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

[HappyJack]

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.

Actually a lot of the outfitters areas are right along those FSR'ds that the boys from the 604 like to hunt.

Deep pockets shouldn't be given priority over regular tax paying resident hunters was the point, it's quite obvious that if you're wealthy you can gain other privileges as you mention.

[HappyJack]

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....

Really, he couldn't just sell those moose tags to some resident hunters for $1?? I know one resident that paid $2500 for a cow moose from a guide in 7B.

[Walking Buffalo]

Really, he couldn't just sell those moose tags to some resident hunters for $1?? I know one resident that paid $2500 for a cow moose from a guide in 7B.

It appears you're missing the point.
He HAD to fill those allocations in order to have them renewed in the future despite the local population being suppressed.

Horrible management practices by the government....

[LBM]

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.

whats the typical stance and what group? Guessing you didnt understand the over booking statement, but Im sure the hunter thats just taken for a walk doesnt like it. There is both good and bad in guide/outfitters and residents and in non-hunters as well, nd you will neve get them all to agree for all after different things. I have worked for what I feel were good outfitters, some of the guides were questionable though. To go back to your other post about short sheep being shot
that happens from both residents and guide/outfitters how they are dealt with is the issue.
I do agree money should go back into wildlife and conservation and thats from all groups that use or have an affect on the outdoors, from guide/outfitters, hunters to non hunters, mountain bikers, hikers etc. Many non hunting groups have a say
on what goes on with laws and regs etc that affect hunting but they dont really put any thing back in.

[2chodi]

Really, he couldn't just sell those moose tags to some resident hunters for $1?? I know one resident that paid $2500 for a cow moose from a guide in 7B.

Well that is interesting, as there hasn't been a cow moose season in 7B for years other than LEH for youth only. Are you sure it wasn't for a cow elk?

[Darksith]

whats the typical stance and what group? Guessing you didnt understand the over booking statement, but Im sure the hunter thats just taken for a walk doesnt like it. There is both good and bad in guide/outfitters and residents and in non-hunters as well, nd you will neve get them all to agree for all after different things. I have worked for what I feel were good outfitters, some of the guides were questionable though. To go back to your other post about short sheep being shot
that happens from both residents and guide/outfitters how they are dealt with is the issue.
I do agree money should go back into wildlife and conservation and thats from all groups that use or have an affect on the outdoors, from guide/outfitters, hunters to non hunters, mountain bikers, hikers etc. Many non hunting groups have a say on what goes on with laws and regs etc that affect hunting but they dont really put any thing back in.

Im choosing to not call out groups with certain stances for my own reasons, but anyone that knows knows. The stance....us vs them, simple as that.
Sure an outfitter could be out of quota and take someone for a walk, but what happens if they bump into something? Anything is possible. Wouldn't it be better business to simply inform the client that there is a chance the hunt might need to get pushed a year? Cancellations also happen all the time, how is an outfitter supposed to manage that side of things? I see no issue with overbooking for reasons such as unsuccessful hunts, cancellations etc etc. Over booking can really only happen once every 5 years anyway, something else to contemplate. Ive been at the shows, Ive heard the questions asked, some of the more common ones are "whats your success rate?" taking clients for walks or intentionally essentially defrauding them isn't a good way to build a business. Most hunters ask for references and call other hunters, and like to get a feel for the outfitter in person before they go on a hunt with them. I suspect that if a guy is a dirtbag and just in it for cash he's not going to last very long as an outfitter. Guide assistants are just people, some are friendlier than others, some are more compassionate than others, we don't have to like everyone, but at the end of the hunt his tip will reflect his demeanour and a lot of guys live off the tips more than the wages.

I think the bigger issue is how our government allocates our money than how many tags an outfitter gets vs residents. There should be enough to go around for everyone, and just because one of us wasn't successful on a hunt doesn't mean it was the outfitters fault. If we managed this resource like a lot of other places that do great things we would all be happy. Instead we end up arguing among ourselves rather than holding our politicians accountable.

It appears you're missing the point.
He HAD to fill those allocations in order to have them renewed in the future despite the local population being suppressed.

Horrible management practices by the government....

OK so explain to me why anti hunting groups are buying outfitter areas if the quote won't get used it is turned over to residents? If an area is unused even if the fees are paid, the owner should be removed, given back their money not a dime more and the area should be auctioned off. An outfitter could simply buy the tag in anyone's name and punch the tag to fill their quota if there was a risk to losing it rather than using it. It would cost them the price of a tag, and if they used a resident which they could that's sweet nothing as far as cost.

There are a lot of meat hunts available for $5k or less in BC if a resident is interested in paying for it when talking about moose. I totally don't agree its us vs them, we are given the bulk of the quota, but some people simply aren't happy unless they feel like we have 100% and the outfitters have 0, meanwhile if that happened hundreds if not a thousand households would loose their income and be forced to move, retrain, change their way of life. Being an outfitter is not easy work, being a guide/assistant guide is not easy work and its really hard when you and your client have high hopes and come up empty just like the rest of us when we go hunting. This thread has been hijacked into a resident vs outfitter conversation rather than an LEH system conversation. There could be minor tweaks to our LEH to make people feel like they have a chance, but ultimately if you haven't gotten a draw in 40 years you are probably putting in for 20:1 or worse odd hunts. Find the 7:1 hunts, get a shared hunt going and get that draw, its really not that hard. I suspect the guys that complain the most are the ones not willing to pick a new area with better odds, spend the gas money and go further, do the research required to be successful whether its on the hunt or in the LEH system itself. Some of my favourite places to hunt are areas I knew nothing about but invested the time and maybe it took a trip or 2, but now its figured out our freezers are always full. I could complain that Ive never gotten a Rosie or sheep draw, and that the system is broken, but even if we went to points I wouldn't see that hunt guaranteed in my lifetime or anyone's lifetime, you would simply get to a point where instead of 100:1 it would be 20:1 but your so old you probably won't be successful anyway.

Ive seen a proposal for a tweak to the system, I read it thoroughly and I said it could work and maybe make people a bit happier. The grass isn't greener, it could grow faster but ultimately its up to us to be smart and take advantages where advantages can be taken with the current system. There is no reason any resident hunter should go 40 years drawless if getting a draw was their priority vs getting that 1 draw. The system should differentiate between subspecies though. I should be able to put in for a Rosie and a Rocky elk, we do it with deer, we did it with bears, why not elk or even sheep? I would imagine that would cause the Rocky draws to spike too which would piss a lot of guys off, but it would simply bring in more $ which I don't like unless it goes directly back into conservation.

[KodiakHntr]

Actually a lot of the outfitters areas are right along those FSR'ds that the boys from the 604 like to hunt.

Deep pockets shouldn't be given priority over regular tax paying resident hunters was the point, it's quite obvious that if you're wealthy you can gain other privileges as you mention.

How is it getting priority over a resident hunter though? It’s not like rich guys are being GIVEN a hunt for something for free, they had to pay for it with actual money from their own actual pocket. You have the exact same opportunity to do that if you want. You can absolutely drop the same dollars on the same hunt as a rich guy if you want to hunt something and didn’t get an LEH.

I truly do not follow your argument here at all.

[2chodi]

OK so explain to me why anti hunting groups are buying outfitter areas if the quote won't get used it is turned over to residents? If an area is unused even if the fees are paid, the owner should be removed, given back their money not a dime more and the area should be auctioned off. An outfitter could simply buy the tag in anyone's name and punch the tag to fill their quota if there was a risk to losing it rather than using it. It would cost them the price of a tag, and if they used a resident which they could that's sweet nothing as far as cost.

There used to be a use it or lose it policy around quota and territories, but I personally haven't seen it applied recently, and certainly not to the Raincoast owned territories. Kevin Faulkner from Raincoast, on Mike Smyth's show on Global/CKNW when asked said they do take hunters, but the hunters they take are really fussy and they never find a trophy quality bear, so they switch to taking photos.

[Darksith]

There used to be a use it or lose it policy around quota and territories, but I personally haven't seen it applied recently, and certainly not to the Raincoast owned territories. Kevin Faulkner from Raincoast, on Mike Smyth's show on Global/CKNW when asked said they do take hunters, but the hunters they take are really fussy and they never find a trophy quality bear, so they switch to taking photos.

