Outfitter appeals

[Confused]

Looks like a few outfitters won their appeals recently.

http://www.eab.gov.bc.ca/wildlife/2011WILList.htm

It will be interesting to see how government reconciles these.

[Devilbear]

It is interesting to see that the Tahltan aborigines WANT to obtain the Collingwood's concession upon retirement of the brothers; this just might have something to do with their support of this use of BC resources by foreign hunters, some 80% of who are Americans.

The Collingwoods were successful in their appeal as were some other GOs and they emply a "tame" RPBio to contradict the ministry staff bio and thus ensure that we residents continue to be restricted to LEH in OUR wilderness parks.........

I favour a total and complete BAN on ANY hunting-angling in BC parks by commercial operators and/or their clients and would like to see the aborigines severely restricted in respect of access to firearms, etc., which are not their "traditiona" tools. I think that MOST members of the general public in BC would agree and this might be one issue to use when a new provincial administration takes power, regardless of who they are.

I would even vote NDP to curtail the aborigines and keep BC resources for those in BC to whom they belong, which is NOT the GOs OR the so-called "fns". It is time to get tough and fight back to keep OUR birthright to hunt, fish and conserve OUR natural heritage!

[ufishifish2]

It is interesting to see that the Tahltan aborigines WANT to obtain the Collingwood's concession upon retirement of the brothers; this just might have something to do with their support of this use of BC resources by foreign hunters, some 80% of who are Americans.

The Collingwoods were successful in their appeal as were some other GOs and they emply a "tame" RPBio to contradict the ministry staff bio and thus ensure that we residents continue to be restricted to LEH in OUR wilderness parks.........

I favour a total and complete BAN on ANY hunting-angling in BC parks by commercial operators and/or their clients and would like to see the aborigines severely restricted in respect of access to firearms, etc., which are not their "traditiona" tools. I think that MOST members of the general public in BC would agree and this might be one issue to use when a new provincial administration takes power, regardless of who they are.

I would even vote NDP to curtail the aborigines and keep BC resources for those in BC to whom they belong, which is NOT the GOs OR the so-called "fns". It is time to get tough and fight back to keep OUR birthright to hunt, fish and conserve OUR natural heritage!

You took the words right out of my mouth DB. I am sure that if someone actually had the balls to do what you stated above, they would get elected in a highly controversial landslide, and then be promptly assassinated. None-the-less, they'd have my vote!!

[Goliath]

I can't open the link (yet), but I wonder if it's the Kreykees that are trying to gobble up Collingwoods turf on the Spatz?

I have no respect for the Kreykees, their business, or anything in their control. This would be a disaster.:icon_frow

[ufishifish2]

Thanks for the link "Confused". I had never come across that one before and there is tonnes of reading material there. Now I am going to get nothing done 'work related' today.

[boxhitch]

Not much fanfare when the topic is moose
bet that changes when sheep quotas hit the table

[CanuckShooter]

Not much fanfare when the topic is moose
bet that changes when sheep quotas hit the table

If you read the documents it's stated that the main reason for the appeal was the loss of goat tags......and protecting the economic viability of their area.

[willy442]

If you read the documents it's stated that the main reason for the appeal was the loss of goat tags......and protecting the economic viability of their area.

Actually if the whole document on the Collingwoods is read it is very clear what the position of Government is in relation to the G/O business. We can all pick parts and pieces to suit our own agenda, like goat tags. The real truth of the matter is the changes were made without good information and scientific data to back them up. It is very clearly stated that the information used was dated and poor at best.:-D

I think Willy, Whiskey Creek and others that work in the field and see the real situations can in fact raise thier arm in victory. It is very clearly stated that the scientific garbage posted by GG and backed by the FD's, SSS, BC Ram's of the world is exactly as I've stated since filling out a profile on this site. POOR at BEST and mostly GARBAGE. Go REGGIE Go.:-D

I will read the other cases later. Now I'll wait for the crying.

[Devilbear]

The position you refer to, Willy, old boy, is that of THIS adminstration and WILL be changed by the next one. I would not be quite so eager to denigrate those whom you do here in respect of scientific aspects of game management in the manner you do, as you and those you mention are not scientists.

As to ...working in the field..., again, I see little correlation between your employment making some $300K per annum in the petro. industry and contemporary ecoscience. Whisky is a rotarywing pilot and this is also hardly a basis for claiming superior scientific expertise.

Scientists in all fields, OFTEN disagree and this seems one example of that situation. While the MOE staffers CAN make errors, so can the scientists hired by the GOs and, one might add, they have an obvious motivation to "find" certain "facts".

So, while I respect your genuine knowledge of Stone's Sheep and your corner of the province; I also think that your reach exceeds your grasp here.

[GoatGuy]

Actually if the whole document on the Collingwoods is read it is very clear what the position of Government is in relation to the G/O business. We can all pick parts and pieces to suit our own agenda, like goat tags. The real truth of the matter is the changes were made without good information and scientific data to back them up. It is very clearly stated that the information used was dated and poor at best.:-D

I think Willy, Whiskey Creek and others that work in the field and see the real situations can in fact raise thier arm in victory. It is very clearly stated that the scientific garbage posted by GG and backed by the FD's, SSS, BC Ram's of the world is exactly as I've stated since filling out a profile on this site. POOR at BEST and mostly GARBAGE. Go REGGIE Go.:-D

I will read the other cases later. Now I'll wait for the crying.

There wasn't any debate on the data.

Do you think it's best to increase the harvest with old data?

[willy442]

The position you refer to, Willy, old boy, is that of THIS adminstration and WILL be changed by the next one. I would not be quite so eager to denigrate those whom you do here in respect of scientific aspects of game management in the manner you do, as you and those you mention are not scientists.

As to ...working in the field..., again, I see little correlation between your employment making some $300K per annum in the petro. industry and contemporary ecoscience. Whisky is a rotarywing pilot and this is also hardly a basis for claiming superior scientific expertise.

Scientists in all fields, OFTEN disagree and this seems one example of that situation. While the MOE staffers CAN make errors, so can the scientists hired by the GOs and, one might add, they have an obvious motivation to "find" certain "facts".

