quote:

Originally posted by DIYASUB:
So, although it's been shown to be true numerous times that hunting drives more wildlife conservation efforts than all the antis in the world ever did, you jokers want to ban hunting?
You dont want to pay the guides prices, and at the same time want to ban the people that do?
There are plenty of places in africa where hunting and the money it brings are banned, look into what it has done for wildlife in those countries.
Two ways to go here boys, continue to whine about the big bad foreigners and get you ban on hunting enacted, or, start acting like sportsmen.

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:

quote:

Originally posted by DIYASUB:
So, although it's been shown to be true numerous times that hunting drives more wildlife conservation efforts than all the antis in the world ever did, you jokers want to ban hunting?
You dont want to pay the guides prices, and at the same time want to ban the people that do?
There are plenty of places in africa where hunting and the money it brings are banned, look into what it has done for wildlife in those countries.
Very accurate, wildlife thrives when highly valued, don't blame the messenger.
Two ways to go here boys, continue to whine about the big bad foreigners and get you ban on hunting enacted, or, start acting like sportsmen.

This is the attitude that so many BCers strongly object to and it tends to further the "anti-foreigner" feelings of residents to an increasing degree.

There has not been ANY attempt to ban hunting here; the concern is with who controls BC hunting and with resident's rights. I certainly WILL NOT ...pay the guide's prices..., I am a BC citizen of pioneer stock and my absolute birthright to OUR resources is far beyond ANY foreigner's privilege to hunt here.

As with any "right", if such rights are not spelled out in doctrine, nor upheld by common law, you have only PERCEIVED rights.

Any American, or other foreigner, who thinks as "Diyasub" does would be well advised to NEVER even consider coming to BC to hunt or fish as such arrogant ...jokers... are NOT welcome here.

I think that BBB is probably correct about the referendum situation, but, it would be an interesting exercise and the results could surprise us. I do not fear the "treehugger's" impact on our BC hunting as much as I detest the foreign influence in any aspect of BC resource allocation, management or harvesting.

Not being fearful to some degree of the global push against hunting ,is not a rational position. There IS a war on to place animals with rights rivaling humans. Those of us that were raised rurally have had a more difficult time believing this fact than urbanites.

Actually if you read your BC laws it is a locally generated problem, you should not blame the "foreign" hunter that utilizes the law as it stands.

quote:

Posted 06 September 2009 23:02

If, I encounter any Yankees hunting here, I WILL advise them to go home, PDQ and I seriously doubt that any of them will be foolhardy enough to become aggressive toward me.....but, who knows, we will be only too happy to react in kind, rather forcefully, as Yankees do not belong here!

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:

At this point, I see no real value in allowing foreign hunting, fishing or free backcountry access.

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:
I was born, raised and spent most of my life working in wilderness and rural regions of western and northern Canada. The wilderness left here is probably the most "wild" and extensive on Earth, except Antarctica
and my desire to to protect and secure this wilderness and it's various resources for we who OWN it by birthright.

So wherever you happen to be born determines ones ownership of all control of access to land and ownership those things found upon the land?
How much , how far, and at the expense of who else?
Funny how governments see this differently.When you assert your rights , expect your government agencies to contest you. Especially should you become aggressive about it.

The American interpretation of this term differs from mine, in that Yanks always refer to their "Constitution", as "granting" their rights; I see mine as absolutely inherent in my birth and any codification of them in laws is secondary. In any event, this IS our decision to make and ONLY ours.

Perhaps you missed the "INALIENABLE" part meaning that these rights were ours inherently and the document was merely an affirmation of such rights. BTW, ownership of lands is not one of those expressed rights, nor is hunting.

The ...problem... IS, very simply, a characteristic attitude demonstrated here that Americans somehow have a "right" to hunt, fish or whatever here in Canada. Americans have NO rights, of ANY kind here and being allowed to hunt here in any fashion is a great privilege...and one that is no longer acceptable to many BC citizens.

