Newest information on open spaces.

[QUOTE=Rust;106194]

--Any Idea what the 3rd one was?

--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!!!!!!!????

--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!!!!!!!

I think Longdraw is correct but I cannot find this anywhere in the documentation. I read and reread the terms of reference and it is not there.

In fact number 2 has changed as well. It originally read.

"Landowner should not bear the full cost of production and use of wildlife without compensation."

This is significantly different than the one they are pushing now.

Yes it sounds a lot like the Cypress program.

I have said it before and will keep saying it. This is all about money.

Bubba

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by LongDraw

3. No resident shall have to pay for access.

I have no documentation of this third principle, it was on the power point presentation at the last meeting. This may not be exactly how it was worded, but how I remember it.

[bruceba]

Thank-you to the handful of guys keeping us updated and current on all the subtle and not so subtle changes to this attempted privatization of our public wildlife resource. HFH ---> Open Spaces---> Paid for Hunting { that slipped out in Lethbridge} ---> Ranching for Wildlife ---> whats next? It's almost a week time for a new name.

Originally Posted by bruceba

Thank-you to the handful of guys keeping us updated and current on all the subtle and not so subtle changes to this attempted privatization of our public wildlife resource. HFH ---> Open Spaces---> Paid for Hunting { that slipped out in Lethbridge} ---> Ranching for Wildlife ---> whats next? It's almost a week time for a new name.

How about Open Wallets, or maybe Utah Junior.

Bubba’s take on the meeting is pretty close as I remember it.

I did have a conversation with the ranch manager from Deseret (whose name is eluding me right now). I most say I was impressed with his openness to answer questions and his wanting to know how a lot of hunters feel. Now if the people that were present during this conversation remember this better please correct me. I thought he was somewhat surprised when I told him that as someone that has hunted in the area my whole life it wasn’t that big of a deal that I can’t get on there and I have lots of access on other ranches with good hunting. He thought that was the big push from the hunters; to open access. I suggested that it would be nice but it is a landowners right to close access and if they need hunters then it is available to them as well. He passed on his reasoning for his support, and it has to do that he can’t just let guys run around out there unsupervised and that means he has to pay someone to “hold there hand” my words. It is a financial issue for them at least this way they do get compensated for the guy that he’ll have to pay to monitor and check on the hunters. He did mention that the elk on the ranch are a fairly new thing and that has him concerned but they do have a guide that is helping them with this. I don’t know the dynamics of this that well but Sonny on a previous post seems to have some first hand knowledge of it. Considering the management technique by SRD that has been used up until now (reducing the cows) compared to what they are proposing it would seem that there is some interaction between these two parties. He also invited me to phone him up anytime to clarify anything and I do intend to do that next week.

Just a couple of additions the study that they will use to support the demands on the land is called The Southern Alberta Foothills Study by Brad Stelfox and it really does look alarming when you put all those big dots and lines and areas for wind generation on a small map. Not to minimize this study but the demands on the land will still be there if this project is implemented.

I found it interesting when Blaine Marr spoke about how there are already some rather shady things going on in the neighbour hood with guides paying for exclusive access, and how in this latest cold spell how the elk would be coming to his hay stacks this morning. The funny part is that the APOS member took exception to the guide statement and the last time I was that way I’m sure I saw a high fence around his stacks which I’m sure if you approach SRD they’ll pay for. He also tried to say that the value of the land is such that long time landowners like him are being pressured to sell there land to the highest bidder and this would be bad for the hunters suggesting that these new recreational buyers would close access. But when asked later he would not say that with this added compensation that he wouldn’t sell anyway and I know at least one new landowner down that way that if you aren’t a total dud will let you on. It’s also interesting that whenever there is a landowner issue down that way that the same names come up time after time.

Another thing that bothered me with the meeting was that other than the project as the committee had come up with there was very little flexibility to hear options. I will say that one committee member did say that a lot of work had gone into what they have up to this time and it would be a shame to scrap it there was some analogy of a ladder and we’re just on the first or second step. I still like Bull Shooters analogy that if it looks and sounds and smells like a duck it probably is. To emphasize this Cormack brought up the ALUS program endorsed by Delta for another purpose early in the meeting. When the idea of paying directly for habitat retention rather than hunting came up it was roundly rejected, when I asked Mr. Burton his comment was that they didn’t like the idea of taking land out of production. Another point that I asked was where is the balance, are you a rancher or a game keeper. The response was that given the financial realities of the times if it would pay better he would become a trophy producer.

I've looked for the third principle but can't find it in anything I have, but I remember being surprised by it when I saw it at the meeting.

After that meeting and everything else that has gone on, my personal thoughts are that this has to become a media issue there is already a fair bit of resistance to this whole project that none of the committee has had to face in the last 12 months. The last three weeks for these guys must have been a bit of a blow. If anyone feels strong enough about it I would suggest sending letters to the editor of your favourite paper. The timing is ripe and we have to act quickly as the election could be called as early as Monday.

