Hats off to Minister Loewen

[LKILR]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

You are correct. There are actually 33 zones where outfitter tags outnumber the resident tags for antlered mule deer. There are another 5 zones where the numbers are equal. Some of the worst one are mind boggling - WMU 328 - 5 resident vs. 37 outfitter, WMU 318 - 8 resident vs. 44 outfitter, WMU 429 - 5 resident vs. 36 outfitter.

Outfitters only care about the bottom dollar

They don’t give a chit about residents opportunities

So is this new minister gona choose between residents opportunities or the mighty dollar


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MooseRiverTrapper]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

You are correct. There are actually 33 zones where outfitter tags outnumber the resident tags for antlered mule deer. There are another 5 zones where the numbers are equal. Some of the worst one are mind boggling - WMU 328 - 5 resident vs. 37 outfitter, WMU 318 - 8 resident vs. 44 outfitter, WMU 429 - 5 resident vs. 36 outfitter.

Todd needs to take hard look at this. 429 for example no one is killing any mule deer. Wouldn’t matter what the tag numbers are. But the optics are bad.

[Bushleague]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Yes and no. I simply see reducing the doe tags from two down to one especially after being told for several years they need to cut back as insurance that we have enough does left after hunting season that if there is a bad winter that kills say 50% of the remaining post hunting season doe population that still leaves enough does to fawn in the spring to at least sustain a rebuildable population as opposed to a collapsed population that may take a decade to recover.

I think the populations of our game animals needs to be monitored much closer than they currently are and tag numbers need to be adjusted accordingly every year in a more real time response.

Game department always seem to be years too late in responding to whats happening with the population be it the need to cut back on tags or to issue more tags in response to a population that exceeds carrying capacity limits. They can't seem to make a decision until its too late. They seem to be the last to know whats going on then stand there with their mouth open catching flies instead of doing something.

We're both agreed here, which is why I think snowfall could be used. If you've had a string of easy winters and then you get a bad one perhaps no supplementals should be issued. If you are getting hard-ish winters regularly then one tag would likely be appropriate. If you've had 3 or more easy winters then more tags, if not beneficial, would likely not make much difference in the long run.

This of course is not a perfect system, but its a hell of a lot better than what we've got, and it allows them to work off of readily available data that is already being collected without any expense to F&W. Its also simple enough the whole thing could pretty much be automated.

[trapperdodge]

I'm not saying this is actually happening in AB but all governments employ professional staff to give them advice. For example the Province employs a chief medical officer of health to give them direction if say a pandemic should arise.

Alberta hires biologists to advise them on management of the game populations. These bios study each species and give their best guess on how/where populations are trending and how they might be best managed to provide maximum benefit to citizens.

Enter the politician. These are the people who make the laws. They listen to the professional staff but they are also swayed by their constituents - the people who vote for them and finance their campaigns. Very often groups who have skin in the game or individuals can influence a Minister and he/she will move the goalposts. Professional staff who chose to fight with their minister very often find their careers derailed. It's a very imperfect system and sometimes the resource wins...but not every time

[MooseRiverTrapper]

I doubt there is/was a competent big game wildlife biologist employed by the Alberta government in the last 30 years. Excpetion of Nate Webb predator biologist. He identified that the eastern slope is a predator pit, the wolves virtually have nothing left to eat but wolves. The cougars are eating wolves.

Nate also said there was around 2000 cougars in Alberta, each cougar killing a deer a week. 52x2000 = 104,000

[1dayillgetaram]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

You are correct. There are actually 33 zones where outfitter tags outnumber the resident tags for antlered mule deer. There are another 5 zones where the numbers are equal. Some of the worst one are mind boggling - WMU 328 - 5 resident vs. 37 outfitter, WMU 318 - 8 resident vs. 44 outfitter, WMU 429 - 5 resident vs. 36 outfitter.

Those are the zones you’re concerned about?
The ones that have less than a handful of deer and the outfitters throw in a mule deer tag for free to their clients just because they can’t sell a dedicated hunt

[1dayillgetaram]

Originally Posted by MooseRiverTrapper

Todd needs to take hard look at this. 429 for example no one is killing any mule deer. Wouldn’t matter what the tag numbers are. But the optics are bad.

