Open minded discussion: paid access the pros and cons

[boah]

I am not naïve enough to think that paid access isn't already happening. And all it has done is cut off access where it used to be.

[Akoch]

Paying for access to hunt would only be worthwhile if you actually actually get something in return. To me that would mean you have quality animals or limited pressure and good numbers. If you don’t get those things then why would you pay? If that is the case then it basically turns every bit of private land into a “low fence” game farm with farmers working to get more and better critters.

Once you start buying your way into better opportunity you lose my respect, I have far more respect for Randy Newburg getting skunked hunting public land bull elk than Joe Rogan, Cameron Hanes, or Jason Hariston dropping a 380” bull on some massive private ranch that costs a fortune or you need to be a celebrity to hunt

If anyone wants to buy a bigger critter or an easier hunt then just go to a high fence outfit.

All this said... increased hunter numbers and disrespect to landowners will inevitably force landowners to stop allowing access. When you can’t find a place to hunt people will either be wishing they could pay for a spot or they just won’t bother with hunting both of those aren’t great for hunting.

No easy solution to this one, the way thing have gone elsewhere in the world lead me to believe that the future of hunting will be very eletist. I just don’t want to see it happen.

[Lefty-Canuck]

I would support a coupon system.

Landowner provides access, you have a successful harvest....you register the kill with F&W and the landowner gets a kickback from the Government.

The more access and success had on the land the more benefit for the landowner.

It's a win all around IMHO.

LC

[Norwest Alta]

Thanks walking buffalo. Your post puts somethings in perspective that I failed to realize.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

Enlighten me chuck. I'd really like to know were the 60% figure comes from.

Remember this is deeded land not public land and is paid access not paid hunting?

Nothing but semantics. They are one and the same. Btw, I am a landowner and grant permission to others to hunt, including a couple of guys from AO, whom I had never met prior.

[wildwoods]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

I would support a coupon system.

Landowner provides access, you have a successful harvest....you register the kill with F&W and the landowner gets a kickback from the Government.

The more access and success had on the land the more benefit for the landowner.

It's a win all around IMHO.

LC

Even a simple,small tax break would be a major incentive for a rancher/ farmer to open up more access. I like this train of thought.
Also, it would help harvest stats a lot. Even though we still have a resident problem and non registering harvesters, I believe it would be a step in the right direction.

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

How so? It is my land if I want to charge access there is no difference wether to sit your holiday trailer, walk amongst the cows or sit in a tree stand. Paid access is not only hunting activities. It is access to my land to recreate however you'd like providing it is in accordance with the landowners

If paid access to hunt is allowed it doesn't just mean your land, pretty much every huntable piece of private land would begin charging a fee to access their land. Farmers and landowners would practice trophy management and charge accordingly. That would turn the peoples wildlife into a commodity for sale to the highest bidder. That would effectively be the end of hunting central and southern Alberta for those who cannot afford to pay. Those who cannot afford time or money to travel to crown land would simply quit hunting.

What would you consider a fair price to charge for access to a trophy managed property of say a section of land. How many people do you think will pay a fee to shoot a forkhorn or doe. You might end up letting people in for free just to manage the does.

Would you high fence it to keep in the trophy bucks you managed for?

[CMichaud]

Others have brought up some good points (liability/permitted uses).

Thin tip of wedge IMHO...

- Will paid access lead to private hunting reserves?

- Will paid access lead to fenced in hunting reserves?

- What about lease land?

The better solution is protecting wilderness and Crown Land reserves so we have enough Crown Land for the people to hunt on.

The best solution of course is controlling human population growth in our Province (albeit this is a unlikely with Provincial borders)

Our forefathers left the old countries to get away from only the rich having access to the land and vast private hunting estates. I fear we are doomed to repeat the same mistake again if we go down this road.

I bought my own little 1/4.

[IL Bar]

As one of those jerk landowners I am not looking for paid for access hunting but I think a real pro to it would be the ability to control who is going in, when they are going in and where they are going in.

One of our big issues here where I am located is that we get absolutely bombarded with hunting permission requests. Our roads also resemble jasper ave during the month of November. We use to give permission to everyone that would ask. Then we started getting complaints about more than one hunting party wanting to access the same land at the same time. I’m a busy guy I don’t have time to schedule everyone nor is there any incentive for me to do it. The last few years guys wouldn’t even ask anymore and just went wherever whenever they wanted. Duck hunters which I would love to have keep ducks out of crop just drive wherever they want anymore destroying lots of crop in the process. Local duck guide has ****ed me off more times than I can count with his games so he’s done.


We have shut access down on our land due to these issues. Paid for access is a slippery slope but it might have to be done as the hunting community in my area is getting worse with each passing season.

[igorot]

I think sometimes I always bark on the wrong tree

•More Fish and Wild life officer and proper Training

•Changes on legislation with harsh penalties. Especially recidivist. Include ban for life. tools or property confiscation (ie trucks, guns, everything that relates to hunting) Do the crime do the time and hit them in their pocket )

•Better reporting on poachers which include with the increase of investigating officers. Would prefer lesser participation on landowners their time. This will also Include landowner asking for paid access.

