AGMAG, APOS and the 2018 draw summary.

[MooseRiverTrapper]

How many noticed that in some zones resident tags were increased? To realign with the 20% allocation to resident tag ratio. Some of these zones had 80% or higher allocation ratio.

Instead of being concerned about managing for a healthy population. Resident tags were increased so APOS wouldn’t lose allocations. It won’t take long for these zones to be decimated. Does that satisfy the needs for APOS and the Alberta resident?

What did you notice in your area?

[elkhunter11]

So are the game populations up in those areas, or is this an appease APOS/money grab?

[CF8889]

Where can I find the number of tags APOS get in a specific zone?

Are these CWD zones/mule deer tags?

Did the way they allocate tags change, like they had originally been talking about?

How are the populations doing in the zones you are talking about?

[full_throttle]

Yup, what a joke, increased the tags in WMU 210 by 21. Also noticed WMU 220 has been increased by 37.

[dustinjoels]

Originally Posted by full_throttle

Yup, what a joke, increased the tags in WMU 210 by 21. Also noticed WMU 220 has been increased by 37.

Antlerless mule deer tags in those zones went up by about 50 tags per zone. Highly unlikely that outfitter allotment has anything to do with that considering no one is coming in to Alberta to chase after mulie does.

It seems like a lot of the zones I looked at had an increase in tags issued for mule deer and moose. Maybe they’ve decided that the best way to lower wait times for draws is to just give out more tags for what will become inferior hunting opportunities.

I wouldn’t go blaming the resident/outfitter ratio split quite yet until someone posts where these numbers can actually be viewed.

[nube]

So if there was an increase in tag numbers is there not a sale for them? They don't magically appear in an outfitters allotment to sell. So far I am not seeing or hearing anything about guys getting any more tags than in the past?
Also if they stick with the 10% rule and tag numbers increase then sure enough outfitters will have an increase. Why wouldn't they?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by nube

So if there was an increase in tag numbers is there not a sale for them? They don't magically appear in an outfitters allotment to sell. So far I am not seeing or hearing anything about guys getting any more tags than in the past?
Also if they stick with the 10% rule and tag numbers increase then sure enough outfitters will have an increase. Why wouldn't they?

You are missing the point, it's about resident tag numbers being reduced over the years, while allocation numbers were held constant. In the case of pronghorn tags, the resident tags were cut over 90% one year, and the outfitters never lost a single tag. The allocations are set for five years, so the allocation numbers can be above the 10% for years, before there is any change to outfitter allocation numbers. However, if the allocations are up for review, and the allocations are above 10%, increasing the resident numbers could prevent the allocation numbers from being reduced. So this is not about giving outfitters more allocations, it's about them not losing allocations to reflect the lower game populations.

[CF8889]

Both 210 and 220 are boarding mandatory CWD sumission zones, are they not? They increased mule deer tags? 50 more anterless tags?

Seems more like they are trying to reduce to population to slow down the spread...

That'd be my guess.

[nube]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

You are missing the point, it's about resident tag numbers being reduced over the years, while allocation numbers were held constant. In the case of pronghorn tags, the resident tags were cut over 90% one year, and the outfitters never lost a single tag. The allocations are set for five years, so the allocation numbers can be above the 10% for years, before there is any change to outfitter allocation numbers. However, if the allocations are up for review, and the allocations are above 10%, increasing the resident numbers could prevent the allocation numbers from being reduced. So this is not about giving outfitters more allocations, it's about them not losing allocations to reflect the lower game populations.

K that makes sense. Ya if they are bumping numbers overal to appease everyone on both sides it isn't right if the numbers are not up.
I know for Antelope the herd numbers have increased over the last few years so that may have been the reason tag numbers are up.
I really don't have faith in both sides to be honest. Gov't wants money and APOS is APOS......
Bios are a part of it and you all know how I feel about the way they do things.......

