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

[covey ridge]

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

I see no problem with requiring a certain number of points on bull elk in certain areas. I see no need to require the same for WT on private land.

The point thing was tried on mule deer. From what I saw and heard, it was a disaster. When it was a 4 point or better a lot of big 3 points got shot and left.
Dropping the requirement to 3 did not really help as well. I think that limiting the tags on antlered mule deer was a better solution. When I used to draw in zone 160 it was not unusual to see as many bucks as does. Permission was reasonable and landowners that were hunters granted permission but would not tell you where the big bucks were till after they filled their tags. The odd time I was asked to stay away from certain sections because family were hunting there. There was always lots of deer and I heard some landowners complain that hunters do not take enough.

[JDK71]

I have never felt the need to pull a land owners tag 5 to 6 years on a draw for mule couple of years to go

[Ranch11]

Originally Posted by Ranch11

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

Should say: I've never pulled a landowner tag. Sorry for the confusion.

Always done it through draw and it's usually 2 yrs in my zone.

[cheemo]

Really like pike breaths idea from a fairness point of view. Doesn't target any one specific group, we all have to choose a couple species that we want to apply for. Lol to those saying that this method will not reduce wait times. Do the math. If I'm only able to apply for moose or elk and not both how is that NOT going to reduce wait times for both species. Some people will choose elk and some moose. I guess some want only the landowners to lose their silly priveledge for their own benefit and will find flaw in any other way of thinking that may hurt their own current priveledges.

[Cintax]

As a non-resident, I have to say I'd prefer not to see a reduction in non-resident tags. My uncle lives in Calgary and I've been out twice now using the hunter host program for white-tailed deer. These are over the counter tags so not the subject of the debate. Each year I pay into the wildlife fund, buy my hunter host license and enter into a few of the draws. The hunter host program let's me do something I can't do in Ontario which is to hunt with my uncle for species we don't have back east.

Alberta has some great hunting opportunities for everyone. There are plenty of low priority draw and over the counter tags for antlered mule deer if your interested in hunting Foothill and Mountain units. I suspect the debate is centered around the Parklands and Prarie WMUs.

The farm we have permission on is in WMU 214 and it has a priority eight or nine to draw for antlered mule deer right now. I can see why people might be upset over that. If you look, that area doesn't have very many tags allocated. I've seen plenty of shooter bucks on that farm and quite a few are monsters. I can keep paying into the system and in eight or nine years I can get after one.

On the other hand, I could put into some other units nearby and draw three or four tags in the same time. My uncle has a buddy with six sections in a unit with OTC antlered mule deer. I could get after one anytime I wanted and so could anyone else.

My point here is two fold - one is there is plenty of opportunity to get after antlered mule deer if you want but some of it might be hard hunting. And two, family hunts are important. I love spending time with my uncle out in Alberta. It's one of the best things for an eastern hunter to come out for a western hunt.

[Torkdiesel]

If everything is divided fairly I see no issue, it's when it gets slanted people get upset. Or should get upset anyway, we've seen plenty of examples where people jump up and down on here like butt hurt children because they don't get to play with 100% of the balls.

80% residents (partner hunt non resident Canadians if the successful residents wants to)
10% landowners
10% Outfitter allocations

Residents are by far the largest demographic, they get the lions share. Landowners still get their own tags if not successful in the resident draw, but it's regulated, not a free for all. Outfitters are capped at a hard 10% of available tags, not animals based on success rate. We get paid the same regardless if the animal dies or not.

Share just like your parents taught you as children

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

If everything is divided fairly I see no issue, it's when it gets slanted people get upset. Or should get upset anyway, we've seen plenty of examples where people jump up and down on here like butt hurt children because they don't get to play with 100% of the balls.

80% residents (partner hunt non resident Canadians if the successful residents wants to)
10% landowners
10% Outfitter allocations

Residents are by far the largest demographic, they get the lions share. Landowners still get their own tags if not successful in the resident draw, but it's regulated, not a free for all. Outfitters are capped at a hard 10% of available tags, not animals based on success rate. We get paid the same regardless if the animal dies or not.

Share just like your parents taught you as children

Fair is a matter of opinion. What seems fair to you does not make what seems fair to me unfair.

I'll follower example and give my opinion of fair.

Resident Allocation of Total Allowable Harvest - Minimum of 91% (includes Resident, Landowner and NR Hunter Hosted)
Outfitter Allocation of Total Allowable Harvest - Maximum of 9%, for ALL species.

Licences issued are to be based on Allowable Harvest Goal and success rates, independently for Resident and Outfitters.

Allocations for both Residents and Outfitters are to be managed at the WMU level.

Success rates for Both Residents and Outfitters are to be calculated WITHOUT the inclusion of Licences NOT sold.


