|
|
02-22-2018, 06:25 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 976
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boah
When a zone takes 9 years to get drawn, and landowners have as many tags as are drawn, there is a problem.
|
Yes for sure in WMUs where that occurs. But that's fixable without completely eliminating the licence. The big problem will come when hunters find the landowners are saying " That will be $300 ($500?) for the day, sir. Thank you very much." or just simply "No".
Last edited by 270WIN; 02-22-2018 at 06:34 PM.
|
02-22-2018, 06:29 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 863
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 270WIN
Yes perhaps. But not as big a problem as the one hunters will face when the landowners are saying " That will be $300 ($500?) for the day,sir. Thank you very much." or just simply "No".
|
I didn’t see anywhere in the proposals that pay for access would be legal. I can live with the odd “no”. I really believe it will have little effect.
|
02-22-2018, 06:32 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 112
|
|
tags
As a landowner I own my land but I do not own any of the wildlife that crosses it. If I choose to allow hunting or not that is my right, but I do not have the right to charge someone to hunt on my land in any shape or form. Just because I choose to look after my land and sometimes have to feed the wildlife that crosses it does not mean I deserve anymore privilege to hunt those animals than any other member of the public. After all I bought my land knowing that those animals were there and actually it was part of the reason I bought it.
|
02-22-2018, 06:35 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 863
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mntmanpick
As a landowner I own my land but I do not own any of the wildlife that crosses it. If I choose to allow hunting or not that is my right, but I do not have the right to charge someone to hunt on my land in any shape or form. Just because I choose to look after my land and sometimes have to feed the wildlife that crosses it does not mean I deserve anymore privilege to hunt those animals than any other member of the public. After all I bought my land knowing that those animals were there and actually it was part of the reason I bought it.
|
I think most landowners think like you. As in everything there are exceptions.
|
02-22-2018, 07:49 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 764
|
|
Whats the bigger problem landowner tags or outfitters getting a major increase in allotment at the expense of resident tags. Lets remember landowners are residents. Also why are the AGPAC members so quick to agree to this
|
02-22-2018, 07:54 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 863
|
|
Outfitters getting more tags is a huge problem. Especially when a res has to wait up to 20 years on a draw. I have no problem with outfitters getting 20 percent of harvest IF it’s for non draw animals. I know this is a hot topic for sheep guys. Maybe 10 % of sheep harvest.
As for the agpac members, I don’t know. I have sent emails to a few of them. Awaiting a reply.
Last edited by boah; 02-22-2018 at 08:03 PM.
|
02-22-2018, 08:09 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,914
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLH
Whats the bigger problem landowner tags or outfitters getting a major increase in allotment at the expense of resident tags. Lets remember landowners are residents. Also why are the AGPAC members so quick to agree to this
|
Most definitely the concession to the outfitters is a bigger problem with these proposals. My opinion is that they decided to dig into the landowner tags so when the numbers shake out it will not appear to be as big a hit to the resident hunter. But all the additional #'s from the landowner tags returning to the pool will achieve is boosting the "opportunity" numbers in specific WMU's resulting in more allotments to the outfitting industry and an even greater percentage of our resource harvest going out of the country.
|
02-22-2018, 08:24 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 764
|
|
I agree FC that is what it looks like.
|
02-22-2018, 09:10 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 698
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobalong
Can't you just see the landowners welcoming all the new antlered mule hunters onto their land after many of them helped to make sure the land owner could not hunt them himself ..........few more townships of access.....denied
|
Do you think they were welcoming when they had a tag? Yes by all means come on my land and shoot the muledeer i am hunting. I am a landowner and feel it is time for the land owner mule deer tag to be done.
__________________
"There's more fun in hunting with the handicap of the bow than there is in hunting with the sureness of the gun." -Fred Bear-
|
02-22-2018, 09:15 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,130
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boah
Thank you for your polite reply.
This decision will never pizz off ALL the landowners. In my opinion it will only effect about 10% of them, and maybe upset half of that 10 %. I’m ok with that.
In your opinion, how would negotiations go?
|
First I think many of the landowners will not be as pizzed at losing the tag, but by the way it was done, that will be a much bigger issue.
I think that the majority of the landowners are reasonable people.
Possibly they could get alternating years buck then doe, something could be done for them on the priority system?
