Councillors for the County of Spirit River Lobbying for Elk Cull

[muirsy]

Well, my hunting partner and I were planning on heading up that way for the archery season in early/mid-September this season to take a crack at elk in a new area.

If there are any land owners on here who don't mind a couple responsible archers on their property come September drop me a line. 'Happy to chat over the phone or meet in person.

Jeff

[Dean2]

Originally Posted by hilt134

.

Also if you don’t want people’s opinions maybe limit your post to a group chat with locals to that area. It’s a public forum that is extremely well known for being opinionated

Having said that and fair warning I have zero experience in the area we are talking about. Make it a general tag for a season or two. Either the elk population will be lowered or the farmers will hate the amount of extra hunters and stop complaining about the elk.

In 359 alone the province issued 1,200 cow tags over 4 1 month seasons. This doesn't include the landowner tags good only on their own property. That is 1,200 individual hunters just for cow elk alone, then add deer, Bull elk, Moose etc. Just how many more hunters do you think would make sense for farmers to have to put up with a year. They issued another 700 in 358. The WHOLE County only has a population of 2,400 people.
A prime example of someone who freely admits they don't know a thing about the subject, do no research, but think they are qualified to beak off anyhow, because hey, on social media everyone's opinion is just as valid as the next guys.

[cody j]

Originally Posted by Dean2

In 359 alone the province issued 1,200 cow tags over 4 1 month seasons. This doesn't include the landowner tags good only on their own property. That is 1,200 individual hunters just for cow elk alone, then add deer, Bull elk, Moose etc. Just how many more hunters do you think would make sense for farmers to have to put up with a year. They issued another 700 in 358. A prime example of someone who freely admits they don't know a thing about the subject, do no research, but think they are qualified to beak off anyhow, because hey, on social media everyone's opinion is just as valid as the next guys.

I've always wondered how many cow tags actually get filled. I've seen more than one person who expects to take one step out of the truck and shoot one in somebody's bale yard. Sometimes that happens but it's usually not that easy. It can be a difficult hunt do to weather and snow and not everyone is up to the challenge

[hilt134]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

Landowner tags are sold in many states for exactly this same purpose
If a couple hundred bucks is too much for you, then put in for the draw for the wmu
If you want to fill your freezer and don’t want to **** around chasing cow elk all over the county. Then why not?

You would find a lot of farmers more would be open to hunters

So a few issues. First of all why should a land owner be able to profit from selling tag? I’m certain if tag issuers where able to price adjust to make a profit they would. Pretty sure we all think letting Canadian tire pick tag prices is a terrible idea. The main reason is that the animals are not owned by anyone. Remember over population of a game species is an unintended consequence of lack of hunting pressure and farming. The farmer did not purchase and raise the game animals. Therefore letting him make money selling a tag is ridiculous.

Would it make landowners more open to hunters? If a land owner gets six tags to fill or sell. That gives them three choices. Fill them, sell them, or both. If they take the first option why would they let more hunters on when it could cut into their potential. If they sell them. What is the benefit to letting hunters onto their land that bought tags through the draw. The last option is a mix of both.

[hilt134]

Originally Posted by Dean2

In 359 alone the province issued 1,200 cow tags over 4 1 month seasons. This doesn't include the landowner tags good only on their own property. That is 1,200 individual hunters just for cow elk alone, then add deer, Bull elk, Moose etc. Just how many more hunters do you think would make sense for farmers to have to put up with a year. They issued another 700 in 358. The WHOLE County only has a population of 2,400 people.
A prime example of someone who freely admits they don't know a thing about the subject, do no research, but think they are qualified to beak off anyhow, because hey, on social media everyone's opinion is just as valid as the next guys.

Okay so if there already too many hunters and too many elk. Let the farmers pay a bit more taxes and have a third party cull them.

If it’s a big enough issue they will put up with as many hunter as is needed to the do the job. If it’s not a big enough issue why bother complaining?