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by nube

So if there was an increase in tag numbers is there not a sale for them? They don't magically appear in an outfitters allotment to sell. So far I am not seeing or hearing anything about guys getting any more tags than in the past?
Also if they stick with the 10% rule and tag numbers increase then sure enough outfitters will have an increase. Why wouldn't they?

They’re using the two or three WMUs and couple species where the allocation numbers were above the 10% target, and forgetting about the hundred WMUs where the allocation numbers were below as examples nube.
Now things are back in line and they’re still looking for a way to complain about it, but that will never change!

[nube]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

They’re using the two or three WMUs and couple species where the allocation numbers were above the 10% target, and forgetting about the hundred WMUs where the allocation numbers were below as examples nube.
Now things are back in line and they’re still looking for a way to complain about it, but that will never change!

Ya I see that all the time as well.... lol
I also can see that the harvest percentage is not the same either....
As well that most outfitters do not sell out every year and are not even buying those tags in the end to hunt with.....
Residents complained years ago about too many bird outfitters so they knocked it down to 4 per WMU and they still complain as well that it is too much....
There are some issues so I am not one sided but you got to look at the big picture.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by nube

Ya I see that all the time as well.... lol
I also can see that the harvest percentage is not the same either....
As well that most outfitters do not sell out every year and are not even buying those tags in the end to hunt with.....
Residents complained years ago about too many bird outfitters so they knocked it down to 4 per WMU and they still complain as well that it is too much....
There are some issues so I am not one sided but you got to look at the big picture.

I agree there’s always going to be some issues that need worked on, and I’m all for a hard 10% split or the equivalent of anyway. But fair is fair, unfortunately residents want all the balls in the playground, 9 out of 10 isn’t enough for them.

And I’m a resident of Alberta, have zero to do with Outfitting there anymore. But my parents did teach me how to share lol

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

I agree there’s always going to be some issues that need worked on, and I’m all for a hard 10% split or the equivalent of anyway. But fair is fair, unfortunately residents want all the balls in the playground, 9 out of 10 isn’t enough for them.

And I’m a resident of Alberta, have zero to do with Outfitting there anymore. But my parents did teach me how to share lol

Sharing is the outfitters mantra? You sir are funny.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by chuck

Sharing is the outfitters mantra? You sir are funny.

I don’t speak for all Outfitters, I’m only one person.

But let me ask you a simple question chuck. In 99.5% of the WMU’s in Alberta do the residents not have 90% or greater of all allocated “tags” ? I’m including landowners as residents because after all they are residents.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

I don’t speak for all Outfitters, I’m only one person.

But let me ask you a simple question chuck. In 99.5% of the WMU’s in Alberta do the residents not have 90% or greater of all allocated “tags” ? I’m including landowners as residents because after all they are residents.

Definitely not.

Which is why the proposed outfitter allocation policy is causing waves within the APOS membership.


Back to the OP, I'm unsure how you could possibly jump to any of these conclusions without using a parachute….

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Definitely not.

Which is why the proposed outfitter allocation policy is causing waves within the APOS membership.


Back to the OP, I'm unsure how you could possibly jump to any of these conclusions without using a parachute….

Really ?
Why don’t you make a list of the ones where the Outfitters have over 10% of the allocated tags and the ones where residents have over 90% !
Don’t forget to factor in all the draw elk zones, the unlimited Whitetail, Sheep and black bear areas too.
I’d be willing to bet it’s close to 95-96% for residents overall

[MooseRiverTrapper]

You got lots of time indoor outfitting to come up with a list. It will have every antelope WMU on it, all non CWD mule deer WMUs. The way the cut back moose tags this year in the far north all zones are over allocated now. Most mountain moose WMUs. The list will include all the priority species.

[MooseRiverTrapper]

If anyone wants some real eye opening info. Find the list of what the reserves hold for allocations.

That wasn’t the purpose of this thread though.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

I don’t speak for all Outfitters, I’m only one person.

