2024 Draw Booklet is out!

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by CBintheNorth

Then why make it illegal for non-indigenous hunters to not report? Just estimate that one too.
Either hunting harvest is important information or it isn't. Simple as that.

Exactly, either harvest reports are important, or they aren't. And given that unregulated hunters don't obey bag limits, and can kill several of species that regulated hunters can only kill one of, harvest reports from them, would be even more useful.

[Smoky buck]

Who wants to bet that we will see the same conversation next year

[Desert Eagle]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

Who wants to bet that we will see the same conversation next year

Haha. Yup, it seems to be an annual one for sure.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Desert Eagle

Haha. Yup, it seems to be an annual one for sure.

Because the situation stays the same, year after year, and nothing changes.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Because the situation stays the same, year after year, and nothing changes.

And it won’t change as long as hunters keep approaching these issues the same way

But instead of changing the approach we are going to be discussing this all over again next year

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

And it won’t change as long as hunters keep approaching these issues the same way

But instead of changing the approach we are going to be discussing this all over again next year

So how can you approach this to accomplish all hunters being treated the same?

[fishnguy]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Exactly, either harvest reports are important, or they aren't. And given that unregulated hunters don't obey bag limits, and can kill several of species that regulated hunters can only kill one of, harvest reports from them, would be even more useful.

I won’t go into a long discussion here. I don’t disagree with the problems that persist, but like some suggested these problems are here to remain. Usually, when there is a problem that cannot be resolved for the time being, people work out a way to make best decisions the problem notwithstanding. We can account for things like roadkill fairly accurately, for example. They can probably estimate the affects of the CWD with some degree of accuracy. Other things that have to be estimated. The question is: do the hunter reports provide for better data and, as a result, better management? If the reports are honest in terms of harvest, this is one less variable they have to deal with. Is it perfect? No. Is it better? Yes, by definition, because it is one less number they have to estimate.

Point being, are we talking about better game management or equality and other political rubbish that neither we nor the biologists can resolve? My understanding is it is the former and in that case the answer is obvious.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Exactly, either harvest reports are important, or they aren't. And given that unregulated hunters don't obey bag limits, and can kill several of species that regulated hunters can only kill one of, harvest reports from them, would be even more useful.

Accurate harvest reports don't play a significant role in wildlife management.

Accurate harvest reports do play a very significant role in allocation distribution.

Understand this and see the light.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So how can you approach this to accomplish all hunters being treated the same?

On the FN hunting rights issue you are wasting your time trying to make everything equal it’s not happening. Start understanding that treaty rights are not going to change at the request of hunters

Get the dream of equal hunting rights out of your head is the first thing that needs to happen. I don’t agree with FN having different hunting rights but when you do enough research you understand it’s a battle you won’t win.

The better approach is put in more effort to communicate with the different bands developing a relationship to get them more involved with conservation and wildlife management.

Hunters need to stop fighting with different user groups and put more effort into working within the system in place if we want results. Having a ****ing match and throwing your hands in the air trying to make everything equal well game numbers are effected clearly has been failing

But really hunters can’t even come together enough to sort out better residency requirement standards so might want to get some unity sorted out with smaller issues first

[Stinky Buffalo]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Accurate harvest reports don't play a significant role in wildlife management.

Accurate harvest reports do play a very significant role in allocation distribution.

Understand this and see the light.

That makes sense.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

On the FN hunting rights issue you are wasting your time trying to make everything equal it’s not happening. Start understanding that treaty rights are not going to change at the request of hunters

Get the dream of equal hunting rights out of your head is the first thing that needs to happen. I don’t agree with FN having different hunting rights but when you do enough research you understand it’s a battle you won’t win.

The better approach is put in more effort to communicate with the different bands developing a relationship to get them more involved with conservation and wildlife management.

Hunters need to stop fighting with different user groups and put more effort into working within the system in place if we want results. Having a ****ing match and throwing your hands in the air trying to make everything equal well game numbers are effected clearly has been failing

But really hunters can’t even come together enough to sort out better residency requirement standards so might want to get some unity sorted out with smaller issues first

What exactly do you believe the bands will agree to? If you mention declining game populations, the response will be to end all sport hunting. If you suggest they fill out harvest reports, they will refuse, because you are trying to regulate them. It's a no win situation, and game populations will decline , until sport hunting is stopped, but even then, non regulated hunting will continue, until species are wiped out. The last holdouts will be private land, where non regulated hunters can't get legal access, and even then they will continue to hunt illegally, until some liberal judge gives them the right to legally trespass without permission to hunt.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

What exactly do you believe the bands will agree to? If you mention declining game populations, the response will be to end all sport hunting. If you suggest they fill out harvest reports, they will refuse, because you are trying to regulate them. It's a no win situation, and game populations will decline , until sport hunting is stopped, but even then, non regulated hunting will continue, until species are wiped out. The last holdouts will be private land, where non regulated hunters can't get legal access, and even then they will continue to hunt illegally, until some liberal judge gives them the right to legally trespass without permission to hunt.

