Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Hunting Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 02-18-2007, 08:36 PM
Brady
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Perty tough to say that there is a #1 issue there Duffy. I would think that there would be many, that were already stated, that are right at the top, among many more. For me loss of public hunting grounds due to Prov. parks, landowner issues etc. etc. would be up there for me. Then you throw in 14 year olds before being eligable to hunt with a rifle, outfitter allocations on draw species, IMHA that is extremely flawed. Also I hate how some people think that a few little places of dirt on some crown land, is their personal playground, and shun others for bringing their friends into them, and blah blah blah blah blobbity blah........too many issues.....so little time. I am greatfull for the AFGA having their conferences and what not, so these issues from us outdoorspersons gets brought forward to those that take the issues up.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-18-2007, 11:45 PM
kanonfodder
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well the irony here is amazing, me posting to Duffy given my posts on the AFGA thread, but since you asked and I am an open minded fella, I would say that the anti's and the apathetics are the my main concern
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-19-2007, 10:25 AM
re
 
Posts: n/a
Default re

This is not a concern, but it sure would be nice if we could build priority on cows and bulls (moose & elk) at the same time. Takes a long time to get the priority to draw a bull moose tag, sure would be nice if you could mix a cow in there between bulls.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-20-2007, 12:38 PM
Duffy4
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: re #issue

To me More $ for staff and budgets for Fish & Wildlife so they can do a better job of managing the resource is the #1 issue. Many of the concerns raised above could be delt with if F&W could do there job more effectively.

Here is about how I break down the concerns listed above:

5 say access to hunting lands is a problem
4 say "special groups" with "special hunting priviladges"
4 say Anti hunting groups is #1 issue of concern
4 say lack of new (or young) hunters entering the hunting brotherhood is the major problem
2 say Habitat destruction
2 say poor decisions by F&W
3 say more $ is needed by F&W and the last two mentioned (Habitat destruction and poor decisions by F&W) could probably be placed in the group wanting more $ for F&W because with more staff and budgets F&W could do a better job of management decisions. Habitat issues are another thing. Provincial gov't is responsible to Manage wildlife and their habitats but Alberta Conservation Association (ACA a non-government organization) has been given the $ from hunting licences to do much of this work. ACA controls $ for flying wildlife surveys and does not give F&W enough to do a resonable job of it.

Robin in Rocky
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-20-2007, 03:59 PM
qbochar
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: re #issue

Duffy:

Thanks for bringing this posting up, to get comments and concerns.

Kannon:

It is not ironic, this is how we do things at the AFGA. Even if you do not like our organization or do not believe in our organization or whatever, we belive in standing up for you the AB outdoorsman/person.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-20-2007, 05:35 PM
Okotokian
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Lots of good suggestions here. The one that hits me most is access to private land. I admit that this is a completely personal one.

I live in a town and don't know any farmers. I just have to go door knocking and ask. Many are cool, but I get a wee bit frustrated when I get turned down, or see the "No Hunting" posted signs. I smile politely and leave of course, saying nothing, but I have to admit that inside I'm often thinking "So you will take my tax money in subsidies, support programs, disaster relief programs, programs to cover losses from animals eating your crops or predators eating your calves, all the governement money my business would never have a hope in hell of getting, but you won't stoop to let me on your land once in a while. Thanks a lot". Now I KNOW in lots of cases there may be other reasons for what happens, I KNOW most farmers are great. I just think perhaps a few farmers could think about the people that happily support them and give a little back.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-20-2007, 07:56 PM
Duk Dog
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Many valid points brought up by people - I can't help but think that better funding of SRD could resolve many of the issues.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-21-2007, 12:08 AM
Northern Hunting Mom
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Perhaps showing up in the off-season with a pair of work gloves or maybe ask if they would like varmint control.

I can understand feeling some angst because of the "hand-outs" farmers get but I'm sure you like eating the fruits of their labours. They do a necessary and hard job. Oh yeah, and they do own the land. It is painful to see all that land you can hunt on and not be able to have access but I cannot say anything bad about them when they say no.