So, while I respect your genuine knowledge of Stone's Sheep and your corner of the province; I also think that your reach exceeds your grasp here.

You seem to have slightly missed my point. I do not question the ability of the scientists. What I question is the data they are trying to use and base thier adjustments in harvest stratagies from. Once they have ample funds to stay on top of the information they gather and it keep it current, we may see different results and more trust in thier information. I have constantly stood behind information I see with my own eyes in the field. Information, that on most occassions is not anywhere close to matching thier claims. This is not the first nor will it be the last time the department has been told they are out to lunch. Yes a certain amount of what they gather and learn over the various counts and studies they do, is somewhat valuable. However it is not information I would bet my future of hunting on like some on here seem to think. "usually when it play's in thier favor"

The other point I would like to make with you, is the fact that the Government is to maintain a viable nonresident hunting sector in the province as wrote into the act. This is where we keep disagreeing on the longivity of the G/O.

[willy442]

There wasn't any debate on the data.

Do you think it's best to increase the harvest with old data?

You are right. There was no debate as no one wanted to waste thier time on information gathered in the early 90's. I;m sure you can find something more recent to cut and paste from though.

No one is increasing harvest. They are putting the harvest back to where it was, until better information can be gathered. I believe you have known this to be the G/O's arguement since not signing onto the new allocation policy. I do believe you should leave things alone and gather proper information before screwing up someone's lively hood. Bet it really tee's you off that the year will probably be 2017 before you see this surface again. I really like my new signature, it comes from the decision with the GG thrown in because you are special.:-D

[GoatGuy]

You are right. There was no debate as no one wanted to waste thier time on information gathered in the early 90's. I;m sure you can find something more recent to cut and paste from though.

No one is increasing harvest. They are putting the harvest back to where it was, until better information can be gathered. I believe you have known this to be the G/O's arguement since not signing onto the new allocation policy. I do believe you should leave things alone and gather proper information before screwing up someone's lively hood. Bet it really tee's you off that the year will probably be 2017 before you see this surface again. I really like my new signature, it comes from the decision with the GG thrown in because you are special.:-D

There was very little discussion with the Collingwood appeal. Their appeal had little to do with the splits or the allocation, more about the allowable harvest.

That is completely different from all of the other appeals and what's coming from GOABC. The push is to take harvest away from residents and give it to outfitters.

There are less than a handful of outfitters in BC that are on the same page as the Collingwoods.

[willy442]

There was very little discussion with the Collingwood appeal. Their appeal had little to do with the splits or the allocation, more about the allowable harvest.

That is completely different from all of the other appeals and what's coming from GOABC. The push is to take harvest away from residents and give it to outfitters.

There are less than a handful of outfitters in BC that are on the same page as the Collingwoods.

I noticed from the report that the BCWF had nothing much to say. Is the allowable harvest not the first step in determining allocation? Need I really say anymore.:-D

[GoatGuy]

I noticed from the report that the BCWF had nothing much to say. Is the allowable harvest not the first step in determining allocation? Need I really say anymore.:-D

Not sure what you're getting at, most of what they had to say was justified on that appeal.

Like I said, they're good outfitters.

[willy442]

Not sure what you're getting at, most of what they had to say was justified on that appeal.

Like I said, they're good outfitters.

I see if they fit your definition of good outfitters, everything is OK. Funny how we go from accuracy of your mathematical formula's to good and bad outfitters. You are just about as transparent as a newly washed window. Do they not hunt in the area of region 6 that was of such concern for you in other posts?.:-D

[GoatGuy]

I see if they fit your definition of good outfitters, everything is OK. Funny how we go from accuracy of your mathematical formula's to good and bad outfitters. You are just about as transparent as a newly washed window. Do they not hunt in the area of region 6 that was of such concern for you in other posts?.:-D

The parks were never a concern - they're not on the skeena formula.

Seems like you're fishing - you should know the issues first so you can have an informed opinion.

[willy442]

The parks were never a concern - they're not on the skeena formula.

Seems like you're fishing - you should know the issues first so you can have an informed opinion.

I have no need to fish unless I'm on the island in my boat. Fishing in the political arena is something you are away better at. You love to beak off and then twist and change to whatever when called out. I think you should run to replace Campbell.:)

[boxhitch]

If you read the documents it's stated that the main reason for the appeal was the loss of goat tags......and protecting the economic viability of their area.If ??
The ones I refer to don't even have goats mentioned. There is more than one appeal ;)

[boxhitch]

You are just about as transparent as a newly washed window.
You love to beak off and then twist and change to whatever when called out.ahahahah
the best of verbal warfare

[willy442]

Where are all the region 6 hunters that were up in arms over allocation in the past couple of months. By the appeal held in regards to the Collingwoods in this link it is clearly a victory for the G/O's. I would take this as a precident to the abolishment of the allocation policy that was to be implemented in 2012. I find it very surprising that everyone on here is ignoring or avoiding discussion on the decission.
http://http://www.eab.gov.bc.ca/wildlife/2011WILList.htm

[Call of the Wild]

It's been a few days.

http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=63582

[6616]

Where are all the region 6 hunters that were up in arms over allocation in the past couple of months. By the appeal held in regards to the Collingwoods in this link it is clearly a victory for the G/O's. I would take this as a precident to the abolishment of the allocation policy that was to be implemented in 2012. I find it very surprising that everyone on here is ignoring or avoiding discussion on the decission.
http://http://www.eab.gov.bc.ca/wildlife/2011WILList.htm

The Collingwood appeal is by no means a landmark decision and will have no effect on the alloction policy because it was the regional decision to reduce the AAHs that were challenged, not the decision on allocation. The decision was to revert to the old quotas and also part of the decision was to increase resident opportunity to keep allocations the same, until better data can support whether the AAH needs adjusted or not. The Collingwood decision also has no effect on Region 6 management strategies since it's a Provincial Park and management regimes are much different in the Parks than they are in the rest of Region 6.

