|
|
12-17-2012, 09:23 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,158
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter
I see you chose the first option...lol
This thread is so indicitive of of the problems we face as hunters in this province. You'd rather spend all afternoon arguing that 2+2=9 than learn a little something to better arm yourself to take the government to task. We spend so much time fighting our personal little battles on here and pointing fingers at individuals that the big picture soon gets forgotten. We are so proud that we are unable to learn and facts that might not 100% support our position terrify us.
I'm sure the boys at SRD delight in this stuff while they slip into their Grinch suits for Christmas happily knowing that all the whos in whoville are busy arguing amoungest themselves and won't notice that they are once again stealing all the hunting opportunities from beneath the tree. We really deserve what we get.
At some point we need to let go of our petty little grievances and learn from each other and realize that we likely won't agree on all points of a situation but there is likely common ground in there somewhere that will make us all stronger, if we can shut up long enough to listen. I can honestly say that the unity shown among groups over the sheep changes is indeed refreshing and something foreign to the Alberta hunting community. With a little coaltion, you might be surprised what could be done. Or you can whine about how the hunting groups are doing nothing and keep arguing that 2+2=9. It's refreshing that there is life outside of this board....life that doesn't let their ego get in the way of what's good for all. Life that is willing to be quiet and learn when they need to and speak up when they should. Sadly, we are becoming a pretty heavy anchor around their feet. Enjoy the trip down...............
|
20,000 posts telling people what they are doing wrong, and then talks about getting a life outside this board? Nobody on here is as confrontational as this guy and so quick to pass the blame. Time somebody looked in the mirror.
Here is some data that I was given on the 300 Draw WMU's in 2010. IMO we are worrying about the wrong group here, bowhunters at 15 or 25% really make little difference when you compare their low success rate to the higher percentage groups shown here.
By WMU which some will claim isnt representitive for outfitters, but it sure is for resident hunters. Shows the variances in percent of the total antlered mule deer allocations. The remaining percent is made up of the resident draw. Of course archery mule deer tags could not be counted per WMU as they were general.
|
12-17-2012, 09:28 PM
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deer Hunter
Here is some data that I was given on the 300 Draw WMU's in 2010. IMO we are worrying about the wrong group here, bowhunters at 15 or 25% really make little difference when you compare their low success rate to the higher percentage groups shown here.
|
You are a smart guy deer hunter and you undoubtedly know lots of things about things that I don't have a clue about. I'm a smart guy and I likely know lots of things about things you dont have a clue about. There's a time to talk and a time to listen......
Good info you just posted
|
12-17-2012, 09:35 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: WMU 108
Posts: 6,354
|
|
Thanx for the info Deer Hunter . I had no idea that outfitter allocations are that much higher than landowner tags , not that I have any problem with landowner tags , seems some people point fingers at them too fast .I wonder what the ratio is in say the 100 and 200 zones .
|
12-17-2012, 10:24 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: south of Edm
Posts: 517
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deer Hunter
20,000 posts telling people what they are doing wrong, and then talks about getting a life outside this board? Nobody on here is as confrontational as this guy and so quick to pass the blame. Time somebody looked in the mirror.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter
. There's a time to talk and a time to listen......
|
Agreed.
Deerhunter, could you p.m. the source of this info. I would also like to see the 100/200 zones.
Last edited by missingtwo; 12-17-2012 at 10:29 PM.
|
12-17-2012, 10:53 PM
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by missingtwo
Agreed.
Deerhunter, could you p.m. the source of this info. I would also like to see the 100/200 zones.
|
What was your name before you got banned last time?
|
12-17-2012, 11:41 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: AB
Posts: 6,661
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter
What was your name before you got banned last time?
|
The capitalization on individual words in some of his posts, gave him away a while back....
On topic.....Deer hunter that chart makes me sick I knew the 100 wmus were bad,but had no idea that the 300's were that rough,yuck!
Maybe Paaaaackhunter can give us his opinion on the wmu 300 series outfitter muledeer allocation #'s........
__________________
|
12-18-2012, 05:34 AM
|
|
Gone Hunting
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: rooster heaven
Posts: 4,066
|
|
Whitetail Junkie, there are issues in this province. Becsuse you hate the thought of someone else delighted with an outdoor experience here, maybe you should stop railing me over it and give YOUR 2 bits,,, after trying to iron out why residents are being denied ability to be delighted with a low impact archery outdoor experience in this province...
__________________
MULEY MULISHA
It's just Alberta boys... Take what you can while you can,, if ya cant beat em join em.
Keep a strain on er
|
12-18-2012, 05:47 AM
|
|
Gone Hunting
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: rooster heaven
Posts: 4,066
|
|
If archers are being shut out for 2013, mule deer management must be back on the menu... I will be very happy to see a SUBSTANTIAL decrease in rifle tags for the upcoming fall. What a joy it finally is to see that extirpation of a species is no longer the mandate.
__________________
MULEY MULISHA
It's just Alberta boys... Take what you can while you can,, if ya cant beat em join em.
Keep a strain on er
|
12-18-2012, 06:47 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,412
|
|
Arguing over math at this juncture is pointless. By negotiating a draw the ABA has approved SRD's proclaimed findings and worse has vetted this entire cocked up process. It is impossible to appeal or complain about an outcome that you were involved in forging.
|
12-18-2012, 07:28 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SW Cowgree
Posts: 1,810
|
|
Am I reading that graph correctly,or am I missing something here??
Outfitter allocations actually account for up to 70% of the available tags??WTF!!!
.....that's just ridiculous
|
12-18-2012, 09:22 AM
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by packhuntr
If archers are being shut out for 2013, mule deer management must be back on the menu... I will be very happy to see a SUBSTANTIAL decrease in rifle tags for the upcoming fall. What a joy it finally is to see that extirpation of a species is no longer the mandate.
|
There won't be "rifle" tags in most WMUs this fall if ESRD gets their way....just tags that can be used in archery and/or rifle season for those that draw. I suspect you'll see at least a 15% increase in the number of tags available.
You are dreaming if you think this is about managing mule deer.....it's about managing hunter numbers.
|
12-18-2012, 10:42 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 294
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter
There won't be "rifle" tags in most WMUs this fall if ESRD gets their way....just tags that can be used in archery and/or rifle season for those that draw. I suspect you'll see at least a 15% increase in the number of tags available.
You are dreaming if you think this is about managing mule deer.....it's about managing hunter numbers.
|
I think you're actually closer to agreeing than disagreeing. Can you not effectively manage a species by managing the hunters (via tags available)?? If not, I'd like to hear.
|
12-18-2012, 10:48 AM
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbypetrolia
I think you're actually closer to agreeing than disagreeing. Can you not effectively manage a species by managing the hunters (via tags available)?? If not, I'd like to hear.
|
I think you like a lot of people seem to be totally missing the point of what ESRD is doing here. This has nothing to do with managing deer numbers. They have never said it does. The harvest isn't going to change.....just which hunter group gets allocated which percentage of the existing harvest. It has zero to do with managing deer numbers and everything to do with managing hunters.
|
12-18-2012, 10:57 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 294
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter
I think you like a lot of people seem to be totally missing the point of what ESRD is doing here. This has nothing to do with managing deer numbers. They have never said it does. The harvest isn't going to change.....just which hunter group gets allocated which percentage of the existing harvest. It has zero to do with managing deer numbers and everything to do with managing hunters.
|
I'm not missing any point here. I have read all the info on this thread and found most of it interesting, and some of it knowledgable. What did I say that would lead you to believe I am missing some kind of point?!? I actually never even commented on what ESRD is doing.
What I said was, and I will type slower; Can you not effectively manage a species' population by managing the number of hunters of said species? YOU said this isnt about managing mulie numbers; it was about managing hunters numbers. I was wondering what the difference was.
|
12-18-2012, 11:02 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Look behind you :)
Posts: 27,818
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbypetrolia
I'm not missing any point here. I have read all the info on this thread and found most of it interesting, and some of it knowledgable. What did I say that would lead you to believe I am missing some kind of point?!? I actually never even commented on what ESRD is doing.
What I said was, and I will type slower; Can you not effectively manage a species' population by managing the number of hunters of said species? YOU said this isnt about managing mulie numbers; it was about managing hunters numbers. I was wondering what the difference was.
|
I think the point SH was making is that the opportunity is decreasing for some hunters....and increasing for others. Thus the same amount of tags are being handed out, arguably with more rifle hunters the success rate (harvest numbers) will increase.
So the resource is not being managed at all as the same number of deer are expected to be killed....it is not like archery tags are going away and that percentage of harvest is being removed as well.
