Hunting License Fees

[thompie505]

I’m sure this has been covered, I was just reading through the regs and I saw that only $7 of the $32 we pay for a resident hunting license goes to the HCTF. The other $25 goes to ‘general government revenue’ . It said approximately only $2.5m goes into conservation. Really disappointed to see this, has the BCWF or any other group attacked this to try and see a better balance or majority go towards conservation? 100% of our freshwater fishing fees go towards fishing opportunity/conservation etc. why can’t hunting fees?

[adriaticum]

I think this has been debunked a number of times before.
Yes, lots of money from fishing/hunting license fees goes to general revenue, but more money comes out from the general revenue to conservation.
Government spends more money on habitat restoration than the license fees amount to.
But, yes this speaks to how the government is run.
Government is a ****ing mess and they like it that way.
So nobody knows where the money goes.

[J_T]

Over the past year there has been a lot of talk around this and how to increase the amount/percentage toward the HCTF and to wildlife enhancement directly. Initial discussion is on a doubling of the surcharge on the licence. While the licence fee goes to general revenue, the surcharge goes to HCTF. There is a proposal to double the surcharge. Though this only comes from hunters buying hunting licences, there are recommendations for a number of other revenue generating opportunities which would see additional money going to wildlife projects.

It is also important to understand there are partnerships available for wildlife projects. Partnerships which provide funding for wildlife. Not by and for Government, but for wildlife interest groups (hunters) who want to put together a project and carry it out.

We don't have to wait for Government, and we shouldn't be chastising Government for a lack of effort. Yes, their effort is below the requirement, but hunters can take this on themselves. Many have, and many will continue to do so. It just takes people power.

So while Government may be ^^"a ****ing mess", it's up to us, to step up and do what needs to be done. There just aren't enough hunters who actually care enough to get involved.

[2chodi]

Yes, the BCWF, Guide Outfitters, Trappers etc bring this up with government all the time. In fact, every major party in BC, in their pre-election platforms, said they would dedicate all licence fees, but it hasn't happened yet. adriaticum (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/member.php?188077-adriaticum) is correct, licence fees in themselves nowhere near cover the fish and wildlife budget, which is about $75 million annually (hard to tell in BC) — about $200M is needed. Those who contribute through licence fees want the money dedicated, and also want a voice in how the money is spent with a focus on on-the-ground actions that really make a difference.


I’m sure this has been covered, I was just reading through the regs and I saw that only $7 of the $32 we pay for a resident hunting license goes to the HCTF. The other $25 goes to ‘general government revenue’ . It said approximately only $2.5m goes into conservation. Really disappointed to see this, has the BCWF or any other group attacked this to try and see a better balance or majority go towards conservation? 100% of our freshwater fishing fees go towards fishing opportunity/conservation etc. why can’t hunting fees?

[Greenthumbed]

Over the past year there has been a lot of talk around this and how to increase the amount/percentage toward the HCTF and to wildlife enhancement directly. Initial discussion is on a doubling of the surcharge on the licence. While the licence fee goes to general revenue, the surcharge goes to HCTF. There is a proposal to double the surcharge. Though this only comes from hunters buying hunting licences, there are recommendations for a number of other revenue generating opportunities which would see additional money going to wildlife projects.

It is also important to understand there are partnerships available for wildlife projects. Partnerships which provide funding for wildlife. Not by and for Government, but for wildlife interest groups (hunters) who want to put together a project and carry it out.

We don't have to wait for Government, and we shouldn't be chastising Government for a lack of effort. Yes, their effort is below the requirement, but hunters can take this on themselves. Many have, and many will continue to do so. It just takes people power.

So while Government may be ^^"a ****ing mess", it's up to us, to step up and do what needs to be done. There just aren't enough hunters who actually care enough to get involved.

These are wise words.
Our local R&G club took this approach a few years ago. We stopped waiting for government to do the things that needed to be done in our back yard and start doing it ourselves. There are funding avenues available to Not-for -profit organizations that are not available to government. This can be achieved at the R&G level with some planning and direction. More clubs need to start thinking in these terms. I always say that you don’t ask someone else to mow the lawn in your backyard. You do it yourself. Otherwise you will be waiting a long time!

[thompie505]

Thank you for some of the clarifications, what I’m understanding is there is money allocated to projects but those projects need people to begin studies and actually do the work? And the allocated money is approximately 75m which is great but more funding is needed to make a difference. More projects like the SIMD project? Wildlife overpasses? Habitat restoration? Culls is certain areas?

[Greenthumbed]

Thank you for some of the clarifications, what I’m understanding is there is money allocated to projects but those projects need people to begin studies and actually do the work? And the allocated money is approximately 75m which is great but more funding is needed to make a difference. More projects like the SIMD project? Wildlife overpasses? Habitat restoration? Culls is certain areas?
These funding sources are not already allocated to specific projects. The project needs to be planned developed and proposed to the funding sources then the funding source decides whether the project is excepted for funding. There can be considerable competition for those funds.

[2chodi]

The approximate $75 million is the budget allocated to fish, wildlife and habitat programs in the province as part of the overall budget. Only a fraction of that is earmarked for "projects." In BC it's hard to tell how much is actually allocated as the money is spread across multiple ministries including Forestry, Water Lands and Resource Management, Environment and Climate Change etc.

All of the surcharge money for hunting and trapping licences as well as the Premier's tags for sheep goes to the HCTF — there are always more asks than money available. Check out the HCTF's website to see how the money is spent.


Thank you for some of the clarifications, what I’m understanding is there is money allocated to projects but those projects need people to begin studies and actually do the work? And the allocated money is approximately 75m which is great but more funding is needed to make a difference. More projects like the SIMD project? Wildlife overpasses? Habitat restoration? Culls is certain areas?

[alexgrut]

This has been a source of contention for many hunters and conservationists, who believe that more of the hunting license fee should go to conservation.The government has so far resisted calls to increase the HCTF allocation. However, the BCWF has vowed to continue its campaign, and I thonk, it is possible that the government will eventually cave to pressure.

https://zaza-casino-en-ligne.com/

[J_T]

^^ fortunately the people who have chosen to reply to you here are hunters that are working for hunters, for wildlife. Government has put together the "Together for Wildlife" initiative. Although it has not "ramped up" as we had hoped, it is making progress. Many of us believe this is the best shot wildlife have seen in decades. But, we can't 'just' spend money at random. There has to be a plan. We are working very hard on objectives, priority setting, stewardship plans and relationship development. With stewardship action plans, we will turn our attention to 'how' those action recommendations can be implemented on the ground. Funding, authorization to carry out the work and objective setting (ie, why are we doing said action). As 2chodi indicated, fully ramped up, we can spend millions if it's available. But we need to work on determining the successful path to that end goal. It's a work in progress. Some days it feels like 1 step forward, 2 steps back. But we keep plugging away.

[elker]

The elephant in the room is the predator control. Had the government used a portion of the $75 million to put $2000 on each wolf, the trappers would take enough wolves out. We will then have a healthy population of the game animals

[oclarkii]

https://www.gofishbc.com/about-us/who-we-are/

Fishing license revenues go directly to the FFSBC to support the provincial lake stocking program, research, education etc. throughout the province.

[Bigdoggdon]

The elephant in the room is the predator control. Had the government used a portion of the $75 million to put $2000 on each wolf, the trappers would take enough wolves out. We will then have a healthy population of the game animals

Absolutely agree with this. Make the bounty on wolves enough that a trapper could earn a decent living doing it and the problem will be sorted in quick order.

Instead we have a Government that would rather spend $10,000/hr to have a "professional marksman" from a foreign country shoot far less of them from a helicopter.