The rest of Region 6:
The Fitch, Cork and Parkinson appeals on quotas were all denied due to fact that these guys are not fully utilizing the quotas they already have for any species and the new quotas cannot be shown to negativelly effect these business'. The Searle appeal was dismissed because of his failure to appear.

The Gary Blackwell appeal on quota was allowed but will not effect allocation. Blackwell fully utilizes his quota and it was shown the new quotas would negativelly effect his business, but the reversal to the former quotas for Blackwell will come from a transfer of quota from Lewis and other adjoining territories who are not fully utilizing there quota and will not effect resident/non-resident allocation percentages.

These decisions basically upheld the allocation policy. Not saying there's no room for improvement in policy, or that review of policy won't or shoudn't happen, but these appeal decisions are not what will cause that to occur.

[one-shot-wonder]

Thanks for the clarification 6616.

442 why the optimism on removing the policy? Didn't the NW guides agree to the policy way back when?

The quota handed to Collingwoods seems generous or No?

[boxhitch]

Thats the way I read it too , A.
The allocations stay the same, just some minor adjustment to the numbers used for baseline.
G/O will still see a reduction in 2012, but from a higher starting point, as the 20% hardship protection will help him out.

What I don't like is the reference to whether the hardship against a business's viability should be considered.
No other business gets compensated when the goal posts are moved for them.

[6616]

Thats the way I read it too , A.
The allocations stay the same, just some minor adjustment to the numbers used for baseline.
G/O will still see a reduction in 2012, but from a higher starting point, as the 20% hardship protection will help him out.

What I don't like is the reference to whether the hardship against a business's viability should be considered.
No other business gets compensated when the goal posts are moved for them.

The guides seem to think the government is responsible for maintaining the economic viability of individual operations. This is not the case, the viability refers to the entire industry and not individual operations. There was already an appeal a couple years ago that stettled that question. Here is a quote from that decision: (Note the last paragraph)

2003-WIL-025(a) Robert Milligan v. Regional Manager (mhtml:{09A407A8-972C-48B4-96E9-66C975CC0012}mid://00000000/!x-usc:http://www.eab.gov.bc.ca/wildlife/2003wil025a.pdf)


Decision Date: April 27, 2004
Panel: Lorraine Shore Keywords: </SPAN>Wildlife Act</SPAN> – S. 60(1); guide outfitter licence; quota; moose; Nass Wildlife Area; R. v. Sparrow, ministry duty to guide outfitters</SPAN>
Robert Milligan appealed the decision of the Regional Manager to allocate him a quota of eight antlered moose in two separate areas of his guide territory in the Skeena region. Mr. Milligan sought a substantial increase in his moose quota.</SPAN>
The Board held that Mr. Milligan produced no evidence to demonstrate that the Ministry's calculations of the number of moose available for harvest were incorrect, or that the allocation of moose among user groups should be varied.</SPAN>
The Board found that the evidence did not support that the Ministry had established a resident to non-resident hunter ratio that would entitle Mr. Milligan to 23% of the moose available for harvest in the area. The Board also found that the evidence did not support an allocation of available moose on the basis of the size of Mr. Milligan's guiding territory as a proportion of the total land base on which moose hunting occurs in the region. The Board concluded that the land base method of dividing annual grizzly bear quota among guides in the region was not applicable here, given the dissimilarity of the territories involved and the absence of evidence that would allow a comparison of the guiding areas in this case.</SPAN>
The Board concluded that the Ministry's moose allocation for First Nations in and around the Nass Wildlife Area recognizes the aboriginal right to hunt set out in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Sparrow. The Boardfound that Mr. Milligan had provided no evidence or legal authority to show that the allocation was wrong.</SPAN>
The Board did not accept Mr. Milligan's argument that his quota provided no economic basis for a guiding business. The Board also found that Mr. Milligan produced no authority to support his contention that the Ministry had a fiduciary duty to make his operation viable. The Board confirmed the decision of the Regional Manager and dismissed the appeal.

[Gateholio]

Merged so I dont' have to flip back and forth and nanny 2 threads on essentially the same topic...:tongue:

[willy442]

The Collingwood appeal is by no means a landmark decision and will have no effect on the alloction policy because it was the regional decision to reduce the AAHs that were challenged, not the decision on allocation. The decision was to revert to the old quotas and also part of the decision was to increase resident opportunity to keep allocations the same, until better data can support whether the AAH needs adjusted or not. The Collingwood decision also has no effect on Region 6 management strategies since it's a Provincial Park and management regimes are much different in the Parks than they are in the rest of Region 6.

The rest of Region 6:
The Fitch, Cork and Parkinson appeals on quotas were all denied due to fact that these guys are not fully utilizing the quotas they already have for any species and the new quotas cannot be shown to negativelly effect these business'. The Searle appeal was dismissed because of his failure to appear.

The Gary Blackwell appeal on quota was allowed but will not effect allocation. Blackwell fully utilizes his quota and it was shown the new quotas would negativelly effect his business, but the reversal to the former quotas for Blackwell will come from a transfer of quota from Lewis and other adjoining territories who are not fully utilizing there quota and will not effect resident/non-resident allocation percentages.

These decisions basically upheld the allocation policy. Not saying there's no room for improvement in policy, or that review of policy won't or shoudn't happen, but these appeal decisions are not what will cause that to occur.

You read it any way you want. The meat of the whole thing is we are not managing our wildlife off of good recent information. We are in fact affecting the lively hood of business men licenced and supported by the province from this same poor information. This decision will result in the delay of the proposed allocation policy due to these facts until 2017. I'm not saying anyone will get an increase but you can bet thier will be no decreases without a hell of a fight. The precident is set and anyone that don't think so will soon see. The Blackwell and other cases on Moose are entirely different than the Collingwood appeal.

[willy442]

Thats the way I read it too , A.
The allocations stay the same, just some minor adjustment to the numbers used for baseline.
G/O will still see a reduction in 2012, but from a higher starting point, as the 20% hardship protection will help him out.

What I don't like is the reference to whether the hardship against a business's viability should be considered.
No other business gets compensated when the goal posts are moved for them.

