Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Hunting Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 12-20-2007, 11:31 AM
Cordur Cordur is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 286
Default

X3 I'm done voting for this party. This was the last straw.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 12-20-2007, 11:35 AM
MathewsArcher MathewsArcher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary,Alberta
Posts: 1,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 209x50 View Post
Oh? And you'd vote for the gun/hunting loving NDP and Liberals? Oh, yeah that right they want to take our guns away. But I guess that doesn't mean they are anti hunting!

I'll be taking a closer look at the Alberta Party come election time, or choking back the bile and voting the way you mentioned.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 12-20-2007, 11:44 AM
Bull Shooter Bull Shooter is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 416
Default

As it appears that this is a reality (my sources agree), and this will be a 5 year “pilot” with the details being worked out I would propose the following:

Non-Resident licenses – 5% of the total new allocation (as given to the landowner)*
Resident licenses – 95% of the total new allocation (as given to the landowner)*

* - Assuming the landowner is responsible for "issuing" tags

The Hunting for Tomorrow Foundation provides an Analysis for 2002 license sales.

Total Non-Resident – 7,076 (5.04%)
Total Resident – 140,303 (94.96%)

If you agree with this line of thinking, please support the numbers with a letter to your representatives. If there are any agendas, I’m confident that they will be exposed. If not, then we still achieve all the “goals" and “benefits” that this pilot professes to represent. I think we will have a much easier time opposing the “value” of paid hunting in five years. Regards, Mike

Last edited by Bull Shooter; 12-20-2007 at 12:13 PM. Reason: clarity
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 12-20-2007, 11:54 AM
BUD BUD is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 209x50 View Post
Does anyone know for a fact if the outfitters can buy the tags directly from the land owner?
Some landowners in the area ARE outffiters too.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 12-20-2007, 11:56 AM
209x50's Avatar
209x50 209x50 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BUD View Post
Some landowners in the area ARE outffiters too.
Do they own 60,000 acres?
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 12-20-2007, 11:59 AM
Duk Dog Duk Dog is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,634
Default

I can't think of the Ranch name, but I believe it is in 108, and the only access currently is to an outfitter. Any of you southern guys able to help me out with the ranch name? (it isn't the MacIntyre as nobody hunts it)
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 12-20-2007, 12:05 PM
Duk Dog Duk Dog is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,634
Default

I sent an e-mail to the AFGA and what I got for a reply was this link:

http://poli.ucalgary.ca/wildlifestewardship/

In a quick scan of the documents it appears the process has been ongoing for a while now. There are a number of organizations that have been involved. There are members on this message board that belong to a number of these different groups - ie AFGA. If you are a member of any of these organizations has there been any reporting back to you, the member, about any of this process? If not, then why hasn't there been?
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 12-20-2007, 12:30 PM
bruceba bruceba is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,803
Default

Quote:
Any of you southern guys able to help me out with the ranch name?
Knight (Deseret Land Holdings) I believe this is it.

Last edited by bruceba; 12-20-2007 at 12:31 PM. Reason: added comment
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 12-20-2007, 01:35 PM
lurch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

.

Last edited by lurch; 01-22-2008 at 01:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 12-20-2007, 01:41 PM
209x50's Avatar
209x50 209x50 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 209x50 View Post
Does anyone know for a fact if the outfitters can buy the tags directly from the land owner?
Please...
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 12-20-2007, 01:51 PM
Chung66's Avatar
Chung66 Chung66 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Blackfalds
Posts: 169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 209x50 View Post
Oh? And you'd vote for the gun/hunting loving NDP and Liberals? Oh, yeah that right they want to take our guns away. But I guess that doesn't mean they are anti hunting!
No, but I bet if they lose some seats in Redmonton and rural Alberta, they might listen more.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 12-20-2007, 04:01 PM
dogpound dogpound is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dogpound
Posts: 209
Default Alberta Alliance

Alberta Alliance, cause I can't ever bring myself to vote for the NDP or Liberals.

http://www.albertaalliance.com/

A message needs to be sent.

This Tory government is spending approximately $16,000 per capita - nearest province is B.C. at +/- $4,500 per person

Sorry to get political but they already ****ed me off with the new proposed royalty framework.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 12-20-2007, 04:46 PM
Pathfinder76 Pathfinder76 is online now
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 15,769
Default

deleted

Last edited by Pathfinder76; 01-02-2008 at 06:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 12-20-2007, 06:07 PM
jrs
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"The purpose of the program is to reward landowners for wildlife production, habitat stewardship, and for providing access for hunting."

Now not trying to fuel the fire BUT CONSIDER:

If 60 000 acres of land can now be hunted that could not be previously, would that not mean a large number of deer and elk not previously open to hunting may be available? Could this mean an increase in tag numbers overall meaning the same amount of hunters will be eligible to hunt every year simply over a larger area? I don't know more than what i read on this post and will be sending letters for clarification.

I like to give the managers benefit of doubt and assume they're trying to increase opportunities for the average guy.
Only 123 antlered mule tags were given out in 108 last year, it takes 5 priority to ensure you're drawn. IN WMU 300 there was only 31 tags given out and most guys were drawn on a priority of 2.
Lets consider WMU 108, 60 000 acres is over 90 sections, even if there is one mule deer per quarter that means access to about 360 more deer, so say 25% of those deer are bucks and are added to the tag equation, that could mean 9 more tags per ranch a year. That would be a 7% increase in tag numbers for the zone per property. Depending on which ranches joined it could benefit the average hunter to some extent (i am 99% sure some large ranches won't go for it even if it means good money). . I'd also say this is only a good deal if general PUBLIC access is allowed, tag prices are capped, and the tags are only valid on the property they're issued on (like landowner tags). I am still cautiously optimistic, i tried hunting 108 last year and found access hard to get where good habitat was present. It wasn't a great experience for me

I have hunted in WMU 300 a lot and permission has never been difficult, I'm not familiar with the parts of the zone with paid access issues (hear about them but stay clear). If anyone gets further information please share it, i would love to hear whats happening exactly and if a huge revolt is needed (just like everyone else would).

Also look at these zones and tag allotments, compare them to other zones in southern Alberta that are much much smaller yet have more tags given out each year and a similar success rate. The use of the wildlife resources aren't currently being maximized.

jrs

ps. I am worried about this, but maybe, just maybe it will be based on a model that was successful elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 12-20-2007, 06:46 PM
MathewsArcher MathewsArcher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary,Alberta
Posts: 1,058
Default

http://forum.bowzone.ca/showthread.p...9786#post39786

Couldn't post it here, but here's the program...........

Still can't see the good in it.


JRS - no increase in the quota the landowner/outfitter tags are to come from the resident allotment as per the policy.

Last edited by MathewsArcher; 12-20-2007 at 07:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 12-20-2007, 07:03 PM
209x50's Avatar
209x50 209x50 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathewsArcher View Post
http://forum.bowzone.ca/showthread.p...9786#post39786

Couldn't post it here, but here's the program...........

Still can't see the good in it.
I'm not a member of the bowzone so I can't view the pdf. Do you have another link to it? Does it state whether outfitters can buy the tags diretcly from the land owners or not? How many 60,000+ acre ranches are involved?
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 12-20-2007, 07:07 PM
MathewsArcher MathewsArcher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary,Alberta
Posts: 1,058
Default

Yes it states that outfitters can buy the tags directly.

I have the file in pdf but can't seem to post it here and don't want to retype it, If I was at work could pull the text and post it here but can't seem to do it from home.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 12-20-2007, 07:09 PM
jrs
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"JRS - no increase in the quota the landowner/outfitter tags are to come from the resident allotment as per the policy."

I was bringing forward the possibility the overall tag numbers would increase as more animals would be available. I'm pretty sure the deer in the big off limits area are not necessarily included in the yearly resident tag allocations. I may be wrong though, just speculating like everyone else simply from another point of view.

I'm not registered on that site either. Link to where you got it from maybe?
Edit: i see your last post, i'll look around for it.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 12-20-2007, 07:26 PM
sullijr sullijr is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Camrose
Posts: 584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceba View Post
Knight (Deseret Land Holdings) I believe this is it.
Very Interesting I googled Deseret Land Holdings and it is owned by the Mormon Church
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 12-20-2007, 08:40 PM
lurch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

.

Last edited by lurch; 01-22-2008 at 01:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 12-20-2007, 09:21 PM
outlaw'd's Avatar
outlaw'd outlaw'd is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Westlock, Ab
Posts: 530
Default

So I'm kinda wondering, with all the experts and people involved with making thier living through hunting in one form or another, and the guys that have made it clear that Ted and his latest moves are the best thing sliced bread, where is the benifit in all this to the average joe hunter? I'm kinda in agreement with bruceba about this gov't actions. Newest smokescreen, free healthcare..................poof.................e veryone forgets all about this stuff, and we are blessed with Ed and Ted's genius again................just my two cents
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 12-20-2007, 09:41 PM
MathewsArcher MathewsArcher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary,Alberta
Posts: 1,058
Default

It appears a group of landowners could get together and reach the size required and the land need not be held by one individual is what is recommended so in 300 several land owners could get together.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 12-20-2007, 10:47 PM
Jamie Jamie is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,384
Default

Well, I took the opportunity to join the website so that I could read what was proposed.

Assuming what was written is exactly right, I don't see much of a problem.
The email I received yesterday stated they don't count the deer in those big ranches when calculating the amount of tags available, I can only assume when counting this year, they will start to add those deer in. Therefore increasing the amount of tags available.
It also states if the land owners decide to go down the route of selling tags to both Resident and Guides (for non resident) they must allow free access to all hunters to the lands. The report doesn't give exact details about that part of the program, so I will wait and see till I have more info.

It seems they have also allowed a program that will have the Gov paying landowners to open up the land. Whats wrong with that? These are lands we didn't have access to in the past.

Guys the days of hunting the way our Grand pappy did are over. We must adjust, change and find new ways of doing things if we wish to pass this sport on to our kids.

Like I have said before, I just don't understand why so many people are against the outfitter industry. It is a valuable part of the hunting scene here in Alberta.

I personally know 2 of the people who sit on these boards. I can promise you, they do it with the best intentions of the Alberta hunter in mind.

I have faith in these 2 people, and I am not usually wrong when it comes to that kind of thing. Wait and see what happens I think it will all work out for the best.

How else would you guys like to see these ranches opened up???
One of them has not been hunted in 100 years.
The other only allows a guide on there at this time. I was actully surprised to hear that. I assumed if you you were a Member of the Mormon church that would allow you in. Let me tell you I would be more than a little chocked if I was donateing 10% of my $$$ and not recieving access


Perhaps if we give a little, we get a little. Compromise can be a good thing

Jamie

Last edited by Jamie; 12-20-2007 at 11:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 12-20-2007, 10:58 PM
MathewsArcher MathewsArcher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary,Alberta
Posts: 1,058
Default

Jamie - do you think the recreational access to agricultural grazing leases program works well? If you do I can see why your in foavor of the program. Personally I know of many failures in that program, where residents are denied access due to outfitting activities or the whim of the leaseholder. My understanding is that access will be managed in this program in the same manner under the same program. If that is the case I would be willing to bet the average albertan sportsman will never step foot on any of the property in question.

I agree the payment system to landowners conserving habitat and allowing new hunting opportunities is a good idea if it can be run efficiently
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 12-20-2007, 11:02 PM
pika pika is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 151
Default Hey Jamie

Just wondering how much it costs to hunt the Birds Eye in WMU 300, don't you have to pay a guide to get access. Didn't Ted Morton shoot a bull elk down in WMU 300 this year on the Shoderee/Nature Conservancy Ranch, must have been hashing out the details on a Ranch most Albertan's with a WMU 300 tag will never hunt. Is this new program going to put a stop to this or is this just (A) (P)ile (O)f (S)@#$ that the local outfitters dreamed up for us resident hunters to wade through in future years.

