Outfitter Illegally Sold Bighorn Sheep Permits to an American?

[1899b]

Originally Posted by Rackmastr

Wow theres a bold challenging statement if I've ever seen one...

I just feel TJ's opinions may sway more toward the business side of things more so than us recreational hunters. Its not a slam. After reading my post again it very well could be misconstrued as a slam but definitley was not intended to be in the slightest.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Many jurisdictions including Alberta allow Non residents to hunt without an Outfitter. Problem solved.

It would solve a lot of problems, that's for sure!

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Many jurisdictions including Alberta allow Non residents to hunt without an Outfitter. Problem solved.

Yep, I can't see a single problem arising from that

[nekred]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Many jurisdictions including Alberta allow Non residents to hunt without an Outfitter. Problem solved.

Ok how many hunters from US do you think would swarm into Alberta every fall?! after our wildlife? What a stupid idea!... can you imagine the priority you would need on a draw to get a sheep then?

[SCO]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Owner would be classified as whomevers name is on the permit. Wanna bet it is a Canadians name on there? I don't care who borrowed the money to the Canadian to buy the permits, they are still owned by a Canadian. Maybe the lender does buy the hunts on a yearly basis for cheap, nothing illegal about that. Pretty simple, not sure how some can't figure that out.

x2 Very well said.
If everyone thinks that the american owns/bought the tags then why in the hell would chad have to pay him anything? He would have to pay chad for his services while guiding. From the sound of it I do not believe the american even came hunting with chad. So much for the idea of buying them for himself and friends to use.

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

So you can take pot shots at me but I cant say anything about the lack of results of an organizination regarding outfitting/non resident hunters???

And now your asking me about eating our own??? I have to stop typing now

i apologize if you took my comments as a pot shot as they weren't intended that way. I was just pointing out your lack of understanding regarding what the AFGA is up to. I guess I see all the hard work they do for all residents and I know the countless hours that guys like the hunting chair put in and my hackles just get a bit up when people criticize with false info or about things they have no knowledge of. I'll try to temper my comments and perhaps we can stick to the facts and not derail this important thread.

[SCO]

Originally Posted by hal53

ever heard of an outfitter paying royalties???....

Yeah Hal,
We each pay royalties every year on every allocation we own regardless if we sell the hunt or not. Amazing the number of people on here that post without knowing the true facts.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by SCO

x2 Very well said.
If everyone thinks that the american owns/bought the tags then why in the hell would chad have to pay him anything? He would have to pay chad for his services while guiding. From the sound of it I do not believe the american even came hunting with chad. So much for the idea of buying them for himself and friends to use.

The probem we seem to be having here is there is always one or two
"chicken little theorists" in every crowd.

[elkhunter11]

So much for the idea of buying them for himself and friends to use.

Whether or not the American purchased the allocations for him, or friends or family to use, he could legally do so if he chose, whereas an Alberta resident can't legally do that, even if he is an outfitter and does have the allocations. When Alberta's own regulations provide an advantage to anyone but an Alberta resident, the system is obviously faulty, and needs to be revised.

Originally Posted by 1899b

I just feel TJ's opinions may sway more toward the business side of things more so than us recreational hunters. Its not a slam. After reading my post again it very well could be misconstrued as a slam but definitley was not intended to be in the slightest.

I'm honestly not sure how any of my business dealings has anything to with my thoughts on wildlife management in Alberta. I'm 100% a recreational hunter that occasionally has a cameraman behind me. There's not much that could change management wise to benefit my business in any way or perhaps I'm missing something.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Im a member but obvioulsy need to get more involved. Im sorry, the proof is in the pudding here with the second class treatemnt of resident hunters. This isnt a new problem, rather one that hasnt been dealt with affectively for many years. Playing the blame game isnt very affective either i agree, but what has been happening isnt working very well considering the mess we are in today.

Your name calling at me specifically is par for the course at how you like to treat others who have a differing opinion. Smarten up SH. Youre a resident too, no?

