Draws

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by honda610

Markey mark you have made comments Iam cheap you pay more taxes than me that I pay more for smokes than a draw.
Kids should loose opportunity to hunt....
I dont know you or your situation and you definitely dont know me or my situation. I could personally attack you or make assumptions but I wont .So **** off
Alot of people have had positive discussions about how to fix the problem. Yours has been charge more money limit kids etc. Partner liscence you obviously dont understand how they work.
I have brought up several things that would actually effect draw times in a positive way but you are cant see past your own greed and Iam more important opinion.
You have not brought anything to the board other than charge more money. I think your caught up on that for some reason. Awsome approach....several people have explained how that isnt the solution.
Your either a troll or too involved in yourself to effectively communicate with others on a important issue. Keep up the good work advocating for more expensive ways to live and fix problems. Good luck
This is the last time I'll be talking on this matter as Iam taking our scout/cub group camping this weekend.

Dude Id love for your kids to get their draws and experience the joys of the great outdoors
I just think there is a lot of people who aren’t from here who are taking away their opportunities. I also think there is lots of people who add extra hunters to their applications because it’s free. And they get a disproportionate amount of tags because of it.

[Salavee]

I agree. It may sound a little harsh , but just watch the abuse come to a screeching halt. It's a very small move when you consider we follow that very same procedure when buying anything else with a money-back return policy
.
$3.68.00 per draw is such a wussy fee it's ridiculous. No wonder the system went sideways. Hell, $50.00 more than covers 12 draw applications per household the way it is (was).
__________________
When applied by competent people with the right intent, common sense goes a long way.



There's no Me, me me involved at all. Assuming 50% are successful obtaining a Draw in the above scenario that leaves Six potential successful harvests. If 50% of those actually are successful that would be Three animals
in the householfd freezer. If that makes sense with diminishing Game stocks and increasing applicants then have at it. It's the Youth that will suffer in the long run. The "I want it now " attitude won't pay any dividends. . Especially for todays Youth.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by boah

For most people $100 is not much. There are some though that live on a tight budget. Applying should not weed out the poor. Tag prices though should go up. Then if you cant afford it, don’t apply. I do believe that there is an old law that says anyone can sustinence hunt if need be, I may be wrong.
Charge non- res a substantial amount for tags.

True enough. People that are povery stricken usually can't afford the overall cost of Hunting in today's environment. Poverty ,in itself, excludes them.
Focus on eliminating poverty if you want everyone able to " fill their freezer" via hunting, if you see that as what hunting is all about.. and up the cost of the Draws for those that remain in the system in the meantime. Sooner or later there may be enough Game to go around for the few that remain... It's gonna take big $$$ to hunt, sooner or later. If the current situation remains for much longer, nobody will be hunting.

Young men dream. Old men see visions.!

[RZR]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

Dude Id love for your kids to get their draws and experience the joys of the great outdoors
I just think there is a lot of people who aren’t from here who are taking away their opportunities. I also think there is lots of people who add extra hunters to their applications because it’s free. And they get a disproportionate amount of tags because of it.

Is there proof, or is it just hearsay? You’ve been told what could be done, but your hellbent on raising fees. You obviously don’t pay enough taxes to the government.

[RZR]

Originally Posted by Salavee

True enough. People that are povery stricken usually can't afford the overall cost of Hunting in today's environment. Poverty ,in itself, excludes them.
Focus on eliminating poverty if you want everyone able to " fill their freezer" via hunting, if you see that as what hunting is all about.. and up the cost of the Draws for those that remain in the system in the meantime. Sooner or later there may be enough Game to go around for the few that remain... It's gonna take big $$$ to hunt, sooner or later. If the current situation remains for much longer, nobody will be hunting.

Young men dream. Old men see visions.!

There won’t be hunting in the future, but it won’t be for the reasons your giving!

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by RZR

Is there proof, or is it just hearsay? You’ve been told what could be done, but your hellbent on raising fees. You obviously don’t pay enough taxes to the government.

I don't see whwere paying taxes have anything to do with increasing fees.

