Access to hunt

[leo]

The same discussion comes up from time to time, and it seems to revolve around access to "Trophy animals". I didn't want to derail the thread on removing landowner tags, so I'll make my comment here. I can't say for sure, but I very much doubt that biologists look at the trophy animals in an area before they determine the allotted tag numbers for a species in a WMU. I would assume they base the science on sheer numbers per square KM or whatever. So to ask them to change the draw system based upon this argument may be futile. Maybe we are all forgetting what has evolved us as hunters? That has been to provide food, and eons ago, clothing, utensils, shelters etc. Hunting for food should be an inherent right (even though it is a privilege for many of us). What is perceived as trophy hunting is in my opinion a recreation that does not hold the same clout. If we as hunters want to be taken seriously and heard. We need to unify under one common reason, to hunt. That is for sustenance, not trophy's. Getting a trophy animal is a bonus to hunting, and I have a few myself, but it should not be the main reason we want expressed to the people making policy and legislation, nor the people who are already against hunting. If you want to ensure the next generation has the privilege to hunt, then you best decide how you want the perception of that argument. There will always be landowners who will not allow hunting by others, and there will always be hunters and landowners that will break the law to kill an animal. The similarities are all there, all that separates us is a legal document proclaiming ownership of said land. Any other argument is in my opinion based on petty jealousy, and should not be taken on its merit.

[ganderblaster]

Good post. It ain’t all about inches and hero shots. To me it seems Instagram and Facebook have definitely changed the reason why some people hunt.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by ganderblaster

Good post. It ain’t all about inches and hero shots. To me it seems Instagram and Facebook have definitely changed the reason why some people hunt.

The look at me generation is running away with our passion.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by leo

The same discussion comes up from time to time, and it seems to revolve around access to "Trophy animals". I didn't want to derail the thread on removing landowner tags, so I'll make my comment here. I can't say for sure, but I very much doubt that biologists look at the trophy animals in an area before they determine the allotted tag numbers for a species in a WMU. I would assume they base the science on sheer numbers per square KM or whatever. So to ask them to change the draw system based upon this argument may be futile. Maybe we are all forgetting what has evolved us as hunters? That has been to provide food, and eons ago, clothing, utensils, shelters etc. Hunting for food should be an inherent right (even though it is a privilege for many of us). What is perceived as trophy hunting is in my opinion a recreation that does not hold the same clout. If we as hunters want to be taken seriously and heard. We need to unify under one common reason, to hunt. That is for sustenance, not trophy's. Getting a trophy animal is a bonus to hunting, and I have a few myself, but it should not be the main reason we want expressed to the people making policy and legislation, nor the people who are already against hunting. If you want to ensure the next generation has the privilege to hunt, then you best decide how you want the perception of that argument. There will always be landowners who will not allow hunting by others, and there will always be hunters and landowners that will break the law to kill an animal. The similarities are all there, all that separates us is a legal document proclaiming ownership of said land. Any other argument is in my opinion based on petty jealousy, and should not be taken on its merit.

I agree with what you say about hunting for food and trophy hunting.
I'm not sure where you're going with the rest though.

For my part I have given up trying to defend hunting. I think it is doomed.
I will hunt my way as long as I'm able and it's legal and let the chips fall where they may.

It seems to me that poachers have the upper hand. They outnumber us at least two to one, by all outward appearances they are us. They even hang out in our midst. And no one can accuse them of anything without proof while they do their thing unrestricted for the most part.

[jcrayford]

I'm not sure about anyone else, but I totally agree with leo about hunting for the food....

Do you know how long it takes to marinade horns to an edible level? Way too long in my opinion.

Sure horns are nice to look at and I do have a couple of sets that are a great reminder of those particular hunts, but the memories of the Cow Elk / Cow Moose / Mule Doe / Whitetail Doe hunts are locked away in my memory as well as the others.

The way I see it, any animal I get to take home is a trophy. Especially if I get the opportunity with my bow as I seem to think the % of success with a bow is substantially smaller than a rifle.

J.

[Jamie]

One of my problems is that I hunt to enjoy the experience. The meat is secondary. (Unless we are talking calf moose!) The experience is everything. How do you explain that?

[blueice123]

Yes I do agree as for myself anyone that comes with me it meat not horns that make it a good hunt


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[walking buffalo]

Biologist DO set licence numbers with consideration for "Trophy" animals, particularly for Mule deer. That consideration may or may not be in favour of "Trophies".