The AFGA website is not up to date with the 2012 resolutions, but if you go to this link, scroll down to the "Resolutions" section, and then click on the last link (2011resolutionresponse), you will see the 2011 resolutions and responses from the government. At least one of those deal with outfitter allocations.

It is my experience that outfitter issues have always been near the top of issues that the AFGA has dealt with over the years. Some issues they win one for the resident hunter, and some they lose. Don't forget, the AFGA is not the only game in town that has interests concerning wildlife, fishing and hunting.

Years ago, the government would deal with the AFGA on season and regulation changes. It was the only game in town. The APOS came along, and a plethora of species specific interest groups, as well as tool specific interest groups (bow hunters) and hence AGMAG was born.

The AFGA is still considered to be the voice of resident hunters by the government, but the regulators are also casting their web wider. Just be glad Greenpeace hasn't been invited yet. (sarcasm intended).

[SCO]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

As for outfitting being heavily regulated with tags being taken away.... We can all dream!

This is not a dream but a reallity! We are regulated, each have to file annual reports detailing the hunter id, days hunted, wmu, species & sex of animal, whom did the guiding, & etc. We have something called 5 year reviews where areas that have become greater than the 10% norm (majority are less than 5%) we go into negotiations with SRD and give up or exchange for allocations in areas that are well under the norm. As a example we are currently in negotiations involving approx 70 mule deer tags in a particiular area along with a number of other species in other areas.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Yep, I can't see a single problem arising from that

So, to avoid problems, you would be in favour of NRA's requiring an outfitter. We get that. Would you support that a NRA would need to be drawn to be able to hunt in areas where the resident is restricted by a draw.

Say, for example, antelope?

After all, there are many jurisdictions in the States that have that requirement.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by SCO

Yeah Hal,
We each pay royalties every year on every allocation we own regardless if we sell the hunt or not. Amazing the number of people on here that post without knowing the true facts.

Originally Posted by MountainTi

The probem we seem to be having here is there is always one or two
"chicken little theorists" in every crowd.

To both of you, how would you suggest APOS's disciplinary committee actually become effective.

You know, by actually cancelling and pulling and outfitters allocations for infractions?

Right now all that committee does is be a vehicle for NRA hunters to lay complaints and refund deposits or hunting fees.

It is toothless and proven toothless in getting rid of the criminal outfitters that are operating under APOS licensing.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by SCO

This is not a dream but a reallity! We are regulated, each have to file annual reports detailing the hunter id, days hunted, wmu, species & sex of animal, whom did the guiding, & etc. We have something called 5 year reviews where areas that have become greater than the 10% norm (majority are less than 5%) we go into negotiations with SRD and give up or exchange for allocations in areas that are well under the norm. As a example we are currently in negotiations involving approx 70 mule deer tags in a particiular area along with a number of other species in other areas.

Bear is at 30% and you have some higher moose numbers in some WMU's.

Let's not forget that your allocations are based on SMU's, not WMU;s. SMU= Species management units, which comprise of a large number of WMU's.

That skews the 5% in areas.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by avb3

So, to avoid problems, you would be in favour of NRA's requiring an outfitter. We get that. Would you support that a NRA would need to be drawn to be able to hunt in areas where the resident is restricted by a draw.

Say, for example, antelope?

After all, there are many jurisdictions in the States that have that requirement.

What benefits would come of that? You would definately level the playing field of the NRA's (depending on tag costs). It would be safe to assume the numbers would be the same as the allocations? And in the meantime you would be eliminating an industry.

[SCO]

Originally Posted by greylynx

Just for interest. How much is a guided hunt in B.C., Sask, Africa.

What percentage of the Alberta hunting population could afford such hunts?

Does someone have some numbers?

