special sheep/elk leh?

[Greenhead]

Hi gang tried the search function but can't find anything. Is it true they won't be running the special sheep and elk ( some people call the premier tag) this year? and if so, any idea why?
Thanks, and if it has been discussed please post up the link and forget this one.
GH

[Greenhead]

oh sorry, a little digging and I came up with half of my answer.

From: Tom Ethier
Director
Fish and Wildlife Branch
Environmental Stewardship Division
Ministry of Environment
Tel: (250) 387-5657

The auctioning of a Mountain Sheep tag and a Roosevelt Elk tag at this year’s Wild Sheep Foundation convention has been cancelled.

The Special Draw for BC Residents for Mountain Sheep and Roosevelt Elk hunts has also been cancelled for this year. However, the two successful applicants from the 2009 draw will be able to hunt in the fall of 2010 for Mountain Sheep and Roosevelt Elk.

All Special Draw applications should not be sold by any Service BC or Vendor. If a person has purchased these applications they can apply for a refund through the Fish and Wildlife Branch.

The Fish and Wildlife Branch will work with the Stakeholder Associations over the course of the next year to see if differences can be resolved and these hunts reinstated.

************

BCWF ALERT
John B. Holdstock
BC Wildlife Federation
Kelowna, B.C.


Still wondering why though, if somebody could shed some light on this for me?
Thanks,
GH

[bridger]

the issue is that members of the goabc wanted to be compensated if an animal taken under the premiere tags came out of their area. ie if the non resident hunter or resident hunter took an elk out of ano utfitter's area on vancouver island the outfitter wanted to be paid for the elk. in short they g/s's were saying they own the elk and want to be paid for them. the bcwf could not support this principle. the fed told the moe that we were in favor of continuing the program as originally set up. that is all the money going to wildlife enhancement not to pay an outfitter for a publicly owned resource. Mr Either has not explained why the moe would not tell the outfitters no way, but instead suspended the program.

[sako_300]

What a crock - this is becoming a bit too much. Why the hell would the go's expect to be compensated for an animal which was not theirs to begin with. Hell, we may as well pay them for each sheep taken in their territory during the season as well.

Do these gov't officials not have back bones? How could you even consider this; presuming that is the underlying reason for suspending the program. Think of the path that puts us on...

[44inchStone]

Well said Sako 300. It starts here but where will it ever end. We'll have to stsart paying for every bird then every fish. I thought we pay enough to EVERYONE as it is?

[ElkMasterC]

the issue is that members of the goabc wanted to be compensated if an animal taken under the premiere tags came out of their area. ie if the non resident hunter or resident hunter took an elk out of ano utfitter's area on vancouver island the outfitter wanted to be paid for the elk. in short they g/s's were saying they own the elk and want to be paid for them. the bcwf could not support this principle. the fed told the moe that we were in favor of continuing the program as originally set up. that is all the money going to wildlife enhancement not to pay an outfitter for a publicly owned resource. Mr Either has not explained why the moe would not tell the outfitters no way, but instead suspended the program.

Are you serious?
Now the GO's own the sheep and elk in their eyes?
What next, they want to be compensated for Residents taking animals out of their area?
Crock is right.
What about giving them another tag to dry their tears with if the numbers support it?
That might be going down the wrong path though.
Like has been said, they should have been told to take a leap. Unbelievable, as they're their own worst enemies.

[pnbrock]

would it not be the same to give them another tag ,asis to pay them a royalty for an animal they dont own?

[boxhitch]

Its all in the wording
The G/O's are after compensation
That can take many forms, one of which is cash
Another part of the story is the G/O's wanted to do something to spread out the harvest of the trophy Roosi Elk, that are coming basically from one G/O's area.
Whatever the arguement is, any change would be contrary to the original agreement for the special permits. No quick solution so the MOE had to call a time out.
I feel the whole process for raising of funds for wildlife is taking a big change, and may be near impossible soon.