Specifically to Mule deer, some wmus are managed for maximum sustained yield (12% of buck population), others are managed under a "Restricted" regime (5% of bucks). Typically these Restricted harvest wmus were chosen through lobbying by interest groups, specifically to increase the Trophy potential for hunters.


As a person who cares for the physical and social health of the animals we hunt, I tend to agree with having a lower harvest regime than maximum sustained yield. Not for the specific reason of growing trophies, but for the social benefits ungulates obtain by having a full complement of age classes for both does and bucks. I believe that we are not managing a herd properly if we do not allow some bucks to get old. As a by-product of this mindset, some deer also live long enough to grow big antlers.


Maintaining high harvest, which I want, and having old deer in the population, which I want, are at odds under the current licencing system.


I don't know if I want to go down this road, but for discussion sake, there is another option to how we do things today. Two types of legal antlered game. Let's consider Suffield or other prairie elk populations for example. I hunted a low tag prairie zone a few years ago. I looked over EVERY bull except one in the entire wmu before shooting one. I know this from discussions with the local bio. After just a few seasons, this wmu went from having 7-9 year old bulls to no bulls over 5. I doubt there is a 4 year old bull there now. This happens because the need to control the population and maintain sex ratios, which means enough tags are given out to eliminate every mature bull.


The way to solve this management concern is to have two types of antlered licences, one for young animals, and one for old or "trophy" animals, determined by point restrictions. This way by limiting the number of licences for each subset of the population, there is an ability to maintain high harvest levels and still have mature animals in the herd.

This concept is in use in other jurisdictions and could be implemented here.


And back to reality....

[leo]

Originally Posted by Jamie

One of my problems is that I hunt to enjoy the experience. The meat is secondary. (Unless we are talking calf moose!) The experience is everything. How do you explain that?

This is covered sublimely in my post. When it comes right down to it it's none of anyone's business why you hunt, where you hunt, or how you hunt. If everyone would mind their own business then there would be no rifts between hunters or Rural and urban landowners. At the end of the day everyone hunts for their own reasons and that reason only need to make sense to you.

[leo]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

I agree with what you say about hunting for food and trophy hunting.
I'm not sure where you're going with the rest though.

For my part I have given up trying to defend hunting. I think it is doomed.
I will hunt my way as long as I'm able and it's legal and let the chips fall where they may.

It seems to me that poachers have the upper hand. They outnumber us at least two to one, by all outward appearances they are us. They even hang out in our midst. And no one can accuse them of anything without proof while they do their thing unrestricted for the most part.

My points I'm trying to impress upon folks is that collectively as hunters we need to stand together. Our most common link is the sustenance we gain by hunting. I have no axe to grind with folks who trophy hunt or hunt for any reason, as long as it is done under the letter of the law. Which brings up my next point. We need to collectively mind our own damn business. It's none of my business to worry about how, where, who with someone hunts. If they are legally hunting, then we should collectively support them. Moaning about no access to land that holds trophy animals is akin to petty jealousy. If deer congregate on a farmers deeded land that you cannot access or gain permission on, then move on and hunt else where. It's his right to determine who, if anyone can hunt there.
I agree Keg, poaching is getting out of control, I hope that my grandkids have the privilege of hunting this beautiful province, but I'm being rather optimistic.

[Flight01]

One of my buddies was shocked when I said I will take the first legal bull I see in my P7 draw next year
I am serious. I will take a 4 point moose if he’s in front of me not gonna hinge my whole life and a 7 year season maybe finding a 50”... won’t turn him down though either

[leo]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Biologist DO set licence numbers with consideration for "Trophy" animals, particularly for Mule deer. That consideration may or may not be in favour of "Trophies".

Specifically to Mule deer, some wmus are managed for maximum sustained yield (12% of buck population), others are managed under a "Restricted" regime (5% of bucks). Typically these Restricted harvest wmus were chosen through lobbying by interest groups, specifically to increase the Trophy potential for hunters.


As a person who cares for the physical and social health of the animals we hunt, I tend to agree with having a lower harvest regime than maximum sustained yield. Not for the specific reason of growing trophies, but for the social benefits ungulates obtain by having a full complement of age classes for both does and bucks. I believe that we are not managing a herd properly if we do not allow some bucks to get old. As a by-product of this mindset, some deer also live long enough to grow big antlers.


