Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Hunting Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-10-2024, 10:51 AM
kevpack's Avatar
kevpack kevpack is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lethbridge
Posts: 298
Default License fees

What's up with license fees? I read TJ Schwanky's hunting column in the latest Alberta Outdoors where he discussed the increasing license fees for hunting in Alberta. This prompted me to dig into my archives to find out what I paid back in the day...
Wildlife certificate $5 including resource stamp, Muley, Whitetail, elk, moose and black bear all $5 each for a grand total of 30 bucks for all the tags I needed in 1979. The same thing this year $ 250.
OK my wage has tripled but come on. What is this paying for?
Sheep and Antelope are ridiculous this year.
Where's the concern for dwindling hunter numbers?
Maybe this is ok though, if it keeps going up maybe hunter numbers will go back to 1979 levels and it won't be so crowded.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 20240610_101100_copy_1512x1512.jpg (83.3 KB, 74 views)
__________________
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Sir Winston Churchill.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-10-2024, 10:58 AM
Smoky buck Smoky buck is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 7,625
Default

Consider the cost of everything has increased I don’t understand why this is a surprise. Likely it will have basically zero impact on hunter numbers as it has not effected them in areas with higher cost

What should be considered is where the money is going and pushing for more accountability for the spending of theses fees
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-10-2024, 11:43 AM
rugerfan rugerfan is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 445
Default

The national average price for gas in 79 was 23.6 cents per liter, the cost of the license is minimal compared to everything else involved these days. As for the hunter numbers I think you will find more people than you’d expect concerned about overcrowding more than they are about reduced numbers.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-10-2024, 11:46 AM
trapperdodge trapperdodge is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Alberta
Posts: 592
Default

Are pheasants not a game bird? Maybe we should have a separate license for Ruffed Grouse or Spruce Grouse?
If the license fee goes to support the put and take pheasant release program let those who participate in it pay for it - the same as they would if they hunt on a pheasant farm. Only in Alberta are pheasants NOT included in your game bird tag.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-10-2024, 01:08 PM
calgarychef calgarychef is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevpack View Post
What's up with license fees? I read TJ Schwanky's hunting column in the latest Alberta Outdoors where he discussed the increasing license fees for hunting in Alberta. This prompted me to dig into my archives to find out what I paid back in the day...
Wildlife certificate $5 including resource stamp, Muley, Whitetail, elk, moose and black bear all $5 each for a grand total of 30 bucks for all the tags I needed in 1979. The same thing this year $ 250.
OK my wage has tripled but come on. What is this paying for?
Sheep and Antelope are ridiculous this year.
Where's the concern for dwindling hunter numbers?
Maybe this is ok though, if it keeps going up maybe hunter numbers will go back to 1979 levels and it won't be so crowded.
Your wage has tripled? Be thankful
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-10-2024, 01:11 PM
300magman's Avatar
300magman 300magman is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,913
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoky buck View Post
Consider the cost of everything has increased I don’t understand why this is a surprise. Likely it will have basically zero impact on hunter numbers as it has not effected them in areas with higher cost

What should be considered is where the money is going and pushing for more accountability for the spending of theses fees
Quote:
Originally Posted by rugerfan View Post
The national average price for gas in 79 was 23.6 cents per liter, the cost of the license is minimal compared to everything else involved these days. As for the hunter numbers I think you will find more people than you’d expect concerned about overcrowding more than they are about reduced numbers.
Bang on. Hunter numbers are growing, not decreasing and a few extra bucks isn’t going to make a single difference in numbers or net impact to 99% of hunters. Never ceases to amaze me that guys will happily go spend $50-100 at a lounge to eat and watch a hockey game with friends, or whatever else they do yet tag prices jump a few bucks and it’s an issue. Our tags are cheap, hunting is cheap here…….even the most expensive tags are less than or equal to a box of crappy ammo. With all the expenses of hunting, this isn’t one that is going to make a guy not go.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-14-2024, 10:03 PM
Brodhead's Avatar
Brodhead Brodhead is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Mountain View County
Posts: 245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevpack View Post

Sheep and Antelope are ridiculous this year.
I'd be fine with significantly more expensive sheep tags depending on where the funds go. Sheep and antelope aren't animals that anyone needs to fill their freezers or walls with on a regular basis and they both need funding for management


Sent from my SM-G981W using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-14-2024, 10:09 PM
Dewey Cox's Avatar
Dewey Cox Dewey Cox is online now
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: 204
Posts: 5,566
Default

Draws and tags need to cost more, because it's a valuable resource.

But paid access to land shouldn't be allowed, because we should have access for free.

Ok then...
__________________
I don't think our taxes should be this high.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-14-2024, 10:46 PM
Brodhead's Avatar
Brodhead Brodhead is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Mountain View County
Posts: 245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Cox View Post
Draws and tags need to cost more, because it's a valuable resource.



