How many on here would like to see an increase in draw wait times?

[Norwest Alta]

I’ve got to ask.

Is there a shortage of animals in Alberta?

From what I’ve seen there isn’t. Rather then see increased draw wait times and decreased tags available I’d rather see tighter residency requirements and proof of residency.

[koothunter]

The landowner tags are a joke IMO. Most people who get landowner tags don't allow hunters on their property. Most people who get landowner tags don't do anything different to enhance habitat. Most don't even shoot them on their own land. I think it should be completely antlerless to control population to reduce crop depredation. No one is "entitled" to a crown resource. Some here are starting to sound like.....nevermind.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by koothunter

The landowner tags are a joke IMO. Most people who get landowner tags don't allow hunters on their property. Most people who get landowner tags don't do anything different to enhance habitat. Most don't even shoot them on their own land. I think it should be completely antlerless to control population to reduce crop depredation. No one is "entitled" to a crown resource. Some here are starting to sound like.....nevermind.

No one is “entitled“ to use my land either, but it’s allowed, unless your a bow hunter. I call BS on these statements “Most people who get landowner tags don't allow hunters on their property. Most people who get landowner tags don't do anything different to enhance habitat. ”

The only reason wildlife is as prolific as it is, is because of the habitat left/created by farmers and ranchers.

No I don’t support longer wait times.

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

No one is “entitled“ to use my land either, but it’s allowed, unless your a bow hunter.

because then they hunt your mule deer?

that is exactly why it is going away. it's taking opportunity away from hunters rather than increasing opportunity

[3blade]

Anyone notice that the survey is based on IP address? Which means you can do it from your phone, your wife's phone, your kids phone, your home computer, your work computer, etc.

Now if you think this is a loophole allowing us more input, think again. Remember AGPAC was designed to limit outside input. What it means is they don't give a flying fu...squirrel what the survey results are. There will be one thing on there where they "reject the committees recommendation due to hunter input" to make a good show of it and the rest will go ahead as planned. It's all designed this way. Now if you had to log on to RELM, then it would be more legit.

Still, think about the questions and do the survey. As it stands that's the only input we have.

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

The only reason wildlife is as prolific as it is, is because of the habitat left/created by farmers and ranchers.

farming and clearing land is one of the worst things to happen to animal habitat

but keep going...

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by Ranch11

As a landowner, I don’t see why I can’t get a buck tag or either sex tag. I feed the buggers year round, should be entitled to a deer.

agree

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

farming and clearing land is one of the worst things to happen to animal habitat

but keep going...

There are many things that have and effect on animal habitat and I think the worst is the ever increasing human habitat. Safeways and Sobeys do not grow food for humans. Farmer grow the food. I think that farmers have done a good job of feeding us and at the same time leaving room and food for animals.

Yep, I supposed it might be better for the animals to give them back the land. I do most of my hunting on private farm land and I do not see the worst thing you mention. In fact I see large numbers of thriving game along side of productive agriculture operations. Way better numbers than on Crown land that just seems to have lots of habitat and lots of hunters.

I think that for the most part farmers are good stewards of the game on their property and probably would be more productive crop wise if they purged the game instead of protecting it.

This is just my opinion, but I think that if a farmer allows hunters or does not allow hunters, he/she should still be entitled to the best of the game that thrives on his property.

I notice that quite a few on AO think we should for the most part shoot bucks only and leave the does to repopulate the herd. When it comes to landowner tags many think the landowner should not be allowed to shoot the bucks and should only we allowed a doe.

[mac1983]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

There are many things that have and effect on animal habitat and I think the worst is the ever increasing human habitat. Safeways and Sobeys do not grow food for humans. Farmer grow the food. I think that farmers have done a good job of feeding us and at the same time leaving room and food for animals.

Yep, I supposed it might be better for the animals to give them back the land. I do most of my hunting on private farm land and I do not see the worst thing you mention. In fact I see large numbers of thriving game along side of productive agriculture operations. Way better numbers than on Crown land that just seems to have lots of habitat and lots of hunters.

I think that for the most part farmers are good stewards of the game on their property and probably would be more productive crop wise if they purged the game instead of protecting it.

This is just my opinion, but I think that if a farmer allows hunters or does not allow hunters, he/she should still be entitled to the best of the game that thrives on his property.

I notice that quite a few on AO think we should for the most part shoot bucks only and leave the does to repopulate the herd. When it comes to landowner tags many think the landowner should not be allowed to shoot the bucks and should only we allowed a doe.

Thanks CR for posting, Bang On. There is more game around here now days than i have ever seen in 50 some years. I personally know at least a dozen people that have hit deer with their vehicles in the last month. From what i can see we need more antlerless tags and less antlered tags. I don't really see many bulls/bucks and the ones i do see are not to big, but very large amounts of doe/cow, and they are the ones causing damage to the crops and vehicles on the road.
I don't support support longer wait times as a rule, just manage the game population so it's healthy.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

because then they hunt your mule deer?

that is exactly why it is going away. it's taking opportunity away from hunters rather than increasing opportunity

No because I find bow hunters to be the worst offenders for trespassing, and being “entitled”.

When my dad was a kid there were very few mule deer and almost no white tail around my farm. Now there are so many that supplemental tags and special hunts are authorized. 20 years ago there was no elk season or moose season, it was extremely rare event to see any. This year a bull elk and a cow elk have been through my shop, and there is a moose tag that a young hunter friend of mine hopes to fill before the end of the season. Do you honestly think the grain and alfalfa fields are harming our upland and migratory bird populations?
The easily accessible high quality forages tended to by farmers sustains huge numbers of animals.

Where do you hunt? You don’t wade into the deepest darkest bush to try for an animal, you usually hunt the fringe in hopes of getting an animal coming out to higher quality forage available in farm fields. Even in the foothills, you hunt cutlines, and blocks. Why? Because the animals are coming to feed in areas of greater forage availability and quality.

I guess because I live in the middle of nature and have for decades I see this, others may not.

I still don’t support longer wait times for any Albertans to receive a draw tag.

[walking buffalo]

The main problem with the Landowner tags is that there is no control or limits to the number issued.

Due to this some wmus have over 40% of tags issued to Landowners. And the percentage will just get higher as draw wait times increase.

I don't agree with eliminating Landowner Tags for Antlered Mule deer, but there MUST be a hard cap on the percentage of tags issued.

------------

Let's go over a few things.

F&W and Resident stakeholders want Outfitters to be managed at the WMU level. APOS is apposed to this, as there would be a reduction in outfitter allocations in many of their most lucrative areas.

Residents want draw wait times to be reduced.

Outfitters want elimination of NR hunter host licences.


Monty jumps in here and says let's make a deal.


Outfitters will be put on a WMU allocation level,

If NR Hunter Host licences are eliminated.

Hey, this will also reduce Resident wait times by 1%, lets market that angle.
NR don't have a voice, no one knows how little impact they have, who cares....

Well, eliminating Landowner tags would seriously impact draw wait times for Mule deer. Done, lets get rid of them. Blame it on greedy landowners.


APOS throws in a new wedge. They want their licences based on "Opportunity", not "Harvest". What this means is they will get more licences. Fair trade for giving in to WMU based allocations?

ABA keeps poking for separate draws for Archery Only seasons. They know that this will reduce the number of casual archery hunters that will apply for the tags. Don't want any of those crossover archery/rifle hunters....


Mine, mine mine! Gimme Gimme....


In the end, nothing will really change regarding the number of Outfitter tags nor the increase in draw wait times. Only thing that happens is the Alberta becomes more exclusive, NRs are not welcome to hunt with their Brothers, Only Serious Archery hunters will hunt with a bow.


Grab you piece of the pie. There will be No sharing.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

The main problem with the Landowner tags is that there is no control or limits to the number issued.

Due to this some wmus have over 40% of tags issued to Landowners. And the percentage will just get higher as draw wait times increase.

I don't agree with eliminating Landowner Tags for Antlered Mule deer, but there MUST be a hard cap on the percentage of tags issued.

------------

Let's go over a few things.

F&W and Resident stakeholders want Outfitters to be managed at the WMU level. APOS is apposed to this, as there would be a reduction in outfitter allocations in many of their most lucrative areas.

