I went to the all candidates forum for the Little Bow constituency tonight in Picture Butte. Interesting.
I endured the opening statements from the five candidates present and was stunned to hear the ND guy mention Open Spaces in his opening salvo.
I was positioned front and center so I could not be ignored and was lucky to get my question in first.
My question was directed at the incumbent, Barry McFarland (PC). I indicated that he had supported the OS pilot in Cabinet Policy Committee and asked a two part question. 1. If he had consulted any of his constituents on the decision? and 2. What his thinking process was in arriving at the decision to support it? Since all candidates were to have a shot at responding I also modified the question for the others to simply ask their position on OS.
McFarland started off by saying that the pilot is for privately owned, deeded land only. He said the pilot was proposed by the SRD, the university (he didn't specify which one) and hunter groups. He said that it was only a pilot and there would be no direct payment to landowners. The monies raised would go to reimburing landowners who have lots of damage to their land by say large numbers of elk.
The Wildrose Alliance candidate (Kevin Kinahan) was next and said the pilot was conceived in a underhanded way and the program would limit hunting opportunities for residents. He then started quoting from the business analysis and shocked some in the audience by telling them that a bull elk would cost 8K and a bull moose would cost 10K. He also exposed the increased wait times for draws. He indicated that these prices would turn the sport in to a rich man's game.
The ND candidate (Duane Petluk) jumped in and stated that McFarland was correct in that the program is on private land only. He went on to say the process was secretive and closed door and made the undeniable point that a price was being put on the heads of a publically held resource - wildlife. He then compared this to the PC's privatizing of other things like health care. This guy struck a cord with some of the audience and a smattering of applause was heard.
An audience member interrupted the flow and asked if he could ask questions within the line of an existing flow of responses. The moderator allowed it. This guy admitted he was unaware of the whole issue but was stuck on the prices mentioned and wanted to know where the money was coming from and who was getting it. His question was aimed at McFarland.
McFarland responded by saying that the hunters don't pay any more and the monies generated from the sales of tags would be pooled and divided to help with habitat and landowners for damage. He said that no one is paying landowners anything. He ended by saying it is only a five year pilot and if it didn't work it would be curtailed.
I looked at a guy down the row from me who I recognized from the Lethbridge gun show. He shook his head and shrugged, as did I. I mouthed the words to him, "He dosen't know". The man nodded.
Kinahan responded by saying that there may be a middle man and the payments may be indirect but there are hunters paying large amounts and there will be landowners recieving the money so it is payment none the less wether it is direct or indirect. He said it "just didn't make sense" He then attacked the process and being secretive and linked this to his party's platform of more open and accountable government.
The Liberal and Green candidate did not make any moves to enter the discussion and another audience member posed a question and the topic moved to health care.
I slipped out midway through the healthcare round to try to address the raging headache I had by this time.
I felt like a bit of a dupe as some in the audience must have thought I was a plant for the ND's.
I am sure some on this board will accuse me of bulling my way into a meeting and then taking my ball and going home.

My take.
I got the distinct impression that McFarland was being honest and not playing clever political games. I left thinking he really didn't know the program very well and had helped approve something that he might not have fully understood. The side conversation I had with the guy in the audience made me believe he thought the same thing.
Kinahan was very familiar with the program and had all the right angles to discredit it. Having the business analysis in his hand and quoting numbers off of it was good politics for a first-time candidate.
I had written off the ND Petluk as a flake for his appearance. I was more than a little surprised to see him as a good public speaker and one that had some real cahones in attacking the PC's and the well-respected incumbent in the room. The fact that he had good knowledge of the program and its offensive principles was a surprise as well considering only two weeks ago that party had a supportive position on OS on its website.

It is a single issue election to me, and that issue isn't the Royalty Review.

I encourage all here to go to your candidates forums and get your local politicos to give a public position on OS.