‎2012 Hunting Changes and Proposed Changes

[hal53]

Originally Posted by gman1978

Hal,

Did they finally come to there senses and axe the extended season for the prairie wmu's?

it's proposed....sounds like it's done...here's hoping. Buddy asked about more species on draw...not much of an answer....we'll see. Got some snow , so maybe they can get an aerial done before it's too late.......

[gman1978]

Originally Posted by hal53

it's proposed....sounds like it's done...here's hoping. Buddy asked about more species on draw...not much of an answer....we'll see. Got some snow , so maybe they can get an aerial done before it's too late.......

Let's hope they right the wrong. It's really sad what's happened out here. I still can't believe how guys would come on here and try to tell us that the populations were o.k.!!!

[avb3]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

We may have to keep quiet about the use of spears or atlatl. Like happened with the hundgun resolution, SRD may shut down the use real primitive weapons as there may be little public opposition to eliminating yet another tool used to hunt.

"Primitive" seasons are gone.

I wonder if that had a lot to do with the fact that the inline guys kept insisting that their firearms are "primitive" because they are blackpowder.

I would much rather have seen the inline's be restricted, and the primitive season be kept for the truly non-inline blackpowder guns.

Originally Posted by avb3

I wonder if that had a lot to do with the fact that the inline guys kept insisting that their firearms are "primitive" because they are blackpowder.

I would much rather have seen the inline's be restricted, and the primitive season be kept for the truly non-inline blackpowder guns.

It had nothing to do with that.

[BigRackLover]

Originally Posted by Alberta Bigbore

Sat and Sun hunting in Strathcona

Agreed! Can't wait for that in November.

[stc77]

any word on the supplemental tags? I had heard rumours that they may be putting it down to just one doe... or just getting rid of it altogether this year due to all the winterkill last year... any truth to this?

[bluetick]

Cant say Im happy with the 330 -332 boundary changes .
That includes alot of private farm land into forestry.
330 is a zoo and itll flow over onto alot of private farmland in 332 that has a shorter season for a good reason.

[duffy4]

I have been of the opinion that AF&GA should send their resolutions directly to F&W and get a direct answer back on them. Lately the responce on wildlife resolutions has been "We have sent this to AGMAG for them to look at.

It irritates me that AGMAG is sending comments like this:

Quote:
PROHIBIT THE USE OF HAND GUNS FOR HUNTING BIG GAME IN ALBERTA
CURRENT STRATEGY

The use of a handgun (i.e., any pistol or revolver) for hunting was prohibited under the Wildlife Act sometime in the 1960's. In 2010 the Wildlife Act was amended to accommodate the use of handguns by trappers to dispatch animals caught in traps, the reference to handguns was narrowed to refer only to restricted firearms and prohibited firearms, as defined in the Criminal Code.

Handguns produced prior to 1898 and that do not use centre-fire or rim-fire ammunition, and a very few that do, are not restricted. Consequently, the pre-1898 handguns referred to previously have been captured by the long-standing prohibition of pistols and revolvers in the Wildlife Act are no longer prohibited for hunting by Alberta law. These weapons can be used today to hunt wildlife - subject to other restrictions on calibre, etc.
Federal law requires that a person obtain an Authorization to Carry (ATC) in order to carry/use a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm. Federal law respecting ATC's also states that the circumstances in which these can be issue are where an individual needs restricted firearms and prohibited handguns for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation. Examples include;
- the individual's principal activity is the handling, transportation or protection of cash, negotiable instruments or other goods of substantial value, and firearms are required for the purpose of protecting his or her life or the lives of other individuals in the course of that handling, transportation or protection activity;
- the individual is working in a remote wilderness area and firearms are required for the protection of the life of that individual or other individuals from wild animals; or
- the individual is engaged in the occupation of trapping in a province and is licensed or authorized and trained as required by the laws of that province.
In short, federal law does not accommodate these handguns being carried for general hunting purposes.

CONCERN
When the Wildife Act was amended in 2010, pre-1898 pistols described above became legal to hunt wildlife. The intent of both the Federal Firearms Act and the Wildlife Act is to prohibit the use of handguns for hunting big game in Alberta.

