Topics of Interest

The Garbage Bag Challenge

Tim Roth and Fouru Outerwear are huge sponsors of Resident Priority in BC.
Tims company is based in Kelowna, and all his manufacturing is done in Canada.
Fouru Outerwear is attempting to give back to those that do their part for the outdoors.
The Garbage bag challenge- watch this video and get in on the action today!


The Resident Angler and Hunter Preservation Fund has purportedly been blamed for the cancellation of the Special Premier’s Permits for Roosevelt Elk and sheep.

Not true!

In March of 2009, Greg Sawchuck, BC Wildlife Federation (BCWF) Representative on the Special Premier’s Permits Committee received an email from the Director of Fish & Wildlife requesting the BCWF position on the following options. The three-year contract for the Special Premier’s Permits is up and the contract needs to be renewed to continue.

1)   Disconnecting the Roosevelt Elk Permit

2)   Continuing with a resident only Roosevelt Elk Permit

3)   Continuing with a resident only Mountain Sheep Permit

4)   Continuing with the non resident auctioned Mtn Sheep Permit

The BCWF President requested the BCWF Allocation Committee provide recommendations to the BCWF Board of Directors (BOD). It was the Allocation Committee’s understanding that the GOABC did not support the Premier’s Roosevelt Elk Permit.

The BCWF Allocation committee recommended that a resolution be drafted and presented on the floor of the BCWF annual general meeting in Fernie in April, 2009. The following resolution was put forward and passed by the delegates at the BCWF AGM:


WHEREAS the BC Wildlife Federation reluctantly gave support for the BC Premier Sheep and Roosevelt Elk Permits, and

WHEREAS the BC Wildlife Federation gave support to these permits as long as they occurred in areas where hunting for these species occurred, and

WHEREAS there are now proposals to have areas which are currently closed, opened strictly for the Premier’s Permits for special trophy opportunities, a condition the membership did not support, and

WHEREAS there are problems with the Premier’s Sheep and Roosevelt Elk Permits including delivery and revenue, and

WHEREAS the three year contract for the Premier’s Sheep and Roosevelt Elk Permits is coming to an end, and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the membership of the BC Wildlife Federation withdraw their support for the BC Premier’s Special Sheep and Roosevelt Elk Permits if the present direction and policy are changed from the original direction and stipulations, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the BC Wildlife Federation inform the Ministry of Environment that the BC Wildlife Federation membership will not support changes to the direction or policy of the BC Premier’s Permits.


BC Wildlife Federation Wildlife Allocation Committee

Passed by BC Wildlife Federation Board of Directors, Dec 17, 2008


Amended_____          Passed_____          Defeated_____

Withdrawn_____          Deferred_____


The BC Wildlife Federation gave their support for the Premier’s Special Permits based on a fixed set of criteria. The Permits have not been providing an exceptional amount of revenue in comparison to other permits that are auctioned from other jurisdictions. Now other options are being considered for the Premier’s permits which are not supported by the BCWF Board of Directors or the BCWF Wildlife Allocation Committee. These are in opposition to the direction provided by the BCWF membership.

The BC Wildlife Federation has always valued the public ownership of wildlife in B.C. It would be beneficial to withdraw support for these permits to emphasize this important value.

As you can see, with legitimate reasoning, the delegates at the 2009 BCWF AGM voted against any change in the direction and policy related to the Premier’s Special Permits. The RAHPF, which hadn’t even been formed at that point, had nothing to do with the vote at the AGM. It was a government decision to cancel the permit, so one must assume that the Ministry of Environment was not happy with the status quo and wants to change the direction or policy of the Premier’s Special Permits. We also know that GOABC withdrew their support for the Roosevelt Elk Premier’s permit, so we have to assume that influenced the MoE’s decision. Neither the BCWF not the RAHPF can accept responsibility for the government decision—government had the option of keeping things they way they were.

The RAHPF does support the direction that the membership provided at the 2009 BCWF AGM.

Clearing Up the Confusion—Resident Angler and Hunter Preservation Fund FAQ

What is the BCWF Political Action Alliance (PAA) and is the PAA associated with the BC Wildlife Federation?

