Way too Few tags !!!!

[walking buffalo]

Are Residents being shortchanged hunting opportunity?

Have a look at some stats from wmu 138 for Antlered Mule Deer.




2011 Mule Deer population estimate – 1414

2011 Resident Harvest Goal – 4% = 57 Antlered Mule Deer





2011- Special Licences Issued

Antlered Special Licences – 5
Antlerless Special Licences - 14

Harvest 25 Bucks:12 Does:0 Fawns total=37 Combined success rate = 48.7%





Archery To Draw information. 2009-2011 combined totals

Total Resident Antlered Harvest – 73 -Average= 24.33/year

Special Licence Antlered Harvest – 34 -Percentage of Total Harvest = 47% -Average =11.33/year

Archery General season Antlered Harvest – 39 -Percentage of Total Harvest = 53% -Average = 13/year

Antlered Special Licences Issued -
2011 – 5
2010 – 7
2009 – 7
Total= 19

2009-2011 Antlered Special Licences Issued total – 19
Harvest Estimate – 34
Success Rate= 180% ?????





In review....

2011 Mule Deer population estimate – 1414

Resident Harvest Goal – 4% of population, = 57

2011 Antlered Special Licences – 5

Based on a 100% success rate for Special Licence holders a harvest goal of 52 Antlered Mule deer remains which could only be filled by General Archery Only season hunters.

Based on 2009-2011 harvest stats, General Archery Only season accounted for and average of 13 Antlered Mule deer per year. This still leaves 39 Antlered Mule deer available from the Resident Harvest goal.

Based on a projected General Archery season harvest of 13 Antlered deer (2009-2011 average), there should be at least 52 Antlered Special Licences using a 100% success rate!

Using the same success rate as Outfitters (69%), accounting for 13 General Archery bucks harvested, there should be 63 Antlered Special licences issued in 2011.





How did F&W come up with stats that show 15 more Antlered Mule Deer in the Special Licence Harvest report than there are Special Licences issued?


Why did F&W purposefully issue so few Special Licences in relation to the resident Harvest Goal and population estimate?

[remmy300]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Are Residents being shortchanged hunting opportunity?

Have a look at some stats from wmu 138 for Antlered Mule Deer.
2011 Mule Deer population estimate – 1414

2011 Resident Harvest Goal – 4% = 57 Antlered Mule Deer
[/B]

The outfitters are loving LIFE


Makes no sense?

[goldscud]

Lots of landowners need a tag you know

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by remmy300

The outfitters are loving LIFE


Makes no sense?

The Resident Harvest goal of 57 bucks makes sense based on the population assessment. There are just way to few Licences issued to residents to ever achieve it.

Based on the Resident harvest goal, outfitters are ahead by 400% compared to 2013 Special Licences issued which now includes the archery season, According to Resident Licences issued, Outfitters should Maybe have One allocation here.

2013-2018 Allocation agreement

2011 population estimate – 1414

Resident Harvest Goal – 4% = 57

Outfitter Harvest Goal (percent of Resident harvest goal) – 5% (of 57) = 3

Outfitter success rate (2006-2010) – 69%

Current allocations – 2 (*Need to Confirm that this includes both Open and Bow only allocations)

Calculated Allocation # - 4 (SMA allocation +/- = -2. Gives credit to obtain 2 allocations in another wmu )



Allocations Calculated from 2013 Resident Special licences issued.

Resident Special Licences - 10
Outfitter success rate - 69%
*Using Outfitter success rate as Resident Antlered success rate is not available.

Resident Harvest Goal based on Licences Issued 10x69% = 7

Outfitter Allocation- 7% of 7 / 69% = 0.71 Allocations


For the 2013-2018 Outfitter Allocation agreement, Outfitters will have 2 allocations plus credit for two more allocations in another wmu within the species management area.

Originally Posted by goldscud

Lots of landowners need a tag you know

No data available for 2011 Landowner Licences. There were 6 landowner tags issued in 2010. But according to SRD, Landowner harvest is not accounted for by wmu. Landowner harvest would not be included in the Harvest estimate or Resident harvest goal. ??? Another big question....

