If the undecided voters in Broyce's riding made their decision, based on a topic discussed on an Internet message board Chuck, what does that say about their integrity and or intellegence?

Could you please quote these Untruths about Broyce and his religon

So then what does that say about this board?

Why are we on here to publicize different topics if the above is true? By you saying that, you have admitted the board has no influence and is ineffective.
its a place to sit around and BS with other people who speak the same language as we do.

As for you Chuck.. What mis truths do you speak of? And if your going to say something like that, can you back it up ( I refer to the Non decided voters)

Jamie

Jamie, I read on an Internet Message board that all hunters are cruel little men who are killing to compensate for their own insecurity.I didn't mark my ballot based on that information.

This board is just 1 stream of information.(In this case the word Information means Fact,Fiction, Opinion and BS) I would like to think that an adult in our society would look in other places as well as the Internet before undertaking such an important responsibility as voting. There were these things called books once, print and electronic media, attending public meetings, lobby groups, even talking to other people. I suspect some would like the Internet to distill all of this other stuff and package it in a 10 line post that allows them to "be informed" and perhaps the undecided down in Taber, Cardston, Warner are those kind of people?

If the purpose of this board is to influence the constituents of a provincial riding, what would that influence be? There is no consesus, no stated mandate, no spell/grammer check.

Thats right.

Some of the below I'd let slide as a few mistruths and conjecture, others are outright bold face lies. Lecture someone else about integrity.

Posted by Lazy Ike:

“Given the sizable LDS population in in 108 and 300, and the reality that little(politcally), will happen in that area without church support....”

“The word Deseret in this case comes from this definition:

An area proposed by the Mormons in 1849 as an independent state or a state of the Union. Deseret would have included much of the southwest United States, with a capital at Salt Lake City. Congress refused to recognize the provisional state and created the Utah Territory in 1850.”

“As a Rancher, in the OS proposal area, former county reeve and a BYU graduate I would think he would be in the know.”

“The LDS religion, is an incredibly active and powerful political entity. They have a politcal agenda like any other religious group and ignoring their influence in the (OS)proposal area is impossible.”

Posted by Kanonfodder:

“The point people are making about mormons has nothing to do with their religion but more to do with them as a society , sort of like the qubeqois. They operate like a major company because they own major companies, profit is the goal and the bottom line is that OS is about their bottom line thats why their ranch in S ab wants it in play, a model very similar to the one employed in their ranch in Utah.Don't you see the parellels???And like major companies they donate to political parties that can look in favor to their position or keep the status quo...”

Ok chuck.. what is wrong with what they said?

If you have better info, I for one would like to hear it.

Jamie

X 2

The Block Management program has been a big success for non-connected local and out of State hunters who have been shut out of private lands in Montana. However after saying this it is used extensively in cunjunction with the Federal CRP program so the farmer/rancher gets a double payment and the land hunted gets the benefit of the increased habitate from the CRP. This CRP has been of great benefit to wildlife due to the big increase in wildlife habitat.
The Alberta eg has nothing in place to increase the habitat or populations of wildlife. This should be a issue of what is of benefit for the wildlife not for its use.......puphood

Tax Consequences for Participating Landowners?
 

The following has also been presented to at least one M.D., Municipal Affairs, SRD and Fish & Wildlife for consideration and account:

It is the desire of the Province (letter from Ted Morton and information available on the University of Calgary website) to increase wild game populations, a public trust, and give control and/or de facto ownership of these same game animals to certain landowners for personal economic gain. This is especially relevant to the Hunting for Habitat (HFH) proposal.

The logical and desired (apparently) outcome of the increase in game populations (particularly elk) is a net decrease in current and potential agricultural lands. It can be argued, at the very least, that portions of the land use will change from agricultural to commercial and/or recreational as evidenced by particular landowner’s economic gain in the sale of wildlife and access to the same. Will participating landowners have their property tax reassessed (increased) to recognize the change in land usage and increased economic benefits of the same?

I have spoken to a local M.D. Tax Assessor in regard to these concerns. I was told that these changes in land use and questions with regard to property tax are usually handled by a directive from Municipal Affairs. Failing that, it was suggested that any changes in tax assessment would likely be at the discretion of the individual assessor(s). It was agreed that the unique and somewhat biased benefits created by the HFH program to a few, select landowners might present an interesting challenge within M.D.’s. If the economic benefits of “selling” wildlife and/or access are greater than the economic benefits of agriculture, and especially if particular land titles can be identified, it would appear that land use could be reclassified from agricultural to recreational/commercial and the property tax could be adjusted to reflect the additional economic gains.

Evidently, Municipal Affairs, SRD and Fish & Wildlife had not given this any consideration and are currently consulting with their lawyers to provide answers.