[cowmanbob]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

Farmer" I got elk damaging my crops !"
Warden" I know some hunters who can help you out with that "
Farmer" oh, we don't allow hunters on our land!"
Cat

It is rarely a situation as simple as you describe.

[hilt134]

Originally Posted by cody j

The area I live in had no elk back in the day. In the mid 90's people would occasionally see some and it would be talked about. Now there is lots and some people do have depredation problems. Should the landowner still bare the burden if there was no elk when they began farming and 20 yrs later the population explodes, and maybe in part to elk being relocated by the province? Peoples opinions tend to rapidly change when they are personally affected financially by wildlife. It's easy to tell others what to do when you have no first hand experience yourself

The answer is yes. Particularly when it’s a 20 year gradual change. The town I live in has become a tourist area in the past 18 years. We have to pay more to put in washrooms and pay more bylaw officers. No one signed up for it 20 years ago but by staying here you saw the gradual change and accepted it year by year. I’m gunna assume a 20 year explosion is about the same

[Pilsner Man]

It’s funny how people think you just show up in the saddle hills and kill elk.

Check out the harvest numbers. Slightly higher than the province average. But 2/3 hunters go home empty handed.

Then consider out of town people who have no idea where to look for them. Now you just have more people pushing the animals harder and making it tougher for the guys who actually know what they are doing.

At the end of the day they are still elk that are hard to kill and most hunters are too lazy to effectively kill elk on a regular basis.

I’m 100% against a cull but brining in more hunters is not the solution either.

[cody j]

Originally Posted by hilt134

The answer is yes. Particularly when it’s a 20 year gradual change. The town I live in has become a tourist area in the past 18 years. We have to pay more to put in washrooms and pay more bylaw officers. No one signed up for it 20 years ago but by staying here you saw the gradual change and accepted it year by year. I’m gunna assume a 20 year explosion is about the same

And would you say same for Suffield when elk left the base and went onto private property and did damage? If you ever draw a cow elk tag be sure to share these views with any landowners you encounter.

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by Dean2

Agreed. It would be the leading edge of the Wedge to fully paid hunting. If a farmer is willing to give up Animal Damage Crop Insurance coverage to post his land no hunting, a couple of hundred for a tag isn't going to change his mind.

I have done a lot of hunting in places like Germany, which is 100% paid hunting. There are VERY few regular Joes that can afford to hunt, and a very large part of the States is becoming like that too. That will neither solve the access challenges or the over population. Prime example is Texas, the pig population is rampant because so many places can make significant money selling the hunts for them. All the neighbours have to put up with the over populated pigs that emanate from these locations because of it.

I disagree
There is lots of places like Colorado Montana Wyoming etc
Where you have the option of both.
There is no shortage of hunters in those states

In Canada we have a lot of public land that is available for everyone to hunt
The issue here is in regards to private land
There has to be a way to incentivize land owner participation
The current system is flawed
Too many different people are trying to hunt the same area in the same season
Farmers are probably bombarded with people from July to February asking for permission or trying to keep track of who is hunting and when

[skidderman]

People that bash farmers should be ashamed. The reason farmers don't allow access is because of slob hunters. Don't ask permission, leave gates open, drive over swaths & so on. And it isn't as easy as some councillor might think. If elk are on farmland they come in the dark & leave in the dark. During winter the elk congregate into big herds. By Sept they scatter. On paper it looks easy. That is a very large area with a lot of heavy bush. I hunt there approx 20 days a year & last year did not get my elk & I'm pretty good at it.

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by hilt134

So a few issues. First of all why should a land owner be able to profit from selling tag? I’m certain if tag issuers where able to price adjust to make a profit they would. Pretty sure we all think letting Canadian tire pick tag prices is a terrible idea. The main reason is that the animals are not owned by anyone. Remember over population of a game species is an unintended consequence of lack of hunting pressure and farming. The farmer did not purchase and raise the game animals. Therefore letting him make money selling a tag is ridiculous.

Would it make landowners more open to hunters? If a land owner gets six tags to fill or sell. That gives them three choices. Fill them, sell them, or both. If they take the first option why would they let more hunters on when it could cut into their potential. If they sell them. What is the benefit to letting hunters onto their land that bought tags through the draw. The last option is a mix of both.

