Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Hunting Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 02-22-2018, 09:33 AM
270WIN 270WIN is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 976
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by H380 View Post
I agree there needs to be some limits put in place but too cut it out totally will close a pile of land for sure .
and provide those landowners who are willing to continue to allow access for hunting with one more argument as to why they should be legally able to charge a fee for same.

Just a thought.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-22-2018, 09:38 AM
boah boah is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FCLightning View Post
So the outfitting industry will now be assured of 10% of all the draw tags in every WMU. I wonder what process they will use to sell off all the new tag allotments.
Maybe I don’t understand this. As it was, outfitters were given 10% of the tags for a “ land use zone” for lack of a better term. This meant that they could get tags for preferred wmu’s in that zone at more than 10%. Then take zero in less preferred wmu’s. I can’t see the bad in this change.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-22-2018, 09:45 AM
walking buffalo's Avatar
walking buffalo walking buffalo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLH View Post
Would it be safe to say the membership didn't understand the implications of some of the recommendations? Its hard to believe that anyone would voluntarily give all that extra harvest to the outfitters willingly for the extra few tags we get in return for ****ing off landowners.

That and this idea that the sheep tags will be standardized across all WMU's.
Membership?

F&W doesn't understand what the implications will be.
They have admitted this....
Government statisticians couldn't provide any answers....


It is impossible for stakeholder members to have knowledge of what the implications will be.


I'm unsure of what you mean by "sheep tags will be standardized across all WMU's.". Are you referring to the possibility that Outfitters may now get allocations south of the Bow? This is sadly funny. The logic used is that to be fair and inclusive, Outfitters should have access to allocations everywhere. You know we all have to stand together to fight the good fight. Meanwhile, the opposite logic is used to eliminate Non-Residents from the draw.... Hypocrites!


IMO, this whole AGPAC exercise is dangerous....

Private consultation meetings effecting a public resource where no records are being kept.... Thank the ABA President for that....

Online "surveys" without qualifying and security measures to protect the validity of the results. With exception of the WSFAb.... No public accounting of the survey results.... But they can now claim that they consulted the masses.

Obviously confusing questions without sufficient information for individuals to make an educated decision... Not that this criteria was even possible as the government acknowledged the effects of many proposals were un-calculable.


What was that Duk Dog?
__________________
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."
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-22-2018, 09:45 AM
boah boah is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 863
Default

The bad I see in these proposals is the 20 % allotment for some species. Should be 10% maximum and zero for any tags requiring residents to have more than 3 priority to draw.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-22-2018, 09:52 AM
walking buffalo's Avatar
walking buffalo walking buffalo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck View Post
In the days of survey this and survey that, people need to read the questions and understand them....at some point a survey you do is actually going to mean something, like this one.

LC
Can you explain why the ABA survey edited their questions from the original format?

This is so important, lets change the wording....


In a properly vetted consultation, the ABA results would be thrown out.
__________________
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."
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-22-2018, 09:58 AM
270WIN 270WIN is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 976
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck View Post
In the days of survey this and survey that, people need to read the questions and understand them....at some point a survey you do is actually going to mean something, like this one.

LC
The background information submitted with the recommendations was quite sparse in several cases and what was provided was often difficult to understand. 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.
I believe that many of those who completed the surveys had little or no understanding of what effect the recommendations, if implemented, would have on hunting opportunities for resident hunters. Whether this was intended by those who crafted the wording used in the recommendations can only be a matter of speculation. I do know that it is possible to word questions in surveys such as this in such a way that those who are conducting the survey get the answers they wish to hear.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-22-2018, 10:31 AM
SLH SLH is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 764
Default

I don't understand the motivation of the member groups to consider these resolutions.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-22-2018, 10:52 AM
bobalong bobalong is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boah View Post
I knew that was coming. If landowners are going to close access to hunters because of anything ESRD does, it just shows what type of people they are. They probably don’t allow access anyways.
By me saying I won’t have trouble with access, I mean most People. But, that’s just my opinion.
Landowners that don’t allow access are either anti- hunting, pro hunting for themselves on their land, or want profit for access.
And it is finally revealed, your problem is not with tags but with landowners. I doubt very much if you even hunt. You like many others on here let their envy, and a bit of hate for landowners overpower rational thought on land access. It will not matter what is suggested on tags for landowners as long as you feel that the landowners are getting it stuck to them you are happy.........sad.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-22-2018, 10:58 AM
boah boah is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobalong View Post
And it is finally revealed, your problem is not with tags but with landowners. I doubt very much if you even hunt. You like many others on here let their envy, and a bit of hate for landowners overpower rational thought on land access. It will not matter what is suggested on tags for landowners as long as you feel that the landowners are getting it stuck to them you are happy.........sad.
I have ZERO problem with landowners. It is their land, their choice on access.
Don't think that you know me. you don't have a clue. Maybe your problems with access is your attitude??? Just guessing by your responses on here. I am very open to landowners getting tags. But, why do they HAVE to be antlered MD? Why not 2 antlerless tags instead??
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-22-2018, 11:47 AM
270WIN 270WIN is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 976
Default

