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

[mcfarmer]

As a landowner i have pulled a md tag every year for the last 20. Landowner tags are quarter specific btw. It takes a priority of 1 to get a tag, archery is still general. Have punched 3 of them. I allow more and more cow elk hunters every year. This year 25 so far. I border two reserves catch subsistence hunters on my land every year,and charge them.( usually with multiple dead bull elk or mule deer) If the landowner tags are removed just another animal restricted. Reading all the landowner lease holder bashing threads boils my blood to no end, and really makes one want to get an outfitter licence and sell hunts instead of giving them, away just saying.

[35 whelen]

Originally Posted by mcfarmer

As a landowner i have pulled a md tag every year for the last 20. Landowner tags are quarter specific btw. It takes a priority of 1 to get a tag, archery is still general. Have punched 3 of them. I allow more and more cow elk hunters every year. This year 25 so far. I border two reserves catch subsistence hunters on my land every year,and charge them.( usually with multiple dead bull elk or mule deer) If the landowner tags are removed just another animal restricted. Reading all the landowner lease holder bashing threads boils my blood to no end, and really makes one want to get an outfitter licence and sell hunts instead of giving them, away just saying.

I am also a landowner have not pulled a mule deer landowner tag as there is no Trophy Bucks left in my area and don't really know enough about it to comment too much, good on you for letting elk Hunters on your property and charging people that do not have permission ,as far as giving away hunts and getting into outfitting you probably only get a tag or two if you were lucky in your WMU 2 outfit plus all the other hassles that goes with it, I'm just thankful I own a piece of land and can hunt but in my opinion they could get rid of the landowner tags and Hunter host and clean up the residency problems might be a start, too many people take advantage of these programs

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[boah]

Originally Posted by calgarychef

I've never hosted a non resident, however I'd like to think that I could. It would be a shame to lose this ability, bringing a relative or friend from away just seems like something that we should be able to do.

This would be easy to do even if the general tags were the only ones available to non- res.

[Cowtown guy]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

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.

I know for a fact that I, personally, have issued more landowner tags in 132 than there are available to residents as per the draw results for 2017.
I also know that there are a number of these people with landowner tags that will never let anyone on their land to hunt. Straight form their mouths.
I am not passing judgement in this thread as I am torn and haven't yet formed a stance. I just thought I would share a little first hand knowledge.

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by Cowtown guy

I know for a fact that I, personally, have issued more landowner tags in 132 than there are available to residents as per the draw results for 2017.
I also know that there are a number of these people with landowner tags that will never let anyone on their land to hunt. Straight form their mouths.
I am not passing judgement in this thread as I am torn and haven't yet formed a stance. I just thought I would share a little first hand knowledge.

i don't let people hunt on my land and take my tag.

right from my mouth that tag has nothing to do with increasing hunting opportunity or population control and shouldn't be allowed.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

X2

I thought there was only one group that could play the Entitlement card.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by Cowtown guy

I know for a fact that I, personally, have issued more landowner tags in 132 than there are available to residents as per the draw results for 2017.
I also know that there are a number of these people with landowner tags that will never let anyone on their land to hunt. Straight form their mouths.
I am not passing judgement in this thread as I am torn and haven't yet formed a stance. I just thought I would share a little first hand knowledge.

In 357 there are approx 25-30 landowner tags and about 70 draw tags with 9 non resident allocations.
I don't know all the landowners taking those tags but I can guarantee the ones I do know are not letting anybody near their land to hunt anything.
They also wouldn't sell the land if the tags were taken away, or harvest it any differently.

We deal with a lot of landowners each fall, any serious hunters don't let anybody but family or friends hunt, and lots of time not even them. I don't know what it's like down south but when I walk into a farmers house with a bunch of 180" plus deer on the wall I know I'm getting nothing more then coffee and conversation lol

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

In 357 there are approx 25-30 landowner tags and about 70 draw tags with 9 non resident allocations.
I don't know all the landowners taking those tags but I can guarantee the ones I do know are not letting anybody near their land to hunt anything.
They also wouldn't sell the land if the tags were taken away, or harvest it any differently.

