs' until game populations had recovered enough to return to allocating some of those species to outfitters.

[HappyJack]

And land owners own the wildlife that inhabit their land, ours is owned by the crown on behalf of the people.

I suppose with some of the very large tracts of privately owned land in BC the owners of that land virtually own the game animals on the land as they are the only ones with access.

[HappyJack]

If hunter kills of bulls only affected populations, then you could recover a population with regulations. But that's not the case - hunter harvest of those moose doesn't affect the population at all. Declining harvest rates with tougher regulations is what got us to today, with a declining population. If hunter harvest made any difference, moose populations would be increasing with stricter regulations, not declining.

Annual allowable harvest only cares about the number of dead animals, not about who kills the animal or how long it takes them.

There's no shortage of breeding bulls in region 6, as the OP has told us we're well above target (30:100) with about 35:100 in our sex ratios. Sperm supply isn't a problem. Juvenile recruitment is the problem, and that's habitat and/or predation dependent with moose populations.

Tell that to people that complain about FNs not reporting their harvests, they sure think it hunter harvest makes a difference?

[40incher]

Pretty weak 40incher.
If you're going to take up that issue you better change your online alias to "sheep meat".
You would have more credibility.
LMAO

Hey there Guide Apologist,

If that's the best you have it is welcomed ... perhaps respond to the real points raised.

I have killed all of my rams for meat, they just need to be full curl by regulation ... two of them just happened to be over 40 inches?! What's your problem?

That comment alone probably pisses off the GO's that have infiltrated this forum. Any ram we kill is one less $40,000.00 plus hunt in their pea-brained minds.

My point was, and still is, quit calling it "trophy" hunting. We will all be better off. Hunting is not a mere sport, to be compared trivially with golf or beach volleyball, or whatever ... why don't the GO's get this simple concept??

That's probably a rhetorical question at this point, but I will reiterate it for you and others to contemplate.

[40incher]

People need to start looking at the whole picture with open eyes and mind

A big tip for resident hunters if you want govt to listen to you get it together. Stop pointing fingers and learn to conduct your self in a manner that is organized. It is a lot easier to get something accomplished if you can push an agenda that is benifical beyond your personal needs

fighting over small stuff going poor me makes us look like greedy children. Govt wants to reap the benefits of all user groups. All groups are merely pawns and are easier to manipulate one at a time. When we are investing our efforts fighting within the user groups it's easier for govt to let big issues slip as we are preoccupied fighting for scraps.

Right now resident hunters are not a respected voice and it's easy for govt to give a little lip service and brush us a side.

Want to see change see our weakness and admit to it.

Odds are most don't want to admit this or even see it. Takes more than numbers to have a strong voice


Hey There,

For one thing, I don't think you are really one of "us". When you say resident hunters are not respected I take that as a somewhat silly comment. One that comes from a GO mindset ... perhaps one that gains some income or benefit that compromises your view??

As I have stated, please don't confuse conservation with allocation. The GO's are the ones that demanded 25% to 40% of the pie as their minimums. Once you back off on that we will be happy to increase the pie size so your 10% actually means something!! Quite confusing the thread ... it's about allocation, not blaming the real "us" for all the world's problems. Us lowly resident hunters don't need to be lectured by the guide/status quo apologists.

[Wild one]

Not a GO never have been nor have I played one on TV

100% resident hunter

may not like what I have to say but I don't benifit from GO industry not one dime

[bearvalley]

Hey There,

For one thing, I don't think you are really one of "us". When you say resident hunters are not respected I take that as a somewhat silly comment. One that comes from a GO mindset ... perhaps one that gains some income or benefit that compromises your view??

As I have stated, please don't confuse conservation with allocation. The GO's are the ones that demanded 25% to 40% of the pie as their minimums. Once you back off on that we will be happy to increase the pie size so your 10% actually means something!! Quite confusing the thread ... it's about allocation, not blaming the real "us" for all the world's problems. Us lowly resident hunters don't need to be lectured by the guide/status quo apologists.

Hey There 40incher,
Is not a good portion of BC on a GOS for resident sheep?
Are any guided sheep for non residents on GOS？
Why don't you just tell it like it is.....You don't like the competition when you're out in the mountains looking for a 40" ram.
But I forgot....your not in it for the horns....you just want the 60 pounds of sheep meat for the freezer.
Maybe we should have any age ram hunts for "us" residents since "we" don't really care about horn size and want to distance "ourselves" from those lowly "Trophy" hunters.
Just to make sure that conservation is front and centre "us" lowly resident hunters should probably best adopt a policy of say.....2 oppurtunities for every sheep that the AAH says we can take.
That way we can be assured "we" are not over achieving "our" annual harvest.
Give it a rest "sheep meat" your case isn't about allocation and resident priority....it's about eliminating competition so you can dig up your next "Trophy" ram.

[Taylor329]

If we could put together 1/10th of the energy everybody is spending here debating, arguing, and alienating each other, and put that towards actually writing our government or doing something to create real change or awareness... We might not be doing too bad. We're all in this together, are we not? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a healthy discussion and debate. There comes a point however, when less talking, and more action is needed.

Here's a good example of someone who is taking matters seriously, and is actively looking for ways they can help create change.
http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?138365-How-can-the-everyday-hunter-help
Kudos to you, Golddust!

[lange1212]

If we could put together 1/10th of the energy everybody is spending here debating, arguing, and alienating each other, and put that towards actually writing our government or doing something to create real change or awareness... We might not be doing too bad. We're all in this together, are we not? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a healthy discussion and debate. There comes a point however, when less talking, and more action is needed.

Well said,

Letter has been sent and I would add that residents concerned with wildlife allocations for non-residents being set too high also make a point of meeting with their MLA's.

[souwester]

I find it baffling that a BCWF director starts threads like this.
If you want to educate people why not include some links to relevant documents supporting your opinions ? why not open your argument with some positive allocation solution ideas that a resident could relate to?
So is your opinion on allocation the official BCWF stance at the moment ?

[bearvalley]

Well said,

Letter has been sent and I would add that residents concerned with wildlife allocations for non-residents being set too high also make a point of meeting with their MLA's.

Langegger, you don't get it.
What has been your contribution towards making more hunting oppurtunities.
Writing bitch letters to MLA's to get a bigger share of a dwindling resource does not count for squat.
I hope you can make it to the northern Region 6 Roundtable meetings.
Im pretty sure your insight will be a great contribution to the group.

[HappyJack]

Langegger, you don't get it.
What has been your contribution towards making more hunting oppurtunities.
Writing bitch letters to MLA's to get a bigger share of a dwindling resource does not count for squat.
I hope you can make it to the northern Region 6 Roundtable meetings.
Im pretty sure your insight will be a great contribution to the group.

That is how you like to frame it, some would say it's more like attempting to get an equitable share. Anyway there are 2 separate issues, first is the matter of allocation distribution, second is conservation and habitat restoration. You'll notice the GOs like to try and tie those two issues together.

[lange1212]

The differance between me and guys like you and Langegger is that I get the big picture.
The "entitlement crowd" only wants to blame the decline in hunting oppurtunities on GO's, FN's hunting, loss of habitat and predation.
NEVER DO THEY ADMIT THEY MIGHT BE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Gilson, as a partner in a GO'ing business your self proclamation of getting the big picture is questionable. Although I do admire your tenacity and effort to distract from the allocation issue at hand that's harming residents, trying to confuse the issue by posting your rhetoric and attacks?

The big picture is a host of issues that residents clearly get and see viewing the many posts. Yes, building more wildlife, habitat, and increased funding are a big part of that, and was the overriding principle behind the establishment of the 2007 Wildlife Allocation Policy (review post #43). I again ask who was the group responsible for that falling flat on its face, only to focus on shifting a greater portion of resident allocation to non-residents?

Funny how that works from the GO's perspective, building more wildlife was of low priority and gaining increase non-resident allocation % was the top of the list. Now that GO's successfully lobbied gov't and set at 25% and 40% minimum share wildlife guarantees (unheard of in any North American jurisdiction) GO's like yourself try to distract from this harsh reality and injustice, knowing this is only policy and can change with the stroke of a pen.

This post was started to discuss wildlife allocation and a series of increased restrictions proposed on residents because of it. If you wish to discuss wildlife funding, habitat,... all credible topics please start another post and stop trying to change the topic of this one.

Your "entitlement" comment and many others you've posted on this forum clearly paint the picture of who those are that feel that way, take a look in the mirror with your counterparts, and reflect on your own quote "NEVER DO THEY ADMIT THEY MIGHT BE PART OF THE PROBLEM".

Our wildlife is public common property to be shared, not privatized to cater exclusively to the rich and influential! With current non-resident allocations guaranteed at 25% - 40% (pending on species), removed right out of the hands of public and into the hands of private enterprise. Is that the big picture you see Gilson, possibly further expansion on those %. If that's your big picture idea residents will make every effort to prevent it from getting painted so that our wildlife can be enjoyed by future generation of average working class British Columbians. If from your perspective this is considered "entitlement", then I guess your right, and will continue to fight for resident priority, resident access, resident opportunity, building more wildlife for all users, habitat protection, improved funding....

My personal opinion.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Lange,
Do you really think you are helping wildlife by trying to drive a wedge between hunters? It is more important to work together to grow wildlife TOGETHER, united as hunters. GOS are an outfitters dream, we as hunters can only hope the province can return to such great game numbers.
Time to move on and grow wildlife, ask yourself, what I have done lately to help wildlife grow. Splitting the hunting community does not count.

[bearvalley]

Langegger, you don't have a clue what my personal beliefs are on the allocation issue.
Never once have you ever stopped to think that not all outfitters over book their quota....believe me when I say if that was my style of doing things it could easily be done.
There are a lot of GO's in Region 6 North that live by this policy and fully realize that one day their quota will be adjusted accordingly.

