Resident Hunter's Association Press Release

[40incher]

Resident Hunter’s Association of BC

2624 Billeter Road, Smithers, British Columbia, Canada V0J 2N0 Ph: (250) 847-3001



PRESS RELEASE




(For Immediate Release)



“B.C.’s Resident Hunters Under Attack Once Again”




Smithers, British Columbia - January 22, 2007


The Resident Hunter’s Association of BC (RHABC) is calling on the Liberal government to immediately put a moratorium on the Ministry of Environment’s (MOE) bureaucratic plans to adopt a new and radical policy that will allocate more of the province’s wildlife to non-resident commercial interests.

A longstanding Allocation Policy and Procedure (APP) document , which sets out the procedures for managing and allocating hunting opportunities in the province of British Columbia, is being shelved in favour of a new one that abandons BC resident’s priority interests. The policy process was developed in secrecy, with only select interests invited, and the 99% of resident hunters excluded are very unhappy with how it has been handled.

Lobbying by the RHABC had previously delayed the signing off of the new Policy, which was originally scheduled for late January, 2006. “BC resident hunter priority in allocation is a fundamental issue that must not be sacrificed” demanded Chairman Bill Zemenchik of Smithers, BC “and the government is heeding flawed advice if it really thinks this rewrite will benefit the province and its citizens, either socially or economically”. But now, with no real changes to the flaws so obvious in the document, the rewritten policy has been signed off with no thought to the consequences for B.C. residents.

The existing APP document has been in place for decades and it entrenches BC resident priority, which means that this province’s hunters should always maintain a minimum 70% to 80% share of the licensed allocation and harvest of wildlife species. Under the new document, resident priority is gone and non-resident hunters are favoured by means of a complex methodology that transfers wildlife quota to the commercial sector based on the value of guided hunts to the industry. Zemenchik adds “The last draft of the document which resident hunters saw gave the non-resident hunters from the U.S. and Europe a minimum of 40% to 45% of the allocation of most species in some regions of BC. This non-resident minimum share will only increase due to the continued over-regulation of the average citizen trying to harvest wild game for their families ”.

The fundamental issue of BC resident priority aside there are other serious factors that, on their own, should require the new policy to be abandoned. The RHABC is presently reviewing two pertinent sections of the provincial Wildlife Act which may give rise to a Charter and/or Human Rights challenge to the recently signed-off APP in view of it being discriminatory towards resident hunters in general; and more specifically towards disabled hunters, senior hunters and this province’s youth ”.

The RHABC recommends that our elected MLA’s intervene once again, ensuring that the existing APP and the clearly stated concept of BC resident priority are implemented and upheld by the Ministry for the future generations of hunters to come. “There is absolutely nothing wrong with the original, longstanding policy ” reaffirms Chairman Zemenchik “it is just that the public servants refuse to follow the policy as laid out”.

The RHABC also strongly urges all residents, hunters or not, to call your local MLA and protest the implementation of this unpublished new allocation policy. We should refuse selling off our natural resources to non-residents at the cost of B.C. resident priority.###

[The Hermit]

I sure hope the major papers pick that up and run it! Who all was that sent to?

[Chuck]

I don't know about the rest of you out there, but bs like this really ****** me off! And I watched a show last night on TV about how the government deals with whistleblowers too. Who in the **** do they think they are? Just because they sit in high places doesn't make 'em all kings for gawds sake! Geeez they're just public servants and managers, not Nobel prize winners! And they can't even do their jobs! So if they can't dazzle us with brilliance they try to baffle us with BS. They got no self respect or nothing like that bla bla bla bla bla...............

[Bullmoose]

Wish they had a website!! I didn't even know they existed, sounds like something we should all get involved in

[Benthos]

The RHABC also strongly urges all residents, hunters or not, to call your local MLA and protest the implementation of this unpublished new allocation policy.



How can we protest an "unpublished" allocation policy. Before i start protesting something and making a hoola, i'd actually like to read a document on the issue rather than taking it word of mouth.

just my opinion

[Deaddog]

I have spoke to individuals directly involved from both sides of this allocation process. Neither "side" is happy and outfitters and residents are both being hit hard in different areas. I believe that we need to wait to see what the final numbers are before making an informed decision.

[longhairmtnman]

How can we protest an "unpublished" allocation policy. Before i start protesting something and making a hoola, i'd actually like to read a document on the issue rather than taking it word of mouth.

just my opinion

I'd like to see this document as well. It would be nice to have all the facts before I fire off an angry letter.

[GoatGuy]

Benthos and longhair pm's sent.

[Elkaholic]

The East Kootenay Chapter of the Resident Hunters is working on getting a website up, I will inform you when it is up and running.

[MichelD]

You guys did read this when it was posted, right?

January 6, 2007 regarding the new Harvest Allocation Policy and Procedure, which will be implemented during the 2007-08 hunting season. Your letter has been forwarded to me to respond on behalf of the Minister.
Harvest allocation between resident hunters and guide outfitters has historically been a contentious issue, requiring lengthy negotiations and frequently resulting in unpredictable and even inefficient outcomes. The wording of former government policy on this issue failed to provide staff with sufficient direction for making consistent decisions across the province. In response to this issue, the Fish and Wildlife Branch began a comprehensive review of existing allocation policies and procedures in 2004, with the aim of developing an objective, transparent, and efficient approach to allocating big game harvests. This review, involving provincial representatives of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia, the BC Trappers Association, and the ministry, has now been completed. Resident priority was a key component of the original policy that has been maintained; the way in which resident priority will be addressed and considered by the ministry is now explicitly described in the Resident Hunter Priority Policy.
As part of this policy review, the Fish and Wildlife Branch created a standard procedure and associated policies for making allocation decisions. The new Harvest Allocation Procedure bases allocation decisions on objective criteria developed through discussions and consultations with staff and stakeholders. The procedure begins with 75 percent of the Annual Allowable Harvest being allocated to residents and 25 percent being allocated to guides. From that point, the allocation then shifts depending on the relative importance and utilization of the resource by each hunter group. Following these steps, a minimum hardship rule is applied to ensure a smooth transition from the current allocation; this rule states that the lowest share of the existing allocation may not shift more than 20 percent during the first allocation period (2007-11). As a result of these steps, residents will see increases in their share of the harvest in ~62 percent of the allocation decisions; for instance, residents will be allocated an average 84 percent of bull moose, 82 percent of bull elk, 73 percent of bighorn sheep, and 98 percent of all antlerless hunts. The procedure is not designed to shift overall use away from either group, but rather to remove inefficiencies in the allocations and create higher utilization rates for hunters.
In the coming years, we will be monitoring the performance of the new Harvest Allocation Policy and Procedure to ensure that they are indeed meeting the objectives of the review process.
Thank you again for your interest in this issue.
Yours truly,
Original signed by
Nancy Wilkin
Assistant Deputy Minister
Environmental Stewardship Division

[40incher]

The "new" policy that has been signed off by MOE bureaucrats is available for those of you that want to view firsthand all the percentages and weasle-wording that is supposed to provide "certainty". The only certainty it provides is to non-resident interests.

The easiest way to acquire a copy, and force your Liberal MLA to pay some attention, is to request the signed-off policy through your local MLA's constituency office. It is their public duty to represent you. A few rural NDP MLA's have taken an interest and can acquire copies as well.

Referring to the policy as unpublished refers to the secrecy in which it was developed, with a select few resident hunters involved. Although comments are being made that these resident interests are unhappy with the outcome, their silence in open public discussions is more than confusing.

To quote a few lowlights from the policy:

* non-residents can arbitrarily be allocated 50% of any species, regardless of resident demand, at the discretion of MOE.

* if the allowable harvest changes partway through an allocation period, the non-resident interests may be the only ones allowed to hunt.

* resident demand needs to be 20:1 in an LEH situation to initiate a review of a species-specific allocation, as well resident harvest needs to fall below a 60% share even though we may be at 90% to begin with.

* non-resident harvest can be achieved very flexibly compared to that of BC residents. In any given year of a five-year allocation period they will be allowed to harvest 30% in one year, and up to 50% in one year at times.

These are but a few of the issues of concern.

Contact your MLA, get a copy, and read for yourself.

[willy442]

I'd like to see this document as well. It would be nice to have all the facts before I fire off an angry letter.

Finally a little common sense on this issue.

[The Hermit]

Finally a little common sense on this issue.

Yes that does make inherent common sense. But the concern is that the policy is NOT broadly publicized therefore those of us that do not have time to be directly involved on a day to day basis have a hard time getting the facts, or even more importantly being in a position to submit concerns/views BEFORE policy is set in stone for the next five years!!

You have been pointed in your critisms of those of us that are now expressing our dissatisfaction about this situation but I haven't seen any posts where YOU state your opinion and rationale to support it. So here is your special invitation...

Willy.

1. What exactly is your position on this issue? And why do you hold it?

2. Do you have a special interest in or allegence to a Guide Outfitter operation?

3. What do you think about your government providing foreign hunters increased opportunity to hunt big game in BC at the expense of resident hunters?

4. Do you think it was right of the Government to hold the allocation policy process without inviting input from the public, native groups, and resident hunters?

