Mule deer

[haultruck]

Really thought I would get drawn for my antlered mule this year.i was a priority 2,but no,I didn't.
Oh well,maybe next year

[bucksman]

priority 2? I wish

[elkhunter11]

Just wait until next year, after the huge increases in tags in some wmus this year, some populations are going to take a nasty beating. Whether the incentive is trying to control CWD, or whether it's APOS screaming for more tags, opportunities should be less in future years, because of this cull.

[ghostguy6]

It depends which zone you put in for. In the past I have been drawn for both antlered and antler less with a P 0. This year I got an antler less with a P1. I didnt think I would get it but last year you needed a P 4 for antlerless in my zone.

[bucksman]

try living in a zone that's priority 10....

[mindoutside]

Anyone know where I can find the info on the WMU changes?

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Just wait until next year, after the huge increases in tags in some wmus this year, some populations are going to take a nasty beating. Whether the incentive is trying to control CWD, or whether it's APOS screaming for more tags, opportunities should be less in future years, because of this cull.

You mean afga not apos

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

You mean afga not apos

No, I meant APOS, they are always looking for more allocations. If resident tags are increased, the number of allocations get increased, because they get a percentage of the resident tags.

[harv3589]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

No, I meant APOS, they are always looking for more allocations. If resident tags are increased, the number of allocations get increased, because they get a percentage of the resident tags.

To bad they don’t get decreased when resident tags are….

[huntwat]

I don’t mind APOS getting their 10% of tags. But, it should be 10% per wmu. Not an area of several wmu’s. Residents are restricted by wmu borders, so should be outfitters.
There should also be a percentage limit on landowner tags. Or, only have antlerless for landowner tags.

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

No, I meant APOS, they are always looking for more allocations. If resident tags are increased, the number of allocations get increased, because they get a percentage of the resident tags.

I would take our system over bc
Hard to believe that anything can be mismanaged more
But they are ahead of us

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

I would take our system over bc
Hard to believe that anything can be mismanaged more
But they are ahead of us

I would take Saskatchewan’s over ours.

[harv3589]

Originally Posted by huntwat

I would take Saskatchewan’s over ours.

I would as well….especially how they dealing with guiding

[pikeslayer22]

Originally Posted by harv3589

I would as well….especially how they dealing with guiding

And non resident’s drawing in their system

[wind drift]

What’s a cull? If a population of game increases by 30% and the allocated harvest goes up by the same proportion, is that a cull, or status quo? I’m curious.

[marky_mark]

Saskatchewan allows hunting on game farms to offset this

Would you still choose to be like Saskatchewan?

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

Saskatchewan allows hunting on game farms to offset this

Would you still choose to be like Saskatchewan?

Well we don't have to allow game farming do we.

[Stubb]

Originally Posted by huntwat

I don’t mind APOS getting their 10% of tags. But, it should be 10% per wmu. Not an area of several wmu’s. Residents are restricted by wmu borders, so should be outfitters.
There should also be a percentage limit on landowner tags. Or, only have antlerless for landowner tags.

I often read comments about how unfair landowner tags are on this forum. Does anyone have any numbers of how many landowners actually use these tags?

[dustinjoels]

Originally Posted by Stubb

I often read comments about how unfair landowner tags are on this forum. Does anyone have any numbers of how many landowners actually use these tags?

It has been posted on the forum before. Unfortunately after 30 minutes of digging through old threads full of arguing, I can’t find the numbers and am giving up.

I do remember it’s extremely WMU dependent. TJ Schwanky has an article in outdoor Canada where he references in some WMUs the landowner tags take up over 50% of the available tags. And in some WMUs almost none are purchased.

Maybe someone else has a link for you.

[Stubb]

Originally Posted by dustinjoels

It has been posted on the forum before. Unfortunately after 30 minutes of digging through old threads full of arguing, I can’t find the numbers and am giving up.

I do remember it’s extremely WMU dependent. TJ Schwanky has an article in outdoor Canada where he references in some WMUs the landowner tags take up over 50% of the available tags. And in some WMUs almost none are purchased.

Maybe someone else has a link for you.

How does that work then, if you can't buy a landowners until after the draw results are out? How do they know how many to hold back for land owners?

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by dustinjoels

It has been posted on the forum before. Unfortunately after 30 minutes of digging through old threads full of arguing, I can’t find the numbers and am giving up.

I do remember it’s extremely WMU dependent. TJ Schwanky has an article in outdoor Canada where he references in some WMUs the landowner tags take up over 50% of the available tags. And in some WMUs almost none are purchased.

Maybe someone else has a link for you.

I’ll have some info as soon a mb replies.

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by Stubb

How does that work then, if you can't buy a landowners until after the draw results are out? How do they know how many to hold back for land owners?

They don’t. They have so many set aside. First come fist served.

[Stubb]

Originally Posted by huntwat

They don’t. They have so many set aside. First come fist served.

Oh i see. Thanks

[dustinjoels]

Originally Posted by huntwat

They don’t. They have so many set aside. First come fist served.

That’s not the information I’ve read. As far as I know there isn’t a cap. Any landowner that is unsuccessful in the draw can purchase a landowner tag as long as they have applied for the tag in the wmu where they own land. Let’s say there are 100 allotted tags, if 20 landowners purchase landowner tags, the following season there will only be 80 draw tags available assuming 20 landowner tags will be purchased to make up the quota.

To be clear, this is just what I’ve read on the forums. Not a lot of information available that I can find on the internet. Like I said schwanky once wrote an article that said some WMUs were nearing 50% of the quota being landowner tags.

Let’s not turn this thread into a landowner tag argument though. Plenty of threads for that already exist.

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by dustinjoels

That’s not the information I’ve read. As far as I know there isn’t a cap. Any landowner that is unsuccessful in the draw can purchase a landowner tag as long as they have applied for the tag in the wmu where they own land. Let’s say there are 100 allotted tags, if 20 landowners purchase landowner tags, the following season there will only be 80 draw tags available assuming 20 landowner tags will be purchased to make up the quota.

To be clear, this is just what I’ve read on the forums. Not a lot of information available that I can find on the internet. Like I said schwanky once wrote an article that said some WMUs were nearing 50% of the quota being landowner tags.

Let’s not turn this thread into a landowner tag argument though. Plenty of threads for that already exist.

Oops, my post was wrong. Researching my emails I found there is no cap. As an example if one zone had allotted 20 resident tags, and that same year 100 landowners applied, they would be allowed to purchase their tags. Last I was told the govt was hoping to change that.