------



I don't intend to have this thread as a discussion about Landowner and Outfitter tags. This is about F&W seemingly purposefully withholding allocated Resident licences.

I have a hard time conceiving any valid reasons from F&W as to why Residents are being shortchanged, and why did F&W used the shortfall of Special Licences and faulty data for the decision to put archery season on a draw?

[Pudelpointer]

All good questions WB, but you should know better than to try and do calculations without having hard numbers for all the variables.

Without landowner permit numbers the calculation is impossible.

Is anyone still wondering why this information is being withheld by ESRD?


Interested to know what zone this is.

[338Bluff]

Win the fight...lose the war.

Landowners don't have to give you access just because you have the tag. Please explain how antagonizing them will help? I will concede that some of the guys getting landowner tags don't allow access, but I personally know several that do (allow access).

They manage the habitat and game populations are influenced by cropping and land use practice. Why not provide the tags?

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

All good questions WB, but you should know better than to try and do calculations without having hard numbers for all the variables.

Without landowner permit numbers the calculation is impossible.

Is anyone still wondering why this information is being withheld by ESRD?


Interested to know what zone this is.

Second line of the first post. Wmu 138.

The calculations are possible for 2011 with the information provided. According to SRD from the MD Archery discussions, Landowner tags are not accounted for in the Harvest survey. No need to count them here for this purpose, or so they say.

Originally Posted by 338Bluff

Win the fight...lose the war.

Landowners don't have to give you access just because you have the tag. Please explain how antagonizing them will help? I will concede that some of the guys getting landowner tags don't allow access, but I personally know several that do (allow access).

They manage the habitat and game populations are influenced by cropping and land use practice. Why not provide the tags?

I agree with having Landowner tags, as long as the allocation is capped.


My intent with this thread is not to discuss Landowner tags, the thread is about F&W purposefully issuing fewer tags to Residents than the Harvest Goals require.




It will be interesting to look closer and reveal what other anomalies surface in other wmus and with the other big game species. There have been some interesting decisions made regarding licence allocations based on questionable data.


Do you think it is right for F&W to withhold hunting licences from Residents without a just cause?

[ishootbambi]

Originally Posted by 338Bluff

I will concede that some of the guys getting landowner tags don't allow access, but I personally know several that do (allow access).

ive always thought that hunter aqccess should be a requirement for getting those tags. i do believe landowners SHOULD have some advantages when it comes to hunting...but with a few rules in place.

further...i wish there were a few more zones set aside as being managed for trophy quality with restricted male harvest. trophy hunters are sadly neglected in this province. the outfitter allocations are out to lunch in this example.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by ishootbambi

ive always thought that hunter aqccess should be a requirement for getting those tags. i do believe landowners SHOULD have some advantages when it comes to hunting...but with a few rules in place.

further...i wish there were a few more zones set aside as being managed for trophy quality with restricted male harvest. trophy hunters are sadly neglected in this province. the outfitter allocations are out to lunch in this example.

How many wmus are being managed for Mule Deer Trophy quality now?

The Harvest/licencing management principals for "Trophy" mule deer have been in place since 1990. If it produced positive results in the past, shouldn't the same concepts be working today?

[Pudelpointer]

Funny enough, I saw that you mentioned 138 just before I scrolled down to your response WB.

I had a suspicion it may be 138.

For the record I bowhunted 138 for 5 years and took one deer. A friend and I bowhunted weekdays and weekends, spending >25 days/yr each year between us. While there are a couple areas that see frequent traffic, in all the days we were there we only saw a handful of other bowhunters... and I suspect a fair number of those we thought were bowhunting were just out scouting. Saw 5 people actually hunting besides us, and 2 of those were a guide and his client.

The area we hunted was ~6 miles of one side of the river valley. The deer population in the area was very good, with counts of bucks in the high teens to low thirties, and does in the 25-45 range. We saw numerous mature bucks every day we hunted. IMO you could have taken 3 bucks/yr from that one little area without negatively affecting trophy quality (which SRD is apparently managing for in this WMU), and more if you were not managing for buck quality.

