Paid Hunting in Alberta?

[209x50]

I think it only attempts at salving your conscience if you think it matters who pays who in this. If I pay the drug dealer for crack or give the money to Long Draw to give to the drug dealer I still bought crack. Whether the going price for crack is controled by the drug dealer or by Long Draw what the drugs cost makes not a lick of difference it is still buying drugs.
So $20/day access fee or the $100 bottle of scotch, both is pay for hunting.

I've spelled it out as well as others, and for the most part the "no's" are pretty united with how they feel about both programs.

You keep saying that but truthfully I've only seen a couple positive posts about RAMP but you could be right.

I'm still waiting to see how the details of both pilots are fleshed out...there are way too many unanswered questions for me right now. Nothing has even be said about how RAMP will be funded. I'd like to see some more details first so I can make an informed decision. Nothing between the lines at all, just gathering facts and opinions......sorry, that's as sinister as it gets.

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by 209x50

I think it only attempts at salving your conscience if you think it matters who pays who in this. If I pay the drug dealer for crack or give the money to Long Draw to give to the drug dealer I still bought crack. Whether the going price for crack is controled by the drug dealer or by Long Draw what the drugs cost makes not a lick of difference it is still buying drugs.
So $20/day access fee or the $100 bottle of scotch, both is pay for hunting.

Over the top.....

Now you consider a token of appreciation at the end of hunting season paid for hunting, which was no where near $100?
BTW, I have also given landowners meat- Again I am paying for hunting on plantet 209x50!!!

[Bull Shooter]

I’m not trying to be intentionally contrary, but I view both the RAMP and HFH proposals as paid hunting… at least by my observations… “No pay, No play”. I am not in favor of either proposal but I see a considerable distinction between the two and my observation is that RAMP is, far and away, the lesser of two evils.

If the driving force behind these initiatives is indeed to recognize and compensate landowners for responsible stewardship of habitat and conservation, then any compensation costs should be borne by all Albertans and likely (to a varying degree) Canadians. Charging hunters and anglers, under the pretext of “consumptive users” (as proposed) is terribly short-sighted and creates a system of potential disparity which in fact, does not equally recognize all landowners stewardship to conservation and habitat, but rather recognizes particular “public” animals that might occupy particular lands at particular points in time. I think this oversight is shared in both the RAMP and HFH proposals.

If HFH does become the future of hunting, smaller landowners will likely band into cooperatives and severely restrict or ban hunting access. This will increase the quality and quantity of animals the consultants seem to value and proportionately increase the landowner’s leverage when it comes time to “negotiate” (with the Province and with hunters). Under these two proposals, I have tried hard, but I just can’t see the benefit to Alberta’s hunters and anglers… well, most of them anyway. Regards, Mike

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

You keep saying that but truthfully I've only seen a couple positive posts about RAMP but you could be right.

I'm still waiting to see how the details of both pilots are fleshed out...there are way too many unanswered questions for me right now. Nothing has even be said about how RAMP will be funded. I'd like to see some more details first so I can make an informed decision. Nothing between the lines at all, just gathering facts and opinions......sorry, that's as sinister as it gets.

Never did imply it was sinister

Originally Posted by LongDraw

Never did imply it was sinister

Easy...let's not read too much into anything...look where we ended up last time I said something with my tongue in my cheek. I never said you did...I made the comment.....let's leave it at that. Let's not turn this into the bashfest the track thread turned into. So far it's been very civil!

I know that just because you think people are trying to get you doesn't make you paranoid but if I'm taking a shot at you, you'll know it!

[209x50]

Originally Posted by LongDraw

Over the top.....

Now you consider a token of appreciation at the end of hunting season paid for hunting, which was no where near $100?
BTW, I have also given landowners meat- Again I am paying for hunting on plantet 209x50!!!

Well of course it is paying for hunting. Would you be giving him the bottle of scotch if you hadn't killed your elk? As you word it it reads that you actually bought the elk with the bottle of scotch. You might want to rethink posting such things on an open forum.
The amount paid has no bearing on the act, pretty basic law there.
One of the big questions I still have about the whole schmoozle is how it will be paid for. It seems the HFH will be self supporting while the RAMP will be tax funded. I think a user pay system would probably help decide if Joe Hunter is that interested in paying for access to hunt. Lots of answers still missing.

