Newest information on open spaces.

Originally Posted by LongDraw

From all of the info that I have seen to date the original 3 page "info" sheet, as well as the 10 page "terms of reference" that was originally the first info made public is still current. there has been more information added, but nothing to contradict the original release.

Ya, I agree but sure lots to contradict all the speculation in the beginning...lol Good to see everyone operating with the facts now though.

All we can ask for is a hope that there is still time to stop this whole ordeal! But with the addition of more landowners to the table, or talks of them being invited, it's going to be tougher to do.

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Ya, I agree but sure lots to contradict all the speculation in the beginning...lol Good to see everyone operating with the facts now though.

Yes it is good to see everyone operating with the facts. If certain people in the know would have given the information they had a lot of speculation could have been avoided.

Bubba

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

Yes it is good to see everyone operating with the facts. If certain people in the know would have given the information they had a lot of speculation could have been avoided.

Bubba

I hope that wasn't directed at me but you are right there did seem to be an information vaccuum from SRD. I find it funny that so many people think I was in the know because I remained quiet in the beginning. Truth be known, I was just busy gathering facts, as I did with the IMHA, and had access to only the same info everyone else on the board did. It didn't stop a lot of slanderous comments being hurled at me though. Oh well, water under the bridge I guess but it sure changed my opinion of a few people. Some people really need to use their brain before they speak and some people are just malicious for reasons I've yet to comprehend. Alot of good people were very badly hurt in this fiasco.....people that likely could have been allies!

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I hope that wasn't directed at me but you are right there did seem to be an information vaccuum from SRD. I find it funny that so many people think I was in the know because I remained quiet in the beginning. Truth be known, I was just busy gathering facts, as I did with the IMHA, and had access to only the same info everyone else on the board did. It didn't stop a lot of slanderous comments being hurled at me though. Oh well, water under the bridge I guess but it sure changed my opinion of a few people. Some people really need to use their brain before they speak and some people are just malicious for reasons I've yet to comprehend. Alot of good people were very badly hurt in this fiasco.....people that likely could have been allies!

I was actually referring to the working group who in theory represented us as Albertans in this matter.

Bubba

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

I was actually referring to the working group who in theory represented us as Albertans in this matter.

Bubba

Good to hear!

This is one of the major complaints of landowners

"Landowners bear the cost of production of wildlife (a public resource)"

This is part of the solution

"Allocation changes

1. Current: Antlerless mule deer currently have a draw allocation in WMU 300

Proposed: Antlerless mule deer will be closed season in WMU 300

2. Current: Antlerless Elk currently have a draw allocation in WMU 108.

Proposed: Antlerless Elk will be closed season in WMU 108.

Rationale: Outcome will be an increased trophy hunt"


Now I know I am not that bright but is there not more Doe's than Buck's and Cow's than Bulls. Would this not increase the cost of production.

Why is it so important to increase the trophy hunt?

Again it all comes down to the money.

I have other issues with the cost of production of wildlife argument most specifically in 300 but I have already stated this in a previous post.

By the way PM me for the most recent documents I received today.

Bubba

Just looking at the documents again. This I think is in both of the last 2 documents.

These are the actual decrease in resident tags for each zone.

WMU 300

Antlerled Elk 12
Antlerless Elk 130
Antlered Moose 1
Antlered Mule deer 4 (Quota goes up 2 HFH gets 6)
Antlerless Mule deer 8

Decrease in hunting opportunities 155

WMU 108

Antlered Elk Gain 8
Antlerless Elk 65
Antlered Mule Deer 19
Antlerless Mule Deer 162
Antelope 3

Decrease in hunting opportunities 241

Total opportunities lost 396.

How does this increase hunting opportunities? Propogate this over the entire province it is brutal.

The one that bothers me the most is Antlerless Mule deer. This is probably the number one animal for a young hunter. I know my first hunting experience was a mule doe. My son's also was the same. I would venture to guess that quite a few others have had this same experience. They are taking this away and expecting the hunter numbers to increase. This does not make sense to me.


Bubba

[Pathfinder76]

My dad, quite possible will never again draw a Moose tag in 300. I won't draw again for another eight years, my son won't get drawn until he is over 30 if ever. I was drawn for and killed a Bull Elk in 300 on January 1st 2004. My son was born a month and a half later. Now I won't draw again until he is 10yrs old! How in the world can someone see this as increased opportunity for the resident hunter?

[Vindalbakken]

I don't get this backslapping over the debating of "facts" versus speculation. There is nothing in the facts that disputes the original speculation that the gov't is ready, willing and able to open the door for paid hunting in Alberta. There is nothing in the facts that disputes the FACTS that paid hunting in every other jurisdiction in the entire world has been a detriment to the enjoyment of the sport by everyday folks.

Niggling over the details is where the proponents of this abortion would like to see us. Because then they have won.

Unfortunately, all the finger pointing, slandering and wild accusations accomplishes the same thing as well.....