Newest information on open spaces.

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Sleep on it...you'll realize how assinine this exchange is becoming. Now can we get back on track?

It takes 2 to tango.

I agree, back on track!

Originally Posted by LongDraw

It takes 2 to tango.

I agree, back on track!

But it only takes one to start the music......

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by Duk Dog

Are there any more upcoming meetings scheduled? It looks like there was one a week or so ago that some people from the AO board went to.

So does anyone know of any upcoming meetings open to the public on this?

[lazy ike]

Originally Posted by Duk Dog

So does anyone know of any upcoming meetings open to the public on this?

I would like to attend one also.

[hornhead]

i have been reading this thread and it seems to me once again the government is selling us out.
govt leases out public land, the lessee posts it and now the lessee can charge to hunt on our leased/posted land.

what i would like is a list of MLAs and contact
numbers/e mails.

is there such a list on this board?

and bear in mind this is a "PILOT" project, ergo, the wave of the future. IOW don't waste time teaching your kids to shoot cuz they won't have any place to hunt when they are of age. < sarcasm off>

and remember this BS move by "honest ed" and the boys in the next election!!

perhaps the mods could sticky this contact information??
we will probably need it again ... and again ... etc
cheers

[209x50]

Originally Posted by hornhead

i have been reading this thread and it seems to me once again the government is selling us out.
govt leases out public land, the lessee posts it and now the lessee can charge to hunt on our leased/posted land.

Nope, that was on the orginal draft but has been negotiated off. Pretty scary, huh?

[Rafter]

Originally Posted by Bull Shooter

CalgaryChef – I think many of us made up our minds very early that this was paid hunting (regardless of the spin) and that it would greatly reduce the number of hunters and hunting opportunities that Albertans have equally enjoyed. This was never about habitat and conservation (my mistake) and in fact SRD confirmed it was all about access and compensation. In at least one Open Spaces document, the word “trophy hunting” is used to portray the program (or its benefits).

I have been reluctant to make this observation public, but I just can’t keep it to myself anymore; Open Spaces Alberta is ANTI-HUNTING! If you want to initiate a program of “divide and conquer” that will effectively increase costs, reduce the number of hunters and clear a path for the anti-hunting movement, then Open Spaces is the perfect vehicle. This was brought to my attention by an anti-hunter, so it is hardly my “interpretation”.

I fear the miscommunication on this topic and board is a result of short-sighted individuals that only look at the immediate benefits or personal gain for themselves with little regard for their fellow or future hunters. The original warnings were absolutely correct, and in fact most of the speculation (in the absence of information) was not only correct but proved to be very useful on a go-forward basis.

I have had the pleasure of personally meeting several individuals that are vehemently opposed to Open Spaces and we continue to work to abolish this piece of trash. We all communicate effectively and respectfully and I have never witnessed any animosity. I think the problems you see on this board are the result of agendas between individuals; those who benefit from Open Spaces, those who may see benefits in Open Spaces and those who are absolutely opposed to Open Spaces.

I think the line has been drawn; it’s up to us now to determine what is important for the present and the future and decide which side we are on. Regards, Mike

The Government in power now, covets the almighty dollar. This is about selling our wildlife to a chosen few. Open spaces will benefit a few Special Interest groups and friends of the Government. There virtually will not be an Alberta recreational hunter that will benefit from this program. APOS and some select landowners will greatly benefit. This is paid hunting and unless you have money you will not, as a resident of Alberta, be hunting along side the rich American. Money will afford rights and priviledges to a person from another country. Like it or not this program will go through. I am afraid there is nothing any of us can do about it except to voice our concern at the next election.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by Rafter

Like it or not this program will go through. I am afraid there is nothing any of us can do about it except to voice our concern at the next election.

Don't give up folks, there is still light at the end of the tunnel.

Get informed, spread the info to everyone you know, join the groups that are fighting this, and most importantly, make sure you contact your MLAs and their oppostion counterparts.

Waxy

[Rafter]

Originally Posted by Waxy

Don't give up folks, there is still light at the end of the tunnel.