How ignorant you are of others perceptions of "rights". I have enjoyed hunting in BC, Alberta, etc. I was a GUEST of the people and the country.It is my experience that the vast majority of "foreign" hunters are appreciative of their guest status.

To survive, BC hunting must become more as it used to be and that entails the average guy going out, shooting his game and feeding his family with the meat it provides. The "trophy" collecting foreigners who often DO NOT take the meat home are not beneficial to BC in any respect and it is time to change how this is done, or, perhaps ban it.

So donating the meat is not a worthy plan, it benefits NO ONE?
The economic boost from tourism has NO IMPACT on the economy of BC?
I think you will have a difficult time with your fellow constituents getting that message through the governing channels.

At this point, I see no real value in allowing foreign hunting, fishing or free backcountry access.

and what of your CITY dwelling Hunters from Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa Edmonton, Winnipeg, Saskatoon or even Vancouver --what of their access?
Is this deemed "birthright only for the Rural born subsistence hunter?

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:
Duggaboy, I WAS a member of some of these ...government agencies... that you refer to and they EXIST to follow the expressed wishes of the electorate, eh? NO, repeat NO, they WILL NOT do as you suggest and should any employee of said agencies choose to do so, the result would be termination of employment.

As to the "ownership" issue, YES, absolutely, and ALL repeat ALL of BC-Canada belongs to me and those like me, BORN here. Any suggestion that contradicts this fact, from a foreigner is highly offensive and, as I keep attempting to get across, this is one of the major irritants that causes people here to oppose foreign hunting,etc.
And what about the 200,000 or so remaining BC aboriginal people; how do they view your "birthright"?

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:
Your figures are as incorrect as your comments are typically arrogant. There are NOT anywhere CLOSE to ...200,000 aboriginal people...here in BC and, my comments about "birthright" apply to those who DO live here, as they do to ALL BCers, regardess of ethnicity. You do not know jackshitt about BC and are just another Yankee windbag who cannot grasp that other peoples in this world DO NOT WANT you taking their resources, for ANY reason!

British Columbia 2006 Population Aboriginal Group
North American Indian 129,580
Metis 59,445
Inuit 795
Total Aboriginal Identity Population
196,075

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...a#Visible_Minorities

Anger always interferes with the acquisition of knowledge.
I never claimed the resources were Mine nor those of the USA-- you added this to the discussion.

As to ...selfish..., the USA has about SIX percent of the TOTAL population of the world and, yet, CONSUMES TWENTY-FIVE percent of the world's resources......get YOUR OWN house in order, before presuming to lecture me.

Why is it that Americans so often call others "selfish" with respect to their resources, when ANYBODY DARES to presume that they do not have to allow the grasping talons of the "Eagle" to steal their birthright?

Please carefully re-read the above posts, at no time have I denied
--The PEOPLE of British Columbia, Canada have the right to determine the land use or game laws of said province.
( Unless federal Canadian law supercedes.)

In fact I pointed that out.
What I additionally pointed out was:
that by yourself,
even, no, especially in your angry lather,
you are attacking
the EFFECT NOT THE CAUSE

As to Canada's immigration situation, I LIVE in the MOST racially diverse neighbourhood in Canada and, many of my neighbours are former NVA soldiers; they are not too keen on "Uncle" and most of my Muslim friends here feel much the same. Why do you think Canada changed it's immigration policy some 40 years ago, we do NOT WANT to be like you, supply you with OUR resources or allow you to interfere in our country....so, whine about this as much as you like, NO MORE Yankee hunting here!!!!!!!!!

So , you are an urbanite after all.

So much for subsistence hunting as your mantra.

It is your "right" to ignore the changes to your status quo as you wish,
your lack of appreciating the change occurring is quite remarkable.

Your SITUATION was created in BC by BC's government--
NOT BY any "foreign hunter" or outside group.

Something you deliberately fail to grasp.


Oh, have a nice day!