[Bull Shooter]

I have given bottles of liquor to various landowners that were kind enough to let me hunt their property. It was most definitely not "paid hunting" but rather a friendly gesture. There was never an expectation on their part of any sort of compensation for access and there was never an expectation of access on my part for the gift (please note that I did NOT use the word compensation). Regards, Mike

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Well of course it is paying for hunting. Would you be giving him the bottle of scotch if you hadn't killed your elk? As you word it it reads that you actually bought the elk with the bottle of scotch. You might want to rethink posting such things on an open forum.
The amount paid has no bearing on the act, pretty basic law there.
One of the big questions I still have about the whole schmoozle is how it will be paid for. It seems the HFH will be self supporting while the RAMP will be tax funded. I think a user pay system would probably help decide if Joe Hunter is that interested in paying for access to hunt. Lots of answers still missing.

Thanks for the warning on what I post. I am a big boy, I can figure it out on my own thank you! I am sure the RCMP are on their way over right now BTW, one year I drank it with him as well! Guess I took half the evidence home with me the next morning! And yes, it happens every year, successful or not! Other land owners get a roast or two, or some baking from my wife. CALL THE POLICE!!!!!!!

I like how you state your OPINION simply as a matter of fact. You missed your calling you should have gone to law school......

This is going nowhere in a hurry, have a good night.

[BrnCynergy 12 ga]

How about sharing the meat? I am all for it. Let me on your land and i'll give you some meat for you and your familly. I call it the Meat For Access Progam. MFAP for short. No tax increases no big money making scam.

The only wildlife development i see is natural habitat that is not arable. Who would have thought buying up non-arable land could be so profitable. They but the reserves on less desirable land maybe we should trade them back for prime farm land...

Other then Roosters I am sticking to crown land. The rich can have the southern mulies and the farm devastating elk.

We should be lobbying for sunday hunting in the southern crown land.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by LongDraw

Thanks for the warning on what I post. I am a big boy, I can figure it out on my own thank you! I am sure the RCMP are on their way over right now BTW, one year I drank it with him as well! Guess I took half the evidence home with me the next morning! And yes, it happens every year, successful or not! Other land owners get a roast or two, or some baking from my wife. CALL THE POLICE!!!!!!!

I like how you state your OPINION simply as a matter of fact. You missed your calling you should have gone to law school......

This is going nowhere in a hurry, have a good night.

Jeez, I'm glad you can so blithely wink at a law that the rest of us are expected to follow. It is just a little law and more of a guideline right? What makes you feel that the law doesn't apply to you? What other laws are for other people and not you in particular?

[MathewsArcher]

Seems fairly clear to me as well that there is a significant difference between the two programs. I am in favor of RAMP but opposed tho HFH.

The governement has given away the resource (wildlife) through issuance of a voucher that a landowner can sell directly to an outfitter or resident for whatever cost the market will bear.

Seems fairly clear to me as well that there is a significant difference between the two programs. I am in favor of RAMP but opposed tho HFH.

I agree that the programs are vastly different but in ragrads to RAMP, you are okay with landowners being paid for hunter access then? Sorry to keep harping on this and I know LD has graciously explained his position but I'm having a hard time getting my head around how this is not paid hunting. Any thoughts? They are being paid for hunter access.

[Vindalbakken]

Well, this is an interesting read. Sheep and 209 are spot on. RAMP and HFH are both paid hunting. They differ only by degree and administration but not in principle. Neither are palatable in my world. If you agree in principle that payment for the procurement of access is acceptable through a third party broker (the gov't) it opens up a whole new realm of what is and is not acceptable. It is not a big stretch to presume that other third party brokers could offer up their own payment schemes for their clientelle. For those who would like to hold up the yellow speculation card I caution that all those who "speculated" in the late 80's have seen their predictions slowly come to fruition. This initiative is but another link in the chain.

Longdraw, your interpretation of "token of appreciation" would not be taken so lightly by many CO's that I am aware of. One CO threatened an entire Hutterite Colony over a "little whiskey would be nice." It is a fine line you walk.

Wildlife is a precious resource of the people and should not be a commercialized entity. It was the vision of our founding fathers and is the last vestige of such in the free world. It was, is and should continue to be, an honorable vision. Free ranging wildlife has an intangible value as a part of the cultural, historical and religious fabric of our society.

[Duk Dog]

In my mind both RAMP and HFH are a form of paid hunting.