But let me ask you a simple question chuck. In 99.5% of the WMU’s in Alberta do the residents not have 90% or greater of all allocated “tags” ? I’m including landowners as residents because after all they are residents.

It’s not the tags I’m talking about, although in the wmu’s I hunt it’s ridiculously disproportionate. It is the outfitters view of their overwhelming right to the game.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by MooseRiverTrapper

You got lots of time indoor outfitting to come up with a list. It will have every antelope WMU on it, all non CWD mule deer WMUs. The way the cut back moose tags this year in the far north all zones are over allocated now. Most mountain moose WMUs. The list will include all the priority species.

Indoor Outfitting lol, apparently you think you know me.

So the antelope zones that are back up to 80, 140 or 200 resident draw tags are giving Outfitters 8, 12 and 20 allocations ? When 102/118 had 400 resident tags the Outfitters got 40 ? Come on bud
There were a few mule deer zones that where upside down, but all of them ? When deerhunter posted his lengthy investigation there was 4 or 5, and now apparently they’ve fixed that.
The moose tags have all been increased in the north west region, the Outfitters have been getting cut back the last 5 years, there’s been no increase for them ?

So I guess if you ignore all the other species I guess there are a few still out of whack on percentage, but overall I’ll bet I’m not far off.

But since you can’t actually give us any numbers, you just keep beaking behind that screen name MRT like a coward, there’s plenty of you out there

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by chuck

It’s not the tags I’m talking about, although in the wmu’s I hunt it’s ridiculously disproportionate. It is the outfitters view of their overwhelming right to the game.

What Outfitters?

[Outdoorfanatic]

Just want everyone to be aware that a whole variety of stake holder groups including APOS and the AFGA and many more have already collectively decided and completed at least initial talks on mandatory harvest reports by recreational hunting. Mandatory meaning who knows what. And the scary thing is you and I provide data including what we used for weapon and how many days spent to success or failure; but in the end the interpretation of the data is in someone else's control. So your favourite hunt might show priority 2 harvest success 35% on 100 tags. Interpretation on that data could say that its too much hunting pressure or conversely non enough. Both are bad as far as I'm concerned since the first means tag reduction. The second means increase in tags but no change to obstacles that hinder success; like access to the landscape.

So aerial surveys are to be replaced with our mandatory harvest reports. Yet without the aerial surveys at least done every few years there is no way to know what the appropriate harvest rate is vs that of birth rates of the wildlife.

More people than just myself need to openly question this policy.

[CF8889]

You think them having a better understanding of harvest rates is a bad thing? And where does it say they are canceling ariel surveys?

[J.B.]

Originally Posted by Outdoorfanatic

Just want everyone to be aware that a whole variety of stake holder groups including APOS and the AFGA and many more have already collectively decided and completed at least initial talks on mandatory harvest reports by recreational hunting. Mandatory meaning who knows what. And the scary thing is you and I provide data including what we used for weapon and how many days spent to success or failure; but in the end the interpretation of the data is in someone else's control. So your favourite hunt might show priority 2 harvest success 35% on 100 tags. Interpretation on that data could say that its too much hunting pressure or conversely non enough. Both are bad as far as I'm concerned since the first means tag reduction. The second means increase in tags but no change to obstacles that hinder success; like access to the landscape.

So aerial surveys are to be replaced with our mandatory harvest reports. Yet without the aerial surveys at least done every few years there is no way to know what the appropriate harvest rate is vs that of birth rates of the wildlife.

More people than just myself need to openly question this policy.

Who said mandatory reports would take the place of aerial surveys?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Outdoorfanatic

Just want everyone to be aware that a whole variety of stake holder groups including APOS and the AFGA and many more have already collectively decided and completed at least initial talks on mandatory harvest reports by recreational hunting. Mandatory meaning who knows what. And the scary thing is you and I provide data including what we used for weapon and how many days spent to success or failure; but in the end the interpretation of the data is in someone else's control. So your favourite hunt might show priority 2 harvest success 35% on 100 tags. Interpretation on that data could say that its too much hunting pressure or conversely non enough. Both are bad as far as I'm concerned since the first means tag reduction. The second means increase in tags but no change to obstacles that hinder success; like access to the landscape.

