Elk problems in turner valley

[bluetick]

Watching the news on global tonight,it seems we have 100.s of extra elk causing havoc on the ranchers hay again in turner valley area!
Better get your pocket books out to help pay for the hay they are eating and ruining ,time for an added season to thin the herd .
Problem is no one will allow hunting as i have found out for several years of asking.
SRD is asking ranchers to allow more hunters but they didnt broadcast the results of the inquiry to this .

[fishingnut]

Well I have no sympathies for them. I spent alot of time this summer driving around and talking to the rancher's and even lending a hand to a few of them in hopes that they may allow me hunt on their land. When it came time to obtain permission I got "Sorry but I do not let hunters on my land" or "Sorry I do not like hunting on my land". Funny because when I was out earlier in the summer they said that when November came around they would point me in the right direction too where the elk would be on their land. So I really could care less to how much damage happens too them. I know of 3 ranchers right now that have over 50 head a piece in there stacks. Everyone who says go out and talk to them and offer a hand too them, all I an say to that is that I learned a very valuable lesson with land owners. Maybe next year when someone comes out they may think twice. Just my 2 cents.

[nyala hunter]

Great memories of Turner Valley!

I took my first big gme hunt there back in 1985. Took a 6 x 6 Elk and 4 x 4 mulie in 3 days of hunting. Was fortunate to get on to a private ranch. If I remember correctly it was the "O H Ranch"? It bordered Crown Land and an overnight snowfall pushed the animals onto the ranch on day 3 of our hunt.

Sounds like there are even more elk there now?

GREAT MEMORIES!


100.s of extra elk causing havoc on the ranchers hay again in turner valley area!
Better get your pocket books out to help pay for the hay they are eating and ruining ,time for an added season to thin the herd .
Problem is no one will allow hunting as i have found out for several years of asking.
SRD is asking ranchers to allow more hunters but they didnt broadcast the results of the inquiry to this .[/QUOTE]

[MOAhunter]

Well I have no sympathies for them. I spent alot of time this summer driving around and talking to the rancher's and even lending a hand to a few of them in hopes that they may allow me hunt on their land. When it came time to obtain permission I got "Sorry but I do not let hunters on my land" or "Sorry I do not like hunting on my land". Funny because when I was out earlier in the summer they said that when November came around they would point me in the right direction too where the elk would be on their land. So I really could care less to how much damage happens too them. I know of 3 ranchers right now that have over 50 head a piece in there stacks. Everyone who says go out and talk to them and offer a hand too them, all I an say to that is that I learned a very valuable lesson with land owners. Maybe next year when someone comes out they may think twice. Just my 2 cents.

X 2

I was very pleased to see this on the news tonight as well :sHa_shakeshout:!
Too many landowners are quick to paint all hunters with the same brush, denying permission to all of us because of a very few inconsiderate imbeciles.
A couple landowners I've known for years and have allowed me to hunt all along, recently implemented an "absolutely no hunting on my land by anyone" policy. Telling me, "If it's NO for everyone, it's NO for you too, sorry."
Collective punishment is so obtuse, serves them right.

[slough shark]

Yeah I don't know which landowners they were talking about down there although I am rather certain that the landowners that are having problems are the ones who aren't allowing hunting during the CURRENT HUNTING SEASON GOING ON!!! so very little sympathy. That hunt IMHO needs to be opened up to less regulation, It is one of the most ridiculas hunts that I have ever been on (went a few years ago) It takes at least 1-2 days to even get enough permission to hunt on, and even then you are just competing with all the other hunters down there on those select patches of land as those ranchers are the only ones that actually allow hunting. The majority of the landowners that I talked to said they had all the permission given for the season (several months in advance as well throughout) One landowner had the gall to say that he would give me conditional permission (wouldn't sign the required permission paper), I wasn't allowed on his land but if I were to see elk on his land to give him a call and he would call up his buddies and THEN he would sign the papers after he put his buddies on the elk and I could HOPEFULLY get in on the elk that I found. This hunt for the most part seemed to me one for the local boys and their friends only as the bulk of landowners wouldn't give permission. I have a LOT more sympathy for the landowners around suffield with the elk issue as they actually allow hunting...

[IR_mike]

I hope F and W as well as Alberta Hail and Crop insurance is aware that these land owners will not allow hunting when they come asking a provincial agency for damage compensation.

[Warrior]

IMO they should be denied ALL insurance claims for wildlife damage if they do not allow hunting! Not saying to open it to every person that knocks on your door... But they seem to close their doors... Perfect time to do a controlled hunt for the primitive seasons that are going on now....

[fishingnut]

Yeah I don't know which landowners they were talking about down there although I am rather certain that the landowners that are having problems are the ones who aren't allowing hunting during the CURRENT HUNTING SEASON GOING ON!!! so very little sympathy. That hunt IMHO needs to be opened up to less regulation, It is one of the most ridiculas hunts that I have ever been on (went a few years ago) It takes at least 1-2 days to even get enough permission to hunt on, and even then you are just competing with all the other hunters down there on those select patches of land as those ranchers are the only ones that actually allow hunting. The majority of the landowners that I talked to said they had all the permission given for the season (several months in advance as well throughout) One landowner had the gall to say that he would give me conditional permission (wouldn't sign the required permission paper), I wasn't allowed on his land but if I were to see elk on his land to give him a call and he would call up his buddies and THEN he would sign the papers after he put his buddies on the elk and I could HOPEFULLY get in on the elk that I found. This hunt for the most part seemed to me one for the local boys and their friends only as the bulk of landowners wouldn't give permission. I have a LOT more sympathy for the landowners around suffield with the elk issue as they actually allow hunting...

I could not agree with you more. I have relatives done suffield / Med hat and they are always allowing hunters onto there land. They say that if you do not let hunters on, you will end up elk in the stacks later on. Sometime though those damn elk do not come out during the season and then they cause problems, but at least they do there part and allow hunting.

[riden]

Makes me wonder how much crap they have dealt with to get to the point where they want no hunting at all.

[elkhunter11]

Makes me wonder how much crap they have dealt with to get to the point where they want no hunting at all.

That isn't always the reason why a landowner won't allow hunting. Some people are simply anti hunting.

I have relatives done suffield / Med hat and they are always allowing hunters onto there land.

I met some great landowners in the Suffield area last fall. They not only allowed hunting on their land, but they were quick to provide names and phone numbers of other landowners in the area.

[elnino54]

Maybe they could open it up to a supervised cull, Lottery based. Supervised by F&W with landowner permission....?!?

[fat cat]

If you have been refused permission to hunt on someones land, then call SRD and tell them. It will be documented, and payment for damages, can be considered. Also the biggest reason for the elk there is preditors, as wolves and cougars. ungulates are safer in these areas. Please also mention this to SRD.

[riden]

That isn't always the reason why a landowner won't allow hunting. Some people are simply anti hunting.



I met some great landowners in the Suffield area last fall. They not only allowed hunting on their land, but they were quick to provide names and phone numbers of other landowners in the area.

True. But I know I have had my share of frustrations with trespassers. And I don't have elk. I can sympathize.

[walking buffalo]

Maybe they could open it up to a supervised cull, Lottery based. Supervised by F&W with landowner permission....?!?

That's what is in place now.

[bakerman]

It sounds like it's time for a good old fashioned elk round up. Lets take these hundreds of "unwanted" elk and put them back in the forestry where they can't bother anyone. While we're at we could round up all the "wild" horses and trade them to all the ranchers who don't allow hunting. The horses will keep all the elk away and no one will want to hunt on their land. In the end we all win. I'm sure if we started a- Let's Bring Home The Abandon Horse Foundation-we could get millions to fund the project from all the (save everything) groups. What do ya think? Who needs a good gov't job for the next 10yrs!

[LongDraw]

For the most part the bigger ranches in the area have been sold to the very well off oil patch dudes. Really they could care less about elk eating their stacks and causing havoc for the few minority ranchers in the area that actually earn their living off the land.

Letting a couple of their downtown buddies on to kill an elk or two has basically zero impact on herd reduction...

[heretohunt]

Sometimes the land owners just try to get the paycheque for dammaged crops because, why not its free money. They don't care that much about their bales because if they did they would get a lot more practical about their no hunting policy.
I know a man who owns some pretty sweet land and years ago he was complaining about elk problems. He was going to call a group of natives to come and thin them out. Last year my brother called him while sitting in front of his field and asked for permission. He said "after my buddies are done". My brother continued to sit in his truck and watch the elk help them selves to the feed. Probably isn't too woried about the farming aspect anymore.
I'm thinking that if you don't allow permission then you need to put up an elk fence around your bales or no government money?