Why spend the money buying the allocations back
When everyone knows there’s nothing in those zones to shoot

[1dayillgetaram]

Originally Posted by MooseRiverTrapper

I doubt there is/was a competent big game wildlife biologist employed by the Alberta government in the last 30 years. Excpetion of Nate Webb predator biologist. He identified that the eastern slope is a predator pit, the wolves virtually have nothing left to eat but wolves. The cougars are eating wolves.

Nate also said there was around 2000 cougars in Alberta, each cougar killing a deer a week. 52x2000 = 104,000

Add the number killed by the wolves
Then the bears

I think the cougar estimate is low too
They have spread out onto the prairies now

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by 1dayillgetaram

Those are the zones you’re concerned about?
The ones that have less than a handful of deer and the outfitters throw in a mule deer tag for free to their clients just because they can’t sell a dedicated hunt

Originally Posted by 1dayillgetaram

Why spend the money buying the allocations back
When everyone knows there’s nothing in those zones to shoot

Stop ruining a good time with facts
Nobodies even putting in for those tags. Should have been able to buy a couple undersubscribed in 426, 428 and 430 lol

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by 1dayillgetaram

Those are the zones you’re concerned about?
The ones that have less than a handful of deer and the outfitters throw in a mule deer tag for free to their clients just because they can’t sell a dedicated hunt

I am concerned about any WMU where the outfitters hold more than 10% of the resident allocation.

[1dayillgetaram]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

I am concerned about any WMU where the outfitters hold more than 10% of the resident allocation.

Pick a fight worth winning

[heretohunt]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

I am concerned about any WMU where the outfitters hold more than 10% of the resident allocation.

I am also included in this. It seems that once outfitters are given a larger quota, it won’t be taken back. History has taught us that residents are the first to lose opportunities.
Check out the diminishing sheep tags in WMU 410. It used to be 10%, 50 Alberta guys and five outfitters tags.
If we are managing for opportunity, I would have to think the outfitted hunts take at least as many animals as residents.

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by 1dayillgetaram

Pick a fight worth winning

Not picking any fight, just stating that when the outfitters were allocated 10% of the resource to profit from that they should actually be held to that.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

Not picking any fight, just stating that when the outfitters were allocated 10% of the resource to profit from that they should actually be held to that.

Of course they should, ,but money rules.

[Grizzly Adams1]

Sorry, I'm having a problem understanding the new trapping policy from Loewen, of no limits on Lynx and wolverine. We have little information on population numbers of these, so the answer is to gather data by trapping them ?

[1dayillgetaram]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

Not picking any fight, just stating that when the outfitters were allocated 10% of the resource to profit from that they should actually be held to that.

It will be a fight
Because the allocations won’t be eliminated without compensation
So instead of valuable conversations being made regarding real issues. That time and those resources are wasted on this.

Would be better for them to spend that time and money on a better predator management program, or increasing cougar quotas, or actually doing some prescribed burns

[walking buffalo]

The Minister has purposefully refused to finish the "new" Outfitter allocation policy.

This is considered good governance worth a cowboy salute??

As long as the "new" Outfitter policy remains on the bottom of his paperwork pile, Residents will continue to get shafted.

[trouty]

Originally Posted by MooseRiverTrapper

This fall up north in one area. I called in 6 bulls over the span of a week and didn’t see or hear one cow. This WMU has 800+ cow tags every year. This year is it 800 x 2?

I hunt a ranch South Central with a herd of around 400 resident elk. 10 bulls shot so far and no legal bulls left. 390 cows and takes 3 years to get drawn. Quota is 126 so 63 guys get drawn over 3 seasons with 2 tags. Say 1/2 are successful, optimistic, that’s 63 elk. That 390 herd is likely adding 200-300 calves each year. Should be able to get a cow tag every year or shoot either sex on a general tag.

[coyotecaller]

Originally Posted by FlyTheory

As long as outfitters also are held to the same standard, I’m all for reductions. But if outfitters can go hog wild, I would not be stoked on that.

X1000

I totally agree.