What about the logging industry, railroads, hydro and others. All resource based business's. The Government clearly states its support of the guiding industry and decisions must be made with it's viability in mind. The Collingwoods have clearly branched out into other income sources than hunting and most will have to do this. The fact the Collingwoods were looking beyond hunting to eco-tours no doubt helped with acquiring this decision. There are others out there with the same investment and diversity that fair in the same manner I'm sure.

[6616]

The meat of the whole thing is we are not managing our wildlife off of good recent information.

That's only true only in some regions, and as well that inventroy information is used to establish AAHs, not allocations.

AAHs will vary over time, quotas and LEH authorizations will vary equally with AAHs, but in fairness resident/non-resident allocated percentages should stay the same.

Do you think residents should give up opportunties in order to improve the viability of the outfitting industry when BC already has the highest non-resident allocations south of the 60th parallel?

[boxhitch]

What about the logging industry, railroads, hydro and others. All resource based business's. Ok what of them ?
First off, they can't be considered on equal grounds, rail and hydro are not really private enterprise.
Logging industry, lots of variety, but have not seen many golden parachutes when things get rough and markets drop or supply dwindles. No handout there.


The Government clearly states its support of the guiding industry and decisions must be made with it's viability in mind. They clearly state they recognize the g/o's as a real industry, not unlike mining and logging, but I bet they stop short of saying they need to prop any of them up with support. Free enterpriise is left alone to wallow around til it dies or adjusts to survive.

[6616]

The below ia a quote from the Commercial Interests Policy of the Allocation Policy and Procedurers Manual. This is what it says about economic viability and it ends here. Certainly no guarantee exists to maintain AAHs or for resident hunters to subsidize guiding by adjusting allocation percentages for economic viability reasons. Of course we all know policies can change over night, but we also know the guiding industry is not a essential services industry and they will not be afforded any special conditions other free enterprize industries do not enjoy.

It is the policy of the Ministry:
That guide outfitters’ commercial interests in the harvest of big game species will be addressed by:

(3) supporting the viability of the guide outfitting industry by committing to:
a. the timely application of decision making processes regarding the transfer and disposition of guide territories;
b. the timely review of the status of uncertificated areas;
c. creating and maintaining a regulatory framework that maximizes guided hunters’ success, enjoyment, and participation;
d. the maintenance of exclusive guided hunting rights for guide outfitters; and

[willy442]

Ok what of them ?
First off, they can't be considered on equal grounds, rail and hydro are not really private enterprise.


Logging industry, lots of variety, but have not seen many golden parachutes when things get rough and markets drop or supply dwindles. No handout there.


How about Timber West on the Island, Empire Valley and many others. There has been hand out on top of hand out in the logging.


They clearly state they recognize the g/o's as a real industry, not unlike mining and logging, but I bet they stop short of saying they need to prop any of them up with support. Free enterpriise is left alone to wallow around til it dies or adjusts to survive.

Nobody is asking for a hand out, seems to me the G/O's are willing to work and diversify to keep thier operations running. They just want fair and just quota's and opportunity based on real time accurate information. I don't know of one G/O that would not support cuts if required through just and fair information. The me, me, me ........ resident cry is not enough as indicated in the decision.

[willy442]

The below ia a quote from the Commercial Interests Policy of the Allocation Policy and Procedurers Manual. This is what it says about economic viability and it ends here. Certainly no guarantee exists to maintain AAHs or for resident hunters to subsidize guiding by adjusting allocation percentages for economic viability reasons. Of course we all know policies can change over night, but we also know the guiding industry is not a essential services industry and they will not be afforded any special conditions other free enterprize industries do not enjoy.

It is the policy of the Ministry:
That guide outfitters’ commercial interests in the harvest of big game species will be addressed by:

(3) supporting the viability of the guide outfitting industry by committing to:
a. the timely application of decision making processes regarding the transfer and disposition of guide territories;
b. the timely review of the status of uncertificated areas;
c. creating and maintaining a regulatory framework that maximizes guided hunters’ success, enjoyment, and participation;
d. the maintenance of exclusive guided hunting rights for guide outfitters; and


Not argueing these facts. Just stating the BCWF has a long fight ahead if they want to continue down the present allocation path. As the report pretty much states. They do not have good information to set a starting point on allowable harvest, which is the first step to achieve allocation. I would think this would be a major point in the G/O's appealing and it rightly should be in my opinion. Things presently not looked at, as I continually state are the over harvest of localized areas and the G/O's ability to access country the resident cannot. The Ministry I believe tries to manage over to large of area's on individual spiecies often in the most sensitive areas. This results in the G/O's livelyhood being affected in a manner that is not based on solid information. They have to get it right like stated in the decision. I believe that is a good thing for everyone, not just the G/O.

[6616]

Not argueing these facts. Just stating the BCWF has a long fight ahead if they want to continue down the present allocation path. As the report pretty much states. They do not have good information to set a starting point on allowable harvest, which is the first step to achieve allocation. I would think this would be a major point in the G/O's appealing and it rightly should be in my opinion. Things presently not looked at, as I continually state are the over harvest of localized areas and the G/O's ability to access country the resident cannot. The Ministry I believe tries to manage over to large of area's on individual spiecies often in the most sensitive areas. This results in the G/O's livelyhood being affected in a manner that is not based on solid information. They have to get it right like stated in the decision. I believe that is a good thing for everyone, not just the G/O.

Everyone including the managers themselves would love to be able to micro-manage smaller areas and have better data but that's really unrealistic in today's economy. What would you have government do, divert funds away from health care....education...? BC manages with as good or better data than any other jurisdiction in North America.

The four appeals that were lost, were lost due to the fact the outfitters couldn't use the quotas they already have, and that's due to their inability to book hunters on account of the global economic downturn, not lack of animals, or an unrealistic AAH.

The BCWF is more than willing to allow outfitters to have fair quota but how much is fair.....what percentage....? Why do they just keep asking for more, more, more...isn't 30 to 40% good enough...?

[willy442]

Everyone including the managers themselves would love to be able to micro-manage smaller areas and have better data but that's really unrealistic in today's economy. What would you have government do, divert funds away from health care....education...? BC manages with as good or better data than any other jurisdiction in North America.