5. Do you think it is fair that the BCWF, who only represent 20K of 80K resident hunters were the only ones at the table?

[willy442]

Yes that does make inherent common sense. But the concern is that the policy is NOT broadly publicized therefore those of us that do not have time to be directly involved on a day to day basis have a hard time getting the facts, or even more importantly being in a position to submit concerns/views BEFORE policy is set in stone for the next five years!!

You have been pointed in your critisms of those of us that are now expressing our dissatisfaction about this situation but I haven't seen any posts where YOU state your opinion and rationale to support it. So here is your special invitation...

Willy.

1. What exactly is your position on this issue? And why do you hold it?

2. Do you have a special interest in or allegence to a Guide Outfitter operation?

3. What do you think about your government providing foreign hunters increased opportunity to hunt big game in BC at the expense of resident hunters?

4. Do you think it was right of the Government to hold the allocation policy process without inviting input from the public, native groups, and resident hunters?

5. Do you think it is fair that the BCWF, who only represent 20K of 80K resident hunters were the only ones at the table?

Hermit my position on this is.

1. The wildlife of this Province is a very important issue to more than just resident hunters. There are many user groups when it comes to back country use ie;Outfitters, Photographers, Hikers, Miners, Loggers and others. Each and everyone of these use and affect what happens with our wild life populations.
Presently we are second only to Africa in the amount of species avalible in this Province. Hanging onto this is far more important than who gets what share. There fore before we complain or try to make changes to any management procedure's, it would be best if all of us put the animals first.

2. I worked as a Big Game guide from 1970 to 1993. In this time I have watched government go from trying to manage our big game and predators to managing people.
I have no ties to any outfit now, or will I ever have again. What I do have though is a first hand understanding of what the government is trying to accomplish in this allocation. No one is happy with it, not residents or outfitters.

3. I don't see where the resident hunters are loosing anything to the nonresident. The way I understand the policy is. If the resident fails to take the allowable harvest it MAY become available to the outfitter (not nonresident) this makes it available to everyone. If this situation was to happen it would be in area's, to remote for most to access, there fore this would put the guide deeper into the back country to take this harvest.

4. This is the one that keeps fueling the members on this forum. The information on allocation has been out in public for at least 2 years this time around as well as the prior policies right back to when this issue was first implemented. It is my believe again, if we are going to fight against any management proccess we should be as knowledgable as possible. Because again our input is going to effect the wildlife (far more important than who gets what share). If we take care of the animal it well allow a larger harvest.

5. Presently the BCWF is the only recognized group of residents, our government pays much attention to. The Resident Hunter Group seen on this thread is a welcome site. Let's hope it can gain in strength and be at the next round of meetings. However lets keep in mind. Put the animal first, as long as we do this we will continue to hunt. If we fail to do this our allowable harvest will continue to diminish until our province is on a 100% draw system.

6. In closing if any of us are going to voice opinions on something as important as our wildlife let's do it with as much knowledge as possible. Not from hear say and miss information. The sooner we start doing this and putting the many diverse species we have first the better. Also I remind you I also am a resident hunter.

[Elkaholic]

Hermit my position on this is.

1. The wildlife of this Province is a very important issue to more than just resident hunters. There are many user groups when it comes to back country use ie;Outfitters, Photographers, Hikers, Miners, Loggers and others. Each and everyone of these use and affect what happens with our wild life populations.
Presently we are second only to Africa in the amount of species avalible in this Province. Hanging onto this is far more important than who gets what share. There fore before we complain or try to make changes to any management procedure's, it would be best if all of us put the animals first.

2. I worked as a Big Game guide from 1970 to 1993. In this time I have watched government go from trying to manage our big game and predators to managing people.
I have no ties to any outfit now, or will I ever have again. What I do have though is a first hand understanding of what the government is trying to accomplish in this allocation. No one is happy with it, not residents or outfitters.

3. I don't see where the resident hunters are loosing anything to the nonresident. The way I understand the policy is. If the resident fails to take the allowable harvest it MAY become available to the outfitter (not nonresident) this makes it available to everyone. If this situation was to happen it would be in area's, to remote for most to access, there fore this would put the guide deeper into the back country to take this harvest.

4. This is the one that keeps fueling the members on this forum. The information on allocation has been out in public for at least 2 years this time around as well as the prior policies right back to when this issue was first implemented. It is my believe again, if we are going to fight against any management proccess we should be as knowledgable as possible. Because again our input is going to effect the wildlife (far more important than who gets what share). If we take care of the animal it well allow a larger harvest.

5. Presently the BCWF is the only recognized group of residents, our government pays much attention to. The Resident Hunter Group seen on this thread is a welcome site. Let's hope it can gain in strength and be at the next round of meetings. However lets keep in mind. Put the animal first, as long as we do this we will continue to hunt. If we fail to do this our allowable harvest will continue to diminish until our province is on a 100% draw system.

6. In closing if any of us are going to voice opinions on something as important as our wildlife let's do it with as much knowledge as possible. Not from hear say and miss information. The sooner we start doing this and putting the many diverse species we have first the better. Also I remind you I also am a resident hunter.
Sure there will be remote areas where people will not harvest their game, but what about people who want to harvest a trophy goat or ram??? Should they be punished for not shooting the first legal animal. Also if you have read the damn thing, they are now allowed to expand their territory so they could in theory be side to side territory's. Another thing that made me sick was that the commercial instrests would have priority of their territory. Meaning if they dont want us in there we wont be. I agree some guides will lose tags, but look at how fast we can loose our tags compared to how fast they loose their tags, its not really even close. I also disagree with them being able to harvest 5 years worth of quotas in 3 years. That is just overkill.

[huntwriter]

That is very disturbing news. 40incher, with your permission I would like to publish the news release on my blog and pass it on to fellow BC outdoor bloggers too.

[willy442]

Sure there will be remote areas where people will not harvest their game, but what about people who want to harvest a trophy goat or ram??? Should they be punished for not shooting the first legal animal. Also if you have read the damn thing, they are now allowed to expand their territory so they could in theory be side to side territory's. Another thing that made me sick was that the commercial instrests would have priority of their territory. Meaning if they dont want us in there we wont be. I agree some guides will lose tags, but look at how fast we can loose our tags compared to how fast they loose their tags, its not really even close. I also disagree with them being able to harvest 5 years worth of quotas in 3 years. That is just overkill.

Elkaholic. You are out to lunch. I have followed the system since its first inception in the early 80's. If you are a hunter it will not punish you in any manner while looking for a trophy. After all we are talking about the ability to have a tag to go out and hunt an animal. Not punishing anyone for shooting whatever legal animal they desire. As for territory's side by side, this is happening any way. Due to harvest reductions, some outfitters must aquire more area to maintain a viable business. If you think about it is this all bad? I think in the long run it may be good for the resident by reducing the number of operator's over time. As for priority, if you could understand the criteria for allowable harvest, you would understand it's first behind resident user's ie hunters ,natives etc. The harvesting of 5 years quota in three is a little slack they are allowed, mostly due to the proccess of booking the hunters no matter where the client is from. The allowable harvest is very often decided on after the guide has started booking clients. To put it in the text you have is very wrong and would never happen. It would only come into play if a guide had, lets say 6 moose hunters booked this year to match his quota and it was then cut back to a lesser number prior to the season. This system allows him to still take his booked clients and be punished for it in the following year. If you want to discuss over kill, look at the resident moose harvest along the Alaska Hwy from mile 101 to mile 200. I don't add this to critize the resident hunter, our game managers allow it, hunters only take advantage of the open season.
I must add the fact that commercial interests would have priority in the territory has nothing to do with the resident hunter. This is directed towards other commercial users infinging on thier livelihood ie; oil and gas exploration and mining. Would you not like to maybe have some one help stop your favorite hunting spot, from being decimated.

[Rainwater]

Or Packers!!!

[willy442]

Rainwater]Or Packers!!![/COLOR]

Whats that supposed to mean Rainwater? Or are you trying to be a smart ass??

[The Hermit]

I understand that the packers and the guides have mostly settled their disputes now.

[Elkaholic]

Elkaholic. You are out to lunch. I have followed the system since its first inception in the early 80's. If you are a hunter it will not punish you in any manner while looking for a trophy. After all we are talking about the ability to have a tag to go out and hunt an animal. Not punishing anyone for shooting whatever legal animal they desire. As for territory's side by side, this is happening any way. Due to harvest reductions, some outfitters must aquire more area to maintain a viable business. If you think about it is this all bad? I think in the long run it may be good for the resident by reducing the number of operator's over time. As for priority, if you could understand the criteria for allowable harvest, you would understand it's first behind resident user's ie hunters ,natives etc. The harvesting of 5 years quota in three is a little slack they are allowed, mostly due to the proccess of booking the hunters no matter where the client is from. The allowable harvest is very often decided on after the guide has started booking clients. To put it in the text you have is very wrong and would never happen. It would only come into play if a guide had, lets say 6 moose hunters booked this year to match his quota and it was then cut back to a lesser number prior to the season. This system allows him to still take his booked clients and be punished for it in the following year. If you want to discuss over kill, look at the resident moose harvest along the Alaska Hwy from mile 101 to mile 200. I don't add this to critize the resident hunter, our game managers allow it, hunters only take advantage of the open season.
I must add the fact that commercial interests would have priority in the territory has nothing to do with the resident hunter. This is directed towards other commercial users infinging on thier livelihood ie; oil and gas exploration and mining. Would you not like to maybe have some one help stop your favorite hunting spot, from being decimated.

