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

[270WIN]

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.

I agree as long as it's just you and as long as it's just one deer. See my other posts on this.

[270WIN]

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.

Just leaving the habitat that is there alone and not clearing it away to improve gazing/crop production is commendable in my opinion.

I'd be interested to know what concrete evidence you might have to support your statement that "Most don't even shoot them on their own land". If you do have such evidence, I assume you have reported these violations to Fish and Wildlife and there will have been some convictions as a result.
I call BS.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

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.

Great ideas for dealing with some of the problems surrounding the land owner licence. Also, limiting it to one and only one license for a qualifying landowner and not one per Certificate of Title, would go a long way towards curbing abuses.

[purgatory.sv]

Originally Posted by 270WIN

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.

No i want more people to participate, i support your comment about writing letters.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by 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.

Your suggestion of a weighted draw is another good idea worth considering, I would say.

[Ranch11]

Originally Posted by boah

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

I fI had a dollar for everytime I heard this, I'd be able to afford a better fence. Or better yet, how bout you pay me to hunt on my land...

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by Ranch11

I fI had a dollar for everytime I heard this, I'd be able to afford a better fence. Or better yet, how bout you pay me to hunt on my land...

Great idea.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by 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.

Very well put. I happen to know you are not alone in this. There are others I am aware of who have experienced the same thing with their properties. I just wish that those who advocate eliminating antlered mule deer from the list of animals eligible for the land owner license could see past their own misguided notions about what they think is an unfair advantage given to landowners and understand that there are lots of operations such as yours in the province and that everyone who enjoys wildlife benefits from that.
And I agree that you should be able to take that trophy buck.

[superduty]

before we go and strip land owner tags we should think about it!!! you need to remember whos grass they eat, whos gardens they eat, whos trees in there yard they destroy and whos hay stacks they eat and pee on. Also who provides you access to their privately owned land so you can go out and enjoy the great out doors!! start pushing to take things away from the landowners and it will result in more land shut down!! THINK ABOUT IT

[Okotokian]

I can't figure this out. Can someone explain this question from the survey to me? Will it increase or decrease hunter allocation vis-à-vis outfitters? Half of these questions don't really explain what the impact of the proposal is, so I'm not sure whether to support it or not. I would expect that guided hunters would be more successful than unguided ones. So if allocation doesn't take into account hunter success rates, wouldn't that translate into more actual animals going to outfitters and their customers? I can't really tell. Thanks in advance.

"Allocate hunting opportunity instead of harvest

Currently, Alberta Environment and Parks allocates a portion of the allowable big game harvest to the outfitted hunting industry. This harvest is then converted to OG Allocations using harvest success derived from OG activity reports. The remaining allowable harvest is then converted to recreational special license quotas, using harvest success estimates derived from hunter harvest surveys. Given the differences in harvest success between recreational and outfitted hunters, the proportion of allowable harvest can convert to a much different proportion of hunting opportunity in some WMUs, creating conflict between recreational users and the outfitted hunting industry.

Recreational hunters are primarily concerned with hunting opportunity for those animal classes and WMUs having special license draws. The resulting harvest is more relevant to wildlife managers in achieving population management objectives. Basing our allocation of big game on hunting opportunity for those animal classes and WMUs under special license draws is more transparent and easier to defend to Alberta’s hunting community

Recommendation: That AGPAC recommend to Alberta Environment and Parks that big game be allocated as a proportion of hunting opportunity (OG Allocations Held and Special License Quotas available) instead of harvest, for those animal classes and WMUs on special license draw. For animal classes and WMUs under general license seasons, allocation will continue to be calculated as a proportion of harvest. "

[mac1983]

I have a landowners tag and i'm gonna use it on the elk eating my hay last night. It surprises me that people think us landowners shouldn't be able to control problem wildlife. If you remove that option for us then it's Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up as Ralph used to say. I personally know way to many people that gut shoot elk and let em die in the bush, just to get them out of their yards. Is that what you all want?

[DJS]

Originally Posted by mac1983

I have a landowners tag and i'm gonna use it on the elk eating my hay last night. It surprises me that people think us landowners shouldn't be able to control problem wildlife. If you remove that option for us then it's Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up as Ralph used to say. I personally know way to many people that gut shoot elk and let em die in the bush, just to get them out of their yards. Is that what you all want?

If it's happening all ready....

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I can't figure this out. Can someone explain this question from the survey to me? Will it increase or decrease hunter allocation vis-à-vis outfitters? Half of these questions don't really explain what the impact of the proposal is, so I'm not sure whether to support it or not. I would expect that guided hunters would be more successful than unguided ones. So if allocation doesn't take into account hunter success rates, wouldn't that translate into more actual animals going to outfitters and their customers? I can't really tell. Thanks in advance.

"Allocate hunting opportunity instead of harvest

Currently, Alberta Environment and Parks allocates a portion of the allowable big game harvest to the outfitted hunting industry. This harvest is then converted to OG Allocations using harvest success derived from OG activity reports. The remaining allowable harvest is then converted to recreational special license quotas, using harvest success estimates derived from hunter harvest surveys. Given the differences in harvest success between recreational and outfitted hunters, the proportion of allowable harvest can convert to a much different proportion of hunting opportunity in some WMUs, creating conflict between recreational users and the outfitted hunting industry.

Recreational hunters are primarily concerned with hunting opportunity for those animal classes and WMUs having special license draws. The resulting harvest is more relevant to wildlife managers in achieving population management objectives. Basing our allocation of big game on hunting opportunity for those animal classes and WMUs under special license draws is more transparent and easier to defend to Alberta’s hunting community

Recommendation: That AGPAC recommend to Alberta Environment and Parks that big game be allocated as a proportion of hunting opportunity (OG Allocations Held and Special License Quotas available) instead of harvest, for those animal classes and WMUs on special license draw. For animal classes and WMUs under general license seasons, allocation will continue to be calculated as a proportion of harvest. "

It is hard to understand.I really wonder if that is just an accident or was it crafted that way. I struggled with it and that led me to opening this thread once TJ's article confirmed my fears that adoption of this recommendation would lead to both an increase in the percentage of the total harvest by clients of outfitters and an increase in draw wait times for residents because the number of tags available for residents would have to be reduced.
Have a look at my post no. 54 above where I've tried to summarize what TJ said. Better than that read TJ's article if you can get your hands on it because he does a great job of explaining it.

[Smokinyotes]

Originally Posted by mac1983

I have a landowners tag and i'm gonna use it on the elk eating my hay last night. It surprises me that people think us landowners shouldn't be able to control problem wildlife. If you remove that option for us then it's Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up as Ralph used to say. I personally know way to many people that gut shoot elk and let em die in the bush, just to get them out of their yards. Is that what you all want?

Gut shooting elk to let then suffer is just plain inhumane. Why shoot them just to let them suffer.
I have yet to see farmers from ths peace country coming on A/O and asking for hunters to come shoot elk.

[270WIN]

Post no. 54 contains my attempt to explain it, Oky.

[mac1983]

Originally Posted by DJS

If it's happening all ready....

Then it will only get worse if you cut it out, I can butcher a steer or a pig for meat. I could plow up all my hay land, brush all the timber off and farm another 200 acres but i choose not to and nature has prospered.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by 270WIN

Post no. 54 contains my attempt to explain it, Oky.

Thanks. I think I need to go home and read TJ's article before completing the survey. I could be mindlessly supporting the very proposals I don't want to see enacted!

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

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.

This is in reference to Landowner licences for Antlered Mule Deer and in particular to specific wmus, particularly high priority units.
The higher the priority required to draw, the more likely a landowner is to apply for a licence, which comes off the resident allocation, which increases the draw odds, which leads to more Landowners applying for Landowner licences.... Many wmus now have Landowner licences that comprise over 30% of the resident allocation.

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I can't figure this out. Can someone explain this question from the survey to me? Will it increase or decrease hunter allocation vis-à-vis outfitters? Half of these questions don't really explain what the impact of the proposal is, so I'm not sure whether to support it or not. I would expect that guided hunters would be more successful than unguided ones. So if allocation doesn't take into account hunter success rates, wouldn't that translate into more actual animals going to outfitters and their customers? I can't really tell. Thanks in advance.

"Allocate hunting opportunity instead of harvest

Currently, Alberta Environment and Parks allocates a portion of the allowable big game harvest to the outfitted hunting industry. This harvest is then converted to OG Allocations using harvest success derived from OG activity reports. The remaining allowable harvest is then converted to recreational special license quotas, using harvest success estimates derived from hunter harvest surveys. Given the differences in harvest success between recreational and outfitted hunters, the proportion of allowable harvest can convert to a much different proportion of hunting opportunity in some WMUs, creating conflict between recreational users and the outfitted hunting industry.

Recreational hunters are primarily concerned with hunting opportunity for those animal classes and WMUs having special license draws. The resulting harvest is more relevant to wildlife managers in achieving population management objectives. Basing our allocation of big game on hunting opportunity for those animal classes and WMUs under special license draws is more transparent and easier to defend to Alberta’s hunting community

Recommendation: That AGPAC recommend to Alberta Environment and Parks that big game be allocated as a proportion of hunting opportunity (OG Allocations Held and Special License Quotas available) instead of harvest, for those animal classes and WMUs on special license draw. For animal classes and WMUs under general license seasons, allocation will continue to be calculated as a proportion of harvest. "

Currently Outfitter licences are calculated by an Allowable Harvest formula.

Starting with the Resident Allowable Harvest, say 100 animals, the outfitters would be given an Allowable harvest of 10 animals.

Resident and Outfitter licences issued for those 100 animals is dependant on success rates.
Resident success rate of 50% for 100 AH = 200 licences Resident licences issued.
Outfitter success rate of 75% for 10 AH = 13 licences issued.


The proposed "Opportunity" based Outfitter Licence calculation would work off of the number of Resident licences issued, not the Allowable Harvest. ]

So for this example, those 200 Resident licences issued would now translate to 20 Outfitter licences, instead of 13.

An INCREASE of 50% more Licences for Outfitters!


As I posted here earlier, this is the counteroffer to balance out potentially reduced outfitter licences if the allocation is managed by WMU versus the current Species Management area (SMA)


This proposal is all a negotiation, give and take. The only ones at risk of losing anything are those with little to no independent voice, in this case NRs, Landowners, and those that hunt in both the Archery and rifle season.

[mac1983]

Originally Posted by Smokinyotes

Gut shooting elk to let then suffer is just plain inhumane. Why shoot them just to let them suffer.
I have yet to see farmers from ths peace country coming on A/O and asking for hunters to come shoot elk.

Not recommending SSS at all, just not the way i operate. Just thought i would try to explain that for every action there are consequences to that action. It does happen though. As for broadcasting on AO, i got at least 50 pm when i was talking about hay eating elk last year. lol. My neighbors and friends are solving the problem this year txs.

Sorry for the derail if it is. Just putting a landowners view out there.

[Smokinyotes]

Originally Posted by mac1983

Not recommending SSS at all, just not the way i operate. Just thought i would try to explain that for every action there are consequences to that action. It does happen though. As for broadcasting on AO, i got at least 50 pm when i was talking about hay eating elk last year. lol. My neighbors and friends are solving the problem this year txs.

Sorry for the derail if it is. Just putting a landowners view out there.

And out of the 50 private messages you received last year, how many of the A/O members were allowed to hunt on your land and what was their success rate?

[mac1983]

Originally Posted by Smokinyotes

And out of the 50 private messages you received last year, how many of the A/O members were allowed to hunt on your land and what was their success rate?

None, but 3 of my neighbors and 4 of my friends are feeding their kids elk meat right now, and i get my half mile long lane and yard plowed out for free. All harvested with their own tags, not landowners.

[Jolantru]

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.

As a land owner who hunts for sustinance I see no reason why you should be able to shoot a trophy buck every year when it takes me 8-10 years to get a draw. Shoot your doe and then you have meat

[Norwest Alta]

Not trying to argue with you WB but I don’t think that landowner tags are allocated. Could be wrong. I find it hard to believe that 30% of mule deer tags for a certain wmu are for landowners. Not all of these landowners will have mule deer on their land. For example I live approx 20 miles from town which by my way of figuring is 80 1/4s of land I pass on the way to town. I’ve only seen 6 of these 1/4s with mule deer on them. Mine isn’t one of them lol.

[dustinjoels]

I think the landowner tags were put in place with good intentions but have got a bit out of hand and escalated to a point (38% in some zones) that is no longer equitable to the rest of the public.

Like everything else there are loopholes in the antlered mule deer landowner tag system. It seems like every member of certain families have their name on one quarter of land so that they can all get a coveted "trophy" mule deer tag. And if you think each member of the family is hunting only their specific quarter with their name on it, you're delusional, unfortunately it is very hard to prove.

This system also makes access and gaining permission even more difficult. I've personally been told I need to wait until all 4 sons in a family get their tags filled until I can have permission to hunt on a property that was 50% crown grazing lease. They have cattle in there so they can deny, but the sons are hunting those crown quarters, again very hard to prove.

I don't think eliminating the tags is necessarily the solution. Maybe a 10% allocation that is a separate draw for the landowners. Or make it a antlerless tag. I would bet a hefty sum that landowner tag numbers would go down if the tag was for an antlerless mule deer even though they're all saying it is pest control. If they can't get a coveted antlered tag, I'm sure a lot of them wouldn't even bother.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by Smokinyotes

Gut shooting elk to let then suffer is just plain inhumane. Why shoot them just to let them suffer.
I have yet to see farmers from ths peace country coming on A/O and asking for hunters to come shoot elk.

I can’t imagine anyone gut shooting elk to let them suffer for many reasons but suppose anything is possible and as a landowner in the peace country why would I invite a bunch of strangers out here to hunt my land when I’ve got friends and family to hunt it. I’m not so sure that people understand the elk and the problems that arise from them.

[boah]

Originally Posted by Ranch11

I fI had a dollar for everytime I heard this, I'd be able to afford a better fence. Or better yet, how bout you pay me to hunt on my land...

Complain about feeding deer, then propose a fee to hunt on your land. Sounds about right.
I have no problem giving landowners tags. Seems to me that 2 non-antlered tags would cut down the feed bill more than 1 antlered tag. NO reason that antlered tags need to be landowner tags.

[boah]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

Not trying to argue with you WB but I don’t think that landowner tags are allocated. Could be wrong. I find it hard to believe that 30% of mule deer tags for a certain wmu are for landowners. Not all of these landowners will have mule deer on their land. For example I live approx 20 miles from town which by my way of figuring is 80 1/4s of land I pass on the way to town. I’ve only seen 6 of these 1/4s with mule deer on them. Mine isn’t one of them lol.

In the zone I just got drawn in there were 20 "hunters" tags and 18 landowner tags.

[boah]

Originally Posted by mac1983

I have a landowners tag and i'm gonna use it on the elk eating my hay last night. It surprises me that people think us landowners shouldn't be able to control problem wildlife. If you remove that option for us then it's Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up as Ralph used to say. I personally know way to many people that gut shoot elk and let em die in the bush, just to get them out of their yards. Is that what you all want?

I have no problem with landowner elk tags, as most of them are non-antlered tags.

[mac1983]

Originally Posted by boah

I have no problem with landowner elk tags, as most of them are non-antlered tags.

Yep I don't have 50 bulls eating my hay, maybe one. More antlerless tags less antlered tags. That's the problem here.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by Ranch11

I fI had a dollar for everytime I heard this, I'd be able to afford a better fence. Or better yet, how bout you pay me to hunt on my land...

All of you who support the proposal to eliminate the Landowner License for antlered mule deer should pay very careful attention to what Ranch11 is saying here.
This licence was created to recognize in a small way the contribution landowners make to wildlife conservation by way of providing much of the habitat these critters need in order to exist. As well, it provides a modest amount of compensation for the feed they consume. Take the licence away and you will give farmers and ranchers one more argument they can use in trying to persuade the government to legalize paid hunting. If that happens, you ain't gonna like it-guaranteed.