Mule Deer Allocations

[huntwat]

What incentive does a resident have to not follow the regulations and laws??
What incentive does the outfitter have for doing the same??

[7magtime]

Originally Posted by MooseRiverTrapper

That’s hundreds of thousands invested is outfit purchase price and improvements. Would have to have a LOT of profitable years to pay that off.

Yet every season multiple outfitters get charged and have to pay fines. Seems like a pretty big risk they’re taking if “they’re barely making it”?
If outfitting is not profitable, how do many of them stay in business after paying the fines?
Some outfits have been charged and paid fines more than once too….

[Bushrat]

When an outfitter gets caught and convicted pull their outfitting license and ban them from outfitting and/or guiding for anyone else forever. They are supposed to be ambassadors for non residents hunting in this province and should be held to a higher standard of ethics being that they are the ones making profits off of the backs of our wildlife. That would also clean up APOS.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by MooseRiverTrapper

That’s hundreds of thousands invested is outfit purchase price and improvements. Would have to have a LOT of profitable years to pay that off.

About 6 years if I didn’t need to live off the profits lol

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

When an outfitter gets caught and convicted pull their outfitting license and ban them from outfitting and/or guiding for anyone else forever. They are supposed to be ambassadors for non residents hunting in this province and should be held to a higher standard of ethics being that they are the ones making profits off of the backs of our wildlife. That would also clean up APOS.

100% for any gross negligence conviction! There are some things that happen occasionally that don’t warrant losing your livelihood

[sir_charlie]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

When an outfitter gets caught and convicted pull their outfitting license and ban them from outfitting and/or guiding for anyone else forever. They are supposed to be ambassadors for non residents hunting in this province and should be held to a higher standard of ethics being that they are the ones making profits off of the backs of our wildlife. That would also clean up APOS.

Fines and non-compliance are a reality in any and every industry. As much as I support reallocation of tags, it’s easy to see how it’s a slippery slope and a weak argument that tags should be re-allocated from outfitters to residents because of violations.

The government has a process in place they have knowingly not implemented since 2017 and they should. There is no good reason they haven’t given the time they’ve spent on other issues which were no-value add for the province or resident hunters - like trying to bring in fenced hunts.

Changes to the priority system or increasing costs would not really address the issue originally raised, which is over allocation to outfitters. You can change priority and still see overallocation to outfitters. If Gov. does not follow their process. And increasing costs only further concentrates tags into the hands of wealthier residents. The more costs increase the more resident hunters look more and more like the non-residents using outfitters (and this isn’t a jab - I know many of us on here work hard for our dollars and spend them on where our priorities are - but lots of people work hard for far less income and they should have equal opportunity to hunt what is a public resource and increasing costs ultimately skews that).

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by ram crazy

I said this awhile ago that it should be a cap of 2 draws and there was a lot of crying! You the guys with all the money want to fix things buy pricing the average working joe out of hunting, make only for the elitist. It’ all about the me crowd nowadays.

If you think that the price of applying for draws should be less than a pack of gum. We obviously value our hunting opportunities differently
Who’s whining about not getting a draw as fast as they used to? The same narrow mind guys that would rather spend money on smokes and booze yet complain about draw prices going up. Each draw should cost the price of a case of beer. If it’s not worth that much to you. I’m not sure what to say

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

If you think that the price of applying for draws should be less than a pack of gum. We obviously value our hunting opportunities differently
Who’s whining about not getting a draw as fast as they used to? The same narrow mind guys that would rather spend money on smokes and booze yet complain about draw prices going up. Each draw should cost the price of a case of beer. If it’s not worth that much to you. I’m not sure what to say

I think it should cost about half the price of a tag to apply. If you get drawn, no extra charge for the tag. It would stop a lot of people from applying for things that they don’t really care if they get it or not. Would also keep the greenies away.

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

100% for any gross negligence conviction! There are some things that happen occasionally that don’t warrant losing your livelihood

Yes, depending on egregious level.

