Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Hunting Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 12-21-2007, 01:25 AM
outlaw'd's Avatar
outlaw'd outlaw'd is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Westlock, Ab
Posts: 530
Default

Jaimie...Did you ever think of running for a seat with the PC's............you have the knack........

Anyways, I'd like to add my 2 cents on some of the comments in your post. You said.........
" Like I have said before, I just don't understand why so many people are against the outfitter industry. It is a valuable part of the hunting scene here in Alberta."
This is probably due to the fact that there is basically no " real " action take against an outfitter when he/she decides to bend the rules. Take the guy down south that was in a whole world of crap a few years back. What repercussions did he receive? Did he loose any allocations.........nope. Did he get booted out of APOS..........nope. I believe that thier charter says something to the effect of..........
" a member ,or anyone employed by a member, shall not breach, encourage or condone any violation of the Alberta Wildlife Act and regulations"
or...........
" A member shall also respect the activities and needs of the resident hunter by not initiating or soliciting for exclusive use of any wildlife resource or access"
From where I'm standing, there seems to be a fair bit of this stuff going on, but what repercusions are there when it does happen? The outfitter in Westlock that got caught poaching, or encouraging poaching of a mule deer got bugger all for it. His clients got fined, lost the deer, and couldn't hunt here for a year I believe, if I'm not mistaken, but next week, he's out guiding guys again. This could be the reason that alot of people don't like the
outfitters, or the society, for that matter. I realize that there are alot of honest and hardworking guys out there trying to make a living at outfitting, but I happen to believe that there are lot of shady charactors out there too.

" Perhaps if we give a little, we get a little. Compromise can be a good thing"

When does the average joe quit giving up stuff, for the good of all?

" yes I think the present program seems to work. I have some issues with it and would like to see it modified. But its better than no access what so ever "

For the most part, there is no access what so ever. Try getting on the leaseland up around Balloque lake.............not happening, unless you are a buddy, or have a Husky key. Same thing down around Hysler........."nope, not a chance...........already have enough guys hunting"

I don't know what the answers are, but in my opinion,this proposal isn't one of them, not that it matters anyway, because we weren't asked .
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 12-21-2007, 06:48 AM
Duk Dog Duk Dog is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie View Post
How else would you guys like to see these ranches opened up???
One of them has not been hunted in 100 years.
Jamie
Here is where my concern comes in. If the land owner can sell tags and IF there is no price cap would you like to guess what that tag would sell for? It would be a dream to hunt one of those ranches - can you imagine the cranker animals that are on it. Think about it - access to hunt those ranches would be like winning the lottery, and you may well have to win the lottery to afford one of those tags if there is no cap on the price.
Jamie - you've long talked about wanting a 200" mulie. (include me on the list) Guess what - some of those southern ranches hold the best potential for you to take an honest to goodness 200" mulie. There are other hunters with the some goal as yourself. Now if there is no price cap on the landowner tag price - what does the potential to harvest a 200" mulie become worth to you? What is it worth to the other hunter with the 200" mulie dream?
The other question is who gets to pick and choose who gets to buy those land owner tags? Do they go to the highest bidder? Are they likely to sell one of those tags to average Joe Albertan? Or do you think they would rather sell to their long time friends and family? Would they be on a draw or a first come first serve basis? If it is first come first serve wouldn't you think that people in the know - ie friends and family would know about the pending tag sale prior to average Joe or Jane Albertan?
Another question - if they are available for sale to outfitters then that most likely translates into American hunters. Are non-resident Canadians and non resident aliens allowed to buy these tags and hunt with a hunter host?
I wonder if the lack of SRD funding from the government could result in difficulty for the SRD to manage the program properly? There long has been banter about the understaffed and underfunded SRD department.
If there is no price cap on land owner tags where does the profit go? To the landowner or to the SRD department?

I agree to an extent it may be time to think out of the box to find new ways to open up parts of the province - however they had better be careful as it is a potentially slippery slope they are messing with.

