Paid Hunting in Alberta?

[209x50]

Originally Posted by chuck

What if, what if, what if. What if you quit shouting chicken**** comments from the back row and come up with something to back your position? Which is what exactly? Huh?

You are correct, I haven't stated my opinion good or bad. I don't have enough information to make up my mind yet. I've read everything you have, I just have a lot more questions that need answering and I'm amazed at the issues that have you folks riled and the ones none of you have mentioned.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by 340wtby

If this were true this thread wouldn't be 8 pages long.

There are less than 50 unique posters on this thread. Take out the top 5 posters and this thread is half as long. Is 50 people (and not all agree with you) enough for you to call the majority?

Originally Posted by 209x50

No I haven't. Please tell me what the results of YOUR poll is.
Yeah I thought so. Look I'm just pointing out that none of us know what Joe Hunter thinks of this.

Well i would say that most of us on here are "Joe Hunter" and most of us think this is stupid.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by 209x50

You are correct, I haven't stated my opinion good or bad. I don't have enough information to make up my mind yet. I've read everything you have, I just have a lot more questions that need answering and I'm amazed at the issues that have you folks riled and the ones none of you have mentioned.

So have you tried to get any of your MANY OTHER questions answered??? I am sure we all very a bit in thought and opions as well as the questions that we come up with, so get em out there. DON'T just take the back seat and what rolls out!!!!

[Rust]

Originally Posted by 209x50

There are less than 50 unique posters on this thread. Take out the top 5 posters and this thread is half as long. Is 50 people (and not all agree with you) enough for you to call the majority?

So how many ppl do you know outside of this forum that know about this pilot project???

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Rust

So have you tried to get any of your MANY OTHER questions answered??? I am sure we all very a bit in thought and opions as well as the questions that we come up with, so get em out there. DON'T just take the back seat and what rolls out!!!!

Of course I have. I've got some answers and still seek others.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Of course I have. I've got some answers and still seek others.

Great, keep the info coming.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Rust

So how many ppl do you know outside of this forum that know about this pilot project???

I'm amazed at how many people have approached me. My first knowledge of the project was someone asking me for information.
I think one of the fundamental problems highlighted by this thread is terrible lack of understanding of the process.
You might want to find out who started this and why. A look at the starting position papers and the roles of the various participants might open a few eyes too.

[BUD]

Originally Posted by lurch

I just got out of a local Fish & Game meeting, and it appears that this is indeed something that we need to be highly aware of.

One of the fellows from the zone came to the meeting and said that there have been back room talks with stake holders outlining very fuzzy directions about access and landowner initiatives. Apparently several stakeholders were asked to vote on the principles. They pretty much received the support from all parties involved

He also mentioned that there were meetings held that outlined a possible "test run" of two new plans.

The first one centers around how landowners would be eligible for "compensation" if they allow hunting, something like if you allowed a person on you would fill out a form (chit)with particulars & submit them to the govt for compensation. There would be a cap on each quarter for compensation.

The second is even scarier, they are talking about compensation to landowners who typically have not allowed hunting. The catch is they would allow a certain # of the tags for given species directly to the landowner. These would then be able to be sold. The example used was if there were 100 tags for antlered mule deer allotted in a WMU & 25 % of the land in that WMU were held by a landowner who previously did not allow hunting to the public, that landowner would be eligible for 25 tags to be distributed as they wished. They would have to in turn allow hunting to the general public on this land.


They are talking this will be a pilot project run in wmu 108 and wmu 300 in the 2008 season. The current Stelmach government under Morton's direction is looking at order in council to enact this. SRD released this information at a meeting apparently.

I do not know much about the details yet, as none of the information surrounding this is public knowledge. It sounds as though the government is going to try to enact legislation for the 2008 hunting season. I will advise if I hear any other details.

I can't tell you how ****ed I am. This govt needs to have their arses booted so far out of power......

If anyone has any means of getting more information on this, time is of the essence. This is the first step towards paid hunting......

like the Dune said in big bold print , VOTE CONSERVATIVE , HAAAaaaaaaa

.

[Duk Dog]

Hard to say what to think without the facts. (rather than hear say) I think the troublesome part is not knowing the facts until it is already a done deal. It is too bad there hasn't been any feedback from the various interest groups involved to their membership. (ie AFGA)

Originally Posted by lurch

I find it surprising that no one has a "position" but yet this seems to move forward at a fairly brisk clip....

I think the only thing moving at fairly brisk clip, is this thread.
No one knows anything more about this than when I left Calgary. But yet we are calling for heads to be placed on stakes and a ton of people are running around screaming the sky is falling.

As it was relayed to me, that this would be similar to the CRP program run in the USA. Basically that program pays farmers NOT to destroy wildlife habitat for farming.

I was fortunate enough to watch a program down here the other night that really explained what the CRP is and how it benefits all hunters and landowners.
Both sides (hunters and landowners) are fighting congress right now to extend this program.

Jamie

[Vindalbakken]

There is a big difference between any initiatives that we may strike here in Canada and the CRP program as it relates to wildlife. CRP is a purely agricultural initiative. As an agricultural subsidy program it is one of the largest in scope in the world both in terms of acres and dollars. As the US govt. expands the markets for grain commodities - especially through the promulgation of methanol fuel - there will be less interest in extending the program. The key difference though between the buy in by US farmers to the CRP and the buy in by Canadian farmers to similar issues came when the farmers began to realize how much income they could earn from the sale of hunting rights. You can't sell hunting rights to non-existent game, but once the habitat grew back from taking the land out of production the game animals flourished and the hunting leases became valuable. The landowners who have established huntable populations and are benefitting from the sale of access will fight the erosion of the CRP program because without the CRP dollars the wildlife income will not support alone. But on top of the full income CRP subsidy it is a pretty good sideline.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by 209X50

What if the majority of Alberta hunters think this is a great program?

Just a simple observation folks no need for name calling. There are less than 1/2 of a percent of Alberta hunters registered on this board. How would any of you know what the majority wants?
By all means write your letters and demand the Alberta government stops trying to get hunters access to private lands.

No I haven't. Please tell me what the results of YOUR poll is.
Yeah I thought so. Look I'm just pointing out that none of us know what Joe Hunter thinks of this.

You are correct, I haven't stated my opinion good or bad. I don't have enough information to make up my mind yet. I've read everything you have, I just have a lot more questions that need answering and I'm amazed at the issues that have you folks riled and the ones none of you have mentioned.

There are less than 50 unique posters on this thread. Take out the top 5 posters and this thread is half as long. Is 50 people (and not all agree with you) enough for you to call the majority?

Of course I have. I've got some answers and still seek others.

I'm amazed at how many people have approached me. My first knowledge of the project was someone asking me for information.
I think one of the fundamental problems highlighted by this thread is terrible lack of understanding of the process.
You might want to find out who started this and why. A look at the starting position papers and the roles of the various participants might open a few eyes too.

Ever consider running for office 209X50? I've rarely seen anyone that can talk so much and yet say so little.

If you don't have a position, or you are unwilling to state your position as seems to be the case, why post at all? What benefit do potshots from the peanut gallery provide?

If you have a position, and I don't think it's too difficult for anyone to read between the lines, why not simply state it, with the caveat that it's preliminary based on the currently available info (obviously) and provide some support for your position?

If you truly have addtional information and the inside track you claim, why not share it? Why not try to educate the people here so they can improve their understanding of the process? Why not point out the issues you think are important and being overlooked?

I think this thread is very representative of "Joe Hunter". This board represents the entire hunting community, in fact, I think it's about as good a representation as you could hope for, and I don't think there's any doubting that the majority oppose this plan (see the poll if you doubt it). True, only a small percentage of the hunting community are members here, but what percentage of voters do you think are involved in the polls done at election time? We'll never know for sure what the majority wants unless we hold a vote on the issue, that's just smoke. However, it's more than reasonable to extrapolate based on a representative sample. It's simple statistics.

Waxy

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by TreeGuy
While you are condeming the fact that MAYBE after the next 5 years landowners will be allowed to sell tags for their OWN land, but at the same time most will acknowledge that illegal payments are being made now!

We are NOT going to know how this works until the trial period is up. To say that paid hunting in Alberta is not happening right now is naive. Lets put a light on it and see if we can't find a way to manage it in a manner that best suits the habitat, the wildlife, the landowners and the resident hunters.

I notice that this post by TreeGuy was deleted, but I have to comment regardless. I realize there's devil's advocate involved here, but this logic is extremely poor.

Reductio ad absurdum alert!!!!

There's theft going on all the time, we can't seem to stop it, so rather than keeping theft illegal, maybe we should simply try to manage it.

Clearly that line of logic makes no sense. If there's illegal activity going on, put an end to the illegal activity.

As for seeing the progam through to truly know the results. That's undeniable. However, in my opinion, the entire philosophy of the program is flawed, regardless of the results, and that is what should be addressed.

Waxy

[LongDraw]

Guys,

Keep one thing in mind; there are two seperate programs here that are apparently being partnered together under the guise of the Open Spaces Pilot Program;

The Recreational Access Management Program (RAMP) - This is the program that pays landowners for each WIN card holder that they allow on their land. Maximum of $2000 per section or landowner.

The Hunting for Habitat (HFH) program- This is the program that issues vouchers (tags) to RAMP participating landowners to sell. From 15%to 25% of the resident tag quota, depending on landowner participation in the RAMP program. Seems there is no cap on the dollar ammount they can sel the voucher for, they can market directly to residents, or to outfitters to sell to non-residents.

[209x50]

Ever consider running for office 209X50? I've rarely seen anyone that can talk so much and yet say so little.
I KNEW you never read what you write!
What pot shots are there in what you've quoted?

The Recreational Access Management Program (RAMP) - This is the program that pays landowners for each WIN card holder that they allow on their land.

I can see all the landowners that don't allow hunting gathering together to use each others WIN number to maximize the payment,without actually allowing anyone on their land.

The Hunting for Habitat (HFH) program- This is the program that issues vouchers (tags) to RAMP participating landowners to sell. From 15%to 25% of the resident tag quota, depending on landowner participation in the RAMP program. Seems there is no cap on the dollar ammount they can sel the voucher for, they can market directly to residents, or to outfitters to sell to non-residents.

Create a legal market and the bidding wars will start,even if a standard price is set by the authorities.

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by stubblejumper

I can see all the landowners that don't allow hunting gathering together to use each others WIN number to maximize the payment,without actually allowing anyone on their land.

I find it a stretch that someone who owns a sections of land in Southern Alberta that does not currently allow hunting will allow hunting now because they could recieve a maximum of $2000 through the RAMP program? But at least this is a start. Who knows, it could initiate a change with some landowners.

It is unfortunate that the RAMP program will be tainted by the HFH program.
Two entirely different initiatives, yet administered under the same pilot program.

[Vindalbakken]

Originally Posted by Waxy

I realize there's devil's advocate involved here, but this logic is extremely poor.

Reductio ad absurdum alert!!!!

There's theft going on all the time, we can't seem to stop it, so rather than keeping theft illegal, maybe we should simply try to manage it.

Clearly that line of logic makes no sense. If there's illegal activity going on, put an end to the illegal activity.

Actually, the logic is poor, but the question is valid. We have laws which address many aspects of life as a communal society. The fact that the activities are ongoing speaks to the need for the law. Should all illegal activities cease to exist the need for laws themselves would cease to exist. Ever present with the existence of laws is the requirement for policing to enforce the laws and the difficulties associated with enforcement. The law themselves exist as a reflection of the will of the people who make up the society and the cost of policing the laws is borne by those same people - whose ability (and certainly willingness) to pay is somewhat limited. We have seen many examples where laws were changed to reflect a change in attitude of the people - sometimes because of a difficulty in enforcement that was deemed no longer worth the fight such as with prohibition. We have a segment of society applying the same logic now to marijuana laws. We have seen the relaxing of laws pertaining to gambling in our society here in Alberta. At the same time other laws are becoming more restrictive such as the smoking and trans fat bylaws.

The question is, are we as a society ready to give up our traditional right to free access to the people's game. I am not.

I find it a stretch that someone who owns a sections of land in Southern Alberta that does not currently allow hunting will allow hunting now because they could recieve a maximum of $2000 through the RAMP program? But at least this is a start. Who knows, it could initiate a change with some landowners.

My point exactly.The landowner that doesn't allow hunting on his land can use WIN numbers of family or friends,or other landowners that don't allow hunting,to collect the money while still not allowing anyone to hunt on his land.

Originally Posted by stubblejumper

My point exactly.The landowner that doesn't allow hunting on his land can use WIN numbers of family or friends,or other landowners that don't allow hunting,to collect the money while still not allowing anyone to hunt on his land.

That is a good point, there is nothing stopping them from doing this. What about the landowner who does hunt. Would they get compensated for hunting their own land?

[gunslinger]

I live in the north and there are lots of land owners that dont give permisiion to hunt on there land, and im sure in the southern part of the province there is too.
All this talk has me wondering and im jsut speculating here....i have never in 15 years been able to hunt the mcintyre ranch, but now if go to him and he says hey partner that will be 20$ a day to hunt here,, and you know fully well that there is huge deer in there are you really not gonna give him his money not to hunt on there.
We dont have any ranches and stuff like this up here that are that big but i think i woudl be one of the guys that would pay to hunt on the land.....
Am i wrong or am i gonna be judged by this, if it goes through it is gonna be legal if i decided to do it. i love to hunt where i have a chance at a book animal no matter where it is.
I dont hunt down south but to me i am willing that if this goes through for 5 years there is going to be alot of guys on here that are doing the talking , gonna be taking some real dandies off them ranches....am i wrong or am i gonna be judged for paying the money the farmer wants for me to hunt on there, ,is it any different than paying for a sonora mule deer hunt, or any hunt for that matter.
Fire away guys i probably deserve it.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by LongDraw

Guys,

Keep one thing in mind; there are two seperate programs here that are apparently being partnered together under the guise of the Open Spaces Pilot Program;

The Recreational Access Management Program (RAMP) - This is the program that pays landowners for each WIN card holder that they allow on their land. Maximum of $2000 per section or landowner.

This I see as being really trivial.

I don't think a MAXIMUM of $2000 in incentives will have much impact at all, if any. Realistically, the numbers are probably going to be a lot closer to $50 or $100 per landowner, and that isn't going to change anyone's mind about access.

The Hunting for Habitat (HFH) program- This is the program that issues vouchers (tags) to RAMP participating landowners to sell. From 15%to 25% of the resident tag quota, depending on landowner participation in the RAMP program. Seems there is no cap on the dollar ammount they can sel the voucher for, they can market directly to residents, or to outfitters to sell to non-residents.

This is the one I think most here are strongly opposed to.

Waxy

Originally Posted by 209x50

No I haven't. Please tell me what the results of YOUR poll is.
Yeah I thought so. Look I'm just pointing out that none of us know what Joe Hunter thinks of this.

The results of my poll can be viewed on this forum. Please take the opportunity to vote it closes in a week.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by stubblejumper

My point exactly.The landowner that doesn't allow hunting on his land can use WIN numbers of family or friends,or other landowners that don't allow hunting,to collect the money while still not allowing anyone to hunt on his land.

Very true.

Designing a program that can't be abused in some way is almost impossible, but it would seem that this one is easy pickings. Hopefully there will be some regulations involved to at least minimize abuse.

Waxy

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by Vindalbakken

Actually, the logic is poor, but the question is valid. We have laws which address many aspects of life as a communal society. The fact that the activities are ongoing speaks to the need for the law. Should all illegal activities cease to exist the need for laws themselves would cease to exist. Ever present with the existence of laws is the requirement for policing to enforce the laws and the difficulties associated with enforcement. The law themselves exist as a reflection of the will of the people who make up the society and the cost of policing the laws is borne by those same people - whose ability (and certainly willingness) to pay is somewhat limited. We have seen many examples where laws were changed to reflect a change in attitude of the people - sometimes because of a difficulty in enforcement that was deemed no longer worth the fight such as with prohibition. We have a segment of society applying the same logic now to marijuana laws. We have seen the relaxing of laws pertaining to gambling in our society here in Alberta. At the same time other laws are becoming more restrictive such as the smoking and trans fat bylaws.

The question is, are we as a society ready to give up our traditional right to free access to the people's game. I am not.

I agree, and that's the point we're at.

There's really only two options as far as I'm concerned. Paid hunting is either legal in AB or it's not.

If the majority (or the powerful minority) of those involved and voting are in favour of legalizing paid hunting, then that's the direction it will go, because as you say, it only takes the stroke of a pen to legalize what is currently illegal.

My primary point was that simply because something illegal is happening is a very poor reason to legalize it.

Society's attitudes change, and as a result, so do it's laws. I don't think society's attitudes toward paid hunting have changed.

Waxy

All this talk has me wondering and im jsut speculating here....i have never in 15 years been able to hunt the mcintyre ranch, but now if go to him and he says hey partner that will be 20$ a day to hunt here,, and you know fully well that there is huge deer in there are you really not gonna give him his money not to hunt on there.

So what are you going to do when the landowner has everyone line up on opening morning,and then auctions off the access or the tag to the highest bidder?That $20 a day might easily become $500 or more per day,or $5000 for the tag.

[TreeGuy]

Excellent pick up, Waxy, on the Tree= Just trying to add a different perspective to an educational and entertaining thread. Personally, I don't really like the idea of paid access, but can see the potential for good in a program like this, but that's just me. As for.....

Originally Posted by Waxy

If there's illegal activity going on, put an end to the illegal activity.

......if it was that simple, Waxy, there would never be any crime. However, reality, unfortunately proves othewise. If landowners are given the opportunity to sell a couple of tags to have a publicly owned resource harvested from their property (Hey, that DOES sound like oil and gas and timber, hmmmm) then it's going to pretty quickly dry up the 'under the table' activities.

To read some of the retoric being tossed around is rather amusing. What do you think, that we're all going to have to pay $10K to tag a deer on private land? Or that all of the tags will be sold to non-residents?

The program is (like any pilot) being used to

a.) Let the market determine a price point
b.) Determine the ratio of resident vs non res. purchasers
c.) See the harvest numbers on previouly uncounted lands

It will be after the trial is over, when the real plan either is implemented or scrapped. That is most likely why it has been quietly limited to a handful of landowners. Easier to scrap it if that will only effect a few.

Once the final numbers are in, and IF they decide to proceed, that will be when the consultations will take place. Until such time is upon us, everything is just speculation.

Happy New Years!
Tree

Originally Posted by gunslinger

All this talk has me wondering and im jsut speculating here....i have never in 15 years been able to hunt the mcintyre ranch, but now if go to him and he says hey partner that will be 20$ a day to hunt here,, and you know fully well that there is huge deer in there are you really not gonna give him his money not to hunt on there.
Fire away guys i probably deserve it.

if you think that $20/day is going to entice Mr. McIntyre to allow you to hunt on that ranch i think you are dreaming. I can only imagine what the prices of these tags would be worth. From your other posts i assume that you are an outfitter, if i am wrong let me know. What is the going rate for a muley hunt on the milk river ridge, $5000? Not sure the exact price. So if an outfitter is selling for this price, why wouldn't the landowner? And then those of us who can't afford to pay this, not only do not get access to the land we also lose those tags from the amount that get drawn each year. That is the problem i have with this whole thing.