|
|
12-18-2012, 03:10 PM
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pikergolf
I think it will end up being one or the other so I think it's a no brainer for the archers to support building priority in both. It's not like they need to slash numbers, probably a small percent that needs to get cut. Having said that taking away NR tags would probably eliminate for a while, the need for a draw, but eventually the archer pop. will over take the supply again.
|
That brings up an interesting point....I wonder how much the archery population will grow...or shrink.....if mule deer goes on draw. I can't imagine we'll see the growth rates that we now do.
If you can apply in both, wait times will go up substantially for archers.
|
12-18-2012, 03:18 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,158
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter
Ooops, should put my glasses on....WMU 221
|
9 resident tags were drawn from 163 applicants
6 total outfitter allocations
8 landowner tags were given out
And resident bowhunters are proposed to go on draw here.
|
12-18-2012, 03:21 PM
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deer Hunter
9 resident tags were drawn from 163 applicants
6 total outfitter allocations
8 landowner tags were given out
And resident bowhunters are proposed to go on draw here.
|
So the two percentages are added together on the same line to give an aggregate total of landowner and outfitter tags...thanks...that's all I wanted to know. A very interesting look at tag distribution in Alberta.
|
12-18-2012, 03:25 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11,561
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter
That brings up an interesting point....I wonder how much the archery population will grow...or shrink.....if mule deer goes on draw. I can't imagine we'll see the growth rates that we now do.
If you can apply in both, wait times will go up substantially for archers.
|
Why would wait times for archery be big, I can't see them needing to cut much. Even if they had to cut 15% that's still an 85% chance of getting an archery tag. So you sit out every 8th year. If it went to one or the other, I doubt archers would even miss a year.
|
12-18-2012, 03:25 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,158
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter
So the two percentages are added together on the same line to give an aggregate total of landowner and outfitter tags...thanks...that's all I wanted to know. A very interesting look at tag distribution in Alberta.
|
Just think of it as the remainder above the two groups shown is the resident draw group, and potentially now the resident bowhunters.
|
12-18-2012, 03:26 PM
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deer Hunter
Just think of it as the remainder above the two groups shown is the resident draw group, and potentially now the resident bowhunters.
|
Yup, got it now...makes sense....thanks.
I would think the number of resident draw tags will increase slightly (15-20%) in the WMUs where archery goes on draw but some WMUs sure favour the landowners and outfitters...very interesting stuff.
|
12-18-2012, 03:29 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Look behind you :)
Posts: 27,818
|
|
IMHO....
Resident hunter tag numbers should never be lower than allocated landowner or outfitter tags (as individual user groups) in ANY WMU.
....especially if the WMU is on draw....
LC
__________________
|
12-18-2012, 03:38 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,158
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter
some WMUs sure favour the landowners and outfitters...very interesting stuff.
|
These zone are what is refered to by the govt as "trophy zones" where the govt favors oufitters by keeping residents out (low numbers of draw tags and now archery on draw). Zones like 138 are perfect examples. Even the leaseholders there dont want anything to do with resident public access as i found out first hand this year. Keeping it for their landowner tags...
|
12-18-2012, 03:39 PM
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deer Hunter
These zone are what is refered to by the govt as "trophy zones" where the govt favors oufitters by keeping residents out (low numbers of draw tags and now archery on draw). Zones like 138 are perfect examples. Even the leaseholders there dont want anything to do with resident public access as i found out first hand this year. Keeping it for their landowner tags...
|
No doubt some big holes in the system.....your graphs demonstrate that well.
|
12-18-2012, 04:26 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Back in Lethbridge
Posts: 4,647
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter
That brings up an interesting point....I wonder how much the archery population will grow...or shrink.....if mule deer goes on draw. I can't imagine we'll see the growth rates that we now do.
If you can apply in both, wait times will go up substantially for archers.
|
If ESRD continues to use the defective math they are applying to estimate archery harvest, then you are likely correct. However, if they utilize statistics to project a (for sake of argument) 12% archery harvest for mule deer in each of these zones - which is exactly what they should be doing - then wait times would probably very short to non-existant in all but a handful of zones.