[riflebuilder]

A harvested animal would not count against an outfitters allowcation so it would be no different than a resident with a LEH shooting one. I would think the GO's in the area do not have much of a case.

[David Heitsman]

Imagine that you are a non BC res hunter or a BC res hunter who doesn't want to wait to be drawn for a Roosevelt.

You inquire around and determine that the best bulls come from Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast.

You narrow your search to a couple outfitters who hold tags and are advised that they are booked out 3 - 4 years.

You put down a deposit then for the first hunt of 2013 - 14 and every year afterwards you send more of your hard earned dollars till it's finally paid for. It takes you the full four years.

Your anticipation raises with the passing of each fall knowing that soon it will be your turn to try and find your trophy Roosevelt bull.

Finally your Fall, your turn, comes and you step off the plane in Campbell River. Here you are met by your outfitter.

Wait. He has a hunter with him to catch your plane back to Vancouver. This hunter is eager to show you pics of his 340" bull on his Iphone.

You thought you had booked the first hunt 4 years earlier when you made your deposit. Your contract even mentioned it.

Your not impressed. Your outfitter shakes his head when you ask if there
is any compensation if you are unable to find a similar class bull.

It is explained to you that the departing hunter has purchased a Special Permit only seven months prior and this gives him the right to scoop you.
The outfitter hasn't mentioned it since the tag is not regionalized and the hunter can go anywhere he wants.

The Special Permits buyer has done his research too and has contracted with the outfitter for his services. Reluctantly the outfitter agrees knowing the downstream grief from other hunters yet to come far outweighs his guiding fee for the Special Permit. He has never asked for compensation
as he knows that most of the conservation dollars are very prudently spent on elk projects within the Roosevelt ranges.

He wonders is the permit could be regionalized and moved annually to avoid this issue?

Perhaps the dates could be changed to avoid this confrontation?

Perhaps the permit could be opened province wide? After all there are huge Rocky Mountain elk elsewhere that the permit could likely raise more money with than the Roosevelt tag alone.

Perhaps the stakeholder groups could figure out that this wasn't working effectively and agree to a solution? After all they had been given two years notice.

Perhaps not.

[bruin]

I don't agree that outfitters should be compensated for one animal coming from their area. However, I do fully agree that something should be done to spread the harvest.

[bridger]

if one elk is going to upset the applecart for non resident hunters too bad. turn this around how about a resident hunter that has been waitng for an leh tag for 15 years goes into the area and finds the guide and a non resident hunter coming down the road with a 340 elk in the back of the guides pick up. Does he get compensation? same story different verse. the idea of the premieres tags was to raise funds so we can grow more outstanding roosevelt elk for everyone to enjoy. as far as opening up the rest of the province for rocky mtn elk the opportunities for huge rockies are must more available in the states. in order to get the big bucks for a special tag we have to offer somethiing special. rosies are what we have. for g/os' (who were really pushing for this program in the beginning) to want compensation is unbelievable. they aren't wanting to spread the harvest out for the sheep tag because most of the premiere's tag sheep are coming out of an unallocated area not affecting an outfitter.

[bighornbob]

I don't agree that outfitters should be compensated for one animal coming from their area. However, I do fully agree that something should be done to spread the harvest.

Spreading out the harvest will only drop the price we sell it for. Look at the sheep harvest, if you take away the mine areas of the east koots, the price would drop for sure. Everybody that had bought the tag has gone there, and everyone that may purchase the tag assumes that is the only spot to get a big sheep. So if you ban that area no one will buy the tag.

Same for the elk, for whatever reason i guess the hunters have chosen the same area and word gets out pretty fast thats the place to go get a big rosie.

As soon as you start putting stipulations on the tag the price we can sell it for will drop fast and hard.

BHB

[GoatGuy]

Imagine that you are a non BC res hunter or a BC res hunter who doesn't want to wait to be drawn for a Roosevelt.

You inquire around and determine that the best bulls come from Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast.

You narrow your search to a couple outfitters who hold tags and are advised that they are booked out 3 - 4 years.