Residents want draw wait times to be reduced.

Outfitters want elimination of NR hunter host licences.


Monty jumps in here and says let's make a deal.


Outfitters will be put on a WMU allocation level,

If NR Hunter Host licences are eliminated.

Hey, this will also reduce Resident wait times by 1%, lets market that angle.
NR don't have a voice, no one knows how little impact they have, who cares....

Well, eliminating Landowner tags would seriously impact draw wait times for Mule deer. Done, lets get rid of them. Blame it on greedy landowners.


APOS throws in a new wedge. They want their licences based on "Opportunity", not "Harvest". What this means is they will get more licences. Fair trade for giving in to WMU based allocations?

ABA keeps poking for separate draws for Archery Only seasons. They know that this will reduce the number of casual archery hunters that will apply for the tags. Don't want any of those crossover archery/rifle hunters....


Mine, mine mine! Gimme Gimme....


In the end, nothing will really change regarding the number of Outfitter tags nor the increase in draw wait times. Only thing that happens is the Alberta becomes more exclusive, NRs are not welcome to hunt with their Brothers, Only Serious Archery hunters will hunt with a bow.


Grab you piece of the pie. There will be No sharing.

I’d support a limit on landowner tags. We could even add a landowner specific draw for them after they are rejected in the main draw, have another application for preapproved guys that have already submitted the documentation and have another lottery type draw. There will be complaining but there will be regardless of changes or no changes. The bonus would be more revenue going into the draw system hopefully to used for good.

[tbrown]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

These are the NR Draw stats for 2016
The percentages have remained quite steady for the last 12 years.

2016 NR Special Licenses issued-
Total - 300
Applications - approx. 1000, Average Successful Priority Level - 3.3

WT - 1 out of 361 total licenses = 0.3%
MD - 149/10,188 = 1.5%
Elk - 32/1826 = 1.8%
Moose - 104/11,114 = 0.9%
Pronghorn - 14/678 = 2.1%

Total Licenses = 24,176
Total NR Licenses = 300, 1.2%


This proposal was highly sought out by APOS, determined to gain any and all access to NR hunting in the province. APOS claims illegal payments and loss of opportunity to have these NR buy their hunts as reasons for making the change.


Taking away NR Special licences will cost Alberta hunters more than they will ever gain.

Not only will we lose the opportunity to hunt with our friends and family that live elsewhere, Alberta would now be joining the path to reducing NR hunting in ALL other provinces.

Obviously this change will have absolutely ZERO effect in reducing Resident wait times.

Supporting this proposal is being very short sighted.

X2

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[Ranch11]

Land users can always tell how well their land is managed by the number of wildlife that uses the land. Over the last 8 yrs of my grazing management strategy, not only have i increased my carrying capacity for livestock, I've seen a ten fold increase in the number of wildlife that inhabit the land or use it for feed. Moose, mule deer, whitetail, bears, coyotes, even ducks and geese have all benefited by my management practices. They just weren’t around before. So I think I should be able to take that trophy buck that lives on my property. I allow hunters. No bowhunters and no outfitters.

[Sledhead71]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

The main problem with the Landowner tags is that there is no control or limits to the number issued.

Due to this some wmus have over 40% of tags issued to Landowners. And the percentage will just get higher as draw wait times increase.

I don't agree with eliminating Landowner Tags for Antlered Mule deer, but there MUST be a hard cap on the percentage of tags issued.

------------

Actually there is more control associated with this land owner tag...

First, the applicant must apply in their respective WMU, be unsuccessful and then fill out an application for approval at a Fish and Wildlife office.

So, the land owner is controlled by applying in their respective WMU.

As well, fish and wildlife has to approve the application, again another control measure for this permit.

As for a hard cap on the percentage of these issued, well there really is as the biologist for the respective WMU in association with the application approval can deny this permit.


We should praise "most" land owners who enjoy our passion, these are the ones who typically do not use every piece of their respective lands for profit as they understand conservation and want healthy herds. Even those who manage for trophy, well these animals are not fenced, they will spill over and we all enjoy the rewards.

I for one have never had any issues with these permits being issued.

[play.soccer]

Proof of residency/ab healthcare card would be great, keep those newfies from filling all 6 of their tags year after year b'y.

[SLH]

For every complicated problem there is a simple solution.

And it is wrong!

Beaurocrats and politicians are increasingly unqualified to deal with these issues as they are spineless and dont really understand the issues.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by play.soccer

Proof of residency/ab healthcare card would be great, keep those newfies from filling all 6 of their tags year after year b'y.

Eh by got me brothers and sisters bac ohm i's gots to tink aboot. Dhay can't aford a non res tag by.

[last minute]

Originally Posted by play.soccer

Proof of residency/ab healthcare card would be great, keep those newfies from filling all 6 of their tags year after year b'y.

Oh my are we a little bitter:lol

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

Actually there is more control associated with this land owner tag...

First, the applicant must apply in their respective WMU, be unsuccessful and then fill out an application for approval at a Fish and Wildlife office.

So, the land owner is controlled by applying in their respective WMU.

As well, fish and wildlife has to approve the application, again another control measure for this permit.

As for a hard cap on the percentage of these issued, well there really is as the biologist for the respective WMU in association with the application approval can deny this permit.


We should praise "most" land owners who enjoy our passion, these are the ones who typically do not use every piece of their respective lands for profit as they understand conservation and want healthy herds. Even those who manage for trophy, well these animals are not fenced, they will spill over and we all enjoy the rewards.

I for one have never had any issues with these permits being issued.

No, there is no hard cap. That is why so many wmus are offering over 30% of the resident tags to Landowners. Under the current system there could be 100% of tags offered to Landowners, there is nothing in policy to stop this from happening.

[play.soccer]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

Eh by got me brothers and sisters bac ohm i's gots to tink aboot. Dhay can't aford a non res tag by.

Originally Posted by last minute

Oh my are we a little bitter:lol

Hahahahah

[BDAJ]

As I stated in another thread I posted, I will become a BC resident by the end of next year. Out of everything that I would miss most, the hunting with my Father, Brother, and friends would be at the top of the list. I am hoping that NR's do continue to have a chance in this great province to hunt with their hosts.

If it came down to it, I would be all for a longer wait time for NR's to draw a tag if it meant still being able to hunt in Alberta. Purchasing a $132 tag is nothing after waiting some years, compared to dropping thousands on a hunt that I used to be able go on sans guide. Heck, even increase the tag price. I would gladly apply for 7 years and pay $200 for a MD tag if it meant having that experience with my family and friends.

JMTC,

BDAJ

[Sledhead71]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

No, there is no hard cap. That is why so many wmus are offering over 30% of the resident tags to Landowners. Under the current system there could be 100% of tags offered to Landowners, there is nothing in policy to stop this from happening.

Stop spreading fear, plain and simple.

Fish and Wildlife has the option to decline the application period.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by MooseRiverTrapper

Decrease outfitter allocations to 10% of harvest.
Decrease landowner tags to anterless only, some WMUs 38% of antlered MD harvest is by landowner tags.
Decrease non resident draws to zero.

How does that increase draw wait times?

You have fallen into the trap of assuming that an allocation of 10% of the licences to the outfitters will result in the clients of those outfitters killing 10% of the total harvest. An easy mistake to make and one that I think has been made by many, myself included until I thought about it and then read TJ's article which confirmed my new thinking.
Allocation of 10% of the tags to outfitters will result in those tags accounting for more than 10% of the harvest, in some cases probably quite a lot more. That is because the success rate of outfitters' clients is higher than that of resident hunters who ordinarily don't use the services of an outfitter. The current system of allocating 10% of the HARVEST (not the tags) to them will limit their share of the harvest to 10%. If the outfitters' share increases in this way Fish and Wildlife will have to reduce the number of tags available to residents in order to keep the overall harvest at the level set by those who manage our wildlife populations.
Fewer tags result in longer wait times assuming all other factors (eg. number of applicants) remain the same.
In a nutshell, I believe that's what TJ's article is saying insofar as wait times are concerned.
With respect to the Landowner Licence for Antlered Mule Deer, I agree completely that 38% of the harvest is excessive and way out of proportion. However, this and other problems that may exist with this particular license can and should be addressed by making changes to the way these licenses are awarded not by simply striking antlered mule deer from the list of eligible species. I'll have more to say about this in later posts.

[Bigfeet]

I grew up in a small town in Alberta. I am passionate about hunting and wildlife but my family, nor I, ever had the privilege of owning land. I work hard in this province to support my family, pay my taxes, etc. Should another citizen, just because they own land, take away my ability to responsibly enjoy a public resource because they make their living on the land? I have to wait close to 10 years to draw an Antlered Mule deer tag, but the landowner can get a tag every year. That sure doesn't seem fair.

Or should the landowner be given a greater chance than me to enjoy the public resource that they support it on their property? Some do indeed feed those animals just by having crops, or make sure the animals continue to have the habitat they need to survive. Landowners are caretakers of much of our wildlife and wild places. Some respect that responsibility and do their best to manage things for both their livelihood and the land. Some could care less about the wildlife and want the land sterilized of all wildlife so they can make the most money. Most seem to fall somewhere in between these two.

A couple of ideas:
1. Stop abuse of the system.
It seems that no matter what rules are in place, someone will try to circumvent them or find some way to abuse things. Anecdotally, I have heard of landowners getting the tag and then passing that tag along to members of their family (immediate or not) to take an animal. So, a landowner gets the tag then allows their son, daughter, grandchild, friend - not living on or owning the property - to hunt on that tag. I have heard this story often enough to believe it happens on a regular basis. Some people get to hunt that tag every year, even though they live in the city and are not the landowner. To me, this is poaching even though there is a legal tag involved. Making certain this does not happen would cut down on the number of landowner tags issued. How to do that? Not sure, but it is a problem.

2. A weighted draw system.
Perhaps a weighted system in the draw would work? A landowner could get 2 priority points, for example, for each time they put in for the draw rather than 1? That would at least give others a better chance of being drawn, but still giving a landowner a leg up for being a steward of the land and wildlife. I think this may be a little more fair than the current system.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by dustinjoels

Can you provide a summary? I don't have the magazine

Hopefully my post no. 54 above summarizes it adequately.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

No, there is no hard cap. That is why so many wmus are offering over 30% of the resident tags to Landowners. Under the current system there could be 100% of tags offered to Landowners, there is nothing in policy to stop this from happening.

I don't understand how 30% of the tags are offered to landowners? Non landowners have just as much of a chance as landowners on getting drawn.

As a landowner I've never been offered anything. I put in for my draws and wait my time just like most other people do.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by SLH

Standardize allocations across WMU's. 20% for bighorn sheep.

Hell No!

If you think you would be upset by an allocation of 20% of the licences to outfitters, and hence to non- residents, how would you feel if you found out that this resulted in them getting 50% of the harvest as suggested in TJ's article should bighorn sheep go on draw at some point?

[boah]

Originally Posted by Ranch11

As a landowner, I don’t see why I can’t get a buck tag or either sex tag. I feed the buggers year round, should be entitled to a deer.

If you don’t want them to eat your crops, build a bettter fence.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by purgatory.sv

The survey is ambiguous.
It was presented because direction was requested.

It doesn't mean it will be observed,but it gives the population a chance ?

Participation is real action.

Real is actual participation .

Participation is just that.

Participation as an individual's satisfaction.

Results and what you may desire will depend on your actual commerce and commitment?


____.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here but if you have interpreted something I may have said as trying to steer readers of this thread away from participating in the various surveys that is definitely not the case. I've completed a couple of those surveys myself which were sent to me by organizations I belong to.
I do feel strongly, however, that those who complete the surveys should understand as completely as possible the subcommittee's recommendations and what effect the adoption of those recommendations would have on the future of hunting in this province. Given the ambiguity of the material produced by the subcommittee, gaining such an understanding will not be easy for many. TJ's article goes a long way toward removing some of the ambiguity.
I also believe, that in addition to completing the survey, the personal letters referred to in my initial post would add significantly to the impact of making our views known.