Draw system overhaul

[WhiskeyJack]

There are people that apply to draws and pay 3$ to save an animal. They do not buy the tag and they can apply with 3 friends.

[Positrac]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

The resources belongs to Canadians, not just those who live in this province, we need to allow non-resident Canadians an opportunity to enjoy our great province and some resources they may not have.

Tell that to BC or Saskatchewan. We are not welcome to apply for a Muley draw in Saskatchewan or a Rosie draw in BC. If there is a conservation concern in regards to a certain species in Alberta and hunting those species is being limited by the draw system then what’s wrong with making only people who reside in Alberta eligible?

[270person]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

The limit on applications is the right answer, 3 would be a good start...


The resources belongs to Canadians, not just those who live in this province, we need to allow non-resident Canadians an opportunity to enjoy our great province and some resources they may not have.

Ummmmm. NO!

They can move.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Positrac

Tell that to BC or Saskatchewan. We are not welcome to apply for a Muley draw in Saskatchewan or a Rosie draw in BC. If there is a conservation concern in regards to a certain species in Alberta and hunting those species is being limited by the draw system then what’s wrong with making only people who reside in Alberta eligible?

The Alberta taxpayers pay the F&W officers, the biologists, and for all of their facilities and equipment to manage game populations in Alberta, so our game should be managed for the Alberta taxpayers, not for the residents of other provinces. We also pay far more in taxes than we receive in federal benefits, so we don't owe any more to the other provinces.

[Positrac]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The Alberta taxpayers pay the F&W officers, the biologists, and for all of their facilities and equipment to manage game populations in Alberta, so our game should be managed for the Alberta taxpayers, not for the residents of other provinces. We also pay far more in taxes than we receive in federal benefits, so we don't owe any more to the other provinces.

My feelings exactly.

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by Positrac

Tell that to BC or Saskatchewan. We are not welcome to apply for a Muley draw in Saskatchewan or a Rosie draw in BC. If there is a conservation concern in regards to a certain species in Alberta and hunting those species is being limited by the draw system then what’s wrong with making only people who reside in Alberta eligible?

Rosie?
Sign me up for some of those over the counter stone sheep hunts
Lol

[sir_charlie]

Every time this thread comes up via a different title, the conversation follows the same pattern and ends in the same place:

(1) The proposed solutions are mostly self-interested (i.e. everyone proposes solutions that are closely influenced by how long “I” have been hunting, based on how much “I” make, and based on what is going to get “me” hunting the game I want to hunt in shortest amount of time and as often as possible)
(2) There’s rarely, if at all, any mention of solutions that focus on improving the numerator in this whole equation: the number of game. Instead its entirely focused on too many hunters, too many chances for people to apply, too cheap so everyone gets a chance to get in front of me… and;
(3) Eventually it gets personal, people start with inuendo and passive aggressive personal attacks and no one actually addresses rational arguments or facts.

We spend so much time as a community fighting amongst each other and focusing on proposing solutions that ultimately revolve around limiting opportunity and hunter participation (either through increased license fees, fewer tags, fewer outfitters or keeping non-residents out) that we forget hunters are a smaller and smaller proportion of the voting public (Alberta an exception). Keep worrying about when and how quick we can get our own turn and we forget if we keep losing hunters, the general public will outvote us without hesitation and shutdown all hunting – grizzly and the continued push on predator hunting are just the tip.

And more importantly, if you really think money is the issue – lets start by fighting with the government to use the money they already receive from hunters properly to support conservation, increase species numbers and therefore increase opportunity. Easy examples:

(1) 31% of 2020-21 revenues went into general revenue. Why? The money from license sales etc. should all be going to directly fund conservation or related initiatives and costs. There should be legislation put in place that permanently secures that will not change, similar to what the US has done in securing $1B a year in funding, guaranteed.
(2) Charge fees to non-consumptive users of wildlife (e.g. photographers, hikers) and include that as part of the $ towards revenue. They are often the first to line up to support legislation stopping hunting yet have the least “skin” in the game when it comes to funding conservation.
(3) Where fees like this are already in place (eg. Crown land camping and the Kananaskis fee) many, hunters included, complain. I did not love the idea at first, and like increasing license fees it does disproportionally impact low-income families – but like paying to “use” a public resource like wildlife, paying for a license to access a public land isn’t unreasonable. However, I don’t support the idea when that money also goes into general revenue – ultimately getting spent elsewhere on stuff unrelated to wildlife, land or conservation. It appears the Kananaskis fee, for example, is going into general revenue with some of several of the COs added with the funds not actually supporting Kananaskis.