Resident Allocation is to include a 10% cap of licences to both Landowner Licences and NR Special Licences where applicable.
F&W to legislate a "Reciprocity" rule, only NRs from jurisdictions with reciprocal NR hunting for Alberta resident may apply in the special licence draw.

Outfitter Allocation is to include a Maximim 9% of Total Allowable Harvest while maintaining the use of the established Criteria for Establishing Percent Allocation (Outfitter Guide Policy 2001).



There are a Lot of little details to the current Allocation system that is not mentioned in the Survey that greatly impact how licences are issued and to whom. We have no idea if the important matters are still on the table or Not.

The Devil resides here. ^


If some of them are not, such as the Outfitter Criteria for Establishing Percent Allocation, then the seemingly benign Outfitter 10% cap could actually be an Enormous increase in Outfitter Allocations from where we stand today.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Fair is a matter of opinion. What seems fair to you does not make what seems fair to me unfair.

I'll follower example and give my opinion of fair.

Resident Allocation of Total Allowable Harvest - Minimum of 91% (includes Resident, Landowner and NR Hunter Hosted)
Outfitter Allocation of Total Allowable Harvest - Maximum of 9%, for ALL species.

Licences issued are to be based on Allowable Harvest Goal and success rates, independently for Resident and Outfitters.

Allocations for both Residents and Outfitters are to be managed at the WMU level.

Success rates for Both Residents and Outfitters are to be calculated WITHOUT the inclusion of Licences NOT sold.


Resident Allocation is to include a 10% cap of licences to both Landowner Licences and NR Special Licences where applicable.
F&W to legislate a "Reciprocity" rule, only NRs from jurisdictions with reciprocal NR hunting for Alberta resident may apply in the special licence draw.

Outfitter Allocation is to include a Maximim 9% of Total Allowable Harvest while maintaining the use of the established Criteria for Establishing Percent Allocation (Outfitter Guide Policy 2001).



There are a Lot of little details to the current Allocation system that is not mentioned in the Survey that greatly impact how licences are issued and to whom. We have no idea if the important matters are still on the table or Not.

The Devil resides here. ^


If some of them are not, such as the Outfitter Criteria for Establishing Percent Allocation, then the seemingly benign Outfitter 10% cap could actually be an Enormous increase in Outfitter Allocations from where we stand today.

Now THAT is the kind of thing we should be asking for when we all write those letters I was asking for in post number 1.

For my info, WB, can you provide details of the Outfitter Criteria for Establishing Percent Allocation or direct me to where I can find them?

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Fair is a matter of opinion. What seems fair to you does not make what seems fair to me unfair.

I'll follower example and give my opinion of fair.

Resident Allocation of Total Allowable Harvest - Minimum of 91% (includes Resident, Landowner and NR Hunter Hosted)
Outfitter Allocation of Total Allowable Harvest - Maximum of 9%, for ALL species.

Licences issued are to be based on Allowable Harvest Goal and success rates, independently for Resident and Outfitters.

Allocations for both Residents and Outfitters are to be managed at the WMU level.

Success rates for Both Residents and Outfitters are to be calculated WITHOUT the inclusion of Licences NOT sold.


Resident Allocation is to include a 10% cap of licences to both Landowner Licences and NR Special Licences where applicable.
F&W to legislate a "Reciprocity" rule, only NRs from jurisdictions with reciprocal NR hunting for Alberta resident may apply in the special licence draw.

Outfitter Allocation is to include a Maximim 9% of Total Allowable Harvest while maintaining the use of the established Criteria for Establishing Percent Allocation (Outfitter Guide Policy 2001).



There are a Lot of little details to the current Allocation system that is not mentioned in the Survey that greatly impact how licences are issued and to whom. We have no idea if the important matters are still on the table or Not.

The Devil resides here. ^


If some of them are not, such as the Outfitter Criteria for Establishing Percent Allocation, then the seemingly benign Outfitter 10% cap could actually be an Enormous increase in Outfitter Allocations from where we stand today.

Yes you're right, many feel that until their particular demographic has 100% of the opportunities then nothing is fair.

Although I realize that over complicating things is the governments way and simply allocating hard percentages is far too simple, there has to be something better then this current system.

But to Outfitters in Alberta this is their livelihood and they want the most they can get, as do residents, as do landowners. Only makes sense they're all going to fight with each other and try to get more

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Yes you're right, many feel that until their particular demographic has 100% of the opportunities then nothing is fair.

Although I realize that over complicating things is the governments way and simply allocating hard percentages is far too simple, there has to be something better then this current system.

But to Outfitters in Alberta this is their livelihood and they want the most they can get, as do residents, as do landowners. Only makes sense they're all going to fight with each other and try to get more

Let's compare our two views.

I desire to maintain NR Hunter Special Licences.
My desire even includes a clause that would support maintaining and expanding the opportunity for Alberta Resident to hunt in other provinces.

You suggest getting rid of them. Make Resident forfeit their own opportunity to hunt in order to have the opportunity to hunt with family and friends from another province. (APOS agrees with you)


We both agree that Landowner licences need to be capped to eliminate the cases where an "excessive" proportion is given to this group.

We both agree that Allocations for Residents and Outfitters should be managed at the WMU level.

I want to see Licences issued based on independent (Resident and Outfitter) Allowable Harvest and success rates, which will keep actual harvest per group at their determined Allowable Harvest.

You want to see Outfitter Licences issued by a % of Resident licences.
This will both increase the number of Outfitter Licences and Increase the Outfitter Harvest PAST 10% of the Allowable Harvest.


I want to see the Outfitter Allocation Percentage Criteria maintained.
You want to see Every WMU to allow a Maximum number of Outfitter Licences.
A HUGE increase in Outfitter licences....

-----

Pretty easy to see where your heart lies and your definition of fair.

You've suggested getting rid of NR Special Licences, make Residents give their tags to their NR friends and family as a condition to hunt here.

You've suggested limiting Landowner tags from the current level. (we both did).

You've suggested increasing Outfitter licences and increasing Outfitter Harvest in every WMU.

For the sake of Simplicity.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by 270WIN

Now THAT is the kind of thing we should be asking for when we all write those letters I was asking for in post number 1.

For my info, WB, can you provide details of the Outfitter Criteria for Establishing Percent Allocation or direct me to where I can find them?

I can't upload the documents here, data limits.

No, to my knowledge they are not available online.

I am happy to share them.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Let's compare our two views.

I desire to maintain NR Hunter Special Licences.
My desire even includes a clause that would support maintaining and expanding the opportunity for Alberta Resident to hunt in other provinces.

You suggest getting rid of them. Make Resident forfeit their own opportunity to hunt in order to have the opportunity to hunt with family and friends from another province. (APOS agrees with you)


We both agree that Landowner licences need to be capped to eliminate the cases where an "excessive" proportion is given to this group.

We both agree that Allocations for Residents and Outfitters should be managed at the WMU level.

I want to see Licences issued based on independent (Resident and Outfitter) Allowable Harvest and success rates, which will keep actual harvest per group at their determined Allowable Harvest.

You want to see Outfitter Licences issued by a % of Resident licences.
This will both increase the number of Outfitter Licences and Increase the Outfitter Harvest PAST 10% of the Allowable Harvest.


I want to see the Outfitter Allocation Percentage Criteria maintained.
You want to see Every WMU to allow a Maximum number of Outfitter Licences.
A HUGE increase in Outfitter licences....

-----

Pretty easy to see where your heart lies and your definition of fair.

You've suggested getting rid of NR Special Licences, make Residents give their tags to their NR friends and family as a condition to hunt here.

You've suggested limiting Landowner tags from the current level. (we both did).

You've suggested increasing Outfitter licences and increasing Outfitter Harvest in every WMU.

For the sake of Simplicity.

Not really looking to increase Outfitter allocations or increase harvest at all. But with this same line of reasoning if residents are picky and success rates go down or stay low and non residents harvest more because this is a paid hunt and after all they're being guided by a professional, the NR allocations will keep going down.

Just wait until sheep go on draw, you think residents are complaining now. They'll have to set sheep allocations at 1-2% of residents allowable tags to keep the harvest rates in check

[H380]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Not really looking to increase Outfitter allocations or increase harvest at all. But with this same line of reasoning if residents are picky and success rates go down or stay low and non residents harvest more because this is a paid hunt and after all they're being guided by a professional, the NR allocations will keep going down.

Just wait until sheep go on draw, you think residents are complaining now. They'll have to set sheep allocations at 1-2% of residents allowable tags to keep the harvest rates in check

hahaha.. yup put sheep on draw , then let the whining begin .

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by H380

hahaha.. yup put sheep on draw , then let the whining begin .

It's just a matter of time sir, there's no way around it. Too many hunters and too few opportunities.

Unless Alberta shuts the doors, this is where we are headed

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Not really looking to increase Outfitter allocations or increase harvest at all. But with this same line of reasoning if residents are picky and success rates go down or stay low and non residents harvest more because this is a paid hunt and after all they're being guided by a professional, the NR allocations will keep going down.

Just wait until sheep go on draw, you think residents are complaining now. They'll have to set sheep allocations at 1-2% of residents allowable tags to keep the harvest rates in check

You have that backwards.

IF the proposed opportunity formula for Outfitter licences is approved,
lower resident success rates means there would be even MORE Outfitter licences available, regardless of harvest.

I'm becoming unsure that you understand the effects of the proposed changes....


Sheep on Draw, sure there will be lots of whining.
And the usual threatened legal action by the outfitters that will lose a whole pile of Allocations if it happens.
Won't that be fun.


Sheep on draw is not a given anytime soon. Ram numbers are on average good across the board, harvested ram age and size has been Excellent. Residents seem content with not killing a ram. The current resident success rate is mostly a factor of effort and passing up legal rams.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

You have that backwards.

IF the proposed opportunity formula for Outfitter licences is approved,
lower resident success rates means there would be even MORE Outfitter licences available, regardless of harvest.

I'm becoming unsure that you understand the effects of the proposed changes....


Sheep on Draw, sure there will be lots of whining.
And the usual threatened legal action by the outfitters that will lose a whole pile of Allocations if it happens.
Won't that be fun.


Sheep on draw is not a given anytime soon. Ram numbers are on average good across the board, harvested ram age and size has been Excellent. Residents seem content with not killing a ram. The current resident success rate is mostly a factor of effort and passing up legal rams.

Maybe I don't understand it, that is kind of why I'm asking questions and talking about it but all good.

So if resident success rates are low, will they not give out more tags to meet the allowable harvest ?
Why would the Outfitters number of tags change unless their harvest rate goes down ?
Are you saying the government is going to then create more allocations so the Outfitters can pick up the slack in meeting the total allowable harvest numbers ? That one seems like it's hard to believe

As for the sheep not going on draw as the pressure continues to increase they will have no choice.
4-6% is pathetic for a resident success rate, parking lots at staging areas are overflowing and guys are waving at each other from one ridge to the next. But I guess the odd guy still does get a ram out there.

[Lefty-Canuck]

The "picky" residents are extremely out numbered.

LC

[H380]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

It's just a matter of time sir, there's no way around it. Too many hunters and too few opportunities.

Unless Alberta shuts the doors, this is where we are headed

Doesnt bother me in the least .

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

The "picky" residents are extremely out numbered.

LC

I agree LC

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

So if resident success rates are low, will they not give out more tags to meet the allowable harvest ?
Why would the Outfitters number of tags change unless their harvest rate goes down ?
Are you saying the government is going to then create more allocations so the Outfitters can pick up the slack in meeting the total allowable harvest numbers ? That one seems like it's hard to believe

That is exactly what would happen if the proposed % of Opportunity goes through. Resident harvest is low - tag #'s are increased and since the Opportunity has gone up, then the Outfitters are given a percentage of the "new" tags.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

That is exactly what would happen if the proposed % of Opportunity goes through. Resident harvest is low - tag #'s are increased and since the Opportunity has gone up, then the Outfitters are given a percentage of the "new" tags.

I'll have to get the article and read it for myself, it seems strange to me.

If they base the resident tag numbers on their success rates why would they not do the same for Outfitters?

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

I'll have to get the article and read it for myself, it seems strange to me.

If they base the resident tag numbers on their success rates why would they not do the same for Outfitters?

Currently they do so for both residents and outfitters. The proposal is to change that

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

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

Currently they do so for both residents and outfitters. The proposal is to change that

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

So what is AGPAC's skin in this game ?

[boah]

Originally Posted by H380

Doesnt bother me in the least .

I agree.

[Full Curl]

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 think some of the dislike for the landowner antlered mule deer tags comes from the fact that in some WMUs the wait time for a resident is 7 or more years where as the LO can theoretically take a 190" buck each season. It's a jealousy thing and I will admit that I felt it somewhat as well.

I was successful in drawing a tag in a zone that only had 19 resident tags this year. Where can you find how many land owner tags were applied for/ issued?

The landowners that I spoke to for permission were absolutely some of the best people you could ever meet and permission was abundant.

I am a landowner also but my property is under the minimum size required to apply for a landowner special license. I manage my land and have worked hard for years to maintain it also. I suffer the same losses to my hay and my shrubs as any larger landowner would so what is your opinion on my eligibility/ opportunity?

I'm not at all against landowner special license but I do believe that in some certain circumstances or areas it may need to be held in check with the resident opportunity in some way.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

I can't upload the documents here, data limits.

No, to my knowledge they are not available online.

I am happy to share them.

Would email work if I get you my email address?

[albertadave]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

So what is AGPAC's skin in this game ?

That's a really strange question. Do you know what the AGPAC is?

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by albertadave

That's a really strange question. Do you know what the AGPAC is?

Well I know what the acronym stands for yes, but for the life of me I can't find a description of what they actually have done no.

But unless there's a bunch of Alberta Outfitters who site on that council, I'm surprised they would be leaning towards this decision. Hence my comment "What's their skin in this game"