We deal with a lot of landowners each fall, any serious hunters don't let anybody but family or friends hunt, and lots of time not even them. I don't know what it's like down south but when I walk into a farmers house with a bunch of 180" plus deer on the wall I know I'm getting nothing more then coffee and conversation lol

There are, no doubt, some landowners who adopt that attitude. Do you you really believe there would be fewer of them if the antlered mule deer licence is taken away completely? I don't. I believe there will be more.
I agree completely that 25 to 30 percent of tags in a particular WMU going to landowners is way out of proportion and is unacceptable. However that problem can be addressed and fixed without eliminating the licence completely. There are several suggestions on this thread as to how that might be accomplished. It seems to me that just limiting the licence to one and only one such licence PER LANDOWNER and not one PER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE, as is presently the case, would go a long way towards rectifying the situation you describe.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Be careful what you wish for on the 10% allocations by WMU sir !!!

Sure there are a few that are too high because of the SMU, but if they level out all WMUs at 10% they're going to have to create a lot more Whitetail, Elk and Bear allocations to keep it even !

Changing to a WMU cap will eliminate the transfer of SMA Allocations from one unit to another.

No allocations would be lost or gained, just the unit the allocation is valid in, by eliminating the ability to transfer the allocation from a less desirable unit to a more profitable one.

BTW, There currently is no Cap on bears.... maybe there should be?

Originally Posted by 270WIN

There are, no doubt, some landowners who adopt that attitude. Do you you really believe there would be fewer of them if the antlered mule deer licence is taken away completely? I don't. I believe there will be more.
I agree completely that 25 to 30 percent of tags in a particular WMU going to landowners is way out of proportion and is unacceptable. However that problem can be addressed and fixed without eliminating the licence completely. There are several suggestions on this thread as to how that might be accomplished. It seems to me that just limiting the licence to one and only one such licence PER LANDOWNER and not one PER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE, as is presently the case, would go a long way towards rectifying the situation you describe.

How would this change anything?

The only way to put a hard cap on the % of Landowner licences is to put a hard cap an the % of Landowner licences....

------

FEI,

This AGPAC sub-commitee will be meeting tomorrow to review the survey results and proceed with developing a final draft of proposed changes.

F&W has stated that they WILL have another Public consultation on the final draft.

If you didn't get your opinion voiced, it is not to late.

[Full Curl Earl]

Same as me. And lets be honest, how many times have you asked for permission to hunt, lets say mule deer, on private land and been told "sorry, i have a tag myself so no access". Not sure how anyone ever figured giving land owners tags would open access? Maybe if a land owner signed his property with a specific signage welcoming hunters then sure, tag them up!
There also seems to be confusion for some about NR tags and NR Alien tags.

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

i agree some might call you that. it may not think what you think it does though.

it seems to me the mule deer ate just fine before you planted crops there


as a landowner i don't feel as though i own anything i didn't purchase

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by Full Curl Earl

Not sure how anyone ever figured giving land owners tags would open access? .

I never thought that giving the landowner tags was about encouraging access? I thought landowner tags were a way to allow landowners to hunt on their own land.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

I never thought that giving the landowner tags was about encouraging access? I thought landowner tags were a way to allow landowners to hunt on their own land.

That is THE reason they were created.
When draw seasons were created resulting in the loss of general seasons, Landowners were given access to these tags after concerns were raised that Landowners would not give access to the public if they could not hunt as well.

While IMO a good concept, the problems arose when this program was implemented without written policy restrictions that would have eliminated the imbalance in allocations we see today. The problem is not with the concept, but the execution.


I doubt eliminating or capping Landowner Licences for "Trophy" mule deer will effect any significant change in public access.

Those that use Landowner tags and allow public access will likely continue to do so.

Those that use the tags and don't allow access, will likely continue to do so.

[Lefty-Canuck]

There is no requirement for any landowner to allow access to anyone to hunt. I would think landowner tags did not have the desired effect. In fact they may have caused less access in some cases. Which is totally fine, that's up to the landowner to decide what occurs on his land.

LC

[albertadave]

Interesting, and really kind of sad, that this thread essentially turned into 6 pages of "discussion" about land owner tags. The Alberta Outdoorsmen article by TJ that the OP refers to in post #1, and recommended that everyone should read doesn't even mention land owner tags. What it is is an excellent explanation of the "allocation by proportion of hunting opportunity" proposal to AEP. An explanation that I'm guessing EVERYONE on this thread, with the exception of maybe one or two could really use. This particular recommendation should be getting far more attention, and be of WAY more concern to the average resident hunter, than the landowner tag issue.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by albertadave

Interesting, and really kind of sad, that this thread essentially turned into 6 pages of "discussion" about land owner tags. The Alberta Outdoorsmen article by TJ that the OP refers to in post #1, and recommended that everyone should read doesn't even mention land owner tags. What it is is an excellent explanation of the "allocation by proportion of hunting opportunity" proposal to AEP. An explanation that I'm guessing EVERYONE on this thread, with the exception of maybe one or two could really use. This particular recommendation should be getting far more attention, and be of WAY more concern to the average resident hunter, than the landowner tag issue.

Yes Dave,

I think the issue is that most people do not have the information to understand the issue.

The proposed change with the greatest potential to negatively impact Resident hunters is Outfitters receiving licences based on "Opportunity" vs "Harvest".

As I mentioned earlier, this is politics in play.
APOS is not going to accept changes they don't like without receiving concessions.

APOS is fighting the proposed change from SMA to WMU caps.
In defence,they are asking for a change to how their licence numbers are calculated, to a system that will give MANY more licences.

This "Opportunity" licence calculation change is the "bone" being used to pacify APOS potentially losing the ability to stack allocations in desirable units (SMA vs MWU caps).
In the end, if successful in getting this change, APOS will really not have anything change.

And lets not forget, if this "Opportunity" change is accepted, as more Resident hunters become willing to "Eat a tag" due to becoming more selective, the more licences that the Outfitters will receive to kill that buck they passed on.

---

Yet, we are having to discuss the whole package of proposed changes at once. There is a need to talk about everything.

The Landowner licence program DOES have significant flaws that MUST be dealt with. Under the current rules, there is no limit to the % of resident licences that can be allocated to Landowners. This needs to change.


---

While this survey is over, it is not too late to voice your concerns.

Contact your stakeholder group, AFGA, ABA, WSF, and F&W.
Tell them what you think.

[albertadave]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Yes Dave,

I think the issue is that most people do not have the information to understand the issue.

The proposed change with the greatest potential to negatively impact Resident hunters is Outfitters receiving licences based on "Opportunity" vs "Harvest".

As I mentioned earlier, this is politics in play.
APOS is not going to accept changes they don't like without receiving concessions.

APOS is fighting the proposed change from SMA to WMU caps.
In defence,they are asking for a change to how their licence numbers are calculated, to a system that will give MANY more licences.

This "Opportunity" licence calculation change is the "bone" being used to pacify APOS potentially losing the ability to stack allocations in desirable units (SMA vs MWU caps).
In the end, if successful in getting this change, APOS will really not have anything change.

And lets not forget, if this "Opportunity" change is accepted, as more Resident hunters become willing to "Eat a tag" due to becoming more selective, the more licences that the Outfitters will receive to kill that buck they passed on.

---

Yet, we are having to discuss the whole package of proposed changes at once. There is a need to talk about everything.

The Landowner licence program DOES have significant flaws that MUST be dealt with. Under the current rules, there is no limit to the % of resident licences that can be allocated to Landowners. This needs to change.


---

While this survey is over, it is not too late to voice your concerns.

Contact your stakeholder group, AFGA, ABA, WSF, and F&W.
Tell them what you think.

Totally agree Dale. The landowner licence system is most definitely flawed, and worthy of discussion. It's also an easy one to understand, call it the low hanging fruit, and in my opinion is a convenient distraction to the average outdoorsmen to what is going on with outfitter allocations. People who claim to care really need to educate themselves, and I think that was part of the point that the OP was trying to make.

BTW, you were included in the "one or two"

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

How would this change anything?

The only way to put a hard cap on the % of Landowner licences is to put a hard cap an the % of Landowner licences....

------

FEI,

.

There is usually a separate certificate of title for each quarter section, not always but usually. Assuming there are persons active in the farm operation to whom a licence entitlement could be transferred (eg. hired hands or family members active in the farming operation) more than one licence could be obtained in respect of a single landowner's property, perhaps quite a few in the case of big operations with lots of employees. At least I've always thought this could be done and it has always seemed wrong to me that it should be allowed to work this way. If a single landowner can get more than one licence in this way then there will be more licences issued than if that landowner was restricted to one only, assuming all other factors remain the same. Maybe I'm wrong on this, Walking Buffalo. If you can point out to me where I am missing something, I'd appreciate it.
A hard cap on the percentages, as you suggest, would certainly limit the number of landowner licences but if my above analysis is correct there would still be the potential for a single landowner to obtain more than one of them, perhaps quite a few, and in my mind that would be wrong.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by albertadave

Interesting, and really kind of sad, that this thread essentially turned into 6 pages of "discussion" about land owner tags. The Alberta Outdoorsmen article by TJ that the OP refers to in post #1, and recommended that everyone should read doesn't even mention land owner tags. What it is is an excellent explanation of the "allocation by proportion of hunting opportunity" proposal to AEP. An explanation that I'm guessing EVERYONE on this thread, with the exception of maybe one or two could really use. This particular recommendation should be getting far more attention, and be of WAY more concern to the average resident hunter, than the landowner tag issue.

Yes the thread has taken a bit of a turn from the way it started out. Since I'm the one that started it, that might bother me if weren't for the fact that elimination of the landowner licence insofar as antlered mule deer are concerned is included as one of the sub-committee's recommendations and my original post did ask for letters to be sent urging that the entire document be scrapped. It is correct that the landowner licence, as it is currently, is flawed and needs to be fixed and I've said so elsewhere on here. There has been considerable discussion in this thread about how this might be accomplished and so, with that in mind, I'm not particularly unhappy with the direction the thread has taken. But I agree fully that the concerns expressed in TJ's article, which prompted me to start this thread, should be taken very seriously by all resident hunters.

[cowmanbob]

I can understand why the government might want to increase outfitter allocations, when every year threads are started complaining about the three dollar non refundable draw fee.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by cowmanbob

I can understand why the government might want to increase outfitter allocations, when every year threads are started complaining about the three dollar non refundable draw fee.

I did not know that many complained about the $3.00 fee, but how is it related to outfitter allocations?

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Yes Dave,

I think the issue is that most people do not have the information to understand the issue.

The proposed change with the greatest potential to negatively impact Resident hunters is Outfitters receiving licences based on "Opportunity" vs "Harvest".

As I mentioned earlier, this is politics in play.
APOS is not going to accept changes they don't like without receiving concessions.

APOS is fighting the proposed change from SMA to WMU caps.
In defence,they are asking for a change to how their licence numbers are calculated, to a system that will give MANY more licences.

This "Opportunity" licence calculation change is the "bone" being used to pacify APOS potentially losing the ability to stack allocations in desirable units (SMA vs MWU caps).
In the end, if successful in getting this change, APOS will really not have anything change.

And lets not forget, if this "Opportunity" change is accepted, as more Resident hunters become willing to "Eat a tag" due to becoming more selective, the more licences that the Outfitters will receive to kill that buck they passed on.

---

Yet, we are having to discuss the whole package of proposed changes at once. There is a need to talk about everything.

The Landowner licence program DOES have significant flaws that MUST be dealt with. Under the current rules, there is no limit to the % of resident licences that can be allocated to Landowners. This needs to change.


---

While this survey is over, it is not too late to voice your concerns.

Contact your stakeholder group, AFGA, ABA, WSF, and F&W.
Tell them what you think.

I understand and agree with everything you are saying, Walking Buffalo,with one exception. Your statement that "In the end, if successful in getting this change, APOS will really not have anything change" has me confused. It seems to contradict your earlier statement that the proposed change would give them MANY more licences. It also seems to run contrary to the message in TJ's article that they would wind up with a much larger share of the harvest than at present to the detriment of resident hunters. Can you explain?
Thanks.

[Bub]

I am assuming he is referring to the wait times for the "regular" folks. And I agree.

[H380]

Originally Posted by Salavee

I thought there was only one group that could play the Entitlement card.

Please don't lump landowners in with that bunch ..

[Bub]

Originally Posted by H380

Please don't lump landowners in with that bunch ..

Some don't need any help and are pretty good at doing so themselves:

Originally Posted by Ranch11

Why can't I shoot trophy deer on my own land?
My land, I do how I please.

And I believe he was referring to the landowner tags.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by Full Curl Earl

Same as me. And lets be honest, how many times have you asked for permission to hunt, lets say mule deer, on private land and been told "sorry, i have a tag myself so no access". Not sure how anyone ever figured giving land owners tags would open access? Maybe if a land owner signed his property with a specific signage welcoming hunters then sure, tag them up!
There also seems to be confusion for some about NR tags and NR Alien tags.

Where do you hunt? I have never been told that once, "I have a tag so no access", it helps your argument I guess but considering the thousands of land owners that allow access it sounds like a bunch of BS to me.

The whole "attack" the landowner and tags is very popular on here, in fact it is even encouraged probably more than any other site I have seen so its only logical that that there is lots of discussion on it here.

The residents (city folk) who own no land, nor give a shyte about it have been pushing this agenda for years and this site loves promoting that by throwing gas on fire. Landowners for the most part are reasonable and if this selfish attack on landowners go through I truly hope that it bites those responsible in the azz and closes thousands of acres that have open access now.

I think it may be a good idea to send an article to all the small town papers and rural MLAs in the province explaining what for the most part the city residents have lobbied the government to do. If this goes through the article will also include a very strong recommendation urging landowners to charge all trespassers.

It will also suggest that landowners should start lobbying for mandatory written permission for anyone without a rural address hunting on deeded land, no written permission......automatic trespassing fine starting at 1000.00 for each person (no exceptions) and a year loss of all hunting privileges. City folk want a shyte show.....there going to get one!
A good title for the article will be
CITY RESIDENTS DECIDE LANDOWNERS DO NOT DESERVE TAGS.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by albertadave

Interesting, and really kind of sad, that this thread essentially turned into 6 pages of "discussion" about land owner tags. The Alberta Outdoorsmen article by TJ that the OP refers to in post #1, and recommended that everyone should read doesn't even mention land owner tags. What it is is an excellent explanation of the "allocation by proportion of hunting opportunity" proposal to AEP. An explanation that I'm guessing EVERYONE on this thread, with the exception of maybe one or two could really use. This particular recommendation should be getting far more attention, and be of WAY more concern to the average resident hunter, than the landowner tag issue.

I guess when you look at a zone that has 9 non resident allocations, 70 resident tags and 25-30 landowner tags it's hard to get upset about the 8-9% when another group is getting 25-26% or so.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by bobalong

Where do you hunt? I have never been told that once, "I have a tag so no access", it helps your argument I guess but considering the thousands of land owners that allow access it sounds like a bunch of BS to me.

The whole "attack" the landowner and tags is very popular on here, in fact it is even encouraged probably more than any other site I have seen so its only logical that that there is lots of discussion on it here.

The residents (city folk) who own no land, nor give a shyte about it have been pushing this agenda for years and this site loves promoting that by throwing gas on fire. Landowners for the most part are reasonable and if this selfish attack on landowners go through I truly hope that it bites those responsible in the azz and closes thousands of acres that have open access now.

I think it may be a good idea to send an article to all the small town papers and rural MLAs in the province explaining what for the most part the city residents have lobbied the government to do. If this goes through the article will also include a very strong recommendation urging landowners to charge all trespassers.

It will also suggest that landowners should start lobbying for mandatory written permission for anyone without a rural address hunting on deeded land, no written permission......automatic trespassing fine starting at 1000.00 for each person (no exceptions) and a year loss of all hunting privileges. City folk want a shyte show.....there going to get one!
A good title for the article will be
CITY RESIDENTS DECIDE LANDOWNERS DO NOT DESERVE TAGS.

We have permission to hunt on literally 50,000 acres of land in one WMU. Not one of those farmers cares about land owners tags or the lack there of. If they did we wouldn't be hunting there because they'd be saving those deer for themselves.
Now I have no problem with landowners tags, just limit them to 10% of the allowable total, not 100%.
Everybody has to share, minority's should get a share, and the majority should get the lions share.

[Carts27]

I agree with some comments, they need to give out more tags on certain species in certain areas, maybe put WT on a 5 or better tag, so it atleast gives the little guys a couple years of hope.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by Carts27

I agree with some comments, they need to give out more tags on certain species in certain areas, maybe put WT on a 5 or better tag, so it atleast gives the little guys a couple years of hope.

I am not sure what a 5 or better tag is, but I do not think that WT need anything other than the general WT tag in most areas.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

We have permission to hunt on literally 50,000 acres of land in one WMU. Not one of those farmers cares about land owners tags or the lack there of. If they did we wouldn't be hunting there because they'd be saving those deer for themselves.
Now I have no problem with landowners tags, just limit them to 10% of the allowable total, not 100%.
Everybody has to share, minority's should get a share, and the majority should get the lions share.

Don't have a problem with sharing, but when considering allocations you can't ignore who contributes the most to sustaining our wildlife. On that scale there is no user group that even comes close to a landowner.....not even remotely close.

I find it hard to accept/believe that so many people think that it is better to eliminate 1 tag a year for a landowner (deeded) land rather than 1 tag for a resident who contributes basically nothing but a license fee.

Depending on the area 1 single landowner could very easily be feeding and sheltering hundreds of deer that benefit many hunters, but is not entitled to just one deer for himself?