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

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by packhuntr

Where would you proffess these pronghorn outfitters are from? Where do you think they work and whom would you surmise is the recipients of thier year round paid taxes? So much wrong here. I have to move on. Guys really need to start thinking big picture, this is so sad.

And the outfitters with pronghorn allocations make up what percentage of Alberta residents? Perhaps we should allot allocations based on that number, so everyone has an equal share of the resource?

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

That would be overall

Your last rant was about Mule Deer, so I wasn't limiting my scope to just Antelope.

But focusing on the negative seems to be the norm. You're all so blinded by greed and your wanting everything for yourself that you're missing out on all you already have.

A priority draw system and a pile of different species to hunt, many of them the largest species available to hunt anywhere!

This is an antelope thread so we were dealing with antelope numbers.

Mule Deer numbers are not 5% either.
I have 2,378 available allocations (1,700 open plus 678 bow). Please confirm these numbers if you like.
I have 10,237 antlered mule deer draw tags available in 2016.

That's way more than 5%. Sorry to derail.

[boah]

Originally Posted by packhuntr

Where would you proffess these pronghorn outfitters are from? Where do you think they work and whom would you surmise is the recipients of thier year round paid taxes? So much wrong here. I have to move on. Guys really need to start thinking big picture, this is so sad.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with outfitters making a few bucks from non residents. Please do it on game that residents don't have to wait several years for. I'm all for letting the outfitters keep the quota of tags, just make sure they are only available to residents.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

So having 95% of the game is not enough? You really need another 2-3% ?

I guess that's better then the guys who want the whole remaining 5%

Not greedy at all 🙁

Math must not be one of your strengths.

[boah]

Originally Posted by packhuntr

Over and out.

Originally Posted by packhuntr

I will try this again,, over and out.

Originally Posted by packhuntr

Im checkin out of this train wreck

Originally Posted by packhuntr

Im out lolol

Originally Posted by packhuntr

I have to move on. .

???

[packhuntr]

Lolol! Stupidity seems to have no bounds these days. Who gets the finger pointed at them this time. Looks like its me

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

This is an antelope thread so we were dealing with antelope numbers.

Mule Deer numbers are not 5% either.
I have 2,378 available allocations (1,700 open plus 678 bow). Please confirm these numbers if you like.
I have 10,237 antlered mule deer draw tags available in 2016.

That's way more than 5%. Sorry to derail.

Originally Posted by chuck

Math must not be one of your strengths.

Just so I only have to answer once, I'll reply to both of you. My math is just fine.

I said overall it's around 5%. My reference to Mule Deer was a reference to your last cry fest DH.

Overall would mean Pronghorn, Sheep, Antelope, Moose, Whitetail, Mule Deer, Elk and bears.

Overall it's about 5% for non residents. That means that some animals are higher, and some animals are less.

Are there a few WMUs with numbers above the 10% allocation for draw tags? Yes and those should be corrected immediately.

Are the remaining 95-98% of the WMUs at or well below the 10% allocation for draw tags ? Yes

Are all the general zone tags (whitetail, Mule Deer, Bear, Elk, Sheep) way above the number of allocations available in those WMUs ? Yes again

So now we have below 5% for Non Residents but that still isn't good enough, you want more.

Eliminate every NR allocation tomorrow and in 1 year the number of new applicants will outnumber the resident tags you created. So a small percentage of higher priority applicants will benefit for 1 year then there will basically be no difference the following year for new applicants.
But you'll have wiped out a 100 million dollar a year industry and left hundreds of businesses with nothing. Are you really ok with that ? Would you even feel a little bit greedy ?

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Oddly enough the people that keep calling other people greedy, are the ones that are making a profit by selling hunting opportunity to non residents.

Greedy would be wanting it all for ourselves, or even most of it for ourselves!!!

Wanting to keep 5 balls while you guys play with the other 95 hardly sounds greedy at all. It sounds like we just want enough to keep playing.

But having 95 balls and wanting to take the last 5 so you have them all would definitely fit the definition of greedy. I'm sure you remember when they taught sharing back in grade school don't you ?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Greedy would be wanting it all for ourselves, or even most of it for ourselves!!!