I agree with you on the most part, BUT, our harvest surveys will be what is used along with compusary inspection species, to determine if the resident hunters are using the tags. Then the "Director" of the process who basically is king of what he wants to do. Will determine the relative importance and I truthfully beleive that some species(some LEH's are all shot by Residents) will swing to the GO. Im not saying all of them are corrupt, there are good guys out there, I know a few. But its the few corrupt ones that ruin it for the rest of them and tarnish the name.

[GoatGuy]

Elkaholic,

Relative importance is set out by trying to measure non-resident demand. Basically relative importance right now is measured by generated revenue measured against all the other species they offer. This 'swing' will detract from other species and authorizations allocated to the outfitters so it isn't likely to happen as it won't be in their best interests.

The director isn't the one who 'decides' it's calculated - it is nice that the new policy is measurable, something that never happened before. Regional bio's however can and already have thrown the math out the window.


Willy442,

the new policy not only measured demand but also uses utilization so if 'trophy' hunters are going out and not using tags they may be allocated to g/os and the flip also works. It's a use it or lose it system. So the push is on to harvest - worries me about nanny and sow harvest.


Residents are losing tags and animals in several hunts among other factors which will deter hunters.

Running a viable business isn't the responsibility of the government to subsidize, it's the responsibility of the outfitter to be successfull. Outfitting used to be a season job that was often supplemented by other jobs in the off season. For the majority of outfitters that is not the case today - 'viable' is a matter of opinion. And no 3 months a year in Mexico doesn't constitute a second job!:lol:

[elkguide]

I have spoke to individuals directly involved from both sides of this allocation process. Neither "side" is happy and outfitters and residents are both being hit hard in different areas. I believe that we need to wait to see what the final numbers are before making an informed decision. Exactlly what we should be doing,......I think the numbers we are hearing on this site are so far out to lunch scare tactic type numbers. I KNow someone who was a major player in the allocation meetings and I showed him some of the stuff written here and he just laughed at the numbers that were being thrown around in here.

[brno375]

It is a use it or loose it system like GG said, and it would be better if the harvest questionaire asked "Did you have an opportunity to harvest a legal ram?". I know a few sheep hunters who are very picky, and in theory their opportunity will be reduced if they do not drop their standards.

One other way to help keep our opportunity is to find out where resident hunters are not meeting their alotment and then going to that area to hunt.

[40incher]

Huntwriter,

You are welcome to post the press release where you like.


Elkguide,

Perhaps you could get your "major player" to stop laughing and provide some numbers to correct what you and he perceive to be inaccurate. The policy is available for everyone to acquire through their MLA, as stated.



And to update all resident hunters, MOE is implementing the new policy as we speak. And with nary a whimper from those supposedly "unhappy" resident hunter representatives?

[Elkaholic]

Well I know in the East Kootenay there is a big stink being raised, but the way this all came out made it nearly impossible to use it for the coming season. But after that its still being fought. I know for a fact that the MOE is using this right now to do this year as they have a deadline of Feb 15th or around there I think, so there really is no time to change it this year. But the fight would be for the years following.

[GoatGuy]

Well I know in the East Kootenay there is a big stink being raised, but the way this all came out made it nearly impossible to use it for the coming season. But after that its still being fought. I know for a fact that the MOE is using this right now to do this year as they have a deadline of Feb 15th or around there I think, so there really is no time to change it this year. But the fight would be for the years following.

You bio's are trying to implement the new policy to a degree in 4 - contrary to some other regions who don't seem to be doing a thing.

They also have a lot of other stuff on the go with youth and senior seasons, trying to change a bunch of hunts from LEH to GOS.

You've got a heck of a regional and some great wildlife bio's there. I hope residents stay on the good side of decision makers over there. Meetings with finger waggers and screamers don't get residents anywhere.

[GoatGuy]

Exactlly what we should be doing,......I think the numbers we are hearing on this site are so far out to lunch scare tactic type numbers. I KNow someone who was a major player in the allocation meetings and I showed him some of the stuff written here and he just laughed at the numbers that were being thrown around in here.

Yeah you're right or they just don't know how it works but I think the whole point of a forum is the exchange of information and sometimes it works. It's a lot better when people know and understand and this is the perfect environment for it.

[Rainwater]

The EKHOC has done great things over there. They have the ear and work with good old boy type bios, not bios that don't even hunt.

[willy442]

[quote=GoatGuy]Elkaholic,

Relative importance is set out by trying to measure non-resident demand. Basically relative importance right now is measured by generated revenue measured against all the other species they offer. This 'swing' will detract from other species and authorizations allocated to the outfitters so it isn't likely to happen as it won't be in their best interests.

The director isn't the one who 'decides' it's calculated - it is nice that the new policy is measurable, something that never happened before. Regional bio's however can and already have thrown the math out the window.


[quote]
Willy442,

the new policy not only measured demand but also uses utilization so if 'trophy' hunters are going out and not using tags they may be allocated to g/os and the flip also works. It's a use it or lose it system. So the push is on to harvest - worries me about nanny and sow harvest.


Residents are losing tags and animals in several hunts among other factors which will deter hunters.

Running a viable business isn't the responsibility of the government to subsidize, it's the responsibility of the outfitter to be successfull. Outfitting used to be a season job that was often supplemented by other jobs in the off season. For the majority of outfitters that is not the case today - 'viable' is a matter of opinion. And no 3 months a year in Mexico doesn't constitute a second job!


Goat Guy: Please wake up and look at some real facts instead of putting your personnel twists on this and other subjects. You seem to be continually posting items that fuel anti guide discussions on this forum. I challenge you to look forward at what is best in the long term, to insure our children and grand children can hunt if they so desire. I don't think for a second that your past and present pattern of thinking is doing anything other than fueling an old on going battle, between parties that are common user's of the resource. When they should be finding more common ground and preparing to become a stonger united force for what may lie ahead.

As for the use it or loose it system. Is this not the way most things in North America have gone in the last few years? This trend will most likely continue as population increase's and more things within public lands go to a user based fee structure and management system.

If you had read my post with an open mind you would see, that at no time did I say the government was responsible to subsidize guiding. What I said was; The new regulations on combining adjacent hunting countries was probably a good thing in the long run, by reducing the number of operations in the long term. If you knew what you were talking about again you would realize that this has been happening any way. Due to reductions in quota's, it has become a neccessity that outfitters aquire more quota to remain viable. The combining of area's is no different than aquisitions and mergers of other types of businesses. In actual fact I know of three such situations recently and in each case the combined quota's were reduced from what each area had seperately. (good for residents)

I have no idea where you get your information on the profitability of the guiding business. I can tell you though, that after 30 odd years of my family operating one of the most successful outfits in the northern part of this province. YOU ARE OUT TO LUNCH.
Go to your banker and see if he is interested in backing you for an outfit, I know of a few for sale and I'm sure you could come up with a financial statement from a couple of them.

As for your worries about the female harvest of bears and goats, are you serious? Again if you had any idea you would know that it is expected in the profession of guiding by both clients and government that only males are harvested. The penalties for shooting females are very severe buy reduction in a guides quota.

[GoatGuy]

[quote=GoatGuy]Elkaholic,

Relative importance is set out by trying to measure non-resident demand. Basically relative importance right now is measured by generated revenue measured against all the other species they offer. This 'swing' will detract from other species and authorizations allocated to the outfitters so it isn't likely to happen as it won't be in their best interests.

The director isn't the one who 'decides' it's calculated - it is nice that the new policy is measurable, something that never happened before. Regional bio's however can and already have thrown the math out the window.


[quote]
Willy442,

the new policy not only measured demand but also uses utilization so if 'trophy' hunters are going out and not using tags they may be allocated to g/os and the flip also works. It's a use it or lose it system. So the push is on to harvest - worries me about nanny and sow harvest.


Residents are losing tags and animals in several hunts among other factors which will deter hunters.

Running a viable business isn't the responsibility of the government to subsidize, it's the responsibility of the outfitter to be successfull. Outfitting used to be a season job that was often supplemented by other jobs in the off season. For the majority of outfitters that is not the case today - 'viable' is a matter of opinion. And no 3 months a year in Mexico doesn't constitute a second job!


Goat Guy: Please wake up and look at some real facts instead of putting your personnel twists on this and other subjects. You seem to be continually posting items that fuel anti guide discussions on this forum. I challenge you to look forward at what is best in the long term, to insure our children and grand children can hunt if they so desire. I don't think for a second that your past and present pattern of thinking is doing anything other than fueling an old on going battle, between parties that are common user's of the resource. When they should be finding more common ground and preparing to become a stonger united force for what may lie ahead.

What is best is allowing bio's to do their job, deciding how many animals they want harvested not have a hand in deciding who should get the game and having to worry about economic viability or resident hunter numbers.