I don't know if either would work but to be completely honest I don't think that landowners shoot that many Mule Bucks compared to the number of them in the province (about 43k).
|
02-22-2018, 09:33 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 863
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobalong
I don't know if either would work but to be completely honest I don't think that landowners shoot that many Mule Bucks compared to the number of them in the province (about 43k).
|
I totally agree with this statement. So there will be a very small number upset by this. I find the biggest problem in the example I gave above. If ESRD had kept an eye on things and regulated the amount of lo tags like they said they were going to do, there would be minimal opposition to to these tags.
Plus, in the big picture, mule deer tags are the lowest priority in the day to day activities of any landowners.
Last edited by boah; 02-22-2018 at 09:45 PM.
|
02-23-2018, 09:45 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 86
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 270WIN
If you can get your hands on a copy of Alberta Outdoorsmen magazine for December, 2017, TJ Schwanky's article contains the best explanation I've seen.
Essentially it comes down to the fact that outfitters' clients enjoy a much higher success ratio than do resident hunters. Therefore for a given percentage of tags issued, for example say 10%, those clients will kill a much higher percentage of the total harvest than 10% and therefore a much higher percentage than they would have if the outfitters' allocation of tags were set at a number calculated to give them say 10% of the total harvest. Residents would then have to be allocated a smaller number of tags in order to achieve the same overall harvest target as established by the province's biologists. Assuming the number of resident applicants remains the same regardless of which method of allocation is used, a lower number of resident tags will result in longer wait times.
i think I've said it correctly. Hope so.
|
Thanks for the explanation, this makes sense.
|
02-23-2018, 10:05 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 976
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mk63
Thanks for the explanation, this makes sense.
|
My pleasure. I didn't understand it either until I read TJ's article.
|
02-23-2018, 10:30 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Bazeau County East side
Posts: 4,166
|
|
I own land and I don't think I am entitled to Antlered tags because of it.
|
02-23-2018, 10:47 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 863
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by snareman
A landowner tag already comes with the requirement that the landowner allow access to other hunters.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
Just want to add. This is false.
|
02-23-2018, 10:59 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,208
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 270WIN
If you can get your hands on a copy of Alberta Outdoorsmen magazine for December, 2017, TJ Schwanky's article contains the best explanation I've seen.
Essentially it comes down to the fact that outfitters' clients enjoy a much higher success ratio than do resident hunters. Therefore for a given percentage of tags issued, for example say 10%, those clients will kill a much higher percentage of the total harvest than 10% and therefore a much higher percentage than they would have if the outfitters' allocation of tags were set at a number calculated to give them say 10% of the total harvest. Residents would then have to be allocated a smaller number of tags in order to achieve the same overall harvest target as established by the province's biologists. Assuming the number of resident applicants remains the same regardless of which method of allocation is used, a lower number of resident tags will result in longer wait times.
i think I've said it correctly. Hope so.
|
I haven't read TJ's article, maybe he missed this component of the potential change or others are missing it....
In addition to the increase of outfitter licences that would be issued due to the change from harvest to opportunity.
Currently, Outfitters are typically limited to 9% or less of the the Resident Allowable Harvest (AH). In MANY areas, outfitters are limited to 3, 4, 5% of the AH. This was agreed to during the first development of the Outfitter Allocation policy, meant to limit outfitters in areas of high resident demand.
The change to allowing outfitters a standard 10% of the AH includes eliminating the restrictions on Outfitter AH caps in high demand Resident areas.
The effect will be that Outfitter allocations in much of the 100, 200, 300 wmu's will Double, even Triple BEFORE the increase in Licences due to the change from Harvest to Opportunity based calculations.
It seems my earlier post on F&W's admission that they DO NOT know what these changes will effect in terms of actual changes to licence distribution. The more this is revealed, the more it appears that Outfitters may be HUGE winners if these changes are passed. They might actually see their opportunity increase 300-400% in many areas.
This attempt to "streamline" and "balance" the Allocation policy is turning into a rout!.
Landowners lose...
Non-Residents and their Resident Family and Friends lose...
Residents Lose....
Outfitters Gain in Massive increases to their business of exclusive control of and profiting from OUR WILDLIFE!
__________________
Alberta Fish and Wildlife Outdoor Recreation Policy -
"to identify very rare, scarce or special forms of fish and wildlife outdoor recreation opportunities and to ensure that access to these opportunities continues to be available to all Albertans."
|
02-23-2018, 11:26 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 86
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayM77
Do you think they were welcoming when they had a tag? Yes by all means come on my land and shoot the muledeer i am hunting. I am a landowner and feel it is time for the land owner mule deer tag to be done.
|
Completely agree with this statement. In my experience, Landowners that are also serious hunters, do not allow access, especially if you have an antlered tag.
|
02-23-2018, 11:31 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,914
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by walking buffalo
This attempt to "streamline" and "balance" the Allocation policy is turning into a rout!.
