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

[boah]

[QUOTE=270WIN;3678661]
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. [QUOTE]

If this is the case, 2 antlerless tags would be better than 1 antlered tag.

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by Giles

I would like to see Alberta try the way Saskatchewan does the mule deer and Whitetail seasons , I think the Mule deer season for rifle is from Nov 1-15 and whitetail rifle is from Nov 15-Dec2 . It’s seams to work for them and I think Alberta should look at cutting back on the season lengths . Would see a increase in game numbers and the quality would increase if that’s what you are into . Just my thoughts for the deer anyway .

Wouldn't that have all the hunters chasing deer in the same 2 week periods?? That would suck having hunters under every rock. Around here I can hunt deer from Sept 10th till at least the end of november.

[elkhunter11]

[QUOTE]=boah;3678666]

Originally Posted by 270WIN

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.

f this is the case, 2 antlerless tags would be better than 1 antlered tag.

Taking two antlerless animals would do more to reduce the losses caused by the animals.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by Jolantru

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

Why should a land owner have to be a meat only hunter? Why should a land owner not be able to enjoy trophy hunting? I do not own enough land to qualify for a Land owner tag, but I think that a land owner has more invested interest in the game on his/her land than those who just fill out the forms and apply. A land owner should not have to wait as long as one who does little more than show up. If one is just interested in the meat, there is way more of it on bucks. I am talking land owner and not lease holder.

Some of those who whine and snivel about not getting permission are the same who begrudge the landowner the enjoyment of a small portion of a crop he/she helped raise.

I can understand why some land owners don't have any sympathy for some hunters.

[SLH]

Originally Posted by 270WIN

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.

Don't make the assumption that ranch 11 has the mindset of the majority of landowners because thankfully he doesn't.

[SLH]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

Why should a land owner have to be a meat only hunter? Why should a land owner not be able to enjoy trophy hunting? I do not own enough land to qualify for a Land owner tag, but I think that a land owner has more invested interest in the game on his/her land than those who just fill out the forms and apply. A land owner should not have to wait as long as one who does little more than show up. If one is just interested in the meat, there is way more of it on bucks. I am talking land owner and not lease holder.

Some of those who whine and snivel about not getting permission are the same who begrudge the landowner the enjoyment of a small portion of a crop he/she helped raise.

I can understand why some land owners don't have any sympathy for some hunters.

Nothing is stopping any landowner from enjoying any hunting, but they to need to stand in line for what belongs to all of us, regardless if you think somehow you are entitled for what they eat. If you didn't understand that wildlife live on the land you were foolish. And if the wildlife are a problem you can allow hunting on your terms.

[Norwest Alta]

I find it odd that a lot of folks posting on here are not in favour of landowners tags but could care less about the residency requirements and making it harder to be a resident hunter in Alberta.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by 270WIN

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.

Do not want that to happen! That will not happen if we show respect to the landowners. That means accepting when they say no and not begrudging them when they want a quality hunt on their own land. In no way should hunters tell landowner what they can or can not hunt on their own land.

I get ticked when I am criticized for shooting does or fawns and I can only imagine how a landowner must feel when some hunters tell them that they should only hunt does.

[NCC]

Originally Posted by boah

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

The worst thing we can do for wildlife, and hunting, is start to build game proof fences.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by SLH

Nothing is stopping any landowner from enjoying any hunting, but they to need to stand in line for what belongs to all of us, regardless if you think somehow you are entitled for what they eat. If you didn't understand that wildlife live on the land you were foolish. And if the wildlife are a problem you can allow hunting on your terms.

No I do not think they should not have to stand in line. You may think that the game belongs to all of us, but there has to be some incentive for the landowner. I think that it is some hunters that think they are somehow entitled to dictate to the land owners.

[catnthehat]

I for one am okay with landowner tags .
Cat

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

Do not want that to happen! That will not happen if we show respect to the landowners. That means accepting when they say no and not begrudging them when they want a quality hunt on their own land. In no way should hunters tell landowner what they can or can not hunt on their own land.

I get ticked when I am criticized for shooting does or fawns and I can only imagine how a landowner must feel when some hunters tell them that they should only hunt does.

I agree with the above post
Cat

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by SLH

Don't make the assumption that ranch 11 has the mindset of the majority of landowners because thankfully he doesn't.

A lot of landowners are not hunters. I am glad that ranch11 is a hunter and has the mindset that he does.

I know more than a few landowners who dread this time of the year when gates are left open and pasture gets packed down with tire tracts and hunters who constantly remind them that they do not own the game.

I can understand those who hate slob hunters and choose to keep their gates closed and their property posted to all hunters because they can not tell the difference.

[Positrac]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

I find it odd that a lot of folks posting on here are not in favour of landowners tags but could care less about the residency requirements and making it harder to be a resident hunter in Alberta.

Residency requirements in my area would be a hot topic for sure...

Lots of transient workers that somehow manage to hunt as a resident each year.

[Ranch11]

Originally Posted by boah

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.

Never complained one bit.

Just nice to be able to have an opportunity to tag that 190" mule buck you watched grow from a youngster to the mature buck he is today, either Draw or land owner allocation. It's a small reward for years of hard work.
Plus, I'm a trophy hunter. Shooting does would be a complete waste. And I'm not into that.


Gotta remember though, because of landowners, hunting opportunities are abundant. Start biting the hand that feeds you will be detrimental.

[Bub]

Like mac and norwest alta, I think, stated, why would they let strangers in if they have family, friends and neighbours to hunt on their land. That right there defeats the the first purpose of the tags being "To reward landowners for providing land access to other hunters".

Looking around, I do not see many do anything for wildlife, i.e. conserving the habitat, etc. Most farmers do what's good for their wallet, which is very reasonable and "normal". I see more and more bush being taken out and more crops going in. And that is ok because that is what puts food on their table. Well, it's not really ok, but what are you going to do? And that defeats the second purpose of the landowners tags being "To reward landowners for conserving wildlife habitat on their property".

I have never seen a field where a doe or two were feeding along with 10-20 bucks. However, I have seen numerous fields where a buck would be feeding with a dozen or two of does. So why an antlered tag? Defeats the third purpose being "To help mitigate losses due to depredation from mule deer".

The funny thing is that the 2nd and the 3rd "goals" are mutually exclusive. Clearly, a guy who has problems with wildlife would not be caring about its habitat and would want to get rid of it.

If a guy has problems with elk or mule deer or whatever messing with his crop, bales or anything else that puts food on his table, he will allow the hunters to come in and help him solve the problem. It doesn't really matter if those hunters are family and friends or just a bunch of dudes he had never met before. In other words, nothing will change if the landowner tags are removed from the equation in terms of access. Common sense suggests that if a land owner is a hunter and looking to take out the big buck he has been "raising" for a few years, he will not let you hunt his property. It would not matter if he had a landowner's tag or just a regular tag all other folks have years to wait for.

Don't get me wrong, I greatly appreciate the access I can have to other people's property, while a caring a firearm next to their house, potentially.

Also, all written above is only my opinion, so people should not get too uptight about it and start calling me "that guy" and the like.

[bobalong]

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.

How could you possibly know what "most" of anything as, it relates to landowners. Landowners are province wide and you don't have a clue what the majority of landowners do or don't do, but I encourage you to spew your BS to them as you are asking for permission to hunt on their land. Let us know how that works out for you.

[Bub]

Originally Posted by Ranch11

Gotta remember though, because of landowners, hunting opportunities are abundant. Start biting the hand that feeds you will be detrimental.

Lol. Don't forget about the hand that feeds you though! Be it your accountant, or the guy who works at an oilfield, or even the guy who sells you canola oil from the canola you had grown.

[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.

Sorry, I interpreted this as a complaint.

Originally Posted by Ranch11

Never complained one bit.

Just nice to be able to have an opportunity to tag that 190" mule buck you watched grow from a youngster to the mature buck he is today, either Draw or land owner allocation. It's a small reward for years of hard work.
Plus, I'm a trophy hunter. Shooting does would be a complete waste. And I'm not into that.


Gotta remember though, because of landowners, hunting opportunities are abundant. Start biting the hand that feeds you will be detrimental.

I have no problem with seeing no hunting signs. It’s actually nice to see someplace safe for the animals every so often.
You think, because of your choice of lifestyle, or maybe because you inherited this lifestyle that you should be able to trophy hunt every year? While others wait upwards of 10 years for the same tag. Then are not allowed access to your land because you have a 190” deer that you watched grow up. Feeling pretty entitled aren’t we?

[mac1983]

Originally Posted by 270WIN

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.

As a landowner I have no argument, we are on the same page.

[58thecat]

At the end of the day whatever the powers that be do we as hunters are in control of our actions in the field, the same as fishing eh...catch your limit but limit your catch...and if you wait a little longer for a tag than so be it...I know and have seen too many people just take and abuse what is given to them then restrictions are implemented and they complain but yet two years ago they were part of the problem and not the solution...the wheel keeps spinning

[hal53]

I have to wonder about guys posting here that say land owners should only be allowed to shoot does because "it takes me 8-10 years to get an antlered draw", what would happen if they asked a land owner for permission and he denied them because he only allows antler less animals to be harvested?. The constant land owner bashing on this site is to the point of ridiculous, I'm surprised any of them allow hunting on their property anymore

[last minute]

Originally Posted by hal53

I have to wonder about guys posting here that say land owners should only be allowed to shoot does because "it takes me 8-10 years to get an antlered draw", what would happen if they asked a land owner for permission and he denied them because he only allows antler less animals to be harvested?. The constant land owner bashing on this site is to the point of ridiculous, I'm surprised any of them allow hunting on their property anymore

Really if they only allow antlerless to be harvested so what as for landowner bashing really.

[boah]

Originally Posted by hal53

The constant land owner bashing on this site is to the point of ridiculous, I'm surprised any of them allow hunting on their property anymore

What bashing??? The “bashing” is towards the law. Same as the hunting rights for natives that 99% are against. Landowners can do whatever they want with their land. As if they needed permission from me. Most of my friends are landowners. EVERY one of them allow hunting. Not one of them take advantage of the landowner tags.

[doughgoat]

All this nit picking over a couple percentage points.. You know what would really increase the number of tags available and decrease wait times.. Having all "residents" of Alberta playing the same game by the same set rules.

[koothunter]

Originally Posted by Bub

Like mac and norwest alta, I think, stated, why would they let strangers in if they have family, friends and neighbours to hunt on their land. That right there defeats the the first purpose of the tags being "To reward landowners for providing land access to other hunters".

Looking around, I do not see many do anything for wildlife, i.e. conserving the habitat, etc. Most farmers do what's good for their wallet, which is very reasonable and "normal". I see more and more bush being taken out and more crops going in. And that is ok because that is what puts food on their table. Well, it's not really ok, but what are you going to do? And that defeats the second purpose of the landowners tags being "To reward landowners for conserving wildlife habitat on their property".

I have never seen a field where a doe or two were feeding along with 10-20 bucks. However, I have seen numerous fields where a buck would be feeding with a dozen or two of does. So why an antlered tag? Defeats the third purpose being "To help mitigate losses due to depredation from mule deer".

The funny thing is that the 2nd and the 3rd "goals" are mutually exclusive. Clearly, a guy who has problems with wildlife would not be caring about its habitat and would want to get rid of it.

If a guy has problems with elk or mule deer or whatever messing with his crop, bales or anything else that puts food on his table, he will allow the hunters to come in and help him solve the problem. It doesn't really matter if those hunters are family and friends or just a bunch of dudes he had never met before. In other words, nothing will change if the landowner tags are removed from the equation in terms of access. Common sense suggests that if a land owner is a hunter and looking to take out the big buck he has been "raising" for a few years, he will not let you hunt his property. It would not matter if he had a landowner's tag or just a regular tag all other folks have years to wait for.

Don't get me wrong, I greatly appreciate the access I can have to other people's property, while a caring a firearm next to their house, potentially.

Also, all written above is only my opinion, so people should not get too uptight about it and start calling me "that guy" and the like.

X2 on all of the above.

I never said I was against landowner tags, but I said it should be for antlerless. No one said you can't trophy hunt on your own property. If you want to shoot bucks or a bull elk you can do so at the same interval as every other resident and wait for a draw.

Originally Posted by koothunter View Post
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.

I said "Most" in my original post quite loosely. I was referring to zones that I hunt in the southwest (which are the zones with more landowner allocation than resident tags) and specific landowners I know, which is a fair number. I really would love to see some stats on what % of those who get landowner permits allow non-family members or close friends to hunt their property. I would also like to see some stats on how many make a conscious effort to improve habitat.

All this talk of "I fed this buck for 5 yrs, and have known him since he was knee high to a grasshopper, so I should get to kill him" is rubbish. I have deer coming in and eating my wife's flowers, so is he "my" buck because I fed him??? What if I put a bait pile out on crown land, is he mine because I fed him?? (don't worry I won't shoot him over the bait cuz that's illegal).

As stated above, I'm not against the landowner program, but I am against the abuse of it.

[livinstone]

LANDOWNER the magic word ? lam one l have 115 acres and l can not get a landowner tag why.OR is it that when the guy with the full 180 shots something and misses the game the bullet stops at the fence line.So when all the people the hate landowners talk but yet don't have the guts to invest in their own should think about it. How would they like to be the landowner feeding hay bought to feed livestock but the game on their land is eating in the night(muledeer) and with the great thinking of the f/w he cant ever shoot a antler mule deer in archery. Not all zones have antler mule deer in the southwest alta.And this survery is also a joke as they say that the number of people applying for antlerless mule deer tags are declining l know people with 5 yrs apply and no tag to show for it and yet there is 40- 80 deer in landowner fields that allow hunting.May be they should make the land size 40 acres and more people could invest in land and have a land owner tag and let the people have some commen sense and not shoot through someone yard and if they cant do that they are probably not going to coment to buying land any way

[walking buffalo]

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.

Landowner tags are issued from the Resident allocation.

If the Allowable harvest for a particular WMU is calculated to offer 100 licences, and Landowners are given 30, then the Residents licences are reduced to 70.

The problem is that there is no policy restricting the number of Landowner licences.
As the draw becomes more difficult to obtain, more Landowners apply for a Landowner licence, which further reduces the number of licences available in the draw, which leads to more landowners applying for a landowner licence....

See the vicious circle?


For Landowner licences to continue the MUST be a formal policy including a hard cap on percentage of licences issued per WMU.

[hillbillyreefer]

Alright we’ve pounded the landowners tags into the bush...........again.

Let’s go back to NR tags. I’d hate to have see those tags ended, occasionally an out of province friend comes out to hunt, I get my class C about every 15yrs,.

Why not limit NR tags to every 5yrs or some magic number that decreases their numbers and increases Resident opportunities?

As for APOS if those guys faded into oblivion the province would be a better place. Guides should be given a very small allocation of total tags.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by Bub

I have never seen a field where a doe or two were feeding along with 10-20 bucks. However, I have seen numerous fields where a buck would be feeding with a dozen or two of does. So why an antlered tag? Defeats the third purpose being "To help mitigate losses due to depredation from mule deer".

.

Last year where I hunted mule deer west of Nanton about the third day of the season I saw only bucks. I had an antlered as well as an antlerless tag but really wanted a doe because I was by myself and I have difficult getting a buck into my truck without help.
I chose to take one of the smaller bucks because I wanted venison.

I returned to the same location with another hunter a couple days later. We both had antlerless tags. Could not find a single doe on property we had permission.

This year I only had a antlerless tag and opening day we only saw bucks on this property. My partner took a small buck. I had to come back to the area three different times before I found an antlerless deer on land I had permission,

Several years ago I used to hunt the coulees on the Red Deer river east of the town of Dorothy. One landowner welcomed us with open arms. Had a hate on for Mule Deer and we were happy to help him out. He told us that the day before he had 11 deer in his coulee and would be happy if we would shoot them all. He also told us they were all at least 4 pointers except for one forker. I thought he was full of it but when we checked it out we found seven, all bucks including one fork and no does in the immediate area.

I can think of times that I have only seen does but I also I have also seen significant numbers of buck without does. I don't think seeing a herd with only one buck is a significant reality of the overall population.