Found out why I didn't get my antlered moose draw that I thought I had a good shot at.
In my zone the tags issued (quota) were way down this year both in early and late seasons.
That severely affected the priority levels that were awarded tags.  The applicant numbers were comparable to last year.
This seemed to be a big trend this year across the board.  Were outfitter allocations cut back as well in accordance, I bet not because they are bought and paid for.

2014 Stats
http://www.mywildalberta.com/Hunting/HuntingDraws/HuntingDrawsReports/DrawsSummaryReport/DrawsSummaryArchives2014.aspx

2015 Stats
http://www.mywildalberta.com/hunting/HuntingDraws/HuntingDrawsReports/DrawsSummaryReport/

Weste, just to add a few more comments about the process of assigning tag quota's.

With game surveys and data coming in all the time, many zones are in a constant state of flux for the tag quota's that are approved yearly.  This is an integral part of game conservation and is the way it should be.  I can accept that, conservation is job one.  The part that I have taken exception to, are the variables that are left out of the equation when it comes to managing the harvest of game.  Our draw quota's are the final result and affect the resident hunters opportunity levels.  The variables that have been left out and get a guarantee so to speak are: outfitter allocations, native harvest, and to some degree archery season harvests (but that is changing for archery to a greater extent now).  There is a rather nebulous figure of 10% of the harvest that is reserved for outfitter allocations.  This is certainly not adhered to on a per WMU basis and is more a of a total guideline that SRD has used I am led to believe.  The ugly part is that once allocations are issued and paid for, they are hard to take back or repeal and are a significant investment made by the outfitter in his business.  If a zone is cut back on harvest quota due to whatever has affected the game numbers (bad winter, wolf predation, etc.), then it is the resident draw quota that suffers.  Is there a way that the outfitter's allocations could be put on hold in these situations? Perhaps in very highly pressured tag demands, non-resident hunters should be forced to a draw system as well of some sort?

I am not bashing the outfitting industry, just looking for fairness in an "industry versus recreation" pressured reality.

I really want to study the ratio of outfitter allocations versus draw quotas on a WMU specific and total provincial basis to see how these numbers stack up now against this theoretical 10% formula.
I also wonder why the 10% figure was chosen and what data and thought processes went into that originally.  Here is a thought:  What if resident draw wait times in a zone are say 10 years plus for a particular tag opportunity for a species and the outfitter allocation tags exceed the 10% figure significantly which does happen.  Why is the opportunity greater for non-residents in a situation like this?  Or do we accept a hard outfitter industry allocation level and live with it?  I just think the process should be flexible and fair when the harvest formula changes as it should for sustainable conservation.

Does anyone have links that show the outfitter allocations in detail across the province in detail?  Even if we take exception to the process, it should be completely transparent to resident hunters.

The other set of tags that you missed are the landowner tags.  I actually take more exception to these than I do the outfitter tags, I do not believe a landowner that is chasing trophy animals will allow the general hunting populace to access his land.  I could get into a whole discussion on how i see landowner and outfitter tags going but I just don't have enough time to type it.  LOL  Also how are the landowner tags affected by bad weather, predation etc - they aren't!!  Same as outfitter tags.  In some of the south zone, 302 only had 13 antlered mule deer tags last year.  I hunt that zone and that is a ridiculous low number.  I believe there are around 27 outfitter tags in that zone (friend of mine guides in that area) and just as many landowner tags (my own estimate based on some people I know).  ESRD already know and account for both of these tags before setting the quota.  This zone has probably 60 + antlered tags in 2014 but only 13 went to draw.  Its a problem.

Fully agree with you Weste. I did request from ESRD the # of landowner mule deer tags in a few 100 zones. It was ridiculous.

I hunt a secret spot...it's a gooder..

No I can't tell you bout' it..