[Okotokian]

:47b20s0::sHa_shakeshout: And here I am with a January cow elk tag for 312. :)

[Grizzled]

Well I have no sympathies for them. I spent alot of time this summer driving around and talking to the rancher's and even lending a hand to a few of them in hopes that they may allow me hunt on their land. When it came time to obtain permission I got "Sorry but I do not let hunters on my land" or "Sorry I do not like hunting on my land". Funny because when I was out earlier in the summer they said that when November came around they would point me in the right direction too where the elk would be on their land. So I really could care less to how much damage happens too them. I know of 3 ranchers right now that have over 50 head a piece in there stacks. Everyone who says go out and talk to them and offer a hand too them, all I an say to that is that I learned a very valuable lesson with land owners. Maybe next year when someone comes out they may think twice. Just my 2 cents.

X2..I was drawn in that area last year...could not get permission...tag was hung on the Xmas tree.....

[sprinklerdog]

It's frustrating that this goes on. Ran into similar situation with a fellow who wouldn't let us his land for deer so when he stopped me one day to inquire about "thinning" the herd at his place I wondered what was up. Turns out he planted a whole bunch of trees and the deer came along and ate all the buds and killed the trees. Cost him a few grand. I didn't feel too bad for him!

Geo

[marlin1]

saw the clip on the news , very frustrating for us . We couldn't find an elk this year in 310 just south of there this year after lots of hours and miles on our boots . They just weren't around . Here they are by the hundreds on land we can't hunt . I think we are giving up on the elk hunting for a while

[leeelmer]

Yes and I think SRD should give there head a shake and not offer assistance to farmers that don't allow hunting on there land, I know a few ranchs off hand that got thousands of dollars worth of fenceing equipment from SRD witch is our tax dollars to keep elk and deer out of there bail and silage yards but yet they don't allow hunting??????? What the hell,

[monstermulie]

I think what you're all forgetting is that it's the FARMERS feed that is feeding all YOUR elk.

Isn't that what this board jumps all over? "its OUR animals" so YES, YOUR tax dollars should pay to feed YOUR elk.

If he chooses not to let you one HIS land that is his decision. Maybe YOUR elk shouldn't live on HIS land.

Stop being such a bunch of babies

[hunter49]

If farmers dont let hunters onto their land...there should be no insurance money for them. Same problem for waterfowl hunting, they all love the ducks/geese until they are in the swathed field eating profit.

[marlin1]

wow , babies . nobody owns the elk as far as I know . we are just frustrated because the ranch we hunt on has no elk this year . waa

[monstermulie]

If farmers dont let hunters onto their land...there should be no insurance money for them. Same problem for waterfowl hunting, they all love the ducks/geese until they are in the swathed field eating profit.

Exactly THEIR land.

Save up your pennies and go buy your own land then and stop your complaining.

Why don't you go tell YOUR elk to stay off THEIR land then.

:snapoutofit:

[Jordan Smith]

I think what you're all forgetting is that it's the FARMERS feed that is feeding all YOUR elk.

Isn't that what this board jumps all over? "its OUR animals" so YES, YOUR tax dollars should pay to feed YOUR elk.

If he chooses not to let you one HIS land that is his decision. Maybe YOUR elk shouldn't live on HIS land.

Stop being such a bunch of babies

As long as they don't try to get US to pay for the feed via insurance or Gov't programs, then I agree with you. ;) As soon as they try to get us to pay for the feed, then we should also be allowed the privilege of hunting those elk.

[Pudelpointer]

Exactly THEIR land.

Save up your pennies and go buy your own land then and stop your complaining.

Why don't you go tell YOUR elk to stay off THEIR land then.

:snapoutofit:

Not sure I understand MM. It is their land - got it. Elk are a Public Resource - got it. The public resource is eating their hay - got it. They won't (don't have to) allow access for hunting - got it.

No access for hunting = no money from the public - simple?

Land owners who do not allow hunting on their lands have no one to blame but themselves when the elk come calling. The hay they eat is the cost of having your own little piece of paradise without those pesky hunters.

If I was a crop insurance provider I would insist that to have a valid depredation claim landowners would be required to allow hunters (of some sort) on their lands.

Someone should "suck it up", but I don't think it is the hunters in this case.

[Okotokian]

Frankly, I haven't found the FARMERS and RANCHERS in that neck of the woods to be too uncooperative. It's more the Oil guys who buy a few thousand acres as a hobby ranch or tax deduction. They don't live there, you can't find them, and they just tell their managers and staff to keep everyone off.

Still, pretty hard to tell someone what they should or shouldn't do with their own land. I just say thanks and keep looking.

[elkhunter11]

Exactly THEIR land.



When you own the land, you risk weather, or wild animals damaging your crops or the feed for your livestock. Since you should have been aware of the risks when you assumed ownership of the land, you can stop crying when the wild animals start costing you money. Either let people hunt on your land to reduce the damage, or shut up and accept the losses.

And this is coming from someone whose family and friends are landowners. The only difference is that my friends and family allow hunting on their property. Not everyone is granted access, but very few license holders that ask for permission are turned away, if we aren't going to be hunting the land at that particular time.

[C Taylor]

I can see it getting worse for getting permision all over. If you have good hunting land why share with others, then get turned down when its your turn to ask permission.
It would be nice if landowners that did let everyone on got cheaper land taxes and those that didn't allow hunting for everyone paid more tax to cover additional cost to srd and insurace companies.

[greywolf]

I think what you're all forgetting is that it's the FARMERS feed that is feeding all YOUR elk.

Isn't that what this board jumps all over? "its OUR animals" so YES, YOUR tax dollars should pay to feed YOUR elk.

If he chooses not to let you one HIS land that is his decision. Maybe YOUR elk shouldn't live on HIS land.

Stop being such a bunch of babies

MM, I know who you are,
your the guy that had the nicest pick up truck in grade 9 for 3 years in a row!!!!

[elkhunter11]

If you have good hunting land why share with others, then get turned down when its your turn to ask permission.


Because for the most part, myself and my family have always allowed licensed hunters to hunt our land, and we have usually been granted permission to hunt on other people's land. We like to hunt certain species that don't live on our land, and the same goes for other people. By allowing each other to hunt on each other's land, we all benefit.

As well, there are times when the game populations do excessive damage to our crops, and letting other people thin them out reduces that problem.

[C Taylor]

Elkhunter, I was raised with the same attitude as you I think "don't post yours and expect to hunt others" but as the province population grows I'm seeing alot more No Hunting signs on land that is owned by hunters.

[Caleb]

Stop being such a bunch of babies


Your advice is better turned around at the landowners who don't take the simple step of utilizing hunters to reduce the problem population, yet still claim damages.

When is ranching/farming not at risk from the whims of nature?

Unlike storms, drought, etc, wildlife is one of the few problems that is not entirely "an act of God".

Seems like you're asking for landowners to be exempt from the rules of common sense. You ask that we treat them as simple, foolish children who are helpless before the relentless onslaught of the elk.
:snapoutofit:

I think a real rancher would be highly offended by your "defense" of them.

[precloading]

Hope they eat em out of house and home. I wouldn't even waste my time trying to get permission from the "gentlemen ranchers" in that country.

[huntmaster83]

Northern BC opened up a massive flood gate for cow elk tag season years ago for this same problem. I was lucky enough to draw a tag when I lived there, along with every other person in the province I think. After a little research got a list of names and contact info of landowners wanting all the help they could get to eliminate some elk of their farms. Made a few phone calls and basically got to pick where I wanted to help out. After showing up I had to inform the landowner that no I could not shoot "six of the bastards" as I only had one tag :). Had a few buddies who also went up for the same hunt all successful and all very grateful landowners. I have no issue with complaining about elk damage as long as the fences are open when it comes time to help deal with the problem and not just collect an annual paycheck for damaged bales.

[4thredneck]

MM, I know who you are,
your the guy that had the nicest pick up truck in grade 9 for 3 years in a row!!!!

:sHa_shakeshout:my vote for post of the week:budo:

[monstermulie]

Your advice is better turned around at the landowners who don't take the simple step of utilizing hunters to reduce the problem population, yet still claim damages.

When is ranching/farming not at risk from the whims of nature?

Unlike storms, drought, etc, wildlife is one of the few problems that is not entirely "an act of God".

Seems like you're asking for landowners to be exempt from the rules of common sense. You ask that we treat them as simple, foolish children who are helpless before the relentless onslaught of the elk.
:snapoutofit:

I think a real rancher would be highly offended by your "defense" of them.