I guess they should start working a little closer with those that have the means and time to assist them in the bush. It would be to the benefit of everyone.



The four appeals that were lost, were lost due to the fact the outfitters couldn't use the quotas they already have, and that's due to their inability to book hunters on account of the global economic downturn, not lack of animals, or an unrealistic AAH.


Do you really know why they didn't book the hunters or are you just assuming. Regardless my focus is onthe appeal that was won and why.



The BCWF is more than willing to allow outfitters to have fair quota but how much is fair.....what percentage....? Why do they just keep asking for more, more, more...isn't 30 to 40% good enough...?


By the decison, I guess we should really find out what we have before we worry about splitting something that may or may not be there. ANOTHER WISE DECISION.

[Devilbear]

I would love to see government divert funds away from many groups/policies to properly finance appropriate environmental management on a permanend basis; I think that ALL "concerned" sectors of the entire public of BC should suppor such an initiative.

Eliminate ALL funding for multiculturalism, immigrant services of all kinds, ESL, Human Rights Commissions, feminist and gay groups and enforcement of so-called "anti-racism" and "hate" legislation. This,would free a lot of tax funds to pay for the cleanup and maintenance of a healthy environment in BC and would also result in all residents being treated equally under the law...win, win, IMO.

[Devilbear]

[quote=boxhitch;867068]Ok what of them ?
First off, they can't be considered on equal grounds, rail and hydro are not really private enterprise.


How about Timber West on the Island, Empire Valley and many others. There has been hand out on top of hand out in the logging.

quote]

Nobody is asking for a hand out, seems to me the G/O's are willing to work and diversify to keep thier operations running. They just want fair and just quota's and opportunity based on real time accurate information. I don't know of one G/O that would not support cuts if required through just and fair information. The me, me, me ........ resident cry is not enough as indicated in the decision.

So, the GO's quest for larger quotas and further restrictions on resident hunters is ...fair and just..., yet, the residents attempts to secure their own rights are merely a ...cry..., eh? This, is the same old, same old Willy, with a never-ending attack upon we who OWN the sheep, etc. and a continual promotion of the supposed "right" of GO's to a share of BC's game simply because they CHOOSE to operate a business.......

Sorry, Willie, this will not fly with the vast majority of the voters in BC as most are urban people who really do not favour foreign hunting and are not going to support the GO's in their quest to enrich themselves at the expense of we residents.

This thread has given me an idea as to exactly how to deal with the whole GO mess and the majority of voters are likely to see the situation as many here do, if not be totally opposed to any GO activity in BC...and, that feeling is very prevalent in the larger population centers.

[6616]

By the decison, I guess we should really find out what we have before we worry about splitting something that may or may not be there. ANOTHER WISE DECISION.

Nearly all the outfitter appeals over the last 4 years have been over assigned quotas (or the splits indirectly since the AAH is usually a fixed entity), so I guess the commercial sector should be the first to heed your advice....!

I think in most cases in the southern regions we do know what we have and AAHs are based on reasonably decent data. Just because the EAB said the Spatsizi inventory was outdated doesn't mean this is a province wide issue. We know it applies to Region 6, parts of Region 7 and 5 for some species, but for the most part inventories and AAHs are based on pretty good data in the other regions.

The Collingwood decision applies to the Spatsizi Park only, not the entire region or province, as you seem to assume.

[6616]

I think Willy, Whiskey Creek and others that work in the field and see the real situations can in fact raise thier arm in victory. It is very clearly stated that the scientific garbage posted by GG and backed by the FD's, SSS, BC Ram's of the world is exactly as I've stated since filling out a profile on this site. POOR at BEST and mostly GARBAGE.

Yes, we should base wildlife management on anecdotal information from guide-outfitters, what a lose lose situation that would be, using the most unreliable and self-serving data source available.

When it comes to resident hunting (GOABC economic viability paper) outfitters claim the spike/fork moose hunt is non-sustainable, the region 7a moose harvest strategy is unsustainable, that more species should be on LEH, that recruitment/retention hunts are not sustainable, and that AAHs are based on inappropriate or outdated data - multiple attacks on resident hunting opportunities claiming sustainablity as justification,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, yet when it comes to EAB appeals on quotas there's lots of animals out there and there's no need to reduce quotas or AAHs upon which quotas are based unless better data is available,,,,,, yah, real sound management idea...!

What a frikkin' joke....!

[Devilbear]

Well said, that about says it all and, IMO, we are going to see much greater opposition to GOs and their "concern" for BC wildlife in the very near future.

As we old guys remember, some guy called "Dylan" used to sing something about, "the times, they are a'changin' "......

[one-shot-wonder]

Yes, we should base wildlife management on anecdotal information from guide-outfitters, what a lose lose situation that would be, using the most unreliable and self-serving data source available.

When it comes to resident hunting (GOABC economic viability paper) outfitters claim the spike/fork moose hunt is non-sustainable, the region 7a moose harvest strategy is unsustainable, that more species should be on LEH, that recruitment/retention hunts are not sustainable, and that AAHs are based on inappropriate or outdated data - multiple attacks on resident hunting opportunities claiming sustainablity as justification,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, yet when it comes to EAB appeals on quotas there's lots of animals out there and there's no need to reduce quotas or AAHs upon which quotas are based unless better data is available,,,,,, yah, real sound management idea...!

What a frikkin' joke....!

A joke is right....... What ever happened to the G/O's that used to do it for the love of being out and did it as a hobby outside of their career, not try to make money hand over fist, at everyone in the province's expense.

[willy442]

Nearly all the outfitter appeals over the last 4 years have been over assigned quotas (or the splits indirectly since the AAH is usually a fixed entity), so I guess the commercial sector should be the first to heed your advice....!

I think in most cases in the southern regions we do know what we have and AAHs are based on reasonably decent data. Just because the EAB said the Spatsizi inventory was outdated doesn't mean this is a province wide issue. We know it applies to Region 6, parts of Region 7 and 5 for some species, but for the most part inventories and AAHs are based on pretty good data in the other regions.

The Collingwood decision applies to the Spatsizi Park only, not the entire region or province, as you seem to assume.