LC
__________________
|
12-18-2012, 11:05 AM
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbypetrolia
I'm not missing any point here. I have read all the info on this thread and found most of it interesting, and some of it knowledgable. What did I say that would lead you to believe I am missing some kind of point?!? I actually never even commented on what ESRD is doing.
What I said was, and I will type slower; Can you not effectively manage a species' population by managing the number of hunters of said species? YOU said this isnt about managing mulie numbers; it was about managing hunters numbers. I was wondering what the difference was.
|
And I'll type slower...they are not trying to manage mule deer numbers with this change. It has absolutely zero to do with managing the mule deer population. They are just redistributing the same harvest amoung different hunter groups. They are managing hunters to redistribute the same harvest. That's what you and others seem to be missing.
Truthfully, I suspect packhunter's comments were somewhat sarcastic as I'm sure he knows this has zero to do with game management.
In other cases sure ESRD manages hunter numbers to manage game but that is not the intent nor the result in this case.
|
12-18-2012, 11:09 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 294
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck
I think the point SH was making is that the opportunity is decreasing for some hunters....and increasing for others. Thus the same amount of tags are being handed out, arguably with more rifle hunters the success rate (harvest numbers) will increase.
So the resource is not being managed at all as the same number of deer are expected to be killed....it is not like archery tags are going away and that percentage of harvest is being removed as well.
LC
|
This is the answer to the question I was asking. Thank you LC.
|
12-18-2012, 11:16 AM
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck
I think the point SH was making is that the opportunity is decreasing for some hunters....and increasing for others. Thus the same amount of tags are being handed out, arguably with more rifle hunters the success rate (harvest numbers) will increase.
LC
|
I doubt we'll see a significant increase in tag numbers but we could add 20% more tags to the draw and see no increase in harvest I'm sure, 15% more for absolute certainty. I suspect wait times will decrease a bit for those in the draw as well.
|
12-18-2012, 11:22 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: southern Ab
Posts: 1,071
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter
I think you like a lot of people seem to be totally missing the point of what ESRD is doing here. This has nothing to do with managing deer numbers. They have never said it does. The harvest isn't going to change.....just which hunter group gets allocated which percentage of the existing harvest. It has zero to do with managing deer numbers and everything to do with managing hunters.
|
Agreed. In reallity any zones put on this draw format that were actually under the 15% archery success rate would more than likely have an increase in harvest due to greater success with a rifle would they not?
|
12-18-2012, 11:26 AM
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sakogreywolf
Agreed. In reallity any zones put on this draw format that were actually under the 15% archery success rate would more than likely have an increase in harvest due to greater success with a rifle would they not?
|
Only if they increase the number of tags available in the draw. If archers were taking 15% of the harvest on a general tag, they could add at least 15% more tags to the draw with no change in harvest and I suspect closer to 20% more as not all hunters are successful.
|
12-18-2012, 11:33 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: southern Ab
Posts: 1,071
|
|
And if they don't increase the tags available by draw, even the rifle hunters will lose due to increased wait times. It's a lose - lose for everyone.
|
12-18-2012, 11:42 AM
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sakogreywolf
And if they don't increase the tags available by draw, even the rifle hunters will lose due to increased wait times. It's a lose - lose for everyone.
|
I can't see wait times increasing much if at all if they don't increase tag numbers as the number of applicants isn't likely to increase much but there is no reason not to increase tag numbers by an absolute minimum of 15% if there is no concern over the number of animals currently being harvested in a WMU.
|
12-18-2012, 11:43 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,909
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter
Only if they increase the number of tags available in the draw. If archers were taking 15% of the harvest on a general tag, they could add at least 15% more tags to the draw with no change in harvest and I suspect closer to 20% more as not all hunters are successful.
|
15-20% increase in the number of tags, with no increase in hrarvest? Wasn't it already stated in this thread somewhere that most bow hunters are also rifle hunters? And rifle hunters are generally more successful than bow hunters. So how would the harvest numbers not change? I would think the actual harvest would likely increase by about 15%, wouldn't it?
__________________
Never say "Whoa" in a mud hole.
|
12-18-2012, 11:45 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 339
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter
Only if they increase the number of tags available in the draw. If archers were taking 15% of the harvest on a general tag, they could add at least 15% more tags to the draw with no change in harvest and I suspect closer to 20% more as not all hunters are successful.
|
So why change anything?
And what is the need to change things if they are only managing hunters not the deer? Who is complaining?
|
12-18-2012, 11:51 AM
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter
I can't see wait times increasing much if at all if they don't increase tag numbers as the number of applicants isn't likely to increase much but there is no reason not to increase tag numbers by an absolute minimum of 15% if there is no concern over the number of animals currently being harvested in a WMU.
|
I think it would decrease the wait in the zones i hunt. Id say archers taking 30% of the harvest over the past few seasons would be a very conservative estimate where i hunt. As all bow hunters i know also rifle hunt (generally wait to pull a tag elsewhere and hunt the local zones with the bow) there will be less pressure on the local deer and more tags (assuming 15% is added) with the same number of applicants. I also wonder if the draw isn't being backed by many landowners down here, several guys commented on how busy archery season is getting last year and again this fall. More archers than rifle hunters this year by far as draw tag cuts have been drastic.
|
12-18-2012, 11:55 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: AB
Posts: 6,661
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by packhuntr
Whitetail Junkie, there are issues in this province. Becsuse you hate the thought of someone else delighted with an outdoor experience here, maybe you should stop railing me over it and give YOUR 2 bits,,, after trying to iron out why residents are being denied ability to be delighted with a low impact archery outdoor experience in this province...
|
MY 2 BITS is that your the one on here licking the outfitter gouch,when it comes to them not having there allocations reduced or taken away(god willing)! look at deer hunters wmu 300 chart,did it ever occur to you that archery muledeer would'nt be going on draw if there were no outfitter allocations!....lick away pack,lick away.....
__________________
|
12-18-2012, 11:57 AM
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by albertadave
15-20% increase in the number of tags, with no increase in hrarvest? Wasn't it already stated in this thread somewhere that most bow hunters are also rifle hunters? And rifle hunters are generally more successful than bow hunters. So how would the harvest numbers not change? I would think the actual harvest would likely increase by about 15%, wouldn't it?
|
Nope, harvest is controlled by draw. Under current system.....let's use the example that draw accounts for 85% of harvest and the general tag (archers) account for 15% of target. If we remove the general opportunity we remove 15% of the harvest. Now we can add at least 15% more tags and still end up with same harvest even if rifle hunters are 100% successful.
|
12-18-2012, 11:59 AM
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pope
So why change anything?
And what is the need to change things if they are only managing hunters not the deer? Who is complaining?
|
SRD has a policy that says archers only get 15% of harvest...apparently they are exceeding that 15% in some WMUs.
|
12-18-2012, 12:02 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,909
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter
Nope, harvest is controlled by draw. Under current system.....let's use the example that draw accounts for 85% of harvest and the general tag (archers) account for 15% of target. If we remove the general opportunity we remove 15% of the harvest. Now we can add at least 15% more tags and still end up with same harvest even if rifle hunters are 100% successful.
|
Gotcha. It took a minute, but I see it now. Just finished my 14th straight night shift. Brain's a little tired lol.
__________________
Never say "Whoa" in a mud hole.
|
12-18-2012, 12:03 PM
|
Gone Hunting
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Rocky Mountain House
Posts: 5,219
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter
And I'll type slower...they are not trying to manage mule deer numbers with this change. It has absolutely zero to do with managing the mule deer population. They are just redistributing the same harvest amoung different hunter groups. They are managing hunters to redistribute the same harvest. That's what you and others seem to be missing.
Truthfully, I suspect packhunter's comments were somewhat sarcastic as I'm sure he knows this has zero to do with game management.
In other cases sure ESRD manages hunter numbers to manage game but that is not the intent nor the result in this case.
|
I think you are missing something in this.
X number of draw tags in a WMU and Y number of deer taken by bow hunters on a general tag.
The number of draw tags is controlable by F&W. However the number of general tags and the success of bow hunters (both of which contribute to increas in harvest) is not controled.
So in order to control harvest all hunters have to go on a controled number of draw tags.
A controlled number of draw tags IS part of mule deer management.
__________________
Robin,
Archery Sept. 1 - Oct. 31 Muzzleloader and Crossbow Oct. 1 - Oct. 31 Rifle Nov. 25 - Nov. 30
...And HIS kingdom shall have no end...
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:04 PM.
|