[Duk Dog]

.

[LongDraw]

[QUOTE=Vindalbakken;94460]
Longdraw, your interpretation of "token of appreciation" would not be taken so lightly by many CO's that I am aware of. One CO threatened an entire Hutterite Colony over a "little whiskey would be nice." It is a fine line you walk. QUOTE]

A bit different there Vindal. I am not giving a landowner anything they are asking for to gain access as spelled out in your interpretation of the "fine line I walk". All kinds of hunters offer a goodwill gesture at the END of the season. A venison roast, a bottle of wine, christmas card, etc... The CO's that would pursuit such a ridiculious charge are missing a big part of administering laws- DISCRETION. Would never happen, Sorry. I could just see the sting operation now; CO's hang out on landowners driveways AFTER the season checking for cookies, deer roasts and the like, would really make a great reality show. I think they have bigger "fish" to fry.


Vindal, you live in a small town, ever but a landowner a cup of coffee? If you hunt on his land is this paid hunting?

Friggin ridiculous...

[Vindalbakken]

The fine line is drawn between intent and consequence. Again you make your case on the basis not that you are within compliance, but that on an officers DISCRETION a charge would never happen. You admit you are gambling which in itself I could see swaying the opinion of a fence riding judge.

For a real fact I have never purchased a cup of coffee for an agricultural landowner, but I have sure enough sat in their kitchen and shared a few and they in mine. The folks with whom I share the most cups of coffee I do not hunt on the land of - some because I do not wish to, some because they have denied access.

By the way, since it is impossible (illegal by law) to attach a monetary value to game meat, it would be technically impossible to "buy" access with such.

As to the investigation deal, officers are obligated to act on registered complaints. A cursory investigation cannot be easily dismissed if evidence of intent or consequence rears itself.

[Vindalbakken]

Originally Posted by 270WIN

to a situation where only the wealthy few will be able to afford to enjoy the sport. Once you get to that point, its not hard to imagine a government caving in to the antis ( who could well be more numerous than the hunters at that point) and eliminating hunting altogether.

There was a time that I would have argued this point with you, claiming that those things which were relegated to the domain of the wealthy and influential would be the safe haven. But, after seeing the progression of events in England with the fox hunting, I will agree.

[209x50]

[QUOTE=LongDraw;94585][B][QUOTE=Vindalbakken;94460]

Originally Posted by Vindalbakken

Longdraw, your interpretation of "token of appreciation" would not be taken so lightly by many CO's that I am aware of. One CO threatened an entire Hutterite Colony over a "little whiskey would be nice." It is a fine line you walk. QUOTE]

A bit different there Vindal. I am not giving a landowner anything they are asking for to gain access as spelled out in your interpretation of the "fine line I walk". All kinds of hunters offer a goodwill gesture at the END of the season. A venison roast, a bottle of wine, christmas card, etc... The CO's that would pursuit such a ridiculious charge are missing a big part of administering laws- DISCRETION. Would never happen, Sorry. I could just see the sting operation now; CO's hang out on landowners driveways AFTER the season checking for cookies, deer roasts and the like, would really make a great reality show. I think they have bigger "fish" to fry.


Vindal, you live in a small town, ever but a landowner a cup of coffee? If you hunt on his land is this paid hunting?

Friggin ridiculous...

The only thing ridiculous here is your attitude to the law.

[Vindalbakken]

I am not so sure I like how that quote editing turned out 209.