But paid access to land shouldn't be allowed, because we should have access for free.



Ok then...
We're just lucky ol Charlie let's us on his land at all. But that's also unrelated to the topic of this post

Sent from my SM-G981W using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-15-2024, 05:09 AM
waldedw's Avatar
waldedw waldedw is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Lloydminster
Posts: 4,762
Default

Everything keeps going up, got to pay for the bureaucracy, fuel in 1979 according to my records was 0.29 / lt, my hunting license for the last 5 years has been $17 for a wildlife cert, game bird license and white tail tag combined, the benefits of getting older, but I put fuel in my truck yesterday that was 1.50 / lt so yes up 500% from 1979.
__________________
The problem we have today is that the people who work for a living are outnumbered by the people who vote for a living.

We were all born ignorant but one must work very hard to remain that way.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-15-2024, 06:21 AM
Smoky buck Smoky buck is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 7,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Cox View Post
Draws and tags need to cost more, because it's a valuable resource.

But paid access to land shouldn't be allowed, because we should have access for free.

Ok then...
Not even close to being the same

But if you want to be taken seriously trying to make them compatible ok. You want to make pay to play access a thing lets start with 4 things to make it something that might be worth considering

1) to qualify as a landowner that can offer paid access first a % of their land needs to be set aside as wildlife habitat. This way wildlife populations will benefit

2) landowner must be registered and taxed to offer paid access. A set % of the tax should go directly to wildlife enhancement and enforcement

3) A cap put on the fee that can be charged

4) must have a large enough parcel of land that can provide both the % of wildlife habitat requirement well still being able to provide a viable amount of land for farming. We don’t need to inflate farm/ranch land prices effecting these important sectors

This should be a good STARTING point especially if you want to compare license fees and landowners should be able to charge access fees

Want to benefit off of wildlife ok make wildlife benefit from it and it might be something to consider.

Without a realistic plan beyond “landowners should be able to” I see no reason to support it
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-15-2024, 07:19 AM
Dewey Cox's Avatar
Dewey Cox Dewey Cox is online now
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: 204
Posts: 5,566
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoky buck View Post
Not even close to being the same

But if you want to be taken seriously trying to make them compatible ok. You want to make pay to play access a thing lets start with 4 things to make it something that might be worth considering

1) to qualify as a landowner that can offer paid access first a % of their land needs to be set aside as wildlife habitat. This way wildlife populations will benefit

2) landowner must be registered and taxed to offer paid access. A set % of the tax should go directly to wildlife enhancement and enforcement

3) A cap put on the fee that can be charged

4) must have a large enough parcel of land that can provide both the % of wildlife habitat requirement well still being able to provide a viable amount of land for farming. We don’t need to inflate farm/ranch land prices effecting these important sectors

This should be a good STARTING point especially if you want to compare license fees and landowners should be able to charge access fees

Want to benefit off of wildlife ok make wildlife benefit from it and it might be something to consider.

Without a realistic plan beyond “landowners should be able to” I see no reason to support it
That all sounds pretty good (except for the cap, that's' pretty communist of you...)
If there was a financial incentive for farmers to not burn every piece of bush on their land, the wildlife population would benefit.
__________________
I don't think our taxes should be this high.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-15-2024, 07:30 AM
Dmay Dmay is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Elk Point, Alberta
Posts: 954
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoky buck View Post

1) to qualify as a landowner that can offer paid access first a % of their land needs to be set aside as wildlife habitat. This way wildlife populations will benefit



4) must have a large enough parcel of land that can provide both the % of wildlife habitat requirement well still being able to provide a viable amount of land for farming.
What do you mean by "set aside"? Not used to produce anything?
That would be wasteful both ways. An acre of alfalfa, for instance, will give more support to wildlife that an acre left in bush, even with it being cut for hay....
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-15-2024, 07:56 AM
Smoky buck Smoky buck is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 7,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Cox View Post
That all sounds pretty good (except for the cap, that's' pretty communist of you...)
If there was a financial incentive for farmers to not burn every piece of bush on their land, the wildlife population would benefit.
You want support most fear being priced out of hunting so establish a reasonable fee cap to ease their fear

You want people to support a change to allow paid access show them why they should

Personally I am someone who will basically go unaffected if it changes and I see no reason to support it. So if you can’t win over someone like me it’s not likely to get support from outdoorsman who primarily hunt private land
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-15-2024, 08:00 AM
Pathfinder76 Pathfinder76 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 16,090
Default

License fee increases won’t kill hunting. Paying for access? You’re done. It will be over.
__________________
“I love it when clients bring Berger bullets. It means I get to kill the bear.”

