alberta beef producers proposing pay to play

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

I think the goal for those who support paid hunting is for profit only IMHO....the cons outweigh the pros....sure there are certain "guises" that they want to offer as justification BUT in the end it's the money that people want....

LC

There's no doubt in my mind that it has everything to do with money. I also think that it mainly applies to the southern regions of Alberta where most of the land is privately owned. Up this way there's too much crown land to hunt and someone looking to get paid for allowing access would be SOL. I don't think that everyone in the southern portion of the province would be on board with charging people to access their land either. Many would understand the benefits of allowing access to people as a way to manage the wildlife population. I'm thinking that this is something driven by the big ranchers that own huge tracts of land.

[expmler]

OK, I am going to try find some middle ground here.

As I see it, hunters want access, landowners want compensation.

I realize that there are a certain number of hunters that will never pay for access and there are a certain number of landowners that will never allow access.

I think we can agree that wildlife does cause damage. I think we can agree that hunters should be able to use the resource.

As it stands now hunters do not have to pay any compensation to land owners, and landowners do not have to grant access.

So how do we encourage both sides to give a little and both benefit.

If I told you for a single payment of $10.00 you would be able to access the land of many landowners would you think it was worth it.

If I told you that by allowing hunters to use your land you would be compensated for wildlife damage would you not think it was worth it.

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by recce43

you do to allow access

I do. No favours in return. Just do as I ask. I am going to charge to use my cooler and meat cutting equipment though.
Heck recce I've even got a guest house for out of towners to stay in. Probably have 25-30 guy's around during course of the hunting season. Wife hates doing all the cooking buy she gets over it by August. Lol

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by expmler

OK, I am going to try find some middle ground here.

As I see it, hunters want access, landowners want compensation.

I realize that there are a certain number of hunters that will never pay for access and there are a certain number of landowners that will never allow access.

I think we can agree that wildlife does cause damage. I think we can agree that hunters should be able to use the resource.

As it stands now hunters do not have to pay any compensation to land owners, and landowners do not have to grant access.

So how do we encourage both sides to give a little and both benefit.

If I told you for a single payment of $10.00 you would be able to access the land of many landowners would you think it was worth it.

If I told you that by allowing hunters to use your land you would be compensated for wildlife damage would you not think it was worth it.

Just to be a fly in your ointment. The wildlife damages are very little to me compared to the ruts in the field, the gut piles and hides left in the field and the dogs barking at 6 in the morning. Imo

[Gust]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

Just to be a fly in your ointment. The wildlife damages are very little to me compared to the ruts in the field, the gut piles and hides left in the field and the dogs barking at 6 in the morning. Imo

I was just going to say something to this effect; to recoup $5,000 in losses at ten bux a head/hunter requires access of 500 hunters (there's also a huge liability in there that hasn't been touched on yet),,, hunters won't take the beaten path, they'll beat their own. Some hunters will pack it out, others will leave what they don't want or start applying their rules to their hunt.

Some hunters will ask to buy you out on your loss/recoup of $5,000 in one go and show up with a select crew (there's the thread on crown land and a private hunt barring hunters from the public land), is the cost for the day or the season. How many head of wildlife represent $5,000,, are you charging access to cull the problem or profit from a wayward herd that has discovered a farmer making food very accessible?

Of course things can be ironed out.

[Mulehahn]

There is interesting debate on all sides, but the one thing that I am confused about is if this initiative was out forward by a rancher's association, why is the debate focused on farmers. Does the ABP represent farmers as well as ranchers in Alberta? I grew up in BC where ranches and farmers had separate lobby groups. I fully understand that elk/deer can cause extensive damage to crops but most of the ranchers I have known (including family) are not bothered by them. To me the fact that this initiative is being put forward by Ranchers and not farmers screams cash grab.