The whining sound is definitely following a north wind south.
It IS a beautiful day here in Texas .
Thank you, hope yours improves.

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:
Your figures are as incorrect as your comments are typically arrogant. There are NOT anywhere CLOSE to ...200,000 aboriginal people...here in BC and, my comments about "birthright" apply to those who DO live here, as they do to ALL BCers, regardess of ethnicity. You do not know jackshitt about BC and are just another Yankee windbag who cannot grasp that other peoples in this world DO NOT WANT you taking their resources, for ANY reason!

As to ...selfish..., the USA has about SIX percent of the TOTAL population of the world and, yet, CONSUMES TWENTY-FIVE percent of the world's resources......get YOUR OWN house in order, before presuming to lecture me.

Why is it that Americans so often call others "selfish" with respect to their resources, when ANYBODY DARES to presume that they do not have to allow the grasping talons of the "Eagle" to steal their birthright?

As to Canada's immigration situation, I LIVE in the MOST racially diverse neighbourhood in Canada and, many of my neighbours are former NVA soldiers; they are not too keen on "Uncle" and most of my Muslim friends here feel much the same. Why do you think Canada changed it's immigration policy some 40 years ago, we do NOT WANT to be like you, supply you with OUR resources or allow you to interfere in our country....so, whine about this as much as you like, NO MORE Yankee hunting here!!!!!!!!!

Oh, have a nice day!

quote:

Originally posted by DIYASUB:
it's obvious from the posts that it's about banning hunting by foreigners to prove Canada's economic independence from the U.S.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:

quote:

Originally posted by DIYASUB:
So, although it's been shown to be true numerous times that hunting drives more wildlife conservation efforts than all the antis in the world ever did, you jokers want to ban hunting?
You dont want to pay the guides prices, and at the same time want to ban the people that do?
There are plenty of places in africa where hunting and the money it brings are banned, look into what it has done for wildlife in those countries.
Very accurate, wildlife thrives when highly valued, don't blame the messenger.

The problem is the GO's who use their licences to keep out BC residents, and the politicians who would rather see increased royalties at the cost of depriving resident hunters of hunting. A compromise is needed.

quote:

As with any "right", if such rights are not spelled out in doctrine, nor upheld by common law, you have only PERCEIVED rights.

That is precisely the problem. For years the conflict between resident hunters and GO's has festered while governments closed their eyes. Although BC residents have the "right" to access all public land, GO's have been keeping BC residents out by refusing to accept their business. A regulation change is needed to balance the interests.

quote:

Not being fearful to some degree of the global push against hunting ,is not a rational position. There IS a war on to place animals with rights rivaling humans. Those of us that were raised rurally have had a more difficult time believing this fact than urbanites.

Totally agreed.

quote:

Actually if you read your BC laws it is a locally generated problem, you should not blame the "foreign" hunter that utilizes the law as it stands.

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:
The ...problem... IS, very simply, a characteristic attitude demonstrated here that Americans somehow have a "right" to hunt, fish or whatever here in Canada. Americans have NO rights, of ANY kind here and being allowed to hunt here in any fashion is a great privilege...and one that is no longer acceptable to many BC citizens.

quote:

To survive, BC hunting must become more as it used to be and that entails the average guy going out, shooting his game and feeding his family with the meat it provides. The "trophy" collecting foreigners who often DO NOT take the meat home are not beneficial to BC in any respect and it is time to change how this is done, or, perhaps ban it.

quote:

At this point, I see no real value in allowing foreign hunting, fishing or free backcountry access.

quote:

Originally posted by BBBruce:


The problem is the GO's who use their licences to keep out BC residents, and the politicians who would rather see increased royalties at the cost of depriving resident hunters of hunting. A compromise is needed.

[QUOTE]As with any "right", if such rights are not spelled out in doctrine, nor upheld by common law, you have only PERCEIVED rights.

