Anyone need their blood pressure elevated a little?

[packhuntr]

None of this was an issue until everyone involved, primarily the resident, was put in a position where they felt they needed to have a braul in the street for the remaining scraps of our once great resources. Why not seek the reasons these things came to be, find the answers, fix and avoid. There SHOULD be enough game to go around. There are some real head scratchers in the data. These resources are only renewable to a certain degree, and if they are ran into the ground, we are coming to learn that there are serious consequences. Fights like this thread are only the start. Seek and you shall find, look at tag totals and where they went. Id prefer not to make this about individual thoughts on my end cause its not about any one of us (for the ones claiming I need to put up opinion or other). Instead why not look at some 10 year data boys and find out what has gone wrong. That should be job #1.

[elkhunter11]

you are seeing what guys are saying now. it was said earlier that other businesses operate with risk. why should outfitters be immune and have guaranteed income at the expense of public wildlife? that the real point of this thread and the point that duncan was trying to make.

Exactly!

None of this was an issue until everyone involved, primarily the resident, was put in a position where they felt they needed to have a braul in the street for the remaining scraps of our once great resources. Why not seek the reasons these things came to be, find the answers, fix and avoid. There SHOULD be enough game to go around. There are some real head scratchers in the data. These resources are only renewable to a certain degree, and if they are ran into the ground, we are coming to learn that there are serious consequences. Fights like this thread are only the start. Seek and you shall find, look at tag totals and where they went. Id prefer not to make this about individual thoughts on my end cause its not about any one of us (for the ones claiming I need to put up opinion or other). Instead why not look at some 10 year data boys and find out what has gone wrong. That should be job #1.

Unfortunately the damage is done, now we need to stop dwelling on the past, and come up with a solution. Most of us realize that the solution involves reducing the harvests drastically to allow the game populations to recover. Most of us would also like to see everyone including the outfitters do their part to make this happen. However many outfitters would like the residents to make all of the sacrifices so that they don't have to give up any of their profits. I for one will do all that I can to put pressure on the government to revise the system to both reduce the harvest, and to make the outfitters do their part in reducing the harvest by giving up some allocations, until the population can recover.

[packhuntr]

Originally Posted by ishootbambi

now youre getting it. yes the fact that one guy can come every year is part of the problem. the other part is that allocations mean numbers are not adjustable. this past year was an exception in that winter beat numbers down unusually, and this year, non res tags outnumbered residents in a few areas and a few species. by putting them on draw, it would make it much easier for srd to regulate all hunters and not just residents. in high population years, there would be higher tags issued, and in lower years, less tags. that isnt really an option currently.

It was more than 1 winter that posed a problem, try 3. It is NOT an problem having set allotments, but the job of management must be done. If done properly, most tags counts for many species could be set near exactly the same year after year with little to no tweaking save catastrophic events. All you are doing is looking to stitch wounds rather than preventing them.

[IM_A_GUIDE.]

[QUOTE]you are seeing what guys are saying now. it was said earlier that other businesses operate with risk. why should outfitters be immune and have guaranteed income at the expense of public wildlife? that the real point of this thread and the point that duncan was trying to make. [QUOTE]

Okay well, I disgree with that point. Because outfitter income and well being depend on the immunity given to them by allocations whether or not it impacts a herd negatively as wrong as that sounds. Because I would be out of work in that case. That`s my point gentlemen.

[IM_A_GUIDE.]

I am terrible at quoting man. woops.

[ishootbambi]

Originally Posted by packhuntr

(for the ones claiming I need to put up opinion or other). .

seems your friends in the outfitting industry are preventing you from answering the questions.

you keep trying to deflect the issue in this thread to a different topic. if you want to discuss a new topic start a new thread. for what its worth, i think that issue is equally valid....but not what this one is looking at.

[FCLightning]

As a public service to you Guide I bothered to copy what you didn't want to: (from the same website you copied from)

Does the leaseholder need to be contacted before the recreational users visit?

The recreational user must contact leaseholders before accessing the land. The purpose of the contact is to provide leaseholders with information about the visit and how the visit could impact your operation. As well, leaseholders can provide the recreational user with additional information about the land.

Recreational users are required to give the leaseholder the following information:

* Type of recreational activity proposed
* Time and location the activity will occur on the land
* Number of people in the group
* Name of the recreational contact person and method of contact
* Other related information that is requested, such as the names of all recreational users and license plate numbers of vehicles used to transport people to the land

What happens if a recreational user doesn't contact the leaseholder first or comply with the conditions of use?

This may be considered a contravention of the Recreational Access Regulation, and a fine of $250. As an alternative, the Minister can require an administrative penalty to be imposed.

How long will the recreational user have to wait before getting a response from the leaseholder?
Recreational users should plan a trip well in advance and expect that it could take a few days for the leaseholder to respond to the inquiry.