Welcome to the forum poser…

I have a hard time with guys pissing and moaning about it not being fair that outfitters get priority blah blah blah. These guys payed the money for the tags and like it or not they are bringing big money into the province with every one of those tags, I would bet that on average for every outfitter tag 5 times as much money is spent in Alberta to fill it vs a resident filling the same tag on a draw. Now when it comes to landowner tags my personal belief is that they should only be for antlerless animals, the idea of these is herd management not trophies right?  I dunno guys should just be happy with the opportunity we have in this province to hunt. There is tons of public land to hunt. There is no other place in the world that has the opportunity for average joes to hunt like we can here. And hey if you dont want to wait 10 years for a draw get your wallet out and go to BC, Saskatchewan, Wyoming or Montana. Most problems can be solved with the appropriate amount of money

No Axe Im not a guide, probably the second worst hunter in the province (There always has to be someone worse right ) Ive lived in alberta all my life as well. Seems the same guys that bitch about outfitters usually are the same guys that bitch about landowners that wont let them on. We let Americans take our oil, our lumber and our minerals so I guess I just dont see the problem with our animals. But hey we are all allowed an opinion right.
Oh and at least that guide asked permission Ive heard many stories of "Guides" that don't ask hahaha.

The problem with the constant guide knocking that seems so popular these days is it’s a slippery slope.  I have plans to hunt other provinces and states if they were to all to not allow non res hunting I can kiss my plans good buy.
6 more mule deer tags in an hi demand draw area isn’t going to change your odds of getting drawn one bit…  Ok maybe what buy 1%?

x every Albertan. Non-residents should not get preferential treatment!!!

Actually they don't, our government sold those tags years ago.  One of the things I dont like about the system though is that, as an alberta resident, I can't buy one of these tags.  A non resident can hunt on them every year while we have to wait for the system to give us priority.

Remember though, the issue at hand here is the fact that when tag quotas that are being reduced significantly, the resident draws are the only numbers that are reduced out of the entire picture.  If resident hunters are the only group that are expected to participate in conservation, then I have a problem.  Let's not try to disguise this by sympathizing with outfitter allocations which already take account for a fair number of the harvest already.  I said it before, outfitter allocations have a place, but those must be regulated as well when the tag number quota drops significantly.

My particular draw quota for the moose season I hunt in my WMU dropped this year from 109 tags to 72 tags.  Over 30% reduction.  A big hit that cost me a tag this year with my current priority.  Not a problem in the name of conservation if the moose surveys are pointing that way, but all players in the game must share in this conservation.  Not just the resident hunters on the draw program!

I cant see how anyone could see this as unfair.

My spidey senses are tingling on this subject and I don't trust our government one bit on some nasty trends that I see happening, especially if APOS has their ear.
I am just floored by the support that outfitters get on Alberta hunting forums regarding this subject.  Seems to me that many resident Albertan hunters are ready and willing to sell out our game resources for money that they will never likely see a part of.    I wont be one of those ever and I'll be damned if I'll ever pay $10K plus for a moose hunt in the Yukon or Alaska.  Someone please tell me, when did big game hunting become strictly a rich man's game?  As a born and bred Albertan, I'll try to hang onto some of perks of being from here.

If resident hunters in Alberta don't start making some noise, we could end up like what was being proposed in BC.  Not sure what this translated to in the end but the outfitters were gunning for this:

"According to the B.C. Wildlife Federation, changes to the province’s “harvest allocation policy” could result in 5,000 fewer hunting permits for British Columbians."

and

"Under the new policy, visiting hunters will be allocated:

• 40 per cent of the annual allowable harvest of grizzly bears;

• up to 20 per cent of the allowable elk harvest;

• up to 25 per cent of the allowable moose harvest;

• 35 per cent of the allowable mountain goat harvest;

• 30 per cent of the allowable big horn sheep harvest."

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Sweeping+changes+hunting+allocations+could+result+fewer+licences+British+Columbians+says/10458159/story.html

These guys get it:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-hunters-gather-in-victoria-to-protest-quotas-given-to-non-residents/article23253728/