Open Spaces - RAMP - Paid Hunting?

Originally Posted by Jamie

I guess you could call what I posted... PREMATURE POSTING.
The info I received was just old stuff.
Sorry to get everyone excited.

Basically it was just the response from a big supporter (Cormack) of OSA.
If anyone can post it for me, you are all welcome to read it. It is in PDF format.

Thanks
Jamie

Is this the paper that was presented to the Canadian Politcal Association?

I thought you said the new info had something to do with what SRD had planned for this year?

Bubba

[wallslammer]

after reading about OSP and Ramp for almost a year now I would like to voice my opinion. 15 - 20 years ago I hunted in wmu 300 shooting afew good elk out of there. 99 percent of the land owners were excellent to deal with. The other 1 percent wanted you to shoot cows only and wanted parking fees etc. etc. Then I find out a certain landowner was given fencing materials by the govt to protect his hay stacks but the fence was never put up. This same land owner would also contact the natives to try and get them to shoot the elk. Here is a novel idea Blaine,if your hay is so precious, how about YOU pay US hunters to keep the elk off your stacks

[Jamie]

Can I Email a report to anyone and have them post it?
I can do the pics, but the PDF says its to big and I dont know how to shrink it.

Jamie

[Jamie]

http://www.mediafire.com/?2iiymn0u40c

This is old stuff.

Jamie

[bruceba]

" Holy crap" thats all I got to say.

Senator backs grazing groups being eligible for hunting tags
By Dawn House
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 07/29/2008 10:18:14 PM MDT


BICKNELL - Ranchers losing grazing rights on public lands should become eligible for hunting tags that they can sell on the open market, a state senator said Tuesday.
Sen. Dennis Stowell, R-Parowan, told 100 ranchers at the Utah Cattlemen's Association conference that sporting groups and private landowners are awarded hunting permits, while public lands ranchers "have been left out of the loop." Hunting tags given out by the Division of Wildlife Resources and sold to the public through auctions can fetch tens of thousands of dollars. For now, though, the only organizations allowed to auction the permits are nonprofits who use money from the tags on projects that help wildlife.
Stowell said hunting tags also could be given to grazing groups when livestock allotments are cut back. The money in turn, would be used to improve the rangelands so that cattle can again graze. And when the number of livestock returns to prior grazing levels, the hunting tags would be withheld.
Private landowners can sell a certain number of big-game hunting permits through the state's Cooperative Wildlife Management Unit program, based on habitat conditions and herd populations.
Landowners in turn, must provide 10 percent of overall permits to the public. And some of those permits, such as elk tags, can go for as much as $12,000. By contrast, public elk permits cost $280 and are awarded through a public drawing.
Stowell said changes in the program could be accomplished through legislation or by administrative rule.
Craig McLaughlin, wild- life section chief for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, declined direct comment on the new proposal but said an existing cooperative wildlife management permit program is designed to allow landowners to receive value for wildlife that uses private lands.
"Public lands belong to the public," he said. "They are not private. There's quite a difference there in terms. [The proposal] would be auctioning off or selling a public resource. That would be a concern."
Stowell cautioned ranchers to cooperate with sporting groups "because if you go up against them, you'll lose every time."
Cattlemen's Association President Gary Hallows said he supports the idea of grazing groups becoming eligible for hunting tags, as long as the permits go to livestock owners.
"It just might work," he said. "But there would have to be a clear formula on exactly who would get the additional tags."

[wolfcreek]

B.C. has Paid Hunting, the sky didn't fall. I heard Sask. allowed it, but I haven't confirmed that, maybe someone here could enlighten me on that.

It comes to me that when we put a value on wildlife, people will start to value wildlife. Meaning that instead of draining that slough, or removing that fencerow or knocking down that woodlot all for more cows, landowners will be given an incentive to provide more habitat for wildlife. This very priciple has worked miracles in South Dakota. And all those States with Monster Elk and Deer, the landowner benefits directly from that.

I know ranchers who call in First Nation hunters when the Elk come into their land, especially their feed stocks. And there is NO control to those hunts. I bet if that rancher had a permit to sell, well, those Elk would be flourishing on his ranch instead of gunned down as nuisances. I think Paid Hunting wouldn't be as bad for us as we think it might be. The habitat and thusly the wildlife do better and therefore us hunters benefit from it too.

I know I am sick of seeing my favourite spots turned into cow pastures, elk ranges decimated for grazing, duck ponds drained, pheasant scrub turned into summer fallow. The landowner/farmer bought his land to make him a living, if Paid Hunting paid more than that extra cow or two, then he will leave the Habitat for the wildlife.

Did you know the average price paid for access in B.C. is $50.00? I'd pay that all day long for an open gate and better hunting, wouldn't you?

[russ]

you're comparing apples and oranges. If you want to pay $50 a day for access good for you!

MOVE THERE!

[jackalope]

We got drawn in wmu 300A for cow, And almost all land owners say no for permission, because of the turn down of osp. The landowners say they are all going together because of this. So if the elk start eatting there grass, or hay, they probably want a hand out $. from the Gov. I think this is crap.

[whiskybaron]

We should be rewarding good stewardship of the land, not just people who have willife. Our tax and hunting dollars should go to those farmers and ranchers that maintain and enhance habitat on thier farms, this would not only benefit hunters and anglers but would make a better enviornment for all people that live here. Good stewardship provides clean water, air and would help with carbon sequstion which benifit all and that should be the goal of public money not to benefit the rancher that yells the loudest.

I would like to know why our public money goes to pay wildlife depredation claims to people that do not allow hunting? Hunting is our number one wildlife maagement tool available and if you do not allow any access you should not get money for losses or fences to keep them out. Why were none of these initives discusseed when open spaces was thought of?

[bigkid6.7]

So what are you saying? That they should let any tom dick or harry on there land with a gun! Its there land they payed for it they can decide who they should let on!!!

[Vindalbakken]

He is saying that if you want to deny the gov't of the wildlife management tools it has at its disposal then you should not expect any compensation from the gov't for damage by the wildlife on your property.

[bigkid6.7]

Your still saying the same thing. That the land owner would not have control over how was allowed on there land. Most land owners that do not allow hunting on there place have a every good reson for it. 90% of the hunters out there are great look after the land make sure the leave it better then they found it but it's that 10% that just dont care is why the land owner HAS to have the right to chose who he lets on his land!

[DAVE]

Originally Posted by Vindalbakken

He is saying that if you want to deny the gov't of the wildlife management tools it has at its disposal then you should not expect any compensation from the gov't for damage by the wildlife on your property.

x2

[jackalope]

right now in wmu 300 most land owners will not let you hunt on there land because of the shut down of the osp. They know they are lossing big money on the tags they could sell for big money, more or less for rich people! Lots of the land owners joined together because of this. Yes they do have the right to say yes or no to who ever they want to let on there land. how ever this is the main reason right now. wildlife should not be put on the market for people that have big money,to hunt them .They belong to all the public ,and future generations to enjoy, we should not put a price tag on there heads.

[outlaw'd]

divide and conquer.......................worked great in past history

Originally Posted by bigkid6.7

So what are you saying? That they should let any tom dick or harry on there land with a gun! Its there land they payed for it they can decide who they should let on!!!

I agree they should be able to say who has access to there land. RAMP takes this right away from them. They will no longer have the ability to say who will be on their land.

Bubba

[bruceba]

Has anyone heard any updates lately, you know how the Government can be. Let something go unopposed for a couple weeks thats thier clue to ram the programs through. IMHO

Received this in my email today. It is from a member of Alberta Association of Municiple Districts and counties AAMD&C.

"I was at a meeting at Drumheller Friday with Canadian Badlands, which is a tourism based partnership, that covers from RedDeer south and East of hwy.2.
( 57 municipalities). I was shocked to here a Councillor from Acadia Valley get up and suggest implementing PAID HUNTING as a tourism industry.
It was not the time or place for an argument, but I am on my way to Edmonton for AAMD&C annual conference and already have a meeting set up with Minister Cindy Ady
On another matter and will be attacking this suggestion as we did last year with Min. Morton. I hope I will have the same support from you and your colleagues as before.
We cannot let our guard down, or this will bite us again."

Bubba

Since it looks like RAMP (or as some of us have come to call it country club hunting) is going through this year here are three possible ways I could see this going.

1. Thank you for calling the Country Club booking line oops sorry RAMP booking line. Press 1 if you would like to book a tee time err hunting time today. After pressing 1 all you here is laughter. Press 2 to book another date. You press 2 Please key in date you would like. Press 1 for morning 2 for evening. After keying in 1 for morning you get “We are sorry that date and time are already booked would you like to try another date”

I think you get the idea

2. Someone contacts landowner. Hi my name is XXXXX I understand you have applied to participate in the RAMP program. How would you like it if I took care of all the bookings available on your property? I will manage the hunters and make sure that you get the maximum value possible out of the program.

3. The most dangerous. Since the government has set the precedence of allowing landowners to be paid for allowing hunting on there property hows about I give you 2500.00/section/year. Myself and my friends/clients will be the only ones accessing the land you do not have to fill out any paperwork or contracts. I will pay you upfront and you do not have to worry about good stewardship.

This is somewhat tongue in cheek but not unreasonable. Any one of these scenarios could and probably will happen.

Bubba

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

3. The most dangerous. Since the government has set the precedence of allowing landowners to be paid for allowing hunting on there property hows about I give you 2500.00/section/year. Myself and my friends/clients will be the only ones accessing the land you do not have to fill out any paperwork or contracts. I will pay you upfront and you do not have to worry about good stewardship.

Bubba

I don't think this would happen any more than it does now. Why would a landowner do something illegal then if he isn't already doing it now? This would probably go DOWN as the landowner could make money legally.

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I don't think this would happen any more than it does now. Why would a landowner do something illegal then if he isn't already doing it now? This would probably go DOWN as the landowner could make money legally.

There is the kicker. Would it still be illegal? If the government can pay the landowner why can't someone else do it? This is starting to happen in Montana. Landowners are pulling there land out of the Block Management Program because they can get more money elsewhere.

Bubba