Deer Hunter, the graphs you posted make it very clear that there is a problem in AB, and it is not bow hunters. However, just so I am clear, are the percentages the landowner/guide allocation harvest as a percentage of total harvest? Or is it the percentage of resident harvest? Or are we looking at number of tags, and not actual harvest at all?
If it is the last option above, I would suggest that the guide/LO harvest as a percentage of total harvest would be substantially higher.
|
12-18-2012, 04:39 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,158
|
|
Numbers of landowner tags, resident /non resident draw tags and outfitter allocations is all that is in those charts. I should have been more clear.
|
12-18-2012, 04:52 PM
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudelpointer
If ESRD continues to use the defective math they are applying to estimate archery harvest, then you are likely correct. However, if they utilize statistics to project a (for sake of argument) 12% archery harvest for mule deer in each of these zones - which is exactly what they should be doing - then wait times would probably very short to non-existant in all but a handful of zones.
.
|
Ya, guess I was thinking that there will definitely be a few very popular zones with archers.
|
12-18-2012, 05:48 PM
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deer Hunter
Numbers of landowner tags, resident /non resident draw tags and outfitter allocations is all that is in those charts. I should have been more clear.
|
Have you sent these graphs to any of the groups on AGMAG? To ESRD?
Not to make a ton more work for you but it would be interesting to see the average of these numbers from the five-year period 2008-2012 as allocations are based on a five year cycle.
Not criticizing either but it might be simpler to understand if each of the three groups had its own vertical line for each WMU. This is some very useful info.
|
12-18-2012, 05:55 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: WMU 108
Posts: 6,354
|
|
Thanx for the extra work on compiling the stats for all the zones Deer Hunter .. very interesting .
|
12-18-2012, 06:15 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In the 400's
Posts: 6,581
|
|
If you archery hunt, during a general season , why would you have to purchase a bow permit?
__________________
How to start an argument online:
1. Express an opinion
2. Wait ....
|
12-18-2012, 06:21 PM
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pottymouth
If you archery hunt, during a general season , why would you have to purchase a bow permit?
|
Pretty sure the bow hunting licence was requested by archers as a means of tracking their numbers. I doubt anyone makes any money off of it other than IBM so if it really bothers you it might be a good time to lobby to have it removed although then there would be no means of tracking bow hunter numbers.
|
12-18-2012, 06:34 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,412
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocks
If the change was going through anyways it seems the ABA might want to negotiate details of the draw, no?
|
That is exactley the response that SRD is hoping for. After you lay down and roll over they can easily claim that you were in agreement as you DID agree and negotiate the terms. The ABA or any other group is just kidding themselves if they think they are getting anything they want from the negotiations. SRD is giving them what the intended all along. So why make it easier for them?
|
12-18-2012, 06:44 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,707
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 209x50
That is exactley the response that SRD is hoping for. After you lay down and roll over they can easily claim that you were in agreement as you DID agree and negotiate the terms. The ABA or any other group is just kidding themselves if they think they are getting anything they want from the negotiations. SRD is giving them what the intended all along. So why make it easier for them?
|
Are you an ABA member?
|
12-18-2012, 06:50 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,158
|
|
http://www.bowhunters.ca/files/Downl...%20Archery.pdf
Here are some numbers as to the 15% cap. 8% of big game hunters bowhunt mule deer and yet contribute to over15% of the harvest in some zones. A good read anyways.
|
12-18-2012, 06:55 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,412
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongDraw
Are you an ABA member?
|
no I'm not and I'm not criticizing the ABA. I'm just saying i don't agree with their course of action.
|
12-18-2012, 07:01 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11,561
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deer Hunter
|
Where is this from, is it a Gov. doc.?
|
12-18-2012, 07:03 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,158
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pikergolf
Where is this from, is it a Gov. doc.?
|
ABA website.
|
12-18-2012, 07:12 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Lethbridge
Posts: 742
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 209x50
no I'm not and I'm not criticizing the ABA. I'm just saying i don't agree with their course of action.
|
The course of action being taken by the ABA is because ESRD is hell bent on making a change to mule deer this year wether or not the numbers make sense. I guess their logic is that some justice (for lack of a better word), is better than no justice at all...