Right, these area's owners should be stripped of ownership. I get its a fine line to walk but it wouldn't be that hard to prove use when we have things like CI's these days.

[LBM]

Im choosing to not call out groups with certain stances for my own reasons, but anyone that knows knows. The stance....us vs them, simple as that.
Sure an outfitter could be out of quota and take someone for a walk, but what happens if they bump into something? Anything is possible. Wouldn't it be better business to simply inform the client that there is a chance the hunt might need to get pushed a year? Cancellations also happen all the time, how is an outfitter supposed to manage that side of things? I see no issue with overbooking for reasons such as unsuccessful hunts, cancellations etc etc. Over booking can really only happen once every 5 years anyway, something else to contemplate. Ive been at the shows, Ive heard the questions asked, some of the more common ones are "whats your success rate?" taking clients for walks or intentionally essentially defrauding them isn't a good way to build a business. Most hunters ask for references and call other hunters, and like to get a feel for the outfitter in person before they go on a hunt with them. I suspect that if a guy is a dirtbag and just in it for cash he's not going to last very long as an outfitter. Guide assistants are just people, some are friendlier than others, some are more compassionate than others, we don't have to like everyone, but at the end of the hunt his tip will reflect his demeanour and a lot of guys live off the tips more than the wages.

I think the bigger issue is how our government allocates our money than how many tags an outfitter gets vs residents. There should be enough to go around for everyone, and just because one of us wasn't successful on a hunt doesn't mean it was the outfitters fault. If we managed this resource like a lot of other places that do great things we would all be happy. Instead we end up arguing among ourselves rather than holding our politicians accountable.



OK so explain to me why anti hunting groups are buying outfitter areas if the quote won't get used it is turned over to residents? If an area is unused even if the fees are paid, the owner should be removed, given back their money not a dime more and the area should be auctioned off. An outfitter could simply buy the tag in anyone's name and punch the tag to fill their quota if there was a risk to losing it rather than using it. It would cost them the price of a tag, and if they used a resident which they could that's sweet nothing as far as cost.

There are a lot of meat hunts available for $5k or less in BC if a resident is interested in paying for it when talking about moose. I totally don't agree its us vs them, we are given the bulk of the quota, but some people simply aren't happy unless they feel like we have 100% and the outfitters have 0, meanwhile if that happened hundreds if not a thousand households would loose their income and be forced to move, retrain, change their way of life. Being an outfitter is not easy work, being a guide/assistant guide is not easy work and its really hard when you and your client have high hopes and come up empty just like the rest of us when we go hunting. This thread has been hijacked into a resident vs outfitter conversation rather than an LEH system conversation. There could be minor tweaks to our LEH to make people feel like they have a chance, but ultimately if you haven't gotten a draw in 40 years you are probably putting in for 20:1 or worse odd hunts. Find the 7:1 hunts, get a shared hunt going and get that draw, its really not that hard. I suspect the guys that complain the most are the ones not willing to pick a new area with better odds, spend the gas money and go further, do the research required to be successful whether its on the hunt or in the LEH system itself. Some of my favourite places to hunt are areas I knew nothing about but invested the time and maybe it took a trip or 2, but now its figured out our freezers are always full. I could complain that Ive never gotten a Rosie or sheep draw, and that the system is broken, but even if we went to points I wouldn't see that hunt guaranteed in my lifetime or anyone's lifetime, you would simply get to a point where instead of 100:1 it would be 20:1 but your so old you probably won't be successful anyway.

Ive seen a proposal for a tweak to the system, I read it thoroughly and I said it could work and maybe make people a bit happier. The grass isn't greener, it could grow faster but ultimately its up to us to be smart and take advantages where advantages can be taken with the current system. There is no reason any resident hunter should go 40 years drawless if getting a draw was their priority vs getting that 1 draw. The system should differentiate between subspecies though. I should be able to put in for a Rosie and a Rocky elk, we do it with deer, we did it with bears, why not elk or even sheep? I would imagine that would cause the Rocky draws to spike too which would piss a lot of guys off, but it would simply bring in more $ which I don't like unless it goes directly back into conservation.

Haha your not calling out certain groups but in your post #69 your pretty pro outfitter and slamming residents.