I don't assume anything. The fact is the resident is sucking the hind tit again because of the same old unorganized bullshit south of the pine pass. The guide are again well organized and putting forth a complete package in thier defence, something the BCWF fails at. Time after time. "Can you say PERSONAL AGENDA's?

[willy442]

A joke is right....... What ever happened to the G/O's that used to do it for the love of being out and did it as a hobby outside of their career, not try to make money hand over fist, at everyone in the province's expense.

For the most part nothing has changed. There is no hand over fist money as you believe. I know you and the other dreamers think different so all I can say is get your money out. I don't know of 1 outfit thats not fore sale if some one was holding the cash. That's why my family sold one of the most prestine hunting area's in the province. There was way to much money to be made! Let alone the constant fighting to keep enough opportunity to be able to pay your operating costs.

[6616]

I trust you had a good time at the North Peace R&G Club fundraiser last night Willie..and maybe dropped few bucks for wildlife stewardship....?

[willy442]

I trust you had a good time at the North Peace R&G Club fundraiser last night Willie..and maybe dropped few bucks for wildlife stewardship....?

No as a matter of fact I'm a long ways away from Fort St John at present. Lots of buddies there though spending money on items to keep hunting alive and as well as can be here in the North so guy's from the South can come and enjoy.:-D

I'll donate again when I see a report on the health and accomplishments of the resident hunter fund.

[one-shot-wonder]

For the most part nothing has changed. There is no hand over fist money as you believe. I know you and the other dreamers think different so all I can say is get your money out. I don't know of 1 outfit thats not fore sale if some one was holding the cash. That's why my family sold one of the most prestine hunting area's in the province. There was way to much money to be made! Let alone the constant fighting to keep enough opportunity to be able to pay your operating costs.

What do you mean nothing has changed. Every outfitter I know of is a fulltime GO. Hungrier than ever for a bigger piece of the pie because they dont have an income to supplement there outdoor aspirations.........It is what it is. Just saying, different than then good old days I enjoyed reading about.

[GoatGuy]

Nobody is asking for a hand out, seems to me the G/O's are willing to work and diversify to keep thier operations running. They just want fair and just quota's and opportunity based on real time accurate information. I don't know of one G/O that would not support cuts if required through just and fair information. The me, me, me ........ resident cry is not enough as indicated in the decision.

The outfitters in Region 5 on moose, 7b on sheep, 6 on moose have asked for handouts when there was good data in environmental appeals - they were shot down. The outfitters in Region 5 have also requested handouts on mule deer, same with 4 and 8.

You clearly haven't read the report or the allocation policy. Nobody touched the splits in the decision, the AAH that was established was based on old data. As you will read in the appeal the BCWF was supportive of most of what was presented at the Collingwood appeal and the EAB never touched the splits.

The only things that weren't supported were the comments that residents wouldn't shoot moose more than 100 yards from the lake and they left meat in the bush to rot. Course that didn't make it into the final document, but it will give you a gut pile to feed off.

In terms of data, there was support from all sides as there have been in other instances. Having said that we are still dealing with old data and it is probably more prudent to be on the conservative side for some species (goats in particular).

It's difficult to see your 'sheep first' conservation based mentality when you're calling this a 'win'. All the decision did was increase the theoretical AAH. The harvest in spatsizi is typically 8 g/o and 4 resident for a total of 12 rams per year. By maintaining a quota of 8 rams we have increased the AAH to 20 rams per year. With a 3% harvest rate we've not established a theoretical population of 660 sheep.

So, I guess the question is: Do we have 660 sheep in Spatsizi? Probably somewhere between 500-700 so close enough. Not a big deal in my mind.

All in all this decision makes sense. It's funny, you're trying to create a wedge where none exists. Talk about pouring gas on the fire.

[GoatGuy]

For the most part nothing has changed. There is no hand over fist money as you believe. I know you and the other dreamers think different so all I can say is get your money out. I don't know of 1 outfit thats not fore sale if some one was holding the cash. That's why my family sold one of the most prestine hunting area's in the province. There was way to much money to be made! Let alone the constant fighting to keep enough opportunity to be able to pay your operating costs.

Maybe up north, but there are plenty of wannabe outfitters from 7a south that have a moose quota of 10 in an area the size of prince george that want to make a full-time living.

A couple of the handles on the forum are the guys from the cariboo who have gotten increased quota every time a 'conservation concern' pops up. :roll: Most of them wouldn't get out of the truck at gun point.

It's funny when you talk to the old boys who used to be part-time outfitters whose areas have been chopped up 4 and 5 times and the guys now expect to make a full-time living in the south. Life's certainly different up North.

[6616]

I don't assume anything. The fact is the resident is sucking the hind tit again because of the same old unorganized bullshit south of the pine pass. The guide are again well organized and putting forth a complete package in thier defence, something the BCWF fails at. Time after time. "Can you say PERSONAL AGENDA's?

Unorganized you say....I guess that's why out of the dozen or so appeals relating to quotas that have been processed since 2008 outfitters have only won two......interestingly during the same time frame that BCWF began getting intervener status and presented highly detailed and factually accurate briefs to EAB that literally blew the outfitters cases right out if the water.....!

[willy442]

Unorganized you say....I guess that's why out of the dozen or so appeals relating to quotas that have been processed since 2008 outfitters have only won two......interestingly during the same time frame that BCWF began getting intervener status and presented highly detailed and factually accurate briefs to EAB that literally blew the outfitters cases right out if the water.....!

Compared to the North you guy's are a joke. Look at the NPRGC auction this past week. They raised more money in one night than the whole BCWF budget used to be. Like I said earlier so clowns from the south could reap the benefits.

As for your appeals call them what you will. Personally if information I was backing 100% was shown to be garbage like in the decision. I'd look for better information. You guy's keep backing the latest info you have which from what I see and the people on here that are actually out in the bush post. The recent stuff you have is just as incomplete and as poor as the info you had on the PARK. It should be really embarrassing that the info was that bad in one of our world renouned park.

