Special Permit Poll

[Mooseman]

Details about the permits are to be found in this thread:

http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=381095#post381095

[Gateholio]

I think the permit are a good idea, in principle. I'd rather see the program reworked than scrapped.

[Bighorn hunter]

I think the permit are a good idea, in principle. I'd rather see the program reworked than scrapped.

hear hear or here here(not sure which,tough crowd here sometimes)I like the idea to. Everyone has a chance at a once in a lifetime hunt.Although money can talk, but at least it is going to a great cause

[6616]

Make no mistake about this guys, the BCWF wants the permits to continue as well, but under the current system and terms that were originally agreed to,,,, but possibly not under some of the changes being proposed...!

[wsm]

i think the permits are a good idea. should only be for RESIDENTS.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

i think the permits are a good idea. should only be for RESIDENTS.


As much as I'm "pro-resident", the program doesn't make much money off us compared to the auction permit.

I voted to keep it. Looks like we've got a little time to come up with some fresh ideas.

SSS

[Bighorn hunter]

I would like to know why at this point 3 are opposed?What are the negatives of this program.

[Mooseman]

There are four now that think money grows on trees. I should not say that. It is very likely that they don't know all the challenges and the issues at hand.

This would be a real blow to wildlife conservation in BC. It should not be about resident vs. non-resident hunters. This seems to be a popular theme these days. There are some things that are bigger then that and this is one of them!

The regions just lost their inventory funds or most of it, as some of you know. To loose these Special Permit funds would just ad to this serious problem. This is a problem that should really make us wonder where our priorities lie.

Every hunters and MoE's #1 concern should be the welfare of our game. The moment we loose sight of that, we run the risk of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

If there are issues, lets talk and find solutions. You don't get a divorce every time you argue about who takes the garbage out either. :?

[TIKA 300]

There are four now that think money grows on trees. I should not say that. It is very likely that they don't know all the challenges and the issues at hand.

This would be a real blow to wildlife conservation in BC. It should not be about resident vs. non-resident hunters. This seems to be a popular theme these days. There are some things that are bigger then that and this is one of them!

The regions just lost their inventory funds or most of it, as some of you know. To loose these Special Permit funds would just ad to this serious problem. This is a problem that should really make us wonder where our priorities lie.

Every hunters and MoE's #1 concern should be the welfare of our game. The moment we loose sight of that, we run the risk of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

If there are issues, lets talk and find solutions. You don't get a divorce every time you argue about who takes the garbage out either. :?

This being the reason why i wont vote on some issues.... :confused:

[dana]

I voted no. Sure the wildlife can really use the money, but what I see our neighbors to the south doing, scares the hell out of me. And I dont put it past the money hungry Liberals to do the same thing here in this province. In the states, hunting is fast becoming a rich man's sport. And the rich man isn't doing much hunting either. Rather the guides are getting fat pimping out the bigest and the badest. Numerous states have now more Conservation Auction tags than they do LEH opportunities for residents. They make more money that way. Average Joe Blows are getting shut out and the rich man can hunt every year he wants. They are moving more and more to a European Management Style. I'm sure Teddy is rolling over in his grave. It is a slippery slope that can go way way too far from what we hold near and dear to our hearts as our hunting heritage in this province. To hear comments on the other thread about killing the resident hunts in order to get a older age class ram for the auction tag holder, scares the crap out of me. We hear people bitch and moan on this site all the time that we need to can LEH and give more opportunities to residents versus non residents, but then some call for resident hunting to be canned so that some rich guy can fly in an kill a ram in the dead of winter. No, I don't agree with that. The money might seem good for habitat, but it really is Blood Money. We need people to come up with better alternatives and hopefully that is what the BCWF is doing. We don't need to follow the same path as the Yanks.

[Dirty]

Why not make certain LEH draws we already have "special draws" where you can enter more than one permit. It would achieve the same purpose without harvesting more sheep on top of the LEH sheep. Although 1 sheep a year is not much, it is if they are being taken out of the same herds. I believe the special permit is a "perverse incentive". The opportunity to shoot a late season sheep where ever you want is incentive for hunters to donate money in the form of "entries". However, the hunt counteracts the intentions because it's goal is to conserve sheep with the funds, but it is creating a commodity notion of sheep. Thereby reducing the overall quality and quantity of mature rams.

[Mooseman]

I voted no. Sure the wildlife can really use the money, but what I see our neighbors to the south doing, scares the hell out of me. And I dont put it past the money hungry Liberals to do the same thing here in this province. In the states, hunting is fast becoming a rich man's sport. And the rich man isn't doing much hunting either. Rather the guides are getting fat pimping out the bigest and the badest. Numerous states have now more Conservation Auction tags than they do LEH opportunities for residents. They make more money that way. Average Joe Blows are getting shut out and the rich man can hunt every year he wants. They are moving more and more to a European Management Style. I'm sure Teddy is rolling over in his grave. It is a slippery slope that can go way way too far from what we hold near and dear to our hearts as our hunting heritage in this province. To hear comments on the other thread about killing the resident hunts in order to get a older age class ram for the auction tag holder, scares the crap out of me. We hear people bitch and moan on this site all the time that we need to can LEH and give more opportunities to residents versus non residents, but then some call for resident hunting to be canned so that some rich guy can fly in an kill a ram in the dead of winter. No, I don't agree with that. The money might seem good for habitat, but it really is Blood Money. We need people to come up with better alternatives and hopefully that is what the BCWF is doing. We don't need to follow the same path as the Yanks.

Hi dana, nice comment. I think you said what many think. I just have a couple of questions for you:

Might I ask what you know about the European hunting system?

How do you recommend we will pay for what needs to get done? (Our resident hunting license and tag fees)?

Where would hunting and firearm laws be without SCI, WSF, NRA or GOABC and so on? Remember the Grizzly moratorium.

I am sincerely asking you to take a step back and look at the big picture. If we hunters, rich, poor, resident or non, rifle or bow don't start to spend our efforts and resources on defending hunting as a whole, we will loose hunting.

[6616]

I voted no. Sure the wildlife can really use the money, but what I see our neighbors to the south doing, scares the hell out of me. And I dont put it past the money hungry Liberals to do the same thing here in this province. In the states, hunting is fast becoming a rich man's sport. And the rich man isn't doing much hunting either. Rather the guides are getting fat pimping out the bigest and the badest. Numerous states have now more Conservation Auction tags than they do LEH opportunities for residents. They make more money that way. Average Joe Blows are getting shut out and the rich man can hunt every year he wants. They are moving more and more to a European Management Style. I'm sure Teddy is rolling over in his grave. It is a slippery slope that can go way way too far from what we hold near and dear to our hearts as our hunting heritage in this province. To hear comments on the other thread about killing the resident hunts in order to get a older age class ram for the auction tag holder, scares the crap out of me. We hear people bitch and moan on this site all the time that we need to can LEH and give more opportunities to residents versus non residents, but then some call for resident hunting to be canned so that some rich guy can fly in an kill a ram in the dead of winter. No, I don't agree with that. The money might seem good for habitat, but it really is Blood Money. We need people to come up with better alternatives and hopefully that is what the BCWF is doing. We don't need to follow the same path as the Yanks.

Thanks Dana, good post.
The BCWF supports the program as is with the current limit on permits and the current restrictions, as well as the opportunity for resident participation. But, we see new ideas and concepts being suggested that would move us rapidly towards the situation you describe. Good insight. The program is working as is, why let greed spoil it.

[budismyhorse]

Mooseman,

Please allow others to have an opinion. It is annoying that polls are being drummed up so in order to single people out and attempt to change opinions.

From your posts you don't seem to know much about this Special Permit issue and are almost entirely concerned about the money, when there is so much more involved than just money.

You make it seem like this is the straw that breaks the camels back....when we are talking about a 100k per year across the province!

Attaboy Dana, at least I'm not the only one who cringed when resident opportunity was questioned over on the other thread! and you are right, that attitude IS scary.

[Brambles]

Like Dana, I fear it will get out of control.

First it starts out as one sheep and one elk being auctioned. Then two.....then three

Then it will bleed over into different species until we are just like the neighbours to the south.

If there was some sort of guarantee that the system doesn't get greedy then I'd say yes, but politicans and "guarantee's" are all too often spoken in the same scentence, during the campaign anyways. But we all know how often a politician keeps his word.

[dana]

I've got a good book that goes into detail on the whole European system versus the North American system. It is called Wildlife Conservation Policy. It is a series of essays compiled by Valerius Geist and Ian McTaggart-Cowan. It also goes into detail regarding the Slippery Slope that we are facing on many fronts in North America right now. I suggest you read it, and your question will be answered.

I would suggest that we need to have government that puts Wildlife and Nature as a whole as one of its priorities. Makes no sense to promote the Greatest Place on Earth and yet not pump our tax dollars back into what makes this place so great.

As for your list of orgs that have fought for our rights, you forgot numerous others. DU, RMEF and the BCWF. These are more grass roots thought ain't they? The ones you listed are more focused towards the 'rich' not the average joe blow. We need both, don't forget that.

[6616]

Hi dana, nice comment. I think you said what many think. I just have a couple of questions for you:

Might I ask what you know about the European hunting system?

How do you recommend we will pay for what needs to get done? (Our resident hunting license and tag fees)?

Where would hunting and firearm laws be without SCI, WSF, NRA or GOABC and so on? Remember the Grizzly moratorium.

I am sincerely asking you to take a step back and look at the big picture. If we hunters, rich, poor, resident or non, rifle or bow don't start to spend our efforts and resources on defending hunting as a whole, we will loose hunting.

The truth is that HCTF generates several millions of dollars per year for conservation. Add to that the work of TNT, NCC, TLC, and voluntary conservation efforts from clubs and it turns out that the $150,000.00 per year that the special permits fund generates is paltry and also comes with a cost of compromising the North American Conservation Model. I agree we cannot ever nonchalantly throw away any funding source, every bit counts, but we have to make sure the costs associated are within acceptable limits, and be aware that the special permits fund is just not large enough in reality to have losing it become a serious catastophic threat to hunting or conservation as you imply.

TaKing a step back and looking at how to save hunting for future generations and you will see that hunter participation rate is probably the biggest key issue. Participation of the ordinary every day folks who are voters and who will always make up the vast majority of hunters, it's those people we need to cater to, and they don't give a ratz azz about special permits. I have yet to see any special permit funding going into programs specifically designed to defend hunting. There's no question that on the ground conservation is critical, but it's not the absolute saviour of hunting, hunter numbers are the saviour of hunting...!

[1/2 slam]

I think the permit are a good idea, in principle. I'd rather see the program reworked than scrapped.

I couldn't agree more.

[Bighorn hunter]

Thanks Dana and others for posting some of the reasons for the no side. One has to remember(me included) that there is always two sides to every story,and that we need both sides to speak up so that we get a balance down the middle that is beneficial for all involved

[budismyhorse]

bighorn hunter,

its not really the "no" side, more the, "there is more to this issue" side.

For this poll to be of use, it would likely have 6 options, not yes or no.

I can't vote on it, because I lay in the middle somewhere. It has merits, but needs to be adjusted.

[bigwhiteys]

I think it was a great opportunity for residents, non-residents and the sheep. It would be sad to see it go... I voted YES.

Carl

[quadrakid]

governments tend to look at natural resources in terms of dollar values be it tourism revenue, revenue from forestry,mining etc as well as revenue from hunting.i don,t think they should be putting a money number on wildlife. remember the survey the govt wanted us all to fill out a few years ago with plenty of questions as to how much money we would spend to go hunting and how much is too much? i,m no conspiracy theorist but where do you think they are headed with this type of questioning? we should lobby for more cash for wildlife from govts and not sell off wild animals to the highest bidder.

[Moosenose]

I voted no. Sure the wildlife can really use the money, but what I see our neighbors to the south doing, scares the hell out of me. And I dont put it past the money hungry Liberals to do the same thing here in this province. In the states, hunting is fast becoming a rich man's sport. And the rich man isn't doing much hunting either. Rather the guides are getting fat pimping out the bigest and the badest. Numerous states have now more Conservation Auction tags than they do LEH opportunities for residents. They make more money that way. Average Joe Blows are getting shut out and the rich man can hunt every year he wants. They are moving more and more to a European Management Style. I'm sure Teddy is rolling over in his grave. It is a slippery slope that can go way way too far from what we hold near and dear to our hearts as our hunting heritage in this province. To hear comments on the other thread about killing the resident hunts in order to get a older age class ram for the auction tag holder, scares the crap out of me. We hear people bitch and moan on this site all the time that we need to can LEH and give more opportunities to residents versus non residents, but then some call for resident hunting to be canned so that some rich guy can fly in an kill a ram in the dead of winter. No, I don't agree with that. The money might seem good for habitat, but it really is Blood Money. We need people to come up with better alternatives and hopefully that is what the BCWF is doing. We don't need to follow the same path as the Yanks.


I haven't voted on this as I would like to find out more about this special tag that is auctioned off to the highest bidder. I agree with what Dana says here. There is something fundamentally wrong with taking away the hunting priviledges of BC residents and selling them to the highest bidder (foreign or otherwise). These animals are renewable resources, and are the property of all of BC. Management of these resources is critical and I look forward to hearing the alternatives from BCWF.

[6616]

I couldn't agree more.

The reality is that the program doesn't need reworked. Alternatives currently being suggected by MOE are the whole issue. We don't need alternatives. This program just needs to be left alone and administered by the original terms that were agreed to and established in the first place by the participating NGOs. The BCWF originally identified the the very important and very basic specific terms by which they would support this program that would ensure the terms of the NACM were not violated. These terms are now being threatened. Just because revenues are down a little doesn't mean MOE needs to panic and add more permits, or compromise NACM values to make the permits more attractive, or do anything stupid with undue haste that will jeopardize the future of the program.

I would hope that the pending BCWF convention discussion is considered more of an attempt to bring the program back on track rather than kill it.

[whitetailsheds]

I've checked the BCWF's website and can't find any link to minutes from meetings or discussions, or are they made available to general members? Are members consulted or "kept in the know" as to topics such as this?
I have been a member since April and not recieved a stitch of info, even the magazine (and yes, I've contacted them twice).
On the surface, I support this permit, for exactly the same reason Bob Fontana stated, if one ram brings that kind of money.......BUT ONLY one ram! Then so be it!
But I would also like to know what the BCWF's inner workings are doing right now?

[6616]

I've checked the BCWF's website and can't find any link to minutes from meetings or discussions, or are they made available to general members? Are members consulted or "kept in the know" as to topics such as this?
I have been a member since April and not recieved a stitch of info, even the magazine (and yes, I've contacted them twice).
On the surface, I support this permit, for exactly the same reason Bob Fontana stated, if one ram brings that kind of money.......BUT ONLY one ram! Then so be it!
But I would also like to know what the BCWF's inner workings are doing right now?

There will be no link to this on the BCWF web site, simply because the resolution is still in draft form and has not been screened by the executive committee or the resolutions committee yet, thus the final working of the reolution is as yet unknown.. Also the policy that will result from the disposition of the resolution remains unknown until the actual vote at convention occurrs, so there is no policy or policy change to report on at this time. As convention nears and the above administrative items are done the entire slate of resolutions will probably be posted. The resolution booklet is always sent to the clubs well before the convention so they can be discussed and decisions made at the club level prior to convention.

Grant, as far as I know it sometime takes quite a while for new members to get on all the mailing lists. Administration of the membership data base is undoubtedly a daunting task. As well, the updates on memberships are not always sent in by the clubs promptly or on time, and the membership person has no way of knowing club membershiop changes until such up-dates appear on her desk.

[Viking]

Voted no, I agree with dana

[Krico]

As it stands, I support the special permits. But the fact that we have one foot firmly planted on the slippery slope of auctioning off our wildlife does concern me. I would rather see it scrapped than expanded in any way down the road to increase revenues - something which in a time of financial hardship is really not unfathomable.

Also this may have been covered in the other thread (I didn't read all the posts) but why do they allow people to hire whatever guide they want??? You want to hunt area A, you should have to hire the outfitter with guiding rights in area A. Problem solved. No compensation needed. If you're the resident and want to go it on your own with your buds, go for it!

I think any resident who buys a sheep tag should automatically be entered for the draw the following year. This way the guys that actually hunt sheep all have an equal chance at the draw, and the fact that someone is a rich resident does not allow them to purchase 100 entries and increase their odds exponentially.

[budismyhorse]

great points from all,

as usual, Andy thanks for your imput. One question:

Are the specific terms public? I think they are at the heart of this issue and I would like to know more about that before I get more excited about this.

What I do know is that it took a considerable amount of convincing to get the NGO's to commit support, and it may be hearsay, but I feel that since day one, the specific terms haven't been followed through entirely. But I don't know for sure. Lots of rumour and BS out there.

so I would like to know more about the terms before I say whether or not the program should be continued as is, revamped, or scrapped.

[David Heitsman]

I voted yes and if it wasn't broken don't go trying to fix it.

I've sat on that comittee many times and every year someone from the EK has expressed a concern over the steady harvest of bighorns from that area. Every year it is noted and every year we have been assured by the regional professionals that this is not a concern at this time.

If there is an area of concern howver it is the resident's lack of interest in the program as expressed by the very few of us provincially who have purchased LEH's for either species. I doubt the province actually recouped the costs on printing and processing the forms. Had this program been more widely subscribed to by residents perhaps the Gov't would not have been so willing to scrap it.

So as stated earlier we aren't out that much money. Maybe 100 grand annually plus or minus but listen to the cries of woe and indignation from BC hunters and their representatives if we could add a $10 surcharge to every license / tag sold to resident hunters. (Incidently Utah does this on a voluntary basis when I order my lion tag on the net every year, but of course the US system is fataly flawed as per previous posts.)

Anyway I am working to resurrect it in some form as I was proud of the program, proud of the results and proud to market the tag to interested
conservationists.

[Will]

I support this permit, for exactly the same reason Bob Fontana stated, if one ram brings that kind of money.......BUT ONLY one ram! Then so be it!

I don't like it at all.:-x Selling off our animals for the highest bidder is one scary slope indeed....whether it's one or one hundred, no difference.

It's Whoring out BC's wildlife to the highest bidder.....Makes me wanna puke actually. :-(

[budismyhorse]

So as stated earlier we aren't out that much money. Maybe 100 grand annually plus or minus but listen to the cries of woe and indignation from BC hunters and their representatives if we could add a $10 surcharge to every license / tag sold to resident hunters.

David,

thanks for the insight,

I think that more people would feel better about supporting that surcharge than selling the right to kill a trophy ram (a symbol used by many in this province) post general open season, during the rut, in waist deep snow every year off the same hillside.

possibly the lack of support from the residents through purchase of the LEH tags is an indication that most hunters, deep down, don't want to sell our wildlife in this fashion? Maybe there is a better way to raise the 100k?


just a discussion point. cheers.

[hunter1947]

I give this poll a yes vote.

[6616]

great points from all,

as usual, Andy thanks for your imput. One question:

Are the specific terms public? I think they are at the heart of this issue and I would like to know more about that before I get more excited about this.

What I do know is that it took a considerable amount of convincing to get the NGO's to commit support, and it may be hearsay, but I feel that since day one, the specific terms haven't been followed through entirely. But I don't know for sure. Lots of rumour and BS out there.

so I would like to know more about the terms before I say whether or not the program should be continued as is, revamped, or scrapped.

Terms of agreement originally were:
- that there would only be one sheep tag and one Roosevelt elk tag annually. The KIB opportunity was added but it was supposed to be only a pilot project but is now being treated like another special permit.
- that there would be equal opportunity for residents, thus the special resident LED draw.
- that the areas to hunt with a special permit would only be areas where a normal sheep season exists.
- that there would be no compensation to the guiding territory where the hunt took place over and above for legitimate services rendered, as this implies ownership of the resource.
- that extended seasons were OK to make the permit valuable, but within reason, when the season was extended to include the whole winter lasting until April the BCWF became nervous with that
- the was no actual agreement to rotate between areas or species, but a tentative promise was given to the EKWA when they became concerned that something should be done about that, but nothing ever materialized. The EKWA concern was that the permit would be devalued if we cleaned out all the big rams from the Elk Valley coal mine properties.

[6616]

Note, we are already paying surcharges on all angling licenses, hunting licenses, and tags. That's how the HCTF is funded.

[GoatGuy]

I voted no. Sure the wildlife can really use the money, but what I see our neighbors to the south doing, scares the hell out of me. And I dont put it past the money hungry Liberals to do the same thing here in this province. In the states, hunting is fast becoming a rich man's sport. And the rich man isn't doing much hunting either. Rather the guides are getting fat pimping out the bigest and the badest. Numerous states have now more Conservation Auction tags than they do LEH opportunities for residents. They make more money that way. Average Joe Blows are getting shut out and the rich man can hunt every year he wants. They are moving more and more to a European Management Style. I'm sure Teddy is rolling over in his grave. It is a slippery slope that can go way way too far from what we hold near and dear to our hearts as our hunting heritage in this province. To hear comments on the other thread about killing the resident hunts in order to get a older age class ram for the auction tag holder, scares the crap out of me. We hear people bitch and moan on this site all the time that we need to can LEH and give more opportunities to residents versus non residents, but then some call for resident hunting to be canned so that some rich guy can fly in an kill a ram in the dead of winter. No, I don't agree with that. The money might seem good for habitat, but it really is Blood Money. We need people to come up with better alternatives and hopefully that is what the BCWF is doing. We don't need to follow the same path as the Yanks.

Wow, you've probably pointed out the fears of such a program.

[GoatGuy]

If there is an area of concern howver it is the resident's lack of interest in the program as expressed by the very few of us provincially who have purchased LEH's for either species.


I wonder what the demand curve looks like on the resident's side?

[boxhitch]

So we had a good thing going, based on the available resource, and that has declined so the interest and value has changed. The dollars generated has reached the market value. No one can fault that.
It sounds like the BCWF has had a change of heart, based on proposed changes by the MOE that somehow change the structure.

What are the proposals ? What is MOE trying to change ?

Again we're going off on a tangent without all the info. Maybe the changes are not the right direction, but I for one won't stand to support or challenge something that is so vague.
Should it be condemned just because it may change ?
Does the BCWF no longer support the effort, as is ?
So many voids........

[boxhitch]

It's Whoring out BC's wildlife to the highest bidder.....:-(I take it you don't support the whole concept of Guide/Outfitting and non-resident hunters coming to BC to hunt our wildlife either ?
Or is it OK to sell at a set price, but not OK to offer a portion to the deep pockets who set the value they will pay ?
But is it OK to sell to a resident BC'er, but just not to any foreigner ?
Remember these permits have been sold to Albertans in the past. Is that OK ?
Various hunting opportunities are sold at fundraisers in BC to whoever attends , sold at auction to any attendee, or in some cases non-attendees via phone. Should this also be Whoring out our wildlife?

Just some thoughts

Oh and remember to, these sales are only for the opportunity. No gaurantees.

[David Heitsman]

So it's OK to sell quota'd trees, which create jobs and communities to the highest bidder but we can't sell quota'd wildlife which is another readily renewable resource?

[budismyhorse]

Interesting point David, I'm not sure we can draw similarities between cutting down trees and taking an animals life.

I think its fair to say that humans are less emotionally attached to trees than game. Make no mistake, there are emotions involved at this point.

This is the very definition of trophy hunting....if 90% of hunters are said to be meat hunters I am not sure how anyone can be surprised by lack of support for this type of program.

[Will]

Here we go.........:rolleyes:


I take it you don't support the whole concept of Guide/Outfitting and non-resident hunters coming to BC to hunt our wildlife either ?
You take it wrong....I never said anything about "non-resident" hunters or made any reference to guide outfitter operations....that's a whole nother discussion.

Or is it OK to sell at a set price, but not OK to offer a portion to the deep pockets who set the value they will pay ?
I don't think it's Great to "Sell" tags to anyone...the animals belong to BC residents first and foremost.....not to whoever has the most Cash. If that's the direction you want Hunting to go then I hope you win the Lotto.

But is it OK to sell to a resident BC'er, but just not to any foreigner ?
Again I don't like to see Tags "Sold" to anyone...res or not.

Remember these permits have been sold to Albertans in the past. Is that OK ?
One last time...I don't want to see BC's wildlife sold to the highest bidder whether they are from AB, China or the trailer park down the street.


Various hunting opportunities are sold at fundraisers in BC to whoever attends , sold at auction to any attendee, or in some cases non-attendees via phone. Should this also be Whoring out our wildlife?

Yes same thing...you're still auctioning off a Hunting opportunity to the highest bidder, no matter what "fund raiser" it is disguised as.


Oh and remember to, these sales are only for the opportunity. No gaurantees.
Yep........would be nice though to see BC resident Hunters get an opportunity first to hunt in thier own Province before we feel thier is a surplus of LEH tags to auction off to the rich.

Sorry but I place Resident Hunters rights first and foremost....these "Auctions" just chip away at that.

[budismyhorse]

Terms of agreement originally were:
- that there would only be one sheep tag and one Roosevelt elk tag annually. The KIB opportunity was added but it was supposed to be only a pilot project but is now being treated like another special permit.
- that there would be equal opportunity for residents, thus the special resident LED draw.
- that the areas to hunt with a special permit would only be areas where a normal sheep season exists.
- that there would be no compensation to the guiding territory where the hunt took place over and above for legitimate services rendered, as this implies ownership of the resource.
- that extended seasons were OK to make the permit valuable, but within reason, when the season was extended to include the whole winter lasting until April the BCWF became nervous with that
- the was no actual agreement to rotate between areas or species, but a tentative promise was given to the EKWA when they became concerned that something should be done about that, but nothing ever materialized. The EKWA concern was that the permit would be devalued if we cleaned out all the big rams from the Elk Valley coal mine properties.

so some of the chatter in the EK has been fairly accurate all these years. That "tentative" promise was made.

[GoatGuy]

So we had a good thing going, based on the available resource, and that has declined so the interest and value has changed. The dollars generated has reached the market value. No one can fault that.
It sounds like the BCWF has had a change of heart, based on proposed changes by the MOE that somehow change the structure.

What are the proposals ? What is MOE trying to change ?

Again we're going off on a tangent without all the info. Maybe the changes are not the right direction, but I for one won't stand to support or challenge something that is so vague.
Should it be condemned just because it may change ?
Does the BCWF no longer support the effort, as is ?
So many voids........

So far as the BCWF my understanding is that things come from the membership so any resolution will have to be debated and voted on at the AGM. Until such a time all of the above questions don't have answers.

You're right, off tangent, lets have a poll!:!:

[GoatGuy]

Oh and remember to, these sales are only for the opportunity. No gaurantees.

In theory anyways! :razz:

[6616]

so some of the chatter in the EK has been fairly accurate all these years. That "tentative" promise was made.

A tentative promise to look into it, you know, the usual blowing of smoke.... which of course was never done... nor intended to be I suspect.

[Dirty]

So it's OK to sell quota'd trees, which create jobs and communities to the highest bidder but we can't sell quota'd wildlife which is another readily renewable resource?

It's different, the harvest of trees is necessary for the function of society. It is something that mutually benefits society. Therefore it is more acceptable. However, the auction hunt is something that benefits the bidder as it is generally for a trophy animal. I would like to see a breakdown of how the money is distributed from these auctions. How is the money being utilized? What difference is it making to the sheep of BC? If the money generated benefits resident hunters by improving sheep populations then I support it. If the money is used in a manner that benefits all of society, then it will be more acceptable. However, if it negates conservation initiatives it should be scrapped.

[hunter1947]

I'm not going to get into all this politic stuff as I'm not that good at it ,I'm a hunter not a politician..

But I will tell all that when we have a any kind of LEH or special draws for big game animals the hunters that live here in BC we the BC residence should be the the only people that can hunt with these draws ,no others thats my opinion and I'm sticking with it..

[Fisher-Dude]

I voted no. Sure the wildlife can really use the money, but what I see our neighbors to the south doing, scares the hell out of me. And I dont put it past the money hungry Liberals to do the same thing here in this province. In the states, hunting is fast becoming a rich man's sport. And the rich man isn't doing much hunting either. Rather the guides are getting fat pimping out the bigest and the badest. Numerous states have now more Conservation Auction tags than they do LEH opportunities for residents. They make more money that way. Average Joe Blows are getting shut out and the rich man can hunt every year he wants. They are moving more and more to a European Management Style. I'm sure Teddy is rolling over in his grave. It is a slippery slope that can go way way too far from what we hold near and dear to our hearts as our hunting heritage in this province. To hear comments on the other thread about killing the resident hunts in order to get a older age class ram for the auction tag holder, scares the crap out of me. We hear people bitch and moan on this site all the time that we need to can LEH and give more opportunities to residents versus non residents, but then some call for resident hunting to be canned so that some rich guy can fly in an kill a ram in the dead of winter. No, I don't agree with that. The money might seem good for habitat, but it really is Blood Money. We need people to come up with better alternatives and hopefully that is what the BCWF is doing. We don't need to follow the same path as the Yanks.

But when it comes to your American friend guiding the high-dollar Spider Bull elk hunt, you said this:


Always lots of Rumours when a potential World Record is killed. With the strict entry policies of the B&C, I'm sure they have dismissed the 'farmed' theory as just that, a rumour. There were a lot of guys hunting that bull, not just the Mossback crew. He did well evading the masses and mossback did well sticking to it and keeping on. Of course having the Governor's Tag meant they could hunt longer than any other tags. But, kudo's to them for keeping at it and getting the job done. They had one hell of a year and it looks like they also killed the New State Record typical muley as well.

Re: your personal friend Verde:


Whether you like Mossback or not, they are not the kind to try to cheat. They are being watched 24/7 because they have made such a name for themselves by being damn good guides. They kill the biggest and the baddest every year. They have to be above board because they have so many eyes watching them.

RE: other guides:


And the rich man isn't doing much hunting either. Rather the guides are getting fat pimping out the bigest and the badest.



I'm a bit unclear as to your direction. You don't support a high dollar hunt here, but you congratulate and defend your personal friend Verde on guiding a rich Yank to the Spider bull with a crew of dozens of spotter guides. Almost seems contradictory to me. Perhaps you can explain?

[dana]

FD, nice way to try to stir it. I would have expected you to jump on the fact that I was actually positive towards the BCWF??? You are slippin dude. :)
Verde is a friend yes. So what? As far as I know he didn't guide on the Spider Bull and even if he did, I don't hold any resentment towards guides and outfitters. I've guided in the past, probably will again in the future. I had the priviledge of being offered a job once by Bob Fontana. Seemed to be one hell of a nice guy. I don't hold it against the guides who guide these hunts. It's their living. Doesn't mean I have to agree with these hunts now does it? When it comes to the Spider Bull, you can do some research and you'll see that I was cheering for the DIYer's and hoping one of them would have killed the bull. Would have made for a much better ending in my opinion. But, in the end, Doyle and his posse stuck to it and get er done. From one hunter to another, I have to congrat them on that. Doesn't mean I have to agree with the fact the Gov Tag holder could hunt longer than the DIYer's now does it? At least they didn't have to wait until the middle of winter, when the bull was balls deep in snow, just trying to scatch out a meger existence and trying to survive old man winter only to die from an old gezer with a big fat wallet.

[dana]

The trend in some of the Western States now is the Gov Tag holder will pay a finder's fee of upwards of $30,000 to anyone that finds,videos and takes them to the biggest and the baddest buck or bull on the winter range. Now there are hoards of pimps, scouring the winter range on sleds and quads, trying to find that 'ONE' animal that might get the GOV TAG holder excited. Do we want to see that style of hunting come to BC? I know I certainly don't. Right now it's sheep and VI elk. What's next? Maybe the MOE will think Trophy Muleys will make them a good amount of $$. Do you think I could find a shooter buck for them in the dead of winter or maybe in July in the highcountry? Damn rights I could. But would I? No Fing Way!!!!!

[Will]

I really hope all the Yes votes aren't basing there support for this on the assumption that these "Tags" and the revenue they bring are going towards helping sustain Hunting in the province for all of us.:neutral:

Nothing could be further from the truth...these Rich Man tags do nothing to enhance or preserve Hunting in our province, if anything they are a Black eye against it....but before I ramble too much I see Dana touched on my thoughts back on page 1.


The money might seem good for habitat, but it really is Blood Money. We need people to come up with better alternatives and hopefully that is what the BCWF is doing.

[Mooseman]

I really hope all the Yes votes aren't basing there support for this on the assumption that these "Tags" and the revenue they bring are going towards helping sustain Hunting in the province for all of us.:neutral:

Nothing could be further from the truth...these Rich Man tags do nothing to enhance or preserve Hunting in our province, if anything they are a Black eye against it....but before I ramble too much I see Dana touched on my thoughts back on page 1.

[/quote]
Originally Posted by dana http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=381300#post381300)
The money might seem good for habitat, but it really is Blood Money. We need people to come up with better alternatives and hopefully that is what the BCWF is doing.
[/qote]

That is an excellent point. If we want to scratch a program that makes a $ 100,000 for wildlife, we should have a revenue replacement program in place that is better and makes everyone happy.

Any suggestions?

[Gateholio]

Before voting, I'd like to see an (objective, unbiased) list of the pro's and cons of the program.

Once we have that, we can make informed decsions.

As Goat Guy says- What's the question?

[deer nut]

I agree with Dana's fears bout the risk of hunting becoming just for the elite. We need to ensure we keep the LEH available to BC residents ONLY.

As far as $$, the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund is a great example of how hunters, aglers & trappers contribute directly to wildlife management and conservation. As long as the Special tag $$ go to credible projects directly relevant to game management I'm OK with it, but BCWF et al. should keep a close watch to make sure the program stays true to its original intent.

On another note, I am not in favour of HCTF $$ going extensively to non-game species - a similar funding model should be set up for species at risk (and particularly for wildlife viewing). In the absence of govt. funding, anyone who uses our natural resources shoudl be required to pay surcharges to give back to management/ conservation. This includes power projects, logging (which has already given extensively through FRBC and FIA etc.), mining etc. If a private Co. uses Crown (public) land, a fee should be applied and a special fund created to enable improved scientific knowledge, habitat restoration, land acquisition etc.

[6616]

I agree with Dana's fears bout the risk of hunting becoming just for the elite. We need to ensure we keep the LEH available to BC residents ONLY.

As far as $$, the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund is a great example of how hunters, aglers & trappers contribute directly to wildlife management and conservation. As long as the Special tag $$ go to credible projects directly relevant to game management I'm OK with it, but BCWF et al. should keep a close watch to make sure the program stays true to its original intent.

On another note, I am not in favour of HCTF $$ going extensively to non-game species - a similar funding model should be set up for species at risk (and particularly for wildlife viewing). In the absence of govt. funding, anyone who uses our natural resources shoudl be required to pay surcharges to give back to management/ conservation. This includes power projects, logging (which has already given extensively through FRBC and FIA etc.), mining etc. If a private Co. uses Crown (public) land, a fee should be applied and a special fund created to enable improved scientific knowledge, habitat restoration, land acquisition etc.

Remember the Recreation Stewardship Panel a few years ago? The concept of other users paying was discussed but in the end not recommended. For one thing there seemed to be a difficulty in how to assess the payment. It was also suggested that some other interests like wildlife viewing, birding, etc, should also make contibutions to HCTF somehow. The question that arises in this case is if they pay into the fund, it follows that they get input into how the fund is disbursed. Right now the committee that decides how HCTF money is spent largely made up of GOABC and BCWF reps who ensure the bulk of the money is spent on game species,,,, question really comes down to; do we want Sierra Club and CPAWS, etc trustees on that committee..????

[deer nut]

question really comes down to; do we want Sierra Club and CPAWS, etc trustees on that committee..????

No! Absolutely NOT!!! A model similar to the HCTF might work for wildlife viewing and tenured activities (eg. heli skiing, jet boat/ ATV tours etc.). Public users should also be able to donate to such a fund if the choose.

As long as the $$ goes back to gathering information relevant to the effects of activities on wildlife and coming up with management schemes to reduce impacts/ ensure the sustainability of the activities and the wildlife resource.

I'd like to see a fund created by other development activities too - similar to how the forest industry has been paying to support research/ inventory (i.e. through FRBC and FIA) for years. As long as the surcharges don't go back into "general revenue". As you know, $$ for wildlife-related research/ inventory/ management is quite limited and not secure from year to year. The hunting/angling community needs to show (more) leadership on this.

[6616]

I'd like to see a fund created by other development activities too - similar to how the forest industry has been paying to support research/ inventory (i.e. through FRBC and FIA) for years. As long as the surcharges don't go back into "general revenue

All they need is to make sure thay are Trusts, and then the Minister of Finance can't touch them.

[6616]

As you know, $$ for wildlife-related research/ inventory/ management is quite limited and not secure from year to year. The hunting/angling community needs to show (more) leadership on this.

Big time.....!

Fully agree.

[Moosenose]

Before voting, I'd like to see an (objective, unbiased) list of the pro's and cons of the program.

Once we have that, we can make informed decsions.

Ditto on that Gates, earlier in this thread someone (might have been 6616) posted the historical income from the auction. It would be nice to see the breakdown on how that money was spent.

[6616]

Ditto on that Gates, earlier in this thread someone (might have been 6616) posted the historical income from the auction. It would be nice to see the breakdown on how that money what spent.

That should be available from HCTF or from some of the trustees, Anna Fontana would likely know.

[6616]

Ditto on that Gates, earlier in this thread someone (might have been 6616) posted the historical income from the auction. It would be nice to see the breakdown on how that money what spent.

Below from HCTF web site, 2007 special sheep fund disbursements:

Wild Sheep Projects

Elk Valley Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Inventory - $7,700 to conduct aerial inventory of Rocky Mountain Bighorn sheep on winter ranges near Elkford and Sparwood in the Elk Valley.
Rocky Ridge Stand Management Prescription – $7,000 to develop a timber management plan near Cranbrook to restore Rocky Mountain Bighorn sheep, Rocky Mountain elk and deer winter range on Rocky Ridge.
Separation of Wild and Domestic Sheep in the East Kootenay - $15,000 to reduce the risk of disease transmission between domestic and wild sheep near Cranbrook.
Wigwam Flats and Columbia Lake East – Bighorn Sheep ER – $35,000 to complete slashing and prescribed priority ecosystem restoration treatments on these two areas near Cranbrook and Canal Flats. The sites are extremely important Rocky Mountain Bighorn sheep winter ranges.
Noxious Weed Control on Bighorn Sheep Winter Ranges - $12,000 for post-herbicide treatment monitoring near Canal Flats; noxious weed control on ungulate winter ranges within the East Kootenay Trench near Cranbrook.The above projects will be carried out by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.
A British Columbia Special Permits Fund has been established within the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund to be used primarily for enhancement and conservation projects involving wild sheep, Roosevelt elk, and their habitats in British Columbia. Surcharges from sales to residents of Special Limited Entry Authorizations for wild sheep and for Roosevelt elk also contribute revenue to these special accounts.
-30-

The above pasted in from HCTF web site.
6616

[whitetailsheds]

Those look like appropriate use of the sheep funds raised, 6616. And all from blood money......
I hear what other's concerns are as far as "whoring out" and "hunting becoming elitist", but this is $ in the hand. $ that is making a difference now.
Have these concerns not been around for a long time? Are we closer to them?
I think this is something BCWF is aware of, and familiar with how close we as hunters are to the "edge" of the above fears or concerns.
Perhaps, it's this "edge" that the BCWF is withdrawing support, if so good for them.
And, yes, how do we come up with replacement funds for these causes?

[GoatGuy]

Before voting, I'd like to see an (objective, unbiased) list of the pro's and cons of the program.

Once we have that, we can make informed decsions.

As Goat Guy says- What's the question?

You mean you don't like random polls without any kind of backgrounder?

These are the kind of polls that make for great decisions.:p

CAN'T FIND THE PANIC BUTTON!:eek:

[ramcam]

I would like to see that the draws could not target the same population year after year, eg. the Bighorns in 4-23. Very hard on a herd of trophy sheep.

[Gateholio]

]
You mean you don't like random polls without any kind of backgrounder?

On the contrary, I love them. Makes for good intrawebbing:p






These are the kind of polls that make for great decisions.

CAN'T FIND THE PANIC BUTTON


:p

Let's see how much $$ was used for sheep efforts, how well this worked, etc. Also, how much got gobbled up in "administration" and if any $$ went to the wrong places/people.

Then we list the negatives- Too many sheep from one area? Selling wildlife? (Or are we selling a tag only?) Etc etc.

Does the good outweigh the bad? Or vice versa? DO we need the money? If so, what replaces the auction? Do we increase resident hunter licence fees?

[GoatGuy]

]
:p

Let's see how much $$ was used for sheep efforts, how well this worked, etc. Also, how much got gobbled up in "administration" and if any $$ went to the wrong places/people.

Then we list the negatives- Too many sheep from one area? Selling wildlife? (Or are we selling a tag only?) Etc etc.

Does the good outweigh the bad? Or vice versa? DO we need the money? If so, what replaces the auction? Do we increase resident hunter licence fees?

You're heading into dangerous country here. Decision making with some forethought!~

I think what you're saying is:

1)Start with a cost/benefit

Revenue generated and then subtract the money that's eaten up directly as well as the opportunity costs (MoE staff etc.,)
Need to incorporate the $ and time for NGO's as well

2)Secondly you need to address where the money was spent and if the projects were of value.

3)Third address the values of those who are participating in the program (a bit tougher but still very doable at least at the extremes).


Then get your answer.


Then you develop alternatives - - - if you need to.



Wow, Harry Potter gives you 50 points!:razz:

Nothing about predator control or LEH - I'm shocked and amazed all at once.

Removing hand from PANIC button.

neverseenmagiclikethis - - partsamsquatchpartwizard----houseofthegate

[Moosenose]

Below from HCTF web site, 2007 special sheep fund disbursements:

Wild Sheep Projects

Elk Valley Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Inventory - $7,700 to conduct aerial inventory of Rocky Mountain Bighorn sheep on winter ranges near Elkford and Sparwood in the Elk Valley.
Rocky Ridge Stand Management Prescription – $7,000 to develop a timber management plan near Cranbrook to restore Rocky Mountain Bighorn sheep, Rocky Mountain elk and deer winter range on Rocky Ridge.
Separation of Wild and Domestic Sheep in the East Kootenay - $15,000 to reduce the risk of disease transmission between domestic and wild sheep near Cranbrook.
Wigwam Flats and Columbia Lake East – Bighorn Sheep ER – $35,000 to complete slashing and prescribed priority ecosystem restoration treatments on these two areas near Cranbrook and Canal Flats. The sites are extremely important Rocky Mountain Bighorn sheep winter ranges.
Noxious Weed Control on Bighorn Sheep Winter Ranges - $12,000 for post-herbicide treatment monitoring near Canal Flats; noxious weed control on ungulate winter ranges within the East Kootenay Trench near Cranbrook.

The above pasted in from HCTF web site.
6616

Thanks for this Andy.
If you had $76,700 to spend on the Wild Sheep, is this how you would do it? It is out of my area of expertise, but I am wondering how much tangible work was done here. At the very least, we must be getting people at HCTF experience at helping the wild sheep. That alone is a good thing for the future of the sheep.
$14,700 (19%) have a look and make a plan
$15,000 (20%) separate wild from domestic (presumably this means fences or a buffer zone).
$35,000 (46%) slashing and ecosystem restoration treatments (hopefully this means seeding and fertilizing)
$12,000 (15%) herbicide treatment monitoring (hopefully this includes buying some herbicides to kill these weeds that are harmful to the sheep)
Maybe this is the cost of doing business these days?
I'm still undecided on which way to vote on this poll, but am getting an education in the process.