Majority poll- do you support $30/year random camping fee?

[Map Maker]

All information is on this thread. Here. http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=396687

Poll to last till March 31.
I’m good with majority and will support such.

Note: your vote is public

[Dark Wing]

I voted no because I’m pretty sure the fees will go straight into the caufers and shipped East. Alberta needs to inforce its current laws and Quebec needs to pay for its own daycare.

[Smoky buck]

Enforcement of present laws and increased fines for offenders I would support but I will not support a user fee for public land

[Reeves1]

Ya, another TAX will cure all.....:sHa_sarcasticlol:

[Mulehahn]

I voted no to this exact question.

I support "A" fee. I have to buy a fishing license to fish, a hunting license to hunt. Those are finite resources. But so is land. Those that use it should pay to maintain it. That being said, the existing proposal to guarantee the funds raised will go towards that. If a proposal for $30 was put forward that guaranteed all funds raised would go directly to maintenance and enforcement I would agree. But as it is, just a tax grab. No matter what they say.

[Redfrog]

"The ministry is still determining whether the annual fee will apply to public lands across the province or just in areas with the heaviest use. The province will likely exempt Indigenous Albertans from having to get a permit. "

Oh my!!! Do you think at some point leaselands will be included?

Would it be possible with $30 annual permit to pitch my tent along the red deer river on a rancher's lease, during hunting season.:thinking-006:

[ram crazy]

The province will likely exempt Indigenous Albertans from having to get a permit. "

Drive across any reservation and see how clean their back yards are!! Prefect candidates to be exempt from having to get a permit to use crown lands.

[wildwoods]

I voted yes by accident.

I don’t understand how we can get duped into thinking this isn’t a general revenue tax grab that will do ZIP to address the current issues. Similar to how carbon tax is somehow a benefit to the environment

[huntsfurfish]

I voted No.

Only because I think it is time to end random camping. Build more campgrounds and concentrate the **** and other crap in a contained area. Charge a fee in the campgrounds that have toilets and fire pits already there.

Times have changed.
Over 4 million people in AB now. Forestry looks messy.

To many people now to not leave a mark.

Its time!

[calgarygringo]

No....because it still is not going to fix the problem. We have twice the population we used to and not double the campgrounds. With all the people having no where to go it almost forces people to go random camping. Not that I have a problem with it as I am a longtime random camper but the new era random camper has no concern for the land, keeping it as it was, cleaning up your garbage after and on and on. Having people camp in a more controlled situation would be much better at this point. The 30 bucks is just extra cash and does nothing to control out if control campers.

[Howard Hutchinson]

No for me. Build on what is in place and leave the rest of nature, to nature. Where will it end if this was come to pass.

To those who voted yes, why did you vote yes?

[tri777]

I think everyone who voted yes should immediately kick in $30 for AO..it's our cyber camp ground..

[RandyBoBandy]

I think everyone who voted yes should immediately kick in $30 for AO..it's our cyber camp ground..

I'm in :sHa_sarcasticlol:

[wind drift]

I voted No.

Only because I think it is time to end random camping. Build more campgrounds and concentrate the **** and other crap in a contained area. Charge a fee in the campgrounds that have toilets and fire pits already there.

Times have changed.
Over 4 million people in AB now. Forestry looks messy.

To many people now to not leave a mark.

Its time!


Your point resonates with me. I recall a recent trip to Montana. State parks are abundant and rules appear strictly enforced. I didn’t find “random” camping anywhere. No backcountry RV villages, ATV rodeo grounds or abandoned junkyards. The Land of the Free seems to have figured out that unregulated freedom leads to reckless abuse. It was just a short glimpse as a visitor and I might be wrong in my views.

[Outbound]

I voted No.

Only because I think it is time to end random camping. Build more campgrounds and concentrate the **** and other crap in a contained area. Charge a fee in the campgrounds that have toilets and fire pits already there.

Times have changed.
Over 4 million people in AB now. Forestry looks messy.

To many people now to not leave a mark.

Its time!

I vehemently disagree with you, though I voted No to the extra tax. I'm not interested in camping in a campground, surrounded by people who are drinking, playing music, drviing around in ATV's and running generators while cigarette and pot smoke wafts across my site. I'll wild camp by myself in the middle of nowhere thank you very much, and clean up after myself like I always do.

Instead of ruining things for people like me, why don't people like you help me pressure the government to fund stronger enforcement and massive fines for people who abuse the wilderness.

