hunting license service design project: research findings€¦ · confidential hunting license...

Hunting License Service Design Project:

Research Findings B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations – Fish, Wildlife and Habitat

Management Branch, and the B.C. Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services

January 22, 2014

Confidential Hunting License Service Design Project – Research Findings Page 1

Table of Contents Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 2

Background ............................................................................................................................................. 3

Research Approach.................................................................................................................................. 4

Phase 1 – Environmental Scan ............................................................................................................. 4

Phase 2 – Internal Stakeholder Engagement ........................................................................................ 4

Phase 3 – Behavioural Interviews......................................................................................................... 5

About Qualitative Research ............................................................................................................. 6

The Research Plan............................................................................................................................ 7

Behavioural Interview Locations & Participants................................................................................ 7

Research Staff ..................................................................................................................................... 8

Research Findings .................................................................................................................................... 9

Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................... 9

Detailed Research Findings ................................................................................................................ 11

Findings Related to the Overall Program Area ................................................................................ 11

Findings Related to the Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Education (CORE) Program ............ 12

Findings Related to the B.C. Resident Hunter Number Card (RHNC) ............................................... 13

Findings Related to B.C. Resident Hunting Licenses ........................................................................ 14

Findings Related to Non-B.C. Resident Hunting Licenses ................................................................ 15

Findings Related to Species Licenses .............................................................................................. 16

Findings Related to the Limited Entry Hunt (LEH) System ............................................................... 17

Findings Related to the Conservation Officer Service (COS) ............................................................ 18

Findings Related to Compulsory Inspection & Reporting ................................................................ 19

Findings Related to the B.C. Resident Hunter Sample Survey.......................................................... 20

Appendix A – Mindmap ......................................................................................................................... 21

Original.............................................................................................................................................. 21

Revised .............................................................................................................................................. 22

Appendix B – Motivation Matrix ............................................................................................................ 23

Original Version ................................................................................................................................. 23

Revised Version ................................................................................................................................. 24

Completed Version ............................................................................................................................ 25

Appendix C: Service BC Locations .......................................................................................................... 26

Appendix D: Compulsory Inspection Stations in BC ................................................................................ 27


Summary

The Strategic Initiatives Division (SID) of the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services

(MTIC), in partnership with the Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Management Branch (FWHMB) of the Ministry

of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO), has contracted the services of CGI

Information Systems & Management Consultants Inc. and their subcontractor, Number 41 Media

Corporation, to conduct a proof of concept (POC) initiative to support the development of the corporate

Digital Services Strategy and the transformation of the Province’s Hunting Program.

This proof of concept initiative comprises four phases:

1. Research and measurement: Understand the current service ecosystem and service baseline.

Focus on direct research with key program staff, stakeholders, outfitters, conservation officers

and other key stakeholders. Review current service environment across touchpoints (web, phone,

face to face). (Deliverable: Findings.)

2. Insight and opportunity identification: Document the service ecosystem, including service

touchpoints and processes, timelines and context, points of failure or challenge. Analyze research

findings to provide evidence-based direction for design of new service to be prototyped. Identify

best opportunities for prototyping new service. (Deliverable: Journey maps, opportunities

assessment.)

3. Ideation and Prototype: Design and document the new service (blueprint) indicating how key

users and deliverers of the service participate in it. Plan and build a service prototype that

provides only sufficient fidelity to test it in context with real hunters, outfitters, service providers.

(Deliverable: New service blueprint, prototype.)

4. Test, learn and roadmap: Findings from prototype testing, roadmap for service and product

development. (Deliverable: Report, Roadmap.)

To complete phase one, we conducted extensive environmental and field research surrounding the

existing hunting program ecosystem and the needs and expectations of hunters in B.C. with regard to

the delivery of government-sponsored hunting services. This document details these research activities,

along with the resultant findings.

These findings will be applied to the execution of phase two, the Insight and Opportunity Identification

Phase, which will commence immediately following the completion and presentation of this document,

and will result in deliverables which will include journey maps and an opportunities matrix. The

deliverables from both of these phases will provide a thorough, citizen-centric experience map of

hunting services in B.C. as well as opportunities identification to inform and guide phases three and four.


Background

British Columbia’s Hunting Program is a multi-faceted program area that falls primarily under the

portfolio of the FWHMB of FLNRO. As the primary internal stakeholder for this program area, the

FWHMB is responsible for overseeing the delivery of a variety of government-sponsored hunting

services.

For hunters, these services include, but are not limited to:

the Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Education Program (CORE), currently administered by

the B.C. Wildlife Federation (BCWF);

the administration of B.C. Resident Hunter Number Cards;

the administration of Resident and Non-Resident Hunting Licenses;

the administration of Species Licenses;

the administration of Limited Entry Hunt draws;

the administration of compulsory reporting (CR) and compulsory inspection (CI); and

the administration of hunter sample surveys.