Additionally, it was asked how revenues from the sale of HFH tags (a public trust) would be treated. It certainly appears that revenue would not qualify as Farm Income as the wildlife is not a farm asset (again a public trust). How would the income from the “sale” of a public trust be taxed outside of agricultural or farm income?

I will post the answers as (if) they become available. Regards, Mike

I guess the Devil is in the details.

Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties
 

The AAMDC voted today to oppose OSA. The vote was 90% to oppose. Looks like another group that was kept in the dark by their representative on the WG has realized how ill-conceived the OSA pilot is.

Keep up the good work everyone.

Bubba

Who is that?

Jamie

Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties. They were represented by Rodney Cyr on the working group.

Bubba

This is good news, so does Rodney Cyr now have to represent the MD's decision? Also how could he even be considered as their representation when they didn't know what was going on?

I find it quite interesting how all these players involved are supposed to be representing their groups and the groups have no clue about what is going on. How could Rodney Cyr endorse this thing on behalf of the MD's and not even have their input on it?

SAY YES!!!! Great work guys! Regards, Mike

I wonder how many groups have to say no before SRD comes to their senses?

I have a feeling its not very popular in SRD. However, the political masters (Ted Morton included) are the ones who make the calls. I hope this gets stopped dead in its tracks. If not, I have a feeling the "pilot project" will be the foot in the door to paid hunting. Other landowners will clamour to be allowed to charge hunters. And since the PC's are the "farmer's party" what do you think they'll do? It's interesting to see some city-based groups (conservation and preservationists alike) and even some of the anti-hunters lending support against Open Spaces. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

BullShooter looks like they knew about this in 1999. Here's a link and a copy from the link.

http://www.albertadirectory.net/actw...liferV11N1.htm

Assessment and Taxation of Conservation Lands
The MLA Committee on Farm Property Assessment has undertaken some recent changes in how farmlands are defined and assessed for property taxation purposes. Privately owned lands being maintained for their conservation values appear likely to be negatively impacted. This issue is relatively new to the ACTWS executive and information is still being sought out in order to clarify the most appropriate manner for us to address this issue. More later.

http://www.albertadirectory.net/actw...liferV11N2.htm

We have recently become aware of the wildlife habitat and environmental conservation issues arising from the 1995 Municipal Government Act and the work of your Committee on defining how farm property should be assessed for taxation purposes. Our members are very concerned that privately-owned rural lands, which are not actively farmed but have significant conservation value, continue to receive preferential assessment and taxation (as they did prior to 1995) in recognition of the broader public benefits that accrue from them. Our understanding is that the definition your Committee has recommended for a "farming operation" would exclude such lands from the preferential assessment given to farmland. Our concern is that this will result in a disincentive to maintain their conservation value. Provincial property assessment and taxation policy should be designed to foster sustainable agriculture (productive soils, natural pest control and ground water recharge), environmental quality (clean air and water, healthy wildlife populations and maintenance of biodiversity) and quality of life (aesthetically pleasing and varied landscapes) in rural farmland areas.

We recognize that this is no easy challenge and we are pleased to see recognition given to these concerns in your most recent Farm Consultation Report (May 1999). This report indicates that your MLA Review Committee will develop proposals for addressing the conservation lands issue and that stakeholders will have an opportunity to review proposals and provide their advice. As an organization of wildlife professionals, many of whom have substantial experience in working with rural landowners and in agricultural landscapes, we would like to offer our assistance in helping to develop and review these proposals.

Please keep us informed as to the committee’s progress and, if appropriate, advise us as to how we can best assist your Committee in helping to ensure that wildlife and the environment benefit from provincial property assessment and taxation policy.

Is anyone having trouble accessing the two links from the previous two posts I've made. I've had a couple calls saying they don't work now.
I got them from this site but now I can't open it either. It's called
Alberta Chapter of the Wildlife Society
http://www.albertadirectory.net/actws/

Well I've given it a lot of thought lately [ well ok not a lot of thought ] but I've been talking to several land owners and I've come up with a new outlook.
First of all if this goes through I've worked my way into a favorable position and have access to some prime property by simply agreeing with said property owner's.
Second I have placed some investments in such a way as I can leverage them in a heart beat to aquire whatever may be required to take advantage of any oppertunity should it arise.
Third I am just getting to damn busy these days to have to take my couple days off and deal with the odd person [ most are great and respectful of others] that ruin a good day afield.
I think they should also have a multy layered tag draw system. Say layer 1
for meat hunters female only, layer 2 smaller male x points and smaller and level 3 for trophy size x points and larger.
Also a different cost structure for each level of tag could generate more revenue towards inforcement. Pay to play for what you want to hunt guys.