Allocation Region 5

[Marc]

Attached you will find a six page report from the Ministry of Environment on Provincial Wildlife Allocation between resident and non-resident hunters.

As a result of this latest document, we have been asked as a Federation, to respond by December 20th with our comments and/or concerns. We will be holding a conference call tomorrow evening (Monday - 19th December) to discuss and hopefully provide the Wildlife Committee with sufficient feedback to make a responce.

Here is what one bcwf member had to say.


I will be making a trip to Vancouver and back tomorrow. I hope to be back in time for the call but this short time frame deadline from gov't is crap. We are being fed stuff at the last minute and then expected to respond for a membership of 30,000 spread across the entire province. This is not acceptable and we need to get our membership fired up on this to make a stance so that we can respond properly. These issues have too much long-term importance to be forced into quick responses.


The quote had a signature but I figured to protect his identity from the government it might be wise to obmit it. This info was sent to me by a BCWF board member. The report is to long so I'll have to break it up into two post.

Marc.

[Marc]

The New Allocation Decision Process

THE STARTING POINT: 75%/25%
The resident priority principle demands that where all other factors between resident and non-residents are equal, residents should be allocated the majority share of a harvest. At the same time, the government’s commitment to the guide outfitter industry means guide outfitters have a stake in the harvest of allocated species to the extent necessary to maintain the guide outfitting industry.

An allocation of 75% to residents and 25% to non-residents of a harvest for which all demand and utilization are equal is a fair reflection of the resident priority principle and the Ministry’s commitment to the guide outfitter industry.

75/25 is only a starting point and will be the final recommended allocation only in cases where guides and residents have equal demand for a species, and utilize their share to the same degree. When either of these factors is not equal between the groups, 75/25 will not be the appropriate allocation. The policy proposed here will direct each group’s share to change.


STEP ONE: COMPARE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

Relative Importance to the Guide Outfitter Industry
The first step in the process is to compare the relative importance of a species or species class to residents and guide outfitters. To calculate relative importance of each big game species to the guide outfitter industry in a region, the value of a hunt will be compared to the value of all guided hunts in the region. The following calculation will be used:

(# GUIDE CLIENT HUNTERS FOR SPECIES X * AVERAGE PRICE FOR SPECIES X)
__________________________________________________ _____________

(# GUIDE CLIENT HUNTERS FOR SPECIES X * AVERAGE PRICE FOR SPECIES X) + (# GUIDE CLIENT HUNTER FOR SPECIES Y * AVERAGE PRICE FOR SPECIES Y) + (# GUIDE CLIENT HUNTER FOR SPECIES Z * AVERAGE PRICE FOR SPECIES Z)




This formula will provide us with an indication of the relative importance of the species in question to the economic well-being of the guide outfitter industry, as a whole, within the region in question.

Example for Region A

Species # hunters (average per year over 2000-2004) Average price (or revenue) per hunt Total for species Relative importance
X 10 2000 20, 000 20,000/620,000 = .03
Y 500 1000 500,000 500,000/620,000 = .81
Z 1000 100 100,000 100, 000/620,000 =.16
TOTAL 620,000 1


Once “relative importance” values are calculated for all big game species in all regions in the province, the numbers will be divided into ten categories based on percentile. The categories will be as follows:
0 -10th percentile = Category 1
11 – 20th percentile = Category 2
21 – 30th percentile = Category 3
31 – 40th percentile = Category 4
41 – 50th percentile = Category 5
51 – 60th percentile = Category 6
61 – 70th percentile = Category 7
71 - 80th percentile = Category 8
81 – 90th percentile = Category 9
91 – 100th percentile = Category 10

These categories will be compared to categories established for resident hunters in a similar manner (as described below) to determine the extent to which the allocation will shift from 75/25.


Relative Importance to Resident Hunters
The relative importance of each species to resident hunters will be determined by estimating the number of hunters who would hunt for a particular species if sufficient authorizations were available and comparing that number to the number of hunters who would hunt for any allocated species if sufficient authorizations were available. The following formula will be used:

#LEH APPLICANTS FOR SPECIES X * % WHO PURCHASE TAGS FOR SPECIES X
__________________________________________________ _________________

(#LEH APPLICANTS FOR SPECIES X * % WHO PURCHASE TAGS FOR SPECIES X) + (#LEH APPLICANTS FOR SPECIES Y * % WHO PURCHASE TAGS FOR SPECIES Y) + (#LEH APPLICANTS FOR SPECIES X * % WHO PURCHASE TAGS FOR SPECIES Z)




The formula will yield a number between 0 and 1 representing the relative importance of one species over the other allocated species in the region. These numbers will then be ranked into categories 1 – 10 in the same manner as used for the guide outfitter industry.

The importance value categories of residents and guide outfitters will then be compared directly to determine how the starting point will be changed, as follows: (the figures in each box refer to the change to the resident share)

Relative Importance to Guide Outfitters
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 No change -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16 -18
2 +2 No change -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16
3 + 4 + 2 No change -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14
4 + 6 + 4 + 2 No change -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12
5 + 8 + 6 + 4 + 2 No change -2 -4 -6 -8 -10
6 + 10 + 8 + 6 + 4 + 2 No change -2 -4 -6 -8
7 + 12 + 10 + 8 + 6 + 4 + 2 No change -2 -4 -6
8 + 14 + 12 + 10 + 8 + 6 + 4 + 2 No change -2 -4
9 + 16 + 14 + 12 + 10 + 8 + 6 + 4 + 2 No change -2
10 + 18 + 16 + 14 + 12 + 10 + 8 + 6 + 4 + 2 No change

STEP TWO: MEASURE UTILIZATION

The second step in the process is to adjust the allocation decision arrived at after step one according to the degree to which a species is utilized by each group. Utilization refers to the proportion of the allocated share of a species that is actually harvested by a group. The proportions from the most recent five years will be averaged to determine the utilization by a group for a species in a region. This characteristic will be expressed as a percentage. Once the utilization rates of all species in the province have been assessed, each utilization value will be categorized according to the following scale:

0-10% of the allocated share = Category 1
11-20% of the allocated share = Category 2
21-30% of the allocated share = Category 3
31-40% of the allocated share = Category 4
41-50% of the allocated share = Category 5
51-60% of the allocated share = Category 6
61-70% of the allocated share = Category 7
71-80% of the allocated share = Category 8
81-90% of the allocated share = Category 9
91-100% of the allocated share = Category 10


Where each group has the same utilization, no change will be made from the allocation suggested by the demand question. Where utilization differs, however, each residency group’s share will be adjusted from what it was determined to be by the demand question. The following matrix illustrates how adjustments will be made. (Instructions inside each box refer to the change to the resident share. The non-resident share will be adjusted accordingly.)

[Marc]

Relative Importance to Guide Outfitters
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 No change -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16 -18
2 +2 No change -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16
3 + 4 + 2 No change -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14
4 + 6 + 4 + 2 No change -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12
5 + 8 + 6 + 4 + 2 No change -2 -4 -6 -8 -10
6 + 10 + 8 + 6 + 4 + 2 No change -2 -4 -6 -8
7 + 12 + 10 + 8 + 6 + 4 + 2 No change -2 -4 -6
8 + 14 + 12 + 10 + 8 + 6 + 4 + 2 No change -2 -4
9 + 16 + 14 + 12 + 10 + 8 + 6 + 4 + 2 No change -2
10 + 18 + 16 + 14 + 12 + 10 + 8 + 6 + 4 + 2 No change



STEP THREE: TRANSITION PLAN
Steps one and two yield an allocation decision that represents the best balance between resident priority and the government’s commitment to the guide outfitter industry.

In some cases, this allocation decision will be substantially different than the currently applied allocation. It is recognized that an immediate transition to the new allocation may cause undue hardship to one or another stakeholder group. In such cases, a transition plan will be used to minimize the impact of substantial swings to new allocation decisions.

If the residency group currently having the smallest share is to experience a change of more than 20% (increase or decrease) to their current share of the harvest, the allocation shift will be limited to a 20% change for that group. The allocated share to the other residency group will change relatively. For example, if the current allocation split is 80/20, and the new process determines the allocation should be 60/40, the change will be limited to 76/24.

NEW ALLOCATION DECISION
The above steps will yield a new allocation decision.

RESULTS
RESULTS OF THE NEW ALLOCATION PROCESS ARE SUMMARIZED ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES

RESULTS BY REGION

Region Species STATUS QUO FINAL RECOMMENDATION
Res Non-Res Resident Non-Res
1 GRIZZLY 50 50 60 40
1 Roosevelt ELK (bull) 88 12 86 14
1 ELK (either sex) 67 33 76 24
2 Roosevelt ELK (bull) 80 20 76 24
2 GOAT 75 25 73 27
3 GRIZZLY 90 10 88 12
3 MOOSE (bull) 95 5 90 10
3 GOAT 70 30 67 33
3 BH SHEEP 60 40 78 32
4 GRIZZLY 53 47 62 38
4 MOOSE (bull) 80 20 79 21
4 GOAT 80 20 76 24
4 BH SHEEP 70 30 64 36
5 GRIZZLY 60 40 68 32
5 CARIBOU (bull) 80 20 76 24
5 MOOSE (bull) 80 20 76 24
5 NEW HUNT MOOSE (cow) no status quo 80 20
5 GOAT 57 43 65 35
6N CARIBOU (bull) 53 47 62 38
6N GOAT 62 38 63 37
6N MOOSE 74 26 69 31
6N TH SHEEP 40 60 48 52
6N GRIZZLY 50 50 60 40
6South MOOSE 81 19 85 15
6South GOAT 64 36 71 29
6South GRIZZLY 50 50 60 40
8 COUGAR no status quo 53 47
8 ELK (antlerless) 95 5 90 10
8 ELK (min 3 point) 95 5 90 10
8 MOOSE (bull) 80 20 84 16
8 GOAT 65 35 67 33
8 BH SHEEP 65 35 71 29
7A GRIZZLY 50 50 60 40
7A MOOSE (bull) 85 15 82 18
7A MOOSE (cow) 95 5 90 10
7B GRIZZLY 50 50 60 40
7B TH SHEEP 50 50 57 43
7B CARIBOU (bull) no status quo 63 37
7B ELK (antlerless) 90 10 90 10
7B Bison 80 20 84 16
7B MOOSE (calf) 90 10
7B GOAT 20 80 24 76



SUMMARY OF RESULTS

OVERALL ALLOCATION OF ALL SPECIES IN PROVINCE (RES/NON-RES) = 71/29

OVERALL ALLOCATION OF GRIZZLY IN PROVINCE (RES/NON-RES) = 65/35

OVERALL ALLOCATION OF BULL MOOSE IN PROVINCE (RES/NON-RES) = 80/20

OVERALL ALLOCATION OF THINHORN SHEEP IN PROVINCE (RES/NON-RES) = 52/48

OVERALL ALLOCATION OF BIGHORN SHEEP IN PROVINCE (RES/NON-RES) = 67/33

OVERALL ALLOCATION OF ROOSEVELT ELK IN PROVINCE (RES/NON-RES) = 81/19

OVERALL ALLOCATION OF OTHER ELK IN PROVINCE (RES/NON-RES) = 86/14

OVERALL ALLOCATION OF CARIBOU IN PROVINCE (RES/NON-RES) = 77/33

OVERALL ALLOCATION OF GOAT IN PROVINCE (RES/NON-RES) = 63/37

OVERALL ALLOCATION OF COW AND CALF MOOSE IN PROVINCE (RES/NON-RES) = 90/10



BCWF REGION 5/ALLOCATION.SUMMARY

[Mooseman]

Good thing they kept is simple:redface:

What :confused: :confused: :confused:


In the second post it's clear now. I can't belive I'll get less Grizzly ???? I only have one in 3 years.

[Onesock]

Why the hell are non residents even considered if there are not enough animals for residents to hunt? The hunting residents of this province put way more money into the economy than a few rich clients from out of country. The guide /outfitters should only be allowed tags once every resident has one. We Live here. 99% of every dollar we earn stays in this province!!!!! We are giving up 25% of our hunting for what? The residents of this province spend alot of money here.

[Fred]

Don't tell us Socks, complain to your MLA! I have that clown Coleman here so it probably won't help but it is worth a try. Fred

[Fido]

Ok now I live in Surrey don't laugh, but who do I write to raise some sh t. And why are nonresidents even in this just because a few guides cry. This is my province too, not just theres. I talked to a guide up at Bowron Lakes and he said people like us shouldn't be allowed to hunt when he is out guiding so we didn't hit it off to well. The good news was his client didn't get a moose. Thanks for the help.:mad:

[Schmaus]

That is such a crock I can't even get started on this issue:mad: :mad: :mad:

[ape]

Here you go boys and girls make your voice heard.



http://www.legis.gov.bc.ca/mla/3-1-7.htm

[kutenay]

I am GLAD that this has FINALLY come to a head and we can actually see how we are getting shafted by the GOABC, the bureaucrats under "Glitzy Gordie" and the godam foreigners who own/control so much of our best hunting. An example is 52/48 % on "Thinhorn Sheep" AND the difficulty of access to the hunting areas that hold them for we ordinary taxpaying B.C. hunters???????

Do you know that you or I CANNOT build even a sh*thouse in a Provincial Park or the Muskwa-Kechika, for example, BUT, check out the "lodges" built there by Guide-Outfitters. The war is on, gentlemen and the enemy presents himself, let's STOP ALL NON-RESIDENT ALIEN HUNTING NOW!!!!!

Canada for Canadians!!!

[huntersdad]

my brain hurts from reading that. It looks like it was written by a lawyer not a biologist.

[Sniper]

I'm 100% with Kutenay!! I knew from the time I was a kid that some day down the road we would be faced with slowly loosing access to area's and louseing our hunting rights so the time is here to take the bull by the horns and defend our rights!! O.K. lets talk about what we are going to do and how we are going to do it! Lets all get on the same page and pull together rather than blabbing off about how mad we are and going at this 100 different ways and accomplishing nothing! What about simply getting behind the BCWF wether you like the BCWF or not and all pulling together? I hope to god that we can get a handle on this you know as well as I do by now I'm sure that Gordo doesn't give a shit how many people show up to protest he just goes ahead and does what ever he wants! What about joining in with the BCWF to buy out as many of these guiding concessions as we can? What are your objections point by point?

[Onesock]

Lets say there are 100,000 hunters in BC. I don't know how many guide outfitters, lets say 5000. This boils down to 5% of the allotment not 25 -40%. I don't think there are 5000 guides outfitters in BC either.

[rrfred]

Its too bad that the guides and outfitters do not offer reasonably priced hunts for the "working man" residents of bc first. Meat and yearly vaction types of hunters would pay reasonably for hunts for legal animals. something where the support is available and a guide etc. could work with small teams of inexperienced, disabled hunters, the elderly etc.. just a thought. my .02

[plumbob]

I have to agree with kuteney about stopping this non res hunting enoughs enough.

[tmarschall]

Looking for a place to make a fact based comment on the above tables is rather difficult. Kuteany has the situation summed up, its a bunch of BS, now what to do about it. Explitives won't change anybody's mind on the subject. On the surface, if you can comprehend all the math and statistics, it appears to level the playing field, given the assumption that the 75/25 is a reasonable starting point(granted, that is a huge assumption). I don't have any data to argue the starting point. If you dig into the reality of what the formulas mean, you can see where the formulas are skewed against the residents. The "utilization factor"!!! The higher percentage of an allocation that is utilized by any group, the better chance that group's allocation will increase the following year. A guide has, (or should have) the time and equipment to get their clients to where the game is located and score kills. The average joe who finally gets the LEH for the species he has wanted to hunt for so long, is way behind the power curve. The G/O's being able to hunt the given species in the same area every year gives them an added advantage that residents don't have.
Surely there is much more "wrong" with the situation. This is just one area where you should be able to launch a valid argument to show how the proposal is unfair.
Come to think of it (thinking outside the box now) there is an important factor totally left out of the formula. The formulas do not take into account the percentage of a given region that is huntable by guides. Total LEH for a given region is based on the total area of the region. If the guide territories in a particular region only cover 20% of that region, then the guide allocation should not go above 20% of the LEH allocation for that region. This percentage assumes that only guides will harvest in their territory. The percentage should be less assuming that residents will harvest a few animals from the guide territory. Going above that level will result in over harvest of the species in the guide territory and under harvest for the rest of the region.
If I can think of any other significantly arguable points, I will definitely post them.... Tom

[Jagermeister]

There are a couple of other aspects that are important that are not factored in to the equations.
One, hunter success.
It can be assumed that the guide/client success ratio is going to be 100%. And it's a given that the resident hunter's success ratio is not that high, likely somewhere in the 40% range.
This brings us to the second factor.
The reasoning here is not everyone that applies for an LEH is "legitimately applying", but rather are attempting to suck up legitimate resident hunter allocations. Those wasted allocations that the quasi-conservationists acquire are factored in as unsuccessful resident hunters, thereby reducing the "need" to retain the quota for resident hunters.
And what about the natives, strangely, they are silent. I wonder if the GOABC are in bed with the natives in Region 5? I think that this is a very plausable argument, what groups would benefit with a decreased resident hunter allocation? I believe that there is a conspiracy afoot, that involves the GOABC in collusion with the Sierra Club (and affiliated like-minded organizations) along with the natives, to remove the resident hunter from the hinterlands of BC.
What I find strange is that the Sierra Club and their ilk have not been harrassing the guides like they were doing a few years ago up in the Spatsizi.......hhmmmm. :mad:

[CanuckShooter]

Relative Importance to Resident Hunters
The relative importance of each species to resident hunters will be determined by estimating the number of hunters who would hunt for a particular species if sufficient authorizations were available and comparing that number to the number of hunters who would hunt for any allocated species if sufficient authorizations were available. The following formula will be used:

#LEH APPLICANTS FOR SPECIES X * % WHO PURCHASE TAGS FOR SPECIES X
__________________________________________________ _________________

(#LEH APPLICANTS FOR SPECIES X * % WHO PURCHASE TAGS FOR SPECIES X) + (#LEH APPLICANTS FOR SPECIES Y * % WHO PURCHASE TAGS FOR SPECIES Y) + (#LEH APPLICANTS FOR SPECIES X * % WHO PURCHASE TAGS FOR SPECIES Z)

I find this little determination for relative importance to resident hunters to be severly flawed....ie. when I apply for a goat draw...and don't get it...I don't buy a tag...

[tmarschall]

CanuckShooter.... your statement is correct, however you are blinded by the smoke and mirrors of these complicated formulas. Statistically speaking, the same flaw applies to each species, so its a wash, the formula does show some to some degree the "relative" importance of each species to resident hunters. If they want responses by today, it is quite rediculous to say much about it. Of course in future headlines and reports you will read that resident hunters were asked for comments on the new regulation. Parr for the course I would suppose, you get 2 days when they have been dreaming it up for 6 months or more. I hope some modifications can be made before the final cut... good luck... Tom

[Mooseman]

CanuckShooter.... your statement is correct, however you are blinded by the smoke and mirrors of these complicated formulas. Statistically speaking, the same flaw applies to each species, so its a wash, the formula does show some to some degree the "relative" importance of each species to resident hunters. If they want responses by today, it is quite rediculous to say much about it. Of course in future headlines and reports you will read that resident hunters were asked for comments on the new regulation. Parr for the course I would suppose, you get 2 days when they have been dreaming it up for 6 months or more. I hope some modifications can be made before the final cut... good luck... Tom

Tom- You have to be careful. I get the feeling you don't know all the facts on this. I don't know all the facts and I have been in meetings about this. This is not a end result of a dream. It is out of countless meetings with GOABC, the Government and the BCWF.
All sides have been represented and given their input. I can't believe that it is actually here to comment on!!! Because I have not been given that opportunity to comment on these numbers from my point of view!

[tmarschall]

Moose, your feelings are correct. I know I don't know all the facts. I just comment on things the way I see them. Part of my response is based on my experiences in working with our government on various projects where they want input from various agencies. The included statement from marc saying they wanted replies by 20 dec is typical of what I dealt with in government beaucracy. We would get a document for comment that needed response in 3 days, yet the original document was dated 3 months prior.

Since you were at the meetings, was anything mentioned about the quantity of tags going to limited spaces of the guide territories? Maybe I am not fully informed on this as you say. But with my knowledge of wildlife management, it is a concern that does not seem to be addressed in the proposal. Can you shed any light on that point? Thanks.. Tom

[Mooseman]

Its too bad that the guides and outfitters do not offer reasonably priced hunts for the "working man" residents of bc first. Meat and yearly vaction types of hunters would pay reasonably for hunts for legal animals. something where the support is available and a guide etc. could work with small teams of inexperienced, disabled hunters, the elderly etc.. just a thought. my .02

Some do offer cheaper hunts for residents if they can afford it. I don't have enough game allocated to do so or I would. I can only speak for myself but "most" other outfitters are not much different from me:
- I help out hunters by tracking wounded game with my dogs within 300 km.
- I have given free accommodation for fisherman/woman and hunters at our lodge and fly-in camps. Some are people here at HBC.

We are a small family business and guiding for hunting & fishing trips is our only source of income.
Our 10 day moose hunt costs $ 4200 us and includes:

transportation, fuel, accommodation, vehicles, meals, non alc. drinks, guides, meat and trophy care, royalty fees, GST, income tax, property taxes for the camps, exchange rates & fees, commissions, brochures, websites, sport shows, ads in magazines, paid links, banners, office cost, lease payments, bank payments, repairs - new purchases and upkeep on canoes, boats, motors, wall tents, stoves, kitchen & cooking equipment, cabins, docks, trailers, guns, generator, chainsaw, waterpump, tools, miss. hunting equip. like cod's, foamies, GPS, flashlights, fishing gear, clothing, sleeping bags, first-aid kid's, small tents, back packs, radio phones, satellite phone. Liability insurances, insurance for boats, trailers, vehicles, life insurance, medical insurances, land fees, park permits, business license, guide outfitter license, assistant guide licenses, angling guide licenses, dogs, training equipment of dogs, membership fees for rod & gun club, GOABC, TBBC, SCI, DSI, WR4 and other sponsorships for pro hunting organizations.
It also includes the original investment and my wife's and my salaries.

[Mooseman]

Moose, your feelings are correct. I know I don't know all the facts. I just comment on things the way I see them. Part of my response is based on my experiences in working with our government on various projects where they want input from various agencies. The included statement from marc saying they wanted replies by 20 dec is typical of what I dealt with in government beaucracy. We would get a document for comment that needed response in 3 days, yet the original document was dated 3 months prior.

Since you were at the meetings, was anything mentioned about the quantity of tags going to limited spaces of the guide territories? Maybe I am not fully informed on this as you say. But with my knowledge of wildlife management, it is a concern that does not seem to be addressed in the proposal. Can you shed any light on that point? Thanks.. Tom

The first part of your post is an assumption and might not be true. You and I we both don't know that one.

Second part: I was not at "the" meetings. I stated that I was in meetings where we talked about the allocations and had been told bids and pieces about "the" meetings. Actual fact is that most outfitters will actually end up with less then status quo. By counting I saw a gain from status quo for outfitters 16 x, for residents 21 x and 5 unchanged. I think it looks very good for resident allocation.

The annual allowable harvest will be set by the regional manager and biologist. That # will then be divided up in the % given to outfitters and resident hunters.

[Onesock]

Just out of curiosity Mooseman, and I will still respect you if you tell me to pound sand, how many clients a year do you cater to? Once again Michael, please don't feel you have to answer this. It just may give us lay folk an idea of what you are up against.
Kirk

[abbyfireguy]

I hunt Region 5 almost every year for the past 25 years..5-13,6-1 or 7-12.
Depends which one of our group gets a draw and where...
The odd year we get skunked we stay in the lower area of Okanagon and Kamloops areas...
I have run into many guides on my drives and hikes over the years up there..Some good,some bad , a few absolute wretchs who deserve to be drawn and quartered....
One thing I cannot and will not tolerate from a guide, is their assumption to exclusivity to their guide area...A fair number of the bad guides up there actually will try and tell you that you can't hunt where you are hunting....
After informing them that their guiding territory is mearly a right to guide there ,not sole rights to the animals therein, I usually get the f-you and we part company..
Miserable folks these few,they sure sour your attitude to the guides who act in an appropriate manner.....
A lot of the guides you will find are hesitant to even guide residents because once you know the area, there is nothing stopping a resident from making their own way into that area on their own and hunt.........
I hope common sense, fair decisions that include the average hunter(all of us) as equal partners in the right to harvest occurs

[Mooseman]

Just out of curiosity Mooseman, and I will still respect you if you tell me to pound sand, how many clients a year do you cater to? Once again Michael, please don't feel you have to answer this. It just may give us lay folk an idea of what you are up against.
Kirk

I have never made a secret out of it and guys that guide for me can confirm that (ask him). I take about 6 to 12 bear hunters in the Spring and about 12 moose hunters in the Fall.
But, and that is a big but they don't all pay the full price. Some pay little because they bring a group with them and many pay old prices since they are repeat and I leave them at that. If a client had no chance and hunted hard I give them a "very" fair deal if they would like to try again in the future.

It is not about the money. It's about the quality of life for the whole family. That is priceless!

[tmarschall]

Mooseman, thanks for the clarification. The government beaurocracy I was talking about had nothing to do with hunting, thank God. The beaurocracy here for game management actually seems to work, a bit slow at times, but changes can be made from the bottom level. At least twice a year they have open public meetings at the county level. They talk about proposed changes and ask for input from landowners, hunters, anyone present. Being happy with the way things have gone here, I have never actually attended any of the meetings, but read about them in the paper. Anyways.... I am curious what you think about the hypothetical situation this allocation system could present? Let me give you my uderstanding on what happens there, so you know where I am coming from? Guides have a set territory where they are allowed to guide in and harvest animals from. Residents may harvest animals from this same area. I understand that the regional managers and biologists set the harvest quotas each year. I may be wrong on this issue, but generally the quotas are based on the population density for the entire region. If guide territories do not cover 25% of the region, then it would appear that the 75/25 starting point they use skews thing the wrong way. Say for example all guide territories in a region cover 15% of the region, if they harvest 25% of the animals from that region each year, it won't be long before the territory will be "shot out" so to speak. Granted, as huntable animals begin to disappear from the guide teritory, the usage factor will reduce the allocation for G/O's and residents will harvest the animals from other areas of the region. This really doesn't sound good for business, if all my assumptions are correct. It just seems that there should be some kind of an area factor built into the formula to help maintain huntable populations for all concerned. I know there are many other factors that come into play in reality, game populations migrating in and out of territories for example. Maybe this factor and others negate the need to consider the square milage of a guide territory in the equation. It just seems like a question that could be addressed now so no one has to say later.... "oops... we didn't think about that one". Is it possible to find out if area of guide territories was considered???
On another point, since you brought it up. Your 10-day moose hunt is a bargain, its no wonder all them folks from south of the 49th are coming up there to hunt. I have a flyer here from a local guide for a 10 day moose hunt in Alaska: $10,000!!! You can add a brown bear for only $5,000 more. These were year 2002 prices also. These prices do not include licenses or tags. $85 for non-resident license and $400 for moose tag, brown bear is $500. Of course you never know how many hunts the book at that price. Just thought I would post the info for a comparison.

[Mooseman]

Mooseman, thanks for the clarification. The government beaurocracy I was talking about had nothing to do with hunting, thank God. The beaurocracy here for game management actually seems to work, a bit slow at times, but changes can be made from the bottom level. At least twice a year they have open public meetings at the county level. They talk about proposed changes and ask for input from landowners, hunters, anyone present. Being happy with the way things have gone here, I have never actually attended any of the meetings, but read about them in the paper. Anyways.... I am curious what you think about the hypothetical situation this allocation system could present? Let me give you my uderstanding on what happens there, so you know where I am coming from? Guides have a set territory where they are allowed to guide in and harvest animals from. Residents may harvest animals from this same area. I understand that the regional managers and biologists set the harvest quotas each year. I may be wrong on this issue, but generally the quotas are based on the population density for the entire region. If guide territories do not cover 25% of the region, then it would appear that the 75/25 starting point they use skews thing the wrong way. Say for example all guide territories in a region cover 15% of the region, if they harvest 25% of the animals from that region each year, it won't be long before the territory will be "shot out" so to speak. Granted, as huntable animals begin to disappear from the guide teritory, the usage factor will reduce the allocation for G/O's and residents will harvest the animals from other areas of the region. This really doesn't sound good for business, if all my assumptions are correct. It just seems that there should be some kind of an area factor built into the formula to help maintain huntable populations for all concerned. I know there are many other factors that come into play in reality, game populations migrating in and out of territories for example. Maybe this factor and others negate the need to consider the square milage of a guide territory in the equation. It just seems like a question that could be addressed now so no one has to say later.... "oops... we didn't think about that one". Is it possible to find out if area of guide territories was considered???
On another point, since you brought it up. Your 10-day moose hunt is a bargain, its no wonder all them folks from south of the 49th are coming up there to hunt. I have a flyer here from a local guide for a 10 day moose hunt in Alaska: $10,000!!! You can add a brown bear for only $5,000 more. These were year 2002 prices also. These prices do not include licenses or tags. $85 for non-resident license and $400 for moose tag, brown bear is $500. Of course you never know how many hunts the book at that price. Just thought I would post the info for a comparison.

Tom, I think I now understand your question. For little exceptions the whole Province is covered by outfitter territories. Therefore the regional manager and or biologist for each of the 9 regions (7A + 7B) will determined the exact number of animals as per management unit (e.g. MU 7-12).
It is a little challenge for them since guiding area boundaries for the most part are totally separate from MU boundaries, but they have been doing this for a long time and the only thing changing is the split %. I think what you are afraid of is not really a concern here.

Moose hunts range here too from $ 3000 to $ 10.000 mostly depending on cost of doing the hunt.
My avatar picture was taken while on a sheep hunt with friends and there we had to fly-in for about a hour after having driven 12 hours. When we landed at the lake there was a guide and two helpers waiting for clients being flown in. They rode to this lake with 10 hoses for 5 days and after the one client is done they have to bring the horses out again. Can you imagine the wages cost alone? No wonder his moose hunts have to be what they are. And when the guides are sitting around waiting because of bad weather he still has to pay them.

[Onesock]

Just curious again. How many guide territories are there in the province of BC.

[elkster]

Gentlemen,
This has been, so far, a very interesting and informative thread. Its really nice to hear from both sides of the equation, stated intelligently with respect for both sides. I have enjoyed reading everyones comments. I look forward to further discusions.

[Mooseman]

Kirk, I don't really know. I know that the GOABC has over 200 members but some are from NWT, Nanavut and Yukon as well. There are also many outfitters that are not members in BC.

[timber]

onestock I have 2003- 2004 guide outfitters list for BC I will start counting. you can get them at ministry of water land and air offices. be rigt back with the numbers

[timber]

went a lot faster with my socks off, 273 licensed outfitters for bc 03/04

[boxhitch]

This issue of "allocations" is not a new one. The BCWF has been involved in discussions for some time now, with input (though limited) from clubs and club members throughout the province.
The gov't seems to be sliding in a fast one, what with giving parties involved 48 hours to respond to something of this magnitude.