Paid hunting heads up.

[elkhunter11]

People being afraid to ask for permission isn't my problem, grow up, nut up and knock on the door if it is that big of a deal. No different than in other areas some pay, some don't.

I have no problems asking for permission, I do it on a regular basis, but I do know many people that choose to hunt only on crown land because they won't ask.

And you are correct about people paying for access in other areas. Have you ever watched the hunting shows on TV where they are hunting on public land without special draws? In most cases, if a deer has antlers, it gets shot. In Michigan the average buck killed is 1-1/2 years old, because the hunting pressure on public land is so extreme, that only a small minority of deer survive to maturity. Of course the high dollar hunters that can afford to hunt on the high dollar leases kill bigger animals, but they aren't the average hunter, because the average hunter can't afford to hunt on those leases.

It wouldn't be as bad if the outfitting laws were the same as they are in Saskatchewan, where outfitters can't conduct hunts on private land, because the resident hunters at least wouldn't have to compete with the big dollars that the outfitters can afford, but it is still bad news for hunting in general.

[yotekiller]

Originally Posted by landowner

Oh I think you are wrong, people will gladly pay to hunt land with good populations and not be bothered by a hundred other hunters.

once again not all of us are rich...



yote

[elkhunter11]

Oh I think you are wrong, people will gladly pay to hunt land with good populations and not be bothered by a hundred other hunters.

It all depends on the price, and once pay for access is allowed, the prices for the better locations will climb, due to supply and demand, until the average person simply can't afford it. The wealthy hunters will hunt the good locations, the not so wealthy hunters will hunt the less desirable but more affordable locations, and the average hunters will be crawling over each other on public land.

[The Elkster]

So we have board of heavily pro-capitalist folks upset at the proposition of a landowner making money off allowing people to enter HIS land. Phew. Interesting how the prospect of money flowing OUT of people's pockets instead of IN changes their view on personal freedoms.

[yotekiller]

[QUOTE=hillbillyreefer;1691380]People being afraid to ask for permission isn't my problem, grow up, nut up and knock on the door if it is that big of a deal. No different than in other areas some pay, some don't.

Ah well, whatever. Next time you go to check into a hotel ask for a free room because you are tired see how far that gets you. Why can a hotel charge to use their real estate but a farmer can't? When was the last time you parked for free downtown in a city? Strange how that is acceptable,

"a landowner charging you to use his real estate isn't acceptable. I believe the word for that is hypocrisy."


just wondering, what does parking have to do with charging to access land to shoot an animal?? they don't own the deer, or am i wrong???

[Walleyes]

Originally Posted by sunsetrider2011

Quite an interesting read really,, the lasty meeting i was at ,, was quite interesting as well, Quite informative. So much so Now I am going to put alot of effert and captial in buying more Land, actually alot more land. If this ever does come to light, I will have very large parcels of prime land. Everyone knows my bone of contention with the entitlement folks. It will just be more acres on that I will, control access.
I think once the whining winds up about "oh no you cant do that attitudes to the GOV" The Government will get fed up and There will be a whole pile of Grazing leases coming up for sale. And a pile of landowners that maintained them will be coughing up the purchase prices for them..On that note, when it comes to light ,,I would try and buy every peice I could. Owners ship of property changes the game In a big way. Especially with the entitlement crowd.

Or it could work against the average family farm that is already struggling and leveraged to the gills.. This will cause land prices to go even higher because wealthy business owners will start buying up these parcels of grazing lands. Farmers will be forced to buy up land at high prices forced to go even deeper in debt. Those of us that will stand back and wait and watch will come into the banks and buy the land off off bankrupt farmers and banks for $0.50 on the dollar.. Sounds interesting you think this will start soon ??

[mhd]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

People being afraid to ask for permission isn't my problem, grow up, nut up and knock on the door if it is that big of a deal. No different than in other areas some pay, some don't.

