OK, here goes the Magnum Opus.
Yup, GOABC's old school trophy hunting business model is outdated and not sustainable. With Adventure tourism being at an all time high and with urbanites tripping over themselves to get out and learn how to harvest their own organic meat, GOABC cries that they need more of the residents share to make a living?? And they can't even sell many of the hunts anyways? How about examining the changing face of hunting and adventure tourism and learn to capitalize on it? It reminds me of the ski hills that refused to allow snow boarders for years because they didn't want to change, then were forced to change or go broke.
Don’t forget that many of the old timers got their territories for very little money. Now we are seeing territories selling for upwards of $2million and more for territories that have sheep allocations. Even basic Northern territories are going for +$250,000 - $500,000. New owners and those trying to push up their territory’s value to cash out are very interested in increasing allocation. There are simply too many territories and the government is continually giving more in order to keep each territory “viable” – whatever that means. I suspect it means that GO’s expect to be able to earn a fulltime living, from what was historically a part time job, commensurate with the amount of money invested. Given the current pressure on game, the large number of territories and the rapidly rising cost of territories, I don’t believe we see a sustainable business model for GO’s. Hence their relentless lobbying and such.
Agreed on some counts, and a very different take on others.
Such as that allocations affect the most hunted species the least. Neither the government or outfitters, or the evil GOABC want to deprive residents of their hunts. The hunts with the highest non-resident allocations are those that are pursued by residents the least, and by an extreme majority. Moose stands at 85% resident 15% guides to 75-25 on the high, with a government edict to work towards 90/10 as put in that very link.
I do need to make my operation viable and while I have limited species, we have great populations for resident and our operation alike. I've yet to have a talk with a resident that didn't turn out positive except at the gas station with one very obese fellow in camo, that clearly wasn't competing for goats. And I enjoy the opportunity to discuss it civily here too.
And therein lies the problem – for the reasons noted above. Your situation with goats is similar to many situations with sheep – residents simply won’t take as many animals as they are allocated due to logistical difficulties. That is not the case with moose, bighorn, VI elk, bison etc.
By way of example, consider the historical moose harvest in region 4. From 1986 to 2010 the moose population has decreased by approximately 19%. Resident harvest has decreased by 56%, and GO harvest has INCREASED by 85%. In 1986 GO’s harvested 3.27% of the total moose. By 2010 the GO’s were harvesting 12.5% of the total moose killed. Why? Why should residents take such a big hit while GO’s get increases? To ensure “viability” of their businesses?
This is typical of what we are seeing. When the GOABC agreed to allocation policy in 2007 we thought we had seen the end of it. But no, a whole pile of GO’s filed “hardship” environmental appeals were filed between 2009 and 2013 – over 40 if I recall correctly. This led to lobbying by the GOABC and eventual screwing of the resident hunter – just like in the “good old days”. Except with modern technology the wool wasn’t pulled quite so easily over the residents’ eyes.
And I disagree with the notion that the GOABC doesn’t want to deprive residents of their hunts. They absolutely do, and have been doing so for a long time. Another concrete example is region 4 sheep and how the GO’s used regional averaging and success factors combined with inflated populations allowed GO’s to effectively harvest ALL of the allowable sheep harvest. Look, for example at the Mt. Assiniboine herd, where from 2002-2007 the GO’s received all of the harvest in an area where, at the time residents had 50:1 odds in LEH.
With the 2007 agreement this type of allocation mess was to be stopped – of course because it was completely unfair to residents. Lo and behold the GO’s pockets took a big hit – sharing wasn’t so fun after all, especially when it seems as though they basically had their way up until that point. That’s when the GOABC started its big push – to take away from the resident hunter, just like it was used to doing in the past. Like I said, this time it didn’t go as smoothly.
There has been lobbying by GO’s to put certain areas of Mule Deer on LEH as well. I believe this is/was happening in Region 5. Why? To reduce resident pressure of course.
GOABC members also collect “Hunt Preservation Fund Fee” of $250 per hunter, which goes to the war chest to effectively fight to keep GO’s businesses “viable” (at the expense of resident opportunities).
So there have been quite a few concrete examples of GO’s depriving residents of hunting opportunities.
Sigh... Lot of presumptions. Most outfitters are just like me and you Gate, and most are sincerely nice folks. They also have bills to pay and mighty big ones, suspect it's less to do with attitudes and more to do with economics.
It's very hard to spend a week or ten days away from your family and make the payments on assisting with resident hunts at rates that sound at all fair.
