To be clear, I'm not trying to argue or disagree with any of the opinions of the BC residents. I'm sure I would feel the same. In fact, it always chapped my backside that I couldn't get drawn for a Kodiak bear hunt when any nonresident could pay their money and come up. In the US, there are 50 states with 50 different ways of allocating hunting resources. Some are easy for nonresidents to hunt in, some aren't. I'm sure there's not one state that everyone is happy in.
I give my opinions as an actual nonresident BC hunter. I don't make it up every year, but some years I'm there both spring and fall. My perspective is not as a bystander, but someone who is affected by this as well. It is important to me that the GOs I hunt with are BC residents. Some of them are hunting the same area their father or even grandfather hunted as a GO before them. My hunts now are probably as much a social thing as an actual hunt.
In my opinion, me boycotting BC accomplishes one thing, me not hunting in BC. Those tags will go to some other nonresident if not me. If they go unused, I don't know that will have any affect on allocations. If it does get them reduced, that accomplishes less hunting opportunity for me. Either way, that's less hunting for me. If the end result is less hunting for me either way, why would I purposefully set out a couple of years?
I'm not against anything the BC residents are trying to do to gain more access to their land. I understand it. At the same time, I will continue to hunt there with long time BC friends as long as I can.