Actually there is a lot more simple steps that can be utilized as opposed to hunters. Allowing hunters is probably one of the most complex steps. See when allowing masses of hunters on your land you then have to patrol it to make sure only the ones with permission are on there. Further more you have to keep going around closing gates that they leave open, as well as kicking them off the places you told them they couldn't go. On top of that when your mob finally catches up to the elk, 9 our of 10 times they will get them running so bad that they clear out 100 yards of fense. And then if by chance they do manage to kill on they proceede to drive across your stubble field, which is under seaded to hay and you told them to stay off. As you can see now, it is just a massive head ache when you let people on that just don't understand and can't listen to what they are told.

With that said I know not all people do this and it only takes one to ruin it for everyone, but its easier to just let friends and family on that you know you don't have to baby site.

A much simplier option would be to call F&W and have them come out, look at your problem, and then give you the free 8 ft game fense that they supply.

If you don't agree with my reasoning, just go west of Okotoks and ask any farmer or rancher out there, they will tell you.

[timsesink]

x2 I've heard this from many ranchers. we've made our own bed in many ways. Unfortunately the ones who need to hear that aren't likely the involved guys on here.

[LongDraw]

Actually there is a lot more simple steps that can be utilized as opposed to hunters. Allowing hunters is probably one of the most complex steps. See when allowing masses of hunters on your land you then have to patrol it to make sure only the ones with permission are on there. Further more you have to keep going around closing gates that they leave open, as well as kicking them off the places you told them they couldn't go. On top of that when your mob finally catches up to the elk, 9 our of 10 times they will get them running so bad that they clear out 100 yards of fense. And then if by chance they do manage to kill on they proceede to drive across your stubble field, which is under seaded to hay and you told them to stay off. As you can see now, it is just a massive head ache when you let people on that just don't understand and can't listen to what they are told.

With that said I know not all people do this and it only takes one to ruin it for everyone, but its easier to just let friends and family on that you know you don't have to baby site.

A much simplier option would be to call F&W and have them come out, look at your problem, and then give you the free 8 ft game fense that they supply.

If you don't agree with my reasoning, just go west of Okotoks and ask any farmer or rancher out there, they will tell you.

Letting hunters on is usually as complicated as you want to make it.

[Pudelpointer]

A much simplier option would be to call F&W and have them come out, look at your problem, and then give you the free 8 ft game fense that they supply.


See, there is where you are not getting it. The fence is not "free", it is paid for by the taxpayers of the province..... you know, us lowly hunters and fishermen who don't work in the patch or inherited a section of land.

Pay for your own g-damned elk fence.

[Okotokian]

Letting hunters on is usually as complicated as you want to make it.

You just wait... UNFORTUNATELY, with the growing penchant for lawsuits and corresponding butt covering by lawyers it won't be long before landowners will be scared silly to let strangers with guns onto their land and thus expose themselves to all kinds of liability. The next time some nutjob puts a bullet through someone's home the landowner that knowingly gave them access is going to be named in the suit too. Just wait....

[LongDraw]

You just wait... UNFORTUNATELY, with the growing penchant for lawsuits and corresponding butt covering by lawyers it won't be long before landowners will be scared silly to let strangers with guns onto their land and thus expose themselves to all kinds of liability. The next time some nutjob puts a bullet through someone's home the landowner that knowingly gave them access is going to be named in the suit too. Just wait....

Are you always this positive so close to Christmas?

[Okotokian]

Are you always this positive so close to Christmas?

LOL Naw... I got my little group of landowners who let me on every year. I just make sure I keep them happy. :) I'll probably make my rounds in a few days and see them all.

[HIBACKPACKER]

The farmers and land owners will continue to bring these problems onto them selves. How many of us over the years have put in our draws in the 312 area in hopes to get an Elk. Only to have the door slammed in our faces. Then in the news at this time of year, we hear how the Elk that we had tags for, are causing problems. I say we should start something here, we should stop putting in for the 312 hunts. Were spending money on our tags that year after year go unused. Spending money on fuel driving around trying to find a spot to go and get an Elk. The huge ranches around that area like Novels, High Noon, Price Ranches, Andersons and Cross Ranches just to name a few. I've asked for permission over the years, and yet to have stepped foot on the land to fill my 312 Elk tag. It's time for our Gov to tell these people to take a hike. They could do this at the same time we fill in our online Game Harvest Survey <ahsurvey@ca.ibm.com. They could add the question were you able to get permission to hunt in 312. If you check the (NO) box then the next question could be what Ranches turned you down. These Ranchs would then be flaged when they call in, looking for a hand out. Just my thoughts anyway!

[trouty]

The farmers and land owners will continue to bring these problems onto them selves. How many of us over the years have put in our draws in the 312 area in hopes to get an Elk. Only to have the door slammed in our faces. Then in the news at this time of year, we hear how the Elk that we had tags for, are causing problems. I say we should start something here, we should stop putting in for the 312 hunts. Were spending money on our tags that year after year go unused. Spending money on fuel driving around trying to find a spot to go and get an Elk. The huge ranches around that area like Novels, High Noon, Price Ranches, Andersons and Cross Ranches just to name a few. I've asked for permission over the years, and yet to have stepped foot on the land to fill my 312 Elk tag. It's time for our Gov to tell these people to take a hike. They could do this at the same time we fill in our online Game Harvest Survey <ahsurvey@ca.ibm.com. They could add the question were you able to get permission to hunt in 312. If you check the (NO) box then the next question could be what Ranches turned you down. These Ranchs would then be flaged when they call in, looking for a hand out. Just my thoughts anyway!


Those guys are worth millions, they could care less about the fence costs. To them having some hunters come in and kill a handful of elk is not worth the hassle of dealing with hunters annually. Funny it was Dewey Mathews, an outfitter, who has supporting hunting as a tool to deal with the elk.

[Caleb]

Actually there is a lot more simple steps that can be utilized as opposed to hunters. Allowing hunters is probably one of the most complex steps. See when allowing masses of hunters on your land you then have to patrol it to make sure only the ones with permission are on there. Further more you have to keep going around closing gates that they leave open, as well as kicking them off the places you told them they couldn't go. On top of that when your mob finally catches up to the elk, 9 our of 10 times they will get them running so bad that they clear out 100 yards of fense. And then if by chance they do manage to kill on they proceede to drive across your stubble field, which is under seaded to hay and you told them to stay off. As you can see now, it is just a massive head ache when you let people on that just don't understand and can't listen to what they are told.

With that said I know not all people do this and it only takes one to ruin it for everyone, but its easier to just let friends and family on that you know you don't have to baby site.

A much simplier option would be to call F&W and have them come out, look at your problem, and then give you the free 8 ft game fense that they supply.

If you don't agree with my reasoning, just go west of Okotoks and ask any farmer or rancher out there, they will tell you.


I guess there's a lot more people than I realized who prefer to ask for government handouts over dealing with a difficult problem on their own.
:rolleye2:

I have no problem with guys who don't want hunters, and who are willing to pay for their own elk fencing. You are correct that there are always some idiots who make life difficult, and it is any landowner's right to control access. But refusing reasonable access to the public (hunters) and then asking for public funds afterwards is a little hypocritical. That's all.
:confused:

[monstermulie]

I guess there's a lot more people than I realized who prefer to ask for government handouts over dealing with a difficult problem on their own.
:rolleye2:

I have no problem with guys who don't want hunters, and who are willing to pay for their own elk fencing. You are correct that there are always some idiots who make life difficult, and it is any landowner's right to control access. But refusing reasonable access to the public (hunters) and then asking for public funds afterwards is a little hypocritical. That's all.
:confused:

Actually there is a lot more simple steps that can be utilized as opposed to hunters. Allowing hunters is probably one of the most complex steps. See when allowing masses of hunters on your land you then have to patrol it to make sure only the ones with permission are on there. Further more you have to keep going around closing gates that they leave open, as well as kicking them off the places you told them they couldn't go. On top of that when your mob finally catches up to the elk, 9 our of 10 times they will get them running so bad that they clear out 100 yards of fense. And then if by chance they do manage to kill on they proceede to drive across your stubble field, which is under seaded to hay and you told them to stay off. As you can see now, it is just a massive head ache when you let people on that just don't understand and can't listen to what they are told.

With that said I know not all people do this and it only takes one to ruin it for everyone, but its easier to just let friends and family on that you know you don't have to baby sit.
A much simplier option would be to call F&W and have them come out, look at your problem, and then give you the free 8 ft game fense that they supply.

If you don't agree with my reasoning, just go west of Okotoks and ask any farmer or rancher out there, they will tell you.

I think you miss the bolded part, just thought I'd point that out

[monstermulie]

See, there is where you are not getting it. The fence is not "free", it is paid for by the taxpayers of the province..... you know, us lowly hunters and fishermen who don't work in the patch or inherited a section of land.

Pay for your own g-damned elk fence.

I do, with the copious amount of taxes I pay.

[monstermulie]

Letting hunters on is usually as complicated as you want to make it.

