Number ofTags Issued to Outfitters Still Exceed Tags Issued to Residents

[Lefty-Canuck]

Another part of the issue is the WMU and the outfitter boundaries are not aligned...so at times it seems the scales tip one way or the other because when you look at the two "maps" they do not perfectly overlap.

So while Hunter must abide by WMU zones...they outfitters have different borders/areas, I never understood fully why they don't align perfectly.

LC

[Ranger CS]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Another part of the issue is the WMU and the outfitter boundaries are not aligned...so at times it seems the scales tip one way or the other because when you look at the two "maps" they do not perfectly overlap.

So while Hunter must abide by WMU zones...they outfitters have different borders/areas, I never understood fully why they don't align perfectly.

LC

Absolutely, some WMUs have several outfitters taking game out of them. If you look at the Allocation/Privileges Summary you will see that some WMUs have 5 different outfitters holding tags within them.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Another part of the issue is the WMU and the outfitter boundaries are not aligned...so at times it seems the scales tip one way or the other because when you look at the two "maps" they do not perfectly overlap.

So while Hunter must abide by WMU zones...they outfitters have different borders/areas, I never understood fully why they don't align perfectly.

LC

????
What two "maps"?
Different borders/areas? Never heard this before.


AFAIK, each Outfitter allocation is valid for a specific WMU, with that WMU legal defined for ALL hunting user groups.

Are you possibly confusing WMUs and SMAs?

[greenwood1]

I googled the APOS website to get some information on the Directors etc. Being a DAO with the Alberta Govt. you would think it would have an representative on the BOD consistently.

Unless the website hasn't been updated it lists the Govt. Rep. seat on the BOD (Ministers Designate) as VACANT.

Maybe Ms. Phillips just doesn't care.

[The Spruce]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Who knew that the government and the newly formed Alberta Game Policy Advisory Committee (AGPAC) are currently working on a new Outfitter Policy?

Anybody that belongs to a game club such as AFGA, ABA, WSF, SCI, were you asked by your executive for your thoughts on what you want in the new Outfitter Policy?

I suspect that the answer to both questions is nearly 100% No....

Did you know that AGPAC has decided to NOT consult with the stakeholder membership, and that committee members are under a gag order to not speak of what they are doing? That they decided to NOT even allow a record of minutes for the meetings? That's right, your stakeholder representatives voted to eliminate any record of their position or input at these meetings....

The current level of secrecy and complete exclusion of public and stakeholder consultation in the development of Alberta game/hunter management is unprecedented.

This whole thing stinks. It is time for a thorough cleaning.

They did the same thing with Trapping (biologists), not a good time in this province.

Spruce

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

????
What two "maps"?
Different borders/areas? Never heard this before.


AFAIK, each Outfitter allocation is valid for a specific WMU, with that WMU legal defined for ALL hunting user groups.

Are you possibly confusing WMUs and SMAs?

I thought there was different areas thus the reason for disparity... For example cougar hunting quota areas, perhaps my impression is incorrect.

LC

[B-radshaw]

Originally Posted by Ranger CS

Absolutely, some WMUs have several outfitters taking game out of them. If you look at the Allocation/Privileges Summary you will see that some WMUs have 5 different outfitters holding tags within them.

It Doesnt matter the number of outfitters operating in the WMU. If there is 10 allocations for Mule Deer in that WMU then they could be owned by 10 different outfitters or 1 outfitter. The result is 10 deer being killed. I guess 10 outfitters could make things a little more crowded.

Aside from Cougar allocations, all outfitter tags align with resident WMU boundaries. I believe sheep tags do as well. I am wondering if SRD or whoever decides on the Outfitter Allocation Allotment views things on a larger scale rather than a specific wmu. Do they group a number of WMUs together into their own management area and as a whole those wmu's are meet the required Non resident to resident ratio?

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Ranger CS

Thanks for the information Walking Buffalo. This is truly a sad situation. I assume that the Alberta Game Policy Advisory Committee is well represented by members of APOS who are self serving and determined ensure that whatever new policy recommendations come from the Advisory Committee will strongly favor outfitters. Do you know who is actually sitting on this committee

While I know who is sitting at the meeting, the information is private. As the moment, you and the public are not allowed to know....


