.............

[Bowhunter102]

Originally Posted by Huntnut

You're comparing apples and oranges. If I want to bring my father-in-law here to hunt-he has to put in and wait for a draw just like me.

No it ain't he is still a non resident and only X % of nr aloud to have tags every year. Also alot are not useing this as so and charging money. Not everything is on a draw for people that come here. So that only applies to certain things. Also everybody says no outfitter tags for antelope. Well how about no nr period for them. Same thing rite? What is not good for one can't be good for the next.

[Bowhunter102]

Originally Posted by Mark

Albertans fishing in BC or hunting WT in Sask does not preclude any BC or Sask residents from doing the same. In AB, NR are taking tags that some Albertans have waited years to obtain. I think that vast majority of people have no problem NR or outfitters having tags that are NOT governed by draws. There a lots of opportunities for NR and outfitters to hunt without participating in draws. Just like BC's salmon and Sask WT.

Sorry bud. I disagree. Look at a state or two that have trophy animals and heathy herds. Every tag pretty well is on a draw. For res and nr. Nr only get a X % that is it. Also you have to draw a tag to hunt wt's in sask.

[Bowhunter102]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

Thank you for telling it like it is, without resorting to calling people greedy.
This is the heart of the matter, I come down on the other side of the fence. I resent giving up tags to NR so that a small minority who think that by limiting NR opportunities to what we have a lot of, hurts their chances of going elsewhere.

Is there any evidence that supports this line of thinking? Is there any jurisdiction that will not allow you hunt there because of protectionist policies at home?

It had all to do with greed. Do the math in 95% of the zones.Outfitter tags wont make a difference in resident draws. Also do them on an average year. Not on a year were alot of tags should have been cut for both.the only numbers being shown here are the worst years not the good ones. That is why I say that outfitter tags should fluctuate with resident tags and that the numbers are skewed to make it look worse than they are.


Thanks finally for replying deerhunter. I do think you are doing this more for you than the 65000 people. I am not putting up a buch of graphs and more info. You and your partners post up enough info to stir the pot. Soon you will read all info that I am talking about in your draw book or in a big letter from SRD stating it all.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Bowhunter102

Sorry bud. I disagree. Look at a state or two that have trophy animals and heathy herds. Every tag pretty well is on a draw. For res and nr. Nr only get a X % that is it. Also you have to draw a tag to hunt wt's in sask.

I don't think residents of Saskatchewan compete with nonresidents in the same draw pool like they do in Alberta.

LC

[Huntnut]

Originally Posted by Bowhunter102

No it ain't he is still a non resident and only X % of nr aloud to have tags every year. Also alot are not useing this as so and charging money. Not everything is on a draw for people that come here. So that only applies to certain things. Also everybody says no outfitter tags for antelope. Well how about no nr period for them. Same thing rite? What is not good for one can't be good for the next.

If he wants to hunt say moose-he has to put in for a draw and build his priority just like me.
You are comparing outfitters that make money to people that charge on hunter host which is illegal. Again-apples to oranges.
Most people here aren't talking about what is on general draw-they are pizzed that they have to wait for draws while someone can hire a guide every year if they want.

[Bowhunter102]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

I don't think residents of Saskatchewan compete with nonresidents in the same draw pool like they do in Alberta.

LC

You are correct. Cause we draw what is general for them And we can't apply for any of there draws.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Bowhunter102

You are correct. Cause we draw what is general for them And we can't apply for any of there draws.

Exactly how it should be....

LC

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by Rhino81

If you think your being notice because 4 of you write 45 letter and send them in, your delusional. And why would anyone use inaccurate data to try and get there point across. This is stupid!!!

Hello Rhino!

Please provide the inaccurate data that you speak of. I am interested because I put this stuff together on my own time, in a hurry, but with the intention of doing it correctly. Sure there has been the odd mistake but by no means is it inaccurate. Just trying to keep it up.

I sure hope your not using this BS to discredit this work ive done as it doesnt bode well for outfitters/guides trying to "snow job" the rest of us, even though that is what has gotten residents into this mess.

Cheers.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Until the Allocation agreement is done, this is just guesswork.

APOS and ABA are touting F&W's suggestion that B class allocations in MD Archery draw wmu's will be pulled. Enjoy the candy.... This means absolutely nothing until the number of O class allocations are determined.


102, you are conveniently forgetting that Resident hunters have already taken cuts to licences for conservation reasons. It is the Outfitters turn.