I gaureentee I get the big picture, many other outfitters do as well as many resident hunters and non hunters.
You, I'm not so sure about.

Sorry to say it Langegger but the local community where I operate has recognized that northern wildlife populations cannot sustain more and more of the increasing pressure.
It's been recognized that enforcement is lacking therefor regulations (point restrictions) have been asked to be aligned to ensure moose are coming from where they are supposed to be from.
The local community has recognized that many moose are going out under the radar (no CI's) therefor they have asked that all moose up there be inspected.

Theres a problem Langegger when 10 LEH authorizations are handed out to kill 1 moose.
The problem becomes real obvious when on the ground hunter checks start to see tha roughly 50% of the hunters have a moose.

These are observations and concerns of locals, both FN locals and non FN's.

I hate to piss in your cornflakes but Dease looks at outfitting as a part of the community, the economy and a local tradition.
The "entitlement crowd" are looked at like the fox in the hen house.

[lange1212]

Lange,
Do you really think you are helping wildlife by trying to drive a wedge between hunters? It is more important to work together to grow wildlife TOGETHER, united as hunters. GOS are an outfitters dream, we as hunters can only hope the province can return to such great game numbers.
Time to move on and grow wildlife, ask yourself, what I have done lately to help wildlife grow. Splitting the hunting community does not count.


Normally I would agree and support your comment. However, ask where was it back in 2007 and beyond when the BC commercial hunting industry split the hunting community by acting in bad faith and reneging on the 2007 wildlife allocation policy they agreed to.

Their priority then was clearly to lobby gov't and shift a greater % of resident allocation to non-residents against policy agreements, and splitting the hunting community was of NO concern to many GO's to meet this objective. Now that residents are questioning wildlife allocation decisions between residents and non-residents put in place by the past gov't this is?

[Whonnock Boy]

I think some believe that habitat and wildlife would be better off if resident hunters and guide outfitters were not "in this together" in the way that the "trophy" hunting industry is weighing us down in our efforts. I am quite certain that there are other user groups and stakeholders that would allow us to be looked upon with a more favourable light if we were partnered with them. Public opinion holds a lot of weight these days, and the outfitting industry is severely tainted. Resident hunters are bringing far more to the table than guide outfitters, then throw in the allocation percentages, and it would seem that we are getting the short end of a very long stick regardless of what shape our animal populations are in. All this of course is in my humble opinion.

[bearvalley]

I think some believe that habitat and wildlife would be better off if resident hunters and guide outfitters were not "in this together" in the way that the "trophy" hunting industry is weighing us down in our efforts. I am quite certain that there are other user groups and stakeholders that would allow us to be looked upon with a more favourable light if we were partnered with them. Public opinion holds a lot of weight these days, and the outfitting industry is severely tainted. Resident hunters are bringing far more to the table than guide outfitters, then throw in the allocation percentages, and it would seem that we are getting the short end of a very long stick regardless of what shape our animal populations are in. All this of course is in my humble opinion.

You know Troy, the more this dividing and weakening of hunters goes on the more I truly believe that there is a hidden agenda by some.
A good example to base my thoughts on is what has gone on in the US with a former Wildlife Director now being the CEO of a wolf hugger group.
Can you honestly tell me that the group you are part of really supports hunting?
All 50,000 plus members.
I have to laugh at the questioning and scrutiny that is being put on the fact that an MOU was signed by groups to move forward on wildlife issues.
I know this thread is on allocation but since it was started by Langegger and he was the one that questioned the signing of the MOU it makes a guy wonder.
I'm thinking maybe the guys that take our privilege to hunt in this province serious and want it to continue should rally together, flush the toilet full of past agendas and start a real organization to represent ALL HUNTERS IN BC.
I wonder if Glaicar might be the man to get it up and running with a bit of help.
An interesting thought.

[Wild one]

You know Troy, the more this dividing and weakening of hunters goes on the more I truly believe that there is a hidden agenda by some.
A good example to base my thoughts on is what has gone on in the US with a former Wildlife Director now being the CEO of a wolf hugger group.
Can you honestly tell me that the group you are part of really supports hunting?
All 50,000 plus members.
I have to laugh at the questioning and scrutiny that is being put on the fact that an MOU was signed by groups to move forward on wildlife issues.
I know this thread is on allocation but since it was started by Langegger and he was the one that questioned the signing of the MOU it makes a guy wonder.
I'm thinking maybe the guys that take our privilege to hunt in this province serious and want it to continue should rally together, flush the toilet full of past agendas and start a real organization to represent ALL HUNTERS IN BC.
I wonder if Glaicar might be the man to get it up and running with a bit of help.
An interesting thought.

This has my attention and know many others it would as well

[Fisher-Dude]

Definitely not going after the guide outfitters with that scenario, they could still guide hunters for species that are NOT on LEH, like spike fork moose, black bear, wolf, mule deer, white tail deer, elk, well you get the idea. And this still provides opportunity for guided hunts!! What the idea does address is resident priority as resident hunters would get 'first dibs' until game populations had recovered enough to return to allocating some of those species to outfitters.

Which game species in BC are declining because of hunting?

[LBM]

Which game species in BC are declining because of hunting?
It would have to be broken down further to region and MU but hunting has a contributing factor in
the decline of some species.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Normally I would agree and support your comment. However, ask where was it back in 2007 and beyond when the BC commercial hunting industry split the hunting community by acting in bad faith and reneging on the 2007 wildlife allocation policy they agreed to.

Their priority then was clearly to lobby gov't and shift a greater % of resident allocation to non-residents against policy agreements, and splitting the hunting community was of NO concern to many GO's to meet this objective. Now that residents are questioning wildlife allocation decisions between residents and non-residents put in place by the past gov't this is?

I am pretty sure you dodged the whole question! What have you done lately for wildlife? .........that's what I thought.

[Whonnock Boy]

Honestly, why is it so hard to believe that people may actually think that a relationship with guide outfitters is not in the best interest of resident hunters or wildlife and habitat? I'm just thinking out loud here, no hidden agendas, and I'm certainly not going to join a wolf hugger group. That there is pretty funny.

Does the the membership of the BCWF really support hunting? We could probably have a pretty good discussion about whether they do or not. Coming up with a definitive answer would be difficult.

Flush the toilet? That lever has already been pulled, and just a few more need to go for a ride down the whirlpool.

That said, my opinion and comments are those of mine, and mine only. I don't speak on behalf of my club, region, or the entire BCWF. I encourage the membership of all organizations to voice their concerns and opinions openly and transparently.





You know Troy, the more this dividing and weakening of hunters goes on the more I truly believe that there is a hidden agenda by some.
A good example to base my thoughts on is what has gone on in the US with a former Wildlife Director now being the CEO of a wolf hugger group.
Can you honestly tell me that the group you are part of really supports hunting?
All 50,000 plus members.
I have to laugh at the questioning and scrutiny that is being put on the fact that an MOU was signed by groups to move forward on wildlife issues.
I know this thread is on allocation but since it was started by Langegger and he was the one that questioned the signing of the MOU it makes a guy wonder.
I'm thinking maybe the guys that take our privilege to hunt in this province serious and want it to continue should rally together, flush the toilet full of past agendas and start a real organization to represent ALL HUNTERS IN BC.
I wonder if Glaicar might be the man to get it up and running with a bit of help.
An interesting thought.

[LBM]

I am pretty sure you dodged the whole question! What have you done lately for wildlife? .........that's what I thought.
Im just curious and not really my place to ask since your question was to some one else but what have you done for wildlife lately?

[kebes]

You know Troy, the more this dividing and weakening of hunters goes on the more I truly believe that there is a hidden agenda by some.
A good example to base my thoughts on is what has gone on in the US with a former Wildlife Director now being the CEO of a wolf hugger group.
Can you honestly tell me that the group you are part of really supports hunting?
All 50,000 plus members.
I have to laugh at the questioning and scrutiny that is being put on the fact that an MOU was signed by groups to move forward on wildlife issues.
I know this thread is on allocation but since it was started by Langegger and he was the one that questioned the signing of the MOU it makes a guy wonder.
I'm thinking maybe the guys that take our privilege to hunt in this province serious and want it to continue should rally together, flush the toilet full of past agendas and start a real organization to represent ALL HUNTERS IN BC.
I wonder if Glaicar might be the man to get it up and running with a bit of help.
An interesting thought.

I think most of us would love to see everyone pulling on the same rope. That doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of resident hunters that are miffed - to say the least - about GOABC's antics in regard to allocation (and if it doesn't matter now why did it matter two years ago). Once again, the point stands... allocation and wildlife enhancement are two separate issues. Enhancement is more important (as far as I'm concerned) but that doesn't mean allocation is unimportant.

[srupp]

Im just curious and not really my place since your question was to some one else but what have you done for wildlife lately?

Lol..that's the funniest ones ever..
Hmmmm spend 12 months each year preparing for spring fall..raising, vetting, training his canines to predator hunt..removing bears, lynx, cougars that prey on the deer, moose, caribou, goat..coming in as a predator specialist in his region..
Trapping predators..in that "free time"...helping resident hunters out time after time with his knowledge, skills and precious little free time.
Sitting on boards trying to make this whole hunting situation better for all..not just a few..
Hosting Wounded Warriors hunting preditors"
Chilcotin has the same 24 hours in his day as do we how he a comp is he's it? Hard work..long days...short nite. .
Oh recently he picked up a ax, shovel and organized the community volinteer and worked like HELL saving a large piece of BC..than wildlife call home...unfortunately you picked the wrong example..Doug leads by example..try and keep up..good luck.
Doug is not a bragger nor a talker..he is however a doer...
What hasn't he and his family done for wildlife?

