Hunters to rally at premier's office

[flamingfingers]

But shouldn't we be thinking about the money that non-resident hunters contribute to the BC economy?

Ellis says the Dec. 10 decision gave guide outfitters only 3.5 per cent more animals than they've had since the 2007 policy.

"What the minister did on Dec. 10 was make minor changes to what the splits were. The impact to our side is still $3 million per year," he said. "There's no party here. We got 3.5 per cent relief, that doesn't move the needle for us."

"We are still going to have significant hardship in our industry, so I am beyond disappointed that the (B.C. Wildlife Federation) is lighting their hair on fire. We were pushing for significantly more change."

Despite being fewer in number when compared to resident hunters, guide outfitters have higher value to the economy. Hunting generates approximately $350 million each year. More than 100,000 resident hunters bring in about $230 million of that, while 230 guide-outfitters brought in about 4,500 hunters last year, for approximately $120 million in revenue.

"The average client to the province pays $27,000," Ellis said. "They use airlines, buy food, buy supplies, bullets, eat in restaurants, stay in hotels. Outfitters employ staff, buy quads, pay taxes – these are local guys, and the money stays in the community."

Ellis said the guide-outfitters will not be at Clark's office this weekend.

Read the rest here:
http://www.castanet.net/news/BC/131330/ ... considered

tic

[nextimeround]

You'll find that 97% of the BC resident hunters are the same as you. Only 3% of BC resident hunters classify themselves as "trophy hunters." 97% are primarily concerned with organic groceries in the freezer.

Now, when we look at the non-residents that use guide outfitters in this province, the inverse is true. The vast majority of non-residents are after antlers or horns, and couldn't care less about the meat that they can't take home on the plane anyway. Meat removal requirements under the Wildlife Act appear to be an inconvenience to foreign trophy hunters and guide outfitters.

We need to support the resident hunters, as the government has taken meat from our freezers and given a disproportionate share to foreigners who simply want the antlers or horns on the wall.

Hope to see you at the rally on Saturday, Jenny. Bring your kids and friends too!

Can you help me understand the math that leads to the statement "disproportionate share to foreigners"? I support the concept of prioritizing resident hunters completely but my quick math isn't leading me to the crisis that is being cited. 110,000 licenses total last year - 4500 foreign hunters (according the the guide outfitters guy). That's a very small percentage of the total hunters. Is it the number of tags issued (I think that's the right terminology) that is disproportionate? i.e. foreign hunters stand a better chance of being allowed a certain tag compared to a BC resident?

Also I'm curious, of the 110,000 licences I wonder how many actually hunt? I have heard of wives and friends requesting tags so that they can share them with avid hunters who may not have gotten that. It seems almost like a lottery and if you get a winning ticket, even if you wouldn't normally use it you might as well or share it at least.

I could be completely off in my understanding of this this so am sincerely asking the questions.

[Wally]

I don't hunt, I don't even agree with a lot of the hunting that goes on, BUT , I do support your right to be heard and paid attention to by our government and persons making decisions that affect all of us. Good luck to you.

[Rwede]

Can you help me understand the math that leads to the statement "disproportionate share to foreigners"? I support the concept of prioritizing resident hunters completely but my quick math isn't leading me to the crisis that is being cited. 110,000 licenses total last year - 4500 foreign hunters (according the the guide outfitters guy). That's a very small percentage of the total hunters. Is it the number of tags issued (I think that's the right terminology) that is disproportionate? i.e. foreign hunters stand a better chance of being allowed a certain tag compared to a BC resident?

Also I'm curious, of the 110,000 licences I wonder how many actually hunt? I have heard of wives and friends requesting tags so that they can share them with avid hunters who may not have gotten that. It seems almost like a lottery and if you get a winning ticket, even if you wouldn't normally use it you might as well or share it at least.

I could be completely off in my understanding of this this so am sincerely asking the questions.

Of the licenses issued, all hunt, otherwise they wouldn't be buying a license. You may be confusing the number of people holding a "hunter number" with those who actually purchase an annual license to actually go hunting. There are many with hunter numbers that don't buy a license.