INFORMATION TO SUPPORT CHANGE
The following rationale supports the recommended change to prohibit the use of hand guns for hunting big game in Alberta;
�� Prohibiting the use of handguns for big game hunting is consistent with all other jurisdictions in Canada,
�� The Federal Firearms act does not issue carry permits for big game hunting,
�� The only non-restricted handguns eligible to be carried without a carry permit are antiques made prior to 1898 that are not centre fire or rim fire. The intent of not classifying these guns as restricted was to allow collectors to transport these guns easily, not for the purposes of hunting.

ALTERNATIVE
Continue to allow pre-1898 handguns which are not restricted or prohibited to hunt big game. Clarification in the hunting guide would be required if the proposed amendment does not proceed.

ANTICIPATED PUBLIC REACTION
There is no recent history or tradition of using hand guns for hunting big game in Alberta. Although, there is a small number of individuals who would like to hunt big game in Alberta with handguns, it would not be supported by the vast majority of Albertans.

Which is quite contrarie to what AF&GA has been persuing.

[Deer Hunter]

The primative weapon deer season will be missed.

They should throw "archery", "muzzleloaders" and "general" under separate draws to help spread out the hunting pressure for the prairie WMU's. Opening day general deer season is almost enough to turn a person off of hunting all together. Then throw in the moose and elk hunters on top of the deer guys and it is a real **** show... too bad.

[duffy4]

Originally Posted by bluetick

Cant say Im happy with the 330 -332 boundary changes .
That includes alot of private farm land into forestry.
330 is a zoo and itll flow over onto alot of private farmland in 332 that has a shorter season for a good reason.

This is how the boundery was some time ago. And the change then was made to kind of seperate the "farming land" from the "forested land".

I wonder why the change now?

There are some big grazing leases in 330 east of the river, that like to leave their cows in the lease well past the Sept big game season opening. I know that hunters were not too happy having cows in their hunting area. Maybe the cowboys were not happy with hunters in their grazing area.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by duffy4

This is how the boundery was some time ago. And the change then was made to kind of seperate the "farming land" from the "forested land".

I wonder why the change now?

There are some big grazing leases in 330 east of the river, that like to leave their cows in the lease well past the Sept big game season opening. I know that hunters were not too happy having cows in their hunting area. Maybe the cowboys were not happy with hunters in their grazing area.

The reasoning offered behind the change.

BOUNDARY CHANGE TO WMUS 332 & 330

CURRENT SITUATION
WMU 332’s western boundary generally follows Wolf Creek and Highway 22. In the south, a small boundary section leaves highway 22 and jogs west to the North Saskatchewan River. There are no discernable land marks to indicate where this jog occurs. Moreover, the reason for this boundary discrepancy no longer exists (i.e. the once resident elk herd is now gone).

CONCERN
There is a concern from EFS that hunters will mistake the WMU when in the portion of WMU 332 that jogs to the North Saskatchewan River. They may incorrectly believe they are in WMU 330. Based on past court experience, judges may not prosecute offenders that have shown due diligence.

It is important to note that hunting regimes in these 2 WMUs are different:

o WMU 332 big game seasons run Sept 1 – Oct. 31 (archery) and Nov. 1-30 (general);
o WMU 330 big game seasons run Aug 25 – Sept. 16 / 17 / 23 (only) and Sept. 17 / 24 – Nov. 30 (general); and
o Doe or cow seasons exist for mule deer and moose in WMU 332, but not in WMU 330.

INFORMATION TO SUPPORT CHANGE
Anecdotal reports of illegal harvest and hunting out of season in WMU 332, near the North Saskatchewan River.
Local hunters are expected to support proposed changes as it will increase season length, and add cow/doe seasons near the river.

RECOMMENDED CHANGE
Change the western boundary of WMU 332 to follow highway 22 (versus jog to the North Saskatchewan River). The small piece west of the highway would then be added to WMU 330, which lies to the west of 332.

[bluetick]

So am I reading this wrong or are you confused WB.Making 332 east of wolf creek into 330 will not add a doe or cow season closer to the river .
If 332 went west to the NSR that would allow this to happen .
A longer season ion 332 because it will be 330 only adds problems to the farmers and landowners in the area with the increase in hunting activity and decreases the Quiet Archery season i enjoy.
Also decreases the cow elk season to minimal and the second season gets eliminated .
I think the area needs a 6 point rule in place and elimination of native hunting rights all together. (Not an increase in season lenght.).

[packhuntr]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

It had nothing to do with that.