So far, APOS is holding the line at zero to very minimal cuts, requesting new allocations to replace any cuts, and have already threatened Legal action for market value compensation for any cuts.... A decent business position, but one that shows a complete disregard for the public resource.

Hopefully the sitting Gov. has the stomach for this, letters to the Gov. will hopefully convince them that it is important. I know there are lots of emails and phone calls being made, more is better.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Rhino81

If you think your being notice because 4 of you write 45 letter and send them in, your delusional. And why would anyone use inaccurate data to try and get there point across. This is stupid!!!

What is stupid is that information has not been compiled before and is not readily available to the public.


For the last two years, I have been requesting from all AGMAG member groups and ESRD for information on all Big Game Licences issued and Policy used for distribution of the Licences. This includes Outfitters, Residents, Non Resident Canadian, Non resident Canadian Alien, and Landowners.

Surprisingly, most AGMAG members state that they do not any of this information, something that I have confirmed in some instances.

I have been able to obtain most of the information requested, but not all, yet. Being limited in my skills on using spreadsheets and making graphs, Deer Hunter was kind enough to compile the data. The source of the data used has come from just two sources, APOS and ESRD.

From what I can see, If there are any inaccuracies, the possible sources are mathematical, or error within the raw data supplied from APOS or ESRD.


My first purpose in obtaining, compiling and revealing this data is very straightforward. I believe that Albertans should have full disclosure of this information. Wildlife is a Public Resource, and the information relating to wildlife has been declared Public by the Freedom of Information office. I intend to obtain and release all of the information aquired so that Resident Albertans know what is happening behind the scenes when it comes to Hunter and Wildlife management. In time, I hope that the ESRD simply posts this information online on a yearly basis.



Rhino 81,

You have made a strong accusation against myself and Deer Hunter. Can you back it up? As already asked of you, please show us where your claimed innaccuracies exist, and reveal what you believe to be the correct information. I will appreciate to have any errors noted as our full intention is to provide the Facts.


Or are you just calling Wolf? You put my reputation on the line with your claim, thus Your reputation is also on the line to back up what you say.





Accurate Factual Data aside, Opinion on what should be changed and how is a personal decision that I leave open to each individual. I do not agree completely with Deer Hunter on what changes should be made to hunting regulations, but that is fine, as long as we all have the ability to form that opinion from real data.

[Bowhunter102]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Exactly how it should be....

LC

Yep in your opinion LC. I disagree.

[Roughneck Country]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Exactly how it should be....

LC

I would have to disagree as well, SK is trying to deal with a specific issue. In my opinion the majority of NR hunters in SK are people who use to live there then moved away, myself included. Before when you could just buy the tag there was no way of controling NR from going where ever they wanted, now you have to list the zone your hunting in so I think it lets Sask Fish and Game manage where the harvest is a little more efficiently.

Alberta already has zones and allocations set up and has for a long time, whether the number of tags for NR is correct or not is another issue.
__________________________________________________ ________

As for the other post about the draws in the states. Lets be very clear about hunting in the US. It is a BIG business down here. (I am down in the US for a year for work). The average hunter in the US doesnt buy an over the counter tag each year and hunt for several differnt over the counter big game animals like we can in Alberta. People think Alberta/BC's outfitters are greedy and have more than their fair share, try hunting in TX where the average person has to pay a min of $3500 to shoot a small whitetail, and access fees to hunt virtually every where but gov owned land. The majority of western states manage game specifically for trophy quality (I am thinking of states like Utah, Nevada, Arizona, etc...) because it is big business for the state. In Canada and perhaps states like Wyoming or Montana the game is managed more towards sustainable populations, I'm sure trophy quality plays a part but not like it does in some of the US and in my opinion that is why certain states have virtually everything on draw.

[Roughneck Country]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Exactly how it should be....

LC

I would have to disagree as well, SK is trying to deal with a specific issue. In my opinion the majority of NR hunters in SK are people who use to live there then moved away, myself included. Before when you could just buy the tag there was no way of controling NR from going where ever they wanted, now you have to list the zone your hunting in so I think it lets Sask Fish and Game manage where the harvest is a little more efficiently.