Maintaining high harvest, which I want, and having old deer in the population, which I want, are at odds under the current licencing system.


I don't know if I want to go down this road, but for discussion sake, there is another option to how we do things today. Two types of legal antlered game. Let's consider Suffield or other prairie elk populations for example. I hunted a low tag prairie zone a few years ago. I looked over EVERY bull except one in the entire wmu before shooting one. I know this from discussions with the local bio. After just a few seasons, this wmu went from having 7-9 year old bulls to no bulls over 5. I doubt there is a 4 year old bull there now. This happens because the need to control the population and maintain sex ratios, which means enough tags are given out to eliminate every mature bull.


The way to solve this management concern is to have two types of antlered licences, one for young animals, and one for old or "trophy" animals, determined by point restrictions. This way by limiting the number of licences for each subset of the population, there is an ability to maintain high harvest levels and still have mature animals in the herd.

This concept is in use in other jurisdictions and could be implemented here.


And back to reality....

That is an idea that has some merit WB, I could get behind that kind of thinking.

[wwbirds]

We have to be careful with labels as that particular one I believe was coined by the anti hunting fraternity to describe a hunt they felt was a waste of an animal or disrespectful to the animal as it entailed in their view killing an animal for head horns or antlers and allowing the meat to waste. they also want to eliminate the hunting of many apex predators which they deem useless for meat but killed for head and hide.
I have passed up many meat animals choosing to waste a tag if necessary to ensure I find a good representative of the species. I passed on 27 good dall rams one year to ensure I got one bigger than the one already on the wall. I also utilize every piece of meat from my trophies I just prefer to shoot a wall hanger at the same time. I still believe people should hunt what they want if legal and other people can chose not to or refrain from hunting all together. The problem only becomes difficult when someone tells another what they should think or hunt and we try to transfer our morals to another hunter.
My trophy is my trophy and we should stop telling each other how to view a legal kill. I have no desire to shoot an elephant giraffe zebra or dik dik or many other species but will fully support someone who legally wants to as it is a trophy to them.

[ceedub]

Not sure what I’d do in November if I didn’t spend it trying to match wits with a trophy buck. If I was a meat hunter, my hunt would last about 5 minutes. We all enjoy this past time for a different reason. You do your thing, I’ll do mine.

Craig

[leo]

Originally Posted by ceedub

not sure what i’d do in november if i didn’t spend it trying to match wits with a trophy buck. If i was a meat hunter, my hunt would last about 5 minutes. We all enjoy this past time for a different reason. You do your thing, i’ll do mine.

Craig

👍

[58thecat]

Trophy....we here that a lot eh!

Trophy is what ever you want to take.......the call is all yours!

Enjoy the hunt.

[urcayuse]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

The look at me generation is running away with our passion.

Yup I agree. There’s entire tv channels dedicated to that now. Very few of them shows make hunters look very good.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

Trophy....we here that a lot eh!

Trophy is what ever you want to take.......the call is all yours!

Enjoy the hunt.

I agree but one thing that bothers me is the term trophy hunting. I beleive it adds a negative stigma to the hunting world. I much prefer the term “selective hunting”.

[calgarychef]

Originally Posted by leo

The same discussion comes up from time to time, and it seems to revolve around access to "Trophy animals". I didn't want to derail the thread on removing landowner tags, so I'll make my comment here. I can't say for sure, but I very much doubt that biologists look at the trophy animals in an area before they determine the allotted tag numbers for a species in a WMU. I would assume they base the science on sheer numbers per square KM or whatever. So to ask them to change the draw system based upon this argument may be futile. Maybe we are all forgetting what has evolved us as hunters? That has been to provide food, and eons ago, clothing, utensils, shelters etc. Hunting for food should be an inherent right (even though it is a privilege for many of us). What is perceived as trophy hunting is in my opinion a recreation that does not hold the same clout. If we as hunters want to be taken seriously and heard. We need to unify under one common reason, to hunt. That is for sustenance, not trophy's. Getting a trophy animal is a bonus to hunting, and I have a few myself, but it should not be the main reason we want expressed to the people making policy and legislation, nor the people who are already against hunting. If you want to ensure the next generation has the privilege to hunt, then you best decide how you want the perception of that argument. There will always be landowners who will not allow hunting by others, and there will always be hunters and landowners that will break the law to kill an animal. The similarities are all there, all that separates us is a legal document proclaiming ownership of said land. Any other argument is in my opinion based on petty jealousy, and should not be taken on its merit.

I agree and was think8ng the same thing the other day. Making our hunting about meat gives it more credibility with the public.

On that note I wonder how many pounds of venison in total we harvest every year?

[NCC]

I agree with WB's stance and would like to see a system where some males of each species in every WMU survive to maturity. I think that is a tall order though, and unlikely to happen.

As for trophy vs meat hunting, in my experience when there are two three year old bucks of identical body size standing side by side, one being a fork horn and the other a 10 point, every "meat hunter" will shoot the 10 point every time. I'm all for leaving the 10 point so that a "trophy hunter" like me can maybe find it 2 or 3 years done the road when it's a 160" deer. Shooting the first buck I see every season wouldn't be much of a hunting experience and I don't need the meat.

I'm 100% in support of any legal form of hunting and try not to impose my ethics and morals on other hunters as long as they are playing by the same rules that I am.

Social media has done a terrible disservice to hunting in general, and trophy hunters in particular.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by NCC

I agree with WB's stance and would like to see a system where some males of each species in every WMU survive to maturity. I think that is a tall order though, and unlikely to happen.

As for trophy vs meat hunting, in my experience when there are two three year old bucks of identical body size standing side by side, one being a fork horn and the other a 10 point, every "meat hunter" will shoot the 10 point every time. I'm all for leaving the 10 point so that a "trophy hunter" like me can maybe find it 2 or 3 years done the road when it's a 160" deer. Shooting the first buck I see every season wouldn't be much of a hunting experience and I don't need the meat.

I'm 100% in support of any legal form of hunting and try not to impose my ethics and morals on other hunters as long as they are playing by the same rules that I am.

Social media has done a terrible disservice to hunting in general, and trophy hunters in particular.

Social media did nothing to hunters, they did it to themselves through social media.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by leo

My points I'm trying to impress upon folks is that collectively as hunters we need to stand together. Our most common link is the sustenance we gain by hunting. I have no axe to grind with folks who trophy hunt or hunt for any reason, as long as it is done under the letter of the law. Which brings up my next point. We need to collectively mind our own damn business. It's none of my business to worry about how, where, who with someone hunts. If they are legally hunting, then we should collectively support them. Moaning about no access to land that holds trophy animals is akin to petty jealousy. If deer congregate on a farmers deeded land that you cannot access or gain permission on, then move on and hunt else where. It's his right to determine who, if anyone can hunt there.
I agree Keg, poaching is getting out of control, I hope that my grandkids have the privilege of hunting this beautiful province, but I'm being rather optimistic.

I agree that legal/ethical hunters need to stand together.
I believe it is very possible to be legal yet not ethical.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with wanting to hang a trophy on one's wall.
I agree that complaining that someone has opportunities I do not is pure jealousy. And should be given no merit.

I do NOT agree that we should all mind our own business. Part of being a good steward is reporting infractions or at the very least, expressing disagreement with illegal or questionable hunting practices.

If we do not recognize that our ranks are overrun with people who push the law to the breaking point, or worse ignore the law altogether then hunting is and should be doomed.
If we fail to realize that poachers walk among us and that they are often the first to say, mind your own business, then hunting is doomed and should be.

I do not and never will agree that we should take the law into our own hands, but we MUST discuss, in a civil manner, all aspects of hunting.

To pretend that because it is not expressly forbidden by law, that it is okay to apply for tags and not pay for those tags in order to circumvent the decisions made by OUR wildlife managers, is a danger to the whole hunting community.

I'm not saying you agree with what was done there but that your idea that we should mind our own business is exactly what leads to people acting in this way. Because they are not breaking any law so we should keep our mouths shut.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

I agree that legal/ethical hunters need to stand together.
I believe it is very possible to be legal yet not ethical.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with wanting to hang a trophy on one's wall.
I agree that complaining that someone has opportunities I do not is pure jealousy. And should be given no merit.

I do NOT agree that we should all mind our own business. Part of being a good steward is reporting infractions or at the very least, expressing disagreement with illegal or questionable hunting practices.

If we do not recognize that our ranks are overrun with people who push the law to the breaking point, or worse ignore the law altogether then hunting is and should be doomed.
If we fail to realize that poachers walk among us and that they are often the first to say, mind your own business, then hunting is doomed and should be.

I do not and never will agree that we should take the law into our own hands, but we MUST discuss, in a civil manner, all aspects of hunting.

To pretend that because it is not expressly forbidden by law, that it is okay to apply for tags and not pay for those tags in order to circumvent the decisions made by OUR wildlife managers, is a danger to the whole hunting community.

I'm not saying you agree with what was done there but that your idea that we should mind our own business is exactly what leads to people acting in this way. Because they are not breaking any law so we should keep our mouths shut.

Like.

[RandyBoBandy]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

Social media did nothing to hunters, they did it to themselves through social media.

YES

[urban rednek]

Originally Posted by wwbirds

We have to be careful with labels as that particular one I believe was coined by the anti hunting fraternity to describe a hunt they felt was a waste of an animal or disrespectful to the animal as it entailed in their view killing an animal for head horns or antlers and allowing the meat to waste.

In this order, you can thank Boone & Crockett, Safari Club International, Hunting Guides and Outfitters across Europe and North America... and mankind's need too prove that "mine is bigger than yours" for the evolution of the term "Trophy Hunting".
Now, as hunters, we resent that our phrase has been turned against us? The hunting industry was warned that this would happen, but there was money to be made so nobody listened.

[cowmanbob]

[QUOTE poaching is getting out of control

How do you know this? Do you have facts to prove that it's worse every year? Can you tell me what year did poaching start getting out of control?

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by cowmanbob

[QUOTE poaching is getting out of control

How do you know this? Do you have facts to prove that it's worse every year? Can you tell me what year did poaching start getting out of control?

I don't know what Leo meant but does it really matter if it's getting out of control, was already out of control or just a significant issue?

I hope we can all agree that it is a significant issue, at least because the public has trouble distinguishing between law abiding hunters and poachers.

In other words, not only do they indirectly cheat us of opportunities, they also make us look bad in the eyes of the non hunting public.

Wouldn't you agree?

I have other issues with poaching but I'll leave that for another time.

[RZR]

Originally Posted by calgarychef

I agree and was think8ng the same thing the other day. Making our hunting about meat gives it more credibility with the public.

On that note I wonder how many pounds of venison in total we harvest every year?

Just because one elects to what you all call “trophy hunt” doesn’t make them a bad hunter or a poacher, etc. There a lot of hunters out there that eat tag soup every year and that is by their choice. It’s not to say that they don’t use the meat. I think it’s about just getting out in the great outdoors and enjoying the experience and comroderie with others.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by RZR

Just because one elects to what you all call “trophy hunt” doesn’t make them a bad hunter or a poacher, etc. There a lot of hunters out there that eat tag soup every year and that is by their choice. It’s not to say that they don’t use the meat. I think it’s about just getting out in the great outdoors and enjoying the experience and comroderie with others.

I don't see anyone here saying a trophy hunter is a bad hunter.

What I do see people saying is that trophy hunting does not sit well with the non hunting public.

I could add that the attitude shown on this site by a few who call themselves trophy hunters does not help trophy hunters image, here or elsewhere. And by association, the image of all hunters.

If we as hunters fail to realize that public perception can make or break us, we will loose all rights to hunt, sooner rather then later.

Public perception is what brought an end to trapping as a profession. And we did not have the infighting that plagues hunters.

BTW, what has not filling one's tag got to do with it. We all face that possibility every time we buy a tag. If you are suggesting that only trophy hunters deliberately choose to not fill a tag when there is the opportunity to do so, you are absolutely wrong.

[Ossie]

A point to ponder in the discussion of trophy hunting.

We have a very real problem with CWD in the eastern part of Alberta, particularly in SE Alberta.

The stats tell us that the greatest infection rate detected is in mature older mule deer.(these guys would have some of the bigger racks out there that the Trophy hunters are pursuing)

No one likes the word "cull", but the removal of these older mature bucks might lessen the spread of CWD to the rest of the mule deer herd as well as to other species (whitetail, elk etc) This implies encouraging "trophy hunting" for the benefit of the whole herd (ie trophy hunting as a herd mgmt tool perhaps)

A more sophisticated approach to tag management is probably required. In areas needing CWD control maybe there should be a lower priority necessary for mature mulie bucks (specified rack size perhaps).

In areas with no issue of CWD perhaps mule deer should have segregated draws for "non Trophy " animals that take less priority. Meat hunters would get drawn sooner, trophy hunters would take a little longer, but would have less competition and a more promising deer population.

Bottom line is our draw system is complex, but we probably could all suffer a little more complexity to help better manage our deer herds.