I have it on very good authority that a final decision on the recommendations has still not been made by AGPAC and that changes are possible. So,on that basis, at this point they are still just recommendations put together by a subcommittee of AGPAC and nothing more. Therefore I strongly urge anyone who has concerns about any or all of the recommendations to make those concerns known to AGPAC, if they have not already done so, and to do it in writing and as soon as possible.
The best way to do this, I've been told, is to do it through one of the stakeholder representatives who sit on the AGPAC committee. For what it's worth, Alberta Fish and Game Association is one of the stakeholders. A phone call to the AFGA office or maybe a visit to their website should be all it should take to get the name and contact information for their rep.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 02-22-2018, 12:16 PM
mk63 mk63 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 86
Default

Can someone explain how outfitter allocations based on % of opportunity vs. % of harvest will effect draw wait times?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-22-2018, 01:03 PM
thetruth thetruth is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 96
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mk63 View Post
Can someone explain how outfitter allocations based on % of opportunity vs. % of harvest will effect draw wait times?
It won't in any fashion....
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-22-2018, 01:06 PM
270WIN 270WIN is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 976
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mk63 View Post
Can someone explain how outfitter allocations based on % of opportunity vs. % of harvest will effect draw wait times?
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.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-22-2018, 01:28 PM
SLH SLH is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 764
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mk63 View Post
Can someone explain how outfitter allocations based on % of opportunity vs. % of harvest will effect draw wait times?
Simplistic example.

Based on a 10 % allocation.

If you need 200 tags issued to harvest 100 deer the outfitters get 20 tags. There success is always higher than residents. they could harvest 20 deer.

If they get allocations based on harvest they get 10 tags and they might harvest 10 deer.

In this example 10 less residents every year DON'T get tags to be backed up year after year. It can be much worse than this given a lower success rate or lower harvest numbers.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-22-2018, 04:23 PM
bobalong bobalong is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boah View Post
I have ZERO problem with landowners. It is their land, their choice on access.
Don't think that you know me. you don't have a clue. Maybe your problems with access is your attitude??? Just guessing by your responses on here. I am very open to landowners getting tags. But, why do they HAVE to be antlered MD? Why not 2 antlerless tags instead??
Why do you think you should be able to dictate what mule deer they shoot on their land? Maybe the following scenario should apply: only land owners/family should shoot Mule bucks on private land and non land owners can hunt mule bucks on crown land.

I am guessing you wouldn't like that because you think that the non-land owner should have more options than the land owner.....that's quite the attitude.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-22-2018, 04:30 PM
boah boah is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobalong View Post
Why do you think you should be able to dictate what mule deer they shoot on their land? Maybe the following scenario should apply: only land owners/family should shoot Mule bucks on private land and non land owners can hunt mule bucks on crown land.

I am guessing you wouldn't like that because you think that the non-land owner should have more options than the land owner.....that's quite the attitude.
I’m sorry about your problems. I guess we will never agree. You do know that landowner tags are a fairly recent thing? The landowner will survive without having a tag every year.
With your idea, I guess there would be no limits also? After all it is their land.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-22-2018, 04:59 PM
270WIN 270WIN is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 976
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boah View Post
I’m sorry about your problems. I guess we will never agree. You do know that landowner tags are a fairly recent thing? The landowner will survive without having a tag every year.
With your idea, I guess there would be no limits also? After all it is their land.
I remember quite clearly the Alberta Government creating the Landowner Licence for Antlered Mule Deer. The government did it not long after mule deer were placed on draw. I can't remember exactly what year that was but I know for absolute certain that it was more than 20 years ago, probably closer to 25.

If 20 to 25 years is "fairly recent" in your mind, then I guess you are correct in one respect. I think you are wrong, however, in your conclusion that elimination of this licence will not result in a significant reduction in private land accessible for hunting.