As WB has reported, in 2011 the number of resident licenses in 138 was 5, same in 2012. 2010 had 7 tags, as did 2009 iirc. I am not sure about your landowner tag and outfitter allocation numbers WB. I thought there was 10 landowner tags in 2011, and the outfitter had 5 tags. Maybe the outfitter number was for 2012... shouldn't matter as the allocation was likely consistent between years.

Landowner tags are not included in the harvest survey data, because ESRD is likely not tracking landowner success, heck I am starting to suspect that ESRD isn't even tracking the number of landowner tags they are giving out.

However! I suspect that landowner tags ARE being calculated in the "allowable harvest" numbers and is thereby reducing the number of resident tags available. For a wildlife bio to not account for this would be highly unprofessional, and quite frankly would display an intentional misrepresentation of the data. Of course, we don't know any wildlife bios at ESRD that are unprofessional, intentionally misrepresent data, or are pushing a private agenda, do we? [cough] Jorgenson [cough]

However, I wholeheartedly agree with your questions / suspicions.

[ishootbambi]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

How many wmus are being managed for Mule Deer Trophy quality now?

The Harvest/licencing management principals for "Trophy" mule deer have been in place since 1990. If it produced positive results in the past, shouldn't the same concepts be working today?

first part....i dunno...2?

second part....yeah, it should be working....except that it isnt. it isnt because too many tags are being dispersed largely because there is too much by guess and by golly instead of data. that and someone in srd with a serious hate for mule deer lately. its no secret that the words were...."mature mule deer bucks are the highest source of cwd and they must be reduced" and they were spoken from the top. until that nonsense stops being taken as gospel, we wont see any change. the only good news is that particular srd is employee is pretty old, so hopefully will be going away someday soon.

there may have been a hiccup in the delivery.....but trophyboy wasnt wrong in that there are too many tags issued in the zone he was referring to.

[waterfowler1969]

Good luck. Waste of time talking about this as we all know what will happen. 130-144 have not been actually counted in over ten years according to the local bio.

[bobalong]

.

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by bobalong

[QUOTE I suspect that landowner tags ARE being calculated in the "allowable harvest" numbers and is thereby reducing the number of resident tags available. QUOTE]

I see this phrase used over and over, lets not forget that Landowners ARE residents, also noticed the bonehead comment again about "forcing" landowners to allow other hunters on HIS or HER land to receive this tag..........what a bunch of BS.

All hunters can thank the "boneheads" who keep saying this for having more land posted every year.

While I understand what you are saying bobalong, in reality these are two different "types" of permits. One is open to all residents to apply, and one is only available to those who own 160 acres or more. Yes landowners are residents, but resident Antlerred Mule Deer tags (which is what I should have written in the post you quoted) are limited in number (landowner permits currently are not).

I am not giving an opinion in this discussion whether landowner permits should be limited or even exist, all I am saying is that the number of permits issued to ALL recipients (and their success rate) is required to allocate the resource as required by ESRD's own rules.

Wildlife managers are required to make some allowance for poaching, natural mortality, first nations use, etc. in addition to the numbers WB has identified. IF ESRD is NOT factoring in these other users, then they need to join the 21st century.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by ishootbambi

first part....i dunno...2?

second part....yeah, it should be working....except that it isnt. it isnt because too many tags are being dispersed largely because there is too much by guess and by golly instead of data. that and someone in srd with a serious hate for mule deer lately. its no secret that the words were...."mature mule deer bucks are the highest source of cwd and they must be reduced" and they were spoken from the top. until that nonsense stops being taken as gospel, we wont see any change. the only good news is that particular srd is employee is pretty old, so hopefully will be going away someday soon.

there may have been a hiccup in the delivery.....but trophyboy wasnt wrong in that there are too many tags issued in the zone he was referring to.

Over 70 wmus are being managed under the Mule Deer "Restricted Male Harvest" guidelines for "trophy" hunting.


If the formula worked before and we are now receiving even fewer licences than previously based on Harvest Goals then the problem can't be Resident Harvest. Something else is not adding up. Maybe the Population estimates are poor. Maybe other mortality factors such as those mentioned by Pudelpointer are having an effect.



I'm not saying everything is fine with Mule deer in all areas and we should be issued more tags. I'm questioning if F&W is following policy in how they are allocating licences to Alberta residents. The numbers suggest Residents are getting the short stick. It is interesting to note that the 2013-2018 Outfitter Allocations are based on the 2011 Resident Harvest Goals.


