AGPAC Recommendations

[SLH]

Anyone know all the members of AGPAC and how they voted on these 8 resolutions:

1. That AGPAC recommend to AEP that Antlered Mule Deer no longer be included as an eligible animal for Landowner Special License.

2. That AGPAC recommend to AEP that Non-Resident Canadians no longer be eligible to apply for Special License Draws.

3. That AGPAC recommend to AEP that new partnership licenses be created for Non-Resident Canadians for Antlered Mule Deer, Antlered Elk and Trophy Antelope.

4. That AGPAC recommend to AEP that dedicated archery Special License Draws be created when archery harvest in a Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) exceeds 15% of allowable harvest in that WMU.

5. That AGPAC recommend to AEP that big game be allocated as a proportion of hunting opportunity (Outfitter Guide Allocations held and Special License Quotas available) instead of harvest, for those animal classes and WMU’s on Special License Draw. For animal classes and WMU’s under general license seasons, allocation will continue to be calculated as a proportion of harvest.

6. That AGPAC recommend to AEP that the proportion of big game hunting opportunity allocated to the outfitted hunting industry be standardized across Alberta’s WMU’s as follows: Antlered Moose, Antlered Mule Deer, Antlered Elk, Antlered Whitetail Deer and Trophy Antelope – 10%. Trophy Bighorn – 20%. Cougar – 20%. Black Bear – no restriction.

7. That AGPAC recommend to AEP that the spatial scale at which hunting opportunity is managed be standardized as the WMU for both recreational and outfitted hunters.

8. That AGPAC recommend to AEP that once an approved policy is in place, that it be implemented in a phased approach to minimize disruption to affected business operations within the outfitted hunting industry.

[North of Owlseye]

This is a lot to process and is couched in difficult language. What does the 'spatial' thing mean?
Looks like residents are in for another royal screwin' .

[albertadave]

Yep

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by SLH

5. That AGPAC recommend to AEP that big game be allocated as a proportion of hunting opportunity (Outfitter Guide Allocations held and Special License Quotas available) instead of harvest, for those animal classes and WMU’s on Special License Draw. For animal classes and WMU’s under general license seasons, allocation will continue to be calculated as a proportion of harvest.

So the outfitting industry will now be assured of 10% of all the draw tags in every WMU. I wonder what process they will use to sell off all the new tag allotments.

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by North of Owlseye

This is a lot to process and is couched in difficult language. What does the 'spatial' thing mean?
Looks like residents are in for another royal screwin' .

Allocations limited to the 10% rule were calculated on Management areas (not sure of the proper name for them) that encompassed many WMU's in some cases. This "averaging" allowed for the outfitters to hold a disproportionate # of tags in a desirable WMU by averaging out the number against another WMU in the management area. The "spatial" thing means that the allocations will be looked at by WMU rather than the larger area.

[mk63]

Originally Posted by North of Owlseye

This is a lot to process and is couched in difficult language. What does the 'spatial' thing mean?
Looks like residents are in for another royal screwin' .

Please elaborate, good chance i'm missing something but I don't see cause for outrage. With that being said I'd probably be ****ed if I was an landowner.

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by mk63

Please elaborate, good chance i'm missing something but I don't see cause for outrage. With that being said I'd probably be ****ed if I was an landowner.

Well for one it screws over the Landowners and Non-resident Canadians and favors the Non-Resident hunter. Residents in a few WMU's that were hard hit by the outfitting industry will see some relief, but the net effect is that a far greater proportion of our game harvest will be going out of the country to those with the ability to pay because of the allocation on basis of opportunity rather than harvest - the harvest goals will remain unchanged but given the greater success rates of the professional hunters over the general populace the allowable harvest for the resident hunter will decrease overall while the outfitting industry harvest will increase.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by mk63

Please elaborate, good chance i'm missing something but I don't see cause for outrage. With that being said I'd probably be ****ed if I was an landowner.

Can't you just see the landowners welcoming all the new antlered mule hunters onto their land after many of them helped to make sure the land owner could not hunt them himself..........few more townships of access.....denied

[boah]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

Well for one it screws over the Landowners and Non-resident Canadians and favors the Non-Resident hunter. Residents in a few WMU's that were hard hit by the outfitting industry will see some relief, but the net effect is that a far greater proportion of our game harvest will be going out of the country to those with the ability to pay because of the allocation on basis of opportunity rather than harvest - the harvest goals will remain unchanged but given the greater success rates of the professional hunters over the general populace the allowable harvest for the resident hunter will decrease overall while the outfitting industry harvest will increase.

How does it screw your bet the landowner?

[SLH]

Originally Posted by albertadave

Yep

Is it a secret?

[boah]

Originally Posted by boah

How does it screw your bet the landowner?

I meant how does it screw the landowner?