You put down a deposit then for the first hunt of 2013 - 14 and every year afterwards you send more of your hard earned dollars till it's finally paid for. It takes you the full four years.

Your anticipation raises with the passing of each fall knowing that soon it will be your turn to try and find your trophy Roosevelt bull.

Finally your Fall, your turn, comes and you step off the plane in Campbell River. Here you are met by your outfitter.

Wait. He has a hunter with him to catch your plane back to Vancouver. This hunter is eager to show you pics of his 340" bull on his Iphone.

You thought you had booked the first hunt 4 years earlier when you made your deposit. Your contract even mentioned it.

Your not impressed. Your outfitter shakes his head when you ask if there
is any compensation if you are unable to find a similar class bull.

It is explained to you that the departing hunter has purchased a Special Permit only seven months prior and this gives him the right to scoop you.
The outfitter hasn't mentioned it since the tag is not regionalized and the hunter can go anywhere he wants.

The Special Permits buyer has done his research too and has contracted with the outfitter for his services. Reluctantly the outfitter agrees knowing the downstream grief from other hunters yet to come far outweighs his guiding fee for the Special Permit. He has never asked for compensation
as he knows that most of the conservation dollars are very prudently spent on elk projects within the Roosevelt ranges.

He wonders is the permit could be regionalized and moved annually to avoid this issue?

Perhaps the dates could be changed to avoid this confrontation?

Perhaps the permit could be opened province wide? After all there are huge Rocky Mountain elk elsewhere that the permit could likely raise more money with than the Roosevelt tag alone.

Perhaps the stakeholder groups could figure out that this wasn't working effectively and agree to a solution? After all they had been given two years notice.

Perhaps not.

Just read this thread and this is kinda funny.

Might be just me at this time of the day but how do these two hunters run into each other on the float dock (one who's done and one who's booked the first hunt) if the season has just started?

Secondly, why wouldn't the outfitter have informed the hunter ahead of time? Business ethics? Does this outfitter not have more than one elk hunter in his area at a time?

Third, these hunts were about generating money for conservation. Where the animals came from or who shot them wasn't the important part, it was the money that they generated that was. One or two dead elk per year sure as hell isn't going to break the bank especially when these hunts go for over 25K.

Last, 350" RM bulls are relatively easy to come by in the states and they're far cheaper than a roosevelt elk hunt. We've already got one guy who sells hunts in BC for big bulls and I think he's charging 12-14K including his daily rate which is really nothing more than a waste of time if we're spending all this time on it. I've got a buddy who does hunts in NM and charges right around that price as well for big bulls. There are also plenty of farms for rocky mountain elk for the sporting type and they're much bigger than 350. The reason the hunt is for roosies is because they're specific to only 3 jurisdications if I recall correctly and you still need to draw in the US.

This entire concept of compensation for outfitters has come up a few times, for rockies in a resident only area to boot, and it is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

What happened to conservation? Enhancement? Sustainability? Integrity?

Of all things this is the most ignorant mess I've seen to date. Won't despair, sure there will be something that tops it.

[GoatGuy]

I don't agree that outfitters should be compensated for one animal coming from their area. However, I do fully agree that something should be done to spread the harvest.

This EK BS wasn't for animals out of their area, it was for animals out of their region.

[hunter1947]

What a bunch of bull I can't see how they can do this ,its getting to the point that we hunters will have to start paying the guide outfitters stumpage on the animals we take from there area http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon13.gif..

[Fisher-Dude]

I guess poor old Heitsman should be more careful whom he books his hunts with if he so concerned that someone else will shoot "his" elk. I thought a big time guide stroker like him would know better than to roll the dice with a shyster - guess I gave him too much credit.

[whitetailsheds]

if one elk is going to upset the applecart for non resident hunters too bad. turn this around how about a resident hunter that has been waitng for an leh tag for 15 years goes into the area and finds the guide and a non resident hunter coming down the road with a 340 elk in the back of the guides pick up. Does he get compensation? same story different verse. the idea of the premieres tags was to raise funds so we can grow more outstanding roosevelt elk for everyone to enjoy. as far as opening up the rest of the province for rocky mtn elk the opportunities for huge rockies are must more available in the states. in order to get the big bucks for a special tag we have to offer somethiing special. rosies are what we have. for g/os' (who were really pushing for this program in the beginning) to want compensation is unbelievable. they aren't wanting to spread the harvest out for the sheep tag because most of the premiere's tag sheep are coming out of an unallocated area not affecting an outfitter.

Thanks Rich for the level headed response to David....after i read his note, i shook my head, said "WTF?", and proceeded to go into an obscenities laced rant. Glad u beat me to a response....
On a side note, David's note could also be a script for a bad romance novel, where one is supposed to get all choked up and start getting teary for that non-resident hunter.
Read it again...if you picture a nice sunset in the background of this scene taking place, one does get the feeling of melancholy/ sadness....NOT....

[Hank Hunter]

DAVID HEITSMAN, you are kidding right

[frenchbar]

Imagine that you are a non BC res hunter or a BC res hunter who doesn't want to wait to be drawn for a Roosevelt.

You inquire around and determine that the best bulls come from Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast.

You narrow your search to a couple outfitters who hold tags and are advised that they are booked out 3 - 4 years.

You put down a deposit then for the first hunt of 2013 - 14 and every year afterwards you send more of your hard earned dollars till it's finally paid for. It takes you the full four years.

Your anticipation raises with the passing of each fall knowing that soon it will be your turn to try and find your trophy Roosevelt bull.

Finally your Fall, your turn, comes and you step off the plane in Campbell River. Here you are met by your outfitter.

Wait. He has a hunter with him to catch your plane back to Vancouver. This hunter is eager to show you pics of his 340" bull on his Iphone.

You thought you had booked the first hunt 4 years earlier when you made your deposit. Your contract even mentioned it.

Your not impressed. Your outfitter shakes his head when you ask if there
is any compensation if you are unable to find a similar class bull.

It is explained to you that the departing hunter has purchased a Special Permit only seven months prior and this gives him the right to scoop you.
The outfitter hasn't mentioned it since the tag is not regionalized and the hunter can go anywhere he wants.

The Special Permits buyer has done his research too and has contracted with the outfitter for his services. Reluctantly the outfitter agrees knowing the downstream grief from other hunters yet to come far outweighs his guiding fee for the Special Permit. He has never asked for compensation
as he knows that most of the conservation dollars are very prudently spent on elk projects within the Roosevelt ranges.

He wonders is the permit could be regionalized and moved annually to avoid this issue?

Perhaps the dates could be changed to avoid this confrontation?

Perhaps the permit could be opened province wide? After all there are huge Rocky Mountain elk elsewhere that the permit could likely raise more money with than the Roosevelt tag alone.

Perhaps the stakeholder groups could figure out that this wasn't working effectively and agree to a solution? After all they had been given two years notice.

Perhaps not.

http://bp2.blogger.com/_TVfEjAyW4Fk/Rzum0QusGrI/AAAAAAAAEN8/_E-24_eVYa0/s400/10.gif

[BiG Boar]

I can see why one GO would want to cancel this hunt or at least see it changed. If all/most of the special permits come out of thier area for big rosies or for a bighorn, then the GO would be like, they arnt that special...They may as well say my area on the tag.

Originally it was thought that the hunter would won these tags would hunt all over the place in many different areas. However anyone who finally wins one or buys one, just goes to one specific area over and over again.

If I owned that bussiness I would be pissed too! Every year, even before my season starts 2 hunters who havnt paide me a dime get to come into my area and take the biggest 2 elk.

Is there a way that they could make it more fair? Rather then just biching about this, what can we think of that will make this draw/auction to start happening again. Because that is what we all want in the end.

[bigwhiteys]

David H I have no sympathy for either of the hunters you describe in your little story...