While discussing fine details of changes people would like to see in an outfitter policy/allocation agreement is important, people need to understand that the public has lost all access to proper consultation on the matter.


This needs to be dealt with FIRST before there is any hope of having a wish list of changes....
There is no possibility to introduce these ideas until access to the system is established.


With the cancelling of AGMAG, stakeholders have lost any direct and open organized consultation on wildlife/hunting management decisions.

Under AGPAC, the government has selected individuals, some which belong to stakeholder groups, to discuss and form POLICY drafts. It is still unclear whether these individuals are there representing their stakeholder group, or simply there as individuals. So far, the AGMAG group has yet to agree to release ANY information to the stakeholder groups or to the public. As I mentioned earlier, they did decide to NOT record minutes for the meetings, which results in a completely anonymous body. There will be NO Record of how various members supported various policy decisions, thus NO accountability that these people are actually representing the directives and positions of their membership.

Why has this new committee gone underground? Efficiency!

I was told by a government employee heavily vested in the AGPAC group that the intent is to avoid the hassle of dealing with the public when contentious issues are being decided. In his words, "this will be efficient."

By law, there is a minimum requirement of public notice required, and that is ALL that the government and committee members are content to give us.
AFTER the Policy drafts are completed, such as the new Outfitter Policy, the public will have a window of time to participate in a comment period. After the comment period, the government will finalize the Policy. Well,we have experienced this type of consultation before. It is VERY difficult if not impossible for the public to effect any changes to the draft. There simply is no process available to do so.


My interpretation of "Efficiency" is less about time spend dealing with public input, and more about being able to make changes Without having to consult the public at all except for the internet survey....

This new system only deals with Policy matters. Regulation changes and such are now completely off the table for public and stakeholder consultation. Legal weapon changes, no consultation. Sheep curl regulation changes, NO Consultation.... Instead of the consultation and disclosure/discussion available through the AGMAG group, the government will now simply make the changes they desire.


Not only should individual hunters be very concerned with this new system taking away their ability to be aware and have the opportunity to give an opinion on hunting concerns, we need to be VERY concerned with our stakeholder groups actually agreeing to participate in this new system. I expect this kind of secrecy from the government, but I am furious that the stakeholders executives are content to allow this to happen.


It is time to call out the executive from All hunting stakeholder groups, AFGA and affiliated regional clubs, ABA, SCI, HFTF, WSF, APOS, WEF, DWS.....

This is NOT ACCEPTABLE!
AGMAG must be re-instated.
AGPAC must release it's members from the gag order, allow them to disseminate information with their membership.
AGPAC must record their meetings, with an official record released to the public in a timely manner.


Only if/when hunters demand and achieve these objectives will there be any possibility for concerns expressed in this thread to be introduced into the Policy discussion.

[purgatory.sv]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

While I know who is sitting at the meeting, the information is private. As the moment, you and the public are not allowed to know....


While discussing fine details of changes people would like to see in an outfitter policy/allocation agreement is important, people need to understand that the public has lost all access to proper consultation on the matter.


This needs to be dealt with FIRST before there is any hope of having a wish list of changes....
There is no possibility to introduce these ideas until access to the system is established.


With the cancelling of AGMAG, stakeholders have lost any direct and open organized consultation on wildlife/hunting management decisions.

Under AGPAC, the government has selected individuals, some which belong to stakeholder groups, to discuss and form POLICY drafts. It is still unclear whether these individuals are there representing their stakeholder group, or simply there as individuals. So far, the AGMAG group has yet to agree to release ANY information to the stakeholder groups or to the public. As I mentioned earlier, they did decide to NOT record minutes for the meetings, which results in a completely anonymous body. There will be NO Record of how various members supported various policy decisions, thus NO accountability that these people are actually representing the directives and positions of their membership.

Why has this new committee gone underground? Efficiency!

I was told by a government employee heavily vested in the AGPAC group that the intent is to avoid the hassle of dealing with the public when contentious issues are being decided. In his words, "this will be efficient."