That is precisely the problem. For years the conflict between resident hunters and GO's has festered while governments closed their eyes. Although BC residents have the "right" to access all public land, GO's have been keeping BC residents out by refusing to accept their business. A regulation change is needed to balance the interests.

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:

Given Bruce's clear and interesting accessment of the potential "downside" to my opinions, I am certainly open to other possibilities, however, what some here may see as my ...anger... is not so much that, as it is a determination to do anything I can to protect and preserve both Canadian resources and our sovereign rights in our country...anyone who doesn't like that can "pogue mahone".

quote:

83,701 voices in BC vs the 4.5 million population NEED to be heard,

removing another 6,131 outside voices will not help and is not the answer.

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:

quote:

83,701 voices in BC vs the 4.5 million population NEED to be heard,

removing another 6,131 outside voices will not help and is not the answer.

The BC resident voices ARE heard by virtue of the volunteer activities of our BC Wildlife Federation and further restrictions on foreign hunting has been a major issue for us for some years. Among our members are MANY professional wildlife bios., foresters and even retired agency workers with a huge amount of actual experience dealing with the FACTS of this situation, I am one of these.

From the tenor and stridor of your posts, you give just the opposite appearance.

The appearance of someone NOT being heard;

resulting in an ever more and more shrill and vitriolic tone.

Generally, this is not a communication method heard from a respected and reasoned consultant who is oft selected for input on critical matters.



The ...outside voices..., however, ARE represented in the continual lobbying of the Guide Outfitters of BC to limit resident harvest and access and thereby obtain more game for foreign hunters, not only Americans. So, these voices actually act against the best interests of we residents and that is what I keep trying to get across here.

I have little or no ...common ground...with a foreigner who wants to come to BC, pay a GO to find him a "trophy" and then cooperate with the GO in restricting MY access to the lands and resources that are my birthright.

You again make assumption based with little knowledge of motives and or activities of the majority of "foreign" hunters.

MOST have little knowledge of the political environment surrounding the circumstances of their selected GO.

Instead they rely upon references from other hunters , articles and brokering agents in making a selection..

The concept that the "foreign " hunter is usually directly involved in the lobbying efforts is exaggerated if not entirely misplaced.

You mentioned one GO with apparent "sham" US ownership-- surely the other 244 or so can't all be US "sham" owned.

It appears from my perspective--local lobbying of one group is trumping that of another.

There is also the issue of integrated resource management and this involves the "softwood" situation. Why give the Americans whatever they want as though they were our friends, when they treat us in such a shabby fashion?

I understand politics often mixes issues and this issue may very well effect the hunting issue.

However ,most US or other "foreign" hunters , again, most likely have little ,if any, knowledge of such issues.

A well known US "draftdodger", former POTUS G.W. Bush, openly stated in his final spew of bullschitt before, thankfully, leaving office, that the USA should use military force to take what they want in the Arctic, most of which is Canadian sovereign territory. Of course, he was and is a cowardly, war-mongering fascist and a total asswipe, but, this is very typical of how many Yankees see Canada and thus we just are not too keen on more of the same.

And this rationally pertains to the hunting issue--HOW?


Most "foreign" hunters have not heard nor for that matter care for most political rhetoric.
Instead preferring to concentrate on the personal experience of the hunt, as naively as it may appear

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:
[ in his final spew of bullschitt before, thankfully, leaving office, that the USA should use military force to take what they want in the Arctic, most of which is Canadian sovereign territory.

what are you talking about?



but, this is very typical of how many Yankees see Canada

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

Lets face it, we are a small fraternity, we should be fraternal if hunting is to survive.


83,701 voices in BC vs the 4.5 million population NEED to be heard, removing another 6,131 outside voices will not help and is not the answer.

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:

The ...outside voices..., however, ARE represented in the continual lobbying of the Guide Outfitters of BC to limit resident harvest and access and thereby obtain more game for foreign hunters, not only Americans. So, these voices actually act against the best interests of we residents and that is what I keep trying to get across here.

quote:

Bush, openly stated in his final spew of bullschitt before, thankfully, leaving office, that the USA should use military force to take what they want in the Arctic, most of which is Canadian sovereign territory. Of course, he was and is a cowardly, war-mongering fascist and a total asswipe,but, this is very typical of how many Yankees see Canada and thus we just are not too keen on more of the same.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:

quote:

83,701 voices in BC vs the 4.5 million population NEED to be heard,

removing another 6,131 outside voices will not help and is not the answer.

The BC resident voices ARE heard by virtue of the volunteer activities of our BC Wildlife Federation and further restrictions on foreign hunting has been a major issue for us for some years. Among our members are MANY professional wildlife bios., foresters and even retired agency workers with a huge amount of actual experience dealing with the FACTS of this situation, I am one of these.

From the tenor and stridor of your posts, you give just the opposite appearance.

The appearance of someone NOT being heard;

resulting in an ever more and more shrill and vitriolic tone.

Generally, this is not a communication method heard from a respected and reasoned consultant who is oft selected for input on critical matters.



The ...outside voices..., however, ARE represented in the continual lobbying of the Guide Outfitters of BC to limit resident harvest and access and thereby obtain more game for foreign hunters, not only Americans. So, these voices actually act against the best interests of we residents and that is what I keep trying to get across here.

I have little or no ...common ground...with a foreigner who wants to come to BC, pay a GO to find him a "trophy" and then cooperate with the GO in restricting MY access to the lands and resources that are my birthright.

You again make assumption based with little knowledge of motives and or activities of the majority of "foreign" hunters.

MOST have little knowledge of the political environment surrounding the circumstances of their selected GO.

Instead they rely upon references from other hunters , articles and brokering agents in making a selection..

The concept that the "foreign " hunter is usually directly involved in the lobbying efforts is exaggerated if not entirely misplaced.

You mentioned one GO with apparent "sham" US ownership-- surely the other 244 or so can't all be US "sham" owned.

It appears from my perspective--local lobbying of one group is trumping that of another.

There is also the issue of integrated resource management and this involves the "softwood" situation. Why give the Americans whatever they want as though they were our friends, when they treat us in such a shabby fashion?

I understand politics often mixes issues and this issue may very well effect the hunting issue.

However ,most US or other "foreign" hunters , again, most likely have little ,if any, knowledge of such issues.

A well known US "draftdodger", former POTUS G.W. Bush, openly stated in his final spew of bullschitt before, thankfully, leaving office, that the USA should use military force to take what they want in the Arctic, most of which is Canadian sovereign territory. Of course, he was and is a cowardly, war-mongering fascist and a total asswipe, but, this is very typical of how many Yankees see Canada and thus we just are not too keen on more of the same.

And this rationally pertains to the hunting issue--HOW?


Most "foreign" hunters have not heard nor for that matter care for most political rhetoric.
Instead preferring to concentrate on the personal experience of the hunt, as naively as it may appear

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:
If, the ...outside voices...are, as you suggest, not involved in this situation, then, WHY should we concern ourselves with whether they can/cannot hunt here, at all? There is an inherent contradiction in your comments, IMO, and it seems to be based in both your lack of understanding what is really happening here and also in your bias in favour of our continuing to allow, in the case of Stone's Sheep, twice as many rams per annum to be shot by mostly Americans as are taken by we residents.

You have obviously NOT comprehended what I have posted.
Preferring instead to pursue BLIND ATTACK rather than solution to the issues.

Several of the major and quite a few of the minor GO businesses ARE controlled by American investors, using Canadian "frontmen" who sometimes "own" a smaller share of the company and hold the licence in their name. This means that POLICY is dictated by the major investors, i.e., wealthy Yanks and they DO NOT WANT we resident peasants in "their" areas.....
_______________________________
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wi...guide_outfitter.html

Guide Outfitting
Please note: There are amendments to the Wildlife Act related to guide outfitting that take effect June 15, 2009.
Please see the following Questions and Answers document for more information.
Amendments to the Wildlife Act (the "Act") related to Guide Outfitting: Questions and Answers, Prepared for Guide Outfitters and Certificate Holders - June 10, 2009 [PDF 55KB]

To be licenced as a guide outfitter in British Columbia, you must qualify as follows:

* you must be a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada (i.e., be a landed immigrant).