As for the use it or loose it system. Is this not the way most things in North America have gone in the last few years? This trend will most likely continue as population increase's and more things within public lands go to a user based fee structure and management system.

Sure, that sounds fine to me, but the residents pay for the majority contributing significantly more so in effect based on your interpretation of the free-market should get more animals and more of the opporutnity. The opposite of this has happened in many cases and residents have been handicapped through point restriction, access restrictions, 1 in 3 harvest rules and LEH. The government has now realized this and will be adjusting accordingly. I understand it's outfitter's livelihood but giving them tags to keep them 'afloat' is neither truthfull or conducive to conservation.


If you had read my post with an open mind you would see, that at no time did I say the government was responsible to subsidize guiding. What I said was; The new regulations on combining adjacent hunting countries was probably a good thing in the long run, by reducing the number of operations in the long term. If you knew what you were talking about again you would realize that this has been happening any way. Due to reductions in quota's, it has become a neccessity that outfitters aquire more quota to remain viable. The combining of area's is no different than aquisitions and mergers of other types of businesses. In actual fact I know of three such situations recently and in each case the combined quota's were reduced from what each area had seperately. (good for residents)

Viable's your word. Many outfitters operate for 3-5 months and that affords them a year-round living - month long trips to warm southern retreats are the norm and outfitting provides them a good living.

Quota's are also your word. In several regions allocations have been split 50/50 to appease outfitters and their quotas and residents have been put on harvest restriction.

As far as business goes, I doubt you'll see more industry consolidation as foreign investment has artificially inflated the industry. If it does, it's because outfitter's are buying on a whim and haven't done their homework. In short, it's not a good move. The g/os for some reason seem to think more tags=more animals=more money. That certainly isn't the way business works in the real world and the same follows for the industry - just look at Air Canada or Bombardier a nightmare in the creation. Outfitter's should be worried about capital investment, contribution margins, break-even and payback period; something most don't know about.

Some outfitters who have gotten in haven't done their homework, haven't created a good business plan and are now reeling from losses. That isn't the governments problem, nor is in now their duty to bail them out.

Demand for hunting in BC is inelastic and if GOABC did a bit more research they'd find guides can raise their prices and raise their bottom line, but their membership isn't cohesive enough.


I have no idea where you get your information on the profitability of the guiding business. I can tell you though, that after 30 odd years of my family operating one of the most successful outfits in the northern part of this province. YOU ARE OUT TO LUNCH.
Go to your banker and see if he is interested in backing you for an outfit, I know of a few for sale and I'm sure you could come up with a financial statement from a couple of them.

I've worked for them, have buddies who have both owned outfits and currently own outfits. I've also done several business plans; right now it isn't a good industry but if you bought in as little as 5 years ago you'd be in good shape. Banker's won't support many industries, not the least of which is outfitting. I could write you a last a page long which are far more volatile and riskier than outfitting ever will be.

I've also studied the industry, seen GOABC reports and found the inefficiencies within the industry. There are several things outfitters could be doing, and some are, to help their bottom line without getting more tags.

As for your worries about the female harvest of bears and goats, are you serious? Again if you had any idea you would know that it is expected in the profession of guiding by both clients and government that only males are harvested. The penalties for shooting females are very severe buy reduction in a guides quota.

I wasn't talking about outfitter's, I was talking about residents. LEH has already put the crunch on residents and if you look through harvest data you'd know that pressure has been put on nanny and sow grizz harvest because of restrictions. Before, when it was open season sow grizz harvest was never a problem. With the new use it or lose it, this further encourages a resident harvest which isn't conductive to conservation.

I'm not an anti-outfitter; I have buddies who run outfits and several who are guides. I've hunting with them, guided and flown for them. The ones who buy resident hunting licenses and hunt hard understand; the others don't. In the past 25 years hunter numbers have been killed off because of government regulation and inequities created through the allocation process. During the same period outfitters have done well, with all of I believe 8 or 9 true bankruptcies, most due to a lack of ethichs. If you compare that to most other industries you'll find that's PHENOMENAL. Also, demand has increased exponentially; sheep hunts have exponentially outpaced inflation and as an industry it's quite stable - same goes for G bears.

Getting into outfitting is something one should do with open eyes. You have to have a business plan and know how to trim expenses and keep things in line. If the price of outfits are too high and the payback period is greater than 5 years it isn't worth getting into - most outfitters who get in don't know that. It's unfortunate but it isn't the responsibility of the gov't to take care of them.

Outfitting is a business, not a guarantee.

[The Hermit]

Good post GoatGuy! And good for you for not retaliating in a personal way after being denegrated and told that you are out to lunch etc. That attack crap is getting old real fast!

There is no denying that the new policy will have an impact on everyone... it would be great to attend a debate on the subject. Too bad we didn't have the chance before this policy came into play.

BTW - I got my form letter back from Ms Wilkin today. Only 75% to residents and 25% to guides. I see that as a significant Gov subsidy of the guiding industry but I'm somewhat okay with economic development initiatives so I can live with it even though I don't much like it. It strikes me as akin to the Gov "giving" away our trees, allowing raw log exports with out any stumpage at all.

I think you guys have put your finger on the really contentious part in the policy. The lack of clear definition of "relative importance and utilization" and how the calculation of the "lowest share" metric made, is what is missing. When they don't spell it out in a public and clear fashion it leads to distrust and guessing.

Interesting debate, I'm learning lots here. Thanks to everyone engaging!

[willy442]

Goat Guy
I still say go buy into an area and see first hand what restrictions are. The outfits you are associated with may operate without a business plan as do some others. However some of the larger operations, that as you say, are owned by investment money, usually have very stringent operating procedure's and plans. Usually the investors of these operations have been very successful in other business's and I'm sure they can read a profit and loss statement. They don't buy in to make money. Have you ever looked at tenure on area's, or how about operating costs? I think not and I suggest you are judging and forming opinions from what you see on the surface. Do you have any idea why there is so much outside investment in the industry? I think not and again you are putting your personal twist on something you are not all that knowledgable about.:lol:

[GoatGuy]

Goat Guy
I still say go buy into an area and see first hand what restrictions are. The outfits you are associated with may operate without a business plan as do some others. However some of the larger operations, that as you say, are owned by investment money, usually have very stringent operating procedure's and plans. Usually the investors of these operations have been very successful in other business's and I'm sure they can read a profit and loss statement. They don't buy in to make money. Have you ever looked at tenure on area's, or how about operating costs? I think not and I suggest you are judging and forming opinions from what you see on the surface. Do you have any idea why there is so much outside investment in the industry? I think not and again you are putting your personal twist on something you are not all that knowledgable about.:lol:

I've researched it and I do; I have a couple business plans sitting on my PC at home. I also know why foreigners invest and what that has done to the industry. I've also helped other hunters look at outfits and they've also seen balance sheets and income statements and know what the industry looks like.

[brno375]

They don't buy in to make money.

That would be true from the balance sheets I've seen.


Do you have any idea why there is so much outside investment in the industry?

Enlighten us.

[willy442]

brno375.

The biggest reasons the doors opened for out side money to come in are: Back in the early 80's the older pioneers of guiding in the province. Clarence Simmons, Don Peck, Gary Powell, Gary Vince, Red Sorensen, Bobby Henderson and a bunch of others tried to gain some kind of commitment from government. Allowing them to have a tenure on thier respective guide area's with a quota attached to it much like the quota's of today. The reasoning behind this, was once the licence and quota were combined and on paper it would become an asset and might have allowed for local financial insitutions to back prospective purchaser's. However at the time some of the more radical resident hunters and the BCWF couldn't see the light at the end of the tunnel and shot the whole idea down.

For the most part the lodges and out post cabins that are looked upon by most as assets that a guiding operation has, are in fact only his assets as long as he has the license to operate within his area. With nothing much on paper the only real assets are horse's, tack, vehicles etc. all of which are really worthless in the big picture.

Allowable harvest and LEH or Quota animals are subject to constant change. This leaves the outfitter in situation of tags and licence's being worthless in the eye's of a commercial lender also.

With this said and the American and European interest in recreational property in B.C. during those and later years. Much like the Asian interest in Vancouver recently. It created a situation where many of these old outfitters wanting to pass thier operations on to family members or sell to more localized people, in alot of case's couldn't. For after having spent many years enjoying the life style, they now needed to come up with a form of retirement. IE foreign investment because in the eye's of commercial lenders they had very little in assets that a purchaser could use. Unless you had the money to buy an outfit outright a purchase was impossible. Europeans and Americans had both the interest in owning and money. Hence the situation of today, with outside investment.:mad:

To some these area's are nothing more than a good tax right off and fun place to visit. Any oufit that pay's guide's 300-350 a day, according to Goat Guy's scale must be in this catagory. I can't wait until him and his buddies put thier computerized business plans into effect.:lol:

[Hidehanger]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is MOE's interest in becoming fully funded through revenue generation...this is still a major interest of this government.......non-resident hunts make way more cash for government then resident ones do....
And, the entire process may go off just fine...until a population starts to decline and the harvest numbers are cut...when that happens industry will argue (successfully) to government that they have a financial interests and will go broke if they aren't protected and their allocation is not maintained....and that if they are reduced it will cause economic hardship and job loss.....
THAT IS WHEN residents will get shafted with respect to allocations.......
I work for government and the first thing I tell everyone is that government is NOT there to protect your interests....they are there to generate $ and protect industry who generally are their largest contributors......

