Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Hunting Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old 01-21-2022, 01:15 PM
huntwat huntwat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7magtime View Post
Just looking at antlered moose, these were the 2021 allocations per WMU.

https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/de23...eason-2021.pdf

Below is total antlered moose resident tags % to outfitter tags % per WMU for the 2021 season:

412-6 to 9 (outfitters 150% of tags)
414-15 to 8 (outfitters 53% of tags)
417-3 to 8 (outfitters 260% of tags)
420-5 to 8 (outfitters 160% of tags)
422-5 to 6 (outfitters 120% of tags)
426-3 to 7 (outfitters 233% of tags)
428-5 to 6 (outfitters 120% of tags)
430-5 to 7 (outfitters 140% of tags)
432-5 to 4 (outfitters 80% of tags)
434-5 to 10 (outfitters 200% of tags)
436-5 to 10 (outfitters 200% of tags)
437-10 to 20 (outfitters 200% of tags)
438-15 to 23 (outfitters 153% of tags)
439-5 to 3 (outfitters 60% of tags)
440-15 to 8 (outfitters 53% of tags)
441-15 to 19 (outfitters 127% of tags)

This is just for the mountain WMU’s which shows how lopsided the current system is for resident to outfitter allocations and that it’s nowhere near the supposed 10% for outfitters. The 300’s WMU’s are not skewed as much but many are still over the so called “10% allowed”.

If I’m interpreting these numbers incorrectly, please enlighten me on where the mistake is….

As well, please explain how the draw times for residents in these WMU’s would not decrease if the outfitter allocations for the WMU’s above were cut back to the required 10% for the 2022 season?
I understand where you’re coming from and agree with you. But your numbers are way off.


412- 9/15 tags
414- 8/22 tags
417- 8/11 tags

And so on. Still much higher than 10% “allowed”
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 01-21-2022, 01:15 PM
Torkdiesel's Avatar
Torkdiesel Torkdiesel is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North of the Kakwa
Posts: 3,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
It is the same line, because it is for the same animals, it's just that the non residents start at the front of the line, in front of the residents.
I’m not aware of any draws where non resident aliens apply and get drawn.

They pay a premium for a tag that was allocated to non residents as part of the tourism industry.

Like I’ve said plenty of times before, if 9 out of 10 balls isn’t enough, chances are it’s greed rearing it’s ugly head again.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 01-21-2022, 01:15 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marky_mark View Post
It takes about 15min to be an alberta resident
Do you think that they should be treated the same as you?
So using that line of reasoning, long term residents should come first, then short term residents, then non residents.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 01-21-2022, 01:20 PM
Torkdiesel's Avatar
Torkdiesel Torkdiesel is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North of the Kakwa
Posts: 3,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rackmastr View Post
Does that math include antlerless/supplemental tags in the equation? I know that BC always uses the number in the equation but really 'allocated tags' is a different conversation when talking about tags that have any 'value'. I honestly dont know if thats part of the equation or not (not being confrontational), but certainly needs to be considered when doing the math when talking about demand.
No. I just used “desirable game” I guess

Antlered and bears.

What the don’t factor in when complaining about the handful of WMU’s that are over allocated (25 instances total maybe) is the other 500 times they’re under allocated, or not allocated at all.

Like Elk, bears, whitetails…… almost like it would balance out, maybe 🤔
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 01-21-2022, 01:21 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torkdiesel View Post
I’m not aware of any draws where non resident aliens apply and get drawn.

They pay a premium for a tag that was allocated to non residents as part of the tourism industry.

Like I’ve said plenty of times before, if 9 out of 10 balls isn’t enough, chances are it’s greed rearing it’s ugly head again.

Exactly, they go to the front of the line, and don't have to be drawn. Many residents would gladly pay the non resident alien tag fee, if it meant not having to draw, but they aren't allowed to. Yes greed is the reason for all of this, the greed that has outfitters taking opportunity from tax paying residents, so they can make money from the non residents. It's all about money.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 01-21-2022, 01:24 PM
Smoky buck Smoky buck is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 7,329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marky_mark View Post
You need to look at the zone your listed
There is a few where you were 100% successful in drawing a tag of you were a 0
How many undersubscribed tags should residents have before we allow a non resident to chase the same animal?
Personally a set % should not be deviated from regardless if the are going to become undersubscribed tags.