WMU 110 ( "Maximum sustained Yield")
2011 MD Population estimate- 3352
Resident Harvest Goal - 9% - 302
Resident Special Licences - 173


WMU 305 ("Restricte Male Harvest")
2011 MD Population estimate- 4748
Resident Harvest Goal- 5% - 237
Resident Special Licences- 173

[338Bluff]

Originally Posted by ishootbambi

ive always thought that hunter aqccess should be a requirement for getting those tags. i do believe landowners SHOULD have some advantages when it comes to hunting...but with a few rules in place.

further...i wish there were a few more zones set aside as being managed for trophy quality with restricted male harvest. trophy hunters are sadly neglected in this province. the outfitter allocations are out to lunch in this example.

I could live with that.

[waterfowler1969]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Over 70 wmus are being managed under the Mule Deer "Restricted Male Harvest" guidelines for "trophy" hunting.


If the formula worked before and we are now receiving even fewer licences than previously based on Harvest Goals then the problem can't be Resident Harvest. Something else is not adding up. Maybe the Population estimates are poor. Maybe other mortality factors such as those mentioned by Pudelpointer are having an effect.



I'm not saying everything is fine with Mule deer in all areas and we should be issued more tags. I'm questioning if F&W is following policy in how they are allocating licences to Alberta residents. The numbers suggest Residents are getting the short stick. It is interesting to note that the 2013-2018 Outfitter Allocations are based on the 2011 Resident Harvest Goals.


WMU 110 ( "Maximum sustained Yield")
2011 MD Population estimate- 3352
Resident Harvest Goal - 9% - 302
Resident Special Licences - 173


WMU 305 ("Restricte Male Harvest")
2011 MD Population estimate- 4748
Resident Harvest Goal- 5% - 237
Resident Special Licences- 173

Estmates are just that. As for tag numbers they are still way to high in this province as there is still less than a 1/4 of populations from early 90's. As for a few zones having a half decent herd do to lack of funding to actually know populations. So what let's whine to srd so we can go slaughter these few zone cause you guys feel it is your right so slaughter the herd. If that is the case apply in wmu 312 or 200 and you will get a tag every year. Heck there are still general rifle zones so don't say there is no opportunity. If it was up to me every zone would get tags cut by half minimum. After that then all zones would go on draw for archery and rifle.

[Secret coulee]

Great post I totally agree waterfowler kind of a now brainer

[jungleboy]

Originally Posted by ishootbambi

ive always thought that hunter aqccess should be a requirement for getting those tags. i do believe landowners SHOULD have some advantages when it comes to hunting...but with a few rules in place.

further...i wish there were a few more zones set aside as being managed for trophy quality with restricted male harvest. trophy hunters are sadly neglected in this province. the outfitter allocations are out to lunch in this example.

I agree with you 100% ....but have you ever noticed how when hunters do get access to these lands that many of them fight tooth and nail to keep other hunters from getting privileges on that same land? I see it all the time , "I have permission there so don't even think about going there with out me" I hunted with a guy one year that took great pains to point out all the land that was "his" to hunt and no one else but "his" .This guy had so much land supposedly wrapped up throughout the province that he had no hope of ever properly hunting it but he wanted to make sure no one else could either.
Sorry for the derail but sometimes hunters just do it to themselves.

I have permission on some places out by Ryley that I hunt every year with the farmer ,we hunt together. I would never consider it my exclusive domain and count myself lucky to hunt there when I am out that way . I fully expect he lets others hunt there as well as a matter of fact I am certain of it.

[ishootbambi]

jungleboy...i kind of addressed this in another thread. i agree completely.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by waterfowler1969

Estmates are just that. As for tag numbers they are still way to high in this province as there is still less than a 1/4 of populations from early 90's. As for a few zones having a half decent herd do to lack of funding to actually know populations. So what let's whine to srd so we can go slaughter these few zone cause you guys feel it is your right so slaughter the herd. If that is the case apply in wmu 312 or 200 and you will get a tag every year. Heck there are still general rifle zones so don't say there is no opportunity. If it was up to me every zone would get tags cut by half minimum. After that then all zones would go on draw for archery and rifle.

Take your blinders off.

Right from my post you quoted.

"If the formula worked before and we are now receiving even fewer licences than previously based on Harvest Goals then the problem can't be Resident Harvest. Something else is not adding up. Maybe the Population estimates are poor. Maybe other mortality factors such as those mentioned by Pudelpointer are having an effect.




I'm not saying everything is fine with Mule deer in all areas and we should be issued more tags. I'm questioning if F&W is following policy in how they are allocating licences to Alberta residents. The numbers suggest Residents are getting the short stick. It is interesting to note that the 2013-2018 Outfitter Allocations are based on the 2011 Resident Harvest Goals."

[brownbomber]

I think you would get your point across if you came across more angry with those that didn't agree with you in relation to tags assigned per wmu.

[trouty]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Take your blinders off.

Right from my post you quoted.

"If the formula worked before and we are now receiving even fewer licences than previously based on Harvest Goals then the problem can't be Resident Harvest. Something else is not adding up. Maybe the Population estimates are poor. Maybe other mortality factors such as those mentioned by Pudelpointer are having an effect.




I'm not saying everything is fine with Mule deer in all areas and we should be issued more tags. I'm questioning if F&W is following policy in how they are allocating licences to Alberta residents. The numbers suggest Residents are getting the short stick. It is interesting to note that the 2013-2018 Outfitter Allocations are based on the 2011 Resident Harvest Goals."

WB, why not put a summary together and ask our esteemed minister Ms. McQueen. Would love to see her reply.

[338Bluff]

Originally Posted by waterfowler1969

Estmates are just that. As for tag numbers they are still way to high in this province as there is still less than a 1/4 of populations from early 90's. As for a few zones having a half decent herd do to lack of funding to actually know populations. So what let's whine to srd so we can go slaughter these few zone cause you guys feel it is your right so slaughter the herd. If that is the case apply in wmu 312 or 200 and you will get a tag every year. Heck there are still general rifle zones so don't say there is no opportunity. If it was up to me every zone would get tags cut by half minimum. After that then all zones would go on draw for archery and rifle.

3/4's less mule deer? I would like to see the population data Y/Y. Is that a hard numbers or anecdotal?

Interested.

[Deer Hunter]

That is hardly a revolutionary conclusion you have came up with WB. My question to you is -

"now what are you going to do with your findings?"

Other than posting it on here...

[waterfowler1969]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Take your blinders off.

Right from my post you quoted.

"If the formula worked before and we are now receiving even fewer licences than previously based on Harvest Goals then the problem can't be Resident Harvest. Something else is not adding up. Maybe the Population estimates are poor. Maybe other mortality factors such as those mentioned by Pudelpointer are having an effect.




I'm not saying everything is fine with Mule deer in all areas and we should be issued more tags. I'm questioning if F&W is following policy in how they are allocating licences to Alberta residents. The numbers suggest Residents are getting the short stick. It is interesting to note that the 2013-2018 Outfitter Allocations are based on the 2011 Resident Harvest Goals."

So other than the few zones you feel we are getting the shaft on what is the problem with tags issued? Other than there being way to many tags allotted. As for what worked then. It is totally different how numbers are taken today. As per SRD most zones don't get done very often and the numbers are a complete guess. So IMO SRD has no money to manage our wildlife. As for my eyes being shut. I think you are the one that needs to open your eyes. I see you can google and cut and paste info from google but how often are you in these zones you refer to? Why are you pro more tags to destroy our herds more? I read a bunch of your posts and all you do is whine about what eveybody else is getting and what you are not. Just like the antelope tags given out this year. You complained about that and way they should have gave out what they did. Maybe one day someone could manage our resource proper instead of a computer program and people whining.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

That is hardly a revolutionary conclusion you have came up with WB. My question to you is -

"now what are you going to do with your findings?"

Other than posting it on here...

Revolutionary Conclusion.... No.
Revolutionary exposure of SRD data to support the conclusion? Have you seen proof before?

See below.

Originally Posted by trouty

WB, why not put a summary together and ask our esteemed minister Ms. McQueen. Would love to see her reply.

There is still more data required to completely evaluate the concerns I'm putting forward. The research will continue, concerns and questions will be put to AFGA, F&W and the Minister.

Originally Posted by waterfowler1969

So other than the few zones you feel we are getting the shaft on what is the problem with tags issued? Other than there being way to many tags allotted. As for what worked then. It is totally different how numbers are taken today. As per SRD most zones don't get done very often and the numbers are a complete guess. So IMO SRD has no money to manage our wildlife. As for my eyes being shut. I think you are the one that needs to open your eyes. I see you can google and cut and paste info from google but how often are you in these zones you refer to? Why are you pro more tags to destroy our herds more? I read a bunch of your posts and all you do is whine about what eveybody else is getting and what you are not. Just like the antelope tags given out this year. You complained about that and way they should have gave out what they did. Maybe one day someone could manage our resource proper instead of a computer program and people whining.

I'm probably wasting time responding to you, but I'll try anyways.

I've already responded to your ridiculous comments about my "desire to destroy our herds".

Try googling the data I'm using.

Try to understand what I am alluding to with this information. Maybe try standing on a chair when reading this.



I've repeated express here and in the last "too many tags" thread that first and foremost, WE MUST HAVE FUNDING FOR ACCURATE POPULATION ESTIMATES! ( BB. )

Proper management can only happen with good data regarding population status.

This is not about demanding More Tags. I'm showing that this data gives the impression that F&W is not following policy in calculating licence numbers and allocations to the various user groups, eg. High resident harvest goals mean high outfitter allocations, yet residents don't get their share. Another concern, Is there an intent to achieve new regulations and restrictions, eg. MD Archery to draw by manipulating licence numbers?

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

While I understand what you are saying bobalong, in reality these are two different "types" of permits. One is open to all residents to apply, and one is only available to those who own 160 acres or more. Yes landowners are residents, but resident Antlerred Mule Deer tags (which is what I should have written in the post you quoted) are limited in number (landowner permits currently are not).

I am not giving an opinion in this discussion whether landowner permits should be limited or even exist, all I am saying is that the number of permits issued to ALL recipients (and their success rate) is required to allocate the resource as required by ESRD's own rules.

Wildlife managers are required to make some allowance for poaching, natural mortality, first nations use, etc. in addition to the numbers WB has identified. IF ESRD is NOT factoring in these other users, then they need to join the 21st century.

I think that landowner tags should have a limited number/per wmu, as I don't feel any species should basically be left wide open. My concern is with people who feel it appropriate to "force" landowners to allow access, for these tags. How do you think the landowners would perceive the hunters in this province if they lobbied the government, and this was actually implemented?

I can not believe that some hunters feel that forcing landowners into allowing access is ever going to work, you will alienate even more landowners, not to mention really **** them off. You may get a tag but you will have one hell of a time ever using it on private land.

It may make you feel good to "think" you are sticking it to the landowner, but I can assure you, if hunters pursue this, there will be landowner/hunter relations that will never be reconciled, and this will spill over into, varmit hunting, bird hunting etc.

As to WB numbers, I think a lot of members on here, have a very short memory. A lot of the information WB has provided with regard to tags, allotments, outfitter tags etc., would have never been known, if not for his determination, time and work involved to inform the members on here what was going on. Shame on you guys.

[Pudelpointer]

Probably wasting your breath WB.

People seem to be happier when are no numbers to look at, when they can just scream conjecture and blame without any stats to back up what they are saying.

We have been trying to get the numbers from SRD for years now, and they are still refusing to be transparent with their data and allocation calculations. Unacceptable. The failure to provide information to the public, never mind the public's representative, is a fundamental failure of wildlife management in AB!

Remember, Wildlife Management is 90% about managing people.

[Deer Hunter]

Srd's data has been in question long before these numbers. Do you remember the archery harvest data they put together to force archery antlered mule deer on draw?

Good luck getting anyone at srd/ afga to care. Your approach on asking them to confirm numbers will only result in delays in getting future numbers.

These people are in positions which they consider are powerful. You and I are on the Internet. I think you should try to get yourself elected to the afga, and raise holy hell. I will vote for you. I think...