alberta beef producers proposing pay to play
 

read in alberta outdoorsmen magazine alberta beef producers proposing pay to play to recover wildlife losses.you think we would be welcomed on the land to hunt and take care of over population instead they want to charge us to help.

Last Producer news letter had an article on " the cost of Wildlife". Tempted to send a letter to the editor. :lol: Don't bitch if you won't tolerate hunting. :D It's Your responsibility to mitigate damage by taking advantage of all avenues out there and if you don't, be prepared to accept the cost.

Grizz

Pay to play
 

Well said Grizz. It seems to me tha wildlife was there first now landowners decide they should have exclusive use of the land and to heck with the environment and animals. It seems no matter how fairly this country was set up for everyone, slowly the "rich" get more and more profit from everything they touch.

First post after 4 years?

Is this what someone referred to as an "inside job",

ie: a writer fielding a hot topic to garner columns of print?

I'm quite new here & just wondering...

why us
 

I didn't know that hunters were responsible for their loses.Tired of always looking over shoulder to see who is trying to take something away.Why aren't our Fish and Game, ducks unlimited ,deer and elk foundations standing up and saying if it goes thru boycott AB beef. Maybe nowbody cares.

So... let's see ...?
 

One is a livestock farmer. One acquires (lease or own) land that has a "predator" population, and puts one's livestock out there with little or no surveillance or "guards" against said predators (who were there first?). Then one wants a) Mommy government (i.e., me the taxpayer?) to compensate one when said predators do the thing one knows they will do, and b) Mommy government to require one component of the surveillors/guards to pay me for the privilege of their assistance. It all makes perfect sense (???). I guess I shouldn't have "forced" you to go into the business (which is what it is? - it is not a social program? - well, except at tax time it certainly is...?). Give me a break!!

Please don't lump all beef producers into this. I don't agree with tax dollars going towards compensation for wildlife related losses.

Oh goody another epic thread! Why don't you guys go read this thread on the same topic dredged up from the past. Of you come up with something new post it in that thread.

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=202999

Here is another one

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showt...beef+producers

pay to play
 

I read it in the new outdoorsmen didn't know discussed before . It just caught my attention thought people should be aware.

Yep boycott Alta beef, drive the price down making it unprofitable. Ranchers clear the land and go into grain. Wildlife disappears, habitat gone.

Can anyone find where ABP has paid hunting as a policy directive?

yup, another thread ready to slam the evil landowner... sheesh after tons of attacks it will be closed too. So many on here want to make the rancher their enemy its a wonder there is any permission given.

It's tough to sympathize with lost livestock when there is no access, or elk or deer eating feed with no access. But I know a guy who complains about both and complains about getting no access and doesn't give any lol

Pay to play
 

I didn't want to start all this.used to farm . Wish all could get along just don't want to pay to hunt and fish here. Has to be better way than just point finger say one side against other

All of these organizations and hunters are interested in maintaining high numbers of game. The game lives on the ranchers land and he is expected to bear the cost of damage done by these and hunters want to reap the benefits without contributing anything to said costs.

How many of you hunters complaining here have paid a landowner for access to show your appreciation for said access.

Pay to play
 

Always ask or try to leave game as thank you don't get me wrong I appreciate access just don't want to pay for it

It's quite obvious to me that you have a burr under your saddle when it comes to hunting .Not really sure why you are on this forum really other than to stir the pot. As for paying a hunter for access . That has always been a big taboo. as in paid access or paid hunting rights.

Now your a troll!

I am dead against paid access...it will ruin us as much as paid healthcare. Paying for damage should be expected, and unless the person has entered the property without permission it is easy to figure out who did it. A farmer has a predator issue they should have no issue finding a responsible person or people to harvest them. Set rules, no quads? Trucks on the perimeter only? Bow only? But to charge for someone to take care of an issue isn't right.

It can't be both ways, deer are eating my grain on my land sobits more mine then yours, but your bear is eating my cows so you owe me the cash to put in the effort to remove it.

I'm not anti farmer, or land owner I am one. Just stay on one side of the fence on this issue

Pay to play
 

As I said read in new outdoorsmen was concerned past it on for discussion.one thing if you came to our place to hunt always lots of pheasants and the only thing we asked for was respect

Ive never once paid anyone as thanks for access. Get over yourself. If you arent good enough at your job so as to limit losses, thats your fault not ours. If this actually is the path taken by beef providers, congrats, i will fully support a boycott.

Probably nobody, since it's unlawful to pay for access, but good cast on that bait.

ABP used to have the paid hunting policy discussion papers available on their webpage. These documents have now been removed.

Did you read the threads that you posted? From the first post in the first link you provided.

THE WESTERN PRODUCER |
WWW.PRODUCER.COM |
DECEMBER,19, 2013 Page 81
STEWARDSHIP, PREDATION PAYMENTS DISCUSSED
BY BARB GLEN
LETHBRIDGE BUREAU
The care and feeding of wildlife was on the minds of ranchers earlier this month at the Alberta Beef Producers annual meeting.
Six of the 20 resolutions that members passed dealt with how cattle production overlaps with predators and wild grazing animals.
The ABP executive has been directed to lobby government for quicker payments for livestock predation, allow paid hunting under the wildlife act and increase elk hunting in problem areas.“There’s a number of places now within the province that swath grazing or bale grazing is almost not even a possibility because the wildlife will wreck it before your cattle even get a chance to eat it,” said new ABP chair Greg Bowie of Ponoka, Alta.
Elk have become a particular problem, notably in an area surrounding Canadian Forces Base Suffield where a herd estimated at 5,000 eats and damages nearby private grass-land.
There are similar concerns in grazing areas along the eastern slopes of the Rockies in southwestern Alberta. Wildlife issues were also addressed in a more encompassing resolution directing ABP to lobby for market-based payments to those who provide ecological goods and services. The idea that landowners should be compensated for stewardship they provide in the form of wildlife habitat, water protection and conservation, biodiversity and other services has been arising more frequently, Bowie said.
“There’s lots of places in the world where people are compensated in one form or another for providing those things, whether it is the wildlife itself or marshlands or areas to protect water sources,” he said.
“It isn’t going to be a simple task, that’s for sure. It will take some time and it will take a lot of thought to get this thing right.”
The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association established a task force to explore the options about a year ago, Bowie added, and ABP is part of that.
Task force members are exploring ecological goods and services pro-grams elsewhere in Canada and in other countries to determine what will be sustainable, market-driven and fair, Bowie said.
ABP members also resolved to oppose plans to re-introduce bison to Banff National Park because of fears of disease transmission to cattle herds near the park. Bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis can infect bison and cattle and have been detected in the past in bison surrounding Wood Buffalo National Park.
Ranchers don’t want the same occurrence near Banff.
“We know that there’s disease problems up there (near Wood Buffalo National Park), and until there’s a lot of assurances that these animals will be clean and that they will be contained ... there’s a number of concerns there,” said Bowie."

X2

Oil companies pay for access all the time. Must be legal.

I know what the article says. I have a serious distrust of the mainstream media. I want to read the ABP policy that says their mandate is to promote paid hunting. One zone meeting that proposes that doesn't mean it's policy. The media prints it's interpretation and we have a full blown crap storm.

I pose my question again. Where does the ABP state that they are lobbying for paid hunting?

Sorry, should have specified. Paying for or accepting payment for the purposes of hunting.

I'll be that guy who tosses the regs out here


Disposition of access to land


49(1) No person shall directly or indirectly buy or sell, trade or barter or offer to buy or sell access to any land for the purpose of hunting any big game or any fur-bearing animals on any land.


(2) No person shall directly or indirectly buy or sell, trade or barter or offer to buy or sell access to any land for the purpose of hunting any game bird except as provided in Subsection (3).


(3) No person shall directly or indirectly buy or sell, trade or barter or offer to buy or sell access to any land for the purpose of hunting upland game birds.


(a) on privately owned land unless the person holds a licence issued to the person for that purpose pursuant to this act and except in accordance with the regulations, or


(b) on public land that is not privately owned land. 1984 cW-9.1 s49;1996 c33 s35


Oil companies pay for access so they can build facilities and access roads . Wandering around during one or 2 months of the year hunting is a completely different story. Apples and oranges as it were

Far from it, I have 13 quarters of prime hunting land that I run a cattle and grain operation on. I hunt and I allow access to 99% of those who ask. I have a herd of Elk on my land that destroy hay bales in the winter. I could easily eliminate this herd if I didn't have gov't standing in my way. The gov't is trying to build and sustain the herd to allow more opportunities for hunters by only allowing a very small harvest.

So I am the only one who pays while every body else benefits.