[Akoch]

I like lefty’s idea, many states have systems like that which seem very beneficial to both parties.

Landowner issues with trespassers and people who push the boundaries of what was allowed when permission was granted seem to be the biggest issue. Maybe the solution should just be much steeper fines for rule breakers including being forced to pay damages for tire ruts, damaged crops, fence damage etc. Incentivize farmers to report these guys.

I think county ownership maps make it too easy for anyone to get in touch with landowners, if you only had ownership information because you knew the person or know their neighbor it would really thin out the number of people that can come in from anywhere. Combine that scenario with hefty fines for trespassing and you might get somewhere limiting the annoyance that most landowners feel toward hunters.

[charves]

I think an important question to be asked is:

How many landowners wouldn’t allow hunting access regardless of being paid?

Many landowners hunt themselves with family and friends with no chance of strangers getting on, so how much land are we really talking about?

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by sns2

Nothing but semantics. They are one and the same. Btw, I am a landowner and grant permission to others to hunt, including a couple of guys from AO, whom I had never met prior.

Curious how they are the same?
Aid access is just that. Access that is gained by payment.

I have no idea what paid hunting might be defined as?

[RZR]

Originally Posted by wildwoods

Even a simple,small tax break would be a major incentive for a rancher/ farmer to open up more access. I like this train of thought.
Also, it would help harvest stats a lot. Even though we still have a resident problem and non registering harvesters, I believe it would be a step in the right direction.

Farmers and ranchers get enough tax breaks already.

[Hillbilly 12]

Originally Posted by RZR

Farmers and ranchers get enough tax breaks already.

X2!! I think just let some hunters hunt, and the farmers won't have such a bad time with animals eating their bales and crop. It's a trade off I guess.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

If paid access to hunt is allowed it doesn't just mean your land, pretty much every huntable piece of private land would begin charging a fee to access their land. Farmers and landowners would practice trophy management and charge accordingly. That would turn the peoples wildlife into a commodity for sale to the highest bidder. That would effectively be the end of hunting central and southern Alberta for those who cannot afford to pay. Those who cannot afford time or money to travel to crown land would simply quit hunting.

What would you consider a fair price to charge for access to a trophy managed property of say a section of land. How many people do you think will pay a fee to shoot a forkhorn or doe. You might end up letting people in for free just to manage the does.

Would you high fence it to keep in the trophy bucks you managed for?

I’ll admit my knowledge of south central is nil. I have no idea how much crown land versus didn’t land there is nor do I know how far one might have to travel to get to crown land. I would imagine those that are hunting are traveling anyways.

I wouldn’t know how much or how to charge for access to a 1/4 of land. I suppose I might not pay much or any at all due to the location I’m at for whitetail deer,moose or elk. If I were to draw my antelope tag or mule deer tag I guess I’d have to pay the going rate to gain access to some ones deeded land. What the going rate is I couldn’t say but I suppose $100 per day might not be out of the question. I would cross that bridge when I get to it I guess and decide if it’s worth it to me or not and take my chances somewhere else.

Myself I wouldn’t high fence it. They are not my animals to keep in or out. I’m not a fan of game ranches or hunt farms but if someone wants to do it by all means.

[slough shark]

X2 on Lefty's comment on the coupon system, it could even improve hunting if some of the money from our license sales went to the landowners. If could provide incentive for landowners to improve the habitat on their land as improving the hunting and providing access could be a win win for both

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by charves

I think an important question to be asked is:

How many landowners wouldn’t allow hunting access regardless of being paid?

Many landowners hunt themselves with family and friends with no chance of strangers getting on, so how much land are we really talking about?

I wouldn’t. I hunt myself and much prefer to let friends family and neighbors to access my land exclusively. There is a few on the forum here that I’ve conversed with that I’ve never met but I’m sure I could include them in the friend category.

[igorot]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

I’ll admit my knowledge of south central is nil. I have no idea how much crown land versus didn’t land there is nor do I know how far one might have to travel to get to crown land. I would imagine those that are hunting are traveling anyways.

I wouldn’t know how much or how to charge for access to a 1/4 of land. I suppose I might not pay much or any at all due to the location I’m at for whitetail deer,moose or elk. If I were to draw my antelope tag or mule deer tag I guess I’d have to pay the going rate to gain access to some ones deeded land. What the going rate is I couldn’t say but I suppose $100 per day might not be out of the question. I would cross that bridge when I get to it I guess and decide if it’s worth it to me or not and take my chances somewhere else.

Myself I wouldn’t high fence it. They are not my animals to keep in or out. I’m not a fan of game ranches or hunt farms but if someone wants to do it by all means.

.

[igorot]

Bordering a crown land : would you like this sign, currently open for all access.


"Only visible minorities are allowed to hunt this is a private land"

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by SLH

You have control of access but you do not own the wildlife, like you don't own the minerals under it. If you dont own it you dont have the right to profit from it.

My rights to the public trust do not supersede your rights to who comes on your land

What about outfitters? There are allowed to make thousands off public animals.

I would like to see landowners compensated for access, but through a govt. program not between hunter and landowner like suggested.

[purgatory.sv]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

I would like to keep this respectful. If that is not possible please keep your comments to yourself.

I'm a advocate of landowners rights and believe one of the rights a landowner should have is to do as he/she sees fit as long as it does not endanger the general public nor have adverse effects on the environment. In my mind paid access includes hunting, fishing, camping and just about anything some might want to do on private deeded land.

I'm gonna guess that many like myself have never paid nor received payment for access to private except if you're a camper who stays in campgrounds. If you've been involved in paying for access I would like to hear your experiences and thoughts.

These are some of the pros I can think of off hand.

Landowner can make additional income of the property
Open up more private land for recreational users
Average landowner might be more inclined to better manage the property in terms of wildlife

The cons
Not all could afford the access fee
Potentially could lead to more trespassing violations

Please fill free to add if you are a landowner or not.

I do not support pay for access.

It will isolate .

[wildwoods]

Originally Posted by Hillbilly 12

X2!! I think just let some hunters hunt, and the farmers won't have such a bad time with animals eating their bales and crop. It's a trade off I guess.

I have yet to meet a rancher/farmer who had issues with a handful of bales being destroyed. One of the ranchers I deal with up north gets compensated a little more than the bales he loses- so he wins (from his own mouth). I'm sure there's some landowners with problems but to pretend this is some sort of trade off is a fallacy.
I have zero issues with farmers/ranchers getting more tax breaks.
Have we not noticed the family farm eroding people?!!!! Make way for the mega farmers. Mom and Pop ranches are disappearing, fast. That reality may prove to be our biggest enemy in gaining permission on private land down the road. Mega farms have nothing to gain taking on the liability of having hunters around. And yet there's folks that complain about Joe farmer getting more tax breaks. SMH. Long live the family farm!!!! IMO
Signed- a small acreage dweller that appreciates the fine folks that open up their land (and themselves to liability) so myself and my family can hunt

[Bub]

Pretty much what walking buffalo said.

Also, most landowners are farmers (crop or livestock), who already get (or may get if they choose) the landowner tags to open up access and feel appreciated for it, they get plenty of subsidies, including tax breaks. Then we will start compensating them for access. I wonder if there is anything else out there we can find to compensate them for landownership. And I am not saying it with bitterness, rather with irony.

I am not a landowner, by choice, if it matters.

[Slicktricker]

Imagine the whining when the tax the hell out of you making lots of money of paid hunting lol

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by Bub

Pretty much what walking buffalo said.

Also, most landowners are farmers (crop or livestock), who already get (or may get if they choose) the landowner tags to open up access and feel appreciated for it, they get plenty of subsidies, including tax breaks. Then we will start compensating them for access. I wonder if there is anything else out there we can find to compensate them for landownership. And I am not saying it with bitterness, rather with irony.

I am not a landowner, by choice, if it matters.

I would not want the government to be involved.

[Hillbilly 12]

Originally Posted by wildwoods

I have yet to meet a rancher/farmer who had issues with a handful of bales being destroyed. One of the ranchers I deal with up north gets compensated a little more than the bales he loses- so he wins (from his own mouth). I'm sure there's some landowners with problems but to pretend this is some sort of trade off is a fallacy.
I have zero issues with farmers/ranchers getting more tax breaks.
Have we not noticed the family farm eroding people?!!!! Make way for the mega farmers. Mom and Pop ranches are disappearing, fast. That reality may prove to be our biggest enemy in gaining permission on private land down the road. Mega farms have nothing to gain taking on the liability of having hunters around. And yet there's folks that complain about Joe farmer getting more tax breaks. SMH. Long live the family farm!!!! IMO
Signed- a small acreage dweller that appreciates the fine folks that open up their land (and themselves to liability) so myself and my family can hunt

You have yet to meet one, well I guess that means they don't exist. Around here the deer are like mice in a farmers bales and no compensation for him, I know because he is a friend of mine, so he lets people hunt them. Where I hunt farmers love people who hunt moose because of the damage they do to fences, and I wouldn't think to many farmers get compensated for fixing fences all the time.

[boah]

Originally Posted by Bub

Also, most landowners are farmers (crop or livestock), who already get (or may get if they choose) the landowner tags to open up access and feel appreciated for it

You are mistaken.

[Bub]

What am I mistaken in?

[wildwoods]

Originally Posted by Hillbilly 12

You have yet to meet one, well I guess that means they don't exist. Around here the deer are like mice in a farmers bales and no compensation for him, I know because he is a friend of mine, so he lets people hunt them. Where I hunt farmers love people who hunt moose because of the damage they do to fences, and I wouldn't think to many farmers get compensated for fixing fences all the time.

Read my post again. I'm not pretending it doesn't happen. I think it's a "problem" that's blown way out of proportion for people to justify their hunting permission to landowners. A handful taken by hunters in a year aren't going to solve the problem much less put a dent in it....