I think its time that non-residents not be able to obtain tags for any animal in Alberta that is on draw to increase resident hunting opportunities that have been lost to ranches which only allow guided hunting.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 12-20-2007, 11:04 PM
Top of the Foodchain Top of the Foodchain is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: s. alberta
Posts: 39
Default

Ive spent many years hunting in wmu 108 , managed as a trophy zone for mule deer. I also am aware of the ranches that deal exclusively with a outfitter, I've even hunted on one of these ranches and personally know the outfitter. There has been a cow elk season there for a few years now, you may hunt with permission from the outfitter only.... foot access only. If your lucky enough to harvest an animal he will be glad to haul it out for you $75. per animal. Oh and by the way while he has his own hunters in there, he seems to be unavailable to get permission from. There are several ranches in this group, but one ownership group, and just one outfitter. I experienced this hunt one time, this ranch was so big it would be near impossible to find and harvest animals on foot, little alone get a harvested animal out. We both harvested our elk but not on this ranch. Don't get me wrong this outfitter is a nice guy just trying to make a living. Five years of trial tags may just help with his retirement plans.
My opinion is there might just be some truth to Bruce's theory on smoke screens.
And his opinion on APOS.............
Seem strange the two wmu's include zone 108 a trophy mule deer zone, and soon to be a bull elk season (some huge bulls), and zone 300 that has had land owner problems for years. Both zones have a history of paid for hunting already.
Oh and this nice guy just happens to live right smack dabb in between the two wmu's
Paid hunting in Alberta
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 12-20-2007, 11:07 PM
Rust's Avatar
Rust Rust is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathewsArcher View Post
It appears a group of landowners could get together and reach the size required and the land need not be held by one individual is what is recommended so in 300 several land owners could get together.
THis is correct, but it has to be consecutive acres.
I would agree that some outfitters will forsure benifit from these tags, but you can't help but think that there has to be some very ****ed outfitters too. They pay, what $25,000 to $30,000 to get there tags and now the gov is just going to give them out to farmers????????? JUst a thought.
I would probably also have to agree with others who have said that if the landowners won't give us access now, they are more then likely going to say NO i have already let 10 others on. Weather they have or not, Or just let their extended fam. on... And how long before every landowner says "Hey what about me? Why don't I get anything?"

But for now I will just keep posting any info I get.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 12-20-2007, 11:13 PM
Jamie Jamie is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,384
Default

Mathews.
yes I think the present program seems to work. I have some issues with it and would like to see it modified. But its better than no access what so ever
Myself personally I have never been denied access to Lease land, without a good reason. In fact the one piece I asked about, I was turned down on, but I was given access to his private land.

As for the outfitters taking up much of the land.. Where in the hell is this happening??? I have hunted from Medicine Hat to Crows nest pass to Loyd to Manning and a bunch of points in between.. I am just not seeing it. I am not saying it is not there, but I haven't ran into. (as far as lease land goes)

Sure there is room for improvement in any program, nothing is perfect.

I REALLY think one of the fights we should be fighting is why is that Non Residents can come up here every year and hunt for MD (as a example) but we have to wait. I think outfitter tags should be available to people from Alberta. Sure they are going to cost some $$$, but why are we discriminating against the people in this province that can afford it? It seems this proposal may address that a bit.


Jamie
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 12-20-2007, 11:19 PM
Jamie Jamie is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pika View Post
Just wondering how much it costs to hunt the Birds Eye in WMU 300, don't you have to pay a guide to get access. Didn't Ted Morton shoot a bull elk down in WMU 300 this year on the Shoderee/Nature Conservancy Ranch, must have been hashing out the details on a Ranch most Albertan's with a WMU 300 tag will never hunt. Is this new program going to put a stop to this or is this just (A) (P)ile (O)f (S)@#$ that the local outfitters dreamed up for us resident hunters to wade through in future years.

I think its time that non-residents not be able to obtain tags for any animal in Alberta that is on draw to increase resident hunting opportunities that have been lost to ranches which only allow guided hunting.
Man.. Why so bitter??
No idea on what the Birds Eye charges, but I like the guide who runs the show
Not sure what Ted or where Ted shot anything this year, but come on if you dont think there are certain perks that apply when you are a minister..
at the end of the day if we dont work with landowners they will close off all access.. Then what do you have.. It is private land after all.

Jamie
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 12-21-2007, 01:15 AM
gunslinger's Avatar
gunslinger gunslinger is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,919
Default jamie

hey jamie i have been away for a bit here and totally missed where all this is coming from, dont know anyting about what you guys are talking about here, outfitters can buy tags from landowners, fill me in here guys, since when did landowners get the right to sell tags to outfitters and if its true what zones is there that landowners will be giving tags at.
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 12:12 PM.


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