I know you are not writing this with any viciousness or hate so please know, I am not writing this myself in that tone. Its just that I can understand the difficult life a farmer has even with the "hand-outs"
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-21-2007, 11:48 AM
jrs
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A lot of land in the south is getting bought up by filthy rich Calgarians who build there cabin and shut it down to any access. Not usually frustrated farmers, one or two however that have forgotton what happened last time the elk and deer populations exploded. Public areas get busier every season due to access getting nearly impossible to attain in most private areas as well. I know i wouldn't allow unlimited access on my own land if it had any wildlife but i would allow some (small group every weekend on a first call basis works well on a few ranches i know of). Its a concern down here, i really appreciate the buck for wildlife areas myself. The one area shut down this year was due to garbage dumping, i cleaned it all up and he let me on but they don't remember faces so next year may be tricky (took half a truck load of someone elses crap away). Frustrating.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-21-2007, 12:16 PM
RyanGSP
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Not only that jrs but the dutch are moving in down here and flattening the land, removing any tree or bush, then farming right to the fence line. Leaving very little cover for upland birds and deer.

I lost one of my best spots this year ( held pheasants partridge, and sharptail) to a dutch farmer who plowed it all down. Funny thing it is a low spot in the field so it is just going to fill with water and be unfarmable anyway. Be a great new duck spot but I would rather have my upland back.

PS this is in no way ment to offend anyone who is dutch.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 02-21-2007, 01:10 PM
Northern Hunting Mom
 
Posts: n/a
Default Okay, that would get me

I would be more than ****ed about Bambi loving wanna-bes buyinh up prime farming and hunting land then refusing access to anybody.

PS: This is no intended to offend anyone who likes the Walt Disney movie Bambi.:rollin
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-21-2007, 01:40 PM
jrs
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Okay, that would get me

The farmers out of Holland and the Hutterites do plow quite a bit. They simply have the mentality land is useless if theres no wheat growing. I've lost a few good spots as well. that one guy just north of Lethbridge when your heading towards Vulcan is the best example. He has about a 15 acre wetland and every year pumps it out reseeds, then loses it all when the spring rain hits. Never occurs to just give up and talk to DU about possibly compensating the land a bit. There were thousands of ducks on it the past 3 years. The bigger tractors/machinery and high land prices aren't helping the situation either. I'm still trying to convince my buddy to plant some wind breaks and quit spraying the little wetlands at his place, would be a great spot for some wildlife ( 1200+ acres can make for some great habitat). Used to have lots of pheasants and mulies but the caragan started dying out (probably planted in 1930's), no more cover. Now theres just huns, yotes, and the odd whitetail.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-21-2007, 03:28 PM
rugatika
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Okay, that would get me

I have to say that my biggest concern is land being bought up by people to use as their own personal game farms or whatever reason they buy the land and then deny access. It is entirely their right to do so and I would not ever want the government to step in and tell people what they "have" to do with their own land.

Just outlines the importance of keeping large tracts of public land open to hunting.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-21-2007, 08:03 PM
Duk Dog
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: concerns cont'd

Loss of all the traditional habitat like sloughs, hedge rows, wind breaks etc is a big one. Wonder if something similar to the CRP program in the USA would ever be put into place in Alberta and Canada?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-22-2007, 10:44 PM
Tree Guy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: concerns cont'd

Guys, we can lose all of the land we want, but in a generation, if there is no one left that wants to hunt it, what's the issue? Loss of access means that we just have to work harder and travel further. Loss of another generation of hunters means our doom. My son is 5, I will teach him our way of life. If he chooses to embrace it than I have done my part to preserve our tradition. I will do my best to take his friends out and their dad's. I promise to do my best to introduce as many 'city-folk' to hunting and fishing. What else can I do? What else can we all do?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-23-2007, 12:14 AM
treeguy
 
Posts: n/a
Default treeguy

My number one suggestion would be to make ensure non-resident hunters do not recieve more than 10 % of the allocations given per WMU per species hunted. This way we can minimize the effects of outfitters locking up land. In Montana its state law that non-residents are limited to 10 percent per species per zone, this was to protect resident hunter interest it's time we do the same.

For a link to some of the problems faced by resident Montana hunters here's a link, at least they recognize the problem.

huntmontana.com/press_releases.htm

In certain WMU such as 305 antlered mule deer resident hunters could gain as many as 25 more tags per year if non-residents were capped at 10 percent, obviously this is the most sensible approach to putting more resident hunters in the field.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-23-2007, 10:49 PM
By the way I don't support paying for access
 
Posts: n/a
Default By the way I don't support paying for access

which is what huntmontana.com is all about. Gee I wonder what business brought about the creation of such a club hmmm. This should never happen up here in Alberta right, cause they've already got 15 to 23 percent of the antlered mule deer tags in South Western Alberta (just being sarcastic).
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 04:43 AM.


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