$$$ whitetail allocations $$$

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Wolftrapper

So some of you guys are ok with hunting in other countries, but you dont want others coming here to hunt. Hypocrites or what?
Ya I know you will say you are leaving money in poor countries, helping them out and all...
Whatever makes you feel justified and bash Outfitting.

Get some facts straight before you start slinging mud please.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by chuck

It would be nice if they had less allocations than residents in some zones as a start.

They do. 99% of the zones in fact

Many WMU's have no allocations for non residents for certain species

Resident opportunity is well above the 95% mark

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

They do. 99% of the zones in fact

Many WMU's have no allocations for non residents for certain species

Resident opportunity is well above the 95% mark

Not where I hunt. And that needs to change. Unfortunately APOS has no conscience and the local biologists have no backbone.

It not only affects draw times, but it negatively affects the ability to gain permission.

[Kristopher10]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Here's a question for everybody



If non residents had to put in for a draw just like we do, would you be ok with them hunting here ?



Or are you totally against sharing and eliminating the outfitting industry ?

Something that might be a good alternative is having a non resident wait a certain number of years after harvesting an animal before they can return for that species.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Kristopher10

Something that might be a good alternative is having a non resident wait a certain number of years after harvesting an animal before they can return for that species.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This will do nothing. The tags still exist.

[sns2]

IMO, there should be absolutely no outfitter allocation for any species, in any wmu, in which a resident has to apply in a draw to get a licence. I would bet every penny that I have that an overwhelming majority of Alberta resident hunters would feel this same way. This would likely limit outfitters to general whitetail, waterfowl, upland game birds, bull elk, and moose in a very few number of northern WMUs. If there are undersubscribed licences, then outfitters could have an equal shot at them.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by sns2

IMO, there should be absolutely no outfitter allocation for any species, in any wmu, in which a resident has to apply in a draw to get a licence. I would bet every penny that I have that an overwhelming majority of Alberta resident hunters would feel this same way. This would likely limit outfitters to general whitetail, waterfowl, upland game birds, bull elk, and moose in a very few number of northern WMUs. If there are undersubscribed licences, then outfitters could have an equal shot at them.

^^^^^ This.....

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by sns2

IMO, there should be absolutely no outfitter allocation for any species, in any wmu, in which a resident has to apply in a draw to get a licence. I would bet every penny that I have that an overwhelming majority of Alberta resident hunters would feel this same way. This would likely limit outfitters to general whitetail, waterfowl, upland game birds, bull elk, and moose in a very few number of northern WMUs. If there are undersubscribed licences, then outfitters could have an equal shot at them.

+1

[waterninja]

Originally Posted by IronNoggin

Being on the front lines tends to bring out the bitterness from time to time.
We are working towards bringing our government into reality, but it is a damn tough row to hoe. Our current version has literally sold us out (resident hunters) on numerous occasions, while strip-mining the funds that should be dedicated for wildlife resources into their own pockets. Couple that with reducing our wildlife ministries by 56% while everything else sees increases, and it ain't hard to see how many get "bitter" as you put it.

There is a move afoot for change. Always room for hope. And I am once again in the process of banging my head repeatedly against that wall.

Did not mean to come across so gruff. But what I noted above is quite true, and that at times brings that out in me. Apologies if I offended.

I've found the direct opposite of you for many species. Elk, Mulies, Whitetails, Pheasants and more have all treated me better on your side of the line than here.

Good Luck with the Turkeys. We see lots in the areas you will be hunting during our late archery deer hunts. Never hunted them here. Perhaps one day...

Cheers,
Nog

Actually, a person doesn't always get it right on every post. Instead of bitter, i could have used the word Frustrated.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by sns2

IMO, there should be absolutely no outfitter allocation for any species, in any wmu, in which a resident has to apply in a draw to get a licence. I would bet every penny that I have that an overwhelming majority of Alberta resident hunters would feel this same way. This would likely limit outfitters to general whitetail, waterfowl, upland game birds, bull elk, and moose in a very few number of northern WMUs. If there are undersubscribed licences, then outfitters could have an equal shot at them.

So you would be ok with Whitetail, Bear, Cougar, Elk, Sheep, and archery moose allocations increasing in all WMUs to make up for the allocations you want eliminated that are currently on draw ?

For instance WMU 357 has about 30 Rifle Whitetail allocations currently. The same size WMU in Saskatchewan has about 500 when you factor in all the small concessions.
So are you ok with cranking up all the WMUs that are way below the 10% harvest numbers to compensate for the species on draw ? Or would that not be fair either ?

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

So you would be ok with Whitetail, Bear, Cougar, Elk, Sheep, and archery moose allocations increasing in all WMUs to make up for the allocations you want eliminated that are currently on draw ?

For instance WMU 357 has about 30 Rifle Whitetail allocations currently. The same size WMU in Saskatchewan has about 500 when you factor in all the small concessions.
So are you ok with cranking up all the WMUs that are way below the 10% harvest numbers to compensate for the species on draw ? Or would that not be fair either ?

Fair? Laughing!

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by chuck

Fair? Laughing!

Got ya. So you want everything, and to share nothing 👍

Loud and clear.

Thankfully, you don't make the rules.

[Kristopher10]

Originally Posted by chuck

This will do nothing. The tags still exist.

I was taking the position that non residents could still hunt here but not every single year for the same species (which I think a lot of people have an issue with). Sure the tag still exists but it won't be the same hunter year after year.

It sounds more like you don't want non residents to hunt here at all. I could be wrong, but to each their own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sns2]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

So you would be ok with Whitetail, Bear, Cougar, Elk, Sheep, and archery moose allocations increasing in all WMUs to make up for the allocations you want eliminated that are currently on draw ?

For instance WMU 357 has about 30 Rifle Whitetail allocations currently. The same size WMU in Saskatchewan has about 500 when you factor in all the small concessions.
So are you ok with cranking up all the WMUs that are way below the 10% harvest numbers to compensate for the species on draw ? Or would that not be fair either ?

Thought my post was pretty clear. How bout I say it another way. All outfitter allocations, in all WMUs, for all species that a resident has to apply for in a draw system, ought to be given back to residents of Alberta, who are the primary owners of the said resource. Outfitters can make a living from the wildlife of the province, after resident hunters have had first opportunity.

My opinion is not meant as a slam against outfitters in any way shape or form. I just do not believe their right to run a business, trumps a residents right to hunt for the species their business would be selling, as that is really what outfitters do at the base level, sell the wildlife of the province they outfit in.

I am fine with that system being implemented in any province, state or country.

[Kurt505]

Blaming outfitters for non-resident hunting is like blaming natives for year round hunting, it's not their fault, it's the governments.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Got ya. So you want everything, and to share nothing 👍

Loud and clear.

Thankfully, you don't make the rules.

So who is going to fix the Mule Deer allocations in 302, 300 and 400? Yea I'm greedy and APOS plays fair. What does APOS propose to do about this!

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Blaming outfitters for non-resident hunting is like blaming natives for year round hunting, it's not their fault, it's the governments.

What!?

[sns2]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Blaming outfitters for non-resident hunting is like blaming natives for year round hunting, it's not their fault, it's the governments.

Kurt, I'm not blaming anyone. I know it's the government's rules. I, like others, are just saying that many of the rules, vis a vis resident licence opportunities vs outfitter allocations, make no sense.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by chuck

What!?

What part flew over?

[sns2]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Got ya. So you want everything, and to share nothing 👍

Loud and clear.

Thankfully, you don't make the rules.

Tork, is outfitting a full time gig for you?

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by sns2

Thought my post was pretty clear. How bout I say it another way. All outfitter allocations, in all WMUs, for all species that a resident has to apply for in a draw system, ought to be given back to residents of Alberta, who are the primary owners of the said resource. Outfitters can make a living from the wildlife of the province, after resident hunters have had first opportunity.

My opinion is not meant as a slam against outfitters in any way shape or form. I just do not believe their right to run a business, trumps a residents right to hunt for the species their business would be selling, as that is really what outfitters do at the base level, sell the wildlife of the province they outfit in.

I am fine with that system being implemented in any province, state or country.

It was very clear what you want.

Then I asked you if you would be ok with increasing opportunities for species that aren't on draw, like say Saskatchewan does.

I'm guessing in your opinion, it is not.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

What part flew over?

Who holds the tags Kurt?

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by sns2

Kurt, I'm not blaming anyone. I know it's the government's rules. I, like others, are just saying that many of the rules, vis a vis resident licence opportunities vs outfitter allocations, make no sense.

My point is there is a lot of hate and jealousy when it comes to our wildlife, but outfitters and natives are just taking advantage of oppertunities provided to them by our government.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by sns2

Tork, is outfitting a full time gig for you?

It is now, well pretty much anyway.

I'm a drilling and completions wellsite supervisor in the off season, and I've got my fingers in some other fires as well if we're being honest.

But I have by far the most vested in my outfit, that's for sure.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by chuck

Who holds the tags Kurt?

It doesn't really matter who holds them, the fact is someone is MAKING THE TAGS. If Albert doesn't take the tags Bob will, trust me, they won't get thrown away.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

My point is there is a lot of hate and jealousy when it comes to our wildlife, but outfitters and natives are just taking advantage of oppertunities provided to them by our government.

Who lobbied for the tag allocations Kurt?

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by chuck

Who lobbied for the tag allocations Kurt?

Who cares Chuck? You think if my boy whines long enough he gets what he wants? I'll let him answer that. Under my roof, I make the rules, it's just that simple.


Don't you think year round hunting with no limits or restrictions is a bigger threat to our wildlife?

[sns2]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

It is now, well pretty much anyway.

I'm a drilling and completions wellsite supervisor in the off season, and I've got my fingers in some other fires as well if we're being honest.

But I have by far the most vested in my outfit, that's for sure.

I hope I am not coming across as begrudging you your living. I'm not at all. There are many days where I wish I were doing what you are. You didn't make the rules, you're just playing by them. I just don't agree with all the rules

I honestly think that the majority of the anti-outfitter rhetoric comes from disgust at how APOS seemingly refuses to get rid of the bad actors in your profession.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Who cares Chuck? You think if my boy whines long enough he gets what he wants? I'll let him answer that. Under my roof, I make the rules, it's just that simple.


Don't you think year round hunting with no limits or restrictions is a bigger threat to our wildlife?

I care Kurt. Can you address the allocation discrepancy in the zones I have questioned above.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by chuck

I care Kurt. Can you address the allocation discrepancy in the zones I have questioned above.

No I can't, I'm in construction not a member our our governing faction, but I'll say this, if I was in charge things would be a whole lot better for our licensed hunters, and the price for an Alberta Whitetail hunt from a non-resident would be more in line with an Alaskan moose hunt.