Big Game Outfitters

[Kootenai]

Two questions

1. Do big game outfitters have the same hunting season we have, or can they continue hunting after the regular season closes until their quota is full?

2. Read a comment in our local rag that the GOABC (Guide Outfitters Assoc. of B.C.) is lobbying the government to change all hunting, except outfitters and their clients, to a complete LEH system. That would mean no open hunting anywhere in BC without a draw. Anyone know if this is true? I tried contacting them via their email but my emails keep getting returned.

[sako7mm]

1. They have to comply with the preset seasons like the rest of us but they can't exceed their quotas. ie 3 Grizzly Bears over 5 years.

2. Haven't heard about this.

[Prowler]

its true I believe... scary but true:icon_frow

[leadpillproductions]

if that the case i will be moving some where where you can just hunt dont care where but have gun will travel lol

[bridger]

guide outfitters have the same season as resident hunters. the goabc has asked the government to put all resident sheep hunters on leh. (that is not going to fly) they have also asked the MOE to manage all hunts for all species in the province for quality as opposed to quantity. that means harvest restrictions for residents for sure. they have also said they will not support any programs that will increase the number of resident hunters in the province. if you are opposed to this see this website
www.residentpriority.ca (http://www.residentpriority.ca)

[Will]

The GOABC needs to have it's ars kicked right out of BC........

[Spy]

if that the case i will be moving some where where you can just hunt dont care where but have gun will travel lol

Don't move just become a poacher,because thats what we will have to become to hunt.
Imagine no hunting license,no tags who,s going to fund them (moe), who,s going to police us, with what money?No more Leh's I can go on>.

[bridger]

Don't move just become a poacher,because thats what we will have to become to hunt.
Imagine no hunting license,no tags who,s going to fund them (moe), who,s going to police us, with what money?No more Leh's I can go on>.

Better yet join the BCWF and the Resident Angler and Hunter Protection Fund and help the people that are leading the fight for resident hunters and fishermen in the province.

[Devilbear]

The GOABC needs to have it's ars kicked right out of BC........

The only realistic method of accomplishing this would be to completely ban ALL " non-resident alien" hunting and angling throughout BC. This would eliminate the financial base of the GOABC and would bring about the collapse of that largely foreign financed and destructive organization.

I think that, a concerted poliitical campaign to end "n-r-a" exploitation of OUR resources would be easy to effect and quickly successful and would allow for greater harvests by BC citizens of OUR resources. So, such a campaign and it's result would be to OUR advantage and is an option we should, IMO, seriously consider.

There will be the usual whinging about "jobs", well, tough shit, the rights of resident hunters/anglers FAR exceed the supposedly financial contributions to BC by the out of province employees and meager spending of the GOABC members.

They want to screw us over, well, let's bloody well put them out of business and asap. Maybe they might "sing a different tune", if they get told that their time is rapidly ending.

[Spy]

Better yet join the BCWF and the Resident Angler and Hunter Protection Fund and help the people that are leading the fight for resident hunters and fishermen in the province.

Thats what I have been saying for the last couple of months! The writing is on the wall,we better move quick !

[Fisher-Dude]

The GOABC is pushing to have many of our hunts put on LEH. For example, they are pushing LEH mule deer bucks for region 5.

They are also pushing for an end to the spike/fork moose season in region 8 and have only LEH. I say keep the s/f season and can the LEH hunt, that way they can't sell trophy hunts in region 8, and resident hunters get the annual allowable harvest, the way it should be.

The GOABC wants as few resident hunters in the bush as possible. They know that LEH kills hunter numbers severely, and that's why they push for it.

Did you get a few bucks from Santa this Christmas? Do yourself a huge favour, and slip some to www.residentpriority.ca (http://www.residentpriority.ca) so that you can continue to enjoy BC's fish and game resources instead of sitting at home with no LEH draw while a fat, rich American shoots YOUR animals.

[Will]

I often wonder what the percentage of Guides employed by Outfitters are BC residents ? Surely it's not a hundred percent but it's gotta be close....maybe it's time for the "Resident" guides/packers etc. to pull there heads outta thier arses long enough to see what thier employers are doing for thier own personal Hunting rights here ?

[Will]

It will be nice when some "resident" Guides start chiming in on this thread....I'd like to hear thier oppinions on some of the recent GOABC statements :neutral:

[bridger]

I agree. one of the things that always gets me is that when you get into serious discussions about this issue with the goabc executive the response always includes "remember outfitters are resident hunters as well as well as outfitters."

[bridger]

It will be nice when some "resident" Guides start chiming in on this thread....I'd like to hear thier oppinions on some of the recent GOABC statements :neutral:


you missed some wild responses on this issue from assistant guides while you were away. mostly the outfitters are more or less godllike and we should be thankful they are managing their areas so well.

[willy442]

It will be nice when some "resident" Guides start chiming in on this thread....I'd like to hear thier oppinions on some of the recent GOABC statements :neutral:

Most stay shy of this type of controversy, because they actually see how mislead the general hunting public is, on many of these issue's. Remember if a G/O fails to hunt an area in a proper manner, promoting conservation and enhancement, while also including resident harvest pressures, the longevity of his business is then at question.
The radicals on this site ie, FD, DB and to some extent Bridger would like to see the industry stopped or extremly limited in opportunity. However the viability of the industry depends on the availability of opportunity through quota and tags. Many have a different opinion on what makes a viable industry and this is the meat of the Resident verses G/O battle from the guides side. Throw everyones greed and the fact guides generally out hunt the resident into the issue and it becomes an all out war between two parties. When in the end both should want the same thing.(SUSTAINABLE NUMBERS OF UNGULATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF HUNTING) for everyone.
In my opinion, we have spent away too much time over the past thirty years, fighting a relatively senseless battle over shares. The formula for resident/nonresident ratios has been set for many years and really, only needs to be enforced. This opens another can of worms, due to the inability of the resident to harvest his share, throughout a vast land with very limited access, hence the G/O's fight for the right to harvest what the resident can't.
It all boils down to dollars and cents in the end and when looked at closely, if we are going to recieve maximum renumeration for our wildlife resource in the province. G/O's will be taking world wide clients into our woods for many years to come.
The BCWF needs a bit of house cleaning completed as soon as possible in my opinion. They still have what could be refered to as an OLD BOY's CLUB sitting on boards and commities fighting age old battles. New blood creates new thinking and can probably eventually get rid of the present mistrust between both sides. However this is just an old guides opinion.

[Devilbear]

Willy always calls others names, such as ...radical..., but, he is a phoney mouthpiece for the foreign dominated GOABC and has zero credibility. His continual personal slurs are protected here and by his hiding behind his computer; guys like Willy are an example of WHY we need to strictly control the GOABC and the entire "industry".

The wonderful volunteers of the BCWF have done and do so much goood for conservation and we can best assist them in preserving OUR rights by fighting the common enemy of all resident hunters, except certain vile sellouts, the loathsome GOABC.

Once this Olympics hoopla is over and done, we will see a huge change in BC politics and I suspect that others in the BC Liberal Party, will be far more amenable to doing what is right for we BC hunters than the "Gordo" gang has been. If, not, the NDP might well form government and THEY would gladly clean out the hunting industry and the foreigner "moneybags" that finance the GOABC.

One way or another, the GOABC must be broken and eliminated from their position of influence in BC resource politics and, asap, if, we are to keep our heritage for our use.

[bridger]

in response to willy's claim that the bcwf is an old boys club and needs a house cleaning i can only say bullshit. as far as the bcwf or me wanting to see the end of the goabc that is also bullshit. the new allocation policy gives the goabc the largest share of the annual harvest of any jurisdiction in north america that has a resident hunting population of signifigance. The bcwf has agreed that guide outfitters get a harvest share of sheep that ranges from a high of 40% to a guaranteed minimum of 20%. alberta montana etc allow a maximum of 10% or less. same on elk, moose etc.
Does that sound like the bcwf wants to get rid of non residents. Does that sound like the bcwf is run by greed. bullshit again Willy. the trouble is that the goabc only pays lip service to resident priority and it has been that way since day one. The guides agreed to a new allocation policy and before the ink was dry got its implentation delayed for five years and now are asking for a further five year delay. Is that greed or lack of integrity? The goabc has asked the government to manage hunting seasons for quality which means fewer hunting opportunites for residents and more for non residents. Is that recognizing resident priority? The GOBC also receives a huge susidy annually from the provincial government, but that isn't advertised. Why when the MOE is strapped for cash are we giving international hunting companies a subsidy? As far as greed goes Willy why were guide outfitters put on sheep quota's in the first place back in the good old days? And let's not hear the usual bullshit that guides only kill big rams. just like everyone else they like to show the pics of the big ones and forget about the smaller ones. have a look in the grandslam magazine or the grandslam archives. there is lots of room for non residents to hunt in BC, but before there can be peace in the valley both sides need to honor their commitments. The BCWF has and will continue to negotiate in good faith. Read Fisher Dude's post about the lastest ploy by the goabc and defend the actions he has described.

[Fisher-Dude]

Willy refuses to address specific initiatives of the GOABC, like their push to put region 5 mule deer on LEH, and their push to end spike/fork seasons, and their push to stop any season designed to retain and recruit new hunters. All of these initiatives are documented in correspondence from the GOABC to Victoria.

If anyone has ever sat through a Fishing and Hunting Advisory Committee meeting with GOABC members, they have seen first hand how the GOABC opposes any and all season proposals that would benefit your everyday Joe resident hunter. Yes, even to the extent of screaming at the top of their lungs that whitetail deer numbers are in serious trouble in the Grand Forks area. :-?

[frenchbar]

guide outfitters have the same season as resident hunters. the goabc has asked the government to put all resident sheep hunters on leh. (that is not going to fly) they have also asked the MOE to manage all hunts for all species in the province for quality as opposed to quantity. that means harvest restrictions for residents for sure. they have also said they will not support any programs that will increase the number of resident hunters in the province. if you are opposed to this see this website
www.residentpriority.ca (http://www.residentpriority.ca) Dont have a whole pile of money...but will be forwarding a donation to the cause to help thwart away the greedy mofoers:evil:

[Devilbear]

I would like to see the precise details of this subsidy that the GOABC receives from the Provincial Government; this is an outrage and should be eliminated forthwith.

The situation is really VERY simple, as long as the current regulations concerning foreign hunting/angling in BC are in effect, the GOABC will continue to lobby government to systematically lower resident's harvest levels of OUR game and it IS OUR GAME!

If, all such hunting/angling is banned, they will soon be without a financial base and have no real reason to exist and the threat to our rights will be "history".

I would agree to some legal provision for a type of "hunter host" programme here in BC, where residents can obtain permits to have a foreign citizen and/or a fellow Canadian hunt with them for a given animal per season. These should be strictly controlled and only involve a maximum of 10% of a given species population and only when said species is at 70% of "carrying capacity" or more.

I will be hunting in the "territory" of certain GOs this coming year and I am VERY familiar with "The Criminal Code of Canada", Sections 34-37 and will NOT hesitate to exercise my rights thereunder, in event of trouble. We need to get a LOT "tougher" with these bazturds if we are going to preserve our hunting and we need to start NOW!!!

[Devilbear]

A question for the original poster, "Kootenai", from Kaslo, what ...local rag...did you read about this issue in and do you know if I can obtain a copy?

If, it was the NDN, could you give me the date of the specific issue?

[willy442]

in response to willy's claim that the bcwf is an old boys club and needs a house cleaning i can only say bullshit. as far as the bcwf or me wanting to see the end of the goabc that is also bullshit. the new allocation policy gives the goabc the largest share of the annual harvest of any jurisdiction in north america that has a resident hunting population of signifigance. The bcwf has agreed that guide outfitters get a harvest share of sheep that ranges from a high of 40% to a guaranteed minimum of 20%. alberta montana etc allow a maximum of 10% or less. same on elk, moose etc.
Does that sound like the bcwf wants to get rid of non residents. Does that sound like the bcwf is run by greed. bullshit again Willy. the trouble is that the goabc only pays lip service to resident priority and it has been that way since day one. The guides agreed to a new allocation policy and before the ink was dry got its implentation delayed for five years and now are asking for a further five year delay. Is that greed or lack of integrity? The goabc has asked the government to manage hunting seasons for quality which means fewer hunting opportunites for residents and more for non residents. Is that recognizing resident priority? The GOBC also receives a huge susidy annually from the provincial government, but that isn't advertised. Why when the MOE is strapped for cash are we giving international hunting companies a subsidy? As far as greed goes Willy why were guide outfitters put on sheep quota's in the first place back in the good old days? And let's not hear the usual bullshit that guides only kill big rams. just like everyone else they like to show the pics of the big ones and forget about the smaller ones. have a look in the grandslam magazine or the grandslam archives. there is lots of room for non residents to hunt in BC, but before there can be peace in the valley both sides need to honor their commitments. The BCWF has and will continue to negotiate in good faith. Read Fisher Dude's post about the lastest ploy by the goabc and defend the actions he has described.

Rich; How long have you been involved with the BCWF and always in the background trying to shove a knife into G/O negotiations? You and a few others have damn well been on the front lines for to long and are hung up fighting old battles that have left sour tastes in everyones mouth and you won't give it up and try something new. Right now there is no trust on either side and I believe that as long as yourself and a couple of others are out front nothing will change and the residents will loose piece by piece. You for one have had an issue with shares and have fought it since before you were even a resident of this Country. It's time to start with a new proffessional approach from all sides. Old battles must die.
I do not stand fully behind the Guides as you and F/D seem to think. I do stand behind World wide opportunity to hunt and always will. I do not stand behind the GOS of accessable area's for residents, because I've seen the devastation that can cause.(like the natives are fighting now in the Dease area). The best method in these areas is LEH and it will increase, as areas are hard hit. Its very simple, move the GOS and the hunters will follow.
The figures you throw out on other States and Provinces rally have no bearing on BC as this is a totally different diverse area with different demands on the Wildlife. The BCWF continually wants more for the resident, when it's members can't achieve the harvest levels they have now. This is why the GOABC has said they want to relook at the allocation. No where have I seen anything that the present wishes of the BCWF were accepted by the G/O's.
Please explain to me how the G/O gets a subsidy from our Government. The years we were involved the cheques sent out for campsites, grazing, and Trophy fee's were actually quite sizeable. So please clear this up if it has changed or is this another issue you thrown out to keep the battle fueled?
Also, I just heard the other day that G/O's are paying a bounty on Wolves now. Just maybe some of your fund could be put to GOOD use and kick a little that way.
Bill

[willy442]

The GOABC is pushing to have many of our hunts put on LEH. For example, they are pushing LEH mule deer bucks for region 5.

They are also pushing for an end to the spike/fork moose season in region 8 and have only LEH. I say keep the s/f season and can the LEH hunt, that way they can't sell trophy hunts in region 8, and resident hunters get the annual allowable harvest, the way it should be.

The GOABC wants as few resident hunters in the bush as possible. They know that LEH kills hunter numbers severely, and that's why they push for it.

Did you get a few bucks from Santa this Christmas? Do yourself a huge favour, and slip some to www.residentpriority.ca (http://www.residentpriority.ca) so that you can continue to enjoy BC's fish and game resources instead of sitting at home with no LEH draw while a fat, rich American shoots YOUR animals.

Most Americans actually show up in shape for thier hunts as they are spending big dollars and conditioning equals success. Unlike you they don't ride around on a quad wrecking the landscape, and bitching about road closures.
The more LEH in this province the better for all of us living outside of the lower mainland. Not only will the animals benifit but the locals won't have to be subjected to the yearly gong show hunting season creates, as it will reduce numbers. Its coming guys the natives are pushing it along with the G/O's so get ready.

[Dirty]

The natural resources of British Columbia belong to all British Columbians. This includes outfitters, resident hunters, tree huggers, native hunters, and everybody else that I haven't accounted for. In a perfect world, everything would be equally shared. However, we do not live in a perfect world and there will always be a power struggle for a bigger slice of the pie. The thing I have a hard time justifying is the "foreigners" crying the blues for more allocations.

In addition, why can't these entities change their supply and demand. BC is not world renown for Moose Hunting. However, we are world renown for sheep, bear, and to some degree elk. There is also a good number of large Mule Deer and Whitetail Deer in BC. What I am getting at is why can't these G/O's diversify (to the limitations available in their territory) instead of demanding more of a particular species. In addition, why can they not change the supply and demand of valuable species. Would it not make sense to increase the price of their hunts unilaterally (seeing how the G/O's love to get along) if they are all shooting their quotas and demanding more? Demand must be high if they want more quota?

Furthermore, it is an outright 'gutshot' at resident hunters to suggest putting us on more LEH and closing GOS. I propose a resident hunter priority fund royalty on all animals taken by non-residents during guided hunts. My rationale is that each animal taken by a non-resident takes away an opportunity for residents. Outlandish? I think not. :roll:

[Angel]

Quoting Thomas Waldo Emerson. “ Government has come to be a trade that is based on commercial principles, people get into politics to make their fortune and they only hope that the world will last their days.”

Very well quoted! couldnt agree with you more and it sums up our world as we know it today. all industry and money now forget about enviro its someone elses problem right?:evil:

[bridger]

so bill i guess the answer is give the non residents the lion share of the hunting opportunities in the province put all the guys in the lower mainland on leh and let the rest of us hunt only quality animals. that has been the goabc goal since day one. Myself and the other old guys in the bcwf are not asking for anything from the goabc or government anything other than resident hunters should not be unfairly restricted in favor on international hunting companies and their non resident clients. back in teh good old days when residents were taking only 14% of the sheep harvest the goabc was trying to get residents on leh. that is one of the things that started this whole issue. you should sit around an allocation table and listen to the goabc say residents should only be allowed to hunt sheep every five years or only kill one ram a lifetime or residents shouldnt' be allowed to kill spike fork bull moose because the guides can sell big bulls for a lot of money. Or sit around the table and have the general manager of the goabc tell you that resident hunters don't need anymore opportunites. when the resident hunters that make up the membership of the bcwf ask me to step down I will not when some guide outfitter tells me too.. rich petersen

[Devilbear]

Quoting Thomas Waldo Emerson. “ Government has come to be a trade that is based on commercial principles, people get into politics to make their fortune and they only hope that the world will last their days.”

Oh, gawd, not English 91, again! The gentleman in question, was actually Ralph Waldo Emerson, an American writer of the mid-19th Century. His friend, was the great English historian, Thomas Carlyle, and you may have confused the two.

The comment certainly suits this topic, tho'.

[Steeleco]

While this is obviously a VERY emotional issue, "personal insults" can not and will not be tolerated. It they continue, something tells me there will be a few less debaters.

[willy442]

so bill i guess the answer is give the non residents the lion share of the hunting opportunities in the province put all the guys in the lower mainland on leh and let the rest of us hunt only quality animals. that has been the goabc goal since day one. Myself and the other old guys in the bcwf are not asking for anything from the goabc or government anything other than resident hunters should not be unfairly restricted in favor on international hunting companies and their non resident clients. back in teh good old days when residents were taking only 14% of the sheep harvest the goabc was trying to get residents on leh. that is one of the things that started this whole issue. you should sit around an allocation table and listen to the goabc say residents should only be allowed to hunt sheep every five years or only kill one ram a lifetime or residents shouldnt' be allowed to kill spike fork bull moose because the guides can sell big bulls for a lot of money. Or sit around the table and have the general manager of the goabc tell you that resident hunters don't need anymore opportunites. when the resident hunters that make up the membership of the bcwf ask me to step down I will not when some guide outfitter tells me too.. rich petersen

My point exactly! You have not been able to see past that approach to the fact for thirty odd years now. I don't fault you for some of the good you've accomplished Rich, but I think its time for new approach. One that can get everyone on the same page and the animals are finally put before greed from both sides.

I fully support the 1 in three program we had in the past and it alone would eliminate the requirement for LEH on sheep only. How many sheep Stone Sheep does one need in a lifetime? Lets not forget we have the only piece of land in North America that carries three of the strains of N/A sheep, all, of which are available to hunt. The guides actually asked for LEH on areas that were easily available to access, falling in line with conservation concerns on over harvest, some of which we have seen.ie, The Prophet, Nevis Creek, Halfway River, parts of the Tetsa and isolated areas along the Alaska Highway. You've hunted these areas and are fully aware of the reduced numbers. The reductions are not soley due to hunting pressure but all factors must be considered and if we are not funding predator control, hunters must somehow take the hit.

[325 wsm]

It's funny how so many people on here bitch about the rights between natives and whites being unequal and then try create an inequality between resident hunters and resident outfitters. What happened to the idea of ONE CANADA WITH ONE SET OF LAWS TO GOVERN ALL. Oh yeah.....the shoe is on the other foot now.
Time to start working together so maybe everyone can be equal !

[325 wsm]

Thanks Chris, being both a resident hunter in the Yukon and hunting guide here and B.C. I sit on both sides of the fence and find this forum to be very interesting.

[Sitkaspruce]

I fully support the 1 in three program we had in the past and it alone would eliminate the requirement for LEH on sheep only. How many sheep Stone Sheep does one need in a lifetime? Lets not forget we have the only piece of land in North America that carries three of the strains of N/A sheep, all, of which are available to hunt. The guides actually asked for LEH on areas that were easily available to access, falling in line with conservation concerns on over harvest, some of which we have seen.ie, The Prophet, Nevis Creek, Halfway River, parts of the Tetsa and isolated areas along the Alaska Highway. You've hunted these areas and are fully aware of the reduced numbers. The reductions are not soley due to hunting pressure but all factors must be considered and if we are not funding predator control, hunters must somehow take the hit.

Willy

Does your plan also include non-residents as a one in three and how many do they need????

I have guided a couple guys who hunt SS every other year as they think it is the best of all the sheep. They go to a different GO evey time and have now hunted most of the east slope and Fort Nelly area and are now headed to the West side. They killed around 8 sheep between them and not one has been over 38". When I asked tham about looking for a bigger one, they told me that thay actually have had pressure from the GO to kill a sheep so that they can keep their harvest #'s up and their success rate at as close to 100%. I will not get into the GO name as we can point fingers at this and that, but the truth is that not all GO are in it for conservation and that most are in it simply for the $$$. If outfitters were to have one dollar and that was it and could put it into a conservation project or their bank account, which do you think they would chose?

Personally, the residents should have first choice in all aspects of hunting and the GO should get their allocation as put out in the allocation process. If the GO are bitching that the residents are not filling their allocation, then they should be thankfull that there will be more animals running around and that we are not hammering them. The left over should be just that, left alone for the following year. If this is the way it is, would this not help improve animal #'s? Or are the GO that hard up that they need to kiill off the exact # allocated to both the residents and non so that there is no increase in #'s?

I like to guide and spend my time in the outdoors, but will always be a resident hunter first.

Cheers

SS

[Gunner]

Willy

Does your plan also include non-residents as a one in three and how many do they need????

I have guided a couple guys who hunt SS every other year as they think it is the best of all the sheep. They go to a different GO evey time and have now hunted most of the east slope and Fort Nelly area and are now headed to the West side. They killed around 8 sheep between them and not one has been over 38". When I asked tham about looking for a bigger one, they told me that thay actually have had pressure from the GO to kill a sheep so that they can keep their harvest #'s up and their success rate at as close to 100%. I will not get into the GO name as we can point fingers at this and that, but the truth is that not all GO are in it for conservation and that most are in it simply for the $$$. If outfitters were to have one dollar and that was it and could put it into a conservation project or their bank account, which do you think they would chose?

Personally, the residents should have first choice in all aspects of hunting and the GO should get their allocation as put out in the allocation process. If the GO are bitching that the residents are not filling their allocation, then they should be thankfull that there will be more animals running around and that we are not hammering them. The left over should be just that, left alone for the following year. If this is the way it is, would this not help improve animal #'s? Or are the GO that hard up that they need to kiill off the exact # allocated to both the residents and non so that there is no increase in #'s?

I like to guide and spend my time in the outdoors, but will always be a resident hunter first.

Cheers

SS Great comment,SitkaSpuce. Gunner

[Ambush]

I will state right off the start. I am not against GO's or non-resident hunters.
I dislike un-ethical or greedy GO's same as I dislike un-ethical and greedy residents.

Guiding is a business, now more than ever, and the bottom line is all about the bottom line, that is profitablilty.

I hunt because I feel a need to hunt and I think that is true for 90% of the non-resident clients as well. Most are just like us.

I do resent the fact the the GOABC has taken to using the natives as a tool to further their desires. But, unlike the enviromentalists that they learned this tactic from, the GO's will live to regret this un-holy alliance.

I resent any attempt to curtail my hunting activities where there is no REAL conservation concern. I work and play in BC. This is my BC and my life, and I choose to live here because of what BC is and has to offer.

I beleive it may be time for the government to re-invest in the guiding industry and put the territories back into the hands of small-business resident owners. And yes, with subsidies if needed.

