Number of Guide/Outfitter Tags Issued

[Ranger CS]

Does anyone know where one can acquire the stats providing information on the number of draw tags issued to guides/outfitters within each WMU each year?
One can obtain such information regarding resident draws on AlbertaRELM but have not been able to find stats pertaining to guide and outfitter tag numbers for the various species within each WMU. From what I am hearing G/O are getting more than their fair share.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by Ranger CS

Does anyone know where one can acquire the stats providing information on the number of draw tags issued to guides/outfitters within each WMU each year?
One can obtain such information regarding resident draws on AlbertaRELM but have not been able to find stats pertaining to guide and outfitter tag numbers for the various species within each WMU. From what I am hearing G/O are getting more than their fair share.

If you search back a year or so ago I think deer hunter had all the spread sheets done up.
I won't comment on your "more then fair share" comment other then the target is 10% by SMU. I personally think it should be 10% by WMU.
I will also say I know outfitters personally that have lost allocations due to resident draw numbers being reduced. Which in my opinion is the way it should be.

[Birchcraft]

Pad on my ignorance torkdiesel but what is an SMU?

[35 whelen]

Wmu

[bmac]

thank you Torkdiesel,it is very refreshing to see a guide/outfitter that has a realistic outlook.if it was 10 percent by wmu all would be good.and held to 10 percent.thats all that anyone can ask for.too bad it isn't.
do you know if the government s looking at the allocation policy yet?
they were supposed to be looking at it in late 2015 ,but i think they are too busy worrying about how to make you and i pay for all the NDP erection promises

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by Birchcraft

Pad on my ignorance torkdiesel but what is an SMU?

SMUs are groups of WMUs. Fish and Wildlife/biologists have a target number of animals they feel can be taken out of an area (not a WMU) The problem arises when game counts are down in one WMU and up in another that fall in the same SMU. The swayed numbers of allocations from one WMU to the next compared to resident draws is where the problem lies.
In a perfect world non-resident allocations would be on the 10% rule. 100 tags total for a WMU, residents get 90 and non-residents get 10. If the total number of animals killed needs to be reduced then both should be adjusted for the next year. You can't take an allocation away for the year of the hunt, but you can for the next year.
I also don't think they should take away allocations from the outfitters, I think they should be suspended until the numbers come back. 2-5-10 years, whatever it takes. I think this would help limit some of the backlash and anger coming from the outfitters right now. Allocations and business isn't cheap, we all know that. But please don't be surprised when people fight to protect their livelihoods.

[35 whelen]

MY IGNORANCE

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by 35 whelen

MY IGNORANCE

No worries whelen. I've never shared any info on this forum to make somebody feel belittled. It's about sharing info, I learn new things everyday.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Personally I agree that when resident opportunity is cut back...the guide allocation should be cut back the same percentage. Exactly like Tork has stated to suspend certain amount of allocation. Supply and demand, if the guide has a few less tags then they should be able to up their price as the opportunity is down the value of that opportunity should go up. When the opportunity of residents falls equal to or under the guide allocation for the same area that's when people get upset...and rightfully so. The way things work now the 5 year, plan, year over year guaranteed allocations sitting at the same level is what causes people to become upset.

In times of hard winter or poor recruitment or low numbers, all stakeholders should have an even reduction in relative percentage. In the past the largest stakeholder (resident opportunity) has seen a giant decline whereas the other stakeholders....guide allocation has remained constant, due to pre negotiated terms that do not waver year to year like resident opportunity does.

LC

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Personally I agree that when resident opportunity is cut back...the guide allocation should be cut back the same percentage. Exactly like Tork has stated to suspend certain amount of allocation. Supply and demand, if the guide has a few less tags then they should be able to up their price as the opportunity is down the value of that opportunity should go up. When the opportunity of residents falls equal to or under the guide allocation for the same area that's when people get upset...and rightfully so. The way things work now the 5 year, plan, year over year guaranteed allocations sitting at the same level is what causes people to become upset.

