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 hiway mike (Post 3487257)

Around 390 allocations currently for sale or lease in alberta.

Originally Posted by walking buffalo (Post 3487265)

This thread is giving me a headache.

It is full of incorrect information in just about every post.

This reveals an alarming truth, outfitters, guides and resident hunters generally have no clue about the Outfitter Allocation and Policy.

This is a great fault that lies on the shoulders of the Gov, APOS and the resident stakeholder groups.






No Kurt, Outfitters are fully to blame (but not alone in responsibility) for the current situation.
They are the ones lobbying and threatening to sue for what they want.
They are the ones resisting change to the system.


"Super secret" level meeting are being held to review and update the Outfitter Policy and Allocation agreement. Actually, these have been going on for the last several years.... with absolutely NO progress, just stonewalling and suppression of the Public consultation process.

Oh, and a hostile takeover of the APOS head office. Lol.... nice job. ;)




Deer Hunter had it right.

A Deer Allocation is worth $130.

Go ahead and pay 4-20K, but that doesn't mean you will ever recoup the balance when the gov orders an return of these privileges.

Buy your bridges. :)

Originally Posted by Kurt505 (Post 3487269)

Well it's good to know the outfitters are in charge of our fish and wildlife, maybe we can talk to them about sustinence hunting too.... :sHa_sarcasticlol:

Originally Posted by walking buffalo (Post 3487272)

Start with that Sask kid and his Outfitted Subsistence Bighorn hunts. :)

Originally Posted by walking buffalo (Post 3487272)

Start with that Sask kid and his Outfitted Subsistence Bighorn hunts. :)

Originally Posted by walking buffalo (Post 3487265)

Deer Hunter had it right.

A Deer Allocation is worth $130.

Go ahead and pay 4-20K, but that doesn't mean you will ever recoup the balance when the gov orders an return of these privileges.

Buy your bridges. :)

Originally Posted by Kurt505 (Post 3487285)

I have absolutely no doubt the outfitters are lobbying to keep their allocations, it's their source of income. When the borders were shut down because of bse it was the farmers who lobbied... go figure. In both cases they are not the ones who make the decisions though. You can't fault them for wanting to protect their income.

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel (Post 3487288)

The industry is not going anywhere. People have been crying and whining about Outfitters for the last 50 years, and yet, here we are.

The industry brings in foreign money to our economy, an economy that isn't doing the best right now I might add. Like I said earlier, just because you don't make a living off it doesn't mean others that do aren't just as important. I'm sure I can find somebody that would like to eliminate every one of the industries you guys work in, but it doesn't make it right.

Originally Posted by walking buffalo (Post 3487295)

My comments were in relation to Outfitter Allocations, Big Game allocations to be specific. The Outfitting industry could carry on just fine, even grow, without having a licence specific allocation.

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel (Post 3487299)

Oh ya. And how would that work ?

Originally Posted by walking buffalo (Post 3487308)

If only there was an example of a jurisdiction that works this way....
:lol:

Originally Posted by NCC (Post 3487555)

I am 100% in favour of non-resident hunting but not as it currently exists. Put all of the non-resident tags on draw. Once you draw a tag you find an outfitter. That way the bios can adjust the tag numbers as needed without feeling as though they need to compensate the outfitters. It will also allow the outfitters that offer a good hunt to rise to the top.

Originally Posted by NCC (Post 3487555)

The only guy I personally know who has bought allocations paid about $5000 for his WT and MD tags in the Rocky Mountain House Area. I don't think he has sold a hunt in the last two years. It ain't what it used to be.

My friend from Texas that used to come to Alberta every year for white tails now goes to the Yukon every third year and gets to pull the trigger more often for the same amount of dollars and a much higher quality hunt (costs and trigger pulls averaged over a 9 year period).

I am 100% in favour of non-resident hunting but not as it currently exists. Put all of the non-resident tags on draw. Once you draw a tag you find an outfitter. That way the bios can adjust the tag numbers as needed without feeling as though they need to compensate the outfitters. It will also allow the outfitters that offer a good hunt to rise to the top.

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel (Post 3487579)

So would like the non residents to go in the regular draw or would you still like the non residents to be separate ?

I'm guessing you realize whether an outfitter sells four mule deer hunts through our allocation process or the non residents draw 4 mule deee tags then book, there's still 4 non residents hunting right ?

Originally Posted by nube (Post 3487624)

Ya i am not sure why he is wanting it this way. It does not change the fact the same number of deer will be shot. it will not change the number of years it takes him to get a draw and people will still continue to have an issue....

Originally Posted by silver lab (Post 3487632)

Let me help you guys.
Residents get 90% of the deer tags in a zone, you would only get 10% of the tags.... Alot less deer are shot by outfitters.

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel (Post 3487579)

So would like the non residents to go in the regular draw or would you still like the non residents to be separate ?

I'm guessing you realize whether an outfitter sells four mule deer hunts through our allocation process or the non residents draw 4 mule deee tags then book, there's still 4 non residents hunting right ?

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter (Post 3487637)

10% is excessive. Maybe 5% based on increasing resident demand. Maybe none.

Originally Posted by elkhunter11 (Post 3487642)

It was only around five or six years ago that outfitters allocations made up 40% of all pronghorn tags issued for the entire province.

Originally Posted by sns2 (Post 3487641)

Priority The Way It Should Be

1 - RESIDENTS (we own the dang animals)
2 - Non-Resident Canadians (neighbours deserve second shot)
3 - Non-Resident Aliens (bottom of barrel)

Originally Posted by sns2 (Post 3487641)

(we own the dang animals)

)

Originally Posted by elkhunter11 (Post 3487642)

It was only around five or six years ago that outfitters allocations made up 40% of all pronghorn tags issued for the entire province.

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel (Post 3487650)

Yes, you are correct

Over the last 30 years there have been at least 5-10 instances where the numbers have been out of whack in certain WMUs for certain species.

Nobody has ever denied that

Originally Posted by elkhunter11 (Post 3487656)

That is 5 or 10 times that it should not have happened. If the pronghorn population was really that low, the season ahould have been suspended for everyone. The population should be the number one priority, rather than someone making money off of the population .