I am fundamentaly against foreign ownership of Canadaian resources.

Just remember, when the ship [hunting] finaly sinks, we're all on board, rats and people.

[6616]

The BCWF needs a bit of house cleaning completed as soon as possible in my opinion. They still have what could be refered to as an OLD BOY's CLUB sitting on boards and commities fighting age old battles. New blood creates new thinking and can probably eventually get rid of the present mistrust between both sides. However this is just an old guides opinion.

Now that is an interesting point of view.

The BCWF is not the one initiating the proposals that have created this controversy. The BCWF is only reacting to GOABC proposals and submissions to government to eliminate resident hunting opportunities so more opportunities are available to G/Os.

Who is asking for the removal of spike/fork moose seasons, who is opposing recruitment/retention of resident hunters, who is appealing moose quotas in Region 5 that already exceed the allocation, who is trying to delay the implementation of and/or re-open discussions on the allocation policy, who is promoting more resident hunts be placed on LEH thus reducing resident opportunities and guaranteeing a non-resident quota, who is demanding game management for trophy quality at reduced harvest levels for residents...? The list just goes on and on...! But of course it's the BCWF's fault (according to Willie) for standing up for resident hunters and not just rolling over and giving GOABC everthing they want.

It's not an old boys club carring on with old meaningless battles, it's really only the BCWF reacting to the incessant ongoing "age old" selfish demands of the GOABC for more, more, more, and more...! When will enough be enough...?

The current mistrust will go away only if and when the GOABC is satisfied with the generous allocations and regulatory regime they already enjoy and stand down on making demands that negativelly impact resident hunting...! The BCWF has already agreed to non-resident allocations in BC that far exceed those of any other jurisdiction but that is not enough for the GOABC, but of course Willie, the controversy is always the BCWF's fault...the GOABC is completelly innocent...???? My gawd man, open your eyes.....!

"However, just an old resident hunters opinion".

[6616]

The BCWF continually wants more for the resident, when it's members can't achieve the harvest levels they have now.

While access plays a big part in this in the north, there are also many hunts in BC where residents are not achieving their allocation simply due to regulations that are in place designed purely and simply to reduce the harvest. If AAHs, non-resident quota, and resident allocation are all correctly calculated their should be no conservation concern with harvesting the full allocation so these restrictive regulation just need to be removed, it's as simple as that as far as residents achieving their allocation is concerned.

The former 1 in 3 Stone's Sheep regulation in Region 7B was a good example of a redundant regulation that it was correct to do away with.

The BCWF only wants the 75% (or whatever it happens to be) that is entitled to them by the allocation policy, and is only trying to protect and preserve that allowance, we have never asked for more....!

But, yah let's re-open the allocation policy for review again like the GOABC wants......however, in light of GOABC actions over the last year I think the BCWF should start negotiations with a 95/5 resident/non-resident percentage split and it should be legislated into law just like in many US states. If GOABC wants to re-open the allocation policy, how's that for a starting point...?

[Devilbear]

It's funny how so many people on here bitch about the rights between natives and whites being unequal and then try create an inequality between resident hunters and resident outfitters. What happened to the idea of ONE CANADA WITH ONE SET OF LAWS TO GOVERN ALL. Oh yeah.....the shoe is on the other foot now.
Time to start working together so maybe everyone can be equal !

Some of my immediate ancestors were among the early prospectors in the Klondike Goldrush and one of my aunts nursed there as did my wife. So, since I have a longterm, direct connection with the Yukon and the NWT, but, was born and am a resident of BC, should I, in your view have equal access to hunting there? I do not need the services of a guide as I have both extensive working wilderness experience and my own equipment, so, I SHOULD, by your comments, be able to have at 'er and hunt all over Canada, as I please?

I see NO valid reason to allow ANY non-resident to "guide" here in BC and I also am curious as to why the aboriginal issue is being dragged into this, as it is not what the original poster is asking about. I suspect some GOs on this forum may be trying to "co-opt the discussion" and all non-residents should remember that this is a BC decision, only.

The FACTS are that the GOABC has and is attempting to severely restrict BC resident hunters access to OUR own game and this is NOT acceptable.

[Devilbear]

While access plays a big part in this in the north, there are also many hunts in BC where residents are not achieving their allocation simply due to regulations that are in place designed purely and simply to reduce the harvest. If AAHs, non-resident quota, and resident allocation are all correctly calculated their should be no conservation concern with harvesting the full allocation so these restrictive regulation just need to be removed, it's as simple as that as far as residents achieving their allocation is concerned.

The former 1 in 3 Stone's Sheep regulation in Region 7B was a good example of a redundant regulation that it was correct to do away with.

The BCWF only wants the 75% (or whatever it happens to be) that is entitled to them by the allocation policy, and is only trying to protect and preserve that allowance, we have never asked for more....!

But, yah let's re-open the allocation policy for review again like the GOABC wants......however, in light of GOABC actions over the last year I think the BCWF should start negotiations with a 95/5 resident/non-resident percentage split and it should be legislated into law just like in many US states. If GOABC wants to re-open the allocation policy, how's that for a starting point...?


THAT is a good starting point, then, ONLY BC citizens with a minimum 25 yr. residence in the province can be GOs, no exceptions, ONLY BC-born residents can be "guides" and they MUST live in BC, year around.

NO hunting for ANY species by GOs unless that species is at 80% of carrying capacity and much higher "non-res." licence fees and "trophy fees" that are paid to the Wildlife Branch.

I can think of other regulations to clean up the current mess, but, these are a good start.

[kebes]

What if I'm 23 can I be a G.O DB? What if I have to go out of province for school for a few months during the year? What if I wasn't born in BC but my family moved here when I was 8 months old and I've lived here ever since?

[325 wsm]

Sorry Kebes but your out of luck until devilbear issues you a B.C. status card

[Kootenai]

A question for the original poster, "Kootenai", from Kaslo, what ...local rag...did you read about this issue in and do you know if I can obtain a copy?

If, it was the NDN, could you give me the date of the specific issue?

It was in the Valley Voice, New Denver BC

[325 wsm]

so, I SHOULD, by your comments, be able to have at 'er and hunt all over Canada, as I please?

I see NO valid reason to allow ANY non-resident to "guide" here in BC

My reply to the above comments from devilbear.

Right now you can... have at er all over Canada....you just have to abide by the laws of the jurisdiction you are hunting in.

I see lots of valid reasons why your ancestors had the right to come to the Yukon for pursuit of money and also why I have the right as a resident of Canada to work in other provinces.

[325]

I think there is a place for GOs. I use to guide and loved the experience. I met some lifelong friends who are as passionate about hunting as I am. I do, however, think that ownership of concessions must be limited to Canadian citizens who live in BC. I also think that resident hunters should have priority during the allocation process.

I've met great GOs and total @ssholes in my life. On American GO in the Kootenay's is a complete dick and I would be glad to see him loose his concession to a Canadian. Time for change is now.

[Angel]

lol:rolleyes::rolleyes: gesssh what a mess this Province would become if some of these ideas went into place. I know our system has its issue now but.......

[dime]

The more LEH in this province the better for all of us living outside of the lower mainland. Not only will the animals benifit but the locals won't have to be subjected to the yearly gong show hunting season creates, as it will reduce numbers. Its coming guys the natives are pushing it along with the G/O's so get ready.
I can not believe that you can write this and keep a straight face. It is a sickening state of affairs that you can spew this propaganda to the very people who your lobby group are depriving of their rights. It makes me sick that the number hunters has declined significantly, the number of ungulates has increased and yet because of the foreign financed political pressure put on but the GOABC the LEH is increasing every year. Take your bullshit somewhere else!

[6616]

I can not believe that you can write this and keep a straight face. It is a sickening state of affairs that you can spew this propaganda to the very people who your lobby group are depriving of their rights. It makes me sick that the number hunters has declined significantly, the number of ungulates has increased and yet because of the foreign financed political pressure put on but the GOABC the LEH is increasing every year. Take your bullshit somewhere else!


Now there you have it in a nutshell..!

The more resident hunters get educated and informed on what's really going on in BC, the more prevalent this attitude will become, and it's about frikkin' time.

It will take resident hunters calling their MLAs, writting letters to gov, putting more articles and letters in the papers, etc, to turn this thing around. It's not something the BCWF can accomplish on it's own if hunters remain silent, it's time to stand up for ourselves and make some G__ d___ noise...!

[Devilbear]

It seems that my, admittedly extreme, comments have disturbed some here; that was my purpose in posting them. What 6616 and I have posted IS an extreme position in many respects, BUT, it is also quite typical of what is happening in other jurisdictions in the world.

WHY, should I be restricted from my birthright so that someone not born here or some foreigner can take what is mine? Since, that is what they ARE trying to do, I thought a little commentary on what COULD be a resident hunter's position might make some realize just how extreme and unacceptable the GOABC position is.

I went online, read the Dec.2, 2009, Village Voice and the letter by Shirl Bayer referred to in the opening post. I then called her at home and complimented her on it; she is an amazing 75 yr. old lady, a Phd. in "biosciences" and a really neat, downhome person whose red meat comes only from hunting....YEAH, MY KIND of people and I hope that others like her continue the fight!

Read the letter, it's a good one and very fair and realistic.

[Angel]

It seems that my, admittedly extreme, comments have disturbed some here; that was my purpose in posting them. What 6616 and I have posted IS an extreme position in many respects, BUT, it is also quite typical of what is happening in other jurisdictions in the world.

WHY, should I be restricted from my birthright so that someone not born here or some foreigner can take what is mine? Since, that is what they ARE trying to do, I thought a little commentary on what COULD be a resident hunter's position might make some realize just how extreme and unacceptable the GOABC position is.

I went online, read the Dec.2, 2009, Village Voice and the letter by Shirl Bayer referred to in the opening post. I then called her at home and complimented her on it; she is an amazing 75 yr. old lady, a Phd. in "biosciences" and a really neat, downhome person whose red meat comes only from hunting....YEAH, MY KIND of people and I hope that others like her continue the fight!

Read the letter, it's a good one and very fair and realistic.

do you have a link?

[Devilbear]

Google "The Village Voice New Denver, BC" and there is a link to read the paper on-line.

[6616]

What 6616 and I have posted IS an extreme position in many respects, BUT, it is also quite typical of what is happening in other jurisdictions in the world.

OK, OK, 95/5 may be considered somewhat extreme by some folks, but that's the approximate percentages Alberta goes by, and Saskatchewan has a zero allocation percentage for non-residents on LEH species. Most US States have a 10% maximum for non-resident harvest legislated into law. So 95/5 may not be so extreme after all. I do not agree with the requirements for guide-outfitter licenses or assistant guide licenses that DB posted, but I do believe ownership should be rstricted to BC residents.

[d6dan]

Here's the link: http://www.valleyvoice.ca/contenteditor_files/091202web.pdf

[bigwhiteys]

It will take resident hunters calling their MLAs, writting letters to gov, putting more articles and letters in the papers, etc, to turn this thing around. It's not something the BCWF can accomplish on it's own if hunters remain silent, it's time to stand up for ourselves and make some G__ d___ noise...!

The divide amongst resident hunters and their specific wants and needs is also a hurdle that needs to be overcome. We all pull on different ropes based on where and what we choose to hunt. Part of this is because we do have quite a bit of choice here in BC.

Dall Sheep, Bighorn Sheep, Stone Sheep, Rcky Mtn Elk, Rsvlt Elk, WT Deer, BT Deer, Mule Deer, Goat, Grizz, Blackies, Moose, Caribou...

We squable over this stuff while most of the hunting population drools....

To use an example from this thread with regards to sheep. Willy suggested LEH in areas that were easily accessible along the AK corridor.

I don't want LEH under any circumstances. But I DO want to be able to get in a quality hunting experience when I climb into the mountains.

Does that mean LEH? heck no... Does it mean 1 in 3 (under 8 )...? Sure, I would support that and especially some tighter regs along the AK corridor (resident only areas? resident only season?) etc... to lessen/spread the pressure on some of the more accesible country and give the residents first crack at some of these rams. The outfitter afterall has the means to get where MOST of us don't.

It's not fun when you want to hike a drainage along with 2 or 3 other hunting parties... Instead of a hunt, it's a footrace. Who enjoys that? For Sheep I would even support 1 in a lifetime and that goes especially for non-residents too!

There is no reason that I can see, that someone would need to personally kill more than 1 of these animals (per specie IE Grand Slam) other than to bolster an ego. You can still enjoy the mountains without killing a ram everytime. At least one should hope so...? Start making sheep movies! :)

Species like Moose, Elk and Deer (staples in most of our diets) should be managed for our (natives and non-native residents of BC) opportunity first and foremost. No argument there.

Species like Sheep, Goat, Grizzly Bear I do tend to agree that maybe they should be managed for "quality" over "quantity" as they are after all... NOT staples in any of our diets and are primarily "hunt for trophy" species.

Should the GOABC be the determing factor in how they are managed... HECK NO! Not with all their foreign interests... But somehow, somewhere we've got to find that common ground so that our WILDLIFE BENEFITS the most and not any one specific user group.

I've made the suggestion a couple times and I am sure FD will come in and poopoo it but us resident hunters we should collectively be buying up GO concessions. You want to control the resource??? So gain control through acquisition just like many other industries do. Yeah, it adds a whole new level of logisitics (who runs it?) but it's just an idea!

GoatGuy says that G/O's CAN make money if they diversify their business so it must be true! Why wouldn't resident hunters want to lead that charge? With GG's business sense and FD's ability to count beans we would have a real whirlwind of a venture for BC residents.

There are people on this earth who could afford to BUY OUT the entire BC GO industry... What the heck would happen then...?!?! $350 Million a year? That's CHUMP CHANGE for some of the wealthy in our modern society.

Just my 2 Cents!

Carl

[kebes]

Buy out the G.O's now there's an idea.....I'll buy a share :D.

[boxhitch]

Restricting foreign ownership will never happen.
It doesn't happen in media, manufacturing, groceries, fuel, insurance or anything else, so why would it start in the G/O business ? Whoever the ownership is, they have rules to follow.
Restricting residency of employees ? What would that gain ? Its a job, like any other, open to competition for openings. Nowhere else are Canadians restricted from holding a job in Canada, why would someone consider trying to have one sliver industry restricted?

[bridger]

unfortunatey biologists are no longer allowed an opinion on allocation. it is now in the hands of the regional managers, MOE officials in victoria and ultimately the politicians. bio's only set harvest levels now.

[Kudu]

The divide amongst resident hunters and their specific wants and needs is also a hurdle that needs to be overcome. We all pull on different ropes based on where and what we choose to hunt. Part of this is because we do have quite a bit of choice here in BC.

Dall Sheep, Bighorn Sheep, Stone Sheep, Rcky Mtn Elk, Rsvlt Elk, WT Deer, BT Deer, Mule Deer, Goat, Grizz, Blackies, Moose, Caribou...

We squable over this stuff while most of the hunting population drools....

To use an example from this thread with regards to sheep. Willy suggested LEH in areas that were easily accessible along the AK corridor.

I don't want LEH under any circumstances. But I DO want to be able to get in a quality hunting experience when I climb into the mountains.

Does that mean LEH? heck no... Does it mean 1 in 3 (under 8 )...? Sure, I would support that and especially some tighter regs along the AK corridor (resident only areas? resident only season?) etc... to lessen/spread the pressure on some of the more accesible country and give the residents first crack at some of these rams. The outfitter afterall has the means to get where MOST of us don't.

It's not fun when you want to hike a drainage along with 2 or 3 other hunting parties... Instead of a hunt, it's a footrace. Who enjoys that? For Sheep I would even support 1 in a lifetime and that goes especially for non-residents too!

There is no reason that I can see, that someone would need to personally kill more than 1 of these animals (per specie IE Grand Slam) other than to bolster an ego. You can still enjoy the mountains without killing a ram everytime. At least one should hope so...? Start making sheep movies! :)

Species like Moose, Elk and Deer (staples in most of our diets) should be managed for our (natives and non-native residents of BC) opportunity first and foremost. No argument there.

Species like Sheep, Goat, Grizzly Bear I do tend to agree that maybe they should be managed for "quality" over "quantity" as they are after all... NOT staples in any of our diets and are primarily "hunt for trophy" species.

Should the GOABC be the determing factor in how they are managed... HECK NO! Not with all their foreign interests... But somehow, somewhere we've got to find that common ground so that our WILDLIFE BENEFITS the most and not any one specific user group.

I've made the suggestion a couple times and I am sure FD will come in and poopoo it but us resident hunters we should collectively be buying up GO concessions. You want to control the resource??? So gain control through acquisition just like many other industries do. Yeah, it adds a whole new level of logisitics (who runs it?) but it's just an idea!

GoatGuy says that G/O's CAN make money if they diversify their business so it must be true! Why wouldn't resident hunters want to lead that charge? With GG's business sense and FD's ability to count beans we would have a real whirlwind of a venture for BC residents.

There are people on this earth who could afford to BUY OUT the entire BC GO industry... What the heck would happen then...?!?! $350 Million a year? That's CHUMP CHANGE for some of the wealthy in our modern society.

Just my 2 Cents!

Carl


Good post - well thought out, good points.

[Will]

When in the end both should want the same thing.(SUSTAINABLE NUMBERS OF UNGULATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF HUNTING) for everyone.
SORRY willy, Hunting for one's own personnal uses whether that be trophy or sustenance is one thing....Hunting for the Pure monetary profit of another is an entirely different thing !

They couldn't be anymore different, IMO :?

[Kootenai]

Google "The Village Voice New Denver, BC" and there is a link to read the paper on-line.

that is 'Valley Voice'

[6616]

You have some good ideas in your post Carl, but not all of them that I can agree with.

The concept of managing for a quality experience rasies several questions. Should one really expect to have an entire drainage to ones self, for example? Adding more resrtictions like a 1 in 3 or LEH to the AK corridor for the sake of quality experiences also rasies the question of what really is a quality experience? Sharing a drainage with two or three other hunting parties would seem like a very "high Quality" uncrowded experience to sheep hunters who hunt Spences Bridge or in the East Kootenay for example. If similar guidelines for sheep hunting "quality of experience" as you feel would be appropriate for the AK corridor, were applied all across BC, all the sheep hunts in southern BC would be on LEH with 50 or 200 to 1 odds with about one tenth the people participating annually. To have a quality experience, one first and foremost, has to be able to go..!

If resident hunters are not using their sheep allocation, is it logical to apply more restrictions just to create a quality experience or a trophy animal which are objectives which can only be accomplished by reducing hunter participation?

A one in a lifetime bag limit is maybe going a little too far where there is no conservation concern to justify it. It's a personal ethical value and each person is entitled to his own personal standards but should probably not attempt to force his values on others. I know people who almost only live to hunt sheep, you might as well just kill the poor bast___ds.

Hunting regulations for K-selected species (goats, sheep, grizzly bears) is already limited to annual harvestes of from 2.0 to 4.0% of population estimates, how much more restrictive can one get? With horn curl regulations, access management, and a lot of existing LEH, these species are really already being managed for trophy quality.

One must remember that managing for a quality experience (same as for trophy quality) really means restricting participation to a much smaller number of people. Who will be the lucky few, who will have to stay home, or should sheep be iconized into a species so special that only the rich (or very, very lucky) can get to go sheep hunting? Or on the other hand, should sheep just be managed for sustainability like all other species?

[Gateholio]

If resident hunters are not using their sheep allocation, is it logical to apply more restrictions



That is why sheep on LEH, the 1 in 3 or "once a lifetime" concepts are bunk.

Of course it's not logical to add more restrictions....Let people go hunt.

[bigwhiteys]

Should one really expect to have an entire drainage to ones self, for example?
No... Of Course Not. I certainly would like it though :) There probably isn't a sheep hunter on this site who would say otherwise!


A one in a lifetime bag limit is maybe going a little too far where there is no conservation concern to justify it. It's a personal ethical value and each person is entitled to his own personal standards but should probably not attempt to force his values on others. I know people who almost only live to hunt sheep, you might as well just kill the poor bast___ds.

Point Taken. But sheep aren't like harvesting a Moose, Elk or Deer for the freezer. I don't subscribe to the I'll shoot a little one first, big one later or the first legal ram I see attitude that some sheep hunters display. The benefit to the sheep in those instances is not clear to me? I would consider myself a pretty serious sheep hunter and have yet to even kill my own ram!!! But you're right... It's only my opinion!


One must remember that managing for a quality experience (same as for trophy quality) really means restricting participation to a much smaller number of people.

Or instead of restricting perhaps just spreading out hunters over a larger area...? Which is tough to do with Sheep. There are plenty of sheep hunters (like myself) who don't have horses, planes or riverboats. Would that not concentrate the harvest on much smaller pockets of sheep? Raising management concerns in those specific areas and not the population itself as a whole?


Who will be the lucky few, who will have to stay home, or should sheep be iconized into a species so special that only the rich (or very, very lucky) can get to go sheep hunting?

Apart from us in BC, Yukon, Alaska and a few southern states it's already like that. The rich get to play. I would love to get a Grand Slam one day... Do you think it will ever happen with the price of a Desert hunt?


Or on the other hand, should sheep just be managed for sustainability like all other species?

Sustainability for sure... But unlike other species they have their own special management concerns as well. They can't be managed like Moose or Deer. They are more sensitive to harvest and populate much smaller areas.

The selective harvesting of ewes was something mentioned before and still an idea that I find quite interesting with respect to sheep, because when explained in the biologists own words... It really makes sense to me.

Carl

[LostInSpaces]

I've made the suggestion a couple times and I am sure FD will come in and poopoo it but us resident hunters we should collectively be buying up GO concessions. You want to control the resource??? So gain control through acquisition just like many other industries do. Yeah, it adds a whole new level of logisitics (who runs it?) but it's just an idea!
Carl

Let's see right now there are seven concessions for sale on Hary McCowan's site for a total price of about $2.8 million. Average price would be $396 000. With the GOABC website listing apprximately 200 concessions that would bring the toal price to about $79.2 million dollars. In 2006 there were about 80 000 hunters in BC. It would mean ponying up about $1000 each to cover the purchase. Shall we add another barrier to overcome for those attempting to enter the sport? A one time buy in of $1000?

[Fisher-Dude]

Let's see right now there are seven concessions for sale on Hary McCowan's site for a total price of about $2.8 million. Average price would be $396 000. With the GOABC website listing apprximately 200 concessions that would bring the toal price to about $79.2 million dollars. In 2006 there were about 80 000 hunters in BC. It would mean ponying up about $1000 each to cover the purchase. Shall we add another barrier to overcome for those attempting to enter the sport? A one time buy in of $1000?

Carl's lack of knowledge of economics comes into play. As people "buy up" concessions, the supply shrinks, and the price goes up exponentially. You cannot apply a flat dollar figure across all GO concessions across BC. It's very flawed logic. Moreover, there's a very small percentage of BC hunters who would ever buy into the idea. If it were a requirement, many would just give up hunting, and that is exactly what the GOABC wants.

[Devilbear]

As people "buy up" concessions, the supply shrinks, and the price goes up exponentially. You cannot apply a flat dollar figure across all GO concessions across BC. It's very flawed logic. Moreover, there's a very small percentage of BC hunters who would ever buy into the idea. If it were a requirement, many would just give up hunting, and that is exactly what the GOABC wants.

Exactly, and, the question arises, WHY SHOULD we who OWN the resource have to pay to utilize it?????

We can discuss this issue for months and the GOABC will STILL be trying to take what is OURS and sell it to foreigners. It is time for some serious action and blockades seem to work for the aboriginal extremists, why not use them to tell GOs and foreign hunters to FOAD as we want OUR game for OUR uses, period.

[6616]

Sustainability for sure... But unlike other species they have their own special management concerns as well. They can't be managed like Moose or Deer. They are more sensitive to harvest and populate much smaller areas. Carl

The management of hunting for all K-selected species (goats, sheep, grizzly bear) is all very similar and harvests must be modest. The same management concerns for female harvest exist as well as other similarities. These are density dependent species and population density control is not an objective that requires hunting, population density is self regulating.

That's why annual sheep harvests are usually limited to 1.5% to 2.5% of the population estimate while harvests of R-selected species (deer, moose, elk) can vary as high as 15% of the population estimate annually.

These special management concerns are not limited to sheep but are the same or very similar for all K-selected species, not to deny that each of these species have their own distinct vulnerabilities which need to be accounted for in management regimes.

We sheep hunters have a tendency to inconize sheep as something special over and above other animals. This tendency is frought with danger, once a species is iconized the public always gets around to questioning why we are hunting such a special species at all when it's biologically not necessary.

We need to learn from our experiences and from the results of the iconization of grizzly bears.

[bigwhiteys]

Carl's lack of knowledge of economics comes into play. As people "buy up" concessions, the supply shrinks, and the price goes up exponentially. You cannot apply a flat dollar figure across all GO concessions across BC. It's very flawed logic. Moreover, there's a very small percentage of BC hunters who would ever buy into the idea. If it were a requirement, many would just give up hunting, and that is exactly what the GOABC wants.

