Paid Hunting in Alberta?

[packhuntr]

Gunslinger, i think there are very few people in this province who came from traditional hunting familys that can afford a Sonora mule deer hunt. Thats probuably gonna make up the vast majority of hunters in the province. If its unaffordable to do guided hunts all over north america, its probuably not gonna be realistic to pay for hunting opportunities at home.

keep a strain on er.

Originally Posted by TreeGuy

The program is (like any pilot) being used to

a.) Let the market determine a price point
b.) Determine the ratio of resident vs non res. purchasers
c.) See the harvest numbers on previouly uncounted lands

:

It's all about money. There shouldn't be a market on our wild game. They are going to privitize everything! I sure am glad that I have three nice southern AB muleys hanging on my wall, cause they soon will be out of my price range.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by 340wtby

The results of my poll can be viewed on this forum. Please take the opportunity to vote it closes in a week.

Originally Posted by 209x50

I thought you might like that.

[gunslinger]

i have never in 15 years been able to hunt the mcintyre ranch,

very good point pack, i totally understand what your saying,, but for 15 years i havent been able to hunt the ranch, and now this guy gives you a chance to hunt it , maybe two people a year i dont know, for say 2500$ or 5000$, there alot of guys on here from down south that know of this ranches, i have drilled holes on these ranches and i know what lives on them.
noone hunts these places im jsut wondering if this little project will allow oppertunity to hunt it. would you hunt it packhunter.
i think i would. but hey thats jsut me. i know alot of guys woudl say no way, but who would know who they are once there on the ranch anyway, on here your a name out there your a hunter. jsut keeping it real.
and if i dont take one of the two spots or anyone of us dont take it, i can guarntee someone will.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by TreeGuy

......if it was that simple, Waxy, there would never be any crime. However, reality, unfortunately proves othewise.

Yes, but does that mean we should simply eliminate all laws because someone will inevitably break them?

Of course not.

If landowners are given the opportunity to sell a couple of tags to have a publicly owned resource harvested from their property (Hey, that DOES sound like oil and gas and timber, hmmmm) then it's going to pretty quickly dry up the 'under the table' activities.

Actually, the oil and gas business doesn't work that way. The landowners are not paid for the hydrocarbons (public property, except in the rare case they are still owned by the landowner), they are paid a fee as part of an agreement to lease a portion of the landowner's land. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

It might dry up the under the table stuff, but now you'll have to pay for access everywhere. You've just cut off your nose to spite your face.

To read some of the retoric being tossed around is rather amusing. What do you think, that we're all going to have to pay $10K to tag a deer on private land? Or that all of the tags will be sold to non-residents?

Likely not, but the possibility exists. Fees that large are certainly not outrageous compared to hunts in the USA or Europe where most hunting is strictly by paid acess.

The program is (like any pilot) being used to

a.) Let the market determine a price point
b.) Determine the ratio of resident vs non res. purchasers
c.) See the harvest numbers on previouly uncounted lands

It will be after the trial is over, when the real plan either is implemented or scrapped. That is most likely why it has been quietly limited to a handful of landowners. Easier to scrap it if that will only effect a few.

Once the final numbers are in, and IF they decide to proceed, that will be when the consultations will take place. Until such time is upon us, everything is just speculation.

Happy New Years!
Tree

Like many others here, I worry that once the first foot is in the door, the crowd is right behind.

Waxy

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by 209x50

[B]What pot shots are there in what you've quoted?

What positive contributions to the discussion are there in what I've quoted? (Two can play this game. )

Waxy

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Waxy

What positive contributions to the discussion are there in what I've quoted? (Two can play this game. )

Waxy

Well you tell me how they were pot shots and I'll explain them to you. Until I can understand what you are confused about how can I help you?

Gunslinger,

If you think you will get on the Macintyre Ranch for 20 dollars a day even 1000 dollars you are losing your mind. Mr. Magoo stated that sure you will be able to get on to these properties but you will have to walk while the high paying customers will be driven to the game and oh yeah you can only hunt this quarter because I have cow's on the rest.

The biggest problem I see and I think has been overlooked by most people in the thread is why are the tags coming out of the resident quota. Why are these tags not out of the outfitter tags? Residents have to wait 5-8 years to get a tag in 108 for mule deer , yet a non-resident who does not pay taxes to sustain our wildlife can come up every year and shoot one. This seems backwards to me.

I have lived and hunted in 108 and 300 my entire life and would have loved to get on any of these properties but this is not the way.

I have no problem with compensating land owners for giving access as long as they maintain the land and offer "equal" hunting access to all. Pay for access tags already exist they are called outfitter tags. This new system is just a way to get more tags for outfitters and less for residents. It states that land owners can create a business unit together. I can see in the future outfitters going to numerous land owners in a zone and telling them to band together and I will pay you X amount of dollars to get exclusive access to your land. This will give them there current outfitter tags and up to 25% of the resident tags. In 108 this would increse there tags by approximately 31 a substantial profit for the outfitter and landowner. How many business owners would not want there total sales to go up by 25% per year.

The last question I have is for 209X50 and I will quote you directly

"I'm amazed at how many people have approached me. My first knowledge of the project was someone asking me for information.
I think one of the fundamental problems highlighted by this thread is terrible lack of understanding of the process.
You might want to find out who started this and why. A look at the starting position papers and the roles of the various participants might open a few eyes too."

Since you seem to know quite a bit about the process could you please enlighten me wether on this forum or in a PM. I would love to know who started this and why. I would also love to read the starting position papers and the various participants so I can make an informed decision or at least get information from them to make an informed decision.

[LongDraw]

209x50,

Would you support landowners being able to recieve and directly market vouchers to residents and outfitters as outlined by the HFH program?

[gunslinger]

Gunslinger,

If you think you will get on the Macintyre Ranch for 20 dollars a day even 1000 dollars you are losing your mind. Mr. Magoo stated that sure you will be able to get on to these properties but you will have to walk while the high paying customers will be driven to the game and oh yeah you can only hunt this quarter because I have cow's on the rest.

this was a example but very good points also bubba,, but i will probably be driving not walking if i ever got a chance to hunt on there.

I have lived and hunted in 108 and 300 my entire life and would have loved to get on any of these properties but this is not the way.

no it might not be but if this pilot project goes through and it is the way, are you gonna be in line.i think so, escpecially if you live there and no the game on there,and only get drawn once every 8 years.your gonna wanna chance at a monster.
we will see what happens anyway, this is all speculation as of right now.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by gunslinger

, but i will probably be driving not walking if i ever got a chance to hunt on there.

(grin) I like your style! If a big deer was important to me I'd be saving my shekels for the chance also.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by LongDraw

209x50,

Would you support landowners being able to recieve and directly market vouchers to residents and outfitters as outlined by the HFH program?

As far as I can figure out from what I've been told, the HFH isn't complete yet. I won't speculate on what will or won't be in the final draft, so until I see what the law will be i don't have an answer for you. Sorry.

[TreeGuy]

Hi Waxy!

Originally Posted by Waxy

Actually, the oil and gas business doesn't work that way. The landowners are not paid for the hydrocarbons (public property, except in the rare case they are still owned by the landowner), they are paid a fee as part of an agreement to lease a portion of the landowner's land. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

Hmmm. Landowners recieving some form of compensation for the harvest of publicly owned natural resources from their properties seems pretty 'apples to apples' to me.

Originally Posted by Waxy

Likely not, but the possibility exists. Fees that large are certainly not outrageous compared to hunts in the USA or Europe where most hunting is strictly by paid acess.

Agreed. However, I feel that the point of the project is to give officials a starting point in order to set tag price caps at a reasonable price that EVERYONE can afford, as well as determine what percentage of tags will be allocated as 'Resident' vs. 'Non Resident'. No way are they going to let a program like this be an unregulated Darwinistic free-for-all. I just can't see it.

What I also can't see is a 25% reduction in WMU tags issued to give to landowners on properties where the herd numbers are not even counted. The tag numbers will stay the same, the draw system will remain intact, and the landowner issued tags will fall under a 'special' category. Maybe as an 'extra' tag per say. To do otherwise would spell political doom for many rural MLAs. Now, back to the crystal ball!

Tree

[Pathfinder76]

deleted

[Pathfinder76]

As far as I can figure out from what I've been told, the HFH isn't complete yet. I won't speculate on what will or won't be in the final draft, so until I see what the law will be i don't have an answer for you. Sorry.

Just where are you getting your information?

Jim Allen told me on the phone that it is a go, and he has been given the directive to roll it out.

It's time for you to put up or shut up. Once again please spare us the chickechit comments from the peanut gallery and at least try and prove a point.

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by 209x50

As far as I can figure out from what I've been told, the HFH isn't complete yet. I won't speculate on what will or won't be in the final draft, so until I see what the law will be i don't have an answer for you. Sorry.

209x50,

I am not asking you to speculate on anything. Do you support a landowner voucher system, allowing landowners to directly market tags to residents and outfitters?
Not a tough question...
A simple yes or no will suffice.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by chuck

Just where are you getting your information?

Jim Allen told me on the phone that it is a go, and he has been given the directive to roll it out.

It's time for you to put up or shut up. Once again please spare us the chickechit comments from the peanut gallery and at least try and prove a point.

Gee Chuck when you put it so politely how could I say no? Pretty easy actually. Oh and Chuck? Whether I have your approval or not I will comment on this again if I so choose. Like it or not Chuck people can have different opinions than you or in my case be unsure what to think and that doesn't make them wrong.

[gunslinger]

I have been told that the Mcintyre Ranch has opted out. Not suprising as they are inti hunting. So quit thinking you'll get a chance to hunt there. Second, how do you expect to get a tag anyway.