C H" doesn't need my help, nor anyone's. .but with a home, family, buissnes, and all the above mentioned daily commitments. .thought I would help you with some facts..
Cheers
Srupp

[btridge]

Gilson, as a partner in a GO'ing business your self proclamation of getting the big picture is questionable. Although I do admire your tenacity and effort to distract from the allocation issue at hand that's harming residents, trying to confuse the issue by posting your rhetoric and attacks?

The big picture is a host of issues that residents clearly get and see viewing the many posts. Yes, building more wildlife, habitat, and increased funding are a big part of that, and was the overriding principle behind the establishment of the 2007 Wildlife Allocation Policy (review post #43). I again ask who was the group responsible for that falling flat on its face, only to focus on shifting a greater portion of resident allocation to non-residents?

Funny how that works from the GO's perspective, building more wildlife was of low priority and gaining increase non-resident allocation % was the top of the list. Now that GO's successfully lobbied gov't and set at 25% and 40% minimum share wildlife guarantees (unheard of in any North American jurisdiction) GO's like yourself try to distract from this harsh reality and injustice, knowing this is only policy and can change with the stroke of a pen.

This post was started to discuss wildlife allocation and a series of increased restrictions proposed on residents because of it. If you wish to discuss wildlife funding, habitat,... all credible topics please start another post and stop trying to change the topic of this one.

Your "entitlement" comment and many others you've posted on this forum clearly paint the picture of who those are that feel that way, take a look in the mirror with your counterparts, and reflect on your own quote "NEVER DO THEY ADMIT THEY MIGHT BE PART OF THE PROBLEM".

Our wildlife is public common property to be shared, not privatized to cater exclusively to the rich and influential! With current non-resident allocations guaranteed at 25% - 40% (pending on species), removed right out of the hands of public and into the hands of private enterprise. Is that the big picture you see Gilson, possibly further expansion on those %. If that's your big picture idea residents will make every effort to prevent it from getting painted so that our wildlife can be enjoyed by future generation of average working class British Columbians. If from your perspective this is considered "entitlement", then I guess your right, and will continue to fight for resident priority, resident access, resident opportunity, building more wildlife for all users, habitat protection, improved funding....

My personal opinion.

An opinion that many resident hunters support, me included.

[bearvalley]

Im just curious and not really my place to ask since your question was to some one else but what have you done for wildlife lately?


I think most of us would love to see everyone pulling on the same rope. That doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of resident hunters that are miffed - to say the least - about GOABC's antics in regard to allocation (and if it doesn't matter now why did it matter two years ago). Once again, the point stands... allocation and wildlife enhancement are two separate issues. Enhancement is more important (as far as I'm concerned) but that doesn't mean allocation is unimportant.
Here's something for everyone to think about.
Not long ago I asked what the BCWF "the voice of resident hunters, etc, etc) had done to better wildlife in the northern half of Region 6.
The answer was "sweet F-all".
It seems that now that the BCWF has "flushed it's toilet" the new mandate for some is to go back to the days of the past...fighting over NON EXISTENT OPPURTUNITIES.
Its going to be interesting moving forward.

[Whonnock Boy]

Who is fighting? I see an open discussion. That's all.... Are we submitting resolutions or getting rallies together? Enhancing habitat and growing more wildlife is still priority one, as well as other issues being ahead of allocation, at least in my mind. I think what Lange was attempting to do was remind people, including guide outfitters that it is still an issue, has not been forgotten, and we certainly do not wish to be out lobbied in regard to further restrictions on resident hunters if science does not dictate the need.
Here's something for everyone to think about.
Not long ago I asked what the BCWF "the voice of resident hunters, etc, etc) had done to better wildlife in the northern half of Region 6.
The answer was "sweet F-all".
It seems that now that the BCWF has "flushed it's toilet" the new mandate for some is to go back to the days of the past...fighting over NON EXISTENT OPPURTUNITIES.
Its going to be interesting moving forward.

[bearvalley]

Who is fighting? I see an open discussion. That's all.... Are we submitting resolutions or getting rallies together? Enhancing habitat and growing more wildlife is still priority one, as well as other issues being ahead of allocation, at least in my mind. I think what Lange was attempting to do was remind people, including guide outfitters that it is still an issue, has not been forgotten, and we certainly do not wish to be out lobbied in regard to further restrictions on resident hunters if science does not dictate the need.

Your versions a little different than what Langeggers throwing out.

[Rob Chipman]

I'll tell you one thing (ok, a few things):

There is bad blood between many resident hunters and the GOABC (and sometimes the animosity toward the GOABC bleeds into animosity against any GO). This is unfortunate, because in one respect we are all in the same boat and should be paddling the same way, but there is a perception that some of the people in the boat get a better deal and that some of the people in the boat are choosing holes in it.

This bad blood revolves around allocation, quota and the tenure system. I've heard the explanations about why the quota and tenure system are the only way the GO business can work in BC, and I've heard the explanations of why it's so beneficial, and I've heard other explanations as well, but I have to be honest - none of those explanations are effective sales pitches for people who are critical of the GOABC.

If we want people to paddle the boat in the same direction we need to remove the perception that some people get a better seat and that some people are chopping holes in the boat.

This is for you, bearvalley. See if you can answer these without telling me I'm full of crap or attacking my motives. If you can you might convince a few other guys (like the really anti GO ones). I'm not looking for a fight. It's just an intellectual exercise.

1) Why should any business get a quota of a public resource? Most businesses don't get one.
2) What makes GO so special that they need one?
3) *If* they need that quota to make the business viable, why should it matter to the public that their business is viable? What's the public benefit? Most businesses have to survive own their own without government help.
4) If you can answer #3, should the quota throw off a benefit of inflating the value of a tenure so that a GO makes (or is perceived to make) a big windfall capital gain?
5) The NACM says market hunting has to be eliminated. How is selling a trophy hunt not market hunting?


Again, I'm not attacking you, but trying to get some of the anti-GO objections out in the open. I'm not rabidly anti-GO so I may not have framed them all accurately and I'm using my imagination a bit to illustrate where I think some guys are coming from. And actually, other guys aside from you can answer, but you're fairly knowledgeable and I think you want to move forward from where we're stuck, so...

As for what has BCWF done for people up north? There is no question BCWF has to evolve and demonstrate that it delivers value. It's moving that way but it is still falling down. It's the old story: do we use the vehicle we have, which has many positives, or do we start a whole new one, which will be very difficult? One challenge is that I'm not sure everyone involved in BCWF recognizes how poorly it is thought of in some quarters, especially among people who should be shoulder to shoulder with us. We've got work to do there, no question.

[guest]

Im just curious and not really my place to ask since your question was to some one else but what have you done for wildlife lately?

maybe do some home work on CHB before you attempt to call him out for Lack of helping wildlife. I only wish I could do what Doug and his family do for wildlife.

To be clear, it too am upset with the allocation brought on by the Liberals when they were in power, way over the top in my opinion. I am in favour of a 90/10 split, resident/non res..... I am also in support of some Guide Outfitters, smaller operations, resident owned Outfitters, yes there is a place for the GO business in BC........ HOWEVER....... I am not in favour of GO's own by big money foreign folks from USA, Germany, Africa or any where else other than BC. I am not in favour of corporate greed to price the average BC resident out of the market for a hunt.

The entire allocation, management and regulation of our BC Wildlife need to be revamped ........ Get BC back to its potential, get BC back to what it once was. If we keep going the way we are, the wheels on the Bus outa town are quickly falling off one by one. This includes habitat restoration, enforcement....... Based on Sound science, More Money to wildlife and what it takes to grow it.

All level of governments need to buy in! Or this will go the way of our BC Coastal wild salmon and it's disgusting management over many many years ........ Let's not follow by that terrible example.

CT

[Gateholio]

I think some believe that habitat and wildlife would be better off if resident hunters and guide outfitters were not "in this together" in the way that the "trophy" hunting industry is weighing us down in our efforts. I am quite certain that there are other user groups and stakeholders that would allow us to be looked upon with a more favourable light if we were partnered with them. Public opinion holds a lot of weight these days, and the outfitting industry is severely tainted. Resident hunters are bringing far more to the table than guide outfitters, then throw in the allocation percentages, and it would seem that we are getting the short end of a very long stick regardless of what shape our animal populations are in. All this of course is in my humble opinion.


Public opinion will play a large role in hunting opportunity in the near future.

Right or wrong, the general public opinion on non resident hunters is that they come to shoot a prime animal, chop off it's head and take it back to Texas.

They are generally supportive of residents hunting any species as it's viewed as a food hunt first,even on species like goat or sheep. The exception seems to be grizzlies and wolves, and much of the public doesn't want anyone hunting them.

[LBM]

maybe do some home work on CHB before you attempt to call him out for Lack of helping wildlife. I only wish I could do what Doug and his family do for wildlife.

To be clear, it too am upset with the allocation brought on by the Liberals when they were in power, way over the top in my opinion. I am in favour of a 90/10 split, resident/non res..... I am also in support of some Guide Outfitters, smaller operations, resident owned Outfitters, yes there is a place for the GO business in BC........ HOWEVER....... I am not in favour of GO's own by big money foreign folks from USA, Germany, Africa or any where else other than BC. I am not in favour of corporate greed to price the average BC resident out of the market for a hunt.

The entire allocation, management and regulation of our BC Wildlife need to be revamped ........ Get BC back to its potential, get BC back to what it once was. If we keep going the way we are, the wheels on the Bus outa town are quickly falling off one by one. This includes habitat restoration, enforcement....... Based on Sound science, More Money to wildlife and what it takes to grow it.

All level of governments need to buy in! Or this will go the way of our BC Coastal wild salmon and it's disgusting management over many many years ........ Let's not follow by that terrible example.

CT

Come up for air curly never called him out just asked the question.

[HarryToolips]

To be clear, it too am upset with the allocation brought on by the Liberals when they were in power, way over the top in my opinion. I am in favour of a 90/10 split, resident/non res..... I am also in support of some Guide Outfitters, smaller operations, resident owned Outfitters, yes there is a place for the GO business in BC........ HOWEVER....... I am not in favour of GO's own by big money foreign folks from USA, Germany, Africa or any where else other than BC. I am not in favour of corporate greed to price the average BC resident out of the market for a hunt.

The entire allocation, management and regulation of our BC Wildlife need to be revamped ........ Get BC back to its potential, get BC back to what it once was. If we keep going the way we are, the wheels on the Bus outa town are quickly falling off one by one. This includes habitat restoration, enforcement....... Based on Sound science, More Money to wildlife and what it takes to grow it.

All level of governments need to buy in! Or this will go the way of our BC Coastal wild salmon and it's disgusting management over many many years ........ Let's not follow by that terrible example.

CT
Well said, completely agree....

[LBM]

Lol..that's the funniest ones ever..
Hmmmm spend 12 months each year preparing for spring fall..raising, vetting, training his canines to predator hunt..removing bears, lynx, cougars that prey on the deer, moose, caribou, goat..coming in as a predator specialist in his region..
Trapping predators..in that "free time"...helping resident hunters out time after time with his knowledge, skills and precious little free time.
Sitting on boards trying to make this whole hunting situation better for all..not just a few..
Hosting Wounded Warriors hunting preditors"
Chilcotin has the same 24 hours in his day as do we how he a comp is he's it? Hard work..long days...short nite. .
Oh recently he picked up a ax, shovel and organized the community volinteer and worked like HELL saving a large piece of BC..than wildlife call home...unfortunately you picked the wrong example..Doug leads by example..try and keep up..good luck.
Doug is not a bragger nor a talker..he is however a doer...
What hasn't he and his family done for wildlife?

C H" doesn't need my help, nor anyone's. .but with a home, family, buissnes, and all the above mentioned daily commitments. .thought I would help you with some facts..
Cheers
Srupp
Ok if your his spokes person maybe you could answer this.
IMO bears, cougars, lynx,wolves etc are wildlife and to kill them just so they don't kill something so you (humans) can isn't really wildlife conservation IMO.
Now if you(he) didn't have these animals (predators as you like to call them) around could or would he still be able to run his business for they are
pretty much his bread and butter for his outfitting business are the not, are maybe he could still survive on his moose, deer, and goat hunts.

[Rob Chipman]

Killing predators isn't always conservation, and probably isn't always wise or desirable, but there is solid science behind predator control. Complex subject, and killing preds isn't the magic bullet, but don't fool yourself: in addition to habitat recruitment is very important to building wildlife populations. Recruitment means the number of young that are produced and survive. In some areas a ton of fawns/calves get whacked by predators. It's just nature's way, but if we're making it tough by destroying habitat sometimes it helps to knock down predators. (Complex subject and I'm not doing justice to it, but I don't think I'm too far off the mark).

In fact, I just read a cool study of killing moose to knock down wolf numbers to help caribou (and although they weren't gunning the wolves directly it amounts to the same thing as far as reducing them goes). Solid science with solid numbers. If they aren't turning moose or deer into wolf shit that means more live moose or deer.

[40incher]

Who is fighting? I see an open discussion. That's all.... Are we submitting resolutions or getting rallies together? Enhancing habitat and growing more wildlife is still priority one, as well as other issues being ahead of allocation, at least in my mind. I think what Lange was attempting to do was remind people, including guide outfitters that it is still an issue, has not been forgotten, and we certainly do not wish to be out lobbied in regard to further restrictions on resident hunters if science does not dictate the need.


Once again, I must agree.

The guide apologists are trying to suck this thread off of topic.

The GO's made a huge error in judgment when they openly turned on resident hunters and turned their maximum percentages into their minimums. They now realize the piper needs to be paid for that poor decision. Suck it up buttercups!

To walk away from the allocation issue is a mistake that some have recently made ... I think Lange is trying to bring it back to the forefront. Good on him.

As I have said previously, the GO apologists don't want the real issue to be discussed so they try and confuse it. I think they all must have taken a course of how to diffuse and distract. I have never seen such a bunch of whiners in my long life.

The issue at play is that resident hunters who care are going to right the wrong. No more putting up with a bullshit decision by a Liberal government that was bought and paid for by the GO's ... literally. At least Crispy paid the price for her indiscretions.

So ... once again ... quit whining and being apologists for a poor decision.

Let's keep the discussion going and on track boys.

[bearvalley]

1) Why should any business get a quota of a public resource? Most businesses don't get one.
2) What makes GO so special that they need one?
3) *If* they need that quota to make the business viable, why should it matter to the public that their business is viable? What's the public benefit? Most businesses have to survive own their own without government help.
4) If you can answer #3, should the quota throw off a benefit of inflating the value of a tenure so that a GO makes (or is perceived to make) a big windfall capital gain?
5) The NACM says market hunting has to be eliminated. How is selling a trophy hunt not market hunting?


Again, I'm not attacking you, but trying to get some of the anti-GO objections out in the open. I'm not rabidly anti-GO so I may not have framed them all accurately and I'm using my imagination a bit to illustrate where I think some guys are coming from. And actually, other guys aside from you can answer, but you're fairly knowledgeable and I think you want to move forward from where we're stuck, so...

As for what has BCWF done for people up north? There is no question BCWF has to evolve and demonstrate that it delivers value. It's moving that way but it is still falling down. It's the old story: do we use the vehicle we have, which has many positives, or do we start a whole new one, which will be very difficult? One challenge is that I'm not sure everyone involved in BCWF recognizes how poorly it is thought of in some quarters, especially among people who should be shoulder to shoulder with us. We've got work to do there, no question.

Rob, I'm sure some won't agree but here goes;
1) Stability...if you do not have a product you do not have a business.
I realize that some people have an issue with GO's having quota but really is it different than a sawmill being tied to a TFL.
A quota gives stability and it sets an upper limit.
Somewhere an upper harvest level needs to be identified and stayed within.

2) No one says a GO is special but when you do the math on the best bang for your buck there is a place for the GO industry.
Remember Rob, appr 5% of the recreational hunters in this province generate roughly one third of the revenue generated by hunting.
Guided hunters harvest roughly 2% of the provincial wildlife...is that 2% going to generate much into the provincial economy if GO's cease to exist?

3). Most of the public have zero knowledge of the GO business and for that matter the majority are quite clueless as to how the northern part of BC survives.
The northern economy is largely based on resources and even tho some don't want to admit it, wildlife is a renewable resource.
There are a few public resources that if properly managed are renewable, trees for sawmills, grass for livestock and properly managed wildlife is another.
One or two northern communities would have a pretty tough go if outfitters disappeared off the landscape.
So really is the GO industry getting government help thru being issued a quota and therefor being able to run a viable business.....or is a local community getting government help by having local GO businesses putting into the local economy.
Some northern communities tend to believe the latter is the case.

4). There's a few ways to look at the rising value of a GO businesses.
a) Is it due inflation?
b) Is it due to supply and demand?
Rob, you're a businessman....who wants to disperse of assets at a loss. In some cases there's a lot more involved in why a GO business increases in value such as upgraded infrastructure, etc, etc.
Outfitting is not the get rich game plan that some want to portray...more so it's a lifestyle that some would not trade for any other.

5) I will leave it up to you to sort out the difference between market hunting of the past and present day guided hunts.
Its comparing apples to oranges, or as bridger used to say apples to pigs.
The key word is "guided" hunt Rob, some of my BC clients would be pretty damn insulted if they realized they were being differentiated from their neighbour just because they hired a guide so they could achieve their goal with less headaches.

You're right on the point that a bunch of us should be shoulder to shoulder but I'm afraid that a big step backwards is being made by the executive of one group that says they are the "voice of resident hunters".

[Whonnock Boy]

Considering who you are likely getting your information from, I'm sure most things they do moving forward will be wrong.


You're right on the point that a bunch of us should be shoulder to shoulder but I'm afraid that a big step backwards is being made by the executive of one group that says they are the "voice of resident hunters".

[bearvalley]

Considering who you are likely getting your information from, I'm sure most things they do moving forward will be wrong.

Lets see what happens.

[Rob Chipman]

Bearvalley:

Thanks for the response. Can you see, though, how it's not convincing to a lot of people? Can you see how in fact it might actually piss some guys off even more? If not I'll walk you through, because if you can't convince people who oppose your current position you're not going to get their help (it really is that simple).

I'm going to walk you through it to highlight what I see as the problems with your response, but, like you said, I'm a businessman so...you're going to have to wait a bit until I get my business taken care of this morning!

[HappyJack]

Here's something for everyone to think about.
Not long ago I asked what the BCWF "the voice of resident hunters, etc, etc) had done to better wildlife in the northern half of Region 6.
The answer was "sweet F-all".
It seems that now that the BCWF has "flushed it's toilet" the new mandate for some is to go back to the days of the past...fighting over NON EXISTENT OPPURTUNITIES.
Its going to be interesting moving forward.

Non existent opportunities? That is because the dang guides have way too big a share of the allocations, otherwise the resident hunters would have significantly more opportunity.

[brownmancheng]

Lol..that's the funniest ones ever..
Hmmmm spend 12 months each year preparing for spring fall..raising, vetting, training his canines to predator hunt..removing bears, lynx, cougars that prey on the deer, moose, caribou, goat..coming in as a predator specialist in his region..
Trapping predators..in that "free time"...helping resident hunters out time after time with his knowledge, skills and precious little free time.
Sitting on boards trying to make this whole hunting situation better for all..not just a few..
Hosting Wounded Warriors hunting preditors"
Chilcotin has the same 24 hours in his day as do we how he a comp is he's it? Hard work..long days...short nite. .
Oh recently he picked up a ax, shovel and organized the community volinteer and worked like HELL saving a large piece of BC..than wildlife call home...unfortunately you picked the wrong example..Doug leads by example..try and keep up..good luck.
Doug is not a bragger nor a talker..he is however a doer...
What hasn't he and his family done for wildlife?

C H" doesn't need my help, nor anyone's. .but with a home, family, buissnes, and all the above mentioned daily commitments. .thought I would help you with some facts..
Cheers
Srupp


i guess you could say LBM may be barking up the wrong tree regarding chilcotin hillbilly . lol couldn't help my self. back to the discussion!

[bearvalley]

Non existent opportunities? That is because the dang guides have way too big a share of the allocations, otherwise the resident hunters would have significantly more opportunity.
You really are quite clueless.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

You really are quite clueless.

I will second that.

[srupp]

i guess you could say LBM may be barking up the wrong tree regarding chilcotin hillbilly . lol couldn't help my self. back to the discussion!


That's too funny..l Mao. .great one..
Steven

[Rob Chipman]

OK, Bearvalley, I have to take these one at a time, and I need to emphasize that I'm being a bit of the Devil's Advocate. The back and forth over Chilcotin Hillbilly is a good example of why. A lot of guys who know him are vocal about liking him. I don't think he's making a huge killing based on getting a government subsidized quota. I also think he could probably survive great with an alternate business model and not really suffer a huge lifestyle or income change (although the fact is I don't know his details enough). Point being, it's much easier, I think, for a resident hunter who doesn't like GOs to accept Chilcotin Hillbilly as an ally. Obviously a local guy invested in BC not getting fat off the public tit. Other GOs? Maybe not so easy to accept. (And remember that part about Devil's Advocate - I'm not saying you're sucking the public tit)

So here goes with the first question:

I ask why a GO need a quota of a public resource. You say stability and product, and you make an analogy to TFLs.

The last shall be first. TFLs may be good, or they may be bad. I don't know enough to comment, but I know that during the upcoming NAFTA renegotiations we'll hear about how they are bad. If we all decide that they are bad then you don't want you're wagon hitched to them, because 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Also, TFLs and habitat destruction and special interests making big money from a public resource can all be wrapped up together by people who want to slam big lumber or, for that matter GOABC. I don't think that's hard to see.

Also, TFLs aren't the only way to run a logging industry (I'm not sure I actually like the alternatives I can imagine, but the fact remains, there are other models).

I recognize that there will always be some die-hard anti-GO people and you can't convince everyone, but if we're going to paddle the same boat the same way we need to minimize the internal fighting. So....I'm not too convinced by the TFL analogy.

Stability? There is no constant other than change. I've been in a business for the better part of 3 decades that's undergone huge changes. I have had to revise my business model many times. Some of the income sources I had when I started in the 80s simply no longer exist. Others haven't changed. The government has not only not helped me, but has made it tougher each and every year. If we start talking about the technological changes it's even crazier.

I'm not alone in that experience, so I'm not sure that the argument that GOs need quota of a public resource because of stability is really going to cut the mustard. I can spin it (if I want to be hard nosed) as "I need quota because I can't compete and I want easy money from my friends in politics". Again, I'm not saying that's you, or CH. I'm saying you need an effective answer to that to get more buy in from non-GOs.

Product? Pretty much a variation of the above. I've got one product, really, and it's me. My knowledge (skills and experience) and my integrity (my clients know their interests come before mine and that I hammer hard at achieving their interests). Nobody gives me a territory or a certain amount of product. Nobody has to use my service. I have to justify my price every time out of the chute.

Now, it would be nice if the government said that if you live in this part of town you have to list your house with me, but that just ain't gonna ever happen. It's even be nice if the government said that foreigners have to use an agent to buy a house, but that too ain't gonna happen. So...if the thinking is that a GO needs the government to give him product so that the GO can be in business because the GO can't figure out how to do it otherwise, the real key question is: why do we need a GO at all? It almost sounds as if the GO feels entitled to a business of his choice, and that the government should give it to him.... :-) (Again, Devil's Advocate. People are thinking this, and I don't think you're addressing it well enough).

So here's a question: why can't a BC GO run his business like an Arizona GO? My understanding is that if I want to hunt in Arizona I need to enter a lottery and get a tag, and then I need to find a guide to guide me. The guide does not have the tag and the guide does not have the territory. Why can't you do your business under that system? Don't answer this question with a bunch of questions. Instead, give me concrete challenges that are unique to BC and addressed by the tenure and quota system. If you can convince me then I think we both know you'll have developed a pretty goddamned convincing answer for serious anti-GO guys among the RH crowd.

Again, I'm not attacking you, but I've heard this issues raised around campfires. I give zero you know whats about the answer, but the answer is important and valuable to you, regardless of what it is (as long as it's effective).

[bearvalley]

Rob, I'm kinda tired and grumpy tonight....not really in the mood to play make believe armchair hunting/wildlife expert.
I will get back to you tho.
I do have a suggestion and I'm serious....you want to come for a visit to a outfitting business.
Im sure we could both pick up some pointers.
Think about it.

[Whonnock Boy]

Perfect. You don't have a good reply so you'll bribe and smooze him with a visit to the outfitting business as if he's a Liberal MLA.

[bearvalley]

Perfect. You don't have a good reply so you'll bribe and smooze him with a visit to the outfitting business as if he's a Liberal MLA.
Troy, you can kiss my A**.
Like I said I'm tired and bitchy and will answer his questions.
The offers out to Chipman because he seems to me like a guy with enough sense to see 2 sides of a coin.
You, I wouldn't waste my time on.
Why don't you get off your butt and see if you can't apply yourself to do some good to ensure we can hunt in the future.

[Whonnock Boy]

Not the first guy to say either of those things. Means I'm saying what I think, and secondly, I've been doing plenty. Some people just don't agree with what I've been doing, or simply don't understand. People are learning though, albeit the hard way.



Troy, you can kiss my A**.
Why don't you get off your butt and see if you can't apply yourself to do some good to ensure we can hunt in the future.

[labguy]

OK, Bearvalley, I have to take these one at a time, and I need to emphasize that I'm being a bit of the Devil's Advocate. The back and forth over Chilcotin Hillbilly is a good example of why. A lot of guys who know him are vocal about liking him. I don't think he's making a huge killing based on getting a government subsidized quota. I also think he could probably survive great with an alternate business model and not really suffer a huge lifestyle or income change (although the fact is I don't know his details enough). Point being, it's much easier, I think, for a resident hunter who doesn't like GOs to accept Chilcotin Hillbilly as an ally. Obviously a local guy invested in BC not getting fat off the public tit. Other GOs? Maybe not so easy to accept. (And remember that part about Devil's Advocate - I'm not saying you're sucking the public tit)

So here goes with the first question:

I ask why a GO need a quota of a public resource. You say stability and product, and you make an analogy to TFLs.

The last shall be first. TFLs may be good, or they may be bad. I don't know enough to comment, but I know that during the upcoming NAFTA renegotiations we'll hear about how they are bad. If we all decide that they are bad then you don't want you're wagon hitched to them, because 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Also, TFLs and habitat destruction and special interests making big money from a public resource can all be wrapped up together by people who want to slam big lumber or, for that matter GOABC. I don't think that's hard to see.

Also, TFLs aren't the only way to run a logging industry (I'm not sure I actually like the alternatives I can imagine, but the fact remains, there are other models).

I recognize that there will always be some die-hard anti-GO people and you can't convince everyone, but if we're going to paddle the same boat the same way we need to minimize the internal fighting. So....I'm not too convinced by the TFL analogy.

Stability? There is no constant other than change. I've been in a business for the better part of 3 decades that's undergone huge changes. I have had to revise my business model many times. Some of the income sources I had when I started in the 80s simply no longer exist. Others haven't changed. The government has not only not helped me, but has made it tougher each and every year. If we start talking about the technological changes it's even crazier.

I'm not alone in that experience, so I'm not sure that the argument that GOs need quota of a public resource because of stability is really going to cut the mustard. I can spin it (if I want to be hard nosed) as "I need quota because I can't compete and I want easy money from my friends in politics". Again, I'm not saying that's you, or CH. I'm saying you need an effective answer to that to get more buy in from non-GOs.

Product? Pretty much a variation of the above. I've got one product, really, and it's me. My knowledge (skills and experience) and my integrity (my clients know their interests come before mine and that I hammer hard at achieving their interests). Nobody gives me a territory or a certain amount of product. Nobody has to use my service. I have to justify my price every time out of the chute.

Now, it would be nice if the government said that if you live in this part of town you have to list your house with me, but that just ain't gonna ever happen. It's even be nice if the government said that foreigners have to use an agent to buy a house, but that too ain't gonna happen. So...if the thinking is that a GO needs the government to give him product so that the GO can be in business because the GO can't figure out how to do it otherwise, the real key question is: why do we need a GO at all? It almost sounds as if the GO feels entitled to a business of his choice, and that the government should give it to him.... :-) (Again, Devil's Advocate. People are thinking this, and I don't think you're addressing it well enough).

So here's a question: why can't a BC GO run his business like an Arizona GO? My understanding is that if I want to hunt in Arizona I need to enter a lottery and get a tag, and then I need to find a guide to guide me. The guide does not have the tag and the guide does not have the territory. Why can't you do your business under that system? Don't answer this question with a bunch of questions. Instead, give me concrete challenges that are unique to BC and addressed by the tenure and quota system. If you can convince me then I think we both know you'll have developed a pretty goddamned convincing answer for serious anti-GO guys among the RH crowd.