Alberta already has zones and allocations set up and has for a long time, whether the number of tags for NR is correct or not is another issue.
__________________________________________________ ________

As for the other post about the draws in the states. Lets be very clear about hunting in the US. It is a BIG business down here. (I am down in the US for a year for work). The average hunter in the US doesnt buy an over the counter tag each year and hunt for several differnt over the counter big game animals like we can in Alberta. People think Alberta/BC's outfitters are greedy and have more than their fair share, try hunting in TX where the average person has to pay a min of $3500 to shoot a small whitetail, and access fees to hunt virtually every where but gov owned land. The majority of western states manage game specifically for trophy quality (I am thinking of states like Utah, Nevada, Arizona, etc...) because it is big business for the state. In Canada and perhaps states like Wyoming or Montana the game is managed more towards sustainable populations, I'm sure trophy quality plays a part but not like it does in some of the US and in my opinion that is why certain states have virtually everything on draw.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Comparing what we have in Alberta to the States is very difficult....as they have different factors at play. Mainly being paid hunting and paid access to hunt.

I think Saskatchewan has it right, some species are off limits to the nonresident and the nonresident have to draw for a tag that a resident would normally do an over the counter purchase..... That's called management folks....something we aren't used to because in Alberta it has been done so poorly.

LC

[Bowhunter102]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Comparing what we have in Alberta to the States is very difficult....as they have different factors at play. Mainly being paid hunting and paid access to hunt.

I think Saskatchewan has it right, some species are off limits to the nonresident and the nonresident have to draw for a tag that a resident would normally do an over the counter purchase..... That's called management folks....something we aren't used to because in Alberta it has been done so poorly.

LC

You are correct as there has not been management since 90's. So why don't we put everything on a draw for everybody then? Give proper tag #'s to manage herds and do it like that. Every body gets there fair share while game management is number one. Well if SRD quits giving out 5-800 rifle tags per zone.

[walking buffalo]

Interesting....

Rhino81's post seems to have been removed.

Originally Posted by Rhino81
If you think your being notice because 4 of you write 45 letter and send them in, your delusional. And why would anyone use inaccurate data to try and get there point across. This is stupid!!!

Is it because he couldn't back up his claim and asked the mods to delete the post? Any other explanation?

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Bowhunter102

Sorry bud. I disagree. Look at a state or two that have trophy animals and heathy herds. Every tag pretty well is on a draw. For res and nr. Nr only get a X % that is it. Also you have to draw a tag to hunt wt's in sask.

Sorry bud, but Sask hunters do not have to draw for whitetail. I just checked
http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/Def...9-253883e8b8e2 Page 16. They have a regular season.

[elkhunter11]

Sorry bud, but Sask hunters do not have to draw for whitetail. I just checked
http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/Def...9-253883e8b8e2 Page 16. They have a regular season.

Non resident Canadians had to apply in order to obtain whitetail tags, but everyone that applied was issued a tag. The application process was only to show how many people were hunting in each zone, so SRD could determine if a future draw is required to reduce the number of non resident hunters in some zones.

[Deer Hunter]

Quotes from the Archery Mule Deer Thread...

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I agree with most everything you said other than the AFGA is one hell of a voice for residents at the table. They may not always get their way but they are well entrenched in the fight. Doug Butler should be on every resident's Christmas card list for the time and dedication he shows.

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

I am confused by your view of the AFGA... I definitely do not agree with every position the AFGA takes, nor do I think they are the 'end all, be all' when it comes to advocating for Alberta outdoorsmen, however, having been to the annual conference a number of times I have no doubt that the AFGA has ONLY the best interest of Alberta's hunting and fishing community behind every decision they make.

What is you think the AFGA has done (or failed to have done) with regards to resident hunter's interests?

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

The AFGA is involved in the 5 year review of guide / outfitter allocations. Just because there are AFGA voices at the table, does not mean that they agree with the outcomes of a meeting. Contrary to popular belief, just because the AB government has invited you to voice your opinion, it does not mean they give a rat's a** what you have to say.

As for the AFGA, remember that it is a volunteer organization. There are a handful of paid individuals who take care of different parts of running the organization, but 100% of the policies and most activities of the AFGA are driven by / undertaken by volunteers.

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

AFGA and other groups that sit at AGMAG need to learn and listen to the answers to this question provided from the public and their members. Non member opinion is VERY important, where else can they recruit from?


IMO, a significant reason for people not joining or supporting AFGA and other groups is that Very little information or feedback is provided to the general public. This leaves a lot of questions on the table as to where they stand on a issue, and what they are actually doing about it.

In the information age, groups like AFGA need to get up to speed.



The "transparency" of hunting licences is a great example of the problem. AFGA knows that this government information is PUBLIC information. It would be a simple affair for them to obtain (I'm assuming they don't have it ) and post it online. The fact that it takes a resolution and a multi year long process to make a decision to even get involved, produces a grey mouldy fruit no one wants.


When a single person working independantly can produce results ten times faster than that same person doing the work through an organization....

Just as the AFGA was influential in the Archery Mule Deer Draw, does anyone know how they are making out with the discussions on the Outfitter Allocations? Interested to find this out. Has anyone had any feedback from the AFGA on this recently? I probably have the wrong email addresses for them as they have never ever returned an email response to my letters.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Just as the AFGA was influential in the Archery Mule Deer Draw, does anyone know how they are making out with the discussions on the Outfitter Allocations? Interested to find this out. Has anyone had any feedback from the AFGA on this recently? I probably have the wrong email addresses for them as they have never ever returned an email response to my letters.

I had a conversation with Doug Butler, hunting chair last week. He said he's getting lots of emails and phone calls from hunters regarding this upcoming meeting for the allocations of tags. Said he's heard loud and clear the membership is not happy with the situation. He also told me he's done a summary of what is going on and will be published in an upcoming Outdoor Edge. My understanding was that this summary has been sent to the regional or district? executive as well, I expect it will show up here at some point. I can't recall every detail of our conversation, but Doug left me with a good impression, and I could tell he's been busy.

Have also received another email from the opposition party and have been invited into a phone dialog which I will act upon during the upcoming week.

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Quotes from the Archery Mule Deer Thread...

Just as the AFGA was influential in the Archery Mule Deer Draw, does anyone know how they are making out with the discussions on the Outfitter Allocations? Interested to find this out. Has anyone had any feedback from the AFGA on this recently? I probably have the wrong email addresses for them as they have never ever returned an email response to my letters.

At last year's conference a resolution was passed for the removal of Guide Outfitter quotas for ANY species in ANY zone, where is takes a resident more then 3 years to get drawn.


However, I too am frustrated with the lack of information forthcoming from the AFGA on these matters (Archery Mule Deer, G/O Allocations, fisheries, etc.). You can trust that I will be asking some pointed questions (if allowed the opportunity...) at this year's conference.

I still maintain that everyone on the AFGA executive, and the AFGA Chairs, have nothing but the best interests of resident hunters first and foremost in their discussions and representations with/to government; to suggest otherwise is insulting and uncalled for - unless you can provide evidence to the contrary. Whether they are doing a good job of making the 'Resident's Voice' heard, well that is another issue that needs to be discussed - from within.

As much as I am willing to be patient and accommodating with those who volunteer their time to attend meetings and negotiations with government on our behalf, at some point we (may) have to ask those people to account for themselves.

Failing to respond to requests for information, in this day and age, is not really acceptable. An email saying "I represent members of XYZ Group and don't have time to respond to non-members" is better (IMO) than no response at all; at least you know where they stand.

The longer I am in AB, the more concerned I have become about how our government is run and decisions are made. I am extremely frustrated with the BS that passes for stakeholder consultation - fisheries roundtables, AGMAG, Public Wildlife Meetings, etc. - most of this is a charade in my opinion; this 'consultation' is really just 'dissemination of information' and they could save everyone some time (and our tax dollars) by just releasing this information to the public and stakeholders (using this little thing we call the internet) in a timely manner.

I have been to a couple fisheries roundtables, a few area wildlife meetings, and multiple AFGA conferences where the same SOP appears to be used by GOA personnel: Fill the time scheduled with information to support the changes (or lack thereof) that WILL be implemented in the coming year, leaving no time for questions, concerns, or detailed discussion.

IMO (considering consultation and facilitation is what I do for a living...) this process is all designed to make stakeholders and the public "feel" like they have been involved in the decision, while the reality is they have not.

Effective and adequate consultation should take place in two phases:

- An exploratory phase where all stakeholders' views are put 'on the table'; ideally a wide variety of stakeholders are included, and the 'project' or 'policy' will be delineated, the problem identified, and concerns (with the problem) raised and explored,

- An action or direction phase where numerous possible solutions are identified, discussed, and compared; ideally this assessment should result in a "go forward" plan with a single course of action, HOWEVER..

