South Saskatchewan Regional Plan, pay for access?

[bloody arrow]

I got an email regarding the proposed "South Saskatchewan Regional Plan", and the "pay for hunting on private land".
If this is approved, how many hunters will pay for hunting private land?
will this cause a decrease in hunter numbers?
How much are you willing to pay?
How will this affect young, new hunters?
will land owners ask for Proof of Liability Insurance?

not looking good for my hunting.....

what do you think?

[ishootbambi]

i think outfitting is the single biggest reason that it is already happening in alberta. i will never pay....EVER. partly becasue i refuse on principle, but mostly because i have plenty of friends in the area i hunt most.

it is illegal right now...i just wish the fish cops would be willing to do something about it. i have offered proof, but have been told they arent interested in pursuing it.

[bloody arrow]

your friends may be attracted to the $$$ and lease their land to a stranger....?
money changes people. and based on what I saw in the US, the leases went to the highest offers....

that's what is scary, the demand will dictate the price.

[ishootbambi]

there is no two ways about it, prices have gotten right out of hand in the US. even if paid hunting were legalized today, i know i will still have access. it has come up in conversation.

i dont think we would see prices comparable to the us for quite some time though.....too much land including tons of public land available with a relatively low hunter density in comparison would keep demand much lower. i think many landowners in favor of this would find that their place isnt worth what they think it is because of those factors, and it wouldnt take long and they would be whining about crop damage. without enough hunters keeping numbers down, costs would soon outweigh the income from charging for hunting.

there is no doubt that in some cases landowners would be getting a little extra.....we are seeing that right now. its amazing how many AO members are willing to pay and have paid themselves for access and defend the guys charging for it.

[sheephunter]

For me personally, it would sure make life easy. I could tie up some prime pieces of land and not worry about other hunters.

For the hunting public in general...it would be the worst thing ever. Hunter numbers would plummett and hunter recruitment would be dismal.

I do understand why some landowners are pushing for this, however. It would be a nice extra source of income for many that are struggling to make a living, especially the beef guys.

I'm totally opposed the idea because of what it would do to the hunting heritage in Alberta but it is becoming more difficult to prevent when our only real arguement is that we are preserving a heritage......we need to keep up the fight though.

[brother1]

Yup, it's a scary thought. The land would go to the highest bidder probably, and hunting will eventually become an elitist activity for those who can afford to pay the big bucks. If I had a few quarter sections of bush land that didn't make much money, it would be a good way to generate some income though, so it's a tough call. I can't condemn someone for charging for access if its legal to do so, and you could use the money. It will just be a shame if it comes down to it. It will be a loss to the tradition of hunting...I hope we never have to see this problem become a reality.

[silver lab]

How much is the fine for trespassing?:) it might be cheeper......

[walking buffalo]

The South Sask. plan recommends paid access for both Private and PUBLIC Land!

If this goes through, we will have to pay for access to hunt anywhere in the South.

[C & C]

Pay to hunt, get hurt on the land, sue for 100X more = proffit. Though I hope it won't go through.

[flyguyd]

Pay to hunt, get hurt on the land, sue for 100X more = proffit. Though I hope it won't go through.

HHmmmm Goood idea:thinking-006:

[wbl170]

How close is this to going through? I will never pay for access. It will become only for the wealthy. Kinda sad

[Flyfisher87]

Pay to hunt, get hurt on the land, sue for 100X more = proffit. Though I hope it won't go through.

If and when paid access hunting goes through, I could see more landowners having hunters sign a waiver obsolving said landowner from all damages. As the son of a landowner, we have been doing this for years. On our waiver sheets, we have things like vehicle make/model/ license plate number, no camping, no fires, foot access only, no guiding/outfitting, no use of pickers/cranes/tractors to load game among a host of others. But the most important one relevant to this thread is that hunters access and hunt on the land at their own risk and the land owner is not held responsible for theft or damages to hunters, their pets or their property. In simple terms, you shoot your buddy or yourself, or mistake your black truck for a moose and put a bullet through the engine block. Not our problem. I am not going to clear every trail you may walk through the bush just in case you trip over a tree. Good grief. Looks like I retired from hunting at just the right time with attitudes like in the thread I just replied to. Rant over.