[willy442]

Getting into outfitting is something one should do with open eyes. You have to have a business plan and know how to trim expenses and keep things in line. :lol:

Goat Guy;
What Happened to the riches and Mexican winters?

[willy442]

[quote=Hidehanger]One thing that hasn't been mentioned is MOE's interest in becoming fully funded through revenue generation...this is still a major interest of this government.......non-resident hunts make way more cash for government then resident ones do....
And, the entire process may go off just fine...until a population starts to decline and the harvest numbers are cut...when that happens industry will argue (successfully) to government that they have a financial interests and will go broke if they aren't protected and their allocation is not maintained....and that if they are reduced it will cause economic hardship and job loss.....


Hide hanger: Government is very careful about dealing with Guide Outfitters in ways that compensation for anything would not be given. The proccess for allocation, I believe would stay the same and the outfitter would have to diversify. Which is a good idea and is also happening in alot of outfits. A few years back logging forced a couple of guy's out of business and government would not even open discussion on compensation. Precedence has been set in this matter, not to say it could change in the future, but it would be a long fight I think.

In the big picture are we not talking about maintaining a harvest able amount of big game animals. How we do this and the end result, will bear far more weight on allowable harvest which comes before who gets what share. I'm tired of repeating myself on this fact. I'm not anti resident or pro outfitter, but I have seen alot of things happen over the years and one thing that has never changed on this subject is the who gets what share battles. I can say the outfitter has far more interest in looking after the animals than do residents generally. Both parties have faults as do the game managers. When are we all going to start acting as shepards to our wildlife though?:-(

[Gateholio]

brno375.

To some these area's are nothing more than a good tax right off and fun place to visit. Any oufit that pay's guide's 300-350 a day, according to Goat Guy's scale must be in this catagory. I can't wait until him and his buddies put thier computerized business plans into effect.:lol:

Just to interject here...

I know a very good, well respected guide, and $300 or more a day is not unheard of...

He has crunched numbers on a couple of outfits he works for , and even when I told him about the "extra' costs of doing ANY business, (as I do that on a daily basis) the numbers stil add up pretty good int he outfitters favour.8-)

[GoatGuy]

brno375.


To some these area's are nothing more than a good tax right off and fun place to visit. Any oufit that pay's guide's 300-350 a day, according to Goat Guy's scale must be in this catagory. I can't wait until him and his buddies put thier computerized business plans into effect.:lol:
No, they are not - at 25K/hunt the outfitter can definitely afford it and wants quality animals harvested and pays the $$ for it. Something other outfitter's who are killing 7 yr olds should consider when they're paying their sheep guides $150/day - a buddy of mine who owned an outfit in the EK was paying 150/day for guides 15 years ago and still shakes his head when he hears about stuff like this.

If you've been in it as long as you say I'm sure you know the outfitter's I've worked and am buddies with. We've run through one outfit in the Chilcotin and one in the EK together as far as numbers go and we're on the same page- the g/o industry isn't a good industry to get into right now. They use the magic number of 7 years payback and I'd like closer to 5. If a person were to buy in 5+ years ago they'd be in great shape as it is right now with all the foreign investment that simply isn't going to happen.

As far as family owned businesses and HAVING to sell out to foreign investors that isn't the case. The good outfitters will finance their kids and relatives to take over their outfits even when banks won't - the others are looking for the easy way out - - apparently that also includes selling out to anti's.

Other smart outfitters will get money from foreigners with interest paid in hunts and capital paid back in 5-10 years. This costs the outfitters far less than it ever would taking out a small business loan from a bank.

The smart ones make money, the others complain about not making money and want more tags. The smart ones are going to mexico and live a great lifestyle. Heck, one of my buddies retired at less than 45 after selling his outfit; after a couple years he decided to buy a helicopter and take up flying - - sound like an industry that isn't viable?

For every case of residents wanting too much I can give you another of non-residents want too much - that's a fact of life. I agree that conservation should be put first and in several cases it has. If you look at some of the past allocations across the province you'll find that residents have taken fewer LEH's and allocations for conservation reasons when g/os have taken their full allocation. You'll also find the good outfitters who are in it for the long-term won't harvest their full allocation when their area won't support it. At the end of the day this is a battle that neither side will win.

The real discussion is after we've decided how many animals we want to take out of a given area, how do we divy it up?

Cutting a smart outfitter back will not create bankruptcy, and even if it did it's a drop in the bucket as far as industries go across the province. The number of jobs created is minimal and contribution is also small when compared to BC's other industries. It may mean instead of working 3-5 months the outfitter might have to pick up another job just like it was 20 years ago for many outfitters.

Cutting residents back, setting up access restrictions, 1 in 3 harvest, and point restrictions kill off resident hunting and the impact in dollars, contribution to conservation and health and future of hunting are far greater then the effects of cutting back or even eliminating g/os.

[willy442]

Goat Guy.
How many of these 25k hunts do outfitters take per season? Is the income of these area's not based on the gross? Outfitting 20 years ago and even thirty years go was much more lucrative than it is now. It really don't matter what form of financing one comes up with, a payment is a payment or does that not show on your computer scenario? Also the area's you speak of are not the most lucrative in the province. Thats why outfitters from them go North if they seriuos about the business. So I again say you have no idea and every thing you are putting in print is some twisted vision of your own,:sad: based on very little fact alot like most of the cut and paste articals you post on this site. To others like your self you may come across as knowledgable. When in actual fact reality is exactly the opposite. Sorry; It's to bad you keep making such an ass of yourself.:lol:

[brno375]

For the most part the lodges and out post cabins that are looked upon by most as assets that a guiding operation has, are in fact only his assets as long as he has the license to operate within his area. With nothing much on paper the only real assets are horse's, tack, vehicles etc. all of which are really worthless in the big picture.

Agreed. If the land the lodges/cabins sits on is titled, then it is a different matter.


Allowable harvest and LEH or Quota animals are subject to constant change. This leaves the outfitter in situation of tags and licence's being worthless in the eye's of a commercial lender also.


A few years back logging forced a couple of guy's out of business

The business does not produce anything so it can not grow. It is limited to quota and it has no control over forestry, oil/gas exploration, and mining. The higher the risk, the higher the return should be.


It created a situation where many of these old outfitters wanting to pass thier operations on to family members or sell to more localized people, in alot of case's couldn't. For after having spent many years enjoying the life style, they now needed to come up with a form of retirement...To some these area's are nothing more than a good tax right off and fun place to visit.

So the g/o industry is not a money maker, it is a "lifestyle". It sounds like the foreign investors are buying in for bragging rights, and a tax write off = a loss. No wonder the old outfitters could not sell it to locals.


Outfitting 20 years ago and even thirty years go was much more lucrative than it is now.

The industry is slowly becoming less profitable, yet the prices keep increasing?


Thats why outfitters from them go North if they serious about the business.

I agree with you there.


I see the g/o industry as a glorified personal services company. They charge for their time, to cover costs, and to make a profit. They do not produce anything, they are limited to the number of animals they are allowed to take by quota, they are limited to when they can operate, they have no control over resident harvest, no control over population fluctuations, no control over oil/gas, forestry, mining, etc (which = roads = access = more residents = increased harvest). Oh yeah, do not forget unsettled land claims. They are tenured to an area but for the most part do not have titled land. Some do not use their entire quota, be it because they did not sell those hunts,or that they are managing for only trophy animals, or economy of scale, but potential does not equal value. Some outfits are providing services for other outdoor recreational activities, and good for them. But there are those who are not and are again saying that the outfit has potential, then do it and show the numbers, otherwise there is no value.

Would I invest in a g/o territory? Yes I would but like GG said, it has to pay itself off in 5-6 years.

[Rainwater]

Brno, Agree 100% on your comments about what a guide outfitter can control, ie. resident hunters, mining etc and they should not be in a position to do any of that, control that is. As far as any business having to be paid off in 5 or 6 years is that an indicator of our get rich quick society, I don't know too many lucrative operations in the private sector that offer that kind of return. It takes 20 years to pay off a house!

[GoatGuy]

Goat Guy.
How many of these 25k hunts do outfitters take per season? Is the income of these area's not based on the gross? Outfitting 20 years ago and even thirty years go was much more lucrative than it is now. It really don't matter what form of financing one comes up with, a payment is a payment or does that not show on your computer scenario?


Paying interest through a hunt is often less costly than actually paying interest. This is because you're only paying the cost of the hunt, ie., guides fees, food, lodging and maybe an animal off your quota, maybe not. The net present value of your money would also be greater because you don't have to be making monthly payments. Would you like me to explain the value of cash?

This would give the outfitters a significant advantage as they'd either be able to invest the cash otherwise required to pay interest and they'd also be able to burry the costs of the hunt at a time of year when there's significant cash flow as hunters have paid in full and are also giving the outfitter extra cash from trophy fees, and if the outfitter's a real hunter, tips.

Also the area's you speak of are not the most lucrative in the province. Thats why outfitters from them go North if they seriuos about the business. So I again say you have no idea and every thing you are putting in print is some twisted vision of your own,:sad: based on very little fact alot like most of the cut and paste articals you post on this site. To others like your self you may come across as knowledgable. When in actual fact reality is exactly the opposite. Sorry; It's to bad you keep making such an ass of yourself.:lol:

Hm, I figured the Kawdy Plateau was north? I also thought Nahanni was north? Geez, I also thought that Tatogga country was north???? And I also thought these were lucrative areas and outfits????

Maybe I'm wrong.

Course maybe BRNO375 is wrong too; he's seen the financial statements of atleast on area from the lucrative?? North country.

This entire thread I've stayed away from the personal attacks and backed my posts up with facts not conjecture. You've been vague and told us all about your experience and what it used to be like. Like I said there are outfitters who know how to keep costs in line and make money, they're business people. Others complain about economic viability and figure more tags will help them make more money - unfortunately that isn't the case. A bad business person won't make a go at it regardless of how many tags they have.

[brno375]

Brno, Agree 100% on your comments about what a guide outfitter can control, ie. resident hunters, mining etc and they should not be in a position to do any of that, control that is. As far as any business having to be paid off in 5 or 6 years is that an indicator of our get rich quick society, I don't know too many lucrative operations in the private sector that offer that kind of return. It takes 20 years to pay off a house!

Comparing a house to a g/o business is apples to oranges. If the rate of return for a g/o territory is the same as rental houses, I'll take real estate every time. Way less risk.

[The Hermit]

Are there any G/O territories for sale right now? Where does one look for a territoriy?

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Check here. Harry McCowan-"Selling the last Frontier"

http://www.harrymccowan.com/

SSS

[willy442]

Hm, I figured the Kawdy Plateau was north? I also thought Nahanni was north? Geez, I also thought that Tatogga country was north???? And I also thought these were lucrative areas and outfits????

Maybe I'm wrong.

Course maybe BRNO375 is wrong too; he's seen the financial statements of atleast on area from the lucrative?? North country.

This entire thread I've stayed away from the personal attacks and backed my posts up with facts not conjecture. You've been vague and told us all about your experience and what it used to be like. Like I said there are outfitters who know how to keep costs in line and make money, they're business people. Others complain about economic viability and figure more tags will help them make more money - unfortunately that isn't the case. A bad business person won't make a go at it regardless of how many tags they have.


Brno375 most definately has an educated view on outfitting and I belive has probably done his home work very well. You on the other hand Goat Guy still have no idea and could you please direct me to any outfitter in either the Nahanni or Kawady Plateau that recieves 25,000 for a hunt. Every time I ask you for an explanation on your claims you refrain from answering them.
1. How many 25,000 hunts do these outfitters take?
2. What do you know about tenure?
3. I have yet to see the actual Outfitter recieve much in tips. Guides yes some more than others, usually depending on thier people skills and ability.
4. I call flat out bullshit to 350.00 a day wages!

Goat Guy I could go on and on. However it's a waste of mine time so please buy into one of these operations and I'll give you 5 years. Then you can explain cash to me. Maybe we can meet in Mexico if you can afford it.:lol: :lol:

[dana]

There is one well known BC outfitter that actually liked Mexico so much he partnered up with a Sonoran Outfitter. ;)

[willy442]

Agreed. If the land the lodges/cabins sits on is titled, then it is a different matter.





The business does not produce anything so it can not grow. It is limited to quota and it has no control over forestry, oil/gas exploration, and mining. The higher the risk, the higher the return should be.

Exactly; If you had the money to buy in, Why would you? For the LIFESTYLE



So the g/o industry is not a money maker, it is a "lifestyle". It sounds like the foreign investors are buying in for bragging rights, and a tax write off = a loss. No wonder the old outfitters could not sell it to locals.

This is usually why most foreign area's turn over quickly.



The industry is slowly becoming less profitable, yet the prices keep increasing?

Correct: Operating costs also have dramatically increased and opportunity has decreased. Diversifacation is a must now and even this is a tough sell on the global market. The costs incurred to reach alot of these areas is very high, compared to mountain vacations in the likes of Banff or Jasper and they can also offer the European market five star accomodations. The average outfitter is reluctant to supply this, due to the reasons listed above.


I agree with you there.


Would I invest in a g/o territory? Yes I would but like GG said, it has to pay itself off in 5-6 years.
I see the g/o industry as a glorified personal services company. They charge for their time, to cover costs, and to make a profit. They do not produce anything, they are limited to the number of animals they are allowed to take by quota, they are limited to when they can operate, they have no control over resident harvest, no control over population fluctuations, no control over oil/gas, forestry, mining, etc (which = roads = access = more residents = increased harvest). Oh yeah, do not forget unsettled land claims. They are tenured to an area but for the most part do not have titled land. Some do not use their entire quota, be it because they did not sell those hunts,or that they are managing for only trophy animals, or economy of scale, but potential does not equal value. Some outfits are providing services for other outdoor recreational activities, and good for them. But there are those who are not and are again saying that the outfit has potential, then do it and show the numbers, otherwise there is no value.

I agree with you 100%. If you want in for money and to spend 5 months in Mexico don't do it. If you love the backcountry and want paid to enjoy it by putting up with the clientel and all the uncontrolable forces on your investment, the life style can be enjoyable.

[willy442]

There is one well known BC outfitter that actually liked Mexico so much he partnered up with a Sonoran Outfitter. ;)

Dana: I know this person also. I don't know of any partner ships though associations possibly. The Mexican system does'nt allow for much in the way of foreign involvment, unless you are paying some one. They know the value of thier Desert Sheep and Deer.

[brno375]

willy442

When I pointed out increasing price, I was not refering to the price of hunts but rather the asking price of outfits. Returns are decreasing yet asking price is increasing?

So the foreign owned outfits turn over quickly because they lose money. I guess going broke is a lifestyle...What about the ones owned by residents?

I'm not looking for 5 months in Mexico, but when forking out over $1M+ for a g/o business I would expect a descent return on my money AND a good wage paid. For an outfit to be big enough to command this amount of $, it is a full time job with wintering horses, repair/maintanence/new trails/new camps, trade shows, spring hunts, fall hunts, summer eco-tourism (if you can get it to happen), etc. I think it would be a great lifestyle but it is high risk and the return must be there. Is there an outfit in B.C/Yukon/NWT that fits this criteria?

I must step in and defend GoatGuy. Your impression of him wrong; he knows more than I do about the g/o industry and has more experience with it. The two of you know the same people.

BTW, is that Ty in your Avatar?

[BCrams]

1. How many 25,000 hunts do these outfitters take?


It appears to me many outfits up north charge pretty hefty rates for their stone's sheep hunts. Without naming outfits I know several that sell their sheep hunts in excess of 25 000 US including some that will wind up over 30 000 after all the other costs are factored on top of that.

As far as making money. Smart outfitters do extremely well. One example to illustrate how well an outfitter can do is whitetail outfitting in Saskatchewan. I know of one outfit with 2 territories with something in the neighborhood of 50 whitetail tags that operate only 6-8 weeks (first 2 setting up bait sites and stand locations etc). Booking being full at 4800 US a hunt - thats pretty serious coin and it doesn't include spring bear. I am aware of one outfitter who recently was able to purchase an expensive northern BC outfit last year because of his success with the whitetail outfit to get started and have it payed off with a good return.

[CanuckShooter]

This has turned into an interesting thread....with some very obvious differences of opinion. I have always had a distaste for any businesses being protected by government licensing schemes. ie. wheat boards, egg boards, commercial fishing licences, guiding territories etc. {Now don't take this wrong, I have family members with business interests in these areas}

I have always felt that more of a free enterprise system should be in place, whereas anyone that wanted to start up a business had the freedom to do so. With the current GO system I am not allowed to start up a small guiding service...even if that business is directed at resident hunters...unless I can come up with the cash to purchase a territory. This is a form of protectionism and/or favoritism that we shouldn't have in a province that is supposed to be driven by the small entrepeneur. This problem [allocations] ,that is more than evident in this thread, are a direct result of the competition created between resident hunters and guides for an allocation of tags.

If the government were to institute a system of 'territories' for any other business we would end up with the same thing..especially if discretion were given to a beurocrate to determine how much of anything could be legally sold in any given location.

The solution isn't in fighting over allocations..but in revamping the system. IMO

As for the discussion around the earning potental of guiding, I personally know of one BC resident that was charged $2500 for a guided hunt out of Dawson Creek..with a resident moose tag...not bad coin for a two day hunt.

[boxhitch]

C-S - I think it is because of the territory system in BC that hunters can book a hunt with confidence of getting a fair shake on their dollar spent. The g/o have something tangible at stake, and most are eager to please clients, resi or non-resi. I've heard comment from hunters about hunting in alberta, where they see other guides/hunters in the same watershed and /or racing for a campspot. This confidence in hunt quality will keep BC will keep the industry in a good light.
As for the $2500 dollar moose, if that was a day rate of $1250, then that is pretty steep. If the hunt could have gone 5 days for the same dollars, now $500 per day, is realistic, depending on level of comfort of course.
Both willy442 and goatguy are making valid arguements, some spindoctoring too. Good read !!

