Letter to the ministers to reduce draw wait times.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Excuse me. YOU YOURSELF said a $150 tag price would force you to start "staggering my draws to stay married and solvent". That's right from your very first post. You, and others, won' be able to hunt all the game you might be very willing, able, and committed to hunting and to which you have the legal right to hunt.

You still haven't answered my question about how getting my dog or aunt gertrude or uncle buck to get their hunters ed, buy a WIN and wildlife certificate, and apply for a draw helps me or gives me a leg up. So Auntie gets draw? I can't hunt on her license. Please explain.

Yes I did say that. I'm talking about priorities.

As far as the other stuff. Most know what I'm talking about. I suspect you do as well.

[Roughneck Country]

There was mention of "just hunt with an outfitter" what do people think about locals being able to hunt on an outfitters alloction? Im sure some will view this as elitist or paid hunting, but is there really a difference between some rich local hunting with an outfitter or a rich non resident paying for the tag? I wouldn't pay retail price to hunt at home but it might take a handful out of the draw who would either not live long enough to pull the tag or would just take their $$ out of province to hunt anyway.

Thoughts?? I'm sure this will open a can of worms up

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Roughneck Country

people wanting to raise fees doesn't make it or them elitist, thats just a cop out for people that are cheap. The fee increases chuck proposed wouldn't even pay for the gas on a weekend of hunting.

#4 the harvest report being mandatory is common place in many juristictions and no huning the following year if not completed is the penelty as well. basically it forces hunters to give their data to F&W to better help manage the resource, Alaska has this in place as the amount of land to manage far exceeds the number of resources they have to complete the work/ surveys

And that's why Charlie's proposal to make people "committed" through financial barriers claiming that this will not exclude people is a misleader.

If the proposed "commitment" is not high enough to exclude people due to financial limitations, the proposal won't have any effect.

Picking a "nice" sounding number for arguments sake is just Chuck's way to sell the trinket. Go ahead, buy the trinket, but if you want it to work, then you will have to buy the upgrade.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Roughneck Country

There was mention of "just hunt with an outfitter" what do people think about locals being able to hunt on an outfitters alloction? Im sure some will view this as elitist or paid hunting, but is there really a difference between some rich local hunting with an outfitter or a rich non resident paying for the tag? I wouldn't pay retail price to hunt at home but it might take a handful out of the draw who would either not live long enough to pull the tag or would just take their $$ out of province to hunt anyway.

Thoughts?? I'm sure this will open a can of worms up

Why should I have to pay someone else for the right to hunt something that I already own?

This is a terrible consideration if you believe in keeping wildlife in the public domain.


If we must tap the Outfitter allocation for Resident use, then simply transfer this allocation to the Residents.

[raab]

Originally Posted by Roughneck Country

people wanting to raise fees doesn't make it or them elitist, thats just a cop out for people that are cheap. The fee increases chuck proposed wouldn't even pay for the gas on a weekend of hunting.

#4 the harvest report being mandatory is common place in many juristictions and no huning the following year if not completed is the penelty as well. basically it forces hunters to give their data to F&W to better help manage the resource, Alaska has this in place as the amount of land to manage far exceeds the number of resources they have to complete the work/ surveys

But why give them more money? I think if you forced people to pay the 30 bucks or whatever it is for tags if they get drawn people would think twice about applying for everything. I could understand upping it if they wanted to put more F&W officers out there, that'd I support. But to up it so that it could force young and poor hunters out of the market. That just doesn't sit well with me. And as far as game surveys that's fine, I wouldn't care one way or the other.

The real issues here in Alberta are the non residents applying as well as the population influx. Get those under control and you'll see draw priorities come down. In saying that I hunt the north and really don't think the priorities are all that bad. If you really want to hunt something here in Alberta besides Bison you should be able to do it within 10 years. It just may not be in a prime location you were hoping for.

[drake]

We need the SRD ministry to provide us with their plan to address the growth issues....until then we are spinning out wheels. (I hope they have a plan....)