[grinr]

The South Sask. plan recommends paid access for both Private and PUBLIC Land!

If this goes through, we will have to pay for access to hunt anywhere in the South.
I'm assuming by "Public land" you are referring to grazing and ag leases,and not the crown forests?
IMO,I ALREADY PAID ENOUGH to hunt on crown....close to $300 in tags,licence fees,draw fees,GST on over $1000 worth of new gear this year,fed and provincial taxes on $2000+ worth of gasoline specifically for hunting,GST on 5-6 nights in motels,and buying myself a new gas guzzling truck next week instead of a gay little SMART car,mainly because a truck suits my lifestyle and recreation needs.....not that I'd ever buy a SMART anyway,lol....but still,you get the big picture?New-to-me quad is on next years list,and maybe an RV/camper trailer of some sort also.......all stuff I could do without quite nicely
if I didn't hunt and fish.Maybe I should just save all those hunting dollars if Alberta govt. doesn't want them and put them towards a nice hunting trip to Alaska or Africa?

Pay to hunt, get hurt on the land, sue for 100X more = proffit. Though I hope it won't go through.
See "waivers" post above. ^^

[pikeslayer22]

I'm assuming by "Public land" you are referring to grazing and ag leases,and not the crown forests?
IMO,I ALREADY PAID ENOUGH to hunt on crown....close to $300 in tags,licence fees,draw fees,GST on over $1000 worth of new gear this year,fed and provincial taxes on $2000+ worth of gasoline specifically for hunting,GST on 5-6 nights in motels,and buying myself a new gas guzzling truck next week instead of a gay little SMART car,mainly because a truck suits my lifestyle and recreation needs.....not that I'd ever buy a SMART anyway,lol....but still,you get the big picture?New-to-me quad is on next years list,and maybe an RV/camper trailer of some sort also.......all stuff I could do without quite nicely
if I didn't hunt and fish.Maybe I should just save all those hunting dollars if Alberta govt. doesn't want them and put them towards a nice hunting trip to Alaska or Africa?


See "waivers" post above. ^^
Or...you could spend all the money that you just talked about and go out and buy a chunk of land you could call your own and do with it as you see fit! Pay all taxes on it and deal with trespasser's.

[grinr]

Or...you could spend all the money that you just talked about and go out and buy a chunk of land you could call your own and do with it as you see fit! Pay all taxes on it and deal with trespasser's.

Good idea!
Now if I could only just find a property for that same $100K that has an abundance of deer,elk,moose,antelope,bears,sheep,cougars,wolves ,coyotes,ducks,geese,grouse,turkeys and pheasant,with low priorities or general tags for all the critters I like to hunt,and a blue ribbon trout stream running through the middle of it all.....hell yea,I'd be all over that deal.
:snapoutofit:

[walking buffalo]

I'm assuming by "Public land" you are referring to grazing and ag leases,and not the crown forests?
IMO,I ALREADY PAID ENOUGH to hunt on crown....close to $300 in tags,licence fees,draw fees,GST on over $1000 worth of new gear this year,fed and provincial taxes on $2000+ worth of gasoline specifically for hunting,GST on 5-6 nights in motels,and buying myself a new gas guzzling truck next week instead of a gay little SMART car,mainly because a truck suits my lifestyle and recreation needs.....not that I'd ever buy a SMART anyway,lol....but still,you get the big picture?New-to-me quad is on next years list,and maybe an RV/camper trailer of some sort also.......all stuff I could do without quite nicely
if I didn't hunt and fish.Maybe I should just save all those hunting dollars if Alberta govt. doesn't want them and put them towards a nice hunting trip to Alaska or Africa?


See "waivers" post above. ^^


According to the recommendation submitted to the government, holders of a "Disposition" (grazing lease, forestry, oil/gas, mining, trail ride, Outfitter, Nature walk guide, Kids Camp, etc....) on any public land could potentially charge for access. Inessence, every acre of Public land would qualify. One might even have to pay several different people in order to gain access....

The dirty details of how such a scheme would work have not been released, not that it really matters. Say goodbye to the concept of Public Land....

[Walleyes]

If a lot of this goes through as some are suggesting and as severe as some are suggesting,, I'll move !! You all know I am a staunch, proud Albertan,, but if they take my rights away I have no problem loading up the bus and heading out. I will not be controled by this left wing government.. The north is looking better every day..

[ram crazy]

I can see poaching increase!!!!!

[C & C]

If and when paid access hunting goes through, I could see more landowners having hunters sign a waiver obsolving said landowner from all damages. As the son of a landowner, we have been doing this for years. On our waiver sheets, we have things like vehicle make/model/ license plate number, no camping, no fires, foot access only, no guiding/outfitting, no use of pickers/cranes/tractors to load game among a host of others. But the most important one relevant to this thread is that hunters access and hunt on the land at their own risk and the land owner is not held responsible for theft or damages to hunters, their pets or their property. In simple terms, you shoot your buddy or yourself, or mistake your black truck for a moose and put a bullet through the engine block. Not our problem. I am not going to clear every trail you may walk through the bush just in case you trip over a tree. Good grief. Looks like I retired from hunting at just the right time with attitudes like in the thread I just replied to. Rant over.

First off it was a joke, esh some people sure lack any humor.
Just FYI a homemade wavier will not hold up in any court, you will need lawyers to draft the wavier and witnesses for both parties involved and you will need a clause for every situation you can think of and then some for the ones you can’t. As soon as someone pays to use your land/car/anything you are responsible. Of course you will pay loads of money to insurance to be covered but I don’t think this is going to be the free money most people think it is.:thinking-006:

[270WIN]

It's just one more step in the Redford government's agenda to wreck this province. Hopefully we can get it stopped by putting enough pressure on them through the public consultation process which is supposed to take place with respect to the Regional Plan Proposals. If we don't, things look pretty bleak for this and future generations of hunters in the Province of Alberta. Frankly, I'm not real optimistic.
From what I gather from a quick look at the ESRD website, the Regional Plan Proposals are something that has come out of the 2008 Land Use Framework which was a brain child of Ted Morton's. You remember him. He's the one who was going to look out for our best interests as hunters because he is one himself. We got rid of him but not in time it would seem and look at what we've got instead.

[Peace Country]

I am against this whole concept of paid access for recreation activities ie.hunting, fishing camping, hiking ect. As a Alberta resident hunter 1st and a licenced APOS outfitter this is all wrong in so many ways. We need to have our Alberta Government stop all talk of paid access to private and public land. People this is our land and as tax paying Alberta resident we all own it together. If this goes through it will most likely be based on the US style of paid access. I know a lot of farmers in the area that we hunt would like to see themselves be financial compensated for allowing accessing their land owned or leased land. We have lots of US freelance waterfowl hunters in our area that offer to pay local farmers all the time for leasing their land for hunting the whole season. Most of these US style of hunting leases dictates that only the lessee and who ever he allows are allowed to hunt the leased lands which most times does not allow the farmer to hunt his own land as he has leased these right away to the lessee for said years. I have lots of clients that are floored that we don't pay farmers for leasing there land as it is there land. Lots of US clients are more then willing to put up large sums of money to lease land for the purpose of hunting for the whole year, so if the Alberta Government allows this to happen we will have lots of neighbours to the south anti up large sums of money to lease land for hunting, and fishing access. Albertans will loose out period. Lots of good hunting leases go for 10-15 dollars per acre per year so $1,600- $2,400 per year per quarter there will be lots of farmers leasing there land you bet on that.. Again I say this is wrong we as Alberta residents need to stop the paid access in it's tract or it will be a very slippery slope we will take if it goes ahead.

[Lakehunter]

Contact your local MLA with any concerns. Ohh thats right, the South voted Wildrose. Whoops my bad!!!!!!!

[Sneeze]

HHmmmm Goood idea:thinking-006:

It isn't far from being a good idea.

Charging for access is a different ball game. A landowner would be trying to straddle the line between agriculture & tourism.

If a business or individual charges for access, he is expected to provide a good/safe experience for his clients. Much like if you paid for a hunt, you would expect some of the small details to be worked out.

It would be like selling pizza out of my truck while I framed houses. They are two different industries with completely different costs & scopes of operation.

If a rancher tells me a road is safe to drive on, and I drive into a ditch - I expect him to pay for my damage. Much like if I am building a house and a pizza customer falls into the electrical service trench. See what I am getting at here? Be a rancher? Great. Be a Outfitter selling access to land? Great. Being both - very hard. Your crops are standing wet but you have taken $5k from some goose hunters that expect some spilled seed in that quarter by Saturday?

I have said it before on this issue. Say I purchase a pheasant hunt and fall in a badger hole and break my ankle, also assume I can prove the landowner knew it was there but did nothing about - I will sue. That's not being an *****, its being smart. Business is a two way street. Payment <> Service. The landowners that endorse paid access are forgetting about the service part.

Let's hear them discuss the business plan? Insurance/Liability, Taxation? Or lets get really crazy here and assume that wildlife is owned by the people of Alberta. What about royalties?

I understand this issues have not surfaced in the states (except the liability) but Canada has a WAY smaller demand for the product and an abundant supply.

[270WIN]

I am against this whole concept of paid access for recreation activities ie.hunting, fishing camping, hiking ect. As a Alberta resident hunter 1st and a licenced APOS outfitter this is all wrong in so many ways. We need to have our Alberta Government stop all talk of paid access to private and public land. People this is our land and as tax paying Alberta resident we all own it together. If this goes through it will most likely be based on the US style of paid access. I know a lot of farmers in the area that we hunt would like to see themselves be financial compensated for allowing accessing their land owned or leased land. We have lots of US freelance waterfowl hunters in our area that offer to pay local farmers all the time for leasing their land for hunting the whole season. Most of these US style of hunting leases dictates that only the lessee and who ever he allows are allowed to hunt the leased lands which most times does not allow the farmer to hunt his own land as he has leased these right away to the lessee for said years. I have lots of clients that are floored that we don't pay farmers for leasing there land as it is there land. Lots of US clients are more then willing to put up large sums of money to lease land for the purpose of hunting for the whole year, so if the Alberta Government allows this to happen we will have lots of neighbours to the south anti up large sums of money to lease land for hunting, and fishing access. Albertans will loose out period. Lots of good hunting leases go for 10-15 dollars per acre per year so $1,600- $2,400 per year per quarter there will be lots of farmers leasing there land you bet on that.. Again I say this is wrong we as Alberta residents need to stop the paid access in it's tract or it will be a very slippery slope we will take if it goes ahead.

Excellent post. Thank you. We really need to do whatever we can to get this thing stopped. Once paid hunting is legalized there will be no getting rid of it.

[270WIN]

For what it may be worth, the ESRD website has an "on line workbook" which is essentially a questionaire inviting public input on the South Sask Regional Plan Proposal. While it doesn't address the issue of paid hunting in so many words, it does ask for input on the committee's recommendations. In several places there are recommendations which are obviously intended to be interpreted so as to encompass the concept of user-pay fees,access charges etc. for all forms of recreation including hunting. There are also spaces throughout for individual thoughts and comments. So there is plenty of opportunity to make one's views known on the subject of paid hunting.
I've completed it (with my comments) and submitted it. I warn you, to fill it in completely is time consuming. However you don't have to answer all the questions in order to submit it.
I'm not suggesting using this as a substitute for a letter to your MLA but it may be something to consider doing in addition to making our thoughts known to the MLAs.
I believe it has to be submitted by December 21, 2012.

[bloody arrow]

I am against this whole concept of paid access for recreation activities ie.hunting, fishing camping, hiking ect. As a Alberta resident hunter 1st and a licenced APOS outfitter this is all wrong in so many ways. We need to have our Alberta Government stop all talk of paid access to private and public land. People this is our land and as tax paying Alberta resident we all own it together. If this goes through it will most likely be based on the US style of paid access. I know a lot of farmers in the area that we hunt would like to see themselves be financial compensated for allowing accessing their land owned or leased land. We have lots of US freelance waterfowl hunters in our area that offer to pay local farmers all the time for leasing their land for hunting the whole season. Most of these US style of hunting leases dictates that only the lessee and who ever he allows are allowed to hunt the leased lands which most times does not allow the farmer to hunt his own land as he has leased these right away to the lessee for said years. I have lots of clients that are floored that we don't pay farmers for leasing there land as it is there land. Lots of US clients are more then willing to put up large sums of money to lease land for the purpose of hunting for the whole year, so if the Alberta Government allows this to happen we will have lots of neighbours to the south anti up large sums of money to lease land for hunting, and fishing access. Albertans will loose out period. Lots of good hunting leases go for 10-15 dollars per acre per year so $1,600- $2,400 per year per quarter there will be lots of farmers leasing there land you bet on that.. Again I say this is wrong we as Alberta residents need to stop the paid access in it's tract or it will be a very slippery slope we will take if it goes ahead.

I will think they will the first to buy and they have the money to secure most of the land....

[sheephunter]

Just had this sent to me by Lethbridge Fish and Game:

Hello :
If you disagree with the concept of paid hunting could you please take action now and email the Government of Alberta with your concerns. The deadline for submissions is this Friday
Here is a request from Wayne Lowry who is a very active volunteer in the LFGA community and the 2nd. Vice President of the Alberta Fish and Game Association.

LFGA Memebers

Here is a quick way to let the Government know through the SSRP that we are against “Paid Hunting”. You don’t have to complete the workbook or any other document. Just send in the attachment. Hint: if you more than one e-mail account as many of us do – send one in from all of your e-mail accounts and get anyone else to do the same. For more information on this issue you can check out the LFGA website by CLICKING HERE.

Friday Dec. 21st is the last day to get this sent in.... this coming Friday so please do this NOW!!!

Thanks!

R. Wayne Lowry,
2nd Vice President
Alberta Fish & Game Association
Tel: (403) 756-3343
E-mail: waynelowry@rocketmail.com

Just cut and paste the message below into your email and make it your own by adding some words of your own to express concern and then send it to LUF@gov.ab.ca :

Regarding the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan

I do not agree with the proposal regarding with item below.
Related to the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan

Please do not implement “Paid Hunting in AB!”
5.3.14.2 Respect private property rights by developing a suite of conservation and stewardship tools (e.g., economic and market - based incentives, conservation easements, transferable development credits, mitigation banking and paid access for hunting) that can be voluntarily used by landowners and disposition holders to help sustain biodiversity.

[270WIN]

Thanks for posting the above, Sheep. Two emails sent to the gov't from our house - one from me and one from my wife.
Much easier than filling out the damn work book.

[oldgutpile]

Lease holders need to give this whole concept a real review. By opening up paid access, what is to stop me and my buddies from buying up the leases as they come available, and turning them all into a paid access business? Where does that leave the ranchers?

I took the painful survey that was posted online here a while back. It was the usual pre-determined govt B.S format, that already had the outcome decided. I blasted them on numerous questions that were obviously twisted to favor their desired outcome. Just another way of making "public consultation" work in their favor.

[Dale S]

Thanks for posting the above, Sheep. Two emails sent to the gov't from our house - one from me and one from my wife.
Much easier than filling out the damn work book.

X2

[270WIN]

I took the painful survey that was posted online here a while back. It was the usual pre-determined govt B.S format, that already had the outcome decided. I blasted them on numerous questions that were obviously twisted to favor their desired outcome. Just another way of making "public consultation" work in their favor.

Very well put. I assume you are referring to the so-called "work book". I agree completely with your description of the wording of many of the questions. I wish I'd thought of the words you used first.:)

The important thing is to let them know, on no uncertain terms, that the concept of paid hunting is absolutely unacceptable to Albertans and that they won't be able to blow it past us by using bureaucratic doubletalk and oblique refences to such things as private property rights.

[eric2381]

Thanks for posting the above, Sheep. Two emails sent to the gov't from our house - one from me and one from my wife.
Much easier than filling out the damn work book.


Thanks also. I sent in my email and forwarded this on to 57 other people. I hope people spread the word and the people that hear about it, DO SOMETHING.

I called my local MLA twice today. Of course the first call he was busy with somebody else and they took a message. The second call he was out of the office for the day. AAARRGGHH!

[ram crazy]

[QUOTE=oldgutpile;1755765]Lease holders need to give this whole concept a real review. By opening up paid access, what is to stop me and my buddies from buying up the leases as they come available, and turning them all into a paid access business? Where does that leave the ranchers?


Its not that easy to just go buy up leases.