True "consultation" requires a few other things, including:

- Equal access to information by all parties (and enough time to review it)
- Providing those being consulted with the opportunity to ask questions and time to acquire additional information
- The opportunity for those affected (the group, i.e. the public) by the change (legislation, development, policy, project, etc.) to review the chosen "course of action" and voice their opinions and concerns, as the 'representatives' of the group may not have represented the group well (this happens surprisingly often)

The GOA appears to jump straight to the "single course of action" (or at best, "here are 3 choices - pick one, or we will do it for you"), presents it to the "group representatives", and calls it "consultation" - done deal.


Again, IMO, this is not acceptable. As we saw last year with Jorgenson's Trophy Sheep presentation; given information (only a little) and some time (again, only a little) enough serious questions were raised about the (mis)representation of scientific data and research, and the ideological motivation of the biologist, to stop (at least temporarily) what was at first being presented as changes that WILL HAPPEN.

I think we are seeing this again with Antlered Mule Deer: the biologists and bureaucrats have decided they will tell us how they are going to manage MD in the province, and we are being told that we have no say.

I think that ESRD may be underestimating the velocity with which outdoorsmen in AB are losing patience.

[Rhino81]

This is what it has come to with some strong resistance. A group of outfitters and guide along with myself have started a petition letter against allocation reduction. This will include family members, friend, business owners, apos, farmers, ranchers, landowners, all outfitters and employees amongst others that would be directly or indirectly affected for the benifit of few. This letter will be in detail, and directed to the proper desks. Currently a list is being constructed of every outtfitter in the province and they can expect to receive this email shortly.

[Deer Hunter]

Great! please post the letter. I'm really interested in its contents.

[Rhino81]

This is the letter that is currently being emailed to all outfitters. another group is working on the letter to sustainable resources and apos. If anyone is interested in signing email albertabiggameoutfitters@gmail.com

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Rhino81

This is what it has come to with some strong resistance. A group of outfitters and guide along with myself have started a petition letter against allocation reduction. This will include family members, friend, business owners, apos, farmers, ranchers, landowners, all outfitters and employees amongst others that would be directly or indirectly affected for the benifit of few. This letter will be in detail, and directed to the proper desks. Currently a list is being constructed of every outtfitter in the province and they can expect to receive this email shortly.

Proof positive that management and future opportunities are not part of the APOS mandate....the truth is coming out.

How do you think a reduction in usage from all user groups only benefits a few?

LC

[Deer Hunter]

In the last allocation period 2008-12, outfitters had 15% (1898 total allocations) of the antlered moose tags in the province. Even though the ESRD Outfitter Policy states, regarding the harvest, that:

"the actual % allocation at the SMA level will not normally be :
-Less than 3%
-More than 10% in draw situations"

I sure hope that ESRD will adjust these allocation numbers to play by their own rules.



2012 Antlered Moose Draw Stats and Outfitter Allocations as per what was given to me...

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

At last year's conference a resolution was passed for the removal of Guide Outfitter quotas for ANY species in ANY zone, where is takes a resident more then 3 years to get drawn.


However, I too am frustrated with the lack of information forthcoming from the AFGA on these matters (Archery Mule Deer, G/O Allocations, fisheries, etc.). You can trust that I will be asking some pointed questions (if allowed the opportunity...) at this year's conference.

I still maintain that everyone on the AFGA executive, and the AFGA Chairs, have nothing but the best interests of resident hunters first and foremost in their discussions and representations with/to government; to suggest otherwise is insulting and uncalled for - unless you can provide evidence to the contrary. Whether they are doing a good job of making the 'Resident's Voice' heard, well that is another issue that needs to be discussed - from within.

As much as I am willing to be patient and accommodating with those who volunteer their time to attend meetings and negotiations with government on our behalf, at some point we (may) have to ask those people to account for themselves.

Failing to respond to requests for information, in this day and age, is not really acceptable. An email saying "I represent members of XYZ Group and don't have time to respond to non-members" is better (IMO) than no response at all; at least you know where they stand.

The longer I am in AB, the more concerned I have become about how our government is run and decisions are made. I am extremely frustrated with the BS that passes for stakeholder consultation - fisheries roundtables, AGMAG, Public Wildlife Meetings, etc. - most of this is a charade in my opinion; this 'consultation' is really just 'dissemination of information' and they could save everyone some time (and our tax dollars) by just releasing this information to the public and stakeholders (using this little thing we call the internet) in a timely manner.

