The Human Rights Tribunal and the two parties involved—the Resident Hunters Association of B.C. and the Ministry of Environment Wildlife Branch—have agreed to a mediation which will be held on May 7, 2008 at a place yet to be determined.  If mediation fails to resolve the discrimination, the case will be sent on to a hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal.  No other government on the continent puts foreigners before residents.

The Wildlife Branch’s preferential treatment of foreign hunters over resident hunters is being called into question by the Resident Hunters Association of B.C., East Kootenay chapter.

On September 21, 2007, the RHABC laid a complaint of discrimination before the Human Rights Tribunal. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibits discrimination based on national origin. Yet B.C. allows any resident of the U.S. or Germany, etc. to waltz right in and hunt any animal for which the resident hunter has to purchase a lottery ticket and hope to be drawn. Any excuse or apologetics concocted by our Wildlife Branch for commercial interests, however well intentioned, still amounts to discrimination based on national origin.

Here is a link to the new allocation policy:

http://env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wild/harvest_alloc/

To get to the policy you must click on the "Expand All" button at the bottom of the page. This will expand the page down more, and under the heading of  "What were the results of the policy review?" you will find all of the allocation policy.

This is RHABC, East Kootenay Chapter’s comments on the following Allocation Policies.

Harvest Allocation (4-7-01.03) (P. 1 & 2)

• Unclear
• No conservation goals
• Based on kill goals
• No adequate inventory of wildlife populations
• No hardship strategy for wildlife which will lead to population decline
• Non-scientific

Harvest Allocation (4-7-01.03.1) (P. 1-7)

• Deliberately unclear
• Formula is non-scientific, mathematically unsound and is a push for commercialization

Quota (4-7-01.05.1) (1-3)

• No exit strategy for decline in population
• Resident hunter allocation will have their quota reduced if disaster hits a population. Guides will maintain their quota as it is part of their contract
• Quota can only be reduced by 20% each 5 year period
• Use of ambiguous words such as “should” makes the policies unworkable and unaccountable on the ministry
• Policies (1.3) and (1.5b) appear to be discriminatory and illegal

Administrative Guidelines (4-7-01.05.2) (P. 1 & 2)

· Totally lacking in wildlife conservation

· Actually promotes maximum harvest of category A species

· Wide open for abuse

· LEH species are where populations are species of management concern

Resident Hunter Priority (4-7-01.10) (P. 1 & 2)

• Historically allocations have been 90% resident and 10% non-resident split
• Resident Hunter numbers 85,000 or 93%
• Non-resident hunter numbers 6,000 or 7%
• The 70-30 or 60-40 splits do not reflect resident hunter demand
• LEH permits everyone should be required to apply for the draw

Commercial Hunter Interests (4-7-01.11) (P. 1 & 2)

• What is the need for the mandatory guide outfitter requirement?
• Uncertified area can now be made into a guide territory so resident hunters will have no areas to hunt guide free, unless it is too non-productive for a new territory

Allocation of Previously Opened Hunts (4-7-01.12) (P. 1 & 2)

• Supporting commercialization of hunting
• Resident will loose hunts when new territories are implemented

Under-Harvest of Allocated Share (4-7-01.13) (P. 1 &2)

• Contradicts the sound principles of conservation
• Resident hunters will be penalized for any reason ie. Weather, road closure etc.
• Example of LEH authorization process

AAH requires harvest of 100 elk by residents

25% historical success ratio of permits to actual harvest

Therefore, 400 permits are needed for maximum harvest

If only 75 elk were harvested then the guide gets 25 permits

• Forces hunter to kill legal immature animals
• Demands maximization of the harvest
• Forces hunters to become killers rather than conservation minded sportspersons

Harvest Allocation – Implementation Plan

• Double standard – discriminatory
• Uses ambiguous words such as “should”
• No conservation
• Section 5 still allows for the Regional Manager to give 50% of species to the guides at their whim. Where is 60/40 or 70/30?

The following is the B.C. Wildlife Federation’s support letter of support for the new “Allocation Policies” produced by the Ministry of Environment’s Wildlife Branch.

The position of the RHABC is the policies are not in the best interests the resident hunters of British Columbia as they contravene the Wildlife Act and give no consideration for conservation goals.

The policies are generally lack clarity, are ambiguous and offer no protection for the wildlife species as the animals that are now on LEH are species of management concern.