Good post. There are a number of affordable hunts everywhere. It is just dependent upon the species. If you do a little homework and shop around you could get a great hunt for just about anything for under $5000 and a lot of quality hunts for less than $3000. A good example is the antelope situation. Even if there were no outfitter allocations we would still be a 8 year looking like it will be growing to a 10-15 year wait before being drawn. When you have 27000 applicants a extra 20-25 tags is not going to make a difference. You can go on a hunt anywhere in montanna, wyoming, s. dakota, colorado, idaho, utah, etc for $1000-$1800 fully guided. Less if you want a diy style hunt. So instead of some people whinning so much about the antelope situation just do some research and book a hunt in the US. If you can not afford that you can not afford to hunt them here either. It will cost close to that to hunt them here by the time you add everything up unless you live or have a buddy where your draw is and have a company gas card.

[BigJon]

I have a bit of a derail from the OP. A question I have been asking myself is...When some folks here (resident hunters) say that they would like to see NRA's have to draw a license rather than get an allocated tag when they buy an outfitted hunt, do you guys mean that you want NRA's drawing from the same pool as the resident hunters? If so I could see that increasing wait times for tags...that would suck.

Or do you mean you would like to see a "pool of NRA tags" that they have to draw from and then shop for an outfitter once succesful in the draw. Which to me, is not much different than current allocations, except for the fact that tag #'s from that pool could be adjusted year to year and eliminate situations like this past season where outfitter tags outnumbered resident tags, due to hunts being pre-booked I am guessing.

As for the OP...I just shake my head at the whole situation...and the courts ruling.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

What benefits would come of that? You would definately level the playing field of the NRA's (depending on tag costs). It would be safe to assume the numbers would be the same as the allocations? And in the meantime you would be eliminating an industry.

One would not eliminate an industry, but change its dynamics. There is a thriving outfitting industry in those US jurisdictions that the NRA equivalent is on a draw.

It would also address the issue of allocation reviews of every 5 years and how that system skews NRA vs. resident percentages. Antelope is only one example.

Sure, SRD can pull allocations based on wildlife numbers in theory. When is the last time THAT has happened? And APOS always comes kicking and screaming to the table if it is even suggested.

Because of allocations being essentially on a SMU basis, if a NRA hunter was required to be drawn on a WMU basis, then the percentages of allocation would be more realistic in those areas where they are way out of the theory now.

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by SCO

Good post. There are a number of affordable hunts everywhere. It is just dependent upon the species. If you do a little homework and shop around you could get a great hunt for just about anything for under $5000 and a lot of quality hunts for less than $3000. A good example is the antelope situation. Even if there were no outfitter allocations we would still be a 8 year looking like it will be growing to a 10-15 year wait before being drawn. When you have 27000 applicants a extra 20-25 tags is not going to make a difference. You can go on a hunt anywhere in montanna, wyoming, s. dakota, colorado, idaho, utah, etc for $1000-$1800 fully guided. Less if you want a diy style hunt. So instead of some people whinning so much about the antelope situation just do some research and book a hunt in the US. If you can not afford that you can not afford to hunt them here either. It will cost close to that to hunt them here by the time you add everything up unless you live or have a buddy where your draw is and have a company gas card.

Dont tell me where to hunt and how much to spend while trying to defend your business. Thanks!

[avb3]

Originally Posted by BigJon

I have a bit of a derail from the OP. A question I have been asking myself is...When some folks here (resident hunters) say that they would like to see NRA's have to draw a license rather than get an allocated tag when they buy an outfitted hunt, do you guys mean that you want NRA's drawing from the same pool as the resident hunters? If so I could see that increasing wait times for tags...that would suck.

Or do you mean you would like to see a "pool of NRA tags" that they have to draw from and then shop for an outfitter once succesful in the draw. Which to me, is not much different than current allocations, except for the fact that tag #'s from that pool could be adjusted year to year and eliminate situations like this past season where outfitter tags outnumbered resident tags, due to hunts being pre-booked I am guessing.

As for the OP...I just shake my head at the whole situation...and the courts ruling.

I suspect most resident hunters would see that if the theory of allocation was applied, that the same portion of NRA be available as it is now.

I say theory. As I indicated in my last post, that theory gets skewed because of allocations not being withdrawn when numbers are down, and because they are based on SMU rather than WMU areas.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by avb3

One would not eliminate an industry, but change its dynamics.


.

So you would still have the industry.......an industry with a large decline in gross revenue?

[GooseHunter 667]

Originally Posted by drake

non resident (canadians and aliens) should not be able to hold any interest in alberta outfitts.......ive often wondered how Shawn Mann (american) is able to operate his bird camp east of edmonton.

agreed!

[avb3]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

So you would still have the industry.......an industry with a large decline in gross revenue?

The INDUSTRY should not experience any decline in gross revenue, although there may be a re-allocation among the participants in that industry.

On second thought, maybe there will be an impact. And one that should happen. That would be in the areas where there is an excess of NRA allocations and activity, such as antelope.

Is that a bad thing? Why or why not?

[rem338win]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Yep, I can't see a single problem arising from that

No kidding. Never hear any issues with American migratory hunters up here

The system sucks and isn't fair, but to change it and be consistent with all the provinces NR and apply what a lot of you are screaming means most of you will be out of a job. Just saying.....

So everyone in favor of protectionist policies that don't allow foreign investment into resource industries say "yah" and go grab your pink slips.

[SCO]

Originally Posted by avb3

Bear is at 30% and you have some higher moose numbers in some WMU's.

Let's not forget that your allocations are based on SMU's, not WMU;s. SMU= Species management units, which comprise of a large number of WMU's.

That skews the 5% in areas.

Where is bear at 30%? Do not mean to offend you but that is a joke. The last time I looked at the regs there was no limit on the number of resident bear hunters in any particular unit. The only way I could see that you came up with that number is if you were comparing the number of non-resident bear licenses sold compared to resident. If no residents bought a bear license it would be 100%. If every resident that buys a whitetail license bought a bear license it would be 2%.

As far as moose are concerned along with elk I did state that there are other species as well. I know that our allocations are based on SMU's but most would be asking what that was. I know that skews the 5% if you base it on SMU's but I am glad you brought it up as it helps to clarify why some WMU's have more than 10%. If you take a SMU and it has a 13%, 4%, 3%, 7%, 5%, 4%, 8%, 5%, 2% add them together and divide by number of WMU's it will average 5.78%. This would explain why as I stated earlier that in a couple of SMU's that this number has grown to be above 10% and that we are in negotiations involving SRD involving a large number of mule deer tags. The funny thing about it is that I have never heard anyone complain about the particular WMU's involved in that SMU.

[Matt L.]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Dont tell me where to hunt and how much to spend while trying to defend your business. Thanks!

It would help your credibility if you actually read and responded to their whole comment, instead of picking out the insignificant parts.



It's no wonder our rights are being chipped away at like they are, we as sportsmen have to be the most divisive and argumentative among ourselves group out there. Also the most selfish.

Sheep are covered under seperate agreement and outfitters are allocated 20% of the allowable harvest vs the 10% for other species.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by SCO

This is not a dream but a reallity! We are regulated, each have to file annual reports detailing the hunter id, days hunted, wmu, species & sex of animal, whom did the guiding, & etc. We have something called 5 year reviews where areas that have become greater than the 10% norm (majority are less than 5%) we go into negotiations with SRD and give up or exchange for allocations in areas that are well under the norm. As a example we are currently in negotiations involving approx 70 mule deer tags in a particiular area along with a number of other species in other areas.

5 year reviews should take place more often (every year).....things can change a craptonne in 5 years....(ie. antelope numbers after only 1 year). When resident draws numbers are recalc'd every year, so should outfitter tag allotments.....they should increase or decrease in the same relative percentage.

LC

[SCO]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Dont tell me where to hunt and how much to spend while trying to defend your business. Thanks!

Maybe you should read before you spout. Grey lynx had asked a question in which I quoted him and I was directing the answer to him. I was not telling you where to go or what to spend but stating facts.