Ah well, whatever. Next time you go to check into a hotel ask for a free room because you are tired see how far that gets you. Why can a hotel charge to use their real estate but a farmer can't? When was the last time you parked for free downtown in a city? Strange how that is acceptable, but a landowner charging you to use his real estate isn't acceptable. I believe the word for that is hypocrisy.

My opinion..."Why can a hotel charge to use their real estate but a farmer can't?" The hotel owns everything in it, the land owner does NOT own the wildlife on his land.

[yotekiller]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

It all depends on the price, and once pay for access is allowed, the prices for the better locations will climb, due to supply and demand, until the average person simply can't afford it. The wealthy hunters will hunt the good locations, the not so wealthy hunters will hunt the less desirable but more affordable locations, and the average hunters will be crawling over each other on public land.

X2!

[yotekiller]

Originally Posted by mhd

My opinion..."Why can a hotel charge to use their real estate but a farmer can't?" The hotel owns everything in it, the land owner does NOT own the wildlife on his land.

x2!

[mhd]

Originally Posted by yotekiller

once again not all of us are rich...



yote

X2

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I have no problems asking for permission, I do it on a regular basis, but I do know many people that choose to hunt only on crown land because they won't ask.

And you are correct about people paying for access in other areas. Have you ever watched the hunting shows on TV where they are hunting on public land without special draws? In most cases, if a deer has antlers, it gets shot. In Michigan the average buck killed is 1-1/2 years old, because the hunting pressure on public land is so extreme, that only a small minority of deer survive to maturity. Of course the high dollar hunters that can afford to hunt on the high dollar leases kill bigger animals, but they aren't the average hunter, because the average hunter can't afford to hunt on those leases.

It wouldn't be as bad if the outfitting laws were the same as they are in Saskatchewan, where outfitters can't conduct hunts on private land, because the resident hunters at least wouldn't have to compete with the big dollars that the outfitters can afford, but it is still bad news for hunting in general.

It is their choice whether to ask permission or go hunt crown land. That fact has no bearing on the debate, they will just carry on doing what they are comfortable with.

Michigan population 9,876,000 land area 250,500 km2
Alberta Population. 3,860,000 land area 661,848 km2

Not exactly comparing apples to apples now are we. I'm sure you could look up statistics on public land compared to population and come up with another case of not apples to apples.

APOS will never go for that.

[The Elkster]

There is no charge for the animal. If it chooses to be on the land that has nothing to do with the landowner unless he is illegally baiting. And why shouldn't the price be set in the free market like everything else? Because It doesn't suit you? Should the Feds regulate oil prices so some easterner can afford it?

[sunsetrider2011]

Originally Posted by Walleyes

Or it could work against the average family farm that is already struggling and leveraged to the gills.. This will cause land prices to go even higher because wealthy business owners will start buying up these parcels of grazing lands. Farmers will be forced to buy up land at high prices forced to go even deeper in debt. Those of us that will stand back and wait and watch will come into the banks and buy the land off off bankrupt farmers and banks for $0.50 on the dollar.. Sounds interesting you think this will start soon ??

Well maybe it may come to that, However I think not, alot of the famers today are concious about buying land, Ity adds to the bottom line. First and foremost the GL'S will be offered to the mainstay lessee that holds it. if he doesnt buy it up it will then go to public tender. I wouldnt count on outsiders coming into the rural settings, to purchase land that they wouldnt have a vested interest in, other than recreation,, to many large operators here that some of these GL's border,,they will be snapped up in a heart beat.

that is the great thing of living in special areas

[elkhunter11]

APOS will never go for that.

Of course they won't, because APOS only cares about making more money for themselves, no matter what they have to do to get it. The fact that they allow convicted criminals and convicted poachers to remain as members proves that. They could care less about the Alberta resident hunter. They could care less about anyone but themselves.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by mhd

My opinion..."Why can a hotel charge to use their real estate but a farmer can't?" The hotel owns everything in it, the land owner does NOT own the wildlife on his land.

I'm charging you to use the land, not for the animal. I also own the land, have a title registered with land titles in Edmonton,and a paid off mortgage, yet you for some reason want to restrict my rights to own and enjoy my property as I see fit. I bet you wouldn't share those views if I wanted to trespass, and discharge firearms on your 100x100 slice of the American Dream. You have your property rights and also want to have mine. Sorry sunshine it doesn't work that way, even in Canada.

[Walleyes]

Originally Posted by sunsetrider2011

Well maybe it may come to that, However I think not, alot of the famers today are concious about buying land, Ity adds to the bottom line. First and foremost the GL'S will be offered to the mainstay lessee that holds it. if he doesnt buy it up it will then go to public tender. I wouldnt count on outsiders coming into the rural settings, to purchase land that they wouldnt have a vested interest in, other than recreation,, to many large operators here that some of these GL's border,,they will be snapped up in a heart beat.

that is the great thing of living in special areas

Nope sorry,, any public land sold must be made availible for open public auction.."ITS THE LAW" If payed hunting is allowed many will have vested interest to buy huge tracts of land,, many with a tonne more money than the majority beef farmers. You know as well as I do there are more farms struggling and ready to give up than there are those that have a few hundred grand sitting around and even less Banks ready to back them more.. We all remember the feasco that went on down south with the potato farmer, do you think people are going to stand for that attempt again.. We can go at this all night,, lets see the evidence of your claims or shall I research it again ??

I don't want to be jumping on you all the time Sunset,, I just don't take well to idle threats..

[bessiedog]

Sorry.. Didn't intend to ruffle anyone that much whiskey.

My point is that MOST farms get public support to conduct their business. I don't mind supporting such actually.. If we want a total private agricultural sector, alot of farms would likely go under over the long run by my estimation. But that dosent happen here, nor should it.

I still would like someone to chime in on whether we want a Texas or New Mexico model of wildlife management .. Hunting ranches and high fenced preserved. I think the wild is a little less wild there.


Dosent North Dakoda pay farmers to leave habitat AS viable habitat for pheasants? Why aren't we doing that? The proviso being that they allow public access...
Great regional economic stimulation no?
And you have a stuartship model that is profit motive based.

I'm just floating balloons here.

[hillbillyreefer]

[QUOTE=bessiedog;1691531

Dosent North Dakoda pay farmers to leave habitat AS viable habitat for pheasants? Why aren't we doing that? The proviso being that they allow public access...
Great regional economic stimulation no?
And you have a stuartship model that is profit motive based.

I'm just floating balloons here.[/QUOTE]

So paid access, just with all taxpayers footing the bill for the few hunters that use the program. Wasn't that you going on about social entitlements to farmers a few posts ago? They are bad for farmers but OK if you want to hunt?
My friend there is a strong possibility you are a hypocrite!

[fish gunner]

I remember a song from when I was a kid. "this land my land,
this land is your land "
the whole point of our land law is to give free access to law abiding citizens. not to follow the ways of the old country eg, england. where only the "well to do" had access to private land. it is the basis of the right to free roaming .
in this part of the world, the greed of the land owners and ignorance of entitled hunters are doomed to spoil 200 yrs of tradition. shame on both.
for those that feel paid access is a good thing remember some one ALWAYS has more money . so when the outsider with the pounds /marks/dhakmars, buys your old hunting grounds only one party to blame. sad sad day when greed outweighs our glorious history. "this land was made for you and me"

[bessiedog]

Reefer...
If my post was taken as a slam against farmer, I'm sorry. That was not the intent. Relax eh? And let's move on. I guess I made a poor attempt at pointing out the ag industry isn't a pure private business.

My N Dakota reference is an attempt to connect some ideas that are already being played with in S Alberta.
Take the Taber Pheasant festival, by many accounts, the town really benifitted from this.
Paying for habitat retention by landowners and coulnt it with promoting hunting in the region has proven to be an effective moodle for economic stimulus, habitat enhancement and hunter promotion(?)
And we don't have this paid access thingy going on.

What am I missing.

Again.. Sorry for angering you. Sometimes my points come across ham fisted.

[elkhunter11]

So paid access, just with all taxpayers footing the bill for the few hunters that use the program.

It's not paid access, it getting paid to maintain wildlife habitat. There is a difference. You can allow all the access that you please, but if you destroy the habitat, you don't get paid.

[yotekiller]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

I'm charging you to use the land, not for the animal. I also own the land, have a title registered with land titles in Edmonton,and a paid off mortgage, yet you for some reason want to restrict my rights to own and enjoy my property as I see fit. I bet you wouldn't share those views if I wanted to trespass, and discharge firearms on your 100x100 slice of the American Dream. You have your property rights and also want to have mine. Sorry sunshine it doesn't work that way, even in Canada.

how is he restricting your rights to own and enjoy your property??? you can still enjoy and do whatever the hell you like on you land! if you where trespassing and discharging your firearm on my land without permission you would be reported and charged a large sum of money!
also we are not restricting your rights to own and enjoy your land, just your money flow coming in from us hunters.
sorry bud but I'm not going to pay you for me to supply meat for my family.
oh and you do realize that this would increase the rate of poaching by like 10x!
get you head on straight man!


yote

[sunsetrider2011]

Originally Posted by Walleyes

Nope sorry,, any public land sold must be made availible for open public auction.."ITS THE LAW" If payed hunting is allowed many will have vested interest to buy huge tracts of land,, many with a tonne more money than the majority beef farmers. You know as well as I do there are more farms struggling and ready to give up than there are those that have a few hundred grand sitting around and even less Banks ready to back them more.. We all remember the feasco that went on down south with the potato farmer, do you think people are going to stand for that attempt again.. We can go at this all night,, lets see the evidence of your claims or shall I research it again ??

I don't want to be jumping on you all the time Sunset,, I just don't take well to idle threats..

No Idle threat at all,,if you have deep pockets step up,, because if it comes down to it you will need the deep pockets. And if you think the farmers here are in rough shape you need to do a lil more homework, Most of the large outfits are well on their way and are for the most part debt free. I have spent the last 30 years building and paying off initial mortagages,,now its a all about the land and aquiring more of it. Im am young enough yet i am sure i can add atleast another 100 1/4's to the ranch before I retire. and then it will be passed on debt free to my daughter and grand daughter. The majority of the neighbours have been here for generations, and willl be here for generations yet. And that will pretty much cover north side of 164 to the majority 0f 200 202 an 203. You might have some problems with farms going under where you are,, but none around here. Havent been for some while.
Special areas have to approve the sale of GL'S in the area,, you have to have an invested interest,,IE livestock to qualify to even buy it. Do you have 2 or 300 head to justify to the powers that be that you are entitled to own the property? Also the majority of it if native prairie,, You can not do anything with it, other than use it for grazing or let it sit dormant,, for future grazing. you can not break it for seeding,,it is untouchable by a plow. Even if you own it you dont have a say what you do with it. in that regards.

Also here is an example ,,of someone buying land in this area,, recent land sale of 58 quarters, this last fall, fellow passed away with no heirs. Neighbour steps in and buys the whole lot,,Had option to buy the GL as well, another 22 1/4s, opted to buy the GL,S as well. Now with in a 6 month period 70 quarters changed hands to 1 individual. He is one of many guys that i would have to compete with to buy large parcels of land that border my and their land.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Walleyes

Or it could work against the average family farm that is already struggling and leveraged to the gills.. This will cause land prices to go even higher because wealthy business owners will start buying up these parcels of grazing lands. Farmers will be forced to buy up land at high prices forced to go even deeper in debt. Those of us that will stand back and wait and watch will come into the banks and buy the land off off bankrupt farmers and banks for $0.50 on the dollar.. Sounds interesting you think this will start soon ??

doubt it.
Do you have any idea how high the taxes jump on a full section of agricultural land if it isn't being used for agriculture?
Its big.

A rich guy might be able to squeeze a few out and buy that land but he better have a plan to work it or he'll go broke fast paying taxes and end up putting iton the block at a loss because it has been fallow too long. And the only guys that will buy it and be able to do something with it will be the neighbours and friends of the guy he bent over and buggered a couple years earlier.

If it was me...I'd let it go to the banks and eventually the government then pick it up on a lease or at a greatly reduced cost since suddenly....there is all kinds of land available.

You know..if this thing gathers too much steam a fella might want to think about getting a few pre-emptive memorandums of understanding hammered out before prices jump.
I'm out...its past me and I'll just switch it up and retire to BC where I still have residency status as a military member if it comes to fruition.
But a few guys here might want to buy a bottle of the best hooch they can afford and visiting their rural friends to try to get in while this is still on the ground floor....just in case.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by yotekiller

how is he restricting your rights to own and enjoy your property??? you can still enjoy and do whatever the hell you like on you land! if you where trespassing and discharging your firearm on my land without permission you would be reported and charged a large sum of money!

get you head on straight man!


yote

I may enjoy charging others to use my property, much like hundreds of other businesses. You won't allow me to do that if the purpose is for hunting, therefore you are limiting my freedoms and rights to "use and enjoy" my private property.
It ****es you off to suggest someone on your property doing what you want to do on mine. Interesting.

[yotekiller]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

I may enjoy charging others to use my property, much like hundreds of other businesses. You won't allow me to do that if the purpose is for hunting, therefore you are limiting my freedoms and rights to "use and enjoy" my private property.
It ****es you off to suggest someone on your property doing what you want to do on mine. Interesting.

i edited my post read it now.

[sunsetrider2011]

Originally Posted by pesky672

doubt it.
Do you have any idea how high the taxes jump on a full section of agricultural land if it isn't being used for agriculture?
Its big.

A rich guy might be able to squeeze a few out and buy that land but he better have a plan to work it or he'll go broke fast paying taxes and end up putting iton the block at a loss because it has been fallow too long. And the only guys that will buy it and be able to do something with it will be the neighbours and friends of the guy he bent over and buggered a couple years earlier.

If it was me...I'd let it go to the banks and eventually the government then pick it up on a lease or at a greatly reduced cost since suddenly....there is all kinds of land available.

Not only that Pesky,, if in fallow it still has to be maintained and kept weed free,, to the tune of 4 to 5 bucks an acre on thr low end for chemical,, then another 10 to 15 dollars and acre to applicate it. adds up in a hurry. Or spend the money on fuel and machinery to work it every 3 or 4 months.

[elkhunter11]

doubt it.
Do you have any idea how high the taxes jump on a full section of agricultural land if it isn't being used for agriculture?
Its big.

The obvious solution is to rent out the land. When my grandfather decided that he didn't want to farm any more, he had no problems at all renting out the land for several years, until he eventually decided to sell it. And if you only rent out the land for the crop season, you still have a lot of control over what happens on that land.

[yotekiller]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

I may enjoy charging others to use my property, much like hundreds of other businesses. You won't allow me to do that if the purpose is for hunting, therefore you are limiting my freedoms and rights to "use and enjoy" my private property.
It ****es you off to suggest someone on your property doing what you want to do on mine. Interesting.

i wouldn't be trespassing! i always ask permission and if you say no then so be it, i won't hunt on you land. not all of us are trespassers and poachers!


yote

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

It's not paid access, it getting paid to maintain wildlife habitat. There is a difference. You can allow all the access that you please, but if you destroy the habitat, you don't get paid.

In the end it all accomplishes the same thing. The landowner gets paid to allow access, which no one would want if he had destroyed the habit. Makes sense to me, except for the entire taxpayer base is paying for the activities of a few. I imagine the civil service could also think up numerous rules and regs that need o be checked up on under this scheme. That would allow them to increase their taxpayer funded empire. Would market forces not be less burdensome on everyone involved?