"Paid hunting needs to be recognized" ???

[Bull Shooter]

I came across this article today and I am astounded and sickened by Will Verboven's assumptions and observations. I guess he is entitled to his opinion and apparently there is no reason to let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Let's make hunting easier to attract more hunters? Good Lord, what's next? Baiting, ropes, high fences and easy chairs?

Stick to the video games Will, and leave hunting to those that do not judge the quality of our hunt by the animals we harvest! Regards, Mike

_______________________________________


http://digital.albertafarmerexpress....ame_main&pc=ae

From Page 4
________________________________________

Paid hunting needs to be recognized
WILL VERBOVEN

EDITOR

View Larger Image


The issue of paid hunting seems to be on the agenda again in Alberta. This time it is different from the earlier battles for the legalization of hunt farms. This time it involves an attempt by means of government programs to see landowners paid for hunter access to private property. Essentially the programs recommend that landowners be paid a daily fee by the government or be assigned a number of tags which they could sell to outfitters or hunters. Either program has hunter groups through fish and game associations up in arms.

What hunter groups clearly want is unfettered and free access to hunt where they please and when they want as some sort of inherent right. It seems from their response they do not consider access to private land as a privilege for which the landowner might want to expect some compensation for the disruption, liability and danger.

Part of the issue seems to be that hunter groups consider wildlife to belong to the public, which from their perspective probably means for their exclusive hunting. This approach is quite persuasive as these groups were part of the successful campaign to ban hunt farms for captive elk and deer in Alberta. That was a truly hypocritical decision as over 40 hunting preserves exist for the private hunting of game birds, buffalo and wild boar. Apparently elk are deemed to be a privileged species that should not be subjected to such an indignity. I doubt if it really matters to an elk whether it is shot in the wild, in an enclosure or a slaughterhouse.


Perhaps hunter groups also protest too much. In many areas of the province they are not even exercising their hunting privileges, if one considers that in a number of regions the numbers of deer and elk are reaching plague proportions. Most ranchers are faced with nuisance ungulates that are devastating hay supplies and winter range — where are the hunters that are demanding access when you need them.

As with the hunt farm issue, ideology and ego tend to trump common sense. There is also the sentimental aspect connected with the hunter culture. But let’s get real, times have changed and people have changed. As a province we need to look at the bigger picture to see how we can achieve both better wildlife control and increase the economic return from hunting. Sentiment is a wonderful thing but when it comes to wildlife management that belongs in a Disney movie.

The fact is there are fewer hunters every year and I expect those that remain want to have a more accessible and comfortable hunting experience. The other fact is we also need more hunters to provide both wildlife control and economic activity in rural areas.

Other jurisdictions in the U. S. and neighbouring Saskatchewan have understood that reality and have taken steps that put Alberta at a disadvantage. Hunt farms are the perfect example of an idea that works. They bring in hunters because they provide what they really want — guaranteed and successful access to trophy animals. That’s what will bring them back and from out of province again and again. Those of us that have hunted would agree that spending fruitless days in freezing weather in the wilderness with no success or even sightings does not endear one to continue hunting as a rewarding hobby. Common sense would show that making hunting easier would encourage enthusiasm for the sport.

The same is true for paid hunting on private land. If that makes access to prime hunting land more accessible and successful then it should be encouraged to increase the number of hunters. Besides let the free marketplace decide whether the program works or not. If ideologically dedicated hunters don’t like the program they can go elsewhere to more remote public lands to hunt.

I doubt if paid hunting will discourage hunting as some might allege, success is the key in hunting that’s why paid hunting and hunt farms have proven so successful in other jurisdictions. It all makes sense but don’t expect any government enlightenment on this subject.

Alberta is the most highly urbanized province in Canada and most folks living in our towns and cities don’t hunt and have a Disneyesque view of the wilderness. Governments know how to count votes and bad press on wildlife issues don’t help the counting. Hunter groups and self-appointed environmental groups know that too.
__________________________________________________

[packhuntr]

That guy is an azzhole.

[Rust]

"QUOTE" If ideologically dedicated hunters don’t like the program they can go elsewhere to more remote public lands to hunt. "QUOTE"
Maybe this guy should try going somewhere else!!

[gman1978]

This guy is out of touch with reality. Another article with no thought. He just doesn't get it. I think he wrote this article in hopes it would get him some credibility in the farming community when in fact it is doing the opposite. He obviously does not have a clue at the issues at hand.

[Bull Shooter]

As it appears the "Alberta Farmer Express" does not have a "Letters" section I thought that I might add my own to the thread. I had also worried that it might be heavily edited, losing much of the message. Regards, Mike

For Mr. Verboven:

In your recent article, “Paid hunting needs to be recognized”, you clearly expose both the greed and misinformation that has made this such a hot-button issue to so many Albertans that truly care about our wildlife resources.

Firstly, the primary concern of hunters and of outdoor groups such as the Alberta Fish and Game Association, is the conservation and sustainability of our fish and wildlife for both present and future generations. Your remarks suggesting that unfettered and free access to private land is viewed by Alberta’s hunters as either a goal or an inherent right is patently false. The vast majority of Alberta’s hunters respect private property and the decisions of the owners of private property. In fact, I suspect the vast majority of Alberta’s hunters also own private property including land and buildings.

The real issue to which you reveal your topical ignorance is that of wildlife ownership. You write, “... hunter groups consider wildlife to belong to the public, which from their perspective probably means for their exclusive hunting.” The very simple fact is that wildlife IS a public-trust resource to be managed in the public interest. This is not some sort of deliberation that was thought-up by hunters and hunting groups in order to persuade private landowners for access. This is a guiding principle of government and public ownership. It benefits and prejudices all Albertans equally.

For reasons known only to Cormack Gates (University of Calgary) and Alberta Sustainable Resources and Development, the decline in hunting numbers since the early ‘80’s has been attributed to lack of access. (It should be noted here that hunting numbers did increase significantly in 2007.) Studies and/or research that support this proposed direct correlation between access and declining numbers of Alberta hunters is either non-existent or not available to the general public. It appears much more likely that the decline in the number of hunters is largely due to increased costs, increased legislation (such as the gun registry and hunting regulations) and the public’s perception of hunters and hunting (your editorial included).

Your editorial, based on misinformation and/or a lack of research, does little to assist hunters or landowners in managing our wildlife resources. You talk about paid hunting and hunt farms that have proven so successful in other jurisdictions. How do you define success? Is the privatization of a public resource a success? Do you consider the introduction and spread of diseases such as tuberculosis and chronic wasting disease a success? If paid hunting is allowed, and my neighbour decides to manage his or her property to produce and increase wild animal numbers there will be a real cost to me (as a cattle producer); is that a success? Or do you simply define success by putting a high monetary price on wildlife so that it will eventually reduce the number of hunters?

In spite of your comments, most hunting and conservation groups want to see landowners compensated for habitat and conservation initiatives. Several programs already exist to this end, including programs to compensate landowners for lost crops and feed, as well as other damages caused by wildlife. Any new initiatives should include all landowners, not just those fortunate enough to have a bounty of big game animals on their private property or those who allow hunting. The issue of paid hunting creates disparity among landowners and does not recognize real contributions to habitat, wildlife and conservation or their true value. Any economic value must be attached directly to habitat and conservation values and not wildlife.

Finally, there is a marked difference between a hunter and a shooter. I think you have incorrectly identified yourself as the former. For the majority of us, hunting transcends the act of simply going out and shooting an animal. Your statement “Common sense would show that making hunting easier would encourage enthusiasm for the sport” reveals just how out of touch you are on the subject (by dint of logic, should hockey players get rid of their skates to make the game a bit easier and attract more players?). I suppose this is also why you are such an advocate of hunt farms. Most of us appreciate the challenge of hunting in a fair-chase environment. In fact, many hunters choose to increase their challenge through the methods and tools they choose to hunt. The reward is not a large set of antlers, or a rug or even the meat itself, but rather the experience. By your comments, I fear that since this is an experience or reward you cannot comprehend or appreciate, it only further confuses your understanding of Alberta’s hunters and landowners. It’s not all about money, trophy animals and guaranteed “success”, it never has been, and hopefully it never will be…

[outlaw'd]

good post Bull Shooter! This guys editorial should read " Paid killing needs to be recognized " judging by his view. From my perspective, I don't go out in the field and base my success on what I get, or how easy it was to get my game. I have gone out more times than I can count, and failed to harvest one single animal, bird, or what have you, but each and every outing has enriched my life, and brought me a sense of ................" understanding " as to what is important to me. I bet each and everyone of us on this forum has sat back and marvelled at the beauty that is nature whilst out and away from the everyday hustle and bustle that surrounds our lives. I know I have!

[impatient_hunter]

I totally agree with you Bull Shooter on the idea of the experience of the hunt. I turned 18 before the season started and it was the first time that I had been out by myself. I had been out with my dad for four years and were all special memories, but the first time that I went out by myself was a great experience that I will never forget. The Buck that I got this year wasn't that big, but I had used everything that I had learned over the previous years and was successful after sitting for several great hours enjoying my surroundings. As much as I remember my kill I remember a small buck that had come into me and couldn't quite figure me out. It is all about the experience and any animals that you shoot are a bonus.

[brownbomber]

what a jerk, i can picture him writing that one by the fireplace with a pipe and featherpen.

what a elitist, condescending jerk.

ungulates destroying hay and winter range
maybe if more landowners allowed acess it woulnd't be such a problem.

elk and deer populations are reaching plauge proportions
well since us hunters control tag numbers it must be our fault

spending fruitless day in the freezing cold in the wilderness
god forbid, you may have to take out your chinchilla coat


what a moron!! we all want it so easy that we're willing to line his pockets by letting him take the collar off a animal before we harvest it?? i don't think so.

i would rather be skunked than shoot something that is considered a trophy animal by some but not fit for record books or for a good nights sleep by most.

Lets all remember that this guy is not your average cattle producer boys. Most guys are great to deal with and are much different than this clown.

The one thing that would scare me if I was a cattle producer is this guys attitude towards animals in general. He does not come across favorably regarding animals in general in this editorial. Does he forget that the whole industry he serves relates to animal production. Is he really that blind that he doesn't realize the fine line he walks here?

I think you did a great job on this Bullshooter, and I hope most ranchers and farmers realize that we are not against them, but would rather work together to help out the wildlife we all own.

[Copidosoma]

Very well said Bullshooter. Let us know what sort of response you get.

[Redfrog]

I checked the link above and on the left side of the page, there is an "opinion" page with letters to the editor.
Guess I'll be sending one in.

[Bull Shooter]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

I checked the link above and on the left side of the page, there is an "opinion" page with letters to the editor.
Guess I'll be sending one in.

Redfrog, I checked through the publication and I do not know how I missed the letters section... many thanks for pointing that out!!

The letter has been sent to Mr. Verboven and I will post any reply that I receive.

Chevy, you are absolutely correct. This is not about pitting landowners and/or ranchers against hunters. Again, for the record, I am a landowner and run my own cattle. This is about building relationships between landowners and hunters and the proper management and conservation of a public trust to the best interests of all public users. Schemes that include the privatization of wildlife, for the benefit of a few, are not in the best interests of the public. Regards, Mike

[Bull Shooter]

Originally Posted by Copidosoma

Very well said Bullshooter. Let us know what sort of response you get.

Well, I got a response. Here is the condensed version:

"Thank you for your letter. Unfortunately it is too long for our format. If you wish to consider it for publication please cut it down to 150 words. Unless you wish me to edit it for you.

Also please stick to the point and kindly remove all assumptions and motives about me personally."

You could cut the irony with a knife! Regards, Mike

I just looked at the current letter (cow culls to Europe) to the editor. It is 30 lines long, with a conservative average of 10 words per line. Even with my math skills it doesn't equal 150 words. Rule of convenience I guess.

I think we should flood his e-mail. I'll start!!!

[Copidosoma]

Originally Posted by Bull Shooter

Well, I got a response. Here is the condensed version:

"Thank you for your letter. Unfortunately it is too long for our format. If you wish to consider it for publication please cut it down to 150 words. Unless you wish me to edit it for you.

Also please stick to the point and kindly remove all assumptions and motives about me personally."

You could cut the irony with a knife! Regards, Mike

so typical.

You could just write, "you're an idiot" 50 times.

[Justanotherbuck2]

The fact is there are fewer hunters every year and I expect those that remain want to have a more accessible and comfortable hunting experience. The other fact is we also need more hunters to provide both wildlife control and economic activity in rural areas.
This seems to be the only statement he got right!