Outfitter allocations

[whitetail Junkie]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

What about the guys that bought their allocations from other outfitters at a much higher cost?

Thats there poor investment....What if I buy a Kilogram gold bar for $50,000 and in 20 years its worth $30,000?

[whitetail Junkie]

Originally Posted by pikeslayer22

Email sent thanks for the reminder

X3....

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by whitetail Junkie

Thats there poor investment....What if I buy a Kilogram gold bar for $50,000 and in 20 years its worth $30,000?

Or even closer to the outfitter allocation situation, you paid big money for a claim to mine gold, and the gold gave out long before you recovered your investment.

[Redfrog]

Lots of misinformation here. as usual when it comes to outfitters.

I agree there are many legitimate concerns and some of them parallel the issues of grazing leases when it comes to the sale of allocations or leases.

These things should be reviewed on a regular basis. I'm not sure what the best mechanism is to do that, but the present one needs improvement or a makeover.
Just be careful making statements that aren't true. It will only detract from the legitimate concerns. They are serious enough that they do not need embellishment.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by 3blade

What about the fact that outfitters don't own wildlife?

Nor do farmers own the land.

I'm not an outfitter, and I'm not happy with what the esrd is up to, but this is peoples means of living and for some it's their whole life's savings. I agree there needs to be teeth in punishing the poachers, just like there should be teeth in punishing general contractors that I do work for, then they don't pay me, but the government won't do anything on either front. If you think the outfitters won't put up a fight when the government says we're taking your property I think you're mistaken.

It's not fair the government has allowed the number of allotted non resident tags, but in order to get the allocations reduced, outfitters by rights, deserve fair market value for them. I say it should come out of the pockets of the brass in charge of outfitter allocations in office. They can pay it off with some of the hush money they're most likely enjoying, preferably along with their employment!

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Or even closer to the outfitter allocation situation, you paid big money for a claim to mine gold, and the gold gave out long before you recovered your investment.

There's tons of things in life like this.
What if? What if?

What if you married a princess and she turned out to be Satan's sister. That's life. I guess a person would make better choices next time.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by whitetail Junkie

Thats there poor investment....What if I buy a Kilogram gold bar for $50,000 and in 20 years its worth $30,000?

I say pay them fair market value. With the dollar down and the American economy on an up swing, I'm sure allocations are worth a bit on the market today.

It's easy to say "take their allocations" but put the shoe on the other foot. A lot of these outfitters are just average guys just trying to make an honest living. They're not all crooked.

[whitetail Junkie]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

There's tons of things in life like this.
What if? What if?

What if you married a princess and she turned out to be Satan's sister.

.

[whitetail Junkie]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Or even closer to the outfitter allocation situation, you paid big money for a claim to mine gold, and the gold gave out long before you recovered your investment.

Touche

[diamonddave]

I can honestly say I don't know exactly how the outfitters should be compensated. But I'm not sure I can wrap my head around the difference between them and any other independent business.

Their market is the wildlife, my market is brass widgets. For the last 25 years both our business has flourished because of the availability of our resource, and we have made a comfortable living.

Now I am having a huge problem sourcing my widgets and the outfitter is running out of mule deer. I have to adapt my business to what is happening in the market, so does the outfitter.

Will the gov't bail me out because I have all my money invested in my business? No

Should the gov't bail out the outfitter because he has all his money tied up in his business? No

If the wildlife is gone, and my widgets are gone, then we both should be out of business.

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Nor do farmers own the land.

I'm not an outfitter, and I'm not happy with what the esrd is up to, but this is peoples means of living and for some it's their whole life's savings.

It's not fair the government has allowed the number of allotted non resident tags, but in order to get the allocations reduced, outfitters by rights, deserve fair market value for them. !

People have to adapt to life changes everyday. Just look at the oil patch. Buying allotments doesn't guarantee you a livelihood for your whole life, maybe up to 5 years. But that should be it.

Originally Posted by Redfrog

What if you married a princess and she turned out to be Satan's sister. That's life. I guess a person would make better choices next time.

Actually, you get a divorce and lick your wounds.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by diamonddave

I can honestly say I don't know exactly how the outfitters should be compensated. But I'm not sure I can wrap my head around the difference between them and any other independent business.

Their market is the wildlife, my market is brass widgets. For the last 25 years both our business has flourished because of the availability of our resource, and we have made a comfortable living.

Now I am having a huge problem sourcing my widgets and the outfitter is running out of mule deer. I have to adapt my business to what is happening in the market, so does the outfitter.

Will the gov't bail me out because I have all my money invested in my business? No

Should the gov't bail out the outfitter because he has all his money tied up in his business? No

If the wildlife is gone, and my widgets are gone, then we both should be out of business.

Exactly! Business is business, and with business comes risks.

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I say pay them fair market value. With the dollar down and the American economy on an up swing, I'm sure allocations are worth a bit on the market today.

It's easy to say "take their allocations" but put the shoe on the other foot. A lot of these outfitters are just average guys just trying to make an honest living. They're not all crooked.

If there is no allotments available, market value would be pretty small.
There are a lot of average, honest guys trying to make a living. There are a lot that have recently been let go, cut, layed off, fired. Most of them look for other ways of making a living and probably do quite well.
If the shoe was on the other foot, I guess I would be looking elsewhere also.

[Cowtown guy]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I say pay them fair market value. With the dollar down and the American economy on an up swing, I'm sure allocations are worth a bit on the market today.

It's easy to say "take their allocations" but put the shoe on the other foot. A lot of these outfitters are just average guys just trying to make an honest living. They're not all crooked.

Or why don't they hold onto their allocations. If the game stocks are low, they retain their allocations but are limited to a lower number. This puts the ratio back to 10% where it belongs and if the game numbers get higher, they have their allocations to use pending a say so from the higher ups. But the number is proportional to what can be fair to everyone.

I am hardly anti-outfitter. I guide in the fall myself. I do think it needs to be far more tightly controlled though. When I wait 10+ years to pull an antelope tag and that bobble head Taylor Wright can come and kill a goat every year for his TV show, the system is broke. When people wait 8-9 years in 132, 134, 136 to draw a Mule buck tag and outfitters are killing more deer in those areas every year than residents, the system is horribly crooked.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by huntwat

If there is no allotments available, market value would be pretty small.
There are a lot of average, honest guys trying to make a living. There are a lot that have recently been let go, cut, layed off, fired. Most of them look for other ways of making a living and probably do quite well.
If the shoe was on the other foot, I guess I would be looking elsewhere also.

Say your business is hauling logs and you run out of logs, is it fair that the government takes your logging truck?

These guys will lose their livelihood no doubt, they will have to find other means of making their living. An allocation isn't a resource, it's a tool sold to an outfitter as a means of gathering the resource. When any business runs out of supplies, it doesn't mean you're allowed to take their assets just because the resource isn't there anymore.

If a fisherman runs out of fish, is it right to take his boat? If a carpenter runs out of wood, is it fair to take his hammer? The outfitter is running out of animals (if that really is the case at hand), is it fair to take his tags? His tags are his boat, they are his hammer. Not only did he pay for the allocation, he has to make a living off of it, so now that the government sold him a boat then says he cant fish with the boat they sold him to fish with, don't you think the government should buy his boat back if they're not going to let him fish?

I get that people see the outfitter as the bad guy, but think about who is truly at fault here. It's not the outfitter, yet everyone wants to hang him. If you think there is a lot of crooked outfitters, you should have a look at the construction industry. There are a lot more crooked sob's in the construction business in Alberta than there is outfitters, good or bad, in total.

I agree there needs to be something done about the situation, but you have to go after the party responsible for it, and they should be the ones who pay for their wildlife mismanagement.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Cowtown guy

Or why don't they hold onto their allocations. If the game stocks are low, they retain their allocations but are limited to a lower number. This puts the ratio back to 10% where it belongs and if the game numbers get higher, they have their allocations to use pending a say so from the higher ups. But the number is proportional to what can be fair to everyone.

I am hardly anti-outfitter. I guide in the fall myself. I do think it needs to be far more tightly controlled though. When I wait 10+ years to pull an antelope tag and that bobble head Taylor Wright can come and kill a goat every year for his TV show, the system is broke. When people wait 8-9 years in 132, 134, 136 to draw a Mule buck tag and outfitters are killing more deer in those areas every year than residents, the system is horribly crooked.

I agree, something should be done, but like I said it's tricky because the government sold them something they shouldn't have sold to them in the first place. It's not the outfitter's fault for legally buying something, it's the guy who's selling something he shouldn't be selling in the first place.

[elkhunter11]

Say your business is hauling logs and you run out of logs, is it fair that the government takes your logging truck?

Taking your logging truck, because you ran out of logs, would be equivalent to the government taking your hunting lodge, and your hunting trucks, which is a huge difference from simply reducing your allocations.

The outfitters bought those allocations from the government, or from another outfitter, knowing full well that they were subject to regular reviews, and subject to those reviews, they could be reduced. The purchasers knew that, and they accepted that risk when they purchased the allocations. Therefore, they should not be compensated.

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

What about the guys that bought their allocations from other outfitters at a much higher cost?

If you bought land 25yrs ago for $15,000, would it be right to settle for $15,000 today when its worth $480,000?

What about them? Land is a fixed commodity. They wanted to pay a ridiculous sum of money over the value of what they bought -
Perhaps they could ask for a little of their money back from the guy who made windfall profits on the backs of the Alberta taxpayer and wildlife by selling something for far more than it was worth.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Lots of misinformation here. as usual when it comes to outfitters.

I agree there are many legitimate concerns and some of them parallel the issues of grazing leases when it comes to the sale of allocations or leases.

These things should be reviewed on a regular basis. I'm not sure what the best mechanism is to do that, but the present one needs improvement or a makeover.
Just be careful making statements that aren't true. It will only detract from the legitimate concerns. They are serious enough that they do not need embellishment.

Very familiar to the lease owner bashing threads. A very small percentage of people actually know how it all works, yet like to think they do.....always good for a chuckle anyways

[Team Anzac]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Taking your logging truck, because you ran out of logs, would be equivalent to the government taking your hunting lodge, and your hunting trucks, which is a huge difference from simply reducing your allocations.

The outfitters bought those allocations from the government, or from another outfitter, knowing full well that they were subject to regular reviews, and subject to that reviews they could be reduced. The purchasers knew that, and they accepted that risk when they purchased the allocations. Therefore, they should not be compensated.

Well said Elk, in full agreeance. I don't see much for outfitters in my area thank god. But if I did I would try to make them feel less than comfortable.

[bmac]

the day Mrs.Phillips took office a freind of mine and i sent letters on this subject.Buddies was professional and polite.mine not so much.he got a reply letter that was the sameas we got from the last 4 ministers.i got nothing.i dont think there is anything that resident hunters can do until we get together and publish how much money residents spend hunting in alberta compared to non residents.and maybe buy afew dinners and golf games.our government is not concerned about our heritage or what is right or anything else.
its all about who is going to pay the most (under or above the table) and that is it.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Team Anzac

Well said Elk, in full agreeance. I don't see much for outfitters in my area thank god. But if I did I would try to make them feel less than comfortable.

This is exactly the mind set I'm referring to.

You're upset at the outfitter. Why? Because he is making a living legally??? Maybe you should think about who gave him permission in the first place and make them feel uncomfortable.

[elkhunter11]

its all about who is going to pay the most (under or above the table) and that is it.

Once again I am reminded of the ESRD shredding spree. Was the new government looking to discover what was being shredded to expose some shady deals, or to get in on the action themselves?

Maybe you should think about who gave him permission in the first place and make them feel uncomfortable.

That has been my purpose in writing to the minister multiple times.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

That has been my purpose in writing to the minister multiple times.

I agree with doing that, and there is no doubt it's an issue that needs to be addressed. I'm pointing out one major obstacle they face in correcting the situation, it's not going to be cut and dry. Hanging the outfitters out to dry for something they aren't responsible for isn't the answer though. There is a big history behind this and exposing it is going to cause a big commotion. I believe the esrd is scrambling to cross t's and dot i's before we get any kind of answers and I believe the government is stalling until they get the nod from esrd that they're ready to feed us a good story.

[elkhunter11]

There is a big history behind this and exposing it is going to cause a big commotion, I believe the esrd is scrambling to cross t's and dot i's before we get any kind of answers and I believe the government is stalling until the get the nod from esrd that they're ready to feed us a good story.

Yes this history of an organization that includes convicted poachers and criminals, having such a huge influence on game management in Alberta needs to come to an end. If this results in a huge commotion, then it's a commotion that is long overdue.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Yes this history of an organization that includes convicted poachers and criminals, having such a huge influence on game management in Alberta needs to come to an end. If this results in a huge commotion, then it's a commotion that is long overdue.

Like I said, I think that's why we haven't gotten any answers yet.

[albertadeer]

Originally Posted by BigJon

What species and what zone?

Mule deer in 357... Well last I checked it was 25+ NR tags and only 10-15 R tags.

Haha I didn't mean to stir crap. I think NR tags need some serious cutbacks.

This forum is such a joke nowadays it's hard not to laugh at the keyboard assailants.

[coreya3212]

can some one explain the difference between an allocation and a tag?

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

can some one explain the difference between an allocation and a tag?

An allocation allows you to buy a tag.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by albertadeer

Mule deer in 357... Well last I checked it was 25+ NR tags and only 10-15 R tags.

Haha I didn't mean to stir crap. I think NR tags need some serious cutbacks.

This forum is such a joke nowadays it's hard not to laugh at the keyboard assailants.

It's a joke when people with pretendinitice pretend to know what they're talking about.

What is it, 10 or 15 tags? I'm pretty sure the esrd didn't say we'll let 10 or maybe 15 resident Albertans get a tag.

You're right though, it's hard not to laugh at some people.