You're totally right... ******ed idea. Let's just keep bashing the GO's.


Exactly, and, the question arises, WHY SHOULD we who OWN the resource have to pay to utilize it?????

Here's the thing DB... YOU Don't own the resource any more than Me, FD or god forbid even Ian McCallister of pacificwild..!!! We already pay to utilize it... Think about having several resident co-op owned concessions... New modes of access, lodging and facilites friendly to residents. And CONTROL over foreigners access. Your cup of tea isn't it??


We can discuss this issue for months and the GOABC will STILL be trying to take what is OURS and sell it to foreigners. It is time for some serious action and blockades seem to work for the aboriginal extremists, why not use them to tell GOs and foreign hunters to FOAD as we want OUR game for OUR uses, period.

DB, none of us want to see you end up in jail... Quit the crazy talk :) They are (GO's) unfortunately here to stay...

Instead of fighting the GOABC from across a table, BUY INTO THE GOABC and start making changes from the inside out.

Shouting at each other so far hasn't worked well...


We sheep hunters have a tendency to inconize sheep as something special over and above other animals. This tendency is frought with danger, once a species is iconized the public always gets around to questioning why we are hunting such a special species at all when it's biologically not necessary. We need to learn from our experiences and from the results of the iconization of grizzly bears.

I can see your point. But sheep were iconized before my time, and continue to be and the costs just continue to rise... I can remember my Grandpa selling sheep hunts for like $10,000 or $12,000 and he had 12 tags. Now they are like $35,000 and the current outfitter has 6 tags. The outfitters of today are making more $$$ off fewer sheep. While it's definitely had a negative effect on Grizzly bear hunting, I can't see sheep being put in the same category... How much money would a sheep watching tour be worth? I know I've dropped several thousand on my sheep tours :) But to the general public there might be too much work involved.

Carl

[Fisher-Dude]

Instead of fighting the GOABC from across a table, BUY INTO THE GOABC and start making changes from the inside out.

Shouting at each other so far hasn't worked well...

Carl

We sat down with the GOABC and worked with them on the allocation policy. The GOABC got at least 25% of the harvest to serve 5% of those hunting in the province. Right after the sign-off, they turned around and f'd us in the butt with advertisements against resident hunters, the economic viability report, allocation appeals, and lobbying to shut down our seasons. The GOABC collects $750,000 plus per year from rich foreigners to hire lobbyists to take opportunity from the freezers of resident hunters.

Who fired the first shot Carl? NOT the resident hunters of BC, that's for damned sure! Now you're suggesting that those of us who bargained in good faith have to spend multi-millions of dollars to pay these ba$tards off just so we can hunt animals in BC and curb the efforts of the GOABC to oust resident hunters from the woods? WTF are you smoking? :mad:

[6616]

I don't subscribe to the I'll shoot a little one first, big one later or the first legal ram I see attitude that some sheep hunters display. The benefit to the sheep in those instances is not clear to me? I would consider myself a pretty serious sheep hunter and have yet to even kill my own ram!!! But you're right... It's only my opinion!


One has to also remember Carl, that sheep hunting never under any circumstances has any biological benefit to sheep (or any other K-selected species), only social benefits, and in the case of the commercial sector, economic benefits. The social benefits are justifiable to us but may not be to large portions of the general public.

[bigwhiteys]

We sat down with the GOABC and worked with them on the allocation policy. The GOABC got at least 25% of the harvest to serve 5% of those hunting in the province. Right after the sign-off, they turned around and f'd us in the butt with advertisements against resident hunters, the economic viability report, allocation appeals, and lobbying to shut down our seasons.

Sorry, I wasn't there... As for the butt f-ing we've had it coming and by not being "on the ball" with our own funds/lobbying we basically lubed it up for them!


The GOABC collects $750,000 plus per year from rich foreigners to hire lobbyists to take opportunity from the freezers of resident hunters.

WHY BITCH ABOUT IT!!!!!?!?!!!? Why not instead collect $1.5 million a year from resident hunters? And bury them with our own lobbying?

Oh Wait.... We've had DECADES to get started yet something only came to fruition this year?... Sorry... No sympathy here. We got caught with our pants down expecting a free ride forever...?


Who fired the first shot Carl? NOT the resident hunters of BC, that's for damned sure! Now you're suggesting that those of us who bargained in good faith have to spend multi-millions of dollars to pay these ba$tards off just so we can hunt animals in BC and curb the efforts of the GOABC to oust resident hunters from the woods? WTF are you smoking? :mad:

I never said anyone "had to" do anything... It was an idea. Shouting "liar, liar" and "you screwed me" obviously isn't working.. It usually gets you removed from the negotiations or ends them totally.

Carl

[6616]

WHY SHOULD we who OWN the resource have to pay to utilize it?????

The latest thing from the GOABC is that they want to have the right to trade, sell, or barter unused quota to other outfitters.

Should residents agree to buy up this ununsed quota....???? It was once put to me that East Kootenay hunters should buy grazing AUMs from ranchers to feed elk in the East Kootenay Region.

Seems kinna funny to me, the public should buy public owned grass from private business to feed public owned elk, so private business can stay home, contribute nothing, and just let the dollars roll in...???? Maybe "counter productive" is a better term then "kinna funny".

Outfitters are in the business of providing hunts, they do not own the animals, no one owns the aninmals until they put a tag on them.

[Fisher-Dude]

I never said anyone "had to" do anything... It was an idea. Shouting "liar, liar" and "you screwed me" obviously isn't working.. It usually gets you removed from the negotiations or ends them totally.

Carl

What experience do you have in negotiations?

Resident hunters felt that they were negotiating in good faith. It wasn't until the GOABC shook hands while at the same time slipping the poison in our drinks that the residents began to see the need to start our own fund. It's too bad when you're dealing with f'ing shysters - you have to start from behind and play catch up.

Hopefully, www.residentpriority.ca (http://www.residentpriority.ca) awakens the sleeping giant. I know it has certainly got me putting my money where my mouth is, and all resident hunters reading this RIGHT NOW need to log on and contribute what they can ($5 is $5 guys!) to protect their rights to hunt in this province.

[Fisher-Dude]

And let's keep the sheep hunting discussion out of this thread - there were only 1239 sheep hunters in BC in 2006, and focussing on sheep makes the vast majority of hunters reading this think that's what this is all about. It isn't! It's about losing your moose hunting, losing your elk hunting, and losing your deer hunting because the GOABC is actively lobbying to restrict and/or eliminate your seasons to hunt these species as well!

[bigwhiteys]

The latest thing from the GOABC is that they want to have the right to trade, sell, or barter unused quota to other outfitters.
Should residents agree to buy up this ununsed quota....????


No... Why would we buy their table scraps when with some funding and organization we could own and operate the whole deal and sell them OUR unused quota for bigger $$$.

Anti's are organized and funded enough to do it... It's sad that we as a user group of 80,000+ can't. When people are passionate about a cause the funds will usually follow.

Are we not passionate? The heated debates on this site would suggest thats not true.
Are we not well organized? Ha Ha... "organized" is subjective I guess.
Are we not well funded? Apparently we don't think so.

If the only way to make a difference is to side with someone as close minded as those on here... It just doesn't seem worth it to me.

Some people bash their head against a wall while others find a way, over, around or under. Not saying I found the solution by any means, but it's obvious many of you haven't yet either.

Carl

[Fisher-Dude]

It would cost much less to ban foreigners from taking our game when we aren't allowed to hunt it.

Those of you hoping for an LEH moose draw in region 8 should understand that at 20:1 odds and 25% success rates, you will shoot a moose every 80 years under LEH. The GOABC wants to take away your spike/fork season, under which I am certain you will shoot a moose more often than once every 80 years.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

It would cost much less to ban foreigners from taking our game when we aren't allowed to hunt it.

Those of you hoping for an LEH moose draw in region 8 should understand that at 20:1 odds and 25% success rates, you will shoot a moose every 80 years under LEH. The GOABC wants to take away your spike/fork season, under which I am certain you will shoot a moose more often than once every 80 years.


And that's only if you want to bother wasting your time putting on a draw like that. Most just give up........which is exactly what they want:-|.

SSS

[6616]

So lets say a large group of hunters pool their resources and buy a guiding territory, or maybe several groups buy several guiding territories,,, are they going to open it up for ant and all resident hunters to use with no compensation.

Or, human nature being what it is, are they going to ask resident hunters to pay an access fee, or end up lobbying government for a way to keep non-member/non-paying resident hunters out of their concession?

And then legitimate guide-outfitters will expect the same and will demand an access fee for residents to enter their territories...???

Or, are these groups of residents who now own these territories simple going into the guide-outfitting business.

Don't we already have several large guiding territories in BC that are essentially private hunt clubs?

Will the monies spent to buy these territories end up being a net loss to conservation activities for habitat restoration, acquisitions, etc, that volunteer hunters based conservation groups support.

Will it eventually come down to that you must belong to a hunt club that owns a guiding territory to hunt in BC?

Where will this new direction lead us? Lots of possibilities and unanswered questions.

[bigwhiteys]

It would cost much less to ban foreigners from taking our game when we aren't allowed to hunt it.

Oh totally... You have no kids FD... Why don't YOU start the next blockade then..? Who cares if you end up in Jail. DevilBear would follow suit in a heartbeat and we'd really see if this type of action could work.

It just takes one man to start a movement!

Carl

[bigwhiteys]

So lets say a large group of hunters pool their resources and buy a guiding territory, or maybe several groups buy several guiding territories,,, are they going to open it up for ant and all resident hunters to use with no compensation.

Or, human nature being what it is, are they going to ask resident hunters to pay an access fee, or end up lobbying government for a way to keep non-member/non-paying resident hunters out of their concession?

And then legitimate guide-outfitters will expect the same and will demand an access fee for residents to enter their territories...???

Or, are these groups of residents who now own these territories simple going into the guide-outfitting business.

Don't we already have several large guiding territories in BC that are essentially private hunt clubs?

Will the monies spent to buy these territories end up being a net loss to conservation activities for habitat restoration, acquisitions, etc, that volunteer hunters based conservation groups support.

Will it eventually come down to that you must belong to a hunt club that owns a guiding territory to hunt in BC?

Where will this new direction lead us? Lots of possibilities and unanswered questions.


All great questions and not for me to answer! I just want credit for the idea OK :)

Carl

[6616]

Hey no problem, it was your idea....

[Fisher-Dude]

Oh totally... You have no kids FD... Why don't YOU start the next blockade then..? Who cares if you end up in Jail. DevilBear would follow suit in a heartbeat and we'd really see if this type of action could work.

It just takes one man to start a movement!

Carl

A blockade? No, that's illegal and terrorism, IMO. Legislation is where it's at. A stroke of a pen, and it's done. Do you think vote-hungry politicians wouldn't consider following the 65% of BC voters who support resident meat hunting and the 90% who disagree with foreign trophy hunting? With the right resources and lobbying, it can happen.

www.residentpriority.ca (http://www.residentpriority.ca)

[6616]

Wouldn't it simplify this mess if the BC government would simply pass a law like Montana has that non-resident hunters are only allocated a fixed and unvarying percentage of the big game harvest. It's 10% in Montana but I think we could live with 20% and it could even vary with species, say 30% for sheep and goats, 20% for elk and moose, and 10% for deer, etc. No more arguing and fighting over allocation, no more lobby efforts or ploys to get bigger shares, everybody living happily ever after and only concerned with habitat improvements and other conservation efforts.

Ok, FD, I know what your gonna say, yes I'll share some of my smokin' stuff with you...!

[Fisher-Dude]

Wouldn't it simplify this mess if the BC government would simply pass a law like Montana has that non-resident hunters are only allocated a fixed and unvarying percentage of the big game harvest. It's 10% in Montana but I think we could live with 20% and it could even vary with species, say 30% for sheep and goats, 20% for elk and moose, and 10% for deer, etc. No more arguing and fighting over allocation, no more lobby efforts or ploys to get bigger shares, everybody living happily ever after and only concerned with habitat improvements and other conservation efforts.

Ok, FD, I know what your gonna say, yes I'll share some of my smokin' stuff with you...!

You puffin' the Golden Ganga?

We already did this exercise, it's called the Allocation Policy. Now the GOABC, who agreed to the percentages, is fighting its implementation with millions of dollars in foreign money to keep us from harvesting our allocation.

[Kody94]

You puffin' the Golden Ganga?

We already did this exercise, it's called the Allocation Policy. Now the GOABC, who agreed to the percentages, is fighting its implementation with millions of dollars in foreign money to keep us from harvesting our allocation.

Quite a big difference between policy and law though.

[Fisher-Dude]

Quite a big difference between policy and law though.

Exactly. And therein lies the problem, as the GOABC hires lobbyists and lawyers to foil the implementation.

[6616]

So again, why not just legislate fixed allocation percentages into law?

Policy means nothing, subject to change at a whim at any ole time.
Regulations, not much better, can be changed by an OIC in five minutes.

Legislated into the wildlife Act,,,,, now that's something we could rely on for a while!

[Stone Sheep Steve]

So again, why not just legislate fixed allocation percentages into law?

Policy means nothing, subject to change at a whim at any ole time.
Regulations, not much better, can be changed by an OIC in five minutes.

Legislated into the wildlife Act,,,,, now that's something we could rely on for a while!

What ever happend to the Wildlife Act review in 2008?? Was it completed??

SSS

[willy442]

Now that is an interesting point of view.

The BCWF is not the one initiating the proposals that have created this controversy. The BCWF is only reacting to GOABC proposals and submissions to government to eliminate resident hunting opportunities so more opportunities are available to G/Os.

Who is asking for the removal of spike/fork moose seasons, who is opposing recruitment/retention of resident hunters, who is appealing moose quotas in Region 5 that already exceed the allocation, who is trying to delay the implementation of and/or re-open discussions on the allocation policy, who is promoting more resident hunts be placed on LEH thus reducing resident opportunities and guaranteeing a non-resident quota, who is demanding game management for trophy quality at reduced harvest levels for residents...? The list just goes on and on...! But of course it's the BCWF's fault (according to Willie) for standing up for resident hunters and not just rolling over and giving GOABC everthing they want.

It's not an old boys club carring on with old meaningless battles, it's really only the BCWF reacting to the incessant ongoing "age old" selfish demands of the GOABC for more, more, more, and more...! When will enough be enough...?

The current mistrust will go away only if and when the GOABC is satisfied with the generous allocations and regulatory regime they already enjoy and stand down on making demands that negativelly impact resident hunting...! The BCWF has already agreed to non-resident allocations in BC that far exceed those of any other jurisdiction but that is not enough for the GOABC, but of course Willie, the controversy is always the BCWF's fault...the GOABC is completelly innocent...???? My gawd man, open your eyes.....!

"However, just an old resident hunters opinion".

Exactly! Your first sentence pretty much covers my complaint. "The BCWF is only reacting". This is always the case and why my suggestion of new blood has some merit. The people hung up on these past fights have lost trust and credibility somewhat. New blood new ideas, the time is past due.
There is no reason to even discuss spike or fork Moose. The fight we have before us to retain our hunting rights far into the future leaves alot bigger fish to fry.
I can't be bothered to play into your res/nonres battles because for the most part in the past and present it has accomplished nothing, other than to maintain an old jealousy fueled arguement.

[willy442]

SORRY willy, Hunting for one's own personnal uses whether that be trophy or sustenance is one thing....Hunting for the Pure monetary profit of another is an entirely different thing !

They couldn't be anymore different, IMO :?
Are you serious? I'm talking about all kinds of hunting for everyone. It's time the animals came first again and the hunt based on what we have instead of what we want for all parties involved. Where did I say anything about money? Get off your guide bashing kick and start looking ahead a few years.

[Will]

Are you serious? I'm talking about all kinds of hunting for everyone. It's time the animals came first again and the hunt based on what we have instead of what we want for all parties involved. Where did I say anything about money? Get off your guide bashing kick and start looking ahead a few years.
My guide bashing kick ? I sincerely want to hear and asked for thier input, I am curious to learn more about these issues !
What have you done here other then spout off and start quoting anyone and everyone who's oppinion differs from your own ?

I will ask you Sir "Are you serious ?" all kinds of Hunting for everyone ?

LEH only and big fat fees to Outfitters for those that can afford it...sure sounds like "Everyone" to me.

They can Kiss my ars if they think I will happily give up any more of my Hunting privelages so they can sell the "Experience" of it back to my Kids ! And yes I am looking ahead a few years..........:wink:

[6616]

Exactly! Your first sentence pretty much covers my complaint. "The BCWF is only reacting". This is always the case and why my suggestion of new blood has some merit. The people hung up on these past fights have lost trust and credibility somewhat. New blood new ideas, the time is past due.
There is no reason to even discuss spike or fork Moose. The fight we have before us to retain our hunting rights far into the future leaves alot bigger fish to fry.
I can't be bothered to play into your res/nonres battles because for the most part in the past and present it has accomplished nothing, other than to maintain an old jealousy fueled arguement.

The BCWF is very pro-active, did you note our new "Archery In Schools Project" that Hermit and other members just launched. What about our BOW, Fishing Forever, Wetlands Education and Wilderness Watch programs. Also note the many tens of thousands of dollars our clubs do in habitat enhancement and acquisition each year. Note the accomplishments of our conservation foundation the BCCF. In total our members are responsible for more wildlife and habitat conservation work in BC than the WSF and RMEF put together.

What is the GOABC doing besides paying a bounty on wolves, lining their pockets, and lobbying to take opportunities away from residents for themselves to sell, and please explain to me how can we in our members best interests not react to that campaign.

There wouldn't be non-res/res battle if it weren't for the GOABC antics of late, we had no desire to fight with the GOABC, nor did cast the first blow in this controversy, but we are forced to react to their silly lobbying even though we have more important things to do. Or are you suggesting we just let G/Os have whatever they want and just go about the business of conservation to produce more game animals for the GOABC to sell? Are you suggesting that is in the best interests of our members and resident hunters?

Sure it's about the animals first, it always has been and always will be with the BCWF, do you think it's in the animals best interests for G/Os to be able to sell their quota to another outfitter and have double quota harvested from a single territory. It appears to me that the GOABC has clearly shown that economic viability is of far greater concern then conservation to them. Their idea of conservation is to continue harvesting as usual but to restrict resident hunters when there's a conservation concern.

[Jelvis]

And in this corner ? Are you ready ? you ? Fight !
Jel -- no shaken hands either - lol -

[6616]

And in this corner ? Are you ready ? you ? Fight !
Jel -- no shaken hands either - lol -

This is a civil and friendly discussion, is it not...???

[Gilmore]

.....and start looking ahead a few years.


We are and what most of us see is our kids and grandkids waiting an entire lifetime to shoot a moose...or pony up 20 grand to pay some yank to have him take us out in the backyard to shoot the 2 point that has been eating out of the garden.

[GoatGuy]

The fight we have before us to retain our hunting rights far into the future leaves alot bigger fish to fry.

This is mostly true, the rest is what it is.

Not sure whether residents were optimistic or naive to think that a handshake was good enough to carry a policy and regs through to implementation without being sandbagged. There were a couple folks who told a few of the outfitters not to push to change the allocation policy back in 2005 - that advice fell on deaf ears.

The allocation policy and regs is one of a couple big issues. No opportunity, no hunters.

I'm sure there's one person who's smiling looking from the outside in.

Life goes on.

[silvicon]

I see the GO bashing is still going on.
It is easy to blame another party for one's shortcoming.
Just to re-cap:
the allocation is in favour of the resident hunter (right after 'natives'),
GO's get a fraction of the tags and are last on the allocation list.
There is much blah blah about sheep hunting on this forum.
Th equestion is: how many of you are realy out there, spending money to fly or boat in? Our are you just making noise?

[labguy]

The BCWF is very pro-active, did you note our new "Archery In Schools Project" that Hermit and other members just launched. What about our BOW, Fishing Forever, Wetlands Education and Wilderness Watch programs. Also note the many tens of thousands of dollars our clubs do in habitat enhancement and acquisition each year. Note the accomplishments of our conservation foundation the BCCF. In total our members are responsible for more wildlife and habitat conservation work in BC than the WSF and RMEF put together.

What is the GOABC doing besides paying a bounty on wolves, lining their pockets, and lobbying to take opportunities away from residents for themselves to sell, and please explain to me how can we in our members best interests not react to that campaign.

There wouldn't be non-res/res battle if it weren't for the GOABC antics of late, we had no desire to fight with the GOABC, nor did cast the first blow in this controversy, but we are forced to react to their silly lobbying even though we have more important things to do. Or are you suggesting we just let G/Os have whatever they want and just go about the business of conservation to produce more game animals for the GOABC to sell? Are you suggesting that is in the best interests of our members and resident hunters?

Sure it's about the animals first, it always has been and always will be with the BCWF, do you think it's in the animals best interests for G/Os to be able to sell their quota to another outfitter and have double quota harvested from a single territory. It appears to me that the GOABC has clearly shown that economic viability is of far greater concern then conservation to them. Their idea of conservation is to continue harvesting as usual but to restrict resident hunters when there's a conservation concern.

This is a great post and pretty well sums it up from my perspective.

As a resident hunter I'm sick and tired of goverments placating special interest groups (GOABC) and foreign interests to rob me and my children of our birthright.

GOABC make all the right noises about conservation, quality animals, fair alocations, blah, blah, blah, but the bottom line is they want more of the pie for themselves to sell to wealthy clients.

I will be contributing financially to the resident priority initiative. I hope many others on this site will consider this as well.............

Its time to "pony up" if we want to preserve our heritage from this well organized and well funded GOABC that is hell bent on eroding residents of their hunting opportunites and selling them to the highest bidder.

[Devilbear]

[quote=bigwhiteys;Here's the thing DB... YOU Don't own the resource any more than Me, FD or god forbid even Ian McCallister of pacificwild..!!! We already pay to utilize it... Think about having several resident co-op owned concessions... New modes of access, lodging and facilites friendly to residents. And CONTROL over foreigners access. Your cup of tea isn't it??



DB, none of us want to see you end up in jail... Quit the crazy talk :) They are (GO's) unfortunately here to stay...

Instead of fighting the GOABC from across a table, BUY INTO THE GOABC and start making changes from the inside out.
Carl[/quote]

BW, the pronoun, "we" is inclusive by definition and in the context I used, it INCLUDES all BC citizens. I did NOT make any comment that stated or implied that I think that I have any greater ownership of or rights to BC resources, than any other BCer, so, in future, please read a bit more carefully BEFORE commenting.

There is and would never be a reason for me to be in gaol; I stated that we might consider blockades which are legal and during which we would SPEAK to the various GOs and their clients and tell them to FOAD as they are NOT welcome here. This is a legal and effective tactic, one among several I am considering.

I don't WANT to be a part of the GOABC and I have NO reason to ...buy in...; my rights are from BIRTH and paid for in the blood of my ancestors since the early 17thC., here in Canada. I am NOT going to be forced or manipulated into spending my money to join a group I hate and to then be "allowed" to hunt by their membership, what a ludicrous idea.

Another poster referred to my blockade idea as ...terrorism..., I take exception to that as I have been active in conservation since 1961 and am a law-abiding citizen of BC and Canada. I find the current process of "negotiations" between the BCWF, MOE and GOABC to be ineffective and I suggest that there may well be better options in respect of attaining the goal of preserving BC hunting for we whose heritage it has been and is.

I also think that ANY legislated "share" for commercial exploitation is too much and will only serve to continue the current invidious process which favours the GOABC and allows them to exist and damage resident hunting. A "Hunter Host" programme involving 5-10% of the AAH would be enough to allow BC citizens to host relatives and friends and ALL other "non-resident alien" hunting here for ANY reason, should and eventually will be banned.

The article by the original poster that initiated this "go-round" on this issue will NOT be the last one published and I think that MOST people in BC are opposed to "non-resident alien" hunting, already. So, public support WILL be forthcoming and the GOABC will be "history".

[bad arrow]

After going through all the posts and entertaining some thoughts over quite some time, there is no way resident hunters should lay down here. Theres some good ideas here but its all over greed once more, one party has mountains of cash and all the time in the world, and the other has little $ and is going to have trouble coming up with any real $. A class action law suit involving the GO and the province of BC brought about by the BCWF is in order, human nature as it is tells me that if the bcwf went to its members and solicited $, they would have a hard time rubbing 2 nickels together. Whoever said that they thought they were barginning in good faith has no business barginning. There is no such thing as "good faith" in this type of negotiation. I have always supported the resident hunter and I see no way other than the courts, as ludicriss as it sounds, todays modern battlefield is in the court, not on the side of the road. While I'm not against GO per se, its an important economic factor like it or not, it brings in $ and supports families. Some guys keep referring to their right to hunt, but in fact it is only a privilage to hunt, not a right, and is in fact a huge part of the problem. Not trying to create a $hitstorm here guys, foreign hunters over resident hunters = court battle.

