# Canadian Outfitter Proposal.



## old dl guy (Nov 7, 2003)

I would suggest anyone planning on hunting snows and waterfowl in Sask or Alberta send a letter to the Premier of Sask the Honourable Lorne Calvert ([email protected]) and to The Honourable Ralph Klein Premier of Alberta ([email protected]) The Outfitter Association of Alberta is pushing for all non residents to be guided in their province for all migratory game and a vote will most likely occur this May. If we enjoy hunting there and want to freelance, we need to let them know that we oppose such legislation and will not be traveling to there country to hunt waterfowl if this passes. Be sure to include your full name and address.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Thanks for the heads up. The Can. Fed warden warned us of this the past 2 years and said it was only a matter of time before this would become an issue.

The sad thing is, the freelance hunters brought this on themselves (or is the case that I was told by the warden). There is so many slob hunters up there that shoot 100 birds and leave them all in the dumpster. This was supposely one of the key issues for this change.


----------



## Decoyer (Mar 2, 2002)

And don't forget that a lot of the outfitters are under the impression that 15,000 NR hunters, 10,000 of which freelance, will turn into 15,000 guided hunters. Not so, most guys I know that go up there say that if they have to pay for a guide, they simply won't go up there any more. I wander how towns like Kindersly, Wadena, Weyburn, Kyle, and other top destinations for freelancers would like loosing that chunk of income that US hunters bring during an otherwise slow time of year. Anyway, uke: on the Saskatchewan and Alberta's outfitters Associations.


----------



## PJ (Oct 1, 2002)

I would not want to go hunt there if I had to be outfitted. It's too bad that this is what it's coming to.


----------



## Elly2211 (Mar 28, 2004)

When I went up to canada to hunt snows the farmers would let you hunt where ever when ever. They were glad we were up there shooting what they call sky carp.

But like chris said they brought it on themselves. I hear all kinds of stories for people doing some stupid stuff up there.


----------



## Guest (Mar 30, 2004)

That's so friggin stupid of them. Don't they have a respect for these animals they're spending so much money on, just to see them die? :******: I guess people like that shouldn't be allowed to hunt, dumbasses. I just wish I could catch someone dumping birds, I'd call 911 like I was being robbed.


----------



## Decoyer (Mar 2, 2002)

I think if I caught someone dumping up there, or anywhere for that matter, it would be time for an *** kickin. Then I would sit there while they cleaned every bird.


----------



## christopher (Mar 25, 2004)

I am a canadain you think that rough try this I live in ontario and wanted to hunt in alberta I have to have a guide by law.then have to pay exporting fee's etc.But I beleive that we live right next door to each other
and canadians and americans both bring tons of cash to each other country when we go on hunting trips.I don't blame you people for being ******. They should leave it the way it is. :sniper:


----------



## DLT (Apr 14, 2003)

Just finished talking with Darrell Crabbe, Executive Director of the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation regarding any new legislation that would require nonresidents to employ a guide for waterfowl hunting in Saskatchewan. No such legislation was introduced in their current legislative session which is ending in one week. He readily admits that the Guides and Outfitters Association has attempted to get this requirement put in place before, but it has not made any headway in the past. The "Association" has about 400 total members, including both fishing and hunting outfitters. The Sask. Wildlife Federation has over 25,000 members, generating some legislative clout. The one thing that the Guides/Outfitters ***'n. does have in place of numbers, is *money.* Enough to be an effective lobbying group in the legislature. But then again, so is the Wildlife Federation. Bottom Line: The "Hunters Guide" (hunting proclamation) for 2004 fall seasons has been finalized and is presently being printed. There are no changes regarding this issue.


----------



## Squeeker (Apr 1, 2004)

I unfortunately agree with the legislation to be put into place. I live in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and hunt and fish all over the province of Saskatchewan.