Right now in 2008 Mule Deer hunts for non residents in 108 (Deseret) are selling for 10k. 10k is a chunk of change for a Mule Deer hunt

mcintyre ranch was an example chuck, whatever desert ranch your talking about i have no clue. i expect to draw the tag how do you think, the same way you expect too. and you better up your aunty if you think thats all the hunts are going for, 10k.

[Pathfinder76]

deleted

[Pathfinder76]

deleted

[LongDraw]

Guys,

It is pretty simple; you either support the idea of being able to pay the landowner for a tag, or you don't.

This is what this whole discussion boils down to.

Has nothing to do with you having the money or not, being a landowner, etc..

Two different views on how public wildlife on private land is managed.

Neither is wrong, just different ideals.

When you weigh in to a discussion;throw a few jabs and don't state your case, well that is just pointless. chit or get off the pot.

[gunslinger]

i expect to draw the tag

jeez i jsut told you i expect to draw the tag, how am i gonna draw it if i aint put in for it...cmon man.

i agree wiht longdraw here and it going anywhere but in turmoil, different opinions on the subject.

[Pathfinder76]

deleted

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by TreeGuy

Hmmm. Landowners recieving some form of compensation for the harvest of publicly owned natural resources from their properties seems pretty 'apples to apples' to me.

I've posted the AEUB regs regarding access on this site before, I don't have the link handy unfortunately.

Unlike hunting, landowners cannot deny access to oil companies, they can make it awfully difficult and expensive yes, but they can't deny it. What the lease fee boils down to is compensation for loss of productive land, it is not payment for access, and in theory, the level of compensation is regulated by land values/productivity.

Details I know, but the comparison really isn't all that valid.

Agreed. However, I feel that the point of the project is to give officials a starting point in order to set tag price caps at a reasonable price that EVERYONE can afford, as well as determine what percentage of tags will be allocated as 'Resident' vs. 'Non Resident'. No way are they going to let a program like this be an unregulated Darwinistic free-for-all. I just can't see it.

Weren't you just the one that saying how the system will be abused regardless?

Just because a price is "set" doesn't mean that will actually be the price.

However, you've now opened the door to there being a price, where before there wasn't.

Waxy

[209x50]

Originally Posted by LongDraw

Guys,

It is pretty simple; you either support the idea of being able to pay the landowner for a tag, or you don't.

Few things in life are quite that black and white. I don't know for sure but I doubt that this is completely black and white either.

[TreeGuy]

Originally Posted by Waxy

Weren't you just the one that saying how the system will be abused regardless?

.

Uh, nope. I'm of the feeling that access is being paid for illegally already, and this program is an experiment in order to thwart such activities. That's all.

Originally Posted by Waxy

Details I know, but the comparison really isn't all that validWaxy

.

I suppose that we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Oh well, it's New Year's Eve, and I now have an icy cold drink in hand!

Originally Posted by Waxy

Just because a price is "set" doesn't mean that will actually be the price.

However, you've now opened the door to there being a price, where before there wasn't.

Ya kindda lost me a bit on that one. Have you beaten me to the bottle?

Have a Great and Safe Night Folks!
Tree

Originally Posted by gunslinger

no it might not be but if this pilot project goes through and it is the way, are you gonna be in line.i think so, escpecially if you live there and no the game on there,and only get drawn once every 8 years.your gonna wanna chance at a monster.
we will see what happens anyway, this is all speculation as of right now.

You are implying that I would be in line for a tag if it goes through. I can tell you 100% that I will not, and yes I do live in the area and know what there is for animals. I also know what people have shot without having access to these 2 ranches. The quality of animals is just as good.

The main point here is why are they making my son's and my chance's smaller while increasing the non-residents. Yes I know that anybody can buy the tags but I lump residents and non-residents into the same group on this issue. They are both bypassing the draw system that the vast majority of hunters (including myself) in this province have to use. Take the tags from the outfitters quota and see how much support this gets. Somebody said that a mule deer on the deseret is worth $10,000.00. That works out to $310,000 to the land owner/outfitter for the increase in tags. This is why these landowners and outfitters are pushing this. Lets get realistic this is not a wildlife or an access issue it is a money issue and in the end money always wins out.

Bubba

[300 wsm]

wow was gettin a little heated what is this mcintyre ranch never heard of it big deer can i see some pics of big deer lol

[Vindalbakken]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Few things in life are quite that black and white. I don't know for sure but I doubt that this is completely black and white either.

Sorry but this one is. Current law says there shall be no compensation of any kind. You either support the principle of paying for access to hunt or you don't. There is no half way. You are either paying in some form or not.

As with anything political timing is everything. There are more people in Alberta with spare cash to enjoy recreation activities now than at any time in the past. The urbanization has grown at an exponential rate. It is unlikely that there will be a better time to introduce such a concept as paid hunting - as we have seen on this thread alone there are those who think that because they have the means to buy a hunt it would be nice for the law to allow them to. It is a principle which is contrary to the very tenet on which our system of hunting laws and management were built.