To the issue at hand, I do not support a fee to harvest a publicly owned resource. Land owners should be able to control who has access to there land, but not charge for it. There should be stronger punishments for those that trespass. Perhaps large fines that go into a sort of pool to compensate farmers for damage done. To charge a fee would do nothing to resolve the issue. There would still be people trespassing (probably more since you have to pay if you don't), the number of elk or deer harvested would not be greatly affected and one of the few groups that legally do something are negatively affected.

[Red Bullets]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

Do you think you're doing me a favour by hunting on my land?
Maybe I could designate you as holder of one or two of the ten tags and you go to f&w with my land description to get your tag. If you can eat all ten fill your boots. Believe me I've got better things to do than sell tags. Imo it's better than bringing in the natives.

Not a derail, just a curiosity.This is a odd statement.

When there is an 'over' population of ungulates that need to culled from your land, why is it better to not bring in the natives? Are they not good hunters? Do the native hunters disrespect your land? Do they leave a mess more than the 'other' hunters? Or do they not deserve the meat for their families too?

And the native communities aren't restricted to hunt only in fall. They can harvest in Dec or Jan or Feb when the elk are more of a problem. Which makes me wonder about this logic.

Maybe a person should try to start a program of government hunters who would hunt the 'over abundance' of ungulates being complained about to supply the food banks of Alberta. Then there would be no need for resident 'white' or native hunters to have access. And since the ungulates are property of the crown, the government would decide when and who hunts. Then the farmer wouldn't have to worry about it or wouldn't need any say in who hunts his land. And best of all... our hungry children and families would be at least be fed.
Then noone could bicker on who has the right to hunt or give access... focus would be on the hungry instead of the selfish.

[Drewski Canuck]

Expmlr,

Just to point it out, access is access. If you don't want to give it, you don't give it.

However, if there is game on your land and you value the activities of hunters in controlling the game numbers, there is your win - win.

50 volunteer hunters spending their time and money to solve your wildlife problem has HUGE value.

As for your $10 fee business, wildlife license dollars are already being used to compensate the crop losses. Why should we pay twice?

There is no middle ground. If you have waste from your business and a recycler agrees to take it off your hands, you save money and he has a product to work with. If you want to deal with the problems associated with your business alone, then bear the costs yourself.

Having lived in Texas, with a then population of 18 million in an area the size of Alberta, I have seen the effects of fee for hunting access. However, the price then was $5,000.00 to join a hunt club, with 100 other guys on the same ranch, plus further fees for a canned hunt.

Even the average farmer can't afford that.

Instead, our ACA fees should be used for land acquisition and preservation of critical habitat. Something a farmer has no interest in, as he only gets his money by having a bigger crop yield. That is where I would put my $10.00

As for telling a farmer I do not appreciate his access, that is the furthest thing from the truth. Ask the farmers at Smoky Lake who the guy is bringing moose sausage and deer jerky, or who the guy was that brings blueberry jam to the farmer at Clyde. However, this is more appreciated then your proposal of giving the farmer a little beer money.

Drewski

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by Gust

I was just going to say something to this effect; to recoup $5,000 in losses at ten bux a head/hunter requires access of 500 hunters (there's also a huge liability in there that hasn't been touched on yet),,, hunters won't take the beaten path, they'll beat their own. Some hunters will pack it out, others will leave what they don't want or start applying their rules to their hunt.

Some hunters will ask to buy you out on your loss/recoup of $5,000 in one go and show up with a select crew (there's the thread on crown land and a private hunt barring hunters from the public land), is the cost for the day or the season. How many head of wildlife represent $5,000,, are you charging access to cull the problem or profit from a wayward herd that has discovered a farmer making food very accessible?

Of course things can be ironed out.

Me personally gust, I've got no issues with wildlife damages. They are just trying to survive and little I can do about that. I like seeing the animals out there. It's the damages that the so called responsible and respectful people leave behind that a take issues with. The truth is everybody tells you how good they are and how they'll treat the land like it's theirs but actions speak louder than words. It is really upsetting when I see a gate that was closed when I went to work and come home to see the same gate open, 6" inch ruts in the field and a gut pile there.
I'm sure you can see my point of view.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

Just to be a fly in your ointment. The wildlife damages are very little to me compared to the ruts in the field, the gut piles and hides left in the field and the dogs barking at 6 in the morning. Imo

Gut piles and hides barely last overnight on my land. I'm up earlier than 6 in the morning during the fall.

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by Red Bullets

Not a derail, just a curiosity.This is a odd statement.

When there is an 'over' population of ungulates that need to culled from your land, why is it better to not bring in the natives? Are they not good hunters? Do the native hunters disrespect your land? Do they leave a mess more than the 'other' hunters? Or do they not deserve the meat for their families too?

And the native communities aren't restricted to hunt only in fall. They can harvest in Dec or Jan or Feb when the elk are more of a problem. Which makes me wonder about this logic.

Maybe a person should try to start a program of government hunters who would hunt the 'over abundance' of ungulates being complained about to supply the food banks of Alberta. Then there would be no need for resident 'white' or native hunters to have access. And since the ungulates are property of the crown, the government would decide when and who hunts. Then the farmer wouldn't have to worry about it or wouldn't need any say in who hunts his land. And best of all... our hungry children and families would be at least be fed.
Then noone could bicker on who has the right to hunt or give access... focus would be on the hungry instead of the selfish.

Nothing derogatory to the natives was meant but it could give some of the other sportsmen a better chance to put grub on their families table.

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by expmler

Gut piles and hides barely last overnight on my land. I'm up earlier than 6 in the morning during the fall.

Yes you're right they don't last long but I prefer not to have coyotes and other predators around let alone have my dogs out there when they should be in the yard. I'm generally up aswell but doesn't mean the grumpy one is.

[JRsMav]

Originally Posted by expmler

OK, I am going to try find some middle ground here.

As I see it, hunters want access, landowners want compensation.

I realize that there are a certain number of hunters that will never pay for access and there are a certain number of landowners that will never allow access.

I think we can agree that wildlife does cause damage. I think we can agree that hunters should be able to use the resource.

As it stands now hunters do not have to pay any compensation to land owners, and landowners do not have to grant access.

So how do we encourage both sides to give a little and both benefit.

If I told you for a single payment of $10.00 you would be able to access the land of many landowners would you think it was worth it.

If I told you that by allowing hunters to use your land you would be compensated for wildlife damage would you not think it was worth it.

I think the proper wording is a select few landowners want compensation. Unfortunately its the whiny and greedy individuals creating this dust up.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Gust

I was just going to say something to this effect; to recoup $5,000 in losses at ten bux a head/hunter requires access of 500 hunters (there's also a huge liability in there that hasn't been touched on yet),,, hunters won't take the beaten path, they'll beat their own. Some hunters will pack it out, others will leave what they don't want or start applying their rules to their hunt.

Some hunters will ask to buy you out on your loss/recoup of $5,000 in one go and show up with a select crew (there's the thread on crown land and a private hunt barring hunters from the public land), is the cost for the day or the season. How many head of wildlife represent $5,000,, are you charging access to cull the problem or profit from a wayward herd that has discovered a farmer making food very accessible?

Of course things can be ironed out.

You don't understand my proposal. I am saying if there are 10,000 hunting licenses sold each licensee pays $10.00 that goes into a pool. That is $100,000.00.

Landowners that grant access to hunters recoup their losses from the pool, not from each individual hunter at the gate.

If they can prove damages and permitting access they draw out of the pool.

As far as liability goes a farmer would be in the same position if he grants access now.

[missingtwo]

Originally Posted by JRsMav

I think the proper wording is a select few landowners want compensation. Unfortunately its the whiny and greedy individuals creating this dust up.

Hammer, meet head of nail.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by JRsMav

I think the proper wording is a select few landowners want compensation. Unfortunately its the whiny and greedy individuals creating this dust up.

I'm sorry but your opinion doesn't hold much weight with me seeing how you make money exploiting wild life.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by expmler

You don't understand my proposal. I am saying if there are 10,000 hunting licenses sold each licensee pays $10.00 that goes into a pool. That is $100,000.00.

Landowners that grant access to hunters recoup their losses from the pool, not from each individual hunter at the gate.

If they can prove damages and permitting access they draw out of the pool.

As far as liability goes a farmer would be in the same position if he grants access now.

how do you divide hunters into 3 groups though? do all hunters pay the ten bux, or just the hunters who want access to land? do hunters who only hunt crown land pay, do hunters who have granted access pay?

Because if I just hunt crown land and I'm paying into a farmers compensation kitty just because, well, it goes into that other territory.

This thread should be combined with the thread about stopping hunting/fishing revenues from going into general revenues.

[JRsMav]

Originally Posted by expmler

I'm sorry but your opinion doesn't hold much weight with me seeing how you make money exploiting wild life.

lol please do explain? I don't make one nickel big guy. But thanks for the insight

[crownb]

One thing I have learned form this thread and the snowmobile trespass thread is that farmers and land owners are not very well respected in the sportsman community, this is unfortunate and really surprising to me. I can tell you that next time the phone rings or there is a knock on the door the answer will be no, now you might think I am painting a broad stoke on all sportsman because we all know there are more good than bad, but others on here have used the same brush on cattle producers saying they will stop buying ab beef, NOT all producers are on board with this, as a cattle producer this concerns me how easily some will walk away from alberta beef. In the end this thread is basically boiled down to mud slinging now from both sides, it's time to shut it down.

[pickrel pat]

Originally Posted by expmler

You don't understand my proposal. I am saying if there are 10,000 hunting licenses sold each licensee pays $10.00 that goes into a pool. That is $100,000.00.

Landowners that grant access to hunters recoup their losses from the pool, not from each individual hunter at the gate.

If they can prove damages and permitting access they draw out of the pool.

As far as liability goes a farmer would be in the same position if he grants access now.

might work if everyone was honest.........fence is getting old?....run it down and blame it on hunters....walla....new fence. Grainery is old and shabby? shoot it up full of holes......blame on hunters.....new grainery..... not saying you would do this, but i bet my bottom dollar that many would exploit that to the max.

[JRsMav]

Originally Posted by crownb

One thing I have learned form this thread and the snowmobile trespass thread is that farmers and land owners are not very well respected in the sportsman community, this is unfortunate and really surprising to me. I can tell you that next time the phone rings or there is a knock on the door the answer will be no, now you might think I am painting a broad stoke on all sportsman because we all know there are more good than bad, but others on here have used the same brush on cattle producers saying they will stop buying ab beef, NOT all producers are on board with this, as a cattle producer this concerns me how easily some will walk away from alberta beef. In the end this thread is basically boiled down to mud slinging now from both sides, it's time to shut it down.

I don't feel this is correct by any means. I have wonderful relationships with many land owners in 232, and 100% respect each and every one of them. Ive been turned down for permission a grand total of 6 times in all my years hunting out there and most were due to fields already been spoken for. Im close friends with most of those same landowners, and I can say without a doubt they are not the guys pushing for this kind of thing. Again, its a select few that are pushing for the paid garbage. I don't respect men that are solely out for their own good. I do respect those that understand that we (yes we, as I am a landowner too fellas) play on the same team as the guys who we let hunt our land every year.

[JRsMav]

Originally Posted by pickrel pat

might work if everyone was honest.........fence is getting old?....run it down and blame it on hunters....walla....new fence. Grainery is old and shabby? shoot it up full of holes......blame on hunters.....new grainery..... not saying you would do this, but i bet my bottom dollar that many would exploit that to the max.

you hunt in between Camrose and daysland don't ya pat lol

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck

Expmlr,

Just to point it out, access is access. If you don't want to give it, you don't give it.

However, if there is game on your land and you value the activities of hunters in controlling the game numbers, there is your win - win.

50 volunteer hunters spending their time and money to solve your wildlife problem has HUGE value.

As for your $10 fee business, wildlife license dollars are already being used to compensate the crop losses. Why should we pay twice?

There is no middle ground. If you have waste from your business and a recycler agrees to take it off your hands, you save money and he has a product to work with. If you want to deal with the problems associated with your business alone, then bear the costs yourself.

Having lived in Texas, with a then population of 18 million in an area the size of Alberta, I have seen the effects of fee for hunting access. However, the price then was $5,000.00 to join a hunt club, with 100 other guys on the same ranch, plus further fees for a canned hunt.

Even the average farmer can't afford that.

Instead, our ACA fees should be used for land acquisition and preservation of critical habitat. Something a farmer has no interest in, as he only gets his money by having a bigger crop yield. That is where I would put my $10.00

As for telling a farmer I do not appreciate his access, that is the furthest thing from the truth. Ask the farmers at Smoky Lake who the guy is bringing moose sausage and deer jerky, or who the guy was that brings blueberry jam to the farmer at Clyde. However, this is more appreciated then your proposal of giving the farmer a little beer money.

Drewski

I would say me granting access to those 50 hunters is a huge value to them also.

I pay a $10.00 fee extra when I buy a license dedicated to habitat, yet I maintain some of the best habitat in the province.

That is a pretty broad statement about farmers not preserving habitat. I have hay land, broke land and native prairie on my farm.

I have dug wells that provide water to more than my cows, I do not cut the hay until the birds have hatched. I have deer, moose, elk, walking on my land and flourishing. I invite you to come and have a look at my operation and tell me I am the cause of wildlife habitat loss.

Would it be fair for me to say all hunters are a bunch of redneck clowns with no respect for private property.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by crownb

One thing I have learned form this thread and the snowmobile trespass thread is that farmers and land owners are not very well respected in the sportsman community, this is unfortunate and really surprising to me. I can tell you that next time the phone rings or there is a knock on the door the answer will be no, now you might think I am painting a broad stoke on all sportsman because we all know there are more good than bad, but others on here have used the same brush on cattle producers saying they will stop buying ab beef, NOT all producers are on board with this, as a cattle producer this concerns me how easily some will walk away from alberta beef. In the end this thread is basically boiled down to mud slinging now from both sides, it's time to shut it down.

The difference here though is that their is a unified voice of cattlemen and farmers that have representation in all seats of govt. But there is not the fishermen's lobby or a hunters lobby that unifies every single hunter or fisher with a voice out there,, we have a pick and choose your club or non-profit.
Otherwise AO is our voice to get noticed.

How did you express your concern with the Alberta beef producers on this issue?

[expmler]

Originally Posted by pickrel pat

might work if everyone was honest.........fence is getting old?....run it down and blame it on hunters....walla....new fence. Grainery is old and shabby? shoot it up full of holes......blame on hunters.....new grainery..... not saying you would do this, but i bet my bottom dollar that many would exploit that to the max.

I talking WILDLIFE damage not vandalism. I don't think I could convince any one that hunters ate a round bale.

[MAC]

Originally Posted by expmler

You don't understand my proposal. I am saying if there are 10,000 hunting licenses sold each licensee pays $10.00 that goes into a pool. That is $100,000.00.

Landowners that grant access to hunters recoup their losses from the pool, not from each individual hunter at the gate.

If they can prove damages and permitting access they draw out of the pool.

As far as liability goes a farmer would be in the same position if he grants access now.

Hunters currently pay for wildlife certificate plus average of 40.00 per tag.
Its nothing to drop 200.00 for tags. Another 10.00 for arguments sake alright we get hit with increases every year.

Ranchers or Farmers can apply for compensation for Wildlife damage now without having to prove access for hunters. What you describe above is not paid access and I don't have a problem with it. Wildlife damage property, improvement for wildlife there a number of programs for this now. But when a rancher says its my land you must pay me for the privilege of access is where it falls apart. Some guys are saying sure a hundred bucks is fine but it wont stop there. Once it is accepted it will grow to highest bidder gets exclusive access. Everyone here that appears to be fighting you/Landowners is not. They are fighting to allow equal access for hunters regardless of their station in life. The land is yours to do with as you please allow access or don't its your choice and I will support you happily either way. I get why some landowners have closed the gate. I am fed up beyond description with the Yahoos out there, and I'm not talking landowners. I report every infraction to the law if legal or the owner if its just disrespectful behavior. No one should get away with it. But I am going to fight the system that will get a door slam in my face unless I cough up 5 grand. A cheque should not open up the opportunity for hunting, while keeping others out.

MAC

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by expmler

I talking WILDLIFE damage not vandalism. I don't think I could convince any one that hunters ate a round bale.

Veggie hunters. Lol

[expmler]

Originally Posted by MAC

Hunters currently pay for wildlife certificate plus average of 40.00 per tag.
Its nothing to drop 200.00 for tags. Another 10.00 for arguments sake alright we get hit with increases every year.

Ranchers or Farmers can apply for compensation for Wildlife damage now without having to prove access for hunters. What you describe above is not paid access and I don't have a problem with it. Wildlife damage property, improvement for wildlife there a number of programs for this now. But when a rancher says its my land you must pay me for the privilege of access is where it falls apart. Some guys are saying sure a hundred bucks is fine but it wont stop there. Once it is accepted it will grow to highest bidder gets exclusive access. Everyone here that appears to be fighting you/Landowners is not. They are fighting to allow equal access for hunters regardless of their station in life. The land is yours to do with as you please allow access or don't its your choice and I will support you happily either way. I get why some landowners have closed the gate. I am fed up beyond description with the Yahoos out there, and I'm not talking landowners. I report every infraction to the law if legal or the owner if its just disrespectful behavior. No one should get away with it. But I am going to fight the system that will get a door slam in my face unless I cough up 5 grand. A cheque should not open up the opportunity for hunting, while keeping others out.

MAC

I did not realize that the landowners already have a compensation program. If they do then what they are proposing is a money grab under the guise of wildlife damage and I would not support it either.

I have been told many times that if it were legal for me to outfit on my land I would be rich, and I probably would. My only dilemma would be closing of my land to the many, many hunters (mostly local) who have had access for years and years. I hunt too and I know what it is like to be refused access.

[flyguyd]

Originally Posted by crownb

One thing I have learned form this thread and the snowmobile trespass thread is that farmers and land owners are not very well respected in the sportsman community, this is unfortunate and really surprising to me. I can tell you that next time the phone rings or there is a knock on the door the answer will be no, now you might think I am painting a broad stoke on all sportsman because we all know there are more good than bad, but others on here have used the same brush on cattle producers saying they will stop buying ab beef, NOT all producers are on board with this, as a cattle producer this concerns me how easily some will walk away from alberta beef. In the end this thread is basically boiled down to mud slinging now from both sides, it's time to shut it down.

I think you have painted us all with the same brush. There are problems on both sides of the fence. There are unethical( hunters) lack of a better word and greedy landowners. I would suggest that the majority of both are not enethical or greedy, a few are however and this is what fuels the fire. Respect is a two way street and must be earned on both sides. Where i hunt lots of landowners with never charge. But there are many who will, want to,and are trying to as we speak.
Be honest now, if it were legal to charge for access and all your neighbors were doing it wouldnt you eventually want your piece of the pie ?

[norwestalta]

Wildlife damages are a tough thing. Up where I'm working a couple of farmers left their bales in the field all winter. There is not much left of them now except twine and elk manure. Should they get compensation for being lazy?
I'm not saying that all are lazy but these ones are in my book. Do they expect compensation? I can't say.
I don't know if there is some kind of crop insurance for such a thing? I would think there would be. The same as hail or drought insurance.
Or you can look at it this way. As hunters we have to buy a license from the crown to hunt the animal that we choose. So does that mean it's the crown's animal? If it is then should the crown not be paying the feed bill? I can't turn my livestock out for them to feed where they choose. Another thought is if it's the crowns animal should the crown not have insurance for it when my truck is wrote off for hitting it.