In my opinion, the Outfitters are trying to do this more from a financial situation than anything. Many, many wealthy Americans come to this province to hunt (I met 4 sets just last fall, ranging from Texas to Minnesota) and drop down thousands of dollars (that's even more in CDN money with the exchange rate). I view this legislation as an attempt to prevent me, as an individual and hunter myself from "sponsoring" someone on my own. In the future, I have to be a licensed outfitter. In my opinion it is a way of solidifying a certain level of income for the outfitters without having to compete with individuals.

However, from a natural resource point of view (which is much much more important than financial), the poaching has got to stop. I am disgusted with the increasing number of news articles written on how some American hunters have come up and taken drastically over their limits. I am not talking by just 1 or 2 birds, but by hundreds. Last year alone, there was an American group that ended up shooting something like 200 grouse (or hungarian partridge). The year before there was a case where a group shot something like 700+ birds.

I don't believe that all Americans coming up here do this. It is very unfortunate that a few bad apples have to ruin it for everyone else.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Thanks for clarifying DLT. I can say I've heard this was going through for 3 years now....I just figured this time it was for real.


----------



## old dl guy (Nov 7, 2003)

This wasn't a proposal from the outfitters in Sask, it was from the outfitters association in Alberta. The concern is, if it goes through here it will only be a matter of time before it migrates eastward. It needs to be stopped before that happens. If this does goes through, it will make hunting waterfowl in Canada a forgotten pasttime and that will be the saddest part of this whole situation. If you think the Canadian fields are for the most part lonely in the fall, imagine what it could be, when thousands stay away because eventhough they probably can afford to....... simply will not pay someone to show them how and where to hunt. If they succeed at extending the guide requirement to waterfowl, what is to say they won't try to extend it to fishing. I agree that, there is a problem with poaching, but it also happens in the dakotas and all the way down the flyway. I cannot say that it happens more or less in canada, but any poaching is disgusting and needs to be stopped. I also agree that this is motivated financially, but what puzzles me, is how can an outfitter believe they will gain more clients from this? Those who pay will always pay, but those who don't simply won't go up there anymore. Part of me wouldn't mind this going through as the guides would slit their own throats, but the wonderful pasttime of hunting waterfowl is eroding every year in Canada and it cannot survive a setback like this.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

What a hoot!
You guys have written, what...two...three zillion posts about how NRs should keep their noses out of your hunting business and if you want a say in NoDak you must first move there.
Here you are questioning and writing letters about what a province is doing to NRs (you) in ANOTHER COUNTRY. Incovieniences your freelancing... ha.
That is what has bothered me about this whole thing since the get go. You want to keep people out of your state and keep "your" waterfowl to yourselves but a great many of you fish and hunt outside of Nodak. There is a thread somewhere here about Nrs buying up land in Nodak ( by the bye, your money is just as green as a NR's) A great many of you either own, or have relies that own lakeshore in Minnesota and bi+ch because you have to pay non homestead tax on it.
Speaking out of the same side of your mouth all the time makes you easier to understand.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Bert, I thought you were going to stay away! I wish you would take your negative and unproductive thoughts else where....I'm not sure but I'm sure everyone including a bunch of NRs are sick of this type of attitute!!!


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

What attitude? Callin em like I see em?
I figure I pretty accurately summed things up.
Im not being negative any more than you guys are hypocritical.
Im fine with staying out of NoDak since that is what you fellas want. Just wish you guys would practice what you preach.
Wont be long now til there are nearly as many Nodak license plates in OT county as those with loons on them.


----------



## old dl guy (Nov 7, 2003)

Bert,

I could go on for days about the difference between the two items you linked together, but your response is so uneducated in its content it doesn't warrant a detailed point by point distinction. Simply put, the Canadian proposal is a real threat to waterfowling overall, NR's are what is keeping the sport alive there and its not the guided NR's its the freelancers. The residents in Canada have decided leave the sport of hunting for some reason. If there is no NR's of any size there, the sport will lose its hold and eventually it will be eliminated except for the select few who have the $1,000's to spend. The ND NR restriction at its core, contrary to what you believe, is aimed at preserving waterfowling for everyone who wants to hunt here. Keeping hunting productive for all is going to keep people active in the sport and keep it alive.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bert...not being hypocritical at all...you are calling it hypocritical...

