‎2012 Hunting Changes and Proposed Changes

[bucknaked333]

Any word on ATV changes this year? I remember hearing that big changes were going to happen this year but never heard what. Also is the 402 elk going on draw in 2013 or is it just on the table for talks.

[Rockymtnx]

Originally Posted by bucknaked333

Any word on ATV changes this year? I remember hearing that big changes were going to happen this year but never heard what. Also is the 402 elk going on draw in 2013 or is it just on the table for talks.

Pretty much if it wasnt in my original post it wont be happening this year.

[Rockymtnx]

Originally Posted by finner-duramax

So baiting black bears is legal in 544???

Yup thats what they are proposing for a change in the 2012/2013 season.

[chain2]

Originally Posted by bluetick

I read exactly what gopher said .There are no other boundaries to refer to if they change to lines .
Funny thing about quotes and what the experts really mean.
They consider it a small portion of 332 which is west of the 22 because 99% of the zone is east of the 22.Thought the same can be said for 330 which the majority resides west of the NSR.
No matter how slow i read and reread or someone tries to explain .I read exactly what they mean .
The portion of 332 on the west side of the 22 will be moved to the east side of the 22 as a border.
So is it me with blinders and a learning disability ,or is it others with this problem.

its on the south end of the zone hth chain

[BrownBear416]

Originally Posted by finner-duramax

eliminate the bear baiting ban in 544>???
so baiting in 544 is allowed?

Its always been allowed in WMU 544 but there is a portion skirting the park that was closed. From what I understand they want to open up the whole WMU.

[gopher]

Talked with rocky SRD this morning the lady that I am waiting to hear back from will be in tomorrow. The lady that I did talk to believed that it was the only the southern part of the zone that will have the boundary change but was not sure. She also said that nothing has been finalized yet. I asked about the none existent elk herd for the reason for a change she was not aware of this and was not sure where I was getting my info from and I left it at that.

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by bluetick

So am I reading this wrong or are you confused WB.Making 332 east of wolf creek into 330 will not add a doe or cow season closer to the river .
If 332 went west to the NSR that would allow this to happen .
A longer season ion 332 because it will be 330 only adds problems to the farmers and landowners in the area with the increase in hunting activity and decreases the Quiet Archery season i enjoy.
Also decreases the cow elk season to minimal and the second season gets eliminated .
I think the area needs a 6 point rule in place and elimination of native hunting rights all together. (Not an increase in season lenght.).

Going back to your post telling WB he was confused: he is not - YOU ARE!

The only piece to be moved is SOUTH of Wolf Creek (by many miles). If you look at the map Chain provided, you can see the piece they are talking about. Hey are not moving the boundary along Wolf Creek, it is staying where it is.


Soooo, if what Chain (and SLH) has posted is correct (I'd bet a good bottle of scotch on it) is there still a reason to get all ****y wih everyone.


For the third time: you owe some people an apology.

FYI, I highly doubt anyone will get one.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by bluetick

I read exactly what gopher said .There are no other boundaries to refer to if they change to lines .
Funny thing about quotes and what the experts really mean.
They consider it a small portion of 332 which is west of the 22 because 99% of the zone is east of the 22.Thought the same can be said for 330 which the majority resides west of the NSR.
No matter how slow i read and reread or someone tries to explain .I read exactly what they mean .
The portion of 332 on the west side of the 22 will be moved to the east side of the 22 as a border.
So is it me with blinders and a learning disability ,or is it others with this problem.

"The portion of 332 on the west side of the 22 will be moved to the east side of the 22 as a border."



No, they are not going to move the portion of 332 from the west side to the east side of hwy 22.

They are going take the easier route and redraw the boundary line on a map.

[Pudelpointer]

[bluetick]

Are you serious dude ,That last comment is completelty rediculious.read what you wrote .Poodle why do you laugh ? are you retarded ?

No, they are not going to move the portion of 332 from the west side to the east side of hwy 22.


They are going take the easier route and redraw the boundary line on a map.

What the heck are they doing then, if they are not moving the boundary to the 22? (east or west side of the highway has no relevance)

The whole point of this rant was they used a lame ass support like the doe and cow draw .It doesnt really matter how big the change or the area is .
Its about a lie and misjudgement of the proposed area and a quote that had no grounds to support the change ..

[Pudelpointer]

Damn it Bluetick, I am starting to feel sorry for you.

The doe/cow season reference is for information - it is not the reason for the change. From my understanding, this was the original reason for including this small sliver in 332, but who knows.

The "reason" for the change is that Enforcement does not believe they could secure a conviction of someone caught hunting (under 330 regs) in that tiny, itty bitty portion of 332 because there is no clearly defined geographic boundary (like Wolf Creek provides to the north).


Free advice (which I have learned through my own personal experience):

The Laws of Holes

1. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

2. You can't dig your way out of a hole.

[Pudelpointer]

I think I have found the part that is throwing you off BT.

"RECOMMENDED CHANGE
Change the western boundary of WMU 332 to follow highway 22 (versus jog to the North Saskatchewan River). The small piece west of the highway would then be added to WMU 330, which lies to the west of 332. "

I agree that the Bold part makes it look like the change is to the entire western boundary of the Zone; but if you read the underlined portion, it identifies the piece of the boundary that they are referring to.

This is only the AGMAG notes on the change, not the wording that will occur within the WMU description in the Wildlife Act (or whatever piece of legislation the WMUs are described in - usually an associated schedule).

A call to SRD should be able to provide the actual change in wording of the WMU description.

[jimbos1]

so im looking at the zone map and im guessing this area is maybe a mile wide maybe 3 miles north/south or so? i dont know the area at all. heck i didnt even know rocky mountian house was there thought it was way north and west of edmonton. but seems to me as a minor change and a lot easier to know boundry, makes a straight line down 22 till it curves to the east. i also can see why the farmers are upset as they do get tired of hunters hounding for permission. had to read the boundry statement 3 times to figure lines out for sure and when read every word it makes sense the way it was saidwest side of 332 will move east about one mile or however wide it is. increasing 330 by same width. much easier to know where you are i would think. please bt dont rip my head off just so much on here about this i had to look at it.

[gopher]

I had a vist with the bio in rocky today. She is going to forward me the issues with the zone. She did not say forsure under review but so far she is more then happy to listen. It was in the paper in rocky as well and there have been other concerns.