Wanting to keep 5 balls while you guys play with the other 95 hardly sounds greedy at all. It sounds like we just want enough to keep playing.

But having 95 balls and wanting to take the last 5 so you have them all would definitely fit the definition of greedy. I'm sure you remember when they taught sharing back in grade school don't you ?

As I posted previously, we can share the species that we have enough of that our own people don't lose opportunity as a result of that sharing.

[packhuntr]

Please Elkhunter, go review post number 53. Matter of fact, go read this whole thing. Its obvious many have not. Folks could copy and paste many things previosly stated, but even pictures are not capable of aiding in situations like these.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by packhuntr

Please Elkhunter, go review post number 53. Matter of fact, go read this whole thing. Its obvious many have not. Folks could copy and paste many things previosly stated, but even pictures are not capable of aiding in situations like these.

I agree that there is no solution that will resolve the situation entirely, and it's probably a losing battle, as demand is growing while the supply of pronghorns is not. But that doesn't change the fact that while the resource is still available, the priority should be to make that resource available to the residents of Alberta. And if restricting the pronghorn tags to only actual residents of Alberta only provides another 100 tags per year, that is still another 100 Alberta residents that will get to enjoy the experience of hunting pronghorns in their home province every year.

[packhuntr]

I again disagree. There are multiple things that can benefit this situation. Some being done, some beneficial and game changing things that are not. If everyones attention shifted away from personal desire, in exchange for what is best for the resource, everyones wishes become reality. For some unbelievable reason/s, this simply cannot and will not transpire. Truly a sad situation.

[Tfng]

An honest question. How many allocations are owned by non residents of Canada whether in partnerships or not?

[Keeleclimber]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

And if restricting the pronghorn tags to only actual residents of Alberta only provides another 100 tags per year, that is still another 100 Alberta residents that will get to enjoy the experience of hunting pronghorns in their home province every year.

I think if we understood the negative economic impact to our communities from loosing those 100 non resident opportunities, we would be happy with the 1-15% outfitter allocations.

IMO, residents do come first. But I also appreciate the jobs and revenue the outfitting brings to the community.

Overall I'm happy with the 90/10 split of available hunting opportunities. There is always some exceptions and room for improvement. This is also a moving target as the populations fluctuate.

This resident vs outfitter argument always surfaces when the supply of game is low. My personal response is rather than fighting over a shrinking piece of the pie, figure out a way to increase the size of the pie.

In the antelopes case, what is the leading cause of death to the Antelope? It's not hunting, so lets not focus on ways to decrease hunting opportunity. Could it be predation? As an individual what can I do about this?

This is a beef I have with all hunters ( Outfitters and Residents) these days. Everyone wants to take and nobody wants to give back. For example, I know majority of sheep hunting outfitters struggle to find legal rams, yet come winter time they are all sun tanning in Arizona. Meanwhile the cougars and wolves devastate the sheep populations. Another example is the residents complaining about antelope draw wait times, yet local conservation groups struggle for volunteers to help with fencing projects.
All hunters need to look in the mirror prior to pointing fingers at others..

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Keeleclimber

I think if we understood the negative economic impact to our communities from loosing those 100 non resident opportunities, we would be happy with the 1-15% outfitter allocations.

IMO, residents do come first. But I also appreciate the jobs and revenue the outfitting brings to the community.

Overall I'm happy with the 90/10 split of available hunting opportunities. There is always some exceptions and room for improvement. This is also a moving target as the populations fluctuate.

This resident vs outfitter argument always surfaces when the supply of game is low. My personal response is rather than fighting over a shrinking piece of the pie, figure out a way to increase the size of the pie.

In the antelopes case, what is the leading cause of death to the Antelope? It's not hunting, so lets not focus on ways to decrease hunting opportunity. Could it be predation? As an individual what can I do about this?

This is a beef I have with all hunters ( Outfitters and Residents) these days. Everyone wants to take and nobody wants to give back. For example, I know majority of sheep hunting outfitters struggle to find legal rams, yet come winter time they are all sun tanning in Arizona. Meanwhile the cougars and wolves devastate the sheep populations. Another example is the residents complaining about antelope draw wait times, yet local conservation groups struggle for volunteers to help with fencing projects.
All hunters need to look in the mirror prior to pointing fingers at others..

I drew a trophy pronghorn tag this year, and I will be traveling to the hunting area, staying in a local motel, eating at local restaurants, buying fuel and other supplies locally, just like a non resident would. So it's not like Alberta residents don't bring income to the community.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by Tfng

An honest question. How many allocations are owned by non residents of Canada whether in partnerships or not?

They have to be held by a resident of Canada, so there's no way to actually know who owns the allocation.

I know there have been sheep allocations owned by Americans, so likely every other animal has some of those allocations foreign owned.

It's far more prevalent in British Columbia, the Yukon and the NWT where the dollar values of concessions are far higher then Alberta.

Even then with the high operating expense almost all the hunt money stays in Canada anyway. Not to mention the influx of the original multi million dollar purchase.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

As I posted previously, we can share the species that we have enough of that our own people don't lose opportunity as a result of that sharing.

Right. So as long as you have all the balls you want, you'd be willing to share the ones that you don't want to play with. Got ya 👍

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Right. So as long as you have all the balls you want, you'd be willing to share the ones that you don't want to play with. Got ya 👍

If we were talking about sharing food with starving people, I would be more inclined to share something that I am short of myself. However we are talking something that is very much in short supply for our own people, and we would only be sharing so someone can make a profit off of selling it That is sort of like donating food to a middle man that then sells it to the starving people.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If we were talking about sharing food with starving people, I would be more inclined to share something that I am short of myself. However we are talking something that is very much in short supply for our own people, and we would only be sharing so someone can make a profit off of selling it That is sort of like donating food to a middle man that then sells it to the starving people.

Except you don't own the animals, the crown does.
Just like the oil, gas, coal, forestry, fur, water, etc etc

Just because you want this resource all for yourself doesn't make it different from any other resource

And we're not in short supply of animals or tags, we actually have a comparable amount to what we had 10-20 years ago for the most part. We just have more people that want one of those tags now.

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Except you don't own the animals, the crown does.

the country of Canada is comprised of Canadian citizens. think about that one...

[Sledhead71]

The whole idealism that certain species belong to the resident only, being plentiful or not, is terrible IMO.

Myself, being an Albertan, may wish to hunt a Canadian province for a species such as the G bear or possibly a caribou. I for one am proud there is an opportunity to utilize the services of an outfitter to achieve this goal.

[packhuntr]

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

the country of Canada is comprised of Canadian citizens. think about that one...

There are many things that could be said with the direction this is going now. I suggest if its shutting down businesses that you enjoy, whether based upon renewable resources as it is in this case, or otherwise, you guys should likely keep voting NDP. They would enjoy your continued support guys. Just be aware that through the attack of one of the sole things that will help propel this tradition into the future and provide future viability when govt's have even further stressed budgets,, you are shooting yourselves in the forehead. I will cheer you guys on, you are determined, blind lot or not. Take it right to these rotten outfitters. Load up and get the ropes strung up. Got some more families need hung. Dont forget to size ropes up for yourselves!

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

the country of Canada is comprised of Canadian citizens. think about that one...

Yes it is

But you need a license to hunt and Fish
You need a license to trap and pay royalties
You can't build a house on land the crown owns
You can't cut wood off the land the crown owns

So yes the people "own" it, but you can't do anything with it unless the government lets you.

The crown owns the game, the crown controls the game

And although the people control the government, they need revenue to operate. And in Canada that's our natural resources!

[packhuntr]

I wonder Torque,,, how many of these guys livelyhoods are derived from natural resources? How many here complaining are based upon NON RENEWABLE? My bet is nearly all. Wanna kick start a new conversation here it is lolol

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by packhuntr

There are many things that could be said with the direction this is going now. I suggest if its shutting down businesses that you enjoy, whether based upon renewable resources as it is in this case, or otherwise, you guys should likely keep voting NDP. They would enjoy your continued support guys. Just be aware that through the attack of one of the sole things that will help propel this tradition into the future and provide future viability when govt's have even further stressed budgets,, you are shooting yourselves in the forehead. I will cheer you guys on, you are determined, blind lot or not. Take it right to these rotten outfitters. Load up and get the ropes strung up. Got some more families need hung. Dont forget to size ropes up for yourselves!