* you must have public liability insurance applicable to your business of not less than $2,000,000.00 (see s.1.01 B.C. Reg. 338/82 as amended by s.3 B.C. Reg. 25/2005).

* you must satisfy the regional fish and wildlife manager that you have a working knowledge of the Wildlife Act and the Commercial Activities Regulation, B.C. Reg. 338/82, Division 1, Guides.
To do this you must complete an exam which tests the individual's knowledge of relevant components of the Wildlife Act and regulations, the Wildlife Act Commercial Activities Regulation and the Hunting and Trapping Regulations Synopsis.

For information about the exam, you may contact your local Government Agent office or the Fish & Wildlife Branch in Victoria at 250 387-9725.

* you must have permission of the certificate holder(s).

To be licenced as an assistant guide (game) in British Columbia, you must qualify as follows:

* you must be a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada,
* you must be 19 years of age of older, and

* have a guide outfitter willing to employ you to guide hunters in his or her guide area and under his or her jurisdiction.

Seems as though you have STATUTORY means to pursue this issue.

The whole POINT here is that WE should NOT HAVE TO ...play the same game...as some rich Texan, for example. Americans ARE NOT "equals" here in Canada and have NO RIGHTS such as mine and I do not WANT to "share" with people who DARE to attempt to keep me from MY birthright, it is just that simple.

Once more attack, rather than read and comprehend :
SHOW me WHERE I have expressed RIGHTS for any hunting.
In fact, if you had read -- I stated the opposite.

If, there is no foreign "hunting", then, the GOs will HAVE to behave as we residents wish them to, or, they will fail in business. The considerable increase in available game to residents and other Canadians will also be of great benefit to us.

Most likely some would fail,
more likely their focus would shift to aggressively pursuing more WEALTHTY clents within Canada.
It is unlikely the costs would drop enough for more "average" hunters to collect sheep.

Besides, the harvest would simply escalate with reduced cost and access.
The sheep you so cherish would still be most likely be gone in increasing numbers by your theory, unless regulations changed dramatically.

The problems here HAVE been ...brought to light...and the government simply ignores us, while allowing the GOs to continue their activities. The most efficient method of changing this intolerable situation, is to arouse public feelings on the issue and emtional appeals do precisely that, as I have seen in nearly a half-century of conservation activities.

Investigative reporters HAVE done articles on this and it is time to begin a "blitz" campaign to bring pressure on the BC government to change things to what we want and to simply reserve BC hunting/fishing for Canadians.

It would appear neither approach to the public have not yielded your desired effect to this point.

As BBB and I have addressed hunters are a small group in BC,

fighting an uphill battle with a government and populace leaning against guns and hunting.

Creating a " blitz" may result in precisely the opposite reaction you wish--
loss of hunting entirely---
something to ponder carefully in the political environment.

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:
That is not correct, as access IS restricted in the following ways.

There are many roads into some of our best hunting that are "no vehicle entry", supposedly to preserve wildlife habitat and control hunting "pressure". This results in the average BC citizen being unable to gain access to much of the best hunting while the GOs use horses to enter such areas with their rich foreign clients and kill game there.

What prevents residents from utilizing horses?

GOs STRONGLY support such closures, not surprisingly.

Pursue OPEN access, or limited permited open access.


Then, we have the Dominion Government maintained airstrips in northern BC and local GOS make contracts with the few, not all, local aircharter companies to ONLY fly THEIR clients into such strips.

Sounds like a ripe business opportunity, unless the Dominion restricts airstrip access by contract.

This is commonplace and, again, it prevents us from having access to OUR hunting, while rich foreigners can kill our best trophy animals.

Limited Entry IS a form of "limited access" and the GOS again TOTALLY support this as it means that fewer residents can hunt where THEY take their clients. L.E.H. for Moose in the Kootenays resulted in very few residents harvesting animals, while some 120 foreigners were allowed to hunt them, although the ORIGINAL intent was to allow about 15 bulls per annum to GOs.

The GOS constantly lobby to increase their quotas at the expense of we residents and, IMO, the entire bunch of them should be forced out of business and hunting here be reserved for BC people and other Canadians, by a "hunter host" programme.

Any details on how this program would work?

As a senior CO said to me, when I was with the Alberta Forest Service nearly 20 years ago, " there are good outfitters and there are bad outfitters, but, there are NO honest outfitters" and, sorry to say, my considerable experience with them has shown that to be true.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
BBB,
I am still at a loss for precisely HOW the access is prevented-

quote:

Originally posted by BBBruce:

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
BBB,
I am still at a loss for precisely HOW the access is prevented-

It’s the dirty old government game of pretending you’re doing nothing so you can side with influential interests and resist doing anything. We are talking about the really remote bush, often up the Alaska Highway. There are only three ways in because it is so remote, private safari, GO (guide outfitter) or horseback.

Private safari is impractical. You couldn’t pay someone to take you in and set up your camp, because that would be called guide outfitting and is restricted to GO’s. You can’t drive in because there are no roads to the areas. When you get there you can’t move without help because there are no roads in there, just bush, swamps and mountainsides. There are no camps. There would only be the transportation you take in by air. Every trip in would have to reinvent every wheel, and at North American labour rates just is not possible.

So, any air charter can possibly be looked at as "GO' behaviour, thus requiring a GO licence?
And, I'm guessing the route to getting a licence is fraught with hurdles for any "non-connected" individuals?

GO’s refuse to acknowledge or accept resident clients. You cannot go in with them, period. Not even to picnic. They refuse. I don’t know how US guys would feel if American GO’s refused to take American hunters into hunting territories in the US, but Canadians don’t like it. Because of the remoteness of the camps they exercise a practical monopoly yet they own nothing but a licence to guide. They have no tenure on the land, yet they effectively keep residents out.

Again, sounds like a business opportunity, especially for Dewey , with his afore mentioned experience and connections.

Horseback is the third way. There are a few outfits. They fly you in half a day from places like Fort Nelson at Mile 300 on the Alaska Highway. You meet the horses at flight’s end and ride another day or more to the hunt. Because nobody but GO’s can provide “guiding” services, the government sends conservation officers on covert investigations pretending to be hunters. They try to get a cook or a wrangler to help with something that can be defined as a guiding or hunting activity. If they succeed the whole hunt can be shut down, and horses and gear confiscated. As a result you have paid a lot of money to go on a ride deep in the bush with fellow hunters, but the guy you are paying can only help the horses. You get situations where a large party is a ½ day’s flight and a day’s ride off the Alaska Highway, a freshly shot sheep is being humped into camp to be cooked, but the wrangler has to be careful not to help hump it even though he’s gonna eat the BBQ sheep along with everybody else.
The wrangler has to just wrangle, whatever that is.

I have used leased horses and at times had to hire a wrangler as part of the lease agreement, on my self guided hunts in the US, they only handled the horses and mules.

So it sounds as though, in BC, they cannot cook, make or break camp, spot game, carry or clean game ,etc.

The net result is that GO’s have effected a strangle hold on all resident hunting any deeper off a highway than you can backpack. Guys who have gone on horseback “camping trips” talk about all day in the saddle with elk on every ridge on both sides bugling, but nobody can get to them to hunt.

Sounds like my hunts in Idaho wilderness areas (horseback or foot only.)
It's hard work, and often results in no game bagged. I understand the frustration.

The GO’s don’t use it but won’t let anybody else in to it. Classic dog in the manger, fully supported by government.