Id be quite curious to know what the deciding factors were that caused the cancellation of that hunt. Any insight Sheep.

Originally Posted by packhuntr

Id be quite curious to know what the deciding factors were that caused the cancellation of that hunt. Any insight Sheep.

What they said was they were below their population target goal for that area because of the winter last year so the additional opportunities were no longer warranted.

[finner-duramax]

eliminate the bear baiting ban in 544>???
so baiting in 544 is allowed?

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by bluetick

So am I reading this wrong or are you confused WB.Making 332 east of wolf creek into 330 will not add a doe or cow season closer to the river .
If 332 went west to the NSR that would allow this to happen .
A longer season ion 332 because it will be 330 only adds problems to the farmers and landowners in the area with the increase in hunting activity and decreases the Quiet Archery season i enjoy.
Also decreases the cow elk season to minimal and the second season gets eliminated .
I think the area needs a 6 point rule in place and elimination of native hunting rights all together. (Not an increase in season lenght.).

Am I confused?

I simply quoted the AGMAG notes on 330/332, not an explaination nor an opinion.

Take that thorn out of your a ss.



Are the notes confusing? Yes.
Should the changes have been made? I don't know.

What are you going to do about it?

[gopher]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Am I confused?

I simply quoted the AGMAG notes on 330/332, not an explaination nor an opinion.

Take that thorn out of your a ss.



Are the notes confusing? Yes.
Should the changes have been made? I don't know.

What are you going to do about it?

I live in the proposed changes for 332 not cool!!!

[bluetick]

WB the quote is wrong! If you read the script as written .It is completely wrong ! If you make 332 a 330 zone in the small zone we are speaking of .It will eliminate what is being proposed and expand a hunting season For Elk by almost 2 months for an area they state has no elk population.
The seasons you speak of exist in 332 ! when you eliminate the 332 zone ,you move the zone fuirther east ! Not west to the river.(Think about it)
They are wrong and confused as to what to do .
And for your wise ass comment about a thorn ! I think I have a right to vent when this proposal affects me and others in the area negatively.
The only people that will be happy to get into this area early ,will be non resident hunters looking for early access .
And to the other comment What am I gonna do about It .!! probably nothing as there is little I can do about it .But to refuse access to the thousands of A holes looking for permission.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by bluetick

WB the quote is wrong! If you read the script as written .It is completely wrong ! If you make 332 a 330 zone in the small zone we are speaking of .It will eliminate what is being proposed and expand a hunting season For Elk by almost 2 months for an area they state has no elk population.
The seasons you speak of exist in 332 ! when you eliminate the 332 zone ,you move the zone fuirther east ! Not west to the river.(Think about it)
They are wrong and confused as to what to do .
And for your wise ass comment about a thorn ! I think I have a right to vent when this proposal affects me and others in the area negatively.
The only people that will be happy to get into this area early ,will be non resident hunters looking for early access .
And to the other comment What am I gonna do about It .!! probably nothing as there is little I can do about it .But to refuse access to the thousands of A holes looking for permission.

WHOA!!! big fella....All WB posted was what they gave the reason for the change.....somebody asked , and he posted what they wrote.......

[bluetick]

Back the hell off Hal .
All I stated is the statement he wrote was wrong in the way it was written ,Was it a direct quote or were the words written wrong by WB.
I was looking for clarification as it states all the wrong interpretations.
Hopefully you know the area in question to allow you to jump in on the topic.
The supports for change are weak and explanation is completely backwards from what is being stated !
Sorry if I seem a little ticked ,but the explanation overwhelms my thoughts of an injust decision made by and unstable form of an unsuitable board of decision makers.
If you want to change things ! get your examples and reasons in a strainght line so they make sense and can be appreciated .
Get the facts straight is all im saying .

I am not saying WB is the only one wrong here .maybe this is the material he was given ,or maybe it was misinterpreted and written this way.Maybe the ones making the decisions dont have a friggin clue what they are talking about!

[duffy4]

My bad!
I thought I had heard that the change was going to be "Move the western boundary of 332 from #22 to the North Sask. river.

[bluetick]

Originally Posted by duffy4

My bad!
I thought I had heard that the change was going to be "Move the western boundary of 332 from #22 to the North Sask. river.

Duffy
That would make more sense than what I am reading .It would read properly If this was the case ,But as I read it says the 330 boundary is moving east to the 22 which is rediculious.This does not increase Doe or Cow hunts ,It increases Elk and deer seasons in the old 332 zone only .
Why not leave 330 on the west side of the NSR and increase the 332 south and west.
Is there anywhere there is a transcript that can be viewed in its entirety?

[finner-duramax]

So baiting black bears is legal in 544???

[hal53]

Originally Posted by bluetick

Back the hell off Hal .
All I stated is the statement he wrote was wrong in the way it was written ,Was it a direct quote or were the words written wrong by WB.
I was looking for clarification as it states all the wrong interpretations.
Hopefully you know the area in question to allow you to jump in on the topic.
The supports for change are weak and explanation is completely backwards from what is being stated !
Sorry if I seem a little ticked ,but the explanation overwhelms my thoughts of an injust decision made by and unstable form of an unsuitable board of decision makers.
If you want to change things ! get your examples and reasons in a strainght line so they make sense and can be appreciated .
Get the facts straight is all im saying .

I am not saying WB is the only one wrong here .maybe this is the material he was given ,or maybe it was misinterpreted and written this way.Maybe the ones making the decisions dont have a friggin clue what they are talking about!

Back the H**l off????....sorry, take your 5 year old kid temper tantrum someplace else!!!!!....I stated that what he offered was the "reason" he was told...if you don't agree with it it, a PM to HIM may be in order, instead of being a keyboard azzhat here.....thanks!!!!...one more for the "ignore!!"

[bluetick]

So Sorry Hal if you had your one feeling hurt.
I am right! and you need to make your useless comment seen and heard!
Thats ok Big Fella. I think your comment is out of context and out of turn ,you really have no clue of the area nor what is proposed ,but yet you run to defend a bold and mistaken statement.
I seriously dont wish to banter a useless topic as such with the likes of you ,so please feel free to ignore more than you have .
Greatly appreciated
I am sure the real example and thought of the proposal will be brought forward and clarification will make sense and be easier to decifer by all.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by bluetick

So Sorry Hal if you had your one feeling hurt.
I am right! and you need to make your useless comment seen and heard!
Thats ok Big Fella. I think your comment is out of context and out of turn ,you really have no clue of the area nor what is proposed ,but yet you run to defend a bold and mistaken statement.
I seriously dont wish to banter a useless topic as such with the likes of you ,so please feel free to ignore more than you have .
Greatly appreciated
I am sure the real example and thought of the proposal will be brought forward and clarification will make sense and be easier to decifer by all.

uhhh... I have no clue of the area????.....I guess you are way smarter than I thought...SHEESH!!!!!....take a valium or something man!....as you said, hopefully some clarification will come to light, so you don't get your pink panties all twisted up again.

[darius]

Originally Posted by hal53

Back the H**l off????....sorry, take your 5 year old kid temper tantrum someplace else!!!!!....I stated that what he offered was the "reason" he was told...if you don't agree with it it, a PM to HIM may be in order, instead of being a keyboard azzhat here.....thanks!!!!...one more for the "ignore!!"

while yur at it me to , sick of reading your negativity !

[packhuntr]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

What they said was they were below their population target goal for that area because of the winter last year so the additional opportunities were no longer warranted.

Thanks Sheep. Wanna know something funny, it wasnt the winter that killed the deer. No matter who says it was, they are either lying or sadly out of touch with reality LOL.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by packhuntr

Thanks Sheep. Wanna know something funny,
it wasnt the winter that killed the deer. No matter who says it was, they are either lying or sadly out of touch with reality LOL.

You're entirely right. It sure didn't help matters, but it was a pretty small contributing factor to the declining populations.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by packhuntr

Thanks Sheep. Wanna know something funny, it wasnt the winter that killed the deer. No matter who says it was, they are either lying or sadly out of touch with reality LOL.

Yup...but the last 2 winters didn't help SRD's short sighted view of things...the winters, combined with endless tags ...some Landowners have 7+ add in the supplemental doe tags...and an extended season, so anyone who hasn't got one elsewhere, comes down here and slams a couple from the road.....and they wonder where all the deer went?????, c'mon. The only dim light light in this whole fiasco is I can drive over 100 k in the mornings now going to work, cause there are no Deer left....pretty sad...I guess the scourge of CWD is averted....NOT!!!!