By law, there is a minimum requirement of public notice required, and that is ALL that the government and committee members are content to give us.
AFTER the Policy drafts are completed, such as the new Outfitter Policy, the public will have a window of time to participate in a comment period. After the comment period, the government will finalize the Policy. Well,we have experienced this type of consultation before. It is VERY difficult if not impossible for the public to effect any changes to the draft. There simply is no process available to do so.


My interpretation of "Efficiency" is less about time spend dealing with public input, and more about being able to make changes Without having to consult the public at all except for the internet survey....

This new system only deals with Policy matters. Regulation changes and such are now completely off the table for public and stakeholder consultation. Legal weapon changes, no consultation. Sheep curl regulation changes, NO Consultation.... Instead of the consultation and disclosure/discussion available through the AGMAG group, the government will now simply make the changes they desire.


Not only should individual hunters be very concerned with this new system taking away their ability to be aware and have the opportunity to give an opinion on hunting concerns, we need to be VERY concerned with our stakeholder groups actually agreeing to participate in this new system. I expect this kind of secrecy from the government, but I am furious that the stakeholders executives are content to allow this to happen.


It is time to call out the executive from All hunting stakeholder groups, AFGA and affiliated regional clubs, ABA, SCI, HFTF, WSF, APOS, WEF, DWS.....

This is NOT ACCEPTABLE!
AGMAG must be re-instated.
AGPAC must release it's members from the gag order, allow them to disseminate information with their membership.
AGPAC must record their meetings, with an official record released to the public in a timely manner.


Only if/when hunters demand and achieve these objectives will there be any possibility for concerns expressed in this thread to be introduced into the Policy discussion.

I value what you post and in particular this. I hope the appointed committee members are balanced.

If a window is presented for feed back how will it be presented?

[Mickey]

For anyone whining that the government changing things to make it harder for the poor outfitters to make a living should look at what is happening in the economy right now. The government is making it hard for everyone to make a living. Adapt or get out of the business.

Outfitters constantly whine about changes as they know how good they have it right now and dont want to give it up.

I dont want to wait years to draw a tag somewhere while a non resident can come in and shoot a trophy every year. It is wrong and needs to be addressed.

Residents should get access to all opportunities first, then outfitters.

Dont even get me started on people keeping an Alberta mailing address so that they can draw for tags here every year while living somewhere else.

The whole system needs to be blown up and re constructed from the ground up.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

I thought there was different areas thus the reason for disparity... For example cougar hunting quota areas, perhaps my impression is incorrect.

LC

You could be right that cougar allocations are based on CMA (Cougar management area) as opposed to WMUs. Other than waterfowl, all other allocations are valid in a specific WMU.

Originally Posted by B-radshaw

It Doesnt matter the number of outfitters operating in the WMU. If there is 10 allocations for Mule Deer in that WMU then they could be owned by 10 different outfitters or 1 outfitter. The result is 10 deer being killed. I guess 10 outfitters could make things a little more crowded.

Aside from Cougar allocations, all outfitter tags align with resident WMU boundaries. I believe sheep tags do as well. I am wondering if SRD or whoever decides on the Outfitter Allocation Allotment views things on a larger scale rather than a specific wmu. Do they group a number of WMUs together into their own management area and as a whole those wmu's are meet the required Non resident to resident ratio?

Yes, these groups of WMUs are called Species Management areas (SMA).

Typically, outfitters can hold 10% of the Allowable Harvest (AH) for a SMA.
Residents general weapon and archery, Landowners and NR hunters hosted get the other 90%.

Now this 10% is NOT 10% of the tags, but 10% of the Harvest.
Historical success rates are used to determine how many tags are offered to fill the AH. Outfitter has an AH of 10 deer, 50% success rate, they get 20 tags.

Here is the catch.

The 10% AH can be sprinkled around various WMUs within the same SMA in varying densities. So in one WMU the outfitters may hold tags for 10% of the AH of say 300 deer (60 tags), such as in a CWD high AH WMU with low trophy potential. But they don't want to hunt that WMU as th trophy potential is low and the tags are hard to sell. Answer (catch), the tags can be transferred to another WMU within the same SMA. In this example, 40 tags could be transferred to another WMU which means 40 or so Resident tags for that WMU would have to be eliminated. Very quickly an imbalance in the 10% guideline is established.