When you book a HUNT you book a HUNT you certainly don't book an ANIMAL... With the small #'s of rosies we have (under 4000), I don't see any reason for a non-resident hunt anyways!

If a NON-resident drew the special tag, then I think it's only fair that the guide get compensated something IF that Elk is harvested from their area. I don't think that expectation is too unreasonable if the hunter is a non-resident. (as I understand it the hunter can choose any G/O to accompany, even if in anothers area?)

If the hunter is a resident, who has their own tag and their own means for access, you don't deserve squat.

Carl

[bighornbob]

If I owned that bussiness I would be pissed too! Every year, even before my season starts 2 hunters who havnt paide me a dime get to come into my area and take the biggest 2 elk.


If you are the outfitter are you going to give a 100% money back guarentee that you will guide the client to the biggest elk????? I doubt it, so dont say that the two biggest elk get killed.

If any outfitter can guide the special permit hunter, lets change it to the outfitter that has rights in that territory is the only one who is allowed to guide. Lets face it guys who buy this tag, buy it to shoot a big animal, not who they are guided by. If they wanted that, they could go to that guides area every year and shoot a smaller animal.

BHB

[luckynuts]

[quote=bigbore14;624419]I can see why one GO would want to cancel this hunt or at least see it changed. If all/most of the special permits come out of thier area for big rosies or for a bighorn, then the GO would be like, they arnt that special...They may as well say my area on the tag.

Originally it was thought that the hunter would won these tags would hunt all over the place in many different areas. However anyone who finally wins one or buys one, just goes to one specific area over and over again.

RE-read goat guys post. Any hunter winning this tag and has done his homework will head into the area where the records have shown big bulls being taken consistantly.

David I liked your sheep story post though I'm disappointed with this one. To each their own I guess.

[BlacktailStalker]

David Heitsman give your head a shake, is there a tumour pressing against your brain or something ?
Any outfitter that guarantees the "biggest" anything is a unrealistic and is taking their client for a fool, thats not how the industry works.
Any hunter/client knows that and the ones that dont are there to pull the trigger on their $50,000 per hunt budget and leave the same day under the false assumption the shot the biggest "
Rich wankers like that should take their silver spoon fed mouth and buy a pirate pack at white spot if they want a guaranteed prize, not cry because BC has (had) a tag that benefits the species conservation/enhancement on a WHOLE and isnt looking out for their individual WANTS.
There is no guarantee on hunting and any respectable/successful business man shouldnt need to try to sell a hunt with one.
Did they grow up with a guarantee hunting as kids at home, no, so why should they get one now?! Because they have deep pockets ?
I know lots of guys with deep pockets and NONE have the mentality you apparently do.
That sob story should have been saved for those silver spoon fed people at a banquet who will actually applaud it.
There is no reasonable explanation as to why a GO should be compensated for those tags as been said numerous times in this thread.
Not the issue but especially on a 340" bull *****, thats a dink as far as trophy roosevelts go.

If thats the case then what you should be more concerned about is why the outfitter is saving the real trophy bulls for the highest paying/tipping/repeat clients.
You've put some nice write ups and pics up but this one really takes the cake.

[bigwhiteys]

There is no reasonable explanation as to why a GO should be compensated for those tags as been said numerous times in this thread. Especially on a 340" bull *****, thats a dink as far as trophy roosevelts go.

If a Non-resident tag holder comes into another GO's area (while being guided by a different GO) then I do think the said GO should be entitled to some remuneration. After all... it's their leased tenure and they would be the ones normally making the $$$ if the hunter booked to hunt in that specific area.

It is my understanding these special tag holders can hunt where ever they want to and under the supervision of any G/O they choose. Someone correct me if I am wrong?

If that's the case, I see the outfitters side of the coin. Not that I am sympathetic, just understanding.

Carl

[BlacktailStalker]

But what is it more about, one outfitters best interest for that single year or all of the roosevelt species best interest over many years (that funding) ?