[Sitkaspruce]

I see the GO bashing is still going on.
It is easy to blame another party for one's shortcoming.
Just to re-cap:
the allocation is in favour of the resident hunter (right after 'natives'),
GO's get a fraction of the tags and are last on the allocation list.
There is much blah blah about sheep hunting on this forum.
Th equestion is: how many of you are realy out there, spending money to fly or boat in? Our are you just making noise?

Just another great post from a wana-be resident and pro wana-be guide that makes no sense what so ever.

lmao!!!!!

Cheers

SS

[Fisher-Dude]

GOABC contradictions:

In the newspaper ad GOABC says “wildlife stewardship is our priority.”
In the viability paper GOABC says “A primary objective of the Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia (GOABC) is to promote the continued economic viability of the industry.”


In the newspaper ad GOABC says they “recognize that, after the needs of First Nations are met, the resident hunters of B.C. are given priority with hunting opportunities”.
In the viability paper GOABC says “it is important that the hunting seasons are aligned and consistent to provide equal opportunity to the recreational hunters and commercial hunting industry.”
“If there is a conservation concern or a need to control the harvest then guides should be on quotas and the recreational hunters should be on Limited Entry Hunting (LEH).”


In the newspaper ad GOABC says they “understand the importance of hunter recruitment and retention in B.C.”.
In the viability paper GOABC says “The management of big game must be conducted in a manner that grows trophy-class animals and restricts provisions such as “spike-fork” seasons for immature bull moose.”

[Will]

The question is: how many of you are really out there, spending money to fly or boat in? Our are you just making noise?
"out there" ?:confused:

Where's "there" ?
I thought most of us Lived "there" or is it "here"....I'm confused:?

[willy442]

My guide bashing kick ? I sincerely want to hear and asked for thier input, I am curious to learn more about these issues !
What have you done here other then spout off and start quoting anyone and everyone who's oppinion differs from your own ?

I will ask you Sir "Are you serious ?" all kinds of Hunting for everyone ?

LEH only and big fat fees to Outfitters for those that can afford it...sure sounds like "Everyone" to me.

They can Kiss my ars if they think I will happily give up any more of my Hunting privelages so they can sell the "Experience" of it back to my Kids ! And yes I am looking ahead a few years..........:wink:

I have no need to get into the past and what we put back into B.C. hunting during our 32 years of outfitting again.
You are at present lossing your hunting piece by piece and not doing a damn thing about.
If you were to donate 50.00 to the G/O's fund they are now using to cover the bounty they are paying on wolves. You would probably accomplish more for wildlife than you have so far.
If you are curious to learn more on these issues, you should maybe approach it from that angle rather than spout off from hear say and stupidity.

[burger]

"out there" ?:confused:

Where's "there" ?
I thought most of us Lived "there" or is it "here"....I'm confused:?


I though the same thing?? Every trip I go on puts money into "there". I guess if I don't use a boat or a plane i'm not "there". What about people that have to "wait... hold on" drive to "there". Majority of resident hunters do not use a plane or a boat.

Where am I ???:confused::confused::confused:

[willy442]

The BCWF is very pro-active, did you note our new "Archery In Schools Project" that Hermit and other members just launched. What about our BOW, Fishing Forever, Wetlands Education and Wilderness Watch programs. Also note the many tens of thousands of dollars our clubs do in habitat enhancement and acquisition each year. Note the accomplishments of our conservation foundation the BCCF. In total our members are responsible for more wildlife and habitat conservation work in BC than the WSF and RMEF put together.

What is the GOABC doing besides paying a bounty on wolves, lining their pockets, and lobbying to take opportunities away from residents for themselves to sell, and please explain to me how can we in our members best interests not react to that campaign.

There wouldn't be non-res/res battle if it weren't for the GOABC antics of late, we had no desire to fight with the GOABC, nor did cast the first blow in this controversy, but we are forced to react to their silly lobbying even though we have more important things to do. Or are you suggesting we just let G/Os have whatever they want and just go about the business of conservation to produce more game animals for the GOABC to sell? Are you suggesting that is in the best interests of our members and resident hunters?

Sure it's about the animals first, it always has been and always will be with the BCWF, do you think it's in the animals best interests for G/Os to be able to sell their quota to another outfitter and have double quota harvested from a single territory. It appears to me that the GOABC has clearly shown that economic viability is of far greater concern then conservation to them. Their idea of conservation is to continue harvesting as usual but to restrict resident hunters when there's a conservation concern.

You are deviating as always from the original post. I never questioned what the BCWF has done for enhancement or conservation. The statement I made was "The BCWF is always responding to the GOABC,never leading in anything."
It's a real shame when so many people are really, after the same thing in the ability to hunt now and in the future and we have to fight over a couple of tags. While this crap is out in the press others are starting to tighten the noose around our neck. Hunters period, no matter where from need to be onside to achieve success. I'm really glad we left the business as I for one would ashamed to be a part of the gong show out there now.

[burger]

I have no need to get into the past and what we put back into B.C. hunting during our 32 years of outfitting again.
You are at present lossing your hunting piece by piece and not doing a damn thing about.
If you were to donate 50.00 to the G/O's fund they are now using to cover the bounty they are paying on wolves. You would probably accomplish more for wildlife than you have so far.
If you are curious to learn more on these issues, you should maybe approach it from that angle rather than spout off from hear say and stupidity.

You seem to be the voice on this topic for the G/O willy so I will ask you. If the Allocation policy was adopted in 2007 and was to be implemanted in 2010, why is there now talk of it being not implemented until 2017 and why has the GOABC been one of the parties that has been asking for the delay? They agreed on the policy did they not??

[willy442]

You seem to be the voice on this topic for the G/O willy so I will ask you. If the Allocation policy was adopted in 2007 and was to be implemanted in 2010, why is there now talk of it being not implemented until 2017 and why has the GOABC been one of the parties that has been asking for the delay? They agreed on the policy did they not??

I believe they agreed to look at the policy, nowhere have I ever seen it in print where they accepted it. As in the past, these papers are drafted and presented to the different parties, most times they are abolished or require more input. Sometimes one of the involved parties would like to believe various papers have been adopted into the act. This has happened at times to all parties in the past.
I'm no longer involved in the G/O industry and glad of it. This by no way means that I will not stand by what I have learned over the thirty odd years my family was involved.
The (REPUTABLE) G/O has to hold conservation and stewardship of the wildlife in high regard or his viability disappears very quickly. To be argueing the spike/fork moose issue in conjuction with the other issues before us on allocation is uterly ridiculous. The G/O's are looking at all spiecies and the enhancement of all. Sheep, Goat and Grizzly Bear, like Bigwhities stated are an animal class above Moose, Deer and Elk in most hunters minds, especially when it comes to Sheep. Why can they not be administered for quality hunting experiances, generating maximum renumeration for each animal from the nonres through quota. Residents can have resident only area's, 1 in 3, LEH or whatever they can agree to. LEH on these animals is partially already here and more is damn sure going to come. With that in mind should we lump Moose, Deer and Elk in with them. I think not or they will be lumped into the LEH system sooner than probably needed. Instead we should be opening up more opportunity on these where numbers are sufficiant, in a manner that disperses hunters province wide. If we fail to spread the kill out across the province, more native road blocks and issues are sure to come. From many years dealing with natives in the oil industry, I can tell you. They will win. Government would rather sell us out than fight on land claims and settlements. Example: Try to get a CO or other official to press wildlife or fishing charges on one.
I hope this answers your questions some what. Jealousy and greed by either the BCWF or GOABC is not going to get us anywhere. At some point we all have to get on the same side. Like in my earlier posts, the GOABC has alot of recently new blood at the table, I think it is time for the BCWF to do the same.

[Fisher-Dude]

If you were to donate 50.00 to the G/O's fund they are now using to cover the bounty they are paying on wolves. You would probably accomplish more for wildlife than you have so far.


That's a joke. What's that bounty going to do - motivate the killing of 50 or 100 wolves that otherwise wouldn't have been shot? What difference will that do in a province the size of BC, where ungulate populations are the highest they've been in decades, and wolves are now spread across the whole province? Wolf numbers cannot be brought under control or reduced by hunting, and this can only be done by a wolf cull, public opinion of which our politicians are deathly afraid of.

For the health of ungulate populations, we should be shooting more animals to bring them down from carrying capacity before we have a bad winter and lose 60 - 70% of them (again). But no, the GOABC is opposing any liberalization of hunting seasons that would help us accomplish a healthier herd, because they don't want more resident hunters in the bush.

[willy442]

[quote=Fisher-Dude;590521]That's a joke. What's that bounty going to do - motivate the killing of 50 or 100 wolves that otherwise wouldn't have been shot? What difference will that do in a province the size of BC, where ungulate populations are the highest they've been in decades, and wolves are now spread across the whole province? Wolf numbers cannot be brought under control or reduced by hunting, and this can only be done by a wolf cull, public opinion of which our politicians are deathly afraid of.

For the health of ungulate populations, we should be shooting more animals to bring them down from carrying capacity before we have a bad winter and lose 60 - 70% of them (again). But no, the GOABC is opposing any liberalization of hunting seasons that would help us accomplish a healthier herd, because they don't want more resident hunters in the bush.[/quote

Do you realize that a full grown wolf requires approximately 20 pounds of meat every three days. Although this may seem a meager pitance in your mind on the wolf issue. It will have positive results and it also shows that the G/O's of the province are willing to something forward to assist with predator control of your ungulates. What are you doing besides brain washing and causing a misinformed rucus from your couch.
I guess if we open seasons and allow 60 to 70 percent harvest, maybe you'll shoot something from your quad.
I would hate to see the end of whats becoming a somewhat educational thread, due to yor ignorance and personal interpetation on these issues, so I'll for go responding to the rest of your garbage.

[Devilbear]

Ah, residents only hunting areas and in places easy for access by vehicles and for most backpackers....sounds SO good, eh?

Then, of course, the wonderful, foreign-financed GOABC WILL lobby the traitors in Victoria, for "GO only" zones and THESE will be the BEST hunting areas in the entire province. I would not trust a GO further than I could spit, these grasping landrapers always have and always will try to screw the resident hunter.

A few posts ago, the inimitable Willy was boasting about how the GOs and the Indians WILL change BC hunting to suit themselves, but, now, he sings a different tune and if we residents don't do as he says, the Indians will blockade us and the government will support this and we will lose all of our hunting.........geezuz, what a crock!

Start a serious campaign to ban all foreign hunting in BC and WATCH it grow and the GOABC will come begging or just fold up and, thank gawd, fade away. Willy is the past, he is totally biased and without any credibility where this issue is concerned. If, you believe his rants and raving about other people's ...stupidity..., well, you are, as he is, part of the problem, not the solution.

[willy442]

Ah, residents only hunting areas and in places easy for access by vehicles and for most backpackers....sounds SO good, eh?

Then, of course, the wonderful, foreign-financed GOABC WILL lobby the traitors in Victoria, for "GO only" zones and THESE will be the BEST hunting areas in the entire province. I would not trust a GO further than I could spit, these grasping landrapers always have and always will try to screw the resident hunter.

A few posts ago, the inimitable Willy was boasting about how the GOs and the Indians WILL change BC hunting to suit themselves, but, now, he sings a different tune and if we residents don't do as he says, the Indians will blockade us and the government will support this and we will lose all of our hunting.........geezuz, what a crock!

Start a serious campaign to ban all foreign hunting in BC and WATCH it grow and the GOABC will come begging or just fold up and, thank gawd, fade away. Willy is the past, he is totally biased and without any credibility where this issue is concerned. If, you believe his rants and raving about other people's ...stupidity..., well, you are, as he is, part of the problem, not the solution.

Still stuck in the same radical frame of mind that left you lost and lonely on fire watch all those years. Try something new, it's not hard even at your age.

[Fisher-Dude]

I guess if we open seasons and allow 60 to 70 percent harvest, maybe you'll shoot something from your quad.
I would hate to see the end of whats becoming a somewhat educational thread, due to yor ignorance and personal interpetation on these issues, so I'll for go responding to the rest of your garbage.

Nowhere did I say that we should be shooting 60 - 70% of animals. I said we should bring populations down to below carrying capacities, OR ELSE 60 - 70% will starve to death, as happened a mere 12 years ago. Can you lie and spew such BS with a straight face, having my post with what I actually stated quoted in your reply?? Is your dementia so bad now that you don't remember what happened in 97/98?

We have lots of wolves because we have record high ungulate populations. We can't control the wolves directly without a cull, but if we reduce ungulate populations, we can in turn reduce the dependent wolf populations and make ungulate populations less susceptible to massive winter herd decimation. Obviously, that's science you simply don't understand.

50 to 100 wolves in BC will make an absolutely miniscule difference to the overall ungulate population - certainly NOT a difference that would ever warrant any ungulate season change or quota upgrade for any of your GOABC boyfriends.

[Fisher-Dude]

I believe they agreed to look at the policy, nowhere have I ever seen it in print where they accepted it.

They have "agreed to look at it"? uh, yeah.

And now for the truth:

What guided the development of the new policy?
The development of the new Harvest Allocation Policy and Procedure was guided by input from stakeholders. In 2004, the Ministry convened a Task Group made up of representatives from:

the BC Wildlife Federation (to provide the perspective of resident hunters),
the Guide Outfitters Association of BC,
the BC Trappers Association, and
the Ministry of Environment.

[Gilmore]

You are deviating as always from the original post. I never questioned what the BCWF has done for enhancement or conservation. The statement I made was "The BCWF is always responding to the GOABC,never leading in anything."


The reason the BCWF is always having to respond to the GOABC is because they are the ones leading the charge to limit resident hunting. If they weren't trying to do that there would be no need to respond. You don't get up off the couch to answer your door unless someone knocks on it. So other than commited to reducing resident opprotunity what are all these other things the GOABC is leading in?

[Gateholio]

Start a serious campaign to ban all foreign hunting in BC and WATCH it grow and the GOABC will come begging or just fold up and, thank gawd, fade away. .


WHile I don't agree that banning foreign hunting in BC would be a good thing for hunting in the long term, I do agree that it would not be difficult to achieve if a group really set their mind to it.

The general BC public (who own the wildlife in BC) are mostly in favour of resident hunting, because they believe it is right for a person to be able to kill and eat their own free range organic meat. At the same time, they are overwhelmingly opposed to foreign "trophy hunting"

The general non hunting public views foreign trophy hunting as "just wanting to shoot an animal and chop it's head off" and they find that offensive. I've had conversations like this time and time again with non hunters.

We all know what media campaigns can do, we all know what the "green" groups are capable of......Once a ball gets rolling, it would be hard to stop.

[Gateholio]

Gentlemen...ONCE AGAIN....lets keep the personal stuff OFF the forums...

[GoatGuy]

You seem to be the voice on this topic for the G/O willy so I will ask you. If the Allocation policy was adopted in 2007 and was to be implemanted in 2010, why is there now talk of it being not implemented until 2017 and why has the GOABC been one of the parties that has been asking for the delay? They agreed on the policy did they not??

Willy isn't an outfitter anymore, he's not the voice and he has no idea what happened in the last 10 years nevermind what happens behind closed doors.

To be honest his opinion is pretty mild.

[Devilbear]

Willy, I AM older than you are and also have ...injuries..., BUT, I STILL backpack hunt, do solo backpack trips of several days each in various parts of BC. YOU, however, do not hunt, hike, backpack or seem to do anything except spew your venom here on HBC.

There may be a few here who are conned by your rants, but, most of us see exactly what you are and know your raving posts are bullshit.

[Fisher-Dude]

WHile I don't agree that banning foreign hunting in BC would be a good thing for hunting in the long term, I do agree that it would not be difficult to achieve if a group really set their mind to it.

The general BC public (who own the wildlife in BC) are mostly in favour of resident hunting, because they believe it is right for a person to be able to kill and eat their own free range organic meat. At the same time, they are overwhelmingly opposed to foreign "trophy hunting"

The general non hunting public views foreign trophy hunting as "just wanting to shoot an animal and chop it's head off" and they find that offensive. I've had conversations like this time and time again with non hunters.

We all know what media campaigns can do, we all know what the "green" groups are capable of......Once a ball gets rolling, it would be hard to stop.

From Tom Ethier's presentation at the BCWF 2009 Convention about the general public's perception of hunting:

73% approve of legal hunting
65% approve of meat hunting
62% approve of hunting to control wildlife populations
10% approve of trophy hunting

[GoatGuy]

I believe they agreed to look at the policy, nowhere have I ever seen it in print where they accepted it. As in the past, these papers are drafted and presented to the different parties, most times they are abolished or require more input. Sometimes one of the involved parties would like to believe various papers have been adopted into the act. This has happened at times to all parties in the past.


GOABC asked to have the policy reopened and changed despite being told by quite a few people it was a big dark room.

Ask Dale how this all went down the next time you run into him, if you do. He's about the only person you'll get a straight answer from.

The rest of what you're written is a ways out there, policy is not 'adopted' into an act. Policy isn't law.:wink:

[willy442]

Nowhere did I say that we should be shooting 60 - 70% of animals. I said we should bring populations down to below carrying capacities, OR ELSE 60 - 70% will starve to death, as happened a mere 12 years ago. Can you lie and spew such BS with a straight face, having my post with what I actually stated quoted in your reply?? Is your dementia so bad now that you don't remember what happened in 97/98?

We have lots of wolves because we have record high ungulate populations. We can't control the wolves directly without a cull, but if we reduce ungulate populations, we can in turn reduce the dependent wolf populations and make ungulate populations less susceptible to massive winter herd decimation. Obviously, that's science you simply don't understand.

50 to 100 wolves in BC will make an absolutely miniscule difference to the overall ungulate population - certainly NOT a difference that would ever warrant any ungulate season change or quota upgrade for any of your GOABC boyfriends.

Sorry, but I was out in the hills through a couple of ungulate/wolf cycles and your scientific information is very misleading. You are right in the fact that if no meat, wolves will starve or reduce in numbers. I question your record high numbers in ungulates through out the province. I have'nt seen it nor have many others by the success ratio's and complaints seen on this site. I don't know about your back yard though.
The wolf kill in the 80's we took 300+ wolves out of a huge area. The benefits observed from that were humungous for a peroid of time. 100 equals 1/3 of that harvest and a huge start in my opinion, for all.
As recently as a year or two ago. I recall you asking for info on guides, harvest levels etc. " Now just imagine you're a know it all" good on ya. Keep up the good work, what ever it may be. Complaining about a wolf kill program while you do nothing enforces your credibility immensly.

[willy442]

The reason the BCWF is always having to respond to the GOABC is because they are the ones leading the charge to limit resident hunting. If they weren't trying to do that there would be no need to respond. You don't get up off the couch to answer your door unless someone knocks on it. So other than commited to reducing resident opprotunity what are all these other things the GOABC is leading in?

Just maybe the BCWF could bring an idea or two out for discussion beside the same old "THE G/O's ARE SCREWING US"
I guess thats hard to do though when general membership is so busy infighting they can't agree on an idea outside of this same old cry.

[willy442]

WHile I don't agree that banning foreign hunting in BC would be a good thing for hunting in the long term, I do agree that it would not be difficult to achieve if a group really set their mind to it.

The general BC public (who own the wildlife in BC) are mostly in favour of resident hunting, because they believe it is right for a person to be able to kill and eat their own free range organic meat. At the same time, they are overwhelmingly opposed to foreign "trophy hunting"

The general non hunting public views foreign trophy hunting as "just wanting to shoot an animal and chop it's head off" and they find that offensive. I've had conversations like this time and time again with non hunters.

We all know what media campaigns can do, we all know what the "green" groups are capable of......Once a ball gets rolling, it would be hard to stop.

Good Luck on this on Gates. It's been tried in every state and province at one time or another. If you think the GOABC has funds now, put that idea out and see the results from a global hunting consortium, like Safari Club and others.

[willy442]

From Tom Ethier's presentation at the BCWF 2009 Convention about the general public's perception of hunting:

73% approve of legal hunting
65% approve of meat hunting
62% approve of hunting to control wildlife populations
10% approve of trophy hunting

Not questioning your numbers FD.
Don't forget though how many people favor the meat from trophy hunting going to shelters through out the province. Verse's meat left laying in the bush by errant hunters as seen on here in a few posts this year.
My point being in this age old approach you favor. No matter what numbers you come up with, the experianced can squash them without much effort.

[willy442]

They have "agreed to look at it"? uh, yeah.

And now for the truth:

What guided the development of the new policy?
The development of the new Harvest Allocation Policy and Procedure was guided by input from stakeholders. In 2004, the Ministry convened a Task Group made up of representatives from:

the BC Wildlife Federation (to provide the perspective of resident hunters),
the Guide Outfitters Association of BC,
the BC Trappers Association, and
the Ministry of Environment.

Who out of the four groups signed the papers to have it become part of the act?
This is like the earlier statement of the G/O's recieving a subsidy from government.
Please show me and others on here the facts on this stuff. YOU CAN'T because it fails to exist!

[Fisher-Dude]

Not questioning your numbers FD.
Don't forget though how many people favor the meat from trophy hunting going to shelters through out the province. Verse's meat left laying in the bush by errant hunters as seen on here in a few posts this year.
My point being in this age old approach you favor. No matter what numbers you come up with, the experianced can squash them without much effort.

The meat i saw going to the Sally Ann at the butcher's this year was from an illegally killed 4x5 outfitter elk. A raghorn that wasn't even close to being legal. Thanks for the donation Willy, the homeless appreciate that non-residents make illegal kills and some of it ends up at the shelters. :-D

[Devilbear]

That would be the BEST thing that could happen as most BC citizens and our fellow Canadians SAW just how venal, wealthy and foreign these groups are. This is 2010, NOT the early '60s, when Diefenbaker, Pearson and "Waccy" sold us out on "The Columbia River Treaty" or when the "Tar Sands" debacle was started. MOST people have NO desire for more foreign control of/use of our resources and a media campaign pointing out the involvement of SCI or other such groups would do wonders for banning foreign hunting here.

Then, I strongly suspect that "new blood" in the major environmental groups, who can raise funds that make SCI look like paupers, would be very willing to assist the BCWF and away we would go! Yeah, bring it on!

It's time to write to the "Vancouver Sun", "The Province" and "The Times-Colonist" and DEMAND an end to foreign hunting in BC and I think that even Gordo will listen, while the NDP would be all over it. No foreign $$$$$, no foreign clients, pretty soon, NO GOABC and problem solved!

Then, a simple "Hunter Host" programme involving 10% of the AAH and everyone can have "Cuzin Buford" from Arkansas or my good friend, Chomondely-Fotheringill from "dear old Blighty" or a Newfie full of "Screech" here to hunt and all will be well.

[Gateholio]

Good Luck on this on Gates. It's been tried in every state and province at one time or another. If you think the GOABC has funds now, put that idea out and see the results from a global hunting consortium, like Safari Club and others.

I don't need any luck, this wouldn't be a project I'd endorse.

But don't think for a minute that it couldn't happen, and the involvement of SCI would be portrayed as an "American Good Ol' Boys Head Hunting Club trying to kill our animals" and would be used by proponents to further inflame the public.

I don't agree with it, but I've seen the public buy into much more far fetched concepts....

[frenchbar]

The meat i saw going to the Sally Ann at the butcher's this year was from an illegally killed 4x5 outfitter elk. A raghorn that wasn't even close to being legal. Thanks for the donation Willy, the homeless appreciate that non-residents make illegal kills and some of it ends up at the shelters. :-D Wonder how many illeagal kills from outfitters get swept under the carpet....

[willy442]

Willy, I AM older than you are and also have ...injuries..., BUT, I STILL backpack hunt, do solo backpack trips of several days each in various parts of BC. YOU, however, do not hunt, hike, backpack or seem to do anything except spew your venom here on HBC.

There may be a few here who are conned by your rants, but, most of us see exactly what you are and know your raving posts are bullshit.

Do you feel better now?
Does it make me a lesser Canadian then you, that I no longer desire to go out and kill our wildlife anymore? Truth be known, my not hunting has nothing to do with my injuries. I don't hunt because of my past experiance, any animal I ever guided for, is one I could have taken myself. I've attended far more than my share of wildlife kills. Now I enjoy watching and photographing, when I can. Outside of that the characters that want to be refered to as hunters keep me entertained on this site. If only some could shut thier mouths and open thier ears long enough to learn from some of the old guides and hunters on here, many would be better off. I guess though after a couple of Moose, Deer and a 7 year old Ram even the unexperienced, become Pro's and Biologists.

I have recently bought a nice fishing boat and am intending to catch my share of fish now with my grandsons. So you can have the garbage that goes with being a resident hunter.

