LEH Thoughts - "The grass is greener on the other side"

[LBM]

I disagree. They are expected to manage their harvesting. It serves them no good if they shoot all their tags early. They get an allotment over 5 years, I don't see this as a problem. They are also generally fairly selective vs resident hunters.

Take sheep for example. An outfitter gets a 5 year allotment, and I think almost every species is like this. I know several outfitters that get say 15 sheep in 5 years, but the area doesn't really support that. They will harvest around 10 sheep in 5 years. What good does that do to the population of the sheep if residents head out there and start killing 5 sheep, 2 of which are gonna be short or young. It only hurts the population, and no one knows the area and the animals like the outfitter. It also changes year to year depending on things like winter, forest fires. They aren't the kind of guys that rape and pillage, they need to keep their success rates up to sell and they want to take the best, oldest animals possible. Sheep teach each other and if all the old ones are wiped out it doesn't help the populations chances to flourish.

Residents are too short sighted a lot of the time, there is lots of opportunity out there, get after it.

Interesting comments, kind of contradict your self a few times there. Dont agree with lots of your comments on some outfitters either. some I have talked to mentioned they can have there next 5 year quota reduced if they dont use there previous quota. Then there is those that also over book like book 5 hunters knowing they only have 3 tags . lots goes on out there, they are not all as knowledgeable and concerned about wildlife as you say.

[Arctic Lake]

Like Button !

Years ago after some successful deer kills by me, my anti-hunting buddy got a little snotty because nobody had consulted him if it was ok for me to kill “our” deer. I told him that he’s entitled to kill 3 deer a year in BC just like everyone else, and his 3 were still out there.

Interestingly, I find that most anti-hunters don’t know much about wildlife. Can’t identify many different animals, don’t where/how they live, don’t seek them out, don’t know if populations are healthy or not. Wildlife have almost no role in their lives, but they sure don’t want anybody killing them.

[HappyJack]

In one area, I heard the guides get 25% of the bull moose tag allocations each year. Doesn't that seem a bit excessive?? We lose all that opportunity so they can sell a hunt??

Moose	Skeena	Residents	75%	1222	80%
		Guides	25%	300	20%
Moose	Cariboo	Residents	77%	2,447	98%
		Guides	23%

[Darksith]

Interesting comments, kind of contradict your self a few times there. Dont agree with lots of your comments on some outfitters either. some I have talked to mentioned they can have there next 5 year quota reduced if they dont use there previous quota. Then there is those that also over book like book 5 hunters knowing they only have 3 tags . lots goes on out there, they are not all as knowledgeable and concerned about wildlife as you say.

Typical stance from a certain group. They can over book, nothing wrong with that. If they only have a 50% success rate, whats the problem? As long as they don't harvest more than their quota there is noting to see here. The real issue is why are we allowing the government to manage this renewable resource to 0. We should be working with the outfitters to force the government to properly fund our wildlife and their habitat, but we'd rather fight over a dwindling supply and complain that tags etc cost too much when really the costs should go up a lot and all of that $ should be directly allocated to wildlife conservation.

[Darksith]

In one area, I heard the guides get 25% of the bull moose tag allocations each year. Doesn't that seem a bit excessive?? We lose all that opportunity so they can sell a hunt??

Moose	Skeena	Residents	75%	1222	80%
		Guides	25%	300	20%
Moose	Cariboo	Residents	77%	2,447	98%
		Guides	23%

so they can employ people. Why aren't we upset that we allow gold mines to operate when that gold is there for you to take? Whats the difference? Its a resource, and a renewable one at that. Why do we allow logging companies to harvest our trees, more firewood for you right! Come on, its not us vs them

[Retiredguy]

Maybe things have changed, but in years gone by, when you were talking about a guides allocation for a certain species, the "quota" was more accurately tags or hunters, not dead animals. If a US client booked a moose or sheep hunt, they received their species license and that was considered one of the allocations used, whether the hunter killed an animal or went home empty handed. This was to prevent an outfitter from over booking as there was a concern that an unscrupulous outfitter may deliberately have his guides ensure that some hunters did not fill their species license so that they could get the money from several hunters for one allocation. Government always tends to approach things with the idea that hunters are going to cheat, whether it is outfitters or resident hunters.

