Your Tax Dollars conserving land

[Winch101]

Read up on this and tell us why you think it's stinky ...
I'm always Leary when the NCC is involved . We the taxpayers
Payed out big bucks but nothing changes for he hunter ...
More PC smoke comin your way .unfortunately speaking out
On anything with the word Conservation in it ,is tantamount to
Being a racist . I don't see anywhere ,who gets all this cash , if it's
The ranchers ,what a crock ....If it's the NCC again ,that's over
50 mil. In the last 5 years . You bought 50 mil worth of Canadian
That you can't use ....


http://www.calgaryherald.com/technol...290/story.html

[Matt L.]

From reading the article I can't really see what your problem is.

[whammy]

The NCC is purchasing an easement on the ranchers' titled land to prevent any further development and prevent any non-native crops being cultivated. The ranchers get the 15 million for the easement. What's the problem?

[velox]

Please explain where my tax dollars figure into this. NCC is paying landowners to forego their right to develop the property. So the land is now worth less money, because nobody who buys it can turn it into a subdivision or canola field. The landowners get NCC money to offset that loss.

The only way public money even remotely comes into play is that NCC is a charity, so donations are tax-exempt. But all that means is people can direct their money into NCC instead of taxes. It's not like any government agency is actually choosing to pay money into NCC or the Waldron.

[Robin Goodfellow]

On the topic of land, how about water?

"Waterways changes in budget bill seen as eroding protections
New act would limit federal protection to Canada's busiest rivers, lakes"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wate...ions-1.1219007

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by whammy

The NCC is purchasing an easement on the ranchers' titled land to prevent any further development and prevent any non-native crops being cultivated. The ranchers get the 15 million for the easement. What's the problem?

Yup and for that money, we the general Public don't necessarily get anything. Part of that money came from the Provincial and federal governments. Landowners, meaning 75 well off and now more well off ranchers still get to control who accesses the land.

Grizz

[whammy]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

Yup and for that money, we the general Public don't necessarily get anything. Part of that money came from the Provincial and federal governments. Landowners, meaning 75 well off and now more well off ranchers still get to control who accesses the land.

Grizz

So? Not all land is for hunting. Not all nature groups are hunting groups. Sometimes its good to just have land protected as it is from unnecessary development.

[Winch101]

Give this story a little time to shake out ,not all the locals are happy .

For the totally Naive .


http://www.natureconservancy.ca/en/w...s-help-bc.html

You are paying ...


http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/harp...ancy-of-canada


Also , you know the skinny on the cattle bussiness , your paying them to
Stay in bussiness ...
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772

Remember when it comes to forever and the Feds ,forever is right around the
Corner , new King ,new rules .

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by Winch101

Give this story a little time to shake out ,not all the locals are happy .

For the totally Naive .


http://www.natureconservancy.ca/en/w...s-help-bc.html

You are paying ...


http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/harp...ancy-of-canada

Sounds like an investment for future generations, good on the Gov.

[sirmike68]

Do the ranchers actually own all the land or is it a big lease from the gov?

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by whammy

So? Not all land is for hunting. Not all nature groups are hunting groups. Sometimes its good to just have land protected as it is from unnecessary development.

You mean, like the Kings forest ?

Grizz

[greylynx]

If one looks at who is making all this noise about the world coming to an end it is people who are not living on a government wage of some sort albeit a grant, a salary, a temporary wage.

The reason these people make this noise is that a lot of them worked very hard for many years for an occupation with only one source of income. These people basically worked for what in micro-economist's terms is an oligarchy.

Instead of using their brains to figure out their marketability, they sit and hiss and spit and spin tales for the scientifically unwashed. A knee jerk conclusion that the world is ending usually ends the "scientific tale".

I call these kind of people useless bums. I do not care how much education they have.

[schmedlap]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

Sounds like an investment for future generations, good on the Gov.

This is a very good thing. I'd much rather have the NCC looking out for the public interest in preserving this land and watershed, in the context of exercise of some common sense (non-existent in government circles?) than any government. It will inevitably be a lot cheaper, more balanced, and less prone to political influence of the "big contributors" than any equivalent governmental designation. Any such thing that keeps the hands (and multiplying employment prospects) of lazy and incompetent bureaucrats out of the picture (to the extent that is possible?) is good news for my kids and for "outdoorsmen" in general.
As to the complaint about the current owners "benefitting" ...? In pure economic terms they would "benefit" a lot more, long term, from a pure selfish approach - I applaud them for having the relatively unselfish foresight to commit to this. Do we begrudge them any such rewards for their sweat and other wise investments? I certainly do not.

[Scott h]

Well that looks like 30,000 + acres that won't be turned into a sprawling subdivision......sounds like a good start.

[chasingtail]

Government can't buy up all the land, it looks bad. So they use all these fake charities to do it for them. Or through sneaky ways like CPP buying Assiniboia Farmland LP and the Feds own another 115,000 acres of Saskatchewan. Governments own 89% of the land in Canada lets use tax dollars so these companies can buy up the rest.

[3blade]

some of you guys are missing the point.

The government is spending OUR money, by giving it to this organization, who makes a deal with a landowner, which really doesn't protect the land. Resource extraction can still occur, the landowner can more or less do as they wish...there is no public access or oversight, because its all PRIVATE! Does paying for something that you have no say in or access to sound like a good idea?

Im all for protecting sensitive areas, but this is a shell game.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Originally Posted by 3blade

Im all for protecting sensitive areas, but this is a shell game.

It's ALL a shell game, in which we are the patsy's, and big business is the winner.

I was raised on an outdoor ethic of conservation: Don't pick the flowers... pick up your litter... leave the site as you came to it.

And that's all fine and dandy, until business takes an interest in the site. One backroom deal later, and the site is rezoned or deregulated, and the bulldozers move in.

After all of this time, I finally understand: Conservation is about ensuring that our government holds up it's end, not just about picking up my litter.

[Selkirk]

Originally Posted by sirmike68

Do the ranchers actually own all the land or is it a big lease from the gov?

They 'own' it all.

The 12,357 hectares of rolling native grasslands that make up the Waldron Ranch is owned by the Waldron Grazing Cooperative Ltd., which is owned by 72 ranchers.

Take a drive down south of Longview sometime. It's an amazing place ... and well worth preserving forever.

Mac

[3blade]

Originally Posted by MacLeod

They 'own' it all.

The 12,357 hectares of rolling native grasslands that make up the Waldron Ranch is owned by the Waldron Grazing Cooperative Ltd., which is owned by 72 ranchers.

Take a drive down south of Longview sometime. It's an amazing place ... and well worth preserving forever.

Mac

Cool, I know an amazing piece of land that should be preserved forever, and has lot of elk on it. Can I have 5 million of our public tax dollars to buy it? I promise not to pave anything

[Selkirk]

Originally Posted by Robin Goodfellow

It's ALL a shell game, in which we are the patsy's, and big business is the winner.

I was raised on an outdoor ethic of conservation: Don't pick the flowers... pick up your litter... leave the site as you came to it.

And that's all fine and dandy, until business takes an interest in the site. One backroom deal later, and the site is rezoned or deregulated, and the bulldozers move in.

After all of this time, I finally understand: Conservation is about ensuring that our government holds up it's end, not just about picking up my litter.

OK, fair enough ^

But please give us one (1) real/documented example where an NCC Conservation Easement has ever been compromised, or rescinded.

We'll wait for your example,

Mac

[Wild&Free]

If your of the opinion that Agenda 21 is a bad thing, take a look at the language of the document and you will discover that the agenda is to be promoted through NGOs which have a different public perception then the Government doing it.

I'm still split on the topic.

[3blade]

Originally Posted by MacLeod

OK, fair enough ^

But please give us one (1) real/documented example where an NCC Conservation Easement has ever been compromised, or rescinded.

We'll wait for your example,

Mac

Funny, sounds like someone has access tied up....ignore the tough question and go on trumpeting how great this organization is (I'm not suggesting they aren't, but its a shady deal financially).

So tell us Mac what kind of reaction am I going to get when I go there looking for permission to shoot an elk? And elk that happens to be a PUBLIC resource. I've got a week off and nothing better to do. Sounds like some amazing country.

[3blade]

Hmmm, look what else I found:

Originally Posted by MacLeod

.
No offence, but your club might want to seriously consider disassociating itself from the NCC (donations, fundraisers, etc.). There are 'far' better conservation organisations here in Canada to align yourselves with, and support.

My two nickels,

Mac

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=231829

Care to explain?

[3blade]

So Mac missed this thread??

Ill send him a polite pm and hopefully we will get some clarification.

I did find this old thread:
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=7016

Apparently the hunting restrictions are negotiated with the landowners...I just wonder which side the NCC is pushing them towards. Money talks. No quad access is understandable, but limiting hunter numbers on land that is financed by public tax dollars is not acceptable.

Anyone else have experience with the NCC?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 3blade

So Mac missed this thread??

Ill send him a polite pm and hopefully we will get some clarification.

I did find this old thread:
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=7016

Apparently the hunting restrictions are negotiated with the landowners...I just wonder which side the NCC is pushing them towards. Money talks. No quad access is understandable, but limiting hunter numbers on land that is financed by public tax dollars is not acceptable.

Anyone else have experience with the NCC?

Any land the NCC partners with the AFGA, ACA or DU has hunting foot only access. Many of the NCC lands do also, but not all.

Some NCC managers are very active hunters. They are NOT opposed to hunting so, you can put that one aside.

[3blade]

Originally Posted by avb3

Any land the NCC partners with the AFGA, ACA or DU has hunting foot only access. Many of the NCC lands do also, but not all.

Some NCC managers are very active hunters. They are NOT opposed to hunting so, you can put that one aside.

Foot access is not the issue, and FYI i prefer it that way. Makes sense considering the ecological sensitivities of many of these areas. and makes for a better hunt imo. That is if we are allowed to hunt....

Reread the comments. I never said they were, I asked questions. Funny how everyone keeps avoiding direct answers.

[3blade]

Hear that? Crickets....

This is what happens when you catch the old boys spewing bull produced fertilizer. They run, hide, and pout.

I thought in that part of the world 'cowboy up' still had meaning.

[Matt L.]

Originally Posted by 3blade

Hear that? Crickets....

This is what happens when you catch the old boys spewing bull produced fertilizer. They run, hide, and pout.

I thought in that part of the world 'cowboy up' still had meaning.

Or he thought your apparent vendetta wasn't worth a response.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 3blade

Hear that? Crickets....

This is what happens when you catch the old boys spewing bull produced fertilizer. They run, hide, and pout.

I thought in that part of the world 'cowboy up' still had meaning.

Your asking questions in all sorts of different posts. I'm not going to search them all to see what you want answered and what is irrelevant. Care to put them in one post and if I, or perhaps someone else, can answer them. At least I'll take a stab at it.

There is another expression. 'Get off your high horse, cowboy.'

[3blade]

Originally Posted by Matt L.

Or he thought your apparent vendetta wasn't worth a response.

Can't come up with an intelligent response so you break out the insults.
You can't flip this one on me. He bashed them in one thread, then praised them in another, within 24hrs. Entitled old boys club, caught dead to rights. And you know it.

Originally Posted by avb3

Your asking questions in all sorts of different posts. I'm not going to search them all to see what you want answered and what is irrelevant. Care to put them in one post and if I, or perhaps someone else, can answer them. At least I'll take a stab at it.

There is another expression. 'Get off your high horse, cowboy.'

Mostly I'm angry that a bunch of well off, heavily subsidized ranchers got paid a lot of tax dollars to do nothing, and retained the right to refuse public access to a public resource. The questions provided the opportunity for anyone with experience with these two groups to have imput, and perhaps change the way the situation looks to the rest of us.

Does the NCC influence landowner decisions regarding hunter access?

does the Waldron co/op allow hunter access?