Actually there is a lot more simple steps that can be utilized as opposed to hunters. Allowing hunters is probably one of the most complex steps. See when allowing masses of hunters on your land you then have to patrol it to make sure only the ones with permission are on there. Further more you have to keep going around closing gates that they leave open, as well as kicking them off the places you told them they couldn't go. On top of that when your mob finally catches up to the elk, 9 our of 10 times they will get them running so bad that they clear out 100 yards of fense. And then if by chance they do manage to kill on they proceede to drive across your stubble field, which is under seaded to hay and you told them to stay off. As you can see now, it is just a massive head ache when you let people on that just don't understand and can't listen to what they are told.

With that said I know not all people do this and it only takes one to ruin it for everyone, but its easier to just let friends and family on that you know you don't have to baby sit.
A much simplier option would be to call F&W and have them come out, look at your problem, and then give you the free 8 ft game fense that they supply.

If you don't agree with my reasoning, just go west of Okotoks and ask any farmer or rancher out there, they will tell you.

Just pointing out the bolded part for you

[HIBACKPACKER]

Dewey Mathews is a great person and always has a hot cup of coffee waiting on the stove, that's when he's not out taking hunters or horse back riders into the woods. He is one of those exceptions that I know of, a nicer fellow you couldn't ask to meet and same for his family. Money is one thing to have, but not letting the hunters on your land and then calling and crying that the Elk are causing problems is another. I'm cheering for the Elk LOL.

[Okotokian]

I do, with the copious amount of taxes I pay.
I want to get in on this. I live in 312, I pay taxes. My own fence is getting a little sorry looking. It really needs repair or replacement. Where can I get said "elk fence"? It shouldn't make any difference that I live in town, should it? :)

[hunter49]

Exactly THEIR land.

Save up your pennies and go buy your own land then and stop your complaining.

Why don't you go tell YOUR elk to stay off THEIR land then.

:snapoutofit:

Ummm...hello???

They are not MY elk, do you think I put them out there? They have been here for a long time, and will be here for an even longer time. Especially if landowners like you don't let hunters on their property to keep #'s in check.

[hunter49]

refusing reasonable access to the public (hunters) and then asking for public funds afterwards is a little hypocritical. That's all.
:confused:

This sums up the thread perfectly.

[monstermulie]

I want to get in on this. I live in 312, I pay taxes. My own fence is getting a little sorry looking. It really needs repair or replacement. Where can I get said "elk fence"? It shouldn't make any difference that I live in town, should it? :)

Pretty sure my land taxes are a little more pricey than yours

[Pudelpointer]

Just pointing out the bolded part for you

Do you own land in the area we are discussing? Are you a "friend or family" member of someone who does?

If so, do you (they) have serious problems with elk?

The people who are complaining in this area (for the most part AFAIK) do NOT let people (anyone) hunt, except for the odd outfitter who's wallet..... I won't finish the sentence, it will just take us in another direction.

I have been duped a few times by farmers and ranchers with "serious elk problems", travelling 100's - 1000km to find out that they only have elk coming onto their property once or twice a year, usually in the winter and spring after the season is over and the crops are long gone.

I have been told "come on up and I will get you access to all the ranches in the area; everyone wants the elk shot - killed - massacred - run off - etc." When we show up, we get told "Oh, that guy won't let anyone hunt; I don't know who owns that piece; You need to phone that guy (of course no one has their number)" and every second piece of property is posted No Hunting.

If a rancher actually has a problem, I will go out of my way to help. If they are just the sort that gets outraged because a deer nibbles their hedge, I usually don't go back.

I should mention that vast majority of the landowners that I deal with are awesome people who are very tolerant of wildlife on their lands. They are happy to have deer and elk, but are also pragmatic about addressing the damage they can do. They stack and fence their bales, and they allow hunting under certain conditions - their land, their rules; and I am happy to have the opportunity to hunt there, so I follow those rules and report those who don't.

In my opinion these are the people who SHOULD get help from SRD when it comes to crop/feed damage, but guess what: they will never ask for it. They are independent, proud and resourceful people; they don't want or need the government to save them.

[Okotokian]

Pretty sure my land taxes are a little more pricey than yours

I'm sure they are, but I don't require a very big fence. It's all relative. ;)

Besides, does the MD give you the fence?

[HIBACKPACKER]

That is what I was saying we just have to get the gov to hear what were saying. Who am I kidding our Gov has their heads so far up!!!!!! Hmmm I better not finsh that statement lolololol. Look what they have done in our schools, Halloween and Christmas is great example of that. Happy holidays Who says that. Do get me started.

[monstermulie]

Do you own land in the area we are discussing? Are you a "friend or family" member of someone who does?

Both

If so, do you (they) have serious problems with elk? YES

The people who are complaining in this area (for the most part AFAIK) do NOT let people (anyone) hunt, except for the odd outfitter who's wallet..... I won't finish the sentence, it will just take us in another direction.

I have been duped a few times by farmers and ranchers with "serious elk problems", travelling 100's - 1000km to find out that they only have elk coming onto their property once or twice a year, usually in the winter and spring after the season is over and the crops are long gone.

I have been told "come on up and I will get you access to all the ranches in the area; everyone wants the elk shot - killed - massacred - run off - etc." When we show up, we get told "Oh, that guy won't let anyone hunt; I don't know who owns that piece; You need to phone that guy (of course no one has their number)" and every second piece of property is posted No Hunting.

If a rancher actually has a problem, I will go out of my way to help. If they are just the sort that gets outraged because a deer nibbles their hedge, I usually don't go back.

I should mention that vast majority of the landowners that I deal with are awesome people who are very tolerant of wildlife on their lands. They are happy to have deer and elk, but are also pragmatic about addressing the damage they can do. They stack and fence their bales, and they allow hunting under certain conditions - their land, their rules; and I am happy to have the opportunity to hunt there, so I follow those rules and report those who don't.

In my opinion these are the people who SHOULD get help from SRD when it comes to crop/feed damage, but guess what: they will never ask for it. They are independent, proud and resourceful people; they don't want or need the government to save them.




Entered the answers in the quote

[elkhunter11]

Besides, does the MD give you the fence?


Good point, generally property taxes go to the M.D. so if anyone is paying for a fence for private property, the M.D. should get the bill. Why should provincial money pay for a fence , when the province doesn't collect the property taxes?

[Pudelpointer]

So how many elk do you, your family, and your friends kill on YOUR land?

How many days per season are you out there pressuring them?

If you are allowing hunters (more then just 2 or 3 friends) and are having problems because your neighbours will not let anyone hunt, then maybe you deserve some help with fencing and such, however, I would suggest that SRD gives the bill for fencing your (and other neighbours who allow hunting) haystacks to those landowners that do not allow hunting. They can tack it on their property tax the following year.

If YOU want me to PAY for YOUR fence through MY taxes, then you better be a little more open to letting hunters on who are willing to knock on your door.

[walking buffalo]

A much simplier option would be to call F&W and have them come out, look at your problem, and then give you the free 8 ft game fense that they supply.



Are you sure? F&W game fencing is usually only supplied to Landowners who allow hunting. Just one of the rules in force to help SOLVE the problem, not exacerbate it.

[Okotokian]

Good point, generally property taxes go to the M.D. so if anyone is paying for a fence for private property, the M.D. should get the bill. Why should provincial money pay for a fence , when the province doesn't collect the property taxes?

I don't care, I just want a fence. :)

[Caleb]

With that said I know not all people do this and it only takes one to ruin it for everyone, but its easier to just let friends and family on that you know you don't have to baby sit.

A much simplier option would be to call F&W and have them come out, look at your problem, and then give you the free 8 ft game fense that they supply.

If you don't agree with my reasoning, just go west of Okotoks and ask any farmer or rancher out there, they will tell you.

I think you miss the bolded part, just thought I'd point that out


If you want to run things for family and friends, that is your right, but I still don't get why public tax dollars should compensate you for that choice.

Not trying to tell you how to run your place, but having too many elk right next to thousands of hunters doesn't sound like a hopeless problem needing government intervention. :confused:



If you truly have a good group of shooters who are killing a dozen elk or more, then you have done your part. In that case, I'd be getting after my neighbours to do their fair share of the work as well.