[willy442]

The meat i saw going to the Sally Ann at the butcher's this year was from an illegally killed 4x5 outfitter elk. A raghorn that wasn't even close to being legal. Thanks for the donation Willy, the homeless appreciate that non-residents make illegal kills and some of it ends up at the shelters. :-D

Everyone makes mistakes in the world I live in. Glad to see it was put to good use and not left in the bush like the posts on here. Out of all the animals shot this year, your own stats only refer to one Elk. How accurate is your info again? You really are a JOKE.

[willy442]

Wonder how many illeagal kills from outfitters get swept under the carpet....

I would hope none. The CO's are alot more understanding of mistakes if dealt with honestly and properly. If anyone buries or leaves a kill, G/O or Resident. I would hope they are severly punished.

[Gateholio]

I have recently bought a nice fishing boat and am intending to catch my share of fish now with my grandsons. So you can have the garbage that goes with being a resident hunter.

Just wait until you see the garbage that goes along with fishing, and the fact that foreigners can fish here unguided.
:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

[frenchbar]

[quote=willy442;590623]I would hope none. The CO's are alot more understanding of mistakes if dealt with honestly and properly. If anyone buries or leaves a kill, G/O or Resident. I would hope they are severly punished.[/quote

I would hope none as well ..but im sure it happens with both resident hunters and guide outfitters and their clients..

[willy442]

Just wait until you see the garbage that goes along with fishing, and the fact that foreigners can fish here unguided.
:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

I've already seen it Gate's many times over.

[dryflyguy57]

This industry reminds me of the pimp that controls the prostitutes who work the streets for money . How many of you guides out there actually enjoy hunting for money . Bend over and take the money would be my guess . Most of you seem pretty quiet as to which side to be on or just ashamed to admit you are one . Never have agreed with the business model and will be writing letters to get rid of the Non Residents from this province .

[Will]

I don't hunt...

.....So you can have the garbage that goes with being a resident hunter.
Seems like we're in good shape then Resident Hunters, sounds like some of the garbage has cleaned itself up already :-D


.

[Sitkaspruce]

Willy

Does your plan also include non-residents as a one in three and how many do they need????

I have guided a couple guys who hunt SS every other year as they think it is the best of all the sheep. They go to a different GO evey time and have now hunted most of the east slope and Fort Nelly area and are now headed to the West side. They killed around 8 sheep between them and not one has been over 38". When I asked tham about looking for a bigger one, they told me that thay actually have had pressure from the GO to kill a sheep so that they can keep their harvest #'s up and their success rate at as close to 100%. I will not get into the GO name as we can point fingers at this and that, but the truth is that not all GO are in it for conservation and that most are in it simply for the $$$. If outfitters were to have one dollar and that was it and could put it into a conservation project or their bank account, which do you think they would chose?

Personally, the residents should have first choice in all aspects of hunting and the GO should get their allocation as put out in the allocation process. If the GO are bitching that the residents are not filling their allocation, then they should be thankfull that there will be more animals running around and that we are not hammering them. The left over should be just that, left alone for the following year. If this is the way it is, would this not help improve animal #'s? Or are the GO that hard up that they need to kiill off the exact # allocated to both the residents and non so that there is no increase in #'s?

I like to guide and spend my time in the outdoors, but will always be a resident hunter first.

Cheers

SS


Willy, Willy Willy, still waiting for your reply.......:-D


This industry reminds me of the pimp that controls the prostitutes who work the streets for money . How many of you guides out there actually enjoy hunting for money . Bend over and take the money would be my guess . Most of you seem pretty quiet as to which side to be on or just ashamed to admit you are one . Never have agreed with the business model and will be writing letters to get rid of the Non Residents from this province .

Hey DFG57

Read above and then think about what you said. I love the guiding, getting paid to do something I love is every persons dream. But do I agree with what is happening....not for a moment. I have a REAL job abd guiding is a passion for my holidays.

Not sure about others, but I know where I stand.

Cheers

SS

[dryflyguy57]

Sitka Spruce , Thought that might flush out a guide or two .I don't have to read what I wrote as I just wrote it man and good for you for being happy in your work , I don't doubt you for a minute . I still think there are some that are rethinking what they do . Doesn't sit well with me . I come from the commercial salmon and halibut fishery so I am used to being bashed . Probably fished some of your honey holes , Storm Island in early March maybe . Anyhow I find it interesting that you don't agree with the movement of the G/O but still love to work in the industry . Question for you is how long you will enjoy the work if the table turns on the resident hunter ? Me thinks the First Nations will slip in the back door when we are finished fighting . DFO calls this the Industrial Solution where they use taxpayers money to purchase blackcod quota, halibut quota, prawn licences , etc . with taxpayers money which they are doing as we speak . I do believe the Feds will buy guiding areas with the help of the province as hush money for some major projects in this province to hit the drawing board in the future .

[Devilbear]

Of course that is what is going to happen and guys like Willy, who whines because I give him an honest response after he sneers at my age, will HELP with this debacle. The GOs will LOVE it, as the aboriginals will hire some of them to "sell" hunts and "trophies" to rich foreigners.....nothing REALLY changes much, especially Willy's loudmouth and ignorant slagging of better men than he could ever be.

The commercial fishing and hunting "industries" WILL be used to mollify the radical indians so that the big business boyos can grab the petro-resources, hydropower and WATER, which are worth the REAL bux.....One could see this coming over 40 years ago, but, it is so difficult to get some people to see what is really happening in BC....and the NDP are just as bad as the Gordo gang!

Soooo, a very sound basis for an alliance between the "environmentalists" and the BCWF becomes VERY obvious and, given the move within the BCWF to support wilderness preservation, which was NOT the case for quite some time, there is every chance of this happening. SCI and other bullshit, fatass, pseudo-bushman groups have NO chance against such an alliance, so, all is not lost quite yet.

I used to love some of the work I did in the wilderness and was offered opportunities to guide, as well, but, I never wanted to. Now, changing technology and uncaring governments have eliminated many of those jobs; I accept this as life is change and one must adapt. So, while I do sympathize with those who guide because they love it, there are larger issues here...and perhaps some different situation can be worked out, once the destructive groups as supported by Willy are gone.

[dryflyguy57]

Spot on Devilbear . I too see it so clearly and can't for the life of me figure out how others don't . Our governments have time on their side to carry out mandates that may take longer than I have left , wear us down one by one . This is not going to be an easy fight by any strech , as a matter of fact I think it will be lost eventually , maybe not this round but one day . I remember hearing years ago that the Americans were interested in water from the Thompson , get rid of the sockeye somehow , divert the water into the Columbia Basin and eventually right to Sacramento . What do you think the Feds would like see ? Surprised the shit out of me they are having an inquiry on the missing fish. Learned my lesson from that as there is a push for just that water and has been for 30 years . Off subject now but as for your last post you have it figured out to a tee.

[willy442]

Of course that is what is going to happen and guys like Willy, who whines because I give him an honest response after he sneers at my age, will HELP with this debacle. The GOs will LOVE it, as the aboriginals will hire some of them to "sell" hunts and "trophies" to rich foreigners.....nothing REALLY changes much, especially Willy's loudmouth and ignorant slagging of better men than he could ever be.

The commercial fishing and hunting "industries" WILL be used to mollify the radical indians so that the big business boyos can grab the petro-resources, hydropower and WATER, which are worth the REAL bux.....One could see this coming over 40 years ago, but, it is so difficult to get some people to see what is really happening in BC....and the NDP are just as bad as the Gordo gang!

Soooo, a very sound basis for an alliance between the "environmentalists" and the BCWF becomes VERY obvious and, given the move within the BCWF to support wilderness preservation, which was NOT the case for quite some time, there is every chance of this happening. SCI and other bullshit, fatass, pseudo-bushman groups have NO chance against such an alliance, so, all is not lost quite yet.

I used to love some of the work I did in the wilderness and was offered opportunities to guide, as well, but, I never wanted to. Now, changing technology and uncaring governments have eliminated many of those jobs; I accept this as life is change and one must adapt. So, while I do sympathize with those who guide because they love it, there are larger issues here...and perhaps some different situation can be worked out, once the destructive groups as supported by Willy are gone.

Too you and all the rest out there wanting to stop Non Resident hunting. Please shit or get off the pot. In other words quit barking and start doing something about it.
Just like when asked for proof about subsidy's given to guides and most the other statements Made by FD, DB and the clueless newly found followers. YOU CAN"T DO IT! Need I say anymore? I do find you amusing though.:-D

[willy442]

[quote=Sitkaspruce;590657]Willy, Willy Willy, still waiting for your reply.......:-D



Hey DFG57

Read above and then think about what you said. I love the guiding, getting paid to do something I love is every persons dream. But do I agree with what is happening....not for a moment. I have a REAL job abd guiding is a passion for my holidays.

Not sure about others, but I know where I stand.

Cheers

SS[/quote

If you understood how the 1 in 3 worked. You wouldn't have to ask the question.

[willy442]

This industry reminds me of the pimp that controls the prostitutes who work the streets for money . How many of you guides out there actually enjoy hunting for money . Bend over and take the money would be my guess . Most of you seem pretty quiet as to which side to be on or just ashamed to admit you are one . Never have agreed with the business model and will be writing letters to get rid of the Non Residents from this province .

Very Smart Man. There's alot be accomplished by picking sides isn't there?:(

[mcrae]

Just a thought but lets say we take a stand and get the public involved and use the media. We accomplish the goal of getting foreign hunting banned in BC...

How long do you think before they come after us the resident hunter? I don't agree with the GOABC and its tactics or policies but truth be told we need their voice as well to keep the anti's at bay. Its the same old thing when hunting is involved. Two groups that could accomplish allot if they actually worked toghter instead of against each other.

My understaning is most of us do not oppose the guiding industry in BC but we do oppose being put 2nd to their interesets. I support the BCWF in its stand against the GOABC I just wish it wasn't neccesary...

[Devilbear]

Just a thought but lets say we take a stand and get the public involved and use the media. We accomplish the goal of getting foreign hunting banned in BC...

How long do you think before they come after us the resident hunter? I don't agree with the GOABC and its tactics or policies but truth be told we need their voice as well to keep the anti's at bay. Its the same old thing when hunting is involved. Two groups that could accomplish allot if they actually worked toghter instead of against each other.

My understaning is most of us do not oppose the guiding industry in BC but we do oppose being put 2nd to their interesets. I support the BCWF in its stand against the GOABC I just wish it wasn't neccesary...

That is the standard argument used by those who support the current situation and it is, no offence intended, a specious one. The "environmental movement", with the exception of a minority of extreme radicals, whom nothing will influence, are not against sports-sustenance hunting, IME and the building of an alliance with them is both possible and worthwhile for hunters.

There will, in the forseeable future, ALWAYS be, as there has been for well over a century, an "anti-hunting" element in society and OUR best method of eliminating THEIR influence is to clean up BC hunting and keep it ethical and based on obtaining wholesome, organic meat.

The GOABC will NEVER ally themselves with resident hunters as we are the major obstacle to even greater profits for their membership. To trust them or "shilly-shally" around the hard decisions that must be made is to accept being "second class citizens" in our own land and losing all public hunting, as in their proposal to have ALL BC residents "guided".

It is NOT going to be "easy", but, "it is now or never" where preserving our hunting is concerned.

[bridger]

the one ram in every three years is not fair to resident hunters as it really favors the non resident. when it was implemented in 7b several years ago the resident harvest went down 24% ( I have the stats) while the non resident harvest was not affected. ( simply because their is a huge pool of non resident hunters).. Under the new allocation policy before resident sheep harvest is restricted the non resident harvest share has to go to 20% of the total. that is one of the reasons the goabc doesn't want it implemented. the rule that works the best for restricting residents is the rule that you can hunt every year if you harvest a ram over eight years. that rule was in effect for several years and worked very well. that rule resulted in a dramatic drop in the number of underage rams harvested and allowed everyone to hunt

[blacklab]

Willy, keep up the good work. You have done more to get resident hunters on side with the BCWF and against the guides than any add campaign could do. I have printed several of your posts, they really help get my resident hunter friends off the fence and more involved.
Thanks

[bigwhiteys]

the rule that works the best for restricting residents is the rule that you can hunt every year if you harvest a ram over eight years. that rule was in effect for several years and worked very well. that rule resulted in a dramatic drop in the number of underage rams harvested and allowed everyone to hunt

Yeah... Shoot under 8 and you're back to 1 in 3 shoot over 8 and go back every year. No opportunity lost unless you're one of the guys who just "Hasta shoot that borderline ram!" I have repeated this many times over...

Better yet... Give the guys who'll take any sheep a EWE tag.

Carl

[Sitkaspruce]

Sitka Spruce , Thought that might flush out a guide or two .I don't have to read what I wrote as I just wrote it man and good for you for being happy in your work , I don't doubt you for a minute . I still think there are some that are rethinking what they do . Doesn't sit well with me . I come from the commercial salmon and halibut fishery so I am used to being bashed . Probably fished some of your honey holes , Storm Island in early March maybe . Anyhow I find it interesting that you don't agree with the movement of the G/O but still love to work in the industry . Question for you is how long you will enjoy the work if the table turns on the resident hunter ?

As I have said before, it is just a job that I love to do, but it is not my real job. I would miss it, but I can always just pick it up with Salmon guiding, so it would not affect me that much. Besides, it would free up more time for me to go hunting:mrgreen:.

I would care to bet that not ALL GO are speaking the same crap that Willy is and a few are not to pleased with what is happening.

Storm Island has a fishing closure around it, so it is not one of my spots to fish, but a little further North is.:wink:

And oh yea Willy, I do know what one in three is, but I was looking for an answer, not a dance around the question.

Cheers

SS

[dryflyguy57]

I would care to bet that not ALL GO are speaking the same crap that Willy is and a few are not to pleased with what is happening.





Good point , I'm sure some would not like this fight to rear its ugly head . Said my bit so will sit back and watch the debate . Just don't like my rights eroded any MORE because of a court ruling . Been there done that !

Happy New Years to Everyone

[Bear Chaser]

Just a thought but lets say we take a stand and get the public involved and use the media. We accomplish the goal of getting foreign hunting banned in BC...

How long do you think before they come after us the resident hunter? I don't agree with the GOABC and its tactics or policies but truth be told we need their voice as well to keep the anti's at bay. Its the same old thing when hunting is involved. Two groups that could accomplish allot if they actually worked toghter instead of against each other.

My understaning is most of us do not oppose the guiding industry in BC but we do oppose being put 2nd to their interesets. I support the BCWF in its stand against the GOABC I just wish it wasn't neccesary...

This is exactly what I've been thinking. Running the GO's out of the province on a pole will only hasten the demise of hunting in this province. It' the thin edge of the wedge; easy to sell to urban folks who love animals and think meat comes from the grocery store. Now from his posts we can see Devilbear likes the idea of organic meat & thinks that is a persuasive enough argument to win over Environmentallists and the urban greenies. Maybe, but I highly doubt it as these people would also be thoroughly sickened by the sights & sounds of a modern slaughterhouse where the animals are supposed to be humanely and painlessly started on their journey to our plates. What do you think their reaction to an animal getting shot will be? We have to stick together as all hunters are hunters. The guy pulling the trigger is the exact same as the next one in the eyes of the non-hunting public.

[Devilbear]

So, we should just let things stay as they are, the GOABC continue to lobby to restrict our hunting and this is going to somehow work itself out and we will all live happily ever after, the BCWF and GOABC in harmony and brotherhood........

I think that you are a GO or employee of one and a GOABC supporter.

I do not think that the environmentalists WANT to shut down hunting and an alliance with them is far more likely to assist hunters, than ANY dalliance with the GOABC ever will.

[Devilbear]

Now you are talking. What the ‘’bleeding hearts’’ will capitalize on is division. They do not care, that for them to live in this world of modern day luxuries, with everything from microwaves to hair blowers, thousands of Big and Small game perished by starvation.
All this happened when the W.A.C. Bennet Dam was built. Their winter habitat in the low lying valleys was destroyed. Just so these “bleeding hearts” could live better electrically. There is nothing worse, than watching an animal's death by starvation
Cheers.

That is ironic, as when I first became active in conservation in high school, in 1961, I spoke out strongly against building the accursed hydro dams in BC and was vilifyed as a "fuggin' young punk", by many "workers" who WANTED the inflated wages and job security that these eco-disasters brought to the Peace River region and the Kootenays.

NOW, more than 40 years later, we hear that these dams were not such a great idea....too bad some of the other greying folks here had not spoken out as youngsters and maybe prevented them being built, eh?

Well, we cannot change the past, but, we sure as hell can improve the prospects for BC's future and saving our hunting from the control of the GOABC is one important step toward that goal.

Well, as "Cher" used to wail, "the beat goes on" and the GO bullshit never stops..............

[bigwhiteys]

Now you are talking. What the ‘’bleeding hearts’’ will capitalize on is division.

Sigh...The above has been said many times before on this site... The GOABC is better organized, better funded, and they are talking government language ($$$$$$$$$$).

Many on this site would rather see the GOABC abolished so we could then turn our fight to the Anti's (nature tourism). Whom will probably then side with the Natives and then we are doubly screwed.


Carl

[CanuckShooter]

If BC residents are on LEH, there should be no guide outfitters selling hunts for the species under LEH. Period.

The allocation for guides should be capped at 10% of the annual allowable harvest. Period.

[Gilmore]

Many on this site would rather see the GOABC abolished so we could then turn our fight to the Anti's (nature tourism). Whom will probably then side with the Natives and then we are doubly screwed.


Carl


Not me... I'm not against guiding in principle I think this provinces resources have room for everyone but the GO's have to stay in line and that line starts right behind the residents. Not trying to leapfrog over our backs after a supossed deal has been made namely the allocation policy.

I hear talk of division and infighting but you know someone had to fire the first shot and it wasn't me or my hunting partners nor any other resident hunter of this province. I hear GO's saying they have spent money on this and on that to help the animals of this province, and rightly so. I spend into the thousands every year hunting the animals of this province while the guides make into the millions every year hunting the same animals. I think that residents and GO's can co-exist in this province, but don't come knocking on my door telling me I need to now get an LEH for my moose because we need a few more trophy sized animals for some guy from Germany.

Now Willy will go on saying I'm small minded, can't see the bigger picture or the real issues like he has many times, but I do see it. We are looking at the same picture but seeing two different paintings is all. The GO"s want more, bigger and better and there is only one place to get it...the resident.

[JDR]

I also agree that G/O's and resident hunters can mutually co-exist and work together in order to preserve the hunting opportunities we currently enjoy.

However, I think the impression most resident hunters have is that the majority of G/O's are foreign owned and they could care less about the resident hunter. If this is true then we won't have much cooperation until that changes. If it's not true, then what has the GOABC done to work with resident hunters? This is not a rhetorical question, it is an actual question.

[Fisher-Dude]

With all due respect, I have to disagree with you Devil Bear. Do not underestimate the power of the Environmentalists. I have watched them work on various industries and brought many to their knees. How both sides in the hunting issue resolve the current situation, I do not have the answers to. I can say for sure that if we don’t wake up soon
God help us all,

Which industries have environmentalists brought to their knees in this province?

[bigwhiteys]

Which industries have environmentalists brought to their knees in this province?

The Grizzly Bear hunt if they gain anymore ground is one.

They've had major effect on Logging and Fishing as well... Don't know about "on their knees" but the Greenies are definitely a powerful force.

Carl

[kebes]

Willy, You have done more to get resident hunters on side with the BCWF and against the guides than any add campaign could do.
Thanks

valid. :wink:

[Confused]

Which industries have environmentalists brought to their knees in this province?

Have you tried to open a mine in this province say in the last.........ten years. Give it a go and see how you make out. Plenty of exploration going on out there, but when it comes time to look into starting one up, GOOD LUCK!!

Sorry way off topic.

[Fisher-Dude]

Have you tried to open a mine in this province say in the last.........ten years. Give it a go and see how you make out. Plenty of exploration going on out there, but when it comes time to look into starting one up, GOOD LUCK!!

Sorry way off topic.

Investment in mining increased up to 105% year over year after 2001 in this province. Once the NDP were run out of office, things changed dramatically. There were years under the NDP where not one single mining permit was granted. I don't believe many greenies are able to "run" the business of this province they way they did when the NDP were in office. Oil & gas exploration has opened up in the past 5 years to become the #1 generator of government royalties, once the "no way" NDP were tossed.

The greenies were able to shut down grizzly hunting when the NDP were in power - but Penner looked them in the eye last month and told them that we will manage BC's bears with science, not emotions. The red tape that the NDP forced on forest companies in the 1990s did indeed cause businesses to suffer. Now, with a change to a results-based system of governance, we've let environmental common sense take over from a green NDP agenda.

I think we're miles ahead business-wise from where we were under the bureaucratic, greenie Socialists. Is it better for the environment? The jury's still out on that one. :?

[Bear Chaser]

Now you are talking. What the ‘’bleeding hearts’’ will capitalize on is division.

This is exactly my point. If resident hunters turn to the greenies to get rid of the GO's who will go next? If we want to portray the hunting community of BC as just a bunch of people who like to slaughter their own animal for food then how do we argue for bear hunting? What about cougar/lynx/bobcat/wolverine/wolf? For most of us there is no reason to eat any of these animals so they'll be off the list after the GO's are gone. After that it will be the guys who go after the large ungulates for meat. If it's organic free range meat you are after you can get that from a bison ranch or a grass fed cattle operation for cheaper & that messy business can be taken care of where Urban Joe doesn't have to see it when he takes his family for a vacation. Who's left you say? Bird hunters and maybe the odd predator control officer.

Everyone who thinks that the GO's have to go needs to take a long deep breath. We need them and they need us. Neither side should be going to the public pointing fingers at the other one. Unfortunately the GOABC has already done just this. Fortunately I seriously doubt anybody but hunters even noticed the ads in the papers as anything but a positive to hunting in general.

[Rubicon500]

Alot of you guys are friggin hypocrits they preach about no G/O's yet go hunting in alberta, saskatchewan, Yukon, NWT, USA, Africa. Ya bash the indians about setting up blockades and claiming everything from a pile of dog shiit to raw land being theres, yet u pull the "i live in BC i should have every right to hunt here before a non resident, its my right Because I was here first." Now you know how the indians feel. Talk about calling the kettle black. We got to work with the G/O's before we all get bent over by the greeenies.

And for the record, Im not first nations, Im not a guide outfitter, not a guide. Just a resident hunter who loves hunting, but sick of hereing the same BS from you anti G/O's day after day, all this crap should be in the "politics" section where it belongs.

[bigwhiteys]

The greenies were able to shut down grizzly hunting when the NDP were in power - but Penner looked them in the eye last month and told them that we will manage BC's bears with science, not emotions.
Didn't you already get bent over taking someone elses word for it in good faith...???

Penner is a politician who could be swayed with enough public support to end the Grizzly bear hunt quite easily... Much more easily than what you're trying to do with the GOABC.

If Penner say's it's safe then it must be so...??

Carl

[Gateholio]

Alot of you guys are friggin hypocrits they preach about no G/O's yet go hunting in alberta, saskatchewan, Yukon, NWT, USA, Africa. Ya bash the indians about setting up blockades and claiming everything from a pile of dog shiit to raw land being theres, yet u pull the "i live in BC i should have every right to hunt here before a non resident, its my right Because I was here first." s.

Actually, that is pretty irrelevant. It's up to Alberta, Sask, Yukon, USA, African countries etc to set their own rules. BC residents should have no influence on thier rules, nor should they have any influence on ours.

[Rubicon500]

Actually, that is pretty irrelevant. It's up to Alberta, Sask, Yukon, USA, African countries etc to set their own rules. BC residents should have no influence on thier rules, nor should they have any influence on ours.


Seems revelant to me, it still dont change the fact if someone goes guided for hunting in a different province then preaches that there should be NO guide outfitts in BC makes them sound like a hypocrit does it not ?

[palmer]

My take is very simple...if its on GOS then guides can take clients....LEH is resident only....you'll see the guides pushing for open seasons then. If there are not enough animals for any resident to buy a tag and go hunting then charging $10,000. more should not get you to the front of the line. I have no problem with selling off the excess but not selling tags that the residents are seeing odds of 100-1 for.
MY 2 CENTS

[bayou]

What experience do you have in negotiations?

Resident hunters felt that they were negotiating in good faith. It wasn't until the GOABC shook hands while at the same time slipping the poison in our drinks that the residents began to see the need to start our own fund. It's too bad when you're dealing with f'ing shysters - you have to start from behind and play catch up.

Hopefully, www.residentpriority.ca (http://www.residentpriority.ca) awakens the sleeping giant. I know it has certainly got me putting my money where my mouth is, and all resident hunters reading this RIGHT NOW need to log on and contribute what they can ($5 is $5 guys!) to protect their rights to hunt in this province.
$5 I think I will put mine towards a LEH application card at least that's giving me some sort of opportunity. You guys should listen a little more to what willy has to say about what battles your trying to fight.

[6616]

Just to set the record straight, the BCWF has no agenda or intention of attempting to run non-resident hunting or guide-outfitting out of BC. The overall viability of hunting in general as it relates to economic returns and contributions to the province is substantially boosted by the guide-outfitting industry, as is the strength of the political voice of hunting in general.

The BCWF is only reacting to the current "grab" attempt of resident hunting opportunities GOABC has mounted and they always will and have no choice in this. This issue could partially be settled if non-resident harvest was simply limited and legislated to a fixed percentage of the AAH instead of relying on policy which has many loopholes. (Note the former allocation policy had many more loopholes than the new one)

The BCWF has attempted alliances with the enviro-movement before, and every time we came away with our ass scorched. The BCWF has also allied with GOABC on many occasions in the past and the results were very positive (IE: re-instating the grizzly bear hunt). The BCWF/GOABC alliances on certain issues will continue in the long run and the BCWF/GOABC opposition on isses relating to non-resident allocation will also likely continue but hopefully will not be allowed to impact the "big picture" issues.

At the present time this potential alliance is threatened by the aggressive stance GOABC is taking over wildlife allocation and species management, and the best advice for them would be to "stand down" because the BCWF cannot avoid reacting to this whether they like it or not. Potential alliances between the BCWF and GOABC could also be threatened by GOABC inter-actions with FN, but that's another whole different topic.

Yes, this entire issue is a huge waste of BCWF time and resources when both the BCWF and GOABC have bigger fish to fry in the long term, and we'd just as soon not be doing this and would prefer to concentrate on conservation activities and the bigger political and wildlife management issues.

Problem is this issue will continue to be a huge waste of time and resources unless the GOABC tempers it's campaign to reduce resident hunting opportunities, because the BCWF will not and cannot stand down as long as the GOABC maintains this campaign. Government has had deaf ears in regards to the BCWF concerns, thus it has been necessary to engage the public with the ad program, and the <residentpriority.ca> fund has done just that. This is probably the only avenue left open for resident hunters to impact this situation, so send in your donation, hopefully it will result in another ad or two, and in the end hopefully kill this sickening controversy once and for all so we can all just get back to business.

[Gilmore]

Just to set the record straight, the BCWF has no agenda or intention of attempting to run non-resident hunting or guide-outfitting out of BC. The overall viability of hunting in general as it relates to economic returns and contributions to the province is substantially boosted by the guide-outfitting industry, as is the strength of the political voice of hunting in general.

The BCWF is only reacting to the current "grab" attempt of resident hunting opportunities GOABC has mounted and they always will and have no choice in this. This issue could partially be settled if non-resident harvest was simply limited and legislated to a fixed percentage of the AAH instead of relying on policy which has many loopholes. (Note the former allocation policy had many more loopholes than the new one)

The BCWF has attempted alliances with the enviro-movement before, and every time we came away with our ass scorched. The BCWF has also allied with GOABC on many occasions in the past and the results were very positive (IE: re-instating the grizzly bear hunt). The BCWF/GOABC alliances on certain issues will continue in the long run and the BCWF/GOABC opposition on isses relating to non-resident allocation will also likely continue but hopefully will not be allowed to impact the "big picture" issues.

At the present time this potential alliance is threatened by the aggressive stance GOABC is taking over wildlife allocation and species management, and the best advice for them would be to "stand down" because the BCWF cannot avoid reacting to this whether they like it or not. Potential alliances between the BCWF and GOABC could also be threatened by GOABC inter-actions with FN, but that's another whole different topic.

Yes, this entire issue is a huge waste of BCWF time and resources when both the BCWF and GOABC have bigger fish to fry in the long term, and we'd just as soon not be doing this and would prefer to concentrate on conservation activities and the bigger political and wildlife management issues.

Problem is this issue will continue to be a huge waste of time and resources unless the GOABC tempers it's campaign to reduce resident hunting opportunities, because the BCWF will not and cannot stand down as long as the GOABC maintains this campaign. Government has had deaf ears in regards to the BCWF concerns, thus it has been necessary to engage the public with the ad program, and the <residentpriority.ca> fund has done just that. This is probably the only avenue left open for resident hunters to impact this situation, so send in your donation, hopefully it will result in another ad or two, and in the end hopefully kill this sickening controversy once and for all so we can all just get back to business.

Bingo! Well said.

[GoatGuy]

we could then turn our fight to the Anti's (nature tourism). Whom will probably then side with the Natives and then we are doubly screwed.


Carl

too late for that.

[bigwhiteys]

too late for that.
Yeah and it's only going to get worse! Especially when they see $$$.

Carl

[GoatGuy]

Yeah and it's only going to get worse! Especially when they see $$$.

Carl
too late for that too. pretty bleak.

[Devilbear]

SafariChris, just a note here, my comments that you responded to on top of Page 18, were not directed at you; they were in reply to "Bear Chaser".

The whole "brou-ha-ha" about how the "environmentalists" have damaged BC industry is "lunchbucket" level bullshit. The BC forest industry was "broken" by excessive wage/benefits to unskilled IWA members, a lack of investment in new technology and more efficient plants by the oftimes foreign-owned corporate "owners" of these plants and governments that would not practice sound management of the resource base and allowed the travesty of "Tree Farms" to continue. These, plus the "cave-in" to aggressive Yankee policies and treaty breaking are what brought the industry down, not the "environmentalists".

The NDP were as bad as the Socreds and current Liberals, the environmental problems in BC are severe, getting worse and the 30,000+ members of the BCWF have not and cannot do very much about these without an alliance with larger environmental groups. But, if the BCWF "old guard", wants to ally themselves with the GOABC, so be it; I expect that the same old, same old, will continue and the GOs will laugh all the way to their foreign banks.

[6616]

Alot of you guys are friggin hypocrits they preach about no G/O's yet go hunting in alberta, saskatchewan, Yukon, NWT, USA, Africa.

"i live in BC i should have every right to hunt here before a non resident, its my right Because I was here first."

I don't see anything wrong with British Columbians expecting to be able to hunt in BC before non-residents can hunt. That resident expectation is the same in all other North American jurisdictions.

I believe non-residents should be allowed to hunt in BC, but I also believe non-resident allocations should be reasonable and should not dramatically impact resident opportunities. This expectation is also the same in all other north american jurisdictions.

Alberta allocates about 5 to 7 % of the annual harvest to non-residents depending on species. Saskatchewan allocates no opportunties to non-resident if a species is on LEH because this means the needs of residents are not being met. The highest percentage of harvest allocated to non-residents in Saskatchewan is moose in the GOS zones and that percentage share is 14%. Nearly all the Pacific-Northwestern US states limit non-resident harvest to 10% of the AAH.

Why should BC be any different then the above. Why should we be giving 25 to 40 % of the AAH to non-residents while residents are subject to LEH odds of up to 100:1 or worse in some cases. The BCWF has pretty much already accepted that 25% of the BC harvest wiill go to non-residents, is this not enough, is this not a very generous share compared to other jurisdictions, why does the GOABC feel they need to campaign for more or campaign for regulations to hinder resident hunting?

It is not hypocracy to have the same expectations to harvest game on a percentage basis of the AAH, similar to other resident hunters in other jurisdictions....! That's all we really ask for..! Is that too much to expect..?

[willy442]

Guy's: Just a few area's where we should be directing our arguements are. Get funds for tags etc, taken out of general revenue. Have them put back into the wildlife and adminisration, where it came from.
Make politicains accountable for having this accomplished.
Get funds back into game counts, wardens and studies in a manner that, once undertaken these are completed in a timely fashion and the good info applied immediately.
Continue debate between user groups on allocation of tags. Have a proper and fair policy drawn up, with the best interest of wildlife setting the harvest.
Show government that all hunters band together and forward resolutions to them in a united fashion.
Yes it's going to take some eating crow by a few to accomplish these items. Once done though, can you imagine the power of the hunter period. The path we take now is not one of success, when it looks like infants fighting through a fence.

[Bear Chaser]

SafariChris, just a note here, my comments that you responded to on top of Page 18, were not directed at you; they were in reply to "Bear Chaser".


I would like to assure you Sir that your comments regarding my employment couldn't be farther from the truth. I am not on a first name basis with any GO's. I have not at any time in my past worked for one or their association. I do know some former guides and have enjoyed hunting with them much the same as I would most guys that know what they are doing. My point in all of this is that all hunters must stick together and work toward constructive solutions not resort to namecalling and kicking each other in the shins. I have no doubt that the GOABC has resorted to skullduggery in the past & will continue to do so in the future. Ranting & raving about running them out of the province while threatening to get into bed with environmentallists on HUNTING issues will get us nowhere.

[Rubicon500]

Read the full msg 6616, I wasnt saying you. Im talking about the guys in the 27 pages of this BS thread that directly said they want NO NON RESIDENT HUNTERS IN BC. TO many people have the NIMBY attitude. Hell if we got rid of the G/O's in BC I wouldnt complain at all, but thats not being realistic and putting them on a witch hunt like you guys did to shockey isnt going to amount to jack shiit. Hell, Rich ( bridger ) obviosuly supports guided hunts as hes gone a few times for dall sheep, yet hes the first to bitchh about them here.

[Rubicon500]

6616 grabs a stats book and look at NWT and the resident to Non resident harvest numbers ? You think we got it bad ? Look at Dall Sheep Harvest in NWT in perticular

[6616]

Guy's: Just a few area's where we should be directing our arguements are. Get funds for tags etc, taken out of general revenue. Have them put back into the wildlife and adminisration, where it came from.
Make politicains accountable for having this accomplished.
Get funds back into game counts, wardens and studies in a manner that, once undertaken these are completed in a timely fashion and the good info applied immediately.
Continue debate between user groups on allocation of tags. Have a proper and fair policy drawn up, with the best interest of wildlife setting the harvest.
Show government that all hunters band together and forward resolutions to them in a united fashion.
Yes it's going to take some eating crow by a few to accomplish these items. Once done though, can you imagine the power of the hunter period. The path we take now is not one of success, when it looks like infants fighting through a fence.

Willie, the BCWF and the GOABC have jointly and cooperatively been pushing each and everyone of these objectives you identify for decades, so many resolutions and proposals to effect these necessary changes have been forwarded to government it's beyond being able to count them all, and it hasn't mattered which political party has been in power.

Many, many, of these proposals were joint proposals between the BCWF, GOABC and the BCTA, and that hasn't made a huge difference either. Many times these issues were discussed at high level committees like PHRAAC, and even though there has been complete and unanamous agreement between the BCWF, GOABC, and the BCTA on these issues many of them remain outstanding.

It really does appear that hunting, guide-outfitting, and wildlife management, are together, or seperately, just too small of an issue and do not hold enough importance in the overall scheme of politics in BC to be taken seriously by government or the majority of the citizens of BC. The bottom line seems to be that nobody but us gives much of a ratz azz and we're, either apart or jointly, just too small in number to effect a change.

This is one of the reasons why BCWF is so supportive of recruitment and retention of hunters. The high level managers in the Fish and Wildlife Branch are also aware of these limiting issues and that's why they themselves initiated the recruitment/retention strategy in the first place.

So the fight goes on, and probably always will....!

[Gateholio]

Seems revelant to me, it still dont change the fact if someone goes guided for hunting in a different province then preaches that there should be NO guide outfitts in BC makes them sound like a hypocrit does it not ?

It's not important to the conversation, but no, I don't think they are hypocrites.

If a person believes that the best thing for their province is no GO's that is what they believe. Let the residents of other provinces sort out what is best for their province. If that includes hosting foreign hunters, then so be it- The residents of that province have decided they want you there...

[6616]

Willie, the BCWF and the GOABC have jointly and cooperatively been pushing each and everyone of these objectives you identify for decades, so many resolutions and proposals to effect these necessary changes have been forwarded to government it's beyond being able to count them all, and it hasn't mattered which political party has been in power.

Many, many, of these proposals were joint proposals between the BCWF, GOABC and the BCTA, and that hasn't made a huge difference either. Many times these issues were discussed at high level committees like PHRAAC, and even though there has been complete and unanamous agreement between the BCWF, GOABC, and the BCTA on these issues many of them remain outstanding.

It really does appear that hunting, guide-outfitting, and wildlife management, are together, or seperately, just too small of an issue and do not hold enough importance in the overall scheme of politics in BC to be taken seriously by government or the majority of the citizens of BC. The bottom line seems to be that nobody but us gives much of a ratz azz and we're, either apart or jointly, just too small in number to effect a change.

This is one of the reasons why BCWF is so supportive of recruitment and retention of hunters. The high level managers in the Fish and Wildlife Branch are also aware of these limiting issues and that's why they themselves initiated the recruitment/retention strategy in the first place.

So the fight goes on, and probably always will....!

PS:
The BCWF has contracted a professional review and developed an in depth report on the economic and social benefits of hunting in BC. The GOABC has twice in the last ten years developed reports and briefs on the economic contributions of the guide-outfitting industry to the BC economy. MOE itself has published reports on the social and economic benefits of hunting as have governments from several other provinces and states.

These reports were all submitted numerous times to Victoria, and have passed across many Minister's desks in Victoria, and like water trickles through your finger tips, they end up hidden in the archive files in the basements of the offices on Blanchard Street.

Still the fight goes on and probably always will,,,, and more reports and briefs will be developed over time.

[6616]

Read the full msg 6616, I wasnt saying you. Im talking about the guys in the 27 pages of this BS thread that directly said they want NO NON RESIDENT HUNTERS IN BC. TO many people have the NIMBY attitude. Hell if we got rid of the G/O's in BC I wouldnt complain at all, but thats not being realistic and putting them on a witch hunt like you guys did to shockey isnt going to amount to jack shiit. Hell, Rich ( bridger ) obviosuly supports guided hunts as hes gone a few times for dall sheep, yet hes the first to bitchh about them here.

Like I said before R500, and even though I cannot speak for him, I think it's fair to guess that Rich feels the same way --- we do not object to non-residents coming here on a guided hunt, we do not object to a viable guide-outfitting industry in BC, we do not see anything hypocritical about going to other states and provinces for either a guided or self outfitted hunt,,,,,,, all we want is a fair balance between resident and non-resident opportunities in BC, and for GOABC to accept that fair balance.

[Devilbear]

I would like to assure you Sir that your comments regarding my employment couldn't be farther from the truth. I am not on a first name basis with any GO's. I have not at any time in my past worked for one or their association. I do know some former guides and have enjoyed hunting with them much the same as I would most guys that know what they are doing. My point in all of this is that all hunters must stick together and work toward constructive solutions not resort to namecalling and kicking each other in the shins. I have no doubt that the GOABC has resorted to skullduggery in the past & will continue to do so in the future. Ranting & raving about running them out of the province while threatening to get into bed with environmentallists on HUNTING issues will get us nowhere.

Those were the impressions I had from your post, hence my comments.

I AM an environmentalist, have been for almost 50 years and am among the founders of a couple of the environmental groups in BC...and I am gawdamm proud of it. I ALSO was asked to sit on the Lower Mainland BDWF executive years ago and have been a member for well over 30 years.

So, I have and do actively work for conservation and we cannot win without the involvement of other environmental groups, the numbers are just not there, like it or not.

[willy442]

Willie, the BCWF and the GOABC have jointly and cooperatively been pushing each and everyone of these objectives you identify for decades, so many resolutions and proposals to effect these necessary changes have been forwarded to government it's beyond being able to count them all, and it hasn't mattered which political party has been in power.

Many, many, of these proposals were joint proposals between the BCWF, GOABC and the BCTA, and that hasn't made a huge difference either. Many times these issues were discussed at high level committees like PHRAAC, and even though there has been complete and unanamous agreement between the BCWF, GOABC, and the BCTA on these issues many of them remain outstanding.

It really does appear that hunting, guide-outfitting, and wildlife management, are together, or seperately, just too small of an issue and do not hold enough importance in the overall scheme of politics in BC to be taken seriously by government or the majority of the citizens of BC. The bottom line seems to be that nobody but us gives much of a ratz azz and we're, either apart or jointly, just too small in number to effect a change.

This is one of the reasons why BCWF is so supportive of recruitment and retention of hunters. The high level managers in the Fish and Wildlife Branch are also aware of these limiting issues and that's why they themselves initiated the recruitment/retention strategy in the first place.

So the fight goes on, and probably always will....!

Is there not a new fund created to promote and insure resident hunting.
Maybe there is a little more merrit than some would like to admit on the new blood I suggested. Every time you post it packs alot of negativity, due to a failed past on these issue's, I presume. United and Strong we direct the managers, how do we get there? I don't know but some fresh constructive thinking instead of mis-interpitations and accusations, might just be a start.
The rare occassion when everyone has to appear united, it fails because of wars on other fronts.

[Fisher-Dude]

Is there not a new fund created to promote and insure resident hunting.
Maybe there is a little more merrit than some would like to admit on the new blood I suggested. Every time you post it packs alot of negativity, due to a failed past on these issue's, I presume. United and Strong we direct the managers, how do we get there? I don't know but some fresh constructive thinking instead of mis-interpitations and accusations, might just be a start.
The rare occassion when everyone has to appear united, it fails because of wars on other fronts.

A united front would be awesome. So why did the GOABC start the war?

[d6dan]

Saskatchewan allocates no opportunties to non-resident if a species is on LEH because this means the needs of residents are not being met. The highest percentage of harvest allocated to non-residents in Saskatchewan is moose in the GOS zones and that percentage share is 14%
This is what should be done here in BC.
We are put on LEH for Roosevelt elk, yet the G/O's get a quota to hunt. If the herds are at risk to a GOS, then the G/O's should'nt have any Rossevelt elk to hunt until the needs of the "resident" hunter is met..

[Devilbear]

[quote=6616;591265
It really does appear that hunting, guide-outfitting, and wildlife management, are together, or seperately, just too small of an issue and do not hold enough importance in the overall scheme of politics in BC to be taken seriously by government or the majority of the citizens of BC. The bottom line seems to be that nobody but us gives much of a ratz azz and we're, either apart or jointly, just too small in number to effect a change. [/quote]

EXACTLY, that is what I keep trying to point out here, we are, essentially, "beat" before we start.

NUMBERS, gents, NUMBERS are what "pols" look at, as Stephen Rogers, when a Cabinet Minister in Bill Bennet's government told me, in so many words, twenty years ago, while BSing in Reliable Gun here in Vancity. All the macho bullshit about "greenies" and the rest of the crap here will not and does not mean SFA, as hunters are not numerous enough to have much political impact.

The major, mainstream environmental groups in the US, have recently been SUPPORTIVE of resident hunting in the western USA and, I am sure that this could happen here and in a way that WOULD give us the "clout" we have never had and need so badly. Why not? What can it hurt to try?

Nobody says that a "good ol'" BC hunter has to start slurping that "Starbuck's" muck they call coffee, I hate that slop myself. You can even prefer that vile swill "Kokanee" to real beer, such as "Nelson Paddywhack" or "Dead Frog", BUT, ignoring the potential of an alliance with the most successful social movement in North America since WWII is, IMO, rather self-defeating.

[6616]

6616 grabs a stats book and look at NWT and the resident to Non resident harvest numbers ? You think we got it bad ? Look at Dall Sheep Harvest in NWT in perticular

That's not even close to being a fair comparison R500, and I'm sure you know that..!

BC has a population of 4.4 million people and between 90,000 and 95,000 resident hunters.

Yukon has a population of 31,000, the NWT has a population of 43,000. I'm sure it's very easy to allocate enough resident hunting opportunities to fulfill the needs of resident hunters in the territories.

Considering the vast amount of wildlife, I highly doubt if Yukon and NWT residents ever experience any shortage of hunting opportunites due to the activities of guide-outfitters.

[Fisher-Dude]

Possibly, all perspective sides, should consider grooming a person for the B.C. Political theater and who has our interests at heart. Somebody with the interests that think on the same lines with regards Hunting as Teddy Roosevelt did. It's all Political is it not? It was mentioned the membership no's in one quote. If he runs, you can add one more supporter and membership to your roster.

We have Bill Bennett - he said at the BCWF convention that he polled all 79 MLAs, and he was the only hunter. Dismal eh?

[6616]

Maybe there is a little more merrit than some would like to admit on the new blood I suggested. Every time you post it packs alot of negativity, due to a failed past on these issue's, I presume.

New blood you say, I guess that means you know everyone on the BCWF board and in the BCWF committee structure, and thus how long they have been involved....and who the good old boys really are....right..? Hey,,, goatguy is new blood, and he has one of the sharpest analytical minds I've seen in some time, but you won't support him either...???

Negativity, well maybe, but try getting beat on from government, from guide-outfitters, from anti-hunters, even from your own members at times, and last but not least from guys like you who think they have all the answers, but do nothing to develop those answers but chirp on the internet.... yah Willie try that for a few years and I'm sure you will develop some cynicalism as well...!

[Stone Sheep Steve]

New blood you say, I guess that means you know everyone on the BCWF board and in the BCWF committee structure, and thus how long they have been involved....and who the good old boys really are....right..? Hey,,, goatguy is new blood, and he has one of the sharpest analytical minds I've seen in some time, but you won't support him either...???

Negativity, well maybe, but try getting beat on from government, from guide-outfitters, from anti-hunters, even from your own members at times, and last but not least from guys like you who think they have all the answers, but do nothing to develop those answers but chirp on the internet.... yah Willie try that for a few years and I'm sure you will develop some cynicalism as well...!


I think by the "Good ole Boys" in the Fed Willy means honest, hard working, honorable people with integrity...where a handshake means something. Maybe we should get some dishonest, backstabbers like the GOABC in the Fed? Fight fire with fire:roll:.......not.

SSS

[willy442]

A united front would be awesome. So why did the GOABC start the war?

Get past grade 1!:(

[willy442]

New blood you say, I guess that means you know everyone on the BCWF board and in the BCWF committee structure, and thus how long they have been involved....and who the good old boys really are....right..? Hey,,, goatguy is new blood, and he has one of the sharpest analytical minds I've seen in some time, but you won't support him either...???

Negativity, well maybe, but try getting beat on from government, from guide-outfitters, from anti-hunters, even from your own members at times, and last but not least from guys like you who think they have all the answers, but do nothing to develop those answers but chirp on the internet.... yah Willie try that for a few years and I'm sure you will develop some cynicalism as well...!

It's all about change and those that fail to, will be left behind.
GG is no doubt new blood. Just don't get him hung up on the good old kick. We need people that see past the "Who" started it mentality.

On the negativity thing. Many years as a Guide has left me feeling the same on all fronts ie. Ministry, BCWF and BCGOA for many years now.

[willy442]

I think by the "Good ole Boys" in the Fed Willy means honest, hard working, honorable people with integrity...where a handshake means something. Maybe we should get some dishonest, backstabbers like the GOABC in the Fed? Fight fire with fire:roll:.......not.

SSS

You've been trying that for years and getting out manouvered everytime by the G/O's. So good idea "whiz kid." The bad guy here is the one stuck in that old rut of the past. Stay there and loose "guaranteed":(

[6616]

You've been trying that for years and getting out manouvered everytime by the G/O's. So good idea "whiz kid." The bad guy here is the one stuck in that old rut of the past. Stay there and loose "guaranteed":(

I'm not so sure we've been out manouvered "everytime", and this one ain't over 'til the fat lady sings...!

[Kody94]

We really have got SFA goin' on if we are readin' this thread on New Years Eve. :)

[bridger]

You've been trying that for years and getting out manouvered everytime by the G/O's. So good idea "whiz kid." The bad guy here is the one stuck in that old rut of the past. Stay there and loose "guaranteed":(

this issue is going around in circles and getting no where. The BCWF and the good old boys that represent the Fed as you call us have repeatedly gone on record stating that we support a viable guiding industry in bc. I think the harvest share we agreed to under the new allocation policy reflects that principle. So why isn't the goabc satisfied? why push residents towards more leh hunts that are not warranted. why tell us that we should be hunting quality animals? let us decide what we want to do with our share of the harvest. As far as the push from the goabc towards quality hunting my experience tells me this is a ploy to further reduce resident opportunites. take a look at guide outfitter websites and the grandslam magazine lots of pictures there of smaller trophies. This tells me that most non residents just want to come to bc to hunt and if they get a big head great if not and they have a great time that is ok as well. Same as resident hunters and that is the way it should be. There is lots of room both for groups to hunt in bc. I will state again that the bcwf has better things to do than continually fight a rear guard action. outfitters have a large share of the harvest. Why not be satisfied and abandon the campaign against the average resident hunter.

[DV-67]

Anyone who thinks that hunters should align with enviromentalists should have their head examined.:frown:

If they had there way we would not be able to walk in the bush if we were not on a designated trail with an interprative guide explaining the ways of the forest to us before leading us back to Starbucks for a Latte.:mad:

Oh and don't forget your baggie to pack your feces out of the bush with you:icon_frow

[mark]

Not me... I'm not against guiding in principle I think this provinces resources have room for everyone but the GO's have to stay in line and that line starts right behind the residents. Not trying to leapfrog over our backs after a supossed deal has been made namely the allocation policy.