So aerial surveys are to be replaced with our mandatory harvest reports. Yet without the aerial surveys at least done every few years there is no way to know what the appropriate harvest rate is vs that of birth rates of the wildlife.

More people than just myself need to openly question this policy.

Unless this includes all hunting, it's worthless.

[bearb8er]

Well all the questions may be answered but sure as heck they'll be very aware that it's useless info. Without EVERY user group participating it will only cost those of us that don't carry the right colored card.

Originally Posted by Outdoorfanatic

Just want everyone to be aware that a whole variety of stake holder groups including APOS and the AFGA and many more have already collectively decided and completed at least initial talks on mandatory harvest reports by recreational hunting. Mandatory meaning who knows what. And the scary thing is you and I provide data including what we used for weapon and how many days spent to success or failure; but in the end the interpretation of the data is in someone else's control. So your favourite hunt might show priority 2 harvest success 35% on 100 tags. Interpretation on that data could say that its too much hunting pressure or conversely non enough. Both are bad as far as I'm concerned since the first means tag reduction. The second means increase in tags but no change to obstacles that hinder success; like access to the landscape.

So aerial surveys are to be replaced with our mandatory harvest reports. Yet without the aerial surveys at least done every few years there is no way to know what the appropriate harvest rate is vs that of birth rates of the wildlife.

More people than just myself need to openly question this policy.

[Outdoorfanatic]

The AFGA, Alberta Bow hunters, Cattlemen association, Big Horn Sheep association and many more have all met and agreed that Mandatory Hunter Harvest data is needed, needed since aerial surveys are too expensive and therefore becoming less and less used. Check your draw books page 4 first proposed change for 2019. I've been in extensive email conversation with AFGA Hunting Chair, Alberta Bow Hunter Association president and others and conclusion is this policy is going forward. All our hunts will get more complicated and onerous. The bad part is non compliance will cost and yet the policy has no hope of offering a return to anyone except maybe the anti hunting folks and of course FN.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Unless this includes all hunting, it's worthless.

Agreed totally useless really. Just appears to be another attempt to appear to be doing something, when in fact nothing worthwhile is really being done. What should be mandatory are regular aerial counts but once again no long term commitment (money) to sustaining our wildlife numbers, the same as fishing. Mandatory harvest reporting means nothing either as licensed hunters and FN can put what ever they want on the Mandatory form.........another shot to the foot for F/W.

Now the lack of, or accuracy of animal counts will be blamed on the hunters, just another deflection tactic to try and hide the incompetence of our F/W division.

I commend all those working together to try and develop a plan than will work and hope my comments are all wrong. However history has proven that if any program costs much money it either never gets started or if it does it doesn't last long.

[brendan's dad]

Question?

Lets imagine they implemented the mandatory harvest report and everyone was truthful and complied. 100 antlered mule deer tags were issued for zone XXX. 40 people reported they harvested an antlered mule deer. You are the biologist making recommendations for the area, do you increase or decrease tags for the next year and WHY?

I ask because I have no idea.....

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

Question?

Lets imagine they implemented the mandatory harvest report and everyone was truthful and complied. 100 antlered mule deer tags were issued for zone XXX. 40 people reported they harvested an antlered mule deer. You are the biologist making recommendations for the area, do you increase or decrease tags for the next year and WHY?

I ask because I have no idea.....

Pretty hard to try and make even a guess with only a snapshot of info. What was the history of the area? What have they determined to be the margin for error (untruthful reports)? Due to the fact it is mule deer (CWD) are they trying to just maintain the herd, increase it, or decrease it? What criteria was used to set the present tag allocations based on. Are these general/draw bow tags, and rifle draw tags combined? What priority was required to draw a tag?