The BCWF Political Action Alliance (PAA) is a society registered under the Societies Act of BC and is not in any way directly associated with or part of the BC Wildlife Federation.  It has its own constitution, its own directors and its own mandate as registered with the Registrar.

The BCWF Political Action Alliance currently has two funds in place.

One fund was created by Gary Mauser specifically to support the passing of Bill C-391 with a goal to promote the elimination of the long-gun registry.

The other, and more recent fund is the Resident Angler and Hunter Preservation Fund (RAHPF).

What is the BCWF Resident Angler and Hunter Preservation Fund?

The BC Resident Angler and Hunter Preservation Fund is a voluntary fund created to actively protect, promote and enhance the interests of British Columbia resident hunters and anglers.

The BC Resident Angler and Hunter Preservation Fund was formed by a group of BC Wildlife Federation members who were frustrated by the lack of progress in restoring resident priority in the provincial allocation policy and the continuing loss of resident angling and hunting opportunity in the province.

Is the Resident Angler and Hunter Preservation Fund associated with the BCWF’s Legal Defence Fund?

The RAHPF was established with the intent of working for resident priority and is not associated with, nor does it have the same mandate as the BCWF’s Legal Defence Fund.

Does the British Columbia Wildlife Federation have any knowledge of the Resident Angler and Hunter Preservation Fund (RAHPF)?

Yes, the RAHPF was discussed and endorsed by the BCWF members present at the 2009 AGM in Fernie. However, no endorsement by the BCWF was required to proceed with the creation of the fund. Individual members and club representatives made significant donations to the fund right on the floor of the convention.

Does the British Columbia Wildlife Federation have access to the funds in the Resident Angler and Hunter Preservation Fund?

No, the BCWF does not have access to the RAHPF monies. All of the funds used by the RAHPF are from donations made directly to the BCWF PAA for the purposes stated on its website ( and none of the funds have come from the BC Wildlife Federation. Only the directors of the BCWF Political Action Alliance manage the fund.

Did the BC Wildlife Federation approve the advertisement that was placed by the BCWF Political Action Alliance?

The directors of the BCWF Political Action Alliance approved the advertisement placed in local papers around the province in late 2009. Neither the executive nor the board of directors of the BC Wildlife Federation had any knowledge or part in the approval of the ad prior to its publication.

How much money did the BC Wildlife Federation spend on this ad?

The BC Wildlife Federation spent no money on the ad that was run by the BCWF PAA.

Are the claims in the advertisement legitimate?

The Allocation Policy was agreed to in 2006 but since then the GOABC has requested the policy be delayed or re-opened.   There was a transition period in the originally agreed to policy through 2012 that was to allow guide-outfitters to transition to the new policy. GOABC has requested that the Allocation Policy implementation be delayed until 2017 and has also requested the Allocation Policy be re-opened.

Since the new Allocation Policy took effect, in Region 7A guide-outfitters have lobbied to reduce or remove the calf general open season, reduce or eliminate cow harvest and eliminate or at the very least make the immature bull moose an allocated hunt all to increase quality of product.  Prior to the Allocation Policy guide-outfitters in 7A harvested close to 1100 cow moose from 1980-2007, which is about 7% of the cow harvest.  Through the new policy the guide-outfitter share was reduced to 2%. But probably because these hunts are becoming harder to sell, even with the reduced numbers available, there is now a push to reduce or completely eliminate the cow harvest which would greatly impact resident opportunity, but have little effect on the bottom line of commercial operators.

Also, by making immature bull moose an allocated hunt the total resident share of the bull harvest will be reduced from about 92% to 75% increasing guide-outfitter share from 8% to 25%.  What this means to resident hunters is either the spike-fork season or the LEH hunt will be greatly reduced or eliminated.

GOABC has also requested all resident sheep hunting be placed on LEH or to have Guide-outfitters quota completely removed.  This was the system in place until the 1970s and resulted in huge conservation concerns and in resident sheep hunters being placed on LEH in some areas despite only harvesting 15% of the sheep prior to that.

These are but a few of the issues that are being pushed behind closed doors without your knowledge.

The GOABC has also produced an economic viability paper that they have used to lobby government to make changes to hunting regulations that will support their industry at the expense of resident hunter opportunity. All the contents of the ad you have mentioned, directly reference statements contained in this viability paper.