Especially for Island elk, its not like the outfitters are shoulder to shoulder competing as there is no migration in effect to worry about .
I cant remember the last 'count' I was told in an email from the head biologist but considering they all get around what, 3-6 tags each in a large area (of which the resident leh are broken down to smaller areas to keep harvests specific to an area as to not disrupt the balance) the one extra bull isnt going to make a difference.
Besides, its up to the outfitter to let that draw winner know of "this" bull in their area is it not ?
We're talking several thousand roosevelt elk with a more than healthy bull to cow ratio.
Besides, look at the bulls being harvested by the resident leh winners, 90% of them arent anything to gawk at, the record smashers are still out there. Some the outfitters are getting but most are dying of old age because of the climate they live in that cant be figured out in the time most people alot for their leh draws (dense regen, access issues and other factors like lack of scouting, not targeted during the rut)

I just dont see how their business/success can suffer more than it can benefit from the amount of $ that tag generates to be put back in to what their priority should be, the roosevelts well being as a whole, to ensure many many future years success.

I just cant see the "now" being priority over the possible future which benefits all.

[bigwhiteys]

But what is it more about, one outfitters best interest for that single year or all of the roosevelt species best interest over many years (that funding) ?

I know exactly where you're coming from and agree... But when $$$ is involved people get screwy!

Carl

[BlacktailStalker]

Amen :lol: !

[GoatGuy]

If a Non-resident tag holder comes into another GO's area (while being guided by a different GO) then I do think the said GO should be entitled to some remuneration. After all... it's their leased tenure and they would be the ones normally making the $$$ if the hunter booked to hunt in that specific area.

It is my understanding these special tag holders can hunt where ever they want to and under the supervision of any G/O they choose. Someone correct me if I am wrong?

If that's the case, I see the outfitters side of the coin. Not that I am sympathetic, just understanding.

Carl

Straying from the original intent.

Everybody takes the soother out on this one and sucks it up.

All but one of the rams used to come out of a resident only area. Residents never asked for reimbursement and never got reimbursement. Should residents have asked for a reduced quota for outfitters in the following years? Also, outfitters in the 'general' area asked for reimbursement. That's ridiculous.

On the island residents don't get 'reimbursed' for the non-resident tag and they have never asked to.

See where you're coming from but the point of this is to generate $ not to put money in people's pockets.

It's supposed to be about conservation. There are enough people in society who hold their hands out in and think about 'me' first. This was supposed to be one where we put habitat first.

What a joke.

[BlacktailStalker]

This was supposed to be one where we put habitat first.

What a joke.

Thats what I was thinking.

[Jagermeister]

Straying from the original intent.

Everybody takes the soother out on this one and sucks it up.

All but one of the rams used to come out of a resident only area. Residents never asked for reimbursement and never got reimbursement. Should residents have asked for a reduced quota for outfitters in the following years? Also, outfitters in the 'general' area asked for reimbursement. That's ridiculous.

On the island residents don't get 'reimbursed' for the non-resident tag and they have never asked to.

See where you're coming from but the point of this is to generate $ not to put money in people's pockets.

It's supposed to be about conservation. There are enough people in society who hold their hands out in and think about 'me' first. This was supposed to be one where we put habitat first.

What a joke.
Precisely to the point!
Now all you G&Os and supporters of, suck back and reload. It's quite evident that conservation is the furthest thing from your collective minds.:mad:

[BiG Boar]

Precisely to the point!
Now all you G&Os and supporters of, suck back and reload. It's quite evident that conservation is the furthest thing from your collective minds.:mad:

I dont think anyone here is intent on supporting GO's. I think they are merely describing the problem. And trying to see it from different angles, so that a solution can be found. Many here dont understand why these tags are being taken away, and DH was just explaining it. He did not say he was supporting it. I for one can see the problem. And getting upset about it isnt going to bring the tags back. What I would like to see are where the animals are harvested, If indeed it is year after year in the same place, and then I would like to see how many in each of those areas is sustainable to harvest. If it is not enough for residents then there shouldnt be a tag out there to be bought.

I for one am upset that we can't put into the special draw. I always did and hope they come to an agreement soon.

