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

[slough shark]

Funny you say you've never had someone not give access because of them having a tag. I've had it happen with 4 separate landowners over the last number of years. These 4 landowners are always the hardest people in the area to get permission, they often don't allow hunting until they get their animal which is a little frustrating, somewhat understandable but frustrating as you basically need to check on them throughout the season to see if you can have access. For the most part in the area I hunt these fellows are about the only guys that I have any trouble getting permission. I'm still a bit on the fence about what to do about landowners licenses as for the most part most of the guys I see take advantage of them don't allow access or very limited access, they do nothing to increase opportunities to the public in fact it might decrease access as a couple don't allow hunting until they get their animal and if they get tags every year...

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.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by 270WIN

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.

Ugh.... (some will get that)

I shouldn't have written that. Definitely not what I was meaning to say.

Rather than explain the comment, lets just ignore it as wrong.


I'll try again to explain, hopefully correctly this time.

Under the current SMA based Outfitter allocation cap (which is VERY loosely worded, lots of wiggle room, and questioned whether the document is even in force), Outfitters receive licences based on a % of Resident Harvest allocation times the Outfitter success rate per WMU. Sometimes this gives Outfitters and huge number of potential licences in a particular WMU, usually when the Outfitters cannot/do not sell these licences which give them a low success rate, and thus a high number of licences.

Here are a couple of examples of what happens in a high vs low Outfitter success rate WMU.

Resident Allowable Harvest (100) x Outfitter Allowable Harvest (10% x Outfitter success rate (70%) = 14 licences.

Resident Allowable Harvest (100) x Outfitter Allowable Harvest (10% x Outfitter success rate (10%) = 100 licences.




Since they cannot/do not sell these licences in this particular WMU, they ask for these licences to be transferred to another WMU within the SMA. As long as the SMA total does not exceed the cap, the transfers are usually approved.

This is how we end up with many WMUs with Outfitter licences far exceeding 10% of Resident licences. Typically these WMUs are low Resident licence numbers, higher trophy potential and located for a better profit.

Changing to a WMU based cap will end this practice.


The proposed change to WMU from SMA based Outfitter allocation caps will not specifically increase nor decrease total allocations, just shift which WMU the allocations are valid in. Some WMUs will see an increase, others a decrease.

-----

Now the proposed change to "Opportunity" based Outfitter licence calculations will typically INCREASE the number of licences issued to Outfitters on either a SMA or a WMU basis.

Rather than the formula used above to determine Outfitter Licences, the calculation would be determined as follows. Example shows what is typical for most WMUs, Resident success rate is lower than Outfitter success rates.

Current Harvest Based calculation
Resident Allowable Harvest (100) x Outfitter Allowable Harvest (10% x Outfitter success rate (70%) = 14 licences.

Proposed Opportunity Based calculation
Resident Allowable Harvest (100) x Outfitter Allowable Harvest (10% x RESIDENT success rate (50%) = 20 licences.


This change to an Opportunity based formula will result in the vast majority of WMUs experiencing an increase in Outfitter licences.



I really doubt that helped.

[walking buffalo]

I just reviewed some older Landowner information I was able to wrestle away from F&W, Thanks to Jim for taking that slap on the wrist.

Some will recall that back in 2011 I was able to get Landowner licences information by WMU. It appeared that I was the first to get it, not even the stakeholder reps had seen it.

We crunched the numbers, showed how MANY wmus had Landowner licences for Antlered MD that exceed 25% of Resident tags, a few even had 100%+!

In 2010 , the overall percentage of Antlered Mule Deer Landowner licences was 7% of Resident licences.

Now in 2016 we are at 11% Landowner licences, a 70% increase.

This is the trend I have been warning about, one that will continue unless new policy is written to cap Landowner licences.

[Bushrat]

Landowner tags should only be given out if the landowner allows some resident hunting permission. I was always under the impression landowner tags were given to landowners who had a wildlife depredation problem and couldn't find enough hunters willing to remove these problem animals from their property. Thought issuing landowner tags was to allow for he landowner to do it themselves if they for some reason couldn't find enough hunters to take care of it for them..

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

I just reviewed some older Landowner information I was able to wrestle away from F&W, Thanks to Jim for taking that slap on the wrist.

Some will recall that back in 2011 I was able to get Landowner licences information by WMU. It appeared that I was the first to get it, not even the stakeholder reps had seen it.

We crunched the numbers, showed how MANY wmus had Landowner licences for Antlered MD that exceed 25% of Resident tags, a few even had 100%+!

In 2010 , the overall percentage of Antlered Mule Deer Landowner licences was 7% of Resident licences.

Now in 2016 we are at 11% Landowner licences, a 70% increase.

This is the trend I have been warning about, one that will continue unless new policy is written to cap Landowner licences.

Just curious why you think general licences should have priority over landowner licence. Thousands of landowners grant access, many of those with landowner tags and yet you feel they should be punished......why.

Residents do not have to hunt on private land, they just want/choose to, there are millions of acres of crown land to hunt on.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Landowner tags should only be given out if the landowner allows some resident hunting permission. I was always under the impression landowner tags were given to landowners who had a wildlife depredation problem and couldn't find enough hunters willing to remove these problem animals from their property. Thought issuing landowner tags was to allow for he landowner to do it themselves if they for some reason couldn't find enough hunters to take care of it for them..

Most already do allow resident hunting, some choose that the residents (who hunt their land) are going to be family and friends (can be trusted) or are you actually suggesting that they should not have that choice either?

[cheemo]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

I just reviewed some older Landowner information I was able to wrestle away from F&W, Thanks to Jim for taking that slap on the wrist.

Some will recall that back in 2011 I was able to get Landowner licences information by WMU. It appeared that I was the first to get it, not even the stakeholder reps had seen it.

We crunched the numbers, showed how MANY wmus had Landowner licences for Antlered MD that exceed 25% of Resident tags, a few even had 100%+!

In 2010 , the overall percentage of Antlered Mule Deer Landowner licences was 7% of Resident licences.

Now in 2016 we are at 11% Landowner licences, a 70% increase.

This is the trend I have been warning about, one that will continue unless new policy is written to cap Landowner licences.

I am a landowner in a very heavily hunted area of our wmu. Our moose and mulie numbers are fine because I feel we have the proper amount of tags issued. Yes I realize there are many landowner tags issued here probably more than the allocated amount to the draw. But what many of you don't see is that many of these landowner tags never get filled because many locals will only fill with a mature buck. Now the non local hunters on the other hand, just need to park at local gas station on a Saturday afternoon to get the picture. It's truck after truck leaving the area with dink bucks and does. Our whitetail population has been decimated lately by heavy hunting and harsh winters a few years back. Had a bachelor group of 5 young whitetail bucks on cam this year. Watched 3 of them get loaded by hunters I've never seen in the area before. All on a Saturday afternoon. Countless whitetail does are also taken out by the non local hunters as well. Watched a video on YouTube the other day that just sickened me as some yank shot 3 bucks in 35 seconds and was so proud. It's that attitude I find with many of the non locals, if I have a tag it's gonna be filled. We hung 5 tags on the tree this year in our house.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by bobalong

Just curious why you think general licences should have priority over landowner licence. Thousands of landowners grant access, many of those with landowner tags and yet you feel they should be punished......why.

Residents do not have to hunt on private land, they just want/choose to, there are millions of acres of crown land to hunt on.

Originally Posted by cheemo

I am a landowner in a very heavily hunted area of our wmu. Our moose and mulie numbers are fine because I feel we have the proper amount of tags issued. Yes I realize there are many landowner tags issued here probably more than the allocated amount to the draw. But what many of you don't see is that many of these landowner tags never get filled because many locals will only fill with a mature buck. Now the non local hunters on the other hand, just need to park at local gas station on a Saturday afternoon to get the picture. It's truck after truck leaving the area with dink bucks and does. Our whitetail population has been decimated lately by heavy hunting and harsh winters a few years back. Had a bachelor group of 5 young whitetail bucks on cam this year. Watched 3 of them get loaded by hunters I've never seen in the area before. All on a Saturday afternoon. Countless whitetail does are also taken out by the non local hunters as well. Watched a video on YouTube the other day that just sickened me as some yank shot 3 bucks in 35 seconds and was so proud. It's that attitude I find with many of the non locals, if I have a tag it's gonna be filled. We hung 5 tags on the tree this year in our house.

Maybe you both missed it earlier in the thread.

I have stated that I am FOR maintaining Landowner Licences for Antlered Mule Deer.