The total revenue gained from the sale of Wildlife certificates and Game tags
does not come close to the total cost involved in running a whole Gov't Deparment designated to oversee, contol and provide sustainability and law enforcement of all those resouces that the Dept. is responsible for. Most of it comes from Provincial General Revenue. It is definately not self-supporting.
Raising Draw fees would help alleviate some of the do-do the draw system finds itself in and it's going to take higher fees and additional monitoring to accomplish that. I don't think the Gov't sees that as anywhere near a priority at this time so it would be an added financial load for (some of) the User Groups to bear. Howerver, with some positive changes taking place next year , it's a start. Look at it like Public Transit. What used to cost $0.35 to ride 5 miles at one time now cost over a Dollar, plus all subsidies.

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by RZR

Is there proof, or is it just hearsay? You’ve been told what could be done, but your hellbent on raising fees. You obviously don’t pay enough taxes to the government.

Think about it
Say right now we are running at 100% capacity for draws.
Everyone who is interested in a draw is applying
You raise the price now
Judging by people’s comments and opposition
Say min 10% don’t apply now
We won’t have more people applying if we raise the price
Now you add the fact that you would have to declare your residency and buy a wild life certificate
I’d say that eliminates another 5% min
Your looking at 10% less applicants for draws
I’m most zones that saves you a year of waiting

[Puma]

Originally Posted by Mateo

is there any proof that anti-hunters buy draws just to save an animal? i feel this is a tinfoil hat theory.

25 % of successful draw applications never buy the applicable license.

Who do you think these people are ?

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by Puma

25 % of successful draw applications never buy the applicable license.

Who do you think these people are ?

Where did you get that stat?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

Think about it
Say right now we are running at 100% capacity for draws.
Everyone who is interested in a draw is applying
You raise the price now
Judging by people’s comments and opposition
Say min 10% don’t apply now
We won’t have more people applying if we raise the price
Now you add the fact that you would have to declare your residency and buy a wild life certificate
I’d say that eliminates another 5% min
Your looking at 10% less applicants for draws
I’m most zones that saves you a year of waiting

There are likely more than 10% of the people that draw, that never hunt, if they even purchase the tag. If you get rid of those people, and people that actually hunt replace them, the harvest will increase, and the number of tags will be reduced as a result. So you will end up with less people applying for less tags, which won't cut the wait times.

[RZR]

Originally Posted by Puma

25 % of successful draw applications never buy the applicable license.

Who do you think these people are ?

Prove it!

[RZR]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

There are likely more than 10% of the people that draw, that never hunt, if they even purchase the tag. If you get rid of those people, and people that actually hunt replace them, the harvest will increase, and the number of tags will be reduced as a result. So you will end up with less people applying for less tags, which won't cut the wait times.

Elk, your wasting your time on this guy he just doesn’t get it!

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by RZR

Elk, your wasting your time on this guy he just doesn’t get it!

No doubt. Next will be proposing an auction so only "really" serious people can hunt.

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by RZR

Elk, your wasting your time on this guy he just doesn’t get it!

So what’s your solution to the problem?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

So what’s your solution to the problem?

Unless you can reduce the poaching, the unregulated harvest, and the outfitter harvest, other than stricter residency requirements, there is no solution that will work for all species. For some species, controlling predators will help to build the populations. You may not want to hear it, but those are the facts.

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Unless you can reduce the poaching, the unregulated harvest, and the outfitter harvest, other than stricter residency requirements, there is no solution that will work for all species. For some species, controlling predators will help to build the populations. You may not want to hear it, but those are the facts.

I agree with you 100%
I’m just talking about minor changes to the draw system that “might” decrease some wait times

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Unless you can reduce the poaching, the unregulated harvest, and the outfitter harvest, other than stricter residency requirements, there is no solution that will work for all species. For some species, controlling predators will help to build the populations. You may not want to hear it, but those are the facts.

I’m waiting to hear rzrs words of wisdom

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

I agree with you 100%
I’m just talking about minor changes to the draw system that “might” decrease some wait times

Increasing application fees certainly won't reduce wait times in the long run.

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by honda610

The simple fact is charging more will not fix the issue. Reducing native harvest, limit out of province tags and abusers, reducing outfitter allocations will do more than raising draws to 1000 dollars a draw. You people must have voted liberal ! We have a problem let's tax it let's make it cost more. What a bunch of idiots. If your to cheap comments show your I have money I want to hunt it all attitude. The money raised will not go back into conservation. The problem can be fixed without charging a fortune. Apparently thinking outside the normal of let's make things cost more is to hard for some people. And why do so many have a issue with kids having draw opportunity!!!?
Your kid can draw on yours....so my 12 year old uses my tag. It's another 4 years for another one of my kids to hunt a moose then again and again....so your saying you shouldn't hunt on a draw till your 18? What the hell is your problem! I guess your Dad never took you in the bush so others shouldn't be able either. You ever see the look on a kid who harvested there first moose or mule buck? Or any animal for that matter! Its awsome.
I cant believe people want kids limited in draws so they can personally have more what a bunch of @$$ holes.
Draws can be fixed without charging a fortune it's been explained repeatedly if you guys cant comprehend this then I guess hunting as a future outdoor lifestyle I'd doomed

You get it. Good post.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Increasing application fees certainly won't reduce wait times in the long run.

It's not so much about increasing the application fees as it is about pre-paying successful draw applications. That in itself would reduce the blanket draw applications by quite a margin, which would reduce lengthly wait times . Nobody loses anything and the costs remain the same. Couple that with the requirement to have a Wildlife certificate prior to entering a draw and I'm thinking we will see wait times reduced substantially in a very short time.

[KyleSS]

Originally Posted by RZR

Prove it!

Did you read the draw book?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Salavee

It's not so much about increasing the application fees as it is about pre-paying successful draw applications. That in itself would reduce the blanket draw applications by quite a margin, which would reduce lengthly wait times . Nobody loses anything and the costs remain the same. Couple that with the requirement to have a Wildlife certificate prior to entering a draw and I'm thinking we will see wait times reduced substantially in a very short time.

You are missing the point entirely, yes eliminating the people that don't purchase the tag and actually hunt will reduce the wait times initially, but with everyone that draws a tag out actually hunting, more animals will be killed, and tag numbers will be reduced to compensate for this. Then there will be less tags to draw, and the wait times will be restored. You can't change the fact, that only a given number of animals can be killed without effecting the population, regardless of how many people purchase the tags and hunt.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

You are missing the point entirely, yes eliminating the people that don't purchase the tag and actually hunt will reduce the wait times initially, but with everyone that draws a tag out actually hunting, more animals will be killed, and tag numbers will be reduced to compensate for this. Then there will be less tags to draw, and the wait times will be restored. You can't change the fact, that only a given number of animals can be killed without effecting the population, regardless of how many people purchase the tags and hunt.

\

Isn't that the whole idea..to allow those who actually plan to hunt to have the opportunity ? If Game populations dont remain viable due to other factors such as predation, non Res Hunters,non regulated hunting etc, those are separate issues that will have to be addresed individually at some point. Nobody is suggesting that it's going to be simple and it will be impossible to keep everyone happy.. but it's a start.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Salavee

\

Isn't that the whole idea..to allow those who actually plan to hunt to have the opportunity ? If Game populations dont remain viable due to other factors such as predation, non Res Hunters,non regulated hunting etc, those are separate issues that will have to be addresed individually at some point. Nobody is suggesting that it's going to be simple and it will be impossible to keep everyone happy.. but it's a start.

You still aren't getting it, if they draw 100 tags, and only 75 people actually purchase the tag and hunt, the effect on the game population is the same as if they draw 75 tags, and everyone hunts. So you can eliminate those 25 non hunters that draw , and give out 100 tags to people that will hunt, and the harvest will increase, which will drop the population below the desired level. If this goes on for say five years, the population will be way below the desired level. To allow the population to rebuild to the desired level, they may have to cut the tags to 25 for five years, and then when it is at the desired level, they can restore it to 75, to maintain 75 people actually n the field. When you look at the actual opportunity over that ten year period, you could likely have less, than if you gave out 100 tags with only 75 being purchased.
So while I would like to see those people that don't actually hunt, not apply, don't expect that to provide more hunting opportunity, and tag numbers will decrease.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

You still aren't getting it, if they draw 100 tags, and only 75 people actually purchase the tag and hunt, the effect on the game population is the same as if they draw 75 tags, and everyone hunts. So you can eliminate those 25 non hunters that draw , and give out 100 tags to people that will hunt, and the harvest will increase, which will drop the population below the desired level. If this goes on for say five years, the population will be way below the desired level. To allow the population to rebuild to the desired level, they may have to cut the tags to 25 for five years, and then when it is at the desired level, they can restore it to 75, to maintain 75 people actually n the field. When you look at the actual opportunity over that ten year period, you could likely have less, than if you gave out 100 tags with only 75 being purchased.
So while I would like to see those people that don't actually hunt, not apply, don't expect that to provide more hunting opportunity, and tag numbers will decrease.

Beleive me, I get it. Nobody said hunting opportunities would increase across the board. That depends on viable Game populations. Actually, I expect hunting opportunities to decrease over the long haul. Even if Game populations remained static at current numbers, we have increasing numbers of Hunters vying for the same number of animals available. That trend probably won't change. We were discussing the issues with the current Draw system and current lenghtly wait times that are somewhat avoidable by adjusting the application process. That is only the beginning. I don't expect Harvest numbers to increase but I can see an increase in future wait times. Hope I'm wrong !

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

You still aren't getting it, if they draw 100 tags, and only 75 people actually purchase the tag and hunt, the effect on the game population is the same as if they draw 75 tags, and everyone hunts. So you can eliminate those 25 non hunters that draw , and give out 100 tags to people that will hunt, and the harvest will increase, which will drop the population below the desired level. If this goes on for say five years, the population will be way below the desired level. To allow the population to rebuild to the desired level, they may have to cut the tags to 25 for five years, and then when it is at the desired level, they can restore it to 75, to maintain 75 people actually n the field. When you look at the actual opportunity over that ten year period, you could likely have less, than if you gave out 100 tags with only 75 being purchased.
So while I would like to see those people that don't actually hunt, not apply, don't expect that to provide more hunting opportunity, and tag numbers will decrease.

You are assuming that the success rates would be that same with more hunters. But that’s just an assumption. When they are determining the number of tags available, f&w has to assume that all of the people drawn are going to hunt and they would be assuming the same percentage of those hunters are successful. Truth is you can interpret the info you get from harvest reports both ways. If the harvest reports show that people are successful a higher percentage than anticipated. It could mean that they are shooting more animals than they thought and taking more out of the population than they like. Orrrrr it could also indicate that their surveys are wrong and there is more animals in that zone than they thought. It would take a lot of time for that data to provide a accurate sample of the population. Then throw in unregulated harvesting, bad winters, predation, etc. It’s a crap shoot.
Judging by how they manage the antelope hunt in Alberta they won’t be changing the number of draws based on hunter report success rates for a while.

I totally understand where your coming from with your argument

[RZR]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

So what’s your solution to the problem?

Read post 37

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by RZR

They could make it where your only allowed to hold two tags. One general and one draw tag with no 999ing allowed. You could still build priorities, but when you get close to drawing the tags you only put in for the tag you want while the others sit idle for that year and not build a higher priority for that year.

This is your solution?
So your saying if I buy a whitetail tag, I can’t hunt a general elk? Or a general sheep tag?
Or if I get a mule deer doe tag. I can’t hunt a buck at the same time?
Makes sense 👎

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

This is your solution?
So your saying if I buy a whitetail tag, I can’t hunt a general elk? Or a general sheep tag?
Or if I get a mule deer doe tag. I can’t hunt a buck at the same time?
Makes sense 👎

What are you trying to do? Increase draw frequency? Or you want more animals yearly for yourself?

If it is draw frequency, in order to get drawn more often you need to decrease the total amount of animals shot by an individual in a year or increase the animal population.

Increasing the animal population can happen but not easily as it is usually factors out of our control such as the weather.

Poachers and first nations hunting are out of our control so let's ignore that factor (Even though it is one). The only way to accomplish the ability to get drawn more often is that you would need to distribute the animals to more people. Hence draw limits.

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

What are you trying to do? Increase draw frequency? Or you want more animals yearly for yourself?

If it is draw frequency, in order to get drawn more often you need to decrease the total amount of animals shot by an individual in a year or increase the animal population.

Increasing the animal population can happen but not easily as it is usually factors out of our control such as the weather.

Poachers and first nations hunting are out of our control so let's ignore that factor (Even though it is one). The only way to accomplish the ability to get drawn more often is that you would need to distribute the animals to more people. Hence draw limits.

2 profiles same guy?