Paid Hunting in Alberta?

.

.

Originally Posted by 209x50

All of which brings this all back around to my pocket book. And I'd be your biggest opponent. Do you know how easy it would be to kill any program no matter how good intentioned with a simple anti tax campaign? Hunters here are always whining about hiding their kills, bad pictures of dead animals and worrying about the antis, how far do you think you would get with a tax based proposal? For hunting? This is the political side of game management and to some people the ends justify the means.
I don't have the answer, I'm pretty sure that it is going to involve money. Where it comes from and how it is paid are the big questions.

I am going to jump in here. We obviously do not know where the money is going to come from. So who do you think will foot the bill? In the end I believe it is going to be sportsmen. 209 do you hunt and/or fish. Then eventually I believe you will be paying for this. I can think of no other way for this to be funded. Regular taxpayers you are right would have a fit if there taxes went up to support this initiative. Do not know and do not want to know the numbers but $2000.00 per section of land could add up to a lot.

209X50, you realize your 5 line question will probably take 5 pages to respond to but I’ll do my best.

First I would like to say that I don’t believe there is a conspiracy going on here one of my favourite quotes is “Why blame conspiracy when human stupidity explains so much.” And I believe this may be the case here. Probably good intentions all the way around but at some point a group lost touch with everything outside of there sphere of influence and didn’t even bother looking for other opinions I hope things like this thread change that before this becomes law.

I’ll respectively disagree with you; this bill has nothing to do with saving habitat or increasing hunting access never has never will. I’ll restate what is in the form letter that Cormack Gates will send you if you ask for it:

1) Wildlife is a public trust resource to be managed in the public interest; and

2) Landowners ought not to bear the full cost of production of wildlife and inconvenience of providing nature-related recreation opportunities on private lands without compensation.

Those are the two guiding principles and let me make a quick uninformed opinion how this was probably developed. ABP, WSGA, APOS come up with the second one and ACA, AFGA, AHEIA, NCC come up with the first one. I also purposely changed there order here because it was ABP and WSGA that initiated these measures by way of only a handful of member ranchers, but it certainly looks better to the public if you state it the way they did. The two pilot projects are going to include the Deseret Ranch who since the 80’s has tried to get paid hunting on there ranch (I think I read that on this thread) and the infamous group of ranchers near Waterton who think the world owes them something for living in paradise. One never allows anyone on there land and the other group is… I’m not sure what the word is and I don’t want to say “Greedy” so try and help me on that one.

To your question I would say get involved ask yourself what you have done to help the problem, myself I’m in a pretty good position to be proud of my accomplishments to give back to the hunting heritage, but again get involved. I haven’t been a big AFGA member but I think after a lot of this I’m going to change that, a lot of the members have dedicated a good junk of there lives to this group and I think it would be difficult to name any group in this province that has done more for the hunters in Alberta. I also believe because there weren’t more people involved and a certain amount of complacency developed that there became a disconnect from the zone reps and the provincial board. This is a grass roots group not a top down group. I’m not happy with what I’ve been hearing about some of the AFGA involvement in this. But don’t limit it to that, say what you will about DU but you can certainly get a lot done with that group. Find me a group that has more habitat restoration under there built, Pheasants Forever is an upstart group in which all money raised stays with the chapter start a chapter in your town and collect some money find a landowner with a slough or draw and see what can be done and in spite of the name you don’t need to be in pheasant country to have a PF chapter. Find out about the PHD projects out of Brooks. RMEF hit the road but I’ve heard that there are a bunch of elk crazies up north somewhere that have there own group now raising money. These guys have everyone’s respect right now (from the ashes).

As for this access thing this absolutely drives me nuts if you don’t have the stones to develop a decent relationship with a landowner that has great hunting on there land then you probably don’t deserve to be hunting anyway. How many examples do you need? I have a buddy that has great antelope hunting but not so good muley. I call him up set up a day to go up and do some hunting. While I’m there not seeing to much, first night friend gets on the phone and gets me permission from neighbour with muley’s (I have never met this guy) my friend takes me in and I have a great day saw close to 50 deer and two crackers, of which both are still alive and well (just because you hunt doesn’t make you a good hunter). Next day same thing only this time I see a red Chevy mid 80’s driving around, every sign on the place says no vehicle access. That night I let the neighbour now what was happening gave him a lic. # and now I get Christmas cards from a guy I met once and have the run of the place when I come down. Respect, honesty, a healthy dose of BS and good humour will get you a long ways and if you want (re: if you’re not stupid) you show the guy a little appreciation by thanking him and maybe greasing him a little with dinner or a bottle of whiskey (hmmm WWHHhiiissskkey) would go a long way with getting you on my place. I pheasant hunted about 15-20 days this year now I also know the lay of the land I hunt but I was not refused once, 4 Hutterite colonies (which in spite of some expert opinion on this thread do have great cover for birds and deer) and I have 6 private landowners that I deal with on the ridge. No problem. You know who limits access now is the land bought with public funds namely Devils Coulee you don’t just walk in there. I have more if you need them but the bottom line is most landowners will never trust someone they just met, so introduce yourself if he doesn’t let you on thank him give him a call that night and thank him again. In a couple of weeks if you “happen to be in the neighbourhood” stop in and say hi a little BS a little shop talk and you know what even if it takes you two years eventually the guy will recognize you and actually KNOW you a little and who knows.

The one big thing I see is that there are those that think that we have to fix everything tomorrow, and usually by the biggest baddest means possible not unlike this mountain of paper and Bu@# *@it. What ever the problems there are right now have been compounding over at least the last 50 years so why would you think you can fix everything tomorrow and I personally think this is not going to help anything just limit the # of tags available. Second I would say that when things were good (whenever that is for each individual, think back) I will guarantee you that there was less regulation not more. Things like the Block Management and the Utah model are programs that lazy people need to get access for there hobbies and land owners unfortunately will always have to put up with public desires on there private land. It just works that way and if your parents didn’t tell you that you will learn it if you own land. Be proud of who you are and your hunting heritage and do it the right way.

[209x50]

Just to be sure I follow your post, you think everything is fine and don't mess with it? If so that is a valid opinion and one that would cost me nothing so I'm OK with that.
I too believe there is way too much government involvement in every little part of our lives.

.

Just to be sure I follow your post, you think everything is fine and don't mess with it? If so that is a valid opinion and one that would cost me nothing so I'm OK with that.
I too believe there is way too much government involvement in every little part of our lives.

NO NO don’t get me wrong I don’t think everything is fine that is why I belong to organizations that I think will do some good. I’ve seen more pheasant habitat destroyed in the last 20 years than probably what I hunt on right now. I’ve seen a lot of no trespassing signs go up and from what I hear a lot more coming but people still do the same thing as they did before, trespass, leave gates open, hunt near cattle or buildings generally **** off landowners. We also see landowners pressured from a lot of sides but none of this would ever lead me to an over the top response by govt. that would only make matters worse by profiting off wildlife, and this will only spread. It sounds like you’re up north some where, what would this do to access for white tails on some of the big spreads up there if they get to tap into the public coffers. What I’m saying is that the govt. is not the answer and that hunters and landowners cannot cry about the situation they are in you just have to deal with it. If your response is to close hunting on your land so be it, if you allow hunting you have to actively manage it that is the trade off. If you can't manage it sell it and if you can't get access quit hunting. Sorry no easy answers here. But I also think that there are (and I’m going the easy route here) rich, lazy, time constrained Calgarians (I’m using this handle as a stereotype I know a lot of great calgarian hunters) that will think this is great because now all I have to do is say “You have to let me on and I’m coming this weekend”. That’s crazy and at a cost that is way to steep for me.

Second do get a hold of the guys at PHD in Brooks I think it is the irrigation district there. They are planting trees and conserving ground like crazy and from what I here there is a line up of landowners trying to get involved. People want to help out, landowners love the land and the animals on it and want to help. But this is just big ugly govt. subsidies.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by MAV

sounds like you’re up north some where, what would this do to access for white tails on some of the big spreads up there if they get to tap into the public coffers. .

There is nothing that size here, not even close and there is plenty of crown land around, I don't see this program ever getting a foothold here.
When we lived in Pincher Creek all 3 of my kids came of age and I know what getting access was like there just so a child could shoot a doe.

.

.
.

[dogpound]

MAV - that is an excellent post

I particularly get a kick out of the people that phone me every hunting season, never met them, don't know them from adam - after they ask me if they can I hunt, I say no - the dead silence speaks volumes - I sometimes even get snide remarks like "well thanks for nothing".

Stop by my home/shop and introduce yourself, I love shooting the ***** and talking hunting/fishing, may even give you access if I feel you are a trustworthy. If you treat my land like your own, respect the location of my residence, keep your eyes peeled & inform me of any damage or suspicious activity you see and I may also give you numbers of my neighbors and tell you to use my name as a reference.

When the classification of rivers was introduced in BC I was furious, $20.00 per day to fish a catch and release river???? Now I pay it and don't think twice - actually $40 to $50 cheaper than most lift tickets at the ski hill.


Here is a very simplified solution that may increase access - this is off the top of my head and just thinking outloud.

1. In each WMU register landowners that are willing to allow access - lets say 50% of the landowners sign up.

2. Each landowner that participates in the program recieves a couple of government signs for each corner of the parcel - it has a name and parcel number (ie. Jim Smith - ID #816442)

3. Every hunter who wishes to hunt on any parcel (with the bright red sign) is not required to ask permission for access (though stopping by and letting someone know you will be hunting is always courteous)

4. If Jim the hunter wishes to hunt on a specific day he must purchase a day "chit" online (Residents $15.00 per day, Non-Residents $30.00 per day, Non-Resident Alien $50.00 per day) once purchased you can hunt that specific day or days - you recieve a code that enables you to enter the database at the end of the day or season to input where you hunted. If you live in Alberta and hunted 10 days in November it will cost you $150.00

5. It is the hunter's responsibility to record the parcel number and portion of day they hunted it and input it into a secured database. (ie. Nov 8th, Parcel #894468 - 1/2 day; Parcel #812554 - 1/2 day) You cannot enter the database without a purchased day chit - so no abuse.

6. $10.00 per full hunter day is given towards the landowner as revenue - of which he is required to pay tax. (irregardless of resident/non-resident or non-resident alien)

7. The balance of the revenue goes towards the management of the program and the hiring of more CO's to patrol each zone to aid in the decrease of illegal activity and the problems of which landowners are PO'd about.

8. Fines and Suspensions are mandatory for anyone hunting without the day "chits", hunting on land not in the program, failing to input/mail parcel data into the system etc.. (Stiff ones - 1 year loss of hunting privelages, $2000.00 fines etc.)

9. Absolutely no "Big Game" hunting on any parcels of land that are not participating in the program (including landowners themselves) - these will be deemed small independant preserves to increase the health of deer populations and give the wildlife areas of no-pressure.

10. The access information is coupled with your License number and vitals - may enable CO's to investigate easier if they know who was where etc.

Numbers are all irrelevent - system might be a nightmare who knows - but this would definately be something I would enroll in - and not for the $250.00 I may receive each chistmas. There would have to be a marked increase in the amount of officers and their visibility - is it feasible at these numbers - again I am not sure.

Keep the landowners out of assiging/selling tags and personally charging for access.

This may also increase habitat - the guy thinking of knocking down the 25 acres of buck brush on his hay quarter may think twice. For some farmers the added revenue may be a great little incentive at that time of year.

[209x50]

Dogpound, you've just described the RAMP program, other than RAMP paid the land owners better and they weren't stripped of their rights on their own land if they didn't lock into goose stepping with the plan.

Originally Posted by 209x50

Dogpound, you've just described the RAMP program, other than RAMP paid the land owners better and they weren't stripped of their rights on their own land if they didn't lock into goose stepping with the plan.

This is not the RAMP program. If you read point number 4 money is paid by the hunter to the landowner. RAMP specifically says this is not going to happen. I think but am not sure but this is more like the Montana model.

In the end this is how I feel the RAMP program will end up being funded. With the hunter having to pay up front to get on the property.

Bubba

[dogpound]

209x50
Not familiar with the RAMP program, my numbers were just hypothetical to illustrate how something like this may work. My apologies for re-iterating an existing program. I can see how certain landowners may not be receptive to a program like I layed out because of the stripping of those rights - guess its just something that wouldn't bother me if the program addressed and helped correct the issues I have mentioned earlier.

I think to increase access to private land any program must address the problems that landowners have been experiencing, and that would probably have to include an increased enforcement capability which would cost more money and I'm sure we can all agree that user pays is the only way to fund that.

Most of the ideas, particularly the pilot program proposed here for down south, seems to place more repsonsibility with the landowner - which IMHO is small part of the problem already for the "typical" landowner in Alberta. I see how this, as proposed can become quite lucrative for the large ranches. I think a program needs to be tailored more to the typicall landowner situation.

I do firmly believe in landowner rights - as I have said in earlier threads, in the current system I see no problem for me to completely prohibit access and keep the right to hunt my land myself. I think that is a bit hypocritical but once people become aware of the "major" reasons why landowners are denying access they would realize the two are not tied together.

[Bull Shooter]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Tax incentives? I don't know what tax is on this sort of land in the south but just as an example, my quarter is bush and tax on it was $32 a year. I can't imagine $32 swaying anybodies mind.

209 – I still support recognition or compensation through a program of tax incentives. I agree that it doesn’t make much sense to look at property tax, and in fact, that line of thinking could very well be counter-productive to such a proposal. For example: taxes on prime, undisturbed quarters in my particular M.D. are running at about $125 per year versus $3,000+ per year on a recreational quarter that includes a dwelling. The conservation and habitat values of the comparative properties are likely apples to oranges.

I would encourage tax incentives that are similar to those of a registered conservation easement. It may likely require both Provincial and Federal components, especially if this was to catch on across Canada. The tax incentive would be available for application on the annual income of the titleholder(s). This is essentially how the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) is able to provide easements. The NCC’s tax incentive is a “lump sum” and allows a five year carry-forward. Obviously, a participating landowner would not be given the same benefits or incentives of a registered easement, but I think it would go a lot further to recognize and compensate those responsible stewards of the land. Regards, Mike

[209x50]

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

This is not the RAMP program. If you read point number 4 money is paid by the hunter to the landowner. RAMP specifically says this is not going to happen. I think but am not sure but this is more like the Montana model.
Bubba

Semantics I guess, under RAMP the governemt pays the land owner 20 bucks a day per hunter. Not a big difference from dog's suggestion because after all the only money the gov't has is what we give it.

Originally Posted by 209x50

Semantics I guess, under RAMP the governemt pays the land owner 20 bucks a day per hunter. Not a big difference from dog's suggestion because after all the only money the gov't has is what we give it.

Not semantics. What dog's suggestion is is paid hunting. Which the ramp program is not supposed to be. Ramp is Government "incentives".

[209x50]

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

Not semantics. What dog's suggestion is is paid hunting. Which the ramp program is not supposed to be. Ramp is Government "incentives".

So after 377 posts about paid hunting RAMP isn't paid hunting anymore?!?! Jeez I need a scorecard to follow this one around.

Originally Posted by 209x50

So after 377 posts about paid hunting RAMP isn't paid hunting anymore?!?! Jeez I need a scorecard to follow this one around.

HFH is paid hunting, but thanks for comin out.

.

[209x50]

Land owners getting paid for allowing people to hunt on thier land isn't paid hunting to you any more 340? RAMP will pay land owners $20/day per hunter access, right? Now what difference does it make if I pay the land owner direct or pay the government and they pay the land owner? Are they still not getting paid to allow people to hunt?

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by 209x50

So after 377 posts about paid hunting RAMP isn't paid hunting anymore?!?! Jeez I need a scorecard to follow this one around.

Kinda been the premise of the whole discussion.

RAMP=good
HFH=bad

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Land owners getting paid for allowing people to hunt on thier land isn't paid hunting to you any more 340? RAMP will pay land owners $20/day per hunter access, right? Now what difference does it make if I pay the land owner direct or pay the government and they pay the land owner? Are they still not getting paid to allow people to hunt?

If you are to pay directly what is stopping you from paying the landowner $300/day and not letting me on because I can only afford $20/day?

I look at RAMP as a subsidy program, not paid hunting, afterall we are paying the Gov. for a license as well and that is not considered paid hunting.

Under most definitions HFH is paid hunting, but I guess it depends what color your glasses are tinted

This is the difference.

[TBark]

I can see this happening.
Private land to start with, and it will likely involve lease land too over time.
Which will force the every day joe hunter who does not pay the extra $$, into the forestry reserve or other crown quarters. Not saying I agree with such a program.
But then, crown land area is more than 70% of Albertas over-all land.

TBark

[209x50]

Originally Posted by LongDraw

If you are to pay directly what is stopping you from paying the landowner $300/day and not letting me on because I can only afford $20/day?

This is the difference.

OK, now this is hilarious! Paid hunting is OK as long as the government pays the land owner. So if they paid the HFH the market rate for the 19 deer tags that would be fine too?
Just as you can't be a little bit pregnant you can't call one of these programs paid hunting and the other not.
They both are or they both aren't, how do you justify thinking otherwise?

[209x50]

Originally Posted by LongDraw

If you are to pay directly what is stopping you from paying the landowner $300/day and not letting me on because I can only afford $20/day?

I look at HFH as a subsidy program, not paid hunting, afterall we are paying the Gov. for a license as well and that is not considered paid hunting.

Under most definitions HFH is paid hunting, but I guess it depends what color your glasses are tinted

This is the difference.

Oh good edit LD! So now HFH ISN"T paid hunting either. Well that clears everything up!

[LongDraw]

I have said it all along,

From what I know of RAMP i support it, and from what I know of HFH I do not support it.

It is unfortunate that they are under the same directive; Open Spaces.

The more hunters a landowner lets on under the RAMP program the more of an incentive he will recieve from Government.

The fewer hunters a landowner lets on when he sells a voucher (HFH) the more he stands to market it for.

I don't think I can make my position any clearer.

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Oh good edit LD! So now HFH ISN"T paid hunting either. Well that clears everything up!

I just threw that in to confuse you!

Wasn't as tough as I thought it would be...

Typo fixed, thanks for the heads up!

The more hunters a landowner lets on under the RAMP program the more of an incentive he will recieve from Government.

This may be splitting hairs here Longdraw but you have always been against paid hunting...can you clarify how my tax dollars going to a landowner to allow me acccess is any different than me paying the landowner directly....with a specified amount in both cases as well. For me it easier to make an arguement that RAMP is more of a paid hunting scenario than HFH but I wouldn't be so bold as to classify either. Just curious?

[LongDraw]

Seems like I am yelling into an empty hallway!

I am against the HFH.

I am for the RAMP.

This has not wavered in my stance.

We obviously have different definitions of "paid hunting"

As far as tax dollars go; I have not heard what will fund this? Would be good by me if it was some of the ACA money.

If it comes directly out of the Gov. coffers there are grosser examples of tax dollars being squandered than this...