In times of hard winter or poor recruitment or low numbers, all stakeholders should have an even reduction in relative percentage. In the past the largest stakeholder (resident opportunity) has seen a giant decline whereas the other stakeholders....guide allocation has remained constant, due to pre negotiated terms that do not waver year to year like resident opportunity does.

LC

Definitely Lefty, I think a two year review with an emergency clause for winter die off would fit much better.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Definitely Lefty, I think a two year review with an emergency clause for winter die off would fit much better.

Agreed, a healthy herd serves all stakeholders well.

LC

[Pathfinder76]

All I know, is where I hunt it is so far out of balance it should be embarrassing.

[Ranger CS]

All stake holders treated equally with the same percentage of reduction is nothing less than fair just and reasonable treatment for all. That is the way it should be. Guides and outfitters have a strong organized voice, whereas we the general public are nothing more than squeaky wheels chirping in the dark. Unlike some who have stated their opinion regarding percentages, I believe 10% of all tags going to guides and outfitters is too high, 5% would be more reasonable. It is the citizens of the province who own our wildlife. Whey should a select few be entitled profit while residents who live here be denied opportunities to hunt. I realize that those in a position to financially benefit see it differently.

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Agreed, a healthy herd serves all stakeholders well.

LC

So what about landowner tags? Should their be a limit?

And the Indian harvest which, thanks to suffield, is becoming more prevalent in the 100 wmus now

Another question, when was the last fully agreed upon outfitter policy signed?

What about the general harvest stats? Are these so accurate that you can build the rest of the harvest around it?

It's a big mess. And with poor resident representation it will always be us who gets the short end.

Happy New Year.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by Ranger CS

All stake holders treated equally with the same percentage of reduction is nothing less than fair just and reasonable treatment for all. That is the way it should be. Guides and outfitters have a strong organized voice, whereas we the general public are nothing more than squeaky wheels chirping in the dark. Unlike some who have stated their opinion regarding percentages, I believe 10% of all tags going to guides and outfitters is too high, 5% would be more reasonable. It is the citizens of the province who own our wildlife. Whey should a select few be entitled profit while residents who live here be denied opportunities to hunt. I realize that those in a position to financially benefit see it differently.

Well personally if I have 9 out of the 10 balls on the playground I think that's adequate. But if you feel you need 9 1/2 well then you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
One thing not mentionec here Ranger is that for the 15 WMUs that have higher then 10% non-resident allocations there are a hundred that are lower.
Many don't have any. All the southern WMUs don't have any elk allocations. WMUs where a few thousand resident whitetail hunters hunt every year only have 20-30 non-resident allocations. Some foothills WMUs only have 4-6 bear allocations but hundreds of residents hunt them every year.
It goes both ways. Many have said they want it like Saskatchewan, some larger WMUs there have 600-800 non-resident deer allocations. Most don't care because it doesn't affect them, but I bet it really irks the guy who lives down the road.
The system is far from perfect, but it certainly isn't all doom and gloom

[JD848]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

No worries whelen. I've never shared any info on this forum to make somebody feel belittled. It's about sharing info, I learn new things everyday.

For that comment,a very HAPPY NEW YEAR to you and your family.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

since you guys have it all figured out....

So what about landowner tags? Should their be a limit?

And the Indian harvest which, thanks to suffield, is becoming more prevalent in the 100 wmus now

I'm glad that the resident know it alls are up to speed on this.
Another question, when was the last fully agreed upon outfitter policy signed?

Then to fully muddy the waters, what about the general harvest stats? Are these so accurate that you can build the rest of the harvest around it? Since the game counts are also up to date right?

It's a big mess. And with poor resident representation it will always be us who gets the short end.

Happy New Year. Same old.

In my opinion land owner tags should fall into the 90% column.

Like I said it is certainly a work in progress that needs an overhaul

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

since you guys have it all figured out....