-Billy Molls
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-15-2024, 08:10 AM
Smoky buck Smoky buck is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 7,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmay View Post
What do you mean by "set aside"? Not used to produce anything?
That would be wasteful both ways. An acre of alfalfa, for instance, will give more support to wildlife that an acre left in bush, even with it being cut for hay....
Takes more than food for a healthy ecosystem. The decline in many game bird species can be linked to habitat loss in agriculture for starters. Sage grouse being one of the species affected most.

When it comes to wildlife they would benefit far more from a mix of scrub or forest combined with agriculture. That acre of alfalfa is just a small piece of the puzzle. If you don’t want to believe me sit down with any biologist. Heck even go check out quality deer management plans. A mix ecosystem is far more productive than straight alfalfa and there is so many studies that support what I am saying I won’t bother debating it

Just because the animals are easier to see in the open than in the bush doesn’t mean they are in higher numbers
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-15-2024, 10:32 AM
SLH SLH is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Cox View Post
That all sounds pretty good (except for the cap, that's' pretty communist of you...)
If there was a financial incentive for farmers to not burn every piece of bush on their land, the wildlife population would benefit.
There will never be enough money.

A quote I read often...

"I now incline to believe that the full development of game cropping on farms, as well as most other kinds of conservation, must await some rather fundamental changes in rural culture and in land economics.



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 solely 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.”"
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-15-2024, 06:17 PM
Dewey Cox's Avatar
Dewey Cox Dewey Cox is online now
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: 204
Posts: 5,566
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLH View Post
There will never be enough money.

A quote I read often...

"I now incline to believe that the full development of game cropping on farms, as well as most other kinds of conservation, must await some rather fundamental changes in rural culture and in land economics.



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 solely 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.”"
And realistically, I don't think the ability to charge for access will make guys maintain deer habitat at the expense of crop land.
But I do think that landowner tags reward the people who are interested in helping the wildlife population.
__________________
I don't think our taxes should be this high.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-16-2024, 06:11 AM
ram crazy ram crazy is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,896
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoky buck View Post
Consider the cost of everything has increased I don’t understand why this is a surprise. Likely it will have basically zero impact on hunter numbers as it has not effected them in areas with higher cost

What should be considered is where the money is going and pushing for more accountability for the spending of theses fees
How much is poaching going to increase?
I think the government will feel a bit of impact as you have those guys that when they buy an elk tag to hunt in the mountains they also buy a sheep tag just to have. Now with that tag at $90 they may not purchase that tag just to have.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-16-2024, 06:23 AM
Smoky buck Smoky buck is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 7,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ram crazy View Post
How much is poaching going to increase?
I think the government will feel a bit of impact as you have those guys that when they buy an elk tag to hunt in the mountains they also buy a sheep tag just to have. Now with that tag at $90 they may not purchase that tag just to have.
Those who are poachers or bend rules will continue to do as they do. If $20 is all it takes to become a poacher you likely have crossed that line already

I will be surprised if income from tag sales changes as It hasn’t effect other locations outside of Alberta

The last line in that post is what is important and that is what is more important than saving a few $
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-16-2024, 06:32 AM
ram crazy ram crazy is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,896
Default

There are lots of people feeling the pinch with higher prices of everything going up. Time will tell!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-16-2024, 06:44 AM
ram crazy ram crazy is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,896
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodhead View Post
I'd be fine with significantly more expensive sheep tags depending on where the funds go. Sheep and antelope aren't animals that anyone needs to fill their freezers or walls with on a regular basis and they both need funding for management


Sent from my SM-G981W using Tapatalk
You better put all animals on your list! You see how the government is managing Mule Deer.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-16-2024, 06:59 AM
Smoky buck Smoky buck is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 7,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ram crazy View Post
There are lots of people feeling the pinch with higher prices of everything going up. Time will tell!
And those who will choose to poach because of it has more to do with hard times and the much higher cost increases in the grocery store not tags

Even without the change in tag fees they would choose that path.

The reality is most poachers who do it are not desperate people trying to feed a family. Most are either lazy slobs who don’t care, or that guy that views inches/bragging more valuable than ethics. The small portion of people who do it because they are experiencing truly tough times are easier to understand

If you personally view the tag prices too high I can respect that. If you feel the money from the increase will be wasted I can also understand that stance

Beyond that I don’t buy for one second it’s going to have any real impact. But I do agree time will tell so no point debating it
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-16-2024, 08:54 AM
Brodhead's Avatar
Brodhead Brodhead is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Mountain View County
Posts: 245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ram crazy View Post
You better put all animals on your list! You see how the government is managing Mule Deer.
You're not wrong. I've watched some of our mule deer zones see a 1000% increase in buck tags over the years

Sent from my SM-G981W using Tapatalk
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 09:52 PM.


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