This was the Agenda for the meeting I’m sure any questions could be directed to anyone that was there. Once the open discussion got under way the meeting didn’t get back on track according to this agenda due mostly to the lack of support for the program from those there. So there wasn’t the discussion about point 4 that the committee was probably hoping for. They did try to get a commitment to do a local planning group but no one committed due to there lack of support for the project.

Land and Wildlife Stewardship Working Group Meeting
Agenda

1) Welcoming remarks and introductions (Chair: Rick Burton)

2) Context for discussing the OSA proposal: A brief review of the Land and Wildlife Stewardship initiative (origin, terms of reference, representation of interests, issues scoping, planning process)

Key emphasis: The OSA Proposal was a framework proposed at a policy innovation level, and was not intended to provide operational details for pilot programs.

Key questions:
When, how and by whom was the OSA proposal developed?
What problems did the Alberta LWS Working Group consider to be important?
What principles guided the WG’s deliberations?
What key information and precedents were considered?
What goals and outcomes were hoped for if pilot programs are successful?
Why didn’t WG members consult more with people in their interest sectors?
What types of communication and engagement actions could have improved communications and engagement?

3) Open discussion about the OSA proposal

4) Ways forward: Development of a southern Alberta-based planning team or other means?

Key questions:
Is moving the planning process for pilot programs to the local level desirable?
Who should be involved?
How can the broader interests of Albertan’s not residing in the local areas be incorporated?
How can the knowledge and experiences gained by the WG be shared best with a local planning group?

I agree with Mav. This has to go to the media. I, unlike some people, did not come out of the meeting with any confidence that it had been slowed down. I now have confirmed that it has been approved by the CPC. Even though when specifically asked if this had happened Rick Burton and Doug Manzer said no. I had pretty good information before I asked them that it had been approved. I asked them at least 3 times and even mentioned the specific date (December 6) that it was approved. This definitely set them aback but they still stood by the fact that it had not. Now that this is the case if I have understood correctly it is pretty much a done deal unless media pressure is really put on during the election. I plan on sending emails to MLA's with a CC to the Liberal opposition in each riding and most specifically in Ted Morton's. The more we get this out the better chance we have of stopping it.

Someone mentioned the native and Metis population. Bruceba is correct. They were never involved in the discussion. It was asked at the Lethbridge meeting. This has become commonplace the fact that all of this was done so quickly and quietly that nobody had input. I asked if the Huterittes had been contacted on the ridge and everyone said no. Why would they contact them? I also asked if Waterton Park had been involved in the discussion since they are the ones who really produce the wildlife in 300. Again the answer was why would they do that. Maybe they should find out if the park wants the elk herd to increase another 50%.

This has been rushed through so quickly even the most basic of things have not been taken care of.

Bubba

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by MAV

After that meeting and everything else that has gone on, my personal thoughts are that this has to become a media issue there is already a fair bit of resistance to this whole project that none of the committee has had to face in the last 12 months. The last three weeks for these guys must have been a bit of a blow. If anyone feels strong enough about it I would suggest sending letters to the editor of your favourite paper. The timing is ripe and we have to act quickly as the election could be called as early as Monday.

Seeing how there is an election looming have any of the most recent facts about Open Spaces been passed on to the opposition parties - ie the Liberals, NDP etc.?

Originally Posted by Duk Dog

Seeing how there is an election looming have any of the most recent facts about Open Spaces been passed on to the opposition parties - ie the Liberals, NDP etc.?

I know it has gone to the Liberals. They have a poted a release. Here is the link.

http://alc.whitematter.ca/index.php/..._for_land_use/

Bubba

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

I know it has gone to the Liberals. They have a poted a release. Here is the link.

http://alc.whitematter.ca/index.php/..._for_land_use/

Bubba

Good to see, but hopefully they will go public in a fashion bigger than just their web page. What has been lost in this, if I am not mistaken, is that all recreational users of private land will be impacted - not just hunters like they mention on their web page.

[The_Pale_Rider]

Neil Waugh made a comment about it in his Outdoors column yesterday in the Sun.

I have just confirmed that this has not only been approved by CPC but also by cabinet. Also confirmed that it does not have to go to the legislature. It has now progressed to the point where local interest groups will be working with SRD to put some substance to it. Not sure how this will work (since all of the local groups oppose this pilot) or if what we have been doing constitutes putting substance to it. The Minister is supposedly waiting for input before it is put into effect. So let's give him some input. Not sure if this one works ted.morton@gov.ab.ca can also send it to foothills.rockyview@assembly.ab.ca may as well cc it to the Liberal candidate (Herb Coburn) in his riding as well hhcoburn@telus.net

Bubba

Besides the conservatives losing the election is there any other way to get this thing squashed?

[bowchaser]

how many letters have you written, or emails sent? The PC's losing will never happen, so we need to bring attention to this. Every mla is concerned about their own ridings so call up yours and give 'em an earful.

Nobody here has any business crying about this if you've done nothing to try to stop it. It takes 15 mins at most to put a letter or email together and another 5 to send them out. Get on it!