[sir_charlie]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

If you think that the price of applying for draws should be less than a pack of gum. We obviously value our hunting opportunities differently
Who’s whining about not getting a draw as fast as they used to? The same narrow mind guys that would rather spend money on smokes and booze yet complain about draw prices going up. Each draw should cost the price of a case of beer. If it’s not worth that much to you. I’m not sure what to say

It’s not about what it’s worth to someone. It’s a public resource and charging more slowly erodes who in the public has access. Gum isn’t a public resource. A better comparison would be access to grazing leases or provincial parks - they are a public resource and free. Does this mean we value access to public land less than we value the chance to shoot a deer itself? Perhaps the province should charge a permit to access those, similar to kananaskis and crown land camping if $$ is how we are measuring value.

It would likely reduce hunters who access them is and give those who don’t mind the small fee or value it more a better chance. That might even reduce the harvest and slowly increase numbers or achieve the same outcome of increasing tag or draw costs.

Im playing a bit of devils advocate here but the fact is charging more doesn’t solve the problem and it ultimately moves further and further away from
seeing hunting as a public resource and something all residents should have access to. And that pushes more end more towards a model like in the US in so many ways.

Im not saying I’m entirely against a price increase but I am saying (1) it’s not going to solve the outfitter allocation issue which was what this thread started on and (2) as wildlife populations decrease or more hunters join and hence more people building priority or draw, to maintain the impact you are seeking suggesting increasing the cost has to continue which in turn just prices more people of the population out.

If it’s truly public it would be free and a lottery. Not a great idea cause ultimately the fee helps pay the cost to conserve and manage the wildlife. But that fee is not there to make it so those with more money get a better chance to shoot a trophy or any head of game for that matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by sir_charlie

It’s not about what it’s worth to someone. It’s a public resource and charging more slowly erodes who in the public has access. Gum isn’t a public resource. A better comparison would be access to grazing leases or provincial parks - they are a public resource and free. Does this mean we value access to public land less than we value the chance to shoot a deer itself? Perhaps the province should charge a permit to access those, similar to kananaskis and crown land camping if $$ is how we are measuring value.

It would likely reduce hunters who access them is and give those who don’t mind the small fee or value it more a better chance. That might even reduce the harvest and slowly increase numbers or achieve the same outcome of increasing tag or draw costs.

Im playing a bit of devils advocate here but the fact is charging more doesn’t solve the problem and it ultimately moves further and further away from
seeing hunting as a public resource and something all residents should have access to. And that pushes more end more towards a model like in the US in so many ways.

Im not saying I’m entirely against a price increase but I am saying (1) it’s not going to solve the outfitter allocation issue which was what this thread started on and (2) as wildlife populations decrease or more hunters join and hence more people building priority or draw, to maintain the impact you are seeking suggesting increasing the cost has to continue which in turn just prices more people of the population out.

If it’s truly public it would be free and a lottery. Not a great idea cause ultimately the fee helps pay the cost to conserve and manage the wildlife. But that fee is not there to make it so those with more money get a better chance to shoot a trophy or any head of game for that matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So what is causing the longer wait times? Outfitter allocations or a huge increase in people applying for the same licenses? If you look at the applications. There is 150 some people applying for 5 tags in each of those 320 zones. Doubling the resident tags wont make a difference to when your selected. In some of them it might be a year sooner, thats it.

Right now our wildlife has no value. $1 per applicant is nothing. Why would the govt care about a resource when the people who use it, use it for essentially nothing? To me, Increasing the value of our wildlife is far more important than keeping the price down for a small group of people.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

100% for any gross negligence conviction! There are some things that happen occasionally that don’t warrant losing your livelihood

If it's your livelihood, I'm guessing these "things" that happen occasionally wouldn't happen if you didn't want them to. Kinda the same thing at work. I won't accidently drink at work.
Curious what actually happnens occasionally that wouldn't warrant losing your tags

[Sledhead71]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

If you think that the price of applying for draws should be less than a pack of gum. We obviously value our hunting opportunities differently
Who’s whining about not getting a draw as fast as they used to? The same narrow mind guys that would rather spend money on smokes and booze yet complain about draw prices going up. Each draw should cost the price of a case of beer. If it’s not worth that much to you. I’m not sure what to say

Some, yourself included can afford increased application fee. There are many who can not afford significant increases in application fees.

Don't forget, this is an application fee and there is zero guarantee to be drawn. Many already prioritize where there budget is allocated and there is less disposable income in most families these days.

What may be fair would be to base the application fees on your previous years income, each application would only be 1% of your gross income across the board. This would be fair to all, but we all know it won't happen

[sir_charlie]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

So what is causing the longer wait times? Outfitter allocations or a huge increase in people applying for the same licenses? If you look at the applications. There is 150 some people applying for 5 tags in each of those 320 zones. Doubling the resident tags wont make a difference to when your selected. In some of them it might be a year sooner, thats it.

Right now our wildlife has no value. $1 per applicant is nothing. Why would the govt care about a resource when the people who use it, use it for essentially nothing? To me, Increasing the value of our wildlife is far more important than keeping the price down for a small group of people.

Fair. Still doesn’t address outfitter issue and if $ is how you equate value we should similarly be arguing for $ for access to public land. $ is only one measure of value.

Trucks and yahoo’s all over destroying public land and grazing leases where it’s foot access only. Free or not - it’s clear those individuals don’t value public land. Maybe charging them for it will keep those who don’t value it off.

So i see your points - it’s an easy extension though to take that measure of value to ensuring those who value public land are willing to pay for that access. And I doubt many on this forum would support that argument if the AGLA started arguing for a fee to access the public land they manage. Slippery slope and the one thing we have to continue to do as a hunting community is look beyond the immediate impact of a solution and see how that could further erode our access as residents elsewhere. Again it saying it’s a bad idea - but it’s not as simple or beneficial as it sounds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sir_charlie]

And to somewhat counter my own argument and add to your own - we should increase costs on tags and draws so that we can better fund and hence better manage our wildlife and public resource. More $ for more enforcement, more aerial surveys, more work to stabilize and increase sheep and moose populations rather than relying on the generous donations of people like you (I don’t know you personally but have seen from your posts it’s clear you spend a lot more supporting conservation than I do).

Arguing for costs increases has to be rooted in the right reasons - otherwise those same cost increases will get used against us (and I don’t think it’s a stretch to see the AGLA use it - in October they submitted a letter that reading between the lines is trying to give leaseholders the right do limit access at their discretion and essentially treat it as any other lease - eg. a home or lease on private land).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smoky buck]

The fact of the matter is a small increase in applying for draws would have little impact on anything unless there is steps taken to make sure the money is going towards Alberta’s wildlife/improving hunting opportunities

The fact of the matter is even at $20 hunters will apply and the truth is Alberta’s draw application cost is extremely low compared to most places.

I would only support an increase if steps were taken to control where these funds go so it does benefit wildlife but if it’s just going to general revenue I am not in support

All for increasing the value of our wildlife but we as hunters need to make sure we are getting value for our dollar and not just throwing it away

[Full Curl Earl]

Majority of land owners i know that are hunters dont allow hunting because they always have a land owner tag. Id say 75% or better. So the theory that giving landowner tags keeps access open holds no water, even the premise that it would seems odd.

QUOTE=Sledhead71;4469841]Your fairly hung up on Landowner permits, it has been explained to you why these are in place.... What if all the private lands here in Alberta were removed from the table or access was paid ? These people who allow access receive nothing for being accommodating to mostly strangers.

Respect goes both ways, something I fear you are missing.[/QUOTE]

[Sledhead71]

[QUOTE=Full Curl Earl;4472255]Majority of land owners i know that are hunters dont allow hunting because they always have a land owner tag. Id say 75% or better. So the theory that giving landowner tags keeps access open holds no water, even the premise that it would seems odd.


If you look back to the reasoning behind the Antlered Mule Deer permits for land owners, it really has worked as we are still allowed access to private lands. Success in my opinion....

For those you know who are utilizing these permits but not always allowing access, the benefit is still there for everyone. These people are most likely not raping the lands and have established habitat which helps hold the species they hunt. There is spill over onto other lands which is a positive, anyone who believes in habitat has my respect.

I honestly don't know why people are hung up on land owner permits... A quarter of land in Alberta is 100's of thousands of dollars, these are lands we are granted permission to use with zero investment.

[HuntingAlberta]

[QUOTE=Sledhead71;4472281]

Originally Posted by Full Curl Earl

Majority of land owners i know that are hunters dont allow hunting because they always have a land owner tag. Id say 75% or better. So the theory that giving landowner tags keeps access open holds no water, even the premise that it would seems odd.

Originally Posted by Full Curl Earl

If you look back to the reasoning behind the Antlered Mule Deer permits for land owners, it really has worked as we are still allowed access to private lands. Success in my opinion....

For those you know who are utilizing these permits but not always allowing access, the benefit is still there for everyone. These people are most likely not raping the lands and have established habitat which helps hold the species they hunt. There is spill over onto other lands which is a positive, anyone who believes in habitat has my respect.

I honestly don't know why people are hung up on land owner permits... A quarter of land in Alberta is 100's of thousands of dollars, these are lands we are granted permission to use with zero investment.

Bingo. I get a landowner tag every year and control about 5,000 acres or land. I shoot a mule deer every 4-5 years but work on increasing the habitat and species every year. Taking away the access to the landowner tags, will not change anything about letting other people on to the land, but could strip my wish to increase the habitat for 4 years when i get a tag every 5.

Many more mule deer are shot around my land every year based on the effort i put in to help the species. The guys who come out for a week every 12 months and expect to see 190" deer and not do anything else are a bigger problem than i am towards the population. Especially when they come every 5 years and most shoot the first buck and doe they see.

[huntwat]

[QUOTE=HuntingAlberta;4472608]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

[B]


Bingo. I get a landowner tag every year and control about 5,000 acres or land. I shoot a mule deer every 4-5 years but work on increasing the habitat and species every year. Taking away the access to the landowner tags, will not change anything about letting other people on to the land, but could strip my wish to increase the habitat for 4 years when i get a tag every 5.

Many more mule deer are shot around my land every year based on the effort i put in to help the species. The guys who come out for a week every 12 months and expect to see 190" deer and not do anything else are a bigger problem than i am towards the population. Especially when they come every 5 years and most shoot the first buck and doe they see.

Do you get a tag every year? Or, every 5 years?
You don’t allow hunting access?
I’m having trouble understanding your post.

[sir_charlie]

Originally Posted by Full Curl Earl

Majority of land owners i know that are hunters dont allow hunting because they always have a land owner tag. Id say 75% or better. So the theory that giving landowner tags keeps access open holds no water, even the premise that it would seems odd.

QUOTE=Sledhead71;4469841]Your fairly hung up on Landowner permits, it has been explained to you why these are in place.... What if all the private lands here in Alberta were removed from the table or access was paid ? These people who allow access receive nothing for being accommodating to mostly strangers.

Respect goes both ways, something I fear you are missing.

[/QUOTE]


On the plus side, 25% are still giving access. I’m not a landowner, but honestly that’s their right to deny access, tag or not. And they still have to apply under the draw if they want to hunt outside their property.

Can’t be easy dealing with strangers and yahoo’s on a regular basis asking for access. So long as the government continues to ensure paid access or sale of those tags is not a reality here in Alberta, taking away tags from landowners will only make matters worse. It’s doubtful it would be enough to make a difference to wait times and if it did, even it’s it’s small your more likely to end up with a tag and nowhere to hunt with it. It certainly won’t help opening access.