Everyone here says do what is best for the people that live there...if YOU don't live there...you have to accept what THEY decide.

What ever the Canadian provinces decide to do...we will live with it ...or don't go there anymore...same for you and whatever we decide here.

If they decide to require guides...we either go and hire a guide or stay home...how is that attittude being hypocritical????


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Exsweeze me but go back and read the very first post on this thread by Old DL and show me where it sez anything at all about what is best for the residents of Sask.
The way I read it, he was saying that if you like to hunt snows in Canada you should write to the politicians up there so you can continue to freelance. "If WE enjoy hunting there and want to continue to freelance".
That statement kind of negates the trump card that always gets played (we want what is best for everybody).
Not all of the posts here have the same flavor but you must admit that you have a bunch of regulars here who beat the sh-t out of NRs every chance they get, cop an isolationist attitude and yet dont remain isolated when it comes to going somewhere else for recreation and blow a head gasket anytime some NR has a suggestion, comment or concern that may go against what they want to hear.
That to me seems hypocritical.
Its not everybody but when I saw a thread here about what those kooky Canadians are up to in an area that has been dominated by posts from people who dont like to be told how to run their affairs, I couldnt help myself. See y'all in May.


----------



## 870 XPRS (Mar 12, 2003)

come on now bert, when has anyone on this site said that north dakota should only allow people from the outside to only be allowed to hunt under a guide. Pretty sure that is a major point that everyone is trying to avoid. How is it hypocritical that the residents here want to preserve the game and allow the freelance hunter (notice the freelance hunter and not Resident) I haven't seen once where anyone has proposed that only Residents should be able to hunt here. By only allowing guided hunts aka the big dollar spenders, I don't see how that has anything to do with managing the resource, all that it does is keep the common freelancer out. I guess i just haven't seen a post on here that says that we should strive to keep the common man out of the sport.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Your'e right...not everyone has the same attitudes...but the same can be said about you NR on here....

Some...no names...think they should have the right to do whatever they want,whenever they they want...but in your earlier post...you lump all of us who go to Sask as hypocrites...not true.I will accept whatever Canada requires of me without P*ssing and moaning about it.It's their country....this is our state...let us make our own laws...you accept,go somewhere else,or stay home...your choice.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Nope 870 nobody has.
You are against guides taking over. So am I.
The analogy has nothing to do with the guides and everything to do with sticking your nose into somebody elses business right wrong or otherwise. Something that never flies coming from an NR in your direction.
I think it is wrong of you guys to try to go after GOs by targeting NRs. 
I could say that hurting small town economies by alianating NRs will only cause them to dry up faster, more small farmers selling their land etc... and ultimatly providing more ground for GOs to tie up. 
When I have said that, Ive been told to mind my own business.


----------



## 870 XPRS (Mar 12, 2003)

The point I'm getting at is that by writing to these public officials in Canada voicing our opinion is nothing like what MN is trying to do right now. Simply voicing how we feel, not trying to run the country.


----------



## old dl guy (Nov 7, 2003)

Bert,

You want a real definition of Hypocrisy.......how about people from MN complaining about how ND regulates their resources, when this same state sued and protested very loudly on how the Indians in their state who had the legal right to, net fish in some of their lakes...Remember that Bert. Were you protesting at the landings for that? Who was exhibiting isolation there and who was trying to tell whom how to manage a resource and once again, they had a legal right to net. Wasn't a big argument against, that it would hurt the walleye resource if they netted. Be careful with your analogies. Btw do you remember who lost that court case. You should, because MN will eventually drop this case and some compromise will be reached and if you want to say that its a victory or a loss......... its totally up to you.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