My main point being, I’m happy to pay more for my licenses when I know the government is:
(1) Putting 100% of the money they already get from me, specifically as a hunter, to improve my and future generations hunting experience and opportunities to hunt
(2) Increasing/protecting game and habitat in AB so wildlife numbers can increase to support a larger population of hunters and
(3) Charging Albertans who also enjoy our wildlife or public lands in different ways a fee so they are equally financially liable for supporting habitat and wildlife conservation.

In my humble opinion, as hunters we’d be better served aligning together on getting these changes made before we start offering up proposals and concessions that have us paying even more money ourselves or worse make it even harder to recruit new hunters by further restricting opportunity through increased costs or removing priority etc. etc.

[270person]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The Alberta taxpayers pay the F&W officers, the biologists, and for all of their facilities and equipment to manage game populations in Alberta, so our game should be managed for the Alberta taxpayers, not for the residents of other provinces. We also pay far more in taxes than we receive in federal benefits, so we don't owe any more to the other provinces.

I agree re the Alberta "taxpayers" being first and foremost. Sad that a lot of "non taxpaying" residents are free to harvest "taxpayer" subsidized wildlife 24/7/365 as well.

[Sledhead71]

Originally Posted by Positrac

Tell that to BC or Saskatchewan. We are not welcome to apply for a Muley draw in Saskatchewan or a Rosie draw in BC. If there is a conservation concern in regards to a certain species in Alberta and hunting those species is being limited by the draw system then what’s wrong with making only people who reside in Alberta eligible?

There should always be a conservation concern for every species no matter what provincial jurisdiction they reside in... Following the systems in play in BC and Saskatchewan, outfitting wins and Canadians loose in general...

Alberta residents have plenty of opportunity and our draw system is not that bad... Look to the pool style Saskatchewan uses, ask their residents how they feel about others being drawn two or three times before they get drawn once.

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The Alberta taxpayers pay the F&W officers, the biologists, and for all of their facilities and equipment to manage game populations in Alberta, so our game should be managed for the Alberta taxpayers, not for the residents of other provinces. We also pay far more in taxes than we receive in federal benefits, so we don't owe any more to the other provinces.

Good grief, I pay more taxes than you, so move aside elk it's me, me, me...

The idea that our F&W officers and biologists are paid for by our tax payers and the species they manage should be "ours" is brutal... We are blessed to live in a province that has the most species to offer, but others Canadians should not be punished for their place of residency.

Look towards fisheries, nice to purchase a Canadian Resident Sturgeon License in BC and enjoy an affordable non-guided experience. I bet BC residents feel the same as you that "we" the terrible should go home and leave the resource to them as they pay for it

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

There should always be a conservation concern for every species no matter what provincial jurisdiction they reside in... Following the systems in play in BC and Saskatchewan, outfitting wins and Canadians loose in general...

Alberta residents have plenty of opportunity and our draw system is not that bad... Look to the pool style Saskatchewan uses, ask their residents how they feel about others being drawn two or three times before they get drawn once.



Good grief, I pay more taxes than you, so move aside elk it's me, me, me...

The idea that our F&W officers and biologists are paid for by our tax payers and the species they manage should be "ours" is brutal... We are blessed to live in a province that has the most species to offer, but others Canadians should not be punished for their place of residency.

Look towards fisheries, nice to purchase a Canadian Resident Sturgeon License in BC and enjoy an affordable non-guided experience. I bet BC residents feel the same as you that "we" the terrible should go home and leave the resource to them as they pay for it

If you think that outfitting wins in Saskatchewan, then you really don't understand the system at all. Outside of reserves, non residents can't hunt pronghorn, elk or mule deer, or pheasants. And outfitters are limited to the northern part of the province for whitetailed deer. Saskatchewan manages the game populations for Saskatchewan residents.

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

There should always be a conservation concern for every species no matter what provincial jurisdiction they reside in... Following the systems in play in BC and Saskatchewan, outfitting wins and Canadians loose in general...

Alberta residents have plenty of opportunity and our draw system is not that bad... Look to the pool style Saskatchewan uses, ask their residents how they feel about others being drawn two or three times before they get drawn once.



Good grief, I pay more taxes than you, so move aside elk it's me, me, me...

The idea that our F&W officers and biologists are paid for by our tax payers and the species they manage should be "ours" is brutal... We are blessed to live in a province that has the most species to offer, but others Canadians should not be punished for their place of residency.

Look towards fisheries, nice to purchase a Canadian Resident Sturgeon License in BC and enjoy an affordable non-guided experience. I bet BC residents feel the same as you that "we" the terrible should go home and leave the resource to them as they pay for it

You just have missed when bc residents were slashing tires on any vehicle with alberta plates

[cody j]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

There should always be a conservation concern for every species no matter what provincial jurisdiction they reside in... Following the systems in play in BC and Saskatchewan, outfitting wins and Canadians loose in general...

Alberta residents have plenty of opportunity and our draw system is not that bad... Look to the pool style Saskatchewan uses, ask their residents how they feel about others being drawn two or three times before they get drawn once.



Good grief, I pay more taxes than you, so move aside elk it's me, me, me...

The idea that our F&W officers and biologists are paid for by our tax payers and the species they manage should be "ours" is brutal... We are blessed to live in a province that has the most species to offer, but others Canadians should not be punished for their place of residency.

Look towards fisheries, nice to purchase a Canadian Resident Sturgeon License in BC and enjoy an affordable non-guided experience. I bet BC residents feel the same as you that "we" the terrible should go home and leave the resource to them as they pay for it

Politically some Canadians are continually punished for their place of residency

[Sledhead71]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If you think that outfitting wins in Saskatchewan, then you really don't understand the system at all. Outside of reserves, non residents can't hunt pronghorn, elk or mule deer, or pheasants. And outfitters are limited to the northern part of the province for whitetailed deer. Saskatchewan manages the game populations for Saskatchewan residents.

My statement was that if all provinces followed a system like BC and Saskatchewan, where they do keep many species for their residents only, then outfitting wins as this would be the only option for non-residents.

[QUOTE=marky_mark;4527150]You just have missed when bc residents were slashing tires on any vehicle with alberta plates

This happens in many provinces, sad people are so consumed with hate and vandalize others property.

[elkhunter11]

My statement was that if all provinces followed a system like BC and Saskatchewan, where they do keep many species for their residents only, then outfitting wins as this would be the only option for non-residents.

Even outfitters can't hunt elk, mule deer, pronghorn or pheasants in Saskatchewan. Outfitting definitely doesn't win in Saskatchewan, The Saskatchewan residents win.

[Sledhead71]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Even outfitters can't hunt elk, mule deer, pronghorn or pheasants in Saskatchewan. Outfitting definitely doesn't win in Saskatchewan, The Saskatchewan residents win.

You know what I meant... I digress as it is obvious that many don't care about their fellow Canadian and want it all to themselves.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Even outfitters can't hunt elk, mule deer, pronghorn or pheasants in Saskatchewan. Outfitting definitely doesn't win in Saskatchewan, The Saskatchewan residents win.

I guess that's a good thing if you are a Saskatchewan resident, kinda sux if you are not!
Cat

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

You know what I meant... I digress as it is obvious that many don't care about their fellow Canadian and want it all to themselves.

The simple fact is that there is far more demand than there is supply in most locations, so why should the provinces that are already way overextended , give away resources, and make their residents wait even longer?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

I guess that's a good thing if you are a Saskatchewan resident, kinda sux if you are not!
Cat

It has to suck for somebody, so is it better to have it suck for non residents, or for your own residents?

[Sledhead71]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The Alberta taxpayers pay the F&W officers, the biologists, and for all of their facilities and equipment to manage game populations in Alberta, so our game should be managed for the Alberta taxpayers, not for the residents of other provinces. We also pay far more in taxes than we receive in federal benefits, so we don't owe any more to the other provinces.

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The simple fact is that there is far more demand than there is supply in most locations, so why should the provinces that are already way overextended , give away resources, and make their residents wait even longer?

You can see from the first post that you feel those who pay for the resource should benefit the most from it right ? Provincial taxpayers foot the bill, not residents from other provinces... So all us Albertian's pay taxes here, we also have an abundance of crown land we manage. So, being fair we are all even on the ability to use the crown resource, both animals and land... Also to be fair, there are some in Alberta who own private lands, I guess using your idealism, the landowners of private land should actually be the ones who get to enjoy our passion on their own land and the vast majority will be hunting only crown lands... This would drastically reduce wait times and those of us with deeded land and pay additional taxes on these lands will enjoy some great opportunities....