For guide outfitters, these services include, but are not limited to:

the administration of guide outfitter exams;

the administration of guide outfitter licenses;

the administration of assistant guide outfitter licenses;

the administration of guiding territories;

the administration of guide declaration forms; and

the collection of royalties.

Other parties within the provincial government are responsible for the overseeing the delivery of other

hunting services. The Permit and Authorization Service Bureau (PASB) of FLNRO is responsible for the

issuance of a variety of permits and authorizations for both hunters and guide outfitters. The

Conservation Officer Service (COS), under the Ministry of Environment, is responsible for the delivery of

conservation officer services throughout the entire province.

The FWHMB, along with PASB, are heavily reliant upon the assistance of MTIC’s ServiceBC program, as

well as independently-contracted service providers, to ensure equitable and timely access to all hunting

program services to all hunters, both resident and non-resident.


Research Approach

The research for this project was conducted in 3 distinct phases. Each of these phases built upon the

preceding phase(s) and culminated in the findings that will be presented in this document.

Phase 1 – Environmental Scan

Phase 1 was completed in September 2013 by conducting of an environmental scan, using the Hunting

and Trapping Regulations Synopsis website

(http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/hunting/regulations/) as a starting point and supplementing that

information with print collateral provided by FWHMB staff and conversations with FWHMB staff leading

the project, including Sunjit Mark and Jeff Morgan. From this phase, the research team at Number 41

Media gained a cursory overview of the hunting program, including the key stakeholder groups, both

internal and external, and the service touchpoints and other interactions that occur between these

stakeholder groups. From this environmental scan, a mindmap of the hunting ecosystem was created

(see Appendix A), along with the blueprint for a motivation matrix exercise (see Appendix B).

Phase 2 – Internal Stakeholder Engagement

Using the knowledge gained from Phase 1, the research team at Number 41 Media facilitated two

internal research workshops at the FWHMB head office in Victoria as the basis for Phase 2. These

sessions were attended by the following individuals:

1. Sunjit Mark - Business Information Manager, FWHMB

2. Jeff Morgan – Manager, Fish and Wildlife Policy

3. Sean Cavanagh – Senior Business Portfolio Manager, Client Business Solution (NRS)

4. Ian Hatter – Manager, Wildlife Management

5. Audrey Fanthorpe – Licensing Officer, PASB

6. Ian Leeson – Harvest Data Clerk

7. Carol Wrenshall – Program Technical Support Officer

8. Mike Wolowicz – Biometrics & Reporting Officer

9. Lynn Hagel – United Head, Fish and Wildlife Permits

10. Carol Foott – Unit Head, Wildlife Regulations

11. Anne Thogersen – Biological Data Officer

12. Vince Dar – Government Agent (MTIC)

13. Tracy Michell – Manager, Business Operations & Client Support (Mail Preparation Services)

14. Debi-Lee McNaughton – Print Support Analyst

15. Terry Ahern – Senior Policy Analyst, Enforcement Program/Conservation Officer Service

16. Pater Pauwels – Conservation Officer

17. Lynne Anniko – Senior Business Analyst, Financial Operations

18. David Tesch – Manager, Ecosystem Information Section

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/hunting/regulations/


19. Mike Stalberg – Section Head, Fish & Wildlife

20. Sean Pendergast – Wildlife Biologist

21. Jennifer Smith – Human Dimensions Specialist

Each of these sessions consisted of two distinct, yet related activities. In the first activity, five copies

(three copies in the morning session; 2 copies in the afternoon session) of the mindmap created in

Phase 1 were posted throughout the workshop space. Workshop participants were broken up into

groups of 4 or 5 and were supplied with post-it notes and felt pens. These groups were then instructed

to use these materials to correct the mindmap by identifying and changing inaccuracies and by

expanding processes and concepts. The results of this exercise were combined into one final revised

mindmap, as seen in Appendix A.

The second activity, completing a motivation matrix, drew upon the connections that were made during

the mindmap exercise. In this exercise, participants remained in the same groups from the mindmap

exercise and were provided with a blank motivation matrix. This matrix identified 10 of the key

stakeholder groups in the hunting program along the top row and left column of a matrix. Participants

were told that additional stakeholder groups could be added below the bottom row and to the right of

the last column, as required. Participants were asked to identify each stakeholder group’s motivations

for participating in the hunting program and to write these motivations down along a top-left/bottom-

right diagonal within the matrix. Participants were then asked to identify the interactions and exchanges

that exist between the various stakeholder groups and to write down these interactions and exchanges

in the remaining squares within the matrix. The results of this exercise were combined into one final

revised motivation matrix, as seen in Appendix B.