In anyone of the three options, there would be more elk on the ground than what is happening now
If each one of those permits was for 2 cow elk
Your going to put a dent in the population

[hilt134]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

In anyone of the three options, there would be more elk on the ground than what is happening now
If each one of those permits was for 2 cow elk
Your going to put a dent in the population

Yes it may kill more but you said it would make landowners more open to hunters. As I said I do not see how that would work. Paid hunting is something I just do not agree with

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by hilt134

Yes it may kill more but you said it would make landowners more open to hunters. As I said I do not see how that would work. Paid hunting is something I just do not agree with

100% more landowners would be participating

If a farmer had tags in his pocket that he can sell for a couple hundred bucks
Knowing he’s not getting any money from the government for crop damage
For sure they are going to be allowing people to hunt their land

Paid hunting isn’t a bad thing, it’s another tool that can be used to accomplish a population management objective

[hilt134]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

100% more landowners would be participating

If a farmer had tags in his pocket that he can sell for a couple hundred bucks
Knowing he’s not getting any money from the government for crop damage
For sure they are going to be allowing people to hunt their land

Paid hunting isn’t a bad thing, it’s another tool that can be used to accomplish a population management objective

if you want crop damage money let the hunters on your land. If you don’t want the hunters on the land loose the money and suck it up. How many tags before it is valuable enough to turn the elk into a business? What if most of the farmers decide to completely restrict hunting besides the tags they sell? Should there be a price limits?

Why would we reward farmers who aren’t letting hunters on their land. with tags they can sell to recoup the cost of not letting hunter on their land? It’s not a tool it’s a way to let them have their cake and eat it too.

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by hilt134

if you want crop damage money let the hunters on your land. If you don’t want the hunters on the land loose the money and suck it up. How many tags before it is valuable enough to turn the elk into a business? What if most of the farmers decide to completely restrict hunting besides the tags they sell? Should there be a price limits?

Why would we reward farmers who aren’t letting hunters on their land. with tags they can sell to recoup the cost of not letting hunter on their land? It’s not a tool it’s a way to let them have their cake and eat it too.

They are rewarded right now by getting crop damage compensation
Your obviously not a farmer
And you obviously havent hunted anywhere that allows you to buy a land owner tag from a farmer

[hilt134]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

They are rewarded right now by getting crop damage compensation
Your obviously not a farmer
And you obviously havent hunted anywhere that allows you to buy a land owner tag from a farmer

If they don’t allow hunting they don’t get the money. Seems pretty simple

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by hilt134

If they don’t allow hunting they don’t get the money. Seems pretty simple

Prove that they don’t allow hunting
Not so simple

[hilt134]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

Prove that they don’t allow hunting
Not so simple

Burden of proof falls on the farmer. You get no compensation till you prove you took the proper steps. Pretty sure one guy said that how it currently works.

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by hilt134

Burden of proof falls on the farmer. You get no compensation till you prove you took the proper steps. Pretty sure one guy said that how it currently works.

Lol good luck with that

[Battle Rat]

Originally Posted by hilt134

Burden of proof falls on the farmer. You get no compensation till you prove you took the proper steps. Pretty sure one guy said that how it currently works.

Just what would that proof look like?
A sign in sheet perhaps?

[fishnguy]

I don’t hunt that specific area, but not that far out.

Allow buying a general antlered tag to people who are drawn for an antlerless tag. I know many people, myself including, who would happily shoot a bull and a cow every single year. I don’t want two cows, because I want to hunt a bull, but I would gladly take a cow in addition to the bull.

I ran into both type of landowners, some allowing access (selectively, obviously) and others complaining about wildlife and hunters asking permission.

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by fishnguy

I don’t hunt that specific area, but not that far out.

Allow buying a general antlered tag to people who are drawn for an antlerless tag. I know many people, myself including, who would happily shoot a bull and a cow every single year. I don’t want two cows, because I want to hunt a bull, but I would gladly take a cow in addition to the bull.

I ran into both type of landowners, some allowing access (selectively, obviously) and others complaining about wildlife and hunters asking permission.

Good idea

[Cement Bench]

the animals are not owned by anyone, OK

THE LAND IS

just my response

Originally Posted by hilt134

So a few issues. First of all why should a land owner be able to profit from selling tag? I’m certain if tag issuers where able to price adjust to make a profit they would. Pretty sure we all think letting Canadian tire pick tag prices is a terrible idea. The main reason is that the animals are not owned by anyone. Remember over population of a game species is an unintended consequence of lack of hunting pressure and farming. The farmer did not purchase and raise the game animals. Therefore letting him make money selling a tag is ridiculous.

Would it make landowners more open to hunters? If a land owner gets six tags to fill or sell. That gives them three choices. Fill them, sell them, or both. If they take the first option why would they let more hunters on when it could cut into their potential. If they sell them. What is the benefit to letting hunters onto their land that bought tags through the draw. The last option is a mix of both.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by IL Bar

Ok. Good job. You boys ****ed off this farmer this morning. Two can play this game. How about this:
Hunter “Can I go hunt your land?”
Farmer “Sure but your the 12th guy to ask”
Hunter “Ok Thanks”

One week later hunter calls up farmer
“You’re a f&#&$n a&#$#&#e because you let other guys in. They got elk and now there gone. I can only hunt Friday afternoons from 2-3. Boo hoo!”
Or
“You let an outfitter hunt too. That makes you a no good piece of s*$t”
Don’t think it happens? Cause it does.

I don't consider this some sort of game.
Or the land owner that won't let hunters on BECAUSE he has an argument with an outfitter .
My first scenario has been played out before.
We also have been denied access because the previous group cross contaminated a field when asked not to- and it was local residents that did that .
It is the reason I prefer to hunt Crown land a lot .
BTE I don't care if a land owner says " no" I tell him thanks and have a nice day and go elsewhwere
Cat

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by cowmanbob

It is rarely a situation as simple as you describe.

I never inferred that it was
Cat

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by Battle Rat

I think for the late season hunt in that area there is a list of land owners to call that gladly give permission.
To say land owners don't allow hunters is painting a pretty stupid picture with a wide brush stroke.

And to infer that all land owners do allow hunters is just as stupid.
I actually feel sorry for land owners who have had poaching and damage incidents their land , it is not what hunting is , about however there are many out there who cross crops with vehicles, bust fences, leave gates open , steal tree stands and cameras and vandalize private property without any regard for anyone .
Cat

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by muirsy

Well, my hunting partner and I were planning on heading up that way for the archery season in early/mid-September this season to take a crack at elk in a new area.

If there are any land owners on here who don't mind a couple responsible archers on their property come September drop me a line. 'Happy to chat over the phone or meet in person.

Jeff

Hate to say, but you'd better take a drive and make personal contact. Apparently, every one is a responsible hunter if you ask them.

Grizz

[Battle Rat]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

And to infer that all land owners do allow hunters is just as stupid.
I actually feel sorry for land owners who have had poaching and damage incidents their land , it is not what hunting is , about however there are many out there who cross crops with vehicles, bust fences, leave gates open , steal tree stands and cameras and vandalize private property without any regard for anyone .
Cat

It was your inferrance that the elk problem was due to landowner denial of access that I found stupid.
Just what percentage of land owners does that take?
You went from bashing land owners to back peddling and now sympathizing with them so no need to answer, I can see where you are going with this.

[mac1983]

Originally Posted by muirsy

Well, my hunting partner and I were planning on heading up that way for the archery season in early/mid-September this season to take a crack at elk in a new area.

If there are any land owners on here who don't mind a couple responsible archers on their property come September drop me a line. 'Happy to chat over the phone or meet in person.

Jeff

There are a couple of rather large Hutterite colonies in that area that usually don't mind hunters, they're good people. Peter will try to sell you some tires or something, lol. Not all of us Landowners just want to sell elk tags... bahaha