What I disagree with and want to see changed is the written policy that guides this program. The current UNLIMITED quota for Landowners is a policy hole that needs to be filled. I suggest this be done by implementing a hard % cap of licences issued.

Landowners are getting over half of the Antlered MD Licences in many WMUs now, and that percentage is rising every year.

Do you feel that Landowners should have ALL the licences?

Without a %cap written into policy, that is where we could end up.

Maybe that's what you want?

----

I'm happy to hear people are shooting does and young bucks and filling all of their tags. I prefer this to promoting of hanging tags on trees because they are mostly just chasing a set of antlers. This is a personal choice, neither is wrong. Having said that, without a doubt the future of hunting will be much stronger if fewer people base their harvest on antler size, focus more on the lifestyle and food, respect of the wildlife and land.

Don't misinterpret this. While I don't have much compassion for people who judge what other are legally killing, I do care that we manage licences so that there are bucks and does of all ages. When this is done, there will be big old bucks for those that want them.

But that is another topic for another thread.

[cheemo]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Maybe you both missed it earlier in the thread.

I have stated that I am FOR maintaining Landowner Licences for Antlered Mule Deer.

What I disagree with and want to see changed is the written policy that guides this program. The current UNLIMITED quota for Landowners is a policy hole that needs to be filled. I suggest this be done by implementing a hard % cap of licences issued.

Landowners are getting over half of the Antlered MD Licences in many WMUs now, and that percentage is rising every year.

Do you feel that Landowners should have ALL the licences?

Without a %cap written into policy, that is where we could end up.

Maybe that's what you want?

----

I'm happy to hear people are shooting does and young bucks and filling all of their tags. I prefer this to promoting of hanging tags on trees because they are mostly just chasing a set of antlers. This is a personal choice, neither is wrong. Having said that, without a doubt the future of hunting will be much stronger if fewer people base their harvest on antler size, focus more on the lifestyle and food, respect of the wildlife and land.

Don't misinterpret this. While I don't have much compassion for people who judge what other are legally killing, I do care that we manage licences so that there are bucks and does of all ages. When this is done, there will be big old bucks for those that want them.

But that is another topic for another thread.

I agree that this is the balance we need to find. The respect of the land and its wildlife is what's missing here. Chased two different trucks off my property this year and found 3 gut piles. Guess how many people stopped by to ask for permission. Zero. I think it's wrong of you to assume that I'm some antler crazed hunter because I choose to shoot mature bucks. Many of our family members including myself apply for anterless moose, elk and deer tags. Our number one priority is also the freezer. We have to wait just as long as everybody else for those anterless moose and elk tags. Because I choose to wait for a buck to be mature rather than taking it out as a 2 year old doesn't make me an antler chaser.

[Akoch]

Well written and I completely understand what you are getting at, I think your math might be a bit off though. You state:

Proposed Opportunity Based calculation
Resident Allowable Harvest (100) x Outfitter Allowable Harvest (10% x RESIDENT success rate (50%) = 20 licences.

If it were 100 resident tags the allowable outfitter harvest would be 100x.1x.5. Making the allotment 5, not 20. I think this difference strengthen your argument by stating that if resident success is poor it will it turn limit outfitter allotments.

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Ugh.... (some will get that)

I shouldn't have written that. Definitely not what I was meaning to say.

Rather than explain the comment, lets just ignore it as wrong.


I'll try again to explain, hopefully correctly this time.

Under the current SMA based Outfitter allocation cap (which is VERY loosely worded, lots of wiggle room, and questioned whether the document is even in force), Outfitters receive licences based on a % of Resident Harvest allocation times the Outfitter success rate per WMU. Sometimes this gives Outfitters and huge number of potential licences in a particular WMU, usually when the Outfitters cannot/do not sell these licences which give them a low success rate, and thus a high number of licences.

Here are a couple of examples of what happens in a high vs low Outfitter success rate WMU.

Resident Allowable Harvest (100) x Outfitter Allowable Harvest (10% x Outfitter success rate (70%) = 14 licences.

Resident Allowable Harvest (100) x Outfitter Allowable Harvest (10% x Outfitter success rate (10%) = 100 licences.




Since they cannot/do not sell these licences in this particular WMU, they ask for these licences to be transferred to another WMU within the SMA. As long as the SMA total does not exceed the cap, the transfers are usually approved.

This is how we end up with many WMUs with Outfitter licences far exceeding 10% of Resident licences. Typically these WMUs are low Resident licence numbers, higher trophy potential and located for a better profit.

Changing to a WMU based cap will end this practice.


The proposed change to WMU from SMA based Outfitter allocation caps will not specifically increase nor decrease total allocations, just shift which WMU the allocations are valid in. Some WMUs will see an increase, others a decrease.

-----

Now the proposed change to "Opportunity" based Outfitter licence calculations will typically INCREASE the number of licences issued to Outfitters on either a SMA or a WMU basis.

Rather than the formula used above to determine Outfitter Licences, the calculation would be determined as follows. Example shows what is typical for most WMUs, Resident success rate is lower than Outfitter success rates.

Current Harvest Based calculation
Resident Allowable Harvest (100) x Outfitter Allowable Harvest (10% x Outfitter success rate (70%) = 14 licences.

Proposed Opportunity Based calculation
Resident Allowable Harvest (100) x Outfitter Allowable Harvest (10% x RESIDENT success rate (50%) = 20 licences.


This change to an Opportunity based formula will result in the vast majority of WMUs experiencing an increase in Outfitter licences.



I really doubt that helped.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Maybe you both missed it earlier in the thread.

I have stated that I am FOR maintaining Landowner Licences for Antlered Mule Deer.


Do you feel that Landowners should have ALL the licences?

Without a %cap written into policy, that is where we could end up.

Maybe that's what you want?

----
.

I would not like any user group to have all the tags, so I don't what the answer is. Landowners are residents to and have huge dollars, equipment and time invested in their land.

It just doesn't seem right that a resident with nothing invested in the land or the community and many with no respect for either are given preference.......just because. What makes them feel they are entitled to this privilege when they have really done nothing to earn it?

The disrespect shown by non-landowners toward landowners on this site is disgraceful and it makes it very difficult to have any sympathy for their cause.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Akoch

Well written and I completely understand what you are getting at, I think your math might be a bit off though. You state:

Proposed Opportunity Based calculation
Resident Allowable Harvest (100) x Outfitter Allowable Harvest (10% x RESIDENT success rate (50%) = 20 licences.

If it were 100 resident tags the allowable outfitter harvest would be 100x.1x.5. Making the allotment 5, not 20. I think this difference strengthen your argument by stating that if resident success is poor it will it turn limit outfitter allotments.

I was just testing to see if anyone was actually comprehending this stuff.

Formula should have ended with / success rate, not x success rate.
That will give the final numbers listed. Those are correct.

The number of licences issued is calculated to be the number required to fill the Allowable Harvest. Eg. If the success rate is 50% and the Allowable harvest is 100, 200 licences will be issued.

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by bobalong

The disrespect shown by non-landowners toward landowners on this site is disgraceful and it makes it very difficult to have any sympathy for their cause.

I fully agree with that statement!

Wait a few years until organizations like Y2Y, ABHA, Kevin Van Tighem and his followers get their way. And they will, they have already figured out how to turn hunters and trappers against hunters and trappers and get followers. When they get their way, which they will. You will wish you had a better relationship with landowners. Private land will be the last place to hunt and trap when these activists are done.

Argue over landowner tags all you want. Watch out for the Anti’s and yes, they are here.

KVT is here, known as alta270 and Bighorn river. Pay attention to the wolf in sheeps clothing. There are bigger issues here. I guess you will find out in a few years. Then you can complain some more...

And this wasn’t directed at you bobalong.

[Akoch]

So the proposed change would allow outfitters to have more tags when resident success is lower? Isn’t resident success a pretty good indicator of population density and herd health, or does this proposed change assume that all allowable harvest figures are correct?

This change would make sense if numbers are over objective and the goal is to increase hunter harvest, however a better solution to that would be to just issue more resident tags. Outfitter tags will in turn increase as the overall tag allotment goes up.

The most important point to me is that no one group has an unfairly high percentage of tags. If a disproportionately high percentage of the allowable tags (based on accurate management objectives) for a given unit are given to landowners, outfitters or anyone else it decreases resident hunter opportunity.

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

I was just testing to see if anyone was actually comprehending this stuff.

Formula should have ended with / success rate, not x success rate.
That will give the final numbers listed. Those are correct.

The number of licences issued is calculated to be the number required to fill the Allowable Harvest. Eg. If the success rate is 50% and the Allowable harvest is 100, 200 licences will be issued.

[Pikebreath]

I am entering late into this discussion,,,, but somewhere in all this is a failure to recognise the root issue which is there are too many draw applications for a limited number of available tags.

The truth is eliminating landowner, non resident and outfitter's tags will at best shorten a 10 year wait for a popular tag to 8 - 9 years. Is this significantly enough difference to risk alienating landowners? Kick out non res family and friends using the hunter host option? And the whole big game outfitting industry in Alberta?

And given a priority system that rewards multiple applications for several different licences each year just to build priority, that 1 -2 year reduction in wait time will go back up to 10 years in a few years anyways (it's called priority creep).

The best way to reduce wait times to perhaps a more acceptable 2- 4 year wait period would be to restrict the number of applications a hunter can make in any given year to perhaps 2 applications per year, say one application per year for all deer / antelope special licences and one application per year for all other big game (elk / moose / sheep / goat etc.)

[Akoch]

Originally Posted by Pikebreath

I am entering late into this discussion,,,, but somewhere in all this is a failure to recognise the root issue which is there are too many draw applications for a limited number of available tags.

The truth is eliminating landowner, non resident and outfitter's tags will at best shorten a 10 year wait for a popular tag to 8 - 9 years. Is this significantly enough difference to risk alienating landowners? Kick out non res family and friends using the hunter host option? And the whole big game outfitting industry in Alberta?

And given a priority system that rewards multiple applications for several different licences each year just to build priority, that 1 -2 year reduction in wait time will go back up to 10 years in a few years anyways (it's called priority creep).

The best way to reduce wait times to perhaps a more acceptable 2- 4 year wait period would be to restrict the number of applications a hunter can make in any given year to perhaps 2 applications per year, say one application per year for all deer / antelope special licences and one application per year for all other big game (elk / moose / sheep / goat etc.)

You are correct, wait times are the product of supply and demand. If wildlife populations are at objective but wait times are 10+ years there are a couple ways to create more hunter opportunity.

1. Decrease success rates and increase tag numbers, do this by decreasing rifle season length, more primitive weapons seasons, close seasons when animals are vulnerable (rut).

2. Change the way people apply for tags to limit opportunity or create a more luck / lottery style draw.

Probably other ways but those are the two ways that I see things going.

Landowner tags and outfitter allocations are just easy to put in the cross hairs because everyone imagines that they would be the one with the tag that is currently filled by someone else.

[Ranch11]

Originally Posted by Bub

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

And I believe he was referring to the landowner tags.

Funny thing is, I've pulled a landowner tag.

[Carts27]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

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.

I support landowners to harvest animals on their land, having said that I have seen over serveral years landowners basically controlling which animals get harvested to save big antlers critters for themselves. I am fully aware of what land owning is all about as my parents own a large ranch in northern alberta and do let hunters on to manage animal population. My family is all hunters but do not take advantage of the landowner tags and simply apply for tags and licenses like the rest of the hunters in alberta. I am not trying to ruffle feathers but think that land owners should only be able to harvest non-antlered species and must show harvest reports for other hunters on their land as well to prove that they are in fact doing it for population control as apposed to trying to harvest a trophy animal using a landowner tag. Whats fair is fair.

[Pikebreath]

So the argument is one of fairness,,, if eliminating landowner antlered mule deer tags will it fairer for all hunters and should reduce wait times (according to the logic of many posters in this thread), then perhaps we also need to look to look at eliminating the partner moose license to reduce moose tag wait times.

After all, how many moose tags are pulled by spouses, kids, seniors, etc. just so the dominant male of the family pack can hunt moose on the partner tag each year?

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Pikebreath

So the argument is one of fairness,,, if eliminating landowner antlered mule deer tags will it fairer for all hunters and should reduce wait times (according to the logic of many posters in this thread), then perhaps we also need to look to look at eliminating the partner moose license to reduce moose tag wait times.

After all, how many moose tags are pulled by spouses, kids, seniors, etc. just so the dominant male of the family pack can hunt moose on the partner tag each year?

Resident Partner licences were never intended to reduce or increase wait times. They were created to increase opportunity by allowing two hunters to hunt on one tag. Which probably increases success rates, which would lower licence numbers....


The "spouses, kids, seniors" consideration will become more active If NR are eliminated from the draw with the addition of the proposed NR Partner licences. Residents that want to hunt with their NR family/friends will now sacrifice Little Suzie's tag ( who doesn't actually hunt) so that Uncle Joe from Saskatchewan can come and hunt. Which of course will increase participation in the draw.... another wash?

Trying to "Fix" draw wait times by excluding segments of hunters is Not going to work. The only ways to do this is by increasing and actualizing the Allowable Harvest, which can be achieved by having accurate current population surveys, increasing populations where possible, and creating fewer "trophy only" management units.



This Allocation policy review needs to be done.
Hopefully when this is over, F&W and our stakeholders will focus on the details to improve and increase hunting where possible.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by Pikebreath

I am entering late into this discussion,,,, but somewhere in all this is a failure to recognise the root issue which is there are too many draw applications for a limited number of available tags.

The truth is eliminating landowner, non resident and outfitter's tags will at best shorten a 10 year wait for a popular tag to 8 - 9 years. Is this significantly enough difference to risk alienating landowners? Kick out non res family and friends using the hunter host option? And the whole big game outfitting industry in Alberta?

And given a priority system that rewards multiple applications for several different licences each year just to build priority, that 1 -2 year reduction in wait time will go back up to 10 years in a few years anyways (it's called priority creep).

The best way to reduce wait times to perhaps a more acceptable 2- 4 year wait period would be to restrict the number of applications a hunter can make in any given year to perhaps 2 applications per year, say one application per year for all deer / antelope special licences and one application per year for all other big game (elk / moose / sheep / goat etc.)

I think this idea has definite merit and should be considered.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by Pikebreath

So the argument is one of fairness,,, if eliminating landowner antlered mule deer tags will it fairer for all hunters and should reduce wait times (according to the logic of many posters in this thread), then perhaps we also need to look to look at eliminating the partner moose license to reduce moose tag wait times.

After all, how many moose tags are pulled by spouses, kids, seniors, etc. just so the dominant male of the family pack can hunt moose on the partner tag each year?

And this one too.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Pikebreath

The best way to reduce wait times to perhaps a more acceptable 2- 4 year wait period would be to restrict the number of applications a hunter can make in any given year to perhaps 2 applications per year, say one application per year for all deer / antelope special licences and one application per year for all other big game (elk / moose / sheep / goat etc.)

Can you work this concept through to show what happens?

Would this not still require a significant number of years for a Resident to be able to draw a deer, elk, moose, and pronghorn tag, much like it is now? Would this really improve anything, or just reduce Resident opportunity to hunt the variety of game currently available to us?

And what about meeting Harvest goals, which are necessary in many areas for social reasons? Would such a system put such extreme limits on hunter licencing that we cannot regulate populations were needed?

I suspect if this idea was put to paper, flaws will be revealed showing it does not work as you imagine.

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by Pikebreath

The best way to reduce wait times to perhaps a more acceptable 2- 4 year wait period would be to restrict the number of applications a hunter can make in any given year to perhaps 2 applications per year, say one application per year for all deer / antelope special licences and one application per year for all other big game (elk / moose / sheep / goat etc.)

I don't see how this will affect wait times - any individual will still be waiting many years to get opportunity to hunt each species.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Ugh.... (some will get that)

I shouldn't have written that. Definitely not what I was meaning to say.

Rather than explain the comment, lets just ignore it as wrong.


I'll try again to explain, hopefully correctly this time.

Under the current SMA based Outfitter allocation cap (which is VERY loosely worded, lots of wiggle room, and questioned whether the document is even in force), Outfitters receive licences based on a % of Resident Harvest allocation times the Outfitter success rate per WMU. Sometimes this gives Outfitters and huge number of potential licences in a particular WMU, usually when the Outfitters cannot/do not sell these licences which give them a low success rate, and thus a high number of licences.

Here are a couple of examples of what happens in a high vs low Outfitter success rate WMU.

Resident Allowable Harvest (100) x Outfitter Allowable Harvest (10% x Outfitter success rate (70%) = 14 licences.

Resident Allowable Harvest (100) x Outfitter Allowable Harvest (10% x Outfitter success rate (10%) = 100 licences.




Since they cannot/do not sell these licences in this particular WMU, they ask for these licences to be transferred to another WMU within the SMA. As long as the SMA total does not exceed the cap, the transfers are usually approved.

This is how we end up with many WMUs with Outfitter licences far exceeding 10% of Resident licences. Typically these WMUs are low Resident licence numbers, higher trophy potential and located for a better profit.

Changing to a WMU based cap will end this practice.


The proposed change to WMU from SMA based Outfitter allocation caps will not specifically increase nor decrease total allocations, just shift which WMU the allocations are valid in. Some WMUs will see an increase, others a decrease.

-----

Now the proposed change to "Opportunity" based Outfitter licence calculations will typically INCREASE the number of licences issued to Outfitters on either a SMA or a WMU basis.

Rather than the formula used above to determine Outfitter Licences, the calculation would be determined as follows. Example shows what is typical for most WMUs, Resident success rate is lower than Outfitter success rates.

Current Harvest Based calculation
Resident Allowable Harvest (100) x Outfitter Allowable Harvest (10% x Outfitter success rate (70%) = 14 licences.

Proposed Opportunity Based calculation
Resident Allowable Harvest (100) x Outfitter Allowable Harvest (10% x RESIDENT success rate (50%) = 20 licences.


This change to an Opportunity based formula will result in the vast majority of WMUs experiencing an increase in Outfitter licences.



I really doubt that helped.

It did help, WB. Thanks.
So just to carry it a step further (hopefully without belaboring the point) and to ensure that I understand what effect the proposal would have on resident licences in your example, it seems to me that the number of resident licences would have to be reduced from 200 to 192 in order to result in the same projected overall harvest of 110. In other words, using the current formula, the 14 outfitter tags would result in 10 dead animals (14x.7=10) and the 200 resident tags would produce 100 kills. Total harvest=110 animals. Under the proposal,the 20 outfitter licences could be expected to result in 14 kills leaving 96 kills available for the residents in order to keep the overall harvest at 110. Resident licences would have to be reduced to 192 (192x.5=96) in order to accomplish this. Have I got this right?

Assuming I do have it right, fewer resident tags equate to longer wait times, all other factors (eg. number of applicants) remaining the same.

[Carts27]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

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.

5 or better meaning 5 points or better, the same thing they do for antlered elk in some zones 3 or better or some 6 or better

[Akoch]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

I don't see how this will affect wait times - any individual will still be waiting many years to get opportunity to hunt each species.

I think the idea behind this is that if you can only apply for a limited number of species it forces peoples hand to be more targetted to a specific species rather than a generalist that will build priority for ages on anything they don’t usually hunt so that they can cash them in on whatever they figure will yield results.

People who focus on rifle mule deer hunting likely won’t spend 20 years driving up priority on archery big horn hunts.

This would not increase actual hunter opportunity per year but I could see how it would increase odds of drawing a tag that is high profile for people that are so inclined. The same way if they said every person could only apply for a single lottery draw (438 sheep, goat, or bison). Draw odds would get better for each individual lottery because people won’t apply just because they can.

[dustinjoels]

Originally Posted by Carts27

5 or better meaning 5 points or better, the same thing they do for antlered elk in some zones 3 or better or some 6 or better

This is a bad idea. Alberta did it it with mule deer at one point and it just created entire areas that produced big fork horns and 3x3s

[dustinjoels]

Is there somewhere online where the landowner tags for each WMU can be viewed by the public?

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by 270WIN

It did help, WB. Thanks.
So just to carry it a step further (hopefully without belaboring the point) and to ensure that I understand what effect the proposal would have on resident licences in your example, it seems to me that the number of resident licences would have to be reduced from 200 to 192 in order to result in the same projected overall harvest of 110. In other words, using the current formula, the 14 outfitter tags would result in 10 dead animals (14x.7=10) and the 200 resident tags would produce 100 kills. Total harvest=110 animals. Under the proposal,the 20 outfitter licences could be expected to result in 14 kills leaving 96 kills available for the residents in order to keep the overall harvest at 110. Resident licences would have to be reduced to 192 (192x.5=96) in order to accomplish this. Have I got this right?

Assuming I do have it right, fewer resident tags equate to longer wait times, all other factors (eg. number of applicants) remaining the same.

I've thought about this a bit more and I guess I'm still confused. It seems to me that if the "resident allowable harvest" is 100 animals then that number should stay the same and 200 tags should be issued so that residents can in fact be expected to kill that many animals. If that happens, however, the total projected harvest would be 114 and that exceeds the biologists' target of 110. So I guess I simply don't understand the rationale of the the formula you say they would be using if the proposal is accepted.