Truth of the matter is if the allowable harvest is not being met through draw then consider creating a form of non draw opportunity is the better option then increasing outfitters allocation

Grey areas should not exist in the allocation process in my opinion. This would help eliminate a portion of the disputes
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 01-21-2022, 01:24 PM
Rackmastr Rackmastr is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torkdiesel View Post
No. I just used “desirable game” I guess

Antlered and bears.

What the don’t factor in when complaining about the handful of WMU’s that are over allocated (25 instances total maybe) is the other 500 times they’re under allocated, or not allocated at all.

Like Elk, bears, whitetails…… almost like it would balance out, maybe 🤔
10-4. Was just curious as I've seen the math used where antlerless game and 'less desirable' tags were used in the equation.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 01-21-2022, 01:57 PM
7magtime's Avatar
7magtime 7magtime is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far Enough From The City, AB
Posts: 1,569
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marky_mark View Post
You need to look at the zone your listed
There is a few where you were 100% successful in drawing a tag of you were a 0
How many undersubscribed tags should residents have before we allow a non resident to chase the same animal?
There wasn’t a few drawn at 100%, that applied to 2 out of the 16 WMU’s I listed above(432 and 436). The majority of the WMU’s above are priority 3 to 10 for 100% of residents to be drawn.

Unless I’m mistaken, WMU’s with undersubscribed tags don’t determine the number of allocations given to outfitters? If that’s the case, please fill me in on how that is determined.
So if a WMU has undersubscribed tags, the maximum 10% outfitter allocation requirement should be tossed and Outfitters get first dibs on those undersubscribed tags before residents?
__________________
"Better To Be Judged By 12, Then Buried By Six"
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 01-21-2022, 02:13 PM
7magtime's Avatar
7magtime 7magtime is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far Enough From The City, AB
Posts: 1,569
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntwat View Post
I understand where you’re coming from and agree with you. But your numbers are way off.


412- 9/15 tags
414- 8/22 tags
417- 8/11 tags

And so on. Still much higher than 10% “allowed”

Thanks for the catch. I posted the % of tags outfitters get compared to residents for the same WMU, not the outfitter % compared to the total tags given for that WMU. I should have posted both of those %’s.
Agreed that outfitter allocations are still much higher than 10% for those WMU’s when comparing their allocations to the total allocations.
__________________
"Better To Be Judged By 12, Then Buried By Six"
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 01-21-2022, 02:33 PM
Bigfeet Bigfeet is online now
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntwat View Post
I understand where you’re coming from and agree with you. But your numbers are way off.


412- 9/15 tags
414- 8/22 tags
417- 8/11 tags

And so on. Still much higher than 10% “allowed”
Does this mean, for example
412 -9/15:
9 outfitter tags
15 resident tags
total of 23 (39% of all tags for outfitters)

or

9 of 15 total tags are for outfitters? (60% of all tags for outfitters)

Either way the percentage is still far too high for outfitters.
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 01-21-2022, 02:35 PM
Torkdiesel's Avatar
Torkdiesel Torkdiesel is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North of the Kakwa
Posts: 3,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post

It's all about money

.
Generally any industry is! I mean, it was created to bring revenue into the country which otherwise wouldn’t come in, that’s how foreign tourism works.
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 01-21-2022, 02:46 PM
marky_mark marky_mark is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
So using that line of reasoning, long term residents should come first, then short term residents, then non residents.
What I’m saying is that there should be more required to be an alberta resident
Such as a waiting period
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 01-21-2022, 02:52 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torkdiesel View Post
Generally any industry is! I mean, it was created to bring revenue into the country which otherwise wouldn’t come in, that’s how foreign tourism works.
It all comes down to what everyone else has to give up, for some people to make that money. And hunters aren't really tourists, nobody would care if they just came to look at our wildlife, like most tourists do.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 01-21-2022, 02:53 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marky_mark View Post
What I’m saying is that there should be more required to be an alberta resident
Such as a waiting period
I have no issue with that, the residency requirements do need to be changed, too many people are buying resident licenses in multiple provinces.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 01-21-2022, 03:37 PM
huntwat huntwat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfeet View Post
does this mean, for example
412 -9/15:
9 outfitter tags
15 resident tags
total of 23 (39% of all tags for outfitters)

or

9 of 15 total tags are for outfitters? (60% of all tags for outfitters)

either way the percentage is still far too high for outfitters.
9/15= 60%
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 01-21-2022, 03:39 PM
huntwat huntwat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marky_mark View Post
What I’m saying is that there should be more required to be an alberta resident
Such as a waiting period
Sorry, I assumed it was 6 months residency to become a resident. It used to be.
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 01-21-2022, 03:57 PM
sir_charlie sir_charlie is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Calgary
Posts: 82
Default Mule Deer Allocations

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLH View Post
I'm sure the management plan states only 10% allocated to outfitters. Many of the high priority mountain, foothill zones are way above that.

https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/4550...eason-2021.pdf

Am I reading this right?

Is AFGA aware of this (a bit rhetorical as I will be contacting them soon)?

You sure kicked a wasps nests with this post


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 01-21-2022, 04:26 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntwat View Post
Sorry, I assumed it was 6 months residency to become a resident. It used to be.
If it was like that, it was many years ago, people have been moving into alberta and buying resident licenses within 6 months for a long time.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 01-21-2022, 04:28 PM
Smoky buck Smoky buck is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 7,329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntwat View Post
Sorry, I assumed it was 6 months residency to become a resident. It used to be.
I can tell you for a fact there has been no residency time requirements in the last 22years in Alberta

I am very confident there has never been a 6 month waiting period in Alberta even
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 01-21-2022, 04:41 PM
Rackmastr Rackmastr is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoky buck View Post
I can tell you for a fact there has been no residency time requirements in the last 22years in Alberta

I am very confident there has never been a 6 month waiting period in Alberta even
Yep, not something I've seen, though I'm only 40. I'd be shocked if something was in place before then though, given that regs like that are more of a 'modern' approach than in the past.
Reply With Quote
  #201  
Old 01-21-2022, 05:24 PM
Smoky buck Smoky buck is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 7,329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rackmastr View Post
Yep, not something I've seen, though I'm only 40. I'd be shocked if something was in place before then though, given that regs like that are more of a 'modern' approach than in the past.
Only 40 myself but I have moved to Alberta from BC 3 different times and know I have never had to wait to hunt as an Alberta resident. I actually waited 6 months when I moved to Alberta at 18 thinking the rules were the same as BC
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 01-21-2022, 06:11 PM
huntwat huntwat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,153
Default

Hmmmm. Interesting. I’m sure I didn’t grab that number out of the air. Never the less, another thing that needs to be changed.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 01-21-2022, 06:35 PM
Smoky buck Smoky buck is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 7,329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntwat View Post
Hmmmm. Interesting. I’m sure I didn’t grab that number out of the air. Never the less, another thing that needs to be changed.
6 months is BCs wait time and many people on this forum have posted they want Alberta to adapt a 6 month waiting period

Odds are that is where you got it from

All I can promise you is I know from firsthand experience Alberta has not had a waiting period in 22 years. Outside of that maybe but I don’t see it likely that Alberta had a wait time before then though
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 01-22-2022, 09:16 AM
7magtime's Avatar
7magtime 7magtime is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far Enough From The City, AB
Posts: 1,569
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torkdiesel View Post
The greed part is having 9 of the 10 balls on the playground, and yelling and screaming like a child because you want the 10th ball too.

In actuality it’s more like 98 of the 100 balls overall in the province. Outfitters only get about 2% of the allocated tags overall.

I don’t want it doubled, and it some cases where the numbers are currently off it should be adjusted. But that’s entirely different then wanting every allocation in the province on draw eliminated.

I’m not sure who’s making a substandard living but perhaps they should revamp their business model. Covid years aside of course

So with that mindset Tork, why are outfitters and APOS willing to bring heat on their organizations knowing that many allocations for certain species in many WMU’s in this province are above the maximum of 10% of resident tags?

Why have outfitters and APOS not collaborated with and enabled AEP to get the 5 year outfitters allocation review finalized and signed that expired in 2017 and has now become a 10+ year outfitter review?

You know why?
Because outfitters are making more money for their outfits on those extra allocations above the 10% and it doesn’t bother them one bit knowing those extra allocations should be going to a resident who now has to wait longer to be drawn for that tag.

Outfitters getting those allocations above the 10%-more $$ in their pockets, often the same clients buying those tags year after year.
Resident who should be getting those allocations above the 10%-quality hunts with friends and family that are only possible every few years, bonus is a full freezer if successful(no $$ in their pockets).

I think outfitters and APOS have definitely shown their greed with the way the current system is run.
It will be interesting to see if these current oversights with the higher than 10% outfitter allocations will be corrected in the next “10year” outfitter allocation review(whenever that will finally be signed). I doubt very much that outfitters and APOS will speak up if there are still oversights then that affect residents….
__________________
"Better To Be Judged By 12, Then Buried By Six"
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 01-22-2022, 01:40 PM
Torkdiesel's Avatar
Torkdiesel Torkdiesel is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North of the Kakwa
Posts: 3,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7magtime View Post
So with that mindset Tork, why are outfitters and APOS willing to bring heat on their organizations knowing that many allocations for certain species in many WMU’s in this province are above the maximum of 10% of resident tags?