Also, as far as conservation goes, I have not met one person on here who devotes more of there energy and time into sheep conservation than any of you. So that is clearly not the issue. If you think you have done more, please speak up....

[GoatGuy]

I dont think anyone here is intent on supporting GO's. I think they are merely describing the problem. And trying to see it from different angles, so that a solution can be found. Many here dont understand why these tags are being taken away, and DH was just explaining it. He did not say he was supporting it. I for one can see the problem. And getting upset about it isnt going to bring the tags back. What I would like to see are where the animals are harvested, If indeed it is year after year in the same place, and then I would like to see how many in each of those areas is sustainable to harvest. If it is not enough for residents then there shouldnt be a tag out there to be bought.

I for one am upset that we can't put into the special draw. I always did and hope they come to an agreement soon.

Also, as far as conservation goes, I have not met one person on here who devotes more of there energy and time into sheep conservation than any of you. So that is clearly not the issue. If you think you have done more, please speak up....

This is part of the problem, you're already searching for a solution.

Do we actually have a problem in the first place?

Has the roosevelt elk tag impacted the guide-outfitter quota in that area?

If it hasn't than tough shit and we move on.

Just because somebody squawks doesn't mean their squawking for a valid reason. We need to apply some common sense here.

[willy442]

This whole thread makes me sick to my stomach in many ways. First off the issue on Vancouver Island with the Elk permit is not supported entirely by the G/O's, as insinuated by Bridger. Secondly, both the Non Resident Sheep and Elk permit were originally solicited for the purpose of raising money for conservation after many of us watched the high dollar auctions for special permits at the FANAWS conventions, years ago. Due to the realization of the huge issue this donation would bring to the Residents here, an additional draw permit was issued for locals. I totally agree with these tags and the reasons of thier implementation. It is absolutely absurd that a G/O or anyone else should ask for renumeration of any kind on these tags. Like I said above the dollars are to enhance wildlife and hunting. In my opinion anyone crying about lost income or opportunity in regards to these tags should be banned from hunting in the province.

[Fisher-Dude]

It is absolutely absurd that a G/O or anyone else should ask for renumeration of any kind on these tags. Like I said above the dollars are to enhance wildlife and hunting. In my opinion anyone crying about lost income or opportunity in regards to these tags should be banned from hunting in the province.

Willy and I agree. Lucky for some that hell just froze over! :mrgreen:

[luckynuts]

Amen brother !!!!! I can honestly say I enjoy both of your posts !!!!!!!:-D:-D:-D:-D

[bridger]

This whole thread makes me sick to my stomach in many ways. First off the issue on Vancouver Island with the Elk permit is not supported entirely by the G/O's, as insinuated by Bridger. Secondly, both the Non Resident Sheep and Elk permit were originally solicited for the purpose of raising money for conservation after many of us watched the high dollar auctions for special permits at the FANAWS conventions, years ago. Due to the realization of the huge issue this donation would bring to the Residents here, an additional draw permit was issued for locals. I totally agree with these tags and the reasons of thier implementation. It is absolutely absurd that a G/O or anyone else should ask for renumeration of any kind on these tags. Like I said above the dollars are to enhance wildlife and hunting. In my opinion anyone crying about lost income or opportunity in regards to these tags should be banned from hunting in the province.


bull shit willie!! if the majority of g/o's don't agree with compensation why is the goabc pushing it. don't tell me three or four outfitters on vancouver island have enough power to change government policy. I was one of the biggest supporters of this program and was instrumental in getting the bcwf to support the rosie tags. For g/o's to ask for compensation for a legal hunt is completely off base. Anyone with any common sense would support the special tag hunts the way it was originally set up. it wasn't resident hunters that kicked over the table on this one. why aren't the g'/s's that don't support compensation and the suspension of the tags publically speaking out in favor of keeping the special hunts as they were?