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by drake

We need the SRD ministry to provide us with their plan to address the growth issues....until then we are spinning out wheels. (I hope they have a plan....)

They sure do, starting with their move to get rid of the Spear and Atlatl hunters.

[Big Sky]

[QUOTE=Okotokian;2498454]This is a serious letter. You saying people apply under their dog's name? What difference does it make if relatives of the person apply? The fellow can't use his aunt gertrudes draw or license. How does this offer anyone any advantage? This line of thinking makes no sense.
QUOTE]

Aunt Gertrude (or wife or elderly parent ) gets drawn. Goes on hunt. Never leaves truck or stays in camp. Their only purpose is to provide a tag. Party hunting at its finest.

Increased application fees might cut down on this.

[jack88]

Originally Posted by raab

The real issues here in Alberta are the non residents applying as well as the population influx. Get those under control and you'll see draw priorities come down. In saying that I hunt the north and really don't think the priorities are all that bad. If you really want to hunt something here in Alberta besides Bison you should be able to do it within 10 years. It just may not be in a prime ion you were hoping for.

This is 95% of the problem. The sheer number of people here. I do agree with Chuck. He is forward looking to this massive pool of P0 to P4's and how we are going to start dealing with it.

$10 per draw too much? How about this....make a 999 application worth $5 and an actual application in a WMU worth $20. With that said, keep the tag prices the same. You need to change peoples way of thinking come draw time.

You want to decrease wait times? The only way that's going to happen is if Alberta goes into the tank and these hoards or people start moving back home.
This has been winding up for about 6-8 years now. Define what resident really means and go from there.

Look at the Bison draw as an example, 6505 people applied in 2008 with 100 tags given out. This year it's over 10,000 people!!! (35 tags and I know they had a bad kill off)

[Big Sky]

Originally Posted by hal53

Where do I stand?, ................, and you can only 999 for 2 consecutive years

I don't mind it that people can 999 for an extended period. It allows for some planning on their part. Two years might be a bit low. Five years might accomplish what you want but still allow guys to do some long term planning.

After p5, you can't 999 anymore. Everybody with P5 and above gets put into a draw and the tags are allocated from that pool of applicants. To give an advantage to those who've been applying for extended periods p6's are entered twice in the draw, p7's get entered 3 times, etc. So, if you're p15 ( 11 entries in the random draw ), you've got a better chance than the the guy's who's p5, but the guy with p5 still has a chance.

This would certainly help with some of the sheep and elk draws. Some tags are getting impossible to draw if you are just starting to enter them.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by jack88

This is 95% of the problem. The sheer number of people here. I do agree with Chuck. He is forward looking to this massive pool of P0 to P4's and how we are going to start dealing with it.

$10 per draw too much? How about this....make a 999 application worth $5 and an actual application in a WMU worth $20. With that said, keep the tag prices the same. You need to change peoples way of thinking come draw time.

You want to decrease wait times? The only way that's going to happen is if Alberta goes into the tank and these hoards or people start moving back home.
This has been winding up for about 6-8 years now. Define what resident really means and go from there.

Look at the Bison draw as an example, 6505 people applied in 2008 with 100 tags given out. This year it's over 10,000 people!!! (35 tags and I know they had a bad kill off)

So Jack, how many NR apply in the draw? How many licences do they acquire each year? Or are you just assuming NR hunters are a significant issue?



As more hunts are put on a draw, as we see every year, the pressure on the draw system increases. Managing more areas for "Trophies", a few bad winters in some areas and dramatically increased predator populations in many areas has all added up to a much more significant role in increasing draw wait times than the increase in hunters.

I earlier offered a suggestion that could Immediately double the number of Antler Mule deer licences available in the draw system. And nobody said a word. Instead of dealing with Wildlife Management issues, many want to take the simplistic road and manage hunters by thinning out their wallet.

If this carries on, We as Hunters, are in for a very rough ride.