Phase 3 – Behavioural Interviews

The final phase of research for this project consisted of pre-scheduled on-site and telephone-based

behavioural interviews. More specifically, we engaged in open-ended conversations with research

participants, guiding those conversations with a set of questions that touched on topics relevant to each

participant group. This ethnographic research methodology was chosen because it yields qualitative

data, a deep understanding of needs and behaviour, and a chance to identify opportunity for valuable

service offerings.

Following is a description of the method and outcomes of behavioural interviews as described in the UX

Toolbox (http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=9489D10983974913A597ABFC6EFA99DC).

What

Behavioural interviews are open-ended, non-directed interviews that focus on participants' behaviour.

These interviews explore stories and explanations of how and why things happen and work best if held

in context at home or work.

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=9489D10983974913A597ABFC6EFA99DC


Why

Behavioural interviews help uncover values, motivations, priorities, activities, and relationships

between elements of the larger system. They connect the research team with real people and they

allow the team to investigate the underlying issues behind trends that may not have been revealed

through analytics or surveys.

How

1. Create an interview guide that covers questions for all the topics you're interested in for this

research. This isn't intended to be a script; instead use it as a guide to help keep you on track of all

the topics you want to explore. Make sure you can fit your questions into the allotted time.

2. Interview at least eight individual participants by exploring each topic with them using open-ended

questions. Pause and invite further explanation of interesting topics, anecdotes or other elements.

Use your guide to direct conversation rather than as a script that you read from verbatim.

3. Record notes during the interview (you may want to work in a team, with one person taking notes

and one interviewing).

About Qualitative Research

An ethnographic research methodology was chosen for this project because it yields qualitative data, a

deep understanding of needs and behaviour, and a chance to identify opportunities for valuable

offerings.

Quantitative research is good at identifying large trends and patterns, and assessing impact and severity.

It requires large sample sizes to produce statistically significant results, and is best used to understand

the mechanisms that create the large-scale patterns identified by quantitative research.

Qualitative methods evaluate the how's and why's of decision making. They are used to target design or

technology interventions and to understand what is really going on behind the numbers. Small sample

sizes are the scientifically-accepted norm.

Qualitative research actually produces more types of data than is typically gathered in a quantitative

study. A single one-hour session with a user typically produces millions of “data points” in the form of

statements, actions, artifacts, changes in voice inflection, contextual observations, and more. It may not

feel like that much data because the human brain is trained to process this kind of data easily.

So, rather than capturing very few data points about many people, many data points about fewer

people were collected. After talking to only two or three people, there was a great deal of meaningful,

actionable data. Double that sample to four or six people and there was considerably more detail. It’s

for this reason that qualitative design research seldom considers sample sizes larger than 10-12

participants (per group of interest).


The research conducted for this project did not reveal everything there is to know about the many

thousands of people the program serves, but it did reveal a vast amount of information that forms a

solid basis on which to build further understanding.

The Research Plan

A detailed research plan, which includes participant screening criteria and interview guides, can be

viewed at http://hunting.number41media.com/.

Behavioural Interview Locations & Participants

In selecting our research locations and participants, we first chose participants groups according to the

results of the research activities in phase two – the mindmap and motivational matrix. Once these

participants groups had been identified, we focused on ensuring a good mix of geographic regions and

population densities in our location choices, while also considering the number of hunters and the

prominence of hunting activities in each region.

With the exception of hunters, all research participants were contacted by phone prior to our arrival at

their location to explain the purpose of the research and to schedule interviews in advance.

To connect with hunters, we adopted an intercept approach in which we approached hunters in retail

outlets, explained the purpose of the research and asked if they would be interested in participating.

Interviews were then conducted on the spot. Due to the timing of the research, many hunters had

concluded their hunting activities for the year and were not available in retail outlets. As a result, we

also connected with family, friends and acquaintances of both Number 41 Media staff as well as

FWHMB staff via email and telephone to schedule either face-to-face or telephone interviews.

It should be noted that many of the research participants outside of the hunter category are also

hunters in addition to being involved in the hunting industry in another way. For example, the guide

outfitter we spoke with in Campbell River provided his viewpoint both as a guide outfitter and as a

resident hunter with an extensive family history of hunting that dates back to childhood. As a result, we

were able to gain hunter-based insights from more than the 9 hunters indicated in the table below.