Get informed, spread the info to everyone you know, join the groups that are fighting this, and most importantly, make sure you contact your MLAs and their oppostion counterparts.

Waxy

Good advice, a strong effort put forth by all, maybe, just maybe, may put a stop to this program. Opponents to this Open Spaces have one advantage, the election that is coming soon. A month away I believe. Don't like how your MLA represents you, don't vote for him. Let your MLA know that. United in numbers we can make a difference! Shamefully I never vote, but this time I will. I may have to vote for a party that I do not fully endorse, but a message has to be sent to this Government presently in power. Even just a downward shift in the numbers the Conservatives were voted in the last time will send them a message. Hunters in this province can be a factor in a significant downward shift.

[hornhead]

thanks to all the guys that sent contact info on MLAs.

i shall go to war tonite.

"i shall not go quietly into that good night..."

cheers
and don't forget who the bad guys are!

"if we don't hang together then we shall most assuredly hang seperately!!" (ben franklin i believe)

Duk Dog and Lazy Ike,

This question was asked at the meeting yesterday and the answer was a resounding no. They thought it would be too hard to control. The only somewhat public meeting will be at the AFGA conference in February. There is supposed to be a presentation then open discussion. I would encourage all members to attend if possible. I know I will be there. They are also planning on having a vote on the subject.

Bubba

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

Duk Dog and Lazy Ike,

This question was asked at the meeting yesterday and the answer was a resounding no. They thought it would be too hard to control. The only somewhat public meeting will be at the AFGA conference in February. There is supposed to be a presentation then open discussion. I would encourage all members to attend if possible. I know I will be there. They are also planning on having a vote on the subject.

Bubba

Shows they already know how unpopular this pilot project and the process by which it has been created is. Thanks for the info, and reply. If any new meetings do come up, please keep us posted.

Originally Posted by Duk Dog

Shows they already know how unpopular this pilot project is. Thanks for the info, and reply. If any new meetings do come up, please keep us posted.

I certainly will.

Bubba

I was just rereading all of the documents for about the 100th time and noticed that in the latest version of the document the habitat portion of ramp is gone.

The first version I have is:

Recreational access management Program (RAMP) - compensates private landowners for providing habitat and recreational access for hunting and fishing to the public.

The most recent version reads:

Recreational access management Program (RAMP) - Landowners voluntarily enroll their private lands and commit to provide access opportunities for hunting and fishing.

If this is about habitat why did they take it out? My opinion is it is just a money grab. They do not even have to keep the habitat to get the money. They are getting paid to put a sign up on their land.

Bubba

[Bull Shooter]

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

I was just rereading all of the documents for about the 100th time and noticed that in the latest version of the document the habitat portion of ramp is gone.

The first version I have is:

Recreational access management Program (RAMP) - compensates private landowners for providing habitat and recreational access for hunting and fishing to the public.

The most recent version reads:

Recreational access management Program (RAMP) - Landowners voluntarily enroll their private lands and commit to provide access opportunities for hunting and fishing.

If this is about habitat why did they take it out? My opinion is it is just a money grab. They do not even have to keep the habitat to get the money. They are getting paid to put a sign up on their land.

Bubba

Bubba, I am very confident that that requirement was removed because SRD likely realized that it violated the Canadian Constitution. How can you reward landowners in 108 and 300 under the auspices of habitat and conservation initiatives without recognizing the equal or superior contributions of all landowners in Alberta. Now that would have cost a lot of money!

I know a few landowners that were considering a legal challenge on those grounds if this went through. And the truth is I don't think the Province is out of the 'Litagation Woods" yet... not by a long shot.

