buck for wildlife.... scam?

Sneeze · #1 03-15-2010, 01:53 PM

Had a few questions for those in the know about buck-for-wildlife area's.

How much does the government pay per area? Is it a pretty lucrative deal?

Ran into a farmer last Pheasant season with an area of land set aside as buck for wildlife. The piece of land was too good to be true, I would estimate around 1/4 section of land, that he had totally left to the birds.

When I approached the farmer in regards to hunting on the piece of land, I was basically run off with a pitchfork, and threatened with charges if I drove up his driveway again. I was told nobody hunts there, 100 percent off limits.

Opening day I get to watch 2 large groups working the area with dogs, handlers, etc. It smelled fishy.

Some of you may be familiar with the piece of land I am talking about... not wanting to give away the pheasant area, its in the South Country, just off the highway in the creek valley.

Whats this fellow up too? Should I raise a flag with SRD? Do I need more evidence? Or am I just bitter that a farmer gets to be payed by all hunters to maintain a prime pheasant spot for his buddies (perhaps paid buddies)?

Blackwolf · #2 03-15-2010, 02:05 PM

smells to me... maybe ask the farmer first?

Sneeze · #3 03-15-2010, 02:23 PM

Me: "Excuse me man with pitchfork that wants to kill me..."

Farmer: "ROAR"

Me: "Just wanted to ask you if you are illegally allowing paid hunting on the buck for wildlife?"

Farmer: "Your a dead man!"

Me: (while running for my life) "Well if you are not doing that, is it not a conflict of interest to take money from the buck-for-wildlife program to maintain a prime area of habitat for the sole use of your friends?"

Farmer: " My great grand dad purchased this land in 1845 for 6 cents! I inherited it therefore I am the duke around here kid! You want to hunt, you pay tithe! Or else you find the 4.5 million dollars it would take to purchase it!"

HunterDave · #4 03-15-2010, 02:25 PM

Yeah, I've been wondering basically the same thing about a piece of land just north of Lac LaNonne. It's well signed with Buck for Wildlife signs as well as with no hunting signs. On quite a few occasions I've seen hunters going in and out of that land like it's no one business, they're not even trying to be sneaky about it. I don't know if these guys are trespassing or what. It just seems odd to me that's all.

I don't know the first thing about the Buck for Wildlife program so I guess that I should start with finding that out. What do they do, purchase land to support wildlife now and in the future?

HunterDave · #5 03-15-2010, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sneeze

Me: "Excuse me man with pitchfork that wants to kill me..."

Farmer: "ROAR"

Me: "Just wanted to ask you if you are illegally allowing paid hunting on the buck for wildlife?"

Farmer: "Your a dead man!"

Me: (while running for my life) "Well if you are not doing that, is it not a conflict of interest to take money from the buck-for-wildlife program to maintain a prime area of habitat for the sole use of your friends?"

Farmer: " My great grand dad purchased this land in 1845 for 6 cents! I inherited it therefore I am the duke around here kid! You want to hunt, you pay tithe! Or else you find the 4.5 million dollars it would take to purchase it!"

No, I think that you'd be better off contacting the Buck for Wildlife folks.

HunterDave · #6 03-15-2010, 02:31 PM

http://www.landstewardship.org/pgview.asp?id=98

Buck for Wildlife
Objective

To enhance and conserve wildlife and fisheries habitat for the benefit of all Albertans. To retain, enhance and create fish and wildlife habitat.
Program Type

* Wildlife habitat conservation
* funding programs

Synopsis

Managed by the Alberta Conservation Association, the Buck for Wildlife program was started by the provincial government in 1973. The title of the program stems from the fact that program funding has traditionally come from a levy placed on angling and hunting licences, so that an extra dollar (or 'buck') would be put into enhancement projects that would otherwise not be possible. Buck for Wildlife-funded projects typically include riparian habitat enhancement, purchases or leases of wildlife habitat, tree plantings, grassland restoration and wildlife species inventories.

Eligibility

Anyone or non-profit organization with a habitat enhancement related project may apply for Buck for Wildlife funding. Often outdoor recreation organizations or fish and game clubs submit proposals. Contact the Alberta Conservation Association for application criteria, deadlines and information on current projects in your area.
Please Contact

1. Alberta Conservation Association
Offices throughout the province (see website)
Alberta Canada
(780) 427-5192

cohod · #7 03-15-2010, 02:33 PM

try contacting A C A

http://www.ab-conservation.com/go/default/index.cfm

I believe they are looking after the buck for wild life sites,

as I understand it:
some buck for wild life do still reacquire farmer permission, depends on if they have sold or leased the land and to the buck for wild life program.

I could be wrong though...

cohod

fish_e_o · #8 03-15-2010, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Yeah, I've been wondering basically the same thing about a piece of land just north of Lac LaNonne. It's well signed with Buck for Wildlife signs as well as with no hunting signs. On quite a few occasions I've seen hunters going in and out of that land like it's no one business, they're not even trying to be sneaky about it. I don't know if these guys are trespassing or what. It just seems odd to me that's all.

I don't know the first thing about the Buck for Wildlife program so I guess that I should start with finding that out. What do they do, purchase land to support wildlife now and in the future?

well i hear you can't even hunt on your own land if you have no hunting signs up

citation needed.

NCC · #9 03-15-2010, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

well i hear you can't even hunt on your own land if you have no hunting signs up

citation needed.

You heard wrong. There has been a few multi page threads dedicated to the subject.

Sooner · #10 03-15-2010, 05:35 PM

We used to hunt deer in zone 204 by Stettler. Lots of buck for wildlife's there. Over half would be posted no hunting, most would not let you on. We would have to hunt the crown land ones because of it. ****ed the hell off alot of hunters back then, probably still does. Not sure how you can have a big buck for wildlife sign proudly displaying your family name and then say no to any hunter that asks. If I remember right it was a portion of our licence fee that went to these projects.

Vindalbakken · #11 03-15-2010, 06:07 PM

Most of the landowner negotiations that happened around here some 25 years ago with Bucks for Wildlife centered around the access issue. The desireable tracts of land were that way because the people who owned them were concerned about the animals and were leaving land for them. Much of that land was off limits to hunting because of the mindset of the folks owning them. The land was changing hands and farming was beginning to feel some pinches and these desireable pieces of property were disappearing to the bulldozer. The only way to get the current owners to agree to a conservation easement was to have them retain full right of access and in most cases that meant that land remained off limits to hunting. It was an affront to those folks to consider that you would preserve land and habitat for the animals only so that you could shoot them. My experience with these properties is that they are too small to fully contain animal populations but they do provide a secure home habitat for them. There is excellent spill over effect in bordering lands for hunting, many of which are more than willing to allow folks on to mitigate the damage by marauding animals. Unless the tracts are huge there is usually a net gain to the hunting community.

Now, if a person is actually taking our money to develop and maintain habitat and then using it for his own personal hunting preserve or for that of select persons -- that is repugnent behavior.

crawfy · #12 03-15-2010, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sneeze

Had a few questions for those in the know about buck-for-wildlife area's.

How much does the government pay per area? Is it a pretty lucrative deal?

Ran into a farmer last Pheasant season with an area of land set aside as buck for wildlife. The piece of land was too good to be true, I would estimate around 1/4 section of land, that he had totally left to the birds.

When I approached the farmer in regards to hunting on the piece of land, I was basically run off with a pitchfork, and threatened with charges if I drove up his driveway again. I was told nobody hunts there, 100 percent off limits.

Opening day I get to watch 2 large groups working the area with dogs, handlers, etc. It smelled fishy.

Some of you may be familiar with the piece of land I am talking about... not wanting to give away the pheasant area, its in the South Country, just off the highway in the creek valley.

Whats this fellow up too? Should I raise a flag with SRD? Do I need more evidence? Or am I just bitter that a farmer gets to be payed by all hunters to maintain a prime pheasant spot for his buddies (perhaps paid buddies)?

been there done that with the same results around the Magrath area i assume.

Zimmerling · #13 05-09-2010, 07:46 PM

Sorry I am late to this discussion, but I would be very interested in the details of any properties that you are coming across that have Buck for Wildlife signs, but don't allow hunting. Money may have been put into these properties in the past, however, our standard policy now is that "reasonable access" should be allowed on any property that ACA puts money into. Obviously there will be a few exceptions, but I would like to look into the examples that each of you are mentioning and determine what is going on.

If you don't want to make your property details public please e-mail me (todd.zimmerling@ab-conservation.com) and I will see what I can find out regarding the agreements realting to the properties. It is possible that these are old signs and there is no longer a management agreement in place?

hal53 · #14 05-09-2010, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zimmerling

Sorry I am late to this discussion, but I would be very interested in the details of any properties that you are coming across that have Buck for Wildlife signs, but don't allow hunting. Money may have been put into these properties in the past, however, our standard policy now is that "reasonable access" should be allowed on any property that ACA puts money into. Obviously there will be a few exceptions, but I would like to look into the examples that each of you are mentioning and determine what is going on.

If you don't want to make your property details public please e-mail me (todd.zimmerling@ab-conservation.com) and I will see what I can find out regarding the agreements realting to the properties. It is possible that these are old signs and there is no longer a management agreement in place?

why would there be "a few exceptions" it's our dollars that are paying to access these lands???...don't see Joe whoever contributing money here???? .... it's becoming more prevalent here in my area ???? so what do you guys actually do?????

#15 05-09-2010, 08:23 PM

Exceptions would include, but not limited to...

Fish Feathers Game · #16 05-09-2010, 08:32 PM

"It is possible that these are old signs and there is no longer a management agreement in place?"
I think this sums up the case here Todd. The signs on this piece of property have been there for a very long time! I do not know if the sign has been replaced over the years but I know its been there for years. I'm pretty sure this was habitat under an agreement at the time but as many places and private land owners change their mind over time, the agreement is no longer in place. This has happened many times over the years with the Lethbridge Fish and Game also leasing land from land owners only to have that land leased to someone else with a different mind set - grazing and no regards for habitat. The difference on this piece is that it is still habitat and provides a haven for some birds to escape the hunters and live on to provide all of us more birds the following year and besides, its too close to the highway! I have talked to the land owner and he just wants some land for wildlife. There is another piece several miles north on the highway and the landowner there does the same thing. He leaves a piece of land with no grazing or disturbance of any kind but also without any hunting. It is a place he says the animals need to get away!

Jimboy · #17 05-09-2010, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fish Feathers Game

"It is possible that these are old signs and there is no longer a management agreement in place?"
I think this sums up the case here Todd. The signs on this piece of property have been there for a very long time! I do not know if the sign has been replaced over the years but I know its been there for years. I'm pretty sure this was habitat under an agreement at the time but as many places and private land owners change their mind over time, the agreement is no longer in place. This has happened many times over the years with the Lethbridge Fish and Game also leasing land from land owners only to have that land leased to someone else with a different mind set - grazing and no regards for habitat. The difference on this piece is that it is still habitat and provides a haven for some birds to escape the hunters and live on to provide all of us more birds the following year and besides, its too close to the highway! I have talked to the land owner and he just wants some land for wildlife. There is another piece several miles north on the highway and the landowner there does the same thing. He leaves a piece of land with no grazing or disturbance of any kind but also without any hunting. It is a place he says the animals need to get away!

you mean a private zoo

Sneeze · #18 05-09-2010, 09:05 PM

I just can't see to many farmers/ranchers keeping up a buck-for-wildlife sign too long after the lease agreement has expired. For hunters, the sign is like a magnet... it brings people onto your land legally or illegally. If your not benefiting from the sign... your not gonna tolerate the increased traffic for very long.

Its nice to see the heat this thread is putting on the crooks tho.

HunterDave · #19 05-09-2010, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zimmerling

Sorry I am late to this discussion, but I would be very interested in the details of any properties that you are coming across that have Buck for Wildlife signs, but don't allow hunting. Money may have been put into these properties in the past, however, our standard policy now is that "reasonable access" should be allowed on any property that ACA puts money into. Obviously there will be a few exceptions, but I would like to look into the examples that each of you are mentioning and determine what is going on.

If you don't want to make your property details public please e-mail me (todd.zimmerling@ab-conservation.com) and I will see what I can find out regarding the agreements realting to the properties. It is possible that these are old signs and there is no longer a management agreement in place?

North end of Lac LaNonne, North side of Hwy 651, between the bridge and the gravel road going north. I haven't gone by this Spring yet but for the past 5 years at least, up until last Fall, there are BOTH Bucks For Wildlife signs and No Hunting signs. There are even boulders on the trail going in to stop vehicles from entering. I've seen trucks parked in front of the boulders and hunters going in or coming out of there. You'd think that if they were trespassers they'd be a little more discrete and not park their trucks right beside the highway and in front of those boulders/signs?

If it's no longer a Buck For Wildlife habitat the signs there are not doing you any good for advertising.

Piker · #20 05-10-2010, 07:46 AM

Many years ago I was involved with the program and at that time the land owner had to allow hunting if he was receiving funds. Back then it was not very much but most of the landowners quit the program after the !st year was up. Our local F&G assoc. was involver in maintaining the habitat like weed control and helping the landowner. Mostly was a waste of time. Piker

Rantastic · #21 05-10-2010, 06:33 PM

I just wanted to say that its great to have someone on the forum like u there Mr. Zimmerling who is willing to look into and has acces to the official info on an issue and not just 100 posts of "hearsay" and "well I figures"...

I look forward to hear ur findings

Zimmerling · #22 05-10-2010, 07:44 PM

I will try and answer a few questions here:
hal53: in some cases the land we own has been donated by the land owner, and as part of the donation the donor has requested no hunting. For the most part we only except these types of donations if the request for no hunting has a time limit on it, usually until such time that the donor has passed away and is no longer on the property. If the request for no hunting is simpley becasue the donor does not agree with hunting then we point them to another conservation organization.

There will also be some land owner lease agreements where we have decided that the protection of the habitat is worth spending the money even if access is not provided by the land owner. Again this would be a rare case, but it has happen in the past when we believed it was in the best interest of our stakeholders (WIN card holders) to pay a land owner to leave a habitat alone to maintain wildlife populations in the area, without the requirement for allowing access.
And yes the levy funds we get is our money (WIN card holders; keep in mind that I am a hunter and angler as well), but ACA also raises 4-6 million every year in dontations towards habitat purchases and other conservation projects.

Fish Feathers Game: As I said above there are cases where paying to maintain the habitat does make sense; however, I would like to think that if we are still paying for that habitat and the landowner does not allow access then there should be no hunting occuring. We don't want to be paying for private hunting grounds. In this case it sounds like this is an old agreement and as a result ACA is likely not paying anything to the landowner so we should think about removing the old Buck for Wildlife sign.

crazy fool1: I am the President and CEO of ACA so if I can't get you the answers then there is a real problem. I am a hunter just like you and I am as concerned as anyone with ensuring our funds our being put to good use (probably more concerned becasuse my job depends on it

. If it turns out that land owners are not holding up their end of a deal that ACA has signed with them, then it is up to ACA to fix that problem. If it turns out these are old signs that are misleading hunters, then it is up to ACA to remove the signs (I know this is an issue already), and if it turns out that we have agreements in place that do not include access then it is up to ACA to provide the reasons why.

Give me a couple days and I will see what I can find out about these properties and I will get back to all of you. You all have my email if you want to send me any other information out of the public eye.

Noah-Tall · #23 05-10-2010, 08:17 PM

Zimmerling.
Would it be possible to post a link with info on where all the current Buck for Wildlife land is?

Zimmerling · #24 05-11-2010, 08:17 AM

If you go to our website (www.ab-conservation.com) and click on the Conservation Sites tab on the top and then Conservation Site Database you will be brought to a page that has 701 sites. These are all ACA, AFGA, and DUC sites, as well as a few other partners. The database is searchable and linked into google maps so you can get directions from your house to the site you want. In addition to the database we produce "Discover Alberta's Wild Side - Guide to Outdoor Adventure" which is a hard copy of the database that you can take with you in the truck or in the can...depends where you do most of your hunt planning. This guide is being distributed to most license retailers across the province, with the exception of Walmarts and some Canadain Tires. If you can't find the guide let me know and I can mail one to you, or you can download a pdf version from the website.

The full web address for the database is:

http://www.ab-conservation.com/go/de...site-database/

Brian Bildson · #25 05-13-2010, 04:06 PM

Todd is too modest to mention that he was the insturment for getting all these sites listed in our conservation site guide. This publication gives the location of each site and what activities are allowed e.g hunting, fishing, hiking . We have I believe about 100,000 acres available for the use of all Albertan's. These guides are distributed throughout Alberta at a lot of stores and gas stops. As well as on-line as Todd mentioned.

Bucks For Wildlife properties while a blessing for the ACA, were also a curse originally. They were inherited from the government and kind of just existed under the radar for years. Todd was quick to clean up the system and come up with ways to maximimize them for citizens use.

As well Todd instituted a system where any land ACA acquired goes through an internal review to make sure it is worth obtaining. We have a hunter and angler running the ACA now and I can tell you from the inside looking out itb has made a huge difference. Now if we could only get him trapping!

Albertadiver · #26 05-13-2010, 04:51 PM

Todd, looking forward to hearing the results, but more importantly THANK YOU for responding, and working so hard on behalf of outdoorsmen.

Zimmerling · #27 05-14-2010, 04:10 PM

Ok, my land guys have looked into this and I have a few answers. The property that Sneeze refers to is an old agreement (10 years) that expires this year. This agreement has no "reasonable access" clause in it; however, my land guys tell me that the landowner does allow some access, particularily for father/son combinations, but obviously based on the experience that Sneeze had the access is not always granted.

With respect to the Lac LaNonne property that HuterDave wrote about there are two old Buck for Wildlife agreements side by side, both have now expired (one two years ago, and one this past fall). There was no access clause in either of these agreements, so I don't know if the no huntiung signs went up before or after the agreements expired.

The issues you guys have raised point out a couple problems that we have to deal with at ACA. The access issue has already been addressed in that since I started here (there years ago) our policy around landowner agreements has been to include a reasonable public access clause. While this is our standard policy, our policy also allows for exceptions where we believe that conserving the habitat is in the best interest of our stakeholders, even if they cannot access the habitat. I am sure all of you would agree that in some cases conserving the habitat as a source of wildlife is more important than having access. However, in these cases we are also asking that the landowner to ensure no hunting occurs on the property (even the landowner). In my mind this is fair, as I have a problem with the idea that the rest of us would pay to conserve habitat that one guy or a guy and his family gets to hunt.

The other problem that this discussion raises is the numerous Buck for Wildlife signs that are scattered througout the province. Keep in mind that the Buck for Wildlife program began long before ACA was estabilshed (ACA started in 1997). When the Buck for Wildlife program was running it involved one-time habitat enhancements on both public and private land, private land lease agreements and land purchases. When ACA was formed we took over management of most of the public lands where Buck for Wildlife money had been spent, but not all. We were also given the private land leases to manage, but we recieved nothing on the one-time habitat enhancements on private land (we really did not need anything given they were a one time event).

The Buck for Wildlife program has long since disappeared and we have replaced it with our own Conservation Site program. This new program has big white signs that clearly identify if you can access the site (most allow access without any permission). We have been slowly removing or replacing the Buck for Wildlife signs, but obviously there are still a good number out there. During this removal process we have found that in some cases the sign is actually the property of the private landowner, so that he can continue to display the sign long after the habitat enhancements occurred on the land. This is not a particularily bad thing if a landowner is proud they did something for wildlife, but it can cause confusion with hunters looking for a place to hunt.

If you want to be sure about being able to access a site check out our Conservation Site Database, or get a copy of our guide. If the property is not in the database then it is not managed by ACA, DUC or AFGA, unless it was just purchased in which case there will be a bright new sign there telling you that you can access the site.

I hope this helps you guys out. If you have any other questions please let me know.

Todd

P.S. Brian, thank you for you kind words. It has been a team effort with a lot of people putting in a lot of hard work to provide more benefits to our stakeholders.

Sneeze · #28 05-14-2010, 05:49 PM

Todd;

I think I speak for most around here... thanks for actually caring.

At your service.

James

smurph · #29 11-28-2011, 10:56 PM

+1 with what Sneeze said. Great info here.

Many thanks!!

HunterDave · #30 11-28-2011, 11:12 PM

Well, now that this thread has been resurrected, I might as well update what has happened with the land that I mentioned back in May 2010. I drove by it a couple of weeks ago and the Buck for Wildlife sign is gone. There are For Sale signs up on that land now.