I hear talk of division and infighting but you know someone had to fire the first shot and it wasn't me or my hunting partners nor any other resident hunter of this province. I hear GO's saying they have spent money on this and on that to help the animals of this province, and rightly so. I spend into the thousands every year hunting the animals of this province while the guides make into the millions every year hunting the same animals. I think that residents and GO's can co-exist in this province, but don't come knocking on my door telling me I need to now get an LEH for my moose because we need a few more trophy sized animals for some guy from Germany.

Now Willy will go on saying I'm small minded, can't see the bigger picture or the real issues like he has many times, but I do see it. We are looking at the same picture but seeing two different paintings is all. The GO"s want more, bigger and better and there is only one place to get it...the resident.


My take is very simple...if its on GOS then guides can take clients....LEH is resident only....you'll see the guides pushing for open seasons then. If there are not enough animals for any resident to buy a tag and go hunting then charging $10,000. more should not get you to the front of the line. I have no problem with selling off the excess but not selling tags that the residents are seeing odds of 100-1 for.
MY 2 CENTS

Good posts Gilmore, and Palmer this is how I fell also!


Guy's: Just a few area's where we should be directing our arguements are. Get funds for tags etc, taken out of general revenue. Have them put back into the wildlife and adminisration, where it came from.
Make politicains accountable for having this accomplished.
Get funds back into game counts, wardens and studies in a manner that, once undertaken these are completed in a timely fashion and the good info applied immediately.
Continue debate between user groups on allocation of tags. Have a proper and fair policy drawn up, with the best interest of wildlife setting the harvest.
Show government that all hunters band together and forward resolutions to them in a united fashion.
Yes it's going to take some eating crow by a few to accomplish these items. Once done though, can you imagine the power of the hunter period. The path we take now is not one of success, when it looks like infants fighting through a fence.

So your suggesting that the resident hunter should just roll over and eat crow??? Take the knife in the back, move on so we can work together??
Maybe the GOABC shouldnt have started a war if we should be working together right now????




The rare occassion when everyone has to appear united, it fails because of wars on other fronts.

Like FD said, a united front would be awesome, so why did the GOABC start the war???? And dont dodge the question, with sugar coated, diversions, answer it "truthfully"!




Get past grade 1!:(

Ya know willy, I have been following this thread from the beginning, I havnt added to this because I dont have the researched knowledge, or the age, or experiance, that many of you do.

You are certainly supporting 1 side of this debate, but everytime someone asks you a direct question, you divert the answer with some crap like your above post!

I'am pretty much an "average Joe resident hunter" never had much problem with the Guiding industry in my life.
BUT....the GOABC's efforts to restrict my hunting opportunity, combined with your posts has developed a serious hatred towards the GOABC and all I can think of these days is "how can we get revenge on them *******s"!
Like someone mentioned, you are probably the best thing going for the "resident priority fund" :)

Go ahead, tell me Im fighting the wrong war, and theres bigger issues in our future :roll:.

[000buck]

Most stay shy of this type of controversy, because they actually see how mislead the general hunting public is, on many of these issue's. Remember if a G/O fails to hunt an area in a proper manner, promoting conservation and enhancement, while also including resident harvest pressures, the longevity of his business is then at question.
The radicals on this site ie, FD, DB and to some extent Bridger would like to see the industry stopped or extremly limited in opportunity. However the viability of the industry depends on the availability of opportunity through quota and tags. Many have a different opinion on what makes a viable industry and this is the meat of the Resident verses G/O battle from the guides side. Throw everyones greed and the fact guides generally out hunt the resident into the issue and it becomes an all out war between two parties. When in the end both should want the same thing.(SUSTAINABLE NUMBERS OF UNGULATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF HUNTING) for everyone.
In my opinion, Blah blah blah. However this is just an old guides opinion.

If a hunt goes Leh that means there is not enough animals for me to just go get one... that means there sure as hell ain't enough for G/O' s to be selling them off for personal gain to " world wide intrests ".

We already sit behind our first nations people at the dinner table here. you can get bent if you think that i'm gonna slide back a space for yank or a libbian or what ever form of i just wanna kill a big one you keep the meat glory hound will pay the highest price.

I am canadian, born and raised. Second class citizen to the world.

[Devilbear]

With respect to DV67's remarks, this is the sort of comment that makes hunters look like what the extremist fringe of the environmental movement trys to portray us as to the general public. This is a "lowbrow", "redneck", "illiterate" and "Bambi killer" image that is EXACTLY what we need to avoid.

We hunters, are a TINY minority of votes/voices, only 1/3 of whom even bother to support through membership in the BCWF, any REAL attempts at conservation and promoting responsible hunting and angling wthin the larger community. BC is a complex, fast changing and highly urbanized society, where the huge influx of "non-traditional" immigrants and the radicalization of the aboriginal population have influenced political decision making so that the voice of we hunters is seldom considered in major landuse or resource allocations.

This will not change unless and until we have MORE voices which equal MORE votes and the way to obtain these is to form alliances with other groups such as the mainstream environmental movement.....most of whom are as pizzed off with "PETA", etc. as we are.

But, we can always allow things to proceed as they have been and quietly watch as we lose our hunting because we prefer to delude ourselves about our REAL political influence.

I think that such an alliance, in BC's current political climate is both realistic and the most effective means of gaining the political support we need to save our resident hunting. The very letter to the "Village Voice", that initiated this thread was written by a self-styled, longtime "environmentalist", who is a retired professional biologist AND a HUNTER who eats ONLY wild meat. I know this as I took the time to phone her and chat with her about these issues.....I like to base my comments on facts and actual experience.

So, I think that the way forward is clear, either we find the numbers/votes or we will lose our hunting.

[bridger]

But, we can always allow things to proceed as they have been and quietly watch as we lose our hunting because we prefer to delude ourselves about our REAL political influence.

.

So, I think that the way forward is clear, either we find the numbers/votes or we will lose our hunting.

I agree with getting more numbers not sure about aligning with anti's. imo we have enough hunters to protect our hunting interests. the trouble is out of 95,000 resident hunters only 1/3 belong to the bcwf. i have stated before on the site that if every resident hunter in the province joined the bcwf and sent a $100 donation to the resident preservation fund this confrontation with the gobac would disapper in a hearbeat. So guys the ball is in our court if want to maintain our hunting opportunities let's get together and unite in a strong voice.

[Devilbear]

I have never suggested anything about an alliance with ...antis..., as I think my posts make clear. The stereotyping of all "environmentalists" as "antis" is not only false, it is a large part of WHY we do not have the support from them that would enable us to have far more influence in Victoria.

There is no real difference between this sort of stereotypical labeling and the "PETA" supporters who call ALL hunters various names, such as "bloodthirsty killers", "guys with small dicks", "cowards afraid of Nature when they don't have a big gun" and on and on, "ad nauseum". You have heard this type of bullshit and so have most here; I am simply saying that there is probably a better way.

But, on the other hand, at my age, I have seen enough in BC resource issues to realize that hunting for most is going and even 90,000 voices out of 4,400,000 residents will not make much difference. In any event, I believe in alliances and cooperation and I seriously doubt that the BCWF WILL EVER grow in membership percentage relative to hunter numbers, so, alliance is a sound option, IMHO.

Think that I am done here, "che sera, sera", what will be, will be.........

[Will]

i have stated before on the site that if every resident hunter in the province joined the bcwf
Without question this needs to happen.

For the cost of a box or two of ammo a year I don't get why more do not.....:?

[willy442]

Good posts Gilmore, and Palmer this is how I fell also!



So your suggesting that the resident hunter should just roll over and eat crow??? Take the knife in the back, move on so we can work together??
Maybe the GOABC shouldnt have started a war if we should be working together right now????



Like FD said, a united front would be awesome, so why did the GOABC start the war???? And dont dodge the question, with sugar coated, diversions, answer it "truthfully"!





Ya know willy, I have been following this thread from the beginning, I havnt added to this because I dont have the researched knowledge, or the age, or experiance, that many of you do.

You are certainly supporting 1 side of this debate, but everytime someone asks you a direct question, you divert the answer with some crap like your above post!

I'am pretty much an "average Joe resident hunter" never had much problem with the Guiding industry in my life.
BUT....the GOABC's efforts to restrict my hunting opportunity, combined with your posts has developed a serious hatred towards the GOABC and all I can think of these days is "how can we get revenge on them *******s"!
Like someone mentioned, you are probably the best thing going for the "resident priority fund" :)

Go ahead, tell me Im fighting the wrong war, and theres bigger issues in our future :roll:.

First off until you can show me where everyone signed an agreement on the new allocation policy and the guides then failed to honor it. You have no basis to blame anyone for starting a war.
Secondly when are you people going to get your head out of your ass and realize we have to work together to keep our ability to hunt alive?
The guides are wanting nothing more than to base harvest levels on what is available. The res arguement of spike moose or raising trophy animals for quality hunts can be accomplished easily. Seperate the animals into catagories and treat them seperatley. Allow the meat hunter opportunity to get his meat, but make the trophy hunter be a little above the average cut. Example; Put time into teaching hunters to judge sheep both in age and horn length prior to selling them a tag. Learn the ways of telling Billy goats from Nannies, be able to tell male and female bears appart. Also on sheep. How many does a person need kill? Hunt them all you want but keep a level of improvement in quality as you go. I know for a fact that many on here have 3 to 6 Stone Rams and most of them are dinks. The old regulations of take a Ram every year if over the age of 8 or every three years if a was taken underage, was the best Sheep management tool we had. It kept the guides in the back country hunting old rams and stopped the slaughter of 6 and 7 year olds. Why is it gone or not reimplimented. What is wrong with putting a higher expectation on the trophy hunter?

As far as me being the best hell raiser against the guides. Good if it gets some of your tale feathers rattled, more of might take part in a little research before spouting off in a post like this.

Happy New Year

[willy442]

It might not be the perfect solution; I do know there is strength in numbers. Why not let’s say the three main factions (Native, GOA and B.C.W.F.) create a board for one reason only. To confront the impediments that are out there and they are there. Sure there will be differences, but they will be internal. As a united front, you guys would have a strong base and wield a mighty big stick both in Province and Internationally.

Thats been my point forever on this site Chris. Too many are satisfied with typing trash on here from thier couch, too even attend a meeting where they may learn something.
If the BCWF cannot get the resident hunter organized, they will continued to be hand cuffed by lack of support and nothing will change. The other 2 groups are organized and could be at a round table very quickly if the agenda was there.

[6616]

It might not be the perfect solution; I do know there is strength in numbers. Why not let’s say the three main factions (Native, GOA and B.C.W.F.) create a board for one reason only. To confront the impediments that are out there and they are there. Sure there will be differences, but they will be internal. As a united front, you guys would have a strong base and wield a mighty big stick both in Province and Internationally.

Well it's not like this has never been tried. The BCWF and GOABC have worked in concert on many issues in the past, it's a little more complicated with FN, the BCWF has reached out to FN on more then one occasion, they just don't want (or need to) to seriously ally with anyone while they have G to G status.

One of the problems is identified in your post Chris, why do you say "you guys", are you not a British Columbian resident hunter, did you not state you have never belonged to any club or organization, maybe there's too many hunters in BC with the "you guys" attitude waiting for the BCWF to do the dirty work for them. We're all in this together, a prominent and well know figure like yourself could make a meaningful difference if you became one of the "us guys".

[6616]

Very bad wording on my part. I apologize. I have been out of the fold for several years and now only getting my feet wet.
Cheers.

No need to apologize, and no offence intended Chris.

[bridger]

I agree that working in harmony with the goabc towards a common goal is the ultimate solution. that is why we put so much effort into wrapping up a new allocation policy at the request of the goabc and contrary to what sheriff willie says the harvest shares for both residency groups were approved by the goabc negotiating team which included the then goabc president. I know that. I was at the table so let's not waste anymore time on that issue. Let's accept the premise that resident hunters have priority in our own province like they do in the rest of the country and every american state and get on to more important issues. The predator control program that we had in region 7b in the eighties is a perfect example. A joint effort by the bcwf and the goabc convinced government to take on the project. it had spectacular results in terms of increased ungulate populations. it's been downhll in the sun every since.

[luckynuts]

[quote=willy442;591944]make the trophy hunter be a little above the average cut. Example; Put time into teaching hunters to judge sheep both in age and horn length prior to selling them a tag. Learn the ways of telling Billy goats from Nannies, be able to tell male and female bears appart.

Willy I totally agree with you here But this same teaching must be drilled into the outfitters as well. I have hundreds of hunting mags starting from the early 80's and on and in the last 10 yrs many of the stories show american hunters harvesting nanny goats, stating even though it's a nanny it is still a worthy trophy due to the extreme hunting conditions yada yada yada. Again same thing with sheep look at the advertisments in BGA and other mags only to find barely above the nose full curls. I understand that GO's don't want to show pics of huge rams as it attracts attention to their areas though I have seen some dinks get trailed out of the bush:wink:


Also on sheep. How many does a person need kill? Hunt them all you want but keep a level of improvement in quality as you go. I know for a fact that many on here have 3 to 6 Stone Rams and most of them are dinks. The old regulations of take a Ram every year if over the age of 8 or every three years if a was taken underage, was the best Sheep management tool we had. It kept the guides in the back country hunting old rams and stopped the slaughter of 6 and 7 year olds. Why is it gone or not reimplimented. What is wrong with putting a higher expectation on the trophy hunter?

Again I agree and do like the old regs as long as they apply to everyone. this would ensure a good hunt for clients and residents a like as it would relieve some pressure. Though as all animals are managed I'm sure the outfitters would soon be saying the residents aren't meeting quota and thus should be given more tags:rolleyes:. I believe we could work together and I really believe we have to work together if we want to keep on enjoying our hunting rights and the outdoors.

Thanks for posting

W.

[willy442]

[quote=willy442;591944]make the trophy hunter be a little above the average cut. Example; Put time into teaching hunters to judge sheep both in age and horn length prior to selling them a tag. Learn the ways of telling Billy goats from Nannies, be able to tell male and female bears appart.


Willy I totally agree with you here But this same teaching must be drilled into the outfitters as well. I have hundreds of hunting mags starting from the early 80's and on and in the last 10 yrs many of the stories show american hunters harvesting nanny goats, stating even though it's a nanny it is still a worthy trophy due to the extreme hunting conditions yada yada yada. Again same thing with sheep look at the advertisments in BGA and other mags only to find barely above the nose full curls. I understand that GO's don't want to show pics of huge rams as it attracts attention to their areas though I have seen some dinks get trailed out of the bush:wink:


Also on sheep. How many does a person need kill? Hunt them all you want but keep a level of improvement in quality as you go. I know for a fact that many on here have 3 to 6 Stone Rams and most of them are dinks. The old regulations of take a Ram every year if over the age of 8 or every three years if a was taken underage, was the best Sheep management tool we had. It kept the guides in the back country hunting old rams and stopped the slaughter of 6 and 7 year olds. Why is it gone or not reimplimented. What is wrong with putting a higher expectation on the trophy hunter?

Again I agree and do like the old regs as long as they apply to everyone. this would ensure a good hunt for clients and residents a like as it would relieve some pressure. Though as all animals are managed I'm sure the outfitters would soon be saying the residents aren't meeting quota and thus should be given more tags:rolleyes:. I believe we could work together and I really believe we have to work together if we want to keep on enjoying our hunting rights and the outdoors.

Thanks for posting

W.
Lucky Nuts:
Thanks for seeing some light in what I have to say. I just hope it happens one day that they all get along
No where in my post do I say residents only. In fact in my opinion the G/O should be required to have his staff trained to even a higher level. The guide should also be trained in things like First Aid and maybe even Food Safe along with actual judgement of all animals in age, sex, and size. Penalties should be adminstered to those that don't preform at the highest level as they do call themselves proffessionals and they are making a living off of a British Columbia Resource. No different than any other resource except if managed properly this one regenerates faster than any other.

[bridger]

question for willie re how many sheep does a hunter need? that is the same bullshit questions guides are always asking about resident hunters. why you want to kill more than one ram in a lifetime etc

here is a question for you how about the non resident that has five or six grandslams? and looking aat the pictures in grandslam magazine there are a lot of non residents that kill dinks. another question if I book a hunt with a stone sheep guide pay my $35,000 get a sheep have a wonderful time and then tell the outfitter i want to book again next year and pay in advance is he going to tell me i already have a ram and should let someone else go instead or is he going to take my $35,000. my money says he takes the $35,000 and says see you next year and the year after and the year after etc. this whole issue isn't about anything other than resident priority. not how much money a guide makes how many sheep anyone kills etc.

[bighornbob]

I know for a fact that many on here have 3 to 6 Stone Rams and most of them are dinks. The old regulations of take a Ram every year if over the age of 8 or every three years if a was taken underage, was the best Sheep management tool we had. It kept the guides in the back country hunting old rams and stopped the slaughter of 6 and 7 year olds. Why is it gone or not reimplimented. What is wrong with putting a higher expectation on the trophy hunter?


Yes this was a good rule, too bad the guides did not have to follows it. If a non-resident hunter shot a 6 year old ram only he would not be allowed to hunt for the next 3 years. The guide could continue to guide clients to 6-7 year old sheep all he wanted to.

If the rule was brought back, I would like to see the outfitters lose all their sheep tags the following year if they shoot a sheep under 8 years of age. Since they are the pros you speak of they should easily be able to properly age rams and find them and they should be held to higher standards then us joe blow sheep hunters.

BHB

[bighornbob]

question for willie re how many sheep does a hunter need? that is the same bullshit questions guides are always asking about resident hunters. why you want to kill more than one ram in a lifetime etc

here is a question for you how about the non resident that has five or six grandslams? and looking aat the pictures in grandslam magazine there are a lot of non residents that kill dinks. another question if I book a hunt with a stone sheep guide pay my $35,000 get a sheep have a wonderful time and then tell the outfitter i want to book again next year and pay in advance is he going to tell me i already have a ram and should let someone else go instead or is he going to take my $35,000. my money says he takes the $35,000 and says see you next year and the year after and the year after etc. this whole issue isn't about anything other than resident priority. not how much money a guide makes how many sheep anyone kills etc.

Exactly, what outfitter is going to turn down Butch Koflack (sp) from Cailfornia if he wants to come hunt sheep. I think he is working on GrandSlam #10.

BHB

[willy442]

question for willie re how many sheep does a hunter need? that is the same bullshit questions guides are always asking about resident hunters. why you want to kill more than one ram in a lifetime etc

here is a question for you how about the non resident that has five or six grandslams? and looking aat the pictures in grandslam magazine there are a lot of non residents that kill dinks. another question if I book a hunt with a stone sheep guide pay my $35,000 get a sheep have a wonderful time and then tell the outfitter i want to book again next year and pay in advance is he going to tell me i already have a ram and should let someone else go instead or is he going to take my $35,000. my money says he takes the $35,000 and says see you next year and the year after and the year after etc. this whole issue isn't about anything other than resident priority. not how much money a guide makes how many sheep anyone kills etc.

Question For You? How many Sheep do you and people you travelled with have, Has each Ram been proggressively better than the last? Please answer honestly.
On the case of the 1 in 3 unless you harvest a dink Ram it has no bearing on your ability to hunt. How much better priority can you get? I think just to be able to maintain the fact that we have the option to go every year, based on our own performance is really very liberal access to Stone Sheep. The G/O should be in exactly the same situation with the nonresident under a quota system, perhaps with maybe even stiffer regulation applied if he takes a dink.
Compulsary inspectors must also be better educated as they would be a very large part of the factor and proper aging and sizing would be required. Under a system like this it would be nice to have the freedom of taking the broomed rams again requiring a higher compentency on judging.
Back a few years ago the system was very unfair in the fact that the resident harvest was tied to the G/O's quota review and the guide could lose due to thier performance. I believe that each party should stand alone in there harvests, with the guide held to a much higher standard. This small measure again would force most back into the unreachable areas, also giving the resident less pressure in some area's he can reach. The trick is to what level of proffessionalisim do we hold the G/O to in order to make this happen.
If this way of thinking or some other is possible to get behind and go with than lets try it. My point is the GOD DAMN crying continually that the G/O is the bad guy makes me sick. Why is it you and a few others cannot get over that hurdle and show some intent to accomplish something constructive. The guides have to do the same, this crap has to come to an end. You for one have voiced the same stuff since I can remember, when I was a young guide sitting in on the open meetings at the NBCGC.

[Gateholio]

Question For You? How many Sheep do you and people you travelled with have, Has each Ram been proggressively better than the last? Please answer honestly.
.

Is this important from a conservation standpoint?

Is it important from a conservation standpoint that an 8 year old ram be taken instead of a 7 year old ram?

I keep seeing these thoughts brought up (How many rams does one guy need? Must harvest 8 yr old rams, etc- But I don't know if it is important from a conservation standpoint, in BC, in 2010)

[DV-67]

With respect to DV67's remarks, this is the sort of comment that makes hunters look like what the extremist fringe of the environmental movement trys to portray us as to the general public. This is a "lowbrow", "redneck", "illiterate" and "Bambi killer" image that is EXACTLY what we need to avoid.

How do my comments make hunters look like that?:confused:

Oh and thanks for calling me a "lowbrow, illiterate bambi killer".:mad:

You know nothing about me and have no right to say that. Thanks

[bigwhiteys]

Is this important from a conservation standpoint?

Considering we've seen somewhere around a 50% stone sheep pop. decline since the 70's and 80's maybe it is important?


Is it important from a conservation standpoint that an 8 year old ram be taken instead of a 7 year old ram?

1 year difference who knows. It's an issue when 5 and 6 year old rams start going down. When they reach 8 years of age they are starting to go downhill... By 9,10,11+ years of age they are pretty much done active breeding but still do play an important role in leading young rams through the winter.

The 1 in 3 was a simple rule... Shoot a young ram and it costs you 3 years thinhorn hunting. Shoot a ram that's 8+ and you can keep going every year. It's a heck of a lot better than an LEH.

Carl

[Gateholio]

Considering we've seen somewhere around a 50% stone sheep pop. decline since the 70's and 80's maybe it is important?

If a hunter shooting progressively larger sheep is important for conservation, how is it measured?




1 year difference who knows. It's an issue when 5 and 6 year old rams start going down. When they reach 8 years of age they are starting to go downhill... By 9,10,11+ years of age they are pretty much done active breeding but still do play an important role in leading young rams through the winter.

How often do 5 and 6 year old rams make legal full curl, and are the numbers of legal 5 and 6 year old rams taken each year by hunters significant

[bigwhiteys]

If a hunter shooting progressively larger sheep is important for conservation, how is it measured?

In inches. One would have to pass over quite a few lesser but maybe tempting rams to shoot a progessively larger ram and times between kills would probably be years apart.

I am not so sure after killing mine that I will want to kill another, but helping others get theirs would still be quite a thrill.


How often do 5 and 6 year old rams make legal full curl, and are the numbers of legal 5 and 6 year old rams taken each year by hunters significant

It's not uncommon to have a 5 or 6 year old thinhorn ram reach full curl by that age. They would be exceptional sheep though. The harvest of a few young rams spread out over a large area is probably nothing significant. It's when these kills are concentrated on smaller pockets of sheep where it can have negative effects.

Carl

[Gateholio]

In inches. One would have to pass over quite a few lesser but maybe tempting rams to shoot a progessively larger ram and times between kills would probably be years apart.

Inches:-D

Rephrase- How is it determined that harvesting a progressively bigger ram helps conservation? An individual hunter would shoot less, but that doesn't mean some other hunter or predator isn't killing that ram.

Does it really make a difference if you shoot a ram that has 2" more/less in horn length?




It's not uncommon to have a 5 or 6 year old thinhorn ram reach full curl by that age. They would be exceptional sheep though. The harvest of a few young rams spread out over a large area is probably nothing significant. It's when these kills are concentrated on smaller pockets of sheep where it can have negative effects.

So if the concern is about smaller pockets, why do some want a 1 in 3 rule for all of BC?

[Deaddog]

According to the latest numbers from Conrad Theisen (numbers were given last year) the pop of stone sheep is at or near record historical levels in region 7b, while the numbers were significinatly higher in the 80's this was directly linked to the very successful wolf kill program that was run during this time span and therefore an anomoly not indicitive of historical levels of sheep in the region. There are areas in 7b that pop numbers are of concern, mostly due to easy access, these are being looked at by all user groups and the gov't in order to ensure sustainable populations. In region six there are no concerns at the moment nor according to the regional bioliogist do they (he) forsee any large issues on the horizion for sheep in region six (stones) for the most part again, due to access issues. The stone sheep in region 7a are holding their own and receive very little pressure by resident hunters. While all have their own ideas of what ram should be shot and by who, at this point, according to those that we pay to compile the numbers, our stone sheep populations are doing just fine, (with the exception of perhaps a couple of areas that are recieving a large amount of pressure due to access)there is no need for LEH or 1 in three on any more stone sheep areas as a conservation concern. If we move to these options it would be strictly for "trophy" purposes and not because the populations numbers are dicatating a wholesale change on how sheep are managed.

[Sitkaspruce]

Willy and others

This all fine about the sheep, but for the other 85% of hunters here on this site and throughout BC, what about the deer BS in the Caribou (region 5) and the spike/fork reg for other regions. What I am reading is that the GO have pushed the change in region 5 and are wanting to change a few others so that they can have a quality "trophy" hunt to sell to their clients.

Is there pressure from the GOABC to get rid of the spike/fork?? Is there other changes that they want that will affect the resident hunt for deer, moose, Mt goat, elk and others in other regions.

I would like to see this post talk about other animals other than sheep, as sheep are but one animal that is being affected.

And I cannot help but wonder that these "requests", for a lack of a better word, are being pushed because the economy is down and the Canadian $$ is up. The wonder years for the GO are gone, and like the forest industry, they are starting to feel the crunch and are over extended. Also competition is getting better in other provinces and some GO have priced themselves out of the market. What better way to fix this then ask for changes so that they can market a better product. Something to think about....

Cheers

SS

[6616]

There has been a lot of research done in Alaska and the Yukon (see Barichello 1990) that indicates a reasonable level of hunting harvest of 8 year old rams does not impact overall mortality rates of rams (compensatory mortality). But, hunting harvest of rams from 3 to 7 years of age increases overall ram mortailty considerably (additive mortality).

Basically this research is what led to the 8 year old guideline regarding ram harvesting in the northern jurisdictions in first place. Shooting younger then 8 year old rams can be a conservation concern, depending of course on the magnitude of the harvest. It is just plain better for the sheep population if we don't shoot young rams.

Is this justification for placing more restrictions on resident harvest? Probably not since historically non-residents have harvested more sheep then residents, residents do no utilize their current allocation, and the allocated shares are still not where they are supposed to be (until 2012), and also if you look at the harvest stats non-residents also shoot their share of sub-8 year old rams.

From a conservation point of view considering the overall decline of Stone's Sheep, one needs to know if it's hunting, predators, or habitat issues, beforre reaching a conclusion that hunting harvests need to be reduced. Also if and when that is determined harvests by both residents and non-residents need to be reduced equally, not by applying restrictive regulations that only effect residents.

The 1 in 3 for rams under 8 years of age would be fair if it could also be applied to the outfitters, but it didn't. When it was in place it reduced resident harvest significantly but it did not impact non-resident harvest by any appreciable amount.

A resident would theoretically lose 2/3 of his Stone's Sheep hunting opportunities by shooting younger rams, so maybe guide-outfitters should lose 3 rams off their quota for the following year for each under-aged ram they harvest. Similar to the way sow grizzly harvest impacts allocations in some regions, one sow shot = equivalent consumption of three bears from the resident target harvest or non-resident quota. It's not illegal to shoot a sow if there are no cubs present, but if the quota is 9 bears for an area and three sows are shot, the quota is used up.

This could work for female goats as well as under-aged sheep, the same way it does for female grizzly bears.

[Devilbear]

So, the population levels that BW, a knowledgable and realistic young guy, has given, i.e., a 50% decline since the '70s and '80s, are a result of the wolf kill of the early '80s and these could be attained again with further wolf control? If, the populations increased AND the type of horn/age restrictions BW has mentioned as well as other posters, were strictly implemented, it seems to me that ALL hunters would benefit.

Would such an approach "fly" with the current MOE boffins in Victoria AND would the BCWF and GOABC actually agree and work together on this?

[Fisher-Dude]

Looking at 7B sheep success over the past 20 years, it appears that resident hunters average about 16 - 20% success with about 80 to 180 (180 sheep was late 1980s harvest level). Non-resident success rates are 60 - 83% success with 100 - 175 sheep killed per year.

It would appear that further limitations on resident harvest would not have as big an impact on sheep kill as would more limitations on non-resident sheep kills. With success rates at 4 to 5 times those of resident hunters, perhaps we should look at limitations on non-resident hunting methods and access if we are truly concerned about the level of sheep harvest.

[willy442]

Inches:-D

Rephrase- How is it determined that harvesting a progressively bigger ram helps conservation? An individual hunter would shoot less, but that doesn't mean some other hunter or predator isn't killing that ram.

Why do we always have to revert back to killing something. The message I keep seeing is it's about the chance to be out there enjoying the hunt and the country. If I already had a 40" Ram and a couple of other sheep on my wall, it would be very doubtful that I would shoot a lesser specimen if the opportunity arose. With some self control and selective harvest by everyone the sport of sheep hunting as we know it now. Might sustane a few more years. But thats just my opinion.

Does it really make a difference if you shoot a ram that has 2" more/less in horn length?

The only difference Gates is out of respect for the animal. Sheep can be affected easily. Other thoughts are. Do we sheep hunt for meat or do we sheep hunt for the experience and the prestine country we get to hunt. Sometimes being rewarded with a kill. Again if it's about the hunt. Why do we feel the need to kill a little dink after a 40+ monarch. What does an act like this do for Sheep hunting. In my opinion much more important than does it affect the herd, is the fact of why find out in the first place, let the little dink live for a bigger day.



So if the concern is about smaller pockets, why do some want a 1 in 3 rule for all of BC?

The 1 in three or a similar regulation is a form of self policing the harvest level by the hunter himself. Shows good intent of being responsible and not allowing the anti's to grasp a foot hold in like the bears. It will suspend any issue of LEH because we then wouldn't have the concerns of how many hunters hit a particular drainage. There is alot of positivity in something like this and could be done in conjuction with allocation on sheep. It is common ground to at least start more negotiations.

[Fisher-Dude]

And I cannot help but wonder that these "requests", for a lack of a better word, are being pushed because the economy is down and the Canadian $$ is up. The wonder years for the GO are gone, and like the forest industry, they are starting to feel the crunch and are over extended. Also competition is getting better in other provinces and some GO have priced themselves out of the market. What better way to fix this then ask for changes so that they can market a better product. Something to think about....

Cheers

SS

Exactly. When I pointed out to Willy that the "Big Outfits" like Scoop are failing to book all their hunts and facing many cancellations, he didn't reply because he was (again) proven wrong.

If non-resident hunters are achieving 60 - 83% success, why the f do they need to kick residents out of the bush? Obviously, having resident hunters in the bush with 16 - 20% success rates isn't harming the non-resident success rate, is it?

[Gateholio]

Why do we always have to revert back to killing something. The message I keep seeing is it's about the chance to be out there enjoying the hunt and the country. If I already had a 40" Ram and a couple of other sheep on my wall, it would be very doubtful that I would shoot a lesser specimen if the opportunity arose. With some self control and selective harvest by everyone the sport of sheep hunting as we know it now. Might sustane a few more years. But thats just my opinion.

Well, we must discuss killing if we are discussing hunting and the restrictions being placed on hunting. The real question is not "what are our personal ideas regarding killing sheep but "Is there really a conservation concern that requires to be addressed by further restriction?"





The only difference Gates is out of respect for the animal. Sheep can be affected easily. Other thoughts are. Do we sheep hunt for meat or do we sheep hunt for the experience and the prestine country we get to hunt. Sometimes being rewarded with a kill. Again if it's about the hunt. Why do we feel the need to kill a little dink after a 40+ monarch. What does an act like this do for Sheep hunting. In my opinion much more important than does it affect the herd, is the fact of why find out in the first place, let the little dink live for a bigger day. Personal restrictions on what you kill is great for the individual, but not so great when looking at policy for everyone else. Which is why we should be managing hunitng seasons based on conservation, and not individual, self imposed parameters that a hunter should only take an 8 year old ram, a 4 point buck or a 6 point elk....




The 1 in three or a similar regulation is a form of self policing the harvest level by the hunter himself. Shows good intent of being responsible and not allowing the anti's to grasp a foot hold in like the bears. It will suspend any issue of LEH because we then wouldn't have the concerns of how many hunters hit a particular drainage. There is alot of positivity in something like this and could be done in conjuction with allocation on sheep. It is common ground to at least start more negotiations.

I don't think the antis care. They will probably spin it to say "hunters are targeting the biggest and best animals" the way they always do.

I understand personal reasons for wanting to "top" your last ram but if BC hunters are only killing a small amount of rams anyway, I don't see what great difference it would make in terms of conservation, to add further restrictions.

[Fisher-Dude]

Why do we always have to revert back to killing something. The message I keep seeing is it's about the chance to be out there enjoying the hunt and the country. If I already had a 40" Ram and a couple of other sheep on my wall, it would be very doubtful that I would shoot a lesser specimen if the opportunity arose. With some self control and selective harvest by everyone the sport of sheep hunting as we know it now. Might sustane a few more years. But thats just my opinion.

Good point Willy, so it stands that the 60 - 83% kill rate by non-residents should be drastically reduced so that it is more in line with the residents' 16 - 20% kill rate. It's not all about killing something (as a 60 - 83% kill rate would suggest), it's more about just being out there and maybe (16 - 20% kill rate) harvesting something. The residents are living up to your expectations of what the hunt is all about, while the guides are all about the killing. Get the guides to reduce their kill rates Willy.

[bridger]

So, the population levels that BW, a knowledgable and realistic young guy, has given, i.e., a 50% decline since the '70s and '80s, are a result of the wolf kill of the early '80s and these could be attained again with further wolf control? If, the populations increased AND the type of horn/age restrictions BW has mentioned as well as other posters, were strictly implemented, it seems to me that ALL hunters would benefit.

Would such an approach "fly" with the current MOE boffins in Victoria AND would the BCWF and GOABC actually agree and work together on this?


both the fed and goabc have made repeated appeals to government to re instate a widespread predator control program again, but our presentations have fallen on un caring ears. the program was instituted in the 1980's as a result of Steve Rodgers and Tony Brummet's political courage to push it through government and Premiere Bennett's resolve to take the heat.Surprisingly several biologists within the ministry tried to kill it from the inside before it got off the ground. We even had an attempt to block it from sources with the bcwf. it was really a hot potatoe and I doubt if Campbell has the brass to stand the heat. No one can deny the positive effect on the unngulate populations tho. three or four years later the sheep harvest in 7b was over 300 rams, now down to about half that number. those were the days.

[willy442]

There has been a lot of research done in Alaska and the Yukon (see Barichello 1990) that indicates a reasonable level of hunting harvest of 8 year old rams does not impact overall mortality rates of rams (compensatory mortality). But, hunting harvest of rams from 3 to 7 years of age increases overall ram mortailty considerably (additive mortality).

Basically this research is what led to the 8 year old guideline regarding ram harvesting in the northern jurisdictions in first place. Shooting younger then 8 year old rams can be a conservation concern, depending of course on the magnitude of the harvest. It is just plain better for the sheep population if we don't shoot young rams.

Is this justification for placing more restrictions on resident harvest? Probably not since historically non-residents have harvested more sheep then residents, residents do no utilize their current allocation, and the allocated shares are still not where they are supposed to be (until 2012), and also if you look at the harvest stats non-residents also shoot their share of sub-8 year old rams.

From a conservation point of view considering the overall decline of Stone's Sheep, one needs to know if it's hunting, predators, or habitat issues, beforre reaching a conclusion that hunting harvests need to be reduced. Also if and when that is determined harvests by both residents and non-residents need to be reduced equally, not by applying restrictive regulations that only effect residents.

The 1 in 3 for rams under 8 years of age would be fair if it could also be applied to the outfitters, but it didn't. When it was in place it reduced resident harvest significantly but it did not impact non-resident harvest by any appreciable amount.

A resident would theoretically lose 2/3 of his Stone's Sheep hunting opportunities by shooting younger rams, so maybe guide-outfitters should lose 3 rams off their quota for the following year for each under-aged ram they harvest. Similar to the way sow grizzly harvest impacts allocations in some regions, one sow shot = equivalent consumption of three bears from the resident target harvest or non-resident quota. It's not illegal to shoot a sow if there are no cubs present, but if the quota is 9 bears for an area and three sows are shot, the quota is used up.

This could work for female goats as well as under-aged sheep, the same way it does for female grizzly bears.

I would think that no matter how we be regulated. If a form of self policing on sheep was to be implimented, the G/O should held to a higher standard just how needs thought but I agree fully. I also still like the idea of some area's as resident only, this would also help those areas and make them more attractable.

[6616]

Willy and others

This all fine about the sheep, but for the other 85% of hunters here on this site and throughout BC, what about the deer BS in the Caribou (region 5) and the spike/fork reg for other regions. What I am reading is that the GO have pushed the change in region 5 and are wanting to change a few others so that they can have a quality "trophy" hunt to sell to their clients.

Is there pressure from the GOABC to get rid of the spike/fork?? Is there other changes that they want that will affect the resident hunt for deer, moose, Mt goat, elk and others in other regions.

I would like to see this post talk about other animals other than sheep, as sheep are but one animal that is being affected.

And I cannot help but wonder that these "requests", for a lack of a better word, are being pushed because the economy is down and the Canadian $$ is up. The wonder years for the GO are gone, and like the forest industry, they are starting to feel the crunch and are over extended. Also competition is getting better in other provinces and some GO have priced themselves out of the market. What better way to fix this then ask for changes so that they can market a better product. Something to think about....

Cheers

SS

The "quality hunt" theory being pushed by GOABC is not entirely based on trophy potential. The Southern Guides (East Kootenay) proclaimed that the spike/fork moose hunt would "spoil" the "quality of experience" of their elk hunters because there would too many reisident hunters pounding the bush chasing moose. This eventually led to the spike/fork moose season timing we currently see in the EK where the s/f moose season doesn't start until after the elk season is over while at the same time it opens on Sept 20th in other regions. This is just one of many examples of how the guide-outfitter lobby has impacted resident hunting opportunities, and the cumulative effect of these type of decisions across all regions has been significant.

Managing for trophy quality is really a bit of a different matter as it depends entirely on a much reduced overall harvest and the implementation of LEH. For example, LEH elk in the West kootenay being managed for "trophy quality" in comparison to the GOS elk seasons on the East kootenay managed for "quantity" or maximum sustainable harvest levels. Managing for maximum trophy potential can only be accomplished in BC by severlely restrictive LEH seasons.

If you look at mule deer in region 5, if it were to go LEH for mature bucks, non-residents would start at 25% allocation of the AAH, that's policy in BC for new LEH hunts, this represents a guaranteed quota for outfitters while residents would be subject to draws. Also a 25% allocation would represent a significant increase in non-resident harvest since they currently only harvest 10 to 15 % of the AAH under the GOS. The quota they would recieve under LEH would likely be higher then the sum of their current mule deer harvest, thus it would be unlimited business as usual for guides, while residents wait for a draw. That's what management for trophy potential would look like in BC.

[willy442]

Good point Willy, so it stands that the 60 - 83% kill rate by non-residents should be drastically reduced so that it is more in line with the residents' 16 - 20% kill rate. It's not all about killing something (as a 60 - 83% kill rate would suggest), it's more about just being out there and maybe (16 - 20% kill rate) harvesting something. The residents are living up to your expectations of what the hunt is all about, while the guides are all about the killing. Get the guides to reduce their kill rates Willy.

If you had bothered to read before spouting off. We were talking about the killing of many sheep by 1 person. Yes the guide has a higher success rate and he should. After all he is supposed to be a pro. However most of his clients are not annual repeat sheep hunters at 35000.00 bucks a pop.
So what's your point?

[Fisher-Dude]

If you had bothered to read before spouting off. We were talking about the killing of many sheep by 1 person. Yes the guide has a higher success rate and he should. After all he is supposed to be a pro. However most of his clients are not annual repeat sheep hunters at 35000.00 bucks a pop.
So what's your point?

Let's make a once in a lifetime rule on non-residents then.

Non-residents are killing more sheep. If you're concerned about sheep populations, go after them.

ETA - my sheep guide buddy tells me he regularly has repeat customers from the US. You're full of BS on that point.

[d6dan]

Let's make a once in a lifetime rule on non-residents then.

Non-residents are killing more sheep. If you're concerned about sheep populations, go after them.

ETA - my sheep guide buddy tells me he regularly has repeat customers from the US. You're full of BS on that point.

I just watched Scoop Lake outfitters video, and the owner Darwin claims he has a lot of repeat customers harvesting sheep around an 80% figure. Now if that is true, Its time for the MOE to only allow non-residents 1 sheep period! in a lifetime!..Some how we need to change this.Period. Willie, time for you to watch a video.

[6616]

If you had bothered to read before spouting off. We were talking about the killing of many sheep by 1 person. Yes the guide has a higher success rate and he should. After all he is supposed to be a pro. However most of his clients are not annual repeat sheep hunters at 35000.00 bucks a pop.
So what's your point?

The topic really has nothing to do with ethics or personal objectives, it's about sustainable harvests and conservation and whether one hunter kills multiple sheep in a lifetime (or not) really has no bearing on sheep management or conservation.

[willy442]

The "quality hunt" theory being pushed by GOABC is not entirely based on trophy potential. The Southern Guides (East Kootenay) proclaimed that the spike/fork moose hunt would "spoil" the "quality of experience" of their elk hunters because there would too many reisident hunters pounding the bush chasing moose. This eventually led to the spike/fork moose season timing we currently see in the EK where the s/f moose season doesn't start until after the elk season is over while at the same time it opens on Sept 20th in other regions. This is just one of many examples of how the guide-outfitter lobby has impacted resident hunting opportunities, and the cumulative effect of these type of decisions across all regions has been significant.

Managing for trophy quality is really a bit of a different matter as it depends entirely on a much reduced overall harvest and the implementation of LEH. For example, LEH elk in the West kootenay being managed for "trophy quality" in comparison to the GOS elk seasons on the East kootenay managed for "quantity" or maximum sustainable harvest levels. Managing for maximum trophy potential can only be accomplished in BC by severlely restrictive LEH seasons.

If you look at mule deer in region 5, if it were to go LEH for mature bucks, non-residents would start at 25% allocation of the AAH, that's policy in BC for new LEH hunts, this represents a guaranteed quota for outfitters while residents would be subject to draws. Also a 25% allocation would represent a significant increase in non-resident harvest since they currently only harvest 10 to 15 % of the AAH under the GOS. The quota they would recieve under LEH would likely be higher then the sum of their current mule deer harvest, thus it would be unlimited business as usual for guides, while residents wait for a draw. That's what management for trophy potential would look like in BC.

6616;
I don't argue with what you're posting. The point I'm trying get across is with the approach of not talking, walking out of meetings and acts of that type. The resident hunter keeps being out manuevered by the G/O, who has a vested interest in getting things accomplished. It's our own act of throwing hands in air, claiming no one will listen, that is more at fault I think.

[6616]

6616;
I don't argue with what you're posting. The point I'm trying get across is with the approach of not talking, walking out of meetings and acts of that type. The resident hunter keeps being out manuevered by the G/O, who has a vested interest in getting things accomplished. It's our own act of throwing hands in air, claiming no one will listen, that is more at fault I think.

I'm only pointing out factual events that have occurred Willie, adding to what SS said, attempting to provide an answer to his question regarding the s/f moose season, and pointing out the fact that these and similar events coupled with the aggressive attitude of GOABC towards resident hunting opportunities relates directly to the non-productive and negative lack of cooperation that currently exists between residents and guide-outfitters. The guide-outfitters in Region 5 want more moose quota, where is it going to come from, the resident share, that's inappropriate.... this is just one more example, there are many more....I could go on all day....the real point is that the GOABC have crossed a line, they've just went too far this time...!

I understand your point completelly Bill, however I don't agree we're at the point of throwing our hands in the air and giving up, or that the manuevering is over just yet. The fat lady hasn't finished her song by a long shot.

[bridger]

Considering we've seen somewhere around a 50% stone sheep pop. decline since the 70's and 80's maybe it is important?



1 year difference who knows. It's an issue when 5 and 6 year old rams start going down. When they reach 8 years of age they are starting to go downhill... By 9,10,11+ years of age they are pretty much done active breeding but still do play an important role in leading young rams through the winter.

The 1 in 3 was a simple rule... Shoot a young ram and it costs you 3 years thinhorn hunting. Shoot a ram that's 8+ and you can keep going every year. It's a heck of a lot better than an LEH.

Carl


absolutely right on carl and when the time comes that we need to limit resident harvest that is the rule we should re establish not leh. it will achieve better results.. if a guy has an leh tag once every 5 or 6 years he will not be selective and hammer the first legal ram he sees. given the choice of letting a young ram go and going hunting next year is the logical choice.

[Devilbear]

Carl usually posts very sound opinions on this and related issues, IMHO. This would be ideal for a guy like me who has solo hunted sheeo, found barely legal rams and passed on them and thus has never killed one. It means that I can have an option and can have the maximum opportunity to hunt as much as I am able to and still shoot a ram of my choice.

I have no bloody intention of ever killing any except a monster and I probably will never get one, so what, it is the hunting I find enjoyable and I want the maximum opportunity and flexibility for we resident hunters.

I also STRONGLY agree with Willy on better training for GO employees and this is something I wish we could all get, as it is not easy to learn about sheep when you do not live near them.

[BlacktailStalker]

I agree with Carl 100%.

[Gateholio]

A. To be blessed with the title of ‘Sheep Guide” it was because you came up through the ranks. First you start out as a wrangler, progressing through to moose, elk, caribou etc. Finally when the ‘’Boss’’ deemed you ready, you had a sheep hunter. They were then groomed and assisted by a knowledgeable sheep guide at his side for the first half dozen hunts. .

Okay, so that is to get the title "Sheep Guide"

What does it take to be titled "Sheep Sheriff?"
:wink:

[bridger]

a little bit of history about the one in three rule may be interesting. If I remember correctly it was in the early 90's the moe becane concerned about the over all harvest in 7b getting too high. They were especially concerned about the number of young rams being taken by residents. it was decided at a regional allocation meeting to reduce the non resident quota's 17% and put residents on a straight one in three. meaning no matter how old your ram was you could not hunt for the next two years after harvesting a ram. As a result the resident harvest went down 24%, but the number of young rams in the harvest remained on the high side. the one in three had no affect on non resident harvest because of the much larger hunter pool. three years later we met again and put in the rule that if you harvested a ram 8+ years you could hunt every year. that worked too great sucess as far as getting young rams out of the harvest, and had a big effect on the resident harvest, but little changed on the non resident side, For the next couple of years that status quo kept the harvest share about 50/50 for each residency group. After the new allocation policy negotiations were finished the new quota for non residents in region 7b was to go from 67% of the allowable harvest(where it had been for several years) to 40%. this meant the non resident quota would go from 137 rams to 69. Instead the moe decided to reduce the quota to 102 and took out the one in three rule with the age factor built in resulting in more young rams on both sides of the harvest. If the moe implements the new allocation policy in 2012 the non resident quota will go to 40% or around 69 rams. If the policy guidelines are followed as resident harvest increases the non resident quota will continue to be reduced until it reaches 20% of the annual harvest that being 36 rams. if resident numbers continue to rise then controls will be put on the resident side.

[bigwhiteys]

According to the latest numbers from Conrad Theisen (numbers were given last year) the pop of stone sheep is at or near record historical levels in region 7b, while the numbers were significinatly higher in the 80's this was directly linked to the very successful wolf kill program that was run during this time span and therefore an anomoly not indicitive of historical levels of sheep in the region.

I find that misleading considering there is very little data on Stones Sheep prior to WWII (and the Alaska Highway being built). To say it's at a historical high is far fetched...

In the history I am aware of it would seem the population is at a historical LOW. Some feel rosy about losing 50% of our sheep in only a few decades. I don't. Wolf control or not... That sucks!

Carl

[bridger]

originally posted by Willy

The old regulations of take a Ram every year if over the age of 8 or every three years if a was taken underage, was the best Sheep management tool we had. It kept the guides in the back country hunting old rams and stopped the slaughter of 6 and 7 year olds. Why is it gone or not reimplimented. What is wrong with putting a higher expectation on the trophy hunter?

Thanks for the compliment Willy that was my idea guess the good old boys in the fed were good for something after all.

[Gateholio]

I think there are Outfitters that could get a firmer grip on the Sheep Guides they employ and get as aggressive as my boss did with regards incoming rams. The Outfitter calls all the shots.
I know how difficult it is to find a person that fits the bill after he states he is a ‘’Sheep Guide’’. The Outfitter should screen that guy as fervent as a hunter screens an Outfitter. Then, he has to learn the area. This all takes time. That is why Outfitters from the past held on to their ‘’Sheep Guides’’. Some sheep guides worked for the same outfitter for up to twenty years. They know what to do and what was expected of them.

Chris, I was making a joke about the "Sheep Sheriff" thing. It's Willys nickname
:-D