[Fisherdan]

No....because it still is not going to fix the problem. We have twice the population we used to and not double the campgrounds. With all the people having no where to go it almost forces people to go random camping. Not that I have a problem with it as I am a longtime random camper but the new era random camper has no concern for the land, keeping it as it was, cleaning up your garbage after and on and on. Having people camp in a more controlled situation would be much better at this point. The 30 bucks is just extra cash and does nothing to control out if control campers.

Good points. Nothing of significance built in 30 years.

[huntwat]

No for me. Build on what is in place and leave the rest of nature, to nature. Where will it end if this was come to pass.

To those who voted yes, why did you vote yes?
I voted yes. And have been advocating a user fee for several years now.
But... the user fees must go directly to enforcement and fines must be increased immensely. Sometimes huge fines are the best, or only education.
Also, I do know that this $30 charge is unfair to all of us that are perfect campers, but it is a small fee to pay to be able to continue random camping. Because, we would be irate with the other option.
At the moment we pay nothing to use crown land. We don’t own it, if we did we would be paying a mortgage.
Our taxes do go towards some crown land, national parks. But, when we get to the gate we get charged to use the park. Doesn’t make sense. Charge foreigners not taxpayers.

Additionally, this is a racist user fee. Please treat natives equally.

Why did you vote no?

[JDK71]

no just a cash grab

[fishinisgood]

I vehemently disagree with you, though I voted No to the extra tax. I'm not interested in camping in a campground, surrounded by people who are drinking, playing music, drviing around in ATV's and running generators while cigarette and pot smoke wafts across my site. I'll wild camp by myself in the middle of nowhere thank you very much, and clean up after myself like I always do.

Instead of ruining things for people like me, why don't people like you help me pressure the government to fund stronger enforcement and massive fines for people who abuse the wilderness.


Yes Yes Yes

[Simplefarmer]

I voted No.

Only because I think it is time to end random camping. Build more campgrounds and concentrate the **** and other crap in a contained area. Charge a fee in the campgrounds that have toilets and fire pits already there.

Times have changed.
Over 4 million people in AB now. Forestry looks messy.

To many people now to not leave a mark.

Its time!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with random camping, building more concentration camps for tin tents solves nothing IMO. Pigs will continue to litter and trash the back country no matter what rules / laws are in place.

You should have to apply with a photo of your legal residence and what condition you keep your private property in and be billed accordingly... :)

It always amazes me how poorly some keep their postage stamp size lots in town, it is no wonder why these same people feel the right to pollute and destroy crown land.

Jim

[Howard Hutchinson]

I voted yes. And have been advocating a user fee for several years now.
But... the user fees must go directly to enforcement and fines must be increased immensely. Sometimes huge fines are the best, or only education.
Also, I do know that this $30 charge is unfair to all of us that are perfect campers, but it is a small fee to pay to be able to continue random camping. Because, we would be irate with the other option.
At the moment we pay nothing to use crown land. We don’t own it, if we did we would be paying a mortgage.
Our taxes do go towards some crown land, national parks. But, when we get to the gate we get charged to use the park. Doesn’t make sense. Charge foreigners not taxpayers.

Additionally, this is a racist user fee. Please treat natives equally.

Why did you vote no?
>>
1- Cost to oversee
2- Cost to follow-through on tickets given out
3- Everyone and there dog camping where ever they want
4- Litter left behind, because we know it will be very bad (see 1, 2 & 3
above) Many may abide yet the number who won't will quickly quell any
supposed benefits from it.
5- Burden on nature (see 3 & 4 above)
6- UTV traffic in these areas would in and of itself be hard to control
7- During high forest fire potential, this would be another area needing to be
overseen

I am very much for camping and people getting out to see what natures beauty is all about, please understand this. Yet people-kind have shown over and over and over again, some simply cannot abide and take good care of what we have. So what even bother.

[huntwat]

>>
1- Cost to oversee
2- Cost to follow-through on tickets given out
3- Everyone and there dog camping where ever they want
4- Litter left behind, because we know it will be very bad (see 1, 2 & 3
above) Many may abide yet the number who won't will quickly quell any
supposed benefits from it.
5- Burden on nature (see 3 & 4 above)
6- UTV traffic in these areas would in and of itself be hard to control
7- During high forest fire potential, this would be another area needing to be
overseen

I am very much for camping and people getting out to see what natures beauty is all about, please understand this. Yet people-kind have shown over and over and over again, some simply cannot abide and take good care of what we have. So what even bother.
Sounds like you want random camping shutdown?

[Pav]

As it's been said, enforce the current regs and the fines will more than pay for the enforcement.

[Howard Hutchinson]

Sounds like you want random camping shutdown?
>>
I know it does yet I am not against it. I feel setting this $30.00/year scenario will set up an all but free for all with pieces falling where they may.
Hunters, fishermen and genuine campers have been doing this forever, yet not with a $30.00/year advertisement

Something off the cuff. Have a document on line with all of the questions needing to be answered and tied to a single individual. This might include everything from what you are sleeping in, area you are planning on camping, the number of people in your group to how you are taking care of the latrine aspects and/or where you plan on dumping your sewage. From here we go with rates to be paid?

Have a deadline to make your camping plans a week in advance at the minimum, giving the officials the time needed to schedule oversight during the stay

Having one persons name tied to it will make them responsible and/or receive the citation, if one is handed out..

There could be much more added to help out, for sure. But the $30.00 per year worries me, that all.

[Redfrog]

The fee may have the opposite effect. why should I may the extra effort to leave the campsite better than I found it? The gov't is getting all the revenue, let them hire someone to clean up.:thinking-006:

[huntwat]

The fee may have the opposite effect. why should I may the extra effort to leave the campsite better than I found it? The gov't is getting all the revenue, let them hire someone to clean up.:thinking-006:

Yea, I have thought this may happen also. But, like I mentioned earlier, large fines may be the only way to educate.

[Sritzer]

Agree. Need better control of what’s currently in place but fees don’t work


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zabbo]

I vehemently disagree with you, though I voted No to the extra tax. I'm not interested in camping in a campground, surrounded by people who are drinking, playing music, drviing around in ATV's and running generators while cigarette and pot smoke wafts across my site. I'll wild camp by myself in the middle of nowhere thank you very much, and clean up after myself like I always do.

Instead of ruining things for people like me, why don't people like you help me pressure the government to fund stronger enforcement and massive fines for people who abuse the wilderness.

These things you say are pretty much what random camping has become. Even in the middle of nowhere you aren't likely to be alone. Last summer in particular it would have been extremely hard if not impossible to find a place where there wasn't already a few units set up. Next long weekend take a cruise through the gravel pit just north of Dutch Creek campground or Caesars flats about 8 Km west. Small cities with bikes, quads and side by sides operated by persons anywhere from 3 to 80 years old. No doubt lots of beer, cigarettes and weed consumed as well. These same units were all over the roads and the forest. Every trail had some one camping. There were even trailers and tents set up practically on the road where I've never seen anyone before.

I voted yes, but only if the money goes to enforcement, protection and preservation. I tried, unsuccessfully, on the other thread to point out an officer almost has to witness an offence in order to charge anyone. I'm all for lots of enforcement and very heavy fines, but it's very difficult to convict.

I have watched the influx of campers on weekends. Myself and a fishing buddy have estimated the cost of units headed to Caesars flats. It really gets going Thursday afternoon before a weekend. Friday afternoon and evening is like Deerfoot rush hour before covid. Trucks at about $50 to $80k. Bumper pull and 5th wheels anywhere from $20 to $100k. Motor homes again $50 to $150 k. Lots of these units are toy haulers crammed with another $30 to $50k in bikes quads and side by sides. These folks are actually going to whine about a $30 fee to park their unit for an entire summer? I get the fact many people feel it's just another tax and I'm dead against that, but really? :thinking-006:

[Redneck 7]

I voted no because the fees most likely won’t do crap to the bad habits of the few that wreck it for the many. The 30 dollar charge won’t create extra jobs for people to enforce. I’m also tired of having to pay a tax to do anything I want to in this world. Plus once a tax is implemented, there’s no removing it and it only gets higher and higher.

[Outbound]

These things you say are pretty much what random camping has become. Even in the middle of nowhere you aren't likely to be alone. Last summer in particular it would have been extremely hard if not impossible to find a place where there wasn't already a few units set up. Next long weekend take a cruise through the gravel pit just north of Dutch Creek campground or Caesars flats about 8 Km west. Small cities with bikes, quads and side by sides operated by persons anywhere from 3 to 80 years old. No doubt lots of beer, cigarettes and weed consumed as well. These same units were all over the roads and the forest. Every trail had some one camping. There were even trailers and tents set up practically on the road where I've never seen anyone before.

I voted yes, but only if the money goes to enforcement, protection and preservation. I tried, unsuccessfully, on the other thread to point out an officer almost has to witness an offence in order to charge anyone. I'm all for lots of enforcement and very heavy fines, but it's very difficult to convict.

I have watched the influx of campers on weekends. Myself and a fishing buddy have estimated the cost of units headed to Caesars flats. It really gets going Thursday afternoon before a weekend. Friday afternoon and evening is like Deerfoot rush hour before covid. Trucks at about $50 to $80k. Bumper pull and 5th wheels anywhere from $20 to $100k. Motor homes again $50 to $150 k. Lots of these units are toy haulers crammed with another $30 to $50k in bikes quads and side by sides. These folks are actually going to whine about a $30 fee to park their unit for an entire summer? I get the fact many people feel it's just another tax and I'm dead against that, but really? :thinking-006:

Things must be different down south. There are some popular spots here that might have 3 or 4 trailers at a time but I haven't shared a spot with anyone in years. That said, you can't get a travel trailer into the places I go either, at least not without damaging it badly.

The whole point of camping, especially wild camping, is to get away from people. Still lots of empty public land out there, you just need to look for it and be willing to sleep in a tent. I'll never support an extra tax, no matter how small. Honestly, if they do bring it in I'd consider not paying it. Never seen a fish cop anywhere I go either.

Are they going to send officers around to everyone wild camping to check for a permit? Why not put in the same effort and enforce existing laws and hand put massove fines for littering and damaging the environment instead of levying yet another tax?

[zabbo]

Things must be different down south. There are some popular spots here that might have 3 or 4 trailers at a time but I haven't shared a spot with anyone in years. That said, you can't get a travel trailer into the places I go either, at least not without damaging it badly.

The whole point of camping, especially wild camping, is to get away from people. Still lots of empty public land out there, you just need to look for it and be willing to sleep in a tent. I'll never support an extra tax, no matter how small. Honestly, if they do bring it in I'd consider not paying it. Never seen a fish cop anywhere I go either.

Are they going to send officers around to everyone wild camping to check for a permit? Why not put in the same effort and enforce existing laws and hand put massove fines for littering and damaging the environment instead of levying yet another tax?


If you can still find empty places, don't tell soul where they are. Last year lots of nice people advertised the Dutch creek area on few different social media platforms. Facebook etc. Result, an absolute explosion of campers and the inevitable garbage dump.

I'm all for major enforcement and huge fines, but as I keep trying to point out, it's not that simple. Last summer there was a group that stayed next to some friends of ours in the campground. About five or six 25 to 30 year olds. There was outhouse about 150 yards away, but they left piles of poop and toilet paper all over the place 20 to 30 feet out of the campsite. If that wasn't bad enough, one of the females ( notice I don't call her a lady ) in the party changed a feminine hygiene product in the driveway of a campsite, left the used one one and the wrapper for the new one right there. A day later our friends found the same "treat" under the slide of their trailer. Our friends told the compliance and bathroom people. Should have been easy to track them down with a license number. CO,s said a waste of their time. No witness, no proof, no charge. This is mentality of some of the people out there.

:argue2:

[huntwat]

The one main reason for “overpopulation “ is the closure of a few area to random camping. McLean creek and castle come to mind. Open these areas back up and a lot of the overpop is no longer a problem.
And, other than the long weekends, it’s not nearly as bad as Zabbo would like you to think.

[creeky]

Tired of paying for the rabble-enforce the rules and ticket the bad actors. Same as auto insurance rates and crappy drivers, don't penalize those that follow the rules.

Enforce the rules, it will straighten out quick time once the heavier fines and word gets out.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[zabbo]

The one main reason for “overpopulation “ is the closure of a few area to random camping. McLean creek and castle come to mind. Open these areas back up and a lot of the overpop is no longer a problem.
And, other than the long weekends, it’s not nearly as bad as Zabbo would like you to think.

Last year it actually was as bad as I'm saying. Long weekends were just crazier than the rest. Even week mid week was pretty crazy! if the other areas ore opened up it won't change much. :)

[zabbo]

[QUOTE=creeky;4351191]Tired of paying for the rabble-enforce the rules and ticket the bad actors. Same as auto insurance rates and crappy drivers, don't penalize those that follow the rules.

Enforce the rules, it will straighten out quick time once the heavier fines and word gets out.

As I have been tying to say, I understand and agree with you! Problem is charging the guilty is not so easy. Making the charge and fine stick is a whole different ball game! Our injustice system lets known murderers walk free!
:snapoutofit:

[huntwat]

Last year it actually was as bad as I'm saying. Long weekends were just crazier than the rest. Even week mid week was pretty crazy! if the other areas ore opened up it won't change much. :)

I guess I was just there on the “good” weekends then.
I don’t see how opening these other areas up wouldn’t make a difference. I sure noticed a difference when they were closed down.

[Howard Hutchinson]

If you can still find empty places, don't tell soul where they are. Last year lots of nice people advertised the Dutch creek area on few different social media platforms. Facebook etc. Result, an absolute explosion of campers and the inevitable garbage dump.

I'm all for major enforcement and huge fines, but as I keep trying to point out, it's not that simple. Last summer there was a group that stayed next to some friends of ours in the campground. About five or six 25 to 30 year olds. There was outhouse about 150 yards away, but they left piles of poop and toilet paper all over the place 20 to 30 feet out of the campsite. If that wasn't bad enough, one of the females ( notice I don't call her a lady ) in the party changed a feminine hygiene product in the driveway of a campsite, left the used one one and the wrapper for the new one right there. A day later our friends found the same "treat" under the slide of their trailer. Our friends told the compliance and bathroom people. Should have been easy to track them down with a license number. CO,s said a waste of their time. No witness, no proof, no charge. This is mentality of some of the people out there.

:argue2:
>>
This is exactly what I an talking about and unless someone is caught dead to rights, they will walk. Good luck trying to pin a $100.00 fine or a $1,000.00 fine on them.

[anthony5]

The one main reason for “overpopulation “ is the closure of a few area to random camping. McLean creek and castle come to mind. Open these areas back up and a lot of the overpop is no longer a problem.
And, other than the long weekends, it’s not nearly as bad as Zabbo would like you to think.

Ya, it was as bad as Zabbo said it was. Anywhere south of Hiway 532( Chain Lakes road) and junction of forestry trunk road south past Racehorse Creek campground was an absolute gong show. Been camping in that area for 40 some years, long weekends didn't even factor in to the amount of campers out there last year. Not sure where you camped but good on ya. I do realize this is mostly crown land for all to use if you do it respectfully, if the same situation is going to happen again this year 30 bucks ain't near enough. More enforcement and fines are needed but not going to hold my breath.

[Map Maker]

Last chance to vote.
Pretty close

[lannie]

Supply and demand. Raise it until the crowds thin out. 60 to 70 would be a good start.

[MrDave]

Drive across any reservation and see how clean their back yards are!! Prefect candidates to be exempt from having to get a permit to use crown lands.

Aww look another racist on this site.

[jeprli]

Maybe get out more Dave and see for yourself, pointing out an obvious fact does not make one a racist.

[crazy_davey]

Aww look another racist on this site.

Give it a rest. Not racist if pointing out the truth.

[Map Maker]

Poll is done.

Majority of AO does not support the current government proposed legislation of $30/year fee for random camping users.

Considering the vote count, I do feel we are open to a revised legislation of the current proposal.

One reoccurring comment is lack of a detailed plan of action on how the fees would be used.
I think with a revisement of the current proposal that includes a detailed action plan, Mr. Nixon will get approval from AO.

[Reddin]

Poll is done.

Majority of AO does not support the current government proposed legislation of $30/year fee for random camping.


But have no problem spending $20 a day for a pack of butts.

[I’d rather be outdoors]

Poll is done.

Majority of AO does not support the current government proposed legislation of $30/year fee for random camping users.

Considering the vote count, I do feel we are open to a revised legislation of the current proposal.

One reoccurring comment is lack of a detailed plan of action on how the fees would be used.
I think with a revisement of the current proposal that includes a detailed action plan, Mr. Nixon will get approval from AO.

Think that a revision to legislation would have been an interesting 3rd option for the poll. I interpret this result as a pure NO/altogether rejection of the idea. Or to be clear, that’s how I voted.

[Howard Hutchinson]

But have no problem spending $20 a day for a pack of butts.
>>
I think the delta between the two is planets apart

[Reddin]

>>
I think the delta between the two is planets apart

∆idon't

[Map Maker]

Think that a revision to legislation would have been an interesting 3rd option for the poll. I interpret this result as a pure NO/altogether rejection of the idea. Or to be clear, that’s how I voted.

True
But a 3rd option could have split the vote.

It is a pure no as it sits with the majority.
But the government also has the power to force this on us.
I think some very good points were made for both sides.
Ball is in their court.