I have been to a couple fisheries roundtables, a few area wildlife meetings, and multiple AFGA conferences where the same SOP appears to be used by GOA personnel: Fill the time scheduled with information to support the changes (or lack thereof) that WILL be implemented in the coming year, leaving no time for questions, concerns, or detailed discussion.

IMO (considering consultation and facilitation is what I do for a living...) this process is all designed to make stakeholders and the public "feel" like they have been involved in the decision, while the reality is they have not.

Effective and adequate consultation should take place in two phases:

- An exploratory phase where all stakeholders' views are put 'on the table'; ideally a wide variety of stakeholders are included, and the 'project' or 'policy' will be delineated, the problem identified, and concerns (with the problem) raised and explored,

- An action or direction phase where numerous possible solutions are identified, discussed, and compared; ideally this assessment should result in a "go forward" plan with a single course of action, HOWEVER..

True "consultation" requires a few other things, including:

- Equal access to information by all parties (and enough time to review it)
- Providing those being consulted with the opportunity to ask questions and time to acquire additional information
- The opportunity for those affected (the group, i.e. the public) by the change (legislation, development, policy, project, etc.) to review the chosen "course of action" and voice their opinions and concerns, as the 'representatives' of the group may not have represented the group well (this happens surprisingly often)

The GOA appears to jump straight to the "single course of action" (or at best, "here are 3 choices - pick one, or we will do it for you"), presents it to the "group representatives", and calls it "consultation" - done deal.


Again, IMO, this is not acceptable. As we saw last year with Jorgenson's Trophy Sheep presentation; given information (only a little) and some time (again, only a little) enough serious questions were raised about the (mis)representation of scientific data and research, and the ideological motivation of the biologist, to stop (at least temporarily) what was at first being presented as changes that WILL HAPPEN.

I think we are seeing this again with Antlered Mule Deer: the biologists and bureaucrats have decided they will tell us how they are going to manage MD in the province, and we are being told that we have no say.

I think that ESRD may be underestimating the velocity with which outdoorsmen in AB are losing patience.

Extremely frustrating, the only standing gov. official that has answered an email is James Allen. The Preimer, and the Minister can't even raise an automaticlly generate email that say's we got your email. The Wildrose on the other hand is at least willing to listen.

I think that ESRD may be underestimating the velocity with which outdoorsmen in AB are losing patience.

Hopefully they get an earful.

[trouty]

Originally Posted by Rhino81

This is the letter that is currently being emailed to all outfitters. another group is working on the letter to sustainable resources and apos. If anyone is interested in signing email albertabiggameoutfitters@gmail.com

that letter is funny, a group of residents is against us outfitters, what a news flash. The only reason a landowner would support an outfitter, is if they are on his payroll.

Compare that letter to the data residents have collected and presented, embarassing on their part. Good for us though, shows they are now desperate and worried.

It's rather sad they need to rely on their 5 year gov hand out, welfare in it's finest form. No other business in this province has the luxury of government supported 5 year guaranteed income. They need to stand on their own like the rest of us.

[Bowhunter102]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

In the last allocation period 2008-12, outfitters had 15% (1898 total allocations) of the antlered moose tags in the province. Even though the ESRD Outfitter Policy states, regarding the harvest, that:

"the actual % allocation at the SMA level will not normally be :
-Less than 3%
-More than 10% in draw situations"

I sure hope that ESRD will adjust these allocation numbers to play by their own rules.



2012 Antlered Moose Draw Stats and Outfitter Allocations as per what was given to me...

SMA is totally different then a WMU. I bet if you show us the SMU's numbers it Will be within there percentages.

[Bowhunter102]

Originally Posted by trouty

that letter is funny, a group of residents is against us outfitters, what a news flash. The only reason a landowner would support an outfitter, is if they are on his payroll.

Compare that letter to the data residents have collected and presented, embarassing on their part. Good for us though, shows they are now desperate and worried.

It's rather sad they need to rely on their 5 year gov hand out, welfare in it's finest form. No other business in this province has the luxury of government supported 5 year guaranteed income. They need to stand on their own like the rest of us.

Great post. Thanks for closing gates to all sportsmen with comments like this. Most outfitters or guides are land owners. Check I bet you will be surprised. Also why is it not ok for apos the do the same as residents? Either way SRD will screw up on there decisions like they have for the last 20 years.