So what about landowner tags? Should their be a limit?

And the Indian harvest which, thanks to suffield, is becoming more prevalent in the 100 wmus now

I'm glad that the resident know it alls are up to speed on this.
Another question, when was the last fully agreed upon outfitter policy signed?

Then to fully muddy the waters, what about the general harvest stats? Are these so accurate that you can build the rest of the harvest around it? Since the game counts are also up to date right?

It's a big mess. And with poor resident representation it will always be us who gets the short end.

Happy New Year. Same old.

Baby steps...how about sharing your thoughts? I thought this was a decent conversation.

LC

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by JD 848

For that comment,a very HAPPY NEW YEAR to you and your family.

To you as well JD, I hope this year is as good to you or better then the last.

[GFY]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

So what about landowner tags? Should their be a limit?

And the Indian harvest which, thanks to suffield, is becoming more prevalent in the 100 wmus now

Another question, when was the last fully agreed upon outfitter policy signed?

What about the general harvest stats? Are these so accurate that you can build the rest of the harvest around it?

It's a big mess. And with poor resident representation it will always be us who gets the short end.

Happy New Year.

landowner tags are a joke . Native rights. Well not worth talking about. You forgot archery tags for all the things we lost . MD,Moose,elk .

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

In my opinion land owner tags should fall into the 90% column.

Like I said it is certainly a work in progress that needs an overhaul

They are in the 90% Colum . They steal from the resident pool and what ever is left we get is what is left for the draw . If you don't understand . They take last year's landowner tag numbers and minus that from the tags left for the draw . Lots of changes need to happen in this province.

[H380]

Originally Posted by GFY

landowner tags are a joke . Native rights. Well not worth talking about. You forgot archery tags for all the things we lost . MD,Moose,elk .

They are in the 90% Colum . They steal from the resident pool and what ever is left we get is what is left for the draw . If you don't understand . They take last year's landowner tag numbers and minus that from the tags left for the draw . Lots of changes need to happen in this province.

Have to disagree with you . How can landowner tags be included in the 90% if they arent a constant number every year ?

[Ranger CS]

It is abundantly clear changes need to be made. Why is there not a coordinated voice representing us, the resident hunter, speaking on behalf of our interests as residents hunters? Is this Forum capable of formulating such a voice? Speaking out as individual has little or no influence affecting government policy. Collective concerns and recommendations have a much greater impact affecting government policy than does the voice of individuals.

[3blade]

And we're off....

I think we need a hard look at WHERE outfitters should be operating, not a blanket 10% policy (nice try tork but I know what mulie zones you're probably after lol). For instance, there should not be outfitters operating in any of the 3 bow zones. The resident demand is sufficient that these areas should be off limits to non-res. Likewise for the zones immediately surrounding 212/248/reddeer.

On the other side, I would have no issue doubling the cougar allocations. Very low demand by residents due to logistics, healthy or over abundant populations, very few if any conflicts with other users. Black bears harvest by non-res could certainly be increased as well, for the same reasons, though I don't have those stats at the moment to recommend a specific change. Wolves: unlimited. Sell as many hunts/tags and shoot as many as possible.

there should be zero non-res tags for any species on resident draw. If cuts need to be made, non-res is first on the chopping block (suspended is fine) until such a time as populations recover. Totally agree with more frequent reviews and better harvest stats all around.

Perhaps the smu situation needs to be re-addressed. For instance if mulies go on draw in a wmu, the outfitter is notified that his allocations are no longer valid for that part of the smu but remain valid for the rest of it. Gives a few months of lead time to adjust.

How about a predator control based incentive for outfitters? Obviously won't work in all areas, but we'll use 510 as an example: shoot 3 wolves, get an extra moose tag for the next year. Fill all your bear tags, get a couple extra whitetail tags for that fall. Certainly the ungulates saved by this process could justify an extra tag or two.

[GFY]

Originally Posted by H380

Have to disagree with you . How can landowner tags be included in the 90% if they arent a constant number every year ?

It is not a constant. They take the number of landowners tags from the year prior . If you do not believe me contact your local biologist and ask them .

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Personally I agree that when resident opportunity is cut back...the guide allocation should be cut back the same percentage. Exactly like Tork has stated to suspend certain amount of allocation. Supply and demand, if the guide has a few less tags then they should be able to up their price as the opportunity is down the value of that opportunity should go up. When the opportunity of residents falls equal to or under the guide allocation for the same area that's when people get upset...and rightfully so. The way things work now the 5 year, plan, year over year guaranteed allocations sitting at the same level is what causes people to become upset.

In times of hard winter or poor recruitment or low numbers, all stakeholders should have an even reduction in relative percentage. In the past the largest stakeholder (resident opportunity) has seen a giant decline whereas the other stakeholders....guide allocation has remained constant, due to pre negotiated terms that do not waver year to year like resident opportunity does.

LC

I agree, the system as it is where resident tags can be cut by over 90%, with no cuts to the outfitter allocations, is nothing short of asinine. The first priority should be the health of the game population, and everything else should become secondary. The next priority should be the availability of the resource to the Alberta residents. Lastly, outfitter allocations should only be available if the game population is healthy enough to allow a general season for Alberta residents. If an Alberta resident has to wait several years to draw a tag in a given WMU, then there should be no non resident allocations for that species, in that WMU.

[35 whelen]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I agree, the system as it is where resident tags can be cut by over 90%, with no cuts to the outfitter allocations, is nothing short of asinine. The first priority should be the health of the game population, and everything else should become secondary. The next priority should be the availability of the resource to the Alberta residents. Lastly, outfitter allocations should only be available if the game population is healthy enough to allow a general season for Alberta residents. If an Alberta resident has to wait several years to draw a tag in a given WMU, then there should be no non resident allocations for that species, in that WMU.

I was a guide for a lot of years and never liked competing with resident hunters ,but now I am a landowner and not guiding and my views have changed over the years ,it should be GAME FIRST ,RESIDENT 2ND ,OUTFITTERS AFTER THAT . IMO

[Pikebreath]

Originally Posted by GFY

landowner tags are a joke . Native rights. Well not worth talking about. You forgot archery tags for all the things we lost . MD,Moose,elk .

They are in the 90% Colum . They steal from the resident pool and what ever is left we get is what is left for the draw . If you don't understand . They take last year's landowner tag numbers and minus that from the tags left for the draw . Lots of changes need to happen in this province.

So landowners are not residents?

[Ranger CS]

[QUOTE=Torkdiesel;3089625]Well personally if I have 9 out of the 10 balls on the playground I think that's adequate. But if you feel you need 9 1/2 well then you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
All the southern WMUs don't have any elk allocations.

Not true, outfitters get tags as far south as WMU 300, 302 etc.

How do members feel about outfitters selling their tags to residents who are willing to pay for them? It happens.

[Torkdiesel]

[QUOTE=Ranger CS;3090289]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Well personally if I have 9 out of the 10 balls on the playground I think that's adequate. But if you feel you need 9 1/2 well then you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
All the southern WMUs don't have any elk allocations.

Not true, outfitters get tags as far south as WMU 300, 302 etc.

How do members feel about outfitters selling their tags to residents who are willing to pay for them? It happens.

Sorry Ranger, I should have been more clear. I meant the prairie WMUs in the 100's

Outfitters can't sell non-resident allocations to a resident, so no it doesn't happen.
Unless of course the resident lies and obtains a WIN card under false pretence. Like he had another residence in another province or country and lied about it when buying his license. Either way he would be classified as a non resident then.

[Ranger CS]

Back to the question of my original post? Why is so difficult for the public to get statistical information on the number of non resident licences issued in each WMU. Why is it not posted on AlbertaRelm as are the stats for resident tags issued in each WMU. I would also like to see landowner licence data posted there as well.