Last edited by 270WIN; 02-22-2018 at 05:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-22-2018, 05:09 PM
mntmanpick mntmanpick is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 112
Default tags

So if you work in the health care industry (nurse) you should not have to wait in an emergency room for hours, or if you need any kind of surgery you go right to the front of the line. After all they look after out health care system. Where does the sense of entitlement end? If you work in the oil and gas industry you should pay half what everyone else does for fuel.

There must have been no access in these Zones before these landowner tags were given out.

Give me a tag every year or I'll close access, sounds like paid access? Is that legal?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-22-2018, 05:25 PM
bobalong bobalong is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mntmanpick View Post
So if you work in the health care industry (nurse) you should not have to wait in an emergency room for hours, or if you need any kind of surgery you go right to the front of the line. After all they look after out health care system. Where does the sense of entitlement end? If you work in the oil and gas industry you should pay half what everyone else does for fuel.

There must have been no access in these Zones before these landowner tags were given out.

Give me a tag every year or I'll close access, sounds like paid access? Is that legal?
Nice try but pretty lame, nurses don't own the hospitals and the oil workers don't own the oil. Your comments make no sense you really should try and educate yourself even just a little before commenting, makes you look.......well you know.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-22-2018, 05:26 PM
pikergolf's Avatar
pikergolf pikergolf is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11,285
Default

It was stupid to offer antlered tags to landowners in the first place. Now we have to deal with the fall out.
__________________
“One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain.”

Thomas Sowell
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 02-22-2018, 05:27 PM
bobalong bobalong is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boah View Post
I’m sorry about your problems. I guess we will never agree. You do know that landowner tags are a fairly recent thing? The landowner will survive without having a tag every year.
With your idea, I guess there would be no limits also? After all it is their land.
A fairly recent thing LOL...........how old are you 12?
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-22-2018, 05:35 PM
mntmanpick mntmanpick is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 112
Default babalong

Sounds like your starting to figure it out. Who owns the deer?
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-22-2018, 05:41 PM
FCLightning FCLightning is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mntmanpick View Post
Sounds like your starting to figure it out. Who owns the deer?
Who owns the land?
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-22-2018, 05:45 PM
FCLightning FCLightning is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mntmanpick View Post
There must have been no access in these Zones before these landowner tags were given out.
In the time before the landowner tags were given out there were no restrictions on who could hunt Mule Deer - it was a general season. Any and every one could hunt mule deer every year.

When the draw system was implemented, the Landowners were given a concession for maintaining habitat and being caretakers of the land on which the public resource lives - should they wish to hunt the deer on the land which they are in care of they could get a tag to do so. If they want to hunt any of the other Mule Deer in the province they play the same draw rules as everyone else.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-22-2018, 05:45 PM
FCLightning FCLightning is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobalong View Post
A fairly recent thing LOL...........how old are you 12?
I'm thinking he must be 125 if 30 years ago is recent.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-22-2018, 05:58 PM
boah boah is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobalong View Post
A fairly recent thing LOL...........how old are you 12?
I’m old!! That’s why I say it’s fairly recent. You have a very nice way of expressing yourself. Thank you. The next time you have something intelligent to offer, I will reply.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-22-2018, 06:00 PM
boah boah is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 863
Default

When a zone takes 9 years to get drawn, and landowners have as many tags as are drawn, there is a problem.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-22-2018, 06:09 PM
bobalong bobalong is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boah View Post
When a zone takes 9 years to get drawn, and landowners have as many tags as are drawn, there is a problem.
I don't disagree but you negotiate something you don't just take them away and give them to another group like that. That is not the right or fair way to do things. So you make some of the hunters happy but you pizz off all the landowners, you think that is a smart move.?
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-22-2018, 06:13 PM
boah boah is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobalong View Post
I don't disagree but you negotiate something you don't just take them away and give them to another group like that. That is not the right or fair way to do things. So you make some of the hunters happy but you pizz off all the landowners, you think that is a smart move.?
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?
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-22-2018, 06:19 PM
270WIN 270WIN is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 976
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FCLightning View Post
In the time before the landowner tags were given out there were no restrictions on who could hunt Mule Deer - it was a general season. Any and every one could hunt mule deer every year.

When the draw system was implemented, the Landowners were given a concession for maintaining habitat and being caretakers of the land on which the public resource lives - should they wish to hunt the deer on the land which they are in care of they could get a tag to do so. If they want to hunt any of the other Mule Deer in the province they play the same draw rules as everyone else.
Thanks FC. That's exactly how it happened.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.