Newest information on open spaces.

[Top Gun]

Originally Posted by 30Gibbs

Just thought I would share what I just got from Herb Coburn,
Provincial Liberal Candidate Foothills Rocky View.

Here it is:

Good morning everyone. I thought you might be interested in this press release from the Alberta Liberals. If you have connections with the Alberta Fish and Game Association please let them know of your dissatisfaction as well.
All the best. Herb Coburn.

For immediate release

February 22, 2008



You can’t trust Ted Morton to protect Alberta’s wildlife

PC MLA campaigns at the Alberta Fish and Game Association conference his government funds; Alberta Liberals shut out



Edmonton – This afternoon, Foothills-Rockyview MLA Ted Morton addressed the Alberta Fish and Game Association conference in Edmonton, in the middle of an election campaign.



The Alberta Liberals also wanted to address the conference, but were denied by AFGA president Maurice Nadeau. Nadeau also denied the Alberta Liberals the opportunity to distribute a letter of greeting to the conference. He also refused to read a statement of greeting into the conference record from the party.



The Alberta Liberals wanted to tell AFGA members about the government’s Open Spaces Alberta pilot project, and our vision to protect Alberta’s natural wonders.



We would have told attendees that Open Spaces amounts to a “pay-to-hunt” system that will enable only the wealthy to hunt legally.



We would have told them that Open Spaces is essentially privatizing wildlife, since landowners would have the right to resell hunting tags.



We would have told them that Open Spaces is nothing more than another PC government boondoggle designed to benefit large landowners, but penalize the average Alberta hunter.



We would have told them how Morton, who was Minister of Sustainable Resource Development and, thus, responsible for Open Spaces, still hasn’t released a land-use framework with input from ALL stakeholders.



We would have told them how Open Spaces would bring vast swaths of Alberta’s pristine wildlife habitats under the control of private landowners, with no responsibility to protect it or allow free access to the public.



And we would have told them how we have heard from hunters across the province who are outraged by Open Spaces.



You’d have to ask Nadeau why he didn’t allow the Alberta Liberals an opportunity to address AFGA in the middle of an election campaign. But it might have something to do with the $621,000 in grants AFGA received from Sustainable Resource Development Alberta over the last five years, part of nearly $1.1 million in total grants from the Alberta government (source: Alberta Treasury “Blue Books”).



It’s time for a change to get the job done right.

Praise to the AFGA Members. It is so refreshing to see that the Members of the AFGA can not be bought off by an American pushing American style paid hunting in this Province. My hat is off to the AFGA membership. You have a big voice in this province, but make it bigger by aligning your group with other large groups in this Province. Morton can be beat on this one.

Originally Posted by bowchaser

Bubba, were you there? Anyone who was there, what was the sentiment to Morton's address? Was there a vote count?

Yes I was there. As Young Eldon has stated any support he gained from his speech quickly disappeared shortly after as all questions to him were in opposition to OS.

There was a motion for a vote count that passed but it was unnecessary as Young Eldon said it was unanimous.

There was also a motion put forth after the resolution that stated the AFGA executive would guarantee that the resolution results be forwarded to SRD. This also passed.

Bubba

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

There was also a motion put forth after the resolution that stated the AFGA executive would guarantee that the resolution results be forwarded to SRD. This also passed.

Bubba

Thats is good news. If this doesn't send a message to SRD nothing will. Other then a vote for a different party.

Originally Posted by Duk Dog

Good news. I'd suspect that just because the AFGA membership is opposed that likely won't stop OS from still moving forward. Should there still be negotiation meetings regarding OS I hope that AFGA remains at the table and is present for all future talks & meetings.

Hopefully they'll be invited back now that the membership has spoken so strongly in opposition.

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Hopefully they'll be invited back now that the membership has spoken so strongly in opposition.

That certainly is a concern. No AFGA at the table would equal no voice in the process as OS moves forward which would equal a bad thing.

[duffy4]

That Morton really is a snake who is against Alberta resident hunters.

In his adress he had the gaul to announce that Sunday hunting will likely be expanded to include WMU 300. That means his rich fat cat non resident alien friend will be able to hunt on HFH lands on Sunday. Can you believe that?

He also said there may be some new opportunity for muzzleloader hunting in Alberta. And of course you know what that means. The americans buying up the HFH tags ( for 10 or 15 or 20 or 30 or 40 thousand$ a pop)will be usind muzzleloaders on Sunday.

And whats next? You can bet Morton will allow the use of crossbows in the archery season on HFH lands, on Sundays. It is after all a slippery slope.



At the AF&GA conference I asked for a secret ballot to insure that delegates could vote freely. (eliminate the "vote like a sheep" factor) But the opponents of O.S. seemed to want to insure the "vote like a sheep " factor.
I did not cast my vote as the delegates from our club were voting against it (their choice not direction from our club) and I did not want to create friction between us. I wish I had voted for the resolution just to eliminate the "unanomos".

Have a good one!

Robin in Rocky

Originally Posted by bruceba

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Mr. Morton speak at the AGM in Medicine Hat while trying to garner votes during his run for Klien's seat?

Okay, I'll correct you. Since Stelmach was already the premier at the time of last year's convention in Medicine Hat and Morton was already the minister of SRD, the leadership race was long over and it was nothing more than the minister of SRD addressing the membership...as he always does.

Posted by Longdraw

Interesting...

I certainly hope that there has been consistency in the past with AFGA's decision in not letting a political candidate to speak this year...

Never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy!

[The_Pale_Rider]

Robin, you state that Ted Morton is a snake, but then state that you did not vote because you did not want to create friction in your club, and that you wished you had voted "For" the proposal so the unanimous would not be passed on to the SRD that AFGA was totally against the resolution? What am I missing here?

We had 4 delegates at the convention, when the handgun hunting resolution to delete the "No hunting with handguns" from the Alberta Hunting Regulations came up, myself and another of the delegates voted "For" the proposal, and 2 voted "Against". That is the nature of democracy.

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Okay, I'll correct you. Since Stelmach was already the premier at the time of last year's convention in Medicine Hat and Morton was already the minister of SRD, the leadership race was long over and it was nothing more than the minister of SRD addressing the membership...as he always does.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy!

Never mentioned anything about a conspiracy- But thanks for clearing this up nonetheless!

NP....just took a couple simple Yahoo searches...likely took less time to do than it did for you guys to speculate out loud on the board.

[Cowboy Al]

I, like The Pale Rider, was at the convention with 3 other members of our club there was several resolutions which we all did not vote one way or the other. No one was chastised for their voting and we had great disscussions at our table with our own membership and with members from other clubs seated at our table. It was great to see and hear different points of view on the resolutions and I must admit that my voting changed on some of them after hearing what other people had to say bring I points that I'd overlooked or never thought of. But there was one clear message at our table all of the discussions about the OS program only stengthened my resolve to vote against it points were brought up that I hadn't even considered. When considering which way to vote on a given resolution I weigh the pros and cons of each side. I'd of had writers cramp putting down the cons of the OS program and very little written on the pro side. With that thought process in mind I'm wondering how anyone attending the AFGA conference as a delegate would vote for this program? In my mind I'm there at the conference representing my club voting for them and I know from consulations with our membership that our members were adamantly opposed to the OS program and the way it was brought about by back room politics.

[Jamie]

Duffy.. I also think Ted has been on of the most progressive ministers we have had.
Unfortunately I disagree with his stance on this issue. I also disagree with the way this is being shoved down our throats.
He has come out and stated he wanted to hear the voice of Alberta Hunters.
Alberta Hunters have spoke loud and clear.
I just think it is all to little and to late. I believe in my heart that this is a done deal, so you will end up seeing exactly what you wanted.
I am hearing that despite the best efforts of the different hunting groups that this will be implemented.
I would suggest those that are involved stay involved and see if we can get the rules straight on this.

The only small hope we have is that the PC's take a bigger beating than what they are expecting and that ED has to make some drastic changes to his cabinet. But this scenario only works if O/S can be delayed.
Anyhow just a few of my thoughts

Jamie

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by duffy4

That Morton really is a snake who is against Alberta resident hunters.

In his adress he had the gaul to announce that Sunday hunting will likely be expanded to include WMU 300. That means his rich fat cat non resident alien friend will be able to hunt on HFH lands on Sunday. Can you believe that?

He also said there may be some new opportunity for muzzleloader hunting in Alberta. And of course you know what that means. The americans buying up the HFH tags ( for 10 or 15 or 20 or 30 or 40 thousand$ a pop)will be usind muzzleloaders on Sunday.

And whats next? You can bet Morton will allow the use of crossbows in the archery season on HFH lands, on Sundays. It is after all a slippery slope.

Sarcasm aside.

It is unfortunate that Mr. Morton has lost his way with the whole OS debacle, because on the whole, I think he was doing a precent decent job.

However, his blunder here is going to seriously hurt him with the outdoor community unless he backs off on OS.

At the AF&GA conference I asked for a secret ballot to insure that delegates could vote freely. (eliminate the "vote like a sheep" factor) But the opponents of O.S. seemed to want to insure the "vote like a sheep " factor.
I did not cast my vote as the delegates from our club were voting against it (their choice not direction from our club) and I did not want to create friction between us. I wish I had voted for the resolution just to eliminate the "unanomos".

You have only yourself to blame for not having the courage to stand up for what you believe in.

Waxy

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by Jamie

Duffy.. I also think Ted has been on of the most progressive ministers we have had.
Unfortunately I disagree with his stance on this issue. I also disagree with the way this is being shoved down our throats.
He has come out and stated he wanted to hear the voice of Alberta Hunters.
Alberta Hunters have spoke loud and clear.
I just think it is all to little and to late. I believe in my heart that this is a done deal, so you will end up seeing exactly what you wanted.
I am hearing that despite the best efforts of the different hunting groups that this will be implemented.
I would suggest those that are involved stay involved and see if we can get the rules straight on this.

The only small hope we have is that the PC's take a bigger beating than what they are expecting and that ED has to make some drastic changes to his cabinet. But this scenario only works if O/S can be delayed.
Anyhow just a few of my thoughts

Jamie

Sadly, I tend to agree.

The outdoor community has spoken loud and clear, and we're being heard, of that I'm sure, unfortunately, I think we're also being ignored.

Waxy

[Bull Shooter]

Originally Posted by Jamie

Unfortunately I disagree with his stance on this issue. I also disagree with the way this is being shoved down our throats.
He has come out and stated he wanted to hear the voice of Alberta Hunters.
Alberta Hunters have spoke loud and clear.
I just think it is all to little and to late. I believe in my heart that this is a done deal, so you will end up seeing exactly what you wanted.
I am hearing that despite the best efforts of the different hunting groups that this will be implemented.

Jamie, FORTUNATELY (as opposed to unfortunately), you disagree with Morton’s stance on the Open Spaces issue. Regardless of our walks in life, we are all human and as a result we are not infallible to poor choices or decisions. What makes an individual extraordinary is when he or she can recognize a poor decision or choice and make the necessary corrections or decisions to right a wrong. To me, this is the epitome of character and builds trust.

It is less clear to me if the current Open Spaces battle is over, but I do believe there is still a war to be won. I am greatly encouraged and inspired that so many of Alberta’s hunters and landowners are willing to fight for equality and preserve our hunting and outdoors heritage for present and future generations. Regards, Mike

The AFGA had a meeting with SRD on Jan 12. The following point came out of that meeting.

2) the proposed pilot project is not finalized and has many details to be worked out which will require the participation of local Fish and Game Clubs;

Now, if the local fish & game clubs do not participate these details cannot be worked out, which would mean that the pilot project will not be able to be finalized. Would that not put a stop to Open Spaces?

[Rafter]

Originally Posted by Jamie

Duffy.. I also think Ted has been on of the most progressive ministers we have had.
Unfortunately I disagree with his stance on this issue. I also disagree with the way this is being shoved down our throats.
He has come out and stated he wanted to hear the voice of Alberta Hunters.
Alberta Hunters have spoke loud and clear.
I just think it is all to little and to late. I believe in my heart that this is a done deal, so you will end up seeing exactly what you wanted.
I am hearing that despite the best efforts of the different hunting groups that this will be implemented.
I would suggest those that are involved stay involved and see if we can get the rules straight on this.

The only small hope we have is that the PC's take a bigger beating than what they are expecting and that ED has to make some drastic changes to his cabinet. But this scenario only works if O/S can be delayed.
Anyhow just a few of my thoughts

Jamie

I was attending a seminar the other day regarding the political scene in Alberta.

One of the attendees remarked " Stelmach better get rid of Morton when he gets voted in or Morton will get rid of Stelmach in ten months time."

I think it is a foregone conclusion that Stelmach will still be the Premier come March, hopefully he will shuffle Morton out of there, even if it is only as a survival tactic.

[duffy4]

Jamie

"I just think it is all to little and to late. I believe in my heart that this is a done deal, so you will end up seeing exactly what you wanted."


How do you know exactly what I want?

To me the open spaces project as it stands now is like a house that is just framed. The working group was preparing to 1. work out the detail (something many on here are crying out about, not knowing the detail) 2. involving all concerned groups (something a lot on here have been crying out is needed) and 3. improving on the information avalible to the public (something they admit they had been very weak in before, and something a lot on here have been using as the main reason they were against O.S.)

I would never say "what a great house or I am totally against that house." after just seeing the frame work of it. I would like to see how it changed and developed as it was worked on. I may like to have "some" input in how it was finished up. I do not think Morton or SRD or the PCs are an evil bunch conspiring against resident hunters. As a matter of fact I think Morton and SRD have the best interests of resident hunters in mind. (More Sunday hunting and some muzzleloader opportunity is proof of that , my earlier post was tounge in cheek, those who did not understand that maybe do not understand much of what has been revealed on O.S.)

The AF&GA may have voted not to support the propposed O.S. Does that mean they are willing to participate in further planning and construction of the pilot project? Or that they would like the house burned down before another nail is pounded into the framework?

I know my posts must be confusing to some on here. I am not a "Black and white" Love it or Hate it" kind of guy. I see that O.S. has some good ideas and some that may be questionable. I would like to see something posative come out of it. And it bothers me to see people so passionately against it with no tolerance for any other possible views. (and I still think a lot do not understand it. When you see people say "I don't want to have to pay a landowner to go elk hunting" you know they don't know the intentions of O.S.)

Robin in Rocky

[Bull Shooter]

Originally Posted by SNIPER

The AFGA had a meeting with SRD on Jan 12. The following point came out of that meeting.

2) the proposed pilot project is not finalized and has many details to be worked out which will require the participation of local Fish and Game Clubs;

Now, if the local fish & game clubs do not participate these details cannot be worked out, which would mean that the pilot project will not be able to be finalized. Would that not put a stop to Open Spaces?

Sniper – This is very unclear. On a go-forward basis, without the support or input from local Fish & Game clubs it is entirely possible that participating landowners (or other interest groups) might be charged with the task of micro-managing Open Spaces.

From all the information I have seen, this “micro-managing” will be a formidable task that will require a lot in both monetary and human resources. Without the input of hunting groups it may be less likely to strike some sort of “balance” between participating landowners and hunters if the Open Spaces pilot is allowed to proceed. Some see this as a bad thing and some see this as a good thing. In my opinion, there is still a lot of work to be done and I think many landowners are becoming very suspect to the supposed “benefits” Open Spaces will provide them. Regards, Mike

Originally Posted by duffy4

Jamie

"I just think it is all to little and to late. I believe in my heart that this is a done deal, so you will end up seeing exactly what you wanted."


How do you know exactly what I want?

To me the open spaces project as it stands now is like a house that is just framed. The working group was preparing to 1. work out the detail (something many on here are crying out about, not knowing the detail) 2. involving all concerned groups (something a lot on here have been crying out is needed) and 3. improving on the information avalible to the public (something they admit they had been very weak in before, and something a lot on here have been using as the main reason they were against O.S.)

I would never say "what a great house or I am totally against that house." after just seeing the frame work of it. I would like to see how it changed and developed as it was worked on. I may like to have "some" input in how it was finished up. I do not think Morton or SRD or the PCs are an evil bunch conspiring against resident hunters. As a matter of fact I think Morton and SRD have the best interests of resident hunters in mind. (More Sunday hunting and some muzzleloader opportunity is proof of that , my earlier post was tounge in cheek, those who did not understand that maybe do not understand much of what has been revealed on O.S.)

The AF&GA may have voted not to support the propposed O.S. Does that mean they are willing to participate in further planning and construction of the pilot project? Or that they would like the house burned down before another nail is pounded into the framework?

I know my posts must be confusing to some on here. I am not a "Black and white" Love it or Hate it" kind of guy. I see that O.S. has some good ideas and some that may be questionable. I would like to see something posative come out of it. And it bothers me to see people so passionately against it with no tolerance for any other possible views. (and I still think a lot do not understand it. When you see people say "I don't want to have to pay a landowner to go elk hunting" you know they don't know the intentions of O.S.)

Robin in Rocky

You are a charachter duffy.

I would think your comparing the OS pilot to a framed house might be valid, but only if you imagine concrete that never set properly, and lumber that has been eaten by termites.

Would I continue to build a house on a framework that can't hold up the rest of the materials? Not a chance.

As for not understanding, I think you really need to do a bit more research. The original principles are not what they are moving this ahead on - you need to come to terms with that. Most people supported the original ideas, but when that blueprint changed so did the support for it.
I think you need to evolve duffy.
Stop and think about why everyone at a conference would vote against this.

[The_Pale_Rider]

Originally Posted by duffy4

(and I still think a lot do not understand it. When you see people say "I don't want to have to pay a landowner to go elk hunting" you know they don't know the intentions of O.S.)

Robin in Rocky

But is that not the direct intention of the HFH program? I mean the arguement brought up at the convention that do you honestly think that a residential hunter who gets a draw for bull elk is going to get the same access as someone who has paid $10k for that same tag from a landowner?? Or say if the landowners are given the tags to sell to hunters, but are then told that they can only sell them at the price that the current residential hunters purchase them at, then what is the point of them getting the tags in the first place?

I would agree that the RAMP program has some merits, but definitely not the HFH program.

[duffy4]

Pale one

" you honestly think that a residential hunter who gets a draw for bull elk is going to get the same access as someone who has paid $10k for that same tag from a landowner??

This statement is just conjecture. Someone with an attitude that everyone must be as gready as...

Do you not think that the Working Group would not consider that "possibility"? That is why they have planned to put in place an "access management plan" and that the contract signed by HFH will spell out access for resident hunters. If you are one who refuses to believe what is spelled out and prefers to side with conjecture and assumtions then you are one of the many.

Robin the Charachter

[Jamie]

Duffy. I know exactly what this is all about.
In fact I know the following.
Approx 25% of tags could be available to landowners.
This amount will be taken out of the existing pool of tags.
Therefore extending the already long wait time to get a tag
I know that some landowners will be able to sell these tags along with the access that is needed.
I know as a business man that if one guy pays $10,000 to hunt a piece of property he sure as hell will not be happy with the local hunters (now diminished by 25%) hunting the same piece.
I know that by doing this project we have now put a dollar sign on our wildlife.
I know this is not about wildlife.. Its about $$$$
I know that perhaps one day hunting opportunity's may be increased due to the amount game available.. (But the good land will still be locked up)
I agree that a change is needed. But was this the right way?
I know they kept all of this very silent for a long time

I know that dog crap doesn't taste good.. But that doesn't mean I actually have to try it to be open minded.

This whole thing is just plain wrong. But like I said we need to try and make sure the rules are as favorable as possible to the resident Alberta hunter.
To use your analogy of a house being built, I would use this as a example.
I have enough experience to look at a set of plans and tell you what I think of that house, well before it is built. Especially if that house happens to be built on sand and the neighbors don't want you there.
This is a bad idea, no matter what way you cut it.
However I would be interested in hearing any suggestions about what would be a better plan.. No thats what I call open minded.

Jamie

Jamie

[Cowboy Al]

Robin wrote:
"Do you not think that the Working Group would not consider that "possibility"? That is why they have planned to put in place an "access management plan" and that the contract signed by HFH will spell out access for resident hunters. If you are one who refuses to believe what is spelled out and prefers to side with conjecture and assumtions then you are one of the many."
So you are assuming that all of this has been thought out for us and will blindly go along with it?

[Waxy]

I love the framed house analogy, it's perfect.

I can look at a house that's framed and decide in a real hurry if I like it and want it finished or not. I think most people can, especially with a little help from someone that knows houses and framing.

In this case, the house that's been framed is a 4 level split (and the framers did a REALLY shoddy job of it). Unfortunately, building code in the area requires that all houses must be bungalows, and the homeowner wanted a bungalow, so even though the 4 level split *might* have some merit and a fair amount of time and effort went into it, it should be scrapped and a proper bungalow built.

Simple.

Waxy

[The_Pale_Rider]

Originally Posted by duffy4

Pale one

" you honestly think that a residential hunter who gets a draw for bull elk is going to get the same access as someone who has paid $10k for that same tag from a landowner??

This statement is just conjecture. Someone with an attitude that everyone must be as gready as...

Do you not think that the Working Group would not consider that "possibility"? That is why they have planned to put in place an "access management plan" and that the contract signed by HFH will spell out access for resident hunters. If you are one who refuses to believe what is spelled out and prefers to side with conjecture and assumtions then you are one of the many.

Robin the Charachter

Simple Economics 101. If someone is willing to pay for something for more than someone else is, who is going to be the successful buyer??

Sure it is conjecture. But what do I have for information??? An overview? What good does that do me? Where is the documentation for this plan? Where can I read it, analyze it, and then make an informed decision on it?? And talk to my members on it and answer questions they may have on it??

I have requested access to the working group area, but we'll see if they permit it.

Honestly with the information that was available, how could we as stewards for the wildlife not unanimously vote against the proposal?

[Duk Dog]

I'm not sure if this info has already been posted or not. Does anyone have a copy of, or a link to, the "Framework Proposal" for OS? (which I believe was recommended to ASRD)

[lazy ike]

Duffy, if you could just clarify this comment;

At the AF&GA conference I asked for a secret ballot to insure that delegates could vote freely. (eliminate the "vote like a sheep" factor) But the opponents of O.S. seemed to want to insure the "vote like a sheep " factor.

To me, it appears that you are suggesting that members of AFGA for some reason "voted like sheep"?

[Jamie]

Being unfamiliar with how AFGA works, I have to ask the question. As delegates, are you not suppose to vote the way your membership has told you? Or do you get the ability to have your own say?

Thanks
Jamie

[qballs]

Another problem that I have with Open Spaces, is that it would require a Ministerial order, to change the current Wildlife act. To me, that undermines a lot of work that has been put in place for good measure. Yes, previous ministers have changed some regulations to allow the sheep and elk raffle, but the money seemed to go towards the greater good. I do not know any more than that about them.

Changing the Wildlife Act to allow paid access/hunting is the line in the sand for me. I think that we have something special here in Alberta. I love posting pictures of impromptu duck hunts, where we limit out in 20 minutes, or the deer I shot after asking a lady who came out mostly naked to give me permission - just to hunt of course, to online friends and relatives in the US.

I have friends who pay each year to hunt one 200 acre piece of property in Missouri. Others belong to a duck club in California, and were proud to tell me that their club shot 56 ducks last year........

We are blessed, and I would like to keep it that way.