The 102,000 number is the number of actual licenses bought last year, people who went hunting. Some people with a hunter number apply for draws, but don't buy a license if they aren't successful at the draw. You don't need to buy a hunting license (and thus be part of the 102,000) to apply for a draw, you just need a hunter number. Hope that clears that up.

Of the foreign hunters, about 600 are Canadians here on a "permit to accompany" (PTA) and aren't part of the guide outfitters' business. So, actual numbers they cater to is 3,900 foreigners.

There are 102,000 residents, 600 PTAs, and 3,900 guided foreigners, for a total of 106,500 hunters who hunt the province. The guided foreigners are therefore 3.7% of the hunters on the ground.

Christy Clark has decided that this 3.7% of hunters should receive anywhere from 20 to 40% of the annual tags to harvest animals. The other 96.3% get 60 - 80% of the allocation, depending on the species.

Resident hunters are supposed to get priority over non-residents in the allocation policy. How is it that 3.7% of hunters get up to 40% of the harvest when 96.3% get only 60% and then still meet the concept of resident priority? Non-residents are getting game in this example at a ratio of 10.8 (40%/3.7%) while residents are getting a ratio of 0.62 (60%/96.3%). The foreigners are getting 17.4 times as much per capita!

If we're divvying up food, and 3.7% of the people get 40% of it while 96.3% have to live on 60% of it, can you see why the 96.3% of people would be upset?

Wildlife is a public resource that belongs to BC residents. Taking that public resource away from the people who own it, and giving it to foreigners, is just wrong. The Christy Liberals are privatizing a public resource.

[Rwede]

I don't hunt, I don't even agree with a lot of the hunting that goes on, BUT , I do support your right to be heard and paid attention to by our government and persons making decisions that affect all of us. Good luck to you.

Thanks Wally. We're finding that there are a large number of non-hunters who see the travesty in the Thomson decision.

My friend's strict vegan cousin has been ragging on her MLA about it!

All people whether they hunt or not are welcome to attend the rally tomorrow to show support for the BC resident hunters, have a coffee on us, and sign the petition that Christy Clark will be legally obligated to present to the Legislature on our behalf. That right there should make it worth while! ;)

[Buckeye19]

Rwede nailed it.

I've said this before but the concern around this allocation decision is one that extends beyond hunting. Privatization of a public resource is a scary thing and should concern all British Columbians. Could you imagine if the government decided that 40% of all rec camping sites were to be set aside for foreigners, even if the demand wasn't there?

Scott Ellis claims that guides are "going broke" yet he has been able to make 25 separate donations to the Liberals, while the GOABC has made over $100,000 in contributions. Hmm - something doesn't quite add up.

As Rwede stated, why should 3.7% of hunters get upwards of 40% of allocated wildlife? That clearly doesn't meet resident priority. This is even more apparent when you see that most North American jurisdictions allocate no more than 5-10% of wildlife to foreigners.

Wally, thanks for the support. It's been nice to see a lot of non-hunters reaching out and supporting us in opposition to the Thomson decision. Feel free to stop by tomorrow, even if it's for 15 minutes to sign the petition and have a cup of coffee. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the amount of dedicated and passionate people in attendance.

[KL3-Something]

I am unavailable tomorrow. Is there somewhere I can sign the petition today?

I am vehemently opposed to their little back room deal with the GOA.

[W105]

we will be there !!

[Hurtlander]

Wildlife is a public resource that belongs to BC residents. Taking that public resource away from the people who own it, and giving it to foreigners, is just wrong. The Christy Liberals are privatizing a public resource.

And yet ironically when that same argument has been used concerning raw log exports or protecting canadian jobs in Chinese owned coal mines at tumbler ridge some of you don't feel the same way about our public resources that belong to BC residents...
Having said that, I'm in full support of our BC resident hunters.

[Not Bob]

Is she even around or are people going to show up and protest in front of an closed office while she is off in vancouver or victoria?

[Hurtlander]

Is she even around or are people going to show up and protest in front of an closed office while she is off in vancouver or victoria?

Ms Christy is in Ottawa...

[Not Bob]

Ms Christy is in Ottawa...

Thanks, other than having an office and house here I don't think we see here in this neck of the woods very often.

