Why is the Canadian model far less friendly to Non-Resident hunters compared to the US?

[tater]

As i said, there is a lot to understand and non resident money IS NOT a factor for consumptive uses.

Actually, studies showing that non-consumptive use brings in more revenue than hunting and fishing is part of the reason why the grizzly bear hunt disappeared.

The incentives of "external voices and money" have no weight in this Province. They actually run the risk of having non-hunting support evaporating for resident hunting.

While there are a lot of similarities between U.S. and Canadian citizens, there are also some big cultural and political differences that are hard to understand from a distance.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Can't Canadians come here and hunt DIY? Man I would sure love to do that in canada

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

Yes, they can put in for tags in the lower 48 just like we can. I know a resident of Alberta who has pulled a desert bighorn tag in AZ and this year pulled a rocky bighorn tag in Montana. He is on this forum but doesn't post much

 

[Weldor]

The high paying American client would be coming anyway. I get why an international non-resident hunter would be required to pay for an outfitter, just as I would if I hunted in a different country.

The point I'm trying to make is that as a Canadian, I should be able to apply for any game in any Province or Territory by just buying the requisite tags/licences. Not being treated the same as an international hunter.

We deserve more of a home team advantage like the US and many European nations have.

I agree, Absolutely. Years back. I remember Hunters from Ohio, Mi. etc buying moose tags for Ontario no guide required that I recall. The 70's feel free to correct me if I am wrong. We used to cross the bridge and Pheasant and duck hunt all the time back then.

 

[Northern Safari]

My initial response was late at night and a half baked cookie, so i will break this down from a B.C. perspective as it sits currently (and this is very surface and i can't stress how the subject is WAY MORE complex and political than this simple summary).

Non-hunting residents in B.C. (the majority of voters) DO NOT support the allocation of hunting opportunities to ANY non residents of B.C.. This became clear during the "information seeking" that saw the closure of the grizzly bear hunt. B.C. Non-hunters support local hunting for food. They are clear in that, (over 70% support) but see any non resident activity as removing resources from rural communities and "trophy hunting".
Having said that, there is no political incentive to give more NR's of any flavour more opportunity and no governing party will hang themselves over it.

We are still at risk of losing sheep and mountain goat seasons and will continue to be so until we can show that hunting those species are not a "vanity trophy hunt' (an exact quote from my Member of the Legislative Assembly that i met with when the Province was exploring closure three years ago).

As populations of certain species have declined, there are areas that have requested that B.C. residents from other zones not be allowed to hunt/harvest what they see as their critical local food source. Moose in particular has become a heated topic, and there have been large cuts to OTC opportunities for locals in Region 7 and a move to LEH.

Non hunting urbanites also support the Provincial move to the principles of UNDRIP that see the return of control of the land and resources to First Nations. This has begun to close large areas to non-Indigenous hunters (and this will continue to grow), especially in Regions 5 and 6, but also 7A and B.

So for clarity, if B.C. residents are continuing to see a reduction in access and opportunity and a declining support for any non-resident participation from the larger voting population why would anyone with any degree of perspective think that NR opportunity will or should increase?

Its not as simple as "i don't want non-residents hunting my space". We are heading towards large changes, and i predict that in the next ten years no one will be hunting in B.C. unless they are Indigenous or B.C. residents.
Guide outfitters will see their tenures stripped (as they have done to Doug McMann at Skinner Creek) or bought out (as they have done with multiple tenures in the Great Bear area).
There may be a First Nation that decides to provide guided hunts in their area in the future, but i doubt that their residents will support it.

Thanks for your explanation, I can understand your perspective. I had no idea that game in many areas throughout BC was on the decline and that it's undergoing such political attacks.

BC and the Territories are all viewed as the lands of plenty to us living in the east.

 

[maufic]

I agree, Absolutely. Years back. I remember Hunters from Ohio, Mi. etc buying moose tags for Ontario no guide required that I recall. The 70's feel free to correct me if I am wrong. We used to cross the bridge and Pheasant and duck hunt all the time back then.

I belive non-residents can still diy hunt in Ontario.

 

[Northern Safari]

Which States can a Canadian DIY hunt in?

 

[Bruciebhunts]

My initial response was late at night and a half baked cookie, so i will break this down from a B.C. perspective as it sits currently (and this is very surface and i can't stress how the subject is WAY MORE complex and political than this simple summary).

Non-hunting residents in B.C. (the majority of voters) DO NOT support the allocation of hunting opportunities to ANY non residents of B.C.. This became clear during the "information seeking" that saw the closure of the grizzly bear hunt. B.C. Non-hunters support local hunting for food. They are clear in that, (over 70% support) but see any non resident activity as removing resources from rural communities and "trophy hunting".
Having said that, there is no political incentive to give more NR's of any flavour more opportunity and no governing party will hang themselves over it.