Perhaps someone on here knows what the current situation is...I noticed guides and outfitters usually quit this forum as they get tired of all the anti-outfitter BS, but I am sure someone on here knows an outfitter that can clarify this.

[2chodi]

Quota is for dead animals, not hunters. When it comes to booking hunters, it depends a lot on the species and how big the quota is — sometimes the number of hunters booked is less than the quota, sometimes the same, and sometimes more. I believe the latter is not that common.

Quotas are also guided hunter quota ie a guide can sell a quota hunt to a resident, non-resident or non-resident alien.

Maybe things have changed, but in years gone by, when you were talking about a guides allocation for a certain species, the "quota" was more accurately tags or hunters, not dead animals. If a US client booked a moose or sheep hunt, they received their species license and that was considered one of the allocations used, whether the hunter killed an animal or went home empty handed. This was to prevent an outfitter from over booking as there was a concern that an unscrupulous outfitter may deliberately have his guides ensure that some hunters did not fill their species license so that they could get the money from several hunters for one allocation. Government always tends to approach things with the idea that hunters are going to cheat, whether it is outfitters or resident hunters.

Perhaps someone on here knows what the current situation is...I noticed guides and outfitters usually quit this forum as they get tired of all the anti-outfitter BS, but I am sure someone on here knows an outfitter that can clarify this.

[HappyJack]

so they can employ people. Why aren't we upset that we allow gold mines to operate when that gold is there for you to take? Whats the difference? Its a resource, and a renewable one at that. Why do we allow logging companies to harvest our trees, more firewood for you right! Come on, its not us vs them

Well it actually is us vs them, that's why there is an allocation. It's called divvying up the resource. I don't have an issue with guided hunters it's just that they should have to win an LEH the same as we do. What we have now is a system that favours those with deep pockets, resident and non resident. And what law prevents the outfitter from gifting that coveted tag to a MLA to use free of charge?

And then we could also say who audits the LEH system to ensure it's fair and doesn't just give buddy his tags every year?? While some poor sap goes 40 years and never wins a moose LEH??

[KodiakHntr]

Well it actually is us vs them, that's why there is an allocation. It's called divvying up the resource. I don't have an issue with guided hunters it's just that they should have to win an LEH the same as we do. What we have now is a system that favours those with deep pockets, resident and non resident. And what law prevents the outfitter from gifting that coveted tag to a MLA to use free of charge?

And then we could also say who audits the LEH system to ensure it's fair and doesn't just give buddy his tags every year?? While some poor sap goes 40 years and never wins a moose LEH??

Well, the outfitter still pays his royalty on the tag even if he gave it to someone, so there is that.

Never really understood the argument that “the system favors those with deep pockets”? People with deep
pockets charter airplanes so they don’t have to go through line ups and wait to board commercial aircraft either. People with deep pockets can call up a car dealership and have a new car delivered and be ready to drive away as soon as they walk out their door and not spend hours sitting in a dealership hoping the loan gets approved.

Outfitters generally have to make an investment into an area, build infrastructure, train staff, etc. Of course an outfitter is going to market to the people that can afford it.
How many moose do you figure are going to walk out of an outfitters plane or horse access area to go stand beside an FSR so Joe Average from 604 can have a chance at him? Not really competing for the same animals.

[Walking Buffalo]

Typical stance from a certain group. They can over book, nothing wrong with that. If they only have a 50% success rate, whats the problem? As long as they don't harvest more than their quota there is noting to see here.

The real issue is why are we allowing the government to manage this renewable resource to 0.

We should be working with the outfitters to force the government to properly fund our wildlife and their habitat, but we'd rather fight over a dwindling supply and complain that tags etc cost too much when really the costs should go up a lot and all of that $ should be directly allocated to wildlife conservation.

Recall what happened to Chilcotin Hillbilly (Skinner Creek), forced by the government to practically beg clients to kill some young moose in order to save his allocations....