So, you said so long as there were not cattle on the lease you could go hunt, I said it was not quite that simple. You wanted to be a smart ass. Next time use your toilet paper.

[packhuntr]

[QUOTE=IM_A_GUIDE.;1273149][QUOTE]you are seeing what guys are saying now. it was said earlier that other businesses operate with risk. why should outfitters be immune and have guaranteed income at the expense of public wildlife? that the real point of this thread and the point that duncan was trying to make.

Okay well, I disgree with that point. Because outfitter income and well being depend on the immunity given to them by allocations whether or not it impacts a herd negatively as wrong as that sounds. Because I would be out of work in that case. That`s my point gentlemen.

Are you serious man. If you had any brains youd be saying the same thing as me, and Im just a resident. Damned good thing you arent speaking for anyone else in your line of work, your going to get yourself shot by your peers. Someone shut this guy up.

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

I have the unsettling feeling that you said something important but all I felt was a soft "whoosh" over my bald head.

Can you say that again, but this time at 33 1/3 rpm?

You are quite right. It was VERY important.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by IM_A_GUIDE.

Okay well, I disgree with that point. Because outfitter income and well being depend on the immunity given to them by allocations whether or not it impacts a herd negatively as wrong as that sounds. Because I would be out of work in that case. That`s my point gentlemen.

So it is truly your own greed and the almighty dollar that drives you...that was my point from the beginning again thanks for being honest about it.

Where can I get "immunity" from anyone in tough times.....sign me up!

We all want job security....but what about the patch workers that get laid off when times are tough?...or the IT Professionals that were out of work when the DOTCOMS crashed?....with every job there is a risk. Why should Guides and Outfitters be any more buffered or immune to that? AND at the cost of a delicate resource?....times have changed so have game numbers....I think you need to look past your allotment and look into the future of guiding and hunting in this province if there is to be one....

The population growth in Alberta has affected the quality of our lakes and fisheries and the quality and quantity of our game....we have to change some attitudes or there won't be anything left.

Long gone are the days of "entitlement" in Alberta....

LC

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by packhuntr

None of this was an issue until everyone involved, primarily the resident, was put in a position where they felt they needed to have a braul in the street for the remaining scraps of our once great resources.

This was an issue even before the allocations came into effect. The gov't was questioned at the time in the town hall discussions as to the safeguards and processes that would be put in place to protect both the resource and the resident. They were fully aware of the public sentiment (which has remained consistent throughout the 25 year history of this ill conceived plan) and they were very much aware of the pitfalls which would befall them on this road. They willfully chose to ignore it all in the face of significant lobbying from the Outfitters Association who saw a chance to create profit through private ownership of the publics' wild game.

[IM_A_GUIDE.]

pack you are definitely a sensitive one and it makes you say some pretty ignorant, insulting and downright unitelligent stuff. and FC Lightening my bad for not stating the permission part, to me that`s a given, when asking permission to a lease holder, one must clarify when, where, and how many people and both must follow the rules and the reasonable access points. if in any case my access follows the rules stated in what I posted earlier and a leaseholder declines, the department may issue an order of access.

[elkhunter11]

Okay well, I disgree with that point. Because outfitter income and well being depend on the immunity given to them by allocations whether or not it impacts a herd negatively as wrong as that sounds. Because I would be out of work in that case. That`s my point gentlemen.

If you think that it's okay for outfitter profits to come at the expense of a healthy game population, I could care less if you are out of work. In fact, if the outfitter that you work for knew that you were posting this, you would likely be fired immediately.

Damned good thing you arent speaking for anyone else in your line of work, your going to get yourself shot by your peers.

Posting what he just did, could do more damage to the image of outfitting in Alberta than anything that anyone else could possibly post in this thread.

[IM_A_GUIDE.]

it`d be sweet I think if alberta had a system like B.C.`s

[IM_A_GUIDE.]

clearly elk, that is the way it is and thats what everyones mad about.

[ishootbambi]

[QUOTE=packhuntr;1273159
Are you serious man. If you had any brains youd be saying the same thing as me, and Im just a resident. Damned good thing you arent speaking for anyone else in your line of work, your going to get yourself shot by your peers. Someone shut this guy up.[/QUOTE]

theres the truth...im a guide was just a little more direct in his statement. thats telling.

[packhuntr]

Originally Posted by ishootbambi

pack, i stated clearly what i think of the matter. this isnt about hating outfitters just because. the anger for a lot is at the system. if you read it you will be able to answer this question on its own. do you think that it is fair at any time for non res to have more tags available than residents get? i have a hunch how you really feel given your past comments on how saskatchewan manages mule deer, but please answer that.

then answer this one.....you love antelope like nobody ive ever seen. do you think its fair that johnny moneytalks from georgia can come here and hunt them every year if he wants while you have to wait 8 years or more?

