I see what you are saying now WB....I needed the "draws for dummies" version to understand....as long as they are limited to a cap I can go along with that.

LC

#1, my ideas have been posted on another thread for a couple hrs. many others had posted their thoughts as well with some good ideas coming thru, Potty chose to make it his own thread which essentially mirrored what was being said on the initial one
2) as usual valuable input form Dean Mc...:thinking-006:
the bottom line is, the system is broken, it needs fixing if you want your kids to be able to hunt some animals in their home province, so maybe just for once, let's see if we all collectively can come up with some sort of a plan to present that best represents all users goals???

Drop the 999 system
Miss a year and priority goes back to zero
Automatically charge successful applicants for the full license cost.

Prices need to be increased to deter people that only apply because of the simple fact that is so cheap so they apply for every tag they can increasing the application numbers by high numbers which is the main reason wait times ate so long now.

i could live without the 999. i use it often, but i can see how dropping it would free up a whole bunch of space.

I am in favour of an increase as long as some or all of the money goes back into enforcement or conservation and not in the pockets of the IBM administration.

LC

Wonder how much just taking that option out would eliminate? May be a pretty viable first step.

Very good point!! IBM must have a flat rate they could charge then cost could pay that and anything over should be put into enhancment or conservation. Anywhere it's needed.

What year did 999 come into effect?

holy crap....the heavens just parted and the light is shining down with the angels singing. if SG agreed with a post of mine it has got to be the miracle cure we have been searching for. that's it...scrap 999. surely srd has to be watching and sees this too.

and yes this is clearly a lighthearted post so don't even get going.

seriously....this may be the first step in the right direction.....followed by increased application fees.....:sHa_shakeshout:

Yes I did miss that, sort of.

Potty suggested eliminating NR from certain draw species. I replied that only if APOS has the same restrictions. If we are going to exclude NR, it should apply to both Hunter Hosts and Outfitters egually.

A separate NR draw regardless of priority level exclusions will take tags away from residents. By keeping NR in the same pool, including exclusions if desired, will keep 100% of the tags potentially available to residents.




Sorry, I Didn't mean to get you excited. :scared:

IBM only pockets the money for draw administration from what I have heard (and very poorly run at that regarding the on going system fails) Give them their $3 bucks as per their contract and put the extra funds into SRD, NOT the "environment" side of things..LOL

Actually you agreed with my thought just to keep us rolling!!! LoL check out post 21. Just giving you a tough time. It's definatly something we both feel will help. And yes I'll agree with you on that.

I missed the other thread. Too bad you had to carry your argument over to this one.

Lol No no no. Loved your suggestion of not turning this thread into a debate thats why I quoted it.

Hal's put up some good points in both threads!! We are all still waiting for yours deanmc!!!

Likewise.

It has been very difficult to direct licence revenue, damn politicians keep stealing the piggybank, but it is a direction that many will agree with.

Direct the increases to Population surveys. The number of hunting licences available starts with this information.

ESRD has been handcuffed in harvestable allocation decisions due to a lack of current population estimates. We are likey missing out on hunting licences due to the need for conservative decision based on minimal data.




Deanmc,
Your delivery sucks. Glad I put it away. :)

Yah, I know, I was suggesting the impossible. :sign0161:

I love more rules and regulations. :sHa_shakeshout:

Do away with allocations and put NR on a draw only system.

Take half the tags for priority system and half the tags for random lottery style draws.

2.NO! not 6 months....1 year!

5. 10% is to much in some draws. 1 tag if the draw numbers allow that ( % to be worked on)

6. That again, could be a whole other discussion. That needs reduction ( but I didn't want to get into it) But I do agree they need that reduction!

I think that NR and OF's need some opportunity to hunt in AB. On a limited basis, and not all species ! Especially not the ones I mentioned. Unless they have a ministers tag sort of deal for the 4 species I mentioned? ..Just an Idea

8. I purposely didn't include Outfitters in this for now.

9. I didn't know there was a problem with sheep? ;) did I miss some data somewhere?

10. Including antlerless. the #3 can always be adjusted

11. I'm not sure what a big game stamp does? Doesn't #1 already cover that?


WB, you gotta have more than one Idea!!! maybe it's the beer that gets you more opinionated...LOL:sHa_shakeshout:

:love0025:


K.I.S.S.

I'm thinking the dropping 999 is probably the best idea set out . That would definitely cut the backlog and quick , if you are going to hunt it , then don't be applying .

Okay since you asked.

1. Verify all WIN #’s are valid people

• Proof of passed hunters training certificate
• Proof of Residency
• Picture I.D verification to obtain Win card ( and even have picture on Win cards)

Good Idea.
2. New Albertans have to have residency for 1 year before obtaining a Win Card ( Canadian armed forces are waived one year wait)
Excellent Idea. Could not agree more.
3. Price increase for draw application

What kind of increase and for what reason? I am disturbed with what seems like the beginning of a trend to just price lower income people out of the sport.

4. Deadline date to purchase draws .

• Failure to do so, will forfeit that said draw, and it’s priority points.
• Draws not purchased at deadline, go to the next available hunter.
• Doctors note or justified unforeseeable circumstances explaination can save forfeiture of priority points. ( if accepted before the deadline)

Not sure how this would help as their is an expectation that some successful draws will never be used and this is factored while calculating available tags.

5. Draws that have a priority of more than 7 years , work off the priority system, with an allotment for 1 lottery tag, of which the hunter has less than 7 years priority.

Wont that add people into the system and actually increase the time and priority needed to get these ?


6. Non resident hunters have their own dedicated draws, with a smaller % dedicated to them, according to harvest reports .

Not enough information. I would prefer that any draw that needs more than priority 5 unavailable to non residents.

7. Harvest reports are mandatory at the end of every season, for all hunters. Draws can not be purchased until survey is completed.

Ridiculous. Like forcing people to vote. Would take all credibility out of the system. I would prefer a surcharge to fund better population surveys.


8. Non residents can not be hunter hosted for , Mule deer, Sheep and Antelope, and Moose.

Answered in six. I would base this on priority not species.

9. Create a lottery draw( like 438, a, b,c) in all sheep zones for November. ( limit of one lottery per zone, and perhaps it can me ran much like the goat draw, on zones that have less Bighorn numbers)

10. Limit the number of successful draws, someone can obtain in a year. ( example 3 successful draws per season)

But applicants will still apply and 999 draws. Hence building priority and not solving anything. If you want to open opportunities you need to limit the applications. Then people only apply for draws they really are serious about and cant build priority over say 10 different categories every year.


I also have a Trophy hunting draw system I’ve thought of. That can co-exist with the system we basically have. I can pm anyone interested, it still needs input and tweeking.

Then they might as well do away with a priority system all together :)

People will still continue to put in for everything....but the only difference is they will pull the tag on the years they are expected to vs. pulling them when they can predict or schedule the time.....thus the tags are still going to be tied up, and many will not be hunted.

With the 999 a guy who decides to 999 at a high priority is basically handing his tag to a next in line person...I know guys who are P14 for certain things....they deserve a chance to draw before someone who just started putting in don't you think?

LC

point 4 takes care of that problem lefty.

Maybe but doesnt using a 999 still increase the pool of people that can bump others out of a draw when they decide to use their priority?

Thinking out loud here! (TOLH)

Definitely 999 causes the person using 999 longer draw time.

but While that person uses 999, another person who was going to not draw that year actually does draw. 999 creates an accelerated draw then!

Now only when the original 999'er actually draws, does it create a longer wait time, for 1 person in some pool.

But if the person, who initially 999'ed, never enters the draw or changes zones( for some) then one person in that zone , in each pool actually gets drawn quicker.....

So while some will see an increase in time, some will also see a decrease in time....a small favorable gamble in my opinion...

Exactly....how the heck do they eliminate 999 when it has been in place for over 15 years....without an uproar.

LC

I wonder how many draws are lost every year to groups like peta applying in mass? Any statistics out there on this?:thinking-006:

well yes....that's why some are in favor of scrapping it. there would indeed be an uproar for the first two years....but like any other change, it will become normal soon enough.

True enough. I like the idea of limiting the amount of draws a single person can apply for per calendar year . That said I 999 a few draws every year "just in case". I might never hunt them though. I would be upset as most would if the priority system changed on "my" draws.