I can't believe that landowners outside of 108 and 300 have not caught on to this. If this goes through in five years, it has nothing to do with conservation and responsible habitat stewardship but the reward goes to landowners fortunate enough to have draw animals on their property... by whatever means necessary. Ironically, this compensation direction will likely have negative consequences for native habitat, grasses and pastures as landowners attempt to maximize "their" wildlife profits. Regards, Mike

Originally Posted by Bull Shooter

I can't believe that landowners outside of 108 and 300 have not caught on to this. If this goes through in five years, it has nothing to do with conservation and responsible habitat stewardship but the reward goes to landowners fortunate enough to have draw animals on their property... by whatever means necessary. Ironically, this compensation direction will likely have negative consequences for native habitat, grasses and pastures as landowners attempt to maximize "their" wildlife profits. Regards, Mike

One point in your statement. This is not only limited to draw animals. That has also changed. The HFH units will also be getting non draw tags. Antlered Whitetail and Bear. I think landowners accross the province will challenge this within the first 3 months. Why would a large landowner in the rest of the province not want to be able to sell a whitetail or bear tag.

Bubba

[Vindalbakken]

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

Why would a large landowner in the rest of the province not want to be able to sell a whitetail or bear tag.

Bubba

Why would they have to be a large landowner? Any landowner across the province would want to have a tag to sell.

Originally Posted by Vindalbakken

Why would they have to be a large landowner? Any landowner across the province would want to have a tag to sell.

Agreed.

[Bull Shooter]

Bubba and Vin you are both absolutely correct. Too much information and too many changes, I'm having trouble keeping it all straight. And I am confident that this will likely lead to at least one court challenge. Regards, Mike

[packhuntr]

Yip, i have 7 acres, i want a crack at this too if they pass this horse sh*t. And why should i not qualify?? Its private land, rural, and i have a local herd of whitetails. Now we are talking, i can see the sign in front of my hay field now.....pack's paid hunts, NO HUNTING "without one of my tags"!! Waddya guys think, its one stop shopping!!

keep a strain on er.

[sonny]

A few years ago,south of Raymond,Alberta on the Milk River Ridge, A few elk moved into the area, not a problem, but the heard grew in numbers over the next few years, no hunting pressure, lots of good grazing, ideal conditions for the elk.
The Desseret Ranch was one of the more vocal large land owners to start complaining about damage that the elk were doing to the range, crops,
They wanted a hunting season opened for the elk, Fair enough. A cow elk season was opened in zone 108, but the local outfitter who had access as to who hunted on the Desseret Ranches looked after his best of interests first,$$$$$ , before local tag holders were allowed to hunt on property.
The desseret Ranches was one of the players invited to these closed door meetings,Behind a shroud of secrecy the general puplic has been denied imformation about the details of this paid hunting program.
All of a sudden the cow elk do not seem to be a problem, it appears there will be no cow elk season. only a bull elk season again $$$$ for the dessert ranch and outfitters.
If some people out there beleive this will open up hunting oppertunities for the local tag holder give your head a shake, it is not going to happen. Last year trophy mule deer tags were selling for as high as $10.000, what do you think a trophy bull elk will go for.
Alberta Huners do not need a US-style paid hunting@fishing program.
Albertans had better get DAM vocal on this issue or as sportsmen we are going to lose big time.
Just the way i see it.
Sonny

[lazy ike]

If some people out there beleive this will open up hunting oppertunities for the local tag holder give your head a shake, it is not going to happen. Last year trophy mule deer tags were selling for as high as $10.000, what do you think a trophy bull elk will go for.

Well lets put a dollar amount on this hunt.. I was looking for cost of a paid Elk hunt and found this one guides site. I was only going to put the $$$ amount but the whole advertisement has an ominous quality to it.

offers trophy bull elk, mule deer, bear and cougar hunts in several limited entry units and on private lands in Utah. Limited entry bull tags take many years to draw, so when you finally see the word "SUCCESSFUL" on the draw results page, give us a call. It's a once-in-a-lifetime hunt and you'll want to make the most of it.

Conservation and landowner bull tags are also available. Most range between $7,000 and $25,000. Archery, muzzleloader, early rifle, and late rifle hunts are all available and we have guides ready to help.

Our private land deer tags are available directly from us. Please, give us a call for rates and availability.

Bear and cougar tags are also available through the state draw system and via conservation tags. Call for rates and additional details.

[lynx]

Originally Posted by packhuntr

Yip, i have 7 acres, i want a crack at this too if they pass this horse sh*t. And why should i not qualify?? Its private land, rural, and i have a local herd of whitetails. Now we are talking, i can see the sign in front of my hay field now.....pack's paid hunts, NO HUNTING "without one of my tags"!! Waddya guys think, its one stop shopping!!

keep a strain on er.

I have a section and I should be able to charge as well.

Conservation and landowner bull tags are also available. Most range between $7,000 and $25,000. Archery, muzzleloader, early rifle, and late rifle hunts are all available and we have guides ready to help.

Our private land deer tags are available directly from us. Please, give us a call for rates and availability.

What is good for the outfitters is good for me as well if this goes through

Sorry for the delay on getting this out. I wanted to be as accurate and thorough as I could (not a good note taker). Hopefully I will get the minutes of the meeting so I can add stuff I surely missed. Also hopefully MAV can help fill in any blanks I may have.

The meeting started out with and overview of the Pilot project. Nothing has changed from the documents I have provided.

The AFGA zone 1 director, Wayne Lowry, suggested each member of the working group state their opinion of the pilot.

All of the landowners and U of C members supported the project.

Hunting for Tomorrow stated that they signed off on the 3 guiding principles and that is all. They did not say whether they supported the pilot or not. They were very unhappy with the speed of the process.

Bob Gruszecki of Hunting for Tomorrow asked Cliff Henderson (ASRD) at least 4 times to slow down the process. Mr. Henderson said he would take it under advisement and forward his “own” concerns to the deputy minister and minister.

The AFGA rep that was on the working group was not present.

Open discussion.

Cormack Gates kept calling it the Ranching for Wildlife program. He also kept asking everyone if they agreed with the three guiding principles of the program. Interesting note here the fact sheet only lists 2 and they have changed from the terms of reference document.

1. Wildlife is a public trust to be managed in the public interest.
2. Landowners should not bear the full costs of producing habitat for wildlife or the inconvenience and impacts of public use on their land without compensation.

The question was asked about the satisfaction rates and if there was a baseline to begin with. Doug Manzer of ACA stated they do not have any baseline data, so they have no idea what the current satisfaction rate is now. He also admitted they need this information to make the pilot project data valid. Mr. Manzer was queried that if the satisfaction rate right now is 80% how come 75% is the goal.

They tried to justify the pilot based on the changing footprint on the land. They referred to a report done recently by Brad Stelfox. Asked the municipal working group rep, Rod Cyr, (a landowner who stands to gain from this) if the county he represents, which is in 300, had a plan. He responded that they do not have a plan for managing development like windmills, acreage development and movement of Oil exploration into the Eastern slopes.

The question was posed where the money would come from. Again we were told do not worry they are applying for a rural development funds. This will only work for the pilot period then the money would have to come from somewhere else. Again told not to worry they would work that out down the road.

They were asked how they decide on habitat and what good hunting habitat is. Again we were told don’t worry this all can be fleshed out (I am beginning to hate that term) at a later time.

Next question was why would a landowner be compensated for the production costs when that animal is not always on there land should all landowners not be compensated. They had no answer for this either.

Asked landowners if they get this payment will they guarantee to either keep their land or sell their land to someone who will keep the same guarantee. Answer was a resounding no.

Suggestion was put forward to compensate landowners based on Habitat. Landowners came back with who decides on habitat and where will the money come from (sound familiar). They out right dismissed the projects like ALUS put forward and being implemented by Delta Waterfowl in Manitoba. Here is a link to ALUS http://www.deltawaterfowl.org/alus/index.php

Asked why they do not use the tools that are available to them now. I.e. letting hunters on. There response was they do not want to deal with the hassle of dealing with hunters. This I found laughable as supposedly the pilot is designed to allow more access.

Is access is really a problem? Discussed that hunters understand that you will not get access to all land and they accept this. Hunters realize wildlife needs a safe refuge.

Landowners suggest that they could take the supposed offerings of trips to Mexico for themselves their kids from outfitters and not let resident hunters on. APOS was very offended by this.

We discussed going forward. They asked Wayne Lowry, the AFGA Zone 1 Director, if he would be the local contact. He said he could not until after the AFGA voted at the general conference to see where AFGA stands.

At this point ABA, SABA, LFGA and PF stated there positions. All were opposed to the pilot. This seemed to deflate the working group and SRD.

One landowner stood up and said if this was not approved within the next 6-8 months he would call the Indians and Métis to come in and wipe out the wildlife on his property.

The WSGA rep Darryl Carlson mentioned that lots of neighbors don’t get a long and it will be hard for them to make this work among themselves. This is probably why they want someone else to make the rules for them.

The one thing we never did get an answer on was where the project was in the process, CPC, SRD or is it already going to the press for the hunting regs. We never did find out.

Meeting ended

[Pathfinder76]

Bubba, has anyone said why there is so much focus on the 300 A side? It sounds like most of the open spaces support and representation comes from that side. Actually, most of the landowners there own the lions share if their property north of 300, not in 300 at all. I understand Deseret was represented but didn't have allot of input (not surprised as he is a little new to the game).

Originally Posted by chuck

Bubba, has anyone said why there is so much focus on the 300 A side? It sounds like most of the open spaces support and representation comes from that side. Actually, most of the landowners there own the lions share if their property north of 300, not in 300 at all. I understand Deseret was represented but didn't have allot of input (not surprised as he is a little new to the game).

Chuck, I was told early on by Cormack Gates that the landowners in 300 b were not interested in the program. I am not sure why and I really did not press this issue. You are right the landowners on the WG do own most of their land north of 300 but I think the main proponent of this is in 300. Yes Deseret did have their ranch manager there. He was very quite and never really spoke during the meeting. I talked to him briefly during lunch but not much came of this. I do not know how much input he has had into the whole process. We have to remember he is not the actual landowner.

Bubba

[Rust]

[QUOTE] Cormack Gates kept calling it the Ranching for Wildlife program. He also kept asking everyone if they agreed with the three guiding principles of the program. Interesting note here the fact sheet only lists 2 and they have changed from the terms of reference document.

1. Wildlife is a public trust to be managed in the public interest.
2. Landowners should not bear the full costs of producing habitat for wildlife or the inconvenience and impacts of public use on their land without compensation.

--Any Idea what the 3rd one was?


[QUOTE] The question was asked about the satisfaction rates and if there was a baseline to begin with. Doug Manzer of ACA stated they do not have any baseline data, so they have no idea what the current satisfaction rate is now. He also admitted they need this information to make the pilot project data valid. Mr. Manzer was queried that if the satisfaction rate right now is 80% how come 75% is the goal.

--DOes this not sound a little like the last project that Cormack Gates tried to do in Cypress Hill? Huge lack of Info and Statcs to support it!!!!!!!????


[QUOTE] One landowner stood up and said if this was not approved within the next 6-8 months he would call the Indians and Métis to come in and wipe out the wildlife on his property.

--And he thinks dealing with a hunter is a hassel!! HA

-- I don't think that any land owner/farmer/rancher should receive any compinsation of any sort for any crop or fence damage done by wildlife if they do not allow hunting on their land!!!!!!!

[mini-moose]

-- I don't think that any land owner/farmer/rancher should receive any compinsation of any sort for any crop or fence damage done by wildlife if they do not allow hunting on their land!!!!!!![/QUOTE]

I agree 100%. I though this was a requirement already. maybe not.

[LongDraw]

[QUOTE=Rust;106194]

1. Wildlife is a public trust to be managed in the public interest.
2. Landowners should not bear the full costs of producing habitat for wildlife or the inconvenience and impacts of public use on their land without compensation.

--Any Idea what the 3rd one was?

3. No resident shall have to pay for access.


Supposedly these three guiding principles are all that the working group endoursed.

These 3 principles cover a very wide and undefined direction IMO.

[lazy ike]

[QUOTE=LongDraw;106201]

Originally Posted by Rust

3. No resident shall have to pay for access.


Supposedly these three guiding principles are all that the working group endoursed.

These 3 principles cover a very wide and undefined direction IMO.

A fairly nebulous and therefore easily acheived set principles.

In a province with plenty of decent low priority or over counter hunting, it is easy to see that Residents are not the demographic this proposal will benefit.