How many on here would like to see an increase in draw wait times?

[270WIN]

TJ Schwanky has written an excellent article in the December, 2017 issue of Alberta Outdoorsmen which explains how the AGPAC sub-committee recommendations, if adopted, will almost certainly result in increased wait times for resident hunters who participate in the special license draws each year.
This article should be "required reading" for anyone who is concerned about the length of time it takes to get drawn for many of the licenses and about the prospect of increased wait times.
I believe that everyone who has such concerns should make them known in the form of a letter to the Alberta Game Policy Advisory Council (AGPAC) with copies you their MLA and the Alberta Fish and Game Association. Such letters should urge AGPAC to reject the sub-committee's recommendations in their entirety.

[dustinjoels]

Can you provide a summary? I don't have the magazine

[Bassett]

Haven't read the article but not necessarily wait times but I know tag numbers should decrease dramatically.

[purgatory.sv]

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VZD78H2

[MooseRiverTrapper]

Decrease outfitter allocations to 10% of harvest.
Decrease landowner tags to anterless only, some WMUs 38% of antlered MD harvest is by landowner tags.
Decrease non resident draws to zero.

How does that increase draw wait times?

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by purgatory.sv

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VZD78H2

That's the survey on the sub-commitee's recommendations. I strongly recommend reading TJ's article before completing the survey. It may change your mind on some of the answers you submit to survey questions. The sub-committee's comments which accompany its recommendations are, in a number of cases, ambiguous . TJ's article removes much of the ambiguity.
Individual letters, as suggested in my original post, would be more effective than just filling out the survey questionnaire in my opinion.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by MooseRiverTrapper

Decrease outfitter allocations to 10% of harvest.
Decrease landowner tags to anterless only, some WMUs 38% of antlered MD harvest is by landowner tags.
Decrease non resident draws to zero.

How does that increase draw wait times?

Read TJ's article.

[husky7mm]

Originally Posted by MooseRiverTrapper

Decrease outfitter allocations to 10% of harvest.
Decrease landowner tags to anterless only, some WMUs 38% of antlered MD harvest is by landowner tags.
Decrease non resident draws to zero.

How does that increase draw wait times?

Yup and make it a hybrid lottery draw.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by purgatory.sv

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VZD78H2

Originally Posted by 270WIN

That's the survey on the sub-commitee's recommendations. I strongly recommend reading TJ's article before completing the survey. It may change your mind on some of the answers you submit to survey questions. The sub-committee's comments which accompany its recommendations are, in a number of cases, ambiguous . TJ's article removes much of the ambiguity.
Individual letters, as suggested in my original post, would be more effective than just filling out the survey questionnaire in my opinion.

DO THE SURVEY. Because the survey must be complete by the 30th of November.

[Coyotebutcher]

Originally Posted by Bassett

Haven't read the article but not necessarily wait times but I know tag numbers should decrease dramatically.

So in your mind tag numbers are too high? But you think wait times should decrease. Do you understand the correlation between the two? Or do you just think less hunters should exist?

[SLH]

Standardize allocations across WMU's. 20% for bighorn sheep.

Hell No!

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by dustinjoels

Can you provide a summary? I don't have the magazine

Buy the mag and read the article. TJ's example explains it way better than any summary I could produce.

[Bushleague]

Originally Posted by 270WIN

Buy the mag and read the article. TJ's example explains it way better than any summary I could produce.

Cant really do that before the 30th at this point can I?

[Bassett]

Originally Posted by Coyotebutcher

So in your mind tag numbers are too high? But you think wait times should decrease. Do you understand the correlation between the two? Or do you just think less hunters should exist?

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said wait times should decrease. I only said I believe tag numbers should decrease. Less tags given = longer wait times. Never mentioned hunter numbers once either.

[Bub]

Don’t have the magazine either.

According to the survey, there were a whooping 1,000 draw applications and 300 animals were awarded to nonresidents and many guys here say that removing the nonresidents from the equation will change things for us? This is the first time I am seeing these numbers and if they are correct, I am ok with those guys staying in system and would actually encourage it.

[walking buffalo]

These are the NR Draw stats for 2016
The percentages have remained quite steady for the last 12 years.

2016 NR Special Licenses issued-
Total - 300
Applications - approx. 1000, Average Successful Priority Level - 3.3

WT - 1 out of 361 total licenses = 0.3%
MD - 149/10,188 = 1.5%
Elk - 32/1826 = 1.8%
Moose - 104/11,114 = 0.9%
Pronghorn - 14/678 = 2.1%

Total Licenses = 24,176
Total NR Licenses = 300, 1.2%


This proposal was highly sought out by APOS, determined to gain any and all access to NR hunting in the province. APOS claims illegal payments and loss of opportunity to have these NR buy their hunts as reasons for making the change.


Taking away NR Special licences will cost Alberta hunters more than they will ever gain.

Not only will we lose the opportunity to hunt with our friends and family that live elsewhere, Alberta would now be joining the path to reducing NR hunting in ALL other provinces.

Obviously this change will have absolutely ZERO effect in reducing Resident wait times.

Supporting this proposal is being very short sighted.

[spoiledsaskhunter]

Originally Posted by MooseRiverTrapper

Decrease outfitter allocations to 10% of harvest.
Decrease landowner tags to anterless only, some WMUs 38% of antlered MD harvest is by landowner tags.
Decrease non resident draws to zero.

How does that increase draw wait times?

I think these are all good ideas.....sorry all you objectors!

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

These are the NR Draw stats for 2016
The percentages have remained quite steady for the last 12 years.


Obviously this change will have absolutely ZERO effect in reducing Resident wait times.
.

Are you suggesting that having another 3800 resident draw tags over the past 12 years would have zero effect on wait times today?

[CNP]

...

