Councillors for the County of Spirit River Lobbying for Elk Cull
 

Now before everyone gets all wound up about this there are a whole bunch of unanswered questions.

1. First off, what is the level of landowner support for this. Has the County surveyed land owners - no they haven't becasue all the ones I have talked to haven't been consulted at all - or is this a reaction to a few people complaining to their councillor
2. How much is being driven by the cutbacks at AFSC
   
3. What is the actual current Elk herd vs historical, and given this wasn't a bad year winter wise what prompted this all of a sudden
4. Just exactly how would they propose to "Round Up" wild Elk
5. Is there an option to issue Elk hunters two or three cow tags if there really needs to be a cull

That is just the surface of the problem and the initial set of questions. I certainly plan to talk to a bunch more people as well as the Councillors and Reeve plus the local MLA to get the full story. Before guys go nuts, if you hunt up there you might want to talk to the landowners that give you permission to assess their view and perspective on this. As hunters there is no point in getting this blocked and then having no permission because you became part of the problem. If a large number of landowners are in favour of a cull because depredation has become a big probleml, can we find a good way to accomplish it.



https://www.thecentralpeacesignal.ca...-get-trampled/


MD proposes elk herds cull as farmlands get trampled

April 26, 2021
https://www.thecentralpeacesignal.ca...021/04/elk.jpgAn elk was sighted on a field south of Wanham on Friday, April 23. The Municipal District of Spirit River No. 133 is proposing a mass cull of elk herds in the area as a way to control the damage they brought on farm fields. // Photo by Lynn Connell The Municipal District of Spirit River No. 133 is proposing a mass cull of wild elk herds in the area as a way to deal with elk intrusions into farmlands – often leaving a wide swath of destruction on unharvested crops. To set its plan in motion, the MD has written to Agriculture Minister Devin Dreeshen, raising the sentiment of area farm producers over the destructuve nature of these elk intrusions.
“This would, in effect, be an elk-reduction program – something which needed the approval from the provincial government,” Councillor Elaine Garrow told The Central Peace Signal. “We know from frequent sightings of elk herds that there are far too many of them in our area. Farmers would tell you the elk population in our area needs to be controlled because of the destruction elk herds often brought to our farms.”
She is hoping the province would get on board with the plan, which involves not only rounding up the elk and culling them in large numbers – “with the meat being professionally butchered at inspected facilities” – but also donating the meat to food banks in Alberta as well as homes for seniors.
“We believe that this option would assist to lower the elk pressure on our farmlands while also supporting residents during these challenging times,” the MD letter states.
Mel Duvall, who grows wheat, barley, peas and canola on a field spanning 13,000 acres in the Eaglesham area, said farmers take out insurance to cover themselves from any potential risk of damage by wildlife, adding that the MD plan comes at a time when Agriculture Financial Services Corp. (AFSC) is cutting back on wildlife compensation.
“This has been an ongoing problem for us,” he told The Central Peace Signal. “Something has to be done about it. We have quite a large number of elk in our area, and they are very destructive because they are not scared easily, they cover a lot of ground, and they trample on crops as they walk through.”
Henry Kroll, also a grain grower with nearly 6,000 acres of farmlands southwest of Spirit River, said he has had experienced damage on crops caused by elk. “At one particular year, we have bales of hays also wrecked by elk,” he said.
The MD said its proposed elk culk will benefit both the provincial and federal governments in the way of reduced costs associated with AFSC wildlife investigations and claims – “a win-win situation overall.”
Garrow said Central Peace-Notley MLA Todd Loewen has been involved in the MD’s efforts at trying to secure the nod of the province in the mass elk-cull plan.

Farmer" I got elk damaging my crops !"
Warden" I know some hunters who can help you out with that "
Farmer" oh, we don't allow hunters on our land!"
Cat

Or more like. Hey government the elk are destroying my crops. Ok farmer here is so much money per acre but you have to allow hunting. Ok. Hunter I see a heard of elk in your alfalfa field every night. Can I shoot a cow? Nope no hunting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just like here and other places with elk problems. One of the reasons there is a problem in the first place.

Grizz

🤣🤣🤣

Bingo

Yup they would rather get a crop damage cheque from the government

The logical thing would be, no hunt, no cheque. On the other hand, we have absentee land owners here, who have no financial stake in the issue and actually provide sanctuary for them.

Grizz

Catch and relocate to low density forested areas. Been successfully done before...(Athabasca area late 70's early 80's).

Also consider a General Season tag for either antlered/antlerless.

Ok. Good job. You boys ****ed off this farmer this morning. Two can play this game. How about this:
Hunter “Can I go hunt your land?”
Farmer “Sure but your the 12th guy to ask”
Hunter “Ok Thanks”

One week later hunter calls up farmer
“You’re a f&#&$n a&#$#&#e because you let other guys in. They got elk and now there gone. I can only hunt Friday afternoons from 2-3. Boo hoo!”
Or
“You let an outfitter hunt too. That makes you a no good piece of s*$t”
Don’t think it happens? Cause it does.

I remember a few years ago. A lady representing the county said in the news paper that according to the county's estimate, there is 12 000 elk between Spirit River and Wanham. So there's 25 000 elk in Alberta, Saskatchewan to BC / Montana to NWT, and somehow, half of them live in that 30 km stretch of land. :confused:

I think a big part of the problem, is the way they estimate the elk number. Farmer "A" see 60 elk in his field on Monday, farmer "B" see 60 elk in his field on Tuesday and farmer "C" see 60 elk in his field on Wednesday. When they talk to each other they're amaze to discover that between 3 properties there's almost 300 elk, that's way too many. But in reality, it's the same elk that move around.

As for what others said about not letting hunters on their land, it's true. I know a guy who's co-owner of 25 000 acres of land south of Wanham. He keeps complaining about wildlife, even admitted shooting them while working the land (out of season, no tag, the guy is not a hunter). And they don't let anyone hunt their land.

They've run out of places to relocate them to. Ontario hunters now have an elk season, thanks to Alberta.

Grizz

I think for the late season hunt in that area there is a list of land owners to call that gladly give permission.
To say land owners don't allow hunters is painting a pretty stupid picture with a wide brush stroke.

That’s exactly the way the way it is! If it’s posted they don’t qualify for compensation for crop damage. That said, unless they come out and inspect or are reported, AFSC and/or the Counties may not be aware.

Another solution that works is to open the rifle season on Sept1.
The bow hunters will whine but in a management hunt they just don't kill enough animals.

Should require an environmental study and a natural solution
 

Obviously, the MD of Spirit River needs more wolves. It worked in Yellowstone.
If the government relocated a couple packs from Crown land with low prey density, it would eventually be a win-win for hunters and anti-hunters alike. :thinking-006:

The next best solution is to hire hunters from New Zealand to shoot them from aircraft.

Yup darn valid point, like everything there are 2 side to every story

Wolves only work the big bush lands. They do not patrol fields near farmers as very life shortening exercise. The elk also know they do not have predator problems in farm land, most calves survive near the barb wire.
A more generous elk season and cooperative farmers will solve the problem without major cost to Alberta tax payers.

A lot of the farmers I know will flat out tell you they don’t have “elk” problems they have “elk hunter” problems. One farmer had a WT doe shot and left in his driveway, a spike elk shot and left at the gate of a pasture, and another young raghorn gut shot and left to die in the middle of his field. Fences cut across the land in January by “cow elk” hunters on ski-doos, etc. It is no wonder many say no. Thanks to some of the above antics, I have had to find new places to go because the landowners have just had enough and it’s easier to deal with the elk than the hunters.

LC

I'm not familiar with this area, but sometimes it only takes one or two influential people to raise a ruckus with municipal council. Maybe there is a widespread out of control problem, maybe not. I know from personal experience that elk can cause a lot of damage, of course there is also people who may feel that one elk in the canola is too many. Lots of different variables and perspectives on this.

I am actually kind of sorry I even posted this. So many poor and uniformed comments on here. The Elk season in that part of the country is already over 5 months long. The draws for Cow Elk already give out a large number of tags, but Bull is still three point or better. Cow seasons are spread out in one month or so intervals so the already heavy hunting pressure doesn't become totally nuts.

If a farmer has his land posted no Trespassing and doesn't allow hunting he is not eligible for Crop damage funds. For the most part, farmers in that area have been very good about providing permission but with the many hundreds of people that hunt the area, and some of the spectacularly bad stuff that happens that may get tougher as the years go by. More hunters is not the answer, but maybe two Cow tags instead of one and any bull, spike on up will do, would help.

If the Elk population really has increased a whole bunch then it is not fair to the Landowners to bear the brunt of the problems. Most don't mind having Elk around but when there are so many that crops, bales etc start to get heavily damaged they have every right to expect some kind of relief. Making a living ranching or farming is not an easy deal, even for large land holders.

If you don't actually hunt the area and have first hand knowledge, maybe keep you opinions to yourself and don't assume stuff you don't know. If you do hunt the area, talk to the farmers who give you permission, get their views and see if there is something effective and constructive you can do to help.

Well said Dean2!

Better solution would probably be to give out multiple cow tags when some one is selected
That way there is less hunters in the field at any given time
When they are on a herd, they can just keep shooting.

Another option would be to give landowners multiple permits that they could use or sell. Get rid of the crop damage compensation all together

Agree whole heartedly, I lived in Grande Prairie for 22 years, hunted the Spirit River area every year there and never had a problem getting access, of course I did things alot of 'hunters' never did or do:

Ask permission ahead of time and at reasonable times (not 5:30 am when you think you see something shootable)

Be respectful at all times, you have no idea of the owner's situation or issues he may have had with other 'hunters'

Take being told no graciously,

When given access thank the owner and find out his terms (exact area to hunt, vehicle/foot access only, fences and gates, safe lanes of fire etc) and then comply exactly

Thank the owner at the end of your hunt and or season

Far too many 'hunters' think its their god given right to hunt where they want when they want, these are very often the same people that give the bare minimum when something is asked of them but demand everything when they want something

Given the landowners I've met and dealt with over the years along with the 'hunters' I'm truly grateful and amazed at the number of owners who still grant access,

Oh, and here's a pro trip for you whiny little 'hunters', that's not an elk in the blaze orange vest along the tree line so dont scope him, he shoots back

A hard no to paid hunting..... Would be the death of the sport as only the well off would be able to compete for the tags

Jim

How many Syndicates are there up that way?
 

Since Wanham and Eaglesham are outside their boundary, do the good people of the MD of Spirit River No. 133 have the tacit approval of their neighbours to the East to pursue this solution? Specifically, have they spoken to "The Syndicate" to get their permission for both owned land and Crown land? Apparently that's a thing up there. :rolleye2:
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=353665

:sign0087:

Landowner tags are sold in many states for exactly this same purpose
If a couple hundred bucks is too much for you, then put in for the draw for the wmu
If you want to fill your freezer and don’t want to **** around chasing cow elk all over the county. Then why not?

You would find a lot of farmers more would be open to hunters

Why shouldn’t the landowner bare the burden of an over abundance of animals on their land? Not sure how it’s anyone else’s problem. If there really is too many the choices seem pretty simple. Let more hunters on to deal with the problem or let the government fund a cull with your own tax money. Both have positives and negatives. The alternative is don’t let it happen and deal with the crop damage.

I understand that peoples tolerance and patience wears thin after years of dealing with crappy and disrespectful hunters. They have the right to limit hunting on their land, however there is a consequence for wielding that right too much.

Also if you don’t want people’s opinions maybe limit your post to a group chat with locals to that area. It’s a public forum that is extremely well known for being opinionated :snapoutofit:

Having said that and fair warning I have zero experience in the area we are talking about. Make it a general tag for a season or two. Either the elk population will be lowered or the farmers will hate the amount of extra hunters and stop complaining about the elk.

Agreed. It would be the leading edge of the Wedge to fully paid hunting. If a farmer is willing to give up Animal Damage Crop Insurance coverage to post his land no hunting, a couple of hundred for a tag isn't going to change his mind.

I have done a lot of hunting in places like Germany, which is 100% paid hunting. There are VERY few regular Joes that can afford to hunt, and a very large part of the States is becoming like that too. That will neither solve the access challenges or the over population. Prime example is Texas, the pig population is rampant because so many places can make significant money selling the hunts for them. All the neighbours have to put up with the over populated pigs that emanate from these locations because of it.

The area I live in had no elk back in the day. In the mid 90's people would occasionally see some and it would be talked about. Now there is lots and some people do have depredation problems. Should the landowner still bare the burden if there was no elk when they began farming and 20 yrs later the population explodes, and maybe in part to elk being relocated by the province? Peoples opinions tend to rapidly change when they are personally affected financially by wildlife. It's easy to tell others what to do when you have no first hand experience yourself