Sorry for the delay on getting this out. I wanted to be as accurate and thorough as I could (not a good note taker). Hopefully I will get the minutes of the meeting so I can add stuff I surely missed. Also hopefully MAV can help fill in any blanks I may have.

The meeting started out with and overview of the Pilot project. Nothing has changed from the documents I have provided.

The AFGA zone 1 director, Wayne Lowry, suggested each member of the working group state their opinion of the pilot.

All of the landowners and U of C members supported the project.

Hunting for Tomorrow stated that they signed off on the 3 guiding principles and that is all. They did not say whether they supported the pilot or not. They were very unhappy with the speed of the process.

Bob Gruszecki of Hunting for Tomorrow asked Cliff Henderson (ASRD) at least 4 times to slow down the process. Mr. Henderson said he would take it under advisement and forward his “own” concerns to the deputy minister and minister.

The AFGA rep that was on the working group was not present.

Open discussion.

Cormack Gates kept calling it the Ranching for Wildlife program. He also kept asking everyone if they agreed with the three guiding principles of the program. Interesting note here the fact sheet only lists 2 and they have changed from the terms of reference document.

1. Wildlife is a public trust to be managed in the public interest.
2. Landowners should not bear the full costs of producing habitat for wildlife or the inconvenience and impacts of public use on their land without compensation.

The question was asked about the satisfaction rates and if there was a baseline to begin with. Doug Manzer of ACA stated they do not have any baseline data, so they have no idea what the current satisfaction rate is now. He also admitted they need this information to make the pilot project data valid. Mr. Manzer was queried that if the satisfaction rate right now is 80% how come 75% is the goal.

They tried to justify the pilot based on the changing footprint on the land. They referred to a report done recently by Brad Stelfox. Asked the municipal working group rep, Rod Cyr, (a landowner who stands to gain from this) if the county he represents, which is in 300, had a plan. He responded that they do not have a plan for managing development like windmills, acreage development and movement of Oil exploration into the Eastern slopes.

The question was posed where the money would come from. Again we were told do not worry they are applying for a rural development funds. This will only work for the pilot period then the money would have to come from somewhere else. Again told not to worry they would work that out down the road.

They were asked how they decide on habitat and what good hunting habitat is. Again we were told don’t worry this all can be fleshed out (I am beginning to hate that term) at a later time.

Next question was why would a landowner be compensated for the production costs when that animal is not always on there land should all landowners not be compensated. They had no answer for this either.

Asked landowners if they get this payment will they guarantee to either keep their land or sell their land to someone who will keep the same guarantee. Answer was a resounding no.

Suggestion was put forward to compensate landowners based on Habitat. Landowners came back with who decides on habitat and where will the money come from (sound familiar). They out right dismissed the projects like ALUS put forward and being implemented by Delta Waterfowl in Manitoba. Here is a link to ALUS http://www.deltawaterfowl.org/alus/index.php

Asked why they do not use the tools that are available to them now. I.e. letting hunters on. There response was they do not want to deal with the hassle of dealing with hunters. This I found laughable as supposedly the pilot is designed to allow more access.

Is access is really a problem? Discussed that hunters understand that you will not get access to all land and they accept this. Hunters realize wildlife needs a safe refuge.

Landowners suggest that they could take the supposed offerings of trips to Mexico for themselves their kids from outfitters and not let resident hunters on. APOS was very offended by this.

We discussed going forward. They asked Wayne Lowry, the AFGA Zone 1 Director, if he would be the local contact. He said he could not until after the AFGA voted at the general conference to see where AFGA stands.

At this point ABA, SABA, LFGA and PF stated there positions. All were opposed to the pilot. This seemed to deflate the working group and SRD.

One landowner stood up and said if this was not approved within the next 6-8 months he would call the Indians and Métis to come in and wipe out the wildlife on his property.

The WSGA rep Darryl Carlson mentioned that lots of neighbors don’t get a long and it will be hard for them to make this work among themselves. This is probably why they want someone else to make the rules for them.

The one thing we never did get an answer on was where the project was in the process, CPC, SRD or is it already going to the press for the hunting regs. We never did find out.

Meeting ended