To summarize, behavioural interviews were conducted in the following locations and with the following

participants:

Hu

nte

rs

B.C

. Wild

life

Fed

erat

ion

Sta

ff

Gu

ide

Ou

tfit

ters

&

GO

AB

C S

taff

Lice

nce

Ven

do

rs

Serv

iceB

C O

ffic

e St

aff

Co

nse

rvat

ion

O

ffic

ers

Co

mp

uls

ory

In

spec

tio

n S

tati

on

s*

Reg

ion

al B

iolo

gist

s

FLN

RO

Sta

ff

BC

Mai

l Plu

s St

aff

Fraser Valley 1

Prince George

2 6 2 1 1

Kelowna & Vernon

1 1 3 1

Campbell River

1 1 2 1 4

Cranbrook 1 2 2 2 3

Lower Mainland

3 1 3

Victoria 4 1 1 1 1

TOTAL 9 3 5 13 6 9 3 7 1 1

*NOTE: To ensure the anonymity of compulsory inspection station officers, exact locations of research

participants are omitted here.

Research Staff

Playing the lead researcher role, Rebecca Harper was responsible for the development of all research

materials and all recruiting and scheduling, in consultation with Jennifer Peaker and Charles Haigh.

Supporting research activities throughout the project were Jennifer Peaker, Kara Ronse, Michele

Macklin, Charles Haigh, Blair Neufeld and Savannah Murphy. In addition, Ursula Szkolak was also utilized

for logistics and travel bookings.


Research Findings

Throughout the research process, although myriad pain points were identified by research participants,

a common theme regarding the sustainability of hunting emerged. Many felt that hunting is a privilege,

not a right, and that conservation must be a priority and ethics must be upheld to ensure opportunity

for future generations.

Our findings are documented here, and each includes a rating (high, medium or low) reflecting the

severity of the item. These ratings were determined by a number of factors, including:

a) the frequency with which it arose in conversation during research sessions, both in

individual sessions and from one session to the next;

b) the urgency with which participants discussed it, including when it arose in conversation as

well as participants’ body language, facial expressions and tone of voice; and

c) the extent to which the item impacted the delivery of information or service to the

participant, as described by the participant.

Summary of Findings

Grouped by program service offering, a summary of the research findings are below (the rating is

identified in brackets).

Overall Program Area

1. Access to hunting program area information (high)

2. Competing priorities of resident, non-resident and First Nations hunters (low)

Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Education (CORE) Program

3. Inability to complete CORE online (medium)

4. Inability or difficulty accessing CORE instructors/examiners (medium)

5. Instructor/examiner quality control inconsistency (high)

6. Curriculum focus, relevance and structure (medium)

B.C. Resident Hunter Number Card (RHNC)

7. Difficulty acquiring original and replacement RHNCs (medium)

8. Lack of durability of physical card (low)

B.C. Resident Hunting Licenses

9. Time-consuming and inconvenient process (high)


Non-B.C. Resident Hunting Licenses

10. Inability to purchase licenses outside of ServiceBC office hours (high)

11. Inability to return or transfer unused licenses (high)

Species Licenses

12. Time-consuming and inconvenient process (high)

13. Inconvenience of 48-hour wait period prior to using particular species licenses (low)

14. Improper cancellation of a species license (medium)

Limited Entry Hunt (LEH) System

15. Perceived unfairness of existing system (high)

16. Late timing of results announcement (high)

17. Inconvenient application process (medium)

Conservation Officer Service (COS)

18. Lack of officers in the field (medium)

19. Ineffectiveness of RAPP line (low)

Compulsory Inspection & Reporting

20. Skepticism regarding the government’s use of CI and CR data (high)

21. Inability to connect with CI stations (medium)

22. Concerns regarding CI station adherence to confidentiality and other unethical practices

(high)

B.C. Resident Hunter Sample Survey

23. Skepticism regarding the government’s use of survey data (high)


Detailed Research Findings

Findings Related to the Overall Program Area

1. Access to hunting program area information

Rating: High

Hunters consistently expressed a lack of access to information pertaining to the hunting program. Most

had never visited the program website (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/hunting/regulations/)

and those that had did not visit it regularly.

Access to and understanding of print information is also limited; many expressed concern over the lack

of Hunting and Trapping Regulations Synopses available in both ServiceBC locations and authorized

license vendor locations. Many hunters indicated that they require two or more copies of the synopsis –

one copy for use at home and one copy for use while in the bush. Furthermore, hunters, ServiceBC staff

and authorized license vendor staff also indicated that with the move from a one-year synopsis to a two-

year synopsis, many hunters require a second copy of the synopsis at the beginning of the second year.

Of those hunters who do have access to one or more copies of the synopsis, many also noted the

difficulty that is associated with trying to interpret and fully understand the regulations. Many hunters

indicated the information is neither straightforward nor written in plain language. This presents a great

barrier to the hunting community’s overwhelming desire to hunt ethically and within the limitations put

forth by the FWHMB.

In addition to a lack of access to both digital and print information, numerous stakeholder groups

identified a lack of ministry communication surrounding the hunting program as being a major concern,

particularly when negative press is given to the program, such as was the case this year when the media

focused on poachers near Port Alberni.

Hunters noted that access to government staff has declined in recent years due to funding cutbacks and

the closure of regional offices, which has resulted in a lack of government presence in the hunting

dialogue taking place within the province.

The hunting community is seeking more availability, transparency and proactive behavior from within

government with regard to the hunting program. It is a commonly held belief that greater effort from

government to raise the profile of hunting in BC and to discuss how the hunting program is managed

would help to build greater awareness and trust both within the hunting community as well as among

the general public. Timely collection, analysis and distribution of hunting data as well as an effective

public relations strategy are notably missing at the present time.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/hunting/regulations/


2. Competing priorities of resident, non-resident and First Nations hunters

Rating: Low

As is often the case when multiple groups are recipients of the same service, hunters and guide

outfitters have both identified tension between these three hunting groups around the perceived

unfairness in the delivery of services between them. In the case of resident hunters vs. non-resident

hunters/guide outfitter differences, there is a perceived unfairness in the allocation policy. In the case of

First Nations hunters vs. non-First Nations hunters, there is also a perceived unfairness with regard to

reporting requirements from the perspective of non-First Nations hunters.

Findings Related to the Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Education (CORE) Program

Although the CORE Program is administered by the B.C. Wildlife Federation (BCWF), this program lies

within the jurisdiction of the FWHMB and, as such, there are opportunities for the FWHMB to work in

partnership with the BCWF to address these issues.

3. Inability to complete CORE online

Rating: Medium

Hunters repeatedly expressed frustration with having to attend a course in a physical classroom. They

cited jurisdictions such as Alberta where the Alberta Conservation and Hunter Education Program

(http://www.aheia.com/Online_Hunter_Education_Certification) can be completed entirely online,

including both the course and the exam. While some concerns exist surrounding participant identity

verification, there are options available to mitigate this risk, and should be considered to maximize the

opportunity.

With the provincial government’s partnership with Telus through the Connecting BC Program, 93% of

British Columbians have high speed Internet access available in their communities, with the aim to reach

97% in the near future.

4. Inability or difficulty accessing CORE instructors/examiners

Rating: Medium

Some hunters expressed concern over their inability to find a CORE instructor/examiner who offered

courses during a time that worked within the hunter’s schedule. This is of particular concern in some of

the more rural and remote communities in B.C. where only one instructor/examiner is available. Of

particular note was some hunters’ inability to find an instructor/examiner who would allow the hunter

to challenge the exam and, therefore, not take the CORE course.

http://www.aheia.com/Online_Hunter_Education_Certification


5. Instructor/examiner quality control inconsistency

Rating: High

Individuals within the hunting community, particularly CORE instructors and conservation officers, have

indicated a lack of consistency among CORE instructors.

With the exception of attendance at a mandatory instructor course hosted by the BC Wildlife Federation

and the provision of the CORE Manual and the Hunting and Trapping Regulation Synopsis, instructors

are not provided with any training or instructional materials. This creates a very real potential for

instructional inconsistencies from one instructor to the next and, even more concerning, an increase in

the likelihood of knowledge and understanding variations from one hunter to the next.

There were also instances reported where research participants suspected that CORE instructors had

potentially issued false examination results in exchange for monetary compensation. This, too, results in

knowledge variations from one hunter to the next.

6. Curriculum focus, relevance and structure

Rating: Medium

Both hunters and CORE instructors repeatedly expressed their frustration with the focus, relevance and

organization of the CORE curriculum. Some of the most frequently discussed problems include a

perceived overemphasis on bird species identification, a lack of BC-specific information, frequent

duplication of safety information from the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, outdated information

about firearm safety, and poor organization of the CORE manual.

The perceived impact of these concerns is novice hunters participating in hunting without adequate

knowledge to hunt both safely and ethically.

Hunters and instructors indicated that they would like to see a heavier focus on BC-specific species

identification, BC-specific interpretation of regulations, and firearm safety and less of a focus on bird

species identification and non-BC-specific species identification. It was also suggested that CORE

instructors be involved in a significant structural revision of the CORE manual to organize it in a way that

better reflects how the CORE course is taught.

Findings Related to the B.C. Resident Hunter Number Card (RHNC)

7. Difficulty acquiring original and replacement RHNCs

Rating: Medium

Hunters often mentioned their frustration with acquiring both their original RHNC as well as any

replacement RHNCs. As the system currently exists, hunters must submit their CORE examination results


to the BCWF in order to receive their CORE Certificate of Completion. Once they receive this certificate,

the hunter must complete an Application for Resident Hunter Number and submit it either in person at

a ServiceBC office or by mail. While the large majority of hunters are aware of the process that is

required to obtain an RHNC, neither of these options is efficient or user-friendly.

For those hunters who opt to physically enter a ServiceBC office, a number of factors were identified as

contributing to a lack of efficiency and user-friendliness. These factors include the limited locations of

ServiceBC offices (see Appendix D) and the frequent long waits upon arrival.

For those hunters who choose to submit their applications by mail, it was indicated that both the longer

processing and mailing times as well as the requirement to submit the original copy of their CORE

Certificate of Completion were hindrances and contributing factors to the hunters’ frustration with this

process.

With regard to the acquisition of replacement RHNCs, the only option available to hunters is to

physically enter a ServiceBC office; the same factors exist with this process as identified for the

acquisition of an original RHNC at a ServiceBC office location.

8. Lack of durability of physical card

Rating: Low

Hunters do not often have to replace their RHNC, but when they do, they’ve reported that it is a time-

consuming and less-than-ideal process. The physical format of the RHNC is poor, particularly given the

environmental conditions to which the RHNC is exposed.

Findings Related to B.C. Resident Hunting Licenses

9. Time-consuming and inconvenient process

Rating: High

Every hunter we spoke to expressed the same concern; namely, it takes too long to acquire a hunting

license at both ServiceBC offices and authorized license vendors, particularly in the days leading up to

and within peak hunting season.

While most hunters understand and are prepared to wait, this remains one of the greatest sources of

frustration from within the hunting community. Moreover, hunters and ServiceBC staff also indicated

that hand-written licenses are prone to error, particularly when issued at authorized license vendor

locations in which staff turnover is high and/or staff knowledge of hunting is low.

Some ServiceBC locations indicated that they had created in-house training materials to address the

issue of errors made by license vendors but these materials are not readily shared across the entire


ServiceBC organization. The result of this is a relatively high administrative burden on ServiceBC to

correct errors which reduces the number of available ServiceBC staff to provide face-to-face service to

those waiting in a ServiceBC office.

Findings Related to Non-B.C. Resident Hunting Licenses

10. Inability to purchase licenses outside of ServiceBC office hours

Rating: High

Guide outfitters unanimously expressed frustration on behalf of non-resident hunters with having to

purchase non-resident hunting licenses in person at a ServiceBC location and often prior to the hunters’

arrival in BC.

Guide outfitters indicated that, oftentimes, their clients arrive on evenings and weekends when

ServiceBC offices are not open. Because waiting until a ServiceBC office was open would delay their

hunt, guide outfitters acquire non-resident hunting licenses on behalf of their clients prior to the clients’

arrival.

Beyond the inconvenience of having to work within the limited hours of operation at ServiceBC offices,

this process impacts the non-resident hunters’ hunting opportunity in several ways. First, if mistakes are

made duration the preparation of the licences, these mistakes are often not detected until the client

arrives, at which time, there is no way to correct these mistakes prior to the hunt. Second, if clients want

to expand either the scope or duration of their hunt, it is either impossible or greatly inconvenient for

the guide outfitter to procure additional licences. This limits both hunting opportunities for the hunters

and reduces revenue opportunities for the province, both in terms of licence sales as well as economic

impact.

11. Inability to return or transfer unused licenses

Rating: High

Guide outfitters also expressed frustration with their inability to return or transfer unused licenses.

As discussed above, guide outfitters are often required to purchase all of their clients’ non-resident

hunting licenses and species licenses prior to their clients’ arrival. This need to purchase licenses in

advance of clients’ arrivals places guide outfitters and/or non-resident hunters at risk of significant

financial loss. In the event of a cancellation by the guest after the licenses have been purchased,

because these licenses are non-refundable and non-transferable, either the guide outfitter or the non-

resident hunter is out the money, which, when combined with any number of species licenses, can be a

significant cost to either party. In order to minimize this risk, many guide outfitters wait until the last

possible minute to purchase their clients’ licenses, which in and of itself is a time-consuming process

simply due to the volume of licenses being purchased by any one guide outfitter.


In addition to the elevated financial risk to both guide outfitters and non-resident hunters, this entire

process imposes an unnecessary strain on ServiceBC staff and causes frustration for the guide outfitters

and longer wait times for everyone waiting at ServiceBC locations, both hunters and otherwise.

Findings Related to Species Licenses

12. Time-consuming and inconvenient process

Rating: High

Every hunter we spoke to expressed the same concern; namely, it takes too long to acquire species

licenses at both ServiceBC offices and authorized license vendors, particularly in the days leading up to

and within peak hunting season and when multiple species licenses are being purchased. While most

hunters understand and are prepared to wait, this remains one of the greatest sources of frustration

from within the hunting community.

Moreover, hunters and ServiceBC staff also indicated that hand-written species licenses are prone to

error, particularly when issued at authorized license vendor locations in which staff turnover is high

and/or staff knowledge of hunting is low.

Some ServiceBC locations indicated that they had created in-house training materials to address the

issue of errors made by license vendors but these materials are not readily shared across the entire

ServiceBC organization. The result of this is a relatively high administrative burden on ServiceBC to

correct errors which reduces the number of available ServiceBC staff to provide face-to-face service to

those waiting in a ServiceBC office.

13. Inconvenience of 48-hour wait period prior to using particular species licenses

Rating: Low

This is a source of confusion from many hunters as there is little to no explanation given to these wait

periods. The consensus among hunters is that these wait periods are inconveniences that do not appear

to serve any purpose within the hunting program.

14. Improper cancellation of a species license

Rating: Medium

While hunters did not discuss this concern at great length, conservation officers repeatedly discussed

the problem associated with the improper cancellation of species licenses.


Enforcement of the hunting regulations is challenging, if not impossible, with the current species license

system. Conservation officers and other hunting professionals noted the lack of a physical tag that is

attached to the harvested animal as a key contributor to this concern.

Findings Related to the Limited Entry Hunt (LEH) System

15. Perceived unfairness of existing system

Rating: High

Although most hunters recognize that a limited entry hunt system is necessary for effective conservation

of some species and that a lottery system provides equal selection odds for all participants, there is

significant speculation within the community regarding the integrity of the LEH program administration.

There also seems to be a lack of knowledge regarding the enhanced odds that are applied to all LEH

applications with the exception of mule deer and white-tailed deer.

While the Ministry has 2 PDF publications on their website titled “How the Limited Entry Hunting (LEH)

System Works” (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/hunting/resident/docs/leh_system.pdf) and

“British Columbia Limited Entry Hunting Regulations Synopsis, 2013-2014”

(http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/hunting/resident/docs/leh_13_14.pdf), it is apparent that few, if

any, hunters have actually read these publications.

16. Late timing of results announcement

Rating: High

Hunters, particularly those who are required to submit vacation requests well in advance of the LEH

season, are consistently frustrated with the late timing of LEH results announcements. Hunters indicated

that this is a source of great frustration because the odds of being selected are so low in the first place

that they do not book vacation time until they are notified of their win; as a result, it can be difficult for

successful LEH applications to secure the necessary vacation time in order to participate in the hunt and

often many highly-coveted LEH tags go unused.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/hunting/resident/docs/leh_system.pdf

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/hunting/resident/docs/leh_13_14.pdf


17. Inconvenient application process

Rating: Medium

Just as with the process for acquiring a hunting license and species licenses, hunters are frustrated with

the antiquated, inconvenient, time-consuming and error-prone paper-based process for LEH

applications.

Under the current system, applicants must physically go to a ServiceBC office (see Appendix C) or an

authorized license vendor to complete their application. The concerns that exist for acquiring hunting

licenses and species licenses also apply to the application for LEH.

Findings Related to the Conservation Officer Service (COS)

18. Lack of officers in the field

Rating: Medium

Hunters almost always had great things to say about the conservation officers they have had encounters

with. However, when asked how often hunters encounter conservation officers in the field, all

participants indicated that they rarely, if ever, encountered conservation officers in the field.

It was also common knowledge among other hunting professionals, including guide outfitters, license

vendors and CI station officers, that the COS is both severely understaffed and experiencing the effects

of increased responsibilities such as dealing with environmental protection and problem wildlife. Many

hunters and hunting professionals felt that COS’s role should be focused either exclusively or more

heavily on traditional Game Warden responsibilities.

19. Ineffectiveness of RAPP line

Rating: Low

Several hunters indicated a lack of subject matter expertise on the part of the RAPP line operators. This

lack of subject matter knowledge not only impedes the operator from conveying accurate and relevant

information to the COS, but it also erodes the credibility of the hunting program.


Findings Related to Compulsory Inspection & Reporting

20. Skepticism regarding the government’s use of Compulsory Inspection (CI) and Compulsory

Reporting (CR) data

Rating: High

Hunters are highly skeptical of how the government uses both CI and CR data; many hunters believe this

data is being used more for enforcement and surveillance rather than for conservation and policy

development. The primary ramification of this opinion is a reluctance to report accurate hunt results,

thereby negatively affecting the work of biologists in setting conservation-based policies.

21. Inability to connect with Compulsory Inspection stations

Rating: Medium

Several hunters that we spoke with indicated the challenges they have experienced in trying to make

appointments with CI station officers.

Whether the inspection station was located an unreasonable distance from their hunting locations

and/or homes (see Appendix D), or the inspection station officer was not available to perform

inspections at a mutually agreeable time, some hunters have become frustrated with this process,

particularly hunters in more remote locations and non-resident hunters. As a result, harvest data is not

being accurately collected and biologists cannot make fully informed decisions.

22. Concerns regarding CI station adherence to confidentiality and other unethical practices

Rating: High

On numerous occasions, hunters and other hunting professionals voiced concerns surrounding potential

unethical behaviour on the part of CI station officers.

All CI station interactions are strictly confidential; no one but the hunter, the CI station officer and the

provincial government are privy to the information exchanged in these interactions. However, hunters

are concerned that confidentiality is not always being honoured; rather, they feel that CI station officers,

who are often hunters themselves, are sharing information with their hunting peers.

Other unethical practices that are of concern to hunters include the belief that CI station officers may

potentially accept bribes in exchange for passing illegal animals, and that favours are potentially given to

hunters who know the CI station officer personally.

These concerns further contribute to hunters’ skepticism and mistrust about the program and how their

information is used.


Findings Related to the B.C. Resident Hunter Sample Survey

23. Skepticism regarding the government’s use of survey data

Rating: High

While the FWHMB indicates that the response rate for the hunter sample survey is quite good, the

hunting community expressed concerns that extend beyond the response rates. Just as with CR and CI

data, hunters are highly skeptical of how the government uses the data it collects from the annual

hunter sample survey. Many hunters believe this data is being used more for enforcement and

surveillance rather than for conservation and policy development. The primary ramification of this

opinion is a resistance to reporting accurate hunt results, thereby negatively affecting the work of

biologists in setting conservation-based policies.


Appendix A – Mindmap

Original


Revised

To view a larger version the completed version of the motivational matrix, visit the project team website at

http://hunting.number41media.com/MindMapRevised.gif.

http://hunting.number41media.com/MindMapRevised.gif


Appendix B – Motivation Matrix

Original Version

Gives to…

B.C

. Res

iden

t H

un

ters

No

n-B

.C. R

esid

ent

Hu

nte

rs

Lice

nse

Ven

do

rs

Gu

ide

Ou

tfit

ters

Serv

iceB

C O

ffic

es

Fish

, Wild

life

and

Hab

itat

M

anag

emen

t B

ran

ch

Co

nse

rvat

ion

Off

icer

s

Co

mp

uls

ory

Insp

ecti

on

Sta

tio

ns

Bio

logi

sts

B.C

. Wild

life

Fed

erat

ion

B.C. Resident Hunters Non-B.C. Resident Hunters License Vendors Guide Outfitters ServiceBC Offices Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Management Branch Conservation Officers Compulsory Inspection Stations Biologists B.C. Wildlife Federation


Revised Version

Gives to…

B.C

. Res

iden

t H

un

ters

No

n-B

.C. R

esid

ent

Hu

nte

rs

Lice

nse

Ven

do

rs

Gu

ide

Ou

tfit

ters

3

Serv

iceB

C O

ffic

es3

Fish

, Wild

life

and

Hab

itat

M

anag

emen

t B

ran

ch

Co

nse

rvat

ion

Off

icer

s

Co

mp

uls

ory

Insp

ecti

on

Sta

tio

ns

Bio

logi

sts

B.C

. Wild

life

Fed

erat

ion

Firs

t N

atio

ns

Hu

nte

rs

Hab

itat

Co

nse

rvat

ion

Tru

st F

un

d

Gu

ide

Ou

tfit

ters

Ass

oci

atio

n o

f B

riti

sh C

olu

mb

ia

Per

mit

an

d A

uth

ori

zati

on

Ser

vice

B

ure

au

Min

istr

y o

f Fi

nan

ce

Trap

per

s

Tran

spo

rter

s

Fur

Trad

ers

B.C

. Tra

pp

ers

Ass

oci

atio

n

Taxi

der

mis

ts

B.C. Resident Hunters

Non-B.C. Resident Hunters

License Vendors

Guide Outfitters

ServiceBC Offices

Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Management Branch

Conservation Officers

Compulsory Inspection Stations

Biologists

B.C. Wildlife Federation

First Nations Hunters

Habitat Conservation Trust Fund Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia

Permit and Authorization Service Bureau

Ministry of Finance

Trappers

Transporters Fur Traders

B.C. Trappers Association

Taxidermists


Completed Version

To view a larger version the completed version of the motivational matrix, visit the project team website at

http://hunting.number41media.com/motivation_matrix/index.html.

http://hunting.number41media.com/motivation_matrix/index.html


Appendix C: Service BC Locations


Appendix D: Compulsory Inspection Stations in BC

hunting license service design project: research findings€¦ · confidential hunting license...

Documents