The Economics of Antlers
Regardless of the spin, the HFH and RAMP (to a lesser degree) proposals are all about paid hunting. When the Province allows a market value to be attached to a big game animal and subsequently gives landowners the right to be compensated for “quality” hunting opportunities it’s only logical that the same will treat our wildlife resources as an investment.
How does the shrewd “businessperson” maximize their return on investment? Well, under these proposals, and the HFH in particular, you ensure your portfolio contains or attracts large amounts of high quality (big antlered) draw animals. Logically, failure to attract or sustain large numbers of quality draw animals will decrease hunter interest in a particular property negatively affecting revenue whether it be through tags or access.
With these sorts of portfolio management challenges, it would not be too large a stretch to compare participating HFH units with game farms, albeit, low-fenced (for the time being anyway) game farms. If landowners are given the responsibility of “managing” game then they must also accept the responsibility and accountability that follows.
Concentrating deer and elk in game farms, or by “artificial” feeding, likely increases the probability of both direct and indirect transmission between individual animals. The Chronic Wasting Disease Alliance notes that contaminated pastures appear to have served as sources of infection in some CWD epidemics.
If we allow or recognize proposals such as HFH and RAMP, shouldn’t we also be very concerned with the management practices of participating landowners? Who decides what or what not a property owner can do on their private land when we have charged them with the management and responsibility of an occupying public resource? What are the consequences of such actions and who should be held accountable when these actions are contrary to the public interest? Is it possible that the HFH units of today could become the game farms of tomorrow? Regards, Mike
|
Linear Mode