Originally Posted by bowchaser

how many letters have you written, or emails sent? The PC's losing will never happen, so we need to bring attention to this. Every mla is concerned about their own ridings so call up yours and give 'em an earful.

Nobody here has any business crying about this if you've done nothing to try to stop it. It takes 15 mins at most to put a letter or email together and another 5 to send them out. Get on it!

I have written a pile of letters.

[bowchaser]

great, but I think a lot of guys here unfortunately like to complain alot without doing anything themselves.

[packhuntr]

Letters are fine i think, but why not do something with a little meat to it. Why not start something like regional petitions??? Have binders dropped off at sporting goods stores, gas stations etc...Get a whole bunch of voices on one sheet of paper. Strength in numbers.

keep a strain on er.

[bowchaser]

sounds good, let us know when they're up and running...

[packhuntr]

Where in any of my posts bowchaser did you find evidence that i might be retired, semi wealthy, and able to devote my time to something like that?? If someone could have looked into their magic ball and seen this coming, I most definately would have done something like that in my area. It would no doubt would have had to have been about removing APOS big game outfitters from the southern half of the province, as well as putting much needed restriction on the bird outfitters as well. But,,,,,,,anyone who spoke out about all the bad that was going on or wanted to see change, was chastized, called a liar, and shunned by their peers. I believe its too late now, and i think we may have made our bed, now we get to sleep in it. I was only thinking that a petition may have abit more clout, if something like that could be done.

keep a strain on er.

Gentlemen don't worry what you could have done then, worry about what you can do now. If writing letters is all that you do at least you'll be able to say you did something, no regrets, it will be the ones that did nothing that will have the regrets. This is an opportunity to work together to try and accomplish something.

[bruceba]

I just heard that the days afield will now include Wednesday making for a 4 day a week hunt in 108 which is just what the landowners need another day to contend with people asking permission. Or could be better business to have a client feel their getting their dollars worth per user days. I could be wrong, any one else hear this.

[MuleyMonster]

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

Sorry but I finally got through reading all the post and the document that you attached outlining the program. Did you post or do you have the most recent version with the changes or a link. Sorry if I missed the post but there is a lot of good discussion and I want to e-mail my MLA and ask what his position on this is. Thanks

Mulleymonster,

Here is a link to download the file http://www.mediafire.com/?0dyxwzz5cn9

Bubba

[MuleyMonster]

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

Mulleymonster,

Here is a link to download the file http://www.mediafire.com/?0dyxwzz5cn9

Bubba

Sorry to bother again but I thought I read that the wording had been changed from hunting/fishing to recreation use. The comment I thought was made that the landowner could let hikers in during the summer months and in affect close it down to hunters other than outfitters during hunting season. Can't find the post but do not see the wording that I thought was changed. Sorry but just trying to get all my facts straight in my letter to a couple of MLA's. Thanks

Originally Posted by MuleyMonster

Sorry to bother again but I thought I read that the wording had been changed from hunting/fishing to recreation use. The comment I thought was made that the landowner could let hikers in during the summer months and in affect close it down to hunters other than outfitters during hunting season. Can't find the post but do not see the wording that I thought was changed. Sorry but just trying to get all my facts straight in my letter to a couple of MLA's. Thanks

I cannot find this either. I think it has gone opposite of what you are saying. It started out as recreational use then changed hunting/fishing. Originaly it said "provide compensation to landowners for providing recreational access to the public" Now it states "landowners commit to provide access opportunities for hunting and fishing by contract"

Hope this helps.

Bubba

[MuleyMonster]

Thanks I understand now. Keep up the good work and thanks for your time and effort.

[qballs]

What would happen with the RAMP program if I got together with a friend who had, say 10 sections of land, and registered as a hunter on his place every day of the season. He could get $1500 or so from me being "on there". Maybe I can get him to split it with me? Seems like a large loophole to figure out.

[gonefishin]

Originally Posted by qballs

What would happen with the RAMP program if I got together with a friend who had, say 10 sections of land, and registered as a hunter on his place every day of the season. He could get $1500 or so from me being "on there". Maybe I can get him to split it with me? Seems like a large loophole to figure out.

Even if he did split it with you, you're still paying to hunt on his land, just at half price....and what kind of friend would he be?

[qballs]

Except for the fact that he would be getting the $20 per day from the government...$10 for him and $10 for me.

Q you have identified one of the many gaping holes in one of the programs. The pilot stinks to high heaven and many on this board have already pointed out gaps, inequities and areas open to corruption and abuse in both programs. One of the most glaring in the HFH is the notion of comparable access.

I was at the Lethbridge meeting and many of these very holes were questioned by the hunters at the table. The SRD boys and the facilitraitor from the U of C had no answers. At the end of the meeting they emphasized that 'flesh needed to be put on the bones' and they really, really wanted our help in making it a locally driven pilot that addressed all these things. It somehow became the responsibility of the opposed to make it work. My buddy asked how he could be of any use in further talks to make it work when he was adamantly opposed to the whole thing.

Once money is involved the corruption gates open wide.