[Boda]

Of the licenses issued, all hunt, otherwise they wouldn't be buying a license. You may be confusing the number of people holding a "hunter number" with those who actually purchase an annual license to actually go hunting. There are many with hunter numbers that don't buy a license.

The 102,000 number is the number of actual licenses bought last year, people who went hunting. Some people with a hunter number apply for draws, but don't buy a license if they aren't successful at the draw. You don't need to buy a hunting license (and thus be part of the 102,000) to apply for a draw, you just need a hunter number. Hope that clears that up.

Of the foreign hunters, about 600 are Canadians here on a "permit to accompany" (PTA) and aren't part of the guide outfitters' business. So, actual numbers they cater to is 3,900 foreigners.

There are 102,000 residents, 600 PTAs, and 3,900 guided foreigners, for a total of 106,500 hunters who hunt the province. The guided foreigners are therefore 3.7% of the hunters on the ground.

Christy Clark has decided that this 3.7% of hunters should receive anywhere from 20 to 40% of the annual tags to harvest animals. The other 96.3% get 60 - 80% of the allocation, depending on the species.

Resident hunters are supposed to get priority over non-residents in the allocation policy. How is it that 3.7% of hunters get up to 40% of the harvest when 96.3% get only 60% and then still meet the concept of resident priority? Non-residents are getting game in this example at a ratio of 10.8 (40%/3.7%) while residents are getting a ratio of 0.62 (60%/96.3%). The foreigners are getting 17.4 times as much per capita!

If we're divvying up food, and 3.7% of the people get 40% of it while 96.3% have to live on 60% of it, can you see why the 96.3% of people would be upset?

Wildlife is a public resource that belongs to BC residents. Taking that public resource away from the people who own it, and giving it to foreigners, is just wrong. The Christy Liberals are privatizing a public resource.

While I support your position in principal and in particular with the point made in your last paragraph I too have some questions stemming from ignorance of the topic.
Are these guide outfitters that take trophy hunters out to harvest animals not responsible for ensuring that the meat from animals they kill doesn't go to waste?
Will you expand on the issue of Christy Liberals privatizing public resources?
Is this "just wrong" in the example of hunting game? I find that statement somewhat contradictory to my understanding of your comments expressed on other topics.

[nextimeround]

rwebe - thanks for the detailed numbers and education on this issue. It was very good and does help me understand what the concern is about. I don't agree with your last editorial Liberal bash so let's leave that aside.

If your numbers are accurate then I certainly sympathize with the resident hunters and it does indeed seem very unfair. I'm sure that the guides would have some counter argument around the numbers but I'll assume you've presented an unbiased account of the breakdown.

From an economic perspective it also seems that the "foreigners" have a disproportionate revenue being accounted for. What I mean is, there's a lot of consideration around how much money they spend on hotels, guides, food, etc. and that makes it look like resident hunters don't spend money in the process of hunting, which of course is ludicrous. I don't know how much but it must be significant - RVs, supplies, gas, ammo, meat packing/butchers, hotels/travel, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I like having tourist dollars flowing into the province. That's a very good thing for the economy and we too often grossly underestimate the importance of having these outside dollars on our own local economies.

It's hard to imagine how such a small number of hunters (3900 by your tally) can receive and even consume as much as 40% of all tags issued.

[rustled]

Resident hunters are supposed to get priority over non-residents in the allocation policy. How is it that 3.7% of hunters get up to 40% of the harvest when 96.3% get only 60% and then still meet the concept of resident priority? Non-residents are getting game in this example at a ratio of 10.8 (40%/3.7%) while residents are getting a ratio of 0.62 (60%/96.3%). The foreigners are getting 17.4 times as much per capita!

Is something missing from the equation?

As I understand it, B.C. residents who are unsuccessful in the limited-entry draw can still legally hunt in areas with open seasons if they purchase a species licence, which are not limited in number, but this is something a non-resident aliens cannot legally do.

Unless I've misunderstood your calculation, you haven't taken this into account. (It's also possible I've misunderstood what open season actually means.)

Have I misunderstood? And should the availability of game to resident hunters in open areas be considered in allocation policy? If so, how?