Have you tried this approach in a well organized manner? I am going to say likely not

Have you sat down with a chief and ever spoke conservation and about finding middle ground to benefit both FN & non FN hunter? I bet the answer is the same as the first

The present approach of complaining and trying to demand they give up their rights sure isn’t going to work or even open up a conversation that much I will promise you

But I am going to leave it there as this is just unproductive drama. Until their is realization that hunters need to figure out how to work together and compromise it’s going to be the same old crying with no results

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

Have you tried this approach in a well organized manner? I am going to say likely not

Have you sat down with a chief and ever spoke conservation and about finding middle ground to benefit both FN & non FN hunter? I bet the answer is the same as the first

The present approach of complaining and trying to demand they give up their rights sure isn’t going to work or even open up a conversation that much I will promise you

But I am going to leave it there as this is just unproductive drama. Until their is realization that hunters need to figure out how to work together and compromise it’s going to be the same old crying with no results

I haven't sat with chiefs to discuss this, but I have discussed this with several people that vote for the chiefs, and not one was willing to even consider the idea of filing harvest reports. All considered it a form of regulating their hunting, so it was a hard no. As far as any kind of limits on how much they could kill, another hard no. Some wouldn't even consider safety regulations, such as the 200 yards from a dwelling , or shooting from a vehicle, they felt their rights should even allow them to trespass without permission. One of the chiefs in the area was Allan Adam, if you know him, you would know that there is no reasoning with him, if you want any concessions from him, he has to be paid. He even took $55k to publicly oppose an industry that employs his band.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I haven't sat with chiefs to discuss this, but I have discussed this with several people that vote for the chiefs, and not one was willing to even consider the idea of filing harvest reports. All considered it a form of regulating their hunting, so it was a hard no. As far as any kind of limits on how much they could kill, another hard no. Some wouldn't even consider safety regulations, such as the 200 yards from a dwelling , or shooting from a vehicle, they felt their rights should even allow them to trespass without permission. One of the chiefs in the area was Allan Adam, if you know him, you would know that there is no reasoning with him, if you want any concessions from him, he has to be paid. He even took $55k to publicly oppose an industry that employs his band.

One chief that is tough to approach and a few members who vote doesn’t cover all of Alberta. Your mind is set so go pick your fight with FN and we can talk about how it went next year

Not going to bother discussing further as it’s not worth the effort especially on a thread that isn’t even about FN rights

[Bushleague]

Originally Posted by Pathfinder76

You are right. It’s not near enough.

Yeah, just a little more money and they could successfully re-introduce some obscure rodent to south eastern AB. Or pay a few more summer students to harass songbirds making their way north. Awesome.

[Bushleague]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

One chief that is tough to approach and a few members who vote doesn’t cover all of Alberta. Your mind is set so go pick your fight with FN and we can talk about how it went next year

Not going to bother discussing further as it’s not worth the effort especially on a thread that isn’t even about FN rights

Unlike us, the FN know better than to give a single inch. Not saying I agree with it.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by Bushleague

Unlike us, the FN know better than to give a single inch. Not saying I agree with it.

There is actually bands that are starting to work with wildlife management in Canada to benefit fish/game numbers to an extent. So they do cooperate when they see it as beneficial

But they don’t hesitate to stand their ground. Not always for the right reasons or the best methods in my opinion but you have to respect that they do. They don’t exactly get treated the same as we would if we copied the example of how they go about things

Resident hunters could definitely benefit from raising their voice more than they do

[Knotter]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

Resident hunters could definitely benefit from raising their voice more than they do

This

[heretohunt]

I wonder why The non-trophy sheep season in WMU 410 now ends October 31?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

There is actually bands that are starting to work with wildlife management in Canada to benefit fish/game numbers to an extent. So they do cooperate when they see it as beneficial

But they don’t hesitate to stand their ground. Not always for the right reasons or the best methods in my opinion but you have to respect that they do. They don’t exactly get treated the same as we would if we copied the example of how they go about things

Resident hunters could definitely benefit from raising their voice more than they do

Having been in the oilsands industry, I learned that it almost always came down to a matter of dollars. When you wanted a new lease, they refused, because the new lease will harm the moose population, or it will contaminate the fish. They refused until the dollar offer gets high enough, then all concern for the moose or the fish is forgotten . When the company is finished with that lease, and asks for another one, the process just repeats itself.
A friend is outfitting for bear up north, and one road is being illegally blockaded, but he was offered free passage on that road for $40,000. Some people would call that cooperation, some would call it extortion.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Having been in the oilsands industry, I learned that it almost always came down to a matter of dollars. When you wanted a new lease, they refused, because the new lease will harm the moose population, or it will contaminate the fish. They refused until the dollar offer gets high enough, then all concern for the moose or the fish is forgotten . When the company is finished with that lease, and asks for another one, the process just repeats itself.
A friend is outfitting for bear up north, and one road is being illegally blockaded, but he was offered free passage on that road for $40,000. Some people would call that cooperation, some would call it extortion.

Mirror time....

First Nations in general are acting no better than Non Nation business trying to make money.

In reflection, business in general is as bad or Worse when it comes to the care of Nature vs making a buck.


Many here on AO are supportive of access fees, paying CLAS....
"We" are no better....

[Pathfinder76]

Really? lol.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Having been in the oilsands industry, I learned that it almost always came down to a matter of dollars. When you wanted a new lease, they refused, because the new lease will harm the moose population, or it will contaminate the fish. They refused until the dollar offer gets high enough, then all concern for the moose or the fish is forgotten . When the company is finished with that lease, and asks for another one, the process just repeats itself.
A friend is outfitting for bear up north, and one road is being illegally blockaded, but he was offered free passage on that road for $40,000. Some people would call that cooperation, some would call it extortion.

Consulting FN regarding conservation of fish & game and trying to reach some level of communication is not the same as industry getting approval for land use/resource extraction

Been on this forum long enough to know it’s a waste of effort to get you to even consider something you don’t initially agree with so I am not going to bother.

The options you are left with your mindset is try to fight treaty rights or complain well nothing changes so if that is a better path then I suggest giver and you can keep complaining about FN hunting next year and the year after that. Likely you will be able to do so till the bitter end if non FN keep on that path

Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results sure doesn’t change anything so I am not interested in that path

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

Consulting FN regarding conservation of fish & game and trying to reach some level of communication is not the same as industry getting approval for land use/resource extraction

Been on this forum long enough to know it’s a waste of effort to get you to even consider something you don’t initially agree with so I am not going to bother.

The options you are left with your mindset is try to fight treaty rights or complain well nothing changes so if that is a better path then I suggest giver and you can keep complaining about FN hunting next year and the year after that. Likely you will be able to do so till the bitter end if non FN keep on that path

Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results sure doesn’t change anything so I am not interested in that path

I have no issue reducing my harvest to ensure the survival of our game populations, I don't complain if I can't hunt a species every year, or every few years, if it means that all hunters do the same. But to properly manage game populations, everyone would need to make the same concessions, and I am a realist, in that I don't see that happening. The unregulated hunters would see all sport hunting end, so that they can continue hunting longer, and the outfitters would see resident hunters give up opportunity, so that they can keep making money off of our game populations. And then there are the anti hunters , that want all hunting to end, but some of them would allow limited hunting to continue under the guise of subsistence hunting.
The fact is, that sport hunting will continue to face more and more opposition, and many animal populations will continue to decline, until sport hunting is abolished. The animal populations will survive longer on private property, because access is limited, but now there is even a movement to give some people the right to trespass without permission, on private land.
And we also have the anti firearms movement, that will continue to ban more and more firearms, which will make more people give up hunting. So we as sport hunters ,have little option, but to continue to carry on our sport/tradition, as long as we are allowed, under ever increasing restrictions, and more and more opposition from multiple sources.
And we all realize that there is no way to stop this, future generations will see less and less opportunities, until those opportunities are legislated away entirely.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I have no issue reducing my harvest to ensure the survival of our game populations, I don't complain if I can't hunt a species every year, or every few years, if it means that all hunters do the same. But to properly manage game populations, everyone would need to make the same concessions, and I am a realist, in that I don't see that happening. The unregulated hunters would see all sport hunting end, so that they can continue hunting longer, and the outfitters would see resident hunters give up opportunity, so that they can keep making money off of our game populations. And then there are the anti hunters , that want all hunting to end, but some of them would allow limited hunting to continue under the guise of subsistence hunting.
The fact is, that sport hunting will continue to face more and more opposition, and many animal populations will continue to decline, until sport hunting is abolished. The animal populations will survive longer on private property, because access is limited, but now there is even a movement to give some people the right to trespass without permission, on private land.
And we also have the anti firearms movement, that will continue to ban more and more firearms, which will make more people give up hunting. So we as sport hunters ,have little option, but to continue to carry on our sport/tradition, as long as we are allowed, under ever increasing restrictions, and more and more opposition from multiple sources.
And we all realize that there is no way to stop this, future generations will see less and less opportunities, until those opportunities are legislated away entirely.

I am a realist as well and as I stated there is already conservation project's and agreements between FN bands in Canada taking place. I am not talking equal hunting opportunities or removing FN hunting rights I am talking about conservation about mutually beneficial conversations with FN regarding conservation

You have made it clear in your post you choose the “ can’t do anything path “ so you might as well stop complaining and expect it I guess. Realist looks at what options are available they can work with to make some ground a defeatist throws their hands up in the air say “ we are doomed and can’t do anything”

You have made it clear in this post you are not in search of any attempt in making positive change and would rather complain so any conversation about actual trying to improve the future of hunting or conservation is lost on you

No point in continuing this conversation as you have made your choice that everything is doomed

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

I am a realist as well and as I stated there is already conservation project's and agreements between FN bands in Canada taking place. I am not talking equal hunting opportunities or removing FN hunting rights I am talking about conservation about mutually beneficial conservation with FN regarding conservation

You have made it clear in your post you choose the “ can’t do anything path “ so you might as well stop complaining and expect it I guess. Realist looks at what options are available they can work with to make some ground a defeatist throws their hands up in the air say “ we are doomed and can’t do anything”

You have made it clear in this post you are not in search of any attempt in making positive change and would rather complain so any conversation about actual trying to improve the future of hunting or conservation is lost on you

No point in continuing this conversation as you have made your choice that everything is doomed

I have made it clear, that I believe that proper game management requires concessions from everyone, and yes that would include changes to non regulated harvest practices. You can agree or disagree with that, but the fact is, that you can't manage the populations, unless you manage the entire harvest. When you can tell me how we can accomplish that, I am listening. In the meantime, the trend of declining opportunities for resident sport hunters will continue.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I have made it clear, that I believe that proper game management requires concessions from everyone, and yes that would include changes to non regulated harvest practices. You can agree or disagree with that, but the fact is, that you can't manage the populations, unless you manage the entire harvest. When you can tell me how we can accomplish that, I am listening.

I spent a few years working on projects with bio’s in wildlife management when I lived in BC. I could get into a long winded conversation about actually how bio’s in both BC and Alberta(Canada wide actually) are facing much bigger issues regarding wildlife population assessment than FN harvest. I could get into all the BS of lack of funds, lack of field time and how things have become more political than scientific. Yup even had lots of off the record conversations with biologists regarding FN impact on wildlife populations and it is a real issue in some cases

But I am not going to put effort into an individual who is not going to assess information beyond the conclusion they have already reached. Learned long ago that it’s not worth the effort and it’s better to focus effort on others that actually are in search of solutions

When you stop complaining and only looking at can’t a conversation may be worth the effort but at this time I might as well discuss issues with my dog as it will achieve the same results

I respect you are not afraid to take a stand on your opinion but it also makes you an individual that is not worth discussing anything you don’t instantly support.

No diss respect but I have no interest in putting in an effort with an individual like yourself who will not bend on a subject they have already reached a conclusion on

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

I spent a few years working on projects with bio’s in wildlife management when I lived in BC. I could get into a long winded conversation about actually how bio’s in both BC and Alberta(Canada wide actually) are facing much bigger issues regarding wildlife population assessment than FN harvest. I could get into all the BS of lack of funds, lack of field time and how things have become more political than scientific. Yup even had lots of off the record conversations with biologists regarding FN impact on wildlife populations and it is a real issue in some cases

But I am not going to put effort into an individual who is not going to assess information beyond the conclusion they have already reached. Learned long ago that it’s not worth the effort and it’s better to focus effort on others that actually are in search of solutions

When you stop complaining and only looking at can’t a conversation may be worth the effort but at this time I might as well discuss issues with my dog as it will achieve the same results

I respect you are not afraid to take a stand on your opinion but it also makes you an individual that is not worth discussing anything you don’t instantly support.

No diss respect but I have no interest in putting in an effort with an individual like yourself who will not bend on a subject they have already reached a conclusion on

So in short, you don't have a viable solution either?

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So in short, you don't have a viable solution either?

Pretty much.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So in short, you don't have a viable solution either?

Offered a suggestion you have no interest in hence the whole conversation

You offered can’t do anything it’s too hard so ok we are done