If your friends and family are having difficulty killing enough elk I bet you could easily find some select AO hunters who are more than willing to help out, and who could be trusted a lot more than average Joe Hunter. :)

[Stinky Coyote]

the two places in the past that let me on in 312 for late season cow elk both require signed liability waivers, the one guy has had trouble with injury including friends of family on land so doesn't matter how tight you might be, you get to sign the waiver, fill out some info, truck/plate/phone etc., a good idea for all landowners imo...it makes things easy, sign here, don't shoot anything you don't want to own and follow all my rules and the law and you will be welcome back sort of thing.....that shouldn't be too hard, there are a lot of yahoos among us however that do mess it up, bad news travels fast, good news about 100 times slower...so screw up on one guys land and his neighbors might also be inclined to shut the door when they hear it too

[huntmaster83]

MM, easier to have friends and family that doesn't have to be babysat, maybe, but doesn't seem to be fixing your problem does it? Most responsible hunters when granted access will fight tooth and nail to ensure that their hunting right is protected, aka self policing, so that they can return. YES (see I bolded it for you to read easily like you seemed to like to do) this is coming from both a hunter who has been granted access and someone who's family owns land. Pretty good feeling knowing you have a few roaming human trail cameras to watch over things when you are not around. Sounds like you just need a better interview/selection process to weed out the nimrods who treat the land like a BMX track and can't read a map. If you need a copy of a hunter access form there is some great ideas posted in other threads on here and checking prior references from landowners who granted access is also a plus. Yes this may seem like a bit of trouble to go through but in the end if you want help with your elk problem and expect to have a fence paid for it seems only fair! On another note, OKO I am willing to help with that miniature elk fence if you manage to get it but will need full hunting access to your property and any Booner gophers, racoons, porcupines etc that reside on it. :)

[jkwolfgrove]

I have a jan cow elk tag for 312, if anybody has any good leads id be very grateful.

jake

[585 Nyati]

Wow...feel like I just entered a time warp. This issue was prevalent in the Peace River country of BC several years ago. Ranchers wanted to be licensed by Fish and Wildlife branch to 'sell' tags to hunters to shoot the marauding elk. (in direct competition with BC guides and outfitters monopoly on this) Conservation Officers told them to stuff it and to let hunters get access under the regular open season and Limited entry opportunities to address the problem. Govt then set up a pilot project where 'Ranchers' could register with the Govt if they were having elk trouble. Hunters who drew ltd entry draws could then contact the wildlife branch and would be 'assigned' a specific area (ranch) to hunt on on specific dates. The Govt issued permits and maps and did all the paperwork for the rancher. These 'plots' were only allowed to be accessed by a single group of up to 4 hunters for a specific time period. Thusly landowner and govt knew who was on what property & when. Hunters were given a vehicle pass, and had to report to landowner at start of hunt to let them know they were there and get any updated concerns addressed, i.e. livestock locations etc...

Sounds good in theory. We (BC hunters) later learned that the Ranchers who registered to allow hunters access to their property were 'paid' so much per acre for signing up. In my own groups case, after drawing LEH permits, we showed up in the north (at no little expense) signed up, were assigned a hunting plot and optimisticlly started our hunt.

The 'Ranch' we were assigned...was a 'stump' ranch, it had no livestock, had no haystacks for the elk to destroy and IF an ELK had every been on the property the Son of a B___H was lost!!! This 'land owner' got cash from the program to address a problem he didn't have! We salvaged our hunt by receipt of information (from a friend in the area) that put us onto a rancher who 'may' allow access to the right people. It was a hundred plus Kms from our assigned hunting plot. With my friends name as an introduction and after some 'get to know you chit chat' we were granted permission.

A conservative estimate is approx 300 elk in a herd in the middle of his hay pastures. we filled our 4 tags in 2 days. It should be noted that the Conservation Officer Branch of the BC Ministry of environment was against this 'assigned' hunting crap from the get go. It was the regional Biologists and misc departmental nitwits who dreamt it up. It no longer exists, was a dismal failure to begin with

Standard practise now is that if a rancher has elk trouble, they can allow hunters access during normal LEH or open seasons, or they can Fence their haystacks...at their own expense!!!

One would like to think that rational people can work these things out on their own and every side to the arguement has its merits. Rest assurred if the Govt imposes a solution it will be FUBAR from the get-go.

good luck

585nyati

[mally]

just ran one over last week
one less elk
one less corolla

[a little redneck]

Exactly THEIR land.

Save up your pennies and go buy your own land then and stop your complaining.

Why don't you go tell YOUR elk to stay off THEIR land then.

:snapoutofit:

Why not build a fence, wouldn't that be too easy?? Maybe build a fence around the feed?? I'd say quit complaining about the elk if you won't let hunters manage the herd per the hunting regulations. Another case of NMBY. Hunters should just forget about those WMU's and see what happens.

[topgun2269]

i am pretty sure I have more pennies than you from your comments .. I own land very good land. I have never taken the stance you just provided...I allow hunter on my land as long as they follow my guide lines. yes I do own the land how ever I don't play god like you would do. This thread is a typical city boy purchasing land than acting like God when someone else wants to enjoy a great hunt.


"just my bang for my buck"

[monstermulie]

Why not build a fence, wouldn't that be too easy?? Maybe build a fence around the feed?? I'd say quit complaining about the elk if you won't let hunters manage the herd per the hunting regulations. Another case of NMBY. Hunters should just forget about those WMU's and see what happens.

I have built a fence, they still managed to consume 15000 kg of quality hay, that is what was estimated by the government official.

And please show me where in my post that I said I don't allow hunters....

This past year alone we managed to take 7 elk off of our land.

My comments are to the people that complain about people not letting them on. If it's such a huge concern to you then like I said save your money and go buy land just as I did, then you won't have to worry about gaining permission.


And to the next post.....

City boy?....

I have been born and raise in Alberta, grew up on a farm, and working on farms, and still live on a farm.

Probably more than you can say......

Get your facts right before you go spouting off.

"light travels faster than sound, that is why some people appear to be bright until they speak"

[Jordan Smith]

I don't think the issue is solely about whether people give hunting permission, or not. If landowners don't want to give hunting permission, then that's totally fine. The problem arises when they complain about wildlife damage, and seek public funds to remedy those damages, when they are unwilling to participate in the provided solution- namely, allowing hunters to kill and scatter the wildlife that is doing the damage.

[bukwild]

I have built a fence, they still managed to consume 15000 kg of quality hay, that is what was estimated by the government official.

And please show me where in my post that I said I don't allow hunters....

This past year alone we managed to take 7 elk off of our land.

My comments are to the people that complain about people not letting them on. If it's such a huge concern to you then like I said save your money and go buy land just as I did, then you won't have to worry about gaining permission.


And to the next post.....

City boy?....

I have been born and raise in Alberta, grew up on a farm, and working on farms, and still live on a farm.

Probably more than you can say......

Get your facts right before you go spouting off.

"light travels faster than sound, that is why some people appear to be bright until they speak"

Considering an Elk is fed about 5 kilos a day you would have had 8 elk at your hay everyday for 365 days of the year (you got seven of them, not bad!) The "quality" hay you lost should have been worth about $1850.00 from what I could find. Seven elk should have given you about 3000lbs of meat for you and your friends. At that rate you paid sixty-two cents per pound for some quality hay fed elk. Thats a pretty fair price considering you then charge it back to the taxpayer and you don't get charged for baiting.

[monstermulie]

Considering an Elk is fed about 5 kilos a day you would have had 8 elk at your hay everyday for 365 days of the year (you got seven of them, not bad!) The "quality" hay you lost should have been worth about $1850.00 from what I could find. Seven elk should have given you about 3000lbs of meat for you and your friends. At that rate you paid sixty-two cents per pound for some quality hay fed elk. Thats a pretty fair price considering you then charge it back to the taxpayer and you don't get charged for baiting.

did the cost of land, diesel, time, equipment usage, tags, hunting equipment all of a sudden = $0?.................

[bukwild]

did the cost of land, diesel, time, equipment usage, tags, hunting equipment all of a sudden = $0?.................

Nope you paid the same for that as I did, and didnt get to hunt your bait site.

[monstermulie]

Nope you paid the same for that as I did, and didnt get to hunt your bait site.

I don't think it is considered a bait pile if we weren't hunting the elk because the bales were consumed during the months of Feb and March in the night.


But then again I'm not sure what your definition of baiting is.......

[Rackmastr]

Considering an Elk is fed about 5 kilos a day you would have had 8 elk at your hay everyday for 365 days of the year (you got seven of them, not bad!) The "quality" hay you lost should have been worth about $1850.00 from what I could find. Seven elk should have given you about 3000lbs of meat for you and your friends. At that rate you paid sixty-two cents per pound for some quality hay fed elk. Thats a pretty fair price considering you then charge it back to the taxpayer and you don't get charged for baiting.

Wow....you've got some great basic math skills there...its a shame they're not practical at all...

[bukwild]

Wow....you've got some great basic math skills there...its a shame they're not practical at all...

Just using numbers I was able to find through google.

[bukwild]

I don't think it is considered a bait pile if we weren't hunting the elk because the bales were consumed during the months of Feb and March in the night.


But then again I'm not sure what your definition of baiting is.......

From the SRD site:

"Bait - any substance that consists of a food attractant, including mineral and any representation of a food attractant."

[Rackmastr]

Just using numbers I was able to find through google.

Yes....my problem is with the practical aspect of it. There is not hay sitting out for 365 days of the year. Elk do not feed on haystacks for 365 days per year. They feed on it for a short time period when the weather gets rough in the winters. As well, the cost of hay 'could' be used to calculate the price of elk meat, except that the hay eaten by elk needs to be replaced and fed to cattle at a cost obviously.

Obviously your post wasnt meant to be taken literally...but the numbers are so far off it leads a guy to wonder what angle you were goin for!

[monstermulie]

From the SRD site:

"Bait - any substance that consists of a food attractant, including mineral and any representation of a food attractant."

If you take the time to read the regulations it also says and I don't know the exact wording, that: Bait is anything other than normal farming techniques.

so that excludes salt for cattle, as well as minerals, swath grazing, hay stacks, some (not me) leave bales out in fields all winter, as well as second growth hay

[bukwild]

Yes....my problem is with the practical aspect of it. There is not hay sitting out for 365 days of the year. Elk do not feed on haystacks for 365 days per year. They feed on it for a short time period when the weather gets rough in the winters. As well, the cost of hay 'could' be used to calculate the price of elk meat, except that the hay eaten by elk needs to be replaced and fed to cattle at a cost obviously.

Obviously your post wasnt meant to be taken literally...but the numbers are so far off it leads a guy to wonder what angle you were goin for!

My angle is simply this. If the elk are just an inconvenience to you then the relativly low price to get together with some close friends and family to hunt them should negate your inconvenience. If the elk are really costing you that much money then find a way to let more hunters access the land and harvest the animals and save you some money. In the end land ownership shouldn't cost the taxpayer one red cent. ownership of anything comes with financial risk. When you bought your land YOU took the risk not the taxpayer.

[Rackmastr]

My angle is simply this. If the elk are just an inconvenience to you then the relativly low price to get together with some close friends and family to hunt them should negate your inconvenience. If the elk are really costing you that much money then find a way to let more hunters access the land and harvest the animals and save you some money. In the end land ownership shouldn't cost the taxpayer one red cent. ownership of anything comes with financial risk. When you bought your land YOU took the risk not the taxpayer.

So why not just come out and say it rather than play with some math numbers to make it look as if you understand the concept?

I'm not arguing with your angle or agreeing with it, but your in-direct approach to just saying what you feel was a bit different to say the least...

[bukwild]

So why not just come out and say it rather than play with some math numbers to make it look as if you understand the concept?

I'm not arguing with your angle or agreeing with it, but your in-direct approach to just saying what you feel was a bit different to say the least...

You seem to understand the "numbers" and this seems to be a sore spot with you. Would you like to give us your numbers and educate us in the "concept"?

[Rackmastr]

You seem to understand the "numbers" and this seems to be a sore spot with you. Would you like to give us your numbers and educate us in the "concept"?

Yes I do understand the numbers. Not a sore spot at all, but I always shake my head when someone uses basic math to try and make their point, yet it doesnt really help it at all as it shows a lack of knowledge of the subject.

Hell, just come out and say what you're thinking. Its the internet, no need to be sly! The best part about the internet is saying what you think....:)

[bukwild]

Yes I do understand the numbers. Not a sore spot at all, but I always shake my head when someone uses basic math to try and make their point, yet it doesnt really help it at all as it shows a lack of knowledge of the subject.

Hell, just come out and say what you're thinking. Its the internet, no need to be sly! The best part about the internet is saying what you think....:)

Everything I've written is what I was thinking. I did not say I had ay knowledge on the subject I just put out what I was thinking. You on the other hand are not. State your math. Show us you understand the numbers and where I lack the "knowledge of the subject". Like you said the best part about the internet is saying what yoou think.

[Rackmastr]

Everything I've written is what I was thinking. I did not say I had ay knowledge on the subject I just put out what I was thinking. You on the other hand are not. State your math. Show us you understand the numbers and where I lack the "knowledge of the subject". Like you said the best part about the internet is saying what yoou think.

Its easy to see where you lack the knowledge....elk dont eat on hay for 365 days/year and hay isnt sitting for 365 days/year....

I've stated what I think....that it doesnt present a very strong argument to use weak math and limited understanding to prove a point.

[bukwild]

Its easy to see where you lack the knowledge....elk dont eat on hay for 365 days/year and hay isnt sitting for 365 days/year....

I've stated what I think....that it doesnt present a very strong argument to use weak math and limited understanding to prove a point.

Nothing in the post says whether the hay was standing or sitting etc.. point moot. and my math is not weak the supplied dat may be wrong but the math is solid. If you think the supplied data is wrong please supply the correct data. I'm not sure if you do actually understand the concept at all as all you are able to do tell me I'm wrong and not show me why. State why you think I'm wrong.

[Rackmastr]

Haha....oh god. This could go round and round and round. My only point was that might as well cut right to the chase and say what you were thinking about compensation, financial risk, and land ownership stuff.

No need to go round and round on something so trivial. I'll admit that its been a waste of both our times and sorry for that. Carry on....

[bukwild]

Agreed buddy! Have a good one.:)

[trouty]

I have built a fence, they still managed to consume 15000 kg of quality hay, that is what was estimated by the government official.

And please show me where in my post that I said I don't allow hunters....

This past year alone we managed to take 7 elk off of our land.

My comments are to the people that complain about people not letting them on. If it's such a huge concern to you then like I said save your money and go buy land just as I did, then you won't have to worry about gaining permission.


And to the next post.....

City boy?....

I have been born and raise in Alberta, grew up on a farm, and working on farms, and still live on a farm.

Probably more than you can say......

Get your facts right before you go spouting off.

"light travels faster than sound, that is why some people appear to be bright until they speak"

don't allow hunters, so do those include US clients? 7 elk, how many were by your gramps outfitting business?

[a little redneck]

Sounds like they ate 25 round bales @ $35 per bale = $875 or so. If they ate that every year, and wrecked your fences that would be frustrating. Sounds like more of a headache than anything.

Maybe an Elkhound would help??

Yes.... yahoos can wreck it for everyone, and we're not interested in wasting your time or ours or damaging the reputation of hunters.

It would be nice to buy property everywhere then we could be hunting in any WMU without hassles and everyone would be happy.


I have built a fence, they still managed to consume 15000 kg of quality hay, that is what was estimated by the government official.

And please show me where in my post that I said I don't allow hunters....

This past year alone we managed to take 7 elk off of our land.

My comments are to the people that complain about people not letting them on. If it's such a huge concern to you then like I said save your money and go buy land just as I did, then you won't have to worry about gaining permission.


And to the next post.....

City boy?....

I have been born and raise in Alberta, grew up on a farm, and working on farms, and still live on a farm.

Probably more than you can say......

Get your facts right before you go spouting off.

"light travels faster than sound, that is why some people appear to be bright until they speak"

[Rocky7]

Problem is no one will allow hunting as i have found out for several years of asking.


Then the elk are their problem.

Why should we pay for damage when they won't let hunters on their land? Makes no sense.

[Rocky7]

My comments are to the people that complain about people not letting them on. If it's such a huge concern to you then like I said save your money and go buy land just as I did, then you won't have to worry about gaining permission.

1. A lot of people can't afford to buy land; especially young hunters. Your comment is, to put it in the most gracious possible way, snobbish.

2. Since you bought the land, you got the elk, too. Keep you hand out of my pocket to pay for their damage and you can do whatever you want.

[MountainTi]

Then the elk are their problem.

Why should we pay for damage when they won't let hunters on their land? Makes no sense.
Just gonna play a little devils advocate here.
Is wildlife not owned by the people of Alberta? Leastways I have seen that stated on here many times. Why should landowners be forced to let hunters on their private land in order to receive compensation for damages caused by wildlife owned by the citizens of the province? I take it you do not/have not ever owned land before?

[Rocky7]

Why should landowners be forced to let hunters on their private land in order to receive compensation for damages caused by wildlife owned by the citizens of the province?

If you can afford the land, you can afford an elk fence. Fence it if you're having problems.

If you don't want to pay the money to fence your land AND you want to keep everyone off your land, that's fine - keep your hand out of my pocket. Either you put a wall around your land or your don't. Simple.

BTW, money from hunters pays for the damage done by elk and other critters.

[walking buffalo]

Just gonna play a little devils advocate here.
Is wildlife not owned by the people of Alberta? Leastways I have seen that stated on here many times. Why should landowners be forced to let hunters on their private land in order to receive compensation for damages caused by wildlife owned by the citizens of the province? I take it you do not/have not ever owned land before?



Landowners' have an equal share in wildlife "ownership". We are all equally responsible for managing wildlife.

The government uses hunting as a means of elk population control.

Landowners can be part of the elk managment strategy, which means allowing public access for hunting, or they can opt out.


The requirement for landowners to allow public access for game management is a good and fair condition to recieve taxpayer funding for crop damage and control.

[ishootbambi]

The requirement for landowners to allow public access for game management is a good and fair condition to recieve taxpayer funding for crop damage and control.

i fully agree.

now how do taxpayers get their share of fees when landowners are charging for hunting access?










and yes thats a rhetorical question. the fees id like to see collected are fines for violating the law. why the hell wont F&W investigate these things when it is so easy to prove?

[Jordan Smith]

Just gonna play a little devils advocate here.
Is wildlife not owned by the people of Alberta? Leastways I have seen that stated on here many times. Why should landowners be forced to let hunters on their private land in order to receive compensation for damages caused by wildlife owned by the citizens of the province? I take it you do not/have not ever owned land before?

Because otherwise they're not allowing the citizens of the province to access their property (the elk). If they choose to withhold access to that property (again, the elk are the property of the citizens of the province), then they can repair the damages without the help of the citizens of the province.

[MountainTi]

Landowners' have an equal share in wildlife "ownership". We are all equally responsible for managing wildlife.

The government uses hunting as a means of elk population control.

Landowners can be part of the elk managment strategy, which means allowing public access for hunting, or they can opt out.


The requirement for landowners to allow public access for game management is a good and fair condition to recieve taxpayer funding for crop damage and control.

Sooo........ as a landowner (whom of which I suspect makes up a lot smaller percentage of the population compared to urban folk) is expected to incur the largest percentage of expense to share in wildlife ownership. Expenses can run pretty high when you start talking loss of forage, hay, elk fencing, fence repairs. What does the "wildlife ownership" cost the rural city dwellers? The only way to receive compensation for damages caused by the wildlife that we all own equally, you must allow strangers to enter land which you have bought and paid for yourself and hunt? Doesn't sound like equal ownership to me. Or is that just the price one must pay to make a living outside of the city? Curious, the last few replies disagreeing with my way of thinking, how would you be classified, rural or urban?

[MountainTi]

1. A lot of people can't afford to buy land; especially young hunters. Your comment is, to put it in the most gracious possible way, snobbish.2. Since you bought the land, you got the elk, too. Keep you hand out of my pocket to pay for their damage and you can do whatever you want.

If you can afford the land, you can afford an elk fence. Fence it if you're having problems.

If you don't want to pay the money to fence your land AND you want to keep everyone off your land, that's fine - keep your hand out of my pocket. Either you put a wall around your land or your don't. Simple.BTW, money from hunters pays for the damage done by elk and other critters.
You pretty much summed up your own comments.

[Rocky7]

The only way to receive compensation for damages caused by the wildlife that we all own equally, you must allow strangers to enter land which you have bought and paid for yourself and hunt?

Correct. Or, you could decline any compensation whatsoever and ask for an exemption for the $5 you contributed and, in return, don't ask for anyone else's permission or hunt on anyone else's land. That way, you won't be taking anyone else's money and you won't have the insult of contributing and having nothing to show for it. In that latter regard, the rest of us know exactly how you feel.

Doesn't sound like equal ownership to me.

You lost me. Equal ownership of what?

I think you're missing the point entirely. If the elk and other critter damage bothers you, put up a high fence or move back to the city. On the other hand, if you want to take hunter money as compensation, allow hunter access. Quid pro quo.

Having your cake and eating it too has nothing to do with private ownership rights. It has everything to do with taking money contributed by hunters who the want to come onto your land, won't hurt anything and won't cost you a red cent to accommodate.

[MountainTi]

Correct. Or, you could decline any compensation whatsoever and ask for an exemption for the $5 you contributed and, in return, don't ask for anyone else's permission or hunt on anyone else's land. That way, you won't be taking anyone else's money and you won't have the insult of contributing and having nothing to show for it. In that latter regard, the rest of us know exactly how you feel.


$5 dollars for what? Not following you. Are you talking fees from the proceeds of hunting licences? I would suspect that many of landowners that do refuse permission to hunters are non-hunters themselves, and of which they have full entitlement to their own beliefs.


You lost me. Equal ownership of what?

I highlighted it below for ya below, hope I am making it easy enough


I think you're missing the point entirely. If the elk and other critter damage bothers you, put up a high fence or move back to the city. On the other hand, if you want to take hunter money as compensation, allow hunter access. Quid pro quo.


Move back to the city? Landowners that do not allow hunting on their own private land and make a living off said land originated from the city? Not really sure what you're getting at here.

Having your cake and eating it too has nothing to do with private ownership rights. It has everything to do with taking money contributed by hunters who the want to come onto your land, won't hurt anything and won't cost you a red cent to accommodate.

Landowners' have an equal share in wildlife "ownership". We are all equally responsible for managing wildlife.

T.

If you firmly believe that landowners/ ranchers should feed and "house" OUR wildlife with no compensation for damages unless they allow hunting to unknown individuals, then perhaps they should be compensated for allowing access? Careful what you push for, might really turn around and bite ya!

[landowner]

If you firmly believe that landowners/ ranchers should feed and "house" OUR wildlife with no compensation for damages unless they allow hunting to unknown individuals, then perhaps they should be compensated for allowing access? Careful what you push for, might really turn around and bite ya!

X2 Just like "allowing access" to oil companies , compensation is paid.

[Jordan Smith]

So now we want compensation for allowing hunters to access the land to help minimize the elk problem, AND compensation for the elk being there in the first place?

Life would be GOOD for landowners, hey?! :D

[Jordan Smith]

Oil companies pay for access, because the access allows them to make money off of the landowner.

Hunters want access, which will help the landowner to stop losing money to elk damages.

Bit different scenario.

[MountainTi]

So now we want compensation for allowing hunters to access the land to help minimize the elk problem, AND compensation for the elk being there in the first place?

Life would be GOOD for landowners, hey?! :D

Read again, not sure where you got that from

[ishootbambi]

X2 Just like "allowing access" to oil companies , compensation is paid.

not the same at all. initial setup of a well takes a chunk of land out of production, so initial payment is higher. once the well is in service, very little land is lost, but there is still some....so payment is made for the difference. hunters cost a landowner nothing. sometimes an idiot does....and the idiot should be made to pay.

[slough shark]

Sooo........ as a landowner (whom of which I suspect makes up a lot smaller percentage of the population compared to urban folk) is expected to incur the largest percentage of expense to share in wildlife ownership. Expenses can run pretty high when you start talking loss of forage, hay, elk fencing, fence repairs. What does the "wildlife ownership" cost the rural city dwellers? The only way to receive compensation for damages caused by the wildlife that we all own equally, you must allow strangers to enter land which you have bought and paid for yourself and hunt? Doesn't sound like equal ownership to me. Or is that just the price one must pay to make a living outside of the city? Curious, the last few replies disagreeing with my way of thinking, how would you be classified, rural or urban?

I will take that cost any day (the fencing, forage, hay etc...) over some of the costs that I have to bear living in the city. One day I will own land and if I have a problem with too many animals on my land I will take appropriate action. If one does not take action on an issue (elk predation) that is affecting his livelihood that is his own fault, why should I have to pay for someone for knowlingly making poor decisions with their livelihood.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Exactly THEIR land.

Save up your pennies and go buy your own land then and stop your complaining.

Why don't you go tell YOUR elk to stay off THEIR land then.

:snapoutofit:


Landowners in that area are legendary for being tough to woo.
In that case...

Their land... their choice.
If their choice results in elk holing up on their land and eating their feed... their problem.
I shouldn't have to pay taxes to support some other guys predictable self-induced hardship.

The guys I feel for are the ones that are paying for their neighbours decisions.

[Big Daddy Badger]

X2 Just like "allowing access" to oil companies , compensation is paid.

Isn't protection from foraging elk... having eyes watching for strays... trespassers... noting broken fence lines... chasing off predators...killing gophers etc compensation of sorts?
I don't know what your experience has been but most guys I know like to pitch in and help out when they can.... and that has to have some value....doesn't it?

[MountainTi]

I will take that cost any day (the fencing, forage, hay etc...) over some of the costs that I have to bear living in the city. One day I will own land and if I have a problem with too many animals on my land I will take appropriate action. If one does not take action on an issue (elk predation) that is affecting his livelihood that is his own fault, why should I have to pay for someone for knowlingly making poor decisions with their livelihood.

Wish you the best of luck in achieving that goal. What you have to realize is that many of these people that refuse access are anti hunting, and you know what, that is their right and I respect that. So what many are saying is that it is up to them to swallow the costs of fencing, hay, damages, ect. because they do not want to allow hunters on their own land to attempt to harvest an animal that we ALL own, and because of that they should not be compensated for damages incured by wildlife owned by Albertans?
Seems pretty easy for an individual who resides in an urban environment to believe in that way of thinking if they haven't actually lived a rural lifestyle.

[MountainTi]

Landowners in that area are legendary for being tough to woo.
In that case...

Their land... their choice.
If their choice results in elk holing up on their land and eating their feed... their problem.
I shouldn't have to pay taxes to support some other guys predictable self-induced hardship.

The guys I feel for are the ones that are paying for their neighbours decisions.

Question for ya.............who owns the wildlife? Seems like any time outfitters or non-resident hunters are brought up.........we all do. Maybe some should take a little responsiblity for them. It's not a double standard

[Big Daddy Badger]

Question for ya.............who owns the wildlife? Seems like any time outfitters or non-resident hunters are brought up.........we all do. Maybe some should take a little responsiblity for them. It's not a double standard


Ah... yes... that becomes a bit philosophical doesn't it?

The wildlife belong to the Crown and are managed by the provinces.
I know someone will dispute that somehow but... essentially that's what she boils down to.

The difficulty is... they are still wild and management doesn't mean positively controlled.

I understand what you are saying... and I have no problem supporting land owners that decide to participate in wildlife management with landowner tags or compensation.
The problem is... wildlife management usually includes hunting.
To some extent I can see advantages for hunters and wildlife when a portion of landowners in a given area...deny access.
Safe havens for wildlife.

The elephant in the closet is that this is a three way symbiotic relationship of sorts.

Hunters need animals to hunt and places to hunt them.
Landowners need wildlife managed.
Wildlife need feed and room to roam.

When any of these things are not being adequately satisfied... someone is very unhappy.:)

[slough shark]

Wish you the best of luck in achieving that goal. What you have to realize is that many of these people that refuse access are anti hunting, and you know what, that is their right and I respect that. So what many are saying is that it is up to them to swallow the costs of fencing, hay, damages, ect. because they do not want to allow hunters on their own land to attempt to harvest an animal that we ALL own, and because of that they should not be compensated for damages incured by wildlife owned by Albertans?
Seems pretty easy for an individual who resides in an urban environment to believe in that way of thinking if they haven't actually lived a rural lifestyle.

They can not allow hunting that is within their rights which is fine, I'm talking from a purely monetary side of things though, if they are complaining about losing money it is their choice to lose money, not mine, I will help them not lose money by taking an elk. If they refuse that help why should I pay them for refusing help? It has nothing to do with rural or urban thinking, I spend a lot of time in both. It's a paying someone our tax money to not accept help that would help alleviate their issue that bothers me.

[Faststeel]

I have built a fence, they still managed to consume 15000 kg of quality hay, that is what was estimated by the government official.

And please show me where in my post that I said I don't allow hunters....

This past year alone we managed to take 7 elk off of our land.

My comments are to the people that complain about people not letting them on. If it's such a huge concern to you then like I said save your money and go buy land just as I did, then you won't have to worry about gaining permission.


And to the next post.....

City boy?....

I have been born and raise in Alberta, grew up on a farm, and working on farms, and still live on a farm.

Probably more than you can say......

Get your facts right before you go spouting off.

"light travels faster than sound, that is why some people appear to be bright until they speak"


grew up on a farm, working on farms, I doubt you saved enough dough to buy a place in Turner Valley. FS

[greywolf]

Just gonna play a little devils advocate here.
Is wildlife not owned by the people of Alberta? Leastways I have seen that stated on here many times. Why should landowners be forced to let hunters on their private land in order to receive compensation for damages caused by wildlife owned by the citizens of the province? I take it you do not/have not ever owned land before?

Quite simple;
If you're not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem!!!!

[walking buffalo]

If you firmly believe that landowners/ ranchers should feed and "house" OUR wildlife with no compensation for damages unless they allow hunting to unknown individuals, then perhaps they should be compensated for allowing access? Careful what you push for, might really turn around and bite ya!


I'm not pushing for it, because IT is already the law. :)

No paying for access, no public pay for wildlife damages unless public access is allowed.

When one purchases land, they should know the responsibilities and potential costs involved. This includes losses due to wildlife. The same applies to Invasive or Noxious species, or environmental contaminants. Buyer beware.



Wish you the best of luck in achieving that goal. What you have to realize is that many of these people that refuse access are anti hunting, and you know what, that is their right and I respect that. So what many are saying is that it is up to them to swallow the costs of fencing, hay, damages, ect. because they do not want to allow hunters on their own land to attempt to harvest an animal that we ALL own, and because of that they should not be compensated for damages incured by wildlife owned by Albertans?
Seems pretty easy for an individual who resides in an urban environment to believe in that way of thinking if they haven't actually lived a rural lifestyle.


Seems to be you support the idea of paying people to not allow public access for hunting.... :confused:




Question for ya.............who owns the wildlife? Seems like any time outfitters or non-resident hunters are brought up.........we all do. Maybe some should take a little responsiblity for them. It's not a double standard


Exactly, unlike what you seem to be supporting, what we have now is not a double standard.

[greywolf]

Wish you the best of luck in achieving that goal. What you have to realize is that many of these people that refuse access are anti hunting, and you know what, that is their right and I respect that. So what many are saying is that it is up to them to swallow the costs of fencing, hay, damages, ect. because they do not want to allow hunters on their own land to attempt to harvest an animal that we ALL own, and because of that they should not be compensated for damages incured by wildlife owned by Albertans?
Seems pretty easy for an individual who resides in an urban environment to believe in that way of thinking if they haven't actually lived a rural lifestyle.

Like I said,
If your not part of the solution you're part of the problem...

[Jordan Smith]

Read again, not sure where you got that from

In your post above mine you mentioned that perhaps landowners should be compensated for allowing access, and earlier in the thread you were in favour of landowners being compensated for elk eating or destroying their property, even if they don't allow hunters to access the land to help control the elk problem.

[Okotokian]

In your post above mine you mentioned that perhaps landowners should be compensated for allowing access, and earlier in the thread you were in favour of landowners being compensated for elk eating or destroying their property, even if they don't allow hunters to access the land to help control the elk problem.

The two issues should be completely de-coupled. Land owners can chose to allow access or not. That is their perogative and I respect whichever decision they make.

On the other hand, I don't support government compensating business owners for normal business circumstances, disruptions and problems. An elk eats some hay, a bear kills a calf. Is that some amazingly unexpected business outcome? Why as a taxpayer is it my problem? I'm not asked to compensate my grocer if the truck delivering produce goes off the road in a storm. Now I have more sympathy in helping in a catestrophic instance like the mad cow outbreak, but day to day business expenses? Nope.

[Jordan Smith]

The two issues should be completely de-coupled. Land owners can chose to allow access or not. That is their perogative and I respect whichever decision they make.

On the other hand, I don't support government compensating business owners for normal business circumstances, disruptions and problems. An elk eats some hay, a bear kills a calf. Is that some amazingly unexpected business outcome? Why as a taxpayer is it my problem? I'm not asked to compensate my grocer if the truck delivering produce goes off the road in a storm. Now I have more sympathy in helping in a catestrophic instance like the mad cow outbreak, but day to day business expenses? Nope.

Exactly.

Furthermore, a landowner that wants outside assistance, but is very picky about the type of assistance they will accept, reminds me of a guy on the street asking for money because "he's hungry", but denies the offer of a Big Mac. If landowners want help with the elk, they have to accept the help that is offered. If they don't want to accept the help offered by the province/hunting public, then they're on their own to figure out the elk situation.

[landowner]

not the same at all. initial setup of a well takes a chunk of land out of production, so initial payment is higher. once the well is in service, very little land is lost, but there is still some....so payment is made for the difference. hunters cost a landowner nothing. sometimes an idiot does....and the idiot should be made to pay.

Oil companies pay both access {seismic,survey, - no production loss} and damages{wells -production loss}. access is access the way i see it.

[Caleb]

Exactly.

Furthermore, a landowner that wants outside assistance, but is very picky about the type of assistance they will accept, reminds me of a guy on the street asking for money because "he's hungry", but denies the offer of a Big Mac. If landowners want help with the elk, they have to accept the help that is offered. If they don't want to accept the help offered by the province/hunting public, then they're on their own to figure out the elk situation.

X2. Exactly! This used to be called "common sense", but it is obviously a trait in short supply among some landowners these days.

Nothing like complaining to a board full of hunters about how you have too many elk and need help from big daddy government to make things better.:sHa_sarcasticlol: