Newest information on open spaces.

Originally Posted by duffy4

You will notice 340wtby said never and I said if they sign the contract and .... apparently you are correct they will not be involved in this pilot. But that does not mean they "never" will be.

Robin in Rocky

Duffy, they have not let anyone hunt there in 100 years and don't plan to start.

[Bull Shooter]

Originally Posted by duffy4

You will notice 340wtby said never and I said if they sign the contract and .... apparently you are correct they will not be involved in this pilot. But that does not mean they "never" will be.

Robin in Rocky

Duffy, I am being respectful but I truly do not understand this logic.

Do I have this right - If there is ANY possibility that the McIntyre Ranch might reverse it's stance on hunting (a stance they have held for a significant period of time and which they tell me will continue) then it turns a "questionable" HFH program into a "reasonable" HFH program?

I am absolutely puzzled by that position, but perhaps there is more than I am reading? Regards, Mike

[lynx]

[Quote] ok so basically alberta is heading to where we can buy a outfitted hunt on these ranches,,,is the 30000 acre thing still in effect or are these little landowner people get tags too.



Well Iam a smallland ( section) owner compared to the big ranches. And my feeling are if they can get $$$$ for hunting on their land so can I!! Iam just as good as anyone farmer, and personally can use th extra income. What is good for one owners land is good for all land owners.

[Okotokian]

So as I understand it, a farmer is going to charge me $20 to go on his land.... and when I'm hunting upland I might end up on two or three different pieces of land in a day (if I don't find much). So I shell out $60. Is that it?

[Pathfinder76]

No, under the RAMP program, the government foots that bill.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by chuck

No, under the RAMP program, the government foots that bill.

Oh, well what the hell then??? I was almost at the point of thinking I'd pay the bill personally. Access to three pieces of land in a day would be $60. I pay more than that for a round of golf. My biggest problem with hunting has been finding and obtaining access. I've wasted tons of time trying to find it. I think I might be willing to pay that tab to be assured of easy access.

Ok, brand me a heretic and burn me at the stake.

[Bull Shooter]

Lynx – I hear you, and it is my understanding that providing the HFH group meets the minimum habitat requirements you may be allowed to participate. I have just less than 6 quarters and there has been a fair bit of discussion by area landowners about getting ready for the possibility of HFH in our WMU (not 108 or 300).

A fairly common theme among landowners not participating in the current “Open Spaces Proposal” is to restrict or ban public hunting access from all private properties for a period of at least five years. This way if the HFH becomes permanent, the quantity and quality of game animals will be increased and this will give a landowner better leverage when it comes time to negotiate with the Province and other landowners within the context of an HFH agreement.

Here is an interesting scenario where there are several different landowners offering unique habitat: One landowner I spoke to suggested that 80% of the HFH proceeds should be divided on a pro-rated basis. That is, your compensation would be relative to your land holdings in the particular HFH unit. The 20% “balance” could be applied into a “trophy fee” pool. A landowner, fortunate enough to have a draw tag animal taken on his or her place, would get a relative portion (based on the number of HFH tags) of the trophy fee.

You might also have the option of the RAMP program, but the general consensus among landowners is that it may be more trouble than it is worth... more people, less control, additional liabilities, more paperwork, etc. However, if the RAMP proposal includes ALL recreational users, (hikers, berry pickers, photographers, your brother’s 8 children, etc.) then I can see landowners really warming up to this program.

I am personally against the concept of “paid hunting”, but if this does become a reality I suppose landowners outside of WMU’s 108 and 300 need to prepare. I guess we need to give the people what they want and it is something I think we all (hunters and landowners) need to consider for certain.

Oko – The issue of multiple land use in a single day is a great question (i.e. - $20 per day X 3 different land titles under the RAMP). I’m not certain how the Province would handle compensation in this scenario? I don’t remember seeing anything in the documentation that specifically addresses multiple land use in a single day but I will see if I can find any answers. Regards, Mike

[gman1978]

This whole thing smells of GREED!!!!

[Okotokian]

Farmers have a bad crop year or get hit with the mad cow problem, we bail em out and give them money.... they have losses from wildlife, we give them money.... we want to hunt on their land after this, we give them money.... Can I get my back yard recognized as a farm? LOL

[lynx]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Farmers have a bad crop year or get hit with the mad cow problem, we bail em out and give them money.... they have losses from wildlife, we give them money.... we want to hunt on their land after this, we give them money.... Can I get my back yard recognized as a farm? LOL

On my land I try to help the wildlife out. I plant crops and leave some for the wildlife to help them get through the winter period. I have never taken a $ from the government or made any claims. My place is like a wildlife park and it is posted which is rightfully so. I do allow hunting but on a size basis only.
I put money in and dont take money out and I think I should be able to have paid hunting. If one land owner can do it so can I.
Firstly, the Fish and wildlife act will have to say "paid hunting allowed" or tags granted to land owners are breaking the law in my books. we all all equal in this country ....or are we?

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by lynx

I have never taken a $ from the government or made any claims?

That is great lynx. If you pay the same taxes as me, pay the same for gas, get no support for crop insurance, etc, then I say you can do with your land as you will. If you say you don't want any hunting on it ever, I can respect that and would never say a thing against it. But not everyone is like you. Some see it as a right.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by chuck

No, under the RAMP program, the government foots that bill.

The Gov will not be footing the bill.. They still have no idea where the $$ will come from. This was also brought up as a bone of contention.

Jamie

[Jamie]

Lynx.. I cant say I blame you.. And that is where the problem is. Everyone will want a piece of the action.

Jamie

[lynx]

Originally Posted by Jamie

Lynx.. I cant say I blame you.. And that is where the problem is. Everyone will want a piece of the action.

Jamie

What do you mean everyone will want a piece? If you mean anyone can come on it, then I see what you mean, but that gets into a safety problem and I wont allow that. I let 2 per Quarter section at a given time.
The other way I read wanting a piece of the action is getting paid...then, yes Iam as good as the guy that has 50 quarters and fair is fair...It seems the outfitters get there way and that is what needs to come to an end. No outfitter will come near my place, that I know.

[Jamie]

lynx. By piece of the action, I meant eventually all landowners will demand payment. Like I said if I owned a chunk of land, I also would take a very hard look at charging for access.

Jamie

[TBark]

Curious to see how the "regular Joe" hunter can access the land as compared to the "sold tags" owners hunters.
Likely this way ?.
Outfitted hunter.
In the bunkhouse, or camped a short distance from the elk herd.
In the best possible position at first light.
Regular Joe.
Applied for access, draw system of some sort. Gets lucky and has one day.
Cannot access the land until legal light, on foot. 2 - 3 miles from the herd.
Good luck getting that 400 bull.

May not be like this, but could likely be.

TBark

[elkhunter1234]

Originally Posted by duffy4

You will notice 340wtby said never and I said if they sign the contract and .... apparently you are correct they will not be involved in this pilot. But that does not mean they "never" will be.

Robin in Rocky

sorry duffy.... but as long as the Thralls own the McIntyre ranch there will NEVER be hunting on the Ranch.... And i for one think that is a good thing, that is why there are some great deer in 108, becouse they have a safe place to go.... as far as the Deseret goes, I've talk to both the Knight and Bar K Two foreman and the Deseret manager and they all have told me they are a no go as well.... so that leaves the Remington boys and a few other ranches to get on board, from the landowners i have been talking too in 108, this opan spaces pilot is not going to fly with the wings they have put on it....

Jim

[duffy4]

I guess I am just a "glass is half full" kind of guy. I have seen so many changes in my life that I never say NEVER.

"If" it is ever going to be possible to hunt on some of these ranches, something like the HFH or RAMP projects would probably have to be in place.

Only time will tell.

Robin in Rocky

[Pathfinder76]

I'm also for status quo on these ranches.

[Vindalbakken]

Some folks are willing to sell their soul.

Originally Posted by duffy4

I guess I am just a "glass is half full" kind of guy. I have seen so many changes in my life that I never say NEVER.

"If" it is ever going to be possible to hunt on some of these ranches, something like the HFH or RAMP projects would probably have to be in place.

Only time will tell.

Robin in Rocky

well its pretty obvious where you stand on this issue. I guess i am a glass half empty guy, as in good bye to half of our tags. I hope yo have good luck because a mule buck tag will be about as likely as a goat tag.

[Pathfinder76]

Does anyone have any information from last nights meeting?

[Pathfinder76]

Some folks are willing to sell their soul.

Is that directed at me?

The common theme of the night was "acknowledge and deflect".

No new information came out. What they showed us is the first 5 pages of the document I already posted plus a sixth page I have included at the end.

There was a definite feeling amongst the group outside of SRD and Cormack Gates that this is not a good solution. Although most agreed there needs to be something done.

Consensus from the group excluding SRD and Cormack Gates was that HFH is going to be a disaster.

Ramp has some merit but also a lot of issues.

SRD noted that after consulting with their lawyers, they do not need to change the Wildlife act just modify it to say something to the effect that payments to landowners will not be in violation.

There were no decisions made. It was just an exchange of information.

There was an invite extended to the group to send representatives to the next working group meeting. Not 100% sure of the time or place so will not post it.

Below information taken from the handout.

"Funding for Pilot Projects

SRD will provide administration costs to guide trials.

RAMP - AFGA and ACA will lead development of an application to the Rural Alberta Development Fund for RAMP landowner payments and administration costs

HFH- is self funded with the exception of start-up planning and business development costs

Foundations will be solicited for funding

Long term funding would be based on results of pilot program and partnerships that can be developed


Recommendation

Implement 5 year pilot project in WMU 108 and WMU 300

Each WMU would include RAMP and HFH

Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) will be asked to manage the program
— Use Fish and Game Associations (AFGA) as part of implementation

Each program would have firm criteria for measuring success (such as hunter and landowner satisfaction) in the pilot areas (U of C)"

Bubba

[Waxy]

Bubba,

That doesn't surprise me in the least. This project has some major momentum and a lot of people are heavily personally invested in it, it's going to take a MONUMENTAL effort to derail it at this point. Those directly involved will never be convinced the program is a bad idea, it'll take orders from above in my opinion.

I finally had a chance to pour through the info in detail last night. A number of things really jumped out at me.

Firstly, what's immediately apparent is how little information there actually is. Sure there's 34 pages, but it could easily be summarized in less than 10.

The one thing the really personally and philospohically bothers me is the entire notion that the landowner "bears a burden" by having wildlife on their land. That is completely opposite to the way I was raised to think. In my experience, having abundant wildlife was considered a privilige and an honour. Something to be enjoyed and protected. I just don't see the costs of having wildlife itself on one's land as ever adding up to anything significant, and where major wildlife induced damage does occur, there are programs to compensate for that. The entire thought process is just foreign to me, I guess I'll never understand it. If you don't want wildlife on your property, feel free to enclose it in a giant 50' fence or build a dome over it.

As for the nuts and bolts -

It says with on page 1 "Alberta's Wildlife Act does not permit landowners to charge for hunting". You'd think that would be enough for those involved right there to clue in, but apparently not.

They claim that the RAMP program will increase access to private land from 60 to 75%, I'd like to know what that number is based on? The estimate of an additional 31,000 acres in WMU 300 and 165,000 acres in WMU 108 is completely pie in the sky as far as I'm concerned, both in total area and quality of the area.

The very next sentence is "The RAMP program requires limited regulatory changes and has no negative impacts to any user group". Really? Do they actually believe their own BS at this point?

"Comparable access" is the most sinister phrase in this report. It means nothing.

One of the biggest boondoggle's I see is the elimination of the antlerless Elk and Mule Deer tags in zones 108 and 300 respectively.

- In WMU 300, this means that the number of available resident Mule Deer tags actually decreases from 42 to 30, a nearly 30% decrease in available tags.

- In WMU 108 there were 65 Antlerless Elk tags available in 2007, according to the report, there were no Antlered tags available. Under the Open Spaces program those 65 Antlerless tags would be replaced by 8 Antlered tags. That's an 88% reduction in Elk hunting opportunites in WMU 108. On top of that, basic math applied to the numbers of Mule Deer tags available in WMU 108 shows an ~35% decrease in available resident tags, and 25% for Antelope.

To top it all off, as near as I can tell, the committee is still counting the Antlerless Mule Deer and Elk tags toward the total economic benefit potentially available to the landowners.

If these gaudy numbers don't get people's attention, I don't know what will.

The final major problem I have with this pilot is the lack of any real plan to fund it or administer it. Let's face it, this is going to be VERY costly, especially WHEN it spreads province wide. Another gov't bureaucracy, just what we all need. Not to mention the source of the funding itself

"Long term funding would be based on results of the pilot program and partnerships that can be developed."

What does that mean exactly? Nothing as far as I'm concerned. It's a "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" attitude. That money is going to have to come from somewhere, and Joe Taxpayer is not going to want to come up with it while he waits six months for his surgery. It's going to come directly out of the pockets of hunters.

Anyhoo, rant off. I need to go somewhere and cool off for 5 mins. This thing really gets me hot under the collar.

Waxy

Waxy I couldn't agree more, the idea that landowners have a burden, is proposterous. These guys do believe their own BS, and with a guy like Cormack Gates steering the ship it won't change, that guy could sell sand to an arab. Your statement of..."they'll cross that bridge when they get there" is dead on there catch phrase was... "that still has to be fleshed out" they don't even have a committment on a funding source as of yet. As well they are trying to have all this inked by the spring so that it can be incorporated in the 2008 hunting season. I will personally do what ever I can to delay that for as long as possible.

I'm getting my thoughts and notes together but you have nailed it dead on with that post.

[lazy ike]

I'm a little overwhelmed by all this info. Oviously any change to a payed hunting situation in our province is a pathetic solution to limitted access. I wonder how all these "hunters" who are rubbing their hands at the prospect of dropping $4000 to pull a mulie tag are going to feel when someone else offers $8000?

[pitw]

Thanks for the information. I for one have contacted my mla to let him know how I now feel about this. I also asked to be informed of how he voted if this comes to a vote. I'd sure like to see a lot less bickering on here when all parties appear to be on the same side, save your fight for the right.

Well if I could quote Bubba, the meeting last night could be summarized as Acknowledge and Deflect.

But to start I would like to thank the AFGA executive members Martin Sharren Executive Vice President and paid employee and Conrad Fennema Second Vice President, who came along and flew in with the SRD members on there charter flight to Lethbridge.

As has been stated before there are two problems the first is the Open Spaces Pilot Project the second is the involvement of some executive members and paid employees of the AFGA. That second problem still exists and will have to be dealt with.

There was also an interesting coincidence last night as there was an Alberta Beef Producers meeting last night in the same venue. I ambushed Darrel Carlson of the Western Stock Growers who knows all about the involvement of the cattlemen’s groups in this. I would like to thank him for his candor and patience because he had other things to do and didn’t really need to deal with me last night, so thank you Mr. Carlson it was much appreciated.

His take was that there is a need to recognize ranchers and landowners for there costs and resources dedicated to the production of wildlife. He also sees this as a resource stream that will affect the bottom line and help ranching families exist in the current economic conditions they face. I asked him if he didn’t think that that was one of the deals that a landowner signs up for when they buy land and didn’t that figure into there calculations of production. His response was that the increased pressures they’re feeling from public users on there land suggests that the demands are increasing and that if they are doing this for the public good then they need public support. I also asked him how this will be shared amongst landowners as the programs have no mechanism to be equitable to all landowners. He said that that would have to be “fleshed out” (a term that will be resonating in my head for a long time). As for extra pressure from the public if the numbers that we got are accurate hunting numbers are dropping not increasing.

Personally, I own land and run 200 head of cows, I used to be proud of the way that cattlemen tried to distance themselves from any govt. involvement but since the BSE issue, I’m getting the feeling that there is a movement to more support and a desire to reach into the trough. I personally don’t like it and I don’t want to go where Europe is.

As for the meeting it was quite civil and professional and there was a lot of good dialogue. As might be expected the role SRD took was to get groups together to form a consensus. They were asked point blank whether this was a sales pitch or fact finding mission no direct response was given, the standard response was… come to the consensus committees.

Cormack Gates outlined the history of this entire process if my facts are incorrect here please correct me. A landowner approached ACA in 2005 to try and get an access proposal together, ACA initiated the process and Gates was brought in to hear the concerns. A meeting was held in Raymond. From that single meeting the process started. This entire issue was put in motion because of ONE land owner, a hunter funded quasi govt. group and a University Professor. The landowner was not named but I came away with the impression it was Deseret Ranches. I can not believe that an entire issue like this can come from one meeting. The timing coincided with Gates’ involvement with the Cypress Hills process.

After that, studies were proposed and the inclusion of the ranches in 300 was also initiated. There they met with 11 ranchers. It might be said here that he did name these ranchers and as might be imagined they were mostly the group that has had the most issues in the past, the ones that want to be paid by the point, or for access or for parking. It wasn’t the group on the other side of the river that does allow hunting.

The point of the “secrecy” of this process was brought up and I felt they thought the process was inclusive and open because of the participation of the groups they had at the table. The implications of this for hunters falls on AFGA because no one knew of there involvement and they were not forth coming with that detail.

There was a lot of discussion about other jurisdictions and there programs and Utah and Montana are the ones being pushed. Throughout the discussion and I brought this up, no one could explain the program without using the words Paid Hunting. Jim Allen at one point made a comment starting it off with…”The paid hunting proposal we have…”

My general feeling about this is that the government (SRD) feels that doing something is the most important thing. I believe the issue at hand is overstated and this is a means to show that they are working for the good of the public. The inclusion of the University of Calgary (Cormack Gates) is an academic exercise and is not necessarily for the benefits of hunters, landowners, or the general public but has to do with the modeling of environments and implementing processes. This is what ACA brings to the table on issues like this now that the Universities have voting interest without having to anti up any cash. Considering Gates is in the Faculty of Environmental Design and Ranier Knopf is a political scientist I don’t think the academic involvement in this is very grass roots oriented it is much more geared to the academic, philosophical point of view. It looks good on paper and now they’ll have a process that developed results, be damned the outcome. Another point was that they are short on data and they feel that this program will give them the data. I feel this is flawed, to implement a program that could have such a great effect on our hunting and outdoor heritage should not be left to a working pilot project this will be an impossible genie to get back in the bottle.

As for funding there should be some funds available if they can get them from the Alberta Rural Development Fund. At present they are hoping the project will be $500000. The model from Montana costs at present over 6.5 million, funding for that comes from many sources including fund raising from public sources. Last I looked Alberta is a fair bit bigger than Montana so what will this subsidy to a select group of ranchers end up costing?

The one point that came up over and over when someone wanted to know details of the project was that “it still had to be fleshed out”. Their hope is to get people to the table where a consensus will be found. I asked how long a person opposed to this could sit at the table and there was no clear answer. There hope is to get the door opened a crack and then to get dissenting opinions to concede to this plan. I think they were surprised at the amount of understanding and knowledge that was present in the room and how unified the opposition to these proposals is. The former is in no small part thanks to Lurch, Bubba, Magoo and Bullshooter. The representation from many groups was present including local fish and game, ACA board members, Southern Alberta Bow Assoc. Alberta Bow Assoc. Pheasants Forever, landowners and concerned individuals. As well as the AFGA executive members, there was one local APOS voice. There was absolutely no comment from either of these last two positions until literally 5 minutes before the adjournment. Cormack was writing notes vigorously from these two sources.

I had a good talk with DM Lyseng, there take is that something has to be done (I’m not sure that I agree that there is such a big problem but that is my opinion.) but because there is so much yet to be “fleshed out” the time line may be pushed back. Even Gates at one point although disappointed admitted that the timeline may not be able to handle this project being implemented for this hunting season. The SRD guy (whose name eludes me right now) was reluctant to acknowledge a delay. Lyseng truly believes that there are issues and he told me that perhaps this area does not represent the big problem areas that exist around Calgary and Edmonton. His example was the Mannix (sp.) family that has just recently purchased a block of land I believe he said Southwest of Calgary and has now closed it to hunting. I believe as a private landowner they have that right and if the wildlife becomes a problem then their own private closure scheme may have to be revisited not by the govt but by the landowner.

Waxy your post is dead on especially with regards to landowner’s responsibilities. At one point I said if it would help and if it is such a big problem for the landowners especially around Waterton that I would trade them my section of irrigated land here at Lethbridge straight across dollar for dollar and I would allow hunting. I don’t think they will be taking that to the next committee meeting as a potential solution. It seems absurd that we have to subsidize them for living in such a beautiful place. If they don’t like the situation close access and live with the results or sell it.

My final thoughts about this after a restless night are that politics, academia, and the economic realities of this province are coming together into a perfect storm and the fact that hunting numbers are decreasing helps fuel a fire to change something, anything to show that the Govt. is there helping; the casualties will be the public held trust that is wildlife, our hunting heritage and a wedge that will form now between the landowning elite and the general hunting public.

Great post Waxy. They do believe there own BS. The funniest line of the night was about 1 minute in Cormack Gates declared this a "Made in Alberta Solution" the guy beside me dropped his pen and chuckled.

I agree "comparable" access is definately up in the air. It was asked last night again with no real answer. They really have no answers on how the real world application of this is going to work. I am going to make a point of contacting some of the landowners I know are involved to get information. I have heard different stories all the way from yes you will have the same access to I will never let resident hunters on.

Your numbers are right on. The other numbers that got me were the number of years to draw a tag. 300 elk goes from a 6 year wait to a 10 year wait. Moose goes from a 10 to 15 year wait. 10 years, 15 years how many people are willing to wait that long. I am seriously thinking about droping my 300 draw and starting from scratch. By the way I am a 6 and was already starting to plan my hunt for next year.

Now to the funding issue's. I just read this from a document that was presented last night. I know there are a lot of AFGA members on this board so I hope you read this as I am sure you will be interested.

"The Alberta Fish and Game Association is willing to play a lead role in applying to the Alberta Rural Developement Fund for substantial funding to support the pilot projects."

I encourage everyone research the Alberta Rural Developement Fund to see where there money comes from.

Bubba