The solution is so simple. Hope it is written into the new outfitter policy.
Make the outfitter AH cap based on each WMU, not by SMA. Make these allocations fixed to that WMU, not transferable to other WMUs.

Originally Posted by The Spruce

They did the same thing with Trapping (biologists), not a good time in this province.

Spruce

It could be eerily similar. I am not sure of the insider details of how the Trapping fiasco was established. I did question "Who" was consulted.... never got an answer....

Now we need to know that this is NOT an NDP thing. This path was established under the previous government. This is about government bureaucrats taking away public consultation and transparency while the politicians smile.

[Ranger CS]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

You could be right that cougar allocations are based on CMA (Cougar management area) as opposed to WMUs. Other than waterfowl, all other allocations are valid in a specific WMU.




Yes, these groups of WMUs are called Species Management areas (SMA).

Typically, outfitters can hold 10% of the Allowable Harvest (AH) for a SMA.
Residents general weapon and archery, Landowners and NR hunters hosted get the other 90%.

Now this 10% is NOT 10% of the tags, but 10% of the Harvest.
Historical success rates are used to determine how many tags are offered to fill the AH. Outfitter has an AH of 10 deer, 50% success rate, they get 20 tags.

Here is the catch.

The 10% AH can be sprinkled around various WMUs within the same SMA in varying densities. So in one WMU the outfitters may hold tags for 10% of the AH of say 300 deer (60 tags), such as in a CWD high AH WMU with low trophy potential. But they don't want to hunt that WMU as th trophy potential is low and the tags are hard to sell. Answer (catch), the tags can be transferred to another WMU within the same SMA. In this example, 40 tags could be transferred to another WMU which means 40 or so Resident tags for that WMU would have to be eliminated. Very quickly an imbalance in the 10% guideline is established. The solution is so simple. Hope it is written into the new outfitter policy.
Make the outfitter AH cap based on each WMU, not by SMA. Make these allocations fixed to that WMU, not transferable to other WMUs.





It could be eerily similar. I am not sure of the insider details of how the Trapping fiasco was established. I did question "Who" was consulted.... never got an answer....

Now we need to know that this is NOT an NDP thing. This path was established under the previous government. This is about government bureaucrats taking away public consultation and transparency while the politicians smile.

That is precisely what they are doing. Taking very few tags in the non productive WMUs and over 50% in some of the more productive WMUs.
APOS runs show and the Gov't goes along for the ride without concern as to how this affects the resident hunters of Alberta.

[Luckwell]

And how many letters have been written from you gentleman. This same thread was happening last year but more towards the Bighorn Sheep Management Plan. I asked for fellow AO letters for proof reading and I would send mine back in exchange. I got 1 letter sent to me. I got a very good response from Shannon Phillips regarding my letter in just under 60 days.

Want to make a difference......... Write a letter and mail it! Otherwise brew another pot of coffee to drink with your buddies while you complain.

Apologies for the direct approach in advance. I'm expecting some disgruntled comments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dshaw]

Originally Posted by Luckwell

And how many letters have been written from you gentleman. This same thread was happening last year but more towards the Bighorn Sheep Management Plan. I asked for fellow AO letters for proof reading and I would send mine back in exchange. I got 1 letter sent to me. I got a very good response from Shannon Phillips regarding my letter in just under 60 days.

Want to make a difference......... Write a letter and mail it! Otherwise brew another pot of coffee to drink with your buddies while you complain.

Apologies for the direct approach in advance. I'm expecting some disgruntled comments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think your bang on, how many guys actually write? Can we have somebody write up a letter and get names to sign it? or do we all need to write individually?

[Luckwell]

I was told that plume of letters grabs more attention than signatures on a letter. Anyone can sign a letter, not everyone has the time to collect data and draft and draft a well worded, professional looking document. The government is required to respond to letters. Email can be sent to junk.

Do what you figure will work best, or you have the time for. I'll do the required research so I can speak intelligently to the topic before writing my letter. I'll most likely start my focus on what Walking Buffalo has said.

Luckwell




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Luckwell]

Hahah "professional looking letter"! I can't even spell check my last post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bmac]

surprisingly,i have been writing several letters on this subject for 5 ministers now,and Shannon Phillips has been the only one that didn't just send me a form letter.
even when i write the different directors within SRD,i just get the exact same letter that my friend does.Alberta Outdoor enthusiasts better realize that the future for the next generations are pretty bleak.we have no say as to what is going to happen.APOS shows the government that they bring money into the province and resident hunters are looked upon as costing money.(tell that to the hundreds of retailers and service providers that make or try to make a living off of us) but no one has ever put it out in black and white how much resident outdoors people put into our economy.
its funny tho how one of the things that got the NDP votes at the last election was how they were going to be more open,and not make their decisions on the golf.course or at free luncheons.but now we get this crap.we aren't allowed to know who is at these meetings or what is going on.
we really owe a big thank you to Walking Buffalo.
he seems to be the only source of valid information any of us get.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Luckwell

And how many letters have been written from you gentleman. This same thread was happening last year but more towards the Bighorn Sheep Management Plan. I asked for fellow AO letters for proof reading and I would send mine back in exchange. I got 1 letter sent to me. I got a very good response from Shannon Phillips regarding my letter in just under 60 days.

Want to make a difference......... Write a letter and mail it! Otherwise brew another pot of coffee to drink with your buddies while you complain.

Apologies for the direct approach in advance. I'm expecting some disgruntled comments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I actually posted the reply to my last letter on the topic on this forum.

[purgatory.sv]

Originally Posted by Ranger CS

That is precisely what they are doing. Taking very few tags in the non productive WMUs and over 50% in some of the more productive WMUs.
APOS runs show and the Gov't goes along for the ride without concern as to how this affects the resident hunters of Alberta.

Originally Posted by Luckwell

And how many letters have been written from you gentleman. This same thread was happening last year but more towards the Bighorn Sheep Management Plan. I asked for fellow AO letters for proof reading and I would send mine back in exchange. I got 1 letter sent to me. I got a very good response from Shannon Phillips regarding my letter in just under 60 days.

Want to make a difference......... Write a letter and mail it! Otherwise brew another pot of coffee to drink with your buddies while you complain.

Apologies for the direct approach in advance. I'm expecting some disgruntled comments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by dshaw

I think your bang on, how many guys actually write? Can we have somebody write up a letter and get names to sign it? or do we all need to write individually?

Originally Posted by Luckwell

I was told that plume of letters grabs more attention than signatures on a letter. Anyone can sign a letter, not everyone has the time to collect data and draft and draft a well worded, professional looking document. The government is required to respond to letters. Email can be sent to junk.

Do what you figure will work best, or you have the time for. I'll do the required research so I can speak intelligently to the topic before writing my letter. I'll most likely start my focus on what Walking Buffalo has said.

Luckwell




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Luckwell

Hahah "professional looking letter"! I can't even spell check my last post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by bmac

surprisingly,i have been writing several letters on this subject for 5 ministers now,and Shannon Phillips has been the only one that didn't just send me a form letter.
even when i write the different directors within SRD,i just get the exact same letter that my friend does.Alberta Outdoor enthusiasts better realize that the future for the next generations are pretty bleak.we have no say as to what is going to happen.APOS shows the government that they bring money into the province and resident hunters are looked upon as costing money.(tell that to the hundreds of retailers and service providers that make or try to make a living off of us) but no one has ever put it out in black and white how much resident outdoors people put into our economy.
its funny tho how one of the things that got the NDP votes at the last election was how they were going to be more open,and not make their decisions on the golf.course or at free luncheons.but now we get this crap.we aren't allowed to know who is at these meetings or what is going on.
we really owe a big thank you to Walking Buffalo.
he seems to be the only source of valid information any of us get.

I believe the poster is not questioning what you are saying.

They are questioning the participants and whom they may be accountable to?

[AvgCanadianJoe]

As you can see from my post history, I am pretty much a silent member on here. However, I felt I couldn't sit this one out and had to join the conversation.

The issue I struggle with the most in all of this is how do I make a meaningful contribution to drive change in the province? Does a guy join the local F & G chapter? Does a person contribute to/join AFGA or ACA? There isn't a whole lot of money to throw around in this province right now, and I don't want to contribute to these organizations unless I can see the tangible outcomes from the initiatives they run.

It pains me to think that all these other jurisdictions we talk about used to look to Alberta to guide their conservation practice when our government had things more together (mule deer conservation in the mid-western U.S., for example). I wonder what they are thinking now?

With some questionable environmental policies and practices from our current and previous provincial electorate, I have to wonder, when was the last time that our conservation efforts and regulations made a lot of sense in this province?

I think the issues plaguing our outdoors community in Alberta are far deeper than blue vs. orange partisan issues: there is something fundamentally wrong with our society and how we connect to the outdoors as a whole population. Perhaps it stems from a lack of involvement and interdependence with nature in general today; the things that we lose touch with we often take for granted or deem less important.

Some days, I think that the world would be a much better place if our decision makers and policy writers took the time to really pay attention to how amazing the natural world in our province is. Ask almost any of them when the last time they saw trout rise in a mountain stream was; watched a sunrise burn frost off the trees in late October; saw a sunset so perfect it could have been from a movie; or mentored a young person to respect, cherish, and steward the land around them, and I would bet most of them wouldn't have an answer.

For me, hunting and angling are a part of hunting and angling, but not the whole pie - I am sure many of you reading this get what I am saying. I have developed the strongest relationships in my life in a duck blind and I have learned more about the people who are important to me in a stream or in a deer stand than through a thousand other activities combined.

Our outdoor passions are about history, traditions, nature, stewardship, and respect. In our fast-paced society only the outdoorsmen and women know that it often takes no service to find the strongest connection.

I often find myself simply frustrated when I talk to others about the state of conservation in this province. I recently filled out my caribou management plan survey and was baffled by the fact that hunters and anglers were not mentioned as a stakeholder group in the proposed management plan; not even once. We can't continue down this path or I would hate to see the state of the province when I am old and grey.

Whether it is outfitter tags, the failed draw system in some areas, mis-managed hunts (Suffield), the walleye harvest, or aeration in trout ponds over the winter, I often find myself shaking my head. As an Albertan, this does not fit with the pride I generally have for all things in our province.

So with that long rant, I have to turn to the rest of you who are equally as frustrated and ask the following questions. How do we change the conversation? How do we become better citizens? How do we ensure that the experience of following a mentor into the woods in the pursuit of a quarry is not lost on future generations? How do we conserve conservation in Alberta?

I don't have the answers, but maybe together we can think of some good places to start.

[brendan's dad]

Emails recieved from the Ministers Office

Thanks Jeremy…the task team is composed of Robert Gruszecki, Ken Bailey, Brent Watson, Greg Sutley, Ian Stuart, Larry Roy, Reg Prostebby, Colin Campbell and Rob Corrigan. These folks are not meant to represent any groups, as we want to keep politics out of the discussion. They were chosen to bring a breadth of perspective to the issue of allocation (for example Colin Campbell is with Alberta Beef Producers, but does not wear that hat at this table. For discussion around landowner licenses, however, he can help bring a landowner perspective to the table). As mentioned, once draft policy elements have been developed, these will be delivered to AGPAC (composed of AFGA, ABA, SCI, ABP, APOS, TWS, WSF, Delta Waterfowl, AO Magazine, UofA) for engagement with stakeholders…hope this helps clarify things…thanks…Dave

Dave Kay
Commercial Wildlife and Priority Species
Fish and Wildlife Policy Branch
Alberta Environment and Parks
9920 108 Street, Edmonton, AB T5K 2M4
Phone: 780-644-4646 Fax: 780-422-9559
Email: dave.kay@gov.ab.ca

From: jeremy.buote@yahoo.ca [mailto:jeremy.buote@yahoo.ca]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 5:50 PM
To: Dave Kay
Subject: Re: concerns over policy development

Thanks for the reply,

1. What groups were represented at the table during these discussions?

2. Why as Alberta outdoorsmen/women do we have to find out about proposed policy updates and closed door meetings on social media as opposed to blanket email to all WIN card holders?

Thanks

Jeremy Buote


Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 24, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Dave Kay <dave.kay@gov.ab.ca> wrote:

<image001.gif>
Hi Jeremy

Thank you for your recent correspondence with Minister Shannon Phillips’ office, indicating your concern over an “outfitter policy” being created. I hope I can alleviate your concern by providing more accurate information on what I think your email was referring to. The Alberta Game Policy Advisory Council created a task group to collaboratively develop a draft “Big Game Allocation” policy. The intent of this policy is to provide guidance in the allocation of Big Game hunting opportunity among all of Alberta’s hunting user groups (not just outfitted hunting).

Once a draft policy has been developed, it will be fully reviewed by the broader AGPAC membership, and so stakeholder members will be consulted through this process. The intent was for a non-positional task group to develop the policy elements, and the resulting draft policy to be fully vetted through AGPAC. There is no intent to exclude the public and stakeholders in this process.

I hope this helps to clarify the process in developing a new Big Game allocation policy for all resource user groups. If you have any further questions, please contact me to discuss

Thank you…Dave

Dave Kay
Commercial Wildlife and Priority Species
Fish and Wildlife Policy Branch
Alberta Environment and Parks
9920 108 Street, Edmonton, AB T5K 2M4
Phone: 780-644-4646 Fax: 780-422-9559
Email: dave.kay@gov.ab.ca

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

[RockyMountainMusic]

Originally Posted by last minute

Almost 1500 looks and only 39 response’s tells me not to many care what the outfitters are up to can’t blame them happy hunting

I feel the same way on my thread on the caribou recovery with the GOA taking away access for hunting/trapping fishing/atv's.... I do believe many including myself are so fed up with the mismanagement of AB's resources it disgusting. I have been on this board for many years yet my post are pretty low considering time here. I usually don't rant, If things don't turn around in a fast manner everything we enjoy will be a memory. From outfitter tags to draw times to caribou recovery to hunter hosts to Grizz numbers..... I can go on but you know what they ALL have a common root and there isn't one simple answer but if we just keep sitting by and take it you will see the end of hunting/trapping in the not so distant future. It's easy to look at a issue and think poor guys there but it doesn't impact me, sooner or later it will. I don't know where all these organizations are standing im sure lots are fighting but without numbers its useless. IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE "UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL"

There is a lot of people on here with lots of good info hope everyone will start making a difference

[Deer Hunter]

the task team is composed of Robert Gruszecki, Ken Bailey, Brent Watson, Greg Sutley, Ian Stuart, Larry Roy, Reg Prostebby, Colin Campbell and Rob Corrigan. These folks are not meant to represent any groups, as we want to keep politics out of the discussion.

Funny.
They chose several group executives but suggest they aren't to represent their groups. Srd still has no problem bull****ting the resident hunter.
Politicians trying to keep politics out of the discussion...

[35 whelen]

So I am going guiding for a task member this fall. even though I have been a guide for a lot of years I do not think the residents should get shafted like we are. wait times and draws just wondering what questions I should talk to him about other than the obvious ones will keep you updated if I hear anything interesting

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[albertadeer]

Originally Posted by Scott h

Seems like a very common sense solution that know one could really find fault with.

Ha, except how would that make less NR hunters?!? If theres 25 allocations in a zone. It don't matter if you have to draw for it or just buy it. 25 is always 25

[slough shark]

I have an interesting question, how many people here had ever had a positive interaction with an outfitter in the field? The only interactions I've had were being denied permission because the outfitter had already sown it up (try finding a field hunt out in eastern Alberta for geese, half the time an outfitter is already in it. That or getting permission in several zones for deer, outfitters have that down up. There's also then the times bird hunts outfitters have been ruined by them chasing birds elsewhere or interrupting the hunt. Maybe it's just me but one of the reasons that I'm generally anti-guide is I've generally not had positive interactions with them and I've not seen them making hunting any easier for anyone other than their clients, in fact they generally make it a fair bit harder.

[wbl170]

When the 25 allocations alotted for the larger Smu's are concentrated in a few wmu's that is a concern.

[Ronji]

I cannot seem to locate an icon for beating something to death.

Everybody complains behind their keyboard, but will not take the time to write or email to the appropriate government departments, to voice their concerns.

And by the way...... I was a guide for 5 years before I became an outfitter for the last 10.


I'm sure I'll get scolded on this one.