[Lefty-Canuck]

I still don't see the big issue with 999 other than when folks from 999 pop into pull a tag....isn't that the point?

Maybe they need to charge more to increase priority...

The tags are handed out each year regardless, 999 does not increase wait. In many cases it allows lower P an opportunity. I am p11 and applying in a p9 needed zone, I didn't want the tag the past two years due to commitments and winter kill.....but I didn't hold back others from pulling a tag....and I waited my turn.

LC

[Big Sky]

Originally Posted by chuck

3. Either a mandatory purchase of the tag successfully drawn for within a certain time frame or a mandatory requirement to leave a CC # at the time of application and the automatic purchase upon successful application.

Not a bad idea but I like this amendment to it.

If you get drawn, you have until Aug 1 to purchase your tag. After that, all unclaimed tags become available on the same date as the undersubscribed tags. This would help to ensure that the tags are being used. The anti-hunters might think twice about entering the draws if it's going to cost them the license fee to 'burn' a tag.

If you get drawn, you get sent back to p0, even if you didn't purchase the tag.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Big Sky

Not a bad idea but I like this amendment to it.

If you get drawn, you have until Aug 1 to purchase your tag. After that, all unclaimed tags become available on the same date as the undersubscribed tags. This would help to ensure that the tags are being used. The anti-hunters might think twice about entering the draws if it's going to cost them the license fee to 'burn' a tag.

If you get drawn, you get sent back to p0, even if you didn't purchase the tag.

Not all the draws are decided by Aug 1....but I am picking up what you are laying down.

If you are drawn now and don't buy a tag you lose all priority....

LC

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Big Sky

Not a bad idea but I like this amendment to it.

If you get drawn, you have until Aug 1 to purchase your tag. After that, all unclaimed tags become available on the same date as the undersubscribed tags. This would help to ensure that the tags are being used. The anti-hunters might think twice about entering the draws if it's going to cost them the license fee to 'burn' a tag.

If you get drawn, you get sent back to p0, even if you didn't purchase the tag.

I totally agree with this but the next guy in line should be offered the tag.

[jack88]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

So Jack, how many NR apply in the draw? How many licences do they acquire each year? Or are you just assuming NR hunters are a significant issue?

Which draw?

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by chuck

I totally agree with this but the next guy in line should be offered the tag.

That or if it goes to the masses you forfeit your points for the tag if you get an undersubscribed.

I never understood how you could get an undersubscribed and keep all your points....

LC

[Big Sky]

Originally Posted by bessiedog

We really do need to restrict what a 'resident' is.

I'd say a resident must provide 2 years proof of paying alta income taxes.
Plus two years of occupied residency?

Why two years?... Just cuz.

Two years is not enough in some cases. There are people who fly back and forth to Alberta from elsewhere in the country. There is no way that you could ever call them 'residents'. Under no circumstance should they be allowed to hunt in Alberta as residents. Let them hunt in their home province. It's enough that we give them a job.

For the guy who move's here with his family and lays down roots, two years is fine. (IMO)

Alberta' population is going through the roof. Steps need to be taken to ensure hunting opportunities for residents.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by jack88

Which draw?

All that are available to NR. You and many others keep saying that NR HH need to be reduced. Why? What number of licences/percentage of available draws do NRHH currently use? Will reducing or eliminating NR HH actually do anything to decrease Resident draw wait times?

[shooter]

Chuck,

I think you have some valid points in what you say and I see where you are coming.

Our current system and rules have flaws and issues. Although $150.00 for "trophy" tags and a lesser fee for others certainly puts a separation between class of sportsmen right out of the gate which I'm not a fan of. Keep the costs the same across the board IMO.

I like the proposed increase in the application fees. As it stands right now $4 is a cheap price to pay and I can see that if a higher fee of $10 or $20 was initiated, the amount of bogus applications would be reduced. Without knowing how many dogs and cats and aunts and uncles and antis are applying, it's hard to determine what actual affect it would have.

Maintaining the current license fees but making it mandatory to purchase them prior to say July 31 would be enough incentive to weed out many of the broad stroke applications. If not purchased by that deadline, that quota would be put back in the pool and become part of the available under-subscribed license. Purchased or not the initial applicant looses their priority unless due to medical or unforeseen circumstances.

I personally feel that today's sport hunting is an expensive way of putting good meat on a table. The cost per pound of meat for the most part is very high in my experience. By the time fuel, transportation, gear, butchering and licensing fees are accounted for, it would cheaper for most to buy meat at Costco! My point being that an increased in costs of licensing may not have much impact on sportsmen and women when licensing fees already and still would be one of the least costly components of the hunt.

There are for sure issues with the length of time required to pull some draws. My main issue being areas that will never be available at this point to my children in particular but also hunters that are lower in priority. The 408 or 437 sheep draws are both great examples of mathematically impossible areas for anyone not in the first two priority brackets. This is a draw new hunters will never be able to experience, and that doesn't sit well with me because they are mathematically eliminated from that draw. Yet if you look through the draw summary reports year after year people still waist $4 on applying for the pipe dream.

Change is needed! I'm all for it and also willing to pay higher fees if that were to help improve our opportunities as sportsman and women. Like I said before, the cost of the licensing and it's process is by far the smallest expense I face to enjoy my time in the woods.

[Tox]

I just don't see how mandatory purchase of a drawn tag is of any benefit. If a hunter is drawn, one could assume he had full intention of purchasing the tag otherwise he would have 999'd it. Whether he purchased the tag and not used or was unsuccessful or didn't purchase the tag really makes no difference other than he lost his priority.
999 in my opinion is a great took for planning a hunt. How can you complain about a hunter intentionally moving backwards in line to allow another to come up for another year.

[Tox]

how about eliminating the partner licence for all drawn tags, would that help reduce draw applications for those never intending to hunt?

[diamonddave]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

So Jack, how many NR apply in the draw? How many licences do they acquire each year? Or are you just assuming NR hunters are a significant issue?



As more hunts are put on a draw, as we see every year, the pressure on the draw system increases. Managing more areas for "Trophies", a few bad winters in some areas and dramatically increased predator populations in many areas has all added up to a much more significant role in increasing draw wait times than the increase in hunters.

I earlier offered a suggestion that could Immediately double the number of Antler Mule deer licences available in the draw system. And nobody said a word. Instead of dealing with Wildlife Management issues, many want to take the simplistic road and manage hunters by thinning out their wallet.

If this carries on, We as Hunters, are in for a very rough ride.

Some people get it, some people don't, and never will.

[Tox]

Originally Posted by shooter

Chuck,

Change is needed! I'm all for it and also willing to pay higher fees if that were to help improve our opportunities as sportsman and women. Like I said before, the cost of the licensing and it's process is by far the smallest expense I face to enjoy my time in the woods.

Higher fees only increase opportunity for those that can afford it. I agree that the licencing fees are only a small expense, but one that is added to the actually cost of hunting.

[drake]

Originally Posted by shooter

Chuck,

I think you have some valid points in what you say and I see where you are coming.

Our current system and rules have flaws and issues. Although $150.00 for "trophy" tags and a lesser fee for others certainly puts a separation between class of sportsmen right out of the gate which I'm not a fan of. Keep the costs the same across the board IMO.

I like the proposed increase in the application fees. As it stands right now $4 is a cheap price to pay and I can see that if a higher fee of $10 or $20 was initiated, the amount of bogus applications would be reduced. Without knowing how many dogs and cats and aunts and uncles and antis are applying, it's hard to determine what actual affect it would have.

Maintaining the current license fees but making it mandatory to purchase them prior to say July 31 would be enough incentive to weed out many of the broad stroke applications. If not purchased by that deadline, that quota would be put back in the pool and become part of the available under-subscribed license. Purchased or not the initial applicant looses their priority unless due to medical or unforeseen circumstances.