Again, I'm not attacking you, but I've heard this issues raised around campfires. I give zero you know whats about the answer, but the answer is important and valuable to you, regardless of what it is (as long as it's effective).

Very sensible, well thought out opinion. Why people in some industries feel it is their god given right to have the government "tweak" policy in their favor, at the expense of others, is beyond reasonable thought.

There is a myriad of businesses that don't make it because things change. If guide/outfitting isn't viable any more, change the business model, sell out or move on.

This is the reality most of the rest of us have to live with in the " real" world.

[Rob Chipman]

Bearvalley:

Address the question when you've got time and are ready. I'm not trying to win a debate with you. I'm trying to figure out if GOs and RHs have enough crossover interests to make it worthwhile working together. You've been good at jumping into this issue and I appreciate that, but I also think that you've been providing answers that work for you but don't convince the opposition. As you recognize, preaching to the choir is easy, but it doesn't build consensus in a divided environment.

What I'm hoping is that by hashing this out we either determine publicly that there is enough common interest to work together or we determine that we have competing interests. Either way it's a win for all of us.

Additionally, the idea of changing the business model *may* indicate that some GOs should be aligned with RHs, and some should not. We won't know until we talk it through.

I also appreciate that hard questions asked by me about how you make your living can be sharp and pointy - I'm trying to be as fair about that as I can.

I'm not an armchair wildlife expert and I'm not playing at it. I'm a believer in the NACM. I see it as the absolute best approach to our common goals. I've got a pretty good grasp of politics, history and business, however.

Whether I'm an armchair or real hunting expert is irrelevant and we should all recognize that. Hunting is an ancient right that we all possess, regardless of knowledge or skill. However, like all rights, we need other people to recognize them or we'll have a very hard time exercising them. You can bang the drum about how latte sipping Lower Mainlanders and urban people don't know what's really going on and they should learn some hard lessons, etc etc blah blah, but you know, in your heart of hearts, that if you've got a choice between selling bear viewing and FNs control over the landscape and access to it vs. trophy hunting rich Americans killing Jimmy the magnificent king of the forest, the former is and easy sell and the latter is a tough one. That's just the world we live in and one important aspect of our current challenge. People who vote and exercise control over how you live your life will paddle out to an oil tanker in plastic boats to protest. I don't need to tell you to let that sink in, because it's already old news. It is the world we live in and I, for one, am gong to deal with it. I'm really just inviting you to join me.

You saw the statement in the previous post: "Why people in some industries feel it is their god given right to have the government "tweak" policy in their favor, at the expense of others, is beyond reasonable thought". Its a fair and a common question and it doesn't just apply to GOs. Go watch "The Big Short". A lot of people are pissed at government giving any business a perceived deal. You need to address that effectively or you're going to stay trapped in the circular exercise that is telling Troy to kiss your ass and having him say "Heard it before".

It's time to move past that effectively.

[Mishka]

Thanks Rob for taking the time to put those thoughts out there. I think you're right on the money here.

[ACE]

Thank you Rob Chipman ....
Hopefully the bluster/thread de-railment is kept to a minimum ....

[horshur]

chip sit down with a calculator and do the math...I did some a few years ago just got people on here pissed. Look at what the average resident hunter will gain in odds to draw a tag if the guides allotment were to be eliminated. Your number will be a .005% better chance. Be sure that what you are fighting for is a real change cause the troops will riot when the truth comes home...too many won't sit down with a pencil and do a little math. They will insist that if joe outfitter didn't have so many tags I would be hunting. When joe looses the tags they still won't be hunting. Sorry call me selfish but I want to hunt. I am not shitting. Dealing with odds and probabilities is beyond most of your audience. People buy lottery tickets when there is a better chance a stranger off the street give them money. So is the fight worth it? To me no.
Way to many enemies made over this fight..Everyone has lost nobody has won.

[horshur]

to be clear in a perfect world non resident hunter would be eligible for 1%..not 10%. World ain't perfect.

[Whonnock Boy]

Irrelevant, and based on each individual draw or allocation, the numbers will change.
chip sit down with a calculator and do the math...I did some a few years ago just got people on here pissed. Look at what the average resident hunter will gain in odds to draw a tag if the guides allotment were to be eliminated. Your number will be a .005% better chance. Be sure that what you are fighting for is a real change cause the troops will riot when the truth comes home...too many won't sit down with a pencil and do a little math. They will insist that if joe outfitter didn't have so many tags I would be hunting. When joe looses the tags they still won't be hunting. Sorry call me selfish but I want to hunt. I am not shitting. Dealing with odds and probabilities is beyond most of your audience. People buy lottery tickets when there is a better chance a stranger off the street give them money. So is the fight worth it? To me no.
Way to many enemies made over this fight..Everyone has lost nobody has won.

[horshur]

You got a plastic kayak? Sit down and do some math.,prove me wrong!

[btridge]

chip sit down with a calculator and do the math...I did some a few years ago just got people on here pissed. Look at what the average resident hunter will gain in odds to draw a tag if the guides allotment were to be eliminated. Your number will be a .005% better chance. Be sure that what you are fighting for is a real change cause the troops will riot when the truth comes home...too many won't sit down with a pencil and do a little math. They will insist that if joe outfitter didn't have so many tags I would be hunting. When joe looses the tags they still won't be hunting. Sorry call me selfish but I want to hunt. I am not shitting. Dealing with odds and probabilities is beyond most of your audience. People buy lottery tickets when there is a better chance a stranger off the street give them money. So is the fight worth it? To me no.
Way to many enemies made over this fight..Everyone has lost nobody has won.

To make a claim like this, I will have to ask you to show what numbers you used and show your math equations so we can see how you arrived at your .005% answer. math is my thing and for the life of me I can't figure out how you arrived at that number.
In simple terms, 100,000 resident hunters gaining .005% opportunity translates to 5 animals....I do beleive that the outfitters quota is alot more that 5 animals.
You might want to go back to your pencil and paper and recalculate your numbers.

[horshur]

Show me..math is your thing put the numbers down.let the chips fall. Have you even picked up a pencil?

[40incher]

The enemies were made when the original allocation policy was dumped so as to invent the new on. The old policy gave the GO's no bottom end. When the GO's got their way with the new policy they still weren't happy so they did an end-run with the Liberal culls and screwed resident hunters even worse.

Time to resurrect the original policy and force the bureaucrats to implement it. That's all that was needed in the first place!!

All the fear-mongering by the GO apologists is getting sillier by the post.

[Whonnock Boy]

Do the math on an island bull elk draw at 200:1, one draw per year, and the outfitter getting 40%. Say a 10 bull harvest every 6 years for both resident and non-resident. Instead of 200:1 at 40%, it would be 133:1 at 10%, if my math is correct.

This doesn't even look at success rates if 75 bull moose are allocated to residents in region 6 let's say, and only on in 3 are successful, that means 225 hunters will get to actually hunt, and hopefully 75 tags are filled. Bump it up to 90 draws, and 270 hunters get to go hunting. That is a significant difference.

What about kamloops sheep? 1000:1? With those odds, a non resident should never be able to hunt that population of animals, period. Cut out the guides quota, and those odds drop to 500:1, or close to it.

Maybe be my math is completely wrong. Show us what you have horshur, as I'm always willing to learn.

[btridge]

Show me..math is your thing put the numbers down.let the chips fall. Have you even picked up a pencil?

100,000 resident hunters X your .005%=5, but the LEH is set up for multiple hunters to have an opportunity to acheive the harvest of the AAH based on success rates, so If the LEH authorization ratio was a mear 5 to1, then of coarse that would mean that your .005% would translate to only ONE animal. Your hypothesis sir is wrong! and yes I have picked up a pencil....Have YOU?

[horshur]

To make a claim like this, I will have to ask you to show what numbers you used and show your math equations so we can see how you arrived at your .005% answer. math is my thing and for the life of me I can't figure out how you arrived at that number.
In simple terms, 100,000 resident hunters gaining .005% opportunity translates to 5 animals....I do beleive that the outfitters quota is alot more that 5 animals.
You might want to go back to your pencil and paper and recalculate your numbers.
Did you read what I said?..odds of getting drawn..not opportunities.

[btridge]

Did you read what I said?..odds of getting drawn..not opportunities.

actually I used YOUR odds to prove your wrong! you might want to go take a math class and try again.

[Whonnock Boy]

Yes. The odds on the elk draw I believe are 65% better. On the Kamloops sheep, they would be close to the same. For any given moose draw, it depends on the actual draw. Regardless, it's just smoke and mirrors.

As as for the Kayak comment, are you referring to my sons kayak that I posted on Facebook? What is the relevance? Is there a point?
Did you read what I said?..odds of getting drawn..not opportunities.

[Rob Chipman]

Horshur:

Fair point, especially given the thread title is "allocation too high". I should clarify - I don't want to reduce GOs allocation so that I can get it. That's slicing up and fighting over a decreasing pie, or as Jesse says "managing to zero". That's pointless game.

I want to change public perceptions about management of and access to wild landscapes and wildlife, and I want to do that through persuasion rather than by competing for the levers of political power. The end game is more and better habitat and more wildlife (and not just game, but all wildlife) in a long term sustainable system. I want the policy decisions to be science based. I want a funding model and I want social license for wildlife management as well as hunting. I want lots of access for non-hunters as well.

Right now, as a province, we have no declared goals and no funding model. Wildlife is politicized and monetized (killing grizzlies for trophies - bad, restricting access to them so that bear viewing companies can virtue signal while earning revenue? Good. Crashing moose populations? Who cares?). We need to change that. I think hunters are the people who will do it, especially if we hammer on the NACM and set a goal, get a funding model and change the public perception of who we are and what we do.