Here ya go Bambi, just for you buddy.
No, I do not have anyone I need concern myself with regarding personal opinions.
I when looking at the data see one anomaly, last year where allotment exceeded res. quota. That is not issue in my mind as it was a game manager induced problem, one that spanned a long ways before the weather forecasts came out. And to top it off, the 5 and 10 year averages on antelope tags are still currently rolling in at just a hair over 7% of resident total. (If you wanted to look at and discuss the data we could have a meaningful conversation here.) Care to discuss the unbelievably high unpurchased res tag percentages for all these desirable multi year wait time tags while your at it?
2nd question. Yes I think its fair that Johnny Big Wallet can come and take an antelope every year if he wants. The total is under 10% of resident tags no matter who does the shooting.
If I win the lotto, guess what, Im going to Arizona and killing an antelope every single year im alive until I cease to live anymore. Im ok with someone coming here to take in a hunt. We have a ton of avg joes on here that saved years to take a hunt somewhere,,,, you ladies mind telling them why its unacceptable behavior in a man to save all those years, take time off work, and go on that fishing trip, or hunt, or what have you?

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by ishootbambi

theres the truth...im a guide was just a little more direct in his statement. thats telling.

Well I thanked him for his honesty because thats what many of us have said all along....but we were told differently by others in the "know"...

LC

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

So it is truly your own greed and the almighty dollar that drives you...that was my point from the beginning again thanks for being honest about it.

We all want job security....but what about the patch workers that get laid off when times are tough?...or the IT Professionals that were out of work when the DOTCOMS crashed?....with every job there is a risk. Why should Guides and Outfitters be any more buffered or immune to that? AND at the cost of a delicate resource?....times have changed so have game numbers....I think you need to look past your alotment and look into the future of guiding and hunting in this province if there is to be one....

The population growth in Alberta has affected the quality of our lakes and fisheries and the quality and quantity of our game....we have to change some attitudes or there won't be anything left.

Long gone are the days of "entitlement" in Alberta....

LC

Great post, I've been both a fishing guide and a hunting guide, but I see a need for change in the system based on the numbers and quality of game I've seen change over the last 12yrs or so. The decline is not isolated to just resident hunters, or non resident hunters, or mother nature but a combination of factors. Fact is there does have to be a change, but I'm no where near qualified enough to know the solution, I just know there has to be a change to keep us all in the woods.

P.S. I think residents should be more privileged to our resources than NR. If its there to share fine, but let's take care of ourselves first.

[elkhunter11]

clearly elk, that is the way it is and thats what everyones mad about.

Of course people are upset that you obviously care more about your work, than about the future of our Alberta game populations. Of course a smart person would realize that if the populations continue to fall, the allocations will be reduced, resulting in less non resident hunters coming to Alberta, and therefore less work for guides. How is that for your job security?

[ishootbambi]

Originally Posted by packhuntr

Here ya go Bambi, just for you buddy.
No, I do not have anyone I need concern myself with regarding personal opinions.
I when looking at the data see one anomaly, last year where allotment exceeded res. quota. That is not issue in my mind as it was a game manager induced problem, one that spanned a long ways before the weather forecasts came out. And to top it off, the 5 and 10 year averages on antelope tags are still currently rolling in at just a hair over 7% of resident total. (If you wanted to look at and discuss the data we could have a meaningful conversation here.)

how many times do i need to say it....I AGREE WITH THAT. there is no question that most years, the number of nr tags isnt an issue...to me at least. the problem is the anomaly happened. just because it is the exception and not the rule, it doesnt make it ok. again, not the intent of this thread.

Care to discuss the unbelievably high unpurchased res tag percentages for all these desirable multi year wait time tags while your at it?

this has come up before. i see the need for changes there as well. rather than issuing too many tags in hopes of enough guys showing up to meet objectives, charge for the tag immediately, or give a time limit to buy and if not purchased put it back into the draw. it would save some years of waiting for sure and give game managers a more accurate number to aim for.

i suspect that for antelope this last year, some never went simply because of the talk on this board that there arent any, coupled with the desire of a few to limit harvest where srd failed to. again, I AGREE that changes should be made.


2nd question. Yes I think its fair that Johnny Big Wallet can come and take an antelope every year if he wants. The total is under 10% of resident tags no matter who does the shooting.
If I win the lotto, guess what, Im going to Arizona and killing an antelope every single year im alive until I cease to live anymore. Im ok with someone coming here to take in a hunt. We have a ton of avg joes on here that saved years to take a hunt somewhere,,,, you ladies mind telling them why its unacceptable behavior in a man to save all those years, take time off work, and go on that fishing trip, or hunt, or what have you?

this last one i dont agree with. i never want to see hunting go in the direction that only the wealthy can play. it is already happening in a lot of ways, but i plan on fighting as long as i can to stop it from growing. the second part of that last bit seems contradicting though. that guy who has scrimped and saved his whole life for that one great hunt is who i am concerned about. right now, money talks......if the changes came that i am proposing, that guy might not have to save his whole life.....just utilize the draw system.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

You are quite right. It was VERY important.

Sooo, could somebody walk through that issue more slowly....for those of us at the back of the class?

[mjs]

I am curious as to why all of the members on this site that have been on guided hunts are avoiding this thread and not giving their opinions.

[elkhunter11]

I am curious as to why all of the members on this site that have been on guided hunts are avoiding this thread and not giving their opinions.

I have been on several guided hunts. I have no issue at all with guided hunts, if the opportunity for non residents does not come at the expense of the residents.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by packhuntr

Care to discuss the unbelievably high unpurchased res tag percentages for all these desirable multi year wait time tags while your at it?

I'm sure the government knows about that and makes an adjustment when the total number of tags is settled. Some aren't going to be picked up and that's a known - just like some tags will be purchased but not filled.

By the same token, do you think that a target of, say, 500 animals taken means that only 500 tags are up for draw?

Your complaint about res hunters not picking up all their drawn tags is a red herring.

It is just as meaningless as a complaint that all the tags which are picked up are not filled. Or that guided hunts fill a higher percentage of their tags than res hunters do.

All of that is accounted for when tags are printed and is quite irrelevant.

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Sooo, could somebody walk through that issue more slowly....for those of us at the back of the class?

Currently the allocation numbers are compared to the resident numbers over a wide geographic area. So in a particular WMU where the number of Mule Buck tags is quite limited there may be a considerable number of NonResAlien tags allocated. Say there are 10 Resident tags and 8 NonRes tags in that WMU. But the official numbers show an average of less than 10% because the numbers are compared across a large number of WMU, many of which may have 25 Res Tags and only 2 Non Res tag (with the goal of achieving the identical harvest numbers as the first WMU given the relative success rates of Res to NonRes hunters) because the interest in the Outfitting industry is not there in that location (lack of trophy opportunity, lack of access etc.). The net effect is that the numbers look rosy, but in reality the most desirable areas of the province are very heavily oversubscribed in NonRes Allocations.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

Currently the allocation numbers are compared to the resident numbers over a wide geographic area. So in a particular WMU where the number of Mule Buck tags is quite limited there may be a considerable number of NonResAlien tags allocated. Say there are 10 Resident tags and 8 NonRes tags in that WMU. But the official numbers show an average of less than 10% because the numbers are compared across a large number of WMU, many of which may have 25 Res Tags and only 2 Non Res tag (with the goal of achieving the identical harvest numbers as the first WMU given the relative success rates of Res to NonRes hunters) because the interest in the Outfitting industry is not there in that location (lack of trophy opportunity, lack of access etc.). The net effect is that the numbers look rosy, but in reality the most desirable areas of the province are very heavily oversubscribed in NonRes Allocations.

like the old saying goes figures don't lie but liars know how to figure

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

Currently the allocation numbers are compared to the resident numbers over a wide geographic area. So in a particular WMU where the number of Mule Buck tags is quite limited there may be a considerable number of NonResAlien tags allocated. Say there are 10 Resident tags and 8 NonRes tags in that WMU. But the official numbers show an average of less than 10% because the numbers are compared across a large number of WMU, many of which may have 25 Res Tags and only 2 Non Res tag (with the goal of achieving the identical harvest numbers as the first WMU given the relative success rates of Res to NonRes hunters) because the interest in the Outfitting industry is not there in that location (lack of trophy opportunity, lack of access etc.). The net effect is that the numbers look rosy, but in reality the most desirable areas of the province are very heavily oversubscribed in NonRes Allocations.

WHAT?

[FCLightning]

The government promised and APOS agreed that the allocations would not exceed 10%. It would be reasonable to assume that if there were 10 tags available in a particular WMU that there would be 1 allocation in that WMU in keeping with the agreed to promise. But it doesn't work that way. In a WMU that is particularly appealing to the Outfitters there could easily be 30, 40 or 50% of the available tags being Non Resident Allocations but they keep the number below 10% by averaging across many WMU's.

[Rocky7]

Thanks everybody for the information and opinions. A person should have all the facts before he forms an opinion.

Hunting is important in my life. Next to my family, it might be at top. I'm out for about a month every year; with one trip of 2wks., sometimes more. It's a big part of who I am and how I got here.

I've always been a Live and Let Live guy but I'm getting fairly perturbed about what I'm reading here.