I personally feel that today's sport hunting is an expensive way of putting good meat on a table. The cost per pound of meat for the most part is very high in my experience. By the time fuel, transportation, gear, butchering and licensing fees are accounted for, it would cheaper for most to buy meat at Costco! My point being that an increased in costs of licensing may not have much impact on sportsmen and women when licensing fees already and still would be one of the least costly components of the hunt.

There are for sure issues with the length of time required to pull some draws. My main issue being areas that will never be available at this point to my children in particular but also hunters that are lower in priority. The 408 or 437 sheep draws are both great examples of mathematically impossible areas for anyone not in the first two priority brackets. This is a draw new hunters will never be able to experience, and that doesn't sit well with me because they are mathematically eliminated from that draw. Yet if you look through the draw summary reports year after year people still waist $4 on applying for the pipe dream.

Change is needed! I'm all for it and also willing to pay higher fees if that were to help improve our opportunities as sportsman and women. Like I said before, the cost of the licensing and it's process is by far the smallest expense I face to enjoy my time in the woods.

Really well put

[MathewsZ7]

Originally Posted by Tox

I just don't see how mandatory purchase of a drawn tag is of any benefit. If a hunter is drawn, one could assume he had full intention of purchasing the tag otherwise he would have 999'd it. Whether he purchased the tag and not used or was unsuccessful or didn't purchase the tag really makes no difference other than he lost his priority.
999 in my opinion is a great took for planning a hunt. How can you complain about a hunter intentionally moving backwards in line to allow another to come up for another year.

You feel that it makes no difference? So here is a scenario. Antlered mule deer draw lic. available for all of the 100 and 200 series WMU's in 2014 equal approx. 5878 tags total. If the 18% or 1057 mentioned dont purchase their tags that is a $39000 loss towards conservation and conservation enforcement!! That one species and only a portion of the province. Seems like that would make a difference of hundreds of thousands each year to help improve habitat, enforcement and maybe help increase hunter opportunities!!!!!!

[Big Sky]

Originally Posted by H380

So true , this talk of saving money by hunting wild meat is a joke .

My wife laughed at me when I tried to explain that hunting made economic sense.

Hunting may be a less expensive activity than some others, but for the vast majority of hunters, they are only fooling themselves if they think it is a source of cheap meat.

I don't think a small increase in the cost of a draw application will stop anyone who is serious about the hunt from entering the draw. It might get rid of some of the not so serious applicants.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

And that's why Charlie's proposal to make people "committed" through financial barriers claiming that this will not exclude people is a misleader.

If the proposed "commitment" is not high enough to exclude people due to financial limitations, the proposal won't have any effect.

Picking a "nice" sounding number for arguments sake is just Chuck's way to sell the trinket. Go ahead, buy the trinket, but if you want it to work, then you will have to buy the upgrade.

You're just calling me names because you know I'm right.

[jack88]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

All that are available to NR. You and many others keep saying that NR HH need to be reduced. Why? What number of licences/percentage of available draws do NRHH currently use? Will reducing or eliminating NR HH actually do anything to decrease Resident draw wait times?

I don't know? Why don't we try it and find out.

[shooter]

Originally Posted by Tox

I just don't see how mandatory purchase of a drawn tag is of any benefit. If a hunter is drawn, one could assume he had full intention of purchasing the tag otherwise he would have 999'd it. Whether he purchased the tag and not used or was unsuccessful or didn't purchase the tag really makes no difference other than he lost his priority.
999 in my opinion is a great took for planning a hunt. How can you complain about a hunter intentionally moving backwards in line to allow another to come up for another year.

A person who applies and is successful for a draw and then doesn't use it, is essentially taking that opportunity away from someone who would have bought and hunted under that successful draw.

The mandatory purchase is also guaranteed revenue... a good budgeting tool for the SRD to use knowing that X number of licenses will be sold in 2014 etc.