We are still at risk of losing sheep and mountain goat seasons and will continue to be so until we can show that hunting those species are not a "vanity trophy hunt' (an exact quote from my Member of the Legislative Assembly that i met with when the Province was exploring closure three years ago).

As populations of certain species have declined, there are areas that have requested that B.C. residents from other zones not be allowed to hunt/harvest what they see as their critical local food source. Moose in particular has become a heated topic, and there have been large cuts to OTC opportunities for locals in Region 7 and a move to LEH.

Non hunting urbanites also support the Provincial move to the principles of UNDRIP that see the return of control of the land and resources to First Nations. This has begun to close large areas to non-Indigenous hunters (and this will continue to grow), especially in Regions 5 and 6, but also 7A and B.

So for clarity, if B.C. residents are continuing to see a reduction in access and opportunity and a declining support for any non-resident participation from the larger voting population why would anyone with any degree of perspective think that NR opportunity will or should increase?

Its not as simple as "i don't want non-residents hunting my space". We are heading towards large changes, and i predict that in the next ten years no one will be hunting in B.C. unless they are Indigenous or B.C. residents.
Guide outfitters will see their tenures stripped (as they have done to Doug McMann at Skinner Creek) or bought out (as they have done with multiple tenures in the Great Bear area).
There may be a First Nation that decides to provide guided hunts in their area in the future, but i doubt that their residents will support it.

Great response. Thanks for this!

 

[Mojave]

I had looked at moving to the Yukon or NWT when I retired from the military. The Yukon I could't figure out work, in the NWT I didn't want to wait 3 years to be a resident.

I ended up finding a career that I liked, but I often wondered what would have happened if I could have made that work.

 

[Mojave]

Which States can a Canadian DIY hunt in?

All of them except Alaska.

Ontario offers DIY hunting for everyone. I think it is the only place.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

I wish Alaska would do this. Or at least make residency a requirement for guides.

 

[Mojave]

I wish Alaska would do this. Or at least make residency a requirement for guides.

Yes. I don't think you have to be a resident of Idaho, Montana or Idaho to guide either.

BC has a lot of Kiwi guides.

NWT has a guide residence issue, I think Yukon has a similar issue.

 

[Macintosh]

I'm curious if Canada has a system like the US does where license sales, plus a portion of federal excise taxes from hunting fishing product sales, are mandated to go directly toward the state wildlife and habitat conservation programs?
In the US, non-resident hunters are critically important becasue in some states they generate the majority of funding for the agencies that manage wildlife. Example, in Wyoming, the 20-ish % of hunters that are non-residents generate on the order of 75% of the license revenue for the wyoming fish and game dept. Other states, especially those that have mostly OTC opportunity, it isnt so lopsided, but you get the picture--hunters are a critical funding source for conservation that benefits all of the inhabitants of a state, and non-resident hunters in the "destination" states shoulder a large % or even the majority of that financial burden. So there is a huge incentive for US states to cater at least to a degree to non-resident hunters. If the big-picture conservation funding mechanism in canada doesnt operate that way, then there is probably no incentive to work with (let alone cater to) hunters at all, especially to non-resident hunters.
How are hunters "officially" tied to conservation funding and wildlife management in Canada?

 

[ozyclint]

Ontario offers DIY hunting for everyone. I think it is the only place.

Even for aliens from overseas?

 

[z987k]

I wish Alaska would do this. Or at least make residency a requirement for guides.

I'm not sure it's legal to do this. But I agree.

A non-resident income tax would be amazing(help pay for everything they're using and contribute nothing to), but that was already ruled illegal.

 

[tater]

I'm curious if Canada has a system like the US does where license sales, plus a portion of federal excise taxes from hunting fishing product sales, are mandated to go directly toward the state wildlife and habitat conservation programs?
In the US, non-resident hunters are critically important becasue in some states they generate the majority of funding for the agencies that manage wildlife. Example, in Wyoming, the 20-ish % of hunters that are non-residents generate on the order of 75% of the license revenue for the wyoming fish and game dept. Other states, especially those that have mostly OTC opportunity, it isnt so lopsided, but you get the picture--hunters are a critical funding source for conservation that benefits all of the inhabitants of a state, and non-resident hunters in the "destination" states shoulder a large % or even the majority of that financial burden. So there is a huge incentive for US states to cater at least to a degree to non-resident hunters. If the big-picture conservation funding mechanism in canada doesnt operate that way, then there is probably no incentive to work with (let alone cater to) hunters at all, especially to non-resident hunters.
How are hunters "officially" tied to conservation funding and wildlife management in Canada?