Landowners lose...
Non-Residents and their Resident Family and Friends lose...
Residents Lose....
Outfitters Gain in Massive increases to their business of exclusive control of and profiting from OUR WILDLIFE!
|
That is the whole stinkin mess in a quick summary.
|
02-23-2018, 11:43 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 976
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by walking buffalo
I haven't read TJ's article, maybe he missed this component of the potential change or others are missing it....
In addition to the increase of outfitter licences that would be issued due to the change from harvest to opportunity.
Currently, Outfitters are typically limited to 9% or less of the the Resident Allowable Harvest (AH). In MANY areas, outfitters are limited to 3, 4, 5% of the AH. This was agreed to during the first development of the Outfitter Allocation policy, meant to limit outfitters in areas of high resident demand.
The change to allowing outfitters a standard 10% of the AH includes eliminating the restrictions on Outfitter AH caps in high demand Resident areas.
The effect will be that Outfitter allocations in much of the 100, 200, 300 wmu's will Double, even Triple BEFORE the increase in Licences due to the change from Harvest to Opportunity based calculations.
It seems my earlier post on F&W's admission that they DO NOT know what these changes will effect in terms of actual changes to licence distribution. The more this is revealed, the more it appears that Outfitters may be HUGE winners if these changes are passed. They might actually see their opportunity increase 300-400% in many areas.
This attempt to "streamline" and "balance" the Allocation policy is turning into a rout!.
Landowners lose...
Non-Residents and their Resident Family and Friends lose...
Residents Lose....
Outfitters Gain in Massive increases to their business of exclusive control of and profiting from OUR WILDLIFE!
|
I don't think the article mentioned specifically the item you have shown in bold type although it is possible that TJ was aware of it. He gave a hypothetical example to illustrate the point he was making. The figures he used in his example showed the outfitters' clients getting WELL OVER 30% OF THE TOTAL HARVEST so it could be that his hypothetical calculations took into account the component of the potential changes to which you refer.
I don't know, but maybe it's not too late for you to let him know about this.
I have reason to believe that this whole thing is a long way from being over. I hope I'm correct.
|
02-23-2018, 12:16 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,208
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 270WIN
I don't think the article mentioned specifically the item you have shown in bold type although it is possible that TJ was aware of it. He gave a hypothetical example to illustrate the point he was making. The figures he used in his example showed the outfitters' clients getting WELL OVER 30% OF THE TOTAL HARVEST so it could be that his hypothetical calculations took into account the component of the potential changes to which you refer.
I don't know, but maybe it's not too late for you to let him know about this.
I have reason to believe that this whole thing is a long way from being over. I hope I'm correct.
|
I spoke with TJ, this was brought up. IIRC we talked after he had written the article.
I think TJ's article only described Allowable Harvest vs Opportunity effects.
And he is correct, as far as can be inferred from the smokey information offered by F&W.
Keeping in mind, F&W and stakeholder reps have all commented that they were not able to determine what these changes would actually do.
In addition to the "Opportunity" issue, The potential loss of the "Weighted Factors" in determining Outfitter Allocations by WMU may increase Outfitter allocations in many WMUs by 300-400% while Landowner's lose, Non-residents and their Resident family and friends lose, and Resident hunters lose....
There are no more animals on the table, this is simply a shuffling of who gets what. For one group to gain an increase, others Must lose access to Our Wildlife.
If these proposals move forward, only the Outfitters will gain.
The time left for changes this year is almost gone. Maybe a week or two at most.
Of course these proposals could be tabled until next year....
I hope to have an update soon as to where the AGPAC Allocation Policy review currently stands. Will let you know.
__________________
Alberta Fish and Wildlife Outdoor Recreation Policy -
"to identify very rare, scarce or special forms of fish and wildlife outdoor recreation opportunities and to ensure that access to these opportunities continues to be available to all Albertans."
|
02-23-2018, 01:06 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 976
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by walking buffalo
There are no more animals on the table, this is simply a shuffling of who gets what. For one group to gain an increase, others Must lose access to Our Wildlife.