Don't forget, you feel those who pay should play right

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

You can see from the first post that you feel those who pay for the resource should benefit the most from it right ? Provincial taxpayers foot the bill, not residents from other provinces... So all us Albertian's pay taxes here, we also have an abundance of crown land we manage. So, being fair we are all even on the ability to use the crown resource, both animals and land... Also to be fair, there are some in Alberta who own private lands, I guess using your idealism, the landowners of private land should actually be the ones who get to enjoy our passion on their own land and the vast majority will be hunting only crown lands... This would drastically reduce wait times and those of us with deeded land and pay additional taxes on these lands will enjoy some great opportunities....

Don't forget, you feel those who pay should play right

The owners of private land do have the right to decide who accesses their land, by virtue of them paying the taxes, and holding the titles. And they even get some landowner tags, that other people can't get. The owners of private land could completely shut down their land to only themselves, but many choose not to.

[Sledhead71]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The owners of private land do have the right to decide who accesses their land, by virtue of them paying the taxes, and holding the titles. And they even get some landowner tags, that other people can't get. The owners of private land could completely shut down their land to only themselves, but they choose not to.

You advocate for those who pay can play, not access.... So Alberta has approximately 60% of our lands as a crown resource, are you not happy to have the lions share of opportunity as a general tax payer ?

We can look at crown lands and the resources they hold and issue the general draw as such. Easy, no non resident to compete with, should make you and other happy...

Now, deeded lands and the resources they hold, issue land owner permits to manage these resources and allow the owners of these lands to sell accordingly to nonresidents or residents... The better the habitat, the more these opportunities are worth, win win for Alberta and everyone is equal..

Can't have your cake and eat it too Elk.... We are so very blessed to have the system we do, it could be a lot worse and where only the better off can afford to play...

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

You advocate for those who pay can play, not access.... So Alberta has approximately 60% of our lands as a crown resource, are you not happy to have the lions share of opportunity as a general tax payer ?

We can look at crown lands and the resources they hold and issue the general draw as such. Easy, no non resident to compete with, should make you and other happy...

Now, deeded lands and the resources they hold, issue land owner permits to manage these resources and allow the owners of these lands to sell accordingly to nonresidents or residents... The better the habitat, the more these opportunities are worth, win win for Alberta and everyone is equal..

Can't have your cake and eat it too Elk.... We are so very blessed to have the system we do, it could be a lot worse and where only the better off can afford to play...

I don't have an issue with our draw system, just the fact, that residents have to wait long periods while outfitters can skip the lineup.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

It has to suck for somebody, so is it better to have it suck for non residents, or for your own residents?

I really don't care , they are their rules not ours, and it wouldn't matter what I think anyway .
Obviously the residents are happy with their rules unless they want to bring relatives or other non residents to hunt .
Cat

[Dubious]

They should consider adding one bonus pri for every 160 hours completed on an authorized volunteer conversation project such as the antelope fencing project or the riparian rehabilitation project.

[FortMac]

Originally Posted by Dubious

They should consider adding one bonus pri for every 160 hours completed on an authorized volunteer conversation project such as the antelope fencing project or the riparian rehabilitation project.

That's actually a great idea. Would no longer be short manpower for large jobs

[Dean2]

Originally Posted by Dubious

They should consider adding one bonus pri for every 160 hours completed on an authorized volunteer conversation project such as the antelope fencing project or the riparian rehabilitation project.

As much as I like the intent of this, the potential for rampant abuse and the difficulty monitoring this far outweighs potential benefits.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Dean2

As much as I like the intent of this, the potential for rampant abuse and the difficulty monitoring this far outweighs potential benefits.

I agree, having worked with clubs that offered membership credits for volunteers, it was more effort than it was worth.

[Dubious]

Originally Posted by Dean2

As much as I like the intent of this, the potential for rampant abuse and the difficulty monitoring this far outweighs potential benefits.

Just put a cap on it no more than 1-2 a year 🤷🏼*♂️. 180 hours is a months full time 8 hours a day 5 days a week volunteering if you know a job gets quoted at 30 hours and the guys get it done in 60h then It’s still worth 30h same with if they get it done in 25h. You would have to only have sanctioned projects not just any random questionable project with joe nobody’s and his hunting buddies with a 24 of bud releasing pheasants they picked up from silver willow and dumped in their own field.