Suffield Elk article ACA

[DJS]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

Start a new thread of you want to complain about that, this one is about the Article in the ACA magazine
Cat

Don't think there's a reason to get bent out of shape over it. The reason guys are "complaining" is that they had hoped that issue would get covered in the article. So it's easy to understand why that is being talked about in this thread.

[Smokinyotes]

Originally Posted by DJS

Don't think there's a reason to get bent out of shape over it. The reason guys are "complaining" is that they had hoped that issue would get covered in the article. So it's easy to understand why that is being talked about in this thread.

Agreed 100%. But even when you keep posts respectable some how they seem to get deleted.

[catnthehat]

Nobody is getting bent out if shape here .
However , the complaints were not indicitaive to the article itself but to the situation .
Steering it off topic does nothing for the thread
Cat

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

Nobody is getting bent out if shape here .
However , the complaints were not indicitaive to the article itself but to the situation .
Steering it off topic does nothing for the thread
Cat

Apologies for opening a can of worms.

Grizz

[catnthehat]

No apologies needed
Cat

[diamond k]

Would be interested to hear opinion from the author on the omission of the public sentiment against the sustenance hunting in its current format pertaining to Suffield elk. Surely in her interviews she must have got some feedback on this. Was it an ACA request to omit the info or authors decision that she felt was not relevant to the article and what it was she was trying to say.

[cody j]

I would assume that some of the landowners that are impacted by the elk on Suffield don't care who shoots them as long as they are getting shot. Some people abuse the whole subsistence hunting thing but It's not going away.(not in my lifetime anyways).

[chugg]

Originally Posted by diamond k

Would be interested to hear opinion from the author on the omission of the public sentiment against the sustenance hunting in its current format pertaining to Suffield elk. Surely in her interviews she must have got some feedback on this. Was it an ACA request to omit the info or authors decision that she felt was not relevant to the article and what it was she was trying to say.

Diamond k why don't stop beating around the bush and say it . There wasn't enough native bashing in the article . You wanted the author to do a story more on your deception hatred toward native peoples . Sounds to me like the author spent some time to talking with all parties involved and did a great story all around .

[diamond k]

Originally Posted by chugg

Diamond k why don't stop beating around the bush and say it . There wasn't enough native bashing in the article . You wanted the author to do a story more on your deception hatred toward native peoples . Sounds to me like the author spent some time to talking with all parties involved and did a great story all around .

Whoa dude. First off I have not ever bashed natives on this site or anywhere for that matter especially considering my wife is part Native. I do have an issue with the so called sustenance hunting that was instituted on the range and to my knowledge the only ones allowed to partake in this hunt were natives.

Why don't you take a step back with your racist moniker ( it is way more offensive than anything I have said) and quit accusing me of saying things I have not written or insinuated.

I am sure this thread is about to get closed and that is too bad that instead of having an intelligent conversation you felt the need to turn this into a native pity party.

[catnthehat]

diamond K you could just PM the author of the article and ask her .
I am going against my better judgment and am going to leave the last posts up but if this thread continues in this vein things will change.
Cat

[diamond k]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

diamond K you could just PM the author of the article and ask her .
I am going against my better judgment and am going to leave the last posts up but if this thread continues in this vein things will change.
Cat

Done

I look forward to hearing her thoughts. I am not asking her to pick sides just curious on why it was not addressed in the article. If she feels it was not relevant to what she was trying to say that so be it.

[chugg]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

diamond K you could just PM the author of the article and ask her .
I am going against my better judgment and am going to leave the last posts up but if this thread continues in this vein things will change.
Cat

Sorry Cat ....great story I do not want to have the thread closed I'll leave it alone and sorry to ACA author ....

[M shooter]

Why not load some of these elk up and put them back where they came from. Yaha tinda herd is decimated. They say they cant because of threat of CWD but then go on to say no wild elk have ever tested positive.

[DJS]

Originally Posted by M shooter

Why not load some of these elk up and put them back where they came from. Yaha tinda herd is decimated. They say they cant because of threat of CWD but then go on to say no wild elk have ever tested positive.

Great suggestion!

[Bobbydee]

Originally Posted by djs

great suggestion!

cwd

[wildwoods]

Originally Posted by DJS

Great suggestion!

Very very cost prohibitive

[M shooter]

Its not cost prohibitive when you think of how much money the AB gov has spent studying the Yaha herd and trying to increase the food supply to entice Elk that are so low in numbers they don't need extra forage.

[Arachnodisiac]

What are the questions, specifically? I thought I addressed that issue from a landowner perspective and from a First Nations perspective?

The hunters I interviewed, as I recall, (and I would have to listen to hours of recordings to double check) didn't raise that issue with me, but it was addressed.

[Arachnodisiac]

Regarding CWD, it's against any responsible wildlife management policy anywhere to take animals from an area with a federally reportable disease (or any disease that isn't widespread) and move them to an area that does not have the disease present in any form.

It would be like transferring 200 patients from a hospital that was treating patients with ebola to a hospital that had never treated any patients with ebola.

[diamond k]

The issue specifically was the perceived abuse of the substinence hunting that was done by the natives prior to the hunters who were issued tags through the draw system. There are definite recorded evidence of First Nations hunters from several provinces taking large numbers of trophy class Bulls.

Many hunters in Alberta used 15 plus years in priority to go on a hunt that was in my opinion ruined by a group who was allowed to kill a unpropational amount of trophy Bulls before hunt had started

Was there any records of what sex and class size of elk were taken by FN hunters?

My opinion is that the nature of the substinence hunt was to provide meat to those who need it or those who have historic rights to the harvest. The taking of dozens of trophy bulls and few if any cows in contradiction to the intent of the hunt and the law. An easy solution would have been that all heads harvested under the substinence allocation should have heads left on the base.

My concern was that I felt this issue was not addressed in the article as anyone at all connected to hunting in Alberta would know this was a very contentious issue.

[Scott h]

"Why not load some of these elk up and put them back where they came from. Yaha tinda herd is decimated. They say they cant because of threat of CWD but then go on to say no wild elk have ever tested positive. "

Originally Posted by DJS

Great suggestion!

I think the article brought up the chronic wasting disease issue in the area. Very little chance that they would try moving elk from an infected area to an area without. Even without ever having an elk test positive, trying something like that is a bit like playing Russian roulette. The article also explained that there were more opportunities for hunts on the base and surrounding areas if those running the base were willing. Sounds like the hunts could start earlier (Aug?) and more draws for the areas around and on the base.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Arachnodisiac

What are the questions, specifically? I thought I addressed that issue from a landowner perspective and from a First Nations perspective?

The hunters I interviewed, as I recall, (and I would have to listen to hours of recordings to double check) didn't raise that issue with me, but it was addressed.

That was a very well written article and it certainly provided a good overall perspective of the past & current situations in and around the Suffield base.
What I don't understand is why "trophy hunters" would want to get mixed in with a wide open "cull shoot" in the first place then complain when they come up a bit short .

[Dale S]

Originally Posted by Salavee

That was a very well written article and it certainly provided a good overall perspective of the past & current situations in and around the Suffield base.
What I don't understand is why "trophy hunters" would want to get mixed in with a wide open "cull shoot" in the first place then complain when they come up a bit short .

I agree.
Diamond K this is not a hunt it's a cull. If you have spent any time around the base. You would see the damage the elk do. The land owners just want them gone. They don't care who shoots them. The land owners are the ones giving permission to hunt on there land. Your ramblings and opinion have nothing to do with the Suffield elk cull or this well written article. If this cull was meant to be a trophy hunt then you would have something to complain about. IT'S A CULL BY MEANS OF HUNTING.

[Arachnodisiac]

What I did learn is that landowners have huge amount of trouble with bachelor groups throughout the summer, before the season opens. Landowners will call in First Nation hunters to take care of these groups that are running through their fences and destroying their forage crops.

Throughout my research, I didn't talk to a single landowner that felt anything but good about how the meat was going to be used. I never had the impression that the First Nations hunters were deliberately sport hunting - only that they hunted the animals they were called upon to hunt, and in some cases, those were definitely nice bulls.

I guess that if some hunters from the general population take issue with that, there would have to be a conversation initiated around implementing rules regarding the game that can be hunted by First Nations... In this case, I guess a rule that large male animals cannot be harvested for meat that would have been eaten by many, so that the animal could be saved for non-First Nations trophy hunters. When and if that ever happened, you can bet I would report on it just as thoroughly as I covered this story.

I don't know how to address this any differently than I did in this story - at least not within the word count I was given. (Which I pushed, and the story ended up way longer than it was supposed to be. If you look at most news articles, they are less than 1,000 words and this one was more than 4,000 when I turned it in.)

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by Arachnodisiac

What I did learn is that landowners have huge amount of trouble with bachelor groups throughout the summer, before the season opens. Landowners will call in First Nation hunters to take care of these groups that are running through their fences and destroying their forage crops.

Throughout my research, I didn't talk to a single landowner that felt anything but good about how the meat was going to be used. I never had the impression that the First Nations hunters were deliberately sport hunting - only that they hunted the animals they were called upon to hunt, and in some cases, those were definitely nice bulls.

I guess that if some hunters from the general population take issue with that, there would have to be a conversation initiated around implementing rules regarding the game that can be hunted by First Nations... In this case, I guess a rule that large male animals cannot be harvested for meat that would have been eaten by many, so that the animal could be saved for non-First Nations trophy hunters. When and if that ever happened, you can bet I would report on it just as thoroughly as I covered this story.

I don't know how to address this any differently than I did in this story - at least not within the word count I was given. (Which I pushed, and the story ended up way longer than it was supposed to be. If you look at most news articles, they are less than 1,000 words and this one was more than 4,000 when I turned it in.)

Great job on the article and explaining yourself.

As was mentioned, this is a cull, not the hunt of a lifetime.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

Great job on the article and explaining yourself.

As was mentioned, this is a cull, not the hunt of a lifetime.

I agree, it sucks that many did not have that impression...the speculation the base would open for a hunt "someday" goes back a long ways. When it finally came to fruition many figured that holding their priority since the inception of the draw system as we know it now was a "sure thing" to a 400+" bull.

Yes, some met that goal...and not everyone was satisfied, with getting a giant or a bull at all. I just personally could not see betting 16 years or more priority on a 3 day hunt. Apart from the "early harvests" outside the base on private land and the other harvest inside the base...the other terms of the hunt were outlined. The hunt there as a whole never did nor does it now have any appeal to me personally. Of course those who were unsuccessful are upset with the unregulated competition.

LC