DL
I had nothing to do with the Indian netting/spearing thing. Ive only fished MilleLacs once in my 40 years on the planet. 
Since you mentioned it, that is a lame comparison to say the least. 
First of all, it all happened in Mn borders. Second, it affected residents of Minnesota protecting the resource. Third, walleyes that stay in a state are different than ducks and geese which migrate and which everybody who buys a duck stamp pays for.
If you guys were putting the same restrictions on residents as non residents then you would be closer, but Natives in Minnesota can still hunt and fish without a license, net and spear and whatever so you would still be off with your comparison.
Like I have said time and again, if what you are doing is what you want to do, more power to you. It would just be a little easier to swallow if when you tell people to keep their noses out of how you run your state (as if you guys are really in control of that) you wouldnt start out a thread with the post that you did.
I just went back and read it again and it is no different than many posts by Nrs here and they have been told to shove it up their a--es.
Keep looking out for number one and claiming its for the good of everyone if it makes you feel better. What you have done so far hasnt been good for me and mine.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

More hypocracy...Minnesota took the other side in the Arizona case....seemd they only want what they think is best for THEM at that time.


----------



## Rangers (Dec 13, 2003)

old dl guy,
You could start a whole new thread if you want to open up that can of worms, Indian netting rights. When the treaty was signed, I don't think they envisioned 300' nylon nets, stretched out covering a half mile or more.


----------



## snowflake (Apr 2, 2004)

I just got back from n.d. during my trip I had the opportunity to talk w/one of the guides in the area where I hunted.Not only will reg. n.r's in n.d. hurt them,but also the farmers in the state who depend on the extra revenue they get from the leases the guides pay for.I for one have alot of relatives in n.d. that grow the stuff that feeds the mouths that spew forth the b.s. of regulating n.r. hunters.It's too bad that a few people think they have the right to speak for the many,sounds a little like anarchy to me!!! Untill everyone realizes that they don't own the migratory fowl that come thru,and probably don't even farm the crops that feed 'em and keep 'em around,should,in my opinion just put the guns away because you are just plain greedy.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Just out of couriosity, would that be one of the guides in the Sheldon's group out by Streeter. Might want to rethink standing up for them. And ask around Streeter, I think you'll find not all the businesses and farmers share your perspective. What about the residents that stopped hunting that area due to all the posting by the outfitters. You're right we don't own the resource flying through the state but we as residents should have something to say about the hunting of that resource while it goes through the state. Let's see...the outfitters don't own the resource either but evidently it's ok with you that they post 200,000 acres in the Streeter area and only allow mainly paying hunters access. Now I get it!


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

SF,
Thanks for the PM.....You have your opinion, I have mine.


----------



## Elly2211 (Mar 28, 2004)

field hunter You have a good point.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Here is a report on this from flockknockers....

I have posted this message I received from the Sask Government office on the APOS listings also.

GREAT NEWS !!!!! for those going to Sask this fall

Hello, as you already know, Saskatchewan is fortunate to have access to some of North America's best hunting--you may be interested to note that non-residents will be able to hunt Canada geese beginning September 10th in the South Game Bird District, and restrictions on sharp-tailed grouse and Hungarian partridge in zones 9-14, 21, 25-28, and 40-41 have been lifted on a trial basis for this season. The 2004 Hunters' & Trappers Guide will be on-line at www.se.gov,sk.ca very soon.

To answer your question about outfitting for game birds, the Saskatchewan Outfitters Association (SOA) has requested that Saskatchewan Environment consider a mandatory requirement that non-residents must use the services of an outfitter for game bird hunting in Saskatchewan. We have researched the potential impact of mandatory outfitting for game birds in the past and found that it could lead to significant reductions in non-resident hunters and to a reduction in associated revenues.

Therefore, mandatory outfitting for game birds in Saskatchewan is not being implemented at this time.

I would appreciate your sharing this response with your hunting partners.

Thanks, we look forward to welcoming you to Saskatchewan, Land of Living Skies.

Donna Easto 
Director of Correspondence to the Premier


----------



## old dl guy (Nov 7, 2003)

Ken, 
I got the same letter and it is good news there, i am still waiting for the letter from Alberta, since it was being proposed there. I believe hunters do have an important voice and it does makes a difference if we let other know what we feel. One thing that i noticed in the letter was the phrase " not being implemented at this time" It is good news and lets hope it continues.


----------