[willy442]

bull shit willie!! if the majority of g/o's don't agree with compensation why is the goabc pushing it. don't tell me three or four outfitters on vancouver island have enough power to change government policy. I was one of the biggest supporters of this program and was instrumental in getting the bcwf to support the rosie tags. For g/o's to ask for compensation for a legal hunt is completely off base. Anyone with any common sense would support the special tag hunts the way it was originally set up. it wasn't resident hunters that kicked over the table on this one. why aren't the g'/s's that don't support compensation and the suspension of the tags publically speaking out in favor of keeping the special hunts as they were?

Who in the GOABC has said they are pushing it. All G/O's are not stupid people and I agree for anyone to not support these tags in thier original form is completely off base.
My point to you is stop lumping all guides together. Is it right if all resident hunters are thrown into one basket. I'm sure you would like to be included with the poachers and sign shooters. You for one are constantly involved in these matters between G/O's and residents. What do you have to gain by condeming all guides in regards to these tags? What is the chance of these coming back if the image you are presenting continues to be pushed. Isn't it time to step past the big bad G/O and move forward on many issues.
Look at the Deer now in region 7b another screw up. In 2007 a few of us posted on here about the harsh winter and the deer, moose and elk taking a hit. It was ferociously argued by many residents that thier was no die off, hence we went ahead and shot deer at will. Elkdom still makes that claim to this day. Now we are again going to face restrictions.
Region 4 is now telling lower mainland hunters to stay home. We don't want you guy's coming in here and decimating our elk herds is really what they are saying. The droves of people and the few dollars left in the local economy is not worth the hassle. They see LEH for what it is ( a way to disperse hunters ) hence the support for no GOS.
I think it's maybe time the resident hunter started cleaning off his own doorstep, rather then continuosly blame ALL GUIDES. Then maybe our wildlife conservation and management can move ahead.

[bridger]

my point is the goabc is the organization that said to government we want compensation for the animals that come out of our members areas. the goabc is the voice of the guiding industry. it wasn't individual outfitters going to government it was the goabc executive. so my point again is tif he majority of outfitters are against that policy why aren't they telling the goabc executive to drop it? if the majority of outfitters are against it time to speak up and get the program re instated. seems pretty obvious to me.

[ElkMasterC]

........ seems pretty obvious to me.


And to (almost) everyone else.... :rolleyes:

[willy442]

my point is the goabc is the organization that said to government we want compensation for the animals that come out of our members areas. the goabc is the voice of the guiding industry. it wasn't individual outfitters going to government it was the goabc executive. so my point again is tif he majority of outfitters are against that policy why aren't they telling the goabc executive to drop it? if the majority of outfitters are against it time to speak up and get the program re instated. seems pretty obvious to me.


I call bullshit! It's a waste of time argueing over the matter anyway, so lets just leave it blamed on the G/O. Not much different then the Elk in region 4 guess all the people there that don't want a huge influx of Elk hunters are in bed with the G/O's too! Why waste my time.

[bridger]

I don't want to drag this out but the straight of it is the guides asked for compensation and that request got the program suspended. It is a matter of public record; you can look it up.

[Jagermeister]

I call bullshit! It's a waste of time argueing over the matter anyway, so lets just leave it blamed on the G/O. Not much different then the Elk in region 4 guess all the people there that don't want a huge influx of Elk hunters are in bed with the G/O's too! Why waste my time.I don't know how you can correlate the topic of this thread to that of the EK thread. I don't recall "all the people" asking for monetary compensation for the "hugh influx of Elk hunters". And suggesting that the residents of the EK "are in bed with the G/O's" is simply asinine.
Resident hunters that make a sabbatical hunting trip are the ones that make a big impact on local businesses to the EK region as well as any other region. Ask the sporting goods store owners in the Cariboo how their business fared when the moose GOS closed. The biggest time of the year for the owner of Frank's Supermarket in Quesnel was when the moose GOS opened. His business dropped dramatically with the closure.
What do the G/O's hunters put into the local economy besides squat?
And as far as wasting your time, I look at it the other way around, you're wasting our time.:tongue: