Number of Guide/Outfitter Tags Issued

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by jwilson

I can see how guys don't understand how they have to wait "x" amount of years when a non-resident can come every year, but I know that I personally don't need a trophy antelope every year, or a moose, or an elk or mule deer in the draw zones, (I could pull a landowner mule deer every year if I wanted) where I live I am content with the opportunity I have, eventually I'll pull a tag and I won't have to pay stupid money for it.
.

I'm pretty sure no resident hunter sees the need for trophy antelope, or moose, or elk, or mule deer every year. I don't think anyone ever said that.
The problem is others have that opportunity, in a province that I pay taxes in, and they don't.

[deerguy]

Originally Posted by huntwat

I'm pretty sure no resident hunter sees the need for trophy antelope, or moose, or elk, or mule deer every year. I don't think anyone ever said that.
The problem is others have that opportunity, in a province that I pay taxes in, and they don't.

According to some moose outfitters they have had the same clients 20+ years.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Birchcraft

Pad on my ignorance torkdiesel but what is an SMU?

Species management unit, which in Alberta comprises of numerous WMU's. As such, there may well be in excess of outfitter tags owned in a particular WMU. It's a little detail most are not aware of.

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by avb3

Species management unit, which in Alberta comprises of numerous WMU's. As such, there may well be in excess of outfitter tags owned in a particular WMU. It's a little detail most are not aware of.

Which is absolutely ridiculous.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by SLH

My point is. Outfitters are so greedy nowadays. "just because this, I'm entitled to that." Like Tork said, it's like the kid on the basketball court that has 9 out of 10 balls and is whining for the last ball. It's sickening.

But outfitters only have one ball, residents already have the other 9. We don't want to lose the last ball we have.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by huntwat

Which is absolutely ridiculous.

It is and it isn't.

From the biological perspective, habitat areas may well be much larger than the WMU.

Where this fell down, was when APOS was established some 18 years ago or so, they successfully lobbied to have their allocations based on the species management unit basis. Their argument was that if the biologist manage the WMUs in that manner, why should their allocations not be managed in the same way.

That argument needs to go out the window, as allocations for outfitters, or for residents for that matter, are essentially people management, and not wildlife management.

[MathewsArcher]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

But outfitters only have one ball, residents already have the other 9. We don't want to lose the last ball we have.

Problem is there used to be ten balls now there are only 6...........and the number of people wishing to play with them keeps increasing. Residents lost opportunity in many areas where non-residents have not, this needs to be addressed.

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

But outfitters only have one ball, residents already have the other 9. We don't want to lose the last ball we have.

non-res have 17 balls, res have 1.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by huntwat

non-res have 17 balls, res have 1.

wrong

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

But outfitters only have one ball, residents already have the other 9. We don't want to lose the last ball we have.

Except that the outfitters have the untouchable ball, while the residents can have theirs taken away at a moments notice, as happened with the pronghorn situation, a few years ago.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by MathewsArcher

Problem is there used to be ten balls now there are only 6...........and the number of people wishing to play with them keeps increasing. Residents lost opportunity in many areas where non-residents have not, this needs to be addressed.

actually there used to be 60,000 balls now there are only 45,000 balls to share.

IN THE VAST MAJORITY of WMUs the ratio is still 90% for residents / 10% for non residents.

In those zones where the number is higher then 10% I 100% agree there should be changes. I've never opposed this.

10% for outfitters

90% for residents

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Except that the outfitters have the untouchable ball, while the residents can have theirs taken away at a moments notice, as happened with the pronghorn situation, a few years ago.

Again like I said elk that should have never happened, that was wrong and I don't agree with it.

Numbers draw tags/allocations should go up and down with the population numbers.

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

10% for outfitters

90% for residents

I agree


For any species that doesn't require a draw for residents.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Again like I said elk that should have never happened, that was wrong and I don't agree with it.

Numbers draw tags/allocations should go up and down with the population numbers.

The fact is that it did happen. Even if they weren't forced to, the outfitters could have willingly not used 90% of their allocations, but they chose not to do that. Instead, they took every dollar that they could.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

But outfitters only have one ball, residents already have the other 9. We don't want to lose the last ball we have.

A non- res could purchase that one ball for as many years a he wants.
But a resident tax paying albertan might only get one of the nine balls once every let's say 12 years as that's about average for a bull moose tag.
The bull moose draw was used as an example earlier.

[MathewsArcher]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

actually there used to be 60,000 balls now there are only 45,000 balls to share.

IN THE VAST MAJORITY of WMUs the ratio is still 90% for residents / 10% for non residents.

In those zones where the number is higher then 10% I 100% agree there should be changes. I've never opposed this.

10% for outfitters

90% for residents

Is there a WMU where this holds true for Antelope?

[stringer]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

wrong

Your wrong.
One non-res could potentially harvest 17 moose and a tax paying Alberta would only have one in 17 years if it takes 17 years to draw that tag.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by stringer

A non- res could purchase that one ball for as many years a he wants.
But a resident tax paying albertan might only get one of the nine balls once every let's say 12 years as that's about average for a bull moose tag.
The bull moose draw was used as an example earlier.

So would you like to limit the number of times a specific non-resident can return to Alberta ?

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by stringer

Your wrong.
One non-res could potentially harvest 17 moose and a tax paying Alberta would only have one in 17 years if it takes 17 years to draw that tag.

I was talking about a per WMU basis, not years of wait for a specific WMU.

Two totally different subjects

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by MathewsArcher

Is there a WMU where this holds true for Antelope?

As far as I know these percentages have been corrected, but I couldn't say for certain as I'm out of this loop now.

I do know the WMU's where percentages were off up here in Grande Prairie, were corrected. Some outfitters lost allocations, as they should if residents lost draw tags.

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by deerguy

According to some moose outfitters they have had the same clients 20+ years.

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

So would you like to limit the number of times a specific non-resident can return to Alberta ?

That would be a start.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by huntwat

That would be a start.

So you're willing to share ! maybe ! just not with the same person year after year.

Got ya !

[stringer]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

So would you like to limit the number of times a specific non-resident can return to Alberta ?

No.
But if a resident licence is on a draw then no non-res allocations for that species.
Anything not on draw 10% goes to non-res.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

I was talking about a per WMU basis, not years of wait for a specific WMU.

Two totally different subjects

Not at all
So it's perfectly fine for a non-res to have 12 opportunities at moose and a resident only one ?

[jwilson]

So, if in the extremely remote chance it was ever changed, and for example, non residents couldn't hunt draw species, would a resident wait 17 years for his chance at a moose and not complain? I'm using the 17 year moose draw cause it seems to be the example of choice...

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

So you're willing to share ! maybe ! just not with the same person year after year.

Got ya !

yes

Originally Posted by stringer

No.
But if a resident licence is on a draw then no non-res allocations for that species.
Anything not on draw 10% goes to non-res.

this amount.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by stringer

Not at all

How so ?

One statement relates to the 90% resident 10 % non resident target split in each WMU

The next statement is about a 17 year wait time in one WMU

One is percentages, one is years

[MathewsArcher]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

How so ?

One statement relates to the 90% resident 10 % non resident target split in each WMU

The next statement is about a 17 year wait time in one WMU

One is percentages, one is years

Both are about fairness and equality

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by jwilson

So, if in the extremely remote chance it was ever changed, and for example, non residents couldn't hunt draw species, would a resident wait 17 years for his chance at a moose and not complain? I'm using the 17 year moose draw cause it seems to be the example of choice...

I can't speak for all. But, I wouldn't. I don't complain about the once/ lifetime goat tag. Or the no non-res suffield tag. Or the no chance in hell trophy sheep draws.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by MathewsArcher

Both are about fairness and equality

Exactly