Originally Posted by Wolftrapper (Post 3486974)

So some of you guys are ok with hunting in other countries, but you dont want others coming here to hunt. Hypocrites or what?
Ya I know you will say you are leaving money in poor countries, helping them out and all...
Whatever makes you feel justified and bash Outfitting.

Originally Posted by chuck (Post 3486973)

It would be nice if they had less allocations than residents in some zones as a start.

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel (Post 3486985)

They do. 99% of the zones in fact

Many WMU's have no allocations for non residents for certain species

Resident opportunity is well above the 95% mark

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel (Post 3486970)

Here's a question for everybody



If non residents had to put in for a draw just like we do, would you be ok with them hunting here ?



Or are you totally against sharing and eliminating the outfitting industry ?

Originally Posted by Kristopher10 (Post 3487000)

Something that might be a good alternative is having a non resident wait a certain number of years after harvesting an animal before they can return for that species.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by sns2 (Post 3487005)

IMO, there should be absolutely no outfitter allocation for any species, in any wmu, in which a resident has to apply in a draw to get a licence. I would bet every penny that I have that an overwhelming majority of Alberta resident hunters would feel this same way. This would likely limit outfitters to general whitetail, waterfowl, upland game birds, bull elk, and moose in a very few number of northern WMUs. If there are undersubscribed licences, then outfitters could have an equal shot at them.

Originally Posted by sns2 (Post 3487005)

IMO, there should be absolutely no outfitter allocation for any species, in any wmu, in which a resident has to apply in a draw to get a licence. I would bet every penny that I have that an overwhelming majority of Alberta resident hunters would feel this same way. This would likely limit outfitters to general whitetail, waterfowl, upland game birds, bull elk, and moose in a very few number of northern WMUs. If there are undersubscribed licences, then outfitters could have an equal shot at them.

Originally Posted by IronNoggin (Post 3486897)

Being on the front lines tends to bring out the bitterness from time to time.
We are working towards bringing our government into reality, but it is a damn tough row to hoe. Our current version has literally sold us out (resident hunters) on numerous occasions, while strip-mining the funds that should be dedicated for wildlife resources into their own pockets. Couple that with reducing our wildlife ministries by 56% while everything else sees increases, and it ain't hard to see how many get "bitter" as you put it.

There is a move afoot for change. Always room for hope. And I am once again in the process of banging my head repeatedly against that wall.

Did not mean to come across so gruff. But what I noted above is quite true, and that at times brings that out in me. Apologies if I offended.

I've found the direct opposite of you for many species. Elk, Mulies, Whitetails, Pheasants and more have all treated me better on your side of the line than here.

Good Luck with the Turkeys. We see lots in the areas you will be hunting during our late archery deer hunts. Never hunted them here. Perhaps one day...

Cheers,
Nog

Originally Posted by sns2 (Post 3487005)

IMO, there should be absolutely no outfitter allocation for any species, in any wmu, in which a resident has to apply in a draw to get a licence. I would bet every penny that I have that an overwhelming majority of Alberta resident hunters would feel this same way. This would likely limit outfitters to general whitetail, waterfowl, upland game birds, bull elk, and moose in a very few number of northern WMUs. If there are undersubscribed licences, then outfitters could have an equal shot at them.

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel (Post 3487016)

So you would be ok with Whitetail, Bear, Cougar, Elk, Sheep, and archery moose allocations increasing in all WMUs to make up for the allocations you want eliminated that are currently on draw ?

For instance WMU 357 has about 30 Rifle Whitetail allocations currently. The same size WMU in Saskatchewan has about 500 when you factor in all the small concessions.
So are you ok with cranking up all the WMUs that are way below the 10% harvest numbers to compensate for the species on draw ? Or would that not be fair either ?

Originally Posted by chuck (Post 3487024)

Fair? Laughing!

Originally Posted by chuck (Post 3487001)

This will do nothing. The tags still exist.

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel (Post 3487016)

So you would be ok with Whitetail, Bear, Cougar, Elk, Sheep, and archery moose allocations increasing in all WMUs to make up for the allocations you want eliminated that are currently on draw ?

For instance WMU 357 has about 30 Rifle Whitetail allocations currently. The same size WMU in Saskatchewan has about 500 when you factor in all the small concessions.
So are you ok with cranking up all the WMUs that are way below the 10% harvest numbers to compensate for the species on draw ? Or would that not be fair either ?

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel (Post 3487026)

Got ya. So you want everything, and to share nothing 👍

Loud and clear.

Thankfully, you don't make the rules.

Originally Posted by Kurt505 (Post 3487033)

Blaming outfitters for non-resident hunting is like blaming natives for year round hunting, it's not their fault, it's the governments.

Originally Posted by Kurt505 (Post 3487033)

Blaming outfitters for non-resident hunting is like blaming natives for year round hunting, it's not their fault, it's the governments.

Originally Posted by chuck (Post 3487037)

What!?

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel (Post 3487026)

Got ya. So you want everything, and to share nothing 👍

Loud and clear.

Thankfully, you don't make the rules.

Originally Posted by sns2 (Post 3487031)

Thought my post was pretty clear. How bout I say it another way. All outfitter allocations, in all WMUs, for all species that a resident has to apply for in a draw system, ought to be given back to residents of Alberta, who are the primary owners of the said resource. Outfitters can make a living from the wildlife of the province, after resident hunters have had first opportunity.

My opinion is not meant as a slam against outfitters in any way shape or form. I just do not believe their right to run a business, trumps a residents right to hunt for the species their business would be selling, as that is really what outfitters do at the base level, sell the wildlife of the province they outfit in.

I am fine with that system being implemented in any province, state or country.

Originally Posted by Kurt505 (Post 3487044)

What part flew over?

Originally Posted by sns2 (Post 3487040)

Kurt, I'm not blaming anyone. I know it's the government's rules. I, like others, are just saying that many of the rules, vis a vis resident licence opportunities vs outfitter allocations, make no sense.

Originally Posted by sns2 (Post 3487046)

Tork, is outfitting a full time gig for you?

Originally Posted by chuck (Post 3487049)

Who holds the tags Kurt?

Originally Posted by Kurt505 (Post 3487051)

My point is there is a lot of hate and jealousy when it comes to our wildlife, but outfitters and natives are just taking advantage of oppertunities provided to them by our government.

Originally Posted by chuck (Post 3487054)

Who lobbied for the tag allocations Kurt?

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel (Post 3487052)

It is now, well pretty much anyway.

I'm a drilling and completions wellsite supervisor in the off season, and I've got my fingers in some other fires as well if we're being honest.

But I have by far the most vested in my outfit, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by Kurt505 (Post 3487055)

Who cares Chuck? You think if my boy whines long enough he gets what he wants? I'll let him answer that. Under my roof, I make the rules, it's just that simple.


Don't you think year round hunting with no limits or restrictions is a bigger threat to our wildlife?

Originally Posted by chuck (Post 3487064)

I care Kurt. Can you address the allocation discrepancy in the zones I have questioned above.