Hey guys just trying to get to the bottom of this so.
I'm against both programs and most of the reasons I am have been aired
here and there are a couple others that concern me on a bigger scale
than what this thread encompasses but we can leave my idiosyncrasies for
another day. I'm coming out with a pointed request and sheep I'm going
to direct this mostly at you, didn't know who you where until looking on
another thread where someone spelled it out but considering what's going
on with this pilot and all the debate going on here I could only imagine
that you're spell checking the article right now and if some of my
information is accurate you have some close connections that might have
sat on the Working Group Board that came up with some of these plans,
this is third hand info so I'm not trying to insinuate anything here I'm
just trying to get some info. After going over most of the posts here
again and maybe reading a little to much between the lines on some of
your posts I'm going to ask you directly "Do you have info that the rest of us don't". It wouldn't be the first time I've had laws and regulations go against me and my way of thinking, that's the society we live in but this crap with all its secrecy is one of the most disturbing aspects about this whole situation, our public employees doing nothing to inform or allow access to proposed changes that are in direct opposition with over 100 years of wildlife management in Canada. I made telephone calls to ACA and was told by a good connection (this is a guy that has all the info) that they are told not to say anything he gave the contact person (Doug Manzer)and now he's gone until the 15th. I talked to a local SRD employee quite hi up on the food chain that although is not working directly on this was aware of it but he stated
that in his 25+ years he has never seen it so bad with regards to secrecy, behind closed door meetings and the total intervention by bureaucrats in there every day work. When you have concerned biologists and researchers being muzzled because they are in disagreement with this or there work doesn't support it, it's getting worrisome. I agree I'd like to make an informed decision on this but from what I'm hearing the next bit of information we're going to get is the actual implemented program. You could really stand out as a concerned advocate of the hunting community here if you could help all of us out on this one. If you have some info, time lines, some contact people or anyone that would be willing to talk lets have a chat.

"Do you have info that the rest of us don't".

I don't have any info that the rest of you don't have access to. Yes, I've done a ton of leg work digging up what I can but if you are asking if I have an inside scoop....definitly not. I'm as much in the dark about this as the rest of you.....all the info quite literally isn't there and I suspect much of the process is yet to be developed. Despite what many may think, I quite literally have no opinion on this and am just gathering facts like many others on here and waiting to see the final product! Everything I've shared on this subject so far was not my opinion...just some facts as I got them.

Thanks I appreciate that, the conspiracy theorist in me is trying to get out and he scares me. If you hear anything that could be of interest especially up coming dates on the implementation of this thing or meetings of people that decide these things some of us done South would would appreciate the heads up. Willow Valley should be informative.

Originally Posted by MAV

Thanks I appreciate that, the conspiracy theorist in me is trying to get out and he scares me. If you hear anything that could be of interest especially up coming dates on the implementation of this thing or meetings of people that decide these things some of us done South would would appreciate the heads up. Willow Valley should be informative.

No problem...I've been sharing info as I get it (apparently some are mistaking it for opinion but it's not). Not sure there will be much to be learned at Willow Valley but I'm sure there will be some lively discussion....lol

Apparently some of my comments have been taken way out of context in regards to Open Spaces and there is a danger it could affect my relationship with a fine organization that I do business with. I reitterate once more that I have never expressed an opinion on this subject and only tried to share some facts and clear up some misinformation but a couple recent malicious phone calls have prompted to me to cease all discussion on the subject.....just wanted to let you know the reason behind my future silence on this subject.

It's sad when the sharing of information on a messageboard spills into your personal and business life but I guess it's a sad fact of life.

I sure hope that wasn't caused by me and I hope that those on the other end of the line realize that you are doing a service to the this group by helping get this all sorted out. The reason you're sought in most of these posts is mostly due to your knowledge of the issues and I appreciate that you are doing as much digging as the rest of us to understand this. As it stands now I don't know who you were talking to but I'll let them no here that you have not done anything that I know of that would put you in any kind of conflict just the contrary it seems you are doing exactly what you have been saying in your posts and it's guys like me that keep poking looking for answers.

Sorry if I was the cause of your conflict.

.

[Bull Shooter]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Apparently some of my comments have been taken way out of context in regards to Open Spaces and there is a danger it could affect my relationship with a fine organization that I do business with. I reitterate once more that I have never expressed an opinion on this subject and only tried to share some facts and clear up some misinformation but a couple recent malicious phone calls have prompted to me to cease all discussion on the subject.....just wanted to let you know the reason behind my future silence on this subject.

It's sad when the sharing of information on a messageboard spills into your personal and business life but I guess it's a sad fact of life.

It's disappointing Sheep, but I respect your judgement. Lots of speculation and opinions about the subject for sure, but I honestly see no harm in discussing what we know... or what we think we know (for correction). I know I was corrected at least once on an issue I was pretty certain I was presenting fairly and correctly. Good luck. Regards, Mike

Just so we are clear everyone...no one demanded that I stop posting or even requested that I did....it was just that I had to answer some questions in my business/private life over some unfounded acqusations made by an Alberta Outdoormen board member outside the confines of this messageboard. Once this spilled over into my private life, I alone came to the decision that it was no longer worth the hassle.

Sorry, guess I should have been clearer.