That's the problem today, if it doesn't affect somebody personally they could care less about anybody else !

Shut down the Outfitters, because it doesn't affect me !

Shut down the drilling rigs, because it doesn't affect me !

Shut down the coal mines, because it doesn't affect me !

Shut down the logging, because it doesn't affect me !

Then complain that the roads are garbage, the snow clearing isn't adequate, there's not enough family doctors and the ER wait times are too long.

You don't care about the people that make their living outfitting, well guess what, there's people out there that don't want to see you making a living the way you do either.

[walking buffalo]

Some here seem to have never learned or forgotten about the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and its role in the unique legal standing of Wildlife.

[FinnDawg]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

That's the problem today, if it doesn't affect somebody personally they could care less about anybody else !

Shut down the Outfitters, because it doesn't affect me !

Shut down the drilling rigs, because it doesn't affect me !

Shut down the coal mines, because it doesn't affect me !

Shut down the logging, because it doesn't affect me !

Then complain that the roads are garbage, the snow clearing isn't adequate, there's not enough family doctors and the ER wait times are too long.

You don't care about the people that make their living outfitting, well guess what, there's people out there that don't want to see you making a living the way you do either.

Well, technically most dudes arguing the opposite of you, care about future Alberta hunters getting an antelope in Alberta, and less about outfitters so you can't argue that they don't care because it doesn't affect them, because it does.

I respect guides, and hope the best for them. I agree that the more sharing the better, although it would be nice if I could take an antelope one day in Alberta, it's just not likely. It sucks to have to go somewhere else but it's the way she goes..

[CF8889]

Both sides of this arguement have to admit... it is kinda odd that I (an alberta resident in his 20s) might never get the chance to hunt them in Alberta. Instead I have to spend more money and go south of the boarder. Where I can do it within 5years. At the same time, some guy from south of the boarder can hunt them in Alberta multiple times in a decade. They even choose to drive further, and spend way more to hunt them here. While passing through states where they can hunt them for cheaper...

Of course, even if they did fix the system..I'd personally just go south a couple hours and not have to wait 15+years haha

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by FinnDawg

Well, technically most dudes arguing the opposite of you, care about future Alberta hunters getting an antelope in Alberta, and less about outfitters so you can't argue that they don't care because it doesn't affect them, because it does.

They don't care about Outfitters making a living or not, because it doesn't affect them.

They do care about more resident opportunities, because it directly affects them. This was the entire point of the post !

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by Keeleclimber

I think if we understood the negative economic impact to our communities from loosing those 100 non resident opportunities, we would be happy with the 1-15% outfitter allocations.

IMO, residents do come first. But I also appreciate the jobs and revenue the outfitting brings to the community.

Overall I'm happy with the 90/10 split of available hunting opportunities. There is always some exceptions and room for improvement. This is also a moving target as the populations fluctuate.

This resident vs outfitter argument always surfaces when the supply of game is low. My personal response is rather than fighting over a shrinking piece of the pie, figure out a way to increase the size of the pie.

In the antelopes case, what is the leading cause of death to the Antelope? It's not hunting, so lets not focus on ways to decrease hunting opportunity. Could it be predation? As an individual what can I do about this?

This is a beef I have with all hunters ( Outfitters and Residents) these days. Everyone wants to take and nobody wants to give back. For example, I know majority of sheep hunting outfitters struggle to find legal rams, yet come winter time they are all sun tanning in Arizona. Meanwhile the cougars and wolves devastate the sheep populations. Another example is the residents complaining about antelope draw wait times, yet local conservation groups struggle for volunteers to help with fencing projects.
All hunters need to look in the mirror prior to pointing fingers at others..

Well said!

Lots of folks debating this here, but of those doing so how many are actively involved with the various conservation groups, and/or communicating their concerns to these groups and government? Since we are on the topic of antelope, the fencing projects you mentioned are a great example. Anyone here helping out? Now that is a productive way of trying to help out the antelope!