Tag allocations question ???

[Sandalius]

A question was posted in another thread, but it looks like that's turning out to be a p^**ing contest. So here is my question(s).

How does a person find out who many tag allocations for outfitters there are in any wmu ? Not the outfitter who gets them or who there for( res,non res or non res alien), just how many ???( since they are not included in the "quotas" in the draw stats).

So with this info a person could see how many "total" tags are available in any wmu. The potential number of animals that could be harvested in any wmu. And the ratio of res/non res hunters ( just to see how badly we're getting screwed ).

So if anyone can part with this info without turning this into another pi^^ing contest would be great.

Thanks lonewolf

[cujo1969]

I got some info last year will try and dig it up.

call apos and they will give you any wmus and all info will be in there .

[wildtrack]

On regards to WMU's and allocations yes call APOS and ask for the certain WMU. They can send you all the outfitters and all the allocations they own in that WMU. They break it up in the different animal and weapon groups. Hope this helps you. Good luck

[drake]

What WMUs are you most concerned with?......

[Suka]

Are the outfitter tags not shown in the draw statistics/results? I always figured that was the "priority 8's" in a new draw.
If not, does anyone know who those go to? Seriously, I always thought they were either the outfitter tags, or maybe politicians privilege. (actually I hope they go to our forces personel that are stn'd in the area)
If you don't know what I'm talking about, check the draw results for this New buffalo draw when they come out, all entrants should be priority "0", right?
Not trying to cause problems, just like to know how things work.

[avb3]

The outfitters allocations is managed on what is called a species management area, and it may comprise of many WMU's. Once that is determined, then the individual WMU's are divided up.

The outfitters in general (and there are exceptions, especially for black bear, and I believe antelope), are limited to 5%, and in most cases, only have 3% of the allowable allocation for an area.

There are no politician or staff allocations... there is no way the public would let that happen.

The actual negotiations for allocations involve APOS, the AFGA and F&W. They last months, and sometimes a year, to hash out all the details. Once they are determined, they are usually set for a 5 year period.

Of course, there is also provisions for draw backs should there be a crash in the population, but that has been rarely used. I am aware only of some negotiated draw downs, but things may have changed in the past few years.

[littlered]

Suka since we can find the results from past seasons draw results on line can you provide any proof of these "politicians privilege" tags. Draw priorities are based on draw code not zone, therefore some new zones can have priority 8's. Can you find info on a new draw code having priority 8's?

[pika]

Statistics for 2004 ( i know that's 4 years ago but these stats don't change much for 5 years) Gave outfitter allocations for mule deer ranging from 13-18percent (wmu's 300, 302, 400 and 402) to 23 percent (wmu 305 in the porcupine hills). I've heard from a land owner in wmu 300 that since Open Spaces was shot down so that resident hunters would not have to pay for access in WMU 300 resident hunter access will now be severly restricted, but outfitting will not suffer the same as they apparently pay an access fee already, I guess they will just have to bump up the outfitter allocations to make up for all the residents that will not be able to hunt there this year.

[Suka]

Littlered, what I was refering to is the draw results. Seems every time there is a new draw there are some drawn with more than priority 0. I was just wondering what the explanation is.
Again, check the draw results once available for this new bison draw. Since there has never been a bison draw before, all the applicants should be a priority 0. (and no, I'm not interested in a bison hunt)
Don't always assume people are looking for an arguement. I actually thought this was how they allocated the outfitter, or Whatever tags and kept all their numbers straight on their program. (gotta have all the checks and balances)

[Suka]

Must apologize Littlered, I re read your post and it wasn't in the least antagonistic. Too late a night, too early a morning, and not enough coffee I guess.
The last one I remember is when the turkey draw started, but I can't find the archives for it. Be sure to check when the new bison draw results are posted. I think you'll find theres some with more than a priority 0.

[Don Meredith]

Suka,

The bison draw does not have priority assigned to it. If you failed to get a licence this year, you enter next year at the same priority as everyone else.

Outfitter allocations are assigned separately from the draws and would not be listed with them. As previously mentioned, draw priority goes with the licence not the specific hunting area. If a new area is opened for an old licence, high priority applicants may apply.

The outfitters in general (and there are exceptions, especially for black bear, and I believe antelope), are limited to 5%, and in most cases, only have 3% of the allowable allocation for an area.

Statistics for 2004 ( i know that's 4 years ago but these stats don't change much for 5 years) Gave outfitter allocations for mule deer ranging from 13-18percent (wmu's 300, 302, 400 and 402) to 23 percent (wmu 305 in the porcupine hills).

There is a huge difference between 5% and 23%.

but outfitting will not suffer the same as they apparently pay an access fee already,

Any fees paid previously for access for the purpose hunting were illegal.

I guess they will just have to bump up the outfitter allocations to make up for all the residents that will not be able to hunt there this year.

The authorities should simply deal with any outfitters that paid the illegal access fees that you speak of.Without those illegal access fees,it is very likely that less landowners would grant exclusive access to outfitters.