Why have outfitters and APOS not collaborated with and enabled AEP to get the 5 year outfitters allocation review finalized and signed that expired in 2017 and has now become a 10+ year outfitter review?

You know why?
Because outfitters are making more money for their outfits on those extra allocations above the 10% and it doesn’t bother them one bit knowing those extra allocations should be going to a resident who now has to wait longer to be drawn for that tag.

Outfitters getting those allocations above the 10%-more $$ in their pockets, often the same clients buying those tags year after year.
Resident who should be getting those allocations above the 10%-quality hunts with friends and family that are only possible every few years, bonus is a full freezer if successful(no $$ in their pockets).

I think outfitters and APOS have definitely shown their greed with the way the current system is run.
It will be interesting to see if these current oversights with the higher than 10% outfitter allocations will be corrected in the next “10year” outfitter allocation review(whenever that will finally be signed). I doubt very much that outfitters and APOS will speak up if there are still oversights then that affect residents….
You have to remember you’re talking about 15-20 of the 500 outfitters in the province who are currently sitting within the bracket you’re talking about. I’m not sure the APOS is trying to screw anyone or outfitters in general for that matter. Other then I don’t want to see anybody lose allocations they paid for.

If I was in charge, I would have a 2 year grace period when numbers of tags are reduced. And…. allocations would be based solely on WMU’s, not SMUs.
So you get the calendar year you’re in, and the following year then the adjustments are made. Set a hard cap at 10% across the board and increase numbers of allocations for non draw species to make up for the allocations that will need to be reduced.
But…… if you want the hard cap then you take the good with the bad. Take allocations away in the 25-30 WMU’s that have overages, but increase allocations in any zone that’s under 10% also. After all, what’s fair is fair.

Somehow I’m thinking that’s not the half of the fair most would be interested in…
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 01-22-2022, 02:40 PM
huntwat huntwat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torkdiesel View Post
But…… if you want the hard cap then you take the good with the bad. Take allocations away in the 25-30 WMU’s that have overages, but increase allocations in any zone that’s under 10% also. After all, what’s fair is fair.

Somehow I’m thinking that’s not the half of the fair most would be interested in…
The hard cap???? That’s what many are hoping for! 10% per zone. If there are 10 tags available total . 1 would be for non- res. 19 tags available 1 for non -res. No more than 10% per zone.

Some, myself included, are hoping for zero non-res tags for draw species.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 01-22-2022, 03:23 PM
Torkdiesel's Avatar
Torkdiesel Torkdiesel is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North of the Kakwa
Posts: 3,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntwat View Post
The hard cap???? That’s what many are hoping for! 10% per zone. If there are 10 tags available total . 1 would be for non- res. 19 tags available 1 for non -res. No more than 10% per zone.

Some, myself included, are hoping for zero non-res tags for draw species.
Yes, I would like to see a hard cap at 10%. That’s what I said.

I know what you’re hoping for, luckily that will never happen…. Ever !

I’m more interested in being fair !

And I’m a resident of Alberta, I don’t own one allocation in the province anymore. I share our resources with the rest of the world just like any other country.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 01-22-2022, 05:00 PM
huntwat huntwat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torkdiesel View Post
I share our resources with the rest of the world just like any other country.
Our neighbouring provinces don’t even do this.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 01-22-2022, 05:14 PM
Smoky buck Smoky buck is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 7,329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntwat View Post
Our neighbouring provinces don’t even do this.
Saskatchewan is the only one that doesn’t allow outfitters to have an allocation for species if residents are on draw

All other provinces and territories have a % of tags allocated to outfitters

That fact of the matter is outfitting is part of the tourism industry and most provinces will promote it because it adds to the economy.

Agree with it or not it’s a common practice in majority of Canada.

Actually before I put my foot in my mouth there is a few provinces that I don’t know for sure if they do give a % to outfitters but I would say at least most do

Last edited by Smoky buck; 01-22-2022 at 05:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 01-22-2022, 09:28 PM
OL_JR OL_JR is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dodge City
Posts: 1,283
Default

If we cut the allocations for draw tags Alberta outfitters would still have Whitetails, Sheep, Wolves, Black Bear, Elk, Cougar, Game Birds - if I'm missing any feel free to chime in...

Is that so bad?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.