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by bobalong

Can't you just see the landowners welcoming all the new antlered mule hunters onto their land after many of them helped to make sure the land owner could not hunt them himself..........few more townships of access.....denied

I don't think any of this is written in stone yet by any means. It's not too late to make your views known.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by mk63

Please elaborate, good chance i'm missing something but I don't see cause for outrage. With that being said I'd probably be ****ed if I was an landowner.

Bobalong's post no. 8 above explains it perfectly.

[boah]

Originally Posted by bobalong

Can't you just see the landowners welcoming all the new antlered mule hunters onto their land after many of them helped to make sure the land owner could not hunt them himself..........few more townships of access.....denied

Probably the same amount of access denied already because the landowner has a tag himself.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by boah

Probably the same amount of access denied already because the landowner has a tag himself.

Have you ever hunted private land or even hunted before? The Landowner tags needed to have sort of limitations put on them but to completely eliminate all Antlered Mule tags for Landowners is a very bad call.

Many many landowners in this area allowed access to their land despite having tags, lots don't even hunt but if this proposal goes through it could be one of the biggest blows to hunter/landowner relations in a very long time. Not just for Mule deer but for all kinds of game and varmint hunting.

[boah]

Originally Posted by bobalong

Have you ever hunted private land or even hunted before? The Landowner tags needed to have sort of limitations put on them but to completely eliminate all Antlered Mule tags for Landowners is a very bad call.

Many many landowners in this area allowed access to their land despite having tags, lots don't even hunt but if this proposal goes through it could be one of the biggest blows to hunter/landowner relations in a very long time. Not just for Mule deer but for all kinds of game and varmint hunting.

I don’t think so.

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by boah

I don’t think so.

I think you may be wrong.

[boah]

I may be. I was once before. I don’t think I’ll have any access problems.

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by boah

I may be. I was once before. I don’t think I’ll have any access problems.

I don't think I will either - but that doesn't do much good for the rest of the folks. It isn't all about me.

[walking buffalo]

All hunting stakeholder groups that surveyed their membership voted in favour of all proposals.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

All hunting stakeholder groups that surveyed their membership voted in favour of all proposals.

Thanks for that info, wb. If it is true, I may have to reconsider my membership in a couple of those organizations when renewal time comes. Hopefully others will feel the same way.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by bobalong

Have you ever hunted private land or even hunted before? The Landowner tags needed to have sort of limitations put on them but to completely eliminate all Antlered Mule tags for Landowners is a very bad call.

Many many landowners in this area allowed access to their land despite having tags, lots don't even hunt but if this proposal goes through it could be one of the biggest blows to hunter/landowner relations in a very long time. Not just for Mule deer but for all kinds of game and varmint hunting.

To plagiarize Albertadave's post above, YEP.

[Duk Dog]

.

[H380]

Originally Posted by bobalong

Have you ever hunted private land or even hunted before? The Landowner tags needed to have sort of limitations put on them but to completely eliminate all Antlered Mule tags for Landowners is a very bad call.

Many many landowners in this area allowed access to their land despite having tags, lots don't even hunt but if this proposal goes through it could be one of the biggest blows to hunter/landowner relations in a very long time. Not just for Mule deer but for all kinds of game and varmint hunting.

I agree there needs to be some limits put in place but too cut it out totally will close a pile of land for sure .

[Duk Dog]

.

[snareman]

A landowner tag already comes with the requirement that the landowner allow access to other hunters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[boah]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

I don't think I will either - but that doesn't do much good for the rest of the folks. It isn't all about me.

I knew that was coming. If landowners are going to close access to hunters because of anything ESRD does, it just shows what type of people they are. They probably don’t allow access anyways.
By me saying I won’t have trouble with access, I mean most People. But, that’s just my opinion.
Landowners that don’t allow access are either anti- hunting, pro hunting for themselves on their land, or want profit for access.

[boah]

Originally Posted by snareman

A landowner tag already comes with the requirement that the landowner allow access to other hunters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How’s that working??

[SLH]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

All hunting stakeholder groups that surveyed their membership voted in favour of all proposals.

Would it be safe to say the membership didn't understand the implications of some of the recommendations? Its hard to believe that anyone would voluntarily give all that extra harvest to the outfitters willingly for the extra few tags we get in return for ****ing off landowners.

That and this idea that the sheep tags will be standardized across all WMU's.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by SLH

Would it be safe to say the membership didn't understand the implications of some of the recommendations? Its hard to believe that anyone would voluntarily give all that extra harvest to the outfitters willingly for the extra few tags we get in return for ****ing off landowners.

That and this idea that the sheep tags will be standardized across all WMU's.

In the days of survey this and survey that, people need to read the questions and understand them....at some point a survey you do is actually going to mean something, like this one.

LC