Latest Greatest Muledeer Management Plan

[Mike_W]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Oh yeah, and you non landowner types should mention to landowners that their tags shouldnt exist when you ask permission. Explain why we are obligated to feed the deer that you are entitled to. Create or enhance areas for your deer, but we shouldn't be allowed to harvest one for the freezer. Give it a try and get back to us on how you make out. Lol.

I don't think this is a very common thought I for one would support more tags to landowners they feed them for us!!

I don't think the cull can be blamed province wide and I don't think outfitters or landowners are to blame for the population decrease. The overharvest of does combined with hard winters with high numbers of predators.

Harsh winters are not to be confused with lack of food. Harsh winters cause the animals to work harder for there food and some cannot sustain themselves not do to a lack of feed but the work required to get to it ....this is unpreventable and if only this by itself would hardly be felt but combine that with a striving coyote and wolf population and large numbers of breeding does being removed just compounded a tough situation quickly.

I'm not saying 4-5 years ago the population couldn't support the use of supplemental tags but in how aggressively F&W handed out multiple tags allowing for excess harvest it didn't leave any room for nature (winter and predators) to run there course and when combined together for a couple years I would guess our population is 25% maybe of what it was.

Now due to this strategy areas I use to be able to bow hunt are on draw because the population cannot support the general archery season. So yes I am frustrated that F&W's short minded game management plan has cost me a hunting opportunity that strived only a few short years ago.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Why don't they make landowner tags for flat tops only? The landowners can still enter the draws for trophy animals if they like. Elk tags for landowners are antlerless only. Usually it is the does and cows that herd up that are eating the most and peeing on the feed.

LC

[waterfowler1969]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

For all those who believe that land owner tags should be eliminated, please share your opinion with these people when you ask for permission to access private lands...

Absolutely ridiculous to think or assume that those who provide habitat and assist ALL our wildlife year round should not have the opportunity to harvest if they choose too..

how can you manage animals with unlimited land owner tags? Everybody should be in on the draw. No special tags. As a landowner I would never use that tag cause I dissagree with it.

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Why don't they make landowner tags for flat tops only? The landowners can still enter the draws for trophy animals if they like. Elk tags for landowners are antlerless only. Usually it is the does and cows that herd up that are eating the most and peeing on the feed.

LC

I am curious about this as well. Were they not issued because landowners were having problems with too many deer? I would think that taking out the does instead of the bucks would be more successful at managing numbers. It seems only 2% of land owners take out the does.

[bhguy]

I see both sides, I would pull for max two land owner tags one buck, one doe. I have hunted on my own land, not with a landowner tag, and I have to say if I couldn't hunt a bit on my own land I would be enraged. that said unlimited anything is pure insanity. I know a lot of farmers who have a very successful management program on their own farms...srd should take note. most of them let people on their land to hunt as well, they just base their own harvest and the amount of hunters on the numbers they see. I know to do this for a while province with crown land would be impossible, but concepts are great. I also believe that guiding should be eliminated for certain species based on numbers, animals are not a commodity we shouldn't sell ourselves out!!!

[waterfowler1969]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Why don't they make landowner tags for flat tops only? The landowners can still enter the draws for trophy animals if they like. Elk tags for landowners are antlerless only. Usually it is the does and cows that herd up that are eating the most and peeing on the feed.

LC

Bingo.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Why don't they make landowner tags for flat tops only? The landowners can still enter the draws for trophy animals if they like. Elk tags for landowners are antlerless only. Usually it is the does and cows that herd up that are eating the most and peeing on the feed.

LC

OK. But a lot of the comments on here claim that the reduction in doe numbers is the biggest problem with the deer herd decline. Which is it?

How many of those land owner tags go unfilled?

You guys do know the rules on those, right? The tag must be filled on DEEDED land the farmer owns it cannot be filled on lease land, crown land or any other deeded land he doesn't own.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by bhguy

I see both sides, I would pull for max two land owner tags one buck, one doe. I have hunted on my own land, not with a landowner tag, and I have to say if I couldn't hunt a bit on my own land I would be enraged. that said unlimited anything is pure insanity. I know a lot of farmers who have a very successful management program on their own farms...srd should take note. most of them let people on their land to hunt as well, they just base their own harvest and the amount of hunters on the numbers they see. I know to do this for a while province with crown land would be impossible, but concepts are great. I also believe that guiding should be eliminated for certain species based on numbers, animals are not a commodity we shouldn't sell ourselves out!!!