Last edited by Duk Dog; 12-21-2007 at 07:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 12-21-2007, 08:05 AM
bruceba bruceba is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,803
Default

25% of the resident allocations gone not increased over the next 5 years.
Thats about 150 tags over the next 5 years.
May be I'm barking up the wrong tree, but this ranch in question in 108 has been trying to find a way to charge for hunting since 1988. They approached F&W right after they purchased the place and inquired about the legal way to charge hunters.
Quote:
Very Interesting I googled Deseret Land Holdings and it is owned by the Mormon Church
Many of the private farms and ranches in 108 and 300 are owned by Mormans. They have a strong history having pioneered into the area's around Cardston. Fill me in on very interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 12-21-2007, 08:09 AM
Chung66's Avatar
Chung66 Chung66 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Blackfalds
Posts: 169
Default

I have a question to the APOS people on the board. Has there ever been an example of any member being disciplined by APOS disciplin committee? When I tried lodging a complaint, I was put off by a director. They charge you a fee to lodge a complaint. The whole thing died out after I moved from the area and the guide moved as well.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 12-21-2007, 08:17 AM
MathewsArcher MathewsArcher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary,Alberta
Posts: 1,058
Default

Heres the text sorry it has no formatting I had to use a ocr program to pull it from a pdf file.


OPEN SPACES PILOT PROGRAM

Introduction

There are limited incentives for the agricultural landowner to maintain quality habitat and participate in wildlife stewardship. Access to private land is becoming more difficult, while at the same time the demand for quality hunting opportunities and access to prime fishing areas is increasing. Privately owned agricultural land, particularly rangelands, provide significant areas of high quality habitat for wildlife and outdoor recreation, yet few tangible incentives exist for the agricultural landowner to provide or maintain quality habitat or act as wildlife stewards. In fact, these activities can have a significant financial cost and risk to the landowner. Wildlife habitat maintenance can result in increased wildlife populations and related landowner property damage (e.g. fences, crops and cultivated forage).

The use of private land by sportsmen can also negatively impact the landowner (e.g. damage to property). This has resulted in reduced access to private land, while at the same time there is an increased demand for quality hunting opportunities and access to prime fishing areas.

In 2006, the Alberta Beef Producers and a group of interested parties including agricultural landowners and hunting and fishing interests approached the University of Calgary to discuss strategies and opportunities that could result in increased access to hunting on private land. As a result, the University of Calgary established the Land and Wildlife Stewardship Working Group in April 2007 comprised of members from Alberta Beef Producers, Western Stock Growers Association, Alberta Fish and Game Association, Hunting for Tomorrow Foundation, Alberta Conservation Association, the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, Alberta Professional Outfitters Society, Alberta Agriculture and Food, Alberta Employment, Immigration and Industry
and the University of Calgary.

Concept

After reviewing programs that had been implemented in other jurisdictions, the Working group determined the need to develop a "made in Alberta solution". They developed two test programs: a program that compensates private landowners for providing recreational access for hunting and fishing for free to the public and the other compensates private landowners, by allocating wildlife tags which they can sell, for providing recreational access for hunting and fishing to the public. The intent is to provide more habitat and increased access, thereby resulting in more opportunity for hunters and anglers as well as providing more recreational opportunities in Alberta. This is achieved by providing adequate financial incentives to landowners as recognition of their contributions to wildlife habitat and stewardship.

The made in Alberta solution pilot program is called "Open Spaces Alberta Pilot Program".
The Pilot Program will evaluate two complimentary and integrated components: the Recreational Access Management Program (RAMP); and the Hunting for Habitat (HFH) Program.

1. Recreational Access Management Program (RAMP) - compensates private landowners for providing habitat and recreational access for hunting and fishing to the public. Users do not pay for access.

Some key principals of the program are:

Private landowners voluntarily enrol in the program, agreeing to provide enhanced access opportunities for hunting and fishing.

Lands enrolled in the program are identified for free public access for hunting and fishing.

Landowners are reimbursed for user days by the government;

$10-$20 (subject to value of the habitat and recreation opportunities) per recreational user day to a maximum of 100 user days per section ($2,000 per section or landowner).

days are paid only for Wildlife Identification (W.I.N.) card holders.

A recreational user day audit.

An appeal process.

Development of Access Management Plan(s) for high use areas.

This program is expected to increase the amount of private land available for recreational use by 15 percent (from roughly 60 percent to 75 percent) in each Wildlife Management Unit (WMU).

2. Hunting for Habitat (HFH) Program - compensates private landowners for providing recreational access for hunting and fishing to the public. Landowners are rewarded by being allocated "vouchers" for the rights to wildlife tags which they can sell.

Some key principals of the program are:
Landowners form a business group and create a HFH unit.

The HFH unit must be comprised of at least 20 percent of the significant wildlife habitat on private land in the WMU in order to enrol in the program.

The HFH unit is allocated 15 percent of the wildlife harvest in the WMU.

If the HFH Unit contains 20 - 40 percent of significant habitat on private land in the WMU, then HFH Unit receives 20 percent of wildlife harvest allocation.

If HFH Unit contains greater than 40 percent of significant habitat on private land
in the WMU, then HFH Unit receives 25 percent of wildlife harvest allocation.

Landowners can market tags directly to resident hunters who do not require guided services or to outfitters who may in turn market tags to non-resident or non-resident alien hunters who must use registered guided outtltters.

Landowners participating in the HFH program must allow free access for public draw hunting.

An access management plan to manage recreational users.

This program is expected to increase wildlife populations over the long term by providing a financial incentive to landowners to increase wildlife populations through habitat management. As populations increase so will tags available in the WMU, thus making more tag allocations available to share with the public.


This was pulled from a pdf file with OCR recognition some erros may have occured from the original text. I have tried to format it to make it a little more ledgable

Last edited by MathewsArcher; 12-21-2007 at 08:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 12-21-2007, 08:25 AM
MathewsArcher MathewsArcher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary,Alberta
Posts: 1,058
Default

I guess it comes down to whether or not we want an american style pay to play system in Canada. The system being tested is without a doubt an american style system modelled after Utah (I've been told).

Called several people I know in UTAH, through archery (Hoyt), last night and asked how it worked and it seems the proposal is definately similar. Was told that they either hunted public land or hunted out of state as much of the private land was too expensive to get on.

I talked with several contacts in SRD I work with and have yet to find anyone who personally supported the idea although the political line was lets wait and see.

Last edited by MathewsArcher; 12-21-2007 at 08:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 12-21-2007, 08:30 AM
MathewsArcher MathewsArcher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary,Alberta
Posts: 1,058
Default

double post sorry
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 12-21-2007, 08:42 AM
lurch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

.

Last edited by lurch; 01-22-2008 at 01:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 12-21-2007, 08:46 AM
Duk Dog Duk Dog is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathewsArcher View Post

1. Recreational Access Management Program (RAMP) - compensates private landowners for providing habitat and recreational access for hunting and fishing to the public. Users do not pay for access.

Some key principals of the program are:
a Private landowners voluntarily enrol in the program, agreeing to provide
enhanced access opportunities for hunting and fishing.
Lands enrolled in the program are identified for free public access for hunting
and fishing.
Landowners are reimbursed for user days by the government;
o $10-$20 (subject to value of the habitat and recreation opportunities) per
recreational user day to a maximum of 100 user days per section ($2,000
per section or landowner).
o days are paid only for Wildlife Identification (W.I.N.) card holders.
A recreational user day audit.
An appeal process.
Development of Access Management Plan(s) for high use areas.
This program is expected to increase the amount of private land available for
recreational use by -I5 percent (from roughly 60 percent to 75 percent) in each
Wildlife Management Unit (WMU).
If these landowners currently do not allow access, it'll be interesting to see if the compensation being offered to them is enough to motivate them to enrol in the program.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 12-21-2007, 08:53 AM
MathewsArcher MathewsArcher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary,Alberta
Posts: 1,058
Default

Duk - I actally like that part of the pilot program, I think it MAY, big MAY, increase the accessability of some lands where hunting currently isn't allowed.

The problem I have is allowing tags to be sold by landowners and the expansion of this program to other areas. I can not see anything good resulting from this part of the program.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 12-21-2007, 08:58 AM
lurch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

.

Last edited by lurch; 01-22-2008 at 01:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 12-21-2007, 08:58 AM
Duk Dog Duk Dog is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathewsArcher View Post
2. Hunting for Habitat (HFH) Program - compensates private landowners for providing recreational access for hunting and fishing to the public. Landowners are rewarded by being allocated "vouchers" for the rights to wildlife tags which they can sell.

Some key principals of the program are:
Landowners form a business group and create a HFH unit.

The HFH unit must be comprised of at least 20 percent of the significant wildlife habitat on private land in the WMU in order to enrol in the program.

The HFH unit is allocated 15 percent of the wildlife harvest in the WMU.

If the HFH Unit contains 20 - 40 percent of significant habitat on private land in the WMU, then HFH Unit receives 20 percent of wildlife harvest allocation.

If HFH Unit contains greater than 40 percent of significant habitat on private land
in the WMU, then HFH Unit receives 25 percent of wildlife harvest allocation.

Landowners can market tags directly to resident hunters who do not require guided services or to outfitters who may in turn market tags to non-resident or non-resident alien hunters who must use registered guided outtltters.

Landowners participating in the HFH program must allow free access for public draw hunting.

An access management plan to manage recreational users.

This program is expected to increase wildlife populations over the long term by providing a financial incentive to landowners to increase wildlife populations through habitat management. As populations increase so will tags available in the WMU, thus making more tag allocations available to share with the public.
A couple of interesting points here:

1) A resident outfitter can buy the tags and then market them to clients - boy I wonder who is in the position to bank roll that tag purchase? (wealthy clients)
2) No mention of non resident Canadians or non resident aliens being able to use a hunter host. If they are going to be able guided by outfitters they sure as heck better be able to use a hunter host.
3) Landowners participating in this program have to allow free access for public draw hunting. Interesting - here on one side you have a ranch that has never allowed (or limited) access and now they will have to allow people in the regular draw system to have access. If in fact that is how it will work they now face a ranch possibly over run with hunters. I know for one if I got drawn in one of these zones I'd be heading straight to one of these untapped ranches to hunt. Not a good hunting experience for the many hunters, nor a good experience for the rancher that never wanted to allow access or deal with hunters in the past. I can also imagine how some deep pocketed American will feel if they are paying top dollar to hunt on one of these ranches and then they run into resident hunters on every hillside.
4) Landowners participating in this program have to allow free access for public draw hunting. So does that mean non resident Canadians in the draw process can be hunter hosted and hunt on these ranches?
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 12-21-2007, 09:04 AM
MathewsArcher MathewsArcher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary,Alberta
Posts: 1,058
Default

Lurch - think the decimal place is in the wrong spot.


60,000 / 640 * 2,000 = 187, 500

Still not a bad payday - hope it isn't coming out of licence costs.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 12-21-2007, 09:06 AM
MathewsArcher MathewsArcher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary,Alberta
Posts: 1,058
Default

Duk - my information indicates that access will be allowed under the same system as used for agricultural grazing leases, with restrictions. And we can see in other threads how well that is working.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 12-21-2007, 09:10 AM
Duk Dog Duk Dog is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathewsArcher View Post
Duk - my information indicates that access will be allowed under the same system as used for agricultural grazing leases, with restrictions. And we can see in other threads how well that is working.
All speculation at this point, but if that is the case there are already southern ranches that use the "there are already enough hunters on our land today - sorry" line.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 12-21-2007, 09:13 AM
lurch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

.

Last edited by lurch; 01-22-2008 at 01:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 12-21-2007, 09:14 AM
Bull Shooter Bull Shooter is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 416
Default

I had a very enlightening conversation last evening with a few different landowners that had holdings in 108 and peripheral WMU’s. They feel betrayed... to say the least.

One chap, who has a chunk in 108 (but nowhere near 60,000 acres) brought up a point that wasn’t foreign to me. He has always accommodated both resident hunters and non-resident hunters for as long as his family has owned the land. He has never asked nor has he received any compensation for his generosity. He wonders how the Province can “reward” landowners that have never allowed hunting or access and be totally ignorant to the contributions of those who have supported hunting and the granting of access. Good question #1.

Good question #2 – How does giving landowners tags and the right to “sell” them recognize or support their real contributions to habitat conservation? For example, ABC Ranches in WMU999 has responsibly managed their property and as a result have great habitat for wildlife. ABC Ranches is teeming with Mule Deer which are on a draw. ABC Ranches is given a portion of the Mule Deer draw licenses to “sell” as a reward in recognition of their contributions to hunting and granting access to their property.

XYZ Ranches, also in WMU999 has been an equally responsible steward of the land. They have also responsibly managed their property and as a result have great habitat for wildlife. XYZ Ranches is teeming with Whitetail Deer and upland game birds which are not on a draw. As a result XYZ Ranches contributions to conservation and habitat protection, hunting and access, while no less than ABC Ranches are apparently “financially” less important. Is this fair? How does the Province manage the “financial” disparities within and between WMU’s when the contributions are equal?

There will be many more good questions to come. Regards, Mike
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 12-21-2007, 09:18 AM
MathewsArcher MathewsArcher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary,Alberta
Posts: 1,058
Default

And there in lies the problem. Eventually this program will spread as landowners become aware of it and want to be treated equitably. Having to purchase tags from landowners or outfitters instead of the province will drive up licence costs and make it harder for average resident sportsmen to continue to participate on private lands in the harvest of publically owned wildlife.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 12-21-2007, 09:24 AM
lurch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

.

Last edited by lurch; 01-22-2008 at 01:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 12-21-2007, 09:30 AM
LongDraw LongDraw is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,707
Default

If this goes forward as proposed I see a big difference between the perception and reality. Areas with no trophy potential may benefit from this, but the ranches that are large enough to manage for trophy potential are going to become accessable only after the "paid for" big bucks or bulls are harvested. Go onto any Utah forum and you will soon realize that a system like this is messed up. No different than the current Ag disposition system, there are loopholes created that can keep hunters off.

I always use the Saskatchewan vs. Alberta comparison; it is way easier to get access in Saskatchewan, no fancy plans or studies, no compensation to landowners, etc.... There is no Outfitting on private land.

You have to ask why do landowners need compensation to allow access? The landowners that bitch and whine about it now will be the same ones that will work a system like this to their benefit. The true stewards on conservation that own land are doing fine right now with no conveluted pay to play system.

The big benefit we have in Alberta over the States that have systems like this is 60% of Alberta is Crown Land, which I have come to prefer because dealing with landowners is becoming too much in some areas.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 12-21-2007, 09:38 AM
Bull Shooter Bull Shooter is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 416
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch View Post
can of worms?

Pandora's box?

Excellent points Bullshooter, and if the Beef Producer groups were equitably represented I can't believe they would not have seen the conflicts.

I have also spoke with landowners from 108, and from what I hear the options for folks to hunt may indeed be limited on other places as a protest to this whole proposal - so I guess we will need the "increased" opportunity of these new spots.

Also strikes me a bit that we are getting so much support for this idea from folks who don't have it in their back yard.....
Pandora's Box is exactly the phrase I used when describing this to a few people! Regards, Mike
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 12-21-2007, 09:38 AM
JohninAB's Avatar
JohninAB JohninAB is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West Central Alberta
Posts: 6,668
Default

Bull Shooter, good questions but in regards to number 2, would not XYZ ranches be given Whitetail tags to sell? Agree they would not be worth as much to the average Joe as they could get over the counter tags, but I am sure whitetail tags would be a hot commodity for outfitters.
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 12-21-2007, 09:42 AM
MathewsArcher MathewsArcher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary,Alberta
Posts: 1,058
Default

The current proposal is for quota tags only so that would indicate they are lookling at Mule Deer, Antelop and Elk in the zones proposed. In the future ????????
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 12-21-2007, 09:58 AM
Pathfinder76 Pathfinder76 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 15,777
Default

deleted

Last edited by Pathfinder76; 01-02-2008 at 06:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 12-21-2007, 09:58 AM
bowchaser bowchaser is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 233
Default access

don't really see how this will open up much access for the resident. Joe landowner who owns a couple sections who doesn't let anyone on is going to now because he will get $10-$20 per day? They have to set a price tag to the land owner tags, say $100. If they are going to give such a high percentage of the tags to the landowner group the tags should be at an affordable price, or it will just be more tags for outfitters. I can't believe they will allow them to be given to outfitters. This is set up for rampant abuse and we all know SRD will not be managing it properly. This will benefit APOS more than anyone. Agree, we need to heading more to the sask system, no non-residents getting draws. This reeks of backdoor politics...the one thing I like is the pilot programs must be successful to all groups to proceed. Pretty unlikely resident hunters and AFGA will be happy...
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 12-21-2007, 10:08 AM
LongDraw LongDraw is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,707
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck View Post
They want a way to allow yet control access.
Chuck
Chuck,

The next time you talk to your friend at Deseret please ask him how this pilot project will allow him to allow yet control access on this Ranch in a manor that he cannot do at this time????

Reading between the lines he will allow access once this program is in place to the individual that pays 10+K for the 200" mule deer that he kills, let a few other guys have access in specific areas after the pay tag is used to legitimize the program.....

This is how I see a program as outlined playing out, but yes now there will be resident access on the Deseret.


AW.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 12-21-2007, 10:12 AM
bowchaser bowchaser is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 233
Default access

don't really see how this will open up much access for the resident. Joe landowner who owns a couple sections who doesn't let anyone on is going to now because he will get $10-$20 per day? They have to set a price tag to the land owner tags, say $100. If they are going to give such a high percentage of the tags to the landowner group the tags should be at an affordable price, or it will just be more tags for outfitters. I can't believe they will allow them to be given to outfitters. This is set up for rampant abuse and we all know SRD will not be managing it properly. This will benefit APOS more than anyone. Agree, we need to heading more to the sask system, no non-residents getting draws. This reeks of backdoor politics...the one thing I like is the pilot programs must be successful to all groups to proceed. Pretty unlikely resident hunters and AFGA will be happy...
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 12-21-2007, 10:14 AM
lurch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

.

Last edited by lurch; 01-22-2008 at 01:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 12-21-2007, 12:16 PM
gunslinger's Avatar
gunslinger gunslinger is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,919
Default ok

i have drilled a bunch of wells on the mcintyre ranch and i will tell you what boy , i fyou think that all its gonna cost is 20$ a day to hunt on there i am willing to bet your wrong....there is some hogs on there, my water hauler had a gun case strapped to his quad when he come to work one time with no gun in it and they run him right out of the project.

i can see access to hunt on there being alot higher than most would think if they ever allowed it which i doubt.......man makes me wonder what i would pay to hunt that place for 5 days.............if this whole thing even goes through cause i know what lives on that ranch.....can you say monsters.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 12-21-2007, 12:46 PM
Rust's Avatar
Rust Rust is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 609
Default

Hi Rusty, the proposed pilot you are referring to is still being flushed out, so many of the details you are inquiring about are yet to be determined. However, most discussion thus far has focused on WMUs 108 and 300. If the pilot goes ahead I expect Sustainable Resource Development will make a public announcement.
I realize this isn't much detail to your questions, - - hopefully more information will be available in 2008.
Merry Christmas, Doug


************************************************** ****

Doug Manzer, Ph.D.

Senior Scientist and Wildlife Programs Manager

Alberta Conservation Association

Box 1139, Provincial Building
Blairmore, AB
T0K 0E0

Ph: 403-563-8934
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.