If these proposals move forward, only the Outfitters will gain.
The time left for changes this year is almost gone. Maybe a week or two at most.
Of course these proposals could be tabled until next year....
I hope to have an update soon as to where the AGPAC Allocation Policy review currently stands. Will let you know.
|
Thanks WB.
With wait times being what they are for residents, any increase caused by a shift of allocation to the outfitters (ie. non resident aliens) is unacceptable. Anyone who agrees with that needs let AGPAC know and that has to be done promptly and in writing.
We'll look forward to hearing from you once you know more.
|
02-23-2018, 03:38 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 764
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by walking buffalo
The time left for changes this year is almost gone. Maybe a week or two at most.
Of course these proposals could be tabled until next year....
I hope to have an update soon as to where the AGPAC Allocation Policy review currently stands. Will let you know.
|
we have recently completed the second AGPAC meeting where all stakeholder representatives voted on behalf of their organizations they represented. AEP noted and recorded how each group voted on each of the 8 proposals that were drafted by the AGPAC subcommittee and brought forward to the full AGPAC committee. We voted on behalf of our members of the AFGA guided by positions, policies and by a recent poll that was sent out to all members of the AFGA with the results giving clear indication how our members felt on each of the recommendations. The results are now in AEP's hands and will be put forward to the next process.
|
02-23-2018, 04:15 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Port Alberni, Vancouver Island, BC
Posts: 3,444
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 270WIN
... For example see post no. 2 above. I doubt that many understood the implications of switching outfitters' allocations from "percentage of harvest" to "percentage of opportunity" and the negative effect this will have, if implemented, on draw wait times.
|
Yep. FAR more negative impacts upon Resident Hunter Draw Success than doing away with the Hunter Hosted Non-Res draw (which was PROVEN to be just slightly less than 1.2% overall). However, the outfitters needed a scapegoat SQUIRREL, and that was it. They were not really lying as resident draw success will indeed go up. As in an extra draw tag ONCE EVERY 100 YEARS.
Kudos to the Outfitters and the ABA.
A fine and royal screwing.
Going to miss those trips back to my old home Province.
Thanks for nothing...
Nog
Last edited by IronNoggin; 02-23-2018 at 04:22 PM.
|
02-23-2018, 06:07 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Look behind you :)
Posts: 27,775
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronNoggin
Yep. FAR more negative impacts upon Resident Hunter Draw Success than doing away with the Hunter Hosted Non-Res draw (which was PROVEN to be just slightly less than 1.2% overall). However, the outfitters needed a scapegoat SQUIRREL, and that was it. They were not really lying as resident draw success will indeed go up. As in an extra draw tag ONCE EVERY 100 YEARS.
Kudos to the Outfitters and the ABA.
A fine and royal screwing.
Going to miss those trips back to my old home Province.
Thanks for nothing...
Nog
|
Ummm AGPAC is made up of more than just two individual group components.
LC
__________________
Last edited by Lefty-Canuck; 02-23-2018 at 06:19 PM.
|
02-23-2018, 06:43 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,208
|
|
A source of a source told a source to source over there....
I received a call and was offered information that requires an important correction.
APOS membership abstained from answering proposal 1-4.
APOS membership voted Unanimously NO to proposal 5-8.
My apologies to APOS.
As recognized, one of many major problems with this consultation process is the government's demand of secrecy.
This is causing problems for everyone involved, and a legitimate dose of distrust.
Hunters, I suggest that anger towards any particular hunting group needs to be redirected to those in charge of manufacturing and managing this process, F&W.
__________________
Alberta Fish and Wildlife Outdoor Recreation Policy -
"to identify very rare, scarce or special forms of fish and wildlife outdoor recreation opportunities and to ensure that access to these opportunities continues to be available to all Albertans."
|
02-23-2018, 07:42 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 976
|
|
I think I detect a bad smell. Not sure, though. Anybody else notice it?
|
02-23-2018, 08:23 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the 49th 'The Medicine Line''
Posts: 1,041
|
|
YUP I thought I noticed it with the first post and it went downhill from there.
|
02-23-2018, 08:47 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 764
|
|
What a **** show.
AFGA voted in favor of all 8.
|
02-23-2018, 09:02 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 976
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLH
What a **** show.
AFGA voted in favor of all 8.
|
Exactly as they were worded initially? Or were there some changes?
|
02-24-2018, 06:02 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 764
|
|
These are the words they answered to.
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:54 AM.
|