[dana]

In many states everyone and their dog can become a guide and guide wherever they want. You want to see chaos. The system we have here is much better. There are way more DIY/resident hunter versus guide issues down there. Can you imagine having a footrace up a mountain on opening morning to kill the monster buck you have been watching all summer, not knowing that 12 other guides were watching that same buck. Could you imagine Residents pimping themselves out like whores, because they didn't draw a tag yet they know the whereabouts of a certain class animal. Depending on the deep pockets of the client, any joe blow can become a whore. Sounds like a great system eh? Free Enterprise at it's best. It's not about the hunt, it's about the $$$$$. Are you sure you want our system changed that badly?

[willy442]

Well Guy's

I'm tired of beating a dead horse, so this will be my last post on this subject.

First off I Outfitted in one of the most prestine area's of this province, for 32 years. During this time our outfit recieved 68 outstanding trophy awards (more than any other BC outfitter at the time) with many heads going into the Boone and Crockett. Many of these awards were presented by Jack Jonas and the Klineburger Bros. in the early years and GOABC, FNAWS and Safari club later on. I doubt if those replying to this thread know anything about the above gentelmen, as they would have still been in diapers at this time if they were around at all.:lol: Due to the success described above we had 38% repeat clientele annually( an extremly high number ) in the field. Advertsing was something we never had to do much of. Guess we must have been successful, business plan must have been fairly good also, for us to stay afloat in such a volitile enviroment. We were members of GOABC and must have been a little more prosperous than the members Goat Guy refered to.

Now I find it totally amusing how people, that have never invested even one nickel, into the business can come up with a computerized scenario and tell me about the financial gains that are possible. First off I would suggest that their income for the first few years would be taken up with alot of travel and promoting to try and come up with clients, (unless I'm wrong, and they grow on trees to be plucked like apples or come running because all of a sudden you are an outfitter). A healthy clientele and reference base takes a long time to build, along with hard work and success! As new outfitters you would have neither. Keeping the old outfitter on for a year or two can help but it's not always the answer.

With that said:
I would like to wish Brno375 and Goat Guy all the success possible in their FAIRY TALE WORLD of OUTFITTING. May they get rich, spend their winters in Mexico and get there by flying their own helicopter.

BC Rams: WHERE IS SASKATCHEWAN?

Canuck Shooter: Prior to 1962 alotted areas were unheard of in BC, They came about back then, to try and bring some conservation and organization into the very remote camps in the north hunting sheep. Most hunted the area from the Halfway river to the Muskwa on thirty plus day hunts. Many guides hunted the same places and the numbers of operators was getting to high, hence came alotted areas. I know most won't like this but our alotted area system is often referred to as the best system in the world, when it comes to commercial hunting. The way you refer to is alot like Alberta and the horror stories run rampid there. To open it up as you suggest now would devastate our game herds and cause increased restrictions in some form or another.

[brno375]

Willy

I agree that a free for all would be detrimental to wildlife populations, and so the system in place now with quotas is better.

I know you said you would no longer post concerning the purchasing of g/o territories, but do you mind telling me why you sold?

[GoatGuy]

Well Guy's

I'm tired of beating a dead horse, so this will be my last post on this subject.

First off I Outfitted in one of the most prestine area's of this province, for 32 years. During this time our outfit recieved 68 outstanding trophy awards (more than any other BC outfitter at the time) with many heads going into the Boone and Crockett. Many of these awards were presented by Jack Jonas and the Klineburger Bros. in the early years and GOABC, FNAWS and Safari club later on. I doubt if those replying to this thread know anything about the above gentelmen, as they would have still been in diapers at this time if they were around at all.:lol: Due to the success described above we had 38% repeat clientele annually( an extremly high number ) in the field. Advertsing was something we never had to do much of. Guess we must have been successful, business plan must have been fairly good also, for us to stay afloat in such a volitile enviroment. We were members of GOABC and must have been a little more prosperous than the members Goat Guy refered to.

Now I find it totally amusing how people, that have never invested even one nickel, into the business can come up with a computerized scenario and tell me about the financial gains that are possible. First off I would suggest that their income for the first few years would be taken up with alot of travel and promoting to try and come up with clients, (unless I'm wrong, and they grow on trees to be plucked like apples or come running because all of a sudden you are an outfitter). A healthy clientele and reference base takes a long time to build, along with hard work and success! As new outfitters you would have neither. Keeping the old outfitter on for a year or two can help but it's not always the answer.

With that said:
I would like to wish Brno375 and Goat Guy all the success possible in their FAIRY TALE WORLD of OUTFITTING. May they get rich, spend their winters in Mexico and get there by flying their own helicopter.

.

Businesses are run by business people - most outfits are run by hunters.

Financial success of an outfit is neither measured by record heads, nor repeat clientel, nor the fact 'we didn't have to do advertising' - that alone demonstrates a lack of business savy. Also a clear lack of knowledge regarding the demand curve of non-resident hunting and the dynamics of industry consolidation shows that you aren't a business person. I've heard all this stuff a million times from the folks who are scratching by.

32 years of experience doesn't mean you know 'business' either. Filling spots and shooting good animals; keeping yourself afloat in a volatile environment doesn't make you a businessman either - makes you a floater.

Furthermore, not knowing about financing and the actual value of money means you probably threw away 3-5% every year. You know those deposits outfitter's take? Instead putting them in your sock drawer or a savings account you can actually make money off of them - unfortunately folks who do that are the exception. Borrowing from banks for a small business loan????? I've heard of stranger things.......I just can't remember when

On top of all the insinuations and rummaging around this came about as a result of discussing how animals are divied up. This was never an us against them it was about equity and what's fair. That's what was up for discussion.

It is not and has never been the responsibility of the government to subsidize an industry for the sake of very, very few jobs and very little money in the big picture of the provincial economy. There are much bigger critters out there. Then there's the sob story.

You told us outfitters just barely get by almost implying that outfitters can hardly feed themselves and on and on - - that just simply is not the case and the folks with a mind for it do it and do it well. I've seen the financial statements and seen the lifestyle. Heck send Harry an email and ask him about the outfits that he has for sale for $400K US when they get 8 moose tags, 2 grizz tags and kill one, maybe two goats a year. I've worked for them. The reason they're so asking price is so high is because these guys are MAKING MONEY! Yes, outfitters that are business savy! They're still overpriced IMHO but they're making good cash year after year, not just scraping by as infered. Course these guys guide too, but that's what it takes. And these's aren't even in the 'required' nothern, pristine areas in the province!

I'm the first one to say g/os and residents should be on the same page but hearing the same garbage about financial viability and 'maintaining' the guide industry is getting old. The gov't should be putting those folks through a business program instead of handing them out more tags.

After the first 5 years of just getting by I wouldn't have called 'er in quit - I'm not sure what to say about 32.

[hunter1947]

I no a few guide outfitters and there not feeling the pinch. If you do a research on the revenue for aliens and resident hunters you will find out that the resident hunters bring in to our country 80% more revenue then others. hunter 1947.:roll:

[CanuckShooter]

Well Guy's

Canuck Shooter: Prior to 1962 alotted areas were unheard of in BC, They came about back then, to try and bring some conservation and organization into the very remote camps in the north hunting sheep. Most hunted the area from the Halfway river to the Muskwa on thirty plus day hunts. Many guides hunted the same places and the numbers of operators was getting to high, hence came alotted areas. I know most won't like this but our alotted area system is often referred to as the best system in the world, when it comes to commercial hunting. The way you refer to is alot like Alberta and the horror stories run rampid there. To open it up as you suggest now would devastate our game herds and cause increased restrictions in some form or another.

Dana/Willy>> I am not aware of these horror stories that you fellows refer too, BUT I fail to see how someone like myself guiding a resident Canadian hunter would have any negative affects on wildlife populations that are currently managed through the sale of tags and the LEH system. I don't believe there is any current restriction on non BC resident Canadians buying tags, and there doesn't seem to be any shortage of resident general open season tags available.

""Can you imagine having a footrace up a mountain on opening morning to kill the monster buck you have been watching all summer, not knowing that 12 other guides were watching that same buck. Could you imagine Residents pimping themselves out like whores, because they didn't draw a tag yet they know the whereabouts of a certain class animal.""

I can kind of understand this mindset...but have to wonder how that is any different than things are now as there are no guarantees that the licensed guide has exclusive rights to the aforemetioned 'monster buck'??

We have, on more than one occassion, met up with hunters from the lower mainland...joined them on a hunt...showed them some of the best locations..taught them about the animals habits, and favoured habitat...ferried them around on our quads and in our trucks...shared our camp facilities..showed them how to dress the animals etc etc.

If we were to accept payment for this we would be considered to be guiding...I see a possible business opportunity in providing this type of service, but we are not allowed to because access to the business opportunity is the exclusive right of the current licensed guide outfitters. Maybe I am missing the boat here?? But I don't think so.