Basically ESRD just doesn't care what's right or wrong, reasonable or responsible, or pretty much anything...I wonder who thier brown-nosing now because EVERYONE is losing with this proposal...
Maybe there are antis working in ESRD???
|
12-18-2012, 07:14 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11,561
|
|
So it says it will be under draw code 13 which is the Mule deer draw. Archers should have their own draw, just to get the numbers of animals back below 15%, having to go into the main draw seems to be a little overkill, not?
|
12-18-2012, 07:20 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Lethbridge
Posts: 742
|
|
Try get that through to ESRD pikergolf...
|
12-18-2012, 07:21 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11,561
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.B.
The course of action being taken by the ABA is because ESRD is hell bent on making a change to mule deer this year wether or not the numbers make sense. I guess their logic is that some justice (for lack of a better word), is better than no justice at all...
Basically ESRD just doesn't care what's right or wrong, reasonable or responsible, or pretty much anything...I wonder who thier brown-nosing now because EVERYONE is losing with this proposal...
Maybe there are antis working in ESRD???
|
Proposal seems pretty reasonable to me other than the draw system, I think the archery season should have it's own draw to get the harvest no's down. With their own draw, the success rate for being drawn should be fairly high as most WMU's are not at a harvest rate that is way above the 15% harvest threshold.
|
12-18-2012, 07:30 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,707
|
|
Whether or not you think archers should or shouldn't draw, the "new" theme with SRD has been to take away resident opportunity to "balance the books" whilst the non resident hunter has less and less competition as time goes on.
This is now the new norm as hunters we recruit new hunters that know no other system.
Thanks for the charts deer hunter, hopefully the clarity you have provided creates enough outrage to get more letters written to SRD, ABA and AFGA.
|
12-18-2012, 07:36 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Lethbridge
Posts: 742
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pikergolf
Proposal seems pretty reasonable to me other than the draw system, I think the archery season should have it's own draw to get the harvest no's down. With their own draw, the success rate for being drawn should be fairly high as most WMU's are not at a harvest rate that is way above the 15% harvest threshold.
|
That's if you belive thier numbers...once you look at the data a little closer you realize most of the numbers are very unrealistic...I do believe certain zones are over 15% harvest but not by much and certainly not all the zones identified...a grade 3 student could do the math ESRD bases thier harvest data upon-trust me its not because kids are so smart these days. If sound data indicated there was indeed over harvest by all means implement a separate archery draw. Its only the responsible thing to do. But the numbers are rediculous, and so is the proposed change - hence the anger and frustration by so many hunters...
|
12-18-2012, 07:45 PM
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.B.
That's if you belive thier numbers...once you look at the data a little closer you realize most of the numbers are very unrealistic...I do believe certain zones are over 15% harvest but not by much and certainly not all the zones identified...a grade 3 student could do the math ESRD bases thier harvest data upon-trust me its not because kids are so smart these days. If sound data indicated there was indeed over harvest by all means implement a separate archery draw. Its only the responsible thing to do. But the numbers are rediculous, and so is the proposed change - hence the anger and frustration by so many hunters...
|
But yet we as hunters follow along and offer suggestions to soften the blow. At some point we need to draw a line in the sand and say no..............who knows if it would help but at least there is recourse then. If we comply and help build the future it pretty negates our voice in the future. ESRD has long used AGMAG as proof that it's meeting its responsibilities for public input and ultimately cooperative solutions to management. It will be interesting to see how the bighorn sheep issue plays out. Regardless, there will be room for recourse. Not so much in this case I don't think. It's time hunters and the groups that represent them start thinking differently and not believe that softening the blow is a victory.
|
12-18-2012, 07:55 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 773
|
|
What would be wrong with this idea other than the fact that it may be to complicated for SRD to manage.
Designate some zones as bow hunting only for a few years then alternate back to rifle accordingly. This way we could develop some trophy quality in some of the zones due to low bow hunter success and allowing the deer to actually get some age on them. The designated bow zones could then be put back into the rifle draw category and then designate new bow zones for a few years again and so on. This could also help take a bit of pressure off of landowners as per vehicle traffic since bow hunters must typically walk longer distances to attain success.
Could be a win-win situation if managed properly. Would this idea work?
|
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 07:25 PM.
|