I've actually been planning something where from spring to fall you take a resident from zero to mountain. I get calls from folks perusing the GOABC outfitter directory, who haven't hunted, in one case never shot before (English fellow by accent, now BC resident). Thought it would be slick to help them choose a rifle, sight it in, teach them to shoot over a summer of range trips, and take them to the mountains by fall. Have them field dress their own animal with the guide's help, and own their hunt and experience, more involved than a typical trophy hunt. I have friends that are resident hunters looking to get into guiding and it seems a perfect mix. Would also put green hunters into much wilder country, after some pretty interesting species, years ahead of schedule. The number of young urbanites who perk up when hunting is mentioned rather than turn away leads me to believe there's something possible here.
Yes Ardent – why pay massive $ for a territory where you can work for only a few months per year? That only makes business sense if you get lots of clients and you do that with high number of allocation. In my view the GO business is not one where the owner must make enough money in a 3 month period to (a) make a yearly salary and (b) justify a several hundred thousand dollar investment in order to be “viable”. Again, you are directly competing with residents for a resource that is in short supply. Why should resident hunters make ANY concessions for business decisions made by other individuals? Why should the government be continually giving larger portions of the pie to GO’s in order to allow them to maintain their lifestyle? I’m actually asking anyone in the business to look at those questions objectively and then justify, or rationalize why the resident should make these concessions.
I'd like a straight answer as to why the region 5 rut closure on mule deer benefits anyone BUT the goabc who incessantly lobbied for it.
It's most certainly not a conservation motivated closure. It's to keep resident hunters from taking mature bucks so as the years go by, there are more for the outfitters to hunt. It's bullsh*t that the best part of the season sees me have to drive for hours to hunt deer when there are plenty all around me throughout the region.
Same with region 5-1 and 5-2 moose tags this year. Crap loads of moose around, but again tags taken from residents and given to outfitters.
Agreed and see above.
Of course
As a resident it'd be pretty easy. Easiest way I could afford to do it is we all ride in on another hunter's plane ride, and you and your guide head off for one ridge while the non-resident and I go for the other. The big challenge when I get a call from a resident is I want to be fair, but this is also more than half my living and I have to make a year's worth of territory payments in two months, plus pay for my park use permit, insurances, yada yada and at the end hopefully make something myself. If I never went to my territory in a year I'd owe over $30,000 at the end of the year.
My territory and gear costs more than a good house most places in BC and is on a loan and payments, ….
Exactly, as bolded. The GO business model as it sits is NOT sustainable. Whoever decides to make such a purchase should run the numbers first – and not to sound like a broken record, but it is not the resident’s responsibility to make sure the current model remains viable. The government should not be in bed with the GOABC *ahem* and prop up this archaic system.
There is also talks about GO’s being residents and regular folks like the rest of us. In fact, one must be either a resident of BC or Canada in order to hold a Guide Territory Certificate. You know, it keeps the money in the local economy, right? Well, gee whiz, I wonder why Certificate Trust Accounts have been set up for foreign owners. I personally know of one fellow who lives in Germany and comes to run his territory here in BC during fall and spring hunting season. He usually brings a couple of young Germans to work the hunting season. Apparently nobody cares. In fact, the winner of last years’ Extreme Huntress competition was a woman from Sweden. She guided for an outfit in BC. Her picture was on the outfitters web page. She said she shot a moose and I believe a bear. Then she went back to Sweden. Awesome for the local economy. I'm so happy she could do that while I didn't get a moose draw.
The days of when things were as you dream Ardent, those days are long gone. Do you know what I see for the future? Rich foreign investors buying up territories to use as a hunting “camp” for themselves and their buddies. Meanwhile we can be thankful for the remaining, ever smaller opportunities to enter a draw, so maybe, just maybe, we can hunt moose in our back yards once every 10 years.
and an add on:
Outfitters are running a business, looking at emerging markets is the smart thing to do. Lots of these hipsters have disposable income and go on adventure tourism vacations already. Having an adventure and bringing home a freezer full of meat would be very appealing to them. They are interested in craft beer, organic vegetables and ethical meat. Tailoring a hunting experience to their needs could pay off big time. Frankly, many of them would probably be put off by tape measure hunts or hunts that meat is not recovered so a fundamental shift in how guides and outfitters view wildlife and the whole hunting experience may be required for these hunts. That doesn't mean that these people won't spend money though.Might even have more fun, too.
Tough sell to that crowd - $8000 for a moose hunt. And perhaps that is what the price has to be in order to make payments on a $500,000 territory.