[Ranger CS]

Originally Posted by SLH

Standardize allocations across WMU's. 20% for bighorn sheep.

Hell No!

I agree with you totally. Big Horn Sheep should be 10% consistent with the other the other ungulate species.
Problem with the survey it does not allow one to express one's thoughts on this. The fact that the Phase In strategy recommendation was combined with the allocation recommendation is wrong. IMO there does not need to be a 5 year phase in period. Just do it now.

[Ranger CS]

Originally Posted by purgatory.sv

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VZD78H2

Yes you can get it done before November 30th.

Thanks to Purgatory for posting the link to access the survey.

I encourage our members to complete it.

[Giles]

I would like to see Alberta try the way Saskatchewan does the mule deer and Whitetail seasons , I think the Mule deer season for rifle is from Nov 1-15 and whitetail rifle is from Nov 15-Dec2 . It’s seams to work for them and I think Alberta should look at cutting back on the season lengths . Would see a increase in game numbers and the quality would increase if that’s what you are into . Just my thoughts for the deer anyway .

[purgatory.sv]

Originally Posted by 270WIN

TJ Schwanky has written an excellent article in the December, 2017 issue of Alberta Outdoorsmen which explains how the AGPAC sub-committee recommendations, if adopted, will almost certainly result in increased wait times for resident hunters who participate in the special license draws each year.
This article should be "required reading" for anyone who is concerned about the length of time it takes to get drawn for many of the licenses and about the prospect of increased wait times.
I believe that everyone who has such concerns should make them known in the form of a letter to the Alberta Game Policy Advisory Council (AGPAC) with copies you their MLA and the Alberta Fish and Game Association. Such letters should urge AGPAC to reject the sub-committee's recommendations in their entirety.

Originally Posted by purgatory.sv

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VZD78H2

Originally Posted by 270WIN

That's the survey on the sub-commitee's recommendations. I strongly recommend reading TJ's article before completing the survey. It may change your mind on some of the answers you submit to survey questions. The sub-committee's comments which accompany its recommendations are, in a number of cases, ambiguous . TJ's article removes much of the ambiguity.
Individual letters, as suggested in my original post, would be more effective than just filling out the survey questionnaire in my opinion.

Originally Posted by 270WIN

Read TJ's article.

The survey is ambiguous.
It was presented because direction was requested.

It doesn't mean it will be observed,but it gives the population a chance ?

Participation is real action.

Real is actual participation .

Participation is just that.

Participation as an individual's satisfaction.

Results and what you may desire will depend on your actual commerce and commitment?


____.

[wind drift]

Originally Posted by purgatory.sv

The survey is ambiguous.
It was presented because direction was requested.

It doesn't mean it will be observed,but it gives the population a chance ?

Participation is real action.

Real is actual participation .

Participation is just that.

Participation as an individual's satisfaction.

Results and what you may desire will depend on your actual commerce and commitment?


____.

I really want to grasp your meaning, but it eludes me.

[purgatory.sv]

Meaning is simple.
You have to be a participant.

As one who participates you will determine outcomes?

As an individual you lead or align your values .

Leadership and truth while holding a value requires more than a truth.

As an individual i have value when it is more than the minority.

I hope this helps?

[fishnguy]

Originally Posted by bobalong

Are you suggesting that having another 3800 resident draw tags over the past 12 years would have zero effect on wait times today?

Unless I am misunderstanding your point, 300 tags over the past 12 years would come to 3,600 tags.

Yes, I think there is zero effect yesterday, today or tomorrow. 300 tags a year out of nearly 24,500 in total? Common, lets be real here. I really do not see a problem there. I am sure most or many of us have relatives and friends living elsewhere in the country.

On the other hand, in regards to the landowner tags, I really do not understand the logic behind the first two points below:

Three primary goals were intended for these licenses:
1. To reward landowners for providing land access to other hunters
2. To reward landowners for conserving wildlife habitat on their property
3. To help mitigate losses due to depredation from mule deer

And then if the numbers are true, this does not seem exactly fair, given the above does not make much sense (to me):

Provincially, 11% of the available antlered mule deer quotas are now allocated to landowner licenses. In over 50% of the 91 WMUs where landowner licenses are issued, these licenses exceed 20% of available quotas. In some WMUs, landowner licenses account for up to 38% of all antlered mule deer licenses sold.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by fishnguy

Unless I am misunderstanding your point, 300 tags over the past 12 years would come to 3,600 tags.

Yes, I think there is zero effect yesterday, today or tomorrow. 300 tags a year out of nearly 24,500 in total? Common, lets be real here. I really do not see a problem there. I am sure most or many of us have relatives and friends living elsewhere in the country.

On the other hand, in regards to the landowner tags, I really do not understand the logic behind the first two points below:


And then if the numbers are true, this does not seem exactly fair, given the above does not make much sense (to me):

It is I who may have been mistaken, I was thinking the 3600 tags were outfitter tags. I think Partner Tags with resident family and friends is a good idea.
I am not sure if taking tags away from landowners or restricting them to antlerless tags is going to be a good idea as far as them continuing to allow access. It appears the govt. are going to do it anyway, so I guess we will see.

[Ranch11]

As a landowner, I don’t see why I can’t get a buck tag or either sex tag. I feed the buggers year round, should be entitled to a deer.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by Ranch11

As a landowner, I don’t see why I can’t get a buck tag or either sex tag. I feed the buggers year round, should be entitled to a deer.

X2

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by Ranch11

As a landowner, I don’t see why I can’t get a buck tag or either sex tag. I feed the buggers year round, should be entitled to a deer.

i agree some might call you that. it may not think what you think it does though.

it seems to me the mule deer ate just fine before you planted crops there


as a landowner i don't feel as though i own anything i didn't purchase