And my guess is given how many of the hunter on here are caught up on lack of opportunity, most non landowners here who were gifted land tomorrow would quickly argue against given landowner tags up too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

If it's your livelihood, I'm guessing these "things" that happen occasionally wouldn't happen if you didn't want them to. Kinda the same thing at work. I won't accidently drink at work.
Curious what actually happnens occasionally that wouldn't warrant losing your tags

20 years ago we had 3 bear bait signs up at a bait on the main access trails and 1 right at the bait. F&W felt 4 was “adequate”. That one cost us $4,000 although I’ve seen 25 different resident baits with only 1 sign.

Pretty sure I wouldn’t crucify someone for that offence.

A friend of mine was bringing his hunter to the airport and bringing meat to the butcher to be shipped later. They got a flat on the way to town and were late for the flight. They rushed to the airport and dropped off the hunter then the outfitter headed for the butcher. Got stopped by F&W with 4 quarters of deboned moose in the box. Lost the moose and was charged with transporting wildlife without the proper transfer documents. It cost him plenty in lawyers, and he was still convicted.

I wouldn’t say that was an egregious act worthy of losing your livelihood.



No if you falsified a moose allocation and shot a bull in the wrong WMU, string them up !

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by huntwat

What incentive does a resident have to not follow the regulations and laws??
What incentive does the outfitter have for doing the same??

Anyone???

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

20 years ago we had 3 bear bait signs up at a bait on the main access trails and 1 right at the bait. F&W felt 4 was “adequate”. That one cost us $4,000 although I’ve seen 25 different resident baits with only 1 sign.

Pretty sure I wouldn’t crucify someone for that offence.

A friend of mine was bringing his hunter to the airport and bringing meat to the butcher to be shipped later. They got a flat on the way to town and were late for the flight. They rushed to the airport and dropped off the hunter then the outfitter headed for the butcher. Got stopped by F&W with 4 quarters of deboned moose in the box. Lost the moose and was charged with transporting wildlife without the proper transfer documents. It cost him plenty in lawyers, and he was still convicted.

I wouldn’t say that was an egregious act worthy of losing your livelihood.



No if you falsified a moose allocation and shot a bull in the wrong WMU, string them up !

I guess he should have put better tires on his truck!!

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by huntwat

What incentive does a resident have to not follow the regulations and laws??
What incentive does the outfitter have for doing the same??

There is a reason no one has answered this question
It doesn’t make any sense

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

There is a reason no one has answered this question
It doesn’t make any sense

What doesn’t make sense about the question?

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by ram crazy

What doesn’t make sense about the question?

Then what’s your answer to the question

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

Then what’s your answer to the question

Outfitter makes money and will do what ever it takes to fill clients tag.

[dustinjoels]

On the plus side, 25% are still giving access. I’m not a landowner, but honestly that’s their right to deny access, tag or not. And they still have to apply under the draw if they want to hunt outside their property.

Can’t be easy dealing with strangers and yahoo’s on a regular basis asking for access. So long as the government continues to ensure paid access or sale of those tags is not a reality here in Alberta, taking away tags from landowners will only make matters worse. It’s doubtful it would be enough to make a difference to wait times and if it did, even it’s it’s small your more likely to end up with a tag and nowhere to hunt with it. It certainly won’t help opening access.

And my guess is given how many of the hunter on here are caught up on lack of opportunity, most non landowners here who were gifted land tomorrow would quickly argue against given landowner tags up too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

In some WMUs landowner tags have a huge impact on wait times. Most however the impact is negligible.

Easy solution is to cap landowner tags at a 10% allocation just like outfitters.

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by ram crazy

Outfitter makes money and will do what ever it takes to fill clients tag.

You haven’t obviously been on many guided hunts