Unlike the U.S., we do not have the equivalent of the Pittman-Robertson Act.
In BC the average Revenue raised just from licence fees is approximately $11M, and it goes into General Revenue and a portion is then allocated annually during the budgeting cycle.
Very seldom does the funding in equal the funding out (again, each Province is different) in funding and "boots on the ground" resource management. I know this seems rather...stupid, myopic, fubar (or insert your own adjective here).
Again, not to get sassy but the average voting non-consumptive user in B.C. does not care about non-resident consumptive use, and the majority would like to see a larger focus go to non-consumptive tourism (and the dollar to dollar value to Provincial revenue bears that out).
So in essence you are correct about incentives (or disincentives) as far as catering to non-resident users.
I cannot over-stress the complexity of it all when you factor in the urban/rural divide and First Nations politics.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

I'm not sure it's legal to do this. But I agree.

A non-resident income tax would be amazing(help pay for everything they're using and contribute nothing to), but that was already ruled illegal.

That’s my main gripe, they come to the state and take resources then leave with the profit. I see it in the commercial fishing industry too.

 

[Macintosh]

Unlike the U.S., we do not have the equivalent of the Pittman-Robertson Act.
In BC the average Revenue raised just from licence fees is approximately $11M, and it goes into General Revenue and a portion is then allocated annually during the budgeting cycle.
Very seldom does the funding in equal the funding out (again, each Province is different) in funding and "boots on the ground" resource management. I know this seems rather...stupid, myopic, fubar (or insert your own adjective here).
Again, not to get sassy but the average voting non-consumptive user in B.C. does not care about non-resident consumptive use, and the majority would like to see a larger focus go to non-consumptive tourism (and the dollar to dollar value to Provincial revenue bears that out).
So in essence you are correct about incentives (or disincentives) as far as catering to non-resident users.
I cannot over-stress the complexity of it all when you factor in the urban/rural divide and First Nations politics.

Clearly its complicated, and I wont even try to pretend to understand the nuances of the social portion of it in Canada. But (especially given the US has many similar urban/rural social divides, etc) this sure looks to me to be a significant part of the root-cause of the disparity the OP is talking about.

 

[Macintosh]

That’s my main gripe, they come to the state and take resources then leave with the profit. I see it in the commercial fishing industry too.

When I have worked in multiple states as a guide I had to file and pay taxes on the portion of my income earned in those states. Im sure lots dont report it, but afaik its not only legal to collect taxes on that, its mandatory. Is there something unique about AK in this regard? Or is it akin to an out of state construction worker not paying income taxes where they are working because they work for an out of state construction company, and are living in a hotel during that job?

 

[thinhorn_AK]

When I have worked in multiple states as a guide I had to file and pay taxes on the portion of my income earned in those states. Im sure lots dont report it, but afaik it’s not only legal to collect taxes on that, it’s mandatory. Is there something unique about AK in

Good question, I’m not sure about that. I guess in general I’m just more in favor of resources being preserved for residents and keeping money in the states.

I know in the commercial fishing areas it’s annoying because for June and July, I can’t park my car at the beach, can’t find coffee, milk, eggs, beer, can’t get a flight unless I booked a month out then they all just leave with the money in their pockets. Whatever taxes are collected from them I don’t see anything front, my life just sucks more for a few months and they get paid then leave.

I understand that salmon fishing is different than big game hunting but sort of the same as hung (to me anyways). Often I can’t fish at my usual spots because of hey are choked up with guide boats again, my fishing gets screwed and somebody leaves the state with money.

When we have trouble booking flights or getting dropped off because of guides it is just competition with people who don’t live here.

I fully realize that nothing will ever be done e about it but I know I’m not alone with these thoughts.

 

[z987k]

When I have worked in multiple states as a guide I had to file and pay taxes on the portion of my income earned in those states. Im sure lots dont report it, but afaik its not only legal to collect taxes on that, its mandatory. Is there something unique about AK in this regard? Or is it akin to an out of state construction worker not paying income taxes where they are working because they work for an out of state construction company, and are living in a hotel during that job?

We don't have income tax, so no one pays it.
There's sales tax in some boroughs.
Property tax pays for the majority of local services and property tax is pretty high. Hotel tax to. So the tourists help pay for the massive infrastructure we'd otherwise not need for them.
But the out of state workers pay nothing at all since they don't own property.

Most boroughs do a residential property tax exemption on the first 50-75k of value if it's your primary residence. Something like that could be done with income maybe. First $1mil just to make sure almost no one living here pays it. But it's also the camel's nose under the tent and you know when they get a little bit of money they'll just want more and end up taxing the crap out of the residents to.
I don't feel the need to tax them per se, but they take that money out of state and don't spend it here to help the local economy in any way. That's the issue.