........

[Deer Hunter]

This has been posted before but now in its own thread. It shows the percentage of tags going to outfitters and landowners in 2010 for antlered mule deer. The remainder of the percentage goes to the resident/non-resident draw. The landowner tags are considered by esrd as "unlimited" in quota.

Example would be 318 ** proposed for the archery draw

49 outfitter tags -69% of tags go to outfitters
2 landowner tags -3% of the tags go to landowners
20 drawn from 261 applicants -28% tags go to residents non resident thru the draw

It has relevance as the 5 yr Outfitter Allocations are being discussed in the next month. Also an Antlered Mule Deer Archery Draw is proposed for residents. The ** besides the WMU represent the ones that are apparently going on draw for archery mule deer.



http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj188/AlbertaFleaBags/New%202013/100WMU_zpsb8317438.jpg
http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj188/AlbertaFleaBags/New%202013/200WMU_zps7bfb8da2.jpg
http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj188/AlbertaFleaBags/New%202013/300WMU_zps217a2894.jpg


http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj188/AlbertaFleaBags/New%202013/400WMU_zpsd167dc02.jpg
http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj188/AlbertaFleaBags/New%202013/500WMU_zpsf47dd73c.jpg

[eric2381]

There is a definite problem. Businesses (outfitters) profitting off of people owned resources is the problem.

Is there any royalty paid on game animals when harvested? Like there's royalties paid and huge uproars brought up over oil companies.

[H380]

There is a definite problem. Businesses (outfitters) profitting off of people owned resources is the problem.

Is there any royalty paid on game animals when harvested? Like there's royalties paid and huge uproars brought up over oil companies.

I agree the outfitter definitely have way too many tags , the landowner numbers with a few exceptions seem manageable to me and need few cutbacks . When I say too high , speaking of landowners , a quota should be placed and tags limited in those areas , what is too high ? 15 % was allowed for bowhunters before they threw the draw at us , that should be reasonable .

[whitetail Junkie]

Ive been Talking on here/writeing letters about The excessive outfitter allocations and landowner tags for 4 years now.....Glad to see that people are starting to see the F'in light!
& according to Sam,the landowners and non resident canadians are getting there turn next year!

[goldscud]

If landowners are concerned about feeding deer on their land it would seem better to shoot a pregnant doe (possibly remove 3 deer from the population) than a buck. In WMU 132 I think there are only 5 tags for residents, but there are "unlimited" landowner tags. Seems like a better management plan could help out with the buck numbers.

[H380]

If landowners are concerned about feeding deer on their land it would seem better to shoot a pregnant doe (possibly remove 3 deer from the population) than a buck. In WMU 132 I think there are only 5 tags for residents, but there are "unlimited" landowner tags. Seems like a better management plan could help out with the buck numbers.

Like I said , put a cap on landowners tags . Yes , in 132 that is a ridiculous percentage , but what is the actual number ? What is everyones idea of a cap , and I don't mean eliminate them .

[Deer Hunter]

Like I said , put a cap on landowners tags . Yes , in 132 that is a ridiculous percentage , but what is the actual number ? What is everyones idea of a cap , and I don't mean eliminate them .

Wmu 132 has 12 landowner tags, 6 outfitter tags and 11 resident/non resident draw tags.

As for a cap, I'm not sure how that would work? Have a separate landowner draw? First come first serve? Antlered or antlerless?

[Mutter87]

I have been semi following these threads while on my time out, And i think they are bull****! Before more regulations get brought it for residents they should go after Outfitters and Landowners!

[H380]

Wmu 132 has 12 landowner tags, 6 outfitter tags and 11 resident/non resident draw tags.

As for a cap, I'm not sure how that would work? Have a separate landowner draw? First come first serve? Antlered or antlerless?

First off, first come first served, with a set number of tags available, thereby stopping the " unlimited number of tags " that I'm so sick of hearing about . All deer taken should be registered , just like sheep .You take an animal and you don't get the tag next year .Using 132 for an example, I think 12 landowner tags is excessive , then again so is 6 for outfitters .How about 6 landowner tags , 3 outfitters , and upping resident / nonres. draw tags to 20 ? Even tho I don't agree with nonres. being included with the draw .

[Deer Hunter]

Maybe some areas just have too few tags available for non residents and outfitters to have any?

[Pikebreath]

Let's understand what the problem really is. Outfitter tags are fixed and run for 5 years. Five years ago, deer numbers were high and the objective was to increase permits and lower deer numbers. At the time outfitter tags did not seem out of porportion.

But deer populations and tag numbers have dropped and the outfitter tags in some zones certainly are out of porportion. This is currently under review and hopefully the new allocations will correct that imbalance.

As far as landowner tags go, there is technically a cap on these licenses but it has not been enforced for many years. Again as total tag numbers drop the porportion of land owner tags goes up. That said, by rough count, of the 150 or so zones listed only in 10 zones (7%) did landowner tags exceed 20% of the total tags and in another 17 zones, landowner tags exceeded 10%. That means that in 82% of the zones. landowner tags were less than 10% of the tags issued.

Unless you are opposed to the principle behind landowner tags, then is there really a big issue with landowner tags? Some imposition of caps based on a first come / first served basis is not unreasonable and indeed the landowner tags were originally set up that way.

[H380]

Let's understand what the problem really is. Outfitter tags are fixed and run for 5 years. Five years ago, deer numbers were high and the objective was to increase permits and lower deer numbers. At the time outfitter tags did not seem out of porportion.

But deer populations and tag numbers have dropped and the outfitter tags in some zones certainly are out of porportion. This is currently under review and hopefully the new allocations will correct that imbalance.

As far as landowner tags go, there is technically a cap on these licenses but it has not been enforced for many years. Again as total tag numbers drop the porportion of land owner tags goes up. That said, by rough count, of the 150 or so zones listed only in 10 zones (7%) did landowner tags exceed 20% of the total tags and in another 17 zones, landowner tags exceeded 10%. That means that in 82% of the zones. landowner tags were less than 10% of the tags issued.

Unless you are opposed to the principle behind landowner tags, then is there really a big issue with landowner tags? Some imposition of caps based on a first come / first served basis is not unreasonable and indeed the landowner tags were originally set up that way.
You have it right Pike , despite what some people would have us think , landowner tags really aren't the problem they are made out to be . As in most cases it is lower than the outfitter numbers .The biggest problem with landowner tags is the number of these tag holders that abuse the system and think this tag gives them free rein of the entire zone , not just their property . Talked with CO's about it and they say it is too hard to enforce . As for first come / first served I know that is how it was originally set up and the folks I have talked with had no problem with it .If you want a tag get off your butt and get one before they are gone .

[sdvc]

Why are outfitters given 5yrs. on tags? They should be the same as Residents every year to better the rise and fall of population of Our resource.

[Deer Hunter]

Why are outfitters given 5yrs. on tags? They should be the same as Residents every year to better the rise and fall of population of Our resource.

They have used the 5 yr plan to take advantage of situation at the cost of resident opportunity

[slough shark]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, no outfitter tags in areas where residents wait 4+ years, and allocations are decided once they determine how many tags are given out EVERY year. Landowner tags are simple first come first serve up to a certain percentage of tags, very few people would have issues with this I think.

[walking buffalo]

Let's understand what the problem really is. Outfitter tags are fixed and run for 5 years. Five years ago, deer numbers were high and the objective was to increase permits and lower deer numbers. At the time outfitter tags did not seem out of porportion.

But deer populations and tag numbers have dropped and the outfitter tags in some zones certainly are out of porportion. This is currently under review and hopefully the new allocations will correct that imbalance.

As far as landowner tags go, there is technically a cap on these licenses but it has not been enforced for many years. Again as total tag numbers drop the porportion of land owner tags goes up. That said, by rough count, of the 150 or so zones listed only in 10 zones (7%) did landowner tags exceed 20% of the total tags and in another 17 zones, landowner tags exceeded 10%. That means that in 82% of the zones. landowner tags were less than 10% of the tags issued.

Unless you are opposed to the principle behind landowner tags, then is there really a big issue with landowner tags? Some imposition of caps based on a first come / first served basis is not unreasonable and indeed the landowner tags were originally set up that way.


There is NO cap on Landowner Licences for Antlered Mule deer.
The original 10% cap was eliminated years ago.



The Landowner Licence issues could easily be rectified if a Cap by WMU was re-instated.

[H380]

There is NO cap on Landowner Licences for Antlered Mule deer.
The original 10% cap was eliminated years ago.



The Landowner Licence issues could easily be rectified if a Cap by WMU was re-instated.

Exactly .. it was working to start with before someone decided they needed to fix it , Go back to the original format .

[270WIN]

X3 and if you look at the chart it's apparent that, in the majority of MWUs, capping the landowner licences at, say 10%, would be a non-issue. In most of the rest of them, it would be a relatively minor issue. There are only a few(eg. 132 and 138) where a 10% cap would result in a very large reduction in the percentage of landowner licences to total licences.