Isn't that what the tag numbers for landowners is? One of each? I guess in some of the multiple issue zones everyone received the same number of tags, only seems fair.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

I am curious about this as well. Were they not issued because landowners were having problems with too many deer? I would think that taking out the does instead of the bucks would be more successful at managing numbers. It seems only 2% of land owners take out the does.

Could you please explain what these graphs mean. To me it looks like your trying to say landowners get 79% of mule buck tags. How about we look at all the landowner tags in all zones, cherry picking a few doesn't really make your argument.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by waterfowler1969

Bingo.

Why not only allow outfitters to harvest flat tops? We live here most of their clients are foreign. Why should they be allowed to help destroy our resource?

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

OK. But a lot of the comments on here claim that the reduction in doe numbers is the biggest problem with the deer herd decline. Which is it?

How many of those land owner tags go unfilled?

You guys do know the rules on those, right? The tag must be filled on DEEDED land the farmer owns it cannot be filled on lease land, crown land or any other deeded land he doesn't own.

Yes I do know the rules. Do all the landowners abide by those rules? Many do granted, but also many do not....and I KNOW that first hand. Just like any other system people take advantage of perceived loopholes. Many hunter take advantage too.

Look at the stats on what the landowners purchase 31 tags antlerless vs 1043 tags antlered...

When landowner are upset about crop damage due to deer eating and peeing on feed do they see groups of 50 mature bucks doing the damage or 50 does and fawns?

I am not saying delete landowner tags....what is the intent of the landowner tags? Opportunity? Meat? Damage control? The answer to that question should be the driving force behind what sex/species are available for landowner harvest IMHO.

LC

[SLH]

I always get a kick out of landowners like you. The animals were here before you and your deed gives you no special rights to them. Personally I do what I can for the wildlife on my place and I manage who gets on and who doesn't and take great pleasure knowing they're around and I buy my tags over the counter or get them in the draw. But I guess some will always "want" more.

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

Absolutely ridiculous to think or assume that those who provide habitat and assist ALL our wildlife year round should not have the opportunity to harvest if they choose too..

Landowners “producing” wildlife? I beg your pardon. Wildlife survives incidentally to existing operations, in coulees and badlands inaccessible to agricultural machinery, in wetlands not yet drained and opportunistically on crops. Val Geist

Someone much smarter and with much more street credibility on the topic than myself said this. I don't think landowner tags are a bad thing but they to have to be managed not given away at the animals expense.

[remmy300]

Drop the number of F***^^^ doe tags.
I say get rid of the landowner tags. I can apply every year for a LO tag but don't. Our land is in a great zone that still hold quite a few mule deer in comparison to some areas. I was waiting every 3-5 years for my tag. That zone now doing the math will take 20 years to get drawn with the current number of applicants and with the number of allocated tags. Yet they give every LO a tag and have the number of doe tags jacked through the roof. That landowner tag is to be used on the land you own. Like that happens. We have guys hunting our neighbors with landowner tags that live 10-20 miles away. Pretty hard to prove to F&W when they have a whitetail tag also in their pocket.

Drop the number of F***^^^ doe tags.
Drop the number of tags allocated to the outfitters or completely remove the outfitter tags. Why should I have to wait so some yanke can smash a MD in our back yard. I know that the outfitters have a limited amount of tags..but still i should be priority before some tool living in Vermont!

I know there are lots of guys that say as a landowner i deserve a tag every year, i feed the deer all year, i look out for their best interest. Well so do we. We have been feeding deer all winter, they eat out crops all summer. If guys strictly hunted their own land, that's a different story. That landowner tag gets abused.

I dont mind waiting 3-5 years to get drawn, but like hell I will wait 20 years.

[elkhunter11]

I am not saying delete landowner tags....what is the intent of the landowner tags? Opportunity? Meat? Damage control? The answer to that question should be the driving force behind what sex/species are available for landowner harvest IMHO.

I couldn't agree more.

[packhuntr]

At the end of the day, guys just dont get it. Fighting over small insignificant number of tags for something here, there, or there... Just brilliant...
In the end, unfortunately there likely really is only one thing guys that really care can do,,, get every damned tag he can and absolutely smash every mule possible. Pray things may get better once there is nowhere else rock bottom can be found... Kill em all boys,,, serious guys out there,,, hope ya get your share and dont miss out due to your lone silly conservative pride...

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Could you please explain what these graphs mean. To me it looks like your trying to say landowners get 79% of mule buck tags. How about we look at all the landowner tags in all zones, cherry picking a few doesn't really make your argument.

It is just the landowner tags that were issued for all of Alberta and for what. The pie chart on the left is for where.

79% of all landowner tags were issued for antlered mule deer. Only 2% for antlerless mule deer. And 19% for antlerless elk. (All the landowner tags issued for all of Alberta)

[SLH]

So if I read through all the cryptic posts and "I know something someone else doesn't know" posts, the sky is falling crew of Allen and Prybus are again pounding the drum for even lower numbers of deer in the province with the reasoning being to control CWD. Did anyone get if they have a an end play. Does this management scheme have a conclusion or are we to live with little or no deer in the province.

If they have a plan that may end with a better situation I'd be interested to hear this, but from all other jurisdictions that have gone down this road it seems that they have all since realized that CWD is not the end of wildlife and that we can live with it in the population without anyone being the worse off.

It is really to bad that some happy bio named Mike Miller came up with that ridiculous computer model that showed that any population with CWD would eventually be wiped out yet when it was dispelled by showing that it was a flawed model no one picked up on it.

Someone should send that to Prybus.

[walking buffalo]

C'mon Pack and Waterfowler, for being such proactive informed advocates you must have been able to obtain at least some information on the MD management plan discussions....

Buck up....

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by SLH

So if I read through all the cryptic posts and "I know something someone else doesn't know" posts, the sky is falling crew of Allen and Prybus are again pounding the drum for even lower numbers of deer in the province with the reasoning being to control CWD. Did anyone get if they have a an end play. Does this management scheme have a conclusion or are we to live with little or no deer in the province.

If they have a plan that may end with a better situation I'd be interested to hear this, but from all other jurisdictions that have gone down this road it seems that they have all since realized that CWD is not the end of wildlife and that we can live with it in the population without anyone being the worse off.

It is really to bad that some happy bio named Mike Miller came up with that ridiculous computer model that showed that any population with CWD would eventually be wiped out yet when it was dispelled by showing that it was a flawed model no one picked up on it.

Someone should send that to Prybus.

That's out of character for you SLH.... Making claims that are so far from reality.... Did your account get hacked?


---------

If you guys are seriously interested in learning what has been discussed for the proposed MD management plan, THEN ask ESRD, AFGA, APOS, ABA, SCI for the information.....

[SLH]

Well perhaps I shouldn't have said "all other jurisdications" as that might not be accurate but Wyoming, Colorado hell even Wisconsin have come to the conclusion that "... large-scale culling of animals is ineffective in stopping the spread of the disease or reducing its prevalence". This is not my conjecture this is the conclusions of jurisdictions that have been dealing with this longer than Alberta has.

I have yet seen any indication from the wild that would suggest that CWD is a problem for the wildlife. The only problem seems to be when we decide to eradicate a population in the name of control.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by SLH

I always get a kick out of landowners like you. The animals were here before you and your deed gives you no special rights to them. Personally I do what I can for the wildlife on my place and I manage who gets on and who doesn't and take great pleasure knowing they're around and I buy my tags over the counter or get them in the draw. But I guess some will always "want" more.



Landowners “producing” wildlife? I beg your pardon. Wildlife survives incidentally to existing operations, in coulees and badlands inaccessible to agricultural machinery, in wetlands not yet drained and opportunistically on crops. Val Geist

Someone much smarter and with much more street credibility on the topic than myself said this. I don't think landowner tags are a bad thing but they to have to be managed not given away at the animals expense.

I get a laugh out of landowners like you too. I'm pretty sure you havent got a clue what I do for wildlife on MY land.
I never said I want more, just trying to add a few tidbits for people to think about.

I was once told by an SRD employee that landowner tags were limited to 10% of the draw allocation for that zone. Does anyone know if that is true?

I've never heard of a landowner being rejected.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

I get a laugh out of landowners like you too. I'm pretty sure you havent got a clue what I do for wildlife on MY land.
I never said I want more, just trying to add a few tidbits for people to think about.

I was once told by an SRD employee that landowner tags were limited to 10% of the draw allocation for that zone. Does anyone know if that is true?

I've never heard of a landowner being rejected.

Supposedly an old policy contained this understanding. This no longer applies. Landowner Licences for Antlered and Antlerless MD are available on an unlimited Quota. There are many MWU's where Landowners receive more than 10% of the number of licences allocated in the draw.

Despite requesting the Landowner policy documents from ESRD and the AGMAG hunting groups, no one seems to have a copy....

Originally Posted by SLH

Well perhaps I shouldn't have said "all other jurisdications" as that might not be accurate but Wyoming, Colorado hell even Wisconsin have come to the conclusion that "... large-scale culling of animals is ineffective in stopping the spread of the disease or reducing its prevalence". This is not my conjecture this is the conclusions of jurisdictions that have been dealing with this longer than Alberta has.

I have yet seen any indication from the wild that would suggest that CWD is a problem for the wildlife. The only problem seems to be when we decide to eradicate a population in the name of control.

Concluding that previous actions did not stop the spread of CWD is far different than stating "they have all since realized that CWD is not the end of wildlife and that we can live with it in the population without anyone being the worse off."


Remember BSE? Governments and agricultural lobby groups used to say it was no problem, don't worry about it....


To continue to research CWD including possible techniques to control or slow the spread of the disease through hunting makes sense. I rather we pay attention than stick out heads in the sand....


A common complaint by many is the lack of Mature MD Bucks in the CWD zones.
That couldn't possibly be due to CWD, now could it?

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Supposedly an old policy contained this understanding. This no longer applies. Landowner Licences for Antlered and Antlerless MD are available on an unlimited Quota. There are many MWU's where Landowners receive more than 10% of the number of licences allocated in the draw.

Despite requesting the Landowner policy documents from ESRD and the AGMAG hunting groups, no one seems to have a copy

Thanks for the info WB. I wonder why ESRD won't give those numbers out, shouldn't be any trouble generating them? With all the griping about landowners , by hunting organizations and non landowners I'd think those numbers would be published on the front page of every major newspaper in AB.

[Lefty-Canuck]

I would guess IMHO that harsh winters and an over allotment of tags in the CWD zones is more to blame for lower numbers than the disease itself.

This coming from a guy who has a "star" on the map that shows where a CWD positive animal was taken.

LC

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Thanks for the info WB. I wonder why ESRD won't give those numbers out, shouldn't be any trouble generating them? With all the griping about landowners , by hunting organizations and non landowners I'd think those numbers would be published on the front page of every major newspaper in AB.

Easy reefer, just cause a couple of hotheads spew online does not mean they regurgitated a communal meal.

Why won't ESRD give out the Policy and numbers?
Perhaps they don't actually exist.
Even ESRD employees are being told that access to this info is controlled due to Privacy concerns....

[Sledhead71]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Why don't they make landowner tags for flat tops only? The landowners can still enter the draws for trophy animals if they like. Elk tags for landowners are antlerless only. Usually it is the does and cows that herd up that are eating the most and peeing on the feed.

LC

You do understand how the landowner tags work Lefty as it has been discussed many times here...

Again, for those who do not understand, a land owner must apply for the Antlered draw having the deeded lands as his priority WMU and if not successful in the draw system can purchase his land owner tag.

This limits land owners to their respective WMU as if they choose any other, well they would be rejected for the land owner tag.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

You do understand how the landowner tags work Lefty as it has been discussed many times here...

Again, for those who do not understand, a land owner must apply for the Antlered draw having the deeded lands as his priority WMU and if not successful in the draw system can purchase his land owner tag.

This limits land owners to their respective WMU as if they choose any other, well they would be rejected for the land owner tag.

They could change the system from how it is now . Yes I understand how it currently "works"

LC

[Sledhead71]

Originally Posted by SLH

I always get a kick out of landowners like you. The animals were here before you and your deed gives you no special rights to them. Personally I do what I can for the wildlife on my place and I manage who gets on and who doesn't and take great pleasure knowing they're around and I buy my tags over the counter or get them in the draw. But I guess some will always "want" more.



Landowners “producing” wildlife? I beg your pardon. Wildlife survives incidentally to existing operations, in coulees and badlands inaccessible to agricultural machinery, in wetlands not yet drained and opportunistically on crops. Val Geist

Someone much smarter and with much more street credibility on the topic than myself said this. I don't think landowner tags are a bad thing but they to have to be managed not given away at the animals expense.

Well you don't know me nor would anyone that does feel I personally will always want more...

Carry on.

[bhguy]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

You do understand how the landowner tags work Lefty as it has been discussed many times here...

Again, for those who do not understand, a land owner must apply for the Antlered draw having the deeded lands as his priority WMU and if not successful in the draw system can purchase his land owner tag.

This limits land owners to their respective WMU as if they choose any other, well they would be rejected for the land owner tag.

I don't get how you corrected lc on anything ?

[waterfowler1969]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Could you please explain what these graphs mean. To me it looks like your trying to say landowners get 79% of mule buck tags. How about we look at all the landowner tags in all zones, cherry picking a few doesn't really make your argument.

This is not cherry picking. The left tells you how many land owner tags given out for all different parts of the province. On the right it shows what percent of the people drew cow elk, antlerless md and antlered md. Pretty simple info.