There have been lots of enemies made over this fight and there is a lot of bad blood. We need to move past it. We aren't going to move past (I don't think) until GOs can explain convincingly why they have the same interests as resident hunters. Bearvalley has tried to do that and I give him credit for it. I just don't think he's doing a good enough job. My evidence is this thread, but you've seen it elsewhere. There are still RHs who think GOs shouldn't be allies with us.

There are other groups and large parts of the population that don't look fondly on GOs either, and that's something that has to be addressed and changed (not to make me happy, but for us to make progress toward where we need to be).

The GOs want to be allies with us. We need allies but we don't need allies that hurt us. We need to resolve this and come to see eye to eye and understand why we should be allies or we have to split. The world comes at you fast, as we all know. A nice grip and grin photo op with Christy Clarke may have seemed like a great idea a year or two ago. Now? Not so much (hence "political but not partisan"). Anti Christy Clarke groups came out swinging over a $60k donation made by the Safari Club to GOABC. They made lots of headlines. We need to solve this and GOs need to help.

But your original point is well taken: we don't win if all we do is fight with GOs over a dwindling resource.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Horshur:

Fair point, especially given the thread title is "allocation too high". I should clarify - I don't want to reduce GOs allocation so that I can get it. That's slicing up and fighting over a decreasing pie, or as Jesse says "managing to zero". That's pointless game.

I want to change public perceptions about management of and access to wild landscapes and wildlife, and I want to do that through persuasion rather than by competing for the levers of political power. The end game is more and better habitat and more wildlife (and not just game, but all wildlife) in a long term sustainable system. I want the policy decisions to be science based. I want a funding model and I want social license for wildlife management as well as hunting. I want lots of access for non-hunters as well.

Right now, as a province, we have no declared goals and no funding model. Wildlife is politicized and monetized (killing grizzlies for trophies - bad, restricting access to them so that bear viewing companies can virtue signal while earning revenue? Good. Crashing moose populations? Who cares?). We need to change that. I think hunters are the people who will do it, especially if we hammer on the NACM and set a goal, get a funding model and change the public perception of who we are and what we do.

There have been lots of enemies made over this fight and there is a lot of bad blood. We need to move past it. We aren't going to move past (I don't think) until GOs can explain convincingly why they have the same interests as resident hunters. Bearvalley has tried to do that and I give him credit for it. I just don't think he's doing a good enough job. My evidence is this thread, but you've seen it elsewhere. There are still RHs who think GOs shouldn't be allies with us.

There are other groups and large parts of the population that don't look fondly on GOs either, and that's something that has to be addressed and changed (not to make me happy, but for us to make progress toward where we need to be).

The GOs want to be allies with us. We need allies but we don't need allies that hurt us. We need to resolve this and come to see eye to eye and understand why we should be allies or we have to split. The world comes at you fast, as we all know. A nice grip and grin photo op with Christy Clarke may have seemed like a great idea a year or two ago. Now? Not so much (hence "political but not partisan"). Anti Christy Clarke groups came out swinging over a $60k donation made by the Safari Club to GOABC. They made lots of headlines. We need to solve this and GOs need to help.

But your original point is well taken: we don't win if all we do is fight with GOs over a dwindling resource.

Rob you nailed it. We need more wildlife on the ground, period. The only way we can make enough noise is together. The MOU that was signed in June is one step in the right direction to putting wildlife 1st and getting more game on the ground.
The fight never started until the population started tanking.

I know there are a lot of guides that are happy to sitting at the same table working on the same goal. The ministry for years has told me that coming to the table with FN , residents and GO we stand a far better chance in getting through to the top brass.

We have to start somewhere.

[Fisher-Dude]

Some people are dumb enough to think that 500:1 odds is a better situation than 1000:1 odds, when in fact you'd have to live an average of 500+ years to have an even chance to be drawn in the first place.

No wonder the NDP got votes with those people living among us.

The only thing that helps hunters have a realistically better chance of getting that animal is increasing annual allowable harvest. And that comes from growing animal populations, not from thinking a 1 in 500 chance of drawing a tag is something to strive for.

The 59 animals shifted in the allocation policy, over 105,000 resident hunters, at a harvest success rate of 25%, is a 0.2% increase in tags available, and if we consider 167,000 LEH applications were sent in last year, the percentage gets even more minuscule.

Yeah, might be way easier to grow 59 animals in this province than to continue managing to zero and fighting for scraps along the way, eh?

[Wild one]

People just need to stop thinking with emotion about getting revenge in hopes of getting a slight increase in allocation %

Start using our heads towards population enchantment in hopes to increase overall allocation available

[Whonnock Boy]

FD.... I guess this comment was once again directed at me. Strange though, I thought you had put me on ignore.

Regardless, you're blowing hot air that doesn't need to be blown. We all get it. We need to grow more animals. Thanks for your insight. And if it's of any consolation, I much prefer the odds at 500:1, than at 1000:1, unless you think the the kamloops sheep populations can multiply by 10 times for better odds at a 100:1. How about 20 times for 50:1? Can they, or are you arguing just for the sake of arguing because you don't like what I have done in regards to the BCWF? Get over it.....

You should tell us what the game plan is when we do get more wildlife on the ground. Are the guide outfitters going to return allocation to resident hunters because they now have too much? Willingly? Without asking? Without a fight?

As I said earlier, this is just a discussion. Nobody is writing resolutions or rallying the troops to hit the steps of the legislature. When that starts to happen, maybe then you can tie those panties of yours in a knot.... :lol:




Some people are dumb enough to think that 500:1 odds is a better situation than 1000:1 odds, when in fact you'd have to live an average of 500+ years to have an even chance to be drawn in the first place.

No wonder the NDP got votes with those people living among us.

The only thing that helps hunters have a realistically better chance of getting that animal is increasing annual allowable harvest. And that comes from growing animal populations, not from thinking a 1 in 500 chance of drawing a tag is something to strive for.

The 59 animals shifted in the allocation policy, over 105,000 resident hunters, at a harvest success rate of 25%, is a 0.2% increase in tags available, and if we consider 167,000 LEH applications were sent in last year, the percentage gets even more minuscule.

Yeah, might be way easier to grow 59 animals in this province than to continue managing to zero and fighting for scraps along the way, eh?

[Rob Chipman]

"The only thing that helps hunters have a realistically better chance of getting that animal is increasing annual allowable harvest."

While true, I think that statement needs re-framing. We need more animals on the mountain, but that really should mean a diverse and sustainable wild landscape, and it shouldn't be motivated primarily by our desire to have more animals to hunt.

I'm not even crunching the numbers you guys are throwing around because it's immaterial who's math is right. Most of us recognize that dividing a shrinking pie isn't the path to Nirvana. That kind of applies not only to animal populations and allowable harvest, but also social license.

If we keep throwing darts at people we should be allied with we're dividing up the social license pie. Now, that pie isn't shrinking, but we really do need to own the majority of it. Vegan animal lovers who live in Kits, vote NDP and think conservation's biggest challenge is the stigma attached to trans grizzlies may seem stupid to some of us, but we need their support. Anyone who thinks that we'll increase support by telling those people how stupid they are for not understanding things doesn't understand humans. We need to stop.

We need specific management goals, we need a plan to achieve them, we need scientific management, we need a funding model and we need social license. We need to keep our eyes on that prize and anything that doesn't contribute to that needs to be abandoned. We've seen the progress made by people working in that direction and we need to build on it.

Is allocation a good deal and should we expend energy on it? Only so much as it helps or hinders us from achieving our goal. In my opinion (and I could be totally wrong) the GOs need to explain clearly to everyone who's unhappy with them how they contribute to those goals. The biggest challenge, obviously, is how they contribute to us getting social license. Right now they're perceived by some as the guys who help rich Americans shoot charismatic mega fauna for money, not as conservationists who protect a public resource. They're also perceived by some as guys who lobby and donate to a corrupt government for special access to public resources. (By the way - BCWF is not perceived by the mainstream as a conservation organization, but as an organization that represents hunters. Does everyone see the problem with that?)

As I see it GOs are presenting us with a choice: go with the GOs and oppose the people who perceive things differently than we like (and call them for instance, stupid NDP voters) or make the GOs prove that they're helping us convert a significant portion of our opponents into either neutrals or allies.

[Whonnock Boy]

Jesus, you're smart..... Your time would be better served at the provincial level.
"The only thing that helps hunters have a realistically better chance of getting that animal is increasing annual allowable harvest."

While true, I think that statement needs re-framing. We need more animals on the mountain, but that really should mean a diverse and sustainable wild landscape, and it shouldn't be motivated primarily by our desire to have more animals to hunt.

I'm not even crunching the numbers you guys are throwing around because it's immaterial who's math is right. Most of us recognize that dividing a shrinking pie isn't the path to Nirvana. That kind of applies not only to animal populations and allowable harvest, but also social license.

If we keep throwing darts at people we should be allied with we're dividing up the social license pie. Now, that pie isn't shrinking, but we really do need to own the majority of it. Vegan animal lovers who live in Kits, vote NDP and think conservation's biggest challenge is the stigma attached to trans grizzlies may seem stupid to some of us, but we need their support. Anyone who thinks that we'll increase support by telling those people how stupid they are for not understanding things doesn't understand humans. We need to stop.

We need specific management goals, we need a plan to achieve them, we need scientific management, we need a funding model and we need social license. We need to keep our eyes on that prize and anything that doesn't contribute to that needs to be abandoned. We've seen the progress made by people working in that direction and we need to build on it.

Is allocation a good deal and should we expend energy on it? Only so much as it helps or hinders us from achieving our goal. In my opinion (and I could be totally wrong) the GOs need to explain clearly to everyone who's unhappy with them how they contribute to those goals. The biggest challenge, obviously, is how they contribute to us getting social license. Right now they're perceived by some as the guys who help rich Americans shoot charismatic mega fauna for money, not as conservationists who protect a public resource. They're also perceived by some as guys who lobby and donate to a corrupt government for special access to public resources. (By the way - BCWF is not perceived by the mainstream as a conservation organization, but as an organization that represents hunters. Does everyone see the problem with that?)

