Outfitter allocations

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

A non resident can't purchase a mule deer tag in Saskatchewan, but then no tags are required on reserves or game farms because shooting on reserves and game farms isn't subject to the hunting regulations.



Outfitter or not, the only way that a non resident can hunt mule deer in Saskatchewan is on a reserve, or on a game farm, unless of course the non resident is a native.

This is why I stated "get a tag".

[Talking moose]

"Outfitters built this province".... Lol, I have nothing against outfitters, (who wouldn't like to earn a living in the hunting/fishing industry? /dream job)... But no....that's a stretch.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

A non resident can't purchase a mule deer tag in Saskatchewan, but then no tags are required on reserves or game farms because shooting on reserves and game farms isn't subject to the hunting regulations.



Outfitter or not, the only way that a non resident can hunt mule deer in Saskatchewan is on a reserve, or on a game farm, unless of course the non resident is a native.

Reserves are Federal jurisdiction. Outfitted hunts on Indian Reserves require a licence authorized by the Feds.

In other words, Tork is wrong again....

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

All I hear is outfitters and guides tossing around the greed word. Only one group represented here is in it for the money, and it's not residents, so give the greed sniveling a rest.

I find it amusing the way some folks toss around terms like greed, or racism. It only ever applies to the 'other' guy, whether it's a pickup load of mulie does that the gang from Cowgry hammered, or the business man who has 100 employees, or even the outfitter who has 5 or ten NR hunters a year.
It's always the other guy.

He should go without, because I'm entitled. , He's a greedy bastard cause he posted he had 20 lbs of deer left from last year that he didn't use and he gave it to a friend .If he only hunted to feed his family like I do, then I may be able to get a trophy tag a year earlier.

If the system is wrong, then get off your butts and fix it. Whining and name calling does nothing except put us in a position to lose it all.

There is not one on this board who does not take some benefit from Albert's resources. Not one.

This is fast becoming Alberta Poutdoorsmen, and we all need to give our heads a shake. We're better than that.

[walking buffalo]

Chuck,

I trust you noted my earlier post explaining that there is a new Allocation Policy (for residents, non-residents and outfitters) and Outfitter Policy in the works. These are supposed to be released for review this fall.


On that note, the current Outfitter Policy and Outfitter Allocation Policy are soon to be expired.

Curiously, my four year quest for copies of the Outfitter Policies were finally filled last year, shortly after the new ESRD team started to work on the new policies. There was significant effort made to withhold these documents until they were no longer in use. What is revealed in the current policies shows that these agreements were NOT followed.

Section 5 of the Big Game Outfitter Policy states; "In WMUs where the species is on a draw, the fraction of the available harvest for non resident use will NOT exceed 10%."


In simple words, the Outfitter Policy was NOT followed from 1989 onward, costing residents thousands of licences.... maybe we should sue for compensation? At 3-7 thousand a pop there is plenty of money on the line....

[Hydro1]

[/QUOTE] If the system is wrong, then get off your butts and fix it. Whining and name calling does nothing except put us in a position to lose it all.

.[/QUOTE]
Yup, x100

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Chuck,

I trust you noted my earlier post explaining that there is a new Allocation Policy (for residents, non-residents and outfitters) and Outfitter Policy in the works. These are supposed to be released for review this fall.


On that note, the current Outfitter Policy and Outfitter Allocation Policy are soon to be expired.

Curiously, my four year quest for copies of the Outfitter Policies were finally filled last year, shortly after the new ESRD team started to work on the new policies. There was significant effort made to withhold these documents until they were no longer in use. What is revealed in the current policies shows that these agreements were NOT followed.

Section 5 of the Big Game Outfitter Policy states; "In WMUs where the species is on a draw, the fraction of the available harvest for non resident use will NOT exceed 10%."


In simple words, the Outfitter Policy was NOT followed from 1989 onward, costing residents thousands of licences.... maybe we should sue for compensation? At 3-7 thousand a pop there is plenty of money on the line....

Wow. That's a shocker. ;-)Thanks.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Chuck,

I trust you noted my earlier post explaining that there is a new Allocation Policy (for residents, non-residents and outfitters) and Outfitter Policy in the works. These are supposed to be released for review this fall.


On that note, the current Outfitter Policy and Outfitter Allocation Policy are soon to be expired.

Curiously, my four year quest for copies of the Outfitter Policies were finally filled last year, shortly after the new ESRD team started to work on the new policies. There was significant effort made to withhold these documents until they were no longer in use. What is revealed in the current policies shows that these agreements were NOT followed.

Section 5 of the Big Game Outfitter Policy states; "In WMUs where the species is on a draw, the fraction of the available harvest for non resident use will NOT exceed 10%."


In simple words, the Outfitter Policy was NOT followed from 1989 onward, costing residents thousands of licences.... maybe we should sue for compensation? At 3-7 thousand a pop there is plenty of money on the line....

Thanks for the info, what many hunters thought to be true, actually is. So ESRD, APOS and the outfitters working in these over subscribed WMU were all well aware of the conditions, but all of them chose to ignore the conditions.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by bobalong

Thanks for the info, what many hunters thought to be true, actually is. So ESRD and APOS were well aware of the conditions, but both chose to ignore them.

Not only ignore them, but outright lie about it. I have a list of names that have lied to me about it. Outright bold face lied.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by chuck

Not only ignore them, but outright lie about it. I have a list of names that have lied to me about it. Outright bold face lied.

Care to share by PM?

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Chuck,

I trust you noted my earlier post explaining that there is a new Allocation Policy (for residents, non-residents and outfitters) and Outfitter Policy in the works. These are supposed to be released for review this fall.


On that note, the current Outfitter Policy and Outfitter Allocation Policy are soon to be expired.

Curiously, my four year quest for copies of the Outfitter Policies were finally filled last year, shortly after the new ESRD team started to work on the new policies. There was significant effort made to withhold these documents until they were no longer in use. What is revealed in the current policies shows that these agreements were NOT followed.

Section 5 of the Big Game Outfitter Policy states; "In WMUs where the species is on a draw, the fraction of the available harvest for non resident use will NOT exceed 10%."


In simple words, the Outfitter Policy was NOT followed from 1989 onward, costing residents thousands of licences.... maybe we should sue for compensation? At 3-7 thousand a pop there is plenty of money on the line....

Tried googling for penalties for violating the Big Game Outfitter Policy but couldn't find any.....any ideas

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by bobalong

Tried googling for penalties for violating the Big Game Outfitter Policy but couldn't find any.....any ideas

Ordering APOS to pay back the fee that it's outfitters charged for every hunt that they sold in excess of that 10% per wmu, would be a great start.

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Ordering APOS to pay back the fee that it's outfitters charged for every hunt that they sold in excess of that 10% per wmu, would be a great start.

Clawing back the over allotment immediately would also be a good start.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by bobalong

Care to share by PM?

I'm not going to do that no.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by huntwat

Clawing back the over allotment immediately would also be a good start.

That is the message that has to be sent, the additional money received over the past 25 years will more than compensate for any loss this year and the years to come. Then legal charges against APOS, the ESRD members who condoned it, and the outfitters in those WMU who executed the hunts over the allotted amount.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by chuck

I'm not going to do that no.

no problem

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by huntwat

LOL, ok. I'll make you a deal. Show me proof where a non-resident can obtain a Saskatchewan antlered mule deer tag legally, and I will not make any more posts on this subject. If you can't then you don't post anymore.

Who cares if you need a provincial tag or a federal permit ? A non resident alien can legally hunt mule deer in Saskatchewan. You said Saskatchewan had it right, mule deer for residents only. That was wrong !

Now you and WB are going to split hairs over the type of permit required ? You two make me laugh.

Waaaaaa Waaaaaa

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Who cares if you need a provincial tag or a federal permit ? A non resident alien can legally hunt mule deer in Saskatchewan. You said Saskatchewan had it right, mule deer for residents only. That was wrong !

Now you and WB are going to split hairs over the type of permit required ? You two make me laugh.

Waaaaaa Waaaaaa

You can interpret it anyway you want. Saskatchewan has it right! Residents only. I would be REALLY ok with non-res only hunting on reserves in Alberta.

[Pixel Shooter]

Nothing is going to get settled here after evidence of reading the last 9 pages