Back the bullshit and cry about lack of resources to make it better is the game played down there in wally world. Fort St John a small town in the north that many in the south don't even know exists can raise huge dollars in 1 night for wildlife, like they just did. What can you guy's do besides try and defend scientific garbble?:-D

[Devilbear]

Willy, willy, you know, you could do so much more and really assist others here with your genuine sheep knowledge, if you would only drop the crap about ...clowns from the south... I would point out that your own son lives, works and is thus a resident of the same ...south... that you seem to need to disparage.

Certainly, St. John, (where some friends of mine came to school from in the ...south... circa 1967 and then got their first tree-planting jobs as I hired them for one of the BCFS crews I supervised back then....should they have worked in ...the south...?) DOES raise a whack of cash for wildlife as did the Kootenay towns in my youth; this is because of relatively high per capita resource industry-based incomes and more hunters in the overall population...simple and what one would expect.

However, like it or not, BC belongs to ALL BC citizens and those living in the southern regions have as much RIGHT to hunt in the north as those living around St. John, have the RIGHT to advanced medical services at VGH or post-grad. studies at UBC, capiche, bud?

...wallyworld..., well, would you prefer MEC???? :):):)

[6616]

Compared to the North you guy's are a joke. Look at the NPRGC auction this past week. They raised more money in one night than the whole BCWF budget used to be. Like I said earlier so clowns from the south could reap the benefits.

As for your appeals call them what you will. Personally if information I was backing 100% was shown to be garbage like in the decision. I'd look for better information. You guy's keep backing the latest info you have which from what I see and the people on here that are actually out in the bush post. The recent stuff you have is just as incomplete and as poor as the info you had on the PARK. It should be really embarrassing that the info was that bad in one of our world renouned park.

Back the bullshit and cry about lack of resources to make it better is the game played down there in wally world. Fort St John a small town in the north that many in the south don't even know exists can raise huge dollars in 1 night for wildlife, like they just did. What can you guy's do besides try and defend scientific garbble?:-D

What a bunch of babble. In the first place you obviously haven't even the remotest idea what the BCWF annual budget is or you wouldn't be spouting off such a load of crap...!

In the second place,,, MNRO manages with the best data they have even if in some cases it's inadequate, what other choice do they have, and don't say manage by what the guys in the bush tell them,,,, because anyone with half a brain knows that's not good enough..!

In the third place the data MNRO has for Region 7b is no better than what they have anywhere else so things really aren't any different whether you're north or south of Pine Pass or not, as a matter of fact generally speaking if you look at Region 6 the data in the north is far poorer than what the southern regions have. Last time I looked Spatsizi was in Region 6.

You've been away from wildlife issues for too long Willie, the stuff you preach might have fooled people back in the 1970's and 1980's but it's just a load of crap in today's world...!

Outfitters are not all knowing angels, and everything that's wrong in the world is not the fault of the BCWF.

[willy442]

[quote=Devilbear;868127]Willy, willy, you know, you could do so much more and really assist others here with your genuine sheep knowledge, if you would only drop the crap about ...clowns from the south... I would point out that your own son lives, works and is thus a resident of the same ...south... that you seem to need to disparage.

Fortunately my son was raised with the utmost respect for conservation and the life style of a true woodsman and hunter, much like your self. He does not have the me,me,me attitude that runs rampart in the lower portion of the province. I believe this is loud and clear to most who follow him on this site or his own.



Certainly, St. John, (where some friends of mine came to school from in the ...south... circa 1967 and then got their first tree-planting jobs as I hired them for one of the BCFS crews I supervised back then....should they have worked in ...the south...?) DOES raise a whack of cash for wildlife as did the Kootenay towns in my youth; this is because of relatively high per capita resource industry-based incomes and more hunters in the overall population...simple and what one would expect.

I don't agree with you here. When the Resident hunter fund was spearheaded by Rich and guy's in the North it was pretty much funded here as well. Fort St John is a town of about 18000 people and it can raise money equal in 1 night to what the whole province will likely raise at the BCWSS banquet. We have how many hunters south of the pine pass?



However, like it or not, BC belongs to ALL BC citizens and those living in the southern regions have as much RIGHT to hunt in the north as those living around St. John, have the RIGHT to advanced medical services at VGH or post-grad. studies at UBC, capiche, bud?


I believe we should have a user pay system and we are far from it. I watch our industry tax dollars pave roads and support the kraft dinner eaters down there everyday of the year because thats where the votes are and I'm damn well sick of it. The guy's down there want to bitch and cry then buck up like the guy's up here and don't cry about resource industry. Also thats really what Guide Outfitting is "a resource industry":-D

...wallyworld..., well, would you prefer MEC???? :):):)

[one-shot-wonder]

[quote]

Fortunately my son was raised with the utmost respect for conservation and the life style of a true woodsman and hunter, much like your self. He does not have the me,me,me attitude that runs rampart in the lower portion of the province. I believe this is loud and clear to most who follow him on this site or his own.

Wow what a hero......born in the north. Were you this prejudice to your foreign clients too?

[one-shot-wonder]

Back the bullshit and cry about lack of resources to make it better is the game played down there in wally world. Fort St John a small town in the north that many in the south don't even know exists can raise huge dollars in 1 night for wildlife, like they just did. What can you guy's do besides try and defend scientific garbble?:-D

So if my career at times requires me to be north of the pine pass, in lots of cases in and around Foreskin John and mostly benefits the locals in the peace does that give me special exemption in your high and mighty world??

Or does the fact that I can hunt up north, do some work up north and not have to live in a $hat hole like FSJ, and enjoy life down in the zoo consider me an alien in my own province? Should I stay home and let the foreigners take all of the "wildlife industry" as export?

[willy442]

So if my career at times requires me to be north of the pine pass, in lots of cases in and around Foreskin John and mostly benefits the locals in the peace does that give me special exemption in your high and mighty world??

Or does the fact that I can hunt up north, do some work up north and not have to live in a $hat hole like FSJ, and enjoy life down in the zoo consider me an alien in my own province? Should I stay home and let the foreigners take all of the "wildlife industry" as export?

Your post pretty shows the typical kraft dinner eater from the south attitude; Foreskin John,$hat hole. Why don't you just stay south of the pass with your prominent disrespect for one of the greatest hunting spots and supportive communities in the world. We really don't need you here.:)

[Devilbear]

Willy, if you do some research, you will find that the entire provincial infrastructure is subsidized by the majority of the tax income to government from the southwestern region of BC. The "north" does not pay for the highways in the area south of the Pine Pass and, in fact, the entire Alcan Highway and the Stewart-Cassiar Highway were built with and maintained by tax monies from southern BC residents, the activities of the USACE in WWII, excepted, of course.

This is a hoary old myth we often heard in the Kootenays, as well, that "we" subsidized all of the province, however, it is not factual. This type of narrow-minded regionalism is hardly conducive to a society in BC that benefits all BC citizens equally in respect of opportunity.

You may well believe in what you term ...user pay..., I may well prefer to have all hunting restricted to only those in BC who can prove that their direct familial ancestors settled here at least 125 years ago and others may feel that only redheaded acrobats have any real right to hunt here, however, these feelings do not alter the legal rights of all BC citizens, under the CofC and various decisions such as "Sparrow". You do not have to like this, however, it is the simple factual reality we live under.

I applaud the good hunters of the St. John region and wish all BC residents were so generous in assisting funding various wildlife initiatives; however, the huge demographic changes to our provincial population as well as the economic factors I mentioned make that an unlikely scenario.

Your comments remind me of the bullshit from so-called "locals" in the West Kootenays last year concerning the GOS on elk and, we have now seen just how that "assisted" conservation in that region........

[one-shot-wonder]

Your post pretty shows the typical kraft dinner eater from the south attitude; Foreskin John,$hat hole. Why don't you just stay south of the pass with your prominent disrespect for one of the greatest hunting spots and supportive communities in the world. We really don't need you here.:)

Northern BC gate keeper,

Greatest hunting spots is in your opinion. Supportive community I agree, you must stick out like a sore thumb.

[willy442]

Willy, if you do some research, you will find that the entire provincial infrastructure is subsidized by the majority of the tax income to government from the southwestern region of BC. The "north" does not pay for the highways in the area south of the Pine Pass and, in fact, the entire Alcan Highway and the Stewart-Cassiar Highway were built with and maintained by tax monies from southern BC residents, the activities of the USACE in WWII, excepted, of course.

This is a hoary old myth we often heard in the Kootenays, as well, that "we" subsidized all of the province, however, it is not factual. This type of narrow-minded regionalism is hardly conducive to a society in BC that benefits all BC citizens equally in respect of opportunity.

You may well believe in what you term ...user pay..., I may well prefer to have all hunting restricted to only those in BC who can prove that their direct familial ancestors settled here at least 125 years ago and others may feel that only redheaded acrobats have any real right to hunt here, however, these feelings do not alter the legal rights of all BC citizens, under the CofC and various decisions such as "Sparrow". You do not have to like this, however, it is the simple factual reality we live under.

I applaud the good hunters of the St. John region and wish all BC residents were so generous in assisting funding various wildlife initiatives; however, the huge demographic changes to our provincial population as well as the economic factors I mentioned make that an unlikely scenario.

Your comments remind me of the bullshit from so-called "locals" in the West Kootenays last year concerning the GOS on elk and, we have now seen just how that "assisted" conservation in that region........

Every time we have a land sale for oil and gas rights up here it puts in the area of 400 to 600 million dollars into the government coffers in KD land, We see very little of it returned to the area it was aquired from. Our hunting here is the same. When a town of 18000 people can raise more money for something in one night than the remainder of the hunting community can in BC it's sickening. Just because you are a resident and have the right to hunt is not a just reason to sit back and let others pay through money and work for your pass time. As hunters we all have an obligation to be stewards of the animals and land they dwell in. Too many enjoy it now without putting anything back. Eventually this will force all hunting to the European model of only the rich hunt. After all by your explanation the wealthy are already footing the bill.

[Devilbear]

No, not quite, although I agree with you in many respects concerning the high percentage of "users" of wildlife in southern BC who do not and have never paid one thin dime to conserve any aspect of our magnificent environment.

This, reminds me of the long battle to preserve wilderness in the Kootenays and, when it was over, all kinds of college professors, newcomers, draft dodgers and NDP politicians stepped up to take credit for the newly "created" parks...many were not even in BC circa 1961, when I first began to publicly advocate for "the Valhalla Wilderness"....that's just the way life is, there are moochers and posers and self-aggrandizing phonies in all aspects of life.

I see your point on the Euro. model and I have had wealthy immigrants and newcomers to BC tell me that this is the way it should be, here......I am not very optimistic about the future of hunting in BC and I do what I can to support hunting, but, frankly, I think that it is probably going to end as you suggest.

That said, you always post as to how we need the GOs and resident hunters and even the foreigners whom we allow to hunt here in our generosity to work together for sheep and other game. My point, is just that some of your other comments here tend to work against that and we do need everyone on board, working together. So, I better go eat my breakfast and NO, you irascible character, it AIN'T "Kraft Dinner"....thank Gawd! :)

[houndogger]

You may well believe in what you term ...user pay..., I may well prefer to have all hunting restricted to only those in BC who can prove that their direct familial ancestors settled here at least 125 years ago and others may feel that only redheaded acrobats have any real right to hunt here, however, these feelings do not alter the legal rights of all BC citizens, under the CofC and various decisions such as "Sparrow". You do not have to like this, however, it is the simple factual reality we live under.(quote)


Sure that sounds good. Do you want to tell Bridger that!

[Devilbear]

The point was to make a comparison that was sufficiently extreme so Willy might see where his philosophy could be countered by equally ludicrous regulations.......bit of "tongue in cheek", one might say.

Of course, I would tell Rich that if that was my personal position on this issue; I always tell it as I see it and do not practice any form of chicanery or political rectitude. Besides, I would just adopt him as my "blood brother" and that would solve the problem! ;)

[houndogger]

I wouldn't worry about Willys going on and on...he has said he heads to the coast to fish blah blah blah...He is just getting you guys all ripped up.:wink: