Paid Access to Land

[cmdalexander]

I have been doing some looking at what makes some US states so good for Bird hunting, compared to Canada.

I have noticed several things:

1. CPR and Federal Crop Subsidies - Basically the farmers are paid to leave buffer zones (habitat) and Crops unharvested (food source).

2. Many State government play large and active roles in habitat managment, and bird releases.

3. There are many organizations AKA hunting clubs, that make arrangments with private landowners for exclusive leases of property. This seems previlent in most Western and Mid Western States. There seems to be many models from 1 day access to multi year access.

The 3rd item was of some interest to me. The multi year leases seemed to offer large tracts of land for hunting - I noticed several in Washington State, Kansas and Idaho that were in access of 100 000 acres. The fees seemed - varing from 800.00/year to 1500.00/year. The clubs had good membership numbers 1000+ members seem normal and there was a check in/reservation system so that multiple hunters did not show up on the same parcel of land at the same time.

From what I can find, it seems that much of the money went into paying hunters to leave crops, as well as funds for additional birds released.

I am just curious on everyone's thoughts. I guessthis could be looked at as paid hunting/paid land access or it can be looked at as private habitat enhancment and securing hunting opportunites.

Your thoughts?

[FCLightning]

This is the European model that the founders and lawmakers of this country saw fit to guard against. Their objections to the system are still valid. Unfortunately through selfishness and greed we are slowly devolving.

But yes, there are farmers in the US who are profiting quite handsomely I believe from exploiting a public resource.

Too bad we couldn't afford a CRP program in Canada. Unfortunately there are too many acres and not enough taxpayers to even think of such a program - but it would help make farming more profitable if you could take 1/3 of the land out of production - as they did in the US.

[timmyt]

My thoughts are it's retarded.

If you want to kill more birds, get a better dog.

I like the CRP idea....

[hal53]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I like the CRP idea....

X2.....and even though we "supposedly" own the resource...if it's birds or whatever, if the landowner chooses you can't go there to get your "fair share"......

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I like the CRP idea....

X3. Judging by the bird hunting down there vs. here they are obviously doing something right.

[Drop_Tine]

F*c* paid hunting ... Seriously boys

[Ryry4]

Enjoy the increased loss of habitat. Give land owners a reason to keep good habitat and not plow it under equals increased opportunity. I'm sure you think the gov't is doing such a great job managing it.

Let the flaming begin.

[roger]

Originally Posted by Ryry4

Enjoy the increased loss of habitat. Give land owners a reason to keep good habitat and not plow it under equals increased opportunity.

my thots eggzactly.
there is merit to paid access,
Id wager that it is happening already, just under the table.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by roger

my thots eggzactly.
there is merit to paid access,
Id wager that it is happening already, just under the table.

Exactly my point....and trust me....you are 100% correct......

[Sneeze]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I like the CRP idea....

Sheep and I did some battling about this in the thread I linked below. Thought it was a pretty good conversation. Neat to see both of our opinions since the conversation have led to the CRP program being something positive while not crossing any lines!

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showt...te+frustration

[slough shark]

Paid access is already happening, to be honest it really sucks for your ordinary joe, rich guys and outfitters have already bought up some nice land, less access for you and I , why would we want more of it? so the rest of the decent habitat is bought up? I personally would like to see money from fees ( I would willingly pay some extra funds with my licenses) put towards a 3rd party working with farmers and ranchers to enhance habitat rather than hurting it.

[32-40win]

And then there are clubs/leases down there that are 8-10,000.00 a year also.
You don't get much for 1500.00 a year methinks. That would be the end of all free private land hunting of any kind.
No thanks.

[joaks]

some of the gov. programs out west work well to increase accses for hunters mostly right of ways to national forest. some of the paid not to plant places get lease by private clubs or people. in the east most private property is leased very few hunting opertuneties. (around $12oo per 100 acres peryear) its not a good thing.
land owners that get gov. money should have to have more open hunting than they do. the habitat enhansment is good if the average guy gets to play to

[Whiskey Wish]

Anyone that thinks we do not have "paid access" hunting in Alberta is naive at best. It goes on every day in this province and is virtually impossible to enforce any laws against it.

Personally I am against paid access hunting on private land but I am also against having to give "free" permission to an outfitter/guide to hunt MY property so he can turn around and charge someone any amount of money he wants so that they can hunt MY property. For that reason I refuse to give access permission to any outfitter/guide.

Comparing USA hunting and farming to Alberta is like comparing apples and oranges. The population statistics, available government money and rights of ownership thinking are vastly different (for the most part) than Alberta.

When the greater portion of the population in Alberta is disconnected from the day to day realities of actually LIVING with wildlife and only have their own wants/desires upper most in their minds there is bound to be a conflict between stakeholders.

ie. I see moose as destructive creatures that destroy things that have cost me money and no small amount of effort and I am unable to protect my own property legally and most hunters see them as "Yummy, apple flavoured moose". And then they wonder why they get nasty replies when they ask permission to hunt private property.
That is the disconnect to which I refer.

One thing I have learned in my half century + on this little blue ball. Money always WINS....one way or another....eventually.
Regards,
Dave.

[Justin.C]

Originally Posted by Drop_Tine

F*c* paid hunting ... Seriously boys

x2 I agree sorry guys... dont matter if it is birds or big game still paid hunting which is ILLEGAL.... I hope none of this ever happens here in Canada

[Justin.C]

Originally Posted by Whiskey Wish

Anyone that thinks we do not have "paid access" hunting in Alberta is naive at best. It goes on every day in this province and is virtually impossible to enforce any laws against it.

Personally I am against paid access hunting on private land but I am also against having to give "free" permission to an outfitter/guide to hunt MY property so he can turn around and charge someone any amount of money he wants so that they can hunt MY property. For that reason I refuse to give access permission to any outfitter/guide.

Comparing USA hunting and farming to Alberta is like comparing apples and oranges. The population statistics, available government money and rights of ownership thinking are vastly different (for the most part) than Alberta.

When the greater portion of the population in Alberta is disconnected from the day to day realities of actually LIVING with wildlife and only have their own wants/desires upper most in their minds there is bound to be a conflict between stakeholders.

ie. I see moose as destructive creatures that destroy things that have cost me money and no small amount of effort and I am unable to protect my own property legally and most hunters see them as "Yummy, apple flavoured moose". And then they wonder why they get nasty replies when they ask permission to hunt private property.
That is the disconnect to which I refer.

One thing I have learned in my half century + on this little blue ball. Money always WINS....one way or another....eventually.
Regards,
Dave.

This is the problem $$$$ being paid by outfitters.... I have seen it more than once in our province... what a shame as I have also seen alot of property closed to everybody from the same crap.

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by slough shark

I personally would like to see money from fees ( I would willingly pay some extra funds with my licenses) put towards a 3rd party working with farmers and ranchers to enhance habitat rather than hurting it.

That's kind of how the CRP program works. There are Albertans that go down to the Dakota's every year. I don't hear them complain, they want to hunt Pheasants and we don't have the any where the numbers we used to have.

If landowners have a reason to keep habitat for wildlife and give game some value to them it would help with access and management. One doesn't have to look to far to see how well private land owners can manage herd quality versus he government.

If you disagree, that's fine. Just enjoy the decline.

[Okotokian]

Increasing commercialization of hunting and hunting lands should result in more of it, and better management, more game, etc. I don't discount that. I just think the vast majority of hunters in Alberta don't want to go down that path and have it become a rich man's game to harvest a shared, communal resource. Increased cost if just going to drive more people from the sport, so what you gain in resource richness you lose with a shrinking hunter base to politically defend it.

[SLH]

Originally Posted by Whiskey Wish

When the greater portion of the population in Alberta is disconnected from the day to day realities of actually LIVING with wildlife and only have their own wants/desires upper most in their minds there is bound to be a conflict between stakeholders.

ie. I see moose as destructive creatures that destroy things that have cost me money and no small amount of effort and I am unable to protect my own property legally and most hunters see them as "Yummy, apple flavoured moose". And then they wonder why they get nasty replies when they ask permission to hunt private property.
That is the disconnect to which I refer.

I think I must be misunderstanding you here, is this not the relationship that would best address the issue you have with moose, would allowing hunters to harvest the moose not help with your problem.

This coupled with the fact that landownership comes with the responsibility of the wildlife that frequent it I see this as a relationship that needs to be cultivated. If you need to get rid of moose why would there be a nasty relationship with hunters.

As long as the average farmer believes there is more social distinction in driving a new car than in harboring a flock of prairie chickens, the cars will increase and the chickens decrease. But when he realizes that any ordinary person can drive a new car, but that the trusteeship of natural beauty is a distinction open only to landowners, then there may be a real change. Conservation, in short, is at direct variance with the moral and esthetic standards of our generation, and until these standards change, we can have only such fragments as happen to "come easy."

[SLH]

Originally Posted by Ryry4

That's kind of how the CRP program works. There are Albertans that go down to the Dakota's every year. I don't hear them complain, they want to hunt Pheasants and we don't have the any where the numbers we used to have.

If landowners have a reason to keep habitat for wildlife and give game some value to them it would help with access and management. One doesn't have to look to far to see how well private land owners can manage herd quality versus he government.

If you disagree, that's fine. Just enjoy the decline.

As a past landowner you must realize the down side to what you are stating here.

CRP is a good program "IF" you can afford it. Surprisingly, the Americans didn't cut it in the last budget but everyone that sees the issues going on the US must realize it is only a matter of time. That would be true in Canada as well.

Any profit motivation is a black hole to the public purse. This past year wheat, canola, barley, peas, cattle were all at prices that have never been seen before. Thus the land payment set aside has to increase to offset the loss to the farmer. Where does it end? There will never be enough money to support these programs long term and in a large enough manner to make a difference with no gaurantee the money will have a legacy.

Also the price paid to protect this land will be of little consequence to the public if it restricts the publics ability to access it. I will have no incentive to pay into a program that excludes me from it so how does my ability to access this resource get protected?

Again the Leopold quote applies, until there is mind set from the public at large, hunters and landowners that we have to do some of this on our own accord for the benefit of the land itself, nothing will change.

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by SLH

As a past landowner you must realize the down side to what you are stating here.

CRP is a good program "IF" you can afford it. Surprisingly, the Americans didn't cut it in the last budget but everyone that sees the issues going on the US must realize it is only a matter of time. That would be true in Canada as well.

Any profit motivation is a black hole to the public purse. This past year wheat, canola, barley, peas, cattle were all at prices that have never been seen before. Thus the land payment set aside has to increase to offset the loss to the farmer. Where does it end? There will never be enough money to support these programs long term and in a large enough manner to make a difference with no gaurantee the money will have a legacy.

Also the price paid to protect this land will be of little consequence to the public if it restricts the publics ability to access it. I will have no incentive to pay into a program that excludes me from it so how does my ability to access this resource get protected?

Again the Leopold quote applies, until there is mind set from the public at large, hunters and landowners that we have to do some of this on our own accord for the benefit of the land itself, nothing will change.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, I don't think there is a perfect system out there. But I do like how the CRP program has been run.

You're right that landowners and hunters have to work together, but I don't see it happening anytime soon if there is no increase to their bottom line.

As far as the public being restricted on private land, that's been increasing for years. Montana has that one figured out, get a tag sign in on a private ranch and go antelope hunting. The government tries that up here (albeit very poorly implemented) and it's a huge failure. I agree we need to get everyone on page. Problem is not everyone has the benefit of wild life in mind, some would rather see habitat loss before they ever paid to access land, some don't have a problem with it. We need to meet somewhere in the middle and come up with a plan and move forward. Unfortunately I don't think I'll see it in Alberta in my lifetime.

[ishootbambi]

paid hunting is already happening in many places in alberta. there are members of this forum that have done it and continue to do it, and some more want to. myself, i cant ever and wont ever think its a good idea.

a crp type program could have some merit, but there would need to be some very good planning to see any success.....im noit holding my breath.

[Whiskey Wish]

Originally Posted by SLH

I think I must be misunderstanding you here, is this not the relationship that would best address the issue you have with moose, would allowing hunters to harvest the moose not help with your problem.

This coupled with the fact that landownership comes with the responsibility of the wildlife that frequent it I see this as a relationship that needs to be cultivated. If you need to get rid of moose why would there be a nasty relationship with hunters.

As long as the average farmer believes there is more social distinction in driving a new car than in harboring a flock of prairie chickens, the cars will increase and the chickens decrease. But when he realizes that any ordinary person can drive a new car, but that the trusteeship of natural beauty is a distinction open only to landowners, then there may be a real change. Conservation, in short, is at direct variance with the moral and esthetic standards of our generation, and until these standards change, we can have only such fragments as happen to "come easy."

I have no nasty relationship with hunters. There are lots of hunters of both genders taking home deer off of our land every year and so far chasing elk but not catching any. So far no one, to the best of my knowledge, has shot any moose.
I simply refuse to allow guides/outfitters access to our property.
As far as the relationship between landowners and hunters I posted my beliefs on that topic to the landowner posting a long, long time ago.
Regards,
Dave.

[Drop_Tine]

If you ***** clowns wanna ruin the next hunting generation than push for the paid hunting and i hope you never get a chance to hunt with your boys or grand children cause they can afford to hunt !!! You guys are selfish and need to look in tbe mirror and realize that it not all about " YOU" !!

Ps ... Its not my fault you guys havent taken a book animal in your 20 plus years of hunting ....

[cmdalexander]

Thanks to most of you for your thoughtful replies. On the first read over, I was dismayed that large organizations contract land for hunting, this elimates hunting oppotunities for those who cannot afford or choose not to participate in these clubs.

However, there are some inherent problems with the Status Quo:

1. CRP programs are good for hunters - however there is also the fact that is taking cropland out of production and in return artificially inflating food prices.

One possible solution is to put the responsability on hunters to pay through licenses and fees, for better hunting opportunites. In a more sutable climate like South Dakota, the estimate is 16 mature phesants (carying capaicty) per square mile or 640 acres.

We could hike the fee to $1000.00/year to ensure adequate game bird or deer or elk levels and to ensure that there was public land available. This also would create problems:

1. Some people would not be able to participate, law abiding outdoorsmen and women would be denied the opportunities.

2. Increase in poaching - those unable or unwilling to afford it may choose to risk breaking the law

3. Government mismanagment - Fees will go into general revenue coffures and be misapproprited.


As land values continue to rise, Alberta is now the 4th most expensive agricultural land in Canada behind British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, farming practices become more intensive. Farmers will be hard pressed to give up income to sustain wildlife habitat without some form of compensation.

So what are your solutions:

1. I would like to see the Oil and Gas revenues from Agricultural and grazing leases returned to public coffures - This is something Bill Scammell has been writing about in AO.

2. I would agree to a moderate increase in fees, providing the monies were directly returned to SRD for game enhancment and enforcment.

3. I still believe that there is room for a private partnership with our farmers and ranchers to increase game mangment without going to a pay per use system. Maybe the government could look at some form of tax write off for farmers leaving planted crops and at the same time private clubs could make a commitment to provide additional game enhancment through habitat restoration and game release programs.

[pikeslayer22]

There is one fix.... invest in your own hunting land!!!! still lots of recreational land to be had...there will come a time... not sure some of us will see it... that if you don't own it you wont ve using it for free! Never ceases to amaze me people will buy a 350 to 500 k house in some city and look at realestate for vacation purposes in foreign countrys and complain about someone that won't give them access to there land as if it were their right! My 2 cents as a landowner!!

[roger]

Originally Posted by Justin.C

... paid hunting which is ILLEGAL.... I hope none of this ever happens here in Canada

not that I agree/disagree with ya..but if....i give a landowner a $20 Timmys gift card for xmas or a provide them with a moose roast or help them for an afternoon fixing a fence...have I not in a sense 'paid' for my access rights??
If i was to lease a section of land for a single cow to pasture for the year and have the access rights that apply to it.
Is that paid or ?
I guess legally its all about what the intent was/is.
it is a slippery slope for sure...

[Justin.C]

Originally Posted by roger

not that I agree/disagree with ya..but if....i give a landowner a $20 Timmys gift card for xmas or a provide them with a moose roast or help them for an afternoon fixing a fence...have I not in a sense 'paid' for my access rights??
If i was to lease a section of land for a single cow to pasture for the year and have the access rights that apply to it.
Is that paid or ?
I guess legally its all about what the intent was/is.
it is a slippery slope for sure...

Roger. You know all of what you stated is playing a grey area. But as you stated it it is 100% illegal. I am with droptime on all of this topic. If you want money for bird hunting or any other type. It is wrong as it is against everything we have ever had here. It saddens me that we are even talking about this garbage on this site. Nothing against what you are saying Roger. Juststating how I feel.

[cowmanbob]

Originally Posted by pikeslayer22

There is one fix.... invest in your own hunting land!!!! still lots of recreational land to be had...there will come a time... not sure some of us will see it... that if you don't own it you wont ve using it for free! Never ceases to amaze me people will buy a 350 to 500 k house in some city and look at realestate for vacation purposes in foreign countrys and complain about someone that won't give them access to there land as if it were their right! My 2 cents as a landowner!!

My thoughts exactly.