British Columbia Game Commissioner

[Fisher-Dude]

At the recent BCWF convention, One Shit Wonder and I had the good fortune to bump into Mr Ray DeMarchi in the hotel lobby after his presentation, and had a 45 minute conversation with him.

One suggestion that came out of it was the creation of a BC Game Commissioner. This is modelled after several US states that have a GC. The GC is an independent body that makes decisions on fish and wildlife seasons and management without the interference of the politicians. Since there is no political BS to contend with, the GC makes decisions based on science to establish conservation and harvest levels. Likewise, the politicians don't get the heat for unpopular decisions with the anti crowd (or the NIMBY hunter crowd, or the GO crowd!).

What do y'all think? I like it.

[Monashee]

Sure and apply it to every Ministry

We elect politicians to carry out the will of the people , we do not bend to their special interest will and their corporate cronies.

[tufferthandug]

Excellent idea. Yet excluding the GO's, BCWF, and the Granola crunchers would be a tough item in protest.

At the present time the government is not even able to afford a couple park rangers let alone a Game Commisioner...

[Fisher-Dude]

Current economics aside, let's talk about the concept.

[ultramagbob]

We'll never be happy.Doesnt matter what happens:roll:

[boxhitch]

Make it like the judges down south also.
An elected official, subject to being lynched if found to be incompetent.

[huntwriter]

The GC is an independent body that makes decisions on fish and wildlife seasons and management without the interference of the politicians. Since there is no political BS to contend with, the GC makes decisions based on science to establish conservation and harvest levels. Likewise, the politicians don't get the heat for unpopular decisions with the anti crowd (or the NIMBY hunter crowd, or the GO crowd!).

What do y'all think? I like it.

That was the idea behind in establishing a GC, but having lived in America and still hunt quite a bit down there, I can asure you that politics still gets in the way. The way it works is pretty much like here. Politics, revenue, hunters desires and then at the tailend science.

The reason why politicians don't get many problems with the antis is because America has large and very powerful hunting lobby groups that spend millions to lobby Congress. These groups are all backed up by a multi billion dollar hunting industry. Here in Canada we do not have that type of industry and no political lobby group to speak of.

The reason hunters and outfitters get along in America is because outfitters either own the land or lease the land from landowners, not from the government. In fact it is against the law to lease public land to an outfitter. It's also against the law for an outfitter to take clients onto puplic land. Landowners by law own all wildlife that resides on their property. This means the landowner applies for different tags then the other hunters. Here all wildlife belongs to the government and so does most of the hunting land. In other words, hunters and outfitters compete with each other for game, tags and hunting land.

Still your idea might be a step in the right direction, everything that could ensure our right to hunt in the future must be considered. It seems quite a few good ideas cam from that BCWF convention. I am looking forward to be briefed on everything at our upcoming F&G board of directors meeting.

[6616]

I'm not against the idea, but I need to see a fleshed out model before I decide. I talked to Carol (Ray's Mrs) about it but only briefly. There is a difference between commission and commissioner as commission indicates a panel of technical experts and a commissioner suggests one person which I'm not sure I would support.

Also there are social decisions involved with wildlife management that the public and stakeholders need to make. Decisions like whether to manage for quality or quantity, what population densities the public can withstand, what species to prioritize (if any). Once the social objectives are established it's up to the scientists to devise a management strategy that will attain those objectives.

There are also scientific and technical objectives that must be established by science based knowledge and decision making.

I wouldn't want a commission setting social objectives any more then I would want non-qualified persons setting out the management strategies.

A commission cannot and never would be, nor should it be, above public input ,whether you call it lobbying or something else, when it comes to social objectives.

What is the objective of Ray's proposed Commission, is it to manage wildlife without political or public interference? Is it to dictate social objectives? Should they be the ones to decide to ban grizzly hunting for example if it comes to that? There is a lot more to this concept then meets the eye and much planning and discussion needs to take place.

Also how do you devise a sysytem that would positivelly guarantee that a commission would be immune from lobbying or political pressure? There would be a significant lobby effort right from the start in regards to who gets appointed to a commission. Everyone from resident hunters, guide-outfitters, and green whackos would all want their fair haired child appointed to the commission.

[6616]

Landowners by law own all wildlife that resides on their property

I do not agree Oth.

The first principle of the North American model of wildlife conservation states that all wildlife is owned by the public.

http://www.huntright.org/heritage/AldrichConservationModel.aspx

[bridger]

The state of oregon has a game commission of which my sister was a member for a few years. It is not free from political pressure from various user groups. the best thing about is that the commission holds public hearings around the state about seasons, policies etc. When is the last time that happened in BC? I also listened to ray's presentation and talked with him; I am not sure we can ever put a commission in place that would be entirely free from politics. the idea tho is worth lookin into.

[hunter1947]

I agree a 100% ,why not have the GC set the goals on the harvest of our animals.
A would think that a GC would no more about all then most politicians.

Maybe if we got a GC in the EK we might have a short 3 point or better season for bull elk.

[huntwriter]

I do not agree Oth.

The first principle of the North American model of wildlife conservation states that all wildlife is owned by the public.

http://www.huntright.org/heritage/AldrichConservationModel.aspx

That is true but if you own land in America the deer on your property are by state law considered yours. It is because of that, that the DNR's issue public licenses and tags and different licenses and tags for landowners, and I am not talking crop damage control tags here.

This is the reason why the Quality Deer Management program could take off in America like it did. On your land you can plant and make modification to the structure as you please to attract and hold deer on your property without having to obtain permission from the DNR first. As landowner enrolled in the Quality Deer Management program you can kill as many deer as you deem fit to reach your management goal.

For example. When I lived in Illinois we could kill two bucks and two does with the regular license on public land. A landowner on the other hand could kill as many deer as he deemed necessary. I use to hunt regularly on a friends property managed for throphy deer and it was common for us to kill as many as 30 does and 12 inferior bucks. That pretty much makes the deer on your property yours to do with as you see fit sanctioned by the state.

How else do you think would it be otherwise possible that outfitters in the USA can offer trophy bucks in regions such as Tennessee or Alabama for example, that are not known as big buck states. That would be like a landowner on Vancouver Island managing for huge blacktail deer bucks.

This couldn’t happen because the landowner by law is not permitted to attract deer onto his property for the purpose of hunting. Neither he permitted to kill every genetically inferior buck and kill as many does as he needs to create a even gender balance in the herd. This system only can work if the deer are considered the landowners property.

But you’re right by federal law the wildlife is public domain until they step on your property.

Sorry not meant to hijack this thread just providing an explanation.

[BCrams]

Sorry to extend the hijack:

huntwriter: Do you support the notion wildlife becomes the land owners property as soon as they step onto private property?

[huntwriter]

Sorry to extend the hijack:

huntwriter: Do you support the notion wildlife becomes the land owners property as soon as they step onto private property?

No I DO NOT support it. I have seen firsthand what it can do to hunting for the average hunter. Many hunters that had permission to hunt on private land for many years where told that they now have to pay a huge trespass fee because the landowner started to manage for quality deer. It's big money and the common hunter looses hunting opportunities.

I prefer the system we have here in BC and hope that with the new funding organization and the idea of a game commissioner we can keep it that way or even improve hunting opportunities for everybody regardless of wallet size.