[Deaddog]

32 years in the business means good business sense, he got to do what he loved for 32 years, can we all say the same, at the end of the day money is not what it is about

[The Hermit]

GoatGuy +10

Willy -8

[bigwhiteys]

'we didn't have to do advertising' - that alone demonstrates a lack of business savy. 32 years of experience doesn't mean you know 'business' either. Filling spots and shooting good animals; keeping yourself afloat in a volatile environment doesn't make you a businessman either - makes you a floater.

What type of businesse(s) do you own GoatGuy?

I can tell you, as a business owner myself that if you don't have to spend money on advertising it's because you've done something RIGHT!

The last 4 years I've built a services business online that earns me into 6 figures a year. I pay out next to nothing for advertising.

1. I treat my customers with respect.
2. I provide them a Great service.
3. I provide it at a Competitive price.

They tell their friends... My business continues to grow on their good word... Outfitting as I understand it isn't much different... Without word of mouth you are going to be left with empty camps.

Hunters don't just drop coin because you have a pretty ad in a magazine. Most of them come from word of mouth recommendations from someone whom they respect and trust... such as another hunter. And if you've got LOTS of hunters talking up your area then you are in pretty good shape. It's the BEST advertising there is.

Happy Hunting!
Carl

[GoatGuy]

What type of businesse(s) do you own GoatGuy?

I'm a mailman, just look in my profile. :lol:

I've also recently been endeared to as a bagman - something I'm not sure whether the individual who gave the monicker knows what it actually means.




I can tell you, as a business owner myself that if you don't have to spend money on advertising it's because you've done something RIGHT!


Wrong. After working as a manager of a professional service firm which specializes in marketing I can tell you that while you may be successful you have not met the full potential of your business.

If you're doing that well you're business could probably flourish, but first we must figure out if you do actually market yourself and if you do advertise.



The last 4 years I've built a services business online that earns me into 6 figures a year. I pay out next to nothing for advertising.

1. I treat my customers with respect.
2. I provide them a Great service.
3. I provide it at a Competitive price.

They tell their friends... My business continues to grow on their good word... Outfitting as I understand it isn't much different... Without word of mouth you are going to be left with empty camps.

Being an online service business I'd assume you have a website??? How much did the website cost to setup and maintain? You may not have realized but that is ADVERTISING. Before we were talking about marketing but in any case.....

Word of mouth is subjective - clearly beneficial to any business but there are many more forms and many other factors to consider. What can you tell me about your competitors? How about your market size? Market share? Price elasticity? Future direction? Competitive advantage? What's your plan? Why have you been successful? What will make you successful in the future? These are but a few questions that outfitter's often do ask themselves. They wait til the end of the year look at their financials and say it was a good year or it was a bad year. There's nothing proactive about it and quite frankly most outfitter's don't like crunching numbers.




Hunters don't just drop coin because you have a pretty ad in a magazine. Most of them come from word of mouth recommendations from someone whom they respect and trust... such as another hunter. And if you've got LOTS of hunters talking up your area then you are in pretty good shape. It's the BEST advertising there is.

Never discussed ads as before it was about marketing. In any case you'll find good outfitters measure the return on money spend in ads, tradeshows, videos, word of mouth booking, booking agents etc., etc., You'll find most go to the same shows year in and year out, head in the sand about returns and what is actually generating business.

How many outfitter's do you know who do this? How many outfitter's know the return on their marketing dollars? How many outfitter's know who their demographic is and exactly how much they can charge?

VERY VERY FEW - this is just one more case of how poorly run and managed the g/o industry is.

Also, word of mouth is a good one! Course if you raffle a hunt away and a blue worker from the US gets what was normally a $25K hunt, shoots a good ram and goes home and tells all his buddies are your marketing dollars well spent? I think not- chances are what's gonna happen is you'll have a lot of people putting in for the raffle next year!:lol:

For some reason g/os figure that just because they're totally booked up 3 months before the season starts is a good thing - they don't realize where and how the dollars are coming in and how that could affect their bottom line.

"I'm booked up for the next 4 years on elk," was the last one I heard. That's great, obviously means you've severely discounted the value of your hunts and thrown out thousands and thousands of dollars!!!! Plus turning all that US$ into CDN funds probably isn't the best idea when the CDN economy is moving and the US is in the gutter= exchange rates are at an all time low.

This thread was about the divy of animals not the 'viability' of the g/o industry. Contrary to the echo down the hall outfitters aren't starving and giving them more animals does not mean they will do any better.

[Maxx]

Goat guy, please STOP, you are slagging and preaching business to a guy who spent 32 years owning a business. What true business experience do you have?

And BigWhiteys gives some straight forward, first hand experience about his business, and yet you question if he knows that a website is marketing? His point was, word of mouth, and supplying quality service gains more future business,

Stop preaching what you learned in school, and use the 2 ears and eyeballs that god gave you- maybe these "old" timers can actually teach you something,

[bigwhiteys]

I'm a mailman, just look in my profile.

How about you just keep delivering the checks then? And let me worry about how my business plan and how much money my business makes me now or in the future?

Happy Hunting!
Carl

[GoatGuy]

Goat guy, please STOP, you are slagging and preaching business to a guy who spent 32 years owning a business. What true business experience do you have?,

Before I became mailman and a bagman I worked at one of Canada's 100 fastest growing companies as a marketing manager. I worked with teams in NHL, NBA, CFL, CHL, AHL, AFL, MLB, NCAA. Worked directly with Pepsi, Coke, MGD, Taco Bell, Coors Light, Budweiser, RE/MAX, Chic-Fil-A, amongst other major companies. I also worked on several other industries including: public sector, health authority, developments, airline etc.,

Before that I worked in the service industry in recruitment and development, as a manager, trainer etc., - wasn't a great job but I learned a lot from a very successful company.

I've done a bit of contract work on the side for gov't, private sector, and not for profit - something I'll be doing a bit more of. Certainly isn't 32 years but I believe it could be classified as 'true business experience'.



And BigWhiteys gives some straight forward, first hand experience about his business, and yet you question if he knows that a website is marketing? His point was, word of mouth, and supplying quality service gains more future business,,

And I quote: "I can tell you, as a business owner myself that if you don't have to spend money on advertising it's because you've done something RIGHT!"

Basically infers succesfull businesses don't advertise, just the same as in the g/o industry. His point was that g/os don't advertise; he's wrong - I never said he wasn't succesfull. Sounds like he's done quite well for himself.



Stop preaching what you learned in school, and use the 2 ears and eyeballs that god gave you- maybe these "old" timers can actually teach you something,

I'm sure they could. The reason this whole discussion came about was because Willy442 was trying to tell the rest that g/o is a die-hard industry, where bankruptcy is common and that outfitter's need more tags - that simply isn't the case.

That same argument has been presented for the past 25 years and has set gross inequities in the allocation policy which has killed off half of resident hunters, whilst demand for non-resi hunts have far outpaced inflation.

[GoatGuy]

How about you just keep delivering the checks then? And let me worry about how my business plan and how much money my business makes me now or in the future?

Happy Hunting!
Carl

On my route I sometimes forget things; hopefully the cheques don't get lost!:lol: :lol: :lol:

My delivery vehicle has also been breaking down a lot lately. I hate it when that happens. If your mail's late you'll know who to blame.

[bigwhiteys]

On my route I sometimes forget things; hopefully the cheques don't get lost!:lol: :lol: :lol:

Don't worry... I get paid by checks from a few companies I am affiliated with... The bulk of the money comes through wire transfers.


And I quote: "I can tell you, as a business owner myself that if you don't have to spend money on advertising it's because you've done something RIGHT!"

Basically infers succesfull businesses don't advertise, just the same as in the g/o industry. His point was that g/os don't advertise; he's wrong - I never said he wasn't succesfull. Sounds like he's done quite well for himself.

It does not infer successful businesses don't advertise. I said that any successful business that does NOT advertise has done something right.


His point was that g/os don't advertise

Again... You are wrong. That wasn't my point at all... I said that the BEST advertising for a G/O was word of mouth. NOT that they didn't advertise.

Have a Great Day GoatGuy

Happy Hunting!
Carl

[GoatGuy]

Have a Great Day GoatGuy

Happy Hunting!
Carl

You too!:lol:

[Stone Sheep Steve]

My delivery vehicle has also been breaking down a lot lately. I hate it when that happens

I guess the rest of the flight crew gets pretty pretty nervous when they see you coming with your goggles and parachute:-o and a black cloud over your head!:lol:

SSS

[Gateholio]

I guess the rest of the flight crew gets pretty pretty nervous when they see you coming with your goggles and parachute:-o and a black cloud over your head!:lol:

SSS

Not to mention the passengers!!:lol: :lol:

[boxhitch]

Not to mention the passengers!!:lol: :lol:
No worries there, as I think he just flies the short yellow planes.

[GoatGuy]

VERY FUNNY!!!!

The passengers are way more concerned with filling the puke bags than the way I dress (just ask one-shot).

If any of you come out in the gas powered spotter you better hope that little black cloud doesn't follow me around. It's only got one engine instead of 3!:lol: