GO appeal to harvest quota

[whitetailsheds]

So, I guess this means if I try to appeal the biologist's decision to only allow me to take one stone ram a year rather than two, it will be dismissed as well?
Sarcasm aside, interesting read.......

http://www.eab.gov.bc.ca/wildlife/2007wil002a.pdf

[Mr. Dean]

Dismissed and rightly so. Definately an interesting read.

[srupp]

hmmm yes very interesting..

steven

[BCrams]

Testing the waters so to speak.

[Skeena Hunter 1]

I think he had a good point there, don't understand why he didn't win the first part.

[bigwhiteys]

I can see both sides... His area might support a slightly larger allocation but I really don't agree with the dishonesty in overbooking hunts all the while banking on 30% of your client failing. They made the right decision in denying the appeal.

If you have 12 sheep tags... Book 12 sheep hunters.

My grandpa sold as many hunts as he had tags for... That was it. If you weren't succesful you had the option to come back later in the season for a discounted hunt on the same unused tag... If you declined then it could be sold as a cancellation or discounted hunt through FNAWS, Grand Slam, SCI etc... they had lists of hunters looking for them and it wasn't usually an issue to get a short notice booking especially for sheep. Considering most people were booking 2 years in advance.

Carl

[boxhitch]

but I really don't agree with the dishonesty in overbooking hunts all the while banking on 30% of your client failing.Not a practice of Cary.
The administrative guidelines would allow more permits in any one year, allowing more hunters to be booked with permits in hand, as long as the 5 year total was not exceeded.
A good tool to be able to run a successful business, without having to wholesale any permits.

[Deadshot]

A good tool as said (administrative guidelines),but a classic example of throwing your bretheren under the bus, when things tighten up.
This must have ticked some of the lesser ratioed outfits.

[bridger]

Not a practice of Cary.
The administrative guidelines would allow more permits in any one year, allowing more hunters to be booked with permits in hand, as long as the 5 year total was not exceeded.
A good tool to be able to run a successful business, without having to wholesale any permits.

administrative guidelines give the g/o an unfair advantage over residents when you really stop and look at it especially for sheep. you reallly need to know the history of admin guidelines to see how it is unfair when i have more time i will post the back ground am on holidays right now.

[boxhitch]

administrative guidelines give the g/o an unfair advantage over residents Looking forward to that prospective.

[Deadshot]

Admin guidelines are there for business purposes obviously, but wouldn't it be great for residents.
Imagine a five year quota given to every resident.:eek:
I'll just shoot two sheep this year & then maybe focus my attention on some other species next year. Maybe.

[boxhitch]

Provincial bag limit is one sheep, for any hunter, so not sure what your point is.

[Deadshot]

Well aware of the bag limit.

[BCrams]

I think I know the point he's trying to make......albiet a weak one.

Here's what he's trying to say:

We all know mature (legal) ram numbers fluctuate from year to year and from area to area.

What he's saying is on those "good" ram years, an outfitter may take advantage of those administrative guidelines to harvest more rams because they are available. This may be disadvantageous to the resident hunter in areas which are accessible to them.

So on those good ram years, as a resident, Deadshot wants to be able to take 2 sheep if the opportunity presented itself if the outfitter is also allowed to exceed quota.

Kind of like administrative guidelines upon a resident. He'll just be prohibited from harvesting a ram the next year because he took two.

[whitetailsheds]

This must have ticked some of the lesser ratioed outfits.

That, and since then, have others tried appealling their quotas? Were they successful? I couldn't find any more info like this surfing around.

[Krico]

Sounds like good news for resident hunters headed to his area.

He wants 13% of the permits because his area holds 13% of the sheep. But he is getting less. Although as stated in the report the intended 60% resident 40% g/o split was reached in 2007 with those numbers.

My question is who does Darwin feel is getting more than their fair share? For example receiving 10% of the permits, when their area holds only 6% of the sheep?

[bridger]

the admin guidelines were put in several years ago to help those outfitters with one sheep tag to book hunters. what was happening at times was two hunters would want to hunt together (father/son) but couldn't because their outfitter of choice only had one permit a year. the rule was changed to allow those outfitters to take two rams in any one year but no more than three rams in three years. the admin guidelines have now been extended and the premise that outfitters in good ram years can take advantage and harvest big rams that should be available to residents is right on the money.take a look at the ashnola or the kootenays it really can become a problem in those areas. in the ashnola the outfitter ccan take his entire quota during the first hunt period while resident hunters are spread out. now that outfitter can use the admin guidelines to take more rams the first hunt and the residents will do without. how fair is that? the outfitters do not need admin guidelines across the board. across the board admin guidelines came about as a result of lobbying efforts by the goabc at a high level in victoria.

[6616]

I think I know the point he's trying to make......albiet a weak one.

What he's trying to say (I think):

We all know mature (legal) ram numbers fluctuate from year to year and from area to area.

What he's saying is on those "good" ram years, an outfitter may take advantage of those administrative guidelines to harvest more rams because they are available. This may be disadvantageous to the resident hunter in areas which are accessible to them.

So on those good ram years, as a resident, Deadshot wants to be able to take 2 sheep if the opportunity presented itself if the outfitter is also allowed to exceed quota.

Kind of like administrative guidelines upon a resident. He'll just be prohibited from harvesting a ram the next year because he took two.

There is a point to this concept. The number of resident LEH authorizations are based on the harvest success rate averaged over the preceeding three years, but often a minimum success rate of 5 to 10% is used in some regions where success rates are actually below 5 or 10% thus restricting resident harvest by simply not issuing enough authorizations..

So if resident hunters do not use their allocation, and managers do not free up regulations or increase authorizations to enable utilization of resident allocation, why not carry un-used allocation over to the following year? Using administrative guidelines outfitters can do this, why not residents?

If residents over-shoot their allocation the formula based on success rates automatically reduces authorizations the following year, but if residents under-utilize there is no mechanism for correction.

[BCrams]

the admin guidelines were put in several years ago to help those outfitters with one sheep tag to book hunters. what was happening at times was two hunters would want to hunt together (father/son) but couldn't because their outfitter of choice only had one permit a year. the rule was changed to allow those outfitters to take two rams in any one year but no more than three rams in three years. the admin guidelines have now been extended and the premise that outfitters in good ram years can take advantage and harvest big rams that should be available to residents is right on the money.take a look at the ashnola or the kootenays it really can become a problem in those areas. in the ashnola the outfitter ccan take his entire quota during the first hunt period while resident hunters are spread out. now that outfitter can use the admin guidelines to take more rams the first hunt and the residents will do without. how fair is that? the outfitters do not need admin guidelines across the board. across the board admin guidelines came about as a result of lobbying efforts by the goabc at a high level in victoria.


6616: So if resident hunters do not use their allocation, and managers do not free up regulations or increase authorizations to enable utilization of resident allocation, why not carry un-used allocation over to the following year? Using administrative guidelines outfitters can do this, why not residents?


Exactly.

Clearly most residents are not aware of this concept for GO's.

This is something which needs to be revisited in fairness to resident hunters. In particular, for sheep as well as other species.

[6616]

Admin Guidelines allow an outfitter to harvest up to 30% of his five year allocation in any one year as long as the 5 year allocation is not exceeded. He could conceivably harvest 90% of his 5 year allocation in the first three years of a five year allocation period. In a small population this could definitely impact residents opportunities to harvest.

Using Admin Guidelines is optional, for example they are no longer used in 7b for sheep but they are used extensively in all regions for most LEH species..

The BCWF wildlife/Allocations committee has made the WLB well aware that we are not happy with this situation but we are sort of locked in until 2012 by the Harvest Allocations Implementation Strategy.

[Krico]

the admin guidelines were put in several years ago to help those outfitters with one sheep tag to book hunters. what was happening at times was two hunters would want to hunt together (father/son) but couldn't because their outfitter of choice only had one permit a year. the rule was changed to allow those outfitters to take two rams in any one year but no more than three rams in three years.

Wow that's unbelievable. Who's the genius in Victoria that actually fell for that? What a steaming pile of b.s.

Want to book 2 sheep hunts together? Here's an idea-book with somebody that has at least 2 permits a year. Problem solved. My 6 year old could figure that one out.

[Ambush]

Good read. Interesting to see some of the principles and concepts that guide the decision making process.

The very first thing I noticed was that it was the BCWF going to bat for resident hunters.

One more compelling reason to join and support them.

[boxhitch]

What he's saying is on those "good" ram years, an outfitter may take advantage of those administrative guidelines to harvest more rams because they are available.That would work, if the good years could be predicted or planned on.

[boxhitch]

My question is who does Darwin feel is getting more than their fair share? For example receiving 10% of the permits, when their area holds only 6% of the sheep?There are several outfits in Reg 7 that have no hope of harvesting their quotas. The animals are not there. But all the G/Os were treated to the same cuts based on percentage.
Its tough to apply the same rules to a Resident GOS area as to a LEH area. Managers like a static harvest instead of something that has to be managed.

[BCrams]

That would work, if the good years could be predicted or planned on.

I don't know to what degree of accuracy, but I am sure it can be predicted in some ways.

Even Darwin in the appeals paper acknowledges flying his own area to get a guage on sheep / ram populations. That in conjunction with what the guides see from one year to the next as far as ram ages go.

Exampe: a particular band of rams on 'x' mountain numbers at 10 rams - there's 2 legal rams of which the guide/client harvest 1...... guide notes another 5 or 6 of the remaining rams in the band should be legal rams the next year. Now if other guides find similar findings throughout the territory with other ram bands, it may be a safe bet the next year would be a good year to capitalize on the administrative rules.

Conversely: say the same ram band of 10 only had 1 legal ram and the remainder of the band are 2-4 yr olds and maybe one 6 yr old ...... chances are good they know they probably won't return to hunt / check that mountain band for another 2-4 seasons. Now if the findings are similar between the guides (which they could be due to similar factors across the range)....... you can bet the outfitter knows it probably isn't a good time to take advantage of the administrative rules.......especially if said outfitter notes similar observations from flying his territory.

[boxhitch]

Agreed, sounds good in a lab setting. But throw in variables, weather, predators, less-than-perfect-ass-guides, hunter abilities, impressions vs. hard facts, migration influences.......
The very reasons Resi hunters get skunked at the very spot that produced so good in years past.

[Krico]

There are several outfits in Reg 7 that have no hope of harvesting their quotas. The animals are not there.

Where can a guy find a listing of outfitter quotas?


Managers like a static harvest instead of something that has to be managed.

:?

[BCrams]

Agreed, sounds good in a lab setting. But throw in variables, weather, predators, less-than-perfect-ass-guides, hunter abilities, impressions vs. hard facts, migration influences.......
The very reasons Resi hunters get skunked at the very spot that produced so good in years past.

Exactly. There are a lot of variables riding on the success of guided hunters and residents alike.

Which raises the question ........ why even have administrative guidelines to begin with :cool:

[boxhitch]

why even have administrative guidelines to begin withBottom line, to allow a G/O to maximize his sales of hunts and sell for the best income. Its always about the money.

[BCrams]

Bottom line, to allow a G/O to maximize his sales of hunts and sell for the best income. Its always about the money.

Interesting ...... always about the money? In other words, screw the wildlife and resident hunters in the process?

Why would an outfitter do this if he doesn't know the animals are available for harvest (opportunity) thus putting his reputation on the line as you mentioned in another post? Or the multitude of variables / risks like you mentioned??

Is this fair to the resident hunters on LEH hunting?

[6616]

One needs to remember that in 7b outfitters do not have admin guidelines for sheep and residents are on GOS. The outfitters greatest desire would be to see residents go on LEH.

Admin guidelines were designed for outfitters with small quotas. Most of the sheep quotas in 7b are large enough that admin guidelines shouldn't be required (from the BCWF perspective). In the EK where outfitters have annual quotas of only one or two rams and in some cases 5 year allocations of only 2 or 3 rams is the situation that admin guidelines were designed for.

In the EK if an outfitter has an annual allocation of one ram and the success rate is 50% he will get an annual quota of two. If admin guidelines were used he could then shoot 3 rams in one year, leaving only 2 for the remaining 4 years. In areas with small sheep populations like in the EK with small guide territories, shooting 3 rams in one year could easily mean there are none left for resident hunters for a couple of years into the future in that particular area.

This is the reason why the BCWF does not like success rates to establish quotas being used in conjunction with admin guidelines. In 2012 using success rates to calculate quotas will not longer be allowed. Quota will equal (not exceed) allocation. This will mostly, but not completely, take care of this problem, but the remaining unresolved issue is that residents are still not allowed to carry un-utilized allocation forward in the allocation period like outfitters are.

[boxhitch]

In other words, screw the wildlife and resident hunters in the process? The AAH and quotas are set by the MOE.

Why would an outfitter do this if he doesn't know the animals are available for harvest (opportunity) thus putting his reputation on the lineIt would allow a business practice to be put into play to allow best returns, if and how the manager sees fit. Like any other business. Screwing the customer always comes back on the business.

Is this fair to the resident hunters on LEH hunting?LEH is never fair to the resident when there is a G/O quota in the same area.

[whitetailsheds]

Willy has mentioned stones going to LEH in many discussions.
Does anyone know, or can describe, what would happen to GO allocations if residents did go to LEH? Hypothetically?
I would hope there would be a reduction.
That is something in all my years of chasing stones that was in the back of my mind. That, "I'm a resident, and I have to wait till I'm drawn. Yet, someone can, with alot of $$$ can get his while I'm taking photos of them."
And, now that I mentioned it, obviously, the HUGE rise in price for a non-resident.

[BCrams]

The AAH and quotas are set by the MOE.
It would allow a business practice to be put into play to allow best returns, if and how the manager sees fit. Like any other business. Screwing the customer always comes back on the business.
LEH is never fair to the resident when there is a G/O quota in the same area.

Already know the answers. I guess we're just bs'ing to pass the winter doldrums :lol:

[whitetailsheds]

Hahahahaha, I no longer finished entering my last post and flipped over to another Albertan forum and found this thread. Priceless!!!


"I wonder how many fellow Resident Alberta Hunters realize while some species have been put on restricted draw to us residents, Outfitters allocations to non-resident and non-resident aliens have remained the same.

I don't believe this is fair to us Residents!!! http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/images/smilies/mad0137.gif

There have been in the past some allocations (ie. Panther/Ya Ha Tinda Outfitter permits for elk) that were reduced but with compensation to the Outfitter. As APOS is a DAO, why should us taxpayers be reimbursing Outfitters anyway? As far as I know there are no guarantees these permits are "evergreen".

This year cougar quotas were cut to Residents, but not to Non-Residents or Non-Resident Aliens.

Moose draws in the areas I like to hunt ( 430-434) have been on draw for some time and now it takes 5-6 years to get drawn. The Outfitter allocations have remained the same even though the number or resident tags were reduced. I don't believe this is very equitable. I am sure there are alot of other examples such as this in other areas.

It is a distinct possibility in upcoming years sheep will also be on draw. Will Outfitter Allocations remain the same when this happens? If you want to hunt in the States for sheep and other select species you must be drawn as a non-resident alien and take your chances. Perhaps we should be doing the same here.

With the declining ungulate population I believe the Outfitters should be allocated on an equitable basis as Resident Hunters, which is not the case presently."

[Deadshot]

but the remaining unresolved issue is that residents are still not allowed to carry un-utilized allocation forward in the allocation period like outfitters are.

If stones were to go LEH, would it not be in the residents best interest to demand that it be carried forward?

[boxhitch]

Admin guidelines were designed for outfitters with small quotas. Most of the sheep quotas in 7b are large enough that admin guidelines shouldn't be required (from the BCWF perspective). In the EK where outfitters have annual quotas of only one or two rams and in some cases 5 year allocations of only 2 or 3 rams is the situation that admin guidelines were designed for.
So in all fairness, why have a restrictive rule on one business and not another based solely on sales volume, or sales region,
In the EK if an outfitter has an annual allocation of one ram and the success rate is 50% he will get an annual quota of two. If admin guidelines were used he could then shoot 3 rams in one year, leaving only 2 for the remaining 4 years. In areas with small sheep populations like in the EK with small guide territories, shooting 3 rams in one year could easily mean there are none left for resident hunters for a couple of years into the future in that particular area.
Those same rams would not be available to the G/O for years to come, which may impact his business also. A client doing his homework would soon realize that the animals are no longer there and book elsewhere.

This is the reason why the BCWF does not like success rates to establish quotas being used in conjunction with admin guidelines. In 2012 using success rates to calculate quotas will not longer be allowed. Quota will equal (not exceed) allocation. This will mostly, but not completely, take care of this problem, but the remaining unresolved issue is that residents are still not allowed to carry un-utilized allocation forward in the allocation period like outfitters are.
like you said, the difference in a GOS area is the resident is not restricted year by year, and has a chance to achieve quotas each year.The LEH areas are where this carryover should be adjustable.

[boxhitch]

Hahahahaha, I no longer finished entering my last post and flipped over to another Albertan forum and found this thread. Priceless!!!
G/O bashing season. Residents shouldn't have to play catch-up, they should have the priority to begin with.

[boxhitch]

Already know the answers. I guess we're just bs'ing to pass the winter doldrums :lol:Yeah, no arguements, just stirring.;)

[bridger]

Willy has mentioned stones going to LEH in many discussions.
Does anyone know, or can describe, what would happen to GO allocations if residents did go to LEH? Hypothetically?
I would hope there would be a reduction.
That is something in all my years of chasing stones that was in the back of my mind. That, "I'm a resident, and I have to wait till I'm drawn. Yet, someone can, with alot of $$$ can get his while I'm taking photos of them."
And, now that I mentioned it, obviously, the HUGE rise in price for a non-resident.


if residents go on leh in 7b for instance the guide quota would go t0 20% of the annual allowable harvest. at present the annual allowable harvest is 180 . the guide quota would be 36 for about 15 outfitters down from the present 110 imagine the reaction to that. however leh is a long way down the pike. we can go on one in three or shorter seasons etc before leh comes along. resident sheep hunters should all be on the same side when it comes to protecting our share of the harvest and not let the go's lobby the moe to not implement the entire allocation policy in 2012.

[6616]

If stones were to go LEH, would it not be in the residents best interest to demand that it be carried forward?

Certainly, but demanding it does not necessarily mean we would get it. We have already asked for consideration of this but haven't got anything to date.

[bridger]

I think the thread has gotten off track a little but I don't mind as the different viewpoints are interesting and educational for me. One thing I think should be brought forward is that I got the distinct impression during the hearing that the appeal was an attempt to overturn the sheep portion of the new allocation policy. if cary were given 13% of the total harvest as a result of his appeal other appeals would have followed and who knows where things would have ended up. Fortuantely the judge denied the appeal.

[Deadshot]

We have already asked for consideration of this but haven't got anything to date.

By we, I assume you mean the BCWF.

[6616]

By we, I assume you mean the BCWF.

Yes, the BCWF Allocations and Wildlife Committee. Many of the things we've discussed here were suggested or proposed by the committee during the allocation policy review and deemed as unacceptable by government. The concept of non-resident draw to distribute non-resident tags being one of those items. The idea that there should be no non-resident hunting below a certain minimum AAH (re Roosevelt Elk) is another example. The government has their basic principles that they won't budge from, the fact that if there's a resident opportunity there must also be a non-resident opportunity being one that frustrated the crap out of us during the review process.

[Deadshot]

I know of one G/O that was given some Rosie permits ($$$$$) recently. Was this because residents were given LEH opportunities in that area?

[6616]

I know of one G/O that was given some Rosie permits ($$$$$) recently. Was this because residents were given LEH opportunities in that area?

Yes, the Wildlife Branch (WLB) maintains that if there's resident opportunity, there must also be a non-resident opportunity even if it's very modest.

The BCWF committee thought it was justifiable that when an AHH was as low as they are on Roosie, less then 10 or thereabouts in an MU, that there should be no non-resident allocation at all. WLB didn't agree with us..!