As I see it GOs are presenting us with a choice: go with the GOs and oppose the people who perceive things differently than we like (and call them for instance, stupid NDP voters) or make the GOs prove that they're helping us convert a significant portion of our opponents into either neutrals or allies.

[HarryToolips]

Well said once again Rob.......

[HappyJack]

http://www.mccowans.com/content/hunting-territory-located-75-miles-ne-prince-george

Here is an outfitting territory for sale.

I see 10 COW moose in their allocation, what is up with that? They must really be getting some trophies from them? IMHO that is 10 moose tags that could be given back to resident hunters.

[Fisher-Dude]

http://www.mccowans.com/content/hunting-territory-located-75-miles-ne-prince-george

Here is an outfitting territory for sale.

I see 10 COW moose in their allocation, what is up with that? They must really be getting some trophies from them? IMHO that is 10 moose tags that could be given back to resident hunters.

I should get a few buds together and buy that.

$149K for 50 moose in 5 years.

[j270wsm]

How does it work for outfitters that don't harvest all of their allocation? Do they lose some of it if they have left over tags every 5 yrs?

[HappyJack]

I should get a few buds together and buy that.

$149K for 50 moose in 5 years.

Better than that really as you'd get another allocation after the current 5 years is up. A bargain for sure.

[souwester]

Rob Chipman would you be willing to start another thread to have some discussion about some of the comments you have made regarding the MOU that was signed and your ideas on what groups might be better for residents to partner with?
Allocation aside there is a lot of people in BC that want to hunt and trap species of wildlife that pretty much put us in the same boat as the outfitters in the public eye.
If the allocation argument can be kept separate I just really believe the groups that signed that MOU probably have the best chance of keeping a lot of opportunities we have available into the future even if it is on a smaller scale.
Appreciate your time ,thanks

[steveo]

How does it work for outfitters that don't harvest all of their allocation? Do they lose some of it if they have left over tags every 5 yrs?
I believe the outfitter will lose tags for the next allocation if tags are left over from the previous one but if the annual allowable harvest goes up they may not see any change.

[Rob Chipman]

Souwester:

Sure. First question: does anyone know where we can find an online copy of the actual MOU? I just took a quick look and was unsuccessful but I thought there was one floating around.

I'm not sure the allocation issue can be kept separate from any of this. There are at least two/three key issues there - should government give private business a quota on a public resource (not strictly a hunting or wildlife question and very political/philosophical), is the allocation far, and, related to the second, is it worth the effort to expend energy on putting more animals on the mountain if Gas benefit from that disproportionately. (Don't confuse me identifying the issues with what my positions on them are. I'm happy to clarify them in due course, but I'm just putting them there as issues people are concerned with.

Groups better to partner with? Than GOABC? Sure, I can expand. I don't have problems with the other groups in the MOU and I admit I wasn't clear on the in an earlier post. I really think GOABC is the problematic ingredient.

Other groups for us to partner with to further our goals? Lots. The more the merrier. All we need in coinciding interests and goals.

I'm not interested in making a partnership to maintain current opportunities on a smaller scale. I can't see the point. That said, more talk is good. It clarifies our thinking and clears up who's with us and who isn't.

Let's start with an online version of the MOU so we all know what we're talking about. Anyone have one handy? I actually thought a link to it had been posted here on HBC somewhere.

[HappyJack]

How does it work for outfitters that don't harvest all of their allocation? Do they lose some of it if they have left over tags every 5 yrs?

They probably have the whole quota gone by year 4, they can overbook just like the airlines and if they do happen to drop more animals than they have allocation for it's no big deal because they don't get charged. For example if they have 5 bull moose tags, they can sell 10 hunts and if they actually shoot 6 moose no big deal, plus they get to keep the money from the 4 unsuccessful hunters even if they don't have a legal tag.

[Fisher-Dude]

The commitment from the previous government was that any increases in AAH with growing populations would go to residents. This was an olive branch extended by the minister to the resident lobby groups after the second go-round with the allocation percentages.

Now that the NDP is in, all bets are off.

With the former executive director of the anti-hunting Sierra Club in the environment portfolio, I have little faith that any hunting group will get any increases, except maybe FN.

Hound hunters beware, the Sierra Club is opposed to the use of dogs for pursuing bears and cats.

[Steele Shot]

I was sure he would have your support and that of a few others....the support of the entitlement crowd.
To some it's not about the wildlife...it's merely about the right to take.
And they will continue to take until it's gone.
Funny, the ones carrying on the allocation bitch are the same clowns that questioned the BCWF signing an MOU with other user groups to move forward in the sustainable management of wildlife.
Whats your agenda?

My question would be. We have all heard about this MOU but what exactly is in this document. I have heard lots of speculation but no one has come out and out and actually said what it entails. With out a bunch of conjecture what does this MOU contains what does does it mean for Resident Hunters? Any knowledgeable, informed and factual information would go along way toward helping us understand what is going on.

[Whonnock Boy]

Dell Griffith = Fisher Dude... :lol:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU0CuPH7akM
The commitment from the previous government was that any increases in AAH with growing populations would go to residents. This was an olive branch extended by the minister to the resident lobby groups after the second go-round with the allocation percentages.

Now that the NDP is in, all bets are off.

With the former executive director of the anti-hunting Sierra Club in the environment portfolio, I have little faith that any hunting group will get any increases, except maybe FN.

Hound hunters beware, the Sierra Club is opposed to the use of dogs for pursuing bears and cats.

[lange1212]

If people want to talk MOU start a new post rather than attempting to hijack this one to distract from the allocation discussion.

[f350ps]

^^^Hahaha......you nailed it, very Whitty! :) K

[J_T]

My question would be. We have all heard about this MOU but what exactly is in this document. I have heard lots of speculation but no one has come out and out and actually said what it entails. With out a bunch of conjecture what does this MOU contains what does does it mean for Resident Hunters? Any knowledgeable, informed and factual information would go along way toward helping us understand what is going on. The MOU was discussed in another thread with details of what is in it. What is it everyone expects? Its a single statement to focus on wildlife and surprise surprise, get along and work collaboratively. How's that working so far?
Lange, apologies for the hijack. Hopefully this ends it.

[Steele Shot]

If people want to talk MOU start a new post rather than attempting to hijack this one to distract from the allocation discussion.
That's why I asked what is "understood" in this memorandum. After all to have a MOU you first must have topics that all parties "understand" and agree to. I think we deserve to know what our representatives signed and agreed to on our behalf. What did the resident hunters gain or loose? Have our rights as resident hunters been quietly been thrown under the guide, FN bus. We really need to know details. I'm pretty sure there are BOD members both regionally and provincialy that could she'd some light as to what is in the MOU for all parties involved
If there is a copy elsewhere then please post a link.

[Fisher-Dude]

That's why I asked what is "understood" in this memorandum. After all to have a MOU you first must have topics that all parties "understand" and agree to. I think we deserve to know what our representatives signed and agreed to on our behalf. What did the resident hunters gain or loose? Have our rights as resident hunters been quietly been thrown under the guide, FN bus. We really need to know details. I'm pretty sure there are BOD members both regionally and provincialy that could she'd some light as to what is in the MOU for all parties involved
If there is a copy elsewhere then please post a link.

I don't know, but there's lots of discussion on this back where you came from,

#NoEd2018

[Rob Chipman]

I'll admit that I'm a bit confused by the MOU (or if not the MOU itself subsequent discussion). My understanding is that the MOU is what I heard at the AGM and, as J_T posted in another thread, it consists of the following:

"The British Columbia Wildlife Federation, the Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia, the Wild Sheep Society of BC, the Wildlife Stewardship Council, the BC Trappers Association and the United Bowhunters of British Columbia agree to work together for the sake of building and maintaining healthy wildlife populations for First Nations, BC resident hunters, guide outfitters, trappers and the non-hunting public."

Hopefully someone can confirm that I'm not missing something there. If I'm not missing anything then all that was agreed to was that we'd work together with the GOABC, WSS, BC Trappers, Bowhunters and Wildlife Stewardship Council. There's nothing wrong with agreeing to work with those groups.

We need to now actually start doing the work, and while doing the work we can evaluate the value of each partner. I'm concerned that GOABC may have some goals other than what is in the MOU that may end up being problematic for us (that's a fear, not a fact by any means, and I could be wrong, and there's nothing wrong or devious with GOABC having goals other than the ones expressed in the MOU) and that they may bring bad press to us, but it is what it is. GOABC is a player in all things BC wildlife and we can't pretend they aren't.

So...in answer to Steele Shot's post above, if the MOU begins and ends with what I think I heard and the AGM and what J_T posted, there was only one topic understood and agreed to: we've agreed to work together for the sake of building and maintaining healthy wildlife populations for everybody.

There's nothing really wrong with that. If I've misunderstood something or got something wrong I encourage someone with better knowledge on the subject to straighten it out.

[guest]

Well said,

Letter has been sent and I would add that residents concerned with wildlife allocations for non-residents being set too high also make a point of meeting with their MLA's.

my MLA is a Liberal, and during the 2014-2015 Allocation debate and protests, he cared less about the Residents of BC and sided with the largely Foreign owned Guide Outfitters, heck if the Liberals could get big money selling off what's left of this province ....... They would. They are all about Big Business. Case in point, have they done anything for our Wild Pacific Salmon and its mismanagement? No, they say it's a Federal issue and won't stand up for dick shat ....... In this case not even for the FN ...... They would